HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06141988 - 2.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 14, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal in Contra Costa County
The Board received the attached report dated June 9,
1988 from Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, and Harvey Bragdon,
Community Development Director, relative to solid waste disposal
issues in Contra Costa County.
Board members discussed the various aspects of the
recommendations contained in the report, including appointment of
Board representatives to the Solid Waste Action Team, notification
of the cities, the need for Legislative assistance regarding the
environmental processes required for export of Contra Costa County
waste, the need for expeditious approval of Acme Landfill' s
proposed transfer station, and the feasibility of expansion of
other existing landfills in `the County.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the
following actions are APPROVED:
1. APPROVED recommendations contained in the attached
report from the County Administrator and Community
Development Department relative to actions to address
the short-term requirement for solid waste landfill
capacity;
2. APPOINTED Supervisors Nancy Fanden and Tom Torlakson to
represent the Board of Supervisors on the Solid Waste
Action Team (SWAT) ;
3. AUTHORIZED letters to the cities and sanitary districts
conveying the Board' s action and requesting that they
appoint an elected official and manager to the SWAT;
4. REQUESTED staff to schedule the first meeting of SWAT as
soon as possible;
5. AUTHORIZED Supervisor Tom Powers to contact the County' s
Legislation delegation to request assistance in hastening
the environmental processes for alternative sites for
diversion of Contra Costa County waste;
6. REQUESTED that the matter be included on the agenda of
the joint Alameda-Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference
meeting scheduled in July;
7. AUTHORIZED invitation to the County' s Legislative
delegation and representatives of the regulatory
agencies to attend SWAT meetings;
8. AUTHORIZED letter to the regulatory agencies urging
expeditious approval of Acme Landfill' s proposed
transfer station;
1
9. AUTHORIZED letters to cities and sanitary districts
requesting their support of the expeditious approval of
the Acme transfer station; and
10. REQUESTED Community Development Department to report on
expansion potential of the Contra Costa Waste Sanitary
Landfill.
cc: County Administrator
Community Development Director
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of SuperJ---
PVL;LL",A,
on the date sholwn.
ATTESTED: _0R, Clea; of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By , Deputy
2
Board of Supervisors
County •Administrator Contra
Tom Powers
County Administration Building Costa
os`ta 1st District
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor v t.t Nancy C.Fanden
Martinez.California 94553 County 2nd District
(415)646-4080
Robert 1. Schroder
Phil Batchelor 3rd District
County Administrator �``�"1se""_c".,o� Surma Wright McPeak
% •,• 4th District
= �► Tom Torlakson
5th District
l;�ti��'•�\,yam`j
June 9 , 1988
a cousin
Board of Supervisors
McBrien Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553-1290
Dear Board Members:
RE: Solid Waste Disposal in
Contra Costa County
I . RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Acknowledge the many positive steps which have already
been taken to address the long-term solution to solid
waste disposal in Contra Costa County, and to address
the short-term crisis in solid waste disposal.
These include approval of the 22 acre Acme Fill
expansion, approval of the 97 acre Acme Fill expansion,
the increase in the height limit on the 97 acre
Acme Fill expansion to 601 , having diligently promoted
negotiations among Oakland Scavenger, Acme Fill, and
the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, and
having permitted both an interim and permanent Transfer
Station at Acme Fill.
2. Recognize that an emergency situation exists and that
action must be taken immediately to address the
short-term problem in order to avoid a calamity.
Where we dispose of our garbage may become the most
compelling public issue in this County in 1989, and may
well become the major public policy concern of elected
officials, public managers, and the general public.
In order to alleviate this critical situation, we need
forceful and immediate action, NOW!
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 2
3 . Recognize the responsibility and authority of the many
jurisdictions which have a role in solving the
short-term problem and agree to take the initiative to
marshal these resources to tackle the problem.
To accomplish this it is recommended that the Board of
Supervisors invite one elected representative plus the
City Manager of each City in the County and one elected
representative plus the General Manager of each of the
eight sanitary districts in the County to join a
representative of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator to form a working group which
might be entitled the "Solid Waste Action Team" (SWAT) .
The goal of the SWAT should be to meet with all of the
involved parties, identify steps needed to insure a
solution to the short-term problem described below,
and recommend the actions which are necessary by each
jurisdiction to implement those solutions. This
should not be another study! This group, although
large, must be convened immediately and be prepared to
dedicate as much time and energy as is necessary to
SOLVE the short-term problem!
4. Appoint a member. of the Board of Supervisors to meet
with the committee appointed by the Mayors' Conference.
On June 2, 1988, the Mayors' Conference agreed to
appoint a three-member committee. The purpose of this
committee is to negotiate with the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority in an effort to break the log-jam
and make possible the use of Altamont Landfill for the
interim period until a new landfill site is operational
in Contra Costa County. The three members of the
committee are Councilwomen Rosemary Corbin (Richmond) ,
Avon Wilson (Lafayette and the Chair of the Solid Waste
Commission) and Nancy Parent (Pittsburg) . This
committee should work closely with the SWAT.
5. Reaffirm the Solid Waste Commission's role in long-term
solid waste planning and request that they monitor the
progress of the SWAT's short-term efforts to ensure
consistency with overall solid waste planning.
6 . Authorize Community Development Department staff to
provide staff support to the SWAT upon request from
the SWAT. Upon receipt of such a request, the Board
should direct that staff make this their highest
priority assignment.
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 3
II . DEFINITION OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM:
o One of the most frustrating elements of the solid waste
disposal dilemma is that by definition no single public
agency or private enterprise has sufficient statutory
control and authority over solid waste collection
and disposal to unilaterally dictate a solution to the
problem. Permits are required from a variety of
regional, state, and federal agencies, including the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Department
of Health Services, Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
California Waste Management Board, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
Environmental Protection Agency.
o Twenty-two public agencies in this County "franchise"
garbage collection, meaning that they authorize a
private company to collect garbage within the
geographic boundaries of the public agency and
determine how much the private company may charge for
the privilege of collecting the garbage. These 22
public agencies include 14 of the 18 cities in the
County and 8 sanitary districts.
o Each of these 22 public agencies is independent and
sovereign in the realm of solid waste franchising.
However, these sovereign public agencies only franchise
the collection of solid waste.
o In most cases, they do not determine how that solid
waste is disposed of once it is collected. This has
been delegated to the private sector. The franchised
private companies are generally left alone to determine
where they will dispose of the solid waste they have
collected. Identifying, designing, planning, financing
and operating a solid waste disposal site has
historically been left to the private sector in Contra
Costa County. The County Solid Waste Management Plan
has basic criteria for siting solid waste disposal
facilities, but does not identify specific future
sites.
o The Board of Supervisors has less authority and control
in directing the waste stream than any of the public
agencies that are involved in solid waste disposal.
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 4
Staff's best estimate at this time is that Acme Fill is
going to have to close somewhere between December, 1988
and February, 1989. There is absolutely no possibility
that a new landfill will be opened by then.
The important point which must be emphasized here is
that regardless of how the solid waste disposal issue
is resolved in the long-term, there is a short-term
problem NOW!
III • ACTIONS TAKEN TO DATE:
Over the past seven years many actions have been taken
to address the question of where we are going to put
our garbage. Although the Board members are aware of
these actions, it may be well to briefly recount some
of them here:
o In 1978, Acme Fill applied to the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers for a permit to expand into an
additional 200 acres because they realized that
their 125-acre site had a limited useful life.
o The Corps denied the expansion request in 1980 and
requested an Environmental Impact Report.
o In response to this delay, the Board of
Supervisors in 1981 approved an emergency
expansion into 22 acres which had not been
included in the original land use permit and was
not a part of the 200 acre expansion which was
still pending with the Corps of Engineers.
o In- September, 1983 the Corps of Engineers
announced they would not grant the entire 200 acre
expansion.
o Six years after the original request, the Corps of
Engineers in June, 1984 granted a permit for an
expansion into 97 acres of the 200 acres, but only
to a height of 40 ' or for three years, whichever
came first.
t
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 5
o Since it was clear at this point that the useful
life of Acme Fill had been substantially reduced
from what had originally been planned, efforts
were undertaken to identify alternate sites for a
new landfill.
o An application for a Transfer Station was received
in August 1986 and approved by the Board of
Supervisors in December 1987. Acme Fill now has
an approved land use permit for both an interim
and a permanent transfer station. The use of this
site as an interim transfer facility has recently
been complicated by the State Department of Health
Services since the existing 125 acre site
technically qualifies as a hazardous waste site.
As a result, the State Department of Health
Services (DOHS) has jurisdiction over the closure
of the 125 acre site rather than the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. DOHS has recently
objected to the use of the 125 acre site for any
other purpose during the closure process, which
will not be completed until January 1990. Staff
has strongly objected to DOHS' s position that the
site should not be used as an interim transfer
station until after the closure is completed in
1990. If an interim transfer station is not
allowed on this site the County will not have any
transfer facilities in place by January 1989.
DOHS conducted a hearing June 9 on the closure
plan and staff ' s objections were made a part of
the hearing record.
o In October and November 19'86 County Administrator
and Community Development Department staff made
special presentations to the cities warning that
unless Acme Fill obtained an extension we would
have a critical problem.
o The Board of Supervisors made an effort to gain
an extension for Acme Fill, allowing an increase
to 60 ' on the 97 acre parcel. This extension was
granted by the Corps of Engineers to be effective
June 15, 1987 for a period of not to exceed two
years. In granting the additional height, the
Corps of Engineers made it clear they were
reluctant to grant any extension of life to Acme
Fill.
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 6
It now appears likely that the 60 ' limit at Acme
Fill will be reached in January 1989, at which
time the 97 acre parcel will have to stop
accepting solid waste and Acme Fill will be
effectively shut down, leaving no remaining
landfill available in Central County.
o Numerous meetings were held beginning in 1986 and
extending to date to press for prompt negotiations
over the use of the Altamont Landfill in Alameda
County.
IV. ALTERNATIVES FOR DIVERSION OF CENTRAL COUNTY WASTES:
In an effort to plan for implementation of a contingency
plan at least twenty meetings have been held involving
County staff over the past twenty-four months, focused
primarily on achieving the extension of Acme Fill to 60 ' and
on exploring the use of Altamont Landfill in Alameda County
as an interim solution until a new landfill is operational
in Contra Costa County. Following is a brief description of
the six alternatives which have been most frequently
mentioned, the status of each, and the likelihood that the
alternative will be able to provide the County with a place
to dispose of central County' s solid waste six months from
now:
A. EXPAND ACME FILL
Acme Fill was originally planned to have a maximum
height of 751 . One possibility, which is being
actively pursued by Acme Fill and County staff
currently, is convincing the Corps of Engineers to
allow a further extension of Acme Fill to the
full maximum of 751 . Because of the slope required as
wastes are piled higher and higher, there is less and
less surface available the higher wastes are piled.
Therefore, the amount of wastes that can be contained
between 60 ' and 75 ' is substantially less than was
available between 40 ' and 601 . As we reported to the
Board in March, 1988 , if the Corps of Engineers were to
approve an extension to 751 , it would extend the life
of Acme Fill only two months. This estimate is borne
i
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 7
out in a letter from the President of Acme Fill which
indicates the additional 15 ' would add insignificant
capacity. Since it is unlikely that a new landfill can
be operational in less than two years from the date of
approval of a land use permit, Acme Fill cannot, by
itself, contain the solid waste generated in central
County during that period of time. It is, in addition,
highly questionable whether the Corps of Engineers
will agree to such an extension, given their reluctance
in 1987 to grant the extension to 601 . Acme Fill has
applied to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
Corps of Engineers for permission to use 24 acres of
the 103 acres remaining in the 200 acre portion of the
landfill. We are not optimistic that RWQCB will
approve this expansion, which would allow an additional
two years of capacity for Acme Fill.
B. DIVERSION TO WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
At current disposal rates, the West Contra Costa
Landfill (WCCSL) probably will have to close in
January, 1992. Since WCCSL presently receives about
900 tons a day and central County generates 1300 tons a
day, transporting all or most of central County' s waste
to WCCSL would require that WCCSL close at the
beginning of 1990. However, action by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board in the past several weeks
may have precluded the use of the WCCSL site even as an
emergency alternative. The RWQCB is planning to impose
new discharge requirements on the WCCSL and prohibit
the site from increasing the amount of wastes it
receives without prior approval from the RWQCB. This
is designed to prevent any further leachate and
stability problems until numerous investigations and
possible engineering work is completed. This work is
expected to take until at least 1990 to complete. West
County interests have asked that an Environmental
Impact Report be required to transport central County
wastes to WCCSL. It appears unlikely that this could
serve as a viable alternative in January 1989. The
RWQCB will be holding a hearing June 15 on this issue.
Staff will have a better understanding of the impact of
these requirements after that hearing.
I , I
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 8
C. DIVERSION TO EAST COUNTY
At current disposal levels, the existing Contra Costa
Waste Landfill (CCWL) will have to close at the end of
1990 . Approximately 600 tons a day are being disposed
of in CCWL. Adding all of central County' s wastes to
CCWL' s existing waste stream would mean some 1900 tons
a day would be going to CCWL. This would require CCWL
to close at the end of 1989, at which time there would
be no place to dispose of either central County or east
County' s wastes.
Even if otherwise a feasible alternative, the remaining
useful life of the CCWL cannot handle central County's '
wastes until a new landfill site becomes operational.
D. EXPORT TO SOLANO COUNTY
The voters of Solano County adopted an initiative
measure in 1984 which permits their landfill to accept
only 95,000 tons a year of imported wastes. ' If it were
possible to negotiate an agreement to use all of this
95,000 tons for central County wastes, Solano County
could accept 200 of the 1300 tons of waste that are
generated each day in central County. Solano County' s
95,000 ton per year limit equals 260 tons per day. In
addition, new imports designed to use up the entire
95,000 tons per year of import capacity would require
amendments to the Solano County Solid Waste Management
Plan and likely an Environmental Impact Report. If
these procedures can be completed by January this
would leave 80% of central County's wastes to be
disposed of elsewhere. It should be noted that Benicia
is currently exporting a portion of their wastes to
Acme Fill, a situation which might be . examined more
closely.
E. EXPORT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY
County staff has been meeting regularly since September
1986 with the owners of Acme Fill, Oakland Scavenger
(operators of the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County)
and representatives of the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority to encourage them to develop an
agreement under which Contra Costa County waste could
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 9
be exported to Alameda County and disposed of at
Altamont. These discussions have been going slowly due
to a variety of factors over which neither the
the Board of Supervisors nor County staff have control.
These include an export agreement between the solid
waste collection companies in Contra Costa County and
Oakland Scavenger Company. In addition, Oakland
Scavenger must apply to the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority for an amendment to Alameda
County' s Solid Waste Management Plan. Further, an
Environmental Impact Report will also be required.
The purchase of Oakland Scavenger by Waste Management,
Inc. , the purchase of Valley Disposal by Waste
Management Inc. , the subsequent sale of Valley
Disposal' s shares in Acme Fill and the resulting
lawsuit involving the remaining owners of Acme Fill has
certainly contributed to the delays experienced by the
private landfill operators in trying to obtain access
to the Altamont Landfill. The delays have been so
extended now that it seems questionable that all of the
necessary procedural steps can be accomplished by
January 1989.
In addition, the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority has imposed a requirement on new imports that
requires that Alameda County have available 50 years of
landfill capacity under public ownership or control as
a prerequisite for allowing new wastes to be imported.
Altamont Landfill does not currently meet the 50 years
under public ownership or control requirement. As a
result, importation of wastes from Contra Costa County
could involve an expansion of Altamont Landfill to meet
this requirement. This requirement, coupled with all
of the other complications makes it virtually
impossible to anticipate that Altamont Landfill can
accept central County wastes by January 1989, even
though this may be the most viable alternative and the
one which is being pursued.
F. EXPORT TO OTHER COUNTIES
One other alternative which probably deserves
exploration is the possibility of exporting central
County wastes to a county other than Solano or Alameda.
Santa Clara County has a new landfill in Kirby Canyon
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 10
which has surplus capacity. San Joaquin County is
another possibility if only because of its proximity.
Community Development Department staff are pursuing
information on these alternatives.
IN SUMMARY THEN:
o Further height extension on the existing 97 acre
site at Acme Fill will provide minimal additional
capacity for only two months.
o Further expansion into the 24-acre site at Acme
would be helpful, but is unlikely to be supported
by RWQCB. This expansion would provide an
additional two years of capacity.
o Diversion to West County does not currently appear
to be a viable option because it is dependent on
new RWQCB rules requiring RWQCB approval for
increased disposal volumes. In the long run using
up all of our scarce local landfill will only
compound the problem in 1989 and 1990.
o Diversion to East County also does not appear
to be a viable option at this time to handle the
short-term needs. Use of this option would also
compound our problems in 1989 and 1990.
o Export to Solano County can handle a portion of
the problem if it can be made a feasible
alternative.
o Despite urging from County staff Acme Fill
Corporation' s negotiations with Alameda County and
Oakland Scavenger have not to date resulted in an
agreement which can be in place, January 1, 1989.
o County staff is currently exploring the
exportation to other counties, such as Santa Clara
and San Joaquin.
In summary, at this time there does not appear to be a
single easy or readily identifiable solution to this
problem.
I
Board of Supervisors
June 9, 1988
Page 11
V,. CONCLUSION:
The inevitable conclusion that has to be reached is that we
do not now have a secure, viable place to put our solid waste
when Acme Fill closes six months from now. Therefore, immediate
action is required today to address this short-term problem,
regardless of how or when agreement is reached on a long-term
solution.
Very truly yours,
PHIL BATCHELOR HARVEY BR N
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR OF C111UNITY
DEVELOPMEN