HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05011990 - S.4 i
S. 4
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY; CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 1, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
(See below for vote)
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: Closure of the GBF Landfill
Prior to the Board considering the recommendations of Supervisor
Torlakson relative to the closure of the GBF Landfill, Supervisor
Schroder advised that he would be absenting himself from the
discussion and voting on this matter because of possible conflict of
interest.
The Board then proceeded to consider the recommendations of
Supervisor Torlakson on this matter. A copy of the recommendations
are attached and included as a part of this document. Supervisor
Torlakson advised that the GBF Landfill has exceeded the height limit
as specified in its land use permit. He commented on the need to
pursue closure of the site and the costs related to closure and
expressed a desire to have information on this matter as soon as
possible. He also recommended that this matter be referred to the
Environmental Affairs Committee so that closure of this landfill can
be monitored with monthly status reports provided to the Board in
terms of adherence to established timetables.
In response to the Chair' s inquiry, S. Marchesi, Assistant County
Counsel, advised that at the request of the California Integrated
Waste Management Board the County Health Officer (as the local
enforcement agent) issued a Notice and Order which provided for a
90-day period ( to expire at the end of May 1990) to require compliance
of the landfill operator not to exceed the limit of the permit either
in the daily volume that is accepted or in the elevation. Noting that
the operator had exceeded the elevation limit, Mr. Marchesi advised
that at the end of the 90-day period the Health Services Director must
decide whether to initiate proceedings to revoke, suspend, or modify
the existing permit, or to petition the court for an injunction to
stop GBF from violating the permit.
Supervisor Fanden advised that she would like to have a status
report pertinent to the -discussion of the Board on this subject today.
She expressed concern that approximately 500 tons of garbage a day
from the City of Concord are being deposited at the GBF Landfill.
She advised that she did not believe it is right for the "City of
Concord to dump on Antioch" or that the City of Antioch should be the
host for Concord' s garbage. She advised that she is disappointed with
the City of Concord in its lack of assistance to the Board in the
landfill crises and of its position on the proposed Garaventa Landfill
site that will be on the June 5, 1990 ballot. She expressed concern
that the City of Concord may not be acting in the best interests of
Contra Costa County. Supervisor Fanden expressed disappointment with
the City of Concord in its legal action against Supervisor Schroder.
For the reasons as noted, Supervisor Fanden advised of her desire to
have a complete and immediate investigation as to why the County
Health Department and the State are still allowing deposits of garbage
from Concord to go to Antioch. Noting that the County has an export
agreement with Solano County and the potential of export agreements
with other jurisdictions, Supervisor Fanden questioned the need for
the City of Concord to export its garbage to the Antioch landfill
site.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, noted that in 1988 the
County had submitted a request to Mr. Garaventa, owner of the GBF
Landfill, soliciting his assistance in accepting an increased volume
of garbage at the GBF Landfill prior to the execution of export
agreements and to work with the County during this period. He noted
that preparation of the GBF Landfill Environmental Impact Report was
given a low priority pending completion of the Environmental Impact
reports for the proposed new landfill sites. He advised of a meeting
next week with County Counsel and the Health Officer to discuss this
situation.
Supervisor McPeak commented on the order of the Board for
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on the GBF site. She
spoke on the need to get closure timetables not only on the GBF
Landfill but also on the other landfill sites in the County. She
referred to the recycling programs initiated by Contra Costa County
aimed at extending the life of a landfill. She noted that the cities
and sanitation districts have the authority to franchise waste
collectors and spoke of the need to require extensive recycling
programs within all jurisdictions in the County.
Supervisor Torlakson further recommended that the County
Administrator and Director of Community Development prepare a list of
the communities using the GBF site in the last year and who would be
using it in the next several months. He commented on the need to have
all information available. He again reaffirmed the need to get the
all the timetables particularly on the GBF site.
Michael McCabe, attorney representing Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill ( the operator of the GBF site) , 2300 Clayton Road, Concord,
referred to Recommendation No. 1 and advised that the timetable for
closure is dependent on the volume of garbage delivered to the site,
i.e. the greater the volume delivered to the site, the sooner the site
will be closed. He noted that the GBF landfill is currently receiving
garbage from Central County ( from Pleasant Hill Bay Shore) and have
been taking garbage from the City of Antioch at the specific request
of the County in 1988 . He referred to a request presented at a
meeting of November 1988 with County officials in which his client was
requested to apply for a height modification to 300 feet at the site.
Mr. McCabe advised that engineering studies concluded that a 275 foot
height limit was appropriate and that his application was based on the
lower figure. He stated that his client had payed $160,000 to fund an
Environmental Impact Report on this height modification.
Mr. McCabe advised that closure plans for the site have been
prepared and filed with the Regional Water Quality Board and
Supervisor Torlakson. He referred to a recent meeting with represen-
tatives of the City of Antioch at which the City was requested to
present his client with their proposal for mitigation measures and
closure design. He advised that his client has filed with the State
an estimate of the closure costs for this site based on a 275 foot
height limit.
Mr. McCabe then referred to the toxic issue relative to this
landfill. He advised that his client purchased the GBF site in
December 1973 and that his client has not deposited any hazardous
material at the site which is the depository for household waste and
non-hazardous industrial waste.
Supervisor Fanden requested a report on the hazardous and toxic
materials deposited at the GBF site and potential impact of this
material on the closure.
David Tam, representing the Delta Group of the Sierra Club and
himself, spoke on the need to move forward with the closure and the
potential for increased export costs.
Jean Last, 7765 Lone Tree Way, Brentwood, commented on the
Board' s decision relative to the Marsh Canyon Landfill site and
potential cost of the Delta Expressway.
i
' . I
Ira Thierer, as Chairman of the GBF Respondents' Group and as an
employee of the IT Corporation, 4585 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez,
commented on the disposition of hazardous waste at the site by
Industrial Tank prior to the purchase of the site by the Garaventa
family. He referred to the position of the County Health Department
that at this point there is no negative impact on the public health
relative to the GBF site, but he cautioned that actions taken for
closure or continued operation may adversely impact the movement of
that toxic material. He advised that this was the concern of the
Respondents ' Group and requested the Board to monitor the relation of
the closure plan to the toxic materials deposited there.
Supervisor Torlakson moved approval of the five recommendations
with the inclusion of Recommendation No. 6 to require staff to provide
monthly status reports to the Board after the timetable is esta-
blished; Recommendation No. 7 to have Health/Community Development
departments ' staff prepare a list of current communities/jurisdictions
and projected future depositors using the GBF site; and Recommendation
No. 8 to have staff report to the Board on staffing requirements for
the preparation of the export agreements and procedures associated
with the closure.
Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: Supervisor McPeak
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers, Schroder
ABSTAIN: None
Supervisor McPeak advised that she could not support the motion
because of the need to review the EIR and information in it inorder to
be able to carry out the commitment the Board made in requesting that
it be done; concern with Recommendation No. 3 relative to the May 15,
1990 due date for a detailed report on the closure; and Recommendation
No. 5 relative to the position of the City of Antioch on this matter.
She also expressed reservations with Recommendation No. 2. She
proposed that decision on these items be deferred to allow her further
opportunity for review and consider them again at the May 8, 1990
Board meeting.
Supervisor Torlakson then moved Recommendation No. 1 requesting a
status report as amended to include an estimate of capacity available
at existing landfills, amount of work involved with reference to the
export agreements, and the assignment of staff to these components.
Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:
AYES: Supervisors McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Powers, Schroder
ABSTAIN: None
The Board then agreed to consider Recommendations Nos. 2 through
5 at the May 8 , 1990 Board meeting.
1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct Copy of
cc• Director, CDD an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
County Administrator ATTESTE[� �. /
County Counsel PHIL.BATCH OR,CIM of the Board
Of Supervisors and County AdminWrator
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Cv' "r`^
Supervisor Tom Torlakson �S♦a
DATE: May 1, 1990 COu�/
SUBJECT: SETTING AND COML�IITING TO A TIMETABLE FOR THE CLOSURE ' "r
OF THE GBF LANDFILL
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECO]EME DED ACTION
1 . Request an immediate status report on the timetable for
the closure of the GBF landfill site currently operating in Antioch.
2 . Issue Board commitment to a vigorous height enforcement
and closure schedule. All possible efforts should be made to close
the site by the end of 1990 .
3 . Request that a precise timetable, detailing the closure
steps, be presented for adoption by the Board of Supervisors at its
meeting of May 15, 1990 .
4 . Urge the City of Antioch to accelerate its discussion
with the owners of the GBF landfill operation regarding the details of
the closure and the city's host community mitigation concerns.
5 . Request that the City of Antioch submit their host
community mitigation request and closure recommendations within four
weeks .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the past several months, I
have met with Antioch city officials, including Mayor Joel Keller and
City Manager Lee Walton on several occasions, and on one occasion with
Councilmembers Barbara Price and Mary Rocha regarding this closure
matter.
While the county has proceeded with enforcement and closure
steps, I believe a much more vigorous staff effort needs to be brought
into effect to most through the closure steps and to accomplish
necessary export agreements . Things have been moving much too slowly!
All the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, and Pittsburg
need to be involved in both the closure process and the export
agreement negotiations .
As I have stated previously, whatever closure costs or
mitigation costs are not collected and banked between now and the end
of th year can be collected through the transfer stations and spread
to historic site users in a similar way that we have done at Acme.
TT:gro
CONTIPM-E�PljM@HMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
CTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: � ND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAI AN TERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUP ORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED
Phil Batchelor, f the Board of
Supervisors and County istrator
892/7.88 BY DEPU Y
y
cE L
300
Tom Torlakson ''` _'
• %'" Fist Leland Rd.
Supervisor, District Five -� Suite 100
Pittsburg,California 94565
Contra Costs County z�,. � -��.;:,�� (415)427-8138
(Board of Supervisors lifts
r'4
co
February 16, 1990
Dear Resident:
Many questions have been generated over the last year regarding the closure of the Antioch-
GBF Landfill Site. While the county staff and I have been working on this issue,you may not have been
fully aware of the steps we have taken and are in progress of conducting. Please refer to the 12/19/88
report that Tom Powers and I brought to the Board of Supervisors which reflects the action we took at
that time.
As many of you know,I began my community service in East County over 15 years ago with
efforts to eliminate problems at the Industrial Tank site and other landfill sites operating along Paso Corto
Road (now James Donlon Blvd). A group of your neighbors and I formed'Antioch Citizens for Clean Air
and Water'to fight for closure of the city facility and Industrial Tank's hazardous waste dump. Subse-
quently,several of these sites were closed. I am committed and very strongly pushing to get the current
site closed in a timely fashion and safely!
Recent studies on the GBF site that were completed this fall involved a topographical aerial
survey and have indicated that the site is now higher than its permitted limit of 240 feet. Notification was
.made to the landfill operator of this. (See attached letters.) Meetings are scheduled in the next couple of
weeks with the site operator, city officials and county officials.
I have recommended a strategy of working with the City of Antioch,the cities which currently use
the landfill site,and the landfill site operator,to develop a timetable to close out the garbage operation.
I truly believe the end is in sight—but that needs to be defined in definite terms for you,the residents in
the vicinity of the site,for the operator,for the city, and all other parties concerned.
I have been in discussions with the parties involved and believe we can resolve this issue well
within the year. The situation is, however, complicated by issues of jurisdiction. The requirements for
the closure plan and for financing that closure plan are in the hands of the State Solid Waste Manage-
ment Board.While we have no direct authority in this matter,the county is working with that Board and
the site operator to get the details of the plan developed and thoroughly scrutinized. That plan is not
legally required to be on file until July 1, 1990. 1 want to be fully assured that there is adequate financing
available to fund a'state of the art'closure that is attractive and safe for our community and your neigh-
borhood in particular. I am working to get preliminary details of the closure plan and its costs as soon as
possible to make them available for public review and input from the city and from your neighborhood.
In addition,some aspects of the closure plan will need to be implemented as soon as feasible, including
landscaping if possible.
The other process regarding the enforcement of the current height limit is in the hands of the
Contra Costa County Health Department. However,we have the very pointed dilemma of having
practically no existing capacity left in Contra Costa County landfills or in completed export agreements to
handle the 700 to 800 tons per day that are currently being dumped In the Antioch-GBF Landfill Site. I
have been in contact with the mayors and council members of the cities of Pittsburg,Antioch, Clayton,
Concord and Brentwood as well as leaders of the unincorporated communities of Oakley,Bethel Island,
Knightsen, Discovery Bay, Byron and West Pittsburg which are currently using the Antioch landfill site to
alert them that we must work together to find an alternative location and work together to assure
i
February 12, 1990
Page TWO
adequate closure costs of the Antioch site. Some additional costs related to closure and mitigation
(enhanced closure) may have to be passed on to the rate payers as is now currently being done by
higher rates passed on to customers as a result of increased tipping fees for closure costs.
One major, immediate challenge, of course, is trying to get a location for the new landfill. Until a
new landfill site is approved by the Board of Supervisors,we are going to have difficulty getting
export agreements in other counties. We have completed the agreement with Alameda County for
1100 tons per day on a five day week. We have nearly completed the agreement with Solano County
and have been working diligently on all of these agreements for the past 20 months. I have initiated
discussions also with my fellow supervisors in San Joaquin and Santa Clara counties for further export
agreements to handle the'Antioch-GBF waste stream'. These discussions have been in progress, but
the process Is not a quick or easy one to resolve. You can well Imagine that other counties do not feel
very comfortable in taking garbage when we in this county should have a landfill site to take care of our
own.
You are also probably aware of my long-standing policy of opposition to having landfill sites near
homes. When I was on the Antioch City Council, I fought against the Mira Vista Hills subdivisions
because I didn't want new home buyers to suffer the consequences which your neighborhood has had
to live with for so many years due to previous planning mistakes of the Antioch City Council in allowing
neighborhoods to develop close to the landfill sites. I am adamantly opposing any landfill sites near
current urban residential areas, such as we have in the case of the proposed new Garaventa site in
Antioch and the'Super'Keller-Bailey site next to residential neighborhoods in Pittsburg. I am hopeful
that within a month the Board of Supervisors will resolve the issue of a new landfill site which will make it
easier to get the export agreements to San Jose's Kirby Canyon site accomplished in Santa Clara
County.
I have also been investigating the FHA Ode facto redlining'that has occurred in your
neighborhood area and the depression of value increases in property. This policy is discriminatory.and
unfair to your neighborhood. if you have had direct experience with such difficulties in obtaining
financing for your home purchase or difficulties in re-sale efforts, please contact my office with the
information (427-8138). 1 am working to correct this situation both by directly eliminating the problem by
getting closure accomplished and by directly working with the FHA and Congressman Miller's office to
end the policy that currently exists.
This is the first in a series of reports I intend to share with you regarding the progress on this
Issue. I am also planning a community meeting this spring to go over everything in more detail with all of
you on our progress in resolving these tough issues.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
TT:cad
Attachments:
�$J BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FRO MI
(�
► Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra
Supervisor Tom Powers Costa
DATEI December 20, 1988 County
' SUBJECTI REVIEW OF CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSFER OF THE ACME FILL
WASTESTREAM TO ANTIOCH GBF AND RICHMOND SITES
SPECIFIC REOUESTIS) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) Et BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION•
(1) Direct the County Administrator and the Community
Development Department to review the consequences of the transfer of
:the Acme Fill wastestream to the Antioch GBF and Richmond Sanitary
sites and request the input of the City of Antioch and the operators
of the sites. Refer also to the Solid Waste Commission for its
review.
(2) Request the operators of GBF, Richmond Sanitary and
Acme Fill to submit a closure plan as soon as possible to the Solid
Waste Commission for approval. Request responses from the City.of
Antioch, the City of Richmond, and the operators by mid-January, 1989.
(3) Direct staff to return with a report so the Board can
consider further work, city input and committee referrals.
BACKGROUND.INFORMATION: With the pending closure of Acme
Fill, it is clear a great proportion of the Acme wastestream will be
transferred to the Antioch landfill site. A significant amount will
also be transferred to the Richmond site. These transfers will have
numerous significant impacts. These impacts represent both a
challenge and an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to
demonstrate how a landfill site can be and should be operated in an
environmentally appropriate manner.
As a Board, we have indicated that we want new landfill
activities to be operated at the "state-of-the-art". Odors, dust,
litter, road impacts by trucks, adequate cover material and complete
daily coverage of the trash are some of the very important issues that
must be addressed. They should be and must be addressed in these
transfer situations to the Antioch and Richmond sites. The volume of
garbage to Antioch may nearly triple. Therefore, the potential for
greatly increased impacts on the surrounding community increases
dramatically. If most of the cover material has to be imported by
trucks, the traffic impacts and road impacts will be all the greater.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT, YES SIGMA TUREI
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
BIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES$ NOES$ AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENTt ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES-OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CCI ATTESTED
Phil Oald►elor,Clerk of the Ooarll of
Supetviwi$aid Goun{y pd111WIS<"
M36217.03 BY DEPUTY
Transfer of Acme Fill Wastestream
December 20, 1988
Page TWO
Another issue which the Board of Supervisors has seriously
supported is that of ."host community" mitigation. The cities and the
public are watching to see how serious we are about taking care of
communities that will bear the burden of taking the county's garbage.
In East County, I believe the impacts of the truck traffic will
totally destroy Somersville Road and mitigation is needed for
rebuilding Somersville Road as well as mitigation of impacts on James
Donlan Blvd.
Additionally, there is the issue of closure Plans and the
adequate funding of appropriate plans-.-ones that are environmentally
responsible and fully satisfactory to the neighboring communities and
cities. The closures must be visually attractive and safe. Has the
funding been guaranteed and what is the schedule for financing the
plans and having public input to them? . Has a dedicated account been
set up? We should ask the City of Antioch and the City of Richmond
and the operators what their cost estimates and proposed funding
mechanisms are. In the Antioch case, for instance, If there is only
approximately one million tons of capacity left, there is not much
opportunity to collect surcharges to pay for mitigations--perhaps only
one year in terms of time. Time is running out.
Last, but not least, the same kind of closure information
needs to be obtained regarding Acme itself.
TT:gro
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM:
Supervisor Tom Torlakson C'.osta
• DATE: County
June 27, 1989
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING HEIGHT LIMIT
AT ANTIOCH LANDFILL SITE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the County Administrator and the
Community Development Director to provide the Board of Supervisors, by
the first meeting in August, with a report regarding the height limit
at the Antioch landfill site. The report should indicate the current
height level and the height limit established in any landfill permits.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYESI'• NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENTI ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC; ATTESTED
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County AdminisUalot
M392/7•83 BY DEPUTY
Vl(.A,1 T1(.)N OF PERMIT A14D DENIAL,
SUSPENSIUN OR REVCILATIUN OF
1. intentional or negligent violation of permit: �
Government Code Section 66796 . 5.1 provides for a civil penalty not to
exceed $1,000 dollars for each day such violation ,or operation
occurs. Should the Enforcement Agency fail to petition the
Superior Court to impose , assess and recover the penalty, the
Attorney General shall do so at the request of the State
Board.
2 . Revocation of permit:
Government Code Procedure Minimum Time
66796. 56 L.E.A: files an/ 10 Days for
accusation which is preparation and
served personally on review
perittittee .or by
registered •rnail.
66'196. 56 Permittee, within 20 days
20 d&ys after being
served with the
accusation, may
:request a hearing.
66796 . 58 Hearing panel to be 20 days
appointed by the
local governing
bode.
66796 . 59 Conduct hearing, 45 days
determine the facts
and issue a decision.
66796 . 59 Decision by hearing 30 days
i
panel.
j 66796. 59 Effective date of *30 days
heari-nq panels
decision.
155 Days
*Y;ay be extended if permittee files an appeal
to the State Board.
THE. STATE IS
C IANGING THIS PROCEDURE
4.XCo'1;.'•ir,�.,:
1 IVLAI ll I `, vl V IV Iva
Costa " ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
County
•J � y4
October 17 , 1989
Contra Costa solid Waste Inc. & GBF Co.
P. O. Box 5397
4080 Mallard Dr.
Concord, CA 94520
Attn: Mr. Syl Garavanta, Sr. .
Dear Mr. Garavanta: Re: Pittsburg & GBF Disposal
Site Elevations
This is a formal request for an updated topographical survey
of the East County Landfills. The survey must. include as a
minimum contour levels at two foot intervals . A new aerial
survey must be completed as part of the process . We will
appreciate your cooperation in expediting the submittal of this
information. We would like to have the new survey no later than
11/1/89 .
As you know there is currently some confusion relative to
what the current elevations actually are. We must be in a
position to respond accurately to questions related to current
elevations and estimate remaining capacity based on current and
projected elevations .
It is extremely important that the updated survey be
professionally certified and that the name and registration
number of the certifier appear on the survey.
The updated survey will no doubt be subjected to scrutiny by
a number of individuals and/or organizations. Because of this it
is most important that the report be complete in every detail and
a description of the procedures used should accompany the report.
Please don' t hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions . Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
William Walker, M.D.
Health officer and
Env. Health Director
WW:JB:jc
e
cc : Sarah Hoffman
Chuck Zahn
Please Raply or Calc Paul Kilkinney
East/Cenlral Office ❑Occupational Health ❑West Office
1111 Ward Street 1111 Ward Street 39th St.&Bissell Ave.
Martii fez.California 94553 Martinez.California 94553 Richmond,California 94805
(415)846.2521 (415)646-2286 (415)3.74-3141
l�V; i l f c� ' •Y-"" '
'C® } ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION '
County HAND DELIVERED
12/8/89
CERTIFIED MAIL I;AB p.m.
December 6, 1989
Contra Costa Waste Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 5397
Concord, CA 94520
Attn: Silvio Garaventa, Sr.
Dear Mr. Garaventa:
Re : 1. Contra Costa Solid Waste Inc. and G.B.F. Disposal Site
Solid Waste Facility Permit 407-AA-003
2. Pittsburg Disposal Site
Solid Waste Facility Permit 407-AA-004
We have• reviewed the November, 1989 topographic map for the disposal
sites which you .are now operating as the Contra Costa Landfill
and for which a Solid Waste Facilities Permit is pending. The
permits under which you are operating are as specified above.
There are two major issues related to your existing operating
permits that are of significant concern to us as the Local Enforce-
ment Agency. The first concern is that existing disposal site
elevations appear to exceed the elevations described in the
facility permits. As you know the Contra Costa Solid Waste Permit
refers to a final elevation of 220 feet. The Pittsburg permit
indicates final elevation of the site to be 230 feet. The
November 1989 topographic mapping shows that substantial portions
of both sites appear to exceed the elevations referenced .in the
" U permits.
A second concern is the volume of waste currently received at
the site and the reference to such in the permits. As you know
the daily tonnages refernced in the permit are 16.0 tons daily
for Pittsburg and 150 daily tons for the G.B.F. site.
Pleas( PANY or Call:
1ap��Ea)ti Gnt►al Office p Occuwtional Health [3 West office
r 1111 wlkrd street 1111 Word Street 89Th St&Sleaell Ave.
� Ml itlnez,Calllornle 94553 Martinez,CaldornN 94553 It-A! Richmond.California 94WS
(41 �846•Z521 (416)Wti•�86
(4151374-3141
Contra costa waste
- Servicei# Inc. -2- December 8, 19$9
It is imperative that you and/or your- designated representatives
arrange to meet with us immediately to discuss these issues. We
plan to hold this meeting no later than . St00 p.m. on Decembei 12,
1989. Please contact us as soon as possible so that the time
and place for the meeting can be arranged.
Sincerely,
Jim Slakes R.E.H.S.
Supervising Environmental
Health Inspector
JBsll
cc: Mark Finucane
Dr. Walker
Syl Marchesi
say ah Hoffman
Chick Zahn
w.
1ti
--------------------------------------------
PO. Llrr.
Ilk .qf 24
w r.,
is Od
1144.:
IT
it
Ircr
. 4
r 5'. .
IK N
•, rx a S .
M yam' a ' g L.ti '.
; � �a: :.
it 44
rn
w
rn
irl 2. 0
R
z
o p � N
.4v I
cc
IKI
IL T
ra
•fit
M Y
N Its93
w
Oct
C3. OW
2A
tat-
U �p �A �' o� �' � p!'+c'� SQA • A .
W •. .
°dIs r ° v OS
• y► o''''ff �' .d �„' ,, �""�" js ,ap'• �.= he �o
CA
16
�r.+• • �'� ��pC ¢ � p_ �.�a pd'� r i"V �� v'�y
, . va �.
o i° �� �sq"••A v
4P 0 it v
'I S m
V av�� a oom�a.0G,
JA
Ali
`�- W N
is inv-
Wei
44� o °
Ila
'a
� , -`�a E�.,o' ��`�`�`•��off• +'� 6 �, �'��"''•s�:
.�.iQi�j •, _O dap $ fi f► '��� -
w y'v �.>1.7. � ,'?r•d,rij AA .�OJtl
a (I.• t"�iy. ?.:•i
irGA
44
s o
� m+~o,' r'$::w ,sem';,°, �;�. c9`� '�►'�• ddZZ
� wr40.
��'
,dd.p1 60
.Y niri`. - rrr a y 1 &O. n w 7 a� .�. rd q ,0,,•M
. .. •.�".r. ��A+ N tJ•1-
PA
p +' .'`'asq
.SII/. •S vim*%
wc+•Ca H w td y a+ ,cs $ ¢ 0 o
� s' '�! '',g ..'� tom,w.�ii !:. � � j�'.'> G.4•. � d T!` A '�y V� a
o :C ° S
NL..1-5 h p 8 tj
«� ap{e' �a �v % a w opt ° °�8 c? �,l; ;win �
A.C .: » A� .i va
O to12 S 4DAw G��•�1 n � .tip
��::;�"C, �� gYSi w �� ���,� a�,� c v .c�H �Cy� +b �.q° #u��y�� ✓s
d l t �% ,"e � 8 m �e"- o � � 8 .1 'n.es h 4s ,
�c w °' ar b w
a
LN w 9 a�
r.'
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: ��T`��
Supervisor Tom Torlakson C„S♦a
DATE: May 1, 1990 County
SUBJECT: SETTING AND CONK TING TO A TIMETABLE FOR THE CLOSURE
OF THE GBF LANDFILL
SPECIFIC eREQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) $ BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMI[ENDED ACTION•
1 . Request an immediate status report on the timetable for
the closu of the GBF landfill site currently operating in Antioch.
2 . Issue Board commitment to a vigorous height enforcement
and closure schedule. All possible efforts should be made to close
the site by the end of 1990 .
3 . Request that a precise timetable, detailing the closure
steps, be presented for adoption by the Board of Supervisors at its
meeting of May 15, 1990 .
4 . Urge the City of Antioch to accelerate its discussion
with the owners of the GBF landfill operation regarding the details of
the closure and the city's host community mitigation concerns.
5. Request that the City of Antioch submit their host
community mitigation request and closure recommendations within four
weeks .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the past several months, I
have met with Antioch city officials, including Mayor Joel Keller and
City Manager Lee Walton on several occasions, and on one occasion with
Councilmembers Barbara Price and Mary Rocha regarding this closure
matter.
While the county has proceeded with enforcement and closure
steps, I believe a much more vigorous staff effort needs to be brought
into effect to most through the closure steps and to accomplish
necessary export agreements. Things have been moving much too slowly!
All the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, and. Pittsburg
need to be involved in both the closure process and the export
agreement negotiations .
As I have stated previously, whatever closure costs or
mitigation costs are not collected and banked between now and the end
of th year can be collected through the transfer stations and spread
to historic site users in a similar way that we have done at Acme.
TT:gro
CONTIMV&&ME4cAHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER