HomeMy WebLinkAbout4645
-
RESOLUTION NO. 4645
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA CONCURRING WITH
AMENDMENTS TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, The Nejedly-Z'berg-Dills Solid Waste Management
and Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (hereafter referred to as the
Act) requires each county in cooperation with affected local
jurisdictions, to prepare a comprehensive, coordinated solid
waste management plan; and
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles has prepared a plan
for solid waste management in conformance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the cities within the County
which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated
area of the County approved the plan by resolution; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 1976, said plan was submitted to
the State Solid Waste Management Board for approval; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1976, the State Solid Waste
Management Board found the plan to be inadequate; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1977, the County prepared and sub-
mitted to the State Solid Waste Management Board the amplifica-
tion and clarification statement; and
WHEREAS, the State Solid Waste Management Board partially
approved the submitted plan as meeting the requirements of Section
66780 of the Government Code, but denied approval of the element
governing future solid waste facilities; and
WHEREAS, the State Solid Waste Management Board and the
County staffs agree on the contents of a solid waste facilities
element, based on the principles of the submitted amplification
and clarification which, when approved by the required cities,
would satisfy state laws; and
- 1 -
4645
..
.- .
.
.
WHEREAS, the County has prepared the following:
(a) Amendment to the Los Angeles County Solid Waste
Management Plan;
(b) Appendix Z - "Amplification and Clarification of
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Plan";
(c) Appendix AA - "Economic Information";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED~ That the City Council of
the City of Arcadia has reviewed and approved: (a) Amendment
to the Los Angeles Coun ty Sol id Was te Management Plan; (b)
Appendix Z - "Amplification and Clarification of Los Angeles County
Solid Waste Management Plan"; (c) Appendix AA - "Economic Informa-
tion"; and concurs specifically with the methodology enunciated in
Item (b) above to be used by the Solid Waste Management Committee
in reviewing new facilities to determine conformance with the plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify
to the adoption of this Resolution.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arcadia
held on the 6th day of September, 1977, by the affirmative vote of
at least three Council members, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lauber, Margett, Parry and Saelid
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Gilb
~-,~
Clt~ tel y 0 rca la -
SIGNED AND APPROVED this 6th day of September, 1977,
.
City Clert
a~).~ #/~
(SEAL)
-2-
4645
STEPHEN J. KOONCE
ACTING COUNTY eNGINEEFl
. .
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
AULJ G;j 1977
August 18, 1977
"~"!fBl:TRON
A';"'!"~E-PUTY
IRA H. ALEXANDER
ASST. CHIEF DEPUTY
GEORGE J. FRANCESCHINI
ASST, CHIEF OEPUTY
COLEMAN W. JENKINS
ASST. CHIEF DEPUTY
RICHARD T. REID
ADMINISTFlATIVE DEPUT'l'
550 SOUTH VERMONT AVENUE
LOS A.NOElES. CALIFORNIA 90020
97.-7111
Mr. Chester N, Howard
Director of Public Works
Arcadia, California;
Dear Mr. Howard:
APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
By letter dated July 18, 1977, addressed to the mayor of each city in
Los Angeles County, we reported on the status of the County Solid Waste
Management Plan (CoSWMP). A copy of that letter is enclosed for your
information.
The changes referred to in the above-mentioned letter have now been
approved by the Board of Supervisors and have been submitted by letter
dated August 17, 1977, to the mayor of each city for approval by the city,
These changes are encompassed in total in the following three documents,
which are enclosed:
1. Amended plan which revised Pages 78 and 1~5 of CoSWMP.
2, Appendix Z titled: Amplification and Clarification of the
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Plan.
3. Appendix AA titled: Economic Information.
A sample resolution has been furnished to your city for its use in approving
the changes. A copy is enclosed for your information. In order that we may
comply with the November 30, 1977, deadline set by the State Solid Waste
Management Board, we have requested your city to act upon this matter and
return its resolution to this office prior to October 14, 1977,
My purpose in communicating directly with you at this time is to solicit
your assistance in helping your city council to understand the effect of
these changes, and to urge your favorable recommendation for their
expeditious approval.
.
#
.
.
August 18, 1977
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me Clr Mr. C. G, Brisley, Jr., Division Engineer on (213) 974-7245.
Very truly yours,
Stephen J. Koonce
ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER
-r.
-R~
James T. Rostron
Chief Deputy
JTR:REB:dj 8
Enclosures: Letter of July 18, 1977
Amendment to CoSWMP
Appendix !'Z"
Appendix "AA"
Sample Resolution
.
.
RECEIVED
AUG 23 1977
Of". 01 PUILlC WOUI
en'\' Of Il~N
AMENDMENT TO 11iE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. Remove the last sentence, paragraph 2, right column, Page 78, which
..
reads: "My transfer fad lHy that can be implemented in accordance
-
with all legal requirements and operated as an economic unit is hereby
found to be in conformance with this Plan".
2. Delete the material in the section titled, The Nost Desirable Plan,
Page 185, and replace it.with the following:
Disposal of wastes in sanitary landfills is by far the most economical
method presently available in Los Angeles County. Virtually all waste
processing methods presently under consideration will have a residue
which will require disposal. Therefore, there will be a need for
sanitary landfills in the foreseeable future as well. Within reasonable
limits,.the more landfill sites there are, the longer the County's
current disposal system will last. Additionally, the more sites
operating, the lower the transportation cost to be borne by the waste
producer. This will be of economic advantage to the homeowner, commercial
establishments and industry.
.
.rolling stock. Due to the locations of a number of
theSe facilities, It i. unlikely that the maximum
tonnage received at the facilities in the future will
.qual the ultimate C<lpacities indiC<lted. Even with the
.xpan.ion., there will, how.v.r, be a need for .om.
additional .tations operated on an open.to-the-public .
basis.
FUTURE NEEDS
A .rtudy of tha south.m portion of the County _
performed to determIne thelogiC<lI tributary araas for
the exi.ting and.proposed transfer facilities 8$ well I>
requirements for additi9"a1 facilities. Figure VIl-2
shOWl the major .xisting transfer facilities, the
transfer stations propD>ed to date, and thO
corresponding tributary .a"'l>.
The study indiC<lted that there are three are.. which
still r.quire a major tran.f.r facility and these are
indiC<lted on the map as future sites. The three
facilities needad would serve the twO southernmost
tributary er..s delineated in Figure VII.2 end the
north.rnlT1OSt ar.a. One of th... .ites is identified ..
the Southeast Transf.r Station which is an edopted
.I.ment of the Sanitetion Oi.tric:ts Joint R.fuse
Tran.fer and Oi.posal System. The Oistric:ts Ire
budgeting for this facility but os of this writing no
. definite arrangements have been mlde for
impl.menting it. The City of Long Beach would be
the major potential us.r of this stlItion.
As for the .outhernmost .rea, the Board of Oirecto"
of Sanitation ~istrict No.5 has directed that a r.port
be made on the need for a Oi.trict-operated facility in
that area al.o. Th. Oistric:ts own a pot.ntial .ite for
such a .tation adjacent to the Joint Wat.r Pollution
Control Plant. Thi. site offe" a unique possibility in
that e .olid w..t. pyrolysis system might be built
there to not only handle the solid waste, but elso
provide energy n'uded for dewatering of
wa.te-activated Sludge from the .econdary treatm.nt
facilities now being designed, and other energy
deficlU. The pyrolysi. .ystem might elso dispose of
any dewatered primary sludge thet cannot be
marketed I> son conditioner. The JWPCP on the
other hand could accept the liquid effluent from the
pyrOlysis plant which is b.lieved to be a significant
disposal probl.m.
.
There are no known plans to implement an
open-to-th..public station in the northernmost area
.hown on Figure VIl.2. A station in either the
northernmost or southernmost area would receive
only a portion of the available wa.te, due to the plans
of the City of Los Angeles to implement the twO
limit.d-use facilities previously di.cussed.
It i. believed that the Iimit.d..... 8T\d
open-to-the.public .tation. .hown on Figure VII-2
will adequat.ly meet the County'. needs for major
transfedocilities for all thr.. planning periods If the
Imperative Oi.posal Plan is implemented. There may
be many pac.. in the County where .mall .pacia'.....
transfer stations are warranted and it is not intended .
that this plan should in any way deter the
implementation of .uch facilitieS.. a.apter IX
mntains I discussion and recommendation for.
utilization of mini-transfer stations (container litf!5)~
in portions of the North County to aid in control of ~I
indiscriminate dumping. ^R'" t"p..rf..r h~a;t\, 1t>" "',q . See
be .implumiPtSMi ;R aC;9.a:u~;e \.~tR ell leJBI amendment
rPq".....-......... ~...'" t>pa",t...,.., i[ IA r--RQJ:Ri; !JRit is
~ III I ~ b' I .~ . no. 1
orn I SL4A tg If Iq rg~ QPI:ru-';(I ..... 11.,,[ P12Q
A. stated previously, 1I1e above-recomm.nded
. transfer and haul pan i. based upon the premise that
the Imperative Oi.posal Plan is implem.nted. If .ome
of the k.y landfills listed in the Imperative Oispo.al
Plan ar. not in operation during the medium. or
long-t.rm periods, th.re may be additionll ..... of
the County r.quiring transler facilities. It i.
. impos.ible to prepare a transf.r end haul plen which
takes into account all possible combinations and
permutation. which may develop due to possible
lancffill clo.ur... Such de\lelopmenu can best be
handled when tho;..plan i. updated on a periodie basi..
New State .tandards (Calilo';'ia Admini.trati~a Code
Section 17401 thru 17564 inclu.ive) become
applicable July 1, 1976. Modifications at some of the
exi.ting tran.fer .tations may be requir.d to conform
to th.se n.w standards. At that time tha applicable
local jurisdiction should review and .valuate these
facilities Ind tlke neps "' necessary to obtain
compliance.
78
.
THE MOST DESIRABLE PLAN
DeliRaatig~ Vi t.f::l, 1Y'l.Qf'1 gpr:r1""'- ...t:.p"nl pi,...
. -cf\I(\ftth ~f t~ felI8..~19 ,..Iie'. JteH.ml:Flt.
~ "AllY PG-.nITlAL l"'~SAL SIT( Tllt.r
~~~~ ~:~MPL(MEmHHN-.<\~ANC( WI.1i
.I'lL APPLICABLE L.AWS...>II'ID ORE" ATED ^-S A'"
......(E:g~JeMIC lINI.: EHQYL9 BE IMP~(MOlTEg."
-M-o~Rer .\liIrdG. k:u:ae SA t~e realiBRably fereseeabll!
3ee ptU.:...a:t:.... f". t...,D. npnning Q' rUU.A' A;cpncsl .it-. it iot.
lIDendment""'...........:.......I.. t'"'~t ""'An '[""or 1:~"hf bl tea; m.lFlY.
10. 2 w:th:.. .uu~flable Iil'f\its th, "'Sfl! laAdfilllitel vurr
are, tlu Igppr' tAl C'9""1\"l girpon' cytttr- ...:11 '1st
~efitivRallr. !JUt R=!g~. c:t-~ ;rril.j-g. Un ',,"'crr tb,
. 'Cril~tp-o;t.1t:1?- G'i3~ ..os be ~gr:qU b\, .....11' u-na-
prsEhtllr. ~il ..ill Iu.flefit VIe hetfl!e..I\~..
,....""'.........,..;....1 _~kl:....""'.a.f'II~. ....~ lruot...tr-y It if
iAter;llEhsl that V-ic cUtURll,..t of ~':fl:t'/ ...1.... tlo., ..Ut~
41 fi-,rl'3 ~... an'; -7. "i[pot~1 'r-:I:W t~ be
i~plal1lRt9d lJy v:v". Pl~I:'" "f' pf':U'!ll~" ~,."('im....lA-
J4X" r(:ulc. ..i~ ell aJ!praJ!liata la.1S Il\cf . ......I~t:....,_,
i. i1YtaAaat:nll... ta ae fey-II iR ii;graaR;1 ...ith tt:ti,
P"-
THE HIGHLY DESI RABLE PLAN
The hilt>ly desirable plan is based on the pragmatic
realization that many potential disposal sites will
never be implemented for political, social, and even
engineering ",asons. The highly desiMlbl. plan is
noneth.le.. In optimistic one and is based on the
hope that I few key .ites beyond those .hewn later in
the imperative plan could be implemented. These key
sites could save the re,idenu of the CountY literally
tens of millions of dollars during the short- and
medium-terms of tha plan.
Figure XI-B depicts tho highly desirable p1ln for the
short-term period which by definition extends from
the present until 19BO. The key sites previously
refe"ed to are the Bradley Extension and/or the Blue
~iamond P;t in the San Fernando Valley, and the La
Ouesta Lado site located In the CitY of Canon. All
"three of the.. fecilities would result in substantially
reduced haul cosu for the residents of their tributary
areas, but the La Cuesta Lado site is especially
beneficial in'this regard. This is due to iu being in the
South Coasul Plain area where the alternative to
providing additionel disposal capacity is to provide
transfer stations or make long direct hauls to sites in
the Santa Monica Mountains and Puente Hills. In
either cne the incremental cost per ton is
.
sub~tantial. AJ a minimum, the four million tons of
capacity at La Questa Wldo should save 12 million
dollars in transportation costs over the life of thr: site.
Impie~enting the La au~ta Lad(\ site in -the next
two yea,. could serve to elCtend the life of the Palos
Verdes Landfill som.:what. thereby carryil"lg it slightly
into the medium.term plan which by definition
extends from 19BO to 1990. It is not ,lOssible to
predict ..actly how the waste would be divided
be"...,en the Palos Verdes and La Questa Lado sites,
but in any event, both of them would be projected to .
be filled by the end of 19B2.
Figuro XI-10 depicts the. highly desirable
medium-term plan which varies from the shon-tonn
plan only in that a new site, the "'andler Landfill, is
recommended to be opened to replace the Palos
Verdes and La Questa Lado sites. The Chandler sit!
would not I ast until the very end of the medium.tenn
period, since it is projected that It will dose in
approximately 19B6. The seven million tElns of
capacity in the site however, would provide a haul
cost savings to the public of more than twenty
mnlion dollars c:ompared to the expense involved in.
transferring and hauling the material to more remote
sites. A number of the other sites shown on the
highly desiMlble medium-term plan would also not
last the full I term unle.. available extensions are
obtained and utilized. In the Antelope Valley, the
Lancaster Landfill will not last until the end of the
medium-term even including the po..ible extension
discussed under Potential Sites. This problem will be
discussed in more deu il under the section on th.
imperative ptan.
No anempt has been made to delineate a highly
desirable long-term disposal plan, in the belief that so
much speculation would be involved in doing so that
the plan would be meaningless.
THE IMPERATIVE DISPOSAL PLAN
The imperative plan is intended to be one which
contains only the absolutely essential disposal sites.
This is the plan upon which the various approving
agencies will have to "bite the bullet" if a chaotic
condition is not to prevail in the disposal of the
CountY's solid waste. Figure XI-11 depicu the
imperative plan for the short.tenn and medium-term
combined. The following actions are necessary tEl
acc:omplish the imperative plan as shown:
185
.
APPENDIX Z
.
RECEIVED
AUG ~ 3 1977
Amplification and Cl arification of
Los Angeles County Solid Waste ~Ianagement Plan
I:IUT. Of fIUlUC .....
CIIY (IF ..D....
May 16, 1977
Techniques for disposal of solid waste in Los Angeles County and throughout the
Country, arc in the midst of a stimulating and dynamically changing environment.
Resource recovery has become a central theme in solid waste collection, transfer
and disposal. Source separation at the point .of collection, reclaiming valuable
products at transfer stations and landfill s, and conversion of solid wastes to
energy are under active consideration in many cases and are in various stages of
implementation in others. However, it is recognized that transfer stations and
landfills must remain as basic components of the overall solid waste management
system, since resou'rce recovery or conversion to energy of all solid wastes is
not feasible. Ongoing attempts to incorporate resource recovery practices and
techniques into existing waste disposal systems have complicated somewhat the
planning of the more traditional refuse management facilities, including transfer
stations and landfi lls. Thus, these unique opportunities are concurrent1)' advancing
the art of solid waste disposal and making it more difficult to accurately and
completely plan what facilities should or will exist as the future is pondered.
PLANNING FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Solid waste management and planning in Los Angeles County is complicated by the
number of cities and private operations which together serve the needs of the
public. There are nO\~ 79 cities in the County involved to some degree in solid
waste management and there are over 800 private refuse collectors in addition to
municipal collection operations. Sanitary landfills and transfer stations are
operated by special districts, municipalities and private industry. There is no
single agency which directs or controls solid waste management on a countywide basis.
.
.
With a system as complex as that in effect in Los Angeles County, it is apparent
that rapid developments, either in terms of emerging technologies or in terms of
social and political decisions, have a dramatic impact on the necessity to be
flexible in future planning for solid wastes, Accommodation of contingencies is a
prerequisite for a meaningful countywide plan for solid waste disposal.
\
The preceding situation is exemplified by two major resource recovery facilities
I
under discussion i.n Los Angeles County. One is the Watson Energy Systems proposal
to construct a plant in the Wilmington area to produce energy. While the soncept
can be,embraced enthusiastically, the proposed plant is not yet under construction
and significant questions pertaining to air emissions have been raised. A similar
type of pro~ect is that project submitted by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County and the City of Long Beach as a candidate site for a resource recovery
demonstration plant in accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 1395. This
project proposes a plant to produce energy in the Long Beach area and the submittal
is presently one of several under consideration by the State Solid Waste Management
Board, The construction of either or both of these proposed resource recovery
facilities will have a dramatic impact on the overall solid waste management plan
, , f.
for Los Angeles County, both for transfer stations and landfills. However, at
this point in time both are in preliminary stages and ultimate disposition of
these proposals is not yet clear. It would be prudent to provide for solid waste
disposal by transfer stations and landfills in a manner that would not preclude
operation of these facilities.
A solid waste management plan for Los Angeles County must be capable of assimilating
I
changes as they occur. Resource recovery will not be the panacea for disposal of all
solid wastes. However, implementation of potential resource recovery facilities
should not be made more difficult by failing to provide for such unique new proposals
in'a solid waste management plan.
-2-
.
.
IMPORTANCE OF LANDFILLING
While developing new energy conserving processes. the ongoing needs for solid waste
disposal in Los Angeles County must-be met in an efficient and timely manner, One
of the facilities which plays an i~ortant role in the overall 'planning for the
County is the Mission Canyon Landfill. Landfills will be needed for the forseeable
future regardless of how successful resource recovery projects become. Some materials
are simply not amenable to being recycled or converted to energy. with about one-
third of the waste generated in the County falling in this category. Even a
successful energy. conversion system which is selective about the waste it accepts,
would produce between 10 and 20\ residual inert materials which must be transported
to a landfill. Mission Canyon has been and ~ontinues to be a strategically important
.
location when seeking to provide solid waste disposal for the citizens of Los Angeles
County.
The actual use of the term Mission Canyon includes a rather large area in. the
I
Sepulveda Pass area of western Los Angeles County as shown on the attached map,
Landfilling operations have for some time been conducted on private property owned
by Barclay Hollander Corporation to the south of what is commonly referred to as
the main Mission Canyon. An application to use main Mission Canyon for landfilling
over a 20 year term was not approved by the City of Los Angeles, Therefore. a review
of all alternative possibilities within the general confines of Sepulveda Pass is now
underway. An encouraging letter has been sent by Mayor Bradley of the City of Los
Angeles to the Sanitation Districts wherein he suggests that interim solutions should
be pursued while a comErehensive regional waste management plan is developed.
Negotiations for continued use of private property to provide landfill capacity for
in~erim disposal have produced positive results. The private land owner has
indicated that the active landfill area. commonly referred to as Canyons 6 and 7.
-3-
.
.
can be used into eatly 1978 since the developer has redesigned the contours of
the golf course which will eventually be built on the completed landfill in those
canyons. During the time that the operation is extended in Canyons 6 and 7, the
Sanitation Districts will pursue the steps necessary to use Canyon 8, to the south of
Canyons 6 and 7, and also owned by Barclay Hollander. Preparation of an environmental
impact report by the Sanitation Districts has been authorized and applications for a
permit to operate from the City of Los Angeles will be sought. A new contract between
Barclay Hollander and the Sanitation Districts will have to be negotiated for Canyon 8.
While many details remain to be specified, the prospect of providing an interim
solution in the Sepulveda Pass area appears highly encouraging since local homeowners
had earlier suggested this alternative site. Should all details be resolved and a
permit granted, Canyon 8 will provide capacity for about 2-1/2 years. Together with
extended operations in Canyon 6 and 7, landfill capacity will be available until late
.1980. This will provide time for a complete evaluation and assessment of alternatives
in the Sepulveda Pass area, including the roles of resource recovery, landfills
(including Kenter-Bundy Canyons and Rustic-Sullivan Canyons), transfer and haul to
other landfills, and direct transport to these more remote landfills. The numerous
possibilities for this area require flexibility in the County Solid Waste' Management
Plan.
UTILIZING TRANSFER FACILITIES
The impact of reSOurce recovery and energy conversion facilities is vitally
important in regards to transfer stations as it was in consideration of land
disposal alternatives. Therefore, waste transfer and haul is also in a very fluid
state which requires flexibility in the Plan.
Both the Watson Energy Systems facility in Wilmington and that submitted by the
Sanitation Districts pursuant to Senate Bill 1395 for an energy conversion'plant in
-4-
.
.
Long Beach would reduce the need for transfer stations in the southwest coa~tal plain,
Since only preliminary steps have been taken and neither is under construction, the
element of uncertainty remains prominent. Nevertheless, the size and location of
the projects are such that they have a major influence on transfer station planning
I
in the southwest coastal plain.
Other inherent limitations in planning for transfer stations are alsQ apparent. One
is the difficulty in accurately assessing the true capacities of existing stations.
Another is the ability of new transfer stations (or expansion of existing stations)
to gain necessary local approvals. Financial considerations are extremely complex,
especially when integrating the potential impact of energy conversion processes.
In consideration of the complex interrelationships, the Transfer Station Subcommittee
has developed and submitted to the Committee, a procedure Which will be responsive to
a rapidly changing situation yet provide sound overall planning, The result of this
procedure will be a periodic updating of the transfer station element of the Plan and
an accumulation of data which will provide the Committee with a sound basis upon which
findings concerning the need for expansions or new construction can be based.
In order to adequately assess the requirement for transfer stations, it is first
necessary to establish boundaries of areas ("wastesheds") from which solid wastes
are generated and to calculate anticipated contributions from each. Of particular
interest are the wastesheds comprising the southwest coastal plain and the westerly
vicinity in the area of Sepulveda Pass OMission Canyon). 'Capacity in major landfills
in the southwest coastal plain will be exhausted in the early 1980's. The Sepulveda
Pass area is affected since one of the alternatives to the continued use of Mission
Canyon for other than interim purposes would be hauling to other landfills in
conjunction with transfer stations.
-5-
.
.
The .procedure will be a multi-stage process consisting of 1) compilation of basic
background data (volume generated, composition, etc.) on the wasteshed;
2) establishment of capacities in existing transfer stations; 3) enumeration of the
quantities of waste which still need additional transfer station capacity; and
4) determination by the County Solid Waste Management Committee of the need for a new
transfer station or an expansion of an existing station based both on the preceding
information and on several other important considerations as hereinafter discussed.
The analyses would be dynamic since they would be upgraded at interval~ sufficient to
assure compatibility with changing conditions.
Availability of l~ldfills to which transfer stations would haul is itself a tenuous
question. Ascertaining true capacities of existing transfer stations is also
difficult. This determination will be facilitated after August IS, 1977, when permits
designating allowable existing capacity have been issued by permitting authorities
in accordance with administrative regulations of the State Solid Waste Management
Board.
The determination of which facilities are needed is, of course, a very sensitive
issue. The Committee's findings must take into account not only documented data
but also several other factors which are not necessarily quantifiable. The need for
a proposed facility may be impacted by its ability to accommodate materials already
separated at the source, resource recovery and energy production capabilities, the
incorporation of innovative technologies, the continued availability of existing
transfer stations and landfills, comparative merits with other proposals of which the
Committee is aware, public convenience and any other similar factors. The Committee
would review and forward their findings regarding the need for the facility within
the wasteshed and conformance with CoSWMP to the local permitting agency and to the
State Solid Waste Management Board since those bodies have ultimate legal authority
to approve or reject an application.
-6-
.
.
RESOURCE RECOVERY
The impact of resource recovery and energy conversion on the total disposal system
has been emphasized, Several efforts are being made to develop source separation
systems which could also impact on planning for the future. These are beginning
steps toward the eventual development of a waste management system which will recover
recyclable materials, such as metals and glass; use combustible refuse as a fuel
supplement for the generation of electrical.energy (with proper air pollution controls);
and dramatically reduce the volume of the material (mostly ash and other inert subs tan-
ces) which ultimately will have to be disposed of in landfills.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has instructed the Chief Administrative
Office to work with the Los Angeles County Energy Commission, the Sanitation Districts
and the City of Los Angeles on the possibilities of implementing a joint City and
.
County effort to determine the feasibility of converting rubbish into usable energy.
The proposed plant to be constructed by Watson Energy Systems is for 1000-1500 tons
per day capacity for production of steam. The Senate Bill 1395 proposal for the
plant in Long Beach contemplates processing 1000 tons per day to produce electricity,
with steam as an intermediate product. However, increased steam markets may enhance
the project's financial outlook since it is more economical to produce steam for
direct use than to produce electricity, Steam markets in the Wilmington and Long Beach
areas are emerging since it has become necessary to supplement natural gas with more
expensive fuel oil. Another critical question in energy conversion plants relates to
air quality. The allowable air pollutant emissions and the offsets between emissions
from truck transport versus those from a fixed facility have not yet been fully
explored by air pollution authorities.
-7-
.
.
SUMMARY
It is of upmost importance that the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Plan be
flexible enough to incorporate all of the emerging situations discussed in this
amplification and clarification of the Plan. The previously outlined interim solution
for the Sepulveda Pass area will provide time to incorporate planning for a long-term
regional program in the mandated three year revision of the Plan without requiring
speculation. The role of resource recovery.and energy conversion processes in
formulating a plan for both landfills and transfer stations has not yet crystallized.
Enhancement of the quality of solid waste management is being provided; the Plan must
be of a nature that opportunities can be seized in a timely manner.
6/7/77-dj 8
-8-
U'ULVl:DA ,A5I DISP"OUL IInll
SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS
.
.
APPENDIX AA
ECONOMIC INFORMATION
Estimating specific sources of revenue for solid w~ste management activities
in Los Angeles County is extremely difficult. There are 79 cities, some
of which have municipal COllection for all wastes, some for residential wastes
{
only and some for only part of their residential wastes. Some cities have
contract collection paid for by ta~ation; others add the amount to utility bills
,
(user fees). Other communities have franchise collection.
Much waste is collected by licensed haulers who bill customers directly,
There are over 800 waste collection companies in Los Angeles County. Some
communities have sanitary landfills for disposal of a portion of the waste
generated within their borders - these are financed by taxation. Other landfil16
operate primarily through user fees. Collection charges in most cases cover
the cost of disposal as well. Bookkeeping and accounting methods differ
,
considerably and it is likely that a portion of co~lection or disposal costs
may also be subsidized in some cities' tax rates. If it were possible to
,
,
calculate the total cost of collection which is paid for by user fees only,
one would st.ill have to delete that portion of the fee which pays for licenses,
transfer costs and disposal operations to obtain the actual cost of collection
alone - a tremendously complex task.
To attempt to approximate sources of revenue for local waste management
operations, we have assumed:
All solid waste management committee activities shown in Table XII-2
of CoSWMP will be initially funded by taxes.
.
.
All wa:;te storage enforcement programs will be fWlded by taxes.
All litter and resource recovery programs will be fWlded by taxes.
Residential refuse collection in 10 cities (including a portion of
the City of Los Angeles) with a population of approximately 2,000,000
is financed by taxation. All other collection is assumed to be paid
for by user fees.
All costs of solid waste management not supported by taxes are assumed
to be financed by user fees.
There will be no significant input of state or federal fWlds nor any
contracts with local agencies resulting in large financial input during
the short-term.
Sources of revenue for Los Angeles COWlty for the short-term then are estimated
to be:
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
25,320,000
$194,990,000
28,680,000
$223,670,000
$219,985,000
$241,980,000
34,770,000
User Charges
$173,000,000
$198,320,000
30,760,000
$250,745,000
$276,750,000
Taxes.
*Taxes include general funds, special districts and land use fees.
spb 8
6-7-77
-2-