Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03081988 - 2.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 8, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Landfill Issues The Board received the attached report dated March 3 , 1988 from Harvey E. Bragdon, Community Development Director, relative to landfill issues. Following discussion by Board members, IT IS ORDERED that the following actions are APPROVED: 1. APPROVED staff Recommendations #1 through #9 relative to various landfill issues; 2. AMENDED Recommendation #10 to authorize the initiation of dialogue with Solano County relative to mutual waste disposal concerns; 3 . AMENDED Recommendation #11 to direct Community Development to report- to the Board on March 22, 1988 on proposal to expedite the landfill permit process; and 4. REQUESTED Community Development to provide additional report on impact of closure costs of existing landfill sites on future garbage rates .and the cost implications of new landfill sites located in Central and West County. J cc: Community Development Director Solid Waste Commission, via CDD County Administrator I harehy certify that this is a true and correct copy of an §aVen and entemd on, the ininutes of the Board of S'e.pe:S;,or3 on ti3e c:='l: &ttotivi@. of ux4: _;,�:..: s, 'C"voTtiy Administrator By — ._ , Deputy TO- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Gmtra Director of Community Development DATE-. March 3 , 198$ co Iq i SUBJECT: Report on Landfill Issues v�+� ��� SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept report from Community Development Department on anal- ysis done by ,john Carollo Engineers for Supervisor Torlakson on cost of alternative landfill scenarios. 2. Accept report from Community Development Department on historic record of landfill search. 3. Accept report from Community Development Department on remaining capacity of existing landfills. 4. Authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the West Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority requesting them to ork with Richmond Sanitary Service to assess the .reasibili- ty of applying for a 12-acre expansion to the landfill. 5. Authorize the Chair to sign a letter to Acme Fill Corpora- tion requesting them to apply for permission to appropriate agencies to increase the height of the 97-acre landfill from elevation 60 feet to elevation 75 feet and for use as land- fill of the full 200-acre expansion area previously proposed by Acme Fill (this was the area originally rejected by the Corps of Engineers, except for the currenty-used 97-acre parcel) . 6. Authorize the Chair to sign'a letter to the City of Antioch requesting them to allow use of the 12-acre "old Antioch" landfill site adjacent to the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary 'landfill as an expansion to that landfill. 7. Authorize staff to work with the owners of the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary landfill to study the feasibility of a height increase in the landfill from elevation 240 feet to 260 feet. M. Accept report from Community Development Department on status of waste export agreements. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIO OF OARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)' ION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES. NTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPE SORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, cc: orig. Dept. Community Develop. ATTESTED County COUriSel PHIL BATCHELOR, CL OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUN DMINISTRATOR Solid Waste Commission via CDD BY M382/7-83 ,DEPUTY 9. Authorize staff to work with the Oakland Scavenger Company 'Lo assist in the development of an export agreement for use of Altamont landfill in Alameda County. 10. Authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the City of Benicia and Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Company requesting that the City of Benicia' s waste cease being disposed of at Acme landfill. 11. Accept report from Community Development Department on expe- diting landfill permit process. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff costs for exploring these alternatives are within the Solid waste Management budget. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS%BACKGROUND At the February 13 , 1988, meeting of the Board, the Board re- quested the Community Development 'Department to provide informa- tion on various solid waste issues related to landfill siting. -The -Community Development Department has prepared individual reports on these matters with recommendations. The recommenda- tions seek to secure additional landfill capacity through expan- sions at existing landfills and acquisition of rights to use landfills in other counties. DBO: jn 138: landfill.brd -, - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 2, 1988 FILE: R-25H kYRDM: _._Harvey_.E.._:Bragdon, Director of Community Deve me SUBJECT: Analysis of Future Sce i Lanfi Costs At the February 23, 1988, meeting of the Board, the Board requested the Communi- ty Development Department to review a cost analysis performed by John Carollo Engineers at the request of Supervisor Torlakson to compare the disposal costs of various landfill options. Staff has reviewed the Carollo report and agrees with the methods used to estimate planning level costs for landfill options. The methods used were derived from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/ County Study, which is also used in developing costs for the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The unit costs used were essentially from the new County Solid Waste Management Plan revision. The attached table summarizes the differences between the County staff analysis and the Carollo report. Although the same methodology was used, County staff used some different assumptions and costs. However, the end result of the anal- ysis is essentially the same. The projected cost increase. per household for any- new nynew landfill is in the order of $1.75 to $3.00 per household per month. The difference between the alternatives is usually around 50 cents per household per month. There is no doubt that garbage bills will increase in the future for any scenario, but the cost difference between alternatives, based on the gross assumptions made in this analysis, is less than 10 percent of a typical garbage bill. Please note that this analysis is only for the residential waste stream which makes up about 40 percent of the total waste stream in the County. Cost increases for commercial, industrial, and construction/demolition wastes will be ' significantly higher than these because disposal cost make up a greater propor- tion of the total garbage bill for these wastestreams. The differences between the County staff estimates and the Carollo report are for the following three reasons. First, the cost of the transfer station (ex- cluding transfer vehicle haul) was increased by staff to reflect the higher than anticipated cost of the Acme Fill transfer station and preliminary estimates for the proposed West Contra Costa transfer station. The costs used by the Carollo report were those costs included in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. We have increased those costs from the $6.62 in the Carollo report to $10 per" ton. Secondly, the Carollo report assumed that the costs included in the 1987 Solid Waste Plan were 1987 costs. In fact, they are 1985 'costs. Staff included two additional years of escalation for transfer vehicle haul costs. Thirdly, the Carollo report assumed a 45-mile per hour average speed in all cases. For the West County scenarios, except for the Altamont Landfill scenario, staff used a 40-mile per hour average to take into consideration that the location of the proposed West County transfer station is further away from the freeway than the .Acme Fill transfer station. Additionally, the Carollo report included an analy- '7 2. sis of transporting West County wastes directly to Cummings Skyway landfill. The analysis is inaccurate because the haul cost used transfer vehicle haul cost which is significantly lower than collection vehicle haul cost. Staff did not attempt to develop this cost estimate because of this error and the fact that it is unknown whether a transfer station will be necessary for West County wastes use of the Cummings Skyway landfill. The Board should be awareof the gross assumptions used in both the Carollo report and .staff' s analysis. The following are some of the more important assumptions. 1. The cost for use of Altamont' is assumed to be $15 per ton plus an additional $3.50 per ton for mitigation to Alameda County. This is consistent with the negotiations now underway between Contra Costa parties and Alameda County parties. 2. The tipping fee at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and Acme Fill .is assumed to be $18 per ton. 3. The cost for new landfills in Contra Costa County is also assumed to be $18 per ton. This is the biggest unknown in this analysis. It is possible that the new landfills may cost more than $18 a ton because of higher .land costs, additional environmental protections required and road improvements. However, staff has been unable to estimate future costs of new landfills. 4. For new sites in Contra Costa County, $1.5 million of. waste management fees is assumed. This figure is consistent with the fees proposed- for the development agreements for the two privately proposed landfill sites. This is approximately equivalent to 17 cents per ton, based on one million tons per year disposed at the landfill. If the waste management fees are assessed over a smaller wastestream (i.e. , waste going now to Acme Fill) the fee per ton would increase commensurately. 5. For the Marsh Creek landfill site, a contribution of $25 million for the Delta Expressway is assumed. This is amortized and assessed at a rate of 24 cents per household per month. This is another. major unknown. Cost estimates for the Highway 4 bypass are greater than $25 million, but it is unknown what portion of that would be assessed to the prospective developers of the Marsh Creek landfill site. 6. Costs do not include any increases in collection costs ( likely to increase with the cost of labor and equipment) or cost increases to pay for recycling programs which may be required by the Solid Waste Management Plan and for export to another County. If you have any questions, please contact Dave Okita at 646-2071. DBO:jn 138:bos2.mem cc: Susan Stutz-McDonald, John Carollo Engineers Solid Waste Commission attachment CCCCDD 3%2%88 Comparison of Carollo Report =Estimates and 'S-taff -Estimates of Future Cost Increases Due to Increased Transportation and Disposal * * Scenario Carollo Estimates County Staff Estimates Acme waste to Altamont $1.75 '$2.43 Acme waste to East Contra Costa $1.53 $2.00 Acme waste to Kirker Pass $1.50 $1.94 Acme waste to Marsh Creek $2.02 $2.56 Acme waste to Bay Pointe $1.32 $1.79 West County waste to Altamont $2.08 $2.85 West County waste to East Contra Costa $1.86 $2.54 West County waste to Kirker Pass $1.78 $2.43 West County waste to Marsh Creek $2.43 $3.00 West County waste to Bay Pointe $1.49 $2.16 *Dollars per household per month increase from existing costs. NOTE: . See text of memo for assumptions used. This does not include any increases in collection costs or cost increase for recycling programs. DBO:jn 138:landfill.mem CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 1, 1988 FILE: R-25H FROM: -Harvey 'E E. Bragdon_, - Director of Community Developme SUBJECT: Historic Record of Landfill Sear h At the February 23, 1988, meeting of the Board, the Board requested the Communi- ty Development Department to provide information on the seven items listed below. This memorandum is to provide the requested information. 1. The Number of Applications Filed for Landfill Sites in Contra Costa County in the Last 15 years. Starting from 1984-1985, the Kirker Pass Waste Management Landfill, East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, and the Central Landfill were proposed. The Central Landfill subsequently withdrew from considera- tion. During this time period, two expansions were proposed at the Acme Landfill. Both a 22-acre and a 97-acre expansion were approved. Between 1971 and 1982, three proposals within the property of the now proposed East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill were considered. In 1971 and early 1972, the cities of Antioch, Brentwood and Pittsburg looked at several potential landfill sites in East County, including the site now proposed as the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (then referred to as the Ginochio site) . In 1974, a proposal was made by the Lone Tree Disposal Company of Concord (Garaventa) to develop the eastern canyon of the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill property as a hazardous waste landfill. In 1982, a proposal was made for a landfill with a footprint encompassing both the canyon now proposed as the East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and the eastern canyon proposed in 1974. This was proposed by a private individual (Goldberg) who even- tually sold the property to the Garaventas. 2. Identification of Any Other Process in the Unincorporated Area for the Seeking of Entitlements for a Landfill Site Other Than the Normal Application Process. There is no other process for seeking landfill site entitlements other than the normal application process developed by the Board for the privately proposed sites currently being considered. 2. 3. Has the Delta Diablo Sanitation District or Any Other Public Agency Filed an Application for Entitlement for a Landfill Site in the Unincorporated Area of Contra Costa County? No. 4.. _.The WTimeline.,...in. a_Pract.ical--Sense.,-,f:or the-Process.ing_ _of- an -Applica- tion from the Time of Land Acquisition. Via separate memorandum, the Community Development Department is preparing an analysis of processing time for a new landfill applica- tion. 5. Provide the Board Members Maps Identifying Sites Included in the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Study. The maps are attached. 6. Identification of Any Applications Filed, From the Time the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/County Study was Initiated, for Any Sites Contained in That Report. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/County report described the three privately proposed landfill sites (Central, Kirker Pass, East Contra Costa) as they were proposed at the time of the study. Infor- mation was received from the project proponents and included in the report. In that respect, the three privately proposed. sites can be considered as sites in the report for which applications have been filed. Please note that the Central Landfill site was one of the sites preliminarily identified in the County/Central San report. No other site applications have been filed for any sites included in the County/Central San study. 7. Whether the Board of Supervisors in Any Way Discouraged the Applica- tion of Any Other Landfill Sites Besides Those Who Have Applied to Contra Costa County? Staff is not aware of any efforts of the Board of Supervisors to discourage any other landfill applications. If you have any questions, our department will be pleased to respond. HEB/DBO:jn 138:bos.mem attachments Proposed Central Contra Costa �dl U/NH/A/(f� SKVWY Mw� ® Sanitary Landfill 1 iI. *I cma nil-� (Expansion West Contra (Expa Costa Sanitary I-3 Proposed) Landfill p`► ® 4 ir! -1� �r (Expansion Proposed ,� Contra Costa Proposed) I-7 Klrker Pass * M vi-1. Waste Sanitary r� *� Waste Ma- pp• '�mEE WV Landfill nagement 17 Landfill VI-2 Proposed East 8d0 Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill T ;MVI-S} tc IA-2 Ell 7A**WA2A T . C90V CANYON Qp VI-7 VI-6 IV- - Combined Landfill Site and Candidate Study-Identified Transfer Station Site ® - Study-Identified landfill Site recommended for further evaluation ®*- Landfill Site, either existing or proposed by private parties - Study-Identified Landfill Site dropped from further consideration - Study-Identified Transfer Station Area T - Study-Identified Transfer Station Area dropped from further consideration - Study-Identified Landfill Site Area recommended for -further evaluation W- Study-Identified Landfill Site Areas previously dropped from consideration but now recommended for further evaluation Figure 2-1 Study-Identified and Proposed Private L.-Ind-fill tps :Ind Study-identified Transfer station ;ter--:.is CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 3, 1988 FILE: FROM': Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Develo SUBJECT: Analysis of Remaining Cap it s at xi ing Landfills At its February 23, 1988, meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to perform an analysis of the remaining capacities at the three existing landfills. The following .provides a summary and discussion of each site. Attached are tables and graphs outlining monthly waste volumes at each site and a summary of capacities and site life for each landfill. WEST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL SUMMARY The estimated remaining capacity at the West Contra Casta;.Sanitary Landfill is 1,400,000 tons (2,800,000 cubic yards) . If the entire County waste stream (1 million tons per year) was brought to this site, approximately 1.4 years of capacity could be provided. About four months of additional capacity for the entire County wastestream could be developed by utilizing the 325,000 tons (650,000 cubic yards) of capacity available at the 12-acre parcel adjacent to the existing landfill. DISCUSSION The current rate of waste being received at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill is 917 tons per day (1987 average daily rate) . This rate of waste deposition equates to approximately four years of service at the present site or one year of service at the 12-acre site. The present site is projected to close in 1992. The owners of the landfill do not have any siting proposals or permit requests before any permitting agencies at this time. They do own the 12-acre parcel that is situated at the southeasterly portion of the fill area that could be utilized for sanitary landfill if the appropriate permits were received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and possibly BCDC. 2. It should also be noted that the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill has submit- ted its closure plans to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Department of Health Services and are now awaiting final acceptance and concur- rence in those plans. There are no outstanding comments from either of these agencies, so it could be assumed that the proposal that has been prepared by the operators will be accepted as submitted. The Regional Water Quality Control Board feels that the 12-acre site could be developed as a disposal area if the site were found to be environmentally safe and engineered correctly. However, significant local government and community support to develop this area would need to be demonstrated before the owner would venture to make this investment. An additional 78 ,acres exists on the landfill site. This area could generate as much as 12-15 years of capacity for West County wastes. However, this area is considered wetlands area by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Corps of Engineers and also falls into Bay Conservation and Development Commission jurisdiction. This area is no longer being considered a potential landfill disposal area. ACME LANDFILL SUMMARY Additional capacity of approximately 90,000 tons (150,000 cubic yards) could be obtained from the 97-acre landfill site, if the operators were to apply for a permit requesting a height and time extension to their.-.,.,.current. permits. This equates to about one month of additional time if the entire County waste stream were brought to the 97-acre site. On March 1, 1988, staff received a letter (attached) from Acme Fill providing information in response to earlier questions asked by staff. In this response, Acme has indicated that the current 97-acre site has a remaining operating life of 10 months. Staff is trying to verify this figure with Acme at this time. This capacity would project a closure date of January, 1989, instead of the June, 1989, Corps of Engineers permit date. DISCUSSION The height and time limitation currently imposed by the Corps of Engineers permit on the 97 acres (east parcel) is set at a height of 60 feet and a date of June 15, 1989. The Regional Water Quality Control Board permit expires on April 15, 1989. Additional capacity could be obtained if the operators were to immediately submit a request to the Corps and Regional Board for removal of time constraints and requesting a height extension of 15 feet. By requesting an extension in height to 75 feet, an additional capacity of approximately 90,00 tons .(150,000 cubic yards) could be achieved. This equates to about two months of operation based on a tonnage rate of 1,263 tons per day (1987 average daily rate) . Staff from the Corps of Engineers has indicated that this request would require a full review and permitting process. Both the Corps staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff have indicated that they would con- sider extending the height of the existing site as long as all engineering (i.e. stability) and environmental requirements are met. A closure plan for the 97-acre site will be submitted on or about July 1, 1988. 3. The 1984-85 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Study indicates that the 22-acre (south parcel) site could provide an additional 60,000 tons (100,000 cubic yards) of capacity (less than one month of operation at current Acme disposal rates) . In order to utilize this capacity, a clay liner would need to be constructed against the adjacent hill for leachate pro- tection. The cost of constructing a liner and leachate control system to provide .less than--one month of capacity does not _seem :justifable -at this time. The undeveloped 103 acres of the east parcel that surrounds the present 97-acre site was part of the original request made by Acme in 1978 to the Corps of Engi- neers to develop a 200-acre east parcel site. The 103 acres has an estimated capacity of approximately 2,340,000 tons (3,900,000 cubic yards) or about 4 years of additional capacity for Acme Fill wastes, based on a height of 75 feet and the 1987 average tonnage rate. This area is not permitted and would require new permit. However, the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff has indi- cated that it will not allow any expansions at the landfill site into wetland areas. The 125-acre site (north parcel) is closed and no longer accepts waste. A clo- sure plan has been submitted for this site. Acme's engineering consultants have indicated that the site has no significant additional capacity available. Engi- neering problems may also occur if the elevation were increased above its present height. The remaining acreage on the Acme Landfill property consists of cover material borrow areas and undisturbed land. These areas could not be considered as viable landfill areas because of intrusion into wetlands._ areas,. requirements to maintain visual quality of hillsides adjacent to the Vine Hill residential area and to preserve the site of the future transfer station. When asked about other. areas that could be used for landfill sites, Acme res- ponded _ with two scenarios. The first would involve the relocation of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District outfall thereby allowing filling in between the north and east parcel. According to Acme's engineers, this would provide one to two years capacity at Acme's current tonnage rates. However, relocation of the outfall is a major project, would be expensive and take a significant amount of time to plan. Wetlands areas may also be involved. The second scenario would involve the area west of the north parcel. This would require the relocation of Waterbird Way, most likely to the west of Shell ridge. This area is within BCDC's Bay Plan for water related industry. Since the north parcel accepted small amounts of hazardous wastes, the landfill is considered a hazardous waste site and thus special closure requirements are in effect which would make expansion more difficult and expensive. The property is also par- tially owned by others which would make planning more difficult. If expansion were to occur, Acme's engineers estimate that about six years of capacity would be available based on current Acme tonnage rates. 4. CONTRA COSTA WASTE SANITARY (PITTSBURG%GBF) LANDFILL SUMMARY As of December 1987, the current estimated remaining capacity of the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill was determined to be approximately 600,479 tons -(3.,:200.;:9.57--cub-ic--yards) . -Bas=ing--calculations -on _the =premise-that -the entire County waste stream (around 1,000,000 tons/year) would be brought to this site, a capacity of about 7 months is calculated. An additional 1-2 months of capaci- ty could be utilized at this site if the old Antioch Municipal Landfill were combined with the Pittsburg%GBF site. An additional 6 months of capacity could be utilized if the height of the Pittsburg%GBF site were raised from an eleva- tion of 240 feet to 260 feet. DISCUSSION Based on the current rate of disposal at the landfill of 584 tons per day (1987 average daily rate) and the estimatedremaining capacity of 600,479 tons (1,200,957 cubic yards) , the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill site would have a remaining life of approximately 2.3 years. This would result in an esti- mated closure date of March/April, 1990. Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill engineering consultants have prepared conceptual designs for a closure plan. However, no plan has been finalized or submitted to the State at this time. Groundwater monitoring is being conducted at the GBF site because of leachate migration from old hazardous waste ponds. The extent to which migration has occurred is unknown. It is estimated that by combining the closed Antioch Municipal Landfill site, located to be west of the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill site and adjacent to the Pittsburg site property boundary, an additional 1-2 months of capacity could be obtained, based on the entire County waste stream. The additional capacity of approximately 135,000 tons (270,000 cubic yards) would provide about 5-7 months if the waste stream were to remain at its present levels (around 600 tons/day) . This added capacity would project the closure date to be in the fall of 1990. The extra volume would be achieved by filling in the void between the two landfill sites and bringing the Antioch site elevation up to a height of 240 feet, which is equivalent to the projected Contra Costa Waste Sanitary Landfill closure height. The sides of the landfill would be engineered to a slope of 3 to 1. The Antioch site is closed and has not .received waste , formany years. No permits currently exist for this site. To use this site again would require a Land Use Permit from the City of Antioch, a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit, Solid Waste Management Plan amendment and a Facilities Permit. The City of Antioch is proceeding with its Solid Waste Assessment Tests (State mandated tests for hazardous waste in air and groundwater at all landfills in the State) and is planning to allow construction of the James Donlon Boulevard extension through the Antioch Municipal Landfill to connect with Somersville Road. The roadway will pass through the southern tip of the landfill site. The exact location of this alignment has not been identified at this time. volume for this portion of the site that would be affected by the construction was estimated by staff and removed from the capacity calculations. 5. Another scenario is created if the final landfill height were raised to 260 feet. The first involves raising the height of the Pittsburg/GBF site to 260 feet. With sideslopes of 3:1 this would provide approximately 500,000 tons (1,000,000 cubic yards) of capacity. This equates to about six months of addi- tional use for the entire County wastestream and two years of additional use at .__ present_-disposal_-rates_.-._:Aesthetic_values-:and.�potent al.�re=uses_..of_ he..-�site-must be carefully evaluated before considering the possibilities of extending the final closure height. EW:jn 138:bos3.mem •x m � W En w m �4 +-1 m zwm (0F >~ Gmc a; Q124� p >1 >4I >1 E M r- I N W U 4 d --I O N d' N N n co � rI v L4 W CX4 H w >4 a ro � m � � C 4 �.� E-I :H .H N 41 +1 +- cd 4-) 4-) C H z U] G C z O r I G O >~ 4-) U ul H N v I +� >I 4-1 W� �4 E— N H 12) O z a -P C/1 a O P4rn N � FaH U Cl)aM I >4 W Q F +, O m Ei H 4-4 x 4-4E>'-4 04 rd 4H U H a Q x Ur.>+ 0 0 000 oo s~ > o o I 000 I �n oo O f/1 H 4U O O O O G O O z z H O O 000 O co (d H D•I O W O In to O o O r o Fa E-I i...l �::) CO 1p r-i Ol -1 N (N o O a' Hn- U N M r-•I ri O � U � r-I C7 O o 0 0 0 O O r I H z O O I O O O I d o 0 G-+ H O O U') 0 0 0 O to O aJ H O N 0') d' l0 0 m ` cr M M l0 a ' `�' a n O H CT4 1-1 4-4 W Ca I z rt 4-4 O F a ro 4-) a v � a 4 �� � 44 H � c UUP z - 0)ro � z I~ � s4 b 9 m r~ s4 (d 0') < •H I (d (d la4 U] �-I •r♦ r• 4-) •ri r-I m 41 :, _ aP4 � w w A u, r� rl +-) 4-) C 4-) H U) -H O 0 r W H w 4-4 U) +) N U) +J X H �.Q cd I Ei U) N (d 71 O <C -P N -P N ZS T3 q H O 1 ^ O to N O I~ �?: •r-I I C U U -P Ul U U) a 1 4-) S-I �-4 (n �• FZC d CP m cd >v v m m u, m E-1 4•-1 ro r 4-J �4 N N m cn N ul C) U) U) w m ul �4 •ri H U �4 �-4 N O W N �4 O N a) (1) a) m U z (d U U `4 �4 U �4 U U �4 0 l4 �4 > G O m O (d cd U U cd U cd U d' U U (d O 04 U O d rd cd cd N Rf RS U cd O N CO M Ln N C; U O N N E-I Ln d-) N to CO +) to •n U) I I I Ol 01 r-I N r-I z (- (d H t` (3) 0 co co Z W [_] U I I 1 I I 0 1 I i N Q W � �C U 1987 WASTE QUANTITIES REPORTED BY LANDFILL OPERATORS (TONS PER DAY) MONTH/YEAR ACME WCCSL CCWSL TOTALS 1/87 1167 856 496 2519 2/87 1152 980 495 2627 3/87 1268 935 622 2825 4/87 1403 992 615 3010 5/87 1333 951 625 2909 6/87 1442 952 574 2968 7/87 1408 915 590 2913 8/87 1314 875 644 2833 9/87 1218 909 646 2773 10/87 1160 959 594 2713 11/87 1107 825 589 2521 12/87 1178 850 515 2543 ACME WCCSL CCWSL TOTALS AVERAGE VALUE 1263 917 584 2763 MAXIMUM VALUE 1442 992 646 3010 MINIMUM VALUE 1107 825 495 2519 ACME= ACME LANDFILL WCCSL= WEST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL CCWSL= CONTRA COSTA WASTE SANITARY LANDFILL TONNf� GC rV13 iG V4 < %S I,CR V c` i i � W �+ ER IK- 75 r W T LO V = j v LO T Y r w Jf� r r T (:GpucGnoq j) ,VVG 'd-Dd SNO I 0 W F- � X �C _ W M. to r f- 0 r 14) r4) r rr r*j Eli N N N N N N N N �- XvIC c:Kqd SNOI 4c~ • PRESIDENT DIRECTORS Boyd M. Olney, Jr. Bart Bisio SECRETARY - TREASURER Silvio Garaventa,Sr. George Navone Marshall Grodin March 1, 1988 Mr. Phil Batchelor Administrator County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: Community Development Letter Dated February 22, 1988 From Paul E. Kilkenny Dear Mr. Batchelor: With respect to the questions raised by the County Development Department in the above captioned letter, I have received responses from Acme ' s engineers and relate them to you as follows : 1) What is the closure plan status on the current 97-acre site? The closure plan for the 97-acre site will be submitted on or about July 1, 1988 . 2) What is the remaining capacity of the current 97 acre site? The remaining capacity of the current 97 acre site is approximately 10 months . 3) What is the current average daily tonnage of the current 97-acre site? The average daily tonnage in January was approximately 1, 175 tons . 4) What is the estimate of in-place density of the current 97-acre site? The in-place density is esti- mated by the engineers to be approximately 1200 pounds per cubic yard. 5) What additional capacity could be obtained by increasing the height of the 125-acre site and 22-acre site, or the height of )the 97-acre site above the 60 foot permitted limit? According to the engineers , the 125-acre 12.0. /3oz, »OFs MaA,?2�, 9-4553 gwnR- ; G1� .2.28-7099 qJ& 2,28-65.25 Mr. Phil. Batchelor March 1, 1988 Page 2 site, the 22-acre site, and the 97-acre site would have no significant add it.i.onal_..ca.p:a.cit_y.:--avail-.:abl.e.. 6) Are there any other areas on the Acme Fill site that could be used for landfill sites , and if so, what are they, and what additional capacity could each provide, if successfully permitted? As explained in the Solid Waste Management Plan of the County, expansion of the landfill beyond the 97-acre parcel is physically possible. These possible expansions should not be counted on for Capacity in the short term because the approval process for any new expansion would take a considerable amount of lead time and permit approval time to be opera- tional, and many may likely prove to be not possible. . One expansion possibility is the relocation of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District outfall thereby allowing filling in between the North and East Parcel . This -could give one to two years of capacity. Relocation of the outfall is a major project, would be expensive and take a long time to plan. Wetland may be involved. Another potential expansion area is adjacent to the East parcel. The original ' expansion proposal for the 97-acre East parcel called for the filling of a total of 200 acres . Filling the remaining areas, which contain wetlands, would require permit approvals from the RWQCB and the Corps of Engineers . Both agencies have strongly indicated to Contra Costa County and Acme that this expansion would not be approved. This expansion could give approximately 4 years of capacity. The area to the west of the North parcel has also been considered. This would require the relocation of Waterbird Way, likely to the west of Shell ridge . This area is . within BCDC' s Bay Plan for water related industry. The road and the landfill expansion involving the north parcel has a consideration that since small amounts of hazardous wastes were accepted in the North parcel the landfill is a hazardous waste parcel , and it has special closure requirements which make expansion more difficult and expensive. (The property is partially owned by others which makes planning more difficult . ) This expansion, if successful , could give approximately 6 years of capacity. Mr. Phil Batchelor March 1, 1988 Page 3 Neither the County, Cities or Sanitary districts have -a.g.reed to any of the potential scenarios in No. b above, but if the County wants Acme to work on any or all of the scenarios in No. 6 above, Acme will give favorable consideration to such a request(s) . Very truly yours BOYD M. OLNEY, JR. Acme, Fill Corporation cc: Paul E. Kilkenny CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors March 3, 1988 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, .Director.-of °Community Develop _ SUBJECT: Solid Waste Export Agreeme h Oakland Scavenger Company This report was initiated by staff because it is timely and relevant to the waste disposal issues discussed in other staff reports on the Board's March 8, 1988, agenda. Staff is requesting express permission from the Board of Supervisors to prepare and provide information on Contra Costa County to the Oakland Scavenger Company relative to Oakland Scavenger Company's application to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority to dispose of Contra Costa County refuse at Oakland Scaven- ger Company's Altamont Landfill on an interim basis. The proposal being made by Oakland Scavenger Company to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority would implement the contingency planning effort initiated by the 1985 amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The reasons that we are asking for permission at this time to participate in the development of Oakland Scavenger .Company's application are: first, that Oakland Scavenger Company now has an actual application underway which, if approved, would significantly affect how. Central. County refuse would be disposed of after the Acme Landfill closes next year (and affect our own planning for new facili- ties as well as disposal costs to our citizens) ; second, at a minimum, providing the information to Oakland Scavenger Company will require at least a moderate amount of staff effort; third, the Oakland Scavenger Company application would result in import provisions being amended into the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan, which would have .to be complemented by export provisions in our own County Solid Waste Management Plan; and, fourth, an ultimate ramification of an export program may be that our County government will have to take the lead to organize cities and other franchisors to "deliver" our wastestream to the Altamont facility (although Central Contra Costa County would be initially involved, both East County and West County could be included before an interim export program was completed) . Only a moderate amount of staff time is involved in this request. If future activities would require substantial staff work or direct costs to the County, we would obtain additional authorization from the Board of Supervisors. The proposal by the Oakland Scavenger Company to the best of our knowledge is based on terms for a private sector agreement negotiated (but not concluded) by the Acme Fill Corporation with Oakland Scavenger Company in 1987. Essentially the proposal calls for the Altamont Landfill to take 2.5 million tons of Central County refuse over about a 5-year period (see attachment) . 2 The context for staff's request is, as noted, that we have been pursuing Contin- gency planning. for exporting refuse to other counties in the event that .one or more of the existing landfills in our County had to close before a new facility could be placed into operation. Although diversion of a closed landfill's wastestream to the remaining landfills in Contra Costa County also is a compo- nent of the contingency planning, we recognize that they too are filling up and -that.-the :prospects`for..°using,_=them�arerdsminish ng_zw: th-eVery�month_:that,pas.ses.. Our involvement in contingency planning for the export of refuse essentially began after the Alameda County Waste Management Authority rebuffed the Acme Fill Corporation's attempt to use the Vasco Road Landfill in 1984, when the Acme Landfill had to close to commercial traffic for a few weeks while its :then newly-approved 97-acre expansion area was ..being readied for use. It .became evident then that our own private sector's efforts had to be backed by public sector .support in dealings with other jurisdictions. Subsequently, we have had to anticipate the possible closure of the Acme Landfill in 1987 (which was averted by the Corps of Engineers' permit amendment increasing the allowable fill height and the operating time) , and its impending closure next year. Until December of last year, we have been largely working through the Acme Fill Corporation, although we have had a number of direct contacts with the staffs of Solano and Alameda counties and with the Oakland Scavenger Company (and their new owners, Waste Management, Incorporated) . Acme represented all of the Cen- tral County collection services, and essentially was able to direct its waste- stream (or obtain commitments from the franchisors) and bear the costs of making application, providing a transfer station, and making the advance payments expected to be required in Alameda County. Acme reached a tentative export agreement with Oakland Scavenger Company in 1986, and had negotiated a revised agreement based on the recent Oakland Scavenger Company agreement with . San Francisco in 1987. Then, in quick succession, Acme lost the participation of Valley Disposal Service (representing about one-third of the wastes now going to Acme's landfill) through their sale to Waste Management, Inc. , and experienced a dispute over the control of the corporation which continues to the present time. For some weeks, Acme's representatives were not able to continue their discus- sions with us as a result of court order. As a result, it is still unclear what role Acme Fill Corporation will be able to perform in obtaining a workable export agreement. When our contingency planning efforts through the Acme Fill Corporation stalled in late 1987, we resumed direct discussions with the Alameda County Waste Man- agement Authority staff and the Oakland Scavenger Company. The Oakland Scaven- ger Company indicated that it needed our County's assistance to develop the information that had to be submitted to the Authority in the short term and, possibly, our assistance in committing the wastestream in the long term. It. may be surmised that Oakland Scavenger Company's parent corporation, Waste Manage- ment, Inc. , already controlled about one-third of Central County's wastestream through Valley Disposal Service, and decided to apply for the larger Central County volume for a variety of reasons, which could include financial profit, Contra .Costa County support and goodwill in Waste Management, Incorporated' s pursuit of its Marsh Creek Landfill proposal. In any event, Oakland Scavenger Company made application to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority on February 9, 1987, and the matter is now pending before the Authority. The ALAM EDA COUNTY.::: WASTE MANAGEMENT ALrTHMTY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 670-5400 AGENDA ITEM VI. B. 3. February 24, 1988 TO: WMA Members and Alternates i FROM: William H. Fraley, Secretary SUBJECT: Amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan The Oakland Scavenger Company has submitted a request to amend. our Solid Waste Management Plan to permit importing and disposing of 2.5 million tons of municipal solid waste from Contra Costa County at the Altamont Landfill. The basis for this request is to respond to the pending disposal problems confronting Contra Costa County at the Acme Landfill site, Martinez. The closing date for that site is set for June 30, 1989. There is little probability, that any additional expansion may be permitted. The proposal includes the review of the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared in 1977/78 for the Altamont Landfill site. Included also is a recycling program to be established in Alameda County and Contra Costa County to reduce waste going to the landfill site. This is intended to serve as an extension of the life of the landfill site, as well as conservation and reuse of materials. This matter will be processed consistent with the Authority conformance manual and State statutes. It is expected to require from seven to ten months under normal conditions to complete such a process. Staff will keep you informed on the status of the pioject. WHF/jpb 15885 3. Authority staff estimates that it will take 7 to 10 months to prepare an Environmental Impact Report and otherwise process the application for a Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment. As the Authority's letter of February 11, 1988, indicates, Oakland Scavenger Company also may have to obtain a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Land Use Permit from Alameda County. CAZ:j n 6d:bos.mem attachments: 1. Alameda County Waste Management Authority staff memo, February 24, 1988 2. Alameda County Waste Management Authority letter to Oakland Scavenger Company February 1l, 1988 3. Oakland Scavenger Company letter to Alameda County Waste Management Authority, February 8, 1988 �. ; L . ,ti 1'. , l iTti/i l III 11 i t AK.L.ANI) t;Al 1f OHMA y-1hU, Iri pliulit! 465 2911 February 9, 1988 �s � La Mr. William H. Fraley Secretary ; Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 m m Dear Mr. Fraley: This is our request for an amendment of the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan. This amendment would allow for the importation of 2 , 500, 000 tons of Contra Costa County's solid waste for disposal at the Altamont Landfill. Because of the impending disposal problems at Acme Landfill in Contra Costa County, we are requesting approval of the amendment as soon as possible. In recent years, the Acme Landfill has come under increasing scrutiny by a number of local, state, and federal agencies, and now due to the severity and complexity of the situation, the .Acme Landfill has been ordered to close by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board on June 30, 1989. According to all accounts, the prospects for modifying this order to allow the Acme Fill to remain open, even on a temporary basis, are virtually nonexistent. Therefore, Waste Management, Inc. has initiated a program to find and alternative means for disposing of the wastes generated in Contra Costa County. We are prepared to substantiate our request for amendment to the Alameda Plan by providing the following documentation in appropriate form: 1. A plan amendment project description which would outline the scope and character of the proposed plan amendment in detail and would include at least the following elements: • Assessment of the impact of the proposed amendment on the Alameda Plan to determine if the proposed amendment can be accommodated within the framework of current goals and objectives as articulated by the County Plan. William H. Fraley 2 February 9, 1988 • Detailed description of the technical aspects of the _.proposal.,- ncl:uding the-transportat ons routes, . types and number of trucks to be used and a- complete outline of proposed disposal and operational plans to be employed at the Altamont Landfill to manage and dispose of the additional wastes in question. This will include a discussion of the use of Disposal Area 5A. • Delineation of operational alternatives for transporting and disposing of Contra Costa County's municipal waste at the Altamont Landfill. 2 . An initial study to provide detailed background environmental data to be agreed upon by Alameda County and the Oakland Scavenger Company. This data would provide the basis for an Environmental Assessment, if required, and which would be conducted under the auspices of' the County of Alameda. 3 . A description of Contra Costa County' s program currently underway to solve its won disposal .capacity problems through the siting of new landfills and resource recovery options, such as recycling and/or waste-to-energy plants. A timetable for implementation of the referenced Contra Costa County program will also be included in the description, if available. The current status of the Contra Costa County plan will also be apart of this report. 4 . An outline and discussion of the steps proposed by Contra Costa County, the affected cities and the Oakland Scavenger Company to achieve the recycling goals of 30 percent by 1990, 45 percent by 1994 , and 75 percent by the year 2005 recently established by Alameda County Waste Management Authority. 5. . A preliminary review of the mitigation measures which might be appropriate under the terms of a mitigation agreement between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties will also be included in the "Report" . William H. Fraley 3 February 9 , 1988 As you know, we are anxious to proceed. Please contact Michael Crosetti as questions arise: Sincerely, Peter Borghero President PB/sp PB88013 .s- ALAivt ESA COUNTY som WASn MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (41 S) 670-5400 February 11, 1988 Peter r Borghero, President Oakland Scavenger Company 2000 Embarcadero, Suite 300 Oakland, California 94606 SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF CONTRA COSTA MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT ALTAMONT LANDFILL Dear Peter: This responds to Oakland Scavenger Company's February 9 application letter to amend the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan to provide for import and disposal of Contra Costa County municipal solid waste at Altamont Landfill. Requirements of*the Alameda County Waste Management Authority- OSC's proposal would .amend the Authority's existing Solid Waste Management Plan (October, 1981). A revised Solid Waste Management Plan (July, 1987) has been adopted by the Authority and its member agencies. Approval of the 1987 Plan is pending before the California Waste Management Board. Upon CWMB approval of the 1987 Plan, OSC's application would become a proposed amendment to the 1987 Plan and would be evaluated in terms of the policies contained in that Plan. Procedural requirements of the Authority are contained in the adopted Conformance Procedures Manual (April, 1983). Copies of all of these documents are available to the applicant. Status of County Solid Waste Management Plans, Amendments to county solid waste management plans must be approved by the CWHB. The CWMB has stated that it will not consider an amendment .if a county plan is delinquent in terms of the triennial review/revision procedure required under State codes. In March, 1987 the CWMB rejected the Alameda County Plan that was prepared in late 1986 and found the existing 1981 Plan to be delinquent. In late 1987, the Authority submitted a 'revised Plan (dated July 29, 1987) to the CWMB. We are presently awaiting final CWMB approval. Although, we may process amendments, the applicant should be aware that there is no guarantee that such an amendment will be considered by the CWMB unless and until the CWMB approves a revised county plan. The proposed export of solid waste must also be provided for in an approved Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. It is our understanding that the CWMB has found the existing Contra Costa County Plan to be delinquent. Letter to Peter Borghero - February 11, 1988 Page 2. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements Authority action on OSC's proposal is subject to .CEQA requirements. For the present, the Authority will act as .Lead _Agency to prepare .the environmental dtrcuments. =However, -:Lead--Agency-�;status may -change if it "becomes necessary for OSC to secure a new or revised use permit, rezoning or general plan amendment. In that case, the County of Alameda, as the agency with general governmental powers, would probably become Lead Agency. After OSC has provided additional project information, as detailed below, Authority staff will prepare an. Initial Study of the proposal in consultation with other responsible agencies. The Study will determine whether the project may have significant environmental effects and whether a new EIR is required. If a new EIR is needed, the Authority will issue a Notice of EIR Preparation to concerned parties. Each public agency will define the scope and content of environmental information related to the agency's area of responsibility which must be included in the EIR. An EIR serves as the CEQA environmental report for all responsible agencies that will act on OSC's project. During the 45-day review period for a Notice of EIR Preparation, it is usual practice to hold a scoping session for responsible agencies, other concerned parties, consultants and the applicant to discuss the CEQA process and the scope of environmental review. OSC will be offered an opportunity to .modify the project to reduce or avoid the. environmental effects identified in the Initial Study. Although we have not yet prepared the Initial Study, our preliminary review of OSC's proposal indicates that a "Subsequent EIR" for Altamont Landfill will be required. The reasons for this are (1) the extent of potential environmental impacts that may result from the project, (2) the need to assess the cumulative impact of importation, which was not addressed in the original 1976 EIR for, the landfill, and (3) the need to evaluate changed conditions, as they relate to this project, in the twelve years since the original EIR was prepared. Consultants, to be selected by the Authority, will be needed to prepare portions of the EIR. All consultant work must be approved by the. Authority, but consultants will be paid by the applicant. Background Information Required In order to proceed with OSC's application and the Initial Study, we will need the following information to assist Authority staff in defining the scope of the proposed project. It is, understood that this is initial information and some of it necessarily may be sketchy at this time. ' Much of this material will be subject to later CEQA environmental review; preparation and evaluation of data by independent consultants hired by the Authority will be required as part of' the CEQA process: Letter to Peter Borghero February 11, 1988 Page 3. 1. A clear, concise and complete project statement describing the proposed changes to the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Plan and, if needed, to the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. -2. 'Describe proposed changes to landfill operations including landfill methodology, equipment, employment, safety, and measures to control dust, odors, emissions to air, rodents, insects, litter and noise. Identify changes to engineering of refuse cells, excavation of cover material, frequency of cover, settlement, and leachate control. 3. Identify impacts to the speed or efficiency of existing operations to dispose Alameda County (and San Francisco) wastes. Identify any on—site or entrance area truck traffic impacts. 4. Identify the wasteshed area. What portions of Contra Costa County will be served? Will the project include wastes presently imported to Contra Costa from Marin and Solano counties? 5. Describe the type and composition of wastes to be imported and disposed; identify and quantify any unpermitted designated or hazardous wastes in the waste stream including small generator and household hazardous wastes. 6. Identify environmental impacts of disposal of unpermitted designated or hazardous wastes, including an evaluation of potential liability. 7. Specify the project term and identify daily and annual rates of flow projected over the project term. 8. Describe transfer station operations, if a transfer station(s) is part of the proposal. Include programmed procedures to recover recyclables, monitor and recover designated or hazardous wastes, and control the origin of wastes received. 9. Describe the type, tonnage and frequency of trucks hauling imported waste, primary and secondary routes used, andthe proposed hours of travel on roads in Alameda County. 10. Describe the impact of the project on affected roads in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. 11. Describe air quality impacts due to proposed truck traffic. 12. Describe the project's impact on the capacity and lifespan of Altamont Landfill as a whole and on the capacity and lifespan of the Fill Area(s) at Altamont which is presently fully permitted by local, regional and state agencies. Letter to Peter Borghero February 11, 1988 Page 4. 13. Describe resource recovery efforts underway or proposed in the wasteshed portion of Contra Costa (and Marin and *Solano Counties if they are within the wasteshed) and the proportion of each type of recyclable material which is 14. Describe contingency plans in the event that either the Acme Fill transfer station or the Altamont Landfill ceases operations on an emergency basis. 15. Describe operational alternatives for transporting and disposing Contra Costa's waste at Altamont Landfill. Also, the impacts of (1) no project, (2) continued disposal at expanded Acme Fill, (3) haul from Acme Fill to another county, (4) haul from Acme Fill to other existing landfills in Contra Costa County, (5) haul from Acme Fill to proposed new landfills in Contra Costa, (6) disposal of Benicia waste in Solano County, (7) direct haul by packer trucks from all or a portion of the Contra Costa/Solano wasteshed, (8) operation of transfer stations to serve some or all of the waste stream and (9) resource recovery options for Contra Costa/Solano. 16. Your February 9 application letter refers to "Disposal Area 5A." This is not presently an approved landfill area and would required amendment of the county general plan, county solid waste management plan, revision of the Altamont landfill use permit, extensive environmental analyses, as well as other permit -actions of responsible agencies. If the presently proposed project is to include expansion of the Altamont landfill, this should be specified as soon as possible. Schedule , An Initial Study can be prepared within one week of submittal of the background materials requested above. A Notice of Preparation would then be issued for a 45—day review period. A consultant should be selected as early as possible to be in place in time to attend EIR scoping sessions during the 45—day review period. Work on the EIR may begin during the review period. Depending upon the extent of 'referral agencies' concerns) we estimate that a draft EIR can be completed in 13 weeks. A 45—day DEIR review period is required. The first public hearing before the Authority will be scheduled to occur after publication of the DEIR. Comments on the draft will be addressed in the Final EIR. Depending on the extent of comments, it is expected that the Final EIR can be produced - within 2 weeks of the conclusion of the draf t EIR review period. We estimate that the total time required for the CEQA process to be about 29 weeks or about seven months, unless significant revisions are required based on responses. Action on the plan amendment can occur simultaneously with the CEQA process. The Authority will appoint an ad hoc committee to oversee the CEQA and plan amendment consideration processes. Letter to Peter Borghero - February 11, 1988 Page 5. Fee for Service Authority staff work is on a "fee for service" basis chargeable to the appli- :cant,; zcavering. .actual ._Author.i.ty vstaff.-costs._.to_.:_.process-the-application. isle estimate the basic staff costs to process the plan amendment to be $20,000. We cannot estimate the EIR preparation costs until additional data describing the project are submitted by OSC. When the information is submitted, and a cost estimate prepared by us, OSC will be asked to submit a check in the full amount payable to "Treasurer, County of Alameda. " If actual costs exceed or fall below the estimate, you will be bille&or refunded the remainder. Please call me or Betty Croly if you h questions about the materials we are requesting. Ve truly yours, Willi Fral Secretary cc: Clem Shute Michael Crosetti, Oakland Scavenger Company Reith Amundson, RMI, Inc. David Okita, Contra Costa County Community Development 0224d CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors D TE- March 2, 1988 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director-of-�Community_-- -Iopme SUBJECT: Expediting the Landfill Permit Process BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors, at its February 23, 1988, meeting, directed staff -to report on the feasibility of expediting the process that the County now uses to process applications for sanitary landfills. This memorandum has been prepared in response to the Board order. The current process described herein is essentially generic--it was developed in connection with the Acme landfill expansion project, it was applied to the Kirker Pass and East Contra Costa landfill projects recently taken to the Board (it now reflects some lessons learned from those projects) , and it would apply to any new landfill project. Every project is unique in some respects, however. Recognizing this, the memorandum does make some specific references to a Marsh Creek landfill which is the only "new" landfill which,--has-been- announced by a sponsor and to staff's knowledge preparations are being made to develop an application. The application process described in this memorandum is largely derived from State laws, such as the State Planing Law, including the Permit Streamlining Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and State regulations, and local ordinances and policies. Among the latter, the Board of Supervisors' 1984 policy on landfill applications, adopted July 10, 1984, establishes some of the specific policies referred to herein, such as the applicant's provision of a Comprehensive Project Description and the start of the County's review process through an application for a Board-authorized General Plan review. ORGANIZATION - Table 1 summarizes the timelines of both the existing permit. review process and an expedited process. - The Conclusions section summarizes the findings of the memorandum. - The Potentials for Expediting Processing section describes nine phases of project development, briefly identifies the existing process, identifies .possible time-saving measures,and identifies the ramifications of applying the measures. - Table 2 enumerates the activities and work products which comprise the nine phases of project development in terms of the existing process. - The attachment, the most recent version of specifications for the preparation of a Comprehensive Project Description, referenced to the proposed Marsh Creek landfill', is provided for the Board's information. Page 2 CONCLUSIONS There is possibility, on paper, of reducing the minimum time required to prepare and process a landfill application from about 40 months (following site acquisi- tion), which at the low end of a preparation time range, to about 33 months, or �a-r-eductiorr-4df--about-'i8-percent::---See�.Tabae 1 ----About-four-months--'of-the -7=month reduction would occur in activities carried out by the project sponsor both prior to submitting an application and after its approval by the Board of Super- visors. About three months of the timeline estimated to be reducible by expedi- ting the process would be in activities directly under the control of the County. ` The 33-month expedited timeline shown on Table 1 could be achieved, if circumstances are ideal and if cooperation is complete. This statement is qualified for a number of reasons: 1) large segments of the process are, not under the direct control of the County (legal time requirements, the sponsor, regulatory agency requirements, and city actions are all involved and sometimes control segments of the processing critical path) ; 2) both the process and the project may depend on information. or actual improvements produced by other projects; 3) public concerns are expected to result in more hearings, more questions to be answered, and more demands for additional information from the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors than the low end of the regular schedule provides. The existing process is already "fast-tracked" to a considerable degree in that documents required in later phases of- project review are developed, as secondary activities, where practicable, of earlier phases. POTENTIALS FOR.EXPEDITING PROCESSING Phase A, Site Selection Phase A is a pre-application stage which does not directly involve the partici- pation of County staff for a private-sector landfill project. Any prospective applicant, however, will benefit from the previous work done by the County and other public agencies which is reflected in the County Solid Waste Management Plan and several site identification studies. The latter include the 1984-5 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Study, the 1986 Southeast County Landfill Siting Study, and the records of the 1987 Blue Ribbon Task Force effort. Phase B, Pre-Application Activities Phase B is an application preparation stage which almost entirely involves work by the project sponsor, although several County and other public agencies will have to be contacted to obtain plans and other information. The three most time consuming activities are performing geo-technical studies (geology and hydrolo- gy) , designing the landfill facility itself to a preliminary engineering level, and determining the nature and extent of needed off-site improvements. Page 3 TABLE 1 SUMMARY TABLE EXISTING AND EXPECTED LANDFILL APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES Existing Process* Expedited Process** (Range in Months) (months) Phase Low to High Low Pre-Application A. Site Selection 12 mo. - 24 mo. 12 mo. B. Pre-Application Activities 6 mo. - 12 mo. 3 mo. Subtotal 18 mo. - 36 mo. 15 mo. Project Processing Phases I. Project Review. 2 mo. - 3 mo. 2 mo. Start-Up II. Draft EIR 4 mo. - 6 mo. 3 mo. Development III. Draft EIR 3 mo. - 6 mo. 2 mo. Review IV. Planning Commission 2 mo. - 3 mo. 2 mo. Permit Review V. Board of Supervisors 1 mo. - 2 mo. 1 mo. Project Hearings VI. Responsible Agency 10 mo. - 24 mo. 9 mo. Referrals & Final Design Subtotal 22 mo. - 44 mo. 19 mo. Post-Approval Activities (Construction Phase) 12 mo. - 24 mo. 11 mo. Totals 52 mo. - 104 mo. 45 mo. Totals Less Site Selection 40 mo. - 68 mo. 33 mo. *See Table 2 for description of existing process. ** See Potentials for Expedited Processing in text. Page 4 The primary product of Phase B is a Comprehensive Project Description to accom- pany a project application. Staff has updated the specifications for a landfill Comprehensive Project Description, as they would apply to a Marsh Creek land- fill, and provided it to the project sponsor. A copy is attached to this memo- randum. By following the specifications, the sponsor should be able to more expeditiously develop a proposal for application to the County. Tables 1 and 2 indicate a nominal. range of 6 months to 12 months to accomplish Phase B. The shorter figure assumes that the sponsor will make a concerted effort to perform the work and encounter no major impediments, such as bad weather which would prevent heavy equipment for borings and trenching from being taken into the field. The longer figure, which may be too short, envisions contingencies such as the need for year-longfkwater characterization or air. move- ment studies to meet regulatory agency needs for coverage in the project's Environmental Impact Report. A considerable portion of the Comprehensive Project Description is devoted to project design and operating requirements of a Regional Water Quality Control Board,, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis- trict, and the .California Waste Management Board. The opportunities for expediting the preparation of a Comprehensive Project Description obviously vary from site to site. The preparation mode does, howev- er, have on attribute which is amenable to fast tracking, which is that the process is under the direct control of the sponsor. The sponsor may elect to hire more specialists or pay premiums for round-the-clock work. If everything went well, the optimal 6-month preparation time might be reduced to 3 months. Phase I, Project Review Start-Up Time Phase I covers the period from the submission of an initial project application, for a General Plan Amendment, through the California Quality Act Environmental Impact Report notification and scoping stage, to the contracting of, an EIR con- sultant. (Experience indicates that an EIR will be required for a new landfill. ) It is during the scoping stage that the County will be informed of the regulato- ry agencies' and other Responsible Agencies' needs for subject matter content- in the project's Environmental Impact Report. , There is little opportunity to expedite this phase of work from the range of 2 months to 3 months listed in Tables 1 and 2 because 1 month is taken up by a mandatory minimum public review period of the CEQA Notice of Preparation. Actu- ally, the 2-month timeline is only remotely possible, but unrealistic, unless staff can devote full time to the effort and no delays are encountered. An assist for minimizing the timeline--keeping it closer to the 2-month end of the range than exceeding the 3-month end--would be to recruit a consultant by single-source selection rather than by the usual competitive method. The project sponsor would have to agree to single source selection. Given the very high cost of landfill EIR's, staff would be reluctant to use single-source selection. Page 5 Phase II, Draft EIR Development Phase II covers the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Report from the beginning of the consultant's efforts, through the internal review of draft materials, to the publication of the document. It is essentially staff and --=consultant --work, -although the sponsor -(-tfie •sponsor-'=:s---technical -staff--and-consul- tants) typically is called on the provide additional information. The time frame for Phase II is shown as a range of four months to six months in Tables 1 and 2. The shorter period is based on a normal core period of three months for the consultant to produce an administrative (internal review) draft and another month to review, revise, and publish the report. The longer period allows a 4-month time for the consultant to produce the administrative draft, which is a more :realistic assignment for evaluating a complex project, and two months for reviews, revisions, and publication. It is noted that none of the waste disposal project DEIR's have been prepared in four months, and some have required considerably more than six months. Long preparation periods frequently result when the completion of the project EIR is dependent on the availability of external documents. The most recent example of an "outside" document extending EIR's (for hazardous waste facilities) is the new Health Risk Assessment, which is being required by the air quality agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District even as the standards and procedures for its preparation are being determined. New landfills may require Health Risk Assessments because of the minute amounts of toxics present in landfill gases. The availability of- ,the forthcoming Delta Expressway EIR also could affect the length of time required to prepare an EIR for the Marsh Creek landfill if this proposed thoroughfare is intended to be used for access to the landfill. Another cause of delay, particularly for sites in remote areas, could be performing studies on threatened and endangered plant and animal special pursuant to federal and state laws. Setting aside the unknowns and the unpredictable, there is a possibility of expediting Phase II if the sponsor's Comprehensive Project Description is very thorough, if the EIR consultant team is experienced in landfill evaluating and with Contra Costa County, and if both the consultant and the County staff can give the project their undivided attention. This obviously would increase prep- aration costs. The amount of time that might be bought would be no more than one month at the short end of the range (i.e. , possibly down to three months) to a two month reduction at the high end (i.e. , down to four months) . Phase III, Draft Environmental Impact Report Review Phase III is essentially a "public" phase of the project review process in that it provides for a public review. and comment period for the DEIR, for a public hearing(s) , and the preparation of a Response Document providing written re- sponses to comments received which address environmental issues pertaining to the project. The phase also has a built-in "fast-track" aspect in that applica- tions for Land Use Permits (as well as for Agricultural Preserve Cancellations and Rezonings, if required) are filed then and staff typically prepares the paperwork preparatory to taking these items to hearings in Phase IV. Page 6 Tables 1 and 2 shows a 3-month to 6-month time range for Phase III. There is little opportunity to reduce the former figure because half the time is taken up by a mandatory minimum 45-day public review period for the DEIR. To expedite the process, however, the public hearing on the DEIR is usually held near the end of the 45-day period. Ostens b y., -xthe 3t nth =t= mel= ne-might==be=-reduced =to -�2---months-by-a -combination of dispensing with the public hearing (which is optional under CEQA, and typi- cally for a controversial project introduces.. large amounts of comments late in the review period) , the provision of overtime monies for the EIR consultant to prepare the response document, short turn-around submission of technical infor- mation , requested of the sponsor, and exclusive devotion to the project by assigned County staff. In our experience, it is difficult to meet a 3-4 month schedule for the phase when a project is complex, highly technical, and controversial like a landfill. The volume of comments is hard to foresee, as is the level of difficulty in responding to them. Some additional technical work is frequently done to fur- ther test or substantiate the DEIR'.s conclusions. Often, the Planning Commis- sion itself initiates inquiries after public testimony has been completed, necessitating an EIR Addendum. Also, it must be recognized that the phase is subject to delaying tactics by project opponents, such as proliferating basic questions into scores of inqui- ries. If the comment-and-response effort exceeds that contemplated by the consultant's contract, the contract would have to be amended through a Board of Supervisors' action, which itself takes time to process. R As noted, the existing landfill review process contemplates that the sponsor will file for the project's Land Use Permit and related planning approvals late in Phase III. One reason for having the application(s) submitted then rather than earlier is to enable the sponsor to have the benefit of most of the EIR work to fine-tune the development plan and operating program proposed in the Land Use Permit application to include EIR mitigation measures -and suggestions. Another reason for not accepting the Land Use Permit application earlier is that the Land Use Permit is a "development project" which is legally subject to 12 to 15 month processing constraints, and this is too optimistic a timeline from .the beginning of an EIR (with the acceptance of a General Plan Amendment) to- ,the Board of Supervisors' adoption of a Land Use Permit. Waiting until this phase to receive the Land Use Permit application does not lose time for the project. Phase IV, Planning Commission- Permit Review Phase IV, the County Planning Commission's consideration of the project's Land Use Permit (and Agricultural Preserve Cancellation and Rezoning, if applicable) normally would begin when the Commission is able to approve the Final Environ- mental Impact Report--that is, when the Commission and the public have all the EIR information available to them. Often, the Land Use Permit and related items are placed on the Commission agenda along with the approval of the Final EIR. This means that the preparation of notices (in Phase III) preceded the hearing by almost a month. Page 7 In the cases of the Central, Kirker Pass, and East Contra Costa landfill projects, the applicants introduced their projects before the final EIR'S were completed (but after the EIR hearings were closed) and hearings were held on "model" sets of conditions before the staff-recommended Land Use Permit condi- tions of approval were introduced and heard. That process was used to draft approval conditions not available at that time and was atypical. The 2-month to 3-month timeline for Phase IV in Tables 1 and 2 is quite short when it is understood that hearing notices must be prepared and provided to newspapers at least 2 weeks in advance of the initial public hearings, that a staff report (often extensive for a landfill) must be prepared and provided to the Commission, that the Commission may need to hold more than one hearing, that the Commission may request more information from the sponsor or staff (often considerable) and that extensive findings must be prepared for a project, after the conclusion of public testimony, before a project can be acted on (if it is to be approved) .by the Commission. In short, there is no practicable way of reducing the 2-month low-range timeline shown on Tables 1 and 2 because it already depends on noticing and paperwork previously performed in Phase III. Phase V, Board of Supervisors Project Hearings In Phase V, the Board of Supervisors is asked to confirm the County Planning Commission's approval of the project's Environmental Impact Report (complete its certification) , adopt the amendments to the County General Plan and Solid Waste Management Plan, approve a Rezoning and related actions if required, approve the Land Use Permit, and adopt appropriate findings. The phase begins immediately after the Planning Commission's adoption of findings and ends with the filing of a CEQA Notice of Determination. The low-end timeline of one month shown in Tables 1 and 2 for the phases (1 month to 2 months) is not reducible. It assumes that staff will make pre- arrangements with the Clerk of the Board to reserve a hearing date, that the Planning Commission's findings will be largely adequate, and that the Board will need to hold only one hearing. (By way of contrast, the Kirker Pass. Waste Management Landfill and East Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill projects went to the Board in late July, 1987, and were originally scheduled for final decision in mid-December, 1987. ) Phase VI, Responsible Agency Referrals and Final Design Phase VI covers the period between the Board of Supervisors' approval of the planning entitlements for a landfill and the administrative approval of its final design plan and the issuance of its Solid Waste Facilities Permit (opera- tions permit) through the County Health Services Department. An important aspect of the phase is that the cities and regulatory agencies require the Coun- ty's certified Environmental Impact Report in order to act on the project. Page 8 Tables 1 and 2 show a 10-month to 2-year timeline for Phase VI. The length of the range .reflects the uncertainty over how long it will take the project spon- sor to prepare highly technical submittals to various regulatory agencies and how long it will take these agencies to approve the submittals. Concurrent actions include the approval of . the Solid Waste Management Plan by the cities and by the California Waste Management Board. It is only near the end of Phase -V-I,,--when -t-,he-=County =is -reviewing-the f:final-..deveaopment---plan--(-Development and Improvements Plan) and preparing the Solid Waste Facilities Permit that the "critical path" is under the control of the County. Expediting Phase IV, then, is largely up to the project sponsor. The project sponsor possibly can accelerate the time required for Phase. VI by establishing working relationships with regu-latory agency staffs prior to Phase VI and by carrying out final studies and by preparing detailed plans while the project's Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment is being considered by the cit- ies and the California Waste Management Board. It is conceivable that the project sponsor can bring about a somewhat shorter Phase VI by the early preparation of the various submittals to the regulatory agencies and the County, but. not much below the 10-month short-end timeline (say, by about a month) . Post-Approval Activities The final phase in the landfill development lies between the California Waste Management Board's review of a project(s) Solid Waste. Facilities Permit and the opening of the landfill. This is basically the construction phase, although public agencies are involved in inspection activities and in some construction permit approval activities. Table 1 shows a 1-year to 2-year timeline for this phase, but estimating a time- line without Land Use Permit conditions of approval and construction plans is highly speculative. Every landfill's construction program is unique. The critical path for construction is likely to be the installation of off-site improvements rather than site development itself. The particular construction that is likely to be the most troublesome is the improvement of off-site access roads between a freeway and the landfill entrance to accommodate heavy transfer van trucks, but the extension of water service, if required, can be difficult to accomplish too. In the case of the proposed Marsh Creek landfill, a major question at this time is when the "Delta Expressway" will be available for use if this proposed thoroughfare is to accommodate landfill traffic between the present State High- way 4 freeway and Marsh Creek Road. Another major question is the availability of an East County transfer station. It is doubtful that self-hauler traffic can be allowed direct access to a Marsh Creek landfill, and it is likely that the distance to the. Marsh Creek location justifies transferring solid waste from route collection vehicles to transfer vans as well. Either the landfill sponsor or the East County collector could provide an East County facility (or facilities) but there is no currently proposed transfer station. Page 9 It is noted that the County probably will be placing into operation several new or enhanced waste management and inspection programs during this phase. This assumes that the project's Land Use Permit conditions of approval and, possibly, Development Agreement will contain similar provisions to those developed for the Kirker Pass and East Contra Costa landfill projects. —Since—this—construct-ion---phase I s__1arge.ly_-at__the_init ative._.of--the--sponsor.,---and subject to such things as seasons, the weather, and possible dependence on other projects, the ability of the County to influence its duration is slight. None- theless, if everything else fell into place with unusual alacrity, County staff might be able to expedite inspections and organize programs affecting a landfill (since the financial support for these activities will be provided by the spon- sor) and shorten the schedule by, say, a month. TABLE 2 EXISTING LANDFILL APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURE Nominal Time Line PRE-APPLICATION PHASES (18 mo - 36 mo) (1) PHASE A Sponsor CCCCDD Staff(2) 12 mo. - 24 mo. SITE °Investigate sites 'Perform site studies SELECTION gSelect site °Provide information °Buy/option site PHASE B Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 6 mo. - 12 mo. PRE-APPLICATION 'Perform site- °Identify application ACTIVITIES specific studies requirements appro- °Prepare Compre- priate to site hensive Project Description Board of Supervisors °Submit General Plan Amendment review 'Authorize staff to authorization conduct a General request Plan Amendment review ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT PROCESSING PHASES (22 mo. - 44 mo. ) PHASE I Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 2 mo. - 3 mo. PROJECT REVIEW °Submit Compre- °Review Comprehensive START-UP hensive Project Project Description Description for completeness. 'Submit General OAccept General Plan Plan Amendment Amendment application application °Perform initial CEQA °Submit request for review (assume EIR) . Solid Waste Man- °Prepare CEQA Notice agement Plan of. Preparation Amendment package and file °Comment on EIR with State Clearing- consultant selection house (maximum 30 and EIR scoping. days) . °File NOP with State Clearinghouse (maximum 30-day response period) PHASE I Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 'Recruit EIR consultant. °Scope EIR with Responsible Agencies and public. Board of Supervisors °Transmit Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment request to Solid Waste Commission. 'Execute EIR consultant contract. PHASE II Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 4 mo. - 6 mo. DRAFT EIR °Provide additional °Manage consultant DEVELOPMENT information, as preparation of Draft needed. EIR. °Critique consultant's drafts. °Manage review of Administrative Draft, DEIR. °Approve and publish DIER. PHASE III Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 3 mo. - 6 mo. DEIR °File Land Use 3 'Prepare notices REVIEW Permit (etc. )( ) °Distribute DEIR applications °File CEQA Notice for Phase 4 of Completion °Provide informa- (minimum 45-day tion DEIR Review and Comment period) . Notice DEIR completion and public hearing. °Prepare staff reports. °Produce hearing transcript. 'Produce EIR Response Document 'Prepare GPA for Phase IV 'Prepare Solid Waste Management Plan amend- ment for Phase IV. PHASE III Sponsor County Planning Commission 'Hold EIR public hearing(s) . °Act on Final EIR. PHASE IV Sponsor CCCCDD Staff 2 mo. - 3 mo. PLANNING Present project. °Prepare and distribute COMMISSION °Provide informa- public hearing notices. PERMIT tion. °Prepare staff report(s) . REVIEW °Prepare responses to County Planning Commission inquiries. °Prepare resolutions, findings, and trans- mittal document. County Planning Commission °Conduct permit hearings. OAct on permit applications. °Adopt findings on EIR, permits. County Solid Waste Commission °Review CoSWMP amendment request. °Transmit recommendation to Board of Supervisors. PHASE V Sponsor Clerk of the Board 1 mo. - 2 mo. BOARD OF 'Present project. °Prepare and distribute SUPERVISORS °Provide informa- public hearing notices. PROJECT tion. °Record hearings. HEARINGS °Prepare decision documents. CCCCDD Staff Prepare and present staff report(s) °Respond to the Board inquiries. 'File CEQA Notice of Determination. Board of Supervisors °Conduct public hearing(s) . °Act on Final EIR, GPA, CoSWMP and LUP (etc. ) applications. PHASE VI Sponsor Board of Supervisors 10 mo - 24 mo RESPONSIBLE 'Provide Final EIR °Transmit Solid Waste AGENCY to Responsible Management Plan REFERRALS & Agencies. Amendment to cities FINAL DESIGN °Present project to and California Waste cities and Management; support California Waste reviews. Management Board. °Carry out additional CCCCDD Staff studies and design improvements, as °Review studies and required by County final design plan. and regulatory °Prepare implementation agencies. agreements. °Submit permit °Approve final design applications to plan. regulatory agencies. °Prepare and provide Health Services Dept. final design plan to County. 'Participate in project °Submit Solid Waste reviews. Facilities Permit °Prepare, approve, and application to transmit Solid Waste County; support Facilities Permit. permit before California Waste Public Works Dept. . Management Board. °Obtain LAFCO °Participate in project approvals, if reviews. required. °Review proposed off- °Obtain necessary site improvements. construction permits and approvals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POST-APPROVAL ACTIVITIES (12 mo. - 24 mo. ) Sponsor County Staff °Install off-site improvements. Obtain inspection specialist (e.g. , °Install on-site improvements. geo-technical inspector) . °Obtain necessary waste stream °Manage inspection program. commitments. °Review/implement resource recovery, Initiate applications for associated out-reach, and other programs required .facilities (i.e. , transfer station) by Land Use Permit Permit and Solid if not a component of the primary Waste Facilities Permit. project. (1) "Nominal" in this case is an expected optimal time range which is based on experience. It is neither the minimum which can be plotted on a flow chart, nor the worst case. (2) The County Community Development Department is identified as the lead department; other County departments, particularly the County Administra- -tor, -County Counsel, Health -Services, :and -.Public Works, -.will be- s: gnif.i- cantly involved. (3) "Etc." could include the cancellation of an Agricultural Preserve and the approval of a Rezoning, if necessary. CAZ:jn 6d:expedite.txt