HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 2 WASTE MGMNT 02-01-93OLD BUSINESS NO. 2
A G E IN'D A-,-!�
_I 9 3 2-1-93
l
Inter -Com \tet. {'
DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1993 S
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO ISSUES REGARDING WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the January 4,.1993 City Council meeting several issues were
raised related to the City's contract with Great Western
Reclamation, as well as the City's compliance with the regulations
contained in Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939). As the concerns raised
focused primarily on the legal aspects of the operations of Great
Western Reclamation on behalf of the City, the utilization of
Sunset Environmental as a Materials Recovery Facility ("MRF"), and
potential City liabilities, a report providing a detailed response
to each issue has been prepared by the City Attorney's office and
is transmitted herewith.
In addition to the issues addressed in the attached Inter-com from
the City Attorney's Office, the City Council has been asked in the
past why the City's waste collection contract has not been offered
for bid. Section 2 of the current contract states that the term of
the agreement is for five (5) years commencing July 1, 1988 and
ending the last day of June, 1993 and each year thereafter shall be
automatically renewed for an additional five (5) years. To
terminate the contract, the City shall give the Contractor written
notice of intention not to continue the contract at least six (6)
months prior to the end of any such contract year. However, after
July 1, 1993, the City could also terminate the contract agreement
upon one (1) year's prior written notice to the Contractor
following a noticed public hearing and a finding by the City
Council in the reasonable exercise of its discretion that:
1. The service provided by the Contractor has fallen.below
acceptable standards.
2. The Contractor has continued to fail to achieve and
maintain reasonable, acceptable standards after a forty-
five (45) day written notice specifying the shortcomings
in the Contractors performance.
Thus, to terminate the Contract with Great Western Reclamation, the
City must provide f ive and one-half ( 5 i ) years written notice or
one (1) year written notice if it makes the requisite findings
noted above.
Response to Issues Regarding Waste Management Contract
February 1, 1993
Page Two
It must also be noted that the five-year notice provision somewhat
tracks the language found in Public Resources Code Section 49520.
Section 49520 essentially provides that where a local agency awards
an exclusive franchise, other solid waste haulers operating within
the local agency's jurisdiction are entitled to operate for five
(5) years after mailed notification of the award of the exclusive
franchise. This is on the State Legislature's premise that the
solid waste hauler invested heavily in capital equipment to provide
the service and the five-year period allows the solid waste hauler
to fully amortize the payment.
CONCLUSION
Staff is currently initiating monitoring procedures, independent of
the information provided by Great Western Reclamation, to insure
compliance with all the provisions contained in the contract.
Should the City Council wish to ensure the bidding of solid waste
collection services in the future, they would need to provide the
staff and City Attorney's Office with direction to prepare the
required written notice.
Christine A. Shi eton
Assistant City M nager
Kate Pitcher
Administrative Assistant II
Attachment
CAS:KP:kIb:WSTMGT
Ron Nault
Finance Director
Inter -Com
DATE: JANUARY 28, 1993
CHRISTINE SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: ISSUES RAISED BY 5 -STAR RUBBISH SERVICE AND SOUTH COAST REFUSE
CORPORATION AT JANUARY 41 1993, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At the January 4, 1993, City Council meeting, Dolores Otting
of 5 -Star Rubbish Service and Madelaine Arakelian of South Coast
Refuse Corporation spoke before this Council and raised numerous
issues concerning compliance with the diversion requirements of the
Integrated Waste Management Act ("Act") and the City's Franchise
Agreement with Great Western Reclamation.
As you know, pursuant to the Act, the City must, among other
things, reduce the amount of solid waste generated from within the
City which is disposed of at landfills. The Act requires a 25%
reduction by 1995 and a 50% reduction by the year 2000. The basis
from which diversion is to be measured is the amount of solid waste
generated within the City in 1990. By this report we seek to
address the assertions made by Ms. Otting and Ms. Arakelian. Those
concerns and our responses are as follows:
Issue No. 1:
1. Ms. Otting stated that the County of Orange's Weight
Characterization Study reflects an estimate that 4.3 million tons
of solid waste were generated within the County in the year 1990,
yet the actual figure for solid waste deposited in the landfill for
the year 1991-92 was 3.2 million tons. Ms. Otting stated that
these figures make it appear that the County has already
successfully recycled 1 million tons of solid waste, a 25.59%
reduction.
Response to Issue No. 1:
The 4.3 million tons referred to by Ms. Otting is a figure
which was calculated by the County of Orange and not by the City of
Tustin. It reflects the County's estimate of the total weight of
solid waste generated within the County of Orange. The 4.3 million
tons is not necessarily the final base figure to be used in
determining whether diversion requirements have been met. The 4.3
million ton estimate includes inert solids such as asphalt,
concrete, dirt, etc., which will not be counted in the diversion
equation. The estimate also includes solid waste brought from
outside the County, solid waste disposed of by individuals and
Christine Shingleton
Page 2
January 28, 1993
solid waste which was diverted and thus, never reached the
landfill. The 3.2 million tons represents the County's calculation
of the amount of solid waste disposed of at all County landfills
during the 1991-92 fiscal year. The two important points are: (1)
the 25% drop from 4.3 million tons to 3.2 million tons does not
mean that the 25% diversion required by 1995 has been accomplished;
and (2) these County numbers have no application in determining
whether the City has met the diversion requirements under its own
Source Reduction and Recycling Element ("SRRE").
Issue No. 2:
The County numbers make it appear that the City has already
met the 25% diversion requirement.
Response to Issue No. 2:
Ms. Otting stated that the same County study estimates that
107,352 tons of solid waste were generated within the City in 1990,
yet Great Western reports that only 56,723 tons of solid waste were
collected within the City for the 1991-92 fiscal year. It is her
contention that these numbers make it appear as if the City has
reduced their waste stream by nearly 50% already.
Again, the 107,000 tons figure projected by the County does
not play a part in determining whether or not the City meets the
requirements of the Act. Included in the County figure is an
arbitrary 29,000 tons which was allocated to the City's base year
by the County. At the end of its study, the County had 1.3 million
tons of solid waste which it estimated was generated in the County
which was not accounted for in the other waste characterization
reports. The County arbitrarily allocated the 1.3 million tons on
a percentage basis to each City based upon that City's population.
The City's own SRRE does not recognize this allocation.
The City's SRRE, which was drafted by consultant R. W. Beck,
estimates that 86,827 tons of solid waste were generated within the
City for the 1990 base year (calendar year). The 56,723 tons
figure provided by Great Western reflects the amount of solid waste
collected by Great Western during fiscal year 1991-92. The Great
Western figure does not include all of the sources of solid waste
which are figured into the SRRE number, including solid waste
generated by the Tustin Unified School District, the Tustin U.S.
Marine Air station, by private individuals who dispose of their own
waste, diverted solid waste and inert solids such as concrete,
asphalt, dirt, drywall, etc., which are not figured into the
diversion equation. Thus, the difference between the City's SRRE
figure and the Great Western figure does not directly correlate to
the amount of solid waste which has been diverted. The Great
Christine Shingleton
Page 3
January 28, 1993
Western figure is simply a component, albeit a large one, of the
diversion equation.
In addition to the 56,723 tons reported by Great Western,
Federal Disposal, which serves the Air Station, reported a total of
2,600 tons of solid waste collected during the 1991-92 fiscal year.
Staff has made repeated requests to 5 -Star Rubbish for its reports
of collected solid waste tonnages, but thus far the sole report
received has been for only the first quarter of 1992. That report
was received by the City last week and Staff is still verifying the
accuracy of the information.
In 1990, the commercial and residential solid waste routes in
the City of Tustin also included pickup of commercial and
residential waste in other jurisdictions. Because of this, there
was not an accurate method for delineating just how much solid
waste was generated within the City during the base year, 1990.
Staff annually monitors the information and, pursuant to the Act,
may modify the SRRE if new information so warrants. Because all
commercial and residential routes are currently run solely within
the City of Tustin, Staff should be in a better position to
calculate the base year figure for 1990. It is this base year
figure by which the City will determine whether or not it meets the
Act's diversion requirements. In addition, new legislation which
took effect this year, will alter the manner of determining whether
diversion requirements have been met. We believe that all Cities,
and the County, will likely undertake a review of their SRREs and
their 1990 base year tonnages due to these legislation changes and
the availability of more accurate information.
Issue No. 3:
Ms. Otting referred to the indemnification provisions of the
City's contract with Great Western. She noted essentially two
provisions, one by which Waste Management agreed to indemnify the
City for failure to comply with the diversion requirements of the
Act, and another concerning an indemnification provision regarding
responsibility for hazardous waste and hazardous waste cleanup.
Response to Issue No. 3:
Under the Act, the City can be liable for monetary penalties
for failing to comply with the diversion requirements contained
therein. In the Amendment to Agreement for Collection and
Transportation of Solid Waste Refuse between the City and Great
Western, paragraph 14 provides that the Contractor guarantees to do
all things necessary to insure that the City complies with all of
the provisions of AB 939 and provides further that the Contractor
will pay any and all penalties imposed upon the City by virtue of
Christine Shingleton
Page 4
January 28, 1993
any non-compliance. Ms. Otting stated that Great Western cannot
indemnify the City with respect to compliance with the Act.
However, we are unaware of any law which would preclude such
indemnification. In our opinion, if Great Western failed to divert
25% of the solid waste it collected in 1995 and the City was
penalized for that failure, pursuant to the above provision Great
Western would be required to reimburse the City for all penalties
paid.
Ms. Otting also stated that the City cannot escape liability
for cleanup of toxic sites under Federal laws. Under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act ("CERCLA"), various parties can be held liable for cleanup of
toxic sites. Included as a potentially liable party are persons
who "arrange for" the disposal or treatment of hazardous waste.
While the City's Agreement with Great Western does' not provide for
disposing or treating hazardous wastes, such wastes could be
commingled with non -hazardous solid waste. Should this hazardous
waste subsequently be disposed of at a landfill which became a
cleanup site, the City could be a potentially responsible party
under the argument that it arranged for the disposal of the
hazardous waste.
The City's contract with Great Western includes the following
provision:
16. Indemnification:
All work provided by this Agreement to be performed
by Contractor shall be at the risk of Contractor alone
and Contractor agrees to save, indemnify and keep
harmless City against any and all liability, claims,
judgments or demands, including demands arising from
injuries or death of persons (Contractor's employees
included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or
out of the operations conducted by Contractor, save and
except claims or litigation arising through the sole
negligence or sole willful misconduct of City and will
make good to and reimburse City for any expenditures,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, City may make by
reason of such matter and, if requested by City, shall
defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of
Contractor.
City exposure to liability could arise if either a material
recovery facility ("MRF") or transfer station to which Great
Western took solid waste (owned by Great Western or not) became a
designated cleanup site. This would be true whether the City
Christine Shingleton
Page 5
January 28, 1993
contracted with Great Western, some other entity, or took the solid
waste to the MRF or the transfer station itself.
The agreement between the City and Great Western for
indemnification would not prevent the Federal government from
naming the City as a defendant. This would be true whether the
City contracted with Great Western, some other entity, or provided
solid waste disposal services itself. However, Great Western would
have its contractual obligations to the City as set forth in
Paragraph 16 and could also be liable either as an entity who
arranged for the disposal of the solid waste or as a transporter of
the solid waste.
Issue No. 4:
The City's SRRE does not have separate baseline tonnage for
the School District.
Response to Issue No. 4:
There is no requirement in the Act that solid waste collected
from school districts be separated from the other solid waste
collected within the rest of the City. However, the City is
anticipating receipt of a separate baseline figure for the Tustin
Unified School District to insure that 5 -Star Rubbish Service,
which services those accounts, meets the diversion requirements of
the Act. For future periods, this may be a moot point as
the latest legislative amendments require State agencies who have
undertaken solid waste collection responsibilities, such as the
School District, to develop their own integrated waste management
program.
Issue No. 5:
The MRF operated by Great Western is not permitted, is owned
by a private person, and can only process 900 tons of solid waste
per day.
Response to Issue No. 5:
The MRF is owned by Waste Management of North America, the
parent company of Great Western, which is its wholly owned
subsidiary. The State does not issue MRF permits. It is permitted
through the County of Orange Solid Waste Enforcement Agency as a
"Solid Waste Facility". The State has informed Staff that it is
still grappling with devising a definition of what constitutes a
MRF. In the Act itself there is no MRF definition and the County
issues permits to "Solid Waste Facilities", its term which includes
transfer stations, MRFs, etc. The Act also uses the term "solid
Christine Shingleton
Page 6
January 28, 1993
waste facility" which includes processing stations, which are
defined in the Act as including facilities which separate solid
waste. A letter from the County of Orange is attached hereto
explaining the status of this facility.
As noted previously, Great Western reported that it collected
56,723 tons of solid waste from the City of Tustin during the 1991-
92 fiscal year. The MRF can process 900 tons per day. On the
basis of a five-day work week, this calculates to 234,000 tons in
a given year, signifying that the MRF, even with its current permit
restrictions, has more than enough capacity to handle solid waste
generated within the City, even though solid waste from other
jurisdictions, including the City of Irvine, is also processed at
the MRF.
In addition, Great Western has applied for a permit to
increase the amount of solid waste that can be processed at this
facility to 1,700 tons per day. The County of Orange Solid Waste
Enforcement Agency has conditionally accepted the application for
filing pending conditional use permit approval by the City of
Irvine. Great Western is currently pursuing a Conditional Use
Permit with Irvine.
Issue No. 6:
The City's solid waste is not being recycled at the MRF.
Response to Issue No. 6:
Great Western has assured the City that all solid waste
collected within the City is being sorted at the MRF. In addition,
a program to monitor Great Western's collection vehicles is
currently being devised by Staff. Great Western and Staff have
been working over the last few months to improve the diversion of
solid waste at the MRF. Initially, Great Western's own reports
indicated that only 6.9% of the solid waste was being diverted
through the MRF. However, since the beginning of the year, the MRF
has installed new sorting lines which are now in operation and are
anticipated to substantially increase the amount of materials
diverted. Other than the comments made by Ms. Arakelian, Staff has
received no information which would indicate that the solid waste
collected within the City by Great Western is not being taken to
the MRF.
Ms. Arakelian stated to the City Council that the City is
required to divert 25% of its solid waste from the landfill
beginning "now" up to 1995. However, the 25% diversion requirement
need not be achieved until 1995. Currently there are no minimum
diversion requirements in place. The next two years will be spent
Christine Shingleton
Page 7
January 28, 1993
implementing the SRRE to insure that such diversion is accomplished
by 1995.
Issue No. 7:
City Councilmember Potts indicated that he was at the MRF on
Monday, January 4, 1993, for approximately 25 minutes and saw only
two solid waste collection vehicles enter the facility.
Response to Issue No. 7:
Staff spoke with David Ross, General Manager of Great Western
Reclamation, about Councilmember Potts' observations. Mr. Ross
stated that the number of trucks going in and out of the facility
would depend on not only the time of day, but also what'day of the
week. He noted that while commercial collection occurs six days a
week in the City of Tustin, residential collection in the City
occurs only on Thursday and Friday. On the day that Councilmember
Potts was at the facility, there would have been no residential
trucks originating from Tustin. On Monday there are six (6)
commercial solid waste collection vehicles operating in the City of
Tustin. Those six (6) trucks generally will each make two (2)
trips per day to the MRF for a total of 12 trips or approximately
one trip every 45 minutes on the average. The trucks that
Councilmember Potts may have seen may not have even been from the
City of Tustin. The drivers also tend to get a full load at
approximately the same time, so trucks will generally arrive at the
MRF in clusters as opposed to being scattered out evenly through
the day. Also, as noted, Staff is currently devising a monitoring
program which will independently verify whether the City's solid
waste is being taken to the MRF.
S G. ROURKE
CITY ATTORNEY
DAD:cj ♦ :S\2649
cc: W. Huston
R. L,edendecker
DAV"Ir� AI! De /B RRY
DEPUTY CITY A TORNEY
JAN -28-1993 16:13 FROM HCA*;7NVL HEALTH
V TY O P
January 28 1993
TO 8320825 P.02
HEALTH CARE AGENCY
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
2009 E. EDINGER AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705
(714) 667-3700
Irma Hemandez, Administrative Assistant
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA. 92680
Subject: Sunset Environmental Inc.
Dear Ms Hernandez:
TOM DRAM
DIRECTOR
L. R W AHTM GLTH LV,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Dr4WPk.-
ROBERT E. MERRYMAN, R. S. MPH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
On March 10, 1992 The Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted
Resolution No. 92-237 which designated the Orange County Health Care
Agency, Environmental Health as the Solid Waste Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA) for the County of Orange. This designation is with the
concurrence of the majority of the Orange County cities (which includes
Tustin) with the majority of the incorporated population. What this
designation means is that the LEA enforces the State laws at solid waste
facilities.
The LEA, with concurrence from the CIWMB, issued on April 11, 1985 a
Solid Waste Facilities Permit to Sunset Environmental Inc. The permit
allows the separation of resource recovery material with separate
unloading areas. Due to the numerous changes proposed at this facility
Sunset Environmental Inc. has been working closely with this Agency to
revise their Solid Waste Facilities permit to more accurately describe the
facility operations. On December 7, 1992 Sunset Environmental Inc.
submitted a permit review application to our Agency. This application is
one of the steps required in order to revise the permit. The process to
revise the permit will take months and until a revised permit is issued
Sunset Environmental Inc. must stay within the conditions of their 1985
permit. The resource recovery operations being conducted at the transfer
station facility has been approved by this Agency and is within the
conditions of their existing permit.
JAN -28-1993 16:14 FROM HCA*ENVL HEALTH
Irma Hernandez
-2-
TO
8320825 P.03
January 28, 1993
All our inspection reports and records: are available upon request and if it
would be helpful I will gladly meet with you to discuss this facility
further. I have attached for your information a copy of the Solid Waste
Facility Permit for Sunset Environmetal Inc. If you have any questions
please give me a call at (714) 667-2014.
Sincerely,
Patricia Henshaw, REHS
Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist
Solid waste Local Enforcement Agency
Environmental Health Division
PH:md
JAIL -28-1993 16:15 FROM HCA*FNVL HEALTH
_iv wsi:bl r. rt It�f'tKM11 un.���•��v
-t• t-V•tT (sur. 091•TI •
a•rs.•sam► •6tA�r ivvw�.
Orange County•Solid Waste -
Enforcement Agency
Sunset Envi rorpentaInc* Solla
Station/Resource Recovery Facili
TO 8320825
.,,xw�a—�-• ter' .+ . ���s
Orange .
ase r .
-&tew
NT• 61tA.TNw
Sunset Environmental; Inc. • 5 S
P. 04
1 •• 4
30 -AB -336
T"....s.
1-3-85 (Revised)
r . s. a ..rig....
3-7-84
a" Plea t+rsarT •�swn
j VPM
x,6122 oast ruction Circle West, Irvine, Cal i forhi-a, 92705 .
Orange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency. (hereinafter referred to'as Enforcement Agency)
is that: _
Sunset Environmental, Inc. is a new Class 11-2 resource recovery and l arge=volulme, transfer..,
station located on 3.09 acres within the Industri i1 District of the Irvine Business C.Ompl?eX:
..
The facility will be operated under the management organization of Sunset -Environmental , ' �.
who's existing company offices are located adjacent to the site. _
A �oximatel 900 tons of combs ned Group 2 and Group 3 materials wi l l .•be • received dai ly:
AP Y -
Processes at the facility include separation of resource recovery materials with separate
unloading areas. - -
A slot operation_ w
i ll be used in conjunction with --a skip loader. A crane taaaper will be
used to di stiri.bute. the weight of refuse evenly in transfer vehicles.
hours are Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to -� :80 p.m. Saturdays from
Operating •
6=00 a.m. to 5:00 -p.m. and Sundays from 7:00 a.lm. to 5:00 p:�. _
The desi 9 n and operation of this facility is specified in the Report of Disposal Si to
= Information, which is hereby made a part of this permits
The following documents pertain to or condi ti op design and operation of this faci 1 ity:
a.• City .of Irvine Business License. _
t State Minimum Standards for Solid Was-te- Handling • and 8i sposal --Title 149 Division 7, .
b. _ _
Chapter_ 3 of the Government Code. _
c.
Ordi nance-*Ro. 2622 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange, California.
This pe3tenit'is granted solely to the operator named above and is not transferable. upon s change of
operator, this permit is subject to revocation. upon a significant change is design or operation frvet
vhat-dtscrib_ed in this permit or in attachments thereto for the "sting design and operation or a
facility operating iasmediatety prior to August 1S, 1977, or from the- approved intended design and
operation of a facility which was not operating prior to August i5. a". or which herein is•granted
a permit modification, this permit is subjeef to tevoeatioa, suspensioey' modification or other •
appropriate action. - - •
This penait does not authorize the operation of arty facility contrary to the State Minion= Standards
for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal. This permit Cannot be considered as permission b *Diate
existing laws, ordinances, regulations. or statutes of other government agencies.
Qrange County Solid Waste Enforcement Agency _.
Elden Gillespie
... • . ..«. cif..:.+ ..-
JAN -28-1993 16:16 FROM uCA*ENVL HEALTH
i
'Nol i d Waste facilities Permit Station
,unset Envi ronmental , Inc. Transfer S
Page 2.
TO
8320625 P.05
d. City of rvine Conditional Use Permit No. 84 -CP -0548. -
I _
e. Ci ty of Irvine General plan Amendment No. 84-GA.0020.
.
Cit Council resolution certifying the Environmental impact -Report as-
f.
s_f. Irvine Y
final, No. 84 -ER -0060.
Quality Control board Orde'* No.84-78 and.NPDES No. CA 80000.19.
g. Regional Water Q Y _
Y
h. Orange
Count Sanitation District peridr for discharge to sewer system.
3. This permit is
Consistent with the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan and
The range
the State Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and tosSecti on 66780 of the
County Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared pursuant
Government Lode. -
nt Code Sect on-. 66796.43, the issuance -of the permit --is f
4. Pursuant to Governme 1970
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality o
as amended.
On August 14, 1984 a_n Environmental ronmental Impact Report was approved
dpi sved� t s
this facility by the City of Irvine. which is hereby mane a part o Pe
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66784.19 the City of Irvine, on August 14, 1984;
amended its General Plan to designate this f"i 1 i ty i -n - its General Plan s (Amendment
neral
0 84 -GA -0020) and, therefore, their site i s consiste8t with the C y
Plan.
5. Land uses surrounding this facility are zoned Industrial o.'
CONDITIONS _
s
ordered that Sunset Envi ronmental , Inc. _shal l comply with the fol l owi ng:
It is hereby or _
Requirements - must
c 1 with all applicable federal* State, regional , and local
• 1. This faci 1 i ty eau Omer Y _
requirements and enactments. _
2. Additional information concerning the design and operation of this faci 1 i ty- must
• be furnished upon request by the Enforcement Agency.
Prohibitions -
3. The following
actions are prohibited in.excess of what is received with household
refuse: '
a. Group I or hazardous wastes.
b. Liquid wastes, containerized or not. _
c. Dead animals and parts thereof.
JM: JK:nd
.SWEl-2-2
4-3-85
JAN -28-1993 16:17 FROM HLA*FNVL HEALTH TO 8320625 P.06
Solid Waste Facilities Permit
Sunset Environmental, Inc. 7ansfer Station
Page 3
4. Additional prohibitions at xhe facility are: _
d. Scavenging.
•.
e. Acceptance of septic tank pumpin s g _:or sewage sludge. _
S eci f i cati ons a • . change in design or -operation of the facility• (as stipulated in the
5, No significant g
Report of -,Disposal Site Information --Sunset .fibre Industriesis
those changes which are required by the CON[fITIONS section permit*
the most recent printing of the State Mi nim u m Standards for Soho' Wh to
6. A copy of permits issued
Handling and Disposal and a copy of all other �P�evi ewl bypsi to personnel , author-
ized
uthor- .
operati on of -the faci 1 i ty must be avai 1 abl a fo
d representatives of -the Enforcement Agency and all other applicable agencies
i ze p
during the course of normal working hours.
7. A copy
of the most recent in spection.report by the Enforcement Agaves anstale
available for review by site personnel and authorized representat ,
other applicable agencies during normal working bou rs _ _
8. Restrooms, 1
unchrooms -showers, sand all other sanitary faci 1 itfes shall meet State
Mi tiimom Standards and any requirements of the County, Nplth Officer*
must betaken to prevent -the propagation and attraction of flies,
g. Adequate steps p _
rodents and -all other vectors.
10. The resource recovery part .of the operation shall not conflict with the tandards
responsibility bi 1 i ty of Sunset Envi ronmental ,. nc. to meet the State Ni ninny
p transfer sation.
in operating the large -volume.. .
11. Solid waste deposited
for subsequent processing shall be limited to an amount that
ably be processed within a normal workday. No solid waste shall be
could reason
stockpiled on the ground overnight..
12. 7o comply with- the State Minimum Standards dust masks, suitable hearing protection
devices and safety goggles shall be available to all -parsons working wi thatthe
salvage'facility and must be used when-appro p
ri ate. Workers
able items -shall be required to wear heavy-duty gloves -.Mand -picking salvage-
able
13. Trash from the salvage operation -shall be :hauled to an approved solid waste
disposal facility on a daily basis. "
14. Waste water discharged to the dumping pit sump shall.be handled par Orange County
Sanitation- District's requirements.
SWEI-2-3
4-3-85 -
JAN -28-1993 16 17 FROM 4CA*ENOL HEALTH TO 6320625 P.O?
Solid Waste raci l i ti es Permit Transfer Station
Sunset Envi ronmenta_ 1, Inc. Trans
Page 4
Provisions - -
is. This permit is subject to review by the Enforcement Agency and iaay be suspended,
tevoked'or modified at zany --time -for sufficient cause. .
Mona tori ng
16. 'A semi-annual report indicating the number of"tons of solid waste received by t
t-ransfer station and -the amount deposited at focal solid waste dhe disposal. sites urin g
the precedi ng peri od must be submitted to the Enforcement Agency, - The .report shall
be signed by a-eesponsi bl a officer or repre$entat ive_ of the peM-ttee guaranteeing.
its accuracy.
17 A �noni toring report shall be submi tted to the Enforcement Agency i n accordance
.
with the following schedule:
_ - - Reporting Petri od Report Due
July through December February 1
_ January through- June August 1
- �
-
JK: jh;nd -
SWEI-2-4
4-3-85
TnTAI P. 07