HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181993 - H.2 (7) ' Appendix BE Load Allocation Survey Form
W
tr
C
tz
c
O
E
S]a
1 0
W W W
14 44
M r-q
' O d 0
a
w > W !y
' 4) x too 41
0 U A rOt 0 -
i _
c ob
w
1 .41g � �
t 4! 0 +1 W ! 41 4
il0
U, >i 7 r-4
.0 r4 r
E !~ O 4) W-r1 tT 0-r1
' qW+ UtO0C�7U > 3 > >
W
1 -4 � �
E C
•s E O- w r-4
U ca 410LA0
0 t0.0 4 0 r—I
1 0 4) tT 7 -r1
1 W F- > r-•-1 r-I to
lu 0-•-1 0 4) 41 0 >
0 UUL7U > 3 > td
st.
4) 41 0 r1
to a1 '1 >t %~
+ rtf 4) c
U 1 44 tT >+ 41 04 W 0
c $4 $4-,-1 G c r1 i-1 >t '0 S-1
O 4) 4) 41-4 0 0 4) 4 "A 41
-r1 1- r--1 C r1 Pa-r1 .t2 'L) W �
4.1 so-
41OEZEmt04) 1=
t0 Id 'Ot0000 .CO1.1 $4O
>
1 °
r-I
r--I
�C ai to TS
a m0 4J x
•• CW 10 $4 r 4 4J 4) 0 c 0
' z•-I O 0 0 0 r-I 4): r_ A to t0 41 '
H41r1 •• 0 0 -w- 4 >rr1 W W 94 0
E 0) Uc Ac-rl >, > WVV10 c
Z F. H 4) 4) O-r-f 4J t0 A 44 M +1 41 C r-1
Cj Dcaaz o H v w I04utAz ! lm13f
b
G
' Appendix B2: Single Sample Results Form
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SINGLE SURVEY RESULTS
DATE: DAY OF WEEK:
LOCATION: Richmond Acme Pitts/Antioch
HAULER: RESIDENTIAL PACKER
TRUCK #: RESIDENTIAL SELF HAUL
LICENSE #: COMMERCIAL PACKER
WT/CU YDS COMMERCIAL SELF HAUL
COMPACT: LOOSE: COMMERCIAL DEBRIS BOX
Cell #: ORIGIN
COMPONENTS IOTA L
PAPER
Corrugated
Contam. Corr.
News
High Grade
o
Mixed Paper
Other Paper
,. Disp. Diapers
PLASTICS
HDPE
PET
LDPE
PP
PS
EPS
PVC
Fs7m
GLASS
Refillable
CA Redemption
Other Rcycble
Non Rcycble
METALS
Aluminum cans
Bi-metal cans
Tin cns/ferrous
Non ferrous
White goods
YARD WASTE
OTHER ORGA�INICS
Food waste
Tires/rubber
Wood waste o
Ag residues
Manure '
Textles/Leather
Other Organics
SPECIAL WASTE
Ash
Asbestos
Bulky wastes
Mixed plastic
Mixed metal
OTHER WASTE
Inerts
Household Haz. '
Appendix B3: Industrial Audit/Site Visit Form
1
SITE VISIT PROTOCOL FOR INDUSTRIAL GENERATORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WASTE GENERATION STUDY
' 1. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
' 1 .1 Business Name:
' 1 .2 Contact Person: Title:
Address :
Telephone•
1 .3 Type of Products :
' 1 .4 Number of Employees :
' 1 .5 To the best of my knowledge, the information provided in the
attached form is' a reasonable estimate of our company's
current waste disposal and recycling activities.
' Name: Title:
Signature: Date:
2 . WASTE DISPOSAL
Please list all the methods of waste disposal currently in use at
your facility.
DISPOSAL SIZE IN NUMBER FREQUENCY FILLED WT.OF
1
CONTAINERS CUBIC YDS COLLECTION WHEN WASTE
\MONTH COLLECTED TON/MO '
COMPACTORS
3
ROLL-OFFS .
DUMPSTERS '
OTHER
1
3 . WASTE COMPOSITION
3 . 1 In the following table, include each material generated by
this operation that is disposed as waste . Do not include materials
that are recycled, as reported in section 4 .
' MATERIAL WEIGHT OF MATERIAL WEIGHT OF
TONS./MO CONTAINER TONS/MO. CONTAINER
PAPER: OTHER ORG:
' corrugated food waste
mixd paper tires/rbbr
' newspaper wood waste
high grade ag residue
' othr paper manure
diapers textiles
PLASTICS: YARD WSTE:
HDPE OTHR WSTE:
' PET inerts
PVC UOC
' LDPE (film) Latex pnt
PP Oil bsd
PS solvents
TSETS tires
' other METALS :
GLASS : alminum cn
' refillable bi-mtl cn
redemption ferous\tin
' other recy non-ferous
other n/r copper
' SPECIAL•
ash
sewage slg
indust slg
' asbestos
autos
4 . RECYCLING/SOURCE REDUCTION ,
4 .1 List each, material which left your facility for the purpose of '
recycling or reuse during the past twelve months .
MATERIAL RECYCLER DATE REC BEGAN WEIGHT ,
4.2 The following section pertains to the source reduction '
programs started by your company after 1987 .
List the materials affected by source reduction programs and the '
corresponding quantities - of avoided waste generation. .
MATERIAL DATE PROGRAM WASTE GENERATION '
STARTED SAVINGS: TONS/MO—
COMPARED TO 1987
1
' Appendix B4: Commercial Hauler Survey Form
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMERCIAL HAULER SURVEY
'
ThePSPose of this questionnaireis to:
• estimate the amount of solid waste generated within the City of Clayton;
• estimate the proportion of waste collected by commercial accounts (stores,
i businesses, etc) and residential accounts (households) in the City of Clayton;
• estimate the amount of waste, if any, that your firm collects for recycling.
Please answer all the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
If you can answer the questions in both cubic yards and weight, please provide both.
' Your answers to these first questions will provide us with the information necessary to estimate
the total quantity of waste generated and disposed within the City of Clayton.
' Q1: How much solid waste did your firm collect from customers (residential and commercial)
in the City of Clayton in 1989 and 1990?
' In 1989? Yards Tons
In 1990? Yards Tons
The purpose of the next set of questions is to determine the proportion of solid waste collected
from commercial accounts and the proportion from residential accounts in 1989 and 1990.
2: How much total solid waste did our firm collect in the Ci of Clayton from residential
Q Y City Yt
accounts in 1989 and 1990?
' In 1989? Yards Tons
In 1990? Yards Tons
Q3: How much total solid waste did your firm collect in the City of Clayton from commercial
accounts in 1989 and 1990?
In 1989? Yards Tons
In 1990? Yards Tons
The next questions try to get information on the amount of solid waste going out of the county '
for disposal. Once again, we need this information for both 1989 and 1990.
Q4: How much total waste did your firm collect from the City of Clayton that was taken out
of the county for disposal?
In 1989? Yards Tons
In 1990? Yards Tons t
It is important that we identify all existing recycling activities so that we may determine hrw
much additional recycling is necessary to meet the state's recycling requirements. Please iden,:fy
the material, by quantity, that you normally recycle with your operation.
RECYCLED MATERIALS QUANTITY/MONTH BROKER ,
If you have any questions, please contact Steve Harriman at (916)929-3653 ,
r
1
1 -
' Appendix B5: Waste Diversion Study Survey Forms
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
THRIFT SHOP SURVEY
ame of Firm:
ddress and Phone t/:
�ontact Person:
Materials Received
a Average Quantity From Unincorporated Bought From/
Materials Collected/Time Area f 961 Sold To Seasonality
ISED CLOTHING
FURNITURE /
Las
Chairs
offee Tables
g Tables
Mattresses & Springs .
lesks
Ps
ressers
IPPLLA,NCES
rr. g.i
eratorss
ushers&Dryers _.
CHEN WARE
1
r
r
Instructions for the Waste Diversion Study
Recycling Facilities Survey
r
The first column lists the materials that need to be
quantified. Please put a check mark beside all of the materials ,
you currently accept for recycling.
The second column asks for a calculation of the average number '
of tons you collect of each material during a month. PLEASE
INCLUDE INFORMATION ONLY FOR MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM "GENERATORS"
(the general public, business offices, restaurants, grocery stores,
charitable organizations ' collection drives. . . ) . DO NOT INCLUDE ,
INFORMATION FOR MATERIALS RECEIVED FROM OTHER RECYCLING BROKERS OR
DEALERS.
The third column asks for the percentage of material you '
receive from generators located in the unincorporated areas of
Contra Costa County. This study is ' only concerned with materials
generated 'in the unincorporated area, and not with materials
generated within incorporated cities. Please estimate what
percentage of materials you receive from the unincorporated area of
Contra Costa County for each material type you accept. See the ,
other side of this paper for a complete listing of all
unincorporated communities in Contra Costa County.
The back side of the survey has space to indicate any '
fluctuations in the amounts or types of materials you receive
during the course of the year. For example, if your type of
business receives more beverage containers in the summer months r
than in the winter months, please indicate that in this section.
If you .still need more room, please attach a piece of paper to the
survey.
Finally, please sign your name on the back of the survey
sheet. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires
that we ask you to sign this survey form to verify that all the
information provided is correct.
If you have any questions please call Katherine Holmes at
(916) 929=3653 .
Thank you very much for your. cooperation.
. r
. r
UNLNCORPORATED AREAS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
8 Alamo
Alhambra
aAvon
Bethel Island
Big Break
Blackhawk
Brentwood (parts)
Byron
Canyon
C`ayton (parts)
C iyde
.:rockett J
Diablo
Discovery Bay
F1 Sobrante
KE.isington
K:nightsen
I afayette (parts)
Leisure World
Marsh Creek
M;,,tinez (parts)
N'Tchols "
North Richmond
Oakley
Orinda•Village
Pacheco
rPort Costa
Rheem Valley
Richmond (parts)
Rodeo
San Ramon (parts) -
Saranap
Shore Acres
Tassa}ara
' Vine Hill
Walnut Creek (parts)
West Pittsburg
1
r
UNINCORPORATED.AREA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY '
RECYCLERS' FACILITIES SURVEY
)mpany Name:
ldress• '
)ntact Person: Phone Number.
-pe of Recycling Facility (please circle): certified buyback / buyback / drop-off/scrap metal / curbside / other: '
ease provide information ONLY for materials received from "GENERATORS" (the general public, business offices, restaurants,
ocery stores, charitable organizations' collection drives...). Do NOT include information for materials received from other
_CYCLING BROKERS or DEALERS.
Average Quantity of Material Estimate Percent Received from Generators
sterials Received in a Month (tons) Located in the Unincomorated Area of Contra Costa County
APER:
:wspaper
)rrugated Containers &
own Paper Bags
i%ed Paper
;h Grade Paper
her Paper
:,ASS:
:fellable Bottles ,
'A Redemption Value'
her Recyclable Glass r
.ASTICS:
SPE (milk jug)
T (soda bottles)-(CA Red.)
:m Plastics
her Plastics
ETALS:
uminum Cans '
ununum Scrap
-Metal Containers (tin can
her Non-Ferrous Metals
rrous Metals (steel & iron)
zite Goods
ZGANICS:
od Waste
god Waste
-es and Rubber Products
%tiles and Leathers
►RD WASTE:
L HERS:
ck. Concrete or Asphalt a
molition Debris
.ier Materials TURN PAGE OVER
discuss any seasonal fluctuations you notice in the amount or types of materials you receive at your recycling facility. For example,
y typo of business receives more aluminum can leverage containers in the summer months than to the winter months, please indicate
space below.
at -The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires
t we assK you to sign this survey torm to verify the tntormauon provided is correct.
A'RK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Your contribution is extremelyimportant for the advancement of
yciing opportunities. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Kathere Holmes at (916) 929-3653.
1
i
1
1
1
i
r
r
Instructions for the Waste Diversion Study
Tire Recapping Facilities Survey
rThe first column lists the materials that need to be
quantified. If you collect any other materials for recycling, such
ras hubcaps, please indicate on the blanks provided.
The second column asks for a ca] culation of the average number
of tons you collect of r each mate. •ial during a month. PLEASE INCLIIDE INFORMATION ONLY FOR TIRES THAT ARE RETREADED OR RECAPPED
AT YOUR FACILITY. DO NOT INCLIIDE INFORMATION FOR TIRES WHICH ARE
SOLD TO OTHER FACILITIES FOR RETREADING OR RECAPPING. DO NOT
INCLIIDE INFORMATION FOR TIRES THAT WILL BE BURNED OR LANDFILLED.
The third column asks for the percentage of material you
receive from generators located in the unincorporated areas of
Contra Costa County. This study is only concerned with materials
generated in the unincorporated area, and not with materials
generated within incorporated cites. Please estimate what
percentage of materials you receive from the unincorporated area of
Contra Costa County for each material type you accept. See the
other side ' of this paper for a complete listing of all
' unincorporated communities in Contra Costa County.
Below the three columns, there is space to indicate any,
fluctuations in the amounts or types of materials you receive
' during the course of the year. For example, if your business
receives more tires for recapping in the summer months than *in the
winter months, please indicate that in this section. If you still
' need more room, please attach a piece of paper to the survey.
Finally, please sign your name at the bottom of the survey
sheet. The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires
that we ask you to sign this survey form to verify that all the
information provided is correct.
If you have any questions please call Katherine Holmes at
(916) 929-3653.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
r
r
r
r
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Alamo
Alhambra
Avon
Bethel Island
Big Break
Blackhawk
Brentwood (parts)
Byron
Canyon
Clayton (parts)
Clyde
Crockett
Diablo
Discovery Bay
El Sobrante
Kensington
Knightsen
Lafayette (parts)
Leisure World
Marsh Creek
Martinez (parts)
Nichols
North Richmond
Oakley
Orinda Village
Pacheco
Port Costa
Rheem Valley
Richmond (parts) ,
Rodeo
San Ramon (parts) .
Saranap
Shore Acres'
Tassajara
Vine Hill
Walnut Creek (parts)
West Pittsburg
v� u��..viu VLtt1 A Gi! Ifni'[i yr %.V1l 1tCA LUbIA WUNTY
USED TIRES SURVEY
mpany Name:
ddress:
�ntact Person: Phone Number:
CORNEpprovde information ONLY for tires that are retreaded or recapped, AT YOUR TIRE FACILITY. Do NOT include
D*
afion for tires which are sold to other facilities for retreading or recapping. Do NOT include information for tires that will or LANDFILLED,
Estimate Percent Received
Average Quantity of Material from Generators Located In The
Materials Received in a Month (tons) Unincomorated Area of Contra Costa Countv
linesor Recapping:
PP g: _
ITEMS:
Plise discuss an seasonal fluctuations you notice in the amount or of materials you receive at our facility. For example, if our
type of business any
more used tirein the summer months than t the winter moths, please indicate on the space below. y
Pl sign The California Integrated Waste Management Board requires that.we ask
yo to sign tbas survey torm verity that eonnatnon provided is correct.
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Your contribution is extremely important for the advancement o
ing opportunities. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Katherine Holmes at (916)929-3653.
r
i
t
r
Appendix B6: Waste Component Description
r
r
r
i
i
1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
WASTE COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS
PAPER
1. Corrugated Cardboard Brown uncoated 'cardboard" boxes with a wavy core and uncontaminated
(no plastic liners or wax coating), brown paper bags.
1A. Contaminated Cardboard Cardboard which has been coated with wax or lined with plastic
' 2. Newspaper Black and white newspaper, shredded newsprint, and including
other paper normally distributed inside a newspaper such as colored
ads, comics, flyers, tabloids.
3. High Grade Ledger Paper Bond, xerox, or notebook paper. Continuous form computer paper,
white or colored.
4. Mixed Paper Envelopes, magazines, telephone bwoks, paperback books, chipboard
(beer cartons, egg cartons, laundry soap boxes, cereal boxes -remove
liner if it is not fused-if it is fused, categorize in
non-recyclable paper.)
S. Other-Paper All other paper such as contar►,inate paper(paper with plastic,
foil, etc., attached) including plastic-bound notebooks, envelopes
with plastic windows and waxed paper, chemically coated paper, napkins,
paper towels, etc.
IL Disposable Diapers Non-cloth diapers made of paper and plastic
PLASTICS
6. HDPE SPI=2 High-Density Polyethylene-milk, water,juice, detergent and other
containers made from HDPE.
7. PET Plastic SPI=1 Polyethylene terephthalate-beverage containers mads from PET only.
Transparent with high gloss, clear or colored, no seams, injection molding
nub on bottom
8. LDPE SPIE Low Density Pbl ethl ne: Plastic trash bags, SrYba8s, food storage bags,
plastic food wrap, plastic sheeting
9. PP SPI=S Pol 1 e-Battery cases medical containers cereal box liners, combs,
YP�Yn rY � ,
Tpopicana Frozen Orange Juice Containers,margerine tubs
10. PS SPI=6 Polystyrene-Some yogurt cups and tubs, clear carry out conainers, vitamin
containers, fast food cutlery: only wide mouthed containers-no bottles
11. EPS SPI=b Expanded Polystyrene - Carry-out containers (clamshells), meat and produce tra
hot cups, egg cartons: foamed, thick-walled
' 12. PVC SPI-3 Polyvinyl chloride -salad dressing, salad and vegetable oil, floor polish,
blister pack 'bubble' for batteries, hardware supplies, etc.
1'2 TCZTC T1.�.w.�c��e —T1..«AL wloefiwe e..r3 �e �nve reei�ea{n►�Ou•eri.•�� �nninw`f�nf c[C
GLASS
14. Refillable Glass Refillable containers such as "long neck' beer bottles, quart size soda
Containers 'mixer' bottles, some milk bottles, and other refillable bottles.
15. California Redemption Label indicates California redemption value, includes carbonated
Value beverages (beer, soda, and sparkling water).
16. Other Recyclable Glass Food, beverage and other glass containers. Does not include
refillable or redemption value containers.
17. Non-recyclable Glass Light bulbs, mirrors, pane glass, pyrex, auto gl:is, glassware and
other non-recyclable glass.
METALS
18. Aluminum Cans Redemption and non-redemption aluminum beverage cans.
19. Bi-metal Cans Can made of both ferrous and non-ferrous metal- (aluminum-steel).
Usually foreign juice cans.
20. Tm Cans and Ferrous Tia-plated steel cans, usually food containers; and other tnagaetic
Metals metal items such as steel, metal clothes hangers, sheet metal
products, pipes, and other miscellaneous.metal scraps.
21. Non-ferrous Metals Non-magnetic metals, copper tubing, brass fixtures, insulated wire,
Including Aluminum aluminum other than beverage cans such as aluminum T.V. dinner trays,
Scrap some food cans, scrap aluminum, foil wrappings and aluminum furniture.
22. White Goods enamel coated major appliances, such as washing machines, clothes
dryers, hot water heaters, stoves, refrigerators,.sinks, etc.
YARD WASTE
23. Yard Waste Yard clippings, leaves, tree trimmings, prunings, brush, weeds, grass
and other landscaping and gardening wastes generated from residential
or commercial landscaping.
OTHER ORGANICS
24. Food Waste Food preparation wastes, food scraps, spoiled food.
25, Tuts and Rubber Automobile tires,bicycle tires, rubber tubing, mats,hose, toys, some
Products footwear, and other rubber products.
26. Wood Wastes Pallets, scrap lumber,wooden furniture, toys, bowls, fencing, crates,
miscellaneous construction materials. Also nant al wood generated from
land clearing projects.
27. Agricultural Crop Solid wastes of plant and animal origin, which result from the
Residue production of farm or agricultural products,_including orchard and
vineyard prunings, and crop residues.
28. Manure Animal feces.
29. Textiles and Leather Clothing and apparel, shop rags, blankets, carpet, some carpet padding
and cloth shoes. Leather products including wallets, shoes, belts,
purses and scrap leather.
30. Other Biodegradable! Other organic wastes - packing material (wood), non-edible organics, cork.,
Organic Materials soap, wax, etc.
OTHER WASTES
31. Inert Solids Rock, concrete, brick, sand, soil, saw dust, fines, ceramics, drywall,
insulation, tiles and linoleum.
32 Household Hazardous Empty, full, or partly full household hazardous waste containers such as:
Materials Latex and oil based paints - both roll-on and aerosol
Adhesives, glues, cements, sealants -all types
Cleaners -Oven cleaner. glass cleaner, other cleaners.
Pesticides, herbicides, weed killer, pest killer, etc.
Batteries- All types of batteries (including auto batteries)
Gasoline-Automobile or other engine gasoline.
Motor oil, deisei oil, automobile or other oils.
Explosives, bullets, dynamite.
1 Other Chemicals
Sharps -Needles (hypodermic, sewing, straight pins, etc.)
SPECIAL WASTES
33. Ash Fireplace ash, incinerated garbage ash, other ash residue from the
combustion of any solid or liquid material.
34. Asbestos Asbestos generally from remodeling or demolition. Does not
include asbestos as ingredient in sealants, etc.
(Fibrous forms of various hydrated minerals, including shrysotile (fibrous
serpentine), crocidolite (fibrous retbecktite), amosite(fibrous.
cummingtonite-grnnerite), fibrous tremolite, fibrous actinolite, and
fibrous anthophyllite.)
35. Auto Bodies Vehicle bodies including cars, trucks, tractors, etc.
36. Bulky Waste Mattresses and bulky furmiture items.
37. Plastic Mixed. Plastic products with non-plastic parts, some types of toys, tools, ,
Materials small appliances, etc. (Majority of the weight attributed to plastic.)
' 38. Metal Mixed Metal products with non-metal parts, computers, garden tools with
Materials wooden handles, radios, etc: (Majority of the weight attributed
to metal.
r
r
i
i
Appendix B7: Waste Diversion Study Respondents
1
t
i
1
Contra Costa Unincorporated County Waste Diversion Characterization
Recycling Facilities Surveyed
The following is a complete listing of all facilities surveyed for the Waste Diversion
Characterization Study. **indicates the facilities that either failed to respond by January 1, 1991,
or refused to provide any information. Some facilities did not count for various reasons and
these have an N/A notation. Contra Costa Unincorporated County's waste diversion allocation
is possible lower than it would have been otherwise as a result of the non-respondents.
20/20 Recycling Centers The Buyback Berkeley Recyling Center
J. Van Leersum Kathy Evans
(714)279-2200 669 Gilman St.
Buyback Berkeley, CA 94710
(415)524-0113
A & C Metals Buyback
Robert Adamson Jr.
983 Bancroft Rd. Unit F CIRCO Recyclers
Concord, CA 94518 Michael Henebury
(415)935-7770 6565 Smith Ave., Unit A
Scrap Metal Newark, CA 94560
(415)791-6980
Allied Metals , Buyback
Hersel Amor
3426 Peralta Conco Cement Co.
Oakland, CA 94623 Joe Santucci
(415)547-2408 5151 Fort Chicago Highway
Scrap Metal Concord, CA 94520
. (415)685-6799
A.P.O.C. N/A
Shell Halling
5903 Paramount Blvd. Concord Disposal
Long Beach, CA 90805 SH Garaventa Jr.
(213)423-6471 P.O. Box 5397
Concord, CA 94520
Arata Western Inc. (415)682-9113
Brian Stord Curbside
6565 Smith Ave., Unit B
Newark, CA 94560 County Quarry Products
(415)795-7228 . Dawn Wolfe
5501 Imhoff Dr.
Bay Polymer Corp. Martinez, CA 94553
John LaFoutain (415)682-0707
4453 Grimmer Blvd.
Fremont, CA 94538
(415)490-1791
Buyback
Crockett Garbage Orinda/Moraga Disposal
Walter Botta George Navone
P.O. Box 416 P.O. Box 659
Crockett, CA 94525 Orinda, CA 94563
(415)787-2456 (415)254-2844
N/A N/A
City of E1 Cerrito Recycling Pacific Rim Recycling
Division Neil Cutler
Becky Dowdakin 433. Industrial Way, Ste. 206
10890 San Pablo Ave. Benicia, CA 94510,
El Cerrito, CA 94530 (707)746-6067
(415)527-6077 Curbside t
Buyback
The Phoenix Program
ENCORE Rick Rubio
Dick Evans 1401 Fourth Street
860 S. 19th Street Antioch, CA 94509
Richmond, CA 94804 (415)77$-3720
(415)234-5670 N/A
Recycler
Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal
Kelly's Cash for Cans Patty Mehzouchi
George Grokett P.O. Box 23164
1818 S. Arnold Industrial Place Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Concord, CA 94520 (415)685-4716
(415)686-5554 Curbside/Drop-off
Buyback
Reynolds Aluminum
LMC Metals Richard Dubs
George Garofalo 1973 Broadway
600 S. Fourth Street Vallejo, CA 94590
Richmond, CA 94804 (415)552-2172
(415)236-0606 Buyback
Scrap Metal
Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc.
Many Hands Peter Nuti
Leon Sydney 205 41st Street
P.O. Box 1487 Richmond, CA 94805
Pittsburg, CA 94565 (415)236-8000
. (415)432-1171
Recycler
tF.
4,II.ih
• 'ti
San Ramon Valley High School Sacramento Rendering
Katie Wills Mike Coler
140 Love Lane Sacramento, CA
Danville, CA 94526 (916)363-4821
(415)831-9634
Recycler Circle K
5206 Pacheco Blvd
Secondary Fiber Pacheco, CA
Faith Carrano (415)682-3562
33379 Railroad Ave. N/A .
Union City, CA 94587
.(43.1)487-4995 . FJ's Blackhawk Market
Robin Buckman
Urban Ore Building Materials 4100 Blackhawk Plaza Cir.
Dan Knapp Danville, CA 94506
1325 Sixth Street (415)736-5500
Berkeley, CA 94710
(410526-7080 Food & Liquor
87 Center Ave.
Valley Waste Disposal Service _ Pacheco, CA
Harriette Heibel (415)680-9660
P.O. Box 4007
Wal uut Creek, CA 94596 Lucky Markets
.(43:)')935-8900 Bob Craig
Curbside 101 W. Sand Creek
Brentwood, CA
Viano Vineyard's (415)634-2133
Clement Viano
150 Maaillo Ave. Raley's
Martinez, CA 94553 Roger Craig
(415)228-6465
Safeway, Inc.
West County Recycling Center Russ De Wolfe
same as Richmond Sanitary 47400 Kato Road
Fremont, CA 94538
Independent Renderers Inc. Stores: Alamo
Bob Byers Blackhawk.
P.O. Box 87 Orinda
Point Station Pittsburg
Richmond, CA 94807 Rodeo
Royal Tallow Seven-Eleven
San Francisco 1497 Danville Blvd.
(415)647-4890 Alamo, CA
(415)820-1347
N/A
Thrifty Drug Store (707)437-4819
51 W. Sand Creek Rd.
Brentwood, CA **Delta Scrap & Salvage
(415)634-7300 Ken Graunstandt
Route 1, Box 73
Alco Iron & Metal Oakley, CA 94561
Ken Kantor (415)754-1474
(415)562-1107
N/A **Fass Metal Co.
Jack Fass
Bay View Refuse 818 W. Gertrude Ave.
Lewis Figone Richmond, CA 94801
(415)237-4614 (415)234-6222
N/A
Contra Costa Resource Recovery **G & C Paper Recycling and
Service Salvage
Paul Bisio 2425 6th St.
615 Escobar Street Berkeley, CA 94710
Martinez, CA 94553 (415)843-7025
(415)372-0625
N/A **LASS Recycling
Ben Gibbons, Jr.
Gaylord 101 N. Greenville Rd.
Robert Sheffield Livermore, CA 94550
P.O. Box 10 (415)443-0310
Antioch, CA 94509
(415)779-3200 **Lakeside Non-Ferrous
N/A Lynn Kantor
412 Madison
Sims Drum Co. Oakland, CA 94607
Nathanial Sims (415)444-0514 ■
Richmond
(415)232-6011 **MLC Recycling, Inc.
N/A Ron Stein
2352 Bates Ave.
**Action Reycling Concord, CA 94520
Jean Curry (415)676-1886
727 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94544 **Schnitzer Steel
(415)537-6075 Mark Madden
P.O. Box 747
**Atlas Metal Recycling Oakland, CA 94604
Verline Smith (415)4443919
2490 Cement Hill Rd.
Fairfield, CA 94533
**Weyerhauser Paper Co.
David Ryneck
42305 Albrae St.
Fremont, CA 9453$
(415)490-5887
Contra Costa Unincorporated County
Source Reduction
The following is a complete listing of all source reduction facilities surveyed for the Waste
Diversion Characterization Study. "indicates all businesses that either failed to respond by
January 1, 1991,or refused to provide information. Contra Costa Unincorporated County's waste
diversion allocation is possibly lower than it would have been otherwise as a result of the non-
respondents.
Dublin Thrift Shop Nifty Thrift
Janet Riechlin Jacky Allan
7795 Oak Creek Court I 261 Lafayette Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588 Lafayette, CA 94549
(415)829-8822 j (415)284-5237
Garret Thrift Shop Salvation Army
Judy Powers Steve Freitas
1530 Third Ave. 601 Webster St.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Oakland, CA 94607
(415)932-9474 I (415)932-2857
Family Savers Thrift Shop it St. Vincent de Paul Society
Anne Rusty Pulos
2265 Contra Costa Blvd. I 3325 N. Main
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Pleasant Hill, CA -94523
(415)680-6535 j (415)934-5063
Gilded Cage ; St. Vincent de Paul Society
Ginny Barbee Bob Dennis
3439 Chestnut Ave. 390 Central Ave.
Concord, CA 94518 Pittsburg, CA 94565
(415)686-0324 ` (415)439-5060
Goodwill Industries of the I Thrift Town
Greater East Bay Lydia
A. Collins j 3645 San Pablo Dam Rd.
1301 30th Ave. El Sobrante, CA 94806
Oakland, CA 94601 (415)222-8696
(415)534-6666
Hall Closet
Leftovers Thrift Shop I 827 Las Juntas
Betty Haman Martinez, CA
2333 Boulevard Circle (415)228-0230
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ( N/A
(415)930-9393
i
� Q
u
i
Assistance League of Diablo Valley. Coors Beverage
M 3521 Golden Gate Way Tom West
Lafayette, CA 705 Bliss
(415)284-4781 Pittsburg, CA 94565
N/A (415)685-7083
Clausen House Thrift Shop Markstein Beverage Co. of
3616 Willow Pass Rd Contra Costa
Concord, CA 94519 Bruce Standrige
(415)680-0878 2700 California
N/A Pittsburg, CA
(415)685-1919
Snapdragon
Shelly Lipman V. & J Markstein
Martinez, CA Eill Martin
(415)228-4762 2101 Martin Way
N/A Pittsburg, CA 94563
(41`)672-1919
Valley Care Health System
Livermore W & J Markstein
1111 East Stanley Blvd Matt Bryant
Livermore, CA 3535 Hollis Street
(415)373-4069 Oakland, CA 94608
N/A (415)452-1919
**American Cancer Society Bay Area Distributing
Laurie Richmond
1389 N. Main (415)232-8554
Walnut Creek, CA N/A
(415)9441991
KDAMS Enterprises
**The Hospice Thrift Shoppe Lafayette
Pat Carol (415)9349082
1550 Olympic Blvd. N/A
Walnut Creek, CA
(415)947-1064 Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.
Benicia
**Purple Heart Veterans Services (707)746-5404
Raffle N/A
2158 Solano Way
Concord, CA Seven Up Bottling Co.
(415)825-8960 Tom
(415)685-6604
N/A
i
Union Beverage Hamblin Tire
2101 Martin Way Harold Hamblin
Pittsburg, CA I 5801 Redwood Dr.
(415)676-2888 j Rohnert Park, CA 94928
N/A + (707)584-8801
N/A
Community Food Coalition
John Bateson Tire Concepts, Inc.
5121 Port Chicago Highway Jim Farnham
Concord, CA 94520 3675 Alameda Ave.
(415)676-7543 I Oakland, CA .94601
(415)533-8473
Ace Tire i
Mark Schrader
880 B Howe Rd.
Martinez, CA 94553
(415)229-4466
Alcorn's Retreading j
Al Alcorn
5 Wilbur Ave. I
Antioch, CA 94509 i
(415)754-2511
i
**Commercial Products i
Bob Molinos j
551 North Buchanan Circle
Pacheco, CA 94553 i
(415)676-9939
Contra Costa Tire
Dave Matheson
1130 Detroit Ave. .
Concord, CA 94520
(415)689-2653
N/A
I
Gerard Tire
Dennis Estes
2830 North Main St.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 i
(415)934-3311
N/A
i
i
I
i
j
Contra Costa Unincorporated County
Yard and Wood Waste Generators
a
The following is a complete listing of all landscapers, tree trimmers, and governmental agencies
which generate yard and wood waste and were surveyed for the Waste Diversion Characterization
Study. ** indicates all businesses that either failed to respond by January 1, 1991, or refused
to provide any information. Contra Costa Unincorporated County's waste diversion allocation
is possibly lower than it would have been otherwise as a result of the non-respondents.
Contra Costa Community Recycling Recycled Wood Products
Jim Hanson Wally Johnson
(415)937-7737 701 Harrison Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Contra Costa County Grounds (415)525-4557
Maintenance
Jim Baugh **Ace Tree Service
N/A (415)939-2687
Atlas Tree Service **Bay Area Tree Service
P.O. Box 23343 (415)531-8935
Pleasant Hill, CA
(415)687-3631 **Reliable Tree Service
(415)284-4522
C & W Tree Service
2424 Bates Ave. **Stone Tree Care
Concord, CA 94520 (415)798-2094
(415)827-4949
**Warner Bros. Tree Care
Newt's Wood Wagon (415)831-2323
(415)820-2845
All Tree Service
Pacific Tree Service (415)676-0881
(415)933-8297 N/A
Quality Tree Care **Lloyd's Tree Service
P.O. Box 271232 (415)934-8264
Concord, CA 94527
**Roy Dyer Tree Care
Sweet's Tree Service (415)284-1757
1380 Russelman Rd.
Clayton, CA 94517
(415)672-7347
Evergreen Tree Service
(415)9440681
1
i
i
Contra Costa Unincorporated County
Transformation
r
The following is a list of organizations that recycle through transformation facilities. These
quantities were not used for this study, but may count towards the 50 percent diversion goal of
the year 2000.
Chip It Recycling, Inc.
Bruce A. McChesney
(415)684-3794
Consolidated Environmental Ind. dba.
Hesco Wood Products Co.
A. R: Coombs
(415)6342801 `
i
Recycled Wood Products
Wally Johnson
(415)535-4557
Waste Fibre Recovery
Dale Mesple
(415)625-9372
i
i
i
. I
E
r
l
I .
I .
� O
r
i
t
Appendix B8:
Waste Characterization Study Methodology
1
t
1 ,
1
WASTE GENERATION STUDY PROTOCOL
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE
t COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
I. BACKGROUND
A. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the protocol for the conduct of a waste generation study by R.W. Beck
and Associates (the Consultant) for the unincorporated area of the County of Contra Costa. This
protocol has been developed so that it may be reviewed by the staff of the California Integrated
` Waste Management Board for compliance with the requirements of Article 6.1 of the Emergency
Regulations for the conduct of waste generation studies.
B. COMPLIANCE WITH AB 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) makes substantial changes
to the waste management responsibilities of cities and counties. A significant responsibility of
each county is the preparation of an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) which replaces
the County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP). A major component of the new IWMP
is that each city and each county is required to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRR) to be incorporated into the IWMP.
Implementation of AB 939 is currently focused on the SRR Element. As art of these elements,
P Y P
each county and each city must prepare a detailed waste generation study, as outlined in Article
6.1 of the Emergency Regulations. The results of the detailed waste generation study will be
analyzed and used as a database from which the SRR Element will be prepared
The purpose of this document is to provide a detailed description of the methodology used in the
preparation of a waste generation study for the unincorporated area of the County of Contra
Costa. In doing so, three distinct sections of a waste generation study will be discussed. The
sections are as follows:
1. A Waste Disposal Characterization determines the composition and quantity of waste
disposed by a jurisdiction;
2. A Waste Diversion Characterization identifies the composition and quantity of waste
generated within a jurisdiction which is diverted from disposal; and
3. A Waste Generation Projection estimates the quantities of waste generated, disposed,
and diverted in the short, medium, and long-term planning periods.
The equations,procedures,and sources of information used in the preparation of waste generation
studies will be discussed in sections III, IV and V of this document.
i
i
II. BACKGROUND OF STUDY AREA
A. JURISDICTION INVOLVED IN STUDY
The unincorporated area of the County will be the only jurisdiction involved in the study.
B. EXISTING DISPOSAL FACILITIES SERVICING THE COUNTY
I
1. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL)
WCCSL is located partially;in the City of Richmond and partially in the unincorporated area of
the County of Contra Costai. It serves West Contra Costa.
2. Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill/Pittsbury, (CCLS)
CCLS are two landfills, but for this study will be considered as one. CCLS is located in the
eastern part of the County, serving the Central and East County.
C. EXISTING TRANSFER STATION IN THE COUNTY
Acme Fill Corporation i
The Acme Fill Corporation transfer station is located on the East parcel of Acme Fill Landfill.
i
III. . METHODOLOGY IFOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERIZATION
i
A solid waste disposal characterization is designed to determine two pieces of information; (1)
the quantity, and (2) the composition of waste disposed by a jurisdiction. Subsections 1 and
2 outline the proposed methodologies to determine the quantity and composition of waste
disposed in Contra Costa County.
A. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING DISPOSAL QUANTITIES
Estimating the quantity of waste disposed by a jurisdiction can be problematic in that the
information may not be readily available. For example, a hauler servicing several jurisdictions
may know the quantity of total waste he or she disposes at a landfill, but have no idea of the
proportional contribution byl each jurisdiction.. To account for the uncertainty in the data, a
combination of the following methods will be used in Contra Costa County:
1. Hauler Survey, �
i
A mail or phone survey of the haulers servicing the jurisdiction requesting estimations of the
following information:
i
i
j
■ Total waste quantity collected from throughout the county;
■ Waste quantity collected from only the unincorporated area of the county;
■ Waste collected within the unincorporated area taken out-of-county for disposal; and
■ Waste collected outside the county but brought into the county for disposal.
2. Disposal Facility Survey
F
A mail or phone survey of the disposal facility operators in Contra Costa County requesting the
following information:
■ Total waste disposed at facility
3. Field Analysis
A field survey conducted at the entrance to the two landfills and the transfer station to identify
the jurisdiction of origin of all solid waste brought in for disposal. Corresponding information
normally obtained by the gatekeeper, such as the type of account (self-haul, commercial, etc.),
-nd load weight were also noted for each load. The survey will be conducted simultaneously at
each facility, every day for a week, and during all facility hours.
The combination of these methods should provide a base of information from which an estimate
of the true disposal quantity can be made. Conducting these studies simultaneously provides a
{:ross check to account for errors in the data.
B. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING DISPOSAL COMPOSITION
This section provides an in-depth discussion of the methodology for determining the comvosition
of waste disposed in Contra Costa County. The primary method to be used is the field sampling
of waste from refuse collection vehicles entering solid waste disposal facilities.
1. Field Sampling Locations
The field sampling for the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County will take place at the
following locations:
■ West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
■ Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill/Pittsburg
■ Acme Fill Transfer.Station
2. Waste Generator Types to be Sampled
Section 18722(i) of the emergency regulations states that a solid waste generation study shall
characterize waste generation by volume and weight, and by waste category and waste type, for
i each waste generator type in the study area. The County of Contra Costa waste generation study
will sample from the following waste generator types:
■ Residential
■ Commercial
■ Industrial
3. Waste Categories and Types
The waste composition samples were sorted into the waste types specified by the AB 939
Emergency Regulations. In addition to those mandated by the law, the County of Contra Costa
added several waste types to the list. The following materials were added to the plastics
category:
■ Pol mo ne ofil
YF P Y
■ Poly tyrene
■ ExIanded polystyrene
■ Polyvinyl chloride
■ Thermosets i
In the 'other waste" category, household hazardous waste types were expanded to include the
following types:
■ Used oil containers
■ Latex paint
■ Oil based paint
■ Solvents
■ Aerosols •
■ Batteries
■ Medical
■ Household cleaners)
■ Pesticides
4. Sampling Method for Residential and Commercial Generator Types
The field analysis for residential and commercial waste generators consists of a two-step process.
■ The first step is to coordinate with the haulers to identify existing routes which collect
"pure" loads of residential or commercial waste in order to obtain separate data for the
residential and commercial waste streams. In the event that "pure" routes do not exist,
it may be necessary,to adjust the collection route to provide pure loads on pre-arranged
dates during the field study; and
■ The second step is to randomize the vehicle selection process in order to prevent any bias _
in sample selection! The sampling interval is calculated for each category of waste
generator and sub-generator. The sampling interval may be determined as follows: if
approximately 100 trucks from a particular generator will enter'the landfill on a given day
and 5 samples are required, every 18th vehicle is selected for sorting. Sampling from
every 18th vehicle rather than every 20th allows for some "cushion" in ca.sc the nlunhr.i
I
a
. a
l
of vehicles entering the landfill fluctuates. This system allows for sampling to occur
throughout the entire day, thus the data will more accurately reflect all waste disposed.
To further randomize the selection process, a vehicle start number must be selected
between i and 12 using a computer generated, 'random number sequence. This will
determine the.point at which the vehicle selection interval will begin. For,example, if the
vehicle start number is 6, the first 6 vehicles entering the landfill will pass and the 7th
will become number 1 and initiate the selection process described above.
5. Cell Selection
To randomize the selecticn.of the sample cell drawn from each vehicle load, an imaginary three
dimensional, 16 cell grit is applied to the load. The particular cell selected for sampling from
each load is again pre-determined using a computer generated, random sampling technique
(generating numbers between 1 and 16). Pre-determining the cell to be selected eliminates any
bias an individual may introduce, and increases the randomness of the selection process.
Assistance from equipment available at the landfill sorting area will be requested to remove cells
for sampling.
6. Sampling Methpdology Alternatives for Industrial Generator Types
The following three alternatives are methodologies for sampling wastes from industrial waste
generators. The selected methodologies may be a combination of two or all three methodologies.
Alternative 1: 'The first alternative is to sort industrial waste loads entering the landfill. This
requires that the load consist of industrial generator wastes. This alternative utilizes the same
vehicle selection process and sort methodologies as residential and commercial wastes.
(Alternatives 2 and 3 require that an industrial generator population list first be compiled for the
unincorporated area from which to choose a sample set. The most cost effective method for
compiling such a list is by querying a Standard Industrial Classification(SIC)database. Through
the use of a random sampling technique, a sample set will be chosen from the population list.)
Alternative 2: The second alternative is to conduct site visits of industrial facilities. The person
conducting the site visit can either obtain data from existing disposal records, or administer a
field analysis at the source of generation.
Alternative 3: When the population of industrial generators is large enough to allow sampling,
a phone or mail survey will be used to estimate industrial waste composition. Here, generators
will be asked to respond to a questionnaire with a follow-up mailing asking for verification of
responses.
The waste generation study for Contra Costa County will employ a combination of alternatives
. The rim method will be alternative 2 site visits of industrial generators. Surveys
2 and 3 primary g Y
may be used as a way of collecting additional data.
i
7. Sample Size, Confidence Interval and Precision Level
When determining how many samples must be taken in a waste generation study, the acceptable
precision level and confidence interval must first be determined. The precision level, measured
as a percentage, specifies a range within which the true proportion of a component in the waste
stream lies. The more samples taken in a study, the smaller the precision level, and hence the
degree of uncertainty in the survey data is reduced. For example, assume that a study with 100
samples has a precision level of 2 percent and a study with 10 samples has a precision level of '
5 percent. If the studies determine that the composition of a particular component is 10 percent,
the study with 100 samples (2 percent precision level) actually determines that the range within
which-the true composition lies is between 8 percent (10-2=8) and 12 percent (10+2=12). The ,
study with 10 samples (5 percent prec:sion level) determines that the range is between 5 percent
(10-5=5) and 15 percent (10+5=15).
I
The confidence interval identifies the probability that the true composition of a given component
actually does fall within the parameters set by the precision level.
i
For example, assume that a, waste gtaeration study concludes that yard waste comprises 20
percent of the waste stream with a 2 percent precision level and a 90 percent confidence interval.
This can be interpreted as saying that there is a 90 percent probability that the true composition
of yard waste is actually within the parameters of the precision level, or between 18 percent and
22 percent.
i
When designing a waste generation study,it is important to determine how accurate composition
data must be for planning efforts. For example, it is possible to develop data with a 1 percent
precision level, although it will require many samples and great expense. It is also possible to
develop data with a 10 percent precision level, requiring fewer samples and less expense. Thus,
each jurisdiction must try to iachieve a balance between acceptable data accuracy and expense.
8. Number of Samples Needed for a Waste Generation Study
According to Albert J. Klee in his article, Sample Weights in Solid Waste Composition
Studies, the formula for determining the number of samples required for a particular component
in the waste stream is as follows:
i
n=(_LS)2
I
n = sample size
z = normal standard deviation for confidence interval required
s = estimated standard deviation; Klee assumes value of 0 ,1632
a = sensi ti vi ty (transformed Basis)
f
i .
j
i
The equation above is used to calculate the number of samples required to determine the
proportion of a particular component in a jurisdictions' waste stream. When using the equation
to calculate the number of samples required for a waste generation study for a particular
jurisdiction, it is best to solve for the largest component in that jurisdictions' waste stream. The
advantage of this approach is that the precision level of the other (smaller) components in the
waste stream will be smaller, hence more accurate.
In determining the number of residential and commercial samples required for this study,
composition data were obtained from the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan
(CoSWMP), dated August 15, 1989.
9. Number of Samples to be Taken in Con!-a Costa County
This section shows the number of samples required for precision levels of 1, 2, 3 and 5 percent
for residential, commercial and industrial generators. It should be noted that the following
calculations are for the initial (summer) sort.
Total Number of Residential Samples
i� The largest component identified in the'CoSWMF was mixed paper at 30.6 percent. Based on
this component percentage, the following table shows the number of samples required for the
unincorporated area of the County with 1, 2, 3 and 5 percent precision levels.
,1
1� TABLE 1
i� TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL
SAMPLES REQUIRED BASED ON ESTIMATED COMPONENT PROPORTION OF 30.6
PERCENT
PrgCon.Leyels. 1%a 2% 3% 5%
155 39 18 6
It is the recommendation of the consultant that a 3 percent precision level be used for the
residential waste category. The relative homogeneity of residential waste warrants the use of a
slightly larger precision level. A total of 18 residential samples will therefore be taken in Contra
Costa County.
Total Number of Commercial Samples
The largest component in the commercial wastestream identified in the CoSWMP was garden
waste at 13.9 percent. Based on this component percentage, the following table shows the
number of samples required for the unincorporated area of the County with 1, 2, 3 and 5 percent .
precision levels.
. ... ...
OF..COMMER L
CIA
';' BANtPLES RQ[JYRE12BASED ON ESTIMATED COMPONRNT PROPC?RTtfsril Ott I3.9
P
Prec�s►on Lev�la <::::;<:;<.:>: :: 1°l0 2% 3% 5%
89 26 12 5
It is the recommendation of the consultant that a 2 percent precision level be used for the
commercial waste category. The varied nature of commercial waste requires that more samples
(compared to residential) be taken in order to accurately characterize the waste stream. A total
of 26 commercial samples will therefore be taken for the Contul Costa County waste generation
study.
Total Number of Industrial Samples
The data used in the equation to determine the number of samplrs required was taken from the
Seattle Waste Composition Study, June 1989. This study identified mixed scrap paper as being
the largest component in the industrial waste stream with 13.55 percent. Based on this
component percentage, the following table shows the number of samples required for the
unincorporated area of the County with 1, 2, 3 and 5 percent precision levels.
I�
TABLE 3
NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL
SAMPLES REQUIRED BASED ON ESTIMATED COMPONENT PROPORTION OF 1355
PERCENT
�':::::::'iso.:::.:::::::::::::::y::::j':•'I :•,::::::...:. i::i:::......:•:'i::i:::::::•ii::::i::.:: isj: '::j::ii:v:::::;:::::fir::(::•,is J::::::::::i::::%isi::isti:i i:i::'.:::;::::::::::::::::i:
............ti::•'.::::::::::i::::tti:::::'.:::::•:::::::•:':::•::'ti::
::I'aEepSion.T eve. :. r<::>«'':::>::>:»::::<:::<:>::::::.::::....::..................:.:....::.:::::::::.:. 1% 2% 39'0 5%
....:::.:::::::.:::.:::.:.:::.:::.........::..:..:.....,::::::.:.:.:::::::..:. 89 26 12 S
p .::::.... :.::::::::::....::,.::...
::::::::.::::::::.:.:: :.::::::::::.:::::::::..::::
It is the recommendation of the consultant that a 2 percent precision level be used for the
industrial waste category. As with the commercial waste stream, the industrial waste stream is
relatively heterogeneous, warranting a larger number of samples. There will be 26 samples of
industrial waste taken in the Contra Costa waste generation study.
Discussion of Seasonal Variation
A second field_study will be conducted to quantify the seasonal variation in the composition of
waste disposed in the study area. The second set, however, will be much smaller than the first
and is meant only to target significant seasonal variations in composition. The winter sort will
include a total of 30 samples, 12 from residential and 18 from commercial generators.
Field Analysis Methodology
As each vehicle selected as part of the sample arrives at the sorting site, the following data will
be recorded:
■ Date
■ Day of week
■ Waste generator type
■ Location of sort
■ Truck number/license plate
■ Sample cell number
■ Jurisdiction/point of origih
The entire vehicle load will then be dumped and the selected cell (fruni the 16 cell grid)
extracted from the load. The 200-300 pound cell will then be placed onto a tarp and sorted into
the selected waste composition categories. Each component category will be weighed separately
and recorded on data collection sheets specifically designed for this process.
Waste Disposal Analysis
Upon completion of the field study, data will be analyzed for the unincorporated area and waste
generator type. Data for each waste category will be presented with the following information:
■ Mean Percentage
■ 90% Confidence Interval
■ Estimated Annual Tonnage
In addition, the aggregate waste stream will be estimated using the "weighted" combined
residential, commercial and industrial composition data. The weighing technique estimates
aggregate data by weighing each waste generator type according to its proportional contribution
to the total waste stream. The weighted data is then combined to estimate total aggregate waste
stream composition.
IV. WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of a Solid Waste Diversion Characterization is to determine the composition and
quantity of waste generated within a jurisdiction which is diverted from disposal. This
information can be obtained either from primary sources (surveys and site visits) or from
secondary sources (existing data). Sections one and two will discuss these methods.
A. METHODOLOGY FOR OBTAINING PRIMARY DATA
The method for obtaining primary data is as follows:
Compile Population List:
The first step is to compile a list of all the diversion facilities,in the study area. This information
can be obtained. from Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes, business licenses, local
telephone listings, and/or word of mouth from the recycling community. It is expected that a
census of diversion activities will be needed due to the small population size.
Notice:
The second step is to mail a notice, preferably on city or county letter-head, to the operators of
all diversion activities in the study area. This notice will inform the recycling community about
the purpose of the study, request their cooperation in filling out the survey, and assure them of
the confidentiality of the information provided.
Ouestionnaire:
The third step is to send a questionnaire to the operators of all diversion activities in the study
area. Each will be asked what materials they handle, how much of each material they h= adle,
and to give their "best estimate" of what jurisdiction(s) the materials came from. The
questionnaire will also ask if their materials are then sold to a broker, processor or tran:-porter.
This will be done to avoid double counting.
Follow-up Phone Survey (if necessary):
After an initial two-week waiting period, non-respondents will be contacted by telephone to
obtain the necessary information.
Site Visit (if necessary):
If the mail and phone questionnaires are unsuccessful, a site visit will be conducted to obtain the
information.
The following is a list of the diversion activities that will be included in the study:
■ Buy-back centers;
■ End-use processing facilities;
■ Curbside collection programs;
■ Commercial collection programs;
■ Drop-off centers;
■ Tire recovery facilities;
■ Oil recovery facilities;
■ Compost operations;
■ Salvage operations;
■ Materials recovery facilities;
■ Waste material brokers;
■ Other diversion programs.
B. SECONDARY DATA SOURCES
Existing data on the composition and quantity of waste diverted by the unincorporated area will
be obtained from the.following sources:
1. County Solid Waste Management Plan
2. Department of Conservation Data
3. Previous Waste Diversion Studies
4. Environmental Protection Agency Data
Since the population of diversion activities in Contra Costa County is too small to allow
statistically valid sampling techniques, a census of the diversion facilities and programs will be
conducted. When available, secondary data sources will be used as a check.
3. SEASONAL VARIATION IN DIVERSION
All existing diversion activities within the study area will be asked to provide diversion
composition and quantity data on a monthly basis for 1989 and for as many months in 1990 for
which data is available. The data will allow a determination of the annual diversion rate and,
to the extent monthly data is available, an estimation of seasonal variation.
V. WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
Projections of waste generation,are needed for the calculation of disposal facility needs in the
Source Reduction and Recycling Element. This section. outlines the proposed method for
projections.
1. WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
Section 18722 (c)of the AB 939 regulations state that solid waste generation studies shall include
a 15 year projection of the solid waste to be generated, diverted and disposed by the jurisdiction.
The section also states that the projection is to include the amounts,waste categories and waste
types generated, diverted from disposal,_and disposed, for each year of the 15 year period, under
(1) the solid waste management system conditions and diversion activities existing at the time
that the solid waste generation study is prepared, and (2) the solid waste management system
conditions to be realized after a jurisdiction's implementation of it's SRR Element and it's
attainment of the statutory diversion mandates.
For the purposes of this document, only the first set of projections have been completed. The
second set,may be completed after the selection of program alternatives in the SRR Element:
A combination of methods was used to calculate the first set of projections. For commercial and
residential generators, the current waste generation rate was tied to the county growth rate and
projected out over a fifteen year period The per-capita waste generation rate was calculated by
dividing the total quantity of commercial/residential waste currently generated by the population
in the unincorporated area of the county. A current population figure of 154,600 (California
Department of Finance, May 1990) and a growth rate of approximately 1 percent (Contra Costa
County Community Development Department) were used in these calculations. The projections
include calculations for residential,commercial and industrial disposal, diversion, and generation.
For industrial generators, a per-worker waste generation rate was tied to the anticipated growth
in industrial sector jobs. The per-worker waste generation rate was calculated by dividing the
total quantity of industrial waste currently generated by the number of workers in industrial sector
jobs. The number of industrial sector jobs is anticipated to grow from the current level of 7,700
to 8,900 by the year 2005 (Contra Costa County Community Development Department). It was
assumed that future industrial activity will be similar to existing industrial activity,hence the per-
worker waste generation rate remained constant in these calculations.
1626-WGP.002
•
I�
Appendix B9: Waste Diversion Characterization
'
Weight Measurement Assumptions
g p
WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION
WEIGHT MEASUREMENT ASSUMPTIONS
MATERIAL ASSUMED WEIGHT KNOWN WEIGHT
Beverage bottles,refillable 2 bottles/pound
*Department of Conservation
Cardboard,baled 1000 lbs/cubic yard
*National Recycling Coalition
Cardboard,loose 300 lbs/cubic yard
*National Recycling Coalition
Christmas Trees 12 lbs each
Clothing 3/4- 1 pound per piece.
.75 lbs/cubic yard
2.8 RWcubic foot
Diapers,large size 7 diapers/pound
Food Bank Meals 2 lbs for each meal 50 cents/pound
*Marin CoSWMP
Furniture Pietas(on average) 75 lbs each
Including sofas,arm chairs,dining
and coffee tables,mattresses and
springs,desks,lamps.dressers
Grass Clippings 400 lbs/cubic yard
*National Recycling Coalition
Kitchenware 200-300 lbs/cubic yard
Lamps 15 lbs each
Leaves 350 lbs/cubic yard
*National Recycling Coalition
Paper Bags,grocery Store 8 bags/pound.
Small Appliances and 2001bs/cubic yard
Miscellaneous Electronic
Toss,Truck 100 lbs each
*Industry Standard
Tires,Passenger 20-25 lbs each
*Industry Standard
TVsistereos 25 lbs each
White Goods,recycled 75 lbs each
White Goods,mused 200 lbs each
Wine Bottles(150 ml) one pound each a
Wood Chips 500 lbs/cubic yard
*National Recycling Coalition
Xerox Paper,one ream(500 sheets) 5 lbs each
1
i
r
r
w
Appendix B10: Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Contra Costa County
' Solid Waste Management Plan, Contra Costa County, 1989.
Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling. Certified Recycling Centers
in Alpha Order by County, Ci, and Zip. Sacramento, 1990.
Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling. Certified Recycling Centers
with Convenience Zones in Order by -:ounly City, and Convenience Zones.
Sacramento, 1990.
1
Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Population Estimates for
California Cities and Counties, Report 90 E-1, January 11. 1989 and January 1,
1990. Sacramento, 1990.
�. Integrated Waste Management Board. Database List of Recycling Centers by
Counjy. Sacramento, 1990.
Klee, Albert J. and Dennis Carruth. Sample Weights in Solid Waste Composition
Studies." Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, August, 1970, pp. 945-
954.
Pacific Bell. Smart Yellow Pales, Contra Costa County Central. November
1989-90.
Tchobanoglous, George, et al. Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and
Management Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.
µ
' APPENDIX C
COMPOSTING COMPONENT
1'
M
' Appendix Cl: Composting Unit Processes
APPENDIX Cl: COMPOSTING UNIT PROCESSES
Suitability of Materials for Composting
With few exceptions, almost all organic materials are potential candidates for composting. Sewage
sludge, animal manure, yard waste, crop residues, paper mill sludge and food wastes can all be
composted. Characteristics which determine the usefulness and suitability of a material for
composting are the organic matter content, the nutrient composition, the structural stability and the
moisture content.
"Organic" refers to any substance that is derived from living matter. All organic materials can be
composted. Some are suitable as they are, whereas others should first be ground or chopped and/or.
mixed with other materials. Materials that have little or no organic content, such as ash and grit,
will not be broken down during the composting process. Some relatively inorganic materials are
occasionally added to the composting process because they can contribute significant amounts of one
or more minerals (e.g., Rock phosphate). For the most part, these materials will not be reduced
1 in weight or volume.
The main nutrient requirement concerns the amount of carbon relative to the amount of nitrogen (the
carbon: nitrogen ratio or C:N ratio). Woody ematerials and paper have very low nitrogen contents
and high carbon contents. Manures and sewage sludges, on the other hand, have high amounts of
nitrogen relative to the amount of carbon. In order to obtain a good ratio, it may be necessary to
mix materials with different compositions.
Structural stability refers to the behavior of the raw material during the composting process. Some
materials such as fruit and vegetable residues and grass clippings. easily lose their structural
consistency. Other materials such as straw and wood chips will maintain their structure in a compost
pile. In order to ensure good aeration, the materials must be relatively loose to allow circulation of
air. When composting materials with little structural stability it is advisable to add a "bulking agent"
to create a mix with suitable structure. An example of this practice is in sewage sludge composting.
Wood chips or some other material are almost always mixed with sludge when composting. One
April 1993 C1-- 1 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C1
function of the chips is to create pockets or voids in the mixture thus enabling air flow through the
pile. ,
The final characteristic is the moisture content. The composting process is most efficient when the
moisture content of the mix is 50 to 60 percent by weight of the total mix. The moisture content of
some raw materials may be too high or too low to permit a good composting process. Again,
combining different materials can be done to achieve a suitable mix. Manure is an example of a
material which often times may require the addition of another, drier material for composting.
Based on these four characteristics, there are many components of the solid wastestream that can be +,
effectively composted. Yard waste (leaves, grass clippings and brush) and wood waste (pallets,
crates, furniture, roofing material, dimensional lumber and plywood) are the materials most
commonly targeted for diversion. Other components which should be considered are sewage sludge,
food waste and agricultural wastes. '
The Biological Process of Composting
Composting is defined as the controlled decomposition of organic matter through natural microbial
�.
activities in order to produce a humus-like soil amendment product. Since the decomposition of
organic matter is dependent upon the microbial activity, it is essential to create an environment in
which the microbes can thrive during the composting stages. Providing the proper oxygen,moisture,
temperature, pH, particle size and carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) will promote the biological
activities of microbes and therefore speed up the decomposition process of the organic matter.
Oxygen is essential to the respiration of bacteria and fungi that decompose the waste. The presence
of adequate oxygen will promote the growth of these microbes and prevent the process from
becoming anaerobic or oxygen deprived. The lack of oxygen can decrease the rate of decomposition
and promotes the production of foul odors.
To optimize the decomposition of organic material during the composting phase the moisture content i
should be within the range of 40% to 60%. The compost process will slow down if the moisture
content is less than 40% because of the lack of adequate water for microbial activity. Alternatively,
Contra Costa County CI - 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix CI
if the moisture content is greater than 60% there may not be enough pore space within the compost
pile for the oxygen necessary to continue the aerobic composting process. The process can then
become anaerobic and emit foul odors.
The biological activities of the microbes produce heat. Experiments have shown that compost piles
can reach temperatures of 80 to 90° C (176° F to 194° F) and at those temperatures decomposition
e
of the organic material slows' down considerably. For pathogen destruction, the optimum
temperature is 55 to 60° C (131"F to 140°F). The destruction of the cellulose and lignin (paper
fiber) fraction occurs more effectively at temperatures below 60° C.
A highly alkaline or acidic environment will retard the composting process. A relatively neutral pH
(6.0 to 7.0) will allow the composting process to begin. Once the process has begun the pH will
vary. It is not necessary nor desirable to artificially control the pH once the composting process has
begun. However, if the feedstock does not have a neutral pH or problems develop during the
composting process which negatively effect the pH, adjustments may need to be made.
Particle size is an important factor in the composting process. The more surface area the microbes
have to attack, the faster the composting process proceeds. Reducing the size of the organic
material creates more surface area. The ideal particle size range for composting is one to three
inches.
The micro-organisms within the compost piles need nitrogen to assimilate the carbon in the organic
wastes. Nitrogen is often the most limiting nutrient in the composting process. The C:N ratio is
highly variable and is greatly dependent upon the organic material being used as a feedstock. For
example, the C:N ratio for solid waste and yard waste at the beginning of the compost process can
range from 25:1 to 50:1. As the composting process progresses the ratio drops and by the end of
the process the C:N ratio for finished compost ranges from 10:1 to 20:1.
The Unit Processes of Composting Systems
In general terms, a composting_ system is composed of four phases: (1) pre-processing, (2)
processing, (3) composting, and (4) final processing. Within each phase distinct unit processes are
April 1993 CI -3 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
!, Appendix C1
performed. Not all compost facilities preform the unit processes described here and the order in
which they occur may also vary. It should also be noted that the activity of marketing the final
product is not part of the diagram, however, market specifications of the compost must be considered
in the final design of the composting facility as the finished compost must meet those market
specifications. Marketing the finished compost is an important factor in running a successful
composting operation but it is not part of the actual compost process.
In the pre-processing phase, materials are pre-sorted and non-processible materials are removed.
As noted above, this process may start before the material reaches the facility with drop-off,programs
or curbside'programs which remove some of the recyclables from the waste stream. Within the
composting facility this process begins on the tipping floor with .the separation of non-processibles
and bulky items, such as refrigerators, stoves, tires, and mattresses.
The processing phase generally involves a greater variety of mechanical operations than the other '
three phases. The main objective is to separate the material into compostable and non-compostable
fractions and prepare the compostable fraction for the active composting phase. The major activities i
preformed in the processing phase are size reducing, separating, and mixing the compostable material
to obtain the proper moisture level. Additional sorting, either manually or mechanically, may also
take place, however, this is an optional step. The removal of recyclables is also an optional step.
Most composting operations allow the removal of recyclables prior to size reduction, however, there r
are facilities which do not provide this step. T
Size reduction is done mechanically by equipment which shreds and/or grinds the material. This step
is necessary to the composting process because it produces a more homogeneous material, increases ,
the density of the material, and provides more surface area for the microbes to attack during
decomposition. Mixing follows size reduction and not only assists in bringing the material to the
proper moisture level, but also uniformly distributes the moisture throughout the compostable
material.
Once the material has been size reduced, sorted, and moisture adjusted, it is ready to begin the active
composting phase. During this phase the temperature, oxygen and moisture levels, pH, and the C:N
ratio must be closely monitored to maintain the conditions necessary to promote the rapid
Contra Costa County C1 -4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix CI
,a
decomposition of the material. The primary means of adjustment used to control these parameters
are turning for increased air flow and agitation, and water addition for moisture control.'
The final processing phase takes place after the compost has been cured. In this phase the material
is ground or shredded and finally screened to meet the specifications of the end markets. These
operations are performed largely to guarantee product quality and consistency to the end markets.
Advantages/Disadvantages of Composting Technologies
There are no black and white differences amongst technologies but rather variations in unit processes
used to prepare the materials for decomposition in the composting phase. It is important to view
composting operations primarily in terms of their ability to perform the necessary processing steps
and not accept or reject them because they have been labeled as "in-vessel" or "windrow" when they
may be some of both.
1. In-vessel System:
a
For the purposes of this discussion, an in-vessel system is defined as an enclosed vessel
(tube/drum) that retains the material for eight to seventy-two hours (3 days). During that
time the material is size reduced, moisture adjusted and mixed/homogenized, producing a
product that is ready for the active composting phase. This definition of the in-vessel option.
differs from the traditional definition of a system which retains the organic matter until it is
completely decomposed. This definition has been applied mainly to sewage sludge
composting, but it is not a viable solution for composting materials with higher C:N ratios.
The advantages of the in-vessel option which retains the organic matter for eight to
seventy-two hours are:
• The in-vessel option may be considered the primary means of preparing the MSW
for windrowing.
April 1993 CI -5 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C1
• The in-vessel option can be a cost effective means of processing large volumes of
MSW. Large volumes of materials are generally considered to be greater than 100
tons per day, however, this may vary.
• The ability to control air and moisture conditions within a vessel is greater.
• The in-vessel option produces a well-mixed and homogenized product.
• Odors which may occur during mixing are more easily controlled.
• Maintenance costs are generally lower in the in-vessel option than the shred and mix
option.
The disadvantages of using a vessel for composting are:
• Total pathogen reduction is not achieved.
• Maintenance and repair of mechanical equipment inside the vessel is very difficult
because of high temperatures, moist air, and process vapors.
• Vessel systems are very capital intensive systems and are not considered
cost-effective for low tonnages of materials (generally less than 100 tons per day).
• None of the systems produce a mature compost during the vessel retention time.
• The in-vessel option handles a smaller percentage of the waste stream since items
such as tree prunings, various types of construction waste, etc., must be removed
before entering the vessel.
r
r
Contra Costa County Cl - 6 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix Cl
2. Shred and Mix:
In this system, separate pieces of equipment are used to shred and mix. the materials.
Equipment used to shred or size reduce the material are hammer mills, shear shredders,
grating rasp mills, and wet pulpers.
The advantages of a shred and mix option are:
This system is considered cost-effective for processing low tonnages of material
a� (generally less than 100,tons per day).
The capital costs for a shred and mix system are less than those of a vessel system
of the same size.
• The material can be processed faster because of the short retention time of the
material in the mixer.
• The shred and mix option can handle a greater percentage of the waste stream. Items
such as tree,prunings' wood waste from construction projects, and other types of
waste can be handled in this option.
The disadvantages of a shred and mix system area:
• Maintenance costs for a shred and mix system are generally higher than those of the
in-vessel option.
There is a greater potential for explosion.
• The material conveyed to the windrows from a shred and mix system is not as
Y Y
uniform or consistent as the material from a vessel.
April 1993 Cl - 7 Contra Costa County
Final Draft.SRRE
Appendix C1
3. Static Pile:
The static pile option takes processed material and forms piles or windrows on a composting
pad. The composting pad may have a forced aeration system imbedded in the pad and the '
piles or windrows are formed over the aeration system. The alternative to a forced aeration
system imbedded into the composting pad is inserting a system of perforated plastic pipes into
the windrows as they are formed. In both systems a positive or negative air flow (air that
is blown or drawn through the windrows via pipes) is used to control the temperature and
air flow within the windrow. The material is allowed to decompose over a given period of
time without turning. j
A composting system which uses a true static pile option forms windrows at the beginning
of the active composting phase which are not disturbed until the decomposition is completed.
The advantages of the static pile option are:
• The area required for active composting can be smaller than that needed for a
windrow turning system. This is true because the space needed for the compost I
turning equipment is not necessary.
• Capital costs for an enclosed composting area can be less than for a windrow turning
system.
• Air flow and,temperature control can be achieved with a forced aeration system.
Disadvantages in the static pile system are:
• Moisture control is extremely difficult.
• The forced aeration systems used in a static pile system are not very efficient. The
material in the pile tends to form cracks through which the air will flow without
penetrating the entire mass as desired.
Contra Costa County C1 - 8 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix CI
• Because the air flow within the piles is not very efficient many facilities have
experienced problems with anaerobic conditions and the resulting foul odors.
• The static pile system is less effective in pathogen destruction. Pathogen destruction
in the inner layers is achieved by high temperatures. In the outer layers, microbial
antagonism and competition is the primary,mechanism for pathogen destruction.
Because a static pile is not turned, there is no opportunity for all materials to be
subjected to both modes of pathogen destruction.
• The static. pile system produces mature compost in the inner layers of the pile,
however, it is likely that the organic materials in the core of the pile and on the
surface of the pile will not be well decomposed.
• Some systems move the pile approximately half way through the composting time
period. This increases the decomposition of the organic matter, but negates some of
the advantages of the static pile option over the windrow turning option because it
requires additional space, equipment, and labor costs.
With careful management it is possible to produce mature compost with the static pile option,
but the process must be accurately monitored. In the event of problems, it may be necessary
to restart (turn and reform) entire piles:
1
4. Windrow Turning:
In the windrow turnip option, processed material is formed into piles or windrows and
g P . , P
allowed to decompose over a given period of time. Decomposition of the material is
promoted through frequent turning with a compost turning machine. The turning machine
is used to provide,,oxygen, moisture, agitation and to. control the. temperature within the
windrows.
April 1993 C1 - 9 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
. Appendix C1
The advantages of the windrow turning option are:
• Control of moisture, air, and temperature is simple and effective. Moisture can be
added at every turning: The turning will keep the temperature in the optimal range. j
• Frequent turning of windrows subjects compost to the different types of organisms
in the inner and outer layers of the pile. This allows the entire windrow to reach
maturity at the same time.
• Through careful monitoring of the piles the intervals between turnings can be adjusted
to the need of the composting process. For example, frequent turning at the
beginning of the compost process favors the organisms necessary at the beginning of ,
the compost process. However, fungi essential in the final stages of composting for
the breakdown of cellulose are destroyed by frequent turning; therefore less frequent
turning during the final phase of composting is desirable.
• Odor problems are not normally difficult to prevent in the windrow turning option,
because proper temperature, oxygen and moisture levels can be maintained through
frequent turning.
• Frequent turning during the initial period will ensure a more complete destruction of
pathogens both by temperature and by antagonistic organisms.
• The shearing action (or "agitation") of the turning machine further reduces particle
size, breaks up clumps, and keeps the material within the pile loose to facilitate air
flow.
The disadvantages of this option are: r
• The composting area required in the windrow turning option is generally larger than
that required in the static pile option. A compost turning machine generally requires
additional space for operation.
Contra Costa Comy C1 - 10 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix Cl
• Labor requirements in this option may be higher than those of the static pile option
because of the additional handling of the composting material during the active
composting phase. This would increase labor costs for the facility.
• From a process point of view a hard surface of gravel which will allow air and water
penetration is preferred. However, because of the operation of heavy equipment an
asphalt or concrete composting pad may be required. Either will increase the chance
of development of anaerobic zones in the windrows potentially causing odor
problems.
In both the static pile and windrow turning options the waste must be processed before
composting. Processing of the waste is basically the same in both systems with the goals
1 beingsize reduction obtaining the proper moisture levels and removal of contaminants. The
� g P P ,
windrows in both the static pile and windrow turning options are approximately six to seven
feet in height, 14 to 18 feet wide at the base and three to five feet wide at the top. The
length of the windrow varies according to the length of the area used for composting.
Composting systems are generally some combination of the options which have just been
described. An example of this is in-vessel systems which have added windrow systems to
the process. In-vessel systems have had difficulty containing the organic material within the
vessel until the material has fully composted and matured. Therefore, it has been necessary
to add a windrow system (either static pile or windrow turning) in order to produce a mature
compost.
'f
�f
April 1993 C1 - 11 Contra Costa County
Final Draj}SRRE
�� Appendix C1
r
r
r
r
1.
i
t
Contra Costa County CI - 12 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix CI
M
1'
r
r
Appendix C2:
� Cost Details for Composting Programs Evaluated
I
II
II
1�
II
II
�I
I
' APPENDIX C2: COST DETAILS FOR COMPOSTING PROGRAMS EVALUATED
j
Alternative #1: Drop off of grass and leaves no shredding, composting using a low technology
windrow process.
The main advantages of this alternative are low capital and operating costs. Fora 100 TPD facility,
approximate capital costs would range from $260,000 to $540,000. This excludes the cost of land
' purchase or lease, and assumes the facility is already equipped with a weighing scale, water truck,
fuel tank, maintenance garage, and office/scale house. Operating costs would include collection costs
(transfer from drop-off sites) of $20-40 per ton depending upon relative distances, and processing
costs of$15-30 per ton.
Cost components (planning level estimates):
Collection Equipment.
Drop off boxes 10,000 - 15,000
Transport Truck(s) 30,000 - 90,000
Total 40,000 - 105,000
�I Facility Costs
Front end loader 80,000 - 120,000
'M Grading, paving, roads
`` fencing, utilities 15,000 - 125,000
Engineering 10,000 - 50,000
Total $105,000 - $295,000
Alternative #2: Drop off of yard debris, size reduction, and composting using a low
technology windrow process.
This alternative would divert a substantially larger volume of material than Alternative #1, given that
brush comprises approximately 60% of all yard waste by weight. The capital costs would be higher,
ranging from $500,000 to $1,100,000 for a 100 TPD facility. This excludes the cost of land
purchase or lease, and assumes the facility is already equipped with a weighing scale, water truck,
fuel tank, maintenance garage, and office/scale house. Operating costs would range from $20-40
per ton for collection depending upon relative transfer distances, and $30-40 per ton for processing.
April 1993 C2-1 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C2
Cost components (planning level estimates):
EQ ipment
Drop off boxes 10,000 - 15,000
Transport Truck(s) 30,000 - 90,000
Total 40,000 - 105,000
Facility Costs '
Front end loaders 160,000 - 240,000
.Grinder or Shredder 130,000 - 270,000 ,
Screen (optional) 0 - 120,000
Grading, paving, roads
fencing, utilities 25,000 - 150,000
Engineering 40,000 - 100,000
Total Costs $355,000 - $880,000
Alternative #{3: Curbside residential collection and drop-off of yard debris, size reduction, and
composting using a high technology windrow process.
Capital costs for a system utilizing bags for collection would range between $1,030,000 and
$1,800,000 for a 100 TPD facility. With a containerized collection system, the capital costs would
range between $3,900,000 and $6,700,000. These estimates exclude the cost of land purchase or
lease, and' assume the facility is already equipped with a weighing scale, water truck, fuel tank,
maintenance garage, and office/scale house. Collection costs would range from $60-90 per ton, and
processing costs from $30-50-per ton.
Cost components (planning level estimates):
Collection
Collection Trucks 300,000 - 500,000
Bags (initial) 125,000 - 200,000
(Containers) (3,000,000 - 5,000,000)
Total 425,000 - 600,000
(3,300,00 - 5,500,000 with containers)
Contra Costa County C2-2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C2 .
i
Facility Costs
Front end loaders 160,000 - 240,000
Grinder or Shredder 130,000 - 270,000
Screen(s) 100,000 - 120,000
Compost Turner 50,000 - 75,000
Grading, paving, roads
fencing, utilities 25,000 - 150,000
Engineering 50,000 - 100,000
Total $515,000 - $1,125,000
Alternative ##4: Curbside residential collection of food and yard waste, commercial collection
of food waste, size reduction, mixing. composting using a high technology windrow process.
The capital costs of this alternative would range from $1,700,000 to $2,850,000 for a 100 TPD
facility. With a containerized collection system, the capital costs would range between $5,400,000
and $7,650,000. These estimates exclude the cost of land purchase or lease, and assume the facility
is. already equipped with a weighing scale, water truck, fuel tank, maintenance garage, and
office/scale house. Operating costs would range from $60-90 per ton for collection, and $30-50 per
ton for processing.
Cost components (planning level estimates):
Collection
Collection Trucks 500,000 - 750,000
Bags (initial) 125,000 - 200,000
(80,000 HH)
(Containers) (3,800,000 - 5,000,000)
Comm. containers 400,000 600,000
Total 1,025,000 - 1,550,000 with bags
(4,700,000 - 6,350,000 with containers)
Y
April 1993 C2-3 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C2
Facility Costs
Front end loaders 160,000 - 240,000
Grinder or Shredder 130,000 - 270,000
Mixer 20,000 - 50,000
Screen(s) 100,000 - 240,000
Compost Turner 50,000 - 75,000
Grading, paving, roads
fencing, utilities 50,000 - 150,000
Engineering 100,000 - 200,000
Total $610,000 - $1,225,000 with bags
Alternative #/5: In-vessel composting of mixed solid waste.
Capital costs for an in-vessel facility vary extensively. Because every project is so different in terms
of design, comparing costs of various designs is difficult. The same holds true for operating'costs.
Capital costs for a 100 TPD facility would range from $4,000,000 to $15,000,000,with the greatest
costs associated with the drum or vessel system, and the building structures required to house the
operation. This excludes the cost of land purchase or lease, and assumes the facility is already
equipped with a,weighing scale, water truck, fuel tank, maintenance garage, and office/scale house.
Operating costs would range from $35-75 per ton.
Alternative ##6: Aerated static pile co-composting of sewage sludge and mixed solid waste.
Capital costs for a co-composting facility vary extensively according to system design. Design,
construction, and start-up costs for a 100 TPD facility (60 TPD of mixed waste and 40 wet TPD of
sludge) would range from $3,000,000 to $12,000,000. This excludes the cost of land purchase or
lease, and assumes the facility is already equipped with a weighing scale, water truck, fuel tank,
maintenance garage, and office/scale house. Operating costs would range from $40-100 per wet ton. ,
Contra Costa-county C2-4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C2
Appendix C3: Evaluation Criteria
APPENDIX C3: EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Waste diversion potential:
The effectiveness of the program to reduce the volume and weight of material. Weighting
' is according to the overall percentage of the waste stream that a program can be expected to
divert.
Low: Less than 5% of total waste stream diverted
Medium: 5 - 10% of total waste stream diverted
High: More than 10% of total waste stream diverted
2. Hazards created by the alternative considered:
The degree of hazards posed by implementing the program (air quality, water quality, noise,
worker health and safety, etc.).
Low: The option has environmental impacts or hazards that are severe or
unmitigable
Medium: The impacts or hazards are mild or mitigable
High: Few or no hazards or nuisances exist, and hazards can be adequately
contained
3. Adaptability to Change:
The ability of the program to adapt to changing economic, technical and social conditions
(including consumer habits).
April 1993 C3- 1 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
aAppendix C3
r
Low: Program tied to particular technology, market, or social institution, and little
adaptability is possible '
Medium: Program may be hampered by predictable, moderate changes, and some
adaptation is possible with significant program alteration '
High: Program is flexible, and much adaptability is possible
4. Ease of Implementation:
The time required to implement program
r
Low: Greater than two years
Medium: One to two years ,
High: Less than one year
5. Consistency with Local Policies:
The consistency with existing ordinances, local policies and regulations.
Low: Major changes to existing codes and ordinances would need to be adopted
prior to program selection
Medium: Minor changes needed
High: No changes needed
6. Facility Requirements: '
The need to expand or build new facilities to implement the program '
Low: Major expansion or new facilities required
Medium: Moderate expansion required
High: No significant expansion of existing facilities '
Contra Costa County C3- 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C3
7. Institutional Barriers:
Implementation may be impacted by existing institutional infrastructures such.as waste stream
' ownership agreements and long term franchise contracts. Institutional barriers must be
expected in planning and implementing a new integrated waste management system.
r
Low: Severe institutional barriers
' Medium: Moderate barriers or moderately difficult to overcome
High: Few or easily overcome institutional barriers
S. Capital Costs:
The initial costs for items such as equipment, facility, and land purchase
Low:
Medium:
High:
9. . Long-term Cost Effectiveness:
Long-term costs are ranked between low, medium, and high categories on a relative basis.
The reason for this is that the specific elements selected for a program will vary widely from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Low:
Medium:
High:
10. Available End Uses or Markets:
Availability and necessity of end uses or markets for finished compost.
April 1993 C3- 3 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C3
Low: Markets are currently nonexistent or unstable
Medium: Potential for medium-term development of markets. Markets exist but are '
subject to moderate fluctuations
High: Existing and potential markets are available and relatively stable
11. Involvement of Waste Generators: ,
Involvement of people, as waste generators, in managing and reducing their own wastes is ,
a cornerstone of a successful integrated waste management program. A shift in the solid
waste management system requires a corresponding shift in habits, attitudes, and individual ,
actions that affect the production of waste materials.
Low: Little involvement, or enlistment difficult
Medium: Only minority involvement, or limited feasibility ,
High: Majority of producers of a waste stream segment must be involved, and
involvement is feasible '
12. Operating_Experience:
The extent to which the program has been successfully implemented and proven effective in
other communities. It also considers the extent to which the alternative is undergoing rapid
technological change.
Low: '
Medium:
High:
Contra Costa County C3 - 4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C3
r
i
M
1
1
Appendix C4: Compost Marketing
1
APPENDIX C4: COMPOST MARKETING
Of the various consumers that are considered when evaluating potential markets for compost
products, public.agencies, agriculture, and landscaping industries are quite often identified as the
' most likely outlets. These markets are moderate to large in size, have a need for and experience in
managing organic materials, tolerate a wider range of product specifications, and present some
potential for generating revenue.
Product specifications and the amount of product variation that can be tolerated vary for different
categories of users. For example,"use of compost as a component of greenhouse mixes is often cited
as a potentially lucrative market. Nursery growers do pay considerable amounts for high quality
sphagnum moss peat. However, the growers have very specific needs with respect to density,
porosity, pH, and other parameters. - Furthermore, consistency of product and availability during
peak planting times are critical. It may be unwise to target highly specific and demanding markets
® during the initial stages of a composting operation because of uncertainties about compost quality and
�I consistency. However, as a better understanding of product characteristics and variability develops,
these markets can and should be pursued because of the revenue potential_
Initially, less demanding markets to pursue might include landscapers, landfills, parks, forestry and
highway departments, and agricultural lands. Although the specifications of these users are less
demanding, it is still important that the needs of these users be recognized. For example, surveys
have consistently shown that landscapers are a good potential market for compost; they are interested
in using the product and are capable of consuming large quantities. Successful marketing to this
group will require that the producer understand issues such as transport and handling needs and
periods of peak demand.
A distinction should be made between existing and potential markets. An existing market is one in
which a product is now and has historically been both available and in demand. By this criterion,
8 compost products, mulch, and other soil amendments derived from yard waste should be considered
a potential market; a potential market that is large and has not been fully explored. An analysis of
existing markets appears later in this section.
April 1993 C4- 1 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C4
Every geographic region is unique in the types of businesses that use compost products and in
accepted soil use practices. For example, an urban area may have a great need for compost within '
the public agencies and the,landscaping industry. A suburban area may have greater needs in the
plant growing industries, such as nurseries. The geographic location of the compost operation and
economic and population growth of the area will be good indicators of future trends in soil product
consumption. ,
The markets for yard waste by-products are also influenced by the following factors:
• The proximity of potential users to the source of compost/mulch. ,
• The quality of the compost/mulch.
• The quantity of competing compost/mulch and other soil amendments.
There is variation in how much, if any, revenue can be anticipated from different market sectors. ,
The goals of any marketing effort are to distribute all of the material produced and to maximize net
revenues. These two objectives must be balanced against each other. For example, successful ,
marketing to the nursery industry may result in higher revenue per unit of compost sold, but there
may not be sufficient demand for all compost produced.
During the initial stages of production it is unlikely that revenues will be generated from the sale of ,
compost or mulch. After an initial period, during which time compost quality can be matched to
consumer needs, it is desirable and should be possible, to develop paying markets for the products. ,
Revenues not only offset operational costs, they also connote a positive image to the products.
However, no known community yard waste collection, processing and marketing system operates 1
with a net profit. Private firms may operate at a profit because tipping fees are normally in place
to supplement high production costs and relatively low revenues.
State mandates
Two bills affecting markets for organic wastes were signed into law in 1989. Senate Bill 1322 '
establishes a comprehensive set of state programs designed to encourage source reduction of waste
and market development for recycled materials. A compost market program will require the '
Contra Costa County C4- 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Appendix E4
Department of Transportation(Caltrans)to purchase compost products for their highway landscaping
rprogram. In addition, the Departments of General Services, Forestry and Fire Protection, and Parks
and Recreation are directed to identify and evaluate other uses for compost, including erosion
' control, public land restoration, landscaping, park and recreational maintenance projects, and
highway noise barriers.
Assembly Bill 4. the State Assistance for Recycling Markets Act of 1989, (STAR) requires state and
1 local public agencies to give purchase preferences to compost products, and authorizes local agencies
to determine the amount of the preference. It also requires state contractors to certify percentages
of recycled content in products either sold to the state or bought for the state. The IWMB will
coordinate a testing program for compost and co-compost products based on the final use of the
material and applicable state standards and regulations.
1 Agricultural End Uses
Historically, agriculture has not been considered a primary market for compost because it is unlikely
that any revenues could be generated to offset the costs of production. Farmers do not typically pay
for soil amendments. While they do recognize the value of organic materials such as manures, in
some respects they are viewed simply as wastes.which require time, labor, and equipment to manage.
In most cases the costs associated with managing the wastes outweigh the value (particularly in terms
of'fertilizer content) of the material. Transport is also a factor in agricultural in agricultural use.
In many communities there isnot available farmland within a reasonable distance from the point of
generation.
Commercial farmers have a history of purchasing inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, and water.
The large agricultural firms indicate that they would not be interested in purchasing compost unless
a nitrogen shortage became extremely acute', and the compost had a high nitrogen value. The
fertilizer value of yard waste composts is relatively low and very high application rates, 5 to 8
tons/acre, would be required to supply the nutrient requirements of most crops.
e .
While commercial farmers have not traditionally purchased organic matter inputs, there is an
important trend toward "low input" agriculture to reduce operating costs, including fertilizer. For
April 1993 C4- 3 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C4
example, the National Association of Conservation Districts announced a resolution in February,
1990, urging the Soil Conservation Service to adopt "beneficial compost and sludge application" as
a soil conservation measure, and add it to the National Handbook of Conservation Practices. Once
a practice is listed in the Handbook it becomes eligible for cost sharing. Such a step would aid a '
much larger number of farmers to get involved with composting and land application. 'Many growers
do not have the equipment necessary to apply large volumes of material. Most commercial '
agricultural operations are too far away from composting facilities to be reached economically given
high transport costs, except for several in Eastern Contra Costa County.
There are potential agricultural applications for composts on the islands in the Bay-Delta region.
Oxidation and erosion is leading to an impending failure of hundreds of miles of weak levees. These
levees must be reinforced. An additional problem is that the islands of the Delta have lost a ,
substantial volume of peat soil to erosion and weathering over the years, and the resultant lowering
of the ground level has made the area susceptible to flooding. A long term solution to the problem '
is to raise the ground level by adding organic amendments. A pilot project and full-scale proposal
to explore this solution was initiated in the 1970's by the Association of Bay Area Governments, but '
was later discontinued due to inadequate funding and potential water quality problems from the
compost "leachate". The project would have involved barging sewage sludge and organic solid ,
wastes from the Bay Area to the Delta, and co-composting the materials. The finished product was
to be used to buttress weak levees and to control island floor subsistence. While such a program is
not feasible from a narrow economic analysis, the environmental and economic significance of the
Delta is of major import to California, and it must be protected. '
Landspreading Raw Yard Debris
As an alternative to composting, raw yard debris may simply be incorporated into the soil and '
allowed to decompose there. The addition of organic matter to the soil in the form of plant residues
has been practiced by farmers for centuries. Ultimately, the same benefits are achieved as from
adding a soil amendment. While this approach to managing yard debris is one of the least costly,
there are some drawbacks.
Contra Costa County C4-4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C4 ,
r
As organic matter decomposes in the soil, nitrogen is immobilized by the decomposing
microorganisms are therefore unavailable for plant growth. This is similar to the situation created
when immature composts are applied to soils. Considerable research has shown that application of
immature composts can result in nitrogen immobilization and reduced crop yields, especially with
application rates in excess of 25 tons per acre. The presence of decomposing organic matter in soil.
has been shown to inhibit plant growth in general, probably due to the acidic by-products created
during the process. This effect Is short-lived, however, and negative impacts can be avoided with
proper management.. These would include limiting application rates, adding supplemental nitrogen
if necessary, and allowing sufficient time to lapse between landspreading and planting.
1 community n h w current 1 n rd debris in
The agricultura comm ty is one of the fe cu ent loca markets for u composted ya de s
the area. Nurseries often incorporate organic residues into the soil in production fields, but generally
a green manure crop (sorghum, Sudan grass) is used for its weed suppression properties.
Lands reading yard debris is less expensive than composting, although it is unlikely that any revenue
would be generated from product sales. This approach may be particularly attractive to densely
populated counties which are faced with handling large volumes of yard debris on limited budgets
and limited sites. . A processing site would still be required to handle materials when farm fields are
unavailable, but this need not be as large as one that would be used for composting. Transport of
material to farm sites would also be necessary, and quite costly.
Disadvantages of land application are primarily related to the seasonal nature of farming. Fields are
generally only available for landspreading during the.spring and fall, and then weather conditions
may restrict access. There are also the times of year when farmers are busiest with planting and
harvesting. Many farmers, particularly those who do not handle livestock, do not have the
e equipment to spread large volumes of material. A back-up system in the form of storage capacity
or a contingency composting site should'be included in any landspreading plan.
eLand application to crop lands is not a feasible method of handling grass clippings, as they are
primarily generated during the summer months after most crops have been planted. Set aside acreage
may be available for summer application, in some cases.
April 1993 C4- 5 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C4
C
Peak leaf collection season, however, does coincide with the most likely time of availability of farm
fields. Leaves incorporated in the fall would decompose sufficiently before spring planting so that
adverse impacts on growth would not occur. While not a total solution, landspreading programs
could help communities manage peak yard debris collection periods.
Specifications for yard debris that is to be land applied are minimal, but should be considered
critical. The material should not be bagged unless farmers have demonstrated willingness and
capability to handle it in this form. Many farmers have neither the means nor the time available to
debag. The presence of brush and woody material is likely to cause problems with equipment, as
will other debris such as cans and plastic bags. If collected along with other yard debris, brush '
should be separated out prior to land application. The presence of twigs and wood chips should not
present a problem if materials are size reduced before application.
Landspreading of raw (uncomposted) yard debris on agricultural land has gained attention in recent
years as a management alternative. Even with higher transportation costs and payment to farmers,
landspreading can be economically competitive with composting .because of lower processing costs
and land requirements.
Institutional. Recreational and Residential Users
Other markets include recreational users (golf courses parks), institutional users landfills, land '
(g , P ) (
reclamation projects, highway,projects), and homeowners. Recreational users such as golf courses ,
are often reluctant purchasers of yard waste products due to a concern about workability of the
material or the free-flowing capability. Parks, in contrast, are large users of mulches and barks for '
trails, vegetative plantings, and erosion control. Parks operators tend to generate their own mulches
and bark from tree maintenance conducted within the parks in an effort to reduce landfilling of those '
useful materials. Institutional users comprise a large market but normally a market that offers a very
low price (if any) for soil products. These users will be essential during the early phases of a
program before commercial marketing is fruitful.
Homeowners generally purchase soil amendments and landscape materials from retail businesses but
they.will readily divert to other sources if available. Some homeowners use compost and mulch ,
j
Contra Costa County i C4- 6 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE j
Appendix C4 ,
generated on their own property by backyard composting, brush chipping and mulching. But because
backyard composting and mulching usually generates small amounts of material, those homeowners
may also buy commercial products.
Seasonal Variations in Market Demand
Although yard waste is generated year-round in the Bay Area, the end-user demand for soil
amendments, mulches, and similar products is greater from spring to autumn. The drought
experienced in recent years has kept the demand for such materials fairly consistent in all seasons.
' Demand fluctuates according to gardening, landscaping, and vegetation planting schedules. Stable
demand is apparent for institutional and construction uses. The production of topsoil, mulches, bark,
and other products occurs throughout the year.
Wood Chips and Biomass Conversion
Regulations promulgated by the CIWMB state that the use of wood chips as boiler fuel at biomass
conversion facilities will not count toward diversion goals at all in the short term, and for only 10%
of diversion goals by the year 2000, if the following conditions are met:
• The transformation project uses front-end methods to remove all recyclable materials from
the waste stream prior to transformation to the maximum extent feasible.
• The ash or residueenerated is routinely tested at least once a month.
g Y
• The unincorporated area or county where the facility is located is effectively implementing
aall feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting measures.
• The transformation project will not adversely affect public health and the environment.
This regulation could have a significant effect on diversion goals and on end-use markets. The
market for wood chips is driven largely by the forces of demand. There are seven biomass
conversion facilities within 100 miles of the Bay Area which absorb most of the urban wood waste
April 1993 C4- 7 Contra Costa County
Final Drgfl SRRE
Appendix C4
produced. The demand is currently not being met: these facilities could handle an estimated 900,000
- 1,200,000 tons per year of processed wood waste in addition to the roughly 240,000 tons currently
received from recovery facilities in the Bay Area. The boiler fuel market will dramatically affect
the disposition.of wood chips produced in the region. To illustrate, the market price for bone dry
wood chips is currently $30-40 per bone dry ton, an increase of 60% in the past four years. This
has caused major shifts in the landscaping industry, which normally derives bark products from '
lumber mills in Northern California. The majority of by-products from the lumber mills are now
going to more lucrative markets at biomass conversion facilities, causing an 80% increase in the
price for landscape bark products in the past four years.
There is currently a strong demand for boiler fuel. A suitable material for this market can be
produced from the brush and/or woody portion of yard waste. Whether or not this option should
be developed depends partly on the state's current and future position on applicability of the practice
to recycling goals. The extent to which Contra Costa County expects to meet recycling goals '
through yard and wood waste management practices is also an important factor. In other words,
economics and relative market certainty support managing a portion of the yard waste in this way,
even though tonnages diverted to boiler markets would not at present credit towards recycling goals.
It is unlikely that the sale of wood chips as mulch in the landscaping industry could match the price
obtainable from sale of the material as boiler fuel. In addition, the market for such end uses is not '
well developed, and has only limited potential for expansion. Other beneficial end uses for wood
chips in agriculture, sludge composting, and land reclamation are not currently viable on a large ,
scale.. Given the paucity of other available markets for wood chips, the boiler fuel market should
be pursued as a means of securing an end use for the material and as an economic support for '
composting other waste stream components.
Sewage Sludge
In February, 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule
governing the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, presenting a dramatically new risk assessment '
model designed to simulate the movement of the constituents in sludge through the air, water, land,
and food chain. The proposed regulations would prohibit sludge which is applied to agricultural land '
Contra Costa County C4- 8 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C4 '
from exceeding specified annual rates for 15 organic constituents. These annual loading rates are
supposedly established to ensure that the organic constituent concentration in the soil resulting from
each year's sludge application does not produce a significant carcinogenic risk if the growing plants
or grazing animals are eaten by humans. There is not, however, conclusive scientific evidence to
support this claim. The rule would have a negative impact on efforts to use the sewage sludge for .
beneficial purposes.
' Recent legislation passed in California will also affect the disposition of sewage sludge. AB 2295
(1989) promotes the use of sludge as a fertilizer and landfill cover.material. SB 1322 (1989) will
require the Departments of Forestry, Parks and Recreation, and General Services to use treated
' sewage sludge and sludge co-composted with yard waste in public land restoration projects, state
landscaping projects, and park and recreational area maintenance programs. The intent of these laws
conflict with the impact EPA's proposed rule will have on beneficial reuse. These developments will
have a significant impact on the markets for yard waste products for two reasons: sewage sludge is
useful for co-compo8ting with yard waste because of its high nitrogen and moisture content, and
finished sludge composts are a competing product in the soil amendment marketplace.
There is continuing controversy over the inclusion of sewage sludge as a material that counts toward ,
the diversion goals. AB 1820 and AB 3992 (1990) put a moratorium on sludge, considering it a
"special waste" not to be included as part of solid waste generation data or as part of diversion goals.
The CIWMB, in cooperation with the state water board and Department of Health Services, have
issued a report which examines whether recycled and composted sludge should count towards waste
diversion percentages. The report reaches the following conclusions:
• Risk assessment focused on the agricultural land application option, and concluded that it
g PP
presents no significant incremental risk to public health.
• While the existing system is capable of regulating sludge management, its application is
inconsistent and the responsibilities of the implementing agencies are unclear and
overlapping. -
April 1993 C4 -9 Contra Costa County
„ Final Draft SRRE
Appendix C4
• EPA's proposed regulations should be used as a foundation for the development of a
comprehensive regulatory program for sludge disposal and reuse. i
• Sludge should be counted toward the AB 939 diversion requirement as soon as the regulatory '
system has been modified to give it the capability to address site-specific issues with a
coordinated and more consistent approach.
The regulatory environment for sewage sludge will continue to change and be further refined. The
criteria used in EPA's rule will likely be changed and the standards relaxed to allow for beneficial
reuse. Given the strong push by the state legislature, there is potential for a large increase in sewage '
sludge utilization in California once the regulatory system is overhauled. Beneficial use programs
are already well established in the Bay Area, and the state legislation will increase the range of
acceptable uses for sewage sludge products. Bay Area landfill operators have expressed an interest
in establishing recovery facilities at landfills to divert sewage sludge for use in co-composting with ,
yard waste. This not only would divert the sewage sludge fraction (8-10%) of the waste stream from
landfills, but would also be a valuable source of moisture and nitrogen for the composting process.
There will likely be continued changes and additions to laws at both the state and federal level, hence
recovery programs should be planned with the greatest degree of flexibility possible to allow easy '
and efficient modifications.
Contra Costa County C4- 10 April 1993
Final Dra,ft SRRE
Appendix C4
Appendix D: Recycling Market Development
Zone Application
1
APPENDIX D
' RECYCLING MARKET
DEVELOPMENT ZONE PLAN
.FOR
HEH REL/N
S • E
OF
CONTRA TA
.1�ilT
IA
w r
III NI.•
M
mom ftff�
i'
:A
:•:•'.;::tip•
.Go- /
® PnW#d on Recycled Paper CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
CIWMB DESIGNATION JUNE 24, 1992
Community Contra Harvey E.Comma n
Director of Community Development
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building '
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing aE.-5. ;L-.•o„
Martinez, California 945530095 `-
Phone: 646-1550 August 7, 1992
'o• .`*yam
Mr. Shawn Pittard ,
Markets Development Branch
California Integrated Waste Management Board
8800 Cal Center Drive . I
Sacramento, Ca 95826
Dear Mr. Pittard:
SUBJECT: RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE APPLICATION FOR THE
SHORELINE OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Given the interjurisdictional difficulties experienced in attempting to site new landfills ,
in Contra Costa County, there were those--including my own staf*f--who said it
couldn't be done. But, the jurisdictions comprising the Industrial Shoi eline.of Contra
Costa have, in fact, all joined together to cooperatively apply for Recycling Market '
Development Zone designation of the Contra Costa Shoreline.
Enclosed are four(4) copies of our application for Recycling Market Development Zone
designation.
The Recycling Market Development Program for the Shoreline was developed jointly ,
by the County, the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, the West Contra Costa Integrated
Waste Management Authority, and the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood,
Martinez, Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Richmond, and El Cerrito.
The Program concentrates on recycling market development for four materials--
plastics, tires, tin, and yardwaste. Meetings with top level managers in key industries
located within the Shoreline have already taken place. Specifically, incorporating
tertiary plastics recycling into the Chevron and Shell Oil Refineries has been discussed
directly with the local Plant Managers of both facilities, and incorporation of de-tinning
operations into the USS/POSCO Steel Plant in Pittsburg has been directly discussed
with local plant managers. Additionally,demonstration meetings on crumb rubber and
plastics lumber were held for public works and purchasing personnel of all local '
agencies.
To provide Recycling Market Development Zone administration, the member agencies '
are forming a Shoreline Recycling Market Development Council comprised of
APPLICATION
' FOR
RECYCLING MARKET_ DEVELOPMENT ZONE
APPLICANTS: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
DEL TA DIA BLO.SANITA TION DISTRICT
including the cities of
PITTSBURG AND ANTIOCH
WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
including the cities of
EL CERRITO, RICHMOND, SAN PABLO,
PINOLE, AND HERCULES.
CITY OF MARTINEZ
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
REGION: #4 - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA ,
LEAD AGENCY: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
CONTACT: LOUSE AIELL0
COUNTY RECYCLING PROGRAMS MANAGER
(510) 646-1550
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR - NORTH WING
651 PINE STREET
MARTINEZ, CA 94553-0095
PREPARED BY
e CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM
BERNARD MEYERSON OF EMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I - RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE PLAN
ZONE-DESCRIPTION, ADMINISTRATION, FINANCING AND
INCENTIVES, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
CHAPTER 11 - FEEDSTOCK ANALYSIS AND MARKETING PLAN '
EXHIBITS
1-1 PHASE I ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
1-2 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES FOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1-3 1990 WASTESTREAM FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
2-1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FEEDSTOCK
2-2 HAMMER'S PLASTIC RECYCLING LETTER OF INTENT
2-3 MATERIALS WEIGHT EQUIVALENTS EXAMPLE
2-4 PABCO ROOFING PRODUCTS LETTER
2-5 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ACT - SECTION 1038 OF HR 2950
2-6 BAS RECYCLING ZONE LETTER OF INTEREST ,
2-7 BAS RECYCLING LETTER -- DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
2-8 CHEVRON LETTER--TERTIARY RECYCLING OF PLASTICS
2-9 CHEVRON LETTER OF SUPPORT
APPENDIX A - RESOLUTIONS AND LETTERS OF COMMITMENT FROM ,
CO-APPLICANTS
APPENDIX B - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S NORTH RICHMOND
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C - MAPS
MAP 1 - UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY
MAP 2 - SERVICE AREA OF DELTA-DIABLO SANITATION
DISTRICT ,
MAP 3 - CITY OF PITTSBURG
MAP 4 - CITY OF MARTINEZ
MAP 5 - CITY OF RICHMOND '
i ,
INTRODUCTION
To prolong the rapid) diminishing landfill capacity of the three existing landfills
P 9 Y 9 P Y 9
located in Contra Costa County, in 1989 the County and its 18 cities began
implementing recycling programs. Experience with our recycling programs
demonstrated the need for a three-pronged approach in developing recycling markets.
To sustain the economic viability of recycling programs, recycling market development
must (1) foster new businesses which re-manufacture and/or re-use recyclables, (2)
encourage existing businesses to explore their capacity to re-use or re-manufacture
recyclables, and (3) assure markets for the end-use products made from recyclables.
' Additionally, our experience with recycling programs .revealed the importance of
multi-jurisdictional, public/private partnership efforts to assure sufficient quantities of
recyclables for businesses engaged in re-use or re-manufacture.
This application for designation of the entire Shoreline of Contra Costa Count
PP 9 Y
as a Recycling Market Development Zone by the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) reflects the lessons we in Contra Costa County have
learned from the implementation of recycling programs.
The co-applicants form a multi-jurisdictional partnership of the contiguous
jurisdictions along the Shoreline of Contra Costa. These jurisdictions are committed
to a Recycling Market Development Program which assures both the supply of
sufficient feedstock and the local demand for the end-use products made from
recyclables.
Additionally, the co-applicants intend to establish a public/private Recycling
Market Development Corporation to foster support and monitor recycling business
development. All three of the proposed material recovery facilities which will serve
.the County and its 18 cities will be located within the industrial areas of the Shoreline
thereby facilitating the provision of sufficient quantities of recyclables. Also located
within the industrial areas of the Shoreline are existing industries with which the
co-applicants are working to develop recycling markets for tin and plastics--
USS/POSCO Steel and Chevron and Shell Oil Refineries.
Designation of the Shoreline of. Contra Costa as a Recycling Market
Development Zone will demonstrate, to these existing industries and to new
businesses, State partnership with local government in pursuing recycling markets for
tin and plastics as well as for other materials. Designation of the Shoreline of Contra
Costa will fulfill the partnership of the State, local government, solid waste industry,
and business called for in the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939)..,
. 1
Chapter I RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE PLAN
GEOGRAPHIC AREA/APPLICANTS 1
The multi-jurisdictional partnership formed to seek designation of the Shoreline
of Contra Costa County as a Recycling Market Development Zone includes: ,
(1) the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority
comprised of the cities of EI Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, '
Hercules and the unincorporated areas of West County;
(2) the City of Martinez; '
(3) the, Delta-Diablo Sanitation District comprised of the cities of ,
Pittsburg and Antioch and the unincorporated area of the County known
as West Pittsburg;'
(4) the unincorporated areas of the County along the Shoreline
including North Richmond, EI Sobrante, Crockett, Rodeo, Pacheco,
Clyde, Oakley, and Byron; and
(5) the City of Brentwood.
The boundaries of these jurisdictions are contiguous. The area comprises the ,
entire northern portion of Contra Costa County and is bounded on the southwest by
Alameda County and the San Francisco Bay, on the north by the Suisun Strait/Delta,
and on the east by San Joaquin County. Land use designations for heavy and light
industry within the jurisdictions comprising Contra Costa County exist primarily within
the jurisdictions of the co-applicants forming the Industrial Shoreline. '
These land use designations have facilitated locating three proposed solid waste
transfer station/material recovery facilities within the Industrial Shoreline--the West
County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility planned for the West Contra Costa area
within the boundaries of both the County and the City of Richmond; the Acme
Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility planned and under construction in the
unincorporated area of Central Contra Costa near the City of Martinez; and, the East
Contra Costa Community Collection Center being planned in the currently
unincorporated area of the County on the eastern boundary of the City of Antioch. '
e
i
year 2000: Compost market development plans will be.completed prior to full-scale
operations of the material recovery facilities.
' RECYCL.IN.G MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE STRUCTURE
To effectively develop and carryout recycling market development,the member
agencies participating as co-applicants will establish a Contra Costa Industrial
Shoreline Recycling Market Development Council. The Council will be comprised of
two (2) representatives from the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management
Authority, two (2) members from the Delta-Diablo Sanitation District, one (1) member
from the County, one (1) member from the City of Martinez,and one (1) member from
the City of Brentwood. The Zone Administrator and staff to the Council, during the
rfirst 18 t6.24 months, will be the County's Recycling Programs Manager. The AB
939 Program Managers for each of the co-applicants will serve as an Advisory
Committee for the Council in assisting in preparing recycling market development
plans for all jurisdictions. (See Exhibit 1-1.)
The Recycling Market Development Program for the Shoreline consists of two
phases. Phase I provides for organizational and programmatic development and will
comprise the first 18 to 24 months. During Phase I, the County of Contra Costa will
serve as Lead Agency;.as noted, the County will provide staffing during Phase L .
The Zone activities to be implemented in Phase I include
1. location by the County and City of Pittsburg of plastics lumber and
crumb rubber businesses within the Shoreline and working with USS/POSCO
to establish a de-tinning program
2. establishment of a public/private Recycling Market Development
DCorporation which includes business, solid waste industry, and financing
representatives to assist in attracting, expanding, and supporting recycling
businesses
a3. completion of recycling market development plans by each jurisdiction
or in cooperation with each other
D 4. determination of permanent funding and staffing
P 9 9
D5. development of procurement policies for local agencies to encourage
purchase of post-consumer content manufactured locally.
1 - 3
0
Phase II will include the implementation of recycling market development plans
and activities by all jurisdictions within the Shoreline. '
FINANCING AND INCENTIVES ,
During Phase I of the Industrial Shoreline Recycling Market Development
Program, financial support will be provided by the County of Contra Costa and the '
City of Pittsburg.
Financial support from the County during Phase I will cover (1) staff support for ,
the Recycling Market Development Zone Council and Advisory Committee, (2) locating
within the Zone of plastics lumber and crumb rubber businesses and end-product
market development, (3) working with the City of Pittsburg and USS/POSCO on t
de-tinning, (4) working with Chevron and Shell Oil Refineries and, the cities of
Richmond and Martinez on the feasibility of incorporation of tertiary plastics rebycling
into local plant operations, (5) establishing Recycling Markets Development r
Corporation as public/private partnership including developing a local financial
assistance program linked to County Redevelopment Agency financing and to
Enterprise Zone financing within the cities of Richmond and Pittsburg, and (6)
assisting in determining long-term organizational structure and staffing.
The County's financial commitment to the Recycling Market Development Zone
during Phase I will be
Staff Support $100,000
Recycling Market Development Consultant $ 35,000 '
Direct Incentives to Businesses/
Publicity Outreach $ 75,000 '
Funding by the County will come from Resource Recovery Fees imposed as
Land Use Conditions of Approval on the Acme Transfer Station/Material Recovery
Facility and on the Keller Canyon Landfill and Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill. To
continue recycling market development during Phase II of the Recycling Market
Development Program, the County is prepared to provide $75,000 to $100,000
annually.
Additional financial support by the County resulting from linkage to ,
Redevelopment Agency financing, particularly in the. North Richmond Redevelopment
area, will be pursued. Appendix B provide information on the County's
Redevelopment Plan and financing for the unincorporated area of North Richmond.
1 - 5
Consequently, supporting the economic viability of recycling programs through
recycling market development is a critical issue for public agencies, the solid waste
industry, and residents within Contra Costa County. Assuring markets for both the
' recyclables collected at curbsides and at the three planned material recovery facilities
is the primary means by which the prices paid for recyclables will be sufficient to
cover collection costs and minimize increases to rate, payers.
' The Shoreline of Contra Costa provides an ideal setting in which to foster
recycling market development. Under the land use Conditions of Approval for the two
new landfills, solid waste disposal can only occur via transfer station/material recovery
facility; direct haul to the landfills will be limited to only large solid waste transfer
vehicles z-id large vehicles carrying single material loads. Augmenting the countywide
curbside recycling programs will be three transfer station/material recovery facilities
located within the Shoreline. (See Exhibit 1-2.) Exhibit 1.-3 depicts the flow of
wastestream as of 1990; this wastestream flow is expected to continue with the
establishment of the regional material recovery/transfer station facilities.
The West Contra Costa Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF) will serve
the unincorporated areas of West County and the cities of EI Cerrito, Richmond, San ,
Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules. In addition to material recovery operations, the West
County IRRF will include a large-scale composting operation. The EIR for the West
County IRRF has been circulated; the project is expected to be under construction by
the end o 1992. The IRRF will be located in the North Richmond area, partially
within the boundaries of the County and of the City of Richmond.
The Acme Material Recover and Transfer Station Facility, current) under
Y Y. Y
construction in the unincorporated area just outside the City of Martinez, is expected
to be fully operational by Fall, 1992. The facility will include material recovery
operations and a compost facility intended to serve all cities within North Central,
South, and Southwest county.
D
To serve the East Contra Costa area, the Delta Diablo Sanitation District has
presented and distributed a project description for the East Contra Costa County
Community Collection Center to be located in the currently unincorporated area just
outside of eastern Antioch. The facility will provide material recovery operations,
D transfer facilities, and compost facilities for the unincorporated areas of East County,
and for the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood.
The West Contra.Costa IRRF is located near the Chevron Oil Refinery in West
D County and within the County's Redevelopment Area for North Richmond. The Acme
Material Recovery/Transfer Station Facility is located near the Shell Oil Refinery. And,
D the East Contra Costa County Community Collection Center is located within just a
few miles of the USS/POSCO Steel Plant and of the City of Pittsburg's Enterprise'
Zone. The proximity of these facilities and industries reduce material transport costs °
D
1 - 7
D
ExHisrt '�
v2
� a
o ,
vd
93
U.
M
Q • m. j
W b
. vi 4 Y /
•a s` C
Rl
~ cc o
• •� J �. U
to
CIO
A ,
s Z �, N m d w
W. . Y C-
: m
s :
Chapter H - Feedstock Analysis and Marketing Plan
FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY ANALYSIS
The four major projects selected for Phase 1 development are in keeping with the
marketing principle that feedstock supply should be secured primarily through
competitive market channels at reasonable market prices.
Under such conditions, supply of relevant recyclables generated in Contra Costa
County will be the primary sour. e given the proximity to the using industries. Major
aggregations of County recycl,ble materials will include all the existing residential
' curbside collection programs and the three planned subregional materials recovery
facilities.
The major projects selected for development in Phase I of .the Recycling Markets
Development Program are aimeu at using three waste types: plastic, tin, and tires.
Exhibit 2-1 provides data on the generation and diversion rates for each city within the
county and for the unincorporated areas of the county.
Specific analyses for the selected projects are incorporated into the project
descriptions in the Marketing Plan below. It is worth noting, however, that the critical
element common to all of the projects, given technological and economic feasibility,
is the need for market assurance for the end product rather than concern for sufficient
feedstock.
MARKETING PLAN FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
The marketing plan for Contra Costa County is based upon the following principles:
- Wherever feasible, new markets will build upon existing industrial and commercial
entities in the county whose current and/or growth plans are compatible with
increased use of recyclable feedstock.
a II - Priority will be given to development of markets for material types that are
presently difficult to move, i.e. those for which existing markets are generally
insufficient or underdeveloped.
111 - Prioritywill be given to potential markets that will require little or no subsidy and
9 P q Y
will be self-sustaining over time.
D IV Where relevant, priority will be given to those industrial developments which
P Y 9 P
produce products usable by the County and its cities at levels sufficient to ensure the
viability of plant startup.
II - 1
V - Wherever possible, markets developed will be consistent with the real world
condition and deliverability of the recyclable feedstock.
VI The availability of any given feedstock will maximize the principle of competitive
market share rather than the institution of any draconian control of flow.
VII - Wherever possible, preference will be given to those projects resulting in '
maximum employment opportunities for local residents, especially those with low,
entry-level skills.
Vill - Efforts will be concentrated on tho_,e industrial activities most likely to be
compatible with the County's requirements for air, water, and overall environmental
quality.
These principles were developed in consultation with the County's consultant, Multi-
Material Management and Marketing (EMS) of Oakland, CA., contracted to assist in
developing and implementing industrial markets for recyclable feedstocks within the
County.
PRELIMINARY MARKET ANALYSIS
A survey of existing industries in the County was carried out and a review of existing
and potential market uses for recyclable feedstock was made and evaluated. As a
result, the following initial judgments were made and priorities established.
1. Most wastepaper grades have available domestic mill markets and export
markets from Bay Area ports, with periodic price fluctuations. Longer term potential
(post 1993) is expected 'to improve as increased mill capacities come on line to
comply with state recycled content requirements. Additionally;there is little likelihood
that a new paper mill can be located in Contra Costa County given the difficulties of '
environmental review (especially water requirements and sludge disposal), energy
costs, and labor costs.
2. Most scrap metal generated in the Bay Area can be moved into existing
domestic and export markets through the existing scrap metal dealer structures. LMC
metals alone, in Richmond, could probably absorb any increase in recoverable metals ,
in the County. There are a few small foundries in the County and Bay Area, but,
essentially, most scrap is marketed outside of the Bay Area. Again, there is little
likelihood that any new melt facilities can be located in the County, given the '
environmental, energy, and labor constraints noted above for paper.
3. There is a potential market, however, for a detinning facility for tinplate ,
scrap in northern California. The only existing market exclusively for tinplate is the
Proler facility in Lathrop. This facility processes, aggregates, and tranships the
II - 3
r
expended to evaluate value adding lumber product potential for shredded woodwaste
with several Contra Costa firms. This effort, too, has been moved into Phase II for
development.
7. Given the difficulty of marketing either three-color mixed cullet and/or
ceramic contaminated container glass, the potential for incorporating this material as
a cement/concrete/asphalt aggregate will be explored, most likely in Phase It. of the
Recycling Market Development Program.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
- DETINNING PROJECT
GOAL
To establish a detinning facility on the property of USS/POSCO, which
is located wholly within the City of Pittsburg. At a miralmum level of about 4-5,000
tons per month, such a facility would employ 18-20 people.
BACKGROUND
USS/POSCO is a steel upgrading facility Ic}cated on approximately 600
acres within the City of Pittsburg on the New York Slough. It is a joint venture of US
Steel and Pohang Steel (Korea). The facility receives rolls of finished steel from
Korea, and upgrades the material by such activities as tin-plating and galvanizing.
Therefore, the facility is, a buyer of tin for its plating activity. As is common in any
such facility, there is pompt-industrial tinplate scrap generated on site.
The finished steel is received at its own port facility on the Slough in three dedicated
ships. These ships now make the return trip to Korea without cargo.
There is current interest by USS/POSCO to utilize part of its property to develop an
industrial park.
PROLER INTERNATIONAL operates a number of detinning facilities in the United
States. In northern California, however, Proler operates a material transfer facility in
Lathrop (near Stockton) where tin can scrap is received, shredded, and transported
to neighboring states for use in leaching copper from low grade ores. The cans are
Qnot detinned, and the tin is lost in the process.
POHANG STEEL is the Korean joint venture partner in the USS/POSCO facility.
D They produce the finished steel rolls and may be interested in receiving scrap steel
back-hauled by the dedicated ships now bringing in the finished rolls..
11 - 5
FUTURE PLANS
1. Proler will be asked to initiate a.feasibility study to assess the costs of
establishing an appropriately sized detinning facility on the USS/POSCO property.
2. Proler and Pohang will be asked to initiate a study to assess the
competitiveness of the cost of the detinned scrap delivered to Korea.
3. Based upon data that Proler will be asked to provide,the City of Pittsburg
will be asked to institute an initial assessment of potential environmental impacts to
determine the practicality of siting such a facility.
4. Pohang Steel will be asked to consider the feasit--;lity of a long term i
purchase commitment to the project for the detinned scrap as an added incentive to
Proler.
will be asked v i
5. USS/POSCOd to a evaluate its existing prop-at industrial scrap
generation for inclusion in project economics.
fi. Assuming that the efforts described in 1-5 above continue to indicate
project feasibility, all parties will be asked to commit to good faith negotiations for
project approval and implementation.
11 - PLASTIC LUMBER PROJECT
GOAL
To establish*a plastics lumber manufacturing plant in the Recycling
Market Development Zone. At the minimum acceptable size of 4-6 million pounds of
plastic, this plant would require 20-30 personnel.
BACKGROUND
There are a number of companies now operating in the United States
which manufacture various lumber products from a mixed thermoplastic, with the
polyethylenes serving as the principal binder polymers. The industry has had problems
with quality design and production quality control but some have worked through
these problems and are now producing acceptable quality products. Major product
categories include:
1. Picnic furniture, benches
2. Car stops, speed bumps, bollards '
3. Dimensional profiles and landscape timbers
4. Marine pier and dock products
II - 7
that location. A letter of intent was requested and received (see Exhibit 2-2). This
letter indicated a commitment for purchase in terms of pounds of raw material.
Additional information was requested from Hammer giving weight equivalents to
various products so that product quantities could be converted to pounds of raw
material (see Exhibit 2-3 for example conversions).
Additionally, Hammer indicated that they were likely to enter a joint venture with a
company that would receive, sort, and market higher value polymers (including PET)
thus providing a single source receiver of any residential and commercial plastics
generated in the area.
Subsequently, an initial presentation to invited County and Contra Costa County cities
personnel was made by Hammer Plastics in Martinez. The purpose of the presentation
was to familiarize these public agencies with the various products potentialiy usable
by them.
FUTURE PLANS
J The next step in the process is to ask all relevant public agencies within
the County to investigate their anticipated purchases to determine what products
could be replaced by plastic lumber products, at what cost, and under what
conditions.
This effort will be coordinated among purchasing agents, AB 939 administrators, and
local elective bodies to ensure that the effort is characterized to consider all relevant
factors, such as fostering economic development, job generation, sound solid waste
management, conservation of resources, as well as providing quality products that are
as good or better than those currently in use.
Assuming that sufficient commitment to product purchase can be secured to meet the
4-6 million pound minimum for the requisite period of 6-10 years, Hammer Plastics is
committed to enter into good faith negotiations to implement the siting of a
manufacturing facility-in-the Zone.
III - WASTE TIRE CRUMB RUBBER PRODUCT
INTENT
To establish a manufacturing facility in the Recycling Market.
Development Zone for the production of crumb rubber from waste tires. At the
minimum production level of 6 million pounds of crumb rubber (500,000 tires
n annually), approximately 20 personnel will be required.
11 - 9
' EXHIBIT 2-2
HAMMER'S
P LASTIC 1
RECYCLING
A Manufacturer of
Recycled Plastic Products
January 30, 1992 ---- ---
Mr. Bernard L. Myerson
Multi Material Management Marketing
231 Fallon St.
Oakland, CA 94607-4609
Dear Mr. Myerson:
Pursuant to our discussion regarding our mutual interest in r
locating a plastic recycling plant in Contra Costa County
California, I am providing you with some general requirements for
a California operation.
A California facility would require a minimum of approximately
30,000 sq. ft. , 20,000 sq. ft. being indoors. In this facility,
Hammer's would initially run two production lines, processing
approximately four million pounds of post industrial and post
consumer plastic waste per year. At these volumes, Hammer's
would employ approximately 20 to 30 people. . I I
In order to operate at maximum capacity, a California facility
would require approximately 60,000 sq. , ft. , 35,000 sq. ft. being
indoors. At maximum .capacity, this facility would be able to
process twenty million pounds of waste per year.
The most important component for Hammer's developing a facility
in California is the development of end markets for our products.
In exchange for developing a facility in Contra Costa County, we
would require a commitment to purchase a minimum of four million
pounds of end product per year. In terms of quantity of product,
one million pounds would equal approximately the following:
25,000 Car Stops - 1 Million Pounds ,
6,000 Park Benches - 1 Nillion' Pounds
10,000 6" x 8" x. 8' Timbers = 1 Zillion Pounds
I2R? I3f)x 182. 1111-1120 S G '.i)r111, lowri.ralis. 1.1 50121 ;.i JAI �; : ;�:':; i':►: i.;1:1 u�5:�);.I
EXHIBIT 2-3
i
1
EXAMPLE ONLY
PIECES PRODUCT TOTAL WEIGHT
13,793 Carstops - 4 ft. 108 399,997 lbs.
' (Yellow, Gray,
or Blue)
18,000 Carstops - 6 ft. 188 720,000 lbs.
(Yellow, Gray,
or Blue)
6,062 Speed Bumps - 6 ft. 58 200,013 lbs.
(Yellow)
4,267 Reinforced 'Bollard 88 320,000 lbs.
8 ft. (Yellow)
709 Heavy-Duty Picnic 78 280,055 lbs.
Tables (Gray or Brown)
2,746 Trash Receptacles w/ 78 280,092 lbs.
Mounts. -32 Gal. (Gray
or Brown)
5,576 Flat Surf. Mt. Benches 238 920,040 lbs.
�. 6 ft. (Gray or Brown)
1,500 Chicago Type Benches 128 480,000 lbs.
6"x8"x8' Black
3"x12'x8• Gray
935. Bullrailings 58 200,090 lbs.
192 Pilings 58 199,680 lbs.
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,999,992 lbs.
1
BACKGROUND
The technology for producing a clean, properly sized rubber crumb from
waste tires. has existed for many years. However, most existing crumb rubber
producers are using tire buffings (a prompt industrial scrap) rather than waste whole
tires. Using the whole waste tire requires a technology that provides a clean
separation of the rubber from the other materials in the tire, such as steel beads, r
nylon, fiberglass, etc. This technology commonly uses liquid nitrogen in a cryogenic
process that embrittles the rubber which cleanly separates from the other material in
an impact hammer mill.
Potential uses of the resulting crumb rubber include a wide variety of rubber products, ,
particularly in blends with other polymers. However, the most prominent high volume
market is for use in rubber modified asphalt/concrete (RMAC). This market is
'dominated by road applications, although collateral markets, such as roofing asphalts,
are possibilities (see PABCO letter, Exhibit 2-4).
As with plastic lumber, the critical factor in siting a crumb rubber manufacturing
facility is the need for a commitment to purchase/use the product. The potential for
such a commitment by public road agencies has been greatly enhanced by Section
1038 of the newly enacted Federal Highway Act (Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, H.R. 2950, see Exhibit 2-5), which calls for the use of RMAC
with a 5% rubber percentage in 1994, increasing by 5% annual increments to a
plateau of 20% by 1998. Significantly, the rubber is defined as coming exclusively
from waste tires.
Investigation revealed that BAS Recycling, Inc. in Irvine, California has a facility
producing crumb rubber from waste tires.
ANALYSIS OF FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY r
BAS has indicated a minimum requirement for 500,000 waste tires per
annum. The 9-county Greater Bay Area has a population in excess of 6,000,000.
Using the established industry estimate of 1 tire carcass per capita per year, this area
is generating over 6,000,000 waste tires per year. Thus, the crumb rubber facility
would have to secure.a little over 8% of the available tires.
Tire carcasses, other than retreadables, currently have a negative value to generators.
There is a charge for disposing of tire carcasses. BAS economics is based on a zero ,
value for the tires. The potential for accepting tires without a tipping -fee would
guarantee more than enough tires to secure the 8+ % market share. '
It - 10
EXHIBIT 2-4
1718 Thorne Road
PACO Roofing Produds Tacoma,WA 98421
® o division of Pedfic CoBuilding Products FAX (06)57206) 4
nst 4997
February 14, 1992
Bernard L. Meyerson
Multi Material Management i Marketing
231 Fallon Street
Oakland, CA 94609.4609
Dear Mr. Meyerson:
Due to changes of priorities within our company , the
work with your crumb. rubber has been postponed. It
is still a project of interest, but other work has
been given a higher priority. I do not expect to
have an opportunity to do any work in this area in
the next six months.
Sincerely,
Sid Dinwiddie
Technical Services Manager -
cc : Michael D. Harrington
SAS Recycling, Inc.
1920 Main Street
Suite 610
Irvine, CA 92.714
Exmierr 2-5
SUMMAff O1 IBEFEDERALHIGE«'AYACI'MANDATINGASP,BALT-RUBBER
SEMONIW of H22950—
Se6*n I=of HA 2950 prvvides that federal hinds are imrnedlately avauue to States, Cotnties and Caen to QonsG'tx7 any �
asphalt pavw rent preyed*Abh writers 20 ft or move of scrap tine rubber n each ton of hot inlet and=Iles.cr 'more of racy-
ded scrap Gine rubber per sin in spray applied processes. There is no restriction on the right to these hinds Y the process used is
patented The recycled rubber may be korn wfhu k or shredded map Ore material generated mom the United States
Begnnng on January 1. 1984 each State must use asphalt pavement contabIng recycled rubber h 5 percent of the total be of
asphalt pamrav laid in the state and frhartced in whole or in pari by federal Ands The required percentage of asphalt pavement
containing nmycled rubber,in relationship to total sans of asphalt pavwwt laid in each Sate,hcresses by 5 pericent each year
until reaching 20 percent in 1997,where t remains for each year thereafter,tl a State lar7s to meet MIs tequ hma%the arnount of
Ihd&W.Ai nds the asphalt Pavement oantairtmg recycled rubber world have required wZ be withheld .
?he bill requ&w the Fh WA and the'EPA Ad7fttratar b coad/nate and corndxt in 000perat hn suint rte Std vacuous Mewsti
and report to Congress within 18 months of enactment of the WE The report Is to ixtude an ansysis of the e=ornic savings and
the arwronrrmntal beneftts of usrhg mcycbd materials a highway projeM On conservation of natural resources.and the nx*jo.
abnomedsposs in lar>dlrOs.
EVrERRMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
ME . CIENCY ACT..OF'199.1
�..:g.R,-2950 = .
i
SE01038: DISE OFRECYCLED PAVING MATERIAL . and highway prolee•inckx0n4 asphalt confanng over 80
reclaimed asphatt, asphalt oantar ft recycled pians. and
(a)ASPHALT PAVEHVff CONPAIr1BVG RECYCLED RUBBER caontainiog recycled plastiC. • . - . . . '
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.— Notwithstanding any other (A)ADDITIONAL 6.Bwwm —In conducting the ritudy unddeerm
provfslon of the 23,United States Code.or regulation or pollcy of paragraph(3)ft Mary and the AdmkftV=dw eocamirts
Me Department of Transportaffon; the Semvaiy(or a State acting tiadtion of various technologies by States and shalt examine the Curin
as the Departrnerhf's agent)may not disapprove a highway project red practices d all States retatirg to the reuse and deposal d
under chapter 1 of tlt/e 2% United States Code,on the ground Mat meterhala used in lederalVy assisted tOwley me k to
the project Includes the use of asphalt pavement containing (5)RVOAT. —Not later than 1S months after the date d 4
recycled rubber. Under this subsection,a patented appdodon pro.- enactmerd of"/pct. the Secretary and the AdMOMM shalt
ass for recycled rubber shall be eligible for approval under the . Onxv, to Carhgrass a report an the res d the studhes conduct-
same conditions Moan unpatentedprccess Is eligible forapprovaL ed under this ahbsecaan. including a detaled anayr.is of the eco-
s
sonic seviro and technical pertarmsrtoe qualifies d using axil►
(b)STUDt&— recycled materiab in Cao wally messed highway projects and to
(1)IN GENERAL_—The Secretary and the Administrator d the eurrirorhrnental bernelib d using such recycled mwerlala in such
C ir%amile anta!Protection Agency"coor* to and oortd ct in hVwmy prhajec,•b h terms d teducig air emissions,ca uecvirg nisi
cooperation with the States,a Study to determine— ural resp rcm and reducing d the mohnials in lertc=L
woodaledwiththeFultrOmp and usb d asphat W DOT GUIDANCL.
pavement contaninp recycled nbber; (1) INFORMATION GATHERING AND D15TAIBUI70M — The
(B)the degree b which asphalt paverinertt oorttaaiting Secretary shad gather Information and eor'-
recycled rubber con be recycled;and corning the use of asphalt containing reey+ded rubber In high-
(C)the pmbms d lthe asphalt pavement cwftj* way projects from those States that haw extensively evshrated
recycled nhbber Under various climate and use conditions, and experimented with the use of such asphalt and Implement-
(7)DNWON OF RESPONS914111M —The Adink istrator mW ed such projects and shall make available such information and
conduct the part d the Study relating to paregraph (t)(A)and the recommendations our the use of such asphalt to those States
Secretary dhoti conduct the pan d the study retWq to paragraph which Indicate an interest in the use of such asphalt
(1XC�The Admorator and the Secretary shag pinyr conduct the (2)&C0LR4GBWVT OF IAS1=—fie Secretary should entrour-
study relating to paragraph(1)(B� age the use of recycled materials determined to be appropriate by
(3)At71DIT ant SWY.—The Secretary and the Administrator, the studies pursuant b aubsactiort(b)in fedwWy assisted highway
in cooperafi n with the Ss,dW jointly w4ict a study to deter. projects.Proving agenew Shag canpf with all applicable guide.
Mine the economic savings.beohnicai perbmtance qualities.tMeats tines or regulations issued by the AdmeruWator d the EnviorYrwW
to human health and the urhviranmeM and environmental benefds d Protection Agency.
using recycled materials in highway devices and appurtenances r0"P°s`*r ,
•
STATUS-TO-DATE
Exploratory discussions on the potential interest in and use of RMAC
were carried on with County road engineers , and two private roofing asphalt
manufacturers with plants in the County. The County has been using some rubber
asphalt in the past. Rubber asphalt is different from RMAC in that the former is
blended under high heat conditions and there is a chemical interaction between the
rubber and the asphalt. This material is mixed and laid in a proprietary system owned
and operated by International Surfacing of Chandler, Arizona and is, consequently,
very costly. A rubber blend crack seal is also utilized by the County. The interest
expres ied in RMAC was sufficient to explore with BAS the potential for siting a
produ :tion facility.
A meeting was held with BAS officers and their interest in pursuing this project was
established. A letter of interest was requested and is appended as Exhibit 2-6. It was
also determined that the next step should be a technical seminar presented by BAS
to invits -d County and Contra Costa County cities road personnel to familiarize them
with the BAS system for use of RMAC. This seminar has been held, after which BAS
recommended that a demonstration project be instituted in the County (see Exhibit 2-
7). This recommendation was transmitted to County road engineering staff with the
added suggestion that the subject be presented to the County and Cities' Engineers
group, €n informal body that meets monthly to discuss issues of common interest.
FUTURE PLANS
The County is current) investigating potential job sites for a
Y 9 9 P 1
demonstration project. Ideally, the site will include both County and some city
jurisdictions.
Assuming all goes well with the demonstration, local agencies will be asked to commit
to the use of RMAC in appropriate future road projects.
With this commitment, we will pursue good faith negotiations with BAS Recycling,
Inc. for the siting and implementation of a crumb rubber plant in the Recycling Market
Development Zone.
If road project commitments indicate that substantially all of the produced rubber can
be utilized, it may be desirable to consider a turnkey project with a joint powers public
corporation as the owner and operator. Alternatively, BAS would continue to own
and operate the facility and would market any excess product.
LI - 11
EXHIBIT 2-6
. w
�-
BAS
Recycling, Inc.
March 4, 1992
Multi Material Management & Marketing
S
Mr. Bernie Meyerson
231 Fallon Street
Oakland, Calift mia 94607-4609
Dear Mr. Me5 erson:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation and my subsequent conversation with
Dr. Takallou, w;would be very interested in supporting a demonstration project
incorporating c..umb rubber from whole tire recycling, into an asphalt concrete
mixture. Dr. Takallou felt a demonstration project of at least 2,500 tons of material, ,
with a corresponding control section of conventional asphalt concrete, would be
necessary to allow a fair representation of the production, paving with the material.
The economics or cost differential of usingrubber modified halt concrete
�P
on a routine basis, will be closer to real world figures with a project of at least this
size. A demonstration project of limited tonnage, becomes no more than a nuisance ,
item to the bidding contractor, and therefore, bid at an unrealistic cost. If you have
any questions or comments on the above, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Sincerely,
aJ
Michael D. Harring on
Director of Marketing
1920 Main St., Suite 610, Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 833.9867 • FAX (714) 833-9879
EXHIBIT 2-7
. Recycling, Inc.
March 20, 1992
Mr. Bernard L. Meyerson
Multi Material Management tit Marketing
231 Fallon St.
Oakland, CA 94607-4609
Dear Bernie:
So this has taken so long to et to you, but with the new information developed
fi' 8 8 Y e opod
from actual,project data In the State of Illinois, hopefully it will be worth the wait.
First of all for BAS to establish a plant In your area we would need a u t
+ p yo g assn oc of at
least 500,000 used tires annually. This will produce up to 6,000,000 pounds of crumb
rubber. We would like a commitment from the County (or whomever) for tho
purchase of 4,000,000 pounds. This would modify 66,000 tons of asphalt concrete at a
rubber concentration of 3% crumb rubber of 60 pounds per ton.
The cost-differential for doing this, based on a rubber sale price of S 0.16 and
concentration of 1.2590 crumb rubber per ton of asphalt concrete is presented in the
a attached tables. This difference for material cost is$ 3.73 per ton. Also include is a
letter from the contractor into constructed the demonstration project, Indicating an
n additional overhead charge of$1.00 per ton for the Introduction of the crumb rubber
Q to the asphalt production process. This gives us a total of under $5.00 per ton for
Implementing a program for the Incorporation of 11/2 % (30 pounds) crumb rubber
Into asphalt concrete mixtures. The above prices are taken from actual cost data from a
demonstration project constructed by the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Any comments or questions, please feel fred.to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
►t,� 1
Michael D. Harrington
Director of Marketing
4nnk 68.1,, c+ „�.,, pin .��,�,,� t` �� 071d . (7141 8'13-Q667 • FAX 17141 633.gD79
IV - TERTIARY PLASTICS RECYCLING PROJECT
INTENT
When technology and economic feasibility have been substantiated, to
Incorporate tertiary plastics recycling into existing refinery processes at Chevon
(Richmond) and Shell (Martinez). Additional employment opportunities will be found
primarily In the Infrastructure necessary to prepare the material for entry into the
refinery process.
BACKGROUND
Research and development is currently in progress by several chemical
.company components of oil companies in the processing of mixed thermoplastics as
an alternative feedstock through either existing cokers or catalytic crackers in oil
refineries. The yield slate of materials is similar to that of, crude oil, but research
indicates it may be a higher value yield nate as well as being more environmentally
acceptable. This R&D is currently being carried out under the aegis of the Partners
for Plastics Progress (PPP), the successor to the Council on Solid Waste Solutions.
Some of the results of these research efforts will be made available to all member
companies. Some independent research by specific companies may remain
proprietary.
Two of the four oil refineries located in Contra Costa County are owned by companies
that also manufacture plastics, i.e. Chevron and Shell.
CHEVRON REFINERY - located in Richmond, this facility is equipped with a
catalytic cracker. Since the research being carried out by Chevron Chemical is geared
to the use of a coker, this facility would have to have access to research carried out
,by other companies.
SHELL REFINERY - located in Martinez, this facility is equipped with a fluid
coker and plans to install a delayed coker in the 1995-96 period. This equipment is
consistent with the R&D being carried out by Chevron and Shell would have to have
access to the Chevron research.
ANALYSIS OF FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY
Since it is anticipated that this project option will not be commercially
viable for several years, . feedstock supply projections at this stage would be
premature. However, because of the potential of this technology to use unsorted
plastic mixes and will tolerate some levels of contamination, and will allow the refinery
to pay a reasonable price for .delivered material, it is anticipated that an adequate
supply of feedstock will be readily attainable.
Il - 12
i
t
ExHIBIT 2-8
Cheviron Chevron Chemical Company
1301 McKinney Street. Houston. TX •Phone 17131754-2000.
Mad P 0 Boa 3766.Houston.TX 77153
1 Dvab
March 9. 1992
Denenvatrves Division
Mr. Bernard Meyerson
Partner, EMS
231 Fallon St.
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear.Mr. Meyerson:
This letter confirms the main ideas we discussed on the telephone March 4th,
1992, regarding efforts of Chevron and the U.S. plastics industry in the area of tertiary
recycling of plastics.
Various alternatives are being investigated with regard to technical and economic
feasibility. One of those options is the idea of cracking mixed plastics back into more
elemental hydrocarbons in a refinery coker. This activity is presently at the research
stage where a team of industry participants is designing bench testing and pilot testing
O work to be performed at the pilot coking facilities of an independent research
organization. We hope,through funding by the Partnership For Plastics Progress (PPP)
organization, to implement these tests in 1992 and have the results available for a
possible demonstration test on a commercial unit in 1993. Some of the PPP members.
Including Chevron,are considering the possibility of making a refinery coker unit available
for a short-duration demonstration test,but this decision will depend upon the pilot testing
results and other corporate management factors. The research data resulting from the
pilot tests will be shared among the PPP members, and possibly the public if this is
decided by the PPP Board. Individual testing done internally within Chevron and other
member companies may yield results that may or may not be shared as well, and those
decisions will be made by the respective companies.
We all hope this form of tertiary recycling proves feasible and can be implemented
commercially over the next 3-5 years to help us remove some of the waste plastics from
n less attractive disposal alternatives. However, this will not be a complete solution. and
u may be feasible only for a portion of used plastics. Also. its implementation will require
the establishment of an infrastructure whereby municipalities collect, separate and pre•
process the mixed plastics before it can be accepted for tertiary recycling.
A. Andrew Adams
Policy Coordinator, Solid Waste Issues
AAA:ee
Qevm
EXH2-9
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
P.O. Box 1272, Richmond,CA 94802-0272
Manutaetu*Npa irnent
Pkhnwnd Refinvy
M.D.Harman
s�ibn4wMarch 23, 1992
0.L Henderson
UW&W,
J.P.GeQner
J.M.Braden
Mwpu,Winrwrct
T.W.Boyle
Mw9 r,Humr+Resources
H.E.Hof
WA WGwam r�mt Ankh
Ms. Sunne McPeak, Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez,CA 94553
Attention: Louise Aiello
AB 939 Program Manager
Dear Ms. McPeak: '
We are pleased to support the designation of the industrial coastline of the County of ,
Contra Costa as a Recycling Market Development Zone by the Integrated Waste
Management Board of the State of California. Chevron is interested in recycling efforts in
general and in tertiary recycling of plastics in particular.
Our Chemical Company is involved with others investigating various recycling alternatives
with regard to technical and economic feasibility. One of those options is the idea of
cracking mixed plastics back into more elemental hydrocarbons in a refinery coker. This
activity is presently at the research stage where a team of industry participants is designing
bench testing and pilot testing work to be performed at the pilot coking facilities of an
independent research organization. We hope, through funding by the Partnership For
Plastics Progress(PPP)organization,to implement these tests in 1992 and have the results
available for a possible demonstration test on a commercial unit in 1993. Some of the PPP
members, including Chevron, are considering the possibility of making a refinery coker
unit available for a short-duration demonstration test, but this decision will depend upon the
pilot testing results and other corporate management factors. The research data resulting
from the pilot tests will be shared among the PPP members, and possibly the public if this
is decided by the PPP Board. Individual testing done internally within Chevron and other
member companies may yield results that may or may not be shared as well, and those
decisions will be made by the respective companies.
i"ONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
' July 15, 1992
TO: Trish Chapman, Delta Diablo Sanitation District -
Gerry
istrictGerry Dunbar, City of Pittsburg
Ron Bendorf,, City of Antioch
Dave Brennan, City of Brentwood
Sherry Kelly, City of Martinez
Bill Davis, West Contra Costa IWM Authority
Everett Jenkins, City of Richmond t
Susan Kattchee, City of E1 Cerrito
Bernie Meyerson, consultant
FROM: Louise Aiello, County AB 939 Program Manager
SUBJECT: Recycling Market Development Zone--TAC Meeting
Friday, July 17, 1992
10 a.m. . to 12 noon
Golden Gate Room, George Gordon Education Center
a 500 Court Street
Martinez
8 This fax is-aa reminder about our Recycling Market Developm;%nt
Zone (RMDZ) meeting on Friday, July 17th.
Please bring your copy of the Zone application because we need to
discuss the overall structure we proposed in the application.
Additionally, we need to discuss a process for business
recruiting and locating that will be consistent with State
expectations and will minimize conflicts between our
jurisdictions.
Below is a tentative agenda for our meeting. If you want to add
items to the agenda, we can do so at the meeting.
CONTRA COSTA SHORELINE
RECYCLING MARKETS DEVELOPMENT ZONE
TAC MEETING
AGENDA ,
1. CIWMB Presentation of Zone Designation Certificates/July 21
at 2:00 pm before Board of Supervisors
2. Update on Business Recruitment and Information from State
3. Discussion of Zone Organization Structure
a. Process and timeframe for appointments to Council/TAC
4. Discussion of Business Recruiting and Locating Process
5. Future Meetings/Other Items
al/a:zonetac.
1
1
L
1�
Appendix E: Responses to Comments
1
APPENDIX E
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Contra Costa County Source Reduction & Recyling Element
I. Comments from the CIWMM
General Comments:
Comment 1: The Draft Element identifies a wide range of good program objectives. However,
many of the objectives are not time specific nor quantifiable as required by board regulations.
Consequently, the objectives in the Final. Element should either be revised to reflect the above
comment or be defined as program goals.
Response: Each of the program components has been revised to give general goals, and
quantifiable, time specific objectives.
Comment 2: The Draft Element identifies a.range ,of "actions" which the County intends to
accomplish. It does not appear that these proposed "actions" clearly fit in with any 'statutory or
regulatory requirements. They appear to be similar to goals, objectives, or program alternatives.
Consequently, Board staff recommend that the proposed "actions" be discussed as such, and that the
discussion comply with the appropriate statutory and regulatory requirements for goals, objectives,
or evaluation of alternatives.
Response: The "actions" sections have been removed from each component and replaced with
summaries of selected programs.
Comment 3: The discussion of markets in the Draft Element is not specific enough to determine
whether or not these markets are.adequate for meeting the County's needs. Therefore, the Final
Element should include a discussion of markets which evaluates whether the materials collected
through proposed diversion alternatives can actually be absorbed by new or existing markets.
Response: The Recycling Component, commencing on page 5-18 of the Final Draft, details each
material selected as a target for diversion programs, and details current market conditions, market
projections,and any anticipated market development activities required. The Composting Component
contains a thorough discussion of markets and marketing, on pages 6-27 through 6-30. Both
components have been revised to include mention of the establishment of the Shoreline Market
Development Zone, which itself is detailed in Appendix D.
Specific Comments from the CIWMB
Comments on the Introduction:
Comment 4: Summary of Waste Generated. Disposed, and Diverted -- The introduction should
include a discussion of existing conditions which identifies materials which are currently diverted or
disposed (CCR Section 18732(a)), and a discussion of materials which could potentially be diverted
1
as well as those which cannot be diverted (CCR Section 18731(b)&(c)). This information should
also be included in the Waste Characterization Component.
Response: A table (Table 2-16) has been added to the Waste Characterization Component showing
potentially divertable and non-divertable materials; the WCS already indicates all materials currently
being source reduced, recycled, and composted from residential, commercial, and industrial sources.
l
Comments on the Waste Characterization Component
.Comment 5: In tables'8-9 diapers are included in the "Paper" category. However, due to the nature
of the materials in soiled diapers, Board staff recommend that diapers be included in the "Other
Organics" category, as defined in CCR Section 18720(a)(47). This is a more appropriate category
for diapers.
Response: TheCounty agrees with Board Staff comments that disposable diapers are not properly
y
categorized as "Paper". The County has, however, decided to move disposable diapers to the Other
Wastes" category, rather than the "Other Organics" category. The County does not believe that
disposable diapers meet the criterion of biodegradability specified in the definition of "Other
Organics" in CCR section 18720(a)(47).
Comment 6: The data for the residential waste stream shows that in 1990 2,500 tons of whiteg oods
were diverted from the landfill. However, the data does not report white goods as waste disposed.
As specified in PRC Section 41781 (a)(b)(2), in order for white goods to be counted towards
diversion requirements they must have been normal disposed of at a permitted landfill and comprise
at least 0.001% of the total amount of waste disposed by the jurisdiction. In order to get credit for
diverting white goods, please clarify in the Final Element if they meet these requirements.
Response: White goods disposed are reported in-Table 2-1 Waste Generation Summary and in Table
2-9 of the Commercial Waste Disposal Composition. The analysis for commercial waste disposed
included self-haul loads. Rather than attempt to inaccurately allocate tonnage for residential self-haul
from commercial self-haul the data was not altered. The salvaging of white goods is conducted on
the transfer station floor or upon entry to the transfer station. An assumption was made that the
majority of self-hauled white goods is from the residential sector. A footnote has been added to
Table 2-8 Residential Disposal Composition.
Comments on the Source Reduction Component
Comment 7: Evaluation of Alternatives -- To support the selection of the preferred alternatives .
Board staff recommend that the table rating each of the alternatives, based on the evaluation criteria,
contain an overall rating for each alternative. This will allow for the cross comparison of the relative r
merit of each alternative. This, in turn, will help justify the selection of preferred alternatives based i
on their relative ranking.
�1
2
Response: The County recognizes the value of a more objective comparison, but believes that final
selection of programs should be based on a subjective analysis of the best combination of programs
to meet the County's needs and resource constraints.
Comment 8: Program Implementation -- It appears that the implementation schedule could be more
specific in regard:to the steps necessary for implementing each alternative. Specifically, CCR
Section 18733.5 requires that the implementation schedule identify the key tasks for implementing
each alternative.
Response: Table 4-9, Implementation Tasks, has been compietely revised, and is much more
detailed in the Final Draft.
Comments on the Recycling Component
Comment 9: Evaluation of Alternatives -- To support the selection of the preferred alternatives
Board staff recommend that the matrix used in evaluating each alternative contain an overall rating
of each alternative. This will allow for the cross comparison of the relative merit of each alternative.
This, in turn, will help justify the selection of preferred alternatives based on their relative ranking.
In addition, pursuant to the requirements of CCR Section 18722.3(b)(4),please provide a discussion
on the adequacy of the markets to absorb the materials collected by the preferred alternatives.
Response: Please see Responses to Comments 3 and 7.
Comment 10: Construction of a Material Recovery Facility -- While not selected as•a preferred
alternative at this time, if.the County should decide to implement this alternative in the future, it
should first carefully consider the effect that implementation of this alternative could have on other
proposed and existing recycling alternatives. Specifically, this type of facility may require a
dedicated waste stream from participating jurisdictions in order to meet its capital and operating
costs. This could result in controversy because it may preclude the source separation of recoverable
material in order to ensure that the material recovery facility (MRF) can defray its costs by
guaranteeing that the MRF has the rights to the recoverable materials in the mixed waste stream.
This could have an adverse affect on curbside collection, commercial recycling operations, and on
buy-back/drop-off activities.
Response: The County does not believe that manual or mechanical sorting of mixed waste or
commingled materials is a necessary alternative to handle the recyclable materials coming from the
unincorporated areas. However, several multi-functional solid waste facilities (MFSWF's) are being
planned to be located within the unincorporated areas. The County, through participation in regional
joint powers authorities and through its own land use authority over the unincorporated areas, will
work to ensure that the MFSWF's are appropriately sized, financially sound and that they are capable
of handling source-separated materials coming from the unincorporated areas. Furthermore, the
County is in the process of franchising waste removal and diversion services in the unincorporated
areas and has ensured, through franchise agreements, the ability to direct both the waste stream and
the recyclable waste stream, whether these be existing IPC's or planned MFSWF's.
3
Comments on the Composting Component
Comment 11: While the following alternatives were not selected at this time, please consider the
following comments for future reference should these alternative be reconsidered:
1. Co-Composting of Sewage Sludge -- Under the requirements of AB 1520 a
jurisdiction may not count sludge diversion activities until July of 1992. In addition,
after July 1992 the Board must first make a finding that the sludge diversion project
will not have an adverse impact on public health or the environment before a
jurisdiction may receive diversion credit for the project.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 12: Regional Facilities For Yardwaste Composting_-- As required by CCR Section
18733.4(e), this section should include a description of the facilities to be used or built which are
necessary for the implementation of this alternative. Therefore, the Final Element should be more
specific about the selection of the site for, and proposed design and operation of regional facilities.
Possible sites and composting technologies are discussed, but none of the proposed sites or
technologies are discussed in sufficient detail to adequately schedule their implementation.
Consequently, Board staff recommends that the Final Element more thoroughly discuss the sites and
composting technologies for the regional facilities and schedule the necessary tasks for establishing
these facilities.
Response: The planning process for the compost facilities, while proceeding slowly, has been
hampered by lack of final composting regulations, delays in the signing of federal sludge utilization
rules, and budgetary constraints. The County is unable at this time to provide more detail for the
regional facilities. the Non-Disposal Facility Element may include more detail when it is drafted.
Comment on the Special Waste Component
Comment 13: Diversion of Sewage Sludize - As previously stated, under the requirements of AB
1520 a jurisdiction may not count sludge diversion activities until July of 1992. In addition, after
July 1992 the Board must first make a finding that the sludge diversion project will not have an
adverse impact on public health or the environment before a jurisdiction may receive diversion credit
for the project.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment on the Education and Public Information Component
Comment 14: Public Awareness/Participation -- Board staff recommend that the Final Element
discuss how selected alternatives will help to achieve desired awareness levels. Also, Board staff
recommend that in addition to objectives concerning public awareness that the County also set
objective regarding public participation in diversion alternatives.
4
r
' Response: The EPI Component has been substantially re-drafted, taking into consideration Board
Staff's comments.
Comments on the Funding Component
Comment 15: It appears that the numbers used for Bay Area Tipping fees, $18-20 per ton, is low.
Please substantiate this figure in the Final Element
Response: The County believes that this figure is now outdated, and has replaced it with $35-60 per
ton.
Comment 16: The Final Element should include a discussion of howro ram costs were derived.
P g
A total cost of$969,750.00 over ten years seems low, given that the County is planning to directly
establish, or assist the private sector or other jurisdictions in establishing regional composting
facilities, and that a thorough description of these facilities is not provided. Consequently, it is
unclear if an adequate projection of costs has been provided and if sufficient revenues will be
available to cover these costs. This information is necessary in order to adequately address the
requirements of CCR Section 18746.
Response: -The Funding Component has been revised and now includes annual projected costs .for
the short term. Composting facility costs are still not detailed, since these facilities are expected
to be financed by the private sector, or through as yet undetermined regional agencies. Since the
design and parameters of composting facilities are not yet clear, cost projections would be premature.
The County expects that any contributions to capital and operating expenses will be through service
rates and user fees. The County has estimated capital costs of several types of composting facilities;
these estimates appear in Appendix C2.
Comment on Integration Component
Comment 17: The Integration Component in the Final Element should more thoroughly address the
requirements of CCR Section 18747(a). Specifically, the Final Element should include a discussion
which demonstrates that.selected alternatives are compatible and do not compete for the same part
of the waste stream. In addition, it should summarize the types and quantities of materials that each
alternative will divert, the sum total of these amounts should equal or exceed the diversion
requirements of PRC Section 71780.
Response: The Integration Component has been re-drafted to reflect Board Staff's comments. A
table has been added summarizing projected diversion from each short term and medium term
program, and the annual cumulative diversion projections from all'programs.
a
5
a
II. Comments from the County of Santa Clara, on Behalf of the LTF
Comment 1: Page iii of Introduction, paragraph 3 states that the County diversion rates were
obtained prior to adoption of a franchising ordinance by the Board of Supervisors and prior to
implementation of franchise agreements for two sections of the unincorporated area of the County.
When the new data regarding increases in diversion rates resulting from the new franchise
agreements is available, the County may consider adjusting diversion program targets and goals if
the new data indicates diversion patterns differ significantly from those identified in the ,original
.diversion study.
Response: The new programs are all programs which have been selected in the. The County
P P g P g
intends to update its calculated diversion rate for the first annual report to the CIWMB. If the newly
calculated rate differs widely from projections in the SRRE, necessary revisions will be undertaken
at that time.
Comment 2: Recycling Component states that the unincorporated area can achieve a high diversion
rate by maximizing participation. The public education programs described in the Element appear
to have the potential to be effective. Be certain that funding and staffing requirements for an
aggressive public education program are adequately addressed.
Response: In the final draft of the Education and Public Information Program, program targets,
methods, and funding requirements have been revised.
Comment 3: The Recycling Component states that curbside collection will be expanded to all areas ,
Y g P
of the County. Is curbside collection technically and economically feasible in all areas, including
rural areas?
Response: The Preliminary Draft states (p. 5-65): "The County shall'ensure that all residents who.
have access to regular refuse collection service also have access to regular curbside recycling service.
Where refuse collection is mandatory, curbside recycling service will be available to all residents.
In the rural areas of East County, the viability of bi-weekly or monthly collection will be explored.
Otherwise, all programs should collect weekly, on the same day as refuse collection. The
establishment of a drop-off facility may be considered to serve areas for which curbside collection
is not feasible". This passage has not been changed in the Final Draft.
Comment 4: Are the cost estimates for expanding curbside collection to all areas realistic?
Response:. Some remote areas may pa more than the estimated amount for weekly pick-up. In
P Y Y YP P
such cases, bi-weekly or monthly pick-up or the establishment of a drop-off facility, may be
considered. In all cases, curbside programs will be paid for through increases in rates.
Comment 5: Recycling Component, page 5-71: can existing and projected capture rates for multi-
family recycling be added?
6
Response: At the time of the waste characterization study, no multi-family programs were in place
in the unincorporated areas. As stated, capture rates are projected to be similar to those for single-
family programs.
Comment 6: The summary of the Recycling Component in the Executive Summary states that
manual and mechanical material recovery was rejected. To what extent does the County plan to use
the materials recovery facilities currently under development?
Response: The following paragraph has been added in the Final Draft of the Recycling Component
(page 5-22):
While the County endorses the development of the MFSWF's, and intends to participate in
the planning and administration of these facilities, the County does not intend to utilize the
manual or mechanical separation of mixed waste that these facilities will capable of. Instead,
the County will work to ensure that the designs of the facilities are of sufficient flexibility
to allow.them to accept and process source separated and commingled materials. The
franchise agreements the County has entered into in Discovery Bay and West Pittsburg,
provide flexibility for programmatic change for curbside recycling, including segregation of
recyclables and expansion of materials collected curbside. These franchise agreements will
serve as models for agreements or MOU's that are to be established for all of the
unincorporated areas (see following section);to ensure that the secondary materials produced
in the unincorporated areas will be of the highest, most marketable quality. Until the
MFSWF's are established, materials from the unincorporated areas will continue to be
delivered to the existing intermediate processing centers (IPC's).
Comment 7: The Executive Summary states that special waste diversion does not contribute
significantly to diversion goals. Please explain.
Response: While many types of special wastes are accepted at county landfills, they make up very
little of the "normally disposed" waste stream. While several special waste programs are selected,
these are not expected to contribute significantly toward the 25% and 50% diversion goals.
. e
Comment 8: How will countywide public education programs or other countywide programs
mentioned in the Element be. coordinated. Were costs and staffing.requirements for countywide
coordination activities considered?
D Response: While countywide public education and other programs are suggested in the SRRE, the
v final shape, administrative structure, and funding mechanisms for these programs is still unclear;
these will be addressed in the Final Draft of the Countywide Integration Summary.
Comment 9: The funding section of the Executive Summary states that the costs associated with
development and operation of materials recovery facilities are deferred to the business sector or other
public agencies. Is it safe to assume that the planned facilities will be built? Is it adequate to defer
the entire issue to the private sector?. Will there be countywide oversight or involvement?
7
Response: The Issues of ownership and funding of the proposed MFSWF's continue to evolve. ,
Some facilities may end up under public ownership, in which case the County would almost certainly
have a direct interest in ownership. Since the proposed sites for the. MFSWF's are in the
unincorporated areas, the County has land use authority over their development. In addition, the
County is negotiating contracts with regional JPA's and has representation on one regional agency
board that are overseeing the development of the MFSWF's.
Comment 10: The Policy and Goals section, pages 1-2 and 1-3, states that the County has only
nominal control over solid waste management planning and diversion programs of the cities. The
policy also states that County will assume a leadership role in development of a comprehensive
program for solid waste resource recovery in cooperation with private collection and disposal
businesses and other local and regional public agencies. Consider adding a description of the specific
leadership activities the County will take to achieve these goals.
'Response: These issues are discussed in greater detail in the Countywide Integration Summary of
the Countywide Plan. Seepages I-16 - I-19 of the Countywide Plan.
a
Comment 11: The County Solid Waste Management Goals and Policies section, p. 1-6, "Direction
of Wastestream and Recyclables," states that by Board action in 1991 adopting County Franchising
Ordinance and authorizing two initial County franchise agreements, the Board supports public agency
direction of the waste stream and (sic) recyclable. Consider adding details about how public agencies
plan to direct the waste stream. The issues involved in directing the waste stream are complex and
involve issues of definitions of garbage, rubbish, recyclables, as well as merits of supporting several- a
or many small private and non-profit recyclers versus franchising all waste and recyclable materials
streams to one or several companies. Does the County have policies regarding this?
Response: While the County supports public agency direction of the waste stream and (sic)
recyclables, the County has no control over other public agencies. Further, county policy on solid
waste issues as identified in.the County General Plan is available to all jurisdictions.
Comment 12: When does the County plan to apply for a Market Development Zone and how will
the County work with the cities in the application and implementation process?
Response: The'jurisdictions along the county's shoreline, including portions of the unincorporated
County have been designated as a Market Development Zone as of June 1992. Please refer to
Appendix D for details.
Comment 13: When expanding County franchising in unincorporated areas, as described in the
Recycling Component, consider providing for comparable services with contiguous jurisdictions to
the maximum extent possible to minimize confusion, frustration, and costs for residents.
Response: Comment noted.
8
r 1
Comment 14: Policy #2b in the "Policies for Meeting Goals and Objectives" section states, "involve
all generators of waste in separating and recycling materials". Other references to source separation
are found in the Recycling Component. When new MRF's come on line, the County may find that
co-mingling of more materials is cost-effective in some areas. The purchase and operation of
additional specialized recycling vehicles, especially for use in rural areas, may be significantly more
expensive, both initially and over the long term, than co-mingled collection in less specialized
vehicles, with separation done at a MRF. Consider phasing in new recycling programs in harder-to-
serve areas on a schedule that corresponds to processing capacity at the closest MRF.
Response: The County does not believe that, in most cases, the economics of recycling favor
commingled collection with centralized separation. Recent innovations in collection equipment have
increased the capacity of trucks. While some simple commingling and separation may be called for
in some instances, the County will continue to place emphasis on source-separation, and will give
preference to contractors submitting proposals that include source separated collection. The County
will, however, remain flexible in.implementing this policy.
Comment 15: How exactly do planned MRF's fit into recycling component plans?
Response: Please see the response to Comment 6.
Comment 16: Consider coordinating a countywide inventory of existing and proposed processing
facilities of all sizes to assure that a large surplus of processing and composting capacity does not
result, and that facilities are located where capacity is needed.
Response: While this suggestion has some merit, it would be difficult to carry out, and perhaps of
limited utility. Since several processors consider their capacity to be proprietary information, an
accurate assessment may not be possible. Furthermore, several of the IPC's are considered interim
facilities until the MFSWF's are constructed. To the greatest extent possible; County staff do keep
track of the location, service area, and operations of the county's processors.
oIII. Comments from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Comments on the Source Reduction Component:
Comment 1: The District's uniform can rate meets the criteria for the County's proposed variable
Dcan rates.
Response: Comment noted.
a
Comment 2: The District's Board of Directors intends to consider the mini-can rate during the 1992
rate review process.
Response: Comment noted.
9
Comment 3: Weight-based rates were not evaluated in the AB 939 plans prepared for Danville, a
Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga (CITIES). This programs would require AB 939 plan revision of
the CITIES, and District Board authorization (if we are still franchising garbage collection when the
program is implemented) because the program would impact the garbage rates.
Response: The County's SRRE pertains only to the unincorporated areas of the County.
Comment 4: (on Re-useables Pick-up Days): In the near future, there may be three types of
residential collection trucks -- one for garbage, one for recyclables, and one for composting. The
periodic clean-ups add an occasional fourth truck, and this program would add an occasional fifth
truck. Recyclable and reusable bulky items can more efficiently be separated at the transfer station.
Charitable organizations can make pick-ups from this location. Additionally, this program would a
require District Board. authorization because it will impact the level of service.
Response: The Re-usables clean-up day is meant to augment or replace existing clean-up programs,
and re-orient them toward diversion. Most refuse collectors do not accept bulky goods, and other
reusables are often destroyed or damaged when collected with refuse. This program as well as other
programs will be the subject of negotiation if MOU's are developed.
Comment 5: (on Reusable Serviceware): The county-wide JPA should evaluate the feasibility of
increasing the tipping fee for this program.
Response: The County-wide JPA, of which the County is not a member, does not have fee setting a
authority. The County would support adoption of the reusable serviceware program as a county-wide
program, if other jurisdictions are interested. -
D
Comment 6: If a ban on disposal of disposable diapers is implemented, this program would require
coordination with haulers and franchising agencies.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 7: (on Organic Waste Source Reduction): This would be a duplication of efforts with the
District's backyard composting program. The county-wide JPA should consider coordinating the
community outreach program. '
Response: The County supports, and will cooperate in, efforts to make organic waste source
reduction a county-wide program if it is in the best interest of the ratepayers and county's goals.
Comments on Recycling Programs
Comment 8: The County proposes to add cardboard to curbside collection by July 1992. This is
inconsistent with the plans prepared for the CITIES, which indicate 1996 for expansion of the t
curbside program to include cardboard and other materials. This program would require District
Board authorization as it impacts the level of service.
10
D
Response: The County understands the concerns of the district, However, the County is ultimately
responsible for meeting the mandated goals imposed by AB 939. Where possible the inclusion of
cardboard at curbside will be implemented. This program as well as other programs will be the
subject of negotiation if MOU's are developed.
Furthermore, all jurisdictions utilizing landfills located in the unincorporated areas must comply with
County Ordinance 92-105 stipulating recycling of certain materials, including cardboard, according
to a time schedule. January 1, 1996 is the last possible date that cardboard can be collected. Given
the relatively strong market value of cardboard, and the relative ease of collecting it, the District may
wish to follow the County's lead in establishing collection of this material for its member cities
sooner, rather than later.
Comment 9: (on Drop-off centers in Alamo and Oakley): Revenues from recyclables collected at
curbside are used to offset the cost of the recycling program. A drop-off center that would accept
the same materials collected at curbside would adversely impact the curbside program.
Response: The County disagrees with the Districts's analysis of this issue. In many communities
(such as El Cerrito), curbside programs and drop-off programs coexist, and both prosper.• Drop-off
programs are inexpensive to operate, can accept a wider range of materials, and avoid many of the
negative environmental and economic impacts of curbside programs. Establishing drop-off centers
where curbside programs are operating is consistent with the County's policy of providing multiple
recycling options for residents.
Comment 10: (on Commercial and Industrial Routes): This program would be a duplication of '
efforts; the District is in the process of implementing commercial recycling.
Response: The County appreciates the District's efforts in establishing new diversion programs.
This program as well as other programs will be the subject of negotiation if MOU's are developed.
Comment 11: Schools are included under the District's commercial recycling program. This
program would, in part, be a duplication of our efforts. The County will provide a school
curriculum and assist in obtaining private business support to supply the students with "Green Team
T-Shirts". However, the County proposes to assist schools with identifying materials and equipment
Q necessary to implement recycling programs, which is a duplication of our efforts. The SRRE lists
the County Community Development Department as the revenue source..
]� Response: The County is responsible for areas outside the franchising area of the Central Sanitary
i� District. The County will coordinate with other public agencies to avoid duplication of effort and
ensure uniformly high quality school programs.
D
Comments on the Composting Component
Comment 12: (on Central County Yard .Waste Composting Facility): The plan identifies two
planned composting sites -- one at the Acme Fill Transfer Station, and another at the proposed West
D
11
County IRRF. There is no mention of the Highland Ranch Facility proposed in the AB 939 plans
for the CITIES. However, the County states that additional facility capacity for composting is
necessary to accommodate the incorporated areas.
Response: Should a composting facility be required in the South Central County area, the County
p tY
will cooperate with the jurisdictions in this waste shed to plan and implement such a facility.
Comment 13: (on establishing yard waste collection programs): This program is a duplication of
efforts and the implementation schedule is inconsistent with the District's plan. Yard waste
collection by separate collection vehicles is a selected program in plans prepared for the CITIES;the
schedule for implementation is 1994. However, the County's plan indicates that their Community
Development Department is the responsible agency, the expected completion is September 1991, and
the funding source is the collection fee. This program will require District Board authorization
because it would impact the level of service and the rates.
Response: The County is responsible for areas outside the franchising area of the Central Sanitary
District. The County will cooperate with other jurisdictions, particularly adjoining,jurisdictions or
those which share facilities or service providers, to avoid duplication of effort and a logical approach m
to program design and implementation. The expected completion date for this program has been W
revised. However, this program as well as other programs will be the subject of negotiation if
MOU's are developed.
Comment 14: (on Residential/Commercial Composting Public Education Program): This would
be a duplication of efforts.' The public information component of the CITIES' plans includes
production of printed material that explains programs that will be implemented, including backyard
composting, separate curbside collection of yard waste, and a regional composting facility. The W
County's plan indicates that their Community Development Department should be the lead agency, 1U
expected completion date is 1991, and the funding source is the collection fee.
Response: See the Response to the previous Comment.
Comment 15: (on Rate Structure Review): The District's uniform can rate is partially intended to
discourage disposal of yard waste and therefore, is consistent with this program.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 16: (on Curbside Collection of Food Waste): The addition of food waste to the District's
proposed composting facility nor the wet/dry collection method were evaluated in the CITIES' plans.
This program would require District Board authorization and revision of the CITIES' AB 939 plans.
The proposed requirement for composting facilities to accept food waste may impact the permitting
process for Highland Ranch.
Response: Please se the Response to Comment 13, above. The County regrets that the CITIES did
not explore the possibility of food waste composting or the wet/dry collection system, both of which
are.promising methods of diverting organic materials.
12
Comment 17: (on Pilot Projects and New Products): The use of sewage sludge from the District
at composting sites would require District Board approval.
DResponse: Comment noted.
Comments on the Special Waste Component
Comment 18: (on Sewage Sludge Program, Educational Programs for School Districts): This
program should be.coordinated with District Staff.
Response: County staff look forward to working with District staff on this program. .
Comment 19: (on recycling and pre-treatment of industrial by-products): This would be an
unnecessary action. The District is the responsible agency for pretreatment, and our pretreatment
�i program was approved by EPA on September 22, 1982. We have established the following
pretreatment programs: ,
a► 0 Industrial Source Control
• Trucked-in Waste
• Special Discharge Permit
• Commercial Discharge
• Public Information
Additionally, the District represents all county. sanitary agencies on the Hazardous Materials
Commission and was instrumental in the formation of the Contra Costa County Environmental
Crimes Strike Force in 1989.
The District was recently awarded a grant by the State Water Resource Control Board to study
residential contributions of heavy metals to our treatment plant.
In regards to recycling, the District is evaluating a pilot test for sludge ash used in lightweight
aggregates and bricks and will initiate a program to haul sludge ash to a facility that manufactures
these products.
Response: The County applauds the District's accomplishments and leadership in this field.
However, the County must ensure that such programs are as vigorously pursued throughout the
unincorporated area, including areas not served by CCCSD.
Comment 20: (On monitoring current disposal practices and legislation affecting sewage sludge):
District staff monitors legislation and regulations affecting the disposition of sewage sludge. This
program would result in a duplication of the District's efforts.
Response: Please see response to previous comment.
13
Comment on Public Information Programs
Comment 21: (on coordination of public information efforts) This program would be a duplication
of efforts. The District currently provides information to residents concerning all aspects of our solid
waste reduction programs, and we will expand our public information program as new solid waste
reduction programs are implemented. The haulers currently notify residents of special pick-up days.
Any billing inserts..would require coordination with District staff and District Board approval.
Information distributed must be consistent with the District's programs.
Response: The Education and Public Information Component has been revised. Nevertheless, the m
County still intends to take ultimate responsibility for all education and public information efforts u�
within the unincorporated areas. The County looks forward to coordinating these efforts with the
staff of the District, other public agencies, and service providers, to provide the most effective and
consistent information to the public.
IV. Comments from Acme Fill Corp.
Acme Fill Corp.'s comments include both comments as such, and suggested revisions to the text.
Comments are presented here in standard typeface, while suggested revisions are presented in italics.
Comment 1: Acme's major concern with the document is that the alternative of manual/mechanical
material recovery is not selected. Acme feels that the County must select this option in order for
the Acme Waste Recovery and Transfer Station development to be consistent with the SRRE. If this
option is not included at this stage, the County will have to go through the lengthy process of
amending the SRRE to include our facility at a later date. Acme feels that selecting this option will
allow the County the maximum flexibility towards meeting the State's goals.
Response: The County's SRRE pertains only to the unincorporated areas. The County will work
with Acme Fill Corp. and other facility developers to ensure that the facilities are able to handle
source-separated materials coming from the unincorporated areas. In order to clarify the County's
position, the following paragraph has been added in the Final Draft of the Recycling Component
(page 5-22):
While the County endorses the development of the MFSWF's, and intends to
participate in the planning and administration of these facilities, the County does not
intend to utilize the manual or mechanical separation of mixed waste that these
facilities will capable of. Instead, the County will work to ensure that the designs of
the.facilities are of sufficient flexibility to allow them to accept and process source
separated and commingled materials. The franchise agreements the County has
entered into in Discovery Bay and West Pittsburg, provide flexibility for
programmatic change for curbside recycling, including segregation of recyclables and
expansion of materials collected curbside. These franchise agreements will serve as
models for agreements or MOU's that are to be established for all of the
unincorporated areas (see following section), to ensure that the secondary materials
produced in the unincorporated areas will be of the highest, most marketable quality.
14
s
Until the MFSWF's are established, materials from the unincorporated areas will
continue to be delivered to the existing intermediate processing centers (IPC's).
Since a complete description of'the proposed Acme Facility is included in the County Non-disposal
Facility Element, no revision of the SRRE should be necessary should the County's policies change. .
Comment 2: (on page xv, paragraph 6) Since three MRF's are being developed in the County, the
County should select manual/mechanical material recovery as a program alternative.
Response: See Response to Comment 1.
Comments on the Waste Characterization Component
Comment 3: (p. 2-23, para. 3): Composting There are no large-scale composting operations within
the Unincorporated County. A small commercial operation does currently compost a small fraction
of the commercial yard waste, but this operation will likely be phased out in the short term.
Response: This paragraph refers to Residential diversion, not commercial. The County is retaining
the text.as it appears in the Preliminary Draft.
Comment 4: (p. 2-25, para. 2): The collection of grease and tallow should not be included,because
these materials are not "normally disposed of" in landfills as per the intent of AB 939.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 5: (p. 2-25, para. 3): Composting There are currently no large scale composting
operations within the Unincorporated County. A small facility which currently accepts commercial
yard waste, will likely be phased out in the short-term. Therefore, no diversion credit is assumed
for composting.
Response: The County agrees that this operation is likely to be phased out during the short-term.
However, the Waste Characterization Study is intended as a snapshot of the waste stream in 1990.
Such revisions and exclusions are unnecessary, and would merely confuse the report. As per the
statutes and regulations, the County will perform another waste characterization study at the
beginning of the medium term planning period.
Comment 6: (p. 2-25, para. 3): If tree services are creating "mulching and landscaping materials"
Q then this would be quantified as source reduction. The County should not count any other diversion
u as there are no other permitted facilities within the County.
Response: Technically, processing and using mulch and landscaping materials at the point of
generation is considered source reduction; when materials are hauled to a facility, then chipped and
sold or given away as landscaping or mulching material without being actively composted, this is
15
considered recycling. These definitions are, however, merely technicalities. The County believes
that the majority of the material under this category is either processed at a central facility and
composted or used as mulch or soil amendments.
Comment 7: (p. 2-27, para. 3): Composting No composting facilities were identified.
Response: See Response to Comment 5.
Comments on the Facility Capacity P Ca aci Component
Comment 8: (p. 3-2, para. 3): A. Acme Fill'Land-rill The Acme Fill Landfill is located to the east
of the City of Martinez in the unincorporated north central part of the County. The landfill serves
the Central County as well as the City of Benicia, the Rodeo Sanitary District, and the City of
Antioch. (Maintain existing text.)
Response: The only substantive change between the text of the Preliminary Draft and that of this
suggested revision is the tense of the verb to serve. Since fill operations are limited and the landfill
is not considered, for planning purposes, for future capacity, the use of the past participle seems
justified, and will be retained.
a
Comment 9: (p. 3-3, para. 4) The Acme Fill Corporation has been operating an Interim Transfer
Station since December of 1989. The Interim Transfer Station was designed to operate during the
construction of a full scale material recovery facility. The Interim Transfer Station currently receives
approximately 1,100 tons per day for transfer or disposal. The Waste Recovery and Transfer Station
(WRTS), is designed to process approximately 1,900 tons per day. The WRTS will incorporate a
manual as well as mechanical sorting of waste materials. As part of the WRTS Acme has initiated
a 100 ton per day yard waste composting demonstration project on the East Parcel which will
develop data and operating experience for a full-scale operation.
_Response: The primary discussion of this section is the landfill, further discussion of the transfer
station is in section D. A sentence will be added stating further discussion of the transfer station is
located in section D.
Comment 10: . 3-5 para. 4 : Delete subsection D incorporate(P � P ) with subsection A discussion.
Response: Because these facilities operate under separate land use permits and separate solid waste
facility permits the County prefers to address these facilities separately.
Comment 11: . 3-11 table): The table on this page should be titled "Existing Facilities" under
(P ) P g g ,
the heading, "Quantity and Waste Types" the Acme Fill Landfill row should read "Class III landfill;
1,100 tons per day received; the "Current Disposal Fee" is $65.58; and "Remaining Facility
Capacity" should read "minimal" or "none".
1'6
1
Q' Response: The table accurately reflects the information provided by Acme at the time. A revision
of the Acme date would require revision to. all other areas in the table. However, the County
acknowledges that "minimal" more accurately describes remaining capacity and the text has been
changed.
Comments on the Source Reduction .Component
Comment 12: (p. 4-92, para. 3): The discussion of Alternative # 9: Organic 'Waste Source
Reduction should be expanded. The Program should be designed to be Countywide. The County
may wish to take advantage of the experience available in neighboring Alameda County, which has
a very successful backyard composting program. The discussion should also mention that Acme Fill
has proposed to develop a backyard composting education center as part of Phase Two of the
Composting Demonstration Project.
Response: The County has no authority unilaterally to plan countywide programs. Countywide
planning is being coordinated through the LTF, using as a vehicle the Countywide Integration
Summary of the Countywide Plan. The County supports the concept of a countywide organic waste
source reduction program, and will work with other jurisdictions; and if possible and appropriate,
the Alameda County Home Composting Program, to implement a countywide program. The County
believes that the most appropriate locations for organic waste reduction demonstration centers are
parks, neighborhood recycling centers, and other places easily accessible to the public.
Comment 13: (p. 4-95, para. 2) Regulatory Actions At the end of the short-term planning period,
the County will evaluate existing organic material processing efforts. The County will evaluate the
feasibility of banning yard waste from landfills, and will determine'whether or not to prohibit the
collection of yard waste mixed.with non-recoverable waste.
Response: . County Ordinance 92-105 requires separate collection of yard debris by 1996 at the
latest, for those jurisdictions using landfills in unincorporated areas. This paragraph has been revised
to reflect this new ordinance.
aComment 14: (p. 4-97, para. 4): 6. Necessary Facilities: This program will require the
construction of one or more compost training centers. Acme Fill has proposed to develop a backyard
o composting education center as part of its composting demonstration project. A mobile facility may
also be constructed.
7. Costs: Costs to the County could be minimized by usingfacilities developed by private companies
D such as Acme.
QResponse: The Facilities .paragraph has been revised as follows:
This program will require the construction of three compost training facilities. Design,
location, and administration should be coordinated with other jurisdictions. These facilities
need have no permanent structures, and will essentially, be landscaping projects.
17
The Countywill cooperate with the private sector on development of facilities when and where these a
meet the County's criteria and goals.
Comment 15: (p. 4-102, table): The implementation table should be revised. How can the County
a .
contemplate banning yard waste in 1992, if their composting program won't be implemented until
1996?
Response: The implementation table has been revised. Since Ordinance 92-105 is in place, an.
outright ban on yardwaste disposal will probably be unnecessary. a
Comments on the Recycling Component
Comment 16: (p. 5-7, para. 4): Action 19: Coordinate with private developers of MRF's_to assure O
maximum feasible material recovery with minimum environmental impact. Review/permit facilities
as required. a
Response: While the County does not oppose the development of the MFSWF's, and is the lead
agency for land use and solid waste facility permitting, as well as environmental review, the County
does not intend to utilize the mechanicallmanual separation facilities of the MFSWF's for mixed
waste, and instead intends to work with the developers of the MFSWF's to ensure that source-
separated and commingled materials from the unincorporated areas can be handled efficiently.
Comment 17: (p. 5-13, para. 4): These.three modes of collection each necessitate a different set
of practices on the part of generators to prepare materials, a different set of processes to convert
materials into commodities, and different overall economics. In general, providing collection for
separate materials is more costly, but may save processing costs and may increase the market value
of some commodities. providing little or no source separation may decrease collection costs, but may
require sophisticated facilities to separate commodities prior to processing. Each approach has its
benefits and its drawbacks.
Higher levels of source separation may be less convenient, but will require direct participation of the
generator. Lower levels of source separation require less participation on the part of the generator,
but may require additional facilities to separate commodities. Relying on little or no source
separation will not require any participation on the part of the generator, but will require large
sophisticated material recovery facilities (MRF's) to provide mechanical and manual separation of
materials.
MRF's are light industrial facilities in which commodities are extracted from mixed loads of waste.
Many MRF's are flexible in their design, and are able to accommodate changing material mixes and
different sources of materials.
Lower levels of source separation will also require processing facilities. Called intermediate '
processing centers (IPC's), these facilities serve as a separation and consolidation point for collected
materials, often these facilities employ similar technologies as a MRF, but with fewer material types.
18
The County will have to rely on an integration of these approaches as no single approach will be
able to ensure compliance with AB 939. Many of the haulers that currently service the
Unincorporated County are developing the infrastructure to provide curbside source separation of
materials and.currently operate or are developing IPC's. At the same time three large MRFs are
being planned or built which will serve as regional facilities.
While the County seeks to support the highest and best use of all of the materials recovered, they
realize that in order to meet the aggressive goals of AB 939 no one system can be relied upon. The
County will support all efforts to proved the maximum amount of recovery to the maximum number
Of residents and businesses. The County will provide review and direction for developing facilities.
Response: The paragraph that this suggested revision is intended to replace is being retained in the
same form as in the Preliminary Draft. The discussion has been expanded, however, to clarify the
County's policy on participation of development of the three MFSWF's. See page 5-22 of the Final
Draft.
Comment 18: (p. 5-20, para. 2): In addition to PHBD's Pacheco facility, a drop-off center and
two buy-back centers are located in the Unincorporated area of the Central County. The Acme
Landfill accepts corrugated cardboard, newspaper, magazines, aluminum cans, steel cans, plastics
(HDPE and PET), clear and colored glass containers. The buy-back facilities are Mt. Diablo Paper
Stock and Kelly's Cash for Cans, both located in the incorporated area of Concord, but serving the
unincorporated Central County.
D Response: The substantive portions of this suggested revision pertaining to Acme Fill have been
incorporated in the Final Draft. (p. 5-16):
aComment 19: (p. 5-54, para. 2): 8. Facilitate the development of regional MRF sites.
Response: The County is unsure of the meaning of the comment.
a
Comments on the Composting Component
Comment 20: (p. 6-3, 6-5, 6-26): The planting of drought-resistant vegetation is known as
xeriscaping; xerography is the process of copying a graphic image.
Response: This typographical error has been corrected in the Final Draft.
Comment 21: (p. 6-4, para. 3): Action 5: Establish a public'education campaign which provides
information on the proper utilization of a centralized composting facility. .Coordinate efforts with the
backyard composting education program described in the Source Reduction Component. This
program may include backyard composting programs such as the one proposed by Acme Fill as part
of their composting demonstration program.
19
Response: County Staff do not find substantive differences between the original text and the
suggested revision, other than the explicit mention of the proposed demonstration site at the Acme
Facility.
Comment 22: (p. 6-7, para 2): No permitted composting programs were identified within the
County. A company which composts its own tree pruning and branches is discussed in the Source ,
Reduction Component. Delete third paragraph.
(p. 6-7, para 4): What about the HESCO operation in Brentwood?
Response: Paragraph 2 will be retained as in the Preliminary Draft (see response to Comment 5).
The HESCO operation in Brentwood grinds wood waste for biofuel. Burning of woodwaste is
considered transformation, not diversion.
Comment 23: (p. 6-9, para. 10): Under short-term objective number two, is the County going to ,
"plan, design, and implement collection, processing, and marketing systems" or is the County going
to facilitate and oversee the implementation of collection, processing, and marketing systems?
Response: In general, County policy is to rely upon the private sector for the.development and
implementation of collection; processing, and marketing. If, however, any of the MFSWF's comes
under public ownership, the County may have a direct interest in the development and operation of
the facility, as opposed to a planning and oversight role for private facilities and programs.
Comment 24: (p. 6-10, para. 9): Delete objective number 3. The County's objective should be
to develop an integrated relationship between a backyard composting program and a centralized
facility. Only by using both of these programs will the County be able to meet its goals. ,
Response: Source reduction is, by State law and by County policy, the preferred method of
managing materials, and should receive priority over composting and recycling. The County believes ,
that both point-of-generation composting and centralized composting are necessary to achieve the
diversion mandates, but that the long term goal should be to increase levels of point-of-generation
composting and other organic source reduction efforts in order to reduce the amount of materials '
requiring.collection and centralized processing.
Comment 25: (p. 6-17, para. 2): Delete the reference to 'bacteria inocula' as none is proposed by
Acme.
Response: This reference has been deleted in the Final Draft.
Comment 26: (p. 6-26, para. 3): This bullet should be located in the. Source Reduction
Component.
Response: While backyard composting is indeed a source reduction program, repeating mention of
it here merely reenforces the interconnectedness of the components.
20
� xeFExEtvcEs
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REFERENCES ,
Chertow, Marian R., Garbage solutions: a public official's guide to recycling and alternative solid
' waste management technologies. Washington, D.C.: The United States Conference of Mayors and
the National Resource Recovery Association, 1989
' Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County solid waste management plan. Martinez: Contra Costa
County Community Development Department, August 1989.
Smith, Paul M, and Keith D. Sheeran, "Summary: A profile of consumer preference for baby
diapers" • University of Washington, Division of Forest Products and Engineering. Seattle:
University of Washington, July 1990.
Tchobanoglous, George; Hilary Thiesen, and Rolf Eliassen, Solid wastes: engineering principles
and management issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Septage treatment and disposal handbook.
' Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Oct. 1984.
' United States Environmental Protection Agency,, Characterization of municipal solid waste in the
United States: 1990 update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, June 1990.
s
e
r
0
s