SWM 08.15.1984 - 01.12.1986STOLID WASTE MANAGEIKE COMMITTEE 1 of 2
MINUTES AUG.15,1984-JAN.12,1985
LU (�. 156 1984-0111J'N
1246 1986
11
" 4144 1xi.11ZI VON ,A kNUVI 54 1 N7JAPST""T I W W 0 Di I
MINUTES - August 15, 1984
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM
Only menber not in attendance Paul Roberts
I. There was discussion of the Brawn Act and the ramifications o not
having public notice in time for attendance of the public and special
meeting implications.
II. Solid waste contract was discussed at length.
III. Whether or not to tackle toxic waste was also discussed and has been
tabled for further discussion.
IV. Ron Kinney was elected Vice Chairman and Barbara Kelly was elected Secretary.
V. Meeting will be held on the first Wednesday of each mDnth at 7:30PM. The
first scheduled meeting will be Wednesday, September 5 at 8:00 PM due to
a conflict.
VI. Draft outline was given out and will be discussed at the next meeting.
VII. Chairman of the cannittee will be Shishir Mukherjee.
® SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes - September 4, 1985
THERE WAS NO QUORUM; THEREFORE, ALL ITEMS TABLED TO NEXT MEETING
NEXT MEETING: October 2, 1985
PLACE: Downstairs Lounge (Lunchroom)
TIME: 7:30PM
If you are unable to attend, please contact me.
Phone: 415/858-3719 (Office)
408/973-8653 (Home)
El-
•
M11VJ S - September 5, 1984
The meeting was called to order at 8:OOPM
All nxmbers in attendance
Correction to minutes of 08/15/84 is correction of spelling of Mr. Kinsey's name. All
other items approved as submitted.
I. Draft outline was discussed. It was decided that the first three items in the out-
line will be used for background information. Primary objective of this committee
to address item four. New outline attach,,' with all changes as requested by the
committee.
II. It is rec=wnded by the committee that the public at large be kept informed via
the media in order to alleviate any misconceptions as to the recommendations of
this committee.
III. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the previous SWAG. It was thoroughly dis-
cussed and found that previous committee had no leadway and therefore all viable
alternatives for the City of Cupertino were not addressed. This committee will
® attempt to look at all alternatives, including Bryan Canyon, with an "open mind".
IV. Mr. Mukherjee brought up the possibility of having a graduate student at Stanford
look into the solid waste problem. However, the committee found that what was needed
as far as the student research was not clearly defined, and therefore same was
tabled.
V. Ron Kinsey has offerred his office library for use by the committee for research
Purposes and updating of information.
VI. The following persons are to bring in further information for the carcnittee to
begin work on the research of solid waste problem:
Ron Kinsey - information as to what other cities are doing
Thelma Epstein - information in reference to the general plan, tonnage of solid waste
generated, city zoning map, seizmic hazards map
Paul Roberts - SWIM alternative information, perspective of the alternatives for
Cupertino from SWENA Report
Barbara Kelly - copy of Final Summary SWEMA Report.
VII. Due to travel conflicts the next meeting is scheduled for October 24 at 7:30PM in
the conference room. This date is confirmed and scheduled.
enm
SMM WAM MMqAGE=ffcmwnmm
wow=
amm
I. Executive Su¢ararY of dations and Gbnclusions*
II. Historical. Perspective of the Solid Waste Problem`
- Los Altos Gaxb�company's operation
- Current Landfill Operation at Mountain View
- North Santa Clara County EPA Studies 1979
- Peat Atuvick Mitchel Management Study t Authority (creation, operation
- North Santa Clara County Solid Waste Manag�n
and studies)
- Bryan Canyon Landfill Proposal - SWAC Report
- Recent Landfill Arrant with the City of Mountain ViF."
- DeAnza Recycling Center Operation
Problem _Basic Data and Criteria*
III. Long Term Peregective of the Solid Waste Disposal
- population, Commercial and Industrial Growth
- Solid Waste Generation Forecast
- Solid Waste Composition
- Municipal Solid Waste Physical and Chemical Characteristics
- Recycling prospects
Energy and Materials Recovery prospects
IV. 1Ang Term Solid Waste Disposal
Alternatives for Cupertino
- Sanitary and Proms Landfill Arran is
- Refuse -fired Cogeneration Potential
- Recycling and Resource Recovery
- Cooperative Solution
- Transfer Station/Volume Reduction
- OF Production and Sales
- Site Considerations/Need for Feasibility Studies
V. Evaluation of Disposal
Alternatives
- Quar t itat i.ve Wr4oarlsons of Advantages and Disadvantages
- Environmental Considerations
- Risk Considerations
WIT TRIP WYWW,"
amity mwatics Via the Media
VI. Conclusions and Recommmidations
All item astericked are for background information and research Purposes.
STATH•o? UM OSOJAM AGENCY i3E{ i?EEi1AW. Go.emo.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 NINT4 STREETV CRAAMWO. •a
ChiO004A 9aM
NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP CONCERNING CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION MUNICIPAL aOLID WASTE -TO -ENERGY PROGRAMS
The staff of the California Energy Commission (CEC) will hold workshops at two
locations to discuss a testing and monitoring program for the Lassen Community
College Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)-to-Energy facility. The workshops are
scheduled for:
Friday, October 5, 1984
10:00 a.m.
California Energy Commission
Nearing Room - First Floor
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
and
Thursday, October 11, 1984
10:00 a.m.
State Personnel Board, Rm. 1138
107 South Broadway
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Lassen College Demonstration Program
The governor has approved a $726,000 grant in the 1984-85 budget to construct
and equip a laboratory and provide staff support for testing and monitoring a
municipal solid waste -to -energy facility at Lassen Community College. The CEC
is the lead agency, and is directing a council comprised of the Air Resources
Board, Waste Management Board, Department of Health Services, and Water Quality
Control Board in developing a testing and demonstration program on the facility.
In general, the Lassen College Demonstration Program will be geared toward
developing information on capital and r;perating costs, equipment reliability,
effects of fuel mix on equipment integrity and performance, air pollution
emission rates, characteristics of ash residues, and potential air and water
quality impacts of the facility during normal operation. Workshop participants,
who will include government regulatory officials, waste -to -energy project
proponents and interested parties, will have an opportunity to comment on the
goals and testing procedures proposed for the Lassen College Waste -to -Energy
Demonstration Program; new tests or priority issues which should be addressed;
and technical or institutional barriers encountered during the permitting and
® construction process which need clarification or resolution.
SWE OF t;A{ ►--TK MOil = ACEWY
CAUFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 K NTH STREET
0 SACBtAMOWO tAtiMEMA 93814
C7
11
1. Introduction
September 27, 1984
AGENDA
California Energy Commission
MSW Testing and Monitoring Program
A. Review of Agenda
I1. Lassen College MSW-to-Energy Demonstration Program
A. Overview (by Lassen) (13015 Be4GAIz6
B. CEC discussion of program, budget langttage, and
coordinating council
C. Oescripticn of tests and goals of tests by
representatives of interagency council
1) ARB (Air Resources Board)
2) DOHS (Department of Health Services)
3) LRWQCB (Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board)
4) SWQCB (State Water Quality Control Board)
5) CWMB (California Waste Management Board)
6) CEC (California Energy Commission)
A brief discussion will follow each agency's presentation
III. Uiscussion and Overall Prioritization of Issues, Data Needs, and
Testing Requirements
IV. Adjourn
KEY POINTS FROM THE INTERAGENCY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENTATIONS
1. Air Resources Board - (ARB) George Lew
o Role of Air Regulatory Agencies/Local, State, Federal
- New Source Review (NSR); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSO)
- Special permitting procedures and air quality concerns applicable to
MSW projects
o Participation of ARB in MSW test program
- Types of tests; compliance, informational, research
- Scope of tests; regulated pollutants/nonregulated pollutants
- Uses of the data obtained in MSW test program
2. DeF-;rtment of Health Services - (DOHS) David Leu
o Role of Health Services in regulating municipal solid waste -to -energy
projects
- Classifying waste products
- Ash management/permits required for storage/procedures for transport
- Variance procedures for Class II-2 designation
- Status of CAM test to determine hazard level of waste
- Status of special waste regulations
- Impact of SB 2292 (Hazardous Waste - Special Legislation regulating
fly and bottom ash disposal
o Use of data from MSW testing and monitoring program
- Used as demonstration facility for classification of waste products
- Generate waste samples
3. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board - (LRWQCB) Bonnie Wolstoncroft
o LRWQCB role in permitting NSW -to -energy facility
o Local considerations regarding water quality impacts of MSW-to-energy
facilities
4. State Water Resources Control Board - (SWRCB) Ed Anton
o Overview of Regional Water Quality Control Board
o Information needed to prrcess waste disposal applications
o Role in proposed test !grogram
U
34
MEMBERS
INTERAGENCY COOROINATING COUNCIL
Mr. Garden nuffy
Secretary of Environmental Affairs
Air Resources Board Marshal
Contact Person: Corinne Murphy
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-5840
Mr. Ron Friesen
Assistant Division Chief
Stationary Source Division
11U2 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 9581.4
(916) 445-0650
Mr George Lew, Manager
Energy Projects Section
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 454-4150
Mr. Don Dier
is Manager, Waste to Energy
Waste Management Board
1020 Ninth Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-6372
Mr. Warren D. Noteware
Vice Chairman, State Water
Resources Control Board
water Quality Control Board
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-0922
Mr. Roy- Hampson ,
Executive Officer
Lahontan Regional Suter Quality
Control Board
P.U. Box 9428
South Lake Tahoe, CA 95731
Mr. David J. Leu Phd, Chief •
Alternative Technology and Policy
Development Section
Toxic Substance Control Division
714/744 P Street
Sacramento, Ca 95814
(916) 324-1807
.gs-:. :�.,—tea= ,.� . F..�.-- �-s ��^,�� ��,�,":� .� �.'�. ...,�., - ^,:a,�:'ea �..�,..-a"s=•,
LASSEN OLLEGE FWI-WEaMy WWTRATIOV P&WM
0110ft PURI SOU111.E
1984 198S
Sept. Oct NOV pet Jar Feb parch April May June July
item 1 15 30 iS 30 IS 30 1S 30 IS 30 15 30 IS 30 iS 30 15 3o 1S 30 15 30
1. Interagency xi x x 2 3 4
Co it t Meetings x x5 x6
2. korkshop
(10/5/84 6 f0/11/84) x x
3. Recommendations on
Test Personnel x
01/1/84)
4. Bimonthly P,pogress
Reports (on -going)
w
S. Permits/Plans/Site
Improvements )x
(11/10/84)
6. Perliminary Test
Priorities, Procedures _
t Equipment list ------- "- —jx
(12/15/84)
7. Equipment Specifications
6 Costs (1 /5/85)
8. Finalized Test Priorities,
Procedures $ Equipment - - - - - - - - )x
List (2/5/85)
9. Equipment Bids
(3/5/85)
W. Purchase & Install
Equipment (6/S/86)--- --- ix
11. Start of Testing Shakedown testing at lab equip.
(6/15/85) _--- -
12. Report on First
Year Activities
00/1/85)
Motes:
i interagency council (IC) meeting to introduce members i program goals, procedures b schedules (9/6/84)
2 IC meeting to rote on test personnel (i1/2/84)
3 IC meeting to discuss and approve/disaPProve preliminary test priorities, procedures b equipment list (12/14/R4)
4 IC maeting-to discuss and aPProve/disapprove finalized test priorities, procedures 6 equipment list (2/8/8S)
S IC meeting to brief council members or progress of program (4/S/85)
6 iC meeting to brief Council members on progres of program (6/7/ASj
JUNE, 1984, FINAL VERSION
A privately funded waste -to -energy plant at Lassen Community
College, Susanville. Plant will he in full operation October,
1984. The plant is being financed commercially under a
lease -purchase agreement between the college and Bankers Leasing
and Financial Corporation.
The plant will burn municipal solid waste and biomass at a
capacity of 100 tons per day. 1.5 megawatts of electrical power
will be generated at peak capacity. One primary purpose of the
plant is to provide a facility for technical training of boiler
plant operators, training seriously needed in California. Lassen
College has established a technical training curricula in
alternative energy systems. Solar, wind, hydroelectric,
geothermal and municipal/biomass waste -to -energy are the
technologies currently offered. In 1980 the college's Governing
Board agreed to develop the plant and, with support from the
California Industry Education Council, an adjunct of the
California Round Table, a curriculum development program was
developed.
.
The plant uses well -established European technology to provide a
minimum technical risk while assuring specified levels of
guaranteed performance. For example, the Danish company
providing the furnace has guaranteed a specific steam energy
output. This steam energy will be used, in part, to provide
central heating for the campus. The balance of the energy will
be used to generate electricity for sale to PG&E. The College is
now negotiating with PG&E for the sale of this power. An initial
agreement has already been established.
Disposal of the ash/slag waste at this time will be confined to
the landfill test cells at the plant site on campus.
NEED FOR STATE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The technology of the Lassen MSW plant is being used for the
first time in California. It is an important step forward in
California's efforts to seek alternative methods of solid waste
disposal, lessen dependence on landfills, and develop other
methods for providing reasonably -priced thermal and electrical
power. Presently, state agencies have to collect data from
plants in the eastern U.S. and foreign countries. But many of
the facilities are obsolete and would not be allowed in
11
California, thus making much of the data irrelevant and useless.
Furthermore, the use of data from special tests in simulated
environmental conditions has led'to severe criticism about the
validity of the results and consequent critical impacts on
permitting criteria. A demonstration program at Lassen College
will address each of the above issues and allow for extensive,
valid testing of a MSW plant in actual operation.
Because of the state's serious needs to determine economical,
technologically feasible alternatives for waste disposal, this
demonstration project will provide unique and excellent
opportunities for complete and in-depth testing and evaluation of
a popular new technology. State agencies will be able to examine
the results of testing and operational variations in actual,
commercial operation of the plant.
WHY A FIVE YEAR PROGRAM
Solid fuel combustion units, and in particular, waste -to -energy
facilities, take up to two years to shakedown and get equipment
operating in a continuous mode. However, information on the
plant's characteristics during shakedown is one of the pieces of
information needed to determine the costs and impacts associated
with these plants during their normal start-up period. In
addition, information is also needed about the effect of waste
stream composition on plant equipment and operations and on
® environmental impacts (including slip stream testing of other
pollution control equipment). Consequently, a 5 year program (2
years of shakedown, 2 years of normalized operation data and 1
year of varied waste stream composition and pollution control
equipment data) is the minimum amount of time needed to collect
this information.
ROLE OF STATE AGENCIES
5 state agencies, which have already provided technical
assistance to this project and have indicated a strong interest
in continued involvement, will participate in the demonstration
project:
Air Resources Board
Solid Waste Management Board
California Energy Commission
Dept. of Health Services
Regional water Quality Control Board
The cooperation and mutual involvement of these agencies is
essential to providing an integrated, valid approach to waste
disposal problem -solving in California.
The roles of each individual agency are envisioned as follows:
E
�.: . ,... _.. ,. ., ,�.. ..r.:-' f-x^ �.rv... sse=•a.:�u 'z .^�e�ervw'z... .i �iS, °"=fiTy y� #?"?'�y�w ,ym ey.'Gv+ a�qc,•�
I� i4
Air Resources Board - Coordinate and assist in the measurement
and analysis of comubstion emissions. These measurements gill he
is made during normal and special operating conditions of the
facility. The ARB will also evaluate the efficiency of emission
control equipment.
Department of Health Services - Participate in an advisory role
with respect to the ana ysis and management of the hazardous air
emissions and hazardous elements of ash and leachate.
RegionalWater Qualitv Control Board - Provide guidance
concerning the analysis and management of the leachate generated
in the landfill test cells. Provide guidance for the
construction and rparation of the landfill test cells.
Waste Management Board - Coordinate the various fuel mixes to
generate specicical,ly desired emissions data and ash
characteristics data. Coordinate the deposition of ash and other
wastes into the landfill test cells. Coordinate testing of the
fuel mixtures. Provide guidance on testing the ash and leachate
and assist ARB with testing the air emissions. Test and evaluate
marketability of the ash product. Determine feasibility of the
overall waste process facility as a landfill alternative for the
state.
California Energy Commission - Agency responsible for
administrative aspects of transferring funds to Lassen Community
College and ensuring that project tasks are achieved. CEC is
interested in obtaining data and information that will be used to
review and evaluate MSW energy proposals in the siting process,
as well as use information to assist local governments in their
siting projects. Will evaluate environmental control devices and
combustor, pollution production rates from various fuel mixtures,
and overall system efficiency, reliability, and environmental
impact, identification of acceptable mitigation measures, and an
understanding of the capital, operating and maintenance costs of
MSW facility.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Testing will be broken down into the following four areas:
1. Plant Operation: Capital/operating costs, equipment
performance/reliability, problem areas (e.g., slagging, boiler
tube fouling, etc.), effects of various waste stream composition
on facility equipment/operation.
2. Characteristics of discharged ash: Composition, toxicity
and leachability, as related to existing Dept. of Health Services
criteria, and determination of future criteria.
3. Characteristics of Liquids from landfill test cells:
leachability, refuse characteristics.
4. Air Emissions: emission rates of criteria and selected
non -criteria air pollutants, effects of air pollution control
equipment, effects of refuse stream composition.
® Aspects of testing will include:
development of health%safety criteria for off -site disposal
of ash/slag
waste processing equipment evaluation
physiochemical reaction of fuel mixes found in waste streams
examination of ash from various fuel mixes
ash disposal and commercial uses of the ash by-products
gaseous emission control equipment evaluation
assessment of all permitting criteria
mass and energy balances testing on the system
effect of MSW/biomass mix on boiler tube ash buildup
erosion/corrosion conditions as function of acid gas species
and quantities
effects of MSW/biomass mix on grate
slag production/operating procedures
overall reliability/availability of each sub -system and
the whole facility
development of recommendations for operation of
laboratory after the five-year demonstration project.
evaluation of industry -supplied equipment and sub -systems for
new technology
Testing will be done by an on -site technician and supported, as
needed, by staff from the various agencies. Special testing
which cannot be accomplished by in-house staff will be contracted
out as needed. The testing will not interfere with commercial
operation of plant.
ROLE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE
The College will furnish land for the test and demonstration
laboratory and furnish access to the facility for the proposed
testing. Also, the Lassen College plant has been designed to
permit add -on equipment so that as new technologies emerge, their
effectiveness can be examined. This will allow %anufacturers to
provide equipment for investigative and demonstration purposes.
To protect the commercial operation of the plant, the state
demonstration program activities will be prioritized by the
coordinating council and coordinated with the operational
schedule of the facility. Probe installation and modification
and maintenance, instrumentation and equipment installation will
not interfere with the commercial operation of the facility.
Access to the facility for complex installation and hookup can
occur over about a 2 1/2 day period each month from September
through May, plus a two -week period in the spring. Minor
installation and hookup can occur at any time. The facility
plans to operate without shutdown between 12:30 a.m. June 1
through 12:30 a.m. September 2 of each year. Measurements can be
made at any time the facility is on-line.
JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT USING EXISTING GOKKUNITY CO
® Due to the type of testing to be done at the facility, the
on -site lab will have to be dedicated to tests on the facility.
Using the existing lab will not allow use of that lab for its
required community service function. Addirionaliy, the college
lab is not equipped with any of the necessary equipment and would
have to be outfitted with all the same equipment as the trailers,
plus retrofitted with air conditioning units.
JUSTIFICATION FOR USING MOBILE LAB VS. PERMANENT STRUCTURE
The major reason is cost: $1 million for a permanent structure
versus $300,000 for two equipped mobile units. In addition,
mobile units preclude the need to wait for erection and
permitting of the permanent structure and offers the state the
capability to test other facilities that may come on-line in the
future. The integrity of the mobile units is demonstrated by the
units now used by the ARB and at UC Davis.
F.QUIPMEMT
Attached is a list of needed equipment and conservative cost
estimates for purchase. since the intent of the testing is to
determine the impacts and costs associated with the day-to-day
operation of a waste -to -energy facility under fluctuating
conditions, a nunwer of lengthy tests will be needed to obtaining
a meaningful profile of the facility. With existing state agency
equipment, testing would have to be confined to specially set-up
and relatively short duration tests. Such test data would likely
not reflect typical operation of the plant. Consequently, to
obtain the quantity and type of data needed to profile the
facility will require capability to perform continuous testing,
which is only possible if the equipment is available at the site.
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
Ash classifier is needed so that the plant can separate fine from
coarse slag and remove scrap iron. This separation, based upon
European practice, is necessary to establish criteria in order to
classify the slag for possible commercial application. The fly
ash can be used in cement blocks, the fine slag can be used for
the aggregate in blacktop, and the coarse slag can be used for
rozd base once proper criteria is established. The classifier is
essential for the testing, development of criteria and
qualification of the ash for such commercial application.
Removal of the scrap iron is necessary for use in road base and
blacktop. Estimated costs are based upon input from gravel
classifying equipment manufacturers.
Tire shearer is used to break up tires for use as a furnace fuel.
Junk tires are now being rejected at landfills and there is a
serious need to find an alternative, useful disposal for this
waste stream. This equipment will
feasibility of disposal of tires a
extensive industry interest in this
program.
IMITATION
allow testing for the
t a MSW facility. There is.
aspect of the demonstration
Formation of Interagency Council to coordinate and ensure
involvement of the 5 above -named state agencies and Lassen
Community College.
Chairman of the Council will be the testing supervisor (an
employee of Lassen College), selected by the College from
recommendations submitted by the Interagency Council.
Council membership:
Testing Supervisor
Industry representatives (selected by director and
interagency council),
A representative, and alternate, from each of the 5 agencies
Job qualifications will be developed by the testing supervisor.
Council will meet at least once each quarter. Subcommittees will
meet as needed. Council will be responsible for prioritizing and
formulating the testing/demonstration program and assessment of
the test results.
STATE OVERSIGHT
The California Energy Commission is selected as the "lead agency"
in order to ensure state oversight of the demonstration program.
Funds will be allocated in accordance with the Commission's grant
management procedures manual. The Commission has demonstrated
its technical expertise in the development of directly -related
biomass projects, has established cooperative relationships with
industry, and has the staff and time capability to handle this
responsibility. its major responsibilities will be allocation of
the state funding under the terms of the contract with Lassen
College, providing state oversight of the project, and ensuring
active coordination of the state agencies.
once the state funds are ready for allocation, the Commission
will organize a workshop with the Interagency Council and
industry representatives to develop a prioritized testing plan.
At the end of years 2, 3 and 5 of the demonstration program, a
report to the Legislature will be made. The testing supervisor
will be responsible for preparing the report.* After it is
reviewed and approved by the Interagency Council, the Energy
Commission will transmit the report to the Legislature.
r�
L
® I�ERSONt�SL
On -site staff will be limited to a testing supervisor, technician
and secretary.
As an extension of their current, on -going laboratory and testing
activities, each agency will provide staff as needed at this
facility to participate in the testing at this facility. Travel
expenses will be reimbursed. Funding intended to cover costs
monies for ongoing secretarial and similar general operating
JUSTIFICATION FOR FULL -TIDE PERSONNEL
During the 5 year test period, extensive, continuous testing is
essential. The testing supervisor and technician, beginning in
the first year, are necessary for the installation and layout of
the equipment, calibration and maintenance, establishing testing
procedures, etc. A full-time secretary is also necessary for the
maintenance of all logs, preparation of interim and annual
reports, accounting tasks, etc.
On -site staff will be limited to these three personnel. Each of
the 5 participating agencies will provide other staff as needed
from "in-house," and as mutually agreed upon with the Council.
JOB DUTIES
® It is suggested that the testing supervisor, technician and
secretary be employees of the college.
Testing Supervisor: will serve as permanent chairperson of
the Interagency Coordinating Council. Must have prior experience
in management and technical direction of a laboratory. Must also
have management experience and stature to permit person to
effectively manage the Interagency Coordinating Council.
Technician: prior experience in team leadership in
conducting laboratory operations. Will include supervision of
test equipment, installation, calibration and test operations,
supervision of maintenance and repair of laboratory equipment.
Secretary: prior experience in office operations and
administration of technical or scientific operations. Lust be
able to prepare technical records, documentation and reporting of
technical and administrative activities of the laboratory.
This approach will ensure that the demonstration and testing
program results in credible, useful results. .
®
BUDGET
YEAR 1: CAPITAL OUTLAY
$595,175
Includes:
Mobile trailer facilities
$100#000
Site work (pad, utilities)
20,000
Working drawings (8% of total)
36,600
Preliminary Plans (6% of total)
27,450
Eqpt. installation%layout
53,625
Equipment purchase
$I57,500
ONGOING EXPENSES
$167,000
Includes:
Salaries (base + 2S% fringe)
Testing supervisor
$ 50,000
Technician
40,000
Secretary
20,000
Operating expenses
57,000
Year 1 Total: $762,175
Year 2: $167,000
Year 3: $167,000
Year 4: $167,000
Year 5: $167,000
Five Year Total: $1,430,175
Intended that funding will be obligated for
the full five years.
State agencies will be reimbursed for travel
expenses of
employees.
Budget includes sufficient funding to complete
the annual
reports.
R7/7P
June, 1984
E.
171
Minutes - November 7, 1984
I. The meeting was called to order at 8:03PM.
II. A guest, Bernie Schultz, came to the meeting.
III. Minutes of the 10/24/84 meeting were accepted as written.
IV. Ron Kinsey provided full informtion on the Bay Area Solid Waste projects
now underway.
V. Thelma Epstein will be contacting the League of Women Voters, Sunnyvale/Cup-
ertino Branch, in reference to their study on solid waste to find out what
exactly they are looking at.
VI. Further discussion ensued with reference to siting a solid waste facility
or transfer station. The Kaiser facility was discussed at some length.
The generation of solid waste as received would net approximately 10MM
per ton.
VII. Potential sites and/or what the City has planned for will be investigated
by the chair and will be presented at the next meeting.
VIII. Hon Kinsey has offerred to bring material regarding plants that. receive
200 tons a day with reference to energy recovery possibilities.
IX. The meeting adjourned at 9:25PM.
X. The next meeting is scheduled for 12/5/84 at 7:30PM.
11
aw possors
The fol luaing State organizatians and
professional associations have joined
the American Public Works Association
(APM) in urgimg participaticn in this
important event:
- CALIFORNIA NNSTE MANAGEMENr BOW
(CWMB)
- ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
(ABAG)
Wl I JN
ell
ti•F, '4X a, to L
Sl-
San Jose
SOLID WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1984
8-.30 A14 ROGISTRATION
9:00 M-- XEYN= ADDIMS
e -The Importanoe of Solid Waste Planning, Kinagmftl-
I (speaker not confirmed as of date of mailing)
0: 20 AM SOLID VPBM MWMGENERr PLANNING
* Terry Truebul I, member of CHmB and Fbrmer cbaimm
a Otis Marlow, Chief Director of Planning, CkM
0 Betty Czoly, Asst. Director of Planning, of plamda County
and Staff Representative, Alameda County SHM
10..-10 Am HRH.
16:25 AN E1W0KXH'W L _QF SOLID MMS DI! SPMRIURATIONS
nxq AiiiO4 -Ibomtive Officer, Oft
w Rid , Director of Solid Waste Management Office,,
Alameda County, Health Agency
.,11�96'AM ROWE MaAM= AM DISPOSAL RATE MWW9 PROMS1410tteslSift'. Partner, P
Peters,, Vfia
teitauftnis; no
L
t"MMAL G*MS AND OPEIN110ft,
0 JOEL Deputy Direftor, �fornia State
Of Health Services-
NN bu�•I�AZAR SOLID WASTE DL%N)SAL RnffAncm
Alb 19M IMPACT ON PUBLIC AMC=
• Director, SAa-ft'(3f Califamia
Mike CmWas, EmxutivL
J01M wv Wier Quality control Bow
900,-PM OPEN -'VZFZW LDUTM (FRANCHISE) ftl
REPUft A w kpagtwl. ,
cm a
r joc:arw
*'Ron *0to' it,11W a
Engineering Manager, Oakland
0 Len Stefamlli, President, Sunset Scavenger Co.
2:40 PM Bpm
2:55 PM RBCYCLING BCOKWCS IN SOLID WASTE PLANUM AND MANAGEHM
e.-Richax-d Gextman, Recycling Program ft Davis Mste pawvaa Co
jr
Director, fbecycl:Jjjg ton, Ca
of Palo Alto
GAS CMVERSION SYSTEMS UMq.,pArqy. -MftUMKWr
�tRSUS PUBLIC nUM DEVELOPMENT
Bob Van Heuit, Manager, DVON Associatbs
W Williams, Vice President, Cambrian ftierW Sysuq&L.
4:15 PM Awodfjpw
Noveanber 14, 1984 - NUM
Keynote Address - Sherman E. Roodzant
Solano County site limited to 95,000 tons per year
Planning Ideas - Involve public (NAMELY the IACAL residents)
Proper management of disposal sites now in operation
T. Trumball - California Waste:danagement Board
AB3119 vetoed by governor - same dealt with hazardous waste disposal
Best planning vehical is to educate the public
82% of all hazardous waste is disposed on site of maker
Movement off site of maker would increase the cost ten fold
O. Marlow - Chief Director of Planning - CWiMB
County Plans
All plans for disposal are reviewed and revised every 3 years
Always include the economic feasibility in the plan
INVOLVE public at the planning stage
Is Be sure to involve all levels of city management in siting
B. Crowley - Asst. Director of Planning of Alameda County
Alameda's plan has 38 objectives and 100 policies
INVOLVE public
Article regarding solid waste in California 7/84 - 'Trashing California"
H. Biahero - Executive Officer - C M
Two many agencies in solid waste enforcement
Closure of sites for drainage and gas migration
Uneven enforcement of stanilards
Attempting to change system to one permit requirement
Attempting to regulate development near sites (CLOM OR OPEN) due to gas migration
D. Pantages - Dir. of SWM Alameda
All costs are recovered
Cost to use Alameda landfill for PERMITS only approximate $10,000. (37).
3. Mortenson - Price Waterhouse
Regulate cost stream of franchise - must know cost of service and allow for profit
Understand the company - know its diversity prior to rate regulations submitted
Analyse all expenses
40 Review and work "with" your franchisee
M. Peters - Vice President BFI
Write all necessary controls into the centract
ff
J. Moskowitz - Deputy IDiYoector Calif State Dept Health
"Jay
Legacy = Waste prior to today
which we know is a Problem t
Aquifer traces not done siting prior to now
A119 vetoed due to provided for planning X
R. Johnson - Chief of Surveillance for the California Water Quality C7ontral Board
Major areas of contamination - orground tnkf
disposal sites
Ash and sludge reclassified to Class III waste
Class III sites allow sane leaky into water system
R. Proto
Long tern franchise is best for municipality and franchisee
Short tern franchise does NUr allow for long-term amcritisation
T. ]Flanagan - Director Recycling Program City Of Palo Alto
Not yet achieved WWII recycling via two trucks
14 tons per day of recycling are picked up
15,500 households served
G. Brian Liss - San Jose Pilot curbside recycling program
21,000 households will be serviced
Capital outlay $89,500
Landfill credit figured at $13.00 per toD,
Predict 184 tons per month
T. Williams - Vice President Co"b'an Energy Systems
landfill gas 5Q-6M methane, 40-50% carbondioxide, ± 10% 5
Minimize air intrusion/maximize methane extraction for capitalization
Uses - gh gas (remove CID2 ) um BTU gas tex
tracted)
Power generation
Co -generation
Vehicle fuel
Risks - Life after closure
Energy market
Equipment, permits, operational (Unknown/tnnknawns)
B. VanHeuit - Engineering Manager, EMS
Gave further information on landfill gas projects
ANNOUNCING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE REYCYLING SERVICES
The City of San Jose, California is soliciting written proposals from
qualified private contractors to perform curbside collection of recycla-
ble materials, and to operate a recycling drop-off and processing center,
for a pilot program in San Jose. The pilot area consists of 2 non-
contiguous zip codes comprising 20,600 households, or approximately 13%
of the total number of residential accounts in San Jose.
The contractor will: 1) collect weekly newspaper, glass and metal cans
(aluminum and tin) from all single-family homes and all residential com-
plexes of four or less units in the pilot area; 2) transport the
separated materials to a central processing site; and 3) process and
sell all of the materials collected. It is anticipated that 184 tons
per month of materials will be collected from this pilot area, based on
an assumed 25% participation rate.
All revenues from sale of materials will accrue to the Contractor. The
City is also prepared to pay an annual fee to support this program of up
to 40C/month per household serviced. The proposals will be evaluated in
large part on a 5 year contract, although the pilot program is to last
only one year. If it is successful, the program will be continued by
the same Contractor for the balance of the 5 year contract after the
first year of operation.
Proposals must be submitted by late November to the City (see RFP for
exact date). The City will decide in December who will be awarded the
contract. The Contractor is to begin service by the end of March, 1985.
A detailed Implementation Plan has been prepared by consultants to the
City that may be purchased from the City. For copies of the RFP and
Implementation Plan, write or call:
Gary Brian Liss
Solid Waste Program Manager
801 North First Street, Room 200
San Jose, CA 95110
408-277-4509
Era—mRa t,/ v EMIR
LOCAL '4.l+tM9ECCM80tT office of Solid Waste Management
NOTICE OF INSPECTION At;islucY:_
DISPOSAL SITE Richard A. Pantages, R.3. 0ag2 W12
Program Administrator (415)74-6248 �-
PILK NUIIN" PROGRAM CODS Ifts"CTION DATETOUT TOTAL T11116
ouwTI 169A N11Mone MM a0 TV IOEDtKIAL NOi1W/L
TNN
— — �10l1� S1031!
Fw CILITY NAME RECEIVED BY:
Zoe A 710N 1 8 operator
I, .4160 oweatt., IOwner
Comments: July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984: State-wide ACtiviti
(LEA's)
TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE DISPOSAL SITES: 481
TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS ON THESE SITES: 2,216
TOTAL TIME OF INSPECTIONS: 3,959.23 HOURS
TOTAL VIOLATIONS NOTED: 1,748 C?J�
13 ix F - V C
(301 t ) RECORDS ❑ ❑
Q AC eoft-, walOM7/VOLYlsE
wteowos MA/NTe/Nao
Ivan
Q ADSOYATa SUE/YMPACK
gone Owas MAINTAINED
11*E7
Q LOG OP SPECIAL. OCCUNNSNCaS
MAINTAINED
1T*M
WWCONOS AVAILAEL[ Ion
NNa c T#ow
t)PERSONNEL ❑❑
7(3 AOSOUATW NYMOff: OP OUALI-
PIao .6000NNiL AV AMASLS
1761{ 2;[3PawaoNNaL AOEOVATSLT TRAINED
17{47
Q ADSOVATR SYAGSV.S-ON
PNovloao
I Tau
Q slTZ ATTENDANT AVAILAsIt
P YLL-T/MS ON AS OET6010011wa0
ET LIIA
+TeAs
(3031) SIGNS ❑ 1-30 104NT,V ICAT#ON SIORS AT
2 a, . POINT OP Access
176116
�Q an TOY SIGN STATES Fats. NOYws
OF opals ATION. WASTES
Arle6PTau/NovAeea"Ito
17/S7
Q MOM-NAGANDOYt YnAVVGNOED
SITas NAVE SIGN WAONN10 Use*%
OP YNAVAILAS/LITV OF COMMYNI-
unoN FACILITIES74
(ao411 sacunlTY 25 1�❑
Q ADaQVAT[ ►a%IMa Tell
*Bcuw#Tv, NAYARDOYs ASEAN
PRNCRO AND 10
6
NT/P1so
(3051) ROADS Li
Q ACCESS ROADS HAVE SMOOTH
34 SVw.Aee. MINNIIaE DUST AND
TH ACM
00 MYO. AMO
ALLOW ALL-w[AvNaa Access
I7us
Q INT[WNAL ROADS IN *Ape
C OMamool. POOVIOa Access
2/O OUN/WC INCL4MENY WWATNEn.
wwo Ana PROVIDED WITH
1 3071► SANITATION LJ L-
1„p A040VA16 SANITANv FACILITIES
l� AVA+LAOLG
176"
n SAPS AOSQYA7a QW1n R1NO WATER
I1M
30611 COMMUNICATIONS LJ LJ
Q COMVNICATIOn FACILI71Kt
A&hAVAILAEL0 WHERE HAZARDOUS
ASTSS ANS ACCEPTED
(31011 SAFETY L-P -5
I] OAF STY aoY/PManv IN
Use ANo USING WORN
troy*
49 3% " v C
18f1f1 UNLO DING ❑❑
Q uMLOAD/w0 AOROY ATELV
(31611
Q S►
la 15 1) 3LOPUSCUT4/ LJ L
GRAO1 6
0wOWKING PAC[ /LDFas
A►Low s""a"v/ve COM"ACTION
02 as". oP CUT/ Also *Lo►t/
or vaKMCN 51100E AS
ly t147\ WSO ev Law
Q FINAL SLOFaa MAWS NEAT
APPEANAMCK ENO ANN
1-E/t : I OW F►ATvan
lie"
QGWAOING OP PILL /YNPAC[/
(3161) COVER LJI
Q /7oCKP+LING OF cops%
28 004/ Nor is T[nP Ewa
p#TH
174e0
Q SUITAaLE QUALITv AND
OU PLV oP COME% MATSO#AL
9% 1�iLAD66
C) Govan Pnoviona AT wassulaa0
OaPTM AND FaseYaNCv
1710E
Q IMT%%Moo.ATS COVa%
FWOVIONO AT EtQU/0140 OSPTN
ANO Pecounucv
174"
Q FINAL eOVER PROVIOeO AS
I317v) aoe�s'INIUG� 12 z
Q scwvawslNG PROM/enao
17606
Q SALVAOINO Done NOT IMTaN-
PeRs W/7H OPSOATtONS
I74[7
Q VO►YME naDUCTION ANO UNGS&V
aNCOVSNV 00 NOT INTaa/aaa
WIT" OPa RATION" OW CREATE
NCALTN. SAFETY On EMViwON-
MENTAL ►Rou"ne
17608
Q SALVAGING ANo VOLUME
WCOUCTIOM N CO"IVe0 TO
CLEANLY IOENTIPIED ANSAS
1741E
SALVAGE STOEAOS LOCATION ON.
VOLUME ea A►FMOVEO.o+ La A.
MIn ISI1ae0 F111e. allteAnCa
1744/
Q SALv AOa STOWAGE Toms DOES NOT
RS/YLT IN NEALTN OW Plan
17/*l
O SALWAGRO MATERIAL[ APPROVED
av LEA AND LOCAL "SALTO
(31111) NUISANCE 10 ❑❑
Q ova S:,ncmo 00 NO+ CoolAve
A PULIC NUISANCE
t n,
Q Pas Olwo of waPYSS TO AwIMA►s
POM 01401bAN CONGU1S"M"
MOM'O"oo
1774E
ies
21 1% a 1V
10 1% v C
(a1a11 PINE ❑❑
la�aP1) TRAFFIC ❑❑
Q PIWt CQ"TWOL AOmoluAV6
TaAFIC CONTROL
wRt OUATS wITNt" eITR.
e+NT-
TWAPPIC MINiNOaRN
PaRKNea, SAv9VV vacuLaws.
PINE P
1 ) 3 0z [3O
(a192)
Q OUR MIND M.1TURIALa
AND STACKIMO ON PUS►IC
$POW LD AND aaTItIOUISHED.
LS A, 0WIRS N010`99a fNMtOr-
WOAOS
17714
(32911 EDU IPMENT 3
ATa�v OP Plan NOT SRTIN-
GYls"Go on 04 HOW"*
17622
Q toY/YNSNT ADGOLATS on
TY Pa, CAPAC/TV. ANO "YMae R,
ANo It ADaaYwTa LT
(22011 LEACHATE ❑❑
ADEQUATE a+e" VAsaw
MANITAtwaD
o� 17fEs
30 To MoNITGW. COL►ECT. TREAT,
AND DISPOSE OF LRACMATES
Q STAN0AV KQYIPMENT AVAILA[L[
1770E
To COMPLY WITH sac- 5740E
Q NO WASTES IN DIWacv CONTACT
AND OTMas SECTION/
77 7
WITH WAS'KW EXCEPT Ab
laaoll MAINTENANCE 00
Q aPFtC TIV[ MAINTR-
NANCa FROCSAYWa/ ANo
APFRovao ev aWocW
(III ❑❑
-E (a202) LACNATN
Q AtFYSR COVanso Wt+\I N4R+
40 woaNAMS DEVELOPED AND
3 DAY' Wltrw OR WITH SIX INCHES
COMPACTas SOIL. TOTAL wwaw
V71LIaSO
177E1
or
0. aarosEo wa►DKE w As some#-
4000UAVW 1O0I11"G Awo
Visa Poa WaT AND on+ SEASONS
2 NKPA#" oP onvaa/owwvea
§62cOWD#TTOMs
,
132t,I GAs 12 IR ❑❑
❑ ❑
Q CA/ MONITORING ANO
(aa t I I CLOSURE
CONTROL AS wcowma0
27706
Q AFTER CLOWN[. #F
I,EACM AID. eRTSMe/VK
/YRFAC4 CwACKIMO Ow
5 VMS
❑ ❑
(9221) DUST
Q OY/T CONTROL A080WATE
t774{
SKTvf cmaa"T Decline.
OWNER SHALL =V*"FV LEA AND
0% SMALL MOnt+ew ANO "SPAIN
SITS POW A P80100 OF 9VUAWS
SITS
1323 It VECTORS/D/alas ❑❑
0R
Q vac Tew AND SIWo CONTROL
(9
177 EL
Q VroN OITe C►OaYat. OS7MLEO
ACCOVAVC
777ar
DESCRIPTION ls1rsT am P1LEo
412 NSUIO POMOS I1W1M1K4
WITH Too* Lae Also WIT" THE
VECTOR ►NO►AOATION
COUNTY aaeOaoall
(32321 VECTORS IPl ❑
123211 SPECIAL WASTES ❑ ❑
S vNwasNOLO WALVEf POn VECTOR
Q OYeN/NG WASTES +MMaol-
ro►YLATIOMO NOT 6Aesaaso
25 AVCIV SPREAD AND EXT/NGVISNeO
IN SAW ANNA
Qt+..1771f Ac c[►T/oNLT ..woven
I32411 DNAINAGE/ ❑❑
6X
RRO1114P/1
% HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
1PARCAYTIONa To
Ow AInAQU AND iSOYOM
TARES
00"CONTROL
CONTROL ANtSYATU
t79e{
SLIM/NATS
HARMFUL OUSTS, Pulses.
M#ST1. VAPORS. Ow OASES
Ia204II LITTER I ❑❑
%
1774E
WASTES APPROVED ET
L."aa convsOl 77p//
wOROYw+a
Q LIQUID
%Roca. LOCAL NRALTM 807#TT
t77+1
ANO LOA
17143
O DSEAD AD ANIMALS ALLOWED IT
'
132921 LITTER 11101 119
y
LITTER MOT ALLOY 6b
TO go Avg OFP-04M
REGULATIONS
LOCAL WSOY►AON4
(asap ❑❑
00
12aa"0 1Q CONTROL
toT7NERO/
Q Jl 3%
Is�>•11 Done +A
noon GOMTwOL
132721
Q
1
PV P Violation
C W Correction
DISTRIBUTION, O OPao&TOa PINK — LEA
LOCAL meats County- io+)
NOTICE OF INSPECTION w Office of Solid Neste Ai
TRANSFER STATION n-s.b--A t00Aft ®cT 4no=5
(10a1)
No GO vv
RECEIVED BY:
operator �
Owner
comments:_July 01, 1983 - June 30, 1984s Activities By Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA's)
TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE TRANSFSB STATIONS: 232
TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS OF THESE FACILITIESs 1,244
TOTAL TIME OF INSPECTIONSs 2,629.73 HOURS
TOTAL VIOLATIONS NOTED: 502
120111 RECORDS U
AGGuWAva WaIG"T/voLYMs
escapes MAINTAINED
17",
0 LOa Or SPACIAL OCcus"SNcas
Y AIwrasMao
nest
Oa
.:COROS AVAILAOLE row
IMGPECT/ON
171a!
15021) ►d RSONNISL.
0 AOsouava Mmous" OP
1 oUALAPIs0 rawoONNEL
avA1LAOLs
D67+
Ps*SO:Na L A*I*VATELT
(� TWAINa0
v 1767E
AOsawave suvaWVIs/ON
SPOT Gap
17473
D ATTENDANT AVAILARL6 PYLL-
T11da OW AS OSTURM/MSO er
120311 SIGNS 0 17.
u
10QNTIMMATIOM SIGNS AT
sACM POINT OF &Cause
f 740f
0 a -To, soon STATUS Pass.
NOUWS OP OPERATION, WASTES
accaPreel"OT ACCEPTED
17esa
(30411 SECURITY 'dc
13AOaauAva PEW- TEwlx
SSCUWITV. "^SamoaY$
AREAS PSRCSO AGO
(305+) ROADS 9 dZ C
�MOAOS MAVS SMOOTH
SUN/ACE. M/NI/Ilss OUST
AMC TMACM/N4 OP MUO. AMC
ALLOW ALL-WOATNOW ACCESS
17404
Y0611 VISUAL SCREENING C
33 r l VISUAL SCwaaMlNG PROUIOW.
(30711 sANITATIONAL V
13 a0E0UATE OaNITAw
PACILMsG AVASUALa
17461
13
swra wowuwTa ow1:alNa
Wwrsw wva/ueLE
Hasa
(30811 COMMUNICATIONS
13 COMMUMIc-101e PAC/LITII
AOEGIIATS
1749E
(3091) LIGHTING
0 LIONT/NO ACSOVATE
17434
(3101) SAFETv 24 5S
cONTwair sETwaaw Yasas
ANo WAIITSS M/G/WISED.
•Aww/Eas Pwov/Dao AS
"ECEssaar
f 100E
❑SAPETv woulrMa"T IN
use AND wsl"a WOoN
174a7
LARGE VOLUME
C 10 2% V
(Siff) ICJNL®AIFAS 0
UNLOAOI:* AOeSYAvwLV
COaP
13t21)CLEANUF 67 13X�
O STATION CLEANED
DAPLr OS As APPOOVEO
IstaflNcIA®VAS-
WAaTasaEMOveo
avaev As MOYRe ON aE
131711 SALVAGINGI
FROCC581PIW.
:MID ZE
sCAVE{POON"N so
17G2G
0 SALVAOIWG DOES GOT
INTERVENE w/TM
OVESATIORs
1751$
0 VOLUME WRDVCTIOM
M/Mtentaas MUALVM. SAPSTV.
NUIEANCS PROOLUMS AND
Dace NOT /NTeWi6ES Wtr"
OraaATIONE
17517
❑ $ALvwafNa AGo TowMR
NROUCTION CoGPatm To
CLEARLY IUQNMV9"
AMSAs
17111E
13 PROCESS':* OPURAVIONS
AWE O.IOVCTes 1A AN
Dec AM/aEO MAWWsi AND
"IM/Mlas "SALT". SAPUTV.
"ussa"Cw PoseLeels
ITS1s
0 SALVAOs STGRAOU LGcavtoa
OG. VOLYLIN As APVWOTGO
"'MM.ag.""/CEG. On OT"ONS an
:ASANOW 175"
SALVA*a GTOWAGE TINE
GOES NOT WSSULT IN IISALTa
OW -sea PaOGLaMO
17$!1
sA►VASCO MATE4"wL8
APPOOVED sV LEA see
LOCAL NsALTM
t7
Issas) 111u1SANc/t 4 L7.
oraeavocas Do NOT
CREATE A PUSLIC 410111411NCE
17sa+
(21911 FIRE ZC
O
As "UQUIItGD OW LOCAL PINE
AYTM*n#VV AGO ►EA
1741111
13221)DUST
31) VIRDS ItSj ON.
VECTOS AMC atae 0
CONTROL 40200Ave
• • I !11664A `/NV_ 8%
ONAIWASS AS APSOOV"
av LRw. COONGM&To0
WRM RWOCs, sonavc"on
TO Suwon va0N1a1TRe Ge
APPNOVMG ev SOaA►
esWaWAOU AYTNOOI"
111128
SMALL VOLUME
151 30%
V C
V C
1229t1 LITTER
®❑
120191 RECORDS
00
L/TrSR OL
13 We10Mv AGO VOLWO11
ADEQUATE
ATU
SECOND$ AND 012C0ace
OV SPECIAL OCCYWWEMCES
0,
as
7
Seel NDesE 0ADNo.WO
COMTaOL
AORRYATE
131011 SA/STY
El O
I"ReWIMIMAL
PUOLIC NSALTp
SAVE" NASAWDS
19IE$
ftlAGO
71) ODOR 0
13 ODDS CONTROL
1st 1 f 1 CO"I is.�iiNa
Q
MATS
WASTE MATSOIAL%
AOUOYATaLv CONTAINED
122611 TRAFFIC
C)TMAVVIC GO TOO,
174a$
Is❑t 2f 1 CLZANUP
Q
AOUGYAVE WRING $/Vs.
TOAPPIC ES /M4Usr
Puaff". Save
STATION CLEAN0
PWOOLS10ANO STAGGING
OMP'w9LIC EGAD$
SRK& 00 AS
APPOOVED eV LE•
12291) EQUIPMENT
U L
UGYIPMU//T AOUSUATE
4 /M TV PO, CAPACITT. AND
Ms NYaR. AND to
1ADROUATELV MAINTAINED
s"AMOST sa 18"T
J3
1AVA/LADLE
176a7
(3 rMANSPaR VW:ICLas
AOSGUATULV COVERED
ANO CONsvaWal a OP
OURASLB. SAS/LT
CLOAaAOLM MATSMIALS
17$4G
1�T
0 aNUIrMU:T AVAIL.AOLE
WON INSPECTION
175"
0 soYlwGwT "Owes-
waSPINa AOEGUATU
17a10
j32011 MAINTEMAISCE
O
D W-FacTswe MAYMTGNANCO
6q
PWOORAM$ DaveLame
1bAND YTIYaso
ITS"
O AGUSUATO MONITOM1We
AND 0111PA1N Os 0a"RIONAT"
Issas) SPECIAL/t1ASTIM
O �.Y.ai.e�_a =!7!!_---
0194 ACCOSTS APP r"60
NASAWDOYG WASTES
*ELT AND MANeitaa
coWPLms WIT" e" 1.
GeV 4 TITLE $0. CAC
INIUCTtsYI WAOTUs
ABaOYATOLV VOW
PWOCSRSUG
$7202
weY/a WASTES MAUDLUV
WITH Poo"" o0Y1PMSNT
AND aerwowass av
RWOCo, LOCAL an LT"
4Matty, Aw0 Loa
(e1311 NEAM%OVAL.
WwsTasWarovso
WEEKLY 00 As APPMOVSO
(31811 NUISANCE
U U
0 NUICAwCO CONTROL
AVSOYAVE
lSa8ti �IR�ORf/
� ❑
VsCvOw ARC stop
naafi O► ASSGYATS
(32411 gwoS �1b E/
O cNA'" as CONv.x
A7OSSUAVS
1s2s11 UTTER
LITTaa Can",
AGRGUATS
MISS
123811
2311 OTHER
El
a V a Violation
C G Correction
DIiTE10YT10M: WWTB — swats TUSAAM — 0913RAVOR vim — {RA
Palo Alto Materials
R Aft
ecovery Program
AMR
Materials Tonnage -Revenue Tonnage Rexene
Newsprint 3,283 $141,894 2,856 $ 87,552
Glass 1,593 39,818 1,604 40,109
Cans: Tin 150 40- 183 898
Aluminum so 43,396 56 37.171
Bi-metal 6 719 13 1,260
Scrap Metal 716 20,1W 601 19,138
Cardboard 318 18,079 320 10,824
Scrap Alum 9 5,412 14 51326
Hi -grade paper 48 5,169 53 5,033
Oil 9,965 gets. 2,180 8,015 gals. 1.960
Other 382
11. EXPENSES
Aftbor: Direct $163,375 $142,026
MW Indirect 61,146 52,755
Non -Labor: Whicles/Main 25,614 15,671
Fuel 10,298 9,134
Bin/Equipment Rental 9,769 9,532
Transportation 16,880 17,706
PASCO Administration 14,320 16,411
Other Program Reimbursement 179 2,111
Miscellaneous 415 321
TOTALS EXPENSE $301,996 $265.657
TOTAL MATERIAL REVENUE el3277,496 $209,651
PROGRAM EXPENSE $301,996 5265,657
DIRECT GROSS COST ($24,500) (5MOOG)
A. Revenues:
Landfill Diversion (@ $11.50/ton) $ 71,014 Not Available
Garbage Collection (@ $48.50/ton) $152,097
B. Costs:
City (In -Kind) ($26,632) Not Available
Dump Pass ($25,614)
TOTAL INDIRECT FW%SMUE $170,865 Not Available
DIRECT GROSS COST ($24,500) Not Available
NET COST/PROFIT $146,365
C.A.R. RAYMENT t ($36,475)
,1 i it tj I�•
)._.
In Attendance; Thelma Epstein , Rarbara Kelly , ftwpski ► Ronald Kinsey
Shishir Muhkerjee
Meeting called to order at 7:40PM
Minutes of the last meeting were accepted as Wbadtted.
Shishir did contact Mr.
�her di soffice cuss h�ohas oofferred tofsend the Ci epresentative
to the next meting t f
Ron submit-ced reports on both O' Connor and t
Gene will look into C=Mrcial usage of RDF
Be -evaluation of Newby Island casts will be given at next meeting
49 Next meeting scheduled for January 16, IM at 7.30PM in the Oonference Room
Meeting adjourned at 9:10FM
11
t'r:; fad is fl' i1 •J,dai I WW'O
I did indeed contact Mr- an's Office and he will attempt to either
attend himself or will send a representative to discus the City's plans
for space.
I do apologise for not having written a letter to him; however, the
holidays and office were both exceptionally hectic.
E
Minutes - January 1, 1985
I. The meting was called to order at 7:31PM; minutes accepted as written
II. Bert Viskovich and Chuck Killian were in attendance
III. :caul Roberts was absent
IV. Mr. Viskovich took the floor in respect to City policy as to solid waste
jNLA.0
a. There is no official policy on solid waste disposal within the city limits
b. Distribution of waste needs to be balanced on the county level
c. City looking at possibility of a contract with Newby or Kirby
d. Disposal within the city limits appears to not be receptive to the public
without crisis or an unusually high monthly bill
e. Flexibility in regards to a transfer station needs to be discussed
V. Conmercial property is mainly located north of 280 on Tantau and behind DeAnza.
on Bubb Road
40 VI. DeAoza College would be very interested in an HDF plant
VII. Letter drafted for distribution to cannercial entities; needs to be sent
to the City for approval
VIII. Interim Report for the City needs to be done - draft sections assigned as follows:
I. and V. Eugene Kuczynski
II. Thelma Epstein
III. Barbara Kelly
IV. Ronald Kinsey
VI. Shirshir Muhkerjee
IX. Next meeting is schedules 2/6/85 at 7:30PM
11
t
CJ
AGENDA
January 16, 1985
1. Call to c rder
2. B. Quinlan or Cupertino City Official
a. protects of future landfill site within Cupertino Boundaries
b. prospects of future transfer station within Cupertino Boundaries
C. C,omnercial applications to landfill site
3. Commercial usage of RDF
4. Discuss draft interim report outline
INTERIM REPORT OUTLINE
I , Overview of (darter
t discussions regarding socio/economic factors for Cupertino
�'� II.
III. Ccemittee Research regarding
disposal vs transfer sites within Cupertino
IV, Other facilities within the US - operations and casts
V. General conclusions
VI. Future workplans
Minutes - February 6, 1985
I. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM at the Offices of Mr. R. Kinsey
since the committee was locked out of City Hall.
II. All members were in attendance with the exception of Mr. Roberts.
III. The minutes are accepted with the following corrections:
Section VI: DeAnza would be entremely interested in the "steam" and other
energy sources that "could be derived" from a waste -to -energy
plant.
Section V: Should read "Potential users for these derived energies would ap-
pear to mainly be located north of 280 on Tantau and behind Dekoa
on Bubb Rd.
Section IV: Subsection b should be noted that the distribution references the
landfill site usage.
Section III: Raul Roberts is corrected to read Paul Roberts.
Section VIII:Correction to read Shishir Mukherjee.
IV. The letter to be sent to Cupertino industry was discussed at length. It will
be sent oat on City letterhead within the next week. An additional line was
added to state "Please respond to the undersigned".
V. The remainder of the evening was spent going over the Interim Report (copy of
which is enclosed).
VI. The next meeting will be March 6, 1985 at City Hall.
VII. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
e
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes - April 9, 1985
I. The meeting was called to order at 7:39PM in City Council Chambers
II. S. Mukherjee was the only missing member
III. Minutes of March 6, 1985 meeting were accepted as written
IV. Interim report was approved and seconded even though it was noted
that Mr. Viskovich's name was mis-spelled on the cover letter.
V. Management Plan:
a. Mr. Viskovich came in to explain the termination "negative
decision". He explained that this meant that there would
be no forseeable environmental impact and therefore no en-
vironmental impact report would be necessary.
b. The committee noted that the plan would be a good guideline
and preferred the task force structure.
C. The committee also perceived that the plan left alternatives
rather than making sweeping pre -determined decisions.
VI. Ron and Gene contacted the Foothill Community College District
and were very pleased with their response to the possible usage
of steam. An innovative idea as suggested by the District repre-
sentative was to place a waste -to -energy plant under the 85 inter-
change, if feasible.
VII. No further response was received from the letters as submitted
to the industry at large. Another letter is under consideration
to include hot water and chilled water usage.
VIII. Ron's meeting with Mr. Quinlan went well and a possible study
session with the City Council may be requested after further
investigation of specific alternatives to Cupertino. See
attachment.
IX. Mr. Joe Rinati of the Los Altos Garbage Company will be attending
the next meeting.
X. The next meeting will be held May 15, 7:30PM in the conference
room at City Hall.
XI. The meeting adjourned at 9:30PM.
AGENDA
I. call to Order
II. Approve Minutes
III. Preseatation by Rinati
IV. Discussion of Attachment to April 9, 1985 Minutes
V. Adjournment
Ll
AMEAS (F POSslMA ®Ise TO INMTICAT2
BRYAN CANYON
Percolation Deterrents
Residential Deterrents
Capacity
Usage - By whore and under what circumstances
Costs - Per Capita
Possible ROI
ROUTE 85 INTERCHANGE / LAWRENCE & STEVENS CREEK
Waste -to -Energy Plant
Commercial Usage
Permits
Feasibility
Residential Deterrents
Costs
ROI
COLL.ABORATIC N WITH OTHER CITIES
Sunnyvale or Santa Clara
Financial sharing in return for usage
Build waste to energy plant
revenue generation - also shared?
if not, reduced costs for tipping fees
TRANSFER STATION
Placement
Permits
Residential Deterrent
11
• rry '°i*v %5Y v*xvY - '�^"i'RT"} a r g}? �dq3"
11
TRIP REPORT
BACKGROUND
The Cupertino Solid Waste Management Committee received
notification from several sources that the 1985 Western Regional
Solid Waste Symposium would be held June 3-6, 1985 in Fresno,
CA. That symposium would be sponsored by the California Waste
Management Board, the California Chapters of GRCDA (Government
Refuse Collection and Disposal Association), and The California
Refuse Removal Council, in co-operation with California State
University, Fresno.
The Committee decided that it would be beneficial for one
or more members to attend the Symposium, depending on the
Individual schedules of the members. Those members who expressed
a willingness to attend the sessions in Fresno agreed that they
could devote only one day to the program and selected the
Thursday schedule as the most productive. It was determined that
the City of Cupertino would pay the symposium fees for the
attendees and reimburse one driver for mileage, assuming all
would go in one car. The attendees were Barbara Kelly, Gene
Kuczynski, and Ron Kinsey (who also agreed to drive).
[1)
® REPORT
The delegates departed Cupertino at 6:30 a.m. on Thursday,
June 6, 1955 and arrived in Fresno early enough to register and
tour the Equipment Show before lunch. The Equipment Show was
interesting, although there were fewer exhibits than we had
expected.
The luncheon address was presented by Don Faris, President
of Donald K. Faris and Associates. Entitled "Coping with Change,
Challenge, and Stress", the presentation was humorous as well as
thought -provoking and informative.
40 The afternoon session "The Future of Solid Waste
Management" was the main reason. for our attendance at the
symposium. That Technical Session was moderated by Thomas R.
Walters, President of Empire Waste Management. The first speaker
was Duane Butler, a Principal at Eljumaily-Butler Associates,
speaking on "The Beal Cost of Landfill Disposal tinder the New
Regulations".
Mr. Butler discussed the "hidden" costs for the operator
under the new regulations. It was pointed out that closure is
one of the most expensive of the cervices and is very often not
included in the costing of services. Also new equipment, site
acquisition and engineering and technical services are often not
® considered when quoting costs. It was stated that the cost to
[21
® operate a landfill site was $7.00 per ton with Indirect costs
being highest at $3.60 per ton.
r.
L
Eugene M. Berson, General Manager of Gene Berson &
Associates, made an interesting presentation on "Facility
Siting".
Mr. Berson pointed out how difficult it is to get a new
landfill site permitted. If at all possible DO NOT have such a
site in the county plan and it would therefore NOT be subject to
referendum. To (hopefully) get a landfill sited it Is necessary
to:
1. Deal directly with the residents "closest" to the
proposed site;
3. There must a' a REAL crisis, not a perceived crisis;
3. Plan ahead;
4. Be sure to have an alternative proposal;
5. Do "all" the necessary homework BEFORE going public;
6. Be honest; and finally
i. Cleanup the waste stream.
[31
9
°1A Current Appraisal of Waste to Energy as a Landfill
Alternative" was the title of the paper presented by Mark White,
Senior Vice President of Pacific Waste Management.
There must be a clear understanding of the following:
1. Environmental trade-offs between fill or burn;
a. Flow control (committed source of refuse);
3. Availability of disposal sites.
® It is anticipated that government financial support is
required to offset costs. Could the initial investment costs be
passed back to the public at large? Now can the initial
investment dollars be recovered?
The final presentation was made by Ernest J. Mortensen of
Price Waterhouse on the subject "The Mate Review Process for
Collection and Disposal".
These financial institutions are being consulted more
frequently to give communities more accurate estimates of
realistic costs of landfill and collection operations. In the
® past, such disposal fees were too low to generate a satisfactory
rate of return for the collection agent. '"I's disparity in costs
[41
between landfill and burning becomes significantly less when
more accurate calculations are used in determining return on
Investment.
DISTRIBUTION:
Mr. Robert Quinlan
Solid Waste Management Committee
[51
RALMe Further Progress MPli—progress towards mee&g an sk
quality standard, as set forth in the AQMP.
Resource Derived Fuel (RDF)—a type of garbage burning facility that
removes non -burning debris prior to combustion.
Ringelmann Chart —actually a series of charts, numbered 0 to 5. that
simula►e various smoke densities, by presenting different percentages of
black. A Ringelmann No. I is equivalent to 20 percent black; a Ringelmann
No. 5 is 100 percent. They are used for measuring the opacity of smoke arising
from stacks and other sources, by matching with the actual effluent the
various numbers, or densities, indicated by the charts.
Saturated ► ydrocarbon—an organic compound without double bonds in
the molecule. Examples are ethane, methane and propane. They are relatively
unreactive.
Scrubber —a device that uses a liquid spray to remove aerosol and gaseous
pollutants from an air stream. The gases are removed either by absorption or
chemical reaction. Solid and liquid particulates are removed through contact
with the spray.
Smog —a term used to describe many air pollution problems, it is a con-
traction of smoke and fog; in Calif �rnia, it is used to describe the irritating
haze resulting from the sun's effect on pollutants in the air, including those
from automobile exhaust.
Soot —very Finely divided carbon particles clustered together in long chains.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Substituted Aroms-;;c—an organic compound containing the benzene ring
wiih one or more substitutes, that is, with some non -halogen alum or group of
atoms. for example, toluene and xylene. These are highly reactive com-
pounds thus limited by Regulation S.
Sulfur Oxides — pungent, colorless gases formed primarily by the com-
bustion of fossil fuels. considerce major air pollutants; sulfur oxides may
damage the respiratory tract as well as vegetation. Limited by Regulation 9.
Topography —the configuration of a surface, including its relief and the
position of its natural and man-made features.
Total Organic Gases (TOG) gaseous organic compounds, including reac-
tive organic gases and unrear<ive organic gases, such as methane.
Total Suspended Partlydlate Matter (TSP)—a particle of solid or liquid
matter; soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mist.
Troposphere —the innermost part of the 12-mile layer of air encircling the
earth; it extends outward about 5 miles at the poles and 10 at the equator.
Variance —permission granted for a limited time under stated conditions for
a person or company to operate outside the limits prescribed in a regulation.
Volatile —evaporating readily at normal temperatures.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)—an organic compound that
evaporates readily at normal temperatures.
Waiver —relinquishment of a known right; in air pollution control,
specifically the yielding by the federal government to the state of its legal right
to control motor vehicle pollution so that the state can enforce regulations
more stringent than those prescribed by federal law.
GENERAL STATISTICS
SANFIRANCISCO SAY AREA
r GROWTH IN POPULATION AND NUMBER
OF LIGHT DU 4T VEHICLES
1 1995 1960 196s 1970 197s 1980 1982
Total Population* (1,000's) 3042 3626 4194 4580 4758 5031 5144
Total Motor Vehicles, (1,000's) 1759 2007 2255 2504 2752 3142 3286
Motor Vehicles per 100 people 58 55 54 55 58 62 64
1982 COUNTY STATISTICS
RATURK
GASG NE
VEBR:LE
POPtILAnOH
EA
(sq�e MBeal
GAS USAGE
(MWZM
SALES
(7ftwatift
MILES
TRAVELED
(loam's)
land
tltatar
Tool
cu. ft./day)
gal./day) (Moons/day)
Alameda
1151
734
84
S18
149
1149
15
Contra Costa
669
733
73
8W
471
887
10
Malin
235
520
87
607
25
251
4
Napa
1t)5
788
6
794
10
117
1
San Francisco
657
45
57
102
157
490
7
San Mateo
6/8
447
106
so
68
916
10
Santa Clara
1271
1300
12
1312
162
1511
20
Solano'
174
370
64
434
39
2"
2
r Sonoma*
262
664
4
668
16
298
4
TOTAL
5144
5601
493
6094
1097
5835
73
'Portion within say Area Air ouality Management District
!ter
a
L
5
£ x«
<a
•r
ya�y_y
For More Informatioea . iw
• on Bay Area air pollution control, contact:
- 1A
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone:
*General Business and Information: (415) 771-6000 ss
Complaints only: (800) 792-0836
"' ,.
Daily air quality forecast — taped message:
(415) 673-SMOG -
Agricultural burning information: (800) 792-0787
rK
e on automotive air pollution — the State's air pollution control
program for new and used cars:
-Ai AWM
California Air Resources Board `"r '.w
1709 l l th Street ��
`rSacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
General Business: (916) 322-2990
` dnforma:ion on vehicle control devices: (800) 242-4450 Y.
• pollution
on water control:
California Regional Water u iht Control Board
•. g� Q Y
• I I I I Jackson Street
Oakland, California 94607
Telephone: (415) 464-1255
• on federal environmental programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .:
215 Fremont Streets
San Francisco, California 94105 : ,
''" •'
Telephone: (415) 556-1840
;-
�yt
r� k.:cTy ' _„� .t.,y;' �, oK •-j,,`{fR3Yi. +is'i �0�_, _..�..'^`y,.�,•e`� . t� fi�.1 -. , •,• l„r�
3 •Ca n -3..-� ,.e-1,ia �� S _ - _ r.'s �,.�z �t�'T �• •' s.�l y; _.e ry
. �'�^,'.eT'�' �iarr..-e�...ww..r.-...- .,......,..,,. w,ev.r•... w.e/ ._x .w. ..:.:t<-.s •x. .. _.yY
tom'. aS:•"'�'Z°""'7. � .,='�i_`• • _. __....� — �-.__ _ �_..�-�-���!�",�"�'�'K^"� � v.� ..._ ...��+i�4--. ..__�_•_
E
r:1
L�J
SOLID WASTE KANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes - December 4, 1985
I. Meeting called to order at 7:45PM'
II. October 30, 1985 minutes approved as written
III. Only member not in attendance•S. Murkherjee
IV. Report on the Solid Waste Management Planning Conference.
a. Of most interest was the report by G. Ball on the
reasons for Bryan Canyon Failure. A copy of his
report is enclosed with the minutes.
b. G. Hersor (San Francesco County) gave report on
the active objection by a solid facility due to
rezoning.
V. Begin full investigation regarding landfill.
a. Obtain aerial photos and bluelines and geological contour
maps
b. Discuss with expert in field
c. Look at the initial Mountain View designs
VI. Next meeting will be on January 8 at 7:30PM in the downstairs lounge
VII. Meeting adjourned at 9:15PM
E �
E
7in
,4 &' 'n-a
l
SYNOPSIS
OF THE
FORUM ON COMMUNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
PROCESS STUDY
ON
'q= WASTE MANAGEMENTITING
y
PLANNING AM FACILITY S
AS RELATED TO THE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUT HCRITY
NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY
A THIRD PARTY 'REVIEW
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY:
HARBINGER COMMUNICATIONS
BILL LELAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CIDOY WORDELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
30 RUSTIC LANE
SANTA CRUZ. CALIFORNIA 63060
LEAGUES OF WOMEN VOWS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
F:OaUM C.tN ' OMMUNI i Y ANO i HE ENVIRONMENT
.C3 waver�ey tr-ee� • PSic A,'tc. CA 943f-1 • (4-15] 321-7347
qg
7 Jaauary toss
9YROPM
OF Tide
MIA ON COi1Ai9At11ON AM TM 9N!/1ROWEW
PfKKZBS ST'LOY
on
SO» WIAM MANAGERFAM PLAINIMI"a AID PACUJW SITIi3lG
as reisted to the
SAI.ID WAAM MA"GEM1W AU MRTTY
NOM SAWA CLAM COUNYY
A Third Party Review
INTRODUCTION
Siting solid waste facilities often Involves conflict between the
interest of those who live close to a proposed site and those wbw
seek ways to dispose of the community's solid waste. Conflict, a
times intense, was part of the Solid Waste Management Authority's
lSWNIAV 'exparience. This synopsis, barred on a larger report.
emphasises those essential elements of any approach to; this issus it
a community Is to manage this siting conflict In a way that
addresses the interests of the neighbors and the interests of thw
larger community. Key elements. which are supported in this
synopsis and in the longer report. include
® WILL. the strong desire: and motivation tQ find a way to
address solid waste management both now and in the long tom,
which must be exercised by a BROAD BASE OF KEY INDIVIDUALS
Including key decision makers. Without this will. there is no
way that long term solid waste issues will be addressed. It Is
needed to move through conflict to find approaches that address
the interests of all of the various parties.
e If there is ONLY WILL then the result will be impasses. as
SWMA's history indicates. Will must be combined with a PROCESS
strong enough to manage and make productive the nearly
inevitable conflict.
0-1
e in addition there must be INFORMATION. developed in WOys
that lead to agreement on "valid" values. at least on their
range, for key decisions related to siting. A trusted group of
people need to have working knowledge of this information.
e And there must GOOD WORKING RELATiONVIP5 among indlvldtlale6
groups. boards. organizations and governmental entities.
Meetings must be well rum respectful relationships among the
various interest groups must be established in the midst of
conflicting Interests. individuals need to FEEL they are hoard
even if they are not agreed with.
e Incentives must exist for neighbors. who absorb the impeess
of facility or landfill sites. to participate and to seek
agreement.
In the remainder of the synopsis we give a brief back9mmd on SWMA.
Identify a number of areas where things "went wrong." list some
qualities we believe an effective process needs to have. describe a
proposed process sequence. and conclude with some questions that
provide a starting place for the development of an effective process
design for solid waste management planning and facility siting.
BACKGRO=
This Is a synopsis of the report on the process of the Solid
Waste Management Authority of North Santa Clara County (59A4"
This authority was established In 1902 to find a long term
solution to the solid waste management problem in its area
which is environmentally sowed and technically feasible. The
authority enabled participating cities to cooperatively fund
efforts to identify and perform technical feasibility studies on
several possible sites fat solid waste, including the evaluation
of a wast"o-energy faeiilty.
The authority identified several s^tes. conducted tecluhical
studies and met with substantial Community opposition over the
site selected for detailed analysis. The authority was
dissolved in 19" Appendix A of the full report contains a
more thorough history of solid waste planning in Sande Clara
County and of the establishment of the north county Solid Waste
Management Authority.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the process used by SV4MA
and those involved with it. The intent is to learn and than
share how the process .-vas viewed by the various parties, to
identify the PROCESS CHOICES shade. and to make process
suggestions as to how the diverse interests of the various
publics can best be served in a way that effectively addresses
the solid waste management needs of this area.
0-2
C
E
7
11
C:
The interviewing and the processing of the notes from the
interviews was. in large measure done by members of the League
of Women -Voters of Santa Clara County. Harbinger Communications
and Forum on Community and the Environment. in cooperation vollb
the League, haves done the analysis of SW44A based on the
interview data. reports and books on the topic and have prepared
this report.
The process choices made during SWMA could have been maids
differently — and there might have been. different outcome& it is
easy to attach blame to altaloss made. This is NOT our Intem our
review of the SWMA process only has merit insofar as it uses the
powers of hindsight to identify other process choices. and creates s
framework and principles to assist those making the process choices
next time.
From the Interview data we identified twelve lastles that increased
the difficulty, of SWMA successfully siting a facility.. We halve
organized these issues under the four headings of INTENT. PROCESS.
INFORMATION. AND RELATIONSHIPS. Each of these areas must be
effectively addressed if the overall effort is to be sureessful and
agreement reached.
/WENT
Solid waste was a low priority for the public and for public_
officials. The issue seemed deferable. For a number of the cities
the finincial investment had been fairly low. therefore, the stakes
were low. Cities felt able to pull out and find individual
salutions without significant losses.
There were counter efforts by people impacted by the proposed road
to and landfill site in Bryan Canyon. They expressed concerns .about
pollution of ground water, air and noise. Those opposed to the
Bryan Canyon site perceived their quality of life and their property
values as seriously threatened. Their stakes were very high.
The high cost of transporting waste and the high initial capital
costs of the waste -to -energy project significantly reduced the
attractiveness of tht project to same decision makers.
The iong lead time for solid waste planning diminished the
commitment. There is current pain in malting the decision and no
immediate gain. This produces a tendency to back away unless there
is "garbage in the streets."
6-3
C
PROCESS
There was limited perception of the rate of ettizen InvolVetne
This perception redu 'ed Involvement by ciciaens to giving their
reactions to preestai.lished alternatives. Standard norms for
behavior in public meetings were not enforced. SWMA public meetings
were not west suended. one problem being that people are not
interested in participating until the proposed sites are on the
selected
State law gives solid waste land use decisions to local
jurisdictions. since it requires that sites must conform to local
general plans, which places an extra burden on joint ef!,rts. This
creates a situation in which everyone has a veto and no am Is
responsible. Action is nearly impossible. While the SWMA board
could make the siting dacisio% the actual authority to matte the
critical implementation decisions rested with the local city
councils.
The structure of the SWMA board was imbalance& The equailty of the
members (one city one vote) reflected power realities — Los Altos
and Cupertino had effective vstos over action dine to zoning
authority and it did NOT reflect the Investment. which was much
greater by the larger cities. No additional process was esMIts!"
beyond the SWMA board to work out agreenteM among the [WSW cities
and the- smaller cities. 1. 1 0
Alternatives narrowed early am There was a perception that Bryan
Canyon was the ONLY alternative being considered by the end of 1983
and that there was an unwillingness to reassess or seriously
consider other alternatives.
The geographic scope was limited to North County. Some 1taople- tilt
that the problem was greater than North County. that SWMA was
hampered by having to stay within North County.
I NFORMAr/ON
The public and decision makers were not adequately informed. and
city representatives were not consistent in upd4%ing councils. The
public .vas not well informed on the issue. The media only covered
the controversy and did not provide the ;%A,.lic the information it
needed on the substantstive issues: r. :d Medea coverage was
charged by both and odponents of Bryan Canyon. The
exchange of information was not sustained, in spite of an intmtslve
effort by staff to meet with groups and review the project. When
membership on the Board changed the new members were not given an
intensive briefing.
Conflict arose over information presented on the proposed
alternatives. There were conflicts between experts and perceptions
of experts with conflicts of interest. The validity of the
0-
C:
information challenged by outsiders with technical Competence. yet
outsiders were not included in the process to establish "valid
data". SWMA staff was perceived as "selling" rather than being
willing to dialogue with others.
RELATIONSHIPS
Politics, political feasibility, and political leadership: Elected
decision makers were sensitive to the Intense pressures to consider
focal concerns above regional benefit. Political timing was poor. -
critical decisions were made near the time of local elections and
council members were concerned about getting elected Several
proposed alternatives were politically vulnerable. but continued to
be considered without adequately assessing the political barriers.
Cities differed In interests and approaches and needs; some are full
service and others are not. Some felt that smaller cities that are
,.m full services cities wanted to buy their way out of providing
them.
Incentives and disincentives and compensations for cooperation:
Cities and individuals are unequally impacted in managing the
selection of solid waste sites
Among members of the SWMA board: Changes in board membership
changed •relationships on the board. Those Interviewed reported 04t
confiicr; among merttbsrs as to the goals of SVtIMA style reduced the
effectiveness of the Board. The conflict toward the and of the
project tended to Increase
Between proponents and opponents: Those opposed to Bryan Canyon
(Concerned Residents Organized Against Killer Emissions or CROAKE)
M`
perceived SWMA staff and Board as viewing them as "NIMSY's" (Not in
My Back Yard'sl. They perceived the staff as being unwilling to
take their concerns seriously, even when presented by other
professionals. Disrespect developed in both directions. Neither
CROAKS or SWMA sought a working relationship; CROAKE was perceived
as deciding that disruption and confrontation would be the most
effective techniques in achieving their goal of no facility in Bryan
Canyon. Others perceived them as "intimidating and acting
unreasonably, even rudely."
SU44MARY
In brief summary:
Strong INTENT to address solid waste management existed for only a
few, with the strong resistance to the Bryan Canyon site
overwhelming what intent existed.
The overall impression of PROCESS is constraint — by scope, by
state law, by SWM1A Board structure and procedure, by the linearity
b- ra
11
of the decision making process.
INFORMATION was not effectively con wmicated in all direction$.
Challenges to validity were responded to with additional One w8V
communication.
The development of strong effective working RELATiONSMIPS was not
supported by the process., Disincentives for cooperatives
relationships outweighed incentives. Pew felt heard and listened
to. Local relationships dominated regional relationships.
1. Develop an ongoing, broadbased can working group ® to link
parties together, to create a forum for discussion and negotation,
to develop a wider group committed to finding a workable approach to
solid waste management, to work with key elected and appointed
decision makers as a resource and as a bridge to the public
Activities that the working group would undertake are found in the
section "THE PROPOSED PROCESS SEQUENCE'
a. Maintain a technical advisory committee to respond to and
initiate technical findings on proposed solutions.
3. Establish. an Intergovernrnent Council committee on the
solid waste laws whose responsibilities would include developing
suggestions on the decision making process. on compensation and
mitigations of negative impacts, funding, and balancing the
differences between the smelt and large cities.
4. Create. s mechanism that links together these groups. as wali 48 -
the city councils.
S. Build process considerations into all groups' deliberations.
Evaluating the process should be an ongoing activity.
Accept the notion of compensationrncentives for adversely
Impacted individuals, neighborhoods and cities. '
7. Maintain an openness to alternative options. Avoid foreclosing
viable options.
& Separate the critical solid waste decision malting period from
election times.
Underlying Beliefs and Key Principles
A core belief underlying our proposed process sequence is that
0- tf
�11
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT QONMITTEE 2 of 2
MINUTES AUG. 15,1984-JAN.12,1986
E-7
n
11 E
complex community issues. such as solid vacate msnag,&MW E , star
POLYLATERAL, that is. no one actor or agency can by itsstuoi
the agreement and that rroat agreements, eft be blocked from off"U"
implementation by any one or several of the various parthm A
second core belief is that other people often have similar noel* its!
we do and that they are NOT at core malevoleriL And, thirdly. Ow
everyone has valuable contributions to make.
Some of tho key principles of process design. we believe. include
development of and agreement to the process by ON pwties,-
agreement on the problem before going on to solutions. inchsalon-of
the various stakeholders. development of incentives to pertiClpateb_
and the use of process and problem solving skills to work
impasses.
Several -key principles developed by Interaction Associates of Sam
Francisco include: "Ao slow to So fast'.. "If you can't agree on 04
problem. you'll never agree on the solution". "Key decision makers
must agree to participate in the collaborative process and consider
it as an Integral, part of their 'real' decision malting process", and
"A collaborative process muet bs open and visible".
Several key principles stated by the American Arbitration
Association include "Everyone's contributions. ideas and feelings
be velued, respected and taken seriousiy", "Understand the position
and trams of reference of othersp, and "Incentives for resalvi-°g,
conflict must be present." As before, these principles enable us to
both design and monitor our process.
rHe quAu ras AND cNARAgEwsrlCS
rHAr MAxz rmE i®R cns Vli'om
In conflict situations people tend to test what someone says ageinftE
what they do; incongruence is resolved in favor of the peraoeCs ,
behavior. An important characteristic of this process is CONGRUENCE
BETWEEN THE STATED INTENT (of the process design regarding such
things as inclusion of stakeholders and respectful consideration Of
ail ideas) AND THE ACTUAL WAY THE PROCESS IS RUN,
Paying ATTENTION TO PROCESS allows ongoing assessemstet of the actual
process against the intent and the principles. Skilled Individuals
are designated with a primary responsibility to watch the process
and to suggest preventions (such as a agreed upon set of ground
rules) and to make interventions when necessary (such as proposing
changes in the process to meet new conditions). The responsibility
for the process is shared with all participants. which tends to
create a strong and flexible vessel for working through conflicts.
PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS ARE MADE EXPLICIT through taking time to
build process agreements and to build commonly held process valtdes
and to build interpersonal relationships. To the extent possible
the process design seeks to enhance trustworthiness.
ba
E
All STAKEHOLDERS ARE INCLUDED to the extent possible tatming Ova,,
ult:mste decision makers. those impacted by the decisions hid 10 —We„
going to be made. people with relevant experience, chase who -will,
have to lmplement the final result, =a thosaa who ran block
decisions or Impiementatian, Flopefully. all parties participate
willingly on the belief that the results us Iiikay to be batter
this way. that the risks are acceptable. and that there will be
chances to speak out.
INDIVIDUALS ARE TRUSTED TO SPEAK OUT to advance their avm Irttests.
to seek ways to most the interests of others, to include others in
the process. and to say "Yes. no, maybe, and I wonder how we c®uh#
develop that idea further'
PARTICIPANTS ARE WILLING TO WORK TMROUSii CONFLICT as ale wtam for
dialogue created by the practise is often aisle to make productive. as
Of the anwilles of Conflict. Controversial issues can be brought UP
and addressed by working groups.
The process of CONFLICT IS ADDRESSED COMPR84MIVELY by sthtpptng
back from. the content and checking the process against principles
and then working with those involved to continue the comprehensive
approach.
UMITAT/t NS Of ME PROPOSED APPROACH
This proposed process requires a lot of effort. It Is expensiv* In
time and requires good skills in working with groups of people. It
can not guarantee (but what cant) a settlement that will la*L It .
requires strong Intent to address the Solid Waste issues and to vroft
them through.
There we also'a number of factors that make the proem difficult
to establish and operates
Uncertainty and risk related to — how trustworthy are the
other parties. how much can 1 get, how much must I give.
there are not any good choice& its hard to- assess the risk
of awful things happening, and to the complexity of the
situation
is Pown and coercion — Sarno parties have more power than
others, the pressure of time, government regulations and
laws
a Personal attack and other interpersonal dynami=
stereotyping leading to incorrect assumptions
s Conflicting differences 10 methods and style. in values
and perspectives; and differing allocation of costs
e Choice making by multiple parties working together
0-8
C
Based on the analysis to this point of the type of process
needed to address solid waste facility siting I*Gues. We
describe a sequence of activities. an overall proeese. This
proposed process consists of the following, possibly overlapping.
phases:
1. Acknowledge basic situational realities
Z Commit to finding an approach :o Solid Waste Msna#A*@'tit
and to the process leading to the implemention of needed
solid waste facilities
& Create a core working group
e. Adequately support the wracking group's efforts
S Link the working group to interested and affected
individuals. groups and jurisdictions
d Establish a broadly agreed an process
7. Develop agreement on the problem — its scope-, nature;
urgency and severity
E. Develop agreement on criteria for decision making
& Form alternatives by generating options -end improving
the options through continuing evaluation
10. Make the needed decisions
11. implement the decisions
12. Persist until you work things through
In this chapter we relatively briefly describe the PIwpose of
oath phase, critical issues and key questions that need to be
addressed. and some of the activities we believe reed to occur:
r. AaNCwLeDur BAS/C SIrUArloNAL RsAurlEs
Purpose: To assess and then get agreement on the current
realities in the situation.
Issues and questions:
Substantive: How much wasts is there and where does it Conte
0 .9
E]
•
from. etc. What capacity to receive solid waste now
exists? What technology exists or is likely to exist in
the new (enough) future? What are the critical
substantive issues (see SWCAC repord?
lntent: Who cares about solid waste? la there intgrest in
addressing the -issues? Does anyone care enough to r6miily
put effort into it? Who is willing to take responsibility
for addressing the issue?
Relationships: Who are the likely stakeholders? What
working relationships exist that could be built on?
Process: What strategy seems most likely to address the
issues in a way leading to useful action? Who can assist
with the process management? Now vAll the prows be
structured to manage conflict and controversy? How can
neighborhoods be a part of the early, pr"Its selection
process?
Information: What Information exists? Flow can it be made
more useable and credible?
Activities
Review these and other questions: develop responses: review
the situation with key people: get agreement on the current
situatlotc develop the rationale for dealing with the solid':'
waste facility siting issue now or for deferring it until
the situation looks better.
2. COMMIT" TO FINDING AN APPROACH TO SOLID WASTE MANAWNENT
AND TO THE PROCESS LEADING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEBEO
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Purpose: To ask for and get agreement to dedicate the .time
and resources heeded to address solid waste issues; to
identify the limits to commitment, in a general way; to
begin working out the deYalls of the strategy and the
process; to the extent possible to get acceptance of and
commitment to the need to address solid waste issues from
decision makers. staffs, citizen groups and other
stakeholders.
Issues and questions:
• Does anyone care enough to commit the needed resources
and time?
s Haw to reach out to enough people to create a solid
basis of commitment for the future?
s How can this commitment be made solid enough to last
0•-10
Ll
over a number of years?
Activities:
During this phase the "point person(" would be spending -:a
lot of time talking with key people one-on-one and in arnafl.
grows to get a sense of the extent of commitment the
issues for that person; during this phase a workshop on
possible approaches to Will waste facility siting -{based
In part upon this work) could be used to build the strategy
fur"W.
I CREAK A CORE WORKI NO &VIP
Purpose: To have a focus group and forum for the effort ghat
extends beyond one person or rote type or one organisation or
one point of view; to have continuity for the effort and a
knowledgsabie pool of individuals having a variety of
perspectives who are proponents not of one specific approach or
solution but rather who are advocates of persisting until the
solid waste issues are addressed.
Issues and Auestions:
s Under what conditions would anyone be willing„to
commit his/her time and energy to such a working group?
® Mew Can the variety of perspectives needed be present
on the working group and keep tha site of the, group
manageable? Who needs to be involved?
Activities
Create a working group on soled waste managemern. The
group would have the following charapteristies:
heterogeneous, knowledgeable, meets frequently. links into
all critical networks and constituencies. supported by
staff, representative of the PERSPECTIVES of the, varies
stateholders and geograpic areas. NOT A DECISION MAKING
GROUP, legitimate. respected people on it. This working
group would be the core group for public participation, be
willing to be outfront as advocates for addressing the
Issue (not for a specific solution), would become skillful -
in conflict management, and committal to working the issues
through — past the impasses and the "it won't work
becauses."
References
e Batl.Geoff and John Kent Wilker. "Community
Participation and 'Conflict Management'", WESTERN CITY,
December 1982.
0-11
11
Y
Tw;:
A ADEQUATELY- SUPPORT THE
WORKING GROUP'S EFFORTS
11
Purpose: Obtain the resources needed to support the working group.
Increase the capacity of the working group to deal with conflicu
Impasses. miscommunication, differences of technical opini®IL
Provide the time needed to "go slow to go fast." to got tentative
working agreements as go along. to build an effective working group.
Issues and questions:
e What kinds of support are needed?
e Mow to incdease the working together skills of the
working group?
Activities:
Develop the support necessary, including skilled
technical. clerical. information and process management and
facilitation/mediation support staff; information handling
and dissemination resources; skill devviopment
opportunities; and facilitation support. (CAN NOT assume.
that the already stretched county staff will be able to do
this all. And the support must go beyond the regular
technical support that staff gives.) There would need to.
be core working staff who maintain the continuity of the
effort.
a LINK rHE woRxI NG GROUP r0 I NTERESTED
AND AFFECTED /NDIVIDUAM GAWPS
AND JUR/SD/CT/ONS
Purpose: To insure that the process has integrity, that
stakeholders have continuing communication with each other
and that there is, a forum for concerns and ideas.
Issues and Questions:
® How to maintain contact with key decision makers?
e Mow to link the working group's efforts to the formal
processes all along the way (both public and staff)?
e F!ow to link the effort to the State of California and
stay knowledgeable about the State's processes?
e Mow to link to public interest groups — the League of
Women Voters; to advocate groups — the Sierra Club;
0-12
11
to neighborhood associaution$ — CROAKE?
Activities
Develop liaison contacts with key groups and individuals.
Set up a process for moving ideas. concerns and other
information to and from the working group. Establish
agreaments with Council members of the various titled as to
ways that the FULL council can be kept Informed.
Referaances:
~Closing Schools: Palo Alto Unified School District
Process Report", Forum On Community and the Environihorit.
ton
WASUSH A BROADLY AGREED UPON PRWES'o
Purposes To negotiate and agree upon a deta!led process among
all the stakeholders, to the extent that this is possible. This
includes ground rules. ways to approach foreseeable process
issues such as disagreements over technical information. working
with the media, setting acceptable levels of risk, how the
decision forming and making are to occur, on -going evaluation of
process. eta
Issues and Questions:
e What is the process for agreeing on the process who is
involved in developing and then agreeing on the process?
e Haw to get acceptance of the process by those who 04
not involved or who enter the process after this phase?
® How are resources to be allocated to the various process
activities?
• Now to deaf with than IF vs. the HOW question?
e How to address Issues of timing v when to make the StG
step (can we wait for better technologies or push recycling
to reduce the waste flow); it we choose now, how adaptable
are the choices made to new information and changes W the
future? Do we go for interim solutions as well as long
term. When do we list possible sites — how early in the
process?
• How to go beyond the usual level of process agreement —
the Joint Powers Authority agreement for example — to
consideration of the more detailed issues?
e What working rules among city councils make sense?
0.43
e What will be the strategic approach toe corfVw"aftok
cost sharing, pain spreading, geographic limits.
participstion, legal setting, fall back dacision making and
implementation strategies if impasses are reached?
e What are COW real coats of the various process options?
e What, if any, new ism and legislation are needed to
create a workable legal context for the process?
Activities:
The first major task of the working group would be the
development and negotiation of this broadly agreed upon
process. View the process from the perspectives of the
community needs and the neighbors needs as well as from
other perspectives. "
7. DEVELOP AGREEMENT ON THE PROBLEM --
ITS SCOPE, NAWRE.
URGENCY AND SEVERITY
Purpose: To get agreement on the problem before seeking
agreement on the solution. To agree that the problem is of
sufficient importance to continue to commit to working
intensively for agreements that address it
Issues and Questions:
e How to gat a solid agreement on the problem when what
most people are concerned about is specific sites?
o Mow to get agreement on debatable issues such as the amount
of materials that could be recycled?
e Mow to pursue interconnected issues in a political
context (the relationship of San Jose to the other cities)
and in which legal issues are pending (the BFI suit against
San Jose)?
e Mow to establish accepted bounds on scope and nature.
ur_ancy and severity of the problem.
Activities:
Using the experience with SWMA, identify information needed
to establish bounds on the scope and nature, urgency and
severity of the problem. Get out the perceptions of the"
different key individuals and parties. Work toward problem
definitions for the shor., medium and long term. Identify
the RISKS INVOLVED with a do-nothing approach, piecemeal
additions, etc. WORK BACKWARDS from proposed solutions to
0- 14
El
11]
�1
Me problem they are intended to address.
8 DEVELOP AGREEMENT ON CRITERIA
FOR DECISION MAKING
Purpose To identify concerns and preference$ to he Included.in
developing a list of ranked criteria that has broad agreement.
To develop this list independent of site. To include both
technical and political considerations. To agrea upon the way
that the criteria will be used in making siting recomfflantatlo
and decisions.
Issues and Questions:
e What are the specific concerns; for example, health
hez,►rds, operational concerns. and community property
Vail,®$?
o What are specific siting preferenm about land use.
community image, feasible mitigations. jurisdictions.
-citizen review, eta?
e blow to build broad support for criteria developed?
e Who Is to be involved in developing the critarla and the
subsequent decision process?
Activities:
The working group. with substantial outreach -and Input.
would generate a ranked list of criteria related to
concerns and siting preference statements. This list watdd
be considered by official decision makers working with the
working group. A decision process for use of the criteria
needs to be worked out.
a FORM ALTERNATIVES ay GENERATING
OPTIONS AND IMPROVING THE OPTIONS
THROUGH CONTINUING EVALUATION
Purpose: To develop the combined package of site. mitigations
and compensations/incentives for each of several Sites,. {it is
preferable to work toward decision time simultaneously on
several possible sites rather than focusing on just one.)
issues and Questions:
® How to afford working on technical studies of several
Sites?
e How to work out compensation/incentive approaches that
0-Is
�11
cities. consumers, or who ever tort live with (with respect
to cost) and that don't set precedents for otter areas that
increase the impact?
e What if any changes In state law are needed to encourage
neighbors and groups of cities to watt to work out the
issues involved?
Activities:
Combinations of approaches would be expicred: identifying;
additional people who need to be Involved due to the possibie
siting of b facility near them: developing adequate information
and coats of the defer or do nothing options,
10. MAKE THE NEEDED DECISIONS
Purposes To make the combination of needed decisions needed.
Including site selection. agreements for compensation/
incentives. mititgations, rezoning. adjustments to general
plans. eta
Issues and Questions;
® Now to make complex package decisions with muitiple
parties having non -overlapping jurisdictions and no
superordinate authority?
e► Now to develop enough trust that tentative working
decisions can be made without -full agreement on all parts
of a decision?
Activitism-
in this phase the working group provides an wMart resource
to formal decision makers. Public meetings in which the
alternative are discussed AND WORKED WITH by decision
matters and the working group with input from the public.
(Note: the working group provides an way for bridging the
gap between decision makers and the general public, and
specific interest groups. It seems likely that Informal
mediation among groups by a third party might be extremely
helpful.)
71. I MpamENT THE DECISIONS
Purpose: To carry out implementation of the decisions agreed to
in #10, Including road access improvements, preparation of the
site, etc.
Issues and Questions:
s What is the mechanism for on -going monitoring and review
0- 16
of the implementation?
e What dispute resolution mechanism exists for unloleasm
surprises that are certain to arise?
e What is a trey decision agreed to by an elected board is
overturned by referendum or recall or a court decison?
e Who if resources expected to be available are not
forthcoming?
Activities:
The continuing monitoring of the implementation by the
working group. The actual carrying but of the decisom
Oisp:-te resolution as needed
12. PFRS/ST U NM' YOU WORK fMINGS TMo IWOM
Purpose: To recognize that even late into implementation. Issues
can arise. political shifts in funding can occur, incresses in
opposition to a chosen site can arise, that will rewire going beck
over the ground again and building again toward an implementable
agreement.
Dues and Questions:
e Now to sustain the working group as a viabio entity over
the long haul?.
• Now to retain creativity and and sense of accomplhO n tm
in the face of opposition to any acceptable site?
e Now to provide incentive for ail concerned to come- is
workable agreements and how to avoid forcing through a
decision that will later be overturned?
Activities:
On -going efforts by those carrying the intent. Building in
rewards for small and intermediate accomplishments— some
short term sense of getting somewhors.
CODNnNUIROG ACTIV17110 THRO6/G101.!°i' TM PROCESS
Throughout all phases the following activities will need to be
actively and effectively supported
Running board. staff and public meetings effectively
e The use of a neutral party, and/or additional skill
development for public officials and staff and other
0-17
members of the various publics in working together skills
such as collaborative problem solving and negotiation and
effective confrontation.
Outreach and continuing education of the public and decision
makers
e Clever ways to antics the public to become interested
In and informed about 10106 waste issues (work in public
schools).
e An efficient process for keeping decision makers
Informed without taking more time than they have (for
example. the recent use of Interactive television using the
Stanford University Educational TV network for planning
regarding transportation).
M*distioninegotiationifacilitation of agreemsnts among key
actors snd parties. "This may involve acting as a:
a Convenor in assisting the parties to define
terms and conditions under which they are prepared to seek
a mutual settlement
e Broker in representing the interests. concerns and ideas
of one parry to another
® Facilitator in assisting the parties to Interact in
joint sessions."
IN ALL OF THESE TASKS THE MEDIATORIFACILITATOR IS NOT A
PROJECT PROPONENT, BUT A NEUTRAL INTERVENOR WHO RECOGNIZES
THE NEEDS OF ALL THE FACTIONS AND KELPS THEM REACH A
MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUES POSED. (ref„
Knester)
r=
The following Crooks. papers and articles are ones we will be
particularly useful to readers interested in additional reading.
The full Forum report of which this is a synopsis is available
from the Department of Planning, County of Santa Clara. 70 West
Hedding. San Jose. (408) 299-2521. as well to from Forum on
Community and the Environment
ARMOUR. Audrey (Editor), "The Not In My Backyard Syndrome",
Symposium Proceedings, Faculty of Environmental Studies,
(410) 667-3252, York University, Canada: February. 1983.
AXELROD. Robert. THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION. Basic Books,
0-18
�71
1-1
F,,ti �..N 11>:. r �;'15- mw
Now York. N.Y., 19"
BALL
Geoffrey. and Kent WAUaR A
Conflict anxV@mVW WESTERN CITY. December. I=
9ELLMAN. Howard. and Gerald CORMICK. "Siting Solid Waste
Management Facilities: Approaches for ®ispate SottleettwV
Recommendations to the State of California Solid West*
Management Board. October. 1981.
CROWFOOT. James. "Negotlstlom An Effective Tool for
Citizen efa�ni Crowfoot
iotfaculty of the UntY o Michigan I Arm
Arbors
OOYI.E. Michael. end ®avid STRAUS. HOW TO MAKE MEETINGS
WORK. Playboy Press, 1972.
FISI'IER. Roger and William Ury, GETTING TO YES. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston. MA, 1991.
KNASTM Alana. OThe Siting of Waste/Energy Facilities: A
Process for Citizen Involvement and the Role of Mediation.
Institute for Mediation. Seattle. WA„ ISM
CIILRITYMSITihael. Lawrence BACOW. and Debra N�
ING UP BLIC OPPQSiTIOK Van strand
FACILITY
® Reinhold Co.. New York. IN&
®-49
r �5
SOLID WASTE MAMAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes - January 8, 1986
I. Meeting was called to order at 7:45PM
II. December 4, 1985 minutes were approved as written
III. Missing member T. Epstein. In attendance as guest Edward L. Griffith
IV. The floor was given to Mr. Griffith to discuss landfill technologies
a. Mr. Griffith pointed out that landfills are more hwily regulated
now than they were at the time of Bryan Canyon;
b. Permitting proceedings are extremely expensive now;
c. For minor clients (Cupertino) the costs are extreme to have a land-
fill when you include drainaCz systems, permiting, liners, etc.;
d. Long-term liabilities are an unknown (i.e., suits arising from leakage
V. A flyer discussing turning waste into resources was provided by R. Kinsey
and is enclosed
VI. G. Kuczynski will prepare writeup on Bryan Canyon
i!II. Landfill away from Cupertino will be the next topic of discussion
VIII. Meeting adjourned at 9:30PM
IX. Next meeting will "• 7-1b. 5, 1986 in the LOWER LEVEL LOUNGE
El
�um
SYNOPSIS
OF TF12
FORUM ON COMIM'JNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
PROCESS STUDY
ON
SOLI® WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND FACILITY SITING
AS RELATED TO THE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY
A THIRD PARTY REVIEW
RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY:
HARBIN aS"BR COMMUNICATIONS
BILL LELAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CIDDY WORDELL. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
90 RUSTIC LANE
SANTA CRUZ. CAUFORNIA 9:5060
LEAGUES OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
_FORUM CN COMMUNITY AN® THE ENVIRONMENT
422 waver ley Screen ® sic A�ec. CA 943C'l • (4151 321-7347
7 January IM
' SYi+�PStS
OP TFi�
PC" ON COMMUNITY AND Tim EWRONME.A!r
PROCESS Si61>31P
on
SMW WAS MANAGEMANT PLANNING AM FACILITY SPITING
as related to the
Si® WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
i SANTA CLARA COUNTY
A Third Party Review
Siting solid waste facilities often involves confiipt between tits. - r:
interest of Dose who live close to 8 proposed site and these who-
seek ways to dispose of Me community's solid waste, Contli6 ,.V- Y<
times intense, was part of the Solid Waste Management Au>thcri tt
(SWMA'e)'sxperIww& This synopsis, based on a larger report. .
emphasizes those essential elements of any approach to this issue if
a community is to manage this citing conflict in a way that
addresses the interests of the neighbors and this interests of the
larger community. Key elements. which are supported in this
synopsis and in the longer report, include-
e WILL. the strong desire and motivation tp find a way to
address solid waste management bout now and in the long term,
which must be exercised by a BROAD SASE OF KEY INDIVIDUALS
including key decision makers. Without this will, there is no
way that long terns solid waste issues will be addressed. It is
needed to move through conflict to find approaches that address
the interests of ail of the various parties.
e It there is ONLY WILL then the result will be impasses. as
SWMA's history indicates. Will must be combined with a PROCESS
strong enough to manage and make productive the nearly
inevitable conflict.
0-1
E.
e In addition there must be INFORMATION, developed in ways
that lead to agreement on -valid" values. at least on their
range, for key decisions related to siting. A trusted $goUP of
people need to have working knowledge of this information.
e And there must GOOD WORKING RELATiONSHIPS among individtlii 86
groups, boards. organizations slid governmental entities.
Meetings must be well run: respectful relationships among the
various interest groups must be established in the midst of
conflicting interests: individuals need to FEEL they are heard
even if they are not agreed with.
e Incentives must exist for neighbors, who absorb the ini *M
of facility or landfill sites. to participate and to seek
agreement.
In the remainder of the synopsis we give a brief background on SWMA.
identify a number of areas where things "went wrong." list some
qualities we believe an effective process needs to have, describe a
proposed process se4uenca. and conclude with some questions that
provide a starting place for the development of an effective process
design for solid waste management planning and facility siting,
BACKGROUND
This is a synopsis of the report on the process of the S*110
Waste Management Authority of North Santa Clara County 4SWMAL. ,
This authority was established in 1982 to find a long term
solution to die solid waste management problem in its area
which is environmentally sowed and technically feasible. The
authority enabled participating cities to cooperatively fund
efforts to identify and perform technical feasibility studies on
several possible sites for solid waste6 including the evaluation
of a wast"o-energy facility.
The authority identified several sites. conducted technical
studies and met with substantial community opposition over die
site selected for detailed analysis. The authority was
dissolved in 1984. Appendix A of the full report contains a
more thorough history of solid waste planning in Santa Clans
County and of the establishment of the north county Solid Waste
Management Authority.
The purpose of this study is to analyze this process used by SWMA
and those involved with it. The intent is to learn and then
share how the process was viewed by the various parties, to.
identify the PROCESS CHOICES made, and to make process
suggestions as to how the diverse interests of the various
publics can best be served in a way that effectively addresses
the solid waste management needs of this area.
0-2
The interviewing and the processing of the notes from the
interviews was. in large measure done by members of the Loops ,,
of Women Voters of Santa Clara County. Harbinger Communiestl®ne
and Forum on Community and the Environment. in cooperation with
the Lesgue, have done the wn"Ib of SWMA based on the .
interview date. reports and books on the topic and have preened
this report.
FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE
THINM THAT "WENT WRON oi"'"
LAST TIME
The process choices made during SWMA could have been mad*
differently — and there might have been different outcomes. It is
easy to attach blame to choices made. This is NOT our intam W
review of the SWMA process only has merit insofar as it uses the
powers of hindsight to identify other process choices. and creates a
framework and principles to assist those malting the process choices
next time,
From the interviews data we identified twelve issues that increased
the difficulty of SWMA sueeessfully siting a facility. We have
organized these issues ender the four headings of INTENT. PROCESS
INFORMATION. AND RELATIONSHIPS. Each of these areas must .be
effectively addressed if the overall effort is to be successful and
® agreement reached. .
NI' NT -
Solid waste was a low priority for the public and for public
officials. The issue seemed deferable. For a number of the cities ->A
the findneial investment had been fairly low. therefore. the stakes -
were low. Cities felt able to pull out and find individual
solutions without significant losses.
There were counter efforts by people impacted by the proposed road
to and landfill site in Bryan Canyon. They expressed concerns about.
pollution of ground water. air and noise. Those opposed to the
Bryan Canyon site perceived their quality of life and their property
values as seriously threatened. Their stakes were very high.
The high coot of transporting waste and the high initial capital
costs of the waste -to -energy project significantly reduced the
attractiveness of tht project to some decision makers.
The long lead time for solid waste planning diminished the
commitment. There is current pain in making the decision and no
immediate gain. This produces a tendency to back away unless there
is "garbage in the streets."
0-3
PRXESS
There was limited perception of the rote of eltizen invrolvetnerdt
This perception reduced involvement by citizens to giving their
reactions to preestablished alternatives. Standard norms for
behavior in public meetings were not enforced SWMA public meetings
were not well attended. one problem being that people we not
Interested in participating until the proposed sites are on the
selected
State law gives solid waste land use decisions to local
jurisdictions. since it requires that sites must cOr,torm to local
general plans.which places an extra burden on joint efforts. This
creates a situation in which everyone has a veto and no one Is
responsible. Action Is nearly impossible. While the SWMA board
could make the siting decision. the actual authority to matte the
critical implementation decisions rested with the local city
councils.
The structure of the SWMA board was imbalanced. The equality of the
members tone city one vote) reflected power realities ® Los Altos
and Cupertino had effective vstos over action due to toning
authority and it did NOT ref leer dal investmant. vrwAich was atuch
greater by the larger cities. No additional proses$ was estabtlsAaed'
beyond the SWMA board to worm out agngtnents Meng ells IMPOW Cities
and the- smaller cities.
Alternatives narrowed early on. There was a perception that Bryan
Canyon was the ONLY alternative being considered by the and of 1983
and that there was an unwillingness to reassess or seriously
consider other alternatives.
The geographic scope was limited to North County.: Some psai:W felt
that the problem was greater than North County. that SWMA war `
hampered by having to stay within North County.
INFORMATION
The public and decision makers were not adequately informed. and
city representatives were not consistent in updating councils. The
public was not well informed on the issue. The media eanly covered
the controversy and did not provide the public the information it
needed on the substantative issues. Biased media coverage was
charged by both proponents and opponents of Bryan Canyon. The
exchange of information was not sustained. in spite of an intensive -
effort by staff to most with groups and review the project. When
membership an the Board changed the new members were not given eta
intensive briefing.
Conflict arose over information presented on the proposed
alternatives. There were conflicts between experts and perceptions
of experts with conflicts of interest. The validity of the
0-4 -
El
11
information challenged by outsiders with technical competenss. yet
outsiders were not included in the process to establish "valid
Woo. SWMA staff was perceived as "selling- rather than being
willing to dialogue with others.
RELATIONSHIPS
Politics, political feasibility, and political leadership: Elected
decision makers wore sensitive to the Intense pressures to consider
local concerns above regional benefit. Political timing was poor.
critical decisions were made near the time of local elections and
council members were concerned about getting elected, Several
proposed alternatives were politically vulnerable, but continued to
be considered without adequately assessing the political barriers.
Cities differed in interests slid approachas and needs: Some ere full
service and others are not. Some felt that smaller cities that We
not full services cities wanted to buy their way out of providing
them.
incentives and disincentives and compensations for cooperation;
Cities and individuals are unequally impacted in managing the
selection of solid waste sites.
Among members of the SWMA board: Changes in board membership
changed relationships on the board Those interviewed reported that
conflicts among members as to the goals of SWMA style reduced the.
® effectiveness of the Board The conflict toward the end of the
project tended to increase
Between proponents and opponents: Those opposed to Bryan Canyon
lConcerrhed Residents Organized Against Killer Emissiorhs or CROA.KM
perceived SWMA staff and Board as viewing theta as "NIMSY's" (Not in
My Back Yard's!. They perceived the staff as being unwilling to
take their concerns seriously. even when presented by other
professionals. Disrespect developed in both directions. Neither
CROAKS or SWMA sought a working relationship; CROAKS was perceived
as deciding that disruption and confrontation would be the most
effective techniques in achieving their goal of no facility in Bryan
Canyon. Others perceived them as "intimidating and acting
unreasonably, even rudely."
SUMMARY
In brief summary:
Strong INTENT to address solid waste management existed for only a
few, with the strong resistance to the Bryan Canyon site
overwhelming what intent existed.
The overall impression of PROCESS is constraint — by scope. by
state taw, by SWMA Board structure and procedure, by the linearity
b- 5
of the decision making process.
INFORMATION wqs not effectively communicated in all dirat dons.
Challenges to validity were responded to with additional ott wey
communication.
The development of strong effective working RELATIONSHIPS was not
supported by the process.. Disincentives for cooperative
relationships outweighed incentives. Few felt heard and listened
to. Local relationships dominated regional relationships.
1. D4velop an ongoing, broadbased core working group — to link
parties together, to create a forum for discussion and negotation,
to develop a wider group committed to finding a workable approach to
solid waste management, to work with key elected and appointee
decision makers as a resource and as a bridge to the public.
Activities that the working group would undertake are found in the
section "THE PROPOSED PROCESS SEQUENCE."
3. Maintain a technical advisory committee to respond to and
initiate technical findings on proposed solutions.
3. Establish an intargovernment Council committee on the
solid waste issue whose responsibilities, would include developing,
suggestions on the decision making process, on compensation and
mitigations of negative impacts. funding, and balancing the
differences between the small and large cities.
a. Create• a mechanism that links together these groups. as well t
the c;ty councils.
L Build process considerations into all groups' deliberations.
Evaluating the process should be an ongoing activity.
& Accept the notion of compensationlincentives for adversely
impacted individuals, neighborhoods and cities.
7. Maintain an openness to alternative options. Avoid foreclosing
viable options.
L Separate the critical solid waste decision making period from
election times.
Underlying Beliefs and Key Principles
A core belief underlying our proposed process sequence is that
o� e
n
u
complex community issues, such as so►id waste management 'ere
POLYLATERAL. that is, no one actor or agency can by itself diC1 111
the agreement and that most agreements can be blocked from effective
implementation by any one or several of the various pwtielt, A
second core belief is that otter people often have similar needs as
we do and that they are NOT at core malevolent. And. Qdrdly, that
everyone has valuable contributions to make.
Some of the key principles of process design. we believe, include
development of and agreement to the process by the parties.
agreement on the problem before going on to solutions. inclusion _of
the various stakeholders, development of incentives to participate
and the use of process and problem solving skills to work throw
impasses.
Several -key principles developed by Interaction Associates of Sara
Francisco Include.: "Co slow to go fast".• "If you can't agree on the
problem. you'll never agree on the solution". "Key decision makers
must agree to participate in the collaborative process and consider
it as an integral part of their 'real' decision making process". and
"A collaborative process must be open and visible".
Several key principles stated by the American Arbitration
Association include: "Everyone's contributions, ideas and feelings
be valued, respected and taken seriously", "Understand the position
and frame of reference of others". and "Incentives for resolving
conflict must be present." As before, these principles enable us to
both design and monitor our process.
THE OUALMES AND CtiARACTER/STOCS
PRAT MAKE THE PROCESS WVRX
In conflict situations people tend to test whet someone says against
what they do: incongruence is resolved in favor of the person's
behavior. An Important characteristic of this process is CONGRUENCE
13ETWEEN THE STATED INTENT (of the process design rergarding such
things as inclusion of stakeholders and respectful consideration of
all ideas) AND THE ACTUAL WAY THE PROCESS IS RUN.
Paying ATTENTION TO PROCESS allows ongoing assessement of .the actual
process against the intent and the principles. Skilied individuals
are designated with a primary responsibility to watch the process,<
and to suggest preventions (such as a agreed upon set of ground
rules) and to make interventions when necessary (such as proposing
changes in the process to meet new conditions). The responsibility
for the process is shared with all participants, which tends to
create a strong and flexible vessel for working through conflicts.
PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS ARE MADE EXPLICIT through taking titYw to
build process agreements and to build commonly heldL process values
and to build interpersonal relationships. To the extent possible
the process design seeks to enhance trustworthiness.
bR
All STAKSHOLMS ARE 0 ;'.e ms i�o tee w5kent possible Including Me
ultimate decision makers. tho" Impacted by the decisions while era
going to be made. people with relevant asprerience. 1114"a VAG VAII
have to implement the fir al rossuii~ and these who can block
decisions or Implementation. Hopefully. all parties participate
willingly on the belief that the rtsutts are likely to be better
this way. dreg the risks are acceptable, and that Mare will be
chances to speak out.
INDIVIDUALS ARE TRUSTED TIa SPEAK OUT to advance their awn interests.
to seek ways to most the interests of others, to include others its
the process. and to say "Yes, no. maybe. and I wonder how we could -
develop that idea further."
PARTICIPANTS ARE WILLING TO WORK THROUC41 CONFLICT as the es meat for
dialogue created by Me process is often able to make productive as
of the energies of conflict. Controversial issues can be brought up
and addressed lay working groups.
The process of CONFLICT IS ADDRESSED COMP1 ISIV LY by "wins
back from the content and checking the process against principles
and then working with those involved to continue the comprehensive
approach.
it M17A7/OJI03 OP ME PROPOWD APPR0ACN
This proposed process requires a lot of effort- it is expansive In
time and requires good skills in working with groups of people. It
can not guarantee (but what can?) a settlement than will iasL It .
requires strong intent to address the Solid Waste issues and to +garret
them through.
There are also a number of factors that snake the process difficult
to establish and apernte:
a Uncertainty and risk related to — how trusTwordly are the
other parties. how much can I get, how muter must 1 give.
there are not any good ch®ices, its hard to- assess the risk
of awful things happening, and to the complexity of the
situation
e Power and coercion — some parties have more power than
othws, the pressure of time. government regulations and
laws
e Personal attack and other interpersonal dynamics;
stereotyping leading to incorrect assumptions
e Conflicting differences its methods and style. in values
and perspectives; and differing allocation of costs
® Choice making by multiple parties working together
0-8
- E
1'l4'1; •i' TzFes: • �i S _.�'s
Based on the analysis to this point of the type of process
needed to address solid waste facility siting Issues.
describe a sequence of activities, an overall process. This
proposed process consists of the following. possibly overiappino
phases:
1. Acknowledge basic situational realities
2. Commit to finding an approach to Solid Waste Manalleift rtt
and to the process leading to the Irnplementlon of needed
solid waste facilities
& Create a core working group
s. Adequately support the working groups efforts
L link the working group to interested and affected
individuals. groups and jurisdictions
d Establish a broadly "mad on process
7. Develop agreement on the problem Its seapiL nature.,
urgency and severity
L Develop agreement on criteria for decision making
L Form alternatives by generating options and improving
the options through continuing evaluation
10. Make the needed decisions
11. Implement the decisions
12. Persist until you work things through
In this chapter we reistively briefly describe the purpose of
each phase, critical issues and key questions that need to be
addressed. and some of the activities we believe need to occur.
r. ACCNOWLEDGE BASIC SITUATIONAL REALITIES
Purpose: To assess and then get agreement on the current
realities in the situation.
Issues and questions:
Substantive: How much waste is there and where does it come
0 ®9
E
from. etc. What capacity to receive solid waste now
exists? What technology exists or is likely to exist in
the near (enough) future? What are the critical
substantive issues {see SWCAC report!?
Intent: Who cares about solid waste? Is there intgrset in
addressing the 3sauss? Own ,anyone care enough to really
put effort into it? Who is willing to take responsibility
for addressing the issue?
Relationships: Who are the likely stakeholders? What
working relationships "at that could be built on?
Process: What strategy seems most likely to address the
issues in a way leading to useful action? Who can mist
with the process managarnent? How will the process ffe
structured to manage conflict and controversy? How can
neighborhoods be a part of the early, pr"Ite selection
process?
Informatiorc What information exists? How can It be evade
more useable and credible?
Activities
Review these and other questions; develop responses reaiaw
the situation with key people: get agreement on the current
situation develop the rations!® for dealing with the soll®'
wrests facility siting issue now or for deferring it until
the situation looks better.
2. COMMIT' rO FINDING AN APPROACH TO SOLID WASTLC MANAWMENr
AND TO THE PROCESS LEADING TO I MPLEMENTArION OF NEEDED
SOLID WASTE FACIUTIES
Purpose: To ask for and get agreement to dedicate the.time
and resources needed to address solid waste Issues; to
identify the limits to commitment, in a general way; to
begin working out the details of the strategy and the
process; to the extent possible to get acceptance of and
commitment to the need to address solid waste issues from
decision makers, staffs. citizen groups and other
stakeholders.
Issues and questions:
o Ooes anyone care enough to commit the needed resources
and time?
e How to reach out to enough people to create a solid
basis of commitment for the future?
e How can this commitment be made solid enough to last
0-10
0
over a number of years?
Activities:
During this phase the "point person(s)" would be spending a
tot of time talking with key people one-on-one and in mall
groups to get a sense of the extent of commitment, the
issues for that person; during this phase a workshop an
possible approaches to solid waste facility siting (based-
In part upon this work) could be used to build the strategy
further.
3 CREATE A CORE WORKING GROUP
Purpose To have a focus group and forum for the effort that
extends beyond one person or role type or one organization or
one point of view, to have continuity for the effort and a
knowledgeable pool of individuals having a variety of
perspectives who are proponents not of one specific approach or
solution but rather who are advocates of persisting until the
solid waste issues are addressed
Issues and Questions:
e Under what conditions would anyone be willing to
commit his/her time and energy to such a working group?
e Now can the variety of perspectives needed be preseml
on the working group and keep the size of the group
manageable? Who needs to be involved?
Activities
Create a working group on solid waste management. The
group would have the following characteristics:
heterogeneous. knowledgeable. meets frequently, links into
all critical networks and constituencies. supported by
staff, representative of the PERSPECTIVES of the various
stateholders and geograpic areas. NOT A DECISION MAKING
GROUP, legitimate, respected people on it. This working
group would be the core group for public participation. be
willing to be outfront as advocates for addressing the
issue (Riot for a specific solution), would become skillful
in conflict management. and committed to working the issues
through — past the impasses and the "it won't work
becauses."
References
e ®all.Geoff and John Kent Walker. "Community
Participation and 'Conflict Management'". WESTERN CITY,
December 1962.
0-11
At ADEOUArELY SUPPORT THE
WORKING GROUP'S EFFORTS
E
Purpose: Obtain the resources needed to support the working group.
Increase the capacity of the working group to deal with conflict,
Impasses. miscommunication, differences of technical opinion.
Provide the bane needed to "go slow to go fast." to get tentative
working agreements as go along, to build an effective working group.
Issues and questions:
e Whet kinds of support are needed?
e Wow to Increase the working together skills of the
working group?
Activities:
Develop the support necessary, including skilled
technical, clerical. information and process management and
facilitationimedistion support staff; information handling
and dissemination resources; skill development
opportunities; and facilitation support, (CART NOT assuage
that the already stratchsd county staff will be able to do
this all. And the support must go beyond the regular
technical support ttiat staff gives.) 'There would need ta
be core working staff who maintain the continuity of the .
effort.
A LINK rHE WORKING GROUP rO INTERESTED
AND AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS, GReUPS
AND.JURISDICTIONS
Purpose: To insure that the process has Integrity, that
stakeholders have continuing communication with each other
and that there isa forum for concerns and ideas.
Issues and Questions:
• Wow to maintain contact with key decision makers?
e Mow to link the working group's shorts to the formal
processes all along the way (both public and staff)?
e Wow to link the effort to the State of California and
stay knowledgeable about the Stats's processes?
e Wow to link to public interest groups — the League of
Women Voters; to advocate groups — the Sierra Club;
0-12
to neighborhood associations -- CROAIW
Activities
Develop liaison contacts with key groups and individuals.
Set up a process tar moving ideas. concerns and other
information to and from the working gre.up. Establish
agreements with Council members of She various cities as to
ways that the FULL council can bo kept Informed.
References:
"Cloffiing Schools: Palo Alto Unified School District
Process Report". Forum An Community and the Environment.
t.
EVABUSH A BROADLY AGREED UPON PROXESS
Purpose: To negotiate and agree upon a detailed process among
all the stakeholders. to the extent that this is possible. This
includes ground rules. ways to approach foreseeable process
issues such as disagreements over technical information, working
with the media, setting acceptable levels of risk, how the
decision forming and making are to occur, ongoing evaluation of
process, etc.
Issues and Questions:
e What is the process for agreeing on the process; who is
involved in developing and then agreeing on the process?
e Mow to get acceptance of the process by those who are
not involved or who enter the process after this phase?
e Mow are resources to be allocated to the various process'
activities?
e Now to deal with the IF vs. the MAW/ question?
e Mow to address issues of timing — when to make the SIG
step (can we wait for better technologies or push recycling _
to reduce the waste flow); if we choose now, how adaptable
are the choices made to new information and changes in the
future? Do we go for interim solutions as well as long
term. When do we list possible sites — how early in the
process?
e Now to go beyond the usual level of process agreement —
the Joint Powers Authority agreement for example — to
consideration of the more detailed issues?
e What working rules among city councils make sense?
®.43
e What will be the strategic approaCt toe caeeopertaatior
coat sharing, pain spreading, geographic limits,
participation, legal setting. fall back decision making and
implementation strategies it impasses are reached?
e What are the real costs of the various proems optima?
e That, if any, now laws and legislation are needed to
create a workable legal context for the process?
Activities:
The first major task of the working group would be the
development and negotiation of this broadly agreed UP"
process. View the process from the perspectives of the
community needs and the neighbors needs as well as from
other perspectives.
F. DEVEWP AGREEMENT ON THE PROBLEM �-
IrS SCOPE. NATURE,
URGENCY AND SEVERITY
Purpose: To get agreement on the problem before seeking
agraemem on the solution. To agree that the problem is of
sufficient importance to continue to commit to working
intensively for agreements that address it.
lasuee and auestior=
e How to get a solid agreement on the problem when what
most people are concerned about is specific sites?
e Now to get agreement on debatable issues such as the amount
of materials Chet could be recycled?
e How to pursue interconnected issues in a political
context (the relationship of San Jose to the other cities)
and in which legal issues are pending (the SFI suit against
San Jose)?
e sow to establish accepted bounds on scope and nature,
urgency and severity of the problem.
Activities:
Using the experience with SV4MA identify information needed
to establish bounds on the scope and nature. urgency and
severity of the problem. Get out the perceptions of the
different key individuals and parties. Work toward problem
definitions for the short, medium and long term. Identify
the RISKS INVOLVED with a do-nothing approach, piecemeal
additions, eta WORK BACKWARDS from proposed solutions to
0- 14
L]
the problem they are intended to address.
& DEVELOP .AGREEMENT ON CRITERIA
FOR DECISION MAKING
Purpose: To identify concerns and preferences to be included in
developing a list of ranked criteria that has broad agreement.
To develop this list independent of site. To include both
technical and political considerations. To agree upon the way
that the criteria will be used in making siting recommandiWotts
and decisions.
Issues and Questions:
e What are the specific 'concerns; for example, health
hazards, operational concerns, and community property
values?
e What are $pacific siting preferences about land use.
community image, feasible mitigations, jurisdictions.
citizen review, etc.?
e How to build broad support for criteria developed?
e Who is to be involved in developing the criteria and the
subsequent decision process?
Activities-
The working group. with substantial outreach -and ink,
would generate a ranked list of criteria related to
concerns and siting preference statements. This list would
be considered by official decision makers working with the
working group. A decision process for use of the criteria
needs to be worked ouL
9. FORM ALTERNATIVES BY GENERATING
OPTIONS AND IMPROVING THE OPTIONS
THROUGH CON71IVUING EVALUATION
Purpose: To develop the combined package of site, mitigations
and compensations/incentives for each of several sites. lit is
preferable to work toward decision time simultaneously on
several possible sites rather than focusing on just ones.
Issues and Questions:
e How to afford working on technical studies of several
sites?
e How to work out compensation/incentive approaches that
0-15
cities. consumers, or who ever can live with (with respM
to cost) and that don't set precedents for other areas that
Increase the impact?
e What if any changes in state law are needed to encourage
neighbors and groups of cities to want to work out the
issues Involved?
Activities:
Combinations of approaches would be explored; identifying
additional people who need to be involved due to the p6tsible
siting of a facility near them; developing adequate information
and costs of the defer or do nothing options.
10. MAKE THE NEEDED DECISIONS
Purpose: To make the combination of needed decisions needed.
including site selection, agreements for compensation/
Incentives. mititgations. rezoning, adjustments to general
plans, etc.
Issues and Questions:
e How to make complex package decisions with multiple
parties having non -overlapping jurisdictions and no
superordinate authority?
e How to develop enough trust that tentative working
decisions can be made without -full agreement on all parts
of a decision?
Activities:'
In this phase the working group provides an expert resource
to formal decision makers. Public meetings In which the
alternative are discussed AND WORKED WITH by decision
makers and the working group with input from the public.
(INoft the working group provides an way for bridging the
gap between decision makers and the general public. and
specific interest groups. It seems Ilkely that Informal
mediation among groups by a third party might be extremely
helpful.)
11. IMPLEMENT r'HE DECISIONS
Purpose: To carry out implementation of the decisions agr--"-d to
in #10. including road access improvements, preparation of the
Mts. etc.
Issues and Questions:
e What is the rnechanism for on -going monitoring and review
0- 16
of the implementation?
e What dispute resolution mechanism exists for unpleasant
surprises that are certain to arise?
e What is a key decision agreed to by an elected board is
overturned by referendum or recall or a court decison?
e What If resources wMacted to be available are not
forthcoming?
Activities:
The continuing monitoring of the implementation by the
working group. The actual carrying but of the decisons.
Dispute resolution as needed.
12. PERSIST UNTIL YOU WORK rHIRIGS PHROUCH
Purpose: To recognise that even Into into implementation. issues
can visa. political shifts in funding can occur. increases in
opposition to a chosen site Can arise. that will rewire going: back
over the ground again and buildlog again toward an implemeriitable
agreement.
issues and Questions:
e How to sustain the working group as a viable entity over
the long haul? .
e How to retain creativity and and some of accomplishnMent
in the face of opposition to any accaptable site?
e How to provide incentive for all concerned to come to
workable agreements and how to avoid forcing through a
decision that will later be overturned?
Activities:
On -going efforts by those carrying the intent. Building in
rewards for small and intermediate accomplishments— some
short term sense of getting somewhere.
COPMNUING ACTIVMES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS
Throughout all phases the following activities will need to be
actively and effectively supported:
Running board. staff and public meetings effectively
e The use of a neutral party, and/or additional skill
deveiopment for public officials and staff and other
0-17
F]
F7
members of the various publics in working together skills
such as collaborative problem solving and negotiation and
effective confrontation.
Outreach and continuing education of the public and decision
makers
i Clever ways to entice ttm public to become interested
In and informed about solid wants issues (work in public
schocisL
s An efficient process for keeping decision makers
informed without taking more time than they have (for
example. the recant use of interactive television using the
Stanford University Educational TV network for planning
regarding transportation).
Mediation/negotintion/facilitation of agreements among key
actors and parties. "This may involve acting as a:
• Convenor in assisting the parties to define
terms and conditions under which they are prepared to seek
a mutual settlement
e Broker in representing the interests, concerns and ideas
of one party to another
•. Facilitator in assisting the parties to Interact in
joint sessions."
IN ALL OF THESE TASKS THE MEDIATORIFACILITATOR IS NOT A
PROJECT PROPONENT. BUT A NEUTRAL INTERRMOR WHO RECOGNIZES
THE NEEDS OF ALL THE FACTIONS AND HELPS T14EM RFACM A
MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUES POSED. (ref„
knester)
The following books. papers and articles are ones we will be
particularly useful to readers interested in additional reading.
The fu.- Forum report of which this is a synopsis is available
from the Department of Planning, County of Santa Clara. 70 West
Madding, San Jose. (408) 299-2521, as well as from Forum on
Community and the Environment.
ARMOUR. Audrey (Editor). "The Not In My Backyard Syndrome".
Symposium Proceedings, Faculty of Environmental Studies.
(416) 667-32S2. York University, Canada: February, 1983.
AXELROO. Robert. THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION, Basic Books.
0-18
C]
e �Ic `F. 'iz` ° '�v` e��se�I v Px _7_
New York- IDLY- tSaC
LL. Gsof4rey. and Kent WALIMIL "COmrncsnity Partlaf"W-a"
BA
and 'Cortfliet �IanagsrnWW. WESTURN CITY. D"4""her' !S9'
Solid Waste
SILl.MAN• HOW&Td, and Geraio8 sa fo ®ispute Settienae4ot."
Management Faciiitiex ARgr
Recommendations to the Management Sosrd. ® o�r.tl�l.e of Caiitornia for
Solid Was"g
CROWFOOT. daenss. "I'im3o:t ownrefeerrenceProf.Effective crowfoot
Citizen Orgsnisstionar (un+Ano ^
is on the faculty of the University of Michigan in Ann
Argos TO MAID MIETINGS
C)Oy . playboy Michael.
and Oxvid TRAUS. HOW
FISHM Roger and VAIIIsm Ury, GETTING TO YES. Boughton
Mifflin. 9oston. MA. 19131.
KNASTE R. Alan& -The Siting of Wastef "nar9Y Facilities: A
Process far
citizen
tiz a job {at �� the
ie of Mediation.
Institute
QN-
®'}} . Michael. Lawrence� CIC ®P �8ITi0 guman *nd
FACILITY SITING Alit®
Reinhold CO.- New York. 'on
649
E.t0 s h fi,auy Corporation is an engineering and
<ornirrrr hors firm sp:•ci.tiving in ,t-hd manage.
n)crit sc sG. ens. The farm way f- t'J'110 cd in M33 to
m, t t the• gn,tvitrg need for eff, e tits, %olid waste man-
,w,-mrut pmgravfts in the S,n Pram i,co Bay Area.
"nrrcntly, f:ashy & fir.tsst's rn.+tor at to ities include
�.tnttary ]nnrffillin ;, rt•r rtahonal laud dt•vclopment, re-
sourc,• ri-cm - I%. solid w.r%ty troMvr and processing
olw-noiom, and ma,tvr plarrning of solid waste systems.
Lone hectors stringt-nt regnlatints t%vrc adopted by
Fcdcral. State and local agencies. Fasluy & Brassy
landfills were designed and maintained with concern
for cm ironnrental duality. Easlf•y & Brassy pioneered
iu using %anitar% landfill to restore land for recreational
me and in developing advanc•rd systems of resource
ree'nyery to preserve natural resources and energy.
Today, .; in the past, the continuing aim of Easley &
Brassy is to plan, devtrlop, finance, :and operate waste
management systems with feasihle economic and tech-
nical ways to proti,vt and enhance the environment.
The firm continually sucks bcttcr ways to handle waste
in all phases of the process —collection, resource re-
cover', transfer operations and land reclamation. The
firm is a member of the National Solid '*%'aster Man-
ageement Association and the California Refuse Re-
moval Council.
The firm's more outstanding and well-known aeoonra-
plishments include:
Shoreline Regional Park, Mountain View, Ca. —This
landfill operation stands as one of the moist outstand-
ing land reclamation projects. When completed, this
multi -million dollar, multi -use 544-ar:re park will
encompass golf courses, recreational facilities, boat-
ing lakes, and more than 5 million tone of refuse.
Solid Waste Transfer Station, San Francisco, Ca. --
The world's largest transfer and processing facility
is owned and operated by a partnership of Easley &
Brassy and +e San Francisco collection companies.
The trander station has a rated capacity in excess
of ZW tons grr shift, can accommodate over 150
collection trucks user hour, and incorporates a light
ferrous metal separation facility.
Aluminum Bodied Transfer Rigs —The innovative
transfer system utilizing light -weight transfer bodies
capable of hauling 40 per cent more payload than
existing hydraulic unloading systems was initiated
at the San Francisco transfer facility under the di-
rection of Easley & Brassy, a general partner. These
units can haul up to25 tons of legal payload per ve-
hicle and are unloaded via specially designed mobile
tippers.
Methane Gas Recovery —The first federally sponsored
operational methane gas recovery field was installed
by Easley & Brassy as the Shoreline Regional Park
landfill site. This project is jointly sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, City of
Mountain View, and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Its
aim is to develop the criteria, production rates, and
energy potentials of methane gas from sanitary
landfills.
Each of the principals associated with the firm has
extensive experience in solid waste management, fa-
cility operation, and civil engineering. Their unique
combination of professional and educational back-
grounds permit the company to achieve a level of
technology unparalleled in an industrial arena beset
with a dynamic and complex set of environmental,
social, political and economic restraints.
W. D. TREWHITf is president and driving force of
the company. During his 40-year professional civil
engineering career, Mr. Trewhitt has acted as prin-
cipal consultant to the San Francisco collection firms,
supervised one of the first rail -haul systems, and was in-
strumental in developing the San Franebwo-Mountain
View solid waste management program. lie is cur-
rently personally involved in the direction and im-
plementation of San Francisco's resource recovery
programs.
WAYNE D. TREWHITT is vice president -secretary
and responsible for the diverse operations of the com-
pany. fie is principal architect and general manager
of the transfer and processing facility in San Francisco.
His specialized experience in refuse disposal has won
him national recognition and chairmanship of the
Sanitary landfill Institute under the auspices of the
National Solid Wastes Management Association.
WALLY HOBSON is vice president -treasurer in
charge of the landfilling operations of the company.
Ile has an extensive background and knowledge of the
construction industry with particular expertise in the
scheduling and usage of heavy construction equip-
ment. His insight and landfilling techniques have gen-
erated much acclaim over the positive attributes of
land reclamation.
EUGENE M. HERSON is comptroller -managing engi-
neer of the company. He is a registered civil engineer
and a certified public accountant with a broad based
background in financial planning and solid waste man-
agement systems. His professional experience includes
service with the Federal Solid Wastes Management
program and principal consultant on the design and
implementation of a number of collection and disposal
systems.
0
3
Aye
W ,c2
N a
a �
`E
ovu
C
C
ON�
,C
a �
ac
�.0
ro
c 10
0
�volb $
a -0 $
Le «
E E
o_c
•0 c>
j cd
a
c EY
a0a
0 .
vo ply aETE cc a
0.4 E- �.� o� a ro a Q
> E E 1 o'c
Oro tea, Nita. 0� Ld
r- ti a, C7 A '- ; U V
u � a to ..,. a r
E� �A E;°.ev ro�'vC
to O 0
-AA c-0 0.0 V
N O d E -;;.co p V �,°
O
� .�u uwob wt o-
v u 00
� ` 'o
mm Uro 3a12 E:: U�+-c�
T^ "u_ ONy— "at^ro
`^Our 0—OC
�a-E ° ca3`v<= to'coU>
cE ro
.rEEE:3 as'oV::fCC&m
c� j �; - t3 C y y NO a ep
i N Z; +' C y w w a N O
gaj.0 C C a
0E -O•- u ®pa e—
a, c Ea2p �0�'0
c�ood oC3Lv ° I o0
T C
O> 0 to U a, ra 0� g 7 u
00c,,O>� ro HC .Nto O
4)c.E.. a,�vcroEooc
` ` ° MO- W` 0 alV c ro
aOVc aE 2=, x
°' E
VOW.- W,^ a. 4v w to .o m
to E
t~a, O,a, e` O•C.0 R aZr a w 0 7
3 n m'=-oO c, (0-0c ro 0 0
O a O; > 7
y E to
N
•O Q Qy 0 CM w 0
3v, .E ro.c�i.a ro _.c
D R ESQ
=w c roW� 8000Q
cv OcaE�ZEE�,
C v o. 0 P` v a v ~ �'o
'fly � c a,mr`n- � c=, o
4+Oa0 a u,,0
SECT .c03 °Vp'O�pc
` ro ro Nt^ O � w ro y 0 4
> N E y S `.Es a 0 c E ro N
$aoa'a,aoauEav'aa
W.E i ` � ^� to— C
7 a 0 C ?0N4roy W-CYa= �- coNE>
>w a-0>E OC.E
scVa9Raa 3a
via-'vEc•=o` ro o ='`l0°
N� c ° ro a aE,v� au,�
V w y .- v c a,'tn C
o N E c TS �.0 a, c 0 A ro cv
tao Q- ac �$ CQeta.a
ECL v (0TC0� C a
C yCOC,.r+E-0 VtO
040>�- 00►-.40ooa�=,E
v a 3U .. c
v CL t o ., � a ro «• a, a c
ac.Cro Cca' to
o 0ao ac,acu C
.c ro u 0. ro E V v 0 E= +O
�s
l�f1 ae 0
V s
Q' .:
W
3ES
r]
U
Collection crew at dawn loads residential refuse
for haul to SWETS transfer station.
Tucked innocuously into a freeway
hillside at San Francisco's southern gateway,
the Solid Waste Processing Center today
has proved itself as an industry model of
operating efficiency, reliability and
flexibility.
Its ultimate processing capacity
of 5,000 tons of waste a day ... its com-
puterized weigh-in and handling of more
than 150 collection trucks an hour ... its
separation of recyclable resources ... its
sophisticated transportation system utilizing
specialty designed 26-ton capacity highway
trucks and trailers ... its unique disposal
facilities 32 miles away that are helping
create a recreational garden spot ... its
engineered capacity to plug in new mater-
ia.'s handling, additional resource recovery
and transport systems ... all these are a
far cry from the days when garbage was
simply burned or buried and forgotten.
With waste utilization the key to
conservation and economical processing
critical to increasingly complex disposal
needs, the ultra -modern Center is clearly
the keystone of San Francisco's solid waste
management programs for the foreseeable
future.
Additionally, the enclosed transfer
station so efficiently handles its moun-
tain of "garbage" that it is a highly accepted
neighbor in a basically residential area. It's
across the freeway from Candlestick Park;
not far from the famed Cow Palace; close
by the $50 million San Francisco Executive
Park on Candlestick Hill. Adjoining the
Center is a three -acre City park, donated by
Golden Cate and Sunset.
HOW THE
CENTER WORKS
In the Center's enormous holding
pit —which could store two full days of
San Francisco's daily 2,000 tons of solid
waste —powerful tractor -bulldozers and
hydraulic clan- bucket machinery move
the waste toward two outlets. The residen-
tial part goes through a grinder which pre-
pares it for magnetic separation of tin cans
and other recyclable materials, before
the residue is dumped through trapdoors
into transfer trucks on the lower level. In-
dustrial waste, mostly non -recyclable, goes
directly into the trucks.
The completely enclosed rigs move
out for Mountain View's regional park site.
(SWETS' 19 special vehicles usually make
five 64-mile round trips a day.) At the fill
area truck and trailer are moved onto
' S{f t'
ell
I.S. environmental chief Russell Frain views separator. SWETS highway transfer trucks at loading
errous metals, tiro cans emirge for recycling. pits before 32-mile haul to disposal site.
11'
specially designed mobile tipping plat-
forms. Hydraulic pistons tilt both to dis-
charge their cargo into engineered "waste
cells" in less than five minutes. Each day
the filled cells are then covered with a
foot of earth.
When the project is completed in
1983 more than seven million cubic yards
of engineered fill, levees and dikes will
have been placed ... along with more than
eight million tons of solid waste.
Upon completion, Mountain !View
will have a beautiful park (photos of model
on the cover and above) featuring two
Robert Trent Jones golf courses, eques-
trian facilities, tennis courts, a swimming
pool, amphitheater and archery range.
Meanwhile, back at the Center the
ferrous metal recovery system —designed,
and constructed by Los Angeles By -Products
Co. in 1973—is processing some 900 tons
of solid waste a day, deriving daily up to
43 tons of recyclable metal, largely tin
cans which are used by the mining industry
for recovery of copper from low grade ore.
The transfer system design also in-
cludes the potential for major energy
recovery, based upon the separation and
utilization of non-ferrous metals, glass,
Mobile tipper at
loaded truck, on c
and various combustible materials. A
SWETS pilot study, funded by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, deter-
mined this potential.
ENERGY
FROM WASTE
A century and a quarter after the
great Gold Rush, the nation is engaged
in the great Energy Search. Among our
garbage cans, for one place.
SWETS officials estimate there is
enough energy potential in any city's waste
to generate 10 to 15 per cent of its electri-
cal needs. That's a mine worth prospecting!
And prospected it is.
The basic energy "gold" from waste
is steam or gas.
SWETS has in the works methods
for turning the combustible portion of
waste into energy either by incineration
to produce steam or by pyrolysis, the ther-
mal chemical production of gas.
Choice of method would depend
upon location of the power plant customer.
Steam can be piped directly to a nearby
plant. A distant plant would require trans-
portation of gas —liquefied or not —by
truck or pipeline. SWETS is working closely
with Pacific Gas and Electric Company
N.-
341
� � _ - S :ram ,.ey�-�'.n°'"i+� . .... •'s�i►-�i.1�y's:..� •` 4
fountain View landfill site empties transfer trailer as (Top) Engineered fill area to be developed, from San Francisco
a of five daily round trips, waits its turn. solid waste, as shown on Mountain View park model (Bottom).
n
El
as the potential consumer, and with other
industrial firms to evaluate the practicality
of a future pyrolysis system.
GAS FROM LANDFILL
Sanitary landfill, as practiced by the
SWETS partners is an especially generous
producer of gas. Unnoticeable because of
the engineered protective cover that pro-
vides the base for parks, golf courses,
building projects such as those planned at
Mountain View, the gas can be extracted
like oil and piped inconspicuously to treat-
ment areas.
As 50 per cent of such gas is valua-
ble methane, an extraction system has
been installed to recover this resource
from the Mountain View Park site.
Mountain View's recreational park,
with its sports facilities, will in effect be
both a place to use, and a place to produce
energy.
ETC, ETC.
There are other mines offering re-
source and energy recovery. Aluminum
cans. . .glass. . .wood. . .paper. . .general
debris ... concrete ... for several examples.
Reynolds Metal Company has a
receiving station adjoining the Center to
which individuals and groups bring their
waste aluminum cans for recycling.
SWETS partners Golden Gate and
Sunset, through affiliated companies,
presently reclaim in excess of 3,500 tons
per month of paper, newsprint, scrap
metal, wood chips and other salvageable
materials.
Examination of all other potential
resource and energy recovery sources and
technology are continuously evaluated
by SWETS and will be plugged into the
system as they become feasible.
SWETS, with its keystone Transfer
Center, is a remarkable achievement in com-
mercial flexibility. All practical methods of
waste disposal, resource and energy re-
covery, transportation, and environmental
enhancement can be brought "on line". It
is the ultimate transforma'.ion of the sim-
ple old garbage dump truck into a vehicle
capable of meeting the complex needs of
modern times.
i
P
1
F.
M
SOLI® WASTE ENGINEERING
and TRANSFER SYSTEMS
rff s
501 Tunnel Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94134
1pone, (415) 467-2662
i
PARTNERS IN SWETS
Since 1916, Sunset has been providing refuse collection and disposal service for a
major portion of San Francisco. Currently it serves some 120,000 residential and 40,000
cummercial customers in the city. Buildini upon its more than half century of solid waste
management expertise, the company—ncw under the umbrella of Envirocal, Inc. —has
grown into a nationally recognized corpoi ate complex of 14 companies serving the west.
Together Sunset and the Envirocal companies offer integrated solid waste management
services —including collection, disposal, transfer, transportation and resource reclamation —
not only in San Francisco but in large areas of Santa Clara and Sari Mateo counties in the
Bay Area, in Shasta County jd in Oregon.
CxOLDEN C3ATE DISPOSAL COMPANY
Also a pioneer company in San Francisco, Golden Gate today plays an important
role in meeting the solid waste manag.°:ment needs of more than a million Californians.
As it has for more than 60 years, the co npany provides specialized and diversified service
to San Francisco's high density downtown district containing most of the city's financial,
commercial, hotel and apartment complexes. With more than 29.000 individual accounts,
Golden Gate's refuse collectors se,rve customers ranging from cliffside residences on
Telegraph Hill to the towering Ba-ek of America skyscraper, the city's tallest. Through affili-
ated and subsidiary companies Golden Gate also provides solid waste management serv-
ices to homes, businesses and governmental entities in Butte, Humboldt, Placer, San
Mateo, Sutter and Yuba counties in Northern California.
SLEY Et BRASSY CORPORATION
One of the outstanding engineering and construction firms specializing in landfill
technology and waste management systems, Easley & Brassy has been operating in San
Francisco and the west since 1933. Since then the firm has managed all landfill disposal
of San Francisco refuse and supervised design and construction of the SWETS transfer
system. The firm is also nationally known as planners of total solid waste management
systems for private and governmental clients throughout the country. In additon to managing
the Mountain View disposal facility, the company also handles land application of municipal
sewage sludge at that site. Additionally, Easley & Brassy operates landfill sites serving
the Reno -Sparks area of Nev-da, Gilroy in California, and a land application system for
cannery waste in California's farm -rich Sacramento Valley.
BURAN EQUIPMENT CC)f{d!lPANY
Based in San Leandro, Buran is a firm of transportation specialists engaged for more
than 25 years in the manufacture and sale of heavy construction and hauling equipment.
Distributor of Kenworth Dart equipment, Buran furnished the unique truck -trailer transfer
units for SWETS. It is also a consultant for prime construction contractors operating
overseas and consultanVsuppliers to national freight, petroleum, timber and paper
industries.
E.
SOLID WAM MAUGEWNT COMITM
Minutes - February 4, 1986
I, Meeting was called to order at 8:OOPM.
II. January 8, 1986 minutes were app
roved as written.
Missing member. T. Epstein. In attendant
e as guest E. L. Griffith
III. ki
report �d to report
ceived from G. Xucay ns. To be a
nt, Bryan Canyon was reclass designL•tion.
is information on ash and Class 1 _ hazardous; Class
2 -
V. Three different types of waste classifications•
designated waste; and Class 3 - municipal waste.
VI. Next discussed was landfill away from Cupertino.
Newby
Xirby
Guadalupe
Pacheco
Mountain View
Ox Mountain
Durham Road
Fremont
in existence where we can get owners names, discuss)
and
� Ron and Barbara will put on PC and discussions
Document already Hall.
distance from City this subject.
at next meeting Witt revolve around
VII, Gene will update the Bryan Canyon report for the next meetting.
VI.rI. Next meeting will be March 5 at 7:30PM in Council C11arrrbers.
IX. Meeting adjourned at 9:20PM.
C
" teil
•. SOLID WA '' MAUGMW CM
Minutes - March 12, i.986
I, The meeting was called to order at 7:50PM-
Minutes of .the February a
4 1986 meeting were approved as written,
II,
III. The letter to S. Murchanging
erjeesolid wasteB'roblem. was
It wasread
agreeddiscussed
we would view
of the ever changing solid p sented and titled was tabled
issue a report; however, how it will be pre
R. Kinsey is to get further
for further discussion at the next meeting.
information as to the report itself by next me(-ting.
Iv, The remainder of the evening was spent completing the landfill site
availability information for inclusion into the report to be given to ,s offices
the City. All i�belreadywill
foreedit atinto
the nexi:cmeeting.omputer at Mr. Kinsey
by S. Kelly and
will
v. i4ext meeting will be held Tuesday April 8. Also, in view of the request
for the report, it was decided that the committee will meet twice monthly -
The second meeting in April will be April 23.
Is vI. The meeting adjourned at 9:05pM•
LANDFILL SITE
REMAINING
CAPACITY
(CU.YDS.)
DURHAM ROAD, ALAMEDA CTY 8,402,000
TONS/YEAR
CLOSURE DIS-
DATE TANCE
414,297 1996 25 MI
DISCUSSION: PRIVATE LANDFILL. DUE TO LOCATION WITHIN A DIFFERENT JURIS-
DICTION THE POSSIBILITY OF USAGE IS REMOTE. ADD TO THAT PROBABLE ROYALTY
COSTS, TRANSFER COSTS, AND DISPOSAL FEES AND THE PROBABILITY OF USAGE BE-
COMES EVEN MORE REMOTE.
PACHECO PASS, SNTA CLARA CTY 539,000 73,727 2020 42 MI
iISCUSSION: PRIVATE LANDFILL. PERMIT ALLOWS SOUTH COUNTY DISPOSAL. WOULD
NECESSITATE THE. BUILDING OF A TRANSFER STATION; HOWEVER, IS ONE OF THE MORE
FEASIBLE SITES. OWNED BY EPIVIROCAL WHO OWN LOS ALTOS GARBAGE.
NEWBY ISLAND, SNTA CLARA CTY 5,005,000 631,946 1992 15 MI
DISCUSSION: PRIVATE LANDFILL. DOES NOT NECESSITATE THE BUILDING OF A TRANS-
FER STATION. LOS ALTOS GARBAGE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISPOSE THERE. THE CITY
OF SAN JOSE RESTRICTION WAS THROWN OUT OF COURT; HOWEVER, ALL SOLID WASTE
FOR CITY MUST BE TAKEN FIRST AND THEN IF THERE IS ENOUGH EXCESS DAILY CAP -
CITY THEN CUPERTINO COULD POSSIBLY USE. SHOULD DEFINITELY LOOK INTO AS
TICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
MTN VIEW, SNTA CLARA CTY 3,388,000 442,362 1992 12 MI
DISCUSSION: MUNICIPAL LANDFILL. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MORE CAPACITY COULD
BE NEGOTIATED. HOWEVE.'I, THE COSTS MAY BE PROHIBITIVE WHEN THE OTHER AVAIL-
ABLE LANDFILLS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
GUADALUPE, SNTA CLARA CTY 1,925,000 165,886 1996 18 MI
DISCUSSION: PRIVATE LANDFILL. NO ANTIC.T ATED POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND A
TRANSER STATION WOULD PROBABLY BE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO HANDLE
THE MOVEMENT OF THE WASTE TO THE SITE.
OX MTN, SAN MATEO CTY 1,309,000 495,311 1987 30 MI
DISCUSSION: PRIVATE LANDFILL. DUE TO LOCATION WITHIN THE COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT A CONTRACT FOR USAGE COULD BE NEGOTIATED. ADD
TO THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR TRANSFER STATION AND THE COSTS ESCALATE TO
THE POINT Or UNREASONABLE WHEN THE OTHER LOCATIONS AS OUTLINED ABOVE HAVE
BETTER OPTIONS.
0
I
RBY CANYON, SNTA CLARA
DISCUSSION: PNIVATZ LANDFILL, NEW SITE AND THEREFORE MOREEXPENSIVE'
PERMITTED ON A DAILY USAGE TONNAGE CAPACITY' TRANSFER STATION WOULD UB
A REQUISITE FOR USAGE.
11
26 UI
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT C0101ITTEE
I. The Meeting was called to order at 7:45PM on April 23, 1986.
II. Member not in attendance - 8arba-a Kelly
III. Minutes from the April 8, 1986 meeting ware approved as written.
IV. Shishir then distributed the report outline and it was thoroughly discussed.
A copy of the assignments to each member is attached.
Shishir also found out that the franchise to Los Altos Garbage Company was
to November 1990.
Mountain View landfill to 1994 at approximately $21.06/ton
V. The next meeting wi�.l be on May 6, 1986 at 7:30PM in the conference room.
VI. The meeting adjourned at 8:47PM.
i.
II.
IV.
V.
VI .
V11.
E.
v
,SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting Held 5-6-86.
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 F.M.
Member -not in attendance- Barbara Kelly, Ed Griffith.
The minutes from the April 23 meeting were approved
as written.
Gene submitted Combustion Process Report which was
discussed by the committee. Ron suggested that
standard terms understood by the solid waste community
should be used. For example, he discussed the
difference between mass burning and incineration.
Shishir suggested that each section of the report
should be aasigned an editor who would coordinate
and integrate sections written by various people.
It was decided that Shishir will edit section I and
III, Ron will edit section IV, Gene and Ed will
respectively edit sections II and V and the final
section VI will be approved by the whole committee.
Gene offered to write some material for section II.
The next meeting will be held on IJiay 29, Thursday
at 7:30 P.M. Ron will arrange a Conference Room.
SDi.1D WASTE HWAGWGW CS ITTEE
MINUTES - May 29, 1986
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40PM.
2. only member not in attendance was Ed Griffith.
3. The minutes of the May 6, 1986 meeting were approved as written.
4. It was decided that the members of the committee would take home
all sections of the report as written to date and at the next
meeting the red -lined copies would be integrated into one doc-
ument.
5. All outstanding sections are to be turned in at the next meeting.
6. The meetings for June are set as follows:
Thursday - June 12 downstairs lounge
Thursday - June 19 conference room
Thursday - June 26 conference room
The meeting adjourned at 8:25PM.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES - JUNE 12, 1986
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:45PM.
2. The minutes from the May 29, 1986 meeting were approved as written.
3. All members were in attendance.
4. The committee then went over the report that is to be submitted
at the end of this month. various sections were eedlined and will
be edited and distributed at the meeting next week.
5. The meeting adjourned at 9:30PM