HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 HFH AB939 Goals
'-..---. ----"--
- ~'- .-.. .. '~,...-'--
CITY CLERK
EO. # taf8J. [b]ttiJ~- fQJ- --.--...-
- -..-__ -I e: .:::..-. - .' ;-___ -- .:~ - - -=--. '---'"-
. -" ---~..-. ~. ~ ,.' ... .
~.
- AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 7, 1999
SUBJECT: ...
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson Report on Progress Towards Meeting
AB939- Year 2000 Diversion Goals.
Report Prepared by: Jason Behrmann, Management Assistant
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson Final Report
2. Recycling Survey
3. Recycling Survey Results Summary
4. May 30, 1999 Commercial Recycling Program Report
5. November 30, 1999 Commercial Recycling Program Report
6. School Recycling Program Report
7 ~ Diversion Rate Calculations .
8. San Joaquin County Letter Regarding Class II Waste
9. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
Letter Regarding Class II Waste
:>.rCOMMENDATIONS:~N" 1.
~f (\1>>0 . 2.
Provide direction to staffon whether to pursue the acquisition of
64~gallon recycling carts. .
· Direct staff to monitor the Commercial Recycling Program and
report back to Council with a recommendation for continuing the
program after the initial 16-month agreement expires.
3. Direct staff to work with the Alameda . County Waste
ManagementAuthorityand local. builders to develop a
Construction and Demolition Ordinance for the City of Dublin.
4. Direct staff to continue to work with CIWMB and Alameda
. County staff to prepare the documents required to submit a waste
exemption request to theCIWMB.._c,.~. .~
.FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The report provides the Council with an opportunity to determine
waste management programs, policies and priorities and will not
have any directfmancial impact on the City. However the report
does contain recommendations which may result in significant
future financial impacts.
BACKGROU1\"'D:
--------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'~r ---
.. .~. .
...........
:S~ .
COPIES TO: .-.
ITEM NO. --8.'
IIIcc-forms/ag~a~1:mLdoc
. . - .- - ..-
--
...~.. -
_. .._'._ h_
'"I
In March 1999, the City Council approved a Consulting Services Agreement with Hilton Farnk!Dpf &~~.
.__ __ J~<?b~n @f~I:n, ~o .e"\Ta!u~t~ tEec:ity's progress towards meeting AB939 goals, and to recommend '
-c-i-' -:;-~ stt~itegies.to'-fie1IHhe~€ity'nieera-50% ~dlv-ersion:'iateby=the:Y ear:-iOOO;:..::.::=~:._- :::c::.,.:_~C-". -__-,,::o.:-::;~~:_ -;:::-~i~>: __ _=_~_.: ..;~~----_
- ---------
The Agreement specified- the following taSks. to be peIformed by-HF &H.
:;-
Task 1- Evaluate the City's Progress Toward Meeting at Least a 50% Diversion Rate by the Year 2000.
Subtask 1.1- Review Background Documents
- .- Subtask 1.2- Implement Engagement. -
Subtask1.3- Evaluate the City's Progress
Task 2- Review Population and Taxable Sales Data
Task3- Identify Strategies
To prepare the report, HF &H staff met with City staff and with representatives from Waste Management,
the City's franchised waste hauler. HF&H also reviewed relevant Internet web sites, State legislation, and
reports and documents made available by City staff. The consultant's report is included as Attachment 1.
SUMMARY:
The first section of the consultant's report analyzes the City's current programs and results. The current
programs are largely a reflection of those programs outlined in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling
. Element (SRRE), . which was. completed and approved by the City Council in 1991. The SRRE describes
the City's current and future source reduction and recycling programs and policies. The SRRE states that
the. City desires to implement programs aimed at source reduction, recycling, compo sting, special waste
and public education in order-to achieve .the target 50% reduction in 1andfilled waste. The California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), which is assigned to oversee AB939 compliance, largely
uses the j1.irisdiction's SRRE to measure "good faith efforts" towards achieving a 50% diversion rate by
the Year 2000.
/"
.~:
Since 1991, the City has implemented many new programs aimed at diverting materials from the landfill.
. To date, the City has implemented every program and policy outlined in the SRRE with the exception of
developing a Recycled and Reusable Product Procurement Policy. The following is a summary of the
City's source reduction and recycling programs as described in the attached HF &H Report. The Agenda
Statement also summarizes BF&H and City_staff recommendations for new policies and programs that the
. ....-Counci1 may wish to_consider authorizing: _
-_.... .'-. ,p.'~.._".'-" - ..-;..."....;----_. ..--'."'.'-' -"-- :....-- ....-.- ~"_. '-- _::.:' .._-.
Source Reduction
The City participates in the Alameda County homecomposting program and has modified its rate
structure to reflect volume-based rates.
As noted above, as part of its SRRE, the City planned to implement a Recycled and Reusable product
procurement policy. In the. attached Report, the consultant highlights the importance of completing all of
the elements planned in the SRRE in order demonstrate a "good faith effort" in achieving the diversion
goals of AB 939. As part of the 1999 Goals and Objectives, the City Council assigned a medium priority
to updating the City's Purchasing Ordinance to incorporate a policy related to the purchase of recycled
products. Staff is currently working with ACWMAstaff to develop language for the Ordinance. The
Ordinance will be presented to the Council at the December 21, 1999 COllncil meeting.
,"'"
~1
-;,-
.-
.__ __."__ - h_._
Residential Curbside Recycling
.
::~: WaSte Managemenrprovides-'cUrbside recycliiigcollection forallCity-residents;-The prdgraminc1udes ..
bQ~ single and multi family. units. Waste ManageJ,llent curre_ntlyprovidc~s e~ch single~family residence
'7-- with three 11-g~lontubsor each multi~family complex with at least two 96-g~1l0n carts fo~ storage of
,'j, recyclable matenals for weekly collectIon. The program has been expanded smce 1991 to mclude many
additional recyclable materials.
In July 1998, a Recycling Survey was mailed to all City residents. The purpose of the survey was to-
determine customers' levels of satisfaction with the current recycling programs, and to solicit suggestions
for changes or improvements to the residential recycling program. In addition, the survey was designed
in such a way that respondents would be educated as to the variety of materials accepted for recycling.
The survey (Attachment 2) was a simple, one-page questionnaire that, for .the most part, asked
respondents to check appropriate answers. 'Three separate comment lines allowed for more detailed
responses. . The survey was distributed by mail, and was designed as a self-mailer that respondents could
return, postage prepaid, without an envelope.
City of Dublin staff devised the survey with input from Waste Management staff. The City paid for the
cost to print the survey, as well as for the prepaid postage for returned surveys. Waste Management paid
the mailing costs to distribute. the surveys. The surveys were sent out to just over 6,000 customers. The
surveys were.distributed in the following two ways:
1. An independent mailing was sent through U.S. mailto customers who subscribe to the
minimum service, and are billed through the tax rolls.
/:{ 2. Surveys were inserted into Waste Managementbills to customers who are billed for
".:>- supplemental services.
Of the more than 6,000 surveys that were mailed out, 2,064, or 34% were returned. This return rate far
exceeded expectations.. This resulted in a good amount of data and comments, but also resulted in a delay
of the final report due to a greater than anticipated workload to compile the survey results.
Some of the more important results of the survey included the following findings:
+:~ 96~_~f_~~ respondents participated in the re~~~entiaLre~ycl~g P~?gt!ll11;_ __.~
+:+ 63% of the respondents recycled at least 13 of the 16 recyclable materials;
+:+ 84% of the respondents 'always or usually participate · in fue City's special clean-ups;
+:+ 77% of the respondents were aware that recycled wood is collected through the clean-ups; and
+:+ The most frequent (129 respondents) suggestion for improvement in the prograrrlwas the provision of
more or larger recycling bins.
Complete survey results are attached to this report (Attachment 3).
-:'.r
;~"" i?ecommendation:
-~~
Composting
t(
~
"~':'-'-::-.~Y(ll"d-debris (including=wQod) tliafiscollected-thiough the -CitY's- green waste collection program, is-
delivered to the Altamont landfill, wh~re it is ground and used as ~ternative_ ~~ly cover ll1aterial. __
Public Education
/~
~\
Waste Management prepares public education materials at least quarterly for distributioIHo the City's
residents and businesses. These materials primarily include newsletters and mailings. In addition,
recycling staff personally visits businesses to perform waste audits and to assist the busmesses. in
developing an in-house recycling program.
In addition to these programs, HF &H recommends that the City avail itself of the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority's Resource-full Showcase to educate local contractors in the use of recycled
materials. Thanks to direction provided by Council members, prior to the City Council meeting of
November 16, 1999, the Resource-full Showcase was displayed at the Dublin Civic Center. City staff,
COUncilmembers, local builders, contractors and architects were invited to attend the exhibit to learn about
using recycled, reused, recyclable and non-toxic materials in building and remodeling projects.
During the Council meeting, staff was directed to continue to work with Authority staff to provide
additional opportunities to display the showcase and to conduct a seminar for local builders, contractors
and architects. Staff is currently working to have the Showcase displayed at the City's St. Patrick's Day
festival. Authority staff has also indicated that there will be a day-long green building seminar on
February 1, 2000. The seminar is designed to help educate and inform City staff and the local building
community about green building opportunities. City staff will ensure that all appropriate staff and local
building community representatives are invited to the seminar.
DIVERSION:
:;;"\
As is evidenced ah.ove, the City of Dublin has -initiated many new programs and policies aimed at
increasing the City's diversion rate. Annually, the City prepares a report to the CIWMB containing its
calculation of the diversion level achieved using the CIWMB-approved formula. Up until the most
recently reported year (1998), diversion rates for the City of Dublin had steadily increased. The following
is a chart summarizing diversion rates for the City of Dublin.
. (:ity of Dublin Reported Diversion -
(Annual Tons)
Year Generation Disposal Diversion %
Diversion
1995 46,851 35,852 10,999 23.5%
1996 .48,959 31,627 17,332 35.4%
1997 52,049 29,959 22,090 42.4%
1998 53,818 36,596 17,222 32.0%
Source: City of Dublin CIWMB Annual Report
__- 'The'consultant'srep6rt indicates that the decline in the 1998 diversion rate can be attributed-to a few
factors. First, the decline from previous years must be understood in the context of the calculation
methodology.
~-)
-Lj-
Div~rsion r'a,tes were initiallycalcula!~d}p. I ?~q,.'N~,en_e?fh jJlli~dic.tjQn_was_r~.9,lli~~~: !~peyform ~:~:
:~..;_>::.diversion s.tiidy~'- As-part of-the diversion study, jurisdfctions determine-cftlie-TotaIamount of waste
disposed, and the total amountofwaste diverted through source reduction and recycling programs. These
<?_ numbers were combined to determine the jurisdiction's total waste generation.
~" .. \..
Generation = Diversion + Disposal
The diversion rate was then calculated by dividing the diversion tonnage by the generation tonnage.
Diversion Rate = Diversion I Generation
To calculate the City's "true diversion" rate, a new diversion study would need to be performed every
year to measure the diversion that was occurring annually in each jurisdiction.. To avoid this, the CIWMB
decided to use a new calculation methodology that uses the generation and diversion numbers generated
from the 1990 diversion study as base year numbers.. Diversion rates are currently calculated by predicting
waste generation based on increases in population, employment,. and taXable sales. Generation tonnage is
calculated by adjusting the 1990 base year generation tonnage to account for these variables. Therefore,
the diversion rate is derived from estimate4waste generation and reported disposal tonnage, not from
actual reported generation or diversion.
This method of calculating the diversion rate. is called a disposal based reporting system. Because the
"true diversion" rates are difficult and time consuming to calculate, the diversion rates are based on easy
to report disposal numbers and not the "true diversion" that is occurring in the community. The current
formula does not take into consideration the City's recycling or source reduction programs. In essence,
~.... what the formula does, is it tries to predict what the. jurisdictions generation should be, based on
.:'~{ population and economic growth, and then. calculates the diversion rate by comparing this estimated
~ generation tonnage to the actual disposal tonnage. -
. Diversion tonnage is calculated bysubtrilCting the disposaftonnagefrom estimated generation tonnage
(Diversion = Generation..... Disposal). The diversion rate is then calculated by dividing the diversion
tonnage by the generation tonnage. Calculating the diversion rate can be thought of in several different
ways.
Diversion Rate = Diversion! Generation
Or
Diversion Rate = Diversion I Disposal + Diversion
Or
Diversion Rate = (Generation - Disposal) I Generation
Attachment 7 shows the 1998 diversion rate calculations that were submitted to the CIWMB for the City
of Dublin.
The diversion rate methodology, combined with increased development activity in eastern Dublin has
greatly contributed to the City's diversion rate decline. Increased construction activity in eastern Dublin
has resulted in a dramatic increase in disposal tonnage. The calculation methodology presents a problem
?r'because thj.s ne~_ cQn.structionactivity is not reflected in the employment, taxable sales, and population
~~t .. factors used to project waste generation.
'~
-.,.- ..6'"--
Unfortunately, these three adjustment variables will not increase noticeably until after the constroctiol1'
takes place. A large amount of construction debris was generated in the City of p~~li~ .tn.) 9~?_l R.l!t the_ _. . . .
~=--- _- gen..er~..t!onfop:11ula,9.oes 1!Qt.(g;~01lAtJo~thi.s-CQnstructionactivity;-:.WhendisposahUn6uritsirlcrease c'-.-., ,--'.-- - - -'
. without a similar increase in the three adjustment factors to reflect this growth, the di~ersionrate declines.
. As people move into the homes and the retail husinesses 'open, the City should see an increase in~\
estimated generation tonnage, which will result in a diversion rate increase.
Even though the formula suggests that the City should experience higher diversion rates in the future, staff
is pro actively looking for ways to divert an even greater amount of waste from the landfills. Based on the - -
analysis and recommendations ofHF&H, staff recommends that the City devote a majority of its source
reduction and recycling efforts to construction and demolition debris diversion.
Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D)
The most significant growth in disposal sources has occurred in roll-off box and self-haul tons, a
reflection of the increased construction activity in eastern Dublin. For example, Waste Management
reportedJ,766 roll-off box pulls in 1997.1 In 1998, this number increased to 2,650, a 50% increase over
the prior year. Year-to-date, the City's 1999 tonnage reports show continued roll-off box growth. Roll-
off tons for the first 9 months of 1999 are 184% higher than the tons reported for the first. 9 months of
1998.
Other sectors do not show such dramatic growth. From January 1997 to December 1998, residential
customers grew by approximately 10%, from 5,588 to 6,137. For the same period, commercial customers
grew by approximately 4%, from 51 7 to 538.
Recommendation:
From the research conducted by HF &H, it appears that the material that has the greatest potential for
recycling isC&D debris that is currently being collected in roll-offboxes or disposed of by self-haul
customers. With anticipated continueddevelopment in eastern Dublin, staff agrees with the consultant's.
recommendation thatafocused effort on this materia/will bring the greatest results. For example, if80%
of the wood, inerts, gypsum wallboard, and asphalt roofing collected in roll-offboxes in 1998 had been
recycled, the City's diversion percentage wouldbe increased by approximately 11%, to 43%. Waste
Management reports that much of this material could be recycled if it were source separated by the waste
generator or ifit could be _~elivered to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).
The HF&Hreport explains thafmany jurisdictions have begun encouraging the recycling ofC&D debris
by requiring that a recycling plan be preparedfor each major construction or demolition project in
. .. connection with the issuance of a construction or demolition permit. The timing of this recommendation
coincides well with recent efforts made by the ACW.MA to encourage C&D recycling on a countywide
basis.
. ,..J' ......
...."", " ,
On November 17, 1999 the A CW.MA approved a model C&D Ordinance, which they hope will be adopted
by every local jurisdiction in the County. It is up to each member agency to. decide whether to adopt the
Ordinance. The Ordinance was written so that it could be tailored to fit local conditions. The purpose of
the Ordinance is to require maximum feasible recycling at new construction sites and salvage and
deconstruction for remodeling and demolition projects. Analysis performed byACW.MA staff indicates
. .J.,
~:,:_)
1 The months of January and February contained an unusually high number of pulls . If these months had reflected the average of the
remaining 10 months, 1997 would have only had 1,060 pulls.
-:-t..-
that it is possible to recycle a large amount of construction materials without compromising the company
bottoin line!'
The model Ordinance requires projects (those exceeding a given square footage or value) to divert at
:~ least 50% of their construction waste materials from the landfill. Building and demolition permit
\, applicants wo~ld be required to fill OJlt.a_stalJdardJf!aste._Management Plan, outlining the estimated
amounts and types of waste to be generated,.reused, recycledand disposed Applicants wouldalso be
required to submit proof that materials have been recycled/reused. .A recent article in the. Valley Times
regarding this issue summarizes the response of one local project manager regarding the possibility of a
C&D Ordinance in Dublin. Ted Fairfield, project manager for Dublin Ranch development was quoted as
saying "It sounds like a good idea environmentally... I would hope rational and efftctive policies would
be adopted" Fairfield also said "Itmay be a hassle but if there 's a direct benefit for the hassle, why
not?" If the Councildecides to pursue the adoption ofa C&D Ordinance, staff would work with the local
building community, the City Community Development Department, City Attorney, and A CW.MAstaff to
develop an Ordinance that is both "rational and efftctive".
A CW.MA staff has indicated that they will provide the following assistance:
· Review franchise agreement to. ensure that the C&DOrdinance can be implemented
· Customize options for implementation
· Present Ordinance. to Planning Commission and City. Council
· Provide recycling and demolition guides
· Develop local cqse studies.
· Training City staff on reviewing Waste Management Plans
· Work with local builders through workshops or whichever method is deemed most effectivefor
Dublin.
-"'r · Provide technical assistance during the first year of the Ordinance's implementation
::- .~
A preliminary meeting has already been held with A CW.MA . staff to discuss plans for adopting and
implementing a C&D. Ordinanc:ejnthe. CitypfDublin. Staffn:c.ommends that the City continue to work in
cooperation withACW.MA staffandlocal builders to tailor the County-endorsed C&D Ordinance to local
conditions. Stafffeels that this Ordinance will have a significant impact on helping the City meet the 50%
diversion requirement by the Year 2000.
Class II Waste:
In addition to the dIversion rate decline attributed to the development of eastern Dublin, the City recently
received notification that Class II waste, from Forward Inc. Landfill in San Joaquin. County, would be
.. counted and added to Class III disposal amounts.(Attachment 8). Class III waste includes all of the
traditional waste. collected by franchised haulers and which is typically targeted for source reduction and
recycling programs. . Class II waste includes items such as ash, drilling muds, asbestos, lead based painted
wood and contaminated soils.. Most of these items cannot be readily or feasibly diverted from the landfill.
For the past four years, San Joaquin County has been working with the CIWMB and the California State
Legislature, to limit the reporting of waste for AB939 purposes, to Class In waste. However these efforts
have been somewhat unsuccessful. San Joaquin. County has recently been directed by the CIWMB to
report Class II waste quantities.
:~'~r~e City of J)ub1in receive~notifica~on froIl1 San Joaquin C~uno/~at 12,504 tons of.C1ass II waste
::;:\ .iisposed-ofatForward Inc. Landfill m1998 came fromDub1m. This represents 25% of the total waste
-- disposal attributed to the City of Dublin.
Q--
'Ie '
In October 1999, the City received a letter from the CIWMB, reporting that Class II waste had increased
. ~lg~_~Qio/~_~~:4isposalJrom36-,_~26~tg 42J_O_Qtons..ancireduced the City's1998_diversionrate to 9%.-..
(Attachment 9). The new reporting standards had a similar effect on many other jurisdictions throughout
the State. For example, the diversion rate for the City of EmeryViIIe went from 43% to ~18%. -
-
....l-
--SanJoaquinCounty-iscontiriUing to-work-Wlth the State Legislature, the CIWMB and a".number of
interested groups to change the reporting requirements and provide a regulatory or legislative fix.
Legislative language has been drafted for insertion into an appropriate bill. Staff is hopeful that the State
Legislature will eventually pass a Bill exempting Class II waste from AB939 reporting requirements.
Recommendation:
Until this issue is resolved by the State Legislature, City staff will work to have this Class II waste
exemptedfrom the City's reported disposal amounts. The CIWMB allows localjurisdictions to file for
exemptions if the waste can be characterized as a special one-time project and the material could not
have been beftasibly recycled An overwhelming majority of the Class 11 waste from the City of Dublin
came from Alameda County's development of eastern Dublin. The development has resulted in the
removal of large quantities of asbestos. Over 10,000 tons of asbestos was removedfrom eastern Dublin in
1998. The remaining Class II tonnage was from contaminated soil and other by-products associated with
underground gasoline and oil tank removals from sites on Village Parkway and Central Parkway.
City staff has spoken. with CIWMB staff about the requirements for submitting a request to exclude these
Class II waste sourcesfrom. the City's 1998 diversion report. It is recommended that the Council direct
staff to continue. to work with CIWMB and Alameda County staff to prepare the documents required to
submit an exemption request to the CIWMB.
Conversations with County staff indicate that the County is unaware of any additional projects requiring
asbestos removal, however it is possible that additional asbestos may befound as the County continues to
develop its properties in the City. There was no Class II waste removed from the City in 1997 and the
tonnage for 1999 is not yet available.
. J.'\.
....., : t
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Provide direction to staff o~ whether to pursue the acquisition of 64-gallon recycling. carts.
.-2. __ D!rects~tom5~nitortheComm~rcia1.RecycIing Program and report back to Council with a
recommendation for contIDuing the- program-after the initial 16-month agreement expires.
3. Direct staff to work with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and local builders to
develop a Construction. and Demolition Ordinance forthe City of Dublin.
4. Direct staff to continue to work with CIWMB and Alameda County staff to prepare the documents
required to submit a waste exemption request to the CIWMB.
Since 1991, the City. of Dublin has made great progress in implementing new source reduction and
recycling programs. These programs have resulted in significant waste diversion from area landfills. Staff
is confident that by continuing to strengthen the City's existing programs and by implementing the
recommended new programs, the City of Dublin will be able to reach the 50% diversion rate by the Year
2000. However, even in the event that the City does not meet the diversion goal, it will not be difficult to
s~ow that the City is making a "good faith effort" in complying with AB939. This "good faith effort"
_shQuldall()w the City to receive an-extension for meeting the diversion requirement. ..."J:-.
--
-g-
. ,- --'.. - .
-.-- ~- --" --
Staff continues. to work closely with Waste Management, ACWMA and CIWMB staff in an effort to
improve the tity's source reduction and recycling programs and to comply with AB939. In the event that
-~the-seprograms'prbve unsuccessful in achieving a 50%. diversion rate, staffwill.work to develop new
strategies for achieving this goal and will come back to Council with new recommendations.
..r-r One strategy that the City m~y wish to consider in the future is calculating a new base year. In order to
calculate a new base year; the City would need to conduda new generation-based diversion study. This
would be useful if the City feels that the current disposal-based reporting system does not accurately
reflect the amount of true diversion occurring in the City. A new diversion study would involve
calculating the current tons diverted from the landfill through source reduction and recycling programs.
Among other things, this would require interviewing local businesses in order to quantify their source
reduction and recycling efforts. Staff is not recommending this approach at this time because of the cost
associated with the study and because it may not result ina higher diversion rate. Staff feels that the City
should concentrate on current and recommended source reduction and recycling programs in order to
achieve the diversion goal.
Suggestions and ideas from the Council regarding additional waste diversion program improvements are
always welcome.
~.'r-
". .
;'-:..\
'r
;,;..
~
-'1"--
--
~ - ",---.--.-.
CITY OF DUBliN
Final Report on the
City's Progress and Strategies to
Achieve the 50% A8939 Diversion Goal
December 1, 1999
Prepared by:
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
ATTACHMENT 1
--- --....---,----- ---~
---... - .- -..-.- --. ._,-~ --
.. - -- -
. .____ _. d___ _ __ _ _.__ ..___. ___,_'__- ---~
--,-_.-' -. - ---'- ,-- -.- -.- ..-- ---- ','. --,_...- -'--~
~.. --,-- _._-
- , . -- -- -
_.___~::_--~_:~ ~----'-~'::7.~-~_:_:
CITY OF DUBLIN
- .......,
Final Report on the
City's Progress and Strategies to
Achieve the 50% AB939 Diversion Goal
Table of Contents
'.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND .......:.. ........... ....... ....... ....... .............. ...... ..... ..... ..... .... ............... ..... ...... ....... ........ ....... ..... ....... ..... 1
OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................................... ................... 1
ApPROACH ........................................................................................................................................... ............ 1
1HE CITY'S SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) ............................................................ 1
CURRENT PROGRAMS AND RESULTS ........ ...... .... ..... .................. .... ................. ........... ..... ............. ..... ..... ..... ...... 2
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES. ............ ..................... ........... .... ................ .......... ...... ... ..... ........ ....... ........ ........... 5
SECTION 1 REPORT OVERVIEW. ............................................................... .......................................,........ 8
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ .............. .... 8
OBJECTIVE................................................................................................................................ ....................... 9
ApPROACH................................................................................................................................ .......... ....... ....... 9
LIMITATIONS..... ..... ..... ..... .... ... ....... ......................... ........... ............ ......... ... ........ ............. .................... ..... ...... 10
SECTION 2 THE CITY'S SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE)............... 12
TONNAGE....................................................................................................................................... ................ 12
PLANNED PROGRAMS SUMMARy.................................... .............................. .................. ........ ... ....... ............. 12
SECTION 3 CURRENT PROGRAMS AND RESULTS .............................................................................14
SOURCE REDuen ON ...................................................................................................................................... 14
RECYCLING ........... :... ..................................................................................................................................... 15
COMPOSTING ...................................................................................... ........................................................... 1 7
SPECIAL WASTE.. .... ............ ......... ..... ....................... ........ ....::.. ....... .:.... ................................... ............ ... ....... 17
PUBLIC EDUCATION ............ ....... ....... ....... ................ ........ ........ ............. ........................ ............. ............ ........ 17
DIVERSION....................................................................... .............................................................................. 18
WASTE COMPOSITION ......... ......... ....... .... ........ ......... ........... ....... .................................... ............. .... ..... .......... 20
"--'
-
~ _~~, SECTION 4 RECOMMENDED STRA TEG IES ........................................................................................... 22
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION RECYCLING ... ................................ ................:........ ........ ....... ...... ................... 22
COMMERCIAL RECYCLING ........... ....... ..................................... ......... ............ ... ............. ........ ..... .., ....... .......... 24
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING CONTAINERS....... ........ ............................... .... ...... ................. ......... .... ......... ... ....... 24
SCHOOLS PROGRAM....................................................................................................................................... 25
CITY PROCUREMENT POLICY. .......... ............... ......... .......... .............. ... .... ..... .... ..................... ... .......... ..... ....... 26
APPENDIX A - SAMPLE NEWSLETTER
APPENDIX B - CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RECYCLING PLAN
..~
-.---..--'- ---
- ~ --'- ----- .-- --,-_. -
. -
-:---:--_-.,-~~~_: _"___..::::~~~.::,__ :.:.._~__ -_-;..::;"':.____.~~~_.~-.~;~~-=:-:.:_..c..---'--_.;;.;;. ~.~-'-~ __-~~=-.-.--.-- ;~,;.::_:~~:~~~.;;.-::.:;~..;;,:~ '~~~_;.._==~_- '____ -_- ---
~.',-- _..,..~' ,-- -- - -~ .
- .
-----
;;~\
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The California Public Resources Code contains the requirement for local
jurisdictions to prepare a plan for achieving 50% diversion of solid waste from
landfill disposal by 2000. The City reported a 42% diversion level for the calendar
year 1997. This reflects a steady increase over the last three years, reflecting the
City's implementation of new diversion programs for residential and commercial
customers. However, the City's 1998 diversion shows a decline to approximately
32%. Thus, with significant development occurring in the City's eastern half, the
City must continue to focus on recycling programs and activities, particularly in the
commercial sector.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to document our review of the City's progress toward
meeting the AB939 goals, and recommend strategies that are most likely to help
the City meet these goals.
ApPROACH
WeJnterviewed representatives from the_City's franchised hauler and reviewed
relevant Internet web sites, State legislation, and reports and documents made
available by the City staff.
THE CITY'S SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE)
The City's SRRE anticipated significant tonnage growth (averaging approximately
12% per year) in the last half of the 1990's. This was primarily due to the
anticipated development of eastern Dublin. The City planned to implement
programs aimed at source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste and
public education to achieve the target 50% reduction in landfilled waste.
r~
..11
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
--::_=..,.:::=:;;.::::-.--: -'====--=..:-.:.:..--=-=--~=--=-.=-=.~_-:..-=-:.::..::::::.....--.:.::;::..-~=~~- -=::.:::.....;;;:-,. -- .--
AB939 Progress and Strategies
,
City of Dublin
CURRENT PROGRAMS AND RESULTS
~
.~.
Source Reduction
'.
The City implemented a home composting program and modified its rate structure
to reflect volume-based rates. It has not yet implemented a recycling procurement
policy.
Recycling
Curbside Residential Recycling
The City's franchised hauler provides curbside ~ecycling collection for the City's
residents. The recyclable materials collected include: newspaper, junk mail,
magazines, brown paper bags, corrugated cardboard, white paper, glass
containers, aluminum cans, ferrous containers, aseptic packaging, PET and HDPE
containers, and #3-#7 narrow neck plastic containers.
In July 1998, the City conducted a survey of City residents to determine their level
of satisfaction with the current recycling programs and solicit suggestions for
improvements to the programs. Residents returned almost 2,100 surveys, for an
excellent 34% response rate.
The survey showed that:
."""'"
.:.9E>~o,f t~_e_r,~~p~!lgents parttcipated in the residential recycling program;- .
.:.- 63% of the respondents recycled atleast 13 of the 16 recyclable materials;
.:. 84% of the respondents always or usually participate in the City's special clean-
ups; - -___.-
.:. 77% of the respondents were aware that recycled wood is collected through the
clean-ups; and,
.:. The most frequent (129 respondents) suggestion for improvement in the
program was the provision of more or larger recycling bins.
Commercial Recycling
In March 1999, the City entered into a 16-month agreement with its franchised
hauler to provide expanded commercial recycling services to the City's businesses
and schools. This program consists of a mixed paper program ("Anything That
Tears") and a mixed container program, which includes glass bottles, plastic
bottles, and cans..
fi
.~
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
''7"'~ Inert Recycling
The hauler transports material collected in "rock boxes" to the Altamont Landfill,
where it is ground up and used onsite as road base.
Composting
Yard debris that is collected through the City's green waste collection program is
delivered to the Altamont landfill, where it is ground and used as alternative daily
cover material.
Special Waste
Whole tires are banned from landfill disposal by the state. The hauler reports tires
that escape detection at the time of collection are pulled from the refuse at the
landfill and returned to the hauler, who usually delivers the tires to the Davis Street
Transfer Station, where they are turned into crumb rubber, playground bedding
material, or delivered for use as fuel in a cement kiln or tire-to-energy plant
Public Education
~
: "'
The hauler prepares public education materials at least quarterly for distribution to
the City's residents and businesses. These materials primarily include newsletters
and mailings. In addition, recycling staff personally visit businesses to perform
waste audits and assist in the development of an in-house recycling program at the
business.
Diversion
Table4' (nt:Jmbered to correspond to the table -in the main body of the report) shows
the reported diversion percentage for 1995-1998.
Table 4
. City of Dublin Reported Diversion
(Annual Tons) : . _._
Year Generation Disposal Diversion %
Diversion
1995 46,851 35,852 10,999 23.5%
1996 48,959 31,627 17,332 35.4%
1997 52,049 29,959 22,090 42.4%
1998 53,818 36,596 17,222 32.0%
Source: City of Dublin CIWMB Annual Report
-3i
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
..
AB939 Progress and strategies
City of Dublin
Based on 1997 diversion reports, six Alameda County jurisdictions reported higher
diversion and seven Alameda. County jurisdictions reported lower diversion than the .~
City. However, based on the 1998 diversion calculation, the City must still divert a
significant amount of material through its current and future source reduction and recycling
programs.
Waste Composition
The City now has several programs in place to assist the City's residents and
businesses to recycle. Understanding what remains in the waste stream is critical
to formulating plans for additional recycling efforts. Table 7 summarizes the waste
composition by secto~ based on a 1996 waste composition study performed by
EMCON.
Table 7
Waste Composition by Sector
(Percentage by Weight)
Single- Multi- Roll-Off Self-Haul
Material Family Family Commercial Box Total
Paper 34.57 37.98 .42.07 33.97 5.28 25.35
Plastic 8.66 11.88 11.83 9.1 2.42 7.26
Glass 3.73 4.79 2.39 . 0.55 1.17 1.86
Metals 3.01 3.45 9.28 10.70 6.47 7.32
u
Yard Waste 18.58 0.11 4.30 4.29 20.08 12.27
Organics 28.89 35.56 22.83 36.56 32.27 32.27
Other Waste 2.56 6.22 7.30 4.83 27.85 13.66
. -,-
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 109.Qo9__ _ 1 00.00._- 1 00.0 ~c-
.- _.. - ~-,-- .- - - -- .. --
-.--" ---- - - -- ---- - - .- -- 0
-'
..""",
Source: EMCON Waste Characterization Study, October 1996
Table 7 shows that the largest single material by weight in the waste stream is
organics, which consists primarily of wood and food waste. The next largest
material by weight is paper, which consists primarily of mixed paper and corrugated
cardboard. Together, these two materials comprise almost 60 percent of the waste
stream. The City already has recycling programs targeting residential home
composting of food waste and residential and commercial paper. However, no
formal program exists addressing the wood and other construction and demolition
waste in the roll-off box and self-haul waste streams.
-4l
,...."
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
, I
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
.?
. - RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Construction/Demolition Recycling
-.
It appears that requiring C&D recycling as a condition of construction and
demolition permits can result in significant diversion of C&D material from the
landfill. We recommend that recycling conditions and a plan similar to that
contained in Appendix B be adopted by the City for inclusion in its permit
conditions. This has the potential to divert up to 11 % of ttie City's waste stream.
The City should also avail itself of the Resource-full Showcase and other public
education materials that are available from the County to educate local contractors
in the use of recycled materials and the recycling of construction and demolition
debris.
Commercial Recycling
The hauler has recently implemented an expanded commercial recycling program
targeting mixed paper and containers. We encourage the City to monitor the
implementation of this program.
Residential Recycling Containers
/~
The hauler has expressed an interest in providing 64-gallon carts to the City's
residents. Given the capital cost associated with these carts, it is likely that the
hauler will want to negotiate a longer contract term and increased compensation if
the City wishes to pursue this program change. Alternatively, the City could use its
.. dMeasureD fundsJo purchase.thecarts, as it has done previously with other capital
items, or to reimburse the hauler for its annual cart cost (depreciation and interest).
We recommend that the City enter into discussions with the hauler to determine the
cost and associated contract changes and then determine whether the benefits
outweigh the costs.
Schools Program
- . --- - -
The hauler has been working with staff from the local schools to develop a
recycling program. To be successful, the teachers and custodians must be
consulted, involved and motivated to participate. The City and hauler may wish to
consider providing financial awards to schools that divert the greatest amount of
paper as a way to encourage participation.
City Procurement Policy
The City planned to implement a recycled and reusable products procurement
policy to promote the purcflase of source reduction products and/or recycled
'.,:;;-.
.~
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
products. We recommend that the City use the- County's model policy to develop -
and implement a products procurement policy for all City purchases.
-61
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
.-
.' "'\
.....",
~~-,-
.~.
.~.
AB939 P!-ogress and Strategies
City of Dublin
- .- _._.. -- - ~., '.:...:=---...:...:...-=-:=---. _.-==':::"::-=-"'::~-;:'::::_-'::""'-:-"::-.-:'~=--":"-';:=-':'=---..-=.::-.::"'::'::::----'';'';'-':'" -"-----:--
~
~
This page left intentionally blank.
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
SECTION 1
REPORT OVERVIEW
""'-'
BACKGROUND
Legislative Requirement
The California Public Resources Code contains the requirement for local
jurisdictions to prepare a plan for achieving 50% diversion of solid waste from
landfill disposal by 2000. Each jurisdiction was required to adopt a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1992. The SRRE was to
document those activities that the jurisdiction planned to undertake to achieve this
diversion goal:
"41002. The city source reduction and recycling element shall place
primary emphasis on implementation of all feasible source reduction,
recycling, and composting programs while identifying the amount of
landfill and transformation capacity that will be needed for solid
waste which cannot be reduced at the source, recycled, or com posted."
,..""""
Th~ Code also allows the California Integrated Waste Management Board (the
. CIWMB) to impose penalties of up to $10,000 per day on jurisdictions that fail to
implement their SRRE:
"41850. (a) Except as specifically provided in Section 41813, if,
after holding the public hearing and issuing an order of compliance
pursuant.to Section 4j825, the board finds that the city, county, or
regional agency has failed to implement its source reduction' and
recycling element or its household hazardous waste element, the board
may impose administrative civil penalties upon the city or county
or, pursuant to Section 40974, upon the city or county as a member of
a regional agency, of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per day
until the city, county, or regional agency implements the element."
To avoid these penalties, the jurisdiction must demonstrate that it has made a
"good faith effort" to implement its SRRE. "Good faith effort" is defined in the Code
as:
"all reasonable and feasible efforts by a city, county, or
,Iegiqnal agency to. implement those programs or activities identified
si
......"
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 P;ogress and Strategies
City of Dub/in
o
in its source reduction and recycling element or household hazardous
waste element, . or alternative programs or activities that achieve the
same or similar results."
The CIWMB may also consider the extent to which the jurisdiction has implemented
additional source reduction, recycling, and composting activities, the extent to
which it is meeting the diversion requirements, and whether the jurisdiction has
requested and been granted an extension.
The Code allows jurisdictions to request an alternative requirement or time
extension not to exceed three years, if the CIWMB finds that:
"(1) The city or county and has made a good faith effort to
effectively implement the source reduction, recycling, and composting .
measures described in its board approved source reduction and
recycling element and has demonstrated progress toward meeting the
alternative requirement as described in its annual reports to the
board and the city or county has been unable to meet the 50-percent
diversion requirement despite implementing those measures.
(2) The alternative source reduction, recycling, and composting
requirement represents the greatest diversion amount that the city or
county, may reasonably and feasibly achieve."
:.:~ City's Current Status
As discussed in more detail below, the City reported a 42% diversion level for the
calendar year 1997. This reflects a steady increase over the last three years,
reflecting the City's implementation of new diversion programs for residential and
commercial customers. However, the 1998 diversion shows a decline to
approximately 32% (this calculation is discussed further below.) Thus; with
significant development occurring in the City's eastern half, the City must continue
to focus on recycling programs and activities, particularly in the commercial sector.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to document our review of the City's progress toward
meeting the AB939 goals, and recommend strategies that are most likely to help
the City meet these goals.
ApPROACH
. ;.;-.
,i
We interviewed representatives from the City's franchised hauler and reviewed
relevant Internet web sites, State legislation, and reports and documents made
available by the City staff.
91
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
- -....' -, -"---'- ~_.. '--. _._-~_....,"'-"- --
_'u____ _ ___
"____ _:-"'~-_'__~_____-,-::: __,_,~_~......,_--::-_': 'C'",,--_ ._ - __.
AB939 Progress and Strategies
-.
-
---. - .-.,- - - -. --,' - ~.-.- ---
. -...' ._'-',--~'~_._-"-~-.- ."-----=: .._-~, ,-"::,:-~ --~---=~..:_, "
l
City- of Dublin
LIMITATIONS
We relied upon the representations and information obtained from the City staffarid
franchised hauler and did not attempt to verify their accuracy~
1iH _H
10 _
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
.~-.......
'W
~-
"wf/IJ'
....."
-~
'.";;---
.48939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
-111
This page left intentionally blank.
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
- '- - -_______ - ,~-" - ___ "'C'c'_+ -__,-
- --- .
SEC-lION 2
THE CITY'S SOURCE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
(SRRE)
~
TONNAGE
The City's SRRE anticipated significant tonnage growth (averaging approximately
12% per year) in the last half of the 1990's, as shown in Table 1. This was
primarily due to the anticipated development of eastern Dublin.
Table 1
SRRE Projected Tonnage
(Annual Tons) ,
Year Generation Disposal Diversion %
Diversion
1990 47,260 41,707 5,553 11.7%
1995 47,336 34,058 13,308 28.1%
- - -
2000 74,723 37,360 37,363 50.0%
'~
Source: Alameda County I ntegrated Waste Management Plan
At the same time, planned diversion programs were expected to increase diversion
to 50% by 2000. These programs are summarized below.
PLANNED PROGRAMS SUMMARY
Source Reduction
The City planned to support the Alameda County Home Composting Program by
disseminating information on the Program's various elements. These elements
include demonstration gardens, a home composting Rotline, workshops, subsidized
compost bin distribution, and Master Composter Training classes. In addition, the
City planned to adopt a recycled and reusable products procurement policy.
Finally, the City planned to provide financial incentives through a uniform rate
121
....."
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
--r
..?-
A'B939 Progress and Strategies City of Dublin
-
:: --~ ... ,----:'-- -- +- ---'--.--.-------- -- .--- . - .,,'~ ------,-------'-----_._....;.--
structure to encourage participation in its source reduction, recycling, and
composting progra_ms.
Recycling
The City planned to support the development of regional Materials Recovery
Facilities (MRFs) for the separation of recyclable and/or compostable materials
from commercial, industrial and institutional waste. The City planned to expand the
residential curbside recycling program to include multi-family residences and
increase the number of single family residences participating in the program. The
City planned to also establish a white office paper collection program for
commercial businesses. Finally, the City planned to require that loads of concrete
and asphalt be delivered to appropriate facilities for recycling.
Composting
The City planned to support the development of a subregional composting facility
for source-separated yard waste and a program providing collection of source-
separated yard waste.
Special Waste
The City planned to support countywide programs aimed at diverting special
wastes, including asbestos, biomedical wastes, and used tires, from disposal.
Public Education
The City targeted three audiences for its public education activities: residents,
businesses- and schools. -These activities were to include: community outreach
through the use of public speakers; use of local media (newspaper and cable TV);
support for local school recycling educational activities; and, targeted educational
programs for industry and commercial groups, government groups and professional
groups.
_ _:..........:. :-.'7:':.. _.:. "'_ .,,_-":...-,-C
131
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
1 r
City of Dublin
--- .-----,'.
---,--_.- --.- -, ,.'.-
-.- ' .
.- . -_. -, --
- ..- ---,~. ...,- ... -~, --
SECTION 3
CURRENT PROGRAMS"AND
RESUL TS
---------..,
~
SOURCE REDUCTION
Home Composting
Together with nine other jurisdictions and the County, the City promotes and
encourages residents to practice home composting, with assistance available
through the County's Home Composting Program.
Procurement Policy
The City has not adopted a recycling procurement policy.
Rate Structure
In September 1991, the City modified its rate structure to reflect volume-based
rates. Under volume-based rates, the franchised hauler bills the City's residents an
amount that varies with the amount of refuse capacity to which the residents
subscribe. Thus, a resident with a 35-gallon cart pays less than a resident with a
64-gallon cart~ who in turn pays less than a resident with a 96-gallon tart. Volume-
based rates provide a financial incentive to residents to reduce the amount of
refuse placed for pickup by the franchised hauler. Participation in the City's
recycling programs provide the alternative means to setting out materials for landfill
~isposal.
-Table 2-snows selected rates thafwere effective July 1,1999:- Approximately 63%
of the residential customers subscribe to 35-gallon service, while 33% subscribe to
64-gallon service and less than 1 % subscribe to 96-gallon service.
,,-.-,^
~
~I
."wIII
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
A8939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
/~~:\
Table 2
Current Rates
(as of July 1, 1999)
Monthly Differential Differential
Service level Rate $ %
Residential
Minimum Service - $10.05 - -
35 gallon
64 gallon 18.05 $8.00 80%
96' gallon 26.05 16.00 160%
Commercial
1 yard, 1Xweek 33.45 - -
2 yards,1Xweek 66.90 33.45 100%
3 yards, 1 Xweek 100.35 66.90 200%
4 yards, 1 Xweek 133.80 100.35 300%
Source:
City of Dublin
RECYCLING
Curbside Residential Recycling
The City's franchised hauler also provides curbside recycling collection for the
City's residents._ The haul~r provides each single-family residence with three 11-
gallon tubs or each multi-famUy-cofT}PJ~x with at le~st two 96-galJoQ caJj$ for
- storage- of recyclable rTlaterials for weekly collection by the hauler. The recyclable
materials collected include: newspaper, junk mail, magazines, brown paper bags,
corrugated cardboard, white paper, glass containers, aluminum cans, ferrous
containers, aseptic packaging, PET and HOPE containers, and #3-#7 narrow neck
plastic containers.
Table 3 shows the reported recycling tonnage collected by the hauler by major
recyclable commodity.
U15i .
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
-- ..
.--- ..---.------
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin__
... --
...-----..,-,.... ,---,-"'+-- -
Table 3
Residential Recycling Tons
. (Annual Tons)
~
Year Paper Glass Tin Aluminum Plastic Total
1998 1,436 387 42 17 79 1,961
1997 1,210 317 47 7 65 1,646
1996 1,180 430 76 20 54 1,760
1995 669 354 61 13 24 1,121
Source: Livermore-Dublin Disposal
In July 1998, the City conducted a survey of City residents to determine their level
of satisfaction with the current recycling programs and solicit suggestions for
improvements to the programs. The survey, developed by City staff, was mailed to
customers who subscribe to the minimum service and are billed through the tax
rolls and inserted into Waste Management bills to customers who are billed for
supplemental services. Residents returned almost 2,100 surveys, for an excellent
34% response rate.
The survey showed that:
.~
.:. 96% of the respondents participated in the residential recycling program;
.:.-63%-of the respondents recycled at least 13 of the 16 recyclable materials;
.:. 84% of the respondents always or usually participate in the City's special clean-
ups;
;:~~.u.._..:. :77% of. the' respondents-werea\Nare::tl1al-recycled wood is collected through the
- - -- -. .. _u clean-:~ups; ~rrid, ".. ~ ,- .
.:. The most frequent (129 respondents) suggestion for improvement in the
program was the provision of more or larger recycling bins.
Commercial Recycling
In March 1999, the City entered into a 16-month agreement with its franchised
hauler to provide expanded commercial recycling services to the City's businesses
and schools. This program consists of a mixed paper program ("Anything That
Tears") and a mixed container program, which includes glass bottles, plastic
bottles, and cans. Th.e hauler is to attempt to enroll 40% of its commercial
16i'
. .-..",f
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
, , .
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
~:--:- ~-":-''-::.:.:' ':-:.==":':':-:":--":':--.~: ~:'--_.-=----;::::..:_:::.:..~ ..--- ....-.:.- =--~:-..,,:--_..-:-.-,.-~
'- - -'-- -- .- -----.-- - -~--
"'*";';c.;-.'_'-"""'---'-. '.' ., ~ '__'_ - -', -
~-- ----....
...--
accounts in the program by December 3D, 1999.' The hauler has prepared a
commercial recycling survey to ~elp educate the. businesses regarding the new
program and to help in tailoring the program to the business' needs. .
Inert Recycling
The hauler reports that when it receives a call for a roll-off box, it attempts to
determine what type of material the customer plans to put in the roll-off box. If it
includes rock, dirt, or concrete (inert material), the hauler suggests that the
customer use a 6-yard rock box. Material collected in these rock boxes is
transported to the Altamont Landfill, where it is ground up and used onsite as road
base. Material that could be used in this way, but is mixed with other refuse (e.g.,
wood, drywall, metal, etc.) is disposed in the landfill, since the landfill does not have
the facilities to separate this material for recycling.
COMPOSTING
Yard debris that is collected through the City's green waste collection program is
delivered to the Altamont landfill, where it is ground and used as alternative daily
cover material. The hauler reports that 3,146 tons of green waste were diverted in
1998,2,286 tons were diverted in 1997, and 2,611 tons were diverted in 1996, the
first full year of the program.
q-.
The Altamont landfill is currently reworking an earlier proposal for the development
.of a composting facility at the landfill. The collected green waste would be
..,"~..~. '-c" composted aHhe:-lal1dJiH and used for agricultural land application.
SPECIAL WASTE
Whole tires are banned from landfill disposal by the State. The hauler reports that
. - .~:._::-..:::,jLc.QlIeQtsQnly ;:Lve.ryJewtires.that esc~pe detection at the time of collection.
These tires are pulled from the refuse at the landfill and' returned to the hauler, who
usually delivers the tires to the Davis Street Transfer Station, where they are turned
into crumb rubber, playground bedding material, or delivered for use as fuel in a
cement kiln or tire-to-energy plant.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
The hauler prepares public education materials at least quarterly for distribution to
the City's residents and businesses. These materials primarily include newsletters
and mailings. (A sample newsletter is included in Appendix A.) In addition,
recycling staff personally visit businesses to perform waste audits and assist in the
development of an in-house recycling program at the business.
~
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of {Jublin ·
'.--.'- '. ...-
. -'-..--'-
.. , .
'. .,.- -'---~',~ --.,", ,~-- -
- "- ~ _. .,~- '".--- --.---
.- -- ,,~,-.- .~,--,' ----
DIVERSION
/---
. - -"\
Annually; the Cityp'repares a -report to the California Integrated Waste ,
Management Board containing its calculation of the diversion level achieved using
the CIWMB-approved formula. Table 4 shows the reported diversion percentage
for 1995-1998.
'...",
Table 4
City of Dublin Reported Diversion
(Annual -rons)
Year Generation Disposal Diversion %
Diversion
1995 46,851 35,852 10,999 23.5%
1996 48,959 31,627 17,332 35.4%
1997 52.049 29,959 22,090 42.4%
.
1998 53.818 36,596 17,222 32.0%
Source: City of Dublin CIWMB Annual Report
The decline in the 1998 diversion from previous years must be understood in the
context of the calculation methodology. That is, the State's methodology estimates
diversion by projecting waste generation based on increases in population,
employment, and taxable sales, and subtracting reported disposal tonnage.
-~,,_--c=-:,-c-c,Thereforeithedjversion-tons-:are--derived from estimated waste generation, not
from actual reported diversion. Thus, the increased construction activity in eastern
Dublin may not be reflected in the employment, taxable sales, and population
factors used to project waste generation, even though reported roll-off box tons
have increased dramatically (see Table 6 below).
."""'"
'--'- .--:":':::;~For example, the hauler-ieportecH-"f766 roll.;.off box pulls in..1997.1 .In.199B, this..
number increased to 2,650, a 50% increase over the prior year. Year-to-date 1999
tonnage reports show continued roll-off box growth. Roll-off tons for the first 9
months of 1999 are 1B4% higher than the tons reported for the first 9 months of
1998. The hauler reports that much of this material could be recycled if it were
source separated by the waste generator or if it could be delivered to a MRF.
Other sectors do not show such dramatic growth. From January 1997 to December
1998, residential customers grew by approximately 10%, from 5,588 to 6,137. For
I The months of January and February contained an unusually high number of pulls. If these months had reflected the
average ofthe remaining 10 months, 1997 would have only had 1,060 pulls.
.18l' - Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
......"
. ,.~
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
- 7_'':'':-~ :;=:.. -::---':".--.-=---."':"~ ,:... -=-'~."---._.-:_--==_:...-=-",,=- '_.'-':---:"_"':".~' -""':":.'::"::---=-~-==~':--::--=-='::::-::-_--::;".:=':;'-~"':"===":=-::":=---:::'7'::7"=:7':::-"_~:::="-__-:=-~":.::"- _'-:.:....__ '--::..-..::::::.---"- -
,--.---.
~>,..-.-...:\
the same period, commercial customers grew by approximately 4%,from 517 to
538.
--
Table 5 compares the City's actual reported diversion for 1995-1997 to other
Alameda County jurisdictions. This table shows that, based on 1997 diversion, six
jurisdictions reported higher diversion. and seven jurisdictions reported lower
diversion than the City.
Table 5
Comparative Waste Diversion Rates
..=~
Jurisdiction 1995 1996 1997
Albany 42% 52% 61%
Alameda 48% 51% 57%
Emeryville 51% 61% 53%
Fremont 49% 54% 53%
Piedmont 48% 47% 49%
Union City 49% 52% 47%
Dublin 26% 37% 42%
Hayward 41% 39% 38%
Newark 27% 34% 37%
.
Oakland 27% 34% 36%
Berkeley 41% 41% 35%
Pleasanton 28% 35% 35%
San Leandro. 34% 37% 32%
.. --
. Tivermors -'-' --26% 25% 27%
Source: ACWMA
Based on a comparison of the actual 1995 diversion to the projected 1995 diversion
as contained in the SRRE, the City was slightly below its target of 28%, though still in
compliance with the State's goal. The City appeared to be well positioned in 1997 to
achieve the 50% diversion goal for 2000, but based on the 1998 diversion calculation, it
must still divert a significant amount of material through its current and future source
reduction and recycling programs.
-191
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
. City of Dublin
----''''--.--.-.-'-- --,;j~-~-. ~'-:.-
- - -. ...._- -- -.
_., ,0__- _
~_.. __ _on
-. -
WASTE COMPOSITION
.."""'"
Table 6 shows the source of disposal tons for the current year (estimated based on
actual tons through August) and the last two calendar years. It shows that the most
significant growth has occurred in roll-off box and self-hau' tons, a reflection of the
increased construction activity in the east Dublin area.
Table 6
Disposal by Sector
(Annual Tons)
Year Residential Commercial Roll-Off Box Self-Haul Clean-Up
1997 5,326 10,343 7,046 5,696 948
1998 5,477 10,957 7,521 10,866 619
1999 5,773 12,179 12,223 N/A 613
Source: Livermore-Dublin Disposal Tonnage Reports (except self-haul)
Alameda County Quarterly Tonnage Report (self-haul)
As described previously in this report, the City now has several programs in place
to assist the City's residents and businesses to recycle. Understanding what
r~mainsTinhthe waste streadm is crit.ilcabl,to fOhrmlu'~ting dPlans fOd~ addhitiona' recy~!ing f '...I
ellorts. e most recent ata aval a e to e p In un erstan 109 t e composItion 0
the waste is a 1996 waste composition study performed by EMCON. Table 7
... summarizestbewaste composition by sector based on the EMCON report
20i
.~
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
. '..' -- ,_.
.- -,:,' .---....
..--.'
..~
Table 7
Waste Composition by SectoT.
(Percentage by Weight)
Single- Multi- Roll-Off Self-Haul
Material Family Family Commercial Box Total
Paper .34.57 37.98 42.07 33.97 5.28 25.35
Plastic 8.66 11.88 11.83 9.1 2.42 7.26
Glass 3.73 4.79 2.39 0.55 1.17 1.86
Metals 3.01 3.45 9.28 10.70 6.47 7.32
Yard Waste 18.58 0.11 4.30 4.29 20.08 12.27
Organics 28.89 35.56 22.83 36.56 32.27 32.27
Other Waste 2.56 6.22 7.30 4.83 27.85 13.66
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0
0
Source: EMCON Waste Characterization Study. October 1996
,<>-.
At the time that the EMCON study was performed, the City had its single-family and
multi-family residential recycI1ng programs in place. Thus, the waste composition
reflects the diversion of paper, plastics, glass and yard waste through these
programs. Because the commercial "Anything That Tears" program waS not
........,. implemented - until J 999;- the commercial waste composition numbers do not reflect
the diversion of paper from the commercial waste stream.
- - -
Table 7 shows that the largest single material by weight in the waste stream is
organics, which consists primarily of wood and food waste. The next largest
material by weigl1t is' pap~r;:which_consi$tcs._prLmarilY of mixed paper and corrugated
. cardboard ;~-T ogether, these two materials comprise almost 60 percent of the waste
stream. The City already has recycling programs targeting residential home
composting of food waste and residential and commercial paper. However, no
formal program exists addressing the wood and other construction and demolition
waste in the roll-off box and self-haul waste streams.
::r
211
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
- __ ._, __ ~" __. ___ om~.
.__ 0 _,_ _.'._
SECTION 4 -
RECOMMENDEOSrRAtEGIES-
----'\
.....",
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION
RECYCLING
It appears from the foregoing discussion that the material that has the greatest
potential for recycling is construction and demolition debris (C&D debris) that is
currently being collected in roll-off boxes or disposed by self-haul customers. With
anticipated continued development in eastern Dublin, focused effort on this material
could bring the greatest results. For example, if 80% of the wood, inerts, gypsum
wallboard, and asphalt roofing collected in roll-off boxes in 1998 had been recycled,
the City's preliminary diversion percentage would be increased by approximately
11%, to 43%.
Many jurisdictions have begun to encourage the recycling of C&D debris by
requiring that a recycling plan be prepared for each major construction or
demolition project in connection with the construction or demolition permit.
. -
-- .-
Other Jurisdiction Efforts
The C&D Subcommittee of the Santa Clara County Technical Advisory Committee
met in December of last year to begin work on the development of a COl}struction
. and Demolition Debris Recycling Action Plan. The Subcommittee discussed
strategies for increasing C&D recovery including, incorporating material recovery
into the project planning process, setting specific material goals in the scope of the
project, and including policies for recovery and reuse of materials in City building
codes. The County has recently produced a Builder's R._euse and Recycling Guide
to provide -contractorswitli adjjectory~of construction and. dernoJitiol1_lJl~terial
-.recycling firms: ,- - - : '-". ,_u. . _.".__.~.'~ - --0- - - - -,- =-~ ---"-~ _u u - -
~'
The City of Newark staff ask demolition contractors to complete a recycling plan
prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. The plan requires that the contractor
estimate the types and quantities of demolition waste that may be generated and
recycled or disposed during the demolition, and identify the recycler who will be
used to recycle the material. At the completion of the demolition, the contractor is
required to report the actual types and quantities of material generated and
recycled or disposed, 'and to provide supporting documentation from the private
recyclers. On several recent demolition projects, contractors have planned and
achieved up to 90% diversion of C&D materials from landfill disposal.
22i
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
....".
A8939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
...;;'- ."'- ~-'.._, --'....... ---
-.-. -' - .- -- - -..-
-- -' ~
.~'~~--='-'-'--- -.-..-
-,- - '-- ... - -
Similarly, the City of Palo Alto requires a recycling plan as.a condition of the City's
- Permit for Construction for all projects over 10,000 square feet involving
construction, remodeling or demolition. Contractors are required to follow the
approved plan and document the results during construction.
The City of Cotati passed a resolution in 1993 requiring that, prior to any
demolition, the owner or contractor must reuse or recycle all materials that can be
reused or recycled. However, the resolution does not specify how much material or
what materials must be recycled.
Finally, the City of Portland, Oregon, requires that all building projects with a permit
value of $50,000 or more to separate and recycle land clearing debris, rubble
(concrete/asphalt), wood, metals, and corrugated cardboard. Under the City's
code, general contractors are responsible for developing a plan and ensuring that
employees and subcontractors separate these materials from other materials
accumulated for disposal. Penalties of up to $500 may be imposed on contractors
who fail to comply.
Recommended Guidelines
From the experience of these agencies, it appears that requiring C&D recycling as
a condition of construction and demolition permits can result in significant diversion
of C&D material from the landfill. Most contractors already recycle concrete and
asphalt for reuse on site because it is less expensive than disposal. Markets exist
for scrap metals, wood, and glass. There are also firms that assist with
deconstruction and reuse of building materials and fixtures. (The Alameda County
Waste Management Authority publishes a Builders Guide to Reuse and Recycling
for use by local contractors.)
Many of these materials can be recovered at little or no cost to the contractor, but
~__"~ ~__~_, ~_bekauSELde,G..ODs.tr!JctiQrLancL[ecy-cling _can _take . ~ore till}ce,it is:i.mport~ntJo notify
- contractors e-arly ilithe-p'ermi(process of the 'requirement to recycle. In addition to
cost and time, physical space for multiple containers and recycled materials prior to
shipment to the recycling processor can also be an issue for contractors.
We recommend that recycling conditions and a plan similar to that contained in
Appendix B be adopted by the City for inclusion in its permit conditions. If 80% of
this material were recycled (a target that has been achieved on several large .
demolition projects in the County recently), this program has the potential to
increase the City's diversion by 11 %.
23i
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
__ -:;:....'__'0'___...:',._-'"- -'.--,-.
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
Public Education-
~:
The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board has a traveling
environmental exhibit called the Resource-full Showcase that demonstrates
recycled, reused, recyclable, and non-toxic materials in construction and
remodeling. The Showcase is constructed with over 50 recycled content and
sustainable building materials. It is used primarily at fairs and exhibitions that focus
on home construction. The City should avail itself of this and other public education
materials that are available from the County to educate local contractors in the use
of recycled materials and the recycling of construction and demolition debris.
COMMERCIAL RECYCLING
As discussed above, the hauler has recently implemented an expanded
commercial recycling program targeting mixed paper and containers. Preliminary
results from the first three months of this program were not available for our review.
We encourage the City to monitor the implementation of this program.
Experience has shown that on-going public education and significant one-on-one
technical assistance is needed for commercial recycling programs to be successful.
The hauler reports that staff are phoning the City's commercial customers,
beginning with the largest customers, meeting with representatives of the
businesses, conducting waste audits, and providing assistance in the development
of in-house recycling programs.
-..",I.
Based on results from other similar efforts, of which we are aware, this program has
the potential to increase the City's diversion by a few percentage points.
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
CONTAINERS - -
- - - .. -. .
._+. . --',..
~..- -- -. - --.-, -- ---
As noted above, many residents suggested that the City provide more or larger
containers for the curbside collection program. The current program provides 33
gallons of capacity with three 11-gallon tubs. Several Bay Area jurisdictions have
provided residents with a wheeled cart, often with 64 gallons of capacity, for the
storage of recyclable materials. Based on their experience, it appears that using
larger containers increases the recovery rate.
For example, the City of Walnut Creek and other Central Contra Costa County
jurisdictions utilize a 64-gallon split cart for collection of residential recyclable
materials. When the City of Walnut Creek changed from a two-tub system to the
2tl
~-4
~1
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LL C
. ,-, - .--- .
_. .- .--.-.-- - --- --- ----.-- ,-.
iB939 Progress and Strategies
Cfty of Dublin
-, - - -
-.'-- _.. ~-- ---.-- -.-. --.--
- -. -.-
---.,-----' . -- -----
.~
carts, theyexpe'rienced a 14% increase- in the annual pounas of recyclable material
set out for collection.
The City of Morgan Hill recently provided a 64-gallon cart to its residents for mixed
containers. The previous 18-gallon tub is still used for mixed paper, with
newspaper bagged and set to the side. City staff could not quantify the impact of
the switch to the larger containers because of other concurrent program changes
(Le., implementation of mixed paper and cardboard collection, and the addition of
other plastics).
The hauler has expressed an interest in providing 64-gallon carts to the City's
residents. Given the capital cost associated with these carts, it is likely that the
hauler will want to negotiate a longer contract term and increased compensation if
the City wishes to pursue this program change. Alternatively, the City could use its
Measure D funds to purchase the carts, as it has done previously with other capital
items, or to reimburse the hauler for its annual cart cost (depreciation and interest).
We recommend that the City enter into discussions with the hauler to determine the
cost and associated contract changes and then determine whether the benefits
outweigh the costs associated with this change.
:":~.
Based on the results in_other jurisdictions, this program has the potential to
increase the City's diversion by a few percentage points.
SCHOOLS PROGRAM
-... .,-
The hauler has been Working with staff from the local schools to de-velop a
recycling program. Sheila Fagliano, Livermore-Dublin Disposal's recycling
coordinator,l)a$ met with various groups of custodians and teachers to discuss the
program particulars. Additional meetings are currently being conducted to review
the, proposed. program,alJd n~w GartsJbat are being purchased. Their experience
~..,.-:< .,c,_has-d~monstrateq.Jhe iIl)Porta_DJ;;e~9i_working-with the .local s~hool~' _custodians and__
teachers to identify local "advocates" who can promote the program and encourage
participation.
The hauler has purchased containers that will be provided to the schools to assist
with the program. These containers include 300 4-gallon office bins, 100 6-gallon
classroom bins, 100 14-gallon c1assroomllibrary bins, and several 32-gallon and 55-
gallon cans with dollies, and 35-gallon and 64-gallon wheeled carts. These were
delivered prior to the start of the school year.
To be successful, the teachers and custodians must be consulted, involved and
motivated to participate. The City anc:1.hauler may wish to consider providing
.'- ~
'.~I
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City ofbublin'
financial awards to schools that divert the greatest amount of paper as a way to
encourage participation.
,...",
We are unable to quantify the potential diversion that could result from this
program. -
CITY PROCUREMENT POLICY
As noted in Section 2, the City planned to implement a recycled and reusable
products procurement policy. This policy is intended to promote the purchase of
source reduction products and/or recycled products containing the highest amount
of postconsumer material practicable or, when postconsumer material is
impracticable for a specific type of product, containing substantial amounts of
recovered material. To demonstrate a good faith effort in achieving the diversion
goals of AS 939, the City should implement the planned programs documented in
its SRRE, including a products procurement policy.
The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board has prepared a
model policy for use by local jurisdictions.2 This model policy outlines
recommended steps and provides recommended model language for the City to
use in developing its own policy. We recommend that the City use this model
policy to develop and implement a products procurement policy for all City
purchases.
.~
-- We are unable to quantify the potential diversion that could result from this
program.
~ - - -- --.
.,--------,~ --
_ _....'. ,., _. ,a _
-, . -. .,. -
__... ._,__ _,__n_. _
2 This model policy may be downloaded from the ACWMA website at www.stopwaste.org.
261
...",
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
- -. ,.
- -."
rr
ApPENDIX A
SAMPLE NEWSLETTER
(:;?--,
'-'--
----- .. - ---,:---'. -
-'---..'.._-'.._-,--- .
~_.. .~"
..~:,-" -- '. - " ------"'-"
- - -~' ,... -
Ii ill
\ccording to the Environmental Protection Agency, paper accounts for 40% of all solid waste generated. You may be placing
Japer products that are accepted in your Curbside Recycling Program into the trash! In addition to newspaper and cardboard,
here are many paper products accepted in your Curbside Recycling Program. By understanding what is and is not accepted
n the Mixed Paper-In-A-Bag category, you can practice recycling habits that will make a positive impact on the environment.
lixed Paper In-A-Bag
11 paper grocery bags with the following
)usehold paper products:
Phone books, magazines, catalogs
Computer, construction, ledger paper
Empty boxes from cereal, crackers,
cosmetics, shoes, etc.
Empty and clean rolls from toilet tissue
md paper towels
Paperboard. backings from products
: first remove all plastic bubbkfacingsr--O
?aper egg cartons
lorted junk mail and envelopes (first
'emove all product samples, plastic
nserts and foil)
) RECEIVE A BROCHURE OF
L THE SERVICES LIVERMORE
JBLIN DISPOSAL PROVIDES,
:.ASE .CALL~(9-25)~ 447 -1300~
Newspaper
Please bundle newspapers and tie them
together with string or stack them into
a paper bag before grouping them with
Mixed Paper-In-A-Bag. Don't place
newspapers in plastic bags (even if it's
raining)! The recycling facility is unable
to process newspaper in plastic bags.
Use anyone recycling basket to g1"OUP
mixed paper in-a-bag and newspaper.
Corrugated Cardboard
Tied and bundled corrugated cardboard
is accepted at your curbside. It must be
cut down to flat non-folded pieces no
larger than 2 ft. x 2 ft. Only pieces this
size or smaller will fit into the mechanical
bucket on the recycling truck. Place tied
cardboard bundles on the ground close
to recycling baskets. If you have a large
volume of cardboard, call 447-1300 for
special pickup information.
~
-T~ee~!=lo~$Ji.~ii~c>~r Mailbox? . .' ...
.. Toredu~junkIi1ailoverl()ad,write a requ~t,.that your name
be'placed-iIith~"deiet~fti.ert~ M~Prefere~ce Service below:
.. _' Be. sure toincltlcfe your addressind yourlJ.ari1e( s) in as many
way(as it appears on mail that youreceive< ,:: , .
M3i1prereren:~'sernCi'II' Dircict~ke.tuig Assoc..
P.O;Box9008.FarimngdaiejNYI173~: .
. - -
TC)~~~c~~.~' _>.,' ..... ... .. . .... '.
cr~dit'Cat{and'iI1surmc#QffeI'$ iri your PJail, call Opt-Out Request Line at
888:567;;8688. .1;1len fOllC?~step-br~step iI1sttp.ctions to remove your name from
~eci. inail Ilsts"tbat o]jgili'ate ~omprimaiY'ciedit reportmgagencies;. .~
PLEASE~RECYCLELOT
.;. ..~' " ..,,' .;:-. .
.ots and lots of paper
; accepted...
1 your Curbside Recycling Program.
ion't throwaway the paper products
10wn below or any acceptables listed
. the first three columns to the left.
~hat Not & Why Not?
Jen tJNACCEPTABLE material is
xed with ACCEPTABLE recydables,
entire truckload may be rejected by
: reprocessing facility. Please DO
)T place any of.the follmving mate-
in with acceptable paper:
~o plastic packaging
Jo cellophane \\Tap
Jo wax paper, foil gift \\Tap, tissue,
r ribbon
:0 aluminum foil
'0 Styrofoam, plastic, or paper
ates, cups or utensils
o St}Tofoam peanuts
o facial tissue or paper towels
o personal hygiene items
o food-stained containers
.~
~)tographs
Two steps to recycle the
backings from products
you buy.
The picture below shows products "rith
paperboard backings that should be
included \\rith Mixed Paper-In-A-Bag.
Don't add these items to the landfill!
Step 1: Put the paper part
in a bag for' recycling.
Step 2: Thr~w the pEastic
part into the trash.
We/re Often Asked...
Q Since Styrofoam packing and
peanuts are unacceptable in our
Curbside Recycling Program, how can I
dispose of them?
A. Call shipping services,
businesses or other organi-
zations that do shipping.
Ask if they will accepr
St}Tofoam packing for reuse.
If vou must throw awav SnTofoarI1
... .' ."
peanuts, secure them in a plastic or
paper bag before placing them inside
your trash carr. Loose St}Tofoam pea.::1Uts
mixed with trash will scatter allover
your neighborhood \'\.hen vour cart
is serviced!
Q How can I recycle paper from my
shredder, especially on a windy day?
A. Put shredded paper in a paper bag
with enough room to close the bag and .
staple it shut. Add the bag to your
mixed paper group at the curbside.
Happy Honda}'>
LDD will close to celebrate New Year's
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and
Chrisrmas. If your pickup day falls on
one of these holidays, your senrice \'\rill
occur one day later for the rernairlder
of that holiday week.
Sources for cover artide facts:
Ammca's Forest &-Paper Industry
Em>ironmtntal S,Y$tems of Ammca. Inc.
McDunaM's ami the Smithsonian
1996 En-pironm=I Defense Fund
we Recycitd Paper eo,,;ition
\ND LOTS OF PAPER!
'CO~C.C_. -"We-~~=r~f:'~Bout'.'- .
cYour .l~iJf..fll~gl'QI1Cerns
. . ;~~~ f ". ,~ ,~iI~:" ~
:,--.' ..'~. ;.' '....
....: ; . ", ' ;' ~ ";' s'. "; :. .
: ..:' ," . ". '. .. . "." .,' '. ~ : ~ ,~':.'... .
, . ". ~.::~:t:.~~,~:..i:<:<t..:: <.'
,; :ft~~r,:'~jiS}, i::~~ ~tr-';~i 7r:<~~h: .. ,::, ·
..ihj.~~;.~1t~titi~:.:.:.::,:.~,~...,.:,,!.~:..;:.:.::- ..
",: ',:' . ::,: ~ :.:' ':: .
j ...
{".-._~'\,
\....,1
. '
. .~. -.' ,
:' '0.,..
, .
"
~. ......r:;~
I~
~
Thank you for_filling out our recycling program survey!
fhe City of Dublin and Livermore
)ublin Disposal appreciate the time
nd concern taken by those of you
vilo responded to last year's Recycling
;Urv<:Y~c~Thal!1.(yoUJ The~ p'~~ry
~oals of the survey were:, c_ _ -_ -___ _--
l to help us understand how you
fe~_about your Curbside Recycling
Program
· to address any recycling concerns
you shared with us
. to provide your household with
. useful recycling education and.
resources
\nswering Your Questions
lvermore Dublin Disposal (LDD)
ddresses most of your survey concerns
:l a series of four new educational
lrochures for 1999. The primary
;oals of these brochures are: .
-, , to - educate--'you" on hqw your
CuIbside Recycling Program workS
· to promote program compliance
so that recycling loads are not
rejected by recycling facilities (or
diverted to the landfill)
-'.-x6shoW you ~?:W yourrecyc1ing
- ''---habitscan protecnhe envirOrunent---
To receive an additional copy of
brochures 1 and 2 below, please call
LDD at (925) 447-1300.
1. LDD's winter '99 brochure is
a full-service review of Dublin's
Curbside Recycling, Green Waste,
Trash and Special Clean-Up Programs.
We announce our new colors,
alliance with United Waste and new
theme "Up-With~cling~. .__
2. LDJ)'s spring '99 brochure
shows you how to make sure green.
waste remains "clean" and accept-
able to ~~.. mulching facility. You
. receive helpful informatioIl on
Alameda County Household
Hazardous Waste disposal and
composting services.
3. In LDD's summet. '99 brochure
(IIl~e<!.~t:!:! ~~_~)'c.:r), paper r~cy-__
cling and preserving forests are the
main features. We show you how
your positive actions can directly
benefit the environment worldwide.
4. This fall you'll receive the fourth
brochure that. focuses on plastic
recycling and how your cooperative
actions can make a world of difference.
Don't throwaway Aunt Lucy's
poodle skirt! See other side fir more
- waste reduction resources.
'-..-I
(I)
. """"
--
CITY OF DUBlJN
UVERIIORE DUBUN DISPOSAL
.-:;;,:::::"7;::-';;_~':::=~-';'_~'-':-'~""""""~. _ -~-':':--~,.:-.-. .......=..: -::....z:..:-:::;.:::~.;.;;~~-.-:.~:....:-'::'~. _ $" : _::..__- _-:- _ _.... .. _ ~ 0_ _ ~._.... -:; _ _ _ ' . ___-000 .'-"" ;;;__._ ,,"u'. ~._.._
jNhere Do.1 Recycle These-Items
Jr Bring These Reusable Items?
~
I
Paint Products .
I
. Motor Oil
I
Appliances
~
I
Tires
I
Furniture. ,
I
Plate Glass
I
. Bupding.
;Ma~;
:-.::~; \::'.
..!,\,;::~:y'.~: :~':.,:: .:_:.
Read all about it in the Alameda County Recycling Guide
- ;?""'-
~da County Ann~ers
lore Recycling Questions
iere are many other p?siti~e recy-
ng habits' you can develop that
) beyond your Curbside Recycling
'ogram. .
the Alameda County Recycling
uide:c.-y-ou'll find many recycling,
use,- buy-back--and'c donation
;ources for material such as:
:rosol cans
-------
?ID~~m:. foil andp~_._._..__
uifreeze
~Elianc~._~:____.._._
phalt -=--~rick - concrete
Ito & household batteries
[tos
:ycles
>oks
. --- 'al
.' '; maten s'
:Junng
Imputers, etc.
rt
Electronics
-.-----.--.-----
~y_e__g!~sse..s_.__._. ____.__u_._ __ ___. ________
:FI~ores<:.~n~.!~g~~.~::I!>.~~.~~~~__.
- , ~.
Food
Furniture
----_..._--,-~--,._-_._-
f.!~~<:~~..__._______ . __. .___.. ....... _.. . __. .._ .. ___ .
!Iearin~~ds~______________
!!~lid~y <:~~.___._______.._____.____
HousehOld hazardollSwaSte
~____.__'H__'_"__
Motor oil & filters
------------.------..---,. -, ,--.... ._- ....-.-.... -_.__.-
Pac!.din~_{~rp~! & f~aI1!:t_________
Paint
-----------_._~-----,----,_._-----
Pesticides
~l~!i~_!>~gs___.____ ___. __.__._____ .___.____.
~late ~las_~_____________
~crap metals
Sinks & toilets
SW..?fo~ packaJP.n~Jpeanu~L-
. Tires
"c::.. Toner cartridges
Tools
yldeo ~E.~~_._._._.__..:._____.__
To receive your copy of the
Alameda County Recycling Guide,
call Livermore Dublin Disposal at
(925) 447-1300. We're here to
help you find the answers to
all your recycling and waste
reduction questions!
THE INSIDE SCOOP - TWO LDD TRUCKS SERVE DUBLIN (
'wo-compart~ent- truck-collects~:-':\"'aste--dciri'a:nd -att-epfaBle-' -" to -~the--:-~'~O' ~""-
;reenWaste and Trash carts at mulching facility. Only grass & weed
he same time. clippings, leaves, and shrub & tree
he Green Waste and Trash truck has prunings are acceptable in your Green
\'0 divided outside buckets aiid two sep- Waste cart.
-ate inner compartments. This design
l"otects green waste from being
>uched by or mixed with trash. One
lcket deposits green waste into the top
>mpartment; the other bucket deposits
lsh into the bottom compartment. The
lsh is then transferred to the landfill
ld green waste is delivered to a
ulching facility. Please help keep green
Jrbside Recycling truck is two
ucks in one.
Ie Curbside Recycling truck has two
Tided outside buckets and two separate
ler compartments. This design pre-
J.ts household containers from being
xed with paper products. One bucket
:}osits household containers into the
alIer compartment. The other bucket
)osits paper-in-a-bag, newspaper and
dboard into the larger compartment.
help keep your neighborhood clean,
ase prepare paper recyclables as shown
the inside of this brochu,re. Please
:p paper products separated from
rintc:d with soy-based irilConicCyclc:cl paper
- - ---'--'-.._, - ._'..~.
- - -
GREEN WASTE
.' GOES TO THE
MULCHING FACILITY
'~
. . (f;f~e:
-:a...~. ;;"'1>-~...l "1; i
, . f,\'''''..... , .il'
;,IE, ,. ., ,
, \\~. ; ~
~ . ~:~ : .
, \~~~I?:k
....... ': ',~, ~ f': ;',: :'"~ (~.~:'1'I'~,"".'~,'.'~....>' .... ;~.
, ".i .., Trasn:',.~:.,.::'~"'", \, ,.'-,""\
. __.':... _ ~. .:' _. _ _', ..:._...~.:.::....':L:.....;...:_~ . -~
?;.I'~-- ~~ =.: ':'_'=-=-=-=-
t/.~..'r.r. ~,;.
~~~ t~ \ ~~
"t:;~ ,- "'~~J.t.
., ,::' :"~~;, ~:
:. e\.'
~: ~:
,';.,':'"..
----@ TRASH GOES
TO THE LANDFILL
household containers at your curb-
side. Once paper and containers are
collected in the truck, each compart-
ment is emptied separately at the
recycling facility.
o PAPER-IN-A-BAG,
1 NEWSPAPER
I & CARDBOARD
I
I
i I HOUSEHOLD
! CONTAINERS
I
! .
-----
..~
l/:=~.=
1: / ...'
111 /1<
?;.::;:
'.
\:':. :..:.::; ._\~ "~':'~:~'. ~:~.~'~::;~,::~,~~r::; >:..
. "'~~~.::~~~~"~;J~~~~ ..
,.;!,=-..;:,: ,. .... ..., .... "---:.d.'=:'.~-'-f.'l'~!::"~,:.:.
:": . \; {'.. ~ i .. r:
',' . i:. '" 1,-' /'
'~',I, :';"".~ X,'.,. '':{. ....'..,:..:..,..~,
,,\~-
.. RD 7/99 (6,300)
.kep dn-ue=>I:) ~p=>dS p=>ynp=>tpS t{:)t~=> ol.Iopd aOl
wo.:g p.re;:)lsod .I=>ptl!w=>.I -C =>AP;:)=>.I IJ!.M Sl=>WOlsn:> .rreJ pue .I=>wwns 'jiupds
tl! .I=>W01STD J"C!lu=>P!Sj.I t{;:)'ej 0:1 SA"CJ' dn-ue=>I:) J"Cpjds j=>np S.I=>EO OOl
____~__ _PUqnau! sdn-ueal:> lenuoy aa.lll.L
:apIsul
........",
)!h-I9S 5u!l!eV'l
euurupeoC!
OIVd
>VlSOd 's'n
'leiS P6lJOS9Jd
0;S1>6 V:::> 'eJOWJ9An . peOH JUOJ:I lWlOS SL l-9
...... .....". ......
.. __^uedwo:::> JuewB6eu-e~ BJseM V .....
'VSOdSIO NI1SnO 31:fOW1:f3^11 .w...
--.
. -y--''-
~.
"-
11 ,JI
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
- - " ,.
-.->-----"". "-._..~ ---- --.._-' - - -'. .
-- ...,- - ---------
ApPENDIX B
CO_NSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION
RECYCLING PLAN
-. -...- - -
-..,. -- -- ~.
.- - --- ~ - ,,----
----
- .;;..;-,._----_..
:~,: ,-_~--;---:"-City of[Jubfiri -- -- -- --
Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan
Applies to every project involving structures over 10,000 square feet
For all construction, remodeling, or demolition projects involving structures over 10,000 square feet, Contractor must
maximize the diversion of recyclable materials from landfill disposal.
Jobslte
Submitted By (Name)
Site Address
Address
Permit Number
Phone Number
Date
Signature
I agree to recycle the following materials generated on this job site. Employees and subcontractors will be instructed to
separate these materials for delivery to a recycling processor. I will record and report the actual quantities recycled at
project completion.
ESTIMATED ACTUAL RECYCLING SERVICEI DISPOSAL
MATERIAL AMOUNT* AMOUNT PROVIDER
Asphalt
Brick, Ceramic, Masonry
Cardboard
Concrete
Dirt & Rock
Metals
Greenwaste (vegetation)
RootinQ
Reusable in sinks & toilets - ,-. - .-. .. -, -
Sheetrock . - - - ..
- .-. - - - . -
Wood, Painted
Wood, Clean
Glass
Other (Recycled)
Other (Disposed)
· cubic yards or tons
Reviewed and Approved By:
City Representative
-,
Date
_ . -_. _ If you have any questions, contact the City of Dublin at (925) 833-
---------.
. " ~"
.~
~
\..."""
/r
.r.?-
,~.""J>--'<,-
'~
AB939 Progress and Strategies
City of Dublin
-.---::,_-::.:::::=-....:::-::::-~.::""':""'::::-_-:;~_~_:- ~-- -- - :=- _~ _------:=::- - ~~-.o- _
--.', ". - ___o_'.u""
-.,.- ---- .-.~-
Retain a copy for your files.
Please return the completed form to
or fax to (925) 833-
1. What type' of housing do you live in? _Single-Family (including duplex, triplex, fourplex) _Condo (5 units or more)
2. How many children live in your home?
ages 0-5
35-gallon
ages 6-11
64-gallon
ages 12-17
96-gallon
.-
3. What size garbage can do you have?
4. Do you utilize the weekly residential recycling program (plastic and glass bottles, cans, mixed paper,
cardboard, greenwaste)? Yes No lfnot, why not:
5. Listed below are the acceptable recyclable items. Please check those that you currently recycle:
Bottlesl _Tin Cans (food) _Plastic Bottles (any narrow neck) _Gable-Top Cartons (i.e. milk cartons)
Cans _Aluminum Cans _Juice Drink Boxes (straws removed)
Glass _Clear & Colored Glass Jars and Bottles
(All items should be put in a paper grocery bag before placing in basket or next to containers)
_White or Colored Paper _Construction Paper _Junk Mail & Envelopes
_Cash Register TapelReceipts _Chipboard Boxes _Magazines & Catalogs
_Telephone Books _Newspapers (bundled)
_Corrugated Cardboard (no larger than 24 "x24", tied in bundles)
Mixed
Paper
_Greenwaste
(grass trimmings, tree prunings, leaves, branches less than 6" in diameter and 36" long)
6. If you recycle:
Mixed Paper:
Glass:
Cans/PIastic:
Green Waste:
Cardboard:
. on average, ~lOW often do you place these items out? (please check)
_Once per Week _Twice per Month _Once per Month _Other
_Once per Week _Twice per Month _Once per Month _Other
_Once per Week _Twice per Month _Once per Month _Other
_Once perW~ek _Twice per Month _Once per Month _Other
_Once per Week _Twice per Month _Once per Month _Other
7. Do you employ a gardening service? Yes . _ No
~~:~~"_ _ """Jfyes,doesyour:servicecplaceyourtrinirilmgs in-your yard waste bin? -
Yes
HNo----
8. Do you participate in the three special clean-ups (March, June, September)?
Always Usually Rarely Never
If not, why not?
. Are you aware that you can now recycle wood waste during the clean-ups (bundled tree trimmings, prunings, pallets,
untreated/unpainted plywood, fence/deck wood, tied in bundles no longer than 5 feet)? Yes No
. Have you recycled wood waste during the clean-up? Yes No
. Do you anticipate that you will recycle wood waste in the future? Yes No
9. Do you have any suggestions for improving the residential recycling program?
Your Name and Address (optional)
Returning the survey is very easy. This page is a mailer that is addressed to the City of Dublin and postage-paid. Just
fold the page in thirds with the City of Dublin address showing, staple or tape shut, and maiL Thanks for your input!
--
ATTACHMENT2 -
-~ -:--. ":.'&,. ,_..~,._--,-;...~-_.. ;;:.-:--
~ .- -
.~
'.
1. What type of housing do you live in?
1895 . Sfugle-Family (including duplex: triplex, fourplex) 151 Condo (5 units or more)
2. How many children live in your home? 718 ages 0-5
573 ages 6-11
639 ages 12-17
3. What size garbage can do you have? 1264 35-gallon
573 64-gal10n
146 96-gallon
4. Do you utilize the weekly residential recycling program (plastic and glass bottles, cans, mixed paper,
cardboard, greenwaste)? 1987 Yes 77 No Ifnot, why not:
Don't have enough stuff (1 0 respondents)
Too hard to sort/too picky/refused to take what I put out (9 respondents)
No time/too lazy/forget (8 respondents)
Don't have all the bins/don't have any bins (8 respondents)
Too much trouble/inconvenient (5 respondents)
"'wII
Need different type of bins (5 respondents)
Choos.e not_to (4 respondents)
Sell aluminum (2 respondents)
5; Listed below are the acceptable recyclableitems;- Please checkillose th~t you currently ~ecycle:
Bottles!
Cans
1700 Tin Cans (food)
1520 Aluminum Cans
1864 Plastic Bottles (any narrow neck) 1411 Gable-Top Cartons (Le. milk cartons)
698 Juice Drink Boxes (straws removed)
Glass
1529 Clear & Colored Glass Jars and Bottles
Mixed
Paper
(All items should be put in a paper grocery bag before placing in basket or next to containers)
1288 White or Colored Paper 683 Construction Paper 1386 Junk Mail & Envelopes
688 Cash Register TapelReceipts 1111 Chipboard Boxes 1533 Magazines & Catalogs
1334 Telephone Books 1820 Newspapers (bundled)
1319_ Corrugated Cardboard(no larger than 24 "x24", tied in bundles)
1594 Greenwaste -. (grass trimmings, tree prunings, leaves, branches less than 6" in diameter and 36" long)
.......,
ATTACHMENT 3
6. If y,ou recycle: on average, how often do you place these items out? (please check)
Mixed Paper: 1227 Once per Week .. 406 _.T~ceperMonth __ --157 Once ~r}v10n!h._-~~;. ::--:._'.
~~.~~~-=-=Glass: ~-,--~~~ .. 979~Once-perWeek--:--:'':'':'-:--563 TWlceperMonth -~'''-- -,,- 3i2'"O~~~ p~r Month
CanslPlastic: 1264 Once per Week 448 Twice per Month 146 Once per Month
:0 Green Waste: 1088 Once per Week 473 Twice per Month 196 Once per Month
Cardboard:._. 585 Once per Week- 375 Twice per Month 493 Onceuper Month .
1. . Do youelllploy a gardening service? 379 Yes 1646 No
If yes, does your service place your trimmings in your yard waste bin? 250 Yes
145 No
8. Do you participate in the three special clean-ups (March, June, September)?
935 Always 795 Usually 235 Rarely
77 Never
If not, why not?
. Not enough junk (50 respondents)
Forgetllose schedule (28 respondents)
Just moved here (26 respondents)
Didn't know there were special clean-ups (13)
Insufficient notice (10 respondents)
Donate to charity/recyclelreuse instead (7 respondents)
Not available M-F/preferred Saturday (6 respondents)
Don't have time (6 respondents)
Not frequent enough (4 respondents)
. Too many limitson items (4 respondents)
Inconvenient dates (4 responde~ts)
Take to dump (2 respondents)
Can't store items (2 respondents)
. Are you aware that you can now recycle wood waste during the clean-ups (bundled tree trimmings,
prunings, pallets, untreated/unpainted plywood, fence/deck wood, tied in bundles no longer than 5 feet)?
1589 Yes 348 No
· u~ave you recycled wood ~aste c!.~g the clean-up?
1090 Yes 869 No
. Do you anticipate-that you will recycle wood waste in the future?
1542 Yes 350 No
-9.~Do you have iny-Suggestiiinsfor iIiliirovillgc ther;ecy~lirig program ?~:o-- -::;_~~==:'<~--=---=~~~~_ -'-
MISELLANEOUS COMMENTS:
-'"".
Great program/excellent (62 respondents)
""",' .
Satisfied/happy witnprogram -(56 respondents)
Enforce rule about removing cans within 24 hours (4 respondents)
People need to keep bins behind fence so animals don't drag them around (3 respondents)
I think you are carrying this too far with all paper and small cereal boxes-I don't think it has much impact
I have observed people in cars going from bin to bin picking up tin cans-Is this legal?
Ban junk mail!
Find ways to service those who go on vacation/or those that cannot take out garbage because of trips - used to have $1 bags.
Ifa person is out of town for a week, then garbage can cannot be left outside. Ifkeep in house longer than a week, it smells.
A garbage can near parks or public places
Removing backyard pick up, forced recycling an then raising rates is NOT how government should work for citizens!
Need a better way to have a pick up of all trash upon move in. The volume is overwhelming - especially cardboard & paper.
Is it all worth it?
-,
.\
""""""I
Waste pickup service is not friendly, too restrictive, too much dictatorial compared to cities in other states. Ours is a rip-off.
Dislike recycling - prefer higher rates & let company separate
People come through complex and steal recyclables-need a "recycle police"
Start a program offering cash for California recyclables, for the service take a percent of the profit, 25%, etc
COMM~NTS ON ~ TES:
Give credits or refunds to customers who recycle (16 respondents)
Require people to recycle, and fine those who don't [l respondents)
Give discounts to senior citizens (5 respondents)
Reduce the cost (2 respondents)
Reduce rates for those who use 1 x mo
I think the mandatory fee for this is unfair. We have always recycled by using the centers. To be forced to pay for something
we don't use is highly unfair, a form of robbe~.
...",.:
Page 1
--~'---- C-OMMENTS ON ITEMS COLLECTED: '::'_.0 ,;.~_,___~_
__ .___'__'~'~~~:.;~ :".,.-_'~.~.=<'L::-:--=.:;;';~'-"-::::;:'_::.._
~ick up hazardous materials periodically (46 respondents)
;,-'
.ecycle all types of plastic and styrofoam (43 respondents)
Pick up motor oillfilters/coolant (37 respondents)
Cardboard size and tieing restrictions are too stringent (34 respondents)
Recycle plastic bags (12 respondents)
Pick up aluminum foil & other aluminums (5 respondents)
Large appliance pick-up (4 respondents)
Need a way to get rid of dirt (4 respondents)
Recycle used tires (3 respondents)
Not sure if we will recycle wood
Please take painted wood as well
Make wood length longer than 5'
AlloW wood waste to be picked up with weekly service
(;;:-.
Aks would participate more in recycling if they were not made to remove labels off of bottles & cans
Need way to get rid of bricks/concrete/stone/etc.
Compared to ottler recycle services I've had in the past, I find this service to be too picky _
, -
Recycle fruit & veg items
COMMENTS ON BINS/CONTAINERS:
Would prefe(cine- or tiNe' fafgecoi1tarners fori"ecyclables instead' of small bins (51 respondents)
N~ed a bin for paper-too hard to bundle or find paper bags, gets wet in winter (38 respondents)
Larger bins are needed (27 respondents)
Replace old bins-they stretch out of shape or break or get lost or stolen (6 respondents)
. . Offer composting bins (4 respondents)
Need smaller bins for inside house that can be easily emptied outside, with handles, or that fit under sink (3 respondents)
Other Cities vacuum greenwaste directly from piles in street-much easier than carts (3 respondents)
-.
..';~~
3r a container exchange program where-customers would regularly get clean caris (2 respondents)
Have smaller cans for small families with no children (3 respondents)
Page 2
f
---~~-- Provraetgreenwaste-for coridos/t6Wrihou~es- d (e-~pondenfs)- _~--~.o.c,::
-....
,--, -,-:::" - , ----
The brown & green cans are good but the bottle/can buckets are totally unwieldy, hard to carry and hard
to find space for in kitchen or garage-also, for my use, toolarge. do not fill each week
....".
I think some people are combining & I still have the old green, light green, white tubs
VlJ'ny can't I get a 2nd greenwaste container?
Provide clear plastic bags for holding extra recyclables, especially on special clean-up day
Cans are clumsy, hard to clean, awkward & ugly. Check out Sacramento's cans-perfect & easy to clean
Bags to purchase (price per bag)
Can tips over easily-it's awful!
COMMENTS ON PUBLIC INFORMATION:
Need more information regarding what items can be recycled and which bins they all go in (5 respondents)
RadiofTVlMailed info to educate residents about the disposal of garbage and its effects on our environment (4 respondents)
Teach children about recycling
Organize a city wide garage sale & flea market
Tell how to change size of garbage can from 64 to 35 gallons
-~
Advertise and begin a monthly lottery to give $50 or whatever to a household that "uses" the system"!
People should be educated about flattening their recyclables and putting it out only as needed-they don't need to offer a couple of
bottles each week
Provide information (like a flyer) to new homeowners/residents when they move in
Visit non-recycling neighbors explaining benefits
Have .~xciting contests in which recyclers could win a new car! Adopt a mascot!
COMMENTS ON SERVlCElDRIVERSITRUCKS
Pick-ups are often late (as much as 5-6 hours), or are missed for days (11 respondents)
Drivers drop garbage and leave it on the street! Tell them to pick it up! (10 respondents)
Drivers throw cans agains fence or leave in street (4 respondents)
Have trucks do whole street at once-too much noise, all day (4 respondents)
_Wny am .~ told to~eparate. when the drivers justthrow everything together in the truck? (3 respondents)
Reduce recycling service to 2x per month toc:ut down on costs and pollution (2 respondents)
......."
Page 3
Putting side witn handle tOy.'ard street w~lJld make it _~.?si~r for n.!en to handle .._
__ ~ .----_- ~ :: _~--___::.~. --.::-----"---= --=-":::_~-_ -:----Z"-=?::~~:-:.~:::: _>__-:_-.-,,:-:":F-_-=- _- _---: .:-'~ -==-+ -~' -----.-.--:.. ':'_,--:-:". ---
'_'~_-"""'''_' ....__. .'"_, ,""'0-. __'_".,
-- --'.,-----.-'...-. ..'- -
. - .. These guys are lazy-if the bins are 2 feet from the curb; they won't pick it up-try to be more customer focused
P.;ave recyclers pick up in area after 7:30-1oud clanging for at least an hour at an early time!
Improve customer service-make less noise at 4:45 a.m. when preparing trucks for pick-up
VVhel1 dumping into main dumpster on truck, keep truck stationary-when done while moving, paper and
light plastic scatter in street
Friendly drivers-keep up good work
Don't give complaint letters with everything circled when not all apply
Disposal employees are very courteous & dependable
COMMENTS ON SPECIAL PICK-UPS:
Need at least 4 special clean-ups per year (44 respondents)
Prefered weekend pick-ups (16 respondents)
Send more notice prior to clean-up days (8 respondents)
Have fall clean-up later, after tree pruning, in November or December (4 respondents)
Evenly distribute clean-ups throughout year-without a 6-month break (3 respondents)
,~
.'
...;hange clean-up months to April, October,. and February
Change clean-up months to March, end of July. and end of October or November
Offer charitable organization pickup 2 days prior-such a disposable society we live in
Change from early Saturday to the same as normal pick-up is a great improvement-keep it up!
Page .4
~
._- -.-.-,.-,--.--- --~..-" .----" -..-
. -
- .. ---~-_. ._-. .,'" --
WASTE MANAGEMENT
6175 Southfront ReI.
Livermore, CA 9'1550
(925) 447-1300
(925) 447-7144 F~x
/~'"
. \
......."
May 28.1999
Suo 83rneS
i'v1anagernent Assistant
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Commercial Recycling
Dear Sue:
Livermore Dublin Disposal and The City of Dublin entered into an agreement on
March 1, 1999 to promote commercial recycling.
This program will help the city meet its-A8939 division goals by the year 2000. All
commercial businesses will be contacted and given an opportunity to recycle their
"mixed paper" and containers and helping them reduce their solid waste costs.
~
Livermore Dublin Disposal hired an inside sales representative on April 19, 1999.
Donna Campbell has sent out 45 brochures promoting the new expanded program.
She has contacted by telephone 78 prospective recycling customers and made 43
contacts in person_ As of May 24, 1999 she signed 18 new commercial customers in
Dublin.
_n -.- Sheil~:iFag(jaffo~-R~cyciHngf\i1anager for Liverm6fe Dublin Disposal has been working-
very aggressively with the Dublin Schools. She has met with eight schools including
tt1e rli~trir,t office. She has analyzed their needs and determined the number of
recycling containers required enabling them to recycle.
Sheila will order these containers and invoice the City of Dublin for these containers.
Sheila met with the custodial staff at each school and reviewed the new expanded
recycling program and how they were an integrated part of making thi:;:; a successful
program. Presentations are also scheduled in August with the teachers in each school.
.~
ATTACHMENT 4
08/18/99 14:21
~O'51 0 44-' lJ lISt>
'..&lU ,/'\11111' 1'1
...._h. ......_..~._......, ..___..........,. ...'----.'-.. .,.....-.-.....---. .,.. .,. --'~""_. .._._-~,_.._--..,---- .,.-.
. ' -. --. ,. .,.- -. . - -, , . ,..
.--- --., ---...--:;-,.-.-_...,- '-~-,,=-"- _.._'~.'_.....--_._-,........._. u
--..- - .----- -
. - ."-
----=-.-__.,..--.:.-'_7.".J_____.':.._.~___......._:_~._ ~,;-.:.:..---...-".._;..-~.:'--~. -.-,,- ~,:;,..::::: ..=,'..
---,---.,----.- --_._-,--~--- --
,~ The City of Dublin presently has 65 businesses participating in the commercial recycling
program.- .
Livermore Dublin Disposal is looking forward to signing commercial customers up for
recycling and helping the City of Dublin meet its AB939 goals by the year 2000.
Sincerely,
~ff-e/~ b'l e ~
Annette Borges .
District Manager
AOS9020dub.sm
..,-
.. .. ---'--. .-.
---- .,- -.-
- --- ..
- -
--- ---,-.-- -- ----- - - -- _..,---
E.C€.\\JE.D .r
:=~.::_.~-:_~- .-_- _::.:._.~__-c-:::;:;-c."c.::::,'-~ . - -~:-:'::'~---C;:~;c~~I~--~:1999'--:----=-- ~c-__-:..~-~ 0 =--=---,::~.:..-':::-_::~~~--:--:-_~-..
WJ~ J ,_, \N WASTE MANAGEMENT
~ Of DUPi.-\\ 6175 Southfront Rd. '--',
C~ ._- Livermore, CA 94550 - .~
(915) 447-1300
(925) 447- 7144 Fax
November 30,1999
Ms. Julie Carter
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Commercial Recycling
Dear Julie:
Livermore Dublin Disposal and the City of Dublin entered into an agreement to develop
and implement an expanded commercial recycling program on March 1, 1999.
Livermore Dublin Disposal hired Donna Campbell an inside sales person to promote .......,
this program and she has increased the commercial recycling customers to 97
customers. Ms. Campbell has sent out-175 brochures, made 334 telephone calls, and
visited in person 185 businesses.
She will continue to promote recycling with the remaining commercial customers to help
achieve a higher diversion level.
_-,din-January 2.000 Jwill ~ubmit a~~Qmp'-et~.- repC?rt _,^,ith tonnages rec~~ledJhrol;;Jgh tJ11s n
commercial recycling program. . -- -----.-- . _.--- H__
Annette Borges
District Manager
AB9OO34dub.sm
. ,,-- -
Attachments
~
. ATTACHMENT 5
11/30/99 17:13
.,-
"0'510 447 0186
LDD ADMIN
~002
~ ,n _ _ .-.___ _",._. "_... __'. ..~_'~_ _--",--.."___._., _ -,~'""__". ...,-,,-,~..._ ...
-. ~,. .,--- .-".-- -,. --,-,--',--,-,.._,---,~' -..~-.......~-< ,-"---' '--.-.- ,----- --
,.r"
WASTE MANAGEMENT
November 3D, 1999
6175 Sourhfront Rd.
l.ivennore, CA 94550
(925) 447-1300
(925) 447-7144 Fax
Mr. Jason Behrmann
Management Assistant
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Dublin School District Recycling
Dear J~son:
The following are the highlights of my involvement with the Dublin Unified School
District recycling program:
+ Met with District office to review recycling program.
+ Met with Principals of all schools.
. Met with Custodial Trainer for all schools.
. Met with each custodian at every school as well as school secretary.
. Grant money used to purchase in-house containers for each school and
determined each schools needs.
. Delivered carts, bins & inside containers to all schools along with brochure
for all teachers.
+ Presentations were offered to all schools. Presentation done at Wells Middle
School and Dublin High School. Schools to contact me for presentations.
+ . Started collection at schools the third week of September 1999.
.._,_.~u_,..,.-~~._AtJditedsqhool accounts'tCl ~ee ifservice, education and specific needs were
met.
+- Communication is ongoing with Joyce Leal, Custodial Trainer of the School
District.
Please give me a call with any questions.
eila Fagliano
_ RecycJing Manager
,~
'-'----,
ATTACHMENT 6
Diversion Rate Calculation
rage 1 or L.
..
-,... Print Date: 07/12/1999--: -.
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Office of Local Assistance
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826
....~"
....." .
These are the selected values for the diversion rate calculation required to be submitted to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board as part of the Annual Report.
Jurisdiction:
County:
Dublin
Alameda
Base-Year:
Base-Year Generation Amount (tons):
Base-Year Residential Generation Rate (%):
1990
47260
25%
Reporting-Year:
Diversion Rate Requirement:
Reporting-Year Disposal Amount (tons): -
1998
25%
35,596
Reported Disaster Waste (tons):
Reported Medical Waste (tons):
Reported Regional Diversion Facility Residual Waste (tons):
Reported Out-oF-State Export (Diverted) (tons):
Reported Other Disposal Amount (tons):
o
o
o
o
o
Total Disposal Reduction Credit Amount Reported (tons):
o
Total Adjusted Reporting-Year Disposal Amount (tons):
36,595
.j
-..."""Ii
Population:
Taxable Sales:
Employment:
Consumer Price Index:
Source
Jurisdiction
County
County
State
Base-Year
23,229
13,093,613
655,800
135.0
Reporting-Year
27,750
19,451,760
680,900
163.7
0/0 Change
19.5%
48.6%
3.8%
21.3%
, - - - - - - -- - - --
Change in. Residential Sector (%):
Change in Non-Residential Sector (%):
Estimated Reporting-Year Generation Tonnage:
14.0%
11.6%
53,856
Growth
Growth
The Calculated Reporting-Year Diversion Rate (%): 32%
Justification of all alternative numbers with an asterisk (*) Is provided in the Annual Report.. I am the
representative for the jurisdiction named above and am authorized to submit this diversion rate as part of the
jurisdiction's Annual Report. I request that the Board accept the diversion rate as submitted.
~ ~.uL MdVUljIl~i As.s~iltl'\t
Signature Date Title
_ ::\ asOn.. - (O~rmDvr\Y'\.-
Print Name
.(qasJ B3~- G;bSI
Telephone Number
.."",,(
ATTACHMENT 7
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGTools/MARS/DRMCMain.asp?VW=FLVI
"
. .
RECEIVED
- - .
COUNiYOF-SAN::JOAQU1Nocf-2 -6~\999 -, TnOMAS~. ~NN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS . DEPU'TYOIRECTOR
P.O.BOX1B10-1S1OE.HAZEL.TONAVENUE CITY OF Du' L:.1 IN MANUEL LOPEZ
STOOcrON. CAUFORNlA 9~201 uL DEPuTY OIRECTOR
C2091468.3OOO STEVEN W1NKLEFI
FAX (2091 468.2999 DEPUTY OIRECTOR
-lRY M. HIRATA
C1REc::::'O't
..... . ~~-':-:-..- .-. -
:1y 28. 1999
'.
--
- ...-
it)' of Colfa.'C
rr De La Cerda
::lst o.tic: Box 702
Jlfa.'C. California 95713
r
I:.:) '.. .
= -
....:; - '-
JEJECT:
1997 AND 1998 WASTE QUANTITY GENERATION REPORTS
ear SirlMadame:
.
nclosed are waste quantity generation reportS for the 1997 and 1998 calendar year for waste received at Forward, 'Incorporated,
privatdy owned landfill located ,..ithin San Joaquin County. . Forward. Incorporated accepts both Class II and Class ill type
aste, some of which may have generated from ).our jurisdiction. During 1997 and 1998. San Joaquin County only reponed
lass ill type waste received at this facility. However. the enclosed reportS indicate that Class II type waste from your
risdiction ......as received at the landfill.
may be necessary for your jurisdiction to adjust disposal quantities listed in your Annual Repon to include the Class II type
~~Tnis adjustmeIlt ,,,ill have a negative impact on your jurisdiction's progress toward meeting" Assembly Bill 939 v.aste
:! n mandates. .
hese adjUstments are required due to.a legislative oversight in 1993 which altered definitions in the Public Resources Code.,
.1pacting the reporting of waste for disposal and diversion calculations. For the past four years, San Joaquin County has been
orkirig with the -California Integrated_Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the California State Legislature to try to co~
.is oversight. TIle Count). has been somewhat unsuccessful and has been directed to repon Class II waste quantities to the
IW!v!B and affected jurisdictions for the 1997 and 1998 calendar years.
m Joaquin County is continuing to work with the State Legislature.. the CIWIvffi and a number of interested groups to correa
.is oversight and pro\ide a regulatory or legislative fL". Legislative language has been drafted for insenion into an appropriate
11. \V]1en.~1!.apPropria!~:.l?i1!~found to_carry this tangtIage.we will notify YOlLIn the meant.!~e. your jurisdiction can help
ippori this effon ~ith lettcrsio your represenlativeS..lobbj"ist, League of Cities or California State Association of Counties-and
the CIWMB.
. -
nclosed is a staff repon which descn"bes the issue in detail. If you have any questions, please direct them to me by phone at
09) 468-3066~ or by E-mail at sjcswd@inreach.com. If you send me your E-mail address, I will send you regular updates.
:ncerely.
~-~
:>M HORTON
:tegrated Waste Mnnager
F:!~
nclosures
:.. 221461
ATTACHMENT 8
-. -
- ~-~--- -- -=--...
...",-:-:,.-. -:<'''-''" :,'-' '-.- -;;- -,-'--...,-----~.",---
SNt~
~ ~ AT I'QRWAIU:I.I'C. t.NCCf'I,.I.. CiURlHG '"
117.c&W
Q.wW 2
c... .
DlidI<ft
_v-r. .....- -~ 0.0-
,~ ......... ...--
_ ~ .-c. 0.0
rift __.-c. 0.0
lllII1 __.-c. 0.0
*t __.-c. c.c
"".,- __ .-c. 2c:,0
...... __ .-c. c.c .
~__ .-c. c.c
......... __ .-c. _.0
.wtt __.-c. c.c
_ ......-..-c.- 1.llCA
--'" __. .-c. ~
,~ __ .-c. 1;11lO.ll
at C!\' __ n:. 0.0
_ _ unn:.\ 0.0
.. ~.-c. c.c
_ ~ n:. :s&.0
~~ :: ~ \. ~ ~
"..... eua. n:. 11.0 0.0
~ C-- unn:. O.a 0.0
'PI' C-- ~::::.o 0.0
c-o C-- n:. 0.0 0.0
_ CGnn c- unn:. CJ) 0.0
I"CI'l CGnnc- ~ '_0 0.0
.".,., Olrri c:- \Jr'ir'C. c.c c.c
__ c:- CGnn Calla \Jr'ir'C. 0.0 0.0
1XloIC CGnn c- \Jr'ir'C. 10.0 0.0
~ CGnn c- unn:. c.o 0.0 .
-=-= CGnn c- unn:. 13.C 0.0
_ CGnn c:c.na \Jr'ir'C. ~.O c.c
_ CGnn c- n:.. 19.0 c.o
.......s CGnn c- n:.. c.c 0.0
n=nS CGnn c- n:.. 11'~ c.c
_ CGnn c- n:.. m.o 0.0
.,.,.... CGnn c- n:.. :m.::l 0.0
..- CGnnc- n:. 2.7240 0.0
:ft9II CGnn c- n:. 0.0 c.c
:n:llI (:<:rIft c.... n:. ::'0. 0.0
~ Cannlc- n:. 99.11 0.0
__ Mil Cannl c- n:. c.o c.c
c:tmI:lr'd Cannl c- . n:. 11.0 c.c
1ft.... CarIn c- n:. c.c c.c
1ft ~ c:.:.....-c- n:. c.c c.c
!U'&& ~ c:....- c- n:.. ~o 0.0
~ ........ lrI:. .a 0.
=~:= =\. ~ 2~
-* BDcndO lrI:.. .ltU c.c
......~T...... BDcndO n:.. 19.0 0.0
=~ "- ~I'::
,..... "- lrI:. 3.C 0.0
~ Ff..-o n:.. ~O 0.0
oenOiOCa F_ n:. 0.0 0.0
= Glem ~I~ ~~
__ ~ unn:. ;lU.0 c.c
...- ~ _ ~ \Jr'ir'C. 1.0 : 0.0
.~,_... -- :=:=-=- :.-::-
~ ..":':.--s-=-=-c.'"..n:. -- 25.lI--
_ . JoUrClddl -n:. c.o
__ Kom \.IrW'I:,.1 CJ)
~ ~ n:. c.c
~ CIl't ~ n:. 1.0
=:;. :: I
=-~ t:: =1
... u. lrI:. I
~ E~ ~\ 0.0
= E ~IE
-... 101_ n:. 2.U4D
~R... _ n:. 2.01e.a
_ _ lrI:. 1.0
............ ~ unn:.\ 0.0
............ u..- a....:. 0.0
:- ~ unn:. 0.0
~ ~.::unn:. 0.0 .'
i'<r'I flnogg - loIenCCldnO _h:. 0.0
l)Illooh --- -',.-u.ndodna' n:..~- CO .-
--=eel \,OTC. . \ 0.0
_ Io&erced u-n:. 0.0
.....-.-s ~ unn:. 0.0
.=0RWARt)1.Y't'K.& 07_ ,,:es All
c.c
0.0
c.c
c.c
c.c
2U.0
c.c
c.c
SG-ll
c.c
ua.o
125..ll
%,J04.o
0.0
1
OJ)
2lla.0
1~1
0.01
2%%.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
OJ)
OJ)
10.0
c.c
13.0
25.0
,..0
c.c
119.0
~.O
:177.0
2.72e.o
OJ)
2.0
SS'o
0.0
17.0
OJ)
a.o
'5.0
.0,
OJ) \
2CS1.o
ItSJ) -
1S.o
OJ)
9.01
3.C
0.0
0.0
~I
385.0
1.0
'0.0
. a.o .
25.0
0.0
a.o
c.c
0.0
o.D
c.c
10
Ull.o
0.0
::.0
0.0
c.c
ed.O
c.c
19.0
&1 a..a
&1.0
cQ,g
1.127.0
7SU
:z.o
106.0
2.111.0
ll!il.a
a.o
2. 1C2.0
c.c
1,362.ll
20.0
0.11
c.c
c.c
3l5.0
:lJ)
c.c
9.0
c.c
c.c
0.0
0.0-
c.c
c.c
0.0
o.D
c.c
0.0
1ll.0
c.c
0.0
-alI.0
c.c
o.Cl
c.c
0.0
Cl.o
0.0
0..0
c.c'
c.c
0_0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.c
c.c
0.0
0.0
UlC2.0
%l"S.0
e
OJ)
c.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
1~
0.0
2.0
alI.0
0.0
ca!l.0
- 0.0
t9.0
11S-0
&1.0
cQ,g
1.127.0
751.0
::.0
106.0
2. t7&.o
5S.0
0.0
2.1Q.0
c.c
t,3S2.O
:20.0
gl.O
19.0
0.0
1.0
a.o
CUI
s:a..a
1.31SJ)
0.0
1,ll47.o
1311.o
na..a
4a.o
t.ll
3.171.0
t.O
161.1I
1c.a.ll
CUI
CUI
3.0
ca:uI
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OJ!
0.0
O.ll
0.0
0.0
0.0
OJ!
1.2
0.0
0.0
'-..0.0..
0.0
0.0
0.0
166.11
~
=wi
0..0
0.0
o.D
c.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76.0
11.0
.~
0.0
7~.0
3.5Gl.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
&.0
0.0
lca.s
- --- ------ --" ----.
-. -.-.- -. ,---- --
- ,- -- .._- -.- .
sw=s . ~15
131.0
lS.0
c.c
t.ll
0.0
0.0
ao
t,:15.ll
125.'
. 1,ll47.0
1:lll.0
e7&.0
41.0
1.0
:U1!.O
9.0
11&.0
14I.D
c.c
0.0
10
,.
c.c
c.c
c.c
1.C21.0
0..0
c.c
~O
0.0
E::l1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124.0
0.0
0.0
.a
1.&:tO
0.0
o
0.0
.a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
lll.o
a5.0
0.0
7,=.99.0
3._.0
0.0
2.0
1.2
0.0
0_0
0.0
1.0
0.0
403.0
'M.I
1.Q
Ul5.O
no
''''
:z:zz.a
74.0
2.:'lQ.S
1SUS
21.0
CUI
11.Q
.4ei5.O .
13.1)
1S1.ll
3.2'1.5
11.0
U10S
2.D1.D
2.$Q.O
S.OOC.5
1117.0
I,CI54.5
281.0
161.1I
2.,G&.3
1U
1.3ll5.O
9S.1
1
0.0
CUI
S1a.o
1..c:n5
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
159.3
0.0
sa. Ins
:l:5I9..1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5OCl.&
0.0
c:3.:!
o
0.0
0.0
3C.o
:\&oC.o
~o
!LO
2"-3
T.l:5.O
7I.%Zl3
1,2ll3..I
1.0
:z.o
0_0
4.0
_f
~
c.c 1.Q
c.c ts5J)
0.0 no
o.D U
0.0 2%Z.ll
0.0 74.0
litO :z.II7S.s
c.c 11:%.11
c.c 21.0
alI.ll alI.o
0..0 11.0
0.0 .es.c
0.0 t:lJl
c.c ~
0.0 3,251.5
2117.3 341.3
c.c 1.5I1o.s
c.c 2.471.0
0.0 2.$Q.O
0.0 . . S.ooc~
0.0 '117 .ll
0.0 S.Cl5fi.5
0.0 ...:zaU
O.ll 1l58Jl
c.c 2.471.3
c.c 1S-5
0.0 1,:la5.C
0.0 ..1
o I
~ Z2.O
:IOU :I01.l1
7.4 e:zs.4
0.0 1.al~
c.c 3.C
0.0 '.0
0..0 t.3!IU
C.O &75.7
0.0 1537.0
0.0 61.4
0.0 2.0
0.0 JBlI.O
0.0 1.3
0.0 S1. I
c.c .. 124.0
0.0 eCIC.1
0.0 31.0
::...."
~o
CUI
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.ll
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.ll
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0_0
0.0
0.0
4~S
7M.0
.0
3.0
67.0
0.0
341.0
:\&oC.O
n.o
la.O
244.:1
72:5.0
78..;:23..J
1I,2llJ.a
1.0
2.0
1.2
47.0
~.a
2.143.0
!lS.:!
.0
403.0
4753
.~
Tam~P:S)~
....1
. --:- -. --- '.- - -
.. . .
....
.....
.....
.....
......
.....
....
...
,
.__ CalJfQJIlia Int~grated Waste Management Board .. ';'::.'.
:- -- __n_ __..._... - - -..------'--c-- _'"":'--q_ _____.__ _.__ __.. - -. _--.c---..--.'--'..."~--- "_"-- __::-__,-__:- :~,~ ',_-
Dan Eaton, Chairman .: .,. .
8800 Cal Center Drivee Sacrame.nto California 95826 e(916) 255-22ffi\tED .~..~'~\
__ _ __ .. _. ._ _ www.clwmb.ca.$wv_ .. _. oEC
- n --- --- Gray Davis
QC1 2 0'.1999 Governor
r:: OU6\..\N
C\1'l O.
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary for
Environmental
- Protection
October 18, 1999
TO: Affected Jurisdictions
RE: San Joaquin County Letter Regarding Class II Waste
This letter is a follow-up to the letter you received from San Joaquin County dated July 28, 1999
regarding Class II waste disposal. As stated in the letter, San Joaquin County had not previously
reported Class II waste disposal attributed to your jurisdiction for 1997 or 1998. Title 14 of California
Code of Regulations (CCR) 18810 (a) and (b) of the disp<?sal reporting regulations require operators of
permitted solid waste facilities to determine the total tons of solid waste disposed in each quarter and the
jurisdiction of origin during the survey weeks. San Joaquin County's letter included a listing of all
jurisdictions that were identified as the jurisdictions of origin for Class II waste received in 1997 and
1998 at Forward, Inc. Landfill located in San Joaquin County.
The data provided by San Joaquin County for 1997 and 1998 are now included in the Disposal Reporting
System. Based on the corrected disposal data, Board staff has recalculated default diversion rates'for
1997 and 1998 (see attachment). Juri~dic.tions with a proportionately high tonnage of Class II waste
disposed may show significantly reduced diversion r~tes.
Some of the options for addressing the reduced diversion rates include:
I. If you agree with the revised diversion rate, no response is necessary.
2. If you disagree but accept the revised diversion rate no response is necessary.
3. If you disagree and do not accept the revised diversion rates, you may submit an amended
Annual Report for 1997 and/or 1998 with information validating your diversion rate. Please
--only-submiUh;diver.s.ioncalculations;:Section A of the Annual Report. You may need to
contactSanJoaq-uin County at (209)-468;.3066 for additional data from Forward Inc. 'Landfill.
If you wish to see how'the diversion rates were calculated, the default diversion calculations can be found
on our website at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGTools.
If you have any questions, please contact your Office of Local Assistance (OLA) representative or call
(916) 255-2555 for your OLA contact.
Sincerely,
~)J0f4~
Patrick Schiavo
Acting Deputy Director
Diversion Planning and Local Assistance Division
Cc: Tom Horton, San Joaquin County
California Environmental Protection Agency.
:f:::. Printed 0/1 Re(\'Cled Paper
ATTACHMENT 9
"
-'
;="
Redefining disposal sites to include Class II waste at this late date creates a hardship on. local
jurisdictions in that most Class II waste may not be readily or feasibly diverted from disposaL
Tnerefor~ local jurisdictions must divert much greater portions of their Class ill waste stream to
make up for Class II waste in its waste disposal stream. . .
--c:::1~
TOM HORTON
Integrated Waste Manager
m:rh
S~\TOM\REPOR1'S\Cu...ss1I.JUR
;
-
__'",,'~'__~___o,.__ __: .:_,--"..,' ,'=,".. __,.. ,_,_-__
-_-."c~OUNTY, OF-SAN-';OAQUIN_.-.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
P. O. BOX lSIO - IS10 e:. HAZEL.TON AvENUe:
STOO<TON. C\UFORNIA 95201 .
(2091 468.3000
FAXC209J46S.2999
THOMAS R. FLiNN
OePUTY OIRECTCA
MANUel LOPEZ
OEPUTY OIAEC7OR
STEVEN WINKLE.=1
9EPUTY OIRECTOR
M. HIRATA
U::-Olf
SOLID WAS1E DMSION STAFF REPORT
CLASS. II-ill WASTE REPORTING ISSUES
RECOMNfENDATION
It is recommended that legislation be developed that limits the reporting and diversion of waste
for .AB 939 purposes to Class ill type waste.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff of the California Integrated \Vaste Management Board (CIWMB) has required the County
to report'Class II waste disposed of at the Forward, Inc. Sanitary Landfill as part of the County's
disposal reporting requirements. Class ill waste is the type of waste normally disposed of at
municipal sanitary landfiIIs. Class II waste is waste which, because. of its nature, must be disposed
of at' a landfill specifically designed to handle the particular type of waste~ Exarnp1es of Class II
waste include ash, drilling muds, asbestos; lead based painted wood, and contaminated soils.
,
The following presents a historical perspective and identifies issues involved with the reporting of
Class II waste for Assembly Bill 939 waste diversion purposes:
In 1987, Assemblywoman Eastin proposed Assembly Bill 2448 which'created the Solid Waste -
Disposal Site Cleanup and Maintenance Account (Account) to be funded by a surcharge on
landfills. As originaIIy proposed, the Account was to be used'as a grant program for landfills
which were polluting the environment.
Landfill ~-pe~tors were .concerned with the proposedBilI i~ that -it 'wo~ld shift the fin~~ial- burden
of landfill operators who may have operated their landfills inappropriately to operators who were
doing a good job operating their landfilIs. Also, Class ill landfill operators were concerned with'
being stuck paying the high costs associated with environmental cleanup of Class I and II landfills
that had accepted hazardous waste. Consequently, Assemblywoman Eastin amended her Bill
establishing the Account as a loan guarantee program and restricting its use to municipal type
:andfilIs. The Bill was adopted, signed into ~aw, and codified as Part 6, Division 30 of the Public
:tesources Code, tided "Solid Waste Disposal Cleanup and Maintenance."
[n 1989, Assembly Bill 939 was adopted which established the Integrated \Vaste 1vIanagement Act
)f1989 (ACT). The ACT retained the essential elements of AB 2448, including the limiting
~~~nit!Orl:.. of solid w~;ecI~d~IL~i.l}~~ction-,!~9~7. Further, the ACT, in Section 40122,
>pecifically refers to Section 46027 in its definition of landfill. Section 40100 stated, "UnleSs the
:ontext otherwise requires, ~he definitions in this article govern the construction oftrus division."
" I
:~
.. \
I
I
r
I
.
J
.~,
I
!
~
j
t
.'
t-~'.
---------...".----.."..,.--:.::;::-- .:~-==:~--. .---
,- _._~.-,--~-,--~
.,.
-~--".=-;:"":;:'::::'~ ~~, ....;. ...-- - .='..::--::. .~----
- .-
- -.-.. -- -- -
CtuW
$lMSS . s.u.:cu
QarW' 4
0... T_
;:bolft ~
~ ~
ilia IItIa ~
-. --
/MIIittI ~
~ s..r- ~ G.ll z.o 1<1.0 . ltD c..a ltD ltD 38..D Cl.ll 3I.lI
~ - U'*c. . -G.ll 1.0 G.ll ltD ltD ltD ltD 1.0 Cl.ll 1.ll
..,....... s..- U'*c. G.ll 0..0 ll.D ltD c..a 0.0 0.0 . 5.0 Cl.ll 5.Il
~ - n:. 0.0 ltD 0.0 .0.0 c..a 0.0 (.481.1 ~1 Cl.ll (.5Z.1
~ - n:. ll.D 331.0 3IIlI.D 0.0 c..a 0.0 :c2lU 1~1..t 0.0 1~
-- s..- n:. 0.0 .Q8.o 0.0 0.0 c..a 0.0 1Jl7'8.1 2.1:11.4 Cl.ll 2. tn.I
s... R<:a ScrcllM n:. ll.D t:z.11:l.D . s..c:sD 0.0 0.0 ll.D 0I:l/U 3.01U Cl.ll ~1U
- - n:. 0.0 0_0 ~O 0.0 0.0 0.0 251.2 95.2 0_0 !11.2
~ s.r- Unn:::. ll.D 0.0 ll.D 0.0 c..a 0.0 Cl.I ~ Cl.ll 4lXU
-, ~ Urwc. 0.0 1.1%1.Q 7:C.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 901.2 3..c:l9.2. Cl.ll 3.CU
........ C:anf sw--.. ~ m.& ::zu 0.0 1.1:7'.4 2,CSoC.0 1;nu 1;nu 0.0 ~1~ ~1%D
=- ~ n:. 132.D 1:12.0 0.0 2)1.- 1&&..5 ,.,.2 1&1.2 1.0 &.3 7lXl:I ~
~ ~ n:. 75.7 7'S..7 0.0 171.3 t3..5 $5..5 $5..5 1.0 .c.o <<aD .-
- ~ n:. 3.5154.0 ~.SIO.O 1.$17.D n.3Q:U s.::c::a (.n1.1 1.5lIC.~ :5.371.3 ~ 3C.IilIZ.l
- ~ II::. 0.0 0.0 tJI 0.0 c..a 0.0 0.0 U c.o lI.G
~ ~ II::. .1.1 11.11 !!C.o C1.' ~ :zTQ.7 291.1 70.. 1;:3U 1.-.&
--. ~ II::. ..., &.1 %Z.D 0.0 1:2.1 t..5 lUl %Z.D 2il.7 51.7
~. sw-a II::. - 11..5 a:..s 4ll3..O 29&.3 Sol.1 Zla.:z Zla.:z -.c 1.27Z.1 1.m.1
\It:cIr: sw--.. II::. 1~ G!.D ll3I.O ~.3 217.1 97.1 c:M..5 1.7:Ia.~ !65.0 2..%iU
....- ~ II::. 54.0 !II_O 0.0 ".7 ll3.1 5S.3 5S.3 0.0 257 JI 2573
- 1~.01 1 '2.01 c.o
'U:le ON II::. 0.0 0.0
:.aTr4 II::. 2lIt..o I 0.0 ~I Cl.ll
locll!lUf II::. 0..0 1:20.0 _Cl.ll
-- Unn:::. I 0.0 a.a a.D 0.0
...... ua :r-I 0..01 0.0 ~I c.o
~ D.ll 0.0 0.0 7!l..o 0.0 0.0 0.0
-- I_a 0.0 !l.0 OJl 0.0 0.0 0.0
:...:. .......... Unn:::. 0.0 0. 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 0..0
- Tu::&nne U'*c. 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~.II 0.0 4.5
......J.lono Tu::&nne Unn:::. 4.0 . 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ll.D :0.0 0.0 0.0 4..D
r Tu::&nne U'*c. 421.0 DJl 1:Z1.o 0.0 0.0 ~..o 4.0 DJl 0..0 D.ll ~
;(j T.....u.ww II::. 0.0 0.0' 0.0 a.o 0.0 ~.O ~.O 0.0 a.a 0Jl 111.&
-\
I.a;-, Md ...... ..... 0.0 O. I 1.& 0. .. 0 SI-
r;;-- Ye*> SI 0Jl D.D 0.0 I 2l!6..ll 0..0 0..0 0.0 2.l) .0.0 ~I' . 2lla..O OJ) =.a
-~ Ycb 0.0 0.0 ~ 12.1) 0.0 11S-0 11S-0 . SlQ..5 0.0 72lI..5 0Jl 7:!!t5
-.I 'reO ll.D 0.0 111.0 0.0 aa.o aa.0 35.~. 0.0 35.4 %loC.~ OJ) 23U
- ~ ..... I ~.o 0.0 ~_O M_D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 !n_0 0.0 91.0
_n w.- .1 I ,,,, eolo
..... . -....' - I ,
.- Sla_d__ 0.0 D.D 0..01 a_D 0.0 1..0 0.0 t.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
.... d . I , , I
-- U . I 1 44. I t ", .116_ 1.6 .01 .& tiC, .$\t::l. eo'_ .6
~t.~ 117.cMlQ 11:ar AloI
:I
. _ T.... Hcrtln r.;::9) ~
....-
. ----:- ". .~. '.'. -
~. . .
....
.....
.....
.....
......
.....
....
...
_____ CaUfQrnia Integrated Waste Management Board .
-- - q ~ -~---- ;:~~o: ~=an --- -~-~ - ---- --it
8800 Cal Center Drive. Sacrame.nto California 95826 . (916) 255-22g\\fEO . ~..~.
__ _ _ _ _ www.clwmb.ca.gov_ _ RE.C _ ~
QCl '2. 0-1999 g:;~;"iS~
c: Oue\..\~
C\\'l a.
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary for
Em:ironmental
Protection
October 18, 1999
TO: Affected Jurisdictions
RE: San Joaquin County Letter Regarding Class II Waste
This letter is a follow-up to the letter you received from San Joaquin County dated July 28, 1999
regarding Class II waste disposal. As stated in the letter, San Joaquin County had not previously
reported Class II waste disposal attributed to your jurisdiction for 1997 or 1998. Title 14 of California
Code of Regulations (CCR) 18810 (a) and (b) of the disposal reporting regulations require operators of
permitted solid waste facilities to determine the total tons of solid waste disposed in each quarter and the
jurisdiction of origin during the survey weeks. San Joaquin County's letter included a listing of all
jurisdictions that were identified as the jurisdictions of origin for Class II waste received in 1997 and
1998 at Forward, Inc. Landfill located in San Joaquin County.
The data provided by San Joaquin County for 1997 and 1998 are now included in the Disposal Reporting
System. Based on the corrected disposal data, Board staff has recalculated default diversion rates for
1997 and 1998 (see attachment). Juri~di~tions with a proportionately high tonnage of Class II waste
disposed may show significantly reduced diversion r~tes.
.. ..~
~
Some of the options for addressing the reduced diversion rates include:
1. If you agree with the revised diversion rate, no response is necessary.
2. If you disagree but accept the revised diversion rate no response is necessary.
3. If you disagree and do not accept the revised diversion rates, you may submit an amended
Annual Report for 1997 and/or 1998 with information validating your diversion rate. Please
--only submit tb~diver~ioncakulatlons; :Section A of the Annual Report. You may need to
contactSanJoaq'uin County at (209)-468;.3066 for additional data from Forward Inc. 'Landfill.
If you wish to see how -t~e diversion rates were calculated, the default diversion calculations can be found
on our website at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGTools.
If you have any questions, please contact your Office of Local Assistance (aLA) representative or call
(916) 255-2555 for your aLA contact.
Sincerely,
~M0?~~
Patrick Schiavo
Acting Deputy Director
Diversion Planning and Local Assistance Division
Cc: Tom Horton, San Joaquin County
_ ..J:..
~/.
_.,-- - ._-. - -
.---.. ,- -:=--~.,~==-~.._-=--,.
California Environmental Protection Agency_
:;} Printed 011 Rec..:n'led Paper
A IT ACHMENT 9
.
Ne~ Div
Rate .
-sao/o
-
60%
--&-
31%
35%
38%
18%
~, 61%
17%
56%
-
-5%
25%
46%
40%
-24%
38%
26%
22%
21%
38%
l57%
'25%
:' -4%
, 47%
4%
29%
39%
43%
-
45%
30%
25%
37%
34%
44%
60%
39%
25%
28%
'"
)
--
Calculations
New DRS
Total
998 Default
61d Div
Rate
OldDRS
1999
87,702
10,403
473,021
252,982
131,358
13,858
3,247
. 32,128
44,281
.1,940
45,571
38,408
19,455
13,501
71,699
105,005
441,423
46,479
20,774
9,466
3,122
12,794
295,747
95,604
30,998
21,893
3,602,466
43,990
11,919
122,416
34,292
12,531
68,237
3,633
49,314
14,642
22,828
November 1.
58%
60%
31%
35%
38%
18%
61%
17%
56%
-5%
25%
46%
40%
-24%
38%
26%
22%
21%
38%
57%
25%
-4%
47%
4%
29%
39%
43%
45%
30%
25%
37%
34%
44%
60%
39%
25%
28%
Total
87:460
10,375
472,650
252,329
131,193
13,777
3,246
32,127
44,272
1,940
45,565
38,408
19,453
13,498
71,948
104,718
440,031
46,479
20,710
9,436
3,113
12,793
295,724
94,822
30,788
21,870
3,602,399
43,757
11,917
121,951
34,291
12,528
68,085
3,632
49,304
14,572
22.754
L:. LalllI
New Div
Rate.
59%
62%
33%
38%
35%
.15%
60%
37%
59%
22%
31%
50%
41%
-
-53%
--
35%
~
12%1
26%,
16%:
35%
64%
27%
90%
48%
15%
33%
39%
43%
39%
29%
27%
35%
39%
42%
49%
37%
27%
30%
II
UIWUlU
Calculations
New DHS
Total
I-
a
"-)SfJo:;a
vICJS~
(
19ffl Default
Old Div
\JUt ~UI\'lIUlt~ dll~\.;(euuy
Old DRS
I
: Tolal
)
84,137
-
9,693
444,681
234,352
135,111
12.730
3,159
24,362
41,086
1,359
41,078
33,506
19,529
15,613
74,051
119,979
411,994
48,195
22,464
7,861
2,897
1,242
286,149
85,065
28,234
21,583
3,523,700
47,422
11,765
117,480
33,930
11,241
72,942
4,911
48,602
14,040
21,900
Rale
-
59%
62%
33%
38%
35%
15%
60%
37%
59%
22%
31%
50%
41%
-53%
35%
12%
26%
16%
35%
64%
27%
90%
48%
15%
33%
39%
43%
39%
29%
27%
35%
39%
42%
49%
37%
27%
30%
nf !1
1
P~n{.l
84,129
9,693
444,681
234,352
134,936
12.730
3,159
24,322
41,086
,'1,359
41,074
33,481
19,529
15,613
73,987
119,979
411,994
48,169
22,464
'7,851
2,897
.:1,242
286,149
. 85,065
28,234
21,578
3.523,700
47,422
11,765
117,476
33,930
11,241
72,942
4,901
48,450
14,040
21.980
-
Waste Management Regional Agency_
-
- ,
Jurisdiction
Alameda-Unl
Albany
Anaheim
Bakersfield
Berkeley
Brentwqod
California ,City
Ceres
Clovis !
Colfax
Cupertino
Davis
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority
Dixon ,'J
EI Dorado-Uni
Fairfield
Fresno
Gilroy
Glenn County
Grass Valley
Hughson
one
Keiii-Unl
Kings Waste and Recycling Authority
lake-Unl
los Alios
los Angeles
Madera-Unl
Mariposa-Un;
Monterey-Unl
Morgan Hill
Morro Bay
Mountain View
Nevada Cily
Newark
Oakdale
Pacifica
, ;
New Div
i
l1ate
Calculations
New DRS
Total
1998 Defau
Old Div
Rate
OTd DRS
Total
57%
21%
52%
25%
23%
24%
34%
29%
40%
43%
56%
47%
69%
65%
46%
41%1
-
-3%
-
26%
28%
61%
41%
43%
55%
48%
27%
45%
61%
15%
45%
19%
-..!!l.
19%
34%
280~
40%
I 47%
-
i, 21%
;
!
79,702
10,704
6.787
31,061
725,397
56,822
47,461
101,584
71,549
91,852
22,019
25,619
54,596
4,573
33,568
114,378
79,616
92,215
87,092
44,732
3,821
54,903
26,093
25;933
81,885
11,632
212,762
34,217
7,335
,160,670
401,871
112,603
138.388
3,112
37,868
22,830
(
57%
21%
52%
25%
23%
24%
34%
29%
40%
43%
56%
47%
69%
65%
46%
41%
-3%'
26%
28%
61%
41%
43%
56%
49%
28%
46%
48%
22%
62%
16%
46%
20%
20%'
35%
29%
-41%
79,702
1 0,682
6,787
30,893
-
723,226
56,773
47,434
101,510
71,460
91,852
21,972
25,603
54,584
4,524
33,568
114,372
79,256
92,181
87,083
44.634
3,821
54,669
25,752
25,344
01,155
11,541
209,616
34,028
7,228
159,972
399,861
111,699
136,699
3,038
37,264
22.562
IC, LclllU
New Div
Rate
-
52%
38%
50%
18%
9%
53%
39%
44%
35%
55%
69%
49%
73%
75%
42%
43%
8%
28%
31%
45%
49%
41%
48%
43%
40%
46%
50%
27%
53%
15%
51%
21%
6%
47%
29%
43%
olward
Calculalions
New DRS
Total
I-
disposal a
997 Default
Old Div
Rate
ecleu by L;lass
1
Old ORS-
JU,lISCJIClIOnS a
.
i
Jurlsdlcllon
88,935
8,330
6.960
32,677
823,581
34,274
41,250
79,110
75,604
71,732
14,858
24,077
47,763
3,379
34,822
1 08,656
67,506
86,684
82,438
58,700
3,219
55,123
30,324
26,415
56,620
11,665
201,165
31,031
8,641
153,618
348,384
106,945
161,094
2,434
37,072
21.047
52%
38%
50%
18%
9%
53%
39%
44%
35%
55%
69%
49%
73%
75%
42%
43%
8%
28%
31%
45%
49%
41%
48%
43%
48%
46%
50%
27%
53%
15%
51%
21%
6%
47%
29%
43%
Total
-
88,925
8,326
6.948
Palo Alto
Patterson
Piedmont
Pleasant Hi
(
32,677
822,882
34,274
41,077
79,110
75,603
71,732
14,858
24,077
47,763
3,379
34,822
108,597
67,506
86,684
. 82,438
58,523
3,219
55,096
30,324
26,415
56,620
11,665
201,165
31,031
8,641
153,617
348,384
106,945
161.029
2,434
36,941
21.047
Sacramento County/City of Citrus Heights Regional Agency
San Benito County Integrated Waste Management R~gional Agen
San Carlos '
-
Authority
Waste Management
-
San Dlego-Unl
Santa Cruz-Unl .
Yuba/Sutter Regionai
Angels Camp'
Eureka
Yolo-Un
'.(.,
',' ""
I"'II^"'AD'
Santa Clara-Uni
Santa Cruz
Santa Marla
Seal Beach
Seaside
Shasta-Unl
TrlnltY-Vnl
Tulare
Tulare-Unl
J..
Vacaville !
Vallejo T
Vlsalia
Walnut Creek!
Waterford
Woodland
Amador-Unl
Belmont
r
Chico
Dlnuba
Fremont
Madera
Moraga
Salinas
New DIV
Rate.
. -
: 26%
I
42%
2l%
42%
50.%
42%
52%
31%
49%
1%
.6%
16%
19%
39%
40.%
37%
33%
63%
32%
23%
.60.%
9%
4%
46%
3%
1%
11%
42%
39%
-4%
-27%
8%
37%
40.%
41%
21%
\~
CalcUlcl\lons
New DRS
Tolal
996 Defau
Old Div
Rate
1
29,650.
22,618
10.,710.
155,351
8,225
431,10.4
26,681
50.,895
69,370.
79,220.
9,994
121,0.33
39,642
77 ,857
37,381
34,785
51.936
289
25,264
15,710.
2.237
1999
49,10.0.
24,563
71,558
8,123
8,326
6,0.59
17 ,448
26,0.67
,.4,893
80.,764
78,386
148,850.
23~131
844,157
14.854
November 1.
24%
44%
26%
44%
52%
44%
54%
33%
51%
3%
-4%
18%
21%
41%
42%
40.%
29%
67%
36%
53%
-36%
32%
17.%
59%
15%
12%
21%
50.%
45%
2%
-22%
13%
37%
40.%
41%
21%
26,7331_
18,0.76
5,553
161,257
9,0.34
443,214
23,154
42,499
72,867
84,343
9,628
97,278
34,0.68
72,257
36,538
32,759
47,942
284
Old DRS
Total
30.,360.
21,674
10.,326
151,121
8,0.22
418,0.71
25,844
49,158
66,514
77,514
9,755
118,30.7
38,771
75,353
35,996
33,354
55,452
258
23,623
9,648
1,90.8
36,596
21,254
54,731
7,159
. 7,449
5,422
14,90.5
23,596
4,589
77,513
74,666
148,847
23,130.
835,0.32
14,798
II... U.lIIU
New Oiv
Rate'
-
32%
53%
59%
39%
44%
39%
58%
40.%
48%
- -7%
-3%
28%
29%
.45%
.36%
40.%
37%
64%
37%
32%
18%
i-43%
. 7%
58%
.35%
17%
24%
31%
34%
-147%
-29%
14%
39%
31%
43%
24%
II
WdlU
Calculaltons
New DRS
Total
IJI
Vl~,,!>,' "'UI::'fJU::'W d
i "~
- 't
1~v . 'Default
Old Div
Rate
21,615
13,338
1,167
29,959
24,979
55,0.75
5,479
7,10.9
5,153
20.,0.64
27,440.
11,0.88
78,810.
72,731
144,0.13
25,761
792,672
14.0.17
32%
53%
59%
39%
44%
39%
58%
40.%
48%
-7%
-3%
28%
29%
45%
36%
40.%
37%
64%
37%
32%
18%
43%
.7%
58%
35%
17%
24%
31%
34%
-147%
Old DRS
Total
26,733
18,0.76
5,553
161,199
9,0.34
440.,749
22,723
42,452
72,654
84,283
.9,628
97,251
34,0.29
72,255
36,523
32,759
47,942
284
...I\,.4IV,","1""" UII\';o"'~l,;;;U,U'l
Trinidad
Rocklin
Orlnda
Portola
Dublin ~ '?JW'~l: iIV!;(',:.:.'tof:',~i:~,I..:tJ.!f'J.:~~t.~:.~~,,...I~.,..,
Colusa Count}'- Regional Agency
Alameda
Escalon
South Lake Tahoe
San Luis Obi~Eo
Jurisdlctlol)
Mendocino-Un!
Atascadero
Chowchilla .
Hayward
Mono-Unl
Oakland '
Tuolumne-Uni
Turlock
Union City
Daly City
King City
LIvermore
Watsonville
Milpitas
San Ramon
21,615
13,338
1.167
-29%
14%
40.%
32%
44%
25%
Page 3 of 5
29,959
24,961
55,067
5,479
7,10.9
5,153
20.,0.64
27,440.
11,088
78,791
72,681
143,982
25,676
789,816
13.868
-
d
_v: !::J.~'I,lJ:"
Klngsburg
Mendota
Obisgo-Uni
Fresno-Unl
Mlllbrae
San Jose
Uklah
r.IWMB
Lafayette
Danville
Rio Vista
Antioch
San Luis
i ~. 'I'
., :1,' 1997 Default Calculations 1998 Default Calculations - ,I
:: Old DRS Old Dlv New OKS New Dlv Old DRS Uld Dlv New DRS New DIV
Jurisdiction ' 'I
.i) Total Rate Total' Rate Total Rate Total Rate
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority 169,327 36% 169,674 35% 192,428 29% 194,923 i 29%
Woodside I 11,,853 -76% 11,696 -77% 12,029 -71% 12,029 ;j,-71%
,I
Newman I .! I I 6,265 24% 6,285 23% 6,277 25% 6,286 I 25%
Calaveras-Unl 2~,294 41% 23,448 40% 24,351 39% 24,574 i;i: 39%
Folsom I , 32,607 37% 32,056 36% 27,925 50% 28,684 'i'f"49%
( :
Sunnyvale, .", , 112,104 52% 115,016 51% 113,511 53% 115,735 .; ~ 52%
Merced .County Solid Waste Regional Agency 194,153 47% 196,426 46% 205,843 45% 214,806 i'l' 43%
Contra Costa~Uni ' I , 132,244 39% 132,715 38% 215,256 4% 218,761 :'Ii 2%
San Leandro ,". 116,944 32% 117,614 31% 113,388 35% 117,907 ';' 33%
Truckee 15,988 36% 16,188 35% 16,980 33% 17,802 'r', 30%
Modesto 15~,433 24% 155,026 23% 176,006 15% 181,377 !'j" 12%
Monterey i ! 43,680 37% 44,700 36% 45,183 37% 47,205 i' 34%
Riverbank , i 9,494 36% 9,661 35% 10,826 30% 11,324 'I! 27%
Tracy , .., 57,984 32% 58,622 31% 52,625 42% 74,533 ';1'18%
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority 207,285 47% 208,443 46% 223,065 44% 308,672 :;1 23%
San Mateo-Unl i 65,391 34% 66,723 32% 78,010 22% 78,010 ,II, 22%
Napa I 58,159 24% 59,608 22% 59,095 26% 59,095 ,i: 26%
Pleasanton 109,610 35% 113,294 33% 116,775 36% 117,177 ,:,' 35%
Humboldt-Unl' 38,282 69% 40,420 67% 34,777 72% 35,258 i 71%
Menlo Park 50,172 41% 51,372 39% 57,245 32% . 58,927 i.. 30%
Sacramento i . 369,006 49% 382,804 47% 394,215 47% 407,054 :.. 45%
Manteca Ii 41,480 18% 42,125 16% 41,444 21% 43,039 ,'1 18%
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency ! 465,656 38% 483,003 36% 478,849 39% 513,177 :, 35%
San Francisco .776,929 '32% 791,136 30% 793,038 31% 887,078 I" 23%
Lodl i 63,545 32% 66,464 29% 60,431 37% 61,199 .1 37%
I;
Nevada-Unl . : 27,741 51% 29,682 48% 33,580 42% 34,082 'ii 41%
~Ipon I 8,118 77% 9,020 74% 8,472 76% 9,329 ,I; 73%
Placervllle i: 9,650 43% 10,245 40% 9,864 43% 10,482 ,;,1 40%
Martinez 39,325 16% 40,854 13% 37,162 24% . 42,167 !' 13%
Clearlake " 10,991 -16% 11,376 -20% 11,722 -20% ' 11,722 i, -20%
Placer-Unl 68,511 43% 73,451 39% 86,158 32% , '86,373 i! 32%
Stanlslaus-Uni I' 123,894 56% 135,130 52% 126,031 58% 129,874 Iii 57%
Sonora 4,656 49% 5,056 .45% 4;241 55% 4,303 ,)1 54%
Emeryvllle 16,405 53% 17,655 49% 19,757 43% 40,735 '" -18"0/0
Isleton 123 90% 391 69% 104 92% 104 I 92%
.
BuUe-Unl I 65,771 45% 79,176 34% 76,700 37% . 76,701 " 37%
' ,
,
1999
Nove,("
of5
!i
,'"
Pt
Clm,(,
~
y 1, ~erault Calculations 1996 Default Calcu.. .iNs
~ Old DRS Old Div New DRS New Div Old DRS Old Oiv New OK~ New DIY
Jurlsdlcllon Ii , I Total Rate Total Rate Tolal Rate Tolal Rate
Solano-Unl 25,606 -60% 26.812 -68% 21,216 -28% 21,216 :',-28%
Santa Clara 176,399 42% 194,806 36% 183,593 40% 183,699 , 40%
Arcata 10,016 48% 13,612 29% 9,391 52% 9,515 'i 51%
West Sacramento . 38.901 42% 44.090 34% 42,703 39% 43,430 I; , 38<i'o
Auburn 17,511 3% 22.987 -27% 12,388 35% 12.844 :i 33%
Lincoln 6,297 45% 6,819 40% 6,371 47% 6,799 , 44%
San Joaquin-Unl 297,606 -71% 139,823 20% 618,874 -244% 144,446 20%
Lathrop 17,186 -50% 14,288 -25% 8,923 25% 13,244 -11%
Fort Bragg 5,836 51% 8,429 29% 5,317 56% 8,718 27%
Jackson . , , 4,462 37% 5,098 28% 948 87% 2,069 71%
Stockton 227,596 31% 247,703 25% 242,171 29% 265,619 22%
CIWMB
1999
November 1,
().
Page 5 of 5