HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-07; City Council; 9084; Solid Waste ReyclingCirQ)F CARLSBAD - AGENDA ILL
AR* 4&S</
MTG. 7-7-87
DPPT. U/M
TITLE:
SOLID WASTE RECYCLING
DEPT. HD^C
riTY ATTYV/^^
CITY MQR."^^
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct staff to return in 120 days with a report for Council consideration which
identifies and recommends alternative Solid Waste Management Programs/Strategies
available to the Council.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 9, 1987, staff was directed to prepare a report on recycling technology
and techniques for Council consideration. Additionally, Council indicated a
desire to learn of those recycling programs operated by local public and private
agencies in the area. Recently, in view of the eminent closure of the San Marcos
landfill, Council also directed staff to investigate the feasibility of establishing
a landfill site within the boundaries of Camp Pendleton. The report is currently
in progress and will be presented to Council in the near future.
The attached report is in response to Council's request for recycling information
and is a cursory review of recycling technology, techniques and local programs.
In view of the pending closure of the San Marcos landfill and the need to develop
local solid waste management alternatives, it is recommended that the Council
direct staff to return in 120 days with a report identifying alternative solid
waste management programs/strategies for Council consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Report will be prepared by existing staff.
EXHIBITS:
1. Recycling Program Staff Report
June 23, 1987
TO: DIRECTOR, UTILITIES & MAINTENANCE
FROM: Staff
SUBJ: STAFF REPORT - RECYCLING SURVEY
The City of Carlsbad currently faces an immediate and growing problem for the
disposal of its solid waste. Environmental, health and ecological concerns have
limited the options from which a prudent and practical solution may be found.
Dynamic changes in the population and demographics of the City could signifi-
cantly impact upon the critical nature of the waste disposal problem and the
immediacy of determining reasonable alternatives.
The impending closure of the San Marcos landfill site may force the City to
truck all of its solid waste to other available sites which are 20 to 30 miles
from Carlsbad. The increased costs associated with this change could include
the purchase of additional capital equipment and the construction of a transfer
station. The result will be an increase in the net cost per capita for dis-
posal of its solid waste.
Beyond the immediate problem facing the City of Carlsbad, is the long range and
strategic concerns of future planning. While some existing landfill may continue
to be available, it is doubtful that new landfills will be sited within San Diego
County and be of economic and environmental benefit to the City. The costs of
disposal of solid waste within a landfill may become disproportionate to the
cost of alternative waste management methods.
Over the past 15 years, the State of California has encouraged local governments
to evaluate and develop alternative methods to landfill disposal. Among those
systems which are currently identifiable are: energy recovery, recycling, and
composting. While none of these methods have completely eliminated the need
for landfills, they have proven to be instrumental in extending the "life" of
landfill space.
Alternative methods of disposal may be implemented independently or in combination
with other methods of waste management. However, proponents of energy recovery,
recycling and composting systems have argued that these methods are mutually
beneficial and will increase the potential success of the other methods of disposal.
The development of Regional Solid Waste Management Plans which includes Waste-to-
Energy, recycling and composting proposal clearly indicate the growing support
for these alternatives as well as their potential in a coordinate waste management
system.
Currently, over eight million Californians may participate in either a recycling
or composting program. The types of programs, their methods of operation,
organizational development and relative success are dependent upon a variety
of factors which are community based. Historically, recycling has had a resurgance
of popularity as a result of 1) the energy crisis, 2) a greater awareness of
DIRECTOR, UTILITIES & MAINTENANCE
June 23, 1987
Page 2
environmental issues, 3) the waste disposal crisis and, 4) increased demand for
recyclable materials. The relative emphasis given to recycling and the commitment
to its success has, traditionally, varied with the changes in the above factors
which govern the development of a recycling program.
There are a variety of methodologies which are currently used in the management
of recycling programs. The type of program, materials which are recycled and
method of operation are dependent on a number of factors, including 1) climate,
2)economic and demographic variations, 3) topography, 4) current disposal practices
and, 5) citizen concerns. In addition, the selection and implementation of a
recycling program are reflective of the following variables:
1. Voluntary Program - Established program with participation by public on
a voluntary basis.
2. Mandatory Program - Established program which mandates (through ordinance)
public participation and establishes penalties for non-compliance.
3. Curbside Recycling - Designated material collected at curbside during
regular trash pickup.
4. Drop-Off Centers - Recycled materials deposited at pre-determined site
within community.
5. Buy-Back Centers - Certain valued material are repurchased or redeemed
at established locations within community.
6. Recycled Material - May include glass bottles, tin cans, aluminum cans,
various paper products, waste oil, certain plastics, tires, textiles and
ferrous materials.
7. Commercial Products - Designation of industrial, business and institutional
materials to be recycled through voluntary or mandatory program.
The relative size and complexity of a recycling program is dependent on the
combination of components included in the system. Additionally, locally established
goals for the program (ie: 25% participation, etc.) could dictate what is to
be recycled, by whom, and how.
A review of existing recycling programs indicates that with few exceptions, there
is a cost to establishing and operating this type of program. There is, however,
the potential for future pay-back of both capital and operating costs. This
economic gain is dependent on the scope of the program, secondary materials markets
and participation rates by the public. A positive economic balance is also dependent
on active management of the program, an aggressive public education and marketing
program, and support by civic, community, business and governmental leaders.
However, the key factor in the success or failure of recycling programs are the
levels of support given by the public.
Several adjoining communities are currently operating or are developing recycling
programs. The City of Oceanside has subcontracted for a voluntary curbside program
DIRECTOR, UTILITIES & MAINTENANCE
June 23, 1987
Page 3
over the past four (4) years. An analysis of the Oceanside program shows that
the participation rate is 11% with 900 tons recycled in 1985. A net operating
loss was also reported in FY 1984-85.
The City of Solana Beach undertook a voluntary recycling program in late 1983.
As a volunteer effort and managed by a non-profit organization the reported success
of the program has been measured to include a 34-40% participation rate. Curb-
side pickup is available to all residential areas. Approximately 400 tons of
recycled materials were collected in FY 1985-86.
In September 1985, the City of Vista initiated a curbside collection program
with the support of the Women's Club of Vista, 60+ Men's Club, and local Boy
Scout troups. One day a month a curbside collection is made within a small area
of the City. Approximately seven (7) tons per month are collected. Plans to
expand the area of collection are underway.
In addition to those existing programs, both the City of Encinitas and Del Mar,
are considering recycling efforts similar to the model administered by the City
of Solana Beach. There are also a variety of private fund raising activities
which provide recycling services. Clothing, newspaper, furniture and appliance
collections are among volunteer recycling programs in the immediate area.
Throughout the State of California there are a number of programs, both curbside
and drop-off center models, which are of particular interest. El Cerrito, Palo
Alto, Downey and Santa Rosa are representative of several types of on-going
programs. A copy of Case Studies of California Curbside Recycling Programs has
been enclosed for your review.
^/STEVE1/H. RIVKIN
JNE:SHR:cmf
Attachment
U
w
Case Studies of California
Curbside Recycling Programs
Volume 1
An Overview
Summary Analysis of Five Curbside Recycling Programs
Vil California Solid Waste Management Board
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
1020 NINTH STREET, SUITE 300
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
Dear Fellow Californians:
Waste Disposal. Certainly every Californian, and every California city
faces the problem. Some of the alternatives to disposal are curbside
recycling programs, composting, and burning garbage to create energy.
This summary report of case studies conducted for the Board focuses on
curbside recycling. Over 1.7 million Californians enjoy the alternative of
recycling materials at the curb in some 20 curbside programs throughout the
state.
The purpose of these curbside case studies was to explore some of the
factors attributed to programs considered "successful" by those in the
trade. Five curbside programs - all funded in part by the Board - were
selected for case review; E.C.Ology in Contra Costa County, Palo Alto
Recycling Program in Santa Clara County, Recycle 3 in Sonoma County,
Downey-at-Home Recycling Team (DART) in Los Angeles County, and Fresno-
Clovis Metropolitan Area Recycling Services (MARS) in Fresno County.
It should be stressed to the reader that the economic evaluation of the
programs indicate that there is a cost to performing curbside recycling as
there is to all other waste disposal activity. However, curbside recycling
does demonstrate a potential for future pay back and immediate social
benefits. When properly approached, curbside recycling can be one of the
best and most cost-effective alternatives to landfilling.
We believe the accompanying summary report and curbside Case Studies are
worth your careful reading.
incerely,
A. Trumbull
Chairperson
GO
100% POST-CONSUMER
RECYCLED PAPER /
Introduction
Since 1978, the California State Solid Waste Management Board has allocated
over $8 million in grant monies to municipalities and private profit and
non-profit entities for the purpose of expanding community recycling
programs or developing new projects in areas where none exist. Monies for
these projects were made available through the State Litter Control,
Recycling and Resource Recovery Act of 1977, Title 7.8, Chapter 1,
Government Code Section 68047. Initially, many of the grants assisted in
the establishment of small, community-based drop-off programs; to a lesser
extent, buy-back programs were also funded. As the experience base
broadened and more information became available, the Board's emphasis later
shifted to projects using source separation, curbside collection processes.
It is now generally believed by those in the field that in California,
particularly in metropolitan areas with high population densities, curbside
recycling programs tend to be the most effective in terms of the generation
of high (50% or higher) participation levels and increased recovery of
materials. Consistent participation in curbside programs has been reported
to be much greater than in other types of programs due, in part, to the
convenience and visibility of the system. This higher participation level
has usually translated into more recovered materials and revenue, with
consequently less material entering the landfill. The development and/or
expansion of curbside recycling programs in those areas of the state where
it is geographically and logistically feasible has therefore been
encouraged by the Board.
In order to provide useful information to entities interested in estab-
lishing curbside recycling programs, the Solid Waste Management Board
conducted in-depth analyses of source separation, curbside recycling
programs. Since several of the programs had been in operation for at least
two or more years, it was'anticipated that significant data had been
accumulated which could be analyzed and compared, providing invaluable
information for future planning activities. The general purpose of the
case studies was to provide reliable, standardized data and information for
guidance and technical assistance to municipalities and others which are
considering implementing curbside recycling programs, to reduce the amount
of waste materials entering the landfill. Using information generated
through these reviews, curbside programs specifically suited to the
particular service population's characteristics, community's needs and
amount of available community financing could be established.
To conduct the case studies, the Board contracted with two consulting
firms, Resource Management Associates (RMA) and Secondary Resources
Development Consultants (SRDC), and one independent consultant. RMA
conducted three of the five case studies, with the remaining firm, SRDC,
and consultant each conducting one study. More than one consultant-
consulting firm was utilized in this endeavor in order to preserve
impartiality in the critical reviews and insure objectivity in reporting.
It was hoped that by receiving several different viewpoints in these
analyses that expanded insight could be gained regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of various approaches used by the recycling programs.
The consultants were required to provide the following minimum information
for each of the projects:
1. Participation and Recovery Rates
2. Markets
3. Program Economics
4. Program Start-Up Costs
5. Equipment Selection and Assessment
6. Labor Needs
7. Public Awareness Activities
Problems Encountered
Once actual review of the individual programs commenced, it became readily
apparent that the quantity and quality of available data was, in general,
less than expected. In some instances, data had either not been kept or
was inconsistently recorded. Methods for compiling data greatly varied
from one program to the next as well as during the history of any one
program. For instance, in El Cerrito the record keeping system was
L
modified no less than six times over the last several years. In those
projects which operated an integrated program such as a combination of
curbside, drop-off and/or buyback services, records regarding each portion
of the integrated program were not necessarily kept separately. Therefore,
attempting to distinguish those operating and maintenance costs, tonnages,
participation figures and other factors which were solely associated with
the curbside program was difficult, if not impossible.
Another difficulty in assessing the various projects was the fact that
there was a lack of standardized baseline data for all the programs.
Therefore, in attempting to measure progress made since the inception of
each program, there is no standard from which statistically valid
statements can be made. Overall achievement standards and program goals
were not established from the outset, and hence it is impossible to
determine, in retrospect, which programs can be considered "successful".
Depending on what measurements are used, an individual program can be
considered either a success or a failure. To apply such standards after
the fact would be misleading and serve no purpose, other than to stimulate
controversy.
In spite of the above limitations, much valuable information and insight
was gained through each of these case reviews. Although the programs
cannot be compared in terms of what is "better" or which is the most
"successful", the experience gained and the problems encountered can be
helpful to those involved in the planning and implementation of new
curbside programs.
Case Studies - Selection Process
In choosing which programs would be studied by the consultants, an attempt
was made to choose programs that were: (1) located in different geo-
graphical locations, (2) in operation for at least two years, and (3)
operated by different types of entities. Other factors which were
considered in the site selection process included types and quantities of
recovered materials, unique aspects of the programs and service popu-
lations. Consideration was also given to the selection of programs with
different methods of management and/or modes of operation and programs with
varying initial levels of capitalization. The programs ranged from being
entirely curbside-oriented in nature to those providing a wide variety of
recycling services in addition to curbside collection. Recycling
incentives and processing approaches used by the programs were also
reviewed.
The programs chosen were:
1. El Cerrito - City of El Cerrito
Located in Northern California, East San Francisco Bay Area
2. Palo Alto Recycling Program - City of Palo Alto
Located in Northern California, South San Francisco Bay Area
3. Downey at Home Recycling Team - City of Downey
Located in Southern California, Los Angeles Area
H. Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area Recycling Service - Cities of
Fresno/Clovis
Located in Central California
5. Recycle 3 - Redwood Empire Disposal
Located in Northern California, City of Santa Rosa
Program Highlights
Figures 1 through 5 provide highlights of the five programs. Unique or
important aspects of each of the programs have been briefly identified. It
should be noted that three are integrated programs—i.e., they provide
other recycling services in addition to curbside recycling.
/O
Figure 1
E.C.Ology
Program Highlights
— Multifaceted recycling program:
.Curbside recycling services provided to three communities (El Centre,
• Albany, Kensington)
.Buyback services
.Dropoff
.Commercial collection
.Satelitte dropoff programs
.Wine bottles (ENCORE) recovery programs
— Weekly curbside collection provided on non-refuse collection day
— Program was designed to leverage the more cost-effective buyback service
against the more costly and service-intense curbside program
— Curbside program tonnages increased a reported 56% from 1978 to 1981
without a significant increase in collection costs
— Extensive use of labor in overall program
— Unique use of labor sources including, Comprehensive Employment Training
Act (CETA), Work Incentive Program (WIN), Department of Rehabilitation,
probation deparment referrals, volunteer workers and contract labor
— Use of program as a job skills training site
— Unique computer system used for financial accounting of individual
programs
Figure 2
Palo Alto Recycling Program
Program Highlights
— Combination of recycling services provided to the community:
.Curbside recycling program
.Drop-off
.Composting project
.Wood recovery system
— Activities other than curbside collection account for over 50% of
revenues received from the sale of materials
— The integrated recycling program diverts over 19% of the community's
municipal solid wastestream
— Equal sharing of gross revenues from the sale of collected newspaper
with a community non-profit organization
— Storage receptacles (burlap bags) are provided to the participants
— Participants can receive free dump passes as an incentive to recycle
— Extensive in-kind services (labor, management and public awareness)
provided by the city
— Employs one of the highest paid recycling staff in the state
— Use of labor incentives for collection staff (profit-sharing and time
incentives)
Figure 3
Downey at Home Recycling Team (DART)
Program Highlights
— Single-faceted recycling program:
.Curbside recycling services
— Collection of mixed recyclables (all materials placed in one container)
— Minimal source separation required of participants
— Bi-monthly (every other week) collection
— Recycling program operates through an agreement among the
city, franchise hauler/collector and processor/market
— No processing of collected material by recycling operator—recovered
materials sold to processor/market in "mixed form"
— Use of processing line and hand-picking operation by processor/market to
separate materials
— 25% of collected materials are not recyclable
— Use of large, brightly colored storage receptacles provided by the
operator
— Minimal labor need (one collector)
Figure 4
Recycle 3
Program Highlights
— Single-faceted recycling program:
.Curbside recycling services
— Development and usage of prototype collection vehicle
— Use of specially-designed, standardized storage containers (3 separate,
interlocking, color-coded containers)
— Good visibility of program vehicle and receptacles
— No processing of collected material by recycling operation
-- All collected material sold by recycling operator FOB at its own yard,
thus eliminating transportation and processing costs
— Only program to be completely operated by a private operator—all
administration, collection, marketing, processing and publicity are
handled either by the private refuse hauler or other private entities
— Extensive media usage for public awareness
— Minimal labor needs
.Incorporation of recycling labor needs into existing solid waste
management operation
.Division of responsibility in major labor-intensive elements of
recycling (collection, marketing, public awareness)
— Use of labor incentives for collection staff (time incentives)
/M-
r
Figure 5
Fresno/Clovis Metropolitan Area
Recycling Service (MARS)
Program Highlights
— Combination of recycling services provided to the community
. .Curbside recycling service provided to:
Residential, single-family dwellings
Multi-family dwellings (apartments) - provided on a limited basis
.White office paper program
.Commercial, corrugated collection
— Activities other than curbside collection materials account for over 4U
of direct revenues received from the sale of materials
— Serves the largest population (313»000) of any other curbside program in
the state
— One of the lowest metropolitan population densities (1600 persons/square
mile) served by a curbside program
— Monthly curbside collection provided on non-refuse collection day
— Charge for recycling program included in refuse collection bill
($.06/month per account)
— Recycling incentive credit for regular participants in the curbside
program ($.40 per month credited to refuse collection bill)
— Extensive use of labor (collection and processing)
— Extensive economic commitment (subsidy) by the city to finance the
program
General Program Characteristics
The purpose of the case studies was to generate and analyze information
regarding curbside recycling programs. However, three of the programs
provide a variety of recycling services in addition to their curbside
services. This report, as well as the individual case study reports,
attempts to focus only on the curbside program aspect. Obviously, there is
a danger to extracting this information because the integrated programs are
intricately interwoven combinations of a variety of services. As such,
each aspect of the overall program is dependent on the other, and the parts
really should be viewed in total. The information presented will empha-
size the curbside aspect of each program but where appropriate, and in
order to present a more accurate picture, the report will also address the
other components of the integrated programs.
Program Responsibilities
There are basically four major areas of responsibility in operating a
curbside recycling program. These areas are:
1. Coordination and administration of the program,
2. Collection of materials,
3. Public Awareness activities, and
4. Materials processing/marketing
Programs chosen for review possess a variety of combinations of operations.
Table 1 indicates the entities responsible for each of the above-listed
areas of responsibility. Two of the programs (Recycle 3 and Downey) do not
actually process collected materials but instead have unique, but
different, arrangements with a market which processes the materials. One
of the programs (Recycle 3) is operated completely by a private, profit-
oriented enterprise, while another private enterprise also maintains all
program operations with occasional support by the City (Downey). Both MARS
and E.C.Ology retain complete control over all major areas of responsi-
bility. In the 'Palo Alto curbside program, collection and processing of
collected materials are performed by the City's franchise hauler. City
personnel are responsible for public education and awareness and oversight
of the entire operation.
n
Table 1
General Program Characteristics
Program Responsibilities
Program/Location Coord/Admin Collection Public Aware __ Processing
E.C.ology/El Cerrito city city city city
Palo Alto Recycling city
Program/Palo Alto
private
(fran hauler)
city private
(fran hauler)
Downey at Home
Recycling Team/
Downey
private private private
(fran hauler) (fran hauler) and city
none2
Recycle 3/Santa
Rosa
private private private^
(fran hauler) (fran hauler)
none-
Presno-Clovis Metro city
Area Recycling
Service (MARS)/
Presno-Clovis
city city city
^ Recycle 3 contracts with a public relations firm for the public awareness activites.
recyclables are collected "by the program hauler; upon obtaining a full truckload of
materials, they are immediately taken to market where they are sold and then separated,
processed and resold.
2 After the recyclables are collected, they are immediately sold to one market which is
located at the same place as the recycling program. Any processing required is performed by
the market entity.
Service Population and Materials Information
Table 2 provides general information regarding the programs' service
populations and targeted materials. Although the service populations
greatly vary, all of the programs are considered to be located in
metropolitan areas. Service populations range from one of the smallest
served by a curbside program (El Cerrito) to the largest community served
by such a program (Fresno-Clovis). The population densities of the five
communities also vary considerably. Fresno, with the largest population,
also has the lowest density which could significantly affect the way the
program is organized and administered.
In addition to materials information provided in Table 2, Figure 6
graphically displays the tons per months recovered, by material. It is
interesting to note that the Palo Alto curbside program, with a relatively
small population (57,000) and low number of single family residences
(15,500) collects the greatest amount of materials. The largest program
reviewed, MARS, has more than five times greater the service population of
Palo Alto and yet, collects less tonnage. The program with the "easiest"
source separation requirements for participants (all recyclables are mixed
together), Downey DART, recovers the smallest amount of material.
Comparing programs with populations of almost the same size (Downey and
Recycle 3), the minimal source separation program in Downey only recovers
one-third the materials collected by the "traditional" curbside program in
Santa Rosa.
Perhaps of greater interest than the tons per month of each material
recovered are the material recovery percentages. Figure 7 provides a
graphic comparison of each program's recovery rate. Although each program
is multi-material and collects at least newspaper, ferrous, nonferrous and
glass, the recovery percentage of each material varies from program to
program. Recycle 3's recovery percentages are the most unusual compared
with the other programs. Although the glass recovery percentage rate is
fairly comparable with the others, the aluminum recovery percentage is
somewhat low, particularly since the company does not also have an aluminum
buyback operation.
Of more note, however, is the fact that although ferrous materials comprise
a measurable percentage of the recyclable wastestream (about 1.1%), the
sale of such material by Recycle 3 is negligible (.12J). While Recycle 3
recovers the highest percentage of newspaper (69%), the DART program
recovers the least (48J). This low percentage recovery by DART may be due
in part to contamination (since all materials are collected in one
container) and the difficulty of extracting newspaper from the other
collected materials.
Table 2
General Program Characteristics
Service & Materials Information
Fiscal Year 1980-81
Total Pop 1 -family
Proe/Loc Pop. Density"! residence
E.C.Ology/ . 43,000 na* 13,499
El Cerrito-
Palo Alto 57,000 na* 15,500
Recycling/
Palo Alto
Downey at 82,662 6,503 19,812
Home Recycling
Team/Downey
Recycle 3/ 83,205 3,000 23,000
Santa Rosa
MARS/Fresno 313,200 2,240 84,000
Multi-family
residence Material
na* news
ferrous
nonferrous
glass
wine
bottles
Total
8, 5003 news
ferrous
nonferrous
glass
cardboard
Total
13,876 news
ferrous
nonferrous
glass
Total
na* news
ferrous
nonferrous
glass
Total
34,500 news
ferrous
nonferrous
glass
Total
Curbside
TPM
97.9
9-2
1.3
50.4
1.5
160.32
122.0
11.5
3.0
80.0
11.5
228.0
35.7
9-0
0.8
27.2
72.7
147.00
.25
1.40
65.00
213-65
90.3
12.2
.7
61.8
165.0
Other
buyback
dropoff
satellite
cml
dropoff
compost
wood
none
none
dropoff
cml
wh paper
*Not available.
1 Population per square mile.
3Figure obtained from "July 1981 Curbside Recap" published by E.C.Ology.
^Estimated from population & single family statistics provided in report.
Figure 6
Materials Recovery
Tons per Month by Material
Fiscal Year 19bC-61
Curbside Statistics Only
Newspaper
Tons
per
Month
228 TPK
72.7 TPK
i•
Program
E.C.Ology
TPY)
Palo Alto
(2736 TPY)
Downey DART
TPY)
Nor, ferrous
rerrous Glass
Cardboard
iIII
Wine bottles
213-65 TPK
Recycle 3 Fresno/Clovis MARS
(2564 TPY) (1980 TPY)
w
Figure 7
Materials Recovery
Recovery percentace by Katerial
Fiscal Year 1960-81
Curbside Statistics Only
Newspaper fJonferrous
Ferrous Glass
V.'ine bottles Cardboard
Hecovery
Percentage
Program E.C.Ology Palo Alto . Downey DART Recycle 3 Fresno/Clovis MARS
Collection and Processing
Table 3 provides pertinent information regarding collection and processing
practices of the individual programs. Included is information regarding
the labor required for each of these program functions.
Neither the Downey DART nor the Recycle 3 programs process their recovered
materials. Each contracts to sell the recovered materials to one market,
at considerably lower than market prices. Operation costs are signifi-
cantly reduced, however, due to the facts that processing equipment and
storage receptacles do not need to be purchased and additional labor to
handle the processing is not needed. Each program, it should be noted, has
unique processing/market arrangements that may be difficult for other
programs to emulate. Neither program sells to various open markets.
Instead, each possesses a formal or informal contract with one market. In
the Downey DART program, once the collector has a full load of recyclables,
the collection truck transports these materials to the processor and sells
them. After sale, the materials are separated, processed and resold to the
appropriate market by the intermediary. In the Recycle 3 program, the
processor/market is located at the same yard as the disposal company and
the recycling operation. Therefore, when the collection trucks return to
the yard and dump the collected materials, this material immediately
becomes the property of the processor/market. The separated materials are
sold to, and marketed'by, a separate corporate entity operating at the same
location. (This operation was not subjected to review under the case study
project.)
It is interesting to note that those programs which perform their own
processing are also heavily dependent on revenues from the sales of
materials collected through their non-curbside programs to help sustain
their entire recycling operation (see Program Economics section for more
information). Although, in general, curbside programs tend t;> be costly
due to initial capitalization and labor costs, processing the material:
greatly increases both equipment and labor expenses.
w
Palo Alto, MARS, and E.C.Ology are all quite labor and equipment-intensive.
This table does not reflect all labor employed by these two programs. MARS,
for instance utilizes 17-19 personnel in their total operations.
Each of the individual case review reports include extensive collection and
processing equipment assessment sections. Advantages and disadvantages of
the various collection equipment systems have been noted and recommend-
ations made regarding how to improve the systems and/or utilization of each
piece of equipment. Two of the programs utilize a collection system
designed around a trailer and bin configuration. A prototype collection
vehicle with self-dumping bins was developed for the Recycle 3 program. An
existing refuse collection truck was modified for collection/storage of
recyclables by the Downey DART program.
.Table 3
General Program Characteristics
Collection and Processing
Prog/Loc
E.G.Ology.
Coll
Freq
wkly
Same day Collection
refuse col crew size
no 1 /vehicle
Collection
equip
(3) 2 ton
Processing Processing Processing
materials equip crew size
yes forklift 8 ftime
collection
trucks each modified
to carry 6 bins
baler 9 ptime4
computer sys
alum shredder
magnetic separator
storage bins
(1 1/2-40cy)
Palo Alto
Downey at
Home Recy-
cling Team
Recycle 3/
Santa Rosa
riARS/Fresno
wkly yes
every yes
other
week
wkly ' yes
monthly no
1 /vehicle
1 /vehicle
1 /vehicle
with 1
alternate
1-2/ vehicle
(avg/.25)1
(2) mod van yes forklift 2 fulltime
cabs & chassis (5)30cy bins addtl part
(2) midway (5)40cy bins time as
trier & bin (2)15cy needed
systems covered bins
( 1 ) can crusher/
separator/conveyor
(1) coll
truck cab &
chassis with
body & front
(2)Evo-Eco
Lodal coll
trucks
( 1 ) bin truck
as needed
(3) 3/4 ton
coll trucks
(1) baler
no2 n/a
?7 cy
leading bucket
no3 n/a
, used
yes (1) forklift
(1) baler
n/a
n/a
3 fulltime
(3) midway trier
& bin systems
Used for other aspects:
(3) 3/4 t pickup
(1) 1 t pickup
(1) 3/4 t flatbed
(2) 1/2 t pickup
(1) mag can
sorter/flattener
(100) 3 cy bins
(1) 50 cy dropbox
Downey program does not perform any processing of materials. However, they do have a
processing/market contract; the collected mixed recyclables are taken directly to this mar-
ket.
^The Recycle 3 program does not perform any processing of materials. The market/processing
are located at the same location. When the collection trucks return to site, the materials
become the property of the processor/market.
^On heavier routes, more than one collector is used per route. This need is on an infrequent
basis.
4The entire E.G. Ology recycling program employs these numbers. Numbers include rehabili-
tation clients. Does not include another 3/4 man year provided in-kind by city.
Public Awareness Activities
All of the programs have used a wide variety of public awareness activ-
ities. Table 4 lists the activities that were used by each program during
the life of their curbside program.
Because records were not kept by program managers for the purpose of
assessing public awareness/education activities, it would be difficult to
objectively measure the impact a public awareness approach may have had on
tonnage increase or decrease. However, it is possible to at least sub-
jectively rate these activities. The program managers' perceptions of the
impact of various types of public awareness programs used were therefore
solicited and noted.
Most of the activities were rated essentially the same by the different
program managers. The biggest discrepancy appears to be in the usage of
paid media advertising. The Recycle 3 program used this type of medium
extensively and reportedly had good success. However, the other programs
have not found this to be a cost-effective approach to publicity,
particularly in light of the high cost of such advertisement.
The DART program has used little of any type of publicity thus far. Public
awareness activities have reportedly been sporadic and/or were made at the
implementation of the program. Collection days and frequency have since
been changed numerous times in this program; a good public awareness
campaign at those times may have helped maintain participation during the
transition periods. It could very well be that this lack of consistent
public awareness has detrimentally affected the success of this program and
may, at least in part, account for the low tonnages of recovered materials
and low participation in the program.
Activity - Public
Awareness Technique
Table 4
General Program Characteristics
Public Awareness Activities
Used During Life of Curbside Program!
Programs
Palo Alto Downey Recycle MARS E.C.Ology
General Approach
Strategy & Planning
Logo/Slogan
Generating Active Support
City endorse & com Itr
Com Adv Committee
Media, Print & Electronic
Press releases
Feature story; editorial
PSAs , announcements , etc .
Newsletters & programs
Printed Materials
Brochures & fract sheets
Posters
Vinyl decals; stickers
Displays
Slide shows
Reminder Calendars
Community Outreach
Public surveys
Door-to-door canvassing
Billing inserts
School, church, civic grps
Workshops/seminars
Program newsletter
Mobile exhibit
Paid Advertising
TV and radio
Yellow pages
Newspaper & billboard
Other Activities
Pundraising for com grps
Special events (parades)
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
fair
excellent
fair
poor
excellent
excellent
fair
excellent
good
fair
good
excellent
fair
excellent^
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
excellent
excellent
good
good
fair
exc to fair
good
excellent
excellent
exc to fair
fair
good
good
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
good
excellent
—
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
good
excellent
excellent
fair
fair
good
excellent
fair
excellent
fair
excellent
fair
excel lent
excel lent
yood
excel lent
excel lent
excel lent
fai r
excel lent
excel lent
excel lent
excel lent
fai r
excel lent
yood
exce 1 lent
excel lent
good
good
axcel lent
excel lent
axcel lent
fa i r
^Activities were rated according to subjective comments and/or rankings made by individual
program managers. Comment/ratings were translated by the Board into the following four
categories: excellent, good, fair and poor.
2Actual rankings were not made by program manager as in the other four case reviews. These
activities were rated by the Board based on information contained in the Recycle 3 case
review study.
3The Palo Alto program was used as the basis for the front cover of the local telephone
book.
Program Economics
The following Tables 5 through 12, provide several different comparisons of
program economics for the operations studied. It is strongly stressed to
the reader that these economic analyses are only a few approaches among
many approaches that could be used to assess the programs' financial
status. Individual figures used in these tables may differ from what
appears in the individual reports as they may have been reclassified by
staff as a different line item. All financial information however, was
extracted from the reports themselves. In all instances, information has
been provided for the Palo Alto and MARS integrated programs as well as
their curbside programs. Where it was impossible to separate curbside
related costs from total costs, figures were estimated by the consultants.
Because the E.C.Ology case study was received after the economic analysis
format was developed, and because the financial figures were presented in a
different format it was not possible to include the data in its tables.
However, where available, figures noted in the E.C.Ology report are
included in the text.
The cost analyses were performed by reviewing, assessing and comparing:
1. Full operating costs (including ongoing in-kind services) with
revenues received directly from the sale of collected materials;
and
2. Full operating costs, (minus in-kind services) with direct
revenues, other financial assistance, indirect revenues and
benefits (such as, collection and disposal cost avoidances),
grants, etc.
Separate comparisons of costs and revenues were conducted to display the
above (1) and (2). Tables 5 and 6 compare full operation costs with direct
program revenues. Although none of the programs show a net profit in these
analyses, the net monthly cost for each program is relatively low,
particularly when viewed in light of the costs to residents for overall
refuse collection. Review of Palo Alto and MARS integrated programs
Table 6
Program Cost Analysis
Comparison of Pull Operations Costsl
with Direct Program Revenues
Palo Alto and MARS Programs Only2
Fiscal year 1980-81
Palo Alto
Operating Costs
MARS
Labor '& fixed overhead
Variable expenses (operating &
maintenance)
Public Awareness
In-kind services, ongoing (including
recycling incentives)
Revenue sharing^
Amortization4
Direct Revenues
Secondary materials sales
Recycling charge5
Annual Net Profit<Loss>
Annual Net Prof it<Loss> Per Household6
Monthly Net Prof it<Loss> Per Household
$203
40
10
111
64
26
Subtotal $455
,690
,700
,000
,000
,080
,021
,491
$2^3,600
-0-
Subtotal $258,600
<196,891>
< $8.20>
< $0.68>
$389,0007
38,400
-0-
19,162
$446,562
$129,950
39,600
$169,550
<277,012>
< $2.34>
< $0.20>
11ncludes ongoing in-kind services.
^These two programs provide a wide variety of services in addition to curbside services.
Materials are collected from these other program aspects; costs and revenues relative to
the total programs are included.
5palo Alto pays 1/2 of gross revenues from sale of collected material to California Associ-
ation for the Retarded.
^Amounts determined by amortizing state purchased equipment and/or site improvements over a 5
year period.
^Presno/Clovis Refuse collection bill includes a $.06 recycling charge.
^Entire residential area included as curbside, and drop-off programs theoretically serve the
'entire community. Total estimated single family and multi-family residences - Palo Alto;
24,000 households; MARS - 118,500 households.
^Exact figure unknown at this time.
. Table 7
Program Cost Analysis
Comparison of full Operations Costs'! with Direct and Indirect
Programs Revenues2 Curbside Programs Only
Fiscal Year 1980-81
Operating 'Costs
Labor & -fixed overhead
Variable expenses
(operating & maintenance
Public Awareness
Revenue sharing^-
Amortization5
Subtotal
Direct Revenues
Secondary materials sales
Recycling charge^
Subtotal
Indirect Revenues
Landfill fee savings/
Reduced collection costs
Grant monies
Subtotal
TOTAL, All Revenues
Annual Net Profit<Loss>
Annual Net Profit<Loss>
Fer Households
Monthly Net Profit<Loss>
Per Household
Palo Alto
$158,400
40,700
10,000
34,000
26,021
$269,121
$127,840
-0-
$127,840
$ 8,890
37,5009
30,400
$ 76,790
$204,630
< 64, 491 >
< $4.16>
< $0.35>
Downey
$ 44,44510
18,362
-0-
-0-
26,300
$ 89,107
$ 16,460
-0-
.$ 16,460
$ 6,504
533
26,840
$ 33,877
$ 50,377
< 38,730>
< $1 .96>
< $0.16>
Recycle 3
$ 93,936
33,143 '
15,199
-0-
19,382
$161,660
$ 56,464
-0-
$ 56,464
$ 15,402
93,73211
19,^28
$128,362
$185,326
23,666
$1.03
$0.09
MARS
$389,00012
-0-
19,162
$408,162
$ 76,357
39,600
$115,957
$ 11,826
12,367
22,700
$ 46,893
$162,850
<245,312>
< $2.92>
< $0.24>
1 Excludes in-kind services.2lncluding 1/5 SSWMB grant award, landfill fee savings, estimated reduced collection costs.
3palo Alto and MARS programs also provide other recycling services (e.g., drop-off, white
paper, commercial collection, etc.). Program cost analysis for their entire operations are
presented in Table 8.
4-Palo Alto pays 1/2 of gross revenues from sale of collected newspaper to California ASLO-
ciation for the Retarded.
5Amounts determined by amortizing state purchased equipment and/or site improvements ever a 5
year period.
^Fresno/Clovis Refuse collection bill includes a $.06 recycling charge.
^Figures will be highly variable due to differences in landfill fees throughout C--alifornia.8Based on service population, single family residences: Palo Alto - 15,500; Icwr.ry - 19,SCO;
Recycle 3 - 23,000 and MARS - 84,000.
9Based on savings incurred from reduction of a one man refuse collection crew.
10pigure reduced from that quoted in the individual Downey report. Amortization figures were
originally included in those operating cost figures. These costs are now included in
another line item.
11 Based on savings incurred from reduction of a two man refuse collection crew.
12Exact figures unknown.
CO
CO[ *
COo
CJ
"*>» to
4-> O
C C
3 CO
O -r-
0 Q
If)
4-> C
•r- O
«*- h-o --v
i- Aa. 4->
CO
4-> OCU O
Z V
^N^
COcu3c
QJ^J"> ccu oo: i—
CO i —CU >)
3 •— r—
C C COCO >-. O 1> c co
CU CO CO CO COo: -i- E CTI cu
CTl CO (O r— 3•o >, s- c
CU C i— O) S- COr— <O ro O «3 >_Q c i- CO CUro co eC Q. >- C£
\— 4JCO •(-> CU i—O to "O reCJ O ••- 0
CJ CO CO C4-> JD ••- O— S- Q_ 1—C 3 --.
O CJ r— 4->
i — CO
0 0O 0
CM
CO,— 4_)
r— CO
O O
CJ CJ
•a coCU i—i- <0
CU -r-> s_o cu
CJ 4->CU IDa: s:
CO
Ero
t-
01os-
Q.
0o
f~».
^~CO
A
^"o
CMCTl
•b^-
V
^-CO•^o^>
C^)-
o
CO
*I^N,
CSJ^-»^/")
00
•
00
CO^_
if)
r—
CM
A
O00co•to-
1 —
^^r-- >-• a.CM H-
0 014-> C
•— -r- E
< r— lO0 4-0 >, 01
r— O O(0 CU S-Q. a: Q.
oo
«3-
ro
^/>
A
CO
CTl
CM00
•fa2*-
V
CTtr--•
CO
•f>
oCO^J-
«
CO
f—
•faO-
CM
•r^or—^o
r-.o
•I
CTl
CO
-t*^-
CO
f^s.
CO >-C3.
^_
0>c
f—u•*-» >>(O OCO>*j py
COc cu E
O O COQ :E i—
oo
-3-
-3"w
A
COCTl
o
V
•b2)-
p^
CT>•
^—CM
•<^-
<J-
ID^~«
COen
c/>
OCTi•
CMCO
•fo^-
0
CO
CO«
P-M
CO
1—
^/T
o
1 —cn >-
"CL_
CM 1—
CO
CO^~
CJ>J
uCO
oo
o
^)
A
^3-
f*s^
.
fv^
CO
b4-V
CO
CO•
00cn
CX)
p«^
cn
CTl«>
IT)
r—
^™
4^)-
r^
Lf)»
CO
CM
CMco
CM
COcn««
CO
^^^~CO
r—
P1^
CTl >-
• Q.
•— r-
OOQ:
s
co
4->
CJ COcu aii— -*->
'o EO •<-
i — i — coro ro ' ' '
•r- *r—
U S-i- • (U
CO CO 4-> "OE CU ro CUE u E 4JO -i- roO > M- CJ
i- 0 O<D ^~
i- CO CCU O coo- -a 4J -r-rO CQ. M- i- E-^ CU roCO 1 O. i.4-> C O:•i- T- CO OJ= 3 S-2 CD c a. .c cu ca•> M- > i: sr<4- -O 01 03»«- . 3 i- ro OO
O O i— CO OO1 i— O CUa. c 01 .c =O CU T- ro O "
S-r- S- -,- >,"O -Q « CU -CO)(0 --^ > S >"I — • ro S-0 C 3
O) C 4-1 C •!- OO. -r- CU roCU >^4->— -~O " 4-» 4-> CO
CO O) O COCO "O C CU 3 CJCU -r- -i- i — O
O > CO <4- O CO•i- O CO CU •!-
> S- CU S- CU COS. O. O ^. -i-CU O CO 4-> 1-co CU S- CU CJS- D- S- S-01 ro 3 O COC «• Ol 4_ CTl
•r- CO C -r- (Oi— C O «*- C J20 O -i- OS.
>,T- 4-> >, CU 4-> roO 4-> ro C co C3CO ro S- ro CU S-i- s_ 4-> ^: cu CMO) co M- 4-> CLCO
J_ O- •!- -1- CTlCU o C •« CO i —
JZ T- " CU 4-> =
4J CO E CO 4-> COO S- ~O O1. ro O CU•r- ro i- 3 CJ .CCO 4-> ro -l-> -(->"DC -C O • r—•r-CU C O 3 C roi.> O i — O co Oot- -r- cr> 4_ 4j o <<-S- ••- 4-> C ^^ Q.O.CU CJ •<- >, CO coco^: cu i — i — a> •>- cn
O4-> i — O 4-> 3 ~OCco f— >, ro C -.-r— S_ O O CD OJT3-O(OO CJ CU S- > CC"4- C O". CU ro T-
CO •> i- <4_E co 01 i — 01ro-i- O>Ci— co c>,
S- CO T- T- 3 -r- S_
Ol>) CU "O 2 C i — ro
O •— — 3 T- 3 C
i- ro r— r- E ra T-
Q. C co O ro -C Era 4-> C -i- c •!-
OO CO -i- S- O " i —a; 4-> o cu 4-> c: cu
<CCO CJ «4-> ~^ OS-S O CO ro 4-J -r- Q.O Ol CO E co 4->•a c 3 o o E
C4->-r- C S- CJ CUOra -i- 4J 0) O) i — i-C ro > O. C •— 4-O Z3 S- CO O O4-> co s- co -i- u -ai— a. cu +-> ai
«C • O 4J 3 0 CU C
-— ~ O C CU CO -r-o • i— cu a> i— 3 rai— Oi— S- >r-Cy_4JrO4-> 3-r- CU O CU-Qtxco u_ Q o; cj 0:0F— CM co ^j- cn co
V'
coCU3CCU i—i>
CU OO
CO
O O£. •!-
00
fO SoS- IcnoO 00i. cr.GO QL i —
cu c i— co i-i— ro ro a: rajo c «a: curo GO eC S >-
I— 4Joo •(-> -a i—o GO c ra
O O ro O
CJ CO
4-> O -i-
•r- 4-> U_
C r-
to
Q.
ro>, COVO+J O co
3 CO COO -i- OO Q O
LO
4-> C•i- O4- I—
O -^
S- A
f^ 1 *
CO+-> 0
CU O
Z V
*^^
co
CU3
C
> CCU Oa: H-
oo
COcu3
C
CO
cu
cor-
r— 4-J
r— CO
O O
0 CJ
CM
CO
i — •(->
i — GO
0 O
0 C_>
*
•a GOCO r—S- ro
CO -r-> S-
0 COCJ -t->
CU raC£ 2:
GOE
ro
cnoS-CL.
C
O
r--.^j-
•fa*
Ar~-
CO
voro
•fa*
V
CO
^«,
CO
4jf$.
oo10
CO
LO
CM•fa*
on(
LOCO
•fc*
r^m
cn•a-
A
10
LO
^^•to*
O
ro >-•Q.LO I—
o cn+-> c
r- -r- E
**• 13 2O >> cn
r- U 0ro CO S-
O-QiQ-
O
O
o
LO•fa*
A
LO
CO
LOor—<^V
V
CTi
.
^J-^O
•feO-
o
LO
LO
*"CTivo(__
&^~
^~<x>,
o
r—
•to*
CM10LO91
V£>
^f^>
•to*
f^xi—
VO >-- "O.CM t—
coo;
g
-C)cu"O3
f^Oc
COs-
ro
EroS-
CT;
Os-CL
r"~
ro
4J
O
•4^
CU
^_>
o. +J
GOcu cu
CJ >
•I— *^
> +J
i* ^co •—CO CUS-cuT^D CO
•r- CU
GO 3JD C
S- CU
3 >(J CUS-o
^-J ^cC rO
O
•r- GO
+•* 4-*.,- GO-o o-o o
ro • *»
C </>•I- +JU
co CUni o.
(J GO•r* ro>S- ECU ro
GO i-CD
4- 0o s-CL>k
-t-> t-CU CO•i- -Cs- •*->
ro 0
>CO
CO GO-o co•1— ^~
S "^
ro EOCU i--0 4-
•^^> ^3o cuS- •(->Q. UCU
GO t —E •—ra OS- (Jcn
O CU&_ S-CL ra
§00
^~
4>J ro
• r*
CU 1-00 CU
CO -!->JC ro
1— 2!
•co
CUU•P->
S-
COCO
T3
.^*>s
1
C• r—
C7)g"
>r.•a3
fMB
CJ
C•r—
A
X—*»
U^Jcu
«crc
• r-
OO
CO
CUO
0S-
Q.
*Co
•^
•4-*
fO!L.
4->tot^_
C•r—
E-ara
A
Co
•^
4J
UcuP-H
r~*
O
CJ
•»
•
cn•cu^— ^
00^.j
GOOCJ
cnc
•r-
4J
roS-cua.o
fmm
r~~
3
CSJ
•
>^CfO
4—
•r~
«
COcns-ro-C
O
cnc
r—
(J
>^OCOS-
cnc:•P--a
3
t—
0
•r~
A
CO
CO3
CCO
>COS-
4^ocuS-
•r~a
CO
.
,_
f&
•r—s-OJ
T3E
4-0
Co
j_
COa.
CO
c
CO
COS-
COcn
raS-cu
ro
C"
ro
4^
OCUr—
14»
0)
S-
CO
<Dt_
3CD
•r—4-
CUco
CU
4J
• A
CO
ro3
-4»>
(J
3 Ci— O4— ) »
•^^^>, cor- CO
4-> 3ro CCO CU
S.. >
cn cu
^r—
r— CO
•r- 3
2 C•r-
r— Ero
•r- C
S- 0CO +->
4-* "^^ro 4->E coOs- 0
COc_ co
CO •>-
CU 4->
3 • U
C CO
CU r—> r^
CO Oct: o^3- LO
.-a
CO+j
ra
CJo
•
GO CO
•r- 21
E CO
ro CO
cn »o =s- >io. cu;>.c s-0 3
ro COCO4J
-C COCJ O•i- O.cS oo
C CO
•r- 'r~S-
>j C_)+J
C CO3 cno raO JDS-CO ror* cj
4J
CM
t- COo cn
M— r— "
-
C
O CDi % f»
4^
S-co s-Q. O4-00
4-> COoo cn
O C
U T-T3
•— C
ro -i-CO 4-
OQ. >-,
CO S-•r- ro-a c• p.
-o E
C~ •!—
ro i —CUcn s-
C Q.
•r-
r- E
3 Oro 1-f 4—
•N ~Oc cuo c
4-> ro(J +->
CU -Qi— OP—
O 00
CJ CU+J
CO raco E
3 •!-
4- +->
CO COo; LU
WD
w
10
>> l/KO
4-> O co
C O-4->
3 CO CO
0 ••- Ot 1 f-l C 1
~~if>I _i C"
•r- 0
t- r—
O ^s.
i. Arv 4_)
CO
•P OCO CJZT V
"^x
CO
CO3
Cco^d*> c
CO Oa: i—
co
CO
CO3
CCO
CO r— >
CO >>•— CO3 r- CO C£C I-H C 1
CO — O C
> COi— CO CO CO Cn,•— o: -i- E •—co to c
CO "O >> S- S- O
i— C i— CD to t—
JQ IO to O CO \
(O C i- >- i— -4J1— co < a. i— co
•M r— O OCO -P CO to CJ Oo co -a oO O •••* co
CJ CO •!-
4J -Q U_
•r- S_
C 3^^ CJ
CM
COi— 4^
i— co0 0o c_>
T3 CO
CO •—
i. 10
CO f> i.
O COo -t->
O) (0a: c
COF
<Oi.
O)
20.
0o
•
P'V^J-
^>
A
CM
LT)•
CO
CM
-fe1^
V
UD
<^>
•^f
f***
<y^-
oCO
IO» .
^^0CM
•W
00
^~
00*o^
<*9-
^~
CM
f—
•t<T»
UD
CM-t/>
f—m
*•&
^^ ^**"O.
CM h-
o cn•M C•— ••- E
<C r— (O
0 i-o >» cn
r— o O(O CO i-o.oe.CL.
oo•
^-CO
A
10
CM•
<J-
^*
•faO-
V
UD^"
•
^x
LT)
•b^
p^x
COco
•»o
LO
•bO*
CM
^^
r—
0
•feo-
r*xo
r—
*cnco
•bO-
UD
00 >-a.1—
cnc•r-
t-~o•p >»(O O
CO^)O£
CO
C CO E
.III
oo
*
•J"-T</v
1— «
C\J•o^
^jT)i
r—r™
•
C\Jr^
•OO-
^oCMCO
Ain
00
^o-
oa^
CMV.O
Ij*^
o
vo
A
r"**»ofH
(/!).
o
LO >-
"D.
CM t—
CO
COr—o
^^o
oo•o
Lf)
A
VD
^^•^f-
CM^~.
•fc^-
V
CMvo
*CMCO
•fe^V
oIT)
CO
M
CM
1—•b^-
COo
oCM
CMvo^«
A
00o
"t/v
r™~r*^a> >-
"Q.
r— t—
COct:
.
^ — * co o
CO Z>
QJ co
C r— QJo ^~™ ^^
•r- O ro+-> 0 E
CO C 4->
r— -i—i — CO
i — ro UJ
O C -r-
O O i-•i- Qj
ro O ro QJ•i- 3 E 4->o -o <oi- QJ 4- 0
CO S- O O
E "o c
O CO O coO "O -t-> -I-) T-
C rO« -r- E i- Ei. J^ -i- CO roco i +-> a. i-Q. c co cr.
(O -r- CO CO Oa. 3 s.cn « c a. •
CO C CO CO CO-U -r- CT> > JC S
•r- -O C CO OS-C 3-i- i- (O 00
S r— > CO 00
O (O CO" x co cn .c «
<+- CO ro O =
4- CO i- •- >,
O " CO CO -C CO1 «-..««_ > 2 >
Q. • • ro S-
O CM O •— C 3S-i—-t-> i— C -i- CO
"O CO -i- (OCO H- >>-P
• ^3 cn c o cocn ro c ra co 3 o. I— -r- i— r- O
CO co 4- O CO
C CO " CO 'i-••- co ^a s- co coco O i- -C •!-CO "D O to CO -t-> i-O QJ i- S CO C_>•r- T3 Q. ro i- 1-> -r- 3 O COt. > * -4-> cn 4- cnCO O C C T- toCO S- O ro f- C .OQ. -r- S_ O i_cn •»-> cn co +-> <o
C CO ro CO CD
•e- 1_ i. CO CO S-•— to +-> s: j= co CM
O CO 3 •!-> Q.CO>, CO -i— OO CTi
O C C 00 •• CO i—
CO O -r- CO +-> =
S- •<- E i-o +-> co
•P "O ^-x ro O CO
i- ro ro r— 3 O ^:CO i- -I-3 +•>jc co " cn o ' i —4-> Q. C C 3Cra&.
OOO •!- r — OCOO•i- "O "4- +J O 4-
CO CO •(-> 3 ^ Q.
T31- O i — • >,(/) COCO•r- -i— CO O *~* i— CO -r— Cn> 4^ ^™ c" 4_> 4.) 3 T3 C
O C r— T- X ro C ••-i- CO O QJQJCO'O-OCX O "-M i. > C CCO CO Cn CO ro -r-
CO CO « CO C i- 4—E CO • 3 T- r— cnro.ccn c i — coc>>i. +J . QJ -0 -i- 3 T- i.cn co > co 2 c r— ro
£S_ CO -O -r- 3 C
O i- T- r— E <0 •!-0. 4- CO > ro J= E
-I-) +J O •<- C •!-OO CO CO OS- i- O "i —ce-r- o COQ.C04J ceo<Ccoo i. -M^OS-21 >> -r- co <o +•> -i- Q.•— Cn -C ro E to 4JTjroc Ci— OOECC-i- i— i 3 S- O COO(O <O -M E CO i — i-ro T3 S- CL C r- 4-
O -P S- • C O O O
4->CO COCO IO4— CO -r- O"Or- O Q. QJ — co-M CO«C<->OO •»-> 3 0 CUC
•r- O CO C CO CO •!-
O-P •— > CO-P CO i— 3rOi— •!- r— S. 1.CO > r— 4_4->
rOC 3 QJ T-O CO O QJ -Oo. ZD U.CO oo a: u a: o
r— CM CO "d- LO <£>
%**"."*"%'
C\J
^—
O)
r—-d0}
H-
i—
>^r—
E
0
to to0> E3 10 i—E i- 00O> >— i Ol 1
> l-H O O01 5-00OC. CO O. Ol
•^ i—
"O tO tOE >>O£ i-
<Q r"™ ^C fOfO S 0)
tO E >--M<: -o
tO Ei—
O 4-> tO <O
O 10 UO O to•M CJ 4-> «i-
•r- 1— U.
E <C
~^
O
r~<oo_
(O
>> COVQ
+-> O CO
E Q.+-1
3 CO CO
0 -r- OO Q O
in
4-> E•i- Ot- I—o ^S- A
0. +->
CO+-> oO) O•z. v
~**^
CO
(U3
Eoca-> EQJ Oo; h-
ro
COOJ3
E
O)
>
Oo:
EO
\-
r— 4J
i— CO
O Oo o
CMto
i — -!->
i— CO
O 0<-9 O
t'
*^3 u)
O r*^
5- (O
Ot ••-> i-
O 01U 4->Ol (0o: s:
E
roi-0)oi-o.
oo
1 — .^«
(^)
oCO•
10
•t/>
,_ro
•
,— —
f*«^
4X).
0oCO
oCOCO•&}"
r—LT>•
*^vo
^y
r—
O"^
^^A
«C£-
*^CO
^/^
o
CO >-
•0.in t—
O O)
4-> E
r- •- E
^£ r^ (O
U i-O >» CD•—(JO(0 OJ i-0.0:0.
O1
o
oin(./)
A
OCM•**oVO</)
V
p*^
f»^
•
enCO
(yf).
0co
CTi
^j-
CO
CM<X)
^^cr>•
inin
IS)
CM
VO
^~Aco
O
&y
r++*^™vo >-"•Q-CM 1—
iS)on
•*-
EO
^.c^.
-o
O)
o
r^, —
Oo
O)i-
ro
CO^~
ro
ZI
(U
ros:
,
U10)O«i—
>
S-0)
CO
(U-o•r—
COo
t^
3
0
O
EO
,|_>
*r"
T3-oro
E•i—
to<uu•r—
>
S-
0)to
l^Ho
^.4Ja*
•r-s_rd
(U
•r—
^ro
O)•o•r"
>os-
Q.
(/IErO
8
Q.
O
^J
0)to
O)
1—
.
"Q
O)-a3
r—Oc• r*
(US-fl3
£
rai-cr^oi-
Q.
^^
ro4J
O
4->
O)
-f->
O
-M
(U
•r*
40
r—
(U^_
(/)O)
E
0)
0]
T3c
to
toou
• A
00
o(UQ_en
££*Oj^
Ol
8Q.
j^0)
4J
O
0)to0)JC4J
•
coaiu• r*
>
QJ
CO
T3g*
•r™\x
1
E
•r—
0>E•^
T33n~O
X
0)
A
^— X
•O
CD
A
OVE
•r-toto
(UUoS-
Q.
A
E
O
^j
rOS-^j
to
•r—
E
'i•oro
A
EO
+j
<_>0)
f-~0u
A
01
al
to
^K>toou
o>c•r-
•U
10i.
<U0.o
^w
^«
3
LJL.
CM
EO•i—
4-1
(J
OJ
^™
^—0o
c
• r—
E
O
+J
(J3
T3
0)
^^cu
roE
+J
COOJ
A
CO0)E•r—
>
(O
CO
<ua>
p~-
^^
•r"M-
"OC*o
A•o5-rO
^rO
4J
E
(Os_
Ol
cas:
toto
in^*^1—
01
E
•53i— •
O ^~ ^E 4->••- Xft)A 4_)
to
O) E3 -r-
E
O) TD
> O)0) T3i- -r-
>4J O0 S-
O> Q.S-
•f- IO•O (O
I— i 3c~•a Cc o
(0 «+-
^ju </>a> ••->s- to
•r- O
0 UCO
,
1 —
rO• r—s-a>
rOE
Cf_o
EO^ %
^— *
J-O)
Q.
QJ3Ea>
O)S-
OJDl
roS-a>
(O
Ero
1 *
0a>
M—cuS-
toQJs_
3Ol
• r—
C^.
CJCO
QJ
4_)
• A
QJ
rO
3
-M
0
3r-»
<*-
>«j
^—4JraQJs^o>
^~
1—
•1—2
1—"ra•^t.
QJ
e
s-a>Q.
to
0)3
Cat
0)a:
*
•
g^o
•^»^
toa>3
EQJ>
QJ
to3
E•r—E
EO
^^
CO
00
e^
O•r-
•4_J
0QJr^
1—o<_)in
co
QJ
•M
E
'^3
CO
LU
.
•^^QJ
rOUO1
to
'*"
E
i.
0)os_
Q. •
COe— ^r
U 3ro tOOJ tO
-E "
0 =
-E a>s >&.
E 3•i- tO
^i 1 *-I-) CO
E O
3 O
OO CO
0) CO
-E •!-+-> i-Ot_
O QJ4- O)roE .a
0 1-
4J roCDS-O) CM
0.00
CO r—
+J =to
O QJ0 -E
r-~
(0 S-co OO 4—O.co to•i- OlX) E•r»•o -oE Ero -i-
O)
E >,
i— to
3 E
ro •!-
•t—
A ^«
E QJ0 S-••- Q.
u EQJ O
r- i-
^™ H—
O0 T3atat E
tO •!-3 ra
at J3a: o
VO
<—Baseline data should be carefully recorded and ongoing records should be
maintained for comparison purposes. The progress of the program can be
better assessed in a systematic approach. Any notable trends or potential
problems can be quickly identified and solutions implemented to avert or
minimize the difficulties.
—It is also important to record accurate participation data so that the
most effective collection routing schedules can be designed. "Set out
records" (records of residences placing materials at curbside) should be
maintained as well as records indicating the volumes of each material being
recovered and types of materials set out (e.g., a participating residence
may place materials at curbside every collection day but may vary the types
of materials. Newspaper may be regularly set out but glass only set out
every fourth time, for instance). Accurate data-keeping facilitates better
utilization of staff and equipment capabilities.
—Overall, it appears that curbside programs are more effective in weekly
or bi-weekly, same-day-as-refuse-removal, collection schedules than some
other interval. If some other schedule is adopted, try to adhere to it, if
at all possible. It is essential that collection be regularly scheduled
and reliable. Confusion by participants in collection pickups will result
in decreased participation which may not again be increased without some
type of strong incentive. If changes must be made in the collection
scheduling, they should be kept as simple as possible and be publicized,
well in advance of the event. In the long run, the more inconvenience for
the curbside participant, the less likely he is to sustain full partici-
pation.
—Provision of program-issued storage receptacles (e.g., burlap bags,
separate interlocking containers, red barrels, etc.) has not been proven to
significantly increase participation or recovery rates. The considerable
added expense of purchasing and providing receptacles to participants, or
potential participants, has not been justified based on the results of
these particular studies. Less expensive techniques can be used to insure
visibility and provide psychological/social incentives (such as colorful
stickers). Until controlled studies can be done, the available data does
not support the theory that provision of receptacles by the program is the
only means to attain a high participation rate.
—Collection vehicles should have a large enough capacity to sufficiently
handle the amounts of material recovered. If the storage capacity of the
equipment is insufficient, transportation and maintenance costs will
significantly rise due to the frequent numbers of trips to processing yard
or market which will be required to empty the collection bins.
—If materials processing is to be performed, processing equipment
selection should be based on such factors as market distances, market
contamination requirements, and program storage capabilities.
—Serious consideration must be given to the question of including
processing of recovered recyclable materials in the overall recycling
program. Advantages and disadvantages of processing materials for market
should be analyzed prior to determining if this activity is necessary or
warranted. The costs of purchasing processing equipment, paying for a
large site to accommodate the processing activity and paying salaries for
the extra labor involved should be weighed with the market price to be
received from the sale of the processed materials.
—Through comparison of various available markets, determine if processing
could be performed by an entity other than the curbside collector.
—Based on the marketing strategy selected, determine whether contamination
levels will allow the co-mingling of recyclable materials as opposed to the
source separation of materials.
—It has been the experience of most curbside programs that participation
rates will steadily, and sometimes quite dramatically, increase until a
plateau is reached. This plateau level will vary from program to program
The "leveling-off" of participation will continue until some type of major
3*7
event or direction in the program occurs; such event may be a significant
increase in public awareness activities, enactment of a mandatory recycling
ordinance or a similar event.
—Consideration should be given to the hiring of a full-time public
relations/education person to coordinate and administer publicity for both
pre and post implementation of the curbside program. Probably the one
single factor which will most affect the success or failure of a curbside
(or any other) recycling program is public education/awareness. Such
activity must not only prepare the potential participant to utilize the
program but also to reinforce that behavior once it is initiated. Public
awareness activities must continue, even when the program is well-
established, in order to maintain participation.
—Labor costs are the single most expensive on-going factor in operating a
curbside program. If processing is also included in addition to collec-
tion, the program will become even more labor intensive. Therefore, it is
important that the quality of the personnel should be a prime consideration
when selecting the source of labor.
—None of the programs studied would be considered economically "self-
sustaining" if comparing complete operations costs with direct revenues
generated from the sales of recovered materials. However, besides
environmental considerations, there are very real benefits derived from the
diversion of materials from the wastestream which can be defined in terms
of economic considerations. Tipping or landfill fee savings, reduction in
refuse collection equipment and personnel, energy savings and other
benefits all reduce the cost of overall solid waste management activities.
The Board estimates that recycling activities constitute an alternative in
the overall solid waste issue and, as such, should be considered part of
the refuse budget. "Subsidizing" the program through such means as
assessing a fee through a garbage collection rate increase appears to be a
feasible option for municipal planners.
76018—875 9/82 1JI OBP
RECYCLING CENTERS
LIBERTY RECYCLING, 627 E. Mission Road, San Marcos, 744-2024 and 5960 El
Camino Real, Carlsbad, 744-2024, Monday - Saturday 8-4, Sunday - donation
only.
Buy-Back: Newspaper, aluminum cans, aluminum scrap, other metal,
glass.
Donation: Cardboard, other paper.
OCEANSIDE RECYCLING CENTER, 1440 S. Pacific Street, Oceanside, 722-7679,
Tuesday - Saturday 8:30-4.
Buy-Back: Newspapers, other paper, aluminum cans.
NATIONAL COUNTY RECYCLING, 757 N. Santa Fe, Vista, 941-1498, Tuesday -
Saturday 8-4.
Buy-Back: Newspapers, other paper, aluminum cans.
LEE'S IRON & METAL, 101 North Ave, Vista, 724-1330, Monday - Friday 8-5,
Saturday 8-12.
Buy-Back: Aluminum cans, aluminum scrap, other metals.
FLEET MAINTENANCE, CITY OF CARLSBAD, 2480 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, 931-2192,
Monday - Friday 7:30-4.
Donation: Waste engine oil.
State of Washington Study
of Municipal Incineration Residue
and Its Designation As a
Dangerous WasLfi
1
by James C. Knudson, P.E.
Solid Waste Engineer
Washington Department of Ecology
Executive Summary
The State of Washington, Department of Ecology embarked on a study of municipal
incinerator residues. With the possible construction of new large facilities
in the near future, the question of how the state's Dangerous Waste Regulation
Chapter 173-303 RCW, would designate these wastes has become important. The
Department sampled seven municipal incinerators across the United States and
subjected the samples to the dangerous waste criteria tests, including:
Extraction procedure tests,
Oral rat toxicity tests, *
Fish toxicity tests,
Halogenated hydrocarbon chemical tests,
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon tests, and
Metals analyses for carcinogens.
The State of Washington uses a two-tier system for designating hazarous waste:
dangerous waste and extremely hazardous waste.
Of the five incinerators that kept flyash separate from bottom ash, all flyash
samples were designated by one or more of the criteria tests used in the State
of Washington. Four of the five flyash samples designated as extremely hazar-
dous waste and one designated as dangerous waste. All five flyash samples
would qualify as hazardous wastes under the federal characteristic test for
metal mobility.
The study also found that, for the same five incinerators, bottom ash samples
were designated due to the presence of metal carcinogens. One of the bottom
ash samples had carcinogen levels sufficient to designate as extremely haz-
ardous waste and four others as dangerous waste. One bottom ash sample also
designated as dangerous waste due to the pH test for solids. None of the five
bottom ash samples designated as hazardous waste under the federal character-
istic test for metal mobility.
Two incinerators combined flyash and bottom ash as one waste; both incinera-
tors' combined wastes designated as dangerous waste due to the presence of
metal carcinogens. One combined waste would designate as a federal hazardous
waste due to extraction procedure toxicity for lead.
LfG
ENVIRONMENTAL^
'DEFENSE FUND
1616 P Street. NW Washington. DC 20036 NEWS RELEASE
CONTACT: BRIAN A. DAY
(2Q2\ 387-3500
For Release: 1:00 P.M Thursday March 12, 1987 or Dr. Richard A. Denison
Robert V. Percival
Dr. Ellen K. Silbergeld
or Michael Herz
(212) 505-2100
HIGH LEVELS Q£ TOXIC METALS FOUND IE ASH FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Testing Must Begin
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today notified more than 100 of the
nation's municipal solid waste incinerators that high levels of toxics metals
have been found in ash generated by incineration. The finding triggers the
industry's obligation under Federal law to test ash residues to determine the
level of hazard. In certified letters sent to the owners and operators of
incinerators currently operating or under construction in the U.S., EDF
documented that incinerator ash frequently contains hazardous levels of lead,
cadmium, and other toxic substances.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), generators of
waste must determine if that waste is hazardous, unless they have sufficient
cause to believe it is not. Currently, few incinerators regularly test ash
residues. "The information we are providing to the incinerator operators
demonstrates that ash cannot simply be assumed to be nonhazardous," stated
Robert V. Percival, EDF Senior Toxics Attorney. "We are serving notice that
incinerator operators are now legally obligated to test their ash." Copies of
EDF's letters have been provided to public health and solid waste officials
and to the attorney general in each of the states where the "resource
recovery" or "waste-to-energy" facilities are located to ensure that state
officials are aware of the legal and public health implications of this new
information.
EDF's data came from tests conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, state authorities, and private laboratories. Ash from more
than 20 incinerators across the country was tested using EPA's extraction
-more-
(*"*"*
procedure (EP) test. The EP is the method used by EPA to determine if a waste
is hazardous. "These simple tests reveal that incinerator ash contains very
high levels of toxic metals such as lead and cadmium," according to Dr.
Richard A. Denison, the EDP scientist who compiled and analyzed the results.
"These metals leach from ash in amounts so great that they exceed limits set
by federal law to protect water supplies." The toxic metals most often found
in high amounts in ash -- lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury •- are undisputed
hazards to human health. "The levels of lead in ash are so high," said Dr.
Ellen Silbergeld, EDF's senior toxicologist, "that incinerator ash itself is
as dangerous as lead-based paint, the same paint banned in the U.S. in 1973."
The dangers posed by ash from trash-burning plants are particularly
severe because ash is now haphazardly managed. "Ash is stored on site without
effective controls and is transported to landfills in uncovered trucks on
public roads, creating dusts that can be inhaled by workers and nearby
residents," stated Silbergeld. "In some places, ash has been used on roads as
de-icing grit, and in England, incinerator ash is being used as coastal
reclamation fill."
The metals found in incinerator ash come from many items discarded every
day in municipal trash. Colored printing inks, mercurial fungicides in
newspaper, batteries from cars or consumer products, and household pesticides
are major sources of toxic metals. EDF Attorney Michael Herz noted,
"Incinerators, far from being waste disposal facilities, are processors of
municipal trash, and they are processing it into a hazardous waste." The
solution to this problem lies outside the technology of incineration. "Metals
are not destroyed by burning, only concentrated in the ash and, under current
practices, released back into the environment," said Denison. "Ultimately, we
must reduce the sources of metals in trash through increased recycling and
restrictions on the use of these toxic metals in products."
tt ft ft ft
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BRIAN f. BILBRAY
PI»«T OIVTMICT
GEORCC r. BAIUCV
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE (619) 236-2722 FOU.T» O,.»«,CT
JOHN MACDONALD
AGENDA ITEM '"""• •••«•«
SUBJECT: North. County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study Scope; San Marcos Landfill
Expansion
SUPV DIST; 3 and 5
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
This 1s a request to expand the scope of the existing North County Landfill Siting Study
to consider geographical areas of the County not heretofore included, to incorporate
the concept of solid waste transfer stations as an additional means to address the
public and environmental concerns of solid waste processing and disposal; to direct
staff immediately to take the steps necessary to maximize the operating life of the San
Marcos Landfill, and to investigate the availability and feasibility of acquiring
property adjacent to the San Marcos Landfill for use as a landfill site; and to report
to the Board within 90 days as to the status of these directives.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION:
A. NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL SITING STUDY:
1. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to conduct an expanded study for the
North County Landfill Siting Study to include all areas of North County, including
government lands, publicly owned properties, and rural areas, without regard to
distance from population centers; to locate sites for landfills that can accept
ordinary refuse, sludge, and auto shredder wastes, and sites for inert materials
only.
2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to investigate the concept of solic
waste transfer stations as an additional means of transporting solid waste t(
landfills, with emphasis on costs, traffic, and other environmental concerns.
3. Authorize the expenditure from the Facility Reserve of the Solid Wasti
Enterprise Fund the amount of $80,000 to retain a contract consultant to perfon
the expanded study, and authorize the Director of Purchasing to issue a Request fo
Proposal and negotiate an award of contract to acquire these services for th
Department of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works
FUNDING SOURCES:Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
CURRENT YEAR COST: $140,000
ANNUAL COST: N/A
BUDGETED: [] YES [X] NO
WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? No
NO [] IF YES, STATE NUMBER PERMANENT TEMPORARY OTHER
BOARD POLICY(IES) APPLICABLE:1-76; Solid Waste Disposal
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: 10/15/85 (39) Construction of San Marcos Underdrain
Extension
10/08/85 (28) Agreement with Private Consultant for Nort
County Solid Waste Facility Siting Project
4 VOTES REQUIRED [] YES [X] NO DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORM
SUBJECT: North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study Scope; San Marcos Landfill
Expansion
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION: (continued)
B. SAN MARCOS LANDFILL:
1. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to immediately take necessary steps
to maximize the operating life of the San Marcos Landfill, including implementation
of the recently revised plan for the landfill and authorize staff to make any
necessary permit applications for this purpose.
2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to immediately investigate the
availability and feasibility of acquiring and utilizing for landfill purposes land
parcels immediately adjoining the San Marcos Landfill site.
3. Authorize the expenditure from the Facility Reserve of the Solid Waste
Enterprise Fund the amount of $60,000 to retain a contract engineer for the purpose
of preparing necessary environmental documents and determining Waste Discharge
Requirements for any such land parcels; and authorize the Director of Purchasing
and Contracting to issue a Request for Proposal and negotiate an award of contract
to acquire these services for the Department of Public Works, subject to the
approval of the Director of Public Works.
4. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to explore the feasibility of directing
construction, demolition, and inert materials away from the San Marcos Landfill
to other landfills, and to take necessary action as appropriate.
5. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to report back to the Board in 90 days
with a status report.
[] ORDINANCE [J RESOLUTION CITIZENS COMMITTEE STATEMENT JNO LJ CONTRACT NO
CONTRACT APPROVED BY CAP FOR ECONOMY []YES []NO [] N/A [X] EXEMPT (B/S POLICY A-96)
APPROVED BY CO. COUNSEL AS TO LEGALITY [XjY als QNOT APPLICABLE [JSTANDARD FOR
(If Applicable)CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL ACTION
G APPROVED G DISAPPROVED [X] NOT APPLICABLE
AUDITOR APPROVAL NEEDED LXJYES *1nitials[3NO FIN.. v^t y
CON
ROGER WALSH 565-5165 (0322)
^TJEPT AUTft6ftf2£D 'REPRESENTATIVE/DAI
~~7l CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICERE/MEETING DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORM
SUBJECT:North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study Scope; San Marcos
Landfill Expansion
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (continued)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A. NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL SITING STUDY:
1. Landfill capacity in the North County area is rapidly beihg used. The
Bonsall Landfill closed in 1985, and the San Marcos Landfill is now estimated
to reach capacity in early 1991.
Your Board, in recognition of this immediate need to provide landfill capacity
in the North County area, authorized a contract landfill site search which
commenced in October 1985. The search was conducted by Edarra, Inc., and
included involvement of citizen representatives from North County areas.
Following the initial identification of sites within the study area, the
citizen representatives narrowed the field to six candidate sites, and finally
to three sites considered most favorable.
Subsequent public concern and citizen input to this process indicates that
the three selected sites need further comparison with alternate potential
sites which were not included within the original study boundaries.
The original North County landfill search anticipated that appropriate sites
could be found within in close proximity to the urban area waste generation
centers. It is now appropriate to expand the original scope of the study to
\S include (a) lands owned in whole or in part by agencies of the federal
government, and (b) lands previously excluded because of major factors of
hauling distance or accessibility.
Recent events have focused on County-wide need to provide adequate disposal
sites for waste water treatment by products (sludge) and auto shredder wastes
(fluff). The siting study should ensure that any sites located may be
developed appropriately to provide for disposal of those special wastes.
Location of landfill sites to accept inert materials only will reduce the
impact of the waste stream on the more costly landfills designed for ordinary
wastes. The siting study should identify potential sites for that purpose.
Because sites at greater distances will now be considered, the County need:
to consider the feasibility of solid waste transfer stations as a means o-
economizing on the hauling costs to remote sites. Other positive aspects o
transfer stations; i.e., accessibility to local areas, ease of environmenta
compatibility, and traffic factors, need careful attention and analysis.
Additional funding is necessary to accomplish the above recommendations. Th
amount of $80,000 should be sufficient to achieve the objectives of th
expanded scope.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT FORM
SUBJECT: North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study Scope; San Marcos
Landfill Expansion
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (continued)
B. SAN MARCOS LANDFILL:
Staff of the Department of Public Works have anticipated the North County Landfill
crisis for some time. _In_ 1985, when the landfill plan engineering responsibility
was returned to the Department from the landfill contractor as a result of ^nntrar^-
Department commenced 5 — review of £h"e San Marcos landfill
_
capacity projections for the purpose of maximizing its useful life. This review
led to a redesign of the development plans, recently completed by Charles
Christensen and Associates, an engineering contractor. The immediate
implementation of the revised plan will provide an expected closing date for the
landfill in early 1991. Implementing this plan may require permit changes.
An option at the San Marcos landfill site is to expand the site to include adjacent
properties. While any or all new sites for landfilling will be subject to complete
feasibility, environmental, and permit reviews, there is the advantage at the San
Marcos site of providing a continuous service without change of location. Also,
I ultimately, the residue from the proposed waste-to-energy plant will need new
I landfill space. Adjacent properties could accommodate this need without adding
l^transportati on costs. It is therefore appropriate to investigate this possibility.
A contract engineer is requested for this purpose. The amount of $60,000 should
be sufficient to complete the initial investigations and to begin preparation of
the environmental documents and waste discharge requirements.
Recent development activity in the North County area has produced inordinate
quantities of construction, demolition, and other inert materials, delivered t(
the San Marcos Landfill. During the first two weeks of May, 1987, approximate!:
of the waste received was of this classification. Directing this portion o-
the wastestream to other appropriate disposal areas will preserve the landfil
capacity to receive normal refuse and garbage generated by the existing communitie
and prolong the life of the landfill. Direction is requested to explore th
feasibility of this option and take action as appropriate.
CITIZEN COMMITTEE STATEMENT:
The Public Works Advisory Board will consider this matter at their meeting of May 28
1987.
INFORMATION DEVELOPHEHT FORMW
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study Scope; San Marcos
Landfill Expansion
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
.PROGRAM: Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Direct Cost
Indirect Cost (Dept. OH)
(ext. supp. OH)
TOTAL COST
Earned Revenue
NET COUNTY COST
Staff Years
1986-87
ADOPTED
BUDGET
0
1906-87
RECOMMENDED
PROPOSAL
0
1986-87
ADJUSTMENTS
140,000
1987-88
IHPACT
$ o
i4o;ooo
Source of
Added Funds Solid Waste Facility Reserve
TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS:
Amount of Added
Funds Required $140,000
REMARKS: All costs tn fund this request will be funded from the Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund Facility Reserve Account 6830 Fund 190402.
This expenditure does not incure any cost to the County's General Fund.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT
47. SUBJECT; North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study
Scope; San Marcos Landfill Expansion
SUPV. DIST.(LOCATION); 3, 5
SUMMARY OF REQUEST';
This is a request to expand the scope of the existing North
County Landfill Siting Study to consider geographical areas of
the County not heretofore included, to incorporate the concept of
solid waste transfer stations as an additional means to address
the public and environmental concerns of solid waste processing
and disposal; to direct staff immediately to take the steps
necessary to maximize the operating life of the San Marcos
Landfill, and to investigate the availability and feasibility of
acquiring property adjacent to the San Marcos Landfill for use as
a landfill site; and to report to the Board within 90 days as to
the status of these directives.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION;
A. NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL SITING STUDY
1. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to conduct an
expanded study for the North County Landfill Siting Study
to include all areas of North County, including
government lands, publicly owned properties, and rural
areas, without regard to distance from population
centers; to locate sites for landfills that can accept
ordinary refuse, sludge, and auto shredder wastes, and
sites for inert materials only.
2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to
investigate the concept of solid waste transfer stations
as an additional means of transporting solid waste to
landfills, with emphasis on costs, traffic, and pther
environmental concerns.
3. Authorize the expenditure from the Facility Reserve
of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund the amount of $80,000
to retain a contract consultant to perform the expanded
study, and authorize the Director of Purchasing to
issue a Request for Proposal and negotiate an award of
contract to acquire these services for the Department of
Public Works, subject to the approval of the Director of
Public Works.
CONTINUED
6/2/87 47
CHIB? ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT
47- SUBJECT; North County Landfill piting - Expansion of Study
Scope; San Marcp* Landfill Expansion - Continued
'-"**'••
CHIBP APMIHISTRAfrlVB OFF|CER RECOMMENDATION; - Continued
IB! SAN MARCOS LAtfDFILL~^~
1. direct; the Chief Administrative Officer to
immediately take necessary .steps to maximize the
operating life of the San Marcos Landfill, including
implementation of the recently revised plan lor the
landfill and authorize staff to make any necessary
permit applications for this purpose.
v/2. Direct the^Chief Administrative Officer to
immediately investigate the availability and feasibility
of Acquiring and utilizing for landfill purposes land
parcels immediately adjoining the San Marcos Landfill
site. -• ' . ,.' . .;
3. Authorize the expenditure form the Facility Reserve
of the Solid Waste .Enterprise Fund the, amount of $60,000
to retain a contract engineer for the purpose of
•preparing necessary environmental documents and
; determining Haste Discharge Requirements for any such
land parcels? and authorise the Director of
Purchasing and. Contracting to issue a Request for
Proposal and negotiate an award of contract to acquire
these services for the Department of Public Works,
subject to the approval of the Directqr. of Public Works .
, T '*•''' >'
4. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to explore
the. .feasibility'of directing construction, demolition,
and inert materials away from the San Marcos Landfill to
other landfills,, and to take necessary action as
appropriate.
£,<Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to report
Uk;,; back to the Boaird in 90 days with a status report.
FISCAL IMPACT}
All costs to fund this request will be funded from the Solid
Waste .Enterprise Fund Facility Reserve Account 6830 Fund 190402.. v .•;«.- ;, . V :. -
BpARD PQLICY(IES) APPLICABLE; -
1-76 So 114 Waste /Disposal : ,
CONTINUED
6/2/87 47
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT
47. SUBJECT: North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study
Scope; San Marcos Landfill Expansion - Continued
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION AND ROLL CALL VOTE;
10/15/85(39)Authorized construction of San Marcos Underdrain
Extension. Board Vote: Districts 1,2,3,4,5 Aye.v
10/8/85 (28) Authorized execution of Agreement with Private
Consultant for North County Solid Waste Facility
Siting Project. Board Vote: Districts 1,2,3,4,5
Aye.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
6/2/87 47
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT
48. SUBJECT: County Transit System Service for Fiscal Year
1987-88
SUPV. DIST.(LOCATION): All
SUMMARY OF REQUEST;
This is a'''request to approve Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Claims and 12 of the agreements required to manage and operate
the County Transit System for Fiscal Year 1987-88.
The recommended actions will enable the County to:
Claim TDA funds needed for public transit service and public
transit projects (Recommendations 1,2A,2B,2C).
Fund public operators' provision of transit service in
unincorporated areas (Recommendations 2D, 2E, 2F).
Provide support services for County Transit System operations
(Recommendations 2G, 2H).
Engage private contractors to provide public transit service
(Recommendations 21,2J,3A,3B).
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE-OFFICER-RECOMMENDATION;
1. Approve and authorize submittal of the Fiscal Year
(FY) 1987-88 County Transit System Transportation Development
Act Claims to the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
{MTDB).
2. Approve and authorize the following agreements,
amendments and adjustments for execution by the Clerk of the
Board:
A. City of El Cajon, 7/1/87-6/30/88;
B. City of La Mesa, 7/1/87-6/30/88;
C. City of Santee, 7/1/87-6/30/88;
D. Amendment No. 9 with South Coast Organization Operating
Transit (SCOOT), 7/1/87-6/30/88;
E. MTDB for San Diego Transit Service in Unincorporated
Areas, 8/1/87-6/30/88;
F. MTDB Audit Adjustment for San Diego Transit Services for
FY 1985-86;
G. Amendment No. 7 with San Diego Transit Corporation for
Unified Telephone Information System, 8/1/87-6/30/88;
H. Agreement for Allocation and Disbursement of Regional
Ready Pass Sales Revenues, 7/1/87-6/30/88;
I. Second Amendment with San Diego/Imperial County American
Red Cross for Management and Operation of an Elderly and
Handicapped Transportation System, 7/1/87-6/30/88;
J. Agreement with California Paratransit, Inc. for
Management and Operation of Spring Valley Dial-a-Ride
Service, 7/1/87-6/30/90.
CONTINUED
6/2/87 48
There is presented to the Board a letter. Board of Supervisors
Document Ho. 7OO666, from the Chief Administrative Officer concerning
the North County Landfill Siting - Expansion of Study Scope; San Marcos
Landfill Expansion, and making recommendations as follows:
A. NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL SITING STUDY:
1. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to conduct an expanded
study for the North County Landfill Siting Study to include all
areas of North County, including government lands, publicly owned
properties, and rural areas, without regard to distance' from
population centers; to locate sites for landfills that can accept
ordinary refuse, sludge, and auto shredder wastes, and sites for
inert materials only.
2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to investigate the
concept of solid waste transfer stations as an additional means of
transporting solid waste to landfills, with emphasis on costs,
traffic, and other environmental concerns.
3. Authorize the expenditure from the Facility Reserve of the
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund the amount of $80,000 to retain a
contract consultant to perform the expanded study, and authorize
the Director of Purchasing to issue a Request for Proposal and
negotiate an award of contract to acquire these services for the
Department of Public Works, subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works.
B. SAN MARCOS LANDFILL:
1. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to immediately take
necessary steps to maximize the operating life of the San Marcos
Landfill, including implementation of the recently revised Plan
for the landfill and authorize staff to make any necessary permit
applications for this purpose.
2. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to immediately
investigate the availability and feasibility of acquiring and
utilizing for landfill purposes land parcels immediately adjoining
the San Marcos Landfill site.
3. Authorize the expenditure from the Facility Reserve of the
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund the amount of $6O,OOO to retain a
contract engineer for the purpose of preparing necessary
environmental documents and determining Waste Discharge
Requirements for any such land parcels; and authorize the Director
of Purchasing and Contracting to issue a Request for Proposal and
negotiate an award of contract to acquire these services for the
Department of Public Works, subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works.
4. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to explore the
feasibility of directing construction, demolition, and inert
materials away from the San Marcos Landfill to other landfills,
and to take necessary action as appropriate.
5. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to report back to the
Board in 9O days with a status report.
Nos. !O5-106a
6/2/87
LB
Page 1 of 4 Pages
V J-,.
Jeff Ritchie, representing the San Diego County Disposal
Association, speaks concerning Recommendation A stating that the County
should site landfills now rather than making another study which will
cost a lot of money that could be used for the landfill sites.
Ron White, representing Save Copper Creek Association, speaks in
favor of Recommendation A and states that landfills should be placed on
public land in East County or in the hills somewhere, but not on
private land.
No opposition is expressed to Recommendation B concerning the San
Marcos Landfill. However, much concern is expressed about
Recommendation A regarding the North County Landfill Siting Study.
Comments are made that the fee structure should be studied and. perhaps
fees raised if geographic areas on which landfill sites are to be
located in outlying areas require transport of waste to such areas,
thereby increasing the cost of the waste disposal. It is suggested
that another study should not be done and fee structures changed
without some idea of specific sites for landfills. The scope of the
study is commented on and it is suggested that before the study is
made, the scope of what the study will be and how it will be done
should be brought back to the Board so that the study covers all that
the Board wants it to cover. Comments are made on measuring emissions
from present and past landfill sites, on recycling of waste and the
County's ability to do recycling, and how to cut down on waste and
increase recycling within the jurisdiction of the County.
No. 105
OK MOTION of Supervisor MacDonald, seconded by Supervisor Golding,
the Board of Supervisors takes action on the San Marcos Landfill as
' follows: (1) directs the Chief Administrative Officer to immediately
take necessary steps to maximize the operating life of the San Marcos
Landfill, including implementation of the recently revised plan for the
landfill and authorize staff to make any necessary permit applications
for this purpose;v/(2) directs the Chief Administrative Officer to
immediately investigate the availability and feasibility of acquiring
and utilizing for landfill purposes land parcels immediately adjoining
the San Marcos Landfill Site;N/(3) authorizes the expenditure from the
Facility Reserve of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund the amount of
SSO,OOO to retain a contract engineer for the purpose of preparing
necessary environmental documents and determining Waste Discharge
Requirements for any such land parcels; and authorizes the Director of
Purchasing and Contracting to issue a Request for Proposal and
negotiate an award of contract to acquire these services for the
Department of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Director of
Public Works; directs the Chief Administrative Officer to explore the
feasibility of directing construction, demolition, and inert materials
away from the San Marcos Landfill to other landfills, and to take
NOB. !O5-lO6a
6/2/87
LB
Page 2 of 4 Pages
necessary action as appropriate; and directs the Chief Administrative
Officer to report back to the Board on September 15, 1987 with a status .
report.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, Williams and
MacDonald
NOES: Supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisors None
At 3:23 p.m.. Supervisor Williams leaves the meeting.
Ko. 1O6
ON MOTION of Supervisor Golding, seconded by Supervisor Bailey,
the Board of Supervisors orders action held in abeyance on the
recommendation for the North County Landfill Siting Study until the
Chief Administrative Officer report is received on fee structure and
general geographic area locations to be studied; directs the Chief
Administrative Officer to report as soon as possible but no later than
August 11, 1987 with (1) recommendations on perhaps a new fee structure
or existing fees and general geographic area locations to be studied;
(2) recommendations for scope of expanded study (what it is and how it
will be arranged) for Board approval; (3) recommendations for a program
to measure emissions from current and past sites to learn of problems
created at these dump sites; and also directs Chief Administrative
Officer, as soon as practicable, to report after staff has again
studied County's ability to recycle or require recycling with curbside
pickup by trash trucks of recyclable products and return to the Board
with suggestions, also to work with Environmental Health Coalition,
Ecology Center and other interested community organizations and return
to the Board with a comprehensive proposal on how to cut down on amount
of waste and how to increase recycling within the County's
jurisdiction.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding and MacDonald
NOES: Supervisors None
ABSENT: Supervisor Williams
Nos. !O5-lO6a
6/2/87
LB
Page 3 of 4 Pages
No. lO6a
There being no motion and no objection, the Chairman requests the
Chief Administrative Officer to report on why the six North County
sites already reviewed are unsuitable and the components concerned; and
requests County Counsel to report on the County's responsibility to
provide landfill services to cities or districts and what legislation
would be needed to modify that responsibility.
Nos. lO5-106a
6/2/87
LB
Page 4 of 4 Pages