Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM April 5, 1996 TO: THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond, Chair Councilmember Irma Carson Councilmember Kevin McDermott FROM: ~ DOLORES B. TEUBNER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: APRIL 8, 1998 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA- DEFERRED BUSINESS ITEM 5.A. ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE AS LEA. Please find attached information for above referenced item received at, er the packets were distributed. DBT:jp cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council City Manager Alan Tandy Assistant City Manager Gall Waiters City Attorney Judy Skousen Public Packet FILE COPY BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: February 15, 1996 SUBJECT: BACKGROUND ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY At their meeting of March 11, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution #37-92 (attached), designating the Kern County Local Enforcement Agency (KCLEA) for its enforcement, inspection and permitting needs for solid waste facilities. The purpose of the Local Enforcement Agency is to enforce regulations adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Duties are described by the 4 different certifications issued for an LEA, including: (1) TYPE "A" Solid waste facilities, i.e., active and inactive landfills. The LEA conducts inspections of landfills to check compliance with applicable state and local standards, or terms and conditions of the permit. Operational violations are covered under 14 CCR Division 7, Chapter 3 and Division 30 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). The LEA also responds to emergency violations, i.e, those which represent an imminent threat to public health, safety or the environment, pursuant to Part 5, Division 30 of the PRC. LEA is also responsible for enforcing closure and postclosure regulations pursuant to PRC Division 30, Part 4, Chapter 2, Articles 3 and 4, Part 5, and 14 CCR Division 7, Chapters 3 and 5. For the Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill, closure includes the landfill gas control system recently installed, soil remediation project under consideration, continuous grading of the fill to mitigate subsidence, and installation of the final cap to prevent water intrusion. Postclosure pertains to the use of the landfill property, such as golf course or park, that will not be counterproductive to closure maintenance activities. That is, if a use of the landfill causes water to pond and erode the protective cap that was installed, the LEA would reject that proposed use. (2) TYPE "B" Solid waste transformation facilities. An example is a waste-to- energy plant because it takes solid waste and transforms it to energy. The LEA provides permitting, inspection and enforcement of regulations, in particular to burning solid waste. Heavy metals are not destructed in the incineration process, and because all other materials are burned away, the relative toxicity of the remaining ash is increased. Also, a byproduct of burning solid waste is dioxins which are considered carcinogenic. There are no transformation facilities existing in Bakersfield; therefore, this certification is not currently needed. (3) TYPE "C" Transfer and processing stations, materials and recovery facilities (MRFs), and composting facilities. There is one composting facility, i.e., the Mt. Vernon Recycling Center, but there are currently no transfer stations or MRFs in Bakersfield. A transfer station may be required at some future time when nearby landfills close and trash must be transferred to trains or long- haul trucks for carrying waste to distant landfills. A MRF has been proposed recently, to be built in conjunction with a prison facility. The LEA approved the City's application for permitting the composting facility. The Solid Waste Facilities Permit application is being reviewed by the Waste Board. LEA conducts inspections of the compost facility to ensure that all applicable composting regulations are being adhered to. (4) TYPE "D" Inspection and enforcement of litter, odor, and nuisance regulations at solid waste landfills. The LEA conducts monthly inspections of the Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill and the Mt. Vernon facility to ensure that adequate dust and odor control is in effect. The LEA also inspects the sites to ensure that they are not breeding grounds for vectors. Inspection of trash hauling vehicles is also conducted to ensure vector and odor control measures are in effect. Certification Types A, C and D are required for Bakersfield. Technical expertise The technical expertise required of an LEA is described in 14 CCR 18072. It generally states that the LEA "have one or more full time staff members dedicated solely for solid waste issues." Staff is required to have at least one registered environmental~health specialist (REHS), pursuant to Sections 514-534 of the Health and Safety Code. REHS training and experience must include permitting and closure/postclosure duties. Enforcement Program Plan (EPP) The LEA must develop an EPP and submit for Waste Board approval. This document is a statement of goals and objectives; a scope of work, i.e., a comprehensive list of solid waste facilities and disposal sites and refuse collection vehicles in the area; procedure manuals for solid waste facility permitting and closure/postclosure; demonstration of staff technical expertise; operating budget which demonstrates adequacy of budget resources pursuant to 14 CCR 18074; and procedure manual for disposal site identification, assessment and corrective actions. Designating an LEA The Kern County Environmental Health Services Department is the designated LEA for the City. Alternatives are possible, per PRC Section 18056, however, should the City Council wish to designate solid waste permitting, inspection and regulatory duties to a different agency. Also, the LEA designation may be withdrawn without approval from CIWMB. The process is relatively simple: send a letter from the City Manager to a representative of the Waste Board, to serve as the 90 notice of intent to withdraw. Official separation from the LEA would be done by Council resolution at the end of the 90 notice. If no new LEA is designated, the Waste Board becomes the enforcement agency. There are three possible alternatives to Kern County LEA: 1.) Withdraw the designation from the LEA and have CIWMB become the enforcement agency, by default. The City of Paso Robles did this to resolve a disagreement with their LEA. The process takes approximately 3 months, i.e., Council resolution would make the change official at the end of the 90 notice period. The City could later form its own LEA if it wished while utilizing services from the Waste Board, in the interim. The cost of this alternative is difficult to assess. CIWMB staff charges an hourly rate of $58.37 plus materials, and per diem for travel/lodging to and from Sacramento. Currently, the Kern County LEA charges $80.00 per hour for services rendered. 2.) Develop an LEA program in-house and then begin the process to withdraw the designation from KC-LEA. In order to form a City LEA, there must be at least one permitted solid waste facility. The Mt. Vernon composting facility is currently being reviewed for a Solid Waste Facility Permit by CIWMB. However, per PRC, Section 43200(5), a "permitted solid waste facility" includes a proposed solid waste facility for which an EIR or negative declaration has been prepared. Per Conditional Use Permit #5540, the. City's composting facility has already received a negative declaration (attached). This condition, therefore, has already been met. Forming an LEA in-house, however, is time consuming and care would have to be taken to avoid conflict of interest concerns. The agency must have its own budget, workload analysis and minimum of one full time staff person, dedicated solely to solid waste inspection and enforcement. It must also be'completely separate from the department[s] administering solid waste facility operations and maintenance. An Enforcement Program Plan (EPP), described above, must be developed. Finally, there must also be a Hearing Panel, appointed by the Council. Organizational charts should show how separate this Agency would be and who would act as Director and contact person. Five (5) cities in California have their own LEAs: Los Angeles, Pittsburg (in Contra Costa County), West Covina, Vernon, and San Jose. 3.) Withdraw the designation from the LEA and contract with a different LEA, outside of Kern County. This may not be a viable option since it has no direct precedent, but the City of Pasadena contracts with the City of Los Angeles' LEA rather than the County. If Bakersfield wished to contract with the City of West Covina's LEA, for example, the difference would be that it is located in a different county. West Covina's LEA consists of 1 LEA Officer and 1 clerical position. The annual budget is approximately $500,000; consisting of $300,000 for staff and engineering consulting plus $200,000 for legal fees. The LEA officer reports directly to the City Manager. HM:hm c: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director LEA FRM A KE R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: HOWARD MORRIS, SOLID WASTE SUPERINTENDENT~ DATE: April 5, 1996 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF WITHDRAWING DESIGNATION FROM KERN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY Per previous discussions, the City can withdraw the County LEA's designation and utilize services from California Waste Board staff for its solid waste enforcement and inspection needs, albeit at a higher cost. The State charges $85.37 per hour, plus per diem, travel and lodging. This option, therefore, cannot be justified if based purely on short term costs. Also, questions have been raised as to whether the City can form an LEA, in-house, and remain "independent" enough to remediate the historic burn dump at the inactive Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill (BSL). These questions can now be laid to rest, however, because the City is pursuing an application with the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to enter their Expedited Program. DTSC will become the sole regulatory agency for addressing health-related concerns over burned ash materials in the backyards of homes along Panorama Drive. Toxicologists for DTSC have already begun their review period of data available. As to standard LEA functions, the issue is lack of responsiveness and clear direction provided by the Coun .ty LEA. Cost-efficiency and effectiveness of either the State or an in- house LEA_ is therefore the subject of this report. The Budget and Finance Committee meeting of March llth asked the following questions: * Are cities that have their own LEA larger or smaller? Why have other cities fired their county LEA? ** Can the lack of responsiveness and clear direction be quantified, as an offset to the higher per hour costs charged by the State Waste Board? Can the City provide these services more cost-efficiently with an in-house program? * Five (5) cities have formed their own LEA and one (Paso Robles), has the State provide those services. The cities range in population size from the largest to the smallest in the State: : City Population County 1. Los Angeles 3,607,700 Los Angeles ~ 2. San Jose 822,000 Santa Clara 3. West Covina 98,200 Los Angeles 4. Pittsburg 50,400 Contra Costa 5. Paso Robles 20,800 Paso Robles 6. Vernon 82 Los Angeles 1. For Los Angeles, the decision to form an LEA in-house was based on '2 factors: (a) There is a long history between the County and the City over landfills where they have sued each other. The Council was, therefore, wary of giving that control to the County, and expressed disbelief in the LEA's stated independence of the Board. (b) The Council also wanted better service, which the City could provide, and the County could not. When the County had the shared LEA responsibility, a priority listing often left the City with fewer inspections and slower turn- arounds for their projects. 2. San Jose based their decision primarily on the scope of work and population. San Jose has a large population, several landfills, and land area that comprises 52% of Santa Clara county. A City-based LEA was considered to be a practical method of expediting turn-around times for projects. 3. West Covina's decision was based strictly on the desire of the City Council to give their citizens control over their own destiny. West Covina hosts a 583 acre "mega- landfill" that is the third largest in the nation. (By contrast, BSL has 132 acres.) Also, the privately-operated BKK Landfill accepted Class I hazardous waste, from as far west as Guam, and as far east as Florida. It no longer accepts hazardous waste but it continues to operate as a municipal solid waste landfill for cities and counties throughout Southern California. 4. Pittsburg wanted to.site their own transfer station. The County had already sued them and received "tacit" support from the LEA. The City formed their own LEA in order to develop the type of expertise they felt the County LEA lacked, and to develop a clear and consistent interpretation of State regulations, since the County LEA continuously changed the rules. 5. Paso Robles decided to raise the rates at their City-owned landfill, in order to keep the trash fee low. This decision was challenged by a competing landfill operator who sued the City. The County and the LEA supported the suit, against the City. The City then fired the LEA in order to protect its own interests, and ultimately won. In Chicago Grade Landfill v. 'City of El Paso de Robles, Superior Court Judge Coffee ruled in February 1995, that the City did not violate CEQA; did not violate its own General Plan policy to ensure adequate landfill capacity; and, most significantly, did not violate the PRC section which prohibits landfill operators from making a significant change without first obtaining permission from its LEA. · 6. Vernon formed its own LEA in order to' provide quicker turn-around times for projects and more frequent inspections. Interestingly, Vernon was unable to form '. an LEA, at first, because it has no facilities. When the rules were changed to allow a City to form an LEA "in order to propose" a facility, they decided to propose building a MRF. Vernon has not yet attempted to build the MRF. ** Can the lack of responsiveness and clear direction be quantified, as an offset to the higher per hour costs charged by the State Waste Board? At the Budget and Fiance Committee meeting, staff noted that the LEA's Notice and Order is making the City re-map, re-test; to basically start from zero again. A significant and unnecessary delay. The Notice could have been issued in October 1995. Had it been sent then, staff's response would have been prepared before March 1st, the date the Order was delivered. The City has experienced other delays and problems, outside of the Bakersfield Landfill. As shown on the attached May 15, 1995 letter, the LEA led the City to believe that the City's application for a permit for the Mt. Vernon Recycling Facility would be processed within a few months. During the week of March 25, 1996, however, the LEA informed the City that a new "Standardized 'Permit Application" would have to be completed. The option to utilize the services of the State, therefore, is problematical. The option is being used by the City of Paso Robles. Richard Ramirez, City Manager, concedes this is a more expensive option in the short term. However, the trade-off, according to Mr. Ramirez, has been the degree of professionalism and responsiveness to City needs, which he describes as "excellent". Moreover, Mr. Ramirez believes the County LEA worked against the City, and in behalf of County interests. Contrary to the stated purpose of the LEA, it did not behave as an "independent" agency. This complaint appears to be shared by other cities contacted. Ultimately, the State option might be effective in eliminating some delays and in providing clearer direction. In the long run, however, it appears that the City would be better served to form its own LEA, especially given the popUlation size and land area. Funding mechanisms available to an in-house LEA It is difficult to quantify expenditures for LEA functions within the city because the County LEA does not always breakdown costs by project, nor does it delineate shared expenses for County/City regulatory inspections and oversight required at BSL. However, LEA expenditures can generally be estimated as follows: BSL inspections and oversight $30,500 City truck inspections ~, $250 per truck per year 7,750 Kern Refuse truck inspections 10,000 Mt. Vernon Recycling Facility inspections 8~000 Expenditures per year $56,250 Funding for LEAs is traditionally provided by landfill tipping fees, though there are other II methods being employed around the State: 1. "Tipping" or gate fee. Of the $29 per ton charged at the gate at county area landfills, and the $57 per year charged to residential customers for landfilling services, it is assumed that a certain portion is used to pay the LEA. It would be logical to ask for a corresponding reduction or reimbursement from that amount to fund an in-house program, given that the County LEA's program would have a drop in service. This argument would likely be decided in court. 2. LEA permitting licensing fee. Any facility within city limits requiring a Solid Waste Facility Permit can be assessed a fee per ton to cover LEA costs. However, the only active facility at this time is the Mt. Vernon Recycling Center. And, it does not charge any gate fees. Mt. Vernon is funded through the trash fee only. If solid waste facilities, such as transfer stations or Material Recovery Facilities, are constructed in the future, a per ton fee could be charged. For the current issue, however, this mechanism is not available. 3. Refuse lien program. Any city or county with mandatory collection can collect LEA "processing fees" against those customers who generate trash without paying. Customers would be given whatever time Council deems reasonable in an ordinance, say 30 days, to pay their bill. If customers do not pay at the end of 30 days, a lien would be 'placed against the property. Cities and counties with mandatory collection do not have to respond to nuisance or health and safety related complaints in order to require customers to pay their bills. 4. Refuse vehicle inspections. The County LEA charges $250 per trash truck per year for inspections, as noted above. 5. Assistance grants. The State Waste Board offers grants to LEAs to help supplement their expenses. These "assistance" grants are not considered a fixed income source but are intended, instead, to make one-time purchases of equipment and supplies. These grants are offered every year but are generally for small dollar amounts. 6. Site cleanup grant funding. This funding is intended to clean up large illegal dump sites. City staff developed a grant to clean up the site along Cottonwood Road, between Panama and Di Giorgio but it had to be submitted by the LEA. More such cleanups would be possible with an in-house LEA. HM:hm c: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director Ll:~A_cost.mem CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE (805)326-3751 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE SUITE 201 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: BIILL BRUCE, PRINCIPAL DATE: 2-2-96 COMPANY: BAKERSFIELD HIGH SCHOOL FAX #: 324-3401 - PAGES SENT: 2 FROM: DOLORES TEUBNER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER MESSAGE: Attached is the agenda for the Budget and Finance Committee on February 5, 1996 at 12:15 p.m.