HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-23; City Council; 11752 Exhibit 1; Source Reduction & Recycling Element (SRRE) Report by Camp Dresser & McKeep c- .I 98
D - .- .p- * * WRITE IT- DQN'T SAY IT! 4 x-- *.* - '@
Date May 4, IY 89
File
lw
0 Reply Wanted
UNO Reply Necessary
There is also a "Solid Waster Managment Plan" (fi.16 87).
PRINTED iri USA FORM NO. 55-032
1
CITY OF CARISBAD
SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING ELEMEN"
April 1992
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1.0 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.1.1 Source Reduction 1-1
1.1.2 Recycling 1-2
1.1.3 Composting 1-4
1.1.4 Special Waste 1-5
1.1.5 Education and Public Information 1-5
1-7
2-1
1.2 Summary of Diversion Activities and Schedule
2.0 INITIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY
2.1 Purpose and Scope 2-1
2.2 Background Infomation 2-2
2.2.2 Population 2-2
2.2.1 Location 2-2
2.2.3 General Land Use 2-6
2.2.4 Schools 2-9
2.2.5 Transportation 2-9
2.2.6 Public Services and Utilities 2-9
2 - 10
2.3.1 Introduction 2 - 10
2.3.2 Collection Practices 2 - 11
2.3.3 Disposal Practices 2 - 12
2.3.4 Diversion Practices 2 - 12
2.4 Total Solid Waste Generation 2- 18
2.5 Projected Solid Waste Quantities 2 - 19
2.5.1 Population Projections 2 - 20
2.5.2 Per Capita Solid Waste Generation Rates 2 - 21
2.6 Solid Waste Composition 2 - 22
2.6.1 Background 2 - 22-
2.6.2 Methods Used For Solid Waste Characterization 2 - 24
2.6.3 Summary and Conclusions 2 - 25
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT 3-1
3.1 Objectives 3-1
3.1.1 Short- and Medium-term Objectives 3-1
3.1.2 Priority Waste Types 3-2
2.3 Existing Solid Waste Systems
220911 /CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.F”LJO i
3.2 Existing Conditions 3-4
3.3.1 Rate Structure Modifications 3-5
3.3.3 Technical Assistance 3-7
3.3.4 Instructional Alternatives 3-9
3.3.5 Regulatory Programs
3.3 Evaluation of Program Alternatives 3-4
3.3.2 Economic Incentives 3-6
3 - 10
3 - 12
3 - 13
3 - 13
3.4 Program Selection
3.5 Program Implementation
3.6 Monitoring and Evaluation
4.0 RECYCLING COMPONENT 4-1
4.1 Objectives 4-1
4.1.1 Short- and Medium-term Objectives 4-1
4.1.2 Material Market Study 4-2
4.1.3 Priority Waste Types 4-5
4.2 Existing Conditions 4-7
4.3.1 Separation 4 - 10
4.3.2 Collection 4 - 12
4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives 4 - 10
4.3.3 Processing 4 - 18
4.3.4 Summary Evaluation of Alternatives 4 - 24
4 - 25
4 - 32
4 - 32
4.6.1 Residential Programs 4 - 32
4.6.2 Commercial/industrial Programs 4 - 38
5-1
5.1 Objectives 5-1
5.1.1 Short-term Objectives 5-1
5.1.2 Medium-term Objectives 5-1
5.1.3 Marketing Objectives 5-2
5-3
4.4 Program Selection
4.5 Program Implementation
4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation
5.0 EVALUATION OF COMPOSTING ALTERNAW
5.2 Evaluation of Composting Alternatives 5.2.1 Introduction 5-3
5.2.2 Separation / Collection 5-4
5-7
5.2.4 Technology 5-8
5 - 15
5 - 17
5 - 19
5 - 20
5 - 27
5 - 29
5.2.3 Feedstocks
5.3.4 Program Scale
5.3.6 Marketing and Distribution
5.3.7 Summary Evaluation of Alternatives
5.4 Program Selection
5.5 Program Implementation
5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation
.. 2209/1/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 11
6.0 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT 6-1
6.1 Objectives 6-1 6.1.1 Short- and Medium-term Objectives 6-1
6.1.2 Priority Waste Types 6-2
6.2 Existing Conditions 6-2
6.2.1 Asbestos 6-2
6.2.2 Sewage Sludge 6-3
6.2.3 Septic Tank Pumpings 6-4
6.2.4 Grease Trap Pumpings 6-4
6.2.5 Infectious Waste 6-5
6.2.6 Incinerator Ash 6-5
6.2.7 Auto Bodies 6-5
6.2.8 Used Tires 6-5
6.2.9 Street Sweepings 6-6
6.2.10 White Goods 6-6
6.2.11 Construction and Demolition Debris 6-6
6.3 Evaluation of Alternatives 6-7 6.3.1 Sewage Sludge and Yard Waste 6-7
6.3.2 Used Tires 6-7
6.4 Program Selection 6-8
6.5 Program Implementation 6-9
6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation 6-9
7-1
7.1 Program Objectives 7- 1
7-2
7.2 Existing Programs 7-2
7.4 Program Implementation 7-6
7.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 7-6
8.0 FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT 8-1
8.1 Background 8-1 8.2 The San Marcos Sanitary Landfill 8-1
8.2.1 Description 8-1 8.2.2 Current Facilities Closure Plan 8-4
8-6
8.3.1 Description 8-6 8.3.2 Current Facility Closure Plans 8-6
8-7
8.4.1 Description 8-7 8.4.2 Current Facilities Closure Plan 8-8
8-8
8.5.1. Description 8-8
7.0 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
7.1.1 Short- and Medium-term Objectives
7.3 Selection of Alternatives 7-3
8.3 The Ramona Sanitary Landfd
8.4 The Sycamore Sanitary Landfd
8.5 The Otay/Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill
2209/l/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.WO iii
8.5.2 Current Facility Closure Plans 8 - 10
8 - 10 8.6 Facility Capacity Needs
9.0 FUNDING COMPONENT 9-1
9.1 Introduction 9-1
9.2.2 City Practices 9-3
9.3 Typical Component Programs and Facility Cost Estimates
9.2 Existing Funding Practices 9-2
9.2.1 County Practices 9-2
9-4 9.4 Program Funding Alternatives 9-6
9.4.1 Recycling Fee Surcharge For Residential Collection 9-6
9.4.2 Commercial Recycling Service Fee 9-7 9.4.3 Manufacturing Excise Taxes 9-8
9.4.4 Disposal Fees 9-8
9.4.5 Service Fee/Varkble Can Rate 9-9 9.5 Contingency Fund 9-9
9.6 Summary 9 - 10
10.1 Introduction 10- 1
10.2 Waste Management System Alternatives
10.2.1 Waste Management Hierarchy
10.2.2 Selection of Integrated System
10.0 INTEGRATION COMPONENT 10 - 1
10 - 2
10 - 2
10 - 3
10 - 8 10.3 Implementation Program and Schedule
iv 2209/1/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .WO
LIST OF TABLES
Table ms
1-1 City of Carlsbad Summary of Component Goals 1-8
2-1 City of Carlsbad Historical Population Estimates 2-3
2-2 City of Carlsbad Population Projections 2-7
2-3 City of Carlsbad Land Use 2-7
2-4 City of Carlsbad Dwelling Units 2-8
2-5 City of Carlsbad Housing Distribution by Type 2-8
2-6 2 - 15
2-7 2 - 16
Liberty Recycling, Carlsbad 1990 Annual Recycling Tonnage
Liberty Recycling, Carlsbad 1990 Annual Recycling Tonnage
2-8 City of Carlsbad Population and Solid Waste Generation Projections 2 - 23
2-9 City of Carlsbad Waste Composition by City and Sector (1990)
City of Carlsbad Waste Composition by City (1990)
2 - 26
2-10 2 - 27
3-1 City of Carlsbad Source Reduction Component Short-term Implementation Schedule 3 - 14
4-1 San Diego County Material Prices for Secondary Materials (September
1991) 4-6
4-2 City of Carlsbad Targeted Matexids by Sector 4-8
4-3 City of Carlsbad Technology Evaluation Matrk Residential Recycling 4 - 26
4-4 City of Carlsbad 1990 Diversion Quantities 4 - 28
4-5 City of Carlsbad 1995 Diversion Quantities 4 - 29
4-6 City of Carlsbad 2000 Diversion Quantities 4 - 30
4-7 City of Carlsbad Short-term Implementation Schedule 4 - 33
2209/1/CARLSBAD/CARD.€WLlO V
4-8 City of Carlsbad Medium-term Implementation Schedule 4 - 34
June, 1991 5 - 18 5-1 City of Carlsbad Summary of Preliminary Compost Market Survey
5-2
5-3
5-4
City of Carlsbad Evaluation Matrix - Separation/Collection Alternatives 5 - 21
5 - 22
5 - 23
City of Carlsbad Evaluation Matrix - Feedstock Alternatives
City of Carlsbad Evaluation Matrix - Cornposting Technologies
City of Carlsbad Evaluation Matrix - Alternative Scales
City of Carlsbad Evaluation Matrix - Marketing Alternatives
City of Carlsbad Composting Component Short-term Implementation Schedule 5 -28
5-5 5 - 24
5-6 5 - 25
5-7
5-8 City of Carlsbad Composting Component Medium-term Implementation Schedule 5 - 28
6-1
7-1 City of Carlsbad Education and Public Information Short-term
City of Carlsbad Special Waste Component Implementation Schedule 6 - 10
Implementation Schedule 7-7
7-2 City of Carlsbad Education and Public Information Component Medium- term Implementation Schedule 7-8
8-1 Waste Quantities (TONS) San Diego County Landfills (1990) 8-5
8-2 8- 11
8-3 8 - 12
County of San Diego Disposal Capacity Needs Analysis
City of Carlsbad Disposal Capacity Needs Analysis
9-1 City of Carlsbad Typical Program Planning, Development &
Implementation Costs 9-5
10-1 City of Carlsbad Integration Component Goal 10 - 4
10-2 City of Carlsbad Integration Component Implementation Schedule Short- term 10 - 9
22C9/1/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.W0 vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure rn
2-1 County of San Diego Location Map 2-4
2-2 County of San Diego Carlsbad 2-5
4-1 Medium Technology SeparatiodProcessing 4-22
4-2 High Technology SeparatiodProcesshg 4-23
5-1 General Waste Composting Schematic 5-3
5-2 Typical Pre-Processing Schematic 5-8
5-3 Windrow Composting Schematic 5-10
5-4 Aerated Static Pile Composting Schematic 5- 12
5-5 In-Vessel Composting Schematic 5-14
8-1 Cities and Landfill General Locations 8-2
2209/1/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO Vii
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
This is a summary of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) prepared for
the City of Carlsbad by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) dated April, 1992. The
report is divided into the following ten sections:
1.0
2.0
3.0 Source Reduction Component
4.0 Recycling Component
5.0 Composting Component
6.0 Special Waste Component
7.0
8.0 Facility Capacity Component
9.0 Funding Component
10.0 Integration Component
Statement of Goals and Objectives
Initial Solid Waste Generation Study
Education and Public Information Component
1.0 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The City of Carlsbad, in compliance with California State Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939),
has developed this SRRE. The intent of AB 939 is to mandate that all municipalities
develop solid waste programs that will lead to a 25 percent reduction in the quantity of
solid waste entering landfills by 1995 and a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. To
achieve this goal, Carlsbad has formulated this SRRE document providing details on the
development and implementation of a comprehensive program of source reduction,
recycling, composting, and the issue of special waste. This SRRE document identifies
the specific goals and the manner in which Carlsbad will attain these goals.
The remainder of the "Executive Summary" highlights the role that each of these
individual components will play in achieving the goals and the tentative dates of each
2209/4/CARLSBADlCD.FIWO E-1
component’s implementation. In addition, a detailed description of the public education
and information programs being developed by Carlsbad-an integral part in the success
of the SRRE program-is included.
2.0 INITIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY
The solid waste generation study is divided into six subsections. The generation study
provides background information on Carlsbad, in terms of location, population
projections, school and transportation systems, and public service utilities. The
information extends into the existing solid waste systems; specifically, sources of solid
waste generation, collection and disposal practices, and any existing diversion practices.
Diversion practices in the City of Carlsbad include source reduction, recycling, and
cornposting activities, although the task of determining accurate diversion quantities is
far from simple. Each diversion practice is described in detail in its respective section
of the SRRE.
Solid waste is typically identified as residential, commercialhdustrial, special waste, and
household hazardous waste. Solid waste generated by Carlsbad is collected by Coast
Waste Management. In addition to regularly scheduled solid waste pickup, the residents
are provided with special collection events. Such events include a yearly citywide
cleanup sponsored by the city and one day each quarter of free pickup of bulky items
sponsored by Coast Waste Management.
The vast majority of solid waste transported by Coast Waste Management is disposed at
the San Marcos Landfill, located in the southwestern portion of the City of Sara Marcos.
The landfill, owned by San Diego County, is operated through a contract with Herzog
Contracting Corporation. The San Marcos Landfill is approaching capacity and was
expected to close in late 1991 or early 1992. Expansion plans were approved by the
Integrated Waste Management Board in January, 1992, and the actual closure date is
pending.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARBAD .FNUO Es-2
The determination of a per capita solid waste generation rate for an area provides a
numerical value which can be applied to population increases to project future solid waste
quantities. As identified in detail in Section 2.0, the degree of waste disposal control,
the individual amounts of wastestream classifications (residential, cornmerciallindustrial,
and special wastes), seasonal variations, and the characteristics of the community all
impact the per capita rate.
Based on information supplied by San Diego County, the solid waste generation rate for
Carlsbad was estimated to be 12.5 pounds per person per day. Using this rate as the
basis for per capita solid waste quantities and applying this to the population projections,
the estimated future solid waste quantities for the city can be computed. In reviewing
these estimates, it should be noted that base per capita rate is based upon the weight
records maintained by the County since July, 1990, and hauler survey information
received in August, 1990. Table ES-1 highlights waste quantity projections for Carlsbad
through 2006.
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
Source reduction programs typically focus on:
reducing packaging
purchasing repairable products
e
reducing use of non-recyclable materials
replacing disposable with reusable materials
reducing amount of yard waste generated
increasing the efficient use of materials
22C9/4lCARLSBADlCARLSEAD.WO Es-3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
POPULATION AND SOLID WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS'
'San Diego Association of Governments. Series 7 fomasts were revised specifically for preparation of the San Diego Source
Reduction and Recycling Elements. This revision incovorates 1990 census figures, Series 7 growth rates and current trends in
housing completions.
2209l4ICARLSBADICARD.FNLJO Es-4
Source reduction program alternatives were evaluated according to the following criteria:
0
e hazards created
ability to accommodate change
effectiveness in reduction of' waste
consequences on the waste (i.e. shifts)
whether the alternative can be implemented in short and medium-term
planning periods
need for expanding/buildmg facilities
@ consistency with local conditions
institutional barriers to implementation
e estimate of costs
availability of end uses of diverted materials
Carlsbad is entitled to source reduction credit for the use of diaper services. Based on
an estimate of 0.48 pounds per (soiled) disposable diaper, approximately 135 tons per
year are diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction measures.
4.0 RECYCLING COMPONENT
4.1 PRIORITY WASTE TYPES
The general waste categories that will be targeted as part of Carlsbad's recycling program
are paper, plastic, glass, metal, and yard waste. The targeted percentages for recovery
for the short-and medium-term objectives are to remove approximately 50 percent of the
materials identified for recycling by 1995 and approximately 75 percent by the year
2000.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/BAD.WO Es-5
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
There is a variety of operational recycling activities in Carlsbad.
include:
These activities
0 Source separation and citywide curbside collection of residential
rec y clables
All multi-family units are being served with recyclables collection.
0 Material Recovery Facility (MRF)
Sale and delivery of material to the buy-back center by residential and
commercial generators
San Marcos Landfill offers a discounted disposal fee for separated yard
waste.
0
@ Christmas Tree recycling program
0 Commercial collection to limited accounts
The curbside collection program, operated by Liberty Recycling, serves all single family
residences. The program generated 2,326 tons of recyclable material in 1990. With an
increase in public awareness of the program through pamphlets, literature, and other
means of public education, Carlsbad anticipates that the program will receive wider
acceptance and participation. This curbside program accepts glass, plastics, newspaper,
aluminum, tin and bi-metal containers. The drop-off locations for Christmas trees were
unattended and open 24 hours a day between December 26, 1991, and January 13, 1992.
The trees were delivered to the San Marcos Landfill and mulched as yard waste. This
program will recur annually.
2209I4ICASlLSBADICAREAD.PNUO ES-6
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives discussed in Section 4.0 cover the range of appropriate techniques
available to the City of Carlsbad to meet the goals of 25 percent reduction in 1995 and
50 percent in the year 2000. Residential and commercidindustrial alternatives evaluated
include:
e Residential curbside collection
Drop-offbuy-back centers
e On-call collection
0 Central processing facilities
Materials recovery facilities
- low technology
- medium technology
- high technology
4.4 PROGRkM SEXECTION AND IMPL,EMENTATION
The selection of a recycling program is based on the objectives established in Section 4.1
and consideration of existing conditions in the City of Carlsbad.
4.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATING
In order to assess the effectiveness of a residential recycling program, it is essential to
gather and evaluate a variety of operational data. The key items to be monitored are:
0 Set-out rates
Participation rates
Recovery quantities
2209/4/CAR.MO Es-7
e Materials capture rates
Compliance with processing specifications (e.g. level of contamination,
minimum quantities)
0 Vehicle performance and collection
0 Costs and revenues
4.6 COMMERCWINDUSTRLAL PROGRAMS
In the short-term, the commercial recycling programs will be based on voluntary
participation with guidance and direction from city staff. Therefore, in order to assess
the effectiveness of a cornmercidindustrial recycling program it is essential to work
closely with the commercial establishments in measuring their program effectiveness,
The items that can be monitored include:
0
0 Periodic commercidindustrial establishment surveys
a Commercial wastestream audits
Material capture rates (Number of trailer pulls and tonnage records)
Annual business licenses requiring reporting of source reduction and
recycling activities.
5.0 COMPOSTING CO MPONENT
5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
According to the seasonal waste characterization studies that were performed between
1988 and 1990, approximately fifteen percent (14.8) of Carlsbad’s disposal stream is
composed of yard and wood wastes. At the present time, there are no cornposting
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CAR.FNJJO ES-8
facilities in Carlsbad. The mulching operation at the San Marcos landNl accepts yard
waste, mulches it, and gives it away free of charge or sells it to a boiler to use as fuel.
5.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Implementation of a successful composting.program requires the evaluation of a variety
of alternatives. Alternatives may be considered in five broad areas:
SeparatiodCollection
0 Feed stocks
0 Processing Technology
Programscale
Marketing
5.3 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The selection of a composting program has been based upon the objectives previously
defined, consideration of existing conditions in Carlsbad, and the need to maintain
program flexibility.
5.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The monitoring of the composting program will be closely linked with the recycling
program and parameters will be similar.
6.0 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT
Special wastes are materials that require special handling or disposal because of physical,
chemical, or biological characteristics. Some examples of special waste are asbestos,
sewage sludge, infectious waste, used tires, construction and demolition debris, and street
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNlJO ES-9
sweepings. Most of this material cannot be diverted and will continue to be disposed in
the landfill in an environmentally sound manner. Only those special waste types with
feasible diversion alternatives were evaluated:
0 Asbestos
0 Sewage Sludge
0 Septic Tank Pumping
0 Grease Trap Pumping
0 Infectious waste
0 Incinerator Ash
0 Auto Bodies
0 Used Tires
street sweepings
0 White Goods
0 Construction and Demolition Debris
6.1 PROGRAM SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The selection of a special waste program has been based upon the objectives set forth
previously, consideration of the existing conditions in Carlsbad, and the need to maintain
program flexibility in order to account for changes in personnel, laws and regulations,
and other program changes. The short-term programs begin with the determination of
the feasibility of composting yard waste id sludge as part of the overall composting
program. For the medium-term program a full composting program should be
implemented. Other special waste programs and private sector reporting should be
evaluated at this time and program changes implemented, if necessary. Following each
major decision to proceed with project elements, the implementation schedule should be
reviewed and revised as necessary.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CAR.FNIJO Es - 10
7.0 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
7.1 EXISTING PROGRAMS
The education and public information programs currently existing in Carlsbad are a result
of the cooperative efforts between the city and Coast Waste Management. These
programs include the following:
0
0
0
0
8 Press releases in newspapers.
0
Mass mailings to promote upcoming events and programs
Brochures that explain programs' operation
The city's semi-annual recycling newsletter
Presentations on the community access television channel
Enclosure of information in utility bills
7.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
There are many ways to increase public awareness of, and participation in, recycling,
source reduction, and composting programs. The best strategy is a'comprehensive mix
of activities including:
0 Public Education
0 Promotions and Events
0 Publicity and Reminders
Selection of specific activities should be based on current levels of public understanding
and participation, the socioeconomic characteristics of Carlsbad and the characteristics
of the local wastestream.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.WO Es - 11
7.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
As discussed in Section 7.0 of the SRRE, implementation of the public
education/information program should begin within the first month of each recycling
program phase or approach. It is recommended that the City use public education to
explain its undertaking such programs and how they will benefit Carlsbad's residents in
the long run. It is also recommended that the City hold public discussions in which
residents can offer comments and suggestions about the programs.
An implementation schedule identifies all activities to be accomplished in order to
successfully inaugurate the recycling program. This schedule can help to effect timely
and informed implementation decisions. The implementation schedule can also provide
project continuity as city staff, laws and regulations, and other factors change over time
during program development.
7.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a-public education program, it is essential to
gather and evaluate a vaxiety of operational data. Public awareness can be determined
through a variety of survey techniques; e.g. service requests and polling using telephone
interviews and direct mail questionnaires. The most obvious indicators of program
effectiveness include:
0 Public awareness
Participation rates
Material capture rates
0 Buy-back center receipts and expenditures
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.F"O Es - 12
8.0 FACILITY CAPACITY
The City of Carlsbad currently disposes of its solid waste at the San Marcos Landfill,
which is owned by the County of San Diego and operated by Henog Contracting
Corporation of San Diego, California. The site is located southwest from the intersection
of Questhaven and Elfin Forest Roads in San Marcos. At the present landfilling rate of
two million cubic yards per year, it is anticipated that the planned final elevations of the
San Marcos Landfill will occur in mid-1992. Vertical and horizontal expansion plans for
the landfill were approved in January, 1992, extending the lifespan of the landfill.
The County is also pursuing the development of an emergency contingency plan for
diverting the San Marcos Landfill’s incoming waste to other facilities in the county k
case of emergency. Waste transfer stations are also planned for the north county cities
currently disposing of solid waste in the San Marcos Landfill. In addition, the County
is proceeding with the siting and permitting of new north and south county landfds.
9.0 FUNDING COMPONENT
Funding for most of Carlsbad’s current solid waste and recycling programs comes from
the solid waste collection fees. Additional funds will be required for capital projects to
support these programs, particularly as the amount of recyclable material increases over
time and existing facilities within the county reach capacity. The city will participate in
regional concepts that might lead to economies of scale and allow facilities to be located
outside of its current boundaries due to limited land availability. Funds for SRRE
programs will come from any or a combination of the following sources:
Increase in existing recycling surcharge to residential collection fees
Waste Management Administrative Fee (AB 939 fee) @
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.PNUO ES - 13
Commercial recycling service fee
0 Manufacturing excise taxes
0 Variable can rates
Disposalfees
0 Enforcement of penalty against non-recycling citizens, both commercial
and residential (minimal)
The City of Carlsbad is presently supporting its solid waste programs through
appropriations from the residential service fee. The city will continue to use this
mechanism to fund the recycling component of the solid waste program. In addition, the
city will review other additional funding sources as the need arises. Several alternative
funding sources such as variable can rat& and manufacturing excise taxes also are
economic incentives to change disposal habits.
Total funding mechanisms can only be finalized when regional issues are resolved. The
participation of the cities within the area and the unincorporated county in a regional
facility under a joint powers agreement (PA) is one of these regional issues being
discussed at this time. The feasibility analysis for any capital facilities will require an
economic evaluation and assessment of the funding mechanisms dependant upon the
structure of the PA.
10.0 INTEGRATION COMPONENT
The purpose of the integration component and resulting implementation plan and schedule
is to depict the SRRE work activities and establish the proper sequencing to allow
decisions to be made in a timely fashion. Section 10.0 of the SRRE presents the results
of the evaluations conducted for the SRRE, summarizes the technologies and programs
selected, and presents the schedule for program implementation.
2209f4lCARLSBADlCARLSBA D.WO ES - 14
Table €3-2, The City of Carlsbad’s Integration Component Goals, lists the waste
integration component, targeted diversion materials, diversion goals to attain in the short-
and medium-terms, and the wastestream reduction attributable to each particular
component.
The short-term implementation schedule, Table ES-3, presents the short-term activities
that will be implemented by Carlsbad. In developing the implementation approach, the
system alternatives selected for inclusion in the city element recognized the following
priority:
0 Source reduction
0 Recycling and composting
Proper disposal through transformation and land disposal
In reviewing Table ES-3, it must be realized that the early years of implementation of
these planned projects will be difficult for the city due to the combination of new and
expanded programs called for, and the degree of experimentation necessary, to begin
striving toward these very aggressive goals. Many activities will be conducted
concurrently and will require supervision and commitment of city resources to assure that
new and expanded programs receive a fair evaluation over the planning period. The city
will monitor the programs’ success and provide the information necessary to move into
the sustaining programs selected for the medium-term planning period.
2209/4/CARLSJ3ADlCARBAD.PNUO ES - 15
t 3 E?*
gz g 2 @ 1 $1
L
mv
8e 4 $0 4
3 g = g,;3
c3 3 8 3: 3 31s
ea &m
SPCBl.e Q) I$
4 0 ?$$$ E 3Q.g M 1 qq a.2 a0
Q)B&OQ) 4 Eoooa
0
\ a a % 3 .9 -2 g lag8 &Z$S pa3 *g*zw Q) a5 8 b3
0 !i $$$$HZ ‘“g$$gq.;: 63 E
.s 3 -2 U I4 2gq p-8 ij Z&% H .a -3 9 * 029 .- - 92 O 3
LhQ) %$El 38 psQ) ge ’z $gam zse2 .;au ,.qs- .Y B 4 >2lz$; 85 3g.s.a a w4 8 g
z%d,ag 0 “%2g,lS& s aSAP qsq g B g .g .j g+fs $*S 3;f 0 3 P) $ k 3% 23 $8 s.9 3.g 3
4 3
r! -2 3 .- u 0 *bj mu:! 3 :8 cc 3 O$
m m ’Zo>ko~~a W.~W gua E~S-BW sa L.W ~m.2
0.0 0. 0.
8 ,-e 3 !J= 3 2.9 a3g .aA
23- saz 33e :za
.&E g$ a x gj
ii .9 *sg 3 - 243
4 003 -8-
nnaSwk2
ib
0.. 0.0
U E f Ea a2 2
g 8
v1
4
\
If!
3
I
9
3 U
d <
B
. 5 s
U 3
z
m
E 3 F&? Ei.5 1 * BE 3
4
"B 4 i p- %
3 a
8
3: 9 Li: 2 %*a B a# : g:f 8 s8 g-3.&2gRILlt; 13 ;gs
8 14 'E: *r .$$ .$ g g a
'Sa 4 *ah
8:dq 2.a 23 u 83rn &A &.S B
8 si$ 9 2.a ." 3 en EI gtl 82 22% 0,z e
3iw .41 - 4 3 3 e #s;lll
4 1 pw sa 3 8 g B.~
BI..gOBag&+* 2s :p 0 3a sa Of)p!-ag*.a g,B,a 2 bgf.2.~j.s!2a.~a 8 g Ha 5aa
ugplsu sw p! ~w o~ 3 g~ aM arns~~i~ 5
2.- o ag:2
. 0. 5! 0
M
0
111& c( !i K El M *!I " 8 qq Eh 5 z& 0 8
?J.dspaau.- p3.n o 83 SI Bra a gg e? iix 4.8 3s 1 2 2pp"* 4-g -38
-3 ~,gr.s=:iuXa~gPagM~~.~~X~IEI as- 8 ZG? B g5? a -2t-c "'E ZEfZ e
sz 83 8E'ia
B 83 & Si884 0 a wPeu&l --.!!3 13 p! D 3CI ppq; 8.3.3 m w
zuo 0) OZ.5 a3*~~Z552cua~~ E 3 3 3 3 7 eg.2 8Bg
E
83 8 5
4
8 so 83 E
9 og
3 :8
~ 0 g5 g "S 8=
@S
i a*
ii ,a@,
CI
a m
e... 0. . 0 . 0.
n Gi.8 w a .9
,g$J w w w3g !j 0 Q) "pr: 8"
aslo A-13
0.. ........e.....
2
4
A
2
'3 I
i
!I
! c
d
5 a c
P t R cy
c .
c .I
**e*
4 0 3i 2 iig
!! ii
i
El :8
"1
g
8 z 3f
iq bE 4
mu E
2 fi Ei CI
44 b
EZ
acigg 3 * 85 24 3.41$03 1," g 1.g cia
2
3 @ -a aso&a I4 &4&f 33 *sg 8 3% -3% @g& 4,s sg B '3 aa.4 g.3 g
SCa*tp aecig 33 pJ g ;sgae,g .s 3 2.2 gj @j*S?Q 33 8 & .e?% A.2 a.3.s oaag LI 3 qI43& g*ga a8g-$jtS$'% 4 Eqqoo &qav Eh$m+LE?q8 E
.$ 1 41 am 8 1;
3+ g p 33 1;
.3 a3q%OrOB~ ag3 4s a% 3.3 *a 3 82.3 wpj
Bas3 11 cia 3E om* m *'s#J$q3 g s$apawgJi ss&z *2ph3.g 2 o@o $2 gA 038Ws a
m *%Yq g$Zo a%tT$ aslg$lgQ,a% &+yy kq2rf'a
m
81 3 33 m
.3 3 s
Lgp -00 $2 q
4
0 0 0
a .s r, ,x *g El
1 M= $8 :24 8 Ata E! 'C
M
2 -0
3
I >
fa
& 1 I4 I4 do gcp- ci 00 -3
M i g.3 !$ 3% a 1.9
0 0 0
i4 a > 0
0 2 i c
E2 1 4
-3 L '3 t
q h 9
SF 0
a 9
.Y P
P
8 PI
P ciO
0 5g u p t3
vi
__~
TABLE ES-3
CITY OF CARLSBAD INTEGRATION COMPONENT
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE SHORT-TERM
YEAR
TASK 1991 1992 1993 1994
1. Source Reduction
evaluate statelfded economic
incentive policy owing ongoing owing ongoing
relatiom firm ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
review and update City owing ongoing ongob ongoing
evaluate the need to obtain
additional services of a public
ptocrvement and specifications
evaluate reporting methods Augus6
program for businesses and August
develop tschnical assistance
institutions
audit city wastestream September
begin implementation of December
bwineddtutiod source
duction
conduct a study evaluating
alternative rate structuring September
2. Recycling
continue and expand the use of dropoff bias ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
promote the use of the Cadsbad
buy-back center ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
curbside coUection prograa~ ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
continue and expand the
continue monitoring and ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
reporting efforts
expand public informaton ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
campaign
review and update designated
recycled materials March
continue the city purchasing March
policy for recycled products
begin mandatory commerciaU
industrial recycling program September
implement yard waste collection
Program September
evaluate need for a city waste composition study September
? 2.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARBAD .€'NU0 Es - 20
TABLE ES-3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTEGRATION COMPONENT
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
SHORT-TERM
YEAR
TASK 1991 1992 1993 1994
permanent recycling facility to January
pnxessingneeds
evaluate the need for a
handle current and future
recycling needs and solid waste
3. Composting
conduct market survey September
evduate need for commercial September
landscape dropoff centers
produce brochure explaining
compostiag pmgram September
rrqllirementa
evaluate the feasibility of a
processing facility
January
4. Special Waste
implement a public information
for consttuction and demolition
wastes
determine feasibility of co-
compo8ting yaxd waste with sludge December
investigate alternative tin
pmgram for diversion practices May
diversion techniques J-ry
evaluate and institute private sector repottiog requirements March
for other special wastes
5. Education and Public Information
December1 December/
Christmas Tree recycling December January January January
changedadditions ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
develop and conduct J-ry
newsletters and direct mailings ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
information on pmgram
community survey
non-english materials and ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
announcements
recycling events ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
#
-
TASK
public acrvice announcements
public workshops
evaluate need for additional
public information contract
acrvicc
evaluate staffing requirements
development of community
speakers bureau
develop recycling video
encourage school cumculurn
changes
6. Monitoring and Reporting
develop monitoring and
reporting methods for each
component
evaluate programs
modifications to programs
SHORT-TERM
YEAR
1991 1992 1993 1994
ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
ongoing ongoing OngQing ongoing
ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
March
August
January
October
January
July
July
1.0 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to ensure that California's solid waste is managed in an effective and
environmentally sound manner, State Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) was signed into law
on September 29, 1989; thereby enacting the California Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989. This bill is an essential part of the state's comprehensive program for solid
waste management.
AB 939 addresses a wide range of issues dealing with the management of solid waste
materials. Specifically, it establishes the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) and requires the preparation of countywide integrated waste management
plans. It also requires all municipalities to divert 25 percent of their solid waste from
landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling and composting, by January 1,1995.
By the year 2000, 50 percent of the wastestream must be diverted.
Assembly Bill 1820 amends certain portions of AB 939. These modifications and the
implementing regulations are now being finalized as a part of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations which sets forth guidelines and procedures for preparing the
countywide plans.
This section presents a summary of the goals and objectives designed to assist the City
of Carlsbad in achieving the mandated source reduction, recycling and composting goals.
1.1.1 SOURCE REDUCTION
Source reduction refers to any action which causes a net reduction in the generation of
solid waste and can include, but is not limited to, replacing disposable materials and
products with reusable materials and products; reducing packaging; and increasing the
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.F"0 1-1
efficient use of paper, cardboard, glass, metal, plastic, and other materials in the
manufacturing process. Although individual source reduction measures are difficult to
quantify and document, the cumulative effect of several such measures, in conjunction
with an effective recycling program, could significantly reduce the volume of solid waste
going to disposal facilities. A source reduction program will also conserve energy, avoid
collection and disposal costs, increase public awareness of waste disposal issues, and
contribute to the overall success of solid waste management plans.
The short-term objectives of the Carlsbad program are to educate the public about source
reduction activities and modify City procurement policies. The education and public
information program will include mass mailings and the distribution of brochures to keep
the public up-to-date on current programs, to distribute information about future
programs and promotional events, and to keep the residents current on waste management
issues. Where feasible, all City offices will make a concerted effort to purchase
recyclable over non-recyclable materials, products with minimal packaging over products
with excessive packaging, and reusable products over disposable products.
The medium-term objective is to encourage source reduction behavior through a broad
based program that incorporates instructional and promotional activities, economic
incentives and rate structure modifications, waste exchanges, City leadership and
regulatory programs.
1.1.2 RECYCLING
Recycling is defined in AB 939 as "the process of collecting, sorting, cleaning, treating,
and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them
to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted
products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace."
Recycling is contrasted in AB 939 with "transformation," which is defined as
incineration, pyrolysis, distillation, gasification, or biological conversion other than
2209f4lCARLSBADlCARBAD .NO 1-2
composting. " Recycling does not include transformation. Transformation does not
include composting.
Recycling programs developed and implemented by the City will form the cornerstone
for achieving the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals established by AB 939. These
programs provide the most effective way to divert large quantities of material from
disposal facilities.
To achieve the 25 percent diversion goal, approximately 30 percent of readily recyclable
material must be removed from the wastestream. Removal will be more successful as
markets for recycled goods become more stable; therefore, some of Carlsbad's efforts
must be directed towards encouraging development of these markets.
For the short-term objective Carlsbad will do the following, at a minimum:
Encourage the purchase of recycled material products through the City's
purchasing department policies;
Encourage local businesses and industry to purchase recycled goods and
begin in-house recycling programs; and
Work to establish a waste exchange clearinghouse for local and regional
manufacturing businesses.
@
To achieve the 50 percent diversion goal, approximately 73 percent of readily recyclable
material must be removed from the wastestream. This medium-term objective can be
achieved by:
Participate in the development of regional programs which target
particular wastes such as yard waste and construction and demolition
debris; and
Expanding the waste exchange clearinghouse to include other commercial
businesses.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 1-3
In summary, the short-term diversion goal of 25 percent requires an approximate removal
of 30 percent of recyclable materials from the wastestream and the 50 percent medium-
term diversion goal requires that approximately 73 percent of recyclable materials be
removed from the wastestream. Achievement of these goals requires a combination of
successful market development for recycled goods and strong ongoing programs which
encourage removal of recyclable goods from the wastestream.
1.1.3 COMPOSTING
The CIWMB defines composting as "a process of biological decomposition of solid
organic debris, such as leaves, grass clippings and other organic materials commonly
found in the municipal wastestream. "Compost" refers to the stable humus or soil-like
end product of the decomposition process which can be used as a soil conditioner, mulch
or fertilizer, depending on its physical properties." The key distinction in the CIWMB
definition is that to be classified as a cornposting operation the process of biological
decomposition must be controlled and performed at a permitted facility, Yard waste
grinding operations which do not include biological decomposition may qualify as a
diversion under CIWMB regulations but are covered under the recycling component.
Composting will be the second most critical component for achieving the mandated 25
and 50 percent diversion goals. It is a very effective way to divert yard and selected
organic wastes away from disposal facilities.
The short-term cornposting objective for Carlsbad is to remove 50 to 75 percent of the
commercial and residential yard and wood wastestream. This will yield approximately
a 10 percent composting goal for the total wastestream. The medium-term cornposting
objective for the City is to remove all of the commercial and residential yard and wood
wastestream. This will yield approximately a 16 percent composting goal for the total
wastestream. The market development activities that will assist in meeting these goals
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.PNUO 1-4
include the early use of uncomposted or shredded debris as mulch before centsralized
composting begins. Establishing users will be a major undertaking, but the ultimate
success of any composting program rests on its ability to utilize or market the end
products. Medium-term marketing activities include using the resulting soil amendment
on City grounds and supplying existing distributors with quality material.
1.1.4 SPECIAL WASTE
Special waste refers to any waste which has been classified as a special waste pursuant
to Section 66744 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, or which has been
granted a variance for the purpose of storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal by
the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 663 10 of Title 22 of the California
Code of Regulations. Special waste also includes any solid waste which is specifically
conditioned in a solid waste facilities permit for handling and/or disposal, because of its
source of generation, physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or unique disposal
practices. Examples of special wastes include asbestos; sewage sludge; septic tank and
grease trap pumpings; infectious waste; auto bodies; used tires; street sweepings and
white goods.
1.1.5 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
There are many ways to increase public awareness of, and participation in, recycling,
source reduction, and composting projects. The best overall strategy is a comprehensive
mix of techniques that include:
a Public education
0 Promotions and events
Publicity and reminders
2209/4/CARtSBAD/CARD.FNL/O 1-5
To accomplish the 25 percent and 50 percent reduction goals set forth in AB 939, it is
essential for the City to adopt an innovative outreach and public education program. The
objective of this component is to work with the overall county public information system
and develop City specific plans which explain the direction for Carlsbad.
Throughout the operation of a recycling program, a multi-faceted promotional campaign
is required to achieve and maintain high levels of materials recovery and participation.
As part of this campaign, the City will also hold several public discussions in which
residents come to voice their opinions about the City’s specific plans. The medium-term
objectives will include the evaluation of the effectiveness of short-term programs and
could include a variety of activities, such as those presented below.
Public Education
Direct mailings of brochures and newsletters to City residents and
businesses.
Public service announcements on local television and radio stations.
Presentations at civic and business organization meetings.
Information booths at shopping malls.
Press releases (local television and newspaper stones).
Recycling classes and field trips as part of the school curriculum for
grades 1 through 12.
0
0
Promotions and Events
Promote a recycling day or a week to impress upon the public the
importance of recycling.
0 Sponsor recycling contests.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD. FNUO 1-6
0 Give out recycling awards.
Hold specific material drives.
Encourage Christmas tree recycling or the use of live or artificial trees.
Publicity and Reminders
0
Posters, bumper stickers.
Messages on shopping bags.
Notices on utility bills.
Telephone surveys.
Advertisements in newspapers, on billboards, in grocery stores.
1.2 SUMMARY OF DIVERSION ACTIVITES AND SCHEDULE
Table 1-1 presents the overall source reduction and recycling element program for the
City of Carlsbad. These programs and activities are projected to achieve a 27 percent
reduction in the wastestream by 1995 and a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000.
Schedules for implementation of the programs and activities are also presented.
The remainder of this document presents details of the individuai components that are
involved in the development of the SRRE. The description of these components includes
a presentation of their respective advantages and disadvantages.
2209/4/CARJSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 1-7
-
TABLE 1-1
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SUMMARY OF COMPONENT GOALS
TOTAL WASTESTREAM REDUCTION
PERCENTAGES
1990 1995 2000 COMPONENT PROGRAM
Source Reduction 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Recycling 3.4% 12.2% 30.8%
Composting 0.0% 10.0% 14.5%
Special Waste 4.6% 4.7% 4.7%
TOTAL 8.0% 27.0% 50.0%
2.0 INITIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY
2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Planning guidelines and general requirements for completing waste generation studies are
contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14. In addition, Title 14 states
that a solid waste generation study constitutes the waste characterization component of
the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) required by sections 41003,41030,
41303 and 41330 of the Public Resources Code.
The solid waste generation study must be representative of all residential, commercial,
industrial and other sources of waste generation in the jurisdiction, as well as
representative of all solid waste source reduction, recycling, composting, transformation
and disposal activities and facilities in the jurisdiction or normally used by the
jurisdiction and its residents and businesses.
The general requirements of this initial solid waste generation study are to provide:
The total quantity of solid waste generated within the jurisdiction,
including diversion and disposal, for purposes of identifying the quantities
and types of materials to be diverted from disposal pursuant to sections
41780 and 41781 of the Public Resources Code.
A projection of the solid waste to be generated, diverted, and disposed by
the jurisdiction, for at least a 15 year period from the date of the local
adoption of a SRFU. The projection is to include the amounts, waste
categories and waste types generated, diverted, and disposed under (1) the
solid waste management system conditions and diversion activities existing
at the time that the solid waste generation study is prepared, and under (2)
the solid waste management system conditions expected to be realized
after a jurisdiction’s implementation of its SRRE and its attainment of the
statutory diversion mandates.
A representative determination of the composition of solid waste
generated, diverted, and disposed by the jurisdiction, by waste category
2209I4lCARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 2-1
and waste type using one or more of the following methodologies: 1) quantitative field analysis; 2) materials flow methodology; 3) jurisdiction-
specific data; and 4) existing data from comparable jurisdictions. (These
methodologies are described in detail in Title 14, Chapter 9, Article 6.1,
Section 18722.)
For ease of presentation, the study is divided in four sections, background information;
existing solid waste systems; solid waste generation; and solid waste composition. The
generation section, found in Section 2.5, identifies quantities of solid waste by generation
source and includes estimates of: 1) the total quantity of solid waste generated by the
City; 2) the quantity which is transformed or disposed of in permitted solid waste
facilities; and 3) the quantity which is diverted from disposal facilities, through existing
source reduction, recycling, and composting programs. Also included in this section are
yearly solid waste generation projections through the year 2006. The composition
section, Section 2.6, identifies the waste categories and waste types of interest, as well
as the sampling methodology that was used to characterize the solid wastestream.
2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.2.1 LOCATION
San Diego County is the southernmost county in California, bordering on Mexico (refer
to Figure 2-1.) The City of Carlsbad is a coastal community in the northwest quadrant
of San Diego County. The City is bordered on the north by Oceanside, on the south by
Encinitas, and to the east by Vista and San Marcos (see Figure 2-2).
2.2.2 POPULATION
According to the SANDAG revised Series 7 population estimates, Carlsbad has a
population of 63,126 persons based on 2.47 persons per dwelling unit. This is a 76
percent increase in population since 1980. See Table 2-1 for historical population
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.W0 2-2
YEAR
1980
198 1
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
POPU%ATION
ESTIMATES PERCENT CHANGE
35,490 ----
35,725 0.7%
37,583 5.2%
38,827 3.3 %
39,963 2.9%
43 , 685 9.3 %
47,810 9.4%
53,900 12.7%
58,850 9.2 %
61,948 5.3%
63; 126 1.9%
NOT TO SCALE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
I
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2-1
CDM
environments/ engineers. scientists,
planners, & manogernent consultants
S
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I
CARLSBAD
FIGURE 2-2
CDM
environmental engineers, scientists, planners, & management consultants
estimates. The projected percent change in population through the year 2006 is an
additional 57.2 percent. Refer to Table 2-2 for population forecasts.
2.2.3 GENERAL LAND USE
Carlsbad is residential community with zoned acreage of industry and commercial
complexes primarily along Palomar Airport Road and north and south of Palomar Airport
Road along Interstate 5. Table 2-3 describes the general land use in more detail.
Residential
As of January 1, 1991, there were 27,784 dwelling units in the City. Fifty-eight percent
of the dwelling units are single-family. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 show the housing distribution
by type during 1990.
The majority of the dwelling units are in the northwest (10,531) and southeast (8,868)
sections of the City. Because Carlsbad’s population growth rate is more than twice that
of the region’s, the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan (CFIP) was created to
limit the number of dwelling units. To date, the City of Carlsbad is at 50.9 percent of
buildout.
CornmerciaUIndustrial
There are 4,500 commercialhdustrial businesses in Carlsbad. The major employers in
Carlsbad are Hughes Aircraft and La Costa Resort and Spa. Each employs
approximately 1,400 personnel.
220914lCARLSBADICARBAD.FNUO 2-6
I
TABLE 2-2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
POPULATXON PROJECTIONS'
POPULATION
YEAR PROJECTION^ PERCENT CHANGE
1990 63,126 --
2000 89,351 9.9%
1995 81,321 28.8 %
2006 99,231 11.0% i
r
TABLE 2-3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE
ACRES % OF
TOTAL
Total 22,228 100.0
Vacant 14,943 67.2
Developed 7,385 32.8
Residential 4,383 19.7
Non-Residential 2,674 12.0
A
Single-Family Units
Multi-Family Units
Mobile Homes
58%
38 %
4%
2.2.4 SCHOOLS
The Carlsbad Unified School District provides education from elementary school to high
school for 6,500 students. There are seven elementary schools, one junior high school
and two high schools.
2.2.5 TRANSPORTATION
Two regional freeways pass through the City of Carlsbad providing access to outlying
areas. Interstate 5 runs north-south through Carlsbad and provides access to San Diego
and Orange County. State Road 78 is located in the northern portion of the City and
runs east-west, connecting Interstate 5 to Interstate 15.
The Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe rail line passes through Carlsbad in a north-south
direction. The nearest passenger stop to Carlsbad is in Oceanside. There are eight
north-bound and eight south-bound passenger trains per day, three of which carry cargo.
Santa Fe Railroad carries freight on this .line with either two or four trains per day.
McClellan-Palomar Airport services the Czglsbad area. It is located along the Palomar
Airport Road. The facility is on 255 acres with one 4,700 foot runway. The airport
caters to private and charter aircraft.
2.2.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Three primary public services that are provided throughout the City. These are
wastewater collection, water and solid waste services. Wastewater and water services
are provided by the City and several special districts. Solid waste services are
administered by the City. These services are provided to residential as well as
commercialhdustrial locations.
2209/4/CARLSBADlCARBA D. PNUO 2-9
The wastewater treatment plant that services Carlsbad is operated by the Encina
Administrative Agency. This agency is made up of the six joint powers that own the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). The six members of the joint powers
are the City of Carlsbad, the City of Vista, Vallecitos Water District, Buena Sanitation
District, Leucadia County Water District and Encinitas Sanitary Water District. The
wastewater is collected by sewer lines owned by the City of Carlsbad's two special
districts and is treated at EWPCF. More than 90 percent of the sludge that is produced
at EWPCF is being diverted for soil amendment applications.
The City of Carlsbad has contracted with Coast Waste Management Inc. to collect and
dispose of all solid waste for the City. Solid waste is collected from residential,
commercial and industrial sources and transported to the San Marcos Landfill. This
landfill is owned by San Diego County and operated by Henog Contracting Corporation.
The County vertical and horizontal expansion plan for the San Marcos Landfill was
approved in January, 1992, extending the landfill's lifespan.
2.3 EXISTING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of this analysis, the term "solid waste" has been divided into
classifications which generally describe material characteristics and sources of generation.
The following are descriptions of these solid waste characteristics as defined by the
CTWMB, Title 14, Chapter 9.
Residential Solid Waste means solid waste originating from single-family
or multiple-family dwellings.
Commercial Solid Waste means solid waste originating from stores,
business offices, commercial warehouses, hospitals, educational, health
care, military, and correctional institutions, non-profit research
0
220914fCARLSBADlCARLSBAD.FNUO 2 - 10
organizations and government offices. Commercial solid wastes do not
include construction and demolition waste.
Industrial Solid Waste means solid waste originating from mechanized
manufacturing facilities, factories, refineries, construction and demolition
projects.
S-wid Waste includes any solid waste which, because of source of
generation, physical, chemical or biological characteristics or unique
disposal requirements, is specifically conditioned in a solid waste facilities
permit for handling and/or disposal. Special waste also includes sludges
from publicly owned treatment works.
Household Hazardous Wastes are those wastes resulting from products
purchased by the general public for household use which, because of their
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics,
may pose a substantial known or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, disposed, or otherwise managed.
2.3.2 COLLECTION PRACTICES
The City of Carlsbad has a contract with Coast Waste Management to provide
residential, commercial and industrial waste disposal services throughout the City.
Regular residential pickups are made once a week and commercial and industrial pickups
are on an on-call basis. Service is provided Monday through Saturday. Other services
provided by Coast Waste Management are as follows.
A citywide cleanup is conducted once a year in the spring. This cleanup
includes such bulky items as refrigerators, washers and dryers. Refuse is
either picked up curbside or dropped off at the transfer station where
sorting can take place so recyclables are not sent to the landfill. Coast
Waste Management also sponsors one day each quarter of free pickup of
bulky items.
Coast Waste Management offers a Christmas tree recycling service in
which the public can bring its trees to the transfer station or City drop-off
sites; from there the trees will be processed at the San Marcos Landfill.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARBAD.FNUO 2- 11
2.3.3 DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Virtually all solid waste generated in Carlsbad is collected by Coast Waste Management
and disposed of at the San Marcos Landfill. The San Marcos Landfd is owned by San
Diego County and is operated by Herzog Contracting Corporation which maintains the
contract for five years, at which time the operations contract is again available for
competitive bidding.
The San Marcos Landfill, which serves the north county area including Carlsbad, will
reach capacity by late 1991. San Diego County is processing a permit through the City
of San Marcos for expansion of the San Marcos Landfill. If developed, this expansion
will provide five to seven years of additional capacity.
2.3.4 DIVERSION PRACTICES
Diversion refers to any activity which could result in or promote the diversion of solid
waste, through source reduction, recycling or compsting, away from landfd disposal.
Although there is probably a significant amount of material currently being diverted from
landfill disposal, the task of documenting the actual quantities is far from simple.
Telephone and mail surveys are underway to determine residential, commercial, and
industrial diversion activities. Refer to Appendix A for a sample of the survey
questionnaire. The businesses in the City of Carlsbad, as listed on the licensed business
listing for Carlsbad in June 1991, were broken down into subcategories to include the
following :
0 Service
0 Manufacturing
0 Retail
e Restaurant
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNIJO 2 * 12
0 Auto
Construction
Categorizing the businesses created more uniform populations from which to sample.
By numbering each business in the population and using a random number generator, a
sampling of five percent of the businesses in each category was taken and a survey
questionnaire was sent to each of these businesses.
In addition to the random survey, a directed survey was conducted which was intended
to include businesses which were known’or suspected to have significant recycling
programs. Examples of these types of businesses include the following:
(
grocery stores
department stores
hospitals
large commercial and industrial employers
1
Some of the problems associated with determining accurate diversion quantities of
material include inaccurate reporting of records and double counting of material.
Processors of recycled materials are not obligated and are often reluctant to report the
quantities that they handle. Because recyclable materials are often transferred several
times before reaching end users, double or even multiple counting of material can occur.
Source Reduction
Source reduction can be a result of any number of methods used to prevent material from
entering the wastestream. These methods include waste exchanges, process changes in
production industries, reuse of materials for other purposes and diminished use of
disposable materials. At this time, the City of Carlsbad has no formal source reduction
programs in place.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 2 - 13
The CrWMB has determined that diaper service accounts in the City can count towards
diversion goals. The diaper services in Carlsbad are reporting approximately 135
accounts. Based on an estimate of 0.48 pounds per (soiled) disposable diaper,
approximately 135 tons per year are dived from landfill disposal through source
reduction measures,
I
RecvclinP Programs
On March 14, 1989, the Carlsbad City Council approved a contract with Coast Waste
Management to operate a six-month pilot curbside recycling project. The project
involved 1,OOO homes and approximately 132.2 tons of recyclables were collected during
the pilot project.
Because of the success of the curbside recycling project, Carlsbad contracted Liberty
Recycling, a division of Coast Waste Management, to collect recyclables from single-
family households, multi-family households, and commercial and industrial businesses.
Phase I of the curbside recycling program involved collection at single-family residences.
Phase II, included the addition of 5,000 multi-family residential units. Phase 111 included
multi-family complexes that were having difficulty participating in the residential
recycling program. These older units have limited parking space, and cannot
accommodate the recycling bins that are needed. The multi-family program was fully
implemented in December, 1991.
Liberty Recycling also operates a buy-back center in Carlsbad. The buy-back center
accepts aluminum, glass, PET, HDPE, tin, newspaper, CPO, ledger, corrugated
cardboard, and metals. Liberty Recycling also has drop-off bins throughout the City.
As illustrated on Table 2-6 and Table 2-7, 4,707 tons per year of recyclable material are
currently diverted from the wastestream through operations of Liberty Recycling.
220914lCARLSBADICARBAD.FNUO 2 - 14
COMMODITY
Aluminum
Glass
PET
HDPE
Till
Newspaper
CPO
Ledger
occ
Miscellaneous Metals
TOTALS
TOTALS
(Tom)
106.5 1
984.83
10.60
15.56
41.28
2,907.47
12.55
7.78
606.94
13.54
4,707.06
Mmo\ooocIv, oobbv, yv?"v!N.b.v! v?v!e \OdZZG,SC t-820 32% Q\, \o t-e g
0Q!c?vlvlr?-? @oo\oZ @Nt II
w N
*cnv,t-\oood o\ 1
Il is dp I cc, @ e4 d
u
dNoom c9b.O Ov! mv, oodd"C4
mo
M e4
8""
'IQ!v!Q?
rt L f% Egg"' IWC t-&-XJ 9% 0
so \o CON rl
W
I12
3g m E
2 &a i: v, m 8 1- t-
# uu g
&b
Y bN ?Q! czm'o\ b. E pmq oooo i !$ i u * d*
2 e2 Q a g 53;" t-m qqq QI
*moo\ v, QI :\o a!=? azo; 'Pm
N I loo 4 VI a
goo\oQ\ ON Nt- Cu.5 uQ!\\?=? "'I
t-em; :\om I IZv, C\oN
Ea u d3
II rl
v, I lb N m
Ep g
3 z
-g s%bn m !2 c g E3.cw38+j 8 L g.gg 3s ~~~~ 3 Q
~~ 2 u~5aZ~zuaouSb
U r
c
2 $
f f i
5 .. f
.d .-. 1 5
ij a 2 : L 3 5
$ :
Because some commercial and industrial operations sell their recyclable material directly to
brokers or other recycling vendors, a direct survey was performed to account for their materials.
Although Liberty Recycling has an exclusive contract with the City of Carlsbad to collect
recyclables, the results of the survey show 12.6 tons per year of corrugated cardboard, 2.8 tons
per year of other paper, and 0.4 tons per year of aluminum totaling 15.8 tons per year being
handled by other recyclers. San Diego County initiated an office paper recycling program in
all county buildings. Based on information provided by the county, approximately 3.2 tons of
paper were collected during 1990 in Carlsbad.
The Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (AB 2020) imposes a deposit on
aluminum, glass and plastic containers that can be recycled. This deposit is refunded when the
container is turned in at a redemption center. The Department of Conservation in Sacramento,
California reported 643.2 tons per year of total redemption weight and 818.9 tons per year of
total received weight. These figures represent total weight recycled for the City of Carlsbad
including the weights reported by Liberty Recycling. To avoid double counting, the curbside
recycling weights for glass, aluminum and PET were subtracted from the total redemption
weight.
A Christmas tree service is offered in which the public can take its trees to the Coast Waste
Management transfer station or other drop-off sites. From there, the trees are taken to the San
Marcos Landfill where there is an area where the trees are chipped and given away as mulch.
Cornposting
Presently there are no composting programs operating in the City of Carlsbad. However, a pilot
yard waste collection program involving 1100 homes began in January 1992. The material
collected is taken to San Marcos landfill and processed into mulch,
2209/4/CARLSBALl/~.WO 2 - 17
SDecial Waste
Special wastes include materials that have unique handling problems. Examples of these are
washing machines, refrigerators, tires, construction debris, and municipal sludge. In the past,
these materials were taken to the San Marcos Landfa, but now with AB 939 and the San Diego
County Recycling Ordinance in place, these materials must be eliminated or greatly reduced
from the wastestream.
Carlsbad, Vista, Vallecitos, Leucadia, Encinitas, and Buena have their wastewater treated at the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). 2,027 tons per month of sludge is generated
at this facility and 30 percent (608 tons per month) is generated by the Carlsbad flow. More
than 90 percent of all the sludge generated at the EWPCF is directed to land application which
in turn gives Carlsbad a diversion of 6,567 tons per year of sludge.
2.4 TOTAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION
The total solid waste generated by the City of Carlsbad can be expressed as follows:
GEN = DISP 9 DIVERT
Where:
GEN = the total quantity of solid waste generated within the City.
DISP = the total quantity of solid waste generated within the City which is
disposed of in permitted solid waste facilities.
2209/4lCARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .WO 2 - 18
DIVERT = the total quantity of solid waste generated within the City which is
diverted from permitted solid waste facilities through existing source
reduction, recycling, and composting programs.
For FY 1989/1990, generated solid waste is separated into the following classifications.
Classification Tonnage
Disposal 132,5 10
Diversion
Source Reduction 135
Liberty Recycling 4,707
Directed Survey 1495
County Office Recycling Program 3.2
City Office Program 5.2
AB 2020 (Not reported by Liberty Recycling) 82.6
Composting 543
Special Waste 6,571
Christmas Tree Recycling 40.0
Diversion Total 13,582 .O
Total Generated 146,092
2.5 PROJECTED SOLID WASTE OUANTITIES
In order to sufficiently analyze future solid waste management alternatives, it is essential
to have projections of solid waste quantities. These projections will influence the size
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.W0 2 - 19
and location of proposed facilities. In addition, waste projections are required as part
of the initial solid waste generation study, (refer to Title 14, Chapter 9, Article 6.1).
Population projections and per capita solid waste generation rates are the tools used to
arrive at solid waste quantity projections. The numerical value of a solid waste
generation rate is determined by dividing the total waste quantity produced in a particular
area by the total population within the same area. Assuming population and waste
quantity data are reliable, this number should be representative of the per capita waste
quantity produced. However, solid waste generation rates are sensitive to change as a
result of any or all of the following factors.
0 Amounts of residential, commercial, industrial, and special wastes
The degree of control over waste disposal practices
generated
Construction development activities
0 Social patterns
Product packaging
Characteristics of communities (rural versus urban)
Accurate estimates of per capita solid waste’generation are important in projecting future
solid waste quantities. By determining the existing per capita generation, future waste
quantities can be forecasted by applying per capita generation rates to future population
projections.
2.5.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The preliminary results of the 1990 census indicate that the current population of the City
of Carlsbad is approximately 63,126. SANDAG has provided a revised Series 7
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .FNIJO 2 - 20
population forecast for the development of the SRRE for each of the cities within San
Diego County. The Series 7 forecasts incorporate the 1990 census data, Series 7 growth
rates and current trends in housing completions.
These forecasts project that the population of Carlsbad will reach 99,231 by the end of
the planning period in 2006. This represents an overall projected population hcrease of
57 percent.
2.5.2 PER CAPITA SOLD WASTE GENERATION RATES
The determination of a per capita solid waste generation rate for an area provides a
numerical value which can be applied to population increases to project future solid waste
quantities. As previously discussed, the degree of waste disposal control, the individual
amounts of wastestram classifications (residential, commercial/ industrial, and special
wastes), seasonal variations, and the characteristics of the community all impact the per
capita rate.
Based on information supplied by San Diego County, the solid waste generation rate for
Carlsbad was estimated to be 12.5 pounds per person per day. Using this rate as the
basis for per capita solid waste generation and applying this to the population projections,
the estimated future solid waste quantities for the City can be computed. In reviewing
these estimates, it should be noted that base per capita rate is based upon the weight
records maintained by the County since July, 1990, and hauler survey information
received in August, 1990.
Historically, the per capita generation of solid waste in the United States increased at the
rate of three to four percent per year through the 1960s and early 1970s. This historical
increase was a result of the greater use of paper in packaging and disposable products,
along with a general rise in the standard of living. In the latter half of the 1970s, this
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARJiAD.FNLlO 2 - 21
rate of increase slowed considerably as a result of the general economic conditions and
the increased awareness and concern about recycling and the reuse of solid wastes.
Based on the short- and medium-term development plans for the City of Carlsbad, it is
expected that the per capita generation of solid waste will remain relatively stable through
the year 2006. The projected solid waste quantities for Carlsbad through the planning
period are shown in Table 2-8.
2.6 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
2.6.1 BACKGROUND
Waste characterization studies are a part of an ongoing commitment by the County of San
Diego to identify and monitor the types and quantities of waste entering the county’s
landfills. AB 939 now requires each jurisdiction in the state to provide current data and
fifteen year projections describing the quantities of waste generated, disposed, and
diverted by waste component. AB 1820 amended AB 939 by permitting the use of
regional data in the Initial Solid Waste Generation Study for the SRRE.
The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division has
extensive regional data on waste composition in San Diego County. A customized
Scaleware data system was installed and now operates at each landfill, except the
Borrego Landfill. This system automatically generates-reports on quantities disposed by
truck type.
In addition, under the direction of EcoAnalysis and Recovery Sciences, Inc., seasonal
waste composition studies were conducted between 1988 and 1990 to characterize the
waste at Miramar, Sycamore, Otay and San Marcos landfills. This data, in conjunction
with hauler surveys, makes it possible for each city in the county to estimate the specific
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .NO 2 - 22
YEAR
1990
199 1
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
WASTE QUANTITY
POPULATION (TONS/YR)
63,125 146,092
66,764 1543 14
70,403 162,935
74,042 171,357
77,681 179,779
81,321 188,200
82,927 191,917
84,533 195,634
86,139 199,351 4
87,745 203,067
89,351 206,784
90,998 210,596
92,644 214,405
94,29 1 218,217
95,938 222,028
97,584 225,838
99,231 229,649
characterization of its waste stream.
determine the composition and the results.
This section describes the methods used to
2.6.2 METHODS USED FOR SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
To determine the origin of waste arriving at the county landfills, the county conducted
a hauler survey at the San Marcos, Sycamore, Otay and Ramona Landfills for the period
of August 15 to September 15, 1990. Analysis of the results of this survey enabled an
allocation by jurisdiction of total tons disposed at the landfd during this period.
Approximately 76 percent of total tons disposed at each landfill was accounted for during
this period. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that the remaining wastestream
was constant for all jurisdictions.
Truck types can be used to identify the source of the solid waste by sector. The three
sectors are residential, commercial and industrial sources. The computerized charge-by-
weight system at the landfills enables accurate accounting of the amount of waste
disposed by truck type. However, the computerized system does not currently provide
data by jurisdiction. Consequently, the county is presently developing a reporting system
to satisfy AB 939 requirements.
The following assumptions were made to define each waste generation sector:
Residential
0
0
0
100 percent of rear loaders and side loaders
50 percent of front loaders .
Residential self-haul (cars, vans, and non-decaled pick-ups)
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSJMD.FNIJO 2 - 24
Commercial
0
0
100 percent of compacted roll-offs
50 percent of front loaders
50 percent of open roll-offs
100 percent of dded pick-ups
Industrial
0 50 percent of open roll-offs
All other non-compactor vehicles (excluding cars, vans and pick-ups)
Waste disposal tonnages were apportioned by truck type and jurisdiction for each landfill
based on the hauler survey. These numbers were then applied to the Recovery Sciences,
Inc. and FxoAnalysis, Inc. waste composition estimates by truck type, landfill, and by
the percent of each jurisdiction's contribution to each landfill, ultimately yielding a
unique wastestream composition for each jurisdiction in the county.
2.6.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table 2-9 presents a summary of the waste composition by sector for each landfill used
by the City of Carlsbad disposed waste in 1990. Table 2-10 illustrates the total base year
waste composition for the City. Refer to Appendix B for 15-year projections. The
resulting waste composition is adequate for the preliminary planning stages. One
limitation in targeting programs necessary to achieve the short- and medium-term goals
is the lack of detailed breakdown on materials classified as "other miscellaneous" and
special wastes. It is recommended that a more detailed analysis be performed during the
short-term planning period based on CIWMB regulations and procedures. The City
should work together with the county in developing a database using the Scaleware
system to account for each jurisdiction and. sector origination of waste.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARD .FNuO 2 - 25
~xxg~?;g~%g
-4-
B
$r: Jk
81 t%
I
I I
3P 14-
il
jij ri
ji
- q 14
g%g8x~z8~8%?ggg8?g~ g ii
c?S?ggg g 11
iij
f f
51 is
B:
gP Bi
39
TABLE 2-10
CITY OF CARLSBAD
WASTE COMPOSITION BY CITY'
(1990)
WASTE SAN PERCENT
COMPOSITION MARCOS SYCAMOrn OTAY TOTAL (%)
Cardboard 14,560.3 0.0 137.8 14,698.1 11.1
Newspaper 3,945.2 0.0 46.6 3,991.8 3.0
Mixed Paper 9,001.6 0.0 27.6 9,029.4 6.8
HG Ledger 697.3 0.0 11.9 709.2 0.5
Glass 2,702.6 0.0 14.9 2,717.5 2.1
Film Plastic 2,937.8 0.0 22.8 2,960.6 2.2
Hard Plastic 3,285.7 0.0 29.7 3,315.5 2.5
Diapers 1,724.8 0.0 0.0 1,724.8 1.3
Other Misc.2 34,279.8 0.0 548.2 34,828.0 26.3
Tin Cans 1,414.1 0.0 8.9 142.3 1.1
Aluminum Cans 245.5 0.0 1.0 246.4 0.2
Yard Waste 19,100.1 32.9 461.1 1,959.1 14.8
wood waste 4,041.8 15.1 282.4 433.2 3.3
Concrete 5,171.7 9.4 93.3 5,274.4 4.0
Asphalt 393.2 1.5 1.9 396.5 0.3
Dirt/Rock/Sand 11,037.0 25.2 726.9 11,789.0 8.9
Roofing 111.3 27.4 15.8 154.6 0.1
Drywall 226.0 13.6 2.3 241.8 0.2
Mixed Construction 13,672.2 122.3 1,107.4 14,901.9 11.2
Special Wastes 0.0 0.0 173.3 173.3 0.1
TOTAL 128,548 247 3,714 132,509 100.0 L
'"Based on EcoAnalysis and Recovery Sciences, Inc. seasonal waste composition studies (1988 and 1990) and
3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT
3.1 OBJECTIVES
Source reduction refers to any action which causes a net reduction in the generation of
solid waste and can include, but is not limited to, replacing disposable materials and
products with reusable materials and products, reducing packaging, and increasing the
efficient use of paper, cardboard, glass, metal, plastic, and other materials in the
manufacturing process. Although individual source reduction measures are difficult to
quantify and document, the cumulative effect of several such measures, in conjunction
with an effective recycling program, could reduce the volume of solid waste going to
disposal facilities. A source reduction program will also conserve energy, avoid
collection and disposal costs, increase public awareness of waste disposal issues, and
contribute to the overall success of solid waste management plans.
Source reduction methods differ from other waste management strategies in that they do
not involve specific techniques, rather they focus on changing attitudes and behavior of
both producers and consumers. Typically, source reduction programs attempt to:
0
Reduce packaging
0
Reduce the use of non-recyclable materials
Replace disposable materials with reusable materials
Encourage the purchase of repairable products
Increase efficiency of use of materials
Encourage the purchase of durable products
3.1.1 SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES
An estimate of the diversion quantity that can be achieved through source reduction is
extremely difficult because existing studies do not quantify the effektiveness of source
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNLJO 3-11
\
reduction programs. Therefore, it is conservatively estimated that there will be no net
reduction in Carlsbad’s wastestream following implementation of its source reduction
program, at least in the short-term. If sufficient documentation is maintained to quantify
the source reduction potential over the planning period, modifications can be made to
incorporate actual quantities into the medium-term goal.
As a result, the short-term objectives of Carlsbad’s program are to educate the public
about source reduction activities and modify City procurement policies. The ducation
and public information program will distribute informative flyers about specific source
reduction activities that residents and office personnel can perform as well as the benefits
that will be derived from such activities. Where feasible, all City offices will purchase
recyclable over non-recyclable materials, products made from recycled materials over
products made from virgin materials, products with minimal packaging over products
with excessive packaging, and reusable products over disposable products.
3.1.2 PRIORITY WASTE TYPES
A variety of materials have source reduction potential and the more materials that are
targeted, the higher the probability of achieving a noticeable reduction in the
wastestream. The materials that can be targeted for Carlsbad’s source reduction program
include, but are not limited to:
0 disposable diapers
paper plates and napkins
plastic utensils
paper and polystyrene cups
excess product packaging
fast food packaging
junkmail
2209/4/CARISBADICARLSBAD .WO 3-2
These materials are specifically targeted because of the significant contribution they make
to the current disposal stream, and the fact that they have limited recyclability.
According to the wastestream characterization that was provided by San Diego County,
disposable diapers account for more than one percent of Carlsbad's total wastestream.
It would not be possible to eliminate the use of disposable diapers, but it may be possible
to encourage people to use cloth diapers occasionally and thereby reduce the quantity
requiring disposal.
Approximately fifteen percent of Carlsbad's total disposal wastestream is yard waste.
If this material can be composted through backyard composting programs or otherwise
utilized at the source of generation by the use of mulching mowers, it would help to
achieve the mandated 25 and 50 percent reduction goals as well as reduce the sizing
requirements for a central composting facility.
Used clothing and shoes are included in the textiles and leather category. These
materials could easily be diverted from landfill disposal. Most non-profit organizations
such as the Salvation Army will accept used clothing for repair and reuse.
I
The remainder of targeted materials make up a percentage of the mixed paper and mixed
plastic (film and hard plastic) categories which respectively account for 6.8 percent and
4.7 percent of Carlsbad's total disposal wastestream. Any reduction in this material
would contribute to achieving the short- and medium-term goals. Simple methods that
can be used to reduce the generation of these materials are:
* avoid using disposable materials
have names removed from "junk" mailing lists
purchase products with little or no packaging
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNLJO 3-3
3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Source reduction is difficult to quantify since little or no documentation is maintained.
There may be some small scale source reduction activities currently performed by
residential, commercial, and industrial entities within the City, but the difficulty lies in
developing an accurate method to quantify such programs. As a part of the mail survey
that was conducted for the Initial Solid Waste Generation Study, the businesses surveyed
were asked if they currently perform any source reduction activities such as double-sided
copying, limited use of disposable items, or plant process changes that reduce waste
generation.
The City has implemented volume reduction methods such as a recycling center and
separate collection programs. The CIWMB has determined that diaper service accounts
can count towards diversion goals. Babyland Diaper Services of San Diego is the only
diaper service in Carlsbad; account records will be obtained to establish a baseline record
and to monitor the success of the public education efforts. There is no anticipated
reduction of existing activities that would significantly affect material quantities diverted
during the short- and medium-term planning periods. Currently, diaper services have
135 accounts in Carlsbad which diverts 134.8 tons per year from the San Marcos
Landfill.
3.3 EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
Most source reduction objectives can be accomplished using a broad based program that
incorporates rate structure modifications, economic incentives, technical assistance,
instructional alternatives, and regulatory programs. The following alternatives could be
implemented jointly or on an individual basis to help Carlsbad achieve quantifiable source
reduction. The state requires that each alternative must be evaluated in terms of the
following criteria:
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.W0 3-4
0
0 Hazards created
0 Ability to accommodate change
a~ Consequences on the waste
0
Effectiveness in reduction of waste
Whether it can be implemented in short- and medium-term planning
periods
0 Need for expanding/building facilities
Consistency with local conditions
Institutional barriers to implementation
e End uses of diverted materials
3.3.1 RATE STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
There are a limited number of rate structure modifications that can be used to promote
source reduction. User fees for solid waste services could be established on a cost per
service basis and could take the form of variable can rates, or surcharges. This type of
system would create public awareness of the true cost of solid waste collection and
disposal, and also provide an economic incentive for waste reduction.
4
In 1980, the City of Seattle, Washington instituted a variable can rate in which the
monthly charge for weekly collection of two cans was about 125 percent greater than for
one can. From 1981 to 1984, the number of rate payers using two cans was decreased,
recycling tonnage increased by 60 percent, and per capita waste generation increased at
a lower rate than in other large cities around the country.
Advance disposal fees imposed at the state level could be used to discourage
manufacturers from producing excess packaging that becomes solid waste or litter.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.PNVO 3-5
Packaging fees could be levied at the wholesale level or as point-of-sale surcharges and
could provide exemptions for recyclable, recycled, or degradable materials.
The effectiveness of rate structure modifications on source reduction is uncertain, simply
because the concept of source reduction is relatively new. Although people are usually
outraged when public utility fees are increased, when done in conjunction with
promotional and instructional activities, it could be a highly effective method of
encouraging source reduction. However, a program that relies entirely on this alternative
would have limited flexibility.
Imposing a variable can rate may encourage illegal dumping and unwittingly create
serious health and safety problems. The probability of this happening could be reduced
by imposing penalties and offering rewards for the apprehension of anyone that dumps
material without proper permits. If there is a large reduction in the quantity of waste that
is being disposed, there will be a corresponding reduction in the revenue derived from
landfill disposal fees.
Rate structure modifications do not require the expansion or construction of any facilities
and can therefore be implemented in the short-term planning period. They are consistent
with local plans and policies and require no financial investment. Institutional barriers
to implementation should be minimal. The zvailability of end uses of diverted materials
does not apply to this alternative.
3.3.2 ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
Economic incentives such as grants and low- or no-interest loans can be used to finance
source reduction programs. Although historically used to promote recycling activities,
public funds could also be used to subsidize backyard composting and industrial process
changes that minimize waste generation. In addition, business license fees could be
reduced for companies that demonstrate a significant reduction in solid waste quantities.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 3-6
Deposits, refunds, and rebates are often used in recycling programs to recover
specifically targeted materials and are typically implemented at a state level.
Economic incentives and disincentives can be very effective behavior modification tools,
and have been proven in areas such as recycling and water conservation. Incentives such
as grants, loans, rebates and reduced fees do not create any health or safety hazards and
are flexible enough to accommodate changing conditions. From a regional perspective,
consequences on the waste are the same as for rate structure modifications. If there is
a significant reduction in disposal quantities, there will be a corresponding reduction in
the revenue derived from landfill disposal fees.
Economic incentives can be implemented during the short-term planning period and do
not require the expansion or construction of any facilities. Incentives are consistent with
local conditions and require no financial investment. In general, there should be no
institutional barriers to implementing economic incentives; however, the City may be
opposed to the reduction of business license fees as it may result in a loss of revenue.
The availability of end uses of diverted materials is not applicable.
3.3.3 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
City sponsored technical assistance can be directed toward both the residential and
commercialhndustrial sectors and may include activities such as waste evaluations,
demonstration projects, and waste exchanges. Waste evaluations are used to determine
the physical and institutional changes necessary to implement a successful source
reduction program and could be provided to interested businesses, industries, institutions,
and multi-family residential complexes. Demonstration projects on backyard composting
and mulching could be developed for the residential sector.
Technical assistance alternatives such as waste evaluatiom and demonstration projects are
not very effective as stand-alone programs,.and may be moderately effective when used
22G9/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNLJO 3-7
in conjunction with financial incentives and instructional alternatives. There should be
no health or safety hazard created by most technical assistance alternatives and only a
minor potential hazard associated with backyard composting projects.
Technical assistance programs can easily be modified to accommodate changing
conditions and can be implemented in the short-term planning period. Waste evaluations
and demonstration projects should not require any construction or expansion of facilities
and should have minimal consequences on the waste. Technical assistance programs are
consistent with local plans and policies and should have no institutional barriers to
implementation. Waste evaluations and demonstration projects may require a significant
financial investment, depending on the City’s level of commitment. The availability of
end uses of diverted materials does not apply to this alternative.
Waste exchanges can also be considered a form of technical assistance. They provide
a needed service to both purchasers and suppliers, and eliminate the need to dispose of
large quantities of material. The California Waste Exchange, established in the early
198Os, is a state-run system that acts as a clearinghouse for industries wishing to dispose
of or obtain certain wastes. There are similar exchanges established throughout the
country.
Reusing material that would otherwise be disposed in a landfill could significantly
contribute to meeting the diversion target. Participation in existing waste exchange
programs should be encouraged and local opportunities for waste exchanges should be
developed. Materials that should be considered for waste exchanges include used metals,
alloys, lumber, wood chips, and plastics. Depending on the types of materials that are
exchanged, there could be some health and safety considerations. If the City merely acts
as an information center, a waste exchange program should be consistent with existing
policies and would have minimal financial implications. There may, however, be
institutional barriers to implementation. City personnel may feel that a waste exchange
program is beyond the scope of their responsibilities.
220914lCARLSBADlCARLSBAD.FNUO 3-8
It is unlikely that a City sponsored waste exchange program could be implemented in the
short-term planning period; however, participation in existing state and national programs
could be accomplished in the short-term. This would also eliminate the need for any new
or expanded facilities. Because of the potential for transferring waste material between
jurisdictions, there would be moderate consequence on the waste.
Program cost estimates would depend greatly on the extent of the City’s involvement.
It could range from no investment for participating in existing waste exchanges to a
considerable investment for developing and operating a program within Carlsbad. By the
nature of a waste exchange program, end uses of the diverted materials would exist.
3.3.4 INSTRUCTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
Public education is probably the most important element of a source reduction program.
Consumers should be made aware of the solid waste problems caused by disposable
items, excess packaging, and junk mail. Durable products are often less expensive in the
long run, even though they may have a higher initial purchase price than disposable
products. In addition, most packaging is done strictly for marketing purposes and serves
only to increase product cost. Consumers should be encouraged to purchase bulk food
items and to transport bulk dispensed products in reusable bags or similar consumer
supplied containers.
Homeowners should be encouraged to leave grass clippings on their lawn (use mulching
mowers) and to turn other yard debris into mulch. Because it helps soil retain moisture,
mulch will conserve water as well as landfill disposal capacity. In this instance, solid
waste education could be combined with water conservation education. Technical
assistance programs can be used to initiate and support backyard composting projects.
Reducing waste paper quantities is probably the simplest source reduction activity
available. Community members should be informed regarding available methods to
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNLJO 3-9
control or eliminate junk mail, and encouraged to use paper and cardboard efficiently
(e.g., write on both sides of a piece of paper, use brown paper bags and cardboard boxes
more than once).
A public education program geared toward source reduction has the greatest potential for
effectively meeting any diversion target, as well as being extremely flexible. The
program can be tailored to suit various ethnic groups, age groups, and economic levels.
As conditions change, it can be modified accordingly. For the City of Carlsbad, it can
be implemented during the short-term planning period in conjunction with other outreach
and education programs.
Because public education programs do not create environmental hazards, there are no
health and safety implications. From a regional perspective, the consequences on the
waste would be insignificant and no facilities would be required. Instructional activities
are consistent with existing local ordinances, plans, and policies and have no barriers to
implementation. These activities, however, require financial investment; the degree of
investment would be dependent on the size of the program. The availability of end uses
of diverted materials is not applicable.
3.3.5 REGULATORY PROGRAMS
This discussion of regulatory programs includes a variety of ordinances that could be
enacted by the City to achieve significant source reduction. Some examples of legislative
measures are:
e Local ordinances for procuring products based on criteria such as
durability, recyclability , reusability, and recycled material content;
Local adoption of bans on products and packaging; and @
Local requirements of waste reduction planning and reporting by
generators.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 3 - 10
Procurement ordinances and product bans may be difficult to implement on a local level;
however, the City can provide leadership in these areas by expanding its in-house source
reduction plan. This will set an example for both the general public and local business,
and will also serve as an important promotional tool. Such a plan would require one or
more of the following steps.
@ Conduct an audit of the City’s current wastestream in order to develop
more specific reduction strategies.
Design a program that minimizes paper waste through double-sided
copying, routing material through an office rather than making multiple
copies, and reusing paper and cardboard whenever possible.
Lobby federal and state governments for legislation to promote source
reduction programs.
Monitor other jurisdictions for new source reduction techniques.
Where feasible, it is recommended that all City offices purchase recyclable over non-
recyclable materials, products made from recycled materials over products made with
virgin materials, products with minimal packaging over products with excessive
packaging, and reusable products over disposable products. At a later date, the City can
re-evaluate the need for procurement ordinances.
Product bans have recently become a legitimate approach to waste reduction. Many
jurisdictions across the country have enacted bans on materials such as foamed
polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride, or products such as plastic garbage and grocery bags,
and multiple-resin containers.
It will be necessary to require generators to report source reduction activities if the City
is to receive diversion credit. This can be done in conjunction with the reporting of
recycled quantities. Additional effort will be required for the preparation of source
reduction plans.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 3- 11
The effectiveness of regulatory programs depends on the degree of enforcement that is
available. Flexibility is limited by the procedures used to pass local ordinances. No
health or safety hazards are created by these alternatives and there are no consequences
on the waste.
Regulatory alternatives do not require new facilities and can be implemented in the short-
term planning period. Most ordinances are consistent with local conditions and have few
institutional barriers to implementation. The availability of end uses of diverted materials
is not applicable.
3.4 PROGRAM SELECTION
The selection of a source reduction program has been based on the objectives set forth
in Section 3.1, consideration of the existing conditions in the City of Carlsbad, and the
need to maintain program flexibility. The source reduction program will incorporate
instructional and promotional alternatives, new City procurement guidelines and an
evaluation of economic incentives and rate structure modifications.
In this initial phase of the SRRE, the City’s effort will concentrate on determining the
appropriate level of waste reduction required for the community, and on establishing the
institutional basis for the formulation of a medium-term source reduction program.
During this period, the City will evaluate all local waste reduction options and prioritize
these options in accordance with the needs and opportunities of the community. The
waste reduction program will include an educational component aimed at all appropriate
waste generators. Since waste reduction education is a required element of the plan,
state and federal programs should be examined to identify barriers which may inhibit
implementation of local programs.
e
Audit City generated wastestream.
Evaluate the need to obtain additional services of public relation fm.
220914lCARLSBADlCARLSBAD .WO 3 - 12
Revise City procurement specifications.
0
0
Conduct a rate study and evaluate variable can rate.
Monitor state and federal efforts.
Evaluate reporting methods for source reduction.
3.5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Implementing a program that reduces the generation of solid waste at the source may be
beyond the capability of local government. However, City government is able to
influence public attitudes and behavior through education and outreach programs. In
addition, local packaging and procurement policies that reduce waste are possible.
An implementation schedule must identify all activities which must be accomplished in
order to successfully implement the source reduction program. The schedule can help
assure that these decisions are well informed and made on a timely basis. The
implementation schedule must also provide project continuity as the personnel, laws and
regulations, and other factors change over time during program development.
The implementation schedule is an evolving document and must maintain flexibility. The
results of decisions made as part of early activities may significantly alter the program's
scope and direction as well as that of the solid waste management system. Following
each major decision to proceed with project elements, the implementation schedule
should be reviewed and revised as necessary. Table 3.-1 outlines the proposed schedule
for implementation.
3.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Accurate program monitoring will be critical if Carlsbad wants to take credit for the
quantity of material that is diverted through source reduction. The first step will be to
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 3 - 13
ACTIVITY
Evaluate state/federal economic incentive policy
Evaluate the need to obtain additional services of public
relations firm
Review and update City procurement and specifications
Evaluate reporting methods for source reduction
Develop technical assistance program for businesses and
institutions
Audit City generated wastestram
Begin implementation of business/institutional source
reduction
Conduct a study evaluating alternative rate structuring
DATE
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
August 1992
August 1992
September 1992
December 1992
September 1993
determine reliable methods of quantification. One way to quantify source reduction is
by subtracting total diversion and disposal quantities from projected generation quantities
and the difference would be attributed to source reduction. However, this method does
not take into account other factors such as economics or population shifts that can impact
generation rates. Another way to quantify source reduction is through documentation of
specific programs, and estimates of material quantities. Both methods have a high
potential for error, but could yield useful results if performed concurrently as a double
check for accuracy. Reporting methods for the source reduction component will be
refined during the short-term planning period.
In order to assess the effectiveness of a source reduction program, it is essential to gather
and evaluate a variety of operational data. Most of the source reduction monitoring
activities can be performed in conjunction with recycling monitoring, as much of the
information will be useful for evaluating both programs.
Short-term monitoring will consist of gathering source reduction program specific
information and evaluating the effectiveness of various techniques to monitor the City’s
progress in meeting the goals. The results of the short-term activities will provide for
the selection of a specific medium-term source reduction monitoring strategy that
provides accurate data and fits within the overall reporting requirements for all the
components.
2209/4/CARLSBADICBAD.FNLfO 3 - 15
4.0 RECYCLING COMPONENT
Recycling programs developed and implemented by each city will form the cornerstone
of effective solid waste management plans designed to achieve the 25 and 50 percent
diversion goals established by AB 939. These programs provide the most effective way
to divert large quantities of material from disposal facilities. This section specifies the
diversion quantities that can be achieved through recycling programs as well as market
development objectives for both the short-term and medium-term planning periods.
4.1 OBJECTIVES
The initial analysis of available technologies or systems to meet the goals established by
AB 939 must be based on the ability to successfully target materials for recycling. In
1988 and 1990 EcoAnalysis, Inc. and Recovery Sciences, Inc. performed a waste
characterization study for San Diego County. In 1990, San Diego County conducted a
hauler survey to supplement this report. This wastestream composition data was used
to identify those materials within the disposal stream that are readily recyclable, and set
target objectives for percentage reductions in the quantities being disposed of in the San
Marcos landfill, the City’s primary waste disposal facility.
4.1.1 SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES
The targeted recovery objectives for the short-term and medium-term are to remove 50
percent of the materials identified for recycling by 1995 and 75 percent by the year 2000.
Programs to meet recycling goals include elements such as market development, public
education, facility development, public participation, business participation and program
monitoring and evaluation.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.W0 4-1
4.1.2 MATERIAL MARKET STUDY
In 1990, a comprehensive market and waste characterization study of the secondary or
recoverable materials industry was conducted by Recovery Sciences, Inc. @SI) & Eco
Analysis, Inc. The following section describes the findings of their report.
The current market for recovered materials is irregular and varies due to many factors
which impact market prices, such as:
0 Condition of domestic and world economics
Supply of materials, virgin and secondary, on the domestic and world
markets
World relationships between supply sources, domestic and foreign market
production, and generation rates
Capacities of secondary materials production facilities
The level of demand and price competition in the marketplace
Variations in export freight pricing policies
Currency exchange rates in relation to the U.S. dollar
*
0
Recent markets for recovered material have varied greatly with supply and demand in
both the domestic and import markets. These individual markets are overviewed in the
following subsections.
Wastepapers. Four types of wastepapers are traded on the local and world market.
These are old newspaper (ONP), old corrugated containers (OCC), high grade paper
(HG), and mixed wastepaper (MWP). The domestic market for ONP has been sluggish
in the last few years due to a glut on the market. However, the market for ONP is
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 4-2
expected to change as a result of increased numbers of recovery programs, legislative
actions and the fact that ONP costs 20 percent less to produce than newsprint made from
virgin pulp. The export market for ONP remains consistent due to the lack of timber
resources. The demand for OCC continues to be strong on the foreign market and is
growing on the domestic market. The most important factor in increasing recovery rates
of OCC is to encourage generators to bale their OCC. Domestic markets for HG have
steadily increased, although recovery rates have wakened due to an increase of virgin
pulp at lower prices. The export market for HG remains strong. MWP is the least
valuable of all wastepaper types and domestic demand is driven by ONP prices. When
ONP prices are high, MWP is substituted and thus becomes more valuable.
Metals. There are three types of metals traded: used aluminum beverage containers
(UBC), used tin cans, and scrap aluminum and nonferrous metals. UBC is now being
recovered at a rate equal to demand by all major aluminum companies. Prices for UBC
have increased approximately 40 percent since 1986 due to an increased demand for
aluminum. The U.S. is the largest user of tin, although its market value is low due to
high costs of processing, shipping and detinning. Tin is viewed by dealers more as a
contaminant rather than a recoverable resource. Scrap aluminum and non-ferrous metals
are valuable recyclable materials due to their high intrinsic value.
Glass. The majority of glass recovered remains in the U.S. and the market for glass is
expected to continue to be steady. The industry encourages sorting glass into three
colors and influences this by purchasing unsorted glass at a lower price.
Plastic. The market for recovered plastics is still developing, with new markets,
technologies and companies constantly emerging. The technology to recycle plastic
exists, although the necessary support systems such as collection programs, markets,
processing plants, and transportation are still very costly. The County of San Diego has
established a Task Force to investigate ways. of diverting plastic from its wastestream and
2209/4/CARLSBADlCARBAD.FNLJO 4-3
creating end markets for the recovered material. The Task Force has recommended
curbside collection of plastic despite the high cost of recovery.
Wood and Yard Waste. Wood and yard waste differs from previously discussed
recoverable materials in that export and pricing issues do not apply. Source separation
of this material is encouraged by offering a discount or credit towards tipping fees to
haulers at the landfills. The material can then be mulched and offered to the public or
used in fiberboard manufacturing, soil amendment, as a sludge bulking agent, or landfill
cover material.
Many factors influence the marketability of recovered materials. These include
fluctuation in market prices such as supply and demand, and volume of materids within
the marketplace.
In order for marketability of recovered materials to increase, demand for these materials
must be increased. This will occur if:
Cost for the recycled material is less than that for the competing virgin
material.
Quality of the product produced from the recovered material is equal to
that made from the virgin material.
Secondary materials can be used by the end user in the production
process.
In promoting demand to be increased, RSI suggested the following steps:
Attract investment to facilities which use recycled materials.
Encourage developments in technology which will improve the quality of
recycled products.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNLJO 4-4
Insure that the prices of virgin materials are not artificially low due to
laws and policies.
The prices for secondary materials are cyclical and volatile. They can vary from 40 to
100 percent within a six to twelve month time frame. Trends in the pricing cycle can
be used to define median, more realistic materials prices, and help project long-term
pricing forecasts. Table 4-1 shows price ranges of secondary materials for San Diego
markets, mid-1990.
The success of a recycling program is most dependent on the development of markets for
recyclable materials and for these markets to be long-term and dependable. The
materials for which market development is most needed are mixed paper, newspaper,
used tires, plastics, glass and tin cans. Market development may benefit other materials
such as cardboard, scrap metals and high grade paper. Aluminum is now being
recovered at a rate equal to demand and needs no further market development.
4.1.3 PRIORITY WASTE TYPES
On June 11, 1991, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted a Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance as part of a comprehensive program to regulate storage, collection,
transportation, and disposal of solid waste. Under this ordinance, all disposal of
designated recyclable materials with non-recyclable mixed wastes at San Diego County
solid waste facilities will be prohibited within a specified implementation schedule. The
implications of this ordinance on the City’s own plans for recycling to meet the AB 939
goals are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The assessment of surcharges for violation of the ordinance limits it to persons hauling
waste to county solid waste facilities and assumes that the waste haulers can in turn
ensure compliance by the waste generators. Since waste collection is conducted under
2209l4lCARLSBAD/CAR.WQ 4-5
MATERIAL
Grade 6 Old Newspaper
Old Corrugated Cardboard Containers
Colored Ledger
White Ledger
Computer Paper
Mixed Waste Paper
Used Aluminum Beverage Containers (UBC)'
Used Tin Cans
Glass2
Piastic Beverage Containers'
Other Plastics
Yard Waste
wood waste
PRICE PER TON
$20
$40
$20
$50
$100
$10-$0
$2,200
$40450
430-$10
$400
$0
$0
$0
contract with the City by a private hauler, the City is ultimately responsible for ensuring
compliance.
The intent of the county ordinance is clearly to reduce the quantity of recyclables going
into landfills that could otherwise be diverted. This intent is consistent with the state
mandated AB 939 goals but imposes a stringent implementation schedule, which for
Carlsbad (North County region) begins on August 1, 199 1 for single-family residential;
July 1, 1992 for multi-family residential; July 1, 1992 for yard waste; July 1, 1992 for
commercial; and October 1, 1992 for industrial groups. The City of Carlsbad has
adopted a mandatory recycling ordinance similar to the County ordinance.
Programs for the residential portion of the wastestream will differ from the programs for
the commercial and industrial wastestream. This is due to the variation in the quantities
produced from each sector (residential is 33.8 percent, commercial is 26.8 percent, and
industrial is 29.4 percent) and to the different methods of collection. The commercial
and industrial sectors are combined due to.the similarity of collection methods and the
similarity of their respective wastestreams. Target materials for the residential and the
commercidindustrial wastestreams are shown in Table 4-2.
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Curbside Recycling: Carlsbad has a citywide curbside collection program which is now
serving all single family homes. This program generated approximately 2,326 tons of
recyclable material in 1990. All residences are billed an additional charge of $1.00 per
month for recycling service on their regular trash collection bill.
Liberty Recycling, a division of Coast Waste Management, collects aluminum, glass,
newspaper, HDPE and PET plastic, tin, and bi-metal as part of the curbside program.
Collection of recyclables is done on the Same day as solid waste collection. Liberty
Recycling provides two free
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNLfO 4-7
TARGET MATERIALS
COMMERCIAL/
RESIDlmTIAL INDUSTRIAL
stackable containers to each household.
establishments on an on4 basis.
This program also services commercial
Multi-Tenant Recycling: Liberty Recycling collects newspaper and mixed recyclables
from dl multi-family units in the City. Over seven tons of materials were collected from
multi-tenant bins in May, 1991, the first month of this program’s operation. This
program generated over seventy-eight tons of recyclable materials in February, 1992.
Materials Recovery Facility: The Carlsbad materials recovery facility (MRF) is
operated by Coast Waste Management. The facility is leased from San Diego County.
Between 16 and 18 trucks collect solid waste in Carlsbad, 4 of which are used for
recycling routes. Coast Waste Management operates a total of 55 trucks for all of their
solid waste operations.
Buy-Back Center: The MRF also operates as a buy-back center. The buy-back center
accepts aluminum, glass, PET, HDPE, tin, newspaper, CPO, ledger, OCC, MWP and
metals.
Christmas Tree Recycling Program: Residents of Carlsbad are able to drop off their
Christmas trees at the following locations:.
0
0
0
Fire Station #1 at 1275 Carlsbad Village Drive
Calavera Park at 2997 Glasglow Street.
Fire Station #4 at 6885 Batiquitos Drives
Cadencia Park at 3310 Cadencia
Liberty Recycling at 5960 El Camino Real
The drop-off locations were unattended and open 24 hours a day between December 26,
1991 and January 13, 1992. This program will recur annually. The trees are then
brought to the San Marcos Landfill where they are treated as yard waste and mulched.
2209/4/CAlUSBAD/CARLSBAD.F?WO 4-9
The mulch will be made available to the public at no-charge. The City is also promoting
a living tree program through the parks and recreation department.
Other Recycling Practices: The San Marcos Landfill offers a discount on separated
yard waste. The yard waste is cut and chipped into a mulch and given away to the
public or is sold as boiler fuel.
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Recycling refers to the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and
reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to
the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new or reconstituted products
which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the market place. This section
provides an overview of the applicable recycling technologies suitable for the City’s
growing needs as the volume of recyclable materials increases in response to the AB 939
requirements. Technologies are described for the three principle processes involved in
recycling: separation, collection, and processing; and are evaluated against a set of
criteria specified by the CIWMB in their SRRE checklist.
4.3.1 SEPARATION
Separation is the process of removing recyclable material from the general wastestream
that occurs at the source of generation or at a central kcility. The degree of separation
can vary from multiple separation where each material is segregated from every other
material in separate containers, to commingled where recyclable materials are separated
from non-recyclable trash but are stored and collected together. When recyclables are
collected as individual components, very little processing is required before they are
shipped to end-use markets. However, this high degree of source separation requires
more effort on the part of waste generators. The advantages and disadvantages of
multiple separation are listed below.
2209141CARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 4 - 10
Advantages:
0 It reduces material contaminition.
0 It minimizes the need for a materials recovery facility 0.
Disadvantages:
It requires multiple containers.
e It requires compartmentalized vehicles and complicates the collection
procedures.
It has the potential to decrease public participation because of required
storage space and complexity of operation.
If recyclable materials are mixed together, they are easier to store and collect but require
a MRF to separate them into components prior to shipping and recycling. MRFs can
increase the marketability of recyclable materials by reducing product contamination and
ensurhg consistent quality material. The advantages and disadvantages associated with
commingled separation are presented below.
,
Advantages:
It requires a minimum number of containers for storage and collection.
It does not require compartmentalized vehicles and therefore the collection
procedure is simplified.
It has the potential to increase public participation due to the ease of
operation.
a~
2209/4/CARLSBAJYCARBAD.PNUO 4- 11
I
Disadvantages:
0 It often results in contamination of certain materials (particularly papers
and broken glass).
It eventually requires additional mechanical or manual separation.
It requires a financial investment in a MRI?.
0
Depending on participation rates, all sepaxation methods can be equally effective in
meeting the established recycling goal. At least some degree of source separation is
essential for program success. Separation methods are equally flexible and are consistent
with local ordinances, plans, and policies. There are negligible health and safety
implications associated with all types of material separation.
Liberty Recycling, which currently serves the City of Carlsbad, provides two separation
bins for the citywide curbside recycling program. Newspapers are collected in one bin
and glass, PET and HDPE, aluminum, tin and bimetals are collected in the other.' Once
at the MRF, all of the collected materials are segregated by type before being sold as
reclaimed product.
4.3.2 COLLECTION
Collection refers to the system used to deliver recyclable material to a central location.
Collection methods include:
0 Drop-off Centers
Buy-back Centers
0 On-Call Collection
0 Residential Curbside Collection
2205'/4/CARLSBADICARBAD.FNUO 4 - 12
Each of these methods is currently in operation in Carlsbad. The following paragraphs
provide a brief description and particular advantages and disadvantages associated with
each method.
Drop-off Centers
Drop-off centers serve as a collection point for voluntary recycling of designated
recyclable materials such as newspaper and aluminum. Both supervised and unsupervised
drop-off centers are common. Some supervised centers handle the processing of
recyclables. The advantages and disadvantages associated with drop-off centers are
presented below.
Advantages:
Low capital costs are required.
Collection of recyclable materials is easy.
Disadvantages:
Requires voluntary participation.
0 Produces low recovery rates.
0 Provides no economic incentive.
Public education materials and guides are published by Coast Waste Management and
by "I Love a Clean San Diego County, Inc. ," a non-profit group partially funded by the
City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. The degree of success of the program
and diversion quantities are currently being assessed through a survey of selected centers
within the county.
2209/4/CAR.WO 4- 13
Liberty Recycling has 60 to 70 drop-off bins located throughout Carlsbad. Some of the
locations include schools and trailer parla where the revenues are used to support various
social activities.
Buv-Back Centers
Buy-back centers are similar to drop-off centers, but buy-back centers accept and pay for
materials received directly from the consumer at the facility site. Buy-back centers may
be run by governments, secondary materials dealers, beverage container manufacturers,
and other private or non-profit operators. Buy-back centers may also serve as processing
centers for a network of collection systems before shipment to market, and can therefore
also operate as materials recovery facilities.
Since most buy-back centers are staffed facilities, the same advantages and disadvantages
associated with staffed drop-off centers apply to them. Based on CDM experience, the
following additional common advantages and disadvantages also apply to buy-back
centers.
Advantages:
Participation is enhanced by economic incentives provided to the
customer.
Buy-back centers are amenable to both the public and private sector.
Disadvantages:
The complexity of recycling operations is increased.
220914ICARLSBADlCARLSBAD .FNUO 4 - 14
As with drop-off centers, recovery rates achieved for recyclable materials are usually
quite low; however, recovery rates for individual materials such as aluminum or
newspaper may be much higher depending on the prim received.
At least 22 buy-back centers are located in the North San Diego County Region, one of
which is in Carlsbad. This buy-back center is primarily a materials recovery facility
operated by Coast Waste Management. The degree of success and diversion quantities
are currently being assessed through a survey of selected centers within San Diego
County.
On-Call Collection
Oncall collection is usually achieved by placing storage containers at multi-family
dwellings, commercial establishments, restaurants and industrial facilities. The materials
recovered vary by program. The containers are collected by private or municipal haulers
when called by the person responsible for the site. On-call collection is viable for
commercial establishments that do not generate large volumes of waste on a regular
basis. Examples include the collection of corrugated cardboard from commercial and
retail establishments, and glass and aluminum containers from restaurants. The success
of on-call collection programs depends on public education, person to person contact with
commercial establishment owners and/or managers by local government representatives
to explain the advantages of this recycling method, and current disposal fees in the
community.
Common advantages associated with on-call collection programs include:
0
They are amenable to both the public and private sector.
Potentially contaminant-free materials requiring minimal processing are
recovered.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.FNUO 4 : 15
0 Economic incentives to the customer, if offered, enhance participation/
material recovery rates.
The major disadvantage of on-call collection is that it is difficult to encourage local
businesses to participate in these programs when they do not receive a direct economic
benefit or the program is not mandatory. Commercial recycling will become mandatory
beginning July 1, 1992.
Residential Curbside Collection
Curbside recycling is the term used for programs in which recyclables are collected at
the curb. Residents separate recyclable materials at the source of generation (in the
home) and the separated materials are placed at the curb for collection. The recyclables
are then transported for further processing or sold directly to a market. The collection
and hauling is usually accomplished using compartmentalized vehicles operated by
municipal or private haulers. A large number of curbside recycling programs are in
operation in the United States at this time. Curbside recycling programs conhue to
increase in number in urban areas across the nation as recycling becomes an integral
component of overall solid waste management systems.
Curbside programs are generally operated by having residents place designated recyclable
materials in specially designed containers at the curb once per week on a regular
collection day or other designated day. Containers for this purpose are furnished by the
hauler or the community.
Recyclable materials are usually collected in one of two ways. In one system, a separate
container is provided for each material. These are then placed at the curb, and are kept
separated in various compartments of the truck. In the other system, the materials are
commingled in one container. The materials are then either sorted by the collector, or
mixed in the collection truck and later sorted at a materials processing facility.
220!3/4/CARZSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 4 - 16
The first system has the advantage of the homeowner providing all material separation.
However, because many different containers are involved, it becomes less convenient to
the homeowner and participation declines. The second system provides a greater
convenience to the homeowner, but necessitates more processing of commingled
materids at a processing facility. The use of a single container for commingled
recyclables is currently the more common and successful approach.
Finally, it is important to note that curbside recycling is most successful. where there is
an existing mandatory refuse collection program. In this case, residents are accustomed
to placing their materials at the curb. Therefore, participation in recycling is made
convenient to all residents. Without mandatory refuse collection, participation rates in
curbside recycling programs are much lower, and more extensive public education is
required. Curbside recycling is usually practiced in urban areas (e.g., incorporated
cities) where residential density is high. .The cost of curbside collection is usually
prohibitive in sparsely populated arm.
i
Based on CDM’s experience, the most common advantages and disadvantages of curbside
recycling (in comparison with user delivery systems) are as follows:
Advantages:
0
e
It is convenient to the homeowner.
High recovery rates of targeted materids are achieved.
There is a potential for integration with existing solid waste collection
practices.
Disadvantages:
Higher equipment and operating costs are incurred.
2209/4/CARISBAD/CARLS&9D .FNUO 4 - 17
The nature of the program is more complex.
Depending upon the materials collected and the level of public awareness, recovery ra
representing a 15 to 18 percent reduction of the residential waste generated, or three
eight percent of the overall wastestream, may be achieved. Some programs ix
achieved significantly higher rates, but levels of residential wastestream recovery mL
above 15 to 18 percent are unusual.
The City of Carlsbad is presently operating a curbside collection program through
contract with Liberty Recycling (Coast Waste Management). Collection is five day!
week serving 17,400 residences. The estimated set-out rate is 64 percent weekly and
percent monthly.
4.3.3 PROCESSING
There are basically two types of processing facilities, central processing facilities (CPJ
and materials recovery facilities (MRFs). CPFs separate recyclable materials frorr
mixed municipal solid waste (MSW), while MRFs sort and process only mixed recyclal
materials. The following paragraphs describe these two types of processing facilities a
associated costs for a typical facility.
Central Processing FaciIities
CPFs are facilities that process mixed municipal waste and, through either hand-sorti
or mechanical separation methods (or a combination of both), extract selected recyclat
materials for marketing. The remaining fraction of the MSW stream can be landfill
or further processed into a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) or MSW compost material. CP
can be characterized as heavy mechanical processing facilities which can have hi
capital costs, depending on the wastestream’s throughput capacity. Recent IC
2209/41CARLSBADICARBAD.PNUO 4- 18
technology CPFs (little mechanical equipment, labor intensive) have been shut down.
Larger, more mechanically complex CPFs have had problems operating at capacity and
marketing processed materials.
The major advantage of a CPF is that mixed municipal wastes can be delivered directly
to the facility as collected. No participation by residents or businesses is required. They
are used in those cases where separate collection recycling systems such as curbside
programs or drop-off centers are not feasible or desired, or where other recycling
systems do not achieve higher rates of recovery on a voluntary basis. Their
disadvantages include much higher capital and operating costs than source separation
recycling systems as well as a lower quality product resulting from contamination.
Materials Recoverv Facilities
MRFs are designed to store, sort and process mixed recyclable materials (e.g.,
newspaper, cardboard, office paper, glass, metal, plastic). These facilities have
historically been owned and operated by the private sector (secondary materials
processors) and non-profit organizations (such as Goodwill Industries), and have also
operated as buy-back centers. However, as the scope of recycling programs across the
country has increased, the public sector is becoming more involved in the implementation
of MRFs for storing and processing the increasing amounts of available recyclable
materials that local private dealerdprocesmrs either cannot or will not handle, and for
preparing large quantities of recyclable materials for possible shipment to distant markets
or end users.
MRFs are characterized by a combination of hand-sorting operations and certain
mechanical equipment (e.g., balers, conveyor belts, plastic granulators, magnets, glass
crushers, forklifts, trailer trucks, etc.) for preparing recyclable materials for marketing
to end users/manufacturers who use these materials in the production of new products.
Depending on local market conditions and the scope of the local recycling program,
2209/4/C!ARLSBAD/CARUJ3AD.PNLJO 4 - 19
MRFs can become a necessary part of a source separation recycling program, especially
when intensive curbside recycling is part of the program.
There are many types of material recovery facilities currently operating in the United
States. A "low technology" facility is a basic system designed to accommodate source
separated incoming materials where very little mechanical automation is utilized. A
"medium technology" facility is designed to process commingled materials through the
use of hand sorting and a minimal degree of mechanical processing. A "high
technology" facility typically utilizes mechanical separation and processing of the
incoming solid waste with a minimal level of hand sorting employed. Each type of
technology is based upon the types and quantities of the materials being processed and
market specifications. Each of the three can also be designed to accommodate residual
wastes such as received at a transfer station. These factors determine the facility's
degree of sophistication and mechanization.
Low Technology System. This type of facility accepts a specified range of materials
which have been separated at the point of generation. These materials generally include
source separated newspapers, white paper, mixed colored paper, aluminum and bi-metal
cans, corrugated cardboard, and glass. Capital investment in this type of facility is low.
Equipment needs include a baler, conveyor, containers and forklift. Labor requirements
include a foreman, forklift operator, and floor workers.
Because of limited processing capabilities for this type of facility, the revenue received
for the recyclables are low, and the ability of the manager to market the material is
subject to fluctuation in market demand.
~ -stem. A medium technology differs very little from the low
technology facility except in the capability to process commingled materials. This type
of facility accepts commingled recoverable materials as well as source separated
materials. The capital investment is higher than a low technology facility because a line-
220914lCARLSBADICARBAD.FNUO 4 - 20
sort system must be added to separate the mixed recyclables. Also, additional personnel
are necessary to sort the materials. Figure 4-1 illustrates the material flow at a medium
technology facility. The objective of this type of facility is to meet the minimum market
specifications at a low capital cost.
High Technolow Sv -stem. A high technology system is the most sophisticated and
mechanized method of processing mixed recyclables. It is distinguished by the advanced
development of the separation and processing technology employed in the system.
Unlike the low and medium technology systems, the high technology system relies
mainly on mechanical magnetic separation, eddy current separation, screening and
density separation to separate materials. Processing techniques include crushing,
screening, air classification, flattening, granulating, perforating, baling and slitting. The
objective of the high technology system is to process the materials to maximum market
specifications in order to earn optimal revenue and assure long-term end markets. Figure
4-2 provides a graphic representation of a high technology MRF.
The Coast Waste Management (Liberty Recycling) facility serving Carlsbad can be
classified as a low to medium technology MRF. The MRF handles commingled
recyclable materials, including mixed paper, and uses a combination of automated and
manual lines for sorting HDPE, PET, aluminum, tin and bi-metal, and glass.
Typical Facility Costs
Typical costs for MRFs have been obtained from a 1990 survey published in May 1990
by BioCIycZe magazine. Facility costs include the initial capital costs and annual
operating costs. The survey reported initial capital costs ranged from $lO,OOO to
$40,000 per ton of daily capacity and operating costs ranged from $51.30 to $57.70 per
ton of input.
2209l4ICARLSBADlCARD.WO 4 - 21
ran
m3u
% wmv1
A $2 2:
m A
rn w E f=4
4 A
d>2
'v1 H w E
Hra
A /q
t [-*kt 0
.9 om
t [-# v1 3% &:
M
3
a i
0
e8
.d *
w
Q v1z 0
p E2 t $E--t v1H 35 m *z a-t E$ t
Ecn P4
%tiy Es 0 c A
B 8
fzp: W
ZN ww g
K !s
alX . bo .3 no . EEZ . BH . &a
9, "B 8 XG4 m $w e ?K
E w alpc 42 3 Ptpc *PC CIW nm
o
mw w I
d
E!
rn2 X izg e Ern
d 2 s GI OH al u !Z& VI ww
$E E3 u
cn -.
u EJ E
d
g
2
pc 8
g 2
cz X I3 I n
4
p: W al 2
z \ a PC . W iflb H $a m
22 8
Ir s
I ti M-.[-. d
i-.b-. 9 [pj .
J . m - :2
cn 3u &VI u
4
a 2
2
9
2
3
0 VI C
I
$2 -. J
czz WW
3u fzm u
F) a
Cr;% ww 82 -. bo H VI 3U p:cn u
Costs vary according to the following factors.
0 Facilitylmtion
Landavailabilityandcost .
0
0 Facility capacity
0 Financing expenses
Laborexpenses
0
Facility type (Le., technology employed)
Stability of wastestream input to facility
The survey revealed that economies of scale typically expected for processing facilities
were not evident. Capital cost of facilities with a daily capacity of 100 tons per day (tpd)
or less was lower ($18,100 per ton of daily capacity) than those with a daily capacity of
between 100 and 200 tpd ($22,500 per ton of capacity) or 200 tpd and greater ($21,700
per ton of daily capacity).
According to Mr. Don Hastings, facility 'supervisor, initial capital costs for the San
Diego Recycling Facility were between $5 and $6 million. Assuming a 300 tpd capacity,
a cost of $20,000 can be estimated per ton of daily capacity. CDM's experience with
similar facilities shows an average capital cost of $30,000 per ton of daily capacity.
Local operating expenses could not be obtained from any of the MRFs currently
operating within San Diego County.
4.3.4 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives discussed in this section cover the range of appropriate techniques
available to the City of Carlsbad to meet the goals of 25 and 50 percent reduction goals
by 1995 and 2000, respectively. Residential and commercidindustrial alternatives
evaluated include:
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FMIO 4 - 24
0 Drop-off centers
0 Buy-back centers
0 Curbside collection
0 On-call collection
Central processing facility (CPF)
0
0 Mechanized MRF
Manual materials recovery facility (MRF)
The criteria used to evaluate the above alternatives include:
0 Effectiveness
0 Hazard created
0 Flexibility
Consequence on the waste
Short-term and medium-term implementation
0 New or expanded facilities 6
Effectiveness, hazard created and flexibility criteria have more impact on the success of
a particular program than the remaining criteria. A summary of the alternatives
evaluation for residential and commerciaUindustrial programs is illustrated in Table 4-3.
Two alternatives provided the best approach for the residential portion of the
wastestream--expanded curbside collection and a mechanized MRF for the processing of
source sepmted materials. Alternatives for handling the commercidindustrial portion
of the wastestream include on-call collection and a mechanized MRF.
4.4 PROGRAM SELECTION
The selection of a recycling program is based on both the objectives established in
Section 4.1 and the existing conditions in the City of Carlsbad. As stated earlier, the
short-term objective is a 50 percent reduction in the amount of recyclable material being
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNIJO 4-25
i3 B
2 w
d .41 3
9) f
c-( 3
8 3 2 s
-2
3 B g .9
2 ,a
8 3 3 2
i
d
c, &
3
E!
w 3
CfJ
;r.
w .!
a e % 0 m m 9) 0 0 P B E!
0 c)
.H R
8
3
i3 1 z c)
6
9)
9)
,a %
.d 22 -
d
* 22
8
X
.r( 4 .,-I
B
J 24 5 F
m m
.d
E s d *8 3 ‘E 12 8
5 Yr.2 N
c, &
.% .= - l40
disposed of at the landfill, and the medium-term objective is 75 percent. Refer to Tables
4-4 through 4-6 for material quantities expected for diversion over the short- and
medium-term. A detailed analysis of Carlsbad waste composition and the means by
which to achieve the required 25 percent diversion in 1995 and the 50 percent diversion
in 2000 is provided in the "Waste Generation Composition" tables in Appendix B. To
provide a comprehensive evaluation of the level of diversion that must occur through
source reduction, recycling, composting, and special waste, the tables represent these
estimates on a yearly basis, beginning with base year 1990 through 2006.
Each contribution to the solid wastestream (paper, plastic, glass, etc.) and its respective
subcomponents have been identified, together with estimated tonnages of waste
generated, disposed and diverted. In achieving the established goals within the given
time frame, percent of diversion and related tonnages for each of the contributors have
been identified.
Given a time frame of 15 years, there can be a variety of factors that can impact the
City's attempt towards attaining this goal. Nevertheless, by closely reviewing these
tables, Carlsbad can realize the composition of their wastestream and the direction that
the City should proceed towards developing a SRRE program that reflects the established
guidelines.
In specifically addressing the recycling component, these tables allow the City to identify,
on a year-by-year basis, the percent of recyclable material that must be removed from
the recycable wastestream. For example, Carlsbad must remove 50 percent of their
recyclable material from the recyclable waste stream by 1995 in order to achieve the
required 25 percent diversion. This value increases to 75 percent by 2000 in order that
the 50 percent goal can be satisfied. By assembling these estimates on a yearly basis,
the City can better project the level of recycling that is required.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.lTWO 4 - 27
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Tons Diversion
Source Reduction 135 0.1%
Recycling 6,334 4.3%
Special Waste 6.571 4.5%
13,583 9.3%
Composting 543 0.4%
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 4 - 28
1995 DIVERSION
Generated Waste
199OTons 1995Tons Percent
Cardboard 15,362 19,789 10.6
Newspaper 6,957 8,962 4.8
Mixed Paper 9,520 12,264 6.3
HG Ledger & Computer 720 928 0.5
Glass 4,548 5,859 2.6
Film Plastic 2,987 3,847 2.1
Hard Plastic 3,331 4,291 2.3
Diapers 1,860 2,396 1.3
Other Miscellaneous 34,828 44,866 24.2
Tin Cans 1,465 1,887 1 .o
Aluminum Cans 461 594 0.3
Yard Waste 20,137 25,941 13.6
Wood Waste 4,339 5,589 3.0
Concrete 5,275 6,795 3.7
Asphalt 397 511 0.3
DirURocWSand 1 1,790 15,188 8.2
Roofing 155 199 0.1
Drywall 242 311 0.2
Mixed Construction 14,902 19,198 10.3
Special Waste 6,744 8,688 4.7
TOTAL 146,092 188,200 100.0
QUANTITlEs
Disposed Waste Diverted Waste
Tons Percent Tom Percent
14,110 10.3 5,680 3.0
6,390 4.7 2,572 1.4
8,744 6.4 3,520 1.9
66 1 0.5 266 0.1
4,178 3.0 1,682 0.9
2,743 2.0 1,104 0.6
3,060 2.2 1,232 0.7
2,222 1.6 174 0.1
44,866 32.7 0 0.0
1,345 1.0 54 1 0.3
423 0.3 170 0.1
10,376 7.6 15,565 8.3
2,236 1.6 3,354 1.8
4,845 3.5 1,950 1 .o
364 0.3 147 0.1
10,829 7.9 4,359 2.3
199 0.1 0 0.0
311 0.2 0 0.0
19,198 14.0 0 0.0
89 0.1 8,599 4.6
137,259 72.9 50,941 27.1
Tons Diversion
Drywall
Mixed Construction
Special Waste
TOTAL
242 342 0.2 342 0.3 0 0.0
14,902 21,093 10.3 21,093 20.5 0 0.0
6,744 9,546 4.7 97 0.1 9,448 4.6
146,092 206,784 100.0 102,738 49.7 104,046 50.3
Short-term program objectives are:
0
0
0
0
0 Expand public information campaign.
0
Expand the waste composition study for the City of Carlsbad wastestream.
Continue and expand the use of drop-off bins.
Promote the use of the Carlsbad buy-back center.
Continue the curbside collection program.
Initiate a mandatory commercidindustrial recycling program.
Evaluate the need for a permanent recycling facility to handle current and
future recycling needs.
Initiate a mandatory green waste recycling.
Continue the City purchasing policy for recycled materials.
0
0
0 Continue recycling programs in City offices. ,
0
Dropoff/buyback centers.
Promote charitable recycling.
Establish a monitoring and evaluation program.
Medium-term objective programs are:
0
0 Evaluate the monitoring program.
Contract with regional MRF or initiate permitting for a local MRF.
\
2209/4lCAlUSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNLlO 4 - 31
4.5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
An implementation program identifies activities which will help meet the short- and
medium-term objectives and schedules the activities. An implementation program is an
dynamic plan and must remain flexible to allow for price fluctuations in the market place
and start dates that need to be adjusted. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 outline the short-term and
medium-term program tasks and implementation dates.
4.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
4.6.1 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS
In order to assess the effectiveness of a residential recyclhg program, it is essential to
gather and evaluate a variety of operational data. The key items to be monitored are:
0 Set-out rates
Participation rates
Recovery quantities
Materials capture rates
0 Compliance with processing specifications (e.g., level of contamination,
minimum quantities)
0 Vehicle performance and collection
0 Costs and revenues
Most of the data will be assembled by program staff on a regular basis; however, some
information will require periodic surveys. There are a number of mechanisms to
measure the success of recycling programs, both overall and for individual program
components. The following discussion presents a summary of these measures.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARL.SBAD.W0 4 - 32
ACTIVITY
Continue and expand the use of drop-off bins.
Promote the use of the Carlsbad buy-back center.
Continue the curbside collection program
Continue monitoring and reporting efforts.
Expand public information campaign.
Continue the City purchasing policy for recycled products.
Review and update recycled materials. .
Implement a mandatory commerciaVindustrial recycling
Program
Implement a mandatory yard waste collection program.
Evaluate need for a City waste composition study.
Evaluate the need for a permanent recycling facility to
handle current and future recycling needs.
DATE
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
March 1992
March 1992
September 1992
September 1992
September 1992
January 1993
,
TABLE 4-8
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MEDIUM-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY DATE
Contract with regional MRF or initiate
permitting for a local facility.
Evaluate the monitoring program.
January 1993
January 1994
1
Set-out Rates
The set-out rate has been defined by the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) as the
number of individual set-outs put out for recycling collection by a participant. Set-out
rates are not measured by commodity. Programs vary in the way that set-outs are
differentiated. Usually a set-out denotes one household's entire set-out rate.
Set-out Rate = number of individual set-outs on the collection day
total number of households served
A set-out rate is an empirical measure obtained by counting the number of households
that set out materials on their assigned collection day and the number of households in
the service area. Occasionally, a participation should be described as a "set-out rate."
The set-out rate is not a measure of true paiticipation, as participants may choose to set
out materials less frequently than the service is provided.
The limitation here is that the definition of "set-out" varies from program to program.
Usually, a house that sets out newspaper only and a house that sets our four materials
are each counted as a single set-out. Although counting set-outs is difficult in dense
urban areas and in multi-family unit neighborhoods, it may be possible to track set-outs
if serial numbers, names, or addresses are affmed to each container.
Participation Rates
Set-out rates are not necessarily indicative of participation rates. Participation is defined
by the NRC as the number of households that are source separating their recyclable
materials divided by the total number of'households served. Participation rates are
difficult to accurately assess without a carefully tracked system of monitoring individual
household set-outs over an extended period of time. In a setting where there are single-
family detached homes, it is possible to calculate the participation rate by keeping a set-
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 4 - 35
out log, by address, for each and every household. Twelve weeks is a common tracking
period. A "participant" is then defined as any household that contributes materials at
least once during this period. The frequency of collection should also be described since
these variables can have a significant effect on participation rates.
Participation Rate = number of households source separating
total number of households served
Variables to specify when reporting participation rates are:
0 Household density
Timeperiod
0 Service unit
0 Number of households
Frequency of service
Recoverv Rate
The recovery rate is defined as the total amount of solid waste recovered through source
reduction, reuse, and recycling in a given community. Commonly, the recovery rate is
expressed as a percentage of total solid waste generation.
Recovery Rate = material recovered
reference waste
Annualized Per Capita
Material Recovery Rate = material recovered in 12 consecutive months
population
Variables to specify when presenting a recovery rate include: designated materials,
service unit, population, time period, and reference waste.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CD.PNUO 4 - 36
CaDture Rate
Capture rate refers to actual secondary materials recovered with respect to the designated
materials available.
Capture Rate = designated materials recovered
total designated materials available
Variables to specify when reporting a capture rate are:
Time period (month, year)
Designated materials (glass, paper, etc.)
Reference waste (total glass, paper, etc. available in the wastestream)
Service unit (route, entire city, etc.)
Capture rate refers to actual material recovered with respect to the designated materials
available. The capture rate may represent all materials targeted in the program, but more
commonly is used to describe individual categories of materials only. Standard reporting
practice requires all materials considered in the capture rate to be identified and,
preferably, capture rates would be cited for each individual material.
When reporting a capture rate, the defining of designated materials and the method of
estimating quantities of available designated materials are very important. The total
designated materials available ideally would be derived from generation rates based on
wastestream sampling and characterization studies done in conjunction with a recycling
audit. Where this data does not exist, "Surrogate" data may be borrowed from studies
conducted in similar areas or from national estimates. For certain materials, such as local
newspapers, it may be feasible to obtain distribution and newsprint consumption figures
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNJJO 4 - 37
to estimate the amount of newspaper available. A capture rate for designated materials
should include redeemed deposit containers where such programs are in effect.
In addition to measuring set-out, participation, recovery and materials capture rates, a
recycling program can be monitored and evaluated by measuring the costs and revenues
associated with the program. Most recycling programs cost more than the revenues
received on the materials collected and processed, mainly due to the volatility of the
materials markets and the costs of collection. However, monitoring costs and revenues
can help evaluate the economics of a particular program. Periodic evaluation of
equipment performance and capacity requirements is also necessary.
4.6.2 COA4MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROGRAMS
In the short-term program for the City of Carlsbad, the commercial recycling programs
will be based on mandatory parbcipation with guidance and direction from City staff.
Therefore, in order to assess the effectiveness of a commercialhdustrial recycling
program, it is essential for the contract hauler to work closely with the establishment in
measuring their program effectiveness. The items that can be monitored include:
Number of trailer pulls and tonnage records
Annual business licenses requiring reporting of source reduction and
recycling activities
a Commercial wastestream audits
Periodic commercialhndustrial establishment surveys
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 4 - 38
5.0 EVALUATION OF COMPOSTING ALTERNATIVES
5.1 OBJECTIVES
Composting will be the second most critical component in achieving the 25 and 50
percent diversion goals mandated by Assembly Bill 939. It provides an effective way to
divert yard and selected organic wastes away from disposal facilities. This section
specifies diversion quantities to be achieved through composting and sets market
development objectives for both short-term and medium-term planning periods.
According to the waste characterization described in Section 2, approximately 16 percent
of the City’s typical wastestream is composed of yard and wood wastes. Yard and wood
wastes are a bulky and sustaining portion of the solid wastestream that can easily be
turned into a useful product and thereby avoid landfill disposal. Since these materials
decompose in the landfill to form methane and carbon dioxide, diversion of these
materials also reduces methane handling requirements at the landfill site.
+
5.1.1 SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES
The short-term composting objective for the City of Carlsbad is to divert at least 50 to
75 percent of the commercial and residential yard and wood wastestream to waste
mulching or existing cornposting operations. This will yield approximately a 10 percent
composting goal for the total wastestream.
5.1.2 MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES
The medium-term composting objective for the City of Carlsbad is to divert all of the
commercial and residential yard and wood wastestream to mulching or composting
programs. This will yield a total diversion of 16 percent of the total wastestream,
approximately 16 percent of the total mandated diversion by the year 1995.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.FNUO 5-1
5.1.3 MARKETING OBJECTIVES
Compost and mulch are the two primary products that can result from a yard waste
diversion program. Compost is a soil amendment resulting from the biological
degradation of organic material. Mulch is typically shredded or chipped woody
materials. Although this section is titled "Composting," the objectives will include the
marketing of both mulch and compost. .
Methods for expanding compost markets are many and varied. They can focus on
increasing the use of yard waste compost through educational programs and procurement
by government agencies, or they can increase the marketability of a facility's specific
compost through quality assurance testing and aggressive pricing.
Several factors influence markets for yard waste compost: public or private
ownership/operation of the composting facilities, presence or lack of a profit-making
incentive, the quality and quantity of available compost, and the local industries. Due
to relatively high transportation costs, compost markets are usually restricted to local
areas. Possible local markets include individual residents, nursery and landscaping
industries, construction fms, public agencies, private institutions, soil amendment
retailers and wholesalers, sod dealers, landfill operators, and farmers. Free delivery to
users is a particularly useful marketing strategy, especially when the supply exceeds the
demand and when there is limited storage space.
Market development activities that will assist in meeting the Carlsbad's composting goals
include development of marketing programs for uncomposted or shredded debris before
formal establishment of a centralized composting program. Establishing users will be
a major undertaking, but the ultimate success of the typical city's composting program
rests on its ability to utilize or mirket the end products. Medium-term market activities
for the typical city include using the resulting soil amendment on city grounds and
supplying existing distributors with quality material.
2209/4/CARLSBADICARD.FNIJO 5-2
5.2 EVALUATION OF COMPOSTTNG ALTERNATIVES
5.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Composting of municipal waste materials may be considered as a series of unit processes
each with characteristic elements. A schematic of the composting process indicating each
of the unit process elements on Figure 5-1.
Pr e- CoIlectTon
Market I ng
Figure 5-1. General Waste Cornposting Schematic.
Prior to implementation of a successful composting program, a variety of alternatives
related to each of these elements need to be evaluated. Alternatives may be considered
in five broad areas:
0 Separation / Collection
e Feedstocks
220!3/4/CARXSBADICARLSBAD.~O 5-3
0 Technology
0 Scale
0 Marketing
In the following text each of these basic categories is discussed and alternatives for
consideration by the City of Carlsbad are presented.
5.2.2 SEPARATION / COLLECTION
The manner of separation and collection of compostable materials from the mixed
municipal waste stream sets the tone for an entire composting program. Alternatives for
separation of compostable materials may be considered in broad categories:
Source separation
t~ Commingled
0 Mixed Solid Waste
Source Separation
Separation is the process of removing recyclable material from the general waste stream.
The separation of yard and wood wastes typically occurs at the source of generation.
Efforts to remove these materials from the mixed municipal waste stream have not been
effective. Separation at the source, for residential and commercial generators, can be
voluntary or mandatory. The City of Seattle, Washington has successfully implemented
a voluntary source separation program for yard waste materials for processing by a city
contracted windrow composting program. Seattle initially permitted residential users to
set out yard waste in any convenient container. Product contamination with plastic from
bagging provided by the homeowner; however, has been a problem. Seattle is now
developing a program for distribution of re-usable hard plastic waste containers for
curbside collection of yard waste.
2209/4/CARISBAD/CAlUSBAD .pNuO 5-4
Commingled Collection
If recyclable materials are commingled and collected together with yard wastes (from
residential sources), they are easier to store and collect but require a processing facility
such as a materials recovery facility (MRF) to separate them into components prior to
shipping. The MRF would need to be located next to a composting facility for the yard
wastes or at least within easy shipping diskce to such a facility. The advantages and
disadvantages of commingled collection are presented below.
Advantages:
0
0
It requires a minimum number of containers for storage and collection.
It does not require compartmentalized vehicles and therefore the collection
procedure is simplified.
It has the potential to increase public participation due to the ease of
operation. ,
Disadvantages:
It may result in contamination of certain materials.
It requires additional mechanical or manual separation.
It requires financial investment in a MRF and a composting facility.
Mixed Solid Waste CornDosting
In the decade of the 1950s a number of projects were developed in the United States and
Europe to compost materials separated from a mixed municipal wastestream. The Dan0
process, for example, involves a rotating drum equipped with aeration. Waste materials
are presorted and magnetically separated. Sorted materials are delivered to the rotating
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 5-5
drum where they are mixed and pulverized. Product from the drum may then be directed
to another separation step and then to a composting process. Few of these original plants
are operating in the United States today. Odor complaints, mechanical breakdown, and
most importantly, poor product quality were experienced at many plants. The 1990's
have seen a resurgence of interest in MSW composting. It provides a means of
potentially diverting a larger quantity of the waste stream than yard and wood wastes;
however, product quality and marketability remain significant question marks.
Summarv
Some degree of source separation is essential for program success. Separation methods
should be flexible and consistent with local ordinances, plans, and policies. Separation
goals can be enforced by ordinances. The recently enacted Mandatory Recycling
Ordinance prohibits disposal of selected recyclable materials with mixed refuse at all
solid waste facilities. Carlsbad has adopted and will be enforcing similar recycling
provisions.
Yard waste collection can include residential curbside pickup or drop-off containers.
Curbside collection can be either manual or automated using bags, bins, or no container
at all. Collection costs for drop-off programs are minimal because individual residents
pay to transport their wastes. This is the type of program now implemented in San
Diego County's "Clean Green" project for yard waste mulching. Tradeoffs between
convenience and participation rates, as well as costs to households and the community,
must be assessed. The method of collection will have a direct impact on the participation
and recovery rates and must therefore be compatible with conditions found in the City
of Carlsbad.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 5-6
5.2.3 FEEDSTOCKS
It is possible to compost all of the organic material found in a municipal solid waste
stream. Materials such as newspaper, mixed paper, cardboard, textiles, food waste,
manure, and wood can be shredded and composted. With such a wide variety of
materials entering the composting facility, however, the quality and purity of the end
product as well as the required processing time can be very inconsistent. A more
reasonable approach is to limit the types of materials entering the facility.
The cornposting process is affected by a number of important process variables including:
0 Moisture content
0 Carbon / Nitrogen ratio
0 Available volatile solids content
Candidate feedstocks for composting generally fall into two broad categories depending
on their nitrogen and moisture contents:
0
0
High carbon / low moisture
High nitrogen / high moisture
Generally feedstocks from each category need to be included in a successful compost
mix. Typical high carbon / low moisture feedstocks are wood waste, agricultural
cuttings, and woody construction waste. Typical high nitrogen / high moisture feedstocks
are green yard waste, commercial wet waste, a dewatered municipal wastewater sludge.
It is recommended that three alternative feedstock mixtures be evaluated for the City of
Carlsbad :
0
0
Green / wood waste mixture
Mixed yard waste / sludge mixture
2209/4K!ARLSBAD/D.FNL/O 5-7
e Organic portion of mixed municipal solid waste
Once a successful program has been established using these green waste, wood waste and
sludge feedstocks, materials which are more difficult to handle or compost like the
organic portion of the wastestream may be incorporated into the program on a trial basis
or adopted after pilot tests.
5.2.4 TECHNOLOGY
PreDrocessingy
Effective composting of municipal waste materials typically requires that these materials
be pre-processed. A typical need is to reduce material particle size. Size reduction
increases the surface area available for microbial activity which, in turn, increases rates
of breakdown of materials in the cornposting process. A typical pre-processing operation
includes shredding or grinding and may include screening as indicated in the Figure 5-2.
c01 lectron
ROp Of7
To Cararstrm
Figure 5-2. Typical Pre-Processing Schematic.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD. PNUO 5-8
Cornposting Technologies
Municipal composting installations confine the processes of decomposition of organic
material that occur naturally in soil to a controlled environment providing optimal
moisture content and oxygen supply for microbial activity. The controlled process
requires less time than natural decomposition and generates heat to produce temperatures
that are high enough to deactivate pathogens. Composting process arrangements for
materials found in municipal solid waste (MSW) may be conveniently divided into three
classifications as follows.
Windrow/static pile
Aerated static-pile
In-vessel systems
Windrow/Static Pile Composting. Windrow or static pile cornposting is the basic
composting technology. Compostible materials are mixed using a front-end loader or
compost turning machine followed by active composting in long "windrows." Windrows
are constructed by end-dump trucks and shaped by bulldozers. Aeration is provided by
periodically "turning" the windrows using a machine designed to mix and aerate material
in-place while moving down the pile. After several weeks of active composting during
which the piles may be turned five to ten times, the frequency of turning is reduced until
the piles are "cured," that is, sufficiently stabilized, for subsequent horticultural or
agricultural uses. The windrow process is frequently used for composting yard waste
materials. A schematic of the windrow composting process is presented on Figure 5-3.
,
One of the largest windrow composting installations in the world has been, until recently,
operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts at its Carson Treatment Plant.
The Carson plant composted anaerobically digested sludge for over 30 years for sale to
a retail processor and marketer. The composting operation at Carson will be suspended
2209/4KARLSBAD/CAR.F"LlO 5-9
indefinitely in the summer of 1991. Odor complaints in recent years contributed to a Los
Angeles County decision to abandon operations. Sludge will be sent to a private operator
for composting.
Turn P1 lee cvs PI 100
To Storage Q
ht-kat 1 ng
Figure 5-3. Windrow Cornposting Schematic.
An example of a successful windrow composting program for mixed yard waste is the
Cedar Grove compost Company project in Seattle, Washington. Cedar Grove, a private
company operating under contract to the City of Seattle, composts up to 60,000 tons per
year of yard waste from Seattle's "Clean Green" curbside pickup program. Mixed yard
waste is sorted, shredded, and placed in windrows on a concrete surface. Windrows are
turned using a "Scarab" cornposting machine. Active composting for two months is
followed by at least one month of "curing" in non-aerated static piles and then screened
prior to sale or blending into topsoil or other horticultural products.
Advantages of windrow composting include:
2209/4/CAlUSBAD/CARWD .WO 5 - 10
0
It is the simplest of all compost methods.
It is typically less expensive than other methods.
A good deal of experience is available.
Operation requires knowledge of only basic diesel driven equipment
commonly used in the gene& construction industry.
Disadvantages are:
0 Odor releases are more difficult to control.
More site land area may be necessary than for other methods.
Aerated Static-Pile Composting. The aerated static-pile compost system is an adaptation
of the windrow process. The process was developed by United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) researchers at their Beltsville, Maryland site. For this reason,
aerated static-pile cornposting is commonly referred to as the "Beltsville" method. In the
aerated static-pile system, aeration is provided by forced ventilation of the piles using air
compressors operating in either a pressure or vacuum cycle. Typically, the vacuum cycle
is used. With this technique, the need to turn the material is eliminated. The aerated
static-pile flow schematic is illustrated in Figure 5-4.
,
The advantages of the aerated static-pile system are:
0 The system is mechanically simple and should result in mechanically
reliable operation.
A shallow compost pile is used so there should be little concern over
compaction causing uneven air distribution.
The operator can inspect the material as it is placed, composted, and
removed.
0
2209l4lCARLSBADICARLSBAD.PNUO 5 - 11
Hlgh Carbon
Faedsitock
Aoratd P1 loa tu-0 PI 109
To Strage a-
MDrket 1 ng
Figure 5-4. Aerated Static-Pile Cornposting Schematic.
The aerated static-pile process is a workable composting process and e
I results in good product stabilization/pathogen kill.
2209I4lCARLSBADICARBAD.PNUO 5 - 12
Disadvantages are:
Compared to in-vessel systems, a relatively large land area is required.
Operations are affected by climatic variability.
The system has a low degree of mechanization and is therefore labor
intensive.
Odors can sometimes be a problem, but less than the windrow method. 0
In-Vessel Composting. In-vessel composting uses a confining structure to enclose waste
materials during the biologically active phase of composting. Reactors have been
constructed in a variety of shapes: circular or rectangular towers, horizontal tunnels, and
bin or box-type vessels. In-vessel composting is often used when materials from the
MSW are co-composted with municipal Wastewater treatment plant sludge.
i
Basic process flow for in-vessel composting is similar to aerated static-pile systems --
feedstocks are mixed, aeration is provided for biological respiration and moisture
removal, and finally, compost is cured to achieve additional stabilization prior to storage
or marketing. A process flow schematic is presented in Figure 5-5.
b
Operating experience is limited with in-vessel composting of MSW materials, although
the partially enclosed "Dano" process was used relatively extensively in the United States
and Europe in the decade of the 1950s. Few installations remain today. Most of these
plants have been abandoned for a variety of reasons including odor complaints, lack of
mechanical reliability, and unfavorable market conditions. A good deal of experience
has been gained in recent years from startup and operation of a number of in-vessel
systems for composting of wastewater treatment plant sludge typically using wood chips
as a bulking agent. A number of successful installations were started up during the
1980s. There are no in-vessel composting systems in the United States operating with
municipal solid waste as a sole feedstock although full-scale operations exist in Europe.
d
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.FNLlO 5 - 13
T %
Hi~h Nltro
kdmtock
To Staage a-
krlcet i ng --
c #
In-vessel systems require less land and are not generally affected by
weather conditions when compared to static-pile systems that are
uncovered and operated outdoors.
Disadvantages of in-vessel systems are:
The system is mechanically dependent and therefore subject to
breakdowns.
The system has not fully demonstrated the capability of handling the entire
organic fraction of the munikpal solid wastestream.
Financial institutions have generally not been willing to incur the risks
associated with the facilities due to operating problems and the lack of
stable markets.
5.3.4 PROGRAM SCALE
A fundamental factor in evaluation of alternative cornposting programs is the decision of
program scale. Programs could range in scale from small, locally operated yard waste
cornposting operations to large regional facilities handling a variety of feedstocks.
Considerations of scale can effect the desirability of a candidate program in several ways.
Scale impacts include transportation impacts, permitting issues, and cost. In general
smaller sde operations may have advantages of:
Less transportation impact
Greater community control and program involvement
Conversely, advantages of larger operations include:
0 Lower unit cost
Consolidation of permitting efforts
\
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.PNUO 5 - 15
For this evaluation it is recommended that impact of scale be investigated by preparation
of alternatives for three different scales of operation:
Local program
Subregional program
County-wide regional program
The local program option may be considered as a yard waste only windrow or static-pile
facility operated by city personnel on city owned land with distribution of product to
wholesalers or use of product on city parks. The sub-regional alternative may be
considered as an aerated static pile or windrow yard waste facility or a yard waste /
sludge in-vessel facility operated at current county landfill sites. This may be considered
as a sludge / yard waste in-vessel facility sited to serve the entire county.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 5 - 16
5.3.6 MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION
The most critical factor in success of a composting program may be the effectiveness of
the marketing program developed to distribute the resulting product to beneficial end
uses. Markets should be established prior to establishing any composting program. Lack
of markets for the finished product is one of the most frequently cited factors in failure
of composting programs in the past.
A preliminary market survey was conducted during the June 1991 to determine the
current potential market demand and price for soil amendments in San Diego County.
Results are summarized in Table 5-1. Three compost retailers and eight compost
wholesale sellers of soil amendment products were contacted by phone. The survey
found the retail price of compost type soil amendments to be in the range of $25 to $35
per ton in bulk form and $60 to $70 per ton as a bagged product. None of the
wholesalers would cite a wholesale sales price. It may be assumed to be approximately
half of the retail price or in the neighborhood of $12 to $20 per ton in bulk form. When
asked the question explicitly, none of the retailers expressed an interest in yard waste or
sludge-based soil amendment material. Sludge-based products are widely marketed in
southern California, however. The Kellog Company processes and markets sludge
compost from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Carson Treatment Plan.
Kellog products are sold, in fact, by one of the retailers contacted in the survey.
The market survey was not extensive enough to identi@ firm total demand on a county-
wide basis. A survey completed in 1985, however, as a part of the North County
Sewage Sludge Management Study by John S. Murk Engineers suggested a total market
demand in San Diego County (mostly in the agricultural industry) of 300,000 wet tons
per year (at 60 percent solids concentration) in the year 2000 compared to an estimated
maximum total quantity of county-wide sludge/yard waste compost potential of
approximately 500,000 tons per year. A more recent study by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
completed as part of the evaluations for the Clean Water Program identified a waste-
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CAR.FNLJO 5 - 17
d) 3ggggggggzz M dd
q$gg$j3ggzgza d dd
d v) w 1; k3
as d dd
E;.
2 8; g g $.g g g 2 g 2 z 5 m
q HE
a
A 33AAAAAA2424 u 6 gcsagggs&ssg d
r( 3 r( ut3 -t,mddddd$!4$!4@
! @
lA $55 ze m--z2222zzz
$@ 222,,,,
he Fi @
2 kg Eg dddgeg853P4D:e:& “-mez 2 2 2 E
Ud 3 e a- PC 8
m i
g%Gg%gGg ggg33533335
!3 %$,,,,,,,, 33333333 5j5j5jgggggggg 1 222
00 H
I
v,
;;;’ s
i 2
B w
d ‘0 Q
s 8 - 8
8
4
!i
2
i $2 & . s
ug 82
ij 8 II
s
i d < 3
3
ws B
k
El <
< u z .
based product market of approximately 500,000 tons per year out of a total market of
approximately one million. It is seen that the projected market is of the same order of
magnitude as total county compost production potential. It would be unrealistic to expect
a refused derived product to command the entire market. Additional beneficial uses not
accounted for in the 1985 study, however, may well exist for the entire projected county-
wide potential compost product.
For the City of Carlsbad, alternative marketing and distribution programs can be
evaluated for:
0
0 Bulk sales to wholesalers
Local distribution to City parks
Turnkey contract for entire operation
The importance of mafket development on implementation of the compost program
cannot be over-emphasized. The target market and market location for the compost
product affects the overall success of the composting program. Required finish
processing will be dictated by end market specifications. Transportation impacts are
highly dependent on the eventual product market. Lastly, if the market demand is
inadequate, the fundamental goal of diversion of materials from county landfills may not
be met if landfills become the "market" of last resort.
5.3.7 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives discussed in this section cover the range of factors affecting successful
implementation of composting projects as a part of the City's goal to meet the mandated
targets for waste diversion of 25 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in the year 2000.
Results of these evaluations are presented in a series of evaluation matrices in each of
2209/4/CARLSBADICARBAD.mVUO 5 - 19
the broad areas of evaluation. These evaluation matrices are presented in Tables 5-2
through 5-6. The matrix evaluation format uses the criteria proposed in the CIWMB
checklist to compare technologies and methods available to the City for implementation
of a composting program. The criteria for effectiveness, hazard created and flexibility
should be given more consideration in the evaluation than the remaining criteria, since
these factors significantly impact successful implementation. The criteria of cost is
obviously of considerable importance.
To evaluate projects with alternative feedstocks and scale, a compost system design was
prepared. The prototype designs identify requirements for compost reactor (or pile) size,
aeration, and moisture addition/removal. Based on the required system size and material
flows, a preliminary unit cost range was be prepared as shown in the evaluation matrix.
For the City of Carlsbad, the choice of the preferred alternative in each conceptual
category is based on factors of local experience and preference in addition to the factors
listed in the evaluation matrices.
5.4 PROGRAM SELECTION
Selection of a composting program for the City of Carlsbad has been based upon the
objectives set forth in Section 5.1, consideration of the existing conditions in Carlsbad,
and the need to maintain program flexibility. The key to program flexibility for the
short- and medium-term planning periods is to focus on the 50 percent diversion goal.
The overall program is designed to recover all of the yard waste available and recover
50 to 75 percent at partial implementation.
Implementation began with an aggressive yard waste separation program using mandatory
participation by residential sources followed by the phasing in of a citywide curbside
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 5 - 20
CRITERIA
Effectiveness
Rating
Hazard Created
Rating
Flexibility
Rating
Consequences
on Waste
Rating
Short-Term &
Medium Term
Implementation
Rating
New or
Expanded
Facilities
Rating
SUMMARY
MlxED
SOURCE SOLID
SEPARATED COMMINGLED WASTE
Most effective Less effective Less effective
good fair fair
Less susceptible More susceptible More susceptible
to hazard
fair
good fair
More flexible Less flexible More flexible
,
good fair good
Minimal Contamination more Contamination most
likely likely
good fair poor
Requires less R&uires more lead Requires more lead
lead time time time
good fair fair
No new facilities Requires new MFS Requires new
required facilities
good
fair
fair
good fair fair
TABLE 5-3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EVALUATION MATRIX - FEEDSTOCK ALTERNATIVES
GREEN / WOOD YARD/ MIXED SOLID
CRITERIA WASTE SLUDGE WASTE
Effectiveness Effective Very effective Less effective
Rating fair good poor
Less fire More hazard
hazard
Hazard Crated More fire hazard
Rating poor good Pf
Flexibility Market more flexible Market less Market least
flexible flexible
Rating good fair Poor
Consequences on Lower metals content Higher metals More Waste . content contaminated
Rating good fair poor
Short-Term & May be easier to site Use of sludge Odors make it Medium-Term makes it difficult to site
Implementation difficult to
site.
Rating good fair * fair
New or Expanded New/expanded Newlexpanded New facilities
Facilities facilities required facilities required
required
Rating fair fair fair
SUMMARY good fair fair to poor -
CRITERIA WINDROW AFXATEDPILE
Effectiveness Basic Better
Rating poor fair
Hazard Created Minimal Minimal
Rating good good
Flexibility Highly flexible Moderate
Rating good fair
Consequences on Minimal Minimal
Waste
Rating fair fair
Short & Medium- Shorter lead time short lead time
Term
Implementation
Rating fair good
New or Expanded New/expanded New /expanded
Facilities facilities required facilities required
Rating
fair fair
SUMMARY fair fair
IN-VESSEL
Highly
good
More potential
fair
Less flexibility
Poor
Minimal .
fair
Longer lead time
poor
New expanded
facilities required
fair
fair
1
TABLE 5-5
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EVALUATION MATRIX - ALmATIVE SCALES
CRITERIA LOCAL SUB-REGIONAL REGIONAL
Effectiveness Equal ESd Equal
Rating good good good
Hazard Created More dispersed More concentrated Most concentrated
Rating good fair fair
Flexibility More flexible Less flexible Less flexible
Rating good fair fair
Consequences on Minimal Minimal Minimal
Waste
Rating fair fair fair
Short- Medium- Longer lead time Shorter lead time - Longer lead time -
Term - site required . site at landfill site required, more
Implementation coordination
Rating fair good fair
Facilities PW-
Rating good good fair
New or Expanded New facilities Expand existing New program
$30 - $90 per ton $20 - $40 per ton $12 - $25 per ton
ZLY good good fair
CRITENA LOCAL
Effectiveness Equal
Rating good
Hazard Created Minimal
Rating good
Flexibility Most flexible
Rating good
Consequences on Minimal
Waste
Rating good
Short & Medium Shorter lead
Term Implementation time
Rating good
New or Expanded New
Facilities facilities
Rating fair
SUMMARY fair
BULK SALES TURNKEY
Equal ESa
good good
Minimal Less control
good fair
Less flexible if long
term contracts used required
fair fair
Minimal Minimal
tong term contract
,
good good
Can be implemented Longer negotiation
in reasonable time may be required
good fair
No new facilities Existing Facilities
in Thermal, CA
fair fair
good good
collection program and evaluation of :yard waste disposal restrictions for commercial
businesses. The City must undertake several important steps to implement a citywide
yard waste separation program. Such ai program will be difficult to implement and will
generate substantial public comment. Therefore, the implementation of this program
must be tied to a strong public education program and linked to the overall yard waste
management plan.
The recommended composting progmn for the City will consist of two phases. The
initial phase (short-term) will begin with a mulching (recycling) operation located at the
county landfill property. Shredding and screening equipment includes tub grinders or
shredders, and inclined vibrating sc:reens or trommel screens for particle size
differentiation. Screened mulch will be marketed internally to county residents and made
available to landscapers and homeowners. Fines from the screening process can be
composted using either a static-pile or in-vessel process. Throughout the planning period
the existing programs at the landfills for handling yard and wood wastes should be
utilized. What the County does with the mulch is not determined by the cities in the
county.
In the medium-term a regional facility shall be evaluated as part of a MRF or transfer
station. This conceptual facility may be designed for combined material and compost
recovery at buildout, assuming that local wastewater utility will accept part of the yard
waste fraction and the City will compost the remainder, The facility sizing will be based
on the estimated wastestream load information which will be indicated in the updated
solid waste generation study.
The compost facility would be designed to convert wood waste and yard waste into high
quality screened compost. The compost facility would share the same site as the MRF.
Administration and maintenance personnel of facilities would share building space.
220914ICARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 5 1 26
Based on the preliminary waste composition data, 13 percent of the total wastestream is
yard waste and 3 percent is wood. Applying these percentages to the 1990-1991
projected total waste tonnage yields about 65 tons per day (tpd) of yard waste and 15 tpd
of wood available for processing.
Following a decision by the City council to proceed, the City is currently evaluating the
development of a Mandatory Recycling ordinance clearly delineating the responsibilities
of the City, the residents, and commercial businesses, and the specifics of the overall
cornposting program.
5.5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
An implementation schedule must identify all activities which must be accomplished in
order to successfully implement the cornposting program. The schedule can help assure
that these decisions are well informed and made on a timely basis. The implementation
schedule must also provide project continuity as the personnel, laws and regulations, and
other factors change over time during program development.
The implementation schedule is an evolving document and must maintain flexibility.
Results of decisions made as part of early activities may significantly alter the program’s
scope and direction as well as that of the solid waste management system. Following
each major decision to proceed with project elements, the implementation schedule
should be reviewed and revised as necessary. Phased implementation of the typical city’s
cornposting program is recommended.
During the initial phase of implementing the composting facility, yard waste from the
City will be shredded and screened into high quality mulch, and the fines cornposted and
used for the purposes discussed previously. In the final phase of implementation, yard
2209/4/CARLSEAD/CARBAD.FNUO 5 - 27
TABLE 5-7
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COMPOSTING COMPONENT
SHORT-TERM IMPI~EMENTATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY DATE
Conduct market survey September 1992
Evaluate need for commercial landscape drop-off centers September 1992
Produce brochure explaining composting program requirements September 1992
Initiate permitting/procurement in conjunction with MRF/transfer station June 1992
Evaluate the feasibility of a processing facility January 1993
Continue participation in regional Christmas tree recycling Yearly -
ACTIVI'IY
Modify informational materials in conjunction with market needs
and programmatic changes
Evaluate effectiveness of marketing program
Modifjdexpand commercial landscape drop-off program
Assess effectiveness of public ducatLon program
Evaluate ldregional MRF/compost/transfer facilities
DATE
On-going
January 1995
January 1995
January 1995
January 1997
wastes may be mixed with sewage sludge and could be composted at the local wastewater
utility facility or at the common MRF and composting facility site.
5.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Assessment and evaluation of the composting component requires the accurate and timely
collection of data from a variety of sources. Scale data from the proposed facilities will
provide a basis for evaluation since all quantities will be weighed. The ultimate measure
of program reduction will be reported as the total reduction in the overall wastestream
from the result of composting activities.
The monitoring of the composting program will be closely linked to the recycling
program. The monitoring parameters for both the residential and commerciallindustrial
composting programs will be similar to those discussed in the recycling component. The
combination of these two programs will determine the overall success of the City’s
program.
*
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNIJO 5 - 29
6.0 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT
6.1 OBJECTIVES
Special waste refers to any waste which has been classified according to Section 66744
of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, or which has been granted a variance
for the purpose of storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal by the Department of
Health Services pursuant to Section 66310 or Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations.
Example of special wastes include, but are not limited to, the following:
0 Asbestos
0 Sewage sludge
Septic tank pumpings
0 Grease trap pumpings
0 Infectious waste
0 Incinerator ash
0 Auto bodies
0 Used tires
0 Street sweepings
White goods
0 Construction and demolition debris A
*
6.1.1 SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES
The objectives of Carlsbad's special waste program are to ensure proper handling and
disposal (including adequate disposal capacity). Where feasible the special waste stream
will be minimized, reused, and recycled. More specifically, the short-term objective is
to source separate and recycle the white goods in Carlsbad's wastestream. In addition,
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNLJO 6-1
alternative methods for the reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris will
be investigated. The medium-term objective is to evaluate alternative reuse and recycling
methods for used tires and to evaluate the composting of sewage sludge with yard waste.
6.1.2 PRIORITY WASTE TYPES
The special waste types that are targeted for diversion during the short-term planning
period are white goods and construction demolition debris. Sewage sludge and used tires
will be targeted for reuse and recycling alternatives during the medium-term planning
period.
6.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Each special waste type has different handling and disposal requirements and will
therefore be discussed separately.
6.2.1 ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a known carcinogen that primarily affects the respiratory tract. Proper
handling, storage, and disposal are important because of its hazardous nature. Asbestos
wastes are generated during building maintenance, repair, renovation and demolition
operations, particularly of pre-1979 buildings. These wastes are typically found in
ceiling and floor tiles, wallboard, and insulation on pipes, boilers and ducts. Asbestos
requires special handling, and must be transported in sealed non-returnable containers or
in closed vehicles.
Although asbestos is classified as hazardous in California, it can be disposed in landfills
that are permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to accept asbestos
wastes. The three landfills in southern California that can accept friable asbestos wastes
220914lCARLSBADICARBAD .WO 6-2
are BKK (Class II) in West Covina; Chemical Management’s Kettleman Hills (Class I)
in Kettleman City; and Casmalia Resources Inc. (Class I) in Santa Barbara.
Sycamore and Miramar landfills are the only landfills in the county accepting non-friable
asbestos wastes that meets certain conditions. Friable asbestos is material which can be
crumbled, pulverized, or made into a powder by hand. The hauler must provide a
laboratory analysis showing the percentage and type of asbestos; a letter stating how the
material was removed and that it is non-friable; obtain a “nonhazardous noninfectious
special waste manifest”; double wrap the asbestos in 6-mil double plastic bags; and give
the landfill 48 hours advance notice of disposal. Due to the hazardous nature of
asbestos, no diversion or recycling alternatives for this material are feasible.
6.2.2 SEWAGE SLUDGE
Sewage sludge is a waste product of municipal wastewater treatment. It has the potential
for beneficial use as a soil conditioner but requires digestion, stabilization, dewatefig,
and composting before it can be considered a useful resource.
The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) is the regional facility responsible
for treating Carlsbad’s wastewater. This treatment plant processes a total of 20.0 million
gallons per day (mgd) of raw wastewater, based on 1990 flows. In the year 2010, total
flows are expected to be 36 mgd as a result of population growth in the area.
a
The solid material that is removed during the wastewater treatment process is pumped
to anaerobic digesters for the reduction of organic substances. Following digestion,
excess water is removed leaving a cake consisting of approximately 17 to 20 percent
solids. For every million gallons of wastewater EWPCF treats, approximately 1,185
pounds of solid material are produced. At current flow levels, the district generates
approximately 67 tons per day (tpd). Carlsbad’s estimated contribution is approximately
30 percent, or 40,000 pounds per day. This proportion was determined using fiscal year
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 6-3
1989/90 billing data on an equivalent dwelling unit basis. Presently more than 90
percent of Encina's sludge is hauled to agricultural fields in southeastern California and
near Yuma, Arizona, for use as a soil amendment.
Landfill disposal of sewage sludge is both difficult and expensive because of the required
50 percent solids content. As a result, CIWMB considers landfill disposal a "last resort"
alternative. The landfills in San Diego County no longer accept sludge for disposal.
Emphasis is given to those alternatives that promote the beneficial reuse of sludge and
sludge products such as composting and land application.
6.2.3 SEPTIC TANK PUMPINGS
Most residents within Carlsbad are connected to the city sewer system. Therefore,
Carlsbad does not generate this particular type of special waste. Septic tank wastes do
not go to landfills, but are disposed at sewage treatment plants.
6.2.4 GREASE TRAP PUMPINGS
A grease interceptor is an underground tank used to capture grease, oil, and other
floatable material that is disposed of by restaurants and businesses. If not removed from
the wastewater stream, these materials can clog sewer lines and interfere with treatment
plant operations. Grease interceptor wastes generated by Carlsbad businesses are
collected by a multitude of private hauling companies, Grease and related wastes such
as animal fats are used to make animal feed, soaps, cosmetics, and other products. Some
of the smaller companies supply the rendering plants with additional grease, but most
have to dispose of the waste material they collect. None of the landfills accept liquid
waste from grease traps.
2209/4fCARLSBAD/CARD.FNUO 6-4
6.2.5 INFECTIOUS WASTE
This material is kept separate from the general wastestream at all times. All infectious
material is deposited in red plastic containers and kept in a secured area until it is
collected by the hauler. Approximately 10 percent of the total is pathological and
anatomical material that requires incineration. The remaining medical wastes may be
disposed of at any landfill provided that it is decontaminated, an appointment is made for
disposal, and a manifest is provided.
6.2.6 INCINERATOR ASH
At the present time there are no large incineration facilities in Carlsbad, and therefore
there is no generation or disposal of incinerator ash.
6.2.7 AUTO BODIES .
Auto bodies are not normally landfded because of the high demand for spare parts and
ferrous scrap. As a result, all waste automobiles parts and bodies are recycled. Most
used auto dealers are linked together by computers which aids in exchange of parts.
When vehicles are stripped of all usable parts, the remainder is sent to a steel mill for
reprocessing.
6.2.8 USED TIRES a
Used tires are currently being disposed of at the landfills. Tires are then separated from
the wastestream and shredded.
2209/4/CAIUSBAD/CARD.W0 6-5
6.2.9 STREET SWEEPINGS
Carlsbad reportedly generates 2,700 tons per year of street sweepings. All1 of this
material is currently being disposed at the San Marcos Landfill.
6.2.10 WHlTE GOODS
White goods include items such as refrigerators, air conditioners, washers, dryers and
other bulky appliances. Landfilling and/or shredding of these items could pose a health
hazard, since refrigerators and air conditioners contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) which
deplete ozone in the stratosphere. Electrical appliances manufactured before 1979 can
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) which are a human carcinogen. Both CFC and
PCB can be released at the landfill when the appliance is crushed. These hazardous
materials must be removed prior to any laqdfilling or shredding.
White goods are separated from the wastestream as they enter the landfill. San Marcos,
Otay, and Sycamore landfills will divert white goods to buy-back centers.
6.2.11 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
Construction and demolition debris include items such as concrete, asphalt,
dirt/rock/sand, roofing, drywall, and mixed construction wastes. Concrete, asphalt, and
dirt/rock/sand wastes are viable candidates for recycling or reuse and should be diverted
from landfdls. Mixed construction waste may be diverted from landfills but the waste
would need to be separated at the source to remove the recyclable material. Options for
recycling and reuse should be explored for drywall and roofing wastes within the
construction industry. A list of construction and demolition debris recyclers is included
in Appendix A.
2209/4/CARLSESAD/CARBAD .pNuO 6-6
6.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Only those special waste types with feasible diversion alternatives will be considered.
All asbestos waste generated will continue to be disposed in properly permitted facilities.
All infectious hospital waste will continue to be handled by commercial haulers. In
addition, materials such as grease trap wastes and auto bodies that are currently being
recycled will not be evaluated.
6.3.1 SEWAGE SLUDGE AND YARD WASTE
There are a variety of diversion alternatives available for sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
can be composted, directly applied as a soil amendment, incinerated to recover energy,
or following chemical furaton it can be used as daily landfill cover.
There is one cornposting facility proposed for the region but no decisions have been made
regarding location or capacity. These decisions should be made by all adjoining
jurisdictions, as any facility will most likely serve a number of nearby cities.
.
The yard waste material generated by park maintenance and rehabilitation can be
collected separately from the street sweepings and diverted from landfill disposal. The
alternatives available for yard waste diversion have been discussed in Section 5.3.
6.3.2 USED TIRES 0
Landfilling large quantities of used tires creates breeding grounds fox organisms that
transmit pathogens such as insects and vermin, and reduces the quantity available for
recycling and reuse options. Because tires do not compact well and tend to migrate to
the surface of the landfill, they are shredded at an additional cost.
2209/4/CARISBAD/CARBAD.PNUO 6’- 7
Alternatives available for used tire diversion include incineration, retreading, and crumb
rubber uses. Due to the air quality problems in the regions, tire incineration is not
considered a viable alternative at this point in time. Retreading is primarily done on bus,
truck, airplane, and other large tires. At the present time, passenger car retreads cannot
compete with new imported tire market prices. If disposal costs are included as part of
the initial purchase price, retreading may become a more economically viable alternative.
Crumb rubber is created by a process of breaking tires into small particles by mechanical
or cryogenic means. It can be used in asphalt, carpet backing, door mats, and other
rubber products. It can also be used as an additive to asphalt for high traffic recreational
and feedlot surfaces.
None of the previously mentioned alternatives are very effective at diverting significant
quantities of used tires away from landfill disposal and can, in fact, create additional
health hazards. From a regional perspective, influence on the wastestream will not be
significant because diverted quantities will probably be very small. It may be possible
to implement tire shredding and crumb rubber use during the short-term planning period,
and may require new or expanded facilities.
Used tire diversion is consistent with local conditions but may have institutional barriers
to implementation. Depending on the chosen alternative, costs may be significant. The
major drawback to tire recycling or reuse is the lack of end markets for the diverted
materials. 0
6.4 PROGRAM SELECTION
The selection of a special waste program has been based upon the objective set forth
previously, consideration of the existing conditions in Carlsbad, and the need to maintain
program flexibility. The short-term programs begin with the determination of the
feasibility of cocomposting yard waste and sludge as part of the overall composting
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.mVUO 6-8
program. In addition, it is recommended that the City review their solid waste
ordinances and reporting requirements. The burden of reporting special waste disposal
could be established as a requirement of future business operating permits.
Other special waste programs and private sector reporting should be evaluated at this
time and program changes implemented, if necessary. Additional alternatives for used
tire diversion should be evaluated from a regional perspective. Economic incentives (or
disincentives) can be implemented on a state level to encourage the recycling of used
tires.
6.5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
An implementation program identifies activities which must be accomplished in order to
successfully implement the special waste recycling program. The implementation plan
must remain flexible in order to account for changes in personnel, laws and regulations,
and other program changes. Table 6-1 outlines the short-term and medium-term program
tasks and decision points. Following each major decision to proceed with project
elements, the implementation plan should be reviewed and revised as necessary.
*.
6.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The assessment and evaluation of the special waste component will require the accurate
and timely collection of data from a variety of sources. The collection of tonnage data
at the proposed facilities will be relatively straight forward since all quantities will be
weighed. The ultimate measure of program reduction will be reported as the total
reduction in the overall wastestream from the result of cornposting street sweepings
studies (in the medium-term) activities. Program measures for tires will need to be
developed through commercial waste audits or other measures.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 6-9
ACTIVITY
Short-Term
1. Implement a public information program for diversion
practices for construction and demolition
Determine feasibility of co-composting yard waste
with sludge
Investigate alternative tire diversion techniques.
Evaluate and institute private sector reporting
requirements for other special wastes (tires,
constructionldemolition and grease trappings)
2.
3.
4.
Medium-Term Task
1. Implement co-composting program
2. Re-evaluate private sector reporting
3.
e
Implement selected tire diversion techniques
DATE
May 1992
December 1992
January 1993
March 1993
January 1995
May 1995
May 1995
The monitoring of the special waste program will be closely linked to the recycling and
composting program. The monitoring parameters for both the residential and
commercialhdustrial programs will be similar to those discussed in the recycling
component.
,
d
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.~O 6- 11
7.0 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
7.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Significant increases in waste reduction can only be achieved through changes in attitudes
and the behavior of City residents. People are more likely to source separate and recycle
waste materials if they understand the benefits to themselves and their community
associated with these practices. For this reason, education and public information
programs must be integral elements in the development of any waste reduction and
recycling program. Early and continuing promotional measures are necessary to promote
participation in the program, to communicate the benefits of recycling and to demonstrate
correct procedures for preparing recovered materials.
Although public concern for the environment is increasing, there remains a low level of
awareness for solid waste issues. Therefore, messages promoting recycling should
present it as an integral part of an overall solid waste management picture, which is
critical to preserving and restoring environmental quality. Both the residential and
commercialhdustxial sectors will be targeted through Carlsbad’s education program.
In surveys of recycling programs conducted by CDM, public education was cited as one
of the most significant elements of the more successful programs. Programs that
experienced less than 50 percent participation attributed their lowered participation rates
to lack of support, short operation time, poor management, and lack of funding for
public education. Programs with high participation rates attributed their success to
convenience, incentives, enforcement, public education, and good central program
management.
220914lCARLSBADICARBAD.PNUO 7-1
One important objective for an education program is to develop a recycling ethic among
the City’s youth. Because young people have a dramatic influence on the rest of the
community, this focus will provide the greatest immediate and long-term results.
7.1.1 SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES
The goal of Carlsbad’s education and public information program is to broaden public
awareness of, and participation in, recycling and related solid waste issues. It has been
the experience of CDM that early initiation of public education and information
campaigns, as part of a recycling and solid waste disposal project, results in much higher
public acceptance and support for project objectives.
Therefore, the short-term objectives are to increase education and public information
activities that will motivate and demonstrate what will be expected of Carlsbad’s residents
and businesses. In addition, a series of public discussions will be held to answer
questions and allow the public to voice their suggestions. Medium-term objectives will
include a recycling status report update. Carlsbad’s residents will be informed of the
community’s progress toward meeting the mandated 25 percent diversion goal.
Depending on the results of monitoring and evaluation data, promotions and reminders
will be updated.
7.2 EXISTING PROGRAMS
Before Phase I of the citywide recycling program began, information about recycling was
presented to the community by letters, brochures, press releases and the community
access television channel. Since the start of the recycling program, information has been
presented to the public in their utility bills and distributed by brochure at the bi-annual
Village Fair. Liberty Recycling, a division of Coast Waste Management, has produced
and distributed several information brochures regarding the recycling program. The City
220914lCARLSBADlCARBAD .FNUO 7-2
also has produced several brochures and a bi-annual newsletter. Refer to appendix for
examples.
7.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
There are many ways to increase public awareness of and participation in recycling,
source reduction, and composting projects. The best strategy is a comprehensive mix of
activities including:
0 Public education
0 Promotions and events
0 Publicity and reminders
To accomplish the 25 percent and 50 percent reduction goals set forth in AB 939, it is
essential for the City to adopt an innovative outreach and public education program.
Effectiveness is demonstrated by increased recycling through the residential curbside
program.
Selection of specific activities should be based on current levels of public understanding
and participation, the socioeconomic characteristic of Carlsbad, and the characteristics
of the local wastestream. For example, a community with significant representation of
ethnic minorities or senior citizens would warrant appropriate targeted programs; a
community that generates substantial "green waste" would warrant a program reflecting
that characteristic.
j
.
1
The following are recommended projects and activities.
2209I41CARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 7-3
~
Public Education
0 Direct mailing of brochures and newsletters to City residents and
businesses.
Targeted brochures to households whose first language is not English.
Public service announcements on local television and radio stations.
Community leader presentations at civic, neighborhood, social service and
business organization meetings.
Information booths at shopping malls and community centers.
Recycling classes and field trips as part of school curriculum for grades
1 through 12.
Speaker’s bureau of experts, public officials and other informed persons
available to make presentations on recycling.
Citizen’s advisory committee for solid waste management issues in the
City of Carlsbad.
0
0
0
0
Promotions and Events
Promote a recycling day or week
Sponsor recycling contests among schools, youth groups, civic groups or
neighborhoods
Recycling awards to individuals, neighborhoods, businesses and
community organizations
Encourage Christmas tree recycling or the use of live or artificial trees
Hold specific material recycling drives
Celebrity representative
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .NO 7-4
Publicitv and Reminders
0 Advertisements in newspapers, on billboards, in grocery stores and
community centers
0 Posters, bumper stickers
0 Caps, buttons, t-shirts, magnets
Messages on shopping bags
0 Notices on utility bills
Telephone surveys
Radio and television public service announcements shared among
neighboring cities
At a minimum, the following topics related to education and public information should
be part of any comprehensive program for recycling and other solid waste management
improvements.
e Discussion to proceed with expansion of existing source
separation/recycling programs.
Organization of a network of community leaders.
Program concepts and manner of implementation.
Community contributions to existing and planned future pilot programs.
Community activities to support recycling programs. 0
Community recycling drives.
0 Kick-off of each element of any newly-developed pilot program.
A continuing multi-faceted public information program is required to maintain high levels
of material recovery and participation. For the duration of the recycling program, the
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNIJO 7-5
public education budget should be a substantial part of the total annual operating budget
for the recycling program.
7.4 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the public educatiodinformation program should begin within the first
month of each recycling program phase or approach. It is recommended that the City
continue and expand the current information and public education plan, which explain
the need to undertake such programs, and how they benefit Carlsbad’s residents. It is
also recommended that the City hold periodic public discussions in which residents can
offer comments and suggestions about the programs.
An implementation schedule must identify all activities to be accomplished in order to
successfully inaugurate the recycling program. The schedule can help assure that these
decisions are well informed and made on a timely basis. The implementation schedule
must also provide project continuity as the personnel, laws and regulations, and other
factors change over time during program development. Tables 7-1 and 7-2 outline the
proposed schedule for short-term and medium-term implementation.
The implementation schedule is a flexible, evolutionary document. The results of
decisions made as part of early activities can alter the program’s scope and direction as
well as that of the solid waste management system. Following each major decision to
proceed with project elements, the implementation schedule should be reviewed and
revised as necessary.
7.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a public education program, it is essential to
gather and evaluate a variety of operational data. Some of the data used to evaluate the
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .€TWO 7-6
TABLE 7-1
CITY OF CARISBAD
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY DATE
Christmas tree recycling December-January
Information on program changes/additions ongoing
Newsletters and direct mailings ongoing
Non-English materials and announcements ongoing
Recycling events ongoing
Public Service Announcements ongoing
Evaluate need for additional public information contract service ongoing
Public Workshops March 1992
Evaluate staffing requirements March 1992
Development of Community Speakers Bureau August 1992
Encourage school curriculum changes October 1992
Develop and conduct community survey d January 1993
Recycling Video January 1993 -
1
ACTIVITY
Evaluate staffmg requirements
Recirculate community surveys
Radio and television public service announcements and
features
Evaluate and update material for public distribution
Evaluate and update yearly promotion events
Target-group programs
Medium-term program kick-off and existing program
effectiveness update
Competition and awards
DATE
January 1994
April 1995
Apd 1995
May 1995
May 1995
May 1995
July 1995
On-g oing
recycling program can also be used to evaluate the education and public information
activities. The most obvious indicators of program effectiveness include:
0 Public awareness
Participation rates
Material capture rates
0 Buy-back center receipts and expenditures
Public awareness can be determined through a variety of survey techniques. Service
requests are one indicator. Also polling using a combination of telephone and direct mail
questionnaires and interviews should be included. These will give an indication of the
number of people who are aware of the program and how many actually participate. In
addition, it can demonstrate which information and education activities are the most
effective. Knowledge of localized participation rates can suggest where additional
outreach programs and motivational resources are required. Low participation rates may
be the result of unclear promotional material or even foreign language barriers. Another
possible reason for low participation in curbside programs is that some residents prefer
to sell or donate their recyclable materials.
The procedures for determining the effectiveness of specific recycling programs, through
the collection and evaluation of operational data, are discussed in Section 4.6.
Material capture rates are another indication of the efXectiveness of a public education
program other than participation rates. Material capture rates indicate the percentage of
available material that is actually separated from the wastestream and placed at the curb.
Very often recycling households do not place all of their designated recyclable materials
in collection containers. This may be as a-result of not knowing that a certain material
is recyclable or simply not making the effort to separate the material.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.PNUO 7-9
On-going education and public information programs can be evaluated using localized
participation and capture rates modified accordingly. The success of the overall program
is dependent and measurable through surveys of community attitudes towards new or
expanded SRREi programs. As the overall program is implemented, continued attention
to the project is essential. Responsive and consistent public information programs can
enhance community involvement and pride. Success in attaining initial goals will set the
stage for higher levels of achievement as the education and public information program
moves forward.
L
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD .WO 7 L 10
8.0 FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT
8.1 BACKGROUND
The cities within the County of San Diego currently dispose of their municipal solid
waste at the following sanitary landfills:
0 San Marms
0 Ramona
0 Miramar
Sycamore
Otay/Otay Annex
0 Borrego
Except for the Miramar Sanitary Landfill, which is owned and operated by the City of
San Diego, the County of San Diego owns and operates all permitted disposal facilities
within the county. According to the State Water Resources Control Board, Title 23,
Chapter 15, all the above landfills can be classified as Class 111 landfills for nonhazardous
solid waste. Refer to Figure 8-1 for the general locations of the landfds in San Diego
County. The following is a description of the disposal facility needs of each landfill,
except Borrego. Borrego handles only a small quantity of the unincorporated county's
wastestream with a remaining capacity of approximately 253,000 cubic yards.
4
8.2 THE SAN MARCOS SANITARY LANDFTLL
8.2.1 DESCRIPTION
The San Marcos Sanitary Landfd site is owned and operated (through private contract)
by the County of San Diego. The site is located at the southern boundary of the City of
San Marcos, southwest from the intersection of Questhaven Road and Elfin Forest Road.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLS~.~O 8-1
- SAW MARCOS LANDFILL
H
t
SOLANA BEAC
U
c3
Ti jut
CDM
envimnmentof engineers, scientists.
pfonnen. h monogement consuftants
The site began operations in November 1978. The total area of the site is 203 acres with
approximately half used for active landfilling and the remainder as buffer zones and
access roadways. The major limitation of the site is in the scarcity of cover material.
It was anticipated that closure of the San Marcos Landfill may occuf in 1991 or 1992.
However, plans for vertical and horizontal expansion have been approved by the
California Integrated Waste Mangagement Board. The County of San Diego is presently
pursuing the development of an emergency contingency plan for diverting waste from the
San Marcos Landfill to other facilities in the county if an emergency or other
circumstances warrant that diversion. Waste transfer stations are planned for the north
county cities presently disposing of solid waste in the San Marcos Landfill. The County
is also proceeding with the siting and permitting of a new north county and south county
landfill.
Based on the Scaleware data since September 1990 and the allocations to each landfill
based on the county’s preliminary hauler survey, the majority of the solid waste from the
following cities is disposed at the San Marcos Landfill:
.
e Carlsbad
0 Oceanside
0 Vista
0 San Marcos
0 Encinitas b
e Solano Beach
0 Escondido
Poway and the unincorporated areas of the north county also contribute a significant
amount of their wastestreams to the San Marcos Landfill. Refer to Table 8-1 for an
estimate of the cities’ contributions to the landfills in San Diego County.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.FNIJO 8-3
The San Marcos Sanitary Landfill operates under the following permits:
@
0
Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit No. 78-78
California Waste Management Board Permit No. 37-AA-008
City of San Marcos Special Use Permit No. PC77-733
The San Marcos Sanitary Landfill received approximately 1.2 million tons (2.0 million
cubic yards) of municipal solid waste during 1990. Stipulated orders are being prepared
by the Department of Health Services (DHS) for updating the allowable tonnages.
8.2.2 CURRENT FACILITIES CLOSURE PLAN
A closure plan for the San Marcos Sanitary Landfill was prepared and submitted to the
County of San Diego, Department of Health Services, CIWMB and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board San Diego District (RWQCBSDD). Revisions to the closure plan
were performed by the County of San Diego, Department of Public Works and it was
resubmitted in late 1991. The facility will undergo closure as soon as it reaches
capacity; the actual date is undetermined because of the large scale of the expansion
plans.
d
2209I4ICARLSBADICARLSBAD.FNUO 8-4
zi E$
;g
kd 2
2 3 [p Y k3
Yip *3 m
v) S%3~~2~qsssm 00rJ-r rO21s31
2 4 v? q m~ynmgs~ag "!. "! mi " -, 9 -i O! 2$gggzm 00, b! b 00, E 55 I==, 5 "! " "35
rr) "
gq "0 Wv) "? u? 3 rob 88 s XFi 2% m! 'T? 1 I "
ma 2'u d-2 I
3
pi^' 5m -sRg$s m "2 "QZ
8
C3z ole\, Q
f-4 3% z *s f2 ml 2
7 m
m' b 4 7 2; 2 m %SS%% mbmM E *s ~xxq~2yq"""
i%
00"N
0- "! ", 0,
~lv)OOv)mxGOOoOO
5 0
m
c)
- h 5 r-%sBSfCqs "% 3 s a y 55N
00, w23
d 2s- g v) W- m :OOqv)m-$ 2 ro
- mi
z FC3
sf! s 8 2
r
2 *O0
9 .. 2 OIb gg1gg $Kiss M gal w 523Fi
2
%a 3g
A 2 43 f
u * m
.c)
Wl- $x>b-< m
E 2
P4-J \o, Ulv) v? assv) ig 2 Q'5 5* 0, -208 c
uas321B"z$gI %%71 q""y4*, 32
1
Q c m
.d m m 3
Y w3 cy 8 $b A 04 i3a 03 PI 3 g E e4 O
4
$2 3sg "E3:a.g &" B.3 qjgs3g L% gj
E
m U~U~d4333Z88W --
8.3 THE RAMONA SANITARY LANDFILL
8.3.1 DESCRIPTION
The Ramona Sanitary Landfill is owned and operated (through private contract) by the
County of San Diego. The site is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the
community of Ramona on Pam0 Road, (refer to Figure 8-1). Originally this facility was
used as a bum site in 1948. Site operations were then converted to a sanitary landfill in
1969. The total area of the site is approximately 80 acres, with approximately half of
the land used as the landfill. The landfill opens daily except for major holidays. The
site presently serves the community of Ramona and the surrounding areas of Julian,
Palomar Mountain and Sunshine Summit. The Ramona Sanitary Landfill operates under
the following permits:
0
Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit No. 70-R14
California Waste Management Board Permit No. 37-AA-005
The County of San Diego estimates that the Ramona Sanitary Landfill received
approximately 47,000 tons (78,000 cubic yards) of solid waste during 1990.
Stipulated orders are being prepared by the DOHS which will update the allowable
tonnage limits of the site. In early 1991, the County of San Diego estimated the
remaining volumetric capacity of about 0.8 million tons (1.35 million cubic yards).
8.3.2 CURRENT FACILITY CLOSURE PLANS
A closure plan for the Ramona Sanitary Landfill is currently being prepared. The
County of San Diego expects to submit a closure plan to the regulatory agencies during
the latter part of 1991. However, closure of the landfill is not anticipated within the next
twenty years.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.FWIJO 8-6
8.4 THE SYCAMORE SANITARY LANDFILL
8.4.1 DESCRIPTION
The Sycamore Sanitary Landfill site is owned and operated (through private contract) by
the County of San Diego. The facility is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the
intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Father Juniper0 Serra Trail, (refer to Figure 8-
l), The site has been operating since mid-1962. The property size totals about 500
acres of which approximately 400 acres represents the active landfill area. The
Sycamore Sanitary Landfill operates under the following permits:
0
0
Regional Water Control Board Permit No. 76-40 and 59-R16
California Integrated Waste Management Board Permit No. 37-SS-015
City of San Diego Special Use Permit No. CUP 6066/Amendment No. 2
,* In 1991 the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill served the following cities:
e Lemon Grove
0 santee
El Cajon
0 La Mesa
0 San Diego
6
The Sycamore Sanitary Landfill receives approximately 1,500 tpd. The facility received
approximately 533,000 tons (888,000 cubic yards) of municipal solid waste in 1990.
Stipulated orders are being prepared by the DOHS which updates the allowable tonnage
of the site. -
In early 1991 the County of San Diego estimated the remaining capacity of the Sycamore
Landfill at about 20 million cubic yards,*providing more than 20 years of disposal
2209/4/CARLSBADICARLSBAD.PNUO 8-7
capacity at the present landfd disposal rate. The County of San Diego plans to relocate
power lines and expand the capacity of the Sycamore Landffi by an additional 50 million
cubic yards.
8.4.2 CURRENT FACILITIES CLOSURE PLAN
A closure plan for the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill is currently being prepared. The
County of San Diego expects to submit a .closure plan during the latter part of 1991.
However, closure of the landfill is not anticipated within the next 20 years. The County
of San Diego plans to expand the Sycamore Sanitary Landfd, and optimal size of the
landfill expansion has been determined to be 50 million additional cubic yards. No
municipal solid waste export plans exist at the present time.
8.5 THE OTAY/OTAY ANNEX SANITARY LANDFILL
8.5.1. DESCRIPTION
The Otay Landfill and Otay Annex are owned and operated (through private contract) by
the County of San Diego. The Otay Sanitary Landfill is located within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Chula Vista, the Otay Annex is within the unincorporated areas
of San Diego County, one mile east of Interstate Highway 805 on the north side of the
Otay Valley Road, (see general location in Figure 8-1). The site is presently permitted
as two separate facilities. The total area of the site is approximately 515 acres of which
98 acres are leased from the City of San Diego. A closed portion of the Otay Landfill
site was designated as a Class I Waste Management Unit and accepted hazardous waste
until November 1980. In 1990 the Otay/Otay Annex Sanitary Landfilfs served the
following cities:
0 Lemon Grove
0 Chula Vista
2209l4lCARLSBADlCARLSBAD .FNUO 8-8
ImperialBeach
e National City
0 Coronado
The Otay/Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill received approximately 40,000 tons (80,000
cubic yards) of solid waste during 1990.
The Otay Sanitary Landfill operates under the following permits:
.
0
Regional Waster Quality Control Permit No. 74-44
California Integrated Waste Management Board Permit No. 37-AA-009
San Diego County Special Use Permit No. P72-89
City of Chula Vista Conditional Use Permit No. PCC-72-1
The Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill operates under the following permits:
4
Regional Water Quality Control Permit No. 79-18
California Integrated Waste Management Board Permit No. 37-AA-010
San Diego County Special Use Permit ,No. P76-46
City of Chula Vista Conditional Use Permit No. PCC-72-1 ,-
The Otay Sanitary Landfill is a 250 acre site and the Otay Sanitary Landfill Annex is
another 250 acres. The Otay Sanitary Landfill capacity is estimated to be more than 650
tons per day. The County of San Diego estimates a total capacity of 1,700 tpd for the
Otay/Otay Annex. In early 1991 the Otay/Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill remaining
capacity was estimated at approximately 24 million cubic yards.
The County of San Diego is presently planning to redesign the configuration of the
landfill. Although the planned activity may provide for a gain in landfill space, the
county would not treat the reconfiguration of the landfill as an expansion project. At the
2209/4/CAlUSBADlCARLSBAD.PNUO 8-9
present landfilling rate of 0.6 million cubic yards per year and allowing for the necessary
space of the cover material, the remaining landfill capacity of 24 million cubic yards
should permit the landfill life to extend beyond the planning period.
8.5.2 CURRENT FACILITY CLOSURE PLANS
A closure plan for the Otay/Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill is presently in the hitkl stages
of preparation. The County of San Diego expects to submit a closure plan for these
landfills during the latter part of 199 1. However, the actual closure of the landfill is not
anticipated to occur during the planning period.
8.6 FACILITY CAPACITY NEEDS
The "disposal capacity needs assessment" was calculated using the assumptions that the
current recycling rate would continue until the year 1995. Between the years 1995 and
2000 the disposal quantities would be reduced gradually by 50 percent.
The capacity analysis incorporates the waste quantity projections for all the cities and
landfills in San Diego County (except the City of San Diego and the Miramar Landffl)
and the unincorporated areas of the county. In-place density for solid waste within a
properly operated landfill has been shown to range between 1,OOO and 1,200 pounds per
cubic yard. For the purposes of this analysis 1,OOO pounds per cubic yard in-place
density was used. Table 8-2 presents the results of thisanalysis for the 15-year planning
period. Using the County of San Diego's estimate of 97.6 million cubic yards remaining
capacity, the landfills in the county will reach capacity beyond the planning period.
Table 8.3 presents the 15-year disposal capacity needs of the City of Carlsbad. The
expansion of the San Marcos landfill has been approved allowing the City to continue to
dispose of its waste at that landfill.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARD.FhT./O 8 - 10
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DZSPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS ANALYSIS'
CUMULATIVE
.
'Disposal quantity does not include tonnage from the City of San Diego.
2hcorporates projected reduction in the wastestream from recycling activities
3Assumes lo00 pounds per cubic yard in-place density
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNIJO 8 - 11
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DISPOSAL CAPACITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
'Incorporates projected reduction in the wastestream from recycling activities
2Assurnes lo00 pounds per cubic yard in-place density
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD .F"O 8 - 12
8.7 PLANNED NEWEXPANDED FACILITIES
A vertical expansion proposal for the San Marcos Landfill was submitted to the
RWQCBSDD in March 1991. As a result of the proposal’s review by the RWQCBSDD,
the County of San Diego was requested to collect and present additional ground water
quality analytical information. The county submitted this information for review. The
RWQCBSDD decision may require the acceleration of the siting and construction of a
new landfill for the county’s northern cities, or allow the expansion of the San Marcos
Landfill to continue. Another plan for lateral expansion of the San Marcos Sanitary
Landfill is under consideration by the county, which is in the process of obtaining
adjacent land to support the proposed lateral expansion proposal. Although the County
is actively pursuing the lateral expansion of the landfill, no fixed date has been
established for this proposal submittal. The County of San Diego plans to expand the
Ramona Sanitary Landfill to a total of 80 acres, which in turn could result in the addition
of 50 acres of active sanitary landfill area. The County of San Diego plans to expand
the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill, which in turn could also result in the landfill space to
50 million additional cubic yards. No municipal solid waste export plans exist at the
present time.
.
4
BO914 JCARLSFL4DlCARLSBAD.FNIfO 8 - 13
9.0 FUNDINGCOMPONENT
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Adequate funding is critical to the long-term survival of Carlsbad's solid waste programs.
Funding for most of Carlsbad's current solid waste and recycling programs comes from
the solid waste collection fees. Some funding is provided through a franchise fee with
Coast Waste Management, an AB 939 surcharge to residents and commercial businesses,
and any amount allocated to Carlsbad from the County of San Diego's AB 939 funds.
Typically, recycling programs are not self-supporting, since they do not generate
sufficient revenue to offset the costs. For instance, the residential curbside recycling
program conducted by Liberty Recycling, a division of Coast Waste Management, does
not generate sufficient revenue to support all of the costs incurred. This situation is due
to the limited markets available for certain materials that results in the supply exceeding
the demand for those materials. 3
1
The funding component identifies various costs and revenue sources for the successful
planning, development, and implementation of various programs and facilities which
were devised to comply with the mandated AB 939 goals. Since many of the regional
issues impacting the alternatives available to the City remain unresolved, the cost and
revenue provides planning level estimate of costs for typical facilities and revenues.
Resolution of the regional issues followed by a feasibility analysis which involves a siting
study and an environmental impact analysis is essential before any further refinement can
be made.
The following sections describe existing county and City funding practices, followed by
typical component facility costs and program funding alternatives available to the City.
Contingency funding is also discussed with respect to identiwg revenue sources
available to fund programs which might face unforeseen revenue shortfalls.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 9-1
9.2 EXISTING FUNDING PRACTICES
9.2.1 COUNTY PRACTICES
Since 1982 when the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund was established, nearly all solid waste
management activities of San Diego County have been funded through the landfill tipping
fees. Four percent of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is supported by other solid waste
related activities. The Solid Waste Enterprise Fund supports only solid waste related
activities. No Solid Waste Enterprise Fund money supports General Fund projects, and
no General Fund monies are used for solid waste projects. Based on a $23.00 per ton
tipping fee, the Fiscal Year (FY) 1990/91 budget is approximately $60 million. The
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund spending plan for FY 90/91 is broken down as follows:
Active Landfill Operations 14.38%
Fee Collections 0.21 %
Code Enforcement 1.26%
Operational Support 5.70%
Interior Zone Operations 0,92%
Rural Container Stations 0.88 %
Rural Recycling 0.10%
Interior Zone Hauling Service 2.45%
Engineering a 16.44%
Resource Recovery/Recycling 1 1.98 %
Planning & Permits 1.48 %
Administration O/H 6.11%
Landfill Contract 12.24%
Eastin Reserve 5.62 %
Eastin State Charges 2.41 %
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARBAD.FNIJO 9-2
Waste-to-Energy Reserve 1.98%
Bond Department 9.95%
Program Contingency 2.29%
Facilities Reserve Deposit 3.58%
Additional funding for the cities will come from County Recycling Rebates, which will
be awarded at a rate of $7.75 per ton and AB 939 State Recycling Fund at $1.00 per ton.
Several capital improvements by the county are expected in the next ten years. Revenue
bonds will need to be sold to finance some of these improvements. The sale andlor cost
of the bond financing will, in part, be dependent on control of a sufficient amount of the
wastestream to ensure adequate tipping fee revenue are collected to repay the annual debt
service. The proposed wastestream agreements within San Diego County will
demonstrate such control.
* To pay for the continued maintenance of active and closed landfills, the environmental
and permitting work required for the proposed new landfds, landfill expansions and
transfer stations and the recycling and diversion requirements of AB 939, the tipping fee
is projected to increase about $5.00 per ton per year for the next several years. The .
actual increase will depend upon the demand placed upon the Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund by the projects proposed by the county and the timing of their implementation.
The tipping fees will be recalculated each year prior to proposing any change.
4
9.2.2 CITY PRACTICES
Any solid waste costs (i.e., public information, recycling information, brochures and
personnel time) have been paid for in the past by the City’s general fund. In the Spring
of 1991 the City of Carlsbad created a solid waste enterprise fund. In August 1991 the
City council increased the residential refuse rate to $10.27, of which $0.11 is for an AB
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.PNUO 9-3
939 Service Fee. The council also approved an AB 939 service fee of 1.1 percent for
commercial service.
9.3 TYPICAL COMPONENT PROGRAMS AND FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
In the short-term, the City of Carlsbad expects that facility costs will be incurred directly
by a private recycler; and program planning and implementation costs to be incurred by
the City and funded through both the enterprise fund and the general fund. Ultimately,
each waste generating sector (i.e. residential, commercial, or industrial) will be expected
to pay for any additional costs.
In order to evaluate the adequacy of planned expenditures by the City in response to AB
939 requirements, typical costs are presented in this section. Table 9-1 provides typical
planning, development, and implementation cost estimates in support of source reduction,
recycling and composting component programs for the City’s SRRE.
Costs shown on Table 9-1 are based upon recent surveys of similar programs ldy and
at the national level. It is further assumed that all facilities could be either publicly
owned and operated or privately owned and operated under contract.
Facility costs are reported to vary according to the following factors:
Facility location 1
Land availability and cost
@ Facility capacity
Financing expenses
Labor expenses
Facility type (i.e., technology employed)
Stability of wastestream input to facility
2209/4/CAlUSBAD/CARD.W0 9-4
I.1 bI.1 8 B 83 NO Zq 2 2-5 8 gg zq z
4 $5 Iff hI.15 p &g & $$$ Q
b ,he
,x Zb
e410 * ** I
Ilh I.1
u ** 3z
%I II
E 88 2-8 g 8 1?84 .~?8 Q e- 4-e mN- * * *** *** *
4
$4 8 &=
3
d 3 3
si% 4 0 $5
al g Q- p ?& 10d 8 m m- E
gg 283
2 p E,
w "52 3 j F4 k4E )$ s E;!$ 0 f 3
8 P 53
gf
28 v) s
mm \o s 8 4N \o 0
1 1 a a 3 3
E52 "w
3
$fa 0 ii * 10
v,o Nrn A
.r( a cd 8 O d &.# &5 * zg &? &!
ZY
oa
\*
E,g g ; ! gg
694 0
** * 28 $8 AI4 E 4
%
* * ** 2
H
.* CI * w ..I % M
04
LL 0 !3 .r( 43 E, 3 c( .- Y E v) 0 9: al M i
94 [z gg 8 $ 8 O$nya % L;%g =a
3 3 +3p SIX* j
84 E 32*= u \ =id y "a: s *a s 0
3 8
a 80SI.1 oovJI.1 .s
gg d s cts"I.1 pa
B 3 'C'iir3J5 g 34 8 9 '5! S80u .ZUOU a ZSz E U
cd
.- d 3 8
1
t
3
8
b s
s !i h 8
b CEl 4 8 3 & 3s;
8
c) 8
Q
B Q v)
2
3 8
$3 ??? 1
.s B 1n-s
M 34,
M
b 0 a B
f g3 3J 84 3
Ow 2 .- 1t g$
44 36$2
i .; qys; Hi LliP 33% ih gs *[.xe, ?a3
d pxg! a@j$ 3- B .5? 3
24% 3 &*lg g.pt *- .v) 0
0 1 b :$
6$!Bi,, 4
*- -1 I il 8% a3=g4 i!; 4 hF$+.2 *&?sa 3 ma34 4;lQ
I.1 8 * $ij 18 .a 4
Y ga z4 a848 f Qa&B~ao+~~~
.P g a22* Fiig VI !# 2.2 8 3 .$ p
J$@$.yw
Qo
cd a Y
1 s
3 .P -3 m'
8;
$z9
,a
0
% % .4
2 .3 & 8 8 .-
3 Y
a,
Y c 2
.-
(Y Os-* B
*z$gz
.-
9.4 PROGRAM FUNDING ALTERNATNES
The City of Carlsbad’s existing solid waste funds are allocated entirely to the planning
and implementation of recycling programs the City has selected. Additional funds will
be required for capital projects to support these programs, program development, and
program administration efforts, particularly as the amount of recyclable material
increases over time and existing facilities within the county reach capacity. The City
expects to participate fully in any regional concepts that might lead to economics of scale
and allow facilities to be located outside of its current boundaries. Funds for SRRE
programs can come from any or a combination of the following sources:
0
0
Increase in existing recycling surcharge to residential collection fees
Enforcement of penalty against nonrecycling citizens, both commercial and
residential
Commercial recycling service fee
Revenues from recycled materials
Manufacturing excise taxes
0 Variable can rates
Disposalfees
0 AB 939 Fee
d
9.4.1 RECYCLING FEE SURCHARGE FOR RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION
The City’s waste hauler, Liberty Recycling, a division of Coast Waste Management
charges each residential collection account a surcharge for the purpose of offsetting the
costs incurred for the curbside recycling program. The City of Carlsbad charges a
franchise fee. The current collection surcharge rate is $1.00 per account served. As a
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 9-6
means of passing through costs of additional programs and facilities, the City should
consider an increase in the surcharge rate &d a franchise fee.
Advantages:
Generates revenue specifically earmarked for the recycling program.
Disadvantages:
0 As with any rate increase, it would be unpopular.
9.4.2 COMMERCIAL RECYCLING SERVICE FEE
If the City, through its agreement with the hauler, provides recycling containers and/or
collection service for recyclables at various commercial locations, a rate structure to
cover the cost of collection and processing should be established. ,
This rate structure for recycling will be somewhat different from the regular solid waste
and disposal charge assessed for waste destined for disposal. It will include, at a
minimum, the following components.
0
0 Container rental fee >
0
Reserve for contingency
Cost of collection by level of seMce and size of container
Credit for the sale of materials
Processing charges (especially for commingled loads)
Overhead, administration, billing and advertising costs
2209f4lCARLSBADfCARLSBAD.FNUO 9-7
Advantages:
a
0
Generates revenue sufficient to maintain operations.
Should be less than user fee for waste disposal service.
Disadvantages:
Will require extensive publicity to overcome the concept that recycling is
free or generates revenue to the commercial enterprise.
Will require additional accounting and billing by the City. 0
9.4.3 MANUFACTURING EXCISE TAXES
Disposal taxes can be levied on manufacturers based on the materials they use in
products and packaging. This kind of charge would spread disposal costs more equitably
by incorporating them into the manufacturing process, while giving manufacturers an
incentive to reduce the material content of their products. An exemption from the charge
for the use of post-customer wastes would give manufacturers the choice of reducing
material content or using recycled materials, thereby generating markets. The City will
consider support of appropriate state measures regarding manufacturing excise taxes.
9.4.4 DISPOSAL FEES
4
Disposal fees are sales taxes that are placed on products that pose a disposal challenge,
such as tires, lead-acid batteries, and white goods. Sales taxes can generate significant
and reliable revenue but because most customers are unaware of paying it, they have no
incentive to select a less waste producing item. A larger tax in conjunction with
customer education and labeling may make a difference. The city will consider support
of sales taxes or disposal fees placed on the materids suggested by state or county
officials.
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD .FNL/O 9.- 8
9.4.5 SERVICE FEENARIABLE CAN RATE
Residential service fees can be collected through a variable can rate. A variable can rate
places the burden of cost on the user by charging them a fee based on the number of cans
placed out for collection.
Advantages:
Would encourage the reduction of the wastestream by increasing the cost
of disposal
Generates revenue commensurate with users’ disposal quantities
Disadvantages:
0 Will require additional accounting of fees by the collector and the City.
As with any rate increase, it would be unpopular.
,
9.5 CONTINGENCY FUND
The major variable remaining is that of markets. This is also the most-difficult variable
to predict over the long-term. In setting residential service fees, assumptions for the
market value of materials should be conservative. A “market fund” may be established
within the fee structure to monitor this variable. With &e initial service fee, this portion
of the end of the rate period (generally three years within the City), this could be used
to establish a market contingency, fund and future rate studies could use the contingency
fund balance as a consideration in estimating material revenues.
2209/4/CARISBAD/CARBAD.FNIJO 9-9
Advantages:
0
0
e
Places the burden of cost on the users.
Provides revenue to cover administrative, overhead, and publicity costs.
Allows the department to redirect reserves currently being used for
recycling to other non-revenue producing activities.
Disadvantages:
0 As with any new fee or rate increase, it will be extremely unpopular with
residents, especially low income and those on fmed incomes.
Will possibly result in a significant solid waste fee increase when first
initiated.
Will require additional tracking of funds within the department and the
establishment of additional cost centers.
0
9.6 SUMMARY
The City of Carlsbad is presently supporting its solid waste programs through the
appropriations from the residential service fee. The City will continue to use this
mechanism to fund the recycling component of the solid waste program. In addition, the
City will review other additional funding sources as the need arises. Several alternative
funding sources such as variable can rates and manufacturing excise taxes also are
economic incentives to change disposal habits.
Total funding mechanisms can only be finalized when regional issues are resolved. The
participation of the cities within the area and the unincorporated county in a regional
facility under a joint powers agreement (PA) is one of these regional issues being
discussed at this time. The feasibility analysis for any capital facilities will require an
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 9 - 10
economic evaluation and assessment of the funding mechanisms dependant upon the
structure of the PA.
,
A
2209/4/CARISBAD/CARLSBAD.FNIJO 9- 11
10.0 INTEGRATION COMPONENT
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The development and selection of alternatives for a source reduction and recycling
program for the City of Carlsbad were based on an evaluation of existing practices and
conditions, discussions with City representatives following review of the "Recycling
Facility Alternatives Evaluation" decisional paper, review of projected growth patterns
for the City, and the overall needs of the City. Carlsbad's goal is to have an integrated
solid waste management system capable of meeting both the state mandated waste
reduction goals and the needs of its citizens in the most environmentally sound, efficient
and cost-effective manner. The mixture of technologies and programs selected must
provide current and future decision makers the flexibility to modify the plan as conditions
dictate and technologies change.
The overall program must be able to fit into the existing infrastructure within the City
and provide opportunities for regional cooperation among the surrounding cities and the
unincorporated portion of the county. The selected system must not significantly impact
the current levels of service during implementation or expose the citizens to excessive
costs. In consideration of these factors, and based on CDM's experience, the integration
component must present all activities which must be accomplished and the significant
decision points in order for the element to be successfully implemented. One of the
major reasons that reduction and recycling programs have failed across the nation is due
to the project participant's inability to resolve critical issues in a timely manner.
The purpose of the integration component and resulting implementation plan and schedule
is to depict the work activities and establish the proper sequencing to allow decisions to
be made in a timely fashion. This section presents the results of the evaluations
conducted for the SRRE, summarizes the technologies and programs selected, and
presents the schedule for program implementation.
~09/4lCARISBAD/CARLSBAD.FNUO 10 - 1
10.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
The integration of programs, technologies, equipment and personnel into a complete
system for a community must maintain a flexible approach in order to accurately consider
solid waste quantities, and the availability of materials and compost markets, while still
maintaining compatibility with the requirements of AB 939. The range of technologies
and programs evaluated under the previous sections had to meet certain criteria in order
to be considered further for selection as a component part of any overall system. These
criteria were presented and discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. The system alternatives
also had to have potential for expansion or inclusion within a regional facility, since the
City of Carlsbad is one of many cities within San Diego County actively involved in
addressing the concerns of AB 939 within the region. Carlsbad, just like its neighboring
communities, must consider the particdar interests of each of the participathg cities
when evaluating and choosing a particular approach.
10.2.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
The criteria-based matrix, at the end of this section, evaluates these previously-selected
technologies. In developing this approach, the overall selection of system alternatives
was designed to also include consideration of the hierarchy of waste management
mandated by proper planning for total program implementation. The system alternatives
selected for inclusion in the City element recognized the following priority for
implementation. A
0 Source reduction
a Recycling and composting
Proper disposal through transformation and land disposal
2209/4/CARtSBAD/CARBAD.FNUO 10 - 2
As noted in Section 3.0, it should be realized that the source reduction alternatives
presented with regard to obtaining specific diversion goals do not account for any solid
waste reduction currently in place in Carlsbad’s waste stream.
10.2.2 SELECTION OF INTEGRATED SYSTEM
The initial analysis of available technologies or systems to meet the goals established by
AB 939 was based on the ability to successfully target materials for source reduction and
recycling. The wastestream composition data discussed in Section 2.0 was used to
identify those materials that are readily recyclable and to set target objectives for
percentage reductions in the total wastestream quantities. According to information
provided in the preliminary waste characterization study, over 27 percent of the materials
in the total City wastestream are technically processible through methods of recycling and
reuse. The total solid wastestream was sub-categorized by the major target populations,
residential wastes, commercial and industrial wastes. ,
Programs for the residential portion of the wastestream will differ from the programs
evaluated for the commercial and industrial wastestream. This is due to the variation in
the quantities produced by each sector (residential is about 34 percent and
commerciaVindustrial 66 percent) and to the different methods of collection. The
commercial and industrial sectors are combined due to the similarity of collection
methods and the similarity of their respective wastestreams.
A
Targeted programs for the City of Carlsbad are shown in Table 10-1. This table also
presents the estimated recovery rate for the short-term and medium-term goals. The
targeted percentages for recovery for the short-term total an estimated 27 percent. The
medium-term objectives are to reduce the total wastestream by 50 percent.
,
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNlJO 10 - 3
E 2 gEE M
gg 3 iq
3z 3 0
$2 EE 4
EA v1
a22 g
c3 .5 E! $4 p) 3 qa
5 2.5s 9 0 s4.gg i -sa w pj i.5 i 9323 ba
am& .2= a2 2$ 'P-aflsc
b'LOa, 4 z:,ooa
1 ;I a-z a *3 .9gza2 2 g $tGgjz *s p .9 9 !3 3ax.g $ jl 2-g 8 a.gs, .sm BS0 a 33 f q Pg.gZ $Eq Q)
3 $234
*E .!!.y-g 5aa 2 3.5sss.: g.E:qa 234 g s2* a (o &SAP :ai;:; 2z22ap%j 0 g p) g2$ 4 g q.2 3 g.; fifi p o W .ti s.2- a agsl42.2 .- 2 -zj g 2 c g g 5 -zj 2 $ gJ*s 5 8 gJ .g @.:a $ua zcrl sa E,.:& &m .:
0'
\ I d 3i
2 ig 8
2 %z 1
k LE
E
3 "8
ub
v1
e.. e. .e
wdl 3 kg9 3-4 -2 9 g *G24 I, asti, 38 22a 8ae
003 $-a
mg- 4 E.% 3 a x 3 nnb gw~42
B la 333 -1.3
b
0.. e..
B.j ga a2
E 8 8
rA
d
ct
I s
2
! c
i! c
d c
P a
9
M i3
fi ?i GBR 4 Rz .I * @ l q
4 g E -j-
9 33 2, 3 a7iJ 33 8 1; 'C s0
3 54 E=*= wx! -aura
1
!
$8 .rl g .$ $.g
gF 8 gE p 3;" dm
g 33 .e 3 O1.S 2 3 3 !La z
02 .$ E! -31 u s QJq g! a* '6 B 4 f QJ 2 $8 D a 5i 4 Z&+ 4% g, 3 238 80, 4 gs a% -M $3 !2.3jsz jg2 gg v& 333 2.a gh '3% 30 5a0 sa v.Iaga Q)*G8s *e
03 &$ gag
1 va c.l ;k
2 ge,+ 2 3 802 ai!*.ME -El "'2 ggBw3$-(de,~ *s
El g O a23 g 33E g &E i $3 g2.2 5?,gs.s El 8: gQ $1 ha &g Ej B 0 El uqnsu k& 8 gw ,p1 8 gwdg~43 ~~336 Q E
a a
2.q 2 gjw
at f g~l 'Pa a he+
8:zsa MS wS ukcpo ov 0 h m LA "a.9
2.3 '8 a g Is
0 0. 4 0 M
v El a0 e, '2
rr
agQ 0 04
4
2
c: g*aOg ash% pl 0 m e .* M 0
"2
0.0. 0. 0 0 0 0.
n so va as &.g
$5 &Jg 38 wraQ)*g e w333lq0
Q) .e.glX !$33aa gs3.s 8 g 9c.l $58-
1.. qF3uoa
zuo ~3*annOOauuQ&u2
B ,;z v Ea% $ g.s.yz;.d% 5
E
,aauga B P "2%
-8
0.. 0.. o..........
83 0 3 U H
&
i
IA
I , s
9 n il c
3 c
P
P z s (Y
1
E
ep 3 Le In
23
Eg
i[ i I“,
H g v) g- a
0 ... 8 m .g .2 Q)
9
(r 3 3%
0 3.2 $E4 0 bl* 8eo ‘Ear g t; .s D ;8 gag g% 2 -z
9 F 9 &?a
Y 42.2: G g-?! z a-ij.q%.y- G’D 9s a.2 z- &3,.2$E9esp: s a*=$ F $..S%$ ==%v&? ai g a EQ .- Id E E8 MQ)Q)+E~E~ CI- a8.g Q) 2 g2.g a-saa gtCj 2 8.2 BZL.2e 3 q&!&Q) Ayw P p “+x zz’EasaP) 1 E E g kiw EEdgwEa m am $1.0
c)
‘S C
0 .z .sgO Q)Eo&Q)
3x20>2 gma+d*z E 2 > * E.?
.*e. eo0
L 73 8 Q)
a 0 -
0 %:,a c* a 8 ZJ Zh 0 3*e&?c .sg
0 E WE3
C e .- V)
4 -
‘0 0 3.2 a-s e 0 Q)& *% a -%-a* 2 .s .g 5 * * 8Rf3.3 &E.se hz .ra%E$o 2383 a;M (r 2 a==’=
2a“ 3 58 0s kg3$ .p z$ 0 0-2 9, 0 v sQ)$pa-shOms -- .% 5 *s g
2 ijg 0 u
c)Q) .~;p&o~g~g&?E 8 .i -g 3 & *.- *g 3 m L. ps ~D*~~ao80EMP)aOO cc Q)g&Z2$$a2.23;
0 MO -3.5 3 E 8 1: Q) - -?.- - Q) E aag8-5zgg > V.% 2 3 g=S% ST2 2 g a‘z.3 o
P)8E=$?E3-’ zigL Cs 09b$e CCo$
4 9
3 c)c”‘zspm=a,.s~ aEi!Q) *$2;3 gJ .gg ._ s 000) b.s8= Q)w E.? 8 :8
EF: us
2 g 3 0s E rgc P) Q) az %3EUa- ad ‘5
cz-c Q)
c) 02 s-s 3 $5.; c z %.= 2 3 2SO~~a~zQg~.~z;~~ *g 0s 8 e.= g ~g3.2 a 0 * g 3 2.2.E i ....e.. e e. e
li 08 - e CO a0 Q)& g Ea 23 g;,; 3 .: t wss %
E g *g
2 0 8 us pa 8W2w =ne.-. ozuu n sa ec-w- &~SG
3 -g .s
e aa v1 Q) d .- a* E<
3a.2 * 0
c)
0 0 Wi-- p 2s g 53 *3mu 3022 3z u.8m
e... e e...
Q) 3
3
m 4
g 3
0 Q) a
0 V 8 VJ U
\
C
E e 3q 0 VI
E2 1 @ g iq
Ep E e4 4
34 a 21 s 2
3% azO) 2-3 &;ai3 -sa .sa .B a .sQ-2& 5&gL ag 58 3! *I p3g*sg$ 95$@ -0 0)
saae. vi -I,,, 3 Q$$3 3 .::$+2 ba*9aamg!
.S I 2.2 5 .s 8q a & -*qfcS33 -sLI&4 2*4]$ l &@qoa &+a? Et$2gn&qo! E
i qj P p g* [E p," Fj 1-g :i 2
V 3
s
E1-P LI
4 :g z 60.3 LI I.*
ri I9
4 0 s' 0 0 -
b *g i
2. e. a 1 13 0 -a I 1 $4 $2 153 33 -- y8 c9 eg 2 -gg E1g
g *g -4 8 .I
ze raga.., c48 08 s g., I a .3 a3aoaa3 eg8 11 $4 j*.Ygszg!a8 gj*aa c: I-zaQ&=a aw .s
0 d agq3,,33 &% ""m:;E eji p.Y@%aqI fl OJ& A." 230s -pa a&[ ga40 gp~.~
@ q
E %&$6?W% &+YY *+-n
2 ijg
SU
B* 2 k iE 3 Z8
0-a "2
0 0 0
ii t 0 4 s $3 % 0
0
4
.Y
BE 8 .g Y *i s,
8 18 2%
83
rri
e .
I 4:
s
ii
3 c
d
\ 5 9
P s 3 N
10.3 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE
To provide the representatives of Carlsbad with information on the various recycling
facility alternatives available and in practice, a decisional paper, "Recychg Facility
Alternatives Evaluation," was developed to provide further insight into these specific
alternatives, both on a citywide and regional basis. The formulation of this decisional
paper was based upon discussions with Carlsbad's representatives managing the city's
recycling efforts, coupled with a detailed review of these programs. This evaluation
included an assessment of those projects currently underway by Carlsbad and recycling
projects in the formative planning stages.
It must be realized that the initial years of implementation of these planned projects will
be difficult for the City because of the combination of new and expanded programs called
for and the degree of experimentation necessary to begin the process of meeting these
very aggressive goals. The City of Carlsbad will be working in concert with Coast
Waste Management to implement the planned programs and projects. Many activities
will be conducted concurrently and will require supervision and the commitment of City
resources to assure that new and expanded programs receive a fair evaluation for
continued emphasis in later years.
4
2209/4/CARLSBAD/CAlUSBAD.FNUO 10 - 8
TABLE 10-2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTEGRATION COMPONENT
IMPLEMENTATION SCBDULE
SHORT-TERM
YEAR
TASK 1991 1992 1993 1994
1. Source Reduction
evaluate state/federaI ecommic
incentive policy owing ongoing ow* oogoing
evaluate the need to obtain
additional services of a public
relations 6rm ongoing ongoing ongoing ODgOing
review and update City ongoing owing ongoing ongoing procurement and specifications
evaluate reporting methods August
develop technical assistauce
program for businesses and August
iMtitutiOnS
audit city wastestream September
begin implementation of December
buaineddtutiod source
reduction
conduct a study evaluating
alternative rate st~cturing September
2. Recycling
continue and expand the use of
dropoff bins ongoing ongoing owing ongoing
promote the use of the Carlsbad
buy-back center ongoing ongoiag ongoing ongoing
continue and expand the
cuhside collection program ongoiog b ongoing ongoing ongoing
continue monitoring and ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
repotting efforts
expand public information ongoing ongoing ongoing owing campaign
review and update designated
recycled materiala March
continue the city purchasing March
policy for recycled products
begin mandatory commercial/
industrial recycling program September
implement yard waste collection
program
evaluate need for a city waste
composition study September
September
* L
2209/4/CAlUSBAD/CARLSBAD.FNJO 10 - 9
,
c
TABLE 10-2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTEGRATION COMPONENT
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
SHORT-TERM
YEAR
TASK 1991 1992 1993 1994
evaluate the ne4 for a
permanent recycling facility to January
handle current and future
mycling needs and solid waste
processing needs
3. composting
conduct market survey September
evaluate need for commercial September
landscape dropoff centers
produce brochure explaining
composting program September
requiremnts
evaluate the feasibility of a January processing facility
4. Special Waste
implement a public information
for construction and demolition
wastes
determine feasibility of c+
composting yard waste with
sludge December
investigate alternative tire
program for diversion practices May
diversion techniques r-ry
evaluate and institute private
sector reporting requirements March
for other special wastes 0
5. Education and Public Information
December/ December/
Christmas Tree recycling December January January January
changedadditions ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
information on program
develop and conduct January
community survey
newsleaem and direct mailings ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
non-english materials and ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
announcements
recycling events ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
TABLE 10-2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTEGRATION COMPONENT
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE SHORT-TERM
YEAR
TASK 1991 1992 1993 1994
public service annwnccments ongoiog ongoing ongoing ongoing
public workshops ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
evaluate need for additional public information contract ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing
service
evaluate staffing requirements March
development of community August
speakers bumu
develop recycling video January
encourage school curriculum October
changes
6. Monitoring and Reporting
develop monitoring and
component
reporting melhodo for each January
evaluate propme JdY
modifications to pmpm July
,a
5untv d $an Di-0 INTEGRATED WXSTE YSAGWENT TASK FORCE
July 1, 1991
Commercial/lndustrial Business
Re: Requests for Information on Existing Recycling Activities
Dear General Manager:
The cities within San Diego County are in the process of meting the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(A3 933), which mandates a 25% lzndfill diversion by 1995 and a 50% diversion by 2000. In order to meet these requirements, it is important for each city to identify the present quantity of solid wastes, especially in the commercial and industrial sectors, that is currently being recycled. The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in providing information regarding the total quantity of solid weste being recycled at your facility. Enclosed is a questionnaire for your use.
By completing the enclosure, you are not obligating your company in any way to become involved in any outside recycling activities. We will be using the requested information to assess the total , commercial and industrial solid waste that is currently being recycled in each jurisdiction.
Please forwarti your response to the following:
Mr. Robert A. Hawfield, Jr. Cznp Dresser & McKee Inc.
430 I?. Vineyard Avenue, Suite 310 Ontario, California 91764
establishments in San Diego County
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our consultant, Czmp Dresser & HcXee Inc., Mr. Pat Huston at (619) 942-
2100.
Sincere1 L6ddLLY~J&JL-~
WILLIAM A. WORRELL Deputy Director Department of Public Works County of San Diego
County of fbn Dirpo AB 939 flrff (619) 694-2162/3962 5555 Overland Avr. US-03E5, Sm DitpD, U 92123-1295
9 rri.rd n mycW pv-r
Recycling and Waste Keaucnon SUVCJ
For the San Diego Region
5w-s to the following questions will assist the County and oties in San Diego County to
programs io help businesses with their recycling activities. This information also is
3 to help satisfy State reporting requirements for information about existing recycling Lid
5 reduction efforts as required by the htegraied Waste Management Act of 1989.
J~ company will not be identified and the information will not be used for any other purposes.
Lompany Name
ad Address in Sa Diego
Contact Person 2nd Phone
nunber
hT0. Yes.
NO.
NO.
1. a. Does your company separate my of itr materials for recycling?
b. Dws your company purchase materials for recycling?
c Does your compvly purchrrse items with recycled content?
- Yes.
- Yes. -
2. If your company's recyclable materids are transported to a recycling facility or muket, is
this accomplished by your compzny's own employees or by arrangement with another cornpay
or individud?
,
- - Our company employees transport our recydables.
Our recydables are collected by another company or individual.
The collector's name is:
I).
3. What recycling faality or market receives your mzterials for recycling?
4. a. Is your company interested in starting or expanding its recycling efforts?
Yes. NO. -
b. If yes, what is needed to start or expand your recycling efforts? - Information on program set-up.
- Information on recyclable materials buyers or sellers.
3 ?-.d - + -
What else would be neded for your company to start or expand its recycling efforts?
e explain
Are there any problems or obstacles that need to be addressed to enable your cornpzlly to
t or expand recycling? (You also may recommend City and County policies that would be
)ful.)
,
Does your company have any programs thzt encourage waste reduction, for exmple:
lides on double-sided copies, electronic mail systems, promoting the use of cerrmic coffee
igs, reduced packaging, or plant processes that minimize waste. If yes plezse explain. If sdbfe, estimate the reduction in amount of w&e disposed.
- Yes. No. Please explain:
, Listed on the next page are materials commonly recycled. Please indicate in the first
durn, the range of quantities, by weight in pounds (lb) or volume in cubic yards (cy), that your
Dmpany typically may recycle over the course of a month. If your company is now discarding
laterials that you believe could be recycled or reused, please estimate the quantities of these
iscarded materials in the right hand column. *
Materials Recycling Questionnaire
Estimated Monthly Quantities
Rqde Discard, would like to recycle Minimum-Maximum Minimum - Ma=bnum
?\la t erial
Appliances
Tin and bi-
metal cans
Ferrous
metal
Aluminum
0 ther nonferrous
metal
Sewspaper
C om g a t ed
cudboard
Mixed or
colored paper
White ledger and/or
computer paper
Clxs
Plzsiic
containers
Fifm plastic
Other plastic
Yard waste, brush,
clippings, etc
Wood
Other organic material
(Food w LZS tes)
OTHER
OTHER
'lHER
(specify Ib or cy) (specify Ib or cy)
9
Are there any other materids that your company produces which could be used by another
dustry that have not been identified in the list of reqclables? Please explain.
1. a. How many persons does you company employ?
b. If your firm has multjple locations in San Diego County, please state average number of
nploy- at each address. Please attach information on a separate sheet if necessary.
d dress No. Employed Address No. Employed
1. Chief Executive Officer or Principal (h:ame/Title)
2.
light be helpful to this survey.
Please provide any other information about your recyding or waste reduction efforts thzt
,
r you would like information 2bout recycling or waste reduction, plezse contact the Recycling
?formation Hoiline, sponsored by the City and County of San Diego: I Love A Clean San Diego
Iounty, 4901 Morena Blvd. Suiie 703, San Diego, 92117, 270-8189 or 1-800-237-2583.
A Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Your contribution to this effort is extremely valuable.
Please return this questionnaire to:
Mr. Pat Huston
* Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
430 North Vineyard Avenue, Suite 310
Ontario, California 91764
Survey rec:ipkr& also may be contacted by telcplLsm for infomation related to this stud
DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION RECYCLERS SERVING THE PUBLIC
It is necessary to call for accepted materials, hours of operation
and terms of delivery.
Recycler Landfill Fees (Amrox) - Fees company Load Type
Facility : Bobtail
9310 Friars Road 10 Wheel
San Diego, CA 92108 End Dump (619) 280-2677 Mailing Address:
3402 Via-Beltran San Diego CA 92117 * Accepted Xaterials: Concrete, asphalt, rock.
ARGLEBEN , DON Bobtail $40 $230 299 Facility Address: 10 Wheel
911 Heritage Road End Dunp 100 506 San Diego (3rown Field), CA 92073
(619) 440-5737 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 2177 El Cajon, CA 92021 * Accepted Materials: Concrete ad asphalt.
ASPHALT, INC 3 Axle $65 $299 12560 Highway 67 or less
Lakeside, CA 92040-1159 Over 3 Axle $90 $506 (619) 561-8500
*Accepted Materials: Asphalt and concrete
CALIFQiWIA COKMERCIAL ASPHALT
9235 Camino Santa Fe San Diego CA 92121
* Accepted Materials: Asphalt Only
DLC f C
Site Location:
10208 Channel Road Bobtail $ 50 $ 75 $230 Lakeside, CA 92040 10 Wheel 70 100 299 or 10051 Black Mtn.'Rd. End Dump 100 150 506 San Diego, CA 92129 Concrete Slab, 250 (619) 390-7289 Abutments & Pilings * Accepted Materials: Dirt, Rock, Asphalt and Concrete
AMAN BROTHERS Pick-up truck $25 $10 230
299
506
35
55
75
* Oversized loads subject to surcharge.
60
,
*Oversize loads subject to surcharge.
Clean asphalt accepted at no charge, loads must be cleared through Guy.
(619) 586-0611
'loads with pieces larger than 2'x 2'
Printed on Recycled Paper
LID WASTE DWlSlON 4i rn!
Recycler Landfill Company Load Type Fees Fees (xpproxl
ENNISS MATERIALS 13 tons or less $35 $299
12421 Vigilante Road Over 13 tons 65 506
Lakeside, CA 92040 Large concrete 30 536
(619) 443-9024 surcharge (3 'x 3 I )
Chad or Blake Enniss * Accepted Materials: Concrete, asphalt, rock, clean dirt.
INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT facility Address: Bobtail $65 $299
8150 Friars Road 10 Wheel 65 299
San Diego, CA 92168 End Dump 90 506
(619) 291-1440 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 880008 Szn Diego, CA 92168 * Accepted Materials: Clean asphalt no concrete.
XELSON AND SLOE-?. Price per tcn $5 $23
7th and Main Streec
Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619) 263-7231 ext.47
Disposal site: End of Otay Valley rozd.
Mailing address:
2.0, Box 488, Chula Vista, CA 91912 * Accepted Mcterials: Concrete end tsphzlt.
RELIA3LE/PACIIiC
WOOD RECYCLING
1 mile ease of Maxwell Road on Otay Valley Road (619) 425-6450 * Accepted Materials: Wood and yard waste. ** Loads will be priced on a lozd by load basis.
Mixed Clean
SIM J. HARRIS COMP-ANY Bobtail $ 90 $ 50 $230
9229 h'arris Plznt Road 10 Wheel 140 80 299
San Diego, CA 92145 End Dumg 190 e* 110 506
(619) 277-5481 * Accepted Materials: Clean fill clezn concrete and esphalt, mixed loads include concrete with rebar, wire, pipe, etc. clean fill.
SOUTH COAST YATERIALS COMPANY
3701 Haymar Drive Bobtail $ 90 $ 50 $230
(619) 757-2010 End Dump 190 110 506 * Accepted Materials: Clean fill clean concrete and asphalt, mixed loads include concrete with rebar, wire, pipe, etc. clean fill. Landfill prices based July 1, 1991, per ton increzse to $23.00 per ton.
Carlsbad, CA 92008 10 Wheel 14 0 80 299
DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION RECYCLERS SERVING THE PUBLIC
It is necessary to call for accepted materials, hours of operation
and terms of delivery.
Recycler Landfill
company Load Type - Fees Fees (PsIDmx)
WYROC INC. 10 yards or less $30 $23/ton
1385 Sycamore Avenue 10 to 20 yards 60 Vista, CA 92033 Clean fil1,all loads 20 (6.19) 727-0878 * Accepted Materials: Concrete and Asphalt, clean fill;
The County of San Diego has compiled this listing of
demolition and construction recyclers for informational purposes only. All information is subject to change, please check with businesses listed. (5-24-91) For copies of this list call 694-
2178.
A
Page 3
PrinTed on Recycted Paper -,
1990 WASTE GENERATION COMPOSITION
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
, WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) WNS) VONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 14,698 11.1% 664 4.9% 15,362 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 3,992 3.0% 2,965 21.8% 6,957 4.8% 2.0%
MKED PAPER 9,029 6.8% 491 3.6% 9,520 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 709 0.5% 11 0.1% 720 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 13 0.1% 13 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 2,961 2.2% 26 0.2% 2,987 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 3,316 2.5% 16 0.1% 3,331 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 2,718 2.1% 1,831 13.5% 4,549 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,423 1.1% 41 0.3% 1,465 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 246 0.2% 214 1.6% 461 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 63 0.5% 63 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 19,594 14.8% 543 4.0% 20,137 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 4,339 3.3% 4,339 3.0% ,
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 5,275 4.0% 5,275 3.6%
APHALT 397 0.3% 397 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 11,790 8.9% 11,790 8.1%
ROOFING 155 0.1% 155 0.1%
DRYWALL 242 0.2% 242 0.2%
MIXED 14,902 11.2% 14,902 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 1,725 1.3% 135 1.0% 1,860 1.3% 0.1%
MISCELANEOUS 34,828 26.3% 34,828 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 173 0.1% 6,571 48.4% 6,744 4.6% 4.5%
9
TOTALS 13231 0 13,583 146,092 9.3%
CARLl.WQ1
1991 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
FONS) VOW (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 15,545 11.1% 702 4.9% 16,247 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 4,222 3.0% 3,136 21.8% 7,358 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 9,550 6.8% 519 3.6% 10,069 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 750 0.5% 12 0.1% 762 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 13 0.1% 13 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 3,131 2.2% 27 0.2% 3,159 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 3,507 2.5% 16 0.1% 3,523 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 2,874 2.1% 1,937 13.5% 4,811 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,505 1.1% 44 0.3% 1,549 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 261 0.2% 227 1.6% 487 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 67 0.5% 67 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 20,724 14.8% 574 4.0% 21,298 13.8%
WOOD WASTE 4,589 3.3% 4,589 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 5,579 4.0% 5,579 3.6%
APHALT 419 0.3% 419 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 12,469 8.9% 12,469 8.1%
163 0.1% 163 0.1% ROOFING
DRYWALL 256 0.2% 256 0.2%
MIXED 15,761 11.2% 15,761 10.2%
OTHER
OTHER MISC.
DIAPERS 1,824 1.3% 143 1.0% 1,967 1.3% 0.1%
SPECIAL WASTES 183 0.1% 6,950 48.4% 7,133 4.6% 4.5%
36,835 26.3% 36,835 23.8%
1
TOTALS 140,148 14,366 15431 4 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1992 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DNEFITED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw VOW Vow
PAPER
CARDBOARD 16,393 11.1% 740 4.9% 17,133 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 4,452 3.0% 3,307 21.~1% 7,759 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 10,070 6.8% 548 3.6% 10,618 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 791 0.5% 12 0.1% a03 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 14 0.1% 14 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLAsnc 3,302 2.2% 29 0.2% 3,331 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 3,698 2.5% 17 0.1% 3,715 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,031 2.1% 2,042 13.5% 5,073 3.1% 1.3%
MEFALS
TIN CANS 1,587 1.1% 46 0.3% 1,633 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 275 0.2% 239 1.6% 514 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 70 0.5% 70 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 21,853 14.8% 606 4.0% 22,459 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 4,839 3.3% 4,839 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 5,883 4.0% 5.883 3.6%
APHALT 442 0.3% 442 0.3%
ROOFING 172 0.1% 172 0.1%
DRYWALL 269 0.2% 269 0.2%
MIXED 16,620 11.2% 16,620 10.2%
OTHER
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 13,149 8.9% 13,149 8.1%
DIAPERS 1,924 1.3% 150 1.0% 2,074 1.3% 0.1 %
OTHER MISC. 38,843 26.3% 38,843 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 193 0.1% 7,329 48.4% 7,522 4.6% 4.5%
d
TOTALS 147,786 15,149 162,935 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1993 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DIVERTED DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(row CroW WNS)
PAPER CARDBOARD 17,240 11.1% 778 4.9% 18,018 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 4,682 3.0% 3,478 21.8% 8,160 4.8% 2.0% MIXED PAPER 10,591 6.8% 576 3.6% 11,167 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 832 0.5% 13 0.1% 845 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 15 0.1% 15 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTlC FILM PLASTIC 3,473 2.2% 30 0.2% 3,503 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 3,889 2.5% 18 0.1% 3,907 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,187 2.1% 2,148 13.5% 5,335 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1.669 1.1% 48 0.3% 1,718 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 289 0.2% 251 1.6% 540 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 74 0.5% 74 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 22,983 14.8% 637 4.0% 23,620 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 5,089 3.3% 5,089 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 6,187 4.0% 6,187 3.6%
APHALT 465 0.3% 465 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 13,829 8.9% 13,829 8.1%
ROOFING 181 0.1% 181 0.1%
283 0.2% DRYWALL 283 0.2%
MIXED 17,480 11.2% 17,480 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,023 1.3% 158 1.0% 2,181 1.3% 0.1 %
OTHER MISC. 40,850 26.3% 40,850 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 203 0.1% 7,707 48.4% 7,911 4.6% 4.5%
d
TOTALS 155,425 15,932 171,357 9.3%
CARL1 .Wdl
1994 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw IrONS) mw
PAPER CARDBOARD 18,087 11.1% 816 4.9% 18,904 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 4,912 3.0% 3,649 21.8% 8,561 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 11,111 6.8% 604 3.6% 11,716 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 873 0.5% 14 0.1% 886 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 15 0.1% 15 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 3,643 2.2% 32 0.2% 3,675 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,080 25% 19 0.1% 4,099 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,344 2.1% 2,253 13.5% 5,597 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,751 1.1% 51 0.3% 1,802 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 303 0.2% 264 1.6% 567 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 78 0.5% 78 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 24,112 14.8% 668 4.0% 24,780 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 5,339 3.3% 5,339 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 6,491 4.0% 6,491 3.6%
APHALT 488 0.3% 488 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 14,508 8.9% 14,508 8.1%
ROOFING 190 0.1% 190 0.1%
DRYWALL 297 0.2% 297 0.2%
MIXED 18,339 11.2% 18,339 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,123 1.3% 166 1.0% 2,288 1.3% 0.1 %
OTHER MISC. 42,858 26.3% 42,858 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 213 0.1% 8,086 48.4% 8,299 4.6% 4.5%
d
TOTALS 163,064 16,715 179,779 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1995 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw (TONS) (TOW
PAPER CARDBOARD 18,934 11.1% 855 4.9% 19,789 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,142 3.0% 3,820 21.8% 8,962 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 11,632 6.8% 633 3.6% 12,264 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 914 0.5% 14 0.1% 928 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 855 4.9% 16 0.0% 0.5%
PLASTIC FlLh4 PLASTIC 3,814 2.2% 33 0.2% 3,847 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,271 2.5% 28 0.1% 4,291 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,501 2.1% 2,359 13.5% 5,860 3.1% 1.3%
METALS TIN CANS 1,834 1.1% 53 0.3% 1,887 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 317 0.2% 276 1.6% 593 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 81 0.5% 81 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 25,242 14.8% 700 4.0% 25,941 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 5.589 3.3% 5,589 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 6,795 4.0% 6,795 3.6%
APHALT 511 0.3% 511 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 15,188 8.9% 15,188 8.1%
ROOFING 199 0.1% 199 0.1%
DRYWALL 311 0.2% 311 0.2%
MIXED 19,198 11.2% 19,198 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,222 1.3% 174 1.0% 2,396 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 44,866 26.3% 44,866 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 223 0.1% 8,465 48.4% 8,688 4.6% 4.5%
II
TOTALS 170,702 17,498 188,200 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1996 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) (rONS) (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 19,308 11.1% 872 4.9% 20,180 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,244 3.0% 3,895 21.8% 9,139 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 11,862 6.8% 645 3.6% 12,507 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 932 0.5% 14 0.1% 946 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 16 0.1% 16 0.0% 0.0%
PIASTIC FILM msnc 3,889 2.2% 34 0.2% 3,923 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLAsnc 4,355 2.5% 20 0.1% 4,376 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,570 2.1% 2,405 13.5% 5,975 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,870 1.1% 54 0.3% 1,924 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 324 0.2% 282 1.6% 605 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 83 0.5% 83 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 25,740 14.8% 713 4.0% 26,454 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 5,700 3.3% 5,700 3.0%
,
. CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 6,929 4.0% 6,929 3.6%
APHALT 521 0.3% 521 0.3%
DIRTIROCKSISAND 15,488 8.9% 15,488 8.1%
ROOFING 203 0.1% 203 0.1%
DRYWALL 317 0.2% 317 0.2%
MIXED 19,577 11.2% 19,577 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,266 1.3% 177 1.0% 2,443 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 45,752 26.3% 45,752 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 228 0.1% 8,632 48.4% 8,860 4.6% 4.5%
d
TOTALS 174,074 17,843 191,917 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1997 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) (rONS) row
PAPER CARDBOARD 19,682 11.1% 888 4.9% 20,511 10.5% 0.5%
NWSPAPER 5,345 3.0% 3,970 21.8% 9,316 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 12,091 6.8% 658 3.6% 12,749 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 950 0.5% 15 0.1% 964 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 17 0.1% 17 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 3,965 2.2% 35 0.2% 3,999 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,440 2.5% 21 0.1% 4,461 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,639 2.1% 2,452 13.5% 6,091 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,906 1.1% 55 0.3% 1,961 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 330 0.2% 287 1.6% 617 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 84 0.5% 84 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 26,239 14.8% 727 4.0% 26,966 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 5,810 3.3% 5,810 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,063 4.0% 7,063 3.6%
APHALT 531 0.3% 531 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 15,788 8.9% 15,788 8.1%
ROOFING 207 0.1% 207 0.1%
DRYWALL 324 0.2% 324 0.2%
MIXED 19,956 11.2% 19,956 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,310 1.3% 181 1.0% 2,490 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 46,638 26.3% 46,638 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 232 0.1% 8,799 48.4% 9,031 4.6% 4.5%
.
b
TOTALS 177,445 18,189 195,634 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1998 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw IrONS) CFONS)
PAPER CARDBOARD 20,056 11.1% 905 4.9% 20,962 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,447 3.0% 4,046 21.8% 9,493 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 12,321 6.8% 670 3.6% 12,991 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 968 0.5% 15 0.1% 983 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 17 0.1% 17 0.0% 0.0%
PLAsnc FILM PLASTIC 4,040 2.2% 35 0.2% 4,075 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,524 2.5% 21 0.1% 4,545 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,708 2.1% 2,498 13.5% 6,207 3.1% 1.3%
TIN CANS 1,942 1.1% 56 0.3% 1,998 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUMCANS , 336 0.2% 292 1.6% 629 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 86 0.5% 86 0.0% 0.0%
METALS
YARD WASTE 26,737 14.8% 741 4.0% 27,478 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 5,920 3.3% 5,920 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,197 4.0% 7,197 3.6%
APHALT 541 0.3% 541 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 16,088 8.9% 16,088 8.1%
ROOFING 211 0.1% 211 0.1%
DRYWALL 330 0.2% 330 0.2%
MIXED 20,335 11.2% 20,335 10.2%
DIAPERS 2,354 1.3% 184 1.0% 2,538 1.3% 0.1%
SPECIAL WASTES 236 0.1% 8,966 48.4% 9,203 4.6% 4.5%
,
OTHER
OTHER MISC. 47,524 26.3% 47,524 23.8%
A
TOTALS 180,816 18,535 199,351 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1999 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
PW ws) Crow
PAPER
CARDBOARD 20,430 11.1% 922 4.9% 21,352 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,548 3.0% 4,121 21.8% 9,670 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 12,551 6.8% 682 3.6% 13,233 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 986 0.5% 15 0.1% 1,001 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 4,121 21.8% 17 0.0% 2.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 4,115 2.2% 36 0.2% 4,151 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,609 2.5% 22 0.1% 4,630 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,777 2.1% 2,545 13.5% 6,322 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,978 1.1% 57 0.3% 2,036 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 342 0.2% 298 1.6% 640 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 88 0.5% 88 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 27,236 14.8% 755 4.0% 27,991 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,031 3.3% 6,031 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,332 4.0% 7,332 3.6%
APHALT 551 0.3% 551 0.3% DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 16,388 8.9% 16,388 8.1%
ROOFING 215 0.1% 215 0.1%
DRYWALL 336 0.2% 336 0.2% MIXED 20,714 11.2% 20,714 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,397 1.3% 187 1.0% 2,585 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 48,410 26.3% 48,410 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 241 0.1% 9,134 48.4% 9,375 4.6% 4.5%
d
TOTALS 184,187 18,880 203,067 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
2000 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % (row YrONS) ms)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 20,804 11.1% 939 4.9% 21,743 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,650 3.0% 4,197 21.8% 9,847 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 12,780 6.8% 695 3.6% 13,475 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 1,004 0.5% 16 0.1% 1,019 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 18 0.1% 18 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM msnc 4,191 2.2% 37 0.2% 4,227 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,693 2.5% 22 0.1% 4,715 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,846 2.1% 2,592 13.5% 6,438 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,015 1.1% 58 0.3% 2,073 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 349 0.2% 303 1.6% 652 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 89 0.5% 89 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 27,734 14.8% 769 4.0% 28,503 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,141 3.3% 6,141 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,466 4.0% 7,466 3.6%
APHALT 561 0.3% 561 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 16,688 8.9% 16,688 8.1%
ROOFING 219 0.1% 219 0.1%
DRYWALL 342 0.2% 342 0.2%
MIXED 21,093 11.2% 21,093 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,441 1.3% 191 1.0% 2,632 1.3% 0.1 %
OTHER MISC. 49,296 26.3% 49,296 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 245 0.1% 9,301 48.4% 9,546 4.6% 4.5%
,
8
TOTALS 187,558 19,226 206,784 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
2001 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
CrOW CrONS) CrOW
PAPER
CARDBOARD 21,188 11.1% 956 4.9% 22,144 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,754 3.0% 4,274 21.8% 10,028 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 13,016 6.8% 708 3.696 13,724 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 1,022 0.5% 16 0.1% 1,038 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 18 0.1% 18 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 4,268 2.2% 37 0.2% 4,305 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,779 2.5% 22 0+1% 4,802 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,917 2.1% 2,639 13.5% 6,557 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,052 1.1% 60 0.3% 2,111 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 355 0.2% 309 1.6% 664 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 91 0.5% 91 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 28,246 14.8% 783 4.0% 29,028 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,254 3.3% 6,254 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,603 4.0% 7,603 3.6%
APHALT 572 0.3% 572 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 16,995 8.9% 16,995 8.1%
ROOFING 223 0.1% 223 0.1%
DRYWALL 348 0.2% 348 0.2%
MIXED 21,482 11.2% 21,482 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,486 1.3% 194 1.0% 2,681 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 50,205 26.3% 50,205 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 250 0.1% 9,472 48.4% 9,722 4.6% 4.5%
1
TOTALS 191,016 19,580 210,596 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
2002 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(r0W mw flow
PAPER
CARDBOARD 21,571 11.1% 974 4.9% 22,545 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,858 3.0% 4,351 21.8% 10,210 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 13,251 6.8% 721 3.6% 13,972 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 1,041 0.5% 16 0.1% 1,057 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 18 0.1% 18 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 4,345 2.2% 38 0.2% 4,383 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,866 25% 23 0.1% 4,889 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 3,988 2.1% 2,687 13.5% 6,675 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,089 1.1% 61 0.3% 2,149 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 362 0.2% 315 1.6% 676 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 92 0.5% 92 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 28,756 14.8% 797 4.0% 29,553 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,367 3.3% 6,367 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,741 4.0% 7,741 3.6%
APHALT 582 0.3% 582 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 17,303 8.9% 17,303 8.1%
ROOFING 227 0.1% 227 0.1%
DRYWALL 355 0.2% 355 0.2%
MIXED 21,871 11.2% 21,871 10.2%
,
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,531 1.3% 198 1.0% 2,729 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 51,113 26.3% 51,113 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 254 0.1% 9,644 48.4% 9,898 4.6% 4.5%
P
TOTALS 194,471 19,934 21 4,405 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
2003 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS *
GENERATED DNERTED DISPOSED DNERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) (TONS) WNS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 21,954 11.1% 991 4.9% 22,945 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 5,962 3.0% 4,429 21.8% 10,391 4.8% 2.0%
0.3% MIXED PAPER
HG LEDGER 1,059 0.5% 16 0.1% 1,076 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 991 4.9% 19 0.0% 0.5%
Pusnc
FILM PLASTIC 4,422 2.2% 39 0.2% 4,461 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 4,952 2.5% 23 0.1% 4,975 2.3% 0.0%
13,487 6.8% 733 3.6% 14,220 6.5%
GLASS 4,059 2.1% 2,735 13.5% 6,794 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,126 1.1% 62 0.3% 2,188 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 368 0.2% 320 1.6% 688 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 94 0.5% 94 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 29,268 14.8% 811 4.0% 30,079 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,481 3.3% 6,481 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 7,879 4.0% 7,879 3.6%
APHALT 592 0.3% 592 0.3%
17,610 8.1% DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 17,610 8.9%
ROOFING 231 0.1% 231 0.1%
DRYWALL 361 0.2% 361 0.2%
MIXED 22,260 11.2% 22,260 10.2%
DIAPERS 2,576 1.3% 201 1.0% 2,778 1.3% 0.1%
SPECIAL WASTES 259 0.1% 9,815 48.4% 10,074 4.6% 4.5%
OTHER
OTHER MISC. 52.021 26.3% 52,021 23.8%
II
TOTALS 197,928 20,289 218,217 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
2004 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(ro” CrOW VOW
PAPER
CARDBOARD 22,338 11.1% 1,008 4.9% 23,346 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 6,067 3.0% 4,506 21.8% 10,573 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 13,723 6.8% 746 3.6% 14,469 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 1,078 0.5% 17 0.1% 1,095 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 19 0.1% 19 0.0% 0.0%
PLAsTic
FILM PLASTIC 4,499 2.2% 40 0.2% 4,539 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 5,039 2.5% 24 0.1% 5,062 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 4,130 2.1% 2,783 13.5% 6,913 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,163 1.1% 63 0.3% 2,226 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 374 0.2% 326 1.6% 700 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 96 0.5% 96 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 29,779 14.8% 825 4.0% 30,604 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,594 3.3% 6,594 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 8,016 4.0% 8,016 3.6%
APHALT 603 0.3% 603 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 17,918 8.9% 17,918 8.1%
ROOFING 235 0.1% 235 0.1%
DRYWALL 367 0.2% 367 0.2%
MIXED 22,648 11.2% 22,648 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,621 1.3% 205 1.0% 2,826 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 52,930 26.3% 52,930 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 263 0.1% 9,986 48.4% 10,250 4.6% 4.5%
,
d
TOTALS 201,385 20,643 222,028 9.3%
~
CARL1 .WQ1
2005 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw VOW VOW
PAPER CARDBOARD 22,721 11.1% 1,026 4.9% 23,747 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 6,171 3.0% 4,583 21.8% 10,754 4.8% 20%
MIXED PAPER 13,958 6.8% 759 3.6% 14,717 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 1,096 0.5% 17 0.1% 1,113 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 19 0.1% 19 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 4,577 2.2% 40 0.2% 4,617 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 5,125 2.5% 24 0.1% 5,149 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 4,201 2.1% 2,830 13.5% 7,031 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,200 1.1% 64 0.3% 2,264 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 381 0.2% 331 1.6% 712 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 97 0.5% 97 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 30,290 14.8% 839 4.0% 31,129 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,707 3.3% 6,707 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 8,154 4.0% 8,154 3.6%
APHALT 613 0.3% 613 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 18,225 8.9% 18,225 8.1%
ROOFING 239 0.1% 239 0.1%
DRYWALL 373 0.2% 373 0.2%
MIXED 23,037 11.2% 23,037 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,666 1.3% 208 1.0% 2,875 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 53,838 26.3% 53,838 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 268 0.1% 10,158 48.4% 10,426 4.6% 4.5%
c
TOTALS 204,840 20,997 225,838 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
2006 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
WNS) mw Irons)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 23,104 11.1% 1,043 4.9% 24,147 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 6,275 3.0% 4,661 21.8% 10,936 4.8% 20%
MIXED PAPER 14,1!3$ 6.8% 772 3.6% 14,965 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 1,115 0.5% 17 0.1% 1,132 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 20 0.1% 20 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 4,654 2.2% 41 0.2% 4,695 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 5,212 2.5% 24 0.1% 5,236 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 4,272 2.1% 2,878 13.5% 7,150 3.1% 1.3%
METALS
TIN CANS 2,237 1.1% 65 0.3% 2,302 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 387 0.2% 337 1.6% 724 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 99 0.5% 99 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 30,801 14.8% 854 4.0% 31,655 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 6,820 3.3% 6,820 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 8,291 4.0% 8,291 3.6%
APHALT 623 0.3% 623 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 18,533 8.9% 18,533 8.1%
ROOFING 243 0.1% 243 0.1%
DRYWALL 380 0.2% 380 0.2%
MIXED 23,426 11.2% 23,426 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,711 1.3% 212 1.0% 2,923 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 54,747 26.3% 54,747 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 272 0.1% 10,329 48.4% 10,602 4.6% 4.5%
,
4
I)
TOTALS 208,298 21,352 229,649 9.3%
CARL1 .WQ1
1990 WASTE GENERATION COMPOSITION
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw (TONS) CrOW
PAPER CARDBOARD 14,698 11.1% 664 4.9% 15,362 10.5% 0.5%
MIXED PAPER 9,029 6.8% 491 3.6% 9,520 6.5% 0.3%
NEWSPAPER 3,992 3.0% 2,965 21.8% 6,957 4.8% 2.0%
HG LEDGER 709 0.5% 11 0.1% '720 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 13 0.1% 13 0.0% 0.0%
pusnc FILM pusnc 2,961 2.2% 26 0.2% 2,987 2.0% 0.0%
HARD PLASTIC 3,316 2.5% * 16 0.1% 3,331 23% 0.0%
GLASS 2,718 2.1% 1,831 13.5% 4,548 3.1% 1.3%
METALS TIN CANS 1,423 1.1% 41 0.3% 1,465 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 246 0.2% 214 1.6% 461 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 63 6.5% 63 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 19,594 14.8% 543 4.0% 20,137 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 4,339 3.3% 4,339 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 5,275 4.0% 5,275 3.6%
APHALT 397 0.3% 397 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 11,790 8.9% 11,790 8.1%
ROOFtNG 155 0.1% 155 0.1%
DRYWALL 242 0.2% 242 0.2%
MIXED 14,902 11.2% 14,902 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 1,725 1.3% 135 1.0% 1,860 1.3% 0.1 %
MISCELANEOUS 34,828 26.3% 34,828 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 173 0.1% 6,571 48.4% 6,744 4.6% 4.5%
4
TOTALS 132,510 13,583 146,092 9.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 135 0.1%
RECYCLING 6,334 4.3%
COMP OSTING 543 0.4%
SPECIAL WASTE 6,571 4.5%
13,583 9.3%
CARL2.WQl
1991 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS
GENERATED DIVERTED DISPOSED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) (TOW lroW
PAPER
CARDBOARD 15,545 11.1% 696 4.9% 16,247 10.5% 0.5%
NEWSPAPER 4,222 3.0% 3,111 21.8% 7,358 4.8% 2.0%
MIXED PAPER 9,550 6.8% 515 3.6% 10,069 6.5% 0.3%
HG LEDGER 750 0.5% 12 0.1% 762 0.5% 0.0%
COMPUTER 13 0.1% 13 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM pmsnc 3,131 2.2% 27 0.2% 3,159 2.0% 0.0%
HARD pmsnc 3,507 2.5% 16 0.1% 3,523 2.3% 0.0%
GLASS 2,874 2.1% 1,921 13.5% 4,810 3.1% 1.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,505 1.1% 43 0.3% 1,549 1.0% 0.0%
ALUMINUM CANS 261 0.2% 225 1.6% 487 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 66 0.5% 67 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 20,724 14.8% 570 4.0% 21,298 13.8% 0.4%
WOOD WASTE 4,589 3.3% 4,589 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCREFE 5,579 4.0% 5,579 3.6%
APHALT 419 0.3% 419 0.3%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 12,470 8.9% 12,469 8.1%
ROOFING 163 0.1% 163 0.1%
DRYWALL 256 0.2% 256 0.2%
MIXED 15,762 11.2% 15,761 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 1,824 1.3% 141 1.0% 1,967 1.3% 0.1% OTHER MISC. 36,835 26.3% 36,835 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 183 0.1% 6,893 48.4% 7,133 4.6% 4.5%
z
TOTALS 140,149 14,249 15431 4 9.2%
TONS DNERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 141 0.1%
RECYCLING 6,645 4.3%
COMPOSTING 570 0.4%
SPECIAL WASTE 6,893 4.5%
14,249 9.2%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
12.1%
2.3%
CARK.WQ1
1992 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DIVERTED DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
TONS) (TONS) (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 14,820 10.5% 2,313 10.9% 17,133 10.5% 1.4%
NEWSPAPER 6,712 4.7% 1,047 5.0% 7,759 4.8% 0.6%
MIXED PAPER 9,184 6.5% 1,433 6.8% 10,617 6.5% 0.9%
HG LEDGER 695 0.5% 108 0.5% 803 0.5% 0.1%
COMPUTER 12 0.0% 2 0.0% 14 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC FILM PLASTIC 2,881 2.0% 450 2.1% 3,331 2.0% 0.3%
HARD PLASTIC 3,214 2.3% 502 2.4% 3,715 2.3% 0.3%
GLASS 4,388 3.1% 685 3.2% 5,073 3.1% 0.4%
METALS TIN CANS 1,413 1.0% 221 1.0% 1,633 1.0% 0.1%
ALUMINUM CANS 445 0.3% 69 0.3% 514 0.3% 0.0%
MISC. METALS 61 0.0% 10 0.0% 71 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 19,090 13.5% 3,369 15.9% 22,459 13.8% 2.1%
WOOD WASTE 4,113 2.9% 726 3.4% 4,839 3.0% 0.4%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 5,089 3.6% 794 3.8% 5,883 3.6% 0.5%
APHALT 383 0.3% 60 0.3% 442 0.3% 0.0%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 11,374 8.0% i,n5 8.4% 13,149 8.1% 1.1%
ROOFING 172 0.1% 172 0.1%
DRYWALL 269 0.2% 269 0.2%
MIXED 16,620 11.7% 16,620 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 1,924 1.4% 150 0.7% 2,074 1.3% 0.1% OTHER MISC. 38,843 27.4% 38,843 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES n 0.1% 7,444 35.2% 7,521 4.6% 4.6% R
TOTALS 141,777 21,158 162,935 13.0%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 150 0.1%
RECYCLING 9,468 5.8%
COMPOSTING 4,095 2.5%
SPECIAL WASTE 7,444 4.6%
21,158 13.0%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 13.5%
15.0%
CARL2.WQl
1993 WASTE GENERATlON PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw (row (FONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 14,865 10.5% 3,153 10.8% 18,018 10.5% 1.8%
NEWSPAPER 6,732 4.7% 1,428 4.9% 8,160 4.8% 0.8%
MKED PAPER 9,212 6.5% 1,951 6.7% 11,166 6.5% 1.1%
HG LEDGER 697 0.5% 148 0.5% 845 0.5% 0.1 %
COMPUTER 12 0.0% 3 0.0% 15 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 2,890 2.0% 613 2.1% 3,503 2.0% 0.4%
HARD PLASTIC 3,223 23% 684 2.3% 3,907 2.3% 0.4%
GLASS 4,401 3.1% 934 3.2% 5,335 3.1% 0.5%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,417 1.0% 301 1.0% 1,718 1.0% 0.2%
ALUMINUM CANS 446 0.3% 95 0.3% 541 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 61 0.0% 13 0.0% 74 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 16,770 11.8% 6,850 23.4% 23,620 13.8% 4.0% *
WOOD WASTE 3,613 2.5% 1,476 5.0% 5,089 3.0% 0.9% -
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 5,104 3.6% 1,083 3.7% 6,187 3.6% 0.6%
APHALT 384 0.3% 81 0.3% 465 0.3% 0.0%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 11,409 8.0% 2,420 8.3% 13,829 8.1% 1.4%
ROOFING 181 0.1% 181 0.1%
DRYWALL 283 0.2% 283 0.2%
MIXED 17,480 12.3% 17,480 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,015 1.4% 166 0.6% 2,181 1.3% 0.1 %
OTHER MISC. 40,851 28.7% 40,851 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 81 0.1% 7,829 26.8% 7,910 4.6% 4.6% A
TOTALS 142,128 29,229 171,357 17.1%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 166 0.1%
RECYCLING 12,908 7.5%
COMPOSTING 8,325 4.9%
SPECIAL WASTE 7,829 4.6%
29,229 17.1%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCIABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
17.5%
29.0%
CARL2.WQl
1994 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) (TONS) (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 14,461 10.3% 4,442 11.2% 18,904 10.5% 2.5%
NEWSPAPER 6,549 4.7% 2,012 5.1% 8,561 4.8% 1.1%
MIXED PAPER 8,962 6.4% 2,753 6.9% 11,715 6.5% 1.5%
HG LEDGER 678 0.5% 208 0.5% 886 0.5% 0.1 %
COMPUTER 12 0.0% 4 0.0% 15 0.0% 0.0%
PLASnC FILM PLASTIC 2,812 2.0% 864 22% 3,675 2.0% 0.5%
HARD PLASTIC 3,136 2.2% 963 2.4% 4,099 2.3% 0.5%
GLASS 4,282 3.1% 1,315 3.3% 5,597 3.1% 0.7%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,379 1.0% 424 1.1% 1,802 1.0% 0.2%
ALUMINUM CANS 434 0.3% 133 0.3% 567 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 60 0.0% 18 0.0% 78 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 14,001 10.0% 10,779 27.2% 24,780 13.8% 6.0%
WOOD WASTE' 3,017 2.2% 2,323 5.9% 5,339 3.0% 1.3%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 4,966 3.5% 1,525 3.8% 6,491 3.6% 0.8%
APHALT 373 0.3% 115 0.3% 488 0.3% 0.1 %
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 11,099 7.9% 3,409 8.6% 14,508 8.1% 1.9%
ROOFING 190 0.1% 190 0.1%
DRYWALL 297 0.2% 297 0.2%
MIXED 18,339 13.1% 18,339 10.2%
OTHER
DWPERS 2,122 1.5% 166 0.4% 2,288 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 42,858 30.6% 42,858 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 85 0.1% 8,214 20.7% 8,299 4.6% 4.6% P
TOTALS 140,111 39,668 179,779 22.1 %
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 166 0.1%
RECYCLJNG 18,186 10.1%
COMPOSTING 13,102 7.3%
SPECIAL WASTE 8,214 4.6%
39,668 22.1%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
23.5%
43.5%
CARL2.WQl
1995 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % Irow WNS) (ro”
PAPER
CARDBOARD 14,110 10.3% 5,680 11.1% 19,789 10.5% 3.0%
NEWSPAPER 6,390 4.7% 2,572 5.0% 8,962 4.8% 1.4%
MIXED PAPER 8,744 6.4% 3,520 6.9% 12,264 6.5% 1.9%
HG LEDGER 661 0.5% 266 0.5% 928 0.5% 0.1 %
COMPUTER 12 0.0% 5 0.0% 16 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 2743 2.0% 1,104 22% 3,847 2.0% 0.6%
HARD PLASTIC 3,060 2.2% 1,232 24% 4,291 2.3% 0.7%
GLASS 4,178 3.0% 1,682 3.3% 5,859 3.1% 0.9%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,345 1.0% 541 1.1% 1,887 1.0% 0.3%
ALUMINUM CANS 423 0.3% 170 0.3% 594 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 58 0.0% 23 0.0% a2 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 10,376 7.6% 15,565 30.6% 25,941 13.8% 8.3% *
WOOD WASTE 2,236 1.6% 3,354 6.6% 5,589 3.0% 1.8%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCREFE 4,845 3.5% 1,950 3.8% 6,795 3.6% 1 .Q%
APHALT 364 0.3% 147 0.3% 511 0.3% 0.1%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 10,829 7.9% 4,359 8.6% 15,188 8.1% 2.3%
ROOFING 199 0.1% 199 0.1%
DRYWALL 311 0.2% 311 0.2%
MIXED 19,198 14.0% 19,198 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,222 1.6% 174 0.3% 2,396 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 44,866 32.7% 44,866 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 89 0.1% 8,599 16.9% 8,688 4.6% 4.6% Q
TOTALS 137,259 50,941 188,200 27.1 %
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 174 0.1%
RECYCLING 23,251 12.4%
COMPOSTING 18,918 10.1%
SPECIAL WASTE 8,599 4.6%
50,941 27.1%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
28.7%
60.0%
CARU.WQ1
1996 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
GENERATED DIVERTED DISPOSED DNERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WElGHF % % m CrONS) (TONS)
PAPER CARDBOARD 12,855 9.7% 7,325 12.2% 20,180 10.5% 3.8%
NEWSPAPER 5,822 4.4% 3,318 5.5% 9,139 4.8% 1.7%
MIXED PAPER 7,966 6.0% 4,540 7.6% 12,506 6.5% 2.4%
HG LEDGER 603 0.5% 343 0.6% 946 0.5% 0.2%
COMPUTER 11 0.0% 6 0.0% 16 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC FILM PLASTIC 2,499 1.9% 1,424 2.4% 3,923 2.0% 0.7%
HARD PLASTIC 2,787 2.1% 1,588 2.7% 4,376 2.3% 0.8%
GLASS 3,806 2.9% 2,169 3.6% 5,975 3.1% 1.1%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,226 0.9% 698 1.2% 1,924 1.0% 0.4%
ALUMINUM CANS 386 0.3% 220 0.4% 605 0.3% 0.1 %
MISC. METALS 53 0.0% 30 0.1% 83 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 9,259 7.0% 17,195 28.7% 26,454 13.8% 9.0%
WOOD WASTE 1,995 1.5% 3,705 6.2% 5,700 3.0% 1.9%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 4,414 3.3% 2,515 4.2% 6,929 3.6% 4.3%
APHALT 332 0.3% 189 0.3% 521 0.3% 0.1%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 9,866 7.5% 5,622 9.4% 15,488 8.1% 2.9%
ROOFING 203 0.2% 203 0.1%
DRYWALL 317 0.2% 317 0.2%
MIXED 19,577 14.8% 19,577 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,266 1.7% 177 0.3% 2,443 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 45,752 34.6% 45,752 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 91 0.1% 8,769 14.7% 8,859 4.6% 4.6% ,a
TOTALS 132,083 59,834 191,917 31.2%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION I77 0.1%
RECYCLING 29,988 15.6%
COMPOSTING 20,900 10.9%
SPECIAL WASTE 8.769 4.6%
59,834 31.2%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
36.3%
65.0%
CARL2.WQl
1997 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
Tow (ro” CrOW
PAPER
CARDBOARD 11,211 9.0% 9,360 13.2% 20,571 10.5% 4.8%
NEWSPAPER 5,077 4.1% 4,239 6.0% 9,316 4.8% 2.2%
MIXED PAPER 6,948 5.6% 5,800 8.2% 12,748 6.5% 3.0%
HG LEDGER 526 0.4% 439 0.6% 964 0.5% 0.2%
COMPUTER 9 0.0% 8 0.0% 17 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM Pmsnc 2,180 1.7% 1,820 2.6% 3,999 2.0% 0.9%
HARD PLAsTic 2,431 1.9% 2,030 2.9% 4,461 2.3% 1 .O%
GLASS 3,319 2.7% 2,771 3.9% 6,091 3.1% 1.4%
METALS
TIN CANS 1,069 0.9% 892 1.3% 1,961 1.0% 0.5%
ALUMINUM CANS 336 0.3% 281 0.4% 617 0.3% 0.1%
MISC. METALS 46 0.0% 39 0.1% 85 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 7,820 6.3% 19,146 27.1% 26,966 13.8% 9.8%
WOOD WASTE 1,685 1.3% 4,125 5.8% 5,810 3.0% 2.1 %
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 3,849 3.1% 3,214 4.5% 7,063 3.6% 1.6%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 8,604 6.9% 7,183 10.2% 15,788 8.1% 3.7%
ROOFING 207 0.2% 207 0.1%
DRYWALL 324 0.3% 324 0.2%
MIXED 19,956 16.0% 19,956 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,310 1.8% 181 0.3% 2,490 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 46,638 37.3% 46,638 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 92 0.1% 8,938 12.6% 9,031 4.6% 4.6%
.
APHALT 289 0.2% . 242 0.3% 531 0.3% 0.1%
4
TOTALS 124,927 70,707 195,634 36.1%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 181 0.1%
RECYCLING 38,317 19.6%
COMPOSTING 23,271 11.9%
SPECIAL WASTE 8,938 4.6%
70,707 36.1%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL 6F WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
45.5%
71 .O%
CARL2.WQ1
1998 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(FOW (TONS) IrOW
PAPER
NEWSPAPER 4,319 3.7% 5,174 6.3% 9,493 4.8% 2.6%
CARDBOARD 9,538 8.1% 11,424 13.9% 20,962 10.5% 5.7%
MIXED PAPER 5,911 5.0% 7,080 8.6% 12,990 6.5% 3.6%
HG LEDGER 447 0.4% 536 0.7% 983 0.5% 0.3% *
COMPUTER 8 0.0% 9 0.0% 17 0.0% 0.0%
PLAsnc
FILM PLASTIC 1,854 1.6% 2,221 2.7% 4,075 2.0% 1.1%
HARD PLASTIC 2,068 1.8% 2,477 3.0% 4,545 2.3% 1.2%
GLASS 2,824 2.4% 3,382 4.1% 6,206 3.1% 1.7%
METALS
TIN CANS 909 0.8% 1,089 1.3% 1,999 1.0% 0.5%
ALUMINUM CANS 286 0.2% 343 0.4% 629 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 39 0.0% 47 0.1% 86 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 5,908 5.0% 21,570 26.2% 27,478 13.8% 10.8%
WOOD WASTE 1,273 1.1% 4,648 5.6% 5,920 3.0% ' 2.3%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 3,275 2.8% 3,923 4.8% 7,197 3.6% 2.0%
APHALT 246 0.2% 295 0.4% 541 0.3% 0.1 %
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 7,320 6.3% 8,768 10.7% 16,088 8.1% 4.4%
ROOFING 211 0.2% 211 0.1%
DRYWALL 330 0.3% 330 0.2%
MIXED 20,335 17.4% 20,335 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2353 2.0% 184 0.2% 2,538 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 47,524 40.6% 47,524 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 94 0.1% 9,108 11.1% p 9,202 4.6% 4.6%
TOTALS 1 17,073 82,278 199,351 41.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 184 0.1%
RECYCLING 46,768 23.5%
COMPOSTING 26,218 13.2%
SPECIAL WASTE 9,108 4.6%
82,278 41.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
54.5%
78.5%
CARW.WQ1
1999 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DNERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw mw IrOW
PAPER
CARDBOARD 7,986 7.2% 13,367 14.5% 21,353 10.5% 6.6%
NEWSPAPER 3.617 3.3% 6,054 6.6% 9,670 4.8% 3.0%
MIXED PAPER 4,949 4.5% 8,284 9.0% 13,232 6.5% 4.1%
HG LEDGER 374 0.3% 627 0.7% 1,001 0.5% 0.3%
COMPUTER 7 0.0% 11 0.0% 17 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM Pusnc 1,553 1.4% 2,599 2.8% ’ 4,151 2.0% 1.3%
HARD pusnc 1,732 1.6% 2,898 3.2% 4,630 2.3% 1.4%
GLASS 2,364 2.1% 3,958 4.3% 6,322 3.1% 1.9%
METALS
TIN CANS 761 0.7% 1,274 1.4% 2,036 1.0% 0.6%
ALUMINUM CANS 240 0.2% 401 0.4% 641 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 33 0.0% 55 0.1% 88 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 5,178 4.7% 22,812 24.8% 27,990 13.8% 11.2% *
WOOD WASTE 1,116 1.0% 4,915 5.3% 6,031 3.0% 2.4%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2,742 2.5% 4,590 5.0% 7,332 3.6% 2.3%
APHALT 206 0.2% 345 0.4% 551 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 6,129 5.5% 10,259 11.2% 16,388 8.1% 5.1 %
ROOFING 215 0.2% 215 0.1%
DRYWALL 336 0.3% 336 0.2%
MIXED 20,714 18.6% 20,714 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,398 2.2% 187 0.2% 2,585 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 48,410 43.6% 48,410 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 96 0.1% 9,278 10.1% 9,374 4.6% 4.6% P
TOTALS 111,154 91,913 203,067 45.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION la7 0.1%
RECYCLING 54,720 26.9%
COMPOSTING 27,727 13.7%
SPECIAL WASTE 9,278 4.6% 91,913 45.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
62.6%
81.5%
CARL2.WQl
2000 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % ms) (TONS) (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 6,045 5.996 15,699 15.1% 21,743 10.5% 7.6%
NEWSPAPER 2,738 2.7% 7,110 6.8% 9,847 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 3,746 3.6% 9,729 9.4% 13,475 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 283 0.3% 736 0.7% 1,019 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 13 0.0% 18 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
HARD PLASTIC 1,311 1.3% 3,404 3.3% 4,715 2.3% 1.6%
FILM PLASTIC 1,175 1.1% 3,052 2.9% 4,227 2.0% 1.5%
GLASS 1,790 1.7% 4,648 4.5% 6,438 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 576 0.6% 1,497 1.4% 2,073 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 181 0.2% 471 0.5% 652 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 25 0.0% 65 0.1% 90 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE . 3,705 3.6% 24,797 23.8% 28,503 13.8% 12.0%
WOOD WASTE 798 0.8% 5,343 5.1% 6,141 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2.076 2.0% 5,390 5.2% 7,466 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 156 0.2% 405 0.4% 561 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 4,639 4.5% 12,049 11.6% 16,688 8.1% 5.8%
ROOFING 219 0.2% 219 0.1%
DRYWALL 342 0.3% 342 0.2%
MIXED 21,093 20.5% 21,093 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,441 2.4% 191 0.2% 2,632 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 49,296 48.0% 49,296 23.8%
SPEClAL WASTES 97 0.1% 9,448 9.1% 9,546 4.6% 4.6% p.
TOTALS 102,738 104,046 206,784 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 191 0.1%
RECYCLING 64,267 31.1%
COMPOSTING 30,140 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 9,448 4.6%
104,046 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
72.2%
87.0%
CARL2.WQl
2001 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR AU WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % crow (row rms)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 6,156 5.9% 15,988 15.1% 22,144 10.5% 7.6%
NEWSPAPER 2,788 2.7% 7,241 6.8% 10,029 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 3,815 3.6% 9,908 9.4% 13,723 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 289 0.3% 750 0.7% 1,038 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 13 0.0% 18 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 1,197 1.1% 3,108 2.9% 4,305 2.0% 1.5%
HARD PLASTIC 1,335 1.3% 3,467 3.3% 4,802 2.3% 1.6%
GLASS 1,823 1.7% 4,734 4.5% 6,556 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 587 0.6% 1,524 1.4% 2,111 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 185 0.2% 480 0.5% 664 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 25 0.0% 66 0.1% 91 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 3,774 3.6% 25,255 23.8% 29,028 13.8% 12.0% .
WOOD WASTE 813 0.8% 5,441 5.1% 6,254 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2,114 2.0% 5,490 5.2% 7,603 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 159 0.2% 413 0.4% 572 0.3% 0.2%
DIAF/ROCKS/SAND 4,725 4.5% 12,271 11.6% 16,995 8.1% 5.8%
ROOFING 223 0.2% 223 0.1%
DRYWALL 348 0.3% 348 0.2%
MIXED 21,482 20.5% 21,482 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,487 2.4% 194 0.2% 2,681 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 50,205 48.0% 50,205 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 99 0.1% 9,622 9.1% 9,722 4.6% 4.6% P
TOTALS 104,632 105,964 21 0,596 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 194 0.1%
RECYCLING 65,452 31.1%
COMPOSING 30,696 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 9,622 4.6%
105,964 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
72.2%
87.0%
CARU.WQ1
2002 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(rONS) (TONS) WNS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 6,267 5.9% 16,277 15.1% 22,545 10.5% 7.6%
NEWSPAPER 2,838 2.7% 7,372 6.8% 10,210 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 3,884 3.6% 10,087 9.4% 13,971 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 294 0.3% 763 0.7% 1,057 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 13 0.0% 18 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 1,219 1.1% 3,165 2.9% 4,383 2.0% 1.5%
HARD PLASTIC 1,359 1.3% 3,530 3.3% 4,889 2.3% 4.6%
GLASS 1,856 1.7% 4,819 4.5% 6,675 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 598 0.6% 1,552 1.4% 2,149 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 188 0.2% 488 0.5% 676 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 26 0.0% 67 0.1% 93 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 3,842 3.6% 25,711 23.8% 29,553 13.8% 4 2.0%
WOODWASTE , 828 0.8% 5,540 5.1% 6,367 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2,152 2.0% 5,589 5.2% 7,741 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 162 0.2% 420 0.4% 582 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 4,810 4.5% 12,493 11.6% 17,303 8.1% 5.8%
ROOFING 227 0.2% 227 0.1%
DRYWALL 355 0.3% 355 0.2% MIXED 21,871 20.5% 21,871 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,531 2.4% 198 0.2% 2,729 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 51,113 48.0% 51,113 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 101 0.1% 9,796 9.1% I) 9,897 4.6% 4.6%
TOTALS 106,524 107,881 214,405 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 198 0.1%
RECYCLING 66,635 31.1%
COMPOSTING 31,251 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 9,796 4.6%
107,881 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
72.2%
87.0%
CARL2.WQl
2003 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DNERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(r0W IFOW ms)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 6,379 5.9% 16,567 15.1% 22,946 10.5% 7.6%
NEWSPAPER 2,889 2.7% 7,503 6.8% 10,392 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 3,953 3.6% 10,267 9.4% 14,220 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 299 0.3% m 0.7% 1,076 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 14 0.0% 19 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC
FILM PLASTIC 1,240 1.1% 3,221 2.9% 4,461 2.0% 1.5% HARD PLASTIC 1,383 1.3% 3,592 3.3% 4,976 2.3% 1.6%
GLASS 1,889 1.7% 4,905 4.5% 6,794 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 608 0.6% 1,579 1.4% 2,188 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 191 0.2% 497 0.5% 688 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 26 0.0% 68 0.1% 95 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 3,910 3.6% 26,168 23.8% 30,079 13.8% 12.0% .
WOOD WASTE 842 '0.8% 5,638 5.1% 6,481 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2,190 2.0% 5,688 5.2% 7,879 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 165 0.2% 428 0.4% 592 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 4,896 4.5% 1,2,715 11.6% 17,610 8.1% 5.8%
ROOFING 231 0.2% 231 0.1%
DRYWALL 361 0.3% 361 0.2%
MIXED 22,260 20.5% 22,260 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,577 2.4% 201 0.2% 2,778 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 52,022 48.0% 52,022 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 103 0.1% 9,970 9.1% R 10,073 4.6% 4.6%
TOTALS 108,419 109,798 21 8,217 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 201 0.1%
RECYCLING 67,020 31.1%
COMPOSTlNG 31,807 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 9,970 4.6%
109,798 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
72.2%
87.0%
CARL2.WQI
2004 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
GENERATED DIVERTED DISPOSED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
(TONS) CFONS) (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 6,490 5.9% 16,856 15.1% 23,346 10.5% 7.6%
N WSPAPER 2,939 2.7% 7,634 6.8% 10,573 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 4,022 3.6% 10,446 9.4% 14,468 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 304 0.3% 790 0.7% 1,095 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 14 0.0% 19 0.0% 0.0%
PLASTIC FILM PLASTIC 1,262 1.1% 3,277 2.9% 4,539 2.0% 1.5%
HARD pmsnc 1,407 1.3% 3,655 3.3% 5,062 2.3% 1.6%
GLASS 1,922 1.7% 4,991 4.5% 6,912 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 619 0.6% 1,607 1.4% 2,226 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 195 0.2% 506 0.5% 700 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 27 0.0% 70 0.1% 96 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 3,979 3.6% 26,625 23.8% 30,604 13.8% 12.0%
WOOD WASTE 857 0.8% 5,737 5.1% 6,594 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRE'IX 2,229 2.0% 5,788 5.2% 8,016 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 168 0.2% 435 0.4% 603 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 4,981 4.5% 12,937 11.6% 17,918 8.1% 5.8%
ROOFING 235 0.2% 235 0.1%
DRYWALL 367 0.3% 367 0.2%
MIXED 22,648 20.5% 22,648 10.2%
OTHER
DIAPERS 2,621 2.4% 205 0.Wo 2,826 1.3% 0.1 %
OTHER MISC. 52,930 48.0% 52,930 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 105 0.1% 10,145 9.1% I) 10,249 4.6% 4.6%
TOTALS 110,312 111,716 222,028 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 205 0.1%
RECYCLING 69,005 31.1%
COMPOSTING 32,362 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 10,145 4.6%
111,716 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM
72.2%
87.0%
CARU.WQ1
2005 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED DISPOSED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % %
IroNs) Crms) (TONS)
PAPER
CARDBOARD 6,602 5.9% 17,145 15.1% 23,747 10.5% 7.6%
NEWSPAPER 2,990 2.7% 7,765 6.8% 10,755 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 4,091 3.6% 10,625 9.4% 14,716 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 309 0.3% 804 0.7% 1,113 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 14 0.0% 19 0.0% 0.0%
PLASnC
FILM PLASTIC 1,283 1.1% 3,333 2.9% 4,617 2.0% 1 5%
HARD PLASTIC 1,432 1.3% 3,710 3.3% 5,149 2.3% 1.6%
GLASS 1,955 1.7% 5,076 4.5% 7,031 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 629 0.6% 1,635 1.4% 2,264 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 198 0.2% 514 0.5% 712 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 27 0.0% 71 0.1% 98 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 4,047 3.6% 27,082 23.8% 31,129 13.8% 12.0% I
WOOD WASTE 872 0.8% 5,835 5.1% 6,707 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2,267 2.0% 5,887 5.2% 8,154 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 170 0.2% 443 0.4% 613 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 5,067 4.5% 13,159 11.6% 18,225 8.1% 5.8% R 0 0 FIN G 239 0.2% 239 0.1%
DRYWALL 373 0.3% 373 0.2%
MIXED 23,037 20.5% 23,037 10.2%
OTHER
OTHER MISC. 53,838 48.0% 53,838 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 107 0.1% 10,319 9.1% 10,425 4.6% 4.6%
DIAPERS 2,667 2.4% 208 0.2% 2,875 1.3% 0.1%
JI
TOTALS 1 12,205 113,633 225,838 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 208 0.1%
RECYCLING 70,189 31.1%
COMPOSTING 32,917 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 10,319 4.6%
113,633 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM 72.2%
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 87.0%
CARL2.WQl
2006 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
FOR ALL WASTE GENERATORS WITH SRRE IMPLEMENTED
DISPOSED DIVERTED GENERATED DIVERTED
WEIGHT % WEIGHT % WEIGHT % % mw IFONS) (rOW
PAPER CARDBOARD 6,713 5.9% 17,435 15.1% 24,148 10.5% 7.6%
NEWSPAPER 3,040 2.7% 7,896 6.8% 10,936 4.8% 3.4%
MIXED PAPER 4,160 3.6% 10,804 9.4% 14,965 6.5% 4.7%
HG LEDGER 315 0.3% 817 0.7% 1,132 0.5% 0.4%
COMPUTER 5 0.0% 14 0.0% 20 0.0% 0.0%
PLArnC
FILM PLASTIC 1,305 1.1% 3,390 2.9% 4,695 2.0% 1.5%
HARD PLASTIC 1,456 1.3% 3,781 3.3% 5,236 2.3% 1.6%
GLASS 1,988 1.7% 5,162 4.5% 7,150 3.1% 2.2%
METALS
TIN CANS 640 0.6% 1,662 1.4% 2,302 1.0% 0.7%
ALUMINUM CANS 201 0.2% 523 0.5% 724 0.3% 0.2%
MISC. METALS 28 0.0% 72 0.1% 100 0.0% 0.0%
YARD WASTE 4,115 3.6% 27,539 23.8% 31,654 13.8% 12.0%
WOOD WASTE 887 0.8% 5,934 5.1% 6,820 3.0% 2.6%
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE 2,305 2.0% 5,986 5.2% 8,291 3.6% 2.6%
APHALT 173 0.2% 450 0.4% 623 0.3% 0.2%
DIRT/ROCKS/SAND 5,152 4.5% 13,381 11.6% 18,533 8.1% 5.8%
ROOFING 243 0.2% 243 0.1%
DRYWALL 380 0.3% 380 0.2%
MIXED 23,426 20.5% 23,426 10.2%
OTHER DIAPERS 2,711 2.4% 212 0.2% 2,923 1.3% 0.1%
OTHER MISC. 54,747 48.0% 54,747 23.8%
SPECIAL WASTES 108 0.1% 10,493 9.1% 10,601 4.6% 4.6%
k
TOTALS 1 14,098 115,551 229,649 50.3%
TONS DIVERSION
SOURCE REDUCTION 212 0.1%
RECYCLING 71,373 31.1%
COMPOSTING 33.473 14.6%
SPECIAL WASTE 10,493 4.6%
1 15,551 50.3%
REMOVAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM RECYCLABLE WASTE STREAM
REMOVAL OF WOOD AND YARD WASTE FROM WOOD AND YARD WASTE STREAM 72.2%
87.0%
CARL2.WQ1
SRRE Checklist page 1
1/29/91 (L)
SRRE CHECKLIST
I. EXECUTIVE SU-Y
11. SOURCE REDUCTION AM> RECYCLING ELWENT
Chapter 1. Statement of Goals and Obiectives (18731)
- Define goals and objectives for short- and medium-term
planning periods. - Include summary of percentages to be diverted through each component program. - Include time frame for achievement of each objective.
Suggestion: this chapter can include a summary of the objectives
listed for each component, and a table sumnarizing percentages diverted and the time frame for each objective.
I
Chapter 2. Solid Waste Generation Analysis (18732)
Along with the solid waste generation analysis outlined in the attachment, the following 4 lists must be included:
7 (a) by specific waste categories, a list of quantities of - materials currently diverted, and a list of quantities of
7 (b) a list of waste materials disposed that could potentially be diverted by programs described in this document - (c) a list of waste materials disposed that can't be diverted and why
. materials currently disposed
n
Chapter 3. Source Reduction Comoonent
1. Objectives (18733.1, 18734.1) (based on Solid Waste Generation Analysis and other local conditions as necessary)
- *: (a) State specific objectives to be accomplished during short and medium-term by this component, including - (1) reducing use of non-recyclable materials - (2) replacing disposable materials with reusable - (3) reducing packaging - (4) reducing amount of yard waste generated - (5) purchasing repairable products
SRRE Checklist page 2
1/29/91
- (6) increasing efficiency of use of materials
(L)
c. , - , (b) Identify priority waste categories or types for diversion - by source reduction, which may be based on - (1) volume/weight/hazard of material - (2) whether material, products, or packaging are made of non-
renewable resources - (3) potential to extend life of materials - (4) whether waste type has limited recyclability
2. Existing Conditions Description (18733.2, 18734.2)
(a) as applicable, include description of existing diversicn alternatives as follows: - I *- (1) Brief description of existing source reduction alternatives currently being done by public and private entities, including govt, commercial, industrial - -* c (2) Quantity (in vol. or wt.) diverted for each alternative,
listed by category and type
o describe, document, and verify methods, assumptions
o ‘nust use best readily available data
--
results
- (3) Description of alternatives that will be decreased in scope, effects of this on existing solid waste management, and effects on attainnent of mandated diversion goals.
NOTE: The above is an irportant section since it will be “used to support ‘the quantif hcation of existing diversicn alternatives to
determine the current percentage of solid waste diverted” o 18733.2
3. Evaluation of Alternatives (18733.3, 18734.3)
- (a) Ezch alternative shall be evalhated in terns of - (1) effectiveness in reduction of waste - (2) hazards created - (3) ability to accommodate change - (4) consequences on the waste (i.e., shifts) - (5) whether can be implemented in shorr- and medium-tern
- (6) need for expanding/building facilities
- (1) consistency with local conditions - (2) institutional barriers to implementation - (3) estimate of costs - (4) availability of end uses of diverted materials
planning periods
(b) For each alternative also include discussion of
-
SRRE Checklist page 3
1/29 J91
(20
(c) Four specific source reduction alternatives shall be considered: - 2;; (1) rate structure modifications, which may include: - -
c- 2 .. (2) creation of economic incentives, which may include:
c-
_L_ o deposits, refunds, rebates - - e - (3) technical assistance or instructional and promotional - o waste evaluations - - - o education efforts
L_ - - .Z;
o local waste disposal fee modifications o quantity-based local user fees
o loans, grants, loan guarantees
o reduced business license fees
alternatives, which may include:
o establishment of compost programs at site of
o technical assistance to industry and consumer
o awards/other public recognition for source reduction o non-procurement source reduction programs (2-sided copies, etc. )
(4) regulatory programs, which may include: o local ordinances of cr-iteria for procuring products, such as durability, recyclability, reusability, and recycled material content o local incentives for land-use development that promote
source reduction o local requirenents of waste reduction planning arid.
reporting by generators o local adoption of bans on products and packaging
generation
Organizations and source reauction businesses
* -
- - -
4. Selection of Program (18733.4)
(a) Identify and describe alternatives 8
o expansions of existing alternatives o new alternatives to be implemented
(b) For each alternative, discuss
study, and the evaluations above
(2) estimate anticipated quantities to be diverted o by diversion program and waste type o for short-term and medium-term planning periods
o and % it will contribute to 25%/50% goals
- - o existing alternatives - -
- (1) why it was selected, based on data in waste generation
- - - - o in vol. or wt. - - I i (3) as applicable, list of end uses for diverted materials
(based on evaluation above) - % z (4) as applicable, description of proposed methods- for necessary handling and disposal
selected, including
SRRE Checklist page 4
1/29/91
(Jg -
- (5) as applicable, description of facilities to be used, which
the evaluation has shown must be expanded or built
5. Program Implementation (18733.5)
to implement the program
schedule addressing each task
necessary for implementatibn
- (a) Identify govt agencies, organizations, etc. responsible
- (b) Identify tasks necessary for implementation - (c) Identify short-term and nedium-term implementation
- (c) Identify known costs, revenues, and revenue sources
6. Monitoring and Evaluation (18733.6)
- (a) Identify methods to quantify and monitor achieveaenc of
- Also, quantify waste diverted in vol. or wt., and in
- (b) Use one of the following methods to monitor prograzs and
- (1) further Waste Generation Study - (2) targeted solid waste Characterization studies, to measure
- (3) assessment of changes in design, production,
- (4) another method approved by the Board.
(c) From the methods selected, provide - (1) written criteria for evaluatiTg program's effectiveness - (2) identification of agencies/persons/etc. responsible for monitoring, evaluating, reporting - (3) identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding requirements, revenues, revenue sources - (4) identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring shows shortfall in attaining objectives/diversion mandates. Measures may include: - (A) increasing frequency of monitoring/review of prograin - (€3) modification of objectives or diversion alternatives
objectives, including diversion from landfills and transformation facilities, and reduction of waste hazard
percent of total waste generated.
evaluate conpliance with mandated diversion requirements:
changes
distribution, sale, and/or use of products/packages which affect waste generation.
-
SRRE Checklist page 5
1/29/91 (L)
ChaDter 4. Recvclina ComDonent
1. Objectives (18733.1, 18735 ..1)
(based on Solid Waste Generation Analysis and other conditions as necessary)
(a) State specific objectives to be accomplished during short and medium-term by this component, including a statement of market development objectives to be achieved in short- and medium-term planning periods.
(b) .Identify priority waste categories or types for diversion by recycling, which may be based on
(2) whether material, products, or.packaging are made of non- renewable resources
2. Existing Conditions Description (18733.2, 18735.2)
(a) as applicable, include description of existing diversicn alternatives as follows :
(1) Brief description of existing recycling alternatives
(2) Quantity (in vol. or wt.) diverted for each alternative, listed by category and type
(3) Description of alternatives that will be decreased in scope, effects of this on existing solid waste manaqement, and effects on attainment of mandated diversion goals.
(b) Description of:
government procurement programs
local
-
-
- (1) volume/weight/hazard of material -
. - -
-
- -
- o economic development activities
- o education programs
NOTE: The above is an inportant section since it will be "used to support the quantification of existing diversion alternatives to determine the current percentage of solid waste diverted". 18733.2
o existing private and public recycling activities o existing local market development activities, including
o consumer incentives I) 7
3. Evaluation of Alternatives (18733.3, 18735.3)
(a) Each alternative shall.be evaluated in terms of - - (1) effectiveness in reduction of waste - (2) hazards created - (3) ability to accommodate change
(4) consequences on the waste (i-e., shifts) - -
SRRE Checklist page 6
1/29/91 (L) - (5) whether can be implemented in short- and medium-term
- (6) need for expanding/building facilities
- (1) consistency with local conditions - (2) institutional barriers to implementation
- (4) availability of end uses of diverted materials
- (c) Analyze recycling alternatives affecting residential,
planning periods
(b) For each alternative also include discussion of
(3) estimate of costs -
commercial, and industrial wastes. Take into account existing programs and their possible expansion. Address advantages/disadvantages of public vs. private ownership or operation of recycling programs and facilities.
accomplishing separation of recyclables:
systems)
- (1) alternatives must include the following methods for
- o separation at source (curbside & mobile collection
- o drop-off recycling centers - o buy-back recycling centers - o manual material recovery operations - o mechanized material recovery operations which produce a pro6uct which has a market - o salvage at solid waste facilities - (2) discuss feasibility of changing zoning and building codes to encourage recycling - (3) discuss feasibility of changing rate structures to encourage recycling - (4) discuss nethods to increase markets for recycled materials - (5) encourage handling methods that preserve integrity of recovered materials (consider separation at point of generation)
4. Selection of Program (18733.4, 18735.4)
b
- (a) Identify and describe alternatives selected, including - o existing alternatives - o expansions of existing alternatives - o new alternatives to be implemented
(b) For each alternative, discuss - (1) why it was selected, based on data in waste generation study, and the evaluations above - (2) estimate anticipated quantities to be diverted - o by diversion program and waste type - o for short-term and medium-term planning periods o in vol. or wt. - -
SRRE Checklist page 7
1 / 2 9 / 9 1
(J) - o and % it will contribute to 25%/50% goals - (3) as applicable, list of end uses for diverted materials (based on evaluation above) - (4) as applicable, description of proposed methods for
necessary handling and disposal - (5) as applicable, description of facilities to be used, which the evaluation has shown must be expanded or built
(c) Identify end markets or end users to be secured during
short-term. If this can't be done, identify how markets will be secured.
(1) can describe markets in general terms
(2) also described planned development of markets at manufacturing facilities in the jurisdiction.
(d) Describe measures to be taken if unfavorable market conditions or other unfavorable conditions occur which are beyond the jurisdictionls control and which prevent reaching
25%/50% goals.
5. Program Implementation (18733.5, 18735.5)
(a) Identify govt agencies, organizations, etc. responsible to implement the program (b) Identify tasks necessary for implementation (c) Identify short-term and medium-term implementation . schedule addressing each task
(d) Identify known costs, revenues, and revenue sources necessary for implementation (e) Denote actions planned to deter unauthorized removal of recyclables, which adversely affect program.
6. Monitoring and Evaluation (18+33.6)
(a) Identify methods to quantify and monitor achievement cf objectives, including diversion from landfills and transformation facilities,
Also, quantify waste diverted in vol. or ut., and in percent of total waste generated.
(b) Use one of the following methods to monitor programs and evaluate compliance with mandated diversion requirements:
(1) Further Waste Generation Study
(2) targeted solid waste characterization studies, to measure changes
-
- -
-
I
-
- -
-
-
-
and reduction of waste hazard -
-
- -
-
SRRE Checklist page 8
1/29/91 (L) - (3) assessment of changes in design, production, distribution, sale, and/or use of products/packages which affect waste generation. - (4) another method approved by the Board.
(c) From the methods selected, provide - (1) written criteria for evaluating program's effectiveness - (2) identification of agencies/persons/etc. responsible for monitoring, evaluating, reporting - (3) identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding requirements, revenues, revenue sources - (4) identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring
shows shortfall in attaining objectives/diversion mandates. Measures may include: - (A) increasing frequency of monitoring/review of program - (B) nodification of objectives or diversion alternatives
ChaBter 5. ComDostinq Component
1. Objectives (18733.1, 18736.1) (based on Solid Waste Generation Analysis and other local conditions as necessary)
- (a) State specific objectives to be accomplished during shcrt and medium-term by this coinponent, including a staterent of market development objectives to be achieved in short- and nedium-term planning periods.
- (b) Identify priority waste categories or types fcr diversion by composting, which may be based on - (1) volume/weight/hazard of material - (2) whether material, products, or packaging made of ncn-
renewable resources 9
2. Existing Conditions Description (18733.2, 18736.2)
(a) as applicable, include description of existing diversion alternatives as follows: - (1) Brief description of existing composting aiternatives - (2) Quantity (in vol. or wt.) diverted for each alternative, listed by category and type - (3) Description of alternatives that will be decreased in scope, effects of this on existing solid waste management, and effects on attainment of mandated diversion goals.
..
SRRE Checklist page 9
1/29/91 (L)
(b) Description of:
government procurement programs - - o economic development activities - o consumer incentives
NOTE: The above is an important section since it will be "used to
support the quantification of existing diversion alternatives to determine the current percentage of solid waste diverted". 18733.2
o existing local market development activities, including
3. Evaluation of Alternatives (18733.3, 18736.3)
(a) Each alternative shall be evaluated in terms of
(1) effectiveness in reduction of waste
(3) ability to accommodate change
(4) consequences on the waste (i.e., shifts)
planning periods
(b) For each alternative also include discussion of
(1) consistency with local conditions
(2) institutional barriers to implementation
(4) availability of end uses of diverted materials
(c) Alternatives will qualify toward diversion mandates only if the product results from controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes that are source separated from municipal solid waste stream or separated at a centralized facility.
(d) Alternatives do not include cornposting at site of generation by generator (this is smrce reduction).
4. Selection of Program (18733.4, 18736.4)
(a) Identify and describe alternatives selected, including
- - - (2) hazards created - - - (5) whether can be implemented in short- and medium-term
- (6) need for expandinglbuilding facilities *
- - - (3) estimate of costs -
- - o existing alternatives - - o expansions of existing alternatives o new alternatives to be implemented
based on data in waste generation
(b) For each alternative, discuss
(1) why it was selected, study, and the evaluations above
(2) estimate anticipated quantities to be diverted
o by diversion program and waste type o for short-term and medium-term planning periods
-
- - - -
SRRE Checklist page 10
1/29/91 (A) -
o in vol. or wt. - - o and % it will contribute to 25%/50% goals - (3) as applicable, list of end uses for diverted materials (based on evaluation above) - (4) as applicable, description of proposed methods for necessary handling and disposal - (5) as applicable, description of facilities to be used, which the evaluation has shown must be expanded or built
- (c) Identify end markets or end users to be secured during short-term. If this can't be done, identify how markets will be secured. - (1) can describe markets in general terms - (2) also described planned development of markets at manufacturing facilities in the jurisdiction.
(d) Describe measures to be taken if unfavorable market
conditions or other unfavorable conditions occur which are beyond the jurisdiction's control and which prevent reaching
25%/50% goals.
5. Program Implementation.(l8733.5)
to implement the program
schedule addressing each task
necessary for implementation
-
- (a) Identify govt agencies, organizations, etc. responsible
- (b) Identify tasks necessary for implementation - (c) Identify sncrt-term and medium-term implementation
- (d) Identify knoxn costs, revenues, and revenue sources
6. Monitoring and Evaluation (i8733.6)
objectives, including diversion from landfills and transformation facilities, and reduction of waste hazard
Also, quantify waste diverted in vol. or ut., and In
percent of total waste generated.
evaluate compliance with mandated diversion requirements:
changes
distribution, sale, and/or use of products/packages
which affect waste generation.
4 - (a) Identify methods to quantify and monitor achievement of
- (b) Use one of the following methods to monitor programs and
- (1) Further Waste Generation Study - (2) targeted solid waste characterization studies, to measure
- (3) assessment of changes in design, production,
- (4) another method approved by the Board. -
SRRE Checklist page 11
1/29/91 (A)
(c) From the methods selected, provide - (1) written criteria for evaluating program's effectiveness - (2) identification of agencies/persons/etc. responsible for monitoring, evaluating, reporting - (3) identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding requirements, revenues, revenue sources
(4) identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring
shows shortfall in attaining objectives/diversion mandates. Measures may include:
-
- (A) increasing frequency of monitoring/review of program - (B) modification of objectives or diversion alternatives
Chapter 6. Special Waste ComDonent
1, Objectives (18733.1, 18737.1) (based on Solid Waste Generation Analysis and other local conditions as necessary)
(a) State specific objectives to be accomplished during short and medium-te'rm by this component, including plan to reduce
hazard potential of special wastes by waste type
- (b) Identify priority waste categories or types for diversion, which nay be based on - (I) volume/weight/hazard of material - (2) whether material, products, or packaging are made of ncn-
renewable resources
2, Existing Conditions Description (18733.2, 18737.2)
(a) as applicable, include description of existing diversion
alternatives as follows: - (1) Brief description of existing special waste program, incl-cding description of existing solid waste facilities permitted to handle/dispose of special wastes. - Where applicable, include discussion of other regulatory agency requirements, permits, documents associated with operation of facilities (regulatory agencies include, but are not limited to: RWQCB, AQMD, DHS). - (2) Quantity (in vol. or wt.) diverted for each alternative, listed by category and type - (3) Description of alternatives that)will be decreased in scope, effects of this on existing solid waste management, and effects on attainment of mandated diversion
- a
goals.
SRRE Checklist page 12
1/29/91 (L)
- (b) Discuss special wastes identified in waste generation
study for which there is currently no permitted handling or
disposal method within the jurisdiction.
NOTE: The above is an important section since it will be "used to support the quantification of existing diversion alternatives to determine the current percentage of solid waste diverted". 18733.2
3. Evaluation of Alternatives (18733.3)
- (a) Each alternative shall be evaluated in terms of - (1) effectiveness in reduction of waste - (2) hazards created - (3) ability to accomnodate change - (4) consequences on the waste (i.e., shifts) - (5) whether can be implemented in short- and mediun-tern
- (6) need for expanding/building facilities
- (1) consistency with local conditions - (2) institutional barriers to implementation - (3) estimate of costs - (4) availability sf end uses of diverted materials
planning periods
(b) For each alternative also include discussion of
4. Selection of Program (18733.4)
- (a) Identify and describe alternatives selected, including - o existing alternatives - o expansions of existing alternatives - o new alternatives to be implemented
- (1) why it was selected, based on data in waste generation
- (2) estimate anticipated quantities to Se diverted - o by diversion program and waste type - o for short-term and medium-term planning periods o in vol. or wt. - o and % it will contribute to 25%/50% goals - (3) as applicable, list of end uses for diverted materials
- (4) as applicable, description of proposed methods for
- (5) as applicable, description of facilities to be used, which
(b) For each alternative, discuss d
study, and the evaluations above
-
(based on evaluation above)
necessary handling and disposal
the evaluation has shown must be expanded or built
-
SRRE Checklist page 13
1/29/91 (i)
5. Program Implementation (18733.5)
(a) Identify govt agencies, organizations, etc. responsible to implement the program
(b) Identify tasks necessary for implementation
(c) Identify short-term and medium-term implementation schedule addressing each task
(c) Identify known costs, revenues, and revenue sources necessary for implementation
6. Monitoring and Evaluation (18733.6)
(a) Identify methods to quantify and monitor achievement of objectives, including diversion from landfills and transformation facilities,
Also, quantify waste diverted in vol. or ut., and in percent of total waste generated.
(b) Use one of the following methods to monitor programs and evaluate compliance with mandated diversion requirements:
(2) targeted solid waste characterization studies, to measure changes
(3) assessment of changes in design, production, distribution, sale, and/or use of products/packages which affect waste generation.
(4) another method approved by the Board.
(c) From the methods selected, provide
(1) written criteria for evaluating program's effectiveness
(2) identification of agencies/persons/etc. responsible for monitoring, evaluating, reporting
(3) identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding requirements,' revenues, revenue soyrces
(4) identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring shows shortfall in attaining objectives/diversion mandates. Measures may include:
(A) increasing frequency of monitoring/review of program c;B) modification of objectives or diversion alternatives
A - - -
-
and reduction of waste hazard -
- - (1) Further Waste Generation Study I -
-
-
- - -
-
- -
Chapter 7. - (a) Objectives
Include statement of objectives for short- and medium-term planning periods.
Education and Public Information Component (18740)
-
SRRE Checklist page 14
1/29/91
- (b) Existing Program Description
(g
Describe all existing education and public information programs and activities within jurisdiction which promote source reduction, recycling, composting, safe handling and disposal of solid waste,
Incorporate data from solid waste generation study to identify generators to be targeted for education and public information
program.
(a) Program Implementation
implementation
- (c) Selection of Program Alternatives
- (1) Identify agencies/persons/etc. responsible for
- (2) Identify required implementation tasks - (3) Establish short- and medium-term implementation schedules - (4) Identify all public and private program implementation costs, revenues, revenue sources necessary for progran implementation
[e) Monitoring and Evaluation
(I) Identify methods to be used to measure achievement of objectives
effectiveness
monitoring, evaluation, reporting
revenues, revenue sources
shortfall in attaining diversion objectives
-
- (2) Establish written criteria by which to evaluate
- (3) Identify agencies/persons/etc. responsible for pro5rzx
- (4) Identify rnonitoring/evaluation funding requirements,
- (5) Identify measures to be implemented if monitoring shows
- (6) Establish program monitoring and reporting schedule
ChaDter 8. Disposal Facility Capicity Component (18744)
- (a) Identify and describe all existing permitted solid waste landfills and transformation facilities within the jurisdiction. Include: - (1) ldentification of owner/operator of each facility - (2) Quantity and types of solid waste disposed - (3) Permitted site acreage - (4) Permitted capacity - (5) Current disposal fees - (6) For solid waste landfills, remaining facility capacity in cubic yards and years.
SRRE Checklist page 15
1/29/91 (J,
- (b) Include solid waste disposal facility needs projection, which estimates additional disposal capacity (in cubic
yards/yr) needed for 15 years starting in 1991. (I) Needs projections must be calculated based on solid waste generation projection in the solid waste generation study. (2) The 15-yr needs projection must use the formula in section
18744 (b) (2).
(c) Include discussions of - (1) facilities to be phased out or closed during short- and
medium-term planning periods, and effect on disposal capacity needs. - (2) Plans to establish new or expanded facilities for the short- and medium-term planning periods, and projected
additional capacity of each.
(NOTE: The following was added at 1/23/31 Board meeting, and
will undergo 15 day comment period.) - (3) Plans to export waste to another jurisdiction for the short-term and medium-term planning periods, and the projected addtional capacity of proposed export agreements.
- -
.
Chapter 3. Fundinu Component (18746)
allocation of resources for:
(2) Implementation of programs to meet 25%/50% goals
(b) Provide cost estimates for component programs scheduled for implementation in the short-term planning period.
- (c) Identify revenue sources sufficient to support component programs. - (d) Identify sources of contingency funding for component programs.
- (a) Must denonstrate there is sufficient funding and - (1) Program planning and development - -
Chapter 10. Inteuration Component (18748)
(a) Explain how the source reduction, recycling, composting, and special waste components combine to achieve the 252/50% mandates. Include:
(1) Description of solid waste management practices which fulfill goal of promoting integrated waste management in the following order:
-
-
SRRE Checklist page 16
1/29/91 (J, -
- (A) source reduction - (B) recycling and composting - (C) environmentally safe transformation and - environmentally safe land disposal
- (2) Explain how jurisdiction has integrated the components to maximize use of all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting options - (3) Explain how components jointly achieve diversion mandates - (4) Explain how priorities between ccmponents were determined - (b) Submit integrated schedule, which includes: - (1) Calendar scheduling all implementation tasks for new and
expanded programs, through the short-term planning period,
as identified in the first 4 components. Include descriptive title for each task, entity implementing task, start/milestone dates, schedule for funding source availability.
satisfy requirements of 18733.5(b) and 18740(d).
- (A) implementation tasks are those in each conponent whicn
- (2) Schedule must show anticipa,ted date of achievement of
25%/50% diversion mandates.
XIS. TECHNICAL APPENDICES
P
-
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
CONTRACTS/FINANCE BRANCH
REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR FUXDING COXmiVE??T
In order to asis: you in preparing the Funding Component of your Source Reduction and Rccpciing ElcmenvCounrywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, this checklin b pronded to suggest areas to k addraxd in hi5 el em en^
- Does the funding component identify all program costs and revenue sources for program planning
and development?
Does the documentation address the abiliry to accommodate changing economic condii L ons, a
evajuarion of the consequences, and the rime required to implement sle alrernadve?
Is there sufficient flexibiliry in the frnancing smcture IO allow for uiiexpecied developmem?
Are both present and fume solid waste disposal needs anticipated and addressed in relation 10
-
-
- funding?
-
-
-. kc all kiiom program imp1emen;arion costs, including public and prkxe idenrified?
-
Does the plan discuss market developmenr?
Does &e plan contain a COST benefit analysis for eacS alrezadve?
Does rhe plan identi6 the cost esrimares for rhe impleneniarion of the component pi0Vrn.S in
the shorr-term plam.Lig ptkod? . - Does the documenrarion include hrure cost esrimares? +
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Does the plan idenrify whzt tasks are required for the program implernentztion?
Does tfie plan idenrify revenue srream?
Does the documenratim indicate the local jurisdiction’s revenue saeam?
Are rhe revenue sources sufficient to supporz the component prog~ems?
Does the plan include revenue projec~ons?
Does the documentanon jdenrify sources of contingency fisding for coxponenr programs?
Does the plan discuss financial assisrance tools such as Iorns, grants, and loan parantees?
Docs a reserve account need to be established IO cover the risk of defaulr on outsranding loans?
Dots the plan include ? description of exisring local mdet acritities, government procurement
programs, economic developnent activities, and consumer incentives for compost and recycled materials.
Does the plan include an esrimare of public parricipanon?
Does the plan indicate which funding source will be used for monitoring and evalcating the effectiveness of the exisring programs?
d
-
- -
n w*
- v) qw
L ufp
U Pzd
(\3 d
_o 4
ITS WH
C
0 0;)
D-62 2 ObLU L F
inm - r,oOOO
: €* 0= .- I ogpsg, ha
>y z&zkz~- c 0 F 0x2 0s 0 mJ ?= 8 c=.P a 0z.E II) C 5, CJ 3 0- "mi>gO%rh' .g - u- e a. i;.T 0 6 03*Lcm 5: - 0 u;g.Jr-f5 Ea h% 0"- - E c q E% mc a .c;' a0 j 3 2.g- -.!?a $a= co8gr, ou-- $ .- ai f5 3" 2 i;-g 5 g fz aoEg* L n-* 2w rV.EE, mQgj6 2u 30~0-TF,8~.Eo, 02 g
PC .gjo 4
j$g"" 0T.EY
p.E a ggp.&Q 2 2 q g-g 85 j= g o E: pga gz
gsa~+gz.OL-oX LLg E 8 g 953 ap:
0
0
0
Q)
20 cm3= E - - 2
.-
0 b .- E
oa a- L-
w =-c "2 ex=.- z - a x.- 56r0 a,h-u13EE
P
a - 0 azo= Sh
a- D y .- Ft I- pu:*= v E*gT +.g e $7 c 0 yJQ c g 3 >ss-
Q
69
- u Z€ ;;+2$;i6Eg80 h p@
0 0: .E Q) 0 .z.- v a rJ+2TvS 3 2 a '0 b "u + z % .g 2 g : 4 5 *E g ,<.*$&. 4 rs - V) .I0, 2 o*; 6 >.s .E a Q, g s -3.Zx$ a)z 0 02 ';," ..q V- gE .O 2!&& ~~t,o L.2.rSq -e%-oe - c 3cLL:g 2 0 E 0 is EP E ?.Po p2g.g 5 2; E u 0 c Upegs~o~,
L = O g E222 .I Q)a -2 Q) == *Q.g'hTzn V &c > SQ,xBgoQ$?;;-
x Q)
0- 42.- .o c t?" unuo osg Ea g.= 0- 0 ps I>= +-u - E% "f!j-g $ qp
--YoE. ICI Q= k
c D * 0-0 0 nS '22.5
-0s
3" a h- 0 Q)
\v- uz
U -
L
- v; !Q >
a)- m2 6 o
0 3
LV *- 0 t-
' *= Q) oSr t a%
x D 0-0 a a €0: L n
o v u 8-3 E 00 Xn o
6 < - 0-
c z
a, ,+w * *\\\P \$ AI \\\ #4 uu\\' 'y-(y: g s w
$'$ LLzl Lu - -3 sa0 Qx
a E ag
E QC,
Ly $4 mi 3
0) 3coa 'Z E ad
e 0 x"$
* e Q::. .- Q Q
$Q \' ,*$ + \\ * .-.e a z O=
c QI.~~ z -=u o
+p** ,* &i**@' 0 a- c u) e-
3 k,:
qf-J $0:
2CZiih -coorv On=? 2?
b - - 0
v) 22 @Cv) 5 .2 8.; z ug.2 s 2 0-z; 2%
U'Z; a%=oi? v 2zzg; - W=gGE -2 I- AI a-lS,:q 0
Qi:, 0)Q) 3- 2- ClL 5"- QQE ?p.i€% s
w :as@ a A- s v) .- 5- oeoov) v);w02 0 < T,s 5 B Oh= 00 aza*Q) 2 3 Ti Qz~r L 0
v) *: ca=-3og. sa 8 v)p 04SK.X ggp43 c'
ya €2 a-2- L-g.g 3 zzi% %SIP 0 :z"ug?c OZ umao 03.2 zw 2 2 hv) Q) L Qza FQ)QL$ $5 c14G 0 -+ =?Tj .-3uorn-g p %,2vs * E E-o v) e,.=- Q)'.>B Uv)nOQ :E*c 4 1; o-s g 5% o,
0) 2$2Zgzz N+;pU"5 *s 4 a.2
4 # .s .E ,E 2 : $ -dvc UoczfO - 2 q$qTi* CQ OEZ *-y 2 xs $:-Em-& LC = QE,-yj 0 2 .-
3"far - gzgs 0 0VQ)Q) COPC'F 0 E-
Y 0 'S
.x --= VI
4 cnazs - CJL a
64 gSQk - go,- ya Q-
v
1- X2" 2 0 -2 00 0 a2 z2s
0.~~2 VUOLQ~ v
o= 0 p; -0 v
a -a 0 2 v; 2 ees 5 zg459 5 p! aJ2? -a AE bo
-SI =us
OpLA 3-w-0 c 0- M Pan os2- *VI-aL.r .s 3 3 $Q 3 0 2- as PJ -~a -6 z Y ,-'& %335$ - - 2 E: Q -.PC3 gEg9 3,325 5 gZ.23 -- % 2 aJ C'EiA % u & SP az-VIz &.% zmg avs am E 6.2 2 g 3 no QES&& rr. mz aJW".ifb Q aJ 2& %Oh a e, g&.- a0 .a.o "2 gmZQm as&, VIaJ v$ OCqJaJ&2w X- 3% 2 E
Y 22p-Q Q OAS aaww E 0 s 0 d-2 aJoz '2 0 OQ .C.( (0 n8 E Egigm asc '-33 %E g'gegz g aJLI 9.2 $ Q &-e sczs E %aJ E $ & p %
aJ2,gp 2Jz 'GuQ,aa %2QQaJ e.= 3 v, >us €+ VIvls=-- oocaJ2g P~&drnGW OEOQQ~U *zz 8 a a a.aJ A .r. ,st;t; Qat,
UUEEma ooa fdm3aw3 2QQa o"~~~>S b v) ass CL 3a:zs 0 Q -
-VI 0 4 (OQ
rga.gq sl;-E8d aJQt: G< 2% UQ v) ZdEeM -Eoga a
AM- E
$5: 3 Z Zgg~.ga Q 0 a- b.'= A
.- YU
EEE$%g ;:2 -upQ "a~u-03
c-r 4 0 4 0; r) r;
e-- L &cnaJW x L, a 2 3 6% 2 z3-w; 2258 am rzS$$ -+*a -- 0 3 c pi rnz 6.2 gj Q gz
f Y E 5 E z'z h 242
Q 3-s 0 - 0 0 p xes m - na+P gp P 0 -a
0 x.-32a ggaeg YO 93)a(CAr *.+
~3 3~0.~~ aJC0 EF d c -'T&"Q3 -C a a u" EL tin4 s $pa% VI %ESQ$ .322+-0 og+ e>- a0 - aJQOo0 L b a*Gss a&J&J- E E u3.m 232
Llna~uaa 4 2z-e 2 3 * 23&haJ oz >.SS.Q' z= - 3, -
va ahV18 ar.2 c g50-p e,2:%0-3 2g 3a xzc C5g-z sz 3
b *= €E$ c';3>,2= p 83 a.5 0 >r'y" c= 8 -z L; Q Q 0 c 2 3s- 2 xn cz E ~3 8 2 gzs wl.= a 2 -2-g 0 L&L= h E3 o .s! CQ *fa$$, 0 423 Qcaar; "5 OV5Q
Zma~- abab a= 3-3 1 E o 3.9E .' g3- w-30 E&ao esgco ooooaJ o~oacoaJoQ ~GU0J:GO g*+s& &-*ZE
00, ---E go c U'C VI-
$3 'i5 Y- LSCZrn v)P),E Q aJ
cI, o.': Q a a~ Q &a E os e,
0
5 aJ
aj .z - vi&
sa 0 Q L a a3
*- mcca a.' 3
1 aJ 0 E g &# aJ5 LJ: a- m
x5 >rv, hQ> *x& (0 hC v) > u 3 3 u'+ Q bo
c(i + ui 4
Q
-ah he& vl cab hQ Q g$ p c 3 a $5 gjgz g-pi -- c 0 aJ u g
a :25 wz.4 g aG= v- Q 2 Qay Q) &3U
& vt:aBg6 U"Ssg A38 -- v) a 0 y 3 &A a .c h v) c
'"Eng~~Y &Ez-;a3 2 ,%2 PI O ea.sgu.r. 0
Yd A.Ctcl== &-G.3=a aJaL,
m (0 aJ orc 8 0 a 3 22 a.cZ~~30 5g+-XaJa- AEz3 A *-+ 2% .-Ec VI 0 '6 g-c &E -3 *s Eo 95 ?ij - s a &% gg .2*S%i d maJb-2- --aa ?i?ias - urn- c';3 aJ- g vI*w Q o
-pQ .zzaJv .d
FG 02 aa aJ0 a+
a* 2 ?s ,a* - "Vit;+G,x %+* 0 a- 2.1 c 5 Q10 U3.G g g Y ag-g,, -,OO~W~ >zcS
Coa zr%2av;Og .3su$ *GW tc -x lwuEO .r( E Ed (O~A 3 ~3 3~ *e$ a 3 $+e E 23 aJ ra 2.w 0 aJ 'C -53 ES2 e-., VI VI a c 21 €3 OLr aJQ)aJ
aJ2Q aJavl*cOVj &~~C~&VUAZ zcfQ-r.+Q~~Qa~b (Os L# u2!.'=~=~ sz
GSU.2 2 3 a
c bQ.-aJJck- 0 c % 0 a o:g.2s w-
3 Z egs=s a a c - 2.5 2 aJ -= -s ga.2
s-~g~ xa g E 1
.- a 0 g3 (O
E3 Q YQEYOL;
e,
x20 0 2 23 gP!* c .e Q &a=Zd a 8.2 aes .
Q 3s aJ cow: 3 0 0
J: aa~ OS: O,>G*C:~OM c c (O g "as c.
a QW-WJ:rc
d 4
E 4
3u EW zu 8
O5$ pgpg tn *2 4 Fzl q&.,, zoco W
c4
E E@ & EM4 5
fEu 3 4cr:u u 3 !2 b BOD+ OEO B
aw-o *a aY g=z uss - " wm & 55
i w GS az CJ xE
v, 8 h.2 cz 2% 0%
$I@.% a& 0 o am 3q"- z 'bo $e
W qpQ) azo -s 8 5 s-z 22 a-=20 $ =& g %SZ &kd
WEca oQ)mtf E tu&& &a mu2 3 % -5 u ;s+ g z E $ hum-.- m g 35 u-- CQ)ZG * 5ggsL:s -a 3 nk +G&
*--& Q) ME Q) st= p!Lo=r: pg Et$ t'gZ 'SiowE, 1 .= ZXaGc ww a3 ".= wa 0'" 2 3 E E o Es r- L: E E ax 0 0
"
*cr k-mtu7ucnudo
8 f
&Q)U EL: Q) " OkQ) u- $23 5g s GZZ 3% u31g yaJs zs* ka 2-0 sa &Mf*z33E "E X-! rnGG34-Q) c~ 7 m- 3 hsg $5 ya 3-35 2
Q) .d oaY :dm Ee,wQ)= E E =Q)zo GLicl mu
e 3 e?= g4z w t; bo 2; s em3 M I=-& E'3 "ea 2 *S'E;A b0U.E --4 := pG =% @-g&-som
*iZ2Q -EJ ET u&m E€ops E *g$"=m= 8 am Eaz 0) *s m &.2 x.$% &Ea. 85m - -Q)E aQ) am m'4 & (0 & om $&d& 35 gCd*= 5 225 U
& usi? L, o E ms 7-g 2.Pag a -G:9.'2ga, QjlY L, z=2=3S?i +&s~n-$ '5;* ai-cs a&&, WQ, 2 g.2 E g AS a3-s & a
t: 0 0 b.2 a, $$ 5: -p$s ss3m we, 2 '5 u a* Z%Eg u E2 =mz x 2Z-.-Zb $53 E 2 22 G2 E% %2
Q) G has h; Om w- 0 CI n mkzs 2
9gGe
% -m.- -az
azs w 0 &
-2 2 ~1n Ua -E: &
.C.
s $ -m $Ep -5 %--a2 m E2 2% "-5s E 23% ao go 3s m E K u
CI 00 . G3gg aEm Sgp!
u 2 0 o ~-~~ cn?f 0 E
d 4
d d 4 d C(i
d 4
r(
F@R r@@B /UF@@rnAUM
blished by the City of Carlsbad October 1991
‘ARLSBAD I QUICK TO RESPOND TO
’OUNTYmMANDATED I RECYCLING
iar Carlsbad Resident,
As a fellow citizen, I take pride in living in and serving the residents of this
mmunity. We joined together in voluntary recycling long before San Diego County
ide it mandatory in June 1991.
The quiet revolution in Carlsbad lifestyles began in May 1989, with a tremen-
usly successful single-family residential pilot curbside recycling program. After
pansion citywide in June 1990, participation by household and volume of material
llected has remained remarkably high. Figures point to about a 90 percent monthly
rticipation rate.
Phase One of multi-tenant recycling began last May, with final implementation
pected by December. We are gearing up to provide a yard waste recycling
3gram in early 1992.
I’m confident Carlsbad will remain at the forefront of North County recycling.
ank you for your continuing enthusiasm and commitment.
When it comes to recycling, Carlsbad residents are naturally resourceful . . .
ep up the great work!
.
Raymond R. Patchett
City Manager for Carlsbad resident and
employee Sherry Freisinger.
car Is bad a
w-
ian Diego County Imposes Mandatory Recycling
The County of San Diego is “Just
lying No” to designated recyclables
ttering the San Marcos landfill. Why? mandatory recycling, please call to serve you.
?cause that facility is fast becoming
e San Marcos IandFULLl
On June 11, 1991, the County
lard of Supervisors adopted an ordi-
mce mandating recycling throughout
3n Diego County. The ordinance is be-
g implemented first in North County,
Je to limited landfill capacity and the
?ed to minimize transportation of waste
distant disposal sites.
The County will impose fines at
e landfill on all loads containing desig-
3ted recyclables. In keeping with
ounty-imposed fines, residents will be
arned and assessed a penalty for fail-
g to segregate designated recyclables
im their trash. The City of Carlsbad is
‘lying on your good faith compliance.
If, after reading this publication,
you have any questions concerning
Carlsbad’s Utilities and Maintenance
Department at 438-7753. We are here
.-I--- . cu-
DESlGMATED Recycling: DoJSars And Sense
Who pays for recycling? Who by selling your recyclables to the Liberty RECYCLABLES benefits? Recycling buyback center at 5960 El
To borrow a fitness phrase: no Tin and Bi-metal Cans pain; no gain. We hope that for the rela-
tively small pain of about three cents per
day, we as a community can achieve
the very large gain of a brighter future
Glass Bottles
Glass Jars
Plastic Beverage Containers for our environment. Newspaper
Yard Waste 1“1 Appliances
RESIDENTIAL ‘ I? Aluminum e Everyone. Beginning in July 1990, Camino Real.
every Carlsbad residence has paid a
one-dollar-per-month recycling fee.
Does this fee cover the cost of the
service? No.
Although the fee does help defray
the cost, as does selling the recycled
materials (minus sorting and transporta-
tion costs), neither the City nor its author-
ized trash collector profits financially
from recycling. Of course, you can profit
(7 b
Citizen Report
How do you feel about Count
mandated recycling7
“Mandatory or voluntary, ~t does1
matter. Recyclmg ‘s second nature in o
family. We love doing it Our two gi/
help, too. Recycling has really cut dov
on the amount of trash we put out. ”
Bill O’Connell
Carlsbad Resident
“Adjustmg to mandatory recycllr
won’t be a problem at all for us at I
Costa. We created our own in-hous
system two years ago. We’ve alwaj
been very ecology-minded. ”
Maureen Carroll-Gonzalez
Director, Public Relations
La Costa Resort and Spa
“Recyclmg should be mandl
tory. My wife and l are very careful ab01
separating our trash. Some of our neigt
bors sttll throw everything in togethe
and that‘s wrong!“
Does mandatory recycling mean you have to fill up your recycling bins
rn eachweek? Q
A No. Mandatory recycling does not require participation in weekly
curbside or multi-tenant recycling You can take your recyclables to 9
school, charitable organization or other dropoff site or to a buyback center. You
also can save up your recyclables and set them out at your convenience
the trash. Carlsbad Resident
The only thing you CANNOT do with your recyclables is discard them with Earle Gardiner
Coming Soon: Don’t Just REcycle,
Yard Waste PREcycle! Recycling One-third of the garbage cluttering up our landfills is packaging waste
Yard waste - grass, leaves, yard Precycling - deciding what to buy in the first place - makes recycling easier.
trimmings, lumber/wood waste, tree/ Precycling decisions can help
shrub/vegetable clippings - accounts your personal economy as well as the
for 20 percent of the residential waste environment Whenever possible, try to
stream inundating landfills Soon, Choose products packaged in recy-
Carlsbad residents will be able to recycle
yard waste easily and conveniently, as Buy in bulk
you now recycle newspaper, glass,
plastic and aluminum cans Just as with
curbside recycling, you’ll receive plenty Reuse materials
of advance notice before the program Speak up! Let manufacturers know
begins. excess/non-recyclable packaging’s
clable materials
Avoid over-packaged items and
disposables
a waste1
Ready to junk your junk ma117 Request your name be removed from mailing lists by
writing: Mail Preference Service, Direct Mail Marketing Association, 6 East 43rd
Street, New York, NY 10017
BULK RATE
Ciiy oi Carisbad US Postage
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive PAID Carlsbad, CA 92008 Permit No. 19
(619) 434-2820 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Together We Can
Make A Molehill
Out Of A Mountain:
RECYCLE! CARLSBAD RESIDENT
Printed on recycled paper
LIN
SOLID WASTE UPDATE PUBLISHED BY THE CARLSBAD UTILITIES/MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1991
Ahat Is Solid
Maste?
Solid waste refers to discarded
aterial that is not a liquid or a gas. As
iyone who lives in San Diego County is
iinfully aware, the vast amount of solid
aste being produced is a complex problem
ith no simple solutions. End-of-the-line
Zilities such as landfills and trash incin-
ators are reactions to the problem.
emming the tide of trash to begin with,
rough methods such as pre-cycling,
cycling and composting, lessens the
oblem up front.
Carlsbad City Council
Adopts Mandatory
Recycling Ordinance
On November 5,1991 the Carlsbad City Council approved an
ordinance mandating recycling of designated materials throughout
the City of Carlsbad. The action was taken in compliance with an
ordinance recently adopted by the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors mandatibg recycling throughout the County.
citizen of San Diego County? For most of us, it means continuing to do what we’ve been doing for a long time . .. recycling. According to Carlsbad City Manager Ray Patchett, “Carlsbad’s
adoption of a mandatory recycling ordinance exempts the City from
County-imposed inspections and possible fines at the San Marcos
landfill. In effect, the County is relying on Carlsbad’s conformance
with mandatory recycling procedures.”
“In turn, the City is counting on the good faith compliance of
its citizens.”
A series of three warnings will be issued to residents who do
not segregate designated recyclables from mixed refuse. We hope
by this means to educate those who may be uncertain what materi-
als must be recycled,” notes Carlsbad Utilities and Maintenance
Director Ralph Anderson. “Upon the third warning, violators will
be referred to the Carlsbad Code Enforcement Office for further
action.’’
What does all this mean to you, a resident of Carlsbad and
Director, Carlsbad Utilities and Maintenance Department
Yard Waste Pilot Program.
lfs In The Bag!
Beginning January 1992, residents living in one of over 1,100
single-family homes will be separating their grass, leaves, clippings,
lumber and other yard waste into
huge brown paper bags for
pickup on their regular trash
collection day. Thanks to the
participants’ efforts and feed-
back, the three-month pilot yard
waste project will enable the City
to create a citywide program that
is easy, convenient and efficient.
Residents in the free pilot
program will be notified well in
advance of startup. The yard
waste collected will be made into
mulch and given away.
4
.
Carlsbad Utilities and Maintenance
Management Analyst Julie Ross
tests the capacity and durability of
a 30-gallon yard waste bag.
Good job, neighbors!
‘Tis The Season
To Be Recycling
Get into the recycling spirit by
taking a new look at some time-
honored holiday traditions.
Buy gift wrap and cards made from
recycled paper. One source: Earth
Care Paper Inc., P.O. Box 7070,
Madison, WI 53707, (608) 277-2900.
Make your own gift wrap. The
comics section of the Sunday news-
paper makes a colorful wrap.
Give two gifts in one. Express your
creativity by putting a gift of jew-
elry in a mug, or a bottle of cider in
a picnic basket.
If you receive a gift boxed in styro-
foam peanuts, call (800) 828-2214
to find a Mail Boxes Etc. Styrofoam
recycling drop-off location close to
you.
Create custom greeting cards, using
leftover notebook paper or unused
computer paper.
is Christmas, let us offer some down-to-earth advice:
ke Your Tree To A Recycling Site. Your unflocked, unsprayed
!e can be taken to one of the following 24-hour drop-off sites
tcember 26,1991 .through January 13,1992. Donate Your Tree To A City Park.
Living trees in E-gallon or smaller contain-
ers may be dropped off during business
hours to the Carlsbad Parks & Recreation
Department at 1166 Carlsbad Village
Fire Station #1 1275 Carlsbad Village Drive
Calavera Park 2997 Glasgow Street
Fire Station #4 6885 Batiquitos Drive Cadencia Park 3310 Cadencia Drive, for re-planting in public areas
Liberty Recycling 5960 El Camino Real throughout the community.
But Is It Recyclable?
my recyclable containers?
an important element i
preserving our envi
Just rinse them, so
A Of course, water conservati If recycling has
you totally confused,
you’re not alone. The
recycling symbol &ed
to some containers may
mean the item is
Q Are the lids on glass recyclable in theory, but
it may not be in fact. A Glass jar lids are recyclable. Generally, anything
Discard the others. that contains a food or
beverage product
Q What is a bi-metal can? A Bi-metal usually refers to a steel Here is the
‘ usually is recyclable.
can with an aluminum top and
bottom, or similar variation.
verdict on some typical
products, and answers
to commonly asked Q Must we crush our aluminum and questions. For other
plastic containers? specific information,
A We realize not everyone is call Carlsbad Utilities
Arnold the body builder. and Maintenance at
Crushing the containers makes it 438-7753 or Coast 4
easier for you and us, but it is Waste Management not required. at 431-0101. the art of recycling.
The O‘Connell family of Carlsbad masters
Q Are colored glass and plastic Recyclable Not Recyclable accepted? Cat Food Can Furniture Wax Can A Except for window glass, the rule
of thumb is: If you can see
through it, it’s recyclable; if you Newspaper Junk Mail
can’t, it’s not. PhoneBook , Magazine
Q Can I recycle cardboard or scrap
metal curbside? Milk Jug Shampoo/Liquid Soap Containers A No, but you can take these
materials to the Liberty Tuna Fish Can Sour Creamargarine Tub Recycling Buyback Center at
5960 El Camino Real.
Clear Plastic Soda Bottle
Glass Jelly Jar
Bleach Container
Window Cleaner Bottle
Aluminum Soda Pop Can
Mayonnnaise Jar
Peanut Butter Jar Pill Bottle
Wine Bottle
Pop-top Aluminum Juice Can
Plastic “Lunchbox” Drink
Detergent Bottles or Boxes
Window Glass or Broken Glass
Cereal Box
Hazardous Material Is A
Terrible Thing To Waste
The first Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event held
last August was an inTOXICating success! Over 500 citizens came
to the Carlsbad Safety Center to give remnants of such potentially
dangerous materials as paints (1,970 gallons), liquid (126 gallons)
and solid (177 pounds) pesticides, waste oil (900 gallons), aerosol
cans (776 pounds) and auto batteries (2,100 pounds) to friendly
representatives from the San Diego Regional Household Hazardou
Materials Program.
for more information on countywide events, call 338-2267. Four
events per year are held right here in Carlsbad.
Look around your house and garage. Products labeled
WARNING, CAUTION, POISONOUS, TOXIC, FLAMRlABLE (
CORROSIVE must never be poured down the drain or discarded
with the trash. Instead, on the scheduled day, place them, sealed i
their original containers, in the trunk or back of your vehicle and
transport them carefully (no more than 5 gallons or 50 pounds at I
time) to the Safety Center. Explosives, radioactive materials and
business or biomedical wastes are not accepted.
Several events are held throughout the county each month;
Carlsbad Offbrs
Automotive
Product Recycling
Used motor oil and automotive
batteries are among the toxic items ac-
cepted at the quarterly Household Hazard-
ous Waste Collection Events at the
Carlsbad Safety Center, but they also can
be brought throughout the year to the
Carlsbad Fleet Maintenance Yard at 2480
Impala (near the intersection of El Camino
Real and Faraday) between 8:OO a.m. and
4:OO p.m., Monday through Friday. For
more information, please call 931-2192.
City of Carlsbad BULK RATE Utilities and Maintenance Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive PAID
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(6 19) 438-7753
U.S Postage
Permit No. 19 CARLSBAD RESIDENT Carlsbad, CA 92008
Printed on recycled paper