The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 8.2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection (Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1 : Cost Summary of May 5, 1990 Event Exhibit 2: Summary of Questionnaires used at May 5, 1990 Event Exhibit 3: Alameda County Proposed Permanent Program (June 4, 1990 submittal to Board of Supervisors) Exhibit 4: Letter dated July 11 , 1990 to Waste Management Authority Requesting Increase in Proposed Fee to $1 .32/ton. Exhibit 5 : Copies of Letters to Waste Management Authority Requesting Exemption for Recyclers Exhibit 6: Draft Letter to Waste Management Authority RECOMMENDATION: (1 ) Accept Report on May 5, 1990 Program, (2) Review Proposed Alameda County Program, (3) Provide input on Draft comments for Alameda County Waste Management Authority Public Hearing on tipping fee increase. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City Council has previously enacted a garbage rate surcharge of 20 cents per residential customer to pay for the May 5, 1990 collection. The proposed Alameda County Program will increase the local garbage company expenses through the tipping fee. Alameda County Department of Environmental Health estimates the annual cost per household at a maximum of $4.69 per household. DESCRIPTION: May 5 1990 Collection Report The City of Dublin conducted a HHW collection on May 5, 1990. The event was co-sponsored with the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. The response from the public exceeded the participation which was originally anticipated: A total of 10. 2% of the participants were City of Dublin residents. This accounted for 75 households. The event contractor considers a single day event to be successful if 1% of the households participate. Based upon the 1990 State of California Department of Finance Statistics, a 1% participation rate would equate to approximately 71 participants. This includes multi-family units which would be expected to participate at a rate of less than 1 percent. Therefore, the overall participation definitely exceeded normal patterns. The impact of conducting a successful event is the fact that the cost cannot be determined until after the event is over. The City Council enacted a garbage surcharge which took effect on July 1 , 1990. The surcharge will be used to recover the City of Dublin's share of the collection event. As shown on the financial summary, the total cost for the City of Dublin is approximately $22, 600. The surcharge was levied at 20 cents per single family customer and 15 cents per yard for multi-family bin service. The original surcharge was based upon an estimated City of Dublin cost of $16,850 . Due to the high turnout and the large volume of waste collected, the final costs exceeded the pre-event estimates. Ms. Mary Evans, Livermore-Dublin Disposal (LLD) Controller, has provided an estimated recovery schedule. At the current rates, it is anticipated that the surcharge will need to be levied beyond September of 1991 in order .to recover the costs associated with the 1990 event. The estimate does not allow for delinquencies. It is projected that a surcharge less than the current rate would be levied for the period from October 1991 to December 1991 . Since the surcharge was recently implemented, Staff recommends that ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: a !� Rafat Shahid, Alameda Co Environmental Health ITEM NO. PAP-4 $So-(00 the City monitor the collections over the next six months. If appropriate, a revised surcharge rate may be recommended with a future garbage rate adjustment. The intent would be to lower the surcharge for the final quarter in order to collect only the amount of funds necessary. Attached is a summary of the responses to the questionnaires used on the day of the event. Paint products and motor oil were by far the largest type of wastes brought to the event. It is also interesting to note that most participants were aware that this waste should not be disposed of with regular household garbage. The summary of comments highlights the need for convenient disposal. The long wait on a hot day resulted in negative comments on the process. However, the majority were supportive of the opportunity to dispose of the waste legally. Some of the comments are due to the lack of understanding about legal requirements. For example, State Law restricts the transportation of more than 5 gallons or 50 pounds without a specialized permit. Also, due to liability concerns each vehicle must be unloaded by Hazardous Material personnel. This limited the number of cars which could be serviced at any one time. Proposed Alameda County Program Alameda County Department of Environmental Health has proposed the establishment of a permanent program. Based on the response to the City sponsored collection day, Staff believes the need for a reliable and convenient disposal location has been demonstrated. Attached to the Staff report is the proposal as presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Staff has also followed up by meeting with County Staff to explore several concerns with the format of the proposed program. Program Focus The program is designed to handle Household Hazardous waste, as well as hazardous waste generated by "mini-generators." A mini-generator is defined as those which produce less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste in a month. Possible mini-generators are small print shops, house painters, and film developers. All individuals transporting waste to the collection site would still be limited to the 5 gallon/50 pound limit. Site Locations/Operations The County has developed the program identifying the need for three sites. One site is proposed to be in the Amador-Livermore Valley, servicing the eastern part of the County. The schedules of operation are tentative, however, the local site is scheduled to be open a total of three days each month. The following tentative schedule provides an overview of the schedule for the local site: Thursday through Saturday open from 9 :00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ; Sunday and Monday no personnel would be working; Tuesday and Wednesday, the personnel would be packaging wastes collected, preparing the next site for use, and conducting pubic education duties. This would only occur once each month. The staff then rotates to the other facilities operated under the program. Staffing The County proposes to staff the program with a total of 12 new positions. Operations will be handled by two teams of four persons. Each team is to be led by the Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist. The program design assumes that one team would work from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the second would work from 12:30 p.m. to 9 :00 p.m. In discussions with County Staff, they have indicated that they also intend to provide mobile collection service to elderly and handicapped residents who cannot get to the site. They have indicated that this service would need to be by appointment only. In addition to the two teams handling operations, the program would have management and support staffing consisting of four positions. The positions would include: — 1 - Chief, Waste Management Division 1 - Program Specialist II 1 - Specialist Clerk 1 - Account Clerk II The Chief would be a senior management position responsible for the overall program, including supervision of the operations personnel. The Program Specialist will be primarily responsible for support activities including data collection and public education. -2- I Due to the technical nature of this service, City Staff is not familiar with staffing of other programs. However, with the two teams a total of 8 personnel will be working for a portion of the day. County Staff have indicated that their proposal has been based upon other programs. In order to be assured that over staffing does not occur and that in return that operational costs are not inflated, Staff believes that the County must closely monitor the staffing needs. Site Development Procedure/Target Date to Begin Service The County Staff have indicated that it is their intent to pursue 3 sites, and that the improvements would be completed by the developer/landowner. The scenario requires Alameda County General Services Agency (GSA) to issue Requests For Proposals (RFP's) . The RFP would include specific design criteria developed by Alameda County Public Works. The concept is that the proposal will identify a site including the cost of developing the facility. The program calls for the improvement cost to be paid directly to the developer. The land cost would be arranged under a lease/purchase allowing for paying this cost overtime. Alameda County Staff believe that the public/private development scheme will provide a fast track development. The developer would still need to work with the local community to complete all necessary environmental reviews and planning applications. The County proposes to have the program operational by July 1 , 1991 . Given the amount of review typically required for this type of facility, the process must proceed relatively quickly to meet the July 1991 date. Financing The original proposed plan called for the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) to levy a fee of $1 .25 per ton on all waste generated and disposed of in Alameda County. This fee would be paid by the three landfill operators. The local agency will then need to increase local garbage rates to recognize the increased disposal costs of the local garbage company. In a letter dated July 11 , 1990 (Exhibit 4) , the Waste Management Authority was advised that the action taken by the Board of Supervisors was that $1 .25 per ton only be a minimum fee. The Board also recommended that consideraton should be given to the exemption of recyclers. As stated in Exhibit 4, this would increase the necessary tipping fee to $1 .32 per ton. Alameda County has estimated the exemption will remove 100, 000 tons from the fee. If this estimate of exempted material is accurate, the revised tipping fee amounts to approximately a 5.6% increase to accommodate proposed exempt industries. Exhibit 5 consists of two letters from Recyclers requesting exemption from the tipping fee. The introduction of an exempt class of garbage complicates the levying of the tipping fee. It also creates an enforcement question as to which entity will determine whether a disposer is exempt. The original staff report had proposed the use of a "tipping fee" due to the simple manner of applying the rate on each landfill. Opening up the opportunity for exemptions may result in other similar requests for exemption due to special circumstances. Staff would recommend that if the ACWMA agrees to provide an exemption that consideration be given to the potential for setting a precedent for requests for other exemptions. Also, prior to the approval, the ACWMA should verify the amount waste subject to this exemption and its impact on the cost of the program. The information contained in the County Staff report suggests that when the fee is levied for a full year that the annual cost will be $4. 69 per household. Staff has discussed with Mr. Shahid that this amount is actually inflated due to the fact that it does not account for non- residential garbage. The County has indicated that they are unable to calculate at this time the estimated cost based on all types of customers. In the City of Dublin it is estimated that approximately 23 percent of the waste stream is attributable to single-family residences. The breakdown of multi-family waste generated is not available. Staff discussed two concerns related to financing with Mr. Rafat Shahid, Assistant Director Alameda County Environmental Health Agency. First, the issue of equity given that the "tipping fee" is levied on all garbage. :If a commercial/industrial entity is contributing to the cost of the program what benefit do they receive? Mr. Shahid explained that they anticipate that businesses may generate small quantities of household type wastes. For example, special cleaners, the adhesives, paint, etc. Mr. Shahid has -3- program, provided that the quantity did not exceed the limits for a "mini- generator." He indicated that most large generators already have a way of disposing of their large waste products. However, it is sometimes the smaller items for which large generators find difficulty in obtaining disposal services. Depending on the characteristics of a community, it may be questionable as to whether the percentage of fees collected from non- residential disposers is consistent with the benefits this sector would receive. The second area of concern was the overall use of a "tipping fee. " Staff was concerned that the fee requires Cities to increase garbage rates for a program which they do not control. Mr. Shahid explained that other financing methods were considered before settling on the "tipping fee. " Consideration was given to the development of a property assessment, however, this method would be complicated by the need of a popular vote. The advantage of a property assessment would allow different rates based on the type of property. Mr. Shahid explained that the City's control of the program cost lies with our representation on the ACWMA. The ACWMA is the entity responsible for levying the "tipping fee." Councilmember Snyder is our current representative to this agency. The Authority also has a Hazardous Waste Subcommittee, which will review the County program. The ACWMA is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on July 25, 1990, to consider levying the tipping fee. Recommended Issues for Consideration by ACWMA Staff has prepared a proposed response which should be directed to the ACWMA regarding its public hearing on the fee increase. This is a Draft document and it would be appropriate for the City Council to consider any appropriate modifications. The draft comments can be summarized as follows: 1 . ACWMA staff or consultants should review the proposed staffing and cost estimates to determine that they are reliable and represent an efficient operation. 2. Alameda County Department of Environmental Health should commit to conducting one day collections, if the facility in a particular region will be unavailable on July 1 , 1991 . Staff has proposed that if it appears at any time after March 1 , 1991 , that the facility will be unavailable by the target date, then the County should conduct one-day collections. It will be important for the rate payers to be assured that they will have an operating program available. Staff has suggested that this be reviewed as of March 1 , 1991 , since it will take time to coordinate the event. It is suggested that any temporary event be conducted no later than September 1 , 1991 . 3. If ACWMA concurs with the recommendation to exempt recyclers, the Authority should consider whether a precedent is being established for further exemptions. Also, the Authority or its Consultants should verify the amount of waste subject to the exemption and its impact on the cost of the program. 4. ACWMA should develop a schedule for considering "tipping fee" increases, which will avoid retroactive collection of fee increases. For example, last year the agencies served by Oakland Scavenger Co. enacted fee increases January 1 , 1990. If the next increase in regular garbage service occurs January 1 , 1991 , the increase will need to be inflated to compensate the garbage company for landfill fees paid during the period from October to December. Staff would recommend that the City Council consider the Draft comments and direct Staff as appropriate to provide the comments to the ACWMA. -4- NA COST SUMMARY OF DUBLIN/LIVERMORE/PLEASANTON HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION On May 5, 1990 ( 10 . 2%) (51 . 6%) (38 . 2%) Dublin Livermore Pleasanton Qty Total Share Share Share Set UP Cost (Flat) $ 26, 762 00 $8, 920 . 67 $8, 920 . 67 $8, 920 . 67 Variable Costs Based on Participation Additional Packaging Services (*) 2, 401 . 00 Landfill Bulk Solids (20 Drums) Including Transportation 4, 965 . 00 Landfill Drums 62, 660 . 50 Including Transportation 277 (55 gal) 1 (30 gal) Incinerator: 5 gal. drum 3 438 . 00 Waste Oil (Flat Rate) 200 . 00 Oil Base Paints Including Transportation 94 Drums 63, 830 . 00 Publicity 3 hours 195 . 00 Total Variable $134, 689 . 50 $13 , 738. 33 $69, 499 .78 $51 , 451 . 39 TOTAL FOR EVENT $161 , 451 . 50 $22 , 659 . 00 $78, 420 . 45 $60 , 372 . 06 NOTES : (*) Due to the large response, all of the packaging could not be completed the day of the event. Therefore, both overtime and additional straight time services were required from Chem Waste. This totaled 43 additional hours, plus supplies and transportation. CHEMICAL WASTE 11G1•111' . TEL No . 415-656-4926 lylay 4 ,�Ju J 42 Pdo . uuo r .UL , v�tj�i eJ J DU BUN/UVERMORE/PLEASANTON HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION MAY 5, 1990 To Be (`mm�latcui Ry Collection Staff: Rgsldgnt Of: Tlmo: Dublin ^/'® 7inti� 611/€�Il 8-9 a.m. Q Livermore 9.10 a.m. 12 noon-1 p.m. Pleasanton 10-11 a.m. 1-2 p.m. Other (Speoffy) 11.12 boon 2-3 p.m. To help your City In planning future events, we would ask that you answer the following questions. 1. Do you live in: House q Apartment �_ CondominiurrC3 � � C ) \ 2. How did you hear about this program: (mc c4L Tkc ss 1 R-eseor•st. ��Ven J IZfQ Newspaper Flyer Radio Garbage 5111 Trash Can Hanger ,CA M/1.y' X41EA05) SCNoGL-� Crry> TV (Channel 30 CTV) Other kho, //lE DEPT. 3. Have you been to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day before? (0 Yes W _SP1 No (-+;m) 4. Before this program,did you know that it was not a safe practice to dispose of household hazardous waste in the garbage? Yes " No 6%) %� ^ 5. Please check the type of materials you have brought to the 0ollection:((A0<t T►,�,s �-kq`s4 Stl!Nge Paints & Thinners _ Wood Preservatives Motor 011 Batteries Household Cleaners (including: drain cleaners and polish) off/ Garden Care Products (pesticides, weedkillers, fertilizers) ANT - FAE496 AERasoLS , F0011-CNgmICALS S I . � Other (Please list) i1C I^S OUT,29 ^an11EYRATeR C/EAN>E•R IJAt�5 rrtrxEI�u►�o/� Additional Comments: Sid � AG'tk�� _ Your City thanks you for safely disposing of Household Hazardous Wastes. EXHIBIT 2.d\houshotd\quals\question 050390 r- • ComrIYV& (S%AMM"� "I will NEVER participate in this event again if you conduct it like this. I have been in line 1 hr 45 min. and I'm not through the line. PROVIDE CURB SERVICE! "Good job. Make it more often and educate public that convenience can be hazardous in the long run. Keep up the good work. " "Long wait (1 hr. 45 min. ) - Do this more often! (Please! ) " "Great, needed more often. " "Never again! Should be MUCH better organized! All the waste of time and fuel waiting. I feel so sorry for officers standing in hot sun wearing dark uniforms. Too much dust, waited 3 hours, 11 a.m. to 1: 45 p.m. Never again, you hear! ! " "Waiting line was the worst I've ever experienced = 2 hrs! ! " "Would like to see more frequent opportunities to dispose of toxics. " "Could be a part of the hand-out at residence. " "Do this more often! " "Let's do this in January next time - or let me run a cold drink concession. What about toxic auto fumes? Dehydrated patrons?" "Needed more often, similar to trash pick-up in cities now in effect. " "Go faster. Livermore was good in past. " "Too long wait. " "Collection should be held more often than every 3 years. " "Willing to pay if necessary. " "How can you avoid so many single driver cars with a 5-gallon limit - exhaust fumes. " "Please schedule a clean-up opportunity such as this on a more frequent and regular basis. " "Should have more often, easier access. " JUL 18 190 15 25 ENVIRONMENTRL HEALTH P. . Revised June 19, 1990 `ALAMEDA COUNTY AGENDA June 19, 1990 HEALTH CARE SERVICES AGENCY DAVID J. KEARS,Agency Director RAFAT A.SHAHID,Assistant Agency Director DEPARTMENT OF ENVISONMENTAL HEALTH 470-27th Street,Third Floor Oakland,Calitomia 94612 June 4, 2990 (41s) 271-4313 .1 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 1221 oak Street Oakland , California 94612 Dear Board Members: Subject : PROPOSAL FOR A COUNTY-OPERATED FOUSEROLD/MINI- GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS: In order to comply with the requirements of AB 2948 (Tanner) , AB 939 (Sher) , and AB- 888 (LaFollette) , a Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program will need to be provided within the County. The proposed program would promote safer and environmentally sound disposal of such wastes. Therefore, it is recommended that your Board: 1) Approve the implementation of the plan for a County-operated Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous waste Collection Program, as outlined in Attachment A, effective July 11 1990. 2) Request the County's Waste Management Authority to impose a minimum fee an County waste disposal site facility operators of $1.25 per ton of municipal solid waste generated within. Alameda County and disposed of at these sites, with special consideration to exempting waste generated by commerical recyclers , effective October 1 , 1990 , to finance the costs of this program, as outlined in Attachment: B. 3) Approve and authorize the creation of the additional positions and pay units in Budget #430, effective July It 1990, as outlined in Attachment C. 4 ) Approve and authorize the incorporation of the supplemental appropriation and revenue increases of $1 , 781 , 300 each in the 1990-91 "final" budget for Budget #430 , as detailed in Attachment D. EAR IT 3 5) Approve the proposed composition of the Household/Mini- Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program Technical Advisory Committee, which would assist in final program planning and operational logistics development, as outlined in Attachment F. (A list of nominees will be submitted to your Board in July 1990.) 6) Adopt the proposed Resolution outlined in Attachment G, which supports the passage of AB 2641 (Wright) , which would allow the inclusion of mini-generators in collection programs for household hazardous wastes under the same conditions that are applicable to householders. SUMMARY: A proposed Household/Mini -Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program was initially presented to your Board at a work session on December 12 , 1989 , and further discussed at a public hearing on January 23, 1990. Various oral and written comments and concerns regarding the Agency's proposal were presented to your Board at those times, as well as subsequently to the Agency. In response to these expressed comments and concerns, and after further re-review and discussions, which included city and County Waste Management Authority representatives, a final proposal has been developed for your Board's review and approval. The most significant changes incorporated in the final program proposal are the financing mechanism and the higher cost estimates for land and facility acquisition and construction. Instead of the earlier proposed "collection ee," cnis now proposed that a "tipping fee" be imposed by your disposal site operators to finance the casts of the proposed program. This financing approach would be simpler and more feasible to administer than the earlier considered "collection fee. The authority for the imposition by your Board of "tipping fees is outlined in Sections 41901 and 41902 of the Public Resources Code. It should also be noted that this financing proposal has already been discussed with the landfill operators. DISCUSSION/FINDINGS : In order to comply with the requirements of AB 2948 (Tanner) , the Alameda County Waste Management Authority developed the County's Hazardous Waste Management Plan in January, 1989. One of the basic requirements of this Plan is the implementation of a household hazardous waste program, which would incorporate the special needs of mini-generators. The passage of AB 939 (Sher) and AB 888 (LaFcilette) also require the County to develop and implement a household 'hazardous waste program. A: The program currently proposed for final approval and implementation would respond to the service needs of the County's residents to dispose of their household hazardous wastes in a safe and legal fashion, as well as to provide such collection services for "mini -generators." The latter are defined as generators, which produce less than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of hazardous waste in any one month. Examples of such generators would include small print shops , house painters , and film developers . These mini-generators, as well as householders, would transport their hazardous wastes to the proposed permitted hazardous waste faciities in amounts not to exceed a total volume of five gallons or a total weight of fifty pounds. A County-operated program utilizing three collection sites is proposed as the most cost-effective, efficient, and convenient approach to providing thi s new mandated service. A summary of the operational and financing aspects of this program proposal is outlined in Attachment A. It should be noted that active participation and input of representatives of the County's cities and other concerned agencies was solicited and received prior to development of the currently proposed program. FINANCING: In 1990-1991 , financing to support "one-time" expenses of $ 1 , 425 , 000 for the acquisition of facilities and environmental impact reports , as well as certain partial year, staff , and operating expenses estimated at $356,300 would be required, for a total of $1,781,300. (See Attachment D for details) . Annual staff and operating costs for the proposed Household/Mini- Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program have been estimated at $2,375,000. (See Attachment E for details) . It is now recommended that costs of the proposed County-operated program be supported by the following mechanism, which has been discussed with both the County Counsel's office and the landfill operators ; Imposition of a " tipping fee " as authorized by Sections 41901 and 41902 of the Public Resources Code on County waste disposal site operators. (See Attachment B for details) . x- 3 In order to ensure that the program's costs and revenue are properly segregated, a new, separate cost center and revenue sub- account. within_ Budget #430 would be utilized. Billing and collection by the County of the "tipping fees" imposed on the waste disposal site operators , which is recommended to become effective October 1 , 1990 , would be made monthly. Receipts would be deposited in a separate trust fund, and transferred to a General Fund revenue account on a monthly basis based on actual costs incurred by the program. This financing arrangement, which is similar to the one currently in use by the Department's Solid Waste Management Program, was previously discussed with the Auditor-Controller's Office. As referenced earlier, all program costs would be fully recoverable, and no net County costs would be incurred. The proposed 1990-1991 budget for this program would require an additional $1 , 781 , 300 in both appropriation and revenue , as detailed in Attachment D, which is recommended for incorporation in the "final" 1990-91 budget for Budget #430. Very truly yours , O David J. Kears , Director Health Care Services Agency DJK/DP/cdb JH Attachments cc: County Counsel Auditor-Controller Planning Director Director , General Services Agency Director , Personnel & Labor Relations Director , Public Works Agency Secretary, Alameda County Waste Management Authority President, Alameda County Waste Management Authority Browning-Ferris Industries Waste Management , Inc . ii ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED COUNTY-OPERATED HOUSEHOLD/MINI-GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM INTENT: The intent of this program is for the Agency ' s Department of Environmental Health to be the operator of a Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program that provides the residents and the �� business mini-generators" of Alameda County with a permanent, time legal , cost-effective, environmentally sound means of disposing of their hazardous wastes. FACILITY LOCATIONS : It is proposed to build and operate three (3) permanent collection facilities . General locations within the County would be : North/Central area; Southern area; and Eastern area. FACILITY STAFFING : It is proposed to utilize the following staff to operate these facilities : Management: 1 - Chief , Waste Management Division 1 - Program Specialist II 1 - Specialist Clerk 1 - Account Clerk II Operations: (two teams, each consisting of the following) 1 - Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist 1 - Hazardous Materials Specialist 2 - Hazardous Materials Technicians POPULATION SERVED: All residents and business "mini-generators" Gwiil nnct (Business "small quantity generators and larg er generators be served by this facility). FACILITY OPERATIONS : The operation of this program. would include, but would not be limited collection, to, several elements such as education, publicity, chemical identification, fee collect ionorand/ data managementecycling, _ disposal, administration, Facility staff would meet incoming users and complete paperwork and remove household hazardous wastes from the users' vehicles. This waste would then be segregated , identified , recycled where appropriate, and lab packed for disposal. The facility staff would then oversee the removal of the materials by a licensed hazardous waste hauler. The actual operational schedule, i.e. the days and hours when each facility would be open to the public have not as yet been finalized. However, a tentative schedule has been developed (see below) . Final operational schedules would be developed based on both the local needs and the logistics of the operations, as well as full consideration by the cities being served. LIABILITY: The County of Alameda would become the generator of all the hazardous wastes that are collected, and would have to assume liability for its proper handling and disposal. A County-operated household hazardous waste collection program would receive a significant reduction in liability exposure pursuant to Government Code Section 66798.9. FINANCING : The imposition of a "tipping fee," as authorized by Section 41901 and 41902 of the Public Resources Code is proposed to be levied on solid waste landfill operators to provide financing for the program. All program costs would be recoverable utilizing this financing mechanism. Therefore, no net County costs would be incurred. TENTATIVE PROPOSED SCHEDULE : 1 . One facility would operate at a time, with the following schedule : a . Two weekends a month : North County b. One weekend a month : South County C. One weekend a month : East County 2. Staff would be comprised of two teams , each consisting of : a . One Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist b . One Hazardous Materials Specialist C. Two Hazardous Materials Technicians x- f 3. Hours for each facility would be : a. Tuesday - Wednesday, 8: 30 a.m. - 5: 00 p.m. closed to public, two teams working. m. , open to b. Thursday - Saturday, 9: 00 a.m. - 8 : 00 p. public (1) one team would work 8 : 30 a .m. - 5: 00 p.m. (2) Second team would work 12: 30 p.m. - 9 : 00 p.m. c. Sunday - Monday, closed to public, no teams working . 4 . During the hours closed to the public, staff would take care of mobile unit duties , education, lab packing and shipping wastes, readying facility for public use, securing facility after public use, and other duties. 5 . These schedules are ilihetnoeds eat only , time thatdthe finalized depending on t facilities become operative . ATTACHMENT B CALCULATIONS OF PROPOSED "TIPPING FEES" FOR 1990-91 (EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1 , 199 0) AND ANNUALIZED IMPACT I . 1990-91 1990-91 Estimated Budget Costs : $1 ,781 , 300* Divided by total tons : 1 , 425, 103** "Tipping fee" rate per ton: $1 , 25** (to be effective 10/1/90) Average annual cost per household $3. 52*** (only nine months impact) ----------------------------------- 1990-91 Estimated Fees o Altamont Landfill (75% of 1,038 , 163 tons or) $973, 277 778 , 622 x $1 . 25/ton = o Durham Road Landfill (75% of 411,812 tons) or 386 , 074 308 , 859 x $1. 25/on = o Vasco Road Landfill (75% of 450 , 160 tons) or 422, 025 337 , 620 x $1. 25/ton = Total $1 ,781, 376 * See Attachment D for details . ** Represents 75% of the total tons of Alameda County solid wastes disposed of in 1989 (to reflect the proposed imposition of the "tipping fee" effective October 1 , 1990 , i .e. for only nine (9) months in 1990-91) . ***Based on the State Department of Finance's estimate of 506 , 449 households in Alameda County as of January 1 , 1990 . _ 4 } II . Annualized (i .e. 1991-92) Estimated Annualized operating Budget : $2, 375,000* Divided by total tons 1 ,900, 135** "Tipping fee" rate per ton $1 . 25 Average annual cost per household $4. 69*** --------------------------------------------------------- -------------(- Annual Estimated Fee (i .e. 1991-92) **** o Aitamont Landfill $1 , 297,703 1 , 038 , 163 tons x $1. 25/ton = o Durham Road Landfill 514 ,765 411 , 812 tons x /ton = o Vasco Road Landfill 562, 700 450 , 160 tons x $1. 25/ton = Total $2, 375;168 * See Attachment E for details . ** Total tons of Alameda County solid wastes disposed of in 1989 . *** Based on the State Department of Finance ' s estimate of 506 , 449 households in Alameda County as of January 1 , 1990 . ****Based on current year 's dollars (annualized budget) and 1989 tonnage handled at disposal sites without impact of inflation or workload changes , respectively. 5 • J ATTACHMENT C PROPOSED ADDITIONAL POSITIONS AND PAY UNITS FOR 1990-91 HOUSEHOLD/MINI-GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM Environmental Health Services Budget #430 Item Number of (Annualized ) No . Class Title Positions f2y Units Pay Units* (New) Chief, Waste Management 9 12 Division 1 0306M Program Specialist II 1 9 12 1128 Specialist Clerk 1 9 12 1310 Account Clerk II 1 6 12 5650 Hazardous Materials 24 Specialist 2 0 5655 Senior Hazardous 2 0 24 Materials Specialist (New) Hazardous Materials 48 Technician 4 0 Total 12 33 144 * 1991-92 Requirements; included for illustration purposes only. 6 ATTACHMENT D PROPOSED 1990-91 BUDGET 'S APPROPRIATION AND REVENUE HOUSEHOLD/MINI-GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM Environmental Health Services Budget #430 Appropriation Amount Account No . /Name Salaries & Employee Benefits #1011 - Salaries & Wages $105,900 #1211 - Retirement #1 4 , 416 60 #1221 - Retirement #2 4,7 , 5666 #1311 - F. I .C.A. 6, 555 #1411 - Health Insurane 1 , 345 #1421 - Dental Insurance 925 #1511 - Other Employee Benefits 1 , 472 #1611 - Compensation Insurance 265 #1711 - S .D. I . 133, 400 Sub-Total $ Services & Supplies #3111 - Office Expense $ 6 ,000 #3351 - Transportation 1 , 000 #3391 - Special Departmental Expense 1651900* #3411 - Professional & Specialized Services {* $397, 900 Sub-Total Fixed Assets #5111 - Structures & Improvements $1 , 200 ,000*** #5311 - Equipment 50 , 000 Sub-Total 1 ,250 , 000 Total $1, 781, 300 Revenue #6202 - Environmental Health Service Fees $1 ,781 , 300 Net County Cost -0- * Includes $ 135 , 000 as the estimated cost for leases of land with "option to buy" for three (3) sites for nine (9) months. ** This $225,000 amount would cover the costs of three (3) required environmental impact reports @ $75, 000• *** This $ 1 , 200 , 000 amount would cover the costs of the purchase of three ( 3 ) facilities , which would be constructed by the landowners , in accord with County specifications , @ $400 , 000 • 7 �; ATTACHMENT E PROPOSED ANNUALIZED OPERATING BUDGET* HOUSEHOLD/MINI-GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM Environmental Health Services Budget $430 Appropriation Amount** Salaries & Benefits o Salaries & Wages $499 , 500 o Overtime 24,900 o Employee Benefits 129 ,600 Sub-total $654, 000 Services & Supplies • Miscellaneous operating $255 , 000 expenses • Purchase of 3, 300 drums 110 , 000 for storage of wastes • Contract hauling and 990 , 000 disposal of 3, 300 drums • Lease of land (3 sites @ 180 , 000 $60 ,000) 106, 000 o Administrative Overhead 50 ,'000 o Special Departmental Expense Sub-total $1 , 691, 000 Fixed Assets o Equipment $ 30 ,000 Total $2, 375, 000 Revenue o Income from "tipping fees" $-2, 375 , 000 Net County Costs -0- * Second year of program , i .e. 1991-92. Included for illustration purposes only; based on current year's dollars and 1989 tonnage handled at the disposal sites without impact of inflation or workload changes, respectively. ** Specific appropriation and revenue accounts to be identified. a, R ATTACHMENT F PROPOSED PROTOCOL FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COUNTY HOUSEHOLD/MINI-GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) BY THE BORRD OF SUPERVISORS A The role of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would be to assist County staff in final program planning and operational logistics development. 1 , The TAC would consist of eleven (11) members as follows : a . Two members representing small generators, from industry associations, and who operate their businesses in Alameda County. These members represent the mini-generators who would be using the facilities , and would have some expertise in hazardous materials management. b. One member who operates a landfill in Alameda County. This member would represent the landfill operators, who are trying to keep hazardous materials out of their landfills , and would have expertise in hazardous materials management. C. Five members representing public agencies in Alameda County; (1) One from a North County city (2) One from a South County city (3) One from an East County city (4) One from a sanitary district (5) One from a water or flood control district . These members would represent the communities being served, and would have expertise in hazardous materials management . d . One member representing an environmental organization, who resides in Alameda County. This member would represent the general public , and would have hazardous materials expertise. e . One member representing an environmental organization, who resides in Alameda County. This member would represent the general public, and would have hazardous materials expertise. 9 f, One member of the League of Women Voters, who resides in Alameda County. This member would represent the general public , and should have some hazardous materials expertise . 2. At least two nominees will be suggested to the Board of Supervisors in each category after they have been contacted and indicated a willingness to serve and represent their constituency. Each will be accompanied by the following: a . Name b. Affiliation C . Background d . Address and phone number 3, The Board of Supervisors as a whole would select the members of the TAC from the list of nominees . a. . Each member of the TAC would serve for four years , except that five of the members originally selected shall, by lot, serve two years. Members may be replaced for the remainder of their term if they are unable to or are unwilling to serve . A "list of nominees for the TAC will be submitted to Y-our Board in IELY- , 1990. JH/cdb - 5/30/90 D 10 ATTACHMENT G PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT OF AB 2641 (WRIGHT) WHEREAS , The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County approved the establishment of a comprehensive Household/Mini- Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program to provide a safe, environmentally sound, cost effective method of collection and disposal of such hazardous waste; and, WHEREAS , The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County has recognized the needs amounhts mini-generators us waste mechanism to dispose of small safely and economically; and, WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, the people of this County and other hazardous waste management agencies have acknowledged the deleterious impact of illegal disposal of hazardous waste on the public's health and the environment; and WHEREAS, Assemblymember Wright has introduced AB 2641, which would allow mini-generators to be treated like residences in regard to hazardous waste collection facilities; and WHEREAS, the treatment of mini-generators as residences will greatly facilitate the design, permitting and implementation of the County's Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors of The County of Alameda do urge the passage of AB 2641 (Wright) ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board request their Legislative Advocate Health in encouraging the passage ofp this mbill. of Environmental He ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES : ABSTAIN: 11 ;� ` ALWEDA CTUL 19 ',9O 13:58 A' 'T)A COUNTY PLNG DEPT f P•2/7 HEALTH CARE SERVICE D G7 AGENCY EARS: • e c}�Qirectar; RAFAT A.SHAHiD,Assistant Agency Director DAVID J. K is DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL.HEALTH ao Swan Way, Rm. 210 July 11, 1990 +, ,,, ��!;�iTY Oakland, CA 94821 ^7.kk Eli T �a1s)271-4300 QTY y.�1:a —• •:�ii.1 The Honorable Ayn Weiskamp, president Alameda county Waste Management Authority 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA. 94544 Subject Countywide Household/Mini-generator Hazardous Waste Program Dear Ms. Weiskamp: On June 19, • 1990 , the Board of Supervisors Of Alameda County approved the development and implementation he Boardclettywide household/mini-generator program. A COPY attached for your review and consideration. Recommendation number two of o t�>n im pose ra minimum t fee on county. Management Authority t P per ton of municipal disposal site facility operators of $1.25 p solid waste generated within Alameda county and disposed of at these sites. The Board also ns aCra�tion to exempt ng waste generated Authority extend special o by Commercial resideris. in trthe fee-exempt recycled commercial program and considering that er ear, please consider waste will not exceed 100,000 tons p Y setting the fee at $1.32 per ton. Your full support and endorsement of this program are instrumental to its success. Very truly yqurs, . C_- A. Rafat A. Shahid Assistant Agency Director Enclosure Distribution: All Members of"Waste Management Authority All Members of the Board of Supervisors Steven Szalay, CAO David J. Kears, Agency Director, HCSA Bill Fraley, secretary, WMA - Hayward RAS:f _ W'pO12 i JUL 18 '90 14:01 ALAMEDA COUNTY PLNG DEPT i P.5/7 JUL 18 '90 14:01 ALAMEDA COUNTY PLNG DEPT " ]N{T.ZER STEEL PRODUCTS CO. -�- P.6i t t ,emu PQ&,,,, a,4,c+N4m,s4sc4 Mr 415,433ti919 T, W.u.37.5324 percent of a recycled vehicle and can be itself reused as JUL J� 'Z 54 Cil 'c daily cover in landfills. In fact, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has approved the use of auto shredder residue as a component of daily cover. Annually, Schnitzer atAr.FpACOe;vr( Steel generates as much as fifty thousand tons of auto July 10, 1990 ?LAHN'ti 4PA7T;4EN7 shredder residue in the process of recycling junked and r'Y'v"F abandoned autos. Hon. Ayn Wieskamp, President Alameda County Waste Management Authority In summary, we request exemption from the proposed 399 Elmhurst Street surcharge because it is actually a disincentive to recycling Hayward, California 94544 and contrary to state and local policy. We propose that auto Dear President Wieskamp: shredder residue be designated as a recyclable byproduct and thereby not subject to a surcharge on municipal solid waste. i The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is recommending We look forward to a positive action on our proposal that commercial recyclers be exempted from the proposed so that junked and abandoned autos can continue to be surcharge on municipal solid waste to support a removed, recycled, and reused in an effective manner and county-operated household hazardous waste collection Schnitzer Steel can continue to earn it's California r program. Recycling Award. iVl] Schnitzer Steel wholeheartedly supports this } recommendation and respectfully proposes the following: Sincerely, ! No recycling product including but not i7 limited to California redeemable beverage Marc Madden containers and no recycling byproduct Assistant General Manager C including but not limited to auto shredder residue shall be considered a solid waste for CC: William Fraley, Secretary the purpose of imposing fees or surcharges y pursuant to Sections 41901 , 41902, or 41903 of the California Public Resources Codes when disposed by a recycler whose pricncipal operation is located within the County of Alameda. i Last year, Schnitzer Steel received California's first Recycling Award in recognition of having recycled more than three million autos over the last twenty years. In effect, the proposed surcharge creates a substantial disincentive to the very recycling activity for which we have been recognized. our ability to divert auto bodies from landfills is directly related to the price we pay for them. Unlike landfills who pass surcharges on to their customers, the auto shredder must absorb these costs which diminishes the price that can be paid for auto bodies. Historically, lower prices attract fewer auto bodies which then remain abandoned on streets, empty lots, river beds, or the Bay itself. So while the proposed surcharge may have little effect on individual households or landfills, it will have a direct, immediate, and significant impact on the ability to remove junked and abandoned autos. Auto shredder residue is glass, rubber, and plastics that remain after a junked auto is shredded and its metallics are recovered for reuse by steel mills and foundries. Auto shredder residue constitutes about twenty r JUL 18 '90 14:00 ALAMEDA COUNTY PLNG DEPT P•4/ JUL 18 '90 13:59 ALAMEDA COUNTY PLNG DEPT r : July 12, 1990 r Ayn Wieskamp .1 i:' - July 12, 1990 W Page Two Ms. Ayn Wieskamp, President Z,i)10_yj g tion, operating from the Alameda Coin-1ty Waste Manage.: uthflnt�Y, Goodwill Industries is an independent, nonprofit or serve P g 399 Elmhurst Street PHnY�ie proceeds of our business operations. Our ability b serve diour recycling persons lass, Hayward, CA 94544 directly related to our ability to run a successful business, our d g plastic and aluminum is a growing segment of our business, and an increasing funds. Higher dumping fees will not only deplete the efficiency of our Subiect: Hazardous Waste Dump Fee: Nonprofit/Recycler source of Exemption recycling program, but take away funds needed to support our human services programs Dear Ms. Wieskamp: Management Authority to support, an d Accordingly, we call u on the Waste Manag - thereafter encourage the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to adopt, the Je wish to appeal to the Waste Management Authority to ~` our emiption from this fee: support an exemption for nonprofit operators and recyclers from 'following language formalizing the 'hazardous waste" supplemental dump fee, which is to offset No recycling product, including but not limited to California a oedmcyca1�18 the cost of the County instituting a three-site hazardous waste plastic, dump program in 1991. _ beverage containers (e.g, glass, p metal or shredder residue, byproduct, including but not limited to scrap shall u considered "solid waste for purposes of imposing fees of The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has approved a t to Sections 41901, 41902 or 41903 of the California supplemental fee of $1.25 per ton to be collected as of October 1 ' surcharges puzsu used of by a recycling operator, m from all customers of landfill operators — including nonprofits, ate ' Public Resources Codes, when disposed such as Goodwill Industries. This fee applies to all who must , ?' nonprofit organization which is also a recycling operator, "'hose principa •- P of Alameda- utilize the transfer station system, o: dumps, to dispose of =. r' aeration is located within the County: =: materials which are not appropriate for recycling. ' Lam:; a Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to receiving your supp Such a fee, when added to the fees Goodwill Industries already ! the public hearing scheduled for July 25. pays for disposing of materials which we cannot recycle, will - lease feel free to contact Morris T• Wright, Vic negatively impact both our recycling operations and our ability to ' ,,.. .. Should you have any questions, p T' : . provide job training and other human services to handicapped ? President for Industrial Services, during regular business hours at 534-66 0• and disadvantaged people. This "cost of doing business," which - �I Sincerely, for-profit companies may pass along to their customers, is not - �, ' appropriate or relevant to an organization such as ours. The value of our goods is set by the value of new goods, not the cost of production_ H- Ronald Turnbow Last year, Goodwill Industries paid $92,000 in dump fees to President & CEO dispose of non-recyclable materials. As of May 31, this year we have spent $41,836 and we expect our dumping fees to total IiRT/CB/fc around $96,000 for 1990. Certainly, there is no room in our budget to accommodate an additional $1.25 per ton It is simply not cost-effective, and we do not consider higher fees an incentive for us to recycle materials that cannot be recycled (e.g, household wares and furnishings, non-scrap metals, etc.). The higher fee will 3 C3 discourage our donation system from taking items which we T currently accept as a convenience to our customers. Some <}- portions of these items (metals and fiber components) are currently being recycled. :a.aF„s �t � �►- y DRAFT July 17, 1990 Ms. Ayn Wieskamp, President Alameda County Waste Management Authority 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 RE: Public Hearing (7/25/90) : Proposed Tipping Fee Increase for Alameda County Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) /Mini-Generator Collection Program Dear Ms . Wieskamp: The purpose of this correspondence is to provide written testimony for the public hearing referenced above. The Dublin City Council reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting on July 23, 1990 . The City of Dublin recognizes the need for a convenient legal method of disposing of these types of wastes . Due to the lack of a County effort in this area, the City joined with neighboring cities to conduct a one day collection. The scope of this program exceeded all estimates and it appears that a Countywide solution is the best way to approach this need. Based upon our review of the proposal, the following comments are provided. 1 . ACWMA staff or consultants should review the proposed staffing and cost estimates to determine that they are reliable and represent an efficient operation. The City of Dublin does not have Staff with the technical background necessary to conduct this type of review. However, in order to assure that the fee is appropriate, ongoing personnel costs should be reviewed. 2 . Alameda County Department of Environmental Health should commit to conducting one day collections, if the facility in a particular region will be unavailable on July 1 , 1991 . We would propose that if it appears at any time after March 1 , 1991 , that the facility will be unavailable by the target date, then the County should conduct temporary one-day collections . It will be important for the rate payers to be assured that they will have an operating program available. It is suggested that this be reviewed as of March 1 , 1991 , since it will take time to coordinate the event. Any temporary event should be conducted no later than September 1 , 1991 . - EXHIBIT (o r: 3 . If ACWMA concurs with the recommendation to exempt recyclers, the Authority should consider whether a precedent is being established for further exemptions . Also, the Authority or its Consultants should verify the amount of waste subject to the exemption and its impact on the cost of the program. 4. ACWMA should develop a schedule for considering future "tipping fee" increases, which will avoid retroactive collection of fee increases. For example, last year the agencies served by Oakland Scavenger Co. enacted fee increases January 1 , 1990 . If the next increase in regular garbage service occurs January 1 , 1991 , the increase will need to be inflated to compensate the garbage company for increased landfill fees paid during the period from October to December. The Dublin City Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal and we look forward to an operating program which will serve our constituents . Sincerely, Paul C. Moffatt Mayor City of Dublin PCM:slh cc: City Council Bill Fraley, ACWMA Iterim Executive Director Rafat Shahid, Alameda County Environmental Health