Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-160*~' ; *; ~ ` C~.IJNTY ''OF BUTT, STATE" OF `CALIFOR[~I~A .. ~ -.. Resolution 2Vo. 85-~ ~~ RESOLUTION APPROVING 1985 BUTTE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION WHEREAS, Title XIV of the California Resources Code requires all California counties to periodically review their Solid Waste Management Plan to determine whether the plan continues to accurately reflect the nature of solid waste storage, collection, disposal and recycling activities in the counties; and WHEREAS, this said code also requires that the plan consider current and projected trends in County growth and development and their effect on solid waste issues in terms of short, medium and long term solid waste planning goals and objectives; and WHEREAS, any revision to the plan is required to be reviewed by all incorporated cities, regional planning agencies, County government, and any other interested party; and WHEREAS, as a revision to the Solid Waste Management Plan has been prepared for the Butte County Department of Public Works and has been delivered to all incorporated cities, the Butte County Planning Commission, other local agencies, and appropriate State agencies, for their comments; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the contents of the Environmental Review Initial Study Checklist (Exhibit A) prepared on the Solid Waste Management Plan Revisian; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has considered the relationship between the Solid Waste Management Plan Revision and the Butte County General Plan as required by Government Code 66780; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a Negative Declaration on the Solid Waste Management Plan Revision; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the Solid Waste Management Plan Revision and operation of existing solid waste facilities are consistent with the Butte County General Plan; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte hereby approves the proposed 1985 Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Revisian (Exhibit B}; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Butte County Director of Public Works be directed 7 AYES: Supervisors Dolan, McTntur~, McLaughlin, Wheeler and Chairman Fulton NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None rman, Boa~d'of"Supervisors ty of Butte, State of Galifornia ATTEST: MARTIN J. NIGHOLS, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By:: C~.erlc/Deputy ~' 4. ;, ~ APPENDIX F ._. COUNTY OF BUTTE I;NVIRONDiENTAL CfiECKLIST FORM (to a complete y Lea Agency) ~~,~~'~~ Log X85-Ofi-26-O1 I. BACKGROUND AP #d40-12-1Z, 10 (ptn); 36-20-3, 15 i. Name of proponent Butte County Board of Supervisors 85-fi4 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable] 25 Count Center Drive 4rovi1le, Ca. 95965 3. Project description Addendum ;<~5, Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan, II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YE5 A4AYBE NO a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the c{uality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or .animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ..._._ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term, environmental goals? {A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long-term impacts will ~ endure into the Future.) -._ --.-.. - c. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited,. but cumulatively considerable? {A project may impact on two or mare separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __ III. IlETERA1INATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency} Un the basis~of this initial evaluation: I/4~1E find the proposed project CO[1LD NOT have a sigrri ficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ___ i/WI: find that although the proposed project could have a s.ignifi- Cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVI/ DECLARATION will be prepared. T/4VE find the proposed project P1AY have a significant effect on the environment, and an F,NViRONi`tENTAI, IMPACT REPORT is rec}uired. DATE: 3une~26~ 1985 _.-~--_-~.~ C(~[IN'l'Y OF IiUT'i'Ii, PLANNING DEpARTZ1F.NT ,. Laura M. .T t e Assaci a -inner ...._.._ E~IBIT A Reviewed by: _ ~ `. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA~.~5 xp anat~ons o a "yes" on attached sheet(s)) and "maybe" answers are required 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a~nstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction ar overcovering of the sail? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Increase in wind or water erasion of sails, either on or off-site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition ox erasion which may modify the channel of a river. or stream ox the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure or similar hazards? 2, AIR. Wi11 the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke ar fumes? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, locally ar regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course ar direction of water movements~in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- ization or culvert installation? d. Alterations to the course ar flow of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water-body? f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including . but not limited to temperature, dissolved " oXygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? h. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions ar with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? YES MAYBE NO ~... -.~- -Y~ T ....~ -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. PLANT LIFE. ,Will. the proposal result in substantial: a: `Z'fiange in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, ? shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare ts? l f i p an es o or endangered spec c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- i ? es ment of existing spec d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. C ange in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals [birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell fl.sh, ~ benthic organisms or insects}? - b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. ,Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Wi11 the proposal result in substantial: ~ a: increases xn existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Wi.11 the proposal produce sa.gni scant lig t and glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a su~styantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in su stantsal: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural ? resources I0. RISK OF UFSET. Will. the proposal involve: a. A ris~o~ explosion or the release of hazard- ous substances [including, but not limited to, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the oil , event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency - .response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ll. PQPULATiON. Will the proposal alter the location, istrx ution, density, or growth rate of the human population? l2. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ~_ _3_ i'~ ( . 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. -Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, ar demand far new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e, Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e, ~+4aintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Othex governmental services? YES MAYBE NO x 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a:'~Tse of substantial amounts of fuel .or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Wi11 the propsal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power ox natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water availability: d. Sewer or septic tank? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. reatron of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will Che proposal result in the o structxon of ariy scenic vista or view open to the public, or wi11 the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ~d -~.. --~ -4- V. YES MAYBE NO l9. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon t e quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 24. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Wall t e proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? ~. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or abject? ~.. c. Does the pxoposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restxict existing religious ox sacred uses within the potential impact area? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Sae Attached. ;` -5- D_ IS~US5I(7i~_©F_ENVI~iONf~IENTAL-EVALIJA~fI,ClN AN 4~.>-1:?-1~?g 1~} Eptn) . ~,~,-2t~--.~ , 1 S Butte Cattnty prepared its f first Soli d Waste Management Plan in l q75. A notice pf operation fc~r the Neal Seal disposal site was received by the State Solid Waste Management £~oard 8/9/77. Since the notice was received prior to 8/15/77, the facility was "grandfathered" in. Er-vi ronmer-tal review need qnl y address changes i n classification , caperatian, or sire which have occurred since £3/15/77. These are, in chronological order: 1. Addendum #4 - F7r©ville wood waste site 1978 :~ . Expansion of 1 andf i 11 site by ~3 acres, 198~~ ~. Landfill reclassification from lI-2 to II~1, 1981 ~. E>:pansion of the landfill from ;a.9 million tca ,5~.6 a~~illion tans, 1981 5. Addendum #5 _ revision to 1975 5WMP to comply with state requirements. 1985. Items 1 , ~, and 4 are sub.~ect to GEOA. The 196~~ e>,pansi on was i n order to construct new leachate ponds and monitari.ng wells as req~..~ired by the State of California. According to Government Cade 15•~~?~:i.l, mandated activities (where the Gat_inty does n©t exercise discretionary powers) are not subject to CEQA. Addendum #5: The Ca, Waste Management F~oard requested that 5 items be updated and discussed in E~twttte's Solid Waste Management Plan: Disposal and processing, resource r~*cnvery, economic feasibility, enforcement program, implementation of the solid waste plan. Most of the information is not new, bt_tt has now been incorporated into the 5WMP for administrative ease. The economic feasibility section is new, based on current casts. These revisions are administrative only, and do oat effect a change in r~perations. Therefore, there will be no environmental impact and will nc-t be discussed further. A brief discussion of the items on which the initial study wi11 focus, follows. 1. Oroville wood waste site: Filling •~ small gullies with yard bard at a rate of 75 tans daily •F or apps>:imately ~U years. ~. Landfill reclassification; In I9Bl the Neal Soad landfill was reclassified in order t© accept olive processing brines and rinsed pesticide containers. Ncsw these wastes are disposed of under the st_tpervi sicrn of the l andf i l l operator and County and State health officials. _ . Expansion of the landf i 11 : •~ abandoned septage panda wichin the original 77 acres have been converted tv fill area. (use of the pond area and technological improvements in compaction have expanded the 1 andf i 1 i from •~+. 9 to 5. b mi I 1 i an tons. l_i f e of the I andf i 11 was extended 5 years, from 1988 to 199.x. (f car more ir-fcarmatian see: Neal Road ey,pansion. don Anderson 1981 ) _6_ S I,TE~DESCR i PT I OIV Neal Road: Tate Neal Rvad sanitary landfikl is located an the northwestern side of Neal R©ad in the NW 1/4 of Section 14 T21N ~?2E MDRandM. The l~rti acre site is apprvximately 7 miles south of Chico. It occupies a ravine that was incised from the lower e;:tremities of a volcanic pkateau that is developing into mesa tablelands. The ^riginak topography of the site varied from a low elevation of about L~~~ feet to a high elevation of about ~i3i~ feet, for a total relief of about 15t=~ feet. Natural surface slopes vary frartt typically gentle alone the Crest of the ridge and the lower portions of the ravine, to steep and near vertical slang the erosion faces and colluvial slopes. The geakagy of the site is comprised of a series i,f volcanic and intervolcanic sedimentary materials identified as the Tuscan fnrmat.ion of F'k i ocene age. This formation i s a relatively ttndefr~rmed str~.tctural member (homocline? that gently dips k -- :~ westerly. it is typi.c~'~l.ly composed of a pyrack anti c brecci a-mt.td f k caw and a sandstone-conglomerate tuff, with locally intercalated layers rsf silt.stone and gravekly deposits. These parent materials have been altered by erosion and mass--wasti ng to farm some al 1 ttvi um and colluvium at lower elevations. Aerial photographs depict a northerly stri~cing lineation akvng the eastern portion of the site, which probably represents traces of a surface fat_tlt. There ~tre also a parallel series of northeasterky striE:ing lineations of uni~nown origin in the area to the north of the kandfill, which probably constitute a system crf f1e~;ttre fractt_tres. Soil development is typically very wea}s., or completely absent on the unaltered ridge materials. it is m~.tch mare pronounced in the lower elevation alkuviai and colluvial materials where several feet of a stony loam has developed. The climate of this ],ower-foothill area is typically mild•~•Mediterranean, with warm summers and mild winters. Evaporation, estimated from Weather Etureau Class-A pans, averages about b75 inches per year. F'recipitatit:sn occurs almost entirely as rainfall dt_tring the November--April rainy season and averaies about 2b to ~~ inches per year. F'vint storm intensities, for a 1C} year recurrence interval , are on the order of 1.G inch per hattr for a fa~~-minute duration and ~.b inches per ho~.tr for a lt:---mint_tte duration. Intensities far a ICyC~--year recurrence interval are apprvximately 1.4 inches per ho~.tr far a bC~-~mi note duration and a~. 8 i nches per hour for a 1 Cy-mi note dur at i vn „ Native vegetation in this dry--fvothill area is typical of a Mediterranean fire-disclimar, community, generally supporting sparse chaparrak, occasional trees and discontinursus grasslands. It is also conditioned by the Valley plant community, a dry_grassland habitat, partict.tlarly at lr~wer elevations. The general absence of springs and groundwater seeps is at.t.ributable to erosional development that has isolated the lower portions of ti'te plateau tie: via development of tableland mesa) from significanf.. recharge areas. A fire-pratectian well was drilled at the Site in k 9b~ and was developed at a depth i nterval of ~:~~Cy tv •.b{:} feet. -7- This Corresponds to development at depths from 75 to 2t",1~ feet below the base of the fill. The static water level in the well at the time of c©mp 1 et i on was ~2~ feet , cvrr espnnd i ng tv a depth of abat_tt 7t] feet below the base of the f i 11 . St_trface-water features in the. general area are limited to ephemeral and intermittent streams that typically generate relatively--high flr~od events with regard t© peair runoff rates and Eland volumes. This phenomenon is due to the relatively impervinaffs surfaces and steep slopes of the terrain, sparse riparian vegetation, lacFr of attent_tating lakes ar ponds, and the prevailing rainfall regime. Dot.h st_-rface and gt~'ot_tndwaters of the area are typically of e~;cellent. gatai i ty far m©st benef i ci a1 u5es. Surf ace waters are used f nr caul e watering in the immediate area, and for crop irrigation in the 1=Stttte Creek Brea to the west. 'The Tatscan formation comprises a mayor aquifer far the agric~lt~~al areas to the west and the City of Chico tra the northwest. The existing sanitary landfill has probably been the mast dominant l and-use factor i n this area. 'There i s a large poatl try farm 1 orated abv~.tt l !~ mi 1 e tca the sot_tth off Neal Road. State Ni ghway 99E i s located abot_et a mile to the west and a residence is located across a ridge about 1f4 mile to the northwest c-f the landfill. Lands within 1~.>~}~ ft. caf the site are used for non-irrigated pastures. ©r©vill~ Woot~_Wast,e Site:, l15 acres on Clphir Road, located about ~, i%~ miles south of C]rovikle. The site is gently rolling land cpvered with grass, scrub oaf;, and brush. Ti-sree gullies nc~t the westet~n half of the properties will be fi~,led in succession, Teat holes indicate about ~' of topsvi 1 underlain by 2-4' ref clay and coarse rocFc beneath which is clay sandstone. Environmental health considers the formation imperviaats to water. Average annual rainfall is ~r~". The water shed of gully 1 and 2 is 4.3 acres. Drainage from the site flows tv the Feather River ~ miles west (B. C. SWI"IF' Addendum #43 . inands within l Cr~-ss' of the site are used far indatstrial patblic (cemetery}, transportation tHighway 7~'~, Union F`ac i f i c kai Z r vad) , and a very limited amnatnt of old hvatsi ng . i"lethod of Qperatipn: Neal Rnad: Ciperations have changed substantially since Neal Fcoad first opened as an e>;posed pit where wastes were batrned. (l98`~) E~t_ttte Cat_tnty is currently using a mcadified landfill for disposing of solid wastes. The Neal Road sito is within a canyon. The wastes are placed in cells of apprv>;imately 1~+ ft. in height, b~ ft, in width, and ~.~~~? ft. in length along the working face. Wastes are then compacted with D~7 crawler da~ers and overlain with appros;imately 1 ft. of cover material. Cover materials are sands and gravels imported from Dry CreeE: and volcanic sands and ash obtained on site. Cells had been covered upon campl.etion, abat_tt every i-~ days. Since 15'8l, cells are ca.vered daily. Waste depth is greater than 6U ft. The canyon i~ slowly being filled -8- 4 `~ ~ 1 and contoured to appro~timate a natural land farm. All mt_Enicipal artd residential solid wastes in the County are disposed of at the fileal F"ictad l andf i 11 . 'fhe site receives apprv:: i motel y 1 ~~.~, ~aD~ tons of soli d waste yearly. The Neal F~ctad facility also accepts septic tank residt_tes, olive-processing brines, and rinsed pesticide containers. Septic tang residues are placed in one of 4 ponds at the rate of 4.3 million gallons yearly. A fifth active pared, lying at the t©e of the refuse fill, is used for leachate collection and evaporation. Since 1981 , up to ~S.-~, Ctt~~f gal 1 stns per year of p1 i ve processing brines have been disposed of at the landfill. The brines are either sprayed aver the st_trf ace or i nctarp©rated i n the active f i i 1 area, depending on weather conditions. Empty pesticide containers have been disposed of at the landfill under the supervision of a County Agricultural Inspector. Disposal is limited tq specific days. The Ag. lnspectQr must certify tha'k. all cantai Hers have been adequatel y cleaned crw,tt . ( for more i of ormati on see the l"iutte County SWMF' as amended ) groville Woctd waste site; The landfills will be 1"acated in •-~ small gullies on the 115 acre site. Each ge.~i l y wi l i be f i 11 ed i n successi an bef ore mvvi ng to the ne~;t area. The fill material is laid down in five foot layers with an interveni.nq si ~; i nch sni 1 1 ayer tv cctnfnrm to the Department ctf Forestry regulations. Cover material is excavated from the walls of the gully which increases its capacity. Filling operations commence at the head pf each gully and progress downward toward the mouth. Fill material is placed on the active face of the landfill and then when a sufficient gt_tantity has been deposited, worked into the required layers wtih a btwtlldozer. l'he material is c©vered every few days, and dt_tr i. ng the winter , the area of e~:ppsed f i 1 1 i 5 tLept to a mini mt_tm to prevent leachate formation. 'l"he amount of material to be placed in this Landfill can vary widely, however, i.t was estimated tv average iili] cubic yards per day. hlormally the shavings produced at the groville sawmill are t_ised in the adaacent hardboard plant. if mechanical problems ncct.tr causing a sht.ttdown pf the hardbttard plant, it will ~-e necessary to place shavings in the landfill an a short-term emergency basis. Thi s cool d amount to 5{=~Ct yards per day. Sawd~.tst i s normally used by 1pca1 farmers unless it becomes too wet for them tct haul aver their roads. The f i l l material was e~:pected tee cansi st of woad wastes: 1 argel y bark, shavings, and sawdust, and same log-decor clean trtp containing rock and dirt. Because of technnl ogi cal i mprnvements i n the Lnui si area F'ac i f i c i LF' ) pi ant, mast sawdust is burned far fuel.. Four acres of 1ng storage area are tv be paved, to further minimi2e waste ,production. Yard bark and log deck cleanup materials are placed within thc-~ fill at ~ rate of 7'S tans daily . One gul 1 y has been f i 11 ed , gt_tl l y ~ wi 11 f i 11 in */"-- ltd years. -9- `` ~ - . discussion of checklist items: la: Eoth the Neal load and Oroville sites are located within canyons. In order to increase capacity and secure overburden for fill operations, soils are e;;cavated from the sides and bottom of the canyons and stoc!•:piled for later use. lb: These operations result in significant, localised disruption of soils . Appro>; i motel y .,t=> acres at iVeal Soad and `5 acres at Qravi 11 e will be disrupted by excavation between 1977 and site closures. Compaction of fill and the sail overcovering is ;gin ongoing process. It i.s necessary for fire prevention, odor, vector, and vermin control, and aesthetics. Upon cl©st_tre ~ ft. of soil wi11 be placed aver the sites far establishment of vegetation. lc: Qne large, and .~ small canyons will be filled in. Both properties will be contoured tt~ blend in with the nat~.tral topography of adjacent lands. Upon cl asure, the landfills shat_tl d not be obvious, le: Soil erasion is minimised on artificial slopes by compaction and installation csf perimeter ditches. Stormwaters are diverted around the landfill area and deposited bads into natural channels. Some wind erosion is t_-navnidable. Butte County SWMF~ requires that all areas left e:;prised for 4 months yr more shall be replanted with grass. lh: Both sites are treat branches of the Foothill Shear Zone; a fault system of unknown activity. E"tefuse fill slopes have historically exhibited a high degree of stability under high static and ear-thgt_ta4ce landing. Typical examples of this stability are found in the landfills operated by the Las Angeles County Sanitation District. These canyon landfills have been constructed aai th ?: l slopes to heights of ~EaG feet . These 1 andf i l I s have been subjected tv numerous small earthquakes, including the San Fernando earthquake of 1971 which registered b.6 on the f~ichter Scale, with measured accelerations approaching 1.~.~g. The fill slopes remained stable and suffered no damage by the earthgt_taF~es. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill in the San Gabriel Mountains is lar_'ated within eight miles of the epicenter of the San Fernando earthgt..t~~4: e. The Iartdfill has been constructed with ~:1. elopes to heit~ht.s exceed~.ng {3Ct feet. While bridges, dams, roads, and earthfill slopes failed within this distance of the epicenter, nct damages occurred at the landfill. Any surface disruption resulting from a fault displacement could be repaired by minor regrading. (ref: EII=t for butte County l andf i 11 August l 9817) tea: In order to minimise dust generation, the Ideal F'ivad operator is required to implement the following standard: The actual arr~a of operation shall be !•:ept as small as possible to mi.nimi~e the creation and dispersion of dt.xst. Sweeping ctr- spr'inE;ling cif water or apprQVed liquid wastes st"tall be used where-practical, to alleviate a dust prvbl em. Indi scri urinate use of l i q-.ti ds i n the actt_tal disposal area shall be avoided in order to rttinimi~.e the potential. fcar leachate problems. Waste oils may be used far temporary duct control on -10- i~ roadways within the Landfill boundary. rcclassificativn. Wetser-HAIL 1981?. (ref : Neal Rnad ~}~; Clperativn of sanitary landfills often result in the production of tenpleasant adore and ft.tmes. At ideal Raad cells are covert-~d everyday to minimi:.e these problems. Surrounding land uses (nnnirrigated grazing) are not a sensitive receptor. At C]rovilLe, the operation is much smal L er . Cell s are covered every ~- days; mar a of tt7rt i n Winter tv prevent leachate formation. {]dor has nest been a problem at this site given the Large parcel size {ll~ acres) and industrial character of the area. }b: Storm waters are diverted in temporary ditches around the landfill and deposited bac4r to natural channels. Permanent ditches will be constrt_tcted arot_tnd the landfill limits upon closure. E.ccavation and replacement of present soil and vegetation with refuse and sloped, compacted scsil covers invariably alters absorption rates and velocities of storm waters. Revegetation i5 a canditicYn of site(s) closure. It Wi11 aid in sail akssnrption, and a decrease in runoff amounts and velocities. ._~f: State Law requires that sanitary Landfills submit and implement site designs that protect surface and undergrc-und water supplies from contaminants released by the Landfill. Class 11 disposal sites are these at which protection is provided to water quality from Group 2 and :~ Wastes. Class I1 are those overlying t_tsable qr©undwater, and gevingic conditions are either naturally capable of preventing lateral and vertical hydraulic continuity betwr~en La.quids and gases emanating from the waste in the site and usable surface and gr-oundwaters yr the disposal area has been modified tv achieve such capability. ~+oth sites have monitoring wells installed at the base of the fill. Neal t`COad has a leachate pared below the septage ponds for further protection of ground and surface Waters. ~a: Neal Road i s 1 acated i n an area of transi ti an between oaF; woodland and grassland. This is a major habitat type in butte Crrunty. (]raville is located in an area of rolling grassland, Neithen property is located in a rare or endangered habitat type. 5c: The Neal Rand landfill has attracted thousands of seagulls scavenging far food. Because csf a shortage of water, the gulls dca not roost vn-site. faa: Although the routine operatiores of heavy equipment at the Ne~~l Road site wi11 substantially increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity, the parcel sites and surrvundang land uses minimise the impacts' significance. There are too human receptors Within range of Neal Rnad emissions. At t7rnvi 1 1 e, there i 5 some hausi ng Wi chi n 4~".~C-~1 ' up wind. The canyon opens away from the residential area, which helps to attenuate the nni se. Assuming a 4 d£~ {decibel ) reduction with each dnutal i ng c,f the di stanr_e, I andf i 1 7. generated noise sh©uld be na greater than bC.1 dF:t at the residential area. b~~ d~+ is within Federal noise standards. -ll.- According t0 Government Code 6678t:~, establishment- or a>:pansian of solid waste facilities should be guided by an effective planning process, Solid waste management plans shall be consistent with the General Flan and accomplish bath of the fr~llrwing; 1. Identify and reserve sites far the establishment or e:,pansivn of solid waste facilites. ~. Enst_tre that land uses adjacent to yr near thcase sites are compatible with the solid waste facilities. Government Cade Section 6678~~.2 further requires that the solid waste facility be deli t~nated i n the General F~1 an. Both the ~tutte Cacanty 1 andf i l 1 and the wood waste site were operative prior t0 enaction of c~avernment codes 6b7BC- and 6b78s],2 11982 and 195'wt) , and therefore are not designated 0n the land use map. The Neal Raad site is designated open and gra~ing, 4::1 acre minimum parcel sire. 5ttrrounding parcel sues are 271-f~4C- acres. The closest area designated for residential development {1 acre minimum) is 2 1/2 miles sot.tth--west, 5c~trroartndi ng 1 ands are unrier Wi l l i amsvn Act contracts for seasonal gra4ing. Public-Qttasi Public uses are permitted tinder the ©pen and Grazing General Plan designation. butte Gaunty awns 77 acres and leases 2,~, qualifying the use as Public. The Ger~teral F'lan'~+ 4~~ acre minimum parcel size, and the area's historic use as grazing lands, provides considerable protection against land use cvnfli'cts. The main population ct~ncentrati0ns are Chita {9 miles) , Paradise (7 miles) and Orvville (l9 miles? . Fitttte County's Land Use Element discusses solid and lic}ttid waste disposal facilities vn Page .•.y9 , and ref ers to the Neal Read 1 andf i 1 }.. The Neal FtOad site can be found consistent with the .General Pi~an and zcsning. The ©rvville woad waste site is designated Industrial. This property and those sctrrounding it, mare ttp GrOVille's primary industrial area, Land uses Include: L~ ©perations, Sierra-~Pacific Industries, memorial cemetery and UF'RFF. There is some old housing in this area, which will convert aver time. The nearest residentially designated lands are mare than 2~'rcicj ft. north and ~C~C_IC1 ft. south from property lines. The Ciravi l I t= wood waste site fulfill s a number of 0b jecti ves for Ht.ttte Gaunty: conserves valuable space at Neal Rvad, reduces operation casts for LP prom©ting a large emplt~yer, reduces vehicle miles traveled between plant site and disposal area, conserving fuel, and fulfilling an objective of our non--attainment plan. Land fills are a conditional use in the industrial {p~-2, M-l} aninc} tnatetlories, This property was zoned M-~ in 1958. The zoning and use permit requirements predate this landfill, A rase permit was not required in 1975 because the fill did not include garbage or junk. Although many of. the specific policies contained.in the 501id Waste Flan are oat spr?ci f i cal l y addressed i n the Ct~tanty General Plan, the landfill disposal sites, transfer station iocati0ns and inventory data conform to the General F'lan's Land Use Element as well as the service delivery po~ici~~ contained in the General Flan te:;t. FSoth documents {Gener'al Plan and SWMP) are mutually compatible. As part of the ne>:t ..12.. ~; 1. General Rlan Amendment, applicable maps should be revised to show the landfill sites and transfer stations. 1D: Hazardous st"tbstances which could be released at the Neal Raad site include: Septage: nitrates, organic sludges, metals, {Aluminum, Arsenic, L~admium, Chromium, capper, Iran mercury, manganese, nic~tel, Lead, selenium, zinc), pathogens: ©liwe brines: chloride, tannic acid, cvlarir~gs, flayvrings; Gases: Methane, hydrogen sulfide; . Leachates: Liquid that has percolated through solid waste ar other medit.tm and has e:;tracted dissolved ar suspended, undesirable and polluting materials in it. State regctlati©ns address all of these potential pollution sources and haw to handle them. Etutte+ County is totally pre-empted in this area, only functioning as the local. enforcement agency. However, as addressed in our SWMF, monitoring wells and a leachate panel have been installed to control release of any water barn material. The leachate control system has been constructed in accordance with an approved site design. leachate is collected at the base of the landfill and severed to the leachate pcand. Leachate is disposed of by evaporation. There has been no leachate left in the ponds after the month of May. Tt--e site has had a history of minimal leachate generation. The e>;istir+q leachate pond which has a val~.tme of ~B~Y,~:-tyU gallons (1.~~} Ac. ~'t. ), should be adequate throughout the life of the landfill, In the event additional space is required, leachate maybe directed to the brine ponds. Eref: Neal Road reclassification, Weber-Hall 1981) In 1979 it was determined that gas ventilation would oat be required at the tJeal Raad site. The am©t_int pr©duced is contained in the fill. If in the future gas pr.oductian increases, ventilation van t-e installed. Recagniing that the gases are highly volatile; the state requires fire equipment, er;'tinguishers and avatar be maintained an~-site at all tines. Hazardous substances which could be released at the ©raville site include: gases and leachates. This fill also meets state standards. Well monitoring is conducted monthly. There has .been one instance where leachates were released. 'They were caused by a spring at the northwest corner. Eucalyptus have since been pl~'tnted to drain the soil. A leachate monitoring sump has been constructed below the area of fill. Leachate formation is further redt_tced kry minimizing the warE:ing face area in the winter. l =a . Neal Road does oat normal 1 y e:: per i ence heavy volumes of traf f i c in the vicinity of the sate. The most recent traffic taunt far a ~4--hour peri ad total 1 eel 7~Cy. (198:0 ©n State Hi ghway 99 traf f i c retard counts at Neal Road are 14,U~~ti} fl,D.T. , 1~~4? pei'~~' hay-tr. Traffic volume an Neal Raad is well within the standards for a gcsod level cif -13- `. sE?rva ce. 1 The intersection of Neal Road and Highway 99 was built at full standard with turn p©ckets st_tfficient for stacking ~ vehicles. Traffic Can be accommodated safely. The ^roville Site to#:es access off of Uphir ~©ad. The mast recent traffic counts far ©phir and Plarysvi l l e~E~aggett Roads are: l9~'~ A.D.T. ©phir 195i~ A. n. T Norther l y segment of Marysville-~E+aggett ?{.~i7 A. i3. T. southerly st~gment of Marysville-E~aggett The site generates l (.f A. D, T (~ trot#~ 1 pads daily} onto Clphi r Road. This traffic increase is insignificant. 14a: Neal Road l andf i l 1 maintains f are equipment an--site at al i times. The ©raville wand waste site ppera•tes ~tnder standards set by Cl?F to mi n i rni ~ e f ire hazards. 1 n the event of emergency , service wnul d be provided by stab ins 7~ and 6~# , :' and ~, 1 I2 miles distant . 14b: E+©th sites have limited/controlled access. 14e: E~~atte County is t.tltirnately responsible for the repair and aperataan of the Neal F(©ad fatality. it has been and probably will continue to be operated under contract. Fritter callectiort along Neal Road i s al sa a C:c~unty respansi b a l a ty. 'i'he Clrovi ]. l e woc-d waste facility is privately awned, operated and maintained. 1be; Storm drainage has been installed at both sites, lbf: bath sites involve the disposal of waste material. l7: The development of landfills commonly pace potential hazards to human health that derive from disease-carrying pests and exposure of users ar trespassers to sharp ab~ects, unstable ground conditions, ar to>: i c s~~bstances. The Weller-Ha11 report addresses safety and health regulations the Meal Read landfill operator must meet. ~ ~ . _-5af e~.Y.....Fteq~.tX at,i.ans Recognized rules cif safety shall be strictly followed in the operation of the disposal site. 1. No scavenging shall be allowed. (The operator may salvage material in accordance with 1aca1 agreements.} ~. No i_inau•khorized persons ar vehicles shall be permitted in ha ardvus areas. C1 earl y mar#ced signs steal 1 be pravi ded to i nd i sate the roettes tv respective discharge areas. 4. The unloading areas sha11 be clearly mar#~ed and shall be as level as practical,. -14- S ~,. Vehicle barriers shall be installed where needed far safety. f,. iVo children or pets shall be allowed outside of the vehicle. i. Separate discharge areas shall be established for (a) commercial refuse haatlers or vehicles larger than a .^,/4 ton pickt.tp and (b7 Individual dischargers with a •a/4 tan pickup or smaller. The aper'ator shall have at 1 east ane emp 1 oyee qualified i n f i rst•-••ai d avai 1 abl e at the site at al 1 times the site i s open to the p~.ttal i. c. A first-aid Exit seal]. be strategically located far quick; access. F'rvper lar•~dfilling tecrtniques, especially those rtif correc.:t application of cover materials and a goad litter control pragr-am will eliminate most health hazards which result from the breeding of rodents and insects. A daily ccaver of earth will eliminate radeni:.s potential food supply. Flies and other insects may be cc~ntr©lled by use ctf mechanical ar Chemical methods if needed. if vector problems do occur and an er.termination program becomes necessary, such a program shall be conducted under the supervision of an e::perienc.ed a>;terminator and with the approval of the Agricultural Commissioner. E~: i st i ng fences shall be maintained at the dumping and wor k: i. nq areas at all times to prevent airborne wastes from being disbursed about the landfill site ar leaving the landfill site. Fief use col 1 acted a~}ai nst the fences and a1 1 l Dose i i tter steal 1 be removed at the end of the aperatic~nal day and placed in the cell privy to daily Dover i ng . The i;lraville site does nat. have nearly. the potential for health hazards as Neal road. The property is privately owned and operated, F•i ve truck: s dump dai 1 y. The public ~. s not al 1 awed an--si to -i"here i s rtt3 e~a.rbage, putrescible material, 1~.tr,k; or paper. State standards are sufficient to minimise hea]•i.h related impacts. 1i:3: Land•fili~ are usually aesthetically offensive. L.ocatic~n and method of crperat. i on can make them 1 ass of f ensi ve.' Nei, they l andf i 1 1 ~. s lactated on a State Highway, ar heavily travelled rand, Daily cover and litter control has improved the appearance of Neal Road. "fhe operation has plans to upgrade the entrance with 1G1-lc~*~c~~?1~sE~n Litter and 3unkr is not a problem at at E3raville site. The wood was'~~ has a mare homctgenotts appearance, and is therefore, Hat as ©ffensive. :~C-: Neither pr©perty is within an area of archeanlogical sensitivity. I I b : Landfills ar'e a long-term i_rse wh i ate can eau ~e environmental problems after closure. Far that reason, closure plans are req:..:ired. These plans go into the contour, ctrade, drainage, and water monitoring requi remc-~n,ts with great detai 1 . F~ commitment hoe to be made to •Finance monitoring after the sites economic"life has e::pired. The CaG.:nty is ultimately responsible for the Neal ~tnad site,, Louisiana-Pacific :is responsible •F or the Qrova.lle site. _1~_ `. Ila,d: Even though numerous state agencies are involved in permiting and Bevel r~pi ng standards far landfills, there i s al w~~ys w~ pvasi bi l i ty of human error, yr "acts csf Gad", which could cause a disaster. Sttte has attempted to prepare far this passit~ility ~y outlining areas of responsibility and alternative taurses crf action. An emergency could release pollutants to the environmt?nt. This risl~ e~c i sts at any landfill site. We may find tvv that a wider range of elements needs tv be monitored. Ha~ardvus waste technology is in its infancy, and we can not predict the effect of nt«tmercrLis Chemical components inter~-trMtir~g. What may be safe today could be unsafe tomorrow. A negative declaration is recommended. State standards are sufficiently stringent to minimi~e+ environmental impacts. After comp I eti ng this document an initial stt.tdy on the LF' wand waste site was fot_tnd. The State clearirZghouse number is '78-C~~'-._,Cl-C~4. -16- ~ !J ~ 1 /,",-` - '~ Ili ''~ ~~ / ! - y f '~.~ ~ ~. . ~ r. f _~~ ~ J ~ , r i ,. _._ ~ ~ ~ =~~ qtr`'=„ ~ {~ .~.~~ ~ E.~cts71r1C~ - ~ ~ j~, ~ ~~~ '! I ~ i ~i ~~ I ~;r l~ ~.~ fJ ' ~• ST 4f ~ it I \ \ ~ •~ ~~ ~~~~', _l// ~Faf~~~ ...11 f.i • ~~~ r '..~`~~f f~.~ i t `\ \ ~. / ~ 1`. V~ f ,l :' J ~r i / ~~ ffii{ ~ ~ r • J / ~ " 1 ~ ~ ~ /' ~'"'' ` r " ~ ~ 1. ', r - .' ,r ,~ ,~ ,- , • .. ,` Jam. \ .. .' ~ ~; Sti 4 .. ~ • ~. { . ! ~ ~i .1 ~ ~ t "~ Z !, ,~ ~~ ~ r o ~, ~ , o are •, , ~ . '~ `~~ ~ i .. - P-Q (~LZ1 ~ l.Ey `C'~+E~i~S FELZ S-t ~--~w r o ~~~ 3 frtE D GCtOP rn•~~2 R-3 i ~~ ~ N:. I I I f 1 A-40 x x ~~ \, ,~ ~~ k~ I! ~ M-A'Q ~~ „- I h f c-~ _ ~ s -, L:.: ',"- \ ~O /~ /~ ,,,,,, 111111 ~"`/ I I I ~ 1 I ~ S~ ~` Tt ~ O I~ ! I I I I "e ~~c ~ 'S a~ f r~ lti/a.srr~ ~ . - I - I I _~a~.--- " ~~ Ill11T'IAL ~AR.'rF# EN1t3aNtCMF.I~IT ~r~P ~,~ ~r_Possr Vllasr~ ~~ "~"o~ Q~ ~l.4PC ~ I ~ I it I I I ~ ~ I ~`~ i I GOMPAGrE v V~ASTIY I ~ I 1 _ ~ t~ I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ 5' M ~x . I I I ~ ~ ~ I I } I- ~ --- - -~ ~"~ E ~ ~ ' S ~R EAD ~ r~ D Connt~A.C.`r ~~,ST E. ~ ~ G ~[ i s Tr NG S ~ P E. SEE SP~CIFILATIONS ~p2 p+~ PT~1~ __ _.1 _ _. I ~ I ~ ~ I~ I 'I~:,~ ~ I 4 I I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ - (,~~MF~AGTE C7 C_oV ~rZ„ • ~•~~ ~ ~~`~` ,1 I I I ~ I I I I ~--- I ~-1=~r~--- ~ r~ ~ 3 -~ Co U c ~ ~,J.a 5-r~ W rr a Sa , i ~ Iv ~ Cow arc r Sorc,~ r~, ~ ~~c~ ~~P~r~ n F a~_ 'Cto~t7 Eu~,g~-r I ~~ . .~ ~~~ •,t'1~'~ ~, 1 ~ `u'~~1. ~`'~ awl' w ,i 11. ~/~-~~ ~fiL, ,~--.r ? ;r ~ of - ,\~ - ~. .,; I ~~ \ ~~ t(] f 1 \.\ y e I a y ` ~,,1.- i~ il~'~TT.tRl1~ J/ ~~.`r• T,-~J~.~~-~'" . -Y~ = • ~ N '~~\ y ~ ~n .a .-. t1r .• G~'fr 1`1 n r .. •v;, ~• ,1 .r •. ~~,3 ~~ ~9 I ~~_ I~~~ °'~~o b •~^,ri'it y ~ _ _ ~ ' I ` it ~ .1 '~ ~'n^ t. '1~`1~~~F'~ r1 ,W ~m ^' y ~ 1 0 ) ~.Urc~~t"- ,i+'f''',;` .~~[~~ ' ~ vt ~ '4 ~ _ ' _ k J"Frr' ~ . _ I I IT 'r` fr '~• f`; ~~~.; ° x.:3:3: ;~,''1 I w' y -.~ -r ..~- ~~~ •~It,.a-~ ~•;} `~~ _, ~. ~ ' ~7;i-1r! t•',IS~lli•)"c~l- ~~y'`'r.'••-•-• ~~' • - '~ d° !I ', ".r! ~.s.W .`~~`~~: .~. '~~ `~ ~~ ' -`~ ... ~ ~:1 r:- -~~•~6U~It.I.E~ " ~` o16~J r• { C •._... ,` n '`•~ ~ - 1. '. n'. . ~` 'O ~ w ~ r., I- 1.--~~~-~~~`-'-\ ~t nlj ~• ~,' [j, ,~ •~ .`'~t~i~• _ --: .G. `~ ri ~Z:~~L•~r, t; } ley -ri ~~L („_ .~.._~i I~~_T~ ~~ ~~•,~~,'~,. '_ a' ' `!r.,.e -_y ..I ~~' i. r. N.)--1 ``i R(;iIRY Lf ~ Lt~~ar .~.\ ,,~ 4`•~ .~ '..~ ,,•~; .~• ;t .'."~ I C7~,jl 1. .•' I _ p:1 ~5~ ~~ ~ 1p, ~`~~ i~' , -~ ~` to S C ~ ~ ~~ ~`` .1 ~? _ 4 .,.,_~.~-•4' "t ~~ ~'7 \ - •\ { i.~' '~ it ~ f_S . , { - {i l i ~ ~~ - ~ ~ I!~"'"yr7 ~~- "°~~~' 1 ~ ~~ ~. '. ,f. :.,• 1I t1~ -oJ.,r,i~ ~~./~y,l ~r~ ar ~rc^_~~ri Li 1.'~. ~ ~4. `., ~~ 'l _- ,y. .-~~~ ' ~•f-• ..1. -,-' -J1 ..•~ I ...~~. .rrr_.. L _ ~.r ~~~;~ rt ~ ~ G~ ~ , ~\ `~••~ JI it 1 s";!1 _ - j~ ~ '._ ~ 1' .- - ~' ~.:.- d . ~~~ •, (`~ i -^_' SpVl~e! , ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ r, _ ~~l~,iC`c ~ th-'i ~ ;.,, ~~ ~ . ,rr~.l'~ ~'I%'+' ~~R ~!~.~ I ~' fiH N `.~`~, a ~^~ ~--~•' ~' ~ .'.•':~' ! ti•:~ ~~-._:~..,':I~~ 4~,~~ ,_ ~.,.-..: /.... Rive -' ~+~ •.T ," • ~ ~/....•~' - ~C' a '~'~^s -•l. ~~_ . 1. ~+..~, o• ~, I ~• ~ 11, I ..ti .•~ 1 •! d ~ _ ..gi154QL ^r",,, 1,°,11~ vt I rJ v 7 \ .1 ~.t Ipl 4 `'' ' I~ 11 ' -1 ~ I', ~ 1 ' ~a 1 ~ 1.' ~( ,n w• ~,' :I \ ~ J ~ f -- c~ ` ~~ it II >~ '~N Y ~'~ 1 l.r ', ~~ ' ~~,1 •~:~. ~-~ ` rat, H 1- ..y r li ? '~~ ^ rr ~ ~ ~ - ;`• ~ °,/~ •!f ~. ~+"-- •:~r "• ~ +~1 •a• '~ .~' ~'. • III i-l" ,~t• .v } 'L11, ~' ~ ~ ~I 11,E ~ ~~ II „ •~i• ~//~~ ``~i1~i~~•~~`•t il' •• Slj 1t ~ -Ji ' ~~, f.l '. 1. . ~~'1'~ ~T 1~1 ~•~I ~ JV~I` ~- I~ r r v "• ~~.'Qo.; w ' ' Q~• . ''~ Hi.uu I rv a:~::-..• •.r.. L ..,• .\S .: •\ :•~, ,F ,.-~ ' 7. ,, ,/anE .. \~ r+~ l+`•j ~'Y `,~~7, ,~ef`,l _` y ^\/r':rj 1` r •'~•1 lii '"1@I1~'1r• ~ f• ~•~ *....-•. . :.. . . ~ .. ., ~ , . . . . l jP ' .. Infer-Departmental Memorandum ro: Planning Commission FROM: Laura M. Tuttle, Associate Planner sus~ecr: Solid Waste Mgt. Plan - addition information, File 85-64 oars: August 2, 19$'5 Two agencies commented during clearinghouse review: Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB) and Regional Water Quality Control (RWQC}. The SWMB supported preparation of a Negative Declaration. RWQC indicated that Neal Raad was never reclassified in 1981 to allow disposal of olive processing brines. At a meeting held 7/30/$5 with RWQC, SWMB, Environmental Health, Public Works, and Planning; RWQC's letter of 7/9/85 was discussed. It was agreed that the S.W.M. Plan and General Plan Amendment (to show waste facilities) will proceed. The initial study is corrected to note: 1) B. C. 's waste discharge requirements do not permit acceptance of olive processing brines; 2) Hazardous wastes may not be discharged at Neal Road; 3) New State regulations do not address the handling of pollution sources. Sub Chapter 15 requires each County and/or landfill operator to submit a plan prepared by a registered engineer or geologic engineer for the handling of all wastes. Novembex 1 is the tentative date for compliance with Sub Chapter 15. Neal Road landfill will be one of the first landfills to be permitted under these new regulations. LMT:Ir Attachments: Memorandum 7/15/85 State Solid Waste Mgt. Board Memorandum 7/9/85 Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Board Butte Co. Plane' . Hamm. State` of Califor~eia ~' THE RE50URCE5 AGENCY M e m o r a n d u m ~ oro,,;,,g, c;al;t~~~~a to Price walker, State Clearinghouse Da+~ ~U~. 1 ~ ~gg~ Laura Tuttle, Butte County Planning Dept. From STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 5ub~ect: Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision Thank you far the cnnnr.tun~'ty tc review the proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision SCH X85070204. Staff concurs with the County's findings in the Initial Study that the Plan Revision will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Specific comments on the contents of the Plan Revision were previously sent to the county under separate cover. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact Cy Armstrong of our Local Planning Division at {916} 322-1342. Alan A. Oldall Deputy Executive Officer Attachment Memorandum : CALIFORNIA REGIDNAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3201 S Street Sacramento, California 95816 Phane: 4a5-0270 ~+~Fe Co. Planning ~~,,,,,~~~~ T0: Price Walker FROM. William J. Marshall State Clearinghouse `~~~- 1 '! ~9~rj Senior Engineer 1400 Tenth St . , Rm . 121 Orovi!!e~ ~alitaralq Sacramento, CA 95814 DATE: 9 July 1985 51GNATURI~: _~~'= ~` `"~ ~-~ ~'~` ` ~~ ~ L ,~ SU B.IE CT: BUTTI= COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE, SCH #85070204 The fallowing are comments on the Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1. Page 6 - The Neal Raad Landfill was not reclassified in 1981. The site retains a Class II-2 designation. This designation was made when the exis- ting waste discharge requirements {WDRs) were approved by the Regional Board vn 2$ September 1983. The WDRs allow a maximum capacity of 1,500,000 cubic yards. No expansion was permitted in 1981. 2. Page 9 -- Non-toxic alive ail gums have been approved for disposal at Neal Road Landfill. However, olive brine processing wastes have not been approved for disposal. 3. Page 11 ~3f} - On 27 November 1984, new regulations covering the Discharge of Waste to Land became effective. These regulations are found in Subchapter 15, Chapter 3, Title 23 of the California Administrative Code and are. referred to as Subchapter 15. Those regulations contain anew classification' system. Old Class II-2 sites will become Class III sites. However, the actual classification change will probably nat occur until the WDRs are revised. Section 3f indicates that both Neal Road Landfill and the Louisiana-Pacific sites have monitoring wells. The Louisiana-Pacific site does not have monitoring wells, although those wells are required by Subchapter 15. Both sites were required to submit a technical report to the Regional Board by 28 May 1985, describing measures necessary to bring their monitoring progams i.nta compliance with Subchapter 15. Neither site has completed the required 'te'chnical report. When completed, the reports, or a summary of actions 'required by the reports, should be inc]uded in the County Waste Management P1 an. 4. 'Page 13 {Item 10) - E~azardous wastes may not be discharged to the Neal Road Landfill site. The following statement is inaccurate: "State regulations address all of those potential pollution sources and how to handle them. Butte County is Butte Caunty Salid Waste Management Plan Update -2- 9 July 1985 totally preempted in this area, only functioning as the local enforcement agency." Butte County, as owner of the Neal Road Landfill site, is primarily responsible for any water quality problems. State regulations do not describe the methods for handling pollution problems. State regulations generally set minimum levels of protection needed to prevent water quality contamination. The methods for providing this protection are generally left up to the discharger - Butte County at Neal Road Landfill and Louisiana- Pacific at the Oroville site. Butte Caunty, as a discharger of waste to land, has not been preempted from its duty to discharge wastes without impairing water quality. At the Louisiana-Pacific sate, the Eucalyptus program failed and the trees died. WJM:gs cc: California Waste Management Baard, Sacramento Mr. William Cheff, Director Butte County Department of Public Works, Oroville Mr. Lynn Vanhart, Director, Butte County Health Department, Oroville Ms. Laura M. Tuttle, Associate Planner, Butte County Planning Department, Oroville ~ ~`-~ d ~ ~ 1985 BUTTE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION Prepared far BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 1985 Prepared by EMCON Associates 90 Archer Street San Jose, Cal~forn~a 95112 Project 3i2-02.01 em~nn n...._.:..a.... TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING OF WASTES 2 COLLECTION 2 DISPOSAL 4 PROCESSING 5 RESOURCE RECOVERY 8 INTRODUCTION 8 RECYCLING 8 COMPOSTING 10 IMPLEMENTATION 14 ENFORCEMENT 17 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 18 WASTE MANAGEMENT FINANCING 18 LANDFILLING VERSUS RESOURCE RECOVERY COSTS 18 Tables Table 1 - Recycling Centers in Butte County 11 Table 2 - Butte County Solid Waste Management 15 Implementation Schedule Table 3 - Estimated Costs for Implementing Waste Management 19 Program F~ gu_re Figure 1 - Location Map 3 ~fY1fA/1 Gcen~in4Ac Appendices Appendix A - CWMB Letter of May 1, 1983 to Butte County Director of Public Works Appendix B - Butte County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency Program Plan Appendix C - Responses to Comments on the May 1985 Draft P1 an Revision Appendix D - Solid Waste Recycling Task Force emrnn et~...~.,+e~ INTRODUCTION In accordance with Article 7, Section 17141(c) of the California Admin- istrative Code, the California Waste Management Board (CWMB) requires counties to review their County Solid Waste Management Plan (CaSWMP) every three years and revise it, as necessary, In May 1983, Butte County submitted a Plan Review Report to the CWMB for review. Although the Board considered the overall Plan adequate, they identified five areas that required updating to incorporate modifica- tions implemented in the County since the initial CoSWMP was prepared in i97 5: a Disposal and Processing of Wastes • Resource Recovery • Implementation • Enforcement • Economic Feasibility The Board agreed that this additional information could be submitted as an addendum to the existing CoSWMP. Presented in Appendix A is a copy of the Board's letter to the County of July 11, 19$3, outlining the Plan elements requiring updating. Accordingly, the Butte County Department of Public Wocks retained EMCON Associates to prepare this report, entitled "1985 Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision." This revision presents updated infor- mation concerning collection, disposal and processing of wastes; resource recovery; plan implementation; and solid waste management plan enforcement and economic feasibility in Butte County. PJC 312-02.01 1 cmrnn GCCA~IA+A[ COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING OF WASTES COLLECTION in Butte County, the cities of Biggs, Gridley, and Oroville have each granted exclusive franchises to specific firms for refuse collection within their boundaries. In the Chico and Paradise areas, several competing firms provide collection services. The City of Chico has imposed regulations governing operating standards and fees for refuse collection within its city limits. in the 1975 CaSWMP, six transfer stations were described. However, since then, the four "Mountain Transfer Stations" (Butte Meadows, Stir- ling City, Concow Reservoir, and Lake Madrone) in the northeastern part of the County have been closed by the County because of the high costs of transporting wastes from these areas to the Neal Raad Landfill. Now, rural residents must either hire private collectors or haul their refuse to the Neal Raad Landfill themselves. The two remaining transfer sta- tions in Butte County are operated by private collection firms. Figure 1 shows the location of collection areas and transfer stations in the county, The Biggs-Gridley Transfer Station, which is used by collection firms from the towns of Biggs and Gridley, as well as by Yuba-Sutter Disposal Company, is open to the general public on weekends. For this reason, it is used by residents of the entire south valley area. Wastes are stored in two 65-cubic-yard bins prior to their transfer to a landfill. PJC 312-02.01 2 cmrnn n«.,r~.,io~ `., ' y . /~ F 1., ~,`~,~ `• z~a.'~•t 'D'ta~-N ~ ~'~ ti, ~ r- I.o '1+101 s ~` ~ ~ r~l z: t 'Z. ' 6 ~Y Vln c 2 ~ r~ ~(~ 1 ,~ , ts~ r •4~ •i~ 7 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ "' ~ ' ~ i r G#~ k i Ir f ~ ~ 1 _... 4~~ 1 + ~ u . 1.. • Z3 ~ = 9 ar 1 1 ~ 7 r~~! l .~ % . f. :d-,~,~~ ,, '• ~ i ~'~ S ~ ~ " 1 ~ 1 ~ 1. 1i 1 .~~ . , ~ Nor ~ :? .i ~~ ~~j ~! f i~41 C a ~w i qtr .' 6 ~.. ar` Chic~~ ~ t + # Chic „ , ~,~'~' ' ~ " - 1 2 L'L~ ~~ r~ G~ i ~ ~ h n ~ "" µ ~ a ~ " ~' a ~ Reyton \ =~1, l P _ r, .. ' ~ eawv tag. .~.. ` i~of ~ ~~yyam ~ - Y .~~°k ~ . ~tzo• ~ 7'h! ~ -• f c~ ' "' j ~ eaer " Lai~on ~ ~ ~ ~S ~ eyllIIS i c ~ e ,. '' ~ 4.t~ ~~ ~ 'L'ddy'~' Ne on f soo • ~akt. ~~~ ' 4 ~ Fonba~ } ~ % x•05. 71 \ '• • tlto ~ ak ° ~ , `'. ~ L` E:t1Ye .tam. ~, rovill •~>•.,~~ 1 , ' n r f v F +7 ?ir ~•:'ty li7 +k~ } n t R I ke C 02 i • • a ~ ~ r4/ "t Ste` \ V ~ L ~ a ` r fier1E~~ ~ISa r. L.~ f+ Cf ~ '~ ~' r (rt (' q + V 81 ~i ' c k l`t6.~ 9 6 ~ea~ ~ ' d a ~ : o~ V14a B ~ ~ •~ ,.~, S ~ __ ~ L , ~ "` Sink .,,: "t n n~tbn a O r _ ..~ , t~q :, ~ ..~ a+ c k~ '~ ~ "~ wse ' ej + x(.E. -d ! • Q o ~ ' ' s l t ~ V 6 "~~ ~ e fIR n a l e a xasr u ' ~ C~ . : Lo t _,;_ r ~`~ Approximak Scale: 1 inch ~ miles w - _~ o , ~.E~~~1a ~ • Nsal Road Landfill'` ' ~ Tronafer :lotions r 5~+... • ~ Collection a~r~e~ as ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~r - _ E~.~. „tip ~~,~r: .' 1 '~J:?3c ~'~! vr~ r. -~ i ~ ~? ! - s ..L rr Ore On~o4 ~;` „ a~ erle Cl~n ,,'~, .. ~ >' ~ ~ i3rrv i~ !ti ~t - ~ {~ • b• tn;• ~ ''~~~ 11~ w.; . ..::3 ~~, ~. _i ~ l , s ~ 1~ y • -~- ead ~. ~ ~ ,fie } ~ a' ~ ' r ~ ! ~_1 r ~ ~ a _ l' _ o .+.. inn 1~e, Cwlifrruir r..sl+ /IJ'I"lE C011NTY INS WTTE 001~iT'Y SQLJD II~A'•t7'E MANABEMIE1iT ~L.+MI SION iIJ1"TE GOfMi1TY, ~lfpRf$1_A LACATION MAP It1iU1tE dL~T 110 312 -02.01 cmrrln dc~~~~itlisB Refuse from Oroville and the central valley area is routed through the Oroville Transfer Station. This indoor facility is open to private collection firms and to the general public seven days a week. A large refuse compactor is used to reduce the volumes .of. waste, that are trans- ported to the Neal Road Landfill, 24 miles away. The transfer station is presently being remodeled to improve existing recycling and recovery operations. DISPOSAL Most of the municipal and residential solid wastes in the County are disposed of at the Neal Road Landfill, approximately 8 miles southeast of Chico (Figure 1). However, residential and commercial wastes gener- ated by the City of Gridley are hauled by Yuba-Sutter Disposal, Inc. (YSDI) to their landfill northeast of Marysville, YSDI, which has a franchise with the City of Gridley, transfers the wastes from the Biggs- Gridley Transfer Station to the Yuba County site. Butte County owns 77 acres in fee and leases 23 acres of the Neal Road Landfill and has contracted with a private firm, Carmel Disposal Ser- vices, to operate it. This 100-acre Class III site receives about 120,000 tons of solid waste a year. In addition to ,residential and municipal solid wastes, the Neal Road Landfill also accepts septic tank residues, non-toxic olive oil gums, and rinsed pesticide containers. As described below, special provisions have been made to accommodate each of these wastes. Significant volumes {perhaps as much as one million tons per year) of food-processing, agricultural, and wood wastes are also produced in the County, but mast of these are processed, as described below in the section on processing. Septic tank residues are placed in one of four on-site ponds at the rate of about 4.3 million gallons per year. A fifth active pond, lying at the toe of the refuse fill, is used for leachate collection and evapora- tion. The site operator estimates that, within five years, additional land will be needed to meet the increasing demand far septage disposal at this facility. PJC 312-02.01 4 FmCnn Accnrintr~S Empty pesticide containers have been disposed of at the landfill under the supervision of a County Agricultural,Ins.pector. Such disposal is limited to specific- days, .and the Agri:.cultur:al,;.:Ins.pector must certify that all of the containers have been adequately cleaned out. In 1981, the Butte County Board of Supervisors approved an expansion of the landfill surface area that would increase its capacity from 3.9 million to about 5.6 million tons. It was anticipated that this would allow the site to continue to receive wastes until 1993, five years after its original closure date. In May 1985, Butte County authorized the .preparation of a new master plan for the landfill. Preliminary estimates show that the new master plan could extend the life of the landfill until 2010. As with the previous expansion, it is anticipated that this increase in capacity will be accommodated by increasing the depth of fill on the site, rather than through the acquisition of additional land. However, as this plan i s implemented, cover material for the refuse may have to be imported from off-site sources. PROCESSING Much of the land in Butte County is used for agricultural purposes. Most of the wastes generated by the production of the agricultural products are utilized in some type of processing. Presented below is a list of the waste products .currently processed and a discussion of future waste processing plans. :1 Almond hulls are utilized as cattle feed after they are hammer milled and granulated. Magnets and screens are then employed to rid the grain of all unwanted materials. In Butte County, both Superior Dryers and Butte County Almond !lull Asso- ciation have hull processing plants in operation. Processing amounts PJC 312-02.D1 5 ~mrnn Accnrin4As depend upon the current year`s crop. Approximately 31,DDD tons of hulls were processed in 1984-$5, but less is expected for the 1985-$6 period. North State Almond Hulling, Inc. sells its hulls to Superior pryers. Another almond hull processing plant has been constructed by M&T in Oroville. Almond hulls {a waste product) are being manufactured into a food supplement for humans, with the unusable portions of the hulls being sold as an animal supplement. Wood wastes are processed by two treatment p1 ants in Oroville, one owned by Louisiana Pacific and the other by Koppers Company, Inc. Materials processed include sawdust, chips, and shavings derived from lumber mills and molding and door manufacturers to produce hardboard. These woad residues are combined using chemical resins, formed to the proper thick- ness, and then pressed. A curing process follows before the finished product is cut to proper size. A cogeneration plant in Oraville that is owned by Koppers burns {pro- cesses) wood and agricultural wood wastes {prunings, clippings, etc.). Koppers will sell all the energy produced from the processing of their wood wastes to PG&E. A new cogeneration plant in Oroville, owned by Applied Power Systems Technology, is slated to be on line in September 19$5. The 18 megawatt plant will burn wood wastes generated in the Oroville area and sell the energy to PG&E. Cannin wastes are processed by Tri Valley Growers in Gridley and Pacific Coast Producers in Oroville, the two major canners in the County. The food wastes from these plants are disced back into selected lands as a soil amendment for reclamation purposes. Rendering (converting of wastes into industrial fats, oils or fertiliz- ers) i s conducted by North State Rendering, the sal a rendering company in northern California. North State Rendering collects 1 million pounds PJC 312-02.01 6 ~m~nn AccnrEntAc of unprocessed materials a month. these materials include bones, fat and animal parts from grocery stares; grease from restaurants; and fallen animals. PAC 312-02.01 7 emrnn n~~...t..se~ RESOl~RCE RECOVERY INTROOUCTiON Comprehensive data on recycling activities in Butte County is difficult to obtain for two reasons: (1) many recyclers do not keep accurate records, and (2) a number of private recyclers are reluctant to divulge information. Presented below is a summary of available data on recycl- ing facilities in the County. RECYCLING in 1985, the City Council of Chico and the Butte County Board of Supervisors appointed a Solid Waste/Recycling Task Force to examine short- and long-range plans far collection and recycling in the Chico urban area. The oldest, most comprehensive recycling group in the County is the Butte Environmental Council (BEC) in Chico, which officially began operations in 19]'5. The BEC reportedly reaches an estimated 3 to 5 per- cent of the residents in the greater unincorporated areas of Chico. For the 1983-84 period, the BEC reports the following materials recycled: Recycled Material Newspaper Cardboard Pape r {other than cardboard or newspaper) Grass Aluminum Ti n PJC 312-02.01 8 Quantity (tons} 194.3 251.0 26.5 204.4 4.7 10.3 In addition, the BEC recycled 1,125 gallons of oil. Another active recycling effort within the County is located at the Orovil1e Transfer Station and is operated by the Oroville Solid Waste Disposal Company {O5WDC}. With the aid of a $43,000 (rounded figure) grant from the California Waste Management Board, the OSWDC has expanded their recycling facility, and has plans for additional improvements. The OSWpC plans to purchase a bailer, can flattener, and glass crushers for use at the facility. In addition, they intend to use a portion of the CSWMB grant {at least $6,000} to establish an extensive public awareness program in the County. In 19$4, OSWDC recycled the following: Quantity Recycled Material tons Newspaper 435.2 Cardboard 653.2 Glass 71.6 Cans 19.0 Other groups that recycle in Butte County are privately owned. Since these groups are reluctant to divulge information that they consider confidential, the recycling data for the private recyclers is shown below for the group as a whole, rather than on an individual company basis. Newspaper/Other Paper: Beaver Paper Company, The Work Training Center, and Chico Transfer and Recycling together recycle approximately 1,700 tons of paper and newspaper a year (1984 data), All expect an increase in 1985 in the amount of materials recycled. Aluminum and Other Metals: Antony's and the Work Training Center recy- cled 191 tons of aluminum and 45 tons of other metals in 1984. PJC 312-02.01 9 ~rnrnn oacnr~r,tac Oil Recyclers: Of the 19 oil recyclers in Butte County, 17 participated in the CWMB's Save Oil America, Recycle (50AR) program. Of the oil recyclers with available statistics, four firms recycle 1,200 gallons a year (each); two firms, fi00 gallons a year {each); and three firms, 300 to 400 gallons a year (each}. Table 1 identifies recycling centers in Butte County and the materials recycled. COMPOSTING The City of Chico runs a composting operation that collects and composts tree leaves, mainly during the months of October through January. These leaves are composted on City property and used for future City landscap- ing, primarily at the airport. In recent years, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of leaves have been composted on a yearly basis. PJC 312-02.01 10 Emcon assecietas Table 1 RECYCLING CENTERS IN BUTTE COUNTY MULTI-MATERIAL Oroville Solid Waste Station 2720 South 5th Avenue Oroville, Califarnia Butte Community College 3536 Butte Campus Drive Chi ca, Califarnia Butte Environmental Council 708 Cherry Street Chico, California Work Training Center 2233 Fai r Chico, Califarnia P.C. Recycling Clark & Elliot Paradise, Califarnia Buys newspaper, cardboard, glass, cans Accepts cardboard, aluminum, paper Buys newspaper; collects cardboard, paper, glass aluminum, tin, oil Buys aluminum; accepts newspaper Buys aluminum; accepts newspaper, copper, batteries PAPER Beaver Paper Company 2270 Fai r Chico, Califarnia METALS Buys newspaper and paper Antonys 4980 Lincoln Boulevard Oraville, California OIL City of Chico Mangrove 76 Tire & Service Center 890 Mangrove Avenue Chico, California Shell Products 1101 Mangrove Avenue Chico, Califarnia Buys aluminum and other metal s Accepts used oil Accepts used oil PJC 312-D2.01 11 Table 1 RECYCEiNG CENTERS iN BUTTE COUNTY (Continued) College Hancock Accepts used oil 1013 West First Street Chico, California Thornton's Chevron Accepts used oil 350 East Avenue Chico, California Noes Chevron Accepts used oil 112 West 5th Street Chico, California Wieck's Main Street Texaco Accepts used oil 135 Main Street Chico, California . George's Union 76 Accepts used oil 2393 Cohasset Road Chico, California Chico Drain Oil Service Accepts used oil 1618 West 5th Street Chico, California Citv of Oraville Don Phelps' Texaco Accepts used oil 480 Oro Dam Boulevard Oroville, California Themalito Union 76 Accepts used oii 2006 4th Street Oroville, California Freeway Auto Service Accepts used oil 831 Oro Dam Boulevard West Oroville, California Freeway Shell Service Accepts used oil 1330 Feather River Boulevard Oroville, California Wright's Exxon Accepts used ail _ ~ 2829 Oro Dam Boulevard Oroville, California PJC 312-02.01 12 Table 1 RECYCLING CENTERS IN BUTTE COUNTY (Continued} Jim Mewes Chevron Accepts used ail 2030 Third Street Oroville, California Other Count Locations Scott's Auto Service Accepts used oil 15525 Nopel Avenue Forest Ranch, California John'$ Chevron Accepts used oil 1675 Highway 99 East Gridley, California Lassie's Chevron Accepts used oil P.O. Box 30 Clipper Mills, California Quail Trails Stare Accepts used oil 5145 Pentz Road Paradise, California PJC 312-02.01 13 IMPLEMENTATION presented in Table 2 is a schedule for waste management tasks to be implemented in Butte County over the short-, medium-, and long-term planning period. PJC 312-02.01 14 C~Y1«ll1 ~ceriir~tne Table 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE SHORT TERM 11985-1989) 1985-1986 Assist the landfill operator in preparing and implementing the recently approved master plan that will extend use of the Neal Road Landfill to the year 2010. Support the development by the recently formed Solid Waste/ Recycling Task Eorce of the short- and 1 ang-range plans far solid waste collection and recycling in the Chico urban area. Comply with the mandate of incorporating solid waste facili- ties and management in the General Plan. 1986-1987 Review and evaluate the present septage disposal site and determine the need for alternatives. Pursue negotiations with the adjacent parcel owner with respect to acquiring adjacent acreage for extended use of the. Neal Road Landfill. Investigate alternatives to septage disposal at the Neal Road Landfill. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a composting program far selected wastes. Investigate the feasibility of constructing a gas recovery facility at the Neal Road Landfill site. Investigate alternative means of financing the solid waste program through implementation of income-generating programs. 1987-1988 Evaluate the need to establish a transfer station in the Paradise area. Promote increased recycling efforts in the Paradise, Oroville and Gridley/Bi99s areas. 1985-1989 Continue with the ongoing effort of providing regular enforcement inspection in compliance with State requirements. Investigate alternative means of establishing a viable litter control program. Develop a "Solid Waste Program" for the entire County to guide the County's and Cities' solid waste management efforts. P,IC 312-02.01 15 Table 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Continued) MEDIUM TERM {1990-1999) Review and update the Solid Waste Management Alan,- as required, to ensure that all solid waste management needs are being met. Continue efforts to provide effective litter control, recycl- ing programs and enforcement. Assist Butte College in establishing the feasibility of con- structing an on-site solid waste f uel cogeneration power plant. Re-evaluate the need far transfer stations in the Chico, Paradise and Gridley/Biggs areas. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a composting program for selected wastes. LONG TERM (2000-2010) Review, as required , the need for acquisition of a repl ace- ment landfill site and proceed with site acquisition. Review and update the Solid Waste Management Alan, as required. Continue efforts to provide effective litter control, recycl- ing programs and enforcement. AJC 312-02.01 16 ENFORCEMENT The Butte County Department of Environmental Health is the designated agency for enforcing solid waste Ordinances and State Minimum Standards far Handling and Disposal of Solid Wastes throughout the County. The Solid Waste Enforcement Program in Butte County is operated by authority of Title 7.3, Government Code and Title 14, Section 66796.21 of the California Administrative Code (CAC}. Enforcement dct1V'1tie5 include (1) inspecting landfills and solid waste collection vehicles, (2) investigating complaints about storage and collection of solid waste, and (3} administering permits for landfills. Charles Bird, R.S., of the Butte County Department of Public Health is charged with enforcing city and county solid waste ordinances and State Minimum Standards for Handling and Disposal of Solid Wastes. Support services are provided by a district office clerk. One of Mr. Bird's major responsibilities in his enforcement role is inspecting solid waste disposal and transfer facilities an at least a monthly ba515, using CWMB inspection forms. Copies of each form are forwarded to the Board, where they are entered in the computer. In addition, when violations are identified, notices of violation ("Notice and Order Documents"} are forwarded to the Board. The effectiveness of the County's enforcement program can be readily evaluated by periodic followup on violations that have been documented and computerized in the CWNiB's data base system. Presented in Appendix B is a copy of the County's Solid Waste Enforcew ment Agency Program Plan. PJC 312-02.01 17 emrnA Ge~R~inioc ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY WASTE MANAGEMENT FINANCING Funding for management of solid wastes in Butte County is currently provided by a combination of general funds, licensing fees, and fran- chise payments. The most significant single source of funding is the $18,000 annual fee paid by the Neal Raad Landfill Company under its agreement with the County to operate the Neal Road Landfill. Table 3 presents estimated casts for financing projected short-term, medium-term and long-term waste management tasks that are part of the County's implementation schedule. As noted in the table, a number of waste management support activities will be undertaken by County staff. Casts for performing these tasks will be borne by the respective County departments as part of their normal operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. LANdFILLING VERSUS RESOURCE RECOVERY COSTS Butte County is currently {i985} paying about $4.60 per ton for dispos- ing of solid wastes at the Neal Road Landfill. This cost is expected to increase approximately 7 percent in 1986. It is important to note, however, that the revised Subchapter 15 solid waste disposal regulations administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board {GRWQCB) may significantly increase the per-ton disposal cost at the Neal Road site {as well as at other municipal landfills throughout the state}. The specific economic implications of these more stringent regulations have not yet been determined. In order to further evaluate management alternatives for Butte County, the costs of waste-to-energy and composting systems were investigated. Inasmuch as such costs are site- and system-specific, a range of costs estimates were developed, based upon reported costs for facilities with PJC 312-02.01 18 ~mrnn aaanrir,tac Table 3 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Estimated Cost SHORT TERM 1985-1989 1985-198b Assist the landfill operator in preparing and County implementing the recently approved master plan Staff that will extend use of the Neal Road Landfill to the year 201.0, Support the development by the recently formed County Solid Waste/Recycling Task Farce of the short- Staff and long-range plans far solid waste collection and recycling in the Chico urban area. Comply with the mandate of incorporating solid County waste facilities and management in the General Staff Plan, 1986-1981 Review and evaluate the present septage disposal $15,000 site and determine the need for alternatives. Pursue negotiations with the adjacent parcel County owner with respect to acquiring adjacent acreage Staff for extended use of the Neal Road Landfill. Investigate the feasibility of constructing a gas $25,000 recovery facility at the Neal Road Landfill. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a County composting program for selected wastes. Staff Investigate alternative means of financing the $15,000 solid waste program through implementation of income-generating programs. 1987-1988 Evaluate the need to establish a transfer sta- $10,000 tion in the Paradise area, Promote increased recycling efforts in the County Paradise, Oroville and Gridley/Biggs areas. Staff and News Media 1985-1989 Continue with the ongoing effort of providing County regular enforcement inspection in compliance Staff with State requirements. * Costs for performing tasks attributed to "County Staff" will be borne by the respective County departments as part of their normal operat- tion and maintenance (0&M) costs. All costs are in 1985 dollars. PJC 312-02.01 19 Table 3 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (Continued) Estimated C05t Investigate alternative means of establishing County a viable litter control program. Staff Develop a "Solid Waste Program" for the entire County County to guide the County`s and Cities` solid Staff waste management efforts. MEDIEJM TERM 1990-1999 Review and update the Solid Waste Management Plan, as required, to ensure that all solid waste management needs are being met. Continue efforts to provide effective litter control, recycling programs and enforcement. County Staff County Staff and News Media Assist Butte College in establishing the $15,000 feasibility of constructing an on-site solid waste fuel cogeneration power plant. Re-evaluate the need for transfer stations in $20,000 the Chico, Paradise and Gridley/Biggs areas. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a County composting program for selected wastes. Staff LONG TERM 2000-2010 Review, as required, the need far acquisition of $50,000 a replacement landfill site and proceed with site acquisition. Review and update the Solid Waste Management County Plan, as required. Staff Continue efforts to provide effective litter County control, recycling programs and enforcement. Staff and News Media * Costs for performing tasks attributed to "County Staff" will be borne by the respective County departments as part of their normal operation and maintenance (0&M~ costs. Ali costs are in 1985 dollars. PJC 312-02,01 2O similar throughput capacities. The throughput capacity far a waste-to- energy facility in Butte County is assumed to be approximately 300 tons per day (TPD). Waste-To-Energy Costs A recent survey of waste-to-energy facilities throughout the United States indicates that there are approximately 30 facilities with throughput capacities in the range of 100 to 400 TPD{1}, The technolo- gies employed in such facilities include modular incinerators, waterwall boilers, refractory furnaces, and rotary waterwall combustors. Based on prorating the costs reported for these facilities, the capital cost for a 300 TPD waste-to-energy facility in Butte County is estimated to be approximately $15 to $30 million. If the facility were to include electrical generation {including cogeneration), the costs would be at the higher end of the range. If only steam were produced, the costs would tend to be at the lower end of the range. At the present time, `there is only one waste-to-energy facility operat- ing in the State of .California. Located at Lassen Community College near Susanville, the facility has a capacity rated at 96 TPD. The cap- ital casts (including financing costs) for the facility have been approximately $7 million(2). The plant is currently in the shake-down phase, and thc:s it is. possible that additional costs may be incurred. Less information is available on unit costs (i.e., dollars per ton) than an capital costs for waste-to-energy facilities, due to the nonuniform cost accounting procedures employed at different facilities. Total unit costs for waste-ta-energy systems, including amortized capital costs and annual operating and maintenance costs, are generally in the range of 1. "Resource Recovery Activities Report." Waste Age. November 1984. 2. Jeskey, J. Lassen Community College. Personal communication. March 1985. PJC 312-02.01 Z1 cmrnn n~~...:.,+e~ $30 to $40 per ton. h[et unit costs (i.e., costs minus revenues) are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per tan, depending upon markets. Composting Costs In 1983, the California Waste Management Board sponsored a comprehensive feasibility evaluation of municipal solid waste composting~3}• The study was conducted on a site-specific basis for Santa Cruz County, which has a waste generation rate of approximately 175 tons per day. The net unit costs of municipal solid waste composting ranged from $30 to $40 per ton of raw waste input for the mare promising system designs that were considered. Summary In comparing the costs for waste-to-energy and composting systems described above with the $4.60 per ton cost for landfilling at the Neal Road site, one sees that the available resource recovery systems are considerably more expensive than the existing landfill arrangement. However, as more stringent state and federal solid waste disposal regu- lations are implemented, the cost differential between landfilling and resource recovery options is expected to diminish and alternatives to land disposal can be expected to become mare viable. 3. Glaub, J. et al. 1983. "Feasibility Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Composting for Santa Cruz County, California." Prepared for Santa Cruz County and the California Waste Management Board. PJC 312-02.01 22 EmCOn Associates Appendix A CWMB LETTER Of MAY 1, 2983 TO BUTTE COUWTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 5TATE OF CALIFORNIA-TtiE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMESSn~., ~_. CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD July 11, 1983 1420 NINTH STREET, SUITE 300 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 45811 idr. Clay Castleberry, Director Butte County Depart~iient of Public 4lorks 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: Draft Revision, Butte County Department of Public V7orks Dear Mr. Castleberry: Thank you for submitting the draft revision of the Butte County Solid Waste Management plan. Staff has reviewed the draft and feels the f~:ve areas of the plan indicated in Board Resolution TM82-99 to the Butte County Board of Supervisors should be more fu11y updated and discussed. The five areas contained in the resolution are: 1. Disposal and Processing of Wastes {CAC Section 17134.) Update and discuss more fully this element to reflect current facilities and their operations, to delineate any significant changes in transfer and disposal operations. 2. Resource Recovery (CAC Section 17135) Provide a more complete summary of any processing, resource recovery and recycling facilities which wi11 be~utilized for the short-term, medium-term, and long-term periods. Seclude a general inventory of available information. 3. Economic Feasibilit (CAC Section 17137) Update this section to reflect current costs far the county`s solid waste systeri and proposed operations; include both capital and management costs or pro- jections far short, medium and long-term planning periods. Make cost per ton comparisons associated with conventional collection and disposal and costs associated with resource recovery options such as composting and curbside collection of recyclables. 4. Enforcement Pro ram (G.C. Section 6b780) The enforcement program plan has been completed by the Page 2 Mr. Clay Castleberry Health Department and should be made part of the draft plan. (Copy attached) ' 5. Implementation of the Plan (CAC Section 17139) _ ~ Update to reflect new implementation items, and those agencies or groups responsible for implementing these items. Items for the short-term period should be more specific than the medium and long-term period. Should you have any questions about our comments, please phone Cy Armstrong of my staff at. (.9161322-0465_ Sincerely, ou s L. Strauch, Chief Wa e Management Section Attachments CArmstrong:cr Appendix B BUTTE COUNTY SOLID WASTE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY PRDGRAM PLAN Solic4 waste ~nforGe~ent Agency Programs Plan 1981 .~ Prepared by Julie Panattani. R. S. SOLID 1YASTE ENFORCEP~tENT AGENCY FROGRAAI PLANS In the County of Butte the 5o1id haste Enforcement Program operates by authority of "Title 7.3 Government Code: and Title 14, California Administxativa Code, the t1. S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended. In Butte County Solid haste Standards are found in Butte County Ordinance number 1830. The entire County is included except Chico, where an agreement exists between the City and various City licensed companies; Oroville where an agreement exists between the City and Oroville Solid Waste; Paradise and various City licensed coraptxnies; Gridley and Biggs. Litter is controlled by State Statutt; and Butte County Ordinance. A. GOALS To assure that all residential. commercial and industrial solid wastes are stored, transported, transferred/processed and disposed of in a safe, sanitary and environmental acceptable manner. B. OBJECTIVES Administer a solid waste enforcement progra~a that results in the following: 1, All existing disposal sites, transfer stations and waste processing facilities are operating by authority of a current solid waste facility permit issued by the local enforcement agency by December 1979. 2. All permit applications for new solid waste facilities, revisions or modifications of existing facilities will be processed within the timc as specified in Title 7.3 Government Cade Section 66796.32. 3. All permits will be reviewed and if necessary, revised at least every five (5} years. III. SOLID h'ASTE FACILITY PERMITTING PROCEDZIRES Permits for solid waste facilities in tYse County of Butte are based upon information provided in the apglication far a solid waste facilities permit. A portion of the application is the Report of Disposal Site or Txansfer/ Processing Station Information and is submitted. by the applicant to the local Enforcement Agency. Information provided is reviewed by staff and verified during a facility inspection. A permit i~ then prepared using the State Solid 1~aste b4anagetnent Board Format. Solid Waste Report Page ~2 B. After preparation, s copy of the proposed permit is furnished the applicant far review and comment. The proposed permit is submitted to the State Solid Waste Management $oard for concurrence. Uncontested permits are issued by the local enforce^~ent agency within the time limits required by law. C. If the Butte County Enforcement Agency or the State Solid Waste Management $oard determines a violation of the State Statutes or Standards exists the permit shall he dsnied, The applicant may file an appeal to the denial with the local Enforcement Agency who shall then submit the appeal to the Hearing Panel. After a hearing, the decision of the Hearing Panel is the basis for an action by the Local Enforcement Agency. All appeai procedures shall be caxried out in strict compliance with Title 7.3 Government Code and the Administrati~r Procedures Act. U. Permits are revised whenever a significant change in facility design or operation is proposed by the operator - adjustments in boundaries, tonages, eleveations, types of wastes that ma;y be received, etc. E. Permits may be ~nodzfied when it has been determined that an existing permit no longer provides pertinent data in the findings, in the conditions or in the Banitoring data that is necessary for the protection of the public health or the environment. F. 1~Ihen~the local Enforcement Agen~:y becomes aware of ~ proposed solid waste facility closure, written notification is given the disposal site operator and onmer of the closure proced~,res and requirements. Closure requirements include notification to the local Enforcement Agency a minimum of ten (10} working days prier to completion or suspension of work at the disposal, site. The regional Water Quality Control Board must also be notified at least ninety (90} days prior to actual closure. A detailed description of the site must be filed with the County Recorder, the County Solid 1Yaste Plan Custodian and the Local Enforcement Agency. G. Facility records and documents are maintained in the central office, ing the £aeility numbering system that identifies the County, City and th~ , facility. Facility numbers are assigned by the State Solid Waste Management Board. General correspondence and inspection records are maintained in the solid waste section file. Mini~um~facility files contain the following: Facility Application Report of Information Facility Permit Inspection Records Correspondence Complaints Legal Actions L 1 ,yuNiu „ate 4c a.cYvi 4 Page ~3 IV: INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE A. All solid waste collection and/or transportation vehicles axe inspected at least once annually while at the corporation yard. The results of these inspections are furnished the owner. Records are filed by company in the Chico field office. B. Solid waste disposal and transfer facilities axe inspected at least twelve (12} times per year using the State Solid Waste Management Board's recommended SWIS inspection form. Prior to an inspection, the facility permit,...correspondence and last three (3} inspection records are reviewed. 1fie operator of the facility usually is advised of the time of the proposed inspection to permit him to be present at the disposal site or transfer station. After the inspection, a verbal report is made to the operatox ox to his representative, detailing the results of the inspection. A written report is prepared and provided to the operator and other persons who axe identified in the permit. The inspection sheet and the written report are filed in the facility files where they are maintained far six (6) years. Copies of each inspection axe forwarded to SSWMB. Records of individual facility files are established fax each facility and contain all materials, correspondence, forms, etc. C. Local Enforcement Agency compliance program actions are: I. Verbal notice: to storage, collection or facility operators at the time that a violation is identified. A verbal order is confirmed in writing and mailed or hand delivered to the violator or his representative. 2. Written Notice: ilsually transmitted by mail. May be issued by the field investigator at scene of violation. 3. Office "Show Cause" Bearing: Administrative hearings providing the violator an opportunity to present evidence of compliance to avoid further enforcement procedures. 4. Notice and Order: Prepared and served as provided for in Title 14, California Administrative Code, Chapter 5, (within five•(5) days of date of issuance, a copy of the Notice and Order dacument,i's transmitted to the State Solid Waste Management.Board). Compliance or non-compiiace with a Notice and Order is determined by: A. Inspections B. Letters of compliance or non•-compliance issued by other participating agencies. C. Certification of compliance by the companies engineer or other appropriate persons ~vtte -- y~ c h~~~1tn Sip ~ 1981 Otoyille, Glifornia S aoc,~.n ~asze tceporL Page #4 ~, D. Written or verbal complaints that solid waste services or facilities are the source of health or environmental hazards or a public nuisance are accepted and investigated by the Local £nfoxcement Agency if the camplain~ identity can be established. Anonymous complaints are investigated nniy when the probability of imx~ediate health or safety hazard is apparent. Complaint and investigation results are recorded on LEA forms. Verified complaints may result in the issuance of an official notice and/or abater~er~ order, Inspection ox search warrants are obtained when entry onto the property is refused. The results of the investigation are provided the compainant by mail or telephone. Failure to comply with an official notice andJor abatement order is referred to Legal Counsel for enforcement action E. The following State and local agencies are closely coordinated in enforcer~sy~ responsibilities and activities: 1. State Solid waste Management Board: sets State policy, establishes statewide standards, concurs with or objects~to solid waste facility . permits and aids, assists and oversees local enforcement programs. 2. State bepaxtment of Health Services, Hazardous Waste Management Sectia regulates and perr~its hazardous and infectious waste transportation an disposal. 3. County and City Public Works Departments: may operate solid waste facilities, control the use of City or County streets and determines off-site drainage courses and structures. 4. County and City Planning Departments: establishes Land zoning and processes land use permits. 5. County and City Building Departments: issue permits far structures at solid xaste facilities.. 6. State, County, City or Special Districts arc responsible for fire control at solid waste facilities. 7. State Department of Forestry: issues "Rubbish Dump Permits" in the unincorporated areas of the State. 8. Regional Water Quality Control Boards: issues xaste discharge requirements for solid waste disposal sites and establishes dispo~al site classifications. V. STAFF TRAINING The staff training conducted by the Local Enforcement Agency includes the gener~~ enforcement procedures provided Lo ail staff as well as participation in various training sessions sponored by the State Solid Waste Nianagement Board. VI. TABLE OF ORGANIZATION Director of Public Health - Dr. liars Lorenz Director of Environmental health -- Lynn Vanhart R.S. s 5anitari:a~ IiI -- .C.harles Sind, .R .S. .~ vII. BUDGET ~ `~ ~ZbUN3Y OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFnl~NIA BUDGET UNIT EXPi=ND13URE DETAIL t Budget Form Schedule 6 BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980 - 1981 unit Titter..----__-.. P.~bl c.Heal th--__-- __.-5411.:99 Environmental HealtFi RcspnnsiT,!e Official: _D1]"~Ct(]r .af_P_t]b.1.~~1~f'd~.th_ Classtflcalfon Funetia,i: --~ --- --.._ .Neal. i<h_~: Sani ~at~orL ACTivity: -__-.... __ Heal th ~ ~. Fund: __ __-_-Gel~eralJ__ _ _ _ E.Fc~c~lurc A=tool E><~onditvrc Est~matgd EKpCrldli:lrrl Eaprnd.'ure ESSimnl~.t Ewprnditurc Es~imotes Approved Adapted by Class E=pC~SC~turC' C1oj3.Fi[C~I[1^ Ragvesrc•I Re:o:n~rrnded Bd. of Sup. credo T91A-3979 1979.3980 79(30-4ag1 1n80-19(11 1966-1981 ii} f~) {31 (4) (5} (6} SALARIES AND E-1PLOYEE BENEFITS 17. salaries and Wages -Regular 760,458 193,551 215,499 215,499 297,187 12. Extra Help -0- -0- 780 780 780 14. Overtime 291 250 500 -0- -0- 18. Employee Ben4rts _52,4~4~_- _-- 63,255_ __._._62,44 ~2~ 93,221 TOTAL SALARIES AND EP.iPLOYEE BENEFITS - 213 190 257,056 ~ , 8 SERVICE AND SUPPLIES 23. Commun[calions 4,340 3,137 3,810 3,$10 3,$10 27. Genr,at Insurance 2,014 6,324 5,577 6,577 6,577 30. F.tainlenance -Equipment 3,234 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 33. Alemherships 60 70 9a 9D 90 35. O11icc Expense 2,562 3,15{} 3,800 3,800 4,800 36. Prat, and Spctialized Services 24,950 -0- _0_ _0_ -0- 37. Publications and LerJnl Notices -0- _0_ _0_ _0_ _0-- 39, Rents and Leases - Egtipment -0- _0_ _0_ -0- -0- 47. Special Dcpartntcnt Expense 283 400 600 400 400 42. Data Processing Charges -0- -0-- -0- -0- 3,000 43. Transportation and Travel 5,609 8,355 9 450 9 650 11,650 aa. l3tilities ~ 2,771 ?.,500 , 4,623 , 4,623 4,623 TOTAL SERVICES AND SUPP[_lES 45 828 ~27 936 33 50 3 9 34 950 FIXED ASSETS 63. Equipment -0- 820 18,000 12,000 24,000 TOTAL FIXED ASSETS -0- $2O 24 000 BUDGET UNIT TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS 259 O1 $ 285 812 455 138 EXPENDITURE TRANSFERS 71. Allocated Costs neceived toasfv-1o) 5,369 12,600 5,803 5 $03 6,111 74.~Intra Department Transfers 24,307 18,500 18,500 , 18,500 21,050 TOTAL EXPENDITURE_TRANSi=ERs" 29,676 31 1D0 24 303 24 303 27 161 ADJUSTED 6UDGET UNIT TOTAL 288,694 316 912 _ 355 26 349 2 482 299 - NUMBER OF POSITi0N5- [ 11 -~~, .,__~~ 15 PRIOR YEAR BROUGi-E7 F1YD. 9 ~ O 10 _0.. ..0.. 236 $QURCE OF FUNDING Federal Grants ..0- -0_ _0- _0_ -©- state Grants -0- 149,904 155,263 165,263 165,263 Department Fces 23,535 25,000 25,000 •25,000 190,000 Other ' 265 159 142 008 165 263 158 763 127,036 BUDGET FUNDING 288 694 316 912 355 526 349 026 Budget Extrat: Staff assigned to Solid Waste Enforce tent is as follo-rs: ~(1) one Sanitarian II This position is not specificly restricted to Solid Waste Enforcement but is also assigned a district in which-general enforcement is required. Support services include ane distinct office clerk an as needed basis. ~a technical equipment is provided at this time. Miscellaneous expenses are as follarrs: 1. one caemty car 2. general office supplies /. E ~~ Butte County Saiid Baste Facilities Di.sposai Sites 2 ' Transfer 5taticans 2 existing 1 prapased Recycling Centers 1 Col3ectian Qparations 18 J- 7 Appendix C RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE MAY 1985 DRAFT PLAN REVISION STATE OF GLIFORNlA-TFIE RE5Ql1RCE5 AGENCY GEORGE DEUI(AAEJIAN, Go+~rwoir CALIFORNIA WASTF MANAGEMENT BOARD Soso N~NIN sTREET, suirE 300 SACRA/r~1'O, GiJFORl~IIA 9561 JUN 19 1985 ~ _ - Mr. William Cheff, Director Butte County Department of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Droville, California 95955 Subject: Draft Revision, Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan i~'aY Mr . C ief i Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft copy.of the Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision. The document was reviewed for compliance with the State's Planning Guidelines and California Waste Management Board Resolution X82-99 dated September 16, 1982. Staff would like to commend the excellent job the County has done _ in preparing a comprehensive, concise revision. ~In its review, staff has found the major elements, disposal, resource recovery, economic feasibility, plan implementation schedule, and enforcement program have been adequately addressed. The following comments have been prepared by staff for purposes of clarification on the final revision: • Introduction ~. Page ~ This section should be amended to indicate that, in May 1983, 7B7utte County submitted a Plan Review Report to the California ie~r~tLQ M.~..:laLa°T.~1°n} A~~rr3 f^w~ rv.~le:i• m Collection, Disposal, Processing of Wastes _ Page 3 A map showing the existing transfer stations, disposal sites, and collection areas would be helpful in depicting this section. We would suggest the final document be titled 1985, Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Revision, In addition, before our Board can approve the final Plan Revision, we will need the fallowing documents: 1. Resolutions of Approval of the Plan Revision by the incorporated cities in the County. 2. A Resolution of Approval of the Plan Revision by the Caunty Baard of Supervisors. 3. evidence of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (usually a Negative Declaration). 4. 2Q copies of the final Plan Revision for use by our Board. Once again, we inform you of our appreciation of the effort expended by Butte County in revising the Caunty Salid Waste Management Plan. If you have any questians regarding our comments or on the Revision procedures, please call Cy Armstrong of Board staff at (916 322-1342. Sincerely. priginal signed bye Alan A. Oldall Deputy Executive Officer cc: Ms. Gail Karpinski Emcon Associates 90 Archer Street San Jose, California 95112 RESPONSES TO THE JUNE 19, 1985 LETTER FROM THE CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD (CWMB) Comment: "This section should be amended... for review." Response: The Introduction was modified in accordance with the CWMB's request. Comment: "A map showing the existing transfer stations, disposal sites, and collection areas would be helpful in depicting this SeCt'IOn." Res~anse: The map has been included as Figure 1 in the Plan Revision. 6565 68YWAY PARf~DISE, CALffOR~IA 96969 T£LEPSOEE: t918197Z-9999 ti ~ ~ ~ti`~ `~ ~ .t ~ro-s~ Mr. William Cheff Director of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95955 I~ +~^-. d . R +~ K4~~ n ~~ ~.R~ 3une 24, 1985 Subject: Town of Paradise Review of Draft Addendum to County Solid Waste Management Plan Dear Bill: 1 ~ ,,, ~ +r - ~~ ~ ~ ~.'"'~~_ . ~ e L~ w~~~~ Subject addendum has been reviewed by Town of Paradise staff. It appears to set the stage for some active planning in the next few years. The Tawn has two main concerns that appear to be recognized in the report but will require more details in a final plan: 1. The Town anticipates remaining with an on-site septic tank system for sanitation disposal. We must continue to have available septage disposal points. There is concern that the Near Road land fill will not provide a long-term solution to this need. 2. Town public works sees an increased need for a collection station to consolidate wastes for transport to the Neal Rd. site. An alternative may be greater emphasis on composting vegetative materials. The state reviewer recently indicated that these needs should be addressed in the County plan. Obviously, this is a working document and the Town is anxious to work with you in finding adequate solutions for the above concerns. Sincere t George F Irving Town Ma ger GFI:Ig ;~ _'~Y ~.. ~~ • i1i. • ,~ . ~ ~ ~ ~"~yw j. rN of ~~ RESPONSES TO THE JUNE 24, 1985 LETTER FROM THE TOWN OF PARADISE Comment: "The Town anticipates remaining with an on-site septic tank system for sanitation disposal. We must continue to have available septage disposal paints. There is concern that the Neal Road landfill will not provide a long-term solu- tion to this need." Response: Page 4 of the Plan Revision acknowledges that "within 5 years additional land will be needed to meet the increas- ing demand far septage disposal at this facility." In addition the short-term implementation schedule {Table 2) has been modified to include the following: "Investigate alternatives to septage disposal at the Neal Road Land- fill.,' Item 2: "Town public works sees an increased need for a collection station to consolidate wastes for transport to the Neal Road site. An alternative may be greater emphasis on composting vegetative materials." Response: The short-term implementation schedule presented in Table 2 {1987-1988) of the Plan Revision includes the objectives "evaluate the need to establish a transfer station in the Paradise area." The following objective has been added to the short-term (3.986-1987) implementation schedule in Table 2: "Investigate the feasibility of establishing a composting program far selected wastes." i CITY OF GRIDLEY August 7, l'~SS Mr. William Cheff Director of Public Works County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Uroville. Ca. 95~t;5 kE: Rddendum to 197 Butte County Sa1id Waste Management Plan bear Bill: The city staff bars reviewed the preliminary draft of the revisions to the Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by EMCUN Associates and distributed by your office to all incorparat.ed cities within the county for their comments. We have only two comments to offer which are: 1~ ~'a~_~G .,~, - first sentence Flays "All municipal and reazdentisl solid wastes in the County are disposed of at the Neal Road Landfill". This is not entirely the case in south county. The City's franchise hauler, Yuba-Sutter Disposal, hauls alI City residential and commercial solid waste to a company-owned and operated land fill site in Yuba County. I would venture to guess that all the waste collected at the Ord Ranch Transfer Station is also hauled to Yuba County as our franchise hauler also sub- lessee this station from the City and operates the station ag a condition of his exclusive franchise for hauling city waste. ~~i Anuthsx note ,~f interest is that he ~~1ty ~~ermlta aeverat septic tank cleaning businesses t.o dump their collected septage at the City Wastewater Treatment plant. This particular waste also does not go to Neal 3~oad. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. . C .dislly. Evelene D. Payn interim City Administ tc~r Ebb'/~e 1 CE'TY CLERK 665 IfENTl3GKY ST., GRIDLEY, CALEFORNIA 95948 TEL. 916 846-3143 .y RESPONSE TO THE At3GtJST 7, 1985 LETTER FROM THE TOWN OF GRIDLEY Comment: "Page 3, the first sentence says" All municipal and resi- dential solid wastes in the County are disposed of at the Neal Road Landfill." This is not entirely the case in south county. The city's franchise hauler, Yuba-Sutter Disposal, hauls all City residential and commercial solid waste to a company-owned and operated landfill site in Yuba County." . Re~onse: The first sentence on Page 4 (formerly Page 3) in the "Disposal" section has been modified to reflect this infor- motion. PRESENTED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE LETTERS FROM THE CITY OF OROVILLE AND BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. NEITHER LETTER REQUIRES A RESPONSE 1735 Montgomery Street Orovllle, Callfomla 9u965-4897 ~wc,~ cony (976) 533-4764 July 25, 1985 Mr. Ron McEI roy Deputy Director Butte County Public Wor~Cs 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan City staff have reviewed the solid waste management plan and have no revisions or amendments. ~~~~i~~~ Ki rt M. Hunter Public Works Director Gail Karpinski EMCQN Associates 90 Archer Street San Jose, CA 95112 Dear Gail: ~_ ..... ~- ~ - utt~ Count _ R ^~~ .. .~~ - -- .~f LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY l ~ ~ DEPARTMi=NT DF PUBLIC WORKS I WILLEAM (Bill) CHEF F, Director 7 COUNTY CENTER pRIVE - DRDVILLE, CALE1=oRNIA 95965 Trlephonc:(91b} 534.46$1 Au ust 14 1985 RDNALp D. McELROY g ~ peputy Director RE: Proposed Revision - Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan Transmitted, herewith, is a copy of the response from the Gity of Gridley regarding its review of the preliminary draft revision. The Chico City Council at its August b, 1985, meeting approved the City Manager's recommendation that the City is in agreement with the proposed addendum and the Solid Waste Management Board's comments. The City Manager verified by phone conversation yesterday that no written comment would be made. A copy of the Consent Agenda item as approved is enclosed for your information, The City of Biggs' response hopefully will follow. They, apparently, will have no comment. 'Very truly yours, William Cheff Director of Public Works ~~~ ~~ Ronald D. Mc roy RDM:dd Deputy Dire for Encls. Appendix D SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING BASK FORCE SOLID WASTEIRECYCLING TASK FORCE Formation. Formed by the Board of Supervisors and the Chico City Council to~ve a short and long-range plan far solid waste collection and recycling within the Chico urban area. A ointment of Members. The Task Force will consist of seven members. T ree members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors; three members are appointed by the Chico City Council; and the seventh member is appointed by the Task Force. Members of the task force should have specific expertise and/or involvement in solid waste collection and recycling within the community. Members of the Task Force will serve until their assigned tasks have been completed. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Rolland Berger - City 9 Linda Park Drive Chico, Ca. 95926 895-3959 Jahn M. Shea 1694 Filbert Avenue Chico, Ca. 95926 893-4777 Steven t. Evans - City 708 Cherry Street Chico, Ca. 95928 891-6424 William Fisher - Gaunty 1613 Oleander, ~1 Chico, Ca. 95926 345-8604 Elmer Johnson - County (Bertha Escue} 455 E. Ninth Avenue Chico, Ca. 95926 342-6059 Jahn B. Peden - County P.O. Box 1273 Chico, Ca. 95927 891-5767 ar 891-6280 STAFF MEMBERS Bill Cheff, County Director of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca. 95965 534-4681 Fred Davis, Chico City Manager P.O. Bax 3420 Chico, Ca. 95927 895-4803 TASKS - (Studies and/or Recommendations of the followin ) 1. Overlap of waste collector routes. 2. Need for and location of transfer station. 3. City/County roll in the encouragement of recycling. 4. Present landfill location and activities. 5. County Waste Plan Revisions. 6, Disposal of household toxic wastes. 7. Waste to energy or fuel conversion. 8. Waste collection impact on infrastructure. 9. Other tasks, as needed,