HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071991 - S.1 S. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 7, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: County Participation in Product Advertising
Supervisor Nancy Fanden submitted the attached report
recommending an investigation into the appropriateness of County
staff participating in advertising of aseptic packaging, i.e. drink
boxes, and raising questions about County policy and regulations
relative to staff participation in advocating products.' Supervisor
Fanden referred to a video tape prepared by the Aseptic Packaging
Council that references a Contra Costa County school multi-material
recycling program which includes the drink boxes. She stated that
since the State of Maine has banned the use of the drink boxes and
the City of New York Consumer Affairs Department has successfully
sued the drink box manufacturers for deceptive advertising, she
questioned the appropriateness of Contra Costa County staff
participating in a video that implies endorsement of the product.
Supervisor Tom Powers commented on the need to be
.aggressive in recycling in all areas, and the difficulty
encountered in recycling of plastics. He advised that the Plastics
Task Force has been working to compile a plastics recycling index
which will rate the recyclability of various plastic products,
including the drink boxes.
David Tam, representing the San Francisco Bay Chapter of
the Sierra Club, advised that he is a member of the Plastics Task
Force committee that is compiling the plastics recyclability index,
and noted that he was shocked to see the video prepared by the
Aseptic Packaging Council that implied Contra Costa County' s
endorsement of the product. He presented for the record a copy of
the Environmental Action Foundation testimony with respect to the
drink box ban in the State of Maine.
Kathleen Nimr, 2204 Olympic Drive, Martinez, referred to
the public' s growing interest in recycling and urged the Board to
provide direction and leadership in establishing recycling programs
with clear, measurable goals for waste reduction rather than
becoming involved with programs that do not have a proven track
record.
Valentin Alexeef, Director, Growth Management and.
Economic Development Agency, advised that the current school
recycling program was established by the Board in June 1990 and has
grown to involve 12,000 children in nineteen schools around the
County in a multi-material collection program.
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director,
presented a report dated May 1, 1991 (copy attached) providing a
chronological history of the school recycling program. He advised
that staff would like the Board to view two videos, one on the
aseptic packaging that has been shown on the East Coast, and the
other, on the County' s school pilot program, which was edited after
it was previewed by the Plastics Task Force in January.
1
After viewing the two videos, Supervisor Tom Powers
advised that he did not feel that anything in the videos could be
considered an endorsement of the product by Contra Costa County.
Supervisor Fanden disagreed, stating that she believed
the videos imply that Contra Costa County supports the product,
which is very difficult and costly to recycle.
Supervisor Robert Schroder referred to Supervisor
Fanden' s comments relative to County policy on staff participation
in advocating products. He stated that County staff may be either
advocating or condemning various products without a specific County
policy on such actions, and suggested that perhaps such a policy
should be developed.
Supervisor Tom Torlakson commented on the County' s
progress in establishing recycling programs but noted that there is
still much to be done. He expressed his support for the current
programs the County is involved in, including the school recycling
program, but agreed that there should be a review of County policy
on staff participation in product advocacy.
There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the Internal Operations Committee is REQUESTED to
review the need for guidelines to regulate County staff
participation in advocating or endorsing products.
cc: C. VanMarter, CAO
County Administrator
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken rMd entered on the minutes of the
Board of S5upsMwjp on the date shown.
ATTESTED: ' i99/
PHIL BATCHEClerk of the Board
Of pervisOre and County Adminlstratot
.
P.
2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Supervisor Nancy Fanden
Costa
Introduced April 23, 1991 for Consideration
DATE: May 7, 1991 Courly
SUBJECT: Appropriateness of County Participation in
"Drink Box" Advertising
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Administrator investigate and report to the Board
on aseptic packaging; , ie. "drink box" advertising and
County participation in establishing use of this product in
local schools.
1. Determine how Contra Costa County came to be referenced
in advertisements in The New York Times, The Washington
Post, USA Today and The Wall Street 'Journal and in an
advertising video as supporting the use of and recyclability
of this product.
2. Why did county staff appear in a video tape sponsored
by this industry? Who authorized participation?
3 . Advise the Board as to the accuracy of advertisements
that infer that our County has a successful collection and
recycling program for this product. Provide the Board with
copies of the advertising and video tape.
4. What existing board policy applies to this issue?
5. Did staff work with school districts to establish pilot
programs? If so, who authorized staff participation? Why
are haulers transporting this material to Freemont for free?
Is the material being recycled?
6. Does existing policy regulate participation by staff in
advocating products? Do we need guidelines for public
private partnerships?
BACKGROUND:
Members of the Plastics Task Force and environmental
community contacted me with concern .that our County has been
a part of a national advertising campaign for "drink boxes" .
This national advertising implies that Contra Costa County
endorses aseptic packaging for use in schools and has
established a recycling program for this product.
The State of Maine has banned the sale of these containers.
The City of New York Department of- Consumer Affairs
successfully sued drink box makers for deceptive
environmental claims that they say hoodwink environmental
consumers by falsely claiming that the boxes can be easily
recycled when in fact the packaging made of plastic,
aluminum foil and paper is difficult to separate and
recycle.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT"- YES SIGNATURE,.
RECOMMENDATION Of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIONATURE(S)
0 ON OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
N 0 BOARD
N
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIJ THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: *-�AND CORRECT C PY OF AN ACTION TAKEN,
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: A14SXhTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
0 SUip ISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
P*
CCI ATTESTED
Phil Batchelor,de the Surd 01
supervisors and QUM 'Rtorr
M382/7.03 BY D TY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
May 1, 1991
TO: Chuck Zahn
FROM: Louise Aiello�o�
SUBJECT: Preliminary Report On Schools ' Recycling Pilot Program
Attached are:
1. June 5 , 1990 Board order and Action Item from Recycling
Action -Plan,
2. August 9 , 1990 Board order and status report from Plastics
Task Force,
.3. September 27 , 1990 Board Order on Schools' Recycling week;
4. Chronology prepared by Rolinda Baker.
The School' s Recycling Pilot Program, from its inception, has been
based on the public-private partnership approach; we have involved
schools, solid waste haulers/sanitary districts, and industry.
The initial efforts began with a focus on polystyrene and assistance
from Dow Chemical. The program expanded to . include materials
already commonly accepted as being recyclable--paper, cardboard,
cans, and bottles--and materials being looked at for
recyclability--polystyrene and juice and milk cartons.
[The Richmond School District received the 1990 Recycling Award from
the Board of Supervisors, on April 23 , 1990, for implementing this
Recylcing Pilot Program. ]
As part of the Board orders authorizing use of the Resource
Recovery fees, authorization was given by the Board to use the ACME
Resource Recovery Fee to support the short-term ( "action" ) program
outlined in the Recycling Action Plan. One of those short-term
actions was the development of an educational curriculum on
recycling and recycling collection at school sites county-wide.
Attachment #1 (Board' order of June 5 , 1990 ) covers this Board
action. Meetings were held with school district representatives from
throughout the County following this Board action. Those meetings
resulted in an expansion of the polystyrene recycling effort because
it was more cost effective to include more materials . Materials
identified for inclusion were: polystyrene, paper, milk and juice
cartons, cardboard, and newsprint.
Attachment ( #2 ) is an August 9 , 1990 Board Order and status report
from the Plastics Task Force on various activities. This status
report was accepted by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting of
August 14 , 1990. Education and Public
One of the activities listed in the section on E
Awareness (page 4 of the August 9th report) is the expansion of the
schools ' recycling program. As noted in the report, the schools,'
Ni
program had initially been supported by Dow chemical Corporation in
1989 but was to be supported by the Combibloc Corporation in 1990
(page 4) .
Attachment #3 (September 27 , 1990 Board order) relates to the
launching of the 1990 Schools' Recycling Program. At this Board
presentation children participating in the, "Green Teams" appeared
before the Board, performed the 'Recycling Rap' , and gave "Green
Team" T-shirts to each Board member.
At the present time, 1500 tons of polystyrene are being recycled
per month from Contra Costa County; this effort is coming from the
schools program started in 1989.
For the 1990 Schools' Recycling Program, the Aseptic Packaging
Council has provided assistance in program implementation, some
equipment, and benches of recycled plastics as awards to schools
meeting the school' s recycling goals.:
Nineteen ( 19) schools throughout the county are now participating in
the multi-material collection program which includes paper,
cardboard, milk and juice cartons, and polystyrene and newsprint.
The general recycling curriculum is the curriculum used in' schools
in San Jose and San Francisco. County staff reviewed and edited the
additional curriculum on aseptic packaging.
Following the "preview" of a video on this Schools ' Pilot Program by,
the Plastics Task Force in late January, 1990, we advised the
Aseptic Packaging Council not to use the video until it was edited.
In February discussions were held with David Tam regarding
information he felt should be added to the video; David stated that
inclusion of his remarks at the Plastics Task Force meeting would be
sufficient. David' s remarks covered pointing out concerns with the
costs and 'actual recyclability of the packages and - that these are
still being tested in the pilot. .
Following the Plastics Task Force meeting, we returned this video.
We provided a written introductory statement for the video which
points out that ( 1) the program is a pilot, ( 2 )concerns exist
regarding aseptic packaging, ( 3 ) an evaluation is underway as part
of the pilot, and ( 4) Contra Costa County is taking the lead in
assessing recycling programs/alternatives. The evaluation on the
Schools' Recycling Pilot Program is to be completed in June/July and
reported to the Plastics Task Force.
As noted in the attached August 9, 1990 Plastics Task Force report,
the schools program was originally under the direction of Ms. Sheila
Cogan. Rolinda Baker was assigned to work for Ms. Cogan in
developing and carrying out the program.
The video was prepared by the Aseptic Packaging Council. county
officials, staff from Pleasant Hill Elementary and Ohlone schools,
staff from Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal, and staff from Richmond
Sanitary District appear on the video discussing the pilot progam.
All participants in the video signed written releases in Fall/1990.
The advertisement in which Contra Costa County Schools Recycling
Pilot Program is shown included 5 other areas/programs. This ad is
not the advertisement over which the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs raised its "charges." No authorization and no
endorsement was obtained, nor does the ad (attached) appear to imply
such.
To our knowledge no county policy currently exists regarding
advocating/endorsement of products. However, staff was directed to
develop and implement the schools . recycling program. The Schools
Recycling Pilot Program includes aseptic packages among the other
materials being recycled; the program does not represent an
endorsement or advocacy for any of the materials being recycled as
part of the program.
Currently, haulers receive payment for all the materials collected;
Seconday Fibers picks up the milk and juice cartons from the haulers
and transports them to the plant in Fremont. From there the cleaned
material is sent for hydrapulping in Southern California. Samples
of the products made from the recycled cartons will be available to
Board members; these include towel paper, plastic "wood, " and pallet
edge protectors.
The program evaluation is still underway; final analysis is expected
by July, 1991 .
I� � S`\` _•\1_x`1 I-\Uw ...
I 'BOARD OF SUPERIISORS
• Finance Committee 1
Supervisor Robert I. Schroder
_.mac.►—..�,.
't
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
DATE:
SUBJECT;
June 5, 1990
TT Y)C�Ti
Use of Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill
Resource Recovery Fee Monies
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECGT9MEFOATI CN(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommend that the Board of .Supervisors concur with the
County Community Development Department's use of Acme
Transfer Station resource recovery fee monies ($100,000
annually) to carry out components of the proposed Recycling
Action Plan.
2. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors concur with the
County Community Development Department's proposed use of
Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill resource recovery fee monies
to carry out the proposed Recycling Action Plan. (This
recommendation was proposed by Supervisor Torlakson but not
supported by Supervisor Schroder) .
3. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the Recy-
cling Action Plan in concept, and
', a. Authorize staff to proceed with a short-term contract
to retain Resource Management Associates for the con-
tinued development of the.•Recycling Action Plan.
b.--- Authorize, - staff to Proceed with the continued-
development of a County Building Multi-material
Collection Processing Program (Program C-1) the
preparation of support information for an incorporated
area franchising program (Program C-4) the continued
development of the school program (school education
curriculum and school facility recycling) (Program
0-1) , and the continued development of the "Promotion"
program (outreach and public information) (Program
0-3) .
C. Direct that the remainder of the Recycling Action Plan
be referred to the County Solid Waste Commission for
review and comment, and that the Commission's comments
be referred to the Oversight Committee
V c
CONTINUED ON ATTACF ENT; X .,
-- SIGNATURE:
�- RECOMMENDATION OF C NT TRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
A_ROVc
/tee/ sa t
SIGNATURE s : S _ _uDerv190r Tcm Torlakson
ACTION Of BOARD .�Ilnp ri loan
A►RR ED AS .RECOMMENDEO .1
OTHER _
The Board unanimously approved Recommendations No. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
With respect to Recommendation No. 2, Supervisor Schroder advised that he is opposed
to using the money from the Marsh Canyon Land Use Permit until it is determined whether
Marsh Canyon will actually be utilized for a landfill site as it might give a connotation
that there is a decision on that landfill, but that he could vote for using the funds
from the Acme Transfer Station. Supervisor Fanden agreed.
Supervisor Torlakson moved approval of Recommendations I and 2. Supervisor Powers
seconded the motion. Supervisors Powers, McPeak and Torlakson voted aye, Supervisors
Schroder and Fanden voted no. The motion carried.
I ho-"Certify met I"Is a true and ONT001 ODpy OI
an action tat«, and @hared on tr,a mrrrtse of Mw
-- cc: Community Development (Orig. Dept.) Bond of
s�wrvr on d»ds f xmv n
County Auditor-Controller ATTESTED '�'= /
County Counsel ►FAL 6ATO-t£IAN,Cswt d ttv Boalti
d Alpt VWM"Cbfrty Admlrt&mtmr
County Admir.is[:a[or
/i :,<.:1
)61d. Designate the Environmental Affairs Committee as the
Board's oversight committee for the Recycling Action
Plan.
4. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to give
the unincorporated area top priority in implementing the
Recycling Action Plan.
5. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to keep
overhead costs ,to a minimum in implementing the Recycling
Action Plan.
6. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to
pursue cost sharing with cities and sanitary districts with
respect to implementing the Recycling Action Plan.
BACKGROUND
On May 1, 1990, the Community Development Department, at the
Board of Supervisors' direction, presented and recommended an
outline proposal for the use of the $200,000 fee for recycling
from the Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill project. The Board
referred the matter to the Finance Committee. By the time the
Finance Committee met on May 21st, staff had expanded the previ-
ous conceptual proposal into a more detailed outline for a
Recycling Action Plan. The Recycling Action Plan consists almost
entirely of projects and components previously authorized by the
Board of Supervisors, but not specifically funded. As its name
implies, its components are intended to be implemented in the
short-term while longer term planning proceeds under the AB 939
program.
Staff proposed to use the $100,000 annual fee from the Acme
Transfer Station (it is to be used to fund the Resource Recovery
Specialist's office, which would manage the action work plan) .
The basic issue is how and when to spend the $200,000 Marsh
Canyon fee. The Community Development Department advised the
Finance committee that FY 1989-90 monies for a County recycling,
program were exhausted or encumbered, and that the Marsh Canyon
landfill fee would provide an appropriate means of retaining the
County's consultant and starting to carry out Action Plan recy-
cling projects previously directed by the Board. There are,
however, -objections to spending any portion of the Marsh Canyon
resource recovery fee at this time because of concerns that this
would "vest" the project. This concern is reflected in the
attached letter from the Diablo Audubon Society. As previously
noted, the Committee was split on this issue.
•
Another issue before the Finance Committee was the County Solid
Waste commission's request that the Recycling. Action Plan be
referred to the Commission for review and Comment
(letter
attached) . In order
to continue work on several components,
staff proposed that the Board authorize the use of 'the fee. monies
to retain the consultant and to continue work on several of the
Action Plan components, and to refer the remainder of the Action
Plan to the Solid Waste Commission for .review. The Finance Com-
.............
mittee agreed.
1t9!MZ1 1/Toe /dOZ:61ttOO /did IAOet /thAt/the lRotytilli;/Action I
Noting that a number of the components of the Recycling Act-,on
..........
Plan were of benefit to the entire County and that the County's
recycling consultant had previously provided advise to
the Finance Cor-mittee concluded that staff should seek cost-
sharing arrangements with cities and sanitary districts.
The recommendations include designating the Environmental affairs
Committee (alternatively, the Finance Committee) as a Board
oversight committee for the action program. Staff pointed out
that' almost all of the Action Plan components require additional
development work. A committee, rather than the full Board, would
be the best vehicle for working out the details of project pro-
posals before they are carried out or contracted out.
jl49:finan.brd
Enclosed:
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society letter
County Solid Waste Commission letter
i
_............ ..__.............__._
................ . ............................................... ..........
I .
I
I
iy
ZA
-C:) 7=
OC
c4l
C: U
C-1
Ln
C
prs
tA 73
C- V Ln
Ln
C)
^ <
CA
Ln0 U-
n
0 LJ)
Ln O 00 0
0 tz
n C:
Ln
C)
t'l
C3
LA
n 72
00 G t.0 v c1 t-)
C3
oc!%
V,
-r, .^n ca cli
Ln
y Ccntm
.TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS > to
-►.
.0XI
FROM: Plastics Recycling Task Farce cGUntY� � :� :
DATE: August 9 , 1990
SUBJECT: Status of Waste Plastic Recycling Program
SPECIFIC REQUESTtSI OR RECOMMENDATION ISI &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the report of the Plastics Recycling Task Force on the current status
of the Waste Plastic Recycling Program.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
This item has been placed on the agenda by the Co-Chair of the Plastics
Recycling Task Force, Supervisor Sunne McPeak. Plastics represent
approximately 144 million pounds of Contra Costa County's wastestream. Since
September 1989 the Plastics Recycling Task Force has initiated programs and
activities to reduce this waste as included in -the attached report.
Harvey
Ec �
CONTINUED ON ATT ACNdE.NT: YLA WGNATURE: Harvey E. 3rzigdon
" - nlr to - ot C ^tmT tv Deve?pent
NICONWLNDATION OF COUNTY AONfSTT{ATOA ` M NICOhDATION OF 6OAAO COMA4TTEE
` F.V
APPIAOVE OTNEA -
51GNATURE151'
ACTION OF BOARD ON A U G 14 1990 990
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
t HERBY CERTIFY T14AT THIS iS A TRI!E
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN;__ OF SUPERVISORS O(N'T14E DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED AUG 1 .1 19.:6
Vla CO1"k'1UI11�jT �)CVC�O�i:C'.^,C
CC: PHIL BATCHIEUR- LLLRK OF THE BOARD CF
;UG'f Rvi,CN: A4tr ('W4TY AC`.tINISTRAT CR
BY r�' !?'�i. ; t�.:.t..`�_ ^FPUTY
j(55:PI31.Lrd
r
CUMA COSM COUrfY
MVIHM DEVELCFMERr DEPI1TZU4EUr
r'
ID: Board of Supervisors DAM: August 9, 1990
FROM: Sheila Cogan
Staff, Plastics Recycling Task Force
SCIDJF7Cr: Status of Waste Plastic Recycling Plan
BACS'MC UND
This report is prepared at the request of the Plastics Recycling Task Force in
order to provide the members of the Board with an update on the progress toward
meeting the goals of plastic waste reduction in Contra Costa County.
At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Solid Waste C mmission studied
issues about waste plastic in Contra Costa County and prepared a report entitled
"Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream", that included a series of
recommendations on plastics reduction and recycling, on waste reduction and
excessive packaging, on plastics market development and attendant support
activities. The report and recommendations were presented to the Internal
Operations Committee in late spring. It is a major study of the various kinds
of plastics that are prevalent in our environment and describes what they .are
used for, what specific problems there were in re-using each, with recycling
each, and describes research efforts which are underway to improve the ability
of industry to reuse or recycle each type of plastic.
The report also addressed specific plastic products including disposable diapers
and polystyrene containers. It addressed concerns about chloroflourocarbons
{CFCs} resulting from polystyrene manufacturing. The study acknowledged that
although plastics waste represented 8% by weight of the total runicipal solid
waste stream and up to 30% by volu-e, that there were no collection, sorting and
processing facilities and no markets in place in Contra Costa County to receive
the materials (with the exception of PET soda bottles which are includod in the
California Container Rede:-ption Act) . At the current disfo�--al level of 900,000
TPY, a t.ctal of 44,000,000 pounds per year of wa-ste plastic,- are being
landfilled by the County.
In July, the Board of Supervisors established a Plastic Recycling Task Force
consisting of rcrbers of the Solid Waste Ccmrission, a representative of t?.e
Board of Supervisors, industry producers, haulers, rec,•cIors and
environmentalists. The Task Force is co-chaired by Supervisors Slanne tk l'cak .arm
Tom Pvo;ers. 1'ne orr;anizaticn net for the first time one year aqo - f.opte.^bor
1989.
POard Orders d3t0d July 18, 1989 directed the Ccmminity Cevelop7ent Director to
establish, in cooperation, with the Task Force, a Waste Plastics Pecycling
Program for the entire County, d of the follcr,4irxj elcrent5:
1
a. a pilot plastics recycling program for residential curbside collectiar,
and pro ssiryg of mixed plastics to be in place by July 1, 1989.
.y
b. a pilot polystyrene plastics recovery and recycling progrz-1M for
restaurants, businesses, and residential customer:- in the entire
County to be in place by October 1, 1989.
C. a full scale waste plastic recovery and recycling program for all
curbside recycling programs and all ccmw-rcial and private recycling
programs operating in the entire County which to _ be in place by
December 31, 1990,
According to Board Orders, the Waste Plastic Recycling Plan shall include, at a
minizum, all containers arra packaging made from six different types of plastic:
PES, HDPE, ZDPE, PS, PVC, and PP as described in the Solid Waste Ccomission's
report.
CSP SI7=
A. Pilot Plastics Recycling Program
A pilot program in 500 homes in Walnut, Creek was designed to test the
feasibility of collection methods. This program was expanded to a 2000 home
pilot area six months ago under a grant of $42,000 from the Washington D. C. -
based plastics industry trade group, the Council for solid .Waste Solutions. Cata
on collection systems, econorucs, and materials collected is currently being
assessed. Final curbside pick up of mixed plastics from the pilot program ended
the week of July 23 to 27, 1990. The project was discontinued for the following
reasons: Dow Chemical Corporation coma itted to provide a market for the
materials for 6 months expected to end June 1990; and the City of Walnut Creek
did not want to continue until the cost analysis of the program was cczTlete
The intent of the Waste� Plastics Recycling Program was that the Walnut Geek
pilot project expand in :,order that it serve as a model for other cities and
franchising agencies in the County. However, as Walnut Creek's curbside
collection=program is being expanded citywide, PET plastic soda bottles and FDPE
milk and water bottles will be included.
Through cooperative efforts of the City of Walnut Creek, Caw Clleracal C -n a.ny,
wTe corporation and Pacific Rim 17.eoycling, the Council for :olid t•;aste
Soluticrs, and the Plastics Task Farce, the pilot was It is c,le-Ir
that plasties market develcpnient is a key component of all planning fcr plastics
recycling.
B. FolYstyrene Pr�ccverY and Pec,,clirq
As noted, a pilot polyst,,frene plastics recovery and recycling for
restaurants, businese} and residerxxss in the County w'as to t eve Leen
established by Oc'tcber 1, 1989. 'This date was not mot. however, since
fall, strong effort,- to develop a polystyrene plastics separation aixi rroce, ;i:,1
proc=r i for restaurants and taisinesses in the County has developed.
;'cDonald's Rcstvur"nts recently -Inncuncai that al1 of their frank hi cr;
Ccnt-ra Crsta Cccnty have e tablished reparation progrars in their rest_iurants.
Polyst,rrene rpt-,:cri=-er pac}:,agirq X_d food service containers are also bci:41
A�
collected by some businesses within the County. Polystyrene drop Off sites have
been established at several recycling centers.
A polystyrene processing facility was opened at Bay Polymer Ccsmpany in Fremont
in March 1990. It is a cooperative effort between James River Corporation,
located in Marin, and Bay Polymer. This plant is capable of processing 3
million pounds of polystyrene foam annually and an additional 9 million pounds
of other resins, primarily post-industrial scrap. In addition, the National
Polystyrene Recycling Council (NPRC) has announced that another facility capable
of washing and processing past-consumer polystyrene products will be sited in
Northern California. The exact location of the plant is yet to be deterAined.
It must be noted that McDonald's Restaurants franchisees are paying to haul
material to the plant in Fremont. A missing oouponent of the post consumer
separation program is transportation. Although the Fremont facility currently
pays 4 cents a pound for the collected material, the price does not appear
sufficiently high enough to offset the cost of handling and hauling. 1
4
Although the deadline of October 1, 1989 for the establishment of the
polystyrene collection program was not met, it appears that efforts to collect,
transport and process this resin are underway.
i
C. Full Scale Waste Plastic Recovery and Recycling Program
Board Orders state that waste plastic recycling activities shall include at a
min.u= all containers and packaging products made from PET, HDPE, IDPE, PS, PVC
and PP, as they were described in the Solid Waste C mmission's . report.
Preliminary data from the Walnut Creek pilot program indicate that up to 120,
(by weight) , of PET; 34%, HDPE; 33%, LDPE; 8%, PS; 3s, PVC, PP remains to be
collected as part of full scale countywide program.
Pleasant Hill/Bayshore Disposal has also included HDPE and PET in their curbside
collection service. The company has also established a drop off collection site
for apolystyrerie foam.
Contra Costa Waste services, Inc. (Garaventa) includes only PET containers in
their curbaide collection. 'They -too have established a polystyrene drop off
site at 2-It. Diablo Paper stock in Ccnc ord.
Valley Waste Management, orin a/,"craga Disposal and Pleasant Hill/Payshcre
collect only PET California Rede.^�pticn containers in their respective service
Richmond sanitary Service docs plan to include both PEI' and HDPE at the start of
their curbside collection in West County cities in October.
Grocery c-.ains including Lucky, Raleys, Safeway and Nob Hill have bequn LDPE
(grocerf bag) collection programs at stores in the county as well.
t",arket develc 7cnt is the Frey criWnent to any recycling program. 0_:.—rcnt1y,
there is no proccssirrl plant located in California capable of receiving mixcd
plastics. A.cccrdi.rrl to inc:ust.r, .sources, the optical volute of plastid for t.�e
lowest pr sling coot .is about 40 million pounds Pcr Year. ibis is +mac"liivalent
to a. 2 pr r�- line plant cperating 3 shifts per day. t4tnir'3l vol1Lme to a one
3
process, one shift per day facility would be 5 million pounds. Construction x
costs for a complete facility would run $6-8 million, with a single line
facility at about $4 Million.
Since no one agency controls the plastics wastes-tream in Contra Costa County,
the Plastics Task Force Ad Hoc Committee to Negotiate decided to facilitate the
wastestream commitment process by developing a "model agreement" which could
then be used by the appropriate agencies.
A Request for QualificationjPrcposal for a plastics processing plant was
circulated to about 75 organizations. There were two responses: wTe corporation
and Faglebrook West. The committee felt that both proposer- were qualified and
so requested each to draft a contract. wTe then withdrew from the process
because of the perceived risk associated with taking the model agreement to each
of the franchising agencies/collectors for ratification. (As an alternative,
wTe also offered to handle the coordination on a consulting basis.) The
Eaglebrook contract was predicated on an agreement between Eaglebrock and one
other party, the County. `The County does not have the authority to commit this
portion of the wastestream.
There remain several months until the goal of establishing full scale waste
plastics collection and recycling for all municipal curbside recycling programs
by December 31, 1990 has not yet been met. Regulatory measures are another
means of helping to enforce the collection of plastic packaging.
TION AND MIUC AWARFIZ
Board orders directed the Community Development Director to work with the
franchising cities and sanitary districts in the County in an effort to
encourage each of those jurisdictions to assist in making the waste plastics
recycling program a reality countywide by enacting a similar program .in their
jurisdiction. In an effort to share information concerning this program, the
Task Force sponsored a conference on Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream held
on March 17, 1990. This conference included experts from around the county and
was attended by over 250 local and national participants.
2:u-;�xous articles concerning the County's plastics recycling program have
appeared in rational and local print redia and TV. Initial attention foc=-ed cn
County efforts to reduce the use of disposable diapers, but recently there l .as
appeared more information on the recl,clability of the plastics wastestream.
To further encourage public awareness and education about plastics recc,.,cling,
' Dow CIiemical Corporation, in cooperation with several local haulers including
Pleasant hill/Bayshore Disposal, established a recycling c rpetition in local
public schools. As a result, polystyrene and other recyclables were collected
at participating schools for the first time in the County. Ple{af�,-ult
Hill/Bayshore will continue this program in 75% of the schools in ,,ntioch .incl
Pleasant Hill. Their program will include paper, ne�,,-,-aap , arxi c mirglt
aluminum, gl -s, HDPE, PET arc! PS.
A new model pro:lram will be established with the beginning of this ::drool yoar,
:rPOrtcd by the CU.,bibloc Corporation of Columbus, Ohio. In cooperation with
tie Ric��mand Sanitary Service, the Richmond Unified School District has been
approached to select five or six school sites for multi-material collection
P=am
CONS
Plastid represent 8% by weight and up to 20% by volume of waste found in r-nl
landfills. Based on available data, this represents 144 million pounds of Contra
Costa County's wastestream. Until this year, there were no systems in place to
collect, transport and process most of these materials. Contra Costa County has
served as a leader in the region and .the nation in developing new plastics
collection programs. Progress has been made. However, there is still a
distance to go in order to meet program goals.
the Task Force is reviewing issues relating to difficult-to-recycle plastics,
and recommendations about products which may be Phased out for sale in Contra
Costa County are under consideration. One system under review is to require the
operators of all refuse transfer stations in the county to extract waste plastic
materials from all solid wastes processed in their facilities. This method will
reduce plastid from landfills and provide a continuing wast:estream for plastid
processors.
In the last year, it has been shown that public/private interests canct
wastereduction, but that investment in plastics market development is a key
factor. efforts to pursue secure markets rust be continued.
csc2/bos.mem
5
1'OD
h!D
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (�
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon �' " ' tra
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Costa
DATE: September 27, 1990 COUCIty
SUBJECT: Declare October 15-to-19, 1990 Schools Recycling Week in
Contra Costa County
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMNIMMATIONS
Declare the week of October 15-19, 1990 as Schools Recycling Week
throughout Contra Costa County.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact on County General Fund.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Beginning October 15, 1990, Contra Costa County, in cooperation with schools in
the Mt. Diablo and Richmond School Districts and with solid waste industry
representatives will launch a comprehensive Contra Costa County School Recycling
Program.
The recycling program will include white paper, milk and juice cartons,
polystyrene, newsprint-quality paper, and other items agreed upon between each
school and its waste hauler. Additionally, the Schools Recycling Program will
include a curriculum for students and the formation of student "Green Teams,"
making this program both an academic and a hands-on learning experience for
students.
The participation of young people in recycling programs is critical in attaining
the recuction of solid waste mandated by AB939. The Contra Costa County School
Recycling Program will foster students' active participation in recycling
programs now and into the future.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
This action is important to support recycling programs and to assist young
people in forming habits which protect and preserve our environment.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON octob=_r 16 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT -OF) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY AN
AYES: - NOES: _ ACTIONi?,i.%eJ wive ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: -- ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED Gr� /G. /990
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY �-xc� ve te�� �, DEPUTY