HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06211994 - 2.3 t -
,� t
2 . 3
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _June 21, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Report on the Scope of the Household Hazardous
Waste Program
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that consideration of the
Report of the Health Services Director on the scope of the
household hazardous waste program is CONTINUED to June 28, 1994.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: ) 12?/, /!�'�j
PHIL BACHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Of Supervisors and County Administrator
gy Deputy
cc: Health Services Director '�n .
a3
Contra Costa County
The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Tom Powers, 1st District
Jeff Smith,2nd District Mark Finucane, Director
Gayle Bishop,3rd District 20 Allen Street
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th DistrictMartinez, California 94553-3191
Tom Torlakson,5th District �E"sE=L •O510 37
— ( ) 0 5003
County Administrator __ �7 -
FAX(510)370-5098
Phil Batchelor
County Administrator A.,
gid••. --- •'c3'
srA•couzv`�
DATE: June 21, 1994
TO: Members of a Bo tc(, rvisors
FROM: Mark Finu ane, ealts Director
SUBJECT: Scope of Household Hazardous Waste Program
At the May 24, 1994 Board of Supervisors meeting you requested a report from the Health
Services Director on the scope of the County's Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Program, including a listing of collection sites for upcoming collection events, discussion of
permanent versus mobile program design, and program financing alternatives.
Overview
This report will focus on:
• Mandates for HHW collection;
• Brief history of the program's approval process;
• Current program design;
• Plans for program expansion;
• Strengths of countywide program;
• Consideration of permanent facility;
• Future funding alternatives;
• City request to select HHW program operator and financing mechanism; and
• Recommendations to the Board on program design and funding.
A. Mandates for HHW Collection
There are three regulatory mandates requiring proper disposal of HHW:
1
Merrithew Memorial Hospital&Clinics Public Health • Mental Health • Substance Abuse Environmental Health
Contra Costa Health Plan Emergency Medical Services • Home Health Agency Geriatrics
A-345 (2/93)
(1) The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to Contra Costa County,
the Contra Costa Cities (excluding the City of Brentwood) and the Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District has as its primary tenant the goal to
radically eliminate or reduce all pollutants from stormwater.
Contra Costa's application for this permit guaranteed the existence of a household
hazardous waste collection program to serve all county residents. Without a collection
program serving all segments of the Contra Costa community the permit would be in
question. When staff at the RWQCB read that there was no HHW program being
implemented in central and east county, they immediately informed the NPDES program
that it had sixty to ninety days to implement HHW collection events or Contra Costa would
be considered out of compliance with the terms of the permit.
(2) AB939 requires all cities and counties to provide a plan for the collection of HHW in
order to eliminate HHW from entering solid waste facilities. The California Integrated
Waste Management Board has approved of such plans, called Household Hazardous Waste
Elements, submitted by all cities in Contra Costa, as well as the County for the
unincorporated areas. Jurisdictions are required to make good faith effort to implement
these plans. Should cities and counties not show good faith effort they will be subjected to
a fine of $10,000 per day. Contra Costa County would therefore be responsible for making
this good faith effort to implement a HHW collection progrm in the unincorporated areas
of the county.
(3) Sanitary districts, as point dischargers, are likewise prohibited under the Clean Water
Act from discharging any pollutants into bodies of water, and are also issued NPDES
permits by the RWQCB. HHW collection, therefore, is critical to remaining in compliance
with their NPDES permit as well.
B. History of Approval of the Current HHW Program
As stated in the HHW Status Report provided to the Board of Supervisors on May 26, 1994,
the HHW program was approved by seventeen cities (excluding the City of Pittsburg) in the
fall of 1992. The Board of Supervisors adopted the program on November 17, 1992. This
action was in keeping with the AB939 Local Task Force recommendation for HHW
collection programs in the county. The AB939 Task Force, formally called the Contra Costa
Integrated Waste Management Task Force, was comprised of representatives from the
County, cities, sanitary districts, haulers, environmental groups and members of the public.
In March 1992, the Task Force recommended that the County implement the mobile
program for all regions of the county and that the program be financed with solid waste
tipping fees. At that time the only other proposal under consideration was from the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) which proposed a mobile program with a hub
storage facility (not open to the public for drop-off) at their District facility in Martinez.
2
CCCSD proposed to finance this program through the parcel tax which finances District
operations.
After the approval of the County's program by the AB939 Task Force, the Public Managers
Association (PMA) and Health Services Department negotiated the final details of the
program, such as regional pullout and establishment of the HHW Oversight Committee.
The program was then submitted to each city and the Board of Supervisors for final
approval.
C. Current Program Desmon
The collection program has thus far served approximately 10,000 households. The goal of
12,000 households, which represents 4% of the total number of county households, would
have been reached if four additional events which were canceled due to lack of funding had
been implemented. Appendix A shows the tentative event schedule for FY 94/95.
Collection events are held in large parking lots throughout the county. They have been held
at BART stations, Department of Motor Vehicle offices, community colleges, city halls and
corporation yards, County facilities, and private companies. In general, waste is accepted
from the public from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. All wastes are bulked and
lab packed into drums and shipped off site to appropriate recycling and disposal facilities
at the end of each collection day.
Residents are required to make appointments for the events by calling the toll-free phone
number (800/750-4096). Once a resident makes an appointment they are sent a map,survey
and information they need to bring in their wastes.
It takes cars approximately five to ten minutes to drive through the lot and have their wastes
unloaded. The appointment system avoids problems experienced in other collection events
where residents have had to wait in two hour lines before dropping off their wastes.
Appointments also insure that we have sufficient staff on site to safely handle all of the
wastes being brought in.
The waste management practices at the events are as follows: During the collection event
residents take a large number of products we set aside at the "Reuse Table" at the collection
site. All non-reusable wastes are transported for disposal and recycling by Rollins
CHEMPAK. Latex paint is reprocessed by Kelly-Moore and distributed for free to school
districts, cities, churches and other organizations. Used oil is re-refined into motor oil by
Evergreen Oil in Newark. They also take antifreeze which is re-distilled into antifreeze.
Car batteries are taken for recycling by California Battery Exchange in Concord. Aerosols
will be recycled by Depressurized Technologies in Morgan Hill beginning in August.
Oil based paints and solvents are burned for their fuel value in the Rollins incinerator.
3
Acids and bases are neutralized for landfill, and all other wastes, particularly pesticides and
poisons are incinerated. All Bay Area counties are now having these wastes incinerated
rather than landfilled because of Superfund liability concerns associated with landfills. We
have been most pleased with both the prices and performance of Rollins CHEMPAK, and
have renewed their contract for this next fiscal year.
In Appendix B is a sampling of the letters we have received from residents thanking us for
our program. We believe it is unusual for a government-run program to receive such letters.
D. Plans for Program Expansion
Steps are now being taken to expand the HHW program to increase service through the
addition of the following components by July 1, 1995:
(1) Permanent Drop-off Sites for Recyclable HHWs: The California Integrated Waste
Management Board has just awarded Contra Costa County with almost$200,000 to establish
two permanent drop-off facilities to collect the recyclables (used oil, antifreeze, car batteries
and latex paint). The locations will be at the Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer &
Treatment facility in North Richmond and the County Recycling Center in Martinez. These
facilities could be operational by July 1, 1995. If these drop-off facilities are as successful
as similar facilities in Marin County which serve 7,000 cars annually, it would increase the
number of cars served from 10,500 to 17,500.
(2) Collection of Hazardous Wastes from Small Businesses: Businesses which generate
no more than 27 gallons of hazardous waste per month will be able to bring in their wastes
on a fee for service basis. Typical businesses in this category include paint contractors, small
auto repair shops, apartment owners, and furniture repair, beauty and print shops. This
program, which would be available countywide, could be added by spring 1995.
(3) Curbside Collection of Used Oil: County HHW staff held a workshop for cities and
solid waste haulers on curbside collection of used oil. Antioch, Martinez, San Ramon and
Walnut Creek currently have such programs. Interest has been expressed by cities served
by Richmond Sanitary Service and by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal to provide it to all
their service area. County staff will assist those entities to help implement the program in
their areas within the next one to two years.
E. Strengths of Countywide Program
The strength of the current program design lies in its comprehensive nature. All county
residents have access to a program which is available to them throughout the year. They
have a single toll-free phone number to call to make appointments. In addition, the
program includes source reduction public education and has plans for collecting wastes from
4
small businesses next year. It is a countywide program providing extensive services with the
least amount of administrative and overhead costs.
Attached as Appendix C is a document provided to the Public Managers Association on the
"Efficiency & Cost Effectiveness of a Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Program."
This document details the cost efficiencies of the program:
• Residential access to a large number of collection events.
• One unified message to residents.
• Lower costs per car served.
• Reduced administrative costs.
• Ability to blend latex paint locally to save about $40,000.
• Low disposal fees because of large quantities of waste being disposed of.
• Ability to provide source reduction program.
• County acceptance of generator and operational liabilities.
A final strength of the program, comparing service statistics, is that Contra Costa's program
compares very favorably to other counties:
County Cars Cars as %
(population) Served Population Program Design
Contra Costa 8,700 1.1% Mobile (current)
855,100 (10,500*) (1.23%)
Contra Costa 17,500 2.0% Mobile + 2 BOP
855,100 facilities (July 95)
San Francisco 12,150** 1.6% One full HHW permanent
752,000
Marin 4,128 1.7% Mobile
241,300 7,011 2.9% One BOP facility
(2nd now implemented)
Alameda 10,800*** 0.8% 3 full HHW permanent
1,337,000
Orange 43,347 1.7% 4 full HHW permanent
2,557,300
* 10,500 cars was goal prior to funding curtailment
** 1988/3,219; 1989/4,420; 1990/6,754; 1991/8,892; 1992/10,656
*** 3,600 cars in 1st 8 months; 10,800 was annual extrapolation for three facilities--3rd
facility actually due Jan 95.
5
F. Consideration of Permanent Drop-off Facility
The comparative service statistics table shown above indicates that the recyclables facilities,
such as the Marin facility, provide a high level of service, and that the full-range permanent
facilities, such as the Alameda facilities, do not necessarily increase the level of service.
Permanent facilities throughout the state have a mixed record in terms of cost. Alameda
County has spent $2 million for each of their first two facilities in Hayward and Livermore,
and expect to spend $2.5 million for the third and final facility in Oakland. In the case of
the first two facilities, Alameda County staff estimate that $400,000 went towards land
purchase and development, and that another $200,000 was expended on strict interpretation
of Building and Uniform Fire Codes. In contrast, Orange County is expending $310,000 on
a permanent HHW facility at a solid waste facility. This cost includes $250,000 on a storage
shed and another $60,000 in equipment. They provide no county staff to bulk and lab pack
the wastes; this is done by contractor staff.
Alameda County staff feels that siting permanent facilities in industrial zones near
population centers increased their costs substantially over what it might have cost them had
they built the facilities at transfer stations or landfills which are more distant from residents.
A key factor in the cost of these facilities is the cost of staffing the facilities. The mobile
collection program is moving in the direction of hiring temporary staff to bulk and lab pack
wastes at collection events, thus saving the costs of hiring full-time, permanent staff.
The HHW staff is exploring the possibility of constructing a permanent facility because there
continues to be discussion about whether a permanent facility will be less expensive and
provide more access and convenience to residents. HHW staff is working in conjunction
with city staff interested in siting a facility within that city's jurisdiction. Staffs investigation
may very well conclude that the facility and staff cost are economical, and that service to
residents can remain high. If so, a permanent facility will be recommended. If these two
criteria cannot be met, mobile collection without a permanent facility will be recommended.
If a permanent facility were sited we would supplement it with mobile collection events in
cities which are located farther than ten miles from the facility. We would also continue
implementing mobile collection events throughout the county until the facility was
constructed.
G. Future Funding
The current funding mechanism for the HHW program is the solid waste tipping fee.
Because solid waste is being diverted from county landfills due to effective recycling and
composting programs, and because it is being shipped out-of-county, the solid waste tipping
fee is not a long-term or stable funding mechanism for central and east county. This may
6
or may not be true in west county.
The Health Services Department proposes shifting the funding mechanism to the NPDES
program beginning in FY 95/96. There are several reasons for this recommendation:
• The importance of HHW collection in keeping storm drains free from pollution;
• It covers the entire county except the City of Brentwood; and
• It has a management structure in which the cities and the county have equal input.
As is discussed in Section H, the cities have requested proposals by September 15, 1994
from all entities wanting to operate HHW programs beginning in FY 95/96. In selecting
their preferred program and operator, cities may or may not recommend NPDES funding.
Another possible funding mechanism would be adding fees onto parcel taxes funding
sanitary districts to cover the additional costs of the HHW program. The sanitary districts
are concerned about pollutants entering their plants and are therefore concerned about
HHW collection. The drawback of this mechanism is that there are several sanitary districts
within each region of the county. Agreements would be needed with each of these districts
to ensure full program coverage in every region of the county. In addition, particularly in
east county, many residents have their own septic tanks and are not part of any sanitary
district. It is not clear how these residents would pay into, and therefore be allowed to
participate in, the HHW program.
A final potential drawback with sanitary districts collecting program fees is the lack of
opportunity for cities to have program management input, as they would have with the
NPDES program. It is possible this final concern could be overcome,but there is no current
proposal from any sanitary district to allow inter jurisdictional decision-making.
H. City Request to Select HHW Program Operator and Financing Mechanism
The PMA accepted the recommendation of the HHW Oversight Committee to accept
proposals from all entities wanting to operate HHW programs for FY 95/96. Appendix D
outlines the guidelines the Health Services Department will follow in submitting its proposal.
The intent in developing these guidelines was to have organizations provide full information
with regards to budget and service. Staff will submit to cities proposals for both a
countywide and a regional program.
Entities submitting proposals to the county will be required to follow these guidelines as
well. HHW staff have encouraged cities through the PMA to require that similar guidelines
be used by all entities submitting bids. The proposals are due to the cities and the county
(for the unincorporated area)by September 15, 1994. At that time the Board of Supervisors
will need to take action to select an HHW program and implementing organization to
provide HHW services in the unincorporated areas. The financing mechanism will be
reviewed concurrently. If any funding is to come from the NPDES budget, those funding
decisions must be made by December 31, 1994.
I. Recommendations to the Board
1. Continue funding the HHW program with the solid waste tipping fees for FY
94/95.
2. Accept HHW staff's recommended bidding guidelines.
3. Direct HHW staff to notify sanitary districts and other potential bidders of the
bidding requirements to serve the unincorporated areas within their service
boundaries.
4. Direct HHW staff to develop a program design (either permanent facility,
mobile or combination) which serves the most households at the least cost.
5. Direct staff to continue exploring future funding mechanism in order that the
HHW program can be taken off the solid waste tipping fee in FY 95/96.
6. Direct HHW staff to submit bids for countywide and regional programs to
cities by September 15, 1994.
7. Direct Health Services Director to review proposals in September and make
recommendation to the Board regarding program operator, program design
and funding mechanism for all unincorporated areas of the county.
s
APPENDIX A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
'MOBILE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM
FALL 1994 COLLECTION SCHEDULE
DATE SITE
July 16 & 17 San Ramon
July 30 & 31 Martinez
Aug 13 & 14 San Pablo
Aug 27 & 28 Antioch
------------------------------------------
Sep 17 & 18 Walnut Creek
Oct 1 & 2 El Cerrito
Oct 15 & 16 Concord
------------------------------------------
Oct 29 & 30 Lafayette
Nov 19 & 20 Richmond
Jan 21 Brentwood
Feb 4 & 5 Pleasant Hill
------------------------------------------
Feb 25 & 26 Danville
Mar 11 & 12 Antioch
Mar 25 & 26 Concord
April 8 & 9 Pinole
------------------------------------------
April 22 & 23 Walnut Creek
May 6 & 7 Martinez
May 20 & 21 Richmond
------------------------------------------
June 3 & 4 Hercules or San Pablo
June 17 & 18 Concord
6/9/94
9
APPENDIX B
EFFICIENCY & COST EFFECTIVENESS OF A
COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
1. EFFICIENCY: INCREASED CONVENIENCE TO RESIDENTS
a. Access to a Larger Number of Collection Events. Residents are able to select a
collection event by the most convenient date or site. This flexibility provides
numerous options for residents and is especially important for people who are
moving. They usually need to dispose of their HHW quickly and because the
countywide program provides approximately two collection events per month, these
residents are usually able to be accommodated. A regional program with fewer
events might not be able to serve this particular population.
b. One Unified Message to Residents. Residents know that there is one toll-free phone
number to call with the countywide program. With regional programs there would
be more than one program and therefore different phone numbers. With one
program there is more coverage in the local press; one story can be written for all
local Lesher newspapers, regardless of regions. When haulers and cities have
questions in the countywide program, they can call one source.
2. COST EFFECTIVENESS
Below are several ways to evaluate cost effectiveness:
a. Cost Per Car: As the countywide program gained implementation experience the
program was able to increase the number of cars served in each collection event. As
the participation numbers increased, the costs per car for fixed/staff event costs
decreased:
450 Car Event: $35.54 per car
850 Car Event: $23.76 per car
The countywide program is able to draw from a larger population base than any one
region and can thus reach higher car levels than any one region could.
b. Staffing Costs: In order to implement collection events throughout the county the
following staff have been dedicated to this program:
Program Manager (Robin Bedell-Waite, MPH, MCP): Manages overall
program; monitors budget, spending and invoices, manages contract with
Rollins CHEMPA& publicizes program, and writes/manages grants.
10
Hazardous Materials Specialist (Pete Smith, MS): Works with cities to
identify appropriate collection event sites, obtains the state permit and any
local permits, writes the operations plan and obtains clearance from local
police and fire, and manages the collection events.
Two Clerks (Fowsia Younos, BA& Lori Chappell, BA): Take appointments
from 12,000 residents per year, tally all surveys, send out alternatives
materials, and provide clerical support for program.
Program Specialist for Source Reduction Program (Lacey Friedman, BA):
Implements source reduction public education activities in the county and
coordinates distribution of reprocessed latex paint.
Due to economies of scale the countywide program spends less on staffing than were
there to be three regional programs. A regional program would not need any of
these positions to be full time. This would raise the issue of whether a regional
program could find qualified staff who would be willing to work less than full-time.
C. Latex Paint Blending. Plans call for implementing a latex paint blending program
at the County Recycling Center in order to reduce annual program costs by about
$40,000. A full-time staff person will accept latex paint from the public and blend
it. It is likely that a full-time staff person would not be affordable in a regional
program.
d. Reduced Disposal Fees. We believe that contractors are charging lower disposal fees
in the countywide program based on the fact that larger quantities are generated in
the overall program.
e. Source Reduction Activities. An integrated program must include both source
reduction and collection opportunities for long-term cost effectiveness. The county
program has been promoting alternatives to a number of more toxic products and
especially pesticides. The county has taught three classes on the concepts of
integrated pest management and has held numerous workshops for residents on how
to garden with fewer pesticides. A number of city landscape maintenance staff
participated in the class which just ended. A library display on alternatives has been
traveling around to various county and city libraries, and fairs are attended to
promote alternatives. The materials developed on alternatives are made available
to all residents, and to those attending collection events as well.
Only $75,000 has been allocated for these source reduction activities. This covers
one staff person and funds for program supplies. Were these source reduction efforts
to be implemented regionally, there would be insufficient funds to hire one staff
person. Again there would be the issue of whether a qualified person could be found
who would be willing to work at less than a full-time capacity.
11
f. Smaller Regions. Less populated regions of the county would probably experience
higher costs and less service than larger regions under a regional program.
3. GENERATOR AND OPERATIONAL LIABILITIES
The County currently accepts both generator and operational liability for the HHW
program. Generator liability refers to taking on long-term liability for environmental
contamination resulting at disposal sites where HHW has been disposed. Under
Superfund cities and counties are liable for any contamination by household
hazardous waste in municipal landfills. In addition, they have large enough operating
budgets to be identified as deep pockets.
May 12, 1994
12
APPENDIX C
THANK YOU LETTERS FROM COUNTY RESIDENTS
13
,r:.� t r rr •Y e'Cy,i.
ti
w �fika r a. t,.� ,:,x ; �F mi�� ' he (fit i�4t�`�s' f �;;,SP tL, f*n•2` e,�'iK r •. ,rn
(rC,
V;',
�
#'��,.rt t tti s�...n. i's�1t s ti.a•,1a t }°` ,� t rt` }F t.<,t} d 4}�r y"r+w.6J�1 1!' t t_u
�.d
• Sy �4�
5 l Tif/f t.•kiN r '� �'"1i'c.,
f""T[[} 4 ,dJ
ytt',a d x,1
J�I�Y AvL� X
u, rr.t S, rrx y,.r
r 1 '• a i i i i x .P L e , s y n l d s#r�.. y ° �rJ/;� k -
9
h4.
Julg 8 ;,1993
{ Cgntra Cnc+a`}�"i`hI
azargous F�9M W S
Y
}, 4
Contra Costa- County
x t
Health Services ,:Department
,:.Environmental Health 'Division:
Hazardous Mater als,I1OCcUpa i6nal 'Health
To Whom*' it -May "Concern
I will incl'ud`e this'not"e toyour group with
w
the attached ,form` which. I received this date.:
I would like to "commend all who were involved .
with the fine improvement you have made". in the.
process ,
fortoxic wastes. My
appointment'';was vfor 11 :15 a.m. at the Hilltopy
location I arrived on Gime everyone I spoke: 3 � `
r
with as. I drove',;through the areato'':.;the :final ,r -:
drop off location was. most friendly and .cer
tainly, most`;.courteousThere was , no .delay I y
' ` don.'t `think:.I was tY 'ere longer than 'five'minutes
What a,-'positive ;improvement over the drop .off
procedures rntYie pasty My car didn't Yieat up=
f as I had no long,line Nt' creep along and,}
hs , „ J r ,d' r ti. fi
' {°result; ;I ddn"theat �up ;ei.ther Th`ank you >all :F �, s Y {
for= making the��experience most pleasant „'underTthe
P g jf
z'r r 7 t'- �f° _ r r, i,y a;,�,,,T�,�T' >• ts. .tri N>^t� N f. l
fY Y S* 4d4 r' T F S L y"e Y ,�1,7� vg
'1
SZncerel�.Y.�" rrit "" ' d , °`Y =s'SY z ' ' ,tr ;r {o e
{` - q e f }��,•,,, � } S s. ,r....: �a � f:{ G.{t� c 1'r �,t�� � , � a
;A A
Rudolph
2184 PyramidrDrive
Y vW w
�` � - Richmond, California: 94803 4 , '
E a K
4'
eV
r t// ( ^+
F
=' 1
4 p /
r ;
Olj
14
YY ��
s " t
,ti
ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA
AUG. 14, L993
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SECTION
F MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
CONGRATULATIONS !! !
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES
MADE IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH SOME FORM OF GOVERNMENT
�3 AGENCY, CITY, STATE, FEDERAL. , AND SELDOM WERE THE PESULTS
SATISFACTORY BECAUSE OF UNQUALIFIED PERSONNEL, RUDE TREAT—
MENT, LATE. ASSISTANCE OR WHATEVER ! !
TODAY AT THE HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION EVENT ON WILBUR
AVE. , I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THIS WAS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT SITUATION.
ALL PERSONNEL WITH WHICH I HAD CONTACT WERE COURTEOUS,
+ PLEASANT, HELPFUL AND HANDLED VERY WELL THEIR PART IN THIS
EVENT.
SUCH SERVICE IS MUCH APPRECIATED BUT TOO OFTEN NOT FOUND.
} OUR SINCERE THANKS TO ALL CONCERNED.
SINCERELY,
..
s W. KEITH EPL NG J
1603, C ST.
ANTIOCH, CA. 94509
1,
r
f
3
,15
Lreek" 69'11edl,m
Barbara A. Alexander SEP 01 1993
1980 Montclair Circle
Walnut Creek CA 94596
s
30 August, 1993
Contra Costa County
Health Services Department
Environmental Health Division
Hazardous Materials
4333 Pacheco Blvd.
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: Household Hazardous Waste Collection.
Dear Sir/Madam:
My household participated in your household hazardous waste collection in
Walnut Creek on Sunday, August 29, 1993. 1 would like to commend you
for a job well done. The collection site was extremely well-organized and
r the workers efficient, friendly and courteous. We got to the site a couple
of minutes past our appointment time and waited but a few moments for
`t the two vehicles ahead of us to be checked in. We had followed your
:j instructions about the type of materials to bring and how they were to be
packed. When we got to the unloading area, the men quickly unloaded and
we were on our way! I think we were in-and-out in five to ten minutes, at
the most.
We also appreciated the literature about alternatives to hazardous
materials we can .use in our household. We have been using some of them
and will try the other suggestions contained in your handout.
Thank you for providing this service. , We look forward to the next collec-
tion date.
Here's to a cleaner environment!
` Very truly yo s
s`
B. . ~Alexander
r
16
(,ofled/,�77. 064her _?0. 19'93
TO: `tRobn.; Fowsia, Pete
FROM: Sandy
DATE: November 10, 1993
RE: ' Kudos
I have some good friends that are moving" to Louisville, Kentucky
this week. I saw them last week and they mentioned that they had
used the HHW mobile collection service to clean out their garage.
They were very impressed with the whole process, from the helpful
woman with the "neat accent" who set up the appointment to the
efficiency and hassle-free collection operation.
Thought you'd like to know.
cc: Lew
j
r
1!7
t ,y
ry Mima Baird, Ph.D.
NOV7
1. 9 1993 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
N P.O.BOX 348
WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94597
LICENSE PM8728 It . (415)933-6373
November 17, 1993
Contra Costa County
Health Services Department
Occ. Health/Hazardous Materials _
4333 Pacheco Blvd.
Martinez, California 94553-2295
Dear Sirs,
This letter is long overdue-but I have wanted to share with you our experience
of a hazardous waste material drop off in Walnut Creek on August 28th of this
year. From our first call to your agency, I appreciated the efficient and
accurate directions given to us. The day of the drop off was quite hot but
the helpfulness and cheerfulness of the staff were impressive. I left the
drop off site with such a positive reaction in response to the planning,
attitude and efficiency of the operation. If only all transactions could
be this way. Thank you for your service to the community.
Sincerely yours,
ZB r
MB/hd
18
APPENDIX D
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTAL OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROPOSAL
FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Contra Costa County Health Services Department will be submitting a proposal for a
household hazardous waste program to the cities. In order to provide a complete and clear
understanding of the proposed program, the following format will be used:
A. BUDGET
Costs will be provided for HHW collection (HHW), small quantity generator waste
collection (SQG), and source reduction (SR).
Category HHW SQG SR
1. Staff (salary, % fringe, description) $ $ $
2. Capital construction costs
(full cost & annual amortization cost)
3. Facility equipment costs
4. Truck(s) (purchase cost & annual costs
of maintenance, insur, depre, fuel)
5. Recycling & disposal costs of HHW
6. Collection supplies
7. Program/office expenses
8. Postage
9. Mileage
10. Phones
11. Overhead (% of total costs)
B. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Each of the following areas will be discussed in our proposal:
1. Number households and cars served.
We will provide the number of households and cars to be served in FY 95/96. Based
on actual surveys in our program, one car equals 1.15 households.
19
2. Service area.
The geographic area to be served will be described, including cities and
unincorporated areas. If there are any agreements needed to ensure full coverage
of a region or the county, these will be described and will include any necessary
financial arrangements to ensure full coverage of all residents within the service area.
3. HHW collection.
The proposed program will be described,including the appointment system,the reuse
program, how the program will serve all residents within the area, amount of waste
to be collected, precautions taken to meet safety regulations, etc.
4. SQG waste collection.
The program to collect hazardous wastes from small businesses will be described,
including types of businesses expected to be serving, legal limitations on volumes of
wastes which can be collected, how and when the wastes would be collected, and how
the fee for service schedule would be developed.
5. Publicity for HHW & SQG.
Various channels for publicizing the HHW program will be identified. The overall
strategy and channels for publicizing the SQG waste collection program will also be
provided.
6. Methods of managing wastes.
The overall hierarchy of waste handling will be outlined, as will the specific method
of managing each wastestream. Efforts to reduce costs will also be described here.
7. Program liability.
How the program intends to provide full coverage for generator (long-term
Superfund) and operational liability for the program will be described.
8. Public access.
The issue of providing sufficient public access to the program will be addressed by
providing the distance from an event or facility to the center of each city or
community within the service area.
20
9. Source reduction program.
Efforts to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes so that residents will bring in
fewer wastes, especially pesticides, will be described.
10. Program start date.
The date that program will be fully operational will be identified. Milestone dates
will be provided if any phasing in of the various programs is necessary.
11. Overhead.
The percent overhead identified in the budget will be justified.
12. Financing mechanism.
The proposed financing mechanism will be provided. Also included will be:
a. The associated unit cost (cost per can, parcel, or household) for the program.
b. Identification of entities which will be involved in initially approving program
financing mechanism and program design.
C. Description of the program's ongoing management(decision making)structure
to ensure involvement of all jurisdictions.
21