Loading...
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-