Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-04 - AGENDA REPORTS - SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Carl Boyer and Members of the City Council FROM: John E. Medina, Director of Public Works DATE: September 4, 1991 SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES - MRF/TS/RAIL HAUL Council has requested a report and the opportunity to discuss the City's desired activity in MRF and Rail Haul The City's final Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) previously presented to Council, is a planning guideline to effectively meet the 25% and 50% diversion goals mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939). The SRRE evaluates several programs to recover recyclables and other wastes from the City's waste stream. Among these diversion programs the SRRE included the use of a Materials Recovery Facility/Transfer Station (MRF/TS) and intermediate processing facility. Rail Haul in itself does not address the goals of AB939, that is to reduce the waste stream since without a partnership with a MRF/IPC/Composting, it only redirects the location of landfilling non -recycled materials. To assist in understanding the various alternative, the definitions of a material recovery facility transfer station and intermediate processing facility are provided: FER STATI A transfer station is a facility where collection trucks empty waste which is then loaded onto trailers or containers for transport to a disposal facility (landfills). MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY IMRF) MRF's are basically transfer stations that recover recyclable portions from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream, including the recovery of green, wood and food wastes which are mulched,and composted on site (minimal waste not capable of being recycled or composted will still go to a landfill). �Agenda Item.. Page 2 INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING FACILITY (IPC) An IPC is a facility that sorts and processes commingled recyclables (plastic, tin, aluminum, glass and paper) and prepares them for market. The City's decision to pursue either an IPC or MRF in addition to rail haul should be based upon a thorough study of the economic, technical and institutional feasibility. A study must address the issues listed in Attachment A. Approximately 20.1% of our residential waste stream can be diverted through a composting, mulching facility and approximately 6.2% through recycling/an IPC, in the year 2000. Backyard composting is used in some cities, where the units are purchased for $40-50 and resold to residents for $10. The effectiveness is not conclusive and odor problems do exist. It is felt that a municipal or centralized composting facility will be the most effective just as commingled recyclable collection is more effective than individual containers for each different recyclable material. It should be noted that the City's AB939 plan proposes to compost/mulch only its green waste and wood waste so that a high quality compost is attained and easily marketed to the various end-users. The remainder of the MSW (inorganics) can also be composted through a separate process to achieve volume reduction before being- sent to a landfill. The national consensus is that marketing the inorganic compost is not recommended because it may contain hazardous contaminants. The California Integrated Waste Management Act and the Los Angeles County Public Works is requiring each municipality to identify in its AB939 how it is going to address its disposal of non -recyclable waste stream for the next 15 years. The landfill capacity crisis requires that solutions such as rail haul is essential as an important part of the total solution. It is, however, essential that regional approaches where cities in partnership with private enterprise develop MRF's to assure minimizing the waste flow to landfills. Attachment B provides additional information on MRF's including costs. City Council initiate discussions with elected officials of neighboring jurisdictions and private companies to determine the level interest for the development of a Regional MRF and/or IPC in conjunction with rail haul programs. JEM:gmm/MRF Attachments Attachment A I. LOCAL IPC A. Environmental 1. Location 2. Siting 3. Size B. Costs 1. Land 2. Construction 3. Operating C. Cost Effectiveness ($ per ton) D. Finance 1. Funding source II. REGIONAL MRF's A. Environmental 1. Location 2. Siting 3. Size B. Region 1. Cities 2. Counties C. Costs 1. Land 2. Construction 3. Operating D. Finance 1. JPA with other cities, counties (public ownership) 2. JPA with landfill owners, rail haul haulers (private ownership) 3. Public/private ownership 4. Santa Clarita's share of the cost E. Flow Decisions 1. City commit to long-term disposal contracts (guarantee tonnage to MRF rather than rail haul) 2. City commit to MRF in combination with Rail Haul 3. City commit to Rail Haul/no MRF F. Elsmere Landfill 1. Would a MRF help the City's position in fighting the proposed landfill 2. Would a MRF make rail haul a viable option Attachment B LANDFILL MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES (MMMANSFER STATI MRF's are an effective, flexible and technically reliable means to recover non -source separated materials. The siting of MRF's at or near existing landfills offers greater public acceptance and avoids environmental impacts at new undisturbed areas. As outlined in the City's SRRE, MRF's would be sited at Chiquita and Sunshine Canyons. The City would work in cooperation. with other cities, counties, waste haulers, waste by rail advocates and landfill owners to promote a private/public partnership (JPA) to build and separate a regional MRF. Waste haulers disposing of non -source separated waste, would be required to deposit their loads at the MRF. Landfill and MRF operators would be responsible for separating, processing and marketing all materials recovered at the MRF's. Governmental agencies act as regional units to guarantee tonnages to landfills and waste by rail advocates. Cost to build the facility would be divided between all the participating parties. Construction costs for a 500 tons per day (TPD) facility will range from $17 million and approximately $40 million for a 1,000 TPD. JOINT OWNERSHIP MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY (AIRF)/TRANSFER STATION (TSl Local waste haulers would enter into a joint ownership with the City to own and operate a MRF and mulching facility to accept HSW generated in the city and neighboring areas. The construction cost for this would range from $8-10 million for 50-300 TPD.