The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08141990 - 2.1 ti-001 1 t'.. tra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS t Costa FROM: Plastics Task Force Plastics Negotiating Committee Ccunty STA C'Ui1N DATE: August 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Recycling of Plastics SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Consider appropriate actions to facilitate the recycling of post-consumer mixed rigid plastics such as: 1. Request the Plastics Task Force to pursue institutional arrangements, such as a Memorandum of Understanding;' that would allow for a single contract for the processing of ' post-consumer mixed rigid plastics; 2 . Request the Plastics Task Force to work with the franchising agencies and collectors to develop pilot programs or other mechanisms to assess the incremental cost of adding post-consumer mixed rigid plastics to curbside recycling programs, as well as feasible time frames to implement the program; 3 . Request the Plastics Task Force to work with the franchising agencies and collectors to consider implementation of curbside collection of HDPE (clear) as a next step in removing plastics from the wastestream; and 4 . Direct staff to provide for analysis of plastic by resin type in the waste characterization studies and request the Plastics Task Force to work with the cities to ensure such analysis in the city waste characterizations. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. YES SIGNATURE. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON August 14, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT — ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF . SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development ATTESTED AV /990 Plastics Task Force (via CDD) PHIL60ATCHELOR, CLERK OF Franchising Agencies (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Solid Waste Collectors ( via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Administrator pp DEPUTY BY BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS At the recommendation of the Plastics Task Force (composed of representatives of cities, sanitary districts, collectors environmentalists, the public and the industry) the Board of Supervisors adopted a set of policies to remove plastics (HDPE, LDPE, PVC, PS, PP) from the wastestream as of December 31, 1990. It was envisioned that these policies would be implemented through curbside collection of plastics with baling at the existing recycling centers and processing at a single plant capable of converting the plastic into individual resin flakes with a high degree of purity (to ensure marketability) . The Walnut Creek pilot program conducted with the cooperation of wTe Corporation and Dow Chemical was seen as the model for this effort. Currently, there is no processing plant located in California capable of receiving post-consumer mixed rigid plastics. According to industry sources, the optimal volume of plastics for the lowest processing cost is about 40 million pounds per year. This is equivalent to a 2 process line plant operating 3 shifts per day. Minimal volume fora one process, one shift per day facility would be 5 million pounds. (See attached table for estimates of plastic volumes in Contra Costa County. ) Construction costs for a complete facility would run $6-8 million, with a single line facility at about $4 million. Given the high capital costs of a plastic processing plant, private industry must be assured of receiving a feedstock (plastic) prior to plant construction. In essence, this is the commitment of the plastics wastestream. In Contra Costa County, wastestream is controlled by either the franchising agency or the collector. In some cases, control is jointly held or. not clearly specified in the franchise agreement. Since no one agency controls the plastics wastestream in Contra Costa County, the Plastics Task Force's Committee decided to facilitate the wastestream commitment process by developing a "model agreement" which could then be used by the appropriate agencies. A Request for Qualification/Proposal for the plastics processing plant was circulated to about 75 organizations. There were two responses: wTe Corporation and Eaglebrook West. (See attached summary of responses. ) The Committee felt that both proposers were qualified and so requested each to draft a contract. wTe then withdrew from the process because of the perceived risk associated with taking the model agreement to each of the franchising agencies/collectors for ratification. (As an alternative, wTe also offered to handle the coordination on a consulting basis. ) The Eaglebrook contract was predicated on an agreement between Eaglebrook and one other party, the County. Obviously, the County does not have the authority to commit this portion of the wastestream. The Committee also discussed the issue of .the incremental cost of curbside collection of plastics. Over the last few years, the monthly garbage bill has risen dramatically. Although the Board of Supervisors has advised the franchising agencies of the need to analyze the incremental collection costs with their franchisors, no definitive data was available for the Committee's consideration. Consequently, the Committee felt that a pilot program or equivalent assessment, preferably one in each region of the County, should be conducted prior to the formalization of contracts for processing the plastics. It may also be appropriate to link these analyses with the waste characterization studies, to determine anticipated volume of plastic by type. The Committee felt that an incremental approach to removing plastics from the wastestream may help achieve the Plastics Task Force's objective as well as minimize ratepayer costs. In addition, this would allow for the analysis of the relative cost-effectiveness of plastics recycling compared to other recycling opportunities. Clear HDPE (milk jugs and water bottles) may be an appropriate next step in plastics recycling. The Committee would like to investigate if it could be collected curbside without the addition of trucks and at a minimal cost. (In Walnut Creek, the budgeted incremental cost is under 5(,4/HH/month. However, it is recognized that actual collection costs are affected by volumes. ) CURBSIDE mL ON of RI® PLASTIC CCRIAINERs — pow, CCLIE M v KU4ES — Household Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Participation All Plastic HDPE (All) HDPE (Clear) PET 50% (152,312) 31259,477 11842,975 11507,888 654,942 60% (182,775) 3,911,385 21211,577 11809,473 785,932 70% (213,237) 41563,272 2,580,168 2,1111046 916,919 80% (243,700) 51215,180 21948,770 2,4121630 11047,910 90% (274,162) 51867,067 31317,360 21714,204 11178,897 100%(304,625) 615181975 31685,962 3,0151780 11309,887 46.3% 20.1% As ions: Assumes 304,625 occupied dwelling units in Contra Costa County and 21.4 lbs/HH/year consumer, nontoxic, plastic containers; 9.9 lbs/HH/year HDPE (clear containers) ; 12.1 lbs/HH/year HDPE (all containers) ; 4.3 lbs/HH/year PET containers. Data Sources: Extrapolation of Walnut Creek pilot program data (6 month pilot ; of 2000 HH's, 70% participation rate collecting 3,000 lbs PET and 8500 lbs HDPE, all) . Adjustment based on national data from "Characterization of Plastic Production in the Municipal Solid Waste", Council for Solid Waste Solutions, February 1990. Caution: Volumes should be regarded as very "soft" data due to uncertainties over the applicability of national data to Contra Costa County and the preliminary nature of the Walnut Creek data. Verified data will be available for plastics with the completion of waste characterization studies. Note: At minimum, a plastics recycling plant would need a commitment of 5 million pounds of plastics per year. With over 70% participation rates, it appears that Contra Costa would meet this volume criteria. h12/plastic.tbl PIA.SUMS Pia PLANT SU*VM OF RFQ/P FSS Corporate Identity Certified Polymer Processors, Inc. Eaglebrook Plastics West a wholly owned subsidiary of wTe under formation by Eagle- Corporation, a private corporation brook Plastics and SW International Recycling Corp. EMP:I:ience Processed Walnut Creek Pilot plastics Currently produces program. Currently processes about 20 Durawood (plastic wood) , million lbs/yr of PET and HDPE dairy bottles, water bottles. Selected processor of and mixed color HDPE polystryene plant in Bay Area. containers from recycled plastic. Also processes other plastics. Types of Plastics to post-consumer rigid plastic post-consumer plastic be Processed containers of PET, HDPE, PVC, PP, containers of PET, HDPE, LDPE, PS. PVC, PP, LUPE, PS, TSETS. Minin mi/Optimum 5 million lbs/year/ 7-10 million tons per Plastic Volume 40 million lbs/year year/not specified Financing Status $8 mil CPCFA preliminary not specified allocation Permitting Status Current permits for Benicia facility proposed as part of Southern California Waste-to-Energy facility project (initially) . Time to Plant 270 days est. 6 months from financing Operations Price for Plastics To be negotiated "Recycling Times" printed price averages would serve as basis (vary over time) hl2/rfgp.res