HomeMy WebLinkAbout0124.091•
..
. \ , , .
<'I·
~.-
/
~ , ,
• .,';, ~,.( .
13
January 17, 1991
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
countywide Household Hazardous Waste Coll@ction Program
Me~bers of the Council:
Reoort......iD Brief
This report provides information on a new county-proposed
countywide Household Hazardous Waste Program (CHHWP) 4 The
Interqovernmental Co~~cil of santa Clara county is requesting that
each jurisdiction in the County respond to county staff by January
31, 1991, if the City wishes to participate in the proposed
program, and at what level~ This report recommends that council
support the program concept, but not participate in the new program
until its first year costs can be compared with the costs of the
City's own Household Hazardous Waste Program.
Background
The CHHWP was developed by the Household Hazardous Mat.erials
Workinq Group, which is composed of representatives from each city
in the County~ The Intergovernmental Council's Solid Waste
Committee and Technical Advisory committee revie~ed and commented
on program plans. Various proqrams 'iIIere considered prior to
selecting a proposed program that provides mobile services and a
permanent site for collection of household hazardous wastes. The
pr~s&J program will ma~e stcpovers of apprc~imately one week at
pre-selected sites throughout th~ county, to receive and process
household hazarO:ous 'Wastes from nearby residents. The program also
proposes a permanent site at a landfill or municipal corporation
y~rd for support a~d collection functions~ Actual costs will be
determined by dividing progra1l:l ... C:Q.lit.S 'tt-; ttl~ nu-mber of vehiclp.s
served. The number of participants {vehicles} served will be con
trolled by using-an appointmerot system for participation. Each
city 'Would control use by settinq a limit on the number ot
participating vehicles. In cases 'Where the limit is approached.
the city coulcl stop participation, or provide additional tunds~
The proposed implementation of the program would:
o be established and operated by th~ county for a minimum of one
year, beqinninq on or after July 1, 1991;
o be evaluated and zodified, if necessary, after a period of one
yeari
-1-
CMR:124:91
o
o cost approximately $90 to $110 per car; and
o be funded by
unincorpora.ted
jurisdiction's
participatin9
areas, based
r-esident&.
cities and
on actual
the county
usaqe by
for
each
The IGC has requested that each city in the county identify and
indicate to County staff before January Jl t 1991:
1. Estimated City participation level~ Does your City want to
participate in this proqra~? If yes, how many cars from the
City should the Program be prepared to serve. assuminq a cost
per car of $90 to $1101
.. ~ Prefe:--red City start. dates: When should the Program be
prepared to serve City residents (on or after July 1, 1991)1
3. Preferred City locations for mobile program services: What
sites can the City offer for temporary location of the mobile
program?
Palo Alto's ~9usetf21d Razard~s wast~~~ram
Palo Alto currently pro .... ides residents with monthly collection
events at the Water Quality Control Plant for household hazardous
waste disposal. The costs for Palo Alto's p~ogram averaged $104
per participant from July through November 1990 (Attachment A).
This is the first year the city of Palo Alto has offered monthly
household hazardous waste disposal events~
Summary
staff supports any program that reduces the amount of household
hazardous wastes disposed of in landfills and sewer systems.
HoweVer,. because tlie actual costs of the proposed program cannot be
determined until the total number of participants, level of
participation by each city, and costs for staffing collection and
disposal are known" it may be premature to participate in the
prO'1ram. The City's current proqram costs are in the: same range as
the proposed County program~
Reccmmenda.tion
Staff recommends that council direct staff to:
1. Send a letter to the county endorsinq ~~e program; but stating
that the city will no~ participate in the county program until
the first year costs per participant are known;
2. Compare the costs of the County's first year program to
Alto's monthly program and r~turn to Council with
information and a recommendation after July 1992.
-2-
CMR:124:9l
Palo
that
•
.-
Respectfully submitted,
,//;.L/·-%c//x/L'
IUCHAEL H. MILLER
Oeputy Director, ~blic Works operations
DAVID G. ADAIIS
Oi.rect.or of Public Works. '\ r/ £k~b
~taChment: Attachment A -Program Suamary
A~tachment B IGC MemoTscdlim
-J-
CJIR:124:91
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PROG~ SUMMARY
To Dote Fimoal Year 1990-91
JULY SEPT.
PAR'l'lCIPATION 1990 1990
OCT. NOV. TOTAL TO OATE
1990 1990 FY 90-91 ----•••• ------~------_________________ w ____________________ ~ _______________ ~. ______ ._.w ___
vehicles 449 203 263 231 ll46
Households Represented 536 215 J48 259 US8
Previous Participants 216 93 109 105 523
Naw Partioir"ants 2]3 110 ).54 126 623
Hazardous Wastes Collected
------------._--._--------
Crums for Dlspo8al 95 n 5;Z 47 225
Drums for Incineration 32 11 19 10 72
Gollons ot Latex
Paint Recycled 63() 195 168 204 1197
Costs -----
Contractor Expenees 56,120.34 24,448.12 35,061.09 30,000< 145,629.55
Cost Per Participating 105.95 117.32 )'02.~? 108.11
Household
·.l!Itimatec1
~
)
>-rt
IT
~
" or a
~
~
rt ,.
" >,
;,:
. " !,
"
, ,
.;
.' '.
.:j
,-,\.,
/
Attac~-nt p
".
:1l",IIt,'JII'i'S.tII\ ~.IIKo'e:sI_"""
"""" , ... ,IIl",'.uI;."., .... , .......
~"",,'.""''' ""'1""-."<.)"0\
SANTA ClAI!A COUNTY INT,RGOvtRNM,! TAL C DUNC ~
~iIlIft';'GawI~C~,E2SI"''''''!i
iOiNt'Sl H~~Slr~.llltlf!OO1
S..,JmJ!.~!l511'J
MEMORANDUM
TO: City COUQcils of SJnta Cla~a County
I'ROM: Gail Woolley. Chair
SUBJECT:
Santa Clara County
InteLqovernmental Conneil
COUNTY-WIDE HOUSEHOLD ~.ZARDOUS
WAST!: COLLECTION PROGI!AH
City Action Requested by January 31~ 1991
The tnterqove~naental CouDcil (IGC) of Santa Clara County is
writing to endoLse and ask your support for a newly proposed
countywide Hou~ehold Haza[dO~8 Waste P[ogra.. This proposed
proqraa developed bY a team of city. county~ and iodu6tLY
representatives. i~clude6 the fol1ovinq elements:
• a mobile proq[aa ~ith a tr~ile[. which would travel
~hEOU9bout the County. aakinq stopovers at pre-selected
sites to collect household hazardous waste trom nearby
residents: and
• a per~aQent ~hub· site. pee haps located at ~ landfill or
corporation yard~ to serve as a support facility (oc the
aobile pEoqraa and as an additional collection site.
The proposed Imple.entation Plan to pcovide for start-up would
call fot tbe program to:
• Be established and operated by the County tor a .ini.u. of
one yeat. beqinning on Ot after July 1. 1991:
• Be evaluated and .odified if necessary after a period o(
ooe year:
• Cost appro~imately $90 to SIlO per car:
• Be [Ynded by participatin9 cities and the County [or
onincorpocated areas. based 00 actual usaqe by each
jurisdiction's residents:
• Include a public information component.
f4OIII299-1414
~:Ii~r~r;".I·~fl·~,"'·GI",",·I""~IIo,lI..t~ •• 'Il<MII~·l ... G;I11l·Iil'~I." ... ",,.s..-."""H~;''''''''''~''.''''''.~'~
~.ID:I·~(I ... '~iOiI"9I' s...,....,. ~ Ol!~"-I>' '1,..,., C,m~ts~~t1",""I,. ~." .. 0·.>/1<:1
. '
/
pa:;e tvo o
Tb~ IGC wishes to request that eacb city 1n the COUQty identify
and indicate to coun~y staff by January 31. 1991.
1~ Esti.ated city pa~tte1patLoQ level:
Doe6 your eity want to participate in this pr~qram? If yes.
how .;j0Y cats f.roll: tbe city should tb.e P.roqram b! p.repare~
to serve~ assu.ing a cost pet cat of '90 to $1101 (Cities
may also choose to partieipate in a mote Ii.ited capae1ty
see ·City M.na~er· attachment)
2. P[~fe[.red city statt dates: When should the proqram be
prepared to serve city tesident~ (on Ot after 3uly 1. 1991}1
3. Pcefe[ced city loeation. for mobile ~ro9ram services: What
sites caD the city offer for temporary location of Lbe
mobile "roqtam?
Plea •• lub.it you I I •• pan •• to ~h. Santi Clara County Office of
Toxics and Solid Waite ~nage •• ~t 17]5 North Pirat Street. San
Jase. CA 95112 A~tn: 1 •• 0 Kob.ahi
Please note our endorse.ent will also be forwarded to the cou~ty
Beard of $upetviaota.
It there ate any q~~stioa •• If (Q~the~ la(o~.atlon i. d~81~ed. ~t
if the City Council andler staff would like a pre8~ntatlon to
explain the p[oq[a.~ please call taao .obasbi at (406) 441-1195.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Countyvi~e P[oqra. was developed by the Household
Haz.rdous MaterialS WOlking Croup. staffed by the county Tanner
Proqra •• under the direction of the Tanner Advisoty Co •• ittee~
Each city in the County ~s a representative in the ~otkinq Group.
The IntergDvernmeDtal Council Solid Waste Co •• fttee and Technical
Advisory Co •• ittee have also reviewed and co~eDted upon proqram
plans p~riodically durinq the pl~QDin; staqes and fully support
the ,e~omm~ndea ptograD.
Several different models weLe considered by tbe Wortinq Group.
iD~ludinq :
• a proqra. with five fixed sites:
• & pr09ta. with ODe tired site:
• a proqram with a mobile tcailer wockinq alone:
• a proqram witb a mobile trailer supported by a fiIed hub
site.
The recommended proqram ~o.blnes a trailer that vill travel
thrccqbout the county. matinq stopovers of about one week ~t
pre-selected sit9S to re~eive bousehDld baz~tdoU8 wastes f[o~
nearby residentsi and a persanent lit~~ probably lo~ated at a
landfill oc a corporation yard. which will serve aa a support
facility fOL the ~Qbile trailer as well a. a collection site.
,
•
/"
Page tlu:ee
This combination will provide county residents with a high level
of se~Yice while .ini.i~in1 start-up costs. The proposed program
can be easily expanded or ~odified. and provides the advantages of
year-round access and cOQvenience. A single ~ove[nmental entity
vou14 neqotiate service contracts. avoiding duplication of
efforts. The proposal includes a public: inCor.ation componeOi:
featuring a aodest advertising budget and a ce~t[al telephone
number for infor.~tion-qivinq and appoinc~eDt-.a~inq. tcc
tecoaaends thiB component be expanded to ensure adequate public
education.
The eBti_ated cost of the collection proqca. is $90 to $110 per
car. This fiqure includes one-tiae startup costa (aaortized over
five year8)~ as well a9 on90inq disposal. labor~ &upplY6 publicity
and adminiltrative costs. Actual cost per cat will be determined
by divldinq proqram costs by the numbet of cats served. Eac~
jurisdiction will be billed fot the actual cost of servinq tbe
total number of cars fro~ tbat jurisdiction.
The nuabec of ca~s served will be cODttolled by usinq an
appointment sYBte~. When a jurisdiction il qettinq close to
teaching tbeir chosen limit~ tbey would be contacted and asked if
they wish to inctease the nu.bet of cars secved from their
jurisdiction or they would instruct staff to make no .ote
appoint.ents for cars teom their city.
The Du.ber of mobile proQca. stopovers ia a city would be directly
related to the level of services requested by tbe city. It is
anticipated that cities which currently wor~ toqetbet in plannin9
household hazaLdou6 waste events will continue to cooperate in
developinq plans for schedulinq ProQram services in their area3.
Each jurisdiction will decide the level at wtic~ to pa[ticipate~
when to initiate &eLvices through tbe pcoQram~ how to fund
participatico o and what si~es are available to~ the proqram
.topovers..
Enclose4 is a list of some of the advantages of the proposed
countywide collection prograM .nd responses to City Managers
CODCe~n&. ~lso enclosed is. a aatrix sum~rizinq the
city-s.ponsored housebold hazardous waste collection events held in
the County <Jurinq t~he past two year&'4
cc~ City Manaqe{s
DiaDne McKenna. ChGir~ JGC Solid Waste Co-.ittee
. :",
"' "
/
.'
•
:i>P..'i",,,lom!"!.l/!"'1,,"'"
"0; , .... ,,.:,,.,.,,, 1'''JlI"".¥'It
:Ir<.~ .. rr.'(l oop. .......... ,1I'\>
. i t, ...
I-'4.' ..
Cw.tr'ri)IM!:nmrr;: eel'll",-, tldl \1{1I9 ro W!sl H~ Stri!'!l'!, n~ ~
SaPlJIm,C~9~11~
•
~l(]&lmm'
Adv.,,!agH of th~ Proposed <;ountywide Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Progtilm Over City-Sponsored Plograms.
Planning efforu would be centra~1~ucing the-i:mount Qf time spent on o.ganizing
coDec~on events by city and County .. fl'
Tbe.m~ed program .l"'.olild include astmi~islrat~vt :ttaffing. minimi2ing, the role of
oldside contractors. Service cor-tracts wou!d be made diuctly with supply \'endors,
waste haulers. and disposal compan;es, tliminating contractors' management fees...
• Contracts could be negotia.led more effectively, bec.a'.lSe infcnnation that has bf'e'n
collected individuany by cities in their dealings with contractors and disposal companies
could be shared.
• Cost savings could be realized, because o;uppiies ,nd equipmenl would be bought m
gn-al.er quantities.
• Wat.te would be shipped for dispos..tll.., larger quantities, allowtng the l1t!gotiation of,J
k:lwer shipping rate.
• Small amounts of wastes of the same ty~ conectEd it sever ... t mobile sites could be
combined at the hub site for dLsposaJ cost sa .... ings. CHJufLng and dispOStlI of two 5-g.1I1Ilr.
buckets af haza rdous waste costs as nn~ch as for ill fun 55-ga 110 n dru m.}
• The on-going conection program could divert IJ$Jble hazardous maleri.JLs from the
waste-str-eam atld donate them for UR by community groups and othe-r potenti.Jl users.
• Labor costs could be reduced by contracting for manual iabor wilh agencit'S such as Lh.~
Califomia Conservation Cor-ps.
• The county-.... ide-program could arrange to have ioJlex paint l"l"Conditioned by a paint
company and r.:!tumcd to local jurisdktions for distribution and r..!'U5e. It cosks koss to
recondiuon paint :.ha.n it does to dis~ p( it . r 1 .
• The proposed program NS an esti~ied cOst of $90-$11-:) p~r c.n. This includ~ nwrkl't
costs for an Sood:s: and services. However, program OIdmintstro1tion would seel;. grant
funding and donations ol goods and services to defriJy .som~ progrJm costs.
• Cost o( dty-sponsorcd evenlS over tht 1415t two yurs has .a\'~r.1ged 5108 r .. ~r CJT, This.
average does not reOcct the cost 01 planning thr evenl" .and citykounty ~t.1H timt:'
working at events. the value of volunteer labor, and donolll.-d s!.:rvic~ olnd 'Surrti",·s .
.:-f.,':;.....(loo.~t....-;I. u.o-,oto;. G'!rar' t ... h.-IOIIIlr..,~, 1I"l" r, ...... '~ . ..,. iii ..... " ' ..... '. " .. ;.oo~ '~"IIIM.I' \ ..... ~""'~ '.'
~J;;:w. s...~I.'· "01",,· s.-,..I.'~ ~""''''-''' ... I ~,.r;"-'" ~ Clot, \II,,,, 1'1 '" ~", ••
How the Proposed Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Program Addresses City Managers' Concerns
During the early phases of the countywide planning elfort, a survey was sent
to city managers asking them to identify the key concerns in their cities about
disposal options for household hazardous waste. The discussion which
follows shows how the proposed Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
ColJectiOf'. Program addresses these ,key concerns.
1.1 Will there be adequale access for all residents?
A mobile program brings the collection point to the residents by stopping .t
locations throughout the county_ Trailer stops will be scheduled to provide .t
least quarterly acces' to all residents, by appointment only, within a 20-
minute commute.
The fixed hub site will also be av.,labIe to residents of participating
jurisdictions or. an appointment-only basis.
2) How will perscns who are-moving be accommodated?
While all residents wishing to dispose of household hazardous waste would
be required to make an appointm""~ collen; in the process of moving would
be directed to the very :>ext open day of the program, or the next open day
""or their residences. Appointment slots would be held open each day to
a,,:ommod.te such people.
A jurisdiction could choose to partici pate in the countywide progr. m only for
the serlke that it can. provide for persons who need immediafe access.
3) Can the Cll.rr~nt level (If service be provided iilt the same or lower cost?
Dat. collected over the past two years on city household hazardous waste
events in this counly indicate th.t the average cost per car for household
hazardous waste disposal at events has beaI apprOximately $108 per car.
These costs do not include, in most cases, advertising costs, staff time (or .
planning and scheduling the event, and volunteer or compensatory time for
city or County employees in support roles at evenes. In some cases, on~sjt.e
technical labor, and battery and waste oil disposal were donated In
comparison, the proposed countywide program has estimated a cos! ranging
from $90 10 $110 per car. This estimate assumes no free labor or donations of
services and includes one--time costs amortized over five years_
~ How does the proposed countywide program fit in with the current city
sponsored household haurdous waste coUection evenls7
,
..
G
Cities will be asked to choose the level at wMch they will participate. If
desired, they can continue to hold periodic disposal events and use the
program only to acrommodate r .. iden~ whQ are moving. Several cities want
to implement the proposed countywide program as soon as possible. The
program could be phased in with those cities whilo other dlies decide how
they will participate.
CUWi Son._
COST tAilS cOSy, .. ARTIO I COST CAAS
Ill.U.d.a..II IlU.:ILU '-Aft ~ IlU..&W. lt1W./.U
COSTI PA ..... IO leveNTSI TOYA,,·
:cAB Il&I....IWt 18 1UU ,OMMI!"JS
e:-c ............
Saratoga
"""n\y
T"""
GilrD'f
~0I0 .. n.l41~
"""nil'
T ... '
C-"", ... -L AHOI Hills"
Min. V,..
""".~ Tola'
Pak) AIIG"·
Sanll 01 ...
SUl'Ift)1val.
5335,000
o • • • • •
$5,667
$$.001
lS.fSL
$17,000
$26.610
~,54'
$9.451
$33,357
~
"''',lOB
$211,340
$101,044
$"0,616
2,~ $""
• • • • Q • .. \., ..
"'" .,.
'3$
7A
31.
-ll
1,04t1 , ...
"'21
1,278
• • o • ~ •
1$7
110e
S1U
190
$17
......
......
\ ....
..M<
t.iI'.% ..... .....
1.';'%
1 .• % , .....
2 ....
•
.,8,3Oti
$27,370
$1,056
1A9.ClOO
~
$139,497
$6.300
$6 .... ft.:gg
""1.~8
$5Il,"53
$tO,n3
$66.555
S1,.1.L5
$181,126
$211,340
$95,&10
595,003
o
336 ••• lO ...
ill
1,250 ,.
,77
1Ji ,35
33·
Al. ., ." ...J1
1,637
, ...
1,296
1,118
o
S" :t
I ..
111_
,'12
11A
18'
--It.'''\986 2H.530 tIr_~.~OMl,."",,,,,,,,,
2·""'1' .. ., ...... 2.:w.. •
2,",,%
•. 1%
2.3%
0 ...... 2." , .....
.. "" 4.t"'"
~,O%
'2.\,", ,.,..
7."%
'~'. lr1'1'.
11ft ••
3.,...,
3I1yr. ' ..... '''''. hi , • .sl-90
A"". 3."'" _.
2 .... ' _.
14,440 "''''''''_,1 ................... _ .. ~ 1 ... ',150 ......,......, ........ ___
1,.GO
9,110
8,310
9,540 _""IIId..~ ........... _,HlC&nrr
'1A"'11 t..n ............ _. __ ....-.
2,600 iOtNUfIIIIItI,
17,ON
10,400
2,910
~,oao
3.500
25.3."0 ... .., ..................... -....
34,880 dIt_ ...... tatrn.-,_ .... UW-wtl. u...,.,....,aoA
4SPO ..,w_ .. ..-.... ... ""WO"t,.. ........ _ .. ...... an..,.., ... _~
t.tilpltQ. $63,322 350 2'"'1 153:3,603 361 2.9%.I 1111yf. 12,"20 .... ..,. ... : ............. -ClawI¥
County Q....Q -~..At 0,8% lltY".lQ.90 8,170 ~'IIII' T~a1 ~n '3S\l $U, 1 539,5000 "1~ "'3-
Gt."d Te .. l. U52.48t _,273 St15 $18'.309 "'41 "00 ...... .,... _ .. , , .. 'I $1)57.100; ~. __ ..... , •• os1: 0.---..... ' 'i0S/c.,
IIIOTI!I ......... Not ... MIl _II, MefoVN It -P'III .... 1IdIoI .............. _ •
• 1*1_ ...... , .. a..ww t'" ..... _) -0._ IMI 1ft ... M"'" .u OM. ~ t9, ..... _" •• ~ 111I11III., __ .. __ ........
I '.'.'.) ,.','i,
""'~
:"
. "':
I. )
"',,
•