HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05161995 - H4 H.4
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 16, 1995_, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Special Waste Disposal at Keller Canyon Landfill
The Board considered the report from the Health Services
Director and the Director of the Growth management and Economic
Development Agency on the scope and nature of special waste
disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill. (A copy of the report is
attached and included as a part of this document. )
The following persons presented comments relative to the
disposal of special waste at the landfill; impact of special
waste on the surrounding community; a proposal for the Board to
rescind its approval for BFI to collect special waste;
devaluation of property values; dust and air pollution; access by
the public to reports on what is deposited at the Keller Landfill
and particularly contaminated soils; truck routes to the Landfill
and the impact of these loaded vehicles on residential areas
along the transportation route, etc. :
Ken Etherington, BFI, (no address) ;
Lance Dow, 2232 Concord Drive, Concord;
Maggie Wise, 1148 Los Palos Court, Pittsburg;
Deborah Maghanoy, 2233 Montevideo Drive, Pittsburg;
Arif A. Khalik, 908 Rosewood Court, Pittsburg
Peter Dragovich, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive,
Concord;
Michael P. McGovern, 2237 Daffodil Drive, Pittsburg;
Frank Aiello, Citizens United, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg;
Ralph deVrios, 2250 Westwood Lane, Pittsburg;
Jeff Fennel, 2227 Montevideo Drive, Pittsburg;
Ron Desposito, 2263 Jacqueline, Pittsburg;
Frank Sharkey, 751 Bailey Board, Pittsburg;
Chris Drummond, 2246 Santa Maria Drive, Pittsburg;
Captain Edward D. Clark, 2257 Concord, Drive, Pittsburg;
Andrew Kobayalis, 2251 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Kevin Carunchio, P. O. Box 1518/2020 Railroad Avenue,,
Pittsburg;
Sharie Hunter, 2292 Jacqueline Drive, Pittsburg, ;
Todd Hunter, 2292 Jacqueline Drive, Pittsburg; and
Roger Berry, 2240 Concord Drive, Pittsburg.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
The Board discussed the issues presented by the speakers; at
the conclusion of the discussion, the Board took the following
actions:
1. ACCEPTED the report on Special Waste Disposal at Keller
Canyon Landfill from the Health Services Director and
the Director of the Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency;
2 . DIRECTED staff to meet with representatives of the City
of Pittsburg and BFI to develop protocol on the item
presented this day;
Special Waste Disposal Board Order
Page Two
May 16, 1998
3 . DIRECTED the Community Development Director and the LEA
to coordinate a workshop with the City of Concord, City
of Pittsburg, City of Clayton and the Bay Point
Municipal Advisory Council;
4. REQUESTED Community Development staff and
representatives of the Bay Area Air Quality Board to
review the issues related to the dust complaints
received today;
5. DIRECTED that the issue of special waste importation be
listed on the Board Agenda for consideration on May 23 ,
1995, and DIRECTED staff and BFI to report on the issue
of the importation on that date;
6. DIRECTED staff to review the other categories of
special waste generated from within the County in the
context of the land use permit;
7. DIRECTED that information on the nature and type of
special waste disposed of at Keller Canyon Landfill be
made available to interested parties as quickly as
possible; and
8. DIRECTED that this issue be referred for review to the
Keller Canyon Advisory Committee.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN .
ATTESTED: _May 16, 1995
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By , Deputy
cc: Director, GMEDA
Director, CDD
Keller Canyon Adv. Cte.
Health Services Director
County Counsel
• t
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: MAY 16, 1995
SUBJECT: SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT attached report from the Health Services Department and the Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency; and
DIRECT staff to meet with the City of Pittsburg and BFI to develop the following protocol:
1. Alternate truck route in event of accident at various points along State Route 4 for transfer
station-directed waste and special waste, and notification procedure of the City of Pittsburg.
2. Notification procedure of the City of Pittsburg in event category 4 or category 5 special waste
is proposed.
3. Notification procedure of the City of Pittsburg in event changes in operation occur.
4. Set hearing before the County Planning Commission to review land use permit. Staff to
identify criteria for review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff time will be reimbursed for time and materials by charges to Keller Canyon Landfill.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On April 11, 1995, the Board requested staff to report on the scope and nature of special waste
disposal at Keller Canyon Landfill (Board Order attached). The report, including background
material, is attached.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: Ua,�
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI
_APPROVE _OTHER
n CONTRA OS
CTA COUNTY
•` , t n MAY - 81995 t�r.0 . Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ar'+ ' Costa
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson ''�' :�` County
DATE: April 11, 1995
SUBJECT: REQUEST STAFF REPORT ON THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF SPECIAL WASTE
DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECQMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION:
RECOM TENDED ACTION:
(1) Direct the Health Services Department (as the Local Enforcement Agency) and the Growth
Management and Economic Development Agency to provide a detailed written report on the scope and nature of
special waste disposal at Keller Canyon Landfill since its opening. I am concerned that this landfill is operating
not as a municipal landfill anymore as.originally approved and intended. The report should also include an
assessment of the use of contaminated soil as fill and confirm whether such contaminated soil is intended to count
against the 40% cap on special waste. Disposal of asbestos should also be subject to careful assessment. That
report should be prepared in close consultation with City of Pittsburg officials.
2 Request that;i he special waste issue be brought back to this Board at its May 16th agenda at which
( ) q p Sh Y g
time the Board should determine whether it is appropriate to consider modification of existing conditions or the
adoption of new conditions regarding the disposal of special waste, including the disposal of asbestos and the use
of contaminated soil as fill, in order to improve the health, safety and welfare of the community. After direction
from the Board, any possible modifications to or new conditions can then be referred to the East County
Planning Commission for report and recommendation back to the Board of Supervisors, consistent with
Condition 11.1 of the land use permit. Since this is an issue that directly relates to East County, I believe the
East County Planning Commission should consider any modifications to the conditions of approval to address
these issues. "p
(3) Direct all county staff to automatically notify the City of Pittsburg and the Bay Point Municipal
Advisory Council of applications for special waste or any changes in operating conditions or permit conditions
and matters related to Keller Canyon Landfill.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: /Oz77 / /� ✓i�
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
1 _APPROVE —OTHER
�GNATURE(S)
ACTION'OF BOARD ON APPY'i 1 11 ; 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See Addendum A for Board action.
o1S:ZZ
plsnnumop palsnfpv aq pjnogs
put, TIS.q ool are jjgpim-I uoAuvo lajjax Is pasodstp alsvm jt,lol Ilslano oqj of o2vju6olad sic puv aisvm jecoads
Jo awnjon aTII Ivul apnjouoo jjam Aran Am f4unoO auI `Modal uallum Urg p puu Iuawssassv popriop v SuTmojjoq
•alvjjam put,Aiags `glfeaq oijgnd jo Isalaluc aTll ut lou si jjgpuvZ uoAmo lajjax It,.alsvm Iscoads Io jusodstp
JOAO •alvjjam put,,Mayes `Tjijvaq oggnd anoidwT of laplo ut sauo mau 0319M.10 IVAQJddv jo suonywo Ajtpow
of AIuogInv s,AjunoO aqj suuguoo IIBPu'I uoAtmD lajjax loj Inulad asn puej aqj jo I•I I uotlipuoD
•paiunlena St alsvm Iviaads jo jvsodsip
aT{I awil awns aqj It passalppv aq pjnogs sisanbal asaq L •olsvm jvsodscp lano lanoa sv Itos palvwuTvluoa
asn of pamojjv aq It Ivui pa3jss osis svil souisnpul sura3-Suiumolg puulslal un I •jvsodscp loj Ijgpuwj
uoAuvo lajjax it, solsagsv Id000v of pamojjv aq of AIunoo aqj pa3jsv stq saulsnpul salad-Summolg pumslapun
I 'Ilgpuei aqj uT pasodstp aisvm Iviol oqj of palvdwoo alsvm jvtoadsyo aSvluawad aivudolddv aTll put, jjgpup-I
uosuvo lajjax It, panTaoal aq pjnoTls It,gl oisvm Ietoads yo awnjon aivudolddv aqj ssosssal of Ajunoo auI l03
aural oqj si mou `ivawSpnf Attu uI •Iuawssassv luanbasgns Ivgjjo awcl aqj jr saouviswnolTo aqj put, jvsodscp pup
uoTivilodun jvnlov sic inogv uoclvuiloyut uo posvq mamoi palmlop slow v Suimollogi'llgpuv-I uokuv0 lajjax it,
Ipsodscp puv liodwc siTyo ssouaivudolddv oqj ssosss lalsl of put, stsvq Ivui t,uo Aluo aissm lutoadsyo uoclvilodwi
aui joy uociov aqj Uoddns oI palon I `uotivilodun stili joy iroddns Suiit,oipin preog aTllyo f4uofvw p Suiaas
'E661 `lagwaoaQ uT pazuoijlnv aSvluaolod Ijvlano puv Iunowv aqj uT UgpusZ uoAuuD lajjax It, alssm jucoods
jo jvsodscp put, ilodun aqj joy mollu of Sutnutluoo jo ssauaisudoldds oqj aisnjt,na of Slv$Saoau uoiivwloyui
ails Tjlcm pnog vqj apTAold of spm sLjluow XTS Tana nodal uailum v Suuinbaly0 sosodlnd ogiy0 ouO
•pouad gluow-ZI v uc,alagjjo pasodstp
alsvm jviol aiglyo %0t,uvgj aloes ou of jjgput,-I uoAtmo lajjax it, jusodsip also A jstoads sltwcl uotivzuogjnv
ipTjl ui souijaptnS agIjo auO •jesodsip alstm Ivtoads gonsyo snivis aul uo silluow xis ,Clava palltwgns
oq of svm ilodal uallum y uaplO plvog auI ui pagtoods souijaptng gltm aouvtjdwoo uc Issodsip loy aisvm jvtoads
jo ilodwt aqj yo uognuoijlnv paicwtj joy uoilos uv 3lool sloswadnS yo pleog OW `£661 `L lagwaoa(j uO
•aw of swaouoo
awns aqj passaldxa anvil sjvtaBgo Smgsllcd •aisvm jvtoods jo jssodsip lo3 uoAuvO lallaNjo asn pasvaloui
Bons jo Ilnsal v st, sawoq rjagj jo anf8A oqj put,AiaysS puv Tlljeaq gaTli lano Suramoo ipalS anvil sluaptsa-d
aisem jvtoads yo jssodsip joy jjgpuv-I uoAuLD sono 13o asnlano aql inogs pouraouoo Clan alv sivaptsal
Suipuno.uns AlfulauaS Iain aw of salvllsuowap salmmogsanb paulniol aq L •soissm jstoads Suculaouoo sivapcsal
luiod Xvq put, Singslitd of altt,uuogsanb v Ino ivas aotjo lno `suiaauoo put, siurejdw,oo asagj uo pasvg
IIBPUL I
uo tTrea lajjax aTjl it, pasodstp alst,myo a$t,uuol jjt,lano aT{i w alsvm jvcoads o a$vluoolad laTIBnI v u► paljnsal
svq `alagj pasodstp Suiaq suoilt,is laysuvli tuog alsem jvdiotunwyo SawnjoA Smsraloiap oqj Tlitm poldnoo `siTI�I,
jlgpuaj uoSuso lallo)I it, pasodstp Sutaq aissm Iscoadsyo sawnlon Suissaloui aisoipm (yg'I sv) IuQuimdaQ
saoinlas Tlljvall aTjl wort'silodaZl aisvm jvtoadsyo jvsodscp joy jjgput,-I uoSuv0 iajja?IIo asn SuTsva.iouT aiji
inogv swomoo put, siuiejdwoo snolawnu paniaoal SVU aogJo AW :AIOLLVWHOgm (DMOU-9mava
•Iesodsip alsvm jscoads joy sltuuad aouvuvn joy ivawalinbal
ZZ alli j, Tjlcm aouvtjdwoo-uou algtssod aivSclsanui of AouaSy ivawawoyug jeoo-I Qqj ioaltQ (j,)
0A aSvd
!I 1: 5661 `11 Indy
jjgpuv-I uoAuvO lajjax it, Irsodst(I alst,AX jetoadS
ADDENDUM A
On this date the Board of Supervisors considered the request
of Supervisor Torlakson for a staff report on the scope and
nature of special waste disposal at Keller Canyon Landfill (S . 2) .
Supervisor Torlakson submitted copies of the Keller Canyon
Landfill "Special Waste" Citizen Questionnaire.
The following persons presented testimony:
Joe Canciamilla, Vice Mayor, City of Pittsburg, 2020
Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg;
George DeLa Cruz, Bay-pint-.Municipal Advisory Council, 3569
Sharon Court, Bay Point;
Frank Aiello, '-Citizens United, 1734 Bridgeview, Pittsburg;
Lance J. Dow, -2232 Concord Drive, Pittsburg;
Frank Sharkey, 251 Bailey Road, Pittsburg.
Supervisor Torlakson advised the Board that no member of
this Board had voted for Keller Canyon, and he commented that
since it is an approved County operation, there is a need to know
how it is operating. Supervisor Torlakson requested that
recommendation 3 be changed to incorporate notification to the
Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council and the City of Pittsburg
within one working day and to insert after the word applications,
or inquiries, and he requested that staff address the concerns
raised today.
Supervisor Rogers requested a friendly amendment to the
motion that the Board request representatives of Browning Ferris
Industries to meet with the City of Pittsburg at a Pittsburg City
Council meeting to address the issues.
Supervisor Torlakson concurred and further requested that
staff provide updates on any changes in applications to the
Keller Canyon Advisory Committee.
Supervisor DeSaulnier requested further information on the
transportation of the special wastes .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 , and 4
are APPROVED; that recommendation 3 is APPROVED as modified to
read that County staff is DIRECTED to automatically within one
working day notify the City of Pittsburg and the Bay Point
Municipal Advisory Council of applications or inquiries for
special waste or any changes in operating conditions or permit
conditions and matters related to Keller Canyon Landfill; that
Browning Ferris Industries is REQUESTED to attend a meeting of
the Pittsburg City Council to address the issues; and that staff
is REQUESTED to provide updates on changes in applications to the
Keller Canyon Advisory Committee .
Contra Costa County
The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Tom Powers, 1 st District
Nancy C. Fanden, 2nd District Mark FinuCane, Director
Robert I. Schroder, 3rd District @e_." `-'
20 Allen Street
Sunne Wright McPeak, 4th District "
Tom Torlakson, 5th District •' `;, Martinez, California 94553-3191
(510) 370-5003
ai +`` (510) 370-5098 Fax
County Administrator
Phil Batchelor c�SrA----------
County
-------County Administrator
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Mark Finucane, Health Services Director
Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency
DATE: May 10, 1995
SUBJECT: SCOPE AND NATURE OF SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON
LANDFILL
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors acting on Supervisor Torlakson's recommendation,
directed the Health Services Department and the Growth Management and Economic Development
Agency to provide a detailed written report on the scope and nature of special waste disposal at Keller
Canyon Landfill (KCLF) since its opening.
Supervisor Torlakson was concerned that Keller Canyon Landfill was not operating as it was originally
approved and intended. Another concern was the use of contaminated soil for daily cover and the
disposal of asbestos at the Landfill.
BACKGROUND
Keller Canyon Landfill was designed as a Class II landfill and permitted by the Local Enforcement
Agency with concurrence from the California Integrated Waste Management Board, to receive
residential, commercial, industrial, construction/demolition, and select designated and special wastes.
The designated and special wastes allowed are detailed in the solid waste facilities permit issued on May
7, 1992 to KCLF and the KCLF Report of Disposal Site Information. KCLF is expressly prohibited by
the Solid Waste Facilities Permit from receiving hazardous wastes. Additionally, the findings in support
of the Williamson Act Cancellation dated July 10, 1990 states in item 43 that the landfill operation
cannot accept asbestos requiring special handling. The permitted wastes are listed in Attachment A.
Contaminated soil is a type of waste approved for disposal at KCLF in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit
and the Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Contaminated soil is considered a special waste since special handling is required and it cannot be
processed at a transfer station. Contaminated soil is also a designated waste.
"Designated waste" is defined as nonhazardous waste which consists of or contains pollutants which,
under ambient environmental conditions at the waste management unit could be released at
concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, or which could cause degradation of
Merrithew Memorial Hospital&Clinics Public Health • Mental Health Substance Abuse Environmental Health
Contra Costa Health Plan Emergency Medical Services Home Health Agency Geriatrics
A-315 (901)
Board of Supervisors
SCOPE AND NATURE OF SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
May 10, 1995
Page 2
waters of the state. Designated wastes shall be discharged only at Class I landfills or at Class II
landfills which comply with the applicable provisions of Title 23 and have been approved for
containment of the particular kind of waste to be discharged.
There is a lot of confusion over the term, "special waste". There are different types of "special wastes"
as determined by its usage by different agencies. Below is a description of how the different agencies
have defined "special waste".
"Special waste" as used by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), and the Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA), is waste requiring special collection, treatment, handling, and/or disposal
techniques, or permit changes, for disposal. Special wastes regulated in CIWMB regulations include
liquid, infectious, dead animals, etc., and pertain to the handling of these materials in solid waste
landfills.
"Special waste", as defined by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), refers
to "declassified" hazardous waste and is listed in Attachment B (Section 66261.122, Title 22, California
Code of Regulations). This is the material referenced in Category 5 of Attachment C. Disposal of Title
22 special waste requires a certified analysis and a DTSC variance from both the waste generator and
the landfill operator to accept the waste. A variance must be obtained for each disposal event.
"Special waste" as used by the Community Development Department is waste that cannot be processed
through a transfer station. Special waste used in this context has been used interchangeably with the
term, "direct haul waste". Examples of special wastes are listed in Attachment C.
"Direct haul waste" refers to waste that cannot be practicably processed at a transfer station and are
hauled directly to the landfill. When used with the CIWMB definition of special waste, all direct haul
waste is special waste but all special waste is not direct haul waste.
On December 7, 1993, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors took action to allow KCLF to
receive special waste from out-of-county sources. At the same time, a 40% limitation on the disposal
of special waste was imposed on KCLF. The types of wastes that could be disposed of at KCLF were
not changed from the wastes that were originally approved in the Land Use Permit and the Solid Waste
Facilities Permit.
RESPONSE TO APRIL 11, 1995 DIRECTIVES
1. KCLF has not changed their operations since they opened in May 1992 with the exception of
receiving out-of-county special waste. The types of waste that KCLF can receive has not
changed from what they were originally approved to receive. The types of waste approved are
listed in Attachment A.
Prior to accepting any special waste, generators must have their waste analyzed for contaminants
by a state certified laboratory. The analyticals are reviewed by BFI staff for Title 22
compliance. If approved for acceptance by BFI staff, the waste is manifested to KCLF. Ninety-
eight percent of the special waste received at KCLF is analyzed and manifested. The types of
Board of Supervisors
SCOPE AND NATURE OF SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
May 10, 1995
Page 3
special waste that would not be subject to analysis or manifests are the types of wastes in
categories 1 and 2 of Attachment C.
The waste tonnage received at KCLF and percentage of special waste to total waste is listed in
Attachment D. The waste tonnage is illustrated by type in Attachment E. As shown in
Attachment D, KCLF has complied with the 40% limitation of special waste imposed by the
Board of Supervisors.
Contaminated soil is a special waste that is direct hauled to KCLF. KCLF received and
landfilled 18,689.43 tons of contaminated soil for the period of April 1, 1994 through March
31, 1995. The tonnage of contaminated soils and their percentage to total tonnage is shown on
Attachment D.
KCLF cannot accept asbestos-containing waste which requires special handling and has not
accepted any since the landfill opened in May 1992.
KCLF had submitted proposals to the LEA in December 1994, to use contaminated soils for
daily cover and to accept asbestos-containing waste. The proposals are viewed by the LEA and
the CIWMB as inquiries into the procedures required to pursue the proposed changes to landfill
operations. If KCLF intended to proceed with the proposals, they were required to submit a
formal application to modify or revise the solid waste facilities permit with accompanying
documents as required in Title 14, California Code of Regulations. An application to modify
the solid waste facilities permit has never been submitted by KCLF to pursue the proposals to
accept asbestos-containing waste and use contaminated soil for daily cover. Letters were
submitted by KCLF to the LEA withdrawing the two proposals on April 11, 1995. Copies of
these letters are attached and labeled Attachments F and G.
For your information, many landfills have been approved to use contaminated soils for daily
cover. These include Altamont Landfill and Vasco Road Landfill in neighboring Alameda
County.
2. Condition 11.1 of the Use Permit states the following:
11.1 ADMINISTRATION
Permit Review. The Board of Supervisors will hold annual public hearings to review the
Conditions of Approval for this Land Use Permit for three years beginning one year after
the commencement of operations of the Landfill. The Board may refer proposed changes
to the Land Use Permit to the County Planning Commission for processing. Thereafter,
the County Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Land Use Permit at
three-year intervals. As a result of a review and public hearing, the County Planning
Commission may recommend to the Board of Supervisors new or modified conditions to
improve the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing in this condition shall preclude
the landfill owner from applying for amendments to the Land Use Permit at any time or
Board of Supervisors
SCOPE AND NATURE OF SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
May 10, 1995
Page 4
preclude the County from addressing emergency situations or new requirements imposed
by State or Federal legislation or the courts.
Supervisor Torlakson has requested that the first Use Permit hearing be held. It is noted that
the first hearing could have been held as early as May 1993. This has not occurred for two
reasons. First, the waste delivered to the landfill has been so low that the affects of the landfill
have been minimized. Second, the issues raised related to the landfill have at times been
considered monthly and therefore, the formal process was not felt to be needed.
At this date the County has ample experience in the operations of the landfill and can present
a history.
Staff will need to develop criteria for review of the permit prior to setting for hearing. It is
assumed that staff will charge the Keller Landfill for the cost of this process.
It should be noted that the Use Permit expressly directs the matter to the County Planning
Commission rather than the East County Planning Commission.
3. The LEA staff of the Health Services Department has developed procedures to automatically
notify the City of Pittsburg, the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council, and any other interested
parties when either applications to modify or revise the solid waste facilities permit, or written
proposals for changes to operations are received for Keller Canyon Landfill. Meetings with the
City of Pittsburg will take place for the purpose of developing protocols to confirm the steps of
notification.
4. The LEA staff has investigated the Title 22 requirement for variance permits for special waste
disposal at Keller Canyon Landfill. The LEA staff has worked closely with staff at the
California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) in this investigation.
The LEA and DTSC found that the Browning Ferris Industries policy and procedures indicate
that Keller Canyon Landfill is permitted to accept non-hazardous special wastes, as that term is
generally used and defined by the CIWMB and custom and practice in the waste disposal
industry. The term "special waste" specifically excludes any "special" waste as defined in Title
22 of the California Code of Regulations, administered by the Cal EPA Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
The preliminary investigation by DTSC has determined that no variances are required of Keller
Canyon Landfill for the handling of special waste since the Landfill has not received any Title
22 special waste. A report on the investigation is being prepared by DTSC staff and a copy will
be forwarded to the LEA.
If you have any questions, please contact Rebecca Ng of the Environmental Health Division at 646-
1251.
MF/VA:rn
Attachments BN2:Tork5.95
ATTACHMENT A
SPECIAL WASTE DEFINITION
Disposal Parameters
The California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Local Enforcement Agency
(LEA); following years of testimony, challenges and lawsuits; issued the following list
of allowable wastes to be disposed of at Keller Canyon Landfill in the Solid Waste
Facilities Permit:
Big
' c v-;::a`.:.t::.: .t�:..,.:>::. >1 `Gi ::>:C +1 t Ctt01 tT atl tl >:dd ted:: e.::::e . n::: l. r :::::::::.:....:: 1.::.. �::.. .: :: :. ::::::a.::::::.:::::::.:::::::::::::.::::.a.::::::::::::::::::.:::.::........_....::.:.......................... . :::::::.::::.:::::::::.»>< i
' "`'''< " 6> ue t�_... .i : i � �< > zi>aLS » s � z .; : ::.. aw.. ' a .. ................
....e«foltcw + m:>wastst:> >The:>fae hal ::ae �t a ....._.......was::.
utpal.S..... li1 Waste ommr �.> ��dustr��l Waste Cae �st�s
e; l
.:: . ,�.. ::..... .W ::::::::::::: 1 .:.
w st
n : d>Si >:>:»; <:::::>::::»:::1"xher:: aell . atered.Spud e......... .........5
� � ...ate
;;><:>; c
li > ._.F
Iia < ...... > '
shdtear;: t : . .... ta .. ...... .. ....... ::: .: :: .
><:.>: :::;:;;;. :............ .::::.... .:«;<::.
zt l di t s>A h <> .. ``> i a .W step..... . .
�`>:< /J:�?`: `% 3i% E: ':ii:iii'::...... >< Gssss %> 2 ``
Thi .altng dere eprsy< �r€hJ fed:. - .
Nadu
Liq lds:or lurr l bMO .ey eu d hptr l..
B' LEA:.
ad..and. .. .
. .....: ...;: . to ...... ..:::...... .
wates::.:taot<.;�dnted:.::.: n.::th+ ::: rt:: r::Xa ;.t ::Wat <: .
:.
p;::<.:.;:.:. ::::::::: ::::::>
»<> ': >`:>>
Burnang Waes
.: : .
:lir':e : anttf:irl:::dd aerial e :::: ...t t .t
. .:.. ..
«>;;>::>;:; :a> caval;>bf.the>Ccntra.;: tsta;: :ounalth:Senoes.Ike.artment
::::::::
i S t:....j >>��:Sr>::i:r i>�i«ip!�;;;: 2 ;;;i;i,i y> ; :f>;<;i i;i; :;:;:Y :i >:'->'i':'i'i'+�i? !r>i'i'i'<f` :�: 7yf:f �`;!!i;,`.kq�;,;;;;;;; : i .:._::;
I�zatreateddal waste .defan�d acspter o `the allh: d
riffC-1-0-US:<: ,> '> ':: '." '':' : :: i � <:; ;..
'3 .
Sal~ o e.c . .. . t .wastes as..d fig d. . ..........0 ......... ......................... ..:::.:.......... ...
..::e. ... .............. ... .....................e...: .
. .................. . .............. . ................... .
The basis for list approval was an evaluation of Contra Costa County's solid waste
generation and disposal needs. The facility was established as Class II to meet local
needs and provide a higher level of environmental protection.
VA:dg
specwwtt4
(5/16/95) :
ATTAR B
EWASTE REGULATION GUIDANCE
VALUATTON
Department of Toxic Substances Control
i
SPECIAL WASTE
t
(RG Document*51;Revision*1;Revision Date:August 19,1993)
4
Certain hazardous wastes may be classified and A special waste cannot exhibit the characteristics
managed as special wastes provided the waste of toxicity contained in sections 6626124(axl)(B)
meets all the criteria and requirements of a and 6626124(ax3)through(ax8�22 CCR,
special waste pursuant to section 66261.122,Title ignitability contained in section 6626121,22
22,California Code of Regulations(22 CCR} CCR,reactivity contained in section 66261.22,22
The generator must receive written approval CCR,or cofrosivity contained in section
from the Department for such a classification 66261.23,22 CCR. Additionally,a special waste
pursuant to section 66261.124,22 CCR. To be cannot include wastes which are federally listed
classified as a special waste,the waste must be: in Article.4,Chapter 11,22 CCR,nor identified
as extremely hazardous waste according to the
• a solid,a water-based sludge or a criteria in sections 66261.110 or 66261.113,22
water-based slurry of which the solid CCR.
constituents are substantially insoluble in
hr, water;
it o a hazardous waste only because it
contains an inorganic persistent and
`{i bioaccumulative toxic substance listed in
i�I section 6626124(a)(2)(A),22 CCR,in
excess of its respective solubleor tal
regulatory threshold value. (The soluble
concentration of the inorganic persistent
I�.. and bioaccumulative toxic substances
cannot exceed the total threshold value
when expressed in a milligram per
Idiogram of waste basis.)
i;
See Also: No other references.
Passant to Section 66262.11,Title 22,California Code of Regulations(22 CCA),it is the generator's sespensibilit7 to determine if his
waste Is hazardous or nonhazardous by testing representative samples of the waste using the methods ret forth to Chapter 11,Division
4A 22 CCA and/or applying knowledge of the butardoas characteristics of the waste in light of the materials or processes used to generate
Use waste. If the wage exhibits any of these characteristics,ft k classified as a hazardous waste and must be managed as such The
classification of wastes k not to be confused with the establishment of cleanup levels. Waste classification determines only whether a
waste mast be assuaged as a hazardous waste. To obtain further docuu encs relating to the sampling and chalncation of wastes,can
the waste evaluation helpline at(916)322-7676. Copies of Dhkfon 4A Title 22,California Cede of Regulations are available at most
public librarks which contain a government publications rection or are available for purchase by calling Barclays Ian►Publishers at
(415)1446611.
Caffomia Environmental Protection Agency Olffce of Scientlic Altars
Department of Toxic Substances Control Waste Evak ation Unl
P . O ; B o x 8 0 6 , S a c r a m e n t o , C a I 1 t o r n 1 a 9 5 8 1 2 - 0 8 0 6
PAGE 48
ATTACHMENT C
EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL WASTE CATEGORIES
Special waste had been defined in County use as waste that cannot be processed through a transfer
station.
For the purposes of discussion, special waste can be separated into five categories. Each category has
a different level of hazard or toxicity.
Category 1
This consists of municipal solid waste that cannot be practicably processed through a transfer station.
This category includes expired canned foods, rotting fruit, and dead animals.
Category 2
This includes solid waste that would be permitted in a Class III landfill, but cannot be processed due
to bulk and weight, such as concrete, wood beams, non-recyclable metals.
Category 3
This includes solid waste that could be placed in a Class III landfill, but cannot be processed due to
texture. This includes wet, granular material including uncontaminated soils, sewage sludge and
canning wastes.
Category 4
This category represents Class II requirements with designated waste that requires an impermeable liner
to prevent pollution of ground water. This includes some sludge, some ash, and contaminated non-
hazardous soil. The County established a requirement for all landfills to handle this type of waste.
Category S
Waste in this category is "declassified hazardous waste" or "special waste" as defined in Title 22 and
used by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. This may include auto shredder waste, and ash
from the burning of fossil fuels, biomass and other combustible materials. A written variance from
DTSC is required of the generator as well as the landfill operator for each disposal event at a Class II
landfill. No wastes from this category have been requested to be disposed of at Keller Canyon Landfill.
14c:keller.c
ATTACHMENT Df
VOLUMES PERMITTED AT KELLER LANDFILL
County Land Use Permit based on 3500 tons per day, 91,000 tons per month.
LEA and State Integrated Waste Management Board Solid Waste Facilities permits based
on 2750 tons per day, 71,500 tons per month.
Special waste and/or imported waste limited to 1100 tons per day (40% of 2750), 28,600
tons per month.
* 26 days per month operation
VA:dg
volumklrls
(5/16/05)
ATTACHMENT D Z,
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
WASTE RECEIPT BREAKDOWN (tons)
APRIL 1994 - MARCH 1995
Month Tyke of Waste Tonna e
April 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 29,198.49
In-County Direct Haul 1,991.12
(In-County cont. soils, 0.9%), (302.81)
Out-County Direct Haul 819.89
(Out-County cont. soils, 0-9%)2 (302.39)
Combined Direct Haul (8.8%)3 2,811.01
Total Waste 32,009.50
May 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 32,015.7
In-County Direct Haul 5,244.42
(In-County cont. soils, 9.2%) (3476.17)
Out-County Direct Haul 361.72
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.5%) (196.16)
Combined Direct Haul (14.9%) 5,606.14
Total Waste 37,621.84
June 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 28,333.73
In-County Direct Haul 2,180.45
(In-County cont. soils, 1.8%) (558.47)
Out-County Direct Haul 313.98
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.5%) (141.28)
Combined Direct Haul (8.1%) 2,494.43
Total Waste 30,828.16
July 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 26,728.72
In-County Direct Haul 1,448.03
(In-County cont. soils, 1.2%) (351.93)
Out-County Direct Haul 61.94
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.1%) (39.53)
Combined Direct Haul (5.3%) 1,509.97
Total Waste 28,238.59
1 Contaminated soils received from in-county sources and the percentage to total waste.
2 Contaminated soils received from out-0f-county sources and the percentage to total waste.
3 Percentage of direct haul waste to total waste received at Keller Canyon Landfill.
Note: "Direct Haul"refers to waste that cannot be processed at a transfer station and is hauled directly to Keller Canyon Landfill.
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
WASTE RECEIPT BREAKDOWN (tons)
APRIL 1994 - MARCH 1995 /
Month Tyne of Waste Tonna e
August 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 28,749.12
In-County Direct Haul 1,425.62
(In-County cont. soils, 1.2%) (351.16)
Out-County Direct Haul 173.57
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.5%) (155.37)
Combined Direct Haul (5.3%) 1,599.19
Total Waste 30,318.63
September 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 25,312.84
In-County Direct Haul 7,631.88
(In-County cont. soils, 21%) (6909.58)
Out-County Direct Haul 71.08
(Out-County cont. soils, 0%) (0.0)
Combined Direct Haul (23%) 7,702.96
Total Waste 33,015.80
October 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 18,101.26
In-County Direct Haul 6,364.31
(In-County cont. soils, 20%) (5037.96)
Out-County Direct Haul 406.13
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.8%) (210.81)
Combined Direct Haul (27.2%) 6,770.44
Total Waste 24,871.70
November 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 15,642.07
In-County Direct Haul 1,429.27
(In-County cont. soils, 0.9%) (155.83)
Out-County Direct Haul 183.94
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.5%) (89.70)
Combined Direct Haul (9.3%) 1,613.21
Total Waste 17,255.28
December 1994 Municipal Solid Waste 15,593.77
In-County Direct Haul 1,504.81
(In-County cont. soils, 0.4%) (72.00)
Out-County Direct Haul 151.60
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.4%) (70.97)
Combined Direct Haul (9.6%) 1,656.41
Total Waste 17,321.15
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
WASTE RECEIPT BREAKDOWN (tons)
APRIL 1994 - MARCH 1995
Month Tyne of Waste Tonnage
January 1995 Municipal Solid Waste 15,870.08
In-County Direct Haul 1,981.89
(In-County cont. soils, 9%) (17.08)
Out-County Direct Haul 175.87
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.1%) (18.69)
Combined Direct Haul (12%) 2,157.76
Total Waste 18,027.84
February 1995 Municipal Solid Waste 16,894.45
In-County Direct Haul 1,318.13
(In-County cont. soils, 0.04%) (7.19)
Out-County Direct Haul 897.64
(Out-County cont. soils, 0.8%) (160.74)
Combined Direct Haul (11.6%) 2,215.77
Total Waste 19,110.22
March 1995 Municipal Solid Waste 18,435.13
In-County Direct Haul 1,621.93
(In-County cont. soils, 0.04%) (8.86)
Out-County Direct Haul 392.42
(Out-County cont. soils, 2.7%) (54.75)
Combined Direct Haul (9.8%) 2,014.35
Total Waste 20,449.48
14clelfton.►pt
ATTACIMENr E
LU
nn n n-J X
C\\U� �• 'tel W U)
N
�j = ui
W -j
Q u
00
ti F- Y
CC Wo
T�
3 (� z
O �Q
U cCC
o O n �n ��- W>
D U �� II =W
O c [[
® ❑ M
O
O
O
LO
ch
N
O
� p
O oM
H
R
= o
O
v LO
N
0
O O
.� O
4) O �
c
h-
a_
i N c
O
C L
O c
~ L
4-
O
J O
O
r--
O
C
O
(� O
O
o
N �
N
Y
0
m m
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
.13 c c > +' a rnc a a
L Z � Q O
LO O Q
� �
LO
yluoW rn
rn
Keller CC.Ayon Recycled paper
.Landfill Company
April 11, 1995
Mr. Richard Lee
Mrs. Rebecca Ng
Contra Costa County Health Services Department
Environmental Health Division
1111 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
Re: Keller Canyon Landfill
Solid Waste Facilities Permit No. 07-AA-0032
Alternative Daily Cover Program
Dear Mr. Lee and Mrs. Ng:
As a follow up to my letters to you dated December 6, 1994 and January 6, 1995 relative
to an updated Report of Disposal Site Information to reflect our proposed contaminated soils
ADC Program, I am herewith formally withdrawing the notification and request for update of the
RDSI at this time.
. Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation in having reviewed the materials
submitted. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please don't
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
TimotliY J. Cox
Site Manager
TJC:jcf
cc: Mr. Dennis P. Fenton, BFI
Mr. Mike Caprio, BFI
Scott W. Gordon, Esq., Bruen& Gordon
901 BAILEY ROAD • PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA 94565 • (510)458-9800 • FAX: (510)458-9891
A Subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries
Ke I I e r C c.,i yo n Recycled paper
Landfill Company
April 11, 1995
Mr. Richard Lee
Mrs. Rebecca Ng
Contra Costa County Health Services Department
Environmental Health Division
1111 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
Re: Keller Canyon Landfill
Solid Waste Facilities Permit No. 07-AA-0032
Receipt of Asbestos Containing Waste
Dear Mr. Lee and Mrs. Ng:
As a follow up to my letter to you of December 6, 1994, this letter is to formally withdraw
Keller Canyon Landfill Company's request for your concurrence in modifying the Solid Waste
Facilities Permit to authorize the receipt of asbestos-containing waste.
Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation in the review of the submitted materials.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information regarding the withdrawal of
this request, please don't hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
---ro `0
_eK7)
Timothy J. Cox
Site Manager
TJC:jcf
cc: Mr. Dennis P. Fenton, BFI
Mr. Mike Caprio, BFI
Scott W. Gordon, Esq., Bruen & Gordon
Charles A. Zahn, CCC CDD
Diedre Dingman, CCC CDD
901 BAILEY ROAD - PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA 94565 - (510) 458-9800 - FAX: (510) 458-9891
A Subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries
Mr. Richard Lee
Ms. Rebecca Ng
April 11, 1995
Page 2
Charles A. Zahn, CCC CDD
Diedre Dingman, CCC CDD
Gregory Bartow, RWQCB
I'IHT-G7"177J 1?-Z�e t-HUM U1IY OF PITT5OJRG MANAGER TO 96461599 P.02
City sof Pittsburg
Civic Ccntec • P.O.Box 1518• Pittsburg,California 94565
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
May 9, 1995
Mr, Daniel Guerra, Deputy Director
Health Service Department -
Envimnmental Health Div-isim)
Contra. Costa County
1111 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553-2521
RE; REVISED DRAFT BOARD REPORT ON THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF
SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL AT KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
Dear Dan:
Thank you for the revised draft copy of the subject report. Vire appreciated meeting with you
and Val yesterday and believe that our dialogue was promising.
[Unfortunately, we found the revised draft report continues to obfuscate some central issues,
and appears more of a justification of Keller Canyon Landfill's (KCLF) receipt of special
wastes rather than an unbiased discussion..
Some of the aspects of the report whit most concern us, and that were discussed yesterday,
are reiterated below:
The discussion of KCLF design parameters contained in the report's "Background" section
does not incorporate out comments related to the reasons for the Landfill's design
specifications. A more accurate description would be:
Due to concerns related to siting the Landfill in such close approximatim to
residences, Keller C xyon landfill was designed to exceed the minimum specifications
for landfills that would only accept municipal solid waste. These design features were
intended to afford the environment and surrounding communities a higher level of.
CaGfernia Healthy Citio Poo
Natiai Ccntcr fo*Public Produmvit}Evmp xn Aua¢rd• 1943
City of New Horizons
MAY-09-1995 15:53 FROM CITY OF PITTSBURG MANAGER TO 96461599 P.03
Mr. Daniel Guerra, Facsimile Transmittal
May 9, 1945
Page Two
protection than required by law. However, these same design features are those that
allow Keller to receive, or request receipt of certain designated wastes.
Although the Landfill was designed to afford a higher level of protection, the LEA. has
determined that these design features were sufficient to allow the Landfill to accept the
entire range of special and designated wastes. In effect, KCLF affords no greater level
of protection.+ban=similar ? fills, reeeivirYg-te_s -waste types, but located 20
miles from residences.
At the time this decision was made, solid waste law allowed counties to regulate the
amount of solid waste that could be imported into the County. Special and designated
waste were permitted to be received at the landfill based on the assumption that such
capability was need to disjp a of the relatively small volume of special and designated
wastes generated within Contra Costa County. The 1992 Supreme Court decision
prohibited counties from prohibiting the import of solid waste. Hence, larger volumes
of special waste can be imparted to KCLF than were ever anticipated when the landfill
was perinitted.
If the Board desires to maintain the previous Board's policy of providing an extra level
of protection at KCLF, Kellez's LUP should be revised to prohibit receipt of any
designated and special wastes, in which case such wastes generated within the County
could be exported to nearby landfills located away from population centers. Or, if the
receipt of such wastes at KCLF is desirable,them Keller should be re-designed to
Class I facility standards but prohibited from accepting Class I waste types.
The definition of"designated wastes" fails to incorporate the entire definition of contained in
Section 2522 of Chapter 15 of Title 23 of the California Code of regulations. The portion of
the definition that has been left out is:
[Designated waste is] hazardous waste which has been granted a variance froin
hazardous waste mamagerwnt requirements pursuant to 65310 of Title 22 of this code.
While the corresponding Attachment C category was included in the second definition of
„special waste" on page two (DISC definition) this crass referencing does not extend to the
other two definitions of special waste, or the definition of direct haul waste, also found on
page two.
Response #1 is confusing in that it asserts that, "98% of the special waste received at KCLF
is analyzed and manifested. The types of special waste that would not be subject to analysis
or manifests are the types of wastes in categories 1 and 2 of Attachment C." Does this mean
that 98% of the special waste received at Keller is category 3, 4, and 5 waste as identified in
,,,,,-u�-�» 1 •'4 r Kum CITY OF P I TTSBURG MANAGER TO 96461599 P.04
r T
Mr. Daniel Guerra, Facsimile Transmittal
May 9, 1995
Page Three
Attachment C? Since Attachment C indicates that no category 5 waste has been received,
does this mean that 98% of the special waste.received at Keller is from categories 3 and 4.
It is unclear whether or not Response 03 resets to the protocols that we discussed
establishing, or whether these are procedures already in-place. If the procedures are already in
place, providing a written copy of these procedures as part of the report would be approphate.
If they are not in place, the response should clarify that discussion has occurred regarding
developing such procedures but they are not in place at this time.
Please give me a call at 439-4854 if you care to discuss the report further.
Sincerely,
F
Dave Hobbs
Solid Waste Division Manager
CC. Supervisor Tont Torlakson
Yolanda Lopez, Assistant City Manager
Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA
3a
To wham it concerns':
I am sorry to say that I am not able to attend this meeting .to express my anger and
r i disbelief in the current events concerning the Keller Canyon Landfill.
I have a severs year old son and a fourteen year old daughter, and hundreds if not
I
thousands of children living within a few miles of this filth, and now you are con-
sidering bringing in a more hazardous blend of contamination into our neighborhoods.
This waste is trucked to Bailey Road, passing within 4 of a mile of my son's
{ grade school. It is inconceivable to me that caring people could allow this to trans-
pire, what we are exposed to now is already unexceptable. They say that this landfill
has devalved my property between 5 and 10% of its total value. I think its closer to
15%, or, about 20,000.00. bike many other homeowners, we tried to refinance last year
with no success. Unlike other homeowners, we have a landfill within a few miles of
{
our here, and our house was appraised approx. $18,000 lower than our original purchase
price.
i So unkind and unthinking people are not only risking my families well being with
this landfill, they are also greatly affecting my families financial well being, now and
in the future.
More huge trucks on our small streets, carring hazardous waste that you do not want
in your neighborhood. This is unexceptable.
Please do the right thing. --�.
..7
Robert K. Lee
Cindy M. Lee
Kristin M. Lee
Bobby S. Lee
From Robert Lee
1134 Adobe Place
Pittsburg, CA 94565
458-2084
Transcript of item H.4 May 16, 1995
Supervisor Bishop: Okay, the matter is before the Board.
Supervisor Torlakson.
Supervisor Torlakson: Madam Chair, we've reviewed both through
the staff report and in the public testimony a range of issues, a
number of them complicated, a number of them we've heard I think
said ourselves they' re confusing in terms of the terminology. In
simple terms, I think it' s our job to protect the neighborhood,
to clear up the confusion, to try to the greatest extent
possible, to eliminate the anxiety and the risk that the
residents feel that they are facing and we've heard a lot of
testimony about both health issues and concern about property
value . I really think as I look, the kinds of confusion that we
see around the special waste issue make it even harder to sell
the home, even harder to get the value out that people put in,
that' s just a layman' s opinion. I don' t know that we've done
research on that particular point but that what seems to me is
the simple part of the issue is how can we proceed to do that .
The land use permit review process that staff has recommended
that I asked we consider, I think we should move forward with
this and send this issue of the whole land use permit to the
Planning Commission in particular the issues that surround
special waste and the report with all the categories that have
been enumerated tonight . In addition, to involve the Keller
Canyon Advisory Committee which meets locally. We need to get
the members involved and let the public know when the meetings
are . A point was made by I think Mr. Todd just a moment ago
about asking or having a more regular formal process for getting
public input . The Committee for whatever reason, perhaps the
neighborhood didn' t know when it was meeting, but we need to have
that forum help us sort through and get the direct input from the
neighborhood, the city and the operator and our own departments
as to what we can do about it . I think obviously this Board
wasn' t involved, but there was a fundamental mistake made in my
opinion locating the landfill this close to homes . We' re never
going to solve all the problems that come with having a landfill
this close to homes . The problem of special waste or the idea
that asbestos whether it' s friable, whether it' s contained in
materials, whether it can be loosened up by any method, just the
idea that that can be there, the word gets around and it' s very
anxiety creating and I think we need to look in the permit of
closing doors so we won' t have the community keep watch or keep
worrying wondering when the next applications come or what' s
next . I do also believe that what we were asked to do by staff a
year ago, we should reverse. That was to allow importation of
special waste. We should set a period, I would suggest three
months, while the land use permit review process is going on to
rescind the approval of imported special waste . We need to look
at the special waste in general and what we' re taking in from
within the County. I think there' s some distinction to be made
between what is normally associated with municipal or city type
landfills and what is hazardous or was hazardous that might have
been hazardous and has been redesignated by some variance to a
designated waste . That' s the categories four and five . I think
we should ask staff to do a legal review of the in-County special
waste and come back in two or three weeks with what we can do to
tighten up or clear the air on that or what we should do in
directing some review of the land use permit . In the land use
permit in addition to the compliance with what' s there, I think
there needs to be a in our direction to the Planning Commission a
look at how do we open up the records . Part of this is the
confusion, but part of it is has the public had access to the
records, the various manifests, or analytics as the City of
Concord representative worded them or the records so that we can
see, track that they' re can be a monitoring that there' s some
confidence in in terms of what has gone in and what would ever go
in again in the future and how do we communicate that best . I do
believe that the City of Pittsburg should be involved every step
of the way in that process and somehow working closely and I know
there was I think a fairly productive dialog in a meeting for a
couple of hours last week between the City of Pittsburg and our
County staff but as the agency that' s most directly elected the
City Council of Pittsburg is right there, they' re in the
neighborhood, they legally have a lot of responsibility to that
community and I would like to see them involved. City of
Concord, City of Clayton have additionally registered their
concerns with us . They've asked us right now for an all out ban.
I think the recision of importation is something I would like to
move for our action tonight and the examination of what we can do
in the next two or three weeks on other directly generated from
within the County, special waste . But there are other questions
that have been raised that I don' t think the report fully answers
such as the routes where direct haul waste, whatever type of
category special waste are coming from do they use the same
routes as the transfer trucks use or can they now are they at
liberty to vary those routes and go through over Kirker Pass,
over Bailey Road, through neighborhoods on detours or whatever.
I don' t think that' s clear in the report and that should be
investigated as well and the City of Concord and Clayton brought
into it . So, I'm prepared to make a motion to try to encompass
those points and actually would so do. I'd move that we direct
staff to do the recommendations that are in the staff report and
go beyond it to ask that we would have the route issue addressed
in terms of the direct hauls, that we would ask for a better
communication and system related to the records, access to those,
and that we would rescind the current authority that we granted
to allow importation of special waste .
Supervisor Bishop: Supervisor Rogers?
Supervisor Rogers : I had two questions of our County Counsel' s
office . One is that we had noticed this item as report on
special waste disposal . Given that noticing of a report, is it
appropriate for us to take a substantive action as suggested by
Supervisor Torlakson? In terms of the recision of special waste
from outside of the County. If I understood it correctly.
Victor Westman: Well, I think you should remember what the land
use permit provides . The land use permit itself doesn' t have any
limitation on the landfill accepting special waste that' s
generated within Contra Costa County. And the only arguable
limitation of that is the December 7, 1993 order where the Board
by order, not by amending the land use permit, indicated I
believe with the cooperation and the agreement of BFI, that if
they limited their total disposal of special waste at 40 percent,
then that would be a combined figure of what was generated within
the County and the acceptance of import . Now, as you realize
since that action was done, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated
you cannot discriminate between waste from in and out of the
County and I think you ought to give some consideration that if
you rescind your December order, you may be left in the situation
where there is no arguable limitation at all to the amount of
special waste that Keller can accept that is generated within the
County and there will be at least if they want to, the land use
permit still has an express term in it that they have to have our
permission for importation but there is a U.S . Supreme Court case
that casts great doubt on that and they may arguably be left
without any legal limitation at all on the amount of special
waste they' re accepting. I just think you should understand the
only limitation that is there now is their acquiescence and
agreement with you and your December Board order and if that' s
rescinded then we go back to a land use permit which I understand
it is not disputed has no limitation on the acceptance of special
waste generated within the County and special waste in the sense
of being non-toxic.
Supervisor Bishop: Thank you, Mr. . .
Supervisor Rogers : If I could I guess I didn' t quite understand
the answer. I was trying to figure out given the way that this
item is noticed here, if we do feel that Supervisor Torlakson' s
suggestion is good, is it appropriate under the Brown Act and
whatever for us to take action on it tonight, given the noticing
of a report on special waste disposal .
Victor Westman: I'm sorry I don' t understand the question.
Supervisor Rogers : Do we have a Brown Act problem given the way
that this item has been noticed if we move to rescind the out-of-
County special waste coming in as suggested by Supervisor
Torlakson. Does that give us a Brown Act problem?
Supervisor DeSaulnier: We've got more problems .
Supervisor Torlakson: I would just add from my perspective that
we have a staff, report with recommendations and we quite often
add or subtract from the recommendations of staff to address
policy issues that come up during the hearing.
Supervisor Bishop: I would like to prior to that answer, I would
like to respond to that . I think we have had some very
compelling testimony tonight and I think the hour is late and I
understand precisely where Supervisor Torlakson is coming from.
I t is very difficult to reject the kind of testimony or not to
respond to the appeals that have been made tonight . The appeals
that have been made tonight have been one, actually not only
reconsider special waste, not only reconsider importation of
special waste, but actually reconsider our decision on the
landfill . It would be very tempting on my part to say yeah that
sounds great, but we have some legal constraints and I've been
sitting here listening and we have some definite legal
constraints . We have a Health Services Department that says
they' re in compliance with the permit that talks about special
waste, that we have not even hit the threshold and I'm sitting
here and I've written in my notes, Carbone, which is the Supreme
Court decision that Mr. Westman cited. Whether or not we are
permitted by the Brown Act which I think we are not permitted at
this point, that' s my view, to take action because it was not
specific in our agenda, but I think if we were to rescind the
action that we took in December to limit the import of special
waste, we would be flying straight in the face of Carbone.
That' s my view. That' s what Vic Westman Mr. Westman just told
us, that we would be running the danger of a lawsuit that could
set aside such action and . . . .
Vic Westman: Well, I think perhaps I should add the other point
I was also trying to perhaps indicate is that the only limitation
at this time arguably on special waste being disposed of at
Keller is your December 7, 1993 order which I believe BFI has
acquiesced with which limits it to 40 percent . If you rescind
that, the land use permit left does not have a limitation in it
and well, I've seen some arguments by the City of Pittsburg that
perhaps the environmental documentation implies a limit . They
have never cited anywhere in that documentation.
Supervisor Bishop: Supervisor Smith.
Supervisor Smith: Just a couple of thoughts . The one thing that
I know the community feels and I think we've all heard today is
the overriding concern that we want to make sure that decisions
that are made can' t be changed sort of at a whim in the future
without everybody knowing about it and it seems to me that if the
intention of the motion is to try to put in stone or at least in
very strong cement a commitment not to bring out of county
special waste to Keller, we should probably have that as part of
the land use review process so that it' s not by decree with
agreement so that we' re not in the situation where we potentially
reverse an action that actually then opens up another can of
worms at this particular juncture . The other thing that the
other comment that I'd make is that clearly there' s a lot of
misunderstanding and a lot of mis information and there' s a lot
of confusion and I think the comments about getting the
documentation of test results and what' s actually been in those
test results is extremely important . Also, I'm impressed that
the City of Pittsburg and the City of Concord both are very much
involved as well as the community of Bay Point . It strikes me
that rather than referring this to the County Planning
Commission, we might all benefit from having a workshop, an all
day workshop, with this Board and specifically invite the cities
of Concord and Pittsburg and the community, the Bay Point MAC to
attend that workshop along with the public and go through all of
those details, you know, so that we could get a report about what
it is that the tests show, what' s gone in, what hasn' t gone in,
all of that kind of stuff and do that as part of the land use
permit review process so that we're all on the same page of the
playbook, because I'm a little concerned about referring it back
to the Planning Commission and having other information presented
at that level and then personally not being able necessarily to
get that information first hand and ask questions, so those are
just suggestions .
Supervisor Bishop: Supervisor DeSaulnier and then Mr. Rogers .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: I think Supervisor Smith made a good
suggestion. I' d defer to that by saying that we should probably
do it in Pittsburg, get out there where we' re accessible . But
sitting here and listening to all the comments as Supervisor
Bishop has said is very compelling what you have said and I think
almost all the comments are sincere and from the heart and I
can' t help but say not having been part of the original decision
as we've all tried to remind you of and over again is we have
lots of controversial plants . We have the Naval Weapons Station
in this County. We have a very busy airport in my district . All
of those institutions in various degrees over the past years have
developed good neighbor policies with their neighbors and I see
new people sitting over there representing Keller. I don' t think
you can convince these people that truly, quickly, without
reaching out to them, that what you' re doing if Keller is going
to stay in business that what you' re doing is trust worthy from
them unless you start to reach out and I don' t think that' s
incumbent on us to do. I think that' s incumbent on you to do. I
think of the Naval Weapons Station the last ten years have done
great work to turn thing around from being an institution that
lived within the chains to outside of the fences . Shell Oil
Company. The Chief Executive over there who' s been with Shell
for thirty years said the biggest difference now as opposed to
five years ago is he spends 90 percent of him time outside of the
fence in the community and I think a lot of the problem as a
newcomer is that . If we communicated more with you, the
neighbors, we wouldn' t have a lot of these problems to begin
with. Now, granted, whether it should be there or not that' s a
different issue and I don' t know if we can rectify that, but I
think Jeff' s suggestion is a good beginning. Maybe the first
step would be if BFI would say, we' re going to hold the imports
in abeyance unilaterally, as a gesture of good faith. It' s a
very small amount that' s going into your cash flow right now.
And you' re going to give that two or three months while we try to
go through this process and then we go through looking at the
land use, looking at the conditions to try to get more input from
the community to make you be truly good neighbors, so I think the
onus is really on BFI to do that and I'm not sure sitting up here
that a lot of the reassurances that staff has tried to give us is
not true coming new to this, but I can understand why you don' t
believe it because of the damage that' s been done in the past .
So, that' s my suggestion, to piggy back on what both of you have
said if we could put all three of our suggestions in a motion.
Supervisor Smith: Is that okay with you Tom?
Supervisor Torlakson: Yes, and I would like you know staff to
respond on the Brown Act question interms of what we can act on
within the context of the report and then Supervisor DeSaulnier' s
last question, his last comments posed a question for BFI in
terms of whether there' d be a voluntary suspension of the
importation while we go forward with the review process and then
early in that review process, I mean as soon as we can schedule a
meeting with Concord, Pittsburg, that workshop that Supervisor
Smith suggested would be very beneficial . Get the Bay Point
Municipal Council . Have a big you know public meeting where we
can daylight more information and work out what indeed the
Planning Commission should actually review, what the parameters
of that review should be so I would like I think that makes sense
in terms of combining things in a joint proposal if we can get
some voluntary assistance with the one issue which was brought to
the Board for a decision. We set six months to review the
decision. It' s far past six months . I think we' re you know
tardy from not getting on top of this with the public and here
sooner I don' t believe that by any kind of lifting or change in
that importation agreement, we' re suddenly going to have a huge
influx of in-County special waste. I don' t think that' s the plan
by BFI . I don' t think it would be in. You know, it just
wouldn't happen and in the land use review process we'd be able
tofurther work with everybody, all the parties, and figure out
just how to handle this for the future, what doors to close, what
doors to leave open with certain guidelines and public disclosure
of what' s going on.
Supervisor Bishop: Supervisor Rogers .
Supervisor Rogers : Yeah. Madam Chair, if it was okay, I' d like
to ask Ken if he could come forward and just respond briefly to
that request . The request as I understood it was on the issue
that was in Tom' s motion concerning the importation of out of
county special waste, if you'd be willing to voluntarily suspend
that for three months if that' s so, then the part of Tom' s motion
that I was wondering if it created a Brown Act problem is not
needed anymore and I don' t see anything else in his motion that I
have any questions about having a Brown Act violation. I think
as Supervisor DeSaulnier noted it would be a gesture on your part
of good faith and I think it' s something which you know just
about everybody in the room on both sides would appreciate.
Ken Etherington: Sure, when you were bringing that subject up, I
was talking to my colleagues about that and as Gayle said it is
getting late tonight and we would like to have some time to
consider that with our staff but yes, we would consider it .
Supervisor Rogers : I'm sorry. . .
Ken: Yes,We would consider it but I'd like to have some time to
consult with our staff before making a decision tonight .
Supervisor Bishop: I would imagine, just as an interjection,
that you probably have contracts and agreements with people to
accept special waste from outside the County.
Ken: We do. The industrial waste . . . .
Supervisor Bishop: and unilaterally we would put them into a,
it' s giving them a week to look into what those contract
obligations are .
Supervisor Torlakson: If we could get it back to us at our next
meeting, a response on that issue.
Ken: Yeah and that is a concern, we have obligations to
customers, so that' s why I couldn' t make a decision right now.
Supervisor Smith: could we at least go ahead with making the
motion to schedule the workshop with the cities and the Bay Point
MAC and go through the details in Pittsburg hopefully and get the
report back from them next week.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: And we' ll notice all these folks .
Supervisor Torlakson: We' ll let everyone know. Just so the
public knows what' s part of our discussion. Under the Brown Act
which is a open meeting public disclosure act, certain things if
they' re not clearly specified in the agenda, you may not be able
to act on them or it' s questionable . So, rather than
unilaterally act or rather than act when BFI is indicating that
they would voluntarily consider this within parameters of current
contracts and so forth, we could have that issue before us,
legally noticed next week and with further review from BFI but
take action on the rest of the matters tonight to start the
process. You know, I' d like to see us do that importation ban
tonight it would be my preference but I think Vic I don' t know if
you had a chance to give us the final Brown Act opinion,
Victor Westman: No, I would say since there' s been a focus on
that matter, I would have to agree that if you did take action to
rescind that order of December 1993 and it were challenged, I
think it would be subject to be recalled and you would have to
reconsider that decision.
Supervisor Torlakson: So, with that legal opinion, we need to
put it on next weeks' agenda and I would move the other items
that we talked about in a motion incorporating the comments of
other supervisors .
Supervisor Rogers : Second.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: Ken, before you leave, you mentioned I
mean I look at this as an opportunity and you mention you have an
obligation to your customers but you obviously , right and I
think in the long run you better serve your customers if you
serve the community, so I'm really looking forward to as soon as
possible some kind of response to the request .
Ken: Yeah, before the next meeting.
Supervisor DeSaulnier: Right .
Supervisor Torlakson: The other thing that Ken, that you could
look at but I think we need to look at and communicate with the
air district on. I'm hearing more total information, first hand
testimony about dust issues and the asthma issue has been brought
up but we know asthma can be triggered by lots of things but dust
is certainly one of those and that' s an item that needs to get
addressed somehow and I would ask you to look at it . I made
these surveys available to the staff . There' s a number of people
that have indicated concerns in the survey but I've heard more
tonight about the dust issue and that' s something we did not
think was going to happen. We knew it was extremely windy but
the dust control measures were to be put in place were supposed
to take care of that .
Ken: I'd like to add one real short thing and I'm concerned
about the citizens that have mentioned that they' re having health
problems . But on a personal not, since I was sixteen years old,
I have worked in the landfill . From right in the garbage pushing
it with bulldozers all the way up to managing landfills, so up
until three years ago, my whole career' s been managing landfills .
At them. Not at a plush desk 30 miles away. At the landfill,
right in them and I'm doing fine and the reason I'm bringing that
up again, its not to say that the concerns of the citizens around
there aren' t valid.
Supervisor Bishop: Excuse me just a minute. Go ahead Mr.
Etherington.
Ken: Okay, I just wanted to add that, I've worked around them my
whole life and if I had a family, and my son wanted to work at a
landfill . I did it and I'm not concerned about it .
Supervisor Smith: One question, Supervisor Torlakson brought up
the dust issue and it reminded me of one person who commented
about the fact that the time period during the night is when the
cover drys out and just strikes me that maybe we could ask staff
and Health Services to think about possible modifications of the
land use permit that might do more to mitigate you know to
prevent the dust spread and mitigate the dust problem if they are
possible .
Supervisor Torlakson: I' d include that in the motion.
Supervisor Bishop: One of the things that was raised by someone
was a commitment on shrubs and trees which not only put up a
visual barrier but they could also screen out if they' re mature
at some point they would be mature but they have a screening
ability, so that' s something I . . . .
Supervisor Rogers : Just following up on Supervisor DeSaulnier' s
comments about good neighbors, and there' s various ways in which
that' s done . I have to say listening to the testimony that this
is certainly something that we do need to look at and I would
hope as one part of that good neighbor policy, that there would
be a very close look at trying to identify what exactly is going
on and as you know, clearly some people can be exposed to
something that may be a problem and it' s fine for you and
somebody else may be exposed to the same problem and they get a
lot of problems, so I would certainly hope that you folks could
look at it pro-actively and try to analyze what anti-dust, safety
measures whatever you might be able to recommend kind of
proactively rather than waiting for the process to move .
Ken: Something we were discussing while sitting there is putting
some air monitors in the areas of the residents down there and
actually taking samples .
Supervisor Bishop: Mr. Alexeeff .
Val Alexeeff : One of the things I've noticed as I've been
involved in this issue is the benefit potentially of a spirit of
cooperation to the extent that let' s say that Pittsburg can allow
the landfill to have water, the landfill can provide more
landscape because they would have water to water the landscape,
to the extent that there was opportunities for community meetings
between the landfill owners and the surrounding property owners,
things like air monitors and ideas like that I think would pop
up. I think to the extent that the positions are completely
adversarial whenever they meet, those opportunities that come up
when people get together and brainstorm together in cooperation
seem to be lost and that' s just my observation from being at
different aspects of this issue .
Supervisor Bishop: Good observation. I found it you know as I
said, the testimony was very compelling but I found it
troublesome after we specifically said no medical waste, you know
contaminated needles, that it wasn' t hazardous waste and PCBs
have they ever been and that either and repeatedly I heard
testimony so I would hope that when we do have dialogue that we
that that sense of distrust it somehow it won' t go away but at
least it' s diminished.
Supervisor Torlakson: Along those same lines, Madam Chair, I
think the whole issue of contaminated soil, we have an
application in West County for an enclosed system to treat it .
How is that different than the kind of material that' s been
brought out here, that' s been proposed in the future and if the
soil' s contaminated with gasoline, what waste category does it
fall under but how do we know what kind of lead content, are
there other things in the soil just beside gasoline . What kind
of testing' s been done. And so those are some of the kinds of
questions that are plaguing residents and along those lines as
part of the motion, we ask that staff look at how to disclose the
information that we do have on file in terms of the what did you
call them, the accountabilities, the ladens, bills of lading and
various information of manifest that we have on file and can we
have a fairly quick way to get that to the public, so that the
public can access that information, the City that is interested
and any of the residents . I' d like to make that part of the
motion that we ask staff to as quickly as possible make that
information available to the public.
Supervisor Bishop: I would say that each one of the people that
testified tonight some of your presentation was a bit on the
technical side and I frankly feel that two pages, bullets about
the points that you were making and responses to their questions
that we've heard and the concerns that they've heard, if we could
put that in some kind of form and get it back to those people but
also when we do have our meeting, that we have information,
charts, whatever for public edu and BFI I think this is their
responsibility too to get that there .
Supervisor Rogers : Madam Chair, just briefly, I think when we
think about some of the other neighbors that do sometimes impact
the community I think it is important to remember that a lot of
them have had time to work out good neighbor policies and work
out ways to try to show that they do care about the community.
When there are problems, they fess up to the problems and they
try to deal with it . Chevron which is in the district that I'm
in has an extraordinarily large plant that does occasionally
create problems and they've had maybe I guess about 90 years to
try to work out some relationship with the community that works,
so hopefully over time BFI can try to come to that same kind of
situation and in Richmond, there is a certain amount of trust I
think when Chevron says such and such happens because there have
been problems, they have admitted tothem. They've gone out
aggressively to try to correct the problems and I think that' s
again part of a process which hopefully over time will develop.
Supervisor Bishop: I do want to say this whole issue has been
very difficult for everyone that' s been here tonight and I just
want to thank you for the courteous testimony that you've given
and the way you've been very respectful of one another' s
divergent points of view, so this will continue and we' ll see you
next time.
Supervisor Torlakson: That' ll be Community Development
Department will . . .the other thing. . . . .
discussion between the audience and chair re Scott Gordon
speaking.
Supervisor Bishop: The difference is we have someone who has an
entitlement here . If you could Mr. Gordon address your comments
through. . .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: All he would like is to restate the
motion and I think that would be good for all of us so we' re all
clear.
Supervisor Torlakson: On the motion that' s on the floor, to
reiterate the points . We approve what was in the staff reports
to begin with. Second, we authorize and ask the Community
Development and the LEA together to work and coordinate a
workshop with the City of Concord, Pittsburg, we should include
Clayton because they've expressed an interest and Bay Point
Municipal Council and we have a very thorough way of notifying
all the neighbors that are affected, there' s 3-400 homes so that
that' s included in the notification of the workshop, that we
would have the Air Board and our staff look at the issues related
to the dust complaints that we've received tonight . Pass those
on and that we would ask staff to look at with BFI at other
measure that could be done to control dust right now, during the
night in particular, but in the extreme winds that are up there,
what more can be done immediately to address that problem. It
would include putting on next wee'k' s agenda, the Board' s
resolution which allowed importation and to receive a report from
staff on that as well as from BFI in terms of stopping that
importation in terms of what our options are and I'm certainly in
favor of that . That we would ask staff further to look at the
other categories of special waste that we generate from within
the County, the five categories, and to look at what if any of
those should be stopped in the land use permit from being allowed
in the future . So we have categories one through five, 1, 2 , 3 , 4 ,
or 5 any part or all be examined for restriction so we don' t
future applications with asbestos as part of the application
material and have the worry that goes with that . That the
opening of the records would occur as quickly as possible . That
the cities and any representatives of the community that want to
see various types of records on what has already been disposed
there in terms of special waste, the manifests and analytics
would be made available as quickly as possible\ . Those are the
main points I recall from. . .
Supervisor Smith: And that we move ahead with the review of the
land use permit pursuant tothe land use permit criteria.
Supervisor Torlakson: Right . Correct . That is in the staff
report but it should be pursuant to the land use criteria and
other parameters of what we want the Planning Commission after
the workshop what we'd want the Planning Commission to look at in
the land use permit .
Supervisor smith: So, that we'd have the workshop first and then
refer it to the Planning Commission.
Supervisor Torlakson: Right, the staff should know, and the
Planning Commission should know that it' s going to come onto
their agendas so they can start gearing up for that . Further
that we would refer these issues of special waste and I think we
really need to look at eliminating the term and getting down to
something that makes more common sense and eliminating most of
the hazardous stuff, the toxic stuff should be eliminated but
that we refer the issue to the Keller Canyon Advisory Committee.
That the issue of what we do what guidelines, what we review,
should also be discussed there, as the group that' s been
designated by us for interaction with the community. That was
part of my original motion and I hope that' s acceptable because
that' s a local group that' s embodied and it' s been empowered to
meet to try to exchange information and have input brought to us .
Supervisor Bishop: I was in support of the motion all along
until we got to the point where we are going to consider taking
special waste, import or existing, out of our land use permit .
That that is something that we' re going to do.
Supervisor Rogers : Well, my understanding is this was scheduling
it for consideration. We' re not saying or we are or aren' t
planning on doing it .
Supervisor Bishop: Alright, all those in favor of the motion,
indicate by saying aye. Carries unanimously. With that we are
adjourned.
ity of Pittsburg
Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg,California 94565
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 16, 1995
The Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
RE: AGENDA ITEM HA: NON-MUNICIPAL SOLED WASTE DISPOSAL AT
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
Dear Supervisor Bishop:
We appreciate the Board's consideration of issues stemming from the disposal of non-
municipal solid waste at Keller Canyon Landfill. As Supervisor Torlakson adeptly illustrated
in his April 1 l.th Board Order calling for a report on the scope and nature of non-municipal
solid waste disposal at Keller Canyon Landfill, the regulatory environment in which Keller
operates has changed dramatically since the landfill was originally sited and permitted.
The most notable of these changes include: the 1992 Supreme Court decisions affecting solid
waste import and export; the demonstrated abundance of regional and national solid disposal
capacity; and, this Board's granting of a blanket authorization (albeit temporary) for Keller
Canyon to direct-haul designated and so-called special wastes. These circumstances have
allowed Keller Canyon to explore, and in some cases achieve, changes in operations which
directly impact the surrounding community in ways never considered in landfill's original
enviromnental documentation and subsequent operating permits. For this reason, we support
staff's recommendation that the County Planning Commission review Keller's Land Use
Permit, and would suggest that the permit should be modified.
Although we understand that staff is proposing to develop criteria for this review, we would
ask the Board to ensure that the public is allowed to play a meaningful role in this process.
One of the central issues that must be addressed is the quantity and nature of designated and
so-called special waste that Keller Canyon should be allowed to receive. Contrary to the
history provided by Keller Canyon representatives, the landfill was never envisioned as
accepting up to 40% contaminated soils or other designated wastes. The fact that Keller has
yet to reach this limit should in no way make this issue any less significant.
California Healthy Cities Project ^AA,
National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award - 1993
City of New Horizons
The Honorable Gayle Bishop; Keller Letter
May 16, 1995
Page Two
Allowing up to 40% of the Landfill's tonnage to be direct-hauled, designated wastes may be
consistent with the vehicle trips analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. However, it
has not been demonstrated that the other portions of the EIR, particularly the related Health
Risk Assessment, ever contemplated Keller receiving up to 40% designated and so-called
special wastes. The levels of designated and so-called special waste actually analyzed in the
Health Risk Assessment cannot be confirmed since this document has apparently been
misplaced. We believe that this issue should be carefully examined by the County Planning
Commission, and, if warranted, a new Health Risk Assessment be conducted.
While BFI representatives would lead you to believe that these issues are relatively clear-cut,
we have been fascinated by the fact that the Board Order prepared for tonight's meeting
provides 10 different definitions that can be applied to the 14 designated, or inert waste-types
identified in Keller's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. And of these definitions, only two can be
found in state regulations, the remaining eight definitions have apparently been devised by
staff subsequent to the,issuance of the LUP and other operating permits.
Since the Board no longer has the prerogative to prohibit the import of designated and so-
called special wastes, we would also suggest that the Planning Commission consider across
the Board limits, and perhaps even a complete ban on the quantity of special wastes that can
be accepted from within or outside of the County. Providing in-County disposal capacity for
Contra Costa's designated wastes has less urgency given that the 1992 Supreme Court
decisions now allow for such materials to be exported to lower cost disposal facilities located
in other counties and away from population centers.
We did have the opportunity to meet with County staff last week to discuss several of our
other concerns, and are encouraged by the prospect of County staff facilitating meetings
between the City and BFI-representatives to discuss the protocols outlined in
recommendations one through three of the Board Order prepared for tonight's meeting.
However, we would like to offer the following comments on these recommendations:
1) Alternate truck route and notification procedures of the City of Pittsburg: This
discussion should be expanded to examine operating practices of both Keller
Canyon Landfill and the Acme transfer station in the event of the unavailability
of the prescribed Bailey Road access to and from the Landfill. In all
truthfulness, there may not be an acceptable alternative transportation route
through Pittsburg to Keller in the event that Bailey Road is closed. To allow
for this possibility, other stand-by measures need to be examined, such as
temporarily re-directing waste from Acme to other regional disposal facilities,
or simply holding the material at the Acme Transfer Station until the prescribed
route is re-opened.
1
The Honorable Gayle Bishop; Keller Letter
May 16, 1995
Page Three
2) Notification of proposed receipt of category 4 and 5 wastes: Although we
applaud the intent of this recommendation, please consider that it is only
necessary in light of the Board's decision to grant blanket approval to direct
hauling wastes to Keller. If this privilege were revoked, all special waste
categories proposed for direct-haul would have to receive advance Board
approval, and thereby be brought to the public's attention. Although designated
wastes defined by County staff as category 5 wastes need a variance prior to
receipt at the landfill, both category 4 and 5 wastes can currently be accepted
at the landfill without County's prior knowledge.
3) Notification in event changes in operation occur: As indicated during our last
presentation before the Board, the City of Pittsburgwill appreciate being
notified when changes in operations are proposed, not after they have occurred.
Again, let us emphasize our eagerness to meet with BFI-representatives. While we may not be
able to agree on all of the outstanding issues surrounding Keller Canyon, most notably its
receipt of designated and so-called special wastes, we believe working together the City and
BFI may be able to resolve many other issues which previously have been viewed as
impasses.
Thank you again for your ongoing cooperation, and your attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Taylor Davis
Mayor
cc: Members, Pittsburg City Council
Michael Woods, Interim City Manager
a0A)5I DEYZ WITH 11.4
` CITY OF CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01 Helen M.Allen,Mayor
Concord,California 94519-2578 Lou Rosas,Vice Mayor
FAx: (510) 798-0636 I Colleen Coll
Bill McManigal
\\ / Michael A.Pastrick
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ® Lynnet 1{Clhl,City Clerk
Telephone: (510) 671-3158 ������!///// Thomas Wending, City Treasurer
Edward R.James,City Manager
May 11, 1995
RECEIVED
Honorable Gayle Bishop, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
O'Brien Administration Building 6
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Dear Supervisor Bishop:
Subject: Keller Canyon Landfill
On May 16, 1995 the Board is scheduled to review the dumping "special wastes" at the Keller Canyon Landfill.
The Concord City Council unanimously (5-0)adopted the attached Resolution No. 95-52 which requests the Board
take specific action on this issue. The City Council requests:
• The Board prohibit effective immediately the dumping of special wastes at the Keller Canyon
Landfill pending further review,
• The Board authorize a review process that includes public workshops to consider new conditions
on the disposal of special wastes or, alternately, institute a complete ban on such disposal if
determined appropriate through the public review process, and
• That any new conditions adopted by the Board include a requirement for detailed public reporting
to communities surrounding the landfill. The intent of this reporting requirement is to promote
public trust in the regulatory process and to assure strict compliance at the Keller Canyon Landfill
with any new conditions.
The City Council requests the Board be given copies of the Resolution 95-52 for consideration at the May 16,
1995 meeting. A City staff report on this issue enclosed. In addition, Peter Dragovich, City of Concord Senior
Administrative Analyst will make a presentation to the Board at your May 16, 1995 meeting.
Sincerely,
dz&-
4
Helen Allen
Mayor
Attachments: Certified Copy of Concord City Council Resolution No. 95-52
City of Concord staff report dated May 9, 1995
cc: City Council ,
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
kelres95.pd
!K%r'
COPY
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
3 A Resolution Requesting that the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors Review the Dumping of Special
4 Wastes at the Keller Canyon Landfill
RESOLUTION NO. 95-52
5 /
6 WHEREAS, the City Council on April 25, 1995 received public testimony
7 concerning the ongoing disposal of special and designated wastes at the Keller Landfill,
8 including testimony from Supervisor Tom Torlakson and Pittsburg City Councilmember Joe
9 Canciamilla; and
10 WHEREAS, on April 11, 1995, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
11 unanimously authorized a review of this issue at its May 16, 1995 meeting; and
12 WHEREAS, the City's Infrastructure and Franchise Committee has recommended
13 that the City Council adopt a resolution: 1) requesting that the Board of Supervisors prohibit
14 the importation of all special and designated wastes pending a review of new, explicit
15 conditions restricting the disposal of special and designated wastes at Keller Canyon Landfill;
16 2) suggesting new conditions that should be considered through that review process; and
17 3) suggesting that local public workshops be held by County officials as part of that review
18 process; and
19 WHEREAS, disposal of the wide variety of special and designated wastes, many of
20 them hazardous materials, at Keller Canyon Landfill, including medical wastes, dioxins
21 pcb's, used needles, industrial waste, dead animals, dried leftover sewage, refinery ash and
22 byproducts, and contaminated soil, may not be in the best interests of the public in nearby
23 communities to protect and improve their health safety and welfare, especially given the
24 increasingly higher volumes of disposal of such wastes at Keller Canyon Landfill; and
25 WHEREAS, it appears that Keller Canyon Landfill no longer operates as a municipal
26 landfill as originally approved and intended; and
27 WHEREAS, it is the City Council's understanding that it was required by the County
28 that Keller Canyon Landfill be constructed as a Class II landfill in order to provide increased
Res. No. 95-52 1
1 protection to the communities in close proximity to it, not to make it a landfill for special
2 and designated wastes; and
3 WHEREAS, the present conditions of approval in the Keller Canyon Landfill Land
4 Use Permit 2020-89 with respect to special wastes, designated wastes and hazardous wastes
5 and the interpretation and application of those conditions in the past, present and future
6 operation of Keller Canyon Landfill are confusing to the public; and
7 WHEREAS, new replacement conditions regarding the disposal of special wastes and
8 designated wastes, especially if they are hazardous materials, developed through a public
9 review process that includes full input from citizens and representatives from nearby
10 communities like the City of Concord, are necessary to avoid future misunderstanding and to
11 improve the public trust and confidence in the operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill; and
12 WHEREAS, it appears that the increase in the volume of special and designated
13 wastes being disposed at Keller Canyon Landfill, which has raised serious public concern, is
14 the result in substantial part of the December 1993 Board of Supervisor's authorization to
15 allow the importation of such wastes; and
16 WHEREAS, the Board Order permitting such importation of special and designated
17 wastes for disposal anticipated subsequent review of its appropriateness, taking into account
18 the total volume and types of such wastes actually being disposed at Keller Canyon Landfill,
19 and its effect on the public health, safety and welfare; and
20 WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the Keller Canyon Landfill did not
21 anticipate the use of contaminated soil as daily cover and the County's review of such a
22 request should include proper environmental documentation, including a revised EIR if
23 determined necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
24 WHEREAS, the County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) conducts no
25 independent tests of special and designated wastes imported to the Keller Canyon Landfill;
26 and
27 WHEREAS, as a necessary first step to restore the confidence of the local
28 communities that their health, safety and welfare will not be jeopardized by the ongoing
Res. No. 95-52 2
1 operations of the Keller Canyon Landfill, the Board of Supervisors must immediately rescind
2 its authorization to allow the import of special wastes and designated wastes, pending the
3 completion of a review of new conditions regarding special and designated wastes and
4 hazardous materials; and
5 WHEREAS, the East County Planning Commission and the County Planning
6 Commission should both provide a report and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
7 on new conditions restricting the disposal of special wastes and designated wastes in order to
8 give the Board input from Planning Commissioners representing each of the affected, nearby
9 communities.
10 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD
11 DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
12 Section 1. Requests that the Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of May 16, 1995,
13 exercise its authority under the Board Order dated December 7, 1993, in importation of
14 special wastes, and its authority to administer the Keller Canyon Landfill and to enforce its
15 terms and conditions under Land Use Permit 2020-89, including but not limited to its
16 authority under Conditions 5.2, 6 and 11 of the permit.
17 Section 2. That the Board of Supervisors prohibit, effective immediately, the
18 disposal of any special wastes, designated wastes and hazardous materials at Keller Canyon
19 Landfill that originate outside Contra Costa County, until the Board receives and takes action
20 on a report and recommendation, including any appropriate environmental review, from the
21 East County Planning Commission and the County Planning Commission on new conditions
22 concerning the disposal of any special and designated wastes and hazardous materials at
23 Keller Canyon Landfill.
24 Section 3. Recommends that the County review process to consider such new
25 conditions to include, as one alternative for consideration, a complete prohibition on the
26 disposal of special wastes and designated wastes which contain hazardous materials.
27 Section 4. Further recommends that any new conditions include regular, detailed
28 public reporting requirements that are made available to nearby communities like the City of
Res. No. 95-52 3
1 Concord in a timely manner so as to assure the public that there will be strict compliance at
2 Keller Canyon Landfill with new conditions regarding the disposal of special wastes,
3 designated wastes and hazardous materials. It is further recommended that as part of this
4 County review process, local public workshops be held by County officials to allow for more
5 complete input from the citizens and representatives of nearby communities like the City of
6 Concord.
7 Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
8 adoption.
9 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on May 9,
10 1995 by the following vote:
11 AYES: Councilmembers - C.Coll, B.McManigal, M.Pastrick, L.Rosas, H.Allen
12 NOES: Councilmembers - None
13 ABSTAIN: Councilmembers - None
14 ABSENT: Councilmembers - None
15 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 95-52 was duly and
16 regularly adopted at a regular joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
17 of the City of Concord on May 9, 1995.
18
19
Lynnet K ih CMC
20 City Clerk
21 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
22 .,/• !aNtjt tlMt M•tar m0!►d
�1- � •--map 61 4a1►
23 Laurel R. Weil
Acting City Attorney pMit
24 py meq,tests
25
26
27
28
Res. No. 95-52 4
oncor REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL AGENDA[TEM NO.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
DATE: May 9, 1995
SUBJECT: BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES (BFI) REQUEST TO THE CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DUMP "SPECIAL
WASTES" AT THE KELLER CANYON LANDFILL.
Report. in Brief
In December 1993, The County Board of Supervisors allowed BFI, the operator of Keller
Canyon Landfill, to import a limited amount of "special wastes" to the landfill. Special wastes
include infectious medical waste, dioxins, pcb's, used needles, industrial wastes, dead animals,
dried leftover sewage, spoiled fruit and contaminated soil. Supervisor Tom Torlakson is
concerned the Keller Canyon Landfill is no longer functioning as a municipal solid waste landfill
as originally permitted. He is concerned the Keller Canyon Landfill is receiving substantial
quantities of hazardous waste which may endanger the public health. Supervisor Torlakson is
requesting the Board of Supervisors authorize a review of this issue at their May 16, 1995
meeting. The Council Infrastructure and Franchise Committee recommends the City Council
adopt Resolution 95-52 requesting the Board of Supervisors conduct this review.
Background
In June 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court established that jurisdictions have the right to export
solid waste to landfills located outside of the county in which the waste originated. As a result,
the Keller Canyon Landfill lost business as communities sought lower cost out-of-county landfill
disposal. In December 1993, BFI requested and received permission from the County Board of
Supervisors to import special waste to the Keller Canyon Landfill.
Recently, BFI requested the County review allowing the importation of asbestos to Keller Canyon
and the use of contaminated soil as daily cover. Daily cover is an approximate 6" layer of soil
that is place on top of the waste to prevent rodents, flies and other animals access to the garbage
and to reduce the amount of windblown garbage. To-date, the County has not acted on the latter
requests. Supervisor Tom Torlakson is sponsoring an initiative at the Board of Supervisors that
would authorize a review of past practices in accepting special waste, the recent requests to dump
asbestos, use contaminated soil as daily cover, and to determine if new conditions on the
operation of the landfill are required to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
' s
Report in Brie
Page 2
Discussion
The Environmental Impact Report for the Keller Canyon Landfill did not anticipate the use
of contaminated soil as daily cover. When the Board allowed the importation of special waste
in December 1993 special waste was to constitute no more than 40% of the total waste disposed
at the landfill within any 12-month period. It is not known if the decline of garbage entering the
landfill and the increase of special waste is causing the 40% limit to be exceeded. More
importantly, inadequate checks are in place to assure the special wastes are not threatening the
health of surrounding neighborhoods and communities. The only tests conducted are those done
by the generator of the waste. The County Health Department conducts no independent tests of
the composition of the waste.
Condition 11.1 of the Land Use Permit for Keller Canyon Landfill gives the County Board of
Supervisors authority to modify conditions of approval of the landfill or require additional
conditions to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The health impacts of the importation
of special waste require further investigation. Since these impacts are not presently known in
adequate detail it appears that a reasonable course of action would be to suspend importation of
the waste until these issues have been examined. If importation is allowed it should be done with
proper environmental documentation and provision for ongoing independent (third-party) testing
of the waste. A draft resolution for the Committee's review will be presented at the May 6,
1995 Committee meeting.
Fiscal Impact.
The City Council's approval of a resolution requesting the County Board of Supervisors
initiate a review of these issues would have no fiscal impact on the City.
Public Contact
Standard notice for a City Council meeting.
Council Committee Recommendation
1. Adopt Resolution No. 95-52 requesting the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
conduct a review of the importation of special waste to the Keller Canyon Landfill.
Alternative Courses of Action
1. Adopt Resolution No. 95-52 requesting the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
conduct a review of the importation of special waste to the Keller Canyon Landfill.
2. Do not approve Resolution No. 95-52.
Report in Brief
Page 3
Recommendation for Action
Alternative 1., adopt Resolution No. 95-52 requesting the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors conduct a review of the importation of special waste to the Keller Canyon Landfill.
Edward R. James Prepared by Peter Dragovich
City Manager Senior Administrative Analyst
Enclosures: Resolution 95-52