Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 5, 1992 (74)CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing to receive public comments on the Final Draft of the City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) MEETING DATE: February 5, 1992 PREPARED BY: Jerry L. Glenn, Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: a) That City Council receive public comments on the Final Draft SRRE. bj That City Council approve the Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the SRRE. 0 That City Council approve the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order to comply with the environmental review process which is required by the California Environmental Quality Act, EMCON Associates has prepared an Initial Study for the SRRE. Copies of this initial study are available for review in the office of the City Clerk. The Community Development Department has reviewed the initial study, and has issued a Negative Declaration (see attached Exhibit A). The Negative Declaration is now presented to City Council for their consideration and approval. During the entire length of calendar year 1991, the City of Lodi Solid Waste Management Task Force (SWAM Force) worked very closely with EMCON Associates to prepare the final draft of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Citizens have received a great deal of info miation concerning the SRRE: The Lodi News Sentinel has done an outstanding job of informing the public, especially regarding the three cart system. Tamma Ademek has written at least six articles specifically on this subject. The Sentinel also prints the "Wasteline" column free of charge every second Monday. An article on the SRRE has also appeared in the Lodi City Newsletter. Citizens have already been given ample opportunity to comment on the SRRE: Or October 9, 1991, the SWAM Force conducted a public hearing on the preliminary draft SRRE. All input received at the public hearing, and all subsequent calls anc letters received by their secretary have been considered by the SWAM Force. Ir addition, the SWAM Force has received written comments from California Integrated APPROVED THOMAS A PETERSON Public hearing to recei� public cornu+eats or, the Final aft of the City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Elerrent (SRRE) Page two February 5, 1992 Waste Management Board staff, the San Joaquin County Ab 939 Local Task Force, County Public Works - Solid Waste Division, and Delta Container Corporation. All of the above input has been considered by the SWAM Force and EMCON Associates in the preparation of the final draft SRRE which is now presented to City Council for their consideration and approval. FUNDING: None Required. Respectfully submitted. erry L. Glenn Assistant City Manager JLG_tp Prepared by: Kirk J. Evans Administrative Assistant to the City Manager. COUNCOM2/TXTA.TLP i7� f & _. i Lc 1k Notice is hereby given that the City of Lodi PlanninDepartment has determined that the following proposal will Have no Significant Impact on the Envirtnrrtnt'. Supporting dop=entaticn is available in the form of a 'Preliminary Environmental Assess xnt" and is avail- able fcr public review in the Planning Department Office. City Hall Building, 221 W. Pine Street. Anyone wishing to appeal the issuance of this Declaration to the Planning Caamission may do so no later than thz date indicated as 'Last date to Appeal". Date Jan. 6, 1992 Project Title: City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element Responsible Agency: Lodi Plannina Cent. Contact Person. David tlorimato RAKE OF PERSON FIRM, OR AGENCY UNDERTAKING PROJECT City of Lodi Address: city: County: 221 Wcst Pine Street Lodi San Joaquin Area Code; Phone; 209 333-6711 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, U3� OSE, AND LOCATION The purpose of the source reduction and recycling element (SRRE) is to provide the City of Lodi and the City's solid waste management task force (SWAM) with a current comprehensive update on the status of solid waste management in the City and to outline the City's plan to achieve and exceed the landfill diversion goals mandated by the State of California. The program will be implemented City-wide. roJett Location City Pmject Locarion County LODI SAM JOAQUIN COUNTY Last Date to Appeal: Address Where Frvicnnary nvinnrrent Assessment is Available: February 3, 1992 LODI CITY PLANNING DEPT. Z21 W. 'Pine St. , Lodi, CA 95240 Phone: (209) 334-5634 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (201S.S C.C.P.) STAiM OF CALIFORNIA, County cf San Joaquin. I am a citim cf the United States and a resident cf the County khresaid; I am over the age of eighteen Years. and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I an the principal cleric of the printer of the Lodi M*w s-Sentitet ae nrwvpqw of gourd eiraAktian, printed and publidwd dady, except Sundos mad halidgM in the City aE Lodi, C.aliformia. of San Joaquin, sand which news. paper has beth sdjWeed a newspaper of Efteral circulation by the Superior Cors#, Departaaaeat 3. of the County cf San Jmqu lz6 State of California, under 'lo date of May 2W 1953, Can Number 69980; that the absence, of which tb4 annexed is a printed MW (sat in type not smaller those non- pareil). has bean published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any sup- plement thereof an the following dates, to -wit all in tale year ear 19..9.. . I certify (ordeclare) under penalty of perjury that the foregnisug is true and correct. Dated Lodi, California, this ......15th day cE Jana y ........... IS 92 1 ....... ffa�eLr•--.... Sia ....... ftdature PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space xs for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Pub"tion Cf City of Lod 1 ... Source..Reduction . and. Recycling Element erne arF � se aa�r�taRaou agar ,w�ec. w �►► care iM prM.�.; f,► ..bpn.r. faY.her �ees . r+re�arw��r SIM lw air air at law 86r.. salol a1► q� �Unrrt 1,a waM11�.! Mae �10w1Mi M,ib pwr1M �. .f l ab,r fw O sod""* IwrlO�rnar. bah 4p rM i MS "N OWWWOMM' abs r• iw M Man+. Of MW geMO "W"190- == W"1N` M.nl 1e Ui0 Gqr ar w OMaan� M dyti Iain �. adrrw axd .rMw..�. * a cmft*. aw+ �rne.b.s a r» abM.Oa Carirrla 4larrror nerri�e aM � � O. O�baanes r► a� a■ae M.M Garw.�.! Ea.�MlepnM�. ser 40 221 shot PW* elwef.J.AI CANOWA a M 4^ bread vow* am MMM b• aM DWA W* rbwn• tew is " M" a" so Cel► o '►Mo�1eMr ObmW et wW Wm MM b FObRM V 3. f!R Bbl L"IrQr►Of fM C�ref Lal► J�11a1[! a. BG1110EOEi� a7rwder IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signJicant effect on the environ- ment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifi- cant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a sig- nificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. .1r 7- qZ_ Date For pjtA64' 1640101 p 33 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 a �c,f, l�TY t: ��C�� . 70(- '? to CJ -"O,L 7;C 10 C,�Vx�r �Co.�r+h..Ke�,�,i��,b%aQ � Initial Study for the City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element Prepared for City of Lodi December 1991 Prepared by EMCON Associates 1433 North Market Boulevard Sacramento, California 95834 Project F64-01.01 'This document was printed on recpc&d papa. CONTENTS Illustrations Project Description 1 Background and Need for Project 1 Introduction 1 Integrated Waste Management Planning 1 Summary of Waste Generation in Lodi 2 Summary of Selected Programs January 1. 1991 to December 31,1994 4 Summary of Selected Programs January 1, 1995 to December 31,2000 6 Legislative Basis for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element 6 City Requirements 7 County Requirements 7 Time Extension 8 General Requirements 8 Other Provisions of AB 939 9 Relationship of AB 939 to Other Legislation 10 Waste Generation 11 Lodi's Waste Diversion Program History 12 Goals for the Lodi SRRE 13 Definition of Goals and Objectives 13 integrated Waste Management Goals for Lodi 14 Short-term Goals 14 Source Reduction Goals 15 Recycling Goals 15 Composting Goals 15 Special Wastes Goals 15 PJF\F641F640101 P i Rev. 1 December 20.1991 CONTENTS (Continued) Public Information and Education Goals Disposal Capacity Goals Funding Goals Integration Goals Medium-term Goals Project Location Environmental Setting Environmental Checklist Form References 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 19 34 PJFIF641F640101 P ii Rev. 1 December 20.1991 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 PJF\F641F640101 P ILLUSTRATIONS Waste Composition. City of Lodi, 1990 Regional Setting Map iii Rev. 1 December 20, 1991 Tables and illustrations PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background and Need for Project Introduction As the population in California expands, so does the need for proper solid waste management systems. Waste management in California now faces the to ;hest laws in the nation. The California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Act of 1989 (commonly called Assembly Bill [AB] 939) gives city and county governments specific responsibilities to plan for and to accomplish high levels of diversion of resources from landfill disposal. Traditionally. this had been the responsibility of county governments. By January 1, 1995, cities and counties must divert 25 percent of their solid waste from landfills through source reduction, recycling, and composting. By Jan- uary 1. 2000, a 50 percent diversion rate must be achieved. A diversion rate of 10 percent achieved through transformation can be included as part of the 50 percent diversion rate goal for plans submitted after Jan- uary 1, 1995. The purpose of the source reduction and recycling element (SRRE) is to provide the City of Lodi (City) and the City's solid waste management task force (SWAM) with a current comprehensive update on the status of solid waste management in the City and to outline the City's plan to c -lteve and exceed the landfill diversion goals mandated by the state of California. The plan recommends that the citizens of Lodi. the City administration, SWAM, and the local franchise hauler. California Waste Removal Systems (CWRS), play leadership roles in the development of the programs out- lined in the SRRE. Integrated Waste Management Planning AB 939 established a new hierarchy for management of solid wastes. At the top of the hierarchy is source reduction. the preferred management P11\164\16401 01 p 7 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 method which is intended to reduce the amount of wastes which are gen- erated at the source. At the second tier of the hierarchy is recycling and -omposting. AB 939 and its implementing regulations Stress source sepa- ration of recyclables and compostables. The lowest level and least pre- ferred management method is reserved for landfilling and transformation (or incineration). Landfilling is intended to be used only for those materials which cannot otherwise be reduced. reused. or recycled. The old adage of "out of sight - out of mind" no longer holds true. AB 939 challenges Californians to think about their buying habits and about what they throw away. More and more, the state's citizens and businesses will be separating wastes into its component parts so that they can be reused rather than cast off as unwanted discards. The regulations which have been promulgated to implement AB 939 require each SRRE to contain nine specific components - each dealing with a specific aspect of integrated waste management: waste generation, source reduction. recycling, composting, special waste, public education. disposal facility capacity, funding, and integration. The corne:s►one is the waste generation component which estimates two things: (1) the composi- tion and quantity of the wastes which are being disposed cf and (2) the composition and quantity of wastes which are currently diverted from dis- posal through source reduction, recycling, and composting. When those two elements are combined, the resulting total is the amount and compo- sition of wastes which are generated within the City of Lodi. The diversion rate. taken as a percent of the wastes which are generated. provides the basis for measuring progress toward the 25 and 50 percent goals estab- lished by AB 939. The composition of wastes which are disposed of will help the City determine which materials can be diverted from the wasiestream so that plans and programs for their diversion can be devel- oped. Summary of Waste Generation in Lodi The City landfilled an estimated 67.231 tons in 1990, diverted an esti- mated 81.432 tons (of which 45,000 tons are inert materials). and trans- formed an estimated 2.507 tons. Total waste generation for the City is 151,170 tons in 1990. Of the quantity of wastes generated, less than 1 percent is source reduced, almost 46 percent is recycled, and approxi- mately 8 percent is composted. A good portion of the diversion rata comes from waste types (scrap metals, food processing wastes, and inert maten- pjr%r64\t640101 p 2 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 als), which are the subject of some debate among legislators and special interest groups as to whether or not they should be counted in the diver- sion totals. since these are not currently disposed of in large quantities and some believe that they should not count towards diversion. In Lodi's case. it inert materials such as concrete, dirt, ana asphalt were excluded from consideration, the diversion rate for the City would be reduced to almost 35 percent. The City will need to closely monitor pending legislation to assess its impact on the wastestream. Of the waste types which are disposed by City residents, paper represents almost 27 percent: plastics represent almost 8 percent; glass is 3 percent: metals are over 9 percent: yard wastes are over 17 percent; other organ- ics including food, wood. and textiles are over 27 percent: and other wastes (inert materials and household hazardous wastes) are over 8 percent. As a result of the waste disposal study which was conducted by San Joaquin County, the following waste types should be targeted for recovery in the short-term time frame (January 1, 1991 to December3l, 1994). pj1V64\f640101 p 3 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 wasto Category Waste Type ComposHlon' Paper Corrugated Cardboard/Kraft 7.2611/6 Newspaper 3.19% Other Paper 6.62% Plastics HDPE 0.61% PET 0. 130% Film 2.79% Glass Recyclable Glass 1.9% Metals Ferrous Metals 6.11% Yard wastes Leaves. Grass. and Brush 17.39% Other Organics Food 10.98% Rubber/T;r .:s 1.6470 Wood 8.01% Textiles 6.29% Other Wastes Inert Solids 7.43% t Expmmsw as a pwcent of wastes disposed of. soww: San Joaquin County. Appendix C Figure 1 summarizes waste disposal composition information from the County's study for Lodi. Summary cf Selected Programs, January 1, 1991 to December 31,1994 The City is fortunate to have a franchise waste hauler, CWRS. who has been at the forefront of integrated solid waste management. The City's existing diversion rate is largely the result of efforts by CWRS. Less waste which is hauled to the county for disposal saves Lodi residents and busi- nesses money, but also, more importantly, conserves valuable landfill space. The success of the short-term programs in the SRRE will continue to rely on this public-private partnership between the City and CWRS. pjftf6411640101 p 4 Rev.0 December23.1991 Because the success of these programs depends so much upon the efforts of CWRS. the City intends to monitor CWRS' programs and diver- sion rates very closely by requiring semiannual progress reporting. In the short-term time frame. the city intends to convert Lodi residents over to a semlautomatedlautomated collection system consisting of three - wheeled carts. typically with one cart f&r refuse, one cart for yard waste, and one cart for commingled recyclables. The size of cart which may be used in the snot; term is proposed to be flexible to maximize use of the existing cart supplies. tre the previous curbside recycling program was voluntary, carts for recyclables ana compostable materials will be made available to all single aVy residents. At the same time that the City con- verts to the three -cart system, the City will institute a new rate structure where the cost of second and subsequent refuse containers will cost more than the first container. This is an inverted or inclining rate structure. CWRS believes that this new rate structure will encourage waste reduction and recycling (CWRS. 1991). Other short-term activities will focus on public education and information. Here again. CWRS has been and will continue to be at the forefront with its work with the Lodi Unified School District and other local schools. a newsletter, speakers' bureau, and community accounts program to men- tion only a few. CWRS will continue these programs, and in most cases expand them to address the City's upcoming new recycling programs. CWRS has also been at the forefront offering technical assistance pro- grams and waste audits to local businesses and industries desiring waste minimization programs. These programs will continue and expand over the short term. The City's role in this effort will be to coordinate with local community groups and nonprofit organizations; develop a city -sponsored public recognition and awards program; and to develop a block leader program to encourage participation in CWRS' recycling programs, using the City's community service officers. The City will also be involved in developing procurement guidelines to encourage City departments to buy recycled products and amending City zoning and building codes to incorporate recycling into new developments. In addition, the City will be looking at ways to create local markets for recyclable materials by encouraging local use of recyclable materials and compost and encouraging small industries which use secondary materials as feedstock. Another major activity during the short-term time frame will involve CWRS' efforts to expand its materials recovery 3rd composting facility. An envi- ronmental impact report for this ;aciNy has been prepared. which is planned to be expanded onto property adjacent to the Lodi Transfer Sta- tion. In addition to environmental review, CWRS will need to complete final site design and apply for operating permits from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District. This facility is expected to be completed and fully operational by the medium- term time frame. CWRS has also applied for a use permit to relocate its collection corpora- tion yard and include an additional buy-back facility at this location. There is the potential that this site can be converted to a recycling processing center subsequent to a review whether an additional environmental assessment for this project is required. In addition, CWRS will begin sepa- rating tires and white goods at the Lodi Transfer Station. Summary of Selected Programs, January 1,1995to December 31,1999 In the medium term, the CWRS expanded materials recovery and com- posting facility will be fully operational. This facility could ultimately Serve as a regional composting center for northern San Joaquin County. Other activities during the medium term will focus on monitoring programs which were implemented in the short term and fine tuning them as needed. Legislative Basis for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element In September 1989, the California legislature passed AB 939. the Califor- nia Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. This bill was signed into law by Governor George Deukmejian on September 29. 1989, and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 1989. This legislation was drafted in response to the need to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources. AB 939 man- dates that by January 1, 1995. each California city and county must divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or trarisformation facilities through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. By Jan- uary 1, 2000, the required diversion rate is 50 percent, which can include a pi1\f641f640101 p 6 Rev. 0 December 23,1991 diversion rate of up to 10 percent from transformation processes cuch as waste to energy. AB 939 replaces the existing county solid waste management plan pro- cess with an SRRE for each city and county wastestream and an inte- grated waste management plan (IWMP) for each county. AB 939 restruc- tures the solid waste management program in California with the objective of implementing an aggressive integrated waste management program. promoting. in order of priority. the following waste management practices: • source reduction • recycling and composting environmentally safe transformation (incineration, pyroly- sis. or biological conversion) or land disposal • environmentally safe land disposal City Requirements By July 1, 199 1, AB 939 requires each city to prepare, adopt, and submit to the county an SRRE for management of solid waste generated within the city that includes all of the following components: • a waste generation component • a source reduction component • a recycling component • a composting component • a special waste component an education and public information component a disposal facility capacity component • a funding component • an integration component County Requirements By July 1, 1991, AB 939 requires each county to prepare an S RRE for its unincorporated areas with components the same as those in the city ele- pit\tsausao101p 7 Rev.0 December 23.1991 meats. Each county must also prepare a countywide IWMI' and a county- wide siting element specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity needed for a 15 -year period. so that solid wastes gener- ated in the county that cannot be reduced or recycled will be handled safely. Time Extension AB 2092 (proposed March 8. 1991) was intended to extend the deadlines for the city and county SPIRES and household hazardous waste elements (HHWEs) until January 1, 1992. The bill would also have required each city and county to prepare and submit a written report on the status of its SRREs and HHWEs to the CIWMB by Jul; 1, 1991. Californians Against Waste attempted to amend the bill to remove inert materials, scrap metals, and sewage sludge from the list of what counts towards the 25 percent diversion goal, which has stalled its progress through the legislature. According to a September 17, 1991. legislative update prepared by the Santa Clara County Office of Toxics and Solid Waste Management, Assemblyman Byron Sher is unwilling to extend the deadlines without "clarifying the rules of the game." According to the update, Assemblyman Sher believes the original legislation needs reform as he believes that jurisdictions are meeting the letter of the law but not the intent by counting existing diversion activity that occurred without action by the jurisdictions. This bill is not expected to be signed before the early par! of 1992. General Requirements The required waste diversion amounts will be based on the calculated amount of solid waste existing on the date of approval of the city or county SRRE. To determine the base rate of solid waste from which these recycling lev- els will be calculated, "solid waste" includes only pjIA64V6a0101 p 8 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 • materials tha! are normally disposed of at a landfill or transformation facility solid wastes currently diverted from a landfill or transfor- mation facility because of source reduction. recycling, or composting programs Agricultural wastes and other wastes not normally disposed of at landfills are not included in this base rate calculation. The 50 percent diversion rate may include up to 10 percent diversion through transformation, provided that the front-end removal of recyclable materials and other specified conditions are met. Other Provisions of AB 939 Revisions to existing law in AB 939 include (1) replacement of the Califor- nia Waste Management Board by a California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Board with six full-time members, (2) implementation of new requirements in the city and county waste management planning process, (3) recasting of the waste management framework. and (4) various fund- ing mechanisms for the required programs and plans. The state has hired 250 new employees to staff the new CIWMB. The following requirel.,ents were recodified by AB 939: Solid waste facilities. AB 939 establishes a comprehensive statewide system of permitting, inspections, enforcement, cleanup. maintenance, and closure for solid waste faciiities. While the system will continue to be implemented by local jurisdictions where applicable, the state's role has generally been strengthened. Specifically, local enforcement agen- cies (LEAs) will be subject to CIWMB certification. The CIWMB will pre- pare and adopt certification regulations specifying requirements that the LEA shall meet before being designated as an enforcement agency. The CIWMB will also adopt minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal to protect air, water. and land from pollution. Owners or operators of solid waste landfills must also provide financial assurances for closure and postclosure maintenance. Enforcement. AB 939 outlines a system d civil penalties. corrective actions, appeals. and judicial review for the enforcement of terms and conditions of solid waste facility permits. The CIWMB may issue a cease and desist or cleanup and abatement order if (1) the LEA fails to issue pP1644640101 p 9 Rev 0 December23.1991 such orders and (2)the CIWMB agrees ?hat such orders need to be imposed. Solid waste disposal site cleanup and maintenance. Every operator of a solid waste landfill required to have a permit will be assessed a fee which will be placed in the existing solid waste disposal site cleanup and maintenance account in the solid waste management fund. Money in the account will be controlled by the CIWMB and allocated to cities and coun- ties for uses regarding the safe operation, closure, and maintenance of solid waste landfills. Household hazardous wastes. AB 939 requires the CIWMB to develop and implement a public information program to provide information on the proper disposal of household hazardous wastes and give technical assis- tance to local public agencies to establish household hazardous waste management programs. Finances. Every operator of a solid waste landfill shall pay a quarterly fee to the Board of Equalization. based on all solid waste disposed of at each disposal site on or after January 1, 1990. The money will be used for administration and other purposes specified by the legislature, which will apprl phate funds from the account. Garbage and refuse disposal. AB 939 establishes criteria for (1) the for- mation of garbage disposal districts. funded by property taxes. (2) franchise waste management within a county, (3)contract waste man- agement within a city, and (4) solid waste enterprises to operate within a community. It also contains restrictions on burning garbage. Relationship of AB 939 to Other Legislation Several pieces of cleanup legislation related to AB 939 have passed that modify the impact of the legislation. These bills include Senate Bill (SB) 1322 This bill establishes a comprehensive set of state programs to promote (1) integrated waste management, (2) source reduc- tion, and (3) market development for recovered materials. SB 1322 will establish recycling market development zones with regulatory and fiscal incentives. In addition, the CIWMB will be required to provide technical assistance to enable LEAs to conduct waste reduction evaluations and implement recovery of high-grade white office paper. A statewide public information and education program will be initiated to encourage parlicipa- pif'464111640101 p 10 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 tion by the general public. business, government, and industry in all phases of integrated waste management. Assembly Bill 1820. AB 1820 permits the use of pre-existing data or studies that accurately characterize the waste generated and disposed of within the jurisdiction. This bill requires (1) only the amount of seasonal sampling necessary to achieve the 25 percent diversion target for the 1995 deadline (rather than the "maximum extent possible"). (2)the con- stituent materials identified in the waste characterization to be repre- sentative of the solid waste generated (in contrast to the former language: to be representative "to the maximum extent feasible"), and (3) waste quantities to be "as accurate as possible" to enable the CIWMB to accu- rately measure the diversion requirements. Assembly Bill 2707. This bill requires each city to submit a separate HHWE to the county by July 1, 1991. AB 939 had included a household hazardous waste component in the SRRE. As a result of AB 2707, this component was elevated to the status of an "Element." Assembly Bill 3992. This bill defines "solid waste" for the purpose of determining the base amount from which diversion levels shall be cal- culated. It also requires the CIWMB to consider only relevant circum- stances in determining civil penalties for any city or county which fails to implement its SRRE. Waste Generation In 1990, 67,2111 tons of solid waste were disposed of by the City of Lodi residents. Twenty-nine percent of the Iity's disposed wastestream is generated from residential sources, while 17 percent is from commercial and 21 percent is from industrial and roll -off boxes. Thirty-three percent is from self -haulers who haul their own waste to San Joaquin County's landfill or to the Lodi Transfer Station. Almost 54 percent of the City's wastestream is diverted from landfill disposal through a wide variety of recycling, source reduction, and composting activities. including CWRS' extensive commercial and industrial source separation programs. Some waste is diverted from disposal but is not considered "countable" towards diversion rates due to the fact that these wastes (tires and wood) p1f11641t640101 p 11 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 are burned at waste -!+energy facilities. This is called transformation in AB 939. Lodi's Waste Diversion Program History The following is a brief history of the waste diversion programs imple- mented in the City. Tokay Recycling is a buy-back/processing center located in Lodi. Tokay Recycling accepts all materials for which there is a market including high density polyethylene (HDPE) and telephone books. It accepts industrial and postconsumercorrugated high-grade paper (computer paper, colored, and white ledger), newsprint. polyethylene terephthalate (PET), HDPE. refillable beverage containers, California redemption glass, used beverage containers, scrap aluminum. nonferrous metals (brass, copper, etc.), and phone books. Ramrock Environmental Recycling Company, Incorporated recycles asphalt, broken concrete, and reinforced concrete generated within the City. It is located just outside of Lodi in Lockeford. California Waste Removal Systems. Incorporated is located in Lodi and provides an extensive array of comprehensive integrated solid waste management services to the City. These services include solid waste col- lection services and operation of the CWRS materials recovery facility, transfer station, recycling center, and composting facility. CWRS' exten- sive and comprehensive recycling activities include a curbside program; collection service at churches, businesses, and schools; buy-back centers; and public education. The curbside program provides three color -coded recycling pails for news- paper, aluminum, PET plastics, tin cans, and glass. Drop-off boxes are used to collect newspaper, cardboard, glass, and aluminum from churches, businesses, various nonprofit organizations. and commercial industries. CWRS operates two California -certified redemption centers which accept newspaper, cardboard, aluminum cans, HOPE and PET plastic. glass, high-grade ledger paper, and computer paper. CWRS also has public awareness/public education programs related to its office paper, community accounts. and Lodi Unified School District recy- cling programs. pit,164\1640101 p 12 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 The office paper program sponsored by CWRS requires participating businesses to designate a "recycling coordinator" to oversee and encour- age other employees to participate in the plan. The community accounts program established by CWRS is designed for schools, clubs. and other nonprofit organizations. CWRS will credit partici- pants for their recyclables. The panicipants can also take the materials to one of the CWRS buy-back centers to credit iheir community account. The Lodi Unified School District and other local schools work with CWRS and the City. This program involves lessons about the importance of recy- cling and preservation of natural resources for kindergarten through eighth graders. A student assembly for elementary students is also held to demonstrate how recycling works. The schools use the funds raised from their sites' collection of newspapers and aluminum cans for extracurricular activities. CWRS also contributes a portion of the funds generated from the sale of recyclable materials from its curbside program directly to Ud schools for public education special events and classroom needs. Goals for the Lodi S RRE Definition of Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the Lodi SRRE t to meet the state -mandated waste diversion goals of 25 and 50 percent by 1995 and 2000, respectively, or as they may be revised by subsequent legislation. Goals are stated in general terms and are not quantified by target dates, waste types, or volumes. Goals are general statements cf policy and will be used to guide the overall direction of the solid waste management pro- gram within Lodi. Objectives are more specific and serve to target certain aspects of the overall goals. Objectives are based in part on local considerations neces- sary to achieve state -mandated diversion rates. Generally. objectives are stated in measurable and quantifiable terms and are thus presented in their respective components p11164\1 640101 p 13 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Integrated Waste Management Goals for Lodi Overall Program Goals Structure waste management practices within the City to promote increased source reduction, recycling. and com- posting to meet or exceed the following waste diversion objectives: 25 percent by January 1, 1995. and 50 percent by January 1,2000. 2. Support and encourage regional solutions appropriate to waste management problems. where possible and practi- cal. 3. Maximize recycling opportunities within the City. 4. Support and encourage public education and information programs which lead to a better understanding of solid waste management issues and which foster increased participation in City and regional programs by local citi- zens, businesses. service groups, schools, and other interested parties. 5. Encourage and foster the participation of the private solid waste refuse collectors, recyclers. citizen action groups. schools. and other interested parties. such as the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, the Woman's Club of Lodi. League of Women Voters. and the Sierra Club, in the integrated solid waste management planning process and the implementation of necessary programs. 6. Provide for sufficient landfill capacity for those wastes generated within the City that cannot be diverted. 7. Develop local markets, wherever feasible and possible. for the wastestream components comprising the City's landfill diversion targets. Encourage the establishment of waste diversion programs which are responsive to the needs and desires of the City's business community, con- sistent with public policies established by the City Council. Short-term Goals Source Reduction Coals 1. Encourage public participation in source reduction by educating the public about the consequences of their PiN64\1640101 p 14 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 decisicns with respect to the initta6 use, reuse. and ulti- mate disposal of products they may purchase. L Encourage source reduction practices in all aspects of City operations. 3. Minimize the quantity of solid waste generated. Recycling Goals 1. Maximize opportunities for City resicents to recycle. 2. Foster a positive environment by creating local markets for recyclable materials wherever possible and practical to do so. Cornposting Goals 1. Compost all yard wastes generated within the City of Lodi. 2. Promote a community-based yard waste collection and processing program. 3. Promote centralized local composting of yard wastes generated in Lodi. Special Wastes Goals 1. Provide opportunities for recycling special wastes gener- ated within the City such as sewage sludge, ash, tires, white goods, abandoned vehicles, dead animals, and asbestos. Public Information and Education Goals 1. Encourage public information and education programs in the community in order to heighten the public's awareness of solid waste management issues. 2. Involve private solid waste refuse collectors, recyclers, citizen action groups, and other interested parties in the integrated solid waste management planning process and the implementation of necessary programs. 3. Support and encourage interjurisdictional cooperation in integrated waste management planning and implementa- tion: pitN16411640t 01 p 15 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 4. Promote and support publiciprivate partnerships which work to achieve integrated solid waste management in Lodi. Goals for the medium term are related to reviewing each program for effectiveness and revising or modifying the programs as needed to meet the diversion goals. Disposal Capacity Goals 1. Develop and maintain sufficient disposal capacity for the City of Lodi'sdisposal needs. Funding Goals 1. Provide funding adequate to implement all the program objectives outlined in the SRRE . Integration Goals 1. Integrate all programs to achieve state -mandated diver- sion goals. Medium-term Goals 1. Review each program for effectiveness measured by meeting time lines, diversion goals, and monies to imple- ment. Reviews shall be completed by 1995. 2. Continue effective programs to reach the 50 percent level of source reduction and recycling rates. Decisions to con- tinue programs shall be completed by 1995. 3. Revise the programs which are not effective to help the City reach its goals. Revisions shall be completed by 1996. 4. Add any additional programs deemed necessary to meet the remaining diversion goals by 2000. Program additions shall be implemented no laterthan June 1996. pitt164lt640 Z 01 p 16 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 PROJECT LOCATION The regional location of the City of Lodi is shown on Figure 2. Lodi is located approximately 34 miles south of Sacramento. 13 miles north of Stockton. and 90 miles east of San Francisco. State Highway 99 runs in a north -south direction through the eastern portion of the City. Interstate Route 5 is 7 miles west of the City and also runs in a north -south direction. The plans and programs outlined in the SRRE are confined to within the Lodi city limits. Environmental Setting Lodi was incorporated in 1906. Over the last 10 years, the City has grown from a town of approximately 35,000 to an urban area cf close to 52.000 residents. The 1990 census officially puts Lodi's population at 51,874 resi- dents. Lodi is San Joaquin County's second largest city, with Stockton being the largest. Lodi's population is approximately 11 percent of the tote.; population of San Joaquin County. The City is surrounded by vineyards. These vineyards are primarily Zinfan- del and Flame Tokay grapes. References to these grapes can be found throughout the City. The Lodi Grape Festival is an 80 -year-old tradition created to celebrate the fall harvest. The festival is a nationally recognized event which attracts visitors from all over the region. Agriculture is a major contributor to Lodi's economy, as well as providing valuable open space around the community. The City of Lodi has a strong sense of community with its well-maintained tree -lined streets in the residential areas and attractive buildings and his- torical structures in the downtown area. Lodi Lake Park and Nature Area and numerous other parks are a valuable asset to this small town commu- nity. Lodi's city limits are generally defined by the Mokelumne River on the north, the Central California Traction Company railroad tracks on the east, Harney Lane on the south. and the Woodbridge Irrigation District canal on the west. The City contains 5,091 acres. Residential land represents 47 percent of the incorporated area; commercial property represents 8 percent; industrial property represents 11 percent: 22 percent is deli- plf16414640101 p 17 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 cared to public and quasi -public uses, including parks; 4 percent is agri- cultural; and 8 percent is vacant land (City of Lodi Draft General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., April 1990). According to the City's Draft General Plan. Lodi's housing mix changed substantially in the 1980s with a dramatic increase in the number of multi- family dwelling units. City solid waste is currently hauled after processing to the North County Sanitary Landfill and Recycling Center. Previously. wastes were hauled to the Harney Lane Landfill which closed in September 1991. Processing takes place at the CWRS Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center at 1333 East Turner Road in Lodi. AB 939 defines a transfer station as those facilities utilized to receive solid wastes, tem- porarily store, separate, convert, or otherwise process the materials in the solid wastes, or to transfer the solid wastes directly from smaller or larger vehicles for transport, and those facilities utilized for transformation. The facility also has a materials recovery facility. AB 939 regulations define a materials recovery facility as a permitted solid waste facility where solid wastes or recyclable materials are sorted or separated, by hand or by use of machinery. for the purposes of recycling or composting. CWRS sepa- rates out the recyclables such as cardboard, newspaper, PET, HDPE, polystyrene plastics, aluminum, tin. office and computer paper, glass (clear, green, and brown), and wood. Wood is sold to local waste -to - energy facilities. Sorted construction and demolition waste is sold to gravel companies for reuse. The other recyclables are baled and transported to local brokers for sale. There is also a recycling center and composting facility on site. According to information contained in the City of Lodi Draft General Plan. Draft Environmental impact Report. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.. April 1990, Lodi has 2,406 acres of residential land, representing 47 percent of the incorporated area; 357 acres of commercial (7 percent); 65 acres of offices (1 percent); 554 acres of industrial (1 1 percent); 1.126 acres of publidquasi-public and park lands (22 percent); 200 acres of agricultural lands (4 percent); and 382 acres of vacant land (8percent). The draft environmental impact report goes on to state that the 200 acres of agricultural land use is intermingled with industrial uses near the north- eastern corner of the City. NO land is designated as agricultural on either City zoning or general plan land use maps. pil;164A640101 p 18 Rev. 0 December23, 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM An environmental impact report (EIR) was completed in May 1991 for CWRS' transfer stationimaterials recovery facility and recycling center expansion (California State Clear- inghouse #90020924). That project is now in the permitting and design phase. There - tore. this initial study will not address the impacts that would be associated with that facility. although it is a focal point of the City's SRRE and the implementation of the pro- grams in the SRRE depend upon the construction of the CWRS facility. Most, if not all. of the impacts which could have resulted from implementing programs in the City's SRRE were anticipated and addressed in that EIR. I. Background A. Name of Proponent: City of Lodi B. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 221 West Pine Street Lodi. California 95241-1910 (209) 333-6700 C Date of Checklist Submittal: D. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Lodi Community Development Depanment E. Name of Proposal, if Applicable: Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element pp'464V640101 p 19 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers follow) A Earth. Will the proposal result ►n Yes Maybe No unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? 2. disruptions, displacementG compaction, x or overcovering of the soil? 3. change in topography or ground surface x relief failures? 4. destruction. covering, or modifications X of any unique geologic or physical features? 5. an increase in wind or water erosion of x soils, either on or off the site? 6. changes in deposition or erosion of beach x sands, or changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake? 7. exposure of people or property to geologic X hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? B. Air. Will the proposal result in 1. substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? There are no ambient air quality monitoring stations in the City. Generally, there has been little overall change in the last 6 years (Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., 1990). The air pollutants of greatest concern are ozone and carbon monoxide, which are associated with vehicle traffic. Traffic congestion is generally not considered a problem in Lodi. In addition, vehicle inspection pit, &44640101 p 20 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 programs :n place in San Joacltwn County are designed to further red;:ce vehicle emissions. CWRS presently operates a combination of 18 manua! and semiautomated trucks. With the three -cart system for collect;on of yard wastes. commingled recyciables. and refuse, CWRS will also purchase 13 additional semiautomated Collection trucks. The present collection syste'71 uses a combination d semiautomated and manual collection vehicles. Con- version to a completely semiautomated system will result in fewer vehicles servicing the same number of homes. Air quality impacts were examined �11 the EIR for CWRS' expanded facility. Three scenarios were examined. (1)the existing condition, (2) the proposed expansion of the transfer station handling five times the current wastestream. and (3) no expansion of the transfer station but still achieving AB 939's -mandated diversion rates of 25 and 50 percent. Under the third scenario, recycling was assumed to occur at the proposal sites. While there were increases in air emissions over the existing conditions. the second scenario of expanding the transfer station to handle the proposed waste volumes showed a slight advantage in terms of air quality. Mitigation measures to help reduce air quality impacts were pro- p osed in the EIR and are outlined below. a. continuous maintenance of vehicles to assure emissions are kept within required tolerances b. continuous upgrading of the service fleet by the owner with the goal to ensure that newer equipment with lower emissions makes up a substan- tial part of the service fleet c. enclosing. to the greatest extent possible, the tipping floor and other areas where materials are handled d. use of electric -powered rather than gasoline- or diesel -powered stationary equipment e. pave the entire area of operations f. obtain Air Pollution Control District (APCD) authority to construct and permits to operate for all new stationary equipment g, comply with fugitive dust control measures of the APCD during and after construction pit 164',1640101p 21 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 B Air. (continued) Will the proposal result in 2 :he creation of objectionable odors? Impacts associated with the MRS mat- erials recovery facility were dis- cussed in the EIR relating to its expansion. Odors are emitted from yard wastes and refuse. However, since each of the collection containers is covered with an attached lid. the potential for objectionable odors is minimized. 3. alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate. either locally or regionally? C. Water. Will the proposal result in 1. changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 2. changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 3. alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 4. change in the amount of surface water in any water body? 5. discharge into surface water or in any alteration of surface -water quality includ- ing, but not limited to. temperature, dis- solved oxygen, or turbidity? 6. alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? _X.es__ Maybe _ No X M R X EI M K X pjf'464`t640101 p 22 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 C III Water. (continued) Ws1i the proposai result in change in the quantity of ground water, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer. by cuts or excavations7 8 substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 9. exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Yes_ Mme _ No x X FA The Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake are the two principal water features in Ludi. `Aost of the City is located within the 500 -year floodplain according to the draft EIR for the general plan (Jones and Stokes Associates. Inc., 1990). It is well protected from the 100 -year flood by the levee system along the Mokelumne River. The additional curbside collection of recyclables. public involvement programs, and commercial recycling programs such as office paper programs will not have an impact on water resources. Impacts result- ing from expansion of CWRS' operations have been addressed in the EIR for that project (EBA Wastetechnologies. 1991). Plant life. Will the proposal result in 1. change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? 2. reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? 3. introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? pit t34 1640101 p 23 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 D Plant life. (continued) Ye'; Mavbe _ No Will the proposal result in reduction in acreage of Liv -rin- x cultural crop? The programs which are described in the ERRE would not adversely impact the biological diversity of the area. In fact, by providing additional avenues for people to get rid of their unwanted materials through increased recycling and reuse programs, habitat may even be improved somewhat by reducing litter and illegal dumping. The SRRE does not require or condition the conversion of undeveloped areas to urban uses. E. Animal life. Will the proposal result in i . change in the diversity of species or numbers c` any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles. fish and shellfish, benthic Organisms, or insects)? 2. reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? 3. introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? 4. deterioration of existing fish or wild- life habitat? F. Noise. Will the proposal result in 1. increase in existing noise levels? 2. exposure of people to severe noise levels? Yes Mavbe No X FA X X X pj111641640101 p 24 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 F Noise. (Continued) Ai the proposal result in Traffic nose is the most dominant scarce of noise within the City of Lodi. With more recycling collection trucks traveling city streets, there could be an increase in ambient noise levels, particularly in residential neighborhoods bordering Turner Road. Harney Lane. and Kettleman Lane. However, it is likely that the increase in traffic noise levels would occur gradually and would not be serious. Also, absent specifi,- details on residential and commercial collection rates, site-specific impacts are difficult to assess. However, noise impacts were assessed at CWRS' Turner Road facility for the EIR on the proposed expansion. That evaluation did account for the level of truck traffic that would result from expanded residential. commercial, and industrial recy- cling programs such as are envisioned in the City's SRRE. Assuming that all mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented. noise impacts from implementing the programs in this SRRE are expected to be insignifi- cant. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR are outlined below. a. Construct a 12 -foot -high noise berm or barrier with no openings between the parking -storage area and mobile home park. This plus other mitiga- tions listed herein will reduce project -induced noise levels below 60 decibels "A" weighted (dBA) average day -night level (Ldn). b. Change, through attrition, the refuse truck fleet to models that have underbody exhausts and produce not more than 71 to 73 dBA at 50 feet while traveling at 25 miles per hour (i.e., medium truck levels). A 5 to 6dBA reduction in truck noise would make future roadway noise levels the same as the no -project level (see Table N-4). c. Use of rib tread tires on the transfer and refuse truck fleet is recom- mended (see discussion in Appendix E from City Noise Element about truck mitigations). e. Advise truck drivers to accelerate slowly when westbcund or eastbound at the Turner/Beckman intersection. f. Trucks that leave between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. should be parked furthest from the mobile home park (i.e., in parking lot 2 of the east por- tion of lot 1). 0 All movement of storage adjacent to the mobile home park to take place during the day (7 00 a m to 7 00 p m) p;t 164',1640101p 25 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 F Noise. (Continued} Will the proposal result in YesMaybe N -e— h Construct a t 4-toot-hic E noise wall or berm surrounding the west and southwest side c' ­rl mP`,ai recovery area. i. Construct a 12 -foot -high noise wall along the east property line from Turner Road north to the shop building. Monitor off-site noise effects and take remedial action, as needed, to hying off-site impacts into compliance to the extent !hey are attributable to the transfer station. G. Light and glare. Will the proposal result X it new light or glare? H. Land use. Will the proposal result in a X substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? I. Natural resources. Will the proposal res- x ult in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? One of the purposes of Assembly Bill 939 and the City of Lodi's SRRE is to conserve natural resources through source reduction, reuse of materials. recycling, and composting. The City is mandated to divert 25 percent of its waste by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. J. Risk of upset. Will the proposal involve 1. a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to. oil. pesticides. chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 2. possible interference with an emer- gency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Yes Maybe No X KA pif%f644640101 p 26 Rev. 0 December 24. 1991 J Risk of upset. ►Continued Will the proposal involve __YAC*._ aYbe No The project does not invc!ve the use of unregulated hazardous substances. However. incidental amounts of household hazardous waster, (cleaning sup- plies, solvent. pesticides) are inadvertently disposed of by householders aiong with their normal household refuse. Hazardous waste screening pro- grams are required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board(s) and the California integrated Waste Management Board. The hazardous waste screening program used v the City's franchise refuse hauler, CWRS. is contained in Appendix C of the Egg for CWRS' expanded facility. K Population. Will the proposal alter the X location. distribution, density. or growth rate of the human population of an area? L. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing X housing or create a demand for additional housing? M Transportation/circulation. Will the proposal result in generation of substantial additional X vehicular movements? 2. effects on existing parking facilities. X or demand for new parking? substantial impact upon existing trans- X portation systems? 4. alterations to present patterns of circ- X ulation or movement of people and/or goods? 5 alterations to waterborne. rail. or air X traffic? 6 increases in traffic hazards to motor X vehicles, bicyclists. or pedestrians? f64 t640101 p 2 7 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 The generation of additional vehicular movement and traffic hazards was addressed in the EiR for the expansi; n of CWRS' facility. The UR ;^c;cates that there will be minor adverse impacts in the immediate vicinity cf the transfer station. Cumulative impacts are brought about by projected growth in the industrial area. N Public services. Will the proposal have an Yes Mavbe Nc effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: i. !ire protection? x 2. police protection? X 3. schools? X 4. parks or other recreational facilities? X 5. maintenance of public facilities, X including roads? 6. other governmental services? X With the proposed three -cart refuse and recyclable collection service, there will be less potential for litter on City streets than at present. With three sepa- rate waste Carts, there will be less of a problem with overflowing containers. In addition, each waste cart has an attached lid to prevent blowing refuse. O. Energy. Will the proposal result in Yes Mavbe No 1. use of substantial amounts of fuel X or energy? 2. substantial increase in demand upon X existing sources of energy, or require the development cf new sources of energy? pil 1644640101 p 28 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 P Utilities. Will the proposal result in Yes Maybe No a need for new systems, or substantiai a!terations to the foliowing facilities: electrical power or natural gas? X 2 communications systerr.? X 3. water? X 4. sewer or septic tanks? X 5. storm -water drainage? X 6. solid waste and disposal? X The City's franchise refuse hauler. CWRS, has anticipated that AB 939 and the mandate to divert 25 and 50 percent of the wastestream in 1995 and 2000. respectively. would have an impact on the existing transfer station, resource recovery. and recycling center operations. Accordingly, CWRS has proceeded with plans to expand its facility in anticipation of increased diver- sion programs. An EIR has been prepared consistent with requirements of the California Environmental Quaiity Act. CWRS is proceeding with obtaining state and local permits for the expanded facility. Q. Human health. Will the proposal result'in 1. creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? 2. exposure of people to potential health hazards? R. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the destruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Yes Mavbe No X X X pit t6. 4649101 p 29 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Maybe S Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quant4ty al existing recreational opportunities? T Cultural resources. 1 Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 2. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure. or object? 3. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? 4. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? U. Mandatory findings of significance. Does the project have the poten- tial to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal com- munity. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. or eliminate impor- tant examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? x x X X X X pit t64,1640101 p 30 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 U Mandatory findings of significance. iConthnued) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cum- ulatively considerable? (A project may impact two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small. but where the effect on the environment is significant.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly? _ Yes__ Maybe _.._ No x x FA RI! 1644640101p 31 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Ili. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required. Please attach sepa- rate sheets) with discussion. if necessary. See attached sheets. Date Signature and Title For plIA644640101 p 32 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 IV, Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation Ifind Ihat the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and a NEG.WIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifi- cant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a sig- nificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date 6 11-M nature For O1 pjf13844640101p 33 Rev 0 December 23.1991 REFERENCES California Waste Removal Systems. integrated Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan for the City of Lodi. February 1991. EBA Wastechnologies. 89-182-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for California Waste Removal Systems. Inc. Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center Expansion. SCH #90020924. February 1991. EBA Wastechnologies. 89-182-2 Responses to Comments on Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report. California Waste Removal Systems, Inc. Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center Expansion. SCH #90020924. May 1991. EBA Wastechnologies. Initial Study Environmental Impacts for California Waste Removal Systems. Inc. Transfer Station/Resource Recovery Facility and Recycling Center Expansion. July 1990. EMCQN Associates. City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Ele- ment, Preliminary Draft Report. September 1991. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. City of Lodi Draft General Plan, Environ- mentai Impact Report. April 1990. pOV64 640' 01 p 34 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 C} E O C7 �1 N O CL U. 3. O O cC c Q V_ Q} Q. co W CL x uj u ro � CL H \ N C3 Ci o0 U' Q Cfl � R Q� f o J O U m o ... .. to 0 cu N U_ C 21 O v 0 O C7 �1 N O CL U. 3. O O cC c Q V_ Q} Q. co W CL x uj FIGURE 2 REGIONAL SETTING a ASSOCIATES Gonsullants m wastes Wanogwhant ;,nu F'."O t 4 ,tat (", tm' Mr Kirk Evans Administrative Assistant to the City Manager City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street P O Box3006 Lodi. California 95241-1910 December 23. 1991 Project F64-01.01 Re: Source Reduction and Recycling Element for the City of Lodi - Final Dratt Report Dear Mr. Evans: 4 EMCON Associates (EMCON) is pleaseo to provide you with the source reduc- tion and recycling element final draft copy for the City of Lodi (City). We have incorporated the comments d the countywide local task force and the city's solid s waste management (SWAM) task force into the document. A copy of the Califor- : nia Environmental Quality Act initial study is also included for submittal to the City Community Development Department. EMCON wants to take the opportunity to thank both you, the SWAM force. and California Waste Removal Systems for all of your hard work and dedication with- out which this document would not be possible. A If you have any questions, please call It A Very truly yours. EMC flss ci 4 Cheryl . Shields Project Manager ' CLS:Idr PJRFEA1F640101Q 1433 N Market Boulevard, Sacramento. Calltort, ,c)c1 t Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element Final Draft Report Prepared for City of Lodi December 1991 Prepared by EMCON Associates 1433 North Market Boulevard Sacramento, California 95834 0 .4 CONTENTS Tables and illustration* x1 Lodi Solid Waste Management Task Force xiii Glossary of Terms AV Executive Summary xv 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Legislative Basis for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element 1-1 1.1.1 City Requirements 1-2 1.1.2 County Requirements 1-2 1.1.3 Time Extension 1-2 1.1.4 General Requirements 1-3 1.1.5 Other Provisions of AB 939 1-3 1.1.6 Relationship of AB 939 to Other Legislation 1-5 1,2 Waste Generation 1-6 1.3 Lodi's Waste Diversion Program History 1-6 1.4 Goals for the Lodi SRRE 1-8 1.4.1 Definition of Goals and Objer{ivos 1.8 1.4.2 IntegratedWaste Management Goals for Lodi 1.8 1.4.3 Short-term Goals (1991-1994) 1-9 1.4.4 Medium-term Goals (1995-1999) 1-11 1.5 Organization of Lodi's SRRE 1-11 ' Note: Tables and Illustrationscan be found at the e'er of each section or component PJF\F641F64010i0 Rev.1 December27.1991 Contents I It I CONTENTS (Contir!ued) 2 Waste Generation Component 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Local Demographics 2.2 2.3 Wastestream Flow 2-4 2.4 Solid Waste Disposal Study 2-6 2.4.1 Current Waste Collection and Disposal Practices 2-5 2.4.2 Methodology 2-7 2.4.3 Waste Quantity Investigations 2-7 2.4.4 Waste Composition Investigation 2-7 2.4.5 Results 2-7 2.4.6 Seasonal Variation 2-8 2.5 Solid Waste Diversion Characterization 2-9 2.5.1 Current Solid Waste Diversion Practices 2-9 2.5.2 Methodology 2-9 2.5.3 Results 2-11 2.6 Population Projections 2-12 2.7 Waste Generation Analysis 2-13 2.7,1 Introduction 2-13 2.7.2 Quantities Diverted and Disposed 2-13 2.7.3 Materials Targeted for Diversion 2-13 2.7.4 Materials that will not be Divertedfrom Disposal 2-14 2.8 Solid Waste Generation Projections 2-15 2.9 Solid Waste Data Reporting System 2-15 3 Source Reduction Component 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Gods and Objectives 3-2 PJt`'1P641F640101 Q ii Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) 3.3 Existing Conditions Description 3-5 3.3.1 Private Business Source Reduction Activities 3.6 3.3.2 State Source Reduction Programs 3-7 3,J.3 National Source Reduction Efforts 3-7 3.4 Evaluation of Alternatives 3-9 3.4.1 Category 1. Rate Structure 3.5.2 Cooperative or Multi}urisdictional Modifications 3-11 3.4.2 Category 2. Economic Incentives 3-13 3.4.3 Category 3. Technical Assistance 3-24 3.6.4 and Public Education 3-16 3.4.4 Category 4. Regulatory Programs 3-18 3.5 Selection of Program 3-20 3.5.1 Alternatives Selected 3-20 3.5.2 Cooperative or Multi}urisdictional Program Implementation Efforts, 3-24 Actions, and Activities 3-23 3.5.3 Facilities Needed for Implementation 3-24 3.6 Program Implementation 3-24 3.6.1 Government Agencies Responsible for Implementation 3-24 3.6.2 Implementation Tasks 3-24 3.6.3 Implementation Schedule 3-24 3.6.4 Implementation Costs, Revenues. and Revenue Sources 3-24 3.7 Monitoringand Evaluation 3-25 3.7.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives 3-25 3.7.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating the Programs' Effectiveness 3-27 3.7.3 Agencies Responsible for the Programs' Monitoring, Evaluation. and Reporting 3-27 PJF\F641F640101Q ifl, Rev 1 December27,1991 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) 3.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues. and Revenue Sources 3-27 3.7.5 Contingency Measures 3-27 4 Recycling Component 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Goals and Objectives 4-1 4.3 Waste Categories Targeted for Diversion 4.3 4.4 Existing Conditions Description 4-3 4.4.1 Residential Programs 4-4 4.4.2 Nonresidential Programs 4-5 4.4.3 Residential and Nonresidential 4-34 4.6.3 Programs 4-7 4.4.4 Market Development Activities 4-8 4.5 Evaluation of Program Alternatives 4-8 4.5.1 Residential Alternatives 4-10 4.5.2 Nonresidential Alternatives 4-20 4.5.3 Residential and Nonresidential Requirements Cannot be Met 4-37 Alternative 4-24 4.5.4 Other Program Considerations 4-32 4.6 Selection of a Program 4-32 4.6.1 Alternatives Selected 4-33 4.6.2 Quantities and Types of Wastes Anticipated to be Diverted 4-34 4.6.3 End Markets. End Uses, and Back-up Markets for Diverted Materials 4-36 4.6.4 Materials Handling and Disposal Needs 4-36 4.6.5 Facility Requirements 4-36 4.6.6 Identification of Measures to be Taken if Requirements Cannot be Met 4-37 4.6.7 Market Conditions 4-38 PJFIF641F6401010 iv Rev. 1 December27, 1991 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) 47 Program Implementation 4-43 4.7.1 Short-term and Medium-term Planning Period Implementation Schedule 4-44 4.7.2 Implementation Costs, 4-44 4.7.3 Actions Plannedto Deter Scavenging 4-44 4.8 Program Monitoring and Evaluation 4-46 4.8.1 Methodsto Ouantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives 4-44 4.8.2 Written Criteria for Evaluatingthe Programs' Effectiveness 4-a5 4.8.3 Parties Responsible for Monitoring. Evaluating, and Reporting 4-45 4.8.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Funding 5-27 Requirements 4-45 4.8.5 Measuresto be Implemented if Monitoring 5-28 Shows a Shortfall 4-46 5 Composting Component 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Goals and Objectives 5-2 5.3 Existing Conditions Description 5-3 5.3.1 Market Development, Economic Development, and Consumer Incentives 5-4 5.4 Evaluationd Program Alternatives 5-5 5.4.1 Alternative 1. Implement Collection Alternatives 5-7 5.4.2 Alternative 2. Implement Processing Alternatives 5-17 5.4.3 End Uses for Processing Alternatives 5-23 5.5 Selection of Program 5-27 5.5.1 Alternatives Selected 5-27 5.5.2 Estimated Diversion Quantities 5-28 PJF\F641F6401010 v Rev. 1 December 27. 1991 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) 5.5.3 End Markets and End Uses 5-29 55.4 Materials Handling and Disposal Needs 5-29 5.5.5 Facility Needs 5-30 55.6 Measures to be Taken if Diversion Rate Requirements Cannot be Met 5-30 5.6 Program Implementation 5-30 5.6.1 Government Agencies Responsible for Implementation 5-30 5.6.2 Tasks Necessaryto Implement Program 5-31 5.6.3 Short-term and Medium-term Planning Period Implementation Schedule 532 5.6.4 Implementation Costs 5-32 5.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 5-32 5.7. t Methods to Quantity and Monitor Achievement of Objectives 5-32 5.7.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating Program's Effectiveness 5-32 5.7.3 Agencies Responsible for Monitoring. Evaluating, and Reporting 5-33 5.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues, and Revenue Sources 5-31 5.7.5 Measuresto be Implemented ifThere is a Shortfall in the Diversion Objectives 5-33 6 Special Waste Component 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Goals and Objectives 6.2 6.2.1 Targeted Materials 6-2 6.3 Existing Conditions Description 6-3 6.3.1 Tires 6-3 6.3.2 White Goods 6-4 6.3.7 Construction/r �molition Wastes 6-5 PJF1F641F640101 O vi Rev. 2 January 6,1992 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) 6.4 Evaluation of Alternatives 6-5 6.4.1 Alternative 1- White Goods Separation at the CWRS Transfer Station 6-6 6.4.2 Alternative 2 Used Tire Separation at the CWRS Transfer Station 6-7 6.4.3 Alternative 3. Feasibility Study for a Waste-to-Energy(WTE) Facility 6-9 6.5 Selection of Program 6-11 6.5.1 Selected Alternatives 6-11 6.5.2 Quantities and Types of Wastes Anticipated to be Diverted 6-11 6.5.3 Applicable End Uses 6-12 6.5.4 Handling and Disposal Methods 6-12 6.5.5 Facilitiesto be Utilized for Implementation 6-13 6.6 Program Implementation 6-13 6.6.1 Organizations Responsiblefor Implementation 6-13 6.6.2 Tasks Necessary to implement Program 6-13 6.6.3 Short-term and Medium-term Planning Period Implementation Schedule 6-13 6.6.4 Implementation Costs, Revenues, and Revenue Sources 6-13 6.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 6-14 6.7.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives 6-14 6.7.2 Criteria for Evaluating Programs' Effectiveness 6-14 6.7.3 Responsible Parties for Monitoring. Evaluating, and Reporting 6-14 6.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation of Funding Requirements 6-15 6.7.5 Measures to be Implemented if Special Waste Objectives are Not Achieved 6-15 PJF1F64NF640101 Q vii Rev. 1 December 27,1991 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) 7 Educationand Public Information Component 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Goals 7-2 7.3 Component Objectives 7-2 7.4 Existing Conditions Description 7-4 7.4.1 City -sponsored Residential and Commercial Programs 7-4 7.4.2 Residential and Commercial Programs (Sponsored by CWRS) 7-5 7.5 Program Selection 7-6 7.5.1 Public Information and Outreach 7-7 7.5.2 Technical Assistance Programs 7-9 7.5.3 Campaigns and Motivating Activities 7-11 7.6 Targeted Generators 7-12 7.7 Program Implementation 7-13 7.7.1 Government Agencies Responsiblefor 7-17 Implementation 7-13 7.7.2 Actions Necessaryto Implement Activities 7-14 7.7.3 Implementation Schedule 7-15 7.7.4 Implementation Costs 7-15 7.8 Monitoring and Evaluation 7-15 7.8.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives 7-15 7.8.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating the Programs' Effectiveness 7-16 7.8.3 Agencies, Organizations, or Persons (or a Combination) Responsible for the Programs' Monitoring, Evaluating, and Reporting 7-16 7.8.4 Monitoring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues. and Revenue Sources 7-17 PJF1F641F6401010 Viii Rev.1 December27.1991 Contents CONTENTS (Continued) t 05 we PJF1F641F640101 a ix Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Contents 7.8.5 Contingency Measures 7-17 7.8.6 Monitoring and Reporling Schedule 7-18 8 Disposal Capacity Component 8-1 8.1 Existing Permitted Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 8-1 8.1.1 Existing Sanitary Landfill 8-1 8.1.2 North County Landfill and Recycling Center 8-2 8.1.3 Lodi Transfer Station 8-2 8.2 Waste Export 8-3 8.3 Disposal Facility Phase Out or Closure 8-4 8.4 New or Expanded Disposal Facility 8-4 9 Funding Component 9-1 9.1 Current Funding Sources 9-2 9.2 Estimated Program Costs 9-2 9.3 Revenue for New and Expanded Programs 9-3 9.3.1 Public Sources of Revenues 9-3 9.3.2 Private Sources of Revenues 9-3 9.4 Contingency Funding Sources 9-5 10 Integration Component 10.1 10.1 Introduction 10-1 10.2 Waste Diversion 10-1 10.2.1 Background 10-1 10.2.2 Current Diversion 10.2 10.2.3 Anticipated Future Diversion 10-3 10.3 Component Integration 10-5 10.4 Integrated Schedule 10-6 10.5 Monitoring Diversion 10-6 11 EMCON Statement of Limitations 11-1 t 05 we PJF1F641F640101 a ix Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Contents Table 3-1 What is Source Reduction? Tabie 3-2 Alternatives Evaluationfor Source Reduction Programs Table 3-3 Calendar of Source Reduction Tasks for the Short-term Planning Period Table 3-4 Implementation Costs and Revenue Source Table 4-1 TABLES AND ILLU,, ORATION' Tables Calendar of Recycling Tasks Table 2-1 Waste Types Sampled by San Joaquin County Table 2-2 Waste Disposal Quantities for the City of Lodi. 1990 Table 2-3 Summary of Wastes Disposed. Diverted, and Table 5.3 Generated in the City of Lodi (1990) Table 24A Summary of Diversion Quantities for the City of Lodi by Generator and Material Type (1990) Table 2-40 Summary of Diversion Quantities for the City of Lodi by Generator and Material Type (1990) Table 2-5 Residential Diversion by Activity Table 2-6 Commercial Diversion by Activity Table 2-7 Industrial Diversion by Activity Table 2-8 Population Projectionsfor the City of Lodi Table 2-9 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming Current Diversion Rates Table 2-10 15Year Waste Generation Projectiocs Assuming AB 939 Goals can be Achieved Table 3-1 What is Source Reduction? Tabie 3-2 Alternatives Evaluationfor Source Reduction Programs Table 3-3 Calendar of Source Reduction Tasks for the Short-term Planning Period Table 3-4 Implementation Costs and Revenue Source Table 4-1 Alternatives Evaluationfor Recycling Programs Table 4-2 Calendar of Recycling Tasks Table 4-3 Implementation Costs and Revenue Source Table 5-1 Summary of Composting Alternatives Evaluation - Table 5-2 Calendar of Composting Tasks Table 5.3 Estimated Annual Costs for Lodi Composting Program Note Tables and 111ustrahons can be found at the end of each section or component, PJF,F£4%F6401010 xi Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Tables and Illustrations `�rs- TABLES AND ILLUSTRATION (Continued) Table 6-1 Existing Special Wastes Gonditions for the City of Lodi Table 6-2 Summary of Special Wastes Alternatives Evaluation Table 6-3 Calendar of Special Waste Tasks Table 6-4 Implementation Costs and Revenue Source Table 7-1 Source Reduction, Public Education Activities Table 7-2 Recycling. Public Education Activities Table 7-3 Composting. Public Education Activities Table 7-4 Special Waste, Public Education Activities Table 8-1 City of Lodi. California Solid Waste Disposal Facility Capacity Needs Projection Assuming Current Diver- sion Rates Table 8-2 City of Lodi. California Solid Waste Disposal Facility Capacity Needs Projection Assuming AB 939 Tar- gets are Achieved by December 31, 1994, and December 31, 1999 Table 9-1 Estimated Costs, in 1991 Dollars, for the City of Lodi's SRRE Programs Which will be Undertaken by the Public Sector Table 9-2 Estimated Costs, in 1991 Dollars, for the City of Loci's SRRE Programs Which will be Undertaken by the Private Sector Table 10-1 New Program Implementation Table 10-2 Integrated Schedule for Short-term Programs Figure Figure 1 FJF, F64\F6401010 Waste Composition, City of Lodi. 1990 xir Rev 0 December 23.1991 Tables and Illustrations LODI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTTASK FORCE Dennis Deg - Chair Ren Vander Heiden - Vice Chair Mayor David M. Hinchman Barbara Bowers Janet Pruss Dave Mende Theo Vandenberg Glenn Robison Kevin Van Steenberge Dave Vaccarezza Kirk Evans, Assistant to the City Manager- Secretary PJF\F64%F6a01010 xiii Rev.0 December 23.1991 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AB Assembly Bill Aerobic The utilization of organic wastes as a substrate for the growth of bacteria which function in the presence of oxygen to reduce the volume of waste. Aluminum Can or Aluminum Any food or beverage container that is com- Contal ner posed of at least 94 percent aluminum. Anaerobic The utilization of organic wastes as a substrate for the growth of bacteria which function in the absence of oxygen to reduce the volume of waste. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials Bimetal Container any metal container composed of at least two different types of metal such as a steel con- tainer with an aluminum top. Buy-back Recycling A facility which pays a fee for the delivery and Center transfer of ownership to the facility of source - separated materials, for the purpose of recy- cling or composting. Capital Costs Those direct costs incurred in order to acquire real property assets such as land. buildings. and building additions: site improvements: machinery; and equipment. CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbons City City of Lodi CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board (formerly the California Waste Manage- ment Board) Pi F, F6-1' F6401010 AV Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) C3mrrercial Waste Waste generated in businesses. such as offices. stores, markets. etc. Composting A controlled microbial degradation of organic wastes yielding a humus -like product of poten- tial value as a soil conditioner. Corrugated Container A paperboard container fabricated from two layers of kraft linerboard sandwiched around a corrugating medium. Kraft linerboard paperboard made from wood pulp produce I by a modified sulfate pulping process, with t asic weight ranging from 18 to 200 pounds. manu- factured for use as facing material for cor- rugated or solid fiber containers. Linerboard also may mean that material which is made from reclaimed paper stock. Corrugating medium means paperboard made from chemi- cel or semichemical wood pulps, straw. or reclaimed paper stock. and folded to form per- manent cormgations. Construction Waste Y. aste materials produced in the construction of homes, office buildings, etc. Curbside Recycling Collection The separation of residential wastes into cate- gories at its point of origin or commingled recy- clable materials for the purpose of recycling pickup at the strut curb. CosWMP County solid waste management plan Disposal The management of solid wastes through land- filling or transformation at permitted solid waste facilities. Disposal Capacity The capacity expressed in either weight in tory or its volumetric equivalent in cubic yards, which is either currently available at a permit- ted solid waste landfill. or will be needed for the disposal of solid waste generated within the jurisdiction over a specified period of time. Disposal Site General term used fol' a transfer station or san- itary landfill where waste is disposed. PJF,F6a',F640101O xv Rev 0 December 23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Diversion Any activ,ty which prevents waste from being disposed of in a landfill. Diversion Alternative Any activity existing or occurring in the future. which has been. is. or will be implemented by a jurisdiction which can result in or promote the diversion of solid waste, resource reduction. recycling, or composting from solid waste land- fills and transformation facilities. Drop-off Recycles A facility which accepts delivery or transfer of Center ownership of source -separated materials for the purpose of recycling or composting. without paying a fee. Donation of materials to collection organizations, such as charitable groups, is included in this definition. Durability The ability of a product to be used for its intended purpose for a period greater than the mean usable product life spsn of similar prod- ucts. EIR Environmental impact report End Market or The use or uses of a diverted material or prod - End Use uct which has been returned to the economic mainstream. whether or not this return is through a sale of the material or product. The material or product can have a value which is less than the solid waste disposal cost. EPS Expanded polystyrene foam Ferrous Metals Any iron or steel scrap which has an irr>n con- tent sufficient for magnetic separation, Food Waste All animal and vegetable solid wastes gener- ated by food facilities. as defined in California Health and Safety Code, Section 27521. or from residences, that results from the storage. preparation, cooking, or handling of food. HDPE High density polyethylene. plastic container code no. 2 HHW Household hazardous waste FJF F64 F6401010 xvi Rev D December23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) HHWE Household hazardouswaste element HHWF Household hazardous waste facility Household Hazardous Waste Those wastes resulting from products pur- chased by the general public for household use which, because of their quantity. concentration. or physical, chemical, or infectious characteris- tics. may pose a substantial known or potential hazard to human health or the environment when not properly treated. disposed. or other- wise managed. industrial Waste All types of solid wastes from industrial pro- cessing and manufacturing operations. includ- ing construction and demolition wastes. Inert Solids or Nonliquid solid waste including, but not limited Inert Waste to. soil and concrete that does not contain haz- ardous waste or soluble pollutants �.t con- centrations in excess of water quality objec- tives established by a Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7, corn- mendwith Section 13000 of the California Water Code and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable solid waste. IWMP Integratedwaste managementplar, Landfill A disposal site employing an engineered method of disposing solid wastes on land in a manner that minimizes environmental hazards by spreading solid wastes in layers, compact- ing the waste to the smallest practical volume, and applying cover materials at the end of each operating day. LDPE Low density polyethylene, plastic container code no. 4 LEA Local enforcement agency MRF Material recovery facility PJF F6a'.F0401010 xvii Rev 0 December 23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Marine Wastes Solid waste generated from marine vessels and ocean work platforms, solid waste washed on to ocean beaches, and litter discarded on ocean Seaches. Market Development A method of increasing the demand for recov- ered materials so that end markets for the materials are established, improved, or stabi- lized and thereby become more reliable. Materials Recovery A process whereby secondary used materials. such as glass. plastics. aluminum, and news- paper, are removed from municipal solid wastes. Materials Recovery A permitted solid waste facility where solid Facility wastes or recyclable materials are sorted or separated, by hand or by use of machinery. for the purposes of recycling or composting. Medium-term Planning Period The period beginning in January 1. 1995. and ending December3l , 1999. Mixed Paper A waste type which is a mixture, unsegregated Py color or quality, of at least two of the follow- ing paper wastes: newspaper, cormgated cardboard. office paper. computer paper, white paper, coated paper stock, or other paper wastes Municipal Solid Wastes All solid waste generated by residential, com- mercial, and industriai sources, and all solid waste generated at construction and demolition sites, at food processing facilities, and at treatment works for water and wastewater, which are collected and transported under the authorization of a jurisdiction or are self -hauled. Municipal solid waste does not include agri- cultural crop residuos. animal manures, mining wastes and fuel extraction wastes, forestry wastes, and ash from industrial boilers. fur- naces, and incinerators. PJF.1764'�F6401010 xviii Rev.0 December 23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Nonferrous Metals Any metal scraps that have value, and that are derived from metals other than iron and its al- loys in steel, such as aluminum. copper. brass. bronze, lead, zinc, and other metals. and to which a magnet will not adhere. Nonrecyciable Paper Discarded paper which has no market value because of its physical or chemical or biologi- cal characteristics or properties. OCC Old corrugated containers Old Newspaper Any newsprint which is separated from other types of solid waste or collected separately from other types of solid wastes and made available for reuse and which may be used as a raw material in the manufacture of a new paper product. OMG Old magazines ONP Old newspaper Operational Costs Those direct costs incurred in maintaining the ongoing operation of a program or facility. Operational costs do not include capital costs. Organic Wastes Solid wastes originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products. and from petroleum, which contain naturally produced organic compounds, and which are biologically decomposable by microbial and fungal action into the constituent compounds of water, car- bon dioxide, and other simpler organic com- pounds. Other Plastics All waste plastics except polyethylene tereph- thalate containers. film plastics. and high den- sity polyethylene containers. NM PJ FF64'�F6401010 Polychlorinated biphenyls xix Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Permitted Capacity That volume in cubic yards or weight in tons which a solid waste facility is allowed to re- ceive. on a periodic basis. under the terms and conditions of that solid waste facility's current solid waste facilities permit issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Permitted Landfill A solid waste landfill for which there exists a current solid waste facilities permit issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board or which is permitted under the regula- tory scheme of another state agency. permitted Solid A solid waste facility for which there exists a Waste Facility solid waste facilities permit issued by the Calk fomia Integrated Waste Management Board or which is permitted under the regulatory scheme of another state agency. This definition does not apply to cogeneration or biomass plants which may be permitted by the California Energy Commission or other agencies. PET Polyethylene terephthalate, plastic container code no. 1 Purchased Preference A preference provided to a wholesale or retail commodity dealer which is based upon the percentage amount that the costs of products made from recycled materials may exceed that of a similar nonrecycled product and still be deemed the lowest bid. PVC Polyvinylchloride. plastic container code no. 3 PP Polypropylene. plastic container code no. 5 PS Polystyrene, plastic container code no. 6 Rate Structure That set of prices established by a jurisdiction. special district. or other rate setting authority to compensate the jurisdiction. special district. or rate setting authority for the partial or full costs of the collection, processing, recycling, com- posting. or transformation or landfill disposal of solid wastes, or both. PJF F64\F640101Q xx Rev.0 December23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Recovered Material Material which has been retrieved or diverted from disposal or transformation for the purpose of recycling, reuse, or composting. Recovered material does not include those materials gen- erated from and reused on site for manufac- turing purposes. Recycling A process by which materials which would oth- erwise become waste are collected, separated. or processed, and used in the form of raw materials in replacement of virgin materials or products. Repairability The ability of a product or package to be restored to a working or usable state at a cost which is less than the replacement cost of the product or package. Residential Solid Waste Solid waste originating from single-family or multifamily dwellings. Residential Waste Waste generated by households. Reusability The ability of a product or package to be used more than once in its same form. Reuse The use, in the same form as it was produced. of a material which might otherwise be dis- carded. Rubber An amorphous polymer of isoprene derived from natural latex of cenain tropical plants or from petroleum. Salvage The controlled removal of solid warts materials at a permitted solid waste facility for recycling, reuse. composting, or transformation. SB Senate Evill Seasonal Those periods of time during the calendar year which are identifiable by tF�e distinct cyclical patterns of local climate, demography, trade, or commerce. PJF�F64\176401010 xxi Rev 0 oecember23, 1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Serf-hau! The activity whereby a resident or other unli- censed hauler delivers self -generated waste to a drop-off. disposal, or transfer facility. Sewage Sludge Residual solids and semisolids resulting from the treatment of wastewater. but does not inctude wastewater effluent discharged from such treatment processes. Short-term Planning Period A period beginning January 1, 1991. and end- ing December 31,1994. Sludge Residual solids and semisolids resulting from the treatment of water, wastewater, and other liquids. Sludge includes sewage sludge and sludge derived from industrial processes. but does not include effluent discharge from such treatment processes. Source Reduction The design. manufacture. acquisition. and reuse of materials so as to minimize the quan- tity and/or toxicity of waste produced. Source reduction prevents waste either by redesigning products or by otherwise changing societal patterns of consumption. use. and waste gen- eration. Special Waste Special waste includes any solid waste which, because of its source of generation. physical, chemical. or biological characteristics or unique disposal practices is specifically conditioned in a solic, waste facilities permit for handling or disposal, or both. Any hazardous waste listed in Section 66740 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, or any waste which has been classified as a special wasteursuant to Section 66744 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, or which has been granted a variance for the purpose of storage, trans- portation, treatment, or disposal by the Depart- ment of Health Services pursuant to Sec- tion 66310 of Tide 22 of the California Code of Regulations. SRRE Source reduction and recycling element PJF F 6 J F$-101010 x X I I Rev 0 December 23.1991 Glossary Waste Generator Any person, as defined by Section 40170 of the Public Resources Code, whose act or process produces solid waste as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 40191, or whose act first causes solid waste to become subject to regulation. Waste Reduction A practice that includes all measures that will (1) keep products in containers out of th3 wastestream by extending product life and reusing products and containers in their original form, (2) decrease the amount of materials dis- carded by reducing unnecessary consumption or by using products that lead to less waste, (3) reduce the materials used and discarded in the production process. and (4) actively partici- pate in recycling activities. PJ Fk F6411 F64 0 1010 xxiii Rev 0 December 23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Sou,,ce Separation The segregation of specific materials at the point of generation for separate collection. Tin Can or Any food or beverage container that is com- Tin Container posed of steel with a tin coating. Transformation Facitity A facility whose principal function is to convert. combust, or otherwise process solid waste by incineration, pyrolysis, destructive distillation, or gasification. or to chemically or biologically process solid wastes, for the purpose of vol- ume reduction, synthetic fuel production or energy recovery. A transformation facility does not include a composting facility. Waste Material which is discarded by the generator as no longer useful to the generator. Waste Categories The grouping of solid wastes with similar prop- erties into major solid waste classes, such as grouping together office and corrugated news- paper as a paper waste category, as identified by the solid waste classification system con- tained in Section 18722 of Article 6.1 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, except where a component -specific requirement pro- vides alternative means of classification. Waste Generator Any person, as defined by Section 40170 of the Public Resources Code, whose act or process produces solid waste as defined in Public Resources Code, Section 40191, or whose act first causes solid waste to become subject to regulation. Waste Reduction A practice that includes all measures that will (1) keep products in containers out of th3 wastestream by extending product life and reusing products and containers in their original form, (2) decrease the amount of materials dis- carded by reducing unnecessary consumption or by using products that lead to less waste, (3) reduce the materials used and discarded in the production process. and (4) actively partici- pate in recycling activities. PJ Fk F6411 F64 0 1010 xxiii Rev 0 December 23.1991 Glossary GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Continued) Waste Type Identified waste having the features of a group or class of waste which are distinguishable from any other waste type, as identified by the waste classification system contained in Sec- tion 18722 of Article 6.1. Title 14. California Code of Regulations, except where a compo- nent -specific requirement provides alternative means of classification. White Goods Discarded, enamel -coated major appliances, such as washing machines, c,othes dryers, hot water heaters, stoves, and refrigerators. Wood Wastes Solid waste consisting of wood pieces or parti- cles which are generated from the manufacture and production of wood products, harvesting. or processing or storage of raw wood materi- als, or construction and demolition activities. Yard Wastes Any waste genewted from the maintenance or alteration of public. commercial. or residential landscapes including. but not limited to. yard clippings, tree trimmings, prunings, brush. and weeds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction As the population in California expands, so does the need for proper solid waste management systems. Waste management in California now faces the toughest laws in the nation. The California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Act of 1989 (commonly called Assembly Bill [AB] 939) gives city and county governments specific responsibilities to plan for and to accomplish high levels of diversion of resources from landfill disposal. Traditionally, this had been the responsibility of county governments. By January 1, 1995. cities and counties must divert 25 percent of their solid waste from landfills through source reduction, recycling. and composting. By Jan- uary 1, 2000. a 50 percent diversion rate must be achieved. A diversion rate of 10 percent achieved through transformation can be included as pan of the 50 percent diversion rate goal for plans submitted atter Jan- uary 1, 1995. The purpose of this source reduction and recycling element is to provide the City of Lodi (City) and the San Joaquin County waste management local task force with a current comprehensive update on the status of solid waste management in the City and to outline the City's plan to achieve and exceed the landfill diversion goals mandated by the state of California. This plan recommendsthat the citizens of Lodi. the City administration, the City's solid waste managementtask force and the local franchise hauler, California Waste Removal Systems (CWRS), play leadership roles in the development of the programs outlined in this document. Integrated Waste Management Planning AB 939 established a new hierarchy for management of solid wastes. At the top of the hierarchy is source reduction. the preferred management method which Ls intended to reduce the amount of wastes which are gen- erated at the source. At the second tier of the hierarchy is recycling and PJF F6- F6401Q1a xxv Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Executive Summary composting. AB 939 and its implementing regulations stress source sepa- ration of recyclables and compostables. The lowest level and least pre- ferred management method is reserved for landfilling and transformation for incineration). Landfilling is intended to be used only for those materials which cannot otherwise be reduced, reused. or recycled. The old adage of "out of sight - out of mind" no longer holds true. AB 939 challenges Californiansto think about their buying habits and about what they throw away. More and more, the state's citizens and businesses will be separating wastes into its component parts, so that they can be reused rather than cast off a5 unwanted discards. The regulations which have been promulgated to implement AB 939 require each SRRE to contain nine specific components - each dealing with a specific aspect of integrated waste management: waste generation, source reduction, recycling, composting, special waste. public education, disposal facility capacity, funding, and integration. The cornerstone is the waste generation component which estimates tAo things: (1) the composi- tion and quantity of the wastes which are being disposed of and (2) the composition and quantity of wastes which are currently diverted from dis- posal through source reduction, recycling, and composting. When those two elements are combined. the resulting total is the amount and compo- sition of wastes which are generated within the City ofLodi. The diversion rate. taken as a percent of the wastes which arc generated. provides the basis for measuring progress toward the 25 and 50 percent gcIls estab- lished by AB 939. The composition of wastes which are disposed of will help the City determine which materials can be diverted from the wastestream so that plans and programs for their diversion can be devel- oped. Summary of Waste Generation in Lodi The City landfilled an estimated 67,231 tons in 1990, diverted an esti- mated 81,432 tons (of which 45.000 are inert materials). and transformed an estimated 2.507 tons. Total waste generation for the City is 151.170 tons in 1990. Of the quantity of wastes generated, less than 1 percent is source reduced, almost 46 percent is recycled, and approximately 6 percent is composted. A good porion of the diversion rate comes from waste types (scrap metals. food processing wastes, and inert materials), which are the subject of some debate among legislators and special inter- est groups as to whether or not they should be counted in the diversion PJF�F64'+F6401010 xxvi Rey 0 December23.1391 Executive Summary totals, since these are not currently disposed of in large quantities and some believe that they should not count towards diversion. In Lodi's case. if inert materials such as concrete, dirt, and asphalt were not counted, it would reduce the City's diversion rates from almost 54 percent to 19 percent. The City will need to closely monitor pending legislation to assess its impact on the wastestream. Of the waste types which are disposed, paper represents almost 27 percent; plastics represent almost 8 percent: glass is 3 percent: metals are over 9 percent; yard wastes are over 17 percent; other organics including food, wood. and textiles are o%zr 27 percent: and other wastes (inert materials and household hazardous wostes) are over 8 percent. The waste disposal study, which was conducted by San Joaquin County, indicated the following waste types should be targeted for recovery begin- ning in the short-term planning period of 1991-1994. Waste category Paper Plastics Glass Wade Type Corrugated Mixed Paper Newspaper High -Grade Other Paper HDPE PET Film Other Refillable Redemption Recyclable Nonrecyclable Percent Targeted for Disposed Diversion 7.26 ✓ 8.93 0.99 3.19 ✓ 0.72 ✓ 6.62 0.61 ✓ 0.13 ✓ 2.79 be 4.33 0.02 0.65 1.90 0.43 Metals Aluminum Cans 0.24 Ferrous 6.11 Norrtemus 0.58 While Metals 0.99 Mixed Metals 1.43 PJF\F64\F6401010 xxvii r r Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Executive Summary Waste Waste Percent Targeted for Category Type Disposed Diversion Yard Wastes 17.39 r Other Food 1098 ✓ Organics Tires 1.64 ✓ Wood 8.01 ✓ Agricultural 0.45 Manure 0.11 Textiles 6.29 Other Wastes inert Sor►ds 7.43 ✓ Hazardous 0.77 Figure 1 summarizes waste disposal composition informationfor key recy- clable components from the county's study for Lodi. Summary of Selected Programs January 191991 - December 31,1994 The City is fortunate to have a franchise waste hauler, CWRS. who is at the forefront of integrated solid waste management. The City's existing diversion rate is largely the result of efforts by CWRS. Less waste which is hauled to the county for disposal saves Lodi's residents and businesses money, but also, more importantly, conserves valuable landfill space. The success of the short-term programs in this SRRE will continue to rely on this public-private partnership between the City and CWRS. Because the success of these programs depends so much upon the efforts of CWRS. the City intends to monitor CWRS' programs and diversion rates very closely by requiring semiannual progress reporting. In the short-term time frame, the City intends to convert Lodi residents over to a semi automated/automated collection system consisting of three wheeied carts, typically with one for refuse, one for yard waste, and one for commingled recyclables. The size of the cart, which may be used in the short term, is proposed to be flexible to maximize use of the existing cart supplies. Where the prev,ous curbside recycling program was voluntary, carts for recyclable and compostable materials will be made available to all single-family residents. A: the same time that the City converts to the three -cart system. the City will institute a new rate structure where the cost PJFF64\F6401010 xxviii Rev.0 December 23, 1991 Executive Summary of recond and subsequent refuse containers will cost more than the first container. This is an inverted or inclining rate structure. CWRS believes that this new rate structure will encourage waste reduction and recycling. Other short-term activities will focus on public education and information. Here again, CWRS has been at the forefront with its work with the Lodi Unified School District and other local schools. a newsletter. speakers' bureau, and community accounts program to mention only a few. CWRS will continue these programs, and in most cases expand them to address the City's upcoming new recycling programs. CWRS has also been at the forefront offering technical assistance programs and waste audits to local businesses and industries desiring waste minimization programs. These programswill continue and expand over the short term. The City's role in this effort will be to coordinate with local community groups and nonprofit organizations: develop a city -sponsored public recognition and awards program: and to develop a block leader program to encourage participation in CWRS' recycling programs, using the City's community service officers. The City will also be involved in developing procurement guidelines to encourage City departments to buy recycled products and amending City zoning and building codes to incorporate recycling into new developments. In addition, the City will be looking at ways to create local markets for recyclable materials by encouraging local use of recyclable materials and compost and encouraging small industries which use secondary materials as feedstock. A major activity during the short-term time frame will involve CWRS efforts to expand its materials recovery and composting facility. An environmental impact report for this facility has been prepared, which is planned to be expanded onto property adjacent to the Lodi Transfer Station. In addition to environmental review, CWRS will need to complete final site design and apply for operating permits from the California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Board. the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District. This facility is expected to be completed and fully operational by the medium-term time frame. CWRS has also applied for a use permit to relocate its collection Corpora- tion yard and include an additional buy-back facility at this location. There is the potential that this site can be converted to a recycling processing center subsequent to a review whether an additional environmental PJF .F6a',F6a01ato xxtx Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Exewime Summary assessment for this project is required. In addition. CWRS wilt begin sepa- rating tires and white goods at the Lodi Transfer Station. Summary of Selected Programs January 1,1995 - December 31,1999 In the medium term. the CWRS expanded materials recovery and com- posting facility will be fully operational. This facility could ultimately serve as a regional composting center for northern San Joaquin County. Other activities during the medium term will focus on monitoring programswhich were implemented in the shot, term and fine tuning them as needed. P.lFW64tF6401010 xxx Rev.0 December23.1991 Executive Summary N N a a CL "fes R« ci � c r O U c 0 H a CL E o U � N 3 N � S } Ln C m 0 s INTRODUCTION I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Legislative Basis for the Source Reduction and Recycling Element In September 1989. the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 939. the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. This bill was signed into law by Governor George Deukmajian on Septem- ber 29. 1989. and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30. 1989. This legislation was drafted in response to the need to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natural resources. AB 939 mandates that by January 1, 1995, each California city and county must divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or trans- formation facilities through source reduction, recycling. and composting activities. By January 1, 2000, the required diversion rate is 50 percent, which can include a diversion rate of up to 10 percent from transformation processes such as waste to energy. AB 939 replaces the existing county solid waste management plan pro- cess with a source reduction and recycling element (SRRE) for each city and county wastestream and an integrated waste management plan (IWMP) for each county. AB 939 restructures the solid waste man- agement program in California with the objective of implementing an aggressive integrated waste management program, promoting, in order of priority, the following waste management practices: • source reduction • recycling and composting environmentally safe transiormation (incineration. pyroly- sis. or biological conversion) or land disposal • environmentally sate land disposal PJF\F64\F6401010 i 1 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Introduction 1.1.1 City Requirements By July t, 1991, AB 939 requires each city to prepare, adopt, and submit to the county an SRRE for management of solid waste generated within the city that includes all of the tollowing components. • a waste generation component • a source reduction component • a recycling component • a composting component • a special waste component an education and public information component a disposal facility capacity component • a funding component • an integration component 1.1.2 County Requirements By July 1, 1991, AB 939 requires each county to prepare an SRRE for its unincorporated areas with components the same as those in the city ele- ments. Each county must also prepare a countywide IWMP and a county- wide siting element specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity needed for a 15 -year period, so that solid wastes gener- ated in the county that cannot be reduced or recycled will be handled safely. 1.1.3 Time Extension AB 2092 (proposed March 5, 1991) was intended to extend the deadlines for the city and county SRREs and household hazardous waste elements (HHWEs) until January 1, 1992. The bill would also have required each city and county to prepare and submit a written report on tho status of its SRREs and HHWEs to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) by July 1, 1991. Californians Against Waste attempted to amend the bill to remove inert materials, scrap metals, and sewage sludge from the list of what counts towards the 25 percent diverrion goal, which has stalled its progress through the legislature. According to a Septem- PJF'\F641F6401010 1 .2 Rev 0 December 23.1991 rnrrodL10on ber 17, 1991, legislative update prepared by the Santa Clara County Office of Toxics and Solid Waste Management. Assemblyman Byron Sher is unwilling to extend the deadlines without "clarifying the rules of the game." According to the update, Assemblyman Sher believes the original legislation needs reform as he believes that jurisdictions are meeting the letter of the law but not the intent by counting existing diversion activity that occurred without action by the jurisdictions. This bill is not expected to be signed L. `ore the early part of 1992. 1.14 General Requirements The required waste diversion amounts will be based on the calculated amount of solid waste existing on the date of approval of the city or county SRRE. To determine the base rate of solid waste from which these recycling lev- els will be calculated, "solid waste" includes only materials that are normally disposed of at a landfill or transformation facility solid wastes currently diverted from a landfill or transfor- mation facility because of source reduction, recycling, or composting programs Agricultural wastes and other wastes not normally disposed of at landfills are not included in this base rate calculation. The 50 percent diversion rate may include up to 10 percent diversion through translormation, provided that the front-end removal of recyclable materials and other specified conditions are met. 1.1.5 Other Provisions of AB 939 Revisions to existing law in AB 939 include (1) replacement of the Califor- nia Waste Management Board by a California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Boardwith six full-time members. (2) implementation of new require- ments in the city and county waste management planning process. (3) recasting of the waste management framework. and (4) various fund- ing mechanisms for the required programs and plans. The State has hired more than 250 new employees to staff the new CiWMB. The following requirements were recodified by AB 939: PJFZF641F6401010 1 - 3 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 lnlrodLVton Solid waste facilities. AB 939 establishes a comprehensive statewide system of permitting, inspections, enforcement. cleanup. maintenance, and closure for solid waste facilities. While the system will continue to be implemented by local jurisdictions where applicable. the state's role has generally been strengthened. Specifically. local enforcement agen- cies (LEAs) will be subject to CIWMB certification. The CIWMB will pre- pare and adopt certification regulations specifying requirements that the LEA shall meet before being designated as an enforcement agency. The CIWMB will also adopt minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal to protect air. water, and land from pollution. Owners or operators of solid waste landfills must also provide financial assurances for closure and postclosure maintenance. Enforcement- AB 939 outlines a system of civil penalties. corrective actions. appeals, and judicial review for the enforcement of terms and conditions of solid waste facility permits. The CIWMB may issue a cease and desist or cleanup and abatement order if (1) the LEA fails to issue such orders and (2) the CIWMB agrees that such orders need to be imposed. Solid waste disposal site cleanup and maintenance. Every operator of a solid waste landfill required to have a permit will be assessed a fee which will be placed in the existing solid waste disposal site cleanup and maintenance account in the solid waste management fund. Money in the account will be controlled by the CIWMB and allocated to cities and coun- ties for uses regarding the safe operation, closure, and maintenance of solid waste landfills. Household hazardous wastes (HHWs). AB 939 requires the CIWMB to develop and implement a public information program to provide informa- tion on the proper disposal of HHWs and give technical assistance to local public agencies to establish HHW management programs. Finances. Every operator of a solid waste landfill shall pay a quarterly fee to the Board of Equalization, based on all solid waste disposed of at each disposal site on or atter January 1, 1990. The money will be used for administration and other purposes specified by the legislature. which will appropriate funds from the account. Garbage and refuse disposal. AB 939 establishes criteria for (1) the for- mation of garbage disposal districts. funded by property taxes, PJF1F641F640101 Q I - 4 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Introduction (2) franchise waste management within a county, (3) contract waste man- agement within a city. and (4) solid waste enterpnses to operate within community It also contains restrictions on burning garbage 1.1.6 Relationship of AB 939 to Other Legislation Sev�:ral pieces of cleanup legislation related to AB 939 have passed that modifythe impact of the legislation. These bills include Senate Bili (SB) 1322. This bill establishes a comprehensive set of state prograims to promote (t) integrated waste management, (2) Source reduc- tion, and (3) market development for recovered materials. SB 1322 will establish recycling market development zones with regulatory and fiscal incentives. In addition. the CIWMB will be required to provide technical assistance to enable LEAs to conduct waste reduction evaluations and implem9nt recovery of high-grade Whitd office paper. A statewide puollc information and education program will be initiated to encourage participa- tion by the general public, business, government. and industry in all phases of integratedwaste management. Assembly Bill 1820. AB 1820 permits the use of pre-existing data or studies that accurately characterize the waste generated and disposed of within the jurisdiction. This bill requires (1) only the amount of Seasonal sampling necessary to achieve the 25 percent diversion target for the 1995 deadline (rather than the "maximum extent possible"). (2)the con- stituent materials identified in the waste characterization to be repre- sentative of the solid waste generated (ire contrast to the former language: to be representative "to the maximum extent feasible"), and (3)waste quantities to be "as accurate as possible" to enable the CIWMB to accu- rately measure the diversion requirements. Assembly Bill 2707. This bill requires each city to submit a separate HHWE to the county by July 1, 1991, AB 939 had included a HHW com- ponent in the SRRE. As a result of AB 2707. this component was elevated to the status of an "Element." Assembly Bill 3992. This bill defines "solid waste' for the purpose of determining the base amount from which diversion levels shall be cal- culated. It also requires the CIWMB to consider only relevant circum- stances in determining civil penalties for any city or county which fails to imolement its SRRE. PJFF64\F6401010 _ 5 Rev 0 Decem0er 23. 1991 introduction 1.2 Waste Generation in 1990, 67.231 tons of solid waste were disposed of by the City of Lodi (City) residents and businesses. Twenty-nine percent of the City's disposed wastestream is generated from residential sources, while 17 percent is from commercial and 21 percent is from industrial and roll -off boxes. Thirty-three percent is from Self -haulers who haul their own waste to San Joaquin County's (County's) landfill or to the Lodi Transfer Station. Almost 54 percent of the City's generated wastestream is diverted from landfill disposal through a wide variety of recycling, source reduction, 2nd composting activities. including California Waste Removal Systems' (CWRS) extensive commercial and industrial source separation programs. Some waste is diverted from disposal but is not considered "countable" towards diversion rates due to the fact that these wastes (tires and wood) are burned at waste -to -energy facilities. This is called transformation in AB 939. These amounts are not included in the diversion quantities amounts to avoid confusion. Any wood and tires listed in the diversion tables are reused or recycled and not transformed. Note that transforma- tion amounts are listed under "other organics." 1.3 Lodi's Waste Diversion Program History The following is a brief history of the waste diversion programs imple- mented in the City. Tokay Recycling is a buy-backlprocessing center located in Lodi. Tokay Recycling accepts all materials for which there is a market including high density polyethylene (HDPE) and telephone books. It accepts industrial and postconsumer corrugated high-grade paper (computer paper, colored. and white ledger), newsprint, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), HDPE, refillable beverage containers, California redemption glass, used beverage containers, scrap aluminum. nonferrous metals (brass, copper, etc.), and phone books. Ramrock Environmental Recycling Company. Incorporated recycles asphalt, broken concrete, and reinforced concrete generated within the City. It is located just outside of Lodi in Locketord. California Waste Removal Systems, Incorporated is located in Lodi and provides an extensive array of comprehensive integrated solid waste PJF1F641F640101 Q 1 .6 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Introduction; management services to the City. These services include solid waste col- lection services. and operation of the CWRS's materials recovery facility (MRF), transfer station, recycling center, and composting facility. CWRS's extensive and comprehensive recycling activities include a curbside pro- gram, collection service at churches, businesses, and schools, buy-back centers, and public education. The curbside program provides three color -coded recycling pails for news - Paper, aluminum, PET plastics, tin cans, and glass. Drop-off boxes are used to collect newspaper, cardboard. glass, and aluminum from churches, businesses, various nonprofit organizations, and commercial dustries. CWRS operates two California -certified redemption centers which accept newspaper, cardboard, aluminum cans, HDPE and PET plastic, glass. high-grade ledger paper, and computer paper. CWRS also has public awarenesslpublic education programs related to its office paper, community accounts, and Lodi Unified School District recy- cling programs. The office paper program sponsored by CWRS requires participating businesses to designate a "recycling coordinator to oversee and encour- age other employees to participate in the plan. The community accounts program established by CWRS is designed for schools, clubs, and other nonprofit organizations. CWRS will credit partici- pants for their recyclables. The participants can instead take the materials to one of the CWRS buy-back centers to credit their community account. The Lodi Unified School District works with CWRS and the City. This pro- gram involves lessons about the importance of recycling and preservation of natural resources for kindergarten through eighth grade. A student assembly for elementary students is also held to demonstrate how recy- cling works. The schools use the funds raised from their sites' collection of newspapers and aluminum cans for extracurricular activities. CWRS also contributes a portion of the funds generated frorr, the sale of recyclable materials from its curbside program directly to Lod schools for public education special events and classroom needs. 1.4 Goais for the Lodi SRRE 1.4.1 Definition of Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the Lodi SRRE is to meet the state -mandated waste diversion goals of 25 and 50 percent by 1995 and 2000. respectiveiy. or as they may be revised by subsequent legislation. Goals are stated in general terms and are not quantified by target dates, waste types. or volumes. Goals are general statements of policy and will be used to guide the overall direction of the solid waste management pro- gram within Lodi. Objectives are more specific and serve to target certain aspects of the overall goals. Objectives are based in part on local considerations neces- sary to achieve state -mandated diversion rates. Generally. objectives are stated in measurable and quantifiable terms and are thus presented in their respective components. 142 Integrated Waste Management Goals for Lodi Overall Program Goals 1. Structure waste management practices within the City to promote increased source reduction, recyding, and com- posting to meat or axceed the following waste diversion objectives: 25 percent by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1,2000. 2. Support and encourage regional solutions appropriate to waste management problems, where possible and practi- cal. 3. Maximize recycling opportunities within the City. 4. Support and encourage public education and information programs which lead -to a better understanding of solid waste management issues and which foster increased participation in City and regional programs by local citi- zens, businesses. service groups. schools, and other interested parties. 5. Encourage and foster the participation of the private solid waste refuse collectors. recyclers. citizen action grouRs, schools, and other interested parties. such as the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, the Woman's Club of Lodi, PJFIF641F6401010 1 8 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Introduction League of Women Voters, and the Sierra Club. in the inte- grated solid waste management planning process and the implementation of necessary programs. 6. Provide for sufficient landfill capacity for those wastes generated within the City that cannot be diverted. 7. Develop local markets. wherever feasible and possible. for the wastestream components comprising the ;sty's landfill diversion targets. Encourage the establishment of waste uiversion p rams which are responsive to the needs and desires 0t the City's business community. con- sistent with public policies established by the City Council. 1.4.3 Short-term Goals (1991-1994) Source Reduction Goals 1. Encourage public participation in source reduction by educating the public about the consequences of their decisions with respect to the initial use, reuse, and ulti- mate disposal of products they may purchase. 2. Encourage source reduction practices in all aspects of City operations. 3. Minimize the quantity of solid waste generated. Recycling Goals 1. Maximize opportunities for City residents to recycle. 2. Foster a positive environment by creating local markets for recyclable materials wherever possible and practical to do so. 3. Continue current levels of recycling. Composting Goals 1. Compost as much as possible of the yard wastes gener- ated within the City of Lodi. 2. Promote a community-based yard waste collection and processing program. 3. Promote centralized local composting of yard Wastes generated in Lodi. PJF\F64\F6401010 1 -9 Rev, 0 December 23.1991 IntroJuc0on Special Wastes Goals 1. Provide opportunities for recycling special wastes gener- ated within the City such as sewage sludge, ash, tires. white goods, abandoned vehicles, dead animals. and asbestos. Public Information and Education Goals 1. Encourage public information and education programs in the community in order to heighten the public's awareness of solid waste management issues. 2. Involve private solid waste refuse collectors, recyclers. citizen action groups, and other interested parties in the integrated solid waste management planning process and the implementation of necessary programs. 3. Support and encourage inter urisdictiona# cooperation in integrated waste management planning and implementa- tion. 4. Promote and support public/private partnerships which work to achieve integrated solid waste management in Lodi. Goals for the medium term are related to reviewing each program for effectiveness and revising or modifying the programs as needed to meet the diversion goals. Disposal Capacity Goals 1. Develop and maintain sufficient disposal capacity for the City of Lodi's disposal needs. Funding Goals 1. Provide funding adequate to implement all the program objectives outlined in the SRRE. Integration Goals Integrate all programs to achieve state -mandated diver- sion goals. PJ FIF64\F640101 O 1 . 10 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Introduction 1.4.4 Medium-term Goals (1995-1999) . Review each program for effectiveness measured by meeting time lines, diversion goals. and monies to imple- ment. Reviews shall be completed by 1995. 2. Continue effective programs to reach 50 percent level of source reduction and recycling rates. Decisions to con- tinue programs shall be completed by 1995. 3_ Revise the programs which are not effective to help the City reach its goals. Revisions shall be completed by 1996. 4. Add any additional programs deemed necessary to meet the remaining diversion goals by the end of 1999. Pro- gram additions shall be implemented no later than June 1998. 5. The integration component (see Section 10.2) presents current and future diversion quantities (in weight) for source reduction. recycling, and composting. This section also presents percentages of diversion from total waste generated for these categories. 1.5 Organization of Lodi's SRRE Consistent with the emergency and draft regulations Implementing AB 939. the SRRE is presented in the following sections: • Waste Generation Component • Source Reduction Component • Recycling Component • Composting Component • Special Waste Component • Education and Public Information Component • Disposal Capacity Component • Funding Component • Integration Component NFIF64T6401010 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Rev D December 23. 1991 rnrroaucrron • National Recycli^g Coalitio^ Densities for Recyclables Appendix A • Evaluation Approach for Component Alternatives Appendix B • San Joaquin County Waste Characterization Study for Lodi Appendix C • Public Information Literature from CWRS Appendix D • Use Permit Application CWRS Transfer Station/Resource Recovery Facility and Recycling Center Expansion Appendix E • Waste Export Agreements Appendix F The organization of topics within each component generally follows the format presented below. The format deviates slightly between compo- nents, however, as applicable to each respective component. • introduction • component goals • component objectives • existing conditions description • evaluation of alternatives • selection of programs • program implementation • monitoring and evaluation PJF1F641F6401010 1 - 12 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Introduction SOLID WASTE GENERATION 2 WASTE GENERATION COMPONENT 2.1 Introduction This sections summarizes the results of an initial solid waste generation study performed for the City of Lodi by the San Joaquin County Depart- ment of Public Works, Solid Waste Division. to satisfy the requirementsfor an initial solid waste generation study as defined in AB 939 and AB 1820. AB 939 defines a solid waste generation study as a "study undertaken by a jurisdiction to characterize its solid wastestream." "Solid waste" 6 defined as all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage; trash: refuse; paper; rubbish: ashes: industrial wastes; demolition and construction wastes; abandoned vehicles and parts thereof; discarded home and industrial appliances; dewatered. treated. or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste: manure, vegetable, or animal solid and semisolid waste; and other dis- carded solid and semisolid wastes. Solid waste does not include haz- ardous waste. The study was divided into two parts: a waste disposal study which con- sisted of a representative sampling of wastes and which was conducted by the San Joaquin County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division. for the City of Lodi and a waste diversion study which was conducted by the City. When combined, the results of the disposal and diversion studies yield the total amount cf solid waste generatea in the City of Lodi. Expressed as an equation. the total solid waste generated is computed as follows: PJF\F64\F6401010 4 t Rev 0 December23, 1991 Waste Generation where: GEN = DISP + DIVERT GEN = the total quantity of solid waste gen- erated within the jurisdiction. DISP w the total quantity of solid waste gen- erated within the jurisdiction. which is transformed or disposed in per - mined solid waste facilities. DIVERT= the total quantity of solid waste gen- erated within the jurisdiction. which is diverted from permitted solid waste transformation and disposal facilities, through existing source reduction, recycling. and compost- ing programs. The waste disposal characterization was performed by the San Jwq,,in County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division, using a quanti- tative field methodology. Waste diversion quantities were detsrmined using a material accounting system that collected information from both the generators of diverted materials and from the collectors of those mate- rials. When combined, the information from the two sources amounts to a comprehensive accounting of solid waste diversion. Moreover, in many cases, the combined information provides a crosscheck of reported quan- tities from Nvo sources. Details of the waste disposal and diversion studies are presented in the following sections. 2.2 Local Demographics The City of Lodi was incorporated in 1906. The City of Lodi is located in San Joaquin County approximately 13 miles north of Stockton, 34 miles south of Sacramento. and 90 miles east of San Francisco. The City of Lodi has experienced phenomenal growth in the last 10years. Data obtained from the 1990 census indicate that Lodi's population is 51.874. which represents a 47 percent increase over the 1980 population of 35.221. Lodi's population is approximately 11 percent of the total population of San Joaquin County. Lodi is San Joaquin County's second largest City, second only to Stockton. The City is surrounded by vineyards. These vineyards are primarily Zinfan- del and Flame Tokay grapes. References to these grapes can be found throughout the City. The Lodi Grape Festival is an 80 -year-old' tradition created to celebrate the fall harvest. The festival is a nationally recognized event which attracts visitors from all over the region. Agriculture is a major contributor to Lodi's economy, as wr 1i as providing valuable open space around the community. The City of Loai has a strong sense of community with its well-maintained tree -lined streets in the residential areas and attractive buildings and his- torical structures in the downtown area. Lodi Lake Park and Nature Area and numerous other parks are a valuable asset to this small town commu- nity. Lodi's city limits are generally defined by the Mokelumne River on the north, the Central California Traction Company railroad tracks on the east. Hwney Lane on the south, and tha Woodbridge Irrigation District canal on the west. The City contains 5.091 acres. Residential land represents 47 percent of the incorporated area; commercial property represents 8 percent; industrial property represents 11 percent: 22 percent is dedi- cated to public and quasi -public uses, including parks; 4 percent is agri- cultural; and 8 percent is vacant land (City of Lodi Draft General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 1990. According to the City's Draft General Plan, Lodi's housing mix changed substantially in the 1980s with a dramatic increase in the number of multi- family dwelling units. City solid waste is currerrtly hauled after processing to the North County Recycling Center and Landfill (North County Landfill). Prior to its closing in September 1991, Lodi's refuse was taken to the Harney Lane Landfill in San Joaquin County. Proce- itng takes place at the CWRS Transfer Sta- tion/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center at 1333 East Turner Road in Lodi. AB 939 defines a transfer station as those facilities utilized to receive solid wastes, temporarily store, separate, convert. or otherwise process the materials in the solid wastes, or to transfer the solid wastes directly from smaller or larger vehicles for transport, and those facilities utilized for transformation. The facility also has an MRF. AS 939 regula- tions define an MRF as a permitted solid waste facility where solid wastes or recyclable materials are sorted or separated, by hand or by use of machinery, for the purposes of recycling or composting. CWRS separares PJF1F64\F6401010 2 3 Row 0 December 23, 1991 Waste Generation ;F the recyclables such as cardboard. newspaper, PET. H^Plr, polystugere plastics. aluminum, tin. officeand computer paper, glass (clear. green, and brown). and wood. Wood is sold to local waste -to -energy facilities accord- ing to MRS officials. Sorted construction and demolition waste is sold to gravel companies for reuse. The other recyclables are baled and trans- ported to local brokers for sale. There is also a recycling center and composting facility on site. The Harney Lane Landfill. which is owned and operated by San Joaquin County, has reached capacity and has been replaced by the North County Landfill. The North County Landfill is located at 17916 East Harney Lane in the unincorporated area near Lodi. The new facility is just 1.5 miles east of the recently closed Harney Lane Landfill, which is Lodi's former disposal site. The North County Landfill opened November i, 1991. The Harney Lane Landfill, the City's former solid waste disposal site, was, at one time. owned by the City. It was sold to the County for $1 in exchange for an understanding that the County would provide a disposal site or transfer station. or both, reasonably close to the City. Either party may terminate the agreement by giving a 4 -year notice. 2.3 Wastestream Flow In keeping with the requirements of AB 939. the City of Lodi's wastestream was segmented into the following sources by the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division: • Residential: solid waste originating from single-family or multifamily dwellings. • Commercial: solid waste originating from stores, business otfices, and commercial warehouses; hospitals. educa- tional and health care facilities; military and correctional institutions; nonprofit research organizations; and gov- ernment offices. Industrial: solid waste originating from mechanized man- ufacturing facilities, factories. refineries, construction and demolition projects, and publicly operated treatment works, and/or solid wastes placed in debris boxes. • Other: AB 939 allows other -ounce categories to be used to identify sources of solid zste which are not catego- PJRF64\F6401010 3 - 4 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 waste Generation • Other: AB 939 allows other source categories to be usco to identify sources of solid waste which are not catego- rized as residential. commercial, or industrial sources of waste generation. In the City of Lodi's case, the "other" category was defined by San Joaquin County Department of Public Works as self -hauled wastes. Self -hauled wastes include residential- and commercial -type wastes which are hauled directly to either a landfill or trans fer sta- tion. Solid wastes flow from waste venerators into disposal or recovery chan- nels through a variety of flow paths in Lodi including • Franchise garbage collection (via CWRS) with processing at the CWRS Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center, and disposal at the North County Landfill. Collection of selected recyclables from residential gen- erators. • Refuse self -hauled to either the North County Landfill and Recycling Facility or to the CWRS Transfer Sta- tion/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center. (Note: Refuse collection service is mandatory in Lodi. Participation in the curbside recycling service is not mandatory.) Residents and businesses may self -haul their refuse with a permit from the City. • Several buy-back and drop-off facilities that accept a vari- ety of materials dropped off by self -haulers. • Numerous nonprofit collectors that collect a variety of recyclable materials. Waste collected/processed for transformation are hauled to vcahous biomass cogeneration facilities. These facilities are permitted to operate by their local air emission control districts and planning commissions. Specific facilities Can- not be designated. since the destination changes fre- quently depend on market price. After collection, waste generated in ?he City of Lodi enters one of four channels: landfill disposal, composting, recycling. or transformation. Some wood wastes generated in the City of Lodi are presently transformed at two nearby incinerators. This does not count towards 1995 AB 939 diver- sion rates. After 1995. 10 percent diversion of the total required diversion rate of 50 percent can use transformation amounts towards the state - mandated goals. Details of the waste disposal and diversion studies are presented in the following subsections. 2.4 Solid Waste Disposal Study The purpose of the solid waste disposal study conducted by the County was to determine the percentages and quantities of various waste types found within the City of Lodi. An initial waste characterization study was performed by San Joaquin County for the City of Lodi at the Lodi Transfer Station (see Appendix C). The waste categories and waste types that were sampled are noted in Table 2-1 and also in the County's waste char- acterization study in Appendix C. Field work for the disposal characteri- zation was conducted by the County in July and August 1990. During the study, six samples were taken from the residential, commercial. industrial, and self -haul wastestreams. These six samples were statistically similar enough to the County data that the County data were used. The County data were based on 30 samples from each wastestream. In Novem- ber 1990, the County again sampled Lodi's wastestream to assess sea- sonal variation. 2.4.1 Current Waste Collection and Disposal Practices Operation of refuse collection services in Lodi is managed through a fran- chise system. Residential and commercial rates are controlled by the City based upon the findings of an annual report. The franchise hauler has exclusive collection rights within the franchise area for residential. com- mercial, and industrial service. Collection is mandatory within city limits (City Code. Section 11.8). Service for commercial and industrial cus- tomers is customized to fit the needs of each respective customer. Sect haulers. residents, and contractors can also self -haul directly to the CWRS Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility and Recycling Center. Self - hauled wastes comprise about 33 percent of the City's waste disposal quantities according to the County's waste characterization study. PJF1F641F640101Q 2 • 6 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 waste Gene fopon 2.4.2 Methodology The solid waste disposal characterization consists of two elements of information that, when combined, yield the results required by AB 939. The first element is an estimate of the composition of each of the wastestream sections defined in Section 2.2. which are residential. com- mercial, industrial. and self -haul waste. Waste composition is the descrip- tion of the proportions by weight of various materials in a wastestream. The waste sampling process involved sorting random samples of approx- imately 200 pounds into waste types and categories and weighing each type individually. The second element is the measure of the total flow rate of each wastestream segment. Flow rate is based on landfill log racords and is expressed in units of weight per time, such as tons per day. Multiplying the flow rate for a wastestream segment by the corresponding segment's compositicn yields an estimate of flow rate by material types for that seg- ment, such as the number of tons per day of newspaper or aluminum cans. 2.4.3 Waste Quantity Investigations Waste disposal numbers for the residential, commercial, and industrial wastes were provided by CWRS. Self -haul disposal numbers were pro- vided by CWRS for those wastes self -hauled to its transfer sta- tion/materials recover facility. recycling center, and composting facility in Lodi. San Joaquin County provided information on wastes self -hauled to County facilities. 2.4.4 Waste Composition Investigation The waste composition investigations were conducted by San Joaquin County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division, and are described in Appendix C. Waste composition for the City's wastestream is summarized in Figure 1. 2.4.5 Results According to the waste composition study performed by the County, the largest waste category in the City's waste disposal quantities is "other organics" at over 27 percent of the landfilled wastestream. Broken down, the percentages for waste types in the other organics category are food . PJ F F6a1F640101 Q 7 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Waste Generation 10.98 percent; tires - 1.64 percen:: wood - 8.01 percen:; agn-cuiturai wastes - 0.45 percent: manure - 0.11 percent; and textiles - 6.29 percent. Paper comprises the second largest category at almost 27 percent: fol- lowed by yard waste at 17 percent; metals at 9 percent: "other wastes" (inert and hazardous) at 8 percent; plastics at almost 8 percent; and glass at 3 percent. A summary of the County's disposal quantity investigation is presented in Appendix C. Thirty-three percent of the landfilled wastestream in Lodi comes from self - haulers. Residential wastes make up 29 percent. industrial and roll -off boxes 21 percent. and commercial 17 percent. Table 2-2 lists the waste disposal quantities by source. Note that Table 2-3 summarizes. by waste categories, the amount of waste disposed as well as the amount of wastes diverted. transformed, and generated for the City of Lodi. 2.4.6 Seasonal Variation The following information is taken from the City of Lodi Waste Characteri- zation Shudy. San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. Solid Waste Division, January 10, 1991. In November 1990, the County performed a partial sam- pling of the City of Lodi's wastestream to determine if there was a significant variation in its wastestream due to seasonal factors. A total of six samples were taken from the residential, self -haul, commercial, and industrial wastestreams. Using the same statistical procedures described above, the seasonal samples were compared with samples taken earlier in the year. The residential and industrial wastestreams were very similar to the earlier sampling period. The commercial wastestream was statistically similar in all significant types and categories. The self -haul wastestream was more dis- similar to the earlier study than were the other three wastestreams. However, most of the waste types that were different comprised a very small portion of the total solid wastestream (0.37 percent residential, 5.44 percent self -haul. 4.13 percent commercial, and 2.01 percent industrial). Overall, the seasonal sampling indicated very little ch .ige in the wastestream charactenstics of the two season In statistical terms, the initial study is representative of the population (Lodi's wastestream) and. for the most part, the PJFIF64\F640101 Q 2 - 8 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Waste Generation seasonal sampling may be considered a subset of tr,e population. Generally there are two seasons in the San Joaquin County area: summer and winter. These also may be charactenzed as wet versus dry seasons. July and Novemberwere selected for sample periods in an attempt to sample wastes from the two seasons. Since the wastestreams were generally similar for the two sampling periods, data from the two sampling periods were combined together to determine the percentages of the total wastestream. This procedure slightly adjusted the overall percentages of the various waste types and cate- gories, reflecting seasonal variations. 2.5 Solid Waste Diversion Characterization 2.5.1 Current Solid Waste Diversion Practices The flow of materials diverted from a wastestream is more complex than that from materials destined for disposal on the landfill. This complexity occurs because the various materials follow different routes of collection and processing and are handled by many different operators. There are ten recycling centers throughout Lodi. In addition, private collectors divert paper, glass, plastic, metals, organic material, and inert solids such as concrete and asphalt. Curbside collection of recyclable materials is avail- able to the franchise hauler. The various waste diversion programs are more specificallydescrib,?d in the Recycling Component, Section 4. 252 Methodology Solid waste diversion characterization employed a multipronged approach to quantify diversion activities within the City. This approach provided a crosscheck and backup means to collect the data. The diversion charac- terization utilized (1)aggregated information provided by the franchise hauler, (2) a mail survey of commercial and industrial businesses. (3) County data, (4) data from the other local and regional recyclers, and (5) telephone interviews to develop a comprehensive accounting of mate- rials estimated to be diverted from the wastestream. Information provided by the franchise refuse hauler and other local and regional recyclers pro- vided general data on both the residential and commercial wastestreams PJF1F641F640101O z - 9 Rev 0 December'23. 1991 Waste Generation Again. due to proprietary concerns, this informationwas not provided in a form which would disctose information about individual recyclers. A total of 1,500 commercial and industrial businesses within the incorpo- rated limits of the City of Lodi were surveyed by mail. Four hundred and four (404) businesses responded. The response rate was 27 percent. The business list was provided by the City of Lodi using the City's electric utility customer list. In addition, several businesses such as diaper services. nurseries, and recyclers of inert materials were contacted by telephone for information. The diversion study attempted to chart the flow of each type of waste material. The study requested that the generators report who collected their ecyclables. In addition, the businesses involved in recycling. collec- ting, or processing were asked for information concerning the purchasers of the recyclable materials. Data from commerciallindustrial generators which could be traced to specific collectors were eliminated for tabulation when those collectors also reported data for that waste type, because the study assumed the collectors' data to be more accurate. The approach outlined above was used to reduce the potential for double counting of reported quantities. In most cases, survey respondents did not identify collectors for their recycled materials as well as identifying quantities. Source reduction data were obtained through a survey which accompa- nied the business recycling survey. In addition, diaper services operating within the City or who had accounts within the City were surveyed via tele- phone. Approximately 217 tons of single -use diapers were diverted from the City of Lodi's wastestream in 1990 through the use of cotton diapers. with 4,500 single -use diapers per ton of garbage estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Diapers in the WasteSfream). The source reduction surveys documented the use of double -sided Copy- ing by requesting the percentage of two-sided copies made and the total amount of papers purchased yearly. A large number of businesses reported substituting ceramic coffee mugs for disposable mugs and silver- ware for plastic utensils, but there was insufficient information to quantity this activity. Many respondents reuse xerographic copies as scratch paper or as packaging material. Many of the smaller businesses contacted dur- ing the survey reported that they purchased durable, reusable, or repairable goods. Again, it is difficult to quantify most instances of source PJF F64',F6401010 2 10 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 wjste Generation reduction despite the fact that a number of businesses reported that they do practice source reduction. Survey data reported as volumes were converted to weight using Conver- sion factors from the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) Measurements c{ Reporting Guidelines, October 31. 1989_ For data reported by CWRS. they provided conversion factors. Data reported for other regional and local recyclers were converted to weight using the NRC conversion factors. 2.5.3 Results The studied results reflect a preliminary diversion estimate total close to 54 percent. There is no extrapolation of data in this study. The data from the surveys were assumed to be the total diversion characterization for the City. Table 24A is a summary of the diversion quantities for the City of Lodi by generator and material type. Table 2-48 is also a summary of d;version quantities by generator and material; however, this table summa- rizes the data within the seven waste types: paper, plastic, glass. metals, yard waste, other organics, and other wastes. The quantities listed are estimated at annual tons for 1990. The reported quantities are discussed below. Tables 2-5, 2-6. and 2-7 break down the diversion quantities into residen- tial. commercial, and industrial diversion quantities. respectively. Source Reduction The source reduction surveys indicate that a total of 48.9 tons of paper from commercial sources were source reduced within the City. The sur- veys reported a total of 102 tons of paper purchased with percentages of two-sided copies ranging from 5 percent to 90 percent. Each company's reported amount of paper purchased was multiplied by the percentage of two-sided copies reportedly made in the sum of those calculated. A survey of two diaper services indicated that approximately 217 tons of single -use diapers were diverted from landfilling in the City of Lodi. When expressed as a percent of wastes generated, source reduction accounts for 0.18 percent of the City of Lodi's diversion. Thus, the City of Lodi diverts 267 tons of waste through source reduction practices such as using cloth diapers and double -sided copies. PJF'F64'F6401010 ? - 1 1 Hev 0 December 23. 1991 waste Generahcn Recycling and Composting The total estimated annual quantity of recycling and composting from the residential wastestream is 5,426 tons. This amounts to a recycling rate of almost 4 percent as a percent of total wastes generated. The total estimated quantity of recycling and composting from the com- mercial wastestreams is 27,541 tons. This amounts to a diversion rate of approximately 18 percent as a percent of total wastes generated. The total estimated quantity of recycling and composting from the indus- trial sector is 48,315 tons. This is a diversion rate of 32 percent as a percent of total waste generated. Thus the total "countable" landfill diversion rate is approximately 54 percent of the waste generated within the City of Lodi. Transformation Approximately 2,281 tons of wood and 226 tons of tires were transformed ur L urned. This amounts to a trarsformation rate of between t and 2 percent expressed as a percent of waste generation. Quantities Diverted and Disposed The total wastestream generation rate for the City of Lodi in 1990 was 151,170 tons. When expressed in terms of the equation in Section 2.1, Lodi's wastestream can be expressed as follows: GEN = DISP + DIVERT or 151,170 = 69,738 + 81,432 For purposes of this equation, as defined in Title 14, disposal includes transformation. The City's landfill diversion rate is calculated to be approx- imately 54 percent as a percent of total wastes generated. 2.6 Population Projections Table 2-8 presents population projections from 1990 through 2005 based upon a 2 percent annual growth rate Based upon this information, Lodi's PJFT641F6401010 2 - 12 Rev 1 January 6. 1992 waste Generation ,f annual growth rate is 3.947 percent. However. the City General Pian limits the City to a 2 percent annual growth rate (Kirk Evans. personal communication, January 6, 1992). The City's projected waste generation figures are based upon a 2 percent growth rate. 2.7 Waste Generation Analysis 2.7.1 Introduction The solid waste generation analysis is based on the results of rhe solid waste generation study. It identified the quantities of materials generated In Lodi, by waste category, that are currently being diverted and disposed Of. The waste generation analysis contains a list of the materials that are cur- rently being disposed of that will be diverted through the programs identi- fied in Sections 3 through 7. The materials which will not be diverted from disposal and a justification of why are also included. 2.7.2 Quantities Diverted and Disposed Table 2-3 summarizes, by waste category, the quantities of materials that are currently being diverted. disposed. transformed, and generated. 2.7.3 Materials Targeted for Diversion The following is a list of materials that are currently disposed of in Lodi that are targeted for potential diversion through the diversion programs identi- fied in the source reduction, recycling, composting. and special wastes components (see Sections 4 through 7). Only those materials that can be counted towards the AB 939 diversion mandates are shown. PJF1F641F6401010 2 13 Rev 1 January 6, 1992 Waste Generation Paper corrugated containers/ kraft newspaper high-grade ledger paper Plastics PET containers HDPE containers film plastics Glass California redemption value other recyclable glass refillable beverage containers Metals aluminum cans other ferrous nonferrous, including aluminum scrap white metals mixed metals Other organics food wastes tires/rubber wood wastes Other wastes inert solids Yard Wastes 2.7.4 Materialsthat will not be Diverted from Disposal The following list identifies the materials that are currently being disposed of in Lodi that will not be diverted from disposal by the programs identified in this SRRE. The programs identified in this SRRE do not target the fol- lowing list of materials because the materials are either nonrecyclable, the quantity being disposed of is insignificant, or there is no market (existing or future). Only those materials that qualify as solid waste under AB 939 are shown. Some of these wastes may be able to be diverted in the future as markets become available. Paper other paper mixed paper Plastics other plastics polystyrene foam PJRF64\F6401010 Glass other nonrecyclable glass 2- 14 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Waste Generation 2.8 Solid Waste Generation Projections Table 2-9 presents waste quantity projections from 1990 through 2005 at current rates cf diversion. All dates are as of December 31 for the given year. Table 2-10 presents projected waste quantities assuming AB 939 diversion targets are achieved. For simplicity. increases in the diversion percentages in the waste quantity projections in Table 2-10 were shown only for the years ending December 31. 1994. and December 31, 1999. Otherwise. diversion percentages were shown to continue at the same rate for the intermediate years. The planning guidelines specify acceptable sources of information on which to base forecasts. From the list of acceptable sources, the City has elected to base projected growth of waste generation on its City General Plan which restricts growth to 2 percent annually. 2.9 Solid Waste Data Reporting System The City is responsible for reporting annual progress towards meeting the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals for reporting revisions to the SRRE. Consistent with California Code of Regulations. Title 14. Section 18722 "O," the City must develop a system of reporting procedures which will, as accurately as possible, quantify data from solid waste haulers. solid waste facility operators, scrap dealers, and recycling facilities for the purposes of the preparation of the SRRE. This system of reporting shall be separately ou;►ined in the solid waste generation study when it is submitted to the CIWMB. The City will use scale data provided by the County and CWRS to aster- tai; quantities disposed of at the North County Landfill. Waste disposal quantities reported by the County should be substantiated by landfill log records and scale data. With respect to the franchise refuse hauler oper- ating within the City, the County will consider revising the franchise agreement to require that waste diversion quantities be reported by waste category and waste type for each program. The City will work with CWRS to develop a quarterly or semiannual reporting system which will provide waste diversion quantities for residential, commercial, and industrial wastes which can be verified and substantiated by scale data. weight receipts, sales receipts. or some other appropriate mechanism. PJF\F641F6401010 2 15 Rev 1 January 6.1992 Waste Generation The City will wont with those, scrap dealers, thrid stores, and otter busi- nesses and recycling facilities operating within the City so that the waste quantities diverted are reported by waste category and waste type. The City will work with these businesses to develop a quarterly reporting sys- tem which will provide waste diversion quantities for wastes which can be verified and are substantiated by scale data, weight receipts. sales receipts, or some other appropriate mechanism. Table 2-1 Waste Types Sampled in San Joaquin County's Waste Composition Study PAPER Corrugated/Kraft Newspaper H g h grade Mixed PLASTICS HDPE PET Film Plastics Other YARD WASTES OTHER ORGANICS Food Rubber Wood Agricultural Crop Residue Manure Textites/Lealher Other Organics GLASS California Redemption Refillable Beverage Other Recyclable Glass Olher Nonrecyclable Glass METALS Aluminum Cans Other Ferrous Other Nonferrous White Goods Mixed Metals OTHER WASTES Inert Solids Household Hazardous PJF\F64\F6401010 1 % Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Waste Generation FA Table 2-2 Waste Disposal Quantities forthe City of Lodi 1990 Note: Data for resider". eommerciat, and industrial wmtes was provided by CWRS Data to sell taut wason W" prWMO tly Sm joagm county DepsfMM of PvOc Y+ 0AS This inwmaxm was appk4 wmds tfte waste oompommin rnbrmaaon from the County's study in Appendix C b derive the tors of materia) dispoeed of try waste type and ca*00ry 1Exce WatlLodAlable2-2.xlS Table 2.3 SUMMARY CIE' WASTES DISPOSED, DIVERTED AND GENERATED BY WASTE CATEGORY IN THE CITY OF LODI (1990) Wasle Category Diverted Tons %' Transformed Disposed Tons %' _ Tons°' Generated Tons Paper 4,690 311% 17,964 1190% 22,651 115.00'1 Plastics 68 0.04% 5,284 350% 5.352 3.54% Glass 1,073 0.710% 2.017 134% 3.030 2.05% Metals 10,943 7.25% 6.286 4.16% 17.229 11.41% Yard Was 570 038% 11,G91 774% 12.261 8 12% Olher Organics 11,701 7.75% 2,507 " 1.66% 18.475 1223% 32,684 2164% Of her Was les 52.237 3459% 5.513 3.65% 57,750 38.24% Total 81.282 53.82`.0 2,507 1.660/9 67,231 44.520/. Pervwl of W.4 wasfesfrearn. AN nunbun in Iters ta,rla aru esixossW as a pucunUVO of qunwatron As a rewlt, emu ntwdws od appear Offerertl sw the poocenv9es of larKtM ed waslus m Appona. C svxe f< ware expressed as a porow" of landfiFBd wasles and not vnefalod wa<jm Waste wood and bre 1rart5*XMa08n . 2261 lops and toes . 226 28 ions 1e=e1 W\Wdlkiuf vnary.xts 151,020 100.00%1 GGrarat': and .'.'a'er.ai T-, pe Residential Commerctat Indus?rr,]+ ='a %PER (lolal) 1,614.37 1,828.37 1.237.14 4,689.88 )CG'Kralt 3-6,86 1,II'3.66 73» .5 2.'540 Aagaz�nes 000 0.00 3 CC - 'V ,d.xeO Paper 7.24 000 C CC -2, 7ewspont 1,257.62 698.05 278 C3 2.23- :9 4191, Grade 2.65 54 97 152.6 2:3 C5 )cher Paper 0.00 090 62.50 83415 LASTICS (total) 18.20 3.54 46.17 67.91 40PE 0.00 0.00 300 1 c.3 )ET 18.20 3.10 367 2s 97 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.4 '0lystyren© Foam 0.00 000 000 CO Daher PlasttC 0.00 0.00 4250 411 50 LASS (lotal) 744.96 166.26 161.38 1,072.60 9etillat)kr, Beverage 0.79 021 332 .-,2 ,A Redemption Value 598.05 12122 91 82 DlYler Recyclable 123.36 38.76 6014 22226 Dther Non -Recyclable 22.76 6.07 9 to 3 93 ETALS (total) 2,174.47 1.540.53 7,228.25 10,943,25 r4lurninurn, Cans 291.58 32127 41.2t 65•. C6 ether Alummum 41.49 27.67 3400 h C3 '<6 3!,metai Cans 000 0.00 0.00 3 CC Steel Food 8 Bev. Cans 000 0.00 4.031 .00 4,03100 Other Ferrous 1,752.98 1,130.11 2,608.67 5,491.76 Other Non•lerraus 08.42 60.48 513.37 68227 White Goods 0.00 1.00 0.00 100 ARD WASTE (total) 570,00 0.00 0.00 570.00 Leav9s and Grass 570.00 0.00 0.00 570 CO Branches and Brush 0.00 0.00 000 0 CO iTHER ORGANICS (lotal) 304.12 151.41 11,245.62 11,701.15 Food 0,00 54.97 11.220.00 11.27507 Rubbery?ices 1,71 75.42 0.50 77 63 Wood 85.41 21.02 24,97 13140 Agri. Crop Residua 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Manure 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Textitesll_eather 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 Diapers 217.00 0.00 0.00 217.03 Other Organics ^.00 0.00 0.00 000 3THER WASTE3 (total) 0.00 23,851.00 28,386.00 32,237.00 Inert Solids 0.00 23,851.00 28,386,00 52.237.00 H H W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Appliances 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PECIAL WASTES (total) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ash 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sewage Sludge 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Industrial Sludge 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 Asbestos 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Auto Shredder WaS18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 CO Auto Bodies 000 0.00 0.00 000 SlufIed Furn �Manresses 0.00 000 0.00 0 CO 8a,1e•ies 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Used Oil C 30 0.00 000 0 00 'OTAL DIVER SION 5.426.12 27,541.11 48,314,56 _ 81,281.79 _ xceldat10&tab2-4a.xls IMatenal r3ole 2 R Summary of Divers+cn Quantities for the City of Lodi by Generator and Nlateriat Typo t 19901 Residential Commercial Industrial Total Table 2.48 drlters from Tabse 2-4A In that tfe dWerSion data m surnmanzed within the waste gtegorrft used by the County in their waste compoartion S" to allow County statt to make more drract companion !j .,e by waste type. The spec�at wastes tdentrted in Table 2-4A are not inch,ped to Table 2. Note. The City's sear coftf on program delivered approximately 814 ;ons of leaves to the Lodi Transfer Stapon c; .rr However, bocause of an accounting system dovelcpad by San Joaquin County which requiros 30 percent of hanster station drver%on to be credited to the County. only 570 tons of yard waste owers,on trom the C•ty's leaf collection program can to credited to Lodi excelda1lLodil1ab2.4b xis "'' PAPER (total) 1.614 1.828 1,247 4.690 E OCC?Kratl 347 1,074 734 2.155 l Mixed Paper 7 0 0 !Yew sprint 1.258 699 278 2.233 High Grade 3 55 152 210 I Other Paper 0 1 93 a3 PLASTICS (total) 18 4 46 68 HOPE 0 3 0 3 r PET t$ 1 3 23 ' Film 0 0 0 0 Other Plaslic 0 0 43 43 GLASS (total) 745 166 161 1,073 Refillable Beverage 1 0 0 1 CA Redemption Value 599 121 92 811 I' Other Recyclable 123 39 60 222 Other Non -Recyclable 23 6 9 38 METALS (total) 2,174 1,541 7,228 10,943 Aluminum Cans 292 321 41 654 (kher Ferrous 1,753 1,130 6.640 9.523 l Other Non- terrous 130 69 547 765 1, White Goods 0 1 0 Mixed Metals 0 0 0 0 YARD WASTE (total) 570 D D 570 I{ OT! : "inGAHICS (totaq 304 11,246 11.701 li . Foo- C s5 11,220 11.275 IF Rubber/Tires 2 75 1 78 ¢ Wood 85 21 25 131 Agri. Crop Residue 0 D 0 0 Manure 0 0 0 0 I Textiles/Lealher 0 0 1 1 I Other 217 0 0 217 OTHER WASTES (total) D 23,831 28,386 52.237 iIl I Inert Solids 0 23.851 28.386 52.237 Hazardous 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 5,426 27,541 48,315 81,282 Table 2.48 drlters from Tabse 2-4A In that tfe dWerSion data m surnmanzed within the waste gtegorrft used by the County in their waste compoartion S" to allow County statt to make more drract companion !j .,e by waste type. The spec�at wastes tdentrted in Table 2-4A are not inch,ped to Table 2. Note. The City's sear coftf on program delivered approximately 814 ;ons of leaves to the Lodi Transfer Stapon c; .rr However, bocause of an accounting system dovelcpad by San Joaquin County which requiros 30 percent of hanster station drver%on to be credited to the County. only 570 tons of yard waste owers,on trom the C•ty's leaf collection program can to credited to Lodi excelda1lLodil1ab2.4b xis "'' ar". 5 Resuletiteal Diversion Or Amjiy I Reductjen ,al PAPER (total) 521 423 6" 0 1.614; �cc.xran 4 3 45 302 147- F�ag�ljnrs r 0 1. N%sel Paper 0 , riowSG'rrd j 521 300 35, t :56 1kgh Giradtr 0 3 1 Omer Paper ! 0 C PLASMS )total) 3 1 Is 0 111, ttpPE I _ PET 3 1 tS 19 F',tm p Polystyrene Foam 0 c! Other Ptasnc J Ci GLASS (loll*)) 270 0 473 0 7145; Retluable Fleveraw i 0 1 1 CA R m*mpton Valve 270 710 540; Other Re"ctable 0 123 123, Other Non-A*cydable I 0 23 23 METALS (16141) 47 35 2.M 0 2,174; Alummurn Cane t5 2 274 .192 Okhet Atumwrum 0 41 41 BA rrietat Cans � 0 O 'Steel Footf a Flex Cans 0 0� Other Ferrous 32 3t 4.4390 t 77?I Other 434x1-lerrvua 0 2 87 so' wtrte Goods 0 4r YARD WASTE (*W) M 0 0 0 $701 Leaves and [inM 570 5701 Brarjj:tles and ansh 4 0 OTHER ORGItWS (ftW) 0 07 0 217 rood 0 of ! lk0berITIwett 0 2 21 Wood 0 S5 315 Agn crop %swk e a 4 Manum 0 0 Te xtjlowl-eather 0 0 Duapers 0 217 2),1 000 omanks (OTHER WASUS (Wal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! +nen Sokft 0 0 114NW 0 01 Apprranoes a 01 }SPiKctAL WASTts(10W) 0 0 0 0 o Ash 0 0 S.P-"* Sw" 0 0 i tnoustrra) Skil"* 0 0 Asbestos 0 0 Auto Shredd*r WasW* 0 0 s Auto Bodes 0 0 Stutled FurnAft9romwit 0 0 Ballenes 0 0 Used al 0 0 TOTAL ! 1.411 S47 Nota.- Numbers may not oppawr to edd due to mun4ln0 errors .-,• '-r Lrr� �wal cabsajajP1e0ri'^ a•.er.a ♦'+a�or�uw+r •ts far ar �sarsw aths iat Tja,rNM 'lean j.�w•.wr o-.: a.,wa Or M •ctt1s49fdv 4riwn dv-*:dcW b► yn wtcb r•QbM** V trjt" d "W*W M MM OMOI NA •,� iv r'w.•s b trw CAVrMi �^h i%O 10^5 al r�jd wlsM OMrfon 1^wn Nr C Kf vel j`OjlRtjjln e••srij� tM W c•nes•p M LeA , rc".il'LodjN6vort4 all i-,QFT}F*Y(�rr„li VI•/A rS�f} S1Y AC t1Y �ttii 'AdtCrial. ilecl,an 'Drop oft- Rwy, [sack sovtce �htlwctpn ,PAPER (totas) 1,420 105 253 50 3 1.820; "�agiz,ncg 111ta@(7 �=3prr _, Nd1NSptrrt 51, 94 i1,y `>rt9f Nigh Grade 5 SJ 551 Other Paper , PLASTICS (total) t 0 3 0 4j ROPE 3 ;I PET 0 3 3 Film 0 3{{i Polystyrene Foam Othdr Plastic 3LASS (total) 52 0 114 0 1136 RefttlaWe Beverage 0 J CA Redemption Value 52 039 0 '21 Other Recyclable 39 0 3A Othe, Npr1-RecyclabW 6 0 6 64ETALS (total) 6 f 1,534 0 I'S41 Aluminum Cana 121 v 121 Other Alurrnmum 28 Bt-melak Cans _ 0: Steel Food b Bev Cans 0 0 Other Ferrous 3 1 t 2?a t t 3Q Other Non-terious 3 5A 0 8fl While Good. 1 J 1 YARD WASTE (total) 0 0 0 0 0 Leaves and (kass 0 0 Branches and Brush 0 0 )THER ORGANICS (total) 130 21 0 0 1st Food 55 0 SS Rubber Tues 'S .1 0 7S Wood 2 ! 0 21 Agit Crop Rostdue 0 01 Manure 3 0j Tea titeslLeather 0 0� Drapers 0 0, Other Organics 0 0 )THER WASTES (total) 0 0 1,151 22,500 23.#!1 Inert Solids 1.351 ,2.500 0.H11 HHW 0 01 APP"mes 0 0' ;PECIAL WASTES (total) 0 0 0 0 0 Asti C 0' Sewage Sludge 0 0 Industrial $fudge 0 0 Asbestos 0 0 Auto Shedder Waste 0 0 Auto Bodies 0 0 Stulted Furn Uattresse•- a 0 Batte"es 0 0 Used Oil a 0 Tues 0 0 POTAi 1,508 127 3j2SS s0 vgcv�dsi Lod+`table2 6 1'.I.?I ! `aCee , IndoWrrar Ui V* ion byAclrvrly dater,,r C:40ctron -Drop ott' Buy-back Other , u;al >AFFR (total) 953 124 171 0 1,2471 {'C.0 Kr.i't 657 13 r4 '34 Mi■ea Parer « , Newsprint E3 117 t0; High Grad! 151 2 Other Paper 93 5 @3 PLASTICS (total) 43 0 4 3 4i) HOPE 3 6, PET 4 0 +� Ftm 0 V=i Ppiyslyfeno Foam Other Ptash: A3 0 43 ;LASS (total) 13 0 1441 0 161j ReWahle Beverage 0 0 I CA F:edompuon Value 13 79 0 L21 Other Recyclable w 0 wl Other NomRetyetable 9 a Pel AETALS (total) 3,2" 10 1,952 0 7.22E1 Aluminum Cans 0 t 40 0 41 Other Aluminum 34 0 141 91 metal Cans 3 ;, Stool Food & Gov Cara A 031 0 4 031 Other Ferrous 2 D 1976 0 2 609 Other Non-ferrous 513 0 0 51J White floods a 1ARD WASTE {total) 0 C 0 0 Leaves and Brass 0 0 Branches and Brush 0 0 OTHER ORGANICS {total) 11=1 25 0 0 11245 Fogg 11 120 0 1 1,;t7i1 Rubbeu7vet 1 0 t Wood 25 0 2S Agri Crop Residue 0 0 Manure 0 0 Teikb*VLeattler 0 0 0 Drapers 0 0 Other Organucs 3 0 OTHER WASTES (tout) 4,s3s t,331 0 22,530 Z knertSolids 4.S]S 1.351 22500 26. HHW 0 ApQMnces 0 0 SPECIAL WASTES (total) 0 0 0 C 0 Ash C 0 Sewage Sludge C 0 industrial Sh► p f 0 Asbestos f Auw Shredder Waste 0 Auto Bodies 0 Stuffed Furn Vattrussos ,r 0 Batteries ? 0 Used cal 0 0 Tires 3 0 rovA , ...._ 22.029 1__ _.,810 er<cekdat Lvtl. Mt 1v.! Table 2 - 8 POPULATION PROJECTIONS For the City of Lodi YEAR TOTAL POPULATION Incorporated City 1990 51.874 1991 52.911 1992 53.970 1993 55.040 1994 56.150 1995 57.273 19% 58,419 1997 59.587 19% 60.779 1999 61,994 2000 63,234 2001 64.499 2002 65.789 2003 67,105 2004 68.447 2005 69,816 2006 71.212 2007 72.636 2008 74.089 2009 75,571 2010 77,082 2011 78,624 2012 80,19C, 2013 81,800 2014 83.436 2015 85.105 AD iexceldatlLo6Table2-8 xis 0 i abie 2 9 15 Year Waste Generation Pi ojections Assuming Current Diversion Rates Waste Type 1990 Diversion 1991 Diversion as a as a Trans- Percunt of Trans- Percent of form- Diver- Genera- Wastes form- Direr- Genera- Wastes i Di 1 ation sionr Zion Generated I Disposal 18 ation 0 sion 4 783 tion 23106 Generated + 3.10°,,6i PAPER 17,96t 0 4689 22 653 3.1096 OCC/Kratl 4.881 0 2,155 7,036 1.43% 4,979 0 2.198 7,177 1.43% Mixed Paper 6.004 0 7 6,011 0.00% 6,124 0 7 6.131 0.00%!, Newsprint 2,145 0 2,234 4.379 1.48'0 2.188 0 2,279 4.466 146'': High Grade 484 0 210 634 0.14% 494 0 214 708 0.140,',•; Otter Paper. 4,451 0 83 4,534 0.05% 4,540 0 85 4,624 0.05%i PLASTICS 5,284 0 64 5.3531 0.05°b 1 5.39001 70 5 461) 0.05%1. HDPE 410 0 3 413 0000/0 418 0 3 421 0 00° PET 87 0 23 110 002% 89 0 23 113 0 02011, Film 1,876 0 0 1.876 000% 1,913 0 0 1.913 0000/1-1 Other Plastic ?,911 01 43 2.954 0.03°x° 2,9691 0 44 3 013 0.030i'f GLASS 2,917 01 1,072 3,089 0,71% 2.057 0 1 093 3,151 0.71%1' Refillable Beverage 13 0 1 14 O DO% 14 0 1 15 0.00°'' j CA Redemption Value 437 0 811 1,248 0.54% 446 0 827 1,273 0.54 Other Recyclable 1,277 0 222 1,499 0.15% 1,303 0 226 1,529 0.15% Other Non -Recyclable 289 0 38 327 0.03% 295 0 39 334 0.03°� METALS : 6,266 0 10,9<1 16,268 7.25% .64j 2 0 11,162 17,574 7.25% Aluminum Cans 161 0 654 815 0.431/6 165 0 667 832 0.430/, Other Ferrous 4,108 0 9.523 13.631 6.31% 4,190 0 9,713 13,903 Other Non-ferrous 390 0 765 1,155 0.51% 398 0 780 1,178 0.51d� , White Goods 6% 0 1 667 0.00% 679 0 1 6B0 0.00°. Mixed Metals 961 01 0 961 0.00°!0 981 0 0 981 0.00011, YARD WASTE 11691 0 570 12 261 0.39% 11 0 581 12 507 0.38% OTHER ORGANICS. 18475 2 507 11,792 30 177 7.75% 18 2 11 35 33 7.750/0 Food 7,382 0 11,275 18,657 7.479/° 7,530 0 11,501 19,030 7.475.., Rubber/Tires 1,103 226 78 1,181 0.05% 1,125 231 80 1,435 0.05°.: Wood 5.385 2.281 131 5,516 0.090/0 5,493 2,327 134 7.953 0.09°:.: ` Agri. Crop Residue 303 0 0 303 0.00% 3e9 0 0 309 0.000/1; Manure 74 0 0 74 0.00% 75 0 0 75 0.00%, Textiles/Leather 4.222 0 1 4,223 0.00% 4,307 0 1 4,308 0.001'i `. 11 Other Organics' 7 0 217 224 0.14% 7 0 221 228 0.14° OTHER WASTES SAP 0 52,2 67,760 34.5996 6.623 0 53,282 58,905 34.59% ` Inert Solids 4,995 0 52,237 57.232 34.59% 5,095 D 53,282 58.377 34.59-, Hazardous 518 0 0 518 0.00% 526 0 0 528 0.00°;, '[DOTAL 67 231 2 507 81,282. 151,020 53.82% 68,576 2,557 82,9W 154,041 53.82% '. lable 2 9 �Gantinued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming Current Diversion Rates Waste Type 1992 Diversion 1993 Diversion as a as a Trans- Percent of Trans- Percent of form- Diver- Genera- Wastes form- Diver- Genera- Wastes Dis22221 anon Sion tion Generated Disposal ation siort tion Generated PAPER 18,6W 0 a 2%568 3.10% 1 1%094 0 4,9761 24 3.10% OCC/Kraft 5,078 0 2.242 7,320 1.43% 5,180 0 2,2871 7,467 1,43% Mixed Paper 6,246 0 7 6.254 0.00% 6.371 0 7 6,379 0.00% Newsprint 2,231 Q 2,324 4,556 1.48010 2,276 0 2,371 4.647 1.480/6 High Grade 504 0 218 722 0.14% 514 0 223 737 0.14 °x, Other Paper 4,631 0 86 4,717 0.05% 4,723 0 88 4,81 1 0.05% PLASTICS 5 498 0 72 5 570 0.05% 5,608 0 73 5,681 0.05%6 HDPE 427 0 3 430 0.000/1 435 0 3 438 0.00°1} PET 91 0 24 115 0.02% 93 0 24 117 0.02%1 Film 1.952 0 0 1,9521 0.00% 1,991 0 0 1,991 0.0090 Other Plastic 3,029 0 45 3,073 0.03'/0 3,089 0 46 3.1351 0.03"� GLASS 0 1,115 3,214 0.71%6 1 2.1401 0 1,138 3 T4 1 0.71% Refillable Beverage 14 0 1 15 0.00% _ 14 0 1 15 0DV/0 CA Redemption Vase 455 0 844 1,298 0.54% 464 0 861 1.324 0.54° Other Recyclable 1,329 01 231 1,560 OAS% 1,356 0 236 1,591 0.1501/0 Other Non-Remlable 301 0 401 340 0.0wo 307 0 40 347 0.Q301d MF-TAt_S 6.60 0 11.385 17.92S 7.25% 6,671. 0 11613 MW 7.261/61 Aluminum Cans 168 0 680 848 0.43% 171 0 i 694 865 0.430/,-! Other Ferrous 4,274 0 9,908. 14,181 6,31% 4,359 0 10.106 14,465 6.3.1°al Other Non-ferrous 406 0 796 1,202 0,51% 414 0 812 1,226 0.51°,x' White Goods 692 0 1 694 0.000/D 706 0 1 707 0.00%; Mixed Metals 11000 0 01 1,000 0.00% 1,020 0 0 1,0201 0.00'/,! YARD WASTE 12,164 ` 0 593 12.757 0.38% 12.4071, : 0 6M I 121 0.3896' OTHEKOAGANICS 19 221 - 2609 12175 34 005 7.75% 19 606 2 661 1 A#e '.: 685 7.76% Food 7.680 0 11,731: 19.411 7.47% 7,834 0 11.965 19.799 7,47% Rubber/Tires 1,147 235 81 1,464 0.05% 1,170 240 83 1,493 0.05% Wood 5,603 2,373 136 8,112 0.090/0 5.715 2.421 139 8.274 0.09°' Agri. Crop Residue 315 0 0 315 0.00% 321 0 0 321 0.00° o' Manure 77 0 0 77 0.000/0 78 0 0 78 0.00% Textiles/Leather 4,393 0 1 4,394 0.00% 4,481 0 1 4,482 0.00% Other Or anics 7 0 226 233 0.14% 7 0 230 237 0.14% MER WASTES. 5 736 0 54 347 60.0831 34.59% 5 850 0 55 434 61 285 34.59%: Inert Solids 5,197 0 54.347 59.5441 34.591% 5.301 0 55,434 60,735 34.59" lr HHW 539 0 0 5391 0.00% 5491 0 0 5491 0.0001' I TOTAL f 69,9471 2,6091 "61 157 1211 53.82461 1 71,3461 2,661 86,2571_53.82% Waste Type 1994 Divers"on 1995 Diversion as a as a Trans. Per(;erI1 01 Trans- Percent of form- Diver- Genera. Wastes form- Diver- Genera- Wastes Disposal ation s i n tion Generated Disposal ation sion tion Generated PAPER 19,445 0 507 24520 3.10% 19,834 5,177 25,011 3.10% OCC1Kraft 5.28 2. 7.616 1.43% 5.38 2,375, 7,768 1-430 Mixed Paper 6.499 0 8 6.50 0.00% 6.62 0 8 6.636 0.000% Newsprint 2,32 2.41 4.74 1 AS% 2,364 2.46 4,834 1.4 High Grade 524 0 221 751 0.14% 534 0 232 766 0.140". Other Paper 4,818 0 90 4.907 0.05% 4,914 0 92 5,006 0.05% PLASTICS 5 720 0 75 5,795 0.05% 5 0 76 5.911 0.05% HDPE 444 0 3 447 000% 453 0 3 493 0.000/n PET 95 0 25 120 0.02010 96 0 25 127 0,02% Film 2.030 0 0 2,030 0.00% 2.071 0 0 2.071 0.00% Other Plastic 3,15? 0 47 3,199' 0.03% 3.214 0 47 3,262 0.03 0 GLASS 21193 0 1 160 3 344 0.71% 2.227 0 11.1134 3 410 0.71% Ref4lable Beverage 15 0 1 16 0.0011/. 15 0 1 16 0.0a% CA Redemption Value 473 0 878 1,351 0.54% 482 0 895 1.378 0.54% Other Recyclable 1 383 0 240 1,623 0.150/9 1,410 0 245 1,655 0.150/. Other Non-Rec clable 313 0 41 354 0.03% 319 0 42 .361 0.030/0 METALS MR4 11&!5 18,649 7.250,E 6,9413 .. ' 0 12J%2 19 2 7.25% Aluminum Cans 175 0 708 883 0.47/0 178 0 722 900 0.430/. Other Ferrous 4.446 0 10.308 14,754 6.31% 4,535 0 10,5141 15.050 6.31% Other Non-ferrous 422 0 828 1,250 0.51% 431 0 845 1,275 0.510,% White Goods 720 0 1 722 0.00% 735 0 1 736 0.00% Mixed Metals 1,041 0 0 1,041 0.000!0 1,061 0 0 1,061 0.00% YARD WASTE 12.665 0 617 13,272 0.38% 12 0 629 13 0.38% OTHER ORGANICS 19M 2 714 12 667 35,179 7.75% 20.3902,768 12320 36.006 7.75% Food 7,cr190 0 12,204 20,195 7.47% 8,150 0 12,449 20.599 7.47% Rubber/Tires 1.193 245 84 1,523 0.05% 1.217 250 86 1.553 0.050/0 Wood 5,829 2,469 142 8,440 0.090/0 5,946 2,5518 145 8.609 0.090!0 Agri. Crop Residue 327 0 0 327 0.00% 334 0 0 334 0.00010 Manure 80 0 0 80 0.00% 82 0 0 82 0.000/0 Textiles/Leather 4.570 0 1 4,571 0.00% 4,662 0 1 4,663 0.000/* ' Other O anics 7 0 235 242 0.14% 71 0 240 2471 0.14% OT14ER WASTES 5967 0 56 543 62.510. 34.59% $ 087 0 57,674 63 761 34.590!0 Inert Solids 5,407 0 56,543 61,950 34.59% 5,515 0 57,674 63,189 34.590,0 HFi[W 560 0 0 560 0.00% 572 0 0 572 0.00% TOTAL 72,7731 2,7141 87,982 163L469 53.82010 74 228 2 768 89 742 166 739 53.82"/0 Waste Type l 1996 Diversion 1997 Diversion as a% as a°o Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste lorm- Diver- Genera- Gener- lorm- Dever- Genera- Uenv, Disposal ation sion ton ated Disposal ation sion tion ated PAPER 20,231 0 5,2 25 3,100% 1 20 01 5,38626 3.10°Yc OCC/Kraft 5.497 0 2.427 7.924 1.43% 5.607 p 2.475 8.082 1.431° Mixed Paper 6.761 0 a 6.769 0.00r/a 6.896 q 8 6.904 0.00 Newsprint 2,415 0 2,516 4,931 1.480/* 2,464 0 2,566 5,030 1.48% High Grade 545 0 236 782 0.14% 556 0 241 797 0.14% Other Paper5.012 0 93 5.106 0,05% 5,112 0 95 5.208 0.05% PLASTICS 5,951 0 78 6,029 1105% 6.070 0 79 6,149 O.OS% HDPE 462 0 3 465 0.00% 471 0 3 475 0.00% PET 98 0 26 124 0.02% 100 0 26 127 0.02% Film 2.112 0 0 2.1120.00010 2.155 0 0 2.155 0.009`6 Other Plastic 3,278 0 48 3,327 0.03% 3,3441 0 49 3,393 0.03% GhgS. 2,271 0 1 207 3,479 0.71% 2L317 0 1 231 3,548 0.716 Reflillable Beverage 15 0 1 16 0.000/0 15 0 1 17 0.000% CA Redemption Value 492 0 913 1.405 0.54% 502 0 932 1,434 0.54% Other Recyclable 1,439 0 250 1,689 0.15% 1,467 0 255 1,722 0.150% Other Non-Recyclable 326 01 43 368 0.03% 332 0 441 376 0.03% METALS 7 079 0 12,324 19,403. 7.25% 7,221 0 12570 19 791 7.2596 Aluminum Cans 182 0 737 918 0.43% 185 0 751 937 0.43% Other Ferrous 4.626 0 10,724 15.351 6.31% 4,719 0 10,939 15.658 6.31% Other Non-ferrous 439 0 862 1,301 0.51% 448 0 879 1,327 0.51% White Goods 750 0 1 751 0.009'0 765 0 1 766,0.00% Mixed Metals 1.083 0 0 1,083. 0.0090 1 104 0 0 1 104 0.009'0 YARD? WASTE 1 16e 0 542 13,W8 0.38% 13,430 0 655 14 0.38% OTHER ORGANICS 20 8% ; 2 824 13,178 36,8W 7.75% 21 2.8801 13 442 37 7.75% Food 8.313 0 12,697 21,011 7.47% 8.480 0 12,951 21,431 7.47'/0 Rubber/Tires 1.242 255 88 1.584 0.05% 1,267 260 90 1.616 0.05ve Wood 6.065 2,569 148 8.781 0.09% 6.186 2.620 150 8,957 0.09°!0 341 0 0 341 0.00% 348 0 0 348 0.000/° Manure 83 0 0 83 0.00% 85 0 0 85 0.001% 4.755 0 1 4.756 0.00% 4,850 0 1 4,851 0.00% " Other Organics 8 0 244 252 0.14% 8 0 249 257 0.14% OTHER WASTES fi 208 0 58,827 65 036 34.59% 6,333 0 wowl 66,337 34.59% Inert Solids 5,625 0 58,827 64,453 34.590/, 5,738 0 60,004 65.74234.59% • HHW 583 0 0 ` 3 0.00% 595 0 0 595 0,00% ' TOTAL 75,713 2,824 91 537 170,073 53.82% 77,227 2 880 93 367 173 475 53.82"0 Waste Type SCC/Kraft Mixed Paper NayiRnrint PIDWICS I PET Film ' Gi.Ass Reelable Beverage CA Redemption Value Other Recyclable " METALS Aluminum Cans Other Ferrous Other Non-ferrous y While Goods Y Food RubberlTires Wood Agri. Crop Residue Manure Texiiles/Leaiher -«r Ml...r f -►.w.. n:nc Inert Solids I 'I HHw Table 2-9 (Contwued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projectiuns Assuming Current Diversion Rales 1998 Diversion — - .j_ _ J �t Diversion E asa% asa% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste form- Diver- Genera- Gener- form- Diver- Genera Gener- isposal ation sion tion ated Dis ' ; ation Sion tion aced I 21,048 01 5,494 26,542 3.10%1 1 21 469 0 S,604 27,973: 3.1876 5,719 0 2.525 8,244 1.43% 5,833 0 2,575 8.409 1.43%, 7,034 0 8 7,043 0.00% 7,175 0 8 7,183 0.00%' 2,513 0 2,617 5,130 1.48% 2,563 0 2.670 5.233 1.48%i{ 567 0 246 813 0.14% 579 0 251 829 3.14011 5,215 0 97 5,312 0.05% 5.319 0 99 5.418 0.05%E 6191 01 81 6 272 0.05% 6,315 0 82 398 0 0 150 481 0 4 484 0.00°/0 490 0 4 494 0.00% 102 0 27 129 0.02% 104 0 27 132 0 020/,.1 2,198 0 0 2,198 0.009/0 2,242 0 0 2,242 0.00%1 3,411 0 50 3,461 0.03°x0 3.479 0 51 3 530 0.03%' 2.393 0 1.256 3,619 0.71% 2,410 0 1,291 3 a92 0.7196 16 0 1 17 0.00% 16 0 1 17 0.00% 512 0 950 1,462 0.54% 522 0 969 1,491 0.54010 1,497 0 260 1,757 0.15% 1,527 0 265 1.792 0.150,1,, 339 0 45 383 0.03% 345 0 45 391 0,03°/C t 7,365 01 12,821 20187 7.25% 7,512 0 13,070 20 590 7.2576' 189 0 766 955 0.43% 193 0 782 974 0.43°0; 4,813 0 11,158 15,971 6.31% 4,909 0 11,381 16,290 6.31"/.,! 457 0 896 1,353 0.51% 466 0 914 t ,380 0.5101 780 0 1 781 0.00% 795 0 1 797 0.00% 1126 0 0 1,126 0.00%1 1.149 0 0 1.149 0.00010 13 698 01 668 14,366 0.30% 13,972 0 681 i4JM 0.30% 21646 2 938 13,711 38,295 7.75% 22,079 2996 13 985 39061 7JS% 8,649 0 13.210 21.860 7.47% 8.822 0 13,475 22,297 7.47010 1,292 265 91 1,648 0.05% 1,318 270 93 1.681 0.050,0 6,310 2,673 153 9,136 0.09% 6.436 2,726 157 9.318 0.090% 354 0 0 354 0.00% 362 0 0 362 0.00% 87 0 0 87 0.00% 88 0 0 88 0.00% 4,947 0 1 4,948 0.00% 5,046 0 1 5,047 0.00"/0 8 0 254 262 0.140/. 8 0 259 267 0.1401 R 459 01 61,204 67,663 34.59% 6,588 0 62,428 61,017. 34.59% ,853 0 61,204 67,057 34.591% 5,970 0 62,428 68,398 34.590/0 607 0 0 607 0.00% 619 0 0 619 0.009/0 78,772, 2,938 95t235 176,944 53.8296 80 347 2 996 97140 180,4831 53.82"% w Table 2-9 (Continued) 15 Year Waste Generatio, Projections Assuming Current Diversion Rates Waste Type 2000 Diversion 2001 Diversion asa% asa% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste form- Diver- Genera- Gener- form- Diver- Genera- Gener- Disposal anon cion tion ated Disposal ation sion tion aced PAPER .. ' '' 21 0 &716 27.614 3.10% 22MB 0 5830 166 3.10% OCC/Kraft 5,950 0 2,627 8.577 1.43% 6.069 0 2,679 8,748 1.43% Mixed Paper 7,319 0 9 7,327 0.00% 7,465 0 9 7.474 0.00% Newsprint 2,614 0 2,723 5.338 1.48% 2,667 0 2,778 5,444 1.480/. High Grade 590 0 256 13416 0.14% 602 0 261 1363 0.14% Other Pa r 5,425 01 101 5,527 0.05% 5.5341 0 103 5,637 0.05% PLASTICS 6 0 8e_ B,526 0.0% 6 0 85;§&IL6 0.05% HOPE 500 0 `:r 504 0.00% 510 0 4 514 O.OW. PET 107 0 2:ii 135 0.02% 109 0 29 137 0.02% Film 2,287 0 0 2,287 0.00% 2.332 0 0 2.332 0.000/. Other Plastic 3,549 01 52 3.601. 0.03% 3.620 0 5C 3 673 0.OWI* 0 1.3071 76S 0.71% 0 1 333 3,841 0.71% Refit ble Beverage 16 0 1 18 0.00% 17 0 1 18 0.000/0 CA Redemption Value 533 0 989 1,521 0.54% 543 0 1.008 1.552 0.54% Other Recyclable 1,557 0 271 1,$28 0.15% 1,588 0 276 1,864 0.159'0 Non-Recydable 3S2 0 46 35b 0.03% : 359 0 47 407 0.03% M F.0 L.S 7,6631 ": 0 13= 21.002 :.7.25%1 1 7,1316 :. 0 13 $06 21,A22 1.25% Akwninum Cans 197 0 797 994 0.4396 201 0 813 1.014 0.430/c Other Ferrous 5,007 0 11,608 16,616 6.31% 5.108 0 11,841 16,948 6.31% OtherNon4errous 475 0 933 1,408 0.51% 485 0 951 1,436 0.51% Wilde Goods 811 0 1 813 0.00% 828- 0 1 829 0.00% Mixed Metals 1.172 01 0 1,1721 0.009'0 1.195 0 0 1.195 0.000% YA 'WASTE: ; <. L252 0 `:.695.. 14947 0.3896 ,,14 . 0 709. 1ST 46 . 4.38% OTHERORGANICS521::: 3 05B :14 265:: 39,842 7.7596 71 :`3117 14,5W 639. 7.75%Food 8,999 0 13.744 22.743 7.47% 9,179 0 14,019 23.198 7.470% Rubber/Tires 1,344 276 95 1,715 0.05% 1.371 281 97 1.749 0.0:10 Wood 6,565 2,781 160 9,505 0.09% 6,696 2,836 163 9.695 0.09010 Agri. Crop Residue 369 0 0 369 0.00% 376 0 0 376 0.04% Manure 90 0 0 90 0.00°/0 92 0 0 92 0.000/0 Textiles/Leather 5,147 0 1 5,148 0.00% 5,250 0 1 5,251 0.00% Other 8 0 265 273 0.14% 8 0 2701 27811 0.14% OTHER -WASTES: 6720 0 63,677 70,397 34-59%=2 0 64 950J 71805 :_. 34.5996 Inert Solids 6,089 0 63,677 69,766 34.59% 6,211 0 64,950 71,161 34.59% HHW 631 0 0 631 0.00°10 644 0 0 644 0.000% TOTAL. 81 954 3,13%. 99,C62 184 093 53.82% 83,593, 31171__101,064- 18-7.775153.829'0 Table 2-9 (Continued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming Current Dive: sion Rates Waste Type 2002 Diversion 2003 Diversion asa% asa% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste form- Diver- Genera- Gener- form- Diver- Genera- Gener- D' I ation sion tion aced I ation sion tion ated PA. R 2ZM 0 947 28 730 3.10% 23 2390 6 056 24 3.10% OCC/Kraft 6,190 0 2,733 8,923 1.43% 6,314 0 2,788 9,102 1.43% Mixed Paper 7,614 0 9 7,623 0.00% 7,766 0 9 7.776 0.401/6 Newspnrd 2,720 0 2,833 5,553 1.48% 2.774 0 2,890 5,664 1.48% High Grade 614 0 266 880 0.14% 626 0 272 898 0.14% Other Paper 5,645 0 105 5,7501 0.05% 5.757 0 107 5 0.050/1 PLASTICS ` 6 702 0 88 6,7891 0.05% 1 x 836 0 89 . 6.9251 0.0596 HDPE 520 0 4 524 0.00% 531 0 4 534 0.00% PE=T 111 0 29 140 0.020/0 113 1 0 30 143 0.020/6 Film 2,379 0 0 2.379 0.00% 2.426 0 02,426 0.00% Other Plastic 3,692 01 55 3,747 0.03% 3.766 0 W 3,821 0.03%. GLASS `" 2, 0 1.350 3.91181 0.71'1r 1 2,6C9 0 1 73.996 0.71% Reelable Beverage 17 0 1 18 0.00% 17 0 1 19 0.00% CA Redemption Value 554 0 1,029 1,583 0.54% 565 1 0 1,049 1,614 0.54% Other Recyclable 1,620 0 282 1,902 0.15% 1,652 0 287 1,940 0.15% Other Non-Rggctable 367 0 48 415 0.03% 374 0 49 423 0.03"/0 lElttfiALS :" 7 0 13 78 21.851;1 7.25% 8,132 0. 14.156 22,288 7.25% Akxninum Cans 205 0 829 1,034 0.43% 209 0 846 1.055 0.43% Other Ferrous 5,210 0 12,077 17,287 6.31% 5,314 0 12,319 17.633 6.31% Other Non-ferrous 495 0 970 1,465 0.51% 504 0 990 1.494 0.51% While Goods 844 0 1 845 0.00% 861 0 1 862 0.00% Mixed Metals 1,219 0 01 1,219 0.00% 1,244 0 0 1,2441 0.00% YA >WAS' E :14 ::` 0 723 15.551 0.M 15124 ' :0 ' -M 15"21. 0.38% OTHEWORGANICS ALM .14 841 41452 7.7S% . 23 3 243 :. , 15138 ' ' 4 1 7.7S% Food 9,362 0 14.299 23,662 7.47% 9,549 0 14,585 24,135 7.470/6 Rubber/Tires 1,398 287 99 1,784 0,05% 1,426 293 101 1,820 0.050% Wood 6.830 2.893 166 9.889 0.09$ 6.966 2.951 169 10.087 0.09% ` Agri. Crop Residue 384 0 0 384 0.00% 391 0 0 391 0.00% Manure 94 0 0 94 0.00%:. 9E 0 0 96 0.00% Textiles/Leather 5.355 0 1 5,356 0.00% 5.462 0 1 5,463 0.00% Olher Organics 9 0 275 284 0.14% 9 0 281 289 0.14% OTHER WASTES 6.992 01 66.249, 73,241 34.59% 7.132 b 67.574 74,7 % Inert Solids 6.3350 66,24 72.584 34.59°/ 6.462 67.574 74,03 34.59% HHW 657 0 0 657 0.00% 670 0 0 670 0.00% ' TOTAL 85,265 3180 103.0851 191,530 53.82"/0 86,970 343 105.147' 1 95,36J 53-E32% Wade Type -- 2004 Diversion 2005 Diversion as a% asa% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Wase form- Diver- Genera- Gener- form- Diver- Genera- Gener- ation sion tion aced Dismsal I ation sion tion ated PAPER 703 0 6,187 29AW1 3.10% 24,177 0 311 30j4881 100/o OCC/Kraft 6,440 0 2,843 9,284 1.43% 6,S69 0 2,900 9,469 1.43% Mixed Paper 7,922 0 9 7,931 0.009'0 8,080 0 9 81090 0.00% Newsprint 2.830 0 2.948 5,778 1 Aft 2.886 0 3,007 5.893 1.489', High Grade 639 0 277 916 0.14% 651 0 283 934 0.14% Other Paper 5,873 01 110 5.982 0.05% 5.9W1 0 112 6102 ',,.05% PLASTICS ' 6 0 .91 7 O64 0,05% 7112. 0 93 ZSL5 0.05% HDPE 541 0 4 545 0.0090 552 0 4 556 0.000% PET 115 0 30 146 0.02% 118 0 31 149 0.02% Film 2,475 0 0 2,475 0.00% 2,525 0 0 2,525 0.000/6 Other Plastic 3,841 0 57 3.898 0.03% 3,918 0 58 3.976 0.030% GLASS 661 01 1 414 4 O7B ""' 0:716 Ti 5 0 1443 4.157 0.7196 ReWable Beverage 18 0 1 19 0.00% 18 0 1 19 0.00% CA Redemption Value 577 0 1,070 1,647 0.54%. 588 0 1,091 1.680 0.54% Other Recyclable 1,685 0 293 1,978 0.15% 1,719 0 299 2,018 0.150% Other Non-Figgdable 381 0 501 432 0.03% 389 0 51 440 0.03% METALS ` . $ 0 14.4ni 22733 7.25% 8,450 0 14 728 ' 1f38 7.2596 Aiuninum Cans 213 0 863 1.076 0.43% 217 0 880 1,097 0.430% Other Ferrous 5.420 0 12.565 17,986 6.31%. 5.529 0 12,817 18,345 6.31% Other Non-ferrous 515 0 1,009 1,524 0.51% 525 0 1,030 1,554 0.51% White Goods 878 0 1 880 0.00% 896 0 1 897 0.0()% Mixed Metals 1.269 0 0 1,2691 0.00% 1,294 0 0 1,2941 0.00% YA . .WASTE . ::1 � :427 ... ' D 752 16.179 :`:, : 0.38% " 15 ns 0 .... 787 -116=:-,. 0.311% OTFfl'ORGANICS :' Z4 ?? is 3' 15441 43'126 7.75'!6 ' 24 865 :' '3 374 :1<5 74S 7.75% Food 9,740 0 14,877 24,617 7.47% 9,935 0 15,175 25,110 7.47% Rubber/Tires 1,455 299 103 1.856 0.05%:.1,484 305 105 1,893 0.056/0 Wood 7,106 3,010 173 10,288 0.09% 7,248 3,070 176 10,494 0.090% 399 0 0 399 0.00% 407 0 0 407 0.000% Manure 98 0 0 98 0.0096: 140 0 0 100 0.000/0 Textiiesll_ealher 5,5710 1 5.572 0.00°6 5.682 0 1 5.684 0.00% Other Organics 9 0 286 295 0.14% ' 9 0 292 301 0.14% OTHER WASTES 7 274 0 6839261 76,2001 34.59% 1 7,420 0 70 77 724 34.59'!e Inert Solids 6,591 01 68,9261 75.5171 34.59%1 1 6,723 0 70.304 77,021 34.59°/0 H H W 683 I 01 01 683 0.00%1 1 697 6-9-7110 ITOTAL 88,7101 3,3081 107,2501 199,2681 53,82%1 1 90,4841 aM.2531 53.an. .10 Table 2.10 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming Assuming AB 939 Goals Can Be Achieved Waste Type 01 834.534 Calendar Year 1990 Diversion 85 4.624 Calendar Year 1991 umersion 5,263 410 i 69 5353 0.05% 5,390 0 as 0.059'0 0 3 413 as 1 418 0 3 421 Trans- PET 87 Percent of 23 110 Trans- 89 0 23 113 Percent of Fin 1,876 form- DIver- Genera- Wasles 0 1,9131 form- Diver- Genera- Wastes 43 2.954 Disposal ation sion tion Generated Disposal anon sion lion Generated r PAPER 17,964 0 4589 22,653 3.10% 18,323 0 4,783 23,106 3.10°/9i OCC/Kraft 4.881 0 2.155 7.036 1.430 4.979 0 2,198 7.177 1.43°/a i Mixed Paper 6.004 0 71 6.011 0.00% 6,124 0 7 6.131 0.00'/0 Newsprint 2.145 0 2.2341 4,379 1.48% 2.188 0 2.279 4.466 1.a8°i ' Other Paper 01 834.534 005% 4,540 0 85 4.624 005% PLASTICS 5,263 410 0 69 5353 0.05% 5,390 0 70 5,460 0.059'0 HDPE 0 3 413 000%1 1 418 0 3 421 000% PET 87 0 23 110 0.02% 89 0 23 113 0.02°x; Fin 1,876 0 0 1.876 0.00% 1.9131 0 0 1,9131 0.006/° OUwr Plastic 2.911 0 43 2.954 0.03% 2.969 C 44 3.013 0.0:3% GLASS 2,017 0 1,072 3,089 0.71% 2,057 0 1093 3,151 0.71% Refillable Beverage 13 0 1 14 0.00% 14 01 1 15 0.006/0 1 CA Redemption Value 437 0 R11 1.249 0.54°/ 446 0 827 1.273 0.54%i, • Other Recyclable 1.277 0 222 1.499 0.15% 1,303 0 226 1.529 0.156/oi Olher Non -Recyclable 289 0 38 327.0.03% 295 0 39 3:14 0.03%1 METALS 6:M .: 0 10943 16268 7.25% 6412 0 11, 17.574 7.25° Atr:minum Cans 161 0 654 815 0.43°/ 165 0 667 832 0.43%E Olher Ferrous 4.108 0 9.523 13.631 6.31% 4.190 0 9,713 13.903 6.31%1 Other kion -ferrous 390 0 765 1,15E 0.510/c 398 0 780 1.178 0.51 White Goods 666 0 1 667. 0.00°/ 679 0 1 6BO 0.00%! Mixed Metals 961 0 0 961 000%. 981 0 01 381 000% YARD WASTE 11,691 0 570 12,261 0.380/. 11,925 0 581 12,507 0.38%' OTHER ORGANICS 18475 507 11,702 30,177 7.75% 18,845 2,557 11,936 33,338 7.7596' Food 7.382 0 11,27d 18,65 747% 7,530 0 11,501 19 030 7 47° , Rubber/Tres 1.103 226 78 1.181 0.05% 1,125 231 80 1,435 i 0.05' 6I Wood 5,385 2.281 131 5.516 0.09& 5,493 2.327 134 7.353 0.09%1 Agri- Crop Residue 303 0 0 303 0.00% 309 0 0 309 0.00%! -. Manure 74 0 0 74 0.00% 75 0 0 75 0.00°1.1 Texiilesn.eather 4,222 0 1 4.223 0.00% 4.307 0 1 4.308 0.00% Olher Organics 7 0 217 224 0.14% 7 0 221 228 0.14%i OTHER WASTES 5,513 0 52,237 57,750 34.59% '5,623 0 53,262 58,905 34.59% �. Inert Solids 4.99 0 52.237 57.232 34.59% 5,095 0 53.282 58,377 34.59°0! Hazardous 518 01 0 518 0.00% 528 0 0 528 0.00%' 0 TOTAL 67231 2,5071 81,282 151,020 53.82% 68,5761 2,557 82,908 154,041 53.82% Nora For slmpttcity, waste generation rs anticipated to Increase at a rase cornmensurare with the Population growth rare trom 19W through $993 and from 1995 through 1938 Calendary years 1994 and 1999 reflect ase City's anticipated diversion to achieve A$ 9399, goals Wasle Type Calendar Year 1992 Diversion CalendarYear 1993 Diversion as as Trans- Percent of Trans- Percent of form- Diver- Genera- Wastes tom- Diver- Genera. Wastes Disposal ation sion tion Generated Disposal ation sion tion Generated PAPER 18,6 0 4,87E 23 3.10% 19,064 4.976 24,04( 3.10% _ OCC/Kraft 5.07 0 2.2 7. 1.430% 5.18 2.28 7.4 1.43% Mixed Paper 6,24 0 7 6.2 0.00 6.37 7 6.37 0.00 Newsprint 2.23 0 2.324 4.556 1,48% 2.276 0 2.371 4,647 1.48% H q h Grade 504 0 218 722 014% 514 223 737 014% Other Paper 463 0 86 4,717 005% 4,722 88 4,813 005% PLASTICS514 0 72 5570 0.05% SAW 7 5, 0.05% HDPE 427 0 3 430 000% 43 438 000% PET 91 0 24 115 0.02% 93 0 24 117 0.02% Film 1.952 0 0 1.952 0.0096 1.991 0 0 1,991 0.00% Other Plastic 3,02! 0 45 3073 003% 3.0891 0 46 3. 1Xr 003% _ GLASS 2.098 0 1,M 3.214 0.71% 2,140 1 3,27 0.71-A Refillable Beverage 14 0 1 15 0.00% 141 1 151 000% CARedemption Value 455 0 844 1.29e 054% 464 8ffi 1.324'054% OlherRecyclable 1. 231 1.560 0.15% 1356 23 1,591 015% Other Non -Recyclable 3011 0 40 340 0.03% 307 0 40 347 003% "'METALS 6540 11.38.5 17 7.25% 6.671 11, 18,28 7.25% Aluminum Cans 168 0 680 848 043% 171 69 865 043% Other Ferrous 4274 0 9"1 14,181 16.31% 4,359, 10.10 14.46r Other Non-ferrous 406 0 796 1202 0.51% 414 0 106 4,465 6.31% r White Goods 692 0 1 694 0.00% 706 0 812 1,226 Ur/o Mixed Metals 100 0 0 1000 000% 1,02001 1M t " YARD WASTE 12164 0 5931 12,7 0.38% 12,40"A 601 13,0 0% OTHER ORGANICS 19 2,6M 12,1751 34,004 7.75% 19 606 255L 12 41 34.685 7.75% Food 7,68 11.73]1 19,4 747% 0 3.1.96d 19.79 7.47% Rubber/Tires 1,14 235 81x,464 005% 1,170 240 83 1.4 005% Wood 5. 2. 136 8.1 0,09% 5. 2.421 139 8.27 009% Agn. Crop Residue 315 0 0 315 000% 321 0 0 321 000% Manure 77 0 0 77 000% 78 7 000% Textiles/Leather 4.3 0 1 4394 000% 4,4811 1 4.4 000%_ ' Other Organics 7 0 226 233 0.14% 7 01 230 2371 0.14% OTHER: WASTES 5,736 0 54,347 60t083 34.5976 1slow '0 .55434 51 285 34.59% Inert Solids 5,197 0 54.347 59,544 34.59% 5,301 0 55,434 60.735 34.591% Hazardous 539 0 0 539 0.000/9 549 0 0 549 0.00% TOTAL 69 947 2809 84 566 157 121 53.82°,6 71 346 2,661 86,2 160 264 53.82% Note: For srtnplitaty, waste generation is anonpated to increase at a rate commiwrsurate with the population growth rate horn 1990 through 1993 .e and from 1995 through 1998_ Calendary years 1994 ana 1999 rutleci trr�r C ty's andcipared diversion to aGh111YC AB 939'5 goals r r Table 2-10 (Continued) 15 Year Waste Generalion Projections Assuming AB 939 Goals Can Be Achieved Waste Type Calendar Year 1994 Diversion Calendar Year 1995 Diversion as a as a Trans- Percent of lation Trans- Ision Percent of town- Diver- Genera- Wastes form- Diver- Genera- Wastes DisposaJ aticn sion tion Generated Disposal tion Generated PAPER 18 O S5 24 520 3.56% 18 070 0 1 25 0th 3.56 OCC/Kraft 4,661 0 2.955 7,616 1.81% 4,754 0 3,014 7,768 1.81°% Mixed Paper 6,499 0 8 6,506 0.00% 6.629 0 8 6.636 0.00% Newsprint 2,321 0 2.418 4,740 1.48"% 2.368 0 2,467 4,834 148% High Grade 397 0 354 751 0.220% 405 0 361 766 0.220/. Otter P 4,818 0 90 4,907 0.05% 4,914 0 92 5,006 0.05% PLASTICS .0;198 5,795 0.12% 5,7091 0 2M 5 91 t 0.1296 HDPE 348 0 99 447 0.06% 355 0 101 456 0.06% PET 68 0 52 120 0.03% 69 0 53 122 0.03% Film 2,030 0 0 2,030 0.0096 2.071 0 0 2.071 0.00% Opfer Plastic 3151 0 47 3,198 0.03% 3.214 0 47 3.262 0.03% GU13S .': 072: 0 11)72 3,344 0.78% 1 2,114 0 1 3,411 0.7896 Refillable Beverage 15 0 1 16 0.00% IS 0 1 16 0.00% CA Redemption Value 362 0 989 1,351 0.61% 369 0 1,009 1,378 0.61% Other Recyclable 1.383 0 240 1.623 0.15% 1,410 0 245 1,655 0.15% Non-Rowdable 313 0 41 354 0.03% 319 0 42 381 0.03°% METALS ..` " 0 : ' 12096 18 650 7.40% 6 fi85 0 :12,=.- 19.023 7.40% Ahuminum Cans 175 0 708 883 0.43% 178 0i 722 900 0.43% Other Ferrous 4,446 0 10,308 14,754 6.31% 4.535 0 10,514 15.050 6.31% OdterNon-ferrous 422 0 828 1.250 0.51% 431 0 845 1,275 0.51% White Goods 470 0 252 722 0.15% 479 0 257 736 0.15% Wed Metals 1.041 01 0 1.041 0.0096 1.061 0 0 1.0611 0.00% YARD:WASTE ;U44F 0 : 6,028 13 .3.6996. 7 0 ° : 6,1 's :13 3.69% OTHER ORGANICS i 2714 18 35 11.5296 14,102 2.768:-'.19216 '`11:5296 Food 4,185 0 16,010 20,195 9.79% 4,269 0 16,330 20,599 9.799% Rubber/Tires 862 245 416 1.523 0.25% 879 250 424 1,553 0.25% Wood 3,794 2,469 2,177 8,440 13396 3.870 2,518 2,221 8,609 1.33% Agri. Crop Residue 327 0 0 327 0.00% 334 0 0 334 0.00% Manure 80 0 0 80 0.00%. 82 0 0 82 0.00% Textilesll.eather 4,570 0 1 4,571 0.00% 4,662 0 1 4,663 0.00% Other Organics 7 0 235 242 0.14% 7 0 240 247 0.14% OTHER WASTES SJW 0 56.5431 62.5101 •34.59% 6.087 ' 0 : 57,674: 63.701 34-946 Inert Solids 5,407 0 56,543 61,950 34.59% 5,515 0 57,674 63,189 34.59°% Hazardous SWI 0 0 560 M00% 572 0 01 572 0.00% TOTAL 59,9561 2,7141 100,800 163,4701 61.66% 61,1561 2,7681 102,816[ 166,7391 61.660/6 Note: For simphoty. waste generation is anticipated to increase at a rate commensurate vnth the population 910wth rate Item 1990 through 1993 and from 1995 through 1998. Calendary years 1994 and 1999 reflect the City's anbeipated diversion 10 achieve IIB 939's goals Table 2-10 (Commued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming AE 939 Goals Can Be Achieved GLASS Waste Type 0 Calendar Year 1996 Diversion 0.7896 Calendar Year 1997 Diversion 1 349 548Q T8 Refillable Beverage asa% 0 1 as a% 0.00% 15 0 Trans. of Waste 0.00%, Trans- of Waste 0 1,029 1,406 form- Direr- Genera- Gener- 0 form- Diver- Genera- Gener- 0.61% Other Recyclable D' ation sion tion ated Dismsal ation sion tion ated 0 PAPER 19ASI. 0 6.060 25,511 3.8696 I 19AM 0i 6181 21LO21 3.569'a 44 OCC/Kraft 4,849 0 3.074 7,924 1.81% 4,946 0 3,136 8.082 1.81°041 19.791 Mixed Paper 6,761 0 8 6,769 0.00% 6,896 0 8 6,904 0.00%! 0.430% Newsprint 2.415 0 2.516 4.931 1.480/a 2.464 0 2,566 5.030 1.4801.1 Other Non-ferrous439 High Grade 413 0 368 781 0226k 421 0 376 797 0.22% 489 Other Paper 5,012 0 93 5,106 0.05% 5,112 0 951 5.208 0.05-/.! 0 PLASTICS 5.824 0 206 6,029 0.12% 5,940 0 210 6,160 0,120%; HDPE 362 0 103 465 0.060% 369 0 105 474 0.060/.' ' PET 71 0 54 125 0.03% 72 0 55 127 0.030/. 11 Firm 2,112 0 0 2,112 0.0096 2,155 0 0 2,155 0.00%i Other Plastic 3,278 0 48 3.3271 0.03% 3,344 0 49 3.393 0.0301! GLASS 2156 0 1 323 .32479 0.7896 2199 0 1 349 548Q T8 Refillable Beverage l5 0 1 16 0.00% 15 0 1 17 0.00%, CA Redemption Value 377 0 1,029 1,406 0.61% 384 0 1,050 1,434 0.61% Other Recyclable 1,439 0 250 1,689 0.15% 1.467 0 255 1.722 0.15-.1 1 Other Non -Recyclable 326 0 43 368 0.03% 332 01 44 376 0.03%1 METALS :: -' B 18 0 1 19L403 .7AO% 6.955 OU, 12,836'. 19.791 7.40% Aluminum Cans 182 0 737 918 0.430/a 185 0 751 937 0.430% Other Ferrous 4,626 0 10.724 15,351 6.31% 4,719 0 10,939 15,658 6.310/cI Other Non-ferrous439 0 862 1,301 0.51% 448 0 879 1,327 0.51% While Goods 489 0 262751 0.15% 499 0 267 766 0.15%l Mixed Metals 1,083 0 01 1083 0.00% 1,104, 01 0 1,104 0.00% �: For stmpdaty, waste generation is anbapated to anal ase at a rale commensurate wn11t thu poputatwn growth rale trorn 1990 through 1993 hom 1995 through 1998 Catendary years 1994 and 19915 retlmt the City's anticipated diversion to aChteve AB 939'5 goals Tablet -10 (Continued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming AB 939 Goals Can Be Achieved Waste Type Calendar Year 1998 Diversion Calendar Year 1999 Diversion as a% Ias a% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste form- Diver- Genera- Gener- form- Diver- Genera- Gener- Dis osal atron scan tion ated Disposal anon son ton ated PAPER 2D,237 0 6,305 26 541 3—r-6% 16,732 0 10,340 27,0721 5.73% OCC/Kraft 5.04 0 3.19 8.2 1.31% 2.770 0 5.639 8.40 312'/, Mixed Paper 7,034 C 6 7,043 0.0096 6.843 0 340 7,183 0.19°io` Newsprint 2,513 0 2,6'7 5,130 1.4810 1.558 0 3,675 5,233 2.0410', High Grade 430. 0 333 813 0.22°/0 242 0 587 829 0.33% Other Paper 5.215 0 97 5 31 0.05% 5.319 0 99 5,418 0.05,1111: .05° ; PLASTICS 0 214 6.273 0.120% 6102 0 296 6.398 M160% HDPE 377 0 107 484 006% 3021 0 19J 4941 0.11% PET 74 0 56130 0.03% 79 0 53 132 0.030, Film 2.198 0 0 2.198 0.00% 2,242 0 0 2,24 0.00% Other Plastic 3,411 0 50 3.461 0.03% 3,479 0 51 3,530 0.03°/, GLASS 2,243 0 1,377 3 0.78% 1,464 0 2,227 3,691 1,2311'a Refillable Beverage 16 0 2 18 0.00°/ 16 0 1 17 0.000/ CA Redemption Value 392 0 1.071 1,462 0.61% 178 0 1,313 1,491 0.73% Other Recyclable 1,49 0 260 1.757 0.15% 924 0 868 1,792 0.48%! Other Nan -Recyclable 339 0 45 383 0.03°/ 345 0 45 391 0.03% METALS 7,034 C IME 20,187 7,40110 6,060 0 14,530 20,590 8.05%' Aluminum Cans 18 0 76 95 0.43% 11 0 855 974 0.47% Other Ferrous 4,813 11.15 15.971 6.31° 3.807 0 12,48 16,2906.92°,b1 Other Non-ferrous 457 89 1.35 0.51° 466 914 1,38 0.51°/, White Goods 509 273 78 0.15°/ 51 278 797 0.15'x - Mixed Metals 1.126 0 0 1,12f 000% 1.149 0 0 1,14 0.00.1, YARD WASTE 7 841 0 6,525 14,36 3.69% 4,213 10,441 14,654 5.79% OTHER R ANI S 14956 2,938 20,392 38,2 11.52°/0 13 13 3 L90 22,728 39,060 1259°0 Food 4.530 0 17.33 21,86 979% 4.621 0 17,67 22,29 979% ' Rubber/Tires 933 265 450 1,648 0.25%855 289 537 1,681 0.30` Wood 4,10 2.673 2.356 9,13 1.33% 2,154 2,910 4.254 9.318 2.36% Agri. Crop Residue 354 0 0 354 0.00% 362 0 0 362 0-000,6 ' Manure 87 0 0 87 0.00% 88 0 0 88 0.00% TemilevLeather 4.947 0 1 4.948 0.00% 5.046 0 1 5,047 0.00% F Other Organics 8 0 254 262 0.140N 0 259 2671 0.14% OTHER WASTES 6,45 0 61,204 67,66 34.590/, 6,588 0 .62 428 69,017 34.5",, Inert Solids 5.853 0 61.204 67.057 34.59% 5.970 0 62.428 68.398 34.59°r Hazardous 607 0 0 607 0.00°/ 619 0 0 619 0.00°i, TOTAL 64,89 2,938, 109 1101 176 9461 61.66% 54,292 3,199, 122,991 180,48:.68.153 Now For simplicity, waste gerntraton is anticipated to increase 3t a rate commensurate with the population growth rate from 1990 through 1993 and from 1995 mrough 1998 Calendary pars T994 and 1499 retlect the City's antscipaim diversion to achieve AS 939's goals -0 Table 2-10 (Continued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming AB 939 Goals Can Be Achieved Vaste Type Calendar Year 2000 Diversion Calendar Year 2001 Diversion as a% asa% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste form- Diver- Genera- Gener- form- Diver- Genera- Gener- Dis osal ation sion tion ared Disposal anon sion tion ated ?APER 17.06 0 10,54-) 27,6141 5.7.1% 17.4081 0 10,754 28.166 5.730/, OCC/Kraft 2.825 0 5.752 8.577 3.12% 2,882 0 5,867 8.749 312% Mixed Paper 6.980 0 347 7.327 0.19°/ 7.119 0 354 7.473 0 19°0 Newsprint 1,589 0 3.749 5,338 2.04°/ 1,621 0 3.823 5.444 2.04% Other Paper 1 5,425 0 loll 5.5271 0.05%1 1 5.5341 01 103 5,637 005% .PLASTICS 6.224 0 302 6.526 0.16-/ol 1 6.348 01 3()81 6,657 0.16% HDPE 308 0 19d 504 011°/ 1 3141 01 200 514 011% PET 81 0 54 135 0.03% 820 55 137 0.03°0 Fdm 2,287 0 0 2,287 0.00% 2,332 0 0 2,332 0.00% Other Plastic 3.549 0 52 3,601 0.03% 3.620 0 53 3.673 0.03%. G LASS 1 '493 0 2.272 3,7W 1.23% 1,523 0 2.317 3 1.23% Retigable Beverage 16 0 1 17 0.00%11 17 0 118 O.DOba CA Redemption Value 182 0 1,339 1.521 0.73% 185 0 1,366 1,551 0.730/. Other Recyclable 942 0 885 1,828 0,48% 961 0 903 1,864 0.486 gW Non -R dlafble 352 0 46 399 0.03% 359 0 47 407 0.030% �AETA S .. ; 1$i 0 14,821 21 002 8m% B 305 1 IS 21 422 8.05' Aluminum Cans 121 0 872 993 0.47% 124 0 890 1,013 0.47% Other Ferrous 3,883 0 12,733 16,616 6.92% 3,961 0 12,987 16,948 6.92% Other Non-ferrous 475 0 933 1.408 0.51% 485 0 951 1,4336 0.51% White Goods 529 0 284 813 0.15% 540 0 289 829 0.15°0 . Mixed Metals 1,172 0 0 1,172 000% 1,195 01 0 1,195 0.00% YARD WASTE 4,29 0 10,65 14 94 5.79% 4 383 0 10 863 15,2461 5.79% OTHER ORGANICS 13,39 3,263 23,18 39,841 12.59% 13,6641 3,328 23,646 40,6381 12,59%` Food 4.713 0 18.03C 22.743 979% 4.8071 0 18.390 23,197 9790/. Rubber/Tires 872 295 548 1.715 0.30% 890 301 559 1,749 0.300,0 Wood 2.197 2.968 4.339 9.504 2.36% 2.241 3.028 4.426 9.694 2.36% Agri. Crop Residue 369 0 0 369 0.00% 376 0 0 376 0.00% Manure 90 0 0 90 0.00°/ 92 0 0 92 0.00% TextilesfLeather 5.147 0 1 5.148 0.00% 5.250 0 1 5.251 QIW/4. 01her Omanics 8 0 2651 273 0.14% 1 a 0 2701 278 0.14% OTHER WASTES 6720 63,677, 70,39-Y 34.59% 1 6,855 0 64,950 71,8015 34.59% inert Solids 6,089 0 63.677 69,766 34,59% 6.211 0 64.950 71.161 34.59%1 Hazardous 631 0 0 631 0.00% 6441 0 0 644 0.00 TOTAL 1 55,378 3,2 1 125,451,184,0921 68.15% 56,484 3,3281 127,960 187,774 6$.15% Nota: For simpbuty, wast© gencrrabon is anticipated to increase at a rate commensurate vmth Iia population growth rale trom 1990 through 1593 and ttom 1995 through 1998 Catendary years 1994 and 1299 reflect thv Ctty's antw�tpated d+vers,gri to achwve AB 939s goats a r Table 2-10 (Continued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming AB 939 Goals Carl Be Achieved Waste Type Calendar Year 2002 Diversion Calendar Year 2003 Diversion as a% as a% Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste lorm- Diver. Genera- Gener- lorm- Diver- Genera- Gener- Dis osal anon sion Iion ated Disposal ation sion tion ated PAPER 17,756 0 10,973 28,729 5.73% 18,111 0 11.1931 29,304 5.73%, OCC/Kraft 2.940 0 5.98 8.92 3.12°/ 2.99 0 6.104 9,102 3.12% Mixed Paper 7.262 0 36 7.62 0.19'/0 7.40 0 368 7.77 0.19'% Newsprint 1.65 3.901 5.553 2.04% 1.68 3.978 5.664 2.04% High Grade 2570 623 880 0.33% 262 0 635 897 0.33% Other Paper 5.645 0 105 5,750 0.050% 5.757 0 107 5,865 0.05% PLASTICS A475 0 315 6,790 0.16% 6,605 0. 321 6,92670.030/6 HDPE 320 .0 204 524 0.11% 327 0 208 535PET 84 0 56 140 0.03% 86 0 57 143Film 2,379 0 0 2.379 0.00% 2,426 0 0 2,426Other Plastic 3 692 0 55 3.747 0.039'0 3,766 0 56 3,821 GLASS 1,553 ` 01 2.364 1,917 1,23% 1,584 0 2 411 "5 1.23% Refillable Beverage 17 0 1 18 0.00% 17 0 1 18 0.00% CA Redemption Value 189 0 1,393 1 582 0.730/0 193 0 1,421 1,614 0.73% Other Recyclable 981 0 921 1,902 0.48% 1,000 0 940 1,940 0.48% Other Non-RecygJable 367 0 48 415 0.03% 3741 0 49 4231 0.03% M ALS S 431 0 15.420 21 8S1 - S.0S% 6.S59 0 15.726 :. 22 288 &05% Aluminum Cans 126 0 907 1,034 0.47% 129 0 925 1,0.54 0.479`,, Other Ferrous 4,040 0 13.247 17,287 6.92% 4,121 0 13,512 17,633 6.92%, Other Non-ferrous 495 0 970 1,465 0.51% 504 0 990 1,494 0.51% White Goods 551 0 295 846 0.15% 562 0 301 863 0.150/6 Mated Metals 1,219 01 0 1.219 0.00% 1,244 01 0 1.244 0.000/6 rrAro WASTE : a=� 0 11 f)80 15 551 ~ : :5.79% a a ` s IIP2 : 1S OTHER ORGANICS :1 : `.3 5 . 24119 41 +151 12 �i996 14 216 3463 24 80fi .:. 4 12.9996 Food 4,903 0 18,758 23,661 9.79% 5.001 0 19,133 24,135 9.790/0 Rubber/Tires 907 307 570 1,784 0.30% 925 313 581 1,820 0.30% Wood 2,286 3,088 4,514 9,888 2.36% 2.332 3.150 4,605 10,086 2.36°/, Agri. Crop Residue 384 0 0 384 0.00% 391 0 0 391 0.00% Manure 94 0 0 94 0.00% 96 0 0 96 0.00% Textileslkeather 5,355 0 1 5,356 0.00%' 5,462 0 1 5,463 0.00% Otter qManics 9 0 275 284 0.14% 9 0 281 289 0.14% FOTNER-WASTF-S S."21 01 66,2491 73 241 34.5896 : 7132 0 67.574 .74 706 34.59° Inert Solids 1 6.3351 01 66.2491 72.5841 34.590/6 6.462 0 67=574 74.036 34.590% Hazardous 1 6571 01 01 6571 0.00%11 6701 0 0 670 0.00% TOTAL 1 57,6151 3,3951 130,5191 191,5291 68.150/6 58,76A 3A631 133,1291 195,3601 68.150/6 Note: For simplicity, waste generation is anticipated to rncrcaw at a rate commensurate with 11x4 population growth rata from 1990 through 1993 � and from 1995 through 1998 Calendary years 1994 and 1999 r0lect the City's anticipated diversion to ;rchsovo AB 939's goals Tablet -10 (Conlinued) 15 Year Waste Generation Projections Assuming AB 939 Goals Can Be Achieved Waste Type Calendar Year 2004 Diversion CalendarYear 2005 Diversion I asa% asa%0 Trans- of Waste Trans- of Waste form- Diver- Genera. Gener- Corm- Diver- Genera- Gener- Dis osal ation sion twn ated Disposal anon &ion tion ated E PAPER 18 47 0 11,41.: 29,8901 5.7396 1 18,841 11,641 30,488 5.739'0 OCC/Krafl 3.0 0 6.22 9-21 3_]2°0 3.1 6.350 9.47C 3.12% Mixed Paper 7,55 0 375 7.9 0.19% 7.70E 383 8,089 0.19% Newsprint 1. 0 4. 5. 2.04% 1,7 4.139 5.89 2.04% High Grade 2 0 648 91 0.330 273 661 93 0.33%I ' Other Paper 5.87 0 ll 5. 0.05% 5.990 112 6.10 0.050/, PLASTICS 6,73- 327 7,0641 0.16% 6,8 3341 7 0.16 HDPE 333 0 212 0.11% 340 21 556 0.11% PET 87 0 59 14 0.03% 89 60 14 0.03% Film 2.47 0 2.47 0.00% 2. 2.525 0.0o%I. Other Plastic 3.641 0 57 3 898 0.03% 3.91 0 58 3,976 003% GLASS 161 0 245 4,07! 1.23% 164 0 2,508 4,= 1.23% Refi I lable Beverage 18 0 1 19 000% 18 0 1 191 0.00%� CA Redemption Value 197 0 1.459 1.646 0.73 200 0 1,47 1.67 0.73%j -+ Other Recyclable 1.020 0 95 1,97 0.48% 1,04 0 97 2.01 0.48%1 Other Non -Recyclable 381 0 50 432 0.03% 389 0 51 440 b.V3°9° METALS 6.691 01 16 22,731 8.058 1 682 0 16,3 23,18 &0596 Aluminum Cans ]31 0 944 1.07 0.47% 134 0 963 1,09 0.470/F Other Ferrous 4,20 0 13.7 17. 6.920/0 4.2 0 14.0 18. 6.92%. Other Non-ferrous 5L 1. 1.52 0.51% 525 1.0 1. 0.51% Whae Goods 573 0 307 880 0.15% 584 313 898 0.151%: _ Mixed Metals 1269 0 1.294 0 1,2941 0.00% YARD WASTE 465 0 11,5281 16 17 5.79% 4,741 0 11,75 16,5 5.79°.6 OTHER ORGANICS 14 3 25,0931 43 12.59% 14,79C 3.603 25,5 43,98d 12590A Food 5,10 0 19.516) 24. Q7j 9.79% 5 r 204 0 19.9061 25. lid 9.79% Rubber/Tires 944 319 593 1. 0.30% 963 325 605 1.893 0.30% Wood 2.378 3,213 4,697 10.288 2.36% 2.426 3,277 4.791 10, 49A 2.36% Agri. Crop Residue 399 0 0 399 0.00% 407 0 0 407 0.00%; Manure 98 0 0 98 0.00% 100 0 0 100 0.00°xi, Textilestleather 5.571 0 1 5.572 0.00% 5.682 1 5,684 0.00% Other Organics 9 0 286 295 0.14 292 301 0.14% OTHER WASTES 7 Z74 0 68,92 76,20$ 34.59% 742 70,3G4 77,724 34.59%1Inerl Solids 6.59 0 68.92 75.51 34.59% 6.72 70. 77.02 34.59°, Hazardous 683 0 0 683 0.00% 69 0 69 0.00%' w TOTAL 59 3 5 135 79 199 2 68.159'0 61,14 3,6031 138, 081 203.2521'68.15% Mote For srmpGaty. waste gehtxatron rs anticipated to increase at a rare rommensurale w,th the populalion growth rata from 1990 through 1993 and from 5995 through 1998 Calendary years t994 and tw99 reflect the Gay's antoapaled diversion m achcve� AB 939's goats r .w Iesre will Its 01 Issrs 511M. 4e06 M .Ike ceeckreesl to of i riNy. Eecs •Iwelayee wolf of ►'sen Hsle too ►rl"le; sN Iyer awe cep Ia wen. tl/a wllc Usls elielwlecs sibs I WEAR CLOTH DIAPERS1 •1 SOURCE REDUCTION 3 SOURCE REDUCTION COMPONENT 31 Introduction AB 939 places source reduction at the top of the integrated waste man- agement hierarchy. Unlike recycling, composting. disposal, and transformation (the other constituents of an integrated waste management system). source reduction activities work to reduce or prevent the genera tion of solid wastes that must be managed by an integrated waste man- agement system. Source reduction, when considered beyond its effect on solid waste, can also conserve resources and energy, and reduce land, air. and water impacts. Source reduction activities fall into several broad categories, including • decreased consumption . reduced material weight and volume • material reuse • increased product durability Table 3-1 lists some examples of source reduction activities. Recycled materials use normally refers to purchasing materials that have been pro- duced with some content of recycled materials. Using products with a recycled materials content can reduce the use of virgin materials used as feedstock in many manufacturing processes. For source reduction to be effective, production, packaging, and con- sumption practices must change. Only a few production and packaging practices can probably be changed at the local level; such changes com- monly require action at a state or national level. In contrast, however. changes to consumption patterns must begin at the local level. Changes in consumption patterns may, in the long term, also affect production and packaging practices. pJFT64T6401010 3- 1 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Source Reductbn This component presents source reduction objectives for the City, evalu- ates alternatives that may be used to achieve thosq objectives, and identi- fies a plan of action that will be use: .y ►ne City to address source reduc- tior,. 3.2 Goals and Objectives The City has established three specific short-term goals for its source reduction efforts. 1. Encourage public participation in source reduction by educating the public about the consequences of their decisions with respect to the initial use. reuse, and ulti- mate disposal of products they may purchase. This con- cept has been termed "precycle." 2. Encourage source reduction practices in all aspects of City operations. 3. Minimize the quantity of solid waste generated. The City's medium-term goal is to review and revise the short-term pro- grams and add additional ones if needed. The following source reduction objectives have been developed to meet these goals. These objectives are to be implemented in the short-term planning period (1991-1994) and continued during the medium-term plan- ning period (1995-1999). Through the following objectives, Lodi estimates that it can divert up to 3 percent of its total wastestream. However, it is extremely difficult to quantify the current source reduction rates which would help establish reasonable diversion rates for the short- and medium-term planning periods. Thus, Section 10, the Integration Compo- nent, assumes that source reduction will not contribute measurably to diversion because it is so difficult to quantify. Short-term Objectives (1991-1994) 1. Within 1 year after adoption of the SRRE. CWRS and the City (or a City contractor) will implement a public educa- tion program on source reduction. The education program will focus on the following source reduction techniques: PJF1F641F6401010 3 - 2 Rev, 0 December23.1991 Source Reductio a. reducing the use of nonrecyclable materials b. replacing disposable materials and products with reusable materials c. reducing packaging d. reducing the amount of yard wastes which are gen- erated e. purchasing repairable products f. increasing the efficiency of the use of materials used in the commercial and industrial sectors 9. using compost and other materials recycled within the City and San Joaquin County h. giving preference to products that help with the source reduction efforts i. disseminating information about how to reduce junk mail 2. The City, by 1992. will adopt and implement City govern- ment purchasing guideiines and product specifications, and will strive to achieve an overall 5 percent reduction in its waste production (adjusted for population growth) per year. These guidelines will focus on a. reducing the use of nonrecyclable materials b. reducing packaging materials c. reducing the use of one-time use (a limited use) products in favor of reusable products d. purchasing repairable products e. using compost and other materials recycled within the using. 3. The City will work with the Lodi Chamber of Commerce to develop, no later than July 1992. a voluntary program to encourage Chamber of Commerce members to reduce their businesslindustry waste an overall 5 percent by 1995 by focusing on the following activities: a. reducing the use of nonrecyclable materials b. reducing packaging materials c. reducing the use of one-time use (a limited use) produc►s in favorof reusable products d. purchasing repairable products 4. The City will request that local businesses adopt pur- chasing guidelines similar to the City's guidelines by 1993. 5. By 1993, the City will develop and disseminate source reduction checklists and informational pamphlets which serve to assist City residents to consider a product's potential for reuse. durability, and recyclability. Information on consumer awareness and communication avenues with regards to grocery stores' packaging, recycling, and labeling practices shall be included. This will be developed by the City as part of the City's ongoing public information and education program. 6. By 1993, develop a commercial and industrial waste exchange program for the City. This could be a regional waste exchange program developed in cooperation witn either San Joaquin County or other nearby cities such as Galt or Stockton. or it could be a local program only for City residents and businesses. 7. Establish a program of economic incentives and disincen- tives to encourage local citizens and businesses to reduce the amount of wastes they produce. By 1992. the City will evaluate appropriate incentives and disincentives. includ- ing an evaluation of an inclining rate structure' for garbage collection rates which penalizes wasteful prac- tices by City residents and businesses. The results of the evaluation will be presented to the Lodi City Council with specific recommendations in early 1993. Target waste types for source reduction have been identified based on (1) the results of the solid waste generation study, (2) the effectiveness of meeting the source reduction objectives, and (3) the criteria that include the volume and weight of the material: the hazard created by the material; materials. products, or packages made of nonrenewable resources; and the recyclability of the material. 1 For a description of an inclining rate stn,cture. see Section 3 4.1 PJF+F641F6401010 3 - 4 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Source ROuctron t'' . Wastes targeted for source reduction in the City are • packaging materials. including plastics and paper prod- ucts • construction materials single -use products, including disposable diaoers, cups. utensils, o'fice supplies, and personal care products ' repairable products, including appliances and electronics paper, including office paper and mixed waste paper such as paper napkins. disposable bags. and nonrecyclable junk mail Source reduction alternatives that target the above waste types are evalu- ated in Section 3.4, Evaluation of Alternatives, according to their effec- tiveness in meeting the source reduction objectives outlined above. 3.3 Existing Conditions Description This section d ---,scribes the current source reduction activities in the City, including private business source reduction activities and national source reduction efforts. The existing source reduction diversion rate is estimated at 0.18 percent as a percentage of total wastes generated. This percent- age was obtained by conducting source reduction surveys (see Section 2, Waste Generation Component, for more details about the survey). Note that all types of businesses and local industries were surveyed including large industrial generators such as General Mills Company and local wineries to copy houses, beauty parlors, and diaper services. Responses came from a wide variety of businesses. However, due to the difficulties of quantifying data, only double -sided copies and diaper services were included in calculations to establish source reduction rates for the City. The source reduction surveys indicated that a total of 48.9 tons of paper from commercial sources and 217 tons of single -use diapers were source reduced within the City in 1990. These data were verified by making fol- low-up phone calls to some of the survey participants. The survey source reduction rates were derived using the following assumptions. Two-sided copies. The surveys reported a total of 102 tons of paper pur- chased with the percentages of two-sided 'copies ranging from 5 to g0 percent. Each company's reported amount of paper purchased was pJF1F64T6401010 3 - 5 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Source Reduction multiplied by the percentage of two-sided copies reportedly made in the sum of those calculated. Cloth diapers. There are approximately 4.500 single -use diapers per ton. Information about the number of diapers processed per week was obtained for the City of Lodi_ it was assumed that if disposable diapers were used instead of cloth, the same number of disposables would be used as cloth diapers processed during a given time period. Thus, the amount per year could be derived by multiplying the amount of diapers processed per week to get the amount processed for the year 1990. This number was then divided by the 4.500 diapers to get a year tonnage rate of 217 tons. Given that source reduction as a waste diversion practice is a relatively recent phenomenon, the quantitative effectiveness of most current source reduction activities is difficultto assess because records and data are not available. The description of existing conditions for some source reduction activities is therefore qualitative. The existing activities that are conducted by CWRS will no: ;e decreased in scope. Other existing private bk -iness source reduction activities are not expected to decrease in scope ei—er. 3.3.1 Private Business Source Reduction Activities Existing source reduction activities are anticipatedto continue at their pre- sent rates. These activities occur in spite of any programs the City has established. Please refer to the integration component for estimates of quantities to be diverted by the source reduction programs the City will impiement. Private business source reduction activities were identified by the source reduction survey that was conducted as part of the solid waste generation study (see Section 2). Most businesses that responded to the survey reported they were using some type of source reduction. including • reusing packaging material creating scratch pads from blank sides of paper . using cloth towels and sponges in the cafeteria • routing memos . reusing file folders and interoffice envelopes PJF,F641F6401010 3 - 6 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Source Reduction • using refillable pens and mechanical pencils • using scrap paper for interofficecommunications • renting equipment instead of purchasing it • donating old equipment to schools and charities • using nondisposable utensils. dishes, and drink containers heating buildings with waste wood in winter months reusing air filters after they are cleaned • buying in bulk • using shredded paper for packaging material • reusing cardboard boxes • instituting electronic mail CWRS currently conducts waste evaluations to help businesses identify what waste types they generate that can be source reduced or recycled, or both. They also offer technical assistance through its commercial and industrial collection programs. CWRS also publishes educational materials about source reduction such as People Who Care... Recycle. This pam- phlet encourages readers to `revise" their buying habits and "reduce- the amount of waste they generate. 3.3.2 State Source Reduction Programs The COMB has a free service available to help with source reduction. CALMAX is a waste materials exchange listing that provides information on materials available and materials wanted. Interested parties can call (916) 255-2369 or (800)553-2962. 3.3.3 National Source Reduction Efforts Many of the source reduction activities impacting the waste generated by the City are actually being conducted on a national scale. These national efforts affect the products purchased in stores and used by residences PJFF641F640101O 3- 7 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Source Reduction and businesses in Lodi. The following are some examples of major national source reduction efforts -.2 • Some manufacturers offer concentrated versions of prod- ucts which use less packaging (e.g., frozen juices, con- centrated pesticides, and concentrated soaps). • Packaging changes initiated by one manufacturer include Disposable diapers and diaper packages were changed so that the net total amount of materials in the product and package was 50 percent less than the preceding design. Peanut butter and mouthwash packages were changed from glass to PET, reducing the weight of packaging by 80 and 90 percent, respectively. Detergent with bleach eliminates the need for separate purchase of bleach. Shrink and stretch wrap plastic materials are replacing highervolume corrugated paper in many applications. One manufacturer changed the tub of a dishwasher from enameled steel to engineered plastic, which enables the warranty on the dishwasher to be increased because the tub is more durable. A new blow -molding tool for plastic (HDPE) milk bottles reduces their weight 10 percent,while increasing strength. A heat -set technology makes it possible to use PET con- tainers for liquids that must be hot -filled. The new tech- nology allowed a juice company to switch from glass to plastic bottles. resulting in a 25 percent reduction in weight. The change was made to appeal to consumers' desire for lighter weight and safer battles and to affect long-term cost savings in bottling and shipping. • Magazines are often shipped in plastic instead of heavy paper wrappers. 2 This summary is based on information Irom The U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Facing America's Trash - What Next for Municipal Solid Waste, OTA -0-424, Washington. DC U S Government PrintingOffice, October 1989. PJF1F64`,F640141 O 3 - 8 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Source Reduction • One soap manufacturer has made a single -bar shampoo soap since about 1960; while this product requires some packaging. it avoids the use of larger containers. • Plastic bags bought by a major "fast food" chain to ship products to its stores are designed to be reused as garbage bags. • A large video rental and saes chain trains its sales people to (1) reuse the distinctive plastic bags that tapes are car- ried in and (2) request that customers return the tapes in the bags, in the process saving about $1 million and over 25 million bags annually. 3.4 Evaluation of Alternatives This section presents an evaluation of four broad categories of source reduction activities that can be used in the City to meet the source reduc- tion objectives presented in Section 3.2. The categories, along with their respective alternative activities, are as follows: • Category 1- rate structure modifications. including local waste disposal fee modification, weight- or volume - based user fees, or inverted price structures • Category 2 - economic incentives. including loans, grants, loan guarantees, business license lee incentives, and deposits, refunds, and rebates • Category 3 - technical assistance and public educa- tion, including waste audits, technical assistance to indus- try and consumer organizations, educational efforts. pro- motional activities, and purchasing procurement programs • Category 4 - regulatory programs, including adoption of local ordinances to enhance recycling and source reduc- tion. and required planning and reporting by waste gener- ators These categories of source reduction alternatives are evaluated below based on the evaluation approach described in Appendix B. As presented in Section 18733.3 of Article 6.2 of Title 14. the evaluation criteria are as follows: PJF\F64\F6401010 3 - 9 Rev.0 December 23. 1991 Source Reducfton • effectiveness • hazard • ability to accommodate change • consequences on the wastestream • implementation period • facility requirements consistency with local plans and policies • institutional barriers • estimated cost • end uses For each evaluation criterion, a rating of high, medium. or low is assigned, and a discussion of potential issues is given. As structured by the regula- tions governing AB 939, some of the criteria by which the alternatives are required to be evaluated are positive in tone (e.g., effectiveness). while others are inherently negative (e.g., hazard). A high rating for a positive criterion implies a positive rating; on the other hand, a high rating for a negative criterion corresponds to few or no impacts associated with this potential problem. To avoid confusion, a high ranking evaluation criterion receives ***, medium receives **, and low receives *. The rating results of the evaluation are summarized in Table 3-2, which is presented at the end of this section. Many of these activities are complementary to each other and depend sig- nificantly on the implementation of other alternatives. programs, or com- ponents presented elsewhere in the SRRE. The alternatives are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness and impact on the entire waste diversion system, including recycling and composting, and not as alternatives inde- pendent of one another. PJF1F64%F6401010 3- 10 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Source Reduction 3.4.1 Category 1. Rate Structure Modifications Source reduction can be encouraged through rate structure modifications. including disposal fees and quantity -based user fees for garbage collec- tion services. Rate structure modifications. described below: address all source reduction objectives identified in Section 3.2. Weight- or volume -based user fees or an inverted rate (or inclining) struc- ture can be combined with a strong collection program for recycling in order to promote source reduction. An inverted or inclining rate structure is based on the idea that the second and subsequent refuse containers costs a lot more than the first container. A declining rate structure. which is the current residential rate structure in Lodi, is based on the concept that the second and subsequent refuse containers cost less than the first. Alternatively, basing service charges on the amount of waste (either by weight or by volume) can have significant impact on bringing the whole spectrum of solid waste issues, including recycling, composting, and source reduction to the user's doorstep. Studies indicate that quantity - based user fees are most successful when free or low-cost collection of recyclables and yard waste is provided as a means of reducing wastes. Incentive -based rate design must be combined with recycling and waste reduction programs in order to be effective. The best incentives are pro- vided by systems that charge customers based closely on the actual amount of waste disposed. This way, a customers behavior is more closely associated with the amount paid. Traditional subscribed systems do not provide this incentive, because incentives do not vary with weekly variations in waste. However, subscription systems are easier to imple- ment than systems that require the recording of items for each pick-up and provide revenue stability. The steeper the extra charge for additional waste, the greater the incentive to recycle. Higher rates on extra service levels provide an incentive to reduce waste by a variety of means. To avoid the problem of customers electing to dispose of their wastes through undesirable means, such as illegal dumping, it is imperative that convenient alternatives exist, such as curbside recycling programs or yard waste pick-up service. CWRS has proposed that the City change the present rate system to an inverted or inclining rate structure in 1992. This change in rate structure could be implemented in conjunction with other changes proposed by CWRS in the semiautomated/automated collection system. These are dis- cussed in the recycling and composting components, Sections 4 and 5. Inclining rate structures work best when they are implemented,in conjunc- tion with other programs which provide increased opportunities for resi- dents to divert their wastes. Consumer acceptance for this alternative could be enhanced by phasing in the new rate structure over a 2 -year period. The first year the rates could be linear in structure with the second year being the year the inverted rate structure is fully implemented. Effectiveness. ***3 Rate structure modifications can be very effective in encouraging source reduction, since the cost of disposal or collection of disposables can be high. Variable rate structures cause generators to become more conscious of the wastes they generate, which provides an economic incentive for implementing source reduction, recycling. and composting practices. The effectiveness of variable rate structures is sen- sitive to the rate at which collection and disposal fees rise. As fees increase, parficipation and effectiveness will increase. However, there is an upper limit to the variable rate structure beyond which illegal dumping will begin to occur. Hazard. *** There are no hazards directly related to this alternative. However, this alternativewill make waste disposal more costly and restric- tive, and could result in illegal dumping and related health and safety con- cerns. Ability to accommodate change. ** Rate structure modifications are adaptable to changing conditions. The ability to change rates for solid waste collection rests with the Lodi City Council. Over the short and medium term this alternative is quite flexible. Consequences on the wastestream. *** Rate Structure modifications can provide incentivesto participate in recycling and composting programs resulting in a wastestream of lower volume, higher density, and comprised of lower proportions d recyclables and yard waste. However, this program does not shift solid waste generation from one type of solid waste produc- tion to another. 3 Refers to relative rating of the atternafive will, respect to this criterion. PJFtF641F6401010 3- 12 Rev -0 December23. 1991 Source Reduction Implementation period. *** Rate structure modifications can be imple- mented during the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. *** ND facilities are needed to implement rate structure modifications in the City. Consistency with local plans and policies. * * * Rate structure modifi- cations are consistent with the City's policy to reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed. Institutional barriers. ** Institutional barriers may have some impact on this alternative. City residents and commercial and industrial customers can haul refuse directly to the transfer station and the County landfill with a Dermit from the City of Lodi. In spite of this, a disposal fee modification can be implemented at the landfill and transfer stations to provide an incentive for residents and businesses who self -haul their waste to also source reduce and recycle. Estimated cost, ** Costs would be incurred for City and CWRS staff time and outside service fees to develop end review CWRS' proposal for an inverted rate structure. Total combined City/CWRS implementation costs for a rate structure modification is estimated to range from $75.000 to $150.000 (Source: CWRS). There are other costs indirectly associated with this alternative. Reduced volumes of waste which are landfilled could trigger increased disposal fees at the landfill. With less tonnage coming through the gate there is less rev- enue to cover fixed operating costs resulting from increased regulatory requirements. thus ultimately resulting in increased costs per ton of refuse disposed. End uses. Not applicable, 3.4.2 Category 2. Economic Incentives Source reduction activities can be encouraged through economic incen- tives, including tax credits and exemptions, grants, loans, ioan guarantees. deposits, refunds, rebates, and reduced business license fees. Economic incentives, which can be directed at consumers and businesses, are designed to encourage source reduction by linking an economic benefit to the implementation of source reduction activities. Economic incentives. described below, address all source reduction objectives identified in Sec- tion 3.2. PJF�F641P6401010 3- 13 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Source Reduction Tax creditslexernptions. Tax credits /exemptions can be given to busi- nesses that implement formal source reduction activities for manufacturing or consuming. Loans, grants, and loan guarantees. Loans. grants. and loan guaran- tees can provide direct economic assistance to businesses for the purpose of implementing source reduction activities. Funds can be used to pur- chase copy machines that produce double -sided copies and source reduction and recycling educational materials. Deposits, refunds, and rebates. Deposits. refunds, and rebates can include deposits on hard -to -recycle materials or materials that are non- durable, and refundsand rebates on recycled or recyclable materials. This might include reusing containers and shopping bags or repairing automo- bile batteries, small batteries, and power tools. Rebates could be offered to entice consumers to buy used or refurbished merchandise. Business license fee incentives. Lodi assesses businesses for a nomi- nal $10 business license fee. These fees have not been raised in many years. Business license fees should be raised to reflect actual administration costs as well as costs for inflation. Fees could be increased sufficiently to help fund some of the source reduction and recycling pro- grams the City is developing. If new higher business license fees are established, rates could then be lowered for those businesses that can prove that they are using source reduction practices. Fees could be set in increments based on the extent of each businesses source reduction (and recycling) activities that can be documented. For example, businesses that can provide documentation of their source reduction efforts such as receipts for a 6 -month supply of recycled paper or retreaded tires for company vehicles, could receive a 10 percent discount on their business license fee. If they could also docu- ment how their efforts help "close the loop," they might get a 20 percent rate reduction. Examples of "closing the loop" include such things as pur- chasing recycled paper. Receipts could be used to document these types of activities. Estimation of how much source reduction will be achieved by economic incentives is difficult. However, if the incentives encourage businesses to make two-sided copies, the estimate can be based on the amount of high- grade paper disposed of. Approximately 500 tons of high-gracie paper were disposed of in 1990. In 1990, source reduction via use of double. PJF\F64\F640101O 3- 14 Rev 0 December23, 1991 Source Reducr+on sided copies diverted approximately 49 tons of paper from disposal, This is less than 1 percent of paper waste generated it Lodi. Effectiveness. * The potential benefits of economic incentives are mini- mal. Hazard. * * * Econcmic incentives would not create a hazard i n the City. Ability to accommodate change. *** Economic incentives can be modified to accommodate changes in consumption patterns, availability of materials, and the economy. However. business license fee revisions are easy to modify since they are usually modified on a regular basis. Consequences on the wastestream. *** Economic incentives would be designed to reduce waste at the source, thereby avoiding substitution of a product or material that results in an equivalent or greater amount of waste being generated. Implementation period. ** Economic incentives can be difficult to implement due to the difficulty in gaining approval by the necessary agen- cies. Increasing tax rates or making deposit fees are examples of time- consuming implementation procedures. However, business license fee modifications could be easily implemented at the local level. Facility requirements. *** No facilities are needed to implement eco- nomic incentives in the City. Consistency with local plans and policies. ** The City does plan to modify its business license fees in the near future. This alternative is con- sistent with City plans and policies. Institutional barriers. * The community may object to giving economic incentives to some businesses creating an inequitable climate for compe- tition. In addition, there may be opposition to raising business fees. Estimated cost. ** If business fee rate incentives were used along with a substantial base rate increase, costs for this program ara estimated at $2,500 annually. If the business fees are raised adequately, this program would increase revenue. End uses. Not applicable. 3.4.3Category 3. Technical Assistance and Public Education Aiternative source reduction activities included in this category are waste evaluations, technical assistance. educational efforts, and promotional activities. Expand waste evaluation efforts. Waste evaluations serve to identify what waste types generated by a business can be targeted by that busi- ness for source reduction activities and recycling. CWRS already conducts waste audits and plans to continue. as well as expand this effort. Technical assistance. Technical assistance to businesses and con- sumers can be accomplished through workshops and seminars that address practical ways to reduce the quantity of wastes generated by methods such as participating in waste exchange programs. Topics include decreased consumption, reuse of materials, procurement prac- tices, and increased manufacturing efficiency. CWRS has a technical assistance program in place. CWRS plans to expand these technical assistance services to commercial and industrial businesses. These expansion efforts will include helping to coordinate waste exchange efforts between businesses. Educational efforts. Educational efforts are an invaluable means of developing consumer awareness about the benefits of source reduction. Consumer awareness can bring about changes in consumption patterns that presently favor virgin materials and products that promise time sav- ings and convenience. Educational programs emphasize the need for, and benefits of, source reduction as well as provide information to the public about how to integrate source reduction throughout their personal and business activities. CWRS and the Lodi Unified School District address source reduction practices in the science curricula for kindergarten through eighth grade. Source reduction messages are also disseminated through the speakers' bureau. The City and CWRS recognize a need to expand these programs to reach a broader target audience. Promotion. Public recognition and community service awards can be used by the City to publicly acknowledge businesses that have imple- mented source reduction activities. Awards can be presented to commu- nity groups or individuals that are promoting source reduction either through example or education. Possible approaches could range from focal pride campaigns emphasizing waste reduction and environmental awareness to reporting in the local newspaper examples of model source PJFFF641F640101 Q 3 - 16 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Source Reduction reduction programs. Examples of such activities include a volunteer pro- gram where Chamber of Commerce members strive to reduce their solid waste 5 percent by 1995. Another example might be to give recognition to those businesses and industries that participate in waste exchange activi- ties. CWRS already provides many of these services and plans to do more. Measuring the amount of waste that can be source reduced by technical assistance and related activities is difficult. Effectiveness. *** An effective technical assistance program combined with education and promotion can result in significant reductions in quanti- ties of solid waste disposed. However, actual quantities are difficult to esti- mate from this type of program. Hazard. *** The programs presented in this alternative would not create hazards. Ability to accommodate change. *** The alternative programs can be modified in their focus, scope, and intensity to accommodate changes in local waste management programs, changes in consumption patterns, and other factors. Consequences on the wastestream. *** The alternative source reduc- tion activities would be designed to reduce waste at the source, and avoid substitution of a product or material that results in an equivalent or greater amount of waste being generated. Implementation period. *** The alternative programs can be imple- mented in the short-term planning period. The need for additional staffing is the main factor that could delay implementation. Facility requirements. *** No additional facilities would probably be required. Existing educational facilities could serve as locations for semi- nars and educational workshops. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** The alternative pro- grams are consistent with local policies. The City has historically con- sidered educational activities for waste management superior to regulatory controls. institutional barriers. * * * There are no institutional barriers to imple- menting the alternative programs. PJF1F641F640101O 3-17 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Source Reduchon Estimated cost. ** The combined costs for the alternative programs undertaken by the City and CWRS are estimated to range from $20,000 to $80,000 (Source: CWRS), depending on how program responsibilities are allocated between the City and CWRS. CWRS will be upgrading and expanding many of its services; many which include the types of activities listed in these programs. Staffingwould constitute the majority of the costs of implementing the programs. The bulk of the cost involves staff resources to conduct waste audits. Staff to implement the educational programs are included in the education and public information compone -i program costs (see Section 7). Other costs include promotional materials. technical assistance brochures, publicity, and public outreach. Coordinat- ing activities between the City and CWRS will help prevent duplication of effort and unnecessary additional costs. End uses. Not applicable. 3.4.4 Category 4 Regulatory Programs Several alternative regulatory programs are available to the City that address the source reduction object.ves (see Section 3.2). These pro- grams include local procurement ordinances, required waste reduction planning and reporting. and local adoption of product bans. Regulatory programs require continuous enforcement efforts. Local procurement ordinances. Local procurement ordinances that specify minimum criteria for local government purchases, including durability. recyclability. reusability, and recycled content, can be imple- mented. Waste reductlon planning and reporting. Waste reduction planning and reporting would require each business to establish a source reduction plan outlining what source reduction activities will be implemented. Businesses would also be required to report quantities of waste source raduced. These quantities will help document the actual source reduction rates, which are often hard to quantify. Another example of waste reduction planning and reporting is a proposal by Californians Against Waste, a grass-roots recycling organization based in Sacramento. Californians Against Waste has proposed that each juris- diction adopt its own model Take-out Food Packaging, Recycling. and Waste Reduction Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require pro- ducers of take-out food packaging to meet specified percentages of recy- PJF1F641F640 t 0 t 0 3- 18 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Source Reduction x ,. cled materials and postconsumer recycled matenats as a condition Of access to the marketplace or be subject to a fine of $500 for each day of violation. If more peopie used cloth diapers instead of disposables. one could make estimates based on the information provided from the waste generation study (see Section 2). Almost 217 tons of single -use diapers were diverted from the wastestream in 1990. If 10 percent more were diverted in the short term and 20 percent in the medium term, about 21 tons (0.01 percent) and 43 tons (0.02 percent) of diapers could be diverted from the total waste generated, respectively. Estimating the other amounts of waste reduction would not be possible until the program is in place. Even then, only if quantifiable data are gathered to represent the "before" and "after" amounts, reduction rates will be hard to measure. Effectiveness. ** The effectiveness of regulatory programs would depend on the level of regulation imposed by the City, the materials tar- geted, adherence to the regulations by the community, and enforcement efforts by the City. Hazard. *** Regulatory programs would not create a hazard. Ability to accommodate change. * Regulatory measures are not readily adaptable to changing social and economic conditions because of the approval process that must be followed in order to effect change. Consequences on the wastestream. * Regulatory programs can result in a shift in waste type generation from one material to another. For exam- ple. a ban on Styrofoam cups would result in a shift to plastic -coated paper cups which weigh more and may not be easily recycled. Implementation period. * A complex approval process, and anticipated resistance by businesses to regulation by the City, could prohibit imple- menting regulatory programs in the short- and medium-term planning peri- ods. Government procurement policies, however, can be implemented in the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. *** Facilities are not necessary to implement regulatory programs. Consistency with local plans and policies. ** Regulatory waste reduction programs generally are not consistent with local policies. Pro- PJF1F641F640101a 3- 19 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Source Reduci+on ,'yr, curement policies for government agencies. however. are consistent with local policies. Institutional barriers. * Regulatory actions for source reducity require more paperwork or increased operating costs on the part of busi- nesses, would probably encounter some resistance. Previous Consid- erations of product bans by other communities have resulted in much opposition from businesses. Estimated cost. ** Costs associated with legal fees and staffing would be incurred during the approval process. Implementing. monitoring. and enforcing regulatory programs would require staff time. Costs for reg- ulatory programs largely depend on the level of regulatory programs that the City chooses to pursue. If the City just requires businesses to develop local procurement ordinances. this would be less time consuming to enforce than approving source reduction plans and enforcing product bans. Cost for developing a source reduction ordinance could range from $7,000 to $10,000. End uses. Not applicable. 3.5 Selection of Program Source reduction programs were selected for the City based on the City's objectives, the results of the evaluation, and the ease of implementation. Table 3-2 illustrates how the evaluation criteria ranked the various alterna- tives. The alternatives selected to be implemented in the City include (1) quantity- or volume -based user fees, (2) business license fee rate incentives. (3) public education, (4)promotion. and (5) local procurement guidelines. These alternatives will be continued during the medium term and expanded if necessary, 3.5.1 Alternatives Selected Short-term Planning Period Rate structure modifications are selected since the City is evaluating the feasibility of changing to an inclining rate structure which has been pro- posed by CWRS, the City's exclusive franchise hauler. Note that an inclin- ing rate structure is similar to a variable can rate structure, where the cost of subscribing to an additional refuse container is substantially more PJF\F641F6401010 3- 20 Rev, 0 December23, 1991 Source Reduction expensive than the first. Implementation should not be too difficult ;;^ce, a, the same time. CWRS plans to change to a se miautomated/automated waste cart system which provides one cart for refuse, one for commingled recyclables, and one for yard wastes. The new rates will be an effective method to reduce the amount of waste thrown away because of the addi- tional costs to the waste generator. This program satisfies the City's objective number seven (to establish a program of economic incentives and disincentives to encourage local citi- zens and businesses to reduce the amount of waste they produce) by pro- viding residents with an incentive to reduce wastes to avoid paying for an additional waste Cart for refuse. Business fee license incentives are selected because it will encourage businesses to source reduce and will be fairly easy to implement and enforce. This alternative satisfies the City's objective number seven (to establish a program of economic incentives and disincentives to encour- age local citizens and businesses to reduce the amount of waste they pro- duce). By providing decreased rates for those businessos who source reduce and recycle, businesses will be made aware of the importance of source reduction while realizing a cost saving. Public education is selected to increase general awareness about source reduction and the need to conserve resources. This alternative satisfies the City's objective one to implement a public education program on source reduction. Educational efforts will be geared towards developing consumer awareness about the benefits of source reduction. An example would be to let people know how to reduce their junk mail. Consumer awareness can bring about changes in consumption patterns, and subse- quent changes in production and packaging processes by manufacturers. This alternative satisfies the City's objective numbers one (implement a public education program on source reduction) and five (the City will develop and disseminate source reduction checklists and information pamphlets regarding products reuse, durability, and recyclability). As shown in Table 3-2, technical assistance and public education efforts offerthe greatest opportunity to achieve significant source reduction. Edu- cation curriculum will encourage children to reduce waste, which should encourage other family members to incorporate source reduction behav- ior. Education not only brings the problem and the solution to the intended PJF,F641F640101 Q 3 21 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Source Reduction public. but it Serves to accommodate and enhance the other selectec waste reduction programs. Promotion is selected by the City to acknowledge businesses that have implemented source reduction activities. This alternative satisfies the City's objective numbers three (the City will work with the Chamber of Commerce to develop a volunteer program to encourage businesses and industries to reduce their wastes), five (the City will develop and dissemi- nate source reduction checklists and information pamphlets regarding products reuse, durability, and recyclability). and six (develop a commer- cial and industrial waste exchange program). Awards or public recognition. or both, will be given to community groups, businesses, or individualsthat are promoting source reduction in the community either through example or through education. Public recognition and awards provide the City's source reduction program with high visibility which will help to encourage the adoption of source reduction behavior in the community. By publicly recognizing businesses that are committed to waste reduction. the City will encourage companies interested in maintaining or establishing a "socially and environmentally responsible" image to implement source reduction practices and education programs for employees. Local Drocurement gyidelr,;neS were selected because the City wants to take the lead in promoting source reduction. This alternative satisfies the City's objective number two (the City will adopt and implement City gov- ernment purchasing guidelines and product specifications). The procure- ment guidelines will assist the governmental agencies in the City to pur- chase materials, when possible. that are made of recycled material, and promote the purchase cf reusable, repairable, and recyclable products. City purchasing practices can also take into account the potential to extend the useful life of affected materials, products, or packaging. and whether the waste type has limited recyclability. The City will encourage businesses to use the City's procurement guidelines as a moc:el to develop their own. These guidelines can be combined with the "Create Local Markets for Recyclable Materials" alternative presented in the recy- cling component. This will save costs as well as ease implementation. This will satisfy the City's objective number four (the City will request that local businesses adopt purchasing guidelines similar to the city's). PJFtF641 F640101O 3- 22 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Source Reductcn Medium-term Planning Pnric d The short-term objectives will be ccrtinued in the medium term. if needed, these programs will be modified or expanded. or both. Assessing the actual quantities that can be reduced through source reduc- tion activities is difficult, in part, because of the newness of this concept. Further, waste generation studies targeted to measure source reduction changes might be necessary to measure quantities reduced. The types of materials anticipated to be reduced through source reduction in the City include packaging materials. including plastics and paper prod- ucts construction materials • single -use products. including disposable diapers and dis- posable cups • repairable products, including appliances and electronics • paper. including mixed waste paper such as paper nap- kins, disposable bags, and nonrecyclable junk mail • oousehola nazardous materials 3.5.2 Cooperative or Multifurisdictional Program Implementation Efforts, Actions, and Activities National efforts. Source reduction is generally considered a national pol- icy requiring the cooperation of business. industry, consumers, and gov- ernment. Source reduction requires manufacturers to design products with durability. reusability, and recyclability in mind. Source reduction involves changing the way products are manufactured and packaged. LWi needs to continue to be aware of the product trends occurring on a national !evel in order to effectively encourage source reductionefforts locally. Cooperative activities. The City can benefit from technical assistance and educational materials developed by other jurisdictions. The City can also benefitfrom free educational materials produced by the State Depart- ment of Conservation and the CIWMB. Promotional materials such as stickers and buttons can be an effective means of educating the public on the concept of source reduction. Using these materials is most cost '3ftective when they are purchased in large quantities. The City could coordinate purchases of promotional materials with the neighboring jurisdictions. as well as with other nearby counties in order to take advantage of such savings. Public information efforts involv- ing public service announcements and televised programming could also be coordinated and funded jointly. 3.5.3 Facilities Needed for Implementation The programs selected do not require any major new or expanded facili- ties. However, in combination with other alternatives, this alternative may add to the eventual need for expanded facilities for materials recovery and composting. 3.6 Program Implementation 3.6.1 Government Agencies Responsiblefor Implementation The City Manager's office will be responsible for coordinating the imple- mentation of the selected programs. 3.6.2lmplementation Tasks The implementation tasks for selected source reduction programs are pre- sented in Table 3.3. 3.63 Implementation Schedule The implementation schedule for selected source reduction programs is presented in Tat�e 3-3. 3.6.4 Implementation Costs, Revenues, and Revenue Sources Some of the implementation costs for selected source reduction programs are included in the education and public information component and the recycling component. Other costs for rate structure modifications are shown in Table 3-4. Revenue sources for the necessary programs will be fees or service charges imposed by the City for programs undertaken by CWRS. PJF\F64\F6401010 3- 24 Rev. 0 December 23,1991 Source Reduction Revenues and revenue sources include monies from business license fees and the surcharge the City will add to the waste service fees for funding solid waste programs required to meet the mandated solid waste reduction goals. 3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 3.7.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives The following methods will be used to quantify and monitor the achieve ment of the source reduction objectives. Objective 1. Implement a Citywide public education pro- gram on source reduction. Evaluation method. Survey the agencies involved in the education pro- gram to get their opinion about how the program is working. Obtain infor- mation about what has been accomplished and the amounts source reduced since the program was initiated compared to previous source reduction activities. Objective 2 Adopt and implement City government pur- chasing guidelines and product specifications to achieve an overall 5 percent reduction in the City's waste production. Evaluation method. Review purchasing records from past years and compare with records after the purchasing guidelines have been imple- mented for 1 year. Adjust amounts for population growth. Review records annually and track reduction rates. Objective 3. Develop a voluntary program to encourage Chamber of Commerce members to reduce their business/industry -waste an overall 5 percent by 1995. Evaluation method. Establish an inventory sheet for all voluntary partici- pants showing initial material amounts for items targeted for source reduc- tion. Have volunteers fill out an inventory sheet on a periodic basis to PJF\F641F6401010 3- 25 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Source Reductoon establish reduction rates for the items targeted. Total results on an annual basis. Objective 4. The City will request that local businesses adopt purchasing guidelines by 1993. . Evaluation method. Once the City's purchasing guidelines are completed and adopted, use them as a model for others to follow. Send notices with an interest form to all local businesses letting them know of the City's request. Use the form to track who is interested in developing their own guidelines and follow-up biannually to see which busine ses have imple- mented the guidelines. Objective 5. The City will develop and disseminate source reduction checklists and informational pam- phlets as pan of the City's ongoing publ;c information and education program. Evaluation method. Keep records of all the people and businesses which received the checklist and pamphlets. Conduct a random survey to find out if the information has been useful. Objective 6. Develop a commercial and industrial waste exchange program for the City. Evaluation method. When developing the exchange program, include a participant lit noting materials exchanged. Make sure amounts are speci- fied. Compare amounts on a regular basis to note success of the program. If confidentially is a concern. use identification numbers instead of busi- ness names on the exchange list. Objective 7. By 1993. establish a program of economic incentives and disincentives to encourage local citizens and businesses to reduce the amount of wastes they produce. Evaluation method. Keep a log of incentives rewarded and csmpare on a regular basis. Develop disincentives that are countable such as fines or PJF1F641F6401010 3- 26 Rev. 0 December 23,1991 Source Reduct*n exclusion from favorable lists (such as a list of businesses that promote recycling). 3.7.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating the Programs' Effectiveness Lodi will evaluate the success of the source reduction activities'by the fol- lowing criteria: • Does the community have a greater understanding of the concept of source reduction? . Are the source reduction objectives being achieved? • Were the program activities implemented on schedule? Have businesses' and the City's procurement practices changed? 3.7.3 Agencies Responsible for the Programs' Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting The City manager's office will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the source reduction programs. 3.7.4 Mon1toring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues. and Revenue Sources Funding is needed to monitor the effectiveness of the source reduction activities implemented in the City, particularly for staffing, surveys, and recordkeeping. Approximately $15.000 will be needed to effectively moni- tor source reduction activities; $10,000 for staffing; and $5,000 for materi- als. Revenues and revenue sources will come from either fees or service charges levied by the City on solid waste generators. 3.7.5 Contingency Measures If Lodi fails to make reasonable progress toward its source reduction objectives, the City will implement the following measures: • increased staffing for technical assistance. education, waste audits, and other public awareness programs • implementation of economic incentives reward program PJF1F641F6401010 3 .27 Rev.0 December 23.1991 Source Reduction' expansion cf selected programs • required waste reduction planning and reporting by busi- nesses PJF\F641F640101 O 3 .?8 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Source Reduction Table 3.1 What is Source Reduction? Decreased Consumption Material Reuse Reduce Material Volume . Use cloth towels, retreaded tires, refillable pei—, reusable air filters, returnable bottles • Make two-sided copies Reuse packaging or packing material • Use routing slips • Provide/use returnable packaging containers • Use electronic mail • Donate used equipment • Buy in bulk • Use ceramic coffee mugs • Offer waste reduction incentives to employees Reuse blank sides of paper for scratch Increase Product Durability Use silverware and dishes in the cafeteria • Purchase durable goods Compost, mulch, or chip on site • Design durable products Rent equipment rather than buying • Provide/use maintenance contracts to extend the life of equipment • Use a waste exchange program . Design for reuse or recyclability PJF\F641F6401010 3-29 Rev 0 December '3, 19x}1 Table 3-2 Alternatives Evaluation for Source Reduction Programs PJF\F641F640101O 3.30 faev 0 , jecerllbi�r 4;3, 1991 Evaluation Criteria Ability to Consequences Accommodate on the Implementation Facility Program Categories Effectiveness Hazard Change Wastestream Period Requirements *** *** *** *** *** (1) Rate Structure Modilicalions * *** *** *** ** *** (2) Economic Incentives (3) Technical Assistance and * * * * * * * * Public Education (4) Reguf ftm Pmgmn Programs Selected by Category: (1) Ouanlitybased user lees (2) Business license lee incentives (3) Public education and promotion (4) Local procurement guidelines PJF\F641F640101O 3.30 faev 0 , jecerllbi�r 4;3, 1991 PJRF64iF6401010 3-31 lice 0 Decerlibur 23, 1 9�i 1 Additional Considerations Program Alternatives Consistency with Local Instltutional cost End Plans and Policies Barriers Etiectiveness uses (1) Rate Structure Modilicaiions N/A (2) Economic Incentives N/A (3) Technical Assistance and N/A Public Educalion (4) Regulation Programs N/A PJRF64iF6401010 3-31 lice 0 Decerlibur 23, 1 9�i 1 Table 3-3 Calendar of Source Reduction Tasks argeted Type of Implementation venerator Program Tasks Date 3ovemment Procurement Guidelines Short-term Plannina Period residential Ouantity-based Determine service area; conduct a 1992 User Fees rale study; adopt through resolution 3ustness Procurement Guidelines and public hearing; evaluate various data collection systems: administer billing system lesidentiat Public Education Develop a "junk mail" reduction 1992 Incentives pamphlet: develop a list of allernate recycfables and source reduction checklists 3usiness Promotion Encourage Chamber of Commerce 1992 members to reduce their business! Medlum-term industrywaste. establish criteria for All All awarding/acknowledging source reduction activities 3ovemment Procurement Guidelines Draft and adopt procurement guide- 1992 lines; work with government agencies to implement 3ustness Procurement Guidelines Request local I.— lasses adopt 1993 purchasing gLVr ,11; -• srovide "fly's guidelines a_ "J Business Business Fee License Establish implementation and 1993 Incentives administrative costs for maintain- ing source reduction program; determine lower percentage rates to otter source reduction participants; set base lee at appropriate rate Medlum-term Plannina Period All All Evaluate all the short-term 1995- 1999 programs for effectiveness and revise as necessary PJFF64,FC-101010 3 32 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Table 3-4 Implementation Costs and Revenue Source Program Alternative Capital Costs Annual Operating costs Total costs Revenue Source Quantity -based Local User Fees $75,000 NIA NIA to $150.000 Public Business License Fee Incentives $7,000 NIA $2.500 to $2.500 Public Public Education and Promotion' Public/PrivIte N/A NIA NIA Local Procurement Guidelines2 NIA NIA NIA Public Monitoring and Evaluation NIA $15.000 $15.000 Public I costs included b Public Eduction and Inlormation Component (Section 7) 2cosis Included in Recycling Component (Section A) "Create L a a I Markets for RecydaGlo Mafunals• aftcrnahvc NIA - not applicable PJ nF64\F640 1010 3-33 Hew 0 December 23.1991 COLLECTION RECYCLED PRODUCTS an RECYCLING 4 RECYCLING COMPONENT 4.1 Introduction Recycling is an age-old practice that is taking on an increasingly important role in today's modern solid waste management programs. This form of waste diversion helps preserve natural resources and valuable landfill dis- posal capacity. Recycling is defined by the National Recycling Coalition as the series of activities by which materials that would otherwise remain wastes are collected, separated, or processed and used in the form of raw materials. Recycling is defined in AB 939 (Public Resources Code 40180) as "...the process of collecting. sorting. cleansing. treating, and reconsti- tuting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw materials for new, reused, or reconstituted products which meet the quality standards neces- sary to be used in the marketplace" As stated in either definition, recycling goes far beyond merely collecting and separating postconsumer waste; in order to truly recyc.e, the materials must be remade into new products. Thus, markets are critical for the full recycling process to be complete. Accordingly, recycling planning must integrate market development with program development. In Lodi. there are several programs and services which have been estab- lished and which are dedicated to the recycling of a range of materials. These programs represent the first step in recycling — separation and collection. In addition to the description of existing programs, this section includes an evaluation of recycling program alternatives, the selection of recommended alternatives, a discussion of end markets, and plans for implementing and monitoring recycling programs, 4.2 Goals and Objectives The City has established two specific short-term goals for its recycling efforts. PJRF641F640101 R Q 1 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Recycling 1. maximize opportunities for City residents to recycle 2. foster a positive environment by creating local markets for recyclable materials wherever possible and practical to do so The medium-term goal for the Cfty's recycling program is to review and revise the program alternatives to meet the state -mandated goals. The City has developed objectives to be accomplished during the short- term planning period (1991-1994) and which will be continued during the medium-term planning period (1995-1999). These objectives have been established in conjunction with the objectives in the other components of this document in order to achieve the required diversion rates of 25 percent by January 1, 1995. and 50 percent by January 1,2000. 1. By 1992, identify Opportunities for creating local markets for recycled materials. such as establishing City procure- ment preferences for products containing recycled materials. 2. Require that large commercial and industrial estab- lishments doing business within the City prepare and submit a plan for City review and approval by 1993. These plans should address a recycling targets to be achieved by 1995, with specific program details b. incorporating recycled materials into their businesses 3. Work to influence regional or state recycling markets, or both, by encouraging local specialty markets (which could serve intrastate needs). By 1993, the City will investigate establishment of a recycling market development zone consistent with the requirements of SB 1322. 4. Expand existing material recovery operations by 1995 and target an additional 10 percent of the wastestream for recovery. 5. By 1994, establish a program to recover old telephone books once markets for them have been developed, or existing markets are expanded PJFSF641F640101 R 4 2 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Recycling 6. By 1995. provide a recyclable material collection service to areas such as apartment complexes and other areas where it is not presently practical or feasible. 7. By 1993. adopt specific ordinances to address and encourage multifamily residential and commercial recy- cling opportunities in new developments. 4.3 Waste Categories Targeted for Diversion Because of the volume of the recyclable materials found during the waste generation study and the fact that some of these materials are made of nonrenewable resources, the following materials are targeted for diver- sion. Many of these waste types are currently being collected through Lodi's existing recycling programs; these programs will be expanded to increase the quantities collected in some cases, or to maintain current collection levels. • newspaper • magazines corrugated cardboard • aluminum and bimetal cans • white, colored. and computer paper • plastics • other metals • glass 4.4 Existing Conditions Description The City's landfilled wastestream is comprised of approximately 29 percent residential waste. 17 percent commercial, 21 percent industrial, and 33 percent self -hauled waste. Section 2 summarizes diversion quanti- fies by material for residential, commercial, and industrial waste. The cur- rent diversion rate for the City of Lodi is almost 54 percent of waste gener- ation. If inert wastes were excluded from diversion as has been proposed in discussions at legislative committee staff meetings, the diversion rate for Lodi would be approximately 34 percent. Several programs exist in the City for the collection of recyclable materials. These are discussed in the following pages. The existing programs are categorized by residential, nonresidential. and residential and nonresiden- tial sectors. These programs will be continued, or expanded, during the short-term and medium-term planning periods, and none will be decreased in scope. P3FIF64 tF640101 A 4 3 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Recycling Recycling services and programs are offered by several entities, including Tokay Recycling, 20-20 Recycle Center, and scrap metal dealers and paper brokers in neighboring Stockton. Quantities of wasts diverted are summarized in the Waste Generation Component, S,)ction 2, in aggregate form. It is not possible to disaggre- gate the amounts for each recycler due to confidentiality arrangements. Where it was possible to group data into programs such as buy-back or drop-off without compromising confidentiality arrangements, the data have been presented as such. See Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 in Section 2, the Waste Generation Component. 4.4.1 Residential Programs Source separation via curbside collection. Curbside recycling in Lodi is currently a pilot program with 3.000 households participating. CWRS pro- vides three color -coded recycling pails (with a total capacity of 15 gallons) for newspaper, aluminum. PET plastics. tin cans, and glass. Residents place the recyclable materials in the appropriate pail and place the pails on the curb to be picked up on a weekly basis by the recycling crew. The firm uses two recycling trucks, each containing three compartments with a total capacity of 20 cubic yards. Approximately 18 tons of residential recy- clable materials are collected each week (900 tons annually). Buy-back centers. 1 okay Recycling is a buy-back/processing center located in Lodi. It accepts all materials for which there is a market, includ- ing HDPE and telephone books. Industrial and postconsumer corrugated cardboard, high-grade paper (computer printout, colored, and white ledger), newsprint. PET, HDPE. refillable beverage containers. California redemption glass, aluminum beverage cans, and scrap aluminum. Nonfer- rous metals (brass, copper, etc.) are also accepted. CWRS has two California -certified redemption centers which accept newspaper. cardboard, aluminum, PET and HDPE plastics. telephone books, glass. high-grade ledger paper, and computer paper. The center receives these materials from participating "community accounts" and the general public. The center pays for the materials, at the prevailing rate, or credits the appropriate community account. CWRS has applied for a local use permit for a recycling processing center located at South Beckman Road. This facility wo0d also be the truck ter- minal for CWRS. Initially, it is the intent of CWR- t:: only operate this facil. PJ F1F641F640101 R 4 4 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Recycling ity as a buy-back center, with eventual conversion to a materials pro- cessing center. 20-20 Recycle Center. The 20-20 Recycle Center Corporation has a buy- back center at the Safeway grocery store in Lcdi. The center only accepts AB 2020 redemption value containers: aluminum, glass. and PET plastic. Drop-off centers. CWRS has established 63 public use drop-off locations. Each of the 63 drop-off locations is equipped with 4 -cubic -yard metal receptacles for either newspaper or cardboard and 90 -gallon plastic receptacles for glass and aluminum. Members of the public also use these drop-off centers to leave their recyclable materials for pickup. These drop- off locations are located at churches, schoois, businesses, and various nonprofit organizations. CWRS also collects 39 tons each week through its commercial recycling drop-off program. Other programs. CWRS operates a "community accounts program" that allows schools, clubs. churches, and other nonprofit organizations to receive the funds from their recyclables for their organization. 442 Nonresidential Programs Material recovery facility and transfer station. CWRS currently oper- ates a solid waste transfer station, materials recovery facility, recycling center, and composting facility at 1333 East Turner Road, Lodi, California. The waste transfer station, as it is currently operated, can be generally described as a pit into which residential, commercial, and industrial waste hauling vehicles dump their loads (CWRS, 1991). The refuse is sorted by content and materials that include cardboard. newspaper, plastic, cans, metal. wood, rock. garden waste, etc. The refuse is compacted and then loaded into transfer trailers where it is hauled to the nearby Harney Lane Landfill/North County Landfill and Recycling Center. Office paper program. CWRS has established an office paper program whose goal is to reduce the quantity of recyclable, white office paper that would otherwise be disposed of. This is accomplished by the participant designating an employee as the recycling coordinator/custodian. The recycling coordinator oversees and encourages all other employees to be aware of and participate in the plan, and the recycling custodian notifies CWRS of placement and retrieval of the receptacles. All d Lodi's govern- PJF1F641F640101 R 5 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Recycling ment offices and the San Joaquin County -operated municipal courts located in Lodi participate in this program. Community accounts program. CWRS has a community accounts pro- gram which is designed for participation by schoois, clubs, and other non- profit organizations. CWRS supplies these organizations with a 4 -cubic. yard receptacle for newspapers. When the receptacles are full, CWRS either hauls the materials to its materials recovery center and credits the participant with the prevailing cubic yard rate, or CWRS weighs the mate- rials and credits the appropriate sum to the participants "community account." School district program. CWRS, in cooperation with Lodi Unified School District science task force, has developed a comprehensive recycling edu- cation program. The program includes two classroom science lessons designed to teach kindergarten through eighth grade students the impor- tance of recycling and the preservation of natural resources. Each partici- pant is given a 'People Who Care' storybook and a certificate designating students as "Recycling Rangers." A student assembly, designed for students from kindergarten through sixth grade, is held. Presentations at the assembly include a skit, which requires participation by ten students, and which shows how re^ycling newspaper saves trees from being cut down. The assembly is 25 minutes long. Th addition to these activities. CWRS provides receptacles for collection of newspapers and aluminum cans at the school site in order to raise funds for the classroom and the students. CWRS also maintains a community account in the name of each partici- pating school at the CWRS recycling center located at the Lodi Transfer Station. Individuals or groups may donate recyclables: the value of the recyclables is credited to a school which they may designate, Additionally, a portion of all funds generated from the sale of recyclable materials from the curbside recycling program is contributed directly io the schools. These funds are used for field trips and extracurricular activities. Business recycling programs. Lucky Stores in Lodi provide an excellent example of business recycling. The two Lucky Stores in Lodi, one at 530 West Lodi Avenue and the other at 340 West Kettleman Lane, both recycle cardboard. plastic bags, and food waste. Their combined totals are 378 tons of cardboard, 883 pounds of plastic, and 57 tons of food waste PJFNF641F640101R d -6 Rev, 0 December 23, 1991 Recyclo,9 (fa! and bone). Lucky also plans to begin recychnq shrink wrap plastic by 1992. Lucky Stores have developed an "Environmental Savings Plan" which is designed to encourage both customers and empioyees to reduce, reuse. and recycle. Lucky Stores have published a brochure to help with this effort. There are many other bosinosses in Lodi that are very actively recycling and encouraging their customers to do so as well. 4.4.3 Residential and Nonresidential Programs Materials recovery. There is a materials recovery facility, recycling cen- ter, and composting facility at the Lodi Transfer Station. Additional recov- ery is planned at a facility proposed by CWRS at South Beckman Road. Initially, operations will be limited to a buyback center. "Commingled" recyclable materials are fed into a hopper using a loader from the stockpile or a rotating forklift for containerized n'ma!ehals. The materials fall first onto a feed conveyor and from there onto a sorting con- veyor. The sorted materials include PET, HDPE, and polystyrene plastics, metals (aluminum, tin, and other miscellaneous metals), paper products (newspaper, office paper, computer paper, and cardboard), and glass (clear, green, and brown). These separated materials such as cardboard. paper products, plastics, and metals are baled (approximately 40 to 50 bales per day) and are ready to be transported to the local brokers for sale. The firm uses a vibrating screen method to separate mixed construction and demolition waste by size, which is then sold or removed at a lower cost to the gravel companies for reuse. CWRS has indicated they intend to develop a new larger MRF in Lodi. Throughput of the new facility or the timing of permitting and construction is unknown at this time. Wood waste is sold to companies such as Ultra Power, Diamond Walnut. Louisiana Pacific. Martel, Hessco. and Georgia Pacific, which have wood - to -energy facilities. Approximately 2.281 tons of wood waste are sent to these facilities and do not count towards the initial diversion goal for 1995. CWRS also composts materials received from self -haulers, the local municipal leaf program. and food processing waste. including peach culls and tomato pomace. The remaining vegetable waste is used to produce PJnF641F640101R 41 iicv 0 December23 1991 Recych% cattle feed supplements. For more information on CWRS' composTing yo - gram.. see Section 5. Composting Component. 4.44 Market Development Activities The three local recycling companies and regional metal recyclers and paper bakers have indicated they have sufficient markets for the materials they are currently recycling. The City does not currently have any local procuremen?guidelines. Markets will be further developed by implement- ing the program alternatives described in this component, Economic development activities include CWRS' planned MRF expansicn and new facility. CWRS growth adds to the local economy by adding employment opportunities. CWRS has indicated that it has plans to hire more staff especially from the senior citizens and Hispanic community. Also, recycling more materials will allow the economic activity to grow for these products. Consumer incentives are in place in Lodi through the CWRS community accounts program. Educational programs exist through the Lodi Unified School District. as already described. Also. CWRS and the City have other programs to edu- cate the public. These are described in Section 7, Education and Public Information Component. 4.5 Evaluation of Program Alternatives Lodi evaluated the iotlowing recycling alternatives that could be imple- mented to meet the component goals and objectives. For ease of evalua- tion, these have been divided into alternatives for the residential sector ar_d those for the nonresidential sectors. Each of the alternatives is evalu- ated according to a set of criteria specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 7, Chapter 9. Program costs are approxi- mate, and program details should be considered preliminary. Cost and program details will be refined as additional details about the specifics of each program become better known in the future. Many of these alternatives are complementary to each other and depend upon the implementation of other alternalives, programs. or SRRE com- ponents, such as source reduction, composting, and education and public information. Where possible, these relationships have been indicated in the criteria for evaluating the alternatives. An additional consideration in evaluating the alternatives is that their effectiveness and impact need to PJF1F641F640101 R 1 •8 15e V 0 December 23. 1991 Recychng be considered on the basis of hour several alternatives or programs will work together as a system. and nct necessarily as alternatives that are independent of one another. Furthermore, the regulations require an eval- uation of the advantages and disadvantages of public versus .private own- ership and operation of recycling programs. The following ten alternatives are evaluated within their respective cate- gory based on the evaluation approach presented in Appendix B. As pre- sented in California Code of Regulations, Title 14. Division 7. Chapter 9. Article 6.2.Section 18733.3. the evaluation criteria are as follows: • effectiveness • hazard • ability to accommodate change • consequences on the wastestream • implementation time constraints • facility requirements • consistency with local plans and policies • institutional barriers • estimated cost • end uses As structured by the regulations governing AB 939. some of the criteria by which the alternatives are required to be evaluated are positive in tone (e.g., effectiveness), while others are inherently negative (e.g., hazard). A high rating for a positive criterion implies a positive rating; on the other hand a high rating for a negative criterion corresponds to few or no impacts associated with this potential problem. To avoid confusion, all "high" rankings will receive three stars (***), 'medium' receives two stars (**), and "low" receives one star (*). The rating results of the eval- uation are summarized in Table 4-1. Residential Alternatives The following, which are required to be evaluated pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9 have been tailored to fit Lodi's unique situation. P.JnF64\F640101 R 4 9 Rev 0 December 23.1991 k:.. ReCyCIOV Alternative t . Develop a multifamily dwell ng recycling program Alternative 2. Curbside recycling program: expand participation and waste types collected Alternative 3. Buy-back recycling center Alternative 4. Mobile collection system Alternative 5. Drop-off recycling center Nonresidential Alternatives Alternative 1. Expand off icepaper collection to other recyclables Alternative 2. Create local markets for recycling materials Nonresidential and Residential Alternatives Alternative 1. Expand CWRS materials recovery operation Alternative 2. Salvage at solid waste facility Alternative 3. Changes to zoning and code practices 4.5.1 Residential Alternatives Alternative 1. Recycling Program for Multifamily Dwellings This alternative addresses the objective of establishing programs tion the collection of recyclable materials from multifamily dwellings. Multifamily dwellings typically house apartment renters, condominium and townhouse owners or renters, residents of senior citizen homes, and mobile home park residents. In Lodi. most duplexes and townhouses are considered single-family homes and are serviced by the curbside program. For this reason, these dwellings will not be considered in this alternative. Currently in Lodi, there are no recycling programs on site at multifamily dwellings (Lodi's Draft General Plan, April 1990, Table 2-5). Out of 19.676 dwelling units. there are approximately 5,621 muttifamiiy dwelling units in Lodi according to the 1990 census. Each residential dwelling disposes of approximately 1 ton of refuse per year. Programs should be tailored to the particular multifamily area: for instance, a senior citizen's residence will have different needs than an apartment complex. Curbside recycling programs generally have participation rates that are higher than multifamily programs. Also. initiating a diversion program such PJF\F641F644101 R 4 - 10 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Recycling as a multifamily recycling program does not always capture 'new" rFjcy- clables since some people that used drop-off or buy-back centers will Lust switch to the m0ifamily dwelling unit program. Multifamily dwelling units make up about 29 percent of the residential areas of the City. Multifamily dwellings are estimated to dispose of approximately 5.600 tons per year. Of this amount. approximately 18 to 19 percent can be targeted for diversion, assuming there was 100 percent participation. Since that is unlikely. participation rates of 20 and 40 percent were assumed for the short- and medium-term planning periods. This would mean that approximately 208 to 252 tons per year would be diverted in the short-term time frame and approximately 525 to 610 tons per year would be diverted in the medium-term time frame. Effectiveness. * * * A recycling program for multiunit dwellings is expected to be effective in reducing the amount of targeted materials) in the solid wasfestream. Targeted materials are corrugated cardboard, newsprint, HDPE and PET plastics. all recyclable glass, redemption glass and aluminum, and ferrous metals. The success of the program will depend on how well the particular needs of each type of multiunit dwelling are considered. Hazard. irk Hecycling programs at multiunit dwellings present moderate hazards, which will depend on the type of program in place. For instance. broken glass or other miscellaneous items can be a problem with multibin or multicompariment systems. Ability to accommodate change. ** Multiunit dwelling recycling pro- grams are readily adaptable to changing conditions. If the program becomes too popular toe fast. it could pose some logistical problems, due to lead times required for purchasing new collection containers. or over- flowing containers from increased participation. In addition, the program is more readily adaptable to changing Conditions if residents and multifamily dwelling managers are kept up-to-date on changes in the program. etc. This task could be accomplished by the hauler. City staff, or volunteer groups. Consequences on the wostestream. * * * Multiunit dwelling recycling programs would not impact the wasteslream Implementation period. * * CWRS plans to implement this aliern rt ve by 1993. Facility requirements. * * Existing facilities may require expansion or alteration. Some existing mOlfarnily facilities could have a space problem as the program grows, since space is generally a! a premium. Tradeoffs may be required in order to utilize parking areas or open areas for recy- cling collection containers. In addition. some cities may require that garbage/recycling collection areas be enclosed, which could require changes at the site to accommodate recycling. Ccnsistency with local pans and pclicies. ** Minor changes to exist- ing plans and policies- would o requ; Ivo. i nt;tso could include changes to any agreements between the City or hauler with a given multiunit dwelling with regard to its garbage collection. In addition. City policies may need to be adapted to allow for unenclosed garbage recycling collection areas, if this is needed, and City policies currently prohibit it. Lastly, the City could require changes to zoning and building ordinances to require that recycling collection areas be built into all new multiunit developments. Institutional barriers. * * Moderate barriers exist. With rental property. turnover in property managers, on-site managers, and tenants often makes it difficult I o keep residents apprised about recycling programs and any changes made in these programs. However. information could be given out at the time of initial rental to tenants and during monthly rental payments. Also, the facility manager may have to give up parking or other space in order to accommodate recycling. This can be remedied with strong public education efforts. Estimated cost. ** Estimated costs for CWRS to implement a multifam- ily dwelling recycling programl',­ Lodi are under development and are not available at this time. CoA considerations include type of collection con- tainer, type of collection Service (e.g., door-to-door versus central loca- tions), collection vehicle (new trucks may be needed). and labor (i.e.. one - or two -person crew). End uses. See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. Public vs. private operation. This will be a private operation. CWRS has an exclusive franchise for solid waste collection in tho City of Lodi. They will be responsible for implementing this alternative. Alternative 2 Curbside Recycling Program: Expand Participation and Waste Types Collected PJRF641F640101 R 1 1 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Recycling AB 939 requires cities to look at curbside source separation programs as an alternative. This alternative addresses the City's goal of maximizing opportunities !or City residents to recycle but does not address any spe- cific City recyclicg objectives. As described above, the City residential areas are currently being serviced with a curbside program by CWRS consistent with CWRS' exclusive collection franchise. CWRS has indicated that it will expand participation in the programs by changing from source separated to a commingled recycling system and by expanding its exten- sive public education program (see Section 7. Education and Public Wormation Component). Also, the City will require the curbside recycling program be changed from a voluntary program to a "mandatory" program where waste carts will be distributed to all single-family residents. This will result in an increase in participation rates. The existing voluntary program uses a source -separated system with three color -coded pails; white for newspaper, yellow for aluminum and tin cans, and green for glass. CWRS' proposed new commingled system includes upgrading its collec- tion equiprr o- '-w in+tialh, implementing a two -waste cart system by Jan- uary 1992. CYvr-tJ is proceeding with plans to acquire the necessary waste carts and mw collection vehicles which will be financed through certificates of participation issued by the City. The City will purchase the equipment and lease it back to CWRS. One waste cart will be for refuse. and the other waste cart will be for commingled recyclable materials by 1994. These carts will be provided to all residents. The commingled system will allow for an increase in the types of materials recycled once tho program is established. CWRS expects that the increased capacity of containers for recyclable materials will also encourage higher participation and waste diversion. As a cost saving measure. CWRS will utilize existing waste cart containers until they have reached their useful service life. Approximately 14,000 tons were disposed of by single-family residents in Lodi in 1990. Thirty-seven percent are yard wastes and not divertable with the two -:art system described here. A third can for yard wastes will be addressed in Section 5, the Composting Component. Approximately 21 percent of residential wastes are divertable in the short- and medium- term planning periods (excluding yard wastes). Targeted materials are corrugated cardboard. newsprint. high-grade paper, HDPE and PET plas- tics, glass (refillable. redemption. and recyclable), aluminum cans. ferrous metals, and mixed metals (see Appendix L for percentages of the resi- dential wastestream). PJF1F641F640t01R 4 13 Rev 0 December 23,1991 Rocychng CWRS estimates that with universal distribution of waste carts it car, catJ- ture all of the diversion potential in the medium-term time frame once the MRF is constructed and operating. For the short-term planning period. a 50 percent capture rate was assumed. Thus, in the short, term, approxi- mately 2.160 to 2,244 tons per year can be expected to be diverted begin- ning in 1994. For the medium-term planning period. approximately 4,664 to 5,445 tons per year can oe diverted. assuming CWRS' MRF is con- structed and fully operational. Effectiveness. *** This alternative would be effective in reducing solid waste. Hazard. * * * This alternative presents no known hazards Ability to accommodate change. * * This alternative is readily adapt- able to changing conditions, especially to changes in material types, pro- cessing, and handling techniques and to changes in the waste man- agement system and regulatory programs. Consequencss on the wastL:stream. * * * This alternative would have no known impact nr "'9 wd'�tesiream. Implementation period. * * * This alternative would be implemented in 1994. Facility requirements. * * Initially. this alternative would not require the development of new facilities since the Lodi Transfer Station already has material recovery capabilities. However, the MRF does need to be expanded and mechanized to a greater degree than exists at present. The MRF is discussed in a separate alternative (see Section 4.5.3, Residential and Nonresidential Alternatives). Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This alternative is consistent with local plans and policies. Institutional barriers. *** There are no known institutional barriers t. implementing this alternative. Public education efforts would be required to inform residents about the change to the commingling system from the current source separation system. Estimated cost. * The cost for 13 semiautomated side loaders is esti- mated by CWRS to be $1.8 million. The cost for 30.000 waste carts PJRF641F640101 R 4- 14 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Recycling required for convening tc the commingled system would be approximateiy $1.6 million. according to the integrated Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan for the City of Lodi, prepared in February 1991 by CWRS. Total costs for a two-cart system are estimated by CWRS to be � pproximately $3.4 million End uses. Recyclable materials would go to the CWRS Transfer Sta- tionlMatehals Recovery Center and Recycling Facility for processing and preparation for markets (see Section 4.6.7. Market Conditions). Public vs. private operation. The collection program would be a private operation. Alternative 3. Buyback Recycling Centers The City is required to evaluate a buy-back center alternative. This alter- native does not specifically address any of Lodi's recycling objectives, although it may have some minor impacts on waste diversion two buy-back centers, many materials can be sold (see S'ction 4.4. Existing Conditions Description). A buv-b,,(7k . •,reg :ssawkaiiy a drop- ,,., z Ger at which participants are ;ja,o ,,; use materials they bring in. These materials typically include aiuminum cans, newspaper, glass, metal cans, plastic (PET and HDPE). corrugated cardboard, and high-grade papers. Because of the nature of the programs. buy-back centers must have ragular business hours and be staffed full time; they are often more labor intensive than drop-off centers and can require equipment not needed at drop-off centers. Buy-back centers ar, *urrently operated by Tokay Recycling. CWRS. and 20-20 Recycle Center in Lodi. These are described above under Existing Conditions Description, Section 4.4. All are certified under AB 2020. which means the general public is paid California redemption value, as opposed to scrap value, for aluminum cans, glass, PET, and bimetal containers that are marked 'California redemption value." They also accept newspaper. cardboard. high-grade lodger paper. and computer paper. The Slate Department of Conservation will certify a recycling center if it is open a minimum of 30 hours per week, of which 5 hours must be other than 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. This program is not expected to divert many more recyclables from the wastestream since the City already has four recycling buy-back centers. CWRS is planning to establish a buy-back center at its proposed new PJFIF&4T6401 GI P 1 5 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Recycling recycling processing centerAruck terminal. If new centers were placed in areas more convenient !or residents to use than the existing centers such as the southwest area of town, overall participation might increase some- what. For both the short- and medium-term planning periods. diversion rates are expected to remain static and not increase since other residential programs proposed by CWRS will capture much of the residential wastestream. Buy-back centers run by Tokay Recycling. CWRS. and 20-20 Recycle Center accounted for almost 11 percent of the materials which were diverted in 1990. If inert materials are'eventually excluded from 'countable" diversion totals. buy-back centers accounted for 24 percent of diversion. For purpcses of this SRRE, we have assumed that inert materials will remain countable. In the short-term time frame. buy-back centers will divert an estimated 8.800 to 10,250 tons per year. In the medium-term time frame, buy-back Centers will divert approximately 10,600 to 12.400 tons per year. Effectiveness. it More buy-back centers would likely be ineffective in increasing diversion rates. Hazard. *** This alternative pre.;ents no known hazards. Ability to accommodate change. *** This alternative is readily adapt- able to change. Consequences on the wastestream. * * * This alternative presents no known impacts on th9 wastestream. Implementation period. * * * This alternative is already in place. Facility requirements. ir* This alternative does not require new facili- ties. There are four buyback centers already operating in Lodi. Consistency with local plans and policies. * * * This alternative is consistent with local plans. Buy-back programs exist currently in Lodi (see Section 4.4. Existing Conditions Description). Institutional barriers. * * * None. Estimated cost. *** There are no identifiable new costs associatedwith this alternative. End uses. Please see Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. It should be noted that the quality of materials collected through buy-back programs is generally high because the facilities are usually staffed unless they are PJF\F641F640101 R + - 16 Rev 0 Dccembcr 23, 1991 Recycling reverse vending machines These urograms allow t^r a high degree of quality control. Public. vs. private operation. The four buy-back centers (plus the pro- posed new center) in Lodi are privateiy owned and operated. Alternative 4. Mobile Collection System A mobile collection system. by definition. is one which moves and can ser- vice more than one area. The City is required to evaluate this alternative, Establishing a mobile collection system does not specifically address any of the City's recycling objectives. Mobile systems are ideal for rural areas with lowdensity populations. Lodi has a fairly dense urban and suburban population. There are a variety of recycling programs in place. Lodi will be served more efficiently by promoting and expanding current recycling pro- grams. This program is not expected lo divert more recyclables from the wastestream because of the variety of existing programs which are already in place. However, if a mobile unit served areas of low income residents who may not have ready methods of transporting recyclables to buy-back centers. such as senioi citizens communities, some positive results might occur. This alternat+vc, would diven no more than 300 tons peryear in the short-term planning period and possibly up to 375 tons per year inthe medium-term planning pe�icd. Effectiveness. * Because Lodi has many recycling collection systems in place, a mobile collection system i:; expected to have negligible effects on reducing the amount of waste diverted. CWRS does not have any plans to implement such a program. Hazard. ** Or There are few or no potential hazards. Ability to accommodate change. * * This alternative is ndaptubie to changing conditions. Consequences on the wastesiream. * * * This alternative would have no impact on shifts in waste type generation. Implementation period. * * * This allernative could be implemenled by 1994. Facility requirements. * * Existing facilities would have to be expanded or altered. A mobile collection system would require a trailer for cuslomer PJF1F641F640101 P, 4 -1 7 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Ff ocychng transactions and a storage area for collected materials The storage site should be secured at night to prevent scavenging Consistency with local plans and policies. * This alternative is incon- sistent with local plans, since Lodi already has an effective curbside col- lection program and has indicated that it intends to make curbside col- lection mandatory in all areas of the City. CWRS does not have any plans to implement such a program. Institutional barriers. * Lodi has many collection systems in place; establishing a mobile collection system could potentially impact the suc- cess of the existing operations. Estimated cost. ** Capital costs to establish a mobile collection system are estimated to range from $60.000 to $80,000, depending upon specific equipment needs. End uses. See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions Public vs. private operation. A mobile collection program could be oper- ated by either a public or private entity. In Lodi's situation. the mobile col- lection facility, if selected. would be implemented by CWRS. Alternative 5. Drop -O" Recycling Center Tho City is required to evaluate this alternative. This alternative does not address any of the City's specific recycling objectives: however, it addresses the City's goal to maximize recycling opportunities "-,r residents of the City and increase the recovery of materials. Drop-off recycling cen- ters range in size from "igloo" style domes and drop boxes to large cen- ters. They require that the generator source -separate recyclable materials and take them to the drop-off site. These sites are often unstaffed, and must be conveniently located and easily accessible in order to be suc- cessful. For this reason, drop-off recycling centers are generally lomted in parking lots of grocery stores, shopping centers, churches, or schools. Participation tends to be higher in rural areas where generators bring their refuse to a central location. Drop-off recycling centers can make recycling more convenient for persons who do not have curbside service and also provide a back-up for those who have curbside service. CWRS maintains 63 drop-off locations at schools, churches, and nonprofit organizations of the City (see Section 4.4, Existing Conditions Description). This equates to one drop-off center per 823 residents. CWRS also provides drop-off loca- tions for commercial/industrial Esse within the City. PJRF64NF640101 R .1 - 18 Rev 0 Decemter 23.1991 Recycling This program would not have a significant effect on the City's diversion rates because of CWRS' many drop,-ott facilities already in place through- out the City. CWRS' drop-off facilities account for over 3 percent of diverted materials in Lodi. This diversion rate is riot expected to increase substantially. In the short !erre, approximately 2,645 tons per year wilt be diverted by drop-ott programs During the medium-term time frame. approximately 3,340 tons per year will be diverted by CWRS' drop-off pro- grams. Effectiveness. ** Additional drop-off recycling centers in Lodi would have a minor effect on increasing the diversion of targeted materials Given the fact that Lodi has a curbside program in place. ani that several drop-off/buy-back opportunities exist tn► rs..-;;idents (see Sec ion 4.4. Exist- ing Conditions Description), d:litjonal drop-off programs a: a not expected to be highly effective. For the small volume businesses (e.g.. in downtown Lodi). however, drop-off Centers may be effective: this depends on .,,, ether they are pan of a larger program Hazard. + * Drop-off recycling centers present moderate hazards. Because these sites are often unstaffed. they can be-ome 'dump sites' for refuse As a result, potential hazards include brokers glass or other debr's arounh the drop-off containers, For the safety of the users. sites need to be well lighted and have adjacent parking. Ability to accommodate change. * * D, p -off recycling centers are moderately flexible. in that material types can be added quickly as new markets develop. Contamination o! materials van be a problem at drop-off sites. Consequences on the wastestream. * * Adding drop-off recycling cen- ters in Lodi would have a minimal impact on the wastestream in terms of substantially increasing diversion. The potential for contamination of mate- rials could render these materials less marketable. Implementation period. * * * This alternative could be implemented in the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. Drop-off centers would have to be built or set up in designated sites. Considerations include a central, accessible site; pro- tection from weather 0 e.. to keep Paper dry); plenty of storage area for materials; good vehicle -n;,cess (for both Collection trucks and the public) and security (i.e., locked containers) PJFIF641F640101 R 4 - 19 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Rercychng Consistency with local plans and policies. *** Drop-off recycling centers are consistent with City policies when located within property zoned areas. Institutional barriers. * Oftentimes grocery stores, other stores. and property owners are not happy with the idea of a drop-off bin in their park- ing lot. primarily due to the mess that can result if these drop-off areas become dump sites. For this reason, the drop-off program could not oper- ate in those locations without the store's and property owner's approval and cooperation. Estimated cost. ** Depends on the type of drop-off center selected. Costs could be anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 per center. End uses. Please see Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. Public vs. private operation. Drop-off recycling centers can be owned and operated by either public agencies, or private nonprofit or for-profit entities. Because of the City's franchise arrangement with CWRS. CWRS would be the one to operate any drop -aft collection site. 4.5.2 Nonresidential Alternatives Alternative 1. Expand Office Paper Collection to Other Recyclable Materials The City's objective to require large commercial and industrial establish- ments to prepare and submit recycling plans would be satisfied by this alternative. The CWRS office paper collection program (described in Sec- tion 4.4) establishes a recycling coordinator to oversee and encourage all other employees to be aware of and participate in the plan. This alter- native would require (1) large businesses to develop recycling goals to be achieved by 1995 with specific program details and (2) businesses to use recycled materials whenever feasible. To develop these plans, the recy- cling coordinator concept would be expanded and strengthened to include the other materials which each business has targeted for recycling. The City has implemented a government office paper recycling program that began in the summer of 1991. It is anticipated that this program will divert 12 tons per year in the short-term time frame and 24 tons per year in the medium-term time frame. The County government offices within the City are also participating in this program. Targeted materials in the short-term planning period for an expanded program include high-grade computer PJRF641F640101 R 4 20 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Recycling and ledger papers, corrugated cardboard, newsprint.. film plastics, ferrous metals, and wood. In the medium-term time frame. mixed paper and tex- tiles could potentiatty be added to the program. This program could be effective since it targets those businesses already interested in recycfing. By providing more services to those businesses already involved. the efficiency of the recycling effort can be improved. Efforts by the collector are thus minimized and costs saved. As the pro- gram expands, more local businesses and industrieswill be encouraged to participate as they see how the program works. In the short term, approximately 480 tons per year could be diverted. In the medium term, approximately 1,000 tons per year could be diverted. Ettectiveness. *** This alternative would be effective in reducing solid waste. Hazard. *** This alternative presents no known hazard. Ability to accommodate change. ** More collection containers, etc., can be added as the program grows. One impact on this alternative's abil- ity to accommodate change would be a change in the markets for the vari- ous paper grades and scrap metals. Consequences on the wastestream. *** This alternative will not impact the wastestream. Implementatlon period. *** This alternative could be implemented in the short-term time frame since businesses are willing to implement this program. Facility requirements- ** This alternative might require modificationsto existing facilities. City and business facilities may have to be slightly modi- fied to accommodate recycling bins, etc. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This alternative is consistent with City plans. Institutional barriers. *** There are no institutional barriers to imple- menting this program. Estimated cost. *** CWRS estimates that costs will increase with the program's expansion due to a need for more collection containers and increased manpower requirements. CWRS estimates costs could range anywhere from $6,000 to $24.000 per year. PJF1F641F640101 R 4- 21 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Recrcft End uses. See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. Public vs. private operation. The administration of the program could be undertaken by the City to ensure that businesses develop goals and plans for recycling. Collection would ba handled by CWRS consistent with its exclusive collection franchise in the City. However. the most likely sce- nario would be to have CWRS administer the entire program. Alternative 2 Create Local Markets for Recyclable Materials This alternative addresses the city's recycling objective to identify opportu- nities for creating local markets for recycled materials. Several options for market development for recycled materials that are outlined in the section entitled "objectives" are available to the City. These options include par- ticipation in statewide efforts sponsored by the California Integrated Waste Management Board; establishment of recycling market development zones as discussed in Section 4.5.3, Alternative 3; City procurement poli- cies to oncourage the City's use of recycled goals; and use a public edu- cation and information programs to promote the use of products using recycled materials. The CIWMB has a material exchange program called CALMAX that could also be also be helped with creating local markets. This program lists waste materials that are available and those that are wanted throughout California. The list is similar to a classified ad and is free. This alternative will focus on the establishment of procurement guidelines for the City. Public education efforts are covered in a separate component. The City will develop procurement guidelines which encourage use of recycled materials or such criteria as durability. recyclability. reusability. and recycled material content. Additionally, the City could specify that any business or organization holding a contract with the jurisdiction would have to have a recycling program in place and provide products or materi- als according to the above criteria. The City could adopt purchasing pref- erences and establish set -asides for recycled products or products with an established percentage of recycled material content. Local procurement guidelines for source reduction and recycling could be combined to save costs to the City and ease the implementation process. Thus, cost esti- mates for this alternative include the costs for developing local source reduction procurement guidelines. For example. the City could require all City departments to use CWRS` compnst for their landscaping. Another PJF1F641F640101 R 4 - 22 Rev 0 December 23; 1991 Recychng example is that the City offers a 5 percent preference for the purchase of goods with recycled content. Requiring recycling activities by regulation is a viable alternative; although voluntary participation in Lodi works almost as well to obtain results and is easier to implement. In the short-term time frame, approximately 2 to 5 tons might be diverted. In the medium term, approximately 7 tons per year may be diverted via procurement regulations. Effectiveness. ** The effectiveness of a procurement program would depend on the materials targeted and the impact of the jurisdiction's pur- chasing power on the local and regional markets for those materials. Hazard. *** This alternativenres ents no major hazards. Ability to accommodate change. ** Procurement policies are fairly flexible and can accommodate new circumstances in recycling techniques and processes as well as to changes in local recycling markets, programs. and regulations. Procurement programs may be adapted to new products and markets for recycled materials. However, any change in the City's pro- curement policy would require review and approval by the City Council. Consequences to the wastestream. ** Effective market development through such measures as procurement programs could lead to increased quantities of materials in the wastestream that have a higher content of recycled material than presently exist. Implementation period. ** Procurement programs can be implementad in the short-term time period. However, the City may wish to allow a period of time for governmental consumers, producers, and suppliers of products to adjust to the effects of the procurement program. In addition, imple- menting a procurement program over a longer time frame may allow for the opportunity to pursue this alternative in conjunction with neighboring jurisdictions. However, this program would have to undergo local approval. Facility needs. *** There are no facility requirements for this alterna- tive. Consistency with local plans and policies. * * * This alternative does not pose any conflict with current plans, policies. and ordinances for the City regarding low -bid purchasing. Institutional barriers. * * Purchasing and procurement programs for all City agencies will have to be coordinated in order to achieve Citywide PJRF641F640101 R 4 - 23 Rev. 0 December 22, 1991 Recycling impact from a procurement program. While purchasing and procurement itself is often centralized within the City's operations. the individual agen- cies receiving or consuming the goods and services purchased must agree to any aspects of their purchase requests that would differ from normal specifications. Estimated cost. *** Costs for a procurement program include resources from the City for developing, implementing. administering. and monitoring the program. Furthermore, each of the programs would involve costs associated with the local approval process. The costs to suppliers associated with a procurement program are unknown. Additionally, there are potentially unknown costs connected with a procurement program in that suitable products meeting source reduction requirements (and there- fore identified as viable substitutes for products normally purchased) might be more expensive. This would inflate the costs of procuring these items. The total cost to the City to prepare procurement guidelines is estimated to range from $7,000 to $10,000; this includes the cost to prepare local pro- curement guidelines discussed in the source reduction component. End uses. See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. Public vs. private operation. Not applicable. This is intended to be a public operation. 4.6.3 Residential and Nonresidential Alternative Alternative 1. Expand CWRS Material Recovery Operation This alternative addresses the required alternatives of manual materials recovery and mechanical materials recovery. This alternative meets the City's objective of expanding CWRS' existing materials recovery operation. Manual and mechanized material recovery operations are very similar to each other in function, with some differences in capital investment, facility size, equipment, and operating costs. Both types of facilities involve sort- ing loads of waste in order to recover recyclable materials. The objective of these operations is to receive recyclable materials, remove the contami- nants, and prepare the materials for transportation to markets. Both man- ual and mechanized recovery facilities allow materials to be recovered from mixed waste loads, which increases the types of materials recovered through established commercial industrial programs. The processing capabilities of both of Ihese types of recovery operation allow communities PJRF641F640101 R 4 - 24 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Recycling to establish comprehensive integrated recycling programs that are cost effective. Manual MRFs'are designed for the collection, processing, and marketing of recyclable materials. A manual recovery facility will accept incoming loads to be tipped either onto a pad or into a hopper. The wastestream is then sorted and separated by hand, usually as it travels along a conveyor belt system. Mechanized MRFs are very similar in design and operation to manual facilities except that the conveyor system is equipped with a series of mechanical processors that assist in the wastestream segregation. Although separation and recovery is achieved through mechanical means, a portion of material is often still recovered manually by the facility operators. CWRS has a MRF, recycling center, and composting facility in Lodi. It was described in Section 4.4 above. CWRS plans to expand its existing mate- rials recovery operation into a state-of-the-art materials recovery system to enhance the ability of CWRS to segregate and process various types of recyclable materials. This program will also allow some of the recovery operations that are currently being performed outdoors to be accom- plished indoors. At this time, CWRS is pursuing the establishment of this program at a location on South Beckman Road, which would serve as the firm's truck center. An application for a use permit has been submitted (see Appendix E). An environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the expansion deals only with expansion onto an adjacent piece of property. New locations not addressed in the present draft EIR will either require a supplemental EIR or other environmental review. • enclose tipping floor and processing aria (89,000 square feet) • new recyclable materials warehousing facility (21,000 square feet) . additionai 5.55 acres area for composting operations, container storage, and truck parking upgrading and expanding permit requirements to 2,000 tons per day • accommodate compost processing of yard and garden waste to 49.000 tons per year PJF\F641F640101 R 4-25 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Recycling purchase of new collection and processing equipment • expansion of existing administrative complex The previously mentioned programs will help separate many types of recyclatles out of the wastestream. However, CWRS' mechanized MRF will sort the nonseparated refuse and thus divert more recyclables from disposal. Actual implementation of this alternative will occur in the medium-term planning period to allow for sufficient time for environmental review, local use permits, state solid waste facility permits, and permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. It should be noted that the composting operation within the MRF will require a separate solid waste facility permit from the COMB and a separate permit from the Regional Water Ouality Control Board. Effectiveness. *** This alternative will be effeVive in diverting targeted material(s) in the solid wastestream. All materials diverted through the programs described in this component, which would be undertaken by CWRS, would be processed through the MRF. Those diversion amounts for residential wastes have already been discussed and are not addressed here to avoid double counting. The diversion percentages here refer only to commercial and industrial wastes. According to Dave Vaccarezza. President of CWRS, their MRF will be capable of diverting nearly 50 percent of the wastestream from the landfill. For purposes of this SRRE, a more conservative estimate is used as dis- cussed below. Since it is presumed that the MRF expansion will be completed and imple- mented by the medium-term time frame, no additional diversion is antici- pated beyond what is already occurring for the short term. In the medium term, approximately 4.064 additional tons per year of wastes (excluding compostables)could be diverted with this alternative. Hazard. ** This alternative presents moderate hazards. These include the possibility of fire and explosion from any shredder operations and the possibility of explosion from compacting the residual -load. Because some of the materials collected are combustible, there is a minor fire hazard associated with their storage. There are also health risks associated with manual sorting of refuse. PJF1F64T640101 R 4 .26 Rev 1 January 6.1992 Recycling AbMty to accommodate change. *** The CWRS Transfer Sta- tionlMatehals Recovery Facility and Recycling Center is readily adaptable to changing conditions, and should havethe capacity to process a much greater quantity of waste than at present. Consequences on the wastestream. *** This alternative does not �mpact the generation of wastes. Implementation period. *** CWRS plans to expand its facilities by 1992. However, environmental review and permitting time lines will likely mean this alternative is implemented during the medium-term time frame. Facility requirements. ** CWRS will need to design the MRF and com- posting facilities and acquire the necessary site permits and permits to operate from the CIWMB, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and possiblythe local air pollution control district as well. Consistency with local plans and policies. The MRF is consistent with local plans and policies. Institutional barriers. ** The MRF cannot expand its capacity without first completing the necessary environmental review and local use permit processes. Then the MRF and composting facilities must be permitted separately by the CIWMB and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Estimated cost. * CWRS estimates the cost of expansion of the MRF for processing Lodi's recyclable materials will be approximately $9.2 million, which has been previously described. End uses. See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. Public vs. private operation. The CWRS' Transfer Station/Resource Recovery Facility and Recycling Center expansion will be privately owned and operated by CWRS. Alternative 2 Salvage at Solld Waste Facility Under AB 939,the City is required to evaluate this alternative. Salvage at solid waste facilities involves the recovery of materials from loads that are left at a designated site, such as a landfill or transfer station. Public salvaging in Lodi will continue to be strictly prohibited. This type of activity is very similar to a manual materials recovery operation. although generally under more open and less controlled conditions. Salvaging also often differs from MRFs in the waste types separated. Salvaging may PJF1F641F6401018 4- 27 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Recycling occur in a designated area prior to unloading as well as at the tipping lace of the landfill or transfer station. These loads are often from uncompacted commercial debris boxes or self -hauled loads. This program. sometimes referred to as a 'dump -and -pick' operation, could be instituted at one or more of the landfills serving the jurisdiction. A cement pad for sorting the materials is preferable, though not required, for this type of an operation. A cement pad would require a dedicated picking area. Salvage at solid waste facilities is usually restricted to clearly identifiable loads of specific items such as metals, white goods, wood waste, mattresses, as well as glass, plastics. and metal beverage containers. In addition, high concen- tration loads of construction debris. soil, concrete. and asphalt are often diverted to a separate tipping area for recovery. Loads subject to salvage at solid waste facilities include residential. commercial, industrial. and self - haul loads. Since CWRS already has an MRF and plans to expand its facility, sal- vaging at the transfer/materials recovery station would be redundant and would significantly impact CWRS operations. However, salvaging at the County landfill for white goods, tires, scrap metal, yard waste, wood. and other easily separated waste may be ettective. However, San Joaquin County plans to construct an MRF at the North County Landfill and Recy- cling Center where Lodi's solid waste goes now that the Harney Lane Landfill is closed. Thus, salvaging would only be effective in the short term since by the medium term both the CWRS' and San Joaquin County's MRFs should be fully operational. In the short term, salvaging is estimated to divert about 1,100 tons per year in the short term. Because both MRFs. which will be located in northern San Joaquin County, will be operational by the medium term, no diversion is expected in the rnediumterm time frame. Effectiveness. ** This alternative is somewhat effective in diverting selected material. However, since CWRS is planning to expand its MRF and the County will be constructing an MRF to serve northern San Joaquin County, salvaging is not considered an efficient alternative. Hazard. ** Workers may be at risk due to refuse collection trucks com- ing in and out regularly and from working around large. moving equipment. such as loaders, dozers, and compactors. Also, hazards could arise from workers' exposure to potentially hazardous materials in the waste. Ability to accommodate change. ** Salvaginc at disposal or transfer facilities is moderately adaptable to change. Consequences to the wastestream. ** This alternative has no known impact on shifts i n waste generation. Implementation period. *** This alternative could be implemented in the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. *** This alternative can usually be integrated into existing facilities. Consistency with local plans and policies. ** This alternative is not consistent with local plans and policies since CWRS already has an MRF which it intends to expand, and the County is also constructing an MRF to serve northern San Joaquin County. Institutional barriers. it Disposal or transfer facility permits may presently prohibit salvaging. These permits would have to be revised in order to incorporate salvaging. Permit revisions including environmental review can take 6 months to 1 year or more. However, the alternative can be implemented in the short-term planning period. Also, the planned County's and CWRS' MRFs conflict with implementing a salvaging pro- gram, especially in the medium term when the MRFs will be firmly estab- lished. Estimated cost. *** Costs for this alternative are estimated to be $5,000 to $10,000. End uses. See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. Public vs. private operation. This alternative could be a public/private operation. Alternative 3. Changes Local Zoning and Build;ng Codes The City will explore a number of options to promote recycling activities through regulatory approaches such as zoning. land use. and building code requirements. Revisions to zoning and building code requirements include a zoning ordinance that would require all new land development projects to plan and provide for recycling needs in building and site design, with the exception of single-family homes. Land use and development requirements involve establishing incentives and disincentives to land use and development that promote recycling. These include requirements that PJF1F641F640101 R 4- 29 Rev 1 January 6, 1992 Recycling an entity could not open a new business, relocate an old one, or build or otherwise develop property for commercial or residential purposes without presenting a plan describing the types and quantities of waste that would be added to the wastestream. The plan would require descriptions of pro- grams to be implemented to encourage materials separation and recycling at the developed area. In addition, the City could identify recycling specifi- cally in local codes for allowable land uses for a given zone. The City is also aware of the recycling market development zones estab- lished under SB 1322 and is considering this option. A communitythat has a designated zone offers state and local government incentives to draw to that community industries that use postconsumer waste as the feedstock in their manufacturing processes. Zones will help stimulate economic development in communities by increasing jobs and increasing the tax base. This alternative is evaluated below to determine whether it is appropriate for the City, as well as to compare it to other alternatives. Requiring recycling activities by regulation is a viable alternative although voluntary participation often works as well to obtain results and is easier to implement. Diversion rates for this alternative are addressed in the multi- family alternative and the local markets alternative discussed earlier in this component. Effectiveness. ** The effectiveness of these regulatory programs would depend cn the level of change implied by the regulations imposed by the City, the materials targeted, adherence to the regulations by the commu- nity, and the level of enforcement. Hazard. *** There are no environmental hazards associated with these regulatory programs, although hazards from incompatible land uses could result if some restrictions were not applied to the types of facilities allowed to be located in zoned areas. Ability to accommodate change. ** The regulatory measures outlined in this alternative are all fairly flexible and can readily accommodate to new circumstances in recycling techniques and recovery processes as well as to changes in local recycling programs and regulations. These programs can adapt to new types of materials and products as well as to changes in the wastestream due to generator behavior. PJF1F641F640101 R 4- 30 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Recycling Consequences to the wastestream. * * * This alternative has no known impact on shifts in waste generation. Implementation pertid. ** Regulatory programs, such as zoning, building code, and land -use requirements can all be implemented in the short-term time period. Lodi plans to implement this alternative by 1992. However, communities usually allow a period of time for residential and nonresidential generators to adjust to the effects of the new requirements. In addition, implementing programs such as these. over a longer time frame may allow for the opportunity to pursue this alternative in con- junction with neighboring jurisdictions. Each of the regulatory programs outlined in this alternative would have to undergo an approval process as well as anticipated resistance by generators to any further regulation by the City. The complexity of. and opposition to. these programs may pre- clude their implementation in the short- and perhaps medium-term time frames. Facility needs. *** There are no facility requirements for this alternative. Consistency with local plans end policies. *** This alternative is consistent with both alternatives (expanding office paper collection to other recyclables and creating local markets for recycling materials) presented for nonresidential areas. Both of these alternatives are designed to increase commercial recycling. Instltutlonal barriers. ** Institutional barriers to this alternative involve potential conflicts within the jurisdiction rbetween City agencies responsible for implementing effective waste management programs designed to meet the requirements of AB 939 and City agencies responsible for regulating building construction and site development. New regulatory requirements for residential and commercial areas within the jurisdiction could be an impediment to attracting new growth and investment in the community, especially if similar restrictions are absent in neighboring jurisdictions. Estimated cost. * * * Costs for regulatory programs depend primarily on the level of regulatory programs that the City chooses to pursue. Each of the programs outlined in this alternative would require resources from the City for developing. administering. implementing, monitoring, and enforc- ing the program. Furthermore, each of the programs would involve costs associated with legal fees and staffing incurred during the approval pro- cess. Total costs to the City are estimated to range from $7.000 to PJF1F641F640101 R 4-31 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Recycling $10,000 with annual administration costs of $5.000. The costs to the private sector of the regulatory programs outlined in this alternative are unknown. End uses. See Section 4.6.7. Market Conditions Public vs. private operation. Not applicable. 454 Other Program Considerations Solid waste disposal rate structure. This plan recommends that the rate structure be modified as proposed by CWRS to encourage recycling and composting in Lodi (see Section 3, Source Reduction Component). CWRS recommends the City modify its rate structure by replacing the current declining rate structure with its proposed inclining rate structure. CWRS is presently developing a proposal for an inverted rate structure for the City's review and consideration. CWRS maintains that an inclining rate structure will encourage people to recycle because the cost of an additional refuse container will cost substantially more than the first container. 4.6 Selection of a Program In the previous section, a number of alternatives were presented and dis- cussed. Each alternative was evaluated qualitatively according to a range of criteria. In this section, the City presents the results of the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives presented in the previous section. To accomplish this, the City has applied an assessment of whether or not each alternative is appropriate to the City's needs and assigned each alternative a ranking in order to select various alternatives. In selecting among alternatives, the City considered the following critical factors: (1)the degree to which each alternative is appropriate to the conditions of the jurisdiction (i.e., goals, objectives. policy environment, wastestream. and solid waste management system) and (2) the degree to which the alternatives complement each other and form a coherent. comprehensive, and cost-effective package. Alternatives were assigned ratings of high, medium, and tDw according to the assessment of their evaluation criteria. To avoid confusion, high was given three stars (* * * ), medium two stars (**), and low one star (*). The fesults of these ratings are presented in Table 4-1. Lodi's current recycling programs win continue: the programs selected and listed below are either new programs or additions to successful existing PJF\F641F640101 R 4- 32 Rev, 1 January 6.1992 Recycling programs. The selection d programs was based on the evaluation criteria and the ease of implementation in the City. Based on the results of the above evaluation and assessment, the alter- natives selected to meet the goals and objectives of this component in the short-term and medium-term planning periods are presented below. 4f.1 Alternatives Selected Short-term Planning Period This section addresses new programs which will be implemented to augment existing recycling programs. The programs selected to reduce the amount of waste being landfilled or incinerated during the shoe -;ern planning period include Residential Alternatives Recording program for multifamilvdwellinas Multifamily dwellings make up a significant portion of bodi's population that should have easily accessible, on- si!e recycling opportunities available. Expansion of CWRS' curbside recycling program Mast of the City is serviced by curbside. and it is a goal of the City to maximize opportunities for City residents to recycle. CWRS will change from a volunteer source -sepa- ration recycling program to a system -wide commingled program. The new system will provide Rli residents with waste carts. Commingled operations have been shown to have higher success rates than source separated pro- grams. Also making recycling available to all residences will increase participation. Coupled with this program is an inclining rate structure also proposed by CWRS, which will make the unit cost to subscribe to an additional waste cart substantially more than the first waste cart. CWRS believes that a prope.'v structured inclining rate system will encourage residents to recycle. The City will need to evaluate whether or not it wishes to adopt such a rate structure. PJF\F641F640101R 4- 33 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 RecycNng Nonresidential Attetnatives • Expand office paper collection to other recyclables Office paper is currently being collected at the Lodi City offices. The City would like to expand the program to other businesses and industries and to increase the type of materials which are collected. Using the existing pro- gram to expand the recycling efforts of businesses throughout the city is a viable method to increase solid waste diversion rates. . Create local markets for recycled materials Once the City adopts procurement guidelines for its own use, these guidelines could be used to establish a model for City businesses to follow. Encouraging businesses to buy recycled will expand local markets for recycled goods. Nonresidential and Residential Alternatives . Expand CWRS material recovery op�ration Expanding CWRS material recovery facility makes it pos- sible to collect a greater percentage of recyclable materi- als and properly process them, which is critical for meet- ing market specifications for recovered materials. . DeveloD zonina and code amendments Developing zoning and code amendments to require recy- cling activities to be considered in new developments should make recycling easier for businesses and resi- dents. This alternative includes the development of recy- cling market development zones established under SB 1322. 4.6.2 Quantities end Types of Wastes Anticipated to be Diverted See Section 2.7.3for targeted waste typos to be diverted by recycling. The recycling programs selected are expected to divert the following from Lodi's wastestream: PJAF641F640101 R 4. 34 Rev. 1 January 6, 1992 Recycling Recycling program for multifamily dwellings Short term: 252 tons per year Medium term: 610 tons per year Expand CWRS curbside recycling program Short term: 2.244 tons per year Medium term: 5.445 tons per year Expand office paper collection to other recyclables Short term: 480 tons per year Medium term: 1,000 tons per year Create local markets for recycled materials Short term: 5 tons per year Medium term: 10 tons per year Expand CWRS' existing materlal recovery operation Shmtterm: Not Applicable Medium term: 4.064 tons per year Developzoning and code amendments Included in previous alternatives Total Diversion from new recyclfng programs Short term: 2,981 tons per year Mediumterm: 11,129 tons per year Total dfverslon fromexisting programs (buy-back, drop-off, curbside collection and inert) Short term: 75,076 tons per year Medium term: 82,890 tons per year Total anticipated diversion from all recycling programs Short term: Medium term 78.057 tons per year 94,019 tons per year PJFlF641F640101 R 4-35 Rev. 1 January 6, 1992 Recycling 4,6.3 End Markets, End Uses, and Back-up Markets for Diverted Materials See Section 4.6.7, Market Conditions. 4.6.4 Materials Handling and Disposal Needs Source separation, per discussions with CIWN I staff is one of the best methods to preserve the integrity of recovered materials. However, com- mingled systems can help prevent breakage of glass containers by the plastics and aluminum "cushioning" the glass. Less breakage is desirable because of sorting needs and possible nonrecyclable glass is harder to detect in loads with broken glass. 4.65 Facility Requirements ShoiltermPlanning Period Multifamily dwellings recycling program No facilities required, but modification or construction of existing structures or enclosures, or both, might be required. Expand office patter collection to other recyclables No new facilities needed. Would require bins or waste carts as applicable for each business. Curbside recycling program; wand participation and waste tvpes col - Would require the purchase of 13 semiautomated side loaders and 46.000 waste carts and eventual expansion of the CWRS transfer station. materi- als recovery facility, recycling center, and composting facility. Create local marketsfor recyclinn materials No new facilities required. Expand material recoveryoperation • one 70 -foot scale system • forklift, 5,000 pounds PJF\F64tF640101 R 4-36 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Recycling • receptacles • recyclable warehouse • on-site improvements per E I R • construction d MRF • platform scale • picker/sorter • storage bunkers • one composting turner • composting facility • grinder • loader#1 and #2 • equipment shelter Zoning and code ordinance amendments No new fades required. 4.6.6 Identification of Measures to be Taken if Requirements Cannot be Met In the event of unfavorable market conditions which could prevent the City from meeting its diversion goals, the City plans to employ the following measures: pooling resources with other cities or counties in order to market materials cooperatively • investigating the existing collection and processing activi- ties to be sure that materials are being prepared properly to meet buyer's specifications investigating opportunities to utilize postconsumer recy- cled materials for in -City manufacturing conducting broad research to locate markets or end uses not previously found, both on a local level and beyond PJF1F641F640101 R 4- 37 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Recycling 4.6.7 Market Conditions Recycling requires more than the separation and collection of materials; viable markets must exist for the recovered materials. This section addresses the existing market conditions relevant to Lodi, as well as on a broader scale (e.g., regional. statewide. national. and international). The focus is on those materials most often collected through recycling pro- grams, such as various paper grades, plastics, metals, and glass. In addi- tion. Lodi is aware of the recycling market development zones established under SB 1322 and will consider this option in conjunction with Stockton, Galt. and other local jurisdictions. Many resources exist which identify local markets for different materials; most of these are in the form of lists compiled by entities such as the California Department of Conservation and the CIWMB. For this reason, only highlights are addressed in this section. In addition, the Department of Conservation is in the process of preparing a statewide database called Market Watch. which will be fully operational in approximately 9 to 12 months and will include information on markets in California, among other things. Lodi is in the fortunate position of being able to take advantage of the contracts CWRS has established with various processors nationwide. which amounts to virtually guaranteed markets for many waste types; some of these are included in the following discussion. Old newspaper (ONP). Old newspaper is the main grade of waste paper collected in the residential sector. A number of other ONP markets are available in northern California. Currently. the amount of ONP that is available nationwide for recycling far exceeds the demand. However, this situation is expected to change. It is estimated that the demand for ONP will almost double by 1995 due to increases in exports of ONP. increases in the paperboard market, and other factors. Because ONP is contaminated with printing inks, it is necessary to de -ink this raw material before it can be recycled for certain uses. The primary reason for excess ONP is the shortage of newsprint facilities that can de -ink the newspaper or reuse it. The de -inking capacity in the United States is expected to increase in the future to meet the anticipated demand and help balance the market. End uses for ONP include newsprint. insulation, packing, building materi- als, and animal bedding. Newsprint manufacture is anticipated to be the largest market for ONP and is anticipated to increase significantly through the year 2000. Other end uses are anticipated to increase only marginally. The market price for ONP is cyclical due to decreased collection in the winter months. paper milt shutdown for maintenance repair in the summer months, economic conditions, international exchange rates. and other factors. CWRS currently has a contract with Weyerhaeuser Paper Com- pany (Weyerhaeuser) for newspaper. Old magazines (OMG). A new market is emerging for OMG; many news- paper recycling mills plan to use OMG in the production of newsprint. This will result in a lowered demand --until more newspaper recycling opportu- nities emerge in the next couple of yeam-for ONP. OMG is now being used in newspaper recycling mills due to their conversion from a simple wash process to a flotation process of de -inking. The Smurfit Companies have converted to flotation de -inking and can utilize supplies of OMG. The current price paid is $20 perton; a higher price can be negotiated based on volume. The main requirement for preparation of the magazines is that they be loose—not bagged or tied with string. High-grade wastepaper. High-grade paper is a general description of various long -fiber grades of paper. High-grade paper includes white ledger, colored ledger, computer paper, and tab cards. These grades are more valuable for recycling because of their strength, and thus command a higher price than other paper grades. Market prices for high-grade paper are dependent on the price of pulp. Because high-grade wastepaper is often used as a substitute for pulp, high-grade paper prices tend to fall with the price of pulp. The market prices for different paper grades vary independently. However, the market price for higher grades are generally more stable than that paid for lower grades. The higher the degree of separation from the source. the higher the price paid for the paper. High-grade paper can be used in making writing paper, computer paper, napkins, facial tissues, and paper towels. CWRS has a contract with Weyerhaeuser for high-grade wastepaper. Paperboard. The Newark Group is a national producer of recycled paper- board made from a variety of paper and paperboard grades. The company produces uncoated boxboard. specialty paperboard, tube stock, coated boxboard, gypsum liner, corrugated medium, and other paperboard. The company has locations throughout the United States; the nearest to Lodi is in Stockton. PJF1F641F640101 R 4- 39 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Recyckng Mixed wastepaper. As implied in its name, mixed paper refers to a paper stream containing more than one grade of paper. Mixed paper is defined in AB 939 as a mixture, unsegregated by color or quality. of at least two of the following paper wastes: newspaper, corrugated cardboard, office paper, computer paper. white paper, coated paper stock. or other paper. The housing, industry and the value of the United States dollar overseas greatly affect the demand for wastepaper. A strong dollar overseas means a decrease in the demand for wastepaper. Secondary markets for recov- ered paper can be found in the United States and abroad. Mixed paper export has increased significantly and has allowed for growth in mixed paper recycling, particularly in the western United States. Local domestic markets, however, are fairly well saturated. Other markets need to be identified in order for recycling of mixed paper to be feasible in Lodi. The primary use of wastepaper is in the manufacture of combination boxboard which is used to make boxes for shoes, clothing. and dry foods. Other uses for mixed wastepaper include the manufacture of roofing felt and construction paper building materials. Old corrugated contafners (OCG). The amount of OCC consumed in the United States is significant. approximately 15 million tons per year, due to its use in shipping packaging for most consumer products. The quantity of OCC in the wastestream is greater in the commercial sector than in the residential sector. OCC that has been separated properly can be used ir, the manufacture of new corrugated containers, cereal boxes, pad bases, and wallboard. The current market for OCC in California is very strong; more than one half of the collected OCC in California is used by mins within the state. Aluminum cans. Approximately half of the aluminum disposed of in solid waste is in the form of cans. The waste recovery system for aluminum cans is highly successful. Compared to other recyclables. aluminum cans command the greatest price per pound. Aluminum cans that have been separated can be used by the primary producers and are remelted and made directly into can stock. Aluminum scrap is used primarily by secondary aluminum producers. The addition to the AB 2020 redemption value raises the total market price. Markets for aluminum cans exist in the United States and abroad.. Steel food and beverage containers. Tin cans that are used as food containers are actually steel cans With a thin coating of tin. Even this small PJF1F641F64010fR a . 40 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Recycling amount of tin can cause contamination in steelmaking. For this reason, detinning is used to both reclaim valuable tin and improve the quaiity of the steel scrap, although sometimes the postconsumer steel cans and scrap are used directly as a raw material.3 Steel can recycling is expand- ing, due in part to increased participation by steel mills and detinning mills in collecting and purchasing used steel r^.ans,4 This is despite aggressive efforts Dy the aluminum can industry to enter the steel -dominated food can market.5 The major detinning companies have opened new facilities around the United States to accommodate the influx of steel cans and the demand from the steel industry. This has helped decrease transportation distances for recyclers.6 Glass cullet. Waste glass usage in the United States is estimated at 25 to 30 percent of the glass produced. Cullet is primarily traded on the United States market, so its market price remains fairly constant. A primary con- cern for end-use markets is the quality of the material. In the glass plant, contaminants can cause damage to equipmen=t or result in poor quality product. One of the problems with curbside collection of commingled glass is that it produces multicolored shards of glass. Markets for mixed-cc')r cullet are not as stable or lucrative as that for color -sorted containers. The two primary end uses for recovered waste glass are cullet for new glass and as a raw material for making secondary products, such as glas- phalt highway paving material, foamed insulation. and construction mate- rial. Two potential markets for recovered glass in Lodi are Owens -Brockway (a division of Owens-Illinois Corporation) in Tracy and Circo Recyclers in Newark. Neither charges a processing fee to take the materials. The glass market has become problematic for many recyclers recently due to the increased quality standards being imposed and the request for color - sorted materials. The addition to the AB 2020 redemption values raises the total market price. 3Watson, p. 18. 4"The Steel Can's Push for Recycling Respect," by Michael Misner, WasteRge, February 1991. p. 69. 5Misner. p. 70. 6"RecyctaWe Steel Cans An integral Part of Your Curbside Recycling Program: Steer Can Recycling Institute, Summer 1990.P 14 PJF1F641F640101 R 4 - 41 Rev, 0 December 23.1991 Recycling Plastics. Markets for plastics are fairly new. but the U.S. Environment31 Protection Agency predicts that as processing technologies are devel- oped, plastics recycling will grow and new markets will develop. Most soda containers are made out of PET, which is the most -recycled of all plastics. Over 80,000 tons of PET bottles were recycled in the United States in 1988. Postconsumer PET is prohibited for use in new food con- tainers because of Food and Drug Administration restrictions (although certain developments are underway that may lift this restriction). The pri- mary end use for PET is fiberfill, which is used in pillows, sleeping bags, and ski jacket insulation. among other things. The most desirable market for recycled PET is compounded. extruded, and molded plastic makers. HDPE is used in the manufacture of jugs (e.g., milk. cider, distilled water) and bottles (e.g., laundry and dish detergent. motor oil, antifreeze). Although the market for recycled HDPE is growing because of sanitary restrictions. these items are not recycled back into food packaging. Major potential markets for recycled HDPE are soft drink basecups. plastics, lumber, containers, drums, pails. and various types of pipes. One major west coast processor of HDPE is Partek in Vancouver, Washington, which is adjacent to Portland, Oregon. Pariek pi xesses only HDPE grade 2, and uses it to manufacture new containers. HDPE grade 2 is used in its natural color for milk, water, and juice jugs. and is colored for use in laun- dry detergent containers, shampoo and conditioner bottles. antifreeze containers, etc. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE). LDPE is used primarily in the manu- facture of various types of film, such as food wrapping. Greater than 650.000 tons of it are made into trash bags. It is also used to make piping and to coat wires and cables.' It is also used in the manufacture of rigid items, such as food storage containers and flexible lids.$ LDPE is used in plastic grocery bags, which is one of the fastest growing segments of recycling. Four manufacturers provide most of the grocery sacks in North America and are committed to separating plastic grocery sacks from the wastestream to make them into new products -9 `Progress in Plastics Recycling.' by Jim Glenn. BioCycle. December 1990, p. 53. 8 -AN Plastics Are Not Created Equal.' by Jerry Powell. Resource Recycling. May 1990. p. 41. 9"Plastic Grocery Sack Recycling.- by Arlhur Am+don, Resource RecycAng, Novernber 1990, p. 24. PJRF641F640101 R 4 42 Rev 0 December 23 ,1991 Recycling Dow Chemical Company and Sealed Air Company have formed a joint venture to recycle LDPE; one of its local plants is in Hayward. At this time, the program is available to Dow and Sealed Air customers only, but expansion of the program is being considered) 0 Polystyrene. There are various forms of polystyrene: the most familiar being the foamed or expanded polystyrene foam commonly referred to as Styrofoam. The uses for expanded polystyrene foam include fast-food sin- gle serve cups and trays and packing materials in both rigid, molded form, and in loose form or "peanuts," as it is sometimes called. Recovered polystyrene can be used in the manufacture of toys, office equipment, insulation, and cassette casings. Telephone books. Louisiana Pacific Company in Oroville expects to use a steady supply of telephone books for its particle board manufacture once it has its equipment for that part of the operation in place. The company uses phone books to make up approximately 10 percent of the content of its particle board. The company is presently in the early stages of acquir- ing the additional equipment necessary to expand its capacity. Inert solids. Asphalt and concrete from construction demoli!ion gets land- filled in many areas, although it is often recyclable. Ramrock Environ- mental Recycling. Inc. and Granite Construction in L :throp recycles inert solids for the Lodi area. Their markets vary locally and depend upon the amount of construction projects occurring which require asphalt or con- crete products. Overseas markets. Strong markets exist abroad (e.g., Mexico. Saudi Arabia, and Pacific Rim nations) for many materials, especially mixed wastepaper and newspaper. Numerous brokers on the wes: coast repre- sent these markets and are listed in various references. 4.7 Program Implementation Table 4.2 describes the tasks necessary to implement the Selected recy- cling programs, the government agency responsible for their implementa- tion, and the implementation dates. 10 -Dow and Sealed Air Join to Recycle LDPE Scrap: by Susan Combs. Recycling Times, January 29, 1991, p, 9. PJF1F641F640101 R 4-43 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Recycling 4.7.1 Short-term and Medium-term Planning Period Implementation Schedule The short- and medium-term schedules are shown in Table 4-2. 4.7.2 Implementation Costs Implementation costs are shown on Table 4-3 at the end of this section. 4.7.3 Actions Planned to Deter Scavenging The moat effective means for deterring unauthorized removal of recyclable materials is through an ordinance prohibiting this activity. Lodi will consider such an ordinance. 4.8 Program Monitoring and Evaluation Lodi recognizes the need to monitor and evaluate recycling programs in order to ascertain whether diversion goals are being met. The following section includes the steps that will be taken to monitor and evaluate the selected recycling programs. 4.8.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives The following tasks will be used to effectively monitor the success of the recycling programs. Solid waste diversion will be quantified by tons. Recordkeeping. Accurate recordkeeping will be the key to determining whether recycling objectives are being met. The City will require CWRS to keep separate records for each collection program, in the event that this is not currently done. With the number of new programs proposed. and expansions of existing programs, it will be critical to keep records on each program's collections. This means separate tonnage numbers for the curbside recycling program, the corrugated cardboard program. and so on. The number of tons of collected materials, as well as the type of materials need to be tracked. The City will work with CWRS haulers to track this information on a semiannual basis, which will allow the City to regularly monitor the recycling programs and progress toward meeting diversion goats. If necessary, the City will request CWRS to provide this information as a condition of the franchise agreement. Surveys. Maned questionnaires or telephone surveys will be conducted by the City yearly with sample groups from both the residential and com- PJF1F64\F640101R 4-44 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Recycling mercialfindustrial sectors to determine (a) the awareness leve! about recy- cling programs and (b) among those already participating, what the sat- isfaction level is. For instance, are recycling programs convenient? Are they being used to their capacity? Through the surveys. obstacles to recy- cling can be identified and participation increased. 4.8.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating the Programs' Effectiveness The effectiveness of each recycling program will be evaluated using the following written criteria. . Are the recycling obiectives t>einq achieved? • Total solid waste collected and total waste diverted. Through the recordkeeping system and the waste gener- ation study, a determination will be made by the City as to whether the program is successful in achieving the esti- mated reduction in solid waste volume and weight. Reviewing the pounds per household recycled and dis- posed wi I I be a good measurement tool. • Partici ap tion rate. Regular surveying of residents and businesseswill give the City an idea about the numbers of residents and businesses participating in recycling pro- grams over time. An increase in the number of house- holds or businesses participating over time is one meas- ure of the success of these programs. 4.8.3 Parties Responsiblefor Monitoring, Evaluating, and Reporting According to AB 939. the City Manager's office is ultimately responsible for the plans and programs outlined in this SRRE and for complying with the state's mandated diversion targets. The City will oversee the monitoring and evaluating of recycling programs and will be ultimately responsible for their execution. in addition. the City will work with CWRS to obtain opera- tional information for its programs. The City will consider contracting for services such as conducting surveys. 4.8.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Funding Requirements Additional staffing may be needed to manage the recordkeeping system, and a more detailed database will need to be established by the City. This PJF \F641F640101 R 4- 45 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Recycling may require the purchase of additional computer hardware and Software. In addition, a budget will need to be set aside for the follow-up waste generation study and for surveying costs (primarily staff time and print- ing/mailing costs for questionnaires). Revenues to fund this program as well as the other Codi SRRE programs will come from a surcharge which will be added to the utility bill of City residents and businesses. 4.8.5 Measures to be Implemented if Monitoring Shows a Shortfall F monitoring efforts indicate that diversion objectives are not being met, the following measureswill be employed. Diversion goals will be reevaluated to determine their fea- sibility, given empirical data. Evaluate public education efforts to determine whether these need to be increased to broaden awareness of, and participation in, recycling programs. Evaluate alternative markets for recovered materials. Provide incentives provided to the commercialtindustrial sector for recycling. Address issues resulting from surveys that could poten- tially be affecting diversion goals. Establish City ordinance either making recycling manda- tory or banning certain materials. such as corrugated cardboard, from disposal. Table 4-1 Alternatives Evaluation for Recycling Programs PJFIF641F640101 R 4-47 Rev 1 Ducembe l 20. 19,0 1?ccy;11rai Program Categories Effectiveness Hazard Ability a Accommodate Change Consequences onthe Waslestrearn Implernentalion Period Facility Requirements RESIDENTIAL. (1) Mukdamity Dwelling Recycling Program *** ** ** *** *** (2) Expand Curbside Recycling Program (3) By -back Recycling Centers * * * * * (4) Mobile Collection System * * * * (5) Drop-off Centers * * PJFIF641F640101 R 4-47 Rev 1 Ducembe l 20. 19,0 1?ccy;11rai Table 4-1 Alternatives Evaluation for Recycling Programs (continued) RJFNF641F640101 R 4-48 Rev. 1 December 20, 1991 Evaluation Criteria Ability to Consequences Accommodate on the Implementation Facilily Program Categories Effectiveness Hazard Change Wastestrearn Period Requirements NONRESIDENTIAL: (1) Expand Qlfice Paper * * * * * * Collection Program (2) Create Local Markets for * * * * Rucycled Materials RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL: (1) Fund Material Recovery Facility (2) Salvaging at * * * * * Solid Waste Facility (3) Devebp Zoning and * * * * * Code Aawndments RJFNF641F640101 R 4-48 Rev. 1 December 20, 1991 Table 4-1 Alternatives Evaluation for Recycling Programs (continued) PJRF64XF 40101 R 4-49 Hui 1 DGccrnber 20 1T)I � ? w 01". Consistency with Local Plans Inslilutionai Estimaied Program Categories and Policies Barriers costs RESIDENTIAL: (1) Multifamily Dwelling Recycling Program (2) Expand Curbside Recycling Program (3) Buy-back Recycling Centers (4) Mobile Collection System (5) Drop-off Centers PJRF64XF 40101 R 4-49 Hui 1 DGccrnber 20 1T)I � ? w 01". Table 4-1 Alternatives Evaluation for Recycling Programs (continued) (2) Create Local Markers for Recycled Materials RESIDENTIALAND NONRESIDENTIAL: (1) Expand Material Recovery F wAlq (2) Salvaging at Sod waste Facky (2) Develop Zoning and Code Amendments PJFIF641F640101 R 4- 50 Rev. 1 Decetrber 20, 191.3 i Additional Consideralions Consistency with LocalPtaiis Inslitutional Estimaled Program Categories and Policies Barriers Costs NONRESIDENTIAL. (1) Expand Office Paper Collection Program (2) Create Local Markers for Recycled Materials RESIDENTIALAND NONRESIDENTIAL: (1) Expand Material Recovery F wAlq (2) Salvaging at Sod waste Facky (2) Develop Zoning and Code Amendments PJFIF641F640101 R 4- 50 Rev. 1 Decetrber 20, 191.3 i Table 4.2 Calendar of Recycling Tasks Implementation Responsible Program Tasks Date Entity Short errn Plannim PeriOci Expand the curbside collection Ttie City will need to establish raids for 1991 CWRS and the City program to all residents expanded commingled system. Establish of Lodi material to be coueclod and approximate start City Manager's dale for new service I oltice Purchase collection vehicles and containers and distribute Publicize the curbside program as a kickoff to the citywide mandatory cu rbside collection. Setupuniform minimum standards. Establish recycling program for Work wilh franchise hauler to identify first phase 1993 CWRS1City of Lodi muhiiar" dwellings of multifamity dwellingslo be contacted for Cay Managets panicipation as well as waste types to be office largeled and Collection days. Develop a mailing list and mail information malerial to the manager or homeowner's assoc- iation of each complex to be included. Follow up the mailingwith a teleptone call or visit to erx*urage participation. R$sotve any issueswith each complex wdh regardto loca• lion of the collection Containers and schedule. Once the rnanagerftmeowner's association agrees lopadicipale, beginpubbi: education and information eflorts aimed at residents. PJF1F64T 40101 A 4 - 51 Bev 1 Dc-cesrnber 23, 1991 Table 4.2 Calendarol Recycling Tasks (Continued) Meftm-term Planning Period Expand nmhiU recovery operation Purchase upgraded equipment and materials. 1995 CWRS Complete site design, permitting, and to environmental review. Build laciliy expansion. 1 1996 PJF%F64T 401018 4-52 Rev 1 December 23. 1991 f?ori .f -, Implementallon Responsible Program Tasks Dale Entity Expand [tie office paper collection Decide on collection methods, order new 1993 CWRSrCity of Lodi program containers if needed, order newcouection City Manager's vehicles it needed. office Make purchasing and logistical arrangements with brokeror processor. Develop zoning and code Identify appropriate ordinances/codes needing 1994 City of Lodi amendments lobe amended to help recycling efforts . Cily Manager's Develop new regulalions, especially to office encourage recycling in new developments. Obtain approval of these changes Irorn appropriate government entities. Creale local markets for recycled Coordinate efforts wfth City programs to make 1993 City of Lodi materials sure recyclable materials are used. Develop City Manager's recycling procurement policies aimed at using office recycled prodvcfs Meftm-term Planning Period Expand nmhiU recovery operation Purchase upgraded equipment and materials. 1995 CWRS Complete site design, permitting, and to environmental review. Build laciliy expansion. 1 1996 PJF%F64T 401018 4-52 Rev 1 December 23. 1991 f?ori .f -, Table 4-3 Implementation Costs and Revenue Source Program Alternative Mulldamily Dwelling Recycling Program Expand CWRS' Curbside Recycling Program Expand Office Paper CoNeclion Program Create Local Markets for Recycled Products via Procurement Polices Expand CWRS' Material Recovery Operation Develop Zoning and Code Ordinance Amendments Capital costs Not presently available $3 4 million NIA $7.0001 to 510.000 $9 2 minion $7,DO0 10 510,000 =Costa br drw�lopep ro�rco ndWcian proc�x�n+ant puia4�irNs tw rKJud�d n tt►sse cost esan+atct: Operating costs Not presently available $6,00010 $24.000 NIA Not presently available NIA Revenue Source Private Private Private Public Private Public PJFV64W640101 R 4-53 Rev 1 Dt.�cember 23. 1 t�s t COMPOSTING 5 COMPOSTING COMPONENT 5.1 Introduction Composting is the controlled biological decomposition of solid organic materials. Such materials include leaves, grass clippings, food waste. and o►ner organic materials commonly found in the municipal wastestream. The end product of composting is a stable humus or soil -like material that can be used as soil conditioner, mulch, or fertilizer. depending on its physical properties. The benefits of applying compost to the soil include improved soil fertility, water -holding capacity, and erosion control. Although biological decomposition occurs naturally, several physical and chemical parameters must be controlled to maximize the rate of microbial activity and to minimize environmental impacts. These factors include temperature, oxygen, nutrient availability. moisture, and pH. With proper controls, composting can occur rapidly, yield a marketable product, and reduce the original volume of the organic material by 50 percent or greater. Composting can play a key role in 2n integrated waste management pro- gram. Composting such waste can significantly reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfills or other disposal facilities. I! also allows for more efficient waste collection and reduces gas and leachate problems associated with the landfilling of organic wastes. Composting activities can take place at the site of generation, i.e., backyard composting. or at a centralized facility. Backyard composting is considered a source reduction activity according to the Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans and is not addressed in this component. Cornpostable waste is comprised of yard waste (leaves, branches, brush, grass clippings. and yard trimmings). agricultural waste (from crop produc- tion). and industrial food waste (from food processing). Currently, all of PJ F F6a' F6a0 1 0 t 5 5. 1 Rev. 6 December 23.1991 Composting these compostable materials are being processed within the City of Lodi by CWRS. Yard wastes (grass, leaves, and brush) and food wastes (agricultural food processing wastes including peach culls and tomato pumice) have been found to make up the largest percentages of the City's compostable wastestream. comprising approximately 28 percent by weight (as a per- centage of landfilled wastes)." or almost 13 percent of the total waste generated. These compostable wastes are the priority waste types for diversion. This has made composting an obvious choice as a focus for meeting AB 939 diversion goals. This component presents composting objectives for the City of Lodi and identifies existing and proposed activities for achieving these objectives. 52 Goals and Objectives The City developed the following specific goals for composting: 1. compost as much as possible the yard wastes generated in the City of Lodi 2. promote a community-based yard waste collection and processing program 3. promote centralized local composting of yard wastes gen- erated in Lodi The City's composting objectives for the short-term and medium-term planning periods are as follows: Short-term Objectives 1. Continue and expand CWRS' existing windrow com- posting program to 50,000 tons per year capacity. 2. By 1992. the City will, in conjunction with CWRS. develop a long-term compost marketing strategy and compost product specifications. 3. By late 1992, require all new developments to incorporate a minimum quantity of compost produced within the City, based on the area of the development. City of Lodi Waste Characterization Study. San Joaquin County Department of Pub is Works. January 1990 PJF1F64\F640 101S 5 - 2 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Composting 4. By 1992. evaluate the feasibihtv o! having CWRS' current windrow composting program serve as a regional com- posting program for northern San Joaquin County. The City will coordinate its evaluation with San Joaquin County. 5. By 1993. the City will require CWRS to secure preliminary contracts for compost materials from primary markets or private distributors and determine compost product needs and concerns of alternate markets. 6. Establish a City policy which requires locally composted materials be used for grounds maintenance at all local government and school facilities. including City parks and street maintenance programs by 1994. Medium-term Objectives 1. The City will work with CWRS to expand composting pro- grams as nesded to capture as much of the compostable wastestream as possible (75 to 80 percent). 2. Use marketing strategy to encourage CWRS to con- tinueAncrease composting product sales. Revise compost product specifications as needed. 3. Finalize contracts and begin new contracts for compost materials. Match consumer needs with product grades available. 4. Encourage continued use of compost at all City facilities. 5. Use available data regarding success of compost use on City property to encourage private use. 5.3 Existing Conditions Description According to the County's waste composition study, yard wastes comprise over 17 percent of Lodi's landfilled wastestream. In 1990, approximately 11.690 tons of yard wastes were disposed of by Lodi residents. Lodi sponsors a Citywide residential leaf collection program which recov- ered approximately 814 tons in 1990 (Source: CWRS). Residents are asked to rake their leaves into the curb where the street sweeping crew will collect them. Three trucks supporting a five -person crew are used for this purpose, Leaf collection is scheduled during seasonal periods of high PJF;F641F6401015 5 - 3 Rev 0 December23,1991 Composting ;eat fall. rpnging from November to January. No lawn clippings or brush are collet ,ed through the City's program. The leaves are transported to CWRS fc composting. If City residents put their leaves in plastic hags the compos, requires additional screening to remove the pieces of plastic from the finished compost and 'as such, impacts product quality. The City Solid Waste Management Task Force indicates that City residents generally do not place their leaves in plastic bags. In a � accounting system developed by San Joaquin County Public Works Der.artment, Solid Waste Division, 30 percent of all diversion quantities reported by CWRS for the transfer station, self -hauled materials. or buy- b� ck facilities must be creditedto the unincorporatedCounty.12 Therefore, cnly 570 tons of garden trimmings can be credited as coming from Lodi residents into the Lodi Transfer Station for diversion. CWRS also collected 10,x, ; 7 tons of industrial food wastes from within the City of Lodi. These materialswere composted by CWRS at the Lodi Transfer Station to produce approximately 2,950tons of compost. CWRS present composting operation uses yard wastes, peach culls (agricultural waste), tomato pumice, and industrial food canning and processing wastes from City food processing industries. The remaining food waste is used to produce cattle feed supplements. This component will focus primarily on expanding CWRS' current windrow composting program for yard wastes and indus- trial food wastes. 5.3.1 Market Development, Economic Development, and Consumer Incentives CWRS sells its compost in bulk to local landscapers and farmers. Thus, there is an existing market for the compost currently generated within Lodi. CWRS also sells its product, at the Lodi Transfer Station, by the cubic yard to members of the public. Composting objectives two through Six are all designed to encourage existing markets and develop new ones. Some incentives already exist for consumers to provide yard waste. These include the City's municipal leaf program and fal; and spring clean-up days. 12Lil Price, San Joaquin County Public WoAs Department, Personal Communication. June 6.1991 PJF,F64,,F64O1O1 S 5 .4 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 composting Economic development activities to encourage composting or the use of compost have not yet formalized. The City does not have a procurement policy for compost. However, the composting objectives do address the need for a City procurement policy and other measures to encourage the use of CWRS' locally produced compost. Once CWRS' composting facility expansion is complete, CWRS will work with the City to develop new mar- kets for the added supply. CWRS` existing windrow composting program will not be decreased in scope or phased out during either the short- or the medium-term planning periods. 5.4 Evaluation of Program Alternatives This section presents an evaluation of alternative composting programs that can be used by the City to meet tho composting objectives. The fol- lowing alternatives were evaluated based on the evaluation approach described in Appendix B. As presented in Section 18733.3of Article 6.2of Title 14. the evaluation criteria are as follows: • effectiveness • hazard • ability to accommodate change • consequences on the wastestream • implementation period • facility requirements . consistency with local plans and conditions • institutional barriers • estimated cost • end uses For each evaluation criterion, a rating of ***, or * is assigned. and a discuzsion of potential issues is given. The rating results of the evalua- tion are summarized in Table 5-1. PJF1F64\F640101 S 5 - 5 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Composting As structured by the regulations governing AB 939. some of the criteria by which the alternatives are required to be evaluated are positive in tone (e.g.. effectiveness) while others are inherently negative (e.g., hazard). A * * * rating for a positive criterion implies a positive rating; and conse- quently a * * * rating for a negative criterion corresponds to few or no impacts associated with this potential problem. Many of these activities are complementary to each other and depend sig- nificantly on the implementation of other alternatives or programs. The alternatives are evaluated in terms of their effective nessand impact on the entire waste management system, including public education, source reduction, recycling. and disposal, and not as alternatives independent of one another. Every composting program consists of three parts: collecting the organic materials, processing these materials, and marketing the finished compost product. In some instances. each of these parts may be selected for imple- mentation independently and without consideration of the others. How- ever, the choice of othar alternatives may depend on the options previ- ously selected. In order to provide a logical and consistent evaluation of each of the various combinations of options. collection alternatives will be presented and evaluated separately before evaluating processing alterna- tives. A complete program. which consists of both a collection and pro- cessing option, will be selected in Section 5.5, Selection of Program. This ettectively avoids the dilemma of evaluating collection and processing systems against one another, when in fact they must be combined in order to establish a successful composting program. The markets or end uses are discussed in Section 5.4.3. The City evaluated the following alternatives and related options to effec- tively divert its compostable material from landfill disposal or transforma- tion. .►_- ___100 W Option 1. Option 2 PJFrF641F640101 S Adopt CWRS' proposed expansion of the residential yard waste collection program Utilize alternate collection methods for residential yard waste 5 - 5 Rev 0 December 23,1991 Composting Option 3. Expand CWRS' current industrial pro- gram for compostables Option 4. Collect alternative feedstocks ALTERNATIVE 2. Implement Processina Alternatives Option 1. Expand the existing CWRS windrow composting system Option 2. Develop an in -vessel composting system An evaluation of alternatives is presented in the following sections. A summary of evaluation results is given in Table 5-1. 5.4.1 Alternative 1. Implement Collection Alternatives The collection alternatives are presented below. A number of options have been evaluated, including the separate collection of compostables from the sources of generation (e.g., residential, commercial. industrial, or self - haul sources) and the collection of various compost feedstock materials. Each of the options also requires a processing alternative for implementa- tion. See Alternative 2 for a discussion of the processing alternatives. Option 1. Adopt CWRS' proposed expansion of the residential yard waste collection program. This option addresses the adoption of CWRS' proposed expansion of the existing residential leaf collection program to include all types of yard waste generated within the City of Lodi. In 1990, 59 percent of the yard waste disposed of within the City was from the resi- dential wastestream according to the County's 1990 waste composition survey. In 1990, almost 12,000 tons of yard wastes from Lodi were dis- posed of at the County's landfill. important considerations in evaluating expanding and altering the residen- tial collection program include the method of set -out for yard wastes, the type of collection vehicles used, and the frequency of collection. While the Utilization of one yard waste collection practice over another is not antici- pated to have a measurable impact on the quantities collected, differing advantages, such as costs, labor. or flexibility. may be gained. CWRS plans to establish a yard waste collection program which uses a large waste cart for yard and garden waste by January 1992. These carts are designed to fit semiautomat ed/automated tippers and are equipped with wheels for easy maneuvering. They require semiautoma- PJF F64\F640101 S 5- 7 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Composting ted automated collection vehicles with dumping mechanisms. The opera- tor positions the cart for mechanical lifting and returns it to its original posi- tion. As part of a total collection program, CWRS plans to Improve the current waste collection system by first imple- menting a two -waste cart system: one waste cart for refuse and the second waste cart for yard and garden waste only, by January 1992. . Implement a third waste cart for commingled recyclable materials by January 1994. • Purchase 13 semiautomated/automated collection vehi- cles by January 1992 to accommodate the expanded waste cart collection program. Expand the MRF at the Lodi Transfer Station into a state - o .the -art MRF. transfer station, recycling center, and composting facility by the medium-term time frame. This will include increasing the site's composting capacity either at the transfer station or an off-site location yet to be determined. Although CWRS estimates that the new composting facility could be implemented by 1992, given normal environmental review and permit processing time lines, a more conservative estimate would be to assume the facility would become operational by the medium-term time frame. As described in the recycling component, the new waste cart system pro- posed by CWRS assumes universal distribution of waste carts to City residents, and an inclining rate structure where the cost of an additional container is substantially more expensive than the cost of the first con- tainer. This option helps meet the component goal to compost all yard wastes generated within the City of Lodi and the objective to expand CWRS' existing composting program. At this time it is not clear if this alter- native eliminates the need for the City's leaf collection program. For pur- poses of this component, it is assumed the City's leaf collection program will continue as before. PJF\F64%F640101 S 5 - 8 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Composting Effectiveness. ***13 Residential yard waste makes up approximately 37 percent of the residential landfilled wastestream. If it is assumed that the existing windrow composting system has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate all the residential yard wastes, then for the short=term plan- ning periodthis program could divert approximately 6.000 tons per year. In the medium-term time frame, this program could divert approximately 10.40Gons per year. Hazard. ***1; Potential hazards associated with this option are minimal. Crew -member injuries which could result from maneuvering heavy waste containers are minimized with an automated collection system. Senior citi- zens and handicapped individuals may experience difficulties with placing grass clippings and bulky branches into a container. Ability to accommodate change. *** Public acceptance for this option is anticipated to be high because of the convenience factor. However, elderly and disabled residents may have trouble fitting brush and branches into the container. Changing technologies are unlikely to affect the feasi- bility of this option. However, seasonal variations probably have a larger effect than variations in economic, technical. and/or social conditions. Consequences on the wastestream. ***75 This option does not sig- nificantly shift solid waste generation from one type of solid waste produc- tion to another. Carts would be reused. Implementation period. *** This option will be implemented in the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. *** None. This alternative assumes there is suf- ficient capacity in the current windrow composting facility. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This option is con- sistent with local policies and existing plans. This option is consistent with CWRS' plans to expand its collection program and services offered to Lodi residents. 13Refers to relative rating of the alternative with respect b this criterion. 14Note that several of the criteria—hazard. institutional barriers. and consequences on the wastestream--are inherently negative. A rating of * * * for these criteria corre- sponds to few or no impacts associated with these potential problems. 15See footnote 14. PJRF64\F640101S 5 - 9 Rev. 1 January 6. 1992 Composting Institutional barriers. ***16 There are no institutional barriers. although the City's current contracts and agreements will have to be considered in implementing this option. Estimated cost. * CWRS plans to update its composting program to include yard waste carts by 1992. According to CWRS' report entitled inte- grated Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan for the City of Lodi, the cost of waste carts ranges from $52 to $63 each. The cost of supplying carts to City residents in the first year (15,300 carts) is approximately $795.600 to $963,900. Additional costs include the purchase of semiautomatic side - load vehicles and hiring of staff. These costs, however, must be attributed to the refuse and recycling collection as well as to the yard waste collec- tion program. Costs for the collection vehicles are accounted for in the recycling component. Up to 33 percent of these costs could be attributed to the yard waste program. End uses. Not applicable. End uses are discussed in Section 5.4.3. Option 2 Utilize alternate collection methods for residential yard waste. This option proposes that the residential leaf collection program be expanded to include all types of yard waste generated within the City of Lodi, utilizing an alternative collection method. Currently, residents are asked to rake their leaves into the curb where the street -sweeping crew collects them. Important considerations in evaluating expanding and altering the residen- tial collection program include the method of set -out for yard wastes, the type eE collection vehicles used, and the frequency of collection. While the utilization of one yard waste collection practice over another is not antici- pated to have a measurable impact on the quantities collected, differing advantages, such as costs. labor, or flexibility, may be gained. Collection practices could include loose collection, bag collection. or a containerized collection system. The latter is described in Option 1, above. A brief description of the loose collection and bag collection methods follows. A loose yard waste collection system, utilizing a packer truck and a 'daw,' could be implemented in the City. The claw, referringto a mechanical claw attached to a wheel loader, gathers up loose yard waste placed next to the curb and deposits it into the packer truck. A minimum two -person crew is required for this operation. This option is usually conducted in conjunction 16see footnote 14. PJRF641F640101 S 5- 10 Rev. 1 January 6. 1992 Corriposfrng with a street -sweeping Service to dispose of remaining debris. The claw may drop or be unable to grab up to 10 percent of the leaves and grass set out. The advantages of this system include the easy visibility CE con- taminants in the yard waste, mechanized lifting to avoid strain on the•col- lection crew, convenience for residents in not being required to container- ize their yard waste, and no debagging required during processing. This system has been successfully implemented in Sacramento, Davis, and San Jose. The bag collection system uses plastic or heavyduty compostable paper bags. The paper bags are weather resistant and made of two plies of 50 -pound kraft paper coated with a waterproof. nontoxic adhesive. For both types cf bags, a 30 -gallon capacity bag should be used. The use of paper bags may be more convenient because they don't split open like plastic bags sometimes do. In addition, plastic bags must be removed during yard waste processing. Shredding the paper bags during process- ing is not a problem. Paper bags are then simply coinposted along with the yard waste. The advantages of a bag collection system include little behavioral change required from the residents and compatibility with exist- ing leaf collection program practices. Effectiveness. ***17 It is anticipated that approximately 5,411 tons per year of yard wastes might be diverted by this option. During the medium term, approximately 9.759 tons per year of yard wastes might be divened by this option. Hazard. ***1s Potential hazards associatedwith this option are minimal. Normally, fire hazard is low; however, some risk may be associated in the loose collection practice with automobile catalytic converters starting yard debris on fire. The current similar practice of collecting leaves from the curb has created no such difficulty. Crew -member injuries could result from lifting heavy bags if bags are used. Ability to accommodate change. ** Public acceptance for this option is anticipated to be moderate. Blowing yard debris or parking problems asso- ciated with yard waste piles located at the curb may be anticipated in the collection of loose yard waste. Changing technologies are unlikely to affect 1 7Refers to relative rating of the alternative with respect to this criterion. "Note that several of the criteria --hazard, institutional barriers. and consequences on the wastestream—are inherently negative. A rating of *qtr * for these Criteria corre- sponds to few or no impacts associated with these potential problems. PJRF641F640101 S 5- 11 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Composting ;- the feasibilityof this option. However, seasonal variations probably have a larger effect than variations in eccnomic, technical, and/or social condi- tions. Consequences on the wastestream. ***19 This option does not sig- nificantly shift solid waste generation from one type of solid waste produc- tion to another. Paper bags would be composted along with the yard waste. While plastic bags would be discarded, this is not anticipated to contribute significant quantities to the wastestream. Implementation period. *** This option could be implemented in the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. *** See Alternative 2 for discussion of the pro- posed facility options. Consistency with local plans and policies. ** This option is consistent with local policies and does not affect existing City plans or ordinances. CWRS plans to establish a semiautomated collection system for yard waste, refuse, and recyclables. A loose yard waste collection system is not consistent with CWRS' plans. Institutional barriers. **20 The City's current contracts and agreements with CWRS will have to be considered in implementing this option. If the City wishes to implement this alternative, it would need to modify its pres- ent contract with CWRS to either require CWRS to collect yard waste in the manner specified by the City or to delete that service from CWRS' contract. Estimated cost. ** A packer truck and a wheel loader with claw attach- ment will be needed for the loose collection system, although conventional packer trucks from existing fleets could be utilized (CWRS estimated it would need seven packer trucks and six loaders to implement this alterna- tive). The cost eF a packer truck could range from $63,000 to $168,000. depending on the capacity required. The cost of a wheel loader could range from $40,000 to $168,000, with the mechanical claw attachment adding an additional $7.000 to $11,000. Operational and maintenance costs are anticipated to be moderate. The bag collection system wilt require few additional costs. For example, compostable paper bags, as described above, cost approximately $0.29 each. Per ton collection costs 19See footnote 18. 2OSee footnote 16. PJRF641F640101 S 5- 12 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 Composting are expected to be in the range of $80 to $110 per ton of collected yard waste. Since this alternative could also potentially cause additional wear and tear on City streets, there wili be some additional costs associated with maintenance and, possibly repair of City streets. The exact cost impact is unknown. End uses. Not applicable. End uses are discussed in Section 5.4.3. Option 3. Expand CWRS industrial collection programs for com- postables. Option 3 involves the expansion of CWRS' program for collec- tion of compostable materials from industrial businesses. CWRS has stated it has plans to expand its industrial collection program for com- postables. Food wastes disposed of from industrial sources total over 3.000 tons. In 1990, 10,917 tons of industrial food wastes were diverted from grocery stores and food processing and canning plants. Expressed as a percent of total waste generation, approximately 7 percent of Lodi's wastes were diverted through cornposting of industrial food wastes. Expressed as a percent of food wastes generated by industrial sources, approximately 83 percent is diverted presently. WM CWRS' exclusive franchise in Lodi for industrial, commercial. and residential wastes, there is the potential to capture almost the entire compostable fraction of industrial wastes and divert those wastes into its composting program. Currently, CWRS coIlects cornmingled and source -separated food wastes from industrial sources. While the source -separated loads can be easily composted, the commingled wastes may or may not be composted depending on the proportion of noncompostabie wastes to food wastes. Only minimal picking is used in the commingled loads. To expand the pro- gram, CWRS proposes to increase the quantities of source -separated wastes from its current customers. This could be accomplished through working with these firms to become responsive to each firm's individual waste management and diversion needs. In addition to education, finan- cial incentives also may be effective. in the future, additional compostable wastes such as unrecyclable paper could be incorporated into this pro- gram. This option meets the composting objective of expanding CWRS' existing industrial composting program. Effectiveness. *** Assuming that CRWS' exclusive franchise arrange- ment with the City enables the m to capture those compostables which are presently disposed by the industrial sector. over the short term this alter- PJF\F641F640101 S 5-)3 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 composting native could divert an additional 3,800 tons per year in the short term and 4,200 tons per year in the medium term. Hazard. ***21 No potential hazards are associated with this option. Ability to accommodate change. *** Public acceptance for this option is anticipated to be high. Changing technologies are unlikely to affect the feasibility of this option. As a collection program, this option would have the flexibility to adjust to changing waste quantities. Consequences on the wastestteam. ***22 This option does not shift solid waste generation from one type of solid waste to another. Implementation period. *** This option would be implemented in the short term and continued in the medium-term planning periods. Some dif- ficulties in implementation could be encountered if there is lack of space for collection containers at some businesses. Facility requirements. *** This option requires no new facilities. How- ever, in order to produce compost from increased feedstock quantities. this option depends on the development of a composting facility. See Alternative 2 for discussion of the proposed facility options. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This option is con- sistent with local policies, plans, and ordinances. Institutional barriers. ***23 There are no existing institutional barriers to this alternative. Estimated cost. *** Few additional costs are anticipated, as busi- nesses require refuse collection services regardless of this program. End usas. Not applicable. A food -waste collection program provides the necessary feedstock to develop a high-grade, readily marketable compost. End uses are discussed in Section 5.4.3. Option 4 Collect altetnative feedstocks. This option involves the col- lection of alternative feedstocks, including such wastes as sewage sludge or manure. The City is aware that any materials co -composted with sewage sludge do not count towards diversion at this time. The decision on whether sewage sludge will count is scheduled to be determined by 21 See footnote 18. 22See footnote 18. 23See footnote 18. PJF1F641F640101S 5- 14 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Composting July 1. 1992. One or more of these waste types would then be transported to a processing facility to be coprocessed with yard wastes into a high- grade compost product. The advantage of a co -composting system is the potential of producing a higher grade compost than could be produced from yard waste alone. However, significant contamination problems. i.e., salts and trace metals, could result from the use of inadequate feedstocks or improper processing techniques. Loads of sewage sludge and manure could also be diverted to the pro- cessing facility for composting. These wastes are currently generated separately from the municipal wastestream. Although manure is not gen- erated within the City, manure generated in adjacent County areas could be sought as a feedstock for the co -composting process. Sewage sludge is produced at the wastewater treatment pfarlt. This option must be selected in conjunction with a yard waste collection program in order to provide the co -feedstock for the'cornposting process. This option may be implemented by the City, a City contractor. or i n coop- eration with one or more nearby jurisdictions. This option meets the component objective of expanding the City's existing programs and developing marketability of compost. Effectiveness. * Manure is not generated within the City, thus it is not countable toward diversion goals for the jurisdiction. The diversion of sewage sludge does not currently count toward the City's 1995 or 2000 diversion goals according to the Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparingand Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans. Yard waste diversion quantities are countable and are described under the yard waste collection program selected in conjunction with this option. Hazard. ** Assuming that the wastes would be properly and completely composted, there are no additional health hazards associated with this option. Composting such wastes in an open windrow system would increase potential vector problems and could cause significant odor prob- lems. However. it is important that the materials he completely and properly composted in order for the human pathogens that may be present in the sewage sludge and manure to be destroyed. For most composting pro- cesses, complete pathogen destruction cannot be guaranteed. In addition, trace metals or chemicals and salts in manure or sludge may result in PJF1F641F640101S 5- 15 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Composting undesirable compost characteristics. As a result, end uses for the compost product could be limited to land reclamation. horticultural uses, or certain types of plant and crop propagation. for use in orchards for example. This factor could significantly reduce the marketability of the compost product. Testing of manure or sludge for undesirable metals and chemicals would reveal potential market limiting problems. For further discussion on this issue, see consistency with local plans and policies. Ability to accommodate change. ** Public acceptance for this option is uncertain, but unlikely without extensive testing and marketing. Changing technologies are unlikely to affect the feasibility of this option. A sewage sludge or manure collection program provides the necessary feedstock to develop a high-grade compost, though perhaps with limited marketability. Consequences on the wastestream. *** This option does not shift solid waste generation from one type of solid waste to another. Implementatlon period. ** This option would be implemented in the medium-term planning period. Facility requirements. ** This option is dependent on the development of a yard waste collection program and a composting processing facility, preferably utilizing an in -vessel system. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This option is consis- tent with local policies, plans, and ordinances. Institutional barriers. ** Currently. AB 939 does not allow the utilization of sewage sludge as a diversion measure. Therefore, AS 939 impacts the decision whether to utilize sewage sludge as a compost feedstock. Estimated cost. *** to ** Additional transportation costs may be required !or the delivery of manure and sewage sludge. Costs for the yard waste collection program and the processing system are described with their respective evaluations. End uses. Not applicable. This option provides the necessary feedstock to produce a high-grade compost product. End uses are discussed in Sec- tion 5.4.3. PJRF641F640101 S 5 - 16 Rev.1 January 6. 1992 Composting 5 5.4.2 Alternative 2. Implement Processing Alternatives Processing alternatives are presented below. Two options have been developed and evaluated. representing low and high technology approaches to composting. These options also require the selection of collection alternatives for implementation. See Alternative 1 for a discus- sion of the collection options. Option 1. Expand the CWRS existing windrow composting system. This option proposes to expand and improve CWRS. turned windrow sys- tem incorporating pre- and post -processing operations designed to pro- duce a marketable compost. The primary advantage of a windrow com- posting system is low to moderate capital and operating costs. Disadvan- tages of windrow composting are requirements for more land than that needed for in -vessel systems and the possible production of objectionable odors. The expanded facility would process and compost waste materials originating from the City, and could also handle compost materials from unincorporated areas in northern San Joaquin County. CWRS has plans to expand the capacity of the current composting operation to 49.000 tons per year. In 1990, the compostable portion of Lodi's wastestream (disposed and diverted) was approximately 31,000 tons. By the end of the short-term planning period, compostables could be almost 34,000 tons per year. In order to speed the composting process, a pre-processing operation is typically performed before composting actually takes place. Pre-process- ing usually involves shredding or screening, or both, of the materials received. Windrow composting systems involve stacking the pre-processed com- postable materials in piles with a triangular or trapezoidal cross section. The turned windrow is the method most commonly used for yard waste composting and is currently used by CWRS. 'Turning" describes the method of aeration, basically referring to tearing down the pile and recon- structing it so as to re -expose the pile interstices to air. During the active compost stage, materials will be turned four to eight times monthly to increase aeration, utilizing either a wheel loader, an excavator with a spe- cial attachment, or a compost turner made especially for this purpose. It plastic bags are used in collecting the yard waste, turning equipment that has demonstrated effectiveness in removing bags would be desirable. An irrigation system will be used to maintain proper moisture levels. Following PJRF64EF64010 t S 5- 17 Rev 1 January 6, 1992 compostinq a curing period when the compost is sufFcientiy stabilized, the compost will be subjected to an additional stage of processing (referred to as post- processing) in which the material will be screened or shredded. or both. in preparation for producing products to market specification? The fine mate- rial passing a screen with approximately 114 -inch openings will be trans- ferred to a finished compost stockpile, and oversize material will be either returned to the active compost windrows, shredded, or segregated and marketed as additional products. such as mulch or wood chips. If alternative feedstocks. such as sludge or manure are to be added to shredded yard waste in the composting process. additional processing is required. For example, after shredding the yard waste, sludge or manure would be integrated into the compost feedstock through the use of mixing equipment. These materials would then be co -composted. Additional windrow turning would also be required. A portion of the composting pro- cess may involve a variation of the windrow method, referred to as aerated static pile. In this method, air is supplied via positive or negative pressure through a network of pipes or a channel in a floor. Alternatively, an in-ves- sei system may be used for a portion of the composting process (see Option 2). This option meets the component objective of expanding CWRS existing composting pronFam. Effectiveness. Not applicable. This criterion is not applicable to the pro- cessing alternatives (see Section 5.4.1, Altemative 1. Implement Collec- tion Alternatives). Hazard. ***24 Po'-)ntial hazards associated with this option are minimal. Normally, fire hazard is low, due to the intorior moisture content of the composting material. Thus, if the surface materials were ignited, a major fire would be unlikely. Fire safety is improved through the ready availability of water through the irrigation system and the provision of open aisles between windrows. Ability to accommodate change. * * * Public acceptance for this option is anticipated to be high, since CWRS already has a facility which is effec- tive and is ready to be expanded. Changing technologies are unlikely to 24Note that several of the criteria --hazard. institutional barriers. and consequences on the wastestream--are inherently negative A rating of * * * for these criteria corre- sponds to few or no impacts associated with these potential probrems PJFtF641F640101S 5- 18 Rev 1 January 6. 1932 Composting affect the feasibility of the composting program. The process will be designed to produce a marketable product. In addition to creating a desir- able concistency. the screening process also reduces visual contamina- tion. Visual contaminants affect the appearance of the compost and include particles of waste, such as glass, plastics. or metals, which decrease the product's marketability. Consequences on the wastestream. ***25 Screening the compost will create a variety of end products. including mulch and wood chips. Whether the production and subsequent use of these materials counts toward AB 939 goals (i.e., as diversion) depends on their use. The use of wood chips as fuel, for example, is not allowable under AB 939 as a diversion measure. However, at this time the City's wood fiber is not being com posted . Implementation. *** This option will be implemented in the short-term and medium-term planning periods. Facility requirements. Or 7 his option requires expansion of a composting site, including the purchase of additional gnnding. turning. and screening equipment for implementation. Necessary equipment includes a compost turner. two loaders, a grinder. and construction of the expanded facility. Site preparaticn activities. such as grading for proper drainage, may also be required. Additional labor requirements will be determined. Regular laboratory analyses of the finished product will increase the products' mar- ketability (see Section 5.4.3for further discussion of this issue). Consistency with local plans end policies. *** This option is con- sistent with local policies, plans, and ordinances. Institutional barriers. ***26 AB 939 does not allow the use of trans- formation as a diversion measure for the 1995 goal. Therefore. AB 939 impacts the decision whether to utilize wood chips as fuel. Estimated cost. * Capital costs are expected to be approximately $1 million, exclusive of land, according to CW RS report entitled Integrated Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan for the City of Lodi. Costs could be higher or lower depending on the specific types of equipment purchased and site preparaticn. Annual operating expenses. which may range from 25See footnote 24 26 See footnote 24 M $10 to $20 per ton. include labor. fuel, equipment maintenance (parts ,rsd iabor), and iat�oratory analyses. This figure is exclusive of land costs. End uses. * * * This option produces a variety of compost products and by-products, including composted fines, mulch. and wood chips. The option has the capabiiity of producing a high-quality compost (see also Section 5.4.3. ) Option 2. Develop an In -vessel cornposting system. This option pro- poses the development of an in -vessel bin -type system for the processing of several potential feedstocks, An in -vessel system provides an enclosed or somienclosed environment for the composting process. This facility would be best suited to process and compost feedstocks that are highly putrescible. including food. sludge, or mixed municipal solid waste. The advantages of an in -vessel composting system over a windrow system include lesser space requirements, greater process and materials handling control. reduced labor requirements, shorter composting period. better environmental control, and greater system throughput. The disadvantage is relatively high capital cost. This facility would process and compost waste materials originating from the City. However, the City may choose to cooperate with one or more jurisdictions in developing a regional processing facility. The bin system consists of one or more rectangular troughs into which feedstock is fed by way of conveyor belts. Air may be forced into the com- posting material through perforations in the floor of the bin. A tiller -like device, in conjunction with a traveling belt, may also be used to mix the material periodically and to discharge the material from the bins. If plastic bags are used in collecting the yard waste, equipment that has demon- strated effectiveness in removing bags would be desirable. After an initial in -vessel composting period, all in -vessel systems require some 'curing' or "maturation" time in order for the compost to stabilize. The retention time of materials in the active cornposting stage is generally 3 ar 4 weeks. At that time, materials would be substantially stabilized. Then they will be moved to the curing stage where they will bo further sta- bilized for another 4 to 8 weeks. An in -vessel system would involve similar pre- and post -processing oper- ations as were described in processing Option 1. above. PJF1F64\F644101 S 5 .20 Rev 1 January 6. 1992 Composting Because cf the hiah level of mechanization included in an in -vessel sys- tem and the proprietary nature of the commercially .available systems, a pilot program will not be necessary to demonstrate the in -vessel technol- ogy. A brief start-up period will be required. however, in order to test equipment and procedures. This option meets the component objectives of diverting yard waste from landfills by composting. Effectiveness. Not applicable. This is not applicable to the processing alternatives (see Section 5.4.1, Alternative 1. Implement Collection Alter- natives). Hazard. **27 The hazard of this system is entirely dependent on the feedstock used. There are no potential hazards associated with yard waste composting utilizing this option Assuming that sewage sludge or other putrescible wastes would be ptuperly and completely composted, there are no additional health hazards associated with composting them in an in -vessel system. However, it is important that tt a materials be completely and properly composted in order for the human pathogens that may be present in the sewage sludge and manure to be destroyed. For most composting pro- cesses. complete pathogen destruction cannot be guaranteed. In addition, trace metals or chemicals and salts in manure or sludge may result in undesirable compost characteristics. Ability to accommodate change. ** Public acceptance of this option is anticipated to be low, since CWRS already hes a windrow facility in place. However, in -vessel composting has several technological advantages, including excellent capabilities to control the physical parameters of Com- posting (e.g., oxygen content, moisture content, and temperature). high decomposition rates, reduced land requirements in comparison to windrow systems, and minimized environmental impacts. A variety of bin systems are operating successfully in the United States. Changing technologies are unlikely to affect the feasibility of this option. Post -processing, or screening the compost, will enhance the marketability of the produce. In addition to creating a more desirable consistency. post- 2714ote that several of tree critena -hazard. institutional barriers. and consequences on the wastestroam. are inherently negalive A rating 01 * r1 * for these Mena corre- sponds to few or no impacts associated with these potenlial problems PJRF641F640101 S 5-21 Rev. 1 January 6. 1992 Composting processing also reduces visual contamination. Visual contaminants. which affect the appearance of the compost, include panicles of waste. such as glass, plastics, or metals; the presence of these contaminants decreases the product's marketability. Consequences on the wastestream. ***28 Screening the compost during post -processing will create a variety of ecd products, including mulch and wood chips (see Option 1. Develop a Regional Windrow Com- posting System above for further discussion of this issue). The use of these products will determine whether waste generation is being shifted from one waste type to another. Implementation. ** This option will be implemented in the medium-term planning period. Facility requirements. * In -vessel systems are more machine intensive. thus less labor is required in their operation. A bin -type composting facility must be sited and constructed prior to implementation. This option also requires the purchase of screening equipment for post -processing activi- ties. Necessary equipment includes hoppers, conveyors, and a screen. Consistency with local plans and policies. * This option is not con- sistent with local policies and plans, since CWRS already has a windrow system in place and is planning to expand its capacity. Institutional barrlen. ***29 AB 939 does not allow the use of trans- formation as a diversion measure for the 1995 goal. Therefore, AB 939 impacts the decision whether tc utilize wood chips as fuel. Estimated cost. * The disadvantages of the in -vessel cornposting sys- tem are cost and equipment maintenance. The cost of an in -vessel system can be prohibitive for use in yard waste composting. In addition to signifi- cant capital costs, an in -vessel system can also incur large operating costs. Equipment maintenance may be time consuming and costly for an in -vessel system depending on the equipment and system design. Expressing capital and operating expenses on a cost -per -input ton of yard waste, an in -vessel bin system could range from $60 to $100 per ton. End uses. * * * This option produces a variety of compost products and by-products including composted fines, mulch. and wood chips. The 28See footnote 27. 29See footnote 27 PJF\F641F640101 S 5- 22 Rev. t January 6. 1992 Composting in -vessel system has the capability of producing a high-quality compost (see also Section 5.4.3. ) 5.4.3 End Uses for Processing Alternatives30 The availability of compost markets is a key requirement in the successful development of a composting program. The City will require the franchise hauier to implement a compost marketing strategy to accommodate increased quantities of compost. A marketing strategy could include the following steps to implement the program effectively. 1. Develop compost product specifications to identify primary and alternative markets for compost materials. 2. Secure preliminary contracts for compost products. Use the information derived from the compost market analysis to match the product to needs and concerns of buyers. 3. Provide for City participation. Continue the effective Pub- lic/private relationship between the City and the franchise hauler. Local markets should be identified whenever possible. Transportation costs are also an important consideration, because the greater the dis- tance to market, the higher the price of the product. However, this also works in reducing outside competition when there is a local source avail- able. The price of the product is critical in its marketability. Potential markets include agriculture, soil brokers, garden supply stores, nurseries. landscape contractors, sod growers. tree farms, and golf courses. On-site direct marketing to residents has not been found to be a reliable end use. Most homeowners seek a high-quality product in small quantities, usually preferring a bagged product. Residents may lack appro- priate containers or means of transport for bulk distribution of the product. In urban areas, soil brokers are typically the largest buyers of organic materials on the wholesale market. This market is currently very promising and especially strong for locally produced organic materials. Many of these organic materials currently purchased by soil brokers are trans- ported, sometimes great distances. from lumber mills and other industrial processing facilities. For the most part, local soil brokers rely on imported 30This sectton presents a discussion of end uses for compost that apphes to the aver- natives discussed in Section 5 4 2 PJnF64T6401015 5- 23 Rev 1 January 6, 1992 Compos t og sawdust. wood chips, ba -k dust, and bark chips for organic materials Local production of compost and other organic materials couid 'bst+tute !or the large quantities of imported organic materials. Within San Joaquin County, agriculture presents a significant potential compost market. Some farmers supplement the use of commercial ferti ix- ers with the use of soil amendments such as manures, compost, sawdust. and cover crops; however, most rely only on commercial fertilizers. Agri- cultural wastes, in particular manures, are currently being composted in the region, with little difficulty in finding adequate markets or uses, espe- cially as these wastes tend to be high in nitrogen. The greater use of organic soil amendments in agriculture would be very beneficial for improving soil properties, so the potential exists for developing agriculture as a compost market. However, farmers may have concerns about pur- chasing compost. including the quality and consistency of the product (regular laboratory analyses are highly recommended); cost; quantities available; moisture content, affecting the weight and spreadability of the product; and nutrient value. Marketability of the product will significantly depend on these factors. in particular, farmerswill be,concerned about the chemical and trace metal or salt content of any soil amendment they apply to their fields. This is generally negligible in regard to yard waste com- posting, but may be significant in sewage sludge or manure composts. Farmers tolerance for inert, but visual Contaminants. such as fragments of plastic, glass. and metals. in soil amendments is unknown at this time. CWRS has already succeeded in selling compost to local farmers. Soil amendment application rates vary from approximately 2 to 30 tons per acre. Most farmers incorporate organic matter into their soil only once per year at a given time in the growing cycle. Thus agricultural uses tend to be seasonal. Public agency markets, although generally smaller than the private sector markets, are also worth considering. The City intends to imp.'^^^en, procurement policies giving preference to the usd of compos: products in place of commercial fertilizers and soil amondments when these are pur- chased. Although City use of these product? may be low, the value of such a decision may prove worthwhile. especi%li} in encouraging landscapers and other businesses to use compost products. This measure would meet the component objective of establishing a City policy which requires com- posted materials be used for grounds maintenance at all local government and school facilities. PJnFfi41F640101S ficv 1 January fi, 1992 Composting The aim of several pieces of legislation passed in California last year was to increase public sector demand for compost. Beginning in 1991, the state's highway landscape maintenance programs will use compost in place of. or in addition to. commercial fertilizers. Beginning in 1993, the state will initiate programs to restore public lands using composted mate- rials. In addition to these measures, any procuring agency that requests a bid for commercial fertilizer or soil amendment must document the deter- mination that the use of compost was not feasible. Future markets for compost may be identified by a state -funded study evaluating uses for compost. These efforts may further expand markets for the City's compost for use by the Department of Transportation, the Department of General Services, and other State and local public agencies. In addition, the City could evaluate the use of compost for land reclamation uses. These are generally one-time uses and should not be relied on in a long-term market strategy. Flexibility in production is a key for reliable distribution of the compost product. There is currently demand for a number of different compost grades for a variety cf uses. Production of varying particle sizes for the compost product using coarser to finer screens during post -processing. allows better pricing flexibility in meeting differing market needs. There are at least four distinct products that could result from yard waste processing activities: composted lines, mulch, wood chips, and low-grade compost. The composted fines, a higher grade compost, could be defined as mature compost with virtually all of the particles passing through a 1/4 -inch screen. Mulch consists of either mature composted or uncom- posted materials, slightly larger than the fines, ranging from 112 to 2 inches in particle size. Wood chips are not composted and can range in size from 1 to 3 inches. Low-grade compost is a product in which there has been no screening to differentiate between the particle sizes described above or one that contains contaminants. The production of uncomposted mulch and wood chips does not involve controlled biological decomposition and therefore is not considered composting under AB 939. However, credit for the diversion of such materials may be given as a form of recycling. The market for wood chips processed and sold as fuel is exceptional. Even though this method of diversion constitutes transformation and is therefore not countable toward AB 939 goals for 1995. it is a viable alter- native to landfill disposal. It will also count 10 percent towards the year 2000 AB 939 goals. Avoided landfill disposal costs. as well as revenues PJRF641F640101S 5 - 25 Rev 1 January 6, 1992 composION gained from the sale of wood chips, may make this an attractive option These revenues then could be used to support other AB 939 diversion programs. Marketing wood chip, for mulch or other landscape dressing is not advisable unless the product is uniform in particle size and is aestheti- cally consistent in appearance. Bark chips are typically used by landsca- pers because of the consistency of these qualities. while chipped yard waste tends to appear mottled in color and inconsistent in size. Particle size characteristics depend primarily on the composition of feedstock and the method of shredding. These factors should be considered in the planned market for wood chips. Levels of noncompostable contamination. stability. nutrient content, trace metal and chemical compound content. and physical appearance 3\50 affect the quality, and thus the marketability. of compost. Market studies have indicated that the quality of the product is a primary concern for commercial buyers. Conducting regular laboratory analyses, including a soil fertility and micronutrient analysis and an organic amendment anal- ysis, is highly recommended. Laboratory results and testing parameters should be made available to potential buyers to assure them To"! the fin- ished product maintains consistent levels of quality and content. Tha market for compost produced from feedstocks other than yard debris (such as municipal solid waste and food -waste compost) may be limited in the City and the region. Although the appearance, consistency. and nutri- ent content demonstrated by food -waste compost may be preferred by many landscapers and nurseries, its marketability could be limited by health concerns including disease transmission, contamination. and an uncertainty as to its contents. The production of this material has the po- tential of improving the yield and quality of high-grade compost; however, processing complications perhaps combined with an uncertain reception from potential buyers, may result in a limited ability to distribute the prod- uct. Demonstration projects during pilot -scale production may be the best approach to overcoming buyer uncertainty. There are some risks associated with identifying end uses for compost. The quantity of compost products on the market in California within the next few years is unknown, although it is expected to increase rapidly. Competition among composting programs in a number of localities could be significant. Although it is too early to project the saturation level of the compost market, flexibility in product specifications and pricing could be the key to a successful marketing Strategy. The risks associated with mar- PJF\F64\F640101 S 5 26 Rev 1 January 6. 1992 Composfino keting low-grade compost may be somewhat higher than those associated with high-grade compost. Compost marketing is anticipated to be competi- tive if adjacent regions are also compost producers. If high-grade yard waste compost is readily available within a short transpon distance, this will out -compete a program that offers only a low-grade compost product. 5.5 Selection of Program The selection of these programs was based on the data from the waste generation study, the application of evaluation criteria. and the ease of implementation in the City. 5.5.1 Alternatives Selected The selected program to be implemented in the short-term planning period includes • Adopting the proposed expansion of CWRS' residential yard waste collection program (Alternative 1, Option 1). This alternative was selected because CWRS is already planning to expand its program. so much of the prelimi- nary ground work and plans are already in place. As a result, this alternative is feasible and practical to imple- ment. This alternative will divert 5.41 1 tons per year in the short-term planning period and 9.759 tons per year in the medium term. This option must be implemented in conjunction with a processing alternative to obtain diversion of wastes. Expanding industrial collection programs for compostables (Altem31ive 1, Option 3). This alternative was selected for two reasons: (1) CWRS has a viable program which it already intends to expand and (2) this alternative will divert as much of the industrial compostable wastestream (excluding wood wastes) as practical. These would divert an additional 3.806 tons per year in the short term and 4,201 tons per year in the medium term. Expanding the windrow composting system (Alternative 2, Option 1). This alternative was selected because of its relative ease of implementation. CWRS already uses the PJF1F641FF ' ' ^ ; 6 5 27 Rev 1 January 6, 1892 1 0[1JPV$1MQ windrow method and is proceeding with plans to expand the taci!'ty. The expansion will include all yam waste from Lodi. as well as unincorporated areas of northern San Joaquin County. The expanded facility could thus be -a regional northern San Joaquin County facility. Developing a compost marketing strategy. This alternative was selected because the quantity of yard waste gener- ated within the City will significantly increase the amount of compost produced by CWRS. Thus, effective marketing will be essential for the program to succeed. 5.5.2 Estimated Diversion Quantities Refer to the integration component (Ser:tion 10.2) for the percentages of diversion which will contribute towards d Persion goals. Increased diversion from proposed programs Expand residenlialvard waste collection Short term: 5.411 tons per year Medium term: 9.759 tons peryear Expand industrial collection for compostables Short term: Medium term: Total new diversion Short term: Medium term: Diversion from existing programs City leaf collection program Short term: Medium term: Industrial collection of compostables Short term: Medi m term: 3,806 tons per year 4.201 tons per year 9.217 tons per year 13.960 tons per year 617 tons per year 681 tons per year 12,204 tons per year 13,475 tons per year PJF1F641F640101 S 5-28 Rev i January 6. 1992 Composting Total dlverslon from existing program.. Short term: Medium term: Total diversion Short term: Medium term: 5.5.3 End Marketsand End Uses 12.821 tons per year 14,156 tons per year 22.038 tons per year 28.116 tons per year Agriculture will be targeted as the primary market for compost and mulch products. Although this is anticipated to be a reliable market. secondary markets will also be identified. Secondary markets consist of additional potential large-scale users and buyers of organic material in the region, including soil brokers. garden supply stores. nurseries. landscape con- tractors, sod growers, tree farms, and golf courses. The City will implement appropriate procurement measures for locally CWRS-composted materials. This "intemal market will be reliable and relatively stable during periods of fluctuation in other markets. The strategy for marketing wood chips, resulting from the screening oper- ations, will be dependent nn the size and appearance of Ow product. if the wood chips are not marketable as a landscape dressing, they will be mar- keted as fuel. Although the diversion of wood chips forthis purpose does not contribute to diversion credits under AB 939. and thus the diversion goals, revenue from the sale of wood chips will help to defray the costs of the processing program. In addition. up to 10percent transformation (as incineration is defined by AB 939) is allowable diversion credit under extreme circumstances in meeting the 50 percent diversion goal by 2000. (Forfurther discussion of end uses, see Section 5.4.3.) 5.5.4 Materials Handling and disposal Needs A residential curbside collection and industrial program will be utilized in conjunction with the expansion of CWRS' existing processing facility. The implementation of CWRS' residential semiautomatedlautornated collection system will allow for prescreening the material for contamination (CWRS, 1991). Disposal of additional contaminants from the screening process, including particles of glass. plastics, or metals, is anticipated to be mink PJF1F64\F640101 S 5-29 Rev. ` January 6, 1992 COMPOS1i v mai, but will be disposed of in the landfill Aside from the screened con- taminants, no special materials handling or disposal needs are anticipated 5.5.5 Facility Needs The following describes the required facilities which CWRS anticipates are needed for the selected programs. This program requires expansion of a composting site. including the purchase of additional grinding, turning, and screening equipment for implementation. Necessary equipment includes a compost turner. two loaders, a grinder, and cons+.ruction of the expanded facility. Site preparation activities, such as grading for proper drainage, may also be required. Additional labor requirements will be determined. Regular laboratory analyses of the finished product will increase the prod- ucts' marketability (see Section 5.4.3 for further discussion of this issue). 5.5.6 Measures to be Taken It Diversion Rate Requirements Cannot be Met The City or CWRS will have several options in the event that the participa- tion is not significantly increased or the compost market is not viable for the diversion of organic materials. These alternatives include (1) increasing the frequency of garden clean-up events. (2) stockpiling compost until the emergence of more favorable market conditions. (3)evaluating the feasibility of enacting a City ordinance to ban disposal of yard waste, and (4) significantly increasing the quantities of compost uti- lized by the City to absorb compost stockpiles. While none of these options is currently recommended for implementation. they may be put into place as emergency measures to achieve the mandated diversion requirements. 5.6 Program Implementation The following section describes the tasks necessary to implement the selected program. 5.6.1 Government Agencies Responsible for Implementation The City Manager's office is currontly responsible for managing the City's solid waste and has contracted for this service with CWRS. The City Man- ager's office will also be responsible for implementing or developing and managing contracts for implementing the selected program. PJF1F6MF6401 01 S 5 30 Rev 1 January 6, 1992 Composting 5.6.2 Tasks Necessaryto implement Program The steps required for implementation cE the expanded residential and industrial programs in the short-term piann;ng penod include • Obtaining funding (CWRS expects that the City will issue certificates of participation to purchase carts and collec- tion vehicles which CWRS will then lease from the City. Certificates of participation are simiiar to revenue bonds. See page 9-3.) • Purchasing additional 60 -gallon waste carts for resi- dences. • Facilitating additional source separation of wastes at industrial sites. . Modifying collection routes if needed. . Purchasing collection vehicles and equipment. • Beginning expanded collection program. Several steps will be required for implementation of the processing pro- gram in the short-term planning period. The following are to be completed through an agreement of the participatingjurisdictions and CWRS: • develop compost product specifications • develop expanded compost process and facility design • perform site improvements purchase and install processing and screening equipment • start up • perform laboratory analyses The steps required for implementing the marketing strategy in the short- term planning period include obtaining preliminary contracts for compost products • testing market compost products . developing a procurement policy for the City PJF\F641F640101 S 5- 31 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Composting In the medium term, implementation tasks involve continued e#forts to achieve the diversion rate and program goals. Further expansion, equip- ment, and contracts will be developed as needed for all alternatives selected. 5.6.3 Short-term and Medium-term Planning Period Implementation Schedule The schedule in Table 5-2 presents the schedule for implementation of the selected program. 5.6.4 implementation Costs Table 5-3 summarizes the implementation costs and revenue sources for the selected program. 5.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 5.7.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives To effectively quantify and monitor the achievement of the program in meeting the objectives, the following tasks should be undertaken: Require CWRS to record incoming yard waste quantities and participation rates from CWRS' curbside collection program and to report that information semiannually to the City. Compare and analyze disposal records from before and afterthe implementation of the selected program. • Monitor market demand and trends. If the above data are not conclusive. perform periodic updates to the waste generation study, as needed. 5.7.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating Program's Effectiveness The City will evaluate the achievement of the selected composting pro- gram by the following criteria: PXV64W640101S 5- 32 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Composting Incoming yard waste will be monitored for increases in diversion quantities. If quantities remain the same or are reduced due to increased xeric landscaping (utilizing slow- growing. drought -tolerant plant species), this will count toward source reduction and can be monitored through local nurseries and landscapers. • Marketing strategies will be evaluated for effectiveness in moving compost products and whether additional markets or specifications are needed. The City will assist the con- tractor in developing markets through procurement poli- cies and in working with industries. 5.7.3 agencies Responsible for Monitoring, Evaluating, ar.d Reporting The City will be responsible for the program's monitoring. evaluating. and reporting requirements. 5.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues, and Revenue Sources The City Manager's office will assess fees as necessary to fund the required programs which will be added to the user rates. The City will also use municipal financing mechanisms, such as private activity bonds or certificates of participation, as appropriate. 5.7.5 Measuresto be Implemented It There Ts Shortfall in the Diversion Objectives If the diversion objectives for composting are not met. or there is a short- fall in attaining the diversion mandate, the following measures may be impiemented: see Section 5.5.6, Measures to be Taken if Requirement Cannot be Met, for alternatives in the event of a marketing shortfall • increase the level of effort for public education . modify the objectives or diversion alternatives PJF1F641F640101 S 5-33 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 Composting .5.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues. and Revenue Sources The City Manager's office will assess fees as necessary to fund the required programs which will be added to 1he user rates. he City will also use municipal financing mechanisms, such as pnvate activity bonds or certificatesof participation. as appropriate. 5.7.5 Measures to be Implemented if There is a Shortfall In the Diversion Objectives Ifthe diversion objectives for composting are not met. or there is a short- fall in attaining the diversion mandate, the following measures may be implemented: see Section 5.5.6, Measures to be Taken if Requirement Cannot be Met, for alternatives in the event of a marketing shortfall • increase the level of effort for public education modify the objectives or diversion alternatives PJRF64\F6401015 5- 34 Rev 0 December 23.1991 composting Table 5-1 Summary of Composting Alternatives Evaluation Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Ability to Consequences Accommodate on Ire Implementation Facility Alternative 1 Effectiveness Hazard Change Wasteslream Period Requircmerils Expansion of *** *** *** *** *** *** Residential Collection Alternate Residential * Collection Methods * * 1k Or * * Expansion of Industrial Program Allemative Feedstocks ARemathre 2 Expansbn of Windrow *** Composting System WA In -vessel Composting System WA plt1164t1640101S 5-35 fle. Q Uecernber ":9. 1991 Corlloo,4017 piN64V640101 S 5.36 Rev. 0 Decernber 23. 1991 Comrx7",tION'l Additional Considerations Consistency with Local Institutional Estimated End Alternative 1 Plans and Policies Barriers Cost Uses Expansionot Residential Collection NIA Alternate Residential Collection Methods NIA Expansion of Industrial Program WWW NIA Alternative Feedstocks *** to NIA Alternative 2 Expansion of Vftlrow Composting System WWW *** In easel Composting System piN64V640101 S 5.36 Rev. 0 Decernber 23. 1991 Comrx7",tION'l Program Table 5-2 Calendar Of Composling Tasks implementation Tasks Adopt the proposed expansionot the Dblain lunding residential vard waste colleclion and industrial program IExpandthe existing CWRS windrow composting system Purchase carls Modify collection routes it needed Purchase collection vehicles and equipment Begin expanded collection program Developcompost product specifications Develop conceptual design sufficient for environmental review and permitting Acquire state and beat permits Pedwm site N1Vrovemems and screerwV equpywm PurcilaseAnstall processing equipment Start up Full scale operalion Dale 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1991 1991- 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1995 Responsible Enlity City City Franchise Hauler City and Franchise Hauler Franchise Hauler City and Franchise Hauler Franchise Hauler Franchise Hauler Franchise Hauler Franchise Hauler Ftanchtse Hauler Franchise Hauler pOV 41t64o101 S 5-37 Rev 0 December 2.s, 1994 Canposl+ru� Table 5.2 Calendar Of Composting Tasks (continued) Implementation Responsible Program Tasks Date Entity Implement marketing strategy Obtain preliminary contracts for 1993 Franchise Hauler compost products Test market compost products Develop procurement policy 1994 City for the City pPV64V640101 S 5- 38 Rev 0 December 23.1991 Table 5-3 Estimated Annual Costs for Lodi Cornposting Program p111I64',F640101 S 5- 39 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Composting Capital costs Anna) Operating Revenue Sauces' costs Public Private Expand Residential Collection (supply cans to 15,304 5795,640 io if households) 963,900 (equipment) Cost included or in recycling component Expand Industrial Program none 1n0t signilicanty Expand Windrow Composting3 N/A $ 124.000110 248.000 'Hevenues will be obtained from user rates. 2Furiher estimates of capital operating costs are forthcoming from MRS. 3Exclusive of land costs. p111I64',F640101 S 5- 39 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Composting fI V A i w A A 6 SPECIAL WASTE COMPONENT 6.1 Introduction Special wastes are solid wastes that require unique handling and disposal methods because of their health hazard, environmental impact, or physical characteristics. Special wastes are defined in Section 18720. Article 3, Chapter 9, Title 14, CaliforniaCode of Regulations. The special waste components must describe those special wastes identi- fied in the waste generation study for which there is no permitted handling of disposal method within the jurisdiction [14 California Code of Regula- tions, 18737.2(b)]. Thus, this component will primarily discuss tires, white goods. and inert solids. The special wastes alternatives addressed in this component for the City include tires, white goods, and inert solids. The solid waste generation study identified that these waste types are generated in Lodi. Sewage sludge, abandoned vehicles. asbestos, and dead animals are also han- dled within the City; however, ?heywere not encountered in the County's waste characterization study for Lodi and are therefore not discussed in this component. Lodi's solid waste disposal facility is North County Landfill. The landfill accepts the following special wastes: tires, white goods, and small (bagged) dead animals. The nearby Class II Forward, Inc. Landfill in neighboring Stockton accepts asbestos. Forward, Inc. Landfill is a pri- vately owned ana operated, fully permitted Class 11 and Class III land- fill/treatment/recycling facility. It is located in San Joaquin County near Stockton. Forward, Inc. Landfill is permitted to accept asbestos, contami- nated soil ash. treated wood waste, shredder waste. and sewage and wastewater treatment sludge in addition to commercial. industrial and construction/demolition wastes. Neither landfill accepts sewage sludge or abandoned vehicles. However. abandoned vehicles are dealt with effec- tively by existing methods which are described below. PJF1F64tF640101 S 6- 1 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Special waste 6.2 Goals and Objectives The City has developed the following short-term goal related to special wastes: provide opportunities for recycling special wastes generated within ;he City. The City's medium-term goal is the review of the programs developed for handling special wastes and expand or revise these pro- grams as necessary to meet the state -mandated diversion rates. Based on data from the solid waste generation study, objectives have been developed for the special wastes currently generated in Lodi. The following objectives are to be implemented during the short-term planning period (1991-1994) and continued during the medium-term planning period (1995-1999): 1. Develop local recycling programs for targeted special wastes by 1992. 2. Eliminate all recyclable special wastes from the wastestream which may be generated within the City and which are disposed of at County disposal sites by 1995. 3. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a waste -to - energy facility which could serve the long-term needs of the City by 1993. 4. Develop programs to reduce the hazard potential of spe- cial wastes generated within the City of Lodi by 1995. 6.2.1 Targeted Materiels White gcods are targeted for diversion due to their potential hazard. vol- ume, and weight. The County's waste characterization study for Lodi showed that less than 1 percent (or 666 tons) of the wastes disposed of by Lodi residents in 1990 was white goods. Tires are also targeted for diver- sion it Lodi due to their potential hazard and volume. and because they are made of nonrenewable resources. Tires comprised between 1 and 2 percent (approximately 1,100 tons) of Lodi's landfilled wastes. Inert solids are also targeted wastes because they comprise a significant per- centage of Lodi's existing diversion and quantities diverted can vary from year to year depending upon local construction and demolition projects. PJF�F641F640101 S 6 - 42 Rev 0 December 23,1991 Special Waste 6.3 Existing Conditions Description This section describes special wastes and some current management practices for those wastes that are utilized in the City. This section also provides a discussion of those special wastes for which there is currently no permitted handling or disposal facility. Current special waste manage- ment practices that diven special wastes from the landfill will continue through the short-term and medium-term planning periods. None of the existing special waste programs will be either (1) decreased in scope or (2) expanded. 6.3.1 Tires Used tires pose special handling and disposal problems. For example, stockpiled used tires can Collect rainwater and serve as breeding grounds for disease vectors; they can also pose a fire hazard. Tires disposed of in a landfill near the surface tend to 'float" to the surface, thereby interrupting landfill cover. They can cause differential landfill settlement ifconcentrated in one area of the landfill. Tires are considered nonprutrescible waste and, therefore. can be accepted at Class III or unclassified landfills. San Joaquin County's North County Landfill accepts used tires for a fee of $1.00 per tire for car and $3.00 per tire for truck tires. The collected tires are stockpiled at Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill. Oxford Tire Recycling (Oxford) of northern Califor- nia removes the tire stockpile once a month. In 1990, approximately 77 tons of tires were reused or retreaded, 226 tons were transformed, and 1,192 tons of t res were landfilled at Harney Lane Landfill. Oxford receives the tires at its facility in Union City, California. where the tires are separated for delivery to appropriate end use. Tres in good con- dition a -we resold, and casings that can be used for retreaded tires are taken to tire distributors. In the past, tires were also ground to manufacture tire -derived products such as playground covering. floor mats, dock bumpers, floor tiles, and asphalt rubber and rubber modified asphalt. However. present-day economics have made it more cost effective to use the tires for producing energy than to use the energy to grind them. Thus, tires that are not reused or stripped for th6ir casings are then taken to the tire -to -energy plant in Westley, California. This facility. Operated by the Oxford Energy Company, incinerates whole tires to produce steam to generate electricity. This facility plant recovers incineration by-products PJF,F641F640101 S 6 - 3 Rev 0 December 23, 199+ Specrat waste that include fly ash and gypsum. The fly ash containing zinc is shipped to a smeliing facility. Gypsum has nonagricultural land applications. Slag from the steel and fiberglass belts in the tires is recovered and used for road base (i.e., under asphalt). The slag is 95 percent ferrous. Oxford estimates that 25 percent of the collected tires are either resold or used for casings, and 75 percent are used as tire -derived fuel for genera- tion of electricity. However. transformed waste cannot be counted towards the state -mandated diversion rates. By-products of the electricity genera- tion process include 4 tons of gypsum, 8 tons of zinc, and 13 tons of steel for every 100tons of tires transformed. It is unclear at this time whether the reuse of these transformation by-products will qualify as diversion as defined in current statutes and regulations. 632 White Goods White goods are large appliances (such as washers, dryers. and refrig- erators) that have entered the wastestream. White goods have special handling requirements because of their large size and weight and because they may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PQ3s) and chlorofluorocar- bons (CFCs). PCBs are a known human carcinogen, and CFCs have been shown to break down the stratospheric ozone layer. The electrical capacitors and cooling units should be removed before the white goods are placed in a landfill. White goods must be thoroughly crushed before burial to avoid refuse bridging. which can cause uneven compaction of the refuse fill. If the electrical capacitors and cooling snits are not removed before crushing, PCBs and CFCs could be released into the environment. White goods are accepted and placed with metal waste in drop boxes at Harney Lane Landfill. Stockpiled white goods are picked up by LMC Met- als of Stockton. The white goods are sent on to Oakland. along with other scrap metal. The facility in Oakland removes the various recyclable mate- rials. According to the recycling survey, approximately 1 ton of white goods from Lodi are diverted each year at the recycling center. Over 720 tons of white goods generated within the City were disposed of at the Harney Lane Landfill in 1590. PJF1F641F640101 S 6-4 Rev. 1 January 6, 1992 Special Waste 6.3.7 Construction/Demolition Wastes Ramrcck Environmental Recycling Company, Inc. (Ramrock) recycles asphalt, broken concrete, and reinforced concrete at its facility off of High- way 12 . Ramrock`s offices are in the neighboring community of Rockford. Ramrock is working closely with the City, the County, neighboring com- munities. and the California Department of Transportation to develop mar- kets for its materials. The amount of material generated each year (and diverted) is difficult to predict since it is highly dependent upon local con- struction and demolition activity. In 1990, Ramrock claimed to divert 45.000 tons of inert solids. The material was ground and revised as road - base material for local and regional construction projects according to Ramrock officials. 6.4 Evaluation of Alternatives The alternatives evaluated in this section address the objective of estab- lishing programs to divert, to the extent feasible, special wastes from the disposal wastestream. The following special waste alternatives are evaluated below based on the evaluation approach described in Appendix B. As presented in Sec tion 18733.3 of Article 62 of Title 14, the evaluation criteria are as follows: • effectiveness • hazard • ability to accommodate change • consequences on the wastestream • implementation period • facility requirements . consistencywith local plans and policies • institutional barriers • estimated cost • end uses For each evaluation critenon. a rating of it*. **, or * is assigned. and a discussion of potential issues is given. As structured by the regulations PJF1F64T£40101 S 6 - 5 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Special Waste governing AB 939. some of the criteria by which the alternatives are required to be evaluated are positive in tcne (e.g., effectiveness). while others are inherently negative (e.g., hazard). A * * * rating for a positive criterion implies a positive rating; on the other hand, a * * * rating for a negative criterion corresponds to few or no impacts associated with this potential problem. The rating results of the evaluation are summarized in Table 6-1, which is presented at the end of this section. The alternatives described in this component only address those targeted wastes for which there is no established formal diversion program. Thus, in the case of inert solids no alternative is discussed since there is a diver- sion program for those materials. Since historical information is lacking, diversion of inert materials is expected to continue at present levels. How- ever, the City will be working closely with Ramrock officials to develop good records to track diversion and to develop markets for the continued use of those diverted materials. 6.4.1 Alternative 1. White Goods Separation at the CWRS Transfer Station CWRS had recovered white goods in the past at the Lodi Transfer Station, but found the process time consuming and labor intensive. CWRS in its February 1991 Integrated Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan for the City of Lodi stated that it intends to separate white goods at its proposed MRF. The white goods could then be sold to a scrap metal dealer or CWRS staff could dismantle and bale the metals before selling the recy- clable materials. At the stockpile area, electrical capacitors, cooling units, insulation. and wiring would be removed. CWRS will be working closely with the San Joaquin County LEA to develop and establish appropriate procedures and methods for collection and disposal of these materials. The electrical capacitors and cooling units can be recycled. The insulation and wiring would be landfilled. The scrap metal would be sold to a scrap metal dealer. This alternative satisfies the objectives of developing local recycling pro- grams for targeted special wastes to eliminate them from the wastestream and to reduce their hazard potential. Approximately 251 tons per year can be diverted in the short term, and 277 tons per year in the medium term. PJF1F641F640101 S 6 - 6 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 Special Waste This a#temative is evaluated consistent with the required criteria. The results of the evaluation are as foilows: Effectiveness. *** This alternative would be effective in diverting white goods from disposal at Harney Lane Landfill. Hazard. ** Hazards are known and can be controlled. Ability to accommodate change. ** The scrap metal market is affected by changing social. technical. or economic conditions. Consequences on the wastestream. *** This alternative is not expected to affect waste generation. Implementation period. *** Implementation of this alternative can be accomplished in the short term. Facility requirements. *** No additional facilities are requiredto imple- ment this alternative. although it is planned to be implemented in conjunc- tion with the establishment of CWRS' MRF. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This is consistent with CWRS' plans to expand its activities into the collection and handling of white goods at its proposed MRF. Institutional barriers. ** Laws concerning hazardous wastes (PCBs and CFCs) can impact the economics of recycling the electrical capacitors and cooling units. Estimated cost. Unknown. Costs for separation area, storage, and han- dling are being developed by CWRS and are not available at this time. End Lases. *** Historically, scrap metal markets have been fairly stable. However, these markets do fluctuate in response to changing economic conditions. 6.4.2 Attemative 2 Used Tire Separation at the CWRS Transfer Station CWRS personnel have indicated they have plans to separate tires from wastes received at the Lodi Transft, E Station. CWRS will sell the tires to Oxford. Stockpiled tires can then be recovered by a tire recycler, with the stipulation that the tire recycler find the best use for used tires based on the condition of the individual tires. Used tires can be physically reused PJF1F64T640101 S 6 - 7 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Special Waste (resold, artificial reefs. erosion control). converted to tire derived products (playground mats, dock protection), or can be incinerated for energy. Presently. many of the local automotive businesses and the dealers make their own arrangements with Oxford to collect tires. However, because of CWRS' exclusive collection franchise in Lodi, CWRS could assume this role. Becausethe tires would all be consolidated by CWRS. there could be some economies of scale achieved in terms of transporting tires to the Oxford facility. Additional dversion of tires is projected to be 331 tons Per year in the short term and 443 tons per year in the medium term. This alternative satisfies the objectives of developing local recycling pro- grams for targeted special wastes to eliminate them from the wastestream and to reduce their hazard potential. This alternative is evaluated consistent with the required criteria. The results of the evaluation are as follows: Effectiveness. *** This alternative would be effective in diverting tires from disposal. Hazard. ** Hazards. such as fire, are known and can be controlled. Ability to accommodate change. ** This alternative is flexible to change. Oxford will always accept those tires that would exceed the stockpile limit at CWRS. Consequences on the wastestream. *** This alternative is not expected to affect waste type generation. Implementation period. *** Implementation of this alternative can be accomplished in the short term. Facility requirements. *** No additional facilities are required to imple- ment this alternative. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** This alternative is consistentwith CWRS' plans for tire diversion in Lod. Institutional barriers. *** There are no known institutional barriers to this alternative. PJF1F64tF640101S 6-8 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Special Waste Estimated cost. Unknown. costs for storage and handling are being pro- vided by CWRS and are not available at this time. End uses. * * The market for used tires is relatively unstable. 6.4.3 Alternative 3. Feasibility Study for a Waste-to-Energy(WTE) Facility In 1986, Dave vaccarezza, president of CWRS, completed a preliminary WTE feasibility study to determine whether WTE would be an option CWRS could pursue. At that time, such a facility was deemed infeasible by CWRS. However, the City's task force has recommended that the issue be reexamined in brief before dismissing WTE as impractical. When considering WTE, it is important to note that AB 939 does not allow transformation methods to count towards the initial 25 percent mandated waste reduction, and only a 10 percent diversion can count after 1995 toward the required 50 percent diversion by 2000 amount. However, members of the Lodi solid waste managementtask force want to consider this alternative to advance their ultimate goal of maximum landfill diver- sion. Their first goal is to recycle, reduce, and reuse. Their secondary goal is to reduce the waste disposed of in landfills. Thus from their perspective, a facility with front-end diversion of recyclables is a viable alternative in an integrated waste management system, where the intent is to divert materi- als to their highest and best use and minimize materials which are land- filled. The City of Lodi has several features which may make a WTE facility desirable. These include • a municipal electrical utility which can be the long-term market for base -load power • increasing costs to purchase power from the various sup- pliers currently serving the municipal electrical utility • plans to install a power plant at the White Slough facility, which is located adjacent to the power grid • a proposed MRF to function as a front-end separation point • for indication of local interest to partially or fully finance such a facility • a focus on remaining low/no treating value materials from the wastestream as part of the SRRE . such as bottles. cans, yard waste, metals. food wastes. and inerts City staff intend to conduct a very conceptual feasibility study of the con- cept, and work with the City solid waste management task force to deter- mine how this option should be expanded. This alternative satisfies the objective to investigate the feasibility of establishing a WTE facility to serve the long-term needs of the City. Effectiveness in reducing quantity of targeted materials. Not applica- ble. A WTE feasibility study will not have a direct impact on targeted mate- rials at this time. Hazard. *** There are no hazards associated with a feasibility study. Abliity to accommodate change. *** This alternative is controversial because the state's integrated waste management hierarchy is structured to discourage WTE. There are also many environmental groups which actively lobby the state legislature and CIWMB to discourage any type of transformation project in an integrated waste management system. If a WTE facility were to be constructed, it would not easily accommodate changing economic. technologic, or social conditions because of the large capital investment required. However, at the feasibility stage, flexibility in evaluating concepts and technologies is high. Consequences on the wastestream. *** A feasibility study is not expected to affect waste generation. implementation. *** Implementation of this alternative Is planned for near the end of the short-term planning period. Facility requirements. Not applicable for a feasibilifystudy. Consistency with local plans and policies. *** The City's task force has expressed its desire to further evaluate the feasibility of WTE as an alternative to landfill disposal. Institutional barriers. ** Environmental groups in Lodi and surrounding areas and local citizens could resist a feasibility study being conducted. However, these are partially offset by active support from the City's task force. Estimated cost. *** The costs for a conceptual feasibility study con- ducted by City staff have been estimated by the Lodi solid waste man- agement task force to be $2.000 to $3,500. End uses. Not applicable for a feasibility study. 6.5 Selection of Program This section identifies the new programs that have been selected to be implemented in the City, a discussion of why the program{s} were selected, and a description of the quantities and types of wastes antici- pated to be diverted, applicable end uses, handling and disposal methods, and facilities to be utilized for implementation. The selection of programs was based on the results of the alternatives evaluation and the ease of implementation i n the City. 6.5.1 Selected Alternatives The alternatives selected for implementation are tire separation and white goods separation and investigating the feasibility of establishing a WTE facility. White goods and tire separation alternatives were selected because both of these special wastes were found in the waste generation study and CWRS already has indicated they intend to divert these materi- als. The WTE feasibility sludy alternative was selected because reducing waste disposed is an important goal for the City. Further study of this option is warranted. The evaluation results indicate that all of the alterna- tives selected are reasonable and appropriate for Lodi's special waste needs. These alternatives are consistent with the City's stated objectives. 6.5.2 Quantities and Types of Wastes Anticipated to be Diverted Increased diversion from proposed new programs White hoods diversion Short term: 250 tons per year Medium term: 420 to 736 tons per year PJF\F641F640101 S 6- 11 Rev.1 January 6.1992 Special Waste Tire separation Short term: Medium term: WTE feasibility 331 tons per year 443 tons per year None attributable until after feasibility is confirmed. Diversion from existing programs White roods Shon term: Medium term: Tire separation Short term: Medium term: 1 ton per year 1 ton per year 84 tons per year 93 tons per year Total anticlpated diversion for special wastes Short term: 416 tons per year Medium term: 537 tons per year The percentage towards diversion goals will be approximately 0.55 per- cent for both the short- and medium-term planning periods. 6.5.3 Applicable End Uses Ends uses for the tires include retreading and reuse. Tires can also be used as fuel although they cannot be counted toward A 0 939's 1994 diversion goals. Metals from white goods can be recycled. Oil from motors can be drained, collected, and recycles' for reuse. 6.5.4 Handling and Disposal Methods Ideal! 111 tires and white goods should be diverted through these pro- grams although, to be conservative, a 50 percent capture rate could be assumed. Those that cannot be diverted by CWRS will most likely be diverted by the County at the nearby North County Recycling Facility and Landfill. 6.5.5 Facilities to be Utilized for Implementation The City is not planning to develop any new facilities to implement these alternatives other than those proposed by CWRS as discussed in the pre- vious sections. 6.6 Program Implementation This section presents an identification of the organizations responsible for implementation. tasks necessary to implement the selected programs, short-term and medium-term planning period implementation schedules, and implementation costs. 6.6.1 Organizations Responsiblefor Implementation CWRS has expressed its intent to undertake diversion of both white goods and tires. The City Manager's office will be responsible for conducting the WTE feasibility study. 6.6.2Tasks Necessaryto Implement Program Tasks that are required for implementation include (1) discussions with CWRS to establish an acceptable method to separate tires and white goods from the refuse and (2) completion of a conceptual WTE feasibility study by City staff. Should conceptual feasibility for WTE be confirmed. then the City should retain a qualified consultant. These tasks will all be completed in the short term. Table 6-2 illustrates the tasks required. 6.6.3 Short-term and Medium-term Planning Period Implementation Schedule Table 6-2 illustrates the implementation schedule. Separation of these special wastes can be accomplished in the short term. The feasibility study can also be completedwithin this time period. 6.6.4 Implementation Costs, Revenues, and Revenue Sources Costs for implementing tire and white good separation are being devel- oped by CWRS and are not available at this time. Revenues from the sale of the scrap metal and tires will help CWRS offset the costs of the separa- tion programs. CWRS will pass any costs on to the rate payers to the extent allowed by the Lodi City Council. 6.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 6.7.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives The following methods will be used to monitor the achievement of the objectives identified in Section 6.2 and to quantify diversion rates from landfills, transformation facilities. and reduction of waste hazards. Quantifi- cation will be in volume or weight and in percent of total waste generated. Track the quantity of tires and white goods diverted by means of accurate recordkeeping practices. Monitor the markets to which the tires and white goods are diverted so that they are not being disposed of. . Perform waste disposal characterization studies targeting special waste. . Review the results from WTE feasibility study. 6.7.2 Criteria for Evaluating Programs' Effectiveness The City will evaluate the success of the special waste programs by the following criteria: Are the objectives of the special waste component being achieved? Was implementation of the alternative accomplished on schedule? Are special wastes being managed in a way that mini- mizes hazards to public health and safety and the envi- ronment? Are special wastes managed consistent with applicable permits and regulations? 6.7.3 Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluating, and Reporting The City Manager's office is responsible for managing solid waste. It would also be responsible for monitoring. evaluating, and reporting the effective- ness of the alternative program implemented. PJRF641F640101 S 6 14 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Special Waste 6.7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation of Funding Requirements CWRS will be required by the City to keep records of tire and white good quantities. These quantities will be reported to the City. Also, development of the request for proposals and coordinating with the consultant hired to conduct the feasibility study will take staff time. Funding requirements for these activities will be updated annually. Seethe funding component. Sec- tions 9.1, 9.2. and 9.3 and Tables 9-1 and 9-2 for more details. 6.75 Measures to be Implemented It Special Waste Objectives are Not Achieved The following measures will be implemented if the objectives identified in Section 6.2are not achieved: require that all special waste generated in Lodi be diverted to the CWRS transfer/material recovery station. locate additional end uses if anticipated end uses are not available increase frequency of monitoring/reVew of CWRS pro- gram . modify objectives or diversion alternatives PJF\F641F640101 S 5- 15 Rev. 0 December 23,1991 Special Waste pjN6411640101 S 6- 16 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Speco/ Wive Evaluation Criteria Consequences on the Implementation Facility Program Alternatives Effectiveness Hazard Flexibility Wastestream Period Requirements Aiternative 1 WhiteGoads *** ** ** *** *** *** Separation at CWRS Alternativ 2 Used Tire Separation at CWRS * # Alt-emative3 Waste -to -Energy * * Facil'dy Feasbilify Study NA NA pjN6411640101 S 6- 16 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 Speco/ Wive Table 6-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (continued) PiN641i640101 S 6- 17 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Special Wasto Addlt€onal Considerations Consistency with Local Institutlonal Estimated End Plans and Policies Barriers Cost uses Alternative 1 White Good Separation at CWRS Unknown Alternative 2 Used Tire *** *** Separation at CWRS Unknown An emative Waste -to -Energy Facility Feasbitity Study NA Myra PiN641i640101 S 6- 17 Rev 0 December 23, 1991 Special Wasto Fargeted Naste Table 6-2 Calendar of Special Waste Tasks Type of Program Short-term Plannincs PGrIod (� i-19941 Tires Separate tires at MRS White Goods Nonrecyclable and Noncomxstable was -es While goods separation at MRS Developfeasit I4 study for a Lodi waste -to -energy plant Implementation Tasks Date Developmethodto feparate incondng 1992 waste and store tires. set prices for tire dlsposat at MRS. make arrangements for transportation to processing facility. Davelop methodto separate incoming 1992 waste and storewhite goods. set prices for white goods incomfg to CWRS. make arrangements tOr trans- portationfor processing. Develop a conceptual teasblity study. 1992 report results to local task torte and Cily Counal. Re-evaluate program needs and expand programs as necessary PJF1 -,_ c , O t S 6- 18 Rev. 0 December 73, 1991 Special Waste r 10STING •Vrfr?�.a•. yAMC.. EDUC-ATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION 7 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION COMPONENT 7.1 Introduction The City of Lodi intends to encourage its citizens to develop waste reduc- tion behavior through increased education and public int ^_ rmation. The City intends to foster a positive environment which encourages and rewards a waste reduction ethic in the community. By drawing upon a sense at community and a desire to create a viable environment for future genera- tions, a proactive education and public information program about inte- grated solid waste management will play a significant role in the success of Lodi's waste reduction programs. Education and public information are separate mechanisms that work together towards a common goal. Education is an ongoing activity that explains. through knowledge and awareness, why waste reduction pro grams are necessary. Public information is a method of letting the public know how to ettectivety participate in programs. Both ongoing education and public information are essential to the successful implementation of the source reduction, recycling. composting, funding, special waste, facility capacity, and integration components of the SRRE. The education and public information component is thus the mechanism that facilitates the success of all the other SRRE components. Lodi's franchise refuse hauler. California Waste Removal Systems, has an excellent ongoing program to educate and inform the public about solid waste rrianagement issues. CWRS is proceeding with an aggressive and proactive campaign 10 expand and improve upon its current programs. With the programs out- lined in these components, the City will continue to foster and encourage CWRS ongoing efforts and will also begin to take a more active role in educating and informing the public about solid waste issues. Changing the behavior of the community as a whole is an essential com- ponent of these programs. In order to reach state -mandated waste reduc- PJF\F641F640101S 7 1 Rev 1 December 27, 1991 Education and Public Information tion goals of 25 and 50 percent, Lodi must reach all sectors of its popula- tion with effective public information activities in the community. This component presents education and public information objectives and identifies CWRS' existing programs and proposed education and public information activities for achieving Lodi's objectives. All revenues from residential recycling, including those which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. 72 Goals The City established the following short-term goals for public education and information: 1. Encourage and maintain public information and education programs iin the community in order to heighten public knowledge and awareness of solid waste management issues. 2. Involve prfvate solid waste refuse collectors, recyclers, citizen action groups. and other interested parties in the integrated solid waste management planning process and the implementation of necessary programs. 3. Support and encourage interjurisdictional cooperation in integrated waste management planning and implementa- tion. 4. Promote and support public/prlvate partnerships whkh work to achieve integrated solid waste management in Lodi. Goals forthe medium term are related to reviewing each program for effectiveness and revising or moditying the programs as needed to meet the diversion goals. Goals for the medium term are related to reviewing each program for effectiveness and revising or modifying the programs, as needed, to meet the diversion goals of this SRRE. 7.3 Component Objectives The City has developed the following education and public Information objectives to be implemented in the short-term planning period (1991 through 1995) and continue during the medium-term planning period (1995 through 1999). PJF1F641F640101 S 7 . 2 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public Inlormation Increase and maintain citizen awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. 2. Increase the number of people participating in programs for source reduction, recycling, and composting through the following activities: a. Continue and expand CWRS' existing waste audit pro- grams for business and commercial establishments. b. Coordinate with local community service business organizations and San Joaquin County in developing public outreach materials to be dishbuted at public events which present a consistent message capable of reaching a broad cross section of City residents. c. Expand upon CWRS' existing speakers' bureau to include City staff and local/regional refuse haulers and recyclers for schools, community groups, and busi- ness groups to disseminate information concerning Wal solid waste issues and new technologies. d. Develop additional educational brochures and other easily read materials (to supplement CWRS' existing materials) that can be included as inserts with local utility bills, as well as distributed via events, public pre- sentations (e.g., to schools and business groups), and special mailings. e. Continue dissemination of promotional materials including CWRS' posters, book covers, pencils, m a g nets, buttons, and stickers. f. Establish City -sponsored public recognition, awards, contests, and dsplays designed to encourage busi- nesses to recycle and reduce their wastes by 1-992. g. Establish a block leader or similar program to encour- age a network of citizen recyclers. The City VAII investi- gate the feasibility of using existing volunteer commu- nity service officers for this purpose. h. Establish a public education program aimed at multi- family dwellers. L Establish a 'new resident" education and Information packet describing the City's source reduction. recy- cling, and composting programs. PJF1F641F640101S 7 - 3 Rev. 1 Decemher 27.1991 Fducafion and Public Information Establish an ongoing communications program with difforent sectors d the community (e.g.; residents and businesses) about local solid waste issues through either a regular City -sponsored newsletter or a column in the local newspaper by 1991. k. Use the City's source reduction program as an exam- ple; conduct public information programs which iden- tify methods to increase source reduction. 1. Integrate environmental concerns and solutions to the solid waste crisis across the curricula for all schools within the Lodi Unified School District by 1993 and for all private and parochial schools by 1994. 7.4 Existing Conditions Descrfption The City solid waste management task force has established a public information subcommittee. This subcommittee is presently investigating methods to expand the Citys public involvement iffzts and has spon- sored a column. Wasteline,' about solid waste issues in the Lodi Sentinel. Working together, the City government, the City's task force, and CWRS will develop more education and public information programs to supple- ment the existing programs. To date, CWRS has been the only entity con- ducting public education and 4iformation programs in Lodi on source reduction. recycling, and composting. CWRS will continue to implement and expand its education and information programs. However, the City, through the solid waste management task force and the public information subcommittee. intends to take a more active role in the public education and information programs. The following section provides a brief description of education and public information programs presently conducted by CWRS and provided to City businesses, schools, and organizations. 7.4.1 City -sponsored Residential and Commercial Programs The City Solid Waste Management Task Force has recently established a column in the local newspaper called "Wastellne" to educate and inform residents about the City's recycling efforts. The colunn tracks the City's progress towards meeting its recycling goals. PJF\F641F6401 01 S 7-4 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public Information The Lodi Unified School District science task force, working with CWRS, has developed a recycling educational program. See Section 7.4.2 below for more details. Also, the City does have a fall municipal leaf program which it publicizes by placing an announcement with a schedule in the Lodi Sentinel. Also, the street superintendent explains the program on a local television sta- tion. Residents place their leaves by the curb. CWRS uses the leaves in its composting program. All revenues from residential recycling, including those which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. 7.4.2 Residential and Commercial Programs (Sponsored by CWRS) Office paper recycling program. CWRS has a recycling program for office white paper that requires each participating business to designate one or more employees as the recycling coordinator. The coordinator oversees and encourages all other employees to be aware of and partici- pate in the company recycling plan. CWRS also sponsors a program for white office paper in all schools and local school district offices. CWRS also gives presentations to all grade levels. Other school activities such as field trips, literature, and science equipment are partially funded from the sale of recyclables from the curbside recycling program. CWRS' school programs include schools in the Lodi Unified School District and local parochial and private schools. School education programs. CWRS and the Lodi Unified School Distract science task force have developed a recycling educational program which has been approved by the state of California. The program includes kindergarten through eighth grade classroom science lessons about recy- cling and the preservation of natural resources. Each student Is given a "People Who Care' storybook and a 'Recycling Ranger" certificate. The school program also includes presentations given by CWRS to school assemblies in which students participate in a skit about how recycling newspaper saves trees. The program also provides receptacles for collec- tion of newspapers and aluminum cans at the schools to reinforce the lessons learned in school. The funds from the sale of the materials are used for extracurricular student activities. PJF1F641F640101 S 7 - 5 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public Information All revenues from residential recycling. including those which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. Community accounts programs. CWRS operates a community accounts program that allows public and private schools in Lodi, clubs, churches, and other nonprofit organizations to receive the funds from their recyclables for their organization. CWRS provides containers for the recy- clables. The organization coIlects the recyclables. CWRS then collects the containers and credits the organization with the prevailing market rate. Alternatively, the organization can take the recyclables themselves to one of the buy-back centers operated by CWRS. where CWRS will weigh the materials and credit their community account. All revenuesfrom residential recycling. includingthose which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. Speakers' bureau. CWRS has a speakers' bureau. to provide technical assistance and education to interested businesses/groups. CWRS con- ducts waste audits of local businesses to help them determine what they can recycle and reduce from their wastestream. Other CWRS public Information programs. CWRS has used public television to disseminate information about its recycling services and pro- grams. CWRS also uses advertisements and press releases as well as door hangers to disseminate information for residents explaining CWRS services. CWRS uses surveys to get customers feedback about its programs. They have had a 40 percent response rate for past surveys. CWRS also has a new residents program to educate new customers about its services. Examples of CWRS' public education and information materials are included in Appendix D. 7.5 Program Selection The following section provides a summary of education and public infor- mation programs selected by the City to augment the existing programs. The programs are categorized into four categories: communication, out- reach, technical assistance, and campaigns. The implementation of these PJF1F641F640101 S 7 - 6 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education anal Public Information programs and their integration with source reduction. recycling. and com- posting activities is outlined in tho integration component. 7.5.1 Public information and Outreach Educational brochures and materials. There are many topics and types of brochures, flyers, and pamphlets that can be used to educate commu- nity members about source reduction. recycling, composting. and special waste management. One-page flyers can be distributed at putAic event presentations or by special mailings. This can be cost effective (assuming the flyer weighs very little), since it allows more information to be mailed for the same total postage cost. Inserts can be about upcoming events, presentations, field trips, how to stop receiving junk mail, ways to source reduce waste, and prepare recyclables for disposal. CWRS distributes promotional and educational materials such as flyers, door hangers, and brochures. These brochures wf continue to be dis- tributed by participating nonprofit associations. the solid waste task force. senior citizen committees. CWRS field operators. and City Staff. Those services provided as part of the programs offered by CWRS are intended to be recovered through the rate base. This program satisfies the local task force public education and Informa- tion objective 2k. Media Involvement. Virtually every radio and television station offersfree air time to nonprofit organizations to announce an event or present an issue. For example. Channels 3 and 13 provide this service. The City, through its solid wnste r,,anagement task force, will take advantage of this by working with lu,;. , service organizations to sponsor public sewice announcements. In addition, the City will notify local newspapers about upcoming programs or events and prepare news releases which provide background information. In many cases, this could lead to a feature article. The City Solid Waste Management Task Force is presently investigating the use of radio announcements to target the City's Hispanic community and get them involved in thu City's recycaing efforts. CWRS currently contacts media to cover major events and programs which they sponsor or undertake. CWRS plans to continue to use the media whenever possible to promote its activities and programs. RJRFUT640104 S 7 - 7 Rev. t December 27.1991 Education and Public lnformafion Speakers' bureau. CWRS has indicated a willingness to expand its speakers' bureau to inciude City staff and regional reiuse haulers and recyclers to provide information to groups wanting to learn about local and regional solid waste issues and new technologies. as well as other aspects of source reduction and recycling. Alternatively. the City could establish its own speakers' bureau to augment CWRS'. The City or CWRS should publish a list of selected topics and guest lecturers in the local newspaper. In addition, the City task force will request that the Lodi Sen- tinel prepare a feature article which reports on each of the lectures. This program satisfies the City's public education and information objec- tives 2c and 2d. Newsletter. The City, through the solid waste management task force. will establish an outreach effort aimed at both the residents and business sectors of the community either by developing a newsletter or adding a section on solid waste issues to the City's current newsletter which focuses on electftty and water issues. CWRS recently issued a newsletter which promotes its services end pro- grams. CWRS hopes to recover the cost of this public service through the rate base. The City and CWRS should coordinate their newsletters to avoid duplication of effort. The newsletters could contain information on solid waste issues, as well as other environmental issues, such as water and energy conservation, transportation. and pollution. The broader the scope. the more likely residents will read it. This program satisfies the public education and information objective 2j. Coordlnatlon with City community groups. The City, through the solid waste management task force, proposes to work closely with community groups. organizations, and San Joaquin County to develop and dissemi- nate information about local and regional waste managemont issues. CWRS intends to continue its work with the Lodi Unified School District, as well as coordinate efforts with the citizens of Lodi, the solid waste task force, and the City. CWRS has indicated that it will continue to employ Lodi residents and make special arrangements to provide employment to senior and handicapped citizens. In order to enlist the assistance of these groups, it will first be necessary to educate and inform them about the solid waste management issues. This will likely take the form of Presentations to each of these groups on solid PJF1F641F640101 S 7 - 8 Rev. ! December 27.1991 Education and Pl3lic lnlormation waste topics through the speakers' bureau and block leader programs. Once informed, the name recognition and credibility of community groups such as the Woman's Club. the Sierra Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters. or community service officers foster the likelihood of broad acceptance of AB 939 programs in the City. This program satisfies the City's public education and information objec- tive 2b. Coordination with nonprofit organizations. The My and CWRS will use volunteer services of nonprofit organizations for community outreach, ss feasible and practical. These organizations, such as youth groups of all types. and the Boy Scouts of America, serve to augment the public educa- tion programs. For example, a public education program on recycling. source reduction, and composting could be integrated into the Eagle Scout community service project for the B o y Scouts. Internship program. Funding an internship program for students from surrounding universities is a cost-effective method of augmenting City staff and volunteer groups to implement public education programs. Thus, the City will consider investigating the feasibility of sponsoring a waste reduc- tion internship to provide a community relations opportunity as well as additional staffing to assist with education and public information pro- grams. Alternatively. as part of its active program in area schools, CWRS could implement a summer internship program. 7.52 Technical Assistance Programs Workshops. Workshops and presentations wilt be offered by the City to targeted waste generators. Some of these programs could be videotaped and broadcast on the local public access television station. The workshop presentations could address practical ways to reduce the quantity of wastes generated. Proposed topics could possibly include source reduc- tion, business procurement practices, increased manufacturing efficiency, backyard composting of yard wastes, and contaminant concerns in recy- cling markets. Another possible topic would be to present the City's source reduction program as a model program after it is established. A slide show presentation of local or regional model waste reduction programs would be a useful aid for the workshops and programs. It should be mentioned that although MRS and the City do not endorse backyard composting, prefer- PJF\F64tF640101 S 7 - 9 Rev. 1 December 27. 1991 Education and Public Inlomution ring instead to use CWRS' program, the City will provide information on backyard composting to those individualsthat are interested. This program satisfies the City's public education and information objec- tive 2k. Waste audits. Waste audits help commercial and industrial businesses learn specifically how to recycle and reduce their waste by evaluating what kind of waste they produce. CWRS plans to expand its waste audit pro- gram to include all commercial and industrial customers. This would include providing services to apartments. office buildings. eating and drinking establishments. wholesale and retail establishments, food stores, educational facilities, health services. and others. This program will help involve the industrial and commercial sectors of the community in CWRS' recycling and source reduction programs. This program satisfies the public education and information objective 2a. Also, this program was covered in more detail in the Source Reduction Component, Section 3. Field trips. The City and CWRS will coordinate field trips for students and other interested parties to see various solid waste programs. CWRS plans to expand its Lodi Unified School District program which currently includes funds for school field trips. CWRS has plans to provide an on-site class- room with displays and demonstrations at its new proposed MRF. The class will provide hands-on activities for the participants. Recommended field trips include CWRS' classroom at its MRF or a 'hands-on" com- posting teaching project at the composting facility. Touring other success- ful and innovativewaste reduction operations occurring locally or in nearby communities would allow students to see firsthand how a business recy- cling program operates. The program will provide public education about the composting process by walking through the steps from yard waste decomposition into a finished compost product. This program satisfies the public education and Information objective 21. Guideline booklets. The City will develop or obtain booklets, or both, for use by schools, businesses, government, and residents providing techni- cal information on where and how to recycle and source reduce wastes. This will include developing brochures for all municipal employees explaining the nature of the various local recycling programs and how to respond to inquiries. They will also produce updates regarding current PJF1F641F640101 S 7- 10 Rev. 1 December 27, 1991 Education and Public Information laws and regulations affecting recycling and waste planning and manage- ment information. Information on composting. household hazardous waste. tires, oil. and other materials that require special handling will be included. Another educational guide would be to prepare a source reduc- tion shopping checklist for consumers. The checklist would focus on crite- ria consumers can use when buying products. including durability, reusability, recyclability, and minimal packaging. This information is intended to supplement the printed materials already offered by CWRS. Solid waste curricula (many of them free) are available for all ages from several sources. For example, the U.S. Environmenfal Protection Agenc). publishes free educational materials about solid waste generation and management for grades kindergarten through 12, as does the CIWMB. The states of Washington, Connecticut, and Rhode Island also have school curricula which they will provide to other states or agencies upon request for the aost of reproduction. This program satisfies the public education and information objective 2c. 7.5.3 Campaigns and Motivatl ng Activities Kick-off rally. CWRS has indicated that it intends to have a kick-off rally to promote its integrated solid waste management programs and activities. CWRS indicates this will include a full-page advertisement in the Lodi Sentinel announcing the beginning of its program with the date, time, and location of the rally and various promotional programs. The advertisement is intended to encourage participation and enthusiasm among the com- munity for CWRS' recycling and waste reduction programs. This program satisfies the public education and information objective 21. Community posters and flyers. One method to motivate residents is to develop community posters and flyers such as a recycling status sheet similar to the 'Wasteline" column in the paper. The status sheet would inform residents about the City's diversion targets for 1995 and 2000 and show the current diversion rate. This information might be accompanied by a waste diversion thermometer. The City has already developed a logo and is tracking progress towards the diversion goals. The progress is noted ir. the newspaper column entitled "Wasteline.' This "thermometer" could also be printed as an insert for the City utility bills or as poster boards placed in highly visible areas around the community, such as the City library display case, the Hutchins Street Square Marquee. post PJF'%F641F6401011S 7- 11 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public lnlormalion offices, grocery stores, and City buildings. The waste diversion ther- mometer would serve as a cinstant reminder that the City needs to con- tinue its vigilant efforts to reduce waste. CWRS is planning to prepare promotional signs. flyers, posters. bumper stickers. street banners, and t -shirts advertising the various recycling ser- vices and programs it offers. Other promotional materials proposed by CWRS include book covers. pencils, magnets. buttons. and stickers. This program satisfies the public education and information objective 2e. Block leader program. The City will evaluate establishing a block leader or similar program to encourage a network of citizens working together to recycle. The program could use community service officers as a corner- stone of the program. A community service officer could be designated to motivate and encourage people in an area to recycle. source reduce, and provide information about the City's solid waste program describing why and howto participate. This program satisfies local task force public education and information objectives 2g, 2h, and 2i. Puollc recognition and awards. Public recognition and awards will be used by the City and CWRS to acknowledge businesses that have imple- mented "model" source reduction and recycling programs. Awards could be given as incentives. Activities designed to increase recycling and source reduction behavior and reward that behavior with public recognition will strengthen the pub- lic's awareness of need to recycle. The recognition and award campaigns will be formulated appropiately for the target audience. All revenuesfrom residential recycling, including those which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. This program satisfies the public education and information objective 2f. 7.6 Targeted Generators AJ ravenues from residential recycling, including those which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. PJRF64T640101 S 7- 12 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public InlornWion CWRS has an aggressive and proactive education and information pro- gram which presently targets all waste generators in Lodi, With this SRRE, the City will focus on a broader spectrum of solid waste management than CWRS, whose efforts are more focused on its immediate programs. Together, both CWRS and the City will implement a broad-based public education and information program carefully designed to reach all Sectors of Lodi's population. After reviewing the existing programs and waste characterization data from the solid waste generation study, the City local task force proposes to target the following solid waste generators as recipients of CWRS' and the City's education and public information programs: • commercial/industrial, including institutional and local government, construction/demolition projects, and hospital and homecare units • residential, including single-family and multifamily dwellings • new developers schools, including education curricula for grades kinder- garten through 12 The commercial and residential sectors generate different quantities and types of waste. Each sector also has its own unique needs; these differing needs will be addressed in the City's education and public information program. 7.7 Program Implementation 7.7.1 Government Agencies Responsible for Implementation The City manager's office will be responsible for coordinating the overall public education and information efforts for both CWRS and the City so that they are consistent with City goals, objectives, and policies and so that they do not unnecessarily duplicate one another. The City will now take the lead in fostering a positive environment for future source reduc- tion, recycling, and composting activities. The City will be responsible for coordinating all outreach, communication, and media programs. PJF1F641F640101 S 7- 13 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public Infomiation Because CWRS has been the main provider of solid waste education and information programs in the past, its expertise and knowledge will be invaluable in future programs. CWRS has already developed many plans to further its efforts in recycling and waste diversion as noted in Sec- tion 7.7. Thus, CWRS must coordinate with the City. so that the programs proposed by CWRS are consistentwith City goals and policies. The City should either designate someone to be responsible for coordi- nating Uffs solid waste public education and public information efforts with CRWS or consider contracting for such services. It is key that the City begin coordinating the overall public education and information efiorts as soon as possible to capitalize on Lodi's strong sense of community. CWRS has indicated that it will track its own collection and recycling pro- grams via weekly. bimonthly, and monthly management reviews. CWRS plans to develop a "customer feedback group' for residential, commercial. and industrial sectors to provide feedback on the degree of success achieved in its programs in terms of customer perceptions. They will also look at participation and diversion rates as well as feedback from City Council and staff, the solid waste task force, and field operators. The City should allocate sufficient resources to organize and coordinate all the public information and education activities, so that they are consistent with City policy and the SRRE goals and objectives. The coordinator should also be responsible for tracking, monitoring, and evaluating the progress of each of the specific programs as they are developed and implemented by either the City or by MRS. 7.7.2 Actions Necessary to Implement Activities The tasks necessary to implement the education and public information activities are summarized in Tables 7-1 through 7-3, The implementation tasks are presented for source reduction, recycling, and composting by selected waste reduction programs. Before Lodi expands its public education program. the City should review its staffing and determine if a new position is warranted or if it can be incorporated into the duties of another position. A job description will need to be developed for this position. PJF\F64\F640101 S 7- 14 Rev. 1 December 27, 1991 Education and Public Iftrmatson 7.7.3 Implementation Schedule The implementation schedule for the education and public information activities is also presented in Tables 7-1 through 7-3. The implementation schedule for education and public information is presented by each com- ponent's selected waste reduction programs. 7.74 Implementation Costs The cost of one additional half-time staff member plus (public/private) pro- gram implementation costs are expected to be approximately $60.000 annually and increase 2 percent per year. Ifthe City decides to have CWRS conduct all or a portion of the public information and eduction programs, CWRS will recover its costs in the collection rates charged to the customers, which must also be approved by the Lodi City Council. All revenues from residential recycling. including those which are collected from schools, are to be included in arriving at the methodology for setting collection rates. 7.8 Monitoring and Evaluation 7.8.1 Methods to Quantify and Monitor Achievement of Objectives The objectives of Lodi's education and public information program are to increase the public's participation in CWRS waste diversion programs and to heighten awareness of the need to reduce, reuse, compost, and recy- cle. To monitor the achievement of these objectives, staff will review each program on a regular basis. An example of one monitoring method, which is used by CWRS, involves using a door hanger with a detachable post - Card survey to obtain customer feedback about CWRS' curbside recycling program. This survey is in Appendix D. To track the programs, the staff person will review program records or conduct surveys. or both, on a reg- ular basis. If surveys are used, they might be (1) written surveys dis- tributed during program activities or when appropriate and (2) random telephone or shopping mall surveys of the participants or City residents. The random survey will target a representative sample of the public and will focus on the public's awareness of various waste diversion programs available in the City. In addition. the survey will assist in identifying the rei- PJRF64IF640101 S 7- 15 Rev. 1 December 27, 1991 Education and Public lnlorfmhon ative effectiveness of alternative education and public information tech- niques. Surveys will also be conducted annually by the City at each of Lodi's local recycling buy-back centers to determine if the number of new residents utilizing the service is increasing. Measurement tools will be an integrated component of public information and education activities. whenever Possi- ble. CWRS will conduct surveys at its own buy-back centers and will be required to provide that information to the City. 7.8.2 Written Criteria for Evaluating the Programs' Effectiveness Lodi will evaluate the effectiveness of the education and public information programs by addressing the following issues: Have the participation rates in respective waste diversion programs increased and, if so, by how much? Has the City/CWRS received more inquiries about avail- able waste diversion services? Was there sufficient City/CWRS staffing and resources to implement the education and public information programs outlined in the SRRE? Do the targeted generators have a greater awareness of the importance of diverting wastes from land disposal based upon random surveys conducted by City/CWRS staff? 7.8.3 Agencies, Organizations, or Persons (or a Combination) Responsible for the Programs' Monitoring, Evaluating, and Reporting The City Managers office will be responsible for monitoring and indepen- dently evaluating the effectiveness of the education and public information programs. The City will need to work closely with the Lodi Unified School District and CWRS to independently assess the effectiveness of their pro- grams as well. PJRF641F640101 S 7-16 Rev. t December 27, 1991 Education and Public Information 7.8.4 Monitoring and Evaluating Funding Requirements, Revenues, and Revenue Sources Funding is needed for staffing and support services to monitor the etfec- tiveness of the education and information programs implemented in Lodi. Specifically. funding is needed for organizing the development of the pro- grams, recordkeeping. reviewing, and surveying the participation rates of respectivewaste reduction programs. The City revenues will come from a surcharge added onto the garbage and water bill the residents receive. These revenues will be for costs of implementing. monitoring, and evaluating the program. CWRS' revenues will come from its rates, which are approved by the City Council. Any rate increase that CWRS requests to cover its costs will be in addition to the funds it donates for public education at local public and private schools. 7.8.5 Contingency Measures The following measures will be implemented if the education and public information objectives identified in Section 7.2 are not achieved: evaluate the need for increased staffing, including a con- tract employee, additional intems, or part-time/full-time permanent staffing revise the job descriptions of staff responsible for educa- tion and information . evaluate the need for increased funding for education and information programs modify the education and public information programs that seem to be inadequate • identify additional education and public information pro- grams for consideration consider establishing a special assessment or surcharge on City residents to fund the ne.essary programs PJRF641F644141S 7 - 1 7 Rev. I December 27.1991 Educatign and Public Information 7.8.6 Monitoring and Reporting Schedule ae City will evaluate the timeline for implementing education and infor- mation programs to determine if programs are able to be implemented on schedule. The following items will be addressed: • time modifications needed to increase staffing levels. including the proposed public education specialist and intems • time modifications needed to coordinate with volunteer organizations and other jurisdictions for specific programs time modifications needed to seem City approval for funding and operation of selected programs Table 7-1 Source Reduction Public Education Activities pjN641t6401015 7-19 Rev. 1 December27.1991 FdOcation and Puhric Information Program Program Activities' Activity implementation Tasks Schedule Short-term Planning Period Campaigns Kiat-otf rally, local Publicize contest winners and announce public 1992 participation events, contests, recognition awards, establih block leader and displays, block leader programto encourage new resident participation, program. posters. flyers, public track and publicize diversion progress with recognition announcements. All 'thermometer" posted inpubtic locations. the short-lerm programs will tie evaluated and expanded as needed to helpmeet the diversiongoals 1995.1999. Public Inlormation Junk mail reduction pamphlet. Develop and utilize speakers' bureau, purchase 1992-1993 and Outreach speakers' bureau, educational and disseminate educational materials, submit materials. school curricula, newsletter artides, work with school district internship program, community todeveiop curricula, devebp internship program, and nonprofit groups' coordinateabove activities with assistance from assislance. media involvement, community groups and nonprofit groups. utiiity bill inserts. ' Technical Composting and mulching PutActze technical assistance services innews- 1993 Assistance Inlormation. newsletter. letter (workshops. brochures, and Heid trips), coordination w I h community disseminate source reduction shopping checklist, groups, workshops. waste coordinate above assistancewith community audls.field trips. guideline groups. booklets. shopping checklist. i — pjN641t6401015 7-19 Rev. 1 December27.1991 FdOcation and Puhric Information Table 7-2 Recycling Public Education Activities pjN641lr>40101 S 7-20 Rev. 1 December27, 1991 Education and Public Information Program Program Activities' Activity Implementation Tasks Schedule Expand the Curt- Curbside recyclingpubtic Kick-off rally to begin program. disseminate 1992 side Collection education, block leader promotionaland educational materialslo Program program promotional materials. schools andcommunfty groups, establish a block schoolcurricula contestsand leader program to encourage new resident displays, utility bill inserts. participation. Implement a'Buy Recycled' media involvement. newsletter. campaign, develop contests and awards, continuously publicizethe program. Muhdamily Apartment and condominium Distribute a muftiiamily dwelling recycling guide 1993 Dwellings public education. promotional and Informational brochures, telephone landlords Recycling materials, school curricula, and homeowners'associationsto oiler technical Programs block leaderprogram, contests assistance. disseminate promotional and and displays, utility bill educational materials through schools and inserts. media involvement. community groups, implement a'Buy Recycled' newsletter. campaign. developcontests and awards. publicize above activities. Expand Office Business education. Distribute business educalinal pamphlet. develoi 1993 PaperColledion prorno5onal materials. contests for business recycling, insert program Program contests and public details in utility bills. publicize participants recognition awards, uliliy and contest winners. bill inserts. newsletter, newspaper articles. 'Prograrn acwws are described 1n deUA n ft Wyl pjN641lr>40101 S 7-20 Rev. 1 December27, 1991 Education and Public Information Table 7-2 Recycling Public Education Activities (Continued) Program Program Activities. Activity Implementation Tasks Schedule Short -tern Planning Period Expand Materials Newspaper amides, As the expansion lakes place, publicize 1993 Recovery Facility newslettermedia its progress and the reason for the announcements, tours expansion, explain to the public how the MRF will help achieve the diversion goals, announce project completion and give lours of facility, publish information about howwell the MRF is doing on a regularbasis. Develop Zoning Newspaper amides, news- As zoning and code amendments are devebped. 1994 and Code tetter, mediaannouncemems. publicize process and reason for the changes. Amendments announce the effective date of the amendments, Programs and slate how they will helpw4h the recyclinggoals. Create Local Newspaper articles, newsletter, h;Aemerd a Buy Recycled' campaign. once local 1994 Markets for rr1ecla announcements. procurement guidelines are established for Lodi s Recycled brochures. govern mental ofiices, publicize their completion Products and encourage businesses to developtheir own procurement guidelines. All the short-term prog- rams will be evaluated and expanded as needed 1 helpmeet the diversiongoals 1996.2000. ProWam acsiwOn are descdad n dash in dw sea piN6411640101 S 7-21 Rev. 1 Oecervber 27, 1991 Education and Public Information Table 7-3 Composting Public Education Activities pjfV64u640101 S 7-22 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public Information Program Program Activities' Activity Implementation Tasks Schedule ExpandCWRS' Newspaper articles, media Publicize ongoing plans and preparations to 1991 Windrow Compos- lnvo vemerrt, newsletter expand the system. announce completion of the ling System tours. expansbn, give lours of facility, disseminate information about oompost availability. Expandthe Resl- Publiclnformation program, Publicize scheduleof conecilon in newspaper 1992 dentialCurbWe utlfity big inserts. Mods and utility billinserts, Inck4e information on Collection leader program. curbside program in bock leader program. Program publicize availability of compost foruse bythe public. Me-dlum-term Planning PeMM All the short-term programs MU be evaluated and expanded as needed to help meet the diversion goals 1996-2000. prnmm scO4dos are described n desalt in to Nxt pjfV64u640101 S 7-22 Rev. 1 December 27.1991 Education and Public Information Table 7-4 Special Waste Public Education Activities Program Program Activities' Activity Implementation Tasks Scheduh Tire Separation Newspaper arVcJes, media Notices In local newspaper and radio to 1992 Program at CWRS involvement. newsletter publicize the new program al CWRS, disseminate flyers. informationabout why tire recycling S important. continue to publicize. White Goods Newspaper articles. media Notices in local newspaper and radio to 1992 Separation Involvement, newsletter, publicize I he new program al CWRS. disseminate at CWRS flyers. information about why white goods recycling is important. lVi dlum•term Planning Period All the short-term programs wig t}e evaluated and expanded as needed to help meetlhe diversion goals 1996-2000. 'Program wtivifts or* described in detail in the text. piN54%1640101 S 7- 23 Rev. 1 Decenftr 27, 1991 Education and Public lnforrnation LANDFILL SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN PARAMETERS SIZE LANDFILL AREA ENTRANCE FACILITIES PERIMETER BUFFER RIVER AREA TOTAL PROPERTY AREA CAPACITY ABOVE GROUSED AIRSPACE OUARRY b1ATERIAL TOTAL AIRSPACE REFUSE CAPACITY 185 ACRES 15 ACRES 30 ACRES 90 ACRES 320 ACRES 11.125.000 CY 10,557,000 CY 21,682,000 CY 21,882,000 CY 13.129.000 TONS 46 YEARS 31 YEARS 23 YEARS 26 YEARS 20 YEARS 16 YEARS 5.470.000 CY 896.000 CY 1,493,000 CY 200.000 CY 3.000,000 CY 5,059,000 CY 63 FEET 32 FEET DISPOSAL CAPACITY 8 DISPOSAL CAPACITY COMPONENT integrated waste management includes the environmentally safe disposal of solid wastes that cannot be feasibly diverted from landfilling. Because of the diminishing landfill capacity in the state of California. the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that. in its source reduction and recycling elements. jurisdictions identify their current and future solid waste disposal capacity needs. However, there are no permitted waste disposal facilities within the City of Lodi. This component contains a description of the permitted solid waste dis- posal facilities which serve Lodi. and an identification of the new facility which will serve Lodi. Also, the California Waste Removal Systems' trans- fer station is briefly described. 8.1 Existing Permitted Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 8.1.1 Existing Sanitary Landfill The North County Landfill is the solid waste disposal facility Lodi uses for its municipal waste. It is a Class III landfill and is located at 17916 East Harney Lane in the unincorporated area near Lodi. Total capacity of this site is 16.2 million cubic yards. A public drop-off and recycling center will be located near the entrance. The recycling center will accept most recy- clable materials. The site serves the franchised collectors for the City of Lodi, and County Refuse Service Area B, as well as the general public and commercial haulers cervi{.g the north part of San Joaquin County. North County Landfill is owned and operated by San Joaquin County. It currently has capacity to dispose of wastes thr,;, iqh 2034. The disposal tees at the site upon opening will be $16.25 per ton. k ; A facility will have a gatehouse and a truck weigh scale. An office and maintenance building with snr"; -y '`'.r�"'olz �A I in, r-c'uded as well as a covered building with a upping area. PJP F64 -6.10101 s 8 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Disposal Capacsry North County Landfill is permitted to accept nonhazardous municipal so�.d waste, which inciudes wood. paper, plastics, glass. food waste. vegerative waste. construction and demolition debris. inert waste, and other nonfiaz arcous waste. Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill was the former landfill used by Lodi. A waste characterization study at Harcey Lane was conducted by San Joaquin County. A complete characterization of the incoming wastestream is Included in the waste characterization study conducted by San Joaquin County Department of Public Wog Ks (see Appendix C)_ 8.1.2 Lodi Transfer Station CWRS currently operates a solid waste transfer station/materials recovery facility, recycling center, and composting facility at 1333 East Turner Road, Lodi. California. The waste transfer station serves as the point of waste consolidation before refuse is hauled to tho North County Landfill and Recycling Center. The refuse is first sorted by content and materials that include cardboard, newspaper. plastic, cans, metal, wood, rock. garden waste, etc. The remainder is refuse. The remaining refuse is compacted and then loaded into transfer trailers; it is then hauled to the nearby San Joaquin County Landfill. 8.2 Waste Export The purpose of the disposal capacity component is to demonstrate That there is adequate landfill capacity for disposing of solid wastes which can- not be diverted. The component must include a projection of the amount of disposal capacity that will be needed to accommodate the solid waste generated within the City for a 15 -year period. Disposal capacity projec- tions are in Tables 8-1 and 8-2. The amount of wastes generated over the next 15 years and the in-place refuse volume of those wastes is presented in the study conducted for Lodi by San Joaquin County (see Appendix C). The County has agreed to provide for disposal of all wastes generated in Lodi which cannot be diverted. A copy of this export agreement is included in Appendix F. PJF F641T640101S B - 2 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Disposal capacity 8.3 Disposal Facility Phase Out or Closure The Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill reached capacity on October 31. 1991 At one time. Lodi owned the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill. After several ac,eements between the City and County, dating back to 1975, ownership changed to the County. In January 1975. the City and the COLnty reached an agreement (resolution no. R-75-150) which changed the operation of the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill from the City's responsibility to the County. The City a^reed to lease the landfill to the County for the remain- der of its useful life. The County agreed to be responsible for the opera- tion. maintenance, and supervision of the landfill, The City retained the right to dispose of refuse collected from the City at the Harney Lane Land- fill. In March 1980, resolution no. 80-45 stated that the 'County shall be rdsponsible for providing a solid waste disposal facility or facilities in the north County area to serve residences and businesses in the north County incorporated and unincorporated areas. Adequate solid waste disposal or transportation facilities such as a disposal site or transfer station. or both. will be established by the County within a reasonable proximity to the City in order to serve the need to dispose of solid waste generated within the City's corporate limits." This agreement allows the "City to retain the right to regulate the collection and transportation of all solid waste materials within ,�e corporate limits of the City." Also, the agreement established that "refuse collectors franchised by the City who use County -provided facilities shall pay for disposal services at the rates established by the County." Thus, the agreement established that the County will recover itS capital and operating costs through charges to users. Also in March 1980, the City and County reached a supplemental agree- ment (resolution no. 80-46) which established specific responsibilities for the development of the state -mandated final site plan. The County and City tasks for developing and implementing the final site plan were c1en- lied. In April 1987. the City and County reached their existing agreement (resolution no. R-87-324) which transfers ownership of the site from the City to the County. The County agreed to pay the City $1 as the total Pur- chase price for the landfill with the understanding that the County will Pro- vide adequate disposal facilities for the City in the north San Joaquin County area. Thus, resolution no. 80-45 will stay in lull effect under this PPF F64,F640101 S a - 3 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Disposal capacity new agreement. The others have been superseded with the County's ownership d the site. 8.4 New Disposal Facility The County opened its new landfill, the North County Recycling Center and Sanitary Landfill, on November 1, 1991. The new Class H I landfill cov- ers 320 acres with 185 acres permitted for landfilling. The landfill is owned and operated by San Joaquin County. For more detail of the new facility, see Section 8.1 _ 1 _ 8.5 Disposal Capacity Needs Projection Tables 8-1 and 8-2 present Lodi's estimated disposal capacity needs assuming diversion continues at current levels and assuming AB 939 goals identified in this SRRE are achieved. PJ F F64\F640101 S 8- 4 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Disposal capacity Table 5-1 1 CITY OF LODI. CALIFORNIA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY NEEDS PROJECTION(l) ASSUMING CURRENT DNERSION RATES "J M??66166 la owe. 46201 a16d 1, 111111t,'"cr0+cay m 11160M M a NNW d0401 d 1200 pardi pa d** yid (7) pAow k6 wd l -i , j dbp W 64j rw46 4n Wm d trd111 aIPac6yj an dWw4vW@n ap6 **W Pr6Cu0W Flog " asnpacmon drsey 4Chewd and 8» 4Hraur6 CO Sol Of~ 1 No" k4W b 601V COM r .blur ,Sae �„ 18r9stl+r1(A�4)�b t .e6 19W 1991 1992 1990 1991 19% 1996 %997 1996 1999 2fm 2frit 2210? 7[R77 2[n4 X05 SadW-WoOww,111ed C1ycfLoU 151,220 154A40 1$7.121 160,261 161,469 t6a,776 170073 177475 174.944 164.467 164043 %91,771 141,530 1%360 19U%5 201257 Sola wade Imporl9d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a a o sold Wosis Drvsrted Ciry of Loa 111282 52JM 64,566 66 257 87,96? 69.71? 91,537 93.367 95,235 97,140 99.62 101.064 109.065 196,117 1071350 1 W,395 TmWormalanA&Apow 2307 ?567 2.609 2AW 2714 2,766 2.629 2Am 2,937 2,996 7,056 3,117 3,179 3243 1306 3,774 Solid Waw Evrortsd to Sart JowwVi Cauruy(fors) 87231 66.576 NAR 71246 72,773 7426 75,713 77,22? 76.772 90,341 at,964 63,593 65265 66.970 66,710 90.464 Cun%AalWa D+poW Capacly K*oded for the Cty d Lod 112.62 226.34.1 742.923 461.137 560.121 706836 633.21 961.736 1.093.22 1,526.974 1,363325 1302.147 1.64964 1,769,906 1,937,756 2.066143 cu* rods (21(31 PwnW ir12PamIiNd0*01-ifap"NomhComAyter1d14117.300= 17.165,707 17.069,129 16.960214 16,620.930 14,706274 16,579.026 16,450.316 16,319=9 16,165,117 14.048527 15909106 15.767.096 ISA22,143 15,474296 16XIAN (erd d yW in orbic yards ;?1:3) Asrluirsrl(l Parmitlsd D16po" Capaciq North Corey L6rdf41 10.360.00 10.311,424 t0,241,477 10.170,131 10,097,366 10,=,130 9,947.411 4.670.169 %791A10 9.711,010 9.629.116 9,545.523 9.460256 9,373267 9.M4,577 9.194,093 Jona of yw) in las 12) (3) "J M??66166 la owe. 46201 a16d 1, 111111t,'"cr0+cay m 11160M M a NNW d0401 d 1200 pardi pa d** yid (7) pAow k6 wd l -i , j dbp W 64j rw46 4n Wm d trd111 aIPac6yj an dWw4vW@n ap6 **W Pr6Cu0W Flog " asnpacmon drsey 4Chewd and 8» 4Hraur6 CO Sol Of~ 1 No" k4W b 601V COM r .blur ,Sae �„ 18r9stl+r1(A�4)�b t .e6 w'x4�' )14 MM move" bAft" 60Ifwee •4Ym4Mr Mb~ ..,. ter .+.�. ...r.� rir.• ti.r+r• T&W $-z CITY OF L004 CALIFORNIA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY NEEDS PROJECTION (1 ) ASSUMING AS 939 TARGETS ARE ACHIEVED (1 j 716 (HWM lrttarl6. afppl tl0dek,1r161 dltpaa.f C6paCttY• (2j 84166d 110 1 pitse dMtier W 1ap0 p0urb p6► &1a04c ('MO (3) R9r1d Pro16f.16t# d6p"afs m r1Mtla on 16mm of %raAe coma Y) are da9«rdant upon oparar.a $mMem ftkm*q v* oompetwo ow" Mluevad and ale amara a fat or drew x114 "Hoa Tor 4" CO W C1o6cftlf a wmaaa. Rah" _8e6 %4 Wow OdM44b2.14 BY DECEMBER 31,3994 AMU UEf;,E1)BER 31 ii+99 1990 1991 N 1990 199/ 1985 1996 1997 1988 1999 2(X10 2001 2002 2003 2704 2005 Sold Waste Genefued Cay of Loos 151.020 154,M 157,121 164,264 163,469 166,736 170,073 173,175 176,944 16x,463 164.093 167,774 191,530 195.360 t99.266 20.250 Solid Waft. knponed 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Solid Wrfta OrwW Coy of LOG 61,262 62.906 6.1,586 66.257 10$307 104.353 1x6,440 106.569 110.741 122,991 125.451 127,9W 130.519 173,129 135.792 13)!,506 TnwWom Wfon Redudion 2,507 2.557 2,606 21660 2.714 2,491 2,541 2,59? 2.644 3.199 3,263 3,326 3,395 3.463 3,$.32 3,083 SOW Waft Efponod to Sen.4 Wutn County 6orol 67.2.71 60,376 64,647 71,346 56.449 50.616 60,611 92,027 63.286 54,292 551378 56.485 57,615 56.167 $9,943 61,142 Cumuk*veMpagCapbarf Needed tor the Cly ofLOS 112,062 226.344 342,97! 461,633 530.249 636.613 759.964 663,342 961.766 1,059,275 1,151.571 1,245.7t4 1,341,739 1,439.665 1,539,569 1,641,492 out9c y" (2) (3) Auntiernp Penllaud (lr+0uaar Cap6ary 110rV1 COunry LandY 17,300.t)d0 17,185 707 17,069.129 16950,219 16,632,600 16 759,139 16,652,088 14`,46.709 +6.447.269 16.352,777 16,260.460 18,166,336 16,070,313 15.972,367 15.872,462 15,770.560 (Vol of YMr) k1 cubic Yatda (2) (3) AN -Oft Panaktad Drp"COW C6Y 400 COVMy L6nd66 10,7wom 10.711,424 10.241,4" %I 70,t31 10.111,662 10,052,063 9.991.253 9.929.226 6.665,956 9.611.666 9.756.266 9.609.803 9.642,166 9.563,420 9.523.477 9.462,J36 (end of yaw) In wea utw11ir1p aur LOO 1u6W4w an (1 j 716 (HWM lrttarl6. afppl tl0dek,1r161 dltpaa.f C6paCttY• (2j 84166d 110 1 pitse dMtier W 1ap0 p0urb p6► &1a04c ('MO (3) R9r1d Pro16f.16t# d6p"afs m r1Mtla on 16mm of %raAe coma Y) are da9«rdant upon oparar.a $mMem ftkm*q v* oompetwo ow" Mluevad and ale amara a fat or drew x114 "Hoa Tor 4" CO W C1o6cftlf a wmaaa. Rah" _8e6 %4 Wow OdM44b2.14 0� �i a 40 a 0 40 "Man"- • N 14 L� 9 FUNDING COMPONENT Adequate and long-term funding is an essential comp ; of a successful integrated solid waste management system. Inadt ate funding can cause an otherwise effective program to fail. InCatitornia, local solid waste management systems are typically funded by one or more of the following methods: • Tippinq fee. The amount charged by a transfer station. landfill. or transformation facility to accept a specified amount of waste (usually expressed in terms of tons or cubic yards). Property taxes. Thosa :axes that are lcnvied on the person or corporation recorded on the deed of record. Property taxes have limitations, such as (1) statutory ceilings on tax rates, (2) competing public services. such as public edu- cation, (3) lack of income or economic activity to support higher taxes. and (4) lack of voter support. • 1lser fees. Fees applied to household waste and industrial waste. User fees assess the actual user. based on weight and volume or number of containers collected. instead of a flat fee and local tax -financial systems. This component is intended to demonstrate how the City has sufficient funds and allocations of resources for the planning. development. and implementation of new and existing solid waste programs identified in this document. This section includes a description of the current mechanisms used to fund solid waste programs within the City and provides cost esti- mates for the planning, development. and implementation of new pro- grams. In addition. this section lists futurs potential revenue sources and contingency revenue sources, a .S PJP+64' F640101 S 9- 1 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Funding I 9.1 Current Funding Sources The sources cf funding for solid waste management activities in Lodi are refuse Collection fees and a surcharge assessed by the City. The residen- tial and commercial refuse collection fees are issued as part of the utility bibs by the City to all residents. Industrial rates have been set by CWRS. who issues its own bills. Water and electricity rates are included in the City's bill. Now that CWRS' exclusive franchise in Lodi includes industrial waste. the industrial rates will be set by the City and could be billed by either the City. as is presently done for residential and commercial cus- tomers. or by CWRS. Rates are established annually by the City Council based upon the find- ings of an annual report submitted by CWRS. This rate review is submitted to the City Council for its approval. Once approved, the City adds 8 percent of CWRS' rates to the bill to cover the administrative costs and a "refuse surcharge." This surcharge is used to pay for the City's disposal fees. state -mandated closure fund payments, a percentage of one solid waste management staff person's salary. and consultation fees. (Note that the surcharge does not appear as a separate line item on the utility bill.) The general fund is used to pay for the City's municipal leaf collection pro- gram. In 1990-1991, the City's budget for solid waste collection. .�.� 53,403.460; the refuse surcharge was $62,000, and leaf collection costs were $59.675. 9.2 Estimated Program Costs All program costs identified in each of the components are summarized in the funding component. A summaty of the estimated costs and revenues for program planning and implementation are in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Estimated costs have been determined for each of the new or expanded programs that have been identified in this document for implementation during the short-term planning period. These are identified in each of the components and in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Table 9-1 shows the City's esti- mated capital and operating costs for each of these programs, by year, for 1991 through 1995. Costs include equipment purchases and new or Improved structures. Operating costs include operations and maintenance. publications. promotional materials. city staff time. and other expenses. Costs shown do not include costs that would be incurred by the residential PJF F64,F640101 S 9- 2 Rev. 0 December 23.1991 Funding and commercial refuse haulers operating within City limits. Those costs are identified in Table 9-2. One City staff person has approximately one-third of his/her time allocated for solid waste management activities. The City plans to hire another staff person to be responsible for planning, developing, and implementing new and expanded programs. especially the public education and intormation programs. Costs for the additional statf are included in the annual oper- ating costs. 9.3 Revenue for New and Expanded Programs 9.3.1 Public Sources of Revenues The new and expanded programs to be implemented during the short-term planning period in the City will be funded by adding a state -mandated sur- charge to the utility bill. This surcharge will cover the costs of an additional staff person as well as the costs for the programs included in Table 9-1 . Revenue financing. The City of Lodi could obtain long-term financing for its solid waste system through the sale of revenue bonds or certificates of participation (COPs). The specific purpose of those bonds could be to finance improvements for new solid waste management programs or facil- ities. The feasibility of revenue financing would be dependent upon the volume of solid waste generated in the City, the City's ability to direct solid waste to the proposed facilities, and revenue from tipping fees, the sale of recyclable materials, taxes, and special assessments. Where there are revenue shortfalls, the City will either raise its utility sur- charge as necessary to cover the costs of the SRRE programs or the City they will obtain long-term revenue financing through the capital markets. 9.3.2 Private Sources of Revenues Participation financing. As envisioned by CWRS. COP financing would be approximately $4.3 mil5on for the three sets of waste carts and semi- automated/automated collection vehicles. The City would purchase the refuse collection vehicles and waste carts and lease them to CWRS. Under this arrangement, the COPs would be issued by the City. Several ctilies, including the cities of Anaheim, Placentia, and Garden Grove have opted for COP financing to implement a solid waste collection. reduction. and recycling system. PJF%F64N F64010 1S 9 - 3 Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Funding The COPs are a special purpose tax-exempt financing mechanism available to municipalities foi qualifying facili- ties such as solid waste collection and recycling facilities. CQPs, like municipal bonds. are securities that are underwritten and sold to investors. The California Pollution Control Financing Authority. Another type of financing. which has applied for and received an initial resolution from CWRS. is the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (the Author- i?y). The issuance of pollution control revenue bonds has been possible in California since the voters approved a constitutional amendment (Proposition 3) at the general election on November 7, 1972. Enabling legislation (Chapter 1257, Statutes of 1972) created the Authority. which presently consists of the State Treasury (Chairman). the State Controller. and the Director of Finance. The purpose of the Authority is to provide California businesses with a rea- sonable method of financing pollution control and resource recovery facili- ties needed in the state. The program enables private companies to utilize funds received from the sale of Authority bonds for the acquisition. con- struction. or installation of pollution control and resource recovery facilities and. when possible. to meet environmental requirements imposed by pub- lic agencies. Many bonds sold by the Authority paid interest exempt from both federal and state income taxes (Section 103 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986. as amended, and Section 17137 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code). However. tax exempt funds are no longer available through the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. Taxable loans are available for manufacturing facilities that use recyclable materials; there are no limitations for these loans. Taxable funding is iimited to the useful life of the project, and the interest rate for taxable loans is the mar- ket rate. Revenues obtained through the sale of taxable bonds are used for funding the applicant's projects. These are similar to other types of pri- vate activity bonds. Companies that have received assistance through the program include food processors. cooperatives, manufacturers. recreational facilities. waste disposal firms. metal platers. public utilities. and petroleum proces- sors. The Authority consults with lenders and investors to arrange tinanc- ing programs for Mecitic needs CWRS has used this type of a linancing PJF F64%,FG-10 101S 9 a Rev 0 December 23. 1991 Funding mechanism in the past. CWRS has applied for financing from the Authority for its proposed expansion of the transfe- station, MRF. and recycling center Refuse collection rates. Each year CWRS conducts a rate review in order to adjust its fees to cover costs. CWRS submits its proposed rates to the Lodi City Council for review and approval. In essence. the City estab- lishes refuse collection rates in Lodi. The rate setting process guarantees CWRS a reasonable rate of return. Program costs will need to be included in these rates (see Table 9-2). The City Council recently approved a rate methodology for periodically adjusting the rates charged by CWRS for refuse collection services for • residential refuse, recyclable material, and yard waste collection • residential waste carts • commercial refuse and recyclable material collection • commercial waste carts • industrial refuse collection The franchise hauler will file a rate adjustment application each year. The melhodology addresses allowable expenses according to the services provided as detailed above and allowable expenses which include refuse. recycling, and yard waste collection expenses; recyclable and com- postable material processing expenses; transfer station charges; disposal charges; and franchise fees. 9.4 Contingency Funding Sources Funding sources and mechanisms that could be explored by Lodi if a shortfall in solid waste management revenues occurs are as follows: PJF F64kF640101S 9- 5 Rev 0 December23.t991 Funding W Special taxes or assessments. These can take the form of short-term taxes or assessments to develop source reduction or recycling programs. • Rate structure modification. This includes a subscribed variable, where the level of payment varies with a meas- ure of the volume of waste disposed. • Community development block grants. All cities and counties are eligible to apply for the economic develop- ment allocation for the community development block grant program. The City is an entitlement city which receives grants directly. Grants are made from the state to local governments, which can then loan the funds to busi- nesses to fund specific projects. such as a particular recy- cling program or a business that uses or manufactures products made from recyclable materials. • Other grant funding sources. These include grants from the CiWMB for new and existing household hazardous waste management programs, or from the California Department of Commerce, Office of Competitive Technol- ogy, to fund technological projects that show promise for :ommercialization. In 1989, federal and public agencies and institutions were awarded 29 grants from a pool of over 240 applicants. PJF%F64tF6401015 9 - 6 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Funding Table 9.1 Esionaled Costs, In 1991 Dollars. lot the City 01 Lodl's SRRE Programs Which will be Undertaken by the PublicSeclor (City of Lodi) SRRE Programs Implemented by Year Capital Annual Qpetati ._ fost�'—_...._..._ t!� Revenue tits City— im mented Costs 2 1 1893 1994 1991 1996 1, 47 j9m 1999 X000 Sources Source Reduction Component Hate Structure 1992 175.m City Gem. -rat Mode lication 1031150.000 Fund Business License 1992 WA WA $2.500 $2.500 $2,500 $2.500 $2.500 $2500 12.500 12,500 $2.506 Business Fee incentives License Foes Public Education and 1992 Costs we included in Cho Public Education and information component below Promotion Local Procurement 1993 Costs are included rn he Recycling component 'Create Local Markets .program below Guidelines Recyding Component Create Locpf Markets for 1994 Recycled Materials Develop Zoning and Code 1994 Ordnance Amendroents Composang Component (All programs wd be privately kindled) Specm wo"o Component WTE Feasibility Sandy 1$32 Pub%@ Edueetkm con4mmrr" $10,000 WA NIA WA $2,500 s.'.500 $2,500 $2.500 $2,500 $2.500 $2.500 Refuse Sur -►arae $10,000 WA NIA WA $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $7,'1C1) $2,50.. Hetuso Surcharge $3.500 WA Reluso surcharge WA $10,000 =10.000 $10,000 $10.000 slo,o60 $10,000 $10,000 $10.000 $10.000 SWAM Rotuse w 10 to to to b Ca 10 Io 10 Surchvan $4o,00o $40.000 $40,000 W.000 $40.060 sdo,o0o $40,060 $4.0,000 $40.000 W.000 POU641l640101 S 9, 7 Rev 0 December 23. 1 q91 1 xrrhrf. ti Table 91 Estimated Costs, in 1991 Dollars, for the City of L.odi's SRRE Programs Which will be Undertaken by IhePublic Sector lCily of Lodi) ( Continued) SRRE Programs Implemented by Year Capital ---_. _—.— Annual_Opgating Costs* _._ --_-- -----_ Revenue Implemented Costs' 19 1 193 1 X99 > 1947 1996 19" �QQO S�auines Pudic Education and 1992 Costs for all public education provided above Outreach Activities Educational brochures and materials Media involvement Crry•sponsored newsletter Coordination with community groups Coordination with nonprofit groups Internship program (volunteer or stipend only) Technical Assistance 1992 Programs Workshops Ong" Field Tnpr Ongoing Guidefine boobs Onpoirq Campaigns and Motivating 1992 Activities Cornnwnn y posters and 6yers Block leader program Public reoognitim awards Capital costs wd be wboArred when the programs are implemented ••Cons are asu mug - be 99401 Wit be!►se9n the pubic and private sopors The City will two one part Mw wrionym to coordinate its efforts with ft prrvale sector piM64V640101 S 9 - 8 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 m m fir,, r� 1:: Table 9-2 Estimated Costs, in 1991 Dollars, for the City of Lodi's SRRE Programs Which will be Undertaken by the Private Sector (CWRS) ( Continued) SRRE Programs Implemented by Year Capital Anngal 02gtj#M osis' ------.._ _ -1999 - Revenue the City bnoiemenled Costs' $991 1m 1995 1994 t"5 !996 1997 !99$ �D00 Sources Public EducationCompon4mi.. WA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10.000 $10.900 $10000 $10,000 $10,000 $10.000 Raw., 14 10 to 10 to to to to to to $40,000 $40,000 $40.000 $40,000 $40.000 $40,000 $40.000 $40.000 $40,000 $40,000 Public Education and 1992 Costs for all pubk o "lionAntormabon included above Outreach Activities Educational brochures and materials Media involvement Speakers' bureau Newsletter Coordination with commuruty groups Coordination with nonprofit groups Schon; curricula) Technicaf Assistance 1992 Programs Workshops Field Trips Gividellne books Campaigns and Moigv"V 1992 Activities Commurtity posters and dyers Block leader program Public recogrteol awi ds Costs are given ler ilio high estimate listed in site SIVIE text Capital costs wd be vicurted wtwn Ow Programs are impkmented —Costsaro assumed 10 be equally Split between the public and private sopors Thr: Cay will twe one part time t"pkWiii to ccordnaw its Olorts wdh the: prwak: %octor p#V64V640101S 9-10 Rev. 0 December 23, 1991 INTEGRATION 10 INTEGRATION COMPONENT 10.1 Introduction Consistent with California Code of Regulations. Title 14. Section 18748, the integration component shall explain how the source reduction. recy- cling. composting. and special waste components combine to achieve the mandates set forth by AB 939. This section is intended to fulfill that requirement and explain how the City of Lodi intends to promote and achieve a Iruly integrated waste management system. 10.2 Waste Diversion 10.2.1 Background Many types of activities will result in landfill diversion, thereby conserving valuable landfill capacity. However, one of the primary purposesof AB 939 is to promote an awareness of what wastes are disposed of and to force people to take appropriate measures to divert all materials which can be diverted to a higher and better use rather than needlessly discarding them. This is one reason AB 939 and subsequent legislation discourages reliance cn transformation c., incineration as a primary measure of saving landfill capacity. Transformation still has a place in an integrated waste management system, it just should not be the central focus of that system. Clearly. the intent of AB 939 is to focus on reducing the amount of waste materials generated and subsequently disposed of. All too often, refuse is placed at the Curb and it is picked )and whisked away to the local landfill without a second thought by the waste generator. This is one reason there has been so much debate lately concerning what counts towards the diversion targets and what is normally disposed of. According to the author of AB 939, Assemblyman Byron Sher - Palo Alto, the law intended only the amount of waste that had been going into permitted landfills before Jan- uary 1990 could count towards the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals. PJF`-F64 F640101S 10- 1 Rev 0 December23.1991 integration However. the interpretation of this issue as to what counts towards diver- sion has been interpreted to mean that if only 1 ton of a material were dis- posed of in 1990, then any amount of material subsequently diverted could also count. The most obvious example of this relates to inert materials and industrial scrap metal recyclers. There are discussions occurring at the Iegislalive level to clarify the issue in the next legislative session. What this means, not only for Lodi, but also many other communities across the state, is that diversion of inert materials and industrial scrap metals would not count towards the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals. It could also mean that subsequent diversion targets may be measured against disposed wastes as opposed to generated wastes (Generation Diversion + Disposal). This subject is mentioned here, because particularly in the case of inert materials, it has a substantial impact on Lodi's diversion rate, expressed as a percent of waste generation. Lodi's diversion rate of 54 percent would be reduced to 19 percent. Therefore, Lodi's diversion programs are char- acterized both with and without inerts in the next section in the event sub- sequent legislation disallows counting them towards the City's diversion goals. Also, each of the components separately quantifies increased diversion from new programs and diversion from existing programs in the event that subsequent legislation requires diversion be measured against disposed wastes ratherthan generated wastes. 10.2.2 Current Diversion Lodi's diversion rate is expressed in two different ways in this section: (1) diversion expressed as a percentage of wastes generated and (2) diversion excluding inert materials. Section 10.2.3 will quantify future expected diversion in terms of (1) and (2) described above and also in terms of wastes disposed. The third method allows no credit for existing diversion activities in Lodi; it only addressed new diversion activities and their impact on the amount of wastes disposed of. PJF1F641F6401 O1 S 1 0 - 2 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Integration 1. Existing Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Gener- ated Wastes -With Inert Materials Generation= 151,020 tons (1990) • Source Reduction 267 tons 0.18% • Recycling 69.581 tons 46.07% • Composting 11,434 tons 7.57% • Total 81,282 tons 53.821/6 2 Existing Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Gener- ated Wastes - Without Counting Inert Materials Generation= 151,020 tons (1990) . Source Reduction 267 tons 0.18% • Recycling 17,344 tons 11.46% • Composting 11,434 tons 7.57% • Total 29.045 to n s 19.2396 10.2.3 Anticipated Future Diversion Short-term Planning Period January 1, 1991 - December 31,1994 1. Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Generated Wastes - With Inert Materials Generation by December3l , 1994 = 176.312 tons . Source Reduction 289 tons 0.18% • Recycling 78.473 tons 48.00% • Composting 22.038 tons 13.48% • Total 100,800 tons 61.66% PJRF64%F640101 S 1 0- 3 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 Integration 2. Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Generated Wastes -Without Counting Inert Materials Generation by 1995 (without inerts) = 101,520 tons (The rate of inert diversion is assumed to remain constant forpurp. es of !ne SRRE) • Source Reduction 289 tons 0.28% • Recycling 21,930 tons 21.60% • Composting 22.038 tons 21.71% • Total 44.257 tons 43.55% 3. New Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Disposed Wastes - Without Counting Inert Materials Disposal by 1995 = 59,956 tons • New Source Reduction 0 tons 0% • New Recycling 2.981 tons 4.97% • New Composting 9.217 tons 15.37% • Total 12.198 tons 20.34% Medium-term Planning Period: January 1, 1995 - December 31,1999 1. Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Generated Wastes- With Inert Materials Generation by December 31,1999 = 180,482 tons • Source Reduction 319 tons 0.18% • Recycling 94.556 tons 52.39% • Composting 28.116 tons 15.58% • Total 122.991 tons 68.15% PJF1F6AF640101S 10-4 Rev. 1 January 6,1992 Integration 2. Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Generated Wastes - Without Counting Inert Materials Generation b December 31. 1999 = 180,482 tons (without inerts • Source Reduction 319 tons 0.1811/0 • Recycling 32.128 tons 17.80% • Composting 28.1 16 tons 15.58% • Total 60.563 tons 33.56% 3. New Diversion Expressed as a Percentage of Disposed Wastes - Without Counting Inert Materials Disposal by December 31.1999 - 54.292 tons • New Source Reduction • New Recycling • New Composting • Total 10.3 Component Integration 0 tons 0% 11,129tons 20.50% 13, 960tons 25.71% 25.089tons 46.21% The current 1990 diversion for Lodi results from the combined efforts of the City, the County, 20-20 Recycle Centers, Califomia Waste Removal Systems, Tokay Recycling. and regional scrap m61al dealers, paper bro- kers. inert materials recyclers, and nearby glass beneficiation facilities in Tracy. Together, they have been able to demonstrate a pnenomdnal 54 percent diversion rate expressed as a percentage of generated wastes. The new programs outlined in this SRRE will be undertaken by two enti- ties: California Waste Removal Systems and the City. By the end of the medium-term time frame, they should be able to increase the current diversion rate by 14 percent to approximately a 68 oeicent diversion rate. Table 10-1 outlines those new programs which will t o undertaken by the City and CWRS. Finally, the City should consider requiring local businesses to report annu- ally those materials which the City diverts and which are not collected by PJF1F641F640101 S 10-5 Rev. 1 January 6.1992 Integration CWRS. This is especially applicaole to large supermarkets and industrial customers who may use their own regional centers to divert such items as cardboard, pallets. or food. 10.4 Integrated Schedule The schedule for the short-term planning period is shown on Table 10.2. The medium-term schedule will depend upon how well the City achieves its short-term objectives and is not presented in this SRRE. 10.5 Monitoring Diversion In order to monitor diversion and determine program effectiveness, the City will need to obtain information on quantities from a variety of sources. The City will begin to develop a database of information. To minimize impacts on recyclers. brokers, and City staff, information will be gathered semiannually. Specifically the City should require CWRS. 20.20 Recycle Centers, and Tokay Recycling to provide information on diverted quantities and waste types by generator source, as a condition of conducting busi- ness within the City. Information concerning diversion quantities from regional recyclers, brokers. and scrap metal dealers can be obtained from the County. PJFSF64\F640101S 1 0 - 6 Rev. 0 December 23,1991 lntegrahon Table 10-1 New Program Implementation City to Undertake CWRS to Underlake Source Reduction Component Source Reduction Component • Rate structure modification Public education • Businesslicense lee incentives • Local procurement guidelines Recycling Component • Muftifamily recycling program Recycling Component Expandwaste cart programto collection of "commingled" recyclabtes • Create local markets for recyclers Expandmalerials recovery facility • Develop zoning and code amendments Composting Component Composting Component • Add third waste caul for yard wastes • None • Expand commercial/indu3tdal collection of compostables • Expandwindrow compostirg system Special Waste Component • Waste -to -energy leasibitity study Special Waste Component • White goods separation at transfer station E(Jucatiorn and Public information Component • Tire separation atIransfer station • Newsletter • Coordination with City community groups and nonprofit organizations Educatlon and Public Information Component • Community posters and fliers • Educationalbrochures and materials • Biodc leaderprogram • Media relations • Public recognition and awards • Speakers' bureau • Internship programs • Waste audits • Field trips Funding C*mponent • Educational curricula • Issue certificates of participation IorCWRS' new refuse collection vehicles • Kick-off rally waste carts. Purchase carts and lease to CWRS. • Technical assistance program • Newsletter • Community posters and fliers • Public recognition and awards . Coordination with City community groups and nonprofit organizations Funding Component • ObtainCaldomia Pollution Control FinancingAuthorilyBonds for MRF Note this table is not nlerfidod t7 address e■rswv programs PJF\F64%F 64010 t S 10-7 Rev. 0 December 2.1, 1991 i/lh't N. ir$0I, Table 10-2 Integrated Schedule forShort-term Programs Type of Diversion Targeted Generator Type of Program Implemenlallon Tasks Date Entity Responsible Funding Source Source Reduction All Rates • Evaluate need for inclining rate 19911 city Collection gates structure versus other types 01 1992 rate structures. Adopt CWRS proposed new rate structure. Source Reduction Commerciau incentive . Evaluate need Ior modified business 1993 City General Fund or Industrial lees and subsequent incentives for or Reluse Surcharge source reduction Source Reduction Government Procurement • Develop procurement guidelines 1992 City General Fund Recycling Mundamify Collection • Determine equipment needs for program 1993 CWRS Collection Rates Residential • Publicize program • Startup program Recycling Single-family Collection .Obtain waste carts and new collection 1994 CWRS Collection Rates and Residential vehicles Certificates of Participation (City) Recycift Commercial CofilWinn • Add inother waste lypes to present 1993 CWRS Collection Rates white office papercolleciion program as market allows Recycling All Materials Recovery • Expand MRF .begin securing permits 1993 Collection Rates and CPCFA Bonds Recyang A:l Market Deveiopment • Consider recycling market devebpmenl 1993 City Refuse Surcharge zone in Lodi • Encourage clean recycling -based industries to locale in Lodi Pj'RF641F640101 S 10-8 Rev, 2 December 23, 1991 Infoilt.IffCirr Table 10-2 Integrated Schedule for Short-term Programs (Continued) Typeof Diversion Targeted Generator Type of Program Irnplementallon Tasks Date Entity Responsible Funding Source Iacycting All Zoning - Develop zoning and code amendments 1994 COY Reluse Surcharge to require new developments to address iecycling needs Composling Residential Collection - Add waste cad for yard wastes 1992 CWRS Cerfificates of Participation and Collection Rates Composting CommerciaV Collection - Expandcoilection program 1992 CWRS Collection Rates Industrial Composting All Processing • Expandwindrowcomposting system 11993,'19,,94 CWRS Collection Rates • Purchase grinder and new Scarab compost turner Recycling All Separation • Implement tire separation and storage 1992 CWRS Colleclion Rates and at Lodi Transler Slation Tipping Fees at Transler Slation Recycling Residential Separation .Reinstitute white goods separation 1992 Collection Relies and Commercial and processingat Lodi Transfer Tipping Fees at Station Transler Transformation Aft Feasibility Study • Evaluate feasibility and determine 1992 city Refuse Surcharge follow-up needs, if any and General Fund PJFNF641F640101 S 1 0- 9 Rev. 2 December 23. 1991 �flfl.iJl,llrJf 7 Table 10-2 Integrated Schedule for Short-term Programs (Continued) Type of Targeted Typeof Implementatlon Entity Funding :version Generator Program Tasks Date Responsible Source All All Public Education • Educational brochures and materials '.992/1993 CWRS Collecton Rales All All Public Informalion • Use media Io inlorm residenls 1992 CWRS Collection Rales about CWRS' upcoming programs .All All Public:lnformalion - Expand CWRS'Speakers'bureauto 1992 CWRS Collection Rales include City slaf f and other recyclers knowledgeable in solid waste issues • Have kick -oil rally to introduce CWRS' expanded programs All Residential Public Information • Add discussion on solidwaste issuesto 1992 City General Fund City newsletter • Issue CWRS newsletterson a regular 1992 CWRS Collection Rates basis All All Public Information • Work with local clinic groups to 1992 city Reluse Surcharge disseminate information and General Fund X411 Commercial/ Technical Assistance • Providewaste audits ball commercial 1993 CWRS Collection Rates Industrial and industrial Customers • Develop lechnical assistance program 1993 and guideline booklets ,All All Public Information • Develop posters and Iliers 1992 city Reluse Surcharge • Eslablish bl� leadership program and General Fund • DevelopCrfysponsored awardsand recognition program . Establish student internship program PJ1FIF641F640101S 10-10 Rev 2 December 23. 1991 fnigrarrar E f�E, 11 EMCON STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS The EMCON services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices. No other warranty express or implied, is made. These services were per- formed consistent with EMCON's agreement with the City of Lodi. This report is solely for the use and information of the City unless otherwise noted. Any reliance on this report by a third party is at such party's sole risk. Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to condi- tions existing when services were performed and are intended only for the client, purposes. locations. time frames, and project parameters indicated. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards. practices, or regulations subsequent to performance cf ser- vices. EMCON does not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, nor the use of segregated portions of this report. PJF`F041F640101S 1 1 - 1 Rev. 0 December 23. 1991 Limitations `F; NEC -=Z BE=aVtA71CN Notice i s hereby given that the City of Lodi Planning Department has determined that the following proposal will have no "Significant Impact on the Envinmnenta. Supporting documentation is available i n the form of a 'Preliminary Environmental 4sse$sW,tn and is avail- able for public review in the Planning Department Office, City Hall Building, 221 W. Pine Street. Anyone wishing to appeal the issuance of this Declaration to :he Planning Corntiission may do so no later than V,e date indicated as 'Last date to Appeal". Date Jan. 6, 1992 Project Title: City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element Responsible Agency: Lodi Plannina Dept. Contact Person: David Morimoto NAME OF PERSON. FIRM, OR AGENCY IMDERTA44NG PRWECT: City of Lodi Address: city: County: 221 West Pine Street Lodi San Joaquin Area We : Phone; 209 333-6711 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NUM, PURPOSE, AND LOCATION The purpose of the source reduction and recycling element (SRRE) i s to provide the City of Lodi and the City's solid waste management task force (SWAM) with a current comprehensive update on the status of solid waste management in the City and to outline the City's plan to achieve and exceed the landfill diversion goals mandated by the State of California. The program w i I I be implemented City-wide. Project Location City Project location County LODI SAH JOAQUIN COUNTY Last Dare ro Appeal: Address Where Vreliminary nvironmenM Assessment i s Available: February 3, 1992 LODI CITY PLANNING DEPT. ZZI W. Pine St., Lodi. CA 95240 Phone: (209) 334-5634 f PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 G.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County c( San Joaquin. I am a citizen of the Limed States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age cf eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above - entitled matter. I am the princiPal Berk of the printer of the Lodi News -Sentinel, a newspaper cf general circulation, printed and published daily, except Smdays and holidays, , in the City of Lodi. California, County of San Joaquin. and whkh news- paper has ken adjudged a newspaper cf general circulation by the Superior Court, Department 3, of the Cow" of San Joaquin. Stag of California, under the date of May 26th, 1953, Case Number 65990; that the notice, cf which the annexed is a printed copy (aK in type not smaller than non- pareil), has ken published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any sup- plement thereof on ft foRowing dates, to-wie .,Jallvary-3.5.x.... _.... all in the yew I9. 92..... I cwU& (or derLre) under per-altY of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated ,at Lcdii, Cal&rnia, this .......15th day of .1 92 ............. 19......... ......----- 4WAO, ...... ....,a,.. ..... ......... This space is for the County Clerk's Fling Stamp Proof of Publication cf Citi of Lodi Source Reduction and Recyclinc . ...... ...... ...... Element or rraaTiwa erre o1 em �Ile NaMor a MwYy �. w ow LawsMVA- TM E�nrd VMN* d vft @Wpm" w a pans. M L'11P d rAs1 rad an CRS card i..r1s an 00 $UNA a.or m d M.M. Clryr ant w aur+. le. CRO OM a aawr+ rnA M ow krWW mr.n+a, Osrr �«Mor.s are. a1ModCMro+M+r- rMarn - 00 M M.q.rry rMs a" ww M urns 1n uw *Oft N 1rr Cavj ft DVAftPWWA VMQ- 1wr M Us Wed Prix ftW L+dk CaroeA. AN r.. WMWpW=MaW4sap-I—ONOVW"- W d aoernr o on Mw prprrYo 060warou. Mrit- - un aulwP to W4W w wbd aNr 60 c. VA *I D�rdapwyrt Ei11reM0ir � awl lrnr err» b RMrrwY ]. "W- JAMn a.w R DWWW J—Mv 1ow13, ism 15. 1 PROOF CIE' PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING February 5, 1992 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, February 5, 1992 at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council w i I I conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi. to consider the following matter: Public comments on the Final Draft of the City of Lodi Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) . A I I interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. For information regarding this Public Hearing please contact Kirk J. Evans at (209) 333-6700. Eiy Order Of the Lodi City Council: C Alice M. Re ceche City Clerk Dated: December 18, 1991 Approved as to form; Bobby W. McNatt City Attorney