The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 SOLID WASTE PROG 06-01-98NO. 14 6-1-98 DATE: JUNE 1, 1998 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SOLID WASTE PROGRAM ANALYSIS SUMMARY:. Staff is reqUesting the City CoUncil receive., and file the Great Western Reclamation Annual Report for calendar year 1997 and the Tustin Solid Waste Program Analysis report and consider a request' from Great Western Reclamation to place a measure on the November ballot to implement an enhanced recycling program through an extension of the : current Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council 1) 2) 3) Receive and file the 1997 Great Western Reclamation Annual Status Report; Receive and file the Solid Waste Program Review Report; and, Consider a request from Great Western Reclamation to place a measure on the November 1998 ballot to implement an enhanced recycling program through the extension of the current Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT None with this action. It is estimated that the preparation of new solid waste contract documents will cost a minimum of $20,000 in FY 1998/1999. This amount will be included in the proposed FY 98-99 operating budget for the Public Works Department. DISCUSSION Great Western Reclamation (GWR) is the City's franchise solid waste hauler and is required to submit an annual report to the City which details the efforts made on behalf of the City to comply with contract provisions and State requirements detailed in AB-939. GWR's ,Mmual Report is included as attachment A. The report provides an overview of GWR's efforts during the 1997 calendar year and is intended as a broad measure of contract compliance. An accurate measure of recycling activities is also included. The GWR report is not a comprehensive review of all solid waste activity in the City. It covers only the solid waste that is picked up, processed, and disposed of by GVv'R. A comprehensive review of all solid wastes generated in the City and disposed in landfills is provided in an staff prepared annual report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). In 1997 GWR collected a total of 71,182 tons of waste from Tustin residences and businesses. All of this waste was taken to the Sunset Material Recovery Facility and processed to remove recyclable materials. The remaining waste is then disposed in a landfill.. GWR diverted from landfills 17,152 tons or 24% of the total waste collected. In comparison, the GWR diversion rates for 1995 and 1996 were 17.5% and 17%, respectively. The increase in diversion in 1997 can be directly attributed to the transfer of material to a waste to energy facility in Long Beach. Unfortunately, this transfer of waste does not currently qualify as a portion of the 25% diversion under AB-939. However, this diversion methOd will count in the'year 2000 in order to meet the 50% diversion requirement. GWR and its parent company Waste Management of Orange County have initiated several measures in an. attempt to improve recycling and landfill diversion rates. In 1996, improvements were made to the Sunset Environmental Facility at a cost of $1.5 million. Improvements included the addition of a roof over the waste processing area along with improved site drainage and new truck scales. Also, in 1996, Sunset Environmental hired additional staff to add a shift for hand sorting collected waste. GWR has also increased outreach efforts for high waste volume businesses and community social events and schools. Each year, staff submits a mandated report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) which details the City's efforts to comply with AB-939. At its core, AB-939 requires the City to divert from landfills 25% of all waste generated within the City by 1995 and 50% of all waste generated within the City by the year 2000. The report required by the CIWMB includes a computation which uses 1990 as a base year for City-wide waste generation. The 1990 waste generation number was identified in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). That base year waste generatiOn number is then adjusted upward to the current · year using a complex formula which factors in population growth, sales taxes, the employment rate, and the Consumer Price Index. The adjusted number (which is only theoretical) is then compared against actual waste disposed in all landfills. The 1995 report prepared by staff indicated that the City's diversion rate waS 26.27%. However, after the report was submitted to the State, the County of Orange revised their landfill disposal numbers and reported to the State that the City was disposing more waste in the landfills than had been previously identified. Consequently, during their review of the 1995 report, the CIWMB concluded that 'the City's effective waste diversion rate was 17% as opposed to the State requirement of 25%. No response to this finding was requested by the CIWMB asa more complete analysis (which will also include the 1996 report) is scheduled to be released later this year. It should be noted that the 1996 annual report to the CIWMB showed some improvement. Staff calculated the 1996 waste diversion rate to be 2'4..82%, an increase of 46% over the 1995 CIWMB annual report. The 1997 CIWMB diversion rate is not yet available as the annual report has not been prepared. Staff did anticipate that there would be some disagreement on the actual amount of waste disposed in landfills that originated in Tustin. In the 1995 annual report, staff discussed the City's lack of jurisdiction over the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS Tustin) and the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). Some potential flaws in the County's solid waste disposal reporting system were also identified. MCAS Tustin and TUSD haulers were also not comPlying with the County's "voluntary" disposal reporting requirements. This precluded analysis of their recycling and waste diversion efforts by the City, County or State.._As a result, it was virtually impossible for city staff to determine if all the waste attributed to Tustin by all haulers and self-haulers originated from within the incorporated limits of Tustin. It should be noted that while the State has the authority to levy fines up $10,000 per day for failure to comply with AB-939, the City has not been warned or'"'put on notice". The CIWMB recently did assess fines to some agencies, but those fines were assessed to agencies that the CIWMB determined had not made a good faith effort to comply with the law. In anticipation of the year 2000 50% diversion requirement, Dr Eugene Tseng was hired by the City in the summer of 1997 to complete a comprehensive analysis of the City's current Solid Waste Program (See attachment B). Dr. Tseng was also requested to make recommendations to the City and to GWR on methods to increase current waste diversion and make proPosals .for consideration under the next solid waste contract. Dr. Tseng is a professor in environmental law at UCLA and has performed extensive work for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the CIWMB and various cities and solid waste agencies in California. Local clients have included the City of Laguna Beach, the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department and Waste Management of Orange County. A copy of his analysis is included with this report as attachment B. Dr. Tseng analyzed several major aspects of the City's Solid Waste Program and came to the following significant conclusions: The City's CIWMB approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) is adequate and does not require revision at this time. The SREE is the document that provides the basis of all collection and recycling computations and identifies those programs which the City will implement to meet 1995 and 2000 landfill diversion goals, and; The City's current collection and disposal practices will not reduce the quantity of waste disposed in landfills sufficiently to comply with the State 50% diversion mandate. Dr Tseng recommends the following measures be implemented by the City: 1. Conduct a feasibility/pilot study for automated curbside recycling 2. Implement a separate green waste collection program. 3. Conduct series of waste reduction and recycling workshops for residents. 4. Conduct workshops for landscape contractors. 5. Conduct waste reduction and recycling audits for the non-residential sector. 6. Conduct waste reduction and recycling audits for businesses. 7. Implement waste reduction and recycling award program. 8. Develop a City technical assistance waste reduction and recycling web page. , Implement a City and hauler construction and demolition waste technical assistance program. These recommendations have been reviewed by GWR and City staff. There is agreement that recommendations three through nine can be implemented to some degree during the current contract as they generally fall under current contract services. Full implementation of these reconnuendations may result in an increase of diversion rates by a minimum of 10%, according to Dr. Tseng. However, the implementation of these measures will' not guarantee compliance with the year 2000 50% diversion requirement. The implementation of all recommendations could result in increased landfill diversion by 25-35% (50-65% total diversion), thereby insuring that the City would meet year 2000 requirements. Due to the anticipated high capital cost of the equipment required to implement the services recommended (one & re'o) in Dr. Tseng's report, Great Western Reclamation would only provide the additional services to City. residents if the current contract were amended. The current contract is due to expire on June 30, 2000. Measure J, approved by City voters in November 1994, requires the contract be placed out for public bid upon expiration. GWR believes that the current City code should be revised to allow the current contract to be amended. GWR proposes that a measure be placed on the November ballot to permit renegotiation of the current contract. (See attachment C). The request by GWR proposes the following service/contract enhancements: Implement a curbside green waste program. 2. A residential rate decrease. . Enhancements in insurance requirements, bonding requirements, AB-939 and hazardous materials indemnification to improve protections for the City. 4. Long term rate stabilization for residential and conunercial customers. Staff has. not conducted an analysis of the GWR proposal and is not prepared to offer any recommendation at this time. The County's deadline for submitting local ballot measures is August 7. The City Council would be required to conduct a public hearing on July 6th to approve the wording of.the measure and all for and against arguments. . Staff will hire a consultant to guide staff through the complex RFP process beginning next fiscal year. It is estimated that $20,000 would be the minimum cost to hire a consultant for this purpose. Funds for this purpose will be requested in the FY 98-99 operating budget. The proposed time table for the development and implementation of the new solid Waste contract is as follows: Award Consultant Contract ....................................................................... Fall 1998 Conduct Public/City Council Workshops ........................................ Winter 1998-99 Submittal of Final Draft RFP to staff and City Council ........................ Spring 1999 City Council appr. oval of final RFP .................................................... Summer 1999 Authorize Bid ............................................................................................. Fall 1999 Award Contract ................................................................................. Nov.-Dec 1999 New Contract in effect ........................................................................... July 1, 2000 Tim D. Serlet Public Works Director/City Engineer j~rlgleyers Administrative Assistant II, Public Works ATTACHMENT A GREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION 1997 ANNUAL REPORT Gr-bat Western Reclamation 1800 S. Grand Avenue Santa Aha, California 92705 714/558-7761 · FAX: 714/568-6626 February 16, 1998 Waste Management Company Mr. Tim Serlet City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92688 Dear Mr. Sedet: Great Western Reclamation is pleased to submit its Annual Report for the calendar year of 1997 to the City of Tustin. At your request and convenience, I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this information with you. I am also available to make a presentation to you and your staff or members of the City Council. We continue to assess' our performance .and service standards with regard to the recycling program in order to assist the City in meeting its goals of an environmentally sound program for solid waste management. The company and its employees are pleased to participate in and aCtively support community programs, which make Tustin an excellent place in which to live and work. SincereLy, /-' /f ,,"' ..,~ _.,....-) .... Division President' cc: Joe Myers /cif tus97.doc a division of Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc. City of Tustin Annual Recycling Report January 1 - December 31, 1997 Overview The City of Tustin's recycling program continues as a dirty MRF program. While this type of program has an ease of use for the customer, it poses a challenge in meeting the 50% diversion goal. Great Western Reclamation 'continues to examine new programs to get the City to it's goal. Waste Diversion Results For the reporting year ending December 31, 1997, Great Western Reclamation hauled a total of 71,182 tons of solid waste within the City of Tustin. Of this total, 17,152 tons (24%) was recycled and 54,030 tons (76%) was iandfilled. ~esidentiai materials recycled increased from 23.6% in 1996 to 24.2% in 1997. Multi- family recycling increased from 17.8% in t996 to 25.4% in' 1997. Commercial diversion also increased from 17.8% in 1996 to 25.4% in 1997. Industrial recycling increased from 11.2% in 1996 to 19.6% in 1997. Detailed reports are attached to this recycling report. Bulky item Collection Great Western Reclamation offers a bulky item collection of materials, such as furniture and large household appliances, to our residential customers free of charge. There were 1,538 bulky item requests in program year 1997. This represents 127.50 tons of materials that were processed at Sunset Environmental. There were 352 more requests in 1997. Customer Satisfaction Program Great Western Reclamation has continued its comprehensive Customer Satisfaction Assessment Program, which began in 1993. Great Westem Reclamation has developed a specialized "TeleCenter" which handles our Customer Satisfaction Assessment Program. The center conducts quarterly surveys from Great Western Reclamation's commercial customer base. The purpose of the survey is to determine the customer's perception of quality of service, price and billing practices. From these surveys, a report is generated and forwarded to our Sales Manager on a daily basis. If any negative feedback is given by a customer on the report, it is the Sales Manager's responsibility that the customer is contacted within 72 hours of receipt of the report to resolve any customer problems. The Sales Manager then receives feedback regarding the resolution of the customer' problem and forwards it to the Division President for review. Great Westem Reclamation has developed and implemented a single-point-of-contact "Customer Service Center". Our goal is to create an environment where any one of our highly trained Customer Service Representatives can handle any and all customer needs. Each customer call is logged using our Operations Customer Service Notes, recorded. and if necessary, followed-up,. This system and the additional training our employees have received has resulted in better service and increased customer satisfaction. Instrumental in this scenario is a completely upgraded and enhanced telephone system. Great Westem Reclamation added an Automatic Call Distributor to more efficiently distribute calls to available Customer Service Representatives. This system enables staff te answer customer calls more quickly. Business Outreach - City of Tustin Great Western Reclamation has been and continues to be, an active member of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce. One of our emplOyees serves on the Board and another serves on the Govemmental Affairs Committee. In addition, many employees regularly attend chamber breakfasts, mixers, and events. Great Western Reclamation staff educates the business community about recycling and source reduction. In addition to these efforts, source reduction audits are provided upon request of the customer in order to reduce monthly trash bills as well as assisting commercial customers in "closing. the loop;' through source reduction, recycling, and reusing materials. Public Education/Promotional Materials Great Western Reclamation has worked hard to provide numerous public information venues for Tustin residents and commercial customers. In addition to creating a semi- annual newsletter regarding recycling, source reduction, and reusing materials, Great Western ReClamation has implemented the following educational programs: · Christmas Tree Recycling at Columbus Tustin Park Anti-Scavenging Decals - Due to the increasing commodity value of recyclable materials, many Orange County cities have experienced an increase in scavenging. GWR developed an. Anti-Scavenging Decal for distribution to Tustin residents and businesses to place on garbage containers. The decals serve as an as a warning message that scavengers will be prosecuted. Although this educational component is not part of our contractual agreement.with the City of Tustin, GWR believes this matter deserves special attention and has incurred the development and printing costs of the decals. CYCLER, Waste Management's recycling robot, appears at many local events to teach children and adults about recycling. Cycler is a big hit with Tustin kids. Community Involvement GWR has a long history of providing financial support, in-kind donations, and volunteers fOr a number of local events and organizations. When appropriate, recycling program information is distributed. The following lists only some of the many City events GWR sponsors: -. o Tustin · Tustin · Tustin · Tustin · Tustin Eastern Little League Chamber of Commerce - Casino Night - Christmas Breakfast - Annual Installation Dinner Boys & Girls Club Community Foundation Schools Foundation -Imagine A Million - Dino Dash Substantial contributions of services such as bins, trash and recycle boxes and portable toilets were provided to the following events, qualifying GWR as a major sponsor: · · · · · 4th of July Parade Tustin Chili Cook-Off Tustin Thunder Tustin Tiller Days Christmas Tree Recycling at Columbus Tustin Park Summary In 1998 Great Westem Reclamation will be working with the City staff to develop new means to reach the 50% diversion goal. One component we will study is the feasibility of customer separation of some commodities, such as green waste. This would increase diversion significantly. Great Western Reclamation has already implemented some of the suggestions of Dr. Eugene Tseng who served as a consultant to the City. GWR will work with staff to address the issues raised in Dr. Tseng's report. o o. o. . o. o. o. L~ ':::.:::i': :':':::.'14 '~!:':.::..! -.:.::.-'.:' ':'.: -2":'.'.:' .::~-~.'.-. ;¥::: !: %-: '.-.:: '2:: · ...-. ·.: .: f..'..:: .....o · ':i"..':.:::'. -'. :.':7." "5::.'-':'-': . ::.:..':.'.." . ..o-_.o. i~:'.".::) ...-'..... .5..": :'.. .':..:: .:: :'....::...:~ ..o..... :"7? '..~o.. '.'" 'C ... .... · :..-'. · :-i"' .... .... :} i:~':."'-'i °. " ......................... ; ............. ~ ........... .~. ............ ~ ........ ~...~,.~ ..... 4,.. .... ~.?..~?.~..,~,~.~,~..~..~.',,?'.'.',.~' ..................... ~ .....,,.:..~ · .:.....-. :.: ....<.....,:.:~.x.~.....~.,.-.>~+.-..~.~-.-...~.~..-...~.~..?..~? I ;:.. ======================= <x.x::.:.. .~;: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::-: >:.'-:-:.:~:.:~..:. ======================== ::t:.':L--:.:. ::: ======================================================================================================================================================================================================================= :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 ~ ~- E · '~1~:;::::: · ;::'% '~ · ':';':: ~' · ~'::"'1~ · ::::: ~ e ::::; q~ · ;~:~::'; C~). · :::::'~:::' C~4. · ¢:$':",":~ ~' :': 1~,e :::::;::1~ '· :-:::.:: · · :.. :i:E:!~:::~:~!?~:i..~_::i::!!::'!j:i!?i:::"~ Z-:;";!:: =============================================================================================================== ::8:i:!8i:;!:!;~-~$i:~:.~:i:i:~:?!::i~!:i8~i:!:!:!:i:~:~E.i~i:~[::.i!i!!$!~:!:..~``~)~!!!: !~ ~!i: · ." . . _~.o :::::::::::::::::::::::: o.-~':'~?:. ~r "~ .... ,,, -~ ,-::. ======================================================================== ............. =========================== .............. ~:: --. ~'::~ .:;i'.'!;!i~::. T:: m. ::;:i~:i~ "~. ~::? ~:' ~ ~:~. :;':: ~ %-::-~: :: ~:'.~ (~[~;~::I~~:i:[~[:.~:;: ~ ~?~:: ~::~ ~ ~::~:~ ~j~;~;~:~;~ ?:~::~:~.~:~?;~ ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~. ;~:--.:.~:? 0 :.:~.:--:':-:-:: ~.::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ i :¢::?~::':77:;?:.::::.:.?:~[:.:~: f:?..~::.~;.?_::-?.:.'-.. =============================== :::~.~:::~:>:~:k:::~:;..:::::~:~::;??:..:[:~:.~:¢.hl. SL.;j~[ :~j;~;~i:?::~:¢~i~:;U~;~::HHH;~;(H;~H~i;:~i?~{U(~;:~1.(~;~:.K:~.~H~.~:i:~; ...':.::..:.. '.3:.?. .:-" i : .:>.:f:':'.: ~-.....-: .'.- .'2".':".:'." .-2'.::'. '::;'.:'.: 1 ..: .~..': -~.' ,:.:.-..."_ -:.:.."-2::'. ?::.::.; :.¥...'-.:::' -: .' ..-.'., :57::'-." ':.'..:.:'..:. > Y..':..; .'.'-.'>~.X .?>...... :...7:'.: ~,'.'..!. .:."°°% . .*:::;.,..;s:...~:~;~.~:~:.:~::;..;.;;....**:~,.:~;ss:..,.:<:...:::::~.:*.:i.~:;;.?:.:~:~:;;~Di~!;.,.~..~:~:!:i:.`*~;.:..;$i:i~,¢.~!~:,:;i~,;;:.::~!~.~!s~:i:~i:~E:~:~.:.t..:i:~i:.::i:~i~i~i~i:~:E:~.~:!:i:i::~.:;~i:.::~,<.~.!~ . --. -- . . <.' · '.'.r.'.'. ~' ::: :: ?.- -- -.~.* .- ~- -: ?....- -~.:.-*.-...¢¢ :4-'. r · .-...-.,...... :.x .:.:..-.:. :. :.,.. :.: t-.-.-:.r.:.:..:-:, r.-.*-+ :.~.,..:.:-~-:....:..:...-... :.: ¢.... :....-.:...?..¢.y...- *-<...-.-..-...--¢ ~ ,..: .:.:.:.:.r...>.~. x-:..'..-. ?. ~..-.:.:.-.-...~.~.?...-~ .-.:..-.---?.--. ~ .~->.~-,-~:-~..-:-:.**--.'.:.:.?-...~- '~ "~ '~'" · · "' '"'"'~ · "~""1~ · '~'">~ · '.':--.'-- ' · ........ I x~':-:. I .;-: ..... · ............. '-~.. . ~ .,-- .~'~-~...:~.. ~'~ ,~, s...'..- .,.,~...x. 0 ~ ...*'..'-I~,- ~,,, .'.:~-;-x.~,"~ ....'.~-x. ~-.~-..'-:. ~. ~ :-: .:.i;~$.'~::'~_~.::~::::$:;;~:;:~:-'.": ~.~:~;.:-'!:i~::~- ~ :: ?i'"~;~ · " ~'~ '~'":'"':': ,~.-.-~-~"/':'-" "~"~+' *1,-. "~. -':'" ' ~' '~'' .-~ ...~-.-. .... ..-~?:-.x:~.. .,...~.:'~-:'.:.-.-. ..~ ..-.-..~-- :.~w-'.:.;-+~.--......-..,.,~.--...-.-. ,.,~..-.-~.--- :. T..- -:.f:-:>:-;: .. ~.-.:.:.-.~r,"~ .. o:..:x.:-.... . .. o ...:..-.:., f,l~...:.:.:.:.x-~'~.:;. ~.::.:;Y;:;;~:::>.-;~;~¢:;:::.1~:;:....~:$:::~:2~'~1-:.:;. ~::~:::~::::-~..;>.. ~::::.'2.;::.-;.-:~:.~:-';-, ~:~:..-.:.;.-.:::~'&l~: o::::.:::.::: ',:-::::..~:::.; :2:-: 'f-..i,.'. -x.':::. -::::: .'::Y ..:.:':'¢ ;:':..::.~::?~Y:~:-::::::~:; ::~::-:::. :. ~.:;: :..'~';;..::::::...;;:;:::.:.:.: '~ :.'::~.:-~: '::-~. :. ::::!~ !:~:.: ::::~::~. ~u~-~.':.':~::.::~. ::~ :-~:~ '~-¢:~;::;:::--'~'~:: > ~ ::: :;~ ::¥:~ ~ ';:::~ ~:: ::.';~:::: ::-'.': ~-~: ::::'-: :::;;::~::~':: $ :: :~ .:.:'~ ::~-::. :: .';:; ';:: .': :::; ::::~:::,':~ ?~-:'-::;2:: ::;;~: ~.:::;: :'~"'~":'-';" '~'"~ ""*-'"~ ......... "~':~'":'*':':"~':'~':";;:'-"'i~"'~' ............ ~";'~':; ............. ~'":;~:' ......... ~*~ .......... ~%~':':':':-'"""~';'~ .............. ~'-';':~' C:::o~ r"o~ r'o C::o~ C::o~ e-'o~ ~o~ t-o- C::O~ · I::: o~ C::o~ 0 i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 LU z > o ATTACHMENT B .- CITY OF TUSTIN. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM ANALYSIS BY DR. EUGENE TSENG E. Tseng and Associ 30023 West Rainbow ~.,~st Drive Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 889-8628 FAX (818) 889-5458 November 3, 1997 Mr. Joe Meyers City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: Final Draft of City of Tustin AB 939 Program Review Dear Mr. Meyers, Enclosed is a photo-copy original of the final draft of the City of Tustin AB 939 Program Review. Thank you and Rita for the comments and grammar corrections. Please send a copy to Christy Kindig after you have made it a public document. Thank you for the opportunity to review the diversion program plans and to be part of the overall program. Please call if you have any questions on the report. Sincere y, 'City OfTustin AB 93911Pr0gram ReView · . October 1997 E. Tseng and Associates 30023 West Rainbow Crest Drive Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 889-8628 City of Tustin AB 939 Program Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 1990 City of Tustin Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), 1990 Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS), and 1995 AB 939 Annual Report was reviewed by the contractor Dr. Eugene Tseng. An analysis was also completed on the amount of diversion that is being achieved through separation at the Sunset Environmental Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). An 18.7% diversion rate is being achieved for the materials sent to MRFs (as shown by hauler/MRF data). The City of Tustin AB 939 SRRE and SWGS were found to be' adequate for the intended purposes and do not need revision. The 1995 AB 939 Annual Report was found to be properly completed and calculates the City's 1995 waste reduction rate to be 26.27%. The Orange County Disposal Reporting System tonnage may have some potential errors from the reported self-haul, which accounted for approximately 20% of the total 1995 disposal tom, age. The contractor recommends the implementation of the following programs to maximize the diversion in the City of Tustin (list is not in order of importance or priority): , . . 6. 7. 8. 9. Conduct a feasibility/pilot study for automated curbside recycling. If recovery and participation rates justify a curbside recycling program, then implement. Implement a separate greenwaste collection program. Conduct a series of waste reduction and recycling workshops for the residents of the City (can investigate the feasibility.of a regional workshop with other cities). Workshops for landscape contractors / gardeners should be conducted to target . reduction of greenwaste being disposed at landfills. Conduct waste reduction and recycling audits for the non-residential sector. Conduct Waste reduction and recycling workshops for business Implement business waste reduction and recycling awards. Develop a City technical assistance waste reduction and recycling web page Implement a City and hauler construction and demolition waste technical assistance program. The costs of the programs will be dependent upon the scope and length of the programs. Many of the programs can be implemented immediately. Other programs will require modification of the existing hauler contract and/or may be implemented after awarding a contract extension or new contract. These recommended programs are consistent with the Council adopted SRRE and are cost efficient for reaching the City's goal of 50% diversion by the year 2000. City of Tustin AB 939 Program Review 1. Review of City of Tustin AB 939 Solid Waste Generation Study The City of Tustin AB 939 Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) was completed as part of an overall waste characterization study conducted for the County. A minimal amount of actual samples were allocated for the City of Tustin. Even with the minimal nUmber of sampling for characterization purposes, the 1990 AB 939 SWGS is sufficient to meet the AB 939 statutory requirements for SWGS and for broad based policy planning. The 1990 AB. 939 SWGS was not condUcted for the purpose of developing the detailed data needed for selecting and designing programmatic plans and programs at the detailed subpopulation level. The detailed subpopulation level of characterization data provides detailed tonnage and characterization for different business in the commercial and industrial sector and enables the targeting of particular business sectors (subpopulations) for selected diversion programs. A 'detailed characterization and tonnage study sufficient for programmatic planning is very costly and requires a substantial amount of time to complete. In order to have some basis for selecting the various programs and to get an approximation of the waste volumes and characterization of the different business types in the City of Tustin, a computerized query was conducted on the California Integrated Waste Management Board's Draft Uniform Waste Characterization Default Database. A preliminary draft version of the database was compiled by Dr. E. Tseng for the City. of Tustin. For the commercial and industrial businesses in the City of Tustin, the database estimated that the largest portion of the wastestream was disposed by the "Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Legal" subpopulation. These are primarily office/administrative type businesses that generate a lot of office paper. According to the database, this subpopulation disposes approximately 19% or (8758 tons per year) of the waste from the commercial and industrial sectors in the City of Tustin. This estimate is based on disposal of similar businesses, which were sampled and characterized in other cities in Southern California. The other significant subpopulations are Retail Trade-Restaurants (9.2%, 4,233 tons), Sen, ices-Other (14.5%, 6,653 tons), and Retail Trade-Other (9.6%, 4,390 tons). An overall waste composition of the commercial and industrial sector of the City of Tustin was compiled and included in the attachments. A copy of the other various screens from the CIWMB Draft Uniform Waste Characterization Default Database are provided in the attachments. Dr. Tseng made the recommendations for proposed diversion programs bY upon the data generated by the CIv Characterization Defa~. aatabase. Draft Uniform Waste 2. Review of City of Tustin AB 939 Source Reduction and Recycling Plan The City of Tustin SRRE was approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board on November 15, 1995. After a review of the City of Tustin SRR~, the reviewer (Dr. E. Tseng) concludes that the City of Tustin's SRRE does not need to be revised at the present time. The SRRE document has met the Statutory needs (for 1990) of submitting a 10-year plan on achieving the mandated 50% diversion goal. The descriptions of the selected diversion programs are broad enough to cover most activities that the City of Tustin would implement to achieve the goal of 50% by the year 2000. The City of Tustin has implemented a number of diversion programs since the passage of AB 939. The residential and non-residential wastes disposed by generators in the City are processed through a mixed waste materials recovery facility. A number of buyback centers are located in the City, which enable residents to obtain scrap and California Redemption Value (CRV) reimbursement for certain recycled materials. The City also has implemented pubic outreach and educational programs. Literature for residents on Household Hazardous Waste and source reduction, as well as information on reducing greenwaste are available. The City Government implemented their own waste reduction and procurement policies in 1995. At the 'current time, the residential sector does not have a curbside recycling and does not have a separate curbside greenwaste program. 3. Review of City of Tustin AB 939 AnnUal Report for 1995 The City of Tustin .M3 939 Annual Report for 1995 was reviewed for completeness and for methodology accuracy. The document was found to be complete. The optimum adjustment factors were selected and the standardized Adjustment Method was correctly used to estimate the reporting year diversion rate of 26.27%. The document is organized and completed using the CIWMB electronic version. The report is professionally done and well' within the current standards of professional practice. The document is one of the better and more complete documents that the reviewer has seen. The Orange County Disposal Reporting System is one of the more accurate systems set up in California. This is because of the daily reporting as compared to a one week per quarter survey system set up in other jurisdictions. Even with daily reporting for 1995, there are several sources of errors. There may be some inaccuracy resulting from the Tustin Unified School District and Federal Disposal Service of Irvine reporting because of unknown tonnages. If the Cig' of Tustin cannot resolve-the tonnage allocation from the school system or the military facilities, an alternative method of allocation is available by using predictive correlative factors for a typical school (e.g., 0.094 tons per student per year correlative factor). The issue with the school may be resolved now that Great Western Reclamation obtained the contract with the school district. The City will be taking over the management of the base property in 1999 so more accurate tonnage number will become available. The other source of errors in the self-haul tonnages that was purported to be from the City of Tustin which may actually be from North Tustin, Lemon Heights, and other unincorporated areas adjacent to the City. As noted by Joe Meyers, Administrative Assistant II, the self haul represents over twenty percent (20%)'of the tonnage assigned to the City by the Orange County Disposal Reporting System. e Review of Mixed Waste MRF Recovery Diversion Program for the City of Tustin's Residential, Commercial and Industrial Routes Mixed waste from the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of Tustin are sorted in this mixed waste materials recovery facilities ("dirty MRF"). Residential routes collected by Great Western Reclamation are taken to the Sunset Environmental Materials Recovery Facility for sorting. Commercial and industrial waste is collected by Great Western Reclamation and also delivered to the Sunset Environmental Materials Recovery Facility. Incoming loads at Sunset Environmental are separated by type, greenwaste, mixed waste, and construction/demolition waste. Some residential waste from the City of Tustin has been taken to Consolidated Volume and Transfer (CVT) for sorting when the Sunset facility is down for maintenance or repairs. The contractor has reviewed the MRF calculation methodology used by Sunset Environmental for allocating wastes to the various jurisdictions. The methodolo~' is a weighted characterization-based jurisdiction method that is consistent with standard practices of the solid waste industry. Tonnage and recovery data was provided by Great Western Reclamation and Sunset Environmental. CVT methodology for calculating diversion based on characterization is similar and is based on the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The MRF recovers and diverts concrete, wood, dirt, cardboard OCC, greenwaste, metal, plastics, mixed paper, newspaper, and glass. The table below summarizes the overall 1996 diversion rate from the activities at the MRFs that process City of TuStin waste. City of Tustin 1996 Materials Recovery Facility Summary Tons Received Tons Diverted* Diversion In 1996 In 1996 Rate (%) Residential Routes 15,235.17 3,626.25 23.8% Commercial / Industrial Routes 64,867.27 11,382.10 17.6% Jurisdiction Total 80,102.44 15,008.35 18.7% * Diverted tons quantified with disposal based quantification method including shrinkage "Dirty MRFing" or sorting mixed waste from the conuuercial and industrial sectors are generally considered more cost effective than separate recycling collection service. The other advantage of mixed waste processing is that all businesses serviced by haulers that utilize the 'MRF "participates" in a convenient form of recycling. The tradeoff is that recovered materials has a slight loss in quality because of Cross-contanfination of the mixed loads and the educational aspect of hands on participation required by an active curbside sorted recyclable program is absent. An overall 18.7% weighted average diversion from a MRF is within the typical range of recovery expected of dirty MRFs. A number of residents and business sell source separated recycled materials to buyback centers located in the City of Tustin. The Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling data for 1995 indicated another 228 tons of materials were recycled through the buyback centers located in the City of Tustin. Recent waste .reduction and recycling ~iudits in other cities (e.g., City of Carson, City of Costa Mesa, City of Hermosa Beach, etc.) have shown that a tremendous amount of source reduction and recycling already exists in the commercial and industrial sector. Especially with larger businesses, source reduction and recycling results in direct operational savings for the companies. In addition, informal scavenging for cardboard, ~netals, and other traditional materials is commonplace from conunercial and industrial bins. Only where businesses have locked bins or where bins are not accessible, scavenging does not occur. These factors makes it very hard for a mixed waste MRF to ever achieve 50% diversion. This technical limitation is industry wide. The amount of traditionally recoverable recyclables in the "disposed of wastestream" that a mixed waste MRF processes is very limited. The diversion tonnages and rates are significant, but do not represent .the maximum that can be diverted from the waste stream. Attached in the appendix is a summary of the monthly charges for disposal service. The study was conducted in the first quarter of 1997. Please note that the monthly rate reflects the rates paid by the each household per month. 5. Recommendations for Diversion Programs in the City of Tustin Residential Routes The reviewer recommends the City of Tustin implement the following programs for its residential sector in order to maximize the amount of diversion from the residential sector: 1. Conduct a feasibility/pilot study for automated curbside recycling. If recoveryand participation rates justify a curbside recycling program, then implement. 2. Implement a separate greenwaste collection program. 3. Conduct a series of waste reduction and recycling workshoPs for the residents of the City (can investigate the feasibility of a regional workshop with other cities). 4. Workshops for landscape contractors / gardeners should be conducted to target reduction of greenwaste being disposed at landfills. The table below provides a cost estimate for the various alternative diversion programs that can be added on to the basic disposal collection service. The estimated costs assumes that the franchised hauler will have enough time to depreciate certain costs (This may involve extending the existing contract so that capital costs can be adequately amortized. The costs are in dollars per month per household in addition to the existing monthly service fee. The costs are estimates only, actual costs for services may depend upon the other contractual conditions. Typical Cost Ranges for Various Add-On Residential Sector Diversion Programs for the City of Tustin Program Description Green Waste and Commingled Recycling (3 Carts/Bins) No MRFing Estimated 35%- 50% Diversion Green Waste Only (2 Carts/Bins) Trash is Sent to MRF Estimated 30% -40% Diversion Green Waste Only (1 Cart/Bin) Trash is Sent to MRF Estimated 30% - 40% Diversion Commingled Recycling Only (1 Cart/Bin) No MRFing Estimated 10% - 25% Diversion $0.35 - $1.00 Additional Monthly Cost (see note below) (S/household/month) $2.00- $3.50 $3.25 - $4.5O $2.75'- $3.25 Note: Assumes that a reasonable period of time is g~ven to amortize costs. The current monthly c sen, ice'is $12.08. ~er household per month for the c collection and MRF The above recover), or diversion rates are based upon an estimated yardwaste composition of approximately 25% by weight of the residential sector wastestream. The costs were derived from various jurisdictions and from input provided by Great Western Reclamation. These are very rough cost estimates. Actual costs may vary depending upon contractual factors, operational factors, and other factors that may be beyond the control of the City or the hauler (e.g., interest rates, participation rates, amount of scavenging, etc.) Additional benefits of the above listed programs is the goodwill, publicity, and educational / outreach value that residential recycling participation brings. Residential curbside recycling programs require active participation by residents whereas MRF recovery is considered "remote" and "detached" in terms of educational value "Di~W MRFing" residential waste has always been controversial. The reviewer recommends that the potential of an automated recycling route be' investigated for implementation in the City of Tustin. The City could implement a phased program beginning with separate green waste collection. This would give a significant amount of diversion for the residential sector (approximate 25% of the residential wastestream is yardwaste). The reviewer also recommends the implementation of an automated curbside recycling program which consists of a container for commingled recyclable materials (ONP, mixed paper, plastic, glass, Aluminum cans, tin cans, etc.) and a separate automated container for greenwaste collection. The curbside program should replace the mixed waste sorting of residential waste if maximum recyclable recovery is the objective. The curbside recycling program will maximize the recovery rate and greatly reduce the level of contamination of the recovered materials. The composition shows that yardwaste is one of the largest components of the wastestream. Currently the yardwaste is only being partially recovered from the mixed waste MRF. A separate curbside yardwaste collection program can potentially recover 80 % to 90 % or more of the yardwaste. There is an overall potential waste diversion of 21% to 23 % of the residential routes just from the yardwaste collection program alone. The estimate is based on the residential waste disposal composition for Tustin shown in the R.W. Beck prepared City of Tustin SRRE for the year 1990 which shows a 25.9% yardwaste disposal composition for the City of Tustin. Curbside collection of recyclables requires the residents to participate actively. This will reinforce the recycling and environmental ethic of the participants and promote a positive public relations image of an environmentally conscious local government. Although curbside pickup is generally more costly to implement than mixed MRF sorting, the public education benefits and public awareness benefits along with an improved environmental image for the local government have been generally considered to be worthwhile. The reviewer recommends an automated commingled recyclable program because a commingled recycling program generates the greatest participation rate. A commingled program is the most convenient of the various curbside programs for the residents. Convenience is the most important factor for the resident in terms of deciding whether or not to participate. A education and public awareness program to kickoff a curbside recycling program should be developed and implemented before the actual implementation of the curbside program. -. The reviewer calculated that a residential curbside recycling program (with an estimated 75% participation rate) can recover approximately almost 1400 tons per year of the most commonly collected curbside materials in a commingled program (e.g., ONP, OCC, glass, Al, ferrous cans, PET, HDP£, etc.) based upon recovery rates in other recent studies. More can be recovered (1,860 tons or more) with better outreach and higher participation. Calculations are shown in the appendices. Workshops for residents should cover backyard composting, grasscycling, vermicomposting, and source reduction. A pilot program should be conducted to assess the interest in backyard composting and vermicomposting. The City and hauler can sponsor several pilot workshops on backyard composting and vermicomposting for local residents and businesses. Backyard composting program can be conducted in conjunction with City sponsored compost bin sales'. The feasibility of matching funding for bin purchases can be investigated as part of the workshop. If the City decides not to go with a separate yard waste collection program, a larger emphasis should be given to promoting a larger scale backyard composting and vermicomposting programs. The City of Tustin should require the different facilities that process Tustin waste to use a uniform disposal and diversion reporting form. The CIWMB is preparing drag guidelines for reporting disposal and diversion and standardizing calculation methodologies. It is recommended that MRF operators and hauler(s) utilize the standardized forms to insure comparable data for the City. These programs can be added on for the next contract period or as a renegotiation an&/or modification of the existing contract. o Recommendations for Diversion Programs in the City of Tustin Commercial and Industrial Sectors Since the commercial and industrial wastestreams are already being sorted through at the MRF, no separate curbside program is necessary. To further divert the wastestream, the City of Tustin should p,,~,,ide technical assistance and promote. Lne implementation of waste prevention (e.g., source reduction) programs. It is recommended that the following list of waste prevention programs be implemented :For the City of Tustin within the next six to nine months: lo 2. 3. 4. 5. Waste Reduction and Recycling Audits for Commercial / Industrial Sector Waste Reduction and Recycling Workshops Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Awards City of Tustin Waste Reduction and Recycling Web Page City/Hauler Construction and Demolition Waste Technical Assistance Program Each of the above recommended programs are consistent with the CIWMB approved SRRE. The programs were selected based upon the following factors: II 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Consistency with the City ofTustin's CIWMB Approved AB 939 SRRE Cost Effectiveness of Selected Progran~s Diversion Potential of Selected Programs Ease of Program Implementation/Maintenance Potential for Success Peer Match Value (Ability to "benchmark" or serve as a model) The recommended programs are being successfully implemented in other Southern California jurisdictions. Both the California Integrated Waste Management Board the U.S. Environmental Protection AgenCy has source reduction / waste prevention at the top of the hierarchy of waste management options. l. Waste Reduction and Recycling ,Audits for Commercial / Industrial Sector (Estimated Cost $10.000 - $15.000 per year of program) Waste reduction and recycling audits are can be conducted for targeted businesses in the City. Two objectives can be achieved with the audits. First, the businesses that generates most of the solid waste will each receive a customized report recommending waste reduction and recycling programs to implement. As part of the audit, each business will receive technical assistance materials printed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Secondly, data on existing diversion can be estimated. This data can be used to construct a new base year generation study. The waste reduction and recycling audits program should be implemented in phases. The first phase of the waste prevention and recycling audits should be targeted towards the subpopulations that dispose' a significant part of the city's wastestream (e.g., finance, insurance, real estate, and legal, etc.). For these types of businesses, waste prevention should focus on reducing amounts of paper. After the first phase of waste reduction and recycling audits are completed, the City can determine if additional audits are worthwhile. The data from the first set of audits will enable the City to better design additional recommended diversion programs for the commercial and industrial sector which will assist the City achieve the overall 50% diversion goal. As part of the waste reduction and recycling audits, the auditors can also help business with significant diversion programs to apply for the California Integrated Waste Management Board Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP). This program annually recognizes California Businesses that have made outstanding efforts to reduce nonhazardous waste and send less garbage to landfills. Examples of the audit form and technical assistance forms are attached. Please note that the audit forms are a draft test form. If the City of Tustin selects this option, the data and City of Tustin input will help finalize the forms and other documents' for use at a statewide level. All data collected by auditors will be treated as. confidential. Exemplary examples of diversion programs will be submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for use as a case study if the business gives permission. Trained waste reduction and recycling auditors are available through universities and many environmental non-profit organizations (e.g., University of California Extension, Waste Management and Recycling Program Intern Programs, etc.). Experienced auditors, who are student interns, are available for a very reasonable cost with instructor supervision. This type of program is successfully being implemented in many Southern California jurisdictions (e.g., City Hermosa Beach, City of Carson, City of Glendale, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, City of Costa Mesa, City of Laguna Hills, etc.). 2. Waste Reduction and Rec¥cline Workshops (Estimated Cost $2500 -$3500 each) Waste reduction and recycling workshops can be developed for local businesses and residents. Waste reduction and recycling workshops can be provided to bUsinesses through various business organizations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, etc.) as specialty program presentations or through City sponsored workshops. The workshops can range from a short 2-hour program to a whole day session. The workshops can also be designed to focus on diversion programs specific to different subpopulations. The City must play an integral part in sponsoring and recruiting attendance to the workshop(s). It is recommended that the City host a half-day workshop after the first phase of the waste reduction and recycling audits. Some of the model programs identified during the audits can participate as peer match models during the workshops. If the City selects the option of holding waste reduction and recycling workshops, the business auditors can recruit attendees as part of the actual waste reduction and recycling audits. 3. Business waste Reduction and Recyclin~ Awards (Estimated Costs $3,500 -$5,000 per workshop session) In conjunction with the business waste reduction and recycling audits surveys and audits, the City of Tustin "Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Awards" program can be implemented in July 1995 can be expanded to recognize business located in Tustin that 10 have implemented sigr nt innovative diversion programs.. 'd programs serve as a powerful positive reink,. _,:ment tool for businesses to continue ...,:ir diversion programs. A brief description of a suggested awards program that can be tied into the Waste Reduction and Recycling Audits is attached. 4. City of Tustin Waste Reduction and Recycling Web Pae. e (Estimated Cost $3.600 - $4.500 per year for Web pace maintenance and a one time development charge $1500-$3000) The City should develop a pilot waste reduction and recycling web page in conjunction with their franchise hauler(s). The web page can contain various technical assistance materials, which will provide businesses in the City of Tustin with the information needed to develop and implement a waste reduction and recycling program. A separate portion of the web page can be designed specifically for the residents. Technical assistance information can focus on backyard composting, vermicomposting, and various waste reduction practices that can be implemented at home. To evaluate the success of this form of the technical assistance, the Intemet access and maintenance of the web page for the City of Tustin should be for a minimum period of two years. The City must assist in the development and design of the web page by supplying logos and information such as a calendar of events. The reference material to be developed in this first phase will be waste reduction and recycling technical assistance information for business and residents. Other technical assistance materials (e.g., construction and demolition waste diversion information) will be added in later phases. If the City has an existing web page, a "hot link" can be provided by the City to the environmental technical assistance materials that are independently maintained. The hot link will also contain links to other state or Federal web sites. As new sites are developed by governmental agencies and industry, they will be added as part of the monthly maintenance. 5. City of Tustin Waste Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Program (Estimated Cost: Approximately $1500) The City and its franchised hauler can jointly target construction and demolition waste (C & D) as a priority material. The hauler and City can provide technical assistance materials to contractors applying for a building permit or contracting for disposal for a construction job. The hauler should develop a policy to divert waste from disposal at any Class III disposal facilities. Some inert facilities are permitted as Class III disposal facilities and should be avoided. Inert facilities that are not Class III permitted should be used. Any disposal that is directed away from Class III facilities and diverted to non- CIWMB permitted inert facilities is a form of waste reduction. The hauler and City should provide a list of C & D recycling facilities to contractors/builders. A list of the C & D facilities in Orange County and Los Angeles County is included in the Appendix. 11 The recommendations for the commercial sector of the City of Tustin are based on the reviexver's experience with the implementation of similar programs in other cities. The City of Carson (Mr. Jaime Lozano, 310 - 952-1700 x 3508) and other cities (Hermosa Be~ch, Costa Mesa, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County) have very extensive programs of technical assistance and waste reduction/recycling audits in place. Los Angeles County has budgeted approximately $2,000,000 for technical assistance and audits for the businesses located in the unincorporated areas. The cost estimates are based on student intern based programs that are being conducted by UCLA Extension Waste Management and Recycling Program students in conjunction w4th an environmental non-profit (EcoTelesis International). The cost of the web page maintenance of providing monthly update environmental technical assistance materials is based on cost other jurisdictions/hauler are paying for the web page being developed by UCLA Extension students. 12 Attachments 1, Recommendations for Annual Waste Reduction and Recycling Awards Draft California Integrated Waste Management Uniform Waste Characterization, Default Characterization Database Screen Copies e City of Tustin Source Reduction and Recycling Program, Residential Waste Disposal Composition 4. 1997 Residential Curbside Service Charge Study 5. Waste Reduction and Recycling Audit Form Construction and Demolition Materials Recyclers L~st e Calculations to Estimate City of Tustin Curbside Commingled Recycling Recovery Tonnage 13 1. Recommendations for Annual Waste Reduction and Recycling Awards 14 City of Tustin Annua. Waste Reduction and Recycling Awards Types of Awards for the First Year: 1. Best Recycling Program 2. Best Waste Prevention / Waste Reduction Program 3. Best Overall Waste Diversion Program Selection Factors Used in Evaluation Waste Reduction and.Recycling Programs: 1. Type of Business The type of business is a factor because waste reduction and recycling programs can be easily set up for certain types of businesses. Diversion programs are difficult to set up in certain types of businesses and will require an extreme level of commitment. For the same amount of diversion tonnage between two different types of businesses, one business may have been required to be more innovative to reach the same level of diversion. 2. Overall Program Design The operational factors of the waste reduction and/or recycling program are evaluated. Plans for expanding the level of participation and/or types of materials targeted for diversion is evaluated. The analysis also looks at the implementation procedures, the uniqueness of the program design, and the operational activities involved in the waste reduction and recycling program. Program monitoring and evaluation activities are reviewed. The analysis also evaluates the feedback mechanisms used to reinforce the benefits of the implemented program. 3. Cost Effectiveness This factor looks at the level of cost and resources in terms of personnel, equipment, and management that was required to reach the current diversion level. A S/ton diversion cost will be estimated (if possible). 4. Degree of Institutionalization This factor evaluates the level of commitment by the upper management of the business. Is the recycling program the result of one employee who has taken it upon themselves to recycle, or is there a corporate Culture set up to encourage waste reduction and recycling? This factor evaluates the corporate culture and operational standards of the programs. 15 5. Overall Diversion Rate The overall diversion rate using a methodology consistent with the AB 939 legislation will be utilized to determine the overall diversion rate for the business. The selection team will be using a generation based diversion quantification method to determine the overall diversion rate for each business. 6. Length of Time / Stability of Program in Place The time that the program has been in place will also be considered a factor. stable programs with a good track record are valued over One time programs. · 7. Potential as Industry Model Mature Tlfis factor evaluates the ability the programs implemented at each business to serve as a model program for its type of business. If the diversion program is successful and innovative (unique), the business can serve as a "peer match model" or "benchmark" for the industry. 8. Other Factors Other factors that the individual businesses, selection committee, City of Tustin personnel, and/or CIWMB staff deem significant will also be considered. 16 Draft California Integrated Waste Management Uniform Waste Characterization, Default Characterization Database Screen Copies 17 PLACER PLUMAS RR/ERSIDE ;ACRAMENTO ~ BEN[TO SAN BERNARDINO ;AN DIEGO ;AN FRANCISCO ;AN JOAQUIN ;AN LUIS OBISPO ;AN MATEO ;ANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ ;HASTA ORANGE ~NAHEIM BREA BUENA PARK COSTA MESA CYPRESS DANA POINT FOUNTAIN VALLEY FULLERTON GARDEN GROVE TUSTIN DRAFT 31JFinance/Insurance / Real Estate / Legal I 7291 42841 8,757.96! 19.07% 37jServices-Other i 7261 39531 6,653.20t 14.48% 30jRetail Trade-Other ~ 310i 1786 4,390.161 9.56% 291Retail Trade-Resturants i 1321 1696! 4,232.61! 9.21% 81Manufacturing-Furniture / Fixtures i 8i 1316 2,719.221 5.92% 331Services-Business Services ,, 3291 27581 2,523.841 5.49% 4 Construction i 171i 945 1,899.591 4.14% 28,Retail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Stati 441 9071 1,746.00i 3.80% I 16iManufactufing-lnstruments/Related i 28i 1435 1,670.71' 3.64% 14iaanufactufing-Electronic Equipment , 29l 1955! 1,624.601 3.54% 271RetailTrade-Food Store I 40l 5371 1,485:92t 3.23% 351Services'Medical/Health I 318J 21181 1,319.071 2.87% 24~VholesaleTrade-NondurableGoods I 791 836 1,136.65i 2.47% 23.~holesale Trade-Durable Goods I 213j 2020 930.26j 2.03% 10{Manufacturing-Printing / Publishing i 48! 503! 662.82{ 1.44% 361Services-Education= ,, 421 11291 608.131, 1.32% 171Manufacturing-Other I 411 320i . 491.34i 1.07% lirAgriculture / Fisheries i 581 4401 402.36i 0.88% 22iTransp°rtati°n'Other i 32! 205i 372.571 0.81% 13iManufacturing-industrial Machinery i' 361 3561 316.85; 0.69% · 251Retail Trade-Building Material and Garden i 22t 2641 276.82j 0.60% 18 Trucking and Warehousing I 211 328 224.46! 0.49% 6!Manufacturing-Apparel / Textile ! 20i 226 221.13! 0.48% 38iPublic Administration i 41 4801 206.381 0.45% 151Manufacturing-Transportation Equipment i 5i 1271 195.99! 0.43% 71Manufacturing-Lumber andWood Products i 3t 17! 169.201 0.37% 12!Manufacturing-Primary./Fabricated Metal i 111 1651 147.07i 0.32% 91Manufacturing-Paper/Allied : 31 1541 127.82. 0.28%I 26jRetail Trade-General Merchandise Stores ! 2i 2951 105.921 0.23%: 19iTransportation-Air ; 4! 87! 83.16; 0.18% 3iMining i 111 421 74.76i 0.16% 34iServices-Motion Pictures ; 231 57! 62.54i 0.14%, 51Manufacturing-Food / Kindred i 4 33i 59.25! 0.13%I 20iC°mmunicati°ns ..~ i 9t 25i 23.56~ 9.05% 32 Services-Hotels / Lodging i 41 11! 12.911 0.03% 211Utilities ! 3! 4! 0.89i 0.00% 11.Manufacturing-Chemical / Allied J 2t 01 0.00! 0.00% 31,814 45,936 DRAFT Business and Employee Information SWb SubropNmne I Agriculture / Fisheries 3 Mining 4 Construction 5 Manufacturing-Food / Kindred 6 Manufacturing-Apparel / Textile 7 Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products 8 Manufacturing-Furniture I Fixtures 9 Manufacturing-Paper / Allied 10 Manufacturing-Printing / Publishing 11 Manufacturing-Chemical / Allied ' 12 Manufacturing-Primary / Fabricated Metal 13 Manufacturing-Industrial Machinery 14 Manufacturing-Electronic Equipment 15 Manufacturing-Transportation Equipment 1'6 Manufacturing-Instruments / Related 17 Manufacturing-Other 18 Trucking and Warehousing 19 Transportation-Air 20 Communications 21 Utilities 22 Transportation-Other 23 Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods 24 Wholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods 25 Retail Trade-Building Material and Garden 26 Retail Trade-General Merchandise Stores 27 Retail Trade-Food Store 58 440 11 42 171 945 4 33 ..20 226 3- 8 1316 3 154 48 503 2 0 11 165 36 356 29 1955 5 127 28 1435 41 32O 21 328 4 87 9 25 3 4 32 205 213 2O2O 79 836 22 264 2 295 4O 537 DRAFT Wednesday, June 11, 1997 Page 1 of 2 28 Retail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Station "~29'~ Retail Trade-Restur~ts'' ...... ' .... 30 Retail Trade-Other 31 Finance / Insurance / Real Estate / Legal 32 Services-Hotels / Lodging 33 Services-Business Services 34 Services-Motion Pictures 35 Services-Medical / Health 36 Services-Education 37 Services-Other 38 Public Administration 44 132 310 729 4 329 23 '318 42 726 4 907 1696"' 1786 4284 11 2758 57 2118 1129 3953 480 DRAFT Wednesday, June 11, 1997 Page 2 of 2. · ', O. '0 · ....... · ~;-'i ',¥~ · 1A~ L,J n ~.~)ated (~OlT~Jg ated Ca rd boa rd I 4'763'951 10.38% lA;7. Paper Bags 588.721 1.28% 1B1 tNewspaper i 2,262-881 4.93% lCl White Ledger I 2,007.64t 4.37% lC2 Color Ledger I 267.921 0.58% lC3 Computer Paper I 453-63i 0.99% 1C4 iOther Office Paper t 273-04i 0.59% 1D1 iMagazines and Catalogs J 938.10! 2.04% 1D2 ' Phone Books and Directo~ i 121.90j 0.27% '" 1 D3 Other Miscellaneous Paper I 2,885.52i 8.29% 1 E1 Remainder/Composite Paper 5,444.74 11.86% ?.AI..~--~. IClear Glass Bottles and Containers 427.53 0.93% 2B1 iColored Glass Bottles and Containe 651.58 1.42% 2D1 iRemainder/Composite Glass i 555-521 1.21% :3A1 Tin/Steel Cans I 646.131 1.41 % 3A2. IMajor Appliances I 41.36l 0.09% 3A3 !Other Ferrous I 1,368.641 2.98% 3B1 ,[Aluminum Cans · i 134.821 0.29% 3B2 iOther Non-Fen'ous I 434.40t 0.95% 4A1 HDPE Containers i 356.601 0.78% 4A2 iPETE Containers I 92.68J O.20% 4A3 !Miscellaneous Plastic Containers I 329.69j 0.72% 491 !Film Plastic I 1,786.67! 3.89% 4D1 jRemainder/Composite Plastic I 2,160.451 4.71% SA1 iFood t 6,373-371 13.89% 5B1 ILeaves and Grass I 1,024.33i 2.23% ~B2 .Prunings and Trimmings I 352'761 0.77% 5B3 iBranches and Stumps { 0.00i 0.00% 5B4 ~gricultural Crop Residues { 0.42j 0.00% 5C1 IManures j 32.40i 0.07% 5C2 jTextiles I 1,341.221 2.92% 5D1 Remainder/Composite Organic i 4'966'23i 10.82% 5A1 IConcrete ! 133.55j 0.29% $B1 ~,sphalt Paving I 34.031 0.07% BD1 Lumber ! 528.711 1.15% SE1 IGypsum Board I 114.831 0.25% $F1 Rock, Soil and Fines I 474.99 1.03% 5G1 !Remainder/Composite Construction i 108.851 0.24% 7A1 Household Hazardous WasteI 350.23! 0.76% 8A1 Special Waste I 1,038.07! 2.26% 9A1 Mixed Residue I 25.07i 0.05% DRAFT '~l~l~jl~..ncoated Corrugated Cardboard 30tRetail Trade-Other 1.1,013.98 31jFinance / Insurance / Real Estate / Legal j 570.06 29!Retail Trade-Resturants 493.361. 10.36% 37!Services-Other 466.221 9.79% 33!Services-Business Services 311.1 31 6.53% 4!Construction 231.751 4.86% 141Manufacturing-Electronic Equipment 219.74! 4.61% 27',Retail Trade-Food Store 191.021 4.01% 8iManufacturing-Fumiture / Fixtures 178.211 3.74% 28iRetail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Sta 162.671 3.41% 351Services-Medical / Health 161.021 3.38% 241%~holesale Trade~Nondurable Goods 142.69t 3.00% 23[VVholesale Trade-Durable Goods 106.571 2.24% 17;Man ufactu ring-Other 62.021 1.30% 16iManufacturing-lnstruments / Related 58.471 1.23% 101Manufacturing-Printing / Publishing 48.331 1.01% 22~ransportation-Other 45.241 0.95% 18iTrucking and Warehousing 36.08t 0.76% 36iServices-Education 35.061 0.74% 13!Manufacturing-Industrial Machinery 31.511 0.66% 12iManufacturing-Primary / Fabricated Metal 22.531 0.47% 26iRetail Trade-General Merchandise Stores 21.801 0.46% 1 ~gdculture / Fisheries 20.461 0.43% 15iManufacturing-Transportation Equipment 19.461 0.41% 9!Manufacturing-Paper/Allied 18.38i 0.39% 7!Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products 17.93! 0.38% ' 38=,PublicAdministration 17.01i 0.36% 25iRetail Trade-Building Matedal and Garden 16.33i 0.34% 19iTransportation-Air 16.241 0.34% 61Manufacturing-Apparel/Textile 10.751 0.23% 51Manufacturing-Food / Kindred · 9.07 0.19% 34'~Services-Motion Pictures 5.09 0.11% 201Communications 1.781 0.04% 3tMining 1.07i 0.02% ---321Services-Hotels / Lodging 0.87! 0.02% 21 !Utilities 0.04! 0.00% 11 !Manufacturing-Chemical / Allied 0.001 0.00% DRAFT ~ {Remainder/Composite Organic 8~Manufacturing-Fumiture / Fixtures 1,165.50 30iRetail Trade-Other 743.60 371Services-Other ~ 632.05 281Retail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Sta 392.56 7.90%1 31 ;Finance / Insurance / Real Estate / Legal 376.59 7.58%I 41Construction 181.171 3.65%I 33 Services-Business Services 170.221 3.43%I 29:Retail Trade-Resturants 169.04t 3.40%! 14iManufactudng:Electronic Equipment 138.66 2.79%I 27;Retail Trade-Food Store 121.18 2.44%I 35:;Services-Medical / Health 117,491 2.37% ..... 17~lanufactudng-Other 114.241 2:30% 22,?ransportation-Other 78.981 1.59% 24WholesaleTrade-Nondurable Goods 69.41t 1.40% 101Manufacturing-Printing / Publishing 64.201 1.29% 13~Manufacturing-lndustrial Machiner7 59.591 1.20% 23VVholesale Trade-Durable Goods 57.471 1.16% 15'Manufacturing-Transportation Equipment 54.921 1.11% 1 Agriculture / Fisheries 52.36 1.05%I 9iManufacturing-Paper / Allied 38.58 0.78%I 12.Manufacturing-Primary / Fabricated Metal 29.901 0.60% 361Services-Education 28.301 0.57% 6Manufacturing-Apparel / Textile 23.281 0.47% 18Trucking and Warehousing 13.59 0.27% [ 38'Public Administration 13.491 0.27% 16Manufacturing-Instruments / Related 12.531 0.25% 34 Services-Motion Pictures 10.441 0.21% ' 26 Retail Trade-General Merchandise Stores 9.911 0.20% I 7Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products 8.631 0.17% 3:Mining 6.681 0.13% 191Transportation-Air 4.911 0.10% 51Manufacturing-Food I Kindred 2.88 0.06% 32~,Services-Hotels / Lodging -' 1.48 0.03% · 251Retail Trade-Building Material and Garden' 1.38t 0.03% 20;Communications 0.87 0.02% 21:Utilities 0.131 0.00% 11 Manufacturing-Chemical / Allied 0.001 0.00% DRAFT ,~'~~~ ~hite..Ledg e r I 31 Finance / Insurance / Real Estate / Legal 371Services-Other I 16 Manufacturing-Instruments /Related 331Services-Business Services [ 14iManufacturing-Electronic Equipment I 30iRetail Trade-Other 911.23 239.75 114.131 5.68% 91.90 4.58% 45.57 2.27% I 35!Services-Medical/Health i 42.87 2.14% I 10iManufacturing-Printing / Publishing : 33.41 1.66% ' ~ 30.91 1.54% i . 23~holesale Trade-Durable Goods 4 Construction i 30.16! I 361Services-Educati°n i 25.83 1.50% 1.29% 5.82 0.29% 5.09t 0.25% 4.29 0.21% 3.411 0.17% j..- 29jRetail. Trade-Resturants I 22.75 1.13% 18iTrucking and Warehousing I 19.24 0.96% 81Manufacturing-Furniture / Fixtures ; 18.83 0.94% 38iPublic Administration i 15.08 0.75% 24~VVholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods i 12.81 0.64% 151Manufacturing-Transportation Equipment ~ 10.01 0.50% 221Transportation-Other 9.93 0.49% 27',Retail Trade-Food Store 9.58 0.48% 28iRetail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Sta 13iManufactudng-lndustdal Machinery 341Services-Motion Pictures 191Transportation-Air 171Manufacturing-Other 2.77 0.14% 6Manufacturing-Apparel/Textile 2.421 0.12% 25iRetail Trade-Building Material and Garden : 1.941 0.10% 20~Communications 1.501 0.07% 71Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products 1.181 0.06% 12'~Manufactudng-Pdmary / Fabricated Metal 1.181 0.06% 9!Manufacturing-Paper / Allied i 0.921 0.05% 1 ,~.gdculture I Fisheries ~ 0.75t 5'lManufactudng-Food / Kindred ';, 0.611 26iRetail Trade-General Merchandise Stores -" i 0.52 31Mining ! 0.37 21 iU~ilities ~ 0.081 32',Services-Hotels / Lodging : 0.06I 1 '1 iManufacturing-Chemical / Allied 0.00{ 0.04% 0.03% 0.03%1 o.o2%! 0.00%i 0.00%J o.oo%1 DRAFT ~l~jj~ IMagazines and Catalogs 311Finance I Insurance / Real Estate / Legal 190.681 33'.Services-Business Services 20.33% 17.93% 30tRetail Trade-Other 168.19 37~,Services-Other 120.99 12.90% 4!Construction 62.92 6.71% 53.98 5.75% 16!Manufacturing-Instruments / Related 53.46 5.70% 14~Manufacturing-Electmnic Equipment 34.68 3.70% 35'=Services-Medical ! Health 33.35 3.56% t 28!Retail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Sta 32.59 3.47% I 101Manufacturing-Printing / Publishing 29.44 3.14% I 29jRetail Trade-Resturants 25.00 2.66% !..,. 8iManufacturing-Fumiture / Fixtures 24.891 2.65% 23,iVVholesale Trade-Durable Goods 20.361 2.17% 171Manufacturing-Other 13.51t 1.44% l~,gricultum / Fisheries 10.581 1.13% 27iRetailTrade-Food Store 9.811 1.05% 36iServices-Education 8.441 0.90% 131Manufacturing-Industrial Machinery 7.96t 0.85% 221Transportation-Other 38iPublic Administration 6.681 0.71% 6.141 0.65% 24,,Wholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods 5.99 0.64% 6iManufactufing-Apparel / Textile 4.04 0.43% 181Trucking and Warehousing 3.64 0.41% 151Manufacturing-Transportation Equipment 2.58 0.27% 121Manufacturing-Primary / Fabricated Metal 2.13 0;23% 34iServices-Motion Pictures 1.32 0.14% 20iCommuni _cations 1.13 0.12% 191Transportation-Air 1.04 0.11% 5iManufacturing-Food / Kindred 0.93 0.10% 71Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products 0.51 0.05% 9iManufactudng-Paper / Allied '1 0.36 0.04%I 3iUining I 0.25 0.03% 26iRetail Trade-General Merchandise Stores -" 1' 0.19 0.02% 321Services-Hotels / Lodging 0.13 0.01% 211Utilities 0.02 0.00% 11 iManufacturing-Chemical / Allied 0.00 0.00% 25~rRetail Trade-Building Material and Garden 0.00 0.00% DRAFT 31jFinance / Insurance / Real Estate / Legal ! 820.46! 36.26% 371Services-Other i 352.871 15.59% 33iServices-Business Services i 230.93i 10.21% 29iRetail Trade-Resturants i 146.161 6.46% 281Retail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Sta; 125.421 5.54% 30iRetail Trade-Other ! 100.821 4.46% 4,Construction ' ; 55.33i 2.44% 141Manufacturing-Electronic Equipment 51.70! 2.28% 16;;Manufacturing-Instruments / Related 46.36i ' 2.05% 81Manufacturing-Furniture / Fixtures 42.25i 1.87% 101Manufacturing-Printing / Publishing 27.361 1.21% ..... 1 ~Agdculture / Fisheries .- 27.25i 1.20% 23~holesale Trade-Durable Goods 24.911 1.10% 35iServices-Medical / Health 24.78; 1.10% 36Services-Education 22.011 0.97% 22!Transportation-Other 19.22t 0.85% 13Manufacturing-Industrial Machinery 17.431 0.77% 19iTransportation-Air 16.36i 0.72% 6Manufacturing-Apparel / Textile 16.001 0.71% 27!Retail Trade-Food Store 15.75i 0.70% 38iPublicAdministration 13.21i 0.58% 15iManufactudng-Transportation Equipment 12.261 0.54% 24,,~/Vholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods 12.121 0.54% 18iTrucking and Warehousing 11.081 0.49% 171Manufacturing-Other 8.91! 0.39% 12iManufactudng-Primary/Fabricated Metal 4.46! 0.20% 26iRetail Trade-General Merchandise Stores 4.06; 0.18% 20~Communications 3.671 0.16% 25Retail Trade-Building Material and Garden 2.77! 0.12% 341Services-Motion Pictures 1.54i 0.07% 32';Services-Hotels / Lodging 1.281 0.06% 3iMining 71Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products-' 5[Manufacturing-Foocl / Kindred 91Manufacturing-Paper / Allied 1.20 1.18 o.o5%i 0.05%J 0.88 0.04%! o.861 o.o4%i 21 !Utilities 0.04! 0.00~ 11 .Manufacturing-Chemical / Allied 0.00%I 0.00%J DRAFT 291Retail Trade-Resturants 1,832.061 28.75% 31 iFinance / Insurance / Real Estate / Legal 1,423.961 22.34% 271Retail Trade-Food Store 671.561 10.54% 371Services-Other 470.161 7.38% 161Manufacturing-Instruments / Related 409.741 6.43% 24,VVholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods 335.46i 5.26% 301Retail Trade-Other 260.99! 4.09% 41Construction 199.931 3.14% 331Services-Business Services 150.871 2.37% 361Services-Education 146.86i 2.30% 14iManufactudng-Electronic Equipment 114.15i 1.79% !-r 35!Services-Medical I Health 91.771 1.44% 281Retail Trade-Automotive Dealers & Service Sta I 46.271 0.73% 8Manufacturing-Furniture / Fixtures 36.60! 0.57% 22iTransportation-Other ~ 36.28i 0.57% 38Public Administration ~ 24.09~ 0.38% 1OManufacturing-Printing / Publishing 18.35i 0.29% 26 Retail.Trade-General Merchandise Stores 14.851 0.23% 5:Manufacturing-Food / Kindred 13.65i 0.21% 23!Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods 13.131 0.21% 13 Manufacturing-Industrial Machinery 11.781 0.18% 1Agriculture I Fisheries 10.17t 0.16% 17;Manufacturing-Other 8.64j 0.14% 341Services-Motion Pictures 6.05i 0.09% 6 Manufacturing-Apparel / Textile 5.17! 0.08%: 15Manufacturing-Transportation Equipment 4.82i 0.08% 18:Trucking and Warehousing 4.57! 0.07% 12 Manufacturing-Primary / Fabricated Metal 3.90i 0.06% 32Services-Hotels / Lodging 1.98; 0.03% 19,Transportation-Air 1.87', 0.03% 3~Mining 1.571 0.02% 20iCommunications 1.38i 0.02% 9:~Manufacturing-Paper / Allied ' I 0.381 0.01% 71Manufacturing-Lumber and Wood Products I 0.171 0.00% 21!Utilities i 0.151 0.00% 11 Manufacturing-Chemical / Allied I 0.00i 0.00% 25:Retail Trade-Building Material and Garden ~ 0.00; 0.00% DRAFT City of Tustin Source ReduCtion and Recycling Program, Residential Waste Disposal Composition 18 City of Tastin Waste Geru~ration S_~t~ly_ Revi~_, w~'c~'aa' ...................................... ~:'.---'.~ ................ ~":"':'::'"':':'~;i ............... :~ ..................... ============================================================================================= 5~% 1,300 Newspaper 10.0% 2~53 High Gradc L=dgcr Paper 0.1% 28 Mix~l Papar 8.4% ' 1.975 Oth~ Pap:r 3.9% 920 0.2% 41 Tin Can~ 1.5% 343 Ferrous Mt. tab 0.7% 169 No~-fcrtom/alum scrap 0.2% 39 .. Bi-m~tl . 0.0% 0.0 ~.'::?"" ..;.-::~..-..-.~..--~.-..-:~-.:--~..~.---..::-.--..-----.-.-.--..-.-.-:~n:~:.:-:-:-:.:6~:~-:.:~-~.~<~.~.~-a....--~-nn-.~...~ o- ...~...-.-:...-.,...-......~........o~ ..... ...~ . :.: .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::-:-:.:..'-:<-:.:-:-:<.:~.-::::~::::::':::.-'.'.':::::::::::.~-.9.~:-:~:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.-,,-:.-...................,.............. , ,.. Ca Rad=nlxion Value · 1.2% 279 Oth=r non-r~cyd~ gla~s 0.2% 42 Othar t=cyclablc g]a~s 2.3% 533 RaKlhbl¢ ~lu~ contain=, 0.0% 0.0% ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: HDPE 2.0% 467 LDPE 3.3% 789 PET 0.3% 79 Polypmpolync 0.2% 37 Poly~ty~me 0.7% 173 PVC 0.1% 19 Othar Plastics 2.1% 496 ........................ · -'- -'-.----.. · . .-:.~,...~,.~-.>:~,<,~,,a.:-,<,~>~,.-~.>~:~<<~.:.>:.:. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::~ :::::::::::.<::::::::::::: ::::: ..:: :::::: :::::: i:::i:~:i i:: ~:i ::i ::':: · ':~:i:i:~:i::.:~:i:~:?~:?~:i:i::.:.:i:.:.:~:.:.'.~:.'.:':.'.:~' ? Shrubs 9.2% 2.I68 Leav~ and gra~s 16.8% 3.959 :'~.':-" ........... :: ...... ?'"-:": ......... .:.:.:.:..:.:.:~:.:~:~:~:.:.~:.:.:.:..:~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.:.:~.~~.:.:.:...~..:. · -.~..-:n.,...:.-.-.......:.:.-...... .:. .....---.-.....-.-.... !iz~ ~~:..O..g~~~.:~i:~.....:~:~:~...::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:...:~.....:...:~:i:i:~:~:~:~:i:~:~:~:?:~::.:::::~:~:~:.:': ~:i:~:~:.-':~:: :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:i....:~*:!:.:~......~!~....~....~..~?..~.~?~!.:...~...~! ~!~.~:!~q~:!:~:!:!:~:!:!:!:~:~:~:!:!:~:~:~:~*:.:!:~::.:~.~.....:~*~:!:~:!:~:~:: :~:~:~:::~ ................. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............ :..-..-: ................ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :. :~:i:.:...::i:~::.:!:::::::::::::::::::::~:!:i:~:i~:~:~:~ $!:~.'.::.::!:!::':~$!:!..'::!:..':~:::::::..........'..?..:...-~...::...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::!:!:i:i:::: Wood Wast= 6.1% 1.430 NLmu~ 1.5% 342 Food Wut= 14.7% 3,470 T~tilas 0.6% 148 0.0% 0.0 · :-:-~-~:------.~:::--'-:.'.:: ~:.~:~-.:-:.:::::::'.-"-:::::¥-~:~-':':<~...:..-:.~:::::.'.--'.-::::::.'.- ::'-::::::::::~ ::~-.::~:~:~:!:!:-2: ~... ~..-~;.-~ ..~;.o..~._~ ............... ....,....,....... ~ ............................ ~,~.ao~ m~ w.,~ .............................................. ~'~'i"~; ........................................................... ':':': ........................ :'~':':':': .............................................. Ia=ru 0.4% 95 Diap:n 2.6% 610 Ti~s and mbb~ 0.0% 0 Whit= good~ 0.0% 0 R~aincitr 4.5% 1,056 ...... · .................::.......................: ............:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.::: :-:: :.: .;.. :.:.:.: :.:.:: .::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:...-..:..:....;.:...:.:.;.:. ...... :.:..:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. *Summed number may not total a~ displayed due to rounding R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES 0211676.WG.005 1997 Residential Curbside Service Charge .Study 19 Waste Reduction and Recycling Audit Form WASTE REDUCTION and RECYCLING AUDIT 1. General Business Data .Audit Date Name of Company Location Address Telephone Contact Name Type of Business SIC Code Number of Employees (FTE) Property/Building Self Owned or Leased General Interest in Waste Reduction and Recycling 2. Disposal Information Fax Title Square Footage: Secondary SIC Code Seasonal? Lessor Contact Current Waste Hauler Location of Bins Number of bins Roll-off? Permanent of Temporary? Compactor? Owned or Leased Location Location Size of Bins Telephone Shared Bins? Times Serviced/Week Size Frequency of Service Type Frequency of Service Size Is Disposal Volume Seasonal? 3. Recvclin~ and Scavanging Information Name of Recycler Telephone Material Recycled Estimated Quantify Notes 21 4. SOURCE k 5CTION ACTIVITIES PROGRAM DESCRIPTION VARIABLE FACTORS PAPER REDUCTION 2x Copying Di = Circulate Memo Shredded Paper Packaging Alternative Printing COMPUTER NETWORKING File Exchange Electronic Mail Electronic Fax R N-' S= P= W= N-'- P= A= N= N--- P= ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE Paperless Purchase W = N = Electronic Payments Electronic Catalogs W'- N= S= N= PACKAGING REDUCTION Light weighting B = Multi-use Packaging PALLET REDUCTION & REUSE Pallet Wood Reprocessing More Durable Pallets TONER CARTRIDGE REUSE N~ W~ N~ W'- N= W= E= R= L= N= Wi = Ri = VARIABLE DEFINITIONS R = # of reams purch./yr. Di = # of duplex images/yr. T = # of images made/yr. N = Avg. # of memos/yr. S = Avg. # of sheets of memo E = Avg. # of employees sent P = # of packages sent/yr. W = Estimate weight of shredded used per package. (lb.'s.) N = # of documents printed/yr. P = # of sheets prior to reducing A = # of sheets after reducing A = Avg. # of sheets per file. N = Avg. # of times files used/yr. S = # of sheets per document N = # of documents per yr. N = # of faxes received on-line/yr. P = # of printed pages in sheets A = Wt. of purchase order in Ib.'s. N = # of purchase orders/yr. W = Avg. wt. of billing items - Ib's. N = Avg. # of bills received/cycle B = # of billing cycles/yr. S = # of sheets in catalog/yr. N = # of excess + returns/yr. M = wt. of material in sheets/ton N = # of units received or sent/yr. B = wt. before lightwtng, in lb's. R = wt. after lightwtng, in lb's. W = Wt. of single- cont. replaced N = # of multiple cont. used/yr. T = # of trips in estimated life of multiple use container W = Avg. wt. of pallet in Ib's. N = # of pallets used/yr. W = Wt. of pallet in lb's. E = Economic life in # of trips R = # of pallets repaired/yr. L = Life to 1 st repair in # of trips N = # of pallets required/yr. Wi= wt. of cartridge in Ib's. Ri = # of cartridges reused/yr. 22 CAFETERIA & FOOD SERVICE Item Reduction T = Food Donation W OFFICE SUPPLY REUSE & DONATION Equipment Donation Wi = Ni = Office Supply Reuse Wi = Ni = Ri= C = # of customers sen, ed/day T = % of takeout orders N = # of days open for business W = Avg. weekly food wt. in lb's. Wi = Wt. of item in lb's. Ni = # of items/yr. Wi = Wt. of item in lb's. Ni = # of items/yr. Ri = # of times item reused If there any potential areas where source reduction programs can be implemented, please list the individual activities below: SOURCE REDUCTION BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING LEAD TIME FOR PROGRAM ACTIVITY PROGRAM (i.e. cost, mgmt.) COMMENCEMENT 23 5. Program Cost Estimates RECYCLING PROGRAMS ,,. Fixed Cost Existing Program Potential Program (Capital Equipment & Land/Bldg. Costs) Costs Costs Start-up and Program Developmeht Costs Land and Buildings Mobile Equipment (trucks, forklifts, etc.) · . Equipment(bins, compactors, balers, dishwasher, etc.) Total Fixed Costs Annual Variable Costs (Operating/Maintenance Costs) Program Operating Costs(labor, administrative) Maintenance Costs Other Expenses (fuel, utilities,etc.) Total Annual Variable Costs · Annual Recyclable Revenue & Disposal Reduction Credits _ TOTAL NET ANNUAL PROGRAM COST SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAMS -- Fixed Cost Existing Program Potential Program (Capital Equipment & Land/Bldg. Costs) Costs Costs Start-up and Program development costs Land and Buildings or Improvements(network installation, etc.) Mobile Equipment (trucks, forklifts, etc.) Equipment(double-sided copier, flatware, computers, dishwasher, etc.) Total Fixed Costs Annual Variable Costs (Operating/Maintenance Costs) Program Operating Costs(labor, administrative) Maintenance Costs Other Expenses (fuel, utilities,etc.) Total Annual Variable Costs "Annual Procurement & Disposal Reduction Credits I TOTAL NET ANNUAL PROGRAM COST 24 e Construction and Demolition Materials Recyclers List 25 7, Calculations to Estimate Cit3' of Tustin Curbside Commingled Recycling Recove~3r Tonnage 26 0 0 IJ.I 0 0 -- · ~n, o w~ oom~ '~~ o .__. .> o~ ATTACHMENT LETTER FROM GREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION REQ~ST~G BALLOT MEASURE Waste Management o! Orange County, Inc. 1800 South Grand Avenue Santa Ana, Califomia 92705 714/480-2300 · Fax: 714/568-6626 ITUST!N PUBLIC ~".,"'uR,-,.S DE?':' May 18, 1998 Mr. William Huston City Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. Huston: On the May 14, 1998 City Council Agenda, Item #12, is a staff report that details the City of Tustin's response to the Grand Jury Report on Solid Waste Reduction Pro,am. The report details the current status of Tustin's recycling program and the challeng.es that remain ahead in order to meet the goal of 50% diversion by the year 2000. The Grand Jury particularly expressed their concern that Tustin has not implemented a ~een waste separation program. The cost of implementing an enhanced recycling program could be over $2 million for carts and trucks. With only two years left On our contract, a new program would require a complete restructuring of our agreement as noted in your staff report. As a result of Measure J, the solid waste collection contract is required to go through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process before it can be renewed in July 2000. Therefore, the current program cannot be changed until the year in which the State's 50% diversion goal must be met. We would like to propose an altemative recommendation to you and the City Council for your consideration. We propose to put the terms, conditions, recycling programs and rates for a new contract on the November, 1998 ballot for voter consideration and approval. Great Western Reclamation is prepared to pay all of the costs, including City staff time, to place our contract proposal on the ballot. Great Western is proposing a new recycling program for the City, which would include the following key items: · Implementation of a green waste recycling program. · A residentialrate decrease · Enhancements in insurance requirements, bonding requirements, AB939 and hazardous materials indemnification to improve protections for the City. · Long term rate stabilization for residential and commercial customers. As the cities of Santa Aha and Irvine have found, renegotiating can provide the same results as an RFP process. In the City of Tustin, it will be the voters who will decide on a lower cost, enhanced recycling program. We would like you to .consider this a formal contract proposal for consideration and would ask that you refer the issue to staff to be agendized at a future Council meeting. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any portion of the proposal please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Since~ly, Robert J. ffoyle / Division President RJC/teb CC: Councilmembers City Manager City Attorney RJC2355A.DOC