Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Recycle Elmt & Hazard Waste Element City Council Meeting 3-23-92 Item 6.1 Negative Declaration for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element and approve A Mitigation Monitoring Plan This Staff Report is incomplete. RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *************************** APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT (HHWE) AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) the City of Dublin has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element(HHWE) ; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State of California CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that the environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the laws and guidelines previously described, a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin SRRE and HHWE has been prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Department and is attached hereto as Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Negative Declaration was given as legally required; and WHEREAS, the Findings of the Negative Declaration identified certain significant impacts which would be mitigated by the project design; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 21080(c) (2) , the City of Dublin commits to incorporate proposed mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A to eliminate significant impacts in the design, construction, or operation of any solid waste or hazardous waste facility; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of mitigation measures would occur at such time said facilities may be proposed within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, The City of Dublin shall also work with other jurisdictions to ensure that mitigation measures are applied to any facility within their jurisdictions that may be used to manage wastes generated in the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081 . 6 requires that a monitoring program be included when a public agency adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 51 ii flu V�11_�. CITY OF DUBLIN �,,`-,:./ ,/� P.O. ©cry, 2340, Dublin, California 94568 • City 011ices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. California 94568 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (To be prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines , Section 1 .7(c) , 5. 5) • Description of the Project: City of Dublin Source Reduction and Recycling ( SRR) Element and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element. Project Location: City-wide (City of Dublin and extended planning area) • Name Of Proponent: City of Dublin Findings: I hereby find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because - the mitigation measures such as those described in the initial study will be added to the project(s) as they are . implemented. I hereby find that there are no potential adverse impacts either individually or cumulatively to wildlife resources and that no filing fee need be paid to the Department of Fish and Game. Initial Study: The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental components where significant adverse effects of the SRR • and HHW Elements could potentially occur: 1) Air 2) Water 3 ) Noise 4) Risk of Upset 5) Transportation/Circulation 6) Public Services 7 ) Human Health 8) Aesthetics Preparation: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, _ ( 510) 833-6610 . V it / I Signature: Lau• ence L. Tong, P1ann Director Date: October 31 , 1991 EXHIBIT A LLT/DHC: /SRRHHWND EXHIBIT INITIAL STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT BACKGROUND The City of Dublin, in the County of Alameda, has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element pursuant to State of California requirements which mandate all cities and counties in the state to participate in a local integrated waste management process. In 1989, California Assembly Bill 939 was passed and legislation enacted in the form of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989. This was done in response to the need for diverting materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources. The CIWMA requires cities and counties to divert 25 percent of solid waste from disposal by January 1, 1995, and to divert 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The CIWMA sets the following priorities from promoting integrated waste management: • Diversion through source reduction • Diversion through recycling and composting • Environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal Prior to enactment of the CIWMA, each county in California was required to prepare a County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) to provide a means for orderly management and planning for solid wastes. The CoSWMP process is now replaced with the SRR Element process for each city and unincorporated county area, and with California Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) in each county. Three elements are to be included in a CIWMP: • SRR Element • Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element • Siting Element Each city in California must prepare the SRR Element and HHW Element for its jurisdiction. In addition, each county must prepare the SRR Element and HHW Element and siting element for the unincorporated portion of the county. The countywide siting element identifies the location of transformation or disposal sites which have sufficient capacity for a 15-year period, so that solid wastes generated in the county that cannot be reduced or recycled can be safely handled. Each county must also assemble all city and county SRR and HHW Elements into the CIWMP. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 3 The qualitative objectives are described below. The quantitative objectives and the time period to achieve them follow the qualitative objectives. - Administrative/Operations • Choose economically feasible technologies in recycling and composting that provide workable solutions, maximize economies of scale, minimize siting problems, and have the flexibility to change as the situation requires. Participate in regional composting, materials recovery, and disposal facilities as appropriate. • Participate in and provide systems that allow monitoring of disposal and diversion activities by each jurisdiction to ensure the ability to measure diversion progress and to provide accountability. Require the accounting of all material taken out of the jurisdiction for the purposes of diversion. Support Alameda County in requiring that all waste disposed in the Altamont and Vasco Road Landfills be weighed and reported by waste type, city origin, and weighed quantity. These requirements should be incorporated into the appropriate Solid Waste Facility Permit with the next revision. • Minimize disruptive changes by encouraging modification to current systems. • Implement a comprehensive public education program to encourage waste diversion (source reduction, recycling,.and composting) by all citizens both at home and at work. Create citizen understanding of the benefits of recycling and how to participate in local and state programs. Source Reduction • Reduce yard waste, paper, and nonrepairable products by 2.5 percent in 1995 and 3 percent in 2000. • Provide systems that allow monitoring of source reduction activities to measure progress and to provide accountability. • Implement a public education program to encourage source reduction by all residents both at home and at work. Create public understanding of the benefits of source reduction and how to participate in local and state programs. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper . 5 Special Wastes • Continue to support the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the County Environmental Health Department in order to reduce as much as possible the risks associated with asbestos removal. This activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium terms. • Support reasonable program to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse. • Support reasonable countywide programs to perform analytical testing of sandblast sand to reduce hazard potential and evaluate recycling potential. • Work with the county to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in order to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes and provide documentation of quantities. • Support reasonable programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. Education and Public Information • Create a 50 percent awareness level by 1995 among community residents concerning Dublin's curbside recycling and green waste programs. • Encourage a source reduction and recycling curriculum in all of Dublin's elementary and secondary schools by 1995. • Maintain the awareness levels and programs as described above and revise those objectives accordingly to achieve the long-term SRR Element goal of 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposal. Quantitative Objectives. As required by Section 18731 of the State Planning Guidelines, Table 1 shows the percentage of solid waste diversion Dublin has currently achieved and the percentage of diversion Dublin plans to attain by the end of the short-term planning period (1995) and the end of the medium-term planning period through source reduction, recycling, and composting program activities. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *************************** APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT (HHWE) AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) the City of Dublin has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element(HHWE) ; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State of California CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that the environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the laws and guidelines previously described, a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin SRRE and HHWE has been prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Department and is attached hereto as Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Negative Declaration was given as legally required; and WHEREAS, the Findings of the Negative Declaration identified certain significant impacts which would be mitigated by the project design; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 21080 (c) (2) , the City of Dublin commits to incorporate proposed mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A to eliminate significant impacts in the design, construction, or operation of any solid waste or hazardous waste facility; and WHEREAS, the inclusion of mitigation measures would occur at such time said facilities may be proposed within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, The City of Dublin shall also work with other jurisdictions to ensure that mitigation measures are applied to any facility within their jurisdictions that may be used to manage wastes generated in the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081 . 6 requires that a monitoring program be included when a public agency adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (Exhibit A) has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and City laws and regulations, including CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and that it is adequate and complete. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 .6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan as described in Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 1992. AYES : Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, & Moffatt NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Snyder `� Mayor Pr Tea e c-. . ATTEST: T i y Cl �k a:reso28.agenda#9 . • .`... ): : („ �V -tv)`61 CITY OF DUBLIN • ����� /�� P0. Box 2340. Dublin, California 94568 Offices. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94562 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (To be prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.7(c) , 5. 5) Description of the Project: City of Dublin Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element. Project Location: City-wide (City of Dublin and extended planning area) Name Of Proponent: City of Dublin Findings: I hereby find that although •the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a - significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures such as those described in the initial study will be added to the project(s) as they are implemented. I hereby find that there are no potential adverse impacts either individually or cumulatively to wildlife resources and that no filing fee need be paid to the Department of Fish and Game. Initial Study: The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the following environmental components where significant adverse effects of the SRR and HHW Elements could potentially occur: 1) Air 2) Water 3 ) Noise 4) Risk of Upset 5) Transportation/Circulation 6 ) Public Services 7) Human Health 8 ) Aesthetics Preparation: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff , ( 510) 833-6610 . Signature: 7w / V -I Lau ence L. Tong, Plann '•Director Date: October 31, 1991 EXHIBIT LLT/DHC: /SRRHHWND • • \� / _^ rca �!` CITY OF DUBLIN • • P.O. Box 23410. Dublin. Ca;dom,a 94568 • City Offices. 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. Califon-..e 94636 CITY OF DUBLIN NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Interested Citizens , Responsible and Interested Agencies FROM: Department of Planning City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Attention: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner • (510 ) 833-6610 DATE : November 1 , 1991 SUBJECT: Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element. The City of Dublin hereby presents notice that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the SRR/HHW Elements . • An Initial Study has been completed and is attached . The circulation period for this proposed Negative Declaration will extend from November 1 , 1991 to December 1 , 1991 . Comments should be addressed to Dennis Carrington at the address listed above before December 1 , 1991 . Attachments CONTENTS Background 1 Project Description • 2 Project Location 2. • 'SRR Element 2 HHW Element 6 Probable Environmental Effects of the Project 8 • INITIAL STUDY CITY OF DUBLIN SOURCE REDUCTION AM) RECYCLING ELEMENT • AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT BACKGROUND The City of Dublin, in the County of Alameda, has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element pursuant to State of California requirements which mandate all cities and counties in the state to participate in a local integrated waste management process. In 1989, California Assembly Bill 939 was passed and legislation enacted in the form of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989. This was done in response to the need for diverting materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources. The CIWMA requires cities and counties to divert 25 percent of solid waste from disposal by January 1, 1995, and to divert 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The CIWMA sets the following priorities from promoting integrated waste management: • Diversion through source reduction • Diversion through recycling and composting • Environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal Prior to enactment of the CIWMA, each county in California was required to prepare a County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) to provide a means for orderly management and planning for solid wastes. The CoSWMP process is now replaced with the SRR Element process for each city and unincorporated county area, and with California Integrated Waste Management Plan (C1WMP) in each county. Three elements are to be included in a CIWMP: • SRR Element • Household Hazardous Waste (111IW) Element • Siting Element Each city in California must prepare the SRR Element and HEW Element for its jurisdiction. In addition, each county must prepare the SRR Element and HHW Element and siting element for the unincorporated portion of the county. The countywide siting element identifies the location of transformation or disposal sites which have sufficient capacity for a 15-year period, so that solid wastes generated in the county that cannot be reduced or recycled can be safely handled. Each county must also assemble all city and county_ SRR and HHW t Elements into the CIWMP. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper • PROJECT DESCRIPTION For purposes of this Initial Study, the project description consists of the City of Dublin's SRR Element and the HHW Element. This section provides an overview of the Elements. Additional detail may be found in the individual reports which are available for review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. As discussed later in this Initial Study, this environmental review is necessary prior to adoption of the Elements by Dublin. Because the Elements could lead to the development of solid waste and/or household hazardous waste facilities at a future date, project specific environmental reviews would need to be conducted at that time when facility location and design and operational characteristics are known. Project Location Dublin is located near Pleasanton and Livermore in the "Tri-Valley" portion of Alameda County. The City has the least population of the three cities within the Valley area. Preliminary 1990 U.S. Census figures estimate Dublin's population at 23,229. SRR Element The purpose of the SRR Element is to specify the means by which the City of Dublin will achieve the 25- and 50-percent diversion as mandated by the CIWMA. This document includes the goals and objectives for both short-term (present to 1995) and mid-term (1995 to 2000) planning periods. The SRR Element objectives summarize the percentage of solid waste diversion which the City of Dublin plans to attain, through each of the component programs required by the CIWMA, as follows: • • Source Reduction • Recycling • Composting • Special Waste • Education and Public Information • Disposal Facility Capacity • Funding • Integration Dublin has developed an extensive set of goals and objectives. -These objectives 'encompass all areas affecting the diversion and disposal plans on both a qualitative and quantitative basis. The objectives are separated into six areas: administrative and operations, source reduction, recycling, composting, special wastes, and education and public information. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper • 3 The qualitative objectives are described below. The quantitative objectives and the time period to achieve them follow the qualitative objectives. - Administrative/Operations • Choose economically feasible technologies in recycling and composting that provide workable solutions, maximize economies of scale, minimize siting problems, and have the flexibility to change as the situation requires. Participate in regional composting, materials recovery, and disposal facilities as appropriate. • Participate in and provide systems that allow monitoring of disposal and diversion activities by each jurisdiction to ensure the ability to measure diversion progress and to provide accountability. Require the accounting of all material taken out • of the jurisdiction for the purposes of diversion. Support Alameda County in requiring that all waste disposed in the Altamont and Vasco Road Landfills be weighed and reported by waste type, city origin, and weighed quantity. These requirements should be incorporated into the appropriate Solid Waste Facility Permit with the next revision. • Minimize disruptive changes by encouraging modification to current systems. • Implement a comprehensive public education program to encourage waste diversion (source reduction, recycling,.and composting) by all citizens both at home and at work. Create citizen understanding of the benefits of recycling and how to participate in local and state programs. Source Reduction • Reduce yard waste, paper, and nonrepairable products by 2.5 percent in 1995 and 3 percent in 2000. • Provide systems that allow monitoring of source reduction activities to measure progress and to provide accountability. • Implement a public education program to encourage source reduction by all residents both at home and at work. Create public understanding of the benefits of source reduction and how to participate in local and state programs. t Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 4 • • Restructure garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate. • Continue support for the County's Home Composting Program through education and public information programs. • Develop and implement procurement guidelines for increasing the use of recycled and reusable products in government agencies. Recycling • In the short term, expand the existing residential curbside collection program to include multifamily residences in Dublin and all single-family residences as a result of the introduction of mandatory garbage collection service. These actions will increase diversion by 0.9 percent. • Where possible, direct all appropriate loads of concrete and asphalt generated as waste products in Dublin to appropriate processing facilities for these inert solid wastes, thereby increasing diversion by 1.6 percent. • Consider establishing a recycling program for source-separated high grade office paper. • In the medium term, investigate potential participation in a regional MRF, by directing all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility. This will increase diversion by 17.1 percent. Composting • Divert 6.6 percent of the total waste stream by 2000 through a yard waste composting program. • Support the development and implementation of a reasonable subregional composting programs for source separated yard waste. • Provide for source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from residences to the subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste to this same facility. - . • Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Primed on recycled paper . 5 Special Wastes • Continue to support the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the County Environmental Health Department in order to reduce as much as possible the risks associated with asbestos removal. This activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium terms. • Support reasonable program to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse. • Support reasonable countywide programs to perform analytical testing of sandblast sand to reduce hazard potential and evaluate recycling potential. • Work with the county to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in order to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes and provide documentation of quantities. • Support reasonable programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. Education and Public Information • Create a 50 percent awareness level by 1995 among community residents concerning Dublin's curbside recycling and green waste programs. • Encourage a source reduction and recycling curriculum in all of Dublin's elementary and secondary schools by 1995. • Maintain the awareness levels and programs as described above and revise those objectives accordingly to achieve the long-term SRR Element goal of 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposal. Quantitative Objectives. As required by Section 18731 of the State Planning Guidelines, Table 1 shows the percentage of solid waste diversion Dublin has currently achieved and the percentage of diversion Dublin plans to attain by the end of the short-term planning period (1995) and the end of the medium-term planning period through source reduction, recycling, and composting program activities. • r Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 6 Table 1 Waste Diversion Objectives Waste diverted, percent Waste category 1990 1995 2000 Existing/projected diversion Source reduction 1.9 2.5 3.0 Recycling 22.5 26.9 44.0 Composting - - 6.6 Special waste - - - Total existing/projected diversion 24.4 29.4 53.6 As Table 1 shows, Dublin has already achieved a high rate of waste diversion (24.4 percent) and should have little difficulty in achieving the remaining diversion needed to meet the 1995 requirement of diversion of 25 percent of total waste generated. A principal assumption of this analysis, however, is that diversion credit will be allowed for diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes. For 1990, an estimated 7,271 tons of concrete and asphalt were diverted from landfill disposal, comprising 13.2 percent of total waste generated. The diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes from landfill disposal is allowed to be counted pursuant to state law. HHW Element HEW is defined by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWtIB) as "any discarded material from homes that may threaten human health or the environment if disposed of incorrectly." Examples of HHW include leftover paint, used oil, used auto batteries, cleansers, furniture polish, pesticides, and pool chemicals. Introduction. The California State Legislature recognized the importance of proper disposal of HHW by requiring local governments to establish comprehensive programs for managing HEW as part of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). AB 939 requires all counties and cities in the state to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills and to plan and implement HHW programs. A new law, AB 2707, specifically addressing the issue of 1111W, was passed in January 1991 by the state legislature. AB 2707 r elevates the importance of HHW management by making the HHW component a separate element that is similar to the SRR Element. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 7 County Program. Alameda County, supported by all its cities, has pursued the development of an HHW program for the last several years. This program satisfies Dublin's needs and AB 2707 requirements. The County has acknowledged the need for an HHW management program in the CoSWMP (CoSWMP, July 1987) and in the subsequent County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Tanner Plan, March 1989). On the basis of these planned documents and the passage of AB 939 (1989) and AB 2707 (1990) which also require the County to develop and implement an HHW program, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority) developed an HHW/Mini-Generator Collection Program which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors in June 1990. The proposed HHW program consists of building three permanent HHW collection facilities to be located in the northern, southern, and eastern sections of the County. Specific locations for these collection facilities have not been selected. However, the general locations of the facilities will be the north/central area, southern area, and eastern area of the County. A northern facility will cover the cities of Piedmont, Emeryville, Oakland, Berkeley, and Albany. The southern facility will cover the cities of Hayward, Castro Valley, Fremont, Union City, San Leandro, and some of the unincorporated areas of the County. The eastern facility will cover the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and the remaining unincorporated areas of the County. The operation of each facility will consist of collection, chemical identification, sorting, storing, lab packing, recycling, and disposal. Facility staff will remove HEW from the users' vehicles, sort and identify the waste, recycle where appropriate, and lab pack for disposal. The disposal of the wastes will be handled by a licensed hazardous waste hauler under proper manifestation and supervision by the facility staff. The Countywide HHW/Mini-Generator Collection Program consists of the following individual programs: collection, recycling, and public education and information. The proposed permanent HHW collection facility which will be located in the east county will be the designated facility for Dublin. Collection of recyclable HHW, such as batteries, oil and paint, will occur at permanent HHW collection facilities. Load Checking Program. Load checking currently occurs at all transfer stations and landfills servicing the County. The operator of these facilities is responsible for implementation of this program. Objectives. State Planning Guidelines require that this section include objectives for the short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods. Short-Term Objectives • 1. Support Alameda County's HHW program by participating in the Countywide HEW Program when the permanent facilities come on-line. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper s 2. Encourage public participation in the County program by advertising the availability and purpose of the permanent HHW disposal facilities. 3. Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection facilities to 5 percent of Dublin's households by 1995. 4. Reduce by 10 percent the amount of HHW commingled with the solid waste at solid waste facilities by 1995. • Medium-Term Objectives 1. Continue short-term programs. 2. Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HEW collection facilities to 10 percent of Dublin's population by 2000. 3. Reduce by 25 percent the amount of HEW commingled with the solid waste at solid waste facilities by 2000. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MEETS OF THE PROJECT The attached Initial Study Checklist has been prepared to summarize the probable environmental effects of the proposed project. For purposes of the Initial Study, the project description is the SRR and HHW Elements. This environmental review of the SRR and HHW Elements is necessary prior to adoption of the Elements by the City of Dublin. This review, however, is not adequate to support siting of a future date of any of the solid waste or hazardous waste facilities identified in the project description. Information is not available at this time on facility specifics, including design and operational characteristics, or operator. Appropriate siting studies and project-specific environmental reviews will need to be conducted for those projects. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project specific environmental reviews would thoroughly consider potential project impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. It would be entirely speculative to attempt to evaluate project impacts at the present time. This Initial Study, however, does provide some general discussion of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with these facilities. The discussion in all areas of the checklist was prepared by Brown and Caldwell staff, including Mr. Paul Scheidegger (managing environmental specialist) and Mr. Ery Nesheim• (chief solid waste i.rengineer). These individuals are knowledgeable in the potential environmental impacts "associated with solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. The purpose of this discussion is to inform the decision makers of the possible consequence of adopting SRR and HHW Elements which commit the jurisdiction to support facility development and implementation. Preliminary Draft City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST Yes No significant Mitigatable significant adverse (Yes, No, adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ✓ b. Disruptions, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil? ✓ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ✓ d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ ✓ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ✓ f. Chances in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, depo- sition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river, stream, or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? ✓ g. Exposure of people or prop- erty to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, land- slides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar ✓ hazards? Development of a regional composting or Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility would require appropriate site modifications to accommodate the project. Such changes would likely not be significant. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ✓ Yes b. The creation of objection- able odors? ✓ Yes c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regional- ly? ✓ d. Construction or alteration of a facility within one- fourth of a mile of a school, which might emit hazardous air emissions? ✓ t Achieving the state mandated recycling goals will reduce the quantity of solid waste requiring disposal. As a result, the number of vehicle miles travelled (VMTs) and motor vehicle emissions should be reduced. Reducing the amount of solid waste and HHW requiring disposal would also reduce the potential impacts associated with landfill gas and leachate production at the landfill and extend landfill life. -1- Yes No significant Mitigate'le significant adverse (Yes, i adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect While overall benefit to air quality should result, increased motor vehicular emissions can occur. Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables will result in more VMTs and motor vehicular emissions. A regional HHW facility would be characterized by large numbers of private vehicles delivering small amounts of recyclables and household hazardous waste which can also add to total - motor vehicle emissions. Development of a regional composting facility or materials recovery facility (MRF) would result in fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction and operation due to transporting materials on the site and processing of the materials that occur within the facility. These emissions, as well as those associated with shipment of recovered materials to market, have the potential to be significant. However, there are a variety of on-site dust control and other operational measures which can reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Because a regional compost facility would not use sewage sludge, the potential for nuisance odor conditions would be greatly reduced. Yard waste, however, does contain substances which could produce odors during the storage or composting process. Pockets of anaerobic activity can generate hydrogen sulfide gas ( "rotten egg" odor) . Potential odor impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through selection of the composting process, proper management of the compost piles, use of a process gas recovery system and various odor control features, and minimizing the length of on-site storage. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? J _ Yes c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface Yes waters? f. Alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissoled oxygen or tur- bidity? yes g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground- waters? V Yes h. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- - wise available for public Yes water supplies? - j . Exposure of people or prop- erty to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? - - k. Significant change in the temperature, flow, or chem- ical content of surface thermal springs? _ -2- Yes No significant Mitigat^1e significant adverse (Yes, , adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HHW facility would require construction of impervious surfaces. The reduction in the recharge area could result in a potential loss of groundwater resources. This may or may not be significant depending on site location and groundwater characteristics, but could be mitigated by use of an on-site retention/percolation pond. Increased impervious areas also have the potential to result in, or contribute to, significant drainage impacts at the site or on adjacent properties. Mitigation would include design of a drainage system capable of accommodating a specific design year storm as directed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and use of appropriate design safeguards as required by the State Department of Health Services (DHS) . Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HHW facility also has the potential to adversely affect surface water and groundwater quality at or near the project site. Mitigation of these potential impacts would be addressed during facility design and include such measures as collection, treatment, and disposal of any potentially contaminated liquids on-site in a manner consistent with the requirements of the RWQCB and the local sewage district, berming of areas such as the compost drying area, use of enclosed structures, and use of appropriate low permeability or sealed floor areas to prevent water infiltration. For HHW facilities, compliance with all applicable hazardous waste storage regulations would mitigate potential water quality impacts. A regional MRF and composting facility would have specific construction and operational water demands that cannot be quantified until the facility design phase. The significance of potential water supply impacts would need to be evaluated during project specific environmental review and in the context of the water supply conditions that exist at the time. Design and operational measures . are available to minimize water use. Use of reclaimed water or non-potable groundwater would need to be evaluated. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (includ- ing trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) ? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? ✓ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ✓ Potential impacts to plant life and agricultural crops are site-specific considerations. These considerations should be incorporated into facility siting studies so as to avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Project specific environmental reviews will further consider these issues in detail and develop appropriate mitigation measures. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish, and shellfish benthic organisms or in- sects) ? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or en- dangered species of animals? ✓ -3- Yes No • significant Mitigat^le significant • adverse (Yes, . , adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect c. Deterioration to or re- - duction of the habitats of birds, land animals, reptiles, fish, shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects) ? d. Interfere significantly with the movement of any resident or migratory species of birds, land animals, reptiles, fish, shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects? / Potential impacts to animal life are site-specific considerations. These considerations should be incorporated into facility siting studies so as to avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Project specific environmental review will further consider these issues in detail and• develop appropriate mitigation measures. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? / Yes b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? / - Yes Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables will result in more refuse collection trucks that pass by each residence and will increase noise levels slightly and on an intermittent basis. Noise levels will also increase around regional HEW facilities due to increased numbers of vehicles and handling of the recyclables and household hazardous wastes. Such noise levels, however, are usually not significant. If problems do occur, noise impacts can be mitigated using barriers. Development of a regional MRF would result in increased noise levels due to transporting the materials to the site and the processing .of the materials that occurs within the facility. The significance of potential impacts would depend on the sensitivity of surrounding land uses. Generally, proper siting and design of the containing structure(s) can mitigate noise levels external to the facility. Application of CAL/OSHA and federal occupational and health standards would mitigate noise levels to employees. Increased noise levels would also be associated with a regional composting facility. Noise impacts at composting facilities would be due mainly to vehicles delivering and off-loading waste materials, equipment for shredding the materials into smaller sizes, processing equipment, and vehicles distributing composted material to their ultimate uses. The significance of potential impacts would be dependent on site-specific characteristics, but could be mitigated through use of proper ear protectors and appropriate design measures. 7. Light and Glare. Will the pro- posal produce new light glare? / S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HEW facility will result in the alteration of the present land use of the area. During facility siting, consideration should be given to locating these facilities on land that is planned and zoned for these uses. Some revision to local planning and zoning laws may be required before these projects can be approved. - 9. ' Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? / b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? / - - -4- Yes No •• significant Mitigat^Le significant adverse (Yes, adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect The SRR/HHW Elements will have a beneficial effect on natural resources by encouraging the reuse of materials that would otherwise be disposed of in Landfills and by reducing the amount of household hazardous waste in the solid waste stream than can threaten human health or the environment. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the pro- posal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil pest- icides, chemicals, or rad- iation) in the event of an accident or upset con- ditions? ✓ Yes b. Possible interference with an emergency evacuation plan? ✓ c. Exposure of persons to contaminated soil or toxic materials? ✓ Yes Upset conditions (i.e. , spills, fire or explosion) in a regional HHW facility would have the potential to result in significant safety impacts and potential public liability. Long-term and undetected spills could result in significant soil and groundwater impacts, and fire or explosion could result in significant - short-term safety and air quality impacts. Implementation of adequate collection, handling, storage, and off-site transportation for recycling/disposal of collected hazardous waste would reduce the potential safety impacts of these substances to an insignificant level. Transport of HHW by generators to a regional facility is subject to less control than transport by licensed haulers. This has the potential to expose people to toxic materials, but mitigation can be achieved by appropriate education of the public. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ✓ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ✓ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular move- ment? ✓ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ✓ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ✓ d. Alterations to present patterns or circulation or - movement of people and/or goods? ✓ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? ✓ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycl- ists, or pedestrians? ✓ Yes • -5- Yes No significant Mitiga'r--le significant adverse (Yes, adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect Achieving the state mandated recycling goals will reduce the quantity of solid waste requiring disposal. As such, the number of vehicles required to transport solid waste for landfill disposal will be reduced. Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables will result in increased vehicular movement in these service areas, but the additional vehicular movement is not considered significant nor is the impact to the existing transportation system. Additional vehicular movement in these service areas could create additional hazards to other vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians, but the impact should not be significant. Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HEW facility could, depending on site location, result in the introduction of new vehicular traffic into an area. The potential impacts to the existing transportation systems and the potential for traffic hazards would depend on where the sites are located and the conditions of approach roadways. Typically, such facilities do not create significant demands on existing street systems, but creation of traffic hazards are issues that can assume importance. Vehicular accidents may occur when HEW is being transported by individuals to, or haulers from , the facility. 14. Public Services.Will the pro- posal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new altered governmental services in any of the following areas? a. Fire protection? ✓ Yes b. Police protection? ✓ Yes c. Schools? ✓ d. Parks or other recreational ✓ facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ✓ Yes f. Other governmental services? ✓ A regional HEW facility would concentrate a variety of toxics and materials with high explosive or incendiary potential. Under upset conditions at a facility, highly specialized fire equipment and personnel would be required. Police involvement would also be necessary if nearby evacuation of the public is required. This would also apply if an accident occurred involving a truck hauling major amounts of such materials through public streets. Development of regional facilities such as an MRF or composting facility could increase street maintenance costs slightly. Regional facilities would create slight demands on public services such as fire protection and selected governmental services responsible for monitoring and permitting of solid and hazardous waste facilities, but impacts would not be expected to be significant. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: • a. Use of substantial amounts ✓ of fuel or energy. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? ✓ • Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables would create additional demands for fuel but less fuel would be required to dispose of solid waste. Increased recycling would result in a reduction in the amount of energy required to manufacture the materials that are being recycled. Additional materials processing would increase energy demand. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new sys- tems, or substantial alter- ations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ✓ -6- I Yes No significant Mitigat°le significant adverse (Yes, adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect b. communications systems? ✓ c. Water? ✓ d. Sewer or septic tanks? ✓ e. Storm water drainage? ✓ f. Solid waste and disposal? ✓ Development of additional facilities for implementation of the SRR/HHW Elements would require provision of appropriate utilities, but impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Achieving the state-mandated recycling oals will reduce the quantity of solid waste requiring disposal. The potential qualitative change of the residual materials could require some material handling and landfill design modifications. These potential qualitative changes, which may be beneficial or adverse, will need to be assessed as the wastestream changes. 17. Human Health. Will the pro- posal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ✓ Yes b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ✓ Yes c. Creation of a fire hazard from flammable brush, grass, or trees? ✓ Yes Curbside collection and separate collection of recyclables: has the potential to cause significant health impacts. However, collection of source-separated materials with known characteristics is easier to engineer for safety than a mixed waste stream. Containers and collection equipment can be designed to minimize contact with any material, and the worker can be outfitted with necessary safeguards such as gloves, ear and eye protectors, dust filters, etc. Separating the waste stream into various subunits for collection tends to reduce the weight of each container, thereby reducing the conditions for collector lifting injuries, a common problem among waste haulers. The use of mobile and processing equipment, such as would occur in regional MRF or composting facilities under conditions of traffic congestion and limited space, present potential safety impacts. However, all impacts are subject to mitigation by the application. of CAL/OSHA and federal occupational and health standards and proper design. Composting also has the potential for spontaneous combustion arising from the thermophilic conditions in a compost pile. This can be mitigated by proper pile management. The wastestream brought to a regional HHW facility for processing and materials recovery would be expected to contain relatively minor amounts of hazardous wastes, but could consist of any type of hazardous material utilized by households and small quantity generators. Exposure of facility patrons and employees to these materials could result in adverse health and safety impacts. However, with education of the facility patrons as to proper handling and transport and with proper handling and storage of collected wastes at the facility in full conformance with CAL/OSHA and federal occupational and health standards, potential impacts can be reduced to insignificance. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vistas or view open to public view? - ✓ b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ✓ Yes -7- Yes No significant Mitigat``'le significant adverse (Yes, , adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect c. The destruction of a stand of trees, a rock out- cropping, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature? ✓ d. Any negative aesthetic effect? ✓ Yes source reduction, particularly of throwaway packaging, and strong markets for beverage containers, as provided by the California "bottle bill" (AB 2020) , will reduce roadside litter and improve visual impacts throughout the community. Improper or vandalized set-outs of recyclables at curbside can negatively impact the appearance of residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. These conditions can be mitigated by proper containerization and monitoring by both the waste generator and the collector. Any potential negative aesthetic effect associated with siting a MRF, composting, or HHW facility can generally be mitigated by incorporating this consideration into the siting process, and use of appropriate design measures for softening/shielding views of the facilities from sensitive receptors. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ✓ 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? ✓ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a pre- historic or historic build- ing, structure, or object? - ✓ c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic ✓ cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ✓ Potential impacts to cultural resources are site-specific considerations. These considerations should be incorporated into facility siting studies so as to avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Project specific environmental review will further consider these issues in detail and develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the extent possible. 21. Socio-Economic. Could the project involve: a. Expenditure of public funds in excess of public revenues generated by private projects? ✓ - b. Reduction of low/moderate - ✓ income housing? c. creation of demand for additional housing? ✓ d. Land use not in conformance with character of sur- rounding neighborhood? ✓ e. Other (state) : -a- Yes No significant Mitigat' 1.e significant • adverse (Yes, . , adverse Unknown effect (Unknown) effect effect Development of a regional MRF, composting, or HHW facility will alter the land use of the project area. Compatibility with surrounding land use is a consideration that should be incorporated into facility siting studies so as to avoid potential impacts to the extent possible. Mitigation measures developed during project-specific environmental review will serve to enhance compatibility - of the project with surrounding land uses. 22. General Plans and Planning YES NO Policy. Is the Project: a. Inconsistent with the City General Plan? ✓ b. Inconsistent with specific plans? ✓ c. Inconsistent with other adopted policies? ✓ d. Potentially growth- , inducing? ✓ 23. Mandatory Findings of Sig- nificance: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, • substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife - species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ✓ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) ✓ c. Does the project have impacts which are individ- ually limited, but cumula- tively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect - of the total of those - r impacts on the environment is significant. ) ✓ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ✓ -9- Approval of the SR—and HHW Elements would not result in significant environmental impa. a. Project specific environme %.1 reviews will be conducted at the appropriate time when sites and projects hay _ been defined. At this time, project specific and cumulative impacts will be identified and evaluated. 24. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [ ] I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (4 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures such as these described in the Initial Study will be added to the nroject(s) as they are implemented. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ( ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE U D c, 3 S 5 ..,v.-.,.� �� (Signature) (Title) • x -10- EXHIBIT B CITY OF DUBLIN SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT (HHWE) MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 . 6, the City of Dublin hereby commits to take certain actions in the event a specific solid waste or hazardous waste management facility is proposed in the City of Dublin. The potential facilities discussed in the SRRE and HHWE include Composting Facility, Material Recovery Facility, and Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site. The City of Dublin Planning Director will verify that the environmental impacts of such a facility, as identified in this Initial Study are reduced to insignificance through project design or adoption of mitigation measures and that a program is provided to monitor compliance with any such mitigation measures. Further, the City Manager, or his/her designee, will work with other cities and/or the County of Alameda to ensure that needed mitigation measures are applied to any facilities approved within their jurisdiction that will manage wastes generated from the City of Dublin. a:resoexhb.agenda#9 EXHIBIT f RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *************************** ADOPTING THE FINAL SOURCE REDUCTION RECYCLING ELEMENT AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city to produce a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) ; and WHEREAS, the SRRE must document current and projected waste streams and describe how the City will achieve a mandated reduction in the amount of waste placed in the landfill; and WHEREAS, the City must divert 25% of its waste stream by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000; and WHEREAS, the City is also required by State Law to develop a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) ; and WHEREAS, the HHWE must describe how the City will address the proper disposal of these special wastes; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has, to the best of its ability prepared the SRRE and HHWE in conformance with AB 939 and applicable sections of Title 14, Chapter 9, of the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Preliminary Draft SRRE/HHWE on October 10, 1991 and a public hearing was conducted on the Final Draft on March 23, 1992; and WHEREAS, comments and input received through the Public Hearing process have been considered in preparing the Elements in their final form; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 1992, the Alameda County Local Task Force reviewed the Final Draft and found no points of deficiency in the City of Dublin SRRE/HHWE; and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has issued comments on the City's SRRE/HHWE and this input was considered in preparing the document in its final form; and WHEREAS, the programs, specific objectives, and cost estimates contained in the SRRE/HHWE are based on projections and information available at the time of preparation; and WHEREAS, the reductions to the actual waste stream may be accomplished and documented by diverting greater or lesser quantities than stated in each specific objective in the SRRE/HHWE, depending on conditions which may exist in the future; and WHEREAS, cost estimates and funding sources presented in the SRRE/HHWE are intended for planning purposes and should be updated as specific plans for implementation are considered; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Final SRRE/HHWE, the City Council has considered and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Final Source Reduction Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 1992. AYES: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, & Moffatt NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Snyder f ATTEST: Mayor P e ems. ar t1: a:reso29.agenda#9 1 8to-coo 1. City Dublin � y of 1 1 Source Reduction and Recycling Element Y g I and 1 Household Hazardous Waste Element 1 1 S Adopted March 23 , 1992 Co- I n_ Ye&miksI T Fl (e. _ Cpe `a i. 810 — / a r I I i CONTENTS • I I I I I I 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper I. I CONTENTS 1 LIST OF TABLES vii I LIST OF FIGURES ix IEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 I, CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1-1 Introduction 1-1 I The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 1-1 Source Reduction and Recycling Element 1-2 I Dublin 1-4 Goals and Objectives 1-4 Qualitative Objectives 1-5 I. Administrative/Operations 1-5 II. Source Reduction 1-5 III. Recycling 1-6 I IV. Composting 1-6 V. Special Wastes 1-6 VI. Education and Public Information 1-7 IQuantitative Objectives 1-7 CHAPTER 2. SOLID WASTE GENERATION ANALYSIS 2-1 IDemographics Study 2-2 Residential Demographics Study 2-2 Commercial/Industrial Demographics Study 2-2 ISolid Waste Disposal Study 2-2 Residential Waste Disposal 2-5 Commercial/Industrial and Self-Haul Waste Disposal 2-5 IConstruction/Demolition Debris 2-5 Solid Waste Characterization Study 2-6 I Residential Solid Waste Characterization 2-6 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Characterization 2-6 Special Waste 2-10 I Solid Waste Diversion Study 2-10 Solid Waste Generation Summary 2-10 Materials Targeted for Diversion 2-14 I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper i • .1 CONTENTS (continued) I Materials Not Diverted 2-15 Solid Waste Disposal Projections 2-15 Future Reporting Procedures 2-15 1 CHAPTER 3. SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT 3-1 Source Reduction Overview 3-1 Source Reduction Component Objectives 3-1 State Mandated Source Reduction Objectives 3-2 ' Waste Types Targeted for Diversion 3-2 Short-Tenn Goals and Objectives 3-2 Medium-Term Objectives 3-3 1 Source Reduction Component Existing Conditions 3-3 ii Quantified Source Reduction Activities 3-3 Unquantified Source Reduction Activities 3-6 Evaluation of Source Reduction Program Alternatives 3-7 Rate Structure Modifications• 3-8 Economic Incentives 3-9 Technical Assistance, Education and Promotion 3-10 Regulatory Programs 3-11 Selection of Source Reduction Programs 3-12 .a Analysis of Alternatives 3-12 • Alternatives Selected 3-13 Source Reduction Program Implementation 3-15 Restructuring Collection and Disposal Rates 3-15 Alameda County Home Composting Program 3-15 Recycled and Reusable Products Procurement Guidelines 3-17 , Source Reduction Monitoring and Evaluation 3-17 Methods to Monitor Compliance with Mandated Diversion Requirements 3-17 Restructuring Collection and Disposal Rates 3-18 Alameda County Home Composting Program 3-18 Recycled and Reusable Products Procurement Guidelines 3-19 CHAPTER 4. RECYCLING COMPONENT 4-1 I Recycling Overview 4-1 Recycling Component Objectives 4-2 1 Short Term to 1995 4-2 Medium Term to 2000 4-3 Market Development Objectives 4-4 1 Recycling Component Existing Conditions 4-4 Recycling Component Evaluation of Alternatives 4-5 Separation at Source 4-5 Drop-Off Recycling Centers 4-10 I City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper ii I CONTENTS (continued) ' Buy-back Recycling Centers 4-11 Manual Material Recovery Operations (MMRO) 4-12 IMechanical Material Recovery Facility (MRF) 4-13 Salvage at Solid Waste Facilities 4-15 Additional Recycling Options 4-16 IPublic vs. Private Ownership/Operation 4-17 Public Ownership and Operation 4-18 Private Ownership and Operation 4-18 IAnalysis of Alternatives 4-18 Recycling Component Program Selection 4-19 ' Short Tenn to 1995 4-19 Medium Term to 2000 4-20 Unfavorable Market Conditions 4-20 I Recycling Component Program Implementation 4-20 Unauthorized Removal of Recyclables 4-22 Recycling Component Monitoring and Evaluation 4-24 I Selected Monitoring and Evaluation Method 4-26 Criteria for Evaluating Effectiveness of Progress 4-27 Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting 4-27 I Identification of Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources 4-27 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting Diversion Mandates 4-28 ICHAPTER 5. COMPOSTING COMPONENT 5-1 Composting Component Objectives 5-1 I Medium Term to 2000 5-1 Objectives 5-2 Composting Component Existing Conditions 5-2 I Composting Component Evaluation of Alternatives 5-3 Yard Waste vs. Municipal Solid Waste 5-3 Local Facility vs. Regional Facility 5-4 I Alternatives Evaluation 5-5 Composting Component Program Selection 5-5 Program Description 5-5 IFacility Description 5-5 End Uses of Compost Products 5-6 Composting Component Program Implementation _ 5-6 IResponsible Organizations 5-6 Implementation Tasks 5-6 Costs and Revenues 5-10 I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper iii CONTENTS (continued) Composting Component Monitoring and Evaluation 5-10 Monitoring and Evaluation Method 5-10 Program Effectiveness Criteria 5-10 1 Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting 5-10 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting the Diversion Mandates 5-11 I CHAPTER 6. SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT 6-1 ' Special Waste Overview 6-1 Special Waste Component Objectives 6-2 Special Waste Component Existing Conditions 6-3 Evaluation of Special Waste Program Alternatives 6-8 Selection of Special Waste Program 6-10 Special Waste Program Implementation 6-10 Implementation Tasks and Schedule 6-12 Responsible Parties for Program Implementation 6-12 Special Wastes Component Monitoring and Evaluation 6-13 Program Monitoring 6-13 Criteria for Evaluating Program Effectiveness 6-13 Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting 6-13 Identification of Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources 6-13 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting Diversion Mandates 6-14 II CHAPTER 7. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION COMPONENT 7-1 Component Objectives 7-2 , Short-Term Objectives 7-2 Medium-Term Objectives 7-2 Existing Education and Public Information Programs 7-2 , Recycling 7-2 Composting 7-3 Household Hazardous Waste 7-3 1 Educational Efforts of the School District 7-3 Selected Education and Information Programs 7-3 Program Implementation 7-4 1 Program Task Time Frames 7-4 Community Outreach 7-4 Public Information 7-5 School Programs and Curricula 7-5 Commercial, Industrial, and Professional 7-6 1 Program Revenues and Costs 7-6 I City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper iv I ' CONTENTS (continued) I Education and Public Information Monitoring and Evaluation 7-7 I Methods to Monitor Achievement of Objectives 7-7 Program Monitoring and Reporting Schedule 7-8 Measure to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall 7-8 ICHAPTER 8. DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT 8-1 Existing Solid Waste Disposal and Transformation Facilities 8-1 IDisposal Facility Capacity Needs Projection 8-3 Projected Changes in Disposal Facility Capacity 8-8 ICHAPTER 9. FUNDING COMPONENT 9-1 Potential Funding Sources 9-1 I Short-Term Program Costs 9-4 Revenue Source Identification 9-7 Sources of Contingency Funding 9-8 ICHAPTER 10. INTEGRATION COMPONENT 10-1 Integrated Solid Waste Management Practices 10-1 I Source Reduction 10-1 Recycling 10-2 Composting 10-2 1 Special Waste 10-2 Component Integration 10-3 Component Priorities 10-3 IIntegrated Schedule 10-3 ' HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT Household Hazardous Waste Element Objectives 2 I Short-Term Objectives 2 Medium-Tenn Objectives 2 Household Hazardous Waste Existing Conditions 3 I . Evaluation of Household Hazardous Waste Program Alternatives 4 HHW Collection Programs 5 Load Checking Program 5 IRecycling Programs 5 Public Education and Information Programs 5 I Analysis of Alternatives 6 Selection of Household Hazardous Waste Program 11 County Program 11 I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper v I CONTENTS (continued) Additional HHW Options 11 , Handling and Disposal at Proposed Facilities 12 Household Hazardous Waste Program Implementation 13 Load Checking 13 Permanent Drop-Off Facilities 14 Public Information Program 15 ' Household Hazardous Waste Program Monitoring and Evaluation 15 ' Monitoring and Evaluation Techniques 15 Criteria for Success 15 Responsible Party 16 , Funding Requirements 16 Measures to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall 16 Household Hazardous Waste Program Education and Public Information 16 Objectives 16 Short-Term Objectives 16 Medium-Tenn Objectives 17 ' Existing Conditions 17 Program Selection 17 Program Implementation 17 , Monitoring and Evaluation 19 Short-Term Objectives 19 Responsible Party 19 Program Monitoring and Reporting Schedule 19 Measure to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall 20 Funding Component 20 , Program Costs 20 Funding 20 County Public Information Program 22 Load Checking 22 Contingency Funding 22 APPENDIX A-1(2) SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE I JURISDICTIONS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY APPENDIX A-2. SOLID WASTE PROJECTION TABLES I APPENDIX B. RECYCLING SYSTEMS APPENDIX C. COMPOSTING APPENDIX D. MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLES I I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper vi • 1 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Number Page 8-1 Altamont Landfill Rates 8-2 8-2 Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill Rates 8-4 8-3 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Capacity Needs Projection Under Existing Conditions 8-6 8-4 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Capacity Needs Projection iUnder AB939 Diversion Requirements 8-7 9-1 Summary of Program Costs 9-5 ' 9-2 Summary of Program Costs and Revenues 9-9 10-1 Component Program Diversion Rates 10-4 10-2 New and Expanded Program Implementation Task Schedule 10-5 ' HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT 1 Evaluation of Alternatives 7 ' 2 HHW Public Education Implementation Schedule 18 3 Proposed 1990-91 HHW Program Costs 21 4 Proposed Annual Operating Costs for the HHW Program 21 1 1 i I 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper viii I LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1-1 Waste Diversion Objectives 1-7 1 2-1 Residential Demographic Profile 2-3 ' 2-2 Commercial/Industrial Demographic Profile 2-4 2-3 Solid Waste Disposal Summary 2-5 2-4 Residential Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990 2-7 , 2-5 Commercial Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990 2-8 2-6 Industrial Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990 2-9 2-7 Residential Waste Generation by Waste Category 2-11 2-8 Materials Targeted for Diversion 2-14 2-9 Materials Not Targeted for Diversion 2-15 2-10 Waste Generation Projections Under Existing Conditions 2-16 2-11 Waste Generation Projections, Percent Diversion as Required Under AB939 2-17 3-1 Businesses Contacted for Source Reduction Waste Diversion I Study 3-4 3-2 Existing Source Reduction Quantities - 1990 3-5 3-3 New and Expanded Source Reduction Program Implementation Task Schedule 3-16 4-1 Businesses Contacted for Recycling Waste Diversion I Study 4-6 4-2 Existing Recycling Quantities - 1990 4-9 1 4-3 New and Expanded Recycling Program Implementation Task Schedule . 4-21 5-1 Composting Alternative Evaluation Matrix 5-6 ' 5-2 Projected Diversion by Composting 5-7 6-1 Existing Conditions - Special Waste - 6-4 I 6-2 Special Waste Activities for Meeting Solid Waste Component Objectives 6-11 , 7-1 Projected Education and Public Information Costs 7-7 I I I City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper vii I LIST OF FIGURES 4-1 MRF Implementation Schedule (Medium Term) 4-23 ' 5-1 Curbside Yard Waste Collection Implementation Schedule 5-8 5-2 Compost Facility Implementation Schedule (Medium Term) 5-9 10-1 Funding Source Schedule 10-9 1 1 I I 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper ix 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i The City of Dublin (Dublin)has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRR Element) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHW Element) in accordance with statutory requirements of the State of California. This Executive Summary describes what is required for these documents and presents the essential information they contain. INTRODUCTION The California Integrated Waste Management'Act In 1989,the California legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Act)requiring diversion of waste materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources. This Act requires cities and counties in California to divert 25 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent of solid waste by January 1, 2000. The Act further requires every city and county in California to prepare two documents to ' demonstrate how the mandated rates of diversion will be achieved. The first of these documents is the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, (SRR Element), a report describing (1) the chief characteristics of each jurisdiction's waste, (2) existing waste diversion programs and current ' rates of waste diversion, and (3) continuations of existing waste diversion programs and new or expanded programs the jurisdiction intends to implement. The second document is the Household Hazardous Waste Element, (HHW Element), a report describing what each jurisdiction will do to ensure that household hazardous wastes are not mixed with regular nonhazardous solid waste. Household hazardous wastes are defined as any discarded material from homes that may threaten human health or the environment if disposed of incorrectly. OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT Solid Waste Generation Study ' The first requirement for the SRR Element is preparation of a Solid Waste Generation ' Study. This report identifies the quantity and composition of wastes generated by a jurisdiction and the total waste generated which is disposed and diverted. For Dublin and other Alameda City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nuanoa,snummaaeuur ES-2 County jurisdictions, the source of information on waste quantities and characteristics for the Solid Waste Generation Study was a countywide report prepared by Brown and Caldwell Consultants. This countywide report generated waste composition and quantity data on a countywide basis. Dublin's specific waste characteristics were determined by the city's relative share of the county's population or by the city's share of the total number of Alameda County businesses. The Solid Waste Generation Study for Dublin includes four parts. These are: • A Demographic Study showing the total current population of Dublin, the proportion of residents in single- and multifamily dwelling units and in low, medium, and high income households, and the number and type of commercial and industrial establishments in Dublin. • A Solid Waste Characterization Study showing the quantity and composition of wastes , generated by Dublin residents and commercial and industrial waste generators. • A Solid Waste Disposal Study showing the quantity of residential, commercial and industrial wastes collected in Dublin by franchised waste haulers and additional Dublin solid waste taken to landfills both by nonfranchised commercial haulers collecting primarily construction and demolition debris and by members of the public hauling smaller individual loads of self-hauled wastes. • A Solid Waste Diversion Study showing the quantity and types of Dublin wastes currently diverted from landfill disposal. The results of these studies indicate that in 1990 the major types of waste generated in Dublin were concrete and asphalt (16.3 percent), paper (33.7 percent), and yard waste (8.4 percent). The total quantity of waste generated in Dublin in 1990 was 55,143 tons, of which ' 41,707 tons were taken to landfills for disposal and 13,437 tons were diverted through source reduction and recycling programs. The overall rate of diversion of waste materials for Dublin for 1990 was 24.4 percent. Existing Material Recovery Programs Waste diversion in Dublin occurs both as a consequence of publicly organized recycling programs and waste diversion activity emanating solely from private initiative. The major publicly organized program is its curbside recycling program. In September 1990, Dublin contracted with its franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal, to provide a three-bin curbside recycling program for single-family residences in Dublin with a provision to expand this service to Dublin multi-family residences in the future. In addition, since 1986 Dublin has contracted with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to provide as part of its base solid waste collection service, a quarterly cleanup program. Livermore-Dublin Disposal has also provided a one-day ' 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mraISPwnwuecaua ES-3 household hazardous waste collection event for residents of the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. ' Even more significant is Dublin's privately initiated waste diversion activity. Private ' recycling activities provided an estimated 7,271 tons of concrete and asphalt to a major paving materials contractor in Oakland, where they were remade into road construction materials. Current state regulations [CCR section 18722(j)(7)(A)] identify concrete, asphalt and other inert ' solids as a waste type which must be accounted for in a jurisdiction's Solid Waste Generation Study, and materials of this waste type class which are diverted may currently count toward the 25 and 50 percent diversion credit if they are solid wastes which are normally disposed of at ' permitted solid waste landfills or permitted solid waste transformation facilities [CCR section 18722 (m)]. In late 1991, legislation was introduced which would alter the procedures for determining whether and to what extent diversion credit could be claimed for recycled concrete ' and asphalt; This issue, however,will probably not be resolved by the state legislature until late 1992; in the interim period during which Dublin is producing its initial SRR Element, existing state regulations regarding the counting of concrete and asphalt inert solids will be observed. ' As a result of private commercial recycling activities, significant quantities of corrugated cardboard (1,526 tons) and high grade ledger paper (725 tons) were also diverted from landfill disposal. Likewise, privately initiated source reduction activities provided an estimated 34 tons of cloth diapers to Dublin by commercial diaper services and 100 tons of used clothing were diverted from landfill disposal through being taken instead to second-hand clothing and used textile stores. 1 SUMMARY OF SRR ELEMENT COMPONENTS Introduction and Statement of Goals and Objectives--Chapter 1 The first chapter of Dublin's SRR Element describes the requirements of the California 1 Integrated Waste Management Act and the required format for the SRR Element. Solid Waste Generation Analysis--Chapter 2 Each jurisdiction preparing an SRR Element is required to prepare a Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter serving as a summary of the characteristics of the solid waste generated within a jurisdiction. For Dublin and most other jurisdictions in Alameda County, the Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter summarizes a larger, more detailed countywide waste ' characterization report which is included in the SRR Element as Appendix A-1(2). Information pertinent to solid waste characterization in Dublin is excerpted from the larger countywide study and presented in the Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter. ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 57vaEPoaTmmaLOwcec.3011 ES-4 ' Source Reduction Component--Chapter 3 Source reduction is defined as a set of activities which result in the reduction or prevention , of solid waste generation. Since source reduction is focused on the elimination of waste generation rather than management of materials after they become wastes, the California Integrated Waste Management Act requires cities and counties to place this form of waste diversion at the top of the hierarchy of waste management practices for local solid waste management programs. Source reduction programs selected for Dublin's SRR Element include: • Restructuring garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional 1 cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate. • Continuation of support for a countywide home composting education program. 1 • Development of a recycled and reusable products procurement policy. , Recycling Component--Chapter 4 Recycling, the diversion of waste materials for use in the manufacture of new products, is intended to be a significant waste diversion activity in Dublin. New recycling programs to be implemented by 1995 include: • A two-fold expansion of the existing residential curbside collection program as follows: , First, an expansion of the existing curbside program to include multifamily residences in Dublin. , Second, as a consequence of a decision to require mandatory solid waste collection service to all residences, an increase in the number of single-family homes participating in the curbside collection program. • A requirement that specifies loads of concrete and asphalt inert wastes be delivered , to appropriate recycling facilities; • Consider establishing a collection program for source-separated white office paper, , and • Consider participation in a regional materials recovery facility (MRF) to divert , additional recyclable materials from Dublin's waste stream. Participation by Dublin would be considered in order for the city to achieve the mandate of 50 percent diversion of wastes by 2000. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nuamoa,rouaLP x uw ' ES-5 Composting Component - Chapter 5 ' Composting is a biological decomposition process that converts,under controlled conditions, organic constituents of the material into a stable humus-like product. In Dublin, composting will ' become an important aspect of the waste diversion programs after 1995. At this time, Dublin will support the development of a subregional composting facility for source-separated yard waste and will evaluate a program providing for collection of source-separated yard waste. ' Special Waste Component--Chapter 6 Special waste is solid waste that requires unique handling and disposal methods in order to minimize risk to public safety and health. Special waste includes bulky, difficult to handle wastes (such as tires, large appliances, and mattresses), sewage sludge, and potentially harmful ' wastes such as asbestos and medical wastes. In most cases, special wastes generated from Dublin can only be accounted for on a countywide basis; the only special waste types for which it is.possible to generate an estimate of Dublin-specific special wastes are asbestos, bulky items, street sweeping and catch basin debris, and used tires. Likewise, the only feasible special waste programs for Dublin to consider are countywide programs. These include: • Continued support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program of the County ' Environmental Health Department. • Work with the County to implement the Medical Waste Management Act-- new state ' legislation to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes. • Support for new countywide programs to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse and ' to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. ' Education and Public Information Component—Chapter 7 The Education and Public Information Component is designed to increase the source ' reduction and recycling awareness of public and private sector target audiences. The component identifies three target groups for education and public information activities--residents,businesses, and schools. To reach these groups and increase their awareness of source reduction, recycling and composting activities, Dublin will promote the following program activities: • Community outreach, through use of speakers, to publicize waste diversion activities ' and participation in booths and demonstrations at fairs and special events. • Utilization of available educational materials,promotional items and opportunities for media exposure in the local community newspaper and cable TV channel. ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nuanaowveLDNixm uM ES-6 • Support for the development of local school recycling educational activities. • Implementation of targeted educational programs for industry and commercial groups, government agencies, and professional groups. Disposal Facility Capacity Component - Chapter 8 ' This chapter discusses the capacity of solid waste disposal facilities receiving wastes from Dublin. It notes there are no solid waste disposal or transformation facilities located in Dublin. Currently, wastes collected by the city's franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal are taken for disposal to the Altamont Landfill in eastern Alameda County. In addition, some self- hauled wastes from Dublin are also taken to the Vasco Road Landfill in eastern Alameda County. The chapter also includes projections of the capacity of landfills receiving Dublin wastes and concludes that if Dublin and other jurisdictions achieve the 25 and 50 percent diversion rates, there will be sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of Dublin and other participating jurisdictions until 2005. Funding Component--Chapter 9 This chapter describes the funding sources and alternatives for the SRR Element for the City of Dublin and shows the potential funding for implementation of the SRR Element programs. Integration Component--Chapter 10 This chapter explains how Dublin has integrated the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting and Special Waste components to achieve the 25 and 50 percent mandates specified , by the California Integrated Waste Management Act. It also includes a schedule illustrating the proposed time frame for implementation of all programs presented in the SRR Element and the anticipated achievement dates for the solid waste diversion mandates. ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS Source Reduction , In the short term, it is anticipated that source reduction programs will consist of a continuation of the programs of restructuring collection and disposal rates to eliminate quantity- based discounts, and city-supported county home composting program and a city government procurement policy establishing a means to increase purchases of repairable products and products with recycled materials content. The total cost for these programs,including monitoring and evaluation is expected to be around $1,750 per year. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nvanommuna..ocasw ES-7 ' Recycling ' In the short term, the programs in the recycling category include an expansion of the existing residential curbside collection program to include multifamily housing units, establishment of a collection program for source-separated office paper and a program for directing inerts to appropriate recycling facilities. It is estimated that the costs for these programs will total $45,900 per year in the short term. Special Waste ' Programs in this category include city support for the following county programs: an asbestos monitoring program, a program to promote bulky item recycling and reuse, a program to promote sandblasting material reuse, a medical waste monitoring program, and a used tire program. It is estimated that these programs will cost approximately $8,000 per year including monitoring and evaluation. ' Education and Public Information Programs in this category include a community outreach program, a public information program, a school information program and a program of education and public information targeted toward Dublin's business community. It is estimated these programs will cost $22,000 per year, including monitoring and evaluation. OVERVIEW OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT When initially enacted in 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act required a household hazardous waste component to be included in an SRR Element, in addition to the components discussed above. Subsequently, a new piece of legislation was enacted, AB 2707, which elevated the importance of the HHW component by making it a separate element, similar ' to the SRR Element. The HHW Element includes a discussion of objectives, existing conditions, an evaluation of several HHW program alternatives, selection of a program, implementation details,monitoring and evaluation efforts,HHW education and public information programs, and funding for proposed HHW programs. For Dublin and other jurisdictions in Alameda County,management of household hazardous wastes will be a county government responsibility. In June 1990, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved a countywide Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection ' Program consisting of the development of three permanent household and mini-generator hazardous waste collection facilities located in the northern, southern and eastern valley areas of Alameda County. In August 1990, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority), a joint powers agency comprised of city and county elected representatives, approved a funding mechanism for this program, by imposing a fee of $1.32 per ton of solid waste ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper n„� ,oUBLIPN�,_,o,., ES-8 , received at Alameda County solid waste disposal facilities. The money generated by this fee will cover the program costs associated with the development of these facilities. In April 1991, the Authority acted to reduce the fee to $1.25 per ton and to retain the approximate $77,000 already collected by the fee differential for future household hazardous waste related purposes to be designated by the Authority. The Dublin HHW Element indicates that Dublin's principal HI-IW activity will be its support of the countywide HHW program. Additionally, household hazardous wastes from Dublin and other Alameda County jurisdictions will also be detected and removed through implementation at Alameda County solid waste disposal facilities of a program to randomly inspect loads of incoming waste for the presence of HHW. In addition, Dublin will also support the county in its commitment to develop and disseminate educational materials on the proper use of the permanent HI-IW collection facilities and on steps Alameda County residents can take to minimize HHW generation by substituting non-hazardous household products for equivalent hazardous products. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 57' S rcmOU®iaraxasua 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 1 ' INTRODUCTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper ' CHAPTER 1 ' INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 The City of Dublin (Dublin) has prepared this Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element pursuant to State of California requirements which mandate all cities and counties in California to participate in a local integrated waste management process to maximize the quantity ' of wastes each city and county diverts from disposal. This chapter provides background infonation to the SRR Element and states the goals and objectives of Dublin. INTRODUCTION This section describes the statutory requirements and contents of the SRR Element. It includes a brief discussion of the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management ' Act of 1989 and a description of the required features of an SRR Element. The chapter concludes with summary information on Dublin. ' The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 The State of California has set forth legislation (Assembly Bill 939) in the form of the ' California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act), as amended. This legislation was drafted in response to the need to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources. This Act requires cities and counties to divert 25 percent of solid waste from disposal by January 1, 1995. By January 1, 2000, a 50 percent diversion is required. The Act replaces the existing County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) process with an SRR Element for each city and unincorporated county area and an Integrated ' Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) in each county. The Act sets the following priorities for promoting integrated waste management: ' 1. Diversion through source reduction. 2. Diversion through recycling and composting. ' 3. Environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal. The Act mandates a CIWMP to be prepared by each county. Three elements are to be included in the CIWMP. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper n„ .n,atw „APla, 1-2 i 1. SRR Elements 2. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Elements 3. Siting Element Each city in California must prepare SRR and HHW Elements for its jurisdiction. In addition, each county must prepare SRR and HHW Elements for the unincorporated portion of the county. After cities and counties have completed and adopted their SRR and HHW Elements, each county is then required to prepare a Countywide Siting Element. The Countywide Siting Element identifies the location of transformation or disposal sites which have sufficient capacity for a 15-year period, so that solid wastes generated in the county that cannot be reduced, recycled, or composted will be handled safely. After the Countywide Siting Element is completed, each county is then required to assemble a document that includes all SRR and HHW Elements and the Countywide Siting Element. This document constitutes the CIWMP. In preparing the CIWMP, a county must accept input from each city in the county, appropriate regional and state agencies and a technical advisory group called the Local Task Force (LTF); it must hold at least one public meeting prior to the preparation and circulation of a Preliminary Draft CIWMP; it must respond to all comments received on the Preliminary Draft CIWMP and prepare a Final Draft CIWMP; and a majority of cities within the county constituting a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the county,the county Board of Supervisors and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, all must approve the Final Draft CIWMP. 1 Source Reduction and Recycling Element The purpose of this SRR Element is to specify the means by which Dublin will achieve the 25 and 50 percent diversion mandates designated above. This chapter includes the goals and objectives for the short-term (present year to 1995) and medium-term (1995-2000) planning periods. The SRR Element objectives summarize the percentage of solid waste diversion which Dublin plans to attain through each of the component programs. Chapter 2 includes the solid waste generation analysis. This analysis includes the information on waste streams generated (diverted and disposed) in Dublin during 1990. The next chapters are eight components which the Act requires to be addressed as part of the SRR Element. The following is a listing of each of the components: Chapter 3. Source Reduction Chapter 4. Recycling Chapter 5. Composting Chapter 6. Special Waste Chapter 7. Education and Public Information Chapter 8. Disposal Facility Capacity 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrxesoairnueuwcaAnaI ' 1-3 ' Chapter 9. Funding Chapter 10. Integration The first four components listed above must follow the Model Component Format (MCF) ' specified in Section 18733, Article 6.2 of Chapter 9, the Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans of Title 14(Article 6.2). The MCF specifies six areas to be addressed for each of these components. The following is a ' brief description of these six areas: 1. Component Objectives. This section identifies the specific objectives of the ' component to be accomplished during the short-term and medium-term planning periods. The component objectives must be based upon the results of the waste • generation studies. The objectives must identify specific waste categories as priorities ' for waste diversion. 2. Existing Conditions Description. This section includes a brief description of existing ' diversion activity in the jurisdiction and the resultant quantity of waste diverted listed by waste category and type. This section also identifies existing diversion activities that will be decreased in scope, phased out, or closed during the short-term and ' medium-term planning periods. 3. Evaluation of Alternatives. This section includes an evaluation of diversion ' alternatives the jurisdiction has considered for the purpose of achieving the specific component objectives. ' 4. Selection of Program. This section identifies and describes the diversion alternative selected which will be implemented to meet the objectives of the component. The ' selection is based on an evaluation of existing diversion activities, expansions of existing diversion activities, and new diversion alternatives. ' 5. Program Implementation. This section describes specific procedures which will be enacted by the jurisdiction to assure program implementation. ' 6. Monitoring and Evaluation. This section includes a description of the methods which will be implemented to quantify and monitor achievement of the component objectives. ' The four remaining components are not required to follow the MCF but must comply with other formatting requirements specified in the State Planning Guidelines for Preparing and ' Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (Article 6.2, Chapter 9, Title 14, California Code of Regulations). The remaining components are as follows: • Education and Public Information Component. This component includes objectives for public information, existing programs, and evaluation of alternatives and selection 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nuaa'ocmnUB,a+caw,aa 1-4 of programs. The education and public information component is the vehicle for gaining support and participation necessary to make the other programs succeed. • Disposal Facility Capacity Component. This component describes the existing disposal facilities and provides an assessment for the estimated additional disposal capacity needed for a 15-year period beginning in 1991. • Funding Component. This component identifies existing funding programs and identifies revenue sources and contingent revenue sources required to implement the selected programs. • • Integration Component. This component explains how the previously described source 1 reduction, recycling, composting, and special waste components of the SRR Element combine to achieve the 25 and 50 percent diversion mandates. It also includes a schedule delineating all implementation tasks for new and expanded programs through the short-term planning period and anticipated dates of achievement of the 25 and 50 percent diversion mandate. 1 Dublin The City of Dublin is located near Pleasanton and Livermore in the "Tri-Valley" portion of Alameda County. The city has the least population of the three cities within the Valley area. Preliminary 1990 U.S. Census figures estimate Dublin's population at 23,229. This population figure includes two groups, a household population which is estimated to be 19,476 and a group quarters population which is estimated at 3,753. The group quarters population includes inmates at the County Santa Rita Jail and at a federal correctional facility and U.S. Army personnel ' assigned to Camp Parks. Although both the household and group quarters populations resided in Dublin when the 1990 U.S.Census was conducted, the group quarters population constitutes an institutionalized population and is not included in the base of residents used for calculating quantities and types of wastes generated by residences in Dublin. The demographic analysis of Dublin's residential population in this SRR Element is based only on household population in Dublin. Wastes generated in the institutional settings are accounted for in the analysis of nonresidential commercial and industrial waste generation. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 Dublin has developed an extensive set of goals and objectives. These objectives encompass all areas affecting the diversion and disposal plans on both a qualitative and quantitative basis. The objectives are separated into six areas: administrative and operations, source reduction, recycling, composting, special wastes, and education and public information. The qualitative objectives are described below. The quantitative objectives and the time period to achieve them follow the qualitative objectives. 1 City of Dublin -Printed on recycled paper nirasoxrraoaLurcxAnau ' 1-5. Qualitative Objectives The administrative/operations objectives encompass each of the source reduction,recycling, composting,special waste, and education and public information components. The objectives for ' these latter components by waste stream are elaborated in their respective chapters. I. Administrative/Operations ' A. Choose economically feasible technologies in recycling and composting that provide workable solutions, maximize economies of scale, minimize siting problems, and have ' the flexibility to change as the situation requires. Participate in regional composting, materials recovery, and disposal facilities as appropriate. ' B. Participate in and provide systems that allow monitoring of disposal and diversion activities by each jurisdiction to ensure the ability to measure diversion progress and to provide accountability. Require the accounting of all material taken out of the ' jurisdiction for the purposes of diversion. Support Alameda County in requiring that all waste disposed in the Altamont and Vasco Road Landfills be weighed and reported by waste type, city origin, and weighed quantity. These requirements should be ' incorporated into the appropriate Solid Waste Facility Permit with the next revision. C. Minimize disruptive changes by encouraging modification to current systems. ' D. Implement a comprehensive public education program to encourage waste diversion (source reduction, recycling, and composting) by all citizens both at home and at work. ' Create citizen understanding of the benefits of recycling and how to participate in local and state programs. ' II. Source Reduction ' A. Reduce yard waste,paper, and nonrepairable products by 2.1 percent in 1995 and 2000 (an increase of 0.2 percent). ' B. Provide systems that allow monitoring of source reduction activities to measure progress and to provide accountability. C. Implement a public education program to encourage source reduction by all residents both at home and at work. Create public understanding of the benefits of source reduction and how to participate in local and state programs. D. Restructure garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate. 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mravuairntaiurnunai 1-6 E. Continue support for the County's Home Composting Program through education and public information programs. F. Develop and implement procurement guidelines for increasing the use of recycled and reusable products in government agencies. M. Recycling • A. In the short term, expand the existing,residential curbside collection program to include multifamily residences in Dublin and all single-family residences as a result of the introduction of mandatory garbage collection service. These actions will increase diversion by 1.2 percent. B. Where possible, direct all appropriate loads of concrete and asphalt generated as waste products in Dublin to appropriate processing facilities for these inert solid wastes, thereby increasing diversion by 1.6 percent. C. Consider establishing a recycling program for source-separated high grade office paper, 1 increasing diversion by 3.5 percent. D. In the medium term, investigate potential participation in a regional materials recovery facility (MRF), by directing all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility. This will increase diversion by 17.1 percent. IV. Composting A. Divert 6.4 percent of the total waste stream by 2000 through a yard waste composting program. B. Support the development and implementation of a reasonable subregional composting programs for source separated yard waste. C. Provide for source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from residences to the subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste to this same facility. V. Special Wastes A. Continue to support the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the County Environmental Health Department in order to reduce as much as possible the risks associated with asbestos removal. This activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium terms. B. Support reasonable program to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse. 1 City of Dublin ' Printed on recycled paper nuauoxisaueLINCIIMER I . 1-7 C. Support reasonable countywide programs to perform analytical testing of sandblast sand ' to reduce hazard potential and evaluate recycling potential. D. Work with the county to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in order ' to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes and provide documentation of quantities. ' E. Support reasonable programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. VI. Education and Public Information A. Create a 50 percent awareness level by 1995 among community residents concerning Dublin's curbside recycling and green waste programs. ' B. Encourage a source reduction and recycling curriculum in all of Dublin's elementary and secondary schools by 1995. 1 C. Maintain the awareness levels and programs as described above and revise those objectives accordingly to achieve the long-term SRR Element goal of 50 percent ' reduction in solid waste disposal. Quantitative Objectives ' As required by Section 18731 of the State Planning Guidelines, Table 1-1 shows the percentage of solid waste diversion Dublin has currently achieved and the percentage of diversion ' Dublin plans to attain by the end of the short-term planning period (1995) and the end of the medium-term planning period through source reduction, recycling, and composting program activities. Table 1-1. Waste Diversion Objectives Waste diverted, percent ' Waste Category 1990 1995 2000 Existing/Projected diversion Source reduction 1.9 2.1 2.1 Recycling 22.5 28.8 45.9 Composting - - 6.4 ' Special waste - - - Total existing/projected diversion 24.4 30.9 54.4 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper r/VA®ORTSEMBLNCHAPIaI 1-8 As Table 1-1 shows, Dublin has already achieved a high rate of waste diversion • (24.4 percent) and should have little difficulty in achieving the remaining diversion needed to meet the 1995 requirement of diversion of 25 percent of total waste generated. A principal assumption of this analysis, however, is that diversion credit will be allowed for diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes. For 1990, an estimated 7,271 tons of concrete and asphalt 1 were diverted from landfill disposal, comprising 13.2 percent of total waste generated. The diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes from landfill disposal is allowed to be counted pursuant to state law. , 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nua®ozmauei.wcwAriai I I I I 1 CHAPTER 2 SOLID WASTE GENERATION ANALYSIS 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper i 1 CHAPTER 2 SOLID WASTE GENERATION ANALYSIS Each jurisdiction preparing a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRR Element) is required to prepare a Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter serving as a summary of the characteristics of the solid waste generated within a jurisdiction. The Solid Waste Generation Analysis is based on a larger more detailed waste characterization report entitled the "Solid Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County." In this SRR Element, the Solid Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County appears as Appendix A-1(2). This chapter summarizes the findings of the solid waste characterization and solid waste diversion characterization as they apply to the.City of Dublin (Dublin). The objective of a waste generation study is to quantify waste disposal and waste diversion 1 (waste disposal + waste diversion = waste generation) in terms of composition and quantity at a given point in time. This waste generation study is an initial study representing a snapshot of the quantities and types of waste generated within each jurisdiction. The initial study serves a programmatic function, i.e., it is necessary to know how much and what type of waste is generated in order to develop effective diversion programs. Compliance with the diversion goals mandated by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(Act)will be evaluated based on this and future waste generation studies. The waste generation study was performed in four parts: a demographics study, a waste ' disposal study, a waste characterization study, and a waste diversion study. The demographics study was conducted to provide background demographics information on each city. The demographics information was necessary for planning and implementation of the waste disposal and,characterization studies. The waste disposal study focused on estimating the quantities of waste for the following waste disposal categories: (1) residential, (2) commercial, (3) industrial, (4) self-haul, (5) construction/demolition debris, and (6) special waste. The waste characterization study examined the types and quantities of waste materials disposed of for each of the six categories listed above. The solid waste diversion characterization focused on diversion resulting from recycling, source reduction, and composting activities. 1 1 t City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mn. oamnus.wc wnoL2 2-2 DEMOGRAPHICS STUDY 1 This section presents the findings of the demographics study for Dublin. The methodology for the residential and commercialrmdustrial demographics studies were presented in the Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County, Appendix A-1(2). Residential Demographics Study I Table 2-1 presents the residential demographics profile for Dublin. Information provided on the table includes the estimated number of housing units, the estimated household size, and the estimated 1989 and 1990 population. The 1990 population is based on 1990 preliminary Census data and is used to extrapolate the findings of the residential waste characterization study as a way of estimating total residential disposal. Note that the group quarters population is not included as part of the total residential population. Group quarters include Santa Rita Jail,federal correctional facility, and Army personnel assigned to Camp Parks and constitutes a population of 3,753. It should be noted that wastes generated in the group quarters setting are accounted for by the analysis of the nonresidential commercial/industrial demographics and waste generation studies. CommerciaUlndustrial Demographics Study Table 2-2 presents the commercial/industrial (commercial and industrial) SIC code i breakdown for Dublin. Information provided on the table includes a listing of the major SIC code categories and number of facilities per SIC code category. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY Solid waste generated within Dublin is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill. Oakland Scavenger Company (Oakland Scavenger) collects and hauls residential and commercial waste directly to the Altamont Landfill. The categories of solid waste disposal identified in this study include residential, I commercial/industrial, construction/demolition debris, and self-haul. A discussion of the derivation of the disposal quantities for the Alameda County jurisdictions is presented in the Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County, Appendix A-1(2). The derivation of disposal quantities as it applies to Dublin is summarized below. Table 2-3 presents a summary of solid waste disposal data for Alameda. I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mramoxmsoummcanni I 1 Table 2-1 Residential Demographic Profile I City of Dublin c Estimated Number of Average Population a occupied household d • Subpopulation housing units size 1989 1990 ISingle-family b I A.High income 1,565 3.27 5,051 5,021 B.Medium income 3,370 3.21 10,645 10,560 I C.Low income - - - - b Multi-family IA.High income - - - - B.Medium income 1,612 3.21 3,040 3,545 IC.Low income 255 2 300 350 ITotal 6,802 19,036 19,476 Notes: Ia. Assumptions for income: . High income: $52,920+above a Medium income: $22,491 -$52,919 Low income: $22,050+below Assumptions for income levels are based on ABAG'90 projections and compared against Department of Finance data. . 1 b. Subpopulation unit breakdowns are estimated areas based on City Land Use base. c. Totals for "Estimated number of occupied housing units"and "Average household size" I have been obtained from Population Estimating Model Audit Report for January, 1989,County of Alameda. d. Estimated 1990 populations are based on 1990 census data received from I the Alameda County Planning Department. These are preliminary figures and subject to change. I • I I . I Table 2-2. Commercial/Industrial Demographic Profile I City of Dublin I SIC Major SIC Estimated number Estimated number group designationsa General descriptionb of establishmentsc of employeesd I Ae 01-09 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 4 10 10-14 Mining ' Be 20-39 Manufacturing 89 2,230 50-51 Wholesale trade Total Industrial 89 2,240 I Cf 52-59 Retail trade 203 5,100 Df 70-89 Services 354 2,410 Ef 15-17 Construction 150 2,460 1 40-49 Transportation, communication 50-51 Wholesale trade 60-67 Finance, insurance and real estate 91-97 Public administration 99 Non-classified establishments Total Commercial 707 9,970 TOTAL 796 12,210 a SIC - Standard Industrial Classifications, derived from Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987. b Descriptions are based on typical two-digit division groupings as presented in the SIC Manual. c The numerical breakdown of SIC codes for the establishments or buildings (non-residential) were extrapolated from various business license or SIC listings from individual cities. Where only business codes I or other accounting systems were used, appropriate SIC codes were assigned to that use for the purpose of II this study. d From Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections '90 Report. Discrepancies between the 1 number of employees and number of establishments (i.e., 0 establishments and 40 employees) is the result of using different data sources to estimate the two numbers. e Industrial category. ,1 f Commercial category. i I I I L 2-5 Residential Waste Disposal The residential disposal quantity listed in Table 2-3 were based on the findings of the demographics study and the residential waste characterization study. The residential disposal quantity is based on a population of 19,476 which does not include the group quarters population. Table 2-3. Solid Waste Disposal Summary Residential 7,864 tons per year Commercial 22,002 tons per year Self-hauls 2,458 tons per year Industrialb 5,310 tons per year Construction/demolitionc 4,073 tons per year Total 41,707 tons per year alncluded as part of the commercial disposal in Table 2-5. bSpecial wastes are included as part of the industrial disposal in Table 2-6. cConstruction/demolition wastes are included as part of industrial disposal in Table 2-6. CommerciaUlndustrial and Self-Haul Waste Disposal The commercial/industrial and self-haul disposal quantities were derived based on total jurisdiction specific disposal data provided by the Altamont Landfill. The combined commercial and industrial and self-haul disposal was calculated as the difference between total Oakland Scavenger residential and commercial and industrial franchised haul from Dublin to Altamont Landfill and the residential waste disposal quantity as determined by the residential waste characterization study. A portion of this total was attributed to self-haul. The self-haul disposal quantity is based on the residential population for Dublin. The remaining portion was allocated to commercial and industrial waste disposal. Construction/Demolition Debris Of the remaining franchised-haul waste hauled for disposal to Altamont Landfill,4,073 tons were allocated to Dublin as construction/demolition debris disposal on the basis of population. ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper P'M®VgIy uL tCm pTa2 2-6 Per capita construction/demolition debris disposal quantity for Dublin is consistent with many of the Alameda County jurisdictions. SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY The objective of the solid waste characterization study was to determine the composition of residential, commercial and industrial solid waste disposed of within Alameda. This section summarizes the findings of the residential,commercial,and industrial solid waste characterization studies. I Residential Solid Waste Characterization The results of the residential waste characterization for Dublin are summarized in Table 2-4. As described in the Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County, Appendix A-1(2), annual waste disposal tonnages for each of the four subpopulations are made up of two components; annual per capita disposal quantities for all wastes except yard waste and yard waste disposal quantities calculated on a per unit basis (i.e., quantity of yard waste per housing unit). The values for per capita waste disposal and the per household yard waste I disposal were applied to Dublin based on the demographics findings summarized above. The annual waste disposal tonnages for each of the four subpopulations are made up of two components. Annual per capita disposal quantities were determined from the study for each subpopulation category for all waste except yard waste. Yard waste correlates with the house unit, not with residents in the house. Average yard waste disposal quantities were calculated a using the total yard waste in the samples from each subpopulation. The weekly quantities from the samples were converted to annual pounds per household unit. Individual values for yard waste were determined for single-family subpopulations and for the multi-family populations,but not separated by income level. The estimated total annual residential disposal for Dublin is 7,864 tons. This annual disposal estimate includes the seasonal adjustment as described in the Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County, Appendix A-1(2). Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Characterization The quantities and composition of commercial and industrial waste disposed of in Dublin are summarized in Tables 2-5 and 2-6, respectively. The estimated total annual commercial and industrial disposal quantities are 24,460 tons and 9,383 tons, respectively. These disposal quantities are based on the findings of the waste disposal study. The findings of the commercial and industrial solid waste characterization surveys were used to derive composition data for commercial and industrial waste generators. The study findings identified a particular waste composition associated with each SIC code category (categories A, B, C, D, and E in Table Al-1, Appendix A-1(2)). Based on the proportional distribution of employees in each category, composite commercial and composite industrial waste summary tables were derived. I 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rnra onT rouBLINCHnrTEa I 1 . I Table 2-4 Residential Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990 City of Dublin Tons of Major I Waste Type Disposal Percent Group. Per Year of Total Percent Paper 1 I OCC 200 mixed paper 766 2.5% 9.7% newspaper 385 4.9% I paper hi-grade other paper 186 1,059 2.4% 13.5% SUBTOTAL ingligENSIMM:titIEURI:: 330% Plastic I HDPE 34 0.4% PET 10 0.1% film plastic 208 2.6% Iother 310 3.9% smosotammatalilinSDAM 7.2% Glass I refillable beverage containers CRV(a) 0 0.0% 71 0.9% other recyclable glass 246 3.1% 1 other nonrecyclable glass 47 NelgtlltibtAtiVERPINSIONES460 0.6% 4.6% Metal Ialuminum cans 13 0.2% bi-metal containers 1 0.0% ferrous metals (tin) 150 1.9% 1 other nonferrous 37 0.5% white goods 0 0.0% Sanwromangafilitaq tiMBEIMM 25% 1 ...,... „ ,... „. Yard Waste Organics ataina2* .- 24.5% food wastes 1,140 14.5% I rubber wood wastes 6 0.1% 49 te 0.6% textile/leather 97 1.2% Iother organics (b) 156 EgtHlliat 18 4% 2.0% , Other wastes 1 concrete/dirt gypsum wallboard 98 1.2% 0 0.0% household hazardous materials (c) 73 0.9% I diapers 199 2.5% other 395 th 5.0% SUBTOTAL gP::::::'::':!:0M16.6: 9.7% ITotal City Residential Disposal 7,864 Tons/year a. "CRV" is California Redemption Value glass containers Ib. "other organic? includes manure c. "household hazardous materials" includes containers and contents 08/08/91 II Table 2-5 Commercial Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990 City of Dublin Tons of - disposal Percent of Waste Type per year city total Paper 1 Corrugated containers 1,749 7.1% Mixed paper 5,079 20.8% Newspaper 757 3.1% ' High grade ledger paper 3,279 13.4% , Other paper* 0 0.0% ,SUBTOTAI: Y 10,064. 44.4% ' Plastic High-density polyethylene(HDPE)containers** 111 0.5% Polyethylene terephthalate(PET)containers - - Film plastics 162 0.7% Other plastics 873 3.6% ;SL7BTOTAT 1;15:;: 4.7% Glass Refillable glass beverage containers - - California Redemption Value glass*** 1,385 5.7% Other recyclable glass 437 1.8% Other non-recyclable glass • 512 2.1% SiX$7`g't'rS7 2,333;: 9.5% Metal • Aluminum cans 63 0.3% 1 Bi-metal containers 0 0.0% Ferrous metals and tin cans 482 2.0% Non-ferrous metals including aluminum scrap 710 2.9% a goods g 274 1.1% Other metals 0 0.0% , TQ'I'AL ' <R Ys;°:«: igaS?7 e e� a: SI•MISEWea 6.3% Yard Waste s, 2S2 ; 103% I Other Organics Food wastes 1,779 7.3% Rubber products 1,014 4.1% Wood wastes 1,728 7.1% Agricultural Crop Residues 0 0.0% ' Manure 0 0.0% Textiles and Leather 34 0.1% Other miscellaneous organics 0 0.0% a7Y SL1BTi) AI £ ,, ,.:, -:..:f: _.. ,<; MK ..:: :: . .EN :SASS` 18.6% il Other Wastes Inert solids including concrete, asphalt 268 1.1% Gypsum wallboard 232 0.9% Household hazardous materials 0 0.0% Diapers 0 0.0% Other 1,010 4.1% S{T)3 TO1 q 151!0^ 6.2% Special Wastes**** xf 0.0% Total: 24,460 100% 1 * Included in mixed paper. ** Includes ALL plastic (PET and HDPE)containers. ' *** Includes ALL container glass. 01-Aug-91 **** A detailed listing of special wastes is included as Table 6-1. I I Table 2-6 Industrial Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990 City of Dublin Tons of 'I disposal Percent of Waste Type per year city total I Paper Corrugated containers 349 3.7% Mixed paper 919 9.8% Newspaper 159 1.7% I High grade ledger paper 530 5.7% Other paper* 0 0.0% r �SY7.8'Y'?C1tA. F : . .�;�:::,F:,n,w., 3 .. s n n.[,..�;,cr; ;. rv.:e r�M . �r�'3' n.r?.fin....'ti:. a rM5 20.9% I Plastic High-density polyethylene(HDPE)containers** 12 0.1% Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)containers - - I Film plastics Other plastics . ....._. 81 381 S QTAL " . s : : : :: r . 75 0.9% 4.1% 5.1% ' Glass Refillable glass beverage containers California Redemption Value glass*** 74 0.8% Other recyclable glass 49 0.5% I Other non-recyclable glass 87 0.9% [...,xz'a<ax::?::<:.:«:y;,:'«<:. arms.:a,:,..y[:zz:y;::xz.nv �:>s: Z�.;y:n:y..y>^aw:y.� z5i11}TE')'1AL.;:..in r...r.. . [,.:....,.same act 2.2% I Metal Aluminum cans 4 0.0% Bi-metal containers . 0 0.0% Ferrous metals and tin cans 511 5.4% I Non-ferrous metals including aluminum scrap 29 0.3% te g 0 0.0% Other metals 0 0.0% U S 111TOTA alES EMPAge aria` ;`aaaa°PANW4M51441 5.8% IYard Waste ;.'t?o:[M; �»a::a."°„7,4 0.8% I Other Organics Food wastes 205 2.2% Rubber products 572 6.1% Wood wastes 1,687 18.0% ' Agricultural Crop Residues 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% Textiles and Leather 28 0.3% Other miscellaneous organics 0 0.0% I :. .M3TL'??`AD... .aliSS.w, C 1IMISPIME«2MS Elfelniggf 26.6% Other Wastes I Inert solids including concrete, asphalt 1,374 14.6% Gypsum wallboard 264 2.8% Household hazardous materials 0 0.0% Diapers 0 0.0% I Other 1,627 17.3% :.....:...:,..r.r.. :e , SL11;Ts)TAh 34.8% Special Wastes**** EigineaSPE 3.9% ITotal: 9,383 100% * Included in mixed paper. I ** Includes ALL plastic (PET and HDPE) containers. *** Includes ALL container glass. 01-Aug-91 **** A detailed listing of special wastes is included as Table 6-1. 1 2-10 Special Waste Special wastes types that originate from Dublin sources include auto shredder waste, asbestos,bulky items,medical wastes, sandblast sand, street sweeping and catch basin debris, and used tires. Chapter 6 provides a discussion of special wastes existing conditions and provides information on special waste quantities. Special waste quantities have been included in Table 2-6. 1 SOLID WASTE DIVERSION STUDY 1 The total waste diversion for Dublin was 13,437 tons (24.4 percent of the total waste generated) during the year 1990. Source reduction, recycling, and composting quantities are detailed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Chapters 3 and 4 provide a listing of the companies involved in source reduction and recycling activities and their relevant material types for Dublin. Firms that were surveyed for information regarding their source reduction and recycling activities are listed in Tables 3-1 and 4-1. The tables identify the types of material which these films diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction and recycling. The quantities of source-reduced and recycled materials these firms divert, however, are not provided I because the majority of these firms denied permission for public release of these data. However, the aggregation of these data are included in the source reduction and recycling diversion quantities displaced in Tables 3-2 and 4-2. There is no significant public or private composting activity in Dublin at this time. SOLID WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY Tables 2-7 summarizes waste disposal,waste diversion, and waste generation by waste type for Dublin. Quantities are presented in tons per year and in percent by weight. Certain of the , waste types in the "other wastes" category in Table 2-7 are designated as "other" wastes. These are inorganic wastes which businesses responding to the commercial/industrial survey identified as "miscellaneous" wastes. Table 2-7 also indicates that 24 tons of food wastes were diverted. These wastes represent bones and grease that were diverted from landfill disposal by processing at rendering plants. In addition, Table 2-7 also contains what appears to be an anomaly due to the phenomenon of the rounding process. It shows one ton of diverted bi-metal cans and no bi-metal cans disposed which would seem to indicate that in Dublin bi-metal cans are not normally disposed , of in a landfill. In actuality, the precise results of the residential waste characterization for Dublin were that one ton of bi-metal cans was disposed of in the base year, an amount equivalent t i City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nirarroxTSZUBLP/CMAP 2 I TABLE 2-7a Residential Waste Generation by Waste Category City of Dublin 1 Residential I Waste category Disposal Diverted Generation percent by percent by percent by . tons/year weight tons/year weight tons/year weight I !' .�x . a � , • ga .. contamers 200 2.5% 0 0.0% 200 2.2% Mixed paper 766 9.7% 0 0.0% 766 8.4% Newspaper 385 4.9% 581 44.5% 966 10.5% $ High grade ledger paper 186 2.4% 0 0.0% 186 2.0% Other paper* 1,059 13.5% 0 0.0% 1,059 11.5% I .A . . .. 4 . I •Econtainers * 34 0.4% 9 0.7% 43 0.5% PET containers*** 10 0.1% 0 0.0% 10 0.1% Film plastics 208 2.6% 0 0.0% 208 2.3% 111 Other plastics 310 3.9% 0 0.0% 310 3.4% iranraira '. .-O,.^>'E xA*..:0.Y. DZ'i.. aY,,A .0 *.a.: I Re :ble glass . verage containers - - - - - - California Redemption Value glass**** 71 0.9% 240 18.4% 311 3.4% Other recyclable glass 246 3.1% 97 7.4% 343 3.7% Other non-recyclable gglass 47 0.6% 0 0.0% 47 0.5% I a • ummum cans 13 0.2% 109 8.3% 122 1.3% Bi-metal containers 1 0.0% 4 0.3% 5 0.1% Ferrous metals and tin cans 150 1.9% 72 5.5% 222 2.4% Non-ferrous metals incl. alum. scrap 37 0.5% 0 0.0% 37 0.4% I White goods 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Other metals 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% ta'' : „ .:. a>.4A >.os..,,;..:3=Y'<>nnav 4.., atS1...9).. +r`x is ettik - :.5:,....' ,',,. : ;s; ,... .3.,,,' .: ..� ... • Food wastes 1,140 14.5% 0 0.0% 1,140 12.4% Rubber products 6 0.1% 0 0.0% 6 0.1% Wood wastes 49 0.6% 0 0.0% 49 0.5% Agricultural Crop Residues 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% I Textiles and Leather 97 1.2% 100 7.7% 197 2.1% Other miscellaneous organics 156 2.0% 61 4.7% 217 2.4%•.z:' :,......;esrT,.sa ac 5wxrz.. caC,�"..�.)1.:.:..:.:;:..a : . y.. ..,b.:.'.�. "a t.4:. .><E, ......a::is .,. . %:.:. rt so . the . concrete, asphalt 98 1.2% 0 0.0% 98 1.1% Gypsum wallboard 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Household hazardous materials 73 0.9% 0 0.0% 73 0.8% II Diapers 199 2.5% 34 2.6% 233 2.5% Other 395 5.0% 0 0.0% 395 4.3% �. c<�«'�1:3#;�:�::�`+��.) ?' saxa' ..;.'��t4e��s�a: a2£a :cwNtki„ "?x'�:3i:��S '<ed�w!'��.�,,$'eftig4A;, %anm I . .... .... .*.#9O. :"'»:.dlfig ':°`°w't'g 6'y:M,xi:>:g:::.;:.. n.. :i•447 <ny Z9R ::d:. %F.S:`n?.:..5.<.xx.'a#.'eo'. I x::>e:Q'n i:<'n t tY°.:: .�qq fi am�`,c..?a��.>:cr't;.'>:s;z:�,?..>,g.g::..1:y�z.,,•. � ,.{la. <:.<,�.n>�.<,.F�_<�>,«N<;<J<�::::?.. :<x�,}�;:�9a4�fa.k aga<$,?s;�:<,>.<«�.'y,}�(� �\R31.�a� �'A O..Ao.o la } 4�o a°��p �n".' '1 53 �C .,[a�5' ncY � b T'3 9 R aEDCy'Y" ` 0 n alf ':n.,;>:'ge o4.last�`p,v'�aC' ! £.nryb : .g44...� 4� 2Y'9.Wa> 6¢ g .to i f g F.in: :§{,..& •. ac.s r.',.... . . .9..8.,' " V* Included in mixed paper. .. I ** High-density polyethylene(HDPE), includes all plastic (HDPE and PET)containers. *** Polyethylene terephthalate(PET)containers. **** Includes ALL container glass. I Disposal percent by weight for bi-metal containers is actually .002%, but due to rounding results in zero. A detailed listing of special wastes is included as Table 6-1. The total special waste quantity indicated on this table does not include white goods (shown above in its own waste category). I TABLE 2-7b Commercial/Industrial Waste Generation by Waste Category City of Dublin Commercial/Industrial Waste category Disposal Diversion Generation percent by percent by percent by tons/year weight tons/year weight tons/year weight yt:.,vaor..stlI n.>er. .>< '.. .:.Ye.an.S.°. .?. •rruga -• containers 2,097 6.2% 1,526 12.6% 3,623 7.9% Mixed paper 5,998 17.7% 0 0.0% 5,998. 13.0% Newspaper 916 2.7% 172' 1.4% 1,088 2.4% High grade ledger paper 3,809 11.3% 725 6.0% 4,534 9.9% Other paper* 0 0.0% 153 1.3% 153 0.3% HDP' containers 123 0.4% 4 0.0% 127 0.3% PET containers*** - 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Film plastics 243 0.7% 12 0.1% 255 0.6% Other plastics 1,254 3.7% 1 0.0% 1,255 2.7% Est , . '�'a. •,:.r•„ $%s�tt�%'�`^v3,sa4F',l'<o 2i` ....Ie974 ->',4e i,osy ...'4fl;>"Ay '- 5.:",9�,Mr„n,6 dRx #..' .<'`r . ,.°i:... : • ar'. , ' '°'sgb8, ...:. ":,aYs iVcc. I TABLE 2-7c Total Waste Generation by Waste Category :11% , City of Dublin A, a - Total I Waste category Disposal Diversion Generation percent by percent by percent by tons/year weight tons/year weight tons/year weight tomtga -• containers 2,297 5.5% 1,526 3.7% 3,823 9.2% Mixed paper 6,764 16.2% 0 0.0% 6,764 16.2% Newspaper 1,301 3.1% 753 1.8% 2,054 4.9% ' High grade ledger paper 3,995 9.6% 725 1.7% 4,720 11.3% Other paper* 1,059 2.5% 153 0.4% 1,212 2.9% w r . rip ,, agam :: si E'nY.;.°. yY�'i," ito go :4'l -.: �,,1 Q50 , 331?}':J� m ' Z*% :1.$157:4 ' 37 ,S ws. i : . ew, . , A.sirt •E containers 157 0.4% 13 0.0% 170 0.4% PET containers*** 10 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 0.0% Film plastics 451 1.1% 12 0.0% 463 1.1% Other plastics 1,564 3.8% 1 0.0% 1,565 3.8% ..�,. .,,..z,..:. :. '.:.. :';:>' �:::.. ...v...u..,..,..^... .m�e<.�'rrcYy>r..::.eW.:u,?zCemw. :.4kF:,�(,.'ay:Q� '::;`.u..y:,e xm..'<..:. ..,x°.m.::.,.::.a�.,. . 1 � +�ii.,'�{,�\ft''^i,.�,�,L39��nW,O<'}halt"Nivrtv':<,�.'1�T:tiY,�A+::{:'gmyo\,yj<�P<:v ,2:<�AQ�.' �,ki"�K��� e , .�.. k [iQ�A ..2f��e '_" $4. ]"; 7. .. .... .j: .pHi ........:.. .... . ...... ..:dam'/ T� lte :6 e glass beverage containers - - - - - - California Redemption Value glass**** 1,530 3.7% 937 2.2% 2,467 5.9% Other recyclable glass 732 1.8% 97 0.2% 829 2.0% Other non-recyclable glass 646 1.5% 0 0.0% 646 1.5% � » :..awi3:�a+. -wa.. g S'.; .q »..::.6.., .F...r:ti<?wl .,e...,,:41 5f v.t: >'l�£1'1���sr .. "°h'E.^w#Y/,:�r°�k.��,.�.g,1?cx`•y��,h«'.�..:�'.:�t�,�..,. ."�.`¢��' >;o<�7n�1� Faa.1�IL3?I•,_��»„niZ.��6 .:':.3>St4$ �.wr::;�. 9e'�`�o...'�. umtnumcans 79 0.2% 111 0.3% 190 0.5% I Bi-metal containers***** 1 0.0% 8 0.0% 9 0.0% Ferrous metals and tin cans 1,144 2.7% ' 182 0.4% 1,326 3.2% Non-ferrous metals incl. alum. scrap 776 1.9% 146 0.4% 922 2.2% I White goods 275 0.7% 300 0.7% 575 1.4% Other metals 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% z MPaifb43. . SSIS > ;MISSINI:V lxzz CSt4. 4.a*a u a7d,7 »gr)4%o . 04iCa ; ..::^*. 7r2;% #4'°€," ,. i ..";,:w" 7 ai �'N& '�t� ' z t :., .:NNW.e" ,i� ;�a.:¢, >.a 4°. g . 11 1 ii ,"ACaa:S�,(Rir` '"mk`�t`.'V` .r^el l. gQ2aN. :�.,.,.?J.�. - . .. .. :..:� ooh wastes 3,124 7.5% 29 0.1% 3,153 7.6% I Rubber products 1,592 3.8% 0 0.0% 1,592 3.8% Wood wastes 3,464 8.3% 841 2.0% 4,305 10.3% Agricultural Crop Residues 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Manure 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% II Textiles and Leather 159 0.4% 100 0.2% 259 0.6% Other miscellaneous organics 156 0.4% 61 0.1% 217 0.5% A 5t ti :tai : ; g .: 4:5IZW RA areSgPMA ; MQ3E@ x : ^fists% r .<9 F. <aa eq Inert so ds inc . concrete, asphalt 1,740 4.2% 7,271 17.4% 9,011 21.6% Gypsum wallboard 496 1.2% 0 0.0% 496 1.2% Household hazardous materials 73 0.2% 0 0.0% 73 0.2% ' DDiiaappeers 199 0.5% 34 0.1% 233 0.6% 3,032 7.3% 1 0.0% 3,033 7.3% .,»,<<,t ntwa:,^:> a':...:...rn 34542 .sa 3,;3%'.:,°rS14lt".:. 2474% 47;4847 ' Gta7iW49Iaa' r ao:<>xm"r£ Y �da . .� m :'tt' '�6� �'t11�% -�� 'B�% .. 3�� 3 Q%:: $.,. T, % »r ?e`9: "' .;. _p <a.w. .sw . ...,.A :&4:: B§ ... < j . o . 10 cr >ti Tota:1: ".• cted.Voiuxue(6Ubtw ttlar flfl* .. ::,+5 , .: Iincluded in fluxed paper. ** High-density polyethylene(HDPE), includes all plastic (HDPE and PET) containers. *4* Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers. 1 **** Includes ALL container glass. Disposal percent by weight for bi-metal containers is actually .002%, but due to rounding results in zero. A detailed listing of special wastes is included as Table 6-1. The total special waste quantity indicated on this table does not include white goods (shown above in its own waste category). I ******* Based on in-place density of 1,500 pounds per cubic yard. • 2-14 to 0.002 percent of the total waste stream from Dublin. This level of waste disposal meets the regulatory definition of normal disposal in a landfill. The reason that this is not reflected in Table 2-7 is that this table rounds only to one decimal place and, as a consequence, the one ton of bi-metal cans disposed is shown as 0 percent. Materials Targeted for Diversion Table 2-8 lists materials which Dublin currently sends to a landfill for disposal are targeted for potential diversion through the diversion programs identified in the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting and Special Wastes components of this SRR Element. As required by the regulations, the materials are listed by major waste category and waste type. I Table 2-8. Materials Targeted for Diversion I Category Waste type Paper Corrugated containers I Mixed paper Newspaper High grade ledger Other paper Plastics High-density polyethylene (HDPE) 1 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Film plastics Other plastics Glass Recyclable container glass Other recyclable glass I Metals Aluminum cans Bimetal containers Ferrous metals and tin cans Nonferrous metals including aluminum scrap White goods 1 Yard waste Leaves, grass, and prunings Other organics Food wastes ' Tires and rubber products Other wastes Inert solids including concrete, asphalt 1 1 I City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper nIM®VRn'otB1n1CHArnIs 2-15 Materials Not Diverted Table 2-9 lists the material which will not be diverted from disposal by the programs identified in the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Wastes components of this SRR Element. This material listed by major waste category and waste type is not likely to be able to be diverted because either it is nonrecyclable, or because markets for materials diversion do not currently exist and in the foreseeable future are not likely to materialize. Table 2-9. Material Not Targeted for Diversion Category . Waste type Glass Nonrecyclable glass Solid Waste Disposal Projections Solid waste generation projections are based on population growth projections. It is assumed that the proportions of each generator category (residential, commercial/industrial, construction/demolition debris, and self-haul) will contribute a similar proportion to the total waste stream in future years as it does under existing conditions. The population projections are based on estimated ABAG percentage increases from the preliminary 1990 Census data populations. Tables 2-10 and 2-11 summarize waste disposal, waste diversion, and waste generation projections for Dublin for the 15-year planning period, 1990 through 2005. Table 2-10 assumes diversion at existing diversion rates. Table 2-11 assumes diversion rates as required by AB 939. Future Reporting Procedures CCR section 18722(o) requires SRR Elements to include an outline of the system each 1 jurisdiction will employ for reporting solid waste quantity and composition data for waste materials generated, diverted, and disposed, For Dublin, waste generation data will be provided by an ongoing program of selectively targeted waste characterization studies to be conducted by the Dublin City Manager's office; waste disposal data will be required to be provided by Oakland Scavenger Company,Dublin's franchised solid waste collection service; and waste diversion data will be generated by the several program monitoring and evaluation methods described in the source reduction, recycling, and composting components of the SRR Element. I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper ni■moamaueLet.aurrma I • Table 2-10 Waste Generation Projections Under Existing Conditions I City of Dublin 1 1 Projected Projected Projected Percent Year disposal, diversion, generation, diversion tons per year tons per year tons per year 1990 41,707 13,437 55,144 24.4 1991 43,016 13,859 56,874 24.4 1 1992 44,365 14,293 58,659 24.4 1993 45,757 14,742 60,499 24.4 1994 47,193 15,204 62,397 24.4 I 1995 48,673 15,681 64,355 24.4 1996 51,181 16,489 67,671 24.4 1997 53,818 17,339 71,157 24.4 1 1998 56,591 18,232 74,823 24.4 1999 59,507 19,172 78,679 24.4 2000 62,573 20,160 82,732 24.4 2001 65,643 21,149 86,791 24.4 2002 68,863 22,186 91,049 24.4 2003 72,241 23,274 95,516 24.4 2004 75,786 24,416 100,202 24.4 2005 79,504 25,614 105,118 24.4 , Notes: I 1. Estimated 1990 population is based on Preliminary 1990 Census data. I These figures are preliminary and subject to change. 2. Population projections for 1990-1995 and 1995-2005 are based on the I percentage increases as were presented in ABAG's Projections '90 Report. I I I 1 I ITable 2-11 Waste Generation Projections Percent Diversion as Required Under AB939 I City of Dublin I Projected Projected Projected Percent IYear disposal, diversion, generation, diversion tons per year tons per year tons per year 1990 41,707 13,437 55,144 24.4 II1991 56,874 1992 58,659 1993 60,499 1994 62,397 1995 44,492 19,862 64,355 30.9 I 1996 67,671 1997 71,157 1998 74,823 I 1999 78,679 2000 37,729 45,002 82,732 54.4 2001 86,791 2002 91,049 2003 95,516 2004 100,202 ' 2005 47,938 57,178 105,118 54.4 INotes: ' 1. Estimated 1990 population is based on Preliminary 1990 Census data. These figures are preliminary and subject to change. 1 2. Population projections for 1990-1995 and 1995-2005 are based on the percentage increases as were presented in ABAG's Projections '90 Report. 1 3. Due to rounding, projected disposal and projected diversion may not add up exactly to projected generation. I I I 1 i 1 CHAPTER 3 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT I 1 1 1 r I 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper i 1 CHAPTER 3 tSOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT This chapter describes the objectives and program alternatives analyzed for the Source Reduction Component of the City of Dublin (Dublin) Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element. This chapter begins by defining the .term source reduction and follows with a discussion of source reduction objectives, existing conditions, alternatives, program selection, implementation,and monitoring and evaluation in accordance with the requirements of the Model Component Format set forth in the State Planning Guidelines. Source Reduction Overview Source reduction is defined as a set of activities which result in the reduction or prevention of solid waste generation. The effect of source reduction is also to conserve resources and energy, and thus it can additionally lead to a reduction of land, water and air quality impacts on the environment. For these reasons, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires cities and counties to place source reduction at the top of the hierarchy of waste management practices for local solid waste management programs. ' Source reduction can be achieved through changes at the national or state level which result in reductions in the volume or weight of packaging, the manufacture of products containing recycled materials content, and increased product durability. At the local level, source reduction can occur through changes in consumption patterns leading to an increased demand for products which contribute less to the generation of solid waste. It is the efforts to affect local consumption patterns which are the focus of the Source Reduction Component of this SRR Element. SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT OBJECTIVES Short- and medium-term objectives have been established for the Source Reduction Component to 1995 and 2000, respectively. For each time period, waste types targeted for ' diversion are identified based on (1) data from the Solid Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County (Appendix A-1(2)); (2) a set of source reduction objectives which are required to be considered by state regulations; and (3) additional mandated criteria including the volume and weight of targeted material; the potential hazards associated with these City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 37154/137oR1Touuurcwnmi 3-2 materials;materials,products, or packages made of nonrenewable resources; and the recyclability of the materials. State Mandated Source Reduction Objectives The California Integrated Waste Management Board has adopted a set of planning guidelines 1 for preparing,revising,and amending countywide integrated waste management plans(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 9, Article 6.2). Section 18734.1 of these guidelines requires that the following source reduction component objectives be examined: 1. Reducing the use of nonrecyclable materials. i 2. Replacing disposable materials and products with reusable materials and products. 3. Reducing excess packaging. 4. Reducing the amount of yard wastes generated. 5. Purchasing repairable products. 6. Reducing wastes from nonresidential generators through modifications to production, operations,and processes,and consideration of durability,reusability,and recyclability as product selection criteria for procurement. Waste Types Targeted for Diversion Dublin has targeted the following waste types for source reduction based on the results of the Solid Waste Generation Study, the state-mandated objectives discussed above, and other required factors for consideration: • Yard waste. • Food waste. • Paper, primarily office paper and mixed paper. • Nonrepairable products. Short-Term Goals and Objectives Through the following source reduction activities, Dublin will increase total waste stream I diversion by 0.2 percent by 1995. • Divert yard and food waste by 0.2 percent of the total waste stream (71 tons per year). • 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 5111nvoamnue ..a3 3-3 Medium-Term Objectives Source reduction programs will be continued in the medium term with no expansion. SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT EXISTING CONDITIONS ' As noted in Table 3-2,existing source reduction activities in Dublin accounted for diversion of about 1,036 tons of solid waste generated in Dublin in 1990. This is equivalent to approximately 2 percent of the 55,143 tons of waste generated by Dublin in 1990(see Table 2-7). Firms that were surveyed for information regarding their source reduction activities are listed in Table 3-1. The table identifies the types of material which these funs diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction. The quantities of source-reduced materials these firms divert, however, are not provided because the majority of these firms denied permission for public release of this data. However, the aggregation of these data is included in the source reduction 1 diversion quantities displayed in Table 3-2. It should be noted that the state guidelines for preparation of SRR and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Elements only allows diversion credit for those source-reduced materials for which the amount diverted can be quantified. ' None of Dublin's existing source reduction programs will be phased out or decreased in scope during the short or medium term. Quantified Source Reduction Activities The following activities contributed known source reduction quantities for Dublin. Cloth Diapers. ABC Diaper Service and Tiny Tots Diaper Service, the two leading cloth diaper services in Alameda County, were each asked to provide the number of customers they have per jurisdiction for the 1990 base year. Only one company (Tiny Tots)was able to provide ' the number of customers on a jurisdictional basis. The second had approximately the same number of customers in the county. An assumption was made that the same jurisdictional distribution of customers applied for both because no other methodology was available to estimate the jurisdictional distribution of ABC Diaper's Alameda County customers. Subsequent conversations with ABC Diaper Service indicate that for 1991 and subsequent years,ABC Diaper will be able to provide information on the jurisdictional distribution of its Alameda County ' customers. It is recommended that future updates of the Dublin SRR Element include the information that both Tiny Tots and ABC Diaper Service are now able to provide indicating the extent of usage of cloth diapers by Dublin residents. This number was then divided by the number of disposable diapers per ton (4,500)to calculate the number of tons per week of diapers not going to a landfill because of the use of the cloth diaper services. This number was then multiplied by 52 for an annual figure of cloth diaper service source reduction. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 5715xmornuueLuutun®c3 0 1 h v . 3 _ _ i N U 0 7 = 0 E 7 0 7 p 0 0 O o O - O o 0 O o ° N •- y N 1- 0 co, _ VQJI C C V IS' a E a o o a 3 .a°.. T ¢ .� '� .°. ° r<= ° .°. J U F Ti -. N [s. ... .r x S .. _ 0... ,n 3 C ° C y e = e e = 3 e = = = = = v 3 e N. 3 0 t. o o= o a o 0 0 t 0 = ra 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g = o E = U = U 2 U U U = U u. G U U U U U U sn L U a C U a. [L i 0 0 co co I 0 ZO T oy u., a H V 6 N v i U) = y U Z a w U 'a F a m a = a> U C H Q C e °' I s aevc ° u ' G >. C % a a v a .a 1. v U -74 I CA a W a ,c, m 0 u y y a. as „ 03 a. g z . > 3 = a " K y 2 Li. c 0 e._ a 7 'C n C _� Q 0 a o U 0 ti E 3 o tr. F- 0 �' °a e F g _� v v 3 0 _ _ °� T F U , r4 g u5 Ellg .4 .0 z 2 2 z c o o coo a. R EA ca cn y y s0 P F F c 3 3 0 H , H V z o A W 1 '0 d C v 7 0I C U 0 rj 7 0 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 0 fj C4 1 p "� pCj 0 of. T O O O O O B O 2 O 2 O 2 C. © y O i O C y = y V'yl N - H h N N N N fJ C en F 0. a 3 0 0 0 0 0 a a a O N y Y N OZ 4 CS 4 4 M N ._ DO on 011 4 W 0 0 a c e y _ a e e 3 0 = R m = e 3 '- e o E E o ° ' o o " 0 0 0 o C C o '0 25 g o =' = 0 0 '� § end I = a °5' a 0 a 3 o a =moo F 3 u. G L U C < G U U a. U U U U ta„ t.T. U U 3 C U a. U U L o 0 3 R •Y 1 H ^_=' n c F a U O H a co 0 0 0 1- Wo 2 3 2cE i !n ; nu C 7 0 0 cn G 0 0 wo aU a o2n 1 'L - N 2 j C..'p 7 H C ° `n 5 ° 7 7 ^ 7 cv_ U C ____ 0.lo ° 9 — N a ` `�„' 7707 V V a ax 0 3t se a L, a O _ v v u. > it v u o �. a v a c U i u v u u u a .? .e 0 o v o v a C kr a 9 9 M r G co 3 y o o O .E ¢ v z a o o u o 9. C _ ?` c U L a = y g V T T Q r N C C CJ a L = 7 = = :` \i •0 0. 'inn N cc ;n C.L. C C 'c C aa)i v v v > = C " ,0 3 .0 `3 r = �. ¢ 0 0 0 co) Q U v C) ca .� e. � 5 . Ov = _ c 3 . _ 0_ _ H H N G C ^ y v v - a ? - v u v °> C - a _ .0.. 0 0 C .. N N N N 7 < ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ = = C C U C C.1 G tit L C c L - = = X p=O.^a. a .5 u I Table 3-2 Existing Source Reduction Quantities- 1990 City of Dublin Residential Non-residential Material category tons per year tons per year • Total }g:s: °:<'ri"rxrvY!:a:�id?.' u >4:S:f„<.:'tic ^ysii> >.iryS.'9.:£nt�F7>y:Yz;:�CS2 • A6'E ES:4r : 'c "x� s""."9.eS'ev.°.w «i.:Aso.;" '^ '"Fr Re-use 34 34 Ragged out , Cloth and used clothes,jewelry 100 100 r PiceltgleellagaSSEEMEDES Furniture,household appliances 59 59 Mattresses 0.4 0.4 Small art objects 1 1 Books,records 0.1 0.1 wog ;; . : . s; a,�ru _.:�:.�. : °._ Pallet repair 841 841 Sitaiiiiisseitamoss �u : 6= tmW11m . ar. Y C. N 1 P. Brick and stone 0.1 0.1 Building fixtures 0.4 0.4 Salvage materials 0.1 0.1 Steel construction materials pyAipa ... siatesstaistosso Steel drums Plastic Fiber S�ibtotal ` Total(tons per year) 1,036 • snrot 1 3-6 On the basis of this formula, it was determined that the total cloth diaper source reduction tonnage for Dublin was 34 tons in 1990. Source reduction through the use of cloth diapers diverted only slightly more than one-half of one percent of total waste generated, a very small increment of Dublin's total waste stream. Sale of Used Clothing. Second-hand clothing stores and used textile companies throughout , Alameda County were contacted and asked to provide information on the tonnage of cloth and used clothing each firm generated. Since very few furs were able to identify the amount of material generated by each Alameda County jurisdiction, in most cases tonnages were allocated on a proportional population basis. Where quantities were not given in weight, it was assumed that an average weight per adult item was 0.5 pounds and an average weight per child item was 0.25 pounds. It was also assumed that a green Hefty bag of adult clothes would contain an average of 30 items, yielding an average of 15 pounds per bag of clothing. The assumptions regarding average weight per item and pounds per bag of clothing are based on empirical analysis undertaken to verify survey results obtained from Alameda County thrift stores. On the basis of this formula, it was determined that the total source reduction tonnage I attributable to the sale of used clothing by Dublin residents was 100 tons in 1990. Wood Pallet Repair. Six pallet companies in Alameda County were contacted. These 1 companies repair damaged pallets for reuse. Pallets that are beyond repair are sold to a wood chipper. Pallets that were sold for use as fuel were not included in the source reduction diversion estimates. The information provided by the pallet companies was on a weight basis so no conversion was necessary. However, because most of the pallet companies were not able to • identify the extent of pallet repair for each Alameda County jurisdiction, total Alameda County tonnages for this type of waste were mostly distributed on the basis of the number of business licenses per jurisdiction. On the basis of this formula, it was determined that the total source reduction tonnage attributable to wood pallet repair by Dublin residents was 841 tons in 1990. Unquantified Source Reduction Activities , The source reduction quantities of the following activities are not known and are not readily quantifiable for the existing conditions. Restructuring of Garbage Collection Rates. In 1991, Dublin restructured its residential garbage collection rates to reduce the discount residents receive for additional cans of service. Prior to 1991, Dublin had a rate structure which substantially discounted the collection and disposal cost for additional cans of service, a policy which acted as a disincentive to residents' reducing the amount of solid waste they generate. The change introduced in 1991 begins a policy of gradually reducing the differential between the rates for first and additional cans of service until eventually a uniform can rate excluding special service surcharges is achieved. A progressive variable can rate may be considered when diversion alternatives are established. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 51Ira®ormnuunrcIuv11m.3 3-7 County Home Composting Project. In September 1990, the Alameda County Waste ' Management Authority approved funding for a countywide Home Composting Education Program. This program will include the development of demonstration gardens promoting home composting techniques and facilities, a home composting hotline and workshops tailored to the ' specific needs of such special audiences as educators, homeowners, landscapers and students. Dublin will publicize the county home composting project among its residents and encourage their participation in its activities. In addition, one of the demonstration gardens for the Home ' Composting Education Program is to be located at Dublin's Shannon Park. Implementation of Recycled Material Procurement Policy Guidelines. In January 1991, a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority) was appointed to explore the development of countywide procurement policies to encourage the purchase of reusable materials and products containing recycled materials. Dublin intends to consider implementation of the procurement policy recommendations the subcommittee will develop. EVALUATION OF SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES This section includes an evaluation of source reduction diversion alternatives considered for local implementation by Dublin. In accordance with Section 18734.3 of the State of California 1 Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans(State Planning Guidelines), source reduction alternatives are grouped into the ' following categories: 1. Rate structure modifications including local waste disposal fee modifications and ' quantity-based local user fees. 2. Economic incentives such as (a) loans, grants, and loan guarantees; and (b) deposits, refunds, and rebates. It should be noted that the City of Dublin does not control funds that would allow implementation of this type of source reduction diversion alternative. 3. Technical assistance or instructional and promotional alternatives such as (a) waste evaluations; (b)establishment of compost programs which assist generators to compost at the site of generation; (c) technical assistance to industry and consumer organizations, and to source reduction businesses; (d) educational efforts, such as consumer awareness programs, school curricula development, seminars, and public forums; (e) awards and other types of public recognition for source reduction activities; and (f) nonprocurement source reduction programs, such as education of employees, office changes to increase the use of scrap paper, increased use of electronic niail, and increased double-sided copying. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 5715auonisnue3 3-8 4. Regulatory programs such as (a) adoption of ordinances that regulate procurement policies for city-owned and/or operated facilities, (b) establishment of incentives and disincentives to land-use development that promote source reduction, and (c) establishment of requirements for waste reduction planning and reporting by waste generators or manufacturers. Each of these categories of source reduction alternatives is analyzed below according to criteria mandated by Section 18733.3 of the State Planning Guidelines. Rate Structure Modifications Altering the structure of solid waste collection or disposal fees can influence consumption patterns in such a manner as to cause a reduction in waste generation. Types of rate structure modification include changes in disposal fees to increase the cost of disposal for nonrecyclable and nonreusable wastes and quantity based user fees such as a variable can rate or volume based pricing to increase the cost of collecting nonrecyclable and nonreusable waste for disposal. As noted above, Dublin implemented a form of rate structure modification in 1991 when it restructured rates for solid waste collection and disposal to reduce the discount received by residents for additional cans of source. Waste Diversion Potential. Rate structure modifications can be very effective in reducing waste generation depending on the extent of change in disposal or collection rates. The effectiveness of rate structure is also dependent on availability of alternative waste diversion 1 options such as a relatively low cost curbside collection of recyclables option. Hazards Creation. A potential exists when collection or disposal rates increase for increased illegal disposal of waste which could lead to increased public health problems. Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. Revenue rates 1 for Dublin are approved and set by the Dublin City Council. The Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee (JRRRC), a joint powers authority of Oakland Scavenger franchisees reviews rate applications and provides recommendations to member agencies. The Dublin City Council is authorized to set refuse collection rates and can relatively easily accommodate to changing conditions. For example, the City Council has been able to restructure its garbage collection rates to reduce the difference between rates for initial and additional cans of service without great difficulty. Shift in Waste Type Generation. A shift in waste type generation would be unlikely to result from rate structure modification. A likely result would be a shift in the method of disposal (increased self-haul or illegal dumping). This is discussed further in the Monitoring and Evaluation section. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mfw®ox'mnum,orcw,vmc ' 3-9 Ease of Implementation. Community opposition to garbage collection rate increases could lead to an unwillingness to impose rate increases. Such opposition could occur in either the short-term or medium-term planning period. Facility Needs. No facilities are needed to implement a rate structure modification program. ' Consistency With Local Policies. Dublin has begun a rate restructuring process to eliminate the differential between collection and disposal rates for initial and additional cans of service. Institutional Barriers. None. Estimated Cost. Costs associated with the implementation of rate restructuring are minimal; they include administrative costs for city staff to develop modifications in waste collection rates,for Oakland Scavenger staff to implement the program activity, and a slight cost ' impact on overhead. None of these costs should adversely affect rates. However, if the quantity of waste generated were to decline significantly due to restructuring of collection and disposal rates,rates could be impacted because fixed overhead costs would be spread over a significantly ' smaller revenue base. ' End Uses. Not applicable. Economic Incentives This source reduction alternative includes loans, grants, loan guarantees, deposits, refunds and rebates. This type of source reduction alternative is not generally implementable as a city ' program. Economic incentives are designed to encourage source reduction by linking an economic benefit to the implementation of waste diversion activities. Economic incentives can be targeted for either businesses or consumers. It should be noted that an additional type of economic incentive, rate structure modifications to promote waste diversion, has already been discussed in the previous section of this source reduction alternatives analysis. Waste Diversion Potential. Although it is easy to understand conceptually how economic incentives would affect source reduction, it is very difficult to develop documentation that will show the precise extent of waste stream reduction attributable to specific economic incentive • activities. Hazards Creation. None. 1 i ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrvwORTMOBLmcv..reu 1 3-10 Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. Economic incentives can easily be tailored to meet changing economic, technological, and social circumstances. Shift in Waste Type Generation. The purpose of source reduction economic incentive programs would be to reduce waste at the source and avoid substitution of products or material that cause increased waste generation. Ease of Implementation. The Dublin City Council would need to approve economic incentives to reduce waste generation. The amount of time necessary to adopt economic incentives would vary depending on the attitudes of the community to this approach. Economic incentives could be implemented in the short or medium term. Facility Needs. None. ' Consistency With Local Policies. Dublin currently has no ordinances or plans in place which provide economic incentives to businesses or consumers willing to reduce waste 1 generation. Dublin has not chosen to implement an economic incentive program; therefore, costs cannot be determined. Institutional Barriers. Economic incentives such as tax credits, loans, or other types of subsidy would have fiscal impacts. An unwillingness to incur these fiscal costs would be a' barrier to this course of action. Estimated Cost. The cost of an economic incentives program would depend on the amount of incentives provided and on the extent of business or consumer involvement with this program. End Uses. Not applicable. Technical Assistance, Education, and Promotion This method of source reduction would decrease waste generation by providing waste 1 generators with information on available means to lower the rate of waste generation and education on how to implement source reduction. Included in this category are waste audits, technical assistance, educational programs and awards programs to publicly acknowledge pro- active source reduction efforts. Waste Diversion Potential. There is significant potential for source reduction through 1 technical assistance, education and promotion. Measurement of the precise extent of waste reduction attributable to these programs, however, is difficult. ' Hazards Creation. None. 1 City of Dublin - ' Printed on recycled paper 57INUEPOR ITT LINcHbna3 1 3-11 Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. Technical assistance, educational and promotion activities can be designed to accommodate changing economic, technological or social conditions. Shift in Waste Type Generation. Technical assistance, educational and promotional programs would result in an overall reduction in the amount of solid waste generation. These programs would be designed to avoid substitution of types of waste materials that result in no decrease in waste generation. Ease of Implementation. These programs would be able to be implemented in the short ' term. Facility Needs. None. iConsistency With Local Policies. The current Dublin policy is to consider the support of source reduction technical assistance, educational and promotional policies. ' Institutional Barriers. None. ' Estimated Cost. The principal component of these programs would be staff costs to provide these services. Costs would be approximately $100/year to support the County's home composting program. 1 End Uses. Not applicable. Regulatory Programs ' Dublin can mandate changes in waste generation consumption patterns through ordinances and internal city policy documents. Examples of this type of source reduction activity include local procurement ordinances, required waste reduction planning and reporting and the adoption of local bans on products and packaging. Regulatory programs of this type require development, approval, implementation, and subsequent enforcement activities. Waste Diversion Potential. The extent of source reduction resulting from local regulatory programs will depend on the specific features of local regulations, the types of waste targeted, the extent to which actual source reduction can be documented,the willingness of the community 1 to comply with regulations, and the level of enforcement by Dublin. Hazards Creation. None. 1 Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. Changes in economic, technological, and social conditions will require further City Council action, 1 constraining, somewhat, the ability to respond rapidly to these conditions. 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mruwnroue,mcwnnt., 3-12 Shift in Waste Type Generation. The shift in waste type generation that would occur as a consequence of local regulatory measures would be an overall reduction in the amount of solid waste generation. These programs would be designed to avoid substitution of types of waste materials that result in increased waste production. Ease of Implementation. Local regulatory programs could be implemented in both the short- and medium-term periods. • Facility Needs. None. , Consistency With Local Policies. There are no current Dublin policies or ordinances requiring source reduction activities. Institutional Barriers. There would probably be some resistance on the part of consumers or local businesses to regulation or ordinance driven changes in consumption patterns. The extent of opposition to source reduction regulatory actions would depend on the specific features of such regulations and the perception of the burden it would impose. , Estimated Cost. Development, approval, and especially enforcement of local regulatory programs would require additional staff costs. The cost of implementing procurement guidelines is approximately $550/year. End Uses. Not applicable. ' SELECTION OF SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAMS Source reduction program selections for Dublin have been based on the results of the above 1 evaluation of alternatives, the following analysis of alternatives, and on the ease of implementation by the city. Analysis of Alternatives Restructuring collection and disposal rates to encourage less waste generation has already ' been implemented in Dublin and further rate restructuring will be explored with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform rate for each can of service. i Technical assistance, education and promotion programs will also be considered. Such programs have a high potential for waste reduction with few negative consequences, and relatively low costs. For this reason and because yard waste represents 24 percent of residential waste disposed, Dublin will support the technical assistance program developed by the county to promote home composting education among Alameda County residents. 1 1 City of Dublin ' Printed on recycled paper 57 znnoersaummcxnna, 3-13 Dublin is less willing to mandate changes in waste generation, disposal and diversion ' through regulatory programs such as city ordinances and policy documents. Such regulatory programs frequently entail costly enforcement components to ensure program success. However, Dublin will consider one program discussed in more detail below, the implementation of a ' procurement policy for city government offices favoring purchase of reusable products and products containing recycled material. The reason for consideration of this program is that it regulates only internal city government behavior so enforcement is not as significant or costly ' a concern. This program will target most paper products, which represent 37 percent of the total waste disposed. ' Dublin is also considering requiring developers to identify diversions of their waste stream. The city has not chosen to implement such a requirement at this time but may do so at a later date. ' At present, Dublin is not considering economic incentives such as loans, grants, loan guarantees, refunds or rebates to promote source reduction. This type of source reduction ' alternative is not generally implementable as a city program although the city would consider grant funding for this purpose from other government agencies such as the ACWMA or the CIWMB. ' Alternatives Selected ' The source reduction alternatives selected for implementation by Dublin include a restructuring of collection and disposal rates, a program in which Dublin will support a county source-reduction education program and a regulatory program changing city procurement policy. These activities are to occur throughout the short and medium terms. The specific source reduction programs and the targeted wastes these programs will affect are described below. ' Continue Rate Restructuring Modifications. Dublin will continue to implement a policy of gradually reducing the differential in rates between initial and additional cans of service with ' the goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate. This step will remove a quantity-based discount which acts as a disincentive to reducing waste generation. Because residents will have to pay more for additional cans than they had previously, they will have a greater economic ' incentive to use a single can. Rate restructuring will occur throughout the short-term period until a uniform can rate has been achieved. After this happens, the uniform can rate will be continued throughout the remainder of the short-term period and during the medium term. Targeted materials which may be diverted as a consequence of the removal of the current quantity-based discount are materials such as excess packaging and disposable products which residents can eliminate from waste generation by changing behaviors and by purchasing different ' types of products. Targeted materials include waste types such as aluminum cans, glass i ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrmmomTMue 1 3-14 containers, and newspaper which residents can divert from disposal through recycling. No diversion quantities will be estimated and credited for this alternative. Continuation of Support for the Alameda County Home Composting Program. Dublin will promote awareness of the County's Home Composting Education Program by disseminating information on the Shannon Park demonstration garden, by posting the home composting hotline number, and by encouraging Dublin residents to implement back-yard composting programs. Dublin will also develop and administer surveys to document the extent of home composting occurring in Dublin and the extent of source reduction that occurs as a result. Support for the County Home Composting Program will continue throughout the short- and medium-term periods. The targeted material for source reduction under this program is yard and food waste. A 0.2 percent reduction of yard and food waste is estimated for this program. Consider Implementation of Recycled and Reusable Procurement Policy. Dublin will , consider developing city government procurement policies which will ensure usage of products with recycled material content. This program will be based on the recommendations of the procurement guidelines subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. This program will be developed in the short term and be implemented throughout the short 1 and medium terms. No diversion quantities will be estimated or credited for this program. Under this program, the goal will be to replace nonrepairable disposable products and products which do not contain recycled material content with products which can be repaired or which contain recycled material content. Examples of this include the substitution of paper containing recycled materials for paper made exclusively from virgin pulp and the substitution of repairable laser toner cartridges for cartridges intended for disposal once the initial supply of toner is exhausted. ' Although purchasing items with recycled paper content is a market development objective falling within the Recycling chapter, program implementation is tied to the source reduction procurement guidelines and is therefore discussed in this section. 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 571ansroRirnueuurcHAr1J 3-15 SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION This section describes how and when the source reduction programs selected by Dublin will ' be implemented. For each program, agencies or organizations responsible for program implementation are identified, the tasks necessary to carry out the program are described and known program implementation costs are discussed. Table 3-3 displays the planning period implementation schedules for all selected source reduction programs for Dublin. The annual costs of administering the Source Reduction programs will be $1,750. Revenues available to fund source reduction programs include the following: • Dublin will consider grants, user fees, and other revenue sources to fund diversion ' programs. • A portion of the fees Alameda County receives from Contra Costa County and San ' Francisco for mitigation of impacts caused by these counties' use of Alameda County solid waste disposal facilities. The availability of these funds is contingent on a decision by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority(Authority)to continue ' the policy instituted in fiscal year 1990/91 of distributing a portion of total mitigation fees received to the member agencies of the Authority. ' Restructuring Collection and Disposal Rates 111 implementation City of Dublin Office of the City Manager is responsible for coordinating implementation of all source reduction programs identified for implementation by this SRR Element including the restructuring of collection and disposal rates to eliminate the current ' differential in per can rates between initial and additional cans of service. The tasks necessary to implement further rate restructuring include staff analysis of current ' and proposed new solid waste collection and disposal rates and review and approval of staff recommendations by the Dublin City Council. ' Alameda County Home Composting Program The City of Dublin Office of the City Manager is responsible for coordinating the ' implementation of all source reduction programs identified for implementation by this SRR Element including the provision of local support for the Alameda County Home Composting Program. The county agency responsible for carrying out this effort to promote backyard composting is the Alameda County Home Composting Education Program which is a component of the Alameda County Environmental Health Department Vector Control Services District. Additional support is provided by the Home Composting Education Program Volunteer Program. 1 . City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mranoai3OUBLM CHurrea, a I n I a N • I O en 1 T3 cr.d Q N ° 100 a o o I e'+ O 45 m a ON CU N tai. .7 -- IN i a 1 OD o 4 N � 1 a 0 N .■ Cd me 1 g Tr • • • • C a en 1 cn b N I a O yA W 7 I C 0 rz:1 0 be, G •Z U ` j& U V m I o ral E t x 2 0 M U U U e, en A a A ' I 03 • E .S >, E. H 1 g it $ u E o o Z �° ` ..0 O 0 - o .S .c .� m u 'O o 9 a El) C CI. F m m a ' 3 c o 1 c 3 '..E .� U ° E > E ° m E v v ° >, E c° x w 1 q a w° m .o U Q °3 c C7 c o a' w E., W Ukk °g = o x a .0 o 3 E v m a 8 6 U u • U g E 3 C 'E a. 9 s E c E w 0 8 'c U .S U 1 oa = 1 h i w a o i i a a F ED ,) 0. = U AaA W .0 0 I P } i f 3-17 The tasks necessary to implemerit`the County Home Composting Education Program include ' establishment of a close liaison and periodic meetings with staff of the County Home Composting Program, development of an outreach program to publicize this program in the Dublin community, and dissemination of materials on home composting to the residents of Dublin. Recycled and Reusable Products Procurement Guidelines ' The City of Dublin Office of the City Manager is responsible for coordinating the implementation of all source reduction programs identified for implementation by this SRR Element including the implementation of a city procurement program to increase the purchases ' of reusable products and products containing recycled materials content. Model procurement guidelines which Dublin will consider implementing are currently being developed by a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Alameda County Waste Management ' Authority. The tasks necessary to implement new procurement guidelines include review of the ' recommended model guidelines of the Technical Advisory Committee subcommittee; adaptation to the specific procurement policies of Dublin; preparation and dissemination of city memoranda instructing city staff to participate in this program; amendments to the city's purchasing ' ordinances,if necessary; and periodic follow-up regarding the extent of implementation occurring. ' SOURCE REDUCTION MONITORING AND EVALUATION ' Monitoring and evaluation of the source reduction programs Dublin has selected are discussed below. The City of Dublin Office of the City Manager is responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of these programs. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the budget for source reduction programs will be required for monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation necessarily relies upon comparing program results to base year data. ' For some of the existing conditions data with respect to source reduction,precise information was not available and assumptions were made to arrive at reasonable data. It is anticipated that the monitoring to be performed in subsequent years will derive more precise data, and that Dublin ' will modify its base year as appropriate and in accordance with the applicable regulations at the time. Dublin has decided not to delay implementation of their programs until more precise data are available. ' Methods to Monitor Compliance with Mandated Diversion Requirements ' Dublin is not required to complete a new solid waste generation study until 1995. However, Dublin will be conducting annual monitoring of its progress toward achieving mandated diversion requirements. This monitoring will be used to evaluate the source reduction programs. Other ' specific data gathering requirements are described in the programs' individual monitoring and evaluation sections which follow. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper ,.nruwxisnueLINCIIA I.3 1 3-18 Restructuring Collection and Disposal Rates The rationale for offering residents no discount for additional can service is obvious, to remove the disincentive to source reduction such a system provides. By receiving a discounted rate for each additional can of service, residents are automatically and continually rewarded for their waste generation efforts. The task of measuring the precise source reduction effect of the equal can rate pricing program, however, is difficult to evaluate as shown below. Methods to Monitor Achievement of Objectives. The rate structure modifications are , effective if residents are able to use fewer cans because they reduced their generation, recycled more, or began home composting. For the most part, these efforts will be measured through monitoring of other programs. Decreased disposal resulting from recycling will be measured by participation in curbside and other recycling programs. Source reduction, which includes home composting, will be measured through surveys of public awareness and practices. Therefore, a percentage reduction will not be attributed to this program because it would "double count" the measurement of other programs. However, the number of households selecting mini-can service or reducing their number of cans will be tracked as an additional measure of the effectiveness , of this program and others. The rate structure modifications will also be ineffective if there is no reduction in the quantity of garbage disposed--if overflow is merely disposed of by accumulating garbage and disposing of it through self-haul or by illegal dumping. To monitor shifts in waste disposal, Dublin will work with its waste hauler to trace significant increases in residential self-haul which will be measured in future waste disposal studies. The city will also begin recording instances and quantities of illegal dumping. There will be some changes in solid waste practices that will not evolve from a particular program and, therefore, will not be measured through that program's monitoring and evaluation efforts. Less use of disposable goods (e.g. paper plates), the reuse of some materials (e.g., wrapping paper), and the purchase of items with less packaging (e.g., a 2-liter bottle instead of a six-pack) will decrease the quantity of waste disposed. Tracking these changes in solid waste practices, and particularly, measuring the amount of source reduction that results, by waste type, would be a significant effort not warranted by the anticipated additional diversion amounts. Therefore, Dublin will not be measuring diversion quantities resulting from modifying their residential rate structure, aside from reductions resulting from other source reduction, recycling, or composting programs, and is not attributing a percentage reduction to this program. Alameda County Home Composting Project , The objective of the home composting program is to encourage residents to compost yard wastes and, secondarily, food wastes before they reach the municipal waste stream. It is not anticipated that this program will gain widespread participation because of the relatively high involvement required by participants. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rn,a®oaisnuaumciuna,., 3-19 Methods to Monitor Achievement of Objectives. A random sampling survey will be conducted on an annual basis to determine the number of households who are participating in home composting. Negative respondents will be questioned for their primary reasons for not participating. Positive respondents will be surveyed whether their compost pile includes grass, ' leaves, wood chips, and/or food wastes. The average generation per household of each waste type (determined from the waste generation studies) will be used to calculate the quantity of wastes diverted. The quantity of wastes diverted will be extrapolated to the entire population ' based on the percentage of positive respondents. The criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the program is as follows: • Five percent participation by single-family households (0.2 percent of the waste stream, 111 tons). Measures to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall. If fewer than 5 percent of single- family households are practicing home composting by 1994, Dublin will expand its public ' information campaign based on the bathers expressed by negative respondents (lack of knowledge, odor problems, etc.). Other bathers may be solved by other approaches. For example, local youth groups could help households with the initial construction of home ' composting facilities. If 5 percent participation has been achieved but monitoring indicates that Dublin will not meet its mandated diversion,the city will not expand its efforts for this program. Dublin believes it will be increasingly difficult to gain public acceptance of this program by the remaining ' nonparticipants, and that it will derive greater diversion amounts by focusing on other programs. Recycled and Reusable Products Procurement Guidelines ' It is difficult to quantify reduction of waste types by purchase of reusable products. Therefore, Dublin has chosen not to include these quantity reductions in their waste diversion ' goals. However, the city values this source reduction practice and will encourage this program through education and public information. The quantities of items purchased with recycled material content will also not be quantified (it does not constitute source reduction); however, ' purchasing practices will be surveyed. Methods to Monitor Achievement of Objectives. One method to consider in monitoring ' their usage is conducting a random sample survey of local businesses, residents, and the city government itself. To reduce overall costs,it would be preferable if surveys to monitor programs such as this could be developed and administered by the Authority with each member agency ' paying its proportionate share of the cost of such monitoring programs. The survey will measure the level of awareness regarding key issues, and the level of conformance to source reduction practices. Because this information was not gathered as part of the solid waste generation ' studies, this survey will be conducted before the initiation of education and public information campaigns regarding source reduction to provide a baseline year. The results of this survey will 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mawrvocTTnUBcurcxAnEIU 3-20 serve as the base year from which to evaluate the results of ensuing public awareness activities and to target these efforts. The criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the public information campaign regarding procurement practices are as follows: • Eighty-five percent of city government employees are aware of these waste reduction strategies and are practicing them. • Twenty-five percent of businesses are aware of these waste reduction strategies and are practicing them. • Thirty percent of households are aware of these waste reduction strategies and are practicing them. ' • Sampled businesses report an average of 50 percent of their paper purchases contain recycled materials. 1 Measures to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall. If monitoring indicates these criteria have not been met by 1994, or that Dublin will not achieve its mandated diversion requirements, 1 the city will expand its public information campaign. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin 1 Printed on recycled paper 5715WORTSDUBUNcx•.nx3 I 1 i C 4 RECYCLING H COMPAPTER ONENT 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I City or Dublin Printed on recycled paper I CHAPTER 4 RECYCLING COMPONENT This chapter describes the recycling objectives,existing conditions,program alternatives and I selected programs for the City of Dublin (Dublin). The chapter begins with an overview of recycling. To familiarize readers with the general features of recycling as a preface to the technical discussions of recycling which follow, a more detailed description of the constellation of activities which generally comprise recycling can also be found in Appendix B. After the recycling overview discussion, the chapter describes the objectives of the Recycling Component, existing recycling activities in Dublin, alternatives for consideration in selecting recycling programs for this SRR Element, the particular alternatives which Dublin has selected, and the programs for implementation and monitoring and evaluation of Dublin's chosen recycling programs. These topics are in accordance with the requirements of the Model Component Format I of State's Planning Guidelines for Implementation of Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans. Recycling Overview Recycling involves a set of activities which result in materials which would otherwise be discarded for disposal being used for the manufacture of new products. Recycling occurs when a waste material is removed from the waste stream and remade into a new product without changing the essential nature of the material itself. Thus, when metal, glass and paper are taken Iout of the waste stream and remelted or repulped into new products, recycling has taken place. Recycling waste materials differ from the reuse of waste products, a source reduction Itechnique. Reuse is the use, in the same form as it was produced, of a material which might otherwise be discarded. For example, when damaged appliances are repaired and resold, reuse, but not recycling has occurred. Recycling is also not the same as transformation which is defined as the combustion, conversion, or processing of a waste product for the purpose of volume reduction, synthetic fuel production or energy recovery. This latter distinction is important because the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act) allows full diversion credit for recycled materials; for materials which are transformed, however, this bill allows no diversion credit for the short-term period up to 1995 and a credit of 10 percent during the Imedium-term period up to 2000. Recycling typically involves the following set of interdependent activities: I I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mra®onrnwLINCIMrTwu 4-2 Separation. Often the first step in the recycling process, separation is the removal from the waste stream of the recyclable material which will ultimately be remade into a new product. Separation can occur either at the source of waste generation or at a central materials recovery facility where recyclable materials are sorted and separated manually, mechanically, or both. Collection. This is typically either the pick-up and transportation of source-separated recyclables by an authorized hauler (curbside collection) or the transportation of recyclable materials by individuals to facilities where these materials are either sold (buy-back facilities) or left for donation (drop-off facilities). Materials Processing. This stage involves the preparation of recyclable materials for marketing. It can include the initial stage of separation of recyclables from residue materials intended for disposal, and also typically involves the removal of contaminants and reconfiguration of recyclable materials through baling or other forms of materials consolidation. Marketing. The marketing phase of recycling involves the identification or the development of end users for recycled materials. Typically, the end users are the manufacturers who create new products from the recycled materials. 1 Manufacturing. At this stage, industrial processes occur to remake the recyclable material into a new product. In the United States, this aspect of the recycling process is undertaken by private industrial enterprises. This chapter focuses mainly on the separation, collection, materials processing, and I marketing aspects of recycling. The chapter, however, does not deal with the manufacture of products from recyclables; this aspect of recycling is affected principally by free market forces of supply and demand and is not typically under the control of factors emanating from local government recycling plans. RECYCLING COMPONENT OBJECTIVES I Short- and medium-term objectives have been established for the recycling component to 1995 and the year 2000, respectively. For each time period, waste types targeted for diversion are identified based on Chapter 2, the Solid Waste Generation Analysis. As Chapter 2 indicates the key constituents of Dublin's waste stream are concrete and asphalt (16.3 percent), paper (33.7 percent), and yard waste 8.4 percent). Short Term to 1995 ■ Through source reduction and recycling, Dublin has already achieved an overall diversion rate of 24.4 percent in the 1990 baseline year and existing programs are expected to continue at 1990 levels. Thus, in 1995, through existing efforts, Dublin will almost exceed the mandated I 1 City of Dublin 1 Printed on recycled paper _ n'noon'mooeuu+ca na4 t 4-3 diversion rate of 25 percent. However, the city intends to inaugurate additional efforts prior to 1995, to improve the recycling rate and provide additional relief to landfill pressures. ' Waste Types Targeted for Diversion. The following waste types have been targeted and will be evaluated for diversion: 1 • High-grade office paper. • Newspaper, PET, glass containers, tin and aluminum cans to increase participation in the existing residential curbside collection program. Securing 50 percent of these materials remaining in the waste stream will generate an additional 1.2 percent ' diversion from the total waste stream. • Inert Solids--Concrete and asphalt generated in Dublin, currently being disposed in ' area landfills, are estimated at 3.2 percent of the total waste stream. Securing 50 percent of these materials remaining in the waste stream will generate an additional 1.6 percent diversion from the total waste stream. Objectives. The following objectives have been established for Dublin to implement in the short term. 1. Expand the existing residential curbside collection program for the collection of source-separated newspaper, and glass and metal containers, to include all single and multi-family households in Dublin. This program will divert 1.2 percent of the waste stream (662 tons). 1 2. When feasible direct all appropriate loads of concrete/asphalt generated in Dublin to existing recycling facilities for these materials. This could be done on city ' government projects, for example, by including, as part of the specifications for city contract work, a requirement to recycle when feasible and to report all materials recycled to city staff. This program will divert 1.6 percent of the waste stream (870 ' tons). 3. The collection of high-grade office paper from the commercial sector will divert 3.5 percent of the waste stream (1,937 tons). Medium Term to 2000 ' By the end of the medium term, Dublin is projected to have achieved a diversion rate of 54.4 percent. Waste Types Targeted for Diversion. The following additional waste types have been targeted for diversion in the medium term: 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper msawamnUZLINC urII3u 4-4 • All materials commonly recovered at a material recovery facility (MRF), backing out the yard and concrete/asphalt waste. Objectives. 1 1. Participate in evaluating a regional MRF alternative which would accept all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility, diverting 17.1 percent of the waste stream (9,444 tons). Market Development Objectives I • CCR Section 18735.1 requires SRR Elements to contain a statement of market development objectives to be achieved in the short-and medium-term planning periods. In addition to the market development objectives which follow, this subject is discussed extensively in subsequent sections of this chapter and in Appendix D. , 1. Encourage the local siting of commercial recycling processing facilities, especially those employing processing procedures which enhance material quality. I 2. Encourage the local siting of enterprise which use recycled material feedstock. 3. Continue pursuit of the option of enabling Dublin to become a Recycling Market Development Zone. 4. Publicize the CIWMB's Material Exchange Program (CALMAX), a classified ad listing for "waste" materials available and wanted throughout California. RECYCLING COMPONENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing recycling activities in Dublin accounted for 22.5 percent of the total solid waste generated in 1990. No existing recycling activities will be phased out or decreased in the short or medium term. The following information is provided per CCR Sections 18733.2 and 18735.2. In September 1990, Dublin contracted with its franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin I Disposal, a division of Oakland Scavenger Company, to provide a three-bin curbside recycling program for single family residences in Dublin, with a provision to expand this service to Dublin multifamily residences in the future. In addition, since 1986, Dublin has contracted with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to provide as part of its base solid waste collection service a quarterly cleanup program. I 1 City of Dublin i Printed on recycled paper 5715WORmnuuurcw.Pma 1 4-5 Recycling activity is not bound by city or county jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, in order to track as much existing recycling activity for materials generated in the City of Dublin, ' all relevant sources in the greater Bay Area were contacted. Those responding are indicated in Table 4-1. The data collected, analyzed, and summarized in the following tables were derived from written survey responses, telephone interviews, and relevant reports. Where information was provided for multiple jurisdictions without specificity, allocations were made on the basis of population to all relevant jurisdictions. In order to secure data from commercial sources in highly competitive businesses, it is ' necessary to present this data in such a manner as to preclude specific numbers directly associated with specific businesses. Therefore, only aggregated numbers, shown in Table 4-2, will be presented apart from the listing businesses responding. RECYCLING COMPONENT EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES This section includes an evaluation of the recycling diversion alternatives that State Planning Guidelines require cities to consider for local implementation. In accordance with Section 18735.3 of the State of California Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revision Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (State Planning Guidelines),recycling ' alternatives to be considered include the following: • Source separation of recyclable materials • Drop-off recycling centers • Buy-back recycling centers ' • Manual material recovery operations • Mechanical material recovery facilities • Salvage at solid waste facilities ' Separation at Source This alternative entails the removal of recyclable materials at the source of waste generation. Such an activity will involve segregation of the recyclable materials from the regular waste stream and their separate storage. A program of source separation must also involve a separate collection program for segregated recyclable materials. Source separation programs can be developed as voluntary or, by regulatory requirement, mandating participation. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Material separated at source and collected will result in high rate of recovery, especially if accompanied by an ordinance mandating such separation. Hazards Created. If material is not stored in containers prior to collection, and set out loose, there is the potential for litter and attraction of vectors. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 3715 rOR'ISUVBIA'CH 134 1� II %h to w p 3 .1 y .1 0 1" .2! i I 8 a ti I U g ti S. ti ti ti ti ti ti L n " ti ti ti ti ti ti ti v • O g. ti ti ti s. ti ti ti ti 1 c 1 o O 171 i N A d v V1 3 jti ti 4 y ti et i I c u I C) u IC 9 a I 11 s U u a as n E 1 o• c fl m U 11 m e a r2 U U = E O € U 3 U U m v > w 0 O U G = oo X A v s a a c ' 1 c0• V GC . C p >E. - 0 C) C < c a G C F d e v c o 0 c 3 0 c 3S E 3 € € >, I t? ti ev < < < co U u U ti] Li .0.1 .� ..1 -a O C F a I I I Oy I CA ca • 1J1IIIIII I / 4 S.moll' a n•1 4 S. S. S. 4 , , 9 4 4 44 1 1111111 0 II 0 E d < V 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1i o e 4 4 4 4 4 y 4 1 1 U IY cLi �a Y >. y 0• C) e o 9 . z n n C u ❑0 ci a t t 5 C O ~ y eD _ C N n CD a V n n C 'u r. Z U J E C y Lt U u r aai @! .. c m g: O n > " y vC 0 °� n 44 u a.. x 5 a °� t c E 0 ti •E 3 +'�' O O L' C) I-' - 0 d et 2 h O C V 3 G T• 4 F 3 4 y " v 3 'c °° y " o "• C■ 3 3 3 0 ¢ a . ¢ c = U U U a I F a I I II I :1 •E y ' O N ,wg C., 6. 4) F = z <" V E , c7 1-, 6.., 4 I .fl E. ti ti ' ti y � ' 7 C. C • o E CC co O d d ♦• 3 h Ti .V.•CC 3 y IT IT ti IT IT IT ■IT 's 9 co ± 8 e0 e c � U C T . O U i Ci . F . V a9 on V a 1 it c u U .T. to I _y 3.� O Y 2 c. J O O C ti c co U .n ee c `4 O O I- t o = °a ° ° c 5 S ins >+ C c -. r g' = C •eZ a> C to h O c C g `3 O C U C H - c p U d g ? u O c •c .- d Fc` n h E 2 o N a o w 4 E - T d C U V Y O = d d 7 L 7 L, - U y 8 C rS� n O r. u 'C m c.) m CU W ∎ 0 = 4 Y -] .2 m Z C G C h v1 F- > 3 c c .75 R w F mo 1 • I Table 4-2 Existing Recycling Quantifies- 1990 1 City of Dublin Residential I (includes AB2020 & Non-residential curbside) Material category tons per year tons per year Total I mrgated contamers and brown gaper bags 1,526 1,526 Mixed paper Newspaper 581 172 753 High grade ledger paper 725 725 Other paper 153 153 Subtttal 3 157 Plastics: High-density polyethylene(HDPE)containers I Polyethylene terephthalate(PET)containers 9 4 13 Film plastics 12 12 Other plastics 1 1 ' Subtotal. 26 Glass Refillable glass beverage containers I California Redemption Value glass* 240 697 937 Other recyclable glass 97 97 Other non-recyclable glass ' Subtotal 1,034 Metals ..` Aluminum cans 109 2 111 Bi-metal containers . 4 4 8 IFerrous metals and tin cans 72 110 182 Non-ferrous metals incl.alum.scrap 146 146 White goods 300 300 II Other metals SubtpttI _ 747 Tacdwaste I Including leaves,grass and prunings 105 105 SubtOtax . .: ? 7.flS Other Organics ' Food waste 29 29 Rubber products• Wood wastes I Agricultural crop residues Manure Textiles and leather I Other miscellaneous organics Subtotal 29 Other Wastes . Inert solids incl. concrete,asphalt 7,271 7,271 I Gypsum wallboard Household hazardous materials** Other I Subtotal. 7.271 Special Wastes 31 I 31 Total(tons per year) 12,401 I * Includes all recycled container glass. . ** Includes containers and contents. I7/26/91 i 4-10 Ability to Accommodate Change. Subdivided trucks and storage containers provided may r limit flexibility in adapting to new materials or widely changing proportions of existing materials. Single material collection may be more flexible. Consequences on the Waste. If a particular material is mandated for source separation and collection, a generator may look to alternative materials to avoid the additional effort. I Implementable in Short or Medium Term. Can be implemented within short term. Need for Expanding/Building Facilities. Some facility expansion or building may be I required to accommodate the sorting and processing of the material collected. Consistency with Local Conditions. Source separated collection of residential recyclables is required under Dublin's current franchise. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. None Estimate of Costs. $1.50 to 2.00 per household per month is the general range for net costs based on a survey of curbside recycling programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. End use markets for newspaper, PET, 1 tin and aluminum cans, and glass containers are plentiful in the greater San Francisco Bay Area for any such materials generated. Yard waste markets will be available as public uses, both individual and institutional. Drop-Off Recycling Centers These facilities are designed to facilitate the donation of selected materials for recycling by the public. Material from both the residential and non-residential waste streams are impacted. The public contributes the material and provides the transport to the site. The site may be staffed or unstaffed; accessible or not after normal hours. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Fairly limited if in conjunction with 1 source-separated curbside collection. Some increase in volume recovered may be anticipated if material types not separately collected are included. Hazards Created. If unstaffed, or accessible when staff is absent, the potential for illegal dumping and littering is high. B Ability to Accommodate Change. Can accommodate material quantity and/or type changes easily within a relatively short time frame and with minimum expenditure. I Consequences on the Waste. None B 1 City of Dublin 1 Printed on recycled paper nuwooxrnnun PICHAP,m,. 4-11 Implementable in Short or Medium Term. Drop-off sites can be put in place in the short term. ' Need for Expanding/Building Facilities. Adequate paved spaces with good access, at convenient locations for the public and avoidance of unsightly appearance will be required in addition to the containers and signage for the material to be accepted. Consistency with Local Conditions. The siting of drop-off facilities will be consistent with local conditions. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. Possible siting problems such as NIMBY reactions, particularly if the site is to be unstaffed and susceptible to littering and vandalism. Estimate of Costs. $300 to $2,000 per storage container, $7 per square yard of paving, and $12 per linear foot of fencing. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. Materials accepted will be related directly to the existence of end use markets. Buy-back Recycling Centers These facilities are generally multi-material and are equipped with truck and platform scales, paymaster space. They are often connected with additional sorting and processing facilities. ' Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Good potential directly related to the pricing of the 1 material. As market prices dip, material delivered for sale decreases. Hazards Created. None, if traffic management is adequate. ' Ability to Accommodate Change. Pricing mechanisms make it easy to accommodate change in quantities, qualities, or material types desired. Consequences on the Waste. High pricing for selected material types may encourage generators to shift from less valuable or wholly nonrecyclable materials. ' Implementable in Short or Medium Term. Can be implemented in the short term. Need for Expanding/Building Facilities. Usually required as an addition to planned sorting/processing facilities. Consistency with Local Conditions. Buy-back is fully consistent with commercial commodity markets present in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper „ira®ortsoUBLn.cxrnn.. 4-12 Institutional Barriers to Implementation. None apart from the siting problems inherent ' in the larger sorting/processing facility. There may be some difficulty arising out of increased traffic generation. ' Estimate of Costs. Minimal increment to sorting/processing facility cost. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. Buying material must be directly related to immediate availability of end use markets. Manual Material Recovery Operations (MMRO) An MMRO relies on hand picking of materials that are typically deposited at a transfer station or landfill site by a variety of vehicles delivering commercial, industrial, construction, and demolition debris. For this type of operation, a concrete pad for depositing the materials is preferable, though not required. A dedicated area for the sorting keeps the sorters away from i normal waste disposal operations. Waste Diversion Potential. The potential amount of material diverted from the nonresidential waste stream utilizing an MMRO can be moderately high. Hazards Creation. Although there are several hazards which arise in an MMRO facility, 1 they can be minimized by a safety-oriented operation strategy and a well-designed facility layout. • The number of vehicles and the variety of equipment used can create potential hazards 1 to workers. Proper traffic management and a training program related to equipment use can mitigate these hazards. • The volume and diverse characteristics of the waste itself can present a hazard to workers. Therefore, protective gear such as hard hats, gloves, ear protection, eye protection, and dust masks are essential. • Hazardous materials that are illegally disposed present hazards. A load-checking program can minimize hazards and identify generators (see Household Hazardous Waste Element). Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. The effect of , economic changes on an MMRO is expected to be moderate. The recent wave of activity in the solid waste industry is triggering attention to developing mechanical processes for extracting recyclables from waste. It is anticipated that the MMRO will have a high ability to incorporate technologies that are proven, as they become viable. The ability of the facility to accommodate social change will be high. Shift in Waste Type Generation. An MMRO will have no effect on shifts in waste generation nor be affected by them. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper m»moamnuewecx•mn. ' 4-13 ' Ease of Implementation. A significant amount of planning may be required in the implementation of an MMRO, including siting, permitting, approval, economic evaluation, and facility design and construction. Implementation may be achieved in the short- and will be achievable in the medium-term planning periods. ' Facility Needs. An MMRO requires a facility that can safely receive, process, store, and haul material to markets. ' Consistency With Local Conditions. If a regional facility were developed, Dublin could consider participation. ' Institutional Barriers to Implementation. Siting a new MMRO could be difficult due to local NIMBY reaction against the siting of any solid waste facility. Development of a MMRO at an existing transfer station or landfill would cause less local opposition. Although there is ' currently a lack of appropriately zoned sites within Dublin, this represents an obstacle but not a barrier to implementation. ' Estimate of Costs. There are marginal costs involved in the establishment of an MMRO, sited at an existing solid waste facility, which can be partially offset by revenues from materials extracted and sold. No such solid waste facility exists in Dublin and an MRF is the more likely ' regional facility of this type. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The MMRO is designed to extract a ' limited variety of materials that can be easily marketed. • Mechanical Material Recovery Facility (MRF) A mechanical MRF differs from manual materials recovery operations in how materials are ' handled after they are unloaded from the collection vehicles. An MMRO is typically a labor-intensive "dump and pick" type facility, while a MRF is usually equipped with special material handling and processing components such as conveyors, balers, and magnets, to name ' just a few. Waste Diversion Potential. The potential amount of material diverted from the nonresidential waste stream utilizing an MRF can be relatively high. Hazards Creation. Other than traffic,potential hazards to surrounding areas such as noise and dust can be mitigated. The operation of an MRF can create potential hazards to workers considering the number ' of vehicles and variety of equipment required. As mechanization of recovery increases, the hazards of operation will also increase. As with the MMRO, proper traffic management and employee safety training can mitigate much of these. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rnrwvomsowi.wcuva. 1 4-14 A potential hazard to personnel is present due to the volume and diverse characteristics of , the waste itself. These hazards can be minimized by providing workers with protective gear such as hard hats, gloves, ear and eye protection, and dust masks. Another hazard could be presented by hazardous materials that are illegally disposed. These situations can be mitigated by instituting a load-checking program and identifying the generators. Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. The effect of economic changes on an MRF is expected to be moderate. The recent wave of activity in the solid waste industry is triggering attention to developing mechanical processes for extracting recyclables from waste. It is anticipated that the MRF will have a high ability to incorporate technologies that are proven, as they become viable. The ability of the facility to accommodate social change is high. Shift in Waste Type Generation. An MRF will have no effect on shifts in waste 1 generation nor be affected by them. Ease of Implementation. A significant amount of planning is required in the 1 implementation of an MRF, including siting, permitting, approval, economic evaluation, and facility design and construction. This may be achieved in the short- and can be achieved in the medium-term planning periods. Facility Needs. An MRF requires a facility that can safely receive,process, store, and haul ' materials to markets.. Facility requirements are high. Consistency with Local Conditions. If a regional facility were developed, Dublin could , consider participation. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. There are a number of potential barriers to a facility. First, the existing collection franchise with Oakland Scavenger will have to be reviewed to determine whether it needs to be revised to accommodate an MRF. Dublin's current franchise , with Livermore Dublin Disposal, a division of Oakland Scavenger, expires in April 1996. Second, there may be a problem with acquiring building permits for an expansion of the Davis Street Transfer Station, should that be the preferred site. Finally,there may be a problem of waste flow control should a facility be owned and/or operated by any party other than the franchised hauler. Estimate of Costs. There are significant costs involved in the establishment of an MRF, ' which can be partially offset by revenues from materials extracted and sold. Savings can be realized by participating in a regional facility of this type (see Appendix B for detailed cost data). These costs are applicable to Dublin because the city will be participating in a regional or subregional MRF. Dublin's portion of the capital and operational costs will be based on their throughput tonnage. 1 City of Dublin ' Printed on recycled paper n„xrronsaueLarcwnv_. 1 4-15 ' Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The MRF has been designed to extract only those materials that can be easily marketed. ' Salvage at Solid Waste Facilities Salvage at solid waste facilities, typically landfills and transfer stations, involves an attempt to extract recyclables from the waste stream at the landfill face or on the tipping floor of the transfer station. Time and waste disposal requirements generally limit such extraction to those ' bulky materials that are easy to identify and remove, such as corrugated cardboard, wood, and metals. Since Dublin has no solid waste facilities, this alternative is not considered a viable one. ' Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Salvage at solid waste facilities is marginally effective in contributing to the reduction of waste. ' Hazards Created. The principal hazard associated with salvaging operations is that arising from workers interfering with the ongoing disposal operation. Getting in the way of heavy waste-moving loaders, for example, can be dangerous. Materials handling in this environment is also potentially hazardous in ways discussed in the previous two alternatives. ' Ability to Accommodate Change. The flexibility to accommodate change is substantially limited by the pressures of the waste removal operation which has high priority at such facilities. ' Shift in Waste Type Generation. An operation of this type will have no effect on shifts ' in waste generation nor be impacted by them. Ease of Implementation. An operation of this type can be easily implemented at any solid waste facility. Facility Needs. Dublin has no transfer station, tratisformation or solid waste disposal ' facilities. Therefore, no salvage operation is possible. Consistency with Local Conditions. As there are no solid waste facilities in Dublin, this ' alternative is highly inconsistent with local conditions. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. It is most unlikely that a solid waste facility will be sited in Dublin, but participation in efforts to develop a regional program of salvaging ' at existing solid waste transfer stations or disposal sites would be a possibility. ' Estimate of Costs. A salvage operation can be implemented at marginal costs, utilizing existing labor and equipment. ' Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. Only materials with established end use markets would be salvaged. 1 1 city or Dublin Printed on recycled paper mmaoeirou nrclun®.. . 1 4-16 Additional Recycling Options ' Section 18735.5 of the State Planning Guidelines requires consideration of the following recycling options: • Changing zoning and building codes to encourage recycling. • Methods to increase markets for recycled materials. • Actions to encourage handling to preserve material integrity. These options are discussed below. An additional required discussion, changing existing ' rates to encourage solid waste recycling, has been discussed previously in Chapter 3. Changing Zoning and Building Codes to Encourage Recycling. Storage and collection of recyclables from points of generation are often hampered by inadequate allocation of space for storage containers and by limited access to such storage areas by collection trucks. This limited access is commonly a combination of narrow width access lanes and no turn around opportunity for the vehicles. These space and access deficiencies are most often to be found in multifamily complexes, office parks, shopping malls, and concentrated commercial downtown ' areas. These deficiencies are subject to significant mitigation in revised building codes requiring i adequate design to accommodate efficient removal of discarded material. Existing codes will be reviewed with such mitigation in mind. Various forms of recycling activities, such as drop-off and buy-back sites, and, to a lesser extent, materials recovery facilities, would be better suited to their purpose if located conveniently for use by the public. Well designed facilities could be located in commercial and light industrial areas. Zoning restrictions will be evaluated to determine if any barriers exist in such sitings and, if so, whether they can be safely removed. Methods to Increase Markets for Recycled Materials. As a jurisdiction in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, Dublin is fortunate in having ready access to almost all West Coast and many export markets, particularly in the Pacific Rim. Consequently, efforts to increase markets will be most useful in increasing the quantity and especially the quality of recovered materials. In this regard, Dublin will cooperate with other Alameda County jurisdictions and the County Waste Management Authority to achieve positive results. Dublin recognizes that such cooperation may be extended to other counties and jurisdictions in the Bay Area. A market analysis is included as Appendix D in this SRR Element. State and local efforts are summarized below. Local Policies. To the extent it is consist with Dublin's development plans, those enterprises processing or otherwise enhancing the quality of recyclables as well as those utilizing recycled feedstock will be encouraged to site their facilities within the city. Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the Dublin city government will explore purchasing procedures which establish a price preference for the purchase of recycled materials. 1 City of Dublin ' Printed on recycled paper nira®ocmnueLnrciuv'nu 1 4-17 State Policies. The State of California recognizes that markets need to be developed to consume the collected secondary materials and several bills were passed in 1989 introducing state ' programs. The California Integrated Waste Management Board will implement most of these programs. Procurement, industrial development, and recycling investment tax credit are three areas which the state is focusing on for market development. • Procurement promotes the purchase of recycled products. An example of procurement legislation is AB 4 which requires both state and local procuring agencies to give ' purchase preference to specific recycled products over nonrecycled products when price and quality are comparable. ' • Industrial development programs combine economic development and waste diversion by providing incentives for manufacturers which consume waste materials. SB 1322 established the Recycling Market Development Zones program. Dublin would ' consider becoming a Recycling Market Development Zone. The program provides financial and regulatory incentives for particular manufacturers to site in these zones. ' • The Recycling Investment Tax Credit program provides incentive for manufacturers to purchase equipment that consumes waste materials generated in California and produces finished products composed of these materials. Actions to Encourage Handling to Preserve Material Integrity. All other factors being equal, Dublin will strive to encourage those recovery efforts that maximize segregation at the ' source. Source separation is especially valid for high grade papers, yard waste, and glass. If sorting is required, Dublin prefers hand-sorting over mechanical separation for all materials that ' would be downgraded by passing through mechanical systems. Public vs. Private Ownership/Operation ' Section 18735.3 further requires an evaluation of public vs. private ownership and/or operations of recycling facilities. ' The underlying imperative for local jurisdictions when considering the various options for public or private ownership and/or operations of recycling programs and facilities is that of public ' responsibility. Regardless of the option(s) chosen, the local jurisdiction remains responsible for waste management and,especially under AB 939,for the results of waste reduction and recycling efforts in their community. There is a continuum of public control that is maximized with public ownership and operation and minimized with private ownership and operation, with varying combinations of ' public ownership and private operation falling in between. Other advantages and disadvantages for the public jurisdiction are noted below. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper msaeoemnveI wcHArla4 1 4-18 Public Ownership and Operation ' Advantages. Direct control and access to data. Primacy of policy compliance over short- term negative profit conditions. Stability of operation over changing market conditions with access to alternative revenue sources. Disadvantages. Probably need to hire external expertise or allow for significant internal , learning curve. Possible legal or administrative constraints to short-term marketing flexibility. Similar constraints to flexible staffing changes. Private Ownership and Operation Advantages. Potentially quick start-up of operations. Immediate expertise without a learning curve. Market and staffing flexibility (the latter less so if the industry is unionized). Availability of private capital resources. Disadvantages. Loss of direct operational control and data access,requiring more intensive monitoring. Breaks in policy compliance motivated by short-term negative profit market conditions. Analysis of Alternatives Dublin currently provides single family residences which have chosen to have garbage collection service a residential curbside collection program for source separated recyclables. The city intends to contract to extend this curbside collection service to multi-family residences. The city will also consider contracting to establish a commercial source-separated white office paper collection program. High-grade office paper represents 13.4 percent of commercial waste disposal. An additional expansion of source separation programs will be efforts by the city to require city projects to divert loads of concrete and asphalt inert wastes to appropriate recycling facilities. Inert solids represent 4.2 percent of waste disposed. There are no current plans in Dublin to establish drop-off or buy-back facilities. The amount of additional waste diverted via such facilities would not be as cost-effective as other programs planned for implementation. Dublin will consider participating in efforts to develop a regional MRF for additional processing and diversion of wastes. Participation by Dublin would be considered in order for the city to achieve the mandate of 50 percent diversion of wastes by 2000. The MRF will target the commercial and industrial sectors which are not included in the residential curbside program. The high-grade office paper collected in the commercial recycling program would have an extremely low recovery rate at a MRF; therefore, this program will continue after participation in a MRF begins. Waste types that represent high percentages of the total waste disposed (e.g., wood waste--8.2 percent; non-ferrous metals--1.8 percent) have high recovery rates at a MRF. 1 1 City of Dublin ' Printed on recycled paper 5715amon1snUeLnrcxArnx.1 4-19 ' RECYCLING COMPONENT PROGRAM SELECTION ' Recycling program selection for Dublin has been based. on the results of the above evaluation of alternatives, the Solid Waste Generation Study, and on the ease of implementation ' by the city. The existing recycling activities are achieving 22.5 percent diversion. Short-term programs will add 6.3 percent to the total waste diverted. ' Short Term to 1995 Based on the levels of various materials reported in the waste characterization component, ' the existing recycling activities in Dublin and the review and analysis of alternatives, the following have been selected to enhance short term diversion and to meet the mandated diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000. Expansion of Residential Curbside Collection. Expansion of the residential curbside collection program carried out by the city's franchised hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal, a division of Oakland Scavenger,will be accomplished by requiring mandatory garbage collection service, a step which would expand residential curbside collection to all single-family houses in the City. The City will also consider adding all multi-family households to the single families ' now receiving residential curbside collection service and increasing program participation through enhanced publicity and community organization. Assuming a recovery rate of 50 percent for all ' the remaining materials, we anticipate an additional diversion of 1.2 percent of the total waste stream (662 tons). ' Direction of Specified Inert Loads to Recycling Facilities. It is estimated that approximately 1,740 tons per year of concrete/asphalt generated in Dublin are currently disposed at area landfills. Since there are existing commercial facilities in and around Alameda County ' that will accept this material for recycling, such as Gallagher & Burk, and American Rock and Asphalt, the city will undertake to ensure, through its issuance of construction and demolition permits, that such loads be diverted,to such recycling facilities. In addition, the recycling of ' generated concrete/asphalt will be made a part of all relevant city contracts. Assuming that 50 percent of the material is acceptable to recycling facilities, an additional diversion of 1.6 percent of the total waste stream is anticipated (870 tons). High-Grade Paper Recycling. It is estimated that approximately 3,995 tons per year of high-grade paper generated in Dublin are currently disposed at the landfill. The city will ' undertake a commercial source separated high-grade office paper collection program. Assuming a recovery rate of 50 percent of the high-grade paper now going to landfill, an additional diversion of 3.5 percent of the total waste stream is anticipated (1,930 tons). 1 i 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper so neronn,ua rca.uria4 1 • 4-20 Medium Term to 2000 Given the enhancement programs in the short term noted above, adding approximately 6.3 percent to the 24.4 percent diversion currently enjoyed, the programs implemented in the short term will leave 19.1 percent to be added to reach the 50 percent diversion required by the year 2000. 1 Participation in a Regional MRF. In preparation for the time a regional MRF comes on line to which Dublin may direct its nonresidential waste stream, Dublin will take such steps as are necessary to insure that such direction of said waste stream can take place. Backing out the material already being diverted by programs described above, the remaining diversion of recyclables from Dublin's waste will provide an additional diversion of 17.1 percent of the total waste stream (9,444 tons). Unfavorable Market Conditions 1 If unfavorable market conditions seem likely to prevent Dublin reaching the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals, measures to be taken may include: 1 • Enhanced efforts to increase quality since there is rarely a zero market and market share will go to those with the best quality material. , • Shift of targeted material to more marketable components. • Consideration of temporary storage if unfavorable market conditions are deemed to be short term. RECYCLING COMPONENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION This section discusses implementation of those programs selected and discussed in the previous section. Table 4-3 shows an implementation schedule for recycling programs. The composting program will be funded through direct user fees. The planning estimate of the cost of expanding Dublin's existing residential curbside I collection program is $28,800 per year. The costs associated with implementing a policy to encourage diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes to recycling facility are estimated at $1,500 per year for program implementation. The costs associated with implementation of a commercial office high-grade paper recycling program are estimated at $11,000 per year. Government Agencies Responsible for Implementation. The Dublin City Manager's Office will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of all programs selected. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nirarroaTSnueLmcxAvIZRA a • . M a O. F I (/Qy ev J a • E. M rn ' —CU a '0 - N h 0 . Z ..-i CA I CU N V 00 - 00 00 F 03 O 0 0 e0 000 ' 00 I O Z. en O O O a Z ▪ N III C 1 d N c E < • t rw co L a till . O a I V Pa °° C N .--* M M In II. . 7 . •V u a U g en . • ,CS I V O 0 C CS C N W• o — ' 'o A o O T 0, a Y •∎ u I z •U '6 s Cr; E v c O O ' d A U V � C Ca o C• E• I G u 4 o CO y m m u .5 u a .i 5 00 T U u T ' '� �' k T y m g`5 O a h O iii co g -8 u a E v ro0 Z0 c E >° V evo 3i 'O q 2 O0 N OD .� R O N q be al C n u J, Gp K C 5 'tf O Ef. 9 t` Q C O m q m U u F U 0 q u �` m v. O U cd o• c c o c m o 5 A a E 0 ° C ' .5 o U W U E a h a a s 0 al > > g' CC oG 0 q Cg y 1 4-22 Expansion of Residential Curbside Collection. City staff will continue discussions with ' Oakland Scavenger to determine a program and schedule for carrying out and monitoring an expansion of participation from current levels including the addition of service to multi-family . ' residences. Direction of Inert Loads. Staff will initiate a city-wide ordinance that will mandate the diversion of acceptable loads of concrete and asphalt generated in Dublin to a facility that recycles these materials. Costs will be mainly administrative and there will be no revenue generated. ' High-Grade Paper Recycling. City staff and the private contract collector will conduct a study to identify additional commercial sources of high-grade paper for recycling. Other activities for implementation include negotiating changes to the collection contract and then starting up the expanded program. The estimated dates for each step of implementation are given in Table 4-3. ' Participation in a Regional MRF. Staff will participate in any process involving the evaluation of developing an MRF to which Dublin could send its nonresidential waste. One action already taken in this regard was a study undertaken in 1991 by Brown Vence and Associates, consultants to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. This study evaluated the costs and feasibility of siting one or more regional MRF's and/or composting , facilities. Dublin will provide input to this study and will review and comment on its findings. In addition, staff will evaluate and take whatever action is required with respect to Dublin's franchised hauler to facilitate the city's ability to participate in the MRF. A timeline, similar to Figure 4-1, will be developed to detail implementation before 2000. Unauthorized Removal of Recyclables ' CCR Section 18733.5 requires the recycling component of an SRR Element to address actions planned to deter unauthorized removal of recyclable materials. It is important to note that any program in which the material to be collected fore recycling is accessible to unauthorized persons is subject to "scavenging," i.e., the unauthorized removal of some or all of these materials by unauthorized parties. Since, in most cases, the economics of such programs include the potential revenues from collected materials, such scavenging can have significant impact on program viability. This problem is made worse for the public jurisdiction involved in that the tracking of scavenged materials for local diversion credit is virtually impossible. To deter such unauthorized removal of recyclables, Dublin will publicize the importance of not allowing unauthorized scavenging of recyclables and will encourage its citizens to report scavenging in progress. The city will enforce its anti-scavenging ordinance along with state law. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper na woe'mnun.wcn.n A I I I O /. �. i . I > � [O u 94"4x,',"49%� hy:�I : Sr .4,42+4.< .l�' /:lG°Y r ?�4 �� ' 9 C 47 444 y 5 I I '; ,,.. h , , „ ;. ,j ,.. , p , iyr nx Y� f ,,„ '. s, f? 4»4tzra 94 ? t 0.' q N 1•4 I O ' O s c a . :. .. . .... !. .... . . 7 N 1 a ~ .X/ 0. 2 ti 7 I 1 . .'I w ' S o co E Z y I en F °��` m 'd Y� v .d o '� M v pp w '" $ B.. Cm w m al I .y •� O ar y p a t� .. Q q C. w — y v� d pp 0. U v d c v) b4, - 4 a. 'd - - a. a i g it TA' w a: 4-24 RECYCLING COMPONENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION There are several methods to quantify and monitor achievement of objectives. These are ' discussed and analyzed below. Solid Waste Generation Study. Monitoring of waste generation, disposal, and diversion , may be accomplished through the performance of periodic Solid Waste Generation Studies (SWGS). SWGS must be performed in accordance with Chapter 9, Article 6.1, Section 18722 of the California Code of Regulations. This section of the State Planning Guidelines for Preparing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans requires each jurisdiction preparing an SRR Element to submit to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) an annual analysis of whether there is a need to revise the SWGS. If the jurisdiction or the CIWMB make a determination that a revision of the SWGS is required, a revised SWGS will need to be prepared. ' As defined in the regulations, the total waste generated is: GEN = DISP + DIVERT where the total quantity of solid waste generated within a jurisdiction (GEN) equals the waste disposed at permitted solid waste facilities (DISP)plus the total quantity of solid waste generated within said jurisdiction which is diverted from such disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting programs (DIVERT). In the medium term, transformation may be counted as contributing a maximum of ten percent to the diversion. The SWGS needs to be representative of the sources of solid waste generation, and of solid waste categories such as residential, commercial,etc. and be sensitive to seasonal variations. Additionally,the SWGS must be carried out in such a manner as to characterize the various substreams by material types. Allowable monitoring methodologies include quantitative field analysis(sampling),tracking of material flows through the jurisdiction, the use of jurisdiction specific published data, and the use of existing data from statistically comparable jurisdictions. DISP. Regardless of the characterization methodology used, disposal data is most commonly secured by tracking quantities and waste categories delivered to permitted solid waste facilities, i.e. transfer stations and landfills. While seemingly straightforward, this process is complicated by the following factors: • Vehicles delivering waste to the facility are not uniformly weighed in and out. Small self haul vehicles are almost never weighed. • Vehicles are not consistently tracked by the generation source (i.e. jurisdiction) of the waste they are transporting. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper niraooaisoueLn..cHAnaA 1 4-25 • Vehicles are not consistently tracked as to the category of waste they are carrying. This factor, too, is further complicated by the fact that more than one waste category may be carried in the same load. For example, waste from multifamily residences is often commingled with commercial wastes on commercial collection routes. ' DIVERT. Tracking of diversion through recycling historically has been accomplished by surveying of businesses and public operations engaged in the collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables. The businesses involved are in a highly competitive market place and ' are generally reluctant to release data, particularly source or material specific data. This data collection process,already possessed of limited reliability is further complicated by the following: ' • Securing data specific to a particular jurisdiction is new. It is contrary to the real way recyclables flow through the marketplace with no regard to jurisdictional boundaries. Businesses generally keep records as to the identity of the party from whom they ' received the material. This party is not necessarily the generating source. • Recyclables commonly pass through a number of hands before reaching an end user, thereby making the problem of double counting a substantial one. • The definition of recycling diversion that "counts" has been narrowed by State regulation, requiring entities to distinguish one from the other in ways not heretofore necessary. Waste characterization has been evaluated using a variety of SWGS methodologies as indicated. ' Quantitative Field Analysis. This has traditionally been the most commonly used method for characterizing the solid waste stream. Random sampling of various type truckloads entering ' the solid waste facility is most often carried out. This sampling has historically under rated the heterogeneity of the solid waste stream, ' especially the various non-residential categories. The number of samples have consequently been too few, resulting in very wide variances at acceptable confidence levels. These wide variances make planning very uncertain in terms of the predictability of future composition. ' Tracking of Material Flows. This methodology involves the tracking of a material type (eg. glass containers) generated or coming into the jurisdiction and remaining there until ' discarded. Therefore, it requires an identification of every source for this material (generator, distributor, etc.) and surveying them to ascertain that percentage which remains until discard. Since commercial activity crosses jurisdictions,tracking disposition is very complex and uncertain ' in highly urbanized areas. Targeted Solid Waste Characterization Studies. This method of monitoring and ' evaluation involves the selection of all or a representative sample of generator sites to be tracked to measure both relative quantities and composition of solid waste over time so as to be able to 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mxwanaazwc,.ma. 1 4-26 observe changes useful in fulfilling reporting requirements and planning needs. This method requires extensive knowledge of the jurisdiction's demographics (residential, commercial, and industrial). ' Residential variables may include housing type, eg., single-family, townhouse, multifamily, high rise, etc. Other variables may be population density, socioeconomics, etc. Commercial variables may include business type,size (as number of employees, gross sales, rooms, tables, etc.), concentration (office park, shopping mall/etc.). For many commercial enterprise categories, the degree of expected variance of waste discards may be small (eg, beauty parlors, banks, realtors, etc.) and representative sampling may be carried out to monitor the category., Industrial enterprises in any given jurisdiction are more likely to be relatively unique; one from the other. In these instances, it may be desirable to select all of the facilities for tracking. Industrial sources can have tremendous impacts on the waste disposal and/or diversion within a jurisdiction. After the representative sources have been selected, initial data would be obtained to describe the source and identify the quantities and characteristics of the waste materials generated by the source. It is also necessary to identify any existing source reduction or recycling activities being performed. The selected sources would be tracked by keeping records of waste materials sent to disposal or transformation facilities, materials recycled, and activities implemented to source reduce waste generation. In addition, it may be necessary to periodically sample the waste from the source to evaluate changes to waste characteristics and hazards. Data obtained from tracking of the representative sources can be used to project and assess t changes occurring within the nonselected sources of waste within the jurisdiction. The results of this assessment will track progress towards meeting the diversion requirements. Board-Approved Other Method. Other methods may be used to monitor and evaluate progress toward achieving the mandated diversion goals. However,the method must be approved by the Board prior to its use. Selected Monitoring and Evaluation Method , Based on the description and analysis of the monitoring and evaluation methodologies above, the following elements have been selected. Dublin will build its system based on the Targeted Solid Waste Characterization Study (TSWCS) approach. Building on the study in Chapter 2, the city will need to annually determine whether a revised SWGS is required. The city will evaluate instituting an operational format by which all non-residential waste generators will be required to track diversion through either recycling or reduction. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rltNla(MTSDU)IMCKAna. ' 4-27 To assist the city in carrying out this effort, existing records such as construction and demolition permits, business licenses, and available service level data from waste haulers will be ' examined and evaluated for future use. The city will review its franchise agreement with its waste hauler, its relationship to all ' permitted disposal facilities receiving Dublin waste, to determine what modifications may be necessary to secure direct weigh data, i.e.,not derived from a volume conversion, for all discards properly identified as generated in Dublin and, wherever feasible, by waste category. With regard to the permitted disposal facilities, Dublin will work with the County of Alameda and the County Solid Waste Management Authority to ascertain and secure the modifications of use permits necessary to secure the data described above. ' Criteria for Evaluating Effectiveness of Progress Program progress will be considered successful if the following waste diversions are achieved: ' • Diversion of 3.5 percent of the total waste stream through collection of high-grade office paper (1,937 tons). ' • Diversion of 1.2 percent of the total waste stream through collection of newspaper, PET, glass containers, and tin and aluminum cans (662 tons). • Diversion of 1.6 percent of the total waste stream through collection of inert solids (870 tons). t • Diversion of 17.1 percent of the total waste stream through participation in a MRF (9,444 tons). ' Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting ' For Dublin, the responsible party for coordinating the monitoring and evaluation will be assigned by the City Manager. ' Identification of Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources The funds required for the implementation of the monitoring and evaluation program will t be available from direct user fees or grants. Monitoring and evaluation of the curbside recycling program is estimated at $3,000 per year; for directing inerts, $500 per year; and for the commercial recycling program, $1,100 per year. 1 1 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper n1ramuerrnunmcnAPTIR4 1 4-28 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting Diversion Mandates , If the shortfall is only by a small percentage (1 to 2 percent) the monitoring frequency will. t be increased and the monitoring program evaluated for possible expansion and/or improvements to ensure that as much valid data as possible are being obtained. If the shortfall is greater than 2 percent, the objectives and alternatives will be modified to incorporate expansions and additional activities as necessary. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nnawanoIJnnrcxnvrm.4 1 .1 I E 1 r CHAPTER 5 COMPOSTING COMPONENT 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper i I CHAPTER 5 COMPOSTING COMPONENT This chapter describes the composting objectives and program alternatives analyzed for the Composting Component of the City of Dublin (Dublin) SRR Element. The chapter discusses composting objectives, existing conditions, alternatives, program selection, implementation and monitoring and evaluation in accordance with the requirements of the Model Component Format set forth in the State's Planning Guidelines. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed description of composting processes, which is provided to familiarize readers of this chapter with the varieties of technologies employed in composting programs. This appendix also contains an extensive analysis of the various regional options in which Dublin may take part. r COMPOSTING COMPONENT OBJECTIVES I Dublin will not pursue implementation of composting programs until the medium term (1995-2000); the city's plans for continued, expanded, and new recycling and source reduction programs will provide sufficient waste diversion to meet the mandated short-term goal of 25 percent by 1995. After 1995, however, Dublin will consider participation in a regional composting program to enable the city to achieve the 50 percent level of waste diversion by ■ 2000. For the medium term, waste types targeted for diversion through composting activities are identified. Waste type priorities were established based on the waste generation analysis in Chapter 2, Solid Waste Generation Analysis. Medium Term to 2000 The section below describes the waste type targeted for diversion through composting by Dublin. • Yard Waste. This refers to any waste generated from the maintenance or alteration of public, commercial, or residential landscapes including, but not limited to, yard clippings, leaves, tree trimmings, pnmings, brush and weeds. In Dublin, yard waste comprises about 8.4 percent of the total waste stream. Of this quantity, part is self- ' ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nvanonisnvaarcwnou 5-2 hauled to disposal and the remaining part is collected with solid waste collection vehicles where it is commingled with the municipal solid waste (MSW) collected on regular residential pick ups. Assuming an 80 percent recovery rate, through source separated yard waste collection and participation in a regional composting facility, Dublin could divert an amount equivalent to 6.6 percent of its total waste stream by 2000. Objectives The following goals are established through which Dublin can achieve the mandated diversions: I • Support the feasibility evaluation and subsequent development and implementation of subregional composting programs for source separated yard waste. • Evaluate and consider source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from residences to a subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste to this same facility. - The following objective is established: I • Divert 6.4 percent of the total waste stream through collection and composting of yard waste (3,359 tons) by 2000. I COMPOSTING COMPONENT EXISTING CONDITIONS I In order to determine levels of composting needed in the future to meet the mandated I diversion requirements, it is necessary to ascertain and describe existing public and private composting activities. The existing conditions description presents the waste types and quantities of current composting activities in Dublin. To determine the existing conditions for composting, the landfill operators, the Dublin 1 Public Works Department, and Caltrans were contacted. At this time, there is no significant public or private composting activity in Dublin. I I City of Dublin , Printed on recycled paper 571sxmormnunLurcHunm,4 5-3 COMPOSTING COMPONENT EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Two sets of alternatives are discussed in this section: yard waste versus municipal solid waste and a local facility versus a regional facility. The discussion of these alternatives here is a summary of a more detailed analysis of these same alternatives in Appendix C. 1 Yard Waste vs. MSW Different mixes of the organic constituents of MSW can be composted into a marketable product. In this section an evaluation is presented on the relative advantages of yard waste versus municipal solid waste (i.e., all of the compostable organic constituents of the municipal waste stream). Two other composting alternatives are not considered. A leaves-only alternative is not evaluated because the quantity of leaves would not support a composting facility. Co- composting organic wastes with sewage sludge is also not considered because sewage sludge is not accounted for in Dublin's waste stream. The State Planning Guidelines indicate that sewage I. sludge is to be accounted for at the local wastewater treatment facility, which in Dublin's case, is the Dublin San Ramon Services District treatment facility in Pleasanton. 'I Effectiveness In Reduction of Waste. A yard waste composting program would be highly effective in the reduction of waste; a municipal solid waste composting program would reduce other organic wastes in addition to yard wastes. Hazards Created. No hazards are created by composting either yard waste or MSW. However, the potential for odors is higher for MSW. Contamination of the product is also more likely to occur with MSW because yard waste is easier to keep separate. • Ability to Accommodate Change. It is anticipated that a yard waste composting program �1 would be more flexible than a MSW program. Shift in Waste Type Generation. None are expected with either type. Ease of Implementation. Both a yard waste and a MSW composting program would be easily implemented in the medium-term, as recommended to meet diversion goals. Facility Needs. A yard waste composting program requires more land than a MSW program. A MSW composting program requires a building; yard waste composting does not. Consistency with Local Policies. Neither type of compost will conflict with local policies. 1 Institutional Barriers. Barriers are expected with MSW because of the poor quality of the end product. I ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 5715aEmR1ro,mu,t wArre,. 5-4 1 Estimate of Costs. Costs for a yard waste composting program are expected to be moderate for a MSW program they would be higher because it requires higher technology. The impact of these increased costs on collection rates will depend on the proportion of total collection, transportation and disposal costs attributable to new composting program costs (see Appendix C for cost data). Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The quality of material produced by yard waste is relatively low, which could affect the options available for end uses and the revenues received, if any. MSW product is of even poorer quality. Local Facility vs. Regional Facility Dublin has the option of operating its own local composting facility or supporting a regional facility. These alternatives are evaluated below; a discussion of the various regional options available to Dublin is presented in Appendix C. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Local and regional composting programs would be equally effective in the reduction of waste. Hazards Created. No hazards are related to composting. Nuisances related to composting (e.g., odor) would not differ with a local or regional facility. Ability to Accommodate Change. Because of its size a regional composting program may y, be more flexible in accommodating change than a local program. 1� Shift in Waste Type Generation. This problem is not created by a composting program I of any type? Ease of Implementation. A regional composting program may be easier to implement J because of the greater flexibility in siting the facility. Facility Needs. Both a local and regional composting program will need a facility, 4 however, with the regional program the burdens of cost and location are shared. Consistency With Local Policies. There are no local plans, policies or ordinances which conflict with the siting of either a local or required composting facility. A regional facility is probably more feasible because of lower unit costs. Institutional Barriers. No barriers are expected with either a local or regional program. Estimate of Costs. Operation costs for a regional composting facility are expected to be I lower than with a local facility. Collection costs will be comparable, but transportation costs would be higher for the regional facility. The two potential subregional facilities would cost 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mraeroRn'oUaU?cHAna. 1 5-5 Dublin $54,000 to $76,000 annually (see Appendix C). The regional facility would cost Dublin 1 $43,000 to $50,000 annually. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The quality of material produced is not affected by the size of the facility. Alternatives Evaluation There would be higher unit costs, greater difficulty in marketing the end product, and a greater potential for odors and other hazards associated with participation in a MSW composting facility than with a facility composting yard waste alone. For these reasons, consideration of participation in a yard waste facility would be a preferred alternative for Dublin. Likewise, because there would be significantly lower unit development and operating costs 1 for a regional composting facility than for a local composting facility, the preferred alternative for Dublin would be to explore participation in a regional composting facility. 1 COMPOSTING COMPONENT PROGRAM SELECTION I This section describes the selected program, the proposed composting facility, and the market uses of the compost product. ' Program Description Based on the quantities of biodegradable materials reported in the Solid Waste Generation Study, Dublin will consider contacting for the provision of source separated yard waste ' collection and will explore participation in a subregional or regional composting facility to assist in meeting the city's requirement of 50 percent diversion of waste by 2000. 1 As noted in Chapter 2, Table 2-7, yard waste is estimated to comprise 8.4 percent of Dublin's total waste stream. Assuming an 80 percent recovery rate, through source separated yard waste collection and participation in a subregional or regional composting facility Dublin could divert an amount equivalent to 6.4 percent of its total waste stream by 2000 (3,359 tons). Facility Description Dublin may participate in either a subregional or regional facility. There are currently facilities in the development stage. When Dublin receives detailed information on these 1 alternatives, including costs, the city will select a facility. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mvwmoRirownmcxeraw 5-6 End Uses of Compost Products End users (markets) must be established to accept the compost product in order to qualify 1 as diversion goals. Potential end users can be identified in the county and need not be limited to users in Dublin. The potential end users are listed below; 1. Agricultural use of compost product as soil enhancer. 2. Residential use of compost product for mulching and landscaping by individual homeowners and home building enterprises. 3. Regional Park District use of compost product for landscaping. 4. Caltrans use of compost product as soil enhancer on road embankment. A more detailed discussion of markets for compacted yard waste is located in Appendix D of this SRR Element. The following methods will be used to develop compost users (markets): 1. Consider ways to encourage residents and home builders to use compost product. .1 2. Consider establishing policies to use compost product "in-house" whenever possible. 3. Establish understandings/agreements with Caltrans to use compost product whenever possible. COMPOSTING COMPONENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1 Responsible Organizations 1 The Dublin City Manager's Office will be the lead agency for Dublin's involvement in composting program implementation and monitoring. It is likely that the implementation and monitoring responsibility for regional composting facilities will rest with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA). I Implementation Tasks Medium Term. The implementation of Dublin's composting program consists of three parts: source separated yard waste for self-haul, participation in the new regional composting facility, and secure end users of compost product. , I City of Dublin 1 Printed on recycled paper rn.+wsrom■ uew`CHAnv.. ' 5-7 Dublin will consider implementing residential curbside collection of yard waste to be carried out by the franchised waste hauler. The collection of separated yard waste will use a dedicated collection truck. Additionally, Dublin will explore all mandatory self-hauled yard waste to be delivered to the composting facility. .1 The tasks for implementing a curbside yard waste collection program are as follows: • Establish program staff needs • Pass ordinance requiring residents to participate • Amend collection contracts - Require franchised hauler to submit collection program design and costs. Evaluate proposal. - Award contract. • Purchase collection containers • Implement a public education program • Implement training program for collection staff • Receive and distribute collection containers • Start-up program The implementation timeline is summarized on Figure 5-1. Implementing a subregional or regional composting facility involves the following major tasks: 0. Obtain CEQA approval. 1. Create composting tack force to review the composting program. 2. Issue RFP to solicit professional engineering services. 3. Sign agreement for preliminary design services. ' 4. Begin detailed design and prepare plans and specifications. 5. Bidding and award construction contract. 6. Carry out facility construction. 1 7. Develop requirements for source separated wastes. 8. Prepare Report of Compost Site Information (RCSI) and obtain operation permit. 9. Start-up and training. 10. Complete operation and maintenance manual. This part of the composting program will take 18 to 24 months to complete. Figure 5-2 shows the implementation schedule. The facility will be implemented to allow for at least two years of operation before 2000. Securing end users of compost production, the third feature of Dublin's proposed composting program, should begin no later than commencement of facility construction. The facility will conduct pilot tests during the first 18 months of operation. Yard waste will be obtained from residential self-haul. . City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nvaeroturoUamurcuwreia 1 I fl K N s % ,af „, a d '�YS S .., Y' s �o''ys9 s,6 c. c�s' ii y,J , d /4, re O '� %3 a� 1 �3f �Y0f:� s miliiiii a Os 1 Mill I a $,. :Y,. . g.. /..,Y .e Jcrsyw....JV> 4r/ra.mz...«Y I el ^I ./:..:a._. rygJ ✓ >° c JJgv r<)� ar Viµ i':K'A':b'' c J 6J -0 Y1 S4i YI *>" •/ y :sv '4,6••••"%."'""•<*.• s R ¢c r 4r•% Y ' q f a 'Sd`O,d rA1H/, n G.4f F/ Yefw rE rb, JJ£� v f...,u s /vn e.,.a 4'. $; 0 , '"'�' r,23' Dpi r"'9a '" r s &a F ,, ,s r/ ;. ys.1 6 // y. s .aa m,A . • 9'r tU 21y U wr 1 N tb be LL a!. Q cu ..� ea Li as 71 cm m Cad A �� hI1I11tIOhIi t0 A to q Y M Q ,�o. F' ° a CJ c a a.y cie w ° a U ..a: O .LI y ci W fA C. (Y. U m. U rr W 4 w CG U CA 1 I I N 1 r • I tis i CU V a k o v. qte II E ® a 0 E CO I 0(12 ® ® M S r I a a U r 3 N h M V t1.. co co C ODD t E 7:1 a) a ~ w N a m • v 013 N C CI. N CO V w ark 3 w C1 w C �' 01 co O V CO v d+ m M o e 0. . E ta a a E i C ila '++ % O « co ti C M ..• w a �0 a I C � to q G , 03 4 at W C H E H G el w L N E G w w - E c v 0► •°-1 w a .c a •a .a a * e y d : 5-10 ii Costs and Revenues The capital costs of the possible facilities are shown in Appendix C to range between $1 to $2 million, excluding land purchase costs. Operating costs, not including residual hauling costs, range below $12 to $16 per ton. Costs in this range are not likely to be cheaper than landfill disposal costs. The annual cost to Dublin would range from $40,000 to $54,000. Revenues for this program will come from tipping fees and the sale of compost (if any). COMPOSTING COMPONENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION Monitoring and evaluation of the composting program is most easily performed by the Dublin City Manager's Office. 1 Monitoring and Evaluation Method I Dublin will require that the regional facility record weights of yard wastes that are brought in by self-hauls. Dublin will perform a targeted waste generation study that will further assess the amount of yard waste diverted or disposed. For Dublin's yard waste curbside collection program and self-haul vehicles, the regional 1 facility operator will weigh all incoming vehicles. Chapter 4, Recycling Component, details a more complete monitoring and evaluation program, including the performance of periodic Solid Waste Generation Studies. Program Effectiveness Criteria Program progress will be considered successful if by 2000 yard waste composting programs are diverting 6.4 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal (3,359 tons). Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting The responsible party for coordinating the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of the I progress of the program will be assigned by the City Manager. Funding Requirements I Revenues for monitoring and evaluation will come from tipping fees and the sale of compost (if any). Monitoring and evaluation of this program is expected to require only minor administrative costs. 1. -1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper - msn®oarsnuaL.nwBA na4 5-11 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting the Diversion Mandates 1 1. If the shortfall is only by a small percentage (1 to 2 percent) the monitoring frequency will be increased and the monitoring program evaluated for possible expansions and/or improvements to ensure that as much valid data as possible are being obtained. 2. If the shortfall is greater than 2 percent, the objectives and alternatives will be modified to incorporate expansions and additional activities as necessary. I 1 • I I 1 r I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 371raronirnuaLDICHAMPL4 1 I 1 I I i_ CHAPTER 6 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT I I I I t I I r t 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 1 i 1 CHAPTER 6 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT I This chapter describes the objectives and program alternatives analyzed for the Special Waste Component of the City of Dublin (Dublin) Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element. The chapter begins by defining the term Special Waste and follows with a discussion of Special Waste objectives,existing conditions, alternatives,program selection, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation in accordance with the requirements of the Model Component Format set forth in the State Planning Guidelines. ' Special Waste Overview Special Waste includes solid waste that requires unique handling and disposal methods, including in some instances, requirements for permits from one or more state agencies. Special Waste also includes any waste which, because of its source of generation,physical, chemical or biological characteristics or unique disposal requirements, is specifically conditioned in a solid waste facilities permit for handling and/or disposal. Special Waste includes bulky, difficult to handle wastes (such as tires, large appliances, and mattresses), sewage sludge, and potentially 1 harmful wastes such as asbestos and medical wastes. Hazardous wastes listed in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 66744) are also considered Special Wastes. The following list includes all Special Wastes that were considered in this analysis: Asbestos Ash Auto shredder waste Baghouse and scrubber waste Bulky items/white goods Catalyst from petroleum refining and chemical plant processes Foundry sand Grease interceptor pumpings ' Industrial sludge Medical wastes Refractory from industrial furnaces, kilns, and ovens Sandblast sand Sewage sludge Street sweepings and catch basin debris Used tires i 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nisaawmauea CHAPTau 6-2 Some of these waste types are not generated in Dublin, as described in a following section (Special Waste Component Existing Conditions). SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT OBJECTIVES Short- and medium-term objectives have been established for the Special Waste Component for 1995 and 2000, respectively. Waste types targeted for diversion and/or hazard reduction are identified. Waste type priorities have been established based on data from the Solid Waste Generation Study and from an additional survey of the County of Alameda waste generators and regulatory agency files. Waste Types Targeted for Diversion and/or Hazard Reduction. Waste types targeted for diversion and/or hazard reduction were selected based on their weight, volume, recycling potential, and/or hazard potential. The following waste types have been targeted for Dublin: Asbestos Bulky items/white goods • Medical wastes Used tires Goals and Objectives. The following Special Waste goals and accompanying objectives 1 have been established for the short and medium terms. Diversion of Special Wastes is not expected to contribute significantly toward the achievement of the 25 percent and 50 percent diversion mandates. Therefore, specific diversion goals and percent contribution toward the diversion mandates have not been established. • Support programs that reduce the hazard potential of disposing of Special Wastes. I 1. Proper asbestos disposal through burying in landfills. 2. Proper medical waste disposal through incineration, autoclaving, and microwaving including ash disposed in designated facilities. • Support programs that divert nonhazardous recyclable Special Wastes from landfill disposal. , 1. Diversion of bulky items/white goods and used tires at the Davis Street Transfer Station and Altamont landfill for recycling and reuse. I t I City of Dublin , Printed on recycled paper nutEPoRTSVUB arcHArnxe I 6-3 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions of the Special Wastes listed above (see Special Waste Overview) were determined for Dublin. Table 6-1 summarizes the quantities of waste generated, handling procedures, diverted quantities and end use markets for those wastes that are documented to be generated in Dublin. The following descriptions of the existing conditions for each Special Waste include (1) a brief description of existing solid waste facilities permitted to handle/dispose of Special Wastes, (2) a discussion of the current handling procedures, and (3) a discussion of current diversion efforts. All of the diversion and hazard reduction alternatives currently being implemented will continue through the short and medium terms; none of the programs will be decreased in scope. Asbestos. The removal of asbestos is handled by private contractors. All asbestos and asbestos-contaminated material is disposed of at permitted facilities both in-county, out-of- county, in-state, and also out-of-state. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors all asbestos removal in Dublin. Each contractor must receive a permit from the BAAQMD stating site location, amount of asbestos to be removed, date, and the disposal site. The records of the BAAQMD were accessed to obtain asbestos quantities for Dublin. The quantities of asbestos removed were reported in linear or square feet. Materials contaminated in the process of removal (i.e., water, plastic bags, pipes) are disposed of with the asbestos, and their weight is included in the total weight estimates. 1 Calculations were made to determine the total tonnage disposed per year using estimates of 3.5 pounds per linear foot and 3.25 pounds per square foot. These conversion factor estimates were obtained from a private asbestos removal contractor. To confirm the estimates, the Department of Health Services (DHS) was also contacted. The estimates provided by DHS results in lower estimates of tonnage. Therefore, the conversion estimates provided by the contractor were used, presumably resulting in conservative estimates. Disposal of asbestos in landfills is the most viable and safe method of reducing its hazard potential because asbestos is not hazardous if it is buried. Therefore, diversion of asbestos is not a viable alternative, and no diversion goals will be established. Ash. BAAQMD records were accessed to determine the number of incinerators in Dublin. There are no incinerators in Dublin. Auto Shredder Waste. Auto shredder waste is not accounted for in Dublin's waste stream. All of Alameda County's auto shredder waste is accounted for in Oakland, the city where the county's only auto shredding facility is located. I I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper n,M®oemoung.ca*na . I itz F M 81 8 E v o G b 0 1 F o 48 itz w ^E g * '� 0,v c 1 up Z tO Z it. a _ o a) y .� 0 O 0 0 0 D\ M °J ri 7 a) M ° o O c o P U I.. y N y Oi o. § > a Ti 11 C .0 '�U4 OA a88 O •.r.9 3 'y .� x v ( O U a s 1_,o a a 0 d d It 2 1 U p S a' N. g ,4 (.> t C a• e C � 3:: c 2 a cg 0 U is � C • O x 8 U W D WU y � a dY � � a . N a) a) � h . . 4) p U o hu E g , g ci t g g g N'p >. I a32 a .-Eigiid a a a s c g a, 03 cal ,---- o tl• aO ❑ C 1 0 cal a C N O G O Cr ae°'o $ anyy ha V h O .09 2, ' ' g N o d a d ca ) b 00 an " .D 3 :: h ce •P, 'O w .`�. cd O O 'O m aCi 3 d . aN t,.2, t•-• 3 cal 0 - '5 3 .n .- OO ca 78 ° 0 C) o v p d Nod . I r 6-5 Baghouse and Scrubber Waste. Facilities which utilize scrubber and baghouse abatement equipment are permitted by the BAAQMD. Information pertaining to facilities which operate in the city was acquired from the BAAQMD, including listings of facilities, their locations, and equipment at each site. The BAAQMD does not collect Special Waste data, such as quantities and disposal methods of scrubber and baghouse waste. Within Alameda County,202 facilities have baghouse and/or scrubber abatement equipment. One of the facilities is in Dublin. Contacts were made with several of the various types of facilities (foundries, chemical manufacturers, quarry products, etc.) in an attempt to compile average data. However,it was determined that average quantities would not sufficiently represent the diversity of wastes collected by baghouse and scrubber equipment. Chemical manufacturers, foundries and asphalt/concrete industries represent the largest proportion, approximately 30 percent of the facilities. Laboratories, hospitals, refineries, wastewater treatment plants, and manufacturers of products ranging from coffee to building products represent the variety of industries which are permitted by the BAAQMD. As the facilities vary, so do the wastes collected. A large portion of the abatement equipment collects dust, which is disposed of at a landfill. Some facilities collect a reusable product in the baghouses (e.g., flour), in which case, no waste is.generated. There are also facilities which incorporate the collected material back through the industrial process. Baghouse and scrubber wastes were not identified in the Commercial/Industrial portion of the Waste Generation Study (see Chapter 2). Therefore, the amount of baghouse and scrubber waste is not thought to be significant. Most of the waste is included as "other wastes" (including ' dirt) in the waste stream. Also,none of the local landfills are permitted for disposal of baghouse or scrubber wastes. Since the landfills do not have permits for disposal of this waste type, any baghouse and scrubber waste currently being disposed of in the landfills would be nonhazardous and undifferentiated from other wastes. Therefore baghouse and scrubber wastes are not included in Table 6-1, and no objectives or diversion goals are established specifically for this waste type. Bulky Items/White Goods. The amount of bulky items and white goods generated in Dublin is unknown, since no records document the disposition of all such items from Dublin. White goods are one type of bulky item that are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Waste from Dublin is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill. Most of the waste received at Altamont is already compacted. No efforts are made to divert bulky items or white goods once they have been delivered to the landfill. Additionally, white goods are collected and recycled by a recycler located in Livermore. It is estimated that approximately 300 tons per year are received from Dublin. Catalyst From Petroleum Refining and Chemical Plant Processes. Catalysts from petroleum refining and chemical plant processes were not identified in the Waste Generation Study. Petroleum refining and chemical processing plants obtain permits from the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD permit records were reviewed to determine if any information could be obtained relating to tonnages of catalyst disposed, but no such records exist. However, the records City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rnaa®ormnuBu.cIAwIIR.e 6-6 1 indicate that there are three petroleum refineries and 158 chemical plants in Alameda County. (It should be noted that the three refineries are also listed as chemical processing facilities, and are included in the total count of 158 chemical plants.) One of these facilities is in Dublin. III Many of the catalysts used in the chemical industry are liquid and are entirely used in the chemical processing, resulting in no waste. Also, chemical plants generally adopt very strict policies governing the disposal of their waste, including laboratory testing to confirm whether waste materials are hazardous. Much of the waste from chemical plant processes is hazardous, ' and handling of this waste is governed by the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. None of the local landfills are permitted for disposal of catalysts. Since the landfills do not have permits for catalyst disposal, any catalysts now being disposed of in the landfills would be nonhazardous and undifferentiated from other wastes. The amount normally disposed of at II permitted solid waste landfills is likely very small or none. Therefore, catalyst wastes are not included in Table 6-1, and no objectives or diversion goals are established specifically for this waste type. I Foundry Sand. There are no foundries listed in the telephone directory (Pacific Bell Yellow Pages) for Dublin. Grease Interceptor Pumpings. Grease interceptor pumpings are the grease materials , removed from grease traps in restaurants and large institutional food service settings. Grease interceptor pumpings were not identified as a separate waste type in the Solid Waste Generation Study performed for this SRR Element. There are currently no city, county, or state records of the amount of waste collected from grease interceptors. A private firm was contacted to determine how the material is disposed of. In Alameda County, the waste is not normally disposed of at landfills (including Classes I and II) or sewage treatment plants. The firm that was contacted indicated that the waste they collect is land applied in accordance with State Water Quality Control Board requirements. Some of the material is used by tallow companies. Based on this information, grease interceptor pumpings are not "normally" disposed of in a landfill; , therefore, they are not included in Table 6-1, and no objectives have been established for diversion of this waste type. Industrial Sludge. There are no records of the amount of industrial sludge generated in I Dublin. Only one facility was identified as producing sludge in Alameda County by the Waste Generation Study. There are likely other facilities that produce sludge and dispose of it as undifferentiated waste along with their other refuse; however, the quantity of sludge generated by any such facilities is negligible, based on the results of the Waste Generation Study. Therefore, industrial sludge is not included in Table 6-1, and no objectives or diversion goals have been established for this waste type. Medical Wastes. Medical wastes are potentially pathogenic or chemically contaminated wastes from individual homes and medical settings such as hospitals, dentists, or veterinary clinics. Examples of medical wastes include used hypodermic needles (referred to as "sharps"), ii City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper nua®oe'mnuBLDtCHenaa 1 6-7 used bandages and other materials coming in contact with areas of infection and chemotherapy wastes. Most of the medical waste generated in Alameda County is transported and/or treated by five businesses. The treatment devices employed by these businesses include five incinerators (three are located in-county and two out-of-county), one autoclave, and one microwave. Each of the five businesses was contacted to determine the amount of waste they receive from each jurisdiction within the county; however, data were only available from the two smallest facilities. The five companies are thought to handle approximately 85 percent of the total medical waste (other than that from small quantity generators), with the remaining 15 percent being handled by other haulers and treatment facilities. Incineration, autoclaving, and microwaving are all technologies that effectively reduce or eliminate the hazard associated with medical waste. Ash from incinerators is disposed of at specially permitted out-of-county facilities, thereby further reducing the hazards of disposing of medical waste. I Small quantity generators (those producing less than 220 pounds per month) were allowed to dispose of their waste in landfills until April 1, 1991. As of April 1, 1991, landfill disposal by the small quantity generators was no longer allowed (in accordance with the Medical Waste Act). These generators are now presumably using the services of the existing facilities that haul and treat medical wastes. Therefore, the implementation of the Medical Waste Act has eliminated the hazard potential for disposal of untreated medical wastes in landfills. Because of the hazards associated with medical waste, no diversion is currently occurring, and no diversion goals will be established. iRefractory From Industrial Furnaces,Kilns,and Ovens. There are no records indicating the amount of refractory waste in the county. This waste type was not identified in the Waste Generation Study. Incinerators are likely the source of most of this type of waste, and the quantity of waste generated from incinerators is included as ash. As previously discussed, ash is not generated in Dublin; therefore, this waste type is not included in Table 6-1, and no objectives have been established for its diversion. Sandblast Sand. The amount of sandblast sand generated in Dublin is unknown at this time. This waste type was not identified in the Waste Generation Study. Prior to disposal, the sandblast sand must be tested to determine if it is hazardous. If hazardous, the sand is disposed of in a hazardous waste facility. If not hazardous, the sand is either disposed of in a local landfill or diverted. Nonhazardous sandblast sand can be used in the construction industry (for road base, for example). 1 Sewage Sludge. In accordance with State Planning Guideline requirements, sewage sludge from Dublin is accounted for only in the special waste totals of Pleasanton, which is the city where the treatment facility for Dublin sludge (Dublin/San Ramon Services District) is located. Street Sweepings and Catch Basin Debris. Dublin does not keep specific records documenting the amount of street sweeping and catch basin debris collected. Estimates were made based on the number of loads collected daily and the size of the hoppers. The material is dirt and trash. None of the debris is currently diverted, and it is not a good candidate for diversion because of the trash. There are no unusual hazards associated with handling or disposal City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper „,„ ,,,aIAI ,TEPA 1 6-8 of this waste type. No diversion or hazard reduction objectives have been established for this waste type. Used Tires. According to a representative of the California Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, used tires are generated at a rate of approximately 0.83 to one the per person per year. Therefore, the number of used tires generated each year is equal to the population of the city. One hundred tires weigh approximately one ton. This statewide average rate was used to determine disposal quantities because there is no other accurate information available. However, ' this number was verified by Oxford Tire Recycling Company of California,Inc. (Oxford), a local company familiar with conditions in Alameda County. Additionally, used tires are a subset of the tire and rubber category and as such are not subject to the requirements of the waste generation study. Most used tires are collected by retailers (e.g., service stations, tire dealers) throughout the city and county. The majority of the used tires collected by these retailers (approximately 65 percent) are purchased by Oxford. The remaining 35 percent are assumed to be disposed of at a landfill. Oxford provided information regarding the total number of tires received from Alameda I County. The total number of tires were allocated to the individual jurisdictions on the basis of population to determine the number of tires diverted by each jurisdiction. According to a representative from Oxford, approximately 25 percent of the tires collected by Oxford are recycled or reused (e.g., retreaded, used for bumpers, etc.), and the remaining 75 percent are burned for energy at Oxford's tire-to-energy plant located out-of-county. The by-products of the tire-to-energy process are zinc, gypsum, and bottom ash. The bottom ash is used for base rock. The waste from Dublin is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill. Most of the waste is already compacted by the time it reaches the landfill. The number of tires received at the landfill is unknown, and no attempts are made to divert tires from the landfill. EVALUATION OF SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES 1 There are several programs already established which work toward achieving the objectives of the Special Waste Component. The existing programs were described in the Existing Conditions section above, and adequately provide for the safe disposal of the potentially hazardous Special Wastes (asbestos and medical wastes). These programs will continue with no phasing out or decrease in scope over the short- and medium-term planning periods. Other programs described above provide for safe diversion of bulky items, and used tires. The efforts to divert these nonhazardous Special Wastes should be increased. Therefore, the Special Waste program alternatives can be summarized as follows: I • Support programs to divert for recycling or reuse bulky items, white goods, and used tires accepted at the transfer station and landfill. 1 City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper nuwewe'mnuun4CBArrmi6 1 6-9 The criteria prescribed by the Model Component Format of the State's Planning Guidelines apply to the Special Waste as follows: • Volume/weight reduction. The following Special Wastes constitute a portion of Dublin's total waste stream: bulky items, and used tires. The alternatives selected for these waste materials have the potential to reduce the volume and/or weight of Special Wastes disposed. However, the total volume and weight reduction of Special Wastes is not expected to be a large percentage of the total waste diversion for the city and county. 1 • Hazard potential. Alternatives were evaluated for the following waste types, based on their hazard potential: asbestos, and medical waste. The alternatives already being implemented reduce the risks associated with the handling and disposal of these materials. There are no known alternatives that would more adequately reduce the hazard potential, and the alternatives currently being implemented do not create new unmanageable hazards. The hazard potential is reduced by permitting (asbestos), and the requirements of the Medical Waste Act (medical waste). • Changing economic, technological and social conditions. The alternatives previously discussed for the management of Special Wastes are capable, to a limited degree, of accommodating changing conditions. If a significant degree of change is imposed by changing economic,technological or social conditions,changes in Special Waste management practices may need to occur. These changes will be reflected in future updates of the SRR Element. r • Consequences of the diversion alternative. None of the alternatives considered will shift solid waste generation from one type of waste to another. There are no anticipated adverse consequences of the diversion alternatives. • Short- and medium-term implementation. As noted previously, all Special Waste alternatives to be implemented are already in place, with the exception of increasing the diversion quantities for some of the nonhazardous Special Wastes. During the short and medium term, efforts can be made to increase the amount of recycled tires and bulky items. • Need for new or expanded facilities. Existing facilities for management and disposal 1 • of Special Wastes will be sufficient for the short and medium terms. • Consistency with local plans and policies. There are no inconsistencies between 1 existing alternative Special Waste management programs and local plans or policies. • Institutional barriers. There are no known institutional bathers to the implementation of the alternatives for the management of Special Wastes. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrxwRITZUBLorcwvTIMa 1 6-10 • Availability of end uses of diverted materials. The Special Wastes that require an end use for diverted material are bulky items, and used tires. The availability of end uses for bulky items and used tires is high, since each material has more than one possible end use. End uses for bulky items include reuse (resale) and scrap metal, and end uses for used tires include retread tires and energy. • Cost for implementation of Special Waste alternatives. The estimated costs of implementing Dublin's Special Waste program is $3,000 per year through fiscal year 1993 and $800 per year thereafter. SELECTION OF SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM As discussed previously, several programs currently exist that achieve the Special Waste component objectives for the targeted Special Waste types (hazard reduction and diversion of nonhazardous Special Wastes). Additional measures will be taken to expand the diversion 1 efforts for nonhazardous Special Wastes. All the program alternatives are summarized in Table 6-2. Table 6-2 also lists the rationale for selection, effectiveness in reducing waste, the ability to accommodate change, potential waste shifts, and the implementation planning period. Diversion of Special Wastes is not expected to contribute significantly toward the achievement of the 25 and 50 percent diversion mandates. Therefore, diversion goals and percent contribution toward the diversion mandates have not been established, and quantities of diverted materials have not been estimated. The diversion of used tires deserves discussion, since the regulations specify percentages of transformed materials that can be counted toward diversion. The used tires that are currently recycled (25 percent of the used tires) are entirely counted toward the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals. In the short-term, the used tires that are transformed (75 percent of the used tires) cannot be counted toward the 25 percent diversion goal. During the medium term, transformed materials(including used tires)will be counted toward the 50 percent diversion goal, but the percentage of transformed materials may not exceed 10 percent of the total waste diverted. 1 SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 1 This section outlines the tasks, schedule, responsible parties, and funding requirements to implement the selected alternatives. Implementation Tasks and Schedule The following tacks are established to implement the objectives: 1 City of Dublin , Printed on recycled paper 57 I'a1 ORTSDUBLRCa•nas • I I r 1 �\ § � � \ \ a I - / � ! § ) 7 ._> vl I © / b | § B ; § I 0 2 I 2 2 In *do 7 a o ® I to, � ( 4 » u � Fe t \ / @ « ) / / ago ( )•_ �_ . ) § I - 2 ) k ) ® f (i § ) \ _ \ / � \ E£ © % 0 / A / a \ I V § - ) 3a L. ^ 2 � � � � _ 2 k -8 = \ g E V e ] a /\ ' * I • . E E2 \ ) \ \ 2 \ § / \ § / /' 2 0 � .5 \ \ -0 k k . 5 / ) \ @ ' 2 �E ) / \ $ . \ { f ) ) { \ J ; g a # � 4 j ƒ j / ] $ ° ° bUtt \ . ƒ � a , a I B , 4 « # & ƒ =0 e � - ( § § f § @ } ! k •§ ° ) / \ 2 \ \ ) \t) { • ) / ) / " ± & 2 / I - f4/ƒ a I 1 6-12 1. During the short and medium terms, continue all current programs. Current programs include: a. Hazard reduction programs to provide for the safe disposal of medical waste (Medical Waste Act). b. Hazard reduction programs to provide for the safe disposal of asbestos (BAAQMD). 1 2. During the short and medium terms, promote diversion of nonhazardous Special Wastes (bulky items, white goods, and used tires). 1 Responsible Parties for Program Implementation The responsible party for program implementation will be the Dublin City Manager's Office. Identification of Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources. Special waste programs for Dublin's SRR Element entail support for several countywide programs. These include support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program of the County Environmental Health Department, work with the County to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, and support for new county programs to divert bulky items, and to reuse and recycle used tires. The total estimated cost for implementing and monitoring these programs is $8,000 per year. The only cost associated with city support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program is $500 for monitoring and evaluation of this program. Costs associated with city cooperation with the county in implementing the Medical Waste Management Act are $2,000 for implementation of this program and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. Costs associated with support for bulky item recycling and reuse are $3,000 for implementation and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. Finally, costs associated with support for a county program to divert used tires are $1,000 for implementation and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. Two primary revenue sources will initially be used to fund Dublin's solid waste diversion programs--waste import mitigation funds and direct user fees. Waste import mitigation funds are received from San Francisco and Contra Costa County to reduce the impact of their utilization of Alameda County's landfill capacity. For the fiscal year 1991-92, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) included in its budget a total appropriation of $1 million derived from waste import mitigation funds. These monies are to be distributed among ACWMA's seventeen member agencies on the basis of an initial allocation of $25,000 per agency with the remainder of the $1 million apportioned in City of Dublin I Printed on recycled paper rn+wryonnraue,,vecu.nme 1 6-13 accordance with each jurisdiction's relative share of total waste tonnage generated in Alameda County. The amount of waste import mitigation money Dublin will receive in fiscal year 1991- 92 is shown in Table 9-2, Chapter 9--Funding Component. SPECIAL WASTES COMPONENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION This section describes the monitoring methods and evaluation program established for the Special Waste Component. Program Monitoring ' Monitoring of Special Waste generation and diversion will be accomplished through assessing the ongoing effectiveness of current programs, reports required by the Medical Waste Act, and the performance of periodic solid waste generation studies,as discussed in the Recycling Component. " Criteria for Evaluating Program Effectiveness Evaluation of program effectiveness will be based on the following criteria: 1 1. Are programs being implemented to reduce the hazard potential of Special Wastes? If the Medical Waste Act is being implemented then the programs can be deemed to be effective. Landfill records will be audited to confirm that these programs are being carried out. 1 2 Are programs being implemented to encourage the diversion of non-hazardous Special Wastes? 1 For diversion of bulky items and used tires the program will be considered effective if landfill records document that these items are no longer placed in the landfill. 1 Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting The responsible party for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of the progress of the program will be the same parties responsible for implementation. 1 Identification of Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources Funding for monitoring is included in implementation. 1 1 City or Dublin Printed on recycled paper 571„ enaUB6 1 6-14 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting Diversion Mandates The objectives of reducing the hazard potential of Special Wastes is currently being met. 1 If shortfalls occur in the future, the programs will be evaluated to determine the course of the shortfall, and more stringent programs will be developed and implemented. The objective of increasing efforts to recycle nonhazardous Special Wastes is not critical to meet the 25 percent and 50 percent diversion mandates. If it is not economical or practical to recycle these materials, no additional measures will be implemented. 1 I 1 1 i 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mfwuocrrnuewvcannve 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 7 1 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION COMPONENT 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper i 1 CHAPTER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION COMPONENT r The education and public information component is designed to increase the source reduction and recycling awareness of public and private sector target audiences. This component of the Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element outlines the means by which the various messages are communicated to the target audiences. The education and public information component includes the following sections: 1. Objectives 2. Existing Public Information and Education programs ' 3. Selected Education and Information Programs 4. Program Implementation Schedule 5. Monitoring and Evaluation The City of Dublin (Dublin) public information and education program will focus on three primary themes: reduce,reuse and recycle, as well as their environmental and economic benefits. By stressing these themes throughout the campaign, the public will gain increased understanding of the need for good solid waste management practices. Participation in curbside recycling programs by residents will be essential. However, it is important to remember that recycling is ' but one piece of a strategy which includes strong efforts to reduce waste at the source and direct reuse of products. In September 1990, Dublin contracted with its franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal, a division of Oakland Scavenger Company, to provide a three-bin curbside recycling program for single family residences in Dublin, with a provision to expand this service to Dublin multifamily residences in the future. In addition, since 1986, Dublin has contracted with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to provide as part of its base solid waste collection service a quarterly cleanup program. ' Public information materials regarding these activities are disseminated by periodic press releases and the following three methods: 1. An annual city newsletter which is mailed to all residents and businesses in Dublin. ' The fall 1989 edition of the newsletter had a story on the Fall Clean Up and Household Hazardous Waste. 2. Special articles in the yearly calendar. 3. Special notices distributed with garbage bills. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nna®ocirnuBLntcmnwv 7-2 1 COMPONENT OBJECTIVES This section outlines specific short-term and medium-term objectives for the education and public information component. State regulations require that the education and public information component include both objectives for the short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning period. This section also provides the emphasis around which programs should be developed to achieve the objectives. Short-Term Objectives 1. Achieve a 50 percent awareness level among residents and businesses concerning the 1 importance and means of solid waste diversion and recycling programs by 1995. 2. Reach 80 percent of all residents and businesses with information on Dublin's recycling and other waste diversion programs at least twice yearly. Medium-Term Objectives 1. Achieve all short-term goals at 75 percent level. 1 2. Shift education and information focus from recycling and managing waste to reducing waste. 1 EXISTING EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS I Public information programs for recycling, composting and household hazardous waste are 1 presented below followed by educational efforts of the school district. Recycling 1 The present recycling effort is the residential curbside program discussed above. In the future, multifamily residential homes will be included. Dublin has utilized the annual newsletter, brochures, press releases and yearly calendar to publicize existing efforts. Livermore/Dublin Disposal is responsible for public information and educational program efforts. They are also responsible for monitoring and evaluating program effectiveness and participation. An annual newsletter is mailed to all residents, businesses and all Dublin postal customers. Dublin has contracted with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to implement a City Hall high grade paper recycling program. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper .mr BPOR1T.OUJLU CHAYI.? • 7-3 Composting Dublin will participate in the County of Alameda's (County) plan to give seminars and composting demonstrations at local parks. In addition, Dublin has plans to participate in the construction of a demonstration home composting program at Shannon Community Park. Household Hazardous Waste A household hazardous waste (HHW) flyer has been distributed to residents. An article in the annual newsletter discussed Dublin's hazardous waste program and listed a number to call ' for additional information. Dublin plans to eliminate its joint collection day program since the County has assumed responsibility for HHW management. This is discussed further in the Dublin HHW Element. ' Educational Efforts of the School District ' Each of Dublin's six public schools has some involvement with recycling. Some schools have regular newsletters which are used to describe programs. The District newsletter has also had articles on environmental concerns and recycling. i SELECTED EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS Education and public information programs will target three major sectors of the community: (1)residents, (2)business and industry, and (3) schools. Each of these three sectors will be segmented as demographics necessitate and programs will be designed accordingly. The education and public information program will include the following elements: ' 1. Community Organizations and Outreach. Outreach to the community can be established in part by: • Use of a speaker's bureau which actively solicits engagements from service organizations, civic clubs, schools, businesses, and professional organizations. • Participation in booths and demonstrations at fairs and special events. 2. Educational Materials. Educational materials will be developed for use by various target audiences,including youth and senior organizations,schools,civic organizations, ' and service organizations such as Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Soroptomists, etc. • 3. Promotional Items. Doorhangers, buttons, pens, pencils, balloons, bumper stickers, bookmarks, recycled paper note pads, etc., will be considered for incorporation into many of the activities described in this section. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nimmoxmnueLwcx•nwei 74 I 4. Public Information/Media. In addition to periodic news releases and Op-ed's (opinion editorials) in general circulation publications serving Dublin, attempts will be made to negotiate a regular environmental concerns column (e.g., "Recycle Watch"). i Regular public service announcements (PSAs)providing helpful consumer information on recycling, household hazardous waste, waste minimization, etc., will be negotiated with local broadcast media. Local cable television stations are also a good vehicle for special features and other programming regarding solid waste management issues. 5. School Programs. Working in conjunction with the County,curriculum materials and ' teacher training will be encouraged for selected grade levels on recycling and other solid waste management issues. Specialized curriculum development, such as special science projects, and traveling skits will be negotiated with U.C. Berkeley's Lawrence Hall of Science to be considered for use by schools throughout Dublin, as part of the work with the County. Special programs such as essay writing contests and environmental spelling bees will be considered. 6. Commercial/Industrial Professional Roundtables and Symposia. Consideration will be given to planning and conducting educational programs for industry and commercial groups, government agencies, and professional groups such as health professionals. Special sessions for large waste generators on the value and use of waste audits will be designed and implemented in conjunction with the County. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Dublin's City Manager's Office will coordinate administering the local education and public information programs. Countywide education and public information programs will be implemented and funded by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. , Program Task Time Frames Time frames have been established for each type of education and public information program. Community Outreach Short Term: The following activities began in late 1991: 1 1. Develop guidelines and specific timeframes for community outreach programs. 2. Adapt the county's recycling brochures for local use and determine method and schedule of dissemination. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper n,:xau WOUt necx.vf.7 ■ i75 3. Identify and schedule neighborhood and civic groups for special presentations on recycling efforts. 4. Participate at annual St. Patrick's Day Fair with a booth on waste diversion theme. ' Medium Term (1995-2000) ' 1. Review community outreach strategy and presentation materials; revise and update as appropriate. Public Information Short Term: The following activities are scheduled to begin in 1992: 1. Develop media strategy,major messages,slogans and themes and target print and local cable TV media. ' 2. Develop or adapt materials prepared by the County on curbside recycling,multifamily recycling and composting. 3. Plan a media event to kick off the multifamily recycling program. 1 4. Write articles on waste diversion for City newsletter; publicize Shannon Park home composting demonstration garden. ' 5. Negotiate with local library for periodic special displays on recycling and waste management issues. ' Medium Tenn (1995-2000) 1 1. Update and revise media strategy as appropriate. School Programs and Curricula 1 Short Term: The following activities began in late 1991: 1. Support school administration efforts to refine and upgrade existing school recycling programs. ' 2. Support a County convened committee on waste diversion curriculum development with school curriculum specialists from the Berkeley Lawrence Hall of Science. ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper riI,a ORnOUBUWCHAP1 1 7-6 I Medium Term (1995-2000) 1. Continue to support school administration efforts to develop district-wide recycling 1 programs and revise and update school curriculum as necessary. Commercial, Industrial, and Professional 1 Short Term: The following activities are scheduled to begin in 1992. a. Encourage Chamber of Commerce and other local business service organization programming around waste diversion issues. b. Develop or adapt County waste diversion public information materials targeted toward the business community. c. Support County program to develop waste audit resource assessment program. Medium Term (1995-2000) a. Review, revise and update programs targeted for the business community as appropriate. Program Revenues and Costs 1 Revenues that can be used for waste diversion education and public information programs are available from Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) waste import 1 mitigation fees for fiscal year 1991-92. Similar funds may also be available from this source in future years. Likewise, funds from user fees and grants will also be available to Dublin for education and public information programs. 1 Proposed education and public information costs for Dublin are shown in Table 7-1. The cost categories shown in this table represent the programs discussed above. Costs include costs for implementation and monitoring and evaluation of education and public information programs. 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 37InHOWITOUrnMCHAna7 7-7 Table 7-1. Projected Education and Public Information Costs ' Program Cost, dollars Community Outreach 5,000 Media/public information 5,000 Schools 5,000 ' Business/industry 5,000 Evaluation 2,000 ' Total $22,000 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION MONITORING AND EVALUATION With respect to curbside collection, no program monitoring efforts have been developed beyond the evaluation mechanisms in place as part of the Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company contract. Dublin has two special facilities, the Santa Rita Jail (at which they hope the County's ' source reduction program efforts will be implemented) and the federal correctional institution; both are large generators of waste. Monitoring and evaluation efforts will target these institutions. ' Coordination of monitoring and evaluation of education and public information programs will be the responsibility of Dublin's City Manager's Office. As indicated in Table 7-1, $2,000 or an estimated 9 percent of the budget for education and public information programs is set aside for monitoring and evaluation. These revenues will come from waste import mitigation monies or the general fund. The objective of each education and public information program will be to achieve a specific outcome (e.g., to educate, inform, persuade, modify behavior, etc.) with a specific audience (children, businesses,etc.). The criteria for evaluating education and public information programs will be the achievement of the short- and medium-term objectives described earlier in ' this chapter, including the implementation of several programs, (school and city source reduction and recycling education, and city recyclable and vendor preference) and a 75 percent awareness level among residents and businesses. Methods to Monitor Achievement of Objectives ' The overall effectiveness of the education and public information program will be assessed based upon the level of awareness and the level of participation of the target audience. To monitor achievement of specific objectives related to increased awareness, Dublin will conduct ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrnuvRTADIM.UCHAy�.t 78 , random sample surveys by mail, telephone, or in public malls or shopping areas. The surveys will focus on the public's awareness of various waste management programs offered by the city. In addition, focus groups will be staged to determine consumer reaction to slogans and messages conveyed through print and audio-visual means. Monitoring methods for measuring participation rates vary with the particular source 1 reduction, recycling, and composting programs, and are discussed further in their respective chapters. With respect to curbside collection of recyclables, reports from Livermore-Dublin Disposal will be provided to Dublin. At least 40 percent residential participation must be maintained throughout the contact period. A low awareness and low participation level would indicate ineffective information , programs. A high awareness level with low participation may indicate that additional convenience or other motivation is needed in the actual diversion programs. , Program Monitoring and Reporting Schedule The State Planning Guidelines for Preparation and Revision of SRR Elements require each jurisdiction to prepare an annual report summarizing the jurisdiction's progress toward achieving mandated waste reduction goals; the annual report is also to serve as a basis for determining whether a revision of a SRR Element is needed (Section 18771, Article 7.0, Chapter 9, Title 14, California Code of Regulations). In order to provide input to the annual report on SRR Element accomplishments, the random sample surveys monitoring education and public information , activities, will also need to be conducted on an annual basis. Measure to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall 1 In the event that SRR Element objectives are not being achieved, the scope of some of the programs described above may need to be increased. The most probable area of increased emphasis would be the media campaign and business and community outreach programs. These programs could most easily be expanded and used to target the designated group by geography or other significant characteristics to improve awareness of participation. 1 1 1 1 . , City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rl AREPOR TDl191JNCMArIQ.I i I 1 1 i 1 CHAPTER 8 DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 1 ' CHAPTER 8 1 DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT • This chapter discusses the capacity of solid waste disposal facilities receiving wastes from the City of Dublin (Dublin). The chapter begins by describing the existing permitted solid waste facilities which Dublin uses for waste disposal and follows this with a solid waste disposal facility needs projection estimating the additional disposal capacity needed to accommodate ' anticipated solid waste generation within Dublin for a 15-year period. Included also are discussions both of plans to close or phase out existing facilities and plans to establish new or expanded facilities. ' Existing Solid Waste Disposal and Transformation Facilities Section 18744(a) of the State Planning Guidelines requires SRR Elements to identify all existing permitted solid waste landfills and transformation facilities within a jurisdiction. There are no permitted solid waste disposal or transformation facilities in Dublin. ISolid waste generated in Dublin is collected by a division of the Oakland Scavenger Company, the Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company (Livermore-Dublin Disposal), the city's ' franchised solid waste collection service, and transported in solid waste collection vehicles to the Altamont Landfill in eastern Alameda County, approximately 15 miles east of Livermore. Dublin's franchise with Livermore-Dublin Disposal expires in 1996. Demolition debris generated ' in Dublin is generally hauled by contractors and local construction companies to either asphalt and concrete recycling facilities in Oakland or to the Vasco Road Landfill located approximately 7 miles northeast of Livermore. The Altamont Landfill is owned and operated by Oakland Scavenger Company, a Waste Management, Inc. subsidiary. In 1990, the Altamont Landfill received approximately 2 million tons of waste for disposal. Wastes received at this disposal site were from a majority of the jurisdictions in Alameda County including Dublin, as well as the City and County of San Francisco and Central Contra Costa County. ' The State Planning Guidelines for Preparing and Revising SRR Elements require the ' Disposal Facility Capacity Component to include current disposal fees for all solid waste disposal facilities (Section 18744(a)(5), Article 6.2, Chapter 9, Title 14, California Code of Regulations). This information has been provided by Oakland Scavenger Company and is displayed in ' Table 8-1. In addition, costs of landfill disposal are also allocated to Oakland Scavenger Company franchisees in garbage collection rates. • City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nl:nfoau U LINICHAnma Table 8-1. Altamont Landfill Rates , Effective November 8, 1991 I Material Rate (per cubic yard [yd3]) Bulk loads 4.35 I Compacted loads 13.05 ' Large concrete/rebar 13.40 Small concrete/asphalt 7.50 ' Demolition 8.00 Tree stumps & wood poles 16.15 ' Tires: Car (<=16") 3.75 per tire , Truck (>16" <=26") 16.15 per tire Tractor (off-road) 150.00 per tire I Bulk tires 224.00 per tire Soil: I Low volume (<18 yd) 7.50 Large volume (>18 yd) 19.40 per yard3 I Asbestos: Non-friable 14.70 per yard3 I -Customer must have prior approval Friable Alameda County = 33.10 p� yard3; San , Francisco = 31.85 per yard and $1.50 mitigation fee -Customer must have prior approval and ' manifest!! Documents 5.90 (Excluding certificate of destruction) ' Condemned food 8.00 + handling (Excluding certificate of destruction) Miscellaneous fees: I Handling fee 56.00 for the first 15 minutes if over 40 cy, charge additional 28.00 for each additional 15 minutes. Certificate of Destruction 25.00 ' Bales 15.00/cy Tipper fee 20.00 _ I 5715'REPORTSTABLaS-1 8-3 1 The Vasco Road Landfill is owned and operated by Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BR). In 1990, the Vasco Road Landfill received approximately 500,000 tons of waste for disposal of which 230,000 tons is estimated to be construction and demolition debris. Wastes received at the Vasco Road Landfill came from most Alameda County jurisdictions including Dublin, as well as some self-hauled wastes from Contra Costa County. Current disposal fees for the Vasco Road Landfill are shown in Table 8-2. The property on which the Altamont Landfill is located is approximately 1,500 acres, ' 710 acres of which is set aside for landfill development. Of this 710 acres, 210 acres comprise the current permitted active landfill portion of the site (November 28, 1989, Solid Waste Facility Permit#01-AA-0009). The remaining capacity of the permitted portion of the Altamont Landfill ' estimated by Waste Management of North America (WMI) was 24.5 million cubic yards at the end of 1990. The current remaining site capacity of the permitted area is estimated to be approximately 8 years, assuming current fill rates of approximately 2 million tons of solid waste ' disposed per year and assuming a 0.8 percent annual rate of growth in solid waste tonnage. As will be discussed below, there are also plans for a major expansion of this site. 1 The pennitted site acreage for the Vasco Road Landfill is 326 acres, of which 125 acres are currently being landflled (February 1989 Solid Waste Facilities Permit #01-AA-0010). The remaining permitted capacity of the Vasco Road Landfill estimated by BR was 23 million cubic yards at the end of 1990. The current remaining site capacity of the permitted area is estimated to be 18 years assuming current fill rates of approximately 450,000 tons of solid waste disposed per year and assuming a 0.8 percent annual rate of growth in solid waste tonnage. Disposal Facility Capacity Needs Projection Section 18744(b) of the State Planning Guidelines requires each jurisdiction preparing an SRR Element to estimate 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 1991. Projected solid waste generation for Dublin for this 15-year period is discussed in Appendix A-1(2), Solid Waste Generation Study Report for the Jurisdictions of Alameda County. The capacity required for disposal of solid waste generated within Dublin was calculated ' using the following equation required by the State Planning Guidelines: Additional capacity Year n =[(G + I) - (D + TC +LF +E)].Year n ' where: ' G = The amount of solid waste projected to be generated in Dublin. The amount of solid waste generated in Dublin in 1990 was approximately ' 55,143 tons. Accounting for projections of population growth, the estimated annual waste generation rates for Dublin were calculated. ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nlramoalsnuel.aCx.na, Table 8-2. Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill Rates i Effective December 1991 1 Waste type Fee (dollars) Construction and demolition debris 8.50 cu yd Hard to handle (over 6-inch length or 2-inch diameter) 17.00 cu yd Extremely hard to handle 22.00 cu yd Compacted 9.00 cu yd Certified loads (buried immediately) 15.50 cu yd Tires 100.00 ton Household garbage (Livermore residents) 5.55 cu yd , Household garbage (nonresidents) 8.50 cu yd 111 Minimum cash sale 4.30 Minimum charge sale 8.50 Weighmaster certificate 10.00 Special waste (approximate) 20.00 1 1 1 i i 1 5715\REPORTSTABLE.8-2 ' 8-5 I = The amount of solid waste that is expected to be imported to Dublin, if any, for disposal in local permitted solid waste disposal facilities. As noted above, there are no permitted solid waste disposal facilities in Dublin. In addition, there is no waste that would be imported into Dublin for disposal. D = The amount of solid waste diverted through current and proposed source reduction, recycling, and composting programs. The amount of solid waste diverted from landfill disposal through existing source reduction, recycling, and composting programs in Dublin in 1990 was approximately 13,437 tons. ' TC = The amount of volume reduction through permitted transformation facilities. There are no permitted transformation facilities in Dublin. LF = The amount of permitted solid waste disposal capacity that is available within Dublin for solid waste generated within Dublin. There is no solid waste disposal capacity within the boundaries of Dublin. ' E = The amount of solid waste generated in Dublin that is exported to solid waste disposal facilities in another jurisdiction. ' As discussed above, all of Dublin's solid waste that requires landfill disposal is taken either by Livermore-Dublin Disposal to the Altamont Landfill, or by local contractors or individuals self-hauling their own solid waste to the Altamont or Vasco Road landfills. ' n = Each year of a 15-year period commencing in 1991. The appropriate values were placed in the equation after conversion to cubic yards of ' volume, and the calculation was completed. Results of the solid waste disposal facility needs projection are shown in Tables 8-3 and 8-4. These tables show the year-by-year disposal facility capacity for landfills in Alameda County assuming no compliance with the diversion mandates of AB 939 (worst case) and assuming attainment by all jurisdictions of the mandated 25 and 50 percent diversion rates. Additional ' assumptions in determining disposal facility needs projections are (1) that the wastes currently brought to the Altamont Landfill from Contra Costa County will cease on December 18, 1991, the year that the inter-County agreement allowing importation of Contra Costa County solid ' waste expires; (2) that the Durham Road Landfill will close at the end of 1993, the year it reaches its currently permitted capacity, and after this date wastes previously taken to the Durham ' City of Dabnn Printed on rrcyckd paper n'ranol7TOUP araurtar I ° A„ n ¢ � �+ � � g I P. $ggl N N n a a 3 N 3 N ,:Q 4i i 15 8 F 5 5 3 $ r R n i a 3 ' R g R n S $ 5 ^ a a s a. N N . N - • 1 q E°EFB R ° R 5 ° - ° A 4 ° & $R ° _ gd F, g I $ sRFg4 a 0 _ $ 3 � r E ° : 3 1. ° Ara ° F ° ° Ei ° ° t Qb' ° R A A it $ 8 ' �= e : "c = 3 g s s AQUA 5 ,.; 2 H N : ,p ? i a" 7 '1N 6 F h 6 I 5 (� s` f 6 5--- H 5 8 S - Y 3 a R F _ R RR y a s - a + - P N K Y Y F 8 e I a I 'rt°'�R� 6 ° 6 0 n 5. o g S o ° B ° S •'^• 6 R g e 5 3 f 6�^ H N N h Y 3 0 3 3 i - f N R ^ V0 38 6 0 ° A o ^ & ° ° « ° n .- R % g i w :a a 6 3 a s s s A I 3 6 0 - 1 1 R - - -P- ^a a N F '�1 Q: R '�9 r I Z . 3i & �_g k g 6 .^ 7 i YNS , R ea a 9 p a e u I R ° ry° F R ° 0 n a R o R g 6 ° R ° 3 a - yA 5 @ S g E I w "a $g_ . R 8 - a • 0 3 R c R R F r e d e a I C � i- it95"° R S 0 : . n S 3 R R F g � ° e 3 _ N n o ry r a q g s 43 31 of ° 1A<@4 a ° A in R f m ° 3 a rg a ° 4 ° n § °- % g s ati a R R ! ! N 5 : : n 5 8 a a g 2 4 = s m F g a I 1 1 $ _is ; a a a @ ��� a,� as .. a ii 1 a_ E s L. ae i ill in 1 i jjJIii l t1 1 ii 1 1 8^ I a ' i . , a s z a 4 , a 1 a j6 - - LI I • A ' 1115 ^ ' R q ° ' e 'n ' 6 ° X ^ ' 1 $ Y n s ^ n 9 h Eq a e a s '4 R N t^, i .f a m n p 3, b g n ' 8 ° F2 Z ° A 8 ° ¢ 8 n $ nn N X ∎F� H a d $ ^- s ?S r en d 3■h g I �: _ x - N — N - - N .4 g y� y# P ' R i r l I gg. ^ R@ E S o o R 6 P. R X n H .�. ls. 6 Q 'N1 C R 2 I a c I Il S - $°FAt ° R - d 8 S - ° ° ° N N 6 3 A 1 n t A _< Aw, _ t C ^I t W o aPt E N N d i E g _ p ga I042. - N F - 3 5 s F a 5 "Pd a o° 12 1 R a A°$ 5 i a & a - i - a ° 0 6 n a Y e ' p -"a N 9 H n 3 • I F 2 i i i fr - - R I S z I S F 6 o n. N 2 q W .�°f 6 Jt 7t ° & F < Y s o m e E R 4°nn1 n I R s A B S ° 0 , n B n 7. ,2 ; # i 3 2 ^- N F 6 N : 2 2 A R A C -. n ' n • F E a _ _ 2 a s z n 2 R = H - e e ° x n F o g y s g la x°sea n ° F § 4 i g "s. - g e n g i g 1 I :I' ° ° , ° - c Ns us v P a$�r-- = r < : t $ o ° R R a a a g Eo 3 w�F° a � ppa QQry i ' ° 114 ° RF<�1A - ° - - E f R ° E ' 8 6 ° 4. ° o g E 2 % g 9 dd 1g Eq 4 ..e 3ERg- & g 3 g : 6 - 8 Eh' , R. g s p 9 sp * t3 - - a A cg N E E <VJ aR < G D. ° I 1. r g a ro r $ ge� gfl a�� a & +a^i $ 3 . $ $tea^ I a &3_ w .1 III I it i GI SE aH a a I . 8-8 1 Road Landfill will be taken instead to the Altamont Landfill; (3) that the Altamont Landfill will ' close after it reaches the permitted capacity of its current fill area, after which wastes from Dublin will be taken for disposal to the Vasco Road Landfill; (4)that by the end of 15 years, San Francisco will not have exhausted its contractually guaranteed capacity of 15 million cubic yards in Alameda County landfills, and, thus, will continue to export its waste to Alameda County throughout this period; and (5) that the annual growth in waste generation is equal to the average population growth rate (0.8 percent compounded equals 12.7 percent between the years 1990 and 2005). The results of the analysis of disposal facility needs projections indicate that if the 25 and , 50 percent diversion mandates are met, there is sufficient capacity in Alameda County landfills to provide for the needs of existing jurisdictions, including Dublin until 2005. Dublin's guarantee of sufficient disposal capacity is ensured by its existing franchise with Livermore- Dublin Disposal. When this expires (in 1996), Dublin will need to reserve a capacity of 792,270 cubic yards in Alameda County landfills. , Projected Changes in Disposal Facility Capacity There are no plans to close either the Altamont or Vasco Road Landfills during the short- ' or medium-term planning periods. There are no plans to site a new solid waste disposal or transformation facility in Dublin. Oakland Scavenger Company, however, wishes to undertake two expansions of the Altamont Landfill. The fast expansion would include recontouring of the current fill area, a change which e would add 9 million cubic yards of capacity. This action will require a revision of this site's current Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements and a modification of its Solid Waste Facility Permit. The second planned expansion of the Altamont Landfill is an expansion on to adjacent land owned by the Oakland Scavenger Company but not currently permitted for landfill disposal. This expansion will add 350 million cubic yards of capacity and will require new Waste Discharge Requirements and a revision of the Altamont Landfill Solid Waste Facility Permit. A second proposed expansion which will affect the disposal facility capacity for wastes emanating from Dublin is a proposed expansion of the Durham Road Landfill in Fremont. Oakland Scavenger reports that the existing permitted capacity at the Durham Road Landfill will be filled at the end of 1993. This expansion would add 4.5 million cubic yards of capacity to this site, an amount which will add 5 years of capacity to the Durham Road Landfill assuming this site continues to serve only Fremont, Newark, and Union City. This estimate of site life capacity is a conservative calculation based on the worst-case assumption of no additional diversion over current levels. BFI is planning an expansion of the Vasco Road Landfill when the existing capacity has I been exhausted. The amount of additional solid waste disposal capacity this expansion would add is not known. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nItSF R7SnuwutCHAMILS 8-9 ' In addition, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority is also pursuing purchase of land for subsequent development for landfill disposal purposes. The amount of additional ' solid waste disposal facility capacity this project would add is not known. The Altamont Landfill expansion,Durham Road Landfill, and the siting of a new Authority landfill would all occur in the short term. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 571r11117ORTTOmLmcx.v'm. 1 Ii 1 1 1 I CHAPTER 9 FUNDING COMPONENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 1 1 ' CHAPTER 9 ' FUNDING COMPONENT This chapter describes the funding sources and alternatives for the SRR Element programs for the City of Dublin (Dublin), as well as establishing the adequacy of funds for the implementation of the programs. This chapter begins with an identification of potential funding sources, and follows with a summary of SRR Element program costs. This chapter concludes with an identification of adequate funding sources to meet program costs, as well as an identification of contingency funding sources. Potential Funding Sources The ability to identify adequate and reliable funding sources to plan,develop,and implement 1 SRR Element program is essential to the effectiveness of the programs. The evaluation and selection of funding sources is generally made in consideration of the type and reoccurring nature of the specific program costs. Programs which consist of recurring administrative and general operations costs are normally funded on a "pay-as-you-go" basis while programs consisting of 1 larger one time capital costs are normally funded through debt fmancing. A number of sources of funds are available for both type of funding programs. These sources are detailed below. Pay-As-You-Go-Programs. Programs consisting predominantly of administrative, operational and limited one time costs that are recurring program costs are normally funded on ' a pay-as-you-go basis. This means that revenues collected during the operational year of the program are used to directly pay for annual program costs. Pay-as-you-go systems have the advantage over debt financing of having no associated interest expense. Programs to be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis by the unincorporated areas include the following: ' General Administration Programs. The costs associated with the general administration of solid waste programs including administrative and miscellaneous expense associated with the general planning and development of programs. Source Reduction Programs. The costs associated with the source reduction programs identified in Chapter 3. These costs for Dublin include those associated with the establishment of the development of recycled and reusable products procurement guidelines. In addition, the costs of monitoring and reporting for the source reduction programs is included. 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 5719n0ve170usLOecHAna9 9-2 1 Education and Public Information Program. The costs associated with the development and information of the public education and information program identified in Chapter 7. These costs include the costs of Dublin's media campaign; the community outreach program; the school program; and the commercial, industrial, and professional program. In addition, the cost of monitoring and reporting is included. Money collected by pay-as-you-go systems is generally deposited into a municipal fund, typically a solid waste enterprise fund, to pay for recurring program expenses. A reserve consisting of working capital allowance and limited capital project expense (renewal and replacement) is normally maintained in this fund to ensure that adequate funds are available to cover fluctuations in expenses. Sources of money paid into the fund include the following: Direct User Fees. Direct user fees include fees which are charged directly to the party receiving the specific service. Examples of direct user fees include fees paid directly to Dublin or a franchised service provider for activities such as curbside recycling service. When programs which would normally require debt financing by a jurisdiction are franchised to another entity, the program cost funding mechanism for the jurisdiction becomes a pay-as-you-go system as opposed to a debt finance system. The reason for the change in funding status is that the jurisdiction does not have to issue debt for the program cost. The advantage of this is that the county does not have to issue public debt. The disadvantage is that the tax incentives for municipal ownership are lost. Even if the jurisdiction can assist the private entity in obtaining Private Activity Bonds,resulting in tax I free bonding status, the entity will be required to pay other operating and property taxes. In addition, a return on equity is allowed for private operation, increasing the total cost of providing-the service. Franchise Fees. Franchise fees are typically collected by the jurisdiction from the firm providing franchised service as a charge for conducting business. These fees can be used 1 only for monitoring the franchise agreement and cannot be used for general purposes. Grants. A series of grants are available from Federal, State, special authorities and nonprofit organizations to fund or partially fund specific programs. Examples of these grants include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Conservation, and California Integrated Waste Management Board grants to fund SRR Element programs and facilities. It should be noted, however, that grant funding is highly competitive and is not an assumed source of funding for SRR Element programs. Surcharges. Surcharges are additional charges collected by a regulatory agency or jurisdiction to fund or partially fund programs not directly related to the charge, in contrast to direct user charges. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrameisourLnrCHwTa» ' 9-3 Business License Tax. Jurisdictions can develop a business license tax for refuse haulers, targeted business which produce certain types of solid waste, or a general business license tax which pays into the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. Under California law, however, imposition of a new city tax would need to be approved by a majority vote of the Dublin electorate. Debt Financing Programs. While pay-as-you-go programs are normally adequate for funding administrative costs and routine capital projects, the cost of some capital projects is of a magnitude would require the issuance of public or private debt. Because the issuance of private debt is in effect a pay-as-you-go system as it relates to Dublin, the debt financing discussion contained in this section is limited to public debt. The major advantage of public debt financing and ownership is the tax free status of the bond and the system operation, effectively reducing the capital and operating cost of the project. As previously discussed, the consideration of whether to issue public debt for a facility or to franchise the service to a private firm involves a number of issues. Foremost among these issues is the question of waste ownership. Generally, the entity which owns and operates the solid waste facility must own or be able to direct the solid waste. Therefore, in order to be able to issue public debt for a facility or to award a franchise to a firm not presently providing solid 1 waste collection service, an entity must first prove that the firm presently providing franchised solid waste collection service does not own the waste. The legal determination of waste ownership is based largely on the language of the solid waste collection franchise agreement. 1 Prior to considering either public debt fmancing or private financing of capital projects, a city must resolve waste ownership issues. To assist in resolving the waste ownership issue, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority(ACWMA)has asked a consultant,Brown,Vence and Associates, to examine this issue in a study of the feasibility of siting one or more regional or subregional MRFs or composting facilities. ' Dublin will need to determine whether they want to issue public debt for a compost facility or whether they will franchise the operations to a private firm. If they decide to franchise the operations, the facility will effectively be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. If they decide to issue public debt, there are a number of methods it can use. These methods include the following: General Obligation Bonds. General Obligation bonds (GO bonds) are debt obligations secured by the "full faith and credit " of the issuer and by a pledge of its taxing power ' without limit as to rate or amount. Proposition 13, however, greatly restricts the ability of California municipalities to use GO bond funding. GO bonds are normally considered the most secure form of municipal bonds and resulting in both the highest marketability and ' lowest interest rate for the bonds. The major disadvantage of GO bonds is that they require a two-thirds support of residents in a special ballot issue. i 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper n,trsoxrsouuu canna, 9-4 1 Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds are debt obligations which are payable solely from the revenues generated by an operating enterprise. For a material recovery project, repayment would be made exclusively from solid waste disposal fees (tipping fees) and revenues received from the sale of recovered materials. As mentioned before, waste ownership questions must be resolved prior to debt issuance. For a compost facility, repayment would be made exclusively from green waste disposal fees and revenues received from the sale of finished compost (if any). City ordinances mandating disposal of all green waste to the compost facility would be required to meet waste ownership requirements for the bond. The primary advantage of revenue bonds is that they do not consume a city's debt capacity since there is no pledge of entity credit. The disadvantage of revenue bonds is that they are generally less secure than GO bonds and hence have higher interest rates. In addition, revenue bonds require bond covenants mandating stricter facility control as well as establishing reserve funding accounts. Revenue bonds require simple majority voter approval. Joint Powers Authority Revenue Bonds. Joint Power Authority (JPA) revenue bonds are revenue bonds issued to a group of cities or jurisdictions whose authority is combined under a joint powers agreement. JPA revenue bonds have the advantage of reducing bond issuance costs and increasing the credit rating of the issue. However, JPA revenue bonds require majority approval of total votes cast within the boundaries of the total area affected by the proposed facility. Lease Revenue Bonds. Lease revenue bonds (Certificates of Participation) are debt instruments which are structured so that the project is supported from lease or rental payments instead of directly by project revenues. By defining the financing in this manner, 1 the credit rating of the entity can be pledged instead of limiting the repayment mechanism to just the project revenues. In addition,lease revenue bonds do not require voter approval. Short-Term Program Costs The short-term program costs associated with the City of Dublin's solid waste diversion I program are presented in Table 9-1. Programs to be implemented in the short term include source reduction, recycling, special waste, and education and public information component programs; the composting programs identified for consideration in this SRR Element will occur after 1995 in the medium term. These cost estimates have been developed for planning purposes; the actual costs of programs will vary. Table 9-1 estimated program costs were developed as follows: 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper TIN.EPORISOIaLINCKAIIa9 I ITABLE 9-1 a SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS City Of Dublin • PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 91-92 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96 SOURCE REDUCTION Uniform Can Rate $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 Home Composting 100 100 100 100 100 Procurement Guidelines 0 550 550 550 550 ' Subtotal $1,200 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 RECYCLING Residential Curbside Expansion $15,900 $31,800 $31,800 $31,800 $31,800 Office Paper Recycling 0 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 Direction of Inerts to Facailities 1000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ISubtotal $16,900 $45,900 $45,900 $45,900 $45,900 COMPOSTING I Yard Waste Collection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I SPECIAL WASTE Asbestos Monitoring Program $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Bulky Item Recycling/Reuse 0 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 ' Medical Waste 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Used Tires 0 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 Subtotal $3,000 $3,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 ' EDUCATION/PUBUC INFORMATION . Community Organization Outrea $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 IPublic Information/Media 0 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 School Programs 0 0 5,500 5,500 5,500 Programs Targeted to Business 0 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 Subtotal $5,500 $16,500 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 TOTAL COST I $26,600 I $67,150 I $77,650 I $77,650 I $77,650 ' Fiscal year 91-92 begins in July. • I I I I 9-6 1 Source Reduction Programs. Source reduction programs for Dublin's SRR Element include a continuation of restructuring Dublin's garbage collection rates with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate,continuation of support for the Alameda County Home Composting Education Program, and implementation of a city government policy to favor purchase of reusable products and products containing recycled material content. The total estimated cost for implementing and monitoring these source reduction programs is $1,750 per year. The costs associated with rate restructuring activity are administrative staff costs and monitoring and evaluation costs. Administrative costs for this program are estimated at $1,000 per year, and monitoring and evaluation costs are estimated at $100 per year. The costs associated with providing support for the County home composting program are a negligible amount for administrative staff costs and $100 per year for monitoring and evaluation costs. The costs associated with the development of a recyclable products procurement policy are $500 per year for administrative staff costs and $50 per year for monitoring and evaluation. 1 Recycling Programs. Recycling programs considered for implementation in the short term include an expansion of the existing residential curbside collection program to include multi- family residences in Dublin and single-family residences electing to participate in the Curbside Collection Program after the institution of mandatory garbage collection service, implementation of a policy that encourages diversion of loads of concrete and asphalt inert waste to appropriate recycling facilities, and a collection program for source-separated white office paper. The total estimated cost for implementation and monitoring of these recycling programs is $45,900 per year. 1 The planning estimate of the cost of expanding Dublin's existing residential curbside collection program is $28,800 per year. Monitoring and evaluation costs for this program are ' estimated to be $3,000 per year. The costs associated with implementing a policy to encourage diversion of concrete and I asphalt inert wastes to recycling facility are estimated at $1,500 per year for program implementation and $500 per year for monitoring and evaluation. The costs associated with implementation of a commercial office high-grade paper recycling program are estimated at $11,000 per year; monitoring and evaluation costs for this program are $1,100 per year. Special Waste Programs. Special waste programs for Dublin's SRR Element entail support for several countywide programs. These include support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program of the County Environmental Health Department, work with the County to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, and support for new county programs to divert bulky 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrarroenmi®LIMCHunras 9-7 items, and to reuse and recycle used tires. The total estimated cost for implementing and ' monitoring these programs is $8,000 per year. The only cost associated with city support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program is $500 for monitoring and evaluation of this program. ' Costs associated with city cooperation with the county in implementing the Medical Waste Management Act are $2,000 for implementation of this program and $500 for monitoring nd evaluation. Costs associated with support for bulky item recycling and reuse are $3,000 for implementation and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. Finally, costs associated with support for a county program to divert used tires are $1,000 for implementation and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. Education and Public Information Programs. Education and public information programs considered for implementation in the short term include a community outreach program, a public information media program, a school information program and a program or education and public information targeted toward Dublin's business community. Total estimated costs for these programs are $22,000 per year. Costs associated with the community outreach program include$5,000 per year for program implementation and $500 per year for monitoring and evaluation. Costs associated with the public information media campaign include $5,000 per year for program implementation and $500 per year for monitoring and evaluation. • 1 Costs associated with the school information program include $5,000 per year for program implementation and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. Finally, costs associated with programs targeted toward Dublin's business community include $5,000 for program implementation and $500 for monitoring and evaluation. ' Revenue Source Identification Two primary revenue sources will initially be used to fund Dublin's solid waste diversion programs--waste import mitigation funds and direct user fees. ' Waste import mitigation funds are received from San Francisco and Contra Costa County to reduce the impact of their utilization of Alameda County's landfill capacity. For the fiscal year 1991-92, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) included in its budget a total appropriation of $1 million derived from waste import mitigation funds. These monies are to be distributed among ACWMA's seventeen member agencies on the basis of an 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper "I,a T,00ILWCHAna9 9-8 initial allocation of $25,000 per agency with the remainder of the $1 million apportioned in accordance with each jurisdiction's relative share of total waste tonnage generated in Alameda County. The amount of waste import mitigation money Dublin will receive in fiscal year 1991-92 is shown in Table 9-2. Direct user fees to partially cover the costs of component programs scheduled for implementation in the short term include the following: • Fees to cover costs of expanding the existing residential curbside collection program 1 to include multifamily residences in Dublin; and • Fees to cover costs of implementing a source-separated high grade office paper 1 collection program. The costs associated with expanding the residential curbside collection program to include 1 multifamily residences will be a new recycling charge paid to Livermore-Dublin Disposal by owners of multifamily dwelling units. The costs of the source-separated high grade office paper collection program will be paid for by a separate recycling fee charged to participating Dublin businesses by the businesses providing commercial recycling services. In addition, the costs of commercial high grade office paper recycling could be partially offset by revenues from the sale of recyclable materials. Whether this happens will depend on whether commercial recyclers choose to include in their fee for services a discount for expected revenues from sale of recyclable materials. An estimate of the amount of revenue Dublin will receive from waste import mitigation I funds and direct user fees, is shown in Table 9-2. Sources of Contingency Funding , The City of Dublin will fund costs associated with its solid waste diversion program through direct user fees, and waste import mitigation funds. Should these revenues not be sufficient to meet program costs, Dublin will evaluate implementing alternative sources of funding including increasing residential and commercial solid waste collection rates through a waste diversion program surcharge, Alameda County Waste Management Authority grants, or other sources. 1 1 1 i City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 771sa0omwueIn+cxAnm9 • ITable 9-2. Summary of Program Costs and Revenues, dollars FY FY FY FY FY Program description 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 IPROGRAM REVENUES Mitigation feea 10,100b 0 0 0 0 IDirect user fees 16,500 67,150 80,150 80,150 80,150 Total program revenues (including I net revenues from previous year) 26,600 67,150 80,150 80,150 80,150 PROGRAM COSTS 1 Source reduction 1,200 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 IRecycling 16,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,900 IComposting 0 0 0 0 0 1 Special wastes 3,000 3,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Education/public information 5,500 16,500 22,000 22,000 22,000 I Total program costs . 26,600 67,150 80,150 80,150 80,150 INet program revenues 0 0 0 0 0 alnitial funding was for a one-year period; City will seek continued support for other activities. IbActual mitigation grant amount may be different since funds were used to support other eligible activities. I I I I I I5715VREPORTSDUBLIN\DUBnN.T92 1 I I 1 1 CHAPTER 10 INTEGRATION COMPONENT I 1 I I ,I 1 I I 1 1 I City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 1 CHAPTER 10 INTEGRATION COMPONENT This component contains a description of the solid waste management practices that promote integrated waste management in the City of Dublin (Dublin), and an explanation of how Dublin has integrated the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Waste components to achieve the 25 and 50 percent mandates specified by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The chapter begins with a description of the solid waste management practices which Dublin will implement to promote integrated waste management and follows this with an explanation of how Dublin has integrated the components to maximize the use of all ' feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting options. The chapter then discusses how the components jointly achieve the 25 and 50 percent diversion mandates and provides an explanation of how priorities between components were determined. Finally, the chapter concludes with an integrated schedule summarizing all implementation tasks previously identified in the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, Special Waste and Education and Public Information components and the anticipated date of achievement of the required solid waste diversion mandates. Integrated Solid Waste Management Practices To achieve the diversion requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act, 1 Dublin must develop and implement waste diversion programs which conform to the integrated waste management hierarchy of (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and disposal. In Dublin, this has been achieved by first identifying source reduction activities which the city can implement to decrease the quantity of waste generated in Dublin, by then developing recycling and composting programs for waste which will continue to be generated within the city and then by developing programs to ensure hazard reduction and environmentally safe disposal of the remaining wastes which are not likely to be diverted through other source reduction, recycling or composting activities. i The specific source reduction, recycling, composting and special waste activities which ■ Dublin intends to implement are as follows: Source Reduction • A restructuring of garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate. 1 City of Dublin • Printed on recycled paper mruvnoxisnow,wci ArTaIo 10-2 i • Support for the Alameda County Home Composting Education Program. • Consider implementation of a city government offices procurement policy that favors I purchase of products with recycled material content. Recycling !� • Expansion of Dublin's existing Residential Curbside Collection Program to multifamily households and single-family residences electing to participate in this program after the imposition of mandatory garbage collection service. • Consideration where appropriate of directing inert loads of concrete/asphalt to existing I commercial facilities that recycle these materials. • Consideration of establishing a source-separated high grade office paper collection I program. • Study and evaluation of participation in the medium term regional materials recovery I facility (MRF) by directing all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility. Composting 1 • Study and evaluation of the development and implementation of subregional composting programs for source-separated yard waste. • Consider providing for source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from residences to the subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste to this same facility. Special Waste • Continue to support the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control I Division (APCD) of the County Environmental Health Department in order to reduce as much as possible the risks associated with asbestos removal. This activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium terms. • Consider supporting appropriate programs to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse. • Work with the County to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in order to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes and provide documentation of quantities. • Support appropriate programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nmsnsvommDuauwduwnaia 10-3 Component Integration Dublin, through existing source reduction, recycling, and composting activities, currently diverts 24.4 percent of its waste stream. This rate of diversion is only slightly less than the 25 percent diversion rate required by 1995; thus, Dublin has nearly achieved this short-term planning period goal. To reach the medium-term planning period goal of 50 percent diversion by 2000, Dublin will continue its existing diversion activities and implement the programs discussed above. Dublin will achieve 25 percent diversion in 1993 and 50 percent in 1998. Table 10-1 shows how the programs combine to achieve the required diversion rates. Component Priorities The following criteria have been utilized to determine priorities for implementation of source reduction, recycling, composting and special waste programs: • Conformity to the integrated waste management hierarchy. 1 • Cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation. • Effectiveness in reducing total wastes generated. • Effectiveness in reducing hazard potential and other potential adverse environmental effects. Integrated Schedule Table 10-2 shows the proposed timeframe for implementation of all programs presented in this SRR Element and the anticipated date of achievement of the solid waste diversion mandates specified in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Figure 10-1 shows the schedule for availability of funds. 1 r i 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper nunmomsow,urcxnnRZio 1 Table 10-1. Component Program Diversion Rates 1 Waste diversion program Baseline 1995 2000 I Source reduction , County home composting program .2 .2 Procurement guidelines <.1 <.1 Uniform can rates <.1 <.1 Existing second-hand distributors 1.9 1.9 1.9 Total source reduction 1.9 2.1 2.1 Recycling programs I Curbside recycling expansion 1.2 1.2 Direction of inerts 1.6 1.6 I Office paper recycling 3.5 Materials recovery facility 17.1 Existing recycling distributors 22.5 22.5 22.5 1 Total recycling 22.5 28.8 42.4 Composting 1 Direction of yard waste to composting facilities 6.4 , Total composting - - 6.4 Special wastes -- -- -- Total diversion 24.4 30.9 54.4 • 1 I • 1 1 I I I 5715 REPORTS\DUBUN DUBLBV.101 I • o I Os 03 ch Ile N I i fen I a N O 40 C t O d A a m m cti m O m h en F a C N • • 0 I 40 - E tu 1 m • a.R � 0 � It ICe . . . • C ae In . • • I w ' 7 N R C ,,, zCZ a, ,C N u O U '� d v y U E e o R a 0 F a e 0 C u Ii S z �° > I, igE 'S = to0a1K '�E p a °O mp ° U „ 2 v o v 2 v a a" '.a o gy e - W ct C 4 t 0 = a N C� U 1 C� U .q u G�'CI" W a U M ? o 4 2 a 'E o E 5Oa g f*7 a g o a c C U' € v ,o p a t o g u t 'E o r v c b u ,1 o O 0 i y 2 c W 9 'I a Q F 2 W A U 8 Ca v, Ict a ] u a a s I o N IN en bq a — . I a , ri a N I _ ti d a I - m m U] O 0 00 on be y o o °� M IN .11 n C F C i+ I - C . E a a • V C. 1 E °: R et tl 0 CD N p I 0. 7 ~ I. 'C U • C I `-- a C .n MI M X 0 N I CO C --, lit zL I t, n OD I* E. it U U U 1 Li e Qep pe F a x w x 5C 4n Q Q a a I A C b 0 U y 0 N ' Z 00 3 y ^ u £ 7 t o n C T T A V L c 0 E co 3 •E g 0'N 9 UG N V■ U A G N 4 .S m g p 0 00 ch YI l .a S U = 1 z t E .5 a o a o .s 3 E •2 E 3 § W I a E .'°u. v Q " C h u E °' U o o E w r ,. w L L' p E € a $ U E .i 'y o A U ~4 °U 2 0) Q Q Q a • 1 0 1 M 4 - Cl' ed OP rn Q N I I wr en 1 N N m m m IM - I � .+ 000 000 00 Ca 0 CS O .S .S .S .5 .S .5 m pm m m 00 00 Y O o 8 • & o a. H F m O N • O , I u E a d 1 a E en I � � to" IN w ' V u a • CO C • 4^ - m I w N R O — 1 zI) •a N 0 O O ' •e'1 m •� U U 2 E e s 1 • E" 0 2 co ] 0 0 I aX U 0 o 00 00 .:d g .0 0 c9 > ' c I '2 y C •nC m ro c m u '' o-�r 2 '. F 20. u s' v C m .a 5 o o b 2 3 1 ° ao B B a 'g • e e u 1g0:1 ': g6' = gSg0D00g ..Egg „, gaigi I F o a o S a o F� o E m .n° • o o o Q P, Li c •2 3 1 '2 3 1 '2 C .' ° u y '2 v .2 a ° o '2 5 w w w o o z A a t°o < v Q.a a n4 u 2 0 I co- -:t I vt M A. I vt- en 1 1 1 N Y 9 I d u ° S CA m •e F il en N g C • V I E O IIM ■ S. 0\ en MI IM 1 E R N IOD re Pw O it u C V o N.. I R C en K'l a C 77 N a C Q o R .. U I zb b N u Q C 5 I ti =C 0 E• u F 6 o 0 I CS o M < Q to u "a o E x El t u c •c I c c o 0 � 'U) E a o p o • gcg 14 8 5 0 o o 1 $ C g t °� v " u U x el° 0 /11 u .N S n a b o ac� Ti c $ • m _ U a o P a v� E 0 0 ? N �` ° V U Ll o o 2 I E. y O C� o O U b U 4 o u a • E u o " o o 6 w U U O Q .O A i > > g Ap I CA I co I a 1 a I i I .0 I M— `o C) II • 7 la V v I u U J i L 7 O on C 'b C I W C W W r-i • O L DP kw 0 0 V E co m m a ' c m u c m a. mo >. > c aZ m t o O12. t E w C 0 ' ° r ° • np m u a w m m L V U o a '> m a m m. a m $ aE2 Em qao W t a m c ' c a � mm- ?,.E C m"mc r. a n o a 3 a. h Dam ¢ m.E .- cc mo a ¢ a °a - u e wmV ti Q. 7mu > a u c a c 9 [ as m y m . u L 2 m c m u c c c C mo'e m ..� m E c a > c I y 3 u E a u 1 m 3 $ ° E > a n ¢ , c° . 3 a u° Q aE a • I u I f 1 Household Hazardous f Waste Element 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT CITY OF DUBLIN This report describes the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element for the City of ' Dublin (Dublin). HHW is defined by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) as "any discarded material from homes that may threaten human health or the environment if disposed of incorrectly." Examples of HHW include leftover paint,used oil, used auto batteries, cleansers, furniture polish, pesticides, and pool chemicals. The California State Legislature recognized the importance of proper disposal of HHW by requiring local governments to establish comprehensive programs for managing HHW as part of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). AB 939 requires all counties and cities in the state to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills and to plan and implement HHW programs. A new law,AB 2707, specifically addressing the issue of HHW, was passed in January 1991 by the state legislature. AB 2707 elevates the importance of HHW management by making the HHW component a separate element that is similar to the Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element. This HHW Element includes a discussion of objectives, existing conditions, an evaluation of several HHW program alternatives, selection of a program, implementation details and a monitoring and evaluation program in accordance with Article 6.3 of Chapter 9, Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (State Planning Guidelines), Title 14, California Code of Regulations. Alameda County (County), supported by all its cities, has pursued the development of a HHW program for the last several years. The County has acknowledged the need for a HHW management program in the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP, July 1987) and in the subsequent County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Tanner Plan, March 1989). On the basis of these planned documents and the passage.of AB 939 (1989) and AB 2707 (1990) which also require the County to develop and implement a HHW program, the Alameda County ' Waste Management Authority(Authority)developed a HHW/Mini-Generator Collection Program which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors in June 1990. The proposed HHW program consists of building three permanent HHW collection facilities to be located in the northern, southern, and eastern sections of the County. Further details on the Countywide HHW program is presented in the section, Selection of HHW Programs The countywide HHW and load checking programs are chosen as the HHW program for Dublin. Dublin's role in this program consists of the following: City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 571mwxnnusLnwonan 2 • Participation of elected Dublin representative in policy decisions by the ACWMA regarding the HHW program. • Rates have been adjusted to include County-imposed surcharges on garbage rates to cover Dublin's share of the County HHW program costs. • Encourage the residents of Dublin to use one of three proposed permanent HHW facilities in the County by disseminating County literature and other means. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT OBJECTIVES Short- and medium-term objectives have been established for the HHW Element for 1995 and 2000, respectively. For each time period, the objectives identified are based on data collected by the Solid Waste Generation Study. Using criteria established by state regulations, Dublin has identified objectives and selected programs which include plans to safely collect, recycle, treat, and dispose HHW. Short-Term Objectives 1 1. Support Alameda County's HHW program by participating in the Countywide HHW Program when the permanent facilities come on-line. , 2. Encourage public participation in the County program by advertising the availability 1 and purpose of the permanent HHW disposal facilities. 3. Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection ' facilities to 5 percent of Dublin's households by 1995. 4. Reduce by 10 percent the amount of HHW commingled with the solid waste at solid waste facilities by 1995. 1 Medium-Term Objectives 1. Continue short-term programs. 2. Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection facilities to 10 percent of Dublin's population by 2000. 3. Reduce by 25 percent the amount of HHW commingled with the solid waste at solid waste facilities by 2000. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper m,woenourn.wamwart 3 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EXISTING CONDITIONS Based on the solid waste generation study conducted by Brown and Caldwell Consultants ' (BCC), approximately 73 tons per year of HHW is disposed by the residents of Dublin. This amounts to 0.9 percent of the total residential solid waste (7,864 tons) disposed per year or 0.1 percent of the total waste generated per year(55,143 tons). The total waste generated is the sum ' of residential, commercial, and industrial waste generated within Dublin. The types of HHW expected to be generated within Dublin include latex paints, oil-based paint, used oil, used batteries, solvents, cleaners, paint thinners, acids, antifreeze, automotive materials, asbestos, ' polishes, garden chemicals, preservatives and other chemicals. Dublin does not have a breakdown of the quantity of HHW disposed by waste type. The Solid Waste Generation Study was performed to fulfill the requirements of CCR Section 18722(j)(7)(B). The HHW collected at the one-day event were not classified by city or waste type. Load checking at solid waste facilities allows the landfill to remove any HHW that might ' have been inadvertently included in regular household disposal. Dublin waste is checked for HHW at the Altamont Landfill located in the unincorporated area of the County, under their load checking program. Dublin,in conjunction with the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore,conducted a 1-day HHW collection event in May 1990. The event was held at the Pleasanton Fire Training Facility in ' Pleasanton. The types of HHW collected during the event included paints, waste oil, antifreeze, flammable liquids (paint thinners, gasoline, charcoal lighter fluid), corrosives (acids), poisons-B items (garden chemicals, pesticides), and EPA nonregulated California waste (cleaners, polishes, etc.). Chemical Waste Management was contracted to provide the personnel and equipment for waste packaging,manifesting disposal,transportation, and general management of the site. ' The HHW collected during the event were handled as follows: • About 20 55-gallon drums of solids were bulked and shipped to a hazardous waste landfill. • About 277 55-gallon drums and 1 30-gallon drum of liquid waste were also shipped to a hazardous waste landfill. ' • About 94 55-gallon drums of oil-based paints were shipped to the OSCO fuels recycling facility in Azusa, California. • ' • Three 5-gallon drums of other hazardous waste were shipped for incineration at Trade Waste Incineration (TWI) in Sauget, Illinois. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper VIW/PMITOUBLn.MnwM 4 1 The total cost of the event was $161,452 which included the initial setup costs. This cost does not include Dublin's in kind contributions such as promotion, administration, and public information. Based on the number of participants from Dublin (10.2 percent), the city contributed $22,659 to the collection event. The City Council enacted a garbage surcharge of 20 cents per single-family customer and 15 cents per yard for multifamily bin service subsequent to the collection event to recover its share of the cost for the collection event. The surcharge was effective July 1, 1990, and total cost will not be recovered until the fourth quarter in 1991. Under Section 43400 of the Public Resource Code (PRC), the CIWMB has the authority to , award two types of grant funds; nondiscretionary and discretionary. A nondiscretionary grant is an award to reimburse a jurisdiction for HHW programs that were implemented in the fiscal year prior to the grant application period. A discretionary grant is an award to a jurisdiction to fund a proposed or implemented HHW programs. In accordance with Section 43400 of the PRC mentioned above, the cities of Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton have been recently awarded a grant of$16,487 by the CIWMB to reimburse the cost of the 1-day HHW collection event held in May 1990. The City of Dublin's share of this grant was approximately $2,300. Over the last 3 years, the County, under the guidance of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority) has been developing a countywide approach to hazardous waste management. The approved plan includes three hazardous waste facilities to receive, recycle, and dispose of hazardous waste from households and mini-generators. According to AB 2641, mini-generators are defined as businesses that generate less than 100 kilograms, or 220 pounds, of hazardous waste per month. The residents and mini-generators in Dublin will be serviced by one of the three proposed permanent HHW collection facilities. EVALUATION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES This section includes an evaluation of HHW diversion alternatives considered for local implementation by Dublin. In accordance with Section 18751.3 of the State Planning Guidelines, program alternatives considered were: 1. HHW collection programs such as periodic community-wide or neighborhood ' collection, permanent drop-off sites, and mobile collection. 2. Load-checking programs at solid waste management facilities. , 3. Recycling programs for HHW including waste oils, paints, and batteries. 4. Public education and information programs to support collection and recycling efforts. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mmaorwouewvwwnrr 1 5 ' A discussion of each of the above alternatives is presented below. HHW Collection Programs HHW collection programs fall in the category of either periodic collection events or collection through a permanent HHW collection facility. A periodic collection event is a process where HHW is collection at temporary set-up areas for a period of 1 or 2 days. A permanent HHW collection facility consists of features that are permanently built for collecting HHW and are usually open 3 to 6 days per week. A permanent facility is built to handle most types of HHW whereas periodic collection events are somewhat limited to the types of HHW they can ' handle. A mobile collection system consists of HHW collection using specially equipped trucks which are set up at selected locations in the community neighborhoods. Another type of collection includes the formation of privately or publicly operated fee-for-service, door-to-door, ' or curbside HHW collection programs. Load Checking Program Load checking at a solid waste management facility is a process by which selected incoming loads of solid wastes are checked for the presence of HHW in order to prevent the disposal of ' HHW in solid waste landfills. Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations require all solid waste management facilities to have a load checking program. Load checking currently occurs at all transfer stations and landfills servicing the County. The HHW collected through load ' checking is handled by either recycling or disposal in a hazardous waste facility. The landfill operators use load checking not only to retrieve inappropriately disposed of wastes, but also to identify the origin and notify the generator of proper disposal procedures for HHW. Usually, a load checking program requires a separate area within the solid waste management facility. The load is spread out on a concrete pad to be inspected by a trained load checking specialist. The facility also needs an area to accommodate the HHW that is found in the loads until it is sorted ' for appropriate disposal or recycling. Recycling Programs Recycling programs generally involve separating the recyclable HHW such as used car ' batteries, used oil, and latex paint which are subsequently shipped to recycling companies. Public Education and Information Programs Public education and information programs are used to disseminate information to the public regarding proper 1111W disposal techniques. Informational materials describe proper techniques ' for source reduction, recycling, collection, and disposal of HHW. Typical public education and information methods include distribution of brochures and leaflets, newspaper and television advertisements, and implementation of education programs in kindergarten through twelfth grade classes. These programs can be very effective in reducing the amount of HHW generated and in educating people about proper disposal techniques. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 571,MPORTAMMLIMMIWAPT 6 Each of these program alternatives is evaluated in Table 1 according to criteria mandated by Section 18751.3 of the State Planning Guidelines for the HHW Element and summarized below. Analysis of Alternatives The recycling and disposal of HHW was analyzed by the Authority in 1989. Their decision was to construct three permanent countywide facilities for the transfer and temporary storage of HHW. The focus of this analysis is to review this decision and to determine whether additional efforts are necessary. County Program. As Table 1 indicates, although periodic and permanent collection are , both successful approaches, a permanent drop-off facility is superior to periodic collection because of the additional costs and hazards of a periodic program. Hazards are inherent in any HHW program, but they can be more easily prevented in a permanent facility. In reviewing the program, the County also considered the factors listed below: • Ability to service mini-generators as well as households, thus increasing the storage, treatment, recycling, and disposal options for wastes in a broader community. • Ability to consolidate wastes and to provide on-site treatment or recycling. • Ability to coordinate other programs such as waste minimization, • Anticipated changes in the waste stream. Countywide facilities are able to incorporate these important features more easily than periodic collection with no permanent facility. As described in the Selection of HHW Program section, the County program includes the chemical identification and recycling, as appropriate, of hazardous materials received. The large- scale nature and permanent operation of the three sites facilitate the recycling of a wide variety of hazardous materials. The County program includes a public information program, which Dublin will supplement locally. Dublin's future efforts will supplement the County's public information program. Dublin will disseminate the public information materials developed by the County to publicize the permanent HHW collection site. The County program more than adequately satisfies Dublin's needs and AB 2707 requirements. Load Checking. Recognizing that load checking is currently being implemented by the local solid waste management facilities,the County has incorporated no new program in this area. Because of the existence of a load checking program at Altamont Landfill where Dublin's waste is currently load checked, a separate load checking program is not necessary. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper msaeonrrnmLnnowxrr U ° O ti 0 E .Qay a b °c' a o �'� o (Qy� ' J o •� a •4 °' ° • p °u 0 d V q p y 0• i "g O O a y °d ' g' O ° A a�� ° o g g e a ta a." I re �as i o as > d N @ ; 1. 8. m oE o ¢ -o °° .6 ea N V u O U U W et G• O G o �O 0 O Ee g g c to' E ,� o b ° 4 a o � 0o PR g co C o d° I +� O d � V � 2 ea S eo ° v 3 i c a •' r re ° w g a C ` aUO � fn Eo u °� E ab C & U 2 A t $° °a U o E .- i2 � 8 E � na E � ; Q o� $ 2v � $ ° U Y g ' g p �v O O a .y 1M b U . m a p o V a� g .E °111 o d y a d U 'a •A • v. Y & S .2 C i � n 4 W a w �w "5 ..0 $ d t El E ,...0 y w ` 1 � i a s n - _ 2 .t � a �. 9 U p p1 >W €N € " R � a a > � N y r w b O p L H .a . 8 a w § n. y to o 2 • L t E v M O N N co -8 y t n, U O 09 0 N Y W ° W c. 2 W .5 � y N U N Y °V 0 8 8 2 p . O 0 cc p O U ` N N .71 rti O at D C 8 V ' O 4,43 8 .. d .9 ' 2G 2 'qy a. . 8 O •$p G o y m N ° 4 p vi ° U U U 2 w8p � w Uc a SA' .i F° Ti. g se4 d N a C I a ' v 'C .0 o ° 9 a C t. 0 d p O N d E n ' I a ' x 'ate z c) 0 2 1 El I C C O O 0 O y .> .o t�- 7 > aaL �, � 2 N U O I b; Y ° N -s O �O . U C O '0 by o y U > o N �N 'y.s N N ' N C ❑ W U o .8 E ❑ O ON I O O P U 00 0 .^moo o e 2 ° ❑ .0• ° O ° 2 ° I d °c E r., g E d '. 0 . c C0 V L' O cd p 8 « " O `18 14 t ❑ 4 'O O N d O 2 :. •= 41 p � U o K 's o m O N ° .d w.0 - ` .g C T U > g M k 7 N rU-• . C .151 .6 E 414 I.IS 7 V o d A Via c o ' , o • o, �. 0...a ° ❑ v o d E ° N a O 'R v P E d O goAt , o oWN E 4 ❑ � � Uo F en meA T ❑c a C '0 ❑ o 7 N❑ N °a ° � 0 � � � A E 4. C..) E 3 U o al •R a 8 w S � .� I d o 'a R o ti E ._i ❑ N t'` Q o A C. .S ❑ d ❑ a a+ ° P oR. 4 • > m j .0 v o " ❑ .0 P. a 3 U F 0° o o e e o o a E c .o ❑ y U 9 U ° o O g ra ,O om 'e .s — a4 > � i 1 N p o N ° wg y y 7 8 o 7 g 2 t ; eb �d ca a o w -v w E -0 E ans vt a ❑, I N spa' I R y N ° W ° U U i co o o E rg -a > W a I I I F O a I . 2 c c € q� 77�xj• O w E :: �L N O T I . 9 o aQ � aC ° g •t g rata ° 2 1 a oyE ryoo � a � o z.el ifri I 9 ° 2 § = U c a, m a, a s ay „ a. 8 • O d 3 b o E b d o° d• •� c dx c ° $ E z g 'e -22 u 8 z €° o.a I .� O '3 w c 00'a > y = p g 9 w C . c p : �d y �' w a a�yi .t� 6y .°wn �a . °�i a ° � 0 � 3 3 aC) 0 0 0= y '2- '9 t o pi v go a ° E 5xb � y = 1 0 E o o dF, a i A O y r V y d a °ab - Nx ° g E0CSo t �' o � . to C go sr z oea9 ]°C v eqo `°' � ¢� d1 y °� = � i aU V� I.0 U a' a . 9�44 E F° c N ° E2 v 2 en x. e A a o 9 s gx I o r•:. LO N o O 7 8 ti W ga ° j > t ° Ea 9d a1 VI 2 n 213 i I 2 I a 2- 0 E E n I 1 00 0 t A I E" a �� �d 2 a0 ii o E L°D° t77 0•0 at O O m 1 �o ab O9a _ x m.a y = o r ' a) p a) t " ° A p a to sa ot ° �' z0 la JD . d es > a a�i o $ = ' 5b m � v It-° a Fca a . < &e 8 9 F° ° E a) 9 im I y x v •a 0 ° a I a c k ed E o O a °ti O O O I ° a d Z a ti z U 0 I CAD I o a of 1 0 It 0 a 1 o L' a 2 n I = U a 3 A 0 a o W :: U c 0 1 a 'a 0 g .� z ck 2 y > S2 2 _ C '9 u m `� �O 5. y° v3' - O a '~' I. a '6 a° Q.v c. t co kO OP4 bd � 0fl 0 ,34 O C p E o o 6. W B °o & a ° m o ° u. ca c ats2 > 4 c y 6 Ch Q .c c I � E o v ° 0 °' ° d> E o o °' t° -at u o C4 U 2 g 8 a om E c O ' 0 73 aw �mg � d " ;� 8 `"" ° > e � adSF a00 a8 d � W 0 do 2 0 o c k C c 2 c o f 'A m �r 0 ° 3 '4 a d o O o 7i 1 9 > o o o c Q c •g 0 m .. c ° a , 0 T.4 L. 0 .S •0 m 5 0E '0 2 > > c E v a d � �.91 I F 5 a ar 1..) 4:. 0 0 o 0 o at , .a .1 'M a c �+ �9 c i ,E § o aE yB '° ° 0 0 0 0 I FEy0'549 I-° c0 = 0 .90J 0L° daXUc 1 N a) a) IC y C. v. d .0 O ° I It C A a .n W a I I 11 SELECTION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM This section discusses the HHW programs that were selected by Dublin as mandated by ' Section 18751.4 of the State Planning Guidelines for the HHW Element. Dublin has selected participation in the County's permanent HHW collection facility, which includes collection, recycling, and public education and information. ' County Program ' On the basis of the Tanner Plan and the passage of AB 939 and AB 2707, the Authority developed a Household Hazardous Waste/Mini Generator Collection Program which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors in June 1990. The program consists of building ' three permanent HHW collection facilities. Specific locations for these facilities have not been selected. However, the general locations of the facilities will be the north/central area, southern area, and eastern area of the County. A northern facility will cover the cities of Albany, ' Piedmont, Emeryville, Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda. The southern facility will cover the cities of Hayward, Castro Valley, Fremont, Union City, San Leandro, Newark, and some of the unincorporated areas of the County. The eastern facility will cover the cities of Livermore, ' Pleasanton, Dublin, and the remaining unincorporated areas of the County. A description of the proposed methods for handling and disposal of the HHW is provided later in this report. The Countywide HHW/Mini Generator Collection Program consists of the following individual programs: collection, recycling, and public education and information. One of the three proposed permanent HHW collection facility will be located in the eastern part of the county. This will be the designated HHW collection facility for Dublin. The cost to ' Dublin of participation in this facility is discussed in the Funding section. Collection of recyclable HHW, such as batteries, oil, and paint, will occur at permanent HHW collection facilities; at the Altamont Landfill where Dublin's waste is load-checked,HHW illegally disposed of with MSW will be detected and removed. The public education and information portion of the County program is described later in this report. Additional HHW Options Section 18751.4 of the State Planning Guidelines requires a discussion of the following issues in this section: • Material end-use markets • Handling and disposal at proposed facilities • Types and quantities of waste collected • Recycle and reuse efforts City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper niraewxmniaipnowart 12 • Public education programs • Cooperative HHW programs The three permanent facilities planned by the County will incorporate all of these issues and are discussed below. Material End-Use Markets. The planned facilities would be a transfer station where material will be consolidated and shipped to other places for recycling or disposal. There are a variety of wastes covered under HHW. Below is a list of the key waste streams and the anticipated end use for these products: • Used oil is one of the largest components of HHW. A breakdown on the quantity of used oil generated in Dublin is not available at this time. There are commercial facilities that process the oil including several recyclers within the County with this capability. • Paint is also a large component of HHW. There are two major types of paints: latex paint and oil-based paint. Latex paints are usually consolidated at the HHW facilities and distributed to consumers for personal use. Oil-based paints are usually shipped to incineration facilities for burning as fuel. Several paint companies also take back paint. Solid waste management facilities can also store latex paint (for a limited period of time) and encourage residents to take whatever paints they need. This type of "paint swap" is very popular in other communities. ' • Other household hazardous wastes that cannot be recycled will be shipped to the hazardous waste disposal facility in Kettlemen Hills,California,or the hazardous waste incinerator in Sauget, Illinois, or other facility licensed to receive such waste. Handling and Disposal at Proposed Facilities , These facilities will receive, recycle, and dispose of hazardous waste from households and mini-generators. The operation of each facility will consist of collection, chemical identification, sorting, storing, lab packing, recycling, and disposal. Facility staff will remove HHW from the users' vehicles, sort and identify the waste, recycle where appropriate, and lab pack for disposal. The disposal of the wastes will be handled by a licensed hazardous waste hauler under proper manifestation and supervision by the facility staff. The operating staff of the three facilities will consist of two qualified teams, each consisting of two hazardous materials specialists and two hazardous materials technicians. Overall administration, fee collection, data management, and public education will also be coordinated at the facilities. The operating schedules of the facilities have not yet been finalized. The County is considering flexible operating schedules depending on the participation by the homeowners,tenants, and business mini-generators. Home collection is also budgeted for handicapped people or people who do not have access to the three facilities. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper m,aoirauni,nmwart ' 13 Types and Quantities of Waste Collected. The proposed facilities will accept all ' hazardous wastes that are delivered except radioactive wastes and explosive. The wastes collected will be identified by waste type as listed in form CIWMB-303 (1/90). An estimate of these quantities by waste type is not available at this time because existing collection programs did not classify HHW by waste type. It is anticipated that Dublin will generate approximately 73 tons/year of HHW. Recycling and Reuse Efforts. In addition to the permanent drop-off facilities, the County is implementing a comprehensive plan to encourage source reduction and recycling of wastes. Used car batteries, used oil, and latex paint are recycled at the permanent collection facilities as ' explained earlier. The first priority of the County is to encourage source reduction, reuse, and recycling of HHW on site. The second priority is reuse and recycling off-site (at the facilities). Public Education Programs. The County will be developing a comprehensive public education program. Techniques that the County is considering to educate people about HHW are: ' • Develop a "waste minimization" week. • Local slide show or video. • Brochures and doorhangers on HHW disposal. ' • Advertising availability of facilities. Cooperative HHW Programs. The program proposed is a cooperative, countywide ' program designed to maximize participation through consistent information, techniques, and available resources. Every city in the County has agreed to support and publicize at the local city level the countywide permanent HHW facility program. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ' This section describes how and when the HHW programs selected by Dublin will be implemented. For each program, agencies or organizations responsible for program implementation are identified, the tasks necessary to carry out the program are described and ' known program implementation costs are discussed. Load Checking Load checking currently occurs at all transfer stations and landfills servicing the County. The operator of these facilities, in this case, Oakland Scavenger Company, is responsible for the ' implementation of this program. Since this program is already underway, a detailed discussion of necessary tasks and costs is not necessary. The program is funded through the general rate included in the Oakland Scavenger franchise with Dublin. 1 ' city of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mraooairowLcrwwxrr 14 Permanent Drop-off Facilities The County Department of Environmental Services is responsible for the development and operation of the proposed facilities. Since the approval to go forward, the County has completed the following tasks: 1. Initiated the implementation of a county-operated Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program effective July 1, 1990. 2. Imposed a tipping fee on County waste disposal site facility operators, effective October 1, 1990, to finance the costs of the HHW Collection program. 3. Created additional positions for the above program effective July 1, 1990. 4. Authorized the incorporation of the supplemental appropriation and revenue increases , of $1,781,300 each in the 1990-91 "final" budget for the HHW program budget. 5. Formed a Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program Technical Advisory Committee to assist in final program planning and operational logistics development. 1 6. Adopted a proposed resolution to include mini-generators in collection programs for household hazardous wastes. , The following tasks still need to be completed (the estimated dates of completion are listed next to the task): ' 1. Selection of site (September 1991) 2. Appropriate site-specific CEQA review (November-December 1991) 3. Acquisition of land required and land use approval (November-December 1991) 4. Planning and permitting (December 1991-Februrary 1992) 5. Design and construction of facilities (May-August 1992) 6 Staff selection and training (March 1992-August 1992) 7. Public Information Program (March 1992-August 1992) 8. Start-up (April-August 1992) 9. Mobile collection (January 1992-February 1992) Funding Requirements. A tipping fee is being imposed on the three landfills that is sufficient to fund the estimated $2.4 million annual operating costs. See the Funding Component for more information. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper 571M®ORTSOMI DNIHWAr1' ' 15 Public Information Program The majority of the public information program will be managed by the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Once the facilities have been built, the DEH will initiate the public information program. This will be an on-going program to maintain the visibility of the issue and to increase participation. ' HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION This section discusses the monitoring and evaluation techniques that will be used to track ' the success of the proposed HHW program. The techniques include the methodology, criteria for evaluating effectiveness, funding requirements, and contingency plan. Monitoring and Evaluation Techniques The program will use a combination of a Solid Waste Generation Study and data from the ' programs to evaluate the program success. When Dublin prepares the next Solid Waste Generation Study, HHW will be included as one of the items measured. In addition, the facilities will keep records on the types of wastes brought to the facility and the required storage,treatment ' and disposal steps using form CIWMB-303 (1/90). The load checking program at the Altamont Landfill will serve as a useful monitoring device ' for the effectiveness of the County programs. If public education efforts are successful in encouraging source reduction of HHW and disposal at the County's HHW facility, less HHW should be encountered in load checking. The amount of 1-111W collected through load checking ' will be tracked over time, adjusting for the number of loads checked per week. A comparison will be made based on an average of the quantities collected per load. ' Criteria for Success ' The program will be considered successful if the following quantitative objectives are met. 1. Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection ' facilities to 5 percent of Dublin's households by 1995. 2. Reduce by 10 percent the amount of HHW commingled with the solid waste at solid ' waste facilities by 1995. 3. Increase the number of Dublin residents using the Countywide HHW collection facilities to 10 percent of Dublin's population by 2000. • 1 ' City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrxEFOnnmuaivanmarr 16 4. Reduce by 25 percent the amount of HHW commingled with the solid waste at solid waste facilities by 2000. Responsible Party The County Department of Environmental Health,Health Services Department,will monitor 1 the success of the overall program, with the transfer station operators providing information on the load checking program to the County. Dublin will include this information in their annual updates to the Board. Funding Requirements Approximately $5,000 is reserved annually for monitoring and evaluation of the permanent collection program. The funding for the monitoring and evaluation part of the HHW program will be collected as part of the tipping fee required to fund the complete HHW program. Please refer to the Funding section. Measures to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall ' If the improvement in the HHW program is not realized, the County will initiate a study to determine the reason. Steps to be considered for implementation in case of a shortfall are: • Increased public education campaign. • Local drop-off programs that feed into the permanent facilities. • Imposition of strict fines for improper disposal of HHW. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION This section describes the education and public information objectives, existing programs, program implementation and monitoring and evaluation. Objectives State Planning Guidelines require that this section include objectives for the short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods. Short-Term Objectives 1. Achieve a 25 percent awareness level on the part of residents and mini-generators regarding Dublin's HHW Program and its efforts to reduce and recycle HHW. 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper rnsnwmmOoeLIWIawnrr ' 17 2. Encourage HHW education programs at 50 percent of Dublin's schools by 1995. Medium-Term Objectives 1. Achieve short-term goals at 75 percent level. Existing Conditions Dublin distributed brochures and other educational material providing information on disposal and recycling of HHW to the public before and after the 1-day HHW collection event. 1 A portion of the educational material consisted of "1111W Wheels" provided by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) which included information on how to recycle HHW. Dublin also intends to participate in the County's program and advertise its availability to residents. Program Selection The County will be developing a comprehensive public education program. Techniques that the County is considering to educate people regarding HHW are: • Develop a "waste minimization" week. • Local slide show or video. • Brochures and doorhangers on HHW disposal. • Advertising availability of facilities, The County has not yet defined its HHW public education program. Dublin will implement and enhance the County's program on the city level, as appropriate. Dublin plans to advertise the County's permanent HHW facility after it is completed, and to disseminate educational materials regarding HHW to schools and residences. 1 Program Implementation The Authority will administer and fund the countywide education and public information program. The County Department of Environmental Health will operate the program. Schedules for the implementation of Dublin's HHW public education and information programs, all of which include HHW, are presented in Table 2. Costs of the County's program are included in the overall plan. Revenues will be obtained through tipping fees. Please refer to the Funding section. 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mranorwotmmewwarr I a In e i • ~ N _ I I en ▪ N II .r I. . `r .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 I 0 ILI en O O oo C C • C C O CO I a Z U N C I C a IN i E a a C N M M I u ,-1 a MI 7 W : v L L 7 `n M . = A rn 0. 4, O ••• N . x• U N 1 T c ca 0 m I F .8 V Ca A C 0 I • en a L I 7 4 �'"• G S y m �: c u •c da�pp s 9 ti, > m ° C 7 3 .0 o o m & p': v c v O A u A 4 u ,� n w H 'A '� .5 .0 m .3 .0 g I .8 Q Z 4 F 3 a v ° ti o ° E c U v' 3 u c to u rail tr: U E € H 0 .. '° .. a o c c• 4. E ° v ' o > u ° E am • c .E C q "E y O d, s 6 v ti 2 E U ` U W U v h U q° p ' � 5 'S ya 1 • 1 19 Monitoring and Evaluation The criteria for evaluating education and public information programs will be the achievement of the short- and medium-term objectives described below. The overall effectiveness of the education and public information program will be assessed based upon the level of awareness. Short-Term Objectives 1. Achieve a 25 percent awareness level on the part of residents and mini-generators regarding Dublin's HHW Program and its efforts to reduce and recycle HHW. 2. Encourage HHW education programs at 50 percent of Dublin's schools by 1995. 3. Achieve a 75 percent awareness level on the part of residents and mini-generators regarding Dublin's HHW Program and its efforts to reduce and recycle HHW. 4. Encourage HHW education programs at 75 percent of Dublin's schools by 1995. To monitor achievement of specific objectives related to increased awareness, the County will conduct random sample surveys by mail, telephone, or in public malls or shopping areas. The surveys will focus on the public's awareness of HHW management programs offered by the County. The countywide permanent facility will keep track of the total number of participants from Ieach city and provide quarterly or semi-annual reports to all cities. The reports will include information on the number of participants and the amount of HHW collected from a particular jurisdiction. ' Responsible Party The County Department of Environmental Health,Health Services Department,will monitor the success of the overall program, with the transfer station operators providing information on the load checking program to the County. Dublin will include this information in their annual updates to the Board. ` Program Monitoring and Reporting Schedule Progress reports prepared by the permanent facilities will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Public surveys will be conducted in 1994 and 1999 to determine whether the programs need to be redirected in order to meet the goals established for 1995 and 2000. City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mraEPOrrsOUBLIM nICxvr 20 Measures to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall In the event that the objectives are not being achieved, the scope of some of the programs described above would need to be increased. The most probable area of increased emphasis would be the media campaign and business and community outreach programs. These programs could most easily be expanded and used to target the designated group by geography or other significant characteristics to improve awareness of participation. A low awareness and low participation level would indicate ineffective information 1 programs. A high awareness level with low participation may indicate that additional convenience or other motivation is needed in the actual diversion programs. FUNDING COMPONENT This section describes the funding mechanisms for planning, developing, and implementing the HHW program as required under Section 18751.8 of the State Planning Guidelines. The principal HHW program selected by Dublin is a countywide program implemented by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The funding of the countywide HHW program is described in this section as well as other HHW programs. Program Costs The County DEH has estimated the initial cost of the proposed countywide HHW program for the first year (1990-1991) to be $1,781,300. This "one-time" cost includes the acquisition of three proposed permanent collection facilities, preparation of environmental impact reports, and certain partial year staff and operating expenses (see Table 3 for details). Once the three permanent facilities are built, the annual operating costs for the proposed HHW collection program has been estimated at $2,375,000 (see Table 4 for cost details). Funding The County decided to fund the HHW program by imposing a tipping fee on County solid waste disposal facility operators of $1.32 per ton of municipal solid waste generated within the County and disposed at these facilities, effective October 1, 1990. The tipping fee was based on the estimate in Table 3, the amount of solid waste disposed in 1989 in the three landfills (Altamont, Durham Road, and Vasco Road)located within Alameda County, and a surcharge per of $,07 per ton to create a special committee to consider incentives for commercial/industrial ' recyclers. The County Waste Management Authority (CWMA) decided to abolish the surcharge of $.07 per ton and readjusted the tipping fee to $1.25 per ton, effective March 1, 1991. Based on approximately 1.91 million tons of solid waste disposed of in 1989 in the three landfills, the I 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper "1,a:OR1NNaU,MHW1PI 1 21 Table 3. Proposed 1990-91 HHW Program Costsa Item Amount, dollars Employee salaries and benefits $133,400 Services and suppliesb 397,900 Fixed assets Structures and improvements for three facilities 1,200,000 Equipment 50,000 Total 1,781,300 alnitial one-time cost for 9 months during the year 1990-91. bincludes $135,000 as estimated cost for leasing land with option to buy for three facilities for 9 months, office expenses, and $225,000 to cover the costs of three required Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). 1 Note: Cost figures for this table were obtained from DELI. 1 Table 4. Proposed Annual Operating Costs for the 1111W Program '• Item Amount, dollars Employee salaries and benefits 654,000 Services and supplies: Miscellaneous operating expenses 255,000 Purchase of drums for storage 110,000 Contract hauling and disposal 990,000 Lease of land (3 sites @ $60,000) 180,000 Administrative overhead 106,000 Other departmental expenses 50,000 Equipment 30,000 Total 2,375,000 i •1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mrmeroemnuewawa m 22 . tipping fee of $1.25 per ton would generate approximately $2.4 million per year required to operate the HHW program. Since the HHW program is countywide, the cost to Dublin is based on tons of solid waste disposed per year at one of the three landfills located within the County. Based on approximately 44,226 tons per year of solid waste disposed by Dublin, its share of the countywide HHW collection program cost is $55,280. The tipping fee is designed to cover the costs of the program; therefore, program revenues and costs for Dublin both equal $55,280. County Public Information Program Costs for the County's public information program are included in the overall County plan. The source of these revenues is described above. Load Checking i Load checking is funded through the general rate included in the rates for garbage service. Contingency Funding Contingency funding, in case the amount collected through the tipping fee is insufficient, will probably be provided by an increase in the tipping fee, which results in increased garbage rates. .1 • 1 I I I. 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper mra®ORTmnurenna>r 1 r 1 1 Appendices i L t I I i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 APPENDIX A-1(2) SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE JURISDICTIONS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper i APPENDIX A-1(2) SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE JURISDICTIONS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY INTRODUCTION I The waste generation study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The objective of the waste generation study was to quantify waste disposal, waste diversion, and waste generation in terms of composition and quantity. The study was conducted on a region-wide basis with the findings applied to each of t the seventeen jurisdictions in Alameda County. The jurisdictions included as part of this study were Albany, Alameda, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, Castro Valley Sanitary District, Oro Loma Sanitary District, and the remaining unincorporated area of Alameda County. The objective of a waste generation study is to quantify waste disposal and waste diversion (waste disposal + waste diversion = waste generation) in terms of composition and quantity at a given point in time. This waste generation study is an initial study representing a snapshot of the quantity and types of waste generated within each jurisdiction. The purpose of this initial study is to serve a programmatic function; i.e., it is necessary to know how much and what type of waste is generated in order to develop effective diversion programs. Compliance with the diversion goals mandated by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act) will be evaluated based on this and future waste generation studies. The waste generation study was performed in four parts: a demographics study, a waste disposal study, a waste characterization study, and a waste diversion study. The demographics study was conducted to provide background demographics information on each city. The ' demographics information was necessary for planning and implementation of the waste disposal and characterization studies. The waste disposal study focused on estimating the quantities of waste for the following waste disposal categories: (1)residential; (2) commercial; (3) industrial; 1 (4) self-haul; (5) construction/demolition debris; and (6) special waste. The waste characterization study examined the types and quantities of waste materials disposed of for each of the six categories listed above. The solid waste diversion characterization focused on diversion resulting from recycling, source reduction, and composting activities. In this report, we describe the methodology and summarize findings for the demographics studies and the waste generation study elements. I ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper A1(2) 2 ' DEMOGRAPHICS STUDY In order for each jurisdiction to achieve a better understanding of their own particular 1 waste disposal,waste diversion,and waste generation characteristics,the residential, commercial, and industrial waste generators were stratified into subpopulations that possess potentially different waste disposal, diversion, and generation characteristics. The waste generation study was designed to identify and quantify differences that may exist between the different subpopulations. The demographics study allowed us to characterize each jurisdiction on the basis of several distinct residential subpopulations and Commercial and Industrial Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code categories. The resulting demographic profiles were used as the basis for proportionally allocating solid waste disposal quantities and categories to each of the jurisdictions in Alameda County. This section summarizes the findings of the residential demographics study and commercial and industrial study. Residential Demographics Study 1 For the residential demographics study, jurisdiction specific data was obtained from a review of general plan documents, land use and zoning information, environmental review documents, and housing elements. Information from these documents was updated based on discussions with jurisdiction representatives from various departments including planning, engineering, finance, or public works. In addition to jurisdiction specific data, the project team also reviewed State of California Department of Finance records, County of Alameda's demographic data (1989), Projections '90 (Association of Bay Area Governments, 1989), and preliminary 1990 U.S. Census data. For the purposes of this study, the residential community was stratified into two subpopulation categories; single-family (includes mobile homes, duets, etc.) and multifamily (includes complexes with greater than 3 units). Each subpopulation category was further divided into high,medium,and low income levels. The income levels were derived from the assimilation of information contained in Projections '90(ABAG),California State Department of Finance, and National Planning Data. In this study, income levels are: high ($52,920 + above); medium ($22,491 to $52,919); and low ($22,490 + below). The residential demographics findings are presented in Chapter 2 of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element Report for each jurisdiction. Commercial and Industrial Study Stratification of the commercial and industrial facilities were based on SIC codes as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987). The numerical breakdown of facilities per SIC code category in each jurisdiction was derived from jurisdiction specific data such as business license data or SIC code listings provided by the jurisdictions or other public agency. In some cases, alternative business code categories unique to a particular jurisdiction constituted the only data that was available. In these instances, appropriate SIC codes were assigned to the available business code categories. County-wide Printed on recycled paper 1 • Al(2)-3 In addition to identifying the number of establishments within each SIC code category, it was necessary for the purposes of our study to estimate the number of employees per SIC code ' category. Employee data were based on information contained in Projections '90 (ABAG). Projections '90 (ABAG) provides information on estimated number of employees within each of five SIC code groupings or employment categories. These employment categories can be divided into two groups that conform closely to commercial and industrial facilities as defined in the Act. Table Al-1 summarizes commercial and industrial establishments by SIC code category and the corresponding number of employees on a County wide basis. Similar information is presented for each jurisdiction in Chapter 2 of the individual jurisdiction Source Reduction and Recycling Element Reports. It should be noted that the discrepancy for SIC Group A, between "Number of employees" and "Number of employees represented" is a result of using two different data sources. The "Number of employees represented" is based on information obtained from commercial/industrial surveys and is associated directly with the findings of the solid waste disposal survey. The data from the commercial/industrial surveys is considered to be more accurate. ' WASTE DISPOSAL STUDY The management of waste generated within Alameda County occurs at several permitted solid waste facilities listed on Table A1-2. The franchised solid waste collection companies serving Alameda County are listed on Table AI-3. The solid waste disposal study entailed compilation and evaluation of data provided by private solid waste collection companies, city solid waste collection departments, and operators of permitted solid waste facilities. Waste ' disposal quantities were then allocated to individual jurisdictions within Alameda County. This is discussed in detail in the Disposal Data Allocation to Jurisdiction Section presented below. The categories of solid waste disposal identified in the study include residential, commercial, ' industrial, self-haul, construction/demolition debris, and special waste. Data Compilation This section describes the form of the solid waste disposal data available from the individual collection/disposal companies, city solid waste collection departments, and operators ' of permitted solid waste facilities. Oakland Scavenger Company. OSC provided disposal data for each of their franchised ' service areas. The information was provided to Brown and Caldwell on a jurisdiction-by- jurisdiction basis following compilation of data from the four OSC Division offices responsible for solid waste collection in Alameda County and from the permitted solid waste facilities owned and operated by OSC. Volume data was provided for the year 1990 for front-end loader trucks, rear-end loader trucks, drop boxes, and self-haul vehicles. I 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper I I 1 yn N 'Q 2 2 O .� O ' . O D v i N N b CT 'L N 'C c E v ° `a o ava •p 2 c o 0 c o N = a t" ' t S I rsO 'O g N b 8 9 T I !3•tr T 8 n b S N O O in of a ty N h N N E d E Z o a `d ao O ° o z 1 IDp E ' 9 st 4, G N M CI 000 'O m O N V N -I:, E E ri - — —fig - 0 �*. .. o y 0 T.. u C 00 a a ° O a E I d 9 °°e S P E „ • • E d o Ti d m O E n r ° .E o 02' ° _ y C 0 a m in a § A g vi o c 5 Ti. ` ° d o I , a es a 41'C� p' ... �+ g 4 '' '° a 13 ° $ u CC �E " 3' a 0 ,Cp T. .0 REco0E Eg N A O 1'` o a°i e0 w° E O 0 3 a C '� vE •d Z :2 2 = •9 8 ;3 t3= o ff - ; E °a I E E ` $ m 'm t .0 E o a Ty d C� v10 S Ua a I -- S Cu !a . 2 E � P3 o °e o a E d w U A w T E ea en nj ^ 00 O d A . E a z N m °' m E E raAA: F° cn W A4 ti ad N V I H 0. 0 " F° N an d c7 d m U 0 w 0 0 m C.) Z A _ U a n 1 I I I 1 1 ' Table A1-2 Permitted Solid Waste Facilities Serving Alameda County ' Transfer Statlona Berkeley Transfer Station Davis Street Transfer Station Pleasanton Transfer Station Landfills Altamoat Landfill Durham Road I A„,irll Vasco Road Landfill West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill i Table A1-3 Franchised Solid Waste Collection Companies in Alameda County Jurisdiction Solid Waste Collection Company ' Alameda Oakland Scavenger Company Albany Oakland Scavenger Company ' Berkeley City of Berkeley Cakland Scavenger Company Richmond Sanitary Service University of California Grounds Service ' Castro Valley Sanitary District Oakland Scavenger Company Dublin Oakland Scavenger Company Emeryville Oakland Scavenger Company Fremont Oakland Scavenger Company Hayward Oakland Scavenger Company Livermore Oakland Scavenger Company Newark Oakland Scavenger Company ' Oro Loma Sanitary District Oakland Scavenger Company Oakland Oakland Scavenger Company Piedmont Oakland Scavenger Company Pleasanton Pleasanton Garbage Service,Inc. San Leandro City of San Leandro San Leandro Disposal Company Oakland Scavenger Company Union City Oakland Scavenger Company ' Unincorporated Alameda County Oakland Scavenger Company Pleasanton Garbage Service,Inc. Al(2)-6 1 Front-end and rear-end loader monthly volume data, as provided by OSC, were assigned 1 an in-truck value of 350 pounds per cubic yard for conversion from volume to weight (tonnage).1 The conversion value was multiplied by the total yardage per month as provided by OSC for each jurisdiction. The annual multifamily disposal tonnages as determined by the residential waste characterization study were subtracted from the commercial front-end loader/rear-end loader data from OSC to eliminate double counting of residential wastes. Monthly volume data for drop boxes within each jurisdiction were provided by OSC. The conversion of volume data to weight data was made assuming a conversion factor of 175 pounds per cubic yard for uncompacted waste and 550 pounds per cubic yard for compacted waste,1 and assuming that the actual volume of disposal was 80 percent of the total drop box capacity. City of Berkeley. The Berkeley Transfer Station provided data for the 1990 calendar year. Transfer station data indicated solid waste tonnages that came into the station by truck and self-haul (a portion of the self-haul tonnage was estimated by the city), and the quantity of solid waste (tonnage) that was transferred for disposal at Vasco Road Landfill. Minor discrepancies existed in the data due to a change-over in operations that occurred during the calendar year. However, the data were adjusted to correlate with the weighed quantities leaving the transfer station. 1 University of California Berkeley Grounds Service (UCBGS). UCBGS provided total tonnage by month that was hauled from U.C. Berkeley to West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and the Davis Street Transfer Station. San Leandro Disposal Company (SLDC). Annual haul data in total tonnage for 1989 and 1990 was provided. SLDC hauls only nonputrescible commercial and industrial solid waste. SLDC indicated that there is little variation by month in the disposal quantities: SLDC hauls waste to the Davis Street Transfer Station. I City of San Leandro. The City provided total residential and commercial weight data for 1990 on a monthly basis. Waste is hauled to the Davis Street Transfer Station. I Pleasanton Garbage Service, Inc. (PGS). Daily scale data was provided for 1990. Weight data is broken down for PGS residential and commercial route trucks, drop-box, self- haul, and transfer station vehicles which haul waste for final disposal. All of the solid waste collected is hauled by PGS from the Pleasanton Transfer Station for disposal at the Vasco Road Landfill. Route truck data is not separated by residential and commercial quantities. However, PGS reported an average daily residential haul tonnage. PGS also hauls from the Sunol/Castlewood unincorporated area. PGS indicated that 5 tons per week was hauled from 1 these areas. I 1 Tchobanoglous, G., H. Theisen, R. Eliassen, Solid Wastes. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, 1977. County-wide Printed on recycled paper Al(2)-7 Richmond Sanitary Service(RSS). RSS provided total commercial tonnage hauled from the City of Berkeley. All material is taken to West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. ' Davis Street Transfer Station. Total tonnage hauled to Altamont Landfill was provided on a monthly basis for 1990. Altamont Landfill. A breakdown of tonnage by month of each hauler disposing at the landfill was provided. Included in the breakdown was Davis Street Transfer Station tonnage and City of Dublin haul. In addition, solid waste originating from San Francisco and Contra Costa Counties were excluded from our data base. ' Durham Road Landfill. Total tonnage disposed at the landfill was provided on a monthly basis for 1990. In addition, self-haul volume data was provided. Vasco Road Landfill. Vasco Road Landfill provided total tonnage by month for franchise waste, construction/demolition waste, loose waste (i.e. self-haul waste), and special waste. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL). Waste collected by RSS from Berkeley commercial accounts was disposed at the WCCSL. In addition, there was a small amount of garbage hauled to the WCCSL by UCBGS. Disposal Data Allocation to Jurisdiction Brown and Caldwell segregated all of the solid waste disposal data obtained from haulers ' and solid waste facility operators into groups based on the service areas of the three final disposal sites: Altamont Landfill (including Davis Street Transfer Station), Durham Road Landfill, and Vasco Road Landfill. This section discusses solid waste allocations from the disposal facility service areas to each of the contributing jurisdictions. As an initial step in the allocation of solid waste disposal quantities, solid waste disposal data was divided into two components: franchised haul and nonfranchised haul. Franchised haul is defined in this study as waste that is hauled by franchised waste collectors and includes residential, commercial and industrial accounts. The remainder of the solid waste is considered ' to be nonfranchised haul. For the franchised haul materials, the distribution of waste between residential,commercial and industrial disposal quantities was made based on the residential waste characterization study findings. For each jurisdiction, the residential disposal quantity plus a ' calculated commercial and industrial waste disposal quantity based on hauler supplied data was compared to the disposal quantities reported by the landfill. Based on the difference between the total computed tonnage and the reported tonnage, an adjustment was made in the non-residential ' disposal quantities for each of the jurisdictions. Adjustments were made so that the relative percentage contribution for each jurisdiction to the computed total solid waste disposal was maintained. County-wide. Printed on recycled paper 1 A1(2)-8 The nonfranchised haul is made up of construction/demolition debris waste and self-haul 1 waste. Self-haul waste was further divided into two subcategories: (C/I) commercial/industrial self-haul and "small" self-haul. From the Davis Street Transfer Station disposal data, we were able to differentiate between the self-haul subcategories on the basis of method of payment. The commercial and industrial self-haul subcategory was made up of large or frequent haulers that maintained accounts with the transfer station. The small self-haul category consisted of those self-haulers that made cash payments. The relative proportions of commercial and industrial self-haul and small self-haul as determined based on Davis Street Transfer Station data were applied to the other landfill self-haul quantities in order to differentiate between the self-haul subcategories. For nonfranchised haul,construction/demolition debris and self-haul waste quantities were provided as part of the disposal data obtained from the landfills. However, the facility operators did not provide jurisdiction-specific data. Therefore, allocation of these materials was made based on several assumptions. Construction/demolition debris and small self-haul quantities were , allocated to each contributing jurisdiction on the basis of population. The commercial and industrial self-haul quantities were allocated to each contributing jurisdiction on the basis of their percentage contribution to the total commercial and industrial waste load to the landfill. For each jurisdiction, the commercial and industrial self-haul quantity was combined with the commercial and industrial franchise quantity into a total commercial and industrial disposal quantity. In the following section, disposal quantity allocations as they relate to specific disposal sites are discussed. Altamont Landfill. Dublin is the only community that contributes franchise haul waste directly to the Altamont Landfill; OSC transports wastes from its other franchisees first to the Davis Street Transfer Station where it is transferred to long-haul transfer trucks and then these wastes are hauled to the Altamont Landfill for disposal. In addition, the cities of Alameda, Oakland, and Hayward or businesses located in these cities haul waste directly to Altamont for disposal. A relatively small quantity of construction/demolition debris disposed of at the Altamont Landfill was allocated to all jurisdictions in Alameda County except Fremont,Newark, and Union City. I Durham Road Landfill. The three communities contributing waste to Durham Road Landfill are Fremont, Newark, and Union City (Tri-Cities). In our analysis, it was assumed that Tri-Cities generated solid waste is disposed of only in the Durham Road Landfill. Total nonfranchised haul quantities were provided by the landfill operator for various waste types. The quantities for each waste category were allocated to the jurisdictions as described above. ' Vasco Road Landfill. The communities that contribute franchised haul to the Vasco Road Landfill include Livermore and Pleasanton and unincorporated areas adjacent to these cities. Additionally, it was assumed that many of the jurisdictions in Alameda County contribute construction/demolition debris to the Vasco Road Landfill. 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper I. Al(2)-9 LIn 1988, Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. instituted a change in pricing policy that discouraged disposal of construction/demolition debris at the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. Due to the policy change, the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill received a negligible amount of construction/demolition debris originating from Alameda County in 1990. Construction/demolition materials that are suitable for processing can be directed to American Rock and Asphalt, a quarry involved in processing of concrete and asphalt for reuse. However, there is still a considerable quantity of construction/demolition debris that is hauled for disposal to the Vasco Road Landfill. Discussions with the Vasco Road Landfill operators indicated that construction/demolition waste disposed at Vasco Road Landfill originated from jurisdictions throughout Alameda County. As a result of these observations, a portion of the Vasco Road construction/demolition debris materials were allocated proportionally on the basis of population ' to all jurisdictions in Alameda County except Fremont, Newark and Union City. The remaining nonfranchised haul for the Vasco Road Landfill, after allocation of the construction/demolition debris, was broken down into commercial and industrial self-haul and small self-haul based on the proportions of these materials as identified in the.Davis Street Transfer Station data as described above. Davis Street Transfer Station. The jurisdictions that contribute waste to the Davis Street Transfer Station include Alameda,Albany,Berkeley,Castro Valley Sanitary District,Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Oro Loma Sanitary District, Piedmont, San Leandro, and unincorporated areas of Alameda County. These communities were allocated a portion of the total construction/demolition debris from the Vasco Road Landfill. Differentiation between ' commercial and industrial self-haul and the small self-haul was carried out as described above. Table Al-4 summarizes the disposal quantities for each of the jurisdictions in Alameda ' County. The table includes quantities for residential waste, commercial waste, industrial waste, construction/demolition debris, self-haul waste, and the total waste disposal quantities. Based on in-place density factors supplied by the landfill operators (Altamont: 1,500 pounds per cubic yard; Vasco Road: 1,400 pounds per cubic yard; Durham Road: 1,350 pounds per cubic yard), cubic yard quantities are converted to weight. Note that for presentation of composition data in Chapter 2 of the individual jurisdiction SRREs, the self-haul quantity is included as part of the total commercial waste and the construction/demolition debris waste quantity is included as part of the total industrial waste. Special Waste I ' Special waste is addressed in Chapter 6 of the individual jurisdiction SRREs. The Existing Conditions section of Chapter 6 summarizes the types and quantities of materials disposed and diverted in each of the jurisdictions. Several methods were used to determine the existing conditions of the special wastes. The methods include: • Contacting public agencies to obtain information from permits. • Contacting public works and wastewater treatment plant personnel for specific information about sewage sludge and street sweepings and catch basin debris. i ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper I I I on M C Vt r .c 7 — N S en C C N c r r,, T — o0 tel C r — N ^ in 6 en r o0 C, K, — r+'. en 7 0 7 h 00 en v? 00 N i. — 7 •C N 0 C. ? ' O p0p T ■C a0 Y tt — r0 v--7, — C cc' x oo P 7 T N r o N G 6 — v, 7 N co N N 00 trt 20 C1 0 Q eV 1 --c- O C Vt — • C en en tn — en en a N — 01 en °° 0 vt Or 0 r m 7 Or ^ 0 . m 0 en 7 7 N — Q 0 N. r N O en O co in C 1/40 7 rt co 00 N d r tri - - 7 N — 000 N N .. .-. — O— N O u U a - I r- N • 00 00 — r- `D 0 7 r 0 en r0 'C '0 00 C O N — v't co C' N O 7 `O en 00 00 '/1 en —• m 7 N 1/40 7 r h N 00 00 en N 0 7 7 E r T O N r0 N r- ^ r en O 00 - `D 0\ •— 'n Y Le,E . 6 — en 7, — 07 _ 1 7 — • °. C in rn co r U r 7 O 't 01 •-. C 0 ▪ en r N O 00 r r vt N. —en O 00 — Cl — en v� N m G, r0 C o en — en r ■0 7 7 c N vt 00 LA. C 0 ^ r N ^ N 7 M_ 2 '0 — N • N 8 ern C' O O O ^S' m CC\ N W O Ten R r- N en r- N C' N O B — N r0 7 O 16 E ? e1 N — — CT N — C en to •— N ' O a U E E CA 7. — to • in 7 C 00 en `0 r en N r r r 1 v O O in 00 r0 C vt en ‘co N 0 00 - — 0 Ln - p T O — in m N N 7 en un N r0 oo c\ • t C G N r — r e'-1 N rp (n v1 C t� of-C. C e.'■ N y C H — en — r 7 N — 0 Cl N N N 0 0 aC, � � G E = ' Tr 0ti 0 d ti ? � c a ; v 0 9 J a =.c LI:F 4 4 Cu U o W L ... i Z O 0 c. a ti 'J = - Z I 1 " Al(2)-11 • Reviewing the responses to the Commercial/Industrial Waste Generation Survey. • Conducting telephone surveys of specific industries of interest (e.g., foundries, medical waste haulers, etc.). SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERIZATION The solid waste disposal characterization study focused primarily on characterization of residential, commercial and industrial waste in terms of composition. For the residential waste characterization, waste disposal quantities were also determined. The determination of commercial and industrial solid waste disposal quantities was based on disposal information made available by waste collection companies and permitted solid waste facility operators as described above. ' Residential Solid Waste Characterization The residential solid waste characterization was carried out using a combined methodology approach. Telephone surveys and in-person surveys provided background information regarding individual households within selected subpopulations located throughout Alameda County. The surveys were followed by a quantitative field analysis focusing on individual sources of generation. The findings of the field sampling were applied to each of the individual jurisdictions based on the demographics study findings. The procedures utilized for selection of subpopulations, identification and selection of households for sampling, obtaining ' background information on the selected households, and quantitative field analysis are described in this section. Multiple steps were used in selecting the housing units for quantitative field analysis with each step performed in an unbiased and random manner. In this way, it is possible for each jurisdiction to be assured that its final data base for residential waste generation is developed from a representative subpopulation. Selection of Subpopulations. Following identification of the subpopulations within each ' of the jurisdictions as part of the residential demographics study, a set of criteria was used for selection of the particular subpopulations to be considered for the waste characterization study. These criteria are listed below. 1 • Representation by each planning area. Each of the four planning areas within Alameda County must be represented by at least one subpopulation. • Relative homogeneity with regard to the selected subpopulation profile. The demographics study had indicated that there were complex land use mixes and ' zoning within each of the jurisdictions. In order to facilitate coordination of collection routing and to ensure a sufficient number of households per ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper Al(2)-12 subpopulation, it was found that subpopulations with a high degree of homogeneity were required. • Coordination with the solid waste collection company. Waste company collections I routes were overlaid onto the subpopulation mapping. Within a particular subpopulation waste collection services may be provided on several days of the week. It was necessary to identify subpopulation areas serviced on a single collection day. • Sufficient subpopulation size. The selected subpopulation must contain a large enough number of individual households to account for an anticipated turndown rate (i.e., households that chose not to participate in the study). I The project team identified multiple subpopulations within each jurisdiction that met the criteria described above. A number was assigned to each of the identified subpopulations. Random numbers were generated using a random number generator as a means of selecting the six subpopulations to be included as part of the quantitative field analysis. The locations of the subpopulations included as part of the study are indicated in Table A1-5. I Telephone Surveys/In-Person Surveys. In order to generate a complete picture of the individual residential waste disposal and waste diversion characteristics, it was necessary to obtain background data from each of the participating households in the study. Telephone surveys and in-person interviews were used to gather this supplementary data which included information such as the number of people in the household, yard waste generation and disposal patterns, recycling attitudes, and level of participation in existing recycling programs. A copy of the telephone survey form is included as an attachment to Appendix Al(2). Selection of Single-Family Households. Reverse telephone directories served as the source for the listing of individual households within a given subpopulation. After identification of a route and coordination with the waste collection company with regard to day of pickup, a series of telephone numbers for households within the subpopulation and the collection route were identified in the reverse telephone directories. Telephone numbers on the listing were called until the requisite number of households willing to participate in the study was attained. Based on the statistical confidence evaluation, the study was designed to include thirty households per subpopulation. For single family residences, selection of households was dependent on willingness on the part of the residents to participate in the study as expressed during the telephone survey. For the three single family subpopulations, approximately 160 households were contacted during the course of the telephone surveys. The number of households sampled was based on a statistical confidence evaluation which indicated that with 30 samples per subpopulations, there would be a 90 percent probability that the sample mean would be within 10 percent of the population mean. Solid waste samples were collected from 90 single-family households. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 1 . ' Table Al-5 Subpopuladon Study Areas Single-Family ' High income Dublin Medium income Newark Low income Unincorporated Alameda County Multi-Famlly High income Hayward Medium income • Alameda ' Low income Oakland 1 1 1 1 A1(2)-14 Selection of Multifamily Complexes. An additional criterium was used for selection of the multifamily complexes. Following identification of the potential multifamily complexes,the complex managers were contacted by telephone to determine the occupied number of households in the complex and to assess willingness to participate in the study. Only those complexes for which the complex manager was willing to participate were included in subsequent multifamily waste characterization efforts. For the three multifamily subpopulations, seven complexes with a total of 104 occupied units were included as part of the study. Only a limited number of multifamily residence telephone numbers were included in the , reverse directories. For those households within the selected multifamily complexes that could not be contacted by telephone, in-person interviews were conducted with the individual residents. The in-person interviews were typically conducted after collection and sorting of the waste. In some instances, residents chose not to participate in the interview process;however,in most of these cases,the residents did provide the necessary minimum information regarding the number of individuals occupying the housing unit. Quantitative Field Analysis. Quantitative field analysis entailed collection of solid waste and recyclable materials set out by the individual households on the regular day of waste collection service. The collected waste was sorted into 27 types. Component weights were recorded for each household or multifamily complex. ' The field crews consisted of a field crew supervisor and three-person sorting teams (truck driver with a crew of two sorters). The field crew supervisor was responsible for oversight , during the sorting and weighing activities to ensure consistency throughout the sorting program. Three sorting teams were utilized for most of the project work. Safety equipment consisted of TYVEK suits,leather gloves,rubber gloves, steel toed boots,hard hats, goggles, and carbon odor i masks. Sorting equipment included ground cover tarps, plastic sorting bins (labeled and coded for each of the sorting types), identification tags, burlap blankets, and miscellaneous cleaning equipment. Waste Collection. Two methods of waste collection were used: 1. Neighborhood pickup by the project team field crews. This collection method applied to all single-family households and those multifamily complexes with single can service. 2. Pickup and delivery by the waste collection company. This collection method applied to the multifamily complexes that had a combined collection service (i.e., large community dumpster). Waste Sorting and Weighing. All sorting activities were carried out at the Davis Street ' Transfer Station or the Durham Road Landfill. Sorting was conducted in an area in the transfer station or landfill as designated by the facility operators. Waste from each waste container was sorted independently (individual single-family residence or multifamily complex). Waste was 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper Irk" Al(2)-15 dumped on large tarps and spread out to facilitate the sorting process. Waste for each of the types was weighed and recorded. Bins were tared before sorting began and weighed following the sorting procedures. The scale was accurate to ± 0.1 pounds. The total sample weights for single family high, medium, and low income was 993 pounds, 1,193 pounds, and 1,115 pounds, respectively. The total sample weights for multifamily high, medium, and low income was 837 pounds, 1116 pounds, and 1,350 pounds, respectively. Results. The results of the residential waste characterization study are summarized in Table Al-6. The annual waste disposal tonnages for each of the six subpopulations are made up of two components. Annual per capita disposal quantities were determined from the study for each subpopulation category for all waste except yard waste. The estimated number of people per subpopulation was multiplied by the respective per capita disposal values to determine disposal quantity excluding yard wastes. Yard waste correlates with the house unit, not with residents in the house. Average yard waste disposal quantities were calculated using the total yard waste in the samples from each subpopulation. The weekly quantities from the samples were converted to annual pounds per household unit. Individual values for yard waste were ' determined for single family subpopulations and for the multifamily populations, but not separated by income level. For jurisdictions with high density developments without lawns and yards, an adjustment in the yard waste disposal values in Table A1-6 can be made. A similar residential waste characterization study was conducted for five West Contra Costa County cities (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo). In this study, the ' subpopulations were not differentiated on the basis of income level. For single family residences, the annual per capita disposal values for the five West Contra Costa County cities ranged for 480 to 607 pounds per person per year (average: 540). For multi family residences, the annual per capita disposal values ranged from 397 to 768 pounds per person per year (average: 622). The yard waste disposal values for single family and multi family residences averaged 389 and 35 pounds per household per year, respectively. Statistical evaluations were performed on the single family solid waste characterization . data in accordance with the ASTM Method procedures as defined in the regulations (Title 14, ' Chapter 9, Article 6.1, Appendix 1). Tables Al-7 through Al-9 summarize the findings of these evaluations for single family high, medium, and low income subpopulations. Included in the table are the mean disposal quantities for each of the waste categories, the standard deviation, ' and the range of the mean disposal quantities based on the 90 percent confidence level. Similar statistical analyses were not able to be performed on the individual multifamily subpopulations. Although there was a large number of units within each subpopulation, there was an inadequate ' sample size (actual number of multifamily complexes) within each of the subpopulations. Statistical calculations were carried out on the combined multifamily subpopulations. Results are summarized in Table Al-10. 1 . 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 1 1 Table A1-6 Summary of Findings Residential Solid Waste Characterization Per capita Yard waste disposal, disposal, lbs per person lbs per household Subpopulation per year per year Single-family A High income 499 299 1 B.Medium income 566 299 C.Low income 679 299 Multi-family ' A.High income 754 149 B.Medium income 748 149 C Low income 627 149 ' Note: These are unadjusted field measured values from February 1990. i 1 . 1 1 1 Table A1-7 Statistical Summary, Residential Waste Disposal Single-Family, High-Income Homes, Alameda County INumber of Samples: 30 Number of Homes: 30 Number of Residents: 96 Standard t- 90% 90% Confidence I Mean Deviation Statistic Deviation Range for Mean Waste Type Low High papa- IOCC 16 28 1.70 9 8 25 mixed paper 53 35 1.70 11 42 64 newspaper 19 45 1.70 14 5 33 Ihi-grade paper 12 21 L70 7 6 19 other paper 105 108 1.70 33 72 139 arg:„9.FA Q18, .:,:i:i; kAe,::''' Ninflgaittfiaitatigialanit SIEZZ I aIgh Plastic HDPE 4 5 1.70 2 3 6 PET 1 2 1.70 1 0 1 I film plastic 16 12 L70 4 13 20 other 21 20 1.70 6 14 27 sinsuararingsgagnotiCaSIA new witagosemOnsamatt I Glass refillable beverage containers 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 CRV 2 5 1.70 2 1 4 I other recyclable glass 12 22 1.70 7 5 19 other nonrecyclable glass 1 4 1.70 1 0 2 I tam 11:1 Woggsks<25 g':V.W.:owe_„,esompl,rm:siyritagraf smor Metal aluminum cans 0 1 1.70 0 0 1 I bi-metal containers ferrous mdtaLs (tin) 0 1 1.70 11 21 1.70 0 0 7 4 1 17 other nonferrous 3 5 1.70 2 1 4 • white goods 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 S14370:•-:' '47;-"Inaalx:PS°401001221wreignwargaingsgs S2412 rfifOrsitt7elgalleagtrir EOM titinsV affillit ittni$01110au:I.EMIIV, I Organics food wastes 89 71 1.70 22 67 111 rubber 1 2 1.70 1 0 1 I wood wastes textile/leather 10 40 1.70 12 6 16 1.70 5 0 22 1 11 other organics 9 30 1.70 9 0 19 I ra'SigatOTAISapti6ialz:an*Mitttaniuggagg.s.a29:3 4:1001)37:&,vj:::;;A:iii.44::::: Other Wastes concrete/dirt 24 70 1.70 22 2 45 I gypsum wallboard 0 household hazardous materials 4 0 1.70 0 0 12 . 1.70 4 0 0 8 diapers 35 80 1.70 25 10 60 I other 44 89 1.70 28 17 72 MSUBTOTALMaten MO"::eg§:l4C1:';:It'.:?:*Ct70;AZ:e143K::.:::::::::4:.'::;::63:::f::::::03:450'1:. I Group Total 499 289 1.70 90 410 589 (not including yard waste) Weight units are pounds of disposal per capita per year, 1 except yard waste is in pounds per home per year. 07/04/91 I Table A1-8 Statistical Summary, Residential Waste Disposal Single-Family, Medium-Income Homes, Alameda County Number of Samples: 32 Number of Homes: 32 Number of Residents: 90 Standard- t- 90% 90% Confidence I Mean Deviation Statistic Deviation Range for Mean Waste Type Low High Paper OCC 20 • 25 1.70 8 13 28 - I mixed paper 80 83 1.70 25 55 105 newspaper 13 38 1.70 11 1 24 . 11 hi-gradepaper 25 88 1.70 26 0 51 other paper 97 71 1.70 21 76 118 sigratermrsaytitto pjaagtananyntalgittlig4Z tittaiRatark, . Plastic HDPE .. 3 5 1.70 1 1 4 PET - 1 2 1.70 1 0 1 film plastic 23 19 L70 6 17 28 I other 39 110 1.70 33 5 72 tastitratmatitimge twassl.:inal120Z Initalla Sala-1M222,9q.EN:MOV::,: Glass : , . . .. • : . . _ : .. . . refillable beverage containers 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 CRV 4 17 L70 5 0 9 , 2 other recyclable glass 22 43 1.70 13 9 35 111 other nonrecyclable glass 5 11 1.70 3 2 8 -. - • - • tarsinnorA:V,,,,;;,..*:,H,N.:?.ic ofisatiNic,:y“:0011901110.IMRE.frialiST nett 1 Metal aluminum cans 1 3 1.70 1 0 2 hi-metal containers 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 • ferrous metals (tin) 16 22 1.70 7 10 23 other nonferrous 4 8 1.70 2 2 7 white goods 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 1.149WATATAMMOSIMIN SSW'ratag OVERISIONIMR.4 1St 31131:titalcM Waiwittemmassesm:bra=Staig1,a5ig neS'IM MIMIS::: ngt:anc::::gegM::: Organics food wastes 124 119 1.70 36 88 159 rubber 0 1 1.70 0 0 1 wood wastes 4 17 1.70 5 0 9 I textile/leather 9 16 1.70 5 4 13 other organics 10 35 1.70 10 0 20 01]::::APPMFArran:::::::::::Matti MIV.IT: gi::::::::::i:::;:::3;47A maglag Sga.::::*:wg:::1::::::::::1:::::::1::.:103 l MEN:::191:,:: Other Wastes concrete/dirt • 4 9 1.70 3 2 7 gypsum wallboard 0 0 1.70 - 0 0 0 household hazardous materials 9 21 1.70 6 2 15 diapers • 14 39 1.70 12 2 26 other 40 74 1.70 22 18 62 Group Total 566 422 1.70 127 440 693 (not including yard waste) Weight units are pounds of disposal per capita per year, except yard waste is in pounds per home per year. 07/04/91 I i 'kl*: : • Table A1-9 t.Y.Statistical Summary, Residential Waste Disposal I Single-Family, Low-Income Homes, Alameda County Number of Samples: 28 Number of Homes: 28 I Number of Residents: 85 Standard t- 90% 90% Confidence Mean Deviation Statistic Deviation Range for Mean Waste Type Low High I . Paper ocC 8 13 1.70 4 3 12 mixed paper 43 56 1.70 18 25 61 I ' newspaper 31 hi-grade paper 2 80 1.70 26 5 1.70 2 5 57 0 3 other paper 126 118 1.70 38 88 164 III- kraPBTOTAgs. ,.37:ate tomostatitonaragrominassu"gam mo.4127DM Plastic EDPE 6 7 1.70 2 3 8 PET 3 5 1.70 2 1 4 II filmplastic 18 11 1.70 4 15 22 other 13 12 1.70 4 9 17 I ipararotaSea. ffera;41•4a 011201*Mul,6160 ana. 2 $ am Glass refillable beverage containers 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 I CRV other recyclable glass 13 26 1.70 8 43 83 1.70 27 4 21 16 70 other nonrecyclable glass 2 5 1.70 2 1 4 I • 37.;Tikta:, A::-. lirlOPOWn:, ) tyliRce;:::;.;:nezz.::;i„.$..17 nar .WErg• . ?,i;O:Ei,A ::M Metal aluminum cans 1 2 1.70 ' 1 0 2 I bi-metal containers ferrous metals (tin) ' 1 3 1.70 23 24 1.70 1 0 2 8 15 31 • other nonferrous 3 3 1.70 1 2 4 •I white goods 0 0 1.70 0 0 0 Ma111310ragletigift Ore;TISE1ra41 MUM trialg WilaiSt Sø5 I'Satarkalinifittlitrien kalP41 2:20.177:44::iSZCZ70$:Z5V24.41:IMMIZOT friffg:50: I Organics food wastes 205 182 1.70 59 147 264 rubber 0 1 1.70 0 0 1 I wood wastes textile/leather 8 39 1.70 13 0 29 81 1.70 26 3 20 55 other organics 4 22 1.70 7 0 11 •I MEESUBTOTALtentaikkii:::0247nE;W:49a NANUM Minn.ce::::::::::::::0S;03::::-.:MMOI0 Other Wastes concrete/dirt 16 51 1.70 16 0 32 I gypsum wallboard household hazardous materials 0 0 1.70 7 19 1.70 0 0 6 1 0 13 • diapers 8 32 1.70 10 0 18 I other 67 169 1.70 55 13 122 iSMSOBTOTAL::::m:gmn::::::gag:NEM:i:::::;I:j:::::01775::1):::::::::::::::21a0::.::::::E:::::::::::::::::I6 I Group Total (not including yard waste) 679 409 1.70 132 547 810 , I Weight units are pounds of disposal per capita per year, except yard waste is in pounds per home per year. 07/04/91 I Table A1-10 Statistical Summary, Residential Waste Disposal . Multi-Family, Combined Homes, Alameda County Number of Samples: 7 I Number of Homes: 108 Number of Residents: 225 Standard t- 90% 90% Confidence I Mean Deviation Statistic Deviation Range for Mean Waste Type Low High Paper OCC 27 11 1.94 8 19 36 mixed paper 67 45 1.94 33 34 100 newspaper 63 71 1.94 52 11 115 I hi-grade paper . 5 3 1.94 2 3 8 other paper 137 67 1.94 49 88 186 INSTIBTOTAteSNMeSeete259A eMEN:;tia m:::ea04:t,:i::::::::::egel5leat4854, ee:;:4):4:: I Plastic HDPE 4 3 1.94 2 2 7 PET 2 1 1.94 1 2 3 film plastic 21 7 1.94 5 15 26 other 25 22 1.94 16 9 41 tig=B:TOTATOSEE;:dnarna wegr maw 194::,!:::::V:::::::e21r:M::?,:!.?!:!Elz:::1::::::i:.:!ine::!7.3,:;:i 1 Glass refillable beverage containers 0 0 1.94 0 0 0 CRV 21 17 L94 13 8 34 I other recyclable glass 46 17 1.94 12 34 59 other nonrecyclable glais 8 9 1.94 6 2 14 TOrSONWel!leggartovamennenactiEssm 1 Metal aluminum cans 3 2 1.94 2 1 5 bi-metal containers 0 0 1.94 0 0 0 I ferrous metals (tin) 20 12 1.94 9 11 29 other nonferrous 5 4 1.94 3 2 8 white goods 0 0 1.94 0 0 0 I .STA3TOTALSeeevegelea RIESO: •-f:EmeN4:§:::eSEURg'ft:P.:1.7Nfle5 O•g::: 449:::ii ValiaVggisttmegmememeie:efRIBE 258 194 4::;:,:;::::':'::::::::I8si..• i:::::::::::::::::::::::i::::]:::::w1::::::::::::::::::176::; itylics food wastes 93 31 1.94 22 71 115 rubber 1 3 1.94 2 0 3 wood wastes 4 5 1.94 3 0 7 I textile/leather 54 71 1.94 52 2 107 other organics 31 39 1.94 29 2 60 Other Wastes concrete/dirt 6 6 1.94 4 2 10 gypsum wallboard 0 0 1.94 0 0 0 I household hazardous materials 20 40 1.94 30 0 50 diapers 35 44 1.94 32 3 68 other 57 68 1.94 50 7 107 *SHETOTAL::::.: • :::.:.:5 •::::•::::::118::. ::::.:MV:94/..•:::;:::::::: .:•:'::75:.::, .. :::::.•194:fi: Group Total 757 339 1.94 249 508 1,006 I (not including yard waste) Weight units are pounds of disposal per capita per year, except yard waste is in pounds per home per year. 07/04/91 • Al(2)-21 A student t-test was performed to determine the statistical significance of differences between the per capita waste disposal fmdings for the three single-family subpopulations. The ' null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between per capita waste disposal quantities was rejected. Even though the study findings indicated a large variation in terms of disposal quantities between households within each subpopulation, the student t-test fmdings indicate that the per capita disposal rates for the three single-family subpopulations are statistically different. ' Commercial/Industrial Waste Characterization Study ' An objective behind the approach to the commercial and industrial waste characterization study was to put in place a system focusing on the distinct waste generator categories; hence our use of SIC code categories. At this early stage in the 15-year waste management planning period ' for the individual jurisdictions, the commercial and industrial waste characterization findings are representative in nature. Using these findings as a starting point, the individual jurisdictions can work toward a more comprehensive understanding of their own particular commercial and industrial waste generation characteristics. The commercial and industrial waste characterization study was carried out using a ' combined methodology approach. The study consisted of a mail survey, a photographic survey of open topped waste containers, facility waste audits, and quantitative field analysis at selected commercial and industrial facilities. The findings of the waste characterization study were ' applied to each of the individual jurisdictions based on the demographics study findings. Efforts were made to have a broad representation of each SIC code categories within each phase of the study. Participation on the part of the facilities in each phase of the study was voluntary. The methodology employed for the commercial and industrial waste characterization study elements and the findings are described in this section. ' Multiple steps were used in selecting the commercial and industrial facilities for quantitative field analysis. The first step was the selection of representative, not random, SIC codes for specification of wastes generated. These representative quantity values were then ' assigned to representative businesses in each jurisdiction. Mail Survey. Approximately 5,800 surveys were mailed to commercial and industrial ' facilities that were included in the Alameda County Commerce and Industry Directory (Business Information Systems, Inc., 1990). The business directory listing provided a broad representation of commercial and industrial facilities in Alameda County. The mail survey responses provided ' data on quantifies(volume) and composition of waste disposal and waste diversion and additional background information such as recent or anticipated process modifications that may impact disposal or diversion quantities or composition. Approximately 1,200 surveys were returned. ABAG reports approximately 57,249 business establishments in Alameda County. A copy of the mail survey is included as Attachment Ito Appendix Al(2). i ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper i Al(2)-22 Photographic Survey. For selection of facilities to be included in the photographic , survey,consideration was given to maintaining (1)representation of facilities in each jurisdiction and (2) representation of facilities in each SIC code category. For commercial and industrial facilities that were willing to participate in this part of the study, project team members conducted brief interviews with facility personnel to gather background information and took photographs of waste in open top waste bins. The photographs were overlaid with a grid. Waste composition was estimated in terms of percentage of materials observed. Quantitative Field Analysis. The commercial and industrial quantitative field analysis was conducted as an extension of the residential quantitative field analysis. Waste analysis was performed on waste from bins from individual commercial or industrial facilities. Pickup and delivery of waste bins to the sorting site was carried out by the waste collection company on a normal day of service. Approval was obtained from each facility prior to sample collection and sorting. For the facility waste that was sorted, the waste sample size varied from between 1.5 and 12 cubic yards. A total of 7,004 pounds of waste was sorted as part of the commercial and 1 industrial quantitative field analysis. Facility Solid Waste Audit Program. One commercial or industrial facility was selected ' by each jurisdiction to be included in the waste audit program. Efforts were made to ensure that there was a broad representation of SIC code categories on a countywide basis. The objective of the waste audit program was to critically evaluate solid waste management practices at selected commercial and industrial facilities. As a result of these evaluations;potential recycling and source reduction opportunities were identified. Because commercial and industrial facilities often contribute a large proportion to the total waste stream, identification of additional means of diversion could be significant in terms of increasing the total diversion for a given community. A typical solid waste audit consisted of the following elements: ' • Solid waste characterization organized by source of waste (manufacturing unit process, central supply, offices, food services, rest rooms, etc.). • Waste material flow. Particular attention is paid to process points at which specific material is not yet subject to contact contamination with other materials. • Materials handling, process, storage, and loading capabilities. • Identification of existing source reduction and recycling activities. • Recommendations for increasing or otherwise improving source reduction and ' recycling efforts. Summary reports for each of the waste audits will be included as a separate volume to the Final Draft of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element for each jurisdiction. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper r.k Al(2)-23 Data Compilation and Analysis. The data from each of the elements of the commercial and industrial waste characterization were input into a data base program. The mail survey asked ' for a distribution of waste into 24 types, and all 24 types were input into the program. The program calculated monthly solid waste disposal volume and tonnage. The volume estimates were based on size and number of waste containers and frequency of pick-up as reported by the ' facility. The solid waste disposal tonnage estimates were calculated based on individual waste category conversion factors selected by the consultant. The conversion factors were lust selected from the literature and then adjusted, where appropriate, in accordance with the weight and volume data from the quantitative field analysis. The conversion factors used for each of the waste categories are presented in Table Al-11. The facility responses were aggregated on the ' basis of SIC code categories and applied to each jurisdiction on the basis of its commercial or industrial SIC code breakdown. Preliminary findings were provided in terms of average waste disposal weight and composition per facility per SIC code category. These weights were reconciled with total commercial and industrial disposal tonnage derived from information provided by the solid waste collection companies and the permitted solid waste facilities. ' Results. The preliminary annual waste disposal tonnages are based on the responses to the mail survey and have been applied to each jurisdiction on the basis of the number of employees in each of the identified SIC code categories. The solid waste disposal quantities and ' composition are presented for each jurisdiction in Chapter 2 of the individual SRRE Report. Data Adjustments It was assumed that seasonal variations in waste disposal quantities do not exist because of consistent year around climatic conditions. Other adjustments, however, were made to the ' residential,commercial and industrial waste characterization findings. An adjustment was made • to the residential waste characterization findings in order to develop values for annual average per capita disposal. The residential waste disposal and waste generation findings were entirely a result of field sampling conducted in February. Per capita disposal values were developed and extended to include a 12-month period as a way to determine disposal quantities for the full year. The residential disposal quantities were correlated to the annual disposal record for Alameda. ' County (Vasco Road Landfill, Durham Road Landfill, and Davis Street Transfer Station). The adjustments made to the commercial and industrial waste characterization findings are in the areas of food waste, tire/rubber waste, construction/demolition debris, and self-haul waste. A discussion of these adjustments is presented below. Residential Data Adjustments. The residential waste disposal and waste generation findings were entirely a result of field sampling conducted in February. Per capita disposal values were developed and extended to include a 12-month period as a way to determine disposal quantities for the full year. The residential disposal quantities were correlated to the annual disposal record for Alameda County (Vasco Road Landfill, Durham Road Landfill, and Davis Street Transfer Station). (Note that waste from Davis Street Transfer Station is transferred for final disposal to Altamont Landfill.) Table A1-12 summarizes the countywide data as provided by the transfer station and landfill operators. As indicated in Table Al-12,the combined disposal quantity recorded for February was approximately 20 percent below the average monthly disposal ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper I Table Al-11 Conversion Factors for Commercial and Industrial Waste Characterizati (as normally discarded) Conversion 1 Factors Material Cat-.• lbsfcubic and Paper 1 Corrugated containers 175 Moved paper 175 Newspaper 200 High grade ledger paper 175 Other paper 150 Plastic I HDPE containers 30 PET containers 30 Rim plastics 30 Other plastics 50 Glass - ' Refillable glass beverage containers 500 California Redemption Value glass 500 Other recyclable glass 500 Other non-recyclable glass 500 I Metal Aluminum cans 60 ' 131-metal containers • 175 Ferrous metals and tin cans 200 Non-ferrous metals ind.alum.scrap 300 , While goods 500 Other metals 200 Yard Waste 200 I Other Organics Food wastes 500 ' Rubber products 350 Wood wastes 500 Agricultural Crop Residues 200 Manure 500 Textiles and Leather 250 Other miscellaneous organics 300 Other Wastes I Inert solids incl concrete,asphalt 1600 Gypsum walboard 500 Household hazardous materials 250 Diapers 350 Other 500 References: I 1. Brown&Caldwell Consultants,project files, 1980-1991 2. Personal communication, Bernard Meyerson,Multi-Material Management& 1 Marketing,March 29, 1991 I • 1 1 1 1 1 gh .. mete NOarNbtflb ,. 'a .+ en .. t� Nt, bt� t.- henb ar b b bhNt� enahht moc o% NN d9 N O < V N M V ,O M V N . 1 C E 1 C 1 � • N ? b ^�' H) h O N b 00 cn b t� b h h [n cn o0 fry h b ... 0 O Oh b wI N N Y c V) oo t. N m oa N �n O' v� O ' O 's b t� N h en N h o0 b h h 00 b G, A rboO OO O\ oOm DD roo [mob a CA Q C 7 F 2 R go g n S O\ oe w O t` n b M < h a h N % ..i h 00 O N O b b N oo t� cn b H 1 N O1 )O ao N O Q en N t. Ol �n N „my bNe� WI NO (4 NcnN ONoO N t {�Q�,i. enenaf' 7 V V e hafenenen < Q Q .02. C ' ONOOW a{ ON < .. bN 0 Gi O P O eo 00 Oe t� N oo O N 2 7 O af25 %0R o0 V) N V O\ ' N 7 t= t' b o��ebvi � t� a^ovi�cyen coo m ' c Mre Y Y Y ' °' a E Y E I m a Z F aDi ... . = - o a � o d o > A) $ nW2d2 .. .a QcnOZQ F a p; 1 1 I I 1 1 Al(2)-26 quantity. It was assumed that this 20 percent deficiency was reflected in the quantities of waste , identified in the residential field sampling. The disposal quantities derived from the study were increased by 20 percent. Due to drought conditions and the assumed reduction in yard waste generation, eighty percent of this increase was attributed to yard waste, and the remaining 20 percent was allocated proportionally to the remaining waste categories. A similar seasonal adjustment was not made to the commercial/industrial waste disposal quantities because the commercial/industrial disposal quantities were based on the annual data record obtained from haulers and disposal site operators rather than data from a single month. Commercial and Industrial Data Adjustments. The adjustments made to commercial and industrial quantity and composition data are summarized below: ' 1. Food waste--The commercial and industrial waste characterization indicated disproportionate quantities attributed to putrescible food waste. Subsequent I analysis of individual mail survey responses indicated that this may have been a result of respondents categorizing waste associated with facility lunch rooms as consisting only of putrescible waste. Typically, this waste contains packaging materials including paper, glass, and plastic components in addition to putrescible food waste. Random observations during field surveys were the basis for the following composition adjustment for the commercial and industrial food waste category: • 45 percent food waste ' • 25 percent mixed paper • 20 percent other plastic • 10 percent recyclable glass 2. Tire/rubber waste--Based on information supplied by Oxford Tire Recycling of California, Inc., a tire recycling facility located in Wesley, California, a used tire generation quantity was allocated to each jurisdiction on the basis of population. These used tire generation quantities were subtracted from the rubber/tire waste category quantity, and were allocated to the Special Waste category, thus providing a rubber waste quantity exclusive of used tires. According to a representative of the California Tire Dealers and Retreaders t Association, used tires are generated at a rate of 0.8 tire per person per year. One hundred tires weigh approximately one ton. This statewide average rate was used to help determine disposal quantities because there is no other accurate information available. However, this number was verified by Oxford Tire Recycling Company of California, Inc. (Oxford), a local company familiar with conditions in Alameda County. Additionally, tires are a subset of the tire and rubber category and as such are not subject to the requirements of the waste generation study. County-wide Printed on recycled paper Al(2)-27 3. Construction/Demolition Debris--The study did not determine the composition of construction/demolition debris. Adjustments were made in the composition of the ' commercial and industrial waste stream based on random observations at disposal sites. The composition for construction/demolition debris is assumed to be: ' •• 25 percent concrete and dirt 25 percent wood • 10 percent ferrous metals ' • 5 percent other plastics • 35 percent other inert materials. 4. Self-haul--Adjustments were made in the composition of the self-haul waste stream based on random observations at disposal sites. The composition for 1 self-haul waste is assumed to be: • 80 percent yard waste • 10 percent white goods • 10 percent other inert materials iSOLID WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION ' The solid waste diversion characterization was designed to quantify the diversion of waste materials originating from each of the jurisdictions in Alameda County. Solid waste diversion occurs through recycling, source reduction, and composting activities. In tracking materials recycled, every effort was made to avoid double counting by ascertaining the "next stop" in the material movement, either generically (e.g., export) or specifically (e.g., buyer). The focus of 1 the study was on those facilities that serve as brokers or processors of major quantities of materials. The information provided by these facilities was cross checked with information available from recycling materials collectors or from the individual cities with respect to curbside ' collection programs. The California Department of Commerce provided information on AB 2020 centers located in Alameda County jurisdictions. The facilities involved in diversion activities were identified through telephone listings and recycling resource guides such as the Alameda County Recycling Guide (Summer/Fall 1990 issue). These facilities included waste paper packers, scrap metal dealers, rendering companies, ' Salvation Army, and other recycling/reuse operations. Initial facility contacts were made by letter, followed by a telephone interview. Certain facilities preferred to have the interview questions sent to them. In these cases, tailored questions were sent and a follow-up phone call ' was made to verify receipt of these questions. Facilities were asked to provide information about the type and classification of material ' recycled at their facility, as well as the quantity handled. Because these requests for quantitative information was often a first experience for smaller companies, the information provided was a 1 tCounty-wide Printed on recycled paper 1 Al(2)-28 best estimate and usually given on an annual basis. Seasonal variation data were typically not 1 available. Information regarding the source of the material within Alameda County was also requested. Waste diversion companies have typically not kept track of the source of their raw materials with respect to political boundaries. As a result, not all facilities could readily provide information on a jurisdictional basis. Where information was provided for multiple jurisdictions without specificity, allocations were made on the basis of population to all relevant jurisdictions. Approximately 250 recycling facilities and second-hand stores were contacted as part of the solid 1 waste diversion characterization. Responses were received from a total of 200 facilities. Table Al-13 summarizes the diversion quantities for each of the jurisdictions in Alameda I County. The table includes diversion quantities resulting from recycling, source reduction, and composting. Table Al-14 serves as a summary of the information provided in this Appendix. In the table,waste disposal,waste diversion,waste generation,and existing diversion percentages are presented for each jurisdiction in Alameda County. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper I , Table A1-13 Existing Waste Diversion Summary - 1990(Tons per year) Alameda County a Recycling Source Reduction Composting Totals Jurisdictions 1 City of Alameda 51,976 3,444 - 55,420 City of Albany 13,572 317 94 13,983 , City of Berkeley 73,169 6,497 3,071 82,737 1 Castro Valley S.D. 11,765 993 - 12,758 City of Dublin 12,401 1,036 - 13,437 ICity of Emeryville 21,168 248 94 21,510 ' City of Fremont 48,240 12,711 - 60,951 City of Hayward 33,244 7,136 120 40,500 ICity of Livermore 18,405 1,791 . - 20,196 ICity of Newark 9,690 2,554 - 12,244 City of Oakland 371,655 13,324 1,087 , 386,066 IOro Loma S.D. 13,326 1,419 - 14,745 ICity of Piedmont 8,084 151 71 8,306 City of Pleasanton 15,763 9,656 100 25,519 ICity of San Leandro 21,594 2,695 - 24,289 ICity of Union City 11,814 1,576 - 13,390 Unincorp. Alameda 979 93 - 1,072 I County Totals: 736,845 65,641 4,637 807,123 I a. Discrepancy between diversion totals in Tables 2-7 and this table are due to rounding. 12/4/91 1 I Table Al-14 Alameda County I Solid Waste Generation Summary - 1990 ' Total Total Total Present disposal diversion generation diversion tpy tpy tpy percentage Alameda 96,383 55,420 151,803 36.5% 1 Albany 18,433 14,035 32,468 43.2% Berkeley 135,823 82,739 218,562 37.9% 1 Castro Valley - 55,475 12,758 68,233 18.7% Dublin 41,707 13,437 55,143 24.4% Emeryville 26,816 21,510 48,326 44.5% Fremont 285,324 60,951 346,275 17.6% Hayward . . 221,501 40,499 262,000 15.5% 1 Livermore 80,852 20,195 101,047 20.0% Newark 58,298 _ 12,244 70,542 17.4% ' Oakland 588,533 386,067 974,600 39.6% Oro Loma 98,178 14,744 112,923 13.1% Piedmont 9,486 8,306 17,792 46.7% Pleasanton 105,692 25,519 131,211 19.4% San Leandro 84,206 24,289 108,495 22.4% I Unincorporated 14,937 1,072 16,009 6.7% Union City 72,613 13,392 86,005 15.6% 1 Totals 1,994,257 807,177 2,801,434 28.8% 1 1 1 I 1 I 12/4/91 • t ATTACHMENT I BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDIES In September 1989,the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939)was adopted by the California State Legislature. AB 939 requires every city and county in California take a critical look at their own solid waste management system (landfills, transfer stations, recycling programs, waste collection system, etc.). Currently, most of the waste produced by businesses and residences ends up going to landfills. The objective behind AB 939 is to begin to divert waste from landfills by promoting such activities as recycling and composting or by simply reducing the amount of waste that is generated at each business or residence (source I reduction). As part of AB 939,cities and counties must reduce the amount of waste that goes to the landfills 25%by the year 1995 and 50%by the year 2000. ` Through the Alameda County Waste Management Authority,the cities in Alameda County are working together in this project. Brown and Caldwell Consultants will assist in carrying out the tasks necessary to comply with the requirements of AB 939. One of the requirements of the state law is to perform a waste characterization study. A waste characterization study involves determining the quantity and composition of waste that is disposed at landfills and of waste that is diverted from landfills. The enclosed survey is one part in a series of studies that make up the commercial/industrial waste characterization study. The activities that will take place as part of these studies are only a first step in long term efforts to change the way that we manage our solid wastes. Your public agency needs your help in its effort to reduce the amount of waste generated and to increase recycling and other waste diversion and source reduction activities. In addition to helping meet waste diversion goals,your efforts may result in cost savings to you or to your company through reduction of waste services. ' There will be an ongoing commitment by your public agency to assist companies in establishing new recycling programs or expanding existing recycling activities. Your cooperation is appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this survey,please call Jim Miller,Brown and Caldwell Consultants, at(415)937-9010. Please return completed surveys by February 5, 1991. I I ' Printed on recycled paper. I I MATERIAL DEFINITIONS FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SURVEY I 1. Paper a. Corrugated cardboard boxes--no additional definition necessary b. Mixed paper—all paper,except carbon and blueprint,free of plastic,nonsoluble glues,and other nonpaper materials c. Newspaper--no additional definition necessary I d. Office paper—white and color stationary,copy paper,pad paper without cardboard backing and glue binding 2. Plastics a. Plastic containers--bottles and jugs b. Film plastics--shrink wrap, sheeting, etc. c. Other plastics—cups,dishes,and flatware; packing materials,product components 3. Glass a. Recyclable containers—bottles that have a cash redemption value b. Nonrecyclable containers—containers(jars,jugs,etc.)that do not have a cash redemption value c. Flat glass—window panes, auto glass,table tops d. Nonrecyclable glass—mirrors,electronic tubes,light bulbs 4. Metals a. Aluminum cans--no additional definition necessary I b. Ferrous metals—scrap iron and steel c. Other nonferrous metals--such as copper,brass, and aluminum products other than cans d. White goods—appliances such as refrigerators, stoves,water heaters,washers and dryers 5. Yard waste (leaves, grass,and prunings) 6. Other Organics a. Food wastes--leftovers from food preparation and dining activities b. Tires and rubber products—no additional definition necessary I c. Wood wastes—processed wood products including lumber and furniture d. Textiles—old clothing and remnants,upholstering and drape materials, bedding,table linens I e. Leather--shoes, purses, clothing, straps, saddles 7. Other wastes--no additional definitions necessary 1 Printed on recycled paper. - 1 CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATION SURVEY ' Directions: Please answer the following questions as accurately as possible. If you do not know an answer,please give your best estimate. ' Company Information Company name: Address: Contact person (for waste management information): Telephone: (415) - IDescribe the primary business activity at this location: Number of Employees: Full Time Part Time I. Waste Collection/Removal 1. (a)Are you part of a building or business complex with a common maintenance service that includes waste removal? yes/no (circle one) I (b)If yes,what is the name of the business complex,manager,and phone number? 2. Level of waste collection service(size of container): cubic yards/gallons (circle one) ' 3. Number of containers: 4. Frequency of pickup: per week or per month 1 5. How full is your usual container before it is emptied? full 3/4 full 1/2 full 1/4 full (circle one) II. Recycling Services 1. What is the name of the company that collects your recyclables or the name of the place where you drop off your recyclables? 2. Do you have a contracted landscape service that removes grass clipping or other plant debris? yes/no(circle one) If yes,please identify the company: 3. Describe any future plans for your facility that will alter the quantity or composition of your waste? ' 4. Please describe any in-house efforts to reduce the amount of waste generated or increase the amount of waste recycled during the past year? (Anything that you can identify here will be very useful.) 5. Does your company have any newsletters or reports which describe your recycling/source reduction activities? yes*/no(circle one) ■We will contact you directly for more information or to obtain a copy. 6. Please indicate when you may be contacted to dicuss ways of increasing your company's recycling • capabilities? WASTE ANALYSIS The listing on the next page indicates various recyclable materials that may be found in commercial or • industrial waste. A definition for each of the listed materials is provided on an enclosed sheet. On the left, please estimate to the best of your ability the percent that each material contributes to your total waste on a volume basis. rOn the right,please estimate the quantity of materials that are recycled or diverted now on a regular basis or quantity of materials that you believe has potential to be recycled in the future. Specify the units of ' measurement(lbs,tons,cubic yards,etc.)and the time period(per week,per month,etc.) 'Thank you for your cooperation ' To return this survey,please fold this sheet so that the Brown and Caldwell return label is visible and seal with scotch tape. Postage is prepaid. Please Return by February 5, 1991 WASTEDISPOS Al. WASTE DIVERSION Percent in Existing Units of Frequency of Future your waste efforts meagre collection potential by volume Obs.tons, (per week cub.yds,etc.) per month) 1. PAPER % corrugated cardboard containers % mixed paper % newspaper % office paper 2. PLASTICS % plastic containers % film plastics % other,specify: 3. GLASS % recyclable container % nonrecyclable container % flat glace % notuecyclable glass - 4. METALS % aluminum cans % ferrous metals(incl.tin cans) % other nonferrous metals % white goods 5. YARD WASTE(leaves, % grass,prunings) 6. OTHER ORGANICS % food waste % tires&rubber products wood wastes(lumber, % furniture,etc.) % textiles % leather 7. OTHER WASTES % rock,concrete,dirt % sheetrock % other,specify: 100 % :TOTAL • • 1 I 1 1 E BC Brown and Caldwell N POSTAGE II NCESSaRY BC Consultants IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL � FIRST-CLASS MAL PERMIT NO.215 CONCORD,CA POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE BROWN & CALDWELL CONSULTANTS P.O. Box 23557 Pleasant Hill CA 94523-9949 ' BTTC: SOLID WASTE QUESTIONNAIRE 1 RESIDENTIAL/MULTI-/SINGLE-FAMILY Hello: Single-Family Participants Is ( ) at home? (Once head of household is on ' phone) . Hello, Mr./Ms. . My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Cry of The City is conducting a recycling study and has selected your household as one of the possible participants. Other households in your neighborhood are also being contacted. What day do you have your trash picked up? This study has two parts. First, a short survey. Second, the City will collect your household garbage on your regular pickup day sometime this month. The garbage will be collected to determine quantity of the waste and the potential for recycling. A. Can you take a few minutes to answer this survey? To 1 Yes 1 1 When is the best time to call back No 2 Multi-Family Participants Is ( ) at home? (Once head of household is on phone) . Hello, Mr. /Ms. . My name is and I am calling on behalf of the City of The City is conducting a recycling study and has selected your household as one of the participants. Other households in your complex are also in the study. This study has two parts. First, a short survey. Second, the City will collect the garbage from your complex sometime this month. The garbage of the complex will be collected to determine quantity of the waste and the potential for recycling. A. Can you take a few minutes to answer this survey? To 1 Yes 1 When is the best time to call back No 2 1 ' 1 1 Number. Name: II Street Address: City/Zip: ' Code: MF/SF County CC/AL Trash Pick-up Day: - • General 1. How many people live in your household on a regular basis? Number I 2. Do you use diapers in your household: To 2a Yes 1 To3 No 2 , • 2a. Do you use disposable diapers, cloth diapers, or both types of diapers? To 2c Disposable 1 To 2c Cloth 2 To 2b Both 3 2b. What percentage of the total number of diapers used per week are disposable? (To 2c) 1-25 1 26-50 2 51-75 3 76-99 4 2c. Do you have a diaper service? To 2d Yes 1 To 3 No 2 2d. What is the diaper service company name? Name: I 3. How many people in your household work away from home? Number 3a. Do you operate a business in your home? To 3b Yes 1 To 4 No 2 3b. What kind of business do you operate out of your home? Business: 4. Do you haul trash to the landfill yourself'? Yes 1 • No 2 Yard Waste Collection I Now I'm going to ask you some questions about yard waste, such as leaves, trimmings, and lawn clippings. 5. How frequently do you generate yard waste? every week 1 every other week 2 once a month 3 less than once •month 4 To 10 no yard waste 5 6. Do you have a commercial yard service? To 6a Yes 1 To 7 No 2 6a. Does the yard service haul the yard waste away? Yes 1 No 2 6b. What is the yard service company/name? Name: 7. Do you have a lawn? Yes 1 To 8 No 2 7a. When the lawn is mowed, are the clippings left on the lawn? Yes 1 No 2 8. Is there a variation in the amount of yard waste that is generated from season to season? To 8a Yes 1 To 8e No 2 Sa. Which season do you generate the most yard waste? Spring 1 Summer 2 Fall 3 Winter 4 , Sb. During this season, how many cans/bags of yard waste are collected each collection? .One 1 Two 2 Three 3 Four or more 4 2 1 N 8c. Which season do you generate the least yard waste?umber Spring I Summer 2 Fall 3- Winter 4 8d. During this season, how many cons/bags of yard waste are collected each collection? (To 9) One 1- Two 2 Three 3 Pour or more 4 8e. On the avant, how may bap/cans of yard waste do you gamete ate each time you One I generate yard waste? Two 2 Thee 3 Four or more 4 ' 9. Do you do any home yard composting? To 9a Yea 1 To 9b No 2 9a. What materials regularly go into the compost? (To 9b) Yard waste 1 ' Kitchen scraps 2 Other: 3 ' 9b. Would you be interested in learning more about home composting? Yes I No 2 )tecvcline Information and Attitude( Now I'm going to ask you some questions about recycling. 10. Please tell me which statement is the closest to what you believe L about recycling. It's not important I It's somewhat important 2 It's very important 3 10a. Doer the use of recycled,materials in any product you buy make you mote iikely to buy the product 1 bas likely to buy the product 2 • not a hctor 3 don't blow 4 10b. Does the use of recycled materials in any packaging you buy make you more likely to buy the product I ' lea likely to buy the product 2 not a factor. 3 don't know 4 ' ii. Do you recycle at home mw? To Iles Yes 1 To 12 No' 2 lla. I'm going to tad a Gen of recycling materials to you. Please tell ' me which of these materials you recycle? (Circle all that apply). Clam 1 Newspaper 2 Plastic 3 Aluminum 4 /steel a S Cardboard 6 Other 71n/steel s 7 ' l lb. Is there a curbside recycling program in your area? To Ile Yes I To lit.No. 2 11c. Do you participate in the curbside recycling program? - To lid Yes 1 To llg No 2 l ld. Do you put all of your recyclable: in the curbside Containers? Fad.To dose Yes I To 1 l No 2 i 3 Number: I Ile. For these nest questions, Pd like you to respond with regularly,oocasimally, or nave (circle one reponse for each statement): Regularly Occasionally Never • Do you take materials to a recycling center where you are paid? V 2 3 , t • Do you take materials to a recycling enter that does not pay? 1 2 3 • Do you give than to a child or friend to recycle? 1 2 3 • Do you give them to an organization such u a church or scout group? 1 2 3 • Is them any other way you recycle? (dserrbe); 1 2 3 s End.To clan. Ilf. For these next grwtioas, Pd hike you to respond with regularly, , occasionally, or never(circle one response for each statement): Regularly Oessionally Never • Do you take materials to e recycling center where you are paid? 1 2 3 • Do you take materials W a recycling center that dos not pay? 1 2 3 , • Do you give them to a child or friend to recycle? 1 2 3 • Do you give diem to an organization such as•church or scout group? 1 2 3 • Is there any other way you recycle? (describe) 1 2 3 To 14. 11g. For these next questions, I'd Innce you to respond with regularly, occasionally, or never (circle one response for each statement): 'regularly Occasionally JgcLem, • Do you take materials to•recycling center setae you are paid? 1 2 3 • Do you take materials to a recycling center that does not pay? 1 2 3 • Do you give them to•child or friend to recycle? 1 2 3 • Do you give them man organization such u•church or scout group? 1 2 3 • Is there any other way you recycle? (describe) 1 2 3 Fad_To Clow - I 12. Which of the following masons most closely describes why you do not recycle? ODo not have enough to ave. 1 Do not have storage capacity. 2 • Do not bow where to go with recycled materials. 3 • Think recycling is handled by local trash and garbage haulers. 4 • Not convenient. 5 • Other (specify) . 6 13. la there •curbside recycling program in your ares? End.To close. Yes 1 III To 14 No 2 . 14. Would you be willing to pay an increase in your garbage collection rate in order to have a . curbside recycling program in your community? Yes]1�� Not End.To close. V CLOSE I Would you like to send us any additional written comments? Give address Yes 1 No 2 If yea,please and to: Recycling 5608 • P.O.Box 8045 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1220 Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please be sure to put your garbage out on your normal collection day. If you 1 are participating in a curbside recycling program, please put your recycling bins out each week. Thank you for participating in this study. COMMENTS: (Indicate which question the comment applies to). • I 4 I 1 1 I APPENDIX A-2 SOLID WASTE PROJECTION TABLES 1 1 1 City of Dublin Printed on recycled paper ' v 1 o o q ,m. O v, r p ^ P N v t v 1 ^ "0,P r O M V 1 mO Q q 0g; O r q � ,QOm n . r} T .�. ' PtP1 Q ^rQ m 1° � .pO00q ^ mNggaopp 8 m Ma �O Q NOM b q r Q �r r 00 'n N y O� Nr N m mN O ei _v1 N.i.^ Tice vivid mN^ NP mvi0'rq j, ' N Q �QP a N �4�p1 O O Q'0 MO Q ^ Nee q O. {m� O: r+ N�fN00 O NmP �Fmi .r.N � OOQOO.m.. N 'r0_mN OOmooQ bomev°i v�jrr �t N Q "N r yN m m N M S'l ..�.n vi N.n r' Q W Yf N'O N N^ N P .r M hP �N C II en _m a, v1N O q P Opp ^ q 1.4240 q ..m Q N ^ A O r tr1 0 m N Q N V1 y V1 O m P `O VI� 'O g 0 .20 qtn S or N ' NNN ' ON .. O ^O PmrOgm Q [�VV OOrrr v1N ^Q ry M {! 'p ' m M N`O N Nm N^i.�V1 .+^ Q Mr Vi N 'O NNE Nm m� g ,Or 6 O fp�V`i m m r m �.00 '� .p OO�. r.pp m q .+ 'o m�p m P q ryb�ipYpO�pO, .O mp l u6 1 y. ^ n P .Q.vP10 V r . '^g4, 2... , .0 iNn Oi O W mow„ .„ _c r.. 00 •m0 vmi0 QQ .^N.. NO'OpoO ,.. 0 O ff�V M M m tV'O 'a N r N tit N....'< ..r Q m N vi N in N N N m m Vi m`O�D P hi ' yQj Y1 m e ms m N Q 0Q0 N r m R ^ �p N �p O m N Q gym{ V] O m Aa Et ON . - 4 N0 . 4 %.'O^ V- O'rn NO ooNe1O V1 .. P °nQOO V° QM em�. .m. NNN V V t 9 Nm .M me4,0 N N rNNm N.. - .....me H)h ONV1 NNM N N .rmQmvi Y1's .}V Q N O.O ^1 h . r Q r pN�m P g •O M m m rm m P 0 Q Q m e� O q g p erp.. ..r '0 W 99 P m N ' (y .O ^ O ^ ^ O Q r .O M O O m M r .g+ Q q (p vi V1 Q V .�i N M m N b q •O NN^ry' r ...N vi N Q {A.. p� VM m „y ^ .ppn N N m N ... Q .pm`O V N V1 N Q pr t� (Q�p Wb v'D) O ` m m m .m. • .m. a N om. m 040.N V y N. .-.N NN m y Aga 6 . ^ 0 O. N N ^ : I.O t�1 . Q N .. g`1 ..�O .O g O N Q V N g O O N N , O C Q m y1 N'�1 O 9 `1 ' yq m m ^ v F.1 C! `O N „ N Q ^ .�m m.D Q p N p Q N N ^( N r N Q r $ Q ry Ot yYO, Y q � r. �.mDN P r N.ryN. ��pp 0mrQ r VNimm rnn MOO `ONN wm O .Q.. tioo Ly' W >.0 N .+ 0i_Q 00 N . O. Oq r q OO�O r 00 N.-. r 00 .. .'.'/1 0 r a r ,.. qv1 JGI Fi c.i O...v1 N N 101VN N°. mm m m.D V NV NNE `O N e{`r QUO .V. I S m t� a r .Q. m q Vi Qq Q Q 'O.. `O M Q O N mN+ p a 0, r P • •O .1°. O W . „...2 .) r. h Q Vl �y r p^V1 m m M Vl r Vi tWC - NO .im N V1 C°PN 1 O:T mm tri- OO .Q. Om°N 'I. V'NO OON N O ...i� P N P n Q � p`yI m o n y °9 C ' .pO. c., r M P .(1 q V] ^ O Qp N r Q Q V1 = y q 8 .. O. 5 zlA g O W f.0i • VNmi 0 ' 0 v r� a O Q•Nll trry O L`Vi W ONi N O O P ^< ti O Q n V V1 y Y 3 ry Nq .:Q .. N m °. m N v1 M.+Q �O,N M .O Qv1 L1 yyy pp.� 0_9 .p .yp �p v1 Amen Vf y m u p. w- 'Omv1S001 ^ . N000v1 . NUU vQfm NOm ONO .DN ` ns OO ^ W P OP 'nPFRAE.1 ii 'J' ' ^ N Nq . O � AN ^ONCi c'' m Nvi tn ...V ^ P .'MmNmV Qm � 'J E Q a a 0 OQ. m 0, 01010 vi aNa�� P O rO P M m N gmA Q ^ vi.. O N `O A m m T ° O °. ,NO. nri:fl0Q .m. v1�- • NNCnN mON� M° vri .. vm1m P Ooo°or.. h m'ntnvlvlg 0 ^V b O O P ^ O Q ^ N lV oo.. O N .. m A Nv1 m.+M P .-.� t.1 vi Q Q p V 'Gp ' Moo ° C 1 N l.1 Q O Q q .m. 'O q r r pp r v t m L P Q NmNm00 . q g rmap.O. r wt N gvf NQO Q ° ipn V m_ Nrm'n O O u •p M vi 'nvl QM Qum ' .0.� 0... m0 N.00m m 0Q 01 Qi_m 00 ^ r1.1 .OQ0 toi ? N.^� 8 29 C ^ qN NOG.. Q .. N m NQ AAA ^ P ..N N ' 'n QRp". C.0.q @y -VQ N O �1 N V O p 0o pp�1 vin t 5 :C 1 P r N v) m O m ' ' R N NO NPO0O p. ..ppm vO,Sw Nn °. O 'O E u. l - S M ^NO ^ ^ • V •� -r .0o m0 �m HON m .o •000 `0'00 ^NN Nv1m ° p0. fl NOG Q' N en N Q m c m ^ Oi 'n N A vi m 'C pp gi m�pp N O m O m 88 Op SS b .N.pp N N m VV N q r m .0 ? ° '$CC M W i. OP^i- m mOmm . ^ . 4 'ON ' r i 0 o00 .4HNOQM s Nsvr1'00'O V N °v- pn -0gs. g8 i 8 a e pp� N cs oo pQ� . N .p pqm .. N 410 eN Q m ...yen m .py. 'n N m'n m V �y o .0 '.�. q Nvt°.1POQ . . .42 . vmltNnf l g ^ SbCON VN1 .N. vgi000 ^NPh. 1AQmOP. O VQi `rOO 'J i O O m O - f.-7 N N .:m Vt Q ,r N •0 r ,ti r N Q r .. m N = N N N N Q „.;.,..70; m .. m i.'1 O yy I L a v Q d ° %-'tf T4 ›wal p C O c 0 :S q . 0. O O e u U ;a u � ' G °, 'gym a � w a g � o � Oyu Xo e ° o .? u ., .. 2 " $ � '� ' = :' u O 1 .4 ..°°° vp ° m 'o U yc' a4 °� 'J T V OTC q A .4 J q V - E ° ' tt i V j. fill V .3 ° e a rU 9 � Pa ` * a c C :m u 6L 'p a -. . C eF 'o u m F, 3 3 u "� �E F. E. o L' F.� V'§ ; ° '$� 0 p 2 pa P' 2 r u v >` E 01 7 :�9, E. `°' `u a E C °•u u ,�' b y W u C S. ° x �e.�.. 1 1 O O m m g1 o o N Melt?, ° m 0 r - 00 , 0 , 0 N Y t pm `O 'O N O , _.,.•-s N ^^N N ^ N m N Y N V 0 O O T^ m 0 0 0 N ^v V T 45 O N m I , ym m W� OO � M'O Q ^hVI N M ^ r y0 O O O N M co m yy `O M .o.po m 00 N ^m O N m ^,pp Q V'1 q ° 8O 200^NO N ' NNR .N° '00 , Oh omNV4Of .m+ hO., 00m0 ^ v& 000N 'ONN .= m N vl .. ^ ,N. .N. N OC �e V , N .Mq. ON m r m M r p S m r m m P h �y !0001 !1 `6 I OM 0 0.. ,NN8 ^ <<o, Afler, g � p 0 N N N ^ amO .N ^ O QO 4Om 00 , p a000N V. €$h N _^ V ^ . y v O M vN O 4 t 8 m M mO m m P 0 o N O < O a. 7,1 �M N OO N , ' m f < O ^ ti OO O N O N O O hP O O O O a„, ^ N O 0 F 1 SS{ m p00h O P r m O OON . ^ m00 ^ O NHN " 0 " 00 ” m I. 000 .." P F., .,, 9 N 0 Cc !I V N pp Q M 10, — N mN .. m H m O y .vf.O N- * 00- m0 ^ O O m m m cpO O O m N V 3 .. .. .. m 3 , Q OO. OO� °� 9 G. 0' U gOO� O� .O,• O .. ' .. ^ M NNOm .C. O N ... . 0 m. m00 Om0 N , m E V ^ N ^ V O\ '" O C ..pp oopp ee�� �p E U N ON� woo � .+ m haON MO r 'OOQ N m0000N � N pN. 000 ^ qM ? yy6 Y , .. r m P `� 0� O1. ^ O NO0 Nm .. ^ OmO , b m 'a o ^ .6 ^Owoo .. ^ ^ ^ Om ' O ^ O .m+ 0 NimOm N. m0c 00 ..� N 4OOO .. vN•'v-) � rJ' to pVp.. N N O m r app O `O �p�pOO VI P V<<1 O. N m p.^ N b O 7 O ism— `s ^0 W W-.m .. ' .. ^ N O O � .N.O N" en " mOP 00 ^ .p ^ � OOO .. �M�U C N ° O m < in bO NP 'OO ' m^ P N .VD m N ppppP O h N m O r M r �y d ' � O U I 'O U N 000 .. .N. 00 'ONON mON 00 . 0 ..._ 0000 ^ O m: Ste^ V„ 9 O ^ in ^ a0 1� ..t. '. .r N M 00 .. O. .. r °C m om. d V p° ° N ^ pp �p "" y Oq� 4 mm a P ,, b0 W n .4m ^ ^ ^ N ' 0, 00 - -. 0 .°.m. m0r .^. tm Om 0000 ^ 000 ^ rmQ0 oa . O I .4 ^ N ^ �D O p. eo ^p ^ '28= 22�j� ar V m 0 GC m0F ew," " „N, _ N s8o ZO W v. 00 , O 00 V OOOMO <OOO _mNO? UV ^j •'i° . .. N 1�r .. m U .. .. .. m lam .. M m '° N 1`M .m. ` OC V E 6 U V 6 ' C ,Q app O °o > > v P N „ O , N , v1 m„ i N .. H . m m O O ^ao .N O0.< O O C O N O < O O O ^ O m O O m ... 8 m T q m er7 i .,i N 1�r .. ..7 a ° G L I • O 85 ° u O L 41 !P 6 $� .;a 3°> 4 [ya ? & �J eat, T .:'J L V,a 'MV .� .E 15 9 •''Oys' O I. g O r.. 9 9 ° at' rM m v te. . > -m ¢ i g .0 - l Em o6 a EQ . ` ° 1A m °F E e g . V E . iratt t � I .K 3rd a t E55 .%.�"^i ra .:° E h ggr tI ' P E 'b0 r 5. g `° rte. a� '7fi$ .°.� . 4 0 u �'z ' 5w' a° 0: 0 `'�3 au00`" ,:aiari230 83 u. 0/C 3 ./ [- V ,° c7xG0`"GS3° -- 4 1 rk '' i i' S,. W' ' 'O m mh1� m m0 b mm 'O 'O Oh °` r N °' m pp' N M m 0 O mryry1 N $ V 0pp.� `O mapp 00a ^ hgimmq .. 8 O. N r h N V 1 b h 1-7 0 0 r oG O O N O O P V ^ r t h N 0 1c.i+ ni 00Nm M mN V V " •+h M N^ ^ .4 OO bMOO ? 000 ^P hQ1�p S, .pp J 0 � N < "m r yQ ry am00 V h hh Pm M O_ O �°{ �' P N l:h r� N ' V m O , ti An V b P V S O R < 1_0000 0 0 N 0<" : - : ; ",4-7:1 pO V1 3 N g 'O -rmaflp M mN R ' .- ' N m ^N.�^ 0;00 hNr QM.r. P M m Nhmb N ^ h Mb ^ O 1�1� d ^ 'p mr 8 m <m -Q 80 by?h .N ,0 —, .. NO ' NO .+m N '.°iNV1PON0 VIBC00 °1 `rGVI `:gtr,1� ANgmvl.i=0 C ' N m 'p m t.i 0 0 N m m ' Om N m O r-7`O m N .. P ,0 W v l N h m^ n.i m V 1 N b q G0 V ^ R � p� �y �p 0p P m ffi N_ r Y N m .N.NN .-.M Om'M `,8 1 oaf{ 0 0 �yyOp N '. �r'p 0^ W N q qqpp m O N O m m t V h P v t yj r �i O 8 ^ M N mt� NO N ' bh '0 ' ”.4''',J O M ., ..0 -. hP 00' b N b.. 00 < Mn m m .N�'M "N'h0 00 » ttVV M `D nir M N0. [V.+ Oh v)Nh h �. '�N T P` I < rmm m m'pp h m hr .p h 00 Map0 M N � O 0 3 2p m 8 O O m N V V N N a m 0 O p m h 0 h b r N & m N 0 ' 00 m O N Z O < 1� N P V 1 1: O O O < 00 b r N tt VV N. U 00 N rc `O "(.f r N N N r N m M .n .. `° N N .+0, O (- O N b O m ^ ^h ^ m „re.. b E R� I 8 '0 'OrONO Op .rp mM yyyp,b OO.m+ mP Omq N ^pp < ^ "+ y 9 O ^ rtiOO10•100 O ' _ wen ' ONba m .viTmb0vmlT NMO00m NN hy9 '0h yhjNPr GG Si mm 1^ Y l.y (.1 r N N N 1°N O i M^ °' V 1 N --7- T b V N b m m ^ ^r .r m Q P V 1 N CQ� Y. z h C _m O O m b NY1 c P N 0y r NO N e 9$d gp' m c Mmm_N N m � NNN ^mq O O' oNe OOP V1mpNrymmr S `Ji h O .° .- N . n- vs r ... mmN O m h . N O Or h m O O M M M 'p 'O ' m n .^n N`ONN 1 � N m M— h N .0-7' €05 'P N '° mm1 .ry. r m RO>V1pj O �j Y vi p�m 1� '� r V b r h 0 0 8 b c00 .-. b t� ^ N N ° aS y net m m m N yy m P O ^ r V l m ry P h O 1 r b V O N N M b M s N �' i '� P r ? O V ' N ' M rm h.yrNm °^ N N,'-' °° Nr Oq' < ` m a O N h N „„ no, -m N r ['INN b m 'r h Y .°.' ^ M h N `O N N N M.n V1 .. .ti O `O < N V1 .i -c-:n4 N U to t O • oh to p p m O' N m 0 'D ap ✓2 'a ' 'E °r' h nSOoO' ' N r .qn < wNew w" -0,N O `D ,§'p0.0 � 0q .n� P °' -ma m PO m Om0 e- _ , - e00, ,, OOh OOMmN b ea" , ,,... fp N (P.y <O^N,O^ M N v1N tV Cm.:m v1 N , -r 1•ivi 4N vi mNN °gym �'O' ".i 5 g [yG� 'p m 8 N fmV O 1�t� P N -�O cc q T M 'p 0 m N v1 �Orp' E U i. ' Y c N '0 VN1r00N -N . 'OS .Nq+ 1. ' 000, W m •^+ �.^. 00Ob m0,, 00 — O OpQ. Om Nrm 'O qqll y Y 3 ^ N -0,04 .1 - " N h N 07-7^ .0. N r m ..-; M v■ m " - ° N m^a O F N h r nor-000.,g br P N 1O No, OmC r ^ m < 9 0, m �p ^qp :=. . 4v0 .7, rr _NI N.. V s NP o0 ,8006”;1:11 P N g V1 'd 1 q ? m 'D ' m 'O of'O N ,„ v1 r Ohm 'O - h 1� 'i1 l� h m fJ O ' VH OPNh H N V1 ... N N°' NO N .. .. '0 mV1 m ..V1 "N.r '0pphmrym � sE. C pR. N NwNOm0 Q < r P am . -e4 h00M q. m bOr m N O' mm001 9 ° a p' m m m m, O ' ,me ' r m M y� S v:, - (4 v1 00 m O O fT C r b Mm b e'/1 h M a !y�( I„ N ttmN 'n N N h ..iN NV N^ .. .. Mh 11.n0 fV NO Oh fV m �R�V U q L m oo .e m m m m W 1 N r p' `O 'n N Y l < P r m 'O y m h m hp .°! '� q V r' hN ....bm .r q. ' ON e ' Or ^ om O. V OMOMO V N 00 W M V m4 °vbim It41 § v 1 C .. N ^ O h 0i N N b N N O N ^ V N O 'Cp (N(myV N V1 N �.Vp.1 N N O 807“; :!0 -4,y... M Vf M.-. R co, 'NMp ' 860181 q cd O OP' ^ Ommi0 '00 ^ ' ., M • bfll.- "- -4.0—c nv,-,/100NN^ ym1NmrQ `i,'�`ON p O0. N t ' .� lS V 40 N h`' .i N pN O -7.0, g-7.0, 0 O.'r' N {.j m. h 9 %rQTi �O 9p K Q 00 m '0p 0 `m0 ti 'p .0N O'/' 'p Grp .p m N O AA py h < O m v0 M > C° ljc' iI tv0a Y P °= Q O .. m 'rmi D! . r b N v1 v1 'p O O' P „0 -m 1 O .. n .0 -N n V .N. N O m ,� y 0 m ' 9 ^ N M 00 N C ^ .°,.' V .. N N m 0 < ..O' h m < M .. O N N q P Vl N M .M.. R b 0 aZ O.1-1 P N N N p�N h O 'hp p 'rp q 'p V O H N h �Ny N n„.O' QQ P h N ^' 'O m < m < a a q h m . b y1 N ' , m Q P g M N r O O '0 h �l O O h vl O P m M O 0�P '' �' 0 ^ m h N V m V N N m '0 m ..°p',h m C t.i.:O NNq O.e r N 1ri.N. m vhi QpV 0..Y.v 8p mg a ; o E E % gb a. eS v ow a 8 � a5o% to' = J to F' E : i a g Y u 0 - 0 u 4 E U d $ � C - • ° a 6 o c y , - Gev 8. t .. . .a ? ! i' g 0 3l gS5 °3 u 2 „ '8e. p, t G ' -22 i ° t a E= F oig 0 N q ° F ' o F ' A a F a �f u : s as G m O 15 Y TO la b o g 110129 o a m �� O' 00.Q y J a GGG F Y ° f? Y yRa# m t N U yqa u � U' Y u $ V E � a3 � $ � KrrY ° e 2 ° _ aWi 2 � X '3 bm a °te x6 � . ..F . 1 'Hb Si - - 0 - P 40 P Ar mQ O O t1 `O V Om Mp V NN .r rr OOOd mO O N O ° mHP N N ° b N N M N r r v i N N ^N m d . r m r v 1 N ^ N w d r• e.' �.00 vr Vpp i NP P m v1 ro � _ b V$$ M O Na0q 'AIWA ' r ; 3 PON b bR OANm v•Hmh $ b 'NO .. P . b NT N .+...d � N P - vm Q p I m P 0 c, m m P m P r m b Pv b P m O p O v O r b P b v b v 6 O H d r P O m , 3 M M • N^ r r 0 0 0 0 0 ; d b§ O O m r e e h " d NOM V t N _70 -i 7 N e r vl C NP rm mvf !bM I , 0 r r • .9 0 00 C 0 ,O V b� NbF N O NNO y g-. N 0, 0s N , m ' O OOr ... ,. 00g N . p p d Q m m I aN m ° O 3 pp yj d O P M O b 0 N Ord dh N Odr a.O p ^Y, M mY 'H <j C V n OO' m N O ' O O N N . -e00 P M ^ 00 ev mmrmr- n a j N v - 0,-,e4 ^ N N T Nd N ^ d N m . M h P Y m N N r 'MN M OO^ •0 T r m obp m r e m 000 v1 r T P P O 0. 8 ryV m b P ,mm p O P men -' N r r P a o0 d O P N I O � ONNrON . r .. 0. Hb8 ry ,e. bm00 , bNr008tn� Ae Pvdlgvll: Gc M N m _706- g ^ N in N e r N N ^r r N N r. Q ,p m N N g-75, ,,, d N m Y`G m 'O m r • b Q ^U 8 „ , b r. O p 'el: - N Prl M N M mmm NN VIN C T b mCe Nr d m Q Cm O� HN0 o� . N � . r N r . dOm p p • II j �P mcr4 ,0, P NUm Oo N f - R WN - mr- PGoop N0000 .. M P -, O: •, 1 O . 0 `0 � p ^ r ^ ^ ^ N . . m d N -.MAN: aO N 440 e m Y G en r $ O O p o0 4 .p oo '� 3 E g'I pr's �Y .r�, V"Oi arp $ N°r �J O ep h^ Opv1 `Oa Nvdi � of vbi 8e0 er N. .N. dw o 2 yE O. O.Q O` o0• b 0 .0 N „ Om m � � Vl P O mOm `O OOe OO NNO •`O O`NPO � va$ C q N N .�N N N Cl N to d N d ^ H1 b Q V 5 mP M 'o $ m m r o m m m r r r N r m P� r N e r ° m O e 1. 0,5 N N O - ,,,, ' 1N m Pm O M P 4m0 m : 001 O § geig.i ri L 7 L � N O' ` N. O P N P b V O O T P dqq d m P m b N N m r m P .a .3. 0, 00 mm y p O N m . N N d . b r Y r m N g N O 4,l ^ m m 0 0 0 m m a H P m m T m N e Y P N (.4&,..7,4 ^ M r N ^r r m ^' P M N V1 m r d P ' v m NM V1 d a ° e T o 0“..4m0, o m b m M ol b 0, 0 ' P V O N a m O r pp OONvm m O r m . „ r m i ^r P N O N O r! O.. h MN Q v , , 0 . - m - . O . o^r , q , m 9 I ^ O or .N m N e m r - E.S • v r O M m b m m P h 0 ,„ r r rb r ° r 3 J' O pNmbV ^ a �m Oq O M . e � Wm m a H 2.8 Q P vyj ONO g0-.m. r r � . m OO 00rm eVN pp O L "v re er ^ N N N e M . m q mQ CS e O r v . Pi NI < P O Pra vM N T rP W $ $ .lmmNNON EyG Q P { P m T N mm b r m O d - .^ N P O d b M b b 0 0 m N r _ N m P g O V ^N 00. d N r b � mN N Mrm N f m , 4q " p. M V � U b m 'J D m L P N O M - m O Q N N N m N v Q en o � O v : N 88 ^ ^ H O i � MR O OV D N = 6 I r r m . Y d^ ^ l , V" eve A p99 O N r r T V m $ N O h O d N b v N 8 .C .° ' O1 F-. ° g . ; o , �l . rIgorN -N,$1oo vv, ., . eeua i ..a 0, vmQ C5N Nr.. m „n N .- Na -“,-, - m l O V^ 0 v a a FY1 . V O d .O 7 p -Pp .i t a G v �t a .Ep �Qw U a' • :: aacS N`Y1 ' O dd T L u Ogg .�.0 p •9 S m .i.9..5 V}� 0 -_ v .��.j yYT ° g $ Y .� l :11;U '82. $ > y p Y ” " 3 E G 3 N 5 .y '� sk0 : p4.� * OF Mil o °4 FO 14. V. ! 10 ri :EO p � Yd 'E _ 6 ,, 66 6 F' .v -5 g a F '0. a �+ p p, .p '� gggA`� . m E.. 0;a ''pp3 .. d � F ' e°, 5 .E ..y U °o . C _ rob w =4"m. E u a :b�. ` E Y j 1 E e p E 7 p a �S u u K w m 0 2 *` V,', x e W ) fl"W' �a .$ N -g20a5N z35N1r� AaasF6N Y=c xi55. " N1-5-- • I 1 1 8 � Om. < N -:.A „1 V i hP .Q. ' OOm m O Mil° N .M. .�vl<y OOm �m vt rt V P . Q t n O O b N h e NI — viy<NViN — NV ro 'N M co.-. Vlh ^N N —r � ^ yn� to 1 N4 scenic h.-"l Wq m'AR? OM..N ON MOt^NV mg°Q `O ,0.Qr �0ori : � Qoo NQh„e I V ��pp pp.. t� y� om� g chin W)M N010' QO N c ON 'O mm or-on M M N D\ mQN .& o q 1 8 a 00 `Om m ' M N `4 ap m 0 00 ^P.Or Q $ Mn00 00 OO h N h ?p ° 9 NCI' VIQ N Q N`O N N N M N Q `O ^.O N ^ h "I' Q M S u tpVQ N O my 3 M. O 0 n m Om..1. 4vai Q .51,-- 00 OO. 00N < O N .ri ,m , 000Or � 00 , N VN1 n4 VVV.0 N vim.:V N � N Q 'N N N c.4.-:°' O V �— 'O " -14 M M V 1 4n20,. m N M M O. O q << v� n N b F V.n 0 vv�m n M m p• DR N O Y 8Q. OQ cmC VMQN h N < N Np, 0pM Noa. 280f om0 v,1NOs,yoo . Py moo� N W � Na Y e ' NM 4 M.+QN� N Q ..N .. N .. " dvi ^ „ b .N+ .N. cr.: rS E o•88 b N O m ��pp O O M Q aOp n 1 Ni m pNp C y § . Npp 0m h mNQ , . M .. yV .. .. M or. ^•000^ NOO; NNQOQ pU �: [. v1m MMV1 ^M QO � .00 m. m N N ^ ° N m C ri.. Q N .Q-.' .+ N N N Q v h .p vih Q �5 Q Q J' S<7 �7. r�. m Q N O m•D N Q v I N s l m pAp.O pNp m M .O r m m T Q yp O Y N . m, - -Nm Q ^Nm . vim Ol va Ot� Om00. M ,m8 '.o0 � ' .; R. oS O 1 d MM V M ..Q — .y .� .+ ^ V1 VI V1 -. NQ'/1 g yyo S a$ m Q N Q m vt ,p .p .yp .vp1 N 1� .Mp .pp `yp' 9 "' '� il'7 C ^m «i p�,N ^ Q . O N M • V r pN.. o .p mo c o. ,,.Q Q O E oo 000�p .. .,pp< .ODD.m N' 1gg 24 1 a 8 P r P O <C P N ' ^ < '. fl e4 0 VI 0 0 m m 0 0 ri y 0 0 0 0^P m v� o 0 Q —h Q T O , C q LY N .-i Ci^ l� N M.r M N p 0 N M ° rr> p �pp yE 1 Q Y O. n - 0 --224 8m 0 M oo Pop r N N h mV h9Q Y ' Y L � .Q.ao m. N .�+ ^ M ' m0. o SON^ .00QN aOp00^r � 800 -Ommc o. L y N .. m^ .O "' O O OM � p aN Y O M ^ ° P W m 0 0 P Q ^ r < T m b b O C M Q pp _ O h . b P .E O tiH ^. O .M. M�`Q^O ry — M ^ mOy ^O N .N.� OP N QOP 00 — nom QOO � .. qm ^m � $ C I < � a ° ° I� r N ^ app 0.p0 <pp mt T 4y, Pq n OMOmN N ' Q+ ^ m MONcmOTN ga rcia O .$ .:+ NOOm ..Nm NO 0 .ytl� I CL ^N ^ M ^ `O .. .. m 0 Oi ^ M U Z N 1 y00 a r- o o ^ ^ pp ^ °co; O g .. .p O NN S b N i m - 1 . 9E0! NO. V 'Om Og N mo P OO2�M xQq� 00m .. P m 'O p 8 eeq L.e , a cm 1 P$ b O � ^ .OM � .. N X000 .m.P � .�.m or N mOa„00000 � � � OOm ^'n m,pN � � I ci tp L m p ^ pp.. 'O O •n=. O W w p' O: r aE V n. .N. . ^ .•. g X80 .Q.m ^A00 � 0o O r MM.M�Op P h mN W d sx . 1 O O 1 a. _ en. n tom .. m N P M r M O� OOO .p O ^OO M .+�M — N v 9 v 'O. V Y ON 4D mvImr- e • Y � i °A Pm h Nn ^ H P � Q NO � 000 �0 NOO m . S L_ . O , r MmN V . Y g . p DI Y F 2' U 0 e v �6 P� Y Li ; pow 'a it gw ,, E R m id �s, :C 5r , - .21 .o a •°- v ? g :m 0U $ $b.3U :'� = E'7' a ° .�° YoOV ,OO 5,g3i.3 N m v yg� 22. 6 ge gII � � '33 u v� .0 034 ' �¢ °'Y ' � � - 2 1 c as .9 1 N l _i d �� i0 y >. id � p l $ °00 ::E Y C 11811 i � ' ! 11510 -g FO y °Y a� F �j3 m0F 3 d 2 fiF ,ot Es'.Y. F V §1 ° y •3 m.g 3 Y Fw v 3 G 2 Z ;'i, y y m - g E S e Y Y RI, A' R ,6 9 a Y m = Y 0 = $ u 7 ki 1 • 1 b wench ma, MO ^"4, 9090 ■0 ^ Otn ,O O' N N 0, oo pp pp., N m m m O O m m N^ N v l OO,. b M�Np Q e_mi Ni V l O. Q m m P ..r 8s. N000. 0 e . m0N ' Nv1N ..1 b .-,v1NO0I m OON000 eme Nevi Ne IN,e.MmNl4,l m mci V V.. ..I7 m N- - vtm .09000 ee ^ .r, 0 V of Nr O^ Ym N I T Z M N _ N M�pOp Q Y 1 pp�11 VV1 S O.m m O^ e o o �ey3 �0 0 r'nNm m �� O ' Qvpi-- ' M .b. V 'OOOe Q hogo W 00 V M ^ rO P .m. V m ISO .� N? 'O m G0 N Q . -7-7e-- ^ ^I- ,q7-7-7 vI m In N I� p ,7,„ 0 �p M N h m b h ^ N N .. rn m 'O ^O Q h 1� b O ... �p-.N Or 'O O mp U 'O Qpp . , 0' ^ . )a 8 p `O V:'nh-.N. b F-1 . 8U,1 m ' N Q W N ° N rtln P O N S e 1:Q O O l� O Vl ga e N N m Vl .a O Nm brim oNpf m c° , e .' .•' m N .-0 vploo 'nNN � M .45 ,v'. m 'nNb0' Y 04 N3 ..0. _. z .gam.s N ai P `O ENO^ Q 0m+ N0 Ptbn ONO mmN NT Vl ,- , s m $� 8r m aO1NN_ N . , 0 ' OMO'n mti rn, 00. .0 „ _ 00„N mmN. M5_N' o Oo O N1.1 `O Nt.i r- Nm 'C.n .�'O N.. R N Vie.!-7 O•-4 rQ-r 'nN Op. yF` m . rt N .. mN M M 0 „ mON�p O,emin „ 0 imrpp �p�pb NOS .m-. I� r 0 .p g v 0 8 ? EN m . N 4 e ' m.M O N 0 .. O O O I N 0 v 1 I o o a o o b r N N r G NM .`ON.i NN N NN , v644'5 N N^. n - ONb mer nr N .. M yN ,Om 0 aa ^ . 80 b Ne e¢p N m y O O M Q O m N p e 6 a M m O O O 'O 0 v). O e 'n Q m m M m m M m Vl Or b Or yO O 'n 1- N m 0 , N I-I: MO? N . OInM ' IAN ' 0 m „-� 0mb0v10 hm QOOm NN v 4 mv.,N0I-. Ov " en rn .^,.m1.NN N bNf.i m .. Vi N .... m O • V N'O mme. .M+1� .. m Q.O. 'nN Qa S O a Q Ch In 4 g °° O ^arO^O' 'n NN ,,,,, NN Nm. mmlUom., ON ,e. 00N -"0'1. 00000mcrb� .2 , m .7^NbNN N �NM o.. s' wt N m VC ONb mm ^ ^I` ,. M -co v,-. 8 . O ' C V N , _ , ,... 0 ,-,p p Nm O Np m M P NmOrb . d !cu ,a t C g " mDI.V O p . NNO ' m .- . 00 V0 . .1� N b O M ^ l ry . Q r0 e I I v 0 U M '/ N O N ^ e Y eti m es-, - a $,pga . m , aoem .-omo e� I- �e08o, oor'^noorerm f102, 0e^r,n,. - , m p N h -m N _�N MN ^ m b r ' .t „r. M ^R` O ri.O" "� NN m.. vi mvi <Nvi ,- m gtl �" g O M VY *'n 00 Or8NONrma o0N 0 NN Mm m .. N-. Ov Cr",nm �rD `O O p00 NbmrD V . 00rN .0 of Is m g N i .00,1. r 00 0. m.. b ..001„.0 m ON 00 ^ ,�0 1_~ 90 `0 y L bN V T Nmi m N - „tN m.. N e N ^.-N m un m.. m "" e^ ,-. ' N M ,'n-, a NLl Y Y Y V 3 mF� o rC r t M .Np O N m b b 1 O. N N b N m O m e b p on e i o N a m. Or O Or I� O p N N N N e p N .. Q N o m y ra N m _ 0 N e 0 gyp" M Y O 0 MY1N `O N r Nmvl ' m `O N ,. Vlo 0mM 'Om OO GMO N .. O 'Nnm N ,na n? c0 rj' Iy VaNm"N ^ N N V ^ m ,n m ^ h ., M ..-. .:p' pr a� ..pp .Opr r� 1,-. ° NNNN ,�oj( L Or mmmMO O NI'O rMM < "="10 ;,°48m�O < N YbIm ONOOO N. e1� .-+b m $ yym., 0 7 g ^ N . .6,, , " "I N V1 ,. N NONe N ^ .. .-. mvl m..Q NO OVl M .. .O m a `d C mm a tom N N QO 1 NOOr'O m vlN ^ ^ e O. Nm h `O3 mQ CO 0 'n-, G C O me ^ Y1N! m 0 . One ' NO Om O _ <0moalo <Ie�,, 00 . me m . rbi) MO mp<-] '0 Y' ... N - O 41 .... g O N N b "No v l N 4 e p°' N C N O 00 N V l N N Q �. m V t m �-O 0 m ,D () thug Y41 p. (� _ m - Iy ^ m N ,S g: l yp t qNq O .Np N ^gIy M "'Opt, R •4- -, ,T p N .no h p mTr r `O .+ .m, W m m m N`�Q(M rVp, E t0 U O m pb .0+ . on , ,y0-400 ,2,„ o . Om oN0 Inbv1001� 1n v1N QN %N - O '6w , Y Q ^ O i Q m b N .- 0 b - N N O v) N ^ Q m �' -0 O ^ N Q 00 N V1 .' N N Q m Q M .- Q 0 M , 'r. Q jl p Y ^ 1• 901 M m m m ^ Q_ N Q N m r' 0 N N p Vl Q p m C' - �$ t�1 _1] p NO Y 0 O- Q b b m ,O m 1� ern rp b `O M N v, Q e N Q N O ,v2 r.1 aS E O. 0 [.1 0 .. m^ e .O N ' rn� O O.01m-,OV1r rr0iO .. t� N`OOOO HNm NNI� N ^ Q V O i[' N m m N Q .-. N N e m e M,. •Q 0 0 m yl �9 v� O S e NN'J 'J P N N N 1 Q�N n I r O n l b m ,I p� 0 p O a? N N V I INS N men O 0 N_N ^ rO m M m e m e q,q, O o U u 0 m m p P vl v> m . b N N ' e N R 0 0 M N N O O b v, m O O. yl O 0 N M O m.0 ^ q O ^ H m I� N e ^ m^ a .+N N m `O m .--.O'V7 (n e M...a N N 0 0 O N MN-r m VNj U 6 4 Y p� vv� • ..$ a �g a - a 0 _' 0 0 PA q 'm. O _V. -'.t est, $ p, :0Op g9. L�y IA O 9 �O' .' o V �p y'.O p R E N b 9 N O a tl S IS T p : ,w, :::Oi'.'S O U � W c Y r.] p C .j q Y q : c g 1 Y ,.tl. ..�ryy Or E }pyj - - + CUU � :yaUUQ :'45 ° . 'J..I 4:Y OFI " 'G t�j y: ° � F . ; Q ° Py C u :e Q . - .-�' 0 EFO eT2 - p :_umii o � � Y ' t 8JFO � °� 5 b °�FO U ° 00 O u'° Mu Wb , A pme $, to $,F 'eA c'F :'a E eF e � m 0 m0M 3 3 v v EF s .. F - °o e , 6 CK " ca - Ym '- ,2t - m ig8t200: tt5: 1i Z3obwRHc akYm1 „ Un a o " Y -0)2 4oE y :m r0. y' :a to ti b106 � u y `r4. 0 0 Ou3gu`S .° c5 1)3 �b r. u. 0h366 . cn' igz a :n.K3af F6 ° Q x 36"'n ° u -oC v+c^ I • 1 1 1 tr 1 APPENDIX B ' RECYCLING SYSTEMS 1 i 1 1 i County-wide Printed on recycled paper 1 1 APPENDIX B RECYCLING SYSTEMS This section will discuss various types of facilities and methods of collection that can be used to accumulate recyclables from generators followed by a discussion of facilities that extract and/or prepare recyclables for reuse. One of the recycling alternatives calls for the establishment of regional facilities. This discussion appears near the end of this appendix. Residential and commercial recycling activity is commonly characterized by the type of facility to which the material(s)is delivered or by the system through which the material(s) is collected. The former include "drop-off' and "buy-back" centers; the latter, various forms ' of source-separated material collection. A drop-off site accepts only donated material; a buy- back site pays for material received. Collection systems may be informal, e.g., Scouts, or formal, source-separated collection by a franchised hauler. These activities as well as recycling at a materials recovery facility are discussed below. Drop-off Centers ' These facilities are commonly operated by community groups or provided as an additional convenience to generators by commercial entities. Those operated by community groups can be segmented as follows: 1 • Recycling constitutes the principal purpose of the group. That is, the group exists to support the environment through recycling. Examples include the various Ecology Action groups. • Recycling is a fund-raising or occupational training effort of groups with much broader agendas. Examples include groups such as Lions, Boy Scouts, and ' Disabled Workshop agencies. Drop-off centers operated by commercial entities are either adjuncts to other facilities ' (e.g., receiving bins at a solid waste transfer station or commercial buy-back center) or unstaffed bins positioned at various community locations (e.g., a newspaper bin in a supermarket parking lot). ' Material is usually delivered to these facilities in source-separated fashion by generators who are either motivated by a concern for the environment, a desire to•assist the community group operator, a desire to minimize disposal charges, or a combination of these factors. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper mrxevoamwv.w"as B-2 In its simplest form, a drop-off center has large bins in which material is aggregated. Materials most commonly handled are newspaper and aluminum cans, followed by glass containers, PET bottles, corrugated boxes, office paper, and used oil. In multimaterial facilities, the various types of wastes are almost always source-separated by the generator. Facility volunteers usually help in off-loading, some decontaminating (removing magazines, waxed boxes, noncontainer glass, ceramics, etc.), and loading into the storage bins. The storage bins are often provided and serviced by waste haulers or commercial recyclers when full. Some of the drop-off centers have developed much more substantial operations, particularly in locations where alternative recycling sites or collection services are minimal or nonexistent. In such cases, the center may have conveyors, balers, forklift trucks, aluminum can densifiers, glass crushers,large oil tanks,magnetic separators,etc., and operate with paid personnel. In such instances, from an equipment perspective, drop-off centers can be much the same as commercial operations. Buy-back Centers , These facilities are defined as those at which recyclable material is purchased from the public. Therefore, an important motivation for the generator is income. As with the drop-off center,buy-back may be the only activity or may simply be a component of a multi- operation facility. Size and technological complexity vary substantially. At the simple end of the spectrum is the single material "Reverse Vending Machine," an unstaffed machine that "reads" the aluminum or glass container, pays out a specified amount per container, and stores a limited volume between collections. At the other end are huge, multi-acre sites combining substantial material processing with purchase operations, characteristic of the traditional, commercial recyclers. These facilities are commonly dominated by either paper or metal, although there is a growing horizontal integration to multimaterial facilities dealing with paper, metal, glass, and plastic. Except for small volume purchases of some beverage containers by count under the , California bottle bill (AB 2020), recyclable commodities are purchased by weight, or occasionally, weight equivalents (eg., stack height). Therefore, buy-back sites are required to have certified weighing mechanisms, ranging from small platform scales to 70-foot truck scales. Collection Options Collection of recyclables is carried out by both formal and informal methods. I Informal Collection. Informal collectors include organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, and church groups on the one hand and independent, entrepreneurial scavengers on the other. These informal collectors often provide valuable service to the Countywide i Printed on recycled paper 51l,n1011"`We'DI B-3 1 recycling industry by collecting material of marginal value. On the down side, they ' sometimes take material from existing, commercial routes, thereby negatively impacting commercial collection economics. Since these collectors commonly use their own private vehicles to collect and deliver the material to purchasers,the most common vehicles used are pickup trucks (often with built-up sides) and panel vans. In the case of community group special collections, such as the Boy Scout efforts, the volunteers will go door to door, soliciting material. In the case of the independent scavengers,informal territories are usually 1 established and zealously guarded. The material may be set aside for them by the generator or scavenged from the trash set-outs. When illegal scavenging occurs, the already separated ' material is removed from containers set out for the formal collection agency. Formal Collection. Formal collectors are ultimately governed by their economic bottom lines, in that both labor and equipment costs must be considered relative to the "delivered" value of the commodity. The economics of this segment are governed by the following factors: ' • The amount, condition, and accessibility of material at each generation point. • The number and concentration of generators within any given geographical area. • The kind of collection vehicle to be used, including its capacity, the means of loading, and the labor required. • If applicable, the payment to the generator for the material collected. Simply stated, for commercial collection to be viable,the costs for collection must be equal to or less than the value of the material as delivered to the next point. Therefore the costs must be less then the revenue from processing or less than the disposal costs including the environmental impacts. Achieving cost-effectiveness requires a maximization of payload from a minimum of sources. In some cases, such as corrugated cartons and plastics, the loose material has such a poor weight-to-volume ratio, that cost-effective collection (even a whole truckload from a single source) is virtually impossible unless the market value of the material is exceedingly high. Cost-effective commercial collection is commonly carried out by truckload lots; major exceptions are high grade office papers (e.g., ledgers, computer printout) and other very valuable commodities, such as precious metal sources. Formal collection of low value commodities and/or from low volume generators falls into the tategory of collection that is 1 1 ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper 57IM2,OR,,a mENDa9 1 13-4 not, in itself, cost-effective without some form of external subsidy. Subsidized collection, therefore, represents the only likely feasible alternative for recovering low value materials that are currently being discarded for disposal, especially from the residential waste stream. Residential Collection. Household waste contains a significant amount of food wastes and other material that tend to seriously contaminate many otherwise recoverable commodities. Therefore, separating the recyclables from mixed residential waste at a central processing facility presents substantial technical problems and potentially severe health risks to workers. Therefore, most programs require that materials be segregated by the generator, stored, and set out for collection on a regular schedule. Current technology and practices include: 1 • Special container(s)provided by the collector for material storage. Containers currently in use include cloth or plastic sacks,buckets, stackable plastic boxes, ' and rollaway carts. Although many programs require three or more separations by the generator, there is a growing movement to a one-container setout of mixed cans and bottles, with bundled or bagged newspaper 1 alongside. There are some programs where all the recyclables are commingled, such as the DART program in Downey, California. • Location of setout is most commonly at the curb for collection efficiency and to improve participation. Some programs provide backyard service, a much more costly approach since the collector must stop at each house without knowing in advance if there is material to be picked up. With curbside collection, it is very easy to ascertain whether a home is participating. Frequency of collection varies, generally from weekly to biweekly to monthly. Common experience is that the optimum frequency is weekly,on the same day as solid waste collection. • In most instances, a dedicated collection vehicle is used, although some programs in smaller communities utilize a trailer or rack configuration attached to the collection truck. The current trend is for multicompartments (2 to 6), with rear, side, or front hydraulic dumping, 12 to 40 cubic yard capacity, dual stand-up drive, and operation by one person. A newer feature is the low loading cart which lifts hydraulically and dumps into the truck body, eliminating loader stretch as the truck fills up. Dedicated vehicles for mixed recyclables are commonly traditional rear, side, and front loaders. Dedicated vehicles for source-separated materials are undergoing much research and modification. Some of the development issues deal with minimizing glass breakage and maximizing plastic container weight-to-volume ratios on route. I 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper n1*nrmmm9rrvwx3 B-5 Commercial Collection. It is reasonable to assume that most commercial sites ' generating large quantities of recoverable material are already segregating,this material for collection by the secondary materials industry. It is also reasonable to assume that there are many businesses and institutions that generate sufficient quantities but do not segregate them. ' In contrast with residential waste, mixed commercial waste has much less wet garbage and other contaminating agents. Therefore, even without source separation there is a greater potential for recovery at a materials recovery facility. This will be discussed more fully in the following section. As one moves down to smaller, and much more numerous,businesses, the economics ' of collection becomes increasingly marginal. This factor is further exacerbated by the great variety of businesses generating different composition mixes and being more geographically ' spread out. If a sufficient concentration of similar material generators can be secured within a reasonable area, such collection can be cost-effective. ' Green Waste Collection. Green waste is defined as combined yard and garden waste and is comprised of grass clippings, leaves, and shrub and tree trimmings. Since green waste commingled with solid waste is virtually impossible to separate, green waste (as with most other residentially-generated recoverables) must be collected as a source-separated item. Commercially generated green waste is almost always delivered by landscape maintenance business vehicles in relatively pure loads. ' Residential green waste can be collected separately. Current technology for green waste collection falls into two basic categories relating to how the material is set out for collection. • Noncontainerized Systems. Green waste is set out loose on the street, about one foot from the curb. The residents are sometimes asked to break or cut tree trimmings to 2- to 4-foot lengths. The material is picked up with a mechanical scoop, claw, or vacuum collector and placed in a compactor or noncompactor truck. Problems encountered include scattering by wind, by cars, or by vandalism, fire caused by passing vehicles; and blockage of stone sewer drains. • Containerized Systems. Green waste is placed in bags, dedicated trash cans, or rollaway carts, the last being used for automated collection. In all three ' cases, the green waste can be emptied into the collection truck (commonly a packer truck),leaving the container for reuse. Alternatively,the bagged green waste can be placed into the truck as such. Problems include contamination from other trash/garbage put into the bag, overstuffed bags that are too heavy i ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper nixaeroxiswrrevom.e B-6 for safe lifting, torn bags, increased labor to open plastic bags at delivery site or removal of plastic shreds from finished product. One way to avoid the latter problems is to use wet-strength kraft bags which, when shredded, will become part of the green waste material. Recycling at Solid Waste Facilities The establishment of a materials recovery facility (MRF) represents the last and best option for significantly increasing the volume of diversion from disposal when the source separated options are developed. As noted in the previous section,the level of contamination of mixed residential waste is such that efficient recovery of materials at a MRF is , substantially limited. This section will concentrate on two major waste substreams--commercial/industrial ' and construction/demolition--which together constitute a substantial portion of the total waste stream. These streams are collected and delivered to waste facilities in front-end loaders, roll-offs (sometimes called drag-ons), and a variety of private vehicles ranging from pickups to end-dumps. For these vehicles, the MRF becomes the front door of the waste facility. Materials Recovery at Solid Waste Transfer Stations. The primary function of this facility is to consolidate waste from a variety of collection/delivery vehicles into maximum payload trailers for delivery to a sanitary landfill. Efficient and timely off-loading and reloading,space limitations, and the constant movement of vehicles at existing facilities make recovery operations difficult and often interrupted. Nonetheless, an existing transfer station can be designed to recover recyclables. At such sites,the materials most commonly recovered 111 are OCC and bulky metal scrap. The OCC is usually baled on site and metal scrap is commonly stored and moved to scrap dealers in roll-off containers. At the design stage for new transfer facilities, it is possible to provide for a more 1 elaborate and ongoing recovery system more similar to a sanitary landfill MRF. Material Recovery at Sanitary Landfills. MRFs designed as alternative "front ' doors" of landfills are commonly located on site. However, some consideration may be given to locating the MRF off-site if it is convenient. One factor affecting the location may be adequate terrain; another factor may be access to rail, which can provide additional market flexibility. While MRF designs vary somewhat in system approach, some generalized patterns emerge as process steps. As a fmal step, the potential for the MRF to act as a processing center for material collected in residential curbside collection programs will be considered. Primary Steps. This initial series of activities include the receipt of the mixed material through the initial sorting out of recoverables by material type. These steps will enhance recovery efforts at the MRF. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper msa®oatrwvre+aoce B-7 Step 0. Influencing precollection storage and routing decisions. This effort will be ' especially helpful in front-end loader collections which commonly include apartment complexes and a variety of retail and small office businesses. By careful routing, where economically feasible,wet garbage contamination can be minimized for office ' or retail merchandizing wastes. Requesting (or requiring) the bagging of wet waste is another possibility. ' Step 1. Traffic management at the gate. Many trucks entering the landfill carry essentially one type of material. By monitoring at the gate, trucks can be directed to the MRF proper for mixed material; a reserved area for special material, such as used tires, concrete/asphalt, wood, or green waste; or directly to disposal if the material is unusable, such as roofing waste. Moreover, traffic control at the gate will permit a controlled phase-in of MRF operations and provide the facility with the option of temporary diversion directly to landfill as technical conditions may warrant. ' Step 2. Depositing mixed material on a tipping floor. The size and configuration of the tipping floor must accommodate the anticipated traffic without undue delay. Locating the MRF at the "front door" of a landfill, with paved access and tipping floor, can speed up average turnaround time for incoming vehicles. In those cases where most of the material is delivered to the facility in a concentrated time span, provision may be made for some stockpiling of mixed waste for processing later in ' the day. Step 3. Moving the mixed material from the tipping floor to the sorting area and/or ' conveyor(s) or directly to storage points. At this stage, the material is spread out on the floor, usually by bucket loaders, to allow for visual inspection. Heavy, bulky items such as white goods, tree stumps, concrete/asphalt, and anything else too ' difficult for sorters to handle manually are removed and placed in appropriate storage areas. Any observable hazardous material is removed at this point. In smaller scale operations, essentially all of the recoverable material can be sorted directly off the ' tipping floor. If not, the remainder of the material is pushed onto an infeed conveyor. Step 3A. At this juncture, one possibility is the use of a rotating trommel or other ' type of screen for removal of fines (dirt, small particles of glass, ceramics, etc.). The diameter of the trommel should be quite large (about 8 feet) to avoid jamming or clogging by sheet plastic and large boxes. If a trommel is used, any attempt at glass ' container recovery should precede trommel entry. Another possibility is the extraction of bimetal and ferrous materials by incorporating ' the use of magnetics usually in the form of a magnetized head pulley in a picking line conveyor. Also, it is possible to use an overhead magnet, most commonly a cross- belt type, to magnetically extract materials. County-wide Printed on recycled paper mwuaoxm.n®r 1 B-8 It should be noted that, in general, the quality of the end-product of mechanical processes, such as those mentioned above, is usually lower than hand-picked material. Although there are numerous mechanical material extraction technologies on the market, few, if any, have been able to demonstrate an overall advantage over basic hand-picking systems, in terms of operating costs versus capital costs, and the volume and quality of materials recovered. Step 4. The mixed material moves up the conveyor to elevated sorting stations, to allow for gravity drop of sorted materials into holding bins below. Here, the layout in terms of length, number of lines, number and sorting duties of sorters, number of drop zones for material, size and configuration of storage will depend upon anticipated volume throughput and the number and kind of materials to be recovered. Most commonly, OCC, scrap metal, wood waste, sheet plastic, PVC pipe, and mixed paper are recoverable in significant quantities. Additionally, an attempt should be made to retrieve aluminum,glass,PET, and HDPE. Another component that has been utilized is the use of wide mouth vacuum hoses to suck up mixed paper as an alternative to hand-snatching. 1 Step 5. Sorted material is dropped into holding bins (areas) or onto secondary conveyor systems for further processing, which will be discussed in the secondary steps section. Step 6. Residual material is aggregated for removal to the active disposal location. , In the case of a MRF connected to a transfer station, the conveyor carrying the residuals may simply continue into the transfer station disposal area, depositing the material on the disposal tipping floor. The MRF at the landfill will require some form of transfer vehicle to carry the residuals from the MRF to the active face. A MRF that is not built adjacent to a transfer station or landfill will require a transfer system component to load and deliver residue material to the appropriate landfill. Transfer system options basically depend on the method of loading the material at the MRF, the method of hauling the material; and the method of unloading the material at the landfill. Transferring materials by way of tractor-trailer rigs is the generally accepted method of hauling residue, depending upon the amount of material involved and the distance from the MRF to the landfill. Only in the case of low tonnage and low mileage to the landfill should less expensive (i.e.,lower hauling capacity)vehicles be considered. The following loading and unloading options are discussed assuming the use of tractor-trailer rigs. Loading options are as follows: loose-loading the material by way of gravity feed, which requires a minimum 16-foot elevation difference between the residue collection area and the trailer loading area. Materials can be mechanically I County-wide 1 Printed on recycled paper nisxvocm&wmnoae B-9 1 loaded using either a front-loader with a high-lift bucket, or a preload compaction ' system. Unloading options are either live-floor trailers or "possum-belly" trailers, which require special tipping equipment at the landfill. Both Altamont and Vasco Road landfills are equipped with tipping equipment, while Durham Road landfill is not. Haulers that require tipping equipment must pay a surcharge to the landfill operator ' for this service. Especially in higher tonnage situations, the cost of the surcharge is offset by the ability of possum-belly trailers to haul more payload per trailer. It should be noted that these trailers are not compatible with preload compaction systems. A cost comparison of these alternatives is in Table B-5 on page B-23 of this Appendix. Secondary Steps. This phase of MRF activity encompasses any secondary sorting, further decontaminating, additional processing, and preparation for shipment of all sorted ' material. Since this phase relates to specific materials largely recoverable from non-residential waste streams, it will concentrate on OCC, ferrous scrap, mixed paper, wood waste, and selected plastics. Green waste, tires, and construction debris are assumed to be ' directed to alternative areas for special treatment. Step 1. OCC is dropped into a storage area adjacent to the inked conveyor of a high ' density (export grade) horizontal baler. This area may be a concrete floor, in which case the OCC will be pushed onto the baler conveyor by a bucket loader or some equivalent piece of equipment. Alternatively, the floor of the storage area can be a conveyor at right angles to the baler conveyor. Several plant designs include a parallel series of these right-angle conveyor bins to hold all the various materials to be baled. ' It is useful to design in at least one additional sorting point for the OCC before it enters the baler, so that any contaminating material (such as plastic sheet) missed by the initial sorters can be removed. Step 2. Mixed paper can be handled in much the same way as OCC above. However, given the relatively high proportion of office-generated paper in the County's waste stream, it may be cost-effective to run the mix through a secondary sort for recovery of computer printout (CPO) and, possibly, sorted ledgers (white or colored office paper). In this case, the primary sorters will drop the mixed paper into a receiving hopper for a secondary sorting conveyor. The secondary sorters would use either gravity drop or tertiary conveyors for the CPO and ledger grades. The residual mix would empty from the secondary conveyor into a holding bin: Step 3. Ferrous scrap, subject to economic analysis related to grade and volume,will be stored in large,roll-off bins and sold as mixed scrap to a scrap yard for subsequent processing. Alternatively, the scrap can be sorted (minimally into heavy gauge and ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper nvarnuaiINAMNnae 1 B-10 1 light gauge), cut as appropriate to 4 foot bundle size, and/or baled. If baling is economically feasible, a dedicated scrap baler is called for since metal and paper balers have quite different characteristics. - Step 4. Wood waste will move from the initial storage area by conveyor into a shredding system. If the end use is as a fuel, the shredding systems will require sizing capability to screen out both oversized and fines as well as a magnetic system to remove ferrous elements. If the end use involves some form of incorporation of this material with the green waste, finer shredding will be desirable but without the need of a screening system. If the shredding takes place within the MRF, the system can be electrical and permanently installed. If the shredding is to be done in a more 1 remote area, the shredding system will likely be diesel or gas-powered and, perhaps, portably mounted on a trailer bed. In the latter case, wood waste is introduced into the shredding systems by use of bucket loaders off paved surfaces or by grapple hooks mounted on loaders or cranes. Step 5. Depending on available markets, it may be possible to sort out all plastics 1 and bale the mixed polymers without secondary sorting. Alternatively, polymers can be sorted into major categories, especially since industry polymer codes are being placed on more containers. Most of the plastic recovered from this waste stream will be sheet plastic (mostly low density polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride), which can be baled mixed or upgraded by color sorting before baling. Another plastic product, PVC pipe, will be readily identified for sorting and baling. Step 6. Tires, if they are to be routinely shredded and, possibly crumbed, should be directed to a special area, perhaps adjacent to the MRF or to a separate facility located off-site. This facility will require a tipping area, storage capacity, dedicated tire-shredder(s), and either ambient or cryogenic grinding systems and bagging capability if crumbing is included. Step 7. Concrete/asphalt, which is stored in a separate area outside of the MRF, can be crushed utilizing a tractor or, if sufficient volumes exist, a dedicated crusher. As a further step in refining the material for re-use, screening can be carried out to develop uniformly sized aggregates. Tertiary Steps. This phase includes the storage,loading, and shipping of sorted and processed materials. 1 Step 1. Protected, paved surface space for storage of baled paper and plastics is desirable. Sufficient space for one or more backup loads in each grade is appropriate. Bales are commonly stacked three-high in rows. Bales of ferrous scrap can be stored outdoors. 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper ^i,AEmR1, w xrnxa B-11 Step 2. Shredded wood waste will be loaded directly into trailers from overhead hoppers, elevating conveyors, or stored in bunkers for bucket loading into user vehicles. Step 3. Bales of paper or plastic are loaded onto flat-bed trailers or into closed vans/export containers or rail cars using forklift trucks. Therefore, both floor-level and loading dock space is required, with special attention to adequate space related to volume and traffic control. Ferrous bales can be loaded into roll-off bins or onto flat-beds. Step 4. Any material stored and shipped in roll-off bins will be picked up by trucks for delivery. Processing of Curbside Materials. This section deals with process lines that could be added to the MRF to permit efficient handling of material collected in various residential curbside programs. The materials that can be processed include newspaper, glass and metal containers (aluminum and tin-plated cans), and PET and HDPE containers. Assuming that any specific material collected separately from the others can be integrated at the point of post-sorting storage,the process lines described will deal with newspaper and the commingled remainder. This breakout of materials is becoming the most prevalent. Step 1. The newspaper will be received loose, tied, or in sacks, paper or plastic. A short process conveyor line to remove string, sacks, and other contaminants will be required before the newspaper is stored for baling. If the newspaper is collected along with other paper, such as junk mail, it will probably be integrated directly with the mixed paper residue and not upgraded. Step 2. The commingled material will be deposited in a receiving hopper or on an adjacent floor area. As the material moves onto the initial elevated sorting conveyor(s), flint and green/amber glass will be hand-picked. Next, the material will pass through a trommel to screen out broken glass, dirt, and other fines. The material passing through the trommel will pass a magnet, dividing the stream into tin-plated cans on one side and an aluminum/plastic mix on the other. On the tin-plate side, any trapped aluminum will be removed and the tin cans will proceed to storage and baling. On the other side, sorters will pull PET and HDPE bottles and remove any extraneous material for disposal. The two plastic container streams will move to storage and baling, with a possible intermediate step for perforation to enhance bale compaction and integrity. The remaining aluminum stream will continue on into storage and baling. I County-wide Printed on recycled paper fl YREPOR APPENpp{9 1 B-12 Incremental Design Considerations Whenever a MRF design is being developed, the primary initial consideration is the amount of material that is available for extraction of recyclables. For the purpose of this discussion, quantities will be discussed in terms of tons per day (tpd),based on a 6-day work week, or 312 total work days per year which ignores holidays. For reasons previously discussed, the nonresidential waste stream is the prime feed stock to target for the extraction of recyclables in a MRF. Even as tonnage throughput varies, the basic materials targeted for extraction remain the same usually OCC, wood, and scrap metals. As the tpd increases, several components of the facility will incrementally change. The most obvious change is the space requirements. As the number of vehicles j bringing material to the MRF increases, more space must be allocated to traffic considerations, including queuing, weighing, tipping areas,load checking, etc. Storage areas must be sized to allow for sufficient room to efficiently collect materials from tipping areas. As material accumulates in adequate volumes, consideration must be given to moving material to load-out areas or secondary processing areas. As quantities involved surpass approximately 200 tpd, it is usually desirable to progress from dump and pick type extraction to a more automated level of picking such as the commonly used picking line, which was previously discussed. Space requirements for these lines are fairly homogeneous, depending upon the number of materials targeted for extraction and the amount of mechanical extraction being attempted (magnets, screens, etc.). It is generally recognized that typical picking lines are not capable of a throughput of more than 20 tons per hour, therefore consideration must be given to the feasibility of multishift operations in order to achieve the desired throughput from a single line. Increasing tonnage will eventually require the installation of a parallel line. Parallel picking lines not only allow for higher throughput, they also provide redundancy and flexibility in dealing with changes in types of incoming materials and changes in specifications of end-products. It should be noted that mechanized systems represent the possibility for downtime due to mechanical failure or scheduled maintenance. Therefore, it is recommended that alternative operational strategies are built into the facility. For instance, it is advisable to have more than one means of loading residue material into transfer vehicles. Tipping areas should also have additional space that allows for stockpiling of material during downtime periods. This also helps accommodate surges in volume of material during the daily peak unloading periods. As the tonnage of throughput increases,the manpower requirdments will also increase, thereby necessitating additional space allocations for employee support facilities, including offices, restrooms, lunchrooms, and locker rooms. I 1 County-wide I Printed on recycled paper 371,REPO mAPPDOC[s B-13 I Based on the data generated for the jurisdictions in Alameda County, it was determined that MRF requirements would range from small, to medium, to large facilities, depending upon the amount of material that each facility was expected to handle. Small Facility. A basic facility would be characterized as having the minimum size and number of components that would be needed to accept and process a relatively low amount of tonnage, or about 200 tpd of throughput. Basic functional areas of the facility would include a gatehouse with scale, and an open-air tipping area for construction and demolition and industrial material. Inside the 20,000 square foot building would be a material receiving area or tipping area, material separation area,processing area, storage and load-out area, buy-back area, and an area with offices, restrooms, and an employee lunchroom. There would also need to be a dedicated area for residue storage and loadout. Medium Facility. A medium size facility would be able to receive and process up to 500 tpd of nonresidential material. Basic functional areas would be the same as the previously-described basic facility,with larger space allowances and a building size of around 50,000 square feet. The most significant difference would be the addition of a 50-foot-long elevated picking line, which would be utilized for two shifts per day. Large Facility. The large facility would be able to handle as much as 1,000 tpd and would require a 84,000 square foot building. A large facility would include two parallel ' picking lines which would run two shifts per day. Table B-1 describes some of the basic design criteria assigned to each of the conceptual facilities. Costs Based on the three basic throughput classifications of small, medium, and large, or ' 200, 500, and 1,000 tpd, construction costs were estimated for each. Capital cost estimates and operating and maintenance cost estimates are listed in Tables B-2 and B-2A, for a 200 tpd facility, Tables B-3 and B-3A, for a 500 tpd facility; and Tables B-4 and B-4A for a 1 1,000 tpd facility. Each facility would be a pre-engineered metal building with concrete slabs-on-grade. The building would have hard walls up to 8 feet high to withstand potential impacts from equipment and materials. Returned utilities including electricity, plumbing, and fire protection systems are included in the costs. Construction costs were compiled to include as many typical features as possible to ensure as complete an estimate as possible. It is important to note that a number of construction and operating costs could not be fine-tuned due to the fact that these scenarios are not site specific. 1 1 ' county-wide Printed on recycled paper mr nortmAvrvvnus I B-14 I Table B-1. Material Recovery Facility Conceptual Design Criteria I Facility throughput Facility components 200 tpd 500 tpd 1000 tpd I Building 20,000 sf 50,000 sf 84,000 sf Required acreage 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 1 Buy-back area Yes Yes Yes Picking lines 0 (dump and pick) 1 2 Baler 1 1 1 Wood shredders 1 1 1 Magnets 0 1 2 Shifts 1 2 2 Employees 22 41 69 1 Capital costs $2.5 million $4.7 million $6.8 million O&M costs 1.0'million 1.9 million 3 million I Annualized costs 1.3 million 2.3 million 3.7 million Cost per ton* $20.45/ton $15/ton $11.94/ton I *Optimum throughput. I I 1 I I I County-wide ' Printed on recycled paper rrsnerortmw.rsnoue I Table B-2 Capital Cost Estimate (1990, dollars) I200 TPD Materials Recovery Facility County of Alameda IItem - Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Metal Building 20,000 square feet 13.00 dollars/sq ft $260,000 Concrete Foundation Slab 40,000 square feet 11.00 dollars/sq ft 440,000 Concrete Walls 3,500 square feet 13.00 dollars/sq ft 45,500 IOffice 100 square feet 100.00 dollars/sq ft 10,000 OH Doors 4 each i 2000.00 each 8,000 # Sprinkler System 20,000 square feet 2.00 dollars/sq ft 250.00 each 40,000 Fire Extinguisher 8 each 2,000 Plumbing 1 lump sum 25,000 IMaintenance Shop 1 lump sum 20,000 Fixed Equipment 1 lump sum 500,000 •I Transfer Equipment 1 lump sum 620,000 Electrical 20,000 square feet 4.70 each 94,000 Sitework 1 allowance 150,000 IArchitectual/Engineering 7 percent 155,015 General Conditions 15 percent 332,175 I Contingency 15 percent 332,175 Siting, Permitting, Approval 1 allowance 200,000 Rolling Stock 1 lump sum 300,000 I $3,533,865 I I I I I I I Table B-2A Operating & Maintenance Costs (Annual) 200 TPD Materials Recovery Facility Alameda County - I Capital Recovery 1 Cost Factor Total Annual (1) Capital Cost $3,533,865 0.10185220 $359,932 (2) Operating& Maintenance Costs I (A) Labor Costs #employees Salary Total 1 Plant Mngr 1 $59,000 . $59,000 Operators 8 $54,000 $432,000 Classifiers 12 $35,000 $420,000 Clerk 1 $30,000 $30,000 $941,000 (B) Equipment O&M Costs HP Kw/Hr Hr/day Day/Wk Cents/Hr Total Baler 75 0.764 6 313 0.06 $6,457 J Maintenance $1,000 Transfer Equipment 200,000 #Equip Weeks 3/Week Tub Grinder 1 52 $300 $15,600 Loaders 2 52 $50 $5,200 Forklifts 2 52 $10 $1,040 Roll-off Truck 1 52 $20 $1,040 $230,337 1 (C) Fuel Consumption Cost #Equip Hrs/day days/wk Gal/Hr S/Gal . Total Tub Grinder 1 5 313 9 $1.2 $16,902 Loaders 2 6 313 3 $1.2 $13,522 Forklifts 2 5 313 2 $1.2 $7,512 • #Equip Hours MPG Day/wk MPG S/Gal Roll-off Truck 1 4 25 313 5 $1.2 $7,512 $45,448 1 (D) Facility Utilities S/Month #months Total 1 $1,000 12 $12,000 Total O&M (A+B+C+D) $1,228,784 ' Contingency at 10 % of O&M $122,878 Total Capital and Operating &Maintenance Costs (1+2) $1,711,595 I * 8 percent interest spread out over 20 years 1 a • ITable B-3 , Capital Cost Estimate (1990, dollars) 500 TPD Materials Recovery Facility 1 County of Alameda . 1 • Item . Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Metal Building 50,000 square feet $13.00 dollars/sq ft $650,000 I Concrete Foundation Slab 50,000 square feet $11.00 dollars/sq ft ll $550,000 Concrete Walls 7,200 square feet $13.00 dollars/sq ft $93,600 Office 900 square feet $100.00 dollars/sq ft $90,000 OH Doors 10 each $2,000.00 each $20,000 Sprinkler System 50,000 square feet $2.00 dollars/sq ft $100,000 I Fire Extinguisher 20 each $25.00 each $5,000 Plumbing 1 lump sum $50,000 Maintenance Shop 1 lump sum $40,000 II 1 550,000 Fixed Equipment 1 lump sum $1,000,000 Transfer Equipment 1 lump sum $620,000 Electrical 50,000 square feet $5.50 each $275,000 Sitework 1 lump sum $260,000 I. Architectual/Engineering 7 percent $266,252 General Conditions 15 percent $570,540 Contingency 15 percent $570,540 I Siting, Permitting, Approval 1 allowance $350,000 Rolling Stock 1 1 lump sum $400,000 iTotal Cost $5,960,932 I I 1 I I I . Table B-3A Operating & Maintenance Costs (Annual) .2 500 TPD Materials Recovery Facility • Alameda County Capital Recovery (1) Capital Cost Cost Factor Total Annual $5,960,932 0.101852 $607,134 (2) Operating& Maintenance Costs (A) Labor Costs #employees Salary Total Plant Mngr 1 $59,000 $59,000 Operators 13 $54,000 $702,000 Classifiers 24 $35,000 $840,000 Clerk 3 $30,000 $90,000 la $1,691,000 in (B)Equipment O&M Cost HP Kw/Hr Hr/day Day/Wk ents/Hr Total Baler 100 0.764 12 313 0.06 $17,218 I Maintenance $1,000 Conveyors 20 0.764 14 313 0.06 $4,017 Maintenance $1,000 Magnet Lump sum $1,000 Transfer Equipment 337,000 #Equip Weeks $/Week Wood Shredder 1 52 $300 $15,600 Bucket Loaders 2 52 $50 $5,200 Bobcat Loaders 1 52 $50 $2,600 • Forklifts 2 52 $10 $1,040 Roll-off Truck 1 52 $20 $1,040 Pic-up Truck 1 52 $20 $1,040 • $387,755 I (C) Fuel Consumption Cost #Equip Hrs/day days/wk Gal/Hr $/Gal Total Tub Grinder 1 10 313 9 $1.2 $33,804 Loaders 2 14 313 3 $1.2 $31,550 Bobcat 1 10 313 2 $1.2 $7,512 Forklifts 2 12 313 2 $1.2 • $18,029 #Equip Hours MPG Day/wk MPG $/Gal Roll-off Truck 1 8 25 313 5 $1.2 $15,024 Pick-Up Truck • 1 4 25 313 10 $1.2 $3,756 • $109,675 (D) Facility Utilities $/Month #months Total $1,500 12 $18,000 Total O&M (A+B+C+D) • $2,206,430 I Contingency at•I0 % of O&M $220,643 Total Capital and Operating& Maintenance Costs (1+2) $3,034,207 I * 8 percent spread over 20 years. I ITable B-4 Capital Cost Estimate (1990, dollars) 1000 TPD Materials Recovery Facility • ICounty of Alameda IItem Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Metal Building 90,000 square feet • 13.00 dollars/sq ft $1,170,000 I Concrete Foundation Slab 90,000 square feet 11.00 dollars/sq ft $990,000 Concrete Walls 11,000 square feet 13.00 dollars/sq ft $143,000 P Office, Lunchroom 1,300 square feet 100.00 dollars/sq ft 2000.00 each $130,000 OH Doors 14 each $28,000 Sprinkler System 90,000 square feet 2.00 dollars/sq ft $180,000 I Fire Extinguisher 32 each 250.00 each $8,000 Plumbing 1 lump sum $84,000 Maintenance Shop 1 lump sum $50,000 I Equipment Support 1 lump sum $100,000 Fixed Equipment 1 lump sum $1,335,000 Transfer Equipment 1 lump sum $1,000,000 Electrical 90,000 square feet 5.50 each $495,000 Sitework 1 lump sum $380,000 Architectual/Engineering 7 percent $426,510 General Conditions 12 percent $731,160 Contingency 15 percent $913,950 Siting, Permitting, Approval 1 allowance $500,000 1 Rolling Stock 1 lump sum $600,000 iTotal Cost $9,264,620 r I I . I I • I I! • Table B-4A Operating & Maintenance Costs (Annual) I 1000 TPD Materials Recovery Facility Alameda County Capital 1 Recovery (1) Capital Cost Cost Factor Total Annual $9,264,620 0.10185220 • $943,622 (2) Operating & Maintenance Costs - 1 • (A) Labor Costs #employees Salary Total Plant Mngr 1 $59,000 $59,000 Operators,Foremen, 19 $54,000 $1,026,000 Drivers, Mechanic Material Classifiers, 45 $35,000 $1,575,000 Attendent, Janitor Clerical, etc. 4 $30,000 $120,000 $2,780,000 1 (B) Equipment O&M Cost HP Kw/Hr Hr/day Day/Wk Cents/Hr Total Baler 100 0.764 14 313 0.06 $20,087 Maintenance $1,500 Conveyors 40 0.764 14 313 0.06 $8,035 Maintenance $2,000 Magnet Lump sum $2,000 Transfer Equipment 234,000 j #Equip Weeks S/Week Wood Shredder 2 52 $300 $31,200 Bucket Loaders 2 52 $50 $5,200 Bobcat Loaders 2 52 $50 $5,200 Forklifts 3 52 $10 $1,560 Roll-off Truck 1 52 $20 $1,040 Pic-up Truck 1 52- $20 $1,040 $312,862 (C) Fuel Consumption Cost #Equip Hrs/day days/wk Gal/Hr S/Gal Total Tub Grinder 1 14 313 9 $1.2 $47,326 Loaders 2 14 313 3 $1.2 $31,550 Bobcat 2 14 313 2 $1.2 $21,034 Forklifts 3 12 313 2 $1.2 $27;043 #Equip Hours MPG Day/wk MPG $/Gal Roll-off Truck 1 12 25 313 5 $1.2 $22,536 Pick-Up Truck 1 8 25 313 10 $1.2 $7,512 $157,001 I 1 Table B-4A (continued) I (D) Facility Utilities $/Month #months Total $2,000 12 $24,000 Total O&M (A+B+C+D) $3,273,863 IContingency at 10 % of O&M 327,386 Total Capital and Operating&Maintenance Costs (1+2) $4,544,871 * 8 percent spread over 20 years. I I I I I I I I I I B-22 I The most significant construction-related costs that could vary are grouped together as "permitting, siting, and approval." Siting would involve, among other things, the costs involved in evaluating alternative properties and their permitability. Approval and permitting would involve a wide variety of activities required to develop a solid waste facility, including use permits, CEQA approval (which may require an EIR), a solid waste facility permit, an authority to construct, a waste discharge permit, and all appropriate building permits. In the cost estimate, a lump sum cost allowance was factored in to cover siting, permitting, and approvals. Actual costs for specific sites will vary from these amounts. I It is also important to note that land costs were not included in the estimates used to develop the cost curves. Costs for acreage vary significantly and can only be factored in on 1 a site-by-site basis. Without knowing where facilities were to be sited, it was not appropriate to include I standard estimates for transferring residues or nonrecyclable materials to the landfills. However, standard costs for hauling have been developed on a dollar per ton/mile basis as a tool to help evaluate anticipated costs for different sites. Based on hauling residues in tractor-trailer rigs with 25-ton payload capacities, it costs approximately 6 1/2 cents per ton per mile, one way, including equipment cost, maintenance, and labor. This figure should be used only as a rule of thumb and fine-tuned to fit specific operations. Based upon transfer equipment costs developed in Table B-5, capital and O&M costs were included in each size facility (small, medium, and large) based on high-lifting, loose loading, and preload compaction, respectively. By developing capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and annualized capital cost, it was possible to establish a cost per ton curve that demonstrates the economies of scale related to facilities with incrementally higher tonnage throughput capability (see Figure B-1). It should be noted that as tonnages exceed the 1,000-tpd level, there are "dis- economies" of scale, meaning that the logistics of traffic and material flow become increasingly difficult, and efficiencies begin to drop. It is therefore not recommended that MRFs be designed to handle much more than 1,200 tpd. Instead, if a regional facility requires capacity to handle, say, 1,600 tpd, it is better to consider developing two facilities, conceivably side by side, that could handle 800 tpd each. Each facility could then specialize in handling different groups of materials, thereby complementing each other. For initial evaluation, it is reasonable to use a cost-per-ton of 800 tpd for each of the facilities. 1 r 1 County-wide I Printed on recycled paper fl1MOgtRUPPEHblXB I B-23 I Table B-5. Transfer Equipment Costs I Hourly Total Yearly capacity Building Equipment capital O&M Loading (tons per cost, cost, cost, cost, method hour) dollars dollars dollars dollars TOP-LOADING Low tonnage 100 300,000 320,000 620,000 337,000 1 (1 CAT, 1 grapple) High tonnage 150 300,000 550,000 850,000 500,000 �. (2 CATS, 1 grapple) HIGH-LIFTING Low tonnage 40 50,000 125,000 175,000 200,000 (one loader) High tonnage 80 50,000 250,000 300,000 400,000 (two loaders) PRE-LOAD COMPACTING High tonnage 125 200,000 650,000 850,000 234,000 Caterpillar cost $230,000, Operating cost - $100/hr x 2,496 hr/yr = $249,600 Grapple cost - $90,000, Operating cost - $35/hr x 2,496 hr/yr = $87,000 Wheel Loader cost - $125,000, Operating cost - $80/hr x 2,496 hr/yr - $200,000 Pre-load Compactor cost - $600,000, Operating cost -.$1 ton x 234,000 ton/yr = $234,000 Compactor Feed Conveyor cost - $50,000 I I I I County-wide Printed on recycled paper 57INZEmnnuwrHUFxe I • tala @ A O . s — O Ln cu Ln + _ 8 • .5 \ . r- - § l O _ O In . _ 8 v •e en .r tit w = _ 1 H L U - - G , Cu 0. - 0. r7 H O N u � - g y O . CO g a • a CMG 'e - a U •.. L = _ O � 00 .0 S • L- - $ I - - 8 02 .I D - g CZ - 8 v • ▪ n I O N i O - O_ I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I O i O ON 00 I- 10 h gee en N O ON 00 N 'O In ' en N --- O ON 00 N b vi C en N -I Cr en N N N N N N N N N N (uojj$) aso3 a!Ufl I 1 1 t B-25 It is not the intent of the cost curve to imply that the 200-, 500-, or 1,000-tpd facilities ' are the optimal size. Rather, these costs were developed to provide a range of costs to develop a curve that can be used as a tool for evaluation. A region that may require a facility that needs to handle 700 tpd will probably want to, in fact, design a 700-tpd facility. j When evaluating tonnage throughput requirements for a particular facility, it is important to use tonnages projected for the future. As previously noted, facility sizings are based on projections for the year 2000, as well as an extra margin for surges and changes in the waste disposal amounts. Regional Alternatives As indicated in the previous discussions,there are advantages to consolidating material ' recovery operations into regional facilities. After evaluating existing operations in each jurisdiction, reviewing waste disposal data, and discussing regional alternatives with jurisdictional representatives, a group of regional options were developed. 1 By taking the projected year 2000 nonresidential waste tonnages and applying them to the cost-per-ton curve in Figure B-1, it is possible to ascertain the costs that each jurisdiction can expect for each option. These costs are recapped in Table B-6, along with costs for each jurisdiction to implement their own local facility (Table B-7), if applicable. ' MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY 1 Options The first set of options involves the cities of Alameda,Albany,Castro Valley Sanitary District,Emeryville, Oakland, Oro Loma Sanitary District, and Piedmont. This grouping was selected on the basis of geographical proximity and the fact that the seven jurisdictions currently have Oakland Scavenger for a franchised collector, which is hauling the material to the Davis Street Transfer Station. It is possible that a MRF could be built adjacent to the transfer station which would allow for the processing of a portion, if not all of the waste disposed by the seven cities. Option A-1 would involve a regional facility, or combination of facilities, that would be able to handle all of the waste disposed by the seven cities, which is projected to be around 1,600 tons per day (tpd) by the year 2000. Option A-2 would involve a separate facility for Oakland (1,100 tpd) and a regional facility for the other six cities, or approximately 500 tpd. 1 i 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper mraenov,rwrrIINace I Table B-6 Regional Facility Cost Per Ton Comparisons I Alameda County TPD Design Capacity Unit Cost/Ton Annual Cost. 1 (tons) (millions) ALTERNATIVE A-1 1 City of Alameda 179 753,948 City of Albany 30 126,360 J City of Emeryville 87 366,444 City of Oakland 1231 5,184,972 City of Piedmont 14 58,968 Castro Valley SD 100 421,200 Oro Loma SD 226 951,912 Total 1867 13.50 7,863,804 1 ALTERNATIVE A-2 City of Alameda 179 953,739 1 City of Albany • 30 159,844 City of Emeryville 87 463,549 City of Piedmont 14 74,594 Castro Valley SD 100 532,815 Oro Loma SD 226 1,204,162 Total 636 17.08 3,388,703 ALTERNATIVE B-1 City of Fremont 707 2,867,592 City of Newark 142 575,952 City of Union City 160 648,960 1 Total 1009 13.00 4,092,504 ALTERNATIVE B-2 City of Newark 142 1,076,151 City of Union City 160 1,212,565 1 Total 302 24.29 2,288,716 ALTERNATIVE C-1 City of Livermore 171 1,259,922 1 City of Dublin 155 1,142,034 Total 326 23.62 2,401,956 I ALTERNATIVE 0-2 City of Hayward 642 3,060,278 , City of Dublin 155 738,852 Total 797 15.28 3,799,131 16-Jui-91 I ITable B-7 Local Facility Cost per Ton Comparisons Alameda County I I Jurisdictions TPD Design Capacity Unit CostlTon Annual Cost (tons) (millions) I City of Alameda 179 28.13 1,570,982 City of Albany 30 NOT FEASIBLE 0 City of Berkeley 268 25.29 2,114,463 I City of Dublin 155 28.95 1,400,168 City of Emeryville 87 31.42 852,803 City of Fremont 707 16.15 3,562,308 I City of Hayward 642 16.99 3,403,320 City of Livermore 171 28.40 1,515,271 City of Newark 142 29.41 1,302,944 I City of Oakland 1231 15.86 6,092,845 City of Piedmont 14 NOT FEASIBLE 0 City of Pleasanton 307 24.15 2,312,950 I City of San Leandro 159 28.81 1,429,410 City of Union City 160 28:78 1,436,672 Castro Valley Sanitary District 100 30.93 965,063 I Oro Loma Sanitary District 226 26.59 NOT 1,874,724 Unincorporated Alameda Count 52.5 FEASIBLE 0 16-3ul-91 I I I 1 I I I I B-28 1 Since the above-mentioned waste is all currently being taken to Davis Street, it is logical to attempt to build a MRF that would be attached to the existing transfer station. Alternative site locations for these options have not been evaluated for this report. The next set of options involves Fremont, Newark, and Union City, or the Tri-Cities, which are projected to dispose of around 1,100, 240, and 260 tpd, respectively, in the year 2000. Waste from these cities is currently going to Durham Road landfill and, depending upon whether that landfill can be expanded or not, future waste may go to Altamont. I Option B-1 combines the Tri-Cities which would require a 1,600 tpd facility, or combination of facilities. Option B-2 would assume that Fremont would build its own facility, therefore, Newark and Union City would share a MRF to handle around 500 tpd. I The third set of options involves Dublin sharing a facility with either Livermore or Hayward. I Option C-1 would combine Dublin (125 tpd) with Livermore (250 tpd) for a facility requirement of 375 tpd. Option C-2 would combine Dublin with Hayward (770 tpd)for a facility requirement of 895 tpd. RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES - INERTS 1 There are three basic options available to facilitate the processing of concrete and asphalt. These are (1) having processing equipment at each MRF or disposal facility, (2) hauling material to a private firm that does processing, and (3) stockpiling material and periodically having a portable crusher brought in for processing the material. 1 For the purpose of this discussion, the term processing equipment will represent a system that can convey, crush, size, screen, and stockpile and/or load out the resulting materials. There are wide varieties of systems available, depending upon the feedstock material and the desired end-products. Feedstock materials will be generally assumed to be reclaimed asphalt and concrete with little or no reinforcing steel, no organics, and less than 2 feet in diameter. 1 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper niuewmswewnca 1 B-29 There are obvious operational advantages to having a system at the facility full time. Due to potentially negative impacts created by these types of operations, particularly from noise and dust generation, siting should be carefully considered. Capital equipment costs can be between$500,000 to $1 million,and the equipment will probably be underutilized because throughputs are generally up to as much as 300 tons per hour. There are at least three companies in Alameda County that will accept reclaimed concrete and asphalt. Some firms charge a fee of as much as $100 per load or $2 per ton while one firm indicated that they pay up to $30 per load for acceptable material. ' There are also numerous enterprises that have mobile systems that can be brought in on a periodic basis to process stockpiles of material. The economics of these operations require that a minimum of 20,000 tons of material should be available for processing in order to justify move-in and set-up costs. Charges for this type of service range from $5 to $6 per ton, which does not include hauling away the end-products. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper nIfanORITAPmF.mn I 1 1 1 APPENDIX C COMPOSTING • • I I t I I 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper APPENDIX C COMPOSTING This appendix provides an overview of composting, including a discussion of the variety of processes and technologies that are currently available. Composting Overview • ' Composting is a biological decomposition process that converts organic material into a stable,humus-like product under controlled conditions. California Public Resources Code defines compost as "the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes" in Section 40116. Based on this definition, compost could be produced through either aerobic or anaerobic biological processes. This section concentrates on aerobic composting. Parameters to be controlled during aerobic composting in order to obtain an acceptable compost product with minimal nuisance are: • Presence of oxygen throughout the composting material to prevent anaerobic conditions and the formation of odorous gases. • • Moisture content of 50 to 60 percent. • Temperature during active composting of 110 to 160 degrees F to destroy pathogens and seeds. • pH 6 to 8 to prevent the formation of ammonia. ' • Carbon to nitrogen ratio of less than 30:1. • Particle sizes range from 1/4 inch to 1 inch. • Depending on the characteristics of the material to be composted, ambient temperature, application of technologies, and market requirements for the finished product, the composting process may take from several days to several months or even more than a year. In general the compost product can be used as a soil conditioner or amendment, but does not qualify as a fertilizer due to its low nutrient composition. Compost products are usually used by farmers, in the horticulture industry, in gardens, for landscaping uses, or at landfills for top and side dressing or as cover material. I County-wide Printed on recycled paper niw®nrmnnare¢c 1 C-2 1 The compostable organic constituents of municipal solid waste (MSW) consists of yard I wastes, food wastes, agricultural crop residues, wood wastes, food processing wastes, etc. Composting of MSW typically falls into two categories--composting of separately collected and , sorted yard wastes or composting of the organic fraction of mixed MSW from which recyclables, including most of the paper, and other noncompostable materials have been removed. Noncompostable materials can contaminate the compost product making it unsuitable for the proposed market. Most composting of MSW materials in the United States is composting of yard wastes, although systems composting mixed MSW are operating or presently under plan, design, and construction in the United States. 1 Co-composting of municipal sewage sludge with wastes has caused an increasing interest in the application of composting technology. The other organic wastes in co-composting can be ' yard waste alone or MSW; both function as a bulking agent in sludge composting. The other organic wastes decompose simultaneously with sludge. Based upon a 1990 Bio-Cycle Survey of 130 operational sludge composting facilities in the U.S., about 25 facilities are using yard I waste in some proportion. Of seven operational MSW composting facilities, three facilities are co-composting with sludge. In addition, 130 sludge composting and 75 MSW composting projects are in various phases of development and a large percentage of these projects are considering co-composting. 7 The typical composting process consists of three phases: preprocessing, composting, and I postprocessing. The degree of preprocessing needed depends upon the material to be composted, the condition of the material upon delivery to the composting site, the composting technology , used, and the requirements of the users for the compost product. Various levels of technology are available for the composting phase. The technology chosen depends on the material composted, the funds available for capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, site ' constraints, and the needs and concerns of the community. The level of postprocessing required depends almost entirely on the quality requirements of compost product users. Preprocessing. The degree of preprocessing varies tremendously between composting of 1 separately collected yard wastes and composting of the organic fraction of mixed MSW. Yard wastes are typically collected either loose or contained in bags. Delivery of loose yard waste is preferable for the compost facility, because minimum preprocessing is therefore needed. However, unless the municipality provides equipment such as vacuum leaf collection machines, provides containers for separated yard wastes, or develops regulations regarding acceptable containers for yard wastes, most yard wastes will be collected in plastic bags. When the wastes are delivered to the facility in plastic bags, the bags must be split open and the plastic bag removed to prevent contamination of the compost product with the noncompostable plastic. The splitting and sorting process can be either manual or mechanical depending on the amount of wastes received, the personnel available, the cost and performance of the proposed equipment, and the product quality requirements. 1 County-wide - I Printed on recycled paper mvxnormrrviou.c C-3 Materials to be composted at a yard waste composting facility may consist of leaves in the fall and winter months, grass clippings during the growing season, and brush or other wood wastes at any time. If brush or other wood wastes are to be composted with leaves and grass clippings, they must first be chipped and then mixed into the other materials for composting. Composting of grass clippings presents a number of problems specific to this waste, primarily ' due to its high nitrogen content. Grass clippings that are enclosed in a container will immediately begin to decompose and rapidly use all available oxygen, causing anaerobic ' conditions and resulting in unpleasant odors. Delivery of large amounts of grass clippings in an anaerobic state will cause odor problems at the receiving facility. Preprocessing methods that may be used to minimize problems associated with odors from grass clippings include: • Collect grass clippings early in the week. This should minimize the amount of time that the grass clippings are stored before collection, since most lawns are mowed on the weekend. • Open bags containing grass clippings as soon as they are collected. This will allow the grass clippings to be exposed to oxygen, and odors to be dispersed en route. • Mix grass clippings with leaves or other bulking agents as soon as the clippings are delivered to the facility. A mix of approximately two to three parts leaves to one part grass is desirable. This results in a carbon to nitrogen ratio of roughly 25 to 30:1. ' • Add lime to reduce some odors, (but as a side effect, the pH of the compost rises and ammonia will be generated). • Addition of innoculants or masking agents may help eliminate or mask particular odors temporarily, but will do little to prevent odor releases during the composting process. ' If yard wastes contain a great deal of contaminating, nonbiodegradable materials such as rock, glass, or metals, preprocessing may need to include manual sorting to remove these materials. Depending on the equipment used during the composting process,the yard wastes may need to be shredded to obtain a uniform size. Shredders currently used at yard waste composting facilities produce material of 1/4-inch to 1-inch in size. Shredding promotes a faster composting time with a higher quality compost product. If shredding is used, the sorting out of nonbiodegradable materials is recommended to prevent damage to the equipment. Preprocessing of mixed MSW prior to composting of the organic fraction may include a number of manual and mechanical steps to remove recyclables and nonprocessables, and to prepare the material for composting. Separation and preparation steps may include any or all of the following procedures: County-wide Printed on recycled paper 371SAIPORITAPPINDIXC 1 CA • Removal of bulky materials such as pallets, white goods, corrugated cardboard, etc. • Hand picking to remove recyclables such as paper, aluminum, glass, plastics, etc. • Magnetic removal of ferrous metals. • Shredding. • Air classification. • Screening. • Pulping of the organic fraction. Composting. Yard waste composting is typically performed using the windrow technology with or without forced aeration. In windrow composting, the material to be composted is placed into rows in a mounded shape with the bottom about 8 to 15 feet wide and about 5 to 8 feet high. If the windrows are exposed to weather, the climate determines the shape of the cross , section. Since composting occurs best when the material has a moisture content of approximately 50 to 60 percent, in dry climates the windrows are shaped with a flattened top to catch whatever rainfall may occur. In wetter climates the windrows are shaped with rounded tops to shed water. , If windrows are piled too high, the material will compress under its own weight resulting in the loss of pore space and the creation of anaerobic conditions. If the windrows are formed too low, 1 heat and moisture inside the windrows will drop rapidly. Since composting is an aerobic process, oxygen must be supplied to the microbes performing the decomposition of the organic matter. Oxygen in the air is supplied to the microbes by various forms of aeration. The shape of the windrows and the pores between the particles of composting material allow some air to pass into the windrow interiors. Because compaction occurs in the windrows and particles may block off pores, anaerobic pockets develop as the microbes use up the available oxygen. Therefore, methods of aeration have been developed. The most common method of aerating windrows is turning. Turning of the composting material mixes the windrows and allows air to reach the anaerobic pockets. Turning also allows water to be added if the moisture content has been reduced through evaporation, and will promote evaporation if the moisture content is too high. Turning may be performed by a number of methods. The simplest method is to spread the windrow out and then reshape it. This method requires a great deal of space, however, that may not be available and is also time consuming and labor intensive. Typically, facilities use special windrow turning devices that turn the windrows in place without having to spread the material out. In addition, these machines do a better job of mixing and aerating, and have a higher turning capacity per hour than equipment not specifically designed for the job such as front-end-loaders, graders, or bulldozers. The turning method to be used determines the space that needs to be left between windrows when they are formed. 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 51IMFARISNPYEi1UC\C I C-5 1 Supplying air to the interior of windrows may also be performed by methods of "forced" aeration. Forced aeration occurs when blowers are used to either blow air into the interior of the windrows (positive pressure aeration), or to pull air through the windrows (bottom suction, negative pressure aeration). Bottom suction aeration is beneficial if odors are a concern, as this method pulls the off gases from the composting material to a single point where they may be treated prior to dispersion. Sometimes forced aeration reduces temperatures below the level needed to destroy pathogens ' and weed seeds. Therefore, a temperature feedback system is used to allow operation at near optimum temperatures and a well-oxygenated condition in the windrows at all times. Also, the windrows should be only about 8 feet wide and 6 feet high and covered with an insulating ' blanket (usually of cured, sanitized compost) to ensure that temperatures lethal to pathogens will be reached even in the cooler outer layers. Some facilities that use forced aeration choose to turn off the aeration after the first burst of microbial activity that lasts about 1 month. Aeration then occurs passively and by turning. Other facilities continue forced aeration to speed up the composting time. Space constraints at these facilities are more of a concern than the operating and maintenance costs to run the blowers and repair the aeration manifolds that may get damaged during the turning activities. The ground on which the windrows are placed should be weatherproofed with either asphalt or concrete pads. This will allow the compost to be turned without disturbing the ground beneath the windrows, and allow leachate from the composting material to be collected for treatment ' I and/or discharge. The leachate from a composting site should not be allowed to pollute the environment. The leachate from composting operations typically has high solids concentrations, ' and in some cases may contain organics such as pesticides and solubilized metals. Facilities that use forced aeration may place the aeration manifolds in trenches covered by grating. Placing this equipment in the trenches helps prevent damage, but the trenches must be periodically cleaned ' out to remove the fine compost material that will clog the trenches and continue to decompose in an anaerobic condition. The degree of compost stabilization can be determined by a dropping of temperature or more accurately, by the fact that after turning, the composting material fails to reheat. The appearance of stabilized compost should be dark in color with an earthy smell. The amount of weight reduction that is obtained by the composting process is a function of the waste composition and the duration of the compost time. In general,yard waste composting should be able to attain a weight reduction of at least 50 percent. After the active composting stage, the material is usually placed into piles for curing. Curing completes the stabilization of the compost and results in a material that does not rob the soil of nitrogen needed for vegetation if the compost is to be placed in contact with growing plants. Curing also allows evaporation of moisture for ease of handling and storage. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 57154eewa1Tvranxc 1 C-6 Composting of the organic fraction of mixed municipal solid waste may also be performed using the windrow composting method, but usually requires forced aeration due to the more complex nature of the material being composted, and the higher probability of noxious odors being formed. The off gases from composting this material has been found to require either chemical scrubbing, or some other form of odor control treatment. Some facilities that are composting materials from mixed MSW are using various in-vessel composting technologies. The "vessel" may be tunnel reactors that are a series of windrows contained by concrete walls with air supplied to the bottom and a mixing device that passes through the composting material and rides along the top of the walls, or some form of covered circular or rectangular tank with aeration lances and mixing augers. Most of these systems have been developed in Europe, and have primarily been used to compost wastewater treatment plant 1 sludges. Very few of these types of systems are in operation in the United States at this time composting mixed MSW, but many communities are considering these systems as one possible 1 solution to the increasing need to dispose of MSW in an environmentally safe manner. Postprocessing. The end use of the compost product determines the extent and type of postprocessing that will be needed. If the compost product is to be marketed for home use or use by the horticultural or landscaping industry for use on fruit, vegetable, or ornamental crops, then a high quality product is necessary. To obtain a high quality product shredding to approximately 1/2-inch or less and screening to remove contaminants and oversized particles will be needed. Most screens available for this purpose are rotating or trommel screens. Due to the seasonal nature of these markets, it is recommended that at least 6 months of storage space be provided for the finished compost product. The product may be delivered to the market either in bulk, or bagged for small quantity distribution. If residential users of small quantities are to be the main market, then bagging machinery and the use of specially printed bags supplied to advertise the product may be desirable. If the end use of the compost product is for public works projects such as use at a landfill as top and side dressing and cover material, then postprocessing will not be necessary. This lower quality compost product is also appropriate to use as a soil conditioner wherever the land is disturbed to install sewer or water pipes, or other similar projects; or to add to poor quality soils for land reclamation projects such as those associated with strip mining. Description of Alternative Technologies 1 A total of nine technological alternatives will be discussed. These alternatives have various advantages and disadvantages that are driven by three basic factors: (1) availability of space for a composting facility; (2)types and quantities of material available for composting; and (3) costs to operate versus quality of end product produced. Below is a comparison of the available alternative technology that are described in detail later in this section. A summary is also presented in Table C-1. 1 County-wide 1 Printed on recycled paper m■wociswwwuu.c I - ITable C-1. Summary of Composting Technology Alternatives Yard Leaves: Yard waste: waste: MSW: Yard waste low moderate high advanced and sludge: I technology technology technology technology emerging technology High Low High Low Low High Low High Low Iacreage acreage acreage acreage acreage acreage acreage acreage acreage Preprocessing I Hand sorting X X X X X X X X X Mixing/drying X X X X X I Shredding X X X X X X Screening X X X X IMech. separation X X Composting I Aeration X X X Windrow X X X X X X X IIn-vessel X X Curing X X X X X X X X I Turning frequency 1/yr 1/mo 1/mo 1/wk 1/wk 1/wk 2-3/wk Postprocessing Screening X X X X X X Processing time, 24-36 18-24 15-18 4-8 3-6 3-6 2-5 3-6 2-5 I month Volume reduction, <50 50-80 50-80 50-80 50-80 20-40 20-40 50-80 50-80 I percent Compost quality low low low high high mod mod. mod mod. I I I I C-8 • The low technology alternative is applicable to programs targeting leaves only. 1 Evaluation of yard waste generated in Alameda County reveals that leaves are a fairly small portion of yard waste generated; therefore, this alternative is not feasible. 1 • Moderate technology can be used for yard waste. Two options are available: (1) a fairly high space requirement, and (2) low space requirement, more preprocessing equipment. The second option results in a higher quality end product and reduces overall processing time. • High technology yard waste composting uses forced aeration, which reduces space requirements and overall processing time. • Advanced technology is required for processing MSW. Two options are available: (1) high space and equipment requirements, and (2) lower space requirement, a higher equipment requirement, and lower overall processing time. Both options produce an end product of moderate quality. • The technology for co-composting sludge with yard waste or MSW is emerging. Two , options are available: (1)high space and equipment requirements, and (2)lower space requirement, a higher equipment requirement, and a shorter processing time. Both options produce an end product of moderate quality. Low Technology. This alternative is appropriate only to the composting of waste that is primarily leaves. The leaves are collected and placed directly into windrows. The windrows may be as wide as 24 feet and up to 12 feet high. No shredding or screening equipment is used. Some manual picking may occur to remove bulky contaminants, but otherwise very little preprocessing is performed. The windrows are turned only about once a year using farm equipment or a front-end-loader or bulldozer; therefore, odors may be formed. It is therefore necessary that the location for a facility using this technology be isolated from residential or high density population areas. The composting will take over 2 to 3 years to complete. With sufficient time, 50 percent or greater volume reduction can be obtained. Operation of this low technology alternative may be municipal or may be contracted to local , farmers with extra land. If farmers perform the composting, it will allow them to receive some revenue from tipping fees and they can use the product to offset to some degree the need to purchase chemical fertilizers and soil conditioners. The use of compost product is consistent with the Agriculture Productivity Act passed by Congress in 1985 to encourage a reduction in purchased chemical input and lower the risk of environmental damage to the soil and waters of the country. In addition, municipalities would save the expense of acquiring land for the composting facility and the cost of renting equipment to form and turn the windrows. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper mra or,rAn in nc I C-9 This alternative is feasible for leaf composting only. In Alameda County leaves are a very small portion of the waste stream and it is unlikely that a composting system utilizing just leaves as feed stock will be developed. For this reason, costs are not provided for this alternative. Alternative 2. Moderate Technology. If space is not a major constraining factor for the - I composting facility and large amounts of yard wastes (bagged or loose) are the materials to be composted, moderate levels of technology may be used. Moderate technology incorporates turning to aerate and mix the windrows. Preprocessing for this alternative includes bag splitting, and sorting to remove nonbiodegradables. Brush is chipped before being added to the windrows. No postprocessing would occur. The complete process should take about 18 months. The end t use of the compost product from this alternative would be for public works projects, use at a landfill, or on farmland for soil conditioning. For a facility to compost 100 tons per day (tpd) of yard wastes, the capital cost would be about $1 million, the operating cost to use this technology would be $10/ton, and 30 acres of land would be required, not including buffer. The cost per ton including capital cost (amortized on 8% interest, 20 years service life) and operating cost and excluding land and residual hauling costs is shown on Figure C-1 as "high acreage." 1 If space is a constraining factor for the composting facility and large amounts of yard wastes (bagged or loose) are the materials to be composted, moderate levels of technology should be used. Moderate technology incorporates turning to aerate and mix the windrows. Because space is a concern, preprocessing for this alternative includes bag splitting and sorting to remove nonbiodegradables, and shredding and mixing to obtain a more uniform material for composting. ' Shredding also speeds up the compost process and results in a higher quality product. Brush is chipped before being mixed in. Postprocessing includes shredding and screening to obtain a high quality product. The complete process should take about 8 months. The end use of the compost ' product from this alternative would be acceptable for any of the typical uses for high quality compost. For a facility to compost 100 tpd of yard wastes, the capital cost would be about $1.3 million, the,operating cost to use this technology would be $12/ton, and 30 acres of land would ' be required, not including buffer. Cost per ton is shown on Figure C-1 as "low acreage." Alternative 3. High Technology. If space is a major constraining factor for the composting facility and large amounts of yard wastes (bagged or loose) are the materials to be composted, high levels of technology may be used. High level composting technology incorporates forced aeration and turning to mix the windrows. Because space is a concern, ' preprocessing for this alternative includes bag splitting and sorting to remove nonbiodegradables, and shredding and mixing to obtain a more uniform material for composting. Shredding also speeds up the compost process and results in a higher quality product. Brush is chipped before being mixed in. Forced aeration shortens the time for the active composting phase allowing the facility to process a higher amount of material in smaller space. Postprocessing includes shredding and screening to obtain a high quality product. The complete process should take about 6 months. The end use of the compost product from this alternative would be acceptable for any of the typical uses for high quality compost. For a facility to compost 100 tpd of yard i County-wide Printed on recycled paper - m+wsroxiswrPENDIXC I I a 1 o - o La a I 1 a vl- ma G = 1 I a - a w a "�I rev c O 3 C y ' v - o I- ett N .v. a l v `0� Q�S =2 ~. v E • a =¢ U 0 - ,O 1 7 00 'w o - °a , 40---°>°'°H-- - 4 ' - a 1 - a 1 1 0 0¢ a a a a• SJofloa 'UOj/4SO3 , I 1 C-11 1 waste, the capital cost would be about $1.9 million, the operating cost would be $16/ton, and 30 acres of land would be required not including buffer. The cost per ton is shown on Figure C-2. Alternative 4. Advanced Technology. A great deal of sophistication is necessary for composting of mixed MSW. Due to the complex nature of mixed MSW and the presence of a ' high percentage of nonbiodegradables, an advanced level of preprocessing is necessary including shredding, mixing, and perhaps pulping the organic portions to obtain a more uniform material for composting. Odor control techniques must be used to treat the off gases. If the amount of. ' MSW to be composted is less than 100 tpd, a combination of forced aeration and windrows technology can be used. Forced aeration is necessary for proper aerobic composting of the material, and to allow odor control techniques to be used to treat the off gases. Postprocessing ' includes shredding or screening to obtain a high quality product. The complete process should take about 6 months. For a facility to process 100 tpd of MSW delivered, the capital cost for this technology would be about $2.2 million, the operating cost to use this technology would be $16 per ton, and 30 acres of land would be required, not including buffer. The cost per ton is shown on Figure C-3 as "high acreage." ' For a facility to process more than 100 tpd of MSW delivered, in-vessel composting system should be used. The capital cost for this technology would range from $3 to $10 million depending on the vendor specific technology chosen. The operating cost would be about $30 to $50 per ton. The cost per ton is shown on Figure C-3 as "low acreage." ' Alternative 5. Emerging Technology. If space is not a constraining factor for the composting facility and amounts of yard wastes and dewatered sludge to be co-composted is less than 100 tpd, an aerated static pile/windrow technology could be used. The yard wastes are ' mixed with sludge in an appropriate mixing ratio (in a range of 4:1 to 1:1, yard waste to sludge) to provide necessary moisture and solid balance for desired composting. ' The mixing ratio and the addition of the other amendment, if necessary, are determined based on the composition of generated yard wastes and sludge. In order to minimize the potential of odor problems, the delivered sludge should have been digested and dewatered and the composting facility should be properly enclosed and equipped with sufficient odor control systems. Preprocessing for this technology includes bag splitting, manual sorting (removal of nonbiodegradables), and shredding and mixing. Sizes of yard wastes are critical, usually they ' are less than 1/4 inch. Postprocessing including secondary shredding or screening is an optional step, the use of which is based on the end market of compost. The total processing includes includes forced aeration pile, windrow and curing pile which takes about 3 to 6 months. For a facility using this technology to compost 100 tpd of sludge and yard wast mixture, the capital cost would be about 4.5 million and the operating cost would be $13 to $15 per ton. About 15 acres of land would be required, not including buffer. The cost per ton is shown on Figure C-4, ' as "high acreage." • County-wide Printed on recycled paper ,n,,,REPOrm mNo c I I a 1 ❑ - o I a - T I v a 1- a - 1 M O a " 1 v a C a - o Ti a a a o ❑ - ~ 0 U N • a z 1 I Q p 2 y v 2U 7 W T a cn x I- 0 - s �N ❑ 2, 1 N cd U a N - 1 1 _c r CI, U ❑ a m 1 r w - o I I - a I a a o a a a o a r 1 I SJDflOQ 'IIOj/;SOQ I I + ❑ - 0 a Is a o o I + - ¢ I - wr ' + - t 6 o t-, L a0 w 0 + p - M a U I „ w eo o v O ~ 0< a gh ¢ cn N tO E + V ti O , + - d y 0 U v rV y ¢ c w ~ �S C9U el + — 0 x¢ U sr 5 r ❑ O ¢ + - 1:3 w I '+ - 0 I - v I o 0 o a o a o el- MI r1 SJD11OQ 'uoj/;soo • I I • a I . + I - a In 1 a - I 0 1 + - 0 v - a ,+ 7 O 0 0 c a O ' w c ' v � 3� v - n F- _la Q ry a + E I O y 1 a w U L + - N. +v r� 7 0 cn LO a I N rn ❑ m N ti. E C 1 w + - a r a I - 0 I I 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 . I wJoIIoa 'uol/;sop I 1 C-15 1 If large amounts of yard waste and sludge (mixture tonnage over 100 tpd) are the materials to be co-composted and space constraints as well as concerns for odor control are very high, ' advanced technology (Alternative 4) should be used, which is in-vessel composting system. The vessel reactors used for co-composting sludge and yard waste are analogous to those for composting municipal solid waste. The major difference is the use of sludge storage and a ' sludge/yard waste mixing system. Addition of this equipment results in an increase of capital and operating costs at approximately 20 to 30 percent higher than those for composting municipal solid waste. The delivered yard waste is shredded first, then mixed with sludge in an appropriate ' mixing ratio, ranging from 1 to 5 cubic yard of yard waste per 1 cubic yard of wet sludge. After mixing,the material is conveyed into the reactor where appropriate environmental conditions such ' as temperature, moisture, and aeration are provided for fast biodegradation. The whole composting stage takes about 2 to 3 weeks, followed by 4 to 6 weeks curing stage depending on the degree of stabilization achieved on previous composting stages. For a facility to process 100 tpd of mixture of sludge and yard waste, the capital cost would range from $4 to $12 million depending on the in-vessel vendors and specific processes chosen. The operating cost would be about $40 to $60 per ton. Fifteen acres of land would be required, not including buffer. The ' cost per ton is shown on Figure C-4, as "low acreage". Co-composting of sludge with MSW falls into three general categories, largely depending upon the material removed from MSW waste stream prior to composting. The first involves co- composting of sludge with the total waste stream except that heavy plastics,metals and glass are removed. Trace metals are often found in the compost. Next are combined sludge with the ' RDF. The paper and plastics are processed into pallets or fluff, and the metals, heavy plastics and glass are recovered. The heavy fraction remaining contains most of the food waste which is readily biodegradable. The third, and more recent development, is to combine sludge with ' source separated materials from MSW. Yard waste, mixed paper and food waste are anaerobi- cally digested then co-composted with sludge. This technology, known as high solids anaerobic digestion/aerobic composting process, is being pilot tested at the University of California, Davis; ' the pilot test found that the process is stable and relatively easy to operate. Other technologies are similar to those for co-composting of sludge with yard waste; from windrows to in-vessel mechanical systems.. To minimize the environmental impact of odor and to maintain the ' aesthetics of the site, preferred co-composting facilities are indoor and in-vessel system. Odor management includes the application of a two-stage odor scrubber system. In-vessel systems consist of rotating drum and circular agitated bed systems which are used in existing facilities. Costs for this technology are not available due to the lack of sufficient design criteria. Composting Facility Alternatives This section discusses how jurisdictions can participate in a regional or subregional composting facility, thereby receiving benefits from economies of scale. 1 ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper rllnn EPOR,SAn@IOICC C-16 1 1 Composting facility alternatives in Alameda County are developed based on the following: • The feasibility of individual composting facilities serving a single city. • The locations of existing transfer stations and landfill sites. • Understandings among the jurisdictions to compost waste jointly. • Discussions with each jurisdiction regarding local conditions. Individual Facilities. Six jurisdictions may establish an individual composting facility: Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Oro Loma Sanitary District, Pleasanton, and San Leandro. County Regional Facility. A County regional facility may be located at the northeast corner of the County adjacent to the Vasco Road or Altamont Landfill sites serving any combination of cities. Davis Street/Subregional Facility. A subregional facility may be located adjacent to the Davis Street Transfer Station, serving some combination of cities whose waste is transferred at that site. Durham Road Landfill Subregional Facility. A subregional facility may be located ' adjacent to the Durham Road Landfill until 1995, serving Fremont, Newark, and Union City. At that time, this landfill may convert to a transfer station and transfer waste to a regional or subregional facility. , Oro Loma Subregional Facility. A subregional facility may be located in the Oro Loma Sanitary District. Neighboring jurisdictions would participate in this facility. 1 Hayward Subregional Facility. A subregional sludge and yard waste co-composting facility may be located in Hayward. Hayward's own yard waste.is not sufficient for co- composting. Jurisdictions that could participate in this facility are: Castro Valley Sanitary District, Dublin, Hayward, and Oro Loma Sanitary District. As shown in Table C-2, there are a total of 11 possible composting facilities in Alameda County. The unincorporated area of Alameda County, except Oro Loma and Castro Valley sanitary districts, is not included in Table C-2 because its population are scattered around the County. Waste from the unincorporated area could be processed in any one of the facilities. The sludge from public sewage treatment plants located in the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton,Newark, Hayward,and Oro Loma Sanitary District give these jurisdictions the option of co-composting. These jurisdictions, except Newark, also have the option of an individual facility. The regional and subregional facilities, except the Davis Street facility, also have the option of co-composting. Countywide Printed on recycled paper nuauon'mJwurou[.c I 1 Table C-2 Composting Facility Alternatives 1 Subregional Facilities County 1 City Regional Davis Durham Oro Loma facility Street Road Sewage Hayward Individual I Transfer Station Landfill Treatment Plant Alameda X X I Albany X X I Berkeley X X Castro Valley X X X X 1 Dublin X X X Emeryville X X IFremont X X Hayward X X X ILivermore X X Newark X X'' 1 Oaklan d X x Oro Loma X X X X X 1 Piedmont X X I Pleasanton X X X San Leandro X X X 1 Union City X X I I I I 1 1 C-18 1 Composting Costs for Various Facilities ' Table C-3 lists the previously-described subregional and individual composting facility alternatives along with the projected tonnages of yard waste and sludge, if appropriate, for each jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions. Based on these tonnages, a cost per ton for processing these materials is listed for each technological alternative. By referring to the projected yard waste diversion Table 5-2 in Chapter 5, the appropriate total diverted tons per year can be multiplied by the appropriate cost per ton from Table C-3, and the cost to process yard waste can be determined for each jurisdiction. 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper S/emnoemVrlNINC.c I Table C-3 Composting Costs for Various Facilities ' Tons per day Dollars per ton ' Yard or Yard Yard Co- Co- Facility Yard sludge waste waste, composting composting waste Sludge Mix surplus Windrow Aer P1 Aer P1 In-Vs] IRegional 1995Y 811 0 0 811 12 17 -- -- I 2000Y 844 0 0 844 12 17 -- — 1995C 811 1863 2027 -646 18 30 2000C 844 1908 2111 -641 -- -- 18 30 I Sub.A 1995 431 1301 1079 -654 -- -- 18 30 2000 437 1318 1093 -662 -- -- 18 30 I Sub.B 1995 157 469 392 -234 -- -- 19 31 I 2000 164 490 410 -244 -- -- 19 31 Sub.C I 1995 132 54 90 96 . 17 22 22 50 2000 144 57 95 106 17 22 28 50 Sub.D I 1995 180 84 141 124 16 20 23 44 2000 198 91 151 137 16 20 23 44 Berkeley I- 1995 49 0 0 49 21 30 — -- 2000 49 0 0 49 21 30 -- -- 1 Hayward 1995 86 48 81 54 20 28 28 50 2000 95 54 89 60 19 28 28 50 Livermore I 1995 36 26 43 19 37 48 >40 >60 I 2000 37 26 44 19 37 48 >40 >60 Oro Loma I 1995 49 36 60 25 31 41 30 53 2000 51 37 62 26 30 40 30 53 Pleasanton I 1995 38 18 30 26 30 40 >40 >60 2000 41 20 33 28 29 40 >40 >60 I an Leandro 1995 45 15 24 35 25 34 >40 >60 20(X) 45 15 25 36 25 34 >40 >60 I *Costs may be plus or minus$10 per ton. I I I I I I APPENDIX D MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLES I I I I I I I I I County-wide Printed on recycled paper 1 1 APPENDIX D MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLES ' This appendix presents a market assessment for individual recyclable waste types. These assessments are undertaken to help determine the viability of various recovery efforts which are planned by local jurisdictions within Alameda County. These efforts are planned to comply with the diversion requirements of AB 939, and to reduce the volumes of materials requiring disposal in the landfills receiving Alameda County waste. The market assessments are developed for the short teen, through 1995. A forecast of potential long-term trends is presented at the end of this appendix. The following issues are discussed ' • Characterization and assessment of the market potential for absorbing those materials that could be recovered from the Alameda County wasteshed. In most instances, the market discussions relate to the Greater San Francisco Bay Area, of which Alameda County jurisdictions are a part. • Identification of the materials for which short-term saturation of markets could occur. • Identification of those materials for which expanded market development efforts are recommended and to suggest possible direction for such efforts. INTRODUCTION Before the market assessments are presented, the following topics are discussed: material types chosen for assessment,definition of industry segment being examined,and data sources and assumptions used for the market assessments. Each of the market assessments for the materials ` discussed in this section will include the following topics: • Commodity Overview. A brief market history and general specifications. • Market Outlook. An assessment for the current and near-term capacities of the markets to absorb the maximum tonnages projected. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper rrva®oWTflPVenDQ.a D-2 • General price range over the past 5 to 10 years for truckload quantities fob shipping 1 point unless otherwise stated. • Local End Users List. For the most part, these will be companies that actually convert the material to new products (e.g.,paper mills, metal mills, and foundries). For some, such as the polymers and glass,where major beneficiation is a pre-condition to end use, , the beneficiators are listed. "Local" is defined as any domestic user who periodically or regularly uses material generated in Alameda County. Material Types Because of their technical recyclability, existing recycling infrastructure, market demand, and proportion of the waste stream,market assessments are conducted for the following materials: - Aluminum, including used beverage containers (UBC), irony aluminum, and heavy I castings. - Glass, including container and plate - Tin-plated steel cans - Plastics, including PET, HDPE, and others - Tires - Green waste, including grass, leaves, shrub and tree trimmings. - Wood waste, including lumber, pallets, furniture, etc. - Paper, including newspaper, corrugated containers, mixed, and high grades. - Ferrous metal - Concrete and asphalt Textiles. Markets for textile wastes, which comprise a small portion of the total waste 1 stream, will not be assessed. Although there are two existing markets for wiping cloth material and used clothing,there is little or no experience of recovery of these materials from mixed waste streams. Generation of this material in the household is too minimal and sporadic to include in source-separated curbside collection programs. Households should be encouraged to give used clothing to community organizations such as Goodwill Industries, The Salvation Army, etc. These groups, in turn, will reuse what they can and sell the unusables into the existing markets. After Material Recovery Facilities are in operation at landfill sites,the recoverability of received textile wastes can be evaluated and the quality and condition of the material can be examined. Food Waste. Food waste could, technically, be incorporated into composting programs; however, the technology and potential environmental nuisances are significantly complicated. Additionally, with regard to collection, there is no current experience with separate collection of mixed food wastes and, as a component of mixed waste, it is too contaminated to use without incurring even greater technical and cost problems. I i 1 County-wide 1 Printed on recycled paper 37 IflGPORISMR&NIXD D-3 1 Segment of Secondary Materials Industry ' To begin with, it is helpful to define that segment of the secondary materials industry with which we are primarily concerned. There are three levels of secondary materials generation and the terminology developed in the metals industry is most useful in describing them. I. Home Scrap. This refers to waste material generated in the production of the raw material itself. Examples are scrap steel generated in a steel-making mill and plastic scrap generated where the plastic is made. H. Prompt Industrial Scrap. This refers to waste material generated in the manufacture of products utilizing the referenced raw material. Examples include steel scrap generated in auto assembly plants or machine tool manufacturing, and paper scrap generated by paper converters such as box makers or stationery manufacturers. III. Post-Consumer Scrap. This refers to waste material generated largely as a result of outlived usefulness of the product as determined by the commercial or residential consumer. Generally speaking, within certain technological constraints for some materials, these observations can be made: 1. The number of unit generators increases from I to III. 2. The amount of recyclable waste generated at each point decreases from I to III. 3. The level of contamination increases from I to III and the percent of waste generated that is economically recoverable decreases from I to III. Varying somewhat from industry to industry, most recovery in I is in-house; most recovery in II (where activities I and II are not combined at a single site) is accomplished by the private sector "recycling industry" (e.g., scrap metal dealers, waste paper packing plants, and plastic regrinders). These two levels of recycling are largely excluded from waste diversion quantities under AB 939. Recovery in III is the segment that is essentially the subject of this appendix. The primary sources of the additional material under consideration here are commercial, industrial and residential consumers and the secondary sources are the various agencies involved ' in the collection and aggregation of these materials. Data Sources and Assumptions ' Market data in this section is derived from the direct marketing experience of Multi-Material Management and Marketing, interviews with various industry sources, and review of various trade and government agency publications, including "Resource Recycling," "Biocycle," "Waste Age," "Packaging Digest," "Scrap Processing and Recycling," "American Metals Markets," County-wide Printed on recycled paper 37tTAWOR1TUnNDR.a 1 D-4 "Annual Statistics" of the American Paper Institute, the U.S. Department of Commerce 1 Commodity Yearbook,various reports of the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the State Department of Conservation (DOC), and various newspaper and magazine articles. MATERIAL SPECIFIC MARKET ASSESSMENTS Following is a material by material market assessment for the recyclables specified above. I Aluminum Commodity Overview. A light weight metal, aluminum exists in the waste stream in roughly three marketable forms. 1. Used beverage containers(UBCs)--Most common and readily identifiable by consumers, the aluminum beverage can is widely recycled in California as reported by the DOC because of a strong scrap value enhanced by DOC redemption value, ease of handling, I When collected, UBCs are commonly screened over magnets for ferrous separation, 1 then compacted by shredding, briquetting, or baling to maximize transportation payloads. i The most common contaminant is moisture, and scrap value will generally be downgraded when moisture content exceeds 0.5 percent by weight. Trapped moisture, if excessive, can create explosive conditions in the remelt furnace. Other common contaminants include non-UBC metallics, combustibles, and dirt with allowances in the , 1- to 2.5 percent range. 2. Irony aluminum--This category is characterized by a variety of products combining extruded or cast aluminum bodies with ferrous connecting components(most commonly rivets). Lawn and pool furniture and pots and pans with handles are common examples. Although it is possible to upgrade these products by removing the ferrous material, it is usually labor intensive and rarely cost effective for intermediate processors. 3. Heavy aluminum castings--This category is more likely to be found in commercial and industrial sources. Common examples are engines, trailer bodies, airplane parts, etc. Market Outlook. Aluminum demand is high globally, particularly in the UBC and transportation markets. Domestic consumption is also significantly impacted by the home construction industry. Relatively little new virgin metal capacity is coming on line through 1992, and the high cost of new capacity will keep scrap demand high. 1 i and a well-developed industry recycling infrastructure in place. County-wide Printed on recycled paper rn nmamAwe.nocn 1 D-5 1 Within acceptable levels of quality, there does not appear to be any limit on the industry's ability or interest in buying all the UBC generated. The State of California's goal (as mandated by AB 2020) of 65 percent recovery, increasing to 80 percent recovery, adds pressure to the industry. Current demand for UBC scrap is moderate, and swings in scrap value are to be expected over time. Currently,prices are low because of a depressed economy. However, even the low points in the scrap value,combined with the redemption value,will likely provide ample public encouragement to maintain the return flow. ' Given the tremendous energy savings (95 percent) in using scrap versus virgin aluminum and the value of the metal itself(although prices may vary periodically),all available information suggests that any grade of aluminum scrap will be salable to commercial scrap metal dealers at any time and in practically any quantity recoverable from the waste stream. General price range 1 Scrap value: $700 to $1,900 per ton Current redemption value (UBC only): $1,300 per ton Local end users For UBC: Alcoa Recycling Company BARMET Aluminum Corp. (Southern California) Container Recovery Corp., Union City Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co. Reynolds Aluminum, Fremont For all other aluminum grades, most of the major metal scrap dealers listed in the Yellow Pages will be ready outlets. Glass 1 Commodity Overview. Glass is made essentially from silica and soda ash. Although silica is plentiful, soda ash can sometimes be in short supply. Technically, glass, once made, can be remelted and recycled into new glass. Recyclable glass ready for the oven is called cullet. Advantages in the use of cullet over raw materials include: a. Energy savings--Manufacturer estimates vary in a range from 9 to 27 percent as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Ten to fifteen percent savings is stated by EPA. 1 b. Reduced generation of air pollutants generated by the conversion of raw materials-- Sufficient use of cullet may preclude substantial investment in pollution control systems. c. Reduced wear and tear on refractory walls--Requires less downtime and reduces replacement costs. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper mmwRITMPE roan 1 D-6 Historically, cullet use was largely limited to home scrap, and demand beyond that was ) I sensitive to soda ash cost and availability. As a result,demand for post-consumer cullet was very limited and priced so low that proximity to the glass plant was required for cost effectiveness. Cullet prices did not keep up with inflation, making collection and processing increasingly difficult to sustain. Glass is found in the MSW stream in several major forms. 1 1. Containers--The California bottle bill (AB 2020) changed the market picture substantially for glass containers in two ways. First, it established a redemption value in excess of the existing scrap value and called for a 65 percent recovery rate, thereby giving substantial impetus to the industry to accept more cullet and enhancing the value to the generator (consumer). Second, by threatening and recently imposing a "processing fee" to subsidize cost-effective collection and handling,the scrap price was increased significantly above its historically flat Iow. I Note: Although the bottle bill deals only with beer and carbonated soft drink containers (with wine coolers added subsequently), the economic enhancements impact all container glass. Container glass is produced in essentially three major colors: flint (clear), green, and I amber (brown). An extremely limited market exists for a three-color mix. The safer, open-ended market is for color-sorted flint, green, and amber. Flint cullet may not exceed 2 percent of green-amber, and the green or amber may not exceed 10 percent flint. The most serious contaminant of container cullet is ceramic and there is no level of tolerance for its presence. Entire truckloads of glass containers have been rejected upon visual sighting of ceramic shards in the load. Non-container glass,including plate, windshield, mirrors, TV tubes, etc., are also considered serious contaminants and are not accepted. Metal or plastic caps and rings are acceptable since they are easily removed during cullet beneficiation processes. Paper labels are burned off in the furnace and present no problems. 2. Plate and windshield--This category of glass is less commonly recovered. Circo Glass, a Newark-based cullet processor, has developed markets for this category, particularly in fiberglass manufacturing. There are a number of potential secondary markets for crushed glass as an aggregate material. "Glasphalt," a glass/asphalt blend for paving, and a slurry seal product are prime examples. However, these are very low value uses, ranging from $1 to $3 per ton, and are attractive only in those cases where the mixed glass collected will not lend itself to cost-effective color separation and decontamination. This market is currently being utilized by the Zanker Road MRF in Santa Clara County. 1 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 571MWRTSAPPE DECD I D-7 1 Market Outlook. Currently, container glass demand, particularly for non-flint, is being supported essentially by the external pressures applied by virtue of AB 2020. Although California has substantial container glass-making capacity in place with large beverage and food-packaging industries to sustain it, there is an existing imbalance between the proportion of colors being received for recycling and current production demands. Flint is the primary color required for production, yet green glass is the primary color available. When AB 2020 was passed, according to an industry group, the industry was said to be able to absorb cullet equal to 90 percent of its output. (Although it is technically possible to use a 100 percent cullet ' charge, most plant managers feel that a practical maximum is closer to 90 percent in order to maintain quality control.) However, this assessment considered only gross tonnages and did not take into account color imbalances. Increasing public pressure against plastic containers could enhance glass market share. However, it is important to note that increased demand for glass containers will not, in itself, increase cullet demand at viable prices without the pressures noted above. A number of actions may be possible to decrease the color imbalances noted above, including: 1 1. Encourage product manufacturers to replace green and amber with flint containers whenever technically feasible, or conversely, encourage flint users to consider using "eco glass", the non-specific color resulting from mixed color cullet batches. 2. Encourage the transition of the industry to color-coating flint, a recently developing technology which would permit many color variations for effective marketing but requires only flint glass production. ' 3. Encourage the increasing use of cullet in the fiberglass industry. As long as AB 2020 is in effect, all container glass recovered in residential and/or commercial collections, if properly color-sorted and decontaminated, will be absorbed into existing area markets. ' General price range Scrap value: $30 to $110 per ton. Current redemption value (AB 2020 containers): $100 per ton. Local End Users. Most of the glass manufacturers in California have organized into the California Glass Recycling Corporation (CGRC). Since post-consumer glass containers must be crushed, cleaned, and processed into cullet, a process known as beneficiation, the beneficiation facilities act as the end users' front door. Those located in the greater Bay Area are: CGRC/Latchford, San Leandro CIRCO, Newark ' Owens/Brockway, Tracy Gallo Glass, Modesto 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper mrn®oamwr mwo 1 D-8 Tin-Plated Steel Cans 1 Commodity Overview. Tin-plated steel cans, used primarily for food packaging, represent the major ferrous component of the residential waste stream and may also be significant in commercial and institutional establishments with food service. For many years, the market for these cans was dependent primarily on the value of the tin which could be recovered. Recovered tin represents the only domestic source for this valuable metal. The international tin cartel supported a price of approximately $15 per pound, and the can stock yielded approximately 12 pounds of tin per ton. With the bankruptcy of the cartel, the free market price range has been from $3 to $6+per pound of tin, and is currently near the lower end of that range. Simultaneously, can technology reduced the tin coating to 5 to 6 pounds per ton. 1 Therefore, this combination required an acceptable market for the detinned steel to justify the economics of detinning. Market Outlook. In California the most common market for the detinned steel has been for use in the leaching of copper from low grade ores in Arizona mines. This market is secure as long as there is strong demand for copper, a condition existing for the last few years with little indication of significant softening. In addition, with the increasing strength of ferrous scrap markets and,particularly, demand 1 from new electric furnace mini mills, significant backup markets are developing for the detinned steel. Prices for tin can stock have risen and remained stable in the past few years. There does not appear to be any volume of recoverable tin can stock that cannot be absorbed by existing markets. Proler, the primary detinner servicing the Bay Area, has indicated that its Arizona facility could accommodate Bay Area generating capacity. General price range Scrap value: $30 to $50 per metric ton delivered to Lathrop. Local End Users , Proler International (MRI Corp), Lathrop Plastics I Commodity Overview. The percentage of plastics in the total waste stream has been growing steadily. The term "plastics" covers a wide range of chemical polymers, each of which has its own special characteristics. Plastic products may be composed of one or more of these polymers. Plastics can be divided into two basic categories: thermoplastics and thermosets: Only the thermoplastics can be remelted and recycled into new products. Although the thermosets cannot be remelted, they can be ground up and used as filler material in a number of product applications. 1 1 County-wide 1 Printed on recycled paper nnsx®uam,rre,na.0 M D-9 Plastics constitute a growing portion of the waste stream, and thermoplastics comprise the bulk of plastics in the waste stream. More than 70 percent of thermoplastics are either high or low density polyethylenes (HDPE or LDPE). Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) dominates the soft drink market, and some of these containers are fitted with an HDPE base cup. Polystyrene and polyurethane are major plastics in packaging and fast food services. Polyvinyl chloride ' (PVC) is common in packaging and construction products. Historically, plastic recycling has been essentially limited to home and prompt industrial ' scrap where polymer identification is clear and contamination is minimal. The solid waste crisis has brought increased pressure on the plastics industry to expand recycling into the post-consumer waste stream. This crisis has been exacerbated by the many environmental insults of plastic litter and the use of chlorofluorocarbons in the production of foam (expanded polystyrene) products. 1 Market Outlook. Traditional recycling of thermoplastic resins requires polymer identification, separation, cleaning, and regrinding. Accordingly, recent market development of post-consumer plastics has been largely limited to PET beverage containers (triggered by bottle bills in several states), and readily identifiable milk jugs (HDPE) from residential waste streams. More recently, there has been some expansion into other HDPE containers, such as detergent bottles, and some pilot efforts with polystyrene. From commercial/industrial waste streams, the most commonly recovered plastics are polyethylene film and sheet and PVC. ' PET carbonated soft drink containers are covered by the California Bottle Bill and will be redeemed by all state-certified recycling centers in any volume generated, and backed by the plastics industry as long as the Bottle Bill, or its equivalent, remains in force. ' PET, which cannot be recycled into beverage containers because of its capacity to absorb some of the liquid it contains and the potential contamination therefrom (e.g., an empty container used to temporarily store gasoline), is commonly recycled into fiber fill for life jackets and other products. Proctor& Gamble broke new ground when it used 100 percent recycled PET to bottle its Spic and Span Pine Cleaner. An eastern United States company has used PET regrind to make egg cartons, a potential application that may be worth pursuing in California. For future consideration, Goodyear has recently begun experimenting with a process that would return PET to its original monomers. This process, if successful, would allow for the recycling of PET containers into new beverage containers, thereby closing a recycling loop similar to that currently maintained by aluminum cans. An export market for various post-consumer grades is developing in the Pacific Rim countries. The most common export grades are PVC and polyethylene. In addition to traditional "regrind," or processed fonns,markets are slowly developing for unprocessed baled,color-sorted, or mixed-color material. Although there seems to be a minimal export market for mixed plastics, the material is more commonly sorted by polymer before shipping. In the early stages of such Imarket development, there was a mutual "feeling out" by both buyers and sellers as to stable supplies of consistent quality for the buyer and stable demand for the seller. With a number of County-wide. Printed on recycled paper n, n,,,PPINDIXa r D-10 companies expanding operations on the West Coast, market opportunities will probably exist to 1 accommodate sorted polymer supplies in the Bay Area. Alternatively, there is a potential market for mixed plastic waste, using technologies refined in Europe and, more currently, in the United States. These systems can manufacture a variety of extruded products by remelting and extruding a polyethylene matrix in which other polymers in the mix act as filler material. Thicker items are more desirable end products for these systems. Examples include car stops, fencing, park benches, road bathers, and "railroad ties" for landscaping and slope containment. A company in Iowa uses a modified Belgian system with some success. Recently,Greentree Plastics Company has been established in southern California and may consider a Bay Area facility as well. If the public agencies in Alameda County evaluate their product uses by considering those which could be manufactured by one of these processes, 1 the development of a "closed-loop" market for all the recoverable waste plastic generated may be possible. General price range PET: Scrap value: $.08 to .25 per pound delivered. 1 Redemption value: $.30 per pound. HDPE: Scrap value: Natural: $.07 to .12 per pound delivered. 1 Colored: $.03 to .08 per pound delivered. PS: Scrap value: $.04 per pound delivered 1 Local End Users. Following is a partial listing of buyers of scrap plastic, most of which may not be end users. Bay Polymer, Fremont Coast Polymers, Downey Envirothene, Chino First Chemicals, San Francisco Muehlstein & Co., Los Angeles Partek, Seattle Reco, Oakland RPX Resins, San Mateo Southwest Polymers, Diamond Bar Talco Plastics, Whittier Woncom Enterprises, Oakland WtE, Hayward 1 1 • i County-wide - 1 Printed on recycled paper nvnuoa'rswrw+nu.0 D-11 Tires Commodity Overview. The "rubber" portion of modem tires is made of various polymers and may even include a percentage of natural rubber. In addition to the rubber polymers, there are a variety of other materials present, depending on the "belting." Examples include steel, ' nylon, and fiberglass. The primary existing market for used tires is the retread market. A "retreadable" tire must ' have good sidewalls. The infrastructure for the identification and collection of retreadable tires is fairly well established in the commercial sector. It is assumed that most tires entering the ' waste stream are no longer retreadable. Alternatively,market potential for disposed tires falls into two principal categories: as a fuel source (chipped or whole) or as a product raw material (crumbed). Market Outlook ' a. Fuel--A limited number of markets exist in California for used tire fuel. Only one dedicated "tire-to-energy" system is located in northern California(Westley, owned and ' operated by Oxford Energy), that burns whole tires. Chipped tires are used as a supplementary fuel in facilities such as cement kilns. For the generator, this market is commonly one of negative price, i.e., the generator pays to have the tires removed. ' Most of the tires generated in the Bay Area are now removed by Oxford Energy, with 25 percent going to retreaders and the remainder into the Westley facility. ' b. Product raw material--This potential market represents a higher value alternative scenario for waste tire use in the Bay Area. Crumb rubber and chips have a high volume market potential as a 25 percent component of asphalt rubber for use in road paving and repair or crumb rubber alone as a raw material for a wide variety of product applications. The technical desirability of using asphalt rubber has been evaluated positively by a number of federal, state, and local agencies. A 20 percent life-cycle cost savings has been postulated by the industry. A major obstacle to asphalt rubber use is the increased up-front cost (two to three ' times) over asphalt alone. There are also concerns about the special equipment required for mixing and applying the rubber asphalt blend, and particularly the associated costs. Since the principal deterrent to its use is related to cost, this obstacle could be eliminated or mitigated by: 1. Allocating part or all of the disposal fee for tires to the production and blending of the crumb. 2. Assessing a "disposal" fee on all new tires purchased in the County to cover the cost of production. County-wide Printed on recycled paper nitneroRMAPPraau 1 D-12 Under these conditions, with the production and blending of the crumb "subsidized," the ' up-front cost of asphalt rubber would be less than asphalt alone, thus yielding an equivalent or better product at a lower (subsidized) cost. At the same time, all the tires would be diverted from the landfills. Moreover, if option 2 above were chosen, a tipping fee for used tires could be eliminated which would, in turn, probably reduce the number of tires littering County roadsides. The higher value use of the crumb, as a raw material in the manufacture of products, needs development. These products include those using rubber polymers alone or in combination with plastic polymers. See discussion in the plastics section for "closed loop" market possibilities. There is also the possibility of developing export markets for crumb rubber which should 1 be investigated as well. The recent passage of AB 1843 provides some funding possibilities for research and development of alternative end uses for used tires. General Price Range. As indicated, there is a negative price reflected in the cost of removal and/or landfilling. Local End Users. At the present time, Atlos Rubber in Los Angeles is the major marketer of crumb rubber in California. However, there is no known facility in the state that is presently crumbing rubber from used tires, although various projects are currently under consideration. Green Waste Commodity Overview. Green waste is made up essentially of grass, leaves, brush, and tree prunings. This material is easily shredded and suitable for controlled aerobic digestion (composting). The finished compost product is uneven (batch specific) in its NPK (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium) content and would probably require chemical additives to bring the product up to acceptable fertilizer standards. However,even without these additives,the product would be most useful as a soil amendment to provide valuable structure, aeration, and moisture-holding qualities. An additional advantage of such large-scale soil building uses is that advanced curing and screening of the composted material is unnecessary. Market Outlook. Successful efforts to market the material as a commercial product could result in taking up a share of the existing market, displacing other products, without increasing net diversion from disposal. Given the large volume of composted material that could be generated in the County, the most valuable markets (uses) to be developed would be large, institutional ones, e.g., hillside stabilization, freeway berm cover material, upgrading of marginal soil areas, erosion prevention applications, etc. ' t 1 County-wide i Printed on recycled paper msamoamwwe"ucca 1 D-I3 Public agencies that should be approached in this regard include: ' Federal Army Corps of Engineers Forest Service ' National Park Service Soil Conservation Service ' State Caltrans State Parks ' University of California Cooperative Extension County ' Beaches and Harbors Flood Control and Hillside Stabilization Forester ' Parks and Recreation Public Works Department ' Cities and Others Parks and Recreation Municipal Utility Districts ' Landfill Operators (cover material) ' Wood Waste Commodity Overview. Wood waste is distinguished from bush and tree waste in that it ' is limited to processed wood products such as furniture, pallets, and dimensional lumber. It constitutes a substantial portion of the non-residential waste streams. Although much of wood waste is relatively clean, significant contaminants include metal, tar, creosote, and other chemical treatments. Excessive gypsum dust may also be a problem, particularly in demolition wood waste. The presence of these contaminants at unacceptable levels (in the 3 to 4 percent range by weight) will preclude use as a fuel. While each combustion system has its own distinct fuel parameters, wood waste is commonly shredded to a particular size for use as a fuel, often with plus and minus limits (the fines screened out of the shredded wood are readily marketable as soil amendment). The material must also be relatively free of non-wood contaminants. For example, one buyer has a limit of 4 percent non-combustibles and 3 percent tramp combustibles by weight. 1 ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper mramoamawmroan 1 D-14 Market Outlook. The biomass fuel market is an increasingly popular market for ' uncontaminated wood waste in California. The number of dedicated biomass fuel combustion systems is growing, especially in the Central Valley and northern California. Industry sources indicate that nearly two million additional tons are now required annually for projects in process. Pricing of wood waste fuel is commonly based upon the btu value of a bone-dry ton. Downward adjustments in price are made for moisture content. Wood waste, being much dryer, is the preferred fuel over green waste. Historically, the relative low pricing for this fuel (e.g., $29 per bone-dry ton, delivered) did not generally allow for long distance shipping without significant avoided costs or some form of tipping fee to enhance economic viability. This was especially true when the Gaylord facility in Antioch was the primary user of wood fuel generated in the Bay Area. With the Gaylord facility now closed,the market has shifted to the San Joaquin , Valley. Increasing Central Valley demand has benefitted pricing, especially for potentially large volume generators. It now appears that large volumes of wood waste can be cost-effectively transported to San Joaquin Valley locations. There has been a decrease in Central Valley demand 1 with some projects being delayed or slowing down. This factor, combined with the loss of demand from Antioch,makes the current market uncertain for large scale new sources. However, the inability to count wood fuel in the first 25 percent diversion required under AB 939 may force some of this material into other uses. To accommodate wood waste that will not or cannot be sold into the fuel market, it will be useful to consider a backup use of shredded material as a mulch or, alternatively, a more finely shredded product that could be incorporated with the shredded green waste. Another potential market that would utilize wood waste at a higher value is the development of a local pressed board manufacturing facility that would use wood waste chips. Such processes now exist and some can be locally franchised. Paper Commodity Overview. A great variety of paper grades, collectively, constitute the largest material commodity of the waste stream. Most paper fiber is processed from wood pulp although paper can be made from a great variety of cellulosic fibers. Given the conditions of AB 939, only post consumer grades will be considered in this Appendix. Waste paper grades can be grouped into three general categories:pulp substitutes,de-inking, ' and bulk grades. Pulp substitutes--As the name implies,this material can be introduced, as is, into the pulper 1 and moved directly to the head box.. The only post-consumer grade in this category is groundwood-free, laser-free computer print-out (CPO). ' De-ink grades--This material, segregated by grade, is de-inked, cleaned, and often bleached before the fibers are reintroduced into the paper-making process. Post consumer grades, including printer wastes, require careful sorting as acceptable levels of contamination exist County-wide 1 Printed on recycled paper t7ItitEPORTIMPPENDOLD in the 1- to 2 percent range. The post consumer sorted grades, especially de-ink D-15 old newspapers (ONP), and the sorted ledger grades(office paper)have potential for significant volume growth for recovery. Bulk grades--These grades, basically Board Mill News, old corrugated containers (OCC), and mixed paper are commonly screened for inappropriate paper grades and unacceptable levels of non-paper materials, and used without deinking in a variety of product applications, including the inner layers of boxboard, wallboard, linerboard, and medium. ' These grades have the greatest potential for volume diversion from the existing waste stream because together they constitute a significant portion of the total waste stream and permit ' relatively high levels of contamination as compared with other paper grades. Mills using waste paper purchase various grades on the basis of product need, fiber yield, fiber strength, and brightness. The particular mix will vary from mill to mill as well as within any given mill over time. This dynamic requires constant attention by those wishing to sell various waste paper grades on a sustained basis. Paper fibers are also susceptible to degradation, and each recycling reduces the percentage of usable fiber recovered. Therefore, as greater and greater percentages of recycled fiber appear in waste paper, the yield of usable fiber per ton of waste paper will diminish. Since the bottom line for the purchasing mill is usable fiber yield, value per ton will probably be impacted. It is the relatively high proportion of virgin fiber in American waste paper that makes it such a valuable commodity in the export markets. Market Outlook. The waste paper industry is well established in the Bay Area both in terms of using mills and a wide variety of packers and brokers. Packers collect/buy paper from smaller generators, sort as necessary, bale, and ship to using mills. Brokers function primarily ' to coordinate large orders from mills, often requiring multiple sources. Many large packers also operate as brokers. t Bay Area waste paper feeds local mills, domestic mills along the northwest coast, and, except for special exceptions such as the Stone Container mill in Montana,no further east. There is also an active export market, most of which is in the Pacific Rim (primarily Taiwan, South ' Korea, and Japan, but growing in such countries as Indonesia,Thailand,Hong Kong, and China). Unlike recycling in other commodities, paper mills were commonly designed either for virgin pulp exclusively or recycled fiber exclusively because the front ends of the two systems are quite different, and siting factors would differ substantially. However, the recent advent of legislation in California and elsewhere, calling for minimum recycled content in paper products. ' has triggered numerous projects by both U.S. and Canadian mills at previously dedicated pulp mills to accommodate some portion of recycled fiber. Other efforts are encouraging facilities to produce a marketable pulp (wet lap) from 100 percent recycled fiber to supply those mills without their own deinking systems. Pricing of waste paper is primarily a function of demand. A dictum of the market is that ' waste paper is bought, not sold. In California, waste paper can be viewed as a global commodity. Domestic mills compete with each other and with foreign mills. Since most waste County-wide Printed on recycled paper moamarexuu.0 1 D-16 paper, particularly the bulk grades common in the waste stream, go into the production of , packaging and building materials, demand is highly sensitive to macroeconomic conditions. A number of other factors affecting waste paper demand and pricing include: 1 1. The relative value of the dollar against the currency of importing countries. As with any exportable commodity, a weaker dollar will enhance export. 2. Freight rates and container availability. In the export market,relatively low value waste paper must compete with higher value goods for available containers. If higher freight rates are not absorbed by the buyer, the seller's bottom line is negatively impacted. 3. The relative price and availability of virgin pulp, although this factor is being offset by recycled content requirements. 4. Foreign governmental import and/or currency transfer restrictions. 5. Level of production relative to maintenance of furnish inventories. 1 6. Production stoppages as a result of labor problems, mechanical breakdowns, or political unrest. 7. Changeover of production techniques or product manufactured. Price changes for specific grades at any time may be subject to a snowball effect starting from a single microeconomic factor. A labor strike at one mill may suddenly throw an excess supply into the hopper, touching off a quick downward spiral in price as sellers scramble to unload inventory. Each successive drop raises the stakes of maintaining stock, thereby encouraging more panic selling. Conversely, a sudden excess demand requiring prompt satisfaction, may begin an upward spiral in price impacting the entire market spectrum. Old Newspaper (ONP) Commodity Overview. Old newspapers are marketed in two basic grades,de-ink and board mill (see Paper Stock specifications, numbers 6 and 8). The de-ink grade is used essentially to make recycled newsprint, and the board mill grade is used primarily as a component of boxboard and wallboard medium and a variety of other packaging and construction products. Newsprint and boxboard mills account for approximately 77 percent of ONP use in the U.S. Market Outlook. As indicated above, the recent passage of minimum recycled content legislation for paper products sold in California has resulted in substantial commitment by West Coast mills to expanded deinking capacity projects. Three projects alone (Norpac in Longview, Washington, Boise Cascade in West Tacoma, Washington, and Newstech in Vancouver, British Columbia) account for an increased demand of 522,500 short tons of ONP and old magazines per year. County-wide ' Printed on recycled paper 5715"1D'""NA°°E1p4fD D-17 Additionally, a growing export market exists, accounting for the fact that ONP collections have been increasing at over twice the rate of domestic increases in consumption. ' However, a condition is currently developing with defmite short term and potential long term impacts on ONP markets and pricing. Traditionally, ONP demand and pricing have been cyclical. As demand dropped,prices dropped, and eventually,generating sources were no longer motivated to save, collect, and sell. Consequently, supply diminished. As demand began to exceed supply, prices would begin to rise and the cycle began anew. A new factor has recently intruded into this scenario. There is a burgeoning collection of ONP motivated by waste diversion rather than material demand. The collectors are guided as much (or more) by the avoided cost of disposal as by the price being offered for ONE For these collectors, even a negative price (i.e.,paying a mill to take the paper) may be justified when compared to a higher disposal cost. Much of the ONP being collected, mostly in residential curbside collection programs, is "new tonnage", i.e., ONP not previously entering the commercial collection stream. In the short term, this volume may cause occasional market disruptions with depressed pricing. By 1993-94,most of the planned expanded de-inking projects will be on line and,combined with ' ongoing export demand, additional supplies of ONP generated in the Bay Area will be accommodated. ' Historically, de-ink is priced at approximately $10 to $15 per ton above board mill quality. Most of the new demand will be for this de-ink quality ONP. Local jurisdiction and county planning efforts should be sensitive to this reality. A secondary market for ONP is as the raw material for properly manufactured cellulose insulation. Local agencies should work to remove any existing unwarranted regulatory barriers. ' Recently, EPA estimated that loose and spray-on products constituted only 3 percent of the insulation market, indicating a capacity for growth. For insulation board, EPA noted that over one million tons of waste fibers per year were consumed nationally. Again, this latter product would benefit mixed paper and OCC demand as well. Old Corrugated Containers (OCC) Commodity Overview. Old corrugated containers are used primarily in the manufacture of components for new corrugated containers: either linerboard or corrugating medium. It is also used in a variety of other packaging and construction products. Specifications call for a relatively clean product although this varies somewhat with end use and the cleaning capability of the using mill (for example,Japanese mills generally do not have substantial cleaning systems and require ' a much cleaner "pack" than other Asian or U.S. users). The most common contaminants are plastic wrap and packing materials. Waxed OCC is generally unacceptable as well. ' There is a well-established infrastructure for the collection of OCC from commercial generators which accounts for the high rate of recovery,estimated at 65 percent for the Bay Area, well above the national rate of 45 percent. However,various waste composition analyses in the area of landfill residuals indicate that the actual recovery rate may be somewhere in the 50- to 60 percent range. 1 ' countywide Printed on recycled paper nwaoairwvrmroocu 1 D-18 Market Outlook. Demand for OCC is largely a function of demand for new corrugated containers which, in turn, is highly sensitive to production of goods requiring such packaging. Hence, the market is sensitive to macroeconomic conditions. Although there has been some softening of OCC prices in recent months, it remains within the norm of price variation for this grade. As with ONP, the planned projects on the West Coast will greatly enhance domestic demand for OCC by 1995. So far, unlike the situation with ONP, the supply side of OCC has remained largely within a commercial structure. As waste diversion pressures increase, however, there exists the danger of generating supply without regard to demand. If the implementation of planned MRFs in the Bay Area proceeds more quickly than the mill projects' increasing demand, the potential addition to existing markets could have a short-term negative price effect if this release is not timed carefully with increased demand. , As with ONP, increased demand for OCC will also come from abroad, particularly the Pacific Rim, although there is some indication that there will be a growing presence of Asian paper manufacturers siting mills in the United States, thereby stimulating domestic demand for OCC. An example is the possible 100 percent recycled furnish linerboard and medium mill planned by Daishowa in Stockton. This project is on temporary hold but, if finally implemented, will add 30,000 to 35,000 short tons per month of OCC demand. Mixed Paper , Commodity Overview. Because this grade is defined in such a way as to encompass all types of paper, with unsuitable outthrows such as carbon paper limited to 10 percent, the potential volume in the Bay Area is substantial. There are various subgrades of mixed paper depending on fiber mix. The higher quality "super mix' will be the most marketable in the short term and possibly in the long term as well. Mixed paper currently has limited product use, principally as a filler medium in boxboard and wall board, and in roofing felts (a product that has been steadily losing market share). Even in these uses, it is primarily a component along with other more specific grades of waste paper. Market Outlook. There is a debate currently in progress in the industry as to the future ' potential of mixed paper. One side contends that the minimum content requirements of the law, coupled with the increasingly limited availability of segregated fiber grades, will push mills to develop technologies to process and use greater quantities of mixed paper glades. Others argue that increasing demand will be coupled with increasing requirements for quality that will necessitate increased pre-sorting and decontaminating by waste paper processors. , In any event, this grade has the greatest short-term potential to saturate existing markets. Local jurisdictions should not be overly attracted by the high volume of mixed paper "available" in the waste stream as a target for diversion. This substream is available in large quantities in part because it is difficult to market in substantial quantities. There is some potential increased demand for this grade in the export market, particularly as the supply of pure grades is increasingly absorbed by domestic mills. • 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 571aT"A^3103o 1 D-19 Until the paper industry, both in the U. S. and abroad, demonstrates an ability to use low grades mixes in large quantities, alternative end uses should be considered as backup markets. ' Some examples are: 1. Recently, Wastech, Inc., in Canada, pelletized mixed paper for use as a refuse-derived fuel. 2. Additional research and development may be required to incorporate shredded mixed paper into composting systems. 3. There may be some possibility of using shredded mix as a medium for mushroom I growing. As a possible back-up market, pelletized mixed paper has potential if the processing and transporting to potential fuel users in central and northern California can be made cost-effective. High Grades Commodity Overview. The great majority of high grade waste papers are generated as ' essentially pre-consumer (i.e., prompt industrial) scrap by converters and printers and are currently being recovered to a high degree by the commercial waste paper sector. The major "post-consumer" exception is computer print-out which is highly valued and,therefore,recovered from most large generators. The other principal post-consumer high grades are the sorted ledgers known more commonly to the public as "office paper." A sub-grade of this group is known as Super Mix, which is limited to no more than 10 percent groundwood content. Market Outlook. The market demand for the post-consumer sorted white and color ledger grades will continue to be adequate so long as additional recovery efforts do not substantially increase supply in the short term. Increased de-inking capacity in the tissue and bond paper ' sectors will enhance demand. However, as mills increasingly utilize groundwood in 'office grade" paper, these grades may disappear into the super mix category. ' General price ranges per short ton CPO: Laser free: $130 to $300 ' Sorted White Ledger: $90 to $220 Sorted Color Ledger: $50 to $180 OCC: $60 to $140 ' #8ONP: $30 to $120 #6ONP: $15 to $100 Super Mix: $10 to $60 Regular Mix: $0 to $40 1 ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper nlYwoRn'amNou.o D-20 ' Domestic end users for waste paper Mix ONP OCC HiGrades Cal. Paperbd, Santa Clara x x I CCA (Smurfit), Santa Clara x x x Domtar, San Leandro x x x x ' Gaylord, Antioch x Georgia Pacific, Toledo, OR x x Inland Container, Newark x , James River, Halsey, OR x Keyes Fibre, Sacramento x x x Leatherback, Hollister x x ' Newark Paperbd, Stockton x x Norpac, Longview, WA x x Packaging Co., Red Bluff x x x , Simpson, Ripon x Simpson, Anderson x Smurfit, Newburg, OR x ' Stone Ctr, Missoula,MT x Weyco, Springfield x x Weyco, Longview x Willamette, Albany, OR x Ferrous Metal Commodity Overview. Iron and steel are the most abundant materials from which metal I products are fabricated and metal structures are constructed. There is a wide variety of grades of ferrous scrap, and recovery, particularly of post-consumer scrap, is becoming increasingly ' complicated and costly by virtue of the ever-growing array of alloys and combinations with other metallic and non-metallic components. Major components common in the waste stream, in addition to the can stock noted I separately above, include junked autos, engines, white goods (e.g., refrigerators, washers, and dryers), wire products,pipe,various building materials, bicycle frames,pots and pans, tools, etc. ' Market Outlook: Although ferrous scrap has had a long, spotted history in the United States, current trends are mostly encouraging. The U.S. steel industry has rebounded well in , recent years, the result of restructuring and plant modernization. Of particular importance to the scrap markets has been the advent and growth of electric furnace mini-mills capable of using 100 percent scrap infeed. By 1988,these mills had captured 36.5 percent of market share and do well , in competition with foreign imports. Ferrous metal demand is highly sensitive to macro-economic conditions, particularly as they affect machine tools, transportation, heavy construction, and consumer durables. However, the combination of domestic and export demand ' are expected to keep ferrous scrap sales within traditional ranges over the long haul. I County-wide Printed on recycled paper mra®oxTmwerENaan D-21 General Price Range Example: #2 bundles: $40 to $120 per short ton. Domestic End Users Pasco, Antioch Schnitzer, Oakland Asphalt/Concrete ' Commodity Overview. Asphalt, a blend of oils and aggregates, is used mostly for roadbed construction. Concrete, in addition to road use, is a major construction material for structures. In the latter use, concrete is often contaminated with steel rebar, which can be removed magnetically when the concrete is crushed for reuse as aggregate. ' Market Outlook. A substantial portion of the concrete and asphalt discards is currently being recycled,either directly in mad resurfacing projects or after processing at commercial sites. These latter sites accept the material either at a reduced or zero tipping fee,depending on quality. ' Thus, the motivation to the material hauler is avoided higher disposal cost at traditional waste receiving facilities. These operations are expected to continue, both at commercial sites and at newly designed material recovery facilities. ' Summary ' In conclusion, market assessments for the recoverable materials fall into three general categories. Category 1 materials have readily available markets and will be absorbed without problem at maximum levels of recovery from the waste stream (assuming that industry/use ' specifications are met). These materials are: Category 1 Aluminum, all grades Asphalt/concrete ' Ferrous metals Glass containers, color-sorted to flint, amber, green' Green waste, if used as landfill cover High grade papers PET containers covered by AB 2020 Tin-plated steel cans Wood waste, if finely ground to mix with green waste ' 'especially if the color imbalance is properly mitigated. County-wide Printed on recycled paper 31111eroe1ranumo;.o 1 D-22 Category 2 materials have existing markets, but require careful coordination of recovery efforts with specific demand, pricing, and/or development of cost-effective collection and transportation. These materials may also benefit from some level of new market development. These materials include: Category 2 Corrugated Containers, in short term Glass containers, not color-sorted Green waste, if composted Mixed paper Newspaper, in short term, and #6 in general Plastics, sorted or sortable Wood waste, as a fuel Tires, as a fuel Category 3 materials require market development as a precondition to recovery efforts. Such efforts will include market development for manufactured products made from these raw materials. These materials are: Category 3 ' Plastics, mixed Tires, as a source of crumb rubber Wood waste, as a source for pressed wood products A final note of caution for all commodity markets: Since most of these materials are used t in the manufacturing of products sensitive to macroeconomic conditions, severe short-term dislocations are always possible. At such times, for specified materials, landfilling, as a temporary expedient, may be the only viable alternative. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OVER THE LONG TERM (TO THE YEAR 2013) ' The market assessments made in this technical paper cover the near term, roughly 1991-95. However, it is reasonable to assume that projections based entirely on current conditions over the long term are not good indicators of future conditions. The future is rarely a straight projection of the past since that projection cannot include new technologies,changing consumption patterns, or significant single episodes that alter basic living and demographic patterns. Nevertheless, it will be fruitful to consider some recent trendlines and to provide a basis for dealing with change as it occurs. 1 County-wide Printed on recycled paper 57134n]ORISV.WeNDIXD D-23 There are both positive and negative trendlines apparent today as impactors of waste generation and recycling and,on balance, it appears that the positive trends outweigh the negative ' ones for the next 20 to 30 years. Positive Trendlines The 1990s have been termed, "The Decade of the Environment," signalling increased international attention to global contamination of air, water, and land. In the United States, this ' pressure,combined with increased public motivation to maximally extend landfill life,will likely result in a sustained public mandate to reduce waste generation and to recycle as much as possible. ' A parallel trend will be the increasing demand for modernization in the Third World. The pressure to provide for this absolute increase in demand for a wide variety of manufactured ' products coupled with the need to contain this growth within acceptable environmental parameters will tend to encourage increasing use of recyclable materials. ' The above are macro-trends and are expected to continue into the early part of the twenty-first century. On a micro level,there is increased sensitivity to recyclability/disposal cost for manufactured products on the part of both government and manufacturers. This could ' translate into higher proportions of recovery for given materials or to increased removal of non-recyclables from the production stream. ' Negative Trendlines The most significant negative trend is the development of increasingly complex material ' combinations in a wide variety of products and packages, making recycling technically and/or economically unfeasible. At the same time, there continues to be an increase in throwaway ' products, justified by convenience to the consumer or the economics of programmed obsolescence. Both of these trends are in conflict with the last positive trend indicated above. It is not yet clear which direction will dominate. ' Transition Requisites ' In view of changing waste streams,collection and process technologies, and commodity use demands, the waste manager wishing to maintain the highest level of recovery feasible should: ' • Institute a protocol for monitoring waste composition on a regular basis. • Maintain ongoing research and development into more efficient recovery techniques and labor productivity. • Support market development efforts, domestically and internationally. 1 1 ' County-wide Printed on recycled paper 57154LnormMnamcco