Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-2006-2863 9 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #ili76 Appropriation Agenda Date Requested: Requested By: S ~iIIett Source of Funds: Department: Public WIHks Account Number: Report: Resolution: Ordinance: x Amount Budgeted: Exhibits: Ordinance and Request for Voluntary Revocation Amount Requested: Exhibits: July 8, 2002 Report to City Council Budgeted Item: N/A Exhibits TCEQ Rules - Notice Requirements for Inactive Landfills SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION On July 8, 2002, a report on the status of the La Porte Landfill was presented to the Council (copy attached). The recommendation of the report was to cease pursuit of a permit update, due to cost and actively seek to sell the 81 acre site in the Bayport Industrial District. No action was taken at that time to void the permit. Since that time, the TCEQ has promulgated rules affecting inactive permits (copy attached). The new rules, effective June 2, 2005, require holders of permits for inactive landfills to provide public notice of the facility, including annual publication in the largest newspaper in the county (Chronicle); notice, by certified mail, to all landowners within 500 feet of the facility, the Mayor of the city or town where the facility is located, the county judge, and the council of governments; and post sign(s) specifying the facility's status. The rules provide that an owner or operator that does not intend to operate the facility should begin voluntary permit revocation procedures. This process involves the filing of a Request for V oluntary Revocation of Permit (attached) and verification of the signatory's authority to represent the permit holder (Ordinance attached). Action Required by Council: Approve ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a Request for Voluntary Revocation of Permit for the La Porte Landfill. Approved for City Council Al!enda ~~ J~7~~~;:~duu;tL~ De ra Feazelle, City anager l ) ~4--tJ~7 Date ORDINANCE NO. 2006- ~8(e3 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE A REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF PERMIT WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TO REVOKE THE PERMIT ISSUED ON KARCH 4, 1988, TO THE CITY OF LA PORTE, FOR THE OPERATION OF A TYPE I FACILITY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE: Section 1. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby authorizes Debra Brooks Feazelle, City Manager of the City of La Porte, to execute and deliver to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, a "Request for Voluntary Revocation of Permit" in form attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated by reference herein, to revoke a permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, on March 4, 1988, for the operation of a Type I facility in Harris County, Texas. Section 2. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the City for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting thereof. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and approval, and it is so ordered. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 9th day of January, 2006. CITY OF LA PORTE ~~X~ Alton E. Porter, Mayor By: ATTEST: :trL o/4~ldtt# city Secretary /" APO~ 1/ ~ Knox W. Askins city Attorney 2 REOUEST FOR VOLUNTARY REVOCATION OF PERMIT TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: I, Debra Feazelle, City Manager (name and title ofpennit holder's representative) ,representing City of LaBorte . (name of penn it holder) hereby request that Permit No. 1765 be revoked. The pertnit was issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (rCEQ) or its predecessor agency to City of LaPorte (name of permit holder) on March 4. 1988 for the operation of a Type I (date issued) (type of facility) facility in Harris County. City of LaPorte has since ceased operations and closed the (name ofpennit holder) facility as required by applicable law and does not intend to resume operations under this permit. I understand that. by requesting the revocation of Permit No. :1:765 City of LaPorte (name of permit holder) waives all right to notice and a hearing. The Executive Director of the TCEQ, or his authorized representative, may revoke the permit without a public hearing or any commission action, pursuant to Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 305, Section 305.67. Respectfully submitted, by: (signature of permit holder's authorize City Manager · Please include verification of signa tor's authority to represent the permit holder. TCEQ-10359 (05/12/04) EXHIBIT "A" I I j I i CITY OF LA PORTE LANDFILL FEASIBILITY INTRODUCTION The City of La Porte currently owns a permitted landfill site adjacent to Bay Area Boulevard in the Bayport Industrial District. The site, permitted in 1988, has never been opened. The Permit was obtained through the recommendation of a Solid Waste Disposal Plan, dated March 1983, which recommended the permitting and acquisition of a sanitary landfill to replace landfills scheduled for closure, owned by Harris County and a privately-owned landfill in Baytown. In 1993, TNRCC and EPA requirements (Subtitle D) mandated that the City modify its permit to comply with the new regulations. Because the City did not intend to open the site until current private landfill capacity became unavailable or cost prohibitive, the City requested clarification of its need to modify the permit. The TNRCC responded that the City did not need to modify the permit to comply with Subtitle D requirements until it intended to open the facility (letter attached). The City of La Porte has relied on this response in its dealing with the landfill permit. Subsequent to this, the TNRCC established the Municipal Solid Waste Permit and RegIstration Modification Rules (MOD Rules) which will require permitted but unopened sites to update their permit to Subtitle D, through a modification, by May 19, 2003. Update of permits after this date would require a major amendment. A modification is an administrative update, and is approved by TNRCC staff. A major amendment is similar to the original permit process, complete with public hearings, the possibility of a contested hearing, and requires approval by the Commission. The FY 2001-02 CIP Budget includes $100,000 for this effort. In an effort to avoid unnecessary expenditure of funds, the City met with its attorney and TNRCC Chairman Huston and Commissioner Marquez to present the City's position that it was exempt from this Rule, based on the prior letter received from the TNRCC (letter attached). The Commissioners were sympathetic to the City's position, but were concerned that they could not dictate policy to future commissioners. It was apparent that the Commission would not exempt La Porte from the new MOD rules, and that the City must move forward with obtaining a modification of it's landfill permit prior to the deadline to avoid the major amendment process. On January 22, 2002, City staff met with HDR, the Engineer, to discuss a proposed scope of work to modify the Permit. After extensive discussion, it was apparent that the cost to open and operate the landfill under the new subtitle D rules and regulations adopted subsequent to Subtitle D would greatly increase costs, and reduce capacity. Rather than move forward with developing a contract to modify the Permit, the decision was made to update start-up and O&M costs to operate the landfill under current regulations, and develop a cost comparison to determine if a City-owned and operated landfill was still a viable disposal option. ASSUMPTIONS In order to fairly compare disposal options, several assumptions are required. They are listed below in no particular order. . At some point in the future (10-20 years) capacity at currently used private landfills will disappear, and the City will be faced with opening its own landfill or transporting to a remote, private landfill. . All costs are calculated per cubic yard of waste. . Waste disposal rate of 2,300 cubic yards per month. Note that this rate is a large reduction from the original projection due to the elimination of Seabrook's and LP's commercial waste stream. . 20 year financing for all alternatives. . Collection costs not included and are assumed to be equal for all alternatives. · Two alternatives selected (1) operation of city-owned landfill, and (2) operation of transfer station to dispose at remote site. . Transfer distance to remote site 100 miles round trip. . Construction of transfer station on city-owned property (PW). · Increased costs for future regulations not included - assume that costs for City-owned and private landfill will rise at least equally. A more likely scenario is that costs for the city-owned site will rise faster than privately owned sites due to economies of scale. . Tipping fees at private landfill assumed to be the same as current rates. Any inflation in this rate will also be applicable to a city-owned site. DISCUSSION Attached to this report are two (2) sub-reports. One is the study prepared by HDR calculating probable costs to construct and operate a city-owned landfill. The other is a brief staff cost estimate to construct, equip and operate a transfer station, with associated labor, equipment, supplies and maintenance. Each sub-report will be discussed below. The report prepared by HDR is a result of their experience permitting and consulting for municipal and private landfills throughout the nation. The report assumes start-up construction, equipment and labor costs associated with construction and operation ofthe site. The basis of the report is that with changes in regulations and reductions in estimated waste streams, the cost to dispose of waste at a La Porte-operated landfill, in 2002 dollars, range from $27.86 to $29.48 per cubic yard. Note that current disposal rates under the City's contract with a private landfill are $5.80 per cubic yard. The alternative to operating a city-owned landfill when capacity at the currently contracted site is gone (estimated at 20-30 years) is to find another landfill and transport. Depending on the distance, a transfer station may need to be constructed and operated. A transfer facility is basically a staging area or building to store collected waste until a larger, transfer trailer/truck is filled. Instead of the collection truck being driven, with a three-man crew, to the landfill, several collection trucks can be accommodated by one transfer vehicle. This alternative will require the construction of a transfer station building to house the tipping t1oor, loading area and any compaction equipment out of the weather. Purchase of transfer trailer and truck and other minor equipment will be required for operation of the system. Finally, the addition of two (2) employees will be required to operate the system. The cost to operate the transfer system and pay disposal costs (at current rates) is estimated at $11.27 per cubic yard. At one time, it was determined that the cost of operating a city-owned landfill was the best long-term disposal alternative for La Porte. Changes in regulatory requirements have greatly increased this cost. Although the changes associated with Subtitle D were known to increase the cost of landfilling, the additional changes to design criteria, such as groundwater levels and depth of burial, have increased costs far more than anticipated. Additionally, it costs virtually the same amount to operate a small landfill as a larger one. The major difference is the amount of daily waste. Obviously, the more waste to allocate costs to, the lower the price. With the elimination of La Porte's commercial waste, virtual elimination of all yard waste due to the City's composting program and the elimination of all residential and commercial waste projected for the City of Seabrook, the projected daily waste stream is less than 12 of that originally projected. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Changes in regulations and reductions in projected waste have, together, driven to cost to construct and operate a sanitary landfill to almost $30.00 per cubic yard. It is estimated that the City of La Porte could construct and operate a transfer system and pay disposal costs at a rate of over 60% less than opening a city-operated landfill. The City is also facing costs exceeding $100,000 to bring the permit into compliance with Subtitle D. It is recommended that the City not move forward on updating the permit for its landfill. The costs associated with the update, construction and operation are far in excess of the costs associated with the construction and operation of a transfer station. Future solid waste disposal for La Porte will continue to be contracted landfill disposal. The City must keep informed of the remaining capacity at current disposal sites, as well as future disposal sites. Current estimated capacity is 20-30 years. When, and if necessary, the City must also begin planning for the construction of a transfer facility, or contract with an existing facility to ensure disposal options. Finally, the City owns an 8l-acre industrial site in the Bayport Industrial District on Bay Area Blvd. With the road and rail availability to this site, the City should be able to recoup its original investment through the sale of this property. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chapter 39 - Public Notice Page 7 (B) If the applicant proposes to amend or renew an existing permit, the chief clerk shall mail notice to the persons listed in 939.413 of this title. (4) If the application concerns a hazardous waste facility, the applicant shall broadcast notice of the hearing under subsection (d)(2) of this section. (5) Notice under paragraphs (2)(A), (3), and (4) of this subsection must be completed at least 30 days before the hearing. (g) This section does not apply to applications for an injection well permit. (h) Information repository. The requirements of 40 CFR 9124.33(b) - (f), which is adopted by reference as amended and adopted in the CFR through December 11, 1995, at 60 FedReg 63417, apply to all applications for hazardous waste permits. Adopted November 9, 2005 Effective November 30, 2005 939.509. Application for a Class 3 Modification of an Industrial or Hazardous Waste Permit. (a) Applicability. This section applies to applications for Class 3 modification of industrial or hazardous waste permits that are declared administratively complete on or after September 1, 1999. (b) Notice shall be given under 939.418 of the this title (relating to Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Permit), instead of giving notice under g30S.69(d)(2) of this title (relating to Solid Waste Permit Modification at the Request of the Permittee). Notice shall also be given under 939.419 of the title (relating to Notice of Application and Preliminary Decision). (c) Notice of the public meeting required by g30S.69(d)(4) shall be included with the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Permit under 939.418. Adopted September 2, 1999 Effective September 23, 1999 939.510. Notice Requirements for Inactive Municipal Solid Waste Permit. (a) This section applies to the owners or operators of inactive permitted municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities, which are those facilities that have not accepted waste within two years of permit issuance or have ceased accepting waste for at least two consecutive years. For the purposes of this section, permit issuance means the date that a permit is issued by the commission or the date of a final, non-appealable decision regarding the permit. This section applies to facilities permitted before, on, or after the effective date of this rule. (1) Within two years of the date of permit issuance, the date of ceasing to accept waste, or the effective date of this rule, whichever is later, the owner or operator of an inactive MSW facility shall notify the executive director, in writing, that the facility is inactive and that the owner or operator intends to operate the facility in the future. In the event that the owner or operator does not Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chaplc:r 39 - Public Notice Page 8 intend to operate the facility, the owner or operator should begin voluntary permit revocation procedures. C~{) 't ~ (2) Within two years of the date of permit issuance, the date of ceasing to accept waste, 1e effective date of this rule, whichever is later, the owner or operator of an inactive permitted M cility shall publish notice of intent to operate the facility, at least once, in a newspaper of the largest circulation that is published in the county in which the facility is located or proposed to be located. If a newspaper is not published in the county, then the owner or operator shall publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the facility is located or proposed to be located, and such notice may be satisfied by a one-time publication if the publishing newspaper meets the circulation requirements. Thereafter, notice must be published annually in accordance with this paragraph, until the facility begins accepting waste or voluntary permit revocation is requested. (3) Within two years of the date of permit issuance, the date of ceasing to accept 'vaste, or the effective date of this rule, whichever is later, the owner or operator of an inactive permitted MSW facility shall provide, by certified mail, the notice of intent to operate the facility to: (A) landowners within 500 feet of the facility property line, as determined by county tax rolls or other reliable sources; (B) the mayor and health authorities of the city or town in which territorial limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction the facility is located or proposed to be located; (C) the county judge and health authorities of the county in which the facility is located or proposed to be located; and (D) the council of governments that serves or covers the area or county in which the facility is located or proposed to be located. Thereafter, notice must be sent annually in accordance with this paragraph, until the facility begins accepting waste. (4) The owner or operator shall file an affidavit with the executive director certifying facts that constitute compliance with the notice requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection within 30 days of the last publication of the published notice required by paragraph (2) of this subsection. The owner or operator shall also file a copy of the published notice required by paragraph (2) of this subsection with the executive director that shows the date of publication and the name of the newspaper within ten business days after its publication. The deadline to file a copy of the published notice that shows the date of publication and the name of the newspaper is ten business days after the last date of publication. The deadline to file the affidavit is 30 calendar days after the last date of publication for each notice. Filing an affidavit certifying facts that constitute compliance with the public notice requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection creates a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the requirement to publish notice. (5) The text of the newspaper notice and the mailed notice must include: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chapter 39 - Public Notice Page 9 (A) the name and address of the agency and the telephone number of an agency contact from whom interested persons may obtain further information; (B) the name, address, and telephone number of the owner or operator and a contact person from whom interested persons may obtain further information and, if different, the location of the facility or activity to be regulated by the permit; (C) a brief description of the activity authorized by the permit; (D) the permit number and permit issuance date; and (E) a statement indicating that the permitted facility may begin construction or operation at a future time, and an estimated date of when the facility is expected to begin construction and operation. (b) Within six months of the date of permit issuance, the date of ceasing to accept waste, or the effective date of this rule, whichever is later, the owners or operators of permitted MSW facilities that are not receiving waste shall provide signs specifying the facility's status. At the owner's or operator's expense, a sign or signs must be placed at the site of the permitted facility declaring that the permit has been issued and stating the manner in which the commission and owner or operator may be contacted for further information. Such signs must be provided by the owner or operator and must substantially meet the following requirements. Signs must: (1) consist of dark lettering on a white background and must be no smaller than four feel by four feel with letters at least three inches in height and block printed capital lettering; (2) be headed by the words "AUTHORIZED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY"; (3) include the words "PERMIT NO.," the number of the permit, and the type of permit; (4) include the words "for further information contact"; (5) include the words "Texas Commission on Environmental Quality" and the address and telephone number of the appropriate commission regional office; (6) include the name of the owner or operator, and the address of the appropriate responsible official; (7) include the telephone number of the owner or operator; (8) include the expected start-up date for beginning operation; and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chapter 39 - Public Notice Page 10 (9) remain in place and legible until the facility is opened. The owner or operator shall provide a verification to the executive director that the sign posting was conducted according to the requirements of this section. (c) Each sign placed at the site must be located within ten feet of every property line bordering a public highway, street, or road. Signs must be visible from the street and spaced at not more than 1,500- foot intervals. A minimum of one sign, but no more than three signs, shall be required along any property line paralleling a public highway, street, or road. This section's sign requirements do not apply to properties under the same ownership that are noncontiguous or separated by intervening public highway, street, or road, unless the property is part of the permitted facility. (d) The executive director may approve variances from the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) of this section if the owner or operator has demonstrated that it is not practical to comply with the specific requirements of this subsection and alternative sign posting plans proposed by the applicant are at least as effective in providing notice to the public. Approval from the executive director under this l>uDSedioll must be received before posting alternative signs for purposes of satisfying the requirements of this section. Adopted May 11, 2005 Effective June 2, 2005