10 Draft Integrated Waste Management Plan - City Council - City of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan One of the most time consuming elements of developing a carryout bag ordinance is compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to reduce future legal liabilities. The CEQA process has been highly contentious for this issue, with ten different jurisdictions being sued to date by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Most of the lawsuits have been based on allegations that the jurisdictions did not follow the proper CEQA process. Some of the lawsuits are based on the interpretation of Proposition 26 as it applies to placing fees on paper bags. Staff has met with Californians Against Waste (CAW) on multiple occasions to discuss ordinance language, CEQA documentation requirements, and the potential threat of litigation. A carryout bag ordinance is a highly charged political item, as can be seen by the number of articles, letters to the editor and other mentions in the local paper, blogs and community websites in Davis since the potential ordinance was first announced in the spring of 2011. Several issues regarding banning plastic bags are outlined below. The 2008 CIWMB Waste Characterization Study reported that plastic grocery and other merchandise bags make up 0.3% of the overall waste stream, and 0.6% of the residential waste in California (see the figure below). By weight, this equates to 123,405 and 76,760 tons per year, respectively, state-wide. TABLE 7-1 COMPOSITION OF GROCERY AND OTHER MERCHANDISE BAGS IN THE WASTE STREAM Material Type Paper Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags Overall Waste Stream Commercial Waste Residential Waste 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% The pie chart below shows 2010 DWR collection data on the various waste streams in comparison to the plastic bags component to show the effect of plastic bags on the waste stream in Davis (assuming that plastic bags make up 0.6% of the residential waste stream). FIGURE 7-1 PLASTIC BAG IMPACT ON 2010 DAVIS WASTE STREAM DRAFT Recycling 14.6% Compost 25.1% Landfilled Drop Boxes 11.3% C&D 3.7% Plastic Bags 0.1% Residential Garbage 19.9% Commercial Garbage 25.2% Page | 7-60
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan Since plastic bags do not significantly contribute to the amount of waste going to the landfill, a carryout bag ordinance is not a priority item to achieve the City’s 2020 waste reduction target. Banning plastic bags may assist in reducing litter, but only minimally. A large percentage of storm water from the streets in Davis (and plastic bags that are swept up in the storm water) pass though screens and detention ponds where plastic bags are removed from the water before it flows to the Willow Slough Bypass or Yolo Bypass. Storm drain inlets and the detention ponds themselves are cleaned regularly. Recycling Program staff rarely receives complaints from street crews regarding plastic bag litter. Plastic bags at the landfill are blown about by the wind and can contribute to litter. The landfill uses screens to catch litter that is blown by the wind, but some litter escapes these screens. The City of Davis is only one contributor to the material at the landfill. Banning bags in Davis will not alleviate the bag problem at the YCCL unless all the other cities adopt similar laws. At this point in time, none of the other cities in Yolo County, nor the County itself, are pursuing a carryout bag ordinance. Plastic bags are also an issue for DWR, where they are a litter issue and a nuisance at their recycling facility. DWR’s customers live in and around Davis, banning plastic bags may have a significant impact in litter reduction for DWR. One of the concerns with banning plastic bags and not paper bags is the potential increase in the amount of paper bags being used, and the possible increase in paper bags going into the landfill. In the City of Manhattan Beach vs. Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, the Court report stated: On this record, it is undisputed that the manufacture, transportation, recycling, and landfill disposal of paper bags entail more negative environmental consequences than do the same aspects of the plastic bag “life cycle.” Since a paper bag weighs more than a plastic bag, the effect of paper bags on the waste stream is more substantial. Paper bags are accepted for recycling curbside and in all DWR recycling bins. In Davis, plastic bags can only be recycled at grocery stores. This should make it more likely that paper bags will be recycled instead of landfilled. DRAFT Plastic bags are not accepted by DWR for recycling. A recycling option does exist however—AB 2449 requires large grocery stores and pharmacies to take back plastic bags for recycling, so residents can bring their plastic bags back to the store for recycling. However, this system hasn’t been very effective. According to CAW, in California, 14 billion plastic bags are distributed annually, and only 3% are recycled. AB 2449 requires grocery stores to take back plastic bags for recycling, but the law sunsets at the end of 2012. The ending of AB 2449 creates a potential recycling challenge, but may create an opportunity for future bag bans. AB 2449 expressly disallowed charging a fee for plastic bags, while allowing one for paper. Once AB 2449 ends, it would be possible to rewrite the City’s draft ordinance to allow single-use plastic bags as long as stores charge a fee, as is required for paper bags under the current draft ordinance. This may eliminate some of the opposition to the draft ordinance that the City encountered as the draft was prepared. A bill was introduced (AB 298) that would have extended the plastic bag recycling provisions of 2449 while limiting the use of plastic and paper carryout bags statewide (see Appendix H for the full text of this bill). However, the bill did not pass the senate. Page | 7-61
Page 1 and 2:
DRAFT
Page 3 and 4:
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 75: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259:
show all

10 Draft Integrated Waste Management Plan - City Council - City of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?