HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10311989 - IO.3 J
I.O. -3
TO: F*gARD OF SUPERVISORS ......
Contra
FROM: �! ' Costa
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Bt s
C,
County
DATE: October 23 , 1989 s;q_ K
SUBJECT: PLASTICS IN THE WASTE STREAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECONNENDATIONS
1. Introduce the attached ordinance which prohibits the use,
sale or production of food packaging materials which use
ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) in the
manufacturing process in the unincorporated area of Contra
Costa County, waive reading and fix November 7 , 1989 for
adoption of the ordinance.
2. Request the , Community Development Director to write to
manufacturers of polystyrene packaging materials, urging
them not to use CFC' s in the manufacture of polystyrene
packaging materials.
3 . Authorize the Health Services Director to undertake a
six-month pilot program to test the economic and health
factors involved in the use of cloth versus disposable
diapers. This study needs to address , among other issues ,
the need for hospital staff to rinse disposable diapers
before disposing of them in order to comply with the
County' s ordinance on this subject. Our Committee would
also like to suggest that a pilot project include the use of
adult diapers in addition 'to or instead of infant diapers.
Request the Health Services Director to report the results
of this pilot study to the 1990 Internal Operations
Committee when the pilot study is completed and for this
purpose refer this issue to the 1990 Internal Operations
Committee.
4 . Direct the Director of General Services (County Purchasing
Agent) to purchase only paper cups for use with cold
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:YeS YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMI COMM NDATION OF BOARD GOMMITTEE
APPROVE �fy� ER
SIGNATURE (S): TOM POWERS SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD ON October _41 .,1 989APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT III ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED '� ��`J/, 15peg
See Page 4. PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY
_2_
beverages and direct all County Department ,Heads to use only
paper cups for cold beverages, to be effective as soon as
this policy can be implemented by the Purchasing Agent.
5. A. Adopt as a policy of the Board of Supervisors that the
Board discourages the use of polystyrene pellets as
packing material.
B. Direct the Purchasing Agent to amend the purchase order
form to include a strong statement that Contra Costa
County wants to eliminate the use of polystyrene
pellets and requesting vendors to use alternative
packaging materials.
C. Request departments to notify Purchasing of any vendors
who continue to ship equipment or supplies to. Contra
Costa County using polystyrene pellets as a packing
material.
D. Request Purchasing staff to contact any vendor who is
reported to them by a department reminding the vendor
of the County' s policy and noting that if the vendor
fails to comply an alternative vendor will be used
unless no alternative vendor is available.
E. Request Purchasing to prepare a report to the 1990
Internal Operations Committee . six months after
implementation of this policy to review what problems
departments have identified and how those problems were
resolved, along with the Purchasing Agent' s
recommendations for any changes in the Board' s policy
and for this purpose refer this matter to the 1990
Internal Operations Committee.
6. Authorize the Community Development Director to undertake
the survey of County Departments outlined in the attached
report from the County' s Resource Recovery Specialist in
order to determine additional information on which to base a
recycled products procurement policy for the County.
Request the Community Development Director to forward the
results of the survey, along with his recommendations for a
County recycled products procurement policy, to the Plastics
Recycling Task Force and request the Task Force to forward
their comments and recommendations to the 1990 Internal
Operations Committee by a date to be determined in
consultation with the County Administrator and for this
purpose refer this item to the 1990 Internal Operations
Committee.
7 . Request the Director of General Services (County Purchasing
Agent) , Resource Recovery Specialist and County Counsel to
conduct an analysis of AB 4 (Chapter 1094, Statutes of 1989)
to determine what steps the County must take to comply with
its provisions and report their conclusions and
recommendations to the 1990 Internal Operations Committee by
January 31, 1990 and for this purpose refer this item to the
1990 Internal Operations Committee.
8. Request the Community Development Director to identify for
the County Administrator all programs which have been
recommended to be funded in whole or in part from the fees
provided for in AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989) .
Request the County Administrator to forward to the 1990
Internal Operations Committee this listing along with the
County Counsel' s opinion regarding the uses to which the fee
revenue provided for in AB 939 can be put for the purpose of
having the 1990 Internal Operations Committee prioritize the
programs which can be funded in whole or in part from AB
-3-
9390, with the understanding that the 1990 Internal
Operations Committee will forward their findings and
recommendations for priority funding to the 1990 Finance
Committee for a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
on how the funds which may be available from AB 939 should
be used and for this purpose refer this item to the 1990
Internal Operations Committee.
9. Request the County Administrator to include in the Board' s
proposed 1990 Legislative Program authority to impose
license taxes for revenue or regulation purposes in order to
provide the Board of Supervisors with the authority to
impose a fee on non-recyclable and non-degradable products
at or near their point of purchase in order to' mitigate the
increased costs of disposing of these products in a landfill
or otherwise finding a way to dispose of them.
10. Request the Purchasing Agent to take into account the
written comments of Californians Against Waste regarding the
potential for the County to make use of various means of
reducing the cost of purchasing recycled products.
11. Request the Purchasing Agent to continue his discussions
with cities and other local jurisdictions in the County with
a view to obtaining the lowest possible price for recycled
products through mass purchasing on behalf of the County and
other local governments.
12. Direct the Sheriff-Coroner, County Probation Officer and
Health Services Director to cooperate fully with the
Resource Recovery Specialist in attempting to establish a
plastics (and other materials) collection and recycling
program for County institutions. Request the Community
Development Director to report progress on this program back
to the 1990 Internal Operations Committee by February 1,
1990 and for the purpose refer this matter to the 1990
Internal Operations Committee.
13 . Request the Community Development Director to make a status
report to the 1990 Internal Operations Committee on the
pilot plastics recycling program for residential curbside
collection and processing of mixed plastics in February,
1990 and for this purpose refer this item to the 1990
Internal Operations Committee.
14. Request the Community Development Director to make a status
report to the 1990 Internal Operations Committee on the
pilot projects which are under study with Macdonald' s
restaurants to recycle polystyrene food containers in
February, 1990 and for this purpose refer this item to the
1990 Internal Operations Committee.
15. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
on July 18, 1989 and September 19, 1989 the Board of Supervisors
approved reports from our Committee which followed up on the
Solid Waste Commissions' s report to the Board on "Plastics in the
Waste Stream" . On October 23 , 1989 our Committee met with staff
from the Community Development Department, General Services
Department, County Counsel' s Office, West Contra Costa Solid
Waste Management Authority, Californians Against Waste, Proctor
and Gamble, Health Services Department and a member of the Solid
Waste Commission to review a number of detailed and complex
reports which are attached to this report and incorporated herein
by reference. We do not intend to repeat what is contained in
these reports.
-4-
In general, we are pleased with the progress which is being made
in efforts to collect and recycled plastics, eliminate the use of
CFC' s in the manufacture of plastics, eliminate the use of
plastics where paper or other products will serve . just as well
and in general to reduce our reliance on plastics. Where we do
have to rely on plastics we want to see continued progress toward
collecting, reusing and recycling plastics in order to reduce the
need to dispose of plastics in landfills. The above
recommendations came out of our discussions with those present.
We would commend the attached reports to the Board Members in
order to fully understand the status of efforts to handle
plastics in a more responsible manner in this County.
CC: County Administrator
Community Development Director
Sheila Cogan, Resource Recovery Specialist
County Counsel
Director of General Services
Purchasing Services Manager
Rod Miller, Californians Against Waste
Chair, Solid Waste Commission
�G� �O�JG� Daf�0��1a400a .
DATE 10-24-89 FILE NO.
Re: Ordinance. proh.lbi.ti:ng CFC-prQcessed food packaging
❑ Per your request
❑ Per our discussion on Enclosed for your information:
Subject ordinance, retyped to designate the Health
Services Dept. as the administering agen y, per the
❑ To update you in the progress of this matter. 1.0. Committee's I�0 23 89 i ns tructi onS
(Retain for future reference if desired.)
❑ For your review and comment
Please contact this office if you have any questions or require an appointment to discuss the enclosed materials.
FFrom:
To: I C.L. Van Marter, OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
Assistant Count Administrator CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
,y 651 PINE STREET,9th FLOOR
MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553
Telepho (415)646-2074
By:
J t Y
w
ORDINANCE NO. 89-
(Prohibiting Chlorofluorocarbon-Processed
Food Packaging)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows :
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance prohibits the use, sale or
production of food packaging materials which use ozone-depleting
chlorofluorocarbon in the manufacturing process in the
.unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
SECTION II. FINDINGS. (a) Scientific evidence is increasingly
confirming that the family of substances known as
chlorofluorocarbons ( "CFCs" ) , when discharged into the
atmosphere, degrade the earth's protective layer of ozone,
allowing increased amounts of ultraviolet radiation to penetrate
the atmosphere,- posing an acute and immediate danger to human
health, life, and to the environment.
(b) Available scientific evidence indicates the strong
possibility that the resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation
may already have caused an increase in the incidence of .skin
cancers and other serious illnesses .
(c) In September 1987, the United States and 23 other
nations signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer, commonly referred to as the Montreal Protocol,
to set forth a timetable for reducing the most potent ozone-
depleting chemicals.
(d) To implement the Montreal Protocol, the Environmental
Protection Agency, on December 14, 1987, published proposed
regulations, which are now final, to limit the reproduction and
consumption of certain CFCs.
(e) One source of the CFCs currently being released into
the atmosphere is the use of these substances as blowing agents
in the manufacture of some of the polystyrene foam packaging
products used in the food service industry. Substitutes for
these products, currently available, do not use CFCs in their
manufacture.
(f) In April 1988, the Food service and Packaging
Institute, which represents approximately 90 percent of food
packaging manufacturers, announced a voluntary program to phase
out the use of fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons in the
manufacture of disposable foam plastic products for food service
by the end of 1988 . In February 1989, the EPA acknowledged the
success of this voluntary phase-out of CFCs by the food packaging
industry. However, concerns have been expressed over the
voluntary nature of the phase-out, and the fact that not all food
packaging manufacturers are members of the Food Service and
Packaging Institute.
(g) The Board supports international, federal, state, and
private voluntary bans on all uses of CFC not deemed absolutely
essential. Until such bans are in effect, responsible action
should be taken at the local level to reduce CFC use.
ORDINANCE NO. 1
J
T SECTION III. DEFINITIONS. . As used in this ordinance, the
following definitions apply:
(a) "Chlorofluorocarbons, " or "CFCs, " mean the family of
substances containing carbon, fluorine and chlorine, having no
hydrogen atoms and no double bonds.
(b) "CFC-processed food packaging" means any food packaging
which uses CFCs as blowing agent in its manufacture.
(c) "Food packaging" means all containers, bowls, plates,
trays, cartons, cups, and lids on or in which any foods or
beverages are placed or packaged or intended to be placed or
packaged.
SECTION IV. PROHIBITION. Except as provided in Section V, no
person shall produce, sell or use CFC-processed food packaging in
the unincorporated area of the County.
SECTION V. EXEMPTIONS. (a) CFC-processed food packaging
manufactured, purchased or under contract to be purchased on or
before is exempt from the requirements . of this
ordinance.
(b) The Director of Health Services or his designee may
exempt an item or type of food packaging from. the requirements of
this ordinance upon a showing that the item or type has no
acceptable non-CFC-processed equivalent, and that imposing the
requirements of this ordinance on that item or type would cause
undue hardship.
SECTION VI. ADMINISTERING AGENCY. The Director of Health
Services is responsible for administering and enforcing the
provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective
30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be
published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and
against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in
this County.
PASSED on , by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Board Chair
[SEAL]
LTF:df
(10-24-89)
df1:1tf\ord\pkgiug-f.00d
ORDINANCE NO. 2
* 1
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 18, 1989
To: Internal Operations Committee ' �}
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Y
By: Vickie L. Dawes, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Additional Regulations re Disposal of Diapers in Landfill
This responds to the request of the Internal Operations
Committee for a report from the County Counsel, Community
Development Director, and Health Services Director on whether any
additional regulation of the disposal of diapers in a landfill is
needed. This report is a follow-up to the previous reports by the
County Counsel and the Health Services Director which recommended
that the County Ordinance code be amended to require the rinsing of
disposable diapers prior to their disposal in individual garbage
containers .
Since this office has no independent expertise on the issue of
disposing of diapers in the solid wastestream, the suggestions
herein for additional regulations are from the Health Services and
Community Development Departments. The Health Services Department
indicated that with the amendment of the County Ordinance Code to
require the rinsing of disposable diapers before they are discarded
into the solid wastestream, the health problems related to soiled
diapers in a landfill should be alleviated, if not eliminated. The
Public Health Department is. not aware of any need at this time for
further regulations of the disposal of soiled diapers. The Public
Health Department will continue to monitor the situation and make
recommendations to the I .O. Committee or the Board of Supervisors
when appropriate.
The Community Development Department suggested that it may be
desirable to require the manufacturers of disposable diapers sold
in Contra Costa County to label each box with a notice that tells
the consumer to rinse each diaper before disposing of it. We
understand that some, but not all, manufacturers of disposable
diapers currently include that instruction on their boxes .
As subdivisions of the state, counties have only those powers
specifically granted by law and those necessarily implied from the
powers expressed. (Byers v. Board of Supervisors (1968) 262
Cal.App. 2d 148, 155; Gov. Code, 5 23003 . ) Any fair, reasonable
doubt concerning the existence of a county power is resolved by the
r r
Internal Operations Committee -2- October 18, 1989
courts against the county and the power is denied. (Tax Factors,
Inc. v. County of Marin (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 79 . ) We are not aware
of any statutory authority which empowers the county to require
manufacturers to label their disposable diapers with an instruction
to rinse them before disposal. However, the Board of Supervisors
may be able to require a "rinse before disposal" instruction on
disposable diaper boxes through the County's "police power. " The
California Constitution grants that power as follows:
"A county or city may make and enforce within its limits
all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
regulations not in conflict with the general laws . "
(Cal . Const. , art. XI, S 7 . )
A county's authority to enact police ordinances for public
health purposes is broad, except that county ordinances must not
. conflict with the Constitution or with general laws . Conflicts
exist if the ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area
fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative
implication. (See People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino
(1984) 36 .Cal.3d 476, 484 . )
We discuss the possibility of the proposed regulation being
preempted by general law because both the federal and state
governments have enacted Fair Packaging and Labeling legislation.
(Bus. & Prof . Code, SS 12601-12615 .5 and 15 U.S.C. SS 1451-1461 . )
. Section 12601 of the California Business and Professions Code
states that :the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is designed to
protect the buyer from deception and misrepresentation; to enable
the buyer to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the
contents; and to facilitate value comparisons . The federal
legislation shares these policies and purposes . (15 U.S.C. .
S 1451. ) The federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act only
supersedes state laws which regulate the "net contents" of packages
of consumer commodities. By omitting an express limitation on the
State's power to regulate product names, Congress did not intend to
preempt this area of regulation. (Atlantic Ocean Products, Inc. v.
Leth (1968) 292 F.Supp. 615, affd. 393 U.S. 127 . ) Like the federal
act, the California Fair Packaging and Labeling Act only regulates
the "net contents" of product packages . Nothing .in the state
statutes expressly indicates that the entire field of product
labeling was intended to be occupied. For those reasons, the
proposed County regulation is arguably not preempted by state or
federal law.
It is not clear that the proposed regulation would violate the
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, but it could be
challenged on that ground.
Internal Operations Committee -3- October 18, 1989
The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (art. I,
S 8, cl. 3) grants to Congress the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states . Even in the absence
of federal legislation, the Commerce Clause limits the ability of
states to adopt measures affecting the flow of commerce among the
several. states. Where a state enacts legislation which is
"Protectionist" (discriminatory) in nature, such legislation is
"virtually per se" invalid under the Commerce Clause.
(Philadelphia v. New Jersey- (1978) 437 U.S. 617, 624 [57 L.Ed. 2d
475, . 98 S.Ct. 2531] . )
On the other hand, states may validly enact measures which
only incidentally affect the free flow of commerce. Where
legislation advances a legitimate local objective in an evenhanded
manner, with only incidental effects on interstate commerce, such
legislation may be upheld unless the burden imposed on such
commerce is clearly. excessive in relation to the local benefit.
(Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. ( 1970) 397 U.S. 137, 142 [25 L.Ed. 2d
174, 94 S.Ct. 844] . )
The case of Procter and Gamble Co. v. City of Chicago ( 1975)
509 F. 2d 69 , certiorari denied 421 U.S. 978 involved a city
ordinance which prohibited the sale of phosphate detergents within
the city limits . The court applied the following analysis: -If the
burden on interstate commerce is slight and the area of legislation.
is properly of local concern, then the means chosen to accomplish
the end will be deemed to be reasonably effective unless the
attacking party shows otherwise by clear and convincing -proof .
(509 F. 2d 69, 76 . ) Applying this test, the court found Chicago's
ordinance banning phosphatedetergents to be constitutional. This
analysis was adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Construction Ind.
Ass'n. , Sonoma City v. City of Petaluma (1975) 522 F. 2d 897, 909,
certiorari denied 424 U.S. 934 .
Using the Procter and Gamble case analysis, the proposed
regulation of requiring disposable diaper manufacturers to include
an instruction on the box to rinse the diapers before disposal,
might survive a Commerce Clause challenge. The proposed regulation
does not discriminate against interstate commerce or operate to
disrupt its required uniformity and it is rationally related to the
social, health, and environmental welfare of the people of Contra
Costa County. Nonetheless, legislation at the state level is
preferable to a local ordinance, since it would have state-wide
application and effect.
As an alternative to an ordinance directed at manufacturers,
the County could enact an ordinance which requires vendors to post
signs near the shelves of disposable diapers which inform the
Internal Operations Committee -4- October 18, 1989
buyers that they are required to rinse the diapers before disposal.
Although an ordinance directed at vendors is also susceptible to a
Commerce Clause challenge, it is arguably more defensible since it
should have a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.
Community Development also suggested that an additional fee
of ten cents per diaper be imposed at the time of sale in Contra
Costa County. The fee would be used to defray the costs of the
landfill needed to dispose of the diapers . This idea has been
raised before. This office advised the Community Development
Department on May 16 , 1989 that the County does not have the
authority to assess a product disposal charge at the point of sale
and will similarly advise this Committee on October 23, 1989 in a
separate report by Lillian Fujii, Deputy County Counsel.
VLD:seb:tb
cc: - Sheila Cogan, Community Development
Carol Spain, Health Services Department
T-1 a:\v1d\memo\diapera.2f
Health Services Department
� Public Health Division
,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
' Administrative Offices
O 11t!tH y 20 Allen Street
a s a Martinez,California 94553
(415)646-4416
OSrA COUx;�
To: Supervisor Sunne McPeak Date: October 18, 1989
Supervisor Tom Powers
Internal Operation Committee
From: Wendel Brunner, M.1).
Director of Public Health
By: Carol Spain, M.P.H.
Public & Environmental
Health Administrator
Re: Economic and Health Factors Involved in
the Use of Disposable Diapers Versus Cloth
Diapers (in Merrithew Memorial Hospital)
The Health Services Department was asked to report to the
Board on the economic and health factors involved in the use of
disposable diapers versus cloth diapers . Our preliminary analysis
is focused on an institutional setting, specifically Merrithew
Memorial Hospital . That request arose from the report to the Board
of Supervisors from the Solid Waste Commission on the disposal of
plastics, which includes disposable diapers . That report suggested
that disposable diapers contribute significantly to the landfill
mass in the nation and specifically here in Contra Costa County.
One to two percent of the total solid waste stream in the U.S.
consists of single-use diapers and approximately 13,666 tons of
single-use diapers are estimated to be added to our County landfill
mass each year. My previous memo dated July 6th (attached) noted
that the proper disposal of single-use diapers in a well managed
sanitary landfill does not constitute a public health threat.
Today the standard diaper in use in hospitals throughout
California is the disposable diaper. A few hospitals in the area
have switched to cloth diapers including Novato Community Hospital,
Valley Memorial. Hospital in Livermore and Mission Oaks Hospital in
Los Gatos. Information from Valley Memorial is contained in this
report. A quick contact with Children's Hospital in Oakland
indicated that the hospital still uses disposable diapers, but the
head nurse in the nursery thought it was a good idea to investigate
the issue and is interested in receiving a copy of our preliminary
analysis . San Francisco County has a recycling consultant in the
County Administrator's office who is working with the nurses at San
Francisco General to investigate the issue further.
A372 (4/88)
♦ J7
-2- October 18, 1989
The major use of cloth diapers on the West Coast appears to
be in the Seattle area where the Ring County Nurses Assocation has
identified the use of disposable diapers as a health issue and have
been influential in getting the three of the largest hospitals in
the Seattle area to change to cloth diapers--Overlake-Bellevue
Washington Hospital, University of Washington Medical Center and
Stephen's Memorial. Information from the University. of Washington
Medical Center is contained in this report.
Economic Factors
Diaper Costs
Merrithew Memorial uses approximately 46,627 children's
diapers and 12,624 adult diapers for a total of 59,251 diapers per
year. Disposable diapers cost approximately 18 cents per diaper-
-total cost1S 0,729 . Cloth diapers can be purchased two different
ways . First, through a diaper service, cloth diapers and velcro
strapped diaper wraps would run 20-25 cents each. (The cloth
diapers are 10-15 cents each; the diaper wraps are 10 cents each. )
Total cost for cloth diapers including wraps would be $11,850-
$14,813 . Diaper wraps can be reused if clean between changings .
Depending on preferred nursery changing practices the price might
be reduced if wraps could be reused. For this cost analysis, we
have assumed that the wraps will not be reused.
A second method would be to purchase 1-2 weeks of cloth
diapers and wraps "up front." and arrange for laundry service. As
of this date we have been unable to get exact cost estimates on
this purchase. method but will try to have more information at the
October 23rd meeting.
Cost Summary
Number used per vear Unit Cost Total Cost
Disposable
Diapers 59,251 . 181 $10,728
Cloth Diapers
Diaper Service 59,251 . 20-. 25 $111850-
$14,813
Purchase/laundry N/A N/A N/A
It appears as though the purchase of a cloth diaper service
will be more costly by $1,000-$4,000 a year which is relatively
insignificant. This cost might be offset by a slight reduction in
-3- October 18, 1989
projected waste tonnage going from the Hospital to the landfill and
resultant reduction in landfill disposal costs (exact figures and
estimates unavailable as of this date) .
Labor Costs
Another cost related issue that has been raised is the
possible increased labor cost in using and disposing of cloth
diapers . With the availability of both the preemie and newborn
sized cloth diapers for nursery use and the "new" diaper wrap with
velcro straps for easy closure, nursery time should not increase
when placing the diaper on the baby. (Note--the velcro straps seem
to work well as reported by University of Washington Hospital) .
When the diaper is ready for removal from the child, it can be
disposed of in a closed container supplied by the diaper service
(and picked up by the diaper service either on the ward or in a
central pick up location) . There is no need to separate the cloth
diaper from the wrappers or remove the human waste from the diaper
prior to inserting it in the containers . Basically, the "disposal"
method of both cloth and single-use diapers is the same.
A complete analysis of the differences, if any, to the
housekeeping staff was not analyzed yet. It is not anticipated
that there would be major differences . The head of housekeeping
at Valley Memorial Hospital reported that there was no increased
housekeeping labor or cost due to the direct nursery service
provided by the diaper service they use. She also reported that
the housekeeping staff preferred the use of cloth diapers .
Contact with the head nurse in the nursery at the University
of Washington Medical Center in Seattle, Washington indicated that
the nurses in the nursery have been using cloth diapers since the
Spring of 1989 and have not experienced increased labor needs, and
therefore cost increases due to their switch to cloth diapers .
Health Issues
Infection Control - There does not appear to be a major
difference between cloth and disposable diapers in this area.
Because there is no need for the nurses to handle a cloth diaper
prior to disposing of them in a container, the exposure to fecal
matter by nurses is no greater than it would be with single-use
diapers. Both University of Washington and Valley Memorial
Hospital report no infection control problems related to the use
of cloth diapers .
Diaper Dermatitis - There are a number of studies that have
been conducted comparing the incidence of dermatitis with the use
of cloth versus disposable diapers . Some of the studies suggest
that the incidence of diaper dermatitis is increased with the use
of cloth diapers (one appearing in the American Academy of
f
-4- October 18, 1989
Dermatology in 1987 and one appearing in Pediatrician, also in
1987 ) . Interviews with staff at both Valley Memorial and
University of Washington Hospitals indicate that there is no
greater observed incidence of diaper dermatitis with the use of
cloth diapers in the nurseries.
Nursing Practice/Measuring Procedures
Intake and Output Measures - Because a cloth diaper does not
have as consistent a weight as a disposable diaper, the University
of Washington Hospital weighs each cloth diaper before the baby
deposits its waste. in the diaper, then weighs the diaper again to
get the output weight. Currently, Merrithew Memorial Hospital
nurses weigh one diaper in a box and use it as a standard weight
subtracting it from the weight of the diaper; they only weigh the
diaper once after waste has been deposited in it. Cloth diapers
would have to be weighed individually before and after this
measurement.
Recommendation -
Based on the above findings the Health Services Department is
interested in exploring further the feasibility of using cloth
diapers in the Merrithew Memorial Hospital. While we understand
that there may be some advantages to the use of cloth diapers from
a environmental health perspective, the impact of the use of cloth
diapers from a nursing perspective at this time at the Hospital
needs to be explored further. Also, specific cost and purchase
options need to be explored. After gathering more specific
information, we may want to undertake a pilot project for three to
six months to further evaluate the use of cloth versus disposable
diapers.
WB/CS:lh
Attachment (1)
cc: Mark Finucane
Frank Puglisi
E,.. ..... ,.o Health Services Department
� Public Health Division
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Administrative Offices
A' +►::;: _ 20 Alien Street
• • l Martinez.Califomia 94553
(415)646-4416
1
July 61 1989
To: Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Supervisor' Tom Powers
Internal Operations Committee
From: Wendel Brunner, M.D.
Director of Public Health
Re: Public Health Implications of Disposable Diapers
in Landfills
I was asked to report to the Board on the potential public health
problems from disposing of soiled diapers in sanitary landfills .
That request arose from the report to the Board of Supervisors from
the Solid Waste Commission on the disposal of plastics, which
included a section on disposable diapers. That report suggested
that disposable diapers could cause a public health problem by the
spread of pathogens, particularly viruses from the feces contained
in' diapers. Since between one and two percent of the total solid
waste stream in the United States consists of soiled diapers, this
constitutes a significant portion of the landfill mass.
The County report on plastics repeats some of the concerns
expressed in the popular press that soiled diapers contain polio
virus and hepatitis vaccine virus. As almost all infants are now
immunized with live polio vaccine, the polio virus excreted in the
feces is polio vaccine virus and does not cause polio. Hepatitis
A virus can certainly be present in stools; however, it is not the
result of hepatitis vaccine. Nonetheless, there are potentially
many other pathogenic viruses and bacteria present in disposable;
diapers.
The issue of the potential public health problems from landfilling
diapers is a surprisingly partisan one, with most of the relevant
studies being financed either by disposable diaper companies or
major diaper service firms. Most of the literature indicates,
however, that proper disposal of diapers in a well managed sanitary
landfill does not constitute a public health threat. Most of the
viruses and other pathogens are inactivated in the landfill, and
are present, if at all, at very low titers in the leachate. By the
A372 (4/98)
time the leachate in a properly constructed landfill percolates
into the ground water, essentially all the pathogens are
inactivated or absorbed. In addition, drinking water wells are
rarely sunk right next to major urban landfill sites . .
Of more concern is the possible exposure of sanitary workers to
human waste in the process of collecting the garbage and burying
it in the landfill. Although I have not exhaustively reviewed the
literature, there are several studies which argue that there is
little occupational risk for sanitary workers. These studies have
methodologic and design flaws, however, and involve small numbers
of workers, so their results are not conclusive.
An additional concern is the potential for exposure between the
time the diapers are placed in the garbage can and their final
disposal in the sanitary landfill. There is the opportunity for .
garbage cans to be knocked over and their contents scattered by
dogs or other animals. Garbage, particularly containing human
feces, scattered through crowded urban areas could definitely pose
a potential health problem.
Finally, in an improperly operated landfill there is potential for
garbage, including diaper contents, to be scattered by birds,
animals, or insects causing potential health problems . This
problem can be mitigated by proper management of the landfill
disposal working face.
I believe there are a number of public health advantages to the use
of disposable diapers, as well as the potential problems cited
above. There have been major social changes in this country since
the 1950'x, when cloth diapers were nearly universal. Currently,
a large percentage of women with diaper age children are in the
work force. The time when infants and toddlers were home by
themselves with their mothers is over; today a large percentage of
diaper age children spend a portion of their day in child care
centers or family day care homes.
In Public Health we have had to deal with a number of outbreaks and
epidemics in day care centers caused by fecal pathogens, including
several epidemics of infectious hepatitis A. These centers are
largely staffed by modestly trained aides . These epidemics are
usually traced to diaper changing practices in the institution,
and have required intervention and training of staff by Public
Health to modify the diapering practices to eliminate the,
epidemics.
I believe that good diaper practices in an institutional setting
are facilitated by the use of disposable diapers, which greatly
simplifies the procedures, handling, and disposal of the diapers
and their contents. While cloth diapers might be optimal in an
2
iindividual home setting, in a day care center with 30 toddlers and
marginally trained staff, disposable diapers greatly simplify the
procedures and, in my opinion, lessen the risk of epidemics.
Although my review of the literature on the subject was not
exhaustive, it appears that disposable diapers in a properly
constructed and managed sanitary landfill pose little or no threat
to public health. There are some concerns about exposure of
sanitary workers or the scattering of diapers from spilled garbage
in crowded urban settings. I have consulted with Jack McGurk,
Chief of Environmental Health for the State Health Services
Department and a member of the State committee developing
infectious waste policies, who concurs in this analysis and
conclusions. In addition, I believe from our own experience that
the disposable diapers have definite public health advantages in
institutional and day care centers, although I have not seen any
literature on the subject.
Disposable diapers, even if they may not pose a significant public
health problem, nonetheless form a significant portion of the solid
waste stream and contribute to the nation's solid waste disposal
problems . The issue of disposable diapers should be considered in
the context of an overall program to reduce the amount of solid
waste going to landfill disposal through source reduction,
recycling, and composting.
WB:rm
ccs Mark Finucane
Health Services Director
3
3
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 200
Martinez, California 94553
Extension 4920
DATE: October 17 , 1989
TO: Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator
FROM: Barton J. Gilbert, Director of General Services
By: Cliff Baumer, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Scheduled Reports to Internal Operations (IO) Co ittee
on Recycling Issues for October 23 , 1939 Agenda
In response to the IO Committee' s request for inf-ormation on recycling
issues, Purchasing was tasked with investigating several of the items
for consideration at the October 23 , 1989 meeting. The items for
which Purchasing was either solely or partially responsible are
outlined below using the numbered item on the IO Committee' s agenda.
Report from Health Services Director and Purchasing Agent on the
economic and health factors involved in the use of disposable
versus cloth diapers.
Purchasing provided cost data to Frank Puglisi, Executive
Director of Merrithew Memorial Hospital, (Attachment 1) -on
disposable diapers and an estimate on cos-s for cleaning cloth
diapers. ,Until a bid is let, the exact cost for cloth diaper
service cannot be determined. Mr. Puglisi is addressing the
health factors of both approaches in a separate response.
Report from Purchasing on the cost of paper cups for cold drinks
compared with the cost of polystyrene cups.
Purchasing staff obtained cost comparisons on paper, styrofoam,
and polystyrene cups based on actual usage. The chart below
shows the commonly used sizes and costs.
Paper
8 oz hot/cold w/handle 50 CS (IM/CS) @ $31. 50 CS = $ 1,575 . 00
8 oz hot/cold w/o handle 80 CS ( 5C/CS) @ $29.30 CS = 2,344. 00
$ 3 , 919. 00
Styrofoam
6 oz cold 482 CS ( 1M/CS) @ $10. 22/CS = $ 4,926. 04
14 oz cold 335 CS ( 5C/CS) @ $22. 84/CS = 7 ,651. 40
$12, 577 . 44
Re: Scheduled Reports to Internal Operations
(I0) Committee on Recycling Issues for
October 23 , 1989 Agenda
Page -2-
The following represents two options: paper cups and polystyrene.
Paper
6 oz cold 192. 8 CS ( 2. 5M/CS) @ $44.70/CS = $ 8, 618 . 16
14 oz cold 67 CS ( 2 . 5M/CS) @ $76 . 10/CS = 5 ,098.70
$13 ,716. 86
Polystyrene
7 oz 192. 8 CS ( 2. 5M/CS) @ $52.00/CS = $10,025. 60
12/14 oz 167. 5 CS ( 1M/CS) @ $46. 00/CS = 7 ,705 . 00
$17,730 . 60
One concern had been that styrofoam cups used CFC' s, but our
suppliers indicate that their cups no longer contain CFCs. Based
on costs and the elimination of CFC' s in styrofoam cups, we
recommend that we continue purchasing 6 oz styrofoam cups and shift
to 14 oz cold paper cups from of 14 oz styrofoam cups as the most
economical buys.
Report from the Purchasing Agent on an addendum on purchase orders
requesting vendors to use the minimum amount of packing material
which is feasible and on whether the Board should consider imposing
a 2% penalty on the use of polystyrene pellets as packing material.
Purchasing has concerns with these proposals as follows:
No documentation is available to indicate that these are
problems.
It is a negative approach to good customer relationships with
responsible vendors.
"Minimum" amount of packaging is subjective and vendors want
to use the least amount possible because of the costs.
Departments receive commodities and supplies at multiple sites
throughout the year without Purchasing' s knowledge, so
identification of any problems and control is not feasible by
Purchasing.
- If a penalty on pellets were imposed and pellets were used in
a delivery, the affected department would have to notify
Accounts Payable staff, who would need to recalculate the bill
and pay the invoice short, resulting in additional staff time
and probably repeat billings from the vendor that was not paid
the full amount.
Re: Scheduled Reports to Internal Operations
(IO) Committee on Recycling Issues for
October 23, 1989 Agenda
Page -3-
Rather than taking a negative approach for all vendors, we
recommend the following:
Establish a Board policy to discourage or eliminate the use of
polystyrene pellets.
Amend our Purchase Order form to include a strong statement
that Contra Costa County wants to eliminate the use of poly-
styrene pellets and for vendors to use alternate packaging
materials.
Request departments to notify Purchasing of any offenders.
Have Purchasing staff contact such vendors and tell them of
the County policy; and if they fail to comply, then advise
that alternate vendors will be used, unless no alternate
sources are available.
Have Purchasing prepare a report in six months to review what
departments have identified problems and the resolutions.
Report from the Community Development Director and Purchasing Agent
on guidelines for the purchase of products made with recycled
plastic and other secondary materials.
This matter is being handled by Community Development and the
consultant, Charles Papke. Mr. Papke has proposed a vigorous study
utilizing the attached Survey Form and Task Outline (Attachments 2
and 3) .
11. Report from the Purchasing Agent on his discussions with other
local governments in the County regarding the feasibility of
combining their purchase of recycled products to make such pur-
chases more economically viable.
Purchasing sent a letter and questionnaire (Attachment 4) to local
governmental agencies to determine their interest in a cooperative
agreement to purchase recycled products. Nine agencies have
responded so far, and they are interested in a meeting to discuss
specifics.
After we have more information from Mr. Papke' s survey, we can
explore the possibilities in depth. In the meantime, we shall
summarize all the responses we receive and set a meeting to- discuss
how such a program could work. Paper products are used by , all
agencies, and paper is an obvious commodity to see if a "pooled"
purchasing arrangement for recycled products can work.
Re: Scheduled Reports to Internal Operations
(IO) Committee on Recycling Issues for
October 23, 1989 Agen4a
Page -4- ,
12. Report from Purchasing Agent on the feasibility. of requiring that
all photocopy machines leased or purchased by the County be able to
accept recycled paper.
A poll of suppliers indicate that, with certain limitations, their
copy machines will accept recycled paper. The percentage of
recycled material which goes into the final paper product
determines whether or not the machines can successfully operate.
For 100% recycled materials, most machines will experience paper
curling and paper jams. A lower percentage of recycled material
will run successfully in copy machines without problems. Exceptions
are the high-speed copy machines, which . currently are unable to
accept recycled paper. Most County copiers are the smaller
machines. Purchasing will be obtaining additional information from
the copier vendors on percentages of recycled materials for their
copiers.
A major drawback to using recycled paper is the cost, which is
approximately 25% more than virgin paper. Also supplies are
unreliable. The most recent bid for copy paper resulted in no
response from Conservatree. Conservatree was personally contacted
to determine why they did not respond. The answer was that they
did not feel they could supply our needs, even though the Request
for Quotation was open, without any clause which might have dis-
couraged vendors from bidding on recycled paper. Purchasing will
continue to search for other vendors.
Purchasing appreciates the opportunity to participate in the
County' s program for recycling and Mr. Papke' s and Sheila Coogan' s
coordination and cooperation very helpful in developing recommen-
dations and guidelines. We shall continue working with them to
obtain more information and to implement Board policies.
BJG:CEB•mak
Attachments
cc: Barton J. Gilbert
Kathy Brown
Sheila Coogan
Charles Papke
GENERAL SERVICES DE'PA1Zn1ENr
Pumcbasing Division
1220 Morello AverRie, Suite 101 r 7
Martinez, CA 94553 ��a��c2'✓�
646-21-74
DAaE: October 9, 1989
TO: Frank Puglisi - Executive Director of Merrithew Memorial Hospital
RM: Cliff Baumer, Purchasing Services Officer
SOB=: Disposable Diapers
Me Internal Operations Committee has requested a report from the Health
Services Director and the Purchasing Agent on the health arra economic factors
involved in the use of disposable diapers versus cloth diapers. As we
discussed, your depart wnt will take the lead role. Chars will provide the cost
figures.
The chart below lists statistics related to current usage of disposable diapers.
Children:
Annual Qty Unit Total
Size Usage Used Cost cost
Large 18.75 CS of 144 2,700 $.194 $ 403.13
Medium 6.7 CS of 216 1,447 .111 160.00 -
Newborn 140 CS of 288 40,320 .097 3,929.80
Premi 12 CS of 180 2,160 .194 418.80
46,627 $4,911.73
Adult:
Annual Qty Unit Total
Size Usage Used cost Cast
large 153 CS of 48 7,344 $.524 $ 3,844.89
Medium 50 CS of 96 4,800 .381 - 1,827.00
Sma11 5 CS of 96 480 .300 144.05
12,624 $ 5,815.94
Childress: 46,627 .105 $ 4,911 .73
Adult: 12,624 .461 5,815.94
Total: 59,251 .181 $10,727.67
We have been told that contractors would charge between 10 and 15 cents per
diaper for cleaning of cloth diapers. Zhese figures cannot be absolutely relied
upon at this time as we have not gone to bid for this type of service..
Page 2
If a shift to a diaper service is desired;" we will be happy to work with your
staff to canoe up with suitable specifications and put out a request for
quotation.
If I can provide any additional information; please let re know.
CEB:j lg
cc: C. L. Van Martex - office of Coxity Administrator
Kathy Rrown
c
PURCHASE OF RECYCLED PRODUCTS
SURVEY FORM
Location: Date:
State County
Agency/Department:
Address:
Phone:
I. Purchasing/Procurement Policies
1. Date Adopted
2. Copy of ordinance and guidelines
3. Adoption process
• how guidelines were developed
• research? study? test of products?
approvals?
• goals?
II. How It Works
1. Procedures/steps
2. Example of bid request
3. What materials?
• paper products - which?
• others - tires, glass?
RMA Survey Form(PS-89)-Page 1
Printed on Recycled Paper
4. Specs for materials in bids
• perceht recycle content
• post consumer
5. Do they have price-preferences?
• quotas/set-asides?
6. Monitoring-record keeping - annual reports
7. Enforcement/compliance
III. Results
1. How much materials purchased? $/yr lbs/
2. Portion of total purchase %
3. Complaints
4. Efforts to improve
5. Adding more products
IV. Do You Know of Any Others
cities
• countries
V. Checklist
• Ask for.copies of:
• ordinances and guidelines
• bid request
• annual/monthly reports
RMA Survey Form(PS-89)-page 2
Task Outline
4
RECYCLED PRODUCTS PROCUREMENT STUDY
I. Review Current County Practices
A. Describe purchasing policies and practices
B. Identify types and quantities of products currently purchased
II. Review Current Practice in the U. S.
A. Federal guidelines and practices
B. State and local government practices
III. Survey Photocopier Market
A. Questionnaire for vendors
B. Use elsewhere
IV. Develop Procurement Plan
A. Prepare Guidelines
1. -Policy recommendations
2.' Bid document practice
3. Agency interaction practices
B. Identify potential use of secondary materials in products
1. Select targeted products
2. Quantify secondary material use
C. Prepare shopping list of recycled products
D. Describe costs and prices for purchase of recycled products
E. Recommend policy and guideline measures
L Incentive practices - price preferences, set-asides, etc.
2. Interagency purchasing co-operatives
3. Integration of recycling practice with purchase program
V. Prepare Final Report.
444tehr°►en�-
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PURCHASE OF RECYCLED PRODUCTS QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Is your agency interested in exploring participation with the
County for paper and other items made of recycled materials?
2 . Who is responsible for purchasing in your agency? Please
include name(s) , title(s) and telephone number.
3 . Do you have a centralized purchasing group?
If no, who handles contacts with vendors?
4. Do you have centralized receiving?
If not, how many locations. receive goods?
5. Do you have a warehouse(s) for storage of large quantity
purchases for future needs?
6. Do you give any preference to recycled products?
7 . What commodities would be feasible for quantity purchases for
_your agency?
8 . Could your agency pick up* pooled purchases?
_ 9. Would you be willing to pay for delivery of products if
multiple- deliveries are not possible? -
10. Could you have a representative attend a meeting to discuss
combined purchasing of recycled products?
Prepared by
Name Title
Date
Return questionnaire by october . •13 to Cliff Baumer, Purchasing
Services Officer, Contra Costa County General Services Department,
1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 101, Martinez, CA 94553 .
11:00 a.m. ; Item 7. Guidelines for the Purchase of Products with Recycled
Plastic and Other Secondary Materials.
Several meetings have been held with the County's purchasing agent to discuss
guidelines and programs for County purchases. Government offices are major
consumers of goods that could be made from recycled materials, making
procurement programs an especially good way to "prime the pump" for market
development. Procurement laws are currently in place at the federal level and
in 18 states and 3 cities, and are under consideration in 11 other states.
Overall , 59% of the United States population lives in states with some kind of
procurement program.
Most effective procurement statutes have taken one of two forms: the first is a
"set-aside," which requires that a certain percentage of the government' s
purchases contain recycled content. The most successful set-aside program
began in Maryland in 1977, requiring that by 1984 40% of the state' s paper
purchases contained 80% post-consumer material . Recycled purchases now run
between 42 and 47% of Maryland's total procurement, amounting to about 500 tons
of office paper and tissue products annually. The state also requires that its
photocopiers be compatible with recycled paper. Since 1977, Maryland has spent
about $20.5 million on recycled goods.
Procurement can also be supported by a price preference, which stipulates that
recycled products be purchased as long as the cost is within a given percentage
of the lowest bid on the contract. In New York state 10% price preference is
given, roughly half of the paper purchased in the state, or about 9,000 tons per
year contain at least 40% post consumer waste.
AB 4
Governor Dukmajian recently signed AB 4, the 1989 Recycled Products Procurement
Act. It established minimum goals for all state departments, agencies and the
legislature to purchase and procure recycled goods. This bill was supported by
the Board of Supervisors. Included in the procurement program are products used
daily such as recycled paper products, plastics, glass, office supplies,
compost, and all other goods available as recycled. It also includes products
used in the performance of a contract for services or projects such as retreaded
automobile tires, re-refined lubricating oil , reclaimed solvents, and other
products available as recycled. It establishes economic incentives for the
purchase of any product available as an recycled product: 100/10 by 1991, 20% by
1993, 40% by 1995.
In order to achieve these goals, state procurement or purchasing officers shall
give a price preference to suppliers offering recycled products. This price
preference shall be given to suppliers of recycled products provided the price
quoted is not more 10% of the lowest price quoted by suppliers offering products
manufactured from virgin resources. It establishes the following goals for the
purchase of paper products available as the recycled paper product: 40% by
1991, 50% by 1993, 60% by 1995.
Currently the state offers a price preference to suppliers of recycled paper
products. This measure increases the preference to 10% of the lowest price
quoted by suppliers of paper products manufactured from virgin resources.
In order to fully implement a procurement policy, additional information would
be required. Such information is included on the attachment outline for a
recycle products procurement study.
The staff time required is approximately 185 hours.
SG:cg
sw/6gdelnes.txt
Task Outline
RECYCLED PRODUCTS PROCUREMENT STUDY
I. Review Current County Practices
A. Describe purchasing policies and practices
B. Identify types and quantities of products currently purchased
II. Review Current Practice in the U. S.
A. Federal guidelines and practices
B. State and local government practices
III. Survey Photocopier Market
A. Questionnaire for vendors
B. Use elsewhere
IV. Develop Procurement Plan
A. Prepare Guidelines
1. Policy recommendations
2. Bid document practice
3. Agency interaction practices
B. Identify potential use of secondary materials in products
1. Select targeted products
2. Quantify secondary material use
C. Prepare shopping list of recycled products
D. Describe costs and prices for purchase of recycled products
E. Recommend policy and guideline measures
1. Incentive practices - price preferences, set-asides, etc.
2. Interagency purchasing co-operatives
3. Integration of recycling practice with purchase program
V. Prepare Final Report.
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINET CALIFORNIA
Date: October 19, 1989
To: Internal Operations Committee
From: Victor J. Westman, County CounselL�1 1
By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Legislation to Authorize County fee on non-recyclable and non-
degradable products
SUMMARY: The County does not have the authority to impose a fee
or tax on nonrecyclable and nondegradable plastics, at or near their
point of purchase. In order to provide the County with such
authority, state legislation can be sought to give counties the
authority to impose license taxes, for revenue or regulation. Cities
already have such licensing for revenue authority. Also direct sales
tax authority can be considered.
BACKGROUND: On 7-18-89, the Board of Supervisors requested the
County Counsel's opinion on the Board's authority to impose a fee at
or tax near the point of purchase (on the wholesaler, distributor,
retailer or refuse collector) of selected plastic products that are
neither recyclable nor degradable in a landfill. If this office
concludes that additional legislative action is required to provide
the Board with such authority, we are requested to draft appropriate
enabling legislation.
DISCUSSION:
In a memorandum dated May 16, 1989, copy attached, this office
advised the Community Development Department that the County does not
have the authority to assess a "product disposal charge at the point
of sale" of specified products . For the reasons stated in that 5-16-
89 memorandum, we conclude that the Board does not have the authority
to impose a fee at or near the point of purchase of nonrecyclable and
nondegradable products .
Proposed Legislation
Because we conclude that the Board does not have the authority to
impose a product disposal fee, we have prepared legislation providing
the Board with the authority to impose licensing for revenue fee for
this purpose. This legislation is similar to Govt. Code S 37101,
which authorizes cities to impose license taxes for revenue and
regulation.
` Internal Operations Committee -2- October 19, 1989
This could be done by adding section 25202 .5 to the Government
Code, to read:
25202.5 License for revenue & regulation.
The board may license, for revenue and regulation,
and fix a license tax upon, every kind of lawful
business transacted in the county. It may provide
for collection of the license tax by suit or any
other means.
We caution, however, that any earmarking of the funds for a
special use may cause the tax to be considered a special tax,
requiring two-thirds voter approval. (Cal.Const. Art. XIII A, S 4;
City & County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 47 . )
In the alternative, the Board could seek legislation to allow the
County to impose a special tax (e.g. , upon the distribution of non-
recyclable and non-degradable plastics at the point of distribution)
subject to voter approval. (Govt.Code SS 53722, 53727 . ) The Board
could also seek legislation to allow the County to impose a direct
sales tax on the involved plastic products. If the Board is
interested in legislation authorizing a special tax election or
direct sales tax authority, we will prepare such. legislation.
LTF:df
df1:1tf\memo\products
l
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Dato: May 16 , 1989
To: Harvey E. Bragdon, Community Development Director
Attn: David B. Okita, Asst Director
From: Victor J. Westman, County CounselvV
-
Re: County "Sales" tax on plastic container and packaging materials
SUMMARY: Your 5-4-89 memorandum indicates that the Solid Waste
Commission has asked this office' s opinion whether the County can
assess a "product disposal charge at the point of sale on all
plastics container and packaging materials" (e.g. , plastic grocery
bags, single-use plastic diapers, and plastic soft drink, milk, water
containers and other multi-material, multi-layered and aseptic .
packages) . Contra Costa County is currently prevented by State
statutes from levying such a "sales" tax and/or does not have
statutory authority to do so. If this source of tax revenue is
desired, consideration should be given to seeking state legislation
( to allow such a County wide tax levy.
DISCUSSION: 1. Sales Tax. Contra Costa County is a general law
county whose only authority to levy a sales tax is provided by state
statutes. Contra Costa County and its cities impose a sales and use
tax of one and one-quarter cent on retailers gross receipts from the
sales of tangible personal property pursuant to the state statutes
that authorize it. (Revenue and taxation Code SS 7201 & 7202. ) That
levy may only be imposed by a general law county (such as Contra
Costa) and collected by the state where involved cities and a county
have agreed to its collection. This County and its cities have
agreed to the collection and division of that tax.
In addition to the one and one-quarter percent sales tax noted
above, an additional sales tax not exceeding one percent may be
levied on a local county-wide basis pursuant to the provisions of the
"Transactions and Use Tax Law" . (Part 1.6, SS 7251' ff. , R.&T.C. )
This additional one percent sales tax is already committed in this
County. First, fifty percent ( 1/2 cent) of this additional one cent
sales tax is already committed for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit District. (R.&T.C. S 7252. ) Second, at the November 1988
election this County' s voters approved the imposition of the other
one-half cent of this one cent to finance local transportation
projects pursuant to the "Local Transportation Authority Improvement
Act" (Pub. Util . C. SS 180, 000 ff . & R. &T.C. 5 7252 . 16 ) . Because of
the above-noted state statutes , Contra Costa County cannot levy any
David B. Okita -2- May 16 , 1989
additional sales tax unless state legislative authorization is
obtained for that purpose.
2 . Income and Licensing Revenue Tax. There is no state enabling '
legislation that authorizes general law counties (such as Contra
Costa) to levy direct income taxes or similar regulatory (licensing,
occupation, bedroom, etc. ) revenue taxes. In part, this is not the
case for cities. Pursuant to various statutory provisions (Govt.C.
§§ 37100 .5 & 37101) , all California cities may levy any tax
authorized in any California city' s charter and fix license
(occupation, business, bedroom, etc. ) taxes for the purposes of
revenue production. Cities, when using their statutory authority
(Govt-C. §§ 37100.5 & 37101) to tax, are subject to the current
statutory prohibition of § 17041.5 (R.&T.C. ) prohibiting the levying
of any direct income tax.
3. State Legislation. The Solid Waste Commission may wish to
consider recommending to the Board of Supervisors that efforts be
initiated in the State Legislature to provide the County with
additional sales tax authority or with the same equivalent licensing
to produce revenue authority available to California cities.
Finally, it should be noted that pending Assembly Bill 1796 (by
Assembly Member Given Moore) would enact the "Problem Plastics
Elimination Act" for the purpose of eliminating problem plastics from
the wastestream and to assist the development of alternative
materials. To carry out this purpose, AB 1796 would impose a fee on
the manufacturer of plastics and use the generated revenue to provide
assistance to local agencies for the recycling of waste resulting
from such problem plastics and the removal of those plastics from the
wastestream. The Commission may wish to consider asking the Board of
Supervisors to endorse AB "1796.
VJW:df
cc: County Administrator's Office
Californians Against Waste
MEMORANDUM
October 23, 1989
TO: Internal Operations Committee, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Rod Miller, Legislative Director
Re: Cooperative State and Local Government Purchases
The state Department of General Services reports that local
governments are currently utilizing cooperative purchasing
arrangements with the state to save money on material and supply
purchases. The most common use of cooperative purchasing is for the
purchase of patrol vehicles.
However, cooperative purchasing with the state should not be
viewed as a complete solution to recycled product procurement
problems. Even while pursuing cooperative purchasing with the state,
Contra Costa should survey current purchase prices from vendors.
There are two types of cooperative purchasing. In one type of
purchase local governments can piggy back on an existing state
purchase or contract for a particular product. The second type is
where local governments confer authority upon state government to
purchase a product for the local government.
Buz Eddy with the Department of General Services (916-445-6681)
is the contact person for cooperative purchasing. He can provide
information about which recycled products are available for local
government purchasing. There is an administrative fee for cooperative
purchasing.
When considering purchasing recycled paper Contra Costa County
will have to shop around regardless of whether or not it is
considering utilizing a state contract or purchase. It is possible
for a local government to purchase at lower cost the .same product that
the state is buying. Although the state is buying large lots, the
cost of transporting the product to different parts of the state is
incorporated into the bid. By buying directly from vendors there may
be some savings for local government.
We will soon be encouraging the Department of General Services to
execute their procurement preference in a way which results in more
purchasing of recycled products. We will suggest that the Department
provide periodic notices to local governments regarding existing
contracts for recycled product procurement.
�-— 909 12th Street, Suite 201 • Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 443-5422 recycled
11.00 a.m. ; Item 13. Status Report on the Implementation of a Pilot Polystyrene
Plastics Recovery Program for Restaurants, Businesses, and
Residential Customers_
In its study on reducing plastics in the wastestream, the Solid Waste Commission
obtained information from industry representatives, especially James River
Corporation, concerning their pilot polystyrene recycling program in 7
Macdonald's restaurants in Portland, Oregon and 2 Macdonald's restaurants in
southern California. The company indicated their interest in working with the
County to establish a local pilot project. The pilot program would be in place
by October 1, 1989.
The deadline for establishing that pilot project has passed. The company has
assured the County that they will ship any polystyrene products collected from
any business, group of businesses, institutions, or restaurants for reprocessing
at southern California plant until such time as a local facility is prepard to
accept and process the material . However, they have suggested two other pilots
to collect polystyrene from schools and institutions. The proposals are
attached.
SG:cg
sw/13plstc.txt
Richard F. Gamble & Associates
PO BOX 606 Tel: (415) 86S-0338
Stinson Beach, California 94970 ` Fix: (415) 868-1702
INSTITUTIONAL FOOD SERVICE
RECYCLING PROGRAI't
The Plastics Industry estimates that approximately 900 million lbs of polystyrene resin are
used in the "food service" applications. Of this total, only approximately 150 million lbs are used
by the McDonald's-type fast food service stores. The balance is consumed mainly in institutional
food service applications, such as schools, prisons, hospitals, etc.
The institutional sources are easily identified and easily reached. Contamination by food
and other packaging materials is minimal. School children can and have been taught to remove
materials from their trays and stack them in such a way that no further cleaning is required at the
plastic reprocessing center to convert the used school trays back into usable polystyrene pellets.
The Plastics Again plant in Leominster, MA, a joint venture of Mobil Chemical and Genpak, is
working with some 20 school districts and adding new school districts at a rapid rate to their
recycling programs. A test program is also underway with the Long Beach School District in
Long Beach, CA, with great success.
It is proposed that Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors take a leadership position in
mobilizing school districts within the County to investigate and undertake a recycling program at
their schools to recover the polystyrene foam which is currently going into a landfill. Such a
program would work as follows:
1. School children would be instructed to knock off the contaminants remaining on
the school tray into a barrel and then stack the food bays, one on top of each other,
in a plastic bag or back into the box in which they were delivered. Also a wire tray
is available and can be utilized to make the stacking easier.
2. The bag or box would be sealed and returned to the school district warehouse by
the school trucks which are used to deliver materials to the different schools.
3. Upon arrival at the school warehouse, the food trays would be stacked in n trailer
parked in the yard.
4. When the trailer is filled, it would be hauled away and delivered to the plastic
reprocessor in the area.
Most school districts realize a cost-avoidance savings by this sort of recycling program 111
that they no longer have to pay to have: the trays collected, taken w av and delivered to a landfill.
Some of the cost savings can be applied to the transportation cost of the reprocessor, and the
balance retained by the school district.
r
Richard F. Gamble & Associates
PO BOX 606 Tel: (415) 868-0338
Stinson Beach, California 94970 Fax: (415) 868-1702
POST-COMMERCIAL POLYSTYRENE PACKAGING
RECYCLING PROGRAM
Post-commercial polystyrene packaging materials, so-called popcorn and blocks and
shapes, are the major part of the expanded polystyrene (EPS) category.
Approximately 600 million lbs of expanded polystyrene foam pellets are produced annual-
ly in the United States. By far, the bulk of this is used to manufacture injection-molded foam
products, such as cups and cushion packaging materials.
History teaches that when industry is given the opportunity to recycle cushioning materi-
als, it will enthusiastically support the idea. This was proven true in the Plastics Again Leomin-
ster, MA, facility where, when the plant was announced, many local companies contacted Plastics
Again to find out whether they would accept the packaging and cushioning materials which were
used to protect products being delivered to them.
Here, again, is"an opportunity for the County Board of Supervisors to play a leadership
role in instituting a program for county commercial enterprises and encouraging various cities to
develop programs to isolate packaging and cushioning materials from the regular waste streams.
These materials can either be taken to centrally located disposal boxes in industrial parks or be
picked up, but isolated, by the garbage hauler in his regular pick-up calls.
As a matter of fact,relativel little polystyrene foam gets into the household. When one
looks beyond meat trays an egg cartons, t ere is really little polystyrene foam coining into the
household on a regular basis, except for occasional consumer purchases of electronic parts, which
are often packaged in foam cushioning materials, but that is really more of an exception than a
rule.
1:00 p.m.; Item 4.
11:00 a.m. ; Item 8. Feasibility of Including Other Recyclable Materials-,Office '
Paper Recycling Program .
Program Summary
Contra Costa County is the third largest employer with approximately 6,000
employees in the county, exceeded only by Chevron and Pacific Bell companies.
In the post-AB 939 decade, the Board of Supervisors wishes to demonstrate the
feasibility of source reduction and commercial recycling by expanding the used
office paper program to more offices and institutions and to include additional
recyclables -- aluminum, glass, metal and plastic.
Currently, the County purchases a wide variety of paper for copying and
printing. One vender reports that 95 percent of the paper sold by his company
to the County consi.sts of white copier paper. This amounts to 220,000 pounds
per year or 110 tons. The County also buys office paper from four or five other
venders.
Status of Current Office Paper Program
In 1981, the Board of Supervisors initiated white office paper separation and
collection from office buildings in Martinez and Concord to demonstrate the
feasibility of the program for county departments and to private business. In
1982, the program received an Achievement Award from the National Association of
Counties. Office paper collection service was expanded in November 1988 to
buildings in the Richmond complex. Last year over 33 tons of paper were
collected and sold, returning more than three thousand dollars to the County
General Fund. Tonnage and revenue is shown in Figure 1.
Program Operation
In Martinez and the Stanwell Drive area buildings, white paper is removed by
staff to many small central collectors located in offices and near copy machines
on every floor. The paper is collected bi-monthly by General Services staff and
deposited in roll-off bins loaned by Martinez Sanitary Service. When full , the
bins are emptied by the company. The County is paid quarterly a percentage of
the revenue. Table 1 lists this information.
At the Richmond complex, Richmond Sanitary Service has provided 90=gallon
"toters" on wheels that are placed in several locations on each floor. When
full , the toters are wheeled to an outside street-level area where they are
emptied. To date, paper collected in Richmond using this system has generated
no revenue for the County because the current contract allows Richmond Sanitary
Service to keep all funds generated in the program.
Other County departments have been collecting and selling white and computer
paper on their own. The Finance Department owns a small baler used to compact
the paper and a forklift to transfer baled paper to the buyer's truck. By
processing and storing paper .in large quantities, the department was able to
obtain higher prices. The income generated from these sales, approximately
$9,000 per year, was never included in the total revenue from sale of waste
office paper collected from other participating departments. With its recent
move to new quarters, the Finance Department reports that there is no longer
y
G �
oroCO 0
t« t5 N G CL m m O 7c =i M
4 03 co ek
O U- •tea N N N r"S•`+" C1. O O�CD
CND C•� 4� �L n O ,�.—cis
t�D 7 0 ACD
G 7 to Cp 0 -t C)
p m 1 rt r t3- 6 CLO p CO co N �-
.•^ cC3 i•r+C' �tS� <y to O �O = � p O r3 n cR �+G 6% Q
o� mo �`� t� vac �03' cs�' oa � ocs �, m
C-^'_CDD N "C.y N n CD co 3 O �, N +, O> "•� ..j,'L Y
'co cor+ cD -G �y cD N J G G
co ca
fA '^ c7n O cO y .P Z rt ro ro
cs 3 m o- • o •.J o a
t1 iuOcoLOR
CD
S 0• C °� -4
0 3
70 G G 0
Q- co
,r C) c9 .
i �� O N O
O-
cD °� Dc co °
�Q
oN ° o
3 � 3
O ; tn
- ••-� � �G nom`. �
j i G 7• tS
'O Co to N 'L'
pt tD coCD co
•'fi'ry ;n d �' �
C: ,% N3
9- CD
co
W
m
CC, i 2„ Z O °i o cf9
Jrnrnoo9C-
0 O
c7Gsco co ��`J',' p�"�� c�Om 2 �vo
N 7 cn cU -'^�0 p 0 O o o � rn rn c'y P c� ro � ro '.�
�' t,•G7 m o G l N Z p l "c -„ t9 n
0 -0. co oo a+�tAaQ >y w N d o 1. �Z �'--co O t G
p0O flo� �md�j�,�mN^ N�^�'cnmm SPL) � � �.
0 rnZiA mm°.',m� ^^(P 9 3' 0 N J O -1�
?gyp b2�O 7y0 aa° cnN0 ooh " N Z Q V�) m
f 11 �3 NNN• N �,
Orn w s C c
Q��P�N nOT NNWWtWl NZ CS r' NO 6
mC>77„gyp M t�P p ,� cNs�apo stn 0G M - O O
O T�-Zrnf'A O.,oGq oQN�u�S
aPN a �-co
OpT-AGp y2 ooro dye Q Oj
. P o o � � � � m ➢ O
�.{Q W am N rn �=A 7 N
CA„m n m
Y•npZ 7NP oo;aQO�n^n P
q o� O' m
(DOG) �"ZO0 NN�n S i c w r o
r O d G P`oi ° fi
w� v pm
RZ P7 �p m m
Z
O
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
WHITE PAPER RECYCLING PROGRAM
GROSS COUNTY COUNTY
DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT PRICE REVENUE % OF REVENUE
(LBS) (TONS) ($/TON) ($) REVENUE ($)
04/06/83 7,910 3.96 $75 $296.62 500 $148.31
04/26/83 3,520 1.76 $70 $123.20 55% $67.76
12/02/83 3,790 1.90 $80 $151.60 600 $90.96
12/15/83 3,430 1.72 $80 $132.20 600 $82.35
01/24/84 6,360 3.18 05 $238.50 600 $143.10
03/15/84 9,950 4.98 $85 $422.87 60% $253.72
04/04/84 2,820 1.41 $85 $119.85 60'0 $71.91
04/23/84 8,100 4.05 $85 $344.25 600 $206.55
05/23/84 6,820 3.41 $90 $306.90 600 $184.14
06/25/84 3,1.80 1.59 $105 $166.95 600 $100.17
07/24/84 8,540 4.27 $105 $448.35 60% $269.01
08/20/84 3,780 1.89 $105 $198.45 60`0 $119.07
08/24/84 5,600 2.80 $105 $294.00 600 $176.40
09/21/84 1,060 0.53 $120 $63.60 650 $41.34
09/27/84 800 0.40 $120 $48.00 650 $31.20
09/28/84 3,480 1.74 $120 $208.00 650 $135.72
10/04/84 3,240 1.62 $120 $194.40 650 $126.36
Jr 10/24/84 3,620 1.81 $120 $217.20 650 $141.18
01/25/85 2,840 1.42 $80 $113.60 650 $73.84
02/28/85 3,500 1.75 $55 $96.25 500 $48.13
03/05/85 4,400 2.20 $50 $111.00 500 $55.50
05/02/85 4,100 2.05 $45 $92.25 500 $46.12
07/09/85 4,200 2.10 $35 $73.50 50% $36.75
12/02/85 2,460 1.23 $70 $86.10 500 •$43.05
12/02/85 4,320 2.16 $70 $151.20 500 $75.65
12/23/85 3,980 1.99 $70 $139.30 500 $69.65
01/02/86 3,140 1.57 $70 $109.90 500 $54.95
02/05/86 4,120 2.06 $70 $182:00 500 $91.00
03/07/86 4,200 2.10 $70 $147.00 50% $73.50
03/20/86 3,900 1.95 $70 $136.50 500 $68.25
03/28/86 3,160 1.58 $70 $110.60 500 $55.30
04/07/86 3,760 1.88 $70 $131.60 500 $65.80
05/20/86 2,920 1.46 $70 $102.20 500 $51.10
05/20/86 3,280 1.64 $70 $114.80 50% $57.40
07/30/86 3,940 1.97 $80 $157.60 50% $78.80
10/01/86 4,800 2.40 $85 $204.00 50% $102.00
10/24/86 3.,960 1.98 $85 $168.30 50% $84.15
11/11/86 3,340 1.67 $85 $141.95 50% $70.97
11/11/86 3,680 1.84 $85 $156.40 50% $78.20
03/10/87 4,360 2.18 $105 $228.90 50% $114.45
03/10/87 4,640 2.32 $105 $243.60 50% $121.80
05/12/87 4,120 -2.06 $100 $206.00 65% $133.90
05/12/87 4,520 2.26 $100 $226.00 65% $146.90
03/03/88 9,360 4.68 $105 $491.40 50% $245.70
03/10/88 5,920 2.96 $175 $518.00 65% $336.70
03/30/88 4,160 2.08 $88 $182.00 100% $182.00
06/17/88 16,680 8.34 $150 $1,251.00 65% $813.15
06/30/88 6,560 3.28 $145 $475.00 65% $308.75
09/20/88 10,000 5.00 $170 $850.00 650 $552.50
10/30/88 5,000 2.50 $160 $400.00 65% $260.00
11/30/88 5,000 2.50 $160 $400.00 6S% $260.00
12/30/88 5,000 2.50 $160 $400.00 65% $260.00
03/30/89 7200 3.6 $90 $322.00
04/19/89 2,500 1.25 $160 $200.00 65% $130.00
U4/L//07 1.5,14U 0.D/ 111OU 4i1,VDI.LU /Uo S/3 .04
05/09/89 9,020 4.51 $160 $641.60 65% $417.04
05/30/89 5,320 2.66 $160 $425.92 65% $276.85
06/30/89 4,655 2.33 $160 $372.80 65% $242.32
08/28/89 7,498 3.75 $160 $599.84 65% $389.90
TOTALS 298,653 149.33 $16,186.25 $9,697.16
e
Chartl
OFFICE PAPER RECYCLING PROGRAM
35 33.7 33.8 $3,500
•
30 $3,000 A
N
T N
0 25 24.1 24.7 $2,500 U
S A
• L
p 20 • $2,000
E R
R 14.9 E
1 5 $1 ,500 V
Y
E E
A 10 9.3 8.8 $1,000 . N
R •
n U
E
5 • • • $500 S
0 $0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Foo-ToNS OF PAPER ANNUAL REVENUE
rr
sufficient storage and processing space for the accumulated paper and has asked
for the Community Development Department's help in recycling the paper.
Program Constraints
Some departments have never participated in the office paper program due to
certain constraints. Among them are:
o high costs of collection from decentralized offices;
o the inability of the General Services Department to add more office
collection sites;
o lack of information on total waste paper generated;
o total revenues generated by used paper sales being reserved for other
purposes;
o the legal requirements for destruction of confidential documents; and
o various agencies use non-white paper for inter and intra-office
publications.
Overcoming Barriers
Many employees are anxious to participate in the collection program but are
presently unable to do so because of the higher cost of pick-up service for
small quantities of paper from decentralized locations. As many as 90 percent
or more of County offices, both owned and leased, may not be served.
As a result of these constraints, some departments have begun collecting white
paper and using the revenue to support various activities. Public Works
Department employees use the income as a fund raiser, as reported in a recent
edition of the department's in-house newsletter.
One solution is to allow departments to setup independent programs with outside
venders; however this would not solve the problem since revenue would be drained
from the total program.
Several departments, including the Sheriff's Department, Probation and Health
Services have never participated fully in the County program, though they
generate quantities of waste paper, becauseof legal requirements for
destruction of confidential information. Each department has established its
own method for confidential document destruction. The Sheriff's Department
shreds and .discards the paper; Probation boxes the documents and contracts with
an outside vender for confidential document destruction service at added expense
to the County.
In a memo dated November 10, 1989, (attached) County Counsel has determined that
this paper can be included in the used office paper program, once the legal
requirements regarding disclosure of confidential information such as patient or
inmate names, have been met. This means that after shredding or tearing the
documents, the paper may be collected for recycling. Were this paper added to
the used office paper program, tonnage and revenue would increase substantially.
Considerable savings would be realized by eliminating any need for special
document destruction service.
f f
Some County agencies circulate flyers, letters, newsletters on colored stock
which cannot be collected in the white paper program (colored inks are
acceptable) . Information distributed Countywide should be printed on white
paper only.
To overcome these barriers, additional studies on the quantity and types of
paper available, location of the waste, and the potential to increase revenue by
adding non-white papers, sorting and separating paper into various grades (such
as ledger and computer paper) and baling for delivery to the market are needed.
Expanded Program
This summer, the Board of Supervisors asked the Community Development Department
to report on the feasibility of expanding the recycling program to include
County institutions such as the jails, juvenile hall , the hospital and clinics,
and to consider adding other recyclables - aluminum, glass and plastic.
At present, recyclable waste materials such as cardboard, computer paper,
newspapers and aluminum cans constitute a significant portion of waste generated
by these operations. No coordinated effort is being made to collect or recover
these materials. This costs the County money, both in terms of losses from
potential revenues, and in increased costs for refuse collection.
Meetings have been held with representatives of the Health Services Department,
the Sheriff-Coroner, County Probation and Buchanan Airport. On-site visits have
been conducted at the. Martinez Jail and Marsh Creek Detention Facility and
discussions held with designated 'staff from Health Services hospital and clinic
facilities. There is every indication that the quantity of recyclable waste
materials is sufficient to justify and support a collection and processing
program, particularly one which involves minimal labor costs.
The proposed recycling program is very basic, but does require planning and
design of a small multi-material processing center to be located at the Marsh
Creek Detention Facility. C61lection service for County buildings might be
provided by labor through the Work Alternatives Bureau. Processing would be
organized as an industrial work opportunity staffed by inmates, with training
offered through the education program.
The objectives of the proposed Countywide recycling program are:
o Provide revenue to offset total recycling program costs
o Reduce costs to the County for waste disposal
o Reduce amount of waste materials sent to County landfills, thereby
meeting the source reduction and recycling goals of AB 939
o Provide useful , productive employment and training for inmates in a
field with growing job potential
r r
Recommendations:
1. Evaluate current program
Determine number of offices .not served
Conduct analysis of wastestream
2. Develop implementation plan
Determine best method to recycle confidential documents
Determine best method to process and sell collected materials
Determine means of overcoming barriers
3. Develop multi-material collection system using Work Alternative labor
4. Design multi-material processing center for Marsh Creek Detention Center
Estimated Workload:
Staff's estimate of workload to complete planning and
implementation: 960 hours = 24 weeks
SC:cg
sw/4&7ofcpg.txt
ff' �FFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
_ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Martinez California
Date: Noer 0`,, 1988
To:
Harvey J. Bragdon, Director of Community Developme'A• -J'� r`
From: Victor J,:Westm3n__�—,�ty Counsel
By: Edwird Lane Jr. , Deputy
i
Re: Recyc 1 i ng' of Confidential Documents
In response to your memorandum of October 20, 1988 concerning the disposal
and recycling of confidential documents, we are not aware of any statutes or
regulations specifying the manner by which confidential records are to be
destroyed. (42 CFR § 2.21 relating to drug and alcohol treatment program records
requires destruction or purging of patient identifying information when a program
terminates and records are no longer needed, but does not state how this is to
be done. )
Generally, the statutes relating to confidentiality are concerned both with
records and the information contained in records. (E.g. , H.& S.C. §§ 11977,
11978, W. & I . C. § 5328 et seq. [medical records], 42 U.S.C. § 5328 [drug and
alcohol treatment program records]. ) It is important that both confidential
records and the information contained in confidential documents not be disclosed
to persons not authorized to receive the information, as the County and its
employees may be subject to civil liability for unauthorized disclosure (e.g.
W. & I. C. § 5530 [greater of $500. or treble damages], California Constitution
Art. I , § 1 [invasion of the privacy].) However, County Counsel does not
believe that the County must do more than take reasonable steps to see that the
information is not disclosed. If the disclosure is not the result of negligence
on the part of the County, there should be no basis for holding the County or
its employees liable.
Consequently, any reasonable and economical method of destruction is
permissible so long as it is sufficient to ensure that the information contained
in the documents is not subject to unauthorized disclosure. County Counsel
believes that a court would probably not require that the County do more than
the shredding of documents, and that shredded documents maybe made available for
recycling.
EVLE
cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Health Services Department
Sheriff-Coroner
Probation Department
Social Services Department
Risk Management
11:00 a.m.; Item 14. Status Report on Pilot Plastics Recycling Program
With the focus on mixed waste plastic collection spurred by the Solid Waste
Commission study "Recycling Plastic in the Wastestream" and the support, of the
Board of Supervisors, mixed waste plastics recycling began as a pilot program in
June 1989 in the City of Walnut Creek. It was incorporated in the city's
regular curbsi.de recycling program to test various operational procedures, and
learn more about public reaction and participation in a new and innovative
program.
The program has so far demonstrated that waste plastics collection is feasible
on a pilot scale. It has the support of the County, the program sponsors, the
Dow Chemical Corporation, and the city.
The Walnut Creek City Council voted on September 18, 1989 to expand the pilot
program to serve 2,000 homes and appropriated $6,500 to cover a portion of the
additional costs needed for the first phase of the expansion. These funds are
intended as a partial match to the total funds that are required.
A request for matching funds to expand the program, to include some processing
equipment and public information materials, has been prepared by the County to
be submitted to the Council for Solid Waste Solutions (CSWS) in Washington, D.C.
Several meetings with CSWS Board members and staff have been held and it is
anticipated that the requested funds will be received. A copy of the grant
request is attached.
The waste plastics collection pilot began serving about 10 percent of the
curbside customers in Walnut Creek in June, 1989. Residents were given yellow
plastic bags with a leaflet and red ribbon to tie the bag closed. The bags and
information were distributed door-to-door by volunteers and members of the East
.Bay Conservation Corps. An estimated one-quarter to one-third of the residents
were contacted to explain the program.. A copy of the leaflets is also attached.
Currently the yellow plastic bags are collected from the 500-home test area in
the existing curbside recycling truck by the curbside recycling collector,
Pacific Rim of Benicia, at the same time the recyclables are collected. The
loosely-filled plastic bags are placed in the designated compartments in a
truck-and-trailer system and as the truck fills up, some are placed in any
available space in the commingled containers or newspaper sections.
The added volume of plastics fills the truck sooner and reduces the number of
set-outs that can be collected by an average of 20 percent. This has increased
labor and truck costs for collection by about 30 percent since extra return
trips for unloading and route time are required.
To reduce the truck and collection costs, a modification of the collection truck
is planned that will enable it to store the plastic bags above the existing
compartments for the rest of the recyclables. This modification would also
allow the driver to pick up the normal number of set-outs per route and reduce
the number of return trips to the center for unloading. The collected bags are
currently being manually off-loaded into a large 40 cubic yard container located
at the recycling center on Kazebeer Lane. When full , it is hauled to the wTe
plant in Benicia for sorting and processing. The separated and processed waste
plastics are sold to Dow Chemical for use in their. Waste Plastics Applications
Laboratory in Walnut Creek.
�.J
- PLASTICSO
RECYCLABLEi
54
■
F�Yts`
Contrary to some widely-held notions, plastics are recyclable. New ®�� ��
technology now makes it possible to add plastics to the glass,aluminum,
paper and other products currently being recycled.Plastic fast-food
containers,hot drink cups,plastic wraps and bottles can all be recycled,
conserving valuable landfill space for non-recyclable materials. I�gSIL aNew
During the next 12 weeks,we will be conducting a pilot program to
collect recyclable plastic trash.With your help, we can study the best
ways possible to recycle and reuse this important resource.We all enjoy
the many benefits of using plastics. Now there is an opportunity to Pel®t Program
act wisely and prudently to recycle them.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ���$ �a� Make
Use the yellow plastic bags to collect your recyclable plastics and
place them at the curb when full on normal collection days—Tuesdays.
Tie the top of the bag with the red ribbon provided,so that pickup
folks can recognize it. the Future Better
• Include all household plastic wrap and plastic containers that are
normally put into the trash.
• Empty and wash food containers and replace the lids.
• Rinse bags and plastic wraps. ®� �� ®� ��
• Empty non-food containers and replace the lids.
• Do not include heavily soiled wraps or bottles, or durable products
such as toys and household accessories.
• Because of potential health concerns,we cannot accept disposable
diapers for recycling during this pilot program.
• A new bag will be left to replace the one picked up.
• When possible, squeeze the air out of your plastic recyclables.
This project is brought to you through the joint efforts of concerned
people at Dow Chemical U.S.A., Pacific Rim Recycling and wTe Corp.
We will furnish a report on the success and findings of this project to
you and to the city.Thanks for working with us for a better future.
For more information regarding plastics recycling, call 944-2124. For
questions regarding pick-up, call 372-8524. Pf-w,ed n Recydable Paper
The expansion period is divided into a first phase which is designed to test
various collection and processing techniques and a second phase which expands
the collection service city-wide to over 18,000 homes.
The first .phase, beginning in October, expands the existing 500 home collection
area to 2,000 homes. Three collection methods are being tested.
They are:
A. Clear plastic bags with yellow cinch-top and tie 1,000 homes
(The bags were donated by Mobil Corporation)
B. Yellow bag with tie 500 homes
C. Yellow tag only 500 homes
In addition, preliminary on-site sorting is also being .tested at the recycling
center before the materials are shipped to the plant in Benicia for more
extensive sorting and processing.
Also, phase one will include efforts to increase participation and to improve
the quality of the set-out. An intensive education and promotion program is
planned which will focus on evaluating instructions to the homeowner for proper
separating and preparation of the various plastic materials for recycling.
Mixed waste plastics will be collected in plastic bags by the existing curbside
collection truck. The bags will be picked up weekly on the same day as garbage.
Therefore, one of the challenges of the program is to ensure that waste plastics
bags are not mistakenly included in the garbage pick-up. Residents will be
asked to place the bags next to their "blue box" for recycling, and garbage
collectors are asked to leave these bags for recycling.
For the expanded program, a greater effort is planned for determining what and
how residents save their plastics for recycling. Besides re-designing the
brochure, several surveys and interview questionnaires are planned.
A fairly high non-plastic contamination level was found. Anywhere from 15 to 30
percent of the collected materials were non-plastic items, such as rubber or
leather materials, standard recyclables, and trash.
It is felt that a brochure and/or attached leaflet explaining types of plastics
and typical brands could help clarify some of the resident's confusion. An
empirical testing procedure is planned to test the results of using a more
detailed brochure design on both quality of set-out and overall participation
level .
In addition, the door-to-door canvassing will include more highly trained
volunteers who know more about plastic types and the details of program
operation. Also, follow-up phone calls to missed households in the initial
delivery of bags will be done. Residents who are contacted in the canvassing
will be asked to "sign-up" for the program as an intention to participate. This
feature of canvassing has been found to be effective in other canvassing and
recycling "block leader" programs.
I r
WASTE PLASTICS RECOVERY IN
PILOT WALNUT CREEK PROGRAM
A. No. of Bags Collected
120 --
100 --
so --
60 --
40 --
20 --
0
201OO so 6O 402O O
6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/4 7/11 7/18 7/25
B. Weekly Participation (%)
25%--
10%--
0%1
5%1Oo/ �f
5% \
6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/4 7/11 7/18 7/25
Notes:
1. Waste plastics collected include all rigid and film mixed in one plastic bag
2. Participation measured as number of set-outs per total
number of households served in one week-
3.
eek3. Averages for first eight weeks:
a. Number of set-outs(households): 76 bags
b. Average weekly participation: 15%
Source:
Information from collector and processor firms.. Resource Management Associates (1989)
PARTICIPATION
500 Households < <
46% (230) Participated
1910 Pounds in 12 Weeks
0.7 Pounds Per Participating Household/Per Week
CHARACTERIZATION
Product Weight (%) Volume* (°o)
HDPE Milk & Water Bottles 21 40
Pet Beverage Bottles 13 11
Mixed Rigids, Lighter Than Water 29 17
Mixed Rigids, Heavier Than Water 14 8
Mixed Plastic Film 21 12
Mixed Foam 2 12
Total 100 100
Estimated Work Load
Reports of the data and results of these efforts will be published in a final
report that will be made available to the Council for Solid Waste Solutions and
other County cities and sanitary districts interested in starting plastics
recycling programs. This is one of the Board Orders passed by the Board of
Supervisors in July 1989. Further support for countywide plastics collection
and market development will be provided during conference on plastics recycling
to be hosted by the Board of Supervisors in March. Funding for the conference
has been committed by the plastics industry and the Department of Conservation.
The results of the collection for the first two months are:
To continue staff support of the Plastic
Recycling Task Force and Subcommittees 20/hrs/mo.
To plan and produce a regional plastics
recycling conference in Contra Costa County 40/hrs/3 months
M5/jb/plastic.13
11:00 a.m. ; Item 15. Report on Goals by which Fast Food Restaurants will Reduce
the Number of Plastic Food Containers in Order to Increase
Recycling and Reduce Litter.
Interest in this concept has been evidenced by Macdonald's restaurants.
Representatives from the company have attended several meetings of the Plastic
Recycling Task Force. They include individual owner-operators of restaurants in
Contra Costa County as well as representatives from their regional office
in San Jose. A meeting with owner-operators and management is scheduled for
November 20, 1989.
Progress on this program will be reported at a later date.
SG:cg
sw/13plstc.txt
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California
DATE: October 16, 1989
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: Claude L. Van Marte
Assistant County Ad� strator
SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE DISPOSAL OF
PLASTICS IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND WITH THE USE OF
CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFC' s) .
On June 6, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved a report from
your Committee on the subject of plastics. One of the
recommendations asked that staff provide your Committee on July
10, 1989 with a summary of all legislation that is designed to
facilitate or promote reduction of plastic packaging and
facilitate promotion of plastics recycling or which place
restrictions on the use of non-recyclable and excessive packaging
for consumer goods along with staff' s recommendations for bills
the Board of Supervisors should support. On July 10, 1989 we
reported to you on the status of the following bills. This is a
further update on the status of these bills.
We have identified six bills which have been introduced in the
State Legislature on the subject of plastics this Session. These
are AB 952 (Killea) , AB 1041 (La Follette) , AB 1796 (Moore, et
al) , AB 2020 (Cortese & Vasconcellos) , AB 2199 (Bates) and SB
1192 (Marks) . We have also identified an additional five bills
which deal with the use, reuse and disposal of CFCs.
Descriptions of the four bills we had identified previously plus
one additional bill (AB 2532) of which we recently became aware
are included because of the concern the Committee has displayed
for the environmental hazards created by the improper use and
disposal of CFC' s. These five bills are AB 1332 (Peace) , AB 1718
(Hayden & Vasconcellos) , AB 2532 (Vasconcellos) , SB 116
(Rosenthal, et al) and SB 231 (Roberti) . A summary of the
provisions of each of these bills and their current status
follows.
-1-
SUMMARY STATUS OF LEGISLATION:
The following summarizes the status of each of the following
bills as of the Legislature's recess and final actions by the
Governor:
BILL NUMBER STATUS FINAL ACTION
AB 952 Passed the Legislature Signed into law
Chapter 37.
Eff. 6/8/89
AB 1041 Passed the Legislature Signed into law
Chapter 498.
Eff. 1/1/90
AB 1305 Passed the Legislature Signed into law
Chapter 1093.
Eff. 1/1/90
AB 1332 In Assembly Natural Resources
Committee -----
AB 1718 Held without recommendation in
the Assembly Natural Resources
and Wildlife Committee -----
AB 1796 In Assembly Ways & Means Committee -----
AB 2020 Passed the Legislature Vetoed '
AB 2199 In inactive file on the Senate
Floor -----
AB 2532 In Assembly Environmental Safety
and Toxic Materials Committee -----
SB 116 Passed the Legislature Vetoed
SB 231 Passed the Legislature Vetoed
SB 1192 Passed the Legislature Vetoed
AB 952 (Killea) - As Chaptered.
The bill makes a technical correction to the coding which must
appear on all rigid plastic bottles and rigid plastic containers
sold in California on and after January 1, 1992 to correct a
typographical error in the code for polyethylene terephthalate.
AB 952 has passed the Legislature and was signed into law by the
Governor as an urgency measure on June 8, 1989 (Chapter 37 ,
Statutes of 1989) .
-2-
AB 1041 (LaFollette) As Chaptered.
Requires the Calif orhia Waste Management Board to prepare and
submit to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 1991 a
report on the use, disposal and recyclability of plastic
materials and containers which are not subject to the California
Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. The
report is required to include but not be limited to:
* A description of barriers to plastic collection,
separation and recycling for reuse.
* A description and comparison of current methods used in
the state, other states, and other countries to reduce
the use of, and recycle, plastic materials currently
disposed of in the state. The report is also to
contain recommendations on how the state might improve
its current programs to reduce or recycle plastic
materials.
* A description of programs under development and
potentially available for plastics collection and
recycling.
* A description of current domestic and foreign markets
for recycled plastic materials and recommendations on
how the state could improve the marketability of these
materials.
AB 1041 has been signed by the Governor and is now Chapter 498,
Statutes of 1989.
AB 1796 (Moore, et al) - As amended July 1, 1989.
The bill enacts the Problem Plastics Elimination Act. It defines
a problem plastic as polyethylene or related organic polymeric
plastic. packaging products which are not biodegradable or
recyclable.
The bill imposes a fee of 4 cents for each pound of problem
plastics manufactured or sold for use in retail transactions and
for which there are substitute, commercially available products
that are physically or functionally identical and which are not
composed or constructed of problem plastics.
The bill requires the Department of Conservation to adopt
regulations requiring the labeling of all problem plastics
products which are sold or distributed directly to consumers to
indicate they are problem plastics.
The 4 cents per pound fee on problem plastics is to be deposited
in the Problem Plastics Elimination Fund. Money in the fund is
-3-
f
to be used to aid state and local agencies in recycling of waste
resulting from problem plastics. The money can also be used for
grants to nonprofit agencies, public research institutions and
small businesses engaged in research to develop methods of use or
fabrication of plastic products to minimize the deposit of
problem plastics into landfills. The money can also be used for
consumer education regarding the consequences of using problem
plastics products and their substitutes.
AB 1796 has passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and
is currently on referral to the Assembly Ways and Means
Committee.
AB 2020 (Cortese & Others) - As amended September 11, 1989.
The bill would make it unlawful, on and after January 1, 1990, to
manufacture, distribute or sell any food service product or food
packaging product made of or with polystyrene foam plastic if the
foam product is made with a blowing agent compound which includes
CFC-11, CFC-12 or any other fully-halogenated CFC.
The bill would also make it unlawful, on and after December 31,
1991, to manufacture, distribute or sell any rigid polystyrene
foam product manufactured with CFC-11, CFC-12 or any other
fully-halogenated CFC if chemical substitutes are commercially
available and have received all necessary approvals by
appropriate regulatory agencies.
The bill would provide for civil penalties of $1000 per day for
each day that the violation continues. The bill authorizes a
city attorney, district attorney or the . Attorney General to
petition the Superior Court to impose, assess and recover the
civil penalties provided for in the bill.
The 'bill also provides that if this bill and SB 1192 are enacted
and become effective on or before January 1, 1990 that both bills
shall be effect and construed together.
AB 2020 has been vetoed by the Governor.
AB 2199 (Bates) - As amended August 28, 1989.
The bill makes legislative findings regarding the problem of
disposing of plastic products. The findings specifically note
that the policy and intent of the bill is to facilitate the
greatest utilization of plastic containers in the waste stream
through encouraging recycling efforts and conversion to other
methods of packaging that will reduce the strain on the state' s
.landfills, stimulate markets for recyclable plastic materials,
minimize ocean pollution and litter, and conserve non-renewable
natural resources.
The bill defines "plastic" as including a number of specific
materials as well as every item of organic synthetic material
-4-
•9
that consists of polymers of high molecular weight and can be
molded, cast, extruded, drawn or laminated into objects, films
and filaments.
The bill defines a plastic container very broadly as including
sacks, bottles, serving containers, or film which is primarily
intended as a disposable consumer item for final retail sale or
furnished as packaging of any product sold at retail. Plastic
container also includes all plastic disposable consumer items and
any container that has been coated, laminated or treated with
plastic.
The bill requires all local agencies to include plastics as part
of any waste characterization study prepared prior to designing
and implementing a local recycling plan. This study must include
an evaluation of the quantity of type of plastic in the waste
stream and the feasibility of including plastics as part of the
local recycling program.
The bill requires the California Integrated Waste Management and
Recycling Board, by October 1, 1991 to establish plastic
recycling and mitigation fees for plastic containers. The
revenue from the fees is placed in the Plastics Recycling and
Mitigation Fund.
The bill requires the California Integrated Waste Management and
Recycling Board to prepare and file a report with the Governor
and the Legislature by January 1, 1991, analyzing the impacts of
implementing the bill. The bill specifies all of the data which
is to be included in the report.
The bill provides that the money in the Plastics Recycling and
Mitigation Fund may be used for grants to local agencies to
offset the costs of a waste characterization study done prior to
designing and implementing a local recycling plan as well as for
other specified purposes including a public education program.
The bill exempts from the fee provisions plastic containers that
are already subject to the California Beverage Containers
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. The bill also allows a
distributor to be exempted from the fees if they can show that
the container is manufactured from at least 50% recycled
post-consumer waste materials from plastic containers or if it can
be shown that at least 50% of the plastic containers are reused
or recycled.
The bill provides that any person convicted of a violation of its
provisions is guilty of an infraction and can be punished by a
fine of not more than $1000 per day.
The bill provides that it will go into effect only if AB 939 is
enacted and creates the California Integrated Waste Management
and Recycling Board.
-5-
i
tAB 2199 has passed the Assembly and was placed on the inactive
file on the Senate Floor on September 12, 1989.
SB 1192 (Marks) - As amended September 11, 1989 .
This bill would prohibit the manufacture, distribution or sale on
and after January 1, 1990 of polystyrene foam food service
product or food packaging made with CFC-11, CFC-12 or any fully
halogenated CFC.
On and after December 31, 1991 the bill would prohibit the
manufacture, distribution or sale of any rigid polystyrene foam
product manufactured with CFC-11; CFC-12 or any fully halogenated
CFC if chemical substitutes are commercially available and have
been approved by the necessary regulatory agencies.
If, by June 1, 1990 it appears that the December 31, 1991
deadline cannot be met the manufacturer, distributor or seller is
to report to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature
explaining why they cannot comply with the deadline.
The Senate Committee on Rules is directed to enter into a
contract for the preparation of a report which is to be delivered
to the Committee by April 1, 1990. The preparation of the report
is to be supervised by the Senate Office of Research. The report
is to include:
1. The quantities of CFC' s and Halon 1211, 1301 and 2402 which
are used in each product and process in California, and
2. An assessment ranking the ozone depletion potential of each
CFC and halon product and process in use in California.
The bill specifies that if it and AB 2020 are both enacted and
both become effective on or before January 1, 1990 that both
bills shall be given effect and construed together. SB 1192 is
an urgency bill.
SB 1192 has been vetoed by the Governor.
The following are the five bills dealing with CFCs:
AB 1332 (Peace) - As amended June 8, 1989.
This bill, which originally prohibited the use of any plastic in
this state which is not degradable was amended June 8, 1989. The
bill now provides that no vehicle could be registered or sold in
California effective with the 1993 model year that has an
air-conditioning system which uses chlorofluorocarbons. The bill
also authorizes the State Air Resources Board to delay the
implementation of this requirement upon finding that there is no
-6-
economically or technologically feasible alternative
air-conditioning system that does not use chlorofluorocarbons.
AB 1332 is on referral to the Assembly Committee on Natural
Resources.
AB 1718 (Hayden & Vasconcellos) - As amended August 21, 1989.
This bill makes legislative findings regarding the danger of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC' s) to the ozone layer and their
contribution to the greenhouse effect. The findings also include
the statement that 250 of the total amount of CFC' s produced in
this country each year is lost to the atmosphere because of poor
maintenance, inappropriate servicing practices and leaking mobile
air conditioners.
The bill prohibits any business, on and after January 1, 1991,
from installing or servicing motor vehicle air-conditioners
without the use of approved refrigerant recycling equipment, as
it is defined in the bill. Each violation of this provision can
subject the guilty party to a civil penalty of $50 per incident,
not to exceed a total of $1000 per day.
The Bureau of Automotive Repair is required to establish and
administer a program to ensure the installation and proper use of
refrigerant recycling equipment and to certify businesses and
individuals who are trained in the service of vehicle
air-conditioners.
The bill prohibits, on and after January 1, 1991, the sale of any
refrigerant suitable for use in charging motor vehicle
air-conditioners except in containers of 15 pounds or larger
which meet U. S. Department of. Transportation safety standards.
A violation of this provision can subject the guilty party to a
civil penalty of $50 per item sold, or $1000 per day, whichever
is greater. The bill further directs the State Air Resources
Board to adopt regulations providing for the phaseout of
refrigerants in containers of less than 15 pounds.
AB 1718 has passed the Assembly but was held without
recommendation in the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife
Committee.
AB 2532 (Vasconcellos) - As amended September 5, 1989.
The bill makes findings regarding the contribution made to the
global warming trend by CFC' s and halons and declares that it is
the Legislature's intent to promote the recovery, reuse and
recycling of CFC-based refrigerants in motor vehicle
air-conditioners by requiring every business which installs or
services mobile air-conditioners to use approved refrigerant
recycling equipment; to promote the recovery, reuse and recycling
-7-
M
of CFC-based refrigerants in air-conditioning systems in larger
commercial buildings by requiring the use of approved refrigerant
recycling equipment; 'to phase out the use of CFC-based
refrigerants in mobile air-conditioning systems by banning the
sale of any new automobile, truck or other motor vehicle in
California which uses CFC-based refrigerants after January 1,
1991; and by phasing out the use of CFC-based refrigerants in
air-conditioning systems in commercial buildings by banning their
use in new buildings by January 1, 1992.
The bill requires the use of approved refrigerant recycling
equipment whenever servicing an automobile air-conditioner after
January 1, 1991. The bill provides for civil fines for violating
this provision.
The bill prohibits the sale, after January 1, 1991, of any
refrigerant used in charging vehicle air-conditioners unless it
is in a container of 15 pounds or larger. The bill provides for
civil fines for violating this provision.
The bill prohibits the sale of a new motor vehicle equipped with
a vehicle air-conditioner utilizing CFC-based refrigerants.
The bill requires a certificate stating that a vehicle
air-conditioner is in good working order before a used vehicle
may be registered or transferred after January 1, 1991.
The bill prohibits the installation of an air-conditioning system
in a building which exceeds 10,000 square feet if the system
utilizes halogenated substances.
The bill prohibits the intentional venting of CFC from a
refrigeration system and requires that the CFC be used or
recycled.
The bill exempts CFC' s if they contain no hazardous constituents
other than those which are inherent in the CFC' s which have been
listed as a hazardous waste and if the CFC' s are reused or
recycled at the site where they were used.
The bill requires an annual inspection and repair of any
refrigeration system by a qualified contractor. The contractor
must, within 20 days, deliver to the owner a complete record of
the inspection. The contractors is required to maintain a
central; file of these inspection records, along with a record of
the amount of CFC that has been purchased and the amount used.
The bill prohibits a "dump test" of a full flooding halon fire
suppressor system after January 1, 1991.
The bill prohibits the sale or transfer of more than 20 pounds of
CFC' s used in refrigeration systems to anyone who is not a
qualified contractor or who is not the owner of a recycling
operation.
-8-
y
The bill provides for civil penalties for violating any of the
provisions of the bill. The bill also makes intentional venting
of CFC' s a misdemeanor during 1991 and a felony or misdemeanor
thereafter. `
The bill contains an urgency clause.
AB 2532 is on referral to the Assembly Environmental Safety and
Toxic Materials Committee.
SB 116 (Rosenthal, et al) - As amended September 12, 1989
The bill makes a statement of legislative findings regarding the
dangers of CFC' s to the environment and notes that large
quantities of such CFC' s are used in retail food refrigeration
and freezing systems, cold storage warehouses and.
air-conditioning units used to cool large commercial and
industrial buildings. The findings also note that methods are
available that reduce emissions from CFC' s and reduce the virgin
use of CFC' s.
The bill prohibits the intentional venting or disposal of CFC' s
from refrigeration systems and requires the reuse or recycling of
the CFC when servicing or disposing of the refrigeration system.
The bill exempts recyclable CFC' s from regulation under hazardous
waste statutes if they contain no hazardous constituents other
than those inherent in the CFC' s and if they are recycled or
reused at the site where the CFC' s were used.
The bill requires the owner or operator of a retail store, cold
storage warehouse or commercial or industrial building which uses
a refrigeration system containing CFC' s to establish an inventory
of all refrigeration systems, when they were installed, whether
or not they are operative, the total volume of CFC charge for
each unit, the last date when the unit was serviced and a
description of the type of service that was performed. The bill
also requires that effective July 1, 1990 a record of all
services performed on each unit be maintained. This record must
identify who serviced the unit, the amount of CFC put into the
unit, the amount of CFC removed from the unit, who handled the
CFC, how the CFC was handled, including whether it was recycled
onsite or was taken offsite. This record must include
documentation of all purchases of CFC and for which units the CFC
were purchased.
The above records must be maintained at the site where the
refrigeration unit is located and must be made available on
request to a district attorney and county health officer plus a
variety of state officials.
The bill provides for civil penalties in varying amounts for
violations of various sections of the bill and, for continuing
-9-
v � '
r y
violations, for each day that violation continues. Any person
who makes a false statement in any of the above records or
inventory is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for
each separate violation or, for continuing violations, for each
day that violation continues.
Criminal penalties are provided for anyone convicted of
intentional venting or disposal of CFC.
The bill becomes operative July 1, 1990 but has various effective
dates for various sections of the bill.
SB 116 has been vetoed by the Governor.
SB 231 (Roberti) - As amended September 14, 1989.
SB 231 enacts legislative findings to the effect that:
1. chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are contributing to the depletion
of the ozone layer,
2. the recently negotiated Montreal Protocol provides for
reduction in the most widely used and potentially most
detrimental of the CFCs and halons,
3., recently adopted EPA regulations are designed to limit the
production and consumption of CFCs and halons and thereby
implement the Montreal Protocol in the United States.
4. California needs to establish a program to promulgate
policies which determine the extent of California' s
contribution of ozone-depleting gases, which identifies the
uses of ozone-depleting compounds that will not be
substantially reduced or controlled as a result of the EPA' s
limits on the production of ozone-depleting compounds and
which augments national and international efforts to reduce
the use of ozone-depleting compounds through the use of
add-on engineering controls, process modifications, recovery
and reuse of CFC' s and by encouraging the use of safe and
effective .alternative compounds, products and practices as
they become available.
The bill requires the State Air Resources Board to establish an
environmental and technical assessment program for CFCs.
The bill requires the State Air Resources Board, in consultation
with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission and the Department of Commerce, by January 1, 1991 and
every two years thereafter, to identify the technical options
which are available to reduce CFC emissions for a number of
specified applications.
10--
For each of the technical options which are available the State
Air Resources Board would be required to provide specific
information such as emission control potential, health, safety
and environmental_ side effects, institutional constraints
including local regulations, cost to industry and the commercial
availability of the technical option.
The State Air Resources Board would be required to study . all of
the available literature on the subject of each of the technical
options and prepare a report by July 1, 1991 and as deemed
appropriate thereafter, containing an evaluation and
recommendation for regulatory action on each technical option
identified as well as for the banning of products or chemicals
containing CFCs.
A workshop would be conducted on the report, which would then be
reviewed by the Environmental and Technical Assessment Advisory
Committee which is established by the bill. The committee' s
written findings on the report would be required to be returned
to the State Air Resources Board within 60 days. The bill then
provides for a process by which the State Air Resources Board
would adopt regulations bases on their. report and the comments of
the Technical Assessment Committee.
The bill establishes a ten member Environmental and Technical
Assessment Advisory Committee, whose members must be highly
knowledgeable about CFCs and who represent industry,
environmental concerns and the general public. The bill spells
out how many of which groups shall be on the Committee and who
makes the appointments of each.
The bill also requires the State Air Resources Board to
establish, by July 1, 1991, a technical assistance program, to
provide small businesses information, help them assess
alternative technical options which may be available to them and
develop and apply CFC emission reduction techniques.
The bill authorizes the State Air Resources Board to issue orders
for compliance with its regulations and provides for civil and
criminal penalties for violation of an order for compliance.
The bill also requires the State Air Resources Board to adopt a
fair and equitable system for charging and collecting a fee from
users of CFC. In establishing the fee schedule, the State Air
Resources Board may consider using SIC Codes, as established by
the U. S. Department of Commerce.
The bill also provides that the State Air Resources Board shall,
by January 1, 1991, inventory sources of gases within California
that potentially contribute to the depletion of ozone and shall
identify the kinds, quantities and sources of those gases.
The bill specifies that a city or county retains existing
authority to regulate CFC emissions, if the regulations are
-11-
determined by the State Air Resources Board to be consistent with
its regulations for the same product and for the same use of that
product. The bill specifies that it is not intended to preempt
actions taken by a city or county prior to January 1, 1990.
SB 231 has been vetoed by the Governor.
Finally, on July 18, 1989 the Board of Supervisors voted to
support AB 1305 (Killea) which requires that newsprint must
contain specific percentages of recycled paper in California.
The County Administrator was asked to report to your Committee on
the status of AB 1305, as well as the other bills noted above.
AB 1305 (Killea) - As Chaptered.
AB 1305 provides that on and after January 1, 1990, every
consumer of newsprint in California shall ensure that at least 25
percent of all newsprint used by that consumer of newsprint is
made from recycled-content newsprint, if recycled-content
newsprint is available at a price comparable to that of newsprint
made from virgin material, if the recycled-content newsprint
meets the quality standards established by the California
Integrated Waste Management and Recycling Board (created pursuant
to AB 939) and if the recycled-content newsprint is available
within a reasonable period of time. The percentage of newsprint
used which is made from recycled-content newsprint is to be
increased on the following schedule:
To 30% on and after January 1, 1994.
To 35% on and after January 1, 1996.
To 40% on and after January 1, 1998.
To 500 on and after January 1, 2000.
AB 1305 passed the Legislature and has been signed into law by
the Governor. The bill is now Chapter 1093, Statutes of 1989 .
CLVM:nrl
plastics
cc: Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Sheila Cogan, Resource Recovery Specialist
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
-12-
OTHER POSSIBLE SHARED APPLICATIONS
(Subiect to Discussion)
1 . Complete Records Management System
• Incident Reporting (CIFRS)
• Personnel
• Inventory - Purchasing Control
• Training records
• Interface to CAD
• Data base Management System
Payroll (FLSA)/Accounts Payable/Receivable/Budget
• Fire Prevention/Inspection/Occupancy
• Hydrant/Hose records
2 . Mapping using County GIS system
3 . After hours business line answering
4. Interface to Regional Ambulance computer system