Council rejects multi‑year hazardous‑waste contract; orders review after vendor worked 10 months without formal agreement

The Los Angeles City Council on April 11 adopted the public safety committee recommendation to disapprove a proposed three‑year contract with Clean Harbors for routine and emergency hazardous‑waste management at fire facilities, instructing the Los Angeles Fire Department and the City Administrative Officer to return with additional vendor information.

Background and vote: The vote followed a committee debate and floor discussion about vendor selection and the mechanics of an expired contract. The Clerk recorded the council’s action as adopting the public safety committee report (11 ayes), which effectively rejected the proposed agreement as presented and directed a report back with detailed information.

Fire Department officials told the council that Clean Harbors had continued providing collection services for roughly 10 months after the prior contract expired and that the city owed the contractor about $260,000 for services rendered during the lapse. “They are currently 10 months out of contract and we do owe them about 260,000 at this point,” said Captain Ryan Jones, who described services including pickup of waste motor oil, cooking oil and medical biohazards from about 120 fire‑department sites.

Committee concerns and council action: Councilmembers raised questions in committee about where the vendor’s workforce is based, whether subcontractors are local, whether subcontractors pay prevailing wages, and whether there had been any recent safety or workplace incidents tied to the vendor. Those questions were not fully answered on the committee record, prompting the committee report to recommend disapproval and a deeper city review. The council then approved the committee recommendation to disapprove the contract and tasked the city attorney, CAO and Fire Department to return with answers on safety records, subcontracting practices and prevailing‑wage compliance.

Operational risk: Fire officials warned that if the contract were disapproved without a transition plan, services for picking up these hazardous materials could be interrupted. Staff described a possible administrative mechanism to make a one‑time payment for services rendered to date but said continuing services without a contract would be contingent on the vendor’s willingness.

Next steps: The council’s action returns the matter to the Fire Department with explicit instructions to report back on vendor safety history, worker pay and subcontracting, and to pursue a request for proposals if appropriate. McCosker and other members said they would press for an expedited new procurement that includes labor, local‑hire and subcontracting standards the committee asked for.

The public safety committee’s motion and the council’s action clarify that the city will not approve the proposed multi‑year contract as drafted and will seek more complete information before moving forward.