HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - GBB LACO SOLID WASTE POLICY (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
—14 -
Item to be presented by:
NEW BUSINESS
DATE: October 10, 1995
SUBJECT: GBB LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE POLICY STUDY
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
DEPARTMENT:: City Manager's Office/Special Projects
BACKGROUND
The City Council authorized a comprehensive solid waste policy study for Los Angeles County's
waste management system at its June 13, 1995 meeting. The firm of Gershman, Brickner and
Bratton (GBB) of Falls Church, Virginia was selected to conduct the policy study and was
awarded a contract in the amount of $75,000.
Staff is proposing to expand the scope of the policy study to include an analysis of the effects of
demographic trends and economic trends on solid waste generation rates and household size.
Eugene Grigsby and Leo Estrada both professors at the University of California at Los Angeles
will be added to the project team to add the demographics portion of the policy analysis. GBB
will also include analysis of current landfill capacities in Los Angeles and neighboring counties,
update the County's 1988 Action Plan, apply new policy models to the Action Plan as well as
include an analysis of various alternatives and the effect they may have on the capacity and
lifetime of existing landfills in Los Angeles County.
GBB's preliminary analysis was included in the City's response to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elsmere Canyon. Frank Bernheisel
of GBB also participated in the recent hearings for HR 924 in Washington, D.C. before the
Subcommittee of the Resources Committee which would prohibit the exchange of lands from the
Angeles National Forest for the siting of the Elsmere Canyon Landfill.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed expansion in the scope of work for the GBB solid waste policy study would require
an additional $50,000. Funds for this purpose are available in Account No. 20-2259 Trust
Account and would be transferred to Account No. 01-4103-230.
gbbamend.agn.
page no. 1 pp� �� lj L� Agenda Item.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the amendment to the contract for GBB to
conduct a solid waste Policy Analysis for Los Angeles County's Solid Waste Management System
in the amount of $50,000, and to transfer funds from Account No. 20-2259 to Account No. 01-
4103-230.
ATTACHMENT
Study Outline
gbbamend.agn
page no. 2
TO: Santa Clarita Team
FROM: Frank Bernheisel
DATE: September 8, 1995
Q,BB)
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Outline for Project Repo
PUDLIC N.L`'•.S C=oagrpr-VT
CIN-
+,�
In November we are due to complete the report for the Santa Clarita project. Joan Edwards,
Liz Wood and I have revised and updated the report outline. This is a draft and we would like
input and comment. Please be constructive in your input: if suggesting modifications, provide
language and alternatives.
I think this outline is ambitious. If you have data or can clarify an issue, please do so.
I will be in Los Angeles, September 11 through 14, and hope to discuss this with you.
Attachment
Gershman, Brickner 8 Bratton, Inc..
2735 Hartland Road
Falls Church, Virginia 22043-3537
(703)5738800 FAX (7031698 1306
primM an Re Jed Raper
DRAFT ANNOTATED OUTLINE 9/1/95
SANTA CLARPTA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Summary will incorporate the key points developed in the document, including: the
rationale for a new policy approach, the role of the County, and the three tables developed for
Chapters V and X. The three tables build the case for a diversion -based approach, starting from
the County's projections of capacity and generation, through more realistic and inclusive
projections, to an optimal chart showing the further effect of aggressive diversion programs.
L INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This section establishes the parameters of the study; specifically, what can be accomplished
within the time frame and budget of the effort. The report is intended to invalidate the status
quo "bigger and better landfill' approach to municipal solid waste management by clearly
defining the issues and providing sufficient documentation to support credibility. It is intended
to provide a strategic plan and direction for a County effort. The report will not, however, be
a specific plan addressing quantified amounts of materials through a step-by-step implementation
timeline and cost calculations. Needs for the development of an implementable plan are:
• Verifiable quantification and characterization of waste actually generated in Los Angeles
County (including materials presently diverted, both reported and estimates of
unreported);
• Reorganization of the County's waste management structure;
• Determination of leadership and the roles of the public and private sectors;
• The essential. public: input. to the development: of such a plan; and
• Cost and programmatic information from the County's Integrated Plan and Disposal
Capacity Study (it doesn't appear that it will be available this year).
11. HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE PLANNING
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
This brief chapter sets the stage for subsequent discussions. It acknowledges that the County
has done a good job of ensuring disposal capacity for County waste over time and that the
County has provided leadership for change previously. However, the Action Plan was adopted
in 1988 and is not in sync with AB 939. Also, we would like to outline the structure of the
solid waste management system (County Sanitation/County Public Works/localities). Through
a discussion of the County's effective planning and operations history, the chapter also
establishes the fact that the County has the ability to direct future solid waste management by
exerting the same leadership powers and direct powers that it has utilized in the past.
M. RATIONALE FOR A NEW APPROACH
TO COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
This chapter briefly describes the major reasons why it is time to rethink the policies underlying
the system, and why there is reason to be positive about a new approach based on alternatives
to landfilling. Items to cover include:
• Public demand (high expectations on the part of the public at large and environmental
activist groups);
• Shifts in legislative policy (including mandates), regulatory policies, and governmental
support systems (i.e., CIWMB) as a result of public demand;
• Landfill problems (siting, land availability; disposal cost trends, ultimate dependence on
export, long-term liability issues);
• Waste importation and export trends;
• Changes in landfill management techniques (note capacity -saving techniques, endorsement
of CIWMB report, and cross-reference Chapter VI);
• Changes in diversion technology (covering both the maturing of existing technologies,
and the development of emerging technologies; cross-reference to Chapter VII);
• Increasing diversion capacity (both documenting expansion of markets for recyclables in
the County and as a result of increased recycling activity nationwide, such as new
papermill capacity);
• Changing economics (downward trend in diversion costs and increases in revenues for
recovered materials, discussed vis-a-vis the increasing costs of landfill disposal);
• Documented successes (examples of programs that have achieved 30 and 40 percent
diversion in only a few years);
• Economic development (potential local jobs created as a result of increased diversion
activities); and
• Opportunities for direct County actions (cross-reference Chapter VIII).
2
IV. CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND= CAPACITY
This chapter is a short narrative describing the development of detailed tables that utilize the
same format as the County's landfill capacity table included in the EIR/EIS (based on Table 3.2-
1). The tables will incorporate:
• All Class III landfills in the County using capacity calculated from CIWMB database;
• Inert landfill capacity; and
• Out -of -County landfill capacity accessible via rail or competitive truck transfer.
A summary table is developed for this chapter covering all three types of capacity. The
summary table is needed in order to divert the inert material presently disposed of at Class III
landfills to inert fills, and to come up with MSW capacity estimates in and out of County.
V. WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS AND
COUNTY DIVERSION/DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS
A. STATEWIDE AND NATIONAL TRENDS
This chapter section analyzes shifts in per capita waste generation rates in California and nation-
wide, citing documented sources. Overall, the per capita waste generation rate is downward,
compared to the County's projected rate of increase.
B. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
This section provides discussion of documented County growth patterns and comparison with
the County's straight-line estimates.
C. WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
This section quantifies the impacts of population growth and demographics developed in section
V.B on waste generation. Identify growth/loss areas within the County, if possible.
This section will quantify (as the data permits) and discuss trends in the import and export of
waste from the County.
C
TABLE 3.2-1
EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPONENT CAPACITIES AND PROJECTED DISPOSAL NEEDS'
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA
(Tons Per Day Assuming a 6 -Day Disposal Week)
Year
Waste
Gegerattott,'ercent
Rate
I?tyetsian
11151gsgh�
Need
Landfill Capaddes (tpd-6)
Unsalislicd
Need
Potent
lulu
Spadra`
- -PICK; ,
Scholl '
..
`Bradley
`Lopes
Sunshine'
Chiquila
Lalahassas
1993
44,784
22.2
34,842
12,000
3,000
12,000
2,022
7,000
3,333
0
1,443
2,426
0
7 yrs. -
2000
53,234
50.0
26,617
12,000
0
12,000
1,821.
0
0
6,000
0
.2,185
0
10 yrs.-
2003
54,847
50.0
27,424
12,000
0
12,000
1,876
0
0
6,000
0
2,251
0
15 yr3. -
2008
57,645
50.0
28,822
.0
0
0
1,972
0
0
0
0
2,366
24,484
20 yrs. -
2013
60,585
50.0
30,293
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
00
30,293
40 yrs. -
2033
73,925
50.0
36,962
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,962
50 yrs.-
2043
81,660
50.0
40,830
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,830
Source:. Los Angeles County Department of Public. Works, as reported by Stone (1994b).
°Operation of the BKK Landfill is permitted until 2006, although current operations may be terminated as early as 1995.
® 'Sunshine Canyon disposal was recently approved by Los Angeles County, and disposal at this site is expected to resume in 1995..
d
O
A:001%els.3 3-8
E. H"ACI' ON WASTE DISPOSALDIVERSION CAPACITY NEEDS
This section develops a table in the EIR/EIS "time -to -crisis" format (Table 1.3-1) utilizing the
Class III, Inert, and Out -of -County capacities developed in Chapter V and the new per capita
generation rates developed in V.0 above.
VI. STRATEGIES FOR CONSERVING LANDFILL CAPACITY
Brief summaries of the techniques that can be utilized to conserve capacity at operating landfills
are provided, including alternative cover, landfill mining, etc., along with estimates of their
potential for conserving landfill capacity. Details are provided in an Appendix.
VII. DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES
This chapter discusses the opportunities to increase diversion in Los Angeles County. The
sections below summarize and highlight the approaches. An estimate of the diversion potential
of each type of facility is included under the appropriate discussion. Details are provided in an
Appendix.
A. RECYCLING PROCESSING FACILITIES
This section provides a discussion of capacity growth and technical maturation of MRF,
composting, paper processing, C&D processing, tire recovery, and similar facilities. Also
addresses costs for collection and processing, and shifts in revenues.
B. TRANSFORMATION FACILTT ES
This section focuses on existing waste -to -energy facilities, and opportunities for optimum
operations (for example, in 1994 the two WTE facilities processed 1,686 TPD based on the six
day capacity equivalent, by increasing facility ratings to match permitted capacity, the capacity
of would'double. This would provide 500,000 tons per year of additional capacity, not counting
any ash disposal requirement.
rejlmm• �
The market demand for recovered materials has been very strong in the last year. This has
raised the prices paid for these materials, especially paper. Further demand and prices will be
addressed.
5
TABLE 1.3-1
WASTE DISPOSAL DEMAND AND CAPACITY
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
METROPOLITAN AREA
'Source: Stone, 1994.
'Existing capacities include resolution of the current litigation concerning the Puente Hills Landfill to allow disposal
at that facility to November 2003; resolution of litigation concerning the BKK West Covina Landfill to allow
disposal to the year 2006 (this facility will close at the end of 1995 if current litigation is resolved in favor of the
City of West Covina), and startup of operations at Sunshine Canyon in 1995. If these events do not occur, a
shortfall of disposal capacity could occur much sooner than indicated in this table.
3Currently identified existing landfill expansions represent total site physical capacity at facilities which are the
subject of current or recent permit applications. These include Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Puente Hills Landfill,
and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. It should be noted that the latter application has been on file with the City of
Los Angeles since June 1991, and to date the City of Los Angeles has expressed their opposition to this project.
Note: q3d-6 — tons per day, 6 days per week
0 I)AmEs & MOORE
P:00 I ksn&mdmUvm I -cls' 1-10 @ Tha report pmed o. mcydd paper.
TxgalLy-Td
Waste
Iirtanl�.
it,. -C . oi I m171
. ..
muteIJisposal
.....
Disposal
....
RaterRaterIN
....vermon,
Need-
Capacit
Bzoitri#61is:
4ca ity.:��
...Year
Opd
*scent} :.
1993
44,794
22.2
34,842
43,224
0
0
7 yrs. -
53,234
so
26,617
34,006
10,000
0
2000
10 yrs. -
54,947
50
27,424
34,127
10,000
0
2003
15 yrs. -
57,645
50
28,822
4,338
18,000
6,494
2009
20 yrs. -
60,585
50
30,293
0
20,022
10,271
2013
40 yrs. -
73,925
50
36,962
0
6,000
30,962
2033
50 yrs. -
81,660
50
40,830
0
6,000
34,830
2043
1
1 11
'Source: Stone, 1994.
'Existing capacities include resolution of the current litigation concerning the Puente Hills Landfill to allow disposal
at that facility to November 2003; resolution of litigation concerning the BKK West Covina Landfill to allow
disposal to the year 2006 (this facility will close at the end of 1995 if current litigation is resolved in favor of the
City of West Covina), and startup of operations at Sunshine Canyon in 1995. If these events do not occur, a
shortfall of disposal capacity could occur much sooner than indicated in this table.
3Currently identified existing landfill expansions represent total site physical capacity at facilities which are the
subject of current or recent permit applications. These include Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Puente Hills Landfill,
and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. It should be noted that the latter application has been on file with the City of
Los Angeles since June 1991, and to date the City of Los Angeles has expressed their opposition to this project.
Note: q3d-6 — tons per day, 6 days per week
0 I)AmEs & MOORE
P:00 I ksn&mdmUvm I -cls' 1-10 @ Tha report pmed o. mcydd paper.
D. CASE STUDIES
Programs which have achieved high rates of diversion will be described. Emphasis will be
placed on potential for replication in Los Angeles County and California examples.
VIII. RECOMMENDED COUNTY ACTIONS
This chapter draws upon preceding chapters to establish the County's potential for a leadership
role, as well as pointing out direct actions presently within the purview of the County. It
discusses the present structure of County, LASAND, and the Solid Waste Task Force that is
predisposed toward landfills as the primary mode for managing solid waste. Recommends Re-
engineering the County waste management structure so that it will foster a policy shift to
diversion/transformation as the methods for addressing solid waste, with landfill capacity
reserved for residuals. Sections within the chapter, listed below, will estimate the amount of
diversion that can be accomplished by implementation, where appropriate.
provide leadership by example, a 70 percent diversion would achieve this.
A. USE OF COUNTY SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE
(Information to come from Hazel)
B. LEA REGULATORY AUTHORITY
The functions of the LEA(s) need to be integrated into an overall enforcement strategy which
supports a diversion -based policy.
C. WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES OF COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
Discusses the potential diversion that can be accomplished at County office buildings, facilities,
and contracted services (such as asphalt paving, construction, etc.). As a major employer, the
County can make a significant reduction in the commercial waste stream, as well as providing
leadership.
D. UNINCORPORATED AREA ACIYONS
The unincorporated areas of the County represent almost 9 percent of the total waste generated
in Los Angeles County. This area is under direct County authority. Aggressive diversion
policies in these areas could result in a significant reduction in the total amount of waste destined
for disposal; as much as 5 percent. County actions are needed in disposal contract provisions,
public education, support of and requirements for commercial recycling, and improved
reporting/recordkeeping. Together, such efforts will result in a steeper trend line toward and
beyond 50 percent diversion both for the unincorporated area and the entire County.
7
E. MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY BIOSOLIDS
Diverting the 50 percent of biosolids produced by County wastewater treatment plants that are
presently landfilled to composting/landspreading conserves landfill capacity. The treatment of
biosolids as a component of solid waste and diversion needs to be clarified and be consistently
applied.
F. MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY LANDFILLS
Discussion of possible changes to landfill practices, including the effect of tip fee structure on
disposal/diversion, increasing diversion at landfills (especially tires, white goods, C&D
materials), and modified operations (cross-reference to Chapter VI). County efforts in this area
can result in both increased diversion and conservation of landfill capacity.
G. MANAGEMENT OF TRANSFORMATION FACILITES
Re -rating of existing facilities can provide an additional 1,000 tons per day of in -County capacity
(discussed above).
H. MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
This section discusses increased diversion activity at Transfer Station tipping floor, including
diversion of tires, white goods, C&D materials, as well as combining MRF activities (as is
anticipated for the rail -haul transfer facilities).
I�T� : �� � iia .� • „tela
Discussion of such actions as revisions to general County purchasing practices, joint ventures
in RMDZ between Public Works and the Economic Development Department, and use of loan
funds as matching funds for RMDZ.
J. PUBLIC EDUCATION
In addition to the public education activities that are needed in support of diversion in the
unincorporated areas, the County can take a leadership role to increase diversion County -wide.
The County can support the efforts of the cities in implementing their SRRE's, for example,
through providing mass transit publicity, training programs/materials for commercial recycling
programs, setting up a revolving loan fund for small recycling business development;
demonstration programs such as Master Composter programs, local media advertising spots, etc.
K�21170CN7�Tri(
Discusses policy changes that the County could implement which would effect the shift,
including:
12
• Establish organizational structures that will facilitate the leadership for all cities and the
unincorporated area to divert the maximum amount of materials from landfills (this is an
area which needs thought -- is this a moral leadership by example or "real structural
change; a JPA?);
• Establish a waste management system based on source reduction and diversion that
minimizes environmental impacts and locally undesirable land uses;
• Establish a cost center or enterprise fund accounting structure for the waste management
functions; track costs by program and project within the enterprise fund;*
• Provide separate accounting to residents that identifies the components of cost in their
bills;*
• Require private haulers to provide cost factor breakout in billing for solid waste services:
collection, transfer, disposal, etc;*
• Institute variable rate fee structure for residences and commercial establishments;*
• Make tip fees reflect full cost accounting;
• Institute bans on the disposal of specific materials in Class III landfills, including inert
materials, wood, yard waste, white goods, tires, crop residues, manure and sewage
sludge;
• Modify the tax structure to provide incentives to divert materials and meet diversion
goals, should include penalties also;
• Develop outreach programs to promote source reduction and diversion for residences,
commercial establishments and industries;
• Develop reporting programs which support diversion based policies;
• Develop a database on waste and materials that supports diversion and source reduction;
• Promote the development of facilities which provide additional diversion capacity;
• Develop capability and provide technical assistance to the cities and private industry in
source reduction and diversion;
• Develop enforcement that supports the diversion based policies; and
• All County agencies and departments practice source reduction and diversion so as to
P'
IX. COST ISSUES
This chapter discusses cost issues, but does not resolve them. Cost issues include:
• Difficulty in calculating the current costs County -wide for diversion/disposal of solid
waste. Factors include the methods used by local governments to calculate costs that do
not fully incorporate overhead costs and intangibles such as the future cost of
environmental cleanup.
• Present tip fees do not reflect the true cost of landfill disposal, despite the fact that
Subtitle D requirements now require funding of closure and post -closure costs. These
costs can be paid out of funds other than tip fees; the landfill owner/operator must
provide financial assurance that the funds are available. California also requires a
groundwater cleanup fund. However, even with these measures, some costs are not
included, such as closure and post closure costs. For example, BKK's statement that
West Covina must stay open because there is no fund to close it. — We need more data
here. --
• Trends in landfilling costs with discussion of cost factors.
• The proposed Elsmere tip fee does not reflect the true cost of disposal, because it does
not incorporate the cost of transfer stations construction and operation, and transportation
costs. A calculated disposal cost incorporating total transfer and haul costs will result
in a true cost for Elsmere of about $40 per ton.
• Discussion of the difficulties in full cost accounting will be illustrated through citations
from the U.S. EPA report and City of Seattle case study.
X. NEW PROJECTIONS FOR DISPOSAL DEMAND
In this chapter, the incremental effects of implementing the diversion technologies and re -rating
the transformation facilities in Chapter VII, plus the Recommended County Actions in Chapter
VIII will be summed and incorporated into a table based on the "time -to -crisis" table from the
EIR/EIS (Table 1.3-1). This table builds on the :revisions made in Chapter V to the
population/generation rate and the available landfill capacity, so that this final table represents
the optimum diversion combined with realistic waste generation and disposal capacity figures.
10