HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2013-05-24TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of May 20 - 24, 2013
Tiburon
1. Letter - Vacant Council Member Position - Lana Scott
2. Petition - Road Closures on Corinthian Island - 2nd Group of Signatures (See
May 17 Digest for 1St Group)
Agendas & Minutes
3. Minutes - POST - March 19, 2013
4. Action Minutes - POST - May 21, 2013
5. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - May 22, 2013
Regional
a) Letter - Marin County Civil Grand Jury - 2012/2013 - "Garbology in Marin:
Wasted Energy"
b) Invitation -Memorial Day Service - Marin Co. Civic Center - 5/27/13 - 9:30 a.m.
c) Annual Fundraiser - The Redwoods Mill Valley
d) Invitation - Marin Art Festival - Free Passes *
Agendas & Minutes
e) None
* Council Only
pU ET
•
May 20, 2013
Diane Crane-lacopi
Town Clerk
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Council Member position
Dear Ms. Crane-lacopi:
I
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
The vacant Council member position mentioned in the Tiburon Talk Newsletter interests me for
several reasons. With a Master of Education degree, I am interested in maintaining excellent
schools. As we all know, better educated children are inclined to be more productive adults. I
am also interested in resolving traffic problems and was happy to hear shuttle bus service will
be implemented on a 30 minute schedule through Tiburon. Along with the additional parking
that has been added for those who choose to take the ferry, I strongly believe Tiburon is on the
right track to resolving traffic issues. As a walker and bike rider, I have an interest in
maintaining the beauty of the Tiburon multi-use path and hearing about and resolving any
issues voiced by those who use the path. I believe in supporting local businesses through
tourism to help Main Street remain viable, while also maintaining a sense of community through
such events as Friday Nights on Main. To better understand the controversies regarding
development, if chosen as an interim Council member, I would familiarize myself with the town's
Master Plan and General Plan and zoning ordinances.
With regard to qualifications, I believe I have the educational background, work experience, life
experience, independence, temperament and ability to study issues and make informed,
reasoned decisions on matters that could impact the community for decades.
I appreciate your consideration and look forward to discussing my qualifications in greater detail.
With best regards,
Lana Scott
415.722.6303
DIGEST
arden N. Plant P.O. Box 986 ` Belvedere , CA
94920
( ) 415 435 8887 (cell) 415 264 9888
E mail: ukiyoe3319@gmail.com
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2013
City of Belvedere
Sandra Donnell, City oil Belvedere Mayor TOWN TOWN WN OF F TI~U TIBU OFFICE
450 San Rafael Avenue RON
Belvedere, CA 94920
Patricia Seyler-Cambell
Chief of Police
pseyler@cityofbeivedere.org Office: 415 435 3255
The City of Tiburon
Peggy Curran, City of Tiburon Mayor
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, Ca 949420
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Road Closures on Corinthian Island
It is my understanding (from the Old Timers), that ever since the invention of the automobile, cars
driving in and out of Corinthian Island have managed to access their homes even during periodic road
closures. What did the drivers do to egress or ingress on the Island? Instead of driving up Bellevue, the
drivers would drive up Tamalpais from the Tiburon side. This method brought the drivers to their
homes in a timely fashion. This old system appears to be under severe scrutiny with the City of Tiburon
and Belvedere.
As it now stands, the City of Belvedere and the City of Tiburon would prefer to post Road Closure notices
48 hours in advance (of the Closure) at the foot of Bellevue Avenue. This not only disallows access to
our properties, but it encumbers any and all services that may have been planned that day. This
inconvenience could be an Eight (81) Hour Headache.
The residents of Corinthian Island hereby request that the Cities of Tiburon and Belvedere change this
procedure and require Flagmen stationed at appropriate spots to allow ingress and egress at all times
during a Road Closure.
Who would pay for these conveniences? The vendor blocking the road would be required to cover the
costs of any and all flagmen. This would allow traffic to flow, thereby permitting service vendors and
Residents 24/7 access to their homes.
The following Residents on Corinthian vote in favour of a flagman (men) permitting unobstructed access r---l
to their homes. aj
an
a,
INarden N. Pi an-t- P.O. Bo`-- 980' BeIvade, -(:F_1t CTW
94920
4
~vrn) 4-I5 435 8887 ~ (celi) 415 264 9688 ~
~~aii . uk_J yoc 3319@g_rnail . cc-
Name
Address
Signature
Marcel and Liora Houtzager
:5 -ftT- 0 -FTLf, Riot\,(
3 Bellevue Avenue
5 -7 ~Vv►~
P ~
oE-t ►~t ~'✓I jM2~ N C c. ENS 7 3 ~4sr v~ ~~r.J
i
N
r-D
S
~-5 ifs
3*
MINUTES NO. 20
PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION
March 19, 2013
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall---Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Winkler at 6:05 P.M., Tuesday, March 19, 2013 in the
Town Hall Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, 1 S` Floor, Tiburon, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Winkler, McMullen, Feldman, McDermott and Allen
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Director of Public Works Nicholas Nguyen
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES
January 15, 2013 Minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
• Director Nguyen updated Commission on staff intention to stripe a centerline on the Multi-
use path this spring.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
• None
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Dog Walkers and Impact to the Open Space.
• Nguyen presented the staff report.
• Clarification was made that the subcommittee members for this business item are
Commissioners McMullen and McDermott, and not Feldman.
• Resident Eva Buxton spoke in coordination with the subcommittee as a report to
Commission and described the sensitive habitats found on the Middle Ridge.
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 1
• Commission McMullen commented that there is also total prohibition option, as well as a
dog fencing/park.
• Commissioner McDermott stressed importance of signage and education for the public.
• Public testimony was taken from Sherry Joseph, Kathy Kennedy, Jane Zabielskis, Allison
Pence, Carla Rasmussen, Heather Selick, Mary Lane, Donnay Weiner and Belle Goulden.
• McMullen praised the County's permit program and agree that signage and new trash cans
should be installed; to be funded by future permit fees.
• McDermott agreed with McMullen.
• Feldman and McDermott expressed interest to limit non-commercial dog walkers too, and
should apply to all open space.
• Chairman Winkler agrees with subcommittee report and favors a limit on non-commercial
dog walkers to maximum of 3 dogs.
• Commission directed staff to prepare draft permit program to include elements discussed.
2. McKegney Green Use and Policy Development
• Director Nguyen presented the staff report.
• Doug Patterson suggested that the pending long term policy should be transparent and
inclusive of all groups.
• Lynn Bar, Tiburon resident, suggested that groups allowed to play on McKegney Green
should be all-inclusive groups; unlike St. Hilary School.
• Commission authorized 4 flattened goal nets and safety netting to be stored on site, and
voted 5-0 to approve the interim use policy.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
PETER WINKLER, CHAIR
Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission
ATTEST:
NICHOLAS NGUYEN, SECRETARY
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 2
.iLJ1i7
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 21, 2013 - 6:00 PM
Town Hall Council Chambers
Tiburon, CA 94920
ACTION MINUTES
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 6:00 PM
Present: Chair Winkler, Vice-Chair McMullen, Commissioners, McDermott, and Allen
Commissioner Allen arrived at 6:15
Absent: Commissioner Feldman
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none
Persons wishing to address the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission on any subject not on
the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Parks, Open Space &
Trails Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do
not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up may be referred to Town Staff
or placed on a future Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission agenda. Please limit your
comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda
will not be considered part of the administrative record.
MTNT TTF,R
• Approval of Minutes - March 19, 2013 Approved 3-0
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
• McKegney Green Use Policy Update Update Received
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Dog Walking Permit Program and Associated Municipal Code Amendments: Consider
Recommendation to Town Council Recommended Adoption to Town Council 4-0
ADJOURNMENT At 6:48 PM
Action Minutes - Regular Meeting May 21, 2013 Page 1
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission
NOTICE OF MEETING
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
I
N
Date: May 8, 2013
Emmett O'Donnell, Mayor
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Marie County CiNil Grand Jury
Re: Grand Jury Report: Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
Report DIte May 8, 2013
Dear Mayor O'Donnell,
Q.)
RECEIVED
MAY 1 ?013
TOWN MANA06FR$ OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Enclosed please find a =dva of the above report. Please note that Penal Code Section 933.05(f) specifically prohibits
any disclosure of the contents of this report by a public agency or its officers or governing body prior to its release to the
public, which will occur on May 14, 2013.
The Grand Jury requests that you respond in writing to the Findings and Recommendations contained in the report pursuant to
Penal Code Section 933.05 (copy enclosed). The Penal Code is specific as to the format of responses. The enclosed Response
to Grand Jury Report Form should be used.
Governing bodies should be aware that the comment or response from the governing body must be conducted in accordance
with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
The Brown Act requires that any action of a public entity governing board occur only at a noticed and agendized meeting.
The Penal Code is also specific about the deadline for responses. You are required to submit your response to the Grand Jury
within 90 days of the report date:
1 hard copy to: The Honorable Judge James Ritchie
Marin County Superior Court
P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
1 hard copy to: Rich Treadgold, Foreperson
Marin County Grand Jury
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #275
San Rafael, CA 94903
Responses are public records. The clerk of the public agency affected must maintain a copy of your response. Should you
have any questions, please contact me at 415-286-6494 or at the above address.
Sincerely,
f
Rich Treadgold, Foreperson
201212013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures: Summary of Penal Code sec. 933.5; Penal Code Sec. 933.05; Response Form
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel. 415-473-6132
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Report Title: Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
Report Date: May 8, 2013
Public Release Date: May 14, 2013
Response by:
FINDINGS
■ 1 (we) agree with the findings numbered:
■ 1 (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered:
(Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are
disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefor.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Recommendations numbered have been
implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
■ Recommendations numbered have not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
(Attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
■ Recommendations numbered require further analysis.
(Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or
study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by
the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when
applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.)
■ Recommendations numbered will not be implemented
because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.
(Attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:
Number of pages attached
Response Form
RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORTS
SUMMARY OF PENAL CODE 933.05
Penal Code 933.05(F) states the grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of
the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two (2) working days
prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge.
Penal Code 933.05 also provides for only two (2) acceptable responses with which agencies
and/or departments (respondents) may respond with respect to the findings of a Grand
jury report:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the findings, in which case the
respondent shall specific the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall
include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
Penal Code 933.05 provides for only four (4) acceptable responses with which agencies
and/or departments (respondents) may respond with in respect to the recommendations
of the Grand Jury.
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future with a
timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis, with a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency/ department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the
Grand Jury Report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with a detailed explanation therefore.
However, if a finding and/or recommendation of the Grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency/ department head and the Board of Supervisors shall
respond if requested by the Grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall
address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision
making authority. The response of the elected agency or department heal shall address all
aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency/department.
Penal Code 933 states that the governing body of the public agency shall respond to the
presiding judge within 90 days, and that an elected county officer or agency head shall
respond to the presiding judge within 60 days.
California Penal Code Sections
Penal Code 933
No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public
agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall
comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and
every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility
pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the
superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings
and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or
agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls.
Penal Code 933.05
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding
person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel
matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or
department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand
jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or
personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the
elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or
recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the
purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation
regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon
request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report
relating to that person or entity two (2) working days prior to its public release and after
the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a
public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the
final report.
2012/2015 MARO COUNTY CIVIL GRA/IP JURY
Garbology in Marin:
Wasted Energy
Report Date - May 8, 2%5
Public Release Date - May J4, 2015
Ea,..
t:
i
a
a
0
COUNTY OF MARIN
• • • •
N/1 '17-in C-'ntill ! Civil CTr~1nC1 .ittt-\,
GARBOLOGY IN MARIN:
WASTED ENERGY
SUMMARY
Redwood Landfill Inc. (RLI), Marin County's only solid waste landfill, is nearing the end
of its useful life. Based on a 2008 Enviromrnent Impact Report (EIR), the landfill applied
for and received a new Solid Waste Facility Permit in 2008 (the 2008 PERMIT), but the
validity of the EIR and the 2008 PERMIT were successfully challenged in court. If the
appeal currently pending is denied, the landfill will be forced to operate under its 1995
PERMIT, thereby reducing the maximum allowable disposal, which could force its
closure within 7-9 years, (2020-2022).1
Depending on the outcome of the appeal, these are the three alternative outcomes:
1) If the landfill appeal is denied, a new EIR will be required for RLI to receive an
updated permit. This process could take years-to complete - the 2008 EIR, which was
the basis for the 2008 PERMIT was started in 2003. RLI could take on this process,
although it has expressed no certainty that it will do so.
2) If the landfill appeal is denied, RLI could decide not to pursue a new permit, and
simply close the landfill when it reaches the maximum disposable amount under the
1995 PERMIT. In that event;
■ Marin will need to find another landfill, a problematic issue since County officials
have stated that it will be impossible to find an alternate site within the County.
Not finding an alternate site in Marin County means our trash becomes another
county's problem and increases our carbon footprint.
■ Marin would also lose RLI's proposed landfill gas-to-energy plant. Such a plant
could possibly create enough electricity to supply approximately 6,000 to 8,000
Marin County hornes with renewable green energy.
3) If RLI prevails in its appeal and the life of the landfill is extended, the 2008 PERMIT
would extend the useful life for a minimum of approximately 19 years (to 2032). In
addition, if RLI were to build the proposed landfill gas-to-energy plant, the landfill
could also move up one tier in the "Hierarchy of Waste Management" (see illustration
below) by producing energy from landfill gas.
1 The final date would be determined by waste settlement and compaction.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 1 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
.1 ante to Enerb, Research and ? echnologti Lounct(«'TE T)
The pyramid illustrates a spectrum oftivays to deal with waste from the least to most
desirable. Marin County is striving to reach a landfill diversion rate of 94% (i.e.
transporting only 6% of waste-to the landfill while 94% is diverted to resource
recovery facilities) by 20252`: With measures in place, and others outlined in the 2008
PERMIT implemented,;RII could substantially help the County achieve that goal if it
wins its appeal., E
At the current time, Redwood Landfill is a "modern landfill recovering and flaring
CH4" (Methane Gas) - the third tier from the bottom in the above diagram. As part of
its operation ,'the landfill also composts yard waste and converts construction rubble
into reusable construction material. The landfill has committed to moving up to the
fourth. tier by constructing a landfill gas-to-energy facility if the lawsuit appeal is
granted.
There are additional ways of extending the useful life of the landfill by:
■ Constructing a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility
2 Final Draft Zero Waste Feasibility Study Presented by R3 Consulting Group December 2009
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 29
Garbology in Mann: wasted Energy
Exploring possible other biomass conversion (e.g., Anaerobic composting) in
sufficient quantities to contribute to Marin's renewable energy deeds. AVere Llhi_,
implemented, the landfill would move up even further on the waste pyramid.
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury supports the extension of the landfill's life
regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings and hopes that we will not end Lip
with Wasted Energy.
BACKGROUND
Marin County's one remaining landfill originated in 1958 on property owned by Jordon
Smith (for whom Smith Ranch Road received its name). Between 1972 and 1998 many
significant events occurred relating to the landfill and the handling of solidvwaste, which
are detailed below:
Historical Events
1972
In 1972, California enacted The Solid Waste
Mana emend and Resource
C
Recovery Act (Chapter 342, Statutes of 1972).an&established the Solid Waste
mow:
Management Board to create policies for solid waste handling and disposal.
Each of the 58 counties was given the taskof developing and submitting its
long-term solid waste management andie ource recovery plans to the Board
by January 1, 1976.
1976
The Legislature created a.permitting and enforcement program for solid waste
facilities to be overseen by local enforcement agencies (LEAs).
F
1978
Redwood Landfill received its- first Solid Waste Facility Permit (PERMIT) to
accept sludge-and solid waste.
1989
With the threat of running out of landfill space, Californians saw the
enactment of AB 939 in 1989. This Act mandated goals of 25 percent
diversion of each city and county's waste from disposal by 1995 and 50
percent by 2000. With this legislation the board was reconstituted and named
therCaliforma Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). This new
bod'rd-regulated landfills and the law required significant investments by
operators to meet the new standards.
1990
In 1990, realizing that it would be mutually beneficial to jointly prepare the
Integrated Waste Management Plan, Marin's cities and towns and the County
entered into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU).
http://zerowastemarin.org/who-we-are/about-the-jpa/
1991
Jordon Smith sold Redwood Landfill to Sanifill. Inc.
May 8; 2013 Marin County Civil Grand.fury Page 3 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
,92
In November 1992, Marin County Environmental Health Services was re-
designated as the solid waste, Local i;niorcemcnt Agency (LLA), for Marro
County by the eleven cities and County of Marin and subsequently certified by
CIWMB. CIAA7MB became known as CalRecycle effective 2010.
1995
Sanifill received a new PERMIT, incorporating the changes required by AB
939.
1996
The Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers
Authority (JPA), was formed to help ensure the County's compliance with AB
939 and now oversees the disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials in
Marin County. The JPA is comprised of the County of Marin and the cities
and towns of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley,
Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, and Tiburon.
During the same year, USA Waste of California purchased Sanfill, Inc. and
the ownership of Redwood Landfill was included. With the new ownership,
Redwood Landfill (RLI) instituted additional diversion 'activities including
composting of yard waste, gri nding of concrete and asphalt for base rock and
gravel, and setting aside metals and appliances delivered by self-haulers for
recycling.
1998
Waste Management, Inc. (WM) merged with USA Waste and became the
current owner and operator.
Unfortunately, the landfill sits on a 600=acre parcel of land that is surrounded on three
sides by the Petaluma River Estuary and Marsh. When RLI requested a new Permit in
1999 to allow for increased landfill capacity and operational changes, the LEA prepared
an environmental impact.report (EIR). An initial study concluded that substantial
changes proposed in 1995 concerning issues related to the proximity of the landfill to
water sources and other issues had not been addressed. Once these items had been
rectified, a draft EIR was prepared in 2003 and the initial final EIR approved in 2005.
The final EIR was -twice amended and finally completed in October 2008. With
CalRecycle's :concurrence, a new Permit was issued to RLI boosting capacity by 9.3
Znillion'cubic yards to a total of 26 million cubic yards and allowing continued operation
for at least,another 19 years.
The NO WETLANDS' Petition
In June 2008, an organization called No Wetlands Landfill Expansion (NO
WETLANDS), filed a petition for a writ of mandate not only claiming the right to appeal
the EIR certification to the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) but also claiming the EIR
was inadequate. The Superior Court issued a judgment in March 2011 on the first issue
directing the BOS to hear an administrative appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed
See Appendix A for duties and responsibilities of the LEA-
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
that decision in March 2012 saying the LEA was a legal entity distinct from the county
~u1d the bU5 had 1.1o atlthurity to approve or disapprove the prejcct. liy 110l rulil-I.- Q)11 the
other issues brought forth by NO WETLANDS, the lawsuit was heard by Judge Duryee
who riled in favor of NO WETLANDS on December 11, 2012. RLLI, joined by County
Counsel, has filed an appeal.
If RLI is unsuccessful in overturning the riling, the permit from 1995 will remain in
force. What this means to the residents of Marin County is the following:
■ The landfill may choose not to proceed with plans to build a methane gas-to-
energy plant, which can substantially reduce current greenhouse gas admission
and may provide enough electricity to power 6,000-8,000 Marin County homes.
■ Under the 1995 permit, the landfill is allowed 19 million cubic'yards; as of March
2012 the landfill had 2.2 million cubic yards remaining. At the current rate, RLI
could be forced to close within seven to nine years, thus requiring Marin County
solid waste to be trucked out of county and increasing rather than reducing our
carbon footprint and making our waste some other cotiity's problem.
■ According to County officials, siting a new landfilldn-Marin will be impossible.
Mari n's Diversion Rate
In 2008, SB 1016 was enacted to make the process for measuring disposal compliance
simpler by changing from a diversion-based indicator to a per capita disposal rate (with
50 percent of generation as the goal): For 2007, the JPA had a disposal target of 7.6
pounds per person per day. The actual result was 4.9 pounds. This is the equivalent of
68 percent diversion. For 201 l,_the result'. was 3.8 pounds, or the equivalent of 75 percent
diversion. The PA's stated goaT`was to achieve 80 percent diversion by 2012 and reach
zero waste by 2025.4 Essentially, zero waste means that approximately 94 percent of
waste will be diverted "but that there will still be residual waste after diversion
processing. While the size of the annual waste stream is decreasing due to recycling
efforts and the recent downturn in the economy, there is just one landfill in Marin County
and it may reach capacity and close as early as 2020 if the pending appeal is denied.
Several actions, if taken, can extend the useful life of the landfill, namely: reduce the
amount of waste deposited, increase the recycling rate, increase the allowed capacity of
the fill area, and convert the materials at the fill into alternate forms (such as green waste
into compost and methane into electricity).
There are some indications that the JPA goal of 80% diversion by 2012 might not have
been achieved. If so, this failure may be due to all of the following:
■ A planned residential food waste implementation took longer than expected due
to a lack of regional composting facilities such as RLI
4 The 2012 actual results will be available in the JPA's Annual Report due in August.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Masted Energy
■ A planned joint project between Marin Sanitary Service and Central Marin
Sanitation Agency for processing Of coiiullercial food scraps tlirough anaerobic
digestion to produce methane generated energy has been delayed
■ The lack of other facilities for processing commercial food scraps - one potential
facility being RLI
■ The JPA's new Construction and Demolition (C&D) Ordinance has not been
approved by all municipalities, and
■ RLI has postponed its planned construction and demolition facility due to -the
lawsuit
The Grand Jury is concerned about the potential loss of the landfill and its ability to help
Marin County achieve its desired 94% diversion rate. In addition, the potential loss of
the proposed methane gas-to-energy plant means that we would lose the ability to provide
renewable energy to 6,000-8,000 Marin County homes. p"
The purpose of this report is twofold: 1) Review the current diversion programs in place,
and 2) examine ways of converting waste to energy,that night''help the County achieve
zero waste by utilizing the remaining 6 percent residual, thug Teducing stored waste and
extending the life of the landfill.]
~s
APPROACH
sue.
The Grand Jury began its investigation by ytouring Redwood Landfill and conducting
interviews with RLI, County Counsel, the'LEA, and the JPA. In these interviews, we
discussed the pending appeal, thernpact if the appeal is not granted, the tonnage
currently going to RLI and the possible alternatives if the appeal is denied. In addition,
we interviewed Marintlean,Energy to verify the viability of using methane gas-to-
energy as a renewable energy source.
Following our initial interviews, we arranged a tour of the Marin Sanitary Service
complex where we observed their current resource recovery operations and received
information regarding their anaerobic digestion joint venture with Central Marin
Sanitation' gency, which should be operational by early 2014. In addition to our
interviews, we reviewed the 2008 EIR report, the 2008 PERMIT, the NO WETLANDS
lawsuit and Judge Duryee's ruling. We reviewed articles on landfill use, waste-to-energy
technologies, current and past Marin County waste tonnage reports and greenhouse gas
emission standards.
DISCUSSION
Trash is not a typical dinner party topic. Dumping the leftovers in the trashcan and
placing it at the curb, or even having it conveniently picked up in the backyard by the
friendly garbage man was a way of life for most Americans by the end of WWII. Who
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
cared where it ended tip; it wasn't our collective problem. It was out of sight and no
1110ulylit was b1Vell W t1]c C O115L~ILl: ;ICC U1 11IUl.lllLIS 01 ~cll i)~i ~ ~?1U~~'1r1 111 111c 1JC~t1
landfill.
A Short History of Garbage Disposal
The ZeroWasteMarin website states that for most of the first half of the twentieth
century, as a nation, we recovered for reuse about 75 percent of the waste generated. In
the 1970s that figure had dropped to 7.5 percent. Concerns were raised about landfill
shortages. The 1987 "garbage barge", which left Long Island, New York in search of a
final disposal site, became a rallying cry that shifted the national focus to Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) management.
The Islip, N.Y., garbage.barge spent much of spring, 1987 toting 3,128 tons of smelly
refuse from state to state and country to country. The town's dump was full, and Florida,
North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, Belize and the
Bahamas refused t6take delivery.s
In his book, Garbology, Our Dirty Love Affair with Trash, Edward Humes says
"Americans-make more trash than anyone else on the planet, throwing away about 7.1
^ p,
365 days aJyear.6
p Across a lifetime that rate means, on
ound.§Pe erson per day, .f
average, we are each on track to generate 102 tons of trash. Each of our bodies may
occupy only one cemete7y plot when we are done with this world, but a single person's
102-ton trash legacy will require the equivalent of 1,100 graves."
s http://articies.orlandoscntinel.com/1990-07-29inews/9007290361_] barge-garbage-islip
6 "This calculation is derived from the most recent and most accurate data on America's annual municipal waste
generation, the biannual study by Columbia University and the Journal BioCycle, which put the nation's trash total at
389.5 million tons in 2008. The population of the country was put at 301 million that year by the U.S. Census, which
yields a daily waste generation amount of 7.1 pounds per day."
May 8, 2013 Mai-in County Civil Grand Jury Pave 7 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
Humes goes on to state, "Americans have 'won' the world trash derby without really
it ying, making j 0 pence-lu more garbage per person than other bl,'estern economies with
similar standards of living (Germany, Austria and Denmark, among others), and about
double the trash output of the Japanese."
Rubbish
e~-
pi
G
solid waste
Vq per V?Ttnn
er day.
>2.50
® '2:0-?.49
t,5-io~9
Or,S'O.t~g
Not diat
sot.W!orldHL..;€.
r.4 'gin
.ell
a 7HE BAHMAS 11
~
i' =y - U 'tEtti~4 s ,ANTtGUA&
t
~
`
•
.9ARBtlila
IC %
1
tlA~e' -,.-1JEii;
~
^
• _
JAKA
ST V11 T15 F, U VAS ST LUUA
STMC UN'T &THE BARBADQS
1 a. :7-_= TRINIDAD
b i1TOBAGQ
The Rubbish Map- Jun 7th 2012, 15:51 by The Economist online
A more recent calculation in 2012, illustrated above by The Economist, would put the
U.S.-at 5.5 pound per person per day, a reduction of 1.6 pounds since 2008. As discussed
in the Background section above, Marin County has achieved a much greater reduction
than the national average, showing 3.8 pounds per person for 2011.7 Several factors
contributed to the changes in volume of trash headed to landfills:
■ Prior to about 1960, Garbage haulers were known as scavengers because they
sorted through the trash and removed bottles, cans, rags, etc. for recycling. With
This calculation is based on JPA data using 2011 Marin County population of 253,512 and] 75,810 tons of Marin
County waste equaling 0.6935 tons equaling 1,387 pounds per person per year, or 3.8 pounds per person per day.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 29
Garbology in Marin: `Masted Energy
the advent of the compacting garbage truck., this was no longer possible; and
everything cndcd up III tiic faildiiil.
■ As a result of The Clean Air Act of 1970, the backyard incinerator was banned.
Marin County's awareness of the need to divert tonnage going to the landfill began even
before the advent of AB 939 in 1989. Curbside recycling was instituted in the mid-'80's
with bottles, cans, paper and cardboard, then progressed to green waste and household
food waste and now, mandatory commercial recycling, including commercial food
waste.
A certain amount of the reduction in waste tonnage can be attributed to the recent
economic downturn. However, the Marin RA's policies and procedures, oi4fAed in a
2009 Zero Waste Feasibility Study, prepared by R3 Consulting Group; havegset the
County on a course for reaching the desired 94% recovery rate. Exhibit I=llustrates the
27`io decline in Marin County tons disposed between 1995 through.201L., Destination of
disposal is determined by the landfill contracts negotiated by the local haulers. Most of
Southern Marin's waste is taken to out-of-county landfills.
Exhibit 1
i
Destination of Marin Disposal
350,000 -
300,000
Redwood
250,000 -
o Portero Hills
Keller Canyon
f r t;
200,000
I E West Contra Costa
Number of Tons' - -
s; r r:, j_• 1=? ¢ ■ Forward
150,000_Y
West Marin
n r x e Altamont
1.00,000
Recology Hay Road
10
50,000 Other
01 of o~ O O O O O O O O O O ~
01 O1 O) 0) 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O
ti N N N N N N N N N N N N
ualitornia uepartment of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Disposal Reporting System (DRS)
8 "with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 341, businesses and public entities that generate four cubic yards or more
of waste per week and multifamily units of five or more are required to recycle. Businesses are required to recycle on
and after July 1, 2012."
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
Determining Landfill Life
Of major concern to the JPA is the potential impact if the pending appeal of the NO
WETLANDS lawsuit is denied and RLI has to revert to its 1995 PERMIT. The JPA,
along with the LEA, monitors the anticipated "site life" of the landfill as part of statutory
and regulatory requirements.9 One requirement is the siting of a new landfill if there is
less than 15 years of site life.
As of March 2012, under the 1995 PERMIT, RLI has available capacity for another 2.2
million cubic yards (CY). Between April 2011 and March 2012 RLI took in 263,000 CY,
or about 231,500 tons of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), meaning that at the current rate,
which is one-half of their allowed yearly capacity, the landfill will reach capacity in
2020-2022, or a little more than 7-9 years from now. This means that. he County would
need to immediately look for alternate disposal sites.
The JPA retained Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to prepare an analysis of the
landfill's site life in 2012. Their analysis, based on the 2008 PEftl fT, and the County's
achievement of 94% diversion rate by 2025, concluded,that there would be 3.1 million
tons or 3.5 million CY of capacity remaining in RLI= by 2027 (15` years). 10
In the study prepared by ESA, many factors were used to determine the landfill closure
scenarios, including expected population growth, waste generation, diversion at expected
94%, disposal reduction at 94% diversion and-disposal at current 75% diversion. Exhibit
2 illustrates the expected results.
FYhihit 7.
Waste Analysis for Marin County 2010-2027
800000
700000. -s
600000
500000 I ---4-Population Growth
400000 -(Tons) Waste Generation
300000 (Tons) Expected Diversion @94%
200000 i
•(Tons)DisposaI reduction 094%
100000 I
-(Tons) Current Disposal rate @75%
0
Prepared by ESA for the Marin County Hazardous and 5ouo waste ivlanagemenL JUInL r•UWC1~
Authority 2109112
9 PRC Sections 41700-41721.5 and 14CCR Section 18755-18756.7 -See Appendix B
10 County Counsel has advised the JPA that RLI should operate under the 2008 PERMIT until the appeal is heard.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 29
Garbolo_~v in Marin: Fasted Enercy
Since early 2000, the total tonnage Loing to RLI has diminished. Particularly during
recc;in years. As sho~,~/n in L-x iibi t -3 below, tllere was a spike in d spusal at l~L.l in ZUU~
when the. Sonoma County Landfill reached capacity. In 2011, the Sonoma County
landfill reopened, reducing the MSW going to RLI.
Exhibit 3
Tonnage to Redwood Landfill
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-mTotal tons
-Misc. Out of County tons
-Marin 1PA
-Sonoma County Tons
~.a I UI I l i a I L I Lit, uIICIIL vi MUbUUr cea Mecycunc0 ano mecovery tuaircecycie)
Disposal Reporting System (DRS)
Note: above chart excludes "Alternate Daily Cover" (ADC), which,amounted to 31,234 tons in 2011
If RLI prevails in the appeal, the allowable capacity udder the 2008 PERMIT would
leave nearly 9.3 million CY of capacity or a closure date of approximately 2049, based
on the current rate of disposal. If the landfill's maximum fill rate is attained each year,
then the landfill would reach capacity in 2032.
Exhibit 4 represents the year the maximum landfill capacity will be reached under the
199 permit and under the 2008 permit with three scenarios: 1) maximum allowed fill
rate per year, 2) current fill rate.-per year, and 3) fill rate if 94% diversion is attained.
What the Exhibit clearly illustrates is that our one landfill, despite all interventions, has a
finite life, based on its current usage.
Exhibit 4
Year Landfill Reaches Capacity
2090
2080
1
2070
-
2060
1995 Permit Allowed Pate
2050
1995 Permit Current Rate
2040
- - - -
2030
I =
`
e 1995 Permit Zero Waste
2020
f,. , - - -
- - -
2010
c3 2008 Permit Allowed Rate
2000
- - - -
-
2008 Permit Current Rate
1990
~
- - -
1980
l
2008 Permit Zero waste
llowed Rate
Current Rate Zero Waste Allowed RatelCurrent Rate Zero waste
,Al I
11995 Permit 11995 Permit 1995 Permit 2008 Permit (2008 Permit 2008 Permit
table prepared from data shown in the ESA study and Redwood landfill statistics
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand.lur_y Paae 11 of 29
Garbology in Mar-in: Fasted Energy
Comparing 1995 PERMIT vs. 2008 PERMIT
In 2003, 180 acres of the original 600-acre site were restored to wetland status in
partnership with the Marin Audubon Society. The 1995 PERMIT permitted footprint
covers 210 acres of the remaining 420 acres and limits the total landfill capacity to
19,000,000 CY, which will be reached within the next 7-9 years at current rates. Of
major concern to the NO WETLANDS group is the fact that the Petaluma River Estuary
and Marsh surround the landfill on three sides. Although RLI has made significant
improvements to levees to control leachate,1 1 NO WETLANDS believes there is still a
major threat of leakage into the estuary if there is a 100-year flood or an earthquake .12
The 1995 PERMIT does not address waste diversion programs, which RLI wants to
implement, nor does it address the issues raised by NO WETLANDS.
Y
The 2008 PERMIT expands the capacity to 26,077,000 CY and limits the. permitted area
to 222.5 acres for disposal and 7 acres for composting. Extending the slope .of the landfill
mound (see illustration below) rather than adding to the footprint .:whil6 maintaining the
11;~,~...
current maximum elevation will achieve the pertinent disposal expan:ision requirements.
As stated previously, over 10 years were';spent developing the 2008 PERMIT with many
adjustments and concessions on the"part of RLI. The LEA's requested changes to the
permit request, - "Mitigated Alternatives"., are outlined in the 2008 approved EIR13
11 Leachate is any liquid thaf in passing through matter, extracts solutes, suspended solids or any other
A.
component of the material throug,,h,which it has passed. Leachate is a widely used term in the
environmental sciences where;it has the specific meaning of a liquid that has dissolved or entrained
environmentally harmful substances, which may then enter the environment. It is most commonly used in
the context of land-filling of putrescible or industrial waste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate
12 Bruce Baum,,c aan of No Wetlands Landfill Expansion's board of directors, said, "Our concerns
continue crottnd the lack of a liner and inadequate levees."
Marin iudge finalizes ruling voiding new permit for Redwood Landfill Richard Halstead Marin
independentJourna1
13 The fundamental basis for the Mitigated Alternative is stated in the description of this alternative on
page 5-31 of the FEIR: [Under the Mitigated Alternative,] Redwood Landfill would shift its emphasis from
waste disposal to material and energy recovery. Instead of placing emphasis on increasing waste disposal
capacity, Redwood Landfill would develop processes and methods aimed at increasing diversion of
materials from landfill, and increasing energy production at the site. This would result in several benefits,
including preservation of landfill capacity; increasing diversion and reducing landfilling of wastes in this
environmentally sensitive location; reducing the need for certain project mitigation measures described in
the analysis-, providing justification for Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts of
the project; helping to counterbalance or avoid altogether the significant unavoidable effects of the
proposed project; maximizing. consistency with County Integrated Waste Management Plan policies and
County energy policies; and providing long-term protection of the environment in accordance with
California Public Resources Code (PRC) § 440127.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 29
Garbolo('y in Marin: wasted Encra};
1,ookin.g at the Glohal 'vk`annM2 Potential - Net Emissions less offset. the mitigations
FCSL11L ill a reuuctio>i 01 nearly rrlilhon ivig eC:U2 ~(-Tr=nliouse gas emissions) or a
reduction of 33.4 % between 1998 through 2098. 14 It should be noted that when the
landfill does reach capacity and is closed, RLI is required to maintain the site for at least
30 additional years and must set aside funds for the post-closure maintenance, which
includes monitoring greenhouse gas emissions. The Mitigated Alternatives also meet the
requirements of the Marin County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan - October 2006.
The final EIR dated March 2008, including responses to comments, contains 558 pages.
The report includes in-depth discussions of greenhouse gas emissions, leachate control,
traffic, landfill slope, and revised flood mitigation.
In the, December 11, 2012 Superior Court ruling, Judge Duryee found that the 2008 EIR
inadequately discussed the following:
■ Cumulative effect of the Pro ject's greenhouse gas emissions:
The possible increased non-cancer health impacts from air pollutant emissions.
■ Mitigation measures to reduce the impact to the Project-from potential flooding
and groundwater contamination.
■ An alternate off-site location.
The following is taken from Will Landfill. Expansion be Scrapped? Dated December 20,
2012 in the Pacific Sun, "Rebecca No .deputy director of county environmental health
services and the county's solid waste supervisor, says the lawsuit is the cause of stopping
many protections from going into effect. In her role with environmental health services,
she is the head of the LEA. The environmental report includes `60 pages plus of
mitigation measures ' that will not go into effect if the report gets tossed and the permit
rescinded. With Judge Duryee's ruling, says Ng, the landfill will.fall back to its 1995
solid-waste facilities permit. And the mitigation measures targeting greenhouse gas
emissions, building .a resource recoverj) center and a gas-to-energy plant also will fall
away. `We think the solid waste facilities permit that was issued in 2008 is far superior in
terms of protecting the environment. 'Ng, says the county is t7ying to get those projects
through'a separate environmental review track so they might proceed."
A, F6bTuary 15, 2013 article in the Petaluma Patch entitled Landfill at Edge of Bay Pits
Envirohimentalists against Waste Hauler, states:
"Waste Management has appealed the ruling and says opponents simply want to export
their garbage out of the area.
`This is a highly regulated site with a lot of reporting and a lot of verification going on
every single day,' said Osha Meserve, an attorney representing Waste Management. `The
14 Mg=Million grams (1 million grams=] metric ton) eC02= carbon dioxide equivalent
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
fears that have been expressed b>> the petitioners are just that, they are not. founded on
any.jacl Unci Ive tiairrk they. are probable basecl more on IVIAIBJ'isln ill thai tlrey would
rather see their waste go to other locations than keep the waste locally.'
The landfill is working to bring down its greenhouse gas emissions to pre-1990 standards
and has two levees that can be raised as needed, according to Meserve. And there is no
alternate site for the garbage, meaning it would have to be trucked to another county,
increasing emissions and possibly rates.
Dan North is the district manager- at Redwood and says the landfill has worked hard to
create an operation tailored to the green fixture Marin leaders have envisioned `r 'he
count}) has set forth a zero waste goal by 2025 and we need to support that goal, '`he said.
`So id's not just about the expansion of the landfill, which is a service that is demanded by
our customers, but it's also augmenting it with more recycling and monj diversion.'
But opponents insist another site be found. They say Waste Management has plans to
take in garbage f °om beyond Marin and Sonoma counties and is luring business by
keeping prices low. They also point out that the landfill is surrounded by levees on three
sides and that there are former stream channels underneath hat.imake it easy for
groundwater to get contaminated during high tides.
`Plenty of Marin County residents drive Priuses `and profess to be environmentalists,'
said.Brent Newell, the attorney for the group opposing the expansion. `There is no reason
they shouldn't support to pay a couple.,of ddllars' ore for the proper handling of their
garbage.
The Grand Jury is not in a position to argue for or against the ruling. However, we do
believe that Marin County citizens should be responsible for their own waste and not haul
it to a landfill outside of_:Marn thereby making it another county's problem.
There are three very critical `aspects to the issue:
1. If the appeal is lost, RLI could close the landfill when it reaches its 1995 PERMIT
capacity: .
f
2. If RLI is nearing the 1995 PERMIT capacity, RLI may feel that they will not
recover the costs of their proposed resource recovery capital expenditures. If no
further 2008 PERMIT capital expenditures are made:
■ Marin loses the opportunity to have a WTE plant and RLI will simply
continue to flare the landfill methane
■ Marin may lose expanded composting operations, which would change from
the current windrow composting operation to Covered Aerated Static Pile
(CASP) Composting. A CASP is designed to reduce methane production and
volatile organic compound emissions as much as possible. This process could
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 29
Garbology in Ntarin: wasted Encrev
achieve tip to an 80% reduction in emissions when compared to the current
process
RLI will not build a proposed Reuse Center (Reusable items diverted from the
scale house to chanty)
■ A C&D recovery operation may be lost
3. Marie's carbon footprint will increase and rates may also be raised if our waste is
hauled to more distant landfills.
All of the above remains uri-Immvn until the outcome of the appeal is heard sometime
next, year, and until we know RLI's response if the appeal is denied. The Grand Jury
hopes that RLI will continue to enhance its operations in Marin County regardless of the
outcome.
Successful Diversion Alternatives
What we do know is that a currently operating landfill bas-to-energy plant is successful.
The Ox Mountain Landfill in Half Moon Bay is one of California's largest renewable
energy projects having a landfill gas-to-energy station that is supplying 11% of the
energy needs for the City of Alameda and is projected to supply 4% of the energy needs
of Palo Alto.15 We also know that Marin Clean Energy would be very, willing to
purchase the energy output from RLI's proposed landfill gas-to-energy project at
appropriate financial terms, which can provide renewable energy to at least 6,000 Marin
County homes.
Marin County has had an exemplary record for achieving waste diversion from the
;
landfill - reaching 75% diversiA m. 2011 and the expectation of reaching 80% at the end
of 2012. The JPA has promoted many new programs to enhance recovery in an effort to
meet or exceed the stated goal of 94% diversion by 2025. These include not only the
recovery of household "food waste, but now mandatory commercial recycling, including
commercial food waste.
A 2009 Zero Waste Feasibility Study, prepared by R3 Consulting Group, recommended
that the "Down-stream programs include increasing the types of materials collected by
haulers (e.g., foModrevising franchise agreements and ordinances to reflect industfy
standards and establish waste reduction and diversion requirements, implement food
waste digestion and composting, etc.... Approximately 56 percent or 128, 000 tons of
food, yard, organic waste, inerts, and mixed CAD were disposed at landfall. In order to
meet the Zero i41aste Goals, reduction and processing of these targeted materials is
critical. However, currently there is insufficient capacity for the facilities located within
the County to process these materials and it may be necessaaj) to transport these
materials to out-of-county facilities. "
is http://wwm,.enN,ironmentalistseveryday.org./solid-waste-management/green-waste-ir,dustry-
professionals/Alameda-housing.php
May 8.2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 29
Garbology in Marina Wasted Energy
Exhibit s breaks out the various components of waste disposed by percentages.
FQhihit ;
2%
4%
Food
4% r-r
au Paper
L Plastic
8°/0'
itm Other Organics
Yard
a~, r
Mixed C&D
~
w
r
Inerts
Metal,
Other Inorganics
Glass
Tame FR-1-Materials Disposed- 2009 Zero Waste Feasibility Study.
o -
In addition to the potential for providing sustainable"methane gas-to-energy for
approximately 6,000-8,000 homes, RLI can playa .ital role in helping to achieve the
diversion goal if they continue with plans for. an,exPanded composting operation,
y _ 14_
complete a C & D processing line, and possibly install an anaerobic digestion system to
convert food waste to energy.
The JPA has encouraged and endorsed the Marin Sanitary Service/ Central Marin
Sanitation District's Anaerobi,'Digestion system, called the Food to Energy (F2E)
program. This program is designed to divert commercial food waste but may be
expanded to include residentialfood waste once the public has accepted the concept. (See
s
Appendix C)
Further DiYersion Alternatives
To understand further diversion possibilities, the Grand Jury has researched methods used
in-,other countries, which include forms of waste incineration or plasma gasification of
waste. There are many dissenters when the word "incineration" is used because the
immediate vision is of smoke stacks spewing a toxic stew into the atmosphere. Another
argument against this approach is that people will simply not recycle if given this option.
However, that is not necessarily the case. Exhibit 6 illustrates that many countries with
substantial waste to energy programs, nevertheless continue to recycle a substantial
portion of their waste.
Viay 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 29
Garbology in Mann: Wasted Energy
Vxhibit 6
The Sustainable Waste Management Ladder
Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University (bused on Eurostat 2008 data)
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
.T
Austria
Denmark
~I~ilfll~~~~
w8lum
Luxembourg
France
l M
Italy
i
l
d
F
an
n
Unite Kingdom
~ 1
_ H
- -
U.S.Q.
Spain
=
SOG
Ireland
_ _
2008
data
Portugal
!
l
i
oven
a
S
1
H
ungary
_
i
Eston
a
G
1
111
reece
1
Slovakia
Czech republic
Poland
C
yprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Romania
r'or~S►.'~~~S~.dK7~.++,nrit~ 5~i.~:c ~.e;.~`'.Y~-3~b' '.a.i~.:'~~in`:'~ .~x[1
Bulgaria
r
vkr 4 = ix kF't1r~ t5.-S .i"..,si'=~.~Y~~P~S+y - '+ycsF
0 20 40 60 SO too
s % Recycled 0 % Corn posted L % Landfilled i % to Waste-to-Energy
The United States is about on par with the United Kingdom according to the above
diagram. The Netherlands and Germany lead the way with less than 2% of their waste
being landfilled. Denmark is highly advanced in its use of waste for energy. Using
Copenhagen as an example, Edward Humes states, 16 "This cio) recycles trash at twice the
US. average, its residents create less than half the household waste per capita, and the
community philosophy holds that dealing with and solving the problem of trash must be a
6 Excerpt From: Humes, Edward. "Garbology." Avery, 2012-04-19. iBooks.
May b, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
local concern, even a neighborhood concern. ff,hen it comes to waste, 1VIA0Y (Not in Mi
Backyard) is not a factor, as shipping trash ojj to some distant landfill-rnakirlg it
disappear for others to manage-is considered wasteful, costly and immoral. Not that
such out-of-sight, out-of-mind garbage treatment is much of a consideration here: only 3
to 4 percent of this city's waste ends zip in landfills, compared to the U.S. average of 69
percent....And the secret sauce for that city and the entire nation of Denmark, at least on
the waste disposal fi°ont, is its mastery of turning trash into a renewable energy source.
`They are the model, along with Japan and a number of other countries in Europe, 'says
Nickolas Themelis of Columbia University, America's engineer-apostle of the untapped
power of garbage. `They put these waste-to-energy plants right in their neighborhoods.
They become part of the fabric of the community. There's none of the fear and
misinformation about waste energy that we have in the U.S. They are clean and efficient,
and many of them are quite attractive. The people are proud of them. 'Denmark's
strategy has been to build trash-burning, power-generating plants on a relatively small
scale. No behemoths burning 2,000, 5, 000 or 10, 000 tons of garbage a day, such as those
proposed for Los Angeles in the seventies and eighties.
Humes continues his argument that burning does not diminish recycling by stating "The
cities and nations that have made trash burning a key part of their energy and waste
strategies Denmark, Germany, Austria, Japan, theNethet:lands-all have robust
recycling programs that not only recycle as much `as or more than the amount of trash
that is burned, but they all also recycle at a much higher percentage than the U.S. has
been able to accomplish. It's the landfilling that diminishes when waste-to-energy
becomes a strong option, not recycling. Germany, for instance, burns 34 percent of its
municipal waste and it recycles the rest, an impressive 66 percent. That's not just one
super-green city, like San Francisco, but an entire country of 82 million people, the
powerhouse economy, of Europe: Almost none of its municipal waste gets landfilled."
Most WTE opponents,assuine that only massive, expensive, utility-scale trash power
plants can be used to ptoduce energy. Currently there are 86 facilities in the United
States for the combustion of MSW, all of which were built prior to 1995.17 There are
three WTE plantg`in California. Two are in Southern California; Long Beach and
Commerce, and.the"other- is in Stanislaus County. The Stanislaus Resource Recovery
FacilityI egaii commercial operation in January 1989. This Waste-to-Energy facility,
operating as.Covanta Stanislaus, processes 800 tons per day of solid waste, which
generates rip =to 22.5 megawatts of renewable energy that is sold to Pacific Gas and
Electric Company.' 8 But the less costly, community-based plants that Denmark is using
are the most successful use of the WTE technology right now. For a description of the
various forms of WTE technologies please refer to Appendix D.
Once the energy crisis of the 1980s was resolved in the United States, the public lost
interest in the WTE technology. Interest has been revived as landfills reach capacity and
newer methods of extracting energy from waste are being developed. One of the most
17 Energy Recovery from Waste/Municipal Solid Waste/ US EPA
lE http://www.covantaenergy.com/en/facilities/facility-by-location/stanislaus.aspx
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 of 29
Garbolouv in Marin_ Wastcd Encr«v
prorni sink is Plasma CTasification. ~x~hich contains the waste in a sealed container. thus
11111iting envirorunental exposure. Nease see !kppendix E for a description of one form of
Plasma Gasification. Other methods are being developed including Microwave Plasma
Gasification. 19 While these methods are still very expensive due to development costs,
once the technology is perfected, and demand increases, costs will decrease and they will
become viable alternatives to waste disposal.
Waste Management - owner of RLI - is well aware that as the newer waste diversion
techniques become increasingly more affordable, landfills will become a thing of the
past, and in their 2012 Sustainability report, C.E.O. David P. Steiner wrote: " Yf e are
C01771177itted to frncling the `next big things ' or ever7 the sr77all profitable things - that Ivill
relegate the landfill to the last resort.1br 1-vaste after all possible value has hc~e>7
extrncted. We recoganize that it tal,:es time to develop the innovative technologies',
neces.sar°v to clerive netiv uses for waste streams, and we are realistic ab6zlt the challenge
of fincling the Pioht innovations. That is Wh>> we have lnve.s,tecl in a por•~Olio of more thar7
30 par,ner•ships.fcusecl on alternative enerbv technologies. In thi:swajtivc function as
w'r7trtre Capitalists for entrepreneurs lookil?1;,fOr netiv 1,t)ays to tran.sfoi7Yl bvaste info rrsefitl
products such cis fuels a17d ehetnlcals'. As we work together-, };ire gam'il7sight,.s from ivhut
foils as tivell as what succeeds
The Grand Jury urges the LEA, JPA, and the County.Pub lie Works Department to
explore additional methods for keeping Marin'County"Waste in the county including
turning the 6% residual after- diversion into energy~and possibly achieve 100% landfill
diversion. Our hope is that we will not.have.any Wasted Energy.
FINDINGS
Fl. Redwood Landfill's 2008 EIR is being challenged in court, thereby jeopardizing its
2008 Solid Waste` Facility Permit, which has delayed the construction of the
methane gas-to-energy plant and the Construction and Demolition sort line.
F2. Redwood Landfill, as currently permitted, has a finite life and therefore, alternate
methods of-waste diversion need to be explored.
F3. Waste-to-Energy Plants can be a solution to limited landfill space.
T,. On
F4. , Apoi~tion of Marin County MSW is being sent to out-of-county landfills, increasing
our carbon footprint and malting our waste another county's problem.
F5. Marin County waste disposal has diminished by over 27°/o since 1995 due to the
passage of AB 939 in 1989 and public awareness.
F6. Redwood Landfill has seen a waste reduction of 24% during the same time period
as a result of less out-of -county disposal in the Marin landfill and the effects of
diversion awareness.
19 http_//N~,ww.waste-management-worid.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-6/features/microwave-plasma-
gasi 5cation-heats-up-in-the-us.html
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 29
Garbology in Mar-in: Wasted Energy
F7. CalRecycle statistics prove that waste diversion in Marin County is much higher
than the national average due to concerted efforts by the Nlarin County Hazardous
and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and local waste haulers
to educate the public.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
meet with Redwood Landfill as soon as feasibly possible to gain assurances.' at the
landfill methane gas-to-energy plant will become a reality.
R2. ' The Grand Jury recommends that the Mann County Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and Local Enforcement Agericy (LEA)
ensure that Redwood Landfill completes the Construction and Demolition sort line.
R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Public'"Works Department,
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste
r
Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) work"with Redwood Landfill to ensure
the building of an anaerobic digester for food waste, the.:energy from which can be
added to the methane gas-to-energy plant.
R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Marin County Public Works Department,
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste
(JPA)'avork with Redwood Landfill to explore
Management Joint Powers Authority,
all options for minimizing future disposal through some cost effective, least
polluting form of waste gasification, such as Microwave Plasma Gasification.
R5. The Grand Jury recommends that Local Jurisdictions holding MSW franchise
agreements mandate, through revisions to the agreements, that haulers dispose of all
MSW generated "Mann County in Marin County.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal'code section 93 ".05, the grand jury requests responses as follows:
From the following individuals:
■ Operations Manager, Redwood Landfill Inc. to Findings F 1-F4 and F6 and all
Recommendations.
■ Deputy Director, Environmental Heath Services-Community Development
Environmental Health Services Administration to Findings FI-F6 and all
Recommendations.
■ Director, Department of Public Works, to Findings Fl-F4 and Recommendations
R3 & R4.
■ Deputy Director, Department of Public Works - Waste Management to All
Findings and Recommendations.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Encrgy
Prograrn Manager T-)epal-tT-nent of Public Works-NVaste Management Division to
All Findings and Recommendations.
From the following governing bodies:
d The Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) to all Findings and Recommendations.
■ County Counsel to Finding Fl and Recommendation R4 & R5
■ Board of Supervisors to Finding F2-F4 and all Recommendations
■ Marin Energy Authority to Recommendations R 1, R3 & R4
■ The City Council, City of San Rafael to Recommendation R 5
■ The Town Council, Town of Ross to Recommendation R 5
■ The City Council, City of Larkspur to Recommendation R 5
■ The City Council, City of Sausalito to Recommendation R 5
s The Town Council, Town of Tiburon to Recommendation R.-5
■ The City Council, City of Belvedere to Recommendation.R 5
■ The City Council, City of Novato to Recommendation R 5
■ The Town Council, Town of Corte Madera"fo Recommendation R 5
■ The City Council, City of Mill Valley to Recommendation R 5
■ The Town Council, Town of San Anselmo to Recommendation R 5
tea.. _
■ The Town Council, Town of Fairfax: to Recommendation R 5
{
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of
the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting
requirements of the Brown Act.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
■ County of Marin Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, October 2006
■ Energy Recovery from Waste/Municipal Solid Waste/ US EPA
■ Final Draft Zero Waste Feasibility Study Presented by R3 Consulting Group
December 2009
Halstead, Richard. Marin judge finalizes ruling voiding new permit for Redwood
Landfill Marin Independent Journal December 20, 2012
a Humes, Edward. Garbology, Our Dirty Love Affair with Trash, Avery, 2012-04-
19
■ http://vc ww.calrecycle.ca.L-oN,/archive/IVifMBPR/2008/December/54 htm
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 21 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
■ http•//www covantaenere~l com/en/facilities/facility-by-location/stanislaus.aspx
■ http-//w ,,a environmentatistseveryday orc /solid-waste-mana~em-.nt/Lreen-waste-
industry-professionals,'Alameda.-housine.php
■ http•//www nyti.mes conV2012/09/11/science/plasma-,gasification-raises-hopes-
of clean-ener~zt1-from-Barba,ze.html
■ http•//www waste-ma.nagement-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-
6/features/microwave _plasma-gasification-heats-up-in-the-us.html
■ Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation? P. Ozge
Kaplan, Joseph DeCarolis, and Susan Thorneloe VOL. 43, NO. 6, 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 1711
■ Landfill at Edge of Bay Pits Environmentalists against Waste Hauler, Petaluma
Patch, February 15, 2013.
No Wetlands Landfill Expansion et al., vs. County of Marin et al. First Appellate
Court District Division Four #Al31651 filed 3/20/12
■ No Wetlands Landfill Expansion et al., vs. County of Marin et al.- Superior Court
of Marin, Case No: CV090198 RULING 12/,l 1/12y
■ Per Capita Disposal and Goal Measurement (2007 and Later)
http ://www .calrecycle .ca.cov/lc,c entralB as'ics/PetCapitabsp .htm
■ Redwood Landfill, Solid Waste Facility Permit: December 18, 2008
■ Redwood Landfill Final Envirpffhce ital Impact Report - Response to Comments
Amendment ESA/ March 2008
■ Siedman, Peter. Will Landfill Expansion be Scrapped? Pacific Sun, December 20,
2012
■ The History of the California Environmental Protection Agency-
htip://www.calei)a':ca,,.E!ov/about/historvO I/ciwmb.htm
■ The State of Gab,age in America, BioCycle, October, 2010
■ http://zerowastemann.org/the-2025-goal/our-mission/
Reports issued ,by ihe:Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that
reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who
provides information'to the Civil Grand Jury.
GLOSSARY
C & D - Construction and Demolition
CY - Cubic Yard
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
EPA- Environmental Protection Agency
May 8; 20 13 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 22 of 29
Garbolog% in Marin: Wasted Energy
FSA - F,nvironmental Science Associates
LEA - Local Enforcement Agency (See Appendix A for full definition)
.IPA - Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste JPA (Joint Powers Authority)
MSW - Municipal Solid Waste
PERMIT - Solid Waste Facility Permit
RLl - Redwood Landfill Inc.
WM - Waste Management Inc.
WTE- WASTE-TO-ENERGY
APPENDIX A
Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
Duties and Responsibilities of the LEA
Summary of Duties and Responsibilities specific to the Marin County_LEA
1. Routine Landfill Inspections
There are ttivo landfills in Marin County, which are inspected at least monthly.
2. Routine Transfer Station/Materials Rceovery.Facility Inspections
Marin Sanitary Service's transfer station and resource recovery building are inspected monthly.
3. Closed Landfill Inspection
The LEA is required by current regulations to perform quarterly inspections at the 14 closed landfills
in Marin County
4. Abandoned Site Inspections
Abandoned sites are required towtic inspected quarterly. There are no known abandoned sites in Marin
County.
5. Illegal Site Inspections
The LEA is responsible for investigation of alleged illegal dumping sites. Confirmed illegal sites are
required by rcgutation to be inspected monthly depending abatement by enforcement action.
Currently, there is one known illegal site, which has been referred to the County Counsel.
6. Compost Facility`Inspections
The -tEA performs monthly inspections of the Redwood Landfill Biosolids Compost Facility.
7. . Sites Exempted Pursuant to 27 CCR 21565
Exempted sites shall be inspected quarterly. Currently no exemptions exist within Marin County.
Facility, Complaint Inspections
If a complaint cannot be resolved off-site, the LEA will respond by inspection
9. Demonstration Projects
When a landfill operator proposes to use an alternative daily cover (ADC) for refuse not within one of
the categories listed in 27 CCR 20690(b)(I -10), or an ADC material from one of the above categories,
but used differently than specified in the aforementioned section, a site-specific demonstration project
must be conducted. In such instances, the LEA may require that the project be subject to performance
standards, as specified in 27 CCR 20695. Sites operating under performance standards are inspected
by the LEA on a weekly basis.
10. Refuse Collection Vehicle Inspections
There are ten recognized refuse collection service operators in Marlin County responsible for
approximately 105 collection vehicles. The LEA performs annual inspections of each vehicle.
May 8: 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 23 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
I]. Non-Facility Complaint Inspections
Id
cumplaints luaaici 11b t11u storage, hLaIdimg or dispusul of solid ~tiastu at uiidcvclupcd pruhcrlics 11U11-
related businesses, and residences other than multiple-family dwellings are investigated by the
LEA.
12. Permits
The LEA evaluates, writes and processes new solid waste facility permits and revisions of existing
permits in coordination with the CIWMB. New permits are required for facilities that have never
operated, facilities which did not previously required a solid waste facility permit, or facilities with a
new operator. After issuance, a permit is required to be reviewed every five years. This is also done
by the LEA, in conjunction with the CIWMB.
A permit revision is required whenever a change in the design or operation of a facility is proposed
that has potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment directly or ultimately. A
revised permit must be reviewed by the LEA within five years of reassurance.
13. Permit Exemptions
The LEA reviews applications and documentation to determine if proposed solid waste, facilities can
be exempted pursuant to 27 CCR 21565. A staff report is generated and LEA staff facilitates a public
hearing.
14. CEQA Process
The LEA reviews applications for solid waste facility permits or exemptions for completeness and
accuracy. During the review, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance must be
assessed and if the project is not exempt, an Environmental Impact`lReport(EIR) maybe required. In
such cases, the LEA often acts as the lead agency for the EIR.
APPENDIX B
Siting Element References
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 41701.
Each countywide siting element and revision thereto shall include, but is not limited to,
all of the following: `
'fir
(a)A statement of goals and policies for the environmentally safe transformation or
disposal of solid wasteA atpcannot be reduced, recycled, or composted.
(b)An estimate of the total transformation or disposal capacity in cubic yards that will be
needed for a 15-year period to safely handle solid wastes generated with the county that
cannot be reduced, recycled, or composted.
(c)The remaining combined capacity of existing solid waste transformation or disposal
facilities existing at the time of the preparation of the siting element, or revision thereto,
in cubic yards and years.
(d)Tlhe identification of an area or areas for the location of new solid waste
transformation or disposal facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, that are
consistent with the applicable city or county general plan, if the county determines that
existing capacity will be exhausted within 15 years or additional capacity is desired.
(e)For countywide elements submitted or revised on or after January 1, 2003, a
description of the actions taken by the city or county to solicit public participation by the
affected communities, including, but not limited to, minority and low-income
populations.
Section 18744. Facility Capacity Component.
May 8; 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 24 of 29
Garbolo;v in Marin: Wasted Encr,y
(N) Fn1-the initial SRRF the Solid Waste Facility Capacity Component shall identify and
describe alt existing permitted solid waste iandfitls and transiormation facilities within
the jurisdiction. This description shall contain the following:
(1) identification of the owner and operator of each permitted solid waste disposal
facility;
(2) quantity and waste types of solid waste disposed;
(3) permitted site acreage;
(4) permitted capacity;
(5) current disposal fees; and
(6) for solid waste landfills, remaining facility capacity in cubic yards and years.
(b) The Solid Waste Facility Capacity Component shall include a solid waste disposal
facility needs projection which estimates the additional disposal capacity, in" cubic yards
per year, needed to accommodate anticipated solid waste generation within ,,the
jurisdiction for a 15-year period commencing in 199E
(1) The solid waste disposal facility capacity needs projection for the initial SRRE shall
be calculated based upon the solid waste generation projection conducted in accordance
with section 18722, of Article 6.1 of this Chapter.
(2) The disposal capacity needs projection for the 15 year period shall be calculated using
the following equation:
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY Year
n = [(G + I) - (D + TC -1 LF + E)]Year n
where:
G = The amount of solid waste projected to be generated in the jurisdiction;
I = The amount of solid waste which is:expected to be imported to the jurisdiction for
disposal in permitted solid waste disposal facilities through interjurisdictional
agreement(s) with other cities or counties, or through agreements with solid waste
enterprises, as defined in section 40193 of the Public Resources Code.
D = The amount diverted through successful implementation of proposed source
reduction, recycling, and-composting programs.
TC = The amount of volume reduction occurring through available, permitted
transformation facilities..
LF = The amount of permitted solid waste disposal capacity which is available for
disposal in the jurisdiction, of solid waste generated in the jurisdiction.
E = The amourit`of solid waste generated in the jurisdiction which is exported to solid
waste disposal facilities through interjurisdictional agreement(s) with other cities,
counties or,'states, or through agreements with solid waste enterprises, as defined in
section 40193 of the Public Resources Code.
n = each ,year of a 15 year period commencing in 1991. [iterative in one year increments]
(c) The Solid Waste Facility Capacity Component shall include discussions of.
(1) The solid waste disposal facilities within the jurisdiction which will be phased out or
closed during the short-term and medium-term planning periods and the anticipated effect
from such phase-out or closure on disposal capacity needs of the jurisdiction.
(2) Plans to establish new or expanded facilities for the short-term and medium-term
planning periods and the projected additional capacity of each new or expanded facility.
(3) Plans to export waste to another jurisdiction for the short-term and medium-term
planning periods and the projected additional capacity of proposed export agreements.
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 25 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
Note:
Authority cited:
Section 40502 of the Public Resources Code.
Reference:
Sections 41260, 41460 and 41821 of the Public Resources Code.
Section 18788. Five-Year Review and Revision of the Countywide or Regional Agency
Integrated Waste Management Plan.
APPENDIX C
76'1K't<"ql 3;iP ±ds~ON p4~~ kl.ili)'r, F.ttp 15;f
Central Mario
Commercial Food-to-
Energy (KE) Program
P
rs.
i
What is Anaerobic Digestion?
Anaerobic digestion (also known as food-to-energy (F2E) is the decomposition of organic solids in an
oxygen-free environment. Through this technique, a natural biogas is created (consisting primarily of
methane gas) which is captured and utilized as a source of renewable energy. By diverting food waste
from landfills, fugitive green house gas (GHG) emissions are averted. Food waste is very biodegradable
and has a much higher volatile solids destruction rate than biosolids, Therefore, residuals will only
increase slightly and may be used as an alternative daily cover,
i
Food waste
Food Waste
Receiving and
Separation at Solid
Waste Transfer Station
Alternative Daily
Cover
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 26 of 29
Garbolo,y in Mar-in: Wasted Encruy
AppFmm n
The follow describes the methods used to turn various types of waste into energy:
THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
Gasification-uses heat, pressure and steam to convert organic or fossil-based materials
directly into a gas composed mainly of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide,
otherwise known as syngas. Typical raw materials used in gasification are coal,
petroleum-based and organic materials. The technology requires an energy source to
generate heat and to begin processing. Hydrocarbon buildup, a main contributor to plant
failures, is a significant problem. In addition, the cost of requirements to operate the
plant has made it commercially unviable.
Microwave Plasma Gasification- plasmatron guns are strategically pointed to saturate
matter with microwaves at an angle, creating an efficient vortex flow that starts the
gasification process at the core, making this a more effective process.
In addition, the microwave plasma gasification reactor does not react violently with any
material as feedstock, and it is not as sensitive to moisture as other technologies are. For
this and many other reasons, microwaves gasification can be considered as the leading
emerging technology in the waste to energy field. a°
Pyrolysis-burns wet MS W in an oxygen and water: free environment and generates
substantial amounts of condensable hydrocarbons, which make operating the plant
difficult and inefficient. The solids., resulting from pyrolysis are highly contaminated and
need further treatment. The additional'process requires more energy than the original
pyrolysis procedure.
N-;_
Plasma Are Gasification-uses electricity passed through graphite or carbon electrodes
to convert organic materials to syngas; inorganic materials are converted to solid slag.
Main disadvantages include large initial investment costs relative to current landfills,
large electrical energy input, frequent maintenance of the highly corrosive plasma flame
and highly toxic waste water. There are no tars or furans. At extremely high
temperatures all metals become molten and flow out the bottom of the reactor. Inorganics
such as silica; soil.; concrete, glass, gravel, etc. are vitrified into glass and flow out the
bottom of the reactor. There is no ash remaining to go back to a landfill -See Appendix E
Thermal DepolymeriZation-uses waste plastic, tires, wood pulp, medical waste, turkey
offal and sewerage sludge to produce crude oil products as kerosene, naphtha and light
crude oil. Methane, an additional byproduct, is collected and used to power turbine
generators that produce electricity either for the facility or for resale.
20 http://www.Iinkedin.com/brotips/Microwave-plasma-Lasification-vs-other-1978778.S.95759190
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 27 of 29
Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy
NON-THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
Fermentation production-uses waste cellulose or organic material to create ethanol for
use in motor vehicles. The fermentation process is the same general procedure used to
make wine.
Esterificationuses recycled vegetable oil, virgin oil and/or tallow to create biodiesel.
The recycled oil is processed to remove impurities and virgin oil is refined. The amount
of oil in the feedstock and the transportation distance determine the effectiveness of the
technology.
Anaerobic Digestion-uses bacteria to break down food waste and release methane. gas
as a byproduct that can be used for electricity/energy generation. Theorganic residue can
be used as a soil amendment.
APPENDIX E
DISCUSSION ON PLASMA GASIFICATION
Plasma gasification is the gasification of matter in an oxygen-starved environment to
decompose waste material into its basic molecular,"cture. Plasma gasification does not
combust the waste as incinerators do. It converts the organic waste into a fuel gas that
still contains all the chemical and heat energyrtfiom the waste. It converts the inorganic
waste into an inert vitrified glass.
Plasma is considered a 4th state. Electri 'ity=is fed to a torch, which has two electrodes,
creating an arc. Inert gas is passed 'through the arc, heating the process gas to internal
temperatures as high as 25,000 `degrees Fahrenheit. The following diagram illustrates
how the plasma torch operates.`
ti E "tom,_ itR 3 i v?a .?t
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 28 of 29
Garbolo~y in Marin: wasted Encrg
The temnerature a fPw feet from the torch can he as high as 5.000-8000° F. Because of
ti-lese high temperatures the waste is completely destroyed and broken dowrl into its bane
elemental components. There are no tars or furans. At these high temperatures all metals
become molten and flow out the bottom of the reactor. Inorganics such as silica, soil,
concrete, glass, `ravel, etc. are vitrified into glass and flow out the bottom of the reactor:
There is no ash remaining to go back to a landfill.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM- Plasma Gasification
http://recoveredenergy.com/d plasiTm-html
multi
ic m Effect
Fvel t _ Stearn S
Lrl~inc
Ga<R _ D isuIlation
Heat (Optional)
Exchange
Tipping Floor ~ Ga_S ' •s
cs~~n " ra y. :L 1
Waste Up t C*a Tur 2i
Storage a. 0
••1 i
r" e s '31
vitrified Recycled HCL Sulfur Hlcctricir Disri4e
r
Glass Metals Water
May 8, 2013 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Pane 29 of 29
i
RECEIVED
MAY 20 2013
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICL-:
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORIAL DAY SERVICE
TO HONOR THOSE WHO GA VE THEIR L / VES IN
SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY
MONDAY, MAY 27, 2013
9 AM - Doors Open 9:30 AM - Music Starts
10 AM Service Begins
VETERANS MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM
MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER
SAN RAFAEL
Service Includes:
4•• Music provided by the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Non-Marching Band
Speaker - Jarred Burr, CW03, USMC, Retired
Color Guard & Drill Team - "House of Steel" in San Rafael
Star Spangled Banner & God Bless America - Soloist Victoria Pereira of Marin
Catholic High School
Wreath Laying Service at the Monuments
Military Vehicle Display
Coffee & Donuts Afterwards
Presented by
MARIN COUNTY UNITED VETERANS COUNCIL
Coordinating Councii of the Veterans Organizations in Marin County
Ty-
44
N