HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Santitation Districts COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
Los Angeles bounty
;Solid Waste Management
TO
W JAN 211988
January 21, 1988 COUNCIL
r
TO: GEORGE J. WATTS FROM: CHESTER N. HOWARD
CITY MA DIR '' OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: DRAFT L. A. COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 'LAN
Attached hereto is a letter of transmittal from the Director of Public Works
of Los Angeles County for subject Plan for the purpose of providing a 90-day
review and comment period pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code.
Also the County transmitted a copy of the Initial Study of Environmental
Factors pertaining to this Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
As stated in the letter of transmittal, at the conclusion of the 90-day review
period, the final draft of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan will be
prepared and resubmitted to the City for approval/adoption and it is
anticipated that the final draft would be received July 1, 1988 with final
action of the City within 45 days of receipt.
The City received two sets of the draft consisting of 3 volumes - the Plan,
Technical Supplement and Appendix - all of which comprise a voluminous
document. One copy of the draft plan will be provided to the City Clerk's
office for public review. The second copy will be retained in the Department
of Public Works. Should the Council desire to review this document, please
notify the City Clerk or the Director of Public Works. If it is the desire of
the Council to have individual copies of this draft plan, please advise the
undersigned in order that we may place an order with the County.
As stated in the County letter, public hearings will be scheduled shortly
throughout the County to solicit written and/or oral testimony and while they
do encourage the City to hold its own review or hearing, it is apparent that
such hearings are not mandatory.
Should the City Council desire to have a presentation on the County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, please so advise in order that arrangements for a
presention can be made with the County Director of Public Works.
Respectfully submitted,
gzelit)r/grefer
CHESTER N. HOWARD
Director of Public Works
CNH:rk
Attachment
c`UNTY OF LOS ANGLES
.rµ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ti x 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
41.te O' ALHAMBRA,CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone:(818)458-5100
THOMAS A.TIDEMANSON,Director ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA,CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
RECEIVED
n IN REPLY PLEASE
January 6, 1988 JAI! 8 1988 REFER TO FILE: WM-2
OUT. OF PUBUC woos
MIS PI MOMS
Mr. George J. Watts
City Manager
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Dear Mr. Watts:
OFFICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER 1987 DRAFT OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The enclosed Draft of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
(CoHWMP) is being submitted to your City for a 90-day review and comments period
pursuant to Section 25135.6(c) of the California Health and Safety Code. Also
enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact
Report for the CoHWMP which was previously submitted to your City for comments
on or about December 18, 1987.
The Draft of the CoHWMP has been prepared by the Los Angeles County Department
of Public Works under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste
Management Advisory Committee (CoHWMAC) pursuant to Chapter 1504 of the State
Statutes of 1986 (AB 2948 - Tanner) , as amended and in accordance with the
June 30, 1987, guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services
(SDOHS) .
The Draft CoHWMP consists of three volumes, the Plan, Technical Supplement and
Appendix. The CoHWMP describes and defines existing conditions, future con-
ditions, needed management facilities and recommended action programs on a
Countywide basis with a first priority being waste reduction and recycling.
Program goals and objectives are presented together with definitive policy
statements to implement the Plan and provide guidance and means for accomplish-
ment of the goals and objectives.
The Draft CoHWMP also establishes siting criteria for development of needed off-
site hazardous waste management facilities and designates general geographic
areas within the cities and County unincorporated area where siting criteria
might be applicable. However, the CoHWMP does not designate specific sites for
facility locations since any subsequent proponent must show a proposed project
to be consistent with CoHWMP, as well as undergo a rigorous site-specific
assessment and permitting process at local , State and Federal levels.
z(11#
NONNI **NO
Mr. George J. Watts -2- January 6, 1988
The CoHWMP recommends that storage, transfer, recycling and treatment/
incineration facilities be located in manufacturing and/or industrial areas
where the waste is produced; that is, as close to the areas of generation as
possible. A residuals repository that can meet Federal , State and local
requirements may be located at some distant area from urbanized zones.
Upon completion of the 90-day review period and after evaluation of comments, the
Final Draft of the CoHWMP will be prepared and will be resubmitted to your City
for approval/adoption pursuant to Section 25135.6(f) of the California Health
and Safety Code. The resubmittal is anticipated to take place on or about
July 1, 1988, and your City is to take final action within 45 days of receipt.
We have included two copies of the Draft CoHWMP for your use and additional
copies will be provided upon your written request. Please make one copy
available to the public from your information center. Public hearings will also
be scheduled shortly throughout the County to solicit written and/or oral testi-
monies on the Draft CoHWMP and Draft EIR. Your City is also encouraged to hold
its own review/comment hearings. Additionally, should your City Council desire
to receive a presentation on the CoHWMP, my staff should be able to accommodate
the request.
I hope that this information will enable you to expedite this most important
review of the Draft CoHWMP on behalf of your City and I earnestly solicit your
cooperation in completing your review within the minimum possible time, but not
later than March 31, 1988. Please submit your comments in writing to:
Department of Public Works
Waste Management Division
P.O. Box 1460
Alhambra, CA 91802-1460
Attention Mr. Kenneth R. Kvammen
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Ken R.
Kvammen, Assistant Deputy Director, at (213) 226-4011 or in his absence,
Mr. Mike Mohajer, Department lead staff for the preparation of the CoHWMP, at
(213) 226-4281.
Ve rukly yobs, / // e
,/,, ,5 ,
T. A. TIDEMANSON Sr
Director of Public Works
MMM:maly/COHWMP-CM
Enc.
cc: City Clerk
City Contact Person(s)
WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION
OUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California
Mailing Address: / P. 0. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607-4998 CHARLES W. CARRY
Telephone: (213) 699-7411 / From Los Angeles (2131685-5217 Chief Engineer and General Manager
January 15, 1988
File No. 31R-10.10
CITY OF ARCADIA
JAN 191988
Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts MAIM
of Los Angeles County
Dear Directors:
The accompanying Executive Summary - Solid Waste Management Status and
Disposal Options in Los Angeles County presents a synopsis of the most current
information available on the existing non-hazardous solid waste management system in
metropolitan Los Angeles County, projections of future quantities for use in solid waste
management planning, and an outline of feasible management strategies for the waste
generated in this County in the future, including the approximate economic consequences
of each alternative. The Executive Summary is based on a very detailed and
comprehensive briefing report which will be available shortly. The information presented
in both the summary and the briefing report is the result of an unprecedented cooperative
effort of the professional solid waste management staffs of the Sanitation Districts; the
Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles; and the Bureau of Sanitation,
Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles. The objective of this summary is to
provide a common basis which will be used for a full briefing of members of each
governing body by the respective staffs of the three agencies on solid waste management
issues and the potential crisis in disposal capacity that is faced in this County.
The production and distribution of this Executive Summary and Briefing Report
is, however, just the first step towards a possible solution to the solid waste management
problem. This report must be followed by an implementation plan, and difficult decisions
on solid waste programs and permits for disposal facilities will have to be made by the
governing bodies. It is hoped that future planning and the implementation phase can be
carried out in the same cooperative spirit that was responsible for producing this initial
report.
I will review the contents of the Executive Summary at the various upcoming
meetings of the Boards of Directors. If you have any questions concerning this material
please contact me or Steve Maguin, Head of the Solid Waste Management Department.
dovtVery truly yours,
Charles W. Carry
CWC:kw
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STATUS AND
DISPOSAL OPTIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Prepared by the staffs of:
Department of Public Works
Bureau of Sanitation
CIty of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
County of Los Angeles
Solid Waste Management Department
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
January 1988
Noiso
January 8, 1988
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: City Council and Mayor, City of Los Angeles
Board of Supervisors, County of Los Angeles
Boards of Directors, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
FROM: Delwin Biagi , Director, Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles
Thomas A. Tidemanson, Director, Department of Public Works, County of
Los Angeles
Charles W. Carry, Chief Engineer and General Manager, Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts
SUBJECT: Executive Summary of Briefing Report on Solid Waste Management Status
and Disposal Options in Los Angeles County
The attached is an Executive Summary of a Briefing Report on Solid Waste
Management which represents the results of a cooperative effort of the pro-
fessional staffs of the Sanitation Districts, County of Los Angeles and City of
Los Angeles to reach a consensus on the existing solid waste quantities, their
distribution, alternatives for diverting portions of the wastestream from land-
fills, projected disposal quantities and available disposal options. The objec-
tive of preparing the Briefing Report and its Executive Summary is to provide a
common basis for a full briefing on solid waste management issues to members of
each governing body by the respective staffs.
A
le win A. Biag , Direir
Bureau of Sanitation
City of Los Angeles
C,
T omas A. Tidemanson, Director
Department of Public Works
County of Los Angeles
Charles W. Carry
Chief Engineer and General Manager
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STATUS AND
DISPOSAL OPTIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this summary is to present in a concise manner the most current
information available on the existing non-hazardous solid waste management system in
metropolitan Los Angeles County, projections of future quantities for use in solid
waste management planning, and an outline of feasible management strategies for the
County's waste in the future, including the approximate economic consequences of
each alternative. The information presented herein is the result of a cooperative
effort of the staffs of the County Sanitation Districts' Solid Waste Management
Department, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and the City of
Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Sanitation. More detailed
information and a number of different scenarios of projected disposal capability are
presented in the full report upon which this summary is based.
II. EXISTING SYSTEM DEFINED
A. Solid Waste Disposal Quantities at Maior Landfills (August to November. 1987)
Metropolitan Area (excluding Antelope Valley, including the City of Los
Angeles): 45,000 tons per day, average of 6 days per week (tpd-6), (13.9
million tons per year (tpy)).
City of Los Angeles disposes of 18,000 tpd-6 (5.6 million tpy).
Total wastestream disposed of at landfills is composed of approximately
one-third residential, one-third commercial/industrial, one-third solid
fill/construction/demolition (mixed).
B. Distribution of Disposal Ouantities (see Exhibit 1 and Table 1)
Eastern portion of County receives 50 percent of total disposal
quantities.
Western portion of County receives 40 percent of total disposal
quantities.
Central portion receives 10 percent of total disposal.
Outside the City of Los Angeles: 7 major landfills receiving 32,400 tpd-6
(10.0 million tpy).
Within the City of Los Angeles: 3 major landfills receiving 12,600 tpd-6
(3.9 million tpy).
- Net Export of City of Los Angeles Refuse - 5,400 tpd-6 (1.7 million tpy).
C. Status of Existing Disposal Capability
Remaining capacity under existing land use permits at major Class III
landfills is 152 million tons as of December, 1987. Of this remaining
capacity, 98 million tons are fully permitted (i.e., also have State Solid
Waste Facility Permits and Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste
Discharge Requirements).
While it would appear that more than 10 years of disposal capacity exist
under land use permits (152 million tons divided by 13.9 million tpy),
this is nQt the case due to permit inflow limitations and operational
constraints. Daily disposal capability (the amount of waste which can be
disposed of daily at any given site) is the critical factor which must be
evaluated as existing sites fill up or permits expire, to determine
whether or not remaining sites can handle the increased quantities of
refuse.
—1—
1
*41111, *44100
•
• ti 17-17?... `1 . d,• 4 -V .
fi I rj
.1 1 111 { 4 I
, , . ,„ . ,
• . tI r= /ih
11 1111P 1 . \o,' '. .i ‘(
s ...Ctk ,7.4\ .„ I I CMS', , . 1 ftgailll, / • '„ ..-'"
1 r(I
! . 1 { il itAl , •-• '-'-i •.- ,
7----ej
la 4
.1 o
, .,
} 5 3 �Z`' d I A a. /R �.--- �
� ,�. ,,wa it
�� :I �, --� p
II A - ti 1 x rz,i3 o . 1 ■. ...ss• trio a 1 1 I Z 11 l9 11u 0 1
dam . `ear v orm Q
1 414 I.,,ii.aL:_ ywk.,_intrimrstAtEre ily7 8,
.iiiip . 4., ,.,
1 + J
daillinri itraVIcrsktlitC1111: "PI , z'
* "If ilIaliallc.. ' •• ■
le
r • _ !. ,tai `'1 fIsien........._Ap4e
1. ���• -�°~ � - - - o
�' > J r Z
N
m • 2/;.
,� ,, --, n aarrAi i 11 "...41-
t.
I. 1�f
llfY `
i 44 1 ••• 1 ii • '""': ,--,=---= Irsa ,....monti ct)I
Vili• ,, I . .
44;4114,431...*.....1, ii.igliiiimit,_gLI1116=MI Army t%ii .1, ,-- aj 1
1 '±,".i i 1' 0 3-: ..b:r i 1 iJ I ',j...1 , 1 , ....v. 4:4111,_ 4,,r will / ....... ..,
A -�. . I 1111::1 1 . r, ray I
Ai
� a I
1 'Ail I ilp
1
aMj j H
.1
• r
01
• ca
i
POI a I .1.A
O > •
= yrl
I !
• kI� . 1
EXHIBIT I
-2- -
TABLE 1 Noor
AVERAGE DISPOSAL TONNAGES AT MAJOR LANDFILLS
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY*
August to November 1987
Countywide Total L.A. City Total***
Annual Annual
tod-6** Million Tons tod-6** Million Tons
EAST COUNTY
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
1. Puente Hills (County)+ 12,000 3.72 --- ---
2. Spadra (City of Pomona & County) 2,100 0.65 --- ---
3. Azusa Western (City of Azusa) 1,800 0.56 --- ---
4. BKK (City of West Covina) 6.500 2.00 1.500 0.47
Subtotal 22,400 6.93 1,500 0.47
CENTRAL COUNTY
SAN RAFAEL HILLS
5. Scholl Cyn (City of Glendale)++ 4,300 1.30 1,500 0.47
WEST COUNTY
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY
6. Lopez Cyn (City of L.A.) 4,400 1.36 4,400 1.36
7. Bradley West (City of L.A.) 1,400 0.43 1,400 0.43
8. North Valley (City of L.A.) 6.800 L.U. 6.000 1.86
Subtotal 12,600 3.90 11,800 3.65
WEST LOS ANGELES COUNTY
9. Calabasas (County) 2,600 0.81 1,700 0.53
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
10. Chiquita Cyn (County) 3.100 0.96 1.500 0.47
TOTAL 45,000 13.90 18,000 5.59
*Includes residential, commercial, and industrial refuse, some inerts and sewage sludge. Small landfills
in the Cities of Burbank, Whittier, Palmdale and Lancaster receive less than 300 tpd-6 each.
**Sites operating on 5 or 7 day schedules have had tonnages converted to equivalent 6 day averages.
***Includes all City collected and commercially collected loads.
+Land use jurisdiction shown within parentheses.
++City ordinance limiting use to only designated cities within historical wasteshed takes effect 12-28-87.
Ordinance effectively reduces disposal rate to 2,500 tpd-6. In addition to the City of L.A.'s 1,500 tpd-6,
300 tpd-6 from other communities now using Scholl Canyon will be prohibited.
-3-
D. Daily Disposal Capability: "Time to Crisis"
Projected solid waste tonnage in need of disposal facilities in year 2000
is approximately 60,000 tpd-6, or 18.6 million tpy (not accounting for
increased recycling and composting).
Time to crisis analysis:
If there are no expansions of existing sites or new sites a daily disposal
capacity shortfall of 6,400 tpd-6 (13 percent of wastestream) would occur
Countywide in 1992, and would increase to 50,000 tpd-6 (82 percent of
wastestream) in 2000. See Exhibit 2 for graphical presentation of
capacity shortfall with time.
The City of Los Angeles would have no disposal capacity remaining
within the City by 1997. See Exhibit 2.
Time to crisis analysis assumes BKK Landfill will operate until 1995,
per its agreement with the City of West Covina. This site could close as
early as 1991, depending on the progress of planned commercial
development of BKK's property surrounding the site, in which case the
daily disposal shortfall would become significantly worse at that time.
III. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
A. Landfill Diversion Alternatives (see Table 2)
1. Recycling: Source Separation and Recovery at Landfills
Existing level of recycling is very difficult to determine, with
over 200 private recycle centers currently operating (pre-AB 2020,
Bottle Bill). Six cities out of 85 in the County have pilot or full
scale curbside collection of recyclables.
Approximately 20 percent of the residential wastestream (or 7
percent of the total wastestream) is composed of recyclables (i.e.
newspaper, metal cans, glass, bottles and plastic beverage
containers). Therefore, by the year 2000, up to 4,000 tpd-6 could
be diverted by residential recycling.
Existing landfill recycling of asphalt and concrete approximately
800 tpd-6 (2 percent of the total wastestream). Scrap wood and
increased asphalt and concrete recovery at landfills could divert
an additional 8 percent of the total wastestream, or 4,800 tpd-6
by the year 2000.
Ability of markets to absorb Countywide total quantities of
recyclables (8,800 tpd-6 in the year 2000) is uncertain.
At this time it can not be estimated how much recycling is currently
being done by the commercial/industrial sector. This information will
have to be defined to forecast the potential for additional recycling at
the source or by separation at a central facility.
2. Compostins;
Garden and yard waste represents 30 percent of residential
wastestream (10 percent of total wastestream) and 6 percent of
commercial wastestream (2 percent of total). Less than 10 tons
per day of this waste currently composted. If all garden and
yard waste composted, up to 12 percent of the total wastestream,
or 7,200 tpd-6 by the year 2000, could be diverted from landfills.
- Ability to market countywide quantities of composted garden
waste uncertain.
—4—
Time-to-Crisis Analysis
Scenario A: No expansions of existing sites; no new sites; maintain
current level of recycling/composting.
70, 000
Projected Waste Generation °
b0, 000—
1991
.a 50, 000-
it
Disposal Capacity or
�. 40, 000— ' Waste Mana ement Shortfall
j 30, 000— Daily Disposal
Capability
a 3 20, 000-
.10
0 10, 000— County—Wide
_ (includes City of
Los Angeles)
® I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1988 89 98 9i 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2111 11 12 13 14 15
YEAR
30, 000—
O.
Projected Waste Generation
20, 000- +AZ
//
Daily Disposal sposal Capacity
c 10, 000— Capability y osal
2 y or Waste Management
S
N Within City of
e--o a Los Angeles ®nly'
1988 89 98 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2111 11 12 13 14 15
YEAR
EXHIBIT 2
-5-
4111iii.l *4100
LI 0
O u
0
C
O O O
0 0 O O O •.■
o O - 0 ++
0 CO N ••4
-I 0 •• w 4 .T ." 'C
c0 0 .7 .'f 1. ^•1 111 b
Awl O C CO
1 1 1 1 1 ..
E••1 0 0
0 .D o 0 O 0 •.•1
0 O O O 0 Cn 0)
N a a a a 14
N N N O' 0
N
!iplg+7 0
.-I
0
>
O
.-r
0 O
. O O —
1 @ ".
O O ..-I O.
N A b 0 ••••
H • co O 1 O O I C
N c •0 0 0 0 •.Oi 0
C.N OB U v 0^0. u
O' O .■1 0
4 •.1
. -
0
O
cn u 0 0 0 0 O
a 00 • 0 0 0 0h w
--1 0 0 0 In N 'n co 1•
A H 0 N -I CO .•
on O ` 0 O 1 I I I ep
Cl) u 0 N o O 0.
cod
N p i► O (0) o O O 00 41)
pq A4 .0 0 •• 0,
ri Z b n a0
0 .-+
e C r 0 .r
O O 0 0 0 01
S° ° 0
e 1 �o •e 0 .
0 . ••• k.0) v1 ..44 O®d '� 0 I I I I I •
0• N
4 CO
Z N 0 o 0 0 0 0
Z
Z .. • .. 0
O N N el a.1 O
H 0
VO '0 b O
D O C 01 b
H .41 •41 14 •.1
A 01 a .0 01 co
a a o "
1••1 10 4 to 0! .Z
014 0 01 ••I '0 00 0
••>+ 1 X 0 .0 0 >,
++ ..I ..1 0 00
10 —4 ON 0 -I 4
PM 0 C w .0 0 i+ U 0 •
0 0 1 O
•.+ C 0
C -.44 a
I 1 •.C1 0
0
,9.1 u u u 0 01 00 0 1
C 44
w 0W -1
O 6 0 3.•+
O 0 O ••I 1.2 000 4 0
O ++
C C O u O
O > 0 C 1
00 ••1 0
O b ••4 0
0
Cl) '0 00 ••4 Cr) 44 C >1 4 L 0 0
41 CO 00 b 00 I u O. 00 e0 0 w
O 0 4 00 O 0 C 0 ••4 01 0 8 ••1 01
Z O O C U 0 •.a N v1 4 •.+ • 00 14
X > ••+ 4 ,.a u I C u 0 4
O ■ •.1 .•1 0 00 01 0 0 00 w 01 00
•.I .4 A 0 0 N 0 ® O •.•I •■r C > O
0 A co —I u`I''C 0. SW C O 001 •� • 7
u 0 - O .,..
O .°.I' v •e Z � N co ►°
A 0 ••■ N M C
7 0 •.I
0 a Z 00 .0 0 '0
-6-
The following recycling/composting levels are used later in the
development of possible solid waste management options.
Moderate Diversion: 10 percent of total wastestream, comprised
of 20 percent of the residential (50 percent of recyclables and 33
percent of compostables) and 5 percent of the
commercial/industrial and construction/demo. To accomplish this
• recovery level from residential, every political jurisdiction in the
County must implement curbside recycle programs (with a
number of jurisdictions implementing mandatory programs) and
markets must be developed for 2,000 tpd-6 of compostables in the
year 2000.
Maximum Diversion: 27 percent of total wastestream, comprised
of 50 percent of the residential (100 percent recyclables and 100
percent of compostables) and 15 percent of the
commerical/industrial and construction/demo.
All of the above figures are in addition to current level of diversion.
3. Refuse-to-Energy
Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility currently processes
approximately 330 tpd-6. The SERRF project in Long Beach will
start-up in early 1989 and will eventually process 1,350 tpd-6.
These two projects will divert approximately 1,200 tpd-6 from
landfilling (30 percent of processed material becomes ash residue).
A maximum net diversion (accounting for ash residue) of 50
percent of the total wastestream (30,000 tpd-6 by the year 2000)
could be achieved. If implemented after recycling and
composting a net diversion of 14,100 tpd-6 (24 percent of the
wastestream) would still be possible.
Lack of public and political support in conjunction with current
energy surplus makes additional implementation unlikely in the
near future.
B. Expansion of Existing Sites (See Exhibit 3)
Puente Hills Landfill has 70 million tons of expansion capacity beyond
1993.• Repermitting would provide approximately 20 additional years of
disposal at current rates (3.7 million tpy).
Scholl Canyon expansion of 6 million tons of capacity would have little
impact due to daily tonnage limitation imposed by recent City of
Glendale Ordinance.
Azusa Western, based on its existing land use permit and existing rate of
disposal, has over 25 years of potential operating life. This site also has
the potential for a small expansion (3.2 million tons) in the City of
Irwindale.
Chiquita Canyon has the potential for 21 million tons of expansion, but
it is the most distant existing site within the metropolitan Los Angeles
County area.
North Valley has 215 million tons of expansion capacity (139 in County,
76 in City) beyond 1991 and could provide 90 years of capacity at an
assumed 2.4 million tpy. Although the current operation is located
within the City of Los Angeles, the owner (BFI, Inc.) is only applying
for a permit for expansion into the County area at this time.
Bradley West has an additional 15 million tons of capacity beyond 1993.
Permitting and implementing any expansion could take 3 to 5 years.
—7—
vibe Noy
ic\-). ...,, ..,
NIL, ,1
ail ,�' , , 1
. _I r ;.,
4 Y u` '34. 1
/I i ;' r-r,
-
11 1 i 1- ? - I
A -
:4.-7- il _ •\* /
) ......../_______----_ i z I j 1_ li.. i 1 •
' } 5 co /I�• ,. ` `' ' ��� a (n•
. N l �`. ;�� d.,, • �/� 1 - ,wir IJ lI '�G•
i '' •∎ a f,r- SSIt-., Q
�� • . `'gamma all SC_ «��.�: �' ti•Of ii 4v- J_ � r �. 'Little.
�' z I+ Tl}s���'�- W
' ,i 0 v t c► �rry� ■tl 9ty'Lw !� J
r y
1.7. cl a 0.IIC I— — ` T� arra l e rum O
r'1, ritiV dg . -� r Iu as
z . ■ '� � - ---rte.. � ►
1 �cc • ;f 1 r.. 1 AX }� may �--' .• Q Z to • ; "air Ilk tjj
VIA ,��,,1��y!� i a kliLiYS ��fr7�.�.. lL ES
, . :-----„Ak--Almriali iiiiiktA,:c
co
W I • 51/11k�. I''-;� 11� ■trC!!] a!' I i !n
i • i;�AJ ��V���®ICI Efstil>� •p • = W arl - 111151111W'--1
,, .19 ;"\......)./.71,,Wo's .1,104,',?•.ipip_ik.a:",,,....„....„1 ill 1
Ifk 'frt. - Argli........ ...--Ak ,_ ..iii>9*.ii 1 ... I.'
- .. -..a ',... -1111110: Allialt 4. , 0"
CI-
siffrai
YAdi y f.
_ _ .4. r a 1 o C S S
I • e, '- + 1 I Q r~- 3=
�� , I 1 .,3� V CC NCI. Le
:1 Z c l I Q W -Mp
Z S O Z - ` Z 0 ¢ 3F 3 J
Irpl J W< W W
U Y• r t7 to p F- 43
W W o �1``' Cl) W 4 La-. ta J
4 1- CO J m m CC I A CC J W a o 4 O
5 0 > Y Z
. 1 0 = lr. �;\ a • • O cn
} I i •�
t 7_11 2
• EXHIBIT 3
-8-
`n
Only by permitting all expansion capacity and implementing a moderate level
of landfill diversion alternatives can the disposal crisis be delayed to the year
1997. See Exhibit 4.
To provide a long-term solution beyond the year 2000, it is clear new sites will
be needed even with maximum levels of recycling and all available expansion
capacity at existing sites permitted. See Exhibit 4.
C. Site and Permit New Disposal Sites (See Exhibit 3)
1. Within the City of Los Angeles
Mission and Rustic-Sullivan Canyons are the only sites within the
City (24 to 250 million tons of capacity) comparable in capacity
to new sites outside the City (see Table 3). Most economical
option because of the short haul distance.
Assuming minimum of 8,000 tpd-6 (2.4 million tpy) disposed of at
these sites, recovery of capital start-up costs, O&M, and ongoing
capital costs can be realized with a market competitive tipping
fee of $10 to $16 per ton.
If no Mission/Rustic-Sullivan project, City could be requested to
consider a buy out of the County's and Districts' investments in
both sites (approximately $31 million in 1987 dollars) and to
compensate expected Mission/Rustic-Sullivan users for additional
haul costs incurred (approximately $30 million per year in 1987
dollars, based on July 1980 Mission Canyon Landfill Final EIR;
15 percent or $4.5 million per year of costs are to non-City of
L.A. users). The City Bureau of Sanitation estimates that their
1987 Mission Canyon "No Project Costs" could be up to $7.7
million per year.
La Tuna Canyon, 14 million tons capacity, no project proponent,
listed in the original County Solid Waste Management Plan, but
not in latest.
Toyon II, 5 million tons capacity, proposed by City Board of
Public Works in 1984, but the project was turned down by the
City Council.
Strathern Pit, 6 million tons of capacity, six year expected life at
0.9 million tons per year; permitting process underway by L.A.
By-Products.
Permitting and implementation of any new site could take 3 to 7
years.
2. Within the County Metropolitan Area
Elsmere Canyon, up to 225 million tons of capacity, disposal area
principally on National Forest Service land, estimated capital
start-up costs by project proponent (BKK, Inc.) of $90 to $100
million (includes some capital costs that could be accounted for in
ongoing O&M costs).
Blind Canyon, over 120 million tons of capacity, estimated start-
up costs $60 to $80 million.
Towsley Canyon, over 200 million tons of capacity, estimated
start-up costs $50 to $60 million.
Browns Canyon, up to 50 million tons of capacity, estimated start-
up costs $50 to $60 million.
Tipping fees of $15 to $20 per ton are projected for Elsmere
Canyon, Towsley Canyon, Blind Canyon, and Browns Canyon.
Permitting and implementation of any new site could take 3 to 7
years.
—9—
Impact on ,,ie-to-Crisis Analysis (Co -Wide Only)
for Several Waste Management Options
70, 000— 2000
Projected
/Waste Generation 1997 ''
60, 000— 1995
1991 -.nor
1
I ' Scenario B-3
50, 000— �' ,
Scenario ;-2
I-. 40, 008- / �
c - ' Scenario B-1
'
30, 000—
Scenario A /////
c a - Daily Disposal ,�, isposal apacity or
0 20, 000— Capability �� aste Management Shortfall 0
-J - //
V)
10, 000—
e ► r ► a o
1988 89 98 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2989 81 92 83 84 15
YEAR
Scenario A: No expansions of existing sites; no new sites; maintain
current level of recycling/composting.
Scenario B-1: All expansions permitted to allow for continuity of
landfilling operations; no new sites; maintain current
level of recycling/composting. Delays the disposal
shortfall through 1995.
Scenario B-2: All expansions permitted to allow for continuity of
landfilling operations; no new sites; additional
recycling/composting implemented immediately and
linearly increased to moderate level* (10% of total
wastestream) by 1992. Delays the disposal shortfall
through 1997.
Scenario B-3: All expansions permitted to allow for continuity of
landfilling operations; no new sites; additional
recycling/composting implemented immediately and
linearly increased to maximum level** (27% of total
wastestream) by 2000. Delays the disposal shortfall
through 2000.
*Moderate diversion as defined previously in Section III.A.
**Maximum diversion as defined previously in Section III.A.
EXHIBIT 4
-10-
7
3. Remote Areas via Transfer Stations
More economical and viable roundtrip than direct haul at
distances between 50 and 100 miles (round-trip).
Tipping fees at transfer station would range from $20 to $40 per
ton depending on haul distance and tipping fee at disposal site.
No specific site analysis was attempted as part of this report.
D. Rail Haul to New Disposal Site Outside of Los Angeles County
Technically feasible provided railroad lines, loading stations and
disposal sites are available.
Many obstacles in terms of siting 1,000 to 2,000 tpd-6 transfer facilities
(23 to 46 new sites along railroad lines within the metropolitan area by
the year 2000 with maximum levels of recycling and composting
implemented) and dealing with local and County jurisdictions along
travel route and at off-loading location.
High cost; approximately $40 to $60 per ton tipping fee at loading
station assuming a 200 mile round-trip rail haul, not including possible
export fees to local jurisdiction for disposal rights or costs of mitigating
potential traffic and aesthetic impacts, both of which could be
significant.
Siting and permitting of rail transfer facilities could take 3 to 7 years.
IV. ECONOMIC SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Table 3 summarizes the costs of the various waste management alternatives.
The cost of refuse collection has not been included. Haul costs are from the end of
the collection route to the solid waste facility and do not include consideration of
disposal restrictions.
For landfills, two points of reference were selected to calculate haul cost - one
in the central City of Los Angeles and one in the southwest area of the County.
For refuse-to-energy facilities, truck transfer stations, and rail loading stations,
it was assumed that facilities would be sized in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 tpd-
6 so that only a minimal haul distance from the immediate areas would be
required.
For expansions of existing sites, the lower estimated tipping fee represents the
existing tipping fee (rounded to nearest dollar).
For new sites, estimated tipping fees are based on an 8,000 tpd-6 operation, and
do not reflect profit margin for privately operated sites.
Tipping fees for expansions and new sites are calculated on a cost driven basis
and do not reflect possible dramatic increases in tipping fees, as has occurred
in other portions of the United States, due to market forces as disposal capacity
becomes a scarcer resource.
—11—
9
1440.1 ',Nage
TABLE 3
ECONOMIC SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
(All costs In 1987 dollars)
Estimated Waste
Management Added
Haul Costa Fee Capacity
($/ton) ($/ton) (million tons)
Landfill Diversion Alternatives
Residential Recycling (1.3 million tpy) --- 25 to 50b not applicable
Composting (2.2 million tpy) - 40 to 60c not applicable
Refuse-to-Energy (6.2 million tpy) 4d 16 to SOe not applicable
Expansions of Existing Landfills
Azusa Western 11 to 17 13 to 17 3
Chiquita Canyon 14 to 20 10 to 16 21
North Valley 12 to 18 12 to 16 215
Bradley West 9 to 15 16 to 20 15
Puente Hills 8 to 13 10 to 14 70
Scholl Canyon 7 to 13 12 to 16 6
New Disposal Sites Within City
Mission/Rustic-Sullivan Cyns 7 to 12 10 to 16 250
La Tuna Canyon 11 to 17 15 to 20 14
Toyon II 6 to 12 10 to 14 5
Strathern Pit 9 to 15 16 to 20 6
New Disposal Sites in Metropolitan
County Area
Elsmere Canyon 12 to 18 15 to 20 225
Blind Canyon 14 to 20. 15 to 20 120
Towsley Canyon 13 to 19 15 to 20 200
Browns Canyon 14 to 20 15 to 20 50
Remote Sites
(100 mile round-trip 4d 35 to 40 200
via transfer stations)
Remote Sites
(rail haul 200 miles 4d 40 to 60f 200
round-trip)
aRange of haul costs are for the same points of reference for all disposal sites (Central City
of Los Angeles for the shorter haul and southwest County area for the longer haul). Each
city and area in County would require a separate analysis. Analysis does not include
collection costs or consideration of disposal restrictions.
bNet cost determined by City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation based on its pilot
programs. It is estimated that SO per ton could be approached depending on level of
participation, type of source separation program employed, and ability to realize avoided
disposal cost savings.
cDerived from "Municipal Composting Handbook", California Waste Management Board, May
1983.
dAssumes only a very short direct haul from end of collection route to facility is needed (i.e.,
well distributed facilities throughout County).
*Possible tipping fees based on existing facilities with SCE Standard Offer No. 4, to that for
new facilities with energy payment based on current available avoided cost of energy.
(Does not include possible export fees to out-of-County jurisdiction for disposal rights or
costs for mitigating potential traffic and aesthetic impacts, both of which could be
significant.
—12—