HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181993 - H.2 (9) V
AU t
_ costa
col�vtra
�1
-braftilia, d
ti
ou
fLedtic
oar , eOw
e �
hil%
R
0
t
i E�6
co►
} 1.993
J
on tecycled Paper
�� punted.
� Contra Costa
Count'
y
Final Draft
Source Reduction
and.
Recyclina �lt
gill. VI ----..;,-
COu�'1`'`�
April 1993
1
t
1
1
1
1
t
e
r
r
r
' CONTRA COSTA, COUNTY
FINAL DRAFT
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
r
r
.i
April 1993
Prepared By:
Contra Costa County
Community Development
' , 651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-4194
FAX (510) 646-1309
In Conjunction With:
Daniel T. Sicular, Consultant, Ph.D.
Barton A. Blum. M.A.
R.W. Beck and Associates
Printed on Recycled Paper
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' INTRODUCTION
Use and Format
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0
Chapter 1 - COUNTY SOLID WASTE POLICIES AND GOALS
Chapter 2 - WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
' Chapter 3 - FACILITIES CAPACITY COMPONENT
Chapter 4 - SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
Chapter 5 - RECYCLING COMPONENT
Chapter 6 - COMPOSTING COMPONENT
Chapter 7 = SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT
Chapter 8 - PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COMPONENT
Chapter 9 - FUNDING
Chapter.10 - INTEGRATION
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - COUNTY SOLID WASTE GOALS AND POLICIES
APPENDIX B - WASTE CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX C - COMPOSTING UNIT PROCESSES
APPENDIX D - MARKET DEVELOPMENT
a
APPENDIX E - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
REFERENCES
s
a �
r
i
' IlVTRODUCTION
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . i
USE AND FORMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
r
r�
r
INTRODUCTION
Prior to 1989, California counties were responsible,. accountable, and liable for solid waste
management. Recognizing that no one entity can any longer address the major problems resulting
from decreasing landfill space and increasing solid waste generation, AB 939--The California
Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) proposed a partnership approach on the part of the
State, counties, cities, the solid waste and recycling industries, and consumers to resolve solid waste
issues. AB 939 established shared responsibility and accountability for solid waste management
between counties, cities, and the State. Each county and city must prepare and implement its own
Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE). Each county additionally must prepare the Countywide Integrated Waste Management
Plan (CoIWMP). Five elements are to be included in a CoIWMP: SRRE for each city and each
county unincorporated area; HHWE for each city and each county unincorporated area; Non-disposal
facility Element for each city and the county unincorporated area; Countywide Siting Element for
landfills and transformation facilties; and a summary plan.
AB 939 requires each county and city, as part of the SRREs, to identify methods which will be used
to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills by 25% by the year 1995 and by 50% by
the year 2000.
AB 939 specifies a priority order for solid waste reduction aimed at conserving natural resources and
changing both individual and business consumer purchasing practices. Specifically, AB 939 requires
that local governments identify programs to attain the mandated solid waste reductions giving first
priority to source reduction programs, second priority to recycling and composting programs, and
last priority to environmentally safe transformation (burning or combustion) and landfill disposal
programs.
In adopting AB 939, the State legislature noted that California generates more solid waste than any
industrial nation in the world other than the United States, but has a shortage of landfill capacity for
disposal of this vast amount of generated waste. With the imminent closure of our three existing
landfills, Contra Costa County and our 18 cities fully understand the statewide dilemma related to
landfill capacity. In March and July, 1990, the County Board of Supervisors approved two new
landfills--Marsh Canyon Landfill with a projected minimum of 75 years capacity with diversion
programs and Keller Canyon Sanitary Landfill with a projected minimum capacity of 30 years. To
conserve landfill capacity for Contra Costa County in the future, the Board of Supervisors imposed
Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval on each newly approved landfill requiring local solid waste
diversion of 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Additionally, the Conditions of.Approval
restrict access thereby encouraging most disposal via transfer stations where further material recovery
operations can reduce solid waste disposal (see Appendix A).
Faced with the challenge of diminishing capacity prior to the passage of AB 939; the Couny and the.
18 cities implemented recycling programs as an immediate priority to divert solid waste from
April 1993 i Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction and Recycling Element
disposal in our own landfills and in those of the counties with which we have negotiated interim
export agreements.
To demonstrate commitment to its own diversion mandates, the Board of Supervisors initiated
recycling activities which involved diversion of materials within cities as well as within the
unincorporated areas of the County (County). Specifically, the County
• launched an Airport Service Carrier Recycling Program later used as a model for State legislation
• established a-Plastics Task Force comprised of representatives from cities, business recycling
organizations and the solid waste industry, and environmental organizations to address the
feasibility and methodology of recycling and reducing plastics in the wastestream
• established a Compost Task Force to review and recommend effective composting systems and
yard waste management programs
• .initiated a Schools Recycling Pilot Program which included 18 schools during 1990
• implemented a County Government Multi-materials Recycling Program which includes a
collection, sorting, baling, and marketing effort for all County Government facilities many of
which are located within cities
• initiated a county-city-special district Procurement Policies Task Force
• declared intent to ban from disposal at the new landfills specific waste types including plastics,
newspapers, white ledger and mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, yard waste, metals, white
goods, wood waste, and construction/demolition debris
While the County and 18 cities have given immediate priority to recycling programs which focus
consumer awareness on the need to reduce solid waste, the County looks to source reduction
programs as, ultimately, the most effective means to assure conservation of natural resources and
landfill capacity.
The unincorporated areas are dispersed among the county's three planning areas: East, West, and
Central. The county has evolved into three distinct waste sheds which nearly correspond to exisitng
planning regions and to the presence of historic landfills. The 1989 County Solid Waste Mangement
Plan (CoWIMP) identified the need for solid waste transfer and processing facilties in each of the
wastesheds. It also identifed, depending on growth in the south-central area of the county, a fourth
waste shed from a division of the Central area into North and South. Such a division may necessitate
the development of a fourth transfer/processing facility. Proposals for multi-functional solid waste
facilties (MFSWF) that include transfer, processing and composting, for the central, west and east
wastesheds have been reviewed by the Local Task Force. Each proposed MFSWF -- the West
County Integrated Resource Recovery Faciltiy, ACME Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station,
the East County Community Collection Center, and perhaps a fourth in South Central County --will
serve as a center for processing recyclables, composting organic materials, collecting household
hazardous wastes, and transferring garbage from its waste shed.
Contra Costa County ii April 1993 '
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction &Recycling Element
The jurisdictions in the county are adopting a subregional system of waste management, and the
MFSWF's are the essential element of each subregion's system. Implementation ofthe
unincorporated areas' recycling and composting programs could be enhanced by the MFSWF's
proposed to serve each region. The County will work with the subregional agencies responsible for
developing the MFSWF's to ensure that the County's proposed programs can be effectively
implemented.
The Waste Characterization Study conducted in September, 1990, for the County showed that the
County had reached an actual diversion rate of 18.6%. Under AB 939, 9.1% of this diversion is
disallowed because it is the result of transformation (burning).' The remaining 9.5% diversion rate
was attained by the County, primarily, through recycling programs and actions by the Board of
Supervisors which included requiring the ACME Interim Transfer Station operator to remove from
disposal miscellaneous metals, white goods (i.e., refrigerators), wood waste, and
construction/demolition debris.
These 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 areas of the County. Until the Board adopted the franchising ordinance, the County
had no legal authority to direct residential or commercial recycling programs in the unincorporated
areas, and the fragmented authority over the unincorporated waste stream threatened uneven and
unaccountable planning and implementation. It is the intent of the County to establish either direct
control over integrated waste management in the unincorporated areas by establishing or taking over
over franchising authority, or indirect control by establishing memoranda of understanding with
existing franchising agencies.
Additional materials such as tin and plastic containers were included for diversion as part of the
initial two franchise agreements. However, data regarding increases in County diversion rates
resulting from the initial two franchise agreements is not yet available. In addition, several of the
existing franchising authorities have worked with their service providers to establish new recycling
and programs that serve some unincorporated communities. Diversion data from these programs are
not yet available.
Consequently, the programs selected in this County's SRRE are aimed at attaining the additional
15.9% diversion necessary to reach the 25% diversion mandated by 1995 and the 40.9% needed for
the diversion required by the year 2000. Based upon both the Waste Characterization Study for the
County and policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors,the programs selected for implementation
in this SRRE target specific materials (waste types): white ledger paper, corrugated cardboard,
newspaper, tin, aluminum, lap stics, yard waste, and glass. To meet the 25% State and local
mandated diversions, 'short-term programs in this SRRE concentrate on the implementation of
recycling, composting, and public information and education programs;while some source reduction
programs will be implemented, in the short-term emphasis is placed on the development of source
reduction programs which can effect changes in consumer practices and be effectively measured.
Full implementation of most source reduction programs will take place in the medium term to attain
the 50% diversion required by the year 2000.
AB 939 allows up to .10% transformation to county toward the 50% goal in the mdium
term, if a jurisdiction can show it cannot achieve the 50% goal without transformation.
April 1993 iii Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction and Recycling Element
The selected programs in this SRRE are projected to attain a 36.57% diversion of solid waste by
1995 and 62.96% diversion by 2000. M
Within both the short and medium terms, this SRRE emphasizes programs which develop and
support individuals as well as existing .and new businesses involved in recycling, re-use, and/or
re-manufacturing activities. In addition, a market development program is already underway to
foster the financial stability of such businesses.
Both short and medium term programs selected in this SRRE seek to balance the urgent need to
divert solid waste from our landfills with the cost to individual and business consumers--the rate
payers. For this purpose, where possible programs selected in this SRRE will be coordinated with
cities within sub-regional geographic areas of the County, and the County will seek to resolve issues
of duplication of effort and overlap of authority through the Local Task Force.
This SRRE views public information and education activities as both integral to the attainment of the
short-term diversion goals.and critical in establishing awareness and support for source reduction
programs among individual and business consumers, State and local governments, and the solid waste
industry. For in the end, it is the effectiveness of the partnership between individual and business
consumers,government, and the solid waste and recycling industries that will assure the conservation
of our natural resources and our landfill capacity.
USE AND FORMAT
State law, specifically California Government Code Sections 65300 through 65403, mandates that
all cities and counties prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term and internally consistent
General Plan. State law further requires that once a local government has adopted its General Plan,
local officials must implement it. Under State planning law standards, implementation programs
must follow logically from the General Plan's goals and policies.
In addition to complyingwith AB 939 the SRRE is an implementation document for the General
P
Plan and, therefore, should reflect and follow logically from the solid waste management diversion
goals and policies in the County General Plan and from any additional actions taken by the Board ,
of Supervisors .on these matters. The initial chapter of this SRRE presents solid waste diversion
goals and policies contained in the County General Plan along with other related actions by the Board
of Supervisors. Taken together, these County goals, policies, and actions serve to guide and direct
the solid waste diversion programs selected for implementation.
AB 939 requires that each jurisdiction's SRRE cover nine specific areas or components: waste
characterization, facilities capacity, source reduction programs, recycling programs, composting
programs, special waste programs, education and public information programs, funding of all
programs, and a summary (integration) of all programs selected.
AB 939 requires that.SRREs be adopted by the local jurisdiction and submitted to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) by July 1, 1991. Legislation enacted subsequent to
the Act modified the original requirements thereby causing delays in the promulgation of final
CIWMB regulations for the SRREs and in local jurisdictions' abilities to submit SRREs.
Introduction of AB 2092 during the 1991 legislative session was intended to extend the submission
Contra Costa County iv April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
deadline to January, 1991.- Because AB 2092 was not acted upon by the Legislature, the CIWMB
has suggested that local jurisdictions complete SRREs as soon as possible using current regulations.
The format of the nine components in this SRRE complies with the current CIWMB regulations and
follows the CIWMB model component outline. Specifically, the program components on source
reduction, recycling, composting, and special waste follow the model component format which
covers:
Objectives - a section listing the diversion goals and objectives for the programs being considered
and selected
Existing Conditions - a section describing current programs
Evaluation of the Alternatives (Prop-rams) -a section describing both criteria used to select programs
for implementation and the variety of programs considered prior to selection
Selection of Programs - a section identifying the programs which will be.implemented
Program Implementation a section covering actual dates for program implementation, responsible
agencies, and costs for each selected program
Monitoring and Evaluation - a section describing methods to monitor the effectiveness of the selected
programs in attaining the goals and objectives and identifying steps which will be taken if the
selected programs do not meet the goals and objectives
To facilitate use of this SRRE by'individual and business consumers as well as by public agencies
and the solid waste industry, information and programs are presented in this SRRE in a sequential
order covering
• SRRE.Executive Summary
• Chapter 1 - County solid waste management goals and policies
tj • Chapters 2 and 3 - County Waste Characterization information used to identify material
types to be targeted for diversion programs followed by'Facilities Capacity information
describing both landfill solid waste capacity and the waste management facilities system
set forth in the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) which was
approved by the County and a majority of our 18 cities
• Chapters 4 through 7 - Components covering the diversion programs for source
reduction, rec c�lin-g, composting, and special waste
• Chapter 8- Component describing the education and public information programs which
will be implemented with the selected diversion programs to assure public awareness and
foster participation and support
April 1993 v Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction and Recycling Element
• Chapters .9 and 10 - Summary components providing information on funding for all
diversion and . public information programs selected and an integration of the '
implementation for all selected programs
r
Contra Costa County vi April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
r
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
REVIEW OF THE COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
WASTE GENERATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
FACILITIES CAPACITY COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . viii
RECYCLING COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . x
COMPOSTING COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COMPONENT . . . . . . "'
FUNDING COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
INTEGRATION COMPONENT . . . xx
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1: Total Waste Diversion Estimates by Diversion Activity and Generator Type (1990) vii
Table 2: Proportional Contribution Per Generator Typeii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
1 •
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
rREVIEW OF THE COMPONENTS
This section presents an overview of the components which comprise this SRRE.
WASTE GENERATION ANALYSIS
Existing Diversion
As of September, 1990, the County had reached a 9.5% diversion rate of its total wastestream. This
diversion rate was based on a calculation of materials currently being source reduced, recycled or
composted. The sources of information for the calculation of the diversion rate were provided by
the County's Waste Characterization Study including a survey of source reduction and recycling
businesses which could quantify material by type and jurisdiction of generation.
A summary of the amount of waste in tons per year (TPY) for 1990, diverted through reuse and
recycling by generator type is listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1
TOTAL:WASTE DIVERSION ESTIMATES BY DIVERSION ACTIVITY.AND.GENERATOR.TYPE
(1990)
Residential Commercial Industrial Total
Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY
Source Reduction 1.33% 2,724 0.167. 332 --- --- 1.49% . 3,056 -
Recycling 3.57% 7,310. 2.30% 4,720 1.54% 3,155 7.41% 15,222
Composting <0.01 1 0.59% 1,213 0.02% 50 0.61% 1,264
TOTAL 4:90°10 ;:10,035 3:08% 6,265 Y56�. 3,205 9:51°10 19?505
i
Existing Disposal
The unincorporated areas of the County disposed of 166,700 tons in 1990, utilizing the West
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL), Contra Costa Sanitary•Landfill (CCSL), Altamont
Landfill in Alameda County and Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. ' A summary of the
. amount of waste in tons per year disposed of by generator type is listed in Table 2.
April 1993 vii Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
.. . .......
........... .......
:::>;:.::»>:::::::<:;>::::>:::>:>:<:>::::...>...:....b..:...R......QNB..;C�1�'I.`RI$ '�'..�.:::........:.....CYt✓ ERr�TQR:;'T ::���..�1:::::::::::.�::�.:.�::.�::.:::::::.:::
Generator Percentage 1990 Total Annual Per Capita
.Tonnage Disposal Rate
Residential 52% 86,684 .56 tons
Commercial 15% 25,005 .16 tons
Industrial (including construction and
demolition) 33% 55,011 .36 tons
:........................................... ... .........................I£6 7at?..............................1.OS.tfln�
a..:::.:::.:::::::::::.:._.....:..............:::..........::.
FACILITIES CAPACITY COMPONENT '
The Facilities Capacity Component identifies the amount of disposal capacity needed for the
unincorporated areas of the county for a fifteen year period commencing in 1991.
There are currently three solid waste landfills within the County. Until December 1989 all
County municipal solid waste was disposed within the County excepting approximately 50 tons
per day from San Ramon which was sent to the Altamont Landfill. Proposed facilities include
two new landfills and the ACME Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) which
have received local land use approvals, and two additional Transfer Stations/MRF for West
County and East County. Interim export agreements with Solano and Alameda Counties
currently exist.'
UPDATE
Keller Canyon Landfill, sited in the unincorporated area of the county, began operation in May .
of 1992 thereby assuring the County and its jurisdictions capacity for 30 plus years. In early
1993, the County began processing changes to the land use designation for the site of the Marsh
Canyon Landfill; these changes result from a settlement agreement involving the parties to a
lawsuit on the General Plan Amendment/Land Use Permit for Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill.
As a result of this process, Contra Costa's only proposed landfill will be the Keller Canyon
Landfill. i
SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
Source reduction is any action that reduces the amount of material that enters the wastestream,
including reducing the amount of material that requires disposal, recycling, 'and composting.
Since the types and amounts of waste produced are closely associated with the materials and
Contra Costa County viii April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
designs used for consumer and capital goods, source reduction programs require the change of
industrial, commercial, and consumer practices and behavior.
Short-term Objectives:
Through source reduction measures and programs, the County will reduce its amount of waste
1 generated by 2% by the year 1995.
Medium-term Objective:
Through source reduction measures and programs, the County will reduce its amount of waste
generated by 8% by the year 2000.
Source Reduction Program Selected:
• Variable can rates: implement and refine variable can rates in all unincorporated areas of the
County, and test the feasibility of weight-based rates.
• Vocational Training and Reduction of Business License Fee: assist source reduction businesses
through business and vocational management training and reduction in business license fees.
i • Reusables Pick-up Days: establish periodic curbside pick-up of reusables through franchise
agreements.
• Reducing Fast Food Packaging Waste (voluntary program): encourage restaurants to serve
food that is to be eaten on the premises on washable. serviceware, and to use recyclable take-
out food packaging.
• Reducing the Use of Disposable Diapers: County Hospital and Outreach to Daycare Centers,
Hospitals, and.Medical Offices; institute an informational program to encourage a reduction
' in the use of disposal diapers.
• Reducing Generation of Organic .Waste: institute an organic waste reduction program,
including backyard composting.
• Resource•Evaluation for Business: provide resource assessments and assistance in establishing
procurement policies for commercial and industrial waste generators.
Source Reduction Programs Rejected:
• Rate,Structure Modification: tipping fee
' • Encouraging Source Reduction Businesses: zoning
1
' April 1993 ix Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
• Direct Support for Source Reduction Businesses:
Grantro ram for source reduction businesses
P g
Loan Program for source reduction businesses
Tax Incentives for source reduction businesses
• Re-Use Program Development: require salvage yard (and recycling yard) at all publicly
accessible transfer stations.
• Reducing Fast Food Waste: mandatory program
• Public Education: Model community
• Reducing the Use of Disposable Diapers
Predisposal fee
Labeling requirements
Product ban
•. Taxes or fees on disposable, single-use, and difficult to handle products
• Other Regulatory Measures:
Product ban
Require Source Reduction and Recycling Plans
• Assistance to Industrial and Commercial Generators: Source Reduction Seminars and
Workshops
Monitoring and Evaluation: '
The source reduction programs will be monitored and evaluated both qualitatively and
quantitatively to determine the effectiveness of each program.
The measures of program effectiveness will focus on participation of residences and businesses,
degree of awareness of programs by consumers, the amount of source reduction achieved
balanced against the economics of the program.
RECYCLING COMPONENT
Recycling refers to the use of secondary materials in the production of new items. The County
already has a wide array of recycling programs, with more proposed in'this SRRE. A relatively
high recycling rate can be achieved for the unincorporated areas simply by maximizing
participation.
Contra Costa County x April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
Contra Costa County is fortunate in being located in an area with excellent access to both foreign
and domestic markets for secondary materials. - Market development is a crucial link to assure
the future of ,recycling programs. To support markets for .the recycling programs being
implemented, the County has already undertaken a secondary materials market development
program and will be applying for Market Development Zone status with the State.
UPDATE
The County was designated a Recycling Market Development Zone in June of 1902
. Short-term Objectives:
The County will divert 20% of its wastestream through recycling programs by the year 1995.
Medium-term Objectives:
The County will divert 35% of its wastestream through^recycling programs by the year 2000.
Market Development Objectives
The short and medium term market development objectives are as follows:
' Short Term: achieve relative stability in markets for recycled materials, through
increased demand for products made from recycled materials, developing
a consistent supply. of high-quality materials, and maximizing the
capacity of existing manufacturers within the County to utilize secondary
material.
facilitate direct linkages-between commercial and industrial generators
of secondary materials and local end users..
Medium Term identify and develop new markets for materials that currently have a
weak or non-existent markets, but which are technically.recyclable.
encourage the establishment of new end-use industrial facilities within
' the County.
Existing Conditions:
The County has implemented or initiated a number of recycling programs:
Airport service carrier recycling program
• Curbside collection of tin, cardboard, aluminum, PET, HDPE
• Schools Recycling Program
Y g
1
April 1993 xi Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE .
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
• County Government Office Recycling Program
• County Annual Recycling Awards Program
• LDPE bags Return-to-Source Collection Program
• Secondary Materials Market Development Study
Recycling Programs Selected:
The County will continue to operate all existing programs listed. In addition, the following
changes will be made to the existing programs, and new programs or facilities.
• Residential Curbside Collection: continue, evaluate, and expand existing collection
programs serving unincorporated areas. Implement changes as needed per franchise
agreement or Memoranda of Understanding.
• Multi-Family Collection: continue, evaluate, and expand existing and planned apartment
and condominium multi-material collection programs throughout the unincorporated area.
• New Drop-off Centers: . establish new full scale multi-material drop-off facilities in
Oakley and Alamo, and unstaffed drop-off sites in strategic locations to serve small ,
communities and rural areas.
• New Buy-Back Center and Mobile Buy-Back: Coordinate with the West County JPA the ,
establishment of a multi-material buy-back/drop-off facility in El Sobrante. Establish a
mobile buy-back system for North Richmond, Rodeo, and Crockett.
• Expand Commercial and Industrial Recycling Routes: encourage and monitor the efforts
of franchised haulers to expand collection of recyclables to all commercial and industrial
areas.
• Land Use Permits, Building Inspection and Codes: establish building codes, building
inspection approval, and land use policies to ensure the ease of siting recycling facilities,
and to improve the design of living and working,space to enable recycling.
• Facilitate Direct Linkages Between Producers and .Users of Secondary Materials: i
increase commercial and industrial recycling by facilitating direct linkages between
generators, service providers, and end users through database and hotline system.
• Source Separation of Construction Demolition Debris: work with a private hauler to test,
on a pilot basis, the feasibility of source-separating construction/demolition debris.
• Schools and Other Organizations: facilitate and assist in the establishment of multi-
material school, church, and community center recycling systems.
Contra Costa County xii April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
'Source Reduction & Recycling Element
• Return-to-Source Plastics Drop-off: establish a Return to Source plastic drop-off system
• Technical Assistance to Business: facilitate commercial and industrial recycling through
technical assistance, including waste audits and office paper recycling assistance. See
Source Reduction Component for a description of this program.
• Parks and Recreation Area Recycling; expand park and recreation recycling to all parks,
marinas, and recreation areas. This program is described in the Special Waste
Component.
• UPDATE Establish Shoreline Recycling Market Development Zone: .in conjunction
with the other jurisdictions arrayed along the county's shoreline, establish a Recycling
Market Development Zone, as approved by the California Integrated Waste Management
Board.
Recycling Program Alternatives Rejected:
• Manual or mechanical material recovery of mixed waste
Monitoring andEvaluation:
' The County will monitor the effectiveness and recovery rates for recycling programs and
activities in three ways:
• continue to maintain accurate data for programs;
• require reporting from Transfer Stations/Material Recovery Facilities; and
• request data on recycling from businesses through the Business License process.
Assessment of market circumstances will also be used to evaluate materials targeted in programs.
COMPOSTING COMPONENT
Developing composting programs will play an important role for Contra Costa County in
meeting the diversion mandates of AB 939'. The recovery of organic wastes for composting
represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is to divert a significant
percentage of the waste stream from landfills back into productive use, returning nutrients and
organic matter back to the soil. . The challenge is to overcome siting and financial constraints
' to move the management of organic wastes from theory to implementation. From public
education efforts designed to generate a supply of uncontaminated materials, to the marketing
of the finished product, Contra Costa County will need to invest staff time, foster creativity, and
solicit community involvement to develop successful programs.
' April 1993 ziii Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
Composting is defined by the CIWMB as the controlled biological decomposition of wastes. The
wastes are organic and include yard waste, food waste, and wood waste. Malting mulch is r
considered a recycling activity because the material does not fully decompose before it is used.
However, mulch is described in this component because the materials are the same as materials
which are composted, and the collection and processing systems are the same. ,.
Backyard composting is considered a source reduction activity and is addressed in the Source
Reduction Component.
Short-term Objectives: '
Through composting programs, the County will reduce its amount of organic material disposed
of in a landfill by 6% by the year 1995.
Medium-term Objectives:
Through composting programs, the County will reduce its amount of organic material disposed
of in a landfill by 19% by the year 2000.
Existing Conditions:
• Christmas trees, chipping and mulching
• Commercial Composting Activity
Composting Programs Selected: '
• West County Yard Waste Composting Facility: require the establishment of a yard waste
recovery program as a condition of approval for a land use permit for the West County
Integrated Resource Recovery Facility. This program should be phased-in during the
short-term planning period (1995), and developed to full-scale in the medium-term
planning period (1995-2000).
• Central County Yard Waste Composting Facility: monitor and evaluate the pilot yard
waste recovery program at the Acme Interim Transfer Station pursuant to the terms of
the Land Use Permit 2122-86. This facility will accept yard waste from the
unincorporated East County area, in addition to serving the unincorporated Central
County area, until a facility in East County is available.
• East County Yard Waste Composting Facility: require the establishment of a yard waste
recovery program as a condition of approval for a solid waste transfer station or mini
transfer station in East County. If the facility is located within an incorporated area, the
Board of Supervisors should request a similar provision in the use permit issued by the
City with land use jurisdiction.
• Establish Yard Waste Collection Programs: require waste haulers to establish collection
programs for source separated yard waste from residences and businesses in the
Contra Costa County MV April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
unincorporated communities, as well as from institutions. All unincorporated
communities should have.curbside collection established during the short-term planning
period. The establishment of drop-off facilities may be considered to serve areas for
which curbside collection is not feasible.
• Residential Public Education Program: establish a public education .program which
provides instruction in backyard composting and other methods for the source reduction
of yard waste as well as the utilization of a centralized composting facility. This
program should include compost demonstration areas at solid waste transfer stations.
1 • Commercial Public Education Program establish a public education program for
landscapers, land clearing operators, and multi-family and commercial business managers
' which encourages on-site or off-site composting and the selection of plants which produce
less waste.
• Land Use Permit Review Process: establish a process for the review of landscaping.
plans during the land use permit and building permit review process to promote the use
of xeriscaping and to provide for on-site or off-site composting. This program should
i be initiated during the short-term planning period and continued through the medium-
term planning period.
i • Composting Programs Assistance: assist County-owned or County-operated facilities and
private businesses in establishing composting programs. Encourage on-site composting
at public parks. This program should be initiated during the short-term planning period
and continued throughout the medium-term planning period.
• Rate Structure Review: review the rate structure for refuse collection for the
unincorporated area and ensure that the structure encourages backyard composting,
source separation of compostables and the utilization of composting facilities. This
' program should be initiated during the short-term planning period; changes to the rate .
structure should coordinate with collection of source separated yard waste.
• Compost Market Development and Public, Agency Utilization of Compost: in
conjunction with the other jurisdictions arrayed along the county's shoreline,'develop the
Recycling Market Development Zone, as approved by the CIWMB. Review County
purchasing specifications to ensure that products of compost operations are utilized to the
maximum extent feasible. Encourage other government agencies to utilize compost
products.
• Pilot Food Waste Composting: encoura e all transfer stations to develop pilot
g P
composting programs for food'waste as part of their composting operations. The
' inclusion of food waste should be required during the medium-term planning period.
April 1993 xv Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
Medium-Term Programs ,
• Food Waste Collection and Composting: require the curbside collection of food waste
from residences, from commercial establishments and institutions, and require the
expansion of compost facilities to include food waste processing. '
• Food Waste Public Education: expand the public education programs to promote source
separation of food waste.
• Pilot Composting Projects: require all transfer stations to develop pilot composting ,
programs for other organic wastes, such as sewage sludge, mixed waste paper and
newspaper.
• Private,Sector Compost Product Development: encourage the private sector to develop
new compost products and compost markets.
• Sewage Sludge: 'encourage composting of sewage sludge from publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) as a waste management method and encourage the use of compost in
land restoration projects.
Composting Program Alternatives Rejected:
• Co-composting mixed solid waste composting '
• Low technology windrow process
• Food waste high technology windrow process
• In-vessel composting of mixed solid waste
P g
Monitoring and Evaluation: '
The County will require composting collectors/haulers to submit quantity reports on the
percentage of generators participating and the quantity collected by residential, commercial,
industrial sectors as well as on the tonnages received from each jurisdiction in the County. The
County will conduct a waste characterization study at the end of the short-term period (1995)
related to compostables and yard waste. Additionally, the County will track procurement'of
compost products by public agencies within Contra Costa County.
r
SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT
The CIWMB has defined special wastes as those which require collection, processing, and
disposal procedures different from those normally used for municipal solid wastes. AB 939
requires counties and cities to prepare and implement a special waste management program as
part of their Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Although special wastes comprise a
Contra Costa County xvi April 1993
Final Draft SRRE J ,
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
' relatively small proportion of the wastes entering our county landfills, some pose significant
risks (e.g., medical wastes), and others present excellent opportunities for reuse or recycling
(e.g., tires), and composting (e.g., agricultural wastes).
Contra Costa County's overall special waste goals are:
1. Reduce the amount and hazardousness of special waste generated;
2. Maximize recycling, reuse and composting of special waste generated in the county
' through pubic education, and .legislation incentives;
3. Monitor and ensure environmentally safe disposal of the special waste generated which
' cannot be recycled, reused, or composted.
Objectives to achieve these goals are specific to each waste type discussed in this component.
Objectives apply to both the short- and medium-term planning periods.
Existing Conditions: L
Abandoned vehicle collection and salvage
' • White goods removal from transfer'station
• Proper disposal of asbestos medical waste, septic tank pumpings, shipboard and port
waste
• Proper disposal and use of agricultural wastes; dead animals, incinerator ash, Park and
Recreation Area wastes, sewage sludge; street sweeping and catch basin debris, tires.
' Special Waste Programs Selected:
• All of the programs listed under Existing Conditions will be continued or expanded
• Park and Recreation Area program
' • Sludge reuse
• Tires
Monitoring and Evaluation:
' The amount of diversion through special waste programs is not significant to the diversion goals
of the.County. The reduction and proper disposal are critical to the health and safety of the
residents, and this will be the predominant criteria for evaluation of special waste programs.
April 1993 XVU. Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
r
PUBLIC'INFORMATION AND EDUCATION COMPONENT
Public information and education are essential in building an effective partnership_between
consumers, government, and the solid waste and recycling industries. An effective partnership
is required for success in conserving natural resources and landfill capacity. Public information '
is critical in developing support for and participation in programs selected to reduce waste
disposal by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000.
The public information and education program, outlined in this SRRE, provides flexibility in
targeting different diversion programs, segments of the population, and specific materials. This ,
flexibility will allow changes in emphasis and methods of communication which may be
necessary to assure reaching the planned diversion goals.
Short-term Objectives: '
• Expand existing public education and information programs to address source reduction, ,
composting and recycling tailored to local residential, commercial, and industrial areas
throughout the unincorporated County.
• Cultivate support for diversion programs within the business community.
,
PP .Y
• Work with other public agencies and with private sector service providers to coordinate '
countywide and subregional public education efforts.
• The numerical objectives for the short-term are as follows: achieve 70% participation
rate among targeted residential populations for curbside recycling and composting
programs; achieve a measurable level of residential source reduction; achieve 50 %
participation in commercial and industrial collection programs within targeted areas. '
Medium-term Objectives:
Medium-term objectives build upon short-term objectives and will focus upon:
J P J P
• Expansion of short-term programs.
• Revision and improvement of short-term programs based on feedback obtained from '
monitoring and evaluating these programs.
• Development of new programs to target specific subpopulations or wastestreams.
• The numerical objectives for the medium-term are as follows: achieve 80% participation
rate among targeted residential populations for curbside recycling and composting '
programs; double the short-term level of measurable source reduction in the residential
sector; achieve 70% participation in commercial and industrial collection programs within
the targeted areas.
Contra Costa County xviii April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
_Monitoring and Evaluation:
Monitoring and evaluation of selected programs will, like the programs themselves, be divided
' into two main components, one focused on compliance of franchised service providers with the
terms of their contracts or agreements; the other focused on the programs being run by the
County itself. The overall measure of success for the EPI programs will be progress toward
achieving the goals and objectives set out at the beginning of the chapter.
' A. Monitoring and Evaluation of Service Providers' EPI Efforts
Each franchise agreement, memorandum of understanding, or contract for services for diversion
programs in unincorporated communities should include express provisions requiring the service
provider to track participation rates. These agreements should also require service providers to
correlate changes in participation rates with informational programs, such as mailings and mass
' media campaigns. Service providers should provide figures that graphically represent changes
in participation. Such a graph may, for example, indicate average weekly set out, by month,
with indications of when public education and information programs were in effect. Deficiencies
' in service providers' EPI programs should be addressed by assisting them in identifying
problems with service or effectiveness of the EPI programs, and coming up with strategies for
correcting these problems.
' B. Monitoring and Evaluation of County-Run Programs
Monitoring and evaluation of County-run programs will be largely a matter of internal review.
Staff responsible for individual programs will make annual or semi-annual reports detailing the
goals and objectives of the program, progress toward meeting these goals and objectives,
' suggestions for revising or improving the program, and an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
of the program. Where quantitative data can be obtained easily, e.g., the number of calls
coming into the hotline, staff will include such in their reports. Each yeari the Community
Development Department will evaluate the overall performance of its EPI programs, and make
decisions on changes and emphasis for the coming year.
FUNDING COMPONENT
' The funding component discusses the costs for planning and implementing source reduction,
recycling, composting, special waste, and public information and education programs-selected
by the County.
Program costs specifically identified, at this time, total $920,959.00 which include program
' development, start-up, operations, and monitoring. Revenue sources to fund programs include
the AB 939 Tipping Fee and the Resource Recovery Fees levied on the ACME Transfer Station,
and the Marsh Canyon and Keller Canyon Landfills as part of their Land Use Permit Conditions
' of Approval.
April 1993 xix Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
*Source Reduction & Recycling Element
A third revenue source will be from the sale of materials from the planned buy-back and drop-
off facilities. These facilities are expected to generate revenues approximately equal to their '
operating costs. The County's,market development program will include efforts to obtain grants
and establish public-private funding partnerships which will assist with program implementation
and operating costs. '
Programs which provide curbside collection are expected to be funded directly by curbside
collection fees.
A number of the selected programs involve existing or proposed transfer/material recovery
facilities which will be operated by private sector businesses or other public agencies. In these '
cases, program costs and funding are considered part of the facilities application,
implementation, and,operating costs and eventual rate structure and, therefore, not discussed in
this SRRE.
INTEGRATION COMPONENT
The Integration Component describes the implementation of all programs to attain the projected
diversions of 36.57% by 1995 and 62.96% by the year 2000. Additionally, this component
identifies methods of integrating the implementation of various programs to create economies ,
of scale which will benefit consumers and rate payers. Specifically, the component discusses
coordination of services, programs, and facilities on a subregional geographic basis. The
County's market development program is considered critical in stimulating.diversion programs
countywide.
V r
Contra Costa County xx April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction & Recycling Element
COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPONENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . I
POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
Contra Costa County is adjacent to Alameda, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Solano counties in
Northern California. The County stretches approximately 40 miles from west to east and
' approximately 20 miles from north to south. The County covers a total of 805 square miles, of
which approximately 732 square miles are land, with the remainder consisting of water areas.
The County contains a very diverse social and physical environment. While portions of western and
central Contra Costa resemble many urban and suburban environments, the far eastern corner of the
County more closely resembles the predominantly agricultural communities of the San-Joaquin
Valley.
The County is usually considered as being comprised of three distinct areas. Figure 1-1 is a map
of the County depicting both the unincorporated areas and the three geographic sub-regions of West
County, Central County, and East County.
' West Countyincludes the cities of El Cerrito Richmond, San Pablo Pinole, and Hercules asw well
as the unincorporated communities of Kensington, El Sobrante, Rodeo, Crockett, Port Costa, and
' North Richmond.
Central County includes the cities of Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton,
' Pleasant Hill, Martinez, San Ramon, Danville, and the unincorporated areas of Canyon, Pacheco,
Vine Hill, Clyde, Saranap, the Pleasant Hill BART Station area, Blackhawk and Tassajara.
East County includes the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood and the unincorporated areas
of West Pittsburg, Oakley, Bethel Island,•Knightsen, Byron, and Discovery Bay.
' It is important to keep in mind that, as a result of AB 939, the County has nominal control, if any,
over the solid waste management planning and diversion programs of the cities within Contra Costa
County. Yet, the diversion programs of the County and of our 18 cities will jointly impact
' conservation of our landfill capacity now and into the future.
' To provide adequate and effective solid waste management, the following goals and policies related
to solid waste diversion were adopted as part of the 1990 County General Plan.
GOALS
• To provide for the safe efficient and cost-effective removal of waste from residences
tbusinesses, and industry.
• To provide adequate disposal capacity at landfills for the County's solid waste.
' • To reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills by:
April 1993 1 - 1 Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Solid Waste Policies & Goals
1
1) reducing the amount of solid waste generated (waste reduction); '
2) reusing as much of the solid waste as possible (recycling);
3) utilizing the energy and nutrient value of the solid waste (waste to energy and
composting); and.
4) to properly dispose of the remaining solid waste (landfill disposal). ,
• To divert as much waste as feasible from landfills through recovery and recycling. '
• To assure the development of waste transfer, processing, and disposal facilities which satisfy
the highest established environmental standards and regulations. '
• To minimize the potential impacts of waste collection, transportation, processing, and
disposal facilities upon residential land uses. '
• To provide for the safe and efficient handling of special wastes.
POLICIES '
• The County shall maintain a leadership role in the development of solid waste disposal
facilities in cooperation with private collection and disposal businesses, the cities, and other '
local and regional public agencies.
• Solid waste disposal capacity shall be considered in County and city land use planning and ,
permitting activities, along with other utility requirements, such as water and sewer services.
• The County shall assume a leadership role in the 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. '
• Solid waste resource recovery (including recycling, composting, and waste to energy) shall
be encouraged so as to extend the life of sanitary landfills, reduce the environmental impact '
of solid waste disposal, and to make use of a valuable resource, provided that specific
resource recovery programs are economically and environmentally desirable.
• Waste diversion from landfills due to resource recovery activities shall be subject to goals ,
included in the County Solid.Waste Management Plan. Public agencies and the private sector
should strive to meet these aggressive goals. '
• New waste disposal facilities shall be located to minimize potential impacts upon existing and
future residents. Waste disposal and processing facilities shall be designed, developed, and
operated in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses.
• Traffic at landfills and transportation costs shall be reduced through the use of transfer ,
stations.
Contra Costa County 1 - 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Solid Waste Policies & Goals
' • The general public (in cars and small trucks) shall be restricted form direct access to
landfills; instead, these types of vehicles shall be direct to transfer stations. The need for
transfer stations shall be based on economics, the need to mitigate traffic impacts, and the
' need to inspect refuse for hazardous materials and recyclables.
• Solid waste ,hauling on collectors and local streets through residential areas should be
avoided.
As noted in the Introduction, faced with imminent closure of our three existing landfills, the Board
of Supervisors took additional actions to assure solid waste diversion from our landfills and from
those in counties with which we have interim export agreements. These Board actions represent
County policies which both implement the General Plan goals and policies and serve as supplemental
' guidance to the General Plan goals and policies for the selection of diversion programs to be
implemented with the adoption of this SRRE.
' Land Use Conditions of Approval
The Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval for the ACME Transfer Station, the Marsh Canyon
' Landfill, and the Keller Canyon Sanitary Landfill require participation in the County's Resource
Recovery Program as well as mandate reductions in solid waste disposal in the two landfills by 25%
by the year 1995 and 50% by the year 2000.
Airports
By Board action in 1989, Air Service Carriers using County operated airports must implement
recycling programs for aluminum cans, paper,and plastic containers.
Plastics
By Board actions in August-1990, June-1991, and October-1991, PET, clear and colored HDPE,
' expanded polystyrene foam, LDPE (polyethylene grocery and garment) bags must be diverted from
disposal in landfills.
' By. Board action in October-1991, a return-to-source network of grocery and drug stores as well as
dry cleaners will be used to collect polyethylene grocery and garment bags and divert disposal in the
new landfills.
Other Materials Diversion
By Board actions in 1990 and 1991, corrugated cardboard, paper, woodwaste, metals, aluminum
cans, glass, and construction/demolition debris must be diverted from the new landfills.
' Schools
By Board actions in March-1990 and October-1991, the County will assist schools, many of which
' are located in cities, in implementing a multi-materials recycling program. The Schools Recycling
' April 1993 1 - 3 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Solid Waste Policies & Goals
Program includes a curriculum and recycling of paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, polystyrene food
trays, and milk and juice boxes. 1 -
County Government Offices Recycling
By Board action in June-1991, the County supports implementation of commercial office recycling
programs which may use the County's own program as a model for recycling white and mixed '
paper, aluminum cans, plastic beverage containers, expanded polystyrene foam packaging, and
corrugated cardboard.
Procurement Policies
By Board action in June-1991, the County supports the establishment of procurement policies which
encourage purchase of recycled, reusable, and recyclable materials. '
Trainin
By Board action in August-1991, the County supports, through its County Government Recycling
Program, training of employable General Assistance recipients in all aspects of the recycling field '
with the goal of preparing the participants for unsubsidized employment in recycling businesses
and/or within the solid waste industry.
Direction of Wastestream and Recyclables '
By Board actions in 1991 adopting a County Franchising Ordinance and authorizing two initial
County franchise agreements, the Board supports public agency direction of the wastestream and of .
recyclable.
Market Development for Secondary, Materials
The Environmental Affairs Committee of the Board authorized, in 1991, use of a consultant to '
develop a Secondary Materials Market Development Plan for the County. This Plan will assist with
the County's application for State Market Development Zone status and with actual development of
such businesses. ,
Public Awareness
By Board actions in 1989 and 1990, the Board sponsors Annual Recycling Awards and distribution
of the "Contra Costa-County Recycling and Waste Reduction Guide."
Environmentally Safe Transformation r
To assure exploration of all possible alternatives to disposal of solid waste, in landfills, the
Environmental Affairs Committee of the Board authorized, a study on the economic, and
environmental feasibility of a transformation facility in the East County area.
Contra Costa County 1 - 4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Solid Waste Policies & Goals
i WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
Estimated Estimated Total Estimated
Waste Generation Estimated Disposal Diversion's Transformation Diversion
TPY
TPY % TPY % TPY % TYP b
204,8897166,700 81.4 19,505 9.5 18,684 9.1 38,226 18.6
*Includes source reduction, recycling, and composting activities only.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J
1
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
METHODOLOGY 3
EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
WASTE GENERATOR TYPES . . . . . . 6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WEIGHT TO VOLUME CONVERSION • 6
TRANSFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RESIDENTIAL WASTE DISPOSAL COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
COMMERCIAL WASTE DISPOSAL COMPOSITION 11
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
SEASONAL VARIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
REPORTING. SYSTEM 17
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..... : . 17
INTRODUCTION 17
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
EXISTING DIVERSION RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
RESIDENTIAL DIVERSION COMPOSITION
COMMERCIAL DIVERSION COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
INDUSTRIAL DIVERSION COMPOSITION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ADDITIONAL DIVERSION 25
SEASONAL VARIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 26
TOTAL WASTE GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 27
PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
i
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
PAGE
Table 2-1: Waste Generation Summary for Unincorporated
Contra Costa County (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2-2: Number of Samples Taken in Contra Costa County
Waste Generation.Study (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2-3: Dates and Locations of Field Analysis (1990) . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2-4: Waste Disposal Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2-5: Proportional Contribution per Generator Type (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2-6: Weight to Volume Conversion Contra Costa County 1990
Table 2-7: Transformation Composition and Quantity (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2-8: Residential Waste Disposal Composition Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 '
Table 2-9: Commercial Waste Disposal Composition Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 2-10: Industrial Waste Disposal Composition Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 2-11: Total Waste Diversion Estimates by Diversion Activity and '
Generator Type (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 2-12: Residential Waste Diversion Composition Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 2-13: Commercial Waste Diversion Composition Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 2-14: Industrial Waste Diversion Composition Estimates (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 2-15: Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 2-16: Divertable and Non-Divertable Materials in the Unincorporated
Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 2-17A: Projections Under 1990 Conditions, 1990-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 2-17B: Projections Under 1990 Conditions, 1996-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 2-17C: Projections Under 1990 Conditions 2001-2005
Figure 1: Disposed Residential Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2: Disposed Commercial Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3: Disposed Industrial Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ii �'
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This component presents a Waste Characterization Study prepared for the County of Contra Costa
by R. W. Beck and Associates in compliance with Article 6.1 of the Emergency Regulations. The
purpose of a Waste Characterization Study is to determine the composition and quantity of waste
disposed and diverted within each jurisdiction in California. The size and composition of waste
streams vary considerably among jurisdictions depending on location, climate, land use patterns and
socio-economic characteristics. The information obtained in the Waste Characterization Study will
determine how much additional diversion is needed to meet the goals mandated by the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and identify those materials to be targeted in
future diversion programs.
"Wasteeneration" is defined in AB 939 as the sum of waste disposed and waste diverted. The
g P
characteristics'of waste disposed in unincorporated Contra Costa County were determined through
Ifield sampling at the landfills, combined with an analysis of reported disposal quantities. The
characteristics of waste diverted were determined through mail and phone surveys of materials
handlers, businesses and government offices.
The Waste Characterization Study contains the following three sections:
1. A Waste Disposal Characterization which determines the composition and quantity of waste
disposed in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County;
2. A Waste Diversion Characterization which determines the composition and quantity of
waste diverted.from disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting; and
3. -A Waste Generation Projection which estimates the quantities of waste generated, disposed
and diverted in the short, medium, and long-term planning periods.
Based on the results from the Waste Characterization Study, approximately 9.5% of the total waste
generated in Unincorporated Contra Costa County was diverted from disposal in 1990. This figure
includes existing source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. An additional 9.1% was
diverted from landfill disposal through transformation. However, AB 939 stipulates that in the short-
term planning period (1991-95), waste material diverted from disposal by transformation activities
does not count toward meeting the statutory 25% diversion mandate, and that only under certain
conditions can it count,for up to 10% of the medium-term (1995-2000) mandate of 50% diversion.
Table 2-1 summarizes the waste generation information for Unincorporated Contra Costa County.
April 1993 2- 1 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
TABU 2.1...::......:..:.. :;...:<:;>::.::;:::::;:::>:::'.:: `,>:'::>:.. ..... ..:......
...
;;''... ....... WASTE GENERATION.:;SUMMARY:FOR LININC.QRPOMTED COIVTRA:COSTA:COUPITI'(1990};::::':'::::::: :;: ::_.:
.:..:::... .... .. .......: ...
..
Disposal Transformation Diversion Generation
Material % TPY % TPY % TPY % TPY
PAPER 34 3 yn 70,2.77 <0_t% 36 3 T% 7,576; 38 0:% '77,889
S p
Corrugated Paper 11.7% 23,913 <0.1% 36 1.7% 3,564 13.4% 27,513
Contam.Corrugated Paper 0.8% 1,644 0.0% 0 0.8% 1,644
Newspaper 4.2% 8,509 1.9% 3,924 6.1% 12,433
High Grade Ledger Paper 3.1% 6,388 <0.1% 63 3.1% 6,451
Mixed Paper 6.3% 12,944 <0.1% 25 6.3% 12,969
Other Paper 8.2% 16,878 0.0% 0 8.2% 16,878
15LASTIC 5 3'k:;.. ..10871 „U 0% 0 <0 1
..... ...:::... . ..: . _........
HDPE 1.1% 2,270 <0.1% 5 1.1% 2,275
PET 0.3% 637 -<O.1% 67 0.3% 704
LDPE 2.2% 4,580 0.0% 0 2.2% 4,580
PP 0.1% 298 0.0% 0. 0.1% 298
PS 0.3% 563 0.0% 0 0.3% 563
EPS 0.3% 669 0.0% 0 0.3% 669
PVC 0.1% 248 0.0% 0 0.1% 248
TSETS 0.5% 1,110 0.0% 0 0.5% 1,110
Plastic Mixed Materials 0.2% 496 0.0% 0 0.2% 496
GLASS - 3 1%. 6;368 Q 0% 0 1 8% : 3144 9% 10,015
Refillable Glass Bev Containers <0.1% 98 0.8% 1,586 0.8% 1,684
CA Redemption Value Glass 0.9% 1,936 0.5% 1,042 1.5% 2,978
Other Recyclable Glass 1.6% 3,307 0.5% 1,120 2.2% _ 4,427
Other Non-Recyclable Glass,..,:::.:..._0.5:%:::::::::::.926:.::.:::::::.::::::::::::::..:::::::::::.::::::0.0%,::::::::.:::.::0:::::::::::0.5:%:::.:::::...926...
METAL 3 790;. Z,S;17 0 0% 0 1 4% 2;816;: 5 0:96 . 1 ;333
.. .. .. .. ... . ....
Aluminum Cans 0.9% 1,940 0.1% 294 1.1% 2,234
Bi-metal Containers 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Tin Cans&Ferrous Metals 1.8% 3,774 0.0% 0 1.8% 3,774
Non-ferrous Metals 0.3% 612 0.0% 0 0.3% 612 '
White Goods <0.1% 50 1.2% 2,522 1.3% 2,572
Metal Mixed Materials 0.6% 1,142 0.0% 0 0.6% 1,142
YARD WASTES` :: 9 1% 18 561 <;01% 72 I45.; 9 2% 18,778
Leaves and Grass 8.4% 17,241 0.0% 0 8.4% 17,241
Other Yard Waste 0.6% 1,320 <0.1% 72 0.1% 145 0.8% 1,537
........
13 0%:.. z6s7z.....:.4.1% .;.1..8,576 X7,692
OTHER ORGANICS:.. 1x96 : 2,544: . 23 3:%..
_...............:..... __.._.:............_.........._:_. .. . _. .
Food Wastes 6.8% 13,846 0.1% 258 6.9% 14,104
Tire&Rubber Products 0.2% 467 <0.1% 17 0.2% 484
Wood Wastes 4.6% 9,408 9.1% 18,576 0.7% 1,369 14.3% 29,353
Agricultural Crop Residues 0.1% 298 0.0% 0 0.1% 298
Manure <0.1% 43 0.0% 0 <0.1% 43
Textiles&Leather 1.1% 2,207 0.4% 900 1.5% 3,107
Others 0.1% 303 0.0% 0 0.1% 303
.................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................
OTHER WASTES. I3 0'% 26,622 0 0% 0 1 3'% 2 604`. 14 3,% 29 226
Inert Solids 11.1% 22,683 1.2% 2,400 12.2% 25,083
Bulky Waste 0.1% 149 0.1% 204 0.2% 353
Disposable Diapers 1.0% 2,048 0.0% 0 1.0% 2,048
Used Oil Containers 0.1% 254 0.0% 0 0.1% 254
Latex Paint 0.1% 303 0.0% 0 0.1% 303
Oil Base Paint 0.1% 155 0.0% 0 0.1% 155
Solvents <0.1% 68 0.0% 0 <0.1% 68
Aerosols 0.1% 198 0.0% 0 0.1% 198
Household Cleaners 0.3% 694 0.0% 0 0.3% 694
Pesticides <0.1% 68 0.0% 0 <0.1% 68
......_.._...__............__..._.........._................................_...._............ .............._..............................._.............._._...............................
_................._._....,.._........__.........._................_..................._............................................._....................................................................................
SPECIAL WASTES <0 1:%
.........: ..
Ash Asbestos Auto Bodies 0.0% 0 0 0% 0 6.0% 0
Medical <0.1% 13 0.0% 0 <0.1% 13
TOTAL18
81 4:% 166,700. ,:.9 I% ,684. 0% .2U4 889.'.
Contra Costa County 2- 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERIZATION
The solid waste disposal characterization discusses the methodology used in determining the
composition and quantity of residential, commercial, and industrial waste; existing disposal rates;
the proportional contribution of each generator type to the total waste stream; weight to volume
conversion factors;existing transformation activities; and residential, commercial and industrial waste
.disposal composition.
METHODOLOGY
As stated above, the purpose of a waste generation study is to determine the composition and
quantity of waste disposed and diverted within a jurisdiction. The following section briefly explains
the methodology used in determining this information. Appendix K contains the detailed waste
generation study methodology that was used to prepare this document.
1 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, Unincorporated Contra Costa County added
several waste types to the,list. The following waste types were added to the plastics category:
Plastic Sub-sample
• YP PY of ro lene
P
• polystyrene
• expanded polystyrene
• polyvinyl chloride
• thermosets
In the "other waste" category, household hazardous waste. types were expanded to include the
following waste types:
Household Hazardous Waste Sub-sample
• used oil containers
• latex paint
• oil based paint
• solvents
• aerosols
• batteries
• medical
• household cleaners
• pesticides
' April 1993 2- 3 Contra Costa County
Final'Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
Residential and Commercial Composition
Two sets of field sampling were conducted to determine the composition of residential and
commercial waste in Contra Costa County. The summer waste composition field study was
conducted from September 5=11, 1990 at each of the three disposal facilities in the county. A total
of 46 random samples were taken; 18 samples from residential generators and 28 samples from
commercial generators, combining for a total of 10,222 pounds. The average sample weight was
222 pounds, with all samples weighing between 200 and 300 pounds.
The winter waste composition field study was conducted from November 7-9, 1990 at each of the
disposal facilities in the county. A total of 30 samples were taken; 12 from residential generators
and 18 from commercial generators, combining for a total of 7,706 pounds. The average sample
weight was 257 pounds, with all samples weighing between 200 and 300 pounds.
In addition to the number of samples listed above, 74 sub-samples of the plastics and household
hazardous waste categories were taken to further analyze the composition of the waste stream. The
waste types that comprise the additional sub-samples are discussed in the previous section.
Industrial Composition
The composition of industrial waste was determined by first identifying the population of industrial
generators in the county Y b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. A total of 25 industrial
generators were identified, all of which were surveyed. Site visits were then conducted and
composition data obtained based on interviews with facility operators and visual inspections of
disposal containers. Appendix B-3 contains the survey form used.
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 summarize sampling information for all three generator types.
€:;>1`1C1BBIt:>. .F A►M1E'1CI `< (lN `RA:.ti� Ct3. .. .Y°. TE.fEEN1RATx. .. . TItY....
:.
Field Sampling Number of Samples Taken
Summer: Residential 18
Sub-samples 18
Summer: Commercial 26
Sub-samples 26
Winter: Residential 12
Sub-samples 12
Winter: Commercial 18
Sub-samples 18
Industrial25
Contra
i
Contra Costa County 2- 4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Waste Characterization Shiny
Afi�fll�l ..� .:.I�`fEL :..Al'wT '!� S.. 99
LOCATION DATES
Richmond Sanitary Landfill Summer sort: September 5
Winter sort: November 7
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Summer sort: September 6,7
Winter sort: November S
Acme Transfer Station Summer sort: September 10,11
Winter sort: November 9
' Waste Composition Data Analysis
The residential, commercial and industrial samples were analyzed according to the waste types
specified by AB 939. Upon completion of the field analysis, the data was analyzed to determine the
average weight per sample, mean percentage of each component, standard deviation, precision
interval at a 90 percent confidence level, and estimated annual generation.
Residential and Commercial Quantity
The quantity of waste disposed by residential and commercial generators was determined using a
combination of several methods. First, a survey was mailed to the solid waste haulers requesting
the quantity of waste hauled from accounts located in Unincorporated Contra Costa County. Second,
a survey was taken of all the vehicles entering the landfill which recorded the jurisdiction from which
the waste originated and the corresponding weight. Finally, a per capita waste generation rate was
calculated based on the county average (Contra Costa CoSWMP, 1989). These numbers were all
compared to estimate the total tonnage of waste disposed in unincorporated Contra Costa County.
Industrial Quantity
The quantityof waste disposed by industrial generators was determined in the industrial facility waste
audit. Data was recorded on the number of waste containers used, the size of the containers and the
' frequency of collection.
EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The total quantity of waste disposed in the unincorporated area of the county, based on hauler
surveys, landfill information, industrial site visits, and a per capita generation rate is estimated to
be 166,700 tons in 1990. As of January 1, 1990, the population in the unincorporated area of the
county was 154,600 (Department of Finance, May 1990), combining for an annual per capita
disposal rate of 1.08 tons.
Table 2-4 shows the waste disposal estimates for 1990 as a total tonnage value and on a per capita
basis:
i April 1993 2- 5 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
... .
... ........
<' >< A 'i`l
IiTSP..............
A ..L7 : A.. ...
�l(1.. ......... :' ::.:........:..:.:.::::.::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::.::::: '
Quantity disposed 166,700 tons
Daily per capita disposal rate 5.9 pounds per person per day
Annual per capita disposal rate 1.08 tons per person per year
WASTE GENERATOR TYPES
Surveys of the haulers serving the unincorporated area as well as data collected during the waste
composition study at the three landfill sites indicate that the waste stream in Unincorporated Contra
Costa County is divided between the generator types as follows:
> .TA
.......... ....YPE..1<
Generator Percentage 1990 Total Annual Per Capita
Tonnage Disposal Rate
Residential 52% 86,684 .56 tons
Commercial 15% 25,005 .16 tons
Industrial (including construction and —
demolition) 33% 55,011 .36 tons
T 3 AI fi ...........
< < <'...... .100. ... ..... .. .
Marine Waste
According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB),.marine waste is ,
classified as commercial waste (per John Sitts, CIWMB staff). . In addition, the waste haulers
operating in Contra Costa County consider waste collected from marine facilities as being
commercial accounts, hence for this study marine waste were assumed to be included in the
commercial generator sampling frame.
WEIGHT TO VOLUME CONVERSION
Data obtained from the field sampling analysis was collected and analyzed by weight. AB 939 also
requires disposal data to be presented by volume. To meet this requirement, the aggregate estimated
annual tonnage disposed was converted to its volumetric equivalent by applying an in-place weight-
to-volume conversion factor of 1,250 pounds per cubic yard, or 0.625 tons per cubic yard
(Tchobanoglous et al, 1977).
Contra Costa County 2- 6 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Waste Characterization Study
1 Based on an annual disposal quantity of 166,700 tons, Unincorporated Contra Costa County disposed
an equivalent of 266,720 cubic yards of material in 1990. Table 2-6 summarizes this information.
.....................
...........
.................
24.
...................
..�.-
6. . .........
In-place density 1,250 pounds per cubic yard
Annual disposal rate 166,700 tons
Annual disposal volume 266,720 cubic yards
TRANSFORMATION.�
AB 939 defines a transformation facility as a facility whose principal function is to convert, combust,
or otherwise process solid waste by incineration for the purpose of volume reduction, synthetic fuel
production, or energy recovery. There are several transformation facilities currently accepting
material from generators located in Unincorporated Contra Costa County. These facilities take
materials such as wood waste, yard waste, and corrugated cardboard.
Table 2-7 provides information on the composition and quantity of material burned at transformation
facilities in 1990.
................................
TA
.... ....... ...............
...... . ....:_1........................ ..................................
Waste Category TPY Percent of Total Generation Per Capita Allocation
Corrugated Containers 36 <0.1% <0.1
Wood Wastes 18,576 9.0% 0.12
Yard Waste 72 <0.1% <0.1
....................
................
.... ................
I[.................................. ................................. f....
.. ...... ......... ....... ... .......................
............... .... .. .... .. .2 X.:......
. ..... . .. .9 .. ..
................. ... .......
.......................
.."..................
..........
.. .. .........
RESIDENTIAL WASTE DISPOSAL COMPOSITION
Residential waste is estimated to be 52 percent of the waste stream in Unincorporated Contra Costa
County. Based on 166,700 tons total disposal in 1990, residential generators contributed an
estimated 86,684 tpy to the total annual disposal quantity.
The largest residential waste "category" is paper at 41.2 percent of the total residential waste
stream. The paper category is made up of seven waste types including corrugated cardboard (6.6
percent), contaminated cardboard (1.5 percent), newspaper (8.5 percent), high grade ledger paper
April 1993 2 - 7 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization'Study
(1.1 percent), mixed paper (12.7 percent), and other paper (10.6 percent). The potentially
recoverable materials in the residential paper category include corrugated cardboard,newspaper,high
grade ledger paper and mixed paper, totalling over 25,000 tons per year.
A second major category is yard waste, estimated to be 17.3 percent of the residential waste stream.
Based on this percentage, it is estimated that approximately 14,953 tpy of residential yard waste is
disposed in Unincorporated Contra Costa County. Approximately 85 - 90 percent of this material
is potentially recoverable for composting.
Other organics (excluding yard waste) make up 12.8 percent of the residential waste stream. The
waste types in this category include food waste (8.0 percent), tire and rubber products (0.3 percent).,
wood waste (1.9 percent), agricultural crop residues(0.3 percent), manure (0.1 percent),textiles and
leather (2.1 percent), and miscellaneous organics (0.4 percent). A large portion of these materials
are potentially recoverable for composting including vegetative food waste, wood, agricultural crop
residues, and manure. Textiles can potentially be diverted through source reduction activities such
as donation to second-hand organizations.
The remaining categories include plastics (9.2percent), glass (4.9 percent), and metals (6.4 percent),
all
'
of which are potential targets for both recycling and source reduction programs. The remaining
fractions of the waste stream consist of "other wastes" (8.2 percent), including inert solids, bulky r
wastes, disposable diapers (1.8 percent), and household hazardous materials. Of these materials,
bulky waste (furniture) could potentially be diverted through source reduction activities such as
donations to second hand organizations. No "special wastes" were found in the residential samples.
Seasonal Variation: Residential Waste
While eve category in the residential waste stream showed some seasonal variation, only the paper,
every g rY Y P P
glass, yard waste, and other organics categories showed substantial variation. The paper.category
showed the largest variation, ranging from 47.6 percent in the winter to 34.9 percent in the summer.
The glass category ranged from 3.7 percent in the winter to 6.0 percent in the summer. This may
be explained by the higher rate of beverage consumption during the hot months of the year. The
yard waste decreased from 18.7 percent in the summer to 15.8 percent in the winter. This variation
can be explained by the faster rate of vegetative growth during the warm summer months. Finally,
other organics ranged from 10.7 percent in the winter to 15.2 percent in the summer.
Information on residential waste disposed in 1990 is presented in Table 2-8 and summarized in
Figure 1.
r
i
1
Contra Costa County 2-8 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Waste Characterization Study
r t
..
:<:>:>:»>:«::<€::::��� �....................................: :�t����sll�tl€o�.1�sT#M��Zr�. ..........:::::::.:::::.::::.:::::,....
1
<:<»` :».>:.>'.>:;:>:>::<::<:>:::':::::s':::':»:> >[::>::<s>:>:'::.>:<:;:<:':>':::i;.:>:>`.'.=:;'•s:z:
eg Summer°�6 AmuaY °k 7'1'`Y'
.:_::.:_......................._-.........:.:.:.
.;:.:g:_6:��:.::::.::.:.;:.;:::.;•:;;•::::44 :6
2.% 71564.'::::.
Contaminated Cardboard 0.5% 2.6% 1.5% 1,344
Newspaper 12.1% 5.0% 8.5% 7,411
High Grade Ledger Paper 1.1% . 1.2% 1.1% 997
Mixed Paper 15.4% 10.0% 12.7% 11,009
Other Paper p 9.9% 11.4% 10.6% 9,232
r
HDPE;;:;:.;.......................................................................... ................... ................... .................
1.4% 1.9%
PET 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 477
LDPE 3.8%. 3.6% 3.7% 3,207
Polypropylene 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 260
Polystyrene 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 390
Expanded Polystyrene 0.4% 0.7% 0:5% 477
Polyvinylchloride 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 173
Thermosets 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 910
Plastic Mixed Materials 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 433
:•;:Refillable"Glass"Contai"ers< z.............. . .....................
r CA Redemption Value Glass 1.1% 2.3% 1.7% 1,474
Other Recyclable Glass 2.4% . 3.5% 3.0% 2,557
Non-Recyclable Glass 0.1%. 0.3% 0.2% 173
<:::�;:::::»::>::«::::::<:::::>::::::>::>:<::<>:::<:::::>:>i<;:;::<::>
r .................
Aluminum;:::ans:: ;
C
0.$% 2.1% 1,777
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
Ferrous Metals and Tin Cans 2.8% 3.6% 3.2% 2,774
Non-Ferrous Metals&Aluminum Scrap 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 87
White Goods 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
Metal Mixed Materials 1.6% 0.4% 1.0% 867
::::....G........��'....,.:.::...::.::....:...:::::.�::::.r �::::::._::::.�:::.:::::::::::::.:�::::::::1tk.'7`'�a.:.::::.::::::.:::...::;35.'ti."�.............::::::::32.8°10.:.�::::::.:�._::.�1.I.139::.��•�"Food este
Tires and Rubber Products 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 217
Wood Waste 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1,604
Agricultural Crop Residues 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 260
Manure 0.0% 0.1% <0.1%' 43
Textiles&Leather 2.1% 2.0% 2.1% 1,777
Other Biodegradable Materials 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 303
•i?T..........:...... ::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.::::.:::::::.::::.::: 9 .::.:::::x.f#fS:::
::-;;:-:ineit Solids';;........................................................ .......................
................... ........ ...
Bulky Wastes 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 87
Disposable Diapers 1.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1,560
Used Oil Containers 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 217
Latex Paint 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 303
Oil Base Paint 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 130
Solvents 0.0% 0.1% <0.1% 43
Aerosols 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 173
Household Cleaners 0:8% 0.6%- 0.7% 607
Pesticides 0.1% 0.0% <0.1% 43
......�Aifi" s,6>:•:S,os><•:::•:ut,"*8 ......................................... .................. ................... ....................---..
::. A ,Abe tos,A o Bodiea�;:. :•:.;;.0.0:%:: :::.::::.:::.:::.:::O.b%"�:::::::::::::;:;:-;:<;::b.OJ'�•;;;:;:-:.;:;: »�>:�>
Medical Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
...............1. '°la ......... .....1€�d.U°�...................1!e11.�#°k...................�61f84:;
r -
April 1993 2-9 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
Figure 1
Disposed Residential Materials
PAPER 41%
YARD WASTES 17%
GLASS 5%
METAL 5%
OTHER ORGANICS 13% OTHER WASTES 8%
PLASTIC 9%
Contra Costa County 2 - 10 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Waste'Characterization Study
COMMERCIAL WASTE DISPOSAL COMPOSITION
Commercial waste is estimated to be 15 percent of the County's total waste stream. Based on
166,700 tons total disposal, commercial generators contributed an estimated 25,005 tons.
The largest commercial waste "category" is paper at 34.7 percent of the total commercial waste
disposed. The paper category is made up of seven waste types including corrugated cardboard (13.4
percent), contaminated cardboard (1.2 percent), newspaper (4.0 percent), high grade ledger paper
(1.1 percent), mixed paper (7.3 percent), and other paper (7.7 percent). The potentially recoverable
materials in the commercial paper category include corrugated cardboard, newspaper, high-grade
ledger, and mixed paper, combining for approximately 6,400.tpy.
1 "Organic waste" makes up the second largest portion of the commercial waste stream(23.0 percent).
This category includes food waste (12.9 percent), tires and rubber products (1.0 percent), wood
waste (7.5 percent), agricultural crop residues (0.2 percent), and textiles and leather (1.5 percent).
' A large portion of these materials are potentially recoverable for composting including vegetative
food waste, wood, agricultural' crop residues, and manure. Textiles can potentially be diverted
through source reduction activities such as donation to second-hand organizations.
"Other wastes" also,comprise a large portion of the commercial waste stream (16.0 percent). In this,
category, the primary waste type is inert solids (12.9 percent), including soil, rock; brick, crushed
glass, etc. The remaining 3.0 percent consists of bulky wastes, disposable diapers (2.0 percent), and
household hazardous materials.
"Yard waste", including leaves and grass, makes up 9.2 percent of the.waste stream. Based on total
tonnage estimates, this waste type accounts for 2,288 tpy, most of which is compostable.
The remaining categories include plastics (6.3 percent), glass (5.0 percent), and metals (5.8 percent),
all of which may be targeted for diversion through source reduction and recycling programs.,
Seasonal Variation: Commercial Waste
Several categories in the commercial waste disposal composition showed substantial seasonal
variation including paper, glass, yard waste, other organics, and other wastes. First, the paper
category showed the largest variation with a high of 45.2 percent in the winter to 24.2 percent in the
summer. Second, the glass-category ranged from 6.8 percent in the winter to 3.2 percent in the
summer. Third, yard waste ranged from 3.9 percent in the winter to 14.4 percent in the summer.
Fourth, other organics ranged from 20.9 percent.in the winter to 25.1 percent in the summer. The
largest variation within this category occurred in wood waste, ranging from 1.7 percent in the winter
to 13.2 percent in the summer. Finally, other wastes ranged from 10.7 percent in the winter to 21.3
percent in the summer. The largest variation within this category occurred in inert solids, ranging
from 6.6 percent in the winter to 19 percent in the. summer. Disposal data for commercial
generators is presented in Table 2-9 and summarized in Figure 2.
' April 1993 2- 11 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
:...........:::...... .
.....:........................ . .. ......
......................:: ..........
. ........ .
............. ..............::.:. ...:. .:
..... ....
:::.:::::;::::::::::::::::..::..::.:....Q1►�gt.....A�?:.�::,4�'�`�:::: �1:St?4�:e:...... 5��'l:(3 :�` 1:•!��4`�5:..�9�.ti.::::::.::.::::::::::.�::.�::::::::,:::
waste Categories .................................................. r> s::<:<:>:»;«;>':€:'::><::<:«:>=<:s :<>:<> ><::<s:>< z > <>:><::'<':
'Wrote Suotmer°� Awtual vb TP Y
::>::;:< � ....................24.2.. ..................._..
Corrugated Cardboard 16.5% 10.3% 13.4% 3,351
Contaminated Corrugated Cardboard 1.5%" 0.9% 1.2% 300
Newspaper 4.7% 3.2% 4.0% 988
High Grade Ledger Paper 1.8% 0.4% 1.1% 275
Mixed Paper 10.6% 4.0% 7.3% 1,825
Other Paper 10.1% 5.3% 7.7% 1,925
.�4% ;:;:::' #;:? .......................................... .... 5:.'3. .
PET 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 50
LDPE 3.9% 1.8% 2.9% 713
Polypropylene 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 38
Polystyrene 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 63
Expanded Polystyrene 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 138
Polyvinylchloride 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% - 75
Thermosets 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 200
Plastic Mixed Materials 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 63
Refillable Glass Containers b.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
CA Redemption Value Glass 2.6% 1.1% 1.9% 463
Other Recyclable Glass 3.9% 2.1% 3.0% 750
Non-Recyclable Glass 1 0.3% 0.0%
0.2% 38
AI nunum Cans 0:7% 0.635 0.7% 163
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
Ferrous Metals and Tin Cans 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 725
Non-Ferrous Metals&Aluminum Scrap 0.1% 1.9% 1.0% 250
White Goods 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 50
Metal Mixed Materials 1.5% 0.7% 1.1% 275
>3r1k W." p ;<t<::::':;:::::><:::>:>::....... t?l..jt�p.................. (}+�p� :.. ....... .+y�yf[..
.......
..�.y1:'�_�: ::::i�i'r�::$F:::>:�� :: :::�is�::::::?:is i::ri:isiv:j:::.{ i�::isii':i�ii:iif:}:y».�::.�:{:yg:::::<:::::::�:j:::?:L::i�:j... . : ::i: ...'�:•i}]i�::i�::•::�:ism:i:::ry::i:::i:ii:.:::<:.;��....
d...k�i .. ..... ..... .:........drV 7vCV' ::>::i::i:"::Sj X Ni ....... V-7P..... \7�A -
...... .. ... ::.. ::..: .:. .w::.:..� ...... ..... ....... .... ........ ........:....-.::...
Rood Waste 16:4% . :•:. ::..:9:4 .: .::.::.::::3,226:.
Tires and Rubber Products 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 250
Wood Waste 1.7% 13.2% 7.5% .1,863
Agricultural Crop Residues 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 38
Manure 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
Textiles&Leather 1.5 5b 1 1.5% 1.5% 375
Other'Biodegradable Materials:..:_:::::: ::::.:.: 0.0%.:::::._:.::::::::::.. 0;0 .::::,._.::.:::. ......0.0% 0
:: :.::::::::::.::..: :: . ::._:::::::::.:::::.:z�< .::::._::.:._.:::.:::��
olids 6.6% 14.0% 12.9% 3,226
Bulky Wastes 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 63
Diapers 3.2% 0.7% 2.0% 488
Used Oil Containers 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 38
Latex Paint 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
Oil Base Paint 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 25
Solvents 0.0%" 0.2% 0.1% 25
Aerosols 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 25
Household Cleaners 0.6% 0.1% 0.4% 88
Pesticides 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 25
. ti ::;Auto
Asestos .;;:.�;:.;..:;.::._:.;::•::::..:_:ss:::;z<:.;;:>:;:<;:�:-;:;;;;:-;;;:;:.;;;;::>.;::><:;<:;::;;:�;:;:->:::;;«<::<:•:::•:.;:.::.;
Medical Waste <0.1% 0.0% <0.1% 13
Contra Costa County 2- 12 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
Figure .21
Disposed Commercial Materials
PAPER
35% .
OTHER ORGANICS '
23%
GLASS
.5%
METAL
6%
PLASTIC
OTHER WASTES 6%
16% YARD WASTES
9%
April 1993 2- 13 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL COMPOSITION
,
Industrial waste (including construction and demolition) is estimated to be 33 percent of the waste
stream in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Based on 166,700 tons per year (tpy)
total disposal, industrial generators contribute a total of 55,011 tpy to 'annual disposal. i
The largest industrial waste disposal category is paper at an estimated 47.0 percent. The paper
category is made up of seven waste types including corrugated cardboard (26.9 percent), newspaper
(0.2 percent), high grade ledger paper (9.3 percent), mixed paper (0.2 percent), and other paper
(10.4 percent). The potentially recoverable materials in the industrial paper category include
corrugated cardboard, newspaper, high-grade ledger paper, and mixed paper, combining for an
estimated 20,189 tons per year.
The second largest industrial category is other waste (28.2 percent), all of which is comprised of i
inert solids (soil, rocks, bricks, etc). This material is often used in landfills as cover, in which case
it cannot be counted towards diversion.
Another large industrial category ryis organic waste (17.6 percent), comprised of food waste 6.7 ,
percent), wood waste (10.8 percent), and textiles and leather (0.1 percent). Food and wood wastes
may be recoverable for composting, while textiles and leather materials may be diverted through '
source reduction to thrift.and second-hand operations.
The remaining categories are made up of plastics (2.4 percent), glass (1.4 percent), and metals (1.0
percent). All of these materials have diversion potential through recycling or source reduction
activities.
EA O AL VARIATION
N S N O
There was no substantial seasonal variation identified in the industrial waste stream disposal ,
composition.
Information on industrial waste is presented in Table 2-10 and summarized in Figure 3.
Contra Costa County 2- l4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Waste,Characterization Study
Waste Category T Y
.............................................................
Corrugated"Cardboard:::......._..,_..._. . .
..............................:.::26.9%:;::...............::.:;;:14,798"
Contaminated Corrugated Cardboard 0.0% 0
Newspaper 0.2% 110
High Grade Ledger Paper 9.3% 5,116
Mixed Paper 0.2% 110
Other Paper 10.4% 5,721
HDPE 0.7% 385
PET 0.2% 110
LDPE 1.2% 660
Polypropylene 0.0% 0
Polystyrene 0.2% 110
' Expanded Polystyrene 0.1% 55
Polyvinylchloride 0.0% 0 °
Thermosets 0.0% 0
Plastic Mixed Materials 0,0% 0
Refillable Glass Containers 0.1% 55
CA Redemption Value Glass 0.0% 0
Other Recyclable Glass 0.0% 0
Non-Recyclable Glass 1.3% 715
:::.:Aluminum"Cans::._.. . .... 0.0% ::.:........................::;:::0:.
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0
Ferrous Metals and Tin Cans 0.5% 275
Non-Ferrous Metals&Aluminum Scrap 0.5% 275
White Goods 0.0% 0
Metal Mixed Materials 0.0% 0
.............................:.:::::::::::::::::.::::::::•:.................::.::::::..::::::::. :.:.::.::...::.:::.::::.::
Food Waste 6.7% 3,686
Tires and Rubber Products 0.0% 0
Wood Waste 10.$% 5,941
Agricultural Crop Residues 0,0% 0
' Manure 0.0% 0
Textiles&Leather 0.1% 55.
Other Biodegradable Materials 0.0% 0
><« ......[ >[>> ; <?< '>>y.g>;`..:,? j>`:>>''><>> f`
:.
Inert Solids 28.2% 15,513
Bulky Wastes 0.0% 0
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 0
HouseholdHazardous Materials&Containers 0
::. .......
Hazy us Mat s n .0% 0
Ash::..::.:....:......................................................____.................<.:;.�.:0.0%:::.;;:.....................:::•.::0:.
�`�'�`'•'��}�t�>'``'?''' #?"> '''?�`"`±•`i<'?? � '%s'?'3 %<?i".>.�>y'i`?i <` ; y'crir > t'=>i>?�iii$5 i> �� .
•
April 1993 2- 15 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
Figure 3
Disposed Industrial Materials
PAPER 47%
. ULAS� 11
YARD WASTES 2%
PLASTIC 2%
OTHER WASTES 28%
OTHER ORGANICS 18%
i
Contra Costa County 2- 16 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
' REPORTING SYSTEM M1
Section 18722 (o) of the regulations requires each jurisdiction preparing a Waste Characterization
' Study to establish a system of reporting procedures which will*quantify data reported from local
governments, special districts, solid waste facility operators, scrap dealers, recycling facilities,
recycling and source reduction programs. The forms used in the preparation of this report are
included in Appendices B-1 through B-5 and would be appropriate for such as system.
Appendix B-1: Contra Costa County Allocation Survey Form: This form is used to survey vehicles
at the entrance of disposal facilities. The purpose of this form is to determine the proportion of
waste entering the disposal facilities from unincorporated Contra Costa County.
' Appendix B-2: Contra Costa County Single Survey Results: This form is used for recording the
results of the individual samples taken in the field sampling portion of the waste composition study.
Appendix B-3: Site Visit Protocol for Industrial Generators: This form is used for site visits of
industrial generators. The form includes information on the size and frequency of collection of waste
containers, the composition of waste in the containers, and information on source reduction and
' recycling activities taking place at the facility.
Appendix B-4: Contra Costa County Commercial Hauler Survey: This form is sent to the haulers
' to determine the quantity of waste they collect from residential and commercial accounts in a
jurisdiction. The form also contains information on waste that the hauler may export out of the
jurisdiction for disposal and on recycling activities the hauler may be operating.
Appendix B-5: Waste Diversion Study Surva Forms: These forms are sent to recycling facility
operators to obtain jurisdiction-specific information on diversion activities. The first form, Thrift
Shop Survey, lists materials normally handled by thrift operations. The weight measurement
assumptions used for many of these materials are listed in Appendix B-9. The second form,
Recycling Facility Survey, asks operators to provide the average monthly quantity of materials
' handled by their facility and the proportion of materials that come from the unincorporated areas of
the county. The survey specifically asks the respondents not to include materials received from other
brokers, processors, etc. This form also asks the operators to provide information on seasonal
variation in the flow of materials. The third survey, Tire Recapping Facility Survey, asks for the
average monthly quantity handled by each facility and the proportion that comes from the
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County.
' These forms were all used in compiling information for this document. They may be used in the
future to update this information. Appendix B-7 lists all the facilities contacted in the diversion
' study.
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION
' INTRODUCTION
' The AB 939 Regulations requires Waste Characterization Studies to include an analysis of existing
source reduction, recycling and composting activities and programs within a jurisdiction. This
' April 1993 2- 17, Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
analysis will determine the quantiy and composition of materials currently diverted through existing
programs. By providing concrete data about the composition and quantity of materials diverted from t
disposal, this section allows jurisdictions to determine how much additional diversion activity is
needed in order to meet the 25 and 50 percent diversion requirements. The diversion '
characterization also alerts municipalities as to which types of materials are not currently being
diverted to their full potential, and therefore allows them to design diversion programs which target
these particular materials.
METHODOLOGY
The principal method used to characterize diversion activities within Unincorporated Contra Costa
County was a combination phone and mail survey. First, population lists of all diversion facilities
serving the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County were compiled, using local telephone
listings, California Integrated Waste Management Board database listings, and word of mouth from ,
the diversion community. The types of diversion facilities included in the population lists consist
of:
• Beverage distributors
• Buy-back centers
• Composting facilities '
• Curbside collection programs
• Drop-off centers
• Food banks
• Recycling centers
• SaIvaging operations
• Scrap metal dealers
• Tallow rendering facilities
• Thrift shops
• Tire recapping and retreading facilities
• Tree service operations
• Used clothing stores
(The names, addresses, and contact persons of the facilities contacted for this study are reported in
Appendix B-7.)
Second; a survey form was mailed to each facility operator identified in the population lists. If the r
operator did not respond within an initial two-week waiting period, the mail survey was followed by
a phone survey. In some cases, the population lists for certain diversion activities '
were too small to make a mail survey time effective. In these cases, the diversion operators were
surveyed by phone only.
Both the mail and phone survey consisted of four basic questions. Each facility operator erator was asked '
to provide the following information:
• What materials are collected at the facility; ,
• How much of each material type is collected during an average month; ,
Contra Costa County 2- 18 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
' What percentage of each material type collected is generated within the unincorporated area of
Contra Costa County; and
• What are the seasonal fluctuations in the composition and/or quantity of materials received at the
facility.
In order to prevent double counting, each operator was asked to only include information about
materials that were collected from "generators" (the general public, business offices, grocery
stores...). The operators were specifically asked to not include information about materials received .
from other diversion operations. (The survey forms used in the waste diversion study are in
appendix H and the weight measurement assumptions are in appendix L).
' EXISTING DIVERSION RATES
Based on a compilation of all diversion facility surveys, it is estimated that generators located within
Unincorporated Contra Costa County diverted approximately 19,505 tons of solid waste for all of
1990.
Table 2-11 provides estimates for the total tonnage diverted in 1990, broken down into diversion
category and generator type.
`sTtl I .
> i7' ' ttAST )blRSl< N lwS>�IM '>�E RY 1I�Ii N1 '�..
.:.:. ::. :.
:, :: :
Residential Commercial Industrial Total
Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY
Source Reduction 1.33% 2,724 0.16% 332 1 1.49% 3,056
' Recycling 3.57% 7,310 2.30% 4,720 1.54% 3,155 7.41% 1 15,222
Composting <0.01 1 0.59% 1,213 0.02% 50 0.61% 1,264
r%1 r -
> a`>' 1Y:`fas. < '2 ?_ >< `.'Ya >? .:'s > ?:i :;?»:
t�T .�:.:.....:....:.._........94...............tl.ll3S: : ��QB..._.........6
V
RESIDENTIAL DIVERSION COMPOSITION
Source Reduction
Three source reduction activities were identified for residential generators in Unincorporated Contra
Costa County: the donation of used clothing, furniture and appliances to thrift shops, the reuse of
brown.paper bags at grocery stores, and the return of refillable wine bottles to wineries.
Approximately 2,724 tpy was diverted from disposal by these activities in 1990.
April 1993 2- 19 Contra Costa County
Final Draft ji SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
. i
Recycling
Recycling facility operations which significantly impact residential waste diversion quantities within
Unincorporated Contra Costa County include recycling centers, buy-back centers, drop-off centers,
scrap metal dealers, and salvaging operations. The types of residential waste recycled by these ,
facilities includes glass, newspaper, aluminum cans, tin cans, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and
high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Residential generators' utilization of these types of recycling
facilities diverted approximately 7,3,10 tpy in 1990. '
Composting
The only residential composting activityidentified in the unincorporated area of the County is
tY
operated by a private organization which collects and shreds Christmas trees for mulch materials.
In 1990, it is estimated that approximately 1 tpy was diverted through this program. ,
Table 2-12 provides information on the composition and quantity of waste diverted by residential
generators in 1990. The "Percent" columns list, by material type, the percentage of the total waste '
stream that residential generators divert through source reduction, recycling and composting
activities. The ",TPY" (tons per year) columns list, by material type, the quantity of waste that
residential generators divert through source reduction, recycling and composting activities. The ,
"Total" column lists, by material type, the total quantity and percentage of the waste stream which
residential generators divert from disposal through the combined total of all three diversion activities.
Contra Costa County 2- 20 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Waste Characterization Study
1 ,
Source
::.;:::; :'>:• �•:_:::
_ y� Composting
' Total
Material Categories Reduction
Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY
Corrugated Cardboard 0.01% 13 — — _ < 0.01 13
Newspaper 1.34% 2;747 1.34% 2,747
High Grade Ledger Paper — — — — — — — -
Mixed Paper — = 0.01 25 — — 0.01 25
Paper' — — — —
<0.
Other Pa — — — —' P
::: : .. ..�2....
:::.: ::.:.::•
HDPE — % % ;::.
PET —. — 0.03% 67 — — 0.03% 67
LDPE — — — — — — — —
Other Plastics — — - — — — — —
..........:A
Refillable Glass Containers 0.70% 1,440 ,
CA Redemption Value Glass = — 0.41% 834 = — 0.41% 834
Other Recyclable Glass 0.49% 1,008 0.49% 1008
Non-Recyclable Glass — -- — — —
<: ::»�»:<::>:>::>::»:<::>::>�<»::;>::>:<:: :<:>::»s`:<:::>><:;z:>::>:'.::>:::: ::»::><:>�0t?9:%'#:>?•»:>::»>s::1�2::<:::>:: <:::1:<28%=::>::»»»...� ?1............
::M�€X11.�.r,`�...:::.:::.::::::...........::::.:::.....:...:......:.::............:..................................::...........................................,......................::...:.::::.:.:.:...::..:.::::.....:.::::::::::::;::.:,.::►.:.�:::.;:.:
Aluminum Cans. 0.14% 4
_... .....................................................,..................__....... 29 :.;::;............._... 0.14% 294 4 — — —
Ferrous Metals and Tin Cans — — -
—
Non-Ferrous Metals&Aluminum Scrap — — — — — — — —
* White Goods 0.09% 192 1.14% 21330 = _ 1.23% 2,522
Metal Mixed Materials —'
Sof`R-::::.;�:•;::.:.,:.;;::::::•:::::::.:.�::::..�::::::.:::.:..::.:.:.:..:.. .. .... ... ..:
::z::::_:k:<:z:�:i::::::;•'<::::::: :? .«::;;:.:»>::>«:::> >::>:>:<:<::s:<<::>::«::>:>::>>;>::>::::>::E:>::: ::s?::`'::'s: isr:;;:::<::z>>:z «:»:>«=:::>::>�«`�::<:r:>:>': » ?<:::<::':::;<: ':�::::- :<:::%:::: :?:> :�:=:ds:
Food Waste — — — — — —
Tires and Rubber Products -- — — — — — —
Wood Waste — — — — < — 1 < — 1
Textiles&Leather 0.43% 875 — — = — 0.43'% 875
Other Biodegradable Materials — — — — — — — —
96
Inert Solids
Bulky Wastes 0.10% 204 _ 0.10% 204
Household Hazardous Materials&
Containers
.. .;
:;:� : .. ::::i:«<::>::»::»::
P 1A1,.:'W 'IES.......::::::::::..............:::.:...................:..........................:.::.. ::.:::::::::;:
..:;;:;;Ash;.:..:................................................................................._..................._.................�.................._.................^................_................._..............._.
*
Recovered at Acme I rans er Station
• a
April 1993 2-21 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
COMMERCIAL DIVERSION COMPOSITION
Source Reduction
Three source reduction activities were identified for commercial generators located in Unincorporated '
Contra Costa County: the use of refillable bottles at local restaurants and taverns, the donation of
excess restaurant and grocery store foodstuffs to food banks, and the recapping of used tires. It is
estimated that these activities diverted approximately 332 tpy from disposal in 1990. '
Recycling
.Recycling facility operations which significantly antly impact commercial waste diversion quantities anti ies within '
Unincorporated Contra Costa County include recycling centers, buy-back centers,'drop-off centers,
scrap metal dealers, salvaging operations, and tallow rendering facilities. Commercial generators' ,
utilization of these types of recycling facilities diverted from disposal approximately 4,720 tpy. The
types of waste recycled by commercial generators in 1990 included corrugated cardboard,high grade '
paper, mixed recyclable paper, and restaurant grease.
Composting ,
Two composting activities were identified for commercial generators located in Unincorporated
Contra Costa County: tree service operations which use brush chippers to reduce tree prunings and '
tree branches into mulching and landscaping materials, and a facility which composts commercial
yardwaste. Approximately 1,213 tpy was diverted from disposal through these activities in 1990.
Table"2-13 provides information on the composition and quantity of waste diverted by commercial ,
generators in 1990. The Percent columns list, by material type, the percentage of the total waste
stream that commercial generators divert through source reduction, recycling and composting
activities. The "TPY" (tons per year) columns list, by material type, the quantity of waste that ,
commercial generators divert through source reduction, recycling and composting activities. The.
"Total" column lists, by material type, the total quantity and percentage of the waste stream which '
commercial generators divert from disposal through the combined total of all' three diversion
activities.
Contra Costa County 2- 22 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Waste Characterization Study
>;'
t
> .ss .............
:
SourceReduc onRecycling composting Total»»s..............
Material Categories Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY
Corrugated
ta:-;:<:. ... ...............................�.......-.-.....-......._ .::-:.;;: :::.::..........:::.:.: .. ;:.............._............ _....:.:;:.'1.49%�:'.:'.--........... ;.;:.;30:.::.:•:
orruga ed_C Cardboard . 1.49% 3058 58
Newspaper — 0.57% 1,177 — — 0.57% 1,177
High Grade Ledger Paper — 0.02% 51 - - 0.02% 51
Mixed Paper —
Other Paper — — — — — — — —
< ; ? < ` ` ` i>= `: aii
..... .. :-. ....... .. ::........::.::.
....;;::,.:::::,:.::,: :..;
PET — — — -- — — —
LDPE — — — — —
Other Plastics — — — — — -
::CSS.::::::::::::::::::::..::.:::::.�:::::........:.�::::.::.:.:.:::::::�,06:�.......................3................(?�.....................��......................................................._::::�,�.°�.:.::::.::::.::::::.:_:::::...�#..6..
..... ...................:;:�;;0•>:-: ............-;:;.;;131^ � 0�;:-;:...............;:;:•;15;;:.;:............� .-.......... ._...:;:>:•:0.07%';:-;;:-:: 146...
Refillable Glass Containers .07%,..... <0.01
CA Redemption Value Glass — 0.01% 208 0.01% 208
Other Recyclable Glass - — 0.05% 112 -- — 0.05% 112
Non-Recyclable Glass — — — — — — — —
AluminumCans;>::;........ _. ............._...-.-......-....... _....................-..:....................._..-.............-...
Bi-Metal Cans — — — — — — —
Ferrous Metals and Tin Cans — — - — - - -
Non-Ferrous Metals&Aluminum —
Scrap
White Goods — — — — -- — —
t .d'teta s:•:
;:i%; ;;; : :-a;:�::�i::; Y ::5 : ::::::i: ;:: : :::: 5 ;:=i: :::f ::::.':::: i :2: ::::i:: : :`:. 2:::(�;;,:;{;:y::?-:y::$�: :�":%
"':•`.•.•.:::i::i::::i::i::�i::::?:�:�::i:::'•n��•y:�::::iij::i.'is:V.4Y'r�:��i}::::i'::i:v:':::::
:y'jii7::}$:::v.;{}:;.:yti �:>:::;f;i}:;i:;i:;S•ii'i•'::::Z :.•••:'.•':U'i::if}:: '::::i:!::i': �':�t:::
v:::::::.::.::.�.�::::::::n:v::::::::::i:::::::.-..�.:::::::::v::;;._::::::::::::::y.�:;:.�{:.�:.�::::v:.i:.:::::;::.�::.�:;:::..:nom:::::::::'•;w:::::.�: ii:;:iiiii:•
:.:Food Waste::•...........................................:::::0.09% ..............:::::1840.04%::::..............:::::74•::::.............. y....:::::0.13.%:::...................: 258:.:
Tires and Rubber Products <0.01 .17 — — — <0.01 17
0.01% 0.01%
Wood Waste - -- — 0.55% 1,118 0.55% 1,118
Textiles&Leather 0.01% 25 .0.01% 25
Other Biodegradable Materials, — — — — — — — —
1 . ,
...V... s `;::
:::;; :-;::.................. :? .......:...:.:.... :•:_......:............. .---... .....................-.�................._-�...:.r"..?.. ' <. . 5 " s : � :
- . ....=t .. .....y<} ...; .
. . :1::"
. "
.................. ..
IneRSolids
Bulky Wastes — - — --- — — —
Household Hazardous Materials& — — --- — — —
Containers
April 1993 2- 23 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
INDUSTRIAL DIVERSION COMPOSITION '
Source Reduction
No significant source reduction activities by industrial generators were identified in Unincorporated
Contra Costa County.
Recyclin� t
Recycling .facility operations which significantly impact industrial waste diversion quantities within
Unincorporated Contra Costa County include recycling centers,buy-back centers, drop-off centers, '
scrap metal dealers, and salvaging operations. Based on industrial site visits and surveys to materials
handlers, it is estimated that in 1990 3,155 tpy of recyclable materials was diverted from disposal
by industrial generators located in Unincorporated Contra Costa County. Included in this amount
are materials such as corrugated cardboard, wood wastes, high grade ledger paper, and asphalt.
Composting '
A facility which composts industrial yard waste constitutes the only composting activities identified
for industrial generators in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Approximately 50 tpy '
was diverted from disposal through this activity.
Table 2-14 provides information on the composition and quantity of waste diverted by industrial ,
generators in 1990. The "Percent" columns list, by material type,the percentage of the total waste
stream that industrial generators divert through source reduction, recycling and composting activities.
The "TPY" (tons per year) columns list, by material type, the quantity of waste that industrial
generators divert through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. The "Total"
column lists,by material type, the total quantity and percentage of the waste stream which industrial
generators divert from disposal through the combined total of all three diversion activities.
Contra Costa County 2 -24 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Waste,Characterization Study
.... ... ......
..........
.....................................................:... =` > `:................. < '? `5 Total
'........,..,..
Source ReductionRecycling Co
Y �'.' composting
Material Categories Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY Percent TPY
.Pit'k�.t...........:.........::::::::::......:::.�:::::::....::::::.::...:.::::::::...........:......................................................................................................::..:..............:............:....:.�:..........,.::.::::...........
Corrugated Cardboard — 0.24% 493 — — 0.24% 493
Newspaper — — — — — —
High Grade Ledger Paper — — 0.01% 12 — — 0.01% 12
Mixed Paper —
Other Paper — -- — —
::.. ............................................................................................:..::.::::...::.....:::::::::... :•:::•.....;:•;:. :•;:•:;..:.::;:.::.;:.... •:::.:
HDPE
PET
LDPE — — — — —
Other Plastics — — — — — — — —
...... M'txetl::�?lasYtes:ss::;>s::s:::::<;:>::>::»::»>:::s>::>::»>::»s::>;::»::>:�>::».....................................................................................................................::...:.......:......:.::...........:::..:::..:......:...:::........::....
Refillable Glass Containers — — -- — — — —
CA Redemption Value Glass — — — — — — — —
Other Recyclable Glass
Non-Recyclable Glass —
...... •>;;:Aluminum�Cans
:,�.......... ............. ...............J...................L...................._...................._..........:.........�.......---.........._...........,.......� .........,....�.........
Bi-Metal Cans
Ferrous Metals and Tin Cans — — — — — — —
Non-Ferrous Metals&Aluminum Scrap — — — — — —
White Goods — — — — — — —
.�:;::•:�Food Waste-;;::.;:..................................................... _......... ....._...,......................................._...................V...:................_...................._...................`........
Tires and Rubber Products — — — --- — —
Wood Waste — — 0.12% 250 — — 0.12% 250
Textiles&Leather -- — — — — — — —
' Other Biodegradable Materials — — --- — — — —
:. ::1 ' < i .::#;:>'ii :::t i :'•'.`: :`isi:is ::::i<:'z•` : i:<::: :: i:iE:ii ;
Ash
Inert Solids — — 1.17% 2,400 — — 1.17% 2,400
Bulky Wastes —
' Household Hazardous Materials& — — — — —
Containers
ADDITIONAL DIVERSION
Household hazardous waste (HHW) are materials that are considered hazardous, and therefore, are
not "normally disposed" of in landfills. The following efforts, however, have been made to divert 4
HHW from the landfills.
April 1993 2- 2., Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
In June 1990, Contra Costa County sponsored a collection of recyclable HHW in which they
collected 1,600 gallons of used oil, 7,700 gallons of latex paint, and .2,400 car batteries.
Additionally, Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal, with sites in Pacheco and Antioch, began collecting
used oil, latex paint and car batteries in 1989. In the first 11 months of 1990, they diverted
approximately 1,500 gallons of used oil, 562 gallons of latex paint, and 94 car batteries in the ,
unincorporated area of the County.
See the Household Hazardous Waste Element for more information on existing and future HHW I
programs.
SEASONAL VARIATION ,
All survey respondents were asked to identify known seasonal variations in materials diverted from
disposal. However, most of the disposal facility operators contacted don't keep accurate records on '
seasonal fluctuations in the quantity of materials they handle. It was therefore impossible to
document seasonal variation in existing diversion programs.
TOTAL WASTE GENERATION
plus waste diverted.
'
The AB 939 Regulations define waste generation as the sum of waste disposed p
Expressed as an equation, the total solid waste generated by Unincorporated Contra Costa County
is computed as follows: '
Table 2 15 Genelration '
n
DISPOSAL;I+ DIVERSION + TRANSFORMATION GENERATION
Using this equation; the estimated total waste'generated iri 1990:was
Waste Disposed :' 166,700 tons (81 4%j ,
Waste Diverted
Waste Transformed 18,684.tons ;( 9 1%) ,
Total;Generated 204,889 tons
Based `on these figures, m 1990 approximately 9 5 percent of total waste
generated m Unincorporated Contra Costa County was diverted from disposal
m
Contra Costa County 2- 26 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Waste Characterization Study
WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
Section 18732 of the regulations requires, at minimum, an analysis that results in a list of. 1.
quantities of materials a) currently diverted from disposal, and b) currently disposed; 2. those
materials, currently disposed,which could potentially be diverted from disposal through the programs
detailed in the following chapters; and 3. those waste materials currently disposed which cannot be
' diverted from disposal, and why.
The waste characterization study adequately details those materials currently disposed and those.
diverted. Table 2-16 includes lists of those materials which can, and those which cannot,be diverted
from disposal.
Only four material types have been identified as non-divertable. All other materials can be recycled,
composted, or source reduced through prescribed programs,.though not necessarily in significant
quantities.
' The materials that cannot be diverted through prescribed programs are of uncertain or mixed
composition (plastic mixed materials and metal mixed materials), or are of limited use and difficult
to replace or manage in ways other.than disposal (thermoset plastic and,non-recyclable glass).
t
April 1993 2- 27 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
wi
Divertable Non-Divertable
:.:..:,:,::.....:......:.:::.:......::.... :...... .. :...:.... ::::.....:......:.........:............v......:....., I
:.. ...................
.............:::,..:
Corrugated Paper
Contain. Corrugated Paper
Newspaper
i
Hgh Grade Ledger Paper I
Mixed Paper
Other::PaPer::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::......::::::._::::::::.:::.:::::::::::::..::::.:::::::::::.:::.::._:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.:::
:::.::..:::::::::...........................HDPE..................................................................................T-Sets...........................................................:..:....:...
PET Plastic Mixed Materials
LDPE
PP
PS
EPS
PVC
::.; . ::::.. .:.�:.. :....:
::::
: e. .>..:::. .
Ba �:G1 ` < ...
RofillablGlass eveGeContainers,::..._Ot�.her Non-Reyey>€€
c able�.Glass
CA Redemption Value lass ..�...��.�.��..���.
.......
Other.Recyclable Glass
... . :.
Aluminum Cans Metal Mixed Materials
Bi-metal Containers
Tin Cans & Ferrous Metals '
Non-ferrous Metals
White Goods
:..:....:.::.::.........................................
Leavesand Grass :,.::::::................ :.::,<:.::::;.........::.::::«.;:.
.::.:..:Other Yard Waste:::::.::..:::::.:: ::.: :. :. ::::::..::.:::::::.::::::....:::.:................
I
:.
.................
RI
F66d Wastes
Tire & Rubber Products
Wood Wastes
Agricultural Crop Residues
Manure
Textiles & Leather '
::......::.::.......Others:::.:.::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.,:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.............
..:.:................::.::.:............:.:.::::...........::::::.:::.........................:...::..::::..:...::.�::::::::.:::::.::.:::::.:::::::.::.:::::::::.::..:...............
:..::::............ .. ::::Tnert�Solids:.::.:_:...._.. ............_............. .... ... _....._ -......_.........:............_........
Bulky Waste '
Disposable Diapers
Used Oil Containers
Latex Paint '
Oil Base Paint
Solvents
Aerosols
Household Cleaners
Pesticides
Ash, Asbestos, Auto Bodies
MediralI
Contra Costa County 2- 28 Aril 1993
Final Draft SRRE P '
Waste Characterization Study
PROJECTIONS
Section 18722 (c) of the Regulations requires jurisdictions to project the amounts, waste categories,
' and waste types generated, diverted from disposal, and disposed, for each year of the 15 year
planning period, under: 1. the existing waste disposal and diversion rates, and 2. the disposal and
diversion rates to be realized after the implementation of selected programs and attainment of
statutory diversion mandates.
A combination of methods was used to calculate the first set of projections. For commercial and
' residential generators, the current per-capita waste generation rate was tied to the county population
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 constant annual growth rate of 1.05 percent
(Contra Costa County Community_Development Department) were used in these calculations.
' 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.
The overall increase in generation is estimated to be 1.0467% per.year: The projections (Tables
2-17A, 2-17B and 2-17C) include calculations for disposal, diversion, and generation for the
aggregate waste stream'. Transformed waste is included with disposed waste.
' The second set of projections (Tables 2-18A, 2-18B, and 2-18C) use the same factors for increase
in overall generation based on increased population and economic activity, but reflect the increased
' diversion that will result from implementation of this plan. The increases in diversion are calculated
linearly between the present and 1995, and then from 1996-2000; that is, the total increase in
diversion between the present and 1995, and then the additional increase between 1996 and 2000,
' is divided equally between each year in the planning period. No increase in diversion is forecast for
the period 2001-2005.
' April 1993 2- 29 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Waste Characterization Study
--n 00: - r O h m A h h N{ %o ID Ln M O,O Vn oo O h V pM '.sf p O A M%O m Vn 'O N
a N-�t P f• � -M r- �m m/1 b �.i Vl 7:T b A ::M a b O•. �O ;O! �D M Q M 7.'�.�M ti N M .�.h fV t�h
��pp ^ N b� � N Q .� O:.•+M Q O � M N^ P h .+P� po M O ��pp ff MM ,
N
V �.� O Q'� b .�/1 O O O O O O O O 'h O fp 0 0 0 N O y:0 �^i h:�Ap m N 0 O w O ,N
m h O �0.O A M %O .•� N .Q-i A h wl N c -
a Q M'.. .. N N N (S.N p_ '
Ai A lNV
�N O �-m c-1,
o Q ppp�Yl h a O h b ..�] �O rp
N M M N A �S V O O rh-�M Q cl M [N`� .Mi rM-i N
00011.til O�r OD �p ? M'l'� 000 h M �/1 '•O C] .+ �/1 O 7 O Oi�O
n: ^ m."o .M- .hn .-i(`S O � N M T`.fS M ^ �.t- ^ Vh•:'.7i N N
rl
00 b tm�l�"O C`�:M I� Nt.N b N .fin Vl M:M O a�O M O a�0 �O .h-i .h Vl ^ N M .••� h N h ~ O ^
- N Z � t .t f Q ., C;4 m O O.N 4 c f.-i"'it: .' ,P�,
00 CV (V i.f
6� N
'C 'o h O A O Q h A 0 0 0 O O o - h'm h�o O M 0 0 0 coo O O w� lo oo 0 O A O h-'�O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O.o
U h y �D N h �O 1D.M t� vp� p cpV h e�-i N A - t� m h
00 I O' 00:�O O ^ O, M § �O'N O� t0-.et N
t^M 7 M�•+ (f ff (S C�N pp '
N"
v� yN� p v� pp {yypp p �p o �p Qi
'o crz
od vj� �O 1 � im/1 b N .�-� Vn b O OP. � Q�::,�O 000 � � ^(V n V Vm'�,N Vm' oh0t� Q �M V T.moi �N M y h O . t� „My O .Mi
h P '
Q:jjAp)� 'QN �N{ pp t/� o �y(p� ppp �} �Np app ep} �pp� (� [N�• y app o '�
"+�" h �O h P O.1 O.VMl^:N O a�0 b 'O .ti_rh•1�D �O O� .ti M 00:.�O M O N M
'o .Mi h .•+:(� Q ^ O'�•+ M < O N M N O.'t- pp .Qi A
o p .o
U M M O `p (V O :�/i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [N� 7 O O O O h O O �Mp t� P O O A O vP�. o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0•O O O
G h b80�O O Q m .1
(S
'.C�}j pN�
o0 b epi N O',N �O M h �O N .M+ Vl t:;^ a O� �q O o�0 b .m•� O a BOO_a 7 m� !•�'cr.+� N N M �-� O N n O
P• .ti .+ of,.-� N N'.N op:'
Z
N
O o b b n vii yh� pTp o n y� o NO pp� cmi :vhi O .Q. mN a N oAo op p oh M yh� ph b 8 O b .Mi O
u> �O.N �1 ei.h O < P N 00 to t/1 ti S V -1 prpl ( C �O t'� �+1 V�tvf M
^ Ni lo !2 00 k-:
C N: O of
9000,
OOAp O :NV' �pOO O. O O OO O M- ppO O O OO O OMM N 0 O.00 O tO h O
lo pp
H t
•+ — c3` N �` cS N �
N � Q
N b �V O O Ol:N a
Qr T :moi m �o S v .r Y5
'O pAppp�r^1 M '+ A�pp m M'Vf .a� 00 M .A�pp 0yy0 O lo �O m f� NNO M,7 O n �`1 NQ tO�O � P � 00 Vl a V O QM tby oMp Vl mV
N Vbl �O N .. Y O b'a O O. �O v1.. 1 ^�O ^ v <n N e� pNp�� to
ori(S Q N M N N
A:
'o 'o M O O :YI h 0 O O O O O O pp:�p N pp O b'Q 0 0 0 �7 O h A O O w) h 0 O Q 100 coo Cl O n
O O O .y� N d a0 Q N ti'A
po .�h/i.h A� N {�: gyp. Vj ti ti�..� ^ ^
..r Q pp pOpp N
y' ^ T oho OD'Oh 00 T b �Pp em{ O ip�T tb1 t� OV vl O n�O .moi � M l l 4 a,N Q N � tNO':�O Q-� � (V t+� .v. b � � � .Mi� .M•�'i'.
Q N h �O t�1 V (`;: � nO �p N
'+o0'O c'O O.N Q '�O: M t�'^ M ^ h n. N N (y�N - pyp
(V .y
a u_
a m u m m v
a o ':U W •p M � V ' U T c� Q. �L" U �a vai v' O � P,' 4
Dow.J � �Q:3 � 3 , '� y .� 3 � 00. aa � $ CA'a
�pmg13 °w' a V ' � a23 Y � � o ° "ta > a:v .� ` :r
U �] 0. :u 9 o u `° $ �e 3,u
Szx o" Pxa� a `cC' a �' � ac�oo�':aw" E-z 3.� d5 P-6P a Hoa...2caao o � axo. ¢�
1
N ['- M:M O Vl N y� vT� V1 op o .� 'O t- m C�!M r-..(-
Nb : ^ MM h(- m O% O,M O
P .o Cl o0A MhN
N M V M ve`l �•-�
M:r. (If
U.N'..'�rO o Cl 10 � 000OOOOti.N� O ;N OO Coco,:O ^ {{{{{{M MOOm O �pQ:b 0000000OOOO ^I
O
m try Ma.� h m N r p O1 '�O ^ M (� m M c-
c
00.0 N M M M r try Vl app M N OD p M. 7 M b. ? r M [� b r
O 1 .M 00 N1 O N vl O�.V 'O O M �O l� N fV m �O O ^ �O N Q to v'�'N v1 t� M V M (V:0: N N i�l N
P•t�.gyp".:Ol(�r 00.moi'(S vi .: ISS. C epi.-i 00(S V (V M
umu �yyO'Ot ZA O O W�- r a CN7 �o tN+ N N vMi o0'0M0 N 00 O t V 1 '+ �O r N K�r 00-,-, VNi a M M O :N M N N - N ti ~ a ^ p:-
C M t� N ry
try-
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� m h o o a o e o o ma0 v2:'o m mm cc o 00 N 0 cc 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0
Cl:m ry a-r .. .N. 0M h ^ •q
00
N a O 00' b a m b n N N 0�0 O O O O^ `C 'h ('j
^ 0 �:CV 7 .-t b:: (V M ad':N 7 000 �� N
�p p� t� pp N o p • tV p fpV
r. M a Ooni eM-t t�':V n O�,M tD h N .�+ h t.:"m N r O� .fir-.y O O t0 1 N..t t�b N.a't tNry yq M '7 M M K'O� til ry N cNn r N r ~ O ^ e1
a ri:N •V t3 aa .� Nl M
N: � m N ^. t•+- ^
b iT M O m r O r 1n C7 O O O O"O 0 0 b ' X 0 0 0 0 b O b b m m M o O m o '+ O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
try O e,
b N [� h M O N� O N .�-t M�r r 00
.:m N O r ci o':M. r .�; hN
Q
ptG:r- r te'+ 0h0 O� .moi �,V �O O� i�1 �D vMi h O O�O:O O O�O N O ".1 of Uqo to S cn Vr' M M tp00 N N M h N n h O ^ .
t0 M 00.-i of 7 .+ td c4 M ad N y V' co ..f- O N
pp Vp� w) 8 v� t pp
yw� tON^�ifV h N 0b0 W O�t0�< r aro e�1 va'1 t- m..t vNl�O O'r P O t�+l o O t0 h N a'.M b r O t/1 t+^i O M �.:p M 00 N M N •M1;� Ot:.
^'N V� N @�-
to tV N
" c ot- rr 0h n ^ 0000 000 m ^'no ov,a rywtr0 m r o
U ee�� po pp,, cC77 O oppp O O vtry� � aO O O ty:try O.O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N:
.N.r b .moi O r �••� try try h to t0:
h tT b .y t0\:M b t�.:.N a a r.kq N h.
.N
R0'^
R'
�ypc loacolc,4tp� t�a0,tR Q 000 n A N �n h r N vl c-4
O+ O O O Ov�O M tV q_.� 'A ooO.v R M N M aMi .�+ N M r ol
N
: tv r tV Oft.
'� t� e� p. p e( v-, �1 .p p p art O.
t3U1:0M0 M pb� Ot Np 000. V (`1 M.i a O �Np N �r tr�l �B Ot 0m0'M O'O��D N�'�.bi N tN�l " trot .�.. O .M-i erof'.
N QC7-Oapn r$r r .M r QD M Vl N h r ^ b
:N et O:^ vi 7 0-'N MN .• m .+19..-.a O M O.tp t3 tin:
u to 1+1 C1 N,
V
'Oy pppp..t7 O v ZO 9 O r_"h O O O O O O O 00.h � � O �:',O O O O th O �_O N $._� �Nv.O O e ms O M,A ^ O O O O O O O O O O o tom'. -
L O+f`' .M� t0 (V. b
lo
yi o:..�a`1 M •ON h V oN0 c7 vai � N 0 h t0..� O �7 Ot a:0 O Or. �O N b"b+ q :,vmi c �m v M nl Nr�: �. �.. h ^O ^ (P•]..
oo rah
C7 R ^ �O:'.:. N �.:o0^ �:..?+ N Cf
Cl Cl y;
a �
ul
a �
o o .m
m � is u � � `° '° : .. g � �.•� � Q
p o o a au a o c53 �j:�
g Via o � CgaS
no R ° q
m y 0.' tn. „ xz a wm04 A a•- .g '�
9 u
�Q� � `'� ° '� U Cl. �,'i �' a a > °' � u .8 •� E E c $ Q o �
Vzx 0 � 0. 90. 1 WEC>6p yxc�loo �,� wNz3� 3;� oawE- 3a Fo � mCz :5 Aqz it
a:
z pz f v� pFp v m P �p f O o0�O y�7� eF� P F:m P v v) .7. M P pP P - �" P P Oj pM P O '
NA �O P N Vh) < M O -.� OF. M i�:0� F N M vb1 a M o0 0 7 M N M •Fi F `" 00 F •-, �3$(,,
�. Pr (S(f Vl .r M h •� N �d - N -:P —vv b M M M:P
O 'M N:� vl'� M M,N
hp u to;tn O O f+� N O Hf b h O O O O O O O M M app O m y O O O O m O :O N O v O O O O O 0 cc 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 So:
I� O0 :m N Cli M:M P N o�0 (V WL
m m F F .+ M�:P_ Op , ? M .+ S-eM� M P
r N M �O C` N (m�7 Vr1 N �"� f V 0�0_O � �O (`,0 �/1 M vj m OD C7 .hr M N M
N >n h N M a6 N V P N.^ N CA N
00.N N..y In C w1
N
P m X00 O, O P '+:F O rti vl .� :O. Vf�P V F .y F F �Np:P V1 •� F{ m m !" V1 m "T O z yppp '
m (V M F N N l K-A 'af O O 00'_hOff. �O M of f M C.4 F ~
q OPO M .�-� F .moi .Pi eNV ...b--i
V1 M M
b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �..� O M 0 0 0 0a 0 ,O b 00
0 �'�� e+7� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.
N 0 N M m �^ Ch C9 Vl O P'F N .
M: N
r M ONOr V t+r h N N Vbi .� N O �D F :N O O tNiZ M N r O ~ :
Q pp F I- N M ..m N V P ti N N O._ 11 N'
N OA':N rti r i-- N-•+ vl: M MM 04
A p cN0
In InOCL 1930 O 0 b -i P � M CM` N N � �eP'�.0� cF.l O P F,- O N PO O. F�M r M�O� �/1 N M �N/1 M ..� el' aN•1 N th .F+ F C3 n F .�-� O
Z.O�N t4 Vl .� �-1 ti r•i V1 H N � N�"� XPi V1 M M M:f`1 N fS
06 Mf
y
O O O m 0O N P O O OP 0 0 0 0a 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl
n .. .rCq
:
q Q
. F �pp/ :'+No -t N�1
F C'lF �M ~ OM P Cin FF00m Pm FF .r1 O
i aq Iq NN t- NCAh T OvYNO mti
N M (V hv�
R
N
ol
A p
z ymy -tom 00p0.C O� N�j P C1 a�iZ n .Mr M �h N N h (V CmO tin O�. O I/1,0/j O N �° O�0 N O M et._o0 V1 T M a �o�p M N
M 7.ti N V Ci.+N .P-i .ti M .�. M M M:N N N
O'C� '� v1 F O p OOpp O .b v1 O O O O O O Cl M m m b O .0:,- O M M M:P N O O pp O :'O cc O P 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0,O O N.
M N �' ry Vl:pp M pp (py 5 N
.0 O Of.�:�0 N
' N : ppp��� pp OpO�pp pp0p yq �.{ o y�� �p pp
.yi m:00 v`Ti .b+h O. �� r n tM•t tVl^N h O C7 ^ O My n O �° N OO M N �O h h M M O6:v CPl N .F-� F N N M O M �:
OO:N ^ •:�.'.� N r N h
M p.:
A ..
� O .i N 0 a',
�
N7 -� M elk
8 v G : "7 4.. qh:MM M r-
t (V
'
N N
'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CK ' N O �.� O O O &+ O O M N''o O O Q O N O O O O O O O O O O O W;
Q : rb P P O N:N O 0p P vt h m:M V) M b m Vl O m P F M N'b M C 4 F N b O b 0 09,
T C 7 oMFO _vl OF O M ' h C Mc b.O N M 03:N V N bb.:C-I O h�ry O M a M ,cli ;.VF.� bi C N M .Fr N t t� ffVV
h,N CSS 2:t2
Q i
u p0 a CC> V
00
0.
fl "a �782"� aq w A . ix . � �c3 � sV`� � 000 � � 5g � " � � g9 $ � > Q
n. fb
33zx o � x9a2wapa c� oo � d"at. z � � 3oawE=3 ¢ � HO A 4 .1O 'R ¢xa � ��
U.
0 O;. VY
' FAC11.17'lES CAPACITY COMPONENT
A
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SECTION 1: EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
1 WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2
A. Acme Fill Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
a C. Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1 SECTION 2: INTERCOUNTY AGREEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Potrero Hills Landfill (Solano County) . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Altamont Sanitary Landfill (Alameda County A .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Future Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SECTION III: PROPOSED SOLID WASTE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill . . . . . . . 6
B. Keller Canyon Sanitary Landfill .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. West Contra Costa Integrated Resource Recovery Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. East Contra Costa County Community Collection Center Facility . . . . . . . . . 7
1 _
1 .
1
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
1 PAGE
Table 3-1: Existing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3-2: Proposed Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3-3: Landfill Capacity - Short-Term Planning 1991 - 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3-4: Additional Capacity Requirements . . . ... . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1
1
1 f .
FACILITIES CAPACITY COMPONENT
INTRODUCTION
Selection of both materials to be diverted from landfill disposal.and diversion programs, themselves,
' should take into consideration the-existing and proposed solid"waste facilities and the capacity of
those facilities. The Facilities Capacity Component serves to identify the amount of disposal capacity
needed for the unincorporated areas of the county for a fifteen year period commencing in 1991.
The component will specifically describe
' • existing disposal and transformation facilities within Contra Costa County
• proposed solid waste facilities to be located in Contra Costa County
• inter-county solid waste interim export agreements
• future export agreements
Additionally, this component provides a.chart which includes data on
• projection ofremaining landfill capacity for the short-term and medium=term planning periods
• capacity needs for the unincorporated areas of the county
• projected diversion rates resulting from existing and proposed source reduction and recycling
programs
UPDATE
Keller Canyon Landfill, located in the unincorporated Contra Costa County,began operation in May
of 1992 thereby ensuring the county and all its jurisdictions capacity for 30 plus years. In early
1993, the County began processing changes to the land use "designation for the site of the Marsh
Canyon Sanitary Landfill; these changes result from a settlement agreement involving the parties to
a lawsuit on the General Plan Amendment/Land Use Permit for Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill.
As a result of this process, Conta Costa's only proposed landfill will be the Keller Canyon Landfill
While prior statute included in its description of solid waste facilities transfer stations, composting
and material recovery facilities, AB 3001, enacted in January 1993, distinguishes those facilities as
non-disposal facilities. AB 3001, Section_41732 requires each city and county to prepare a Non
Disposal Facility Element (NDFE). As required, the NDFE must include a description of new
facilities and the expansion of existing facilities needed to implement the SRRE. Any inconsistencies
April 1993 3- 1 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Facilities Capacity Component
between the NDFE and this SRRE will be resolved at the time of the first five-year revision , as
provided for under AB 3001, Section 41736. '
SECTION 1: EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
There are currently three solid waste landfills within Contra Costa County: the Acme Fill Landfill,
West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill and Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill. All three facilities began
operation in the 1950's. Until December of 1989, all Contra Costa County municipal solid waste '
was disposed within the County, excepting approximately 50 tons per day from San Ramon which
went to the Altamont Landfill until 1986. Additionally, into the 1980's, Acme Fill accepted about
,.150 tons per day from Benicia and the Contra Costa Landfill accepted several hundred tons per day ,
from Berkeley and Marin County. '
There are no transformation facilities within Contra Costa County. '
A. Acme Fill Landfill
Acme Fill Landfill is located to the east of the City of Martinez in the unincorporated north
central part of the County. The landfill has served Central County,Benicia (Solano County),
Rodeo Sanitary District and Antioch. The landfill consists of three waste disposal areas: a '
125-acre North Parcel, a 97-acre East Parcel, and a 22-acre South Parcel. The total area of
the site, including the combined area of the parcels and additional land used as buffer zones
and borrow area for daily soil cover is approximately 516 acres. Currently Acme Fill
Landfill and an Interim Transfer Station on its' East Parcel receive and transfer an average
of approximately 4096 of the County's wastestream. The landfill is owned and.operated by
ACME Fill Corporation.
Operation of the landfill began in the early 1950's when wastes were disposed in the vicinity
of the North Parcel. The North Parcel has been used for disposal of municipal solid waste '
and limited quantities of hazardous and designated waste. The filling of the North Parcel
ceased in late 1989. The South Parcel has been used for disposal of non-hazardous and inert
waste and is currently inactive, although a small amount of capacity remains. Closure plans '
have been submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for both the North and South
Parcels.
The East Parcel began operations in mid-1984. The Regional Water Quality Control Board '
(RWQCB) issued order No. 84-18 (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
No. CA 0028754), and the State Facilities Permit was amended in 1984 to allow filling and '
development of the 97-acre East Parcel. The RWQCB permit (Class II-2) specified that the
parcel could only receive non-hazardous and inert wastes. The East Parcel has a design
capacity of 5.3 million cubic yards. '
Prior to 1988, approximately 1,200 to 1,500 tons of solid waste were received daily at
Acme. , Diversion of waste began in 1988 and average daily tonnage for 1988-1989 were ,
Contra Costa County 3- 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Facilities Capacity Component
1,077 tons per day. For the year 1990, the parcel received an average of 27 tons of solid
waste per day. Although current Waste Water Discharge Requirements (Order No. 89-007)
provide for permitted operations through May of 1994, the parcel has limited remaining
capacity. The parcel is currently receiving less than 10 tons per day of hard to handle waste
from the ACME Interim Transfer,Station. For planning purposes, capacity at ACME is not
included in the Facilities Capacity Component. Current waste types accepted are consistent
with those accepted by Class III classifications. Current disposal fees for transfer and
landfilling is $59.68 per ton.
ACME Fill Landfill is in the process of constructing a permanent transfer at the site but has
been operating an Interim Transfer Station since December of 1989. The Interim Transfer
Station receives approximately 1,100 tons per day.for transfer to out of county facilities.
B. West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) is located partially in the City of Richmond
and partially in the unincorporated area of West Contra Costa County. The landfill serves
as a disposal site for West County from the Alameda/Contra Costa boundary, north to the
Crockett area. The landfill consists of two waste disposal areas: a 28-acre Class I disposal
area and a 160-acre Class II disposal area. The total area of the site, including the waste
disposal areas, land used .as" buffer zones, protected wetlands and auxiliary use is
approximately 350 acres. Currently, WCCSL receives an average of approximately 33% of
the County's wastestream. The landfill is owned and operated by Richmond Sanitary
Service.
Operation of the landfill began in 1953. The Class I disposal area ceased acceptance of
hazardous waste in 1985. Closure plans have been submitted to the appropriate regulatory
agencies. The Class II disposal area accepts non-hazardous waste and some designated
waste. The 160-acre landfill has'a design capacity of 15 million cubic yards. For the year
1990, the average tonnage was,877 tons per day. Waste types accepted are consistent with
those accepted by Class II and III classifications. The current disposal fee is $45.00 a ton
for municipal solid waste. As of January 1990, approximately .1,828,900 cubic yards of
capacity remained.
If the quantity of waste remain consistent with 1990-1991 levels, the site is expected to reach
its permitted capacity between September 1993 and February 1994.
A project application to construct the composting, soil enhancement, and pavement crushing
components of an Integrated Resource Recovery Facility on the WCCSL site has been
submitted to the County and is being processed. The transfer station and materials recovery
facility components of the project are proposed to be built on a separate site located about
a mile to the east.
C. Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (CCSL) consists of an 88-acre disposal site located in an
unincorporated area of the County, surrounded by the City of Antioch. It is comprised of
April 1993 3-3 Contra Costa County
FinalDraftDraft SRRE
Facilities Capacity Component
two contiguous, historic landfills: the.62-acre CCSL.(commonly known as GBF) and the ,
26-acre Pittsburg Landfill. Under the common ownership of Contra Costa Waste Services,
Inc., these two sites have been considered as one facility since 1975. The landfill has served
Central and East County since 1958.
Since January of 1990, CCSL has received an average of approximately 23% of the County's ,
wastestream with average daily tonnage of approximately 530 tons. Waste types received
include non-hazardous and inert. Since 1983, increases in the volume of municipal solid ,
waste, due to rapid residential and employment growth, and diversion of municipal solid
waste from Acme Landfill beginning in 1988, substantially increased the amount of tonnage
to the CCSL. The results of the increased tonnage to CCSL has been two-fold. The existing
daily wastestream of approximately 500 tons.per day exceeds descriptive narratives of 150
and 160 tons per day, although no intake restrictions are.stated in the Solid Waste Facilities
Permit (SWFP). State staff has reasoned that a substantial change in receipt of tons per day ,
warrants a revision to the SWFP. Secondly, due to misinterpretation, the height of the
landfill has been exceeded in some areas of the landfill. The Contra Costa County Health
Services Department issued a Notice and a Cease and Desist Order on February 27, 1990. ,
Closure proceedings were initiated. . The landfill operator had requested a permit from the
Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to allow the landfill to expand vertically to 275 feet, plus
a four-foot cover. However, both closure proceedings and the height extension have been ,
withdrawn since a stipulated agreement has been reached between the landfill owner and the
LEA. The agreement allows the landfill to continue operation until March 31, 1992 or a
height limit of 270 feet, including four feet of cover, whichever comes first.
As of August 1990, the current disposal fee is $50.00 per ton.
D. Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station
The Acme Fill Corporation has been operating an Interim Transfer Station sonce December '
of 1989. The Interim Transfer Station has been established to provide trans-shipment
services during the development and construction of a full scale transfer station and material
recovery facility. It is located on the south end of Acme Fill Landfill's East Parcel. ,
Approximately 6,900 tons of refuse per week (6 days) is processed through the interim
facility to landfills in Alameda and Solano Counties. The current rate is $55.22 for transfer
and landfilling. '
The permanent facility being built on a 22-acre parcel within the landfill boundary is
designed to receive and transfer municipal solid waste approved for Class III facilities. The '
site is owned and operated by the ACME Fill Corporation. The facility has been planned
to accommodate the year 2010 waste projections of between 1,300 to 1,600 tons per day.
The station will receive non-hazardous and inert waste and has a permitted maximum daily '
throughput of 1,900 tons. Planned resource recovery programs include composting (on the
ACME Fill Landfill) and public recycling. Additionally, load sorting for recovery of
cardboard, paper, metals, plastic, aluminum, bi-metal, tin can, and glass would occur. A ,
household hazardous waste program will be initiated subject to approval by the Department
of Health Services. The permanent facility is scheduled to begin operation by mid-1992.
1
Contra Costa County 3- 4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Facilities'Capacity Component
SECTION 2: INTERCOUNTY AGREEMENTS
Several factors have contributed to establishing export agreements with neighboring counties. Contra
Costa County experienced a 15% increase in housing growth between 1985 and 1990.
Correspondingly, the volume of municipal solid waste increased, diminishing capacity sooner than
expected. Environmental constraints prohibited long-planned expansions of existing solid waste
' facilities. Several attempts by applicants to site new landfills were inhibited by ballot initiatives;
referendums, and civil actions. Two landfill facilities were subsequently approved in 1990 by the
Board of Supervisors, but are not expected to open until mid-to-late 1992.
The County has entered into two agreements to export a portion of its wastestream to Alameda and
Solan Counties.
A. Potrero Hills Landfill (Solano County)
The Intercounty Agreement between Contra Costa County and Solano County allows for the
importation of municipal solid waste for a three-year period (April 1990- April 1993). The
maximum annual import of municipal solid waste allowed under the Agreement is 88,500
tons per year (about 260 tons per day) and a maximum of 265,500 tons over the three-year
period. The municipal solid waste from Contra Costa County is transported from the Acme
Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station near Martinez to the Potrero Hills Landfill. The
current cost for disposal as of July 1990 is $19.75 per ton tipping fee and $7.78 mitigation
fee (includes carrying costs)
B. Altamont Sanitary Landfill (Alameda County
The initial Intercounty Agreement between Contra Costa County and Alameda County allows
for .the importation of municipal solid waste for a two-year period (December 1989 -
December 1991). Up to 1,100 tons per day may be disposed based on a five-day operating
week. A maximum of 580,000 tons may be imported over the two-year period. The
municipal solid waste from Contra Costa County is transported from Acme Fill Waste
Recovery and Transfer Station. Negotiations with Alameda County to extend the export
period until a new landfill can be opened.have been underway since fall, 1990. Solid waste
a from Contra Costa County is transported from the Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer
Station near Martinez to the Altamont Landfill. The current cost for disposal as of July 1990
is $21.25 per ton tipping fee and $6.10 mitigation fee (includes carrying costs),
C. Future Export
As noted, Keller Canyon Landfill, sited in the unincorporated area of the.County, provides
the jurisdctions within the County capacity for 30 or more years. State law currently allows
jurisdictions to export waste for disposal. Additionally, changing technologies, costs, and
local considerations may alter use of the proposed disposal facilities within Contra Costa
County. As a result the County reserves its 'right to export waste outside of Contra Costa
County, and to import waste from outside of Contra Costa County.
aUPDATE .
a April 1993 3-5 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Facilities Capacity Component
The export agreement with Alameda County terminated in December of 1991. The export agreement
with Solano County terminated in Janaury of 1993 when maximum tonnage was reached. '
SECTION III: PROPOSED SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
There are several proposals for solid waste management facilities to be located within Contfa Costa
County. Barring any civil actions, these sites could be operational by mid to late 1992. This section
identifies and describes each of those proposed facilities.
A. , Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill
Project Description:
The Marsh Canyon Sanitary Landfill Project, sponsored by Waste Management of North ,
America (WMI), would be located in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County
approximately five miles southeast of the City of Brentwood. Of the 1,123-acre site, about
290 acres will be used for waste disposal. The landfill would have a disposal capacity of '
approximately 52 million cubic yards with a site life of 40-75 years, depending on the extent
of resource recovery implemented in the County. As a Class II facility, the landfill would
accept non-hazardous residential, commercial and industrial solid waste, including '
construction and demolition materials, street sweeping and catch basin debris and shredded
tires. The project includes resource recovery projects and programs, such as composting,
wood chipping and a provision for abandoned vehicles. '
The County Board of Supervisors has approved the land use permit, general plan amendment,
development agreement and franchise agreement for the project. Other approvals must be '
obtained from agencies with permitting jurisdictions.
B. Keller Canyon Sanitary Landfill '
Project Description:
The Keller Canyon Landfill is sponsored by the Keller Canyon Landfill Company, as a ,
wholly owned subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries. The proposed landfill site is located
in the Los Medanos Hills south of the City of Pittsburg and north of the City of Concord, ,
in the northern portion of(unincorporated) Contra Costa County. The total site size is 2,628
acres, with 592 acres within the primary project area, 244 acres would be used for waste
disposal. The landfill would have a disposal capacity of 50 million cubic yards ( soil cover '
required is 8 to 10 million cubic yards) with a site life of more than 30 years depending on
the extent of resource recovery implemented in the County. As a Class 11 facility, the
landfill would accept non-hazardous residential, commercial, industrial, ,
construction/demolition, and other approved specialized waste as required by the County, and
in compliance with other required operating permits. Composting operations may be
conducted on site. '
Contra Costa County 3- 6 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Facilities Capacity Component
C. West Contra Costa Integrated Resource Recovery Facility
Project Description:
The. West Contra Costa Integrated Resource Recovery Facility project is a proposal to
establish a multi-purpose solid waste processing center, transfer station, recycling and
buy-back center. The facility would be located in the unincorporated North Richmond area
of Contra Costa County. The applicant and owner is Richmond Sanitary Service. They will
also be the operators.
The proposed facility would receive and process approximately 230,000 tons per year,
capacity for 1993, and 246,000 tons per year, capacity for 2013. The facility would be
capable of receiving for processing 1,200 tons per day of waste for recycling, wood
chipping, composting, and transfer. Waste accepted would be residential, commercial,
governmental, and household hazardous waste.
D. East Contra Costa County Community Collection Center Facility
Project Description;
The purpose of the East Contra Costa County Community Collection Center Facility
a (ECCCC) is to manage the solid waste produced in East Contra Costa County. The areas
served will include communities within the Delta-Diablo Sanitation, District, (Antioch,
Pittsburg, West Pittsburg) and Brentwood and unincorporated areas in East Contra Costa
County. The functions of the ECCCC will include: transferring solid waste from collection
vehicles to long haul tractor trailers for transport to landfills; processing mixed waste,
commingled recyclables, and yard waste into recyclable products; and receiving and
a processing household hazardous waste. The ECCCC is designed to handle the solid
wastestream up to the year 2010. The five day total capacity will be 1,000 tons per day.
Several sites in northeast Antioch/unincorporated area of the County have been identified as
potential sites for the ECCCC. In addition to the EIR for the facilities, the EIR will include
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for annexation of the property
ainto the City of Antioch. A 30-acre parcel in an industrial setting will be needed.
. t
D
a
a April 1993 3-.7 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE .
Facilities Capacity Component
1
Methodology for Calculations
The disposal capacity needs projected for the 15-year period have been calculated using the following ,
equation:
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY,..,n = [(G + I) - (D + TC + LF + E)] yearn '
where '
G = The amount of solid waste projected to be generated in the jurisdiction.
I = The amount of solid waste that is expected to be imported to the jurisdiction for disposal in permitted
solid waste disposal facilities through interjurisdictional agreement(s) with other cities or counties, or
through agreements with solid waste enterprises, as defined in Section 40193 of the Public Resource '
Code.
D = ,The amount diverted through successful implementation of proposed source reduction, recycling,
and composting programs. ,
C
TC = The amount of volume reduction,occurring through available, permitted transformation facilities.
LF The amouot of permitted solid waste disposal capacity that is available for disposal m the
jurisdiction, of solid waste generated in the jurisdiction.
E = The amount of solid waste generated in the Jurisdiction that is exported to solid waste disposal '
facilities through interjurisdictional agreement(s) with other cities or counties,or through agreements with
solid waste enterprises, as defined in Section 40193 of the Public Resources Code. ,
n = each year of a 15-year period commencing in 1991. [Iterative in one-year increments.]
Contra Costa County 3 - 8 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Facilities Capacity Component
`? a
U
2M
ZQ00
d ° oNo
� u. 0 4
W
Hw
za
H w ¢ C 0 o 0
Z .a �:) o.,
U Ao w 00
kn
+
° U p
U
d Cd,
Ca M v
U ;, i Q o
o,
awl
■/ y W ° w
v Q d w ¢.
CA
oo tt~
_ . N
Cd
P. � W R
W ,
•-+ a Hism 00
U 00
e+� C W v7
� °"'
s: T �•, w
zW '
4 " W ° a o w o o d V U
� m oo U �
°lot ,
a ob o W ? a °
oo
O w ' o v U z04
o s..
W o ani 0Z
3U
o ¢ U
0
T
Q U U
..a •". O
ti.
Q ti. U .5
O Cd
U . U c/s
Contra Costa County
3 _ 9 Final Draft SRRE
April 1993 Facilities CapacitComponent
y
a
Table 3-3: Landfill Capacity,
Short-Term Planning 1991 - 1995 '
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Acme Fill Landfill Limited fill
West CC Sanitary Closure
Landfill September 1993
or
February 1994
Contra Costa Closure March
Sanitary Landfill 31, 1992
Altamont Landfill Intercounty
Agreement ends
Potrero Hills Intercount '
y
Landfill Agreement ends
Keller Cyn Landfill Begin operation
late 1992
30+ years '
Marsh Cyn Landfill Begin operation
late 1992 '
45 - 75 years
* For planning purposes,ACME Fill Landfill is considered closed.
w
Contra Costa County 3- 10 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Facilities Capacity Component
Table 34: Additional Capacity Requirements
Year /AC ,`G / Y /D /D (yd
(yd)
LF** /E
(yd) (yd3) W) M (yd3) (yd3) (yd3) (yds W)
1990 328,288 .0 9.5 19,601 0 2,528,000 605,600
1991 331,898 0 12.6 26,136 0 605,600
1992 335,363 0 15.7 32,907 0 137,000,000 141,600
1993 338,866 0 18.8 39,817 0 0 141,600
1994 342,403 0 21.9 46,918 0, 0 0
1995 345,979 0 25 54,059 0 0 134,550,827 0
1996 349,592 0 30 65,549 0 0 0
1997 353,242 0 35 77,272 0 0 0 .
1998 356,931 0 40 89,233 0 0 0
1999 360,658 0 45 101,434 0 0 0
2000 364,424 0 50 113,883 0 0 130,656,555 0
2001 368,229 0 52 119,674 0 0 0
2002 372,074 0 52 120,924 0 0 0
2003 375,960 0 52 122,187 0 0 0
2004 379,885 0 52 123,463 0 0 0
2005 383,853 0 52 124,752 0 0 126,624,526 0
Total
O
* Existing
** Proposed
Assumptions:
1. 1995 landfill capacity calculated based on entire County wastestream with 25% diversion achieved and 50% divers
achieved.
2. Total County generation based on a per capita generation rate 1.08 tons per year(unincorporated waste characterization st
- population x 1.08 = generation).
3. Population data based on ABAG Projections '90.
April 1993 3- 11 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Facilities Capacity Component
SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Source Reduction and the Integrated Waste Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . I
B. Source Reduction Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Source Reduction Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. SUMMARY OF SELECTED SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Source Reduction Programs Selected for Short-term Implementation . . . . . . . 3
B. Source Reduction Programs Selected for Medium-Term Implementation . . . . 4
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . 4
A. The Changing Wastestream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Existing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Existing Source Reduction Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. Existing Programs that Will be Decreased in Scope, Phased-out, or Closed . . 7
E. Structural Impediments to Achieving High Levels of Source Reduction . . . . . 7
IV. SELECTION OF PRIORITY WASTE TYPES . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Criteria for Identifying Priority Waste Categories and Types . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Identification of Priority Waste Categories and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
V. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VI. PROGRAM SELECTION, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 46
VII. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
a
r
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 4-1: Rank Order of Waste Categories and Major Waste Types (by Weight) . . . . . . . 9
Table 4-2: Rank order of Waste Categories and Major Waste Types (by Volume) . . . . . . 10
Table 4-3: Environmental and Public Health Hazards of Waste Categories . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4-4: Recyclability of Waste Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 '
Table 4-5: Renewable, Semi-Renewable, and Non-Renewable Resources14
Table 4-6: Source Reduction Programs Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 4-7: Summary of Collection Rates (Unincorporated Areas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ,
Table 4-8: Diversion Projections for Organic Waste Reduction Program . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 4-9: Implementation Tasks for Source Reduction Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 4-10: Summary of Source Reduction Programs Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
ii
SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Source reduction is any.action that reduces the amount of material requiring disposal, recycling, and
centralized composting. Specifically, source reduction includes any action that achieves the
following:
• Reduces the production, consumption, and disposal of products.
• Reduces the amount of material used for producing, packaging, and distributing products.
• Substitutes reusable products for disposable products.
• Encourages the reuse of products.
• Prolongs the durability or life of products or materials.."
• Encourages or enables generators of waste to reuse, recycle, or compost products or materials .
at the point of generation, thereby preventing the products or materials from entering the
wastestream.
In addition, source reduction includes actions that modify the wastestrearn to make it less hazardous
and more recyclable or compostable. Specifically, such modifications include any action that
achieves the following:
• Substitutes renewable resources for non-renewable"resources in products and packaging.
• Substitutes recycled or composted materials for virgin materials in products and packaging.
• Substitutes recyclable or compostable materials for non-recyclable or compostable materials
in products and packaging:
Since the types and amounts of waste produced are closely associated with the materials and designs
used for consumer and capital goods, source reduction programs require the modification of
industrial, commercial, and consumer practices and behavior.
A. Source Reduction and the Integrated Waste Management Plan
AB 939 requires local agencies to promote waste management practices according to the following
,. hierarchy:
1. Source reduction
2. Recycling and composting
3. Environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal, at the discretion,
of the local agency (PRC, section 40051).
April 1993 4- l Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Local agencies must, therefore, promote source reduction as the waste management practice of
highest priority, and plan and implement all feasible source reduction programs. Within this context,
however, it is not necessary to achieve the greatest portion of diversion goals through source
reduction; it is merely necessary to achieve as much diversion as possible through source reduction,
before designing and implementing recycling and composting programs: If, for example, a material
type from a particular generator segment can be diverted through both source reduction and
composting, then the source reduction program should take priority. The composting program may
still be evaluated and selected, but should be designed such that it does not impair or replace the
source reduction program.
Because of the impending closure of Contra Costa County's landfills, this plan gives immediate
priority to obtaining the highest feasible diversion levels. This can best be accomplished by
implementing expanded recycling programs, by establishing clear parameters for full-scale
composting operations, and by removing institutional impediments to source reduction programs.
The County does not expect to achieve high levels of diversion through source reduction until the
medium-term planning period. ,
This component details the specific goals, objectives, policies and actions for the unincorporated
areas,of the County. Objectives include the targeted numerical diversion rate for the short-term and
medium-term planning periods, and short-term and medium-term market development objectives.
This Component is organized as follows:
I. Introduction ;
II. Summary of Selected Programs
III. Existing Conditions
IV. Materials Selection
V. Evaluation of Program Alternatives
Monitoring VI. Description of Selected Programs, Mo tori g and Evaluation
VII. Program Implementation '
B. Source Reduction Goals
Contra Costa County's source reduction goals are as follows:
1. Reduce the use of unnecessarily wasteful products. "Unnecessarily wasteful' refers to a
product that is any of the following, when there exists an alternative or substitute product
that is less wasteful:
a. intended to be single use or limited use;
b. not durable, repairable, compostable, or recyclable;
Contra Costa County 4- 2 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
c. contains non-renewable resources or materials that produce excessive or hazardous
wastes during their extraction or processing.
2. Increase the use of products that are:
a. made of renewable resources;
b. made with recycled or composted materials;
c. recyclable or compostable;
d. durable, repairable, and pre-engineered for recycling.
3. Reduce, through on-site composting and other means, the amount of organic materials
that enter the SW stream.
4. Producers, distributors, and consumers of goods should be able to make rational,
informed choices regarding the kinds and amounts of wastes their actions will result in.
5. Increase the efficiency of the use of paper, cardboard, glass, metal, and plastic in
manufacturing and distribution processes, and make durability, reusability, and
recyclability considerations in product design.
6. Reduce the volume and hazardousness of packaging, and increase the use of recycled and
recyclable or compostable materials in packaging.
' C. Source Reduction Objectives
Contra Costa County's source reduction objectives are to achieve a 2% reduction in wastestream
t' generation by the year 1995, and an 8% reduction by the year 2000.
II. SUMMARY OF SELECTED SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
Selected programs are detailed in Section VI. This section summarizes selected programs.
A. Source Reduction Programs Selected for Short-term Implementation
' 1. Variable Can Rates
' Implement and refine variable can rates in all unincorporated areas of the County, and test the
feasibility of weight-based rates.
2. Vocational Training and Reduction of Business License Fee
Assist source reduction businesses through business and vocational management training and
reduction in business license fees.
3. Reusables Pick-up Days
Establish periodic curbside pick-up of reusables through franchise agreements
' April 1993 4- 3 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
4. Reducing Fast Food Packaging Wastes: Voluntary Program
Encourage restaurants to serve food that is to be eaten on the premises on washable
serviceware, and to use recyclable take-out food packaging.
5. Reducing the Use of Disposable Diapers: County Hospital and Outreach to Daycare Centers,
Hospitals, and Medical Offices ,
Institute an informational program to encourage a reduction in the use of disposable diapers.
6. Reducing Generation of Organic Wastes
Institute an organic waste reduction program, including backyard composting.
7. Resource Evaluations for Businesses
Provide resource assessments and assistance in establishing procurement policies for
commercial and industrial waste generators.
B. Source Reduction Programs Selected for Medium-Term Implementation
1. Continue and Expand Short-Term Programs
2. Implement Weight-Based Rate Structures for Waste Collection
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS .
This section reviews the changing nature of the wastestream and the necessity to reduce wastes; the
County's previous policies on source reduction and existing source reduction activities within the
unincorporated areas and within County facilities; and structural impediments to achieving significant
levels of source reduction.
A. The Changing Wastestream '
The prevailing patterns of material culture of a place govern the character and volume of solid waste
generated there. As such,the nature of wastes -- in terms of per capita generation, composition, and
origins-- changes over time and from place to place. Changes over time occur at varying rates, and
not always along a smooth curve. For example, the introduction of a single new product or material
for packaging that attains a high market share over the space of a few months or a few years may
significantly alter the character of the wastestream. Disposable diapers, which were first marketed i
in the early 1960's, have captured over 80% of the diaper market, and the amount of disposable
diaper and associated human waste has grown from nil in 1960 to 2.7 million tons in 1988 (Franklin
Associates, 1990), a per capita generation rate of 20.83 lbs/year. Changing social conditions are also
reflected in the character of the wastestream. For example, the increasing prevalence of two-income
families has led to an expanding market niche for convenient prepared foods, and the packaging
Contra Costa County .4- 4 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component
associated with these products has contributed to making packaging materials the largest category of
goods found in the residential wastestream.'
In general, there has been a tendency since the end of World War II for the wastestream to grow in
size and complexity. The sheer volume of the wastestream, and the continual introduction of new
materials and new products, have together caused not only a crisis in waste disposal, but also have
complicated-material recovery efforts. For example, glass and aluminum containers are the most
readily recyclable materials in the residential wastestream, with well established marketing
infrastructures, relatively stable demand, and high-value end-uses. However, aluminum and
especially glass are losing their market share to plastics, which are much more difficult to recycle,
for which only weak marketing infrastructures and demand exist, and which are recycled into low-
value, usually disposable products. 'In order for plastics recycling to become viable, either the
plastics industry must take steps to design their products for recyclability and to implement an .
effective infrastructure for the collection and transport of recovered plastics (as the glass and
aluminum industries did in the 1960's and 70's), or there must be technological advances in sorting
or depolymerization that enable recycling of mixed plastics. -The intent of the Supervisors' banning
of certain plastics from landfilling is to spur such developments.
The tendencies toward increased size and complexity of the wastestream are the strongest arguments
for promoting source reduction. Other arguments are the increasing_prevalence of non-renewable
resources, particularly plastics, in the wastestream, and the benefits of avoided cost from not
1 producing, consuming, and handling materials. For all these reasons.- the County shall vigorously
promote source reduction from all generator segments within the unincorporated area, and encourage
Contra Costa's cities to do the same.
B. Existing Policies
The 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan (CoSWMP) includes three policies related to source
' reduction:
1. Major source reduction programs must begin at the state and federal level and when that
occurs the County will cooperate fully.
2. Local governments should encourage measures to use less plastic and expanded polystyrene
containers; grocery stores should be strongly encouraged to offer paper bags over plastic bags.
'According to Franklin Associates (1990), the total U.S. generation of containers and
packaging in 1988 constituted 31.6 percent of all wastes generated. This figure represents 56.8
million tons per year. While the gross tonnage of packaging and containers produced has
steadily increased (from 27.3 million tpy in 1960 and 44.4 million tpy in 1975), the percentage
of the waste stream made up of containers and packaging has actually decreased from a 1970
peak of 35.7%. This decrease is attributable to the substitution of lighter aluminum and plastic
for steel, glass, and paper. The Waste Characterization Study for this plan did not attempt to
categorize containers and packaging separately.
April 1993 4-S Contra Costa County
I Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
3. Public agencies should assess the feasibility of purchasing materials with less packaging,' ,
purchasing from companies supportive of waste reduction policies, and using more reusable
materials.
In addition, in 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved the banning of recyclable PET (plastic soda
bottles), HDPE containers (milk and water jugs), EPS (styrofoam) and LDPE film (plistic wrap)
from landfills. These items are currently being collected for recycling by most of the haulers; the
remaining haulers are planning to begin collection of these materials.
The Board's intent is to keep as much plastic as possible out of landfills. The Board intends to
identify plastics that can be recycled, and to prohibit these from being deposited in landfills: The
Board also hopes to encourage manufacturers to substitute recyclable plastics or other materials for
non-recyclable plastics in product and packaging design. '
The Plastics Task Force has developed a Plastics Resins Recyclability Evaluation Index which the
Board'adopted as an interim policy-making tool to guide decisions on diversion programs.
C. Existing Source Reduction Programs
The Waste Diversion Study identified and quantified existing source reduction activities for
residential and commercial generators. No source reduction activities were found for industrial
generators. Refer to the Waste Generation Study for methodology and assumptions used.in the
generation of this data.
For residential generators, three activities were identified and quantified: 1. the donation of used ,
clothing, furniture, and appliances to thrift shops;2. the reuse of brown paper bags at grocery stores;
and 3. the return of refillable wine bottles to wineries (see Appendix B-7 for list of source reduction
enterprises). These activities resulted in approximately 2,724 tons per year (tpy) diverted from
disposal. ,
For commercial generators, three activities were identified and quantified: 1. the use of refillable
bottles at local restaurants and taverns; 2. the donation of excess restaurant and grocery store ?,
foodstuffs to food banks; and 3. the recapping of used tires. These activities resulted in
approximately 332 tpy diverted from disposal. '
Additional source reduction activities take place within the unincorporated areas, and within County
government offices, but these were,not identified or quantified in the Waste Characterization Study.
These activities include the following:
1. In the residential sector,there is an unquantified amount of backyard composting, leaving grass
clippings on lawns, and xeriscaping (drought tolerant planting).
2. In the commercial and industrial sectors, an unquantified amount of waste materials are traded
through waste exchanges.
3. Several areas have variable. can rates; several franchising agencies are considering
implementation of mini-can service.
Contra Costa County 4- 6 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
4. The County has established several" procedures and programs that promote or accomplish
source reduction: photocopies must be two-sided in County government offices; the County
has established a Procurement Policies Committee to investigate and recommend procedures
' for purchasing less wasteful products; the County is represented on the Local Task Force's
Procurement-Policies Task Force; the Contra Costa County Waste Reduction and Recycling
Guide emphasizes.precycling, reuse, and other source reduction activities.
D. Existing Programs that Will be Decreased in Scope, Phased-out, or Closed
None of the operators of the existing source reduction alternatives are planning to decrease in scope,
phase out, or close their operations in the short-term or medium-term planning periods. Even if
some or all of the existing programs cease during these planning periods, the closures'will have little
effect on existing solid waste management activities or'on the attainment of the mandated diversion
levels, since the current rate of source reduction is only 1.5%.
E. Structural Impediments to Achieving High Levels of Source Reduction
Source reduction is achieved through people modifying their behavior as consumers and producers
of goods. As such, local governments are limited in the degree to which they can implement
effective source reduction programs. In general, modification of production is more logically
accomplished at the federal or state' level, while local government, and especially general law
counties such as Contra Costa, are limited in their authority to mandate changes in the production,
marketing, and consumption of goods.
Emphasis in our society on the possession and appearance of material goods makes changes in
consumer practices extremely difficult. Additionally, health and safety considerations may come into
play in the reuse or recycling of certain packaging types. As a result of these circumstances, only
modest levels of source reduction can be realistically expected:
Locally, the number of jurisdictions and agencies involved in waste management issues creates an
impediment to efficient administration of programs; and increases the likelihood of duplication of
effort. The County is in the process of taking greater control over waste management in the
unincorporated areas, in some areas by establishing or taking over franchising authority, and in other
areas by establishing memoranda of understanding with current franchising agencies.
IV. SELECTION OF PRIORITY WASTE TYPES
A. Background
The regulations require the County to identify specific waste categories and waste types as priorities
for source reduction. Criteria for establishing priorities may.include the volume, weight, and hazard
of the waste category or type, whether the waste category or type consists of non-renewable
resources, the potential to extend the useful life of materials, and the recyclability of materials. The ,
County concurs in the importance of these criteria, and adds one more: whether a material type or
D April 1993 41- 7 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
category is growing at a faster rate than the wastestream as a whole. Below are listed these criteria
and their definitions.
B. Criteria for Identifying Priority Waste Categories and Types
1. Volume: the volume of the waste type, as expressed as a percentage of,the total volume of the
wastestream segment, and of the total wastestream.
2. Weight: the weight of the waste type, as expressed as a percentage of the total weight of the
wastestream segment, and of the total wastestream.
3. Hazard: the hazards created by the disposal, littering, recycling, or composting of the waste
type.
4. Non-renewable resources content: whether the waste type derives from non-renewable
resources.
5. Potential to extend the useful life of affected materials, products, or packaging: whether
reducing or eliminating the waste type would result in its replacement with more durable,
reusable, or recyclable products. In essence, the criterion is whether alternatives exist in the
market place that would be an improvement over the products contributing to the waste type,
and, if not, whether society can do without the products. This criterion applies to individual
products that might be targeted for source reduction, rather than waste types.
6. Whether the waste type has limited recyclability, i.e., whether technologies and local markets
exist for recycling the waste type.
7. Rate at which the waste type is increasing its relative share of the wastestream, i.e., whether
the waste type is growing more quickly than the wastestream as a whole. This may be
calculated using regional or national data, and should be expressed as the growth over time of
the percentage that a'particular type or category represents of the total generation of waste
materials.
C. Identification of Priority Waste Categories and Types
The following tables are an attempt to apply the above criteria to the wastestream of the
unincorporated areas of the County. It is not possible to apply all the criteria in a definitive manner
or in a way that would result in a quantitative comparison of the priority of material types for source
reduction. The information presented in the tables will be used as a general guide for choosing
priority waste categories and types for source reduction.
i
Contra Costa County 4- 8 April 1993 '
Final Drafi SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Table 4-1
Rank Order of Waste Categories and
Major Waste Types
(by Weight)
Waste Category or Type % Waste
Generated
(by.weight)
Paper (except diapers) 38.0
Inert Solids 12.2
Yard-Waste 9.3
Food Waste 6.9
Wood Waste 14.3
Plastic 5.3
Glass 4.9
Ferrous Metals and cans 1.8
White Goods 1�.3
Aluminum Cans 1.1
Disposable Diapers 1.0
t
o
I
April 1993 4 -9 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
1
Table 4-2 ,
Rank order of Waste Categories and Major Waste Types
(by Volume)
Waste Category Waste Generated (Volume)2
or Type 3
yds !year Percent* ,
Paper (except diapers) 202,410 47.3
Plastic 61,048 14.3
Wood 26,875 6.3
Yard Waste 24,937 5.8 ,
Inert Solids 19,920 4.7
Aluminum Cans 15,075 3.5
Food Waste 14,100 3.3
Ferrous Metals and cans 1300 3.2
Disposable Diapers 10,250 2.4
White Goods 9,880 2.3 '
Glass 7,064 1.7
Other 22,490 5.3
TOTAL 427,729 100.0
*Numbers may not total 100%, due to rounding.
i.
a - 1
I
1
zonversion factors in Franklin Assoc. 1 0
.Using c 99 }.
Contra Costa County 4- 10 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
' Table 4-3
Environmental and Public Health Hazards of Waste Categories
Waste Category or Type Hazards
Paper Relatively few hazards.. Produces methane as it decomposes
anaerobically.' Coatings, bleaches, and inks may cause toxic
leachate problems when disposed,, and hazardous wastes when
recycled.
Plastic Since plastic decomposes only very slowly, it creates a litter hazard
that is long-lasting and dangerous to wildlife. Particularly
hazardous is expanded polystyrene (EPS) to marine wildlife.
Effects of "biodegradable" or "photodegradable" plastics on the
environment are unknown. .PolyvinylChloride (PVC) leaches vinyl
chloride when exposed to hot water, and as with other chlorine
containing compounds, creates a severe pollution hazard when
burned. ,
Glass Glass creates few hazards, beyond the physical hazard created by
littered broken glass. Mitigation is through litter clean-up and
prevention.
Metals Few hazards are associated with disposal of steel and aluminum.
Other metals, such as lead, nickel, cadmium, copper, and mercury,
which are present in the wastestream in small amounts, create toxic
leachates when landfilled, and toxic ash when incinerated.
Recycling metals may entail activities that produce air or water
pollution that would need to be mitigated through proper design and
operation.
Yard Waste As with other organic materials, yard waste creates methane gasses
during anaerobic decomposition. Other hazards associated with
yard debris are the effects of pesticides and other contaminants,
which may create toxic leachates and ash, and which may constitute
a problem in yard debris composting systems. Mitigation is
through proper methane collection systems in landfills and public
education to reduce the use of pesticides and ensure clean materials
are delivered to composting facilities.
Other Organics Food wastes, wood wastes, and agricultural crop residues may pose
hazards similar to yard waste, but with similar mitigation. Tires
and rubber products are difficult to landfill or recycle, and may
contain hazardous compounds. Textiles and leather may create
methane as they decompose.
April 1993 4- 11 Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component '
Table 4-3 -- Continued
Other Wastes:
Inert Solids Because of the highly variable nature of this category, particular
loads may cause hazards, as when a load contains oil contaminated ,
soil or asbestos. If loads are screened and contaminated loads are
diverted, the remaining material should pose no or very low hazard
when landfilled. Rock crushing operations may create dust and ,
noise hazards, which should be mitigable by proper siting.
Household Hazardous: See Household Hazardous Waste Element
Special wastes By their very definition, special wastes pose problems in handling
and.disposal.
Contra Costa County 4- 12 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Table 4-4
Recyclability of Waste Types
Recyclable (Consistent Semi-recyclable (nascent Not Recyclable (technically
market exists for the or uncertain markets infeasible or no market
material type) exist) exists)'
Paper: Paper:, Paper:
Corrugated cardboard none Contaminated cardboard
Newspaper Other paper
' High grade ledger Disposable diapers
Mixed paper
Plastic: Plastic: Plastic:
HDPE Filmplastics Polypropylene
PET Polystyrene Polyvinylchloride
' Expanded Polystyrene Thermosets
Glass: Glass:
Refillable glass containers Non-recyclable glass
' CA Redemption value glass
Other recyclable glass
Metals: Metals:
Aluminum cans none
Ferrous metals and tin cans
Non-ferrous metals and AL
scrap
White Goods
Organic: Other'Organic: Organic:
Textiles and leather Food waste none
Tires and rubber products
i Wood waste (as landscaping
material or bulking agent)
Other wastes: Other wastes: Other wastes:
Inert solids Latex paint Household hazardous, other
Solvents than latex paint and solvents
Special wastes: Special wastes: Special wastes:
none Bulky wastes Ash
Mixed. metals Asbestos
Mixed plastics
Yard waste
April 1993 4- 13 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Table 4-5 '
Renewable, Semi-Renewable, and Non-Renewable Resources
Renewable Resources Semi-Renewable Resources Non-Renewable Resources
Paper Glass Plastic
Yard Waste Inert Solids Metal
Organic Household Hazardous (most)
Special wastes
These rough evaluations will serve as a basis for targeting specific waste types from the three
generator segments. More specific analyses of common uses for materials and the reasons for '
targeting materials is presented below. Unless otherwise noted, references to national trends and
figures are gleaned from Franklin Associates, 1990.
1._ Materials Targeted for Source Reduction from the Residential Wastestream
The following materials are selected for source reduction, based on application of the above criteria. ,
Paper
Corrugated: Corrugated cardboard (OCC, for Old Corrugated,Cartons) make up 6.0% by weight
of the residential wastestream, making it the fourth largest paper waste type in the residential
wastestream, and the seventh largest overall residential waste type. OCC has steadily increased its
share of the national wastestream, from 8.3% in 1960, to 12.9% in 1988 (though the amount
discarded has stayed relatively level). Though OCC has a strong market, its prevalence and growth ,
in the wastestream make it a target for source reduction.,
Contaminated Corrugated: Contaminated corrugated makes up 1.4% of the residential
wastestream. By definition it is not recyclable, though it is compostable.
High grade ledger: High grade ledger paper comprises 1.0% of the residential wastestream. As
a whole, the national generation of office papers is growing exponentially, and the percentage of total
waste generated represented by office papers has increased steadily since 1960. Home use of high
grade ledger is probably growing because of increases in home computer usage, and the shift to a
decentralized service economy. Simple techniques, introducible through public education, are readily
available to achieve source reduction of this material.
Mixed paper: Mixed paper constitutes 11.4% of the residential wastestream. It is one of the largest
components of the residential wastestream. Single-use and excessive packaging is a large constituent.
Many constituents products are replaceable or avoidable.
Other Paper: Other paper represents 9.5% of the residential wastestream, and by definition is not
recyclable. Other paper is a major waste type, and one made up primarily of unnecessarily wasteful
packaging. Source reduction of other paper is more imperative than mixed paper, since recycling
Contra Costa County 4- 14 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
is not an alternative and composting is problematic, due to the presence of inks and other
contaminants.
Plastic: Plastics form 8.3% of the residential wastestream by weight and at least double that by
jvolume. All petroleum-based plastics are made of non-renewable resources. Plastics are the most
rapidly growing material in the national wastestream (the wastestream as a whole grew 3.1% by
weight between 1987 and 1988, while plastics increased by 7.8%. While the rate of increase for
plastics has come down from its astounding annual rate of 22.8% during the 1960's, plastics are still
growing much more quickly than the wastestream as a whole). The production of plastics is highly
polluting. Plastics have the highest ratio of volume percentage:weight percentage of the wastestream
of any major material type (2.2, exceeded only by rubber and leather at 2.3). Many, if not most,
plastic products are intended to be single use and disposable, and even durable plastic is difficult to
repair. Plastics have exceedingly low recycling levels compared to other materials: only .007% of
' plastics generated in the unincorporated areas are recycled.
Speck plastic waste types
HDPE: High Density Polyethylene constitutes 1.7% of. the residential wastestream by weight.
Reusable alternatives exist for water and milk jugs. HDPE is increasingly used for new products,
and for new packaging for old products.
PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate now makes up 0.6% of the residential wastestream. The use of
' PET is increasing rapidly. PET is the most recycled of all plastic types. However, it is replacing.
glass and aluminum, which have much higher recycling rates. Reusable-or more readily recyclable
alternatives exist.
LDPE: 3.3% of the residential wastestream is Low Density Polyethylene. It is the most prevalent
plastic type in the wastestream, and consists of a vast array of film and.rigid plastic containers and
' wraps. Many uses are unnecessarily wasteful.
PP: Polypropylene represents 0.3% of the residential wastestream. Many uses, e.g., margarine
tubs,'are unnecessarily wasteful.
PS: 0.4% of the residential wastestream consists of Polystyrene. Many uses of this plastic are
unnecessarily wasteful.
EPS: Expanded polystyrene makes up 0.5% of the residential wastestream. The blowing agents
used in manufacturing these plastics is polluting or hazardous. The material itself is polluting, and
poses a serious hazard to marine wildlife. EPS Takes up an inordinate volume of landfill capacity.
PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride comprises 0.2% of the residential wastestream. It is often replaceable with
more benign, recyclable materials.
Plastic mixed.material: 0.4% of the residential wastestream consists of these materials. Many
products contributing to this category can be replaced with more durable, repairable, or recyclable
products.
April 1993 4- 1 S Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
. r
Glass: Non-refillable glass containers make up 6.1% of disposed residential materials. To the
extent that single use glass containers can be replaced with refillable containers, they should be.
Yard Wastes: At 15.5%. yard wastes are the single largest waste type in the residential
wastestream. Yard wastes are easily reducible through on-site composting, and modification of
landscaping and gardening practices.
Other organics '
Like yard wastes, food wastes are easily reducible through on-site composting or vermicomposting.
Food .wastes may also be converted to sludge by discharging them into the sewer system. Food
wastes represent 7.2% of the residential wastestream.
Tires and Rubber Products: Though this is a relatively minor portion of the residential wastestream
(0.2%), tires pose handling and disposal problems. Increased tire life and retreading should be
encouraged. '
Other wastes
Disposable Diapers: 1.6% by weight, and 2.4% by volume of residential wastes are wrapped up
in disposable diapers.
The national. generation of disposable diapers has grown from nil in 1960 to 1.5% of wastes ,
generated, and 1.7% of wastes discarded in 1988. Disposable diapers contain non-renewable, non-
recyclable resources; the presence of human wastes renders them potentially biohazardous.
All household hazardous wastes should be excluded from the wastestream. Household hazardous
materials should be avoided if effective safer alternatives exist. Source reduction of household
hazardous wastes is addressed in the Household Hazardous Waste Element.
Used oil containers: Used oil containers make u 0.2% of the residential wastestream. Recently,
Y,
quart oil containers were converted from paper and metal to plastic. These containers are
unnecessarily wasteful, and could be replaced with larger and/or refillable containers.
2. Commercial and Industrial Materials Targeted for Source Reduction
Corrugated Cardboard: A majority of this material, which makes up 20.5% of the commercial
wastestream, and 26.3% of the industrial wastestream, is comprised of cardboard boxes used as
exterior packaging for shipments to commercial establishments, and brown paper bags used for ,
packaging goods sold on-site. Alternative methods of packaging goods for sale can reduce the
volume of boxes used in distribution. More judicious use of bags offered for on-site sales can
substantially reduce the volume of bags used for packaging. ,
0
High Grade Ledger: High grade paper makes up 0.9% of the commercial wastestream, and 8.8%
of the industrial wastestream. This is a rapidly growing waste type, and one that can be source- ,
reduced relatively easily.
r
r
Contra Costa County 4- 16 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Mixed Paper (targeted for the Commercial wastestream): The majority of this material, which
' makes up 6.0% of the commercial wastestream, is second-level packaging and multi-pack packaging
(chipboard); other constituent products are envelopes and other uncontaminated, low-grade office
paper. Much of this material is either avoidable or replaceable.
' Other Paper: 6.2% of the commercial wastestream, and 9.8% of the industrial wastestream are
made up of other paper. This category is comprised of contaminated paper (paper with plastic, foil,
Ietc., attached), paper towels, envelopes with plastic windows, waxed paper, and carbon paper.
Without major changes in the production of multi-material packaging, this category is highly
appropriate for source reduction, since it cannot be recycled.
' Plastic: Plastic comprises 2.3% of the industrial wastestream, and-5.0% of the commercial
wastestream. See description of plastics in residential waste targets.
Yard wastes: Yard wastes make up 7.6% of the commercial wastestream, and 2.4% of the
industrial wastestream. The majority of this material can be source-reduced through a combination
of leaving clippings on the lawn, mulching leaves, on-site composting, and xeriscaping (drought-
resistant landscaping).
' Food wastes: make up 11.1% of the commercial wastestream and 6.3% of the industrial
wastestream. On-site composting could be appropriate in some cases. In other cases, food giveaway
programs could be appropriate.
V. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
PROGRAM OPTIONS
' The following are brief descriptions of source reduction program options evaluated for the
unincorporated area. Program options fall into the four categories specified in the regulations: 1.
rate structure modifications; 2. creation of economic incentives; '3. technical assistance or
' instructional and promotional programs; and 4. regulatory programs. In addition, some programs
options do not fall into any of these categories, such as providing.a- direct service that achieves
source reduction. Program option descriptions are grouped not by the above categories; rather,
programs that would tend to accomplish the same goals or that address the same waste type or types
are grouped together. Each alternative is discussed in terms of four criteria: 1. consistency with
local policies, plans, and ordinances; 2. Jnstitutional barriers; 3. costs; and 4. availability of end-
uses. After a range of program alternatives are identified and briefly described, they are evaluated
according to the criteria listed and defined in the next section.
1 Program Options
1. Rate Structure Modification
a. ' Variable Can Rates
b. Tipping Fees
April 1993 : 4- 17 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
2. Encouraging Source Reduction Businesses
a. Zoning
b. Vocational Training '
c. Assistance to Small Source Reduction Businesses
Dir rt for Source Reduction
3. Direct Support Businesses u
a. Grant Program for Source Reduction Businesses '
b. Loan Program for Source Reduction Businesses
c. Tax Incentives for Source Reduction Businesses ,
d: Reduction of Business License Fees
4. Re-Use Program Development ,
a. Re-useable Pick-up Days
b. Require Salvage Yard (and recycling yard) at all publicly accessible transfer stations
5. Reducing Fast Food Waste
a. Establish Voluntary Program
ram
b. Establish Mandatory Program ,
6. Public Education
a. Consumer Awareness: Prec clin Campaign
y g
b. Model Community
c. _School Curriculum
d. Awards rd Program
g
e. County Source Reduction Clearinghouse ,
7. Reducing the Use of Disposal Diapers
a. County Hospital
ital
b. Day Care Program
Contra.Costa County 4- 18 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component .
' c. Public Education
d. Pre-disposal Fee
e. Labeling Requirements
f. Product Ban
8. Taxes or Fees on Disposable, Single Use, and Difficult to Handle Products
S
9. Reducing the Generation of Organic Wastes
' 10. Other Regulatory Measures
a. Product Bans
b. Require Source Reduction and Recycling Plans
11. Assistance to Industrial and Commercial Generators
a. Resource Evaluation
b. Source Reduction Seminars and.Workshops
1. Rate Structure Modifications
a. Variable Can Rates
The simplest and most direct economic incentive for encouraging waste generators to throw out less,
and to reduce, recycle, and compost more, is the variable can rate. Variable can rates may be
defined as a rate structure based on the level of service, measured either in volume or weight. Most
commercial and industrial accounts are already set up on a variable basis, as generators are charged
according to the size of the container (e.g., 4 yard, 6 yard, or 20 yard container). Many
communities, however, have residential garbage service that is charged as a flat fee, no matter how
much garbage is set out, or on a regressive basis, where larger amounts of waste become less
a expensive on a unit basis. Such a rate structure provides no incentive to reduce garbage production,
and in fact serves as'a means of reinforcing wasteful behavior.
An alternative method of setting rates is by basing the'rate on the amount of waste collected.
Variable can rates are most commonly based on volume. This method prescribes the setting of a
base rate for a single can (standard 32 gallon can) service, and near-equal, equal, or higher rates for
additional cans. The system can be enhanced by establishing a "lifeline" rate for a small-can
(sometimes called a half-can or mini-can) service. Variable can rates provide a direct economic
incentive to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost wastes, as_ they encourage people to seek
alternatives to putting waste in the garbage can.
April 1993 4- 19 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: v�
Currently, several of the unincorporated communities have residential refuse rate structures that are
based on variable rates. There are no inconsistencies with established policies, plans, or ordinances. ,
Institutional Barriers:
Implementation of variable can rates where none now exist may result in increased costs to some
residents and to haulers, who may therefore oppose a change from the current system. The county
currently has limited jurisdiction in those unincorporated areas where sanitary districts are the
franchising agency for refuse removal.
Costs: ,
Overall refuse collection costs will remain the same,
Availability of end-uses: ,
Not applicable.
b. Tipping Fees
Many reusable and recyclable materials arrive at transfer stations and landfills for disposal. Tipping
fees can be structured to discourage the dumping of these, as well as other difficult-to-dispose-of,
but potentially salvageable products, such as upholstered furniture, mattresses and box springs,tires,
and large appliances. Making such items more difficult and expensive to dispose of can encourage
their repair, reuse, or recycling. The County could include in its facilities permits the requirement
to charge special, higher fees for the disposal of certain salvageable materials, and thereby create
an economic incentive for people to repair such items, or to donate them to a business that will
salvage or refurbish them.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: ,
'Special fees for some items already are in place at the County's three landfills; the program would
be a logical one to include in use permits for new facilities. ,
Institutional Barriers:
Institution of special fees may increase costs for commercial haulers and self-haul customers.
Costs: ,
Staff time for drafting permit requirements. Minimal administrative costs for facility operators. .
Availability of end-uses: '
Only materials with identified end-uses would be targeted for this program, ,
Contra',Costa County 4- 20 April 1993 '
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
2. Encouraging Source Reduction Businesses
Several source reduction program options fall under the heading of encouraging the development of
businesses that are involved in the reuse or repair of goods, or in increasing the longevity of
products. Several types of commercial establishments provide opportunities for product reuse or
reduction, including second hand stores, repair and fixit shops, flea markets, garage sales, diaper
services, salvage yards, and distribution of products in bulk or refillable containers. While a variety
of commercial reuse activities exist in the unincorporated areas of the County, or within neighboring
jurisdictions but serving the population of the unincorporated communities, The County could
-establish programs to encourage more commercial reuse activities.
a. Zoning
County land use and business permit policies would be reviewed to identify any barriers or
disincentives to the establishment of source reduction businesses. Developing general plan, land use,
and zoning policies that promote these type of operations can encourage the development of an
infrastructure that supports source reduction. Since there are currently no intentional zoning
constraints to source reduction businesses in the County, implementation will be of minimal cost, and
consist of reviewing and revising zoning to ensure that source reduction businesses are not
discriminated against. The County's proposed Recycling Market Development Zone will be designed
to include source reduction businesses.
Zoning regulations on signage, type and variety of goods sold, and aesthetics, and strict enforcement
of health and safety codes, can help offset community concerns.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No inconsistencies noted.
Institutional Barriers:
No significant institutional barriers noted.
Costs:
Minimal time for existing staff to implement, monitor, and enforce program.
Availability of end-uses:
This program assumes an.ability to increase the existing strong market for second hand and other
reusable goods.
b. Vocational Training
One barrier to increasing the number and variety of source reduction businesses may be a lack of
trained people to own, operate, and.work in these businesses. The County could work with one of
the existing reuse industries;such as Goodwill or Salvation Army, and with the community colleges,
April 1993 4- 21 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
to establish a vocational training certificate program in repair, refurbish, and reuse, and salvage and '
businesses administration. The program could include internships in any of a number of source
reduction businesses in or around the county. The program could also include assistance in job
placement, and in starting-up source reduction businesses. '
State or federal funds may be available to supplement support for the program.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: '
The County's own Government Office Recycling Center currently trains General Assistance ,
recipients in various phases of recycling._Coordination of this program with community colleges and
other re-use businesses can be easily accomplished.
Institutional Barriers: ,
No significant barriers.
Costs:
Staff time and costs to develop and implement a vocational training program will be included as part-
of the Market Development Zone program costs.
Availability of end-uses:
As with other program options in this category, this option is predicated on an expanding market for
second hand and other reused goods.
C. Assistance to Small Source Reduction Businesses
This program option would involve providing basic managerial training and assistance to small '
businesses involved in source reduction activities. Assistance and training would be offered in '
accounting, labor relations, business plans and business expansion, and other basics.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: '
The program could come under existing small business assistance programs.
Institutional Barriers: '
None noted. ,
Costs:
Minimal staff time for start-up; no other costs noted, if the program could use the resources of ,
existing assistance programs.
Contra Costa County 4-22 April 1993
Final Draft SRRF ,
Source Reduction Component
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
3. Direct support for Source Reduction Businesses
In addition to the programs above, which would strengthen the infrastructure for reuse industries,
the County could provide direct economic incentives to all types of source reduction businesses,
including reuse industries. Presented below are four options for providing direct economic assistance
or incentives to the establishment or expansion of source reduction businesses in the unincorporated
area.
' a. Grant Program for Source Reduction Businesses
The County would establish a grant fund and grant program for one-time grants to start up businesses
(or add a unit, service or process to existing businesses) that are involved in source reduction
activities or processes. Eligible businesses would include: thrift stores; fixit shops; flea markets;
diaper services; bulk sales of food and cosmetics; bulk sales of motor oil and house paint;
' distribution of milk or soft drinks in refillable glass containers, and collection and washing of the
containers.
Grants would be given on a competitive basis (based on project design, estimated reduction rates,
need within the county) and would be exclusively for start-up or capital costs,and not for ongoing
operations subsidies. The County would administer the program, and businesses receiving grants
' would be required to report on progress of the funded project, and on the amounts and types of waste
reduced through the project.
' Consistency with local policies,,plans, and ordinances: -
•
No such grant programs currently exist.
' Institutional.Barriers:
' The current fiscal situation of the County may be considered an institutional barrier to this program
option.
' Costs:
Annual Costs:
' Funds allocated annually for Grants: $50,000
Administration: $5,000
Total annual cost for Short-Term planning period; $55,000
' Availability of end-uses:
Only applicants which demonstrated the marketability of products or services would be funded.
April 1993 4- 23 Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
b. Loan Program for Source Reduction Businesses:
Similar to the grant program, but using a revolving loan fund, and making short-term, low-interest
loans for capitalizing and establishing source reduction businesses. A program could be developed
with an initial fund of $50,000 for each of the first two years. r
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such programs currently exist.
Institutional Barriers:
The fiscal situation of the County may be considered an institutional barrier to this program option. '
Costs:
$100,000 revolving loan fund, to be paid back within 5 years. Should expect some defaults on ,
loans. Approximately 5-10% FTE to administer the program.
Availability of end-uses: I
As with previous program option, only applicants who demonstrated end uses or markets for the '
programs would receive funding.
C. Tax Incentives for Source Reduction Businesses ,
This program would encourage the establishment, existence, and growth of source reduction.
businesses by giving a property tax break to qualifying businesses.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such programs currently exist. r
Institutional Barriers:
'
The fiscal situation of the County is an institutional barrier.
Costs:
Assuming that 50 businesses,would qualify, that the average property tax for each business is
$2,000, and that the tax break would be a 50% reduction, the average tax savings for each qualifying ,
business would be $1,000, and the total lost revenue would be $50,000 per year. Additionally, there
would be a small amount of staff time to administer the program. '
Contra Costa County 4- 24 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
i
Availability of end-uses-
This program would assist established businesses which are already involved in source reduction,
and already have established markets for their goods.
d. Reduction of Business License Fees
' Like the previous options, this one would provide direct economic assistance to source reduction
businesses by lowering their annual operating fees. This could be done throughout the
' unincorporated areas, or only within the planned Recycling Market Development Zone. Since the
County is currently beginning to implement business licensing in the unincorporated areas, their
would be no effect on current revenues.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
' Business license fees are only now being established in the unincorporated areas.
Institutional Barriers:
' Other businesses might complain of unfair treatment.
Costs:
Small amount of lost revenue for the County.
' Availability of end-uses:
' As per the business.
4. Reuse Program Development
In addition to the program options above, there is also the possibility for the County to assist in the
establishment of new programs that would encourage reuse of goods. Two program options are
presented here.'
a. Reusables Pick-up Days
' Most of the unincorporated areas of the County receive once or twice per year clean-up days, when
:residents are allowed to set our for collection large and bulky items that are usually prohibited in
their regular trash pick up. Such clean-up days could be redirected to include instructions to residents
to sort out the useful, reusable, and recyclable items separately. The pick-up should then be arranged
so that the useful items are delivered to a salvage yard, charity, or flea market.
The program would include a public education component that gives instructions to residents to
separate bulky, recyclable, and reusable items. Pick-up of such items would be through cooperation
' or contract with a charitable organization, such as Goodwill or Salvation Army, or by a private
hauler..
' April 1993 4- 25 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
e ,
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: ,
Would fit in well with existing programs and service providers.
Institutional Barriers:
County may have trouble implementing this program where its authority is limited, e.g., in areas ,
where a sanitary district is the franchising agency, or where the County's own franchise agreements
do not include such a program, or allow the franchised hauler to control or veto the program.
Costs: ,
Minimal staff time to implement program. Depending on types of materials collected, may be a net
cost to service provider. Costs would include publicity for the program, but this could be '
piggybacked on to the announcements for the pick-up days themselves. As clean-up.day costs are
generally included in regular refuse rates, these could be adjusted to include any additional cost of '
this program.
Availability of end-uses:
This program is predicated on the ability to expand markets for second hand goods.
b. Require Salvage Yard (and Recycling Yard) at All Publicly Accessible Transfer Stations ,
Salvage yards provide an opportunity to divert large and bulky materials, such as usable construction ,
debris, building materials, pipes and fittings, furniture, and salvageable appliances. When salvage
yards are located at the front end of a transfer station or a landfill, haulers can sort their loads to
remove salvageable contents, before dumping. Appropriately structured tipping fees can provide an '
incentive to haulers to sort their loads at the salvage yard before proceeding to the weigh station.
Contra Costa County's three facilities already sort out some bulky and salvageable materials, as well '
as clean loads of dirt and concrete. This program option would require that all new and re-permitted
solid waste facilities that are accessible to the public have a salvage yard located before the weigh-
station.
Consistency with local policies, Plans and ordinances: '
Could be required in all new facilities permits for transfer stations (new landfills will not be open ,
to the public).
Institutional Barriers: ,
Space and transportation flow planning are required. ,
Contra Costa County 4- 26 April 1993
Final Drafi SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component
Cost:
Minimal County staff time to research and write permits, and to work with facilities operators to
establish programs. Could be substantial cost to operators to capitalize facilities (up to $100,000 per
' facility), but salvage operations themselves could be profitable.
' Availability of end-uses:
Only materials with end-uses and markets would be accepted at the facility. Facility would have
' latitude in accepting material types, in order to adjust to changing market conditions.
5. Reducing Fast Food Packaging Wastes
' One of the fastest growing portions of the wastestream is packaging and serviceware for prepared
or fast food. Though fast food packaging and serviceware as such are not individually categorized
and counted in the waste characterization study, we estimate that these materials account for
approximately 1% of the total wastestream,3 and are present in all three wastestream segments, as
well as in waste receptacles in public places. Fast food'packaging is also a major constituent of
' litter. Fast food packaging waste may appear in the Waste Characterization Study as mixed paper,
other paper, EPS, and PS.
' Many restaurants, delicatessens, and fast food outlets make no distinction between food 'to go' or
food eaten on the premises. Prepared food is usually served in multiple layers of disposable
packaging, most of which is either not recyclable or difficult to recycle. By the Food Service
' Industry's own figures, 65% of the food ordered at fast food outlets is eaten on the premises, yet
most of it is packaged as if it will be taken 'to go'. A large volume of waste from these outlets
would be eliminated if fast food restaurants served food that was to be eaten on the premises on
' reusable serviceware, and disposable packaging was used.only for food taken off the premises.
Program Options:
' a. Establish Voluntary Program
The County could encourage operators of restaurants and fast-food establishments to serve food to
be eaten on the premises on reusable serviceware, and to ensure that ,the least wasteful, most
s Franklin Associates (1990).calculates that in 1988 paper plates and cups made up 0.4% of
municipal waste generated by weight, while plastic plates and cups made up another 0.2%.
Other constituents of fast food packaging and serviceware are not broken out separately, but
overall, tissue paper and towels made up 1.7% of municipal waste stream, and paper bags and
sacks made up 1.6%. There has been no significant increase in the percentage of the total waste
stream represented by paper plates and cups between 1960 and 1988; however, tonnages have
more than doubled, more than keeping pace with the increase in the waste stream as a whole.
Plastic plates and cups first appear as a.quantifiable portion of the waste stream in 1980, at
0.1%, or .2 million tons per year. The 1988 figures are 0.2% and 0.4 million tons per year.
' April 1993 4- 27 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
recyclable materials are used for take-out packaging. This would be structured as an informational
and technical assistance program.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
This program would be consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policies on plastic wastes, and on
seeking the voluntary compliance of the private sector in alleviating the problem of plastics in the
wastestream. No such policies exist for paper or, other materials.
Institutional Barriers:
Winning voluntarycompliance of operators of fast-food restaurants might be difficult especially '
small operators for whom retrofitting their kitchens would be a hardship '
Costs
Start-up costs for the County would include staff time to establish an information and technical '
assistance service, plus staff time to conduct an outreach campaign.
Private sector costs might include, for those restaurants not equipped with a dishwasher and reusable '
serviceware, purchase and installation of a commercial dishwasher, purchase of serviceware,
modification of purchase practices, and increased labor costs for washing dishes. Total capital costs '
would be about$10,000 per restaurant;plus approximately $7,000 annual labor costs for a part-time
dishwasher.
Availability of end-uses: ,
Not applicable.
b. Establish Mandatory Program
This option would be identical to the previous option, except that it would involve the establishment
of an ordinance requiring mandatory participation in the program.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
As for the previous option. ,
Institutional Barriers:
Operators of fast-food restaurants may protest passage of such an ordinance, and might resist
compliance.
Contra Costa County 4- 28 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component
Costs:
Start-up costs for the County would include staff time for drafting an ordinance, plus expenditures
for informing businesses of their obligations under the law. Ongoing costs would include technical
assistance, outreach, and enforcement.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
6. Public Education
' Public education is an essential element of any source reduction plan as it heightens awareness of
actions individuals can.take to reduce waste while laying the foundation to support future programs.
Achieving quantifiable reductions is not the initial goal of a source reduction public education
' campaign; rather, a successful public education campaign will, by raising the awareness and sense
of responsibility of residents, business management, and labor, ensure the effectiveness of all source
reduction programs. .
Program Options include the following:
' a. Consumer Awareness: Precycling Campaign
The recently introduced term "Precycle" has become the key word in many public education
' campaigns designed to encourage consumers to make less wasteful purchases. Precycling campaigns
encourage consumers to think before they buy; to reach for the product on the shelf that is durable,
that is not disposable; that has the least packaging or that is available in a refillable or recyclable
' container; and to consider whether they really need the product at all. Precycle waste reduction
education campaigns have now been initiated by the Cities of Berkeley, Newark, New Jersey,
Siskiyou County, and many others.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
' Precycling is promoted in the County's Recycling Guide. Furthermore, the County is considering
establishing a county-wide hotline to provide information on recycling service providers. The hotline
could be adapted to accommodate source reduction, such as the location of source reduction
businesses and alternative products and processes.
Institutional Barriers:
The greatest institutional barriers to a successful Precycling campaign are the lack of choices in the
marketplace, and both the proclivity and the necessity, within a capitalist system, to produce and
' consume ever more goods.
' April 1993 4- 29 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Costs:
Costs for a precycling campaign would include costs for developing materials and distributing them
through the mass media. The program would best be done on a countywide level, as the ,
unincorporated areas of the county are too small and scattered to allow for distinct mass media
targeting. Mass media campaigns are usually tailored to budgets, rather than vice-versa; a minimal
budget for a campaign that would have any meaningful impact on the county as a whole would be
approximately $150,000. ,
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
b. Model Community ,
• o
The'County could work with school districts, public libraries, chambers of commerce and other
community groups to create a "Model Community" project, based on a program of that name in ,
Illinois. The Central States Education Center in Champaign-Urbana has developed a Model
Community program that uses education and financial incentives to help towns reduce the volume
of their trash. Model supermarkets use shelf labels, posters and fliers to educate consumers about '
environmentally acceptable and recyclable packaging, as well as non-toxic alternatives; garbage
haulers give discounts for customers who recycle; and schools have waste reduction programs and
copy shops that feature two-sided copying. The Model Community plans to expand its program to '
'model' restaurants, government offices, service stations and other stores.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: '
The County currently has an awards program.
Institutional Barriers: '
The program would be entirely voluntary and educational. '
Costs:
Costs of the program would include staff time for coordination, plus a small annual budget to create
displays, informational packets, and demonstrations.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable. ,
C. School Curriculum
Including source reduction principals and practices in school recycling curricula will help ensure that '
the next generation will be less wasteful. The development of a school curriculum is addressed in '
the Public Education and Information Component.
Contra Costa County 4- 30 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component
d. Awards program
In order to recognize and encourage successful source reduction actions, the County could make
periodic awards to individuals and businesses who might serve as role models for others. Business
awards would be given to businesses located within the County any of several accomplishments, such
as:
• design of reusable/repairable products
• waste reductions in manufacturing, shipping, handling, or marketing processes
• office programs
• repair facilities
• junkyards, salvage yards, and thrift shops.
Residential awards would be given for:
• backyard composting and gardening
• art from junk
• school programs
• other group programs
• people who produce no garbage.
e Awards would consist of symbolic, durable, non-wasteful prizes. Recipients would be publicized
through press releases, and, if it exists, through the County Source Reduction Clearing House's own
newsletter.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such programs currently exist.
Institutional Barriers:
The program would be entirely voluntary and educational.
}
Costs:
Minimal costs, in terms of staff time, to administer the program. Prizes would be symbolic and
inexpensive.
Availability of end-uses:
■ Not applicable.
e. County Source Reduction Clearing House
The County could establish a program to provide information and services relating to source
reduction to County residents and businesses. This program would be most effective if it served the
entire county, not just the unincorporated areas. The clearing house could become the nerve center
April 1993 4- 31 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
for coordinating, promoting, evaluating, and expanding the County's source reduction programs. It '
could easily, and more efficiently, be combined with similar services for promoting recycling and
composting. Several services would be offered through the Clearing.house:
• Consumers could use the Clearing House for making complaints about wasteful packaging or ,
products. The Clearinghouse staff would forward complaints to the manufacturers and
distributors of the products.
• mil lis 1 '
Residents wishing to get off of dunk a is could use the Clearing House as a broker for
this service. Perhaps 6% of the residential wastestream is junk mail. If this program were '
successful in enabling, after 8 years, 32% of households to reduce their junk mail production
by 50%, it would achieve a 1% reduction in the residential wastestream, or a .5% reduction
in the entire wastestream, equivalent to over 800 tons per year of material.
• Community outreach: Clearing House staff would make regular visits to school, church, '
seniors, PTA, and other groups, to talk about concepts and methods of source reduction, and
inform residents and businesses of the Clearing House's services and functions. A mobile
display unit of non-toxic, non-wasteful, and non-polluting products would be assembled, and
set up at supermarkets, shopping centers, fairs, parks,etc. This would be similar in some ways
to the Model Community program. ,
• The Clearing House would coordinate a mass media campaign on source reduction and
Precycling. ,
• The Clearing House would provide information on effective safe alternatives for household
hazardous materials, and on effective, less wasteful commodities; on the location of retailers ,
offering these products; on durability comparisons of some products for which information is
available; and on the location of second hand goods stores and repair facilities.
• Clearing House Newsletter. Published quarterly on recycled newsprint, the Clearing House's
newsletter would publish lists of products that people have complained about, and responses
from manufacturers; precycling tips, and tips on backyard composting and gardening; awards '
recipients;general trends and particular events in source reduction, composting, and recycling,
both locally and more broadly; and the Clearing House's own services. '
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such programs currently exist; however, see option A in this section. ,
Institutional Barriers:
Thero ram would be most efficient if it were county-wide; therefore the cooperation and
P g Y P
participation of the cities would be necessary. '
Contra Costa County 4- 32 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
Costs:
1-2 full time staff, 1-2 interns, office space and equipment, phone lines, design, printing of written
ematerials. Total program costs, $50-100,000 per year; may be combined with planned hot-line.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
7. Reducing the Use of Disposable Diapers
Introduced only twenty five years ago, throwaway diapers now account for about 82% of baby diaper
changes in the U.S. (Smith and Sheeran, 1990). The waste characterization study indicates that
disposable diapers account for 1.6% of the unincorporated area's residential wastestream, and 1.0%
of the total wastestream, or 2,048 tpy.
Inside the home, people can be encouraged through a precycling campaign to switch to cotton
diapers. Outside of the home, the County can regulate disposable diaper use in two places in the
unincorporated areas and in County facilities where they are commonly used: hospitals and childcare
facilities. Most hospitals, including the County hospital, Merrithew Memorial, now send virtually
every newborn home in a disposable diaper with a free package of extra diapers. Many childcare
facilities that require parents to supply their baby's diapers prohibit them from bringing cloth, and
those that supply diapers supply only disposables. These institutional barriers can be overcome by
an ordinance that requires daycare operators and hospitals to give a choice between cloth and
disposables and to provide information about both.
Presented here are six program options to reduce the use of disposable diapers: a) a policy to require
the County Hospital to provide information on both cloth and disposables and eliminate the practice
of sending babies home with free boxes of disposables; b) an ordinance that mandates daycare
facilities to use cloth diapers and/or allows parents the choice to provide their own cloth diapers; c)
incorporating promotion of cloth diapers in the County's public education campaign; d) levying a
disposal fee on the sale of disposable diapers (to be effective this should be done countywide and not
just for the unincorporated area); e. labeling requirements for retailers of disposable diapers; and f.
product ban.
a. County Hospital
There is only one County Hospital, and no hospitals are located in the unincorporated areas of the
County. The County could establish a policy for the County Hospital to offer the choice of cloth
diapers, and information regarding cloth diapers, to the parents of newborns and pediatric in-patients.
Furthermore, the County could conduct an outreach program to all hospitals, pediatric clinics, and
birthing centers located in the County.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
Disposable diapers are now used at Merrithew Memorial Hospital.
April 1993 4- 33 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Institutional Barriers:
As this would be an internal County policy, the only .institutional barriers might be as a result of
medical or public health concerns over the use of cotton diapers in a hospital setting. However, the '
success of other hospitals in switching to cotton provides supporting medical evidence.
Costs:
Hospitals that have switched to cotton have experienced a net savings in costs.
Availability of end-uses: '
Not applicable.
b. Day-Care Program
'
Y g
The County could conduct an outreach program to discourage discrimination against cloth diapers ,
in day care facilities, and to encourage the use of cotton reusables.
Cost: Staff time to design, implement, and run the outreach program. The program would have little '
fiscal effect on daycare facilities.
C. Public Education '
Arguments regarding the inconvenience of cloth diapers focus on the need for pins and for rinsing
the diaper. The public education campaign can assist in debunking these myths. For example, there '
are now readily available covers or wraps that eliminate the need for pins, and diaper services no
longer require rinsing. Public education regarding disposable diapers could be combined with other
public education programs. This program option is included in the Education and Public Information '
Component.
d. Pre-Disposal Fees
At current prices, cloth diaper service is competitive with disposables. Adding an advanced disposal '
fee to the purchase price of disposables would create an additional economic incentive for the use
of cloth diapers. The disposal fee could be collected through distributors or retailers.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances: '
No pre-disposal fees currently enacted at the County level; however, the State is considering pre-
disposal fees. '
Institutional Barriers:
_ The County's legal authority to impose such fees is uncertain. Furthermore, unless the fees had effect '
countywide, the program would have little effect, as consumers could simply go to a retailer in an
Contra Costa County 4- 34 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
a
,
1
incorporated area. Such "leakage",would also occur across county boundaries. Retailers and
manufacturers of disposable diapers could be expected to protest vehemently against such fees.
Costs:
County staff time to research, draft, enact, and enforce an ordinance.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
e. Labeling Requirements
The County could establish an ordinance requiring all retailers of disposable diapers to post
information on the availability, convenience, and cost of cloth diaper services and home-washed cloth
diapers, and the disadvantages and proper use of disposables: Such a program would not face the
same institutional barriers as the pre-disposal fees.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such policies currently exist within the county.
Institutional Barriers:
The County may lack the legal.authority to enact such a program.
Costs:
County staff time to research, draft, enact, and enforce an ordinance; printing and distributing shelf
labels.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
f. Product Ban
This option would involve an ordinance banning the sale, distribution, use, or disposal of disposable
diapers.,
Banning disposable diapers from entering landfills may be the only means.at the County's
disposal to institute a ban on a countywide basis. Banning the disposal of disposable diapers would
entail a considerable amount of enforcement to make the ban truly effective. Even without strict
enforcement the program would, however, still have considerable impact.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
The Board of.Supervisors has already issued an order to ban plastics from landfills, under certain
conditions.
April 103 4-35 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Institutional Barriers:
Retailers, manufacturers, and some users of disposable diapers would undoubtedly protest against
such an ordinance.
Costs:
County staff time to research, draft, enact, and enforce an ordinance.
Availability of end-uses: .
N applicable.
of
8. Taxes or Fees on Disposable, Single Use, and Difficult to Handle Products
A tax on non-recyclable, disposable, single use and/or hazardous materials reflecting the true cost
to handle and dispose of-these items would increase revenues to fund resource recovery activities and
provide a disincentive to the use of these products,thereby reducing the amount of materials entering
the disposal and recycling streams. However, counties in California have limited legal authority to
establish such taxes.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such policies currently exist within the County.
Institutional Barriers:
The California Integrated Waste Management Board is currently looking into advanced disposal fees
on consumer goods and packaging, and is required to make recommendations on legislation in 1991.
Since such fees are more logically levied at the state or federal level, the County should wait for the
situation in Sacramento to become more clear, before considering its own development of an
advanced disposal fee program.
Costs:
County staff time to research, draft, enact, and enforce an ordinance would be considerable, and
might require outside consulting services to develop the legal and programmatic framework.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
9. Reducing The Generation of Organic Wastes
Together, yard waste and food wastes make up over 30% of the residential wastestream, 22% of the
commercial wastestream, and 9% of the industrial wastestream. Source reduction of a large
percentage of these materials is well within technical and social constraints, through modification of
Contra Costa County 4- 36 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source,Reduction Component
O
landscaping design and practices, and through on-site composting. These two basic methods may
easily be combined into a single program aimed at encouraging and training people in organic waste
reduction techniques.
Consistency with local policies, plans,and ordinances:
The.County's Recycling and Waste Reduction Guide includes information on backyard composting.
Institutional Barriers:
This program would be educational and voluntary. The County codes and zoning should be searched
to identify, and if necessary, revise any statutory or zoning prohibitions of backyard composting.
Costs:
This program option could range from extremely modest encouragement, to an aggressive effort to
change the behavior of individuals who produce organic wastes. Furthermore, economies of scale
can be_achieved if the program is county-wide. Costs range from $2,000 per year to continue to
produce and disseminate information, to$500,000 per year for a program that includes demonstration
sites, training sessions,subsidized compost bins, and a "rot-line
Availability of end-uses:
Compost produced on-site is most often used on-site.
P
10. Other Regulatory Measures
a. Product Bans
U
Banning the sale of products has become an accepted, though controversial, means of reducing
particularly offensive materials in the wastestream. Nevertheless, general law local governments
have questionable legal authority to institute such bans. Furthermore, any proposed product ban is
sure to be opposed by the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of the product of products in
question. Opposers of product bans often use the argument that the product will be replaced with
another that is equally or more wasteful orenvironmentally harmful. One example of this is
styrofoam cups, which are typically replaced with paper or. paper/poly cups. Bans should be
considered for those materials that were identified as receiving highest priority for source reduction,
and for which no other source reduction method can be identified or proved feasible.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
The Board off Supervisors has issued an order stating their intention to ban certain plastic resins
from landfills, if certain conditions are not met. However, there are no existing product bans, per
se, in the.County.
April 1993 4-37 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Institutional Barriers:.
The lack of legal authority is the greatest constraint. Product bans are perhaps the most controversial
source reduction technique, and any proposed product ban would undoubtedly be hotly contested.
Costs
Bans are not in themselves costly; they require staff time to do legal research and drafting of an
ordinance, plus some cost for implementation and monitoring. Costs to the private sector and to
consumers vary, depending on whether the product will be replaced with another, more costly
product.
Availability of end-uses:
The availability of end-uses for replacement products might be a consideration.
b. Require Source Reduction and Recycling Plans
The Cdunty could require large commercial and industrial generators of solid waste to prepare and
implement source reduction and recycling plans. .
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No suchram ro currently exists.
P g Y -
Institutional Barriers:
The program would place a financial and administrative burden on large generators of waste. -
Costs:
County staff time to design, implement, and monitor program might total .75 FTE for one year,
tapering off to .25 FTE for two years thereafter, and .l FTE after the program has matured.
Unquantified fiscal effect on private sector: cost of preparing and implementing plans would be,to
some.extent offset by savings in disposal and perhaps raw materials costs.
Availability of end-uses:
Identification of end-uses for materials targeted for recycling would be a
requirement of plans.
q
11. Assistance to Industrial and Commercial Generators
The County could provide several forms of assistance to businesses, in order to assist them in
reducing their wastestreams through source reduction, composting, and recycling. Technical
assistance programs are generally tailored to the needs of individual businesses or business types,
since different types of commercial and industrial activities produce different types of waste.
Contra Costa County 4- 38 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
a. Resource Evaluations
-
A resource evaluation is a systematic accounting of the materials input and waste output of an
enterprise. The end result of the evaluation is an identification of specific materials, and suggestions
Ofor changes in processes and handling that have potential for waste reduction and recycling. The
evaluation identifies quantities of raw materials, composition of waste and percentage of recyclable
materials, and the point of contamination of potentially recyclable materials. In the context of source
reduction, programs might be aimed at assisting businesses in developing procurement policies,
establishing reuse programs, and streamlining production and materials handling. Program options .
range from formal technical assistance to individual businesses or groups of similar businesses, to
remote assistance through a do-it-yourself manual, and follow-up technical assistance by phone. The
service can be provided either free of charge, or for a fee.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
Contra Costa County has a highly successful hazardous waste reduction program based on waste
aaudits and technical assistance for process revisions. This program could be expanded to include non-
hazardous solid waste.
Institutional Barriers:
The program would be voluntary, and would be of benefit to businesses, who would improve their
image in the community and reduce their waste disposal costs. The program might be most
effective, and achieve economies of scale, if it.were done on a county-wide basis.
Costs:
Costs would vary, depending on the type of audits, and the level of service. Costs would include
astaff or consultant time for designing the program, plus staff time, probably 1-1.5 FTE, for the first
year or two that the program is running; tapering off to .25-.5 FTE for. continuing the program
indefinitely.
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable to source reduction; for recyclable materials identified in a waste audit, the audit
would include contacts for potential markets for those materials.
b. Source Reduction Seminars and Workshops
Seminars and workshops that assist.business owners, operators, and workers in establishing source
reduction and recycling programs could be organized either on a county-wide basis, or exclusively
for businesses located in the unincorporated areas. Workshops would be scheduled at convenient ,
times and places. Basic source reduction (and recycling) practices would be the subject of seminars
and workshops, such as reducing paper in offices, reducing packaging in shipping, and reducing raw
materials and energy use in production processes. Attendance might.best be organized by inviting
personnel from particular groups, defined by region and sector. Presentations would be made by
April 1993 4- 39 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
county staff or by a specialist hired for specific topics or groups; presentations could be followed by
discussions on implementing ideas from the presentation.
Consistency with local policies, plans, and ordinances:
No such program currently exists in the County, however, the program is not inconsistent with local
conditions.
Institutional Barriers:
None anticipated.
Costs:
Staff time to organize and make presentations might start at .5 FTE for the first year of the program,
tapering off to .2-.4 FTE. Possible additional cost for hiring specialists to make presentation
(approx. $2,500 per year for 10 presentations, for a two year duration). t
Availability of end-uses:
Not applicable.
PROGRAM SELECTION CRITERIA: DEFINITIONS AND WEIGHTING,
Theregulations governing preparation of this plan require that each program alternative be evaluated
according to a minimum of 10 criteria. The County concurs in the overall importance of these
criteria. In addition, the County has identified other concerns,which appear below as criteria 11-13.
The evaluation itself, which uses high, medium, and low scores for each of the criteria, should be
seen as a general, qualitative comparison of program options, and should not be regarded as a
binding means of determining the relative merits of programs.
1. Effectiveness in reducing_volume or weight of material:
Low: Below 1% of wastestreamotentiall diverted �I
P Y
Medium: 1-3% of wastestream
High: Above 3% of wastestream
2. Creation of public health or environmental hazard:
Will implementation of the program option involve the use of facilities or processes that pose a
P P
hazard to.the environment or to the public health?
Low: Severe or unmitigable hazard
Medium: Mitigable or mild hazard
High: The option poses no known hazard
Contra Costa County 4-40 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
1
3. Ability to accommodate social, economic, or technical change:
Low: Program tied to particular technology, market, or social institution, or
would be rendered infeasible by moderate, predictable changes
Medium: Program may'be hampered by predictable, moderate changes
High: Program is flexible, able to accommodate change
4. Shifting of waste types:
Low: Shift to equally or more undesirable material
Medium: Shift, but to more desirable materials
High: Program option would result in no shift in waste type
a5. Time:
a Low: Implementation uncertain or dependent on major change beyond
control of local government
Medium: Can be implemented in time to meet med. term goals (by 1999)
High: Canbe implemented in time to count toward short-term goal (by
1994)
6. Consistency with local plan, policies, ordinances:
Low: ,Severe inconsistencies
Medium: Minor, easily reconcilable in-consistencies
High: No inconsistencies
7. Need to expand or build facilities:
D
Low: Major expansion or new building
Medium: Moderate expansion or building
High: Little or no expansion or new building required
& Institutional barriers:
Institutional barriers must be expected in planning and implementing a new integrated waste
management system. Institution building should be a major focus of the plan.
Low: Severe institutional barriers, e.g., the County has no legal authority
to implement the program
Medium: Moderate barriers or moderately difficult to overcome
High: Few or easily overcome institutional barriers
9. Cost of implementation:
For the purposes of this criterion, costs should be expressed as the total public cost for
planning and implementing the program.
April 1993 4- 41 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
-Source Reduction Component
4
Low: above $50,000 per 1% reduction
Medium: $10,001-50,000 per 1% reduction
High: $10,000 or less per 1% reduction
10. End-uses:
This criterion is generally not relevant to the Source Reduction component.
Low: No end use
Medium: Available, but costly or difficult
High: Existence, availability of end use, or irrelevant
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. Therefore, the degree to which a
program involves generators of waste in reducing it (front-end methods) is an important
consideration.
Low: Little or no involvement
Medium: Involvement only somewhat encouraged
High: The program strongly encourages involvement of waste generators
12. Effectiveness in reducing use of non-renewable, resources
In accordance with goals of Source Reduction component, the broader pollution and resource
use implications of targeted materials must be considered in evaluating programs.
Low: None of targeted materials are non-renewable resources
Medium: Some of targeted materials are non-renewable resources
High: Program targets primarily waste types consisting of non-renewable
resources
13. Effectiveness in reducinghazes d or pollution created by disposal or recycling of material:
This criterion is distinct from number 2 in that it addresses hazards or pollution created b
P Y
disposal of particular material types, and whether the program option targets such materials.
Low: No targeted materials are identified as creating hazards or pollution
Medium: Some targeted materials are identified as creating hazards or pollution
High: Program targets primarily materials that. are identified as creating
hazards or pollution by their disposal
Contra Costa County 4- 42 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
r .
y
e p 3 bA .9 o4 cU oU WX00
C d V
x x x x
C C'1
04 no
r �
X
0
a
a �
a
o a $ a au
� o
A cn :E
ri
c 3 = s E E E 3 E E013
s r
0
r � � �Cd
^ � ^ �
� 'h
C� C y bA OA o4 OA b4 D bA W Oq
W ° y '' x x x xtu
x x x
N o W z
r
bA
`p C N n
.� '� C U bA bA 04 GA DA 0U oA 'CO^A Oq CoA
�C,, y •-� x x x x x x x x x x
O
.r O
O
_ v
a W .S
Oa 3 c C C 2 x o
N O O oA oA o4 bA oA OA -�c 0oA
L.i N
rr s
~ -.9 E 7 7
U N 30 soA oA TO c4 bq GA GO 0P
� x x x x z �
LV
F
r
ce
> O+A OA bA :b O4 OA oA bA o4 oU oA
� x x xIUx x x x x
O cJ ani w aoi
U bD C U
C ,b
W Z Q w b r v cCv O G
U O
\ O y E p O N O [ C
U •Ir H .r •� y •V •V .�
7
Cn
Q x Q cn H (1 U C U W a a a
r (V M "t vi '0 r ao of C —
April 1993 4- 43 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
a
0
U
E -• .c ' ? s s s s s
y .p v � ° ap oA oA �n o.0 Oq oA Oq oA
dcd
N �
o
CO v ea
Fo m._ 3 sA > > ao sago
to o s s E E E
y s E s 3 a s c L
`\° U ° z
x
d $ s s s E
�j Cy w O c) p cA oA 04 OA oq �A bq o±0 W M
�O Q to
a
.Y
E Z g ~o U b 0 7 = �oyn to^A so_n 'Ce�A ,
o0 x x x x x x x
N
O o0
V O yA oA OA �1 oA 0A 00 OA OSA
a `O z x x x T x x x x x
' a
to
C C T
W o fl o 0 4 o a gnu �_ �, u X0^4 so�0
34
L o a
w y
> >
3 c) ° W b^A On OA ;p CA OA OSA OA 04
> �n
N
a>> a o 3 ^A OA CoA ap
U5 U3
N
N E _ a E E
�y c 0 ap Gq oA 04 04 GD o4 CA W) on -p+
e
VJ 4yi �
DQ •O_ y y � 11
N C
C
a - p C ° w O
W z LL , v a � c o a,
F op C V Erz
j 3 v' N _p y E 0 � C
y .tOA 7� N •C p
- > v E :U C •Q o 7 7
F ti U 5 U W ❑ a a
�i ri v vi o oo a\* m
Contra Costa County 4- 44 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
C
y
U
e
N
a
civ y a c o 3 Cb^A ao Cb�A au 3
E z
N
O ? t� to to to 04 •�? �fi -per W fibro
maw
E E E E E E E
OA o
O � oA Oy0 � 0 W
�bA
N
� 3a z � x x x a x x
cd rC 'O y0 8+ a A 7 7 O 4 3 7 7 7 to t
� � O N �
en N a�
p w C oA 3 �brA =b^4 b4 oA 0A ? to OA to to �bto
V� N N _ � � �O7 7
p 00 x G O 0 30 OU. N E E. O O - bA O �A b�A E E E
o F e w z 2 a x ..a .j
O
N u.; b r O LCCA 04 = .? 0A 30
bA p O Z x x
'v
a;
y E to 7 X s .0 E
Q yy OtY�l 'Q to W ;O DU oU C_A Q �A b^q OA ^A CU
N
w
O C
N
O
N v i
° °. 0 t ? ? 3 A 3 3 3 s s s
0 a. O o �n a o 0 0 0 0 bA byA x 9
vw z
OV.
O cd O OA A ;D CA bA
to '•00^ ,OD^ b4 W OA �0
N O ^
N
fu e
to N .a o
o N
2 cd to
o E o c v
w z �, 3 s o 0
F a a a
L ty V •� N C
U toO
N N
U J vN E A 4? > >c's •7.
Q x ¢ ) �- ri v = U° w x x a
r; o6 � � � �
April 1993 4-45 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
VI. PROGRAM SELECTION, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION
This section describes in detail those source reduction programs that have been selected for
implementation in the short and medium-terms. Program selections have been made based on the
data in the waste generation study, and on the above evaluations. The selected programs are listed
below, then described in detail.
Selected Programs:
1. Variable Can Rates (program option la.)
2. Vocational Training and Business License Fee Reduction (program options 2b and 3d.) ,
3. Reusables Pick-up Days (program option 4b.)
4. Reducing Fast Food Packaging Waste: Voluntary Program (program option 5a.)
5. Reducing the Use of Disposable Diapers: County Hospital Program and Outreach to Daycare
Centers, Hospitals, and Medical Offices (program options 7a, b, and c.)
6. Reducing the Generation of Organic Wastes (program option 9.)
7. Resource Evaluations for Businesses (program option Ila.)
Each selected program is described below. Descriptions include background, general .design
parameters, specific design concepts, and materials targeted and projected rates of diversion. Where
applicable, descriptions include end-uses for materials produced,methods for handling and disposal,
and any facilities that must be built or expanded. Furthermore, for each program, the description
identifies costs, means of evaluating and monitoring the program, and remedial measures to be taken
if the program does not achieve the expected diversion levels.
Program #1 Variable Can Rates
Background '
Variable can rates are most commonly based on volume. A base rate is set for a single can (standard
32 gallon can) service, and near-equal, equal, or higher rates are set for additional cans. Some
jurisdictions have added a lifeline rate to their service. This rate is given for small cans of 14 '
gallons to 20 gallons and is often called a half--can or mini-can service Within the unincorporated
areas of Contra Costa County, all of the haulers currently charge more for a two can residential pick-
up than a one can. However, the difference in price varies from a 100% increase in the case of
Kensington, to a 16.6% increase in the case of Bethel Island, Brentwood, and Oakley.
Weight-based rates are a recent innovation, and are being tested by the City of Seattle Public Waste ,
Utility, under an EPA grant. This system requires refitting packer trucks with scales. Individual
cans are bar coded, and the refuse collectors read the bar code while the truck weighs and dumps
the can. This system requires considerably more expense than the volume-based rates, since it
requires new equipment and accounting and billing systems. Weight-based rates do, however, have
the advantage of giving direct feedback to generators on the amount of waste they are producing
week to week, and charging for the exact quantity of waste collected.
If a variable can rate is effective, it will result in more generators ordering lower levels of service.
The City of Seattle, which uses variable can rates as a keystone of its diversion programs, has
Contra Costa County 4-46 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
a
� a
> c
O ¢ .•.. h Q p O Q Q
A z cn z N z z z F o g. ° d
o c g a
w a o � a a � � •�
z z o
F �
W y
U O p N p
C a N o ¢ a ¢ ¢ o ¢ o
U z vi z z z z 3 z W
V V
O a 3
W O p u O
o Q o a Q $ 1
a z � z z o
W 0
W y �
A °
to
U z vi q C4
z z o z C
c
E-t
O v �
� �\\ U Q M Q _Q V y •y
z z 6N9 O W
E V a o p p h
c _Q � 00 Q a ¢ ¢
O O CC z M Yi z z N z z
a( rte- p
QI q F A A W
V d
d A G w 0. > N
z O n O O Q.
O •R
W F a O y SC vs bs z z shs m
z
waa ¢ a ¢ Q Q
a, wo z 6ez z
F N
a Q v v Y O y °u
r.w N T U b A G V N
O y a' C .G tn N d R
Q C1 z V, z cv s R W z of cn z z vi w
v 44)
oo (n on
n c 7 c
U C C
U m n v U CWS a C c at U
.. A U y� 106
> U U a� v m ' >. U_ U
W [ c 3 o 3 o w x m
F >- U vi O F F W v� U
' April 1993 4- 47
Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
experienced a dramatic decrease in levels of residential refuse collection service. Since 1981, when
the City of Seattle instituted variable can rates, the average number of cans per household has
decreased from 3.5 to just over.1. Though some of this decrease may be due to people compacting
their waste more, the new rate structure has gone into effect at the same time that new, voluntary
recycling and composting programs have come on-line; Seattle has now reached a diversion level of
over 30%.
1. Design Considerations
Listed below are several considerations for designing a variable can rate.
• In general, refuse rates may be used for funding not only refuse collection service, but also
recycling and other diversion services and programs. A variable can rate system can be
enhanced by using higher rates for additional cans to pay for diversion programs, and for
subsidizing basic levels of service (i.e., mini-can service).
• A variable can system can use volume or weight-based rates. Weight-based systems are, '
however, still experimental and are more costly.
• As people respond to the economic incentive of lowering their collection service, fewer funds '
will be collected. These decreases should be anticipated when projecting revenues and setting
rates.
• Waste reduction results may be more pronounced if promotional materials accompany changes
in rate structures.
2. Program description
The large number of franchising agencies and haulers serving the unincorporated communities
will make institution of consistent and effective variable can rates in unincorporated Contra
Costa County more difficult. The County shall work either directly with haulers or indirectly
through sanitary districts, as appropriate, to modify existing rate structures.
All residents of unincorporated areas should have the choice of a mini-can service. As a
general rule of thumb, the cost of second and subsequent cans should be at least 80% of the
cost of the first can. At the onset of the program, an announcement should be distributed to
residents explaining the new rate structure and how to lower the existing level of service. As ,
an ongoing public education tool, refuse bills should clearly and concisely state the level of
service being provided, and the cost of each can and other type of service (such as curbside
recycling) being provided. ,
During the short-term planning period, the County shall choose one or two unincorporated
areas to test the feasibility of weight-based rates. The pilot program will be run for at least
one year to gain operational experience and determine design parameters. The program will
be assessed by the end of the short-term planning period, and a decision made whether to
continue, expand, or halt the program during the medium-term planning period.
Contra Costa County 4- 48 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component
The program will require County staff time to design rate structures and work with haulers and
sanitary districts to implement the program.
3. Materials Targeted
Variable can rates can be expected to have the greatest effect on those materials with a
' relatively high volume:weight ratio. Without careful monitoring of a program in operation,
however, the affected waste categories and projected diversion rates that the program will
affect are impossible to specify. No quantification will be attempted in the short-term. In the
' medium-term, the program will have the objective of achieving a 2% reduction in the
wastestream.
' 4. End-uses, Handling Methods, and Facilities
Not applicable.
' 5. Costs
Initial and ongoing staff time: .1 FTE ($4,800).
The program itself should be revenue neutral.
' For the weight-based pilot program:
Program administration: .25 FTE for.1.5 years: $18,000;
Unknown costs incurred by private sector operator, most likely charged to the County.
Equipment and supplies: approximately $20,000 to retrofit each packer truck, using two
trucks; monitoring and billing system and additional $20,000. Total equipment and supplies:
$60,000.
Total for weight-based pilot: $78,000.
6. Monitoring and Evaluation
The program will be monitored by tracking the changes over time in the average level of
service for each franchised area, expressed as the average number of cans, or the average
number of gallons of weekly service. This information will have to be correlated with average
recycling and composting pick-up rates, in order to determine the level of source reduction
achieved. It will not be possible to disaggregate the source reduction achieved through this
program from that achieved through other programs. This program should, in fact, be seen
as a means of enhancing the effectiveness of other source reduction, recycling, and composting
programs.
The agency responsible for refuse collection service billing will monitor these changes, and
report to the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department
will evaluate the programs based on the data received. Costs for monitoring will be minimal,
once an accounting system is in place.
' April 1993 4- 49 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
7. Remedial Measures ,
In the event that the program does not produce the projected levels of source reduction, the
County shall reevaluate the new rate structure and, if necessary, revise it to increase the
economic incentive of lowering service levels.
Program #2: Vocational Training and Business License Fee Reduction
Background
An important objective of the source reduction component is creating opportunities for the reuse,
repair, or increased longevity of products. Reusable products were not separately counted in the
Waste Characterization Study; however, extrapolating from those_ waste types likely to include ,
reusables (e.g., textiles, wood wastes, bulky wastes, etc.), and comparing these with other local
waste characterization studies°, we assume that 1.5-2% of unincorporated Contra Costa waste
consists of reusable products. Other waste types in the wastestream that may be replaceable with '
reusable products include disposable diapers (1.8% of the residential wastestream), rigid plastic
containers (perhaps 2% of the residential wastestream), single-use plastic, glass, metal, and paper
beverage and food containers, and motor oil and paint containers (totalling perhaps 7-9% of the
residential wastestream).
1. Design Considerations
Several types of commercial establishments provide opportunities for product reuse, including
second hand stores, repair and fixit shops, flea markets, garage sales, diaper services, salvage
yards,and distributors of products in refillable containers. While a variety of commercial reuse
activities exist in the unincorporated areas of the County, or within neighboring jurisdictions
but serving the population of the unincorporated communities, it will be beneficial to the goals
and objectives of integrated waste management for the County to establish a program to assist
and encourage existing and new commercial reuse activities. There are several types of
commercial reuse activities: r
Retail operations that sell used goods include thrift stores, antique shops, second hand goods
stores, and flea markets. Garage sales may also be included in this category. These retail
operations help support the image of used items as having value. When old things are
considered still to be valuable, they are unlikely to end up in the wastestream.
Repair Shops: Many common household items were once routinely fixed or refurbished when
broken or worn, but for many household products, repair has become an oddity and an
economic luxury. Modern consumer culture, coupled with high labor costs, cheap non-durable ,
materials, and planned obsolescence in product design discourage the repair and reuse of
broken appliances, furniture, or fixtures.
°The City of Berkeley's 1988-89 Waste Characterization Study,performed By Cal Recovery,
indicates that 1.6% of that city's waste stream is "reusable."
Contra Costa County 4 - 50 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
Bulk Retailing and Distributing and Retailing in Refillable Containers:Distribution and
marketing of beverages in refillable containers declined precipitously in the 1970's and 1980's.
Nevertheless, opportunities still exist for beverage and other distributors to set up distribution,
collection, and reuse of containers. For example, several Bay Area dairies are now marketing
milk in glass containers through supermarkets and health food stores. Encore! is a wine bottle
collection and washing establishment that has been'in business in Richmond for many years.
The sale of various products in bulk is increasingly prevalent, even in some
supermarkets. Such commercial activities are essential to source reduction, and should be
encouraged and supported.
2. Program Description
' Two program options intended to encourage or support source reduction businesses have been
selected: a vocational training program, and reduction of Business License fees. Both will be
described here.
' a. Vocational Training Program
The County shall work with one of the community colleges to establish a vocational
training certificate program in repair, refurbish, and reuse, and salvage and business
administration. The program shall include internships in source reduction businesses in
' or around the county. The program will also include assistance in job placement, and in
starting-up source reduction businesses. This training program will be linked to the
County's Government Office Recycling Center which trains General Assistance recipients
' as well as the County Private Industry Council and Career Development Employment
Program. Coordination of this program with community colleges and reuse businesses
will make the program more efficient and effective.
b. :Reduction of Business License Fees
This program will encourage the establishment of source reduction businesses within the
the proposed Recycling Market Development Zone by reducing the business license fees
of source reduction businesses locating within the Zone. The Board of Supervisors has
recently instituted business licensing in the unincorporated areas, and fees have not yet
been set. This program will provide direct economic assistance to source reduction
businesses by reducing the effects of the new business license fees once they are
1 established, thus lowering these business's annual operating fees, and making more funds
available for operational and capital expenses.
' Only businesses which meet certain criteria will be eligible for the fee reduction. These
criteria will include:
' • The majority of the business's revenues must be from a source reduction activity. Source
reduction activities include repair, refurbishing, and retail of products that are normally
disposed of in landfills; distribution and retail of products in refillable containers or in .
bulk; distribution and marketing of products that are substitutes for disposable products;
and activities that encourage less wasteful consumption. Regulations regarding the
April 1993. 4- 51 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
definition of a source reduction activity should be flexible enough to accommodate new
types of source reduction activities.
• The business must agree to track its source reduction activities and provide the County
with a brief annual report detailing these activities, and, if applicable, the weight,
volume, or number of waste materials they are diverting from landfill.
3. Materials Targeted, Expected Capture Rates
Insufficient data exists to determine which source reduction activities this program will enable
or enhance. Since business license fees have not yet been established it is difficult to evaluate ,
the degree of incentive that their reduction will produce. Preliminary research on the response
to the technical assistance program will provide more data for determining the effectiveness
of both aspects of this program.
4. Methods for Handling and Disposal
Not'applicable.
5. End-Uses
Not Applicable ,
6. Necessary Facilities
No new facilities will be required.
7. Costs '
The County.will experience some loss of revenues from exempted business license fees. For
.the business license program, administrative costs will be .2 FTE for six months, than .05
FTE ongoing: A small budget will be necessary for printing and mailing: $2,000 annually.
For the training program, administrative costs will be .1 FTE for 6 months, than .05 FTE
ongoing. ,
8. Monitoring
Monitoring will be built into the programs, through annual reports of businesses receiving
business license fee reductions, and by tracking participants in the vocational training program. ,
Criteria for evaluation are both the amount of waste being diverted through source reduction,
expressed in volume or in weight, the number of people being trained, and also changes in the
number and stability of source reduction businesses.
9. Monitoring and Evaluation Costs and Revenue Sources
Monitoring costs are included in the program budget. r
Contra Costa County 4- 52 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
i
10. Remedial.Measures
The efficacy of the business license fee reduction should be evaluated, and if necessary, either
increased to accentuate its effect, or discontinued, if it is determined to be an ineffective
method of encouraging source reduction businesses. If it is determined that the vocational
training program has been effective and there is continuing demand for the program, the
program may be extended.
Program #3: Reusables Pick-up Days
' The program would include a public education component that gives instructions to residents to
separate bulky, recyclable, and reusable items. Pick-up of such items would be through cooperation
' or contract with a charitable organization, such as Goodwill or Salvation Army, or by a private
hauler.
Background
Most of the unincorporated communities currently have annual or semiannual clean-up days when
' residents are allowed to set out for collection large and bulky items that are usually prohibited in
their regular trash pick up. Such clean-up days can be redirected to include instructions to residents
to sort out the useful, reusable and recyclable items. The pick-up can then be arranged so that these
items are delivered to a salvage yard, charity, or flea market.
1. Design Considerations
' The primary design considerations are who would do the pick-up, and how the program would
be funded. The pick-up could be done by the hauler, or through an arrangement with a
' charitable organization already involved in the reuse industry, such as the Salvation Army or
Goodwill. Whether the cost of the program would exceed the revenues would have to be
determined following operational•experience with the program. Therefore, it would be best
' to phase-in implementation, with an initial pilot program serving one or two communities.
2. Program description
The County will work with haulers, franchising agencies, and charitable organizations to
' design a pilot program. The program should be combined with an existing clean-up day
program, with publicity for the clean-up day including instructions for separating out
recyclable and reusable materials. Two collections will occur: first the pick-up of reusables
and recyclables, then the pick-up of anything leftover, to be disposed of (a third pick-up of .
compostable materials could be included, as yard waste typically makes up a large portion of
materials collected on clean-up days).
' After the pilot phase, which should run for several pick-ups in a cross-section of
unincorporated communities, the program will be implemented in all unincorporated
communities.
' April 1993 4-53 Contra Costa County
Final Drafi SRRE
Source Reduction Component
3. Materials Targeted, expected capture rates '
Only reusable items and recyclables which are not normally collected at curbside will be
collected in this program. The program might achieve a diversion rate of approximately :5%
through recycling and .3% through source reduction.
4. Methods for handling and disposal
Materials will be collected in an open or closed bed, fixed-body truck, and delivered to a
processing center. There, materials will be separated, repaired, cleaned, bundled, or baled.
5.
End-uses .
Materials will either be sold in thrift stores, sold to secondary materials dealers, or sold in lots r
at auctions.
6. Necessary facilities '
No new facilities will be needed.
,
7. Costs
The program will require staff time for initial design, implementation, coordination, and ,
monitoring. Depending on operating parameters, the program may have a net cost.
Anticipated cost is $0.0410,000 per year for actual program operations. Administrative costs
are .2 FTE for 1 year, than .1 FTE ongoing. ,
8. Monitoring and Evaluation '
The charitable organization would be required to report to the Community Development
Department the results of each pick-up, in terms of either weight, volume, or number of items,
depending on the type of goods. Costs of monitoring would be absorbed as an administrative '
cost by the charitable organization. Evaluation costs would be minimal, and would include
only time of existing staff. ,
9. Remedial Measures
'In the event the program does not achieve the projected levels of diversion, the program will
be re-evaluated, with particular attention to participation of residents, the effectiveness of
publicity for the program, and the economics of the program. If the program is found to be
economically infeasible, other programs should be reevaluated for their diversion potential. 1
Contra Costa County 4- 54 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
' Program ##4: Reducing Fast Food Packaging Waste: Voluntary Program
Background
Many restaurants, delicatessens, and fast food outlets make no distinction between food, 'to go' or
food eaten on the premises. Prepared food is usually served in multiple layers of disposable
packaging, most of which is either not recyclable or difficult to recycle. By the Food Service
Industry's own figures, 65% of the food ordered at fast food outlets is eaten on the premises, yet
most of it is packaged as if it will be taken 'to go'.
' A large volume of waste from these establishments would be eliminated if these-businesses used
disposable serviceware and packaging only for food actually taken out, while offering reusable
' serviceware without packaging to customers intending to eat on the premises. Such a program would
result in immediate and measurable waste reduction. In contrast to plastic or other product bans
which just substitute one form of single use disposable for another, such a program would eliminate
from the wastestream any disposable packaging or serviceware used to package food that will be
eaten on the premises. Furthermore, the establishments could be encouraged to use biodegradable
and recyclable packaging for 'to go' food.
The costs for participating businesses affected would vary depending on the amount of disposable
serviceware used in on-site food service. Fast food outlets that make no distinction between food
eaten.on the premises and food taken to go would have the most difficulty participating and incur
the highest costs; delicatessens and restaurants that serve most of their prepared food on reusable '
serviceware and restrict their use of disposables to cups, chopsticks, cutlery, and straws, could more
easily and inexpensively participate.
Costs for participating businesses would include the installation of dishwashers, if there are none on
' the premises; increase in water use; purchase of new serviceware; and, depending on the amount of
disposables used and the business volume, the potential need to hire additional employees. The
reduction in the invoices for disposable packaging and the reduction in garbage fees will offset a
' portion of these costs. A few food service establishments may require an increase in square footage
in order to accommodate washing facilities. All food service establishments, however, are required
by health code to have some washing facilities, and all but the smallest will probably have adequate
space. Costs for purchasing and installing a dishwasher, and for purchasing reusable serviceware,
are in the range of $10,000 per restaurant.
Increasing water usage is a concern with this program, especially during a drought. Clearly, washing
on-site will increase that business's consumption of water, though many disposables themselves
require considerable water in their manufacture. On-premises water consumption can be minimized
' by use of dishwashers which meet water conservation standards. Most of the new models of
institutional dishwashers have greatly improved water conservation standards. Sewers and sewage
treatment capacity would also have to be assessed to insure that the increased water usage can be
' accommodated by these systems.
1. Design Considerations
Design considerations include the following:
April 1993 4- 55 Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
• Ongoing program, or of brief duration. '
• Levels of technical assistance.
• Means of approaching businesses.
2. Program description
The program shall, in the short-term, consist of a voluntary effort to get existing fast food ,
establishments to switch to reusable serviceware.
3. Materials Targeted, expected capture rates
The program will result in a small reduction in the amount of other paper, polystyrene, ,
P g PP �
.expanded polystyrene, and non-ferrous scrap present in the commercial wastestream. '
4. Methods for handling and disposal
Not applicable. '
5. End-uses
Not applicable.
• 6. Necessary facilities '
None.
7. Costs
Capital Costs: '
Staff time for designing and implementing the outreach, technical assistance, and information
program: .25 FTE for 3 months;
Staff or consultant time to run outreach program: .25 FTE for 1 year.
8. Monitoring
The number and percentage of businesses participating in the program will be monitored. '
Written criteria for evaluation will include the number and percentage of restaurants complying
and estimates, based on interviews and spot checks of dumpsters, of reductions achieved. ,
9. Monitoring and Evaluation Costs and Revenue Sources
Costs would be absorbed through existing programs and staff. Staffing requirements are .1 '
FTE.
Contra Costa County 4-56 April 1993
Final Drafi SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
10. Remedial Measures
In the event the program does not achieve the projected levels of diversion, the program will
be re-evaluated, with particular attention to the effectiveness of a voluntary program. One
remedial measure may be to make the program mandatory ,for all establishments. This step
should be considered in the medium-term.
Program ##5: Reducing the Use of Disposable Diapers: County Hospital and
Outreach to Daycare.Centers, Hospitals, and Medical Offices
' Background
' The waste characterization study indicates that disposable diapers account for 1.8% of the
unincorporated area's residential wastestream, and 1.2% of the total wastestream, or 2,050 tpy.
Disposable diapers are easily replaceable with cotton diapers; they are a discreet and relatively easily
targeted material for source reduction.
1. Design Considerations
1 A number of methods are available for reducing the use of disposable diapers, ranging from
outright product bans, to public education.
2. Program Description
The program selected for reduction of the use of disposable diapers consists of an outreach and
public information program using hospitals, day care facilities, and medical offices to distribute
information on alternatives to disposable diapers. A pamphlet will be prepared which
describes environmental impacts of disposable diapers and discusses methods to make use of
cloth diapers more convenient.
' 3. Materials Targeted, Expected Capture Rates
This program will result in a slight decrease in the use of disposable diapers, but may have
a ripple effect, as parents learn to appreciate the convenience and comfort.of cotton diapers,
and begin to use them at home.
' 4. Methods for Handling and Disposal
Not applicable.
5. End-uses
Not applicable.
6. Necessary facilities
' None.
April 1993 4- 57 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
7. Costs
Costs for the program include staff time to design, implement, and operate an outreach '
program, plus minor administrative and materials costs. The program would require
approximately .25 FTE for one year, then .1 FTE thereafter. In addition, a small budget for ,
printing and materials will be required: $10,000 start-up, plus $5,000 for each year thereafter.
8. Monitoring ,
Monitoring will be accomplished through the program coordinator,who will track participation
and estimate reduction levels.
9. Monitoring and Evaluation Costs and Revenue Sources
No additional staff time will be required for monitoring.
10. Remedial Measures
In the event the program does not achieve the projected levels of diversion, the program will
be re-evaluated, with particular attention to the effectiveness of a voluntary program. '
Program #6: Reducing the Generation of Organic Wastes
Background
Together, yard waste and food wastes make up over 25% of the residential wastestream, and large ,
percentages of the commercial and industrial wastestreams. Source reduction of a large percentage
of these materials is well within technical and social constraints, as there are a variety of simple
means for reducing and managing them on-site. For example, people can easily compost their own
organic wastes. Home composting is one of the few means by which people can have control over
a complete material cycle, from production (through gardening), to processing, to use, and back to
production. Home composting gives urbanites an opportunity to create and experience their own ,
ecological balance. The awareness that this experience fosters may influence people's attitudes
toward waste generally, and make them more likely to participate in other source reduction and
recycling programs. Several backyard composting programs have been implemented around the '
country and the region, including Kings County and Seattle, Washington; San Francisco, and
Alameda County. The program presented here, which includes home composting and other organic
materials source reduction techniques, is designed to meet the particular needs of unincorporated
Contra Costa County communities.
1. Design Considerations '
Increasing the percentage of yard and food waste that is handled at the site of generation
decreases the need to handle yard waste at a central composting site. The five main upstream
(at point of generation) organic.waste management options are: (1) maintaining a compost pile
for garden waste, food wastes, any grass collected, and some portion of leaves and brush; (2)
leaving grass clippings on the lawn rather than raking them up or using a catch bag while
Contra Costa County 4- 58 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
mowing; (3) using clippings and/or other yard waste as a mulch in gardens or landscaped
areas; (4) planting drought resistant landscaping to decrease the amount of yard waste
generated long-term; (5)making available neighborhood chipper/shredders to size reduce brush
and make it more usable as compost feedstock or mulch.
A successful upstream yard waste handling program will require behavioral changes of those
' who generate organic debris. One way to support behavioral change is through education and
awareness programs regarding yard waste handling options.
Administration of such a program might be entirely within the County government, or handled
as a joint program with several or all of the cities in the county, or with the East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD). The three MFSWF's proposed for the county are all considering
constructing a home compost demonstration site. However, due to the nature of these
' facilities, and their remote location, the County will establish, or work with neighboring
jurisdictions to establish, compost demonstration and training facilities at public parks or other
locations.
2. Program Description
This program will educate and train residents in the unincorporated areas in proper methods
of home composting, as well as other landscaping modifications to reduce organic waste.
This program will train Community Composters who in turn will coordinate outreach to their
own communities. The program will require the construction of training facilities, where
future Community Composters will get hands-on experience operating different kinds of small
' composting systems, constructing bins, trouble shooting compost heaps, and learning
techniques for training others.
Three training centers will. be established in different parts of the'county, either in regional,
County, or city.parks, or in other appropriate locations. The training centers can serve a
second function, as demonstration sites accessible to the public. The training centers should
' be located in moderate to high traffic areas, such as regional parks, so that passers-by can stop
in for a quick look at how backyard composting operations work. The centers can offer a
self-guided tour, workshops for the public, and written and graphic information on home
composting and other organic source reduction techniques.
i
' Public Education
Public education is an essential link in the program if yard wastes are to be diverted from
' landfills. The public education goals for the program are: .
• To increase participation in organic waste source reduction, thereby decreasing the
' amount of material that needs to be collected.
• To increase participation in preparing organic wastes for curbside collection and using
drop-off sites.
April 1993 4-59 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
• To tie in with other waste-related public education campaigns organized in Contra Costa ,
County, thereby organizing the messages the public receives into a comprehensible set
of information. Piggybacking public education efforts for organic wastes with recycling
education will also save money in printing, mailing, and other costs.
The public education component of this program will be operated in conjunction with the
Community Composter training program but the initial phase of the program will precede the
implementation of Community Composters. The initial phase of the outreach program will ,
consist of the construction and use of a mobile demonstration unit, staffed part-time, which can
be brought to parks, nurseries, fairs, schools, and events. The demonstration unit will have
a graphic display of composting techniques, examples of bin designs, and written information ,
on home composting and other waste reduction techniques. The unit will include a slide-show
for school and group appearances. '
3. Materials Targeted, Expected Capture Rates
For the Community Composting Program, residents will be recruited for the training course '
at a ratio of approximately one composter per 1000 households per year (approximately 60 per
year). Each Community composter will be expected to conduct 5 backyard workshops per
year. If each workshop attracts an average of five residents, then at the end of the first year ,
1,500 residents will have gone through the workshops. At the end of the second year, there
will be 108 Community Composters, given an attrition rate of 20% between the first and
second years. During the second year, 2,700 residents will go through the workshops. '
During the third year, 138 community composters (given an attrition rate of an additional 30%
from.the first year group) will perform workshops for 3,450 residents, fora three year total
of 7,650 residents. If the program levels out at training 2,500 people per year for the next ,
five years, then a total of 20,150 residents will have been trained in 8 years. Assuming each
of these residents represents .75 families (assuming more than one family member might attend
workshops in some cases), and assuming that 80% of those attending actually take up the
practice of backyard composting and are still practicing at the end of the eight years, and
assuming an average rate of reduction of 20% in participating household(based on 15% yard,
5% food), then the program will achieve a diversion rate of 1.58% of the residential ,
wastestream, and .82% of the entire wastestream in the short-term (after the first three years
of the program), and 4.16% of the residential wastestream, and 2.16% of the wastestream as
a whole, in the medium-term period. '
In addition, through the outreach program, and as backyard composting and other methods
become institutionalized practices, another 1% short-term and 3% medium-term of the ,
residential wastestream will be diverted through this program, or .52% and 1.56% of the total
wastestream. The totals for the program are:
Contra Costa County 4- 60 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
' Table 4-8: Diversion Projections for Organic Waste Reduction Program
Material Residential Full Wastestream
Wastestream
Short-term:
Food 0.645 0.335
Yard debris 1.935 1.005
Total Short-term 2.58 1.34
Medium-term:
Food 1.79 0.93
Yard debris 5.37 2.79
' Total Medium-term 7.16 3.72
' 4. Methods for Handling
All materials will either not be produced, or will be used at the point of generation.
' 5. End-uses
' Finished compost will be used as a soil amendment.
6. Necessary Facilities
•
This program will require the construction of three compost training facilities. Design,
location; and administration should be coordinated with other jurisdictions. The facilities need
have no permanent structures, and will essentially be landscaping projects.
7. Costs
' Initial costs for this program will include existing staff time to set up the programs; hiring a
consultant to assist in specifics of program and training center design; and design and
construction of three training centers. The first two costs will be absorbed by existing staff "
and facilities.
' Start-up Costs:
Initial program administration: .3 FTE for 6 months $7,200
Design and production of outreach materials $10,000
' Design and Construct Three Training Centers $60,000
Staffing: Program director, 6 months, 1 FTE $24,000
TOTAL Initial Costs: $101,200
1
April 1993 4- 61 Contra Costa CountyFinal Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Ongoing Costs: '
Program administration: .05 FTE $2,400
Program Director: 1 FTE $48,000
Outreach (staff and materials) $10,000
Site managers/Trainers: 3 X .2 FTE $28,800 ,
Maintenance of training sites $5,000
TOTAL Ongoing Costs: $94,200 '
8. Monitoring and Evaluation
The criteria for evaluating this program will be the total number of households that begin ,
organic materials source reduction as a direct result of this program, and the total amount of r
material diverted through their efforts. ,
Monitoring will be accomplished by conducting annual telephone surveys of random samplings
of workshop participants, as well as those that have contacted the program for information. '
The survey will request information on whether the household ever took up source reduction
techniques, whether they are still practiced, and an estimate of the amount and kind of material
diverted through these practices. '
Survey results will be cross-checked with a waste characterization study using the quantitative
field analysis method, to be conducted at the end of the short-term period. '
9. Monitoring and Evaluation Costs and Revenue Sources
Monitoringand evaluation will be the task of the program coordinator. The coordinator may
,
P g Y
recruit interns to assist with this and other aspects of the program. .
10. Remedial Measures
If the program fails to achieve the projected diversion rates, the County shall reevaluate the
program in order to determine whether its design or execution are flawed. Thereafter, a
determination will be made to continue, revise, or replace the program.
#
Program 7: Resource Evaluations for Businesses ,
g
Background '
A resource evaluation is a systematic accounting of the materials input and product/waste output that
identifies procedures with potential for waste reduction or recycling: The evaluation identifies '
quantities of raw materials, composition of waste and percentage of recyclable materials, and the
point of contamination of potentially recyclable materials. ,
Many businesspeople are either unaware that they are throwing away valuable resources or they do
not know how to go about setting up their own waste reduction and recycling program. Most
companies do not have staff to track disposal costs or gain an understanding of recycling markets. ,
Contra Costa County 4- 62 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE ,
Source Reduction Component
' They could benefit from- a commercial resource evaluation'to identify solid waste handling and
disposal costs, system inefficiencies, and materials with potential for recycling.
' 1. Design Considerations
Evaluations range from on-site evaluations and technical assistance to a "do-it-yourself"
' manual, to providing remote assistance with a hot-'line. It is possible, and generally cost-.
effective, to provide technical assistance to groups of similar businesses, after an evaluator has
become familiar with the types and patterns of wastes produced by such businesses.
' 2. Program Description
Success of a.resource ,evaluation program depends on the business's commitment and
' cooperation, on clear plans for source reduction and recycling, on a company's relationship
with materials collectors, and on the availability of markets. Program recommendations must
be economically viable, and the evaluator must assure confidentiality. The County could
w utilize the services of an engineering consulting firm with a specialization in conducting
resource evaluations, or develop staff expertise to conduct programs in industry designed to
reduce the amount of waste generated in production processes. By employing an independent
consulting firm, the problem of breaching confidentiality will be avoided by virtue of the client
relationship standards of the consulting profession.
Resource evaluations will be targeted at reducing any waste that is generated and subsequently
treated, stored, or disposed of. The techniques will focus on source reduction activities that
reduce either the volume or the toxicity of the waste generated. Less problematic substitutes
need to be developed and used, such as substitutes for lead and cadmium in inks and paints.
The resource evaluation will offer a means of systematically determining a facility's waste
situation and identifying and evaluating potentially viable options for reducing waste. Pointing
out the environmental and economic benefits of .source reduction will encourage more
industries to work to take source reduction seriously, rather than concentrating on treatment
technologies in response to pollution abatement regulations. The goal is to minimize the raw
materials and energy use in industry to achieve source reduction goals.
' There are, five essential steps in developing a successful commercial resource evaluation
program:
a. Determination of Approach
Commercial assistance can be provided on an individual basis or to businesses grouped-
by
roupedby geographic location and type of establishment. The individual approach is the most
appropriate for the manufacturing sector, for businesses with 300 or more employees, or
companies which produce large quantities of waste. The geographic approach is best for
small-to-medium sized businesses in dense commercial areas. Both approaches can be
used for the commercial recycling programs discussed in step four.
i
April 1993 4 63 Contra Costa County
' Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
b. Determination of Extent of Service
Resource evaluation assistance can berovided either on-site or off. Man businesses '
P Y
can be helped over the phone and target materials identified. In other circumstances, on-
site evaluations with individual companies will be needed to create successful models that '
can lead to the establishment of more wide-scale programs. Follow-up technical
assistance is appropriate in many cases. A resource evaluator will make contact with top ,
management, help start the process, provide technical assistance, make the link with the
recycler, and reinforce the program.
c. Creation of a Resource Evaluation Manual
The manual will help businesses to assess their wastestream, identify potential areas, and
help implement programs. The manual can be styled as a "do-it-yourself" or be designed
to be accompanied by a resource evaluator who will collect the information. The manual
will contain information about the program, worksheets for conducting the waste
evaluation, and worksheets for determining costs and benefits. The current disposal costs
will be identified, as will potentially avoided costs from the new program, the cost of
implementing the new program, revenues from recyclables, and cost savings.
d. Identification of the Target Group or Business '
g P
The goals of the program will be clearly established, such as whether it is to achieve the
largest possible reduction in the commercial wastestream, to get as many businesses to
source reduce and recycle, or both. If wastestream reduction is the highest goal, the
largest waste generators will be targeted first. The geographic approach is appropriate '
in dense commercial areas or shopping malls. The geographic approach makes.recycling
links easier, because it essentially sets up a collection route for the recycler and permits
businesses that are small-time generators to have collection services.
3. Materials to be Targeted, Expected Capture Rates
Targeted materials will vary greatly from industry to industry and,from business to business. '
Specific targets are therefore difficult to establish.
Reduction can be expected to be both progressive and cumulative over the course of the '
program. Preliminary projections are 5% in the short-term, and 10% in medium-term of
industrial and commercial wastestream, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. '
Source reduction may be expected to account for 1.5% short-term, and 3% medium-term, of
both the industrial and commercial wastestreams,,or, 0.72% of the entire wastestream short-
term, and 1.44 medium-term. '
4. Methods for Handling and Disposal
This concern is not applicable to the source reduction aspect of this program. For the '
recycling aspect, handling of recyclables will be through existing or expanded networks of
secondary materials handlers and brokers. . ,
Contra Costa County 4- 64 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE '
Source Reduction Component
1
5. Necessary Facilities
No new or expanded facilities will be required for this plrogram.
' 6. Costs
' Start-up Costs:
Initial program administration: .2 FTE for six months.
Annual Operating Costs:
1 FTE Resource evaluator $48,000
Administration: .1 FTE $4,800
Printing, materials, and outreach: $10,000
Total Annual Cost: $62,800
7. Monitoring
Participating businesses will be contacted within six months of implementing a new program
to learn how the programs are working and to receive a critique of the program. Participating
businesses will be asked to do a self-evaluation of the amounts and types of wastes produced
both at the start of their involvement, and again after six months. The differences in the
results of the self-evaluations will be used as a basis for;calculating the amount and types of
materials diverted by the business. Success of the program will be measured in terms of two
factors: the average percentage of diversion, through various means, of participating
businesses; and the overall diversion achieved through the program within the commercial and
industrial sectors.
Some businesses will not receive direct assistance in conducting evaluations and designing
diversion programs, but may request written materials or information regarding evaluations.
This aspect of the program will be monitored separately. The County will create a database
of all businesses requesting information, and will conduct an annual survey using a random
sampling of businesses in the database. These businesses will be asked whether they did in
fact conduct an evaluation, and what the results of the evaluation were in terms of reduction
in the business's disposal stream. The results of the survey will be extrapolated to produce
participation and diversion figures for all of the businesses in the database.
8. Monitoring and Evaluation Costs and Revenue Sources
Monitoring and evaluation will be conducted by program staff, with assistance and back-up
from existing County Staff.
' 9. Remedial Measures
If the program fails to achieve the projected diversion 1rates, it shall be reevaluated to
r determine whether there are flaws in the design or execution of the program. It may be
' April 1993 4- 65 Contra Costa County
Final'Drafi SRRE
Source Reduction Component
r
necessary to revise downward the projected diversion from this program, and consider
expanding or implementing other programs that appear to have a greater likelihood of ,
achieving this component's goals and objectives.
VII. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
r
.......................................................................
r
:::::::::.::.::.::.::.:.:.:::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:
: : :
r,
>~ , x
..........
r
:>::><::::<:<:>:<:>::>:::: A >rigC�................ ......... itarxer.and.. ............ .D
.::.........::.::............ . .
......:..............:. ,:.. s.......::::.:.....:.:.: ..........
1
Research existing rates CDD 3/1991 4/1991
Establish consistent rate structure for CDD 3/1992 4/1992 ,
County-franchised areas
Include in MOU's with other CDD 4/1992 4/1993 r
franchising agencies requirement to
follow County's rate structure. `
Design pilot project for weight-based CDD 4/1992 1/1993 '
rates
Contract with a service provider to CDD/Service 1/1993 1/1993
operate pilot program Provider '
Pilot program runs CDD/Service 3/1993 4/1994
Provider ,
Review and report on pilot program CDD 4/1994 1/1995
results
Decision to use weight-based rate Board of Supervisors 2/1995 2/1995 '
structure
PItOR ::::.::::.::.;:: ►CTIl ......ATA BUSmYSS:I.ICESIw:WE
)E :R1DU `' OI:.:::::.:::::.
::::::::::::::
r : ::: : _-
i
: : : :
Work with community colleges or CDD 2/1993 4/1993 r
others to design program
Scheduling, advertising, recruitment CDD/Community 1/1994 2/1994
of program College r
Courses begin Community College 2/1994 3/1994
Courses run CDD/Community 4/1994, On-going r
College
r
Contra Costa County 4- 66 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE r
Source Reduction Component
'
IN<:;::<: ........
:TMPT Eli�1EAf`1'1:tiTI�'3I'�... � :.............�1DL#RCfi..RED.i1CTlO1�L:PRC��C"i�RAM�...
s
Determine amount of reduction, CDD/Assessor(?) 4/1992 4/1992
eligibility requirements; prepare
o application forms
Outreach to potential recipients CDD/Assessor 1/1993 2/1993
Determine eligibility of applicants CDD/Assessor 2/1993 2/1993
First round of reductions Assessor FY 1993-94
Program runs Assessor/CDD On-going On-going
OEMEstablish program through franchise CDD 3/1992 4/1993
agreements and MOU's
Work with haulers, charitable CDD 1/1993 1/1994
organizations, re-use industries, and
franchising agencies to establish
program throughout unincorporated
area ,
Program runs CDD, franchising 1/1993 indefinitely
agencies, haulers,
other service
providers ;
Establish public education program to CDD 1/1993 indefinitely.
inform public of this program
Monitor and evaluate program CDD 111993 ongoing
operation
..p .C...A :.;:::::;1 ....[J ..:A:.;:.;:::::<.: ( D.:.;::::.:...:.:.::: l�Il�i WANE......... ...............
Design outreach to restaurants CDD 211993 3!1993
Program runs CDD 3/1993 On-going
! »<: 5 >:`::> U ;.[3 ' ` F DIP AB PER ? ' <« < :. » <' ` `: ?<«
Ci Rt�i41 R .:..[1C`i�ir THIr S> 4..:::......:.::CS:....:,I,E DiA .....::S.;::.:.;:.>:;:;:::
Develop information package CDD 4/1992 1/1993
Disseminate materials CDD 1/1993 On-going
I
f
April 1993 4- 67 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
1
.>:;;;:::.;::.;>;;:.;;:.;:.;::.:.;;;:;::.;.;:.;:.>:.::.;:;>:.;:..;:.;;:.::.::.::.::...........:;;:
..................
EVEN
.....................-..........
T}tiTI.Z3t�T<TSR .. itI�.IICTfOI�.:PRCaGRAIvIS.................
}..::GI .;; Ai?T)r, ::.::.;::::: :.;;;:.;;:.;:.:;:.:......::.::. ;;:.;:;.....;
i
Hire program coordinator CDD 4/1992 1/1993
Prepare and disseminate public CDD 2/1993 On-going
educational materials
Identify sites for training centers CDD 2/1993 3/1993
Negotiate for use of sites CDD 3/1993 3/1993 '
Design training centers CDD 3/1993 4/1993
Construct training centers CDD/Contractor 4/1993 1/1994
Recruit participants CDD 1/1994 On-going
Training begins CDD 2/1994 On-going
Community Composters conduct Community 3/1994 On-going
workshops Composters
Program runs CDD On-going
<<::PEz�3:.. '.�°��[ �>>R)v' �. ���>F✓€�YrA� :�TIf�l1�` .:...�..:........511�1ES.....�.::....::................................................................
Determine scope and form of CDD 2/1993 3/1993
program, and whether the County
will run the program, or contract out
Hire staff, or contract with outside CDD 3/1993 3/1993
firm to operate program
Prepare manual CDD or contractor 4/1993 4/1993 '
Outreach to potential recipients of CDD or contractor 1/1994 On-going
Evaluations
Conduct evaluations CDD or contractor 1/1994 On-going
I
1
. I
Contra Costa County 4 - 68 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
i
TABLE 4-10
SUMMARY OF SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS
Staart, Stam up Annual FTE's Revenue Source:
D
ate Costs hosts Required
Program (Quarter: (for
(Year) ongoing
sta€fing):
Ia. Variable Can Rates 3/91 . $4,800 $4,800 .1 Refuse Collection
Rates
lb. Weight-Based Pilot 4/1992 $78,000 --- --- Refuse Collection
a Program i Rates/Resource
Recovery Fee
a 2. Vocational Training and . 4/92 $9,200 $4,800* 1 Resource
Business License Fee Recovery Fee
Reduction
e3. Reusables Pick-up 3/1992 $9,600 $14,800 1 Resource
Recovery Fees
a 4. Reducing Fast Food 2/1993 $15,000 $4,800 .1 Resource
Packaging Waste Recovery
Fees/AB 939
Tipping Fee
5. Reducing the use of 4/1992 $22,000 $9,800 .1 Resource
Disposable Diapers Recovery Fee
a 6. Organic Waste Source 4/1992 $101,200 i$94,200 1.65 Resource
Reduction Recovery Fee
a7. Resource Evaluations for 2/1993 $4,800 .1$62,800 1.1 Resource
Businesses i Recovery Fee
TOTAL $244,600 $196,000 3.25
*Plus loss of business licence revenue.--
i
April 1993 4- 69 Contra Costa County
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component
Contra Costa County 4- 70 April 1993
Final Draft SRRE
Source Reduction Component