HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.08 Source Reduction & Recycling Element MOU (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 10, 1990
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Providing for
Preparation of Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE)
Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Proposed Agreement
��Z-
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Agreement
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Alameda County Waste Management Authority has
proposed to pay the total cost through their
operating budget. The Authority obtains funds by
levying fees on disposal at the landfill. These
costs are eventually paid by the consumer in their
garbage rate.
DESCRIPTION: At the November 26, 1990 meeting, the City Council
reviewed a proposal to allow the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
("Authority") to enter into a master agreement for the preparation of the
local SRRE. The Authority offered to conduct this service through a
separate Memorandum of Understanding.
As was addressed in the November 26, 1990 Staff report, the SRRE is
mandated by State Law. This document is intended to be a plan which will
define how the City of Dublin will reduce the amount of garbage placed in
the landfill. The City must reduce the amount by 25% by the year 1995 and
50% by the year 2000.
Staff has worked with the Authority Executive Director and Consultant to
develop an MOU which meets the needs of the City of Dublin. The MOU
identifies the responsibilities of the City and the Authority. The
Authority will have all responsibility for administrative tasks associated
with the agreement with the Consultant. The Assistant City Manager will be
designated as the "Project Manager" to assist the Consultant with obtaining
local information and input on the preparation of the Draft reports.
State Law will require that the City Council conduct a public hearing on
the "Preliminary Draft SRRE." Based on input at that hearing, a "Final
Draft" will be prepared and brought back to the City Council. It is
important that the content of the SRRE reflect our local community. The
City is the jurisdiction which is ultimately responsible for meeting the
goals of the AB939. Ultimately, the implementation of programs to meet
these requirements will result in additional costs to the consumer.
Therefore, it is important to have adequate opportunities for review by the
public and concurrence with the City Council.
The pursuit of our local planning effort under a joint agreement
administered by the Authority is considered a cost effective proposal. It
would be a difficult task to pursue a separate consultant agreement and
meet the submittal dates required by State Law. The SRRE must be submitted
to the County by July 1 , 1991 . Also, the Authority's Consultant is already
performing work to define "existing conditions" of the waste stream in each
jurisdiction in Alameda County. This information will be necessary as a
first step to preparing the SRRE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
Y. � Tom Martinsen, ACWMA Executive Director
ITEM NO. A
Brown & Caldwell, the Consultant selected by the Authority, has prepared an
expanded scope of work. The scope includes all tasks as they are currently
defined in the regulations related to implementing AB939. In addition, the
Scope identifies the process by which the Consultant will obtain specific
input from the City. This scope of work has been attached as Exhibit A to
the proposed MOU.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached MOU and
authorize the Mayor to execute the document on the City's behalf.
a:@12-10srr.doc.agenda
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH AB 939,
THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989 AND
PREPARATION OF SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into by and among the
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (hereinafter "Authority" ) , and
City of Dublin (hereinafter "Agency" ) , and shall be effective as of
December 10, 1990 .
This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MOU" ) is entered into
with respect to the following facts:
A. The California Legislature has enacted the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989, AB 939, Chapter 1095, Statutes of
1989 (hereinafter the "Act" ) . Additional amendments to the Act
have been or will be adopted in the future.
B. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has delegated to the
Alameda County Waste Management Authority, an agency created by a
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated 13 February, 1990, the
responsibilities of the "County" as delineated pursuant to the Act.
C. Among its responsibilities, the Authority is responsible to prepare
and submit a countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, which
will incorporate Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
(hereinafter "SRRE" ) for each of the cities in Alameda County and a
separate SRRE for the unincorporated area.
D. The Authority has contracted with a consultant for the preparation
of waste characterization studies for each of the Agencies, on
which SRRE' s are to be planned and developed.
E. The Agency and the Authority wish to jointly pursue preparation of
the SRRE' s in an expeditious, cost-effective process, which
maintains responsibility at the local level for developing and
implementing local programs, and utilizes the Authority for central
coordination and funding of the program.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do agree as follows:
1 . Purpose of Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement shall be to make arrangements between the
Authority and Agency for the preparation of SRRE' s pursuant to the
requirements of the Act, so as to jointly pursue a cost-effective,
expeditious and well-coordinated approach for optimal planning both at
the local and county levels . The general responsibilities of the
Authority and Agency are delineated in this Agreement.
2 . Duties of Authority
The Authority shall fund, contract for, and coordinate, in a county-wide
sense, the activities and work program required to produce an SRRELs for
the Agency. These responsibilities shall specifically include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following duties :
2 . 1 Levy fees sufficient to generate revenues to meet SRRE plan
preparation expenses .
-1 -
shall be completed under a separate agreement or purchase order issued
by Agency.
6. General Provisions
6 . 1 Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on
behalf of the parties warrant that they are duly authorized to
execute this MOU and that by executing this MOU, the parties
are formally bound.
6 . 2 Modification. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement
relative to the preparation of the SRRE, between the parties
and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written
agreement executed by the parties.
6 . 3 California Law. This MOU shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California.
7 . Severability
Should any provision of this Agreement be found invalid or
unenforceable, this finding shall affect only that provision, and all
remaining provisions shall remain enforceable.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Authority have executed this Memorandum
of Understanding on the date shown.
FOR: Alameda County Waste Management Authority
Thomas M. Martinsen, Executive Director Date
FOR: City of Dublin
Peter W. Snyder, Mayor Date
c:agmtsrre
-3-
PROPOSED
SCOPE Or SERVICES
Consultant: Brown & Caldwell working under a contract with the
Alameda County Waste Management Authority
City of Dublin Project Manager: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager
1
This includes our scope of services for preparing the Source Reduction
and Recycling Elements (SRREs) for the unincorporated areas of Alameda
County and its various cities ( jurisdictions) . Our approach is based on
our understanding of the requirements of AB939 and the resulting
emergency regulations (Chapter 9 of Title 14) , changes included in
AB1820 as cleanup to AB939, and our experience in solid waste management
planning and implementation.
Methods to Achieve Scope of Work:
I
The scope of work is defined on the following pages in considerable
detail. Brown & Caldwell will assign a Primary Consultant to
coordinate the work on this project. Although the project is
funded under an agreement with the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority, the City of Dublin shall select the goals, objectives,
and programs consistent with State laws and regulations to be
included in the SRRE. Based upon direct input from the City, the
Consultant' s model SRRE will be tailored to represent the City of
Dublin.
BROWN AND C&DWELL
DRAI
1 -T November 30, 1990
IT UN
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELFMFNT
We will perform the tasks included in this scope of work for individual
jurisdictions as tabulated below:
Alameda All except Tasks 2 and 3
Albany [Will meet with Albany 12/5/91]
Berkeley Tasks 5 and ?
Dublin All tasks
Emeryville All tasks
Fremont All tasks
Hayward No tasks
Livermore All tasks
Newark �K _ t Lb
Oakland Tasks ? (assume 70 percent)
Piedmont All tasks
Pleasanton All tasks
San Leandro All tasks
Union City All tasks
Unincorporated* All tasks
*Castro Valley Sanitary District, Ora Loma Sanitary District, and remaining unincorpo-
rated areas to be considered as individual jurisdictions.
Task 1. Source Reduction Component
The Source Reduction Component for each SRRE willbe prepared in the model
component format included in Section 18733 of Chapter 9 (Model Component Format).
The component format and some specific considerations are discussed below:
Component Objectives. The draft goals and objectives applicable to source
reduction willbe defined as this component is developed. Objectives specific to the key
issues such as "increased source reduction for solid and hazardous wastes" and "reduced
use of containers and packaging" willbe made more specific with numeric goals that can
be measured.
Specific objectives to be accomplished during the short-term (1991-1995) and
medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods will be established. These will identify
specific waste types (materials, products, and packaging) to be targeted for the
objectives, based upon criteria which include, but are not limited to, the following:
BROWN AND CAWWEIL 2 DRAFT November 30, 1990
1. Volume and weight of the solid waste;
2. Hazard of the solid waste;
3. Material, products, or packages, contributing to the waste category or
waste types, that are made of non-renewable resources.
Specific waste type criteria will also include:
1. Potential to extend the useful life of affected materials, products, or
packaging, and
2. Whether the waste type has limited recyclability.
By examination and selection of source reduction program objectives, each
jurisdiction has the goal of minimizing the quantity of solid waste generated. These
objectives include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Reduce the use of non-recyclable materials;
2. Replace disposable materials and products with reusable materials and
products;
3. Reduce packaging;
4. Reduce the amount of yard wastes generated;
5. Purchase repairable products; and
6. Increase efficiency of paper use, cardboard, glass, metal, and other
materials by reducing wastes from non-residential generators' production
operations, processes, and equipment and considering durability, reusabili-
ty, and recyclability as product selection criteria.
Prepare Existing Conditions Description. Data from the waste characteriza-
tion/existing conditions reports will be used for these descriptions.
Evaluation of Alternatives. This section willreview alternatives for accomplishing
source reduction or increased levels of source reduction within the jurisdiction.
1. Each alternative considered will be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness
in reducing either solid waste volume or weight. Other considerations
include:
A. Hazard created by the alternative considered;
B. Ability to accommodate changing economic, technological, and
social conditions;
C. Consequences of the source reduction alternative on the character-
ized waste, such as shifting solid waste generation from one type of
solid waste to another;
BROWN AND CA DV&LL 3 DRAFT November 30, 1990
D. Whether it can be implemented in the short-term and medium-
term planning periods; and
2. In addition, the evaluation will include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. A discussion of the consistency of each alternative with applicable
local policies, plans, and ordinances based upon local conditions;
B. A discussion of any institutional barriers to local implementation of
each alternative;
C. An estimate of the costs related to the implementation of each
alternative being evaluated for the short-term and medium-term
planning periods; and
D. A discussion of the availability of local, regional, state, national, and
international end-uses for the materials which would be diverted
through implementation of each alternative being considered.
3. Analyze source reduction alternatives affecting residential, commercial,
industrial, and governmental wastes. The evaluation willinclude, but is not
limited to, the following methods for accomplishing reduction of materials
from the waste stream:
A. Rate structure modifications, which may include, but are not limited
to:
1. Local waste disposal fee modifications;
2. Quantity-based local user fees, which may include, but are
not limited to, variable can rates for garbage collection
services, such as fees based on the number of containers set
out for collection;
B. Creation of economic incentives, which may include, but are not
limited to:
1. Loans, grants, and loan guarantees;
2. Deposits, refunds, and rebates; and
3. Reduced business license fees;
C. Technical assistance or instructional and promotional alternatives,
which may include, but are not limited to:
1. Waste evaluations;
2. The establishment of compost programs which assist
generators to compost at the site of generation;
BROWN AND C LDWELL 4 DRAFT November 30, 1990
3. Technical assistance to industry and consumer organizations,
and to source reduction businesses;
4. Educational efforts, such as consumer awareness programs,
school curricula development, seminars, and public forums;
5. Awards and other types of public recognition for source
reduction activities; and
6. Non-procurement source reduction programs, such as
education of employees, office changes to increase the use
of scrap paper, increased use of electronic mail, and
increased double-sided copying.
D. Regulatory programs, which may include, but are not limited to:
1. Local adoption of ordinances that specify that one or more
of the following criteria be considered in the procurement
selection of products and packaging by the jurisdiction: (1)
durability, (2) recyclability, (3) reusability, (4) recycled
material content.
2. Local establishment of incentives and disincentives to land-
use development that promote source reduction.
3. Locally established requirements of waste reduction plan-
ning and reporting by waste generators or manufacturers.
4. Local adoption of bans on products and packaging to the
extent the following can be demonstrated:
a. The ban will result in reduction in waste at the
source, rather than substitution by another product
or package of equivalent or greater volume, and
b. The ban will result in a net environmental benefit.
Selection of Program. An implementation program will be prepared for the
selected source reduction programs. The implementation description will include
identification of responsibility, implementation tasks, implementation schedules (both
short-term and medium-term), and estimated implementation costs (both public and
private) and revenues and includes:
1. A discussion of each alternative selected for the program identifying why
the alternative was selected for implementation.
2. An estimate of the anticipated quantities of solid wastes to be diverted
from solid waste disposal, by source reduction program and waste type, for
the short-term and medium-term planning periods. Solid waste quantities
BROWN AND CALDWELL 5 DRAFT November 30, 1990
will be estimated either by volume, expressed in cubic yards, or by weight,
expressed in tons. State the anticipated percentage of contribution of the
selected program towards the State diversion mandates.
Implementation of Program. This will identify the following:
1. Government agencies and divisions thereof, organization, and/or persons
responsible for implementation of the program;
2. The tasks necessary to implement the program;
3. A short-term and medium-term planning period implementation schedule;
and
4. Known program implementation costs, including public and private costs,
revenues, and revenue sources necessary for implementation of the
program.
Monitoring and Evaluation. This will identify the following:
1. Identify the methods to quantify and monitor achievement of the
objectives, including but not limited to, diversion from solid waste landfills
and transformation facilities and reduction of waste hazards. Actual solid
waste diversion will be quantified either by volume, expressed in cubic
yards, or by weight, expressed in tons, and as a percentage of the total
solid waste generation of the jurisdiction.
2. Use one of more of the following methods to monitor and evaluate the
diversion objectives achieved within each jurisdiction:
A. A waste generation study;
B. A targeted solid waste characterization study involving a represen-
tative sample of generator sites and recycling,composting, transfor-
mation, and solid waste landfill facilities;
C. An assessment of any changes in the design, production, distribu-
tion, sale, and/or use of selected products and packages.
3. Provide the following information based upon the specific monitoring and
evaluation methods selected:
A. Written criteria for evaluating the pro-gram's effectiveness;
B. Identification of agencies, organizations, and/or persons responsible
for the program's monitoring, evaluation, and reporting;
BROWN AND CAL DWE L 6 DRAFT November 30, 1990
C. Identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding require-
ments, revenues, and revenue sources; and
D. Identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring shows
a shortfall in the attainment of solid waste diversion objectives of
the component or a shortfall in the attainment of the State
diversion mandates. Such measures may include, but are not
limited to, provisions for:
a. Increasing the frequency of program monitoring and review,
or
b. Modification of the objectives or diversion alternatives
adopted.
Task 2. Recycling Component
In addition to addressing different approaches to recycling we will focus on
market development issues. The Recycling Component of each SRRE will be prepared
in the Model Component format.
Component Objectives. Specific objectives to be accomplished during the short-
term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods will be established.
These will include a statement of market development objectives to be achieved. It will
identify specific waste types (materials, products, and packaging) to be targeted for the
objectives, based upon criteria which include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Volume and weight of the solid waste;
2. Hazard of the solid waste;
3. Material, products, or packages, contributing to the waste category or
waste types, that are made of non-renewable resources.
Specific waste type criteria will also include:
1. Potential to extend the useful life of affected materials, products, or
packaging, and
2. Whether the waste type has limited recyclability.
Prepare Existing Conditions Description. Data from the waste characteriza-
tion/existing conditions reports will be used for these descriptions.
Evaluation of Alternatives. This section willreview alternatives for accomplishing
recycling of materials or increased levels of recycling within the jurisdiction. Each
alternative considered will be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in reducing either
solid waste volume or weight. Other considerations include:
BROWN AND CALDWELL 7 DRAFT November 30, 1990
1. Hazard created by the alternative considered;
2. Ability to accommodate changing economic, technological, and social
conditions;
3. Consequences of the recycling alternative on the characterized waste, such
as shifting solid waste generation from one type of solid waste to another;
4. Whether it can be implemented in the short-term and medium- term
planning periods; and
5. The need for expanding existing facilities or building new facilities to
support implementation of the alternative.
6. The advantages and disadvantages of public versus private ownership or
operation of recycling programs and facilities.
In addition, the evaluation will include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. A discussion of the consistency of each alternative with applicable local
policies, plans, and ordinances based upon local conditions;
2. A discussion of any institutional barriers to local implementation of each
alternative;
3. An estimate of the costs related to the implementation of each alternative
being evaluated for the short-term and medium-term planning periods; and
4. A discussion of the availability of local, regional, state, national, and
international end-uses for the materials which would be diverted through
implementation of each alternative being considered.
5. A discussion of possible legislative action to improve recycling.
An analysis of'recycling diversion alternatives affecting residential, commercial,
industrial, and governmental wastes will be conducted. The analysis will take into
account existing recycling programs and their possible expansion. The advantages and
disadvantages of public versus private ownership or operation of recycling programs and
facilities and countywide programs versus individual jurisdiction programs will be
addressed.
1. The alternative will include, but not be limited to, the following methods
for accomplishing separation of the recyclable materials from the waste
stream:
A. Separation of recyclable materials at the source of generation,
including curbside and mobile collection systems;
B. Drop-off recycling centers;
C. Manual material recovery operations;
BROWN AND CAIDWEM 8 DRAFT November 30, 1990
D. Mechanical material recovery operations that produce a product
which has a market; and
E. Salvage at solid waste facilities.
2. Consideration of changing zoning and building code practices to encourage
recycling of solid wastes, such as, rezoning to allow siting of a drop-off
recycling center in residential neighborhoods or revising building codes to
require adequate space be allotted in new construction for interim storage
of source-separated materials.
3. Consideration of changing existing rate structures to encourage recycling
of solid wastes.
4. Consideration of the methods which may be used to increase the markets
for recycled materials; including,but not limited to, changing governmental
procurement programs.
5. Consideration of handling methods which preserve the integrity of
recovered materials so that they remain usable raw materials for manufac-
turers of recycled content products.
Consideration of rate structure modifications which include, but are not limited
to: local waste disposal fee modifications and quantity-based local user fees (may include
variable can rates for garbage collection services).
Consideration of the creation of economic incentives, which may include, but are
not limited to: loans, grants, and loan guarantees; deposits, refunds and rebates; and
reduced business license fees.
Consideration of instructional and promotional alternatives or technical assistance,
which may include, but are not limited to: waste evaluations; technical assistance to
industry and consumer organizations; educational efforts, such as consumer awareness
programs, school curricula development, seminars, and public forums; awards and other
types of public recognition; and non-procurement source reduction programs.
Consideration of regulatory programs, which may include, but are not limited to
the local adoption of ordinances that specify one or more of the following criteria by
considered in the procurement selection of products and packaging: durability,
recyclability, reusability, and recycled material content.
BROWN AND CALDWELL 9 DRAFT November 30, 1990
Consideration of establishment of local incentives and disincentives to land-use
development that promote source reduction. Establishment of local waste reduction
planning and reporting by waste generators or manufacturers.
Consideration of adaptation of local bans on products and packaging to the extent
it can be demonstrated that the bans will result in reduction in waste at the source and
result in net environmental benefit.
Selection of Program. An implementation program will be prepared for the
selected recycling programs. The implementation description will include identification
of responsibility, implementation tasks, implementation schedules (both short-term and
medium-term), and estimated implementation costs (both public and private) and
revenues and includes:
1. A discussion of each diversion alternative selected for the program
identifying why the alternative was selected for implementation.
2. An estimate of the anticipated quantities of solid wastes to be diverted
from solid waste disposal, by recycling program and waste type, for the
short-term and medium-term planning periods. Solid waste quantities will
be estimated either by volume, expressed in cubic yards, or by weight,
expressed in tons. State the anticipated percentage of contribution of the
selected program towards the State diversion mandates.
3. A listing of the anticipated local, regional, state, national, and/or interna-
tional end-uses for recycled materials.
4. A description of the proposed methods for handling and disposal which
may be necessary to implement the selected program.
5. A description of any facilities to be utilized or constructed for the
implementation of the program.
6. Identification of the end markets or end users which willbe secured during
the short-term period, for the materials collected.
A. The identification of markets may be described in general terms.
B. Planned development of markets at manufacturing facilities in the
jurisdiction will also be described.
BROWN AND CALDWEU, 10 DRAFT November 30, 1990
7. Description of the measures to be taken if uneconomical market
conditions occur which would prevent the jurisdiction from satisfying the
State requirements.
Implementation of Program. This will denote actions planned to deter
unauthorized removal of recyclable materials which would adversely affect the recycling
program. It will also identify the following:
1. Government agencies and divisions thereof, organization, and/or persons
responsible for implementation of the program;
2. The tasks necessary to implement the program;
3. A short-term and medium-term planning period implementation schedule;
and
4. Known program implementation costs, including public and private costs,
revenues, and revenue sources necessary for implementation of the
program.
Monitoring and Evaluation. This will identify the following:
1. Identify the methods to quantify and monitor achievement of the
objectives, including but not limited to, diversion from solid waste landfills
and transformation facilities and reduction of waste hazards. Actual solid
waste diversion will be quantified either by volume, expressed in cubic
yards, or by weight, expressed in tons, and as a percentage of the total
solid waste generation of the jurisdiction.
2. Use one of more of the following methods to monitor and evaluate the
diversion objectives achieved within each jurisdiction:
A. A waste generation study;
B. A targeted solid waste characterization study involving a represen-
tative sample of generator sites and recycling,composting, transfor-
mation, and solid waste landfill facilities;
C. An assessment of any changes in the design, production, distribu-
tion, sale, and/or use of selected products and packages.
3. Provide the following information based upon the specific monitoring and
evaluation methods selected:
A. Written criteria for evaluating the program's effectiveness;
BROWN AND CALD WELL II DRAFT November 30, 1990
B. Identification of agencies, organizations, and/or persons responsible
for the program's monitoring, evaluation, and reporting;
C. Identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding require-
ments, revenues, and revenue sources; and
D. identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring shows
a shortfall in the attainment of solid waste diversion objectives of
the component or a shortfall in the attainment of the State
diversion mandates. Such measures may include, but are not
limited to, provisions for:
1. Increasing the frequency of program monitoring and review,
or
2. Modification of the objectives or diversion alternatives
adopted.
Task 3. Composting Component
The Composting Component for each SRRE will be prepared in the Model
Component Format. The development and the ultimate success of any composting
programs will be influenced by marketing of composted material. We will address this
as part of the preparation of this component. The component format and specific
considerations are included in this task.
Component Objectives. The draft goals and objectives applicable to composting
will be defined as this component is developed. Specific objectives to be accomplished
during the short-term (1991-1995) and medium-term (1996-2000) planning periods will
be established. These will include a statement of market development objectives to be
achieved. It will also identify specific waste types (materials, products, and packaging)
to be targeted for the objectives, based upon criteria which include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1. Volume and weight of the solid waste;
2. Hazard of the solid waste;
3. Material, products, or packages, contributing to the waste category or
waste types, that are made of non-renewable resources.
Prepare Existing Conditions Description. Data from the waste characteriza-
tion/existing conditions reports will be used for these descriptions.
Evaluation of Alternatives. This section willreview alternatives for accomplishing
composting or increased levels of composting within the jurisdiction. Each alternative
considered will be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in reducing either solid waste
volume or weight. Other considerations include:
BROWN AND CAIDV&U 12 DRAFT November 30, 1990
1. Hazard created by the alternative considered;
2. Ability to accommodate changing economic, technological, and social
conditions;
3. Consequences of the diversion alternative on the characterized waste, such
as shifting solid waste generation from one type of solid waste to another;
4. Whether it can be implemented in the short-term and medium-term
planning periods; and
5. The need for expanding existing facilities or building new facilities to
support implementation of the alternative.
In addition, the evaluation will include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. A discussion of the consistency of each alternative with applicable local
policies, plans, and ordinances based upon local conditions;
2. A discussion of any institutional barriers to local implementation of each
alternative;
3. An estimate of the costs related to the implementation of each alternative
being evaluated for the short-term and medium-term planning periods; and
4. A discussion of the availability of local, regional, state, national, and
international end-uses for the materials which would be diverted through
implementation of each alternative being considered.
5. A discussion of possible legislative action to improve the user an d markets
for compost.
An analysis of composting alternatives affecting residential, commercial, industrial,
and governmental wastes will be conducted. The analysis will take into account existing
composting programs and their possible expansion. The advantages and disadvantages
of public versus private ownership or operation of composting programs and facilities
and countywide programs versus individual jurisdiction programs will be addressed.
1. Consideration of changing zoning and building code practices to encourage
composting of solid wastes.
2. Consideration of changing existing rate structures to encourage composting
of solid wastes.
3. Consideration of the methods which may be used to in
the markets
for compost materials, including,but not limited to,changing governmental
procurement programs.
Consideration of rate structure modifications which include, but are not limited
to: local waste disposal fee modifications and quantity-based local user fees (may include
variable can rates for garbage collection services).
BROWN AND CALDWELL 13 DRAFT November 30, 1990
Consideration of the creation of economic incentives, which may include, but are
not limited to: loans, grants, and loan guarantees; deposits, refunds and rebates; and
reduced business license fees.
Consideration of instructional and promotional alternatives or technical assistance,
which may include, but are not limited to: waste evaluations; technical assistance to
industry and consumer organizations; educational efforts, such as consumer awareness
programs, school curricula development, seminars, and public forums and awards and
other types of public recognition.
Selection of Program. An implementation program will be prepared for the
selected source reduction programs. The implementation description will include
identification of responsibility, implementation tasks, implementation schedules (both
short-term and medium-term), and estimated implementation costs (both public and
private) and revenues and includes:
1. A discussion of each alternative selected for the program identifying why
the alternative was selected for implementation.
2. An estimate of the anticipated quantities of solid wastes to be diverted
from solid waste disposal, by diversion program and waste type, for the
short-term and medium-term planning periods. Solid waste quantities will
be estimated either by volume, expressed in cubic yards, or by weight,
expressed in tons. State the anticipated percentage of contribution of the
selected program towards the State diversion mandates.
3. A listing of the anticipated local, regional, state, national, and/or interna-
tional end-uses for diverted materials.
4. A description of the proposed methods for handling and disposal which
may be necessary to implement the selected program.
5. A description of any facilities to be utilized or constructed for the
implementation of the program.
6. Identification of the end markets or end users which willbe secured during
the short-term period, for the materials collected.
A. The identification of markets may be described in general terms.
7. Description of the measures to be taken if uneconomical market
conditions occur which would prevent the jurisdiction from satisfying the
State requirements.
BROWN AND CAIDWEIL 14 DRAFT November 30, 1990
Implementation of Program. This will identify the following:
1. Government agencies and divisions thereof, organization, and/or persons
responsible for implementation of the program;
2. The tasks necessary to implement the program;
3. A short-term and medium-term planning period implementation schedule;
and
4. Known program implementation costs, including public and private costs,
revenues, and revenue sources necessary for implementation of the
program.
Monitoring and Evaluation. This will identify the following:
1. Identify the methods to quantify and monitor achievement of the
objectives, including but not limited to, diversion from solid waste landfills
and transformation facilities and reduction of waste hazards. Actual solid
waste diversion will be quantified either by volume, expressed in cubic
yards, or by weight, expressed in tons, and as a percentage of the total
solid waste generation of the jurisdiction.
2. Use one of more of the following methods to monitor and evaluate the
diversion objectives achieved within each jurisdiction:
A. A waste generation study;
B. A targeted solid waste characterization study involving a represen-
tative sample of generator sites and recycling,composting, transfor-
mation, and solid waste landfill facilities;
C. An assessment of any changes in the design, production, distribu-
tion, sale, and/or use of selected products and packages.
3. Provide the following information based upon the specific monitoring and
evaluation methods selected:
A. Written criteria for evaluating the program's effectiveness;
B. Identification of agencies, organizations, and/or persons responsible
for the program's monitoring, evaluation, and reporting;
C. Identification of known monitoring and evaluation funding require-
ments, revenues, and revenue sources; and
D. Identification of measures to be implemented if monitoring shows
a shortfall in the attainment of solid waste diversion objectives of
BROWN AND CAWWELL 15 DRAFT November 30, 1990
the component or a shortfall in the attainment of the State
diversion mandates. Such measures may include, but are not
limited to, provisions for:
1. Increasing the frequency of program monitoring and review,
or
2. Modification of the objectives or diversion alternatives
adopted.
Task 4. Special Waste Component
The special waste component of each SRRE will be prepared in the Model
Component Format. The component format will be the same as that of the Source
Reduction Component. The special wastes being generated in the jurisdictions will be
identified during the waste generation/characterization tasks. Existing handling and
disposal procedures will be evaluated. Regulatory requirement changes will be
monitored and addressed.
Prepare Existing Conditions Description. Data from the waste characteriza-
tion/existing conditions reports will be used for these descriptions.
Task 5. Household Hazardous Waste Component
The household hazardous waste component will be prepared in the Model
Component Format included in Section 18733 of Chapter 9. Considerations with regard
to this component include evaluation of any ongoing load checking program, evaluation
of the two household hazardous waste programs, potential regional programs, and
increased participation of small quantity generators in hazardous waste recycling. AB
2707 regulations will not be available until December. This component will become a
separate element under AB 2707.
Prepare Existing Conditions Description. Data from the waste characteriza-
tion/existing conditions reports will be used for these descriptions.
Household Hazardous Waste Program Alternatives Evaluation. Alternatives to
be considered, but not limited to, are:
1. Collection alternatives, including:
A. Periodic community-wide, or neighborhood hazardous waste
collection;
B. Permanent household hazardous waste drop-off sites at all new and
existing solid waste management facilities, and at all new, or
BROWN AND CALDWELL 16 DRAFT November 30, 1990
existing, off-site, multi-user, hazardous waste treatment, storage or
solid waste disposal facilities;
C. Mobile household hazardous waste collection; and
D. Local activities/actions/efforts to encourage the formation of
privately or publicly operated fee-for-service, door-to-door, or
curbside household hazardous waste collection programs.
2. Household hazardous waste monitoring alternatives such as load-checking
programs for household hazardous waste at all solid waste management
facilities;
3• Recycling programs for household hazardous waste including, but not
limited to, programs for waste oils, paints, and batteries; and
4. Public education and information alternatives to support household
hazardous waste collection and recycling efforts and to encourage
behavioral modification to effectuate the use of safer substitute products
in households.
Household Hazardous Waste Program Selection. The household hazardous waste
component will include the following:
1. An identification of the types and quantities of household hazardous
wastes anticipated to be collected, recycled, and/or disposed through
proposed programs using household hazardous waste categories contained
in form CIWMB-303 (1/90).
2. A description of recycling and/or reuse efforts to be used in conjunction
with proposed household hazardous waste program(s);
3. A description of proposed public eduction programs regarding household
hazardous waste;
4. A description of all proposed cooperative and/or multi jurisdictional
household hazardous, waste program implementation efforts/actions/
activities.
BROWN AND CALDWELL 17 DRAFr November 30, 1990
Household Hazardous Waste Programs Implementation. Technical assistance,
program guidelines, and model operation plans for community household hazardous
waste collection programs provided by the Board will be used by the local jurisdiction.
Task 6. Education and Public Information Component
We willprepare the Education and Public Information Component in accordance
with Section 18740 of Chapter 9. We will coordinate with and utilize information
available from the jurisdiction. The component will include the following:
Component Objectives. The education and public information component will
include a statement of educational and informational objectives for the short-term and
medium-term planning periods.
Prepare Existing Conditions Description. The component will include a
description of all existing educational and public information programs and activities
within the jurisdiction which promote source reduction, recycling, composting, and the
safe handling and disposal of solid waste.
Selection of Program Alternatives. The component will incorporate data
compiled in the solid waste generation study conducted pursuant to Article 6.1 and the
solid waste generation analysis of Section 18732 of Chapter 9 to identify solid waste
generators that will be targeted in educational and public information programs.
Implementation of Program. The component will include a program implemen-
tation discussion which:
1. Identifies those agencies or diversions thereof, organizations, and/or
persons responsible for implementation;
2. Identifies required implementation tasks;
3. Establishes short-term and medium-term implementation schedules for
tasks;
4. Identifies all public and private program implementation costs, revenues,
and revenue sources necessary for program implementation.
Monitoring and Evaluation. The component will:
1. Identify the methods to be used to measure achievement of the education
and public information objectives identified pursuant to component
objectives, above;
2. Establish written criteria by which to evaluate program effectiveness;
3. Identify agencies or divisions thereof, organizations, and/or persons
responsible for program monitoring, evaluation, and reporting;
BROWN AND CAIDWELL 18 DRAFT November 30, 1990
4. Identify monitoring and evaluation funding requirements, revenues, and
revenue sources;
5. Identify measures to be implemented if monitoring shows a shortfall in the
attainment of the solid waste diversion objectives, and
6. Establish a monitoring and reporting program schedule.
Task 7. Disposal Facility Capacity Component
We will prepare the Disposal Facility Capacity Component in accordance with
Section 18744 of Chapter 9. The County Solid Waste Management Plan will serve as
the starting point for determining disposal capacity available for each jurisdiction. We
will incorporate the data from the waste characterization/existing conditions reports.
Capacity will be estimated based on the 25 percent and 50 percent diversion require-
ments. This description will contain the following:
1. Identification of the owner and operator of each permitted solid waste
disposal facility;
2. Quantity and waste types of solid waste disposed;
3. Permitted site acreage;
4. Permitted capacity;
5. Current disposal fees; and
6. For solid waste landfills, remaining facility capacity in cubic yards and
years.
The solid waste disposal facility capacity component will include a solid waste
disposal facility needs projection which estimates the additional disposal capacity, in
cubic yards per year, needed 'to accommodate anticipated solid waste generation within
the jurisdiction for a 15-year period commencing in 1991.
Task 8. Funding Component
We will prepare the Funding Component in accordance with Section 18744 of
Chapter 9. The component will include the following:
An evaluation of the provisions of Measure D and how it's provisions will provide
partial or full funding for the selected alternative programs.
A demonstration that there is sufficient funding and allocation of resources for
program planning and development.
Cost estimates, funding sources, and contingency funding sources for component
programs scheduled for implementation in the short-term planning period.
BROWN AND CALDWEU 19 DRAFT November 30, 1990
A consideration of a regional and cooperative approach in securing funds for
implementation.
Task 9. Integration Component
We willprepare the Integration Component in accordance with Section 18748 of
Chapter 9. The component will include the following:
An explanation of how the 5 waste diversion components combine to achieve the
25 percent and 50 percent mandates of AB 939.
A description of the practices which fulfill the legislative goals of promoting the
AB 939 priorities of (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3)
environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.
An explanation of how the jurisdiction has integrated the components to
maximize the use of all feasible source reduction, recycling and composting
options.
An explanation of how the components jointly achieve the diversion mandates.
An explanation of how priorities between components were determined.
An integrated schedule in the Integration Component which includes a calendar
scheduling all implementation tasks for new and expanded programs, commencing
after the effective date of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 through
the short-term planning period. The schedule will include a short descriptive title
for each task, the entity implementing the task, the task start date and milestone
dates, and a schedule for funding source availability. The schedule will also show
the anticipated date of achievement of the solid waste diversion mandates
specified in Section 41780, Public Resources Code.
Task 10. CEQA Analyses
The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any regulatory
projects within California must provide adequate protection of the environment. The first
step is an initial study including an environmental checklist to. determine whether a
comprehensive analysis is necessary. If further investigation is required, then Section
15064 of the CEQA guidelines require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It will
be necessary to closely track the development of the SRREs to determine whether such
an analysis is required in order to be able to make timely decisions. We anticipate that
a negative declaration will be probable for each SRRE. However, a jurisdiction might
BROWN AND C4LDWEIl 20 DRAFT November 30, 1990
elect to do a focused EIR because of a specific facility included in the SRRE. We will
assist the jurisdiction in preparing extension requests for submittal of the SRRE if it is
determined that an EIR is required for the individual SRRE.
Task 11. Reports
The following reports will be prepared and submitted.
Monthly Progress Reports
Draft Goals and Objectives
Preliminary Draft SRRE
Final Draft SRRE
Final SRRE
Task 12. Meetings
We will attend and participate in meetings and hearings listed below:
County Board, District Board, or City Council Meetings (2 per jurisdiction)
Local Task Force Meetings (1 per jurisdiction)
Additional informal meetings (with staff and committee members) will be
conducted throughout the conduct of the work.
Task 13. Project Management
The following is a summary of the procedures which will be used to facilitate
project management under this contract. Procedures include: (1) project management
plan, (2) task cost estimation, (3) task cost control, (4) schedule control, (5) general
administration, and (6) quality control.
Project Management Plan. At the beginning of the project the management team
develops a project management plan (PMP) that sets forth the procedures to be followed
during conduct of the project.
Task Cost Estimation. The basis for cost estimation is the detailed task Work
Plan which will be prepared for the project by the Project Manager. Our proposal
includes cost estimates for each task. Key staff for the project are usually consulted on
level of effort requirements.
Task Cost Control. The keys to job cost control are weekly reporting of expended
cost and realistic weekly appraisal of the status of various tasks in terms of percent of
BROWN AND CE DREU 21 DRAFT November 30, 1990
completion. Staff estimates of percent completion are made easier by a breakdown of
the project into tasks and subtasks which represent discrete and readily understandable
elements of the work.
A weekly labor report is issued by Brown and Caldwell to each task leader and
the Project Manager on the Tuesday following the submittal of weekly timecards on
Friday of the preceding week. The report shows hours and direct (hourly salary) costs
and presents budgeted amounts as well as expenditures for the week and the job-to-date.
Space is provided on the printout for entry of percent complete. A more detailed report
showing persons who worked on the project during the week and their expended hours
is provided to the team members.
Schedule Control.' Knowledge that there are existing or developing problems in
meeting a planned schedule is gained through the weekly reporting system described
earlier. Responsibility for action to correct these problems rests ultimately with the
Project Manager who must insist that the team members identify realistic measures to
correct schedule problems as soon s these problems become apparent. To improve
monitoring and early detection of problems, progress milestones are set within each task
and subtask. The milestone device will be used in our project schedule control activity.
Administration. This contract willbe administered through Brown and Caldwell's
Pleasant Hilll office and will include the following procedures:
1. All contractual documents (contracts, task orders, agreements with subcon-
tractors, etc.) will be signed by our Principal-in-Charge who is an officer
of Brown and Caldwell.
2. Most contractual and task order discussions and negotiations between
Brown and Caldwell and the Authority will be handled by the Project
Manger with participation by the Principal-in-Charge as necessary.
3. All invoicing will be to our Pleasant Hill office where invoices will be
reviewed by the project manager and processed for payment.
4. Invoices to the Authority from Brown and Caldwell will be prepared in our
Pleasant Hill office by our Accounting Department. Our computerized job
cost accounting system is used in preparing invoices. Prior to submittal of
an invoice to the Authority, the invoice is reviewed and approved by the
Project Manager.
BROWN AND CAMWE L 22 DRAFT November 30, 1990
Quality Control. Work product quality control is extremely important to Brown
and Caldwell. Current corporate policy mandates a structured quality control review for
all major projects. Although less structured for smaller projects, quality control review
is considered a critical element on all projects.
BROWN AND CAIDWELL 23 DRAFT November 30, 1990