HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Source Reduction Recycling Element�j
`1.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Draft Source Reduction Recycling
Element (SRRE)
Pj,V(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: NOTE: Complete Copies of the SRRE were distributed
with the August 26, 1991 Agenda
Exhibit 1 : Draft Closure Letter from Ms. Stana
Hearne, Chair, Local Task Force
Exhibit 2: Draft Responses to Comments raised
by Local Task Force
Exhibit 3: Agenda Statement from Meeting of
August 26, 1991
Exhibit 4: SRRE Excerpts: Summary of Program Costs
RECOMMENDATION: l(� Open Public Hearing; Receive Staff Report; Receive
Public Comments; Close Public Hearing; Provide
additional input to Staff and the Consultant on any
modifications which should be included in Final Draft;
Direct Staff to finalize a response to the comments
raised by the Local Task Force.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Exhibit 4.
DESCRIPTION: As required by State Law, the City must conduct a
public hearing to obtain input on the Preliminary Draft SRRE. At the City
Council meeting of August 26, 1991 , the City Council established the Public
Hearing date of October 10, 1991 . Staff was also directed to release the
Draft to agencies for comment.
Consistent with State Law, Staff mailed copies of the document to adjacent
cities, the Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan Local Task
Force (LTF) and the State Integrated Waste Management Board. The only
entity to submit written comments as of October 3, 1991 was the LTF.
Representatives of the State indicated that they were running behind and
that written comments may not be provided until mid October. The State
representative did indicate that they would attempt to contact the City
prior to October 10, 1991 to provide verbal comments.
LTF Comments
The LTF has raised several issues in its Draft Letter (See Exhibit 1 ) .
Staff has prepared a response to the concerns, which the LTF requested that
the City address (Exhibit 2) . The concerns identified fall into
approximately three categories: (1 ) The LTF overlooked the location where
Dublin' s Plan addressed the issue or they were merely seeking
clarification; (2) The City Staff does not concur with the recommendation
of the LTF and; (3) The Staff recommends that the City Council include the
recommendation. The majority of the comments fell into the first category.
Either the issue is already addressed by the City or the LTF desired
additional clarification. There were three comments with which City Staff
concurs (#2, #10a and #15) .
Staff is recommending that the Final Draft be revised to address LTF
comment 10 (a) . The LTF incorrectly commended the City for including a
requirement which was not a part of the City's SRRE. The LTF has suggested
that there be a requirement for new development to identify methods of
obtaining the diversion required by AB 939 . Staff would recommend that the
Consultant incorporate language in the appropriate section which identifies
that the City will consider adoption of an appropriate policy to obtain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
Phil Wheeler, Brown & Caldwell
Dick Edminster, ACWMA
ITEM No. 64W if CITY CLERK
FILE /�170�
, M//, ()
M
this information on new developments. Staff believes it is appropriate to
state this goal in general terms to allow for a review of methods being
used in other communities. Additional evaluation will also be necessary to
identify the appropriate time in the development process to obtain this
information.
There were a total of eight areas addressed by the LTF in which Staff did
not concur. The following discussion will identify the issues and
summarize Staff's recommendation.
Inclusion of Inerts: (LTF Comment #'s 1 , 17, 18)
The LTF suggested that the City should calculate in all tables the
diversion rates both including and excluding inerts. Inert wastes
include asphalt and concrete and this has a substantial impact on the
number of tons diverted. The LTF also questioned the need for a
contingency in the event State Law was modified to exclude inert
wastes from SRRE calculations.
Staff has responded that the City intends to count inerts, since State
Law currently allows them to be counted.
Support of Landfill Development as Integrated Waste Management
Facility: (LTF Comment #7)
The LTF has suggested that the SRRE include a statement of support for
the development of additional facilities at the landfill. The LTF
suggests that the new facilities include processes such as grinding
wood waste and construction/demolition debris.
Staff would strongly recommend against the identification of specific
facilities at a specific site. This could result in the need to
process a full Environmental Impact Report prior to the adoption of
the SRRE. Given that landfill improvements may eventually be
recovered from rate payers, Staff does not believe the recommended
statement should be included in the SRRE. The approach supported by
Staff is to identify alternatives through further study.
Require Space for Recyclables in Building Code: (LTF Comment #'s 11
and 20)
The LTF has recommended that the City require within the building
code, that space be provided for recyclables. The Task Force has also
requested that the City require this as a requirement on building
permits when remodeling occurs.
With the current curbside program, Staff has not received complaints
regarding this issue. As part of the Site Development Review for the
Gleason Multi-Family Project (West of Valley Christian Center) , Staff
did request additional space in the dumpster area for the collection
of recyclables. However, the City has not requested additional space
within the interior of individual units. Staff believes current
efforts have been adequate in addressing this issue.
Develop and Implement a Junk Mail Reduction Program: (LTF Comment # 12)
The LTF is recommending that the City include a Junk Mail Reduction
Program in the SRRE.
Staff has a concern that the cost and effort in evaluating and
monitoring this program may outweigh any diversion benefit. Any
program included in the SRRE must be monitored and evaluated in order
to calculate its effect on diversion. Therefore, Staff would
recommend against including this program in the City of Dublin SRRE.
Specific Use of Recycled Products by City: (LTF Comment #'s 13 and 19)
The LTF included comments which suggested specific types of recycled
products which should be used by the City. The examples given were:
paint, oil, batteries, paper, and plastic lumber. The State Law
requires the City to consider efforts to improve markets for recycled
materials.
The Draft SRRE includes a provision that the City will consider the
adoption of a Recycled Material Procurement Policy. (pg. 3 - 20)
Staff believes that it would be premature to address specific product
types in the SRRE. This level of detail can be considered as the
policy is developed and at the time of adoption.
Linkage of Fee Structure with Illegal Dumping: (LTF Comment #'s 14
and 16)
The LTF has suggested that one impact of rate increases or progressive
rate structures is an increase in illegal dumping. The LTF suggests
that these changes be coordinated with diversion opportunities and/or
litter abatement projects.
Staff has informed the LTF that the City has historically had a
progressive rate structure, with rates increasing based upon the
volume disposed. The City currently provides a very high level of
service which allows residents to dispose of large accumulations four
times each year. Staff believes that this adequately mitigates the
incidence of illegal dumping and the need for a new program.
Public Information Program Encouraging Gardeners to Leave Yard Waste
at Work Site (LTF Comment #24)
The LTF has suggested a separate public information program directed
at professional Gardeners. The goal would be to encourage them to
leave yard waste at the work site to be diverted, instead of hauling
it to the dump.
The Draft SRRE includes a composting proposal which will focus on a
separate collection of residential compostables and the direction of
self haul waste to a composting facility. If the waste collected by
Gardeners is successfully diverted as part of the self-haul program, a
separate public information effort would not be required. Staff also
has concerns regarding the cost of monitoring and evaluating the
requested public information program.
Special Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection: (LTF Comment #25)
The LTF has requested that the SRRE include consideration of a
Household batteries, oil, and paint (BOP) collection. It is suggested
that the School District be encouraged to utilize paint which is
generated from the event.
The State Law requires that a separate element be prepared for HHW.
The Consultant has included this as a part of the SRRE. The programs
and objectives identified are reflective of the Alameda County Health
Department proposed Household and Mini-Generator Program. The County
has been collecting fees for one year to implement this program. The
program will develop 3 permanent collection sites in the County.
Residents would have an opportunity to deliver HHW to the local site
on a monthly basis. Staff would not recommend the inclusion of a new
program, which would duplicate a program already funded by local rate
payers.
Staff would request that the City Council identify any areas where the
City Council believes that Staff's position in the Draft Response to
the LTF (Exhibit 2) should be modified.
Proposed Programs
The August 26, 1991 Staff Report (Exhibit 3) identifies the programs which
are proposed to be undertaken to fulfill the requirements of the
legislation. The SRRE identifies short term and long term efforts required
to meet the requirements of the law. The State Law will require the City
to monitor and evaluate each program which is selected. Therefore, it is
important that the City obtain a significant quantity of diversion in order
to justify the on-going monitoring costs associated with selected programs.
Disposal Facility Component
The SRRE Consultant has described the current disposal facilities utilized
by Dublin residents, along with calculating the remaining capacity. At the
August 26, 1991 meeting, a question was raised regarding whether the plan
should also identify the Pleasanton Transfer Station, which many Dublin
residents use for self-haul. The State Law focuses on the landfill when
discussing Disposal Facilities. The Transfer Station is not a landfill
and, therefore, is not in the Disposal Facility Component. Therefore, the
text of the SRRE must address the two landfill facilities in Alameda
County. The City of Dublin's plan will not address capacity at the
Pleasanton Transfer Station. The Consultant found that adequate landfill
capacity is available provided the required diversion rates are achieved.
Financial
Chapter 9 of the SRRE identifies the funding required for the
implementation of all identified programs. A summary is shown in Exhibit 4
of this Staff Report. Given that this document is intended as a long term
planning tool, the actual cost may differ. Also, certain generalized
assumptions were made regarding administrative costs associated with the
SRRE. Programs such as the expansion of curbside recycling will be funded
through user fees, which is the method currently used. With some of the
regional programs administered by the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority, it may be possible to obtain Authority funding. It is important
to note that the Authority funds its operations through a tipping fee at
the landfill. Adjustments to the tipping fee have the same impact as a
user fee, since it is eventually passed on to the consumer. Staff will be
presenting updated cost figures to the City Council as new programs are
presented to the City Council for their approval.
SRRE Adoption Process Timeline
Pursuant to pending legislation, the City is attempting to adopt a final
SRRE prior to January 1 , 1992 . Based upon direction received from the
City Council as a result of the public hearing, Staff will work with the
Consultant to prepare a Final Draft SRRE. The Final Draft SRRE may also
need to reflect any pertinent comments received from the State Integrated
Waste Management Board. The Staff at the State Board do not anticipate
completion of written comments until October 16, 1991 .
The City Council will need to conduct a Public Hearing on the Final Draft
and will also be required to adopt the appropriate CEQA findings. State
Law also requires a 45 day review period for the document to be reviewed by
the LTF. In the event that the LTF identifies deficiencies in the final
draft, the legislation identifies that the City and LTF are required to
meet to attempt to resolve the deficiencies. In the event a resolution
cannot be obtained, the LTF is required to notify the State Integrated
Waste Management Board and the local jurisdiction of the deficiencies.
Once a Final Plan is adopted by the City, it must be provided to the
County. Each City Plan will become a component of the Alameda County
Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County must submit the plan to the
State Board by January 1 , 1994.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and provide
Staff and the Consultant with direction on any modifications to be
incorporated in the Final Draft. The Final Draft will also include any
pertinent revisions required as a result of comments received by the State
Integrated Waste Management Board. Staff would also request that the City
Council provide input on any modifications to the Draft response to the
LTF.
s1010srr.agenda#6
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
Thomas M. Martinsen
Executive Director
October 3 , 1991
Subject: Draft Closure Letter for Local Task Force (LTF)
Review of City of Dublin's Preliminary Draft Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (PDSRRE)
To the City of Dublin:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that, pursuant
to AB 939 , the Alameda County LTF has completed its review
of Dublin's PDSRRE and Household Hazardous Waste Element.
In its review, the LTF considered: (1) the solid waste
management needs of the county; (2) the State-mandated
source reduction and recycling requirements; and (3) issues
of interjurisdictional and regional concern. A copy of the
detailed comments made by the LTF is attached.
overall, the Dublin Plan was well received and the Task
Force would like to compliment the City for producing a
thorough and creative PDSRRE. The Dublin PDSRRE was
presented to the LTF on August 22 , 1991. The LTF considered
the draft at that meeting and at subsequent meetings on
September 5 and September 19. Dublin staff was present at
the September 19 meeting. The attached written comment list
includes responses to LTF comments by City of Dublin staff,
where appropriate and available.
The LTF has determined that the City of Dublin has
undertaken or is planning to implement comprehensive
programs to meet the waste diversion goals of 25 percent by
1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The PDSRRE appears to be
consistent with the applicable State regulations.
While a complete set of LTF comments is attached, several
points deserve to be highlighted. These include:
Waste Generation Analysis:
■ The LTF recommends that the City of Dublin include SRRE
tonnage figures both with and without inerts (concrete,
asphalt, etc. ) The LTF encourages programs for the
diversion and reuse of inerts and encourages the City of
Dublin to plan for the maximum feasible source reduction and
recycling efforts, even if the minimum State-mandated
diversion goals can be met through recovery of inerts.
■ There is a need for all jurisdictions to more carefully
monitor their waste streams in the future and to thoroughly
50% Recycled Paper
u
(;y]�
�Y3
1933 Davis St., Suite 308, San Leandro, CA 94577 • (415) 639-2481, FAX: (415) 639-2491
study their waste streams prior to sizing specific.
facilities.
Need for Regional Cooperation - Planning:
■ The LTF recommends that the City of Dublin actively
participate in the development of an Alameda Countywide
Regional Market Development Plan.
■ The LTF encourages the City of Dublin to engage in
regional and sub-regional cooperation in the pursuit of
options for the use of used tires.
Need for Regional Cooperation - Education:
■ The LTF encourages the City of Dublin to actively
U participate in regional efforts to develop and implement
countywide source reduction and recycling public education
activities.
Need for Regional Cooperation - Facilities:
■ The LTF recognizes difficulties inherent in siting
composting facilities and encourages regional and sub-
regional cooperation in this area.
■ The LTF encourages the City of Dublin to include a
statement in the SRRE which supports the expansion of
landfills into integrated waste management facilities to
include processes such as the grinding of wood and
construction and demolition debris.
Program Implementation:
■ The LTF requests that the City of Dublin consider adopting
policies to use compost products in gity facilities and to
encourage professional gardeners to participate in yard
waste collection and diversion programs.
■ The LTF requests that the City of Dublin adopt Recycling
and Reusable Products Procurement Guidelines for City
facilities and programs.
■ The LTF commends the City of Dublin for requiring
developers to show how in slop_ctfic projects the 25% and 50%
diversion requirements will be met and furt er requests that
tand he City of Dublin consider requiring the recycling of
onstruction and demolition debris as part of development
redevelopment contracts.
11 ■ The LTF encourages the City of Dublin to consider
integrating into building codes and the local permitting
process a requirement for physical space for recyclables.
( � ■ The LTF recommends that the City of Dublin consider
including in the SRRE a Junk Mail Reduction Program.
50% Recycled Paper
1 ■ The LTF recommends that the City of Dublin consider the
�
use of recycled paint, oil and batteries in City facilities
and projects.
■ The LTF notes that there is some indication that an
unintended effect of increased fees or of progressive rate
14 structures may be an increase in the incidence of illegal
dumping. Accordingly, there is a need to balance the timing
of fee increases with theahlish3aPnt of �^ ye ient
diversion programs and iitter abatement projects.
■ The LTF considers it very important that cities develop
0 effective monitoring and evaluation tools for SRRE programs.
Dublin appears to have adequately considered this need.
Sincerely,
Stana Hearne
Chair
5070 Recycled Paper
Review of City of Dublin SRRE
September 19 , 1991
Chapter 1• Introduction and Statement of Goals and
Objectives
Commentor: Ms. Hearne
Your SRRE indicates that you are planning to adopt a
progressive rate structure. Are you planning to take any
steps to avoid a potential increase in illegal dumping?
' lip Response:
Commentor: Ms. Hearne
As on Page 1-12 , your SRRE assumes that diversion of inert
materials will be allowed to contribute to diversion
goals. Do you need a contingency proposal if AB 2092
changes this situation?
Response: The City of Dublin's position is to presume only
current State law and policy and we are meeting these
requirements in the SRRE.
Chapter 2 • Waste Generation Analysis
Commentor: Ms. Schweitzer and Ms. Ritchie
Your SRRE indicates that with inerts your diversion rate
is currently at 23 . 5% and without counting inerts you are
at 12 . 4% . Do you intend to count inerts in considering
program options? Your SRRE should discuss this issue.
0� Response:
Chapter 4 • Recycling Component
Commentor: Ms. Ritchie
The LTF recommends that the City of Dublin include more
detailed information regarding specific ways in which
recycled materials will be used in internal city projects
such as for plastic lumber in play areas or the use of
recycled paper for city correspondence.
Response:
Commentor: Ms. Ritchie
50% Recycled Pape
Would the City consider requiring as part of the local .
permitting process the consideration of space for
recyclables when remodeling occurs?
lt2o Response:
Commentor: Mr. Valle
Would the city consider requiring the recycling of ,
construction and demolition debris as part of development
contracts as development and redevelopment occurs in
Dublin?
Response:
Commentor: Mr. Valle
On Page 4-17 your SRRE states that the siting of
facilities may be very difficult in your jurisdiction.
Does this mean that you do not intend to site any
facilities?
Response: This comment in the SRRE refers to the fact that
there is a lack of appropriately zoned land available for
facilities in our jurisdiction.
Chapter 5• Composting Component
Commentor: Ms. Ritchie
Is the city willing to use compost materials for city
parks, buildings or projects?
Response:
Commentor: Ms. Hearne
Would the City of Dublin consider a public education
program which encouraged professional gardeners to leave
yard waste at the work site to be diverted instead of
hauling it to the dump?
AL
Response:
Chapter 6 • Special Waste Component
Commentor: Ms. Ritchie
50% Recycled Paper
SRRE objectives should include consideration of a
Household BOP (batteries, oil and paint) program and the
school district might be encouraged to utilize paint which
is generated by this event.
-* 'IS Response:
Commentor: Ms. Hearne
In what specific ways is the City of Dublin planning to
participate in County programs?
a,1 Response: The City is committed to taking part in these
sG►� programs and we are currently participting in the first
program stages such as the study of the countywide MRF and
composting facility scenarios.
Chapter 9 : Funding Component
Commentor: Mr. Riva
Pages 9-12 and 9-13 of your SRRE indicate that you will
utilize mitigation fees to pay for the first year of you
program. Your revenues however, do not appear to be
sufficient to meet program costs thereafter . Are you
planning to identify additional sources of funding?
��. Response: Once our program costs are known the City will
adjust its fees.
50% Recycled Pape
DRAFT
Responses to Comments
Raised by the Local Task Force
1 . The City of Dublin SRRE is consistent with State Law and includes
inerts in the calculations . The City Staff believes that it is
counterproductive to expend time and effort addressing proposals
which may be substantially revised prior to adoption by the State
Legislature. The Preliminary Draft SRRE has been drafted to meet
the requirements of the current law. The City's Plan uses a
variety of programs in addition to recycling of inerts.
2 . The implementation of AB939 and integrated waste management plans
include specific requirements for updating information contained in
the plans . The City of Dublin concurs that these requirements will
require all agencies to obtain additional information on the waste
stream. The City of Dublin SRRE has identified a variety of
studies which are necessary prior to proceeding with specific
facilities . These studies will provide information on sizing as
recommended by the LTF.
3 . Waste Management Authority Staff have explained that the LTF was
concerned with a potential lack of statements regarding market
development. The City of Dublin has specifically addressed this
issue through the proposal to consider adopting a Recycled Material
Procurement Policy and in the area of evaluating end uses for
compost.
4 . As noted on page 6-3, the City of Dublin SRRE supports programs
which divert used tires from the landfill .
5 . This is already included in the City of Dublin' s SRRE in the
following locations :
Section: Public Information: Item 2 - Page 7-8
Section: Education: Items 1 & 2 - Page 7-8
Section: Education: Item 1 - Page 7-9
Section: Commercial/Industrial/Professional : Items 1 (b) (c) -
Page 7-9
6 . The City of Dublin SRRE considers the evaluation of a regional
composting facility. Implicit in the undertaking of any regional
effort is cooperation between the participating entities .
7 . The City of Dublin would object to the inclusion of any language
specifying expansion of a particular facility. This presents
certain difficulties with assessing the environmental impacts and
adoption of a plan in a timely manner. . The approach used by the
City of Dublin is to evaluate and study the most cost effective
means of meeting AB 939 requirements . The City believes that it is
premature to address locations for facilities .
8 . As noted on page 5-8, the City will considering a variety of
options for the end use of compost materials .
9 . The SRRE indicates that the City will consider implementation of a
"Recycled Material Procurement Policy. " (pg. 3-20 )
10 . a)
The Preliminary Draft does not address requiring developers to
identify diversion requirements . Given the large undeveloped areas
within the current City limits and the City' s General Plan -
Extended Planning areas, this may be appropriate for the City to
evaluate. Staff will recommend that the Draft Plan be modified to
include a provision for the City to consider adoption of
appropriate means which will address this issue.
b)
The second portion of the LTF comment addressed construction
demolition debris . On page 4-25, the City has already included
language which addresses this issue.
11 . This has not been identified as a problem with the existing
curbside program and we have no supporting documentation indicating
that it is required at this time. During the Site Development
Review of new multi-family projects, the City has required larger
bin areas to accommodate recyclables .
12 . City Staff would recommend against the inclusion of a Junk Mail
Reduction Program due to a potential significant imbalance in the
cost/benefit of such a program. The requirements of the State Law
to monitor and evaluate such a program would generate an extreme
burden for our integrated waste management program compared to the
amount of diversion obtained.
13 . This type of procurement could be evaluated in our proposed
Procurement Policy. Given that there are several elements to
consider in developing such a policy, Staff believes it is
premature to identify specific types of products in the SRRE. This
level of detail needs to be addressed in the policy after City
Staff have had an opportunity to fully evaluate all impacts .
14 . The City of Dublin has always used a volume based rate structure
and has not experienced a need for any special program addressing
illegal dumping. It is Staff' s belief that a high incidence of
"illegal dumping" results from large accumulations of debris . The
City' s basic level of garbage service currently provides for a
special Saturday collection of large accumulations on a quarterly
basis . This is a very high level of service which mitigates your
concern.
15 . City of Dublin concurs with statement .
16 . See Response #14 .
17 . See Response #1 .
18 . See Response #1 .
City of Dublin -2-
19 . See Response #13 .
20 . See Response #11
21 . See Response #10 (b)
22 . This response should state that there is a lack of potential sites
within the areas currently developed in the City of Dublin. Also,
the Consultant has identified that this is an anticipated barrier
in any community. The City of Dublin has not addressed site
locations and the intent to develop or not to develop a facility as
a part of the SRRE. The SRRE is being approached as a planning
document and this section only notes the potential which would need
to be addressed in any site specific proposal for a waste facility.
23 . See Response #8
24 . The City of Dublin' s approach to composting has focused upon the
residential sector including potential source separated yard waste
for self haul . The self haul component could address professional
gardeners . Staff believes that it would be premature to develop
educational programs which are not integrated with programs
selected in the composting component of the SRRE. Also, given the
stringent requirements for monitoring and evaluation, the effort
extended on an education program must be balanced by the
quantifiable reduction in the waste stream.
25 . The City of Dublin Staff would not recommend consideration of
programs which would result in a duplication of fees paid for by
rate payers . All of the communities in Alameda County have been
paying fees for approximately one year to provide a permanent
facility for HHW collection. This effort was undertaken by the
Alameda County Health Department and their original program did not
include a BOP. The information in the SRRE reflects the program
requested by Alameda County and already funded by local rate
payers .
26 . Response already noted.
27 . The effect of the Measure D surcharge was to be paid based upon the
quantity disposed. The City would have only received a fraction of
the total fees generated by Dublin ratepayers . Once the City has
more specific program costs identified, appropriate user fees can
be developed for programs which are solely local in nature and for
which other revenue sources such as grants are unavailable .
PSR: slh a: sltf-res .doc.psr#6
City of Dublin -3-
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 26, 1991
SUBJECT: Review of Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR) Element
(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Excerpts: Preliminary Draft Source Reduction Recycling
(SRR) Element
A full copy of the Report is also available.
RECOMMENDATION: n Review Proposed Programs and Provide Input. Establish
a- Public Hearing Date of October 10, 1991 for public
input on the Preliminary SRR Element. Authorize
Release of the Draft for Public Comment.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Report.
DESCRIPTION: The City of Dublin is involved in a joint study
coordinated by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) . The
purpose of the Study is to develop a Source Reduction and Recycling (SRR)
Element, as required by State Law.
REPORT COMPONENTS
The report is required to address certain components of the City' s current
and future waste handling programs and policies. The SRR Element will
cover the following areas:
1 ) A characterization of the Waste currently generated in the City. This
includes a description of the quantity of waste as well as the type of
waste.
2) A description of current waste diversion programs and the rate of
waste being diverted from the landfill.
3) A description of waste diversion programs to be continued and/or
expanded to reach the mandated rates of diversion. This includes:
a) Source Reduction Programs focused on the elimination of waste
generation. (i.e. incentives to generate less waste)
b) Recycling Activities, this includes curbside efforts, as well as
commercial/industrial activities.
c) Composting, this describes methods and programs which would
reduce the volume of waste placed in the landfill by collecting
and processing compostable materials for other uses.
4) A description of Special Waste activities. This area involves waste
requiring special handling.
5) The plan must identify specific education and public information
activities used to achieve the State Mandated goals.
6) An analysis of the Disposal capacity which is available in area
landfills. This analysis accounts for estimated growth, as well as
reductions achieved through SRR Element efforts.
7) The funding for the various programs are estimated in order to provide
a planning tool for the agency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
13
7) The funding for the various programs are estimated in order to provide
a planning tool for the agency.
8) The plan must explain how the City will integrate the various
components to achieve the mandatory State requirements.
The State has adopted a very specific format for analyzing and presenting
the information in the SRR Element. In addition, the document completed by
each agency will be consolidated into a Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan. Through joint cooperation in the Alameda County project,
the City is given the opportunity to develop a plan which uniquely reflects
this community and is compatible with other agencies. The ACWMA is paying
for the cost of the plan through tipping fees levied on garbage disposed of
at the landfill.
Staff is requesting that the City Council conceptually review the programs
and policies in the preliminary plan, prior to the circulation of the
complete document. State Law requires that the Preliminary Plan be
circulated for a minimum of 30 days. The City is required to circulate
copies to surrounding cities, Alameda County, the State Integrated Waste
Management Board, ABAG, and the Local Task Force (LTF) . The LTF was
formally appointed by the Board of Supervisors with ratification by a
majority of the Cities with a majority of the population. The role of the
LTF is to consider issues of a regional concern and to ensure that they are
addressed.
Given that the SRR Element identifies programs affecting the entire
community, Staff felt it was appropriate to provide an opportunity for City
Council input prior to circulation among other agencies.
DEVELOPMENT OF SRR ELEMENT DATA
As previously indicated, this plan is the result of a joint effort by
agencies in Alameda County. Therefore, the Consultant has relied in some
cases upon an allocation of data gathered in various parts of the County
and other available sources of information. This methodology is not unique
to a joint study. Obviously, the cost of sampling garbage from each waste
generator would be enormous. Therefore, the Consultant has utilized
sampling methods approved by the State Board of develop the plan.
This methodology may require that the City pursue additional analysis as
specific programs are pursued. For example, if the City proceeds with a
separate yard debris collection and participation in a composting facility
more precise data on the amount of available material will be necessary. y
The data collection presented in the SRR Element will be a starting point
for the City to pursue the objectives in accordance with State law.
CURRENT EFFORTS
Based on the Studies conducted in 1990, the City of Dublin was diverting
24.4 percent of all waste generated from the landfill. State law requires
that the City reach a level of 25 percent by 1995. The City will also need
to monitor and evaluate its efforts in order to report progress on an
annual basis to the State Integrated Waste Management Board. The City must
be able to fully document how it has arrived at its stated diversion rate.
A major component of the current diversion rates is an allocation for
recycling of asphalt and concrete. The City Public Works Director has
provided estimates of recycled asphalt from City-wide overlay projects.
This is currently allowed to be counted, however, the Consultant has
received input from the Local Task Force that they would like to see the
data in plans including and excluding inert material such as concrete and
asphalt. There are no laws which currently require the City to address two
-2-
scenarios. If the laws were to exclude these items in the future, the City
would need to identify methods of increasing other recycling in other areas
to reach the statewide mandates.
SHORT TERM PROGRAMS
The following discussion will highlight some of the primary activities
described in the Preliminary Draft SRR Element. A representative from the
Consultant will also be available to answer specific questions.
Source Reduction - This program involves methods of discouraging or
reducing the amount placed in the landfill. Programs to be pursued include
restructuring garbage rates to reduce the discount for generating more
waste, supporting the County home composting project, and developing
guidelines for City purchases to include recycled materials.
Recycling
The inclusion of all single family homes in the curbside recycling program
through the adoption of an Ordinance requiring the minimum level of garbage
service. Expansion of curbside programs to include multi-family projects,
requirements for excess concrete and asphalt on City projects to be
recycled and consider establishing an office paper recycling program in the
commercial/industrial sectors.
Special Waste
The City will support efforts by Alameda County to address these issues.
Education and Public Information
The City will support various efforts to provide information on reducing
solid waste including: speakers bureaus, use and distribution of material
provided by the County, support of an educational component within the
schools, and implementing material targeted at specific sectors of the
community.
LONG TERM EFFORTS
The long term efforts are identified as measures necessary to reach the
requirement for reduction of the amount of waste generated by 50% in the
year 2000 . In several cases, the scope of the activities may require
cooperation with other entities and/or a change from the current method of
operation identified in the City's franchise agreement. The current
franchise with Oakland Scavenger Company expires in 5 years unless an
extension is granted. ACWMA is currently undertaking special studies to
identify the potential for certain regional facilities i.e. composting
facility, or a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) . The following areas are
identified as efforts to be undertaken in the long term.
Recvclinq
The City would consider participation in a regional Material Recovery
Facility (MRF) for all commercial waste. A MRF is similar to a picking
station at a transfer facility, where recyclable material can be removed
before the waste is transported to the landfill. This can also be
accomplished through a MRF located at a landfill.
Composting
The City would support the development of a regional facility handling
source separated yard waste. In order to accomplish this, the City will
need to consider methods of separately collecting yard waste.
-3-
FUNDING
The consultant has prepared preliminary estimates of the costs involved for
the various components which is discussed in Chapter 9 of the Preliminary
Draft. Given that this is a County-wide study certain assumptions may not
accurately reflect the City of Dublin. For example, the City already
produces a City Newsletter and certain public information can be
distributed with that publication instead of a new document for recycling.
Staff will work with the consultant prior to the Public Hearing to further
refine the cost estimates as they would relate specifically to the City of
Dublin. It will be necessary for the City to fully consider all of the
components contained in the Consultant's cost estimates.
It is anticipated that the majority of the funding for programs which are
purely local in nature will need to come from the rate payers. Some of the
larger scale projects involving capital facilities which are regional in
nature may be developed from a variety of funding resources. It is
important to note that the passage of the State Law requiring this planning
did not provide for funding to local agencies for implementation. However,
the law requires that the agency estimate the cost and identify potential
methods of funding from local resources. It is also important to note that
regional fees also directly impact the ratepayer. Typically, these are
levied at the landfill, and they become a direct cost to the garbage
collection firm. In turn, the costs are then passed on to the consumer.
The Preliminary Draft contains funding information related to Measure D.
The Consultant has included references that this funding sources is only
available in the event that Measure D is upheld by the Courts. Given the
recent court ruling, it will be necessary to evaluate other methods in the
event that Measure D continues to be ruled invalid by the courts.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
The final area addressed in the Plan is HHW. The State Law was amended to
require this section to be developed as a separate Element. In the
original legislation, the section was treated as a component of the SRR
Element. The basic program proposed is to utilize the program implemented
by Alameda County. The County is collecting fees for this purpose and
plans to construct a permanent collection facility. The current County
timeframe is to have the facility operational by the end of 1991 . Alameda
County has been collecting fees for this purpose since October of 1990.
REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS
The City will be required to conduct a public hearing on the Preliminary -
Draft SRR Element. At the Public Hearing, Staff will include a discussion
of all written comments received from other agencies during the public
review period. In addition, public testimony will be received at the
public hearing. Staff recommends that the City Council establish a Public
Hearing date of October 10, 1991 .
Following the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Draft, the Consultant will
prepare a Final Draft based upon direction provided by the City Council.
The Final Draft must be circulated for review to the Local Task Force 45
days prior to the public hearing to adopt the final plan. The City is
required to have the final plan adopted by January 1 , 1992.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the SRR Element, and provide
any input on the proposed programs for inclusion in the Preliminary Draft.
It is also recommended that the City Council establish October 10, 1991 as
the date of the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Draft SRR Element. The
Consultant will also be available to respond to specific questions
regarding the SRR Element.
a:s826srr.doc.agenda#5
-4-
}
CONTENTS
EXCERPTS City of Dublin
Preliminary Draft SRR Element
The following excerpts are provided as part of the City Council review
prior to the release of the SRR Element for Public Comment.
■ Executive Summary p. 1 -12
■ Table 1 -1 Waste Diversion Objectives P. 1-11
(% The Plan Estimates Dublin will divert
1990/1995/2000)
■ Table 2-3 Solid Waste Disposal Summary p. 2-5
(This summarizes the amount of garbage
generated and disposed of by each sector
i .e. Residential, commercial, etc. )
■ Table 2-4 Residential Waste Disposal Summary p. 2-8
■ Table 2-5 Commercial Waste Disposal Summary p• 2-9
■ Table 2-6 Industrial Waste Disposal Summary p. 2-10
■
2-12
Table 2-7 Waste Generation by Waste Category p.
IL
City of Dublin
Preliminary Draft
KI> 7 Source Reduction and
Recycling Element
and
Household Hazardous
Waste Element
August 1991
CITY OF DUBLIN
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
AND
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Dublin (Dublin) has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRR Element) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHW Element) in accordance with
statutory requirements of the State of California. This Executive Summary describes what is
required for these documents and presents the essential information they contain.
INTRODUCTION
The California Integrated Waste Management Act
In 1989, the California legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management
Act (Act) requiring diversion of waste materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing
landfill capacity and natural resources. This Act requires cities and counties in California to
divert 25 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent of solid
waste by January 1, 2000.
The Act further requires every city and county in California to prepare two documents
to demonstrate how the mandated rates of diversion will be achieved. The first of documents
is the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, (SRR Element), a report describing 1) the
chief characteristics of each jurisdiction's waste, 2) existing waste diversion programs and current
rates of waste diversion, and 3) continuations of existing waste diversion programs and new or
expanded programs the jurisdiction intends to implement. The second document is the
Preliminary Draft city of Dublin
Household Hazardous Waste Element, (HHW Element), a report describing what each
jurisdiction will do to ensure that household hazardous wastes are 'not mixed with regular
nonhazardous solid waste. Household hazardous wastes are defined as any discarded material
from homes that may threaten human health or the environment if disposed of incorrectly.
OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
Solid Waste Generation Study
'The first requirement for the SRR Element is preparation of a Solid Waste Generation
Study. This report identifies the quantity and composition of wastes generated by a jurisdiction
and the total waste generated which is disposed and diverted. For Dublin and other Alameda
County jurisdictions, the source of information on waste quantities and characteristics for the
Solid Waste Generation Study was a countywide report prepared by Brown and Caldwell
Consultants. This countywide report generated waste composition and quantity data on a
countywide basis. Dublin's specific waste characteristics were determined by the city's relative
share of the County's population or by the city's share of the total number of Alameda County
businesses.
The Solid Waste Generation Study for Dublin includes four parts. These are:
• A Demoeranhic Saldv showing the total current population of Dublin, the proportion of
residents in single and multi-family dwelling units and in low, medium and high income
households, and the number and type of commercial and industrial establishments in
Dublin;
Preliminnry Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
3
• A Solid Waste Characterization Study showing the quantity and composition of wastes
generated by Dublin residents and commercial and industrial waste generators;
• A Solid Waste Disposal Study showing the quantity of residential, commercial and
industrial wastes collected in Dublin by franchised waste haulers and additional Dublin
solid waste taken to landfills both by nonfranchised commercial haulers collecting
primarily construction and demolition debris and by members of the public hauling
smaller individual loads of self-hauled wastes; and
• A Solid Waste Diversion Study showing the quantity and types of Dublin wastes
currently diverted from landfill disposal.
The ,results of these studies indicate that in 1990 the major types of waste generated in
Dublin were concrete and asphalt (16.3 percent), paper (33.7 percent), and yard waste (8.4
percent). The total quantity of waste generated in Dublin in 1990 was 55,143 tons,
of which
41,707 tons were taken to landfills for disposal and 13,437 tons were diverted through source
reduction and recycling programs. The overall rate of diversion of waste materials for Dublin
for 1990 was 24.4 percent.
Existing Material Recovery Programs
Waste diversion in Dublin occurs both as a consequence of publicly organized recycling
programs and waste diversion activity emanating solely from private initiative. The major
publicly organized program is its curbside recycling program. In September 1990, Dublin
contracted with its franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal, to provide a three-bin
curbside recycling program for single family residences in Dublin with a provision to expand this
service to Dublin multi-family residences in the future. In addition, since 1986 Dublin has
contracted with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to provide as part of its base solid waste collection
Preliminary Drum City of Dublin
1 .
4
service, a quarterly clean-up program. Livermore-Dublin Disposal has also provided aone-day
household hazardous waste collection event for residents of the cities of Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton.
Even more significant is Dublin's privately initiated waste diversion activity. Private
recycling activities provided an estimated 7,271 tons'of concrete and asphalt to a major paving
materials contractor in Oakland, where they were remade into road construction materials. As
ling activities, significant quantities of corrugated cardboard
a result of private commercial recyc
(1,526 tons) and high grade ledger paper (725 tons) were also diverted from landfill disposal.
Likewise, privately initiated source reduction activities provided an estimated 34 tons of cloth
diapers to Dublin by commercial diaper services and 100 tons of used clothing were diverted
from landfill disposal through'being taken instead to second-hand clothing and used textile stores.
SUMMARY OF SRR ELEMENT COMPONENTS
Introduction and Statement of Goals and Objectives - Chapter 1
The first chapter of Dublin's SRR Element describes the requirements of the California
Integrated Waste Management Act and the required format for the SRR Element.
Solid Waste Generation Analysis - Chapter 2
Each jurisdiction preparing an SRR Element is required to prepare a Solid Waste
Generation Analysis chapter serving as a summary of the characteristics of the solid waste
generated within a jurisdiction. For Dublin and most other jurisdictions in Alameda County, the
Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter summarizes a larger, more detailed countywide waste
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper,
. 5
characterization 'report which is included in the SRR Element as Appendix A-1. Information
pertinent to solid waste characterization in Dublin is excerpted from the larger countywide study
and presented in the Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter.
Source Reduction Component - Chapter 3
Source .reduction is defined as a set of activities which result in the reduction or
prevention of solid waste generation. Since source reduction is focused on the elimination of
waste generation rather than management of materials after they become wastes, the California
Integrated Waste Management Act requires cities and counties to place this form of waste
diversion at` the top of the hierarchy of waste management practices for local solid waste
management programs.
Source reduction programs selected.for Dublin's SRR Element include:
• Restructuring garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional cans
of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate;
• Continuation of support for a countywide home composting education program; and
• Development of a set of recycled and reusable products procurement guidelines.
Recycling Component - Chapter 4
Recycling, the diversion of waste materials for use in the manufacture of new products,
is intended to be a significant waste diversion activity in Dublin. New recycling programs to be
implemented by 1995 include:
Preliminary DrnCt City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
6
• A two-fold expansion of the existing residential curbside collection program as follows:
First, an expansion of the existing curbside program to include multi-family
residences in Dublin; and
Second, as a consequence of a decision to require mandatory solid waste
collection service to all residences, an increase in the number of single-family
homes participating in the curbside collection program.
• A requirement that specifies loads of concrete and asphalt inert wastes be delivered to
appropriate recycling facilities;
Consider establishing a collection program for source-separated white office paper; and
•
• Consider participation in a regional Materials Recovery Facility to divert additional
recyclable materials from Dublin's waste stream. Participation by Dublin would be
considered in order for the city to achieve the mandate of 50 percent diversion of wastes
by 2000.
Composting Component - Chapter 5
Composting is a biological decomposition process that converts, under controlled
conditions, organic constituents of the material into a stable humus-like product. In Dublin,
composting will become an important aspect of the waste diversion programs after 1995. At this
time, Dublin will support the development of a subregional composting facility for source-
separated yard waste and will evaluate a program providing for collection of source-separated
yard waste.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
7
Special Waste Component - Chapter 6
Special waste is solid waste that requires unique handling and disposal methods in order
to minimize risk to public safety and health. Special waste includes bulky, difficult to handle
wastes (such as tires, large appliances, and mattresses), sewage sludge, and potentially harmful
wastes such as asbestos and medical wastes.
In most cases, special wastes generated from Dublin can only be accounted for on a
countywide basis; the only special waste types for which it is possible to generate an estimate
of Dublin-specific special wastes are asbestos, bulky items, street sweeping and catch basin
debris, and used tires. Likewise, the only feasible special waste programs for Dublin to consider
are countywide programs. These include:
• Continued support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program of the County
Environmental Health Department;
• Work with the County to implement the Medical Waste Management Act-- new state
astes; and
legislation to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical w
• Support for new countywide programs to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse, to
provide countywide testing of sandblast sand, and to reuse, recycle or transform used
tires.
Education and Public Information Component - Chapter 7
The Education and Public Information Component is designed to increase the source
reduction and recycling awareness of public and private sector target audiences. The component
identifies three target groups for education and public information activities -- residents,
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Primed on recycled paper
8
businesses, and schools. To reach these groups and increase their awareness of source reduction,
recycling and composting activities, Dublin will promote the following program activities:
• Community outreach, through use of speakers, to publicize waste diversion activities and
participation in booths and demonstrations at fairs and special events;
• Utilization of available educational materials, promotional items and opportunities for
media exposure in the local community newspaper and cable TV channel;
• Support for the development of local school recycling educational activities; and
• Implementation of targeted educational programs for industry and commercial groups,
government agencies,'and professional groups.
Disposal Facility'Capacity Component - Chapter 8
This chapter discusses the capacity of solid waste disposal facilities receiving wastes from
Dublin. It notes there are no solid waste disposal or transformation facilities located in Dublin.
Currently, wastes collected by the city's franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal are
taken for disposal to the Altamont Landfill in eastern Alameda County. In addition, some self-
hauled wastes from Dublin are also taken to the Vasco Road Landfill in eastern Alameda County.
The chapter also includes projections of the capacity of landfills receiving Dublin wastes and
concludes that if Dublin and other jurisdictions achieve the 25 and 50 percent diversion rates,
there will be sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of Dublin and other participating
jurisdictions until 2005.
Preliminnry Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper .
Funding Component - Chapter 9
This chapter describes the funding sources and alternatives for the SRR Element for the
City of Dublin and shows the potential funding for implementation of the SRR Element
programs.
Integration Component.-. Chapter 10
This chapter' explains how Dublin has integrated the Source Reduction, Recycling,
Composting and Special Waste components to achieve the 25 and 50 percent mandates specified
t Act. It also includes a schedule illustrating the
by the California Integrated Waste Managemen
proposed timeframe for implementation of all programs presented in the SRR Element and the
anticipated achievement dates for the solid waste diversion mandates.
ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS
Sotirce Reduction
In the short term, it is anticipated that source reduction programs will consist of a
continuation of the programs of restructuring collection and disposal rates to eliminate quantity-
based discounts, and city-supported county home composting program and a city government
procurement policy establishing a means to increase purchases of repairable products and
products with recycled materials content. The total cost for these programs, including monitoring
and evaluation is expected to be around $1,750 per year.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
10
Recycling
In the short term, the programs in the recycling category include an expansion of the
existing residential, curbside collection program to include multi-family housing units,
establishment of a collection program for source separated office paper and a program for
directing inerts to appropriate recycling facilities. It is estimated that the costs for these programs
will total $45,900 per,year in the short term.
Special Waste
Programs in this category include city support for the following county programs: an
asbestos monitoring program; a program to promote bulky item recycling and reuse; a program
to promote sandblasting material reuse; a medical waste monitoring program; and a used tine
program. It is estimated that these programs will cost approximately $10,500 per year including
monitoring and 'evaluation. '
Education and Public Information
Programs in this category include a community outreach program, a public information
program, a schobl information program and a program of education and public information
targeted toward Dublin's business community. It is estimated these programs will cost $22,000
per year, including monitoring and evaluation.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
OVERVIEW OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
When initially enacted in 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act required
a household hazardous 'waste component to be included in an SRR Element, in addition to the
' AB 2707
components discussed above..j Subsequently, a new piece of legislation was enacted, . ,
which elevated the importance of the HHW component by making it a separate element, similar
to .the SRR Element. The HHW Element includes a discussion of objectives, existing conditions,
an evaluation' of several HHW program alternatives, selection of a program, implementation
details, monitoring and evaluation efforts, HHW education and public information programs, and
funding for proposed HHW programs.
For Dublin and other jurisdictions in Alameda County, management of household
hazardous wastes will be a county government responsibility. In June 1990, the Alameda County
Board of, Supervisors approved a countywide House hold/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste
Collection 'Program consisting of the development of three permanent household and mini-
generator hazardous waste collection facilities located in the northern, southern and eastern valley
areas of Alameda County. In August 1990, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(Authority),,a joint powers agency comprised of city and county elected representatives, approved
rogram; by imposing a fee of $1.32 per ton of solid waste
a funding mechanism for this p
.received at Alameda County solid waste disposal facilities. The money generated by this fee will
cover the program costs associated with the development of these facilities. In April 1991, the
Authority acted to reduce the fee to $1.25 per ton and to retain the approximate $77,000 already
collected by the fee differential for future household hazardous waste related purposes to be
designated by the Authority.
/ I
The Dublin HHW Element indicates that Dublin's principal HHW activity will be its
support 'of the countywide HHW program. Additionally, household hazardous wastes from
preliminary Draft City of Dublin .
Printed on recycled paper
12
Dublin' and .other Alameda •County 'jurisdictions' will also be detected and removed through
implementation�at Alameda'.County-, waste .disposal facilities of a program to randomly
inspect loads`of incoming`waste•for the.presence of HHW. In addition, Dublin will also support
the county in its commitment to develop and disseminate educational materials on the proper use
of the permanent HHW..collection�facilities'and on,steps'Alarrieda County residents can take to
minimize. HHW: generation by substituting no
household products .fore equivalent .
hazardous products. .
1 ,
t
Preliminary Draft City,of Dublin `
Quantitative Objectives
As required by Section 18731 of the State Planning Guidelines, Table 1-1 shows the
percentage of solid waste diversion Dublin has currently achieved and the percentage of diversion
Dublin plans to attain by the end of the short=term planning period (1995) and the end of the
medium-term planning period through source reduction, recycling and composting program
activities.
Table 1-1 Waste Diversion Objectives
Waste diverted, percent
Waste Category 1990 1995 2000
Existing/Projected diversion
Source reduction
1.9 2.5 3.0
Recycling 22.5 26.9 44.0
_ - 6.6
LTotal ting
waste -
ing/projected diversion
24.4 29.4 53.6
.2-5
SOLID WASTE.DISPOSAL STUDY
Solid waste generated within Dublin is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill. Oakland
Scavenger Company (Oakland Scavenger) collects and hauls residential and commercial waste
directly'to the Altamont:Landfill.
The categories of solid waste disposal identified in this study include residential,
commerciaVindustrial, cons truction/demolition debris, and self haul. A discussion of the
derivation of the disposal quantities for the Alameda County jurisdictions is' presented in the
Waste Generation Study Report, Appendix Al. The derivation of disposal quantities as it applies
to Dublin is summarized:below. Table 2-3 presents a summary of solid waste disposal data for
Alameda.
Table 2-3 Solid Waste Disposal Summary
EResideEntial 7,864 tons per year
cial 22,002 tons per year
Self-haul' 2,458 tons per year
Industrial 5,310 tons per year
Construction/demolition 4,073 tons per year
Total 41,707 tons per year
'Included as part of the commercial disposal in Table 2-5.
'Construction/demolition wastes are included as part of industrial
disposal in Table 2-6.
`Special wastes are included as part of the industrial disposal
in Table 2-6.
prel3minary'Draft City of Duhlin
Printed on recycled paper
• Table 2-4 Residential Solid Waste Disposal Summary, 1990
City of Dublin
Tons of Major
Disposal Percent Group
Waste Type Per Year of Total Percent
PaperOCc 200 2.5%
iced paper 766 9.7
newspaper 385 4.9%
hi-grade paper 186 2.4 To
other paper 1,059 13.5o
33.0%
Plastic
HDPE 34 1 0.4%
PET 10
film plastic 208 2.60
other 310 3.9%
Sb.....
7.2%
Glass
refillable beverage containers 0 0.0% '
CRV (a) 71 0.9%
other recyclable glass 246 3.1%
other nonrecyclable glass 47 0.65r
Metal
aluminum cans 13 0.2%
bi-metal containers 1 O.O o
ferrous metals (tin) 150 1.9 0
other nonferrous 37 0.5%
white goods 0 0.0%
2.5 Clio
Yard Waste 25: 24.5%
Organics }
food wastes 1,140 14.57o
rubber
wood wastes 49 0.6 0 ,
textile/leather 97 1.2°'0
other organics (b) 156 2.00
18.4%
Other wastes
concrete/dirt 98 1.2%
gypsum wallboard 0 0.0% .
household hazardous materials (c) 73 0.9%
diapers 199 2.51%
other 395 '
Total City Residential Disposal 7,864 Tons/year
a. "CRV" is California Redemption Value glass containers
b. "other organics" includes manure 08/08/91
c. "household hazardous materials" includes containers and contents
Table 2-5 Commercial S,,i;d Waste Disposal Summary, 1990
City of Dub
,ns o
• disposal Percent of
per year city total
Waste Type .
Paper 1,749 7.1%
Corrugated containers 5,079 20.8%
Mixed paper 757 3.1%
Newspaper 3,279 13.4%
High grade ledger paper 0 0.0%
Other paper* 44.4%
Plastic 0.5%
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers** 111 -
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers 162 0.7%
Film plastics 873 3.6%
Other plastics 45 4.7%
Glass
Refillable glass beverage containers 1,385 5.7%
California Redemption Value glass*** 437 1.8%
Other recyclable glass 512 2.1%
Other non-recyclable gl ass : : ::> ;'. 9.5%
Metal 63 0.3%
Aluminum cans 0 0.0%
Bi-metal containers 482 2.0%
Ferrous metals and tin cans 710 2.9%
Non-ferrous metals including aluminum scrap, 274 1.1%
White goods 0 0.0%
Other metals "` i
:> 252]
Yard Waste
Other Organics 1,779
Food wastes 1,014
Rubber products 1,728
Wood wastes 0
Agricultural Crop Residues 0
Manure 34 0.1%
Textiles and Leather 0 0.0%
Other miscellaneous organics 18.6%
Other Wastes 268 1.1%
Inert solids including concrete, asphalt 232 0.9%
Gypsum wallboard 0 0.0%
Household hazardous materials 0 0.0%
Diapers 1,010 4.1%
Other 6.2%
SUBT TA
0; 0.0%
Special Wastes****
24,460 100%
Total:
* Included in mixed paper.
** Includes ALL plastic (PET and HDPE) containers. 01-Aug-91
*** Includes ALL container glass.
**** A detailed listing of special wastes is included as Table 6-1.
Table 2-6 Industrial Soli" ste Disposal Summary, 1990
City of Dubl
�„ns o
. disposal Percent of
per year city total
Waste Type
Paper 349 3.7%
Corrugated containers 919 9.8%
Mixed paper 159 1.7%
Newspaper 530 5.7%
High grade ledger paper 0 0.070
Other paper* 20.9%
Plastic 12 0.1%
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers**
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers 81 0.9%
Film plastics 381 4.156'
Other plastics ' 5.1%
Glass -
Refillable glass beverage containers 74 0.8170
California Redemption Value glass*** 49 0.5%
Other recyclable glass 87 0.9%
Other non-recyclable glass : ::><:<:<:<><':<:'' 2.2%
Metal 4 0.0%
Aluminum cans 0 0.0%
Bi-metal containers 511 5.4%
Ferrous metals and tin cans 29 0.37o
Non-ferrous metals including aluminum scrap 0 0.0% '
White goods 0 0.0%
Other metals 5.8%
> a 0.870
Yard Waste
Other Organics 205 2.2%
Food wastes 572 6.1%
Rubber products 1,687
Wood wastes 0 0.0%
Agricultural Crop Residues 0 0.0%
Manure 28 0.3%
Textiles and Leather 0 0.0%
Other miscellaneous organics r7264 26.6%
Other Wastes 14.6%
Inert solids including concrete, asphalt 2 8%
Gypsum wallboard 0 0.0%
Household hazardous materials 0 0.0%
Diapers 1,627 17.3%
Other 34.876
tTBTQ AI...
...... 3.9
7`: %
Special Wastes****
9,383 100 170.
Total:
* Included in mixed paper.
** Includes ALL plastic (PET and HDPE) containers. 01-Aug-91
*** Includes ALL container glass.
**** A detailed listing of special wastes is included as Table 6-1.
1
TA13T E"2-7 Waste Generation by W. :ategory
City of Dublin .-`.
Waste disposal Waste diversion Waste Generation
Waste category percent by percent by percent by
tons/year weight tons/year weight tons/year weight
.... 1
4
0
3
82
3
6.9%
... 2
.... 5
.. 1
....... ...............: 2 297 5.5% �
"Corrugated'contamers 7�g� 18.8% 0 0.0% 7,823 14._%
Mixed paper 1,301 3.1% 753 5.6% 2,054 3.7%
Newspaper 3,995 9.6% 725 5,4% 4,720 8.3%
High grade ledger paper _ _ 153 1.1% 153 0.3%
Other paper*
0
167 0.3%
?lEtsh.;:: :::::::::::....:::::::::.:•:::::::.:::::: :.::.:,.....:....::.::.::..........:. 167 0.4%
.0%
HDPE containers 4, , 13 0.1% 13 0.9%
PET containers*** 451 1.1% 12 0.1% 463 0.8%
Film plastics 1,564 3.8% 1 0.0% 1,565
Cher plastics
.:.::..:.::.....................
..... :::::::::::::•.::<•:4ii:Si;:4:•t?CS�$ji:iiii'r;�.iv:j::::i:<:::i::}YCi::4i:�'::::;a:':iiiy .1....:Nii::ii:(:::::<:i::}.:::..:.�::�::::::::::::::::.�..:.:::.
Refill'atile'glass'lie'J'e'rage containers 1,530 3.7% m937 7.0% 2,467 4.5%
California Redemption Value glass**** 829 1.5%
Other recyclable glass 732 1.8% 97 0.0%
-recyclable lass 646 1.5% 0 0.0% 646 1.2%
non-rec c g
Other Y
0
X..."Muminu'm cans
...................
... 8
19
0
0
3%
1 0.0% 8 0.1% 9 00 0
Bi-metal containers 1,144 2.7% 182 1.4% 1,326 . 2.4%
Ferrous metals and tin cans 776 1.9% 146 1.170 922
Non-ferrous metals inc l. alum. scrap 275 0.7% 300 2.2% 575 1.0%
White goods .0.0170 0 0.0%
Other metals
29
0.2% 3,153 5.7
3,124 7.5%
tool'wastes 1,592 3.8% 0 0.070 1,592 2.9%
Rubber products 3,46.4 8.3% 841 6.3% 4,305 7.8%
Wood wastes 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Agricultural Crop Residues 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Manure 159 0.4% 100 0.7% 259. 0.5%
Textiles and Leather 1 159 0.4% 61 0.5% 217 0.4%
eous organics ,
nuscellan g
Other ...........
:.....:::• ..............:.......:
0
63%
9
011
1 .
:���>a v'as•te,.,:::::.:::;::.; ::::::::::.::.::::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::. 1740 4.2% 7,271 54.1% ,
... ... :. .:::::.....:.........................
" lrier'f's'olids concrete, asplialt" 496 1.2% 0 0.0% 496 0.9%
Gypsum wallboard 73 0.,-)% 0 0.0% 73 0.1
Household hazardous materials 199 0.5% 34 0.3% 233 0.4%
Diapers 3,032 7.3% 1 0.0% 3,033 5J%
. .........
Other
....................
.; �.. . .,,, t.0..::::�:;::;:<�;:'?:`•r» i > 'r'ii ` '`: .i��5?'
* Included in mixed paper.
** High-density polyethylene (HDPE), includes all plastic (HDPE and PET) containers. 07_Aug-91
*** Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers.
**** Includes ALL container glass.
***** in cluded as Table 6-1. The totalgpry �al waste quantity indicated on this
A detailed listing of special wastes is
table does not include white goods (shown above in its own waste cate o
CHAPTER 10
INTEGRATION COMPONENT
This component contains a description of the solid waste management practices that
promote integrated waste management in the City of Dublin (Dublin), and an explanation of how
Dublin has integrated the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Waste
components to achieve the 25 and 50 percent mandates specified by the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989. The chapter begins with a description of the solid waste
management practices. which Dublin will implement to promote integrated waste management
and follows this with an explanation of how Dublin has integrated the components to maximize
the use of all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting options.
The chapter then discusses how the components jointly achieve the 25 and 50 percent .
diversion mandates and provides an explanation of how priorities between components were
determined. . Finally, the chapter concludes with an integrated schedule summarizing all
implementation tasks previously identified in- the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting,
Special Waste and Education and Public Information components and the anticipated date of
achievement of the required solid waste diversion mandates.
Integrated Solid Waste Management Practices
To achieve the diversion requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management
Act, Dublin must develop and implement waste diversion programs which conform to the
integrated waste management hierarchy of (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting,
and (3) environmentally safe transformation and disposal. In Dublin, this has been achieved by
first identifying source reduction activities which the city can implement to decrease the quantity
of waste generated in Dublin, by then developing recycling and composting programs for waste
which will continue to be generated within the city and then by developing programs to ensure
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
10-2
hazard reduction and environmentally safe disposal of the remaining wastes which are not likely
to be diverted through other source reduction, recycling or composting activities.
The specific source reduction, recycling, composting and special waste activities which
Dublin intends to implement are as follows:
Source Reduction
• A restructuring of garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for
additional cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a uniform can rate;
• Support for the Alameda County Home Composting Education Program.
• ; Consider implementation of a city government offices procurement policy that
favors purchase of products with recycled material content.
Recycling
• Expansion of Dublin's existing Residential Curbside Collection Program to
multifamily households and single-family residences electing to participate in this
program after the imposition of mandatory garbage collection service.
• Consideration where appropriate of directing inert loads of concrete/asphalt to
existing commercial facilities that recycle these materials.
• Consideration of establishing a source-separated high grade office paper collection
program.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
10-3
• Study and evaluation of participation in the medium term regional MRF by
directing all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility.
Composting
Study and evaluation of. the development and implementation of subregional
composting programs for source-separated yard waste.
Consider p roviding for source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste
from residences to the subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard
waste to this same facility.
Special Waste
Continue to support the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control
• Division (APCD) of the County'Environmental Health Department in order to
reduce as much as possible.the risks associated with asbestos removal. This
activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium terms.
• Consider supporting appropriate programs to divert bulky items for recycling or
reuse.
• Support programs to perform analytical testing of sandblast sand to reduce hazard
potential and evaluate recycling potential.
Work with the County to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in
order to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes
and provide documentation of quantities.
preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
10-4
• Support-appropriate programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires.
Component Integration
Dublin, through existing source reduction, recycling, and composting activities, currently
diverts 24.4 percent of its waste stream. This rate of diversion is only slightly less than the 25
percent diversion rate required by 1995; thus, Dublin has nearly achieved this short-term planning
period goal. To reach the medium-term planning period goal of 50 percent diversion by 2000,
Dublin will continue its existing diversion activities and implement the programs discussed above.
1
'Component Priorities
The following criteria have been utilized to determine priorities for implementation of
source reduction, recycling,'composting and special waste programs:
• Conformity to the integrated waste management hierarchy.
Cost effectiveness and ease of implementation.
Effectiveness in reducing total wastes generated.
• Effectiveness in reducing hazard potential and other potential adverse
environmental effects.
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
10-5
Integrated Schedule
Table 10=1. shows the proposed timeframe for implementation of all programs presented
in this SRR:Element and the anticipated date of achievement of the solid waste diversion
mandates specified in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. This figure will
be completed for.tlie prelirriinary Draft. Figure 10-1 shows the schedule for availability of funds.
i r
Preliminary Draft City of Dublin
Printed on recycled paper
9-7
TABLE 9-1
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS
City Of Dublin
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FY 91-92 FY 92-93 FY 93-94 FY 94-95 FY 95-96
SOURCE REDUCTION
Uniform an Rate $1,100 ,
.-� Home omposting 100 100 100 100 100 ,
i Procurement Guidelines 0 550 550 550 550
`- u tot '
I
"RECYCLING
-Residential u si a pansion ,
Office Paper Recyckng
I Direction oflnerts to Facailities
— I ubtotal. 16,900 ,900 ,900 ,900 ,900
COMPOSTING
- Yard Waste Collection, 0 0 0 1 $01 1 0
Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SPECIAL WASTE '
Asbestos Monitoring Program 00 00 00 00
'*I Bulky Item Recycling/Reuse ,
T1 -Sandblasting—Material Reuse ,
-Medical aste T,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
�*I Used Tires i. 0 0 1,500 1,500 1,500
Subtotal ,
EDUCATION/PUBLIC INFORMATION
Community Organization Outreac T$5,500 ,500 5,500 ,500 5,500
Public n orma io e is 5,5M-
--School
,., Programs 0 5,500
Programs Targeted to Business 0 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Subtotal $5,500 $16,500 $22,000 $22,000 22,000
TOTAL COST $Zb,bUU 1 $67,1501 1 $80,1501 5 . 5
`� • Fiscal year 91-92 begins in July.
EXHIBIT
y