Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - IO.1 SD, l THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 7; 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Status Report on Recycling Issues The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Powers and McPeak) presented the attached status report on recycling issues for the Board' s consideration. Supervisor Powers commented on styrofoam and plastic recycling programs proposed by Dow Chemical Company and the James River Corporation Handi-cup Division. He requested that Community Development Department staff review the status of such programs and report to the Internal Operations Committee on these efforts. Supervisor Torlakson referred to a previous County program relative to departmental recycling monitors, and recom- mended that the program be reinstated. He further recommended that County employees be encouraged to use personal ceramic cups as an alternative to the styrofoam cups currently being used. Supervisor Fanden noted that occasionally gifts are presented to employees, and recommended that personalized ceramic or collapsible cups be given in such cases. Supervisor Powers recommended that the Personnel Department issue ceramic cups to new employees. Supervisor Torlakson recommended that staff review the feasibility of using inexpensive durable alternatives to styrofoam and plastic dishes and utensils in County .facilities. Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the following actions are APPROVED: 1. AGREED to terminate suspension on purchase of styrofoam cups and containers, and DIRECTED staff to review status of styrofoam and plastic recycling programs and to continue to explore alternatives to styrofoam and plastic materials; 2. APPROVED Recommendations No. 2 through No. 6 as pre- sented on the attached Internal Operations Committee report; 3 . DIRECTED Community Development staff to reinstitute the departmental recycling monitor program; and 4. REQUESTED County Administrator to explore the feasibil- ity of issuing ceramic cups as gifts and to new employ- ees as an incentive to reduce use of styrofoam cups. cc: Community Development County Administrator i hereby certify that this to a Mie and correct copy of entered Solid Waste Commission an action taken end on the minutes of the Board of supaMeOn on tvrrt. he date sho County Counsel nrrESTEo: '�.. '�. /989 PHIL.BATCHELOR,Cleric of the Board of suWvhors and County AdminWator BY low* To:. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I. 0. 1 FRM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE V� o tra February 27, 1989 DATE; osta CO1 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON RECYCLING ISSUES l.11 Ilr SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND APD JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . In view of the progress made to date by the styrofoam industry in eliminating the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC' s) in manufacturing styrofoam cups and food containers, agree to terminate the suspension on the purchase of styrofoam cups which was recently imposed by the Board pending an investigation of the use of CFC' s in their manufacture. ( In this regard, see also the County Administrator' s report on this subject on the Determination calendar for this agenda. ) 2 . Refer to the Internal Operations Committee the issue of the extent to which styrofoam materials are biodegradeable for further consideration when the Solid Waste Commission reports to our Committee on this subject in May 1989 . 3 . Request the Community Development Department staff to report to our Committee on the extent to which the State ' s beverage container recycling program is working, in view of the apparent closure of a number of recycling drop-off centers and the failure to staff others. 4 . Support the efforts of the Senate Task Force on Waste Management created by SR 33 of the 1988 Session and request staff to keep our Committee informed of the Task Force ' s efforts to develop model legislation on the subject of recycling. (See also in this regard the recommended support of AB 80 on the Consent calendar for this agenda. ) 5 . Agree to defer scheduling the proposed press conference on the littering problem in the County until later this year when there is more specific news to announce. 6 . Authorize staff of the Community Development Department to work with staff of the State Department of Conservation to revise the County' s application for funds to support a litter prevention coordinator function and return the application to the Board for approval when it has been revised. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X YES yIGNATURE: _ RECOMMEND N OF COU Y A MINISTRATO X RECO MENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APP HER 64L q , SIGNATURE(S): m owers Sunne Wright McPeak A ON OF BOARD ON March 7, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: O PERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED Director, Community Development i d Oki ta, CDD PHIL BATC R. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF David 1 a Cogan, CDD SUPERVISORS A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SheCounty Counsel Chair & Members, Solid Waste Commission BY PUTY M382/7-83 ' r Page 2 BACKGROUND: Our Committee is continuing to review the status of litter and recycling efforts in the County on a monthly basis. On February 271 1989, we met with David Okita and Sheila Cogan from the Community Development Department, Ms. Cogan reported that the County is currently recycling 180 of all solid waste in Contra Costa . County. Work is presently underway to formulate an industrial/commercial recycling plan for the County. The focus of the initial efforts in this area will be corrugated cardboard, wood waste and plastics. . It is hoped that in the near future industry will be able to recycle all of the current waste in these three categories. Within a year, it is possible that 600 of the County will be served by curbside recycling programs. Staff advised our Committee that based on a recent announcement by the EPA, CFC' s are no longer used in the manufacture of such food containers as styrofoam cups. While this does not eliminate the fact that some forms of styrofoam have limited biodegradeability, efforts are underway to treat styrofoam in such a way that it can be made biodegradeable. In addition, a pilot project in New . York involving Dow Chemical, Amoco and MacDonald' s is testing . the most effective way in which to recycle styrofoam containers. We want to follow this project. In the meantime, it appears that the Board' s initial concerns with the purchase of styrofoam cups may have been resolved. In any case, we believe that on the basis of the cost data presented in the County Administrator' s report .on this subject, which is. . also on this agenda, that we should eliminate the suspension on the purchase' of styrofoam cups and other food containers. Other aspects of styrofoam are being studied by the Solid Waste Commission and will form a part of their report to our Committee in May of this year. Neither of the alternatives to styrofoam, plastic and paper, are without their own environmental problems, and both are: substantially more expensive than styrofoam. It has been reported to members of our Committee, and we have observed ourselves, that a number of the beverage recycling centers which were initially set up pursuant to the State' s beverage container recycling program have been closed and others are not staffed on any kind of regular basis. We have, therefore, asked that staff prepare a report for our Committee on the status of the recycling efforts which were to have been an integral part of the beverage bottle recycling program enacted by the Legislature. In reviewing` the attached report on legislation which has been enacted in . other states, we note . that there are a number of innovative things being done in other states which California ought to investigate. Staff noted that the State Senate created a Senate Task Force on Waste Management last year. We believe that we should cooperate with the Task Force' s effort to draft model legislation in this area. The County was not successful in the first round of grants from the Department of Conservation for a litter-prevention program specialist. We were advised, however, that the State i's willing to provide our staff with technical assistance to revise the grant application in an effort to be more successful in the next round of funding which will occur in July 1989. We want to encourage these efforts. In the meantime, we believe that the press conference which the Board had previously asked be scheduled should be postponed until later this year when, hopefully, we will have an announcement to make regarding such a grant from the State. We will continue to follow up closely on all aspects of the recycling and litter control programs and report significant, progress or problems to the Board. • Contra Costa County RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FEB 161989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Office of County Administrat9r TO: Internal Operations Committee DATE: February 16, 1989 Supervisor Tom Powers FILE: R-8A Supervisor Sunne McPeak FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development� (1�4.�= By: David B. Okita, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Current Model State Legislation KEY STATE LEGISLATION FLORIDA, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY The following information is in response to .your request on recent recycling legislation in other states. All of these bills have been enacted into law or, as in the case with the State of New Jersey, recently revised. Each state is assessing various fees for solid waste disposal costs: in Florida, the costs are borne by the consumer on the purchase of beverages on those types of containers which do not achieve a 50 percent recycling rate by October 1989. To promote market development, a disposal fee $0.10 cents-per-ton will be assessed newspaper publishers who do not use recycled newsprint. If recycled newsprint is used, the company will receive a credit for disposal fee payments. Pennsylvania and New Jersey assess tonnage fees at the landfill to support statewide programs. The rate in Pennsylvania is set at $2-per-ton; in New Jersey it is $1.50-per-ton. Cities and towns with operating landfills are also paid $1-per-ton by facility operators for all municipal waste disposed. The operators must also pay $0.25-per-ton into a post-closure fund. FEATURES OF FLORIDA SENATE BILL 1192 A statewide goal of 30 percent recycling by 1994 is set. Counties must use the same goal in their waste management plans. The state Department of Environmen- tal Resources can lower the municipal waste reduction goal if a community oper- ates a waste-to-energy plant and if achieving the goal would adversely affect the plant financing. Counties shall have a recycling program in place by July 1989. It must include the recovery of the majority of newspaper, aluminum cans, glass containers and plastic bottles available in the waste stream. Construction and demolition de- bris must be kept out of municipal solid waste landfills. Local governments are encouraged to compost yard wastes. Counties must submit an annual recycling report to the state environmental agency. The state treasurer will cut off all state funds to counties failing to comply with the law. The following materials are banned from landfills after the dates noted: - Lead acid batteries after December 1988. - Used motor oil after September 1988. - Yard waste after December 1991. - Scrap appliances (white goods) after December 1989. - Scrap tires after June 1989. Florida agencies will undertake certain actions: - Maintain a directory of recycling businesses. - Promulgate standards for compost production. and use. - Undertake a study to identify packaging that is "unnecessary" and "nonrecyclable and nonbiodegradable." Develop information on recovered materials markets and prepare a strategy for market development. Provide statewide waste reduction and recycling promotion and educa- tion campaigns. Offer technical and planning assistance to local governments in es- tablishing recycling programs. If the recycling rate for all glass, plastic, aluminum or other metal containers sold at the retail level is not at a sustained rate of 50 percent by October 1989, the State of Florida will assess "an advance disposal fee" of one cent per containers on those types of containers coming in under this rate. If the tar- get of 50 percent recycling is not attained by October 1995, the fee will be increased to two cents per container. The collected fees will be refunded to registered recycling centers and used to finance recycling programs. Capital costs and temporary operating subsidies to assist local governments in developing the recycling programs will be provided in the form of grants from the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) . Recycling education grants to local governments will also be made. The total 1988-1989 appropriation is nearly $26 million. After 1989, businesses providing plastic carry-out bags must use bags made of materials that is "degradable within 120 days." The bags must be so labeled. Fast food outlets are not included in this requirement. On the other hand, af- ter September 1990 no one can use food packaging made from polystyrene foam or plastic-coated paper unless it is degradable within one year. A joint industry- government research project in plastics degradability is planned with the state dedicating $100,000. Plastic containers must be coded by resin type after June 1990. (This also passed in California. ) Starting next year, battery retailers must accept old lead-acid batteries for recycling. A comprehensive used oil collection program will be established, including grants to local governments. The 1988-1989 appropriation is $2.5 million. A scrap tire management program is required. A 50-cent fee on new tires sales will be assessed next year, jumping to $1-per-tire in 1990. Among the uses of the waste tire fund are the financing of waste tire processing facilities, fund- ing of tire recycling research, and grants to local governments for scrap tire management programs. The program appropriation for 1988-1989 is $3.75 million. The state will undertake an in-house recycling program. In addition, privately operated state correctional facilities must assess inmate employment opportuni- ties in waste plastic, scrap tire and used oil processing. Schools in the state must teach children about waste reduction and recycling. The Florida Department of Education will develop a curriculum guide. A variety of market development actions will occur: - A sales tax exemption for purchases of recycling equipment. The state tax rate is 6 percent. - Newspaper publishers will be charged a ten-cent-per-ton disposal fee on newsprint usage.. If they use recycled newsprint, the companies will receive a credit for their disposal fee payments. Should the statewide newspaper recycling rate reach 50 percent by October 1992, the disposal fee will be rescinded. If it does not, the fee will be increased to $0.50-per-ton. The State Department of Commerce will aid new and existing recycling firms. - State agencies will promote recycled product use among businesses and industries. - Various state agencies must test the use of specific recycled prod- ucts, rubber-asphalt, steel reinforcement bar and glass aggregate. The bill allocates nearly $3 million to these projects. - State agencies must procure products or materials with recycled con- tent if the cost is no more than 10 percent higher than that charged for comparable virgin material products. (Local governments must do likewise. ) There are specific procurement requirements for compost and recycled plastic products. State agencies must also remove any procurement standards that restrict the ability to buy recycled prod- ucts. FEATURES OF PENNSYLVANIA ACT 10 Unlike the Florida legislation, the Pennsylvania bill assigns responsibility for solid waste management planning to counties. Local municipalities. retain re- sponsibility for proper storage, collection and transportation of municipal waste. The state requires recycling programs and landfill disposal bans by lo- cal governments while giving municipalities and some state financial assistance to get the job done. The four goals of the law are recycling and waste reduction oriented: . 1) a statewide recycling goal of 25 percent by 1997 is set, 2) the per capita waste generation rate should be reduced by 1997; 3) every person in the Commonwealth should be taught the economic, environmental and energy value of recycling and waste reduction; and 4) state agencies should procure and use products and ma- terials that are recyclable and are made with recycled content. All communities over 5,000 and with population densities greater than 300 per- sons per square mile - some 408 in all - must establish mandatory curbside re- cycling collection programs for at least three materials plus leaf waste. The three materials can be selected from among the following: clear glass contain- ers, office paper, newspaper, corrugated boxes, plastics, and aluminum, steel and bimetal cans. Mechanical sorting systems can be substituted for curbside recycling collection as long as they reclaim at least 25 percent of municipal solid waste for recycling. Local governments must also adopt an ordinance requiring recycling participation by commercial, institutional and municipal establishments for. the recovery of leaf waste, aluminum, office paper and corrugated containers., Local government recycling promotion efforts are required by the act. Communities with popula- tions over 10,000 must have recycling programs in place by September 1990. These local governments between 5,000 and 10,000 in population have. until Sep- tember 1991 to get recycling programs underway. Local governments must submit an annual recycling report to their counties; in turn, counties report to the state Department of Environmental Resources. Communities would receive state grants representing 90 percent of the cost of launching programs. The first grants will be issued in the spring of 1989. In addition, Department of Environmental Regulation [???] will allocate performance grants annually on the basis of recyclable materials collected. Communities with populations under 5,000 that voluntarily launch a recycling program can also receive start-up and performance grants. Counties would be reimbursed for half the cost of employing a recycling coordinator. Counties are required to develop comprehensive municipal waste management plans by March 26, 1991. Counties are eligible for 80 percent funding of planning costs. Department funds may be withheld from municipalities for noncompliance with the act. By mid-1990 landfill and resource recovery plant operators must provide public recycling drop-off centers that accept at least three materials. Waste-to-energy facilities must establish systems by mid-1990 to remove recyclable and hazardous materials before combustion. In 1990 leaf waste will be banned from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities in the state, except for composting purposes. Required state agency activities include a comprehensive public education and promotion program on waste reduction and recycling. State officials will also provide recycling technical assistance to communities and maintain a recycling database. The statewide recycling program would be financed by a $2-per-ton disposal fee charged at landfills and resource recovery plants in the state. These fees are being collected now and end in 10 years. Up to 10 percent of the recycling fund can pay for feasibility studies for waste processing. Municipalities hosting waste disposal facilities will be paid a fee of $1 per ton by facility operators for all. municipal waste disposed. Municipalities are eligible for grants up to $10,000 for independent engineering evaluations of disposal facility permit applications. Disposal facility operators must also .pay a $0.25 fee per ton to establish a disposal facility post-closure fund. The disposal of lead acid batteries in municipal waste is banned after September 26, 1988. Battery retailers and wholesalers are required to accept used bat- teries when new batteries are purchased. The sale of nondegradable plastic beverage container carriers is prohibited af- ter September 16, 1988. To support recycling market development, the act: - Requires the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to conduct a waste reduction study to examine product durability, recyclability, packaging tax incentives and disincentives, product prohibitions, performance standards and other waste reduction mecha- nisms. - Requires a market development study to be conducted that will include specific recommendations for market assurance measures. In addition, the Department of Transportation may award research and demonstration grants for the beneficial use of material with recycled content in highway construction and maintenance. - Requires the Department of General Services to develop a preferential procurement plan for recycled products. - Requires the preferential use of compost in public land maintenance. FEATURES OF NEW JERSEY RECYCLING ACT OF 1981 Encompassed within New Jersey's Solid Waste Management Act is the New Jersey Recycling Act of 1981, which implemented a comprehensive statewide recycling plan financed by a disposal surcharge, now established at $1.50 per ton, on the disposal of solid waste. The anticipated annual revenue equals $15 million dollars. The fund created by the surcharge is used to implement the act through tonnage grants distributed to municipalities on the basis of the volume diverted from the waste stream through recycling. In April 1987, the New Jersey Legislature amended the recycling act by enacting the Statewide Mandatory Recycling Act.. This law requires all municipalities in the state to recycle a minimum of three materials, once markets are identified and secured. By the end of their first-year recycling programs, municipalities must recycle 15 percent of their total municipal solid waste (MSW) , which includes residen- tial, commercial and institutional waste. In the second and subsequent years, municipalities must recycle 25 percent of their MSW. These mandatory provisions are only applicable, however, if markets are available for the materials. As of 1987, the fund is to be distributed as follows: 40% to municipalities or counties as tonnage grants, where a county, at its own expense, provides for the collection, processing and marketing of re- cyclable materials on a regional basis. A municipality may distribute a portion of its tonnage grant to nonprofit groups that contribute to the recycled tonnage. 35% for low interest loans to businesses and for research and market de- velopment activities. 10% for education and publicity. 7% for State recycling program and administrative cost. 8% for County recycling program and administrative cost. RECOMMENDATION. Review of current legislation in other jurisdictions can provide ideas and models for local legislative actions. Continue to monitor and analyze local, state, and federal legislation for potential application in Contra Costa County. SC:jaljrjs SC:leg.doc I