The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10081991 - 2.1 . /h 12-001 TO: ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor County Administrator o By: Sara Hoffman, Franchise Administrator %`f := Contra DATE: -October 8, 1991 Canty SUBJECT: Interconnected Cable Television Channel SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONSIDER funding alternatives for County's Cable TV Channel: 1. Current Board Policy: Each Cable Operator voluntarily pays a proportional cost of the entire system, with payments credited against future franchise fees. 2 . Alternate Board Policy: Direct Cable Operators under Ordinance 82-28 to interconnect their systems and require interconnect as a condition of franchise renewal requests for other Cable Operators. DIRECT the Franchise Administrator to ensure that funding is provided so. that .the County Cable TV Channel can be operational no later than June, 1992, either by a) implementation of the Alternate Board Policy, if the current Board Policy has not received firm commitments from the Cable_ Operators by December 31, 1991. OR b) immediate implementation of the Alternate Board Policy. FISCAL IMPACT 1. Current Board Policy: Loss of $604, 000 in general fund revenue over 7 years with an imputed interest rate of 8%, as proposed by the cable operators; without interest as -proposed by staff. 2 . Alternate Board Policy: No cost to County. However, the Operators could put interconnect costs into cable rates. If spread equally . among all rate payers, the cost would be approximately $2 .75 per customer or $. 0325 per month for 7 .years. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY .ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAM COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON October 8 , 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x DEFERRED -consWeration to October 22, 19.91 on report from Franchise . Administrator on funding alternatives for the County's Cable TV Channel . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT --- ) . TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION .TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED October 8 , 1"991 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY .ADMINISTRATOR Cc:. Community Development , h23:intercon.bos BY ,DEPUTY VISCAt IMPACT (Cont'd) It is important to note that the current Board policy depends upon voluntary payment by the Operators. Since the 1984 Federal Cable Communications Policy Act and Section 58-8 . 018 of County Cable Ordinance 82-28 allow for provision of facilities and equipment, not payments, the Alternate Board policy is the only alternative unless the Operators cooperate. On-going channel expenses would be funded by the County from the existing Community Access Trust Fund. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION Request by Cable Operators On August 12 , 1991, the County received the attached letter from Mr. Sanford Skaggs representing seven of the nine cable systems involved in the negotiations. Mr. Skaggs expressed concern for the County's financial position and suggested that construction of an interconnect would cause additional strain. Mr. Skaggs requested shared use of existing community channels to distribute County programming. Review of Cable operators Request 1. Shared Use of Community Channel - Cost Shared use of current community channels would be very expensive, about $250, 000/year for only ten hours of programs per week. To air a program countywide in a timely manner on shared channels, a tape must be duplicated at a cost of between $20 - $40 depending on tape length. Nine tapes ($180 - $360) must then be delivered to the various cable systems throughout the County. If. staff delivers the tapes, it takes approximately 6 hours at $20/hour or $120. If Federal Expressed, costs are $15 each or $135. Therefore, to air one, one-hour program would cost $480. To air 10 hours of programming a week would cost $4,800 or $249, 600 a year. Even at this limited production rate, the interconnect repays itself in only 2 and 1/2 years. 2 . Shared Use of Community Channel - Availability Even if the County were willing to bear the recurring cost burden of tape duplication and distribution, current channel availability makes the alternative infeasible. The County currently has difficulty scheduling County programs on the same date and time. Attached is a sample schedule for a six minute program. As can be seen, times and channel numbers vary widely, making it difficult and expensive to advertise programming to viewers. Programming on different channels, different dates and times has been a major obstacle to the County's CCTV efforts over the past 3 years. Mr. Skaggs has questioned the need for the County to have a 1124-hour channel. " Obviously, we do not expect to provide day and night programming, at least initially, and have provided that the Operators may use the channel when not in use by the County. The key point is to have channel availability during "peak hour" times, to maximize its availability to County citizens. 3 . Benefits Given to Cities. The County's interconnection is not only clearly permitted under federal law, it is consistent with past contributions from cable companies to cities in Contra Costa County for Community television. The City of Richmond received $100,000 at the signing of their agreement and: $300, 000 over the next nine years. Other cities have also received facilities and equipment amounting to thousands of dollars (list attached) . 4 . Limited Opportunity During Renewals. The 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act provides a window of opportunity during renewal of a cable franchise. A local government may require cable operators to provide community television facilities and equipment as part of their renewal request. Five of the nine cable operators are currently in the renewal process. 5. FCC License Requirement. License applications for the microwave path were prepared and submitted to the FCC in September 1991. Once licensed, the County has one year to complete construction. If not complete, the FCC may allow one extension. If construction is still incomplete, the County must complete a new feasibility study and new license applications (approximately $35, 000) , and risks losing the microwave paths (which are 2 becoming increasingly scarce) . History of Board Policy and Activities The County has been steadily working towards its goal of the interconnect for the past 6 years: 1985 - Developed a policy and workplan for Interconnect and Community Television in cooperation with Cities and Cable Companies. 1986 - Approved workplan and established trust fund for community television programming and CCTV, the countywide interconnect . 1987 - Surveyed cable TV subscribers to determine their needs and interests (in accordance with Cable Act requirements) . 80% of those surveyed were interested in local news programs and issues of countywide concern. 1988 - Established support for Community Television production. The County purchased equipment and provided* grants and training to departments interested in producing community programming. Trained 20 employees and produced 10 programs. Negotiations began with cable operators on a new Cable Ordinance. 1989 - Continued negotiations with cable operators who selected the franchise fee pre-payment funding option (options attached) for the interconnect and proposed additional conditions. Continued training and grants (12 programs funded plus the Health Department produced the first series of 8 programs on Health issues) . Purchased editing equipment to reduce post-production costs. 1990 - Completed interconnect feasibility study, including costs and microwave path availability. The Board determined that the interconnect was technically and economically feasible. Training and program production continued, with the added assistance of a part-time video technician. 1991 - Board directed staff on March 26, 1991 to take the steps necessary to activate a countywide interconnected channel by January 1992 . FCC license applications for the microwave interconnect have been prepared and submitted to the FCC. (These had to be submitted within 6 months of the frequency coordination. ) Target 1992 - Countywide Interconnected Cable TV Channel operational. Benefits of C-Dunty Channel The Board verified the interest in the Countywide interconnected channel through its 1987 countywide survey. The results conclusively demonstrated interest and demand for the channel. Benefits are many: 1. Pro,xrams to Citizens - Information about services and issues of countywide concern can be aired on a timely and cost effective basis. One tape can be inserted at a central location and aired cou'atywide. 2 . Scheduling of Programs - With a single channel number and scheduling responsibility, program schedules can be printed monthly to alert subscribers to upcoming programs of interest. These schedules could be published by local newspapers, be available at local libraries or be distributed through other means. 3 3 . Multi-agency Benefit Cities, fire departments, police departments, East Bay Regional Park District and schools have expressed an interest in providing programming to air on the channel. Some of these agencies would prefer daytime programming opportunities. This could amount to B-10 hours of programming a day, more than most community channels. In addition, a bulletin board would air continually with information about countywide. events, meetings, hearings, services and programs. 4. Interactive, Live Programming - Although many programs will be tape delayed, the County could provide its constituents additional services, such as live, interactive hearings and emergency information from the Office of Emergency Services. 4 VIDEO TAPE AIRING SCHEDULE MARTINEZ BOCCE FEDERATION SPECIAL. OLYMPICS TOURNAMENT (6 minutes) The following cable stations will air the above program: 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1 8/2, Televents, Inc. Ch. 19 6p.m. 9p.m. 8p.m. Concord TV Cable Ch. 19 llp.m. llp.m. Viacom (East Co) Ch. 16 TO BE SCHEDULED Televents(East) Ch. 19 7p.m. 7p.m. 7p.m. 7p.m. United Artist Ch. 6 9:30p.m. PROGRAM MAY BE AIRED AT OTHER TIMES BY ALL CABLE STATIONS LISTED ABOVE. PLEASE CHECK THE BULLETIN BOARD ON THE CHANNEL FOR ADDITIONAL AIRING TIMES. _ U This list represents 5 of the 9 Cable Systems in' Contra Costa County, COMMUNITY ACCESS CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY CABLE OPERATORS TO CITIES CITY YEAR FRANCHISED NO. OF SUBSCRIBERS CONCORD 1988 37,771 * $40,000 - Installed equipment to televise Council Meetings. * $75,000 - $5,000/Yr. for labor to televise Council Meetings for 15 yrs. * ? If City contributes $10,000 or more to Access efforts, cable operator will contribute 25% to a max of $7 ,000 as a match. WALNUT CREEK 1986 18,181 * $20,800 - Yearly cost for production of weekly Council Meetings at approximate cost of $400 a week. * $ 2,500 - Character Generator SAN RAMON 1988 8,809 * $55,000 - one time cost for local cablecast facilities. * $15,000 $1,000 a year for maintenance of above facility. *$156,000 - 5 hours a week use of a mobile studio van and technician. Rental of same estimated at $200 an hour x 52 weeks = $101400 a year for 15 years. * $6,000 - 3 workshops a year estimated at $400 each for 5 years. MARTINEZ 1982 9,625 * $50,000 - Franchisee is required to spend this amount yearly? on access. * $70,000 - A studio must be established with equipment valued at $70,000. PINOLE 1986 2,203 * $40,000 - In a modification to the franchise, operator agreed to contribute this amount over 8 years. * $15,000 - Hard wired city studio to cable system headend. * $10.,000 - Provided 1/2" edit system, 3/4" deck, camera and miscellaneous equipment. * ? - Several hours of technical support donated. * - Dedicated channel programmed by the City. CITY YEAR FRANCHISED NO. OF SUBSCRIBERS HERCULES 1977 3,111 * $1,500 - Modulator to transmit programming. * $10100+ - Hard wire (2 way) to headend and amplifiers. * ? - Maintain equipment. (Nebulous at best. )_ - * - Dedicated channel programmed by the City. RICHMOND 1989 15,000 *$400,000 - Capital grant over 10 years $100,000 at signing of agreement $100,000 at 2 years $100,000 at 5 years $100,000 at 10 years * ? - Five upstream channels One for the City to programm Two for Contra Costa College One for fire departments One for schools * ? Three modulators (Transmitters) hard wire to headend. acccon.lst 10/18/89 COUNTYWIDE CABLE INTERCONNECT FUNDING OPTIONS Option 1 -Cable Operators provide all facilities/ equipment. * Operators would be required to include a proposal for equipment to transmit and receive TV signals and for a production/playback facility as part of their Renewal Application. * Non-renewing Operators under Ord 82-28 are regulated as follows: "Where it is technically and economically feasible, the grantee may be required to interconnect its system with other broadband communication facilities at the discretion of the Board. . . " Option 2 - Cable Operators provide all facilities/equipment, with credit on future franchise fees. * Operators would pay all costs of the interconnect (receiving equipment, transmission equipment, and production/playback facility) . In return, they would. receive a prorated credit on franchise fee payments over the next ten years for the transmission equipment and production/playback facility costs. (Approximately $400,000. See Attachment A) Receiving equipment would be installed by the Operators. Option 3 - County provides facilities/equipment (except for receiving equipment) with no limitations on channel use. * Cable Operators provide receiving equipment and agree to allow the County to lease the channel to cover expenses. The County develops an RFP requesting transmission equipment and the development of a production/playback facility in exchange for use of the channel for an agreed upon number of hours per day over a specific period of time. 1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra''�% j FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT County DATE: October 8, 1991 SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORT ON PLASTIC RESIN RECYCLABILITY EVALUATION INDEX SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept Report on Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Index prepared by members of the Plastics Task Force and adopt the Index as an interim tool for use as a policy making tool; Acknowledge the extensive work performed by the members of the Plastic Resins Recyclability Evaluation Index Subcommittee, including Dr. Joseph Mariotti, Ms. Becky Dowdakin, Mr. Richard Gamble, Mr. David Tam; and, Authorize the Community Development Department to seek input on the Plastic Resin Recyclability Index from additional persons with expertise in recycling and environmental issues and to report back to the Plastics Task Force and Board of Supervisors. . FISCAL IMPACT None to the County General Fund. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS For the past year members of the Plastics Task Force, working in subcommittee, spent long hours to develop the Plastic Resins Recyclability Evaluation Index as a method to objectively analyze and quantify the degree of recyclability of plastic resins. The methodology developed is intended to serve as a basis for policy decisions by your Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: xx YES SIGNATUR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,_ RECO END ON OF TARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : - ACTION OF BOARD ON /9191 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED !S ! cc: County Administrator's Office PHIL BATCHELO , CLERK OF Plastics Recycling Task Force (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY c. , DEPUTY LA:se ff r2 : \bo\PRREindx.bo I Accept Report on Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Index Continued - Page Two The report, "Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Index, " was reviewed with the full Plastics Task Force in May and June, 1991. The final report, as approved by the Plastics Task Force, is attached (Attachment #1) . As part of the review by the full Plastics Task Force, aseptic packages were removed from the Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Index. This action was taken by the Task Force because the aseptic package is comprised predominantly from paper stock rather than from plastics. The preliminary evaluation of the aseptic package, using the Recyclability Evaluation Index, resulted in a low numerical value--47 (see Attachment #2) . A low numerical value, under the methodology of the Index, implies that the aseptic package is among those items which are more recyclable. Because staff would like to be able to use the Recyclability Index for analysis of other material types in addition to plastic resins and because concerns still exist regarding methods of incorporating environmental concerns into the Index' methodology, staff is recommending authorization to obtain input from others with expertise in solid waste, recycling, economics, and environmental issues. Attachment LA:se r2 : \bo\PRREindx.bo AttachmentA as. modified CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: July 17, 1991 FILE: R-8J TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FROM: Plastics Recycling Task Force Dr. Joseph Mariotti, Chair Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Subcommittee SUBJECT: PLASTIC RESIN RECYCLABILITY EVALUATION INDEX I. Background Change of the Plastics Recycling Task Force The charge of the Plastics Recycling Task Force, stated in its first meeting in September 1989, was to explore methods and programs for recycling and reuse of waste plastics, and to determine the extent to which it is possible and practical to remove plastic containers, packaging and products from the wastestream. Committees were established to address these issues. They included the Markets Committee, Plan Implementation Committee, and the Ad Hoc Polystyrene Committee. II. Purpose of the Plastic Resin Evaluation Index In response to a Board Order dated November 6, 1990, the co-chairs of the Plastics Recycling Task Force appointed an Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Subcommittee to develop a "list of the different types of plastic and plastic materials on a sliding scale from easiest to recycle to most difficult to recycle." The members of the Subcommittee are: Dr. Joseph Mariotti, Chair John LaFountain, President, Bay Polymer David Tam, Solid Waste Committee Chair, Sierra Club Becky Dowdakin, Manager, City of El Cerrito Recycling Center Richard Gamble, Council for Solid Waste Solutions The purpose of the Plastic Resin Evaluation Index is to develop a method to objectively analyze and quantify the degree of recyclability of plastics. It is based on the need for members of the Board of Supervisors to make rational decisions based on an 1 understanding of the technical issues involved, while avoiding actions based on vague perceptions and sentiments. The Index should be reviewed at least semi-annually, or when any action is considered. Diversion of specific resins from disposal in landfills has now been adopted by the Board to encourage communities to recycle plastics for which there are markets. Categories of Recyclable Plastic Resins The Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Index lists ten categories of plastics for evaluation of their recyclability. They include the six major resins as defined by the Socie1y of Plastics Industry, which are PET, HDPE, LDPE, PS, PVC, PP and "all others". Three of the plastic resins have been expanded, namely HDPE into rigid and polystyrene film; LDPE into rigid and film; and polystyrene and expanded polystyrene. Only a few representative packagings of each resin type have been named. The last plastic resin, indicated as "Code 7 Plastics" by the Society of the Plastics Industry, addresses all other resins and layered multi-materials. They include multi- layered plastic resin such as ketchup squeeze bottles and other barrier plastic food containers. Not included are products or packages that contain lesser amounts of plastic, but are primarily constructed of material other than plastics, e.g. aseptic packages, juice boxes, milk cartons and other polycoated paper. Also not included are the special problem products that are partially fabricated with plastic and usually not packages, such as diapers. Because these last two types of materials do contain plastic resin, a majority ,of the subcommittee members decided that they should be included in the.Index. However, the Task Force determined that the Index was primarily intended to address plastic resins and therefore these materials are not included. III. Environmental and Other Concerns It is important to note that recycling is not the only factor in determining the relative value of one type of packaging material versus another. Other factors considered by the Subcommittee addressed very important criteria which are not directly related to recyclability. 1. Source reduction - amount, mixture and weight of packaging; excessive packaging. 2. Reuse - can package be reused or refilled? How often? 3. Cost and environmental concerns of substitute materials. 4. Feedstock availability - is raw material limited? 2 5. Recycled content of packaging material. 6. Litter potential. 7. Hazardous by-products of recycling and manufacturing process. 8. Public acceptability. 9. Can the recycled material be manufactured into the same product? 10. Toxicity. IV. Approach/Method In determining the ranking of plastic resins, five major criteria are addressed. Recyclability Criteria A. Market availability. B. Market economics. C. Collection convenience. D. Consumer Convenience. E. Processing capability. Market availability and market economics are the most important of the evaluation criteria, as without markets and economic viability, limited recycling can occur. Each criterion uses one or more components. The lower the total Index number for each material, the greater the ease of recycling and the lesser chance of ending up in the wastestream/landfill. The higher numbers indicate the greatest difficulty in recycling the material. Weighting Factors Each criteria was given the following weighting factor: A. Market availability - 40% B. Market economics - 30% C. Collection convenience - 10% D. Consumer convenience - 10% E. Processing capability - 10% The weighting factor has been incorporated into the numerical values given to each criteria. 3 V. Definitions of Index Criteria: Criterion A. Market Availability: Provides overview of the price history for the last two years. Is there an available market for the material? Without a market, there is no ability to recycle. Component • Demand for material 4 - Present and expanding 8 - Present and consistent 12 - Declining or emerging 16 - No market Component • Market price stability 4 - Rising 8 - Stable 12 - Volatile 16 - Consistently minimal Criterion B. Market Economics: Economics is the second most important criteria in determining the degree of recyclability of material in Contra Costa County. The net revenue of recycling has been divided into two factors focusing on costs. All figures are to be expressed in dollars per ton. N = (C+P)-(,R+aj G N = Net cost or profit per ton to recycle materials (expressed in percentage of the cost of ordinary garbage collection and disposal). R = Revenue from sale of material to processor or end user. a = Avoided costs. Any payment a recycling entity receives for diversion of the material from conventional garbage collection and disposal. C = Collection costs. P = Post-collection or other pre-processing costs incurred before sale of the material. G = Garbage collection costs. Cost per ton for conventional garbage collection and disposal in the community. Numerical Value I _N 0 - >0% (i.e. a profit) 6 - 0% to minus 99% (a loss) 12 - minus 100% to minus 149% 18 - minus 150% to minus 199% 24 - <minus 200% 4 Criterion C. Collection Convenience: This means level of recycling opportunity. Factors to consider are (1).number of collection modes available (pick up or buyback/drop off) and (2) population served in sub-region. Component • Recycling opportunity 2 - 2 modes > 50% of population 4 - 2 modes in < 25% to 50% of population 6 - 1 mode in > 25% of population 8 - 1 mode < 25% of population or no modes Criterion D. Consumer Convenience: This includes ease of identification and the effort required to remove contaminants from the material collected (as opposed to the handling during processing). Performed by the consumer. Component • Ease of identification 1 - Identifiable by use, such as a milk jug, bag, etc. 2 - Coded 1-7 3 - By resin characteristics 4 - Difficult to identify Component • Effort needed to remove contaminants 1 - Minimum 2 Low 3 - Medium 4 - High Criterion E. Processing Capability: This addresses,the ease of processing the material at the processing plant. Component • Resin use in manufacturing of package. 1 - Single resin 2 - Multiple resin (parts) 3 - Multi-layer or laminant 4 - Mixed with non-plastic materials Component • Processing technology 1 - Existing 2 Developing 3 - Complex 4 - Non-existent i i t I 5. VI. Volume Factor Finally, the subcommittee recommends that the volume of plastics and other materials in Municipal Solid Waste, be considered when evaluating recyclability. Information addressing the volume of each plastic, or other material, in the wastestream and the volume presently diverted is needed. It should then be added to the formula. - There is information available on the weight (not volume) of the material in the waste stream in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. This information is available in the Waste Generation Study for Contra Costa County, April 1991. VII. Applicability Elsewhere The Plastic Recyclability Evaluation Subcommittee feels that this index may apply to materials other than plastic resins. JF:se Rl:plastic.rec 6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLASTIC RESIN RECYCLABILITY EVALUATION INDEX RECYCLABILrrY Plastics/Packaging and Typical Products A-Market B-Market C-Collection D-Consumer E-Processing Total Volume Availability Economics Convenience Convenience Capability Factor PET(Polyethylene Terephthalate) Soft drink bottles,peanut butter jars . 4 + 8 1 + 1. 2 + I Wine&liquor bottles = 12 6 2 = 2 = 3 25 HDPE(High Density Polyethylene) 4 + 12 3 + 1 1 + 1 Sheet and Film = 16 24 "-`6 4 2 52 HDPE Rigid Containers Water/milk bottles,bleach&motor oil, 4 + 8 1 + 1 1 + 1, laundry detergent bottles. - 12 24 v _: -6 2 = 2= - 34 �. LDPE(Low Density Polyethylene)Film Grocery bags,dry cleaning,bread bags,_ 8 + 12 3 + 1 1 + 1 lawn and leaf bags = 20 24 6 = 4. 2 56 LDPE Rigid Margarine tub lids 8 + 12 + Dishwashing detergent bottles = 20 24 8 = 2 = 2 56 PS (Polystyrene) 4 + 12 4 + 2 1 + I Cottage Cheese,Yogurt containers = 16 24 8 = 6 = 2 56 EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) 4 + 4 1 + 1 1 + 1 Packaging materials,egg carton = 8 24 6 = 2 = 2 42 PVC (Polyvinylchloride)Rigid 12 + 12 2 + 1 1 + 1 Shampoo and cosmetic bottles = 24 24 8 = 3 = 2 61 PP (Polypropylene) 4 + 8 4 + 2 1 + 1 Margarine tubs,syrup bottles = 12 24 8 = 6 = 2 52 CODE 7 Plastics 16 + 16 4 + 4 3 + 3 Barrier Plastics, layered multi-material = 32 24 8 = 8 = 6 78 EVALUATION BY Plastic Resin Recyclability Evaluation Subcommittee Lowest numerical value 14 Highly recyclable Highest numerical value 80 Not recyclable AFFILIATION Plastics Recycling Task Force COMMUNITY Contra Costa County DATE 5122/91 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONCERNS 1. Source reduction - amount, mixture and weight of packaging; excessive packaging. 2. Reuse - can package be reused or refilled? How often? 3. Cost and environmental concerns of substitute materials. 4. Feedstock availability - is raw material limited? 5. Recycled content of packaging material 6. Litter potential. 7. Hazardous by-products of recycling and manufacturing process. 8. Public acceptability. 9. Can the recycled material be manufactured into the same product? 10. Toxicity. JF:se V-7/16/91 Rl:cvalpkg2.cht ` CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLASTIC RESIN EVALUATION INDEX RECYCLABD.ITY Plastics/Packaging and Typical Products A-Market B-Market C-Collection D-Consumer E-Processing Total Volume Availability Economics Convenience Convenience Capability Factor PET(Polyethylene Terephthalate) Soft drink bottles,peanut butter jars 4 + 8 1 + 1 2 + 1 Wine&liquor bottles = 12 6 2 = 2 = 3 25 HDPE(High Density Polyethylene) 4 + 12 3 + 1 1 + 1 Sheet and Film = 16 24 6 =4 =2 1 52 HDPE Rigid Containers Water/milk bottles,bleach&motor oil, 4 + 8 1 + 1 1 + 1 laundry detergent bottles = 12 24 6 =2 =2 34 LDPE(Low Density Polyethylene)Film Grocery bags,dry cleaning,bread bags, 8 + 12 3 + 1 1 + 1 lawn and leaf bags = 20 24 6 =4 =2 56 LDPE Rigid Margarine tub lids 8 + 12 1 + 1 1 + I Dishwashing detergent bottles = 20 24 8 =2 = 2 56 PS(Polystyrene) 4 + 12 4 + 2 1 + 1 Cottage Cheese,Yogurt containers = 16 24 8 = 6 =2 56 EPS 4 + 4 1 + 1 1 + 1 Packaging materials,egg carton = 8 24 6 =2 = 2 42 PVC (Polyvinylchloride)Rigid 12 + 12 2 + 1 1 + 1 Shampoo and cosmetic bottles = 24 24 8 = 3 =2 61 PP(Polypropylene) 4 + 8 4 +2 1 + 1 Margarine tubs,syrup bottles = 12 24 8 = 6 =2 52 CODE 7 Plastics 16 +,16 4 + 4 3 + 3 Barrier Plastics,diapers = 32 24 8 = 8 = 6 78 Plastics combined with other materials 4 + 4 1 + 1 4 + 1 Juice boxes and milk carton = 8 24 8 = 2 = 5 47 a Lowest numerical value 20 Highly recyclable Highest numerical value 80 Not recyclable ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER CONCERNS 1. Source reduction- amount, mixture and weight of packaging; excessive packaging. 2. Reuse - can package be reused or refilled? How often? 3. Cost and environmental concerns of substitute materials. 4. Feedstock availability- is raw material limited? S. Recycled content of packaging material. 6. Litter potential. 7. Hazardous by-products of recycling and manufacturing process. 8. Public acceptability. 9. Can the recycled material be manufactured into the same product? 10. Toxicity: Rl:rw:evalpkg2.cht