HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06161987 - 2.4 r Z3—®0c1
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS n,�.-,}
FROM: Solid Waste Commission Contra
ra
May 20 , 1987 Costa
DATE: County
o nt /
Response to Referral on Implementation of Immedia10v( lin
SUBJECT: Programs
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) IN BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize Chair to sign a letter transmitting the Recycling
Planning Study to. cities, sanitary districts and other interested
parties and encourage them to implement curb side recycling
programs as quickly as possible.
2 . Request staff to obtain proposals from consultants for Phase II
of the Recycling Planning Study to work with cities and sanitary
districts on specific planning for recycling programs.
3 . Acknowledge report from the Solid Waste Commission that immediate
implementation of recycling programs cannot divert enough waste
from remaining landfills to make existing landfills last
significantly longer. However, in the longer term it may be
possible to divert significant quantities from landfills.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
$15,000 for Phase II of the recycling planning study is included in
the fiscal year 1986-87 Community Development Department budget.
These funds are from the fee assessed to landfill operators for solid
waste planning.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
1 . The Recycling Planning Study (Phase I ) has been completed and
reviewed by the Solid Waste Commission. The purpose of the first
phase was to develop baseline information for cities and sanitary
districts for implementation of recycling programs. It is
appropriate for the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a
letter transmitting the report and encouraging all cities and
districts to work cooperatively to implement new recycling
programs,. As you know, the Board of Supervisors does not
franchise solid waste collection and therefore cannot be directly
involved in implementing large scale recycling programs. Cities
and sanitary districts which franchise collection need to lead
this effort.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATOR ih W"�'
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM4SjadION fF rARO COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
S I GNATURE I S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 16, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: I, II, IV, V NOES: III AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVI ZON :THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig.Dept: Community Development
cc: Solid Waste Commission (via CDDATTESTED _ I /q 8y
Landfill Siting Task Force (via CDD)
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BYti(1.„.(j DEPUTY
M3R�/7_A3
2. The Recycling Planning Study was divided into two phases. The
second phase is to hire a consultant to use the results of Phase
I to directly. work with cities and districts to plan specific
programs for their areas. Now that the first phase of the study
is completed it is appropriate for staff to request proposals
from recycling consultants to perform the second phase.
3 . The Recycling Planning Study focused on curbside recycling which
will divert the most wastestream compared to other .types of
programs ( such as drop off and buy back recycling) . Based on
other curbside recycling programs in the Bay Area and an analysis
of the Contra Costa County Wastestream the consultant found that
with a county wide curbside recycling program and a 50%
participation rate, 12% of the residential wastestream (which is
equivalent to 5% of the total wastestream) could be diverted. If
additional drop off recycling opportunities are provided an
additional amount would be recycled, but probably not as much as
double the amount of the curbside program. The 50% participation
rate is a high goal to achieve. Initial participation rates are
likely to be significantly lower. An enforced mandatory
recycling regulation in each city could conceivably result in 25%
of the residential wastestream being diverted or about 10% of the
total wastestream. However, enforced mandatory recycling would
take a tremendous staff effort for enforcement and may not be a
practical alternative in Contra Costa County at this time.
A major :factor that needs to be considered in any recycling
effort is the implementation of AB 2020 (Bottle Bill) which will
start in October of this year. AB 2020 requires an establishment
of redemption centers where the public is paid at least $ . 01 per
beverage container to return the container. State regulations
implementing AB 2020 identified 83 locations in Contra Costa
County where redemption centers are required to be established.
There will likely be additional centers due to the competition
for returnable containers. Many of these centers are likely to
accept other recyclables, in particular newspapers. This Bill
will result at least 83 new recycling centers throughout Contra
Costa County. The Commission feels that it is unwise at this
time to start any new recycling centers (except curside programs)
until the impact of AB 2020 is known.
The commercial and industrial wastestream has a lot of potential
for additional recycling. Significant amount of recycling is now
being done in the commercial/industrial sector however,
quantities of recyclables are not known because of the
proprietary nature of this data from private companies.
Additional commercial/industrial recycling is possible with a
concerted effort with businesses and recycling companies to work
cooperatively for additional source separation and separate
collection of recyclable. This can only be done with the hiring
of a recycling coordinator to work with businesses and companies.
A major question is how to fund such an individual. The fees
assessed to landfill operators for solid waste planning and
enforcement cannot be used because the laws specifically exclude
use of these funds for implementation of recycling programs.
Also, the results of such an effort will not come quickly. Each
business needs to be approached individually to determine the
feasibility of the cost effectiveness of such a program. This
type of program is not likely to result significant wastestream
diversions in the immediate future.
Increased construction/demolition recycling also can be
increased. This effort also takes coordination with potential
recyclers and generators of these types of waste. An existing
construction/demolition recycling program, County Quarry Products
(north of:' Concord) is recycling about 200 tons per day of
concrete and asphalt. There is potential for more of this type
of recycling if there is an increased market for the end
products. Again, these efforts require a concerted effort by a
recycling coordinator.
Considering timing, curbside recycling can be started relatively
quickly, within 6 to 12 months. Initial participation rates are
likely to be lower in the initial years so the 12% of the
diversion of the residential wastestream may not be realized for
several years. Increase recycling for commercial/industrial and
construction/demolition wastes will take longer. Businesses need
to be approached on an individual basis; therefore increases in
recycling will only occur as fast as a recycling coordinator can
make the necessary arrangements. It is doubtful that a
significant amount of new recycling can be initiated very
quickly.
Increase composting and recycling of vegetative waste has also
been proposed as an answer. It is possible that an additional
10% of the wastestream could be handled by composting and
vegetative waste recycling. The economics of composting are
questionable. The end product of composting vegetative waste
must compete with other compost products in the market. Since
there are potential problems with contamination and quality, it
is not likely that vegetative waste compost can economically
compete. If there is no market, the economics for composting are
very poor. Chipping of vegetative waste has profit potential.
Wood burning power plants, such as Louisiana Pacific in Antioch,
are using more and more wood chips as fuel. However, these
plants have strict specifications and it is necessary for wood
products to be segregated prior to chipping. This type of
coordination and source separation is not currently taking place
and would require coordination efforts.
Waste-to-energy is also not a short term solution. Development
of a waste-to-energy project will take at least 5 years.
However, substantial diversion (about 50% of the total
wastestream) could occur with a waste-to-energy project.
L14: 5-20-87 .bos