HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.B 9/15/2014(i)
DATE: September 15, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Mana er-- (
Agenda Item #5.B
SUBJECT: Report on and Adoption of Resolution Regarding the Direction of Green Waste to
the Redwood Landfill.
Fff"- Q u7'i►TiWL"D OW I
It is recommended the City Council accept this report and adopt the attached resolution, or in the
alternative, provide different direction, as appropriate, regarding re -directing Petaluma's green
waste to the Redwood Landfill.
BACKGROUND
Petaluma's current franchise with Petaluma Refuse and Recycling (PR&R) was effective in
February 2013 and remains in effect until February 2028. The franchise grants PR&R exclusive
right to collect, transport, and process mixed waste, recyclables, and organic waste in and for the
City of Petaluma. During the Council's consideration of the franchise in late 2012, handling of
food waste, and re -direction of green waste to Redwood Landfill, was discussed. These
programs were discussed in the context of whether the franchise agreement that anticipated them
required environmental review in addition to that already performed concerning the City's
existing solid waste franchise. Consistent with the Council discussions and direction, care was
used in finalizing the franchise agreement language to ensure that approval of the document did
not require additional enviromnental review because the agreement did not initiate new services
with potentially new environmental impacts. Provisions were added in section 4.5.8 of the
franchise agreement requiring the appropriate level of environmental review before such changes
would be implemented. Further Council discussion involved Section 8.2, which addresses
organic materials processing. Section 8.2.2 allows the hauler to temporarily redirect organic
materials to other than the "approved" processing site, for reasons of emergency or sudden
unforeseen closure. The same section allows the City to direct or redirect materials to other than
the originally approved sites, and dictates the process and terns under which this can occur.
Section 8.2.2 also authorizes the City Manager to act for the City in this regard. Some
Councilmembers expressed concern with that provision, although it was retained in the approved
franchise. Nevertheless, staff committed to returning to Council to discuss such changes before
authorizing them.
In addition to Section 8 2, other sections of the franchise pertinent to this report are:
Agenda Review:
City Attorney, Finance Director City Nlanagc'r—= —
i
Section 4.5. 1. This section empowers the City to direct changes to the Scope of Services and
establishes a process for doing so. Changes that may be made to the scope include, but are not
limited to, the collection of materials which were originally treated as mixed materials but can be
economically recycled or composted (§4.5.1) and new diversion programs (§4.5.2).
Section 53. This section governs the collection of organic materials. The section provides, in
part and in support of Section 4.5.1, that the City can direct PR&R to modify the scope of work
to include collection of additional types of organics. This section anticipated initiating a
cominercial food waste program when one of the local organic material processing centers
received the permits required to operate that program.
Exhibit 5. The Exhibit specifies the "approved" sites for hauling for mixed waste, organic
material, and recyclables authorized when the Franchise went into effect in 2013. Pursuant to
Exhibit 5, the approved site for organic materials is Sonoma Compost.
PR&R currently offers our residents the opportunity to segregate vegetative food scraps from
mixed waste (the gray can) by placing them in the green can used for yard waste. This material
is processed at Sonoma Compost.
1016
TOLOI.IONN
The City and PR&R have shared mutual interest in expanding the residential food waste
program to include all foodstuffs and associated cardboard and waxed -paper packaging since
prior to the issuance of this franchise. Both parties have also been interested in initiating a
conunercial food waste program to compost restaurant and grocery wastes. Individually and
together, these two activities will increase the diversion of waste material from the landfill and
increase the hauler's and the City's success in meeting their respective diversion responsibilities.
An estimate of the amount of additional diversion these two activities would promote relies on
the number of residents and businesses choosing to participate, and their diligence in doing so,
and as such is not attempted to be given here. Anecdotally, when PR&R began offering a pilot
commercial food scrap program last year, the City experienced an increase of diversion of about
3 to 5%. We would expect the final number to be higher when the commercial program is
offered Citywide and the residential meat, fish and dairy component is added to the green waste
stream.
When the franchise was approved, neither the City's approved organic materials processing
facility, Sonoma Compost, nor Redwood Landfill, the City's approved site for mixed waste,
were permitted to process the fill range of food scraps identified in Franchise Section 1.44.
Permitting at one, if not both facilities was anticipated in the future, however, and the franchise
was drafted to provide for food waste programs as noted in the background section of this report,
subject to any required enviromnental review. Since that time, two developments prompt
redirection the City's green waste to Redwood Landfill at the present time.
Redwood is now permitted to operate and is completing construction and start-up of a new
composting facility that can process the full range of residential food waste and service a
commercial food waste program. Redwood can process our residential food waste to be
contained in the green bins along with yard trinunings immediately and can accommodate the
I
commercial program in approximately one month, following process start-up adjustments that
are currently being completed.
PR&R and I resumed discussions about program changes in June 2014. Among the issues
discussed were who would bear program costs, and the process to be followed pursuant to the
franchise. During the past two months, PR&R committed to offering the residential food waste
program to our residents at no additional cost, and charging the sante rates to commercial
customers participating in a food waste program as is currently paid for collection of commercial
yard trimming wastes as addressed in Exhibit lb for the franchise. PR&R will not seek to
recover cost increases, if any, from implementing the full residential program in its next cost
adjustment, and will treat the new "organic tipping fee" at Redwood as a base when calculating
subsequent adjustments under the annual refuse rate index (RRI) formula. The estimated net
cost increase to PR&R for initiation of the programs is approximately $16,000, which PR&R has
committed to absorb with no rate consequence to our customers. Attachment 1 documents
PR&R's response to the City's inquiries in this regard. As can be seen from Attachment 2,
change in franchise scope, if any, related to initiation of the food waste programs for purposes of
Section 4.5.1 of the franchise agreement is minimal. This paragraph and PR&R's letter are
focused on the residential food waste program, but will apply to the commercial program when it
is fully implemented.
If the City is to benefit from Redwood's ability to process this material, all green waste will need
to be re -directed from Sonoma Compost to the Redwood Landfill. Further segregating food
waste from yard waste, so that yard waste can continue to be directed to Sonoma Compost, is
neither cost effective nor environmentally sound. Such segregation would require investment in
additional collection containers specific to this material, separate collection activity, and
additional truck trips with attendant greenhouse gas impacts.
Currently Petaluma's yard waste is directed to the Sonoma Compost facility located at the central
landfill pursuant to the agreement establishing and governing the Sonoma County Waste
Management Agency ("SCWMA"). Section I I of the agreement requires participant agencies
including Petaluma to send yard waste to the composting facility at the central landfill, and
section 17 of the agreement establishes minimum yard waste tonnage to be provided by each
participant. However, section 17 of the agreement also excuses participants from delivering their
tonnage share of yard waste when they are unable to do so. Under section 17, participants that
are unable to deliver their tormage share of yard waste will not have a vote on the operation of
the yard waste program. Under section 11 of the joint powers agreement, the SCWMA may
approve diversion of yard waste to alternative treatment systems. Attachment 5 to this staff
report provides authorization from the SCWMA Executive Director for the proposed diversion of
Petaluma's yard waste to the Redwood Landfill.
With respect to environmental review, PR&R was requested to work with City planning staff to
determine what level, if any, environmental review is required by these changes. Planning's
evaluation follows:
"The proposed service modification of the Franchise Agreement with Petaluma Refuse
and Recycling would re -direct green waste that is currently being processed at Sonoma
Compost to the Redwood Landfill and would introduce a food waste composting program
that would be processed at the Redwood Landfill.
3
More specifically, the service modification would change the destination of green waste
disposal from the Sonoma Compost facility to the Redwood Landfill. As a result,
approximately 30 tons per day (TPD) of green waste would be diverted from Sonoma
Compost to the Redwood facility for composting. Currently, Redwood is permitted to
compost up to 514 TPD and is receiving approximately 170 TPD. Accordingly, an
increase of 30 TPD would be well within the permitted capacity.
This modification would also result in a daily increase of between four and eight trucks
(depending on the type of vehicle used) that enter Redwood Landfill. Currently,
Redwood is permitted to accept 662 daily vehicles and the maximum number of vehicles
that entered the facility is 612 vehicles. Assuming the maximum, an increase of 8
vehicles would result in a maximum day of 620 vehicles entering the Redwood Landfill,
which is well within the permitted daily vehicle limit.
The second component of the service modification is for creation of a kitchen food waste
program. Currently, food waste generated within the Petaluma service area is included as
part of the general refuse that is transported to and disposed of at the Redwood Landfill.
The proposed modification would separate food waste from the general refuse, but both
would continue to be transported to the Redwood facility. The separated food waste
would be composted. Because food waste is currently part of the refuse stream
transported to Redwood, the proposed modification to compost kitchen food waste would
not result in an increase in tonnage or require additional Hauling trips. Existing capacity
would not increase under the proposed program. The collection, truck trips, and disposal
quantities are well within the permitted capacity of the Redwood Landfill, which allows
for 1,390 tons per day of waste disposal, 514 tons per day of compost material, and 662
vehicles per day.
For CEQA purposes the use of the Redwood Landfill for composting and general refuse
collection has been captured in a previously prepared environmental review document for
the Redwood Landfill (2008 FEIR; SCH#1991033042) and including the subsequent
Addendum. A May 2013 Addendum assessed proposed permitting changes to expand and
modify the existing composting facility and increase the maximum daily number of
vehicles entering the site. Both the FEIR and subsequent addendum were considered and
approved by the County of Marin, lead agency. Existing permitting for the Redwood
Landfill was issued by Marin County Environmental Health Services on December 10,
2013 in compliance with this review and existing and proposed activity is within the
established limits of those permits.
The subject introduction of a food waste program and change in destination of green
waste disposal is considered a minor alternation of an existing use and would qualify for
a Class 1 exemption pursuant to Section 15301. Therefore, no further CEQA analysis or
review is necessary for the subject program modifications."
The second development prompting redirection at this time is action of the North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB), ordering zero discharge of wastewater from the
compost decks at Sonoma Compost into receiving waters during winter weather, and threatening
significant penalties (Attachment 3). Sonoma Compost operates the facility for the SCW1v1A.
4
SCWMA has been working with the County of Sonoma, Republic Services (operator of the
Central Landfill) and the NCRWQCB to develop an acceptable response to comply with the zero
discharge plan. SCWMA's efforts appear to be received favorably by the NCRWQCB
(Attachment 4). Long-term solutions include moving the facility and constructing a detention
facility. Interim solutions include constructing smaller detention ponds, and reducing the
footprint of the compost deck.
The SCWMA has considered purchasing equipment that can compact the compost and reduce
deck coverage. That equipment is expensive, may be made obsolete by long-term options, and
has not yet been purchased. The SCWMA is also looking seriously at out -hauling green waste to
other processing sites, and has indicated that it needs to reduce incoming materials by 125 tons
per day (tpd) in the short term. Once the compost deck is reconfigured to a smaller footprint
within the next 60 days, the amount of out -hauled material will decrease to approximately 30 to
40 tpd. Delivering Petaluma's green waste to the landfill, for it to be transferred to another site,
is neither cost effective nor environmentally sound when the alternative exists to deliver this
material directly to Redwood Landfill.
The NCRWQCB continues to press for a solution before this year's rainy season commences, for
aggressive effort and for steady progress towards a permanent solution. In that regard, following
discussions between SCWMA, the City, and the Ratto Group, SCWMA requested PR&R to
reduce and ideally cease delivery of the green waste to its organic materials processing facility
for at least 60 days. As noted in that correspondence (Attachment 5), redirecting Petaluma's
green waste to Redwood Landfill is the least cost alternative to SCWMA, and helps SCWMA
meet its reduction targets and allow implementation of the "zero discharge plan" to achieve
NCRWQCB compliance.
Based on and in response to that correspondence, and pursuant to Section 8.2 of the franchise
agreement, PR&R requested that the City allow it to immediately redirect green waste to
Redwood Landfill (Attachment 6). The City has approved that request. At this time, re -direction
is temporary until PR&R is directed to resume delivery to Sonoma Compost, or until re -direction
to Redwood is made more permanent. Under the franchise, the City always has the right to
redirect the components of its waste stream.
Pursuant to the franchise, it is my intention to designate Redwood Landfill as the approved
Organic Materials Processing Facility, and to direct PR&R to deliver green waste including food
scraps to the Redwood Landfill. It is also my intention to direct PR&R to initiate a commercial
food waste program when Redwood Landfill is ready to receive it. The purpose of this report is
to advise the City Council of the reasons for these changes, the results of our review of
environmental issues, and my intention to implement these changes. It also provides the City
Council with the opportunity to provide direction in the alternative, if that is the Council's
pleasure.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
PR&R will initiate the residential food waste composting program at no cost to residents. A
cost differential of approximately $5.90 per ton of green waste exists between Redwood Landfill
and Sonoma Compost at the Central Landfill: Redwood has the higher of the two costs. PR&R
will absorb this difference. currently estimated at $16.000 per Year. It should be noted that the
cost differential for organic tipping fees between Sonoma Compost and Redwood is expected to
decrease and eventually reverse once the provision of the Master Operating Agreement for the
Central Landfill takes effect later this year, and once the lull costs of building a new compost
facility in Sonoma County are taken into consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Petaluma Refuse and Recycling letter, dated August 22, 2014
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board letter, dated March 18, 2014
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board letter, dated August 8, 2014
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency letter, dated September 5, 2014
Petaluma Refuse and Recycling letter, dated September 5, 2014
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA
ACKNOWLEDGING DIRECTION OF PETALUMA GREEN WASTE TO THE
REDWOOD LANDFILL AND INITIATION OF FOOD WASTE COMPOSTING
PROGRAMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PETALUMA AND PETALUMA REFUSE AND RECYCLING INC. AND
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF SONOMA COUNTYAND SONOMA
COUNTY FOR A JOINT POWERS AGENCY TO DEAL WITH WASTE
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
WHEREAS, the franchise agreement ("Franchise") between the City of Petaluma and
Petaluma Refuse and Recycling ("PR&R') was effective in February 2013 and remains in effect
until February, 2028 and grants PR&R exclusive right to collect transport, and process mixed
waste, recyclables and organic waste in and for the City of Petaluma; and
WHEREAS, the City Council discussions at the time of award of the Franchise and the
terms of the Franchise anticipated handling of food waste and potential redirection of the City's
green waste to the Redwood landfill; and
WHEREAS, at the time of award, the Franchise did not initiate new services with
potentially new environmental impacts so as to require environmental analysis in addition to that
previously conducted for the City's solid waste franchise services; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.5.8 of the Franchise acknowledges the need for appropriate
environmental review prior to implementing changes to the Franchise services; and
WHEREAS, section 8.2.2 of the Franchise allows the City's waste hauler to temporarily
redirect organic materials to other than the approved processing site for reasons of emergency or
sudden unforeseen closure; and
WHEREAS, section 8.2.2 of the Franchise also allows the City to direct or redirect
materials collected under the Franchise to other than the originally approved sites, and authorizes
the City Manager to approve use of an organic materials processing site that differs from the
originally approved organic materials processing site; and
WHEREAS, section 4.5.1 of the Franchise authorizes the City to direct changes in the
scope of services pursuant to the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, section 5.3 of the Franchise provides that the City may direct changes in the
Franchise scope of services for collection of additional organics; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Exhibit 5 of the Franchise, the current approved site for
approved organic materials processing is the Sonoma Compost site; and
WHEREAS, Petaluma yard waste is currently directed to the Sonoma Compost site
pursuant to the agreement ("JPA Agreement") establishing and governing the Sonoma County
Waste Management Agency ("SCWMA") and the requirements of section I I of the JPA
Agreement that SCWMA member agencies send minimum quantities of yard waste to the
Sonoma Compost site; and
WHEREAS, section 17 of the JPA Agreement excuses member agencies from delivering
applicable minimum quantities of yard waste to the Sonoma Compost facility when unable to do
so or upon authorization of the SCWMA; and
WHEREAS, the City and PR&R have a mutual interest in initiating food waste
composting so as to increase diversion of solid waste in keeping with the diversion obligations of
the City and PR&R; and
WHEREAS, the Redwood Landfill is currently permitted to provide composting of
residential food waste and expects to be permitted to provide composting of commercial food
waste in approximately one month; and
WHEREAS, the SCWMA is subject to an order from the North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board ("NCRWQCB") requiring zero discharge of wastewater from the Sonoma
Compost facility into receiving waters; and
WHEREAS, redirecting Petaluma green waste to the Redwood Landfill is a least cost
alternative to SCWMA to help SCWMA meet its reduction targets and allow implementation of
zero discharge plans to comply with NCRWQCB requirements; and
WHEREAS, the impacts of redirection of Petaluma green waste, including food waste,
for processing and composting at the Redwood Landfill are within the vehicle trip and volume
capacity limits applicable to the Redwood Landfill pursuant to existing permits issued December
10, 3013 by Marin Comity Environmental Health Services, and have been analyzed for purposes
of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Final Environmental Impact
Report SCH41991033043 of 2008 and a May, 2013 addendum; and
WHEREAS, the initiation of Petaluma residential and commercial food waste
composting at and redirection of Petaluma green waste to the Redwood Landfill is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as operation and maintenance of
existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's
determination;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
The recitals above in this resolution are hereby declared to be true and correct and
findings of the City Council.
3. Redirection of Petaluma green waste, including food waste. to the Redwood Landfill
and initiation of composting of Petaluma residential and commercial food waste at the
Redwood Landfill are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to section
15301 of the CEQA Guidelines in accordance with the analysis contained in the staff
report accompanying this resolution which staff report is hereby incorporated and
made a part of this resolution by reference.
Redirection of Petaltmla green waste, including residential and commercial food
waste, to the Redwood Landfill and initiation of food waste composting in
accordance with pertinent provisions of the Franchise Agreement Between the City of
Petaluma and Petaluma Refuse and Recycling and authority delegated to the
Petaluma City Manager thereunder and the Agreement Between the Cities of Sonoma
County and Sonoma County for a Joint Powers Agency to Deal with Waste
Management Issues, is hereby acknowledged, authorized and directed in accordance
with applicable law.
9
ATTACHMENTS
V1 vw„t t ad
,
Refuse and Recycling, Inc.
August 212014
Nlr. John Brown
City Manager
City of Pctaltuna
1 1 English Street
Petaluma. CA
RE-: Residential Green Waste
Dear %4r. Brown:
This letter serves as Petaluma Refuse and Recycling's response should the City redirect the
Residential Green Waste Pursuant to Section 4.i.2 of the Franchise Agreement. PR&R has been
aware since 2012 of Petaluma's desire to provide a comprehensive food waste program in the
Services PRS -,R provides Petaluma residents and businesses because they provide value to
customers who want to further separate organics front mixed waste and Will increase the City's
diversion rates. The program must alto\\' Petaluma residents to deposit all food waste, including
meat, bone, flat, waxed paper and containers, in the "green cart".
For the residential customers, no new containers will be necessarv. Existing green waste
containers will be used to collect food scraps. The resulting green waste will be collected "eekl\
at the same time as mixed waste and rcevcling, and delivered to the Organics Material
Processing Site (ONIPS(. The current commercial food waste pilot program \w ill continue X�hich
customers are provided a cart or 1.5 to 3 cubic yard bins to be used specifically to collect their
food waste depending on their generation of material. It is our plan to integrate the collection
without having to add trucks or routes. The expansion of the programs should not require
additional staff atter our initial roll out. It is anticipated our trucks will average one less mile to
the OIMPS than they do now when the City directs the material to the Redwood Landfill.
The Approved MOS. pursuant to the Franchise A,orecnunt Exhibit 5, is currently Sonoma
Compost at the Central Landfill. Sonoma Compost is not Permitted to proccsS non-vcgctati�c
lbod Waste, and these programs cannot he oficrcd unless the City of Petahnna directs PR&R to
haul organics to a processor permitted to accept all lived waste. Redwood I andtill has this,
permit. recently Complelcd a new Composting facility, and has denlonsnated to the City. as
required under ZSCCnon `.'_.' of the Franchise. that 11 has the capacit\ to handle Petaluma's
residential organics thrOUL111 the term of the franchise.
It is important Io the Cil\that this Chalt L'c he coat llellllal to the C it\ and its I"CsIdcilt,�. \Ill
11114 1 � edits ansocmicd 11 iih the clmnl!c' "it IPiI hC hlh'+Cd (11) to IhC rctiidcillti Ind onk
Petaluma Rvlll'e & Recycling I'I I R( I', .-tOPI s"I'l, +,, , \ L.lu'- 1 ti�lrr
kcj
t I k
Refuse and Recycling, Inc.
increases on that base, as permitted by the Franchise, will be included in future RRI calculations.
If the City changes the approved ONIPS, and directs PR&R to deliver organic material to
Redwood Landfill. PRS R will not seek reimbursement now or in the future for any lees, cost. or
charges that may lie incurred as the result of the City's action to redirect this portion of its waste
stream to Redwood Landfill.
The City of Petaluma takes great pride in beim- the first City in the County to add the collection
of food waste as a regular weekly service, thus lessening the Community's carbon ti-)otprint. We
look forward to rolling out this new program.
Sincerely,
`I` •,
Steve Mccaffi-CN,
Director
cc: John Warren
Leah Walker
Dan St. John
Petaluma NO list & Rccr link In_ -I :1,110
ATTACHMENT 3
=.
pa
Water Boards
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
March 18, 2014
Susan Klassen
Deputy Director
County of Sonoma
Department of Transportation and Public Works
2300 County Center Drive, Suite B-100
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Dear Ms. Klassen:
Subject: Status of Efforts to Reduce and Eliminate Wastewater Discharges from the
Compost Site and Sonoma County Central Disposal Site, Pursuant to WDRs
Order No. R1-2013-0003
File: Sonoma County Central Disposal Site, WDID Nos. 1B801490SON and
11399011RSON
For almost a year now, we have been in correspondence with Sonoma County Waste
Management Agency (SCWMA) directly and through its consultant, SCS Engineers, with
respect to the point source discharge of wastewater from the compost deck at the Central
Disposal Site. As you are aware, the WDRs (111-2013-0003) adopted March 14, 2013 by the
Regional Water Board acknowledge and enforce our Basin Plan prohibition related to point
source discharges of waste to coastal streams in the North Coast Region, and state that
"[t]he discharge of wastes from activities occurring upon or within the landfill footprint,
including composting activities, to stormwater sedimentation basins, surface, and/or
ground water is prohibited." The WDRs required in part that the Discharger (Sonoma
County) provide us with a plan and schedule, by May 15, 2013, to cease all discharges of
compost wastewater to receiving waters.
On or around May 14, 2013, we received the "Proposed Discharge Compliance Plan "(Plan),
prepared by SCS, responding to the WDR directive. That Plan proposes design, review, and
construction of an approved storm water compliance alternative by fall of 2014. In the
months since receiving the Plan, we have explored first with SCS, then with Mr. Henry
Mil(LIS of SCWMA, questions on a number of issues, as discussed below, relating to both
'41',.111
M'Ildl P�' '011
short-term and long-term options and efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate
wastewater discharges to receiving waters, and various options and efforts to improve the
quality of the leachate/wastewater discharged from the site in the interim. On February
20, 2014, Terri Cia and Diana Henrioulle de Gonzalez of my staff met with Mr. Milcus, and
County staff Glenn Morelli, Trish Pisenti, and Alex Sebastian at the compost site to observe
current conditions and BMPs, and to discuss the status of treatment and disposal efforts
underway.
Compost Wastewater Treatment
The Plan proposes a possible long-term option involving treatment of compost wastewater
prior to surface water discharge. This option is not compatible with our Basin Plan
prohibition, and we have advised SCWMA that it is not a viable long-term option. However,
in the interim before zero discharge is achieved, we encourage any effort to remove or
reduce pollutants in or transported by compost wastewater. SCWMA has advised us of two
treatment measures being employed: 1) sediment control BMPs at the lower end of the
compost deck and 2) aeration in the upper compost pond. The latter treatment effort is
intended to reduce odors, and is not directly a water quality issue unless it somehow
affects the quality of the wastewater discharged from the pond; accordingly, this effort is
not subject to formal review or approval by the Regional Water Board. With respect to the
sediment controls, our staff observed check dams and wattles near the lower corner of the
compost deck during the recent site visit and noted they appear to be collecting some
sediment from the compost deck runoff. However, we note that given the great size of the
compost deck above these controls, they are likely dwarfed by the volume of runoff and
sediment generated on the compost deck during a large storm event.
Reducing Discharge Volumes During the Current Winter Season
The initial Plan did not propose any efforts to reduce wastewater discharges during the
2013-14 rainy season. However, as our discussions proceeded with SCS and Mr. Milcus,
SCWMA proposed to capture a portion of the runoff from each storm, diverting
approximately 200,000 gallons of the first flush runoff into Baker tanks and emptying the
tanks at an appropriate wastewater treatment facility between storms. While we
encouraged SCWMA to pursue this option while working towards zero discharge, we
learned recently that SCWMA had decided not to pursue this option after the Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) expressed interest in reviewing the project. Mr. Mikus advised
us that as an alternative, SCWMA was instead going to review the option of capturing a
portion of the runoff from each storm into the lower compost pond, and emptying that
pond between storms. We have just received a proposal from Mr. Milcus indicating that the
first 200,000 gallons of each storm will be collected in the lower pond.
In parallel to the first flush plans, we understand that the compost operators have been
attempting to pump retained liquids from the upper pond between storms and spraying
the liquids onto the road above the compost deck or reincorporating them into compost
material, in an effort to address neighbor complaints about odors. This effort reportedly
ensured that the pond was empty prior to the large storm in early February 2014, and we
understand that these efforts have continued, more recently with the assistance of the
County, with a portion of the liquid being trucked offsite to the subregional wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) on Llano Road for treatment and disposal. We understand that to
date, more than 1,000,000 gallons of leachate has been trucked to the WWTP, and these
efforts will continue in the short term.
Reducing the Volume of Wastewater Generated During the Wet Season
We asked SCWMA whether the working area at the compost facility could be reduced over
the rainy season so that less wastewater/contaminated runoff is generated, so less will
overflow after the ponds are full. We were initially advised that this would not be a good
option because it would interfere with the County's waste volume reduction
goals/requirements. On more recent discussion, we learned that the compost facility takes
wastes above and beyond those diverted from the landfill and representing the county's
waste diversion goals. Therefore, we understand that there is some room for reduction of
the working area, while still meeting the County's waste diversion goals. We recommend
that both the County and SCWMA explore this option further.
We also asked whether finished compost material might be housed at an offsite facility, and
were advised that this would require revision of the LEA permit, thus would likely prove
too complicated. We encourage the County to explore this option and determine whether it
is feasible to work with SCWMA to pursue LEA permit modification to allow for offsite
storage of some portion of the compost material.
Long Term Elimination of Discharge/Zero Waste Discharge
Leachate ponds and pipeline
We understand that installing the plumbing and directing compost wastewater to the
landfill's leachate disposal system is feasible from an engineering standpoint, but we have
been advised that there are a number of obstacles associated with operating agreements,
permits, and other agency concerns, all beyond the control of SCWMA and the compost
operators. We also understand that these obstacles are being addressed and progress on
removing them or resolving them is being made. We encourage the County to continue
these efforts and to work with SCWMA to develop estimates of the compost deck storm
runoff that might be diverted to the leachate ponds and pipeline and to describe conditions
and restraints on the volume and timing of diversions.
New onsite ponds
The May 2013 Plan indicated that any proposed long term plan would require the creation
of additional onsite capacity. Accordingly, the Plan indicated that SCWMA and its
consultants were proposing to develop and design plans to construct one or more new
ponds. Our staff learned during the February 2014 site visit that this option is apparently
no longer viable and is not being pursued for development as SCWMA has been advised
that the prospective pond locations are not available for use due to operational or
construction needs associated with the landfill. During the site visit, our staff, Mr. Mikus,
0k
and County staff observed and discussed various other potential locations both on and
possibly offsite that might accommodate ponds while not interfering with other activities
on the landfill site. We are not sure what further effort has been made to explore these or
other possible sites since our visit, but understand from discussion at our Board meeting
on March 13 that SCWMA and County staff are exploring possible onsite storage areas. We
look forward to hearing more about this effort.
In summary, we have been encouraged by the recent stepped up efforts by SCWMA, the
County, and the compost facility operators to reduce wastewater discharges over this
winter season, and by the County's assistance in this effort, and we hope that you continue
to work together over the remainder of the season to minimize the volume of discharges
with future storms. We are, however, concerned by the lack of progress in developing a
viable long-term discharge elimination plan within the proposed timeframe of completion
before the next rainy season, and by the numerous obstacles that reportedly hinder this
effort. It appears that some of the options that are physically possible are more directly in
the control of the County than of the compost operators. Furthermore, as the named
Discharger in our WDRs, the County of Sonoma is the entity ultimately responsible for
ensuring that waste discharges from the Central Disposal Site comply with our WDRs and
requirements and prohibitions incorporated therein. Accordingly, we are placing you on
notice that we are setting a deadline of October 1, 2014 to cease all discharges of compost
wastewater to receiving waters. Discharges occurring after that date will subject you to
potential penalties of up to $10,000 per day of discharge and $10 per gallon of discharge
over the first 1000 gallons, pursuant to Water Code section 13385.
We look forward to discussing this matter with you further and working together to ensure
that compost wastewater discharges to waters of the State are controlled and eliminated
before the start of the 2014 winter rainy season. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact Diana Henrioulle de Gonzalez at (707)576-2350 or, by email, at
Diana. Henri 0ulle(@waterboards.Ca.2oV or David Leland at (707)576-2069 or, by email, at
David.Leland@waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Matthias St. John
Executive Officer
cc: Henry Mikus, Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, 1-lenrv.Milcus(ibsonoma-
count�.01-
Leslye Choate, Sonoma County LEA, Leslve.Choate(c-,)sonoma-countv.orur
Rick Downey, Republic Services, RDownev(�reoulhlicsevices.com
opm
.o..,.
Water Boards
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
August 8, 2014
Henry Mikus, Executive Director
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency
2300 County Center Drive, Ste. B-100
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Dear Mr. Mikus:
ATTACHMENT 4
Subject: Comments on Sonoma County Waste Management Agency's (SCWMA) July 2014
Plan and Schedule to Cease All Discharges of Compost Wastewater to Receiving
Waters
File: Sonoma County Central Disposal Site, WDRs Order No. R1-2013-0003
We are in receipt of the above -referenced plan and schedule (Plan) to address continuing
discharges of compost wastewater to waters of the State and United States. The Plan is
part of the SCWMA's evolving response to address a directive under Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 111-2013-0003, for the County of Sonoma's Central
Disposal Site, that requires submittal of a plan and schedule, by May 15, 2013, to eliminate
discharges of wastewater from the composting area to receiving waters. That requirement
implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan)
prohibition on point source discharges to coastal streams; the Basin Plan indicates that
existing discharges to such waters should be eliminated at the earliest practicable date.
Regional Water Board staff have reviewed the Plan and have discussed various aspects of
the Plan with both you and Stu Clark. Based on our review and discussion of the Plan, we
have the following response and comments.
The Plan describes and provides an anticipated schedule for implementing three parallel
efforts to address wastewater discharges over both the short and long term:
Long-term plans
1) Large pond
The Plan provides design details for a proposed 29,000,000 -gallon compost
stormwater pond, to be classified as a Class 11 surface impoundment, per California
Code of Regulations, title 27 (Title 27). The Plan also describes the anticipated
process to obtain necessary approvals to construct the pond, and a schedule for
both the permitting and construction of the pond. The Plan indicates a number of
decision points where the SCWMA may opt to abandon the project due to cost or a
llullr`,' Mil,:11;
1AUV11";I
change in plans. Specifically, final siting and design features associated with the
proposed permanent composting facility, either at the Central Disposal Site or at the
"Site 40" alternative may lead to a determination that the pond is no longer needed
or that a smaller or differently sited pond is more appropriate. Given that various
critical decision points regarding or affecting the SCWMA's intentions with regard to
pursuing the pond project are pending, most notably in August and November 2014,
we are not commenting on the pond design at this time. We will discuss this
proposal with you pending the outcome of the SCWMA Board's November 2014
meeting. In the meantime, to facilitate our timely review and approval of your
proposal, we encourage you to ensure that all pond siting, design, construction,
operations, monitoring, financial assurance, and closure information is consistent
with Title 27 requirements for Class 11 surface impoundments.
2) Zero discharge facility
The Plan indicates that the SCWMA proposes to select a final site for the new
compost facility, either at the Central Disposal Site or at Site 40, and to pursue
permitting/approvals, design, and construction of the facility at the preferred site.
The schedule provided indicates that efforts associated with both the zero discharge facility
and the large pond (should the latter project be carried through to completion) are
expected to be implemented on roughly the same schedule, completed and operational
either by winter 2016 or winter 2017. Accordingly, assuming that the SCWMA does not opt
to discontinue operations on the current compost site before a long-term zero discharge
solution is implemented, it is likely that under any long-term scenario, the current compost
facility will need to rely on interim measures to control and minimize discharge over the
winters of 2014-15, 2015-16, and possibly 2016-17.
Short-term plans
3) Interim measures
The Plan discusses four components intended to reduce the volume or improve the
quality of wastewater discharged from the compost operations area. These
components are more or less the same as those employed or discussed over the
previous rainy season, but have been expanded or refined for the upcoming rainy
season. Specifically, these measures include: a) reduced working area on the
compost deck; b) combining the two ponds directly downgradient of the compost
area to increase storage capacity; c) additional sediment/solids control features on
the compost deck; and d) pumping, hauling, and disposing of compost contact water
at appropriate offsite locations.
a) Reduced working area
The Plan indicates that drainage Brom a portion of the compost deck, comprising
approximately 18% of the total deck area, can be relatively easily isolated from
runoff from the remainder of the deck. Accordingly, the SCWMA board has
authorized the purchase of a new windrow turner that will allow the compost
operator to consolidate compost windrows and to ensure that wet weather
operations are limited to the larger area of the deck, and that the smaller portion
that drains separately is kept free of materials or activities that could produce
leachate or that could introduce compost -related wastes into stormwater runoff.
We are encouraged by your efforts to find ways to reduce the compost working
area and, thus, to reduce the volume of wastewater generated during rainy
periods.
b) Pond combination
Continuing to develop a proposal made by SCWMA staff in early 2014, the Plan
describes a project to enlarge and combine the two sediment ponds located
directly downgradient of the compost deck, ponds SP -4 and SP -8. Project
drawings and specifications submitted August 4, 2014 show a pond lined with
60 -mil geomembrane over a geocomposite material, and with a 20 -foot wide
access ramp extending from the pond perimeter to the pond bottom. The liner
on the pond bottom will be covered with a layer of sand overlain by aggregate
base. The pond design includes a spillway that should ensure that a 2 foot
minimum freeboard is maintained. This project will provide approximately 2
million gallons of holding capacity for runoff from the compost deck, effectively
doubling the available storage capacity over what is presently available.
We are encouraged that you have continued to pursue this idea, and hope that you
are able to complete the project as proposed in advance of the 2014 rainy season.
We understand that the pond design is also subject to review and approval by
Sonoma County and Republic Services. Please keep us apprised of status of their
review/ approval, as well as subsequent progress in pond construction and
completion. Finally, as indicated in a July 22, 2014 email from Diana Henrioulle to
you, as well as in a telephone call between Ms. Henrioulle and Stu Clark on August 1,
2014, we are interested in receiving further information about proposed pond
maintenance and operations. On August 6, 2014, you provided a one-page
document entitled "Operations Plan." Ms. Henrioulle will review this submittal and
follow up with any questions or comments in separate correspondence.
c) Additional best management practices on the compost deck
Over the previous rainy season, SCWMA installed check dams and straw wattles
at various Ivey points on the compost deck and leading from the deck to the
sediment basins. The Plan indicates that for upcoming rainy seasons, SCWMA
intends to install additional sediment traps and to protect finished compost
material from contact with rain water through tarping and/or berming.
While noting that management practices/measures for runoff treatment can likely
only remove a small fraction of the pollutants entrained in the runoff from the
compost deck, we acknowledge that pollutants removed are pollutants not
discharged to the stormwater system and, potentially, to waters of the State and the
United States. In addition, measures to prevent rain water from coming into contact
with pollutant sources will also help to improve the overall quality of the runoff
leaving the compost area. We would expect that any improvements to the quality of
the wastewater from the compost area will help to increase SCWMA's options for
offsite wastewater disposal as it should reduce the potential effect the wastewater
may have on UV transmittance. We support your continued efforts to improve the
quality of the wastewater from the compost deck through the use of best
management practices.
me lliLu:. ALI 11 _i I
d) Pump/truck
Over the previous rainy season, SCWMA commenced an effort to minimize the
amount of compost water discharged to surface waters by pumping and trucking
wastewater to the City of Santa Rosa's Laguna Wastewater Treatment Facility.
We understand that through those efforts, approximately 2 million gallons of
wastewater was removed from the site, at a rate of up to 100,000 gallons per
day, and consequently prevented from discharging to receiving waters. The Plan
indicates that over the upcoming rainy season, SCWMA proposes to continue and
expand the pumping and hauling effort.
We understand that the trucking company used last year committed to hauling
up to 300,000 gallons of wastewater per day, if the disposal destination is to be
the Laguna facility. However, we understand that the total amount that the
Laguna facility will be able to handle in the future is uncertain at this time, due to
questions about the effects that the compost wastewater may have on the UV
transmittance of effluent under treatment at the Laguna facility. As a result, you
indicate in the Plan that SCWMA is exploring disposal options with several other
wastewater treatment facilities, and that a better estimate of the minimum daily
outhaul capacity will not be available until mid to late September.
In telephone calls between Stu Clark and Regional Water Board staff on August
1, 2014 and in email correspondence provided August 4, 2014, we understand
that at this time, SCWMA can commit to pumping and trucking out a minimum of
60,000 gallons of wastewater per day, Monday through Friday, if available in the
SP4/SP8 combined pond, for disposal at East Bay Municipal Utility District in
Oakland and/or at the Laguna facility. Further, we understand from Ms.
Henrioulle's conversation with Stu Clark on August 1, 2014 that the available
budget for this component of the interim plan will accommodate additional
pumping and trucking for offsite disposal in the event that additional disposal
capacity/locations are identified. Finally, we understand that if additional
disposal options or additional disposal capacity at locations nearer than Oakland
become available, you will work to optimize the daily outhaul of wastewater
within the available budget.
We believe this element is critical to the success of efforts to minimize compost
wastewater discharges to receiving waters over the next few or several winters
while long-term solutions are being constructed and brought online. We strongly
encourage you to make every effort to maximize the amount of wastewater you can
remove each day from the site during and between rainfall events.
Taken as a whole, the proposed interim measures represent a significant addition to
the measures already in place since the past rainy season. These measures will
provide a net improvement in the quality of runoff from the compost deck, a net
increase in the amount of runoff that can be stored onsite, a net increase in the
amount that can be hauled off the site, and, overall, both a net reduction in potential
runoff and a lower pollutant load in any such runoff. We encourage you to
aggressively implement the interim measures and to continue to work on the long-
term solutions in earnest.
\\
As we have discussed with you, after we have received the additional information you
propose to furnish in mid to late September, we expect to develop a Time Schedule Order
(TSO) incorporating the Ivey elements, milestones, deliverables, and due dates you have
presented in your Plan and provided us in subsequent discussions. In addition, we expect
to include monitoring and reporting requirements and a description of potential
enforcement consequences in the event of missed deadlines. With respect to our response
to compost wastewater discharges to receiving waters occurring during the period before a
long-term zero discharge option is implemented, we remind you that we retain our
enforcement authority, and that we use that authority with discretion. Your continued and
diligent efforts at pursuing both the long-term solution and in continuing to identify and
implement appropriate interim measures to minimize the amount of wastewater
discharged to receiving waters will factor significantly in our decisions with respect to the
nature of any enforcement response we might consider or recommend to the Board.
We look forward to continuing to work with you in this matter, and thank you for your
efforts to date. Please contact Diana Henrioulle at (707)576-2350 or, by email, at
Diana.Henrioulle(cbwaterboards.ca.Eov or David Leland at (707)576-2069 or, by email, at
David.Lelal]d(@w2terboards.ca.2ov if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Matthias St. John
Executive Officer
cc: Stu Clark, DEI - stu(@dedwardsinc.com
Susan Klassen, SCDPW - Susan.l<lassenPsonoma-countv.ore
Leslye Choate, Sonoma County LEA - Leslve.Choate(@sonowa-countv.ore
Trish Pisenti, SCDPW - Tiish.Plsenti(@sonmlla-countv.orE
Patrick Carter, SCWMA - Patricic.Carter(@sonoma-countv.m-E
Will Bakx, Sonoma Compost - willbala(@smiomacomoost.com
Alan Siegle, Sonoma Compost - alansieele(@sonomacomoost.com
Rick Downey, Republic Services - rdowiev(@renublicservices.cmn
Roger Larsen - roeerilarsen0( aol.com
Michael Lozeau, Lozeau Drury, LLP - michael @Iozeaudrurv.com
t�
ATTACHMENT
SONOMA COUNTY
wase
Management
Agency
September 5, 2014
Mr. Steve McCaffrey
Director of Government Affairs
The Ratto Group of Companies
P.O. Box 1916
Santa Rosa, California 95402
Subject: Diversion of Petaluma Green Waste for Processing
Dear Steve,
Thank you for taking time to speak earlier. Per our conversation, please accept this
letter as our written notice to the Ratto Group of Companies that the amount of green waste
delivered to our compost facility at the Central Disposal Site must decrease on a temporary
basis for at least 60 days. This emergency situation exists due to compliance requirements
for the SCWMA Zero Discharge Plan as submitted to the North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, particularly that the working footprint of the site is decreased during
the annual winter rain season. Our initial target is to reduce the incoming materials by 125
tons per day, and have them delivered to an alternate processing facility. After the site is
reconfigured for winter, the amount of diverted material would reduce.
Because of the proximity of the City of Petaluma to Redwood Landfill, Novato, CA,
with the resultant lowest hauling costs, plus the available capacity for green waste at that
site, diverting the green waste collected in the City of Petaluma would provide the lowest cost
advantage to SCWMA for the duration of this effort. Doing so would also not have an
adverse impact on the Petaluma rate payers.
Please contact us if you have any concerns or questions, and to let us know when you
will implement green waste diversion. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
l��ec
Henry Mikus
Executive Director
Copies: John Brown, City Manager, Petaluma
Dan St. John, Public Works Director, Petaluma
Susan Klassen, Sonoma County Director of Transportation and Public
Works
SCWMA Board
Will Bakx, Sonoma Compost Company
_300 Councv Center Dri�c, Suitc B 100, Santa Rosa. Cali fo nia Q� I01 I'll one: 707,565.2731 Pax: 707.565. X701
� ],,a our neheVe nl .......v,- use PnmeJ on Keevded Paper it ij po .l-cuniw net :unle��t t\
ATTACHMENT
Petaluma
Refuse and Recycling, Inc.
September 5, 2014
Mr. Jelin Brown
City Manager
City of Petaluma
I l English Street
Petaluma, CA
RE: Residential Green Waste
Dear Mr. Brown:
Petaluma Refuse & Recycling is requesting you consider a request under Section 8.2.2 of the
Franchise Agreement to allow us to bring the residential green waste we collect to Redwood
Landfill for processing. This is due to the current condition at Sonoma Compost and would
provide immediate relief in their effort to reduce their footprint. This would only be a temporary
redirection until the City Council makes their decision on whether to redirect the material on a
permanent basis. There would not be any additional cost to the City or the ratepayers.
We are ready to make this change immediately. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
6L41"
Steve McCaffrey
Director
cc: John Warren
Leah Walker
Dan St. John
Petaluma Refuse & Recycling PO BOX 14609 Santa Rosa, CA 95402-14609