HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 349-10TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 CMR:349:10
REPORT TYPE: INFORMATION
SUBJECT: 2010 Annual Update of the Palo Alto Landf"ill Capacity
This is an annual information report. In addition, important information related to the subject of
''trickling closure" is included and will be on the October 18,2010 Council agenda for discussion
and action. (please see closure· date extension section beginning on page 3 and next steps on
page 4).
BACKGROUND
In the response to the City Auditor's review of the Environmental Service Center (ESC) proposal
(CMR: 114:05), staff agreed to provide City Council with annual reports on remaining landfill
capacity and landfill closure updates as they developed. This is the sixth annual report. This
report also provides the Council with an overview of a regulation prohibition commonly referred
to as ''trickling closure" that could have an impact on the landfill's final closure date.
The City is required by the State to estimate·the remaining landfill capacity each year in order to
be in compliance with the landfill's financial assurance requirements. In order to determine the
remaining landfill volume, a photogrammetric survey is performed on the landfill in May of each
year. Photogrammetry is the science of taking measurements from photographs. The
photogrammetric survey involves aerial photographs taken of the landfill and used to develop a
topographical drawing that shows the existing elevations of the landfill. A remaining capacity
volume can then be calculated by subtracting the landfill's lower existing elevations from the
higher elevations of the approved final grading plan, approved by CalRecycle (formerly the
California Integrated Waste Management Board), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (Local
Enforcement Agency).
DISCUSSION
The latest aerial photo was taken on May 3, 2010. The City's landfill consultant completed a
volume calculation in June 2010 and estimated that, as of May 3, 2010, there was a net volume
of 141,663 cubic yards available for refuse filling at the landfill. Table 1 lists the landfill's
airspace consumption history and capacity projections through 2011.
CMR:349:10 Page lof5
able 1 -Palo Alto Landfill Airspace Consumption History and Capacity Projections
Year Surveyed Annual Volume of Airspace Consumed or Rem.aining Capacity
Projected (cubic yards) (cubic yards)
2006 109,002 428,040
2007 88,640 339,400
2008 85,188 254,212
2009 76,199 178,013 Commercial ban implemented March, 2009
2010 36,350 141,663
2011 Assume reduction to 5 days per week 114,063 27,600 (projected)
Note: Aerial surveys are typically performed during the first week of May each year. Therefore
the remaining capacity quantities listed in the table is "as of'May of the year indicated
Table 2 below shows the capacity projection if the landfill's closure date is extended beyond
2011. These projections are based on assumptions (discussed below) such as the commercial
ban remains in place, the landfill operating days are reduced and the closure date is extended
until final capacity is reached. See below for a discussion of each of these issues.
able 2 -Capacity Projection if the Landfill Were To Receive a Closure Date Extension
Year Annual Volume of Airspace Projected Remaining Capacity
(cubic yards) (cubic yards)
2012 27,600 (projected) 86,463
2013 27,600 (projected) 58,863
2014 27,600 (projected) 31,263
2015 27,600 (Landfill capacity depleted mid 2015) 3,663
In a July 20, 2010 Finance Committee meeting (CMR:301:1O), staff proposed a cost saving
measure of reducing the landfill's operating days to 5 days per week, closing the slowest two
days of the week (Sundays and Mondays). The Finance Committee agreed with staff and
approved a motion to recommend to the full Council that the landfill's operating days be
. CMR:349:10 Page 2 of5 .
reduced. If this reduction is approved by Council, it will affect an estimated 24% of the
landfill's disposal tonnage which may be diverted to other area waste disposal facilities.
In order to determine the estimated landfill closure date, the volume of airspace consumed during
the past year (36,350) less aD. estimated 24% reduction due to the closing of the landfill Sundays
and . Mondays was projected into the future. This past year's volume was the first full year
without commercial refuse being disposed. A commercial ban on refuse disposal was initiated
by a Council motion during the January 12,2009 Council Meeting. The ban was implemented
by landfill staff on March 1, 2009 and remains in place.
Last year, the projection indicated that the landfill would deplete the design capacity sometime in
2013. This year, the projection indicates the landfill will reach capacity in mid 2015 assuming·
that the 1) The landfill closure date is extended (see trickling closure discussion below); 2) the
commercial ban remains in place during the life of the landfill; and 3) the landfill's operating
days is reduced to 5 days per week.
It is important to note that the landfill site life estimate is based on assumptions and current
conditions listed above. Additional assumptions and conditions utilized for this site life estimate
are: the impact that the recession has with the decreased volumes of refuse; the amount of cover
soil and asphalt concrete waste utilized to facilitate access and cover operations; the amount of
densification of the buried refuse; and the accuracy of the estimates of on-site soil stockpiles at
the time of survey. Also, it is possible that as additional zero waste operational plan programs
are implemented, less volumes of refuse will be disposed in the future, thus extending the site
life estimate further. A change in any of these assumptions or conditions would likely produce a
change in the landfill site life.
Closure Date Extension and "Trickling Closure" Issue -Because of the commercial ban, meant
to preserve an anaerobic digestion facility option, the rate of refuse filling has slowed
considerably within the last year and a half. Based on this slower rate of fill, the new capacity
estimate has changed from 2013, the capacity date estimated in CMR 355:09, to middle 2015.
The landfill's approved fmal closure plan estimated a refuse· capacity depletion date of between
March 2011 and September 2011 (estimated before the commercial ban was implemented).
Therefore, in order to continue accepting refuse after 2011, and thereby preserve a location for a
pos~ible anaerobic digestion facility the City would need to apply to the County and State for an
extension to the 2011 closure plan date.
If a closure date extension is not received, then as early as January 2011 the landfill could go into
a status commonly referred to as "trickling closure". Trickling closure is defined in' California
Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27 with the following text.
If the average annual waste disposal rate to a solid waste landfill is reduced for two consecutive
years to a rate equal to or less than thirty (30) percent of the average· annual tonnage rate
during the previous ten years (exclusive of the minimum and maximum tonnage years), the
operator shall begin closure activities in accordance with the time frames specified in the
closure plan unless granted an extension pursuant to [Title 27, Section 21110] (b) (3).
This regulation is meant to prevent operators from ''trickling'' in the last amounts of waste in
order to defer costly closure activities. As such, the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
CMR:349:10 Page 3 of5
has advised staff that the City should now request a closure date extension to comply with the
provisions of Title 27.
Although an extension to the closure plan date will allow regulatory approval for up to an
additional five years of refuse operations, the landfill can still close as soon as it has been fully
filled. The landfill closure is, and will continue to be, based on capacity according to the
approved closure plan.
Since the temporary commercial ban was implemented in March 2009, the landfill's waste
disposal tonnages have been at 24% (in 2009) or lower (in 2010) compared to the previous 10
year average. Extensions to the closure date can be approved by the LEA and the State pursuant
to California Code of Regulations, Section 21110 (b)(3):
21110(b)(3) Extensions beyond the deadlinefor beginning closure may be approved by the EA,
for up to five years at a time, if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The operator demonstrates that the landfill has the capacity to receive additional wastes and
is likely to receive additional wastes;
(B) The operator demonstrates that the reduction in disposal tonnage is for a purpose other than
the avoidance or delay of closure;
(C) The operator has taken and will continue to take the steps necessary to prevent threats to
public health and safety and the environment from the unclosed landfill;
(D) CIWMB concurs with the EA-approved extension
If Council decides against extending the approved closure date, and if disposal tonnages remain
low through the end of 2010, then the LEA would likely issue a stipulated order to the City to
follow the existing closure schedule contained within the approved Final Closure Plan and
implement closure activities regardless of the grading plan status. Closing the landfill before the
grading plan is completely filled will result in a deviation from the Landscape Architect's design
(Hargreaves Associates) ofByxbee Park and will not be in compliance with the Baylands Master
Plan. Once the landfill is capped, it would be difficult to get approval from the State to remove
fill.
Next Steps:
Staff will return to Council in October to address landfill operating issues, including this closure
extension issue, with action items for specific alternatives and recommendations for long term
development and closure of the landfill. At that time, Council will be requested to provide
direction to staff on whether to proceed with an extension.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the aerial survey used to calculate the remaining capacity is budgeted annually
within the Refuse Fund. A landfill capacity update is also required by the California Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CaIRecycle) each year. There may be various resource
impacts depending on closure decisions.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Closure options discussed by Council on October 18 could have policy implications.
CMR:349:10 Page 4 of5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This informational report is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15378.
ATTACHMENTS
None .
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:349:10
.. ~
Manager, Environmental Control Programs
D ector of Public Works
Page 5 of5