HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 96-043 - Approve & Adopt the 01-29-96 Update to the County of Shasta Hazardous Waste Element of the Integrated Waste Mgmt Plan, Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41500, ET. Seq ' � f
[_—_ .a � �
RESOLUTION NO. 96-�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE JANUARY 29, 1996
UPDATE TO THE COUNTY OF SHASTA HAZARDOUS WASTE
ELEMENT OF THE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN,
�� PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 41500, ET.
SEQ.
WHEREAS, the Household Hazardous Waste Element of the county-wide Integrated
Waste Management Plan is intended to provide for the selection, implementation, funding
and monitoring of an overall program to reduce, recycle, safely collect, treat and dispose of
household hazardous waste generated within Shasta County; and
WHEREAS, the Household Hazardous Waste Element represents a coordinated effort
among all jurisdictions within Shasta County (unincorporated Shasta County and Cities of
Redding, Anderson and Shasta Lake), and all of the programs selected in the element will
apply to all jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-182, the City of Redding
adopted the County of Shasta Household Hazardous Waste Element dated November 1991;
and
WHEREAS, Section 41770.5 of the Public Resources Code provides that the
household hazardous waste element may be revised or amended at any time to incorporate
new or revised data, to give descriptions of new or revised source reduction, recycling, or
composting programs, or to make other changes that are necessary to comply with the
diversion requirements of Section 41780; and
WHEREAS, attached hereto and made a part hereof is a proposed update of the
Household Hazardous Waste Element. This update:
(a) addresses several new developments in HHW management, including the new
Redding permanent HHW collection facility, HHW programs implemented
since 1991, and the newly incorporated City of Shasta Lake;
(b) has been prepared consistent with state law, and reviewed by all participating �
jurisdictions and the Solid Waste Task Force; �
�
(c) is a Class 8 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality ��
,
Act; and -C,
W
_ � �
(d) has been considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing prior
to the adoption of this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council approves
and adopts the updated County of Shasta Household Hazardous Waste Element dated
January 29, 1996, for inclusion in the county-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified
copy of this resolution to the Shasta County Director of Public Works.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced, read and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2oth day of February , 1996, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: P. Anderson, R. Anderson, McGeorge, Murray and Kehoe
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
DAVID . KEHOE, ayor
ATTEST:
�
CONNIE STROHMAYER ity Clerk
FORM APPROVED:
,,
,
,`r' ,
! � d!�` �vZ," �
�
W. LEONARD WIN ° , City Attorney
2 :........ ......... .,,.... .. .. ...
' � �
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS �
�VASTE ELEM�NT
� O�
' '� S
�
J
� : - -�
V �,
C� Q. .
�t�� ��
OR
County of Shasta
City of Anderson
City of Redding
City of Shasta Lake
January 29, 1996
� � ' „ ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 THE CALIFORIVIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT . . . . . . . 1
1.2 HHWE STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. HHWE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 TARGETED MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS AND RESULTING HHW
DIVERTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 FUTURE STATUS OF HHW PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. ALTERNATIVE HHW PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 HHW MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 RANKING SYSTEM METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5 SLTNIMARY OF HHW ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6 EVALUATION OF HHW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES: DISCUSSION . . 11
5. SELECTION OF HHW PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1 SELECTED PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF HHW TO BE REDUCED, COLLECTED,
RECYCLED, AND/OR DISPOSED THROUGH SELECTED PROGRAMS . 17
5.3 RECYCLING AND REUSE EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2 IlV�'LEMENTATION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3 FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4 CONTINGENCY FUNDING SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. MO1vITORING AND EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1 MONITORING METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2 MONITORING IlVIPLEMENTATION, RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES, AND
FLJNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.3 CRITERIA FOR MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HHW PROGRAM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4 CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . 26
i
�. ,� � •
8. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.1 OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.2 EXISTING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.4 CO1��VIIJNITY AUDIENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.5 AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.6 IlVIPLEMENTATION TASKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.7 IlVIPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.8 PROGRAM COSTS AND REVENUE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.9 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.10 MONITORING AND EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 POPULATION AND TOTAL HOUSING IJNITS -- 1995 2
TABLE 2 HHW QUANTITIES GENERATED AND DISPOSED OF
PER JLJRISDICTION 6
TABLE 3 HHW DIVERSION IN 1990 7
TABLE 4 RANI�ING OF HHW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES 12
TABLE 5 PATICIPATING JURISDICTIONS AND RESPONSIBII.,ITIES 20
TABLE 6 PROGRAM TASK AND IlVIPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 21
TABLE 7 PROGRAM FUNDING TOTALS AND BREAKDOWN BY PHASE 23
TABLE 8 FISCAL YEAR (JULY-JUNE) EDUCATION PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE BY MONTH 30
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
A. EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFII�IITIONS
B. EVALUATION OF HHW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TEXT
CCR - California Code of Regulations
HHW - Household Hazardous Waste
HHWE - Household Hazardous Waste Element
PRC - Public Resources Code
RTRF - Redding Transfer and Recycling Facility
SWGS - Solid Waste Generation Study for Shasta County (1990)
ii
• �
1. INTRODUCTION
The Household Hazardous Waste Element (HI3WE) is intended to provide for selection,
implementation, funding, and monitoring of an overall program to reduce, recycle, safely collect,
treat and dispose of household hazardous waste generated within Shasta County.
This HHWE represents a coordinated effort among all jurisdictions within Shasta County. These
include unincorporated Shasta County and the Cities of Anderson, Redding and Shasta Lake. All of
the programs selected in this element will apply to all jurisdictions. Jurisdictions may expand any of
these programs within their boundaries above the levels set forth in this element. The responsibility
of each jurisdiction is detailed in Section 6.1.
Unless specified as unincorporated Shasta County, Shasta County as used in this document refers to
all local jurisdictions within the countywide area.
1.1 THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
The California lntegrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) redefined solid waste
management in terms of both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and the
State. That law established a hierarchy that local jurisdictions must comply with in addressing waste
management issues. The new planning hierarchy includes, in order of priority, source reduction;
recycling and composting; and environmentally safe landfill disposal and transformation (incineration
of solid waste materials).
To carry out waste management in accordance with this hierarchy, the California lntegrated Waste
Management Act requires each local jurisdiction to prepare and implement the following solid waste
elements:
• Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE)
• Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)
• Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE)
• Siting Element (SE)
These elements, along with a waste management summary plan, make up the county Integrated Waste
Management Plan (CIWMI').
1.2 HHWE STATUS
This document is an update of the original �II�WE adopted by Shasta County and the cities of
Redding and Anderson in November 1991. The update addresses several new developments in
HHW management including the new Redding permanent HHW collection facility and HHW
programs implemented since 1991. This update also includes the newly incorporated City of Shasta
Lake.
1
. ' • �
1.3 BACKGROUND
A Hazardous Waste Management Plan was adopted by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on
May 23, 1989, by Resolution Number 89-106. It addresses HHW waste as a category of hazardous
waste generated in the county. Generation of HHW will increase due to anticipated population
growth that will reach 179,628 residents by the year 2000 (see Table 1 for 1995 figures). The Plan
states that"county ordinances and regulations governing sewage disposal, solid waste, and air quality
establish various prohibitions on the disposal of hazardous substances, but there is no capability for
monitoring or enforcement on a systematic basis."
TABLE 1
<:::::>::::::«:::>:. ;: ;::;:::.;:.:::::::.. ; ;: ;:.>::>::>:;.
> ;::::>.'..;::>::;;:,.:::::>::: :::>:::>:;:::. .... ::.::::>:: :
,.:: ;:.:.;.; .:
>::::::;:::::::.... . : :::
< ': '>:.. ; .: ... .::::,:.;;;::
>::;>:.: ?:>:::<:<:::>::>. ' ` ::�.' �.. �:�:. :�:. :
;:;:::>: :. :::::;.<:;::>:::: ::.(�: :�.. � _.�1 U._AL � :. .:;; :I� i-...;:.1:���::::::;:::;>:::;::: :.:::
__ f.�,�1���.�:�.:::: :S ::::: ::::.::
;;
:.. ..
; . ...... ;. ::.;:.;:.:
;:�7TJRISDIC;I'IC?�T>:::>.; F�PULA�IC�N : A1�NUAL:;<:;o::.:....:.. .�£3�4IN4;. .....�.. H�US:IitiG:::::;::::::
,:.>::::::;>:.::. :;»:.;:::::: >:::>::::<:::>::::>:::.;:... >;:: .:::;.:;::..:>::>:..;<>::>::.:..;. ;::;;>;:.. . ...:.
;;:::.:.
....: ��C�'f�'�....�fi�;::::<:::'. >::>::; ::;:.::.:.;::>;::.;: ;::::::>;::>::,:
't��:��>::>:;:::: ;::.... ::::::::. < ;::>::>::>;::>::>::>::
;>::>::::>::::;::.:;:.><:.;;:::::>:::::::>:::;:::::>::::::::<;:::.>: : ......�C�1`�`�"�::::::::::::::::
REDDING 78, 500 1 . 9 29, 847 48 . 0
SHASTA LAKE 9, 525 2 . 1 3 , 621 5 . 7
ANDERSON 8, 875 0 . 9 3 , 374 5 . 3
LTNINCORPORATED 69, 200 1 . 5 26, 311 41 . 0
SHASTA COUNTY 166, 100 1 . 7 63 , 153 100 . 0
Source: Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties, January 1, 1995 and 1994,
California Department of Finance (DOF). Housing units calculated based on DOF
1994 county estimate of 2.63 occupants per housing unit.
HHW is generated from products containing potentially hazardous chemicals used in the home, yard,
or garage. These products become waste when they are no longer needed by the consumer. Waste
from products such as paint, pesticides, used motor oil, oven cleaner, solvents, metal polish, pool
chemicals, and antifi-eeze can cause harm and pose a risk to human health and the environment when
disposed of improperly.
Improperly managed HHW may end up in municipallandfills, down the sewer, or on the ground. The
improper disposal of hazardous wastes can result in contamination of ground and surface waters,
including drinking water supplies. Improper disposal may also produce potentially hazardous leachate
migrating from landfills.
2
• �► � . .
A substance is classified as a hazardous waste, according to the Department of Health Services, if it
falls into one of the following four categories:
CORROSIVITY- These consist of acids and bases. Household examples include toilet bowl
cleaners, ammonia-based cleaners, caustic sodas, drain openers, lye, some
bathroom cleaners, and metal polishes.
IGIVITABILITY- These are fla.mmable materials. Household examples include fuels, nail polish
remover and polish, aerosols, oil-based paint, solvent-based adhesives, and
solvents such as paint thinner and remover.
REACTIVITY- These materials oxidize when in contact with another material such as oxygen.
Household examples include bleach (mixed with ammonia-based cleaners),
pool chlorine, and peroxides. Oxidizing acids are not included.
TOXICITY- These are poisonous materials. Household examples include pesticides, rat
or gopher poison, and some cleaning fluids.
This classification system is the same one used for industrial waste generation, yet HHW is not
handled and regulated in the same way. Consequently, we are faced with a problem that residents,
with the aid of local government, must take responsibility for.
Source reduction is necessary to prevent pollution and maintain clean water and land in Shasta
County. Education is the key to source reduction. Wise consumer decision making and safer
alternatives will decrease overall waste generation. Many local governments nationwide have been
administering HHW programs since the early 1980's on a variety of levels, yet most programs have
only recently been established. Funds are typically spent on HHW collection and disposal events,
establishment of permanent facilities, and the more recent trend to provide more recycling facilities
for hazardous materials such as used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries, latex paint, and
antifreeze. Less funding has been directed toward public information and education programs that
have a source reduction focus. Fortunately, this is changing and source reduction is becoming
targeted in public education and information programs.
3
� �
2. HHWE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 GOALS
The goals of Shasta County for the safe and responsible management of HHW are as follows:
• Provide residents with education and information materials to encourage source reduction.
• Decrease the amount and toxicity of HHW generated.
• Increase participation in programs to recycle used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries,
latex paint, and antifreeze. Encourage local businesses throughout Shasta County to provide
recycling opportunities for their community at no or a minimal service charge.
• Divert HHW from municipal landfills in Shasta County and from other improper disposal
methods.
• Provide residents with safe effective collection opportunities for the proper treatment and
disposal of HHW.
• Continue to evaluate and develop HHW programs to achieve maximum reduction of HHW.
2.2 OBJECTIVES
The objectives for this HHW Element are consistent with the waste management hierarchy of the
California PRC Section 40051 promoting source reduction and recycling practices. The purpose of
the California lntegrated Waste Management Act of 1989 according to PRC, Section 40052 is to
"reduce, recycle, and reuse waste generated in the state to the maximum e�ent feasible to conserve
water, energy and other natural resources, to protect air and water quality." The objectives in this
section are based on the county Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS). They are intended to
promote the goals of the California lntegrated Waste Management Act by reducing HHW and
providing for proper disposal of the remaining HHW.
This update is being prepared after the short-term planning period referenced in the original 1991
HHWE. This update focuses on the medium-term planning period (1995-2000) and carries over
many objectives and programs from the short-term planning period which were already implemented
as part of the 1991 HHWE.
Landfill disposal of HHW will be reduced by achieving the following objectives:
• Work with cities, transfer station operators, and local businesses to increase the number of
established recycling facilities for household hazardous materials.
• Establish a long-term agreement for countywide use of the existing permanent HHW
collection facility at the Redding Transfer/Recycling Facility(RTRF).
4
• � 1
• Monitor the need for periodic HHW collection events in areas where use of the RTRF inay
be inconvenient. In addition, monitor the need for free collection events where it is
determined that collection fees discourage use of the RTRF. Where it is determined that
localized or less costly periodic collection service is needed, seek special funding (such as
grants)to hold these events. Coordinate with the RTRF for handling of the HHW collected
and funding to cover those costs.
• Continue the cunent load checking program to discourage and monitor illegal disposal of
HHW at landfills.
• Continue existing education and public information campaigns to support the overall goals
and programs provided in this HHWE, with an emphasis on source reduction.
2.3 TARGETED MATERIALS
Household materials that become and have characteristics of hazardous waste, pursuant to the
definition of Section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code, have been targeted for the
HHW Programs. Emphasis will be placed on recycling used motor oil, motor oil filters, lead-acid
automotive batteries, latex paint, aerosol cans and antifreeze; reducing hazardous cleaning product
usage; safer pest control measures; and other HHW categories.
As programs develop, emphasis will be placed on all materials contributing to HHW pollution in the
surrounding environment. Reduction impact will depend upon a�ailable alternatives for the particular
product and its subsequent use. The target reduction goal by the year 2000 is to reduce or recover
half the HHW which is currently disposed of improperly-- an additional 700 tons annually. As a
practical matter, monitoring will not provide the exact amount of HHW diverted. Success in meeting
this goal would be determined by monitoring the increase in HHW collected and the decrease in
HHW incidents during load checking.
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Improperly disposed HHW is hard to document since individual households are difficult to monitor
and improper disposal usually goes unreported. According to the sampling completed for the SWGS
conducted for the year 1990-1991, Shasta County generated 241,349 tons of solid waste during the
survey year. HHW makes up 1.19 percent of the total tonnage of waste generated annually or about
3,346 tons(see Chapter 2 and Appendix A in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element for Waste
Characterization Sampling Methodology). The SWGS breaks down this quantity further specifying
that HHW makes up 0.54 percent of the total county waste disposed illegally at local landfills -- about
1,311 tons annually.
5
. � � �
TABLE 2
;::::; >
,
,;;. HIi���TANT�I3ES GE�I2�TE�?�II� I'�I�P�SEI���P`�R,�VT�I�I�IC�'I�}� .:;<:
;::.:::;::.<. . : ;;:. . .;>;::.: ;:.
'::>:::'T�r�sd��t�On :; 7`t�ns L;e�e��ted `Toit$�mpr�perIy °f�Irnprt�p�ri�:
>;:: ...:>.:.
>::;.;.
; ; ,
' Dt� :`sed ; �►s �sed; :::
Redding 1,509 593 39.2
Shasta Lake* 198 75 37.8
Anderson 196 74 37.8
Unincorporated* 1,443 569 39.4
Shasta County Total 3,346 1,311 39.1
*Shasta Lake incorporated after the SWGS. Numbers are estimated based on population
comparisons to the City of Anderson.
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS AND RESULTING HI3W DIVERTED
Based on the short-term goals of the original HHWE adopted in 1991, several programs have been
implemented.
Recyclable Household Hazardous Materials Collection
Recycling household hazardous materials has the potential to reduce overall HHW. The City of
Redding opened a permanent HHW collection facility known as the Redding Transfer/Recycling
Facility (RTRF) in September 1995. The City of Redding owns and operates the RTRF which
accepts used motor oil, motor oil filters, lead-acid automotive batteries, latex and lead-based paint,
aerosol cans, pesticides, acids, corrosives, flammable material and antifreeze. All Hf�W accepted at
the RTRF is reused, recycled, or remediated. None of the HHW accepted is landfilled. There are also
private businesses that accept used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries, and antifreeze for
recycling. The Shasta County Department of Resource Management keeps an up-to-date list of these
businesses.
Before opening the RTRF, the Benton Transfer Station was available to all Shasta County residents.
Diversion numbers are available for the Benton Transfer Station (Table 3), but not for the RTRF
since the facility has been in operation for less than one year.
6
� � . . ..
Because of both public and private recycling opportunities, 500 tons of batteries, 1,529 tons of used
motor oil, and 6 tons of antifi-eeze were collected for recycling in Shasta County during the 1990 base
year(SWGS). The collection rate for 1995 wi111ikely be significantly higher due to the opening of
the permanent collection facility at the RTRF. In the first three months since the opening of the
RTRF, approximately 7 tons of HHW was accepted. This rate will increase as residents become
aware that this new facility is available.
The conversion factors used in the SWGS are valid for diversion calculations as follows:
1 lead-acid battery=40 pounds;
1 gallon of used motor oi1 = 7.3 pounds;
1 gallon of antifreeze= S.1 pounds.
Using these conversion factors, the 1990 total of HHW diverted in Shasta County was 2,035 tons.
This is 60.9 percent of the tota13,346 tons generated. Again, this rate should be higher when final
collection information is available from the RTRF.
TABLE 3
.................................................... ..........................................................................
�''( :�����>����<:.���::�::::������:::>.��::::>�:�`������;�..��`����..>$��:�::::�:;`>::���::��::::>��:::::::::���;::::�_:::,.'�.,;'�;;;:;::::`:::::>:`::`:.���:;�����>��::'::<::::::::':<:>::::::::::::>:::::<:::::::::::::::>::<::>:::::::::<:;>:::����<��
�
�"��'����.>:'�.�>.:.::�'�:::..::�.:.::.� �.��'�'�:::':i:::::�:::::i:::::i:::::'�:;"'�:.':�:...>�:., j��'
.::.::.::.:.i:.:...:.;.::;.::.i:.i:.::.:.::.:.:.:::.;:.:....i.:.:.::,.:.:�:::,......�..�.,�4i�.��.........�.............�....�F.,....�...�.�...�..................:.::::.:�:::::::::.::..�:::::.:::::::..:....:.
........... .........................
::''::i::::::i�::�:::::::::::::':::::::::::i::>`.::::i:::
;.;..;...QIES::;::::::'::>':: ::::::::::>::.;::>:::>:::>:;::<>::::;:`� >::::>;'.::>::::>:>::;::>::::>::::>:::�.'::>::>::>;:»>::>:<::::::::::':::>::::. .:: : :..
�.:;::>::i::::.>::;.::�:;:.::::.:�:;>;::>::>:.;::>.:.;�:�::;:::;:.:;;�c..::.�.�: �: :;:.>::::��. :.:�.:: :
:.i:::::::::::::::'.:::::::i':::.::::':::::':::::::.:.i:::::;:::::;::;::;:::;::::.:::::.�.:: ::". .
.;:.;.;::.;:.:.:..:...:.::.,.;;::.:.;..::.;:.;::: :.::.,...:::.:. .. ,..;:.:�`a����:',�" . �a���L� 5....... ... ......... �.......... . ......A,�t��'�c��:�'
Total Shasta 2,035 500 1,529 6
County Diversion
Benton Transfer 21 11 9 N/A
Station(only)
Source: Solid Waste Generation Study
Solid Waste Management Facility Load Checking Programs
The Shasta County landfills of Anderson Solid Waste and West Central are directly used by the public
via self-haul and receive solid waste from franchised residential waste collectors. Neither landfill is
permitted to accept HHW.
Site operators of landfills and transfer stations are required to implement a load checking program
pursuant to CCR Title 14, Section 1725820. A landfill Report of Facility Information and a transfer
station Plan of Operation provide load checking program procedures. These procedures require load
screening upon deposition of refuse for the presence of hazardous materials to ensure that they are
not discharged at local landfills.
7
,' ' • � �
Load checking requirements have diverted small amounts of hazardous waste, particularly auto
batteries. No specific diversion amounts are available and the amount is likely not significant. The
focus of the load checking program is not to divert by intercepting HHW. The focus is to deter illegal
disposal of HHW.
Non-Recyclable Household Hazardous Waste Collections
The RTRF currently accepts non-recyclable HHW. Again, annual diversion numbers will not be
available until the facility has been in operation for at least one full year. To date, however,
appro�mately 40% of the HHW accepted at the facility is non-recyclable. The material is made
available for reuse or is taken to private facilities specializing in the remediation of HHW.
Household Hazardous Waste Collections Events
Shasta County (unincorporated) co-sponsored with the City ofRedding two I�IW collection days
in 1991 and 1992 for all county residents and collected a total of 51 tons of HHW. The cost of this
program was approximately $125,000 for both events or appro�mately $2,450 per ton of HHW
collected. This program was discontinued due to high costs and a reduction in available funding. The
program may be reinitiated if special grant funding becomes available.
3.2 FUTURE STATUS OF HHW PROGRAMS
The recycling programs that are presently in operation are expected to continue and are not likely to
decrease operative capacity. It is expected that participation would only increase due to public
education and information programs.
The RTRF will continue to accept HHW. The rate of collection will grow as residents become more
aware of the facility. A long-term agreement for countywide use of the facility needs to be reached
by all jurisdictions.
Load checking at transfer stations and landfills will continue to be a requirement under state law.
As stated previously, the HHW collection events have not been cost-effective and have been
discontinued. Collection events may be reestablished in outlying communities or for other special
needs where grant funding becomes available.
8
� � • , .,
4. ALTERNATIVE HHW PROGRAMS
This section identifies and evaluates the HHW program alternatives considered for local
implementation in the countywide area. A discussion of the evaluation for each alternative appears
in section 4.6.
4.1 HHW MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
A hierarchy of waste management practices has been established. Source reduction and sound
methodology of managing collected HHW reduces the potential for adverse effects on the
environment and public health. The hierarchy is as follows:
1. Source reduction
2. Reuse (without reprocessing)
3. On-site recycling
4. Off-site recycling
5. On-site remediation
6. Off-site remediation
7. Land disposal at properly permitted facilities
4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES �
The following HHW program alternatives have been evaluated pursuant to the California lntegrated
Waste Management Act of 1989:
Collection Programs
• Develop an agreement for countywide use of Redding Permanent HHW Collection Facility;
• Hold periodic collection events at the permanent facility or a mobile facility;
• Form privately or publicly operated fee-for-service, door-to-door HHW collection programs.
• Form privately or publicly operated fee-for-service, curbside HHW collection programs.
Load-Checking/Monitoring Program - This would be conducted at all county landfills and
nondisposal facilities.
Rec,�g/Reclamation Programs - Materials such as used motor oil, oil filters, lead-acid
automotive batteries, latex paint, antifreeze, and aerosol cans would be targeted.
9
. � • � �
4.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Planning Guidelines and Procedures for preparing and revising countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plans(CCR 14,Division 7, Chapter 9, Section 18733.3) require use of certain criteria
in evaluating HHW program alternatives. A scale (high, medium, and low) has been developed
regarding the benefit of the program under each criterion. The criteria include the following (see
Appendix A for criteria details):
• Effectiveness in Waste Diversion Potential (Volume and Weight)
• Absence of Hazard
• Flexibility
• Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation
• Ease of Implementation
• Facility Needs
• Consistency with Local Policies
• Absence of Institutional Barriers
� Estimated Cost
• End Uses
4.4 RANKING SYSTElV�METHODOLOGY
A numerical system has been developed for the evaluation criteria with points assigned as follows:
BENEFIT POINT VALUE
high 3 points
medium 2 points
low 1 point
The total points were summed for each alternative and the results analyzed. Working with county
staff, city staff, and the Local Task Force, alternatives were selected based on the ranking system
results. An infeasible alternative received a "fatal flaw" rating, thus eliminating it from any further
consideration.
4.5 SLJ�vIlV1ARY OF HHW ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The alternatives evaluated received the following ranking:
Rank Program Alternative
1 Recycling/Reclamation
2 Agreement for Countywide use of Permanent Collection Facility
3 Load Checking/Monitoring
4 Periodic HHW Collection Events
5 Door-to-Door Pick-Up
(Fatal Flaw) Curbside Pick-up
10
� � ' , ,
4.6 EVALUATION OF HHW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES: DISCUSSION
An evaluation of each alternative based on the criteria set forth by the California lntegrated Waste
Management Board is presented in Appendix B. It is important to recognize that Shasta County has
unique population density and geographical characteristics which have been taken into consideration.
The evaluation grading is summarized in Table 4.
5. SELECTION OF HHW PROGRAMS
The selection of HHW management programs was based on the evaluation and resulting ranking
described in Section 4 and the results of the SWGS for the 1990/1991 year. The SWGS indicates
that 61 percent of HHW generated is being disposed of properly. Properly disposed HHW consists
primarily of batteries, motor oil, paint and antifreeze for which drop-off areas have been available.
Based on this information from the SWGS, alternatives which provide viable, cost-effective collection
facilities and inform the public were ranked higher than other alternatives.
The stated goals and objectives set forth in this HHW Element will guide these programs and will be
used to deternune program success. Each alternative was selected to achieve optimum reduction of
HHW generation and to prevent improper disposal in Shasta County. Because these program
alternatives cannot always be developed and implemented individually, an integrated approach to
HHW management is needed to succeed in diverting the HHW from municipal landfills or other
improper disposal.
Due to funding and marketing variables, the selected programs can adapt to changing conditions. It
is the intent of this HHWE to provide flexibility in implementing different programs. Where
monitoring demonstrates that a selected program cannot be effective in meeting the goals of this
element, the program would be discontinued. Funding would be shifted to expansion of an existing
HHW program which is successful, or implementation of a new HHW program which meets the
overall goals and objectives.
11
�� � �� � s
:�:::::: :
::�::�: :
::::::::: :::::: : :
::::�: :
. _ .
:
:::� :. :
{.
:�
:�: :
� :
;,�; N N N N � N N N r-+ N � ln
����`:�3��:<�::.::
,--�
`:;:�::
'�i::ii:A�:
.............................
f:::i3i::i:i::3S:i;:t�ii�S::::t� t�t�i`
'i�....
S'�''
[i:������������''�:Y;:`:�i�
=i:=:XiFa:[i;:i:i::[ ..
�:�3:��::�::i:;:i;
�;
�:�y : ::::<}-i:i::Y!!!t:=i{.:.:.:
:'::;;:;':��?����:::::: :;:i�;:..�:::�+�k.;:i.'�!i::
:c.;: :;:2�:;:";i:':::.: :�:
�:�i:�:;:;�::;:::;: �y '..,i 1-- :
N N M M M M '--� N ' �
;<?�`:.`>
N .
``':�" >?:`:;',;:z>:'" ?;";>:>:>:s;::: >
:..
:'�.:
;:.€'�:::;�:::;'�„�`::
»:�::`�:�`
>::>:::�:::::::::: :::>:�:::;»<:::>::»>::
�.;;;:;:
>:::::'�::>:::::: :::::::::::::>::>: <:><>:
:��::: `:.:::: ... �.?.:::::::.
>::�'!"€::: :::::::::<:..;':;: : :;;::>:;:<;<::::<:::>::s>;:'
::::��s::;;'::: :::<::<::<::�>:<::>:>:`::':::<::
'><''�:><'»>::>
>'>�� ':>::>:�:::::>::: :::>::::>::>:::::�:;:;;;::::�:;
:::::::::�"'"�':::::<: ::::::..:..:.'::;:�:::,.:::`;
:::::::::::>:::><>::;:::::>:::: :>,,,,.;,::>:;:::::;
3�•�.;:.;:.: .;;::.:.,.... .;�.�
:::::�;:;::>::::::::>:'.: ;:::::::>: :::>::::.::;:::".:;::_;:.:
� � "�` c+� N N M M N cn N c� N N i M
';``�!!!�::;';:::>:;:::>:z<»:: »��;�j: >.
�<��:::::::?�::'::�<:>::::: ::`?r�:>:�::'.;;:>;> .. ,
�
�
::::::.':i:�::
':�'�:�:'::`::;:�;:22:<:....;:�:2�: �:�:�i`:�'�:::;.;�::;.;...;.
:�:�:':�:����:�:�::� :�:�:�:�::�:�:���:��:���:
''';��:�;:�.;;:;;;�..:�i::;:;:;::�:_ :�:��:�:��:�:�:�:;�:::�:�::�-=�:::�:;�``. .
. ........ .�.. .:....: ....:.. �
:2::;:;'::2::::�::::::2:: :::ii';:i:;:>::�'J�::::':::::::::::::::':
� �:�::;:;:f`<'c;;;;;:;;;;;;:;
'%''���::f3;[�3[�3;i;i;i;i �i`c:'�:Si::,:�> '�>:�> ,
/���� � � �
W M�M!l:::::::i: ;:i:."..:::::f-(;::.'i':
a '"��'"�>> ;;»::»:::.:<;:;::;. ;.;....>:.�,<�"; c�
<::�<::::>>:;':::` <<:>::>: :>:::;::::;:�::;":>;:
�
� .. . :�i:;�:;::��::�.:;t:�;: M M N N M M M M N M � i N
�:.:<::..: N ,
N
��:>:::::>::::` .:::::::: :::::: .:::.>;�::<�
::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> :::::: .::;::�<.:<:;�:
�..
::> ::::�<:�::�:
<:>:�::::�::>::>::::>::
:::::<�`:: .
::::::>: ::::�:;::>:.::.:::>:::::>:::
>:>` ;.::::;;>:_4::>::::>::>::
::::>�:.;:r-,r.;;;:.;:.;:
`;':`�i.:'i i;?i;;;3;iii;i';`:<:;:< �;>:;;�::.;:::.;;;;;;;;
�::i::i:i::i:i::
�;i;i�iiS�Si'i:i:::tY�iii:;[% Y::�t::>.�."i:t%?j['ii
Yi;�::;�:�:�;:�:�i:�:� � i
ii`:`'�':i.:;''i5':i:i
M M M M M N N N M M : rl
s'�?? `;:?`:>'`>'?>?``: ::::;:: :s: .s>:s»s>:
N •
5::: ::E<:Yi+�iEf:::;�r:;::::;::;:::
�<:::.���,g:'::?::<:<:;
���:�:?✓::i;:�ii;:�:
i'�`�`r:�''�'i:`;:`.ri2
:;:;; :»::.:::�:::;�:::�:::.
�i::�i:�:�:�i:�:�:�i:�
�'�:�:�:�:�'.�.�.�.�.�.�:.�.�.�.�.�:.�.�:.�.::�.�:.�.�.�:.�:.:.,..�:.�:.�:,.�:.�.
�
�:�:�:�:�:�::�:�:�'�:�::::`�i:���:�i:�:�:�i:'��:�:'����:��'���'�":���"�'����;:�'�':�'
�
�
�
1--1
U
F�
z
�
z z
w
�
H
w
o �
H
;:::::':�: ::::::>:::>:::::>::::: �
H � � �
H H
Q
0
>::>::::>:�?::>:::>::::::>:::::>::<::>::::> �
: o x �
w �,
>:>::<::�>: :::::::::>::>::>::::;:»»: �
:.: a u., d Z
;:::::::::�::;::: ::::::::: ::
�
H z
::;::,:::<��:>::<>:>::>:::> > o H
� o Q
z �
>::::::::;�>:::: ::::::»:::>::>::::>:>
� � z o �
w
O W U E-� `� ': C7 .
>::>:�'"�{::::>::::>:::>::::>::::>: �
; � ,� �'' E—� W
;<;><;<;'�«:: >:>«<;>:>:>s: C�
v� v H � ' z .
>:::..«::�:>:>:::::>::>:::>::; v�
� � �,
>:::;::«:�..�::<::.:.;;:::>::>:;;<:>:;>:<:<:» z � W �' H
;:::::>:�"�<::::<:>::»»»:;:> � W � C� �--� �
H : x
w � �¢
�
�
x �
>::<:::�::::>:;:.;:::>::::>:>:<«>::
a
� � a �' H ; z �
w
H
� �
::>::::�::::<:><:>;::>::
�
>:::::: >:<::>:::»<:�.:...::.:: :::::::: Q
� � � � ¢ o � z o ;
'::::::::::�::>::�J=:::°>:<< > ¢�
(� w a � w a � W W H ? a
� � "
5.1 SELECTED PROGRAMS
During the planning period between 1995-2000, Shasta County will incorporate a combination of
several selected alternatives into a comprehensive HHW Program which will include public
information and education campaigns. The selected programs are as follows:
1. Recycling/Reclamation
2. Long-term Agreement for Countywide Use of Permanent HHW Collection Facility
3. Load Checking/Monitoring
4. HHW Collection Events (as funding is available)
The combined collection efforts selected are proposed to ensure that residents are given the
opportunity to properly dispose of their HHW. Ideally, a pennanent facility combined with recycling,
recycling drop-off centers, and supplemental periodic collection events (where special funding
becomes available) will eventually provide residents with several drop-off locations for common
recyclable HHW.
Since the HHWE provides for a regionwide approach, few inter jurisdictional agreements are needed
for the selected programs other than the agreement for countywide use of the RTRF. Programs
promoted by the Shasta County Department of Resource Management apply countywide.
Due to high cost previously experienced by the county, HHW collection events will not be funded
by a permanent source such as an increase in tipping fees. The intent is to only implement this
program where special year-to-year grants or other funding sources are awarded for them.
Door-to-door programs will not be implemented due to a low ranking in the alternative evaluation
and since the program would not be cost effective given the other programs which have been
selected. This program is not essential to the overall HHW program and would not be cost-effective
since a permanent collection facility supplemented with periodic collection events provides adequate
collection opportunities for all county households.
Further discussion of the selected programs, in order of priority and based on the SWGS and
alternative ranking, is provided below.
Recycling/Reclamation
Preventing materials from becoming waste can be done through recycling, reprocessing, and reusing,
thus eliminating it from the waste stream altogether. The SWGS indicates that recycling programs
are widely used when facilities are available to accept HHW. This program was selected to expand
the existing recycling/reclamation program which is cost-effective and effective in diversion of HHW.
13
� . • �
A Recycling/Reclamation Program would divert the higher volume HHW, which are recoverable
resources, from improper disposal at county landfills. Because there is a market for these materials,
end-use possibilities are good and can provide an incentive for local businesses to pursue recycling
and reclamation opportunities. Although source reduction is preferred in the HHW management
hierarchy,there are no non-hazardous alternatives for some materials such as motor oil and lead-acid
automotive batteries.
Common uses of recyclable Household Hazardous Materials include the following:
• Latex paint can be collected, sorted, consolidated, blended, repackaged, and given or sold to
local public agencies and nonprofit groups. It is commonly used to cover graffiti.
• Used motor oil is a valuable resource. Recycling used oil saves energy and natural resources.
Used motor oil can be refined into lubricating oil, reused as motor oil, or reprocessed and
used as fuel in industrial burners and boilers. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates
that only 1 gallon of used oil is needed to make 2.5 quarts of lubricating oil, compared to 42
gallons of raw crude oil.
• Used motor oil filters are an often overlooked component of a used motor oil program, used
oil filters have marketable end uses. The Redding RTRF currently accepts motor oil filters
which are drained and recycled for the aluminum content.
• Lead-acid automotive batteries contain 17.5 pounds of lead and 1.5 pounds of sulfuric acid.
According to the California lntegrated Waste Management Board, 70 percent of spent lead-
acid batteries are recycled nationwide. In California, state law requires retailers to accept
trade-in of used batteries. After the lead is separated from the nonmetallic components of the
battery, it is then smelted to produce soft lead and lead alloys. The sulfuric acid is then
neutralized. (California lntegrated Waste Management Board, Household Hazardous Waste,
Lead-Acid Batteries, September 1990)
• Used aerosol cans are cunently accepted at the RTRF. The cans are recycled once the air
pressure is released and any remaining contents drained.
• Antifreeze can be recycled for use by the mining and glycol industries. Antifreeze is sprayed
on coal to inhibit sticking. Antifreeze can also be used for airplane de-icing solution, and
brake fluid. (California lntegrated Waste Management Board, Household Hazardous Waste,
Antifreeze, September 1990)
The e�sting recycling programs will continue and will be encouraged to expand countywide.
Recycling household hazardous materials will be part of other HHW collection activities. Recycling
and reclamation actions can reduce costs of the overall HHW Collection Program. There would be
a reduction in HHW sent away for more expensive hazardous waste treatment and disposal.
The existing latex paint program is a good example of an effective reuse program. Paint collected
at the RTRF is provided to residents, used for fairground maintenance, and donated for county
disaster relief for use on restored or rebuilt structures.
14
� • .
A used motor oil and filter program is currently being sponsored by the Shasta County Department
of Resource Management. The program promotes collection of used motor oil by private businesses.
Businesses are assisted in the State certification process, listed in brochures and advertisements, and
given funds to offset hauling cost. The program also provides education free containers to the public
for the safe storage and transport of used motor oil.
The City of Redding provides recycling/reclamation programs at the RTRF. The agreement for
countywide use of the RTRF will also include recycling and reclamation of HHW generated
countywide. Other than the long-term agreement needed for countywide use of the RTRF, no other
inter-jurisdictional agreements are needed for this program. Funding for countywide use of the �
RTRF will include funding for the recycling and reclamation activities that take place at this facility.
The RTRF and private businesses which collect HHW have the facilities needed for this program.
No expansions of facilities are necessary. Materials are handled pursuant to state requirements.
A�reement for Countywide Use of RTRF
The existing RTRF accepts HHW such as motor oil and filters, latex and lead-based paints, antifreeze,
lead acid batteries, aerosol cans, flammable materials, acids, corrosives, pesticides and tar. All
materials collected at this facility are distributed for reuse or sent away for recycling. As a final
option, any remaining materials accepted are sent away for remediation.
As stated previously, the SWGS indicates that most HHW would be properly disposed of when a
convenient drop-off facility is made available. A permanent, affordable HHW collection facility
combined with education and public information efforts to make residents aware of the facility is the
centerpiece of the overall HHW program.
A tentarive agreement has been reached to allow non-Redding residents to use this HHW collection
facility. The facility is centrally located within the county. The remaining task for this program is to
establish a permanent agreement for non-Redding residents to fund operation and maintenance costs
for non-Redding use of this facility. This facility has adequate capacity to serve the countywide area.
No expansion of the existing facility is needed to implement this program.
The City of Redding has recently adopted "Household Hazardous Waste Facility Operating
Procedures"which contain detailed guidelines for the safe handling and storage of accepted HHW.
These guidelines are incorporated herein by reference.
Load Checking and Monitoring Program
A Load Checking and Monitoring Program has the potential to divert incoming HHW from disposal
at county landfills. It involves visual inspection for hazardous waste at the entrance of landfills and
transfer stations and at the working face of landfills.
15
' � �
Since the SWGS shows that 39 percent of HHW is improperly disposed of, it is likely that much of
this is hauled to our landfills. This alternative represents a final opportunity for HHW diversion, and
may also serve to monitor illegal dumping of HHW.
If prohibited waste is identified, the generator (if present) is notified and becomes responsible for
removing the waste. The generator would also be told where the waste can be legally disposed. If
a generator is not identified, then operators would store the materials and the HHW would be
processed through the RTRF. Other waste control activities in this program include sign posting at
landfills and on trash bins, employee training, messages in utility bills, and educational handouts for
the public. The goal is to educate generators, haulers, disposal facility personnel, and residents about
the proper disposal of hazardous waste.
The City of Redding, as operator of the West Central Landfill, the RTRF, and residential and
commercial pick-up within the city limits, is responsible for load checking programs for these
services. The cities of Anderson and Shasta Lake, and the Shasta County unincorporated area are
responsible for load check programs implemented through their franchise agreements which cover
transfer station operation and commerciaUresidential pick-up. The Shasta County Department of
Resource Management provides training for load check programs within all jurisdictions.
No inter-jurisdictional agreements are needed for the continued implementation of this program.
Periodic HHW Collection Events
HHW collection events on a regularly scheduled basis are typically used where a permanent collection
facility is not established. Collection events may also provide a free alternative to fee disposal at a
permanent facility or provide convenient locations for collection in outlying communities.
Existing programs throughout the state that operate periodic collection events have discovered that
most of the participants live near the collection site. Due to the geographic characteristics and low
population densities in many areas of Shasta County, HHW collection opportunities need to be
accessible to all residents throughout the county's estimated 3,840 square miles.
Based on the SWGS findings, a countywide permanent facility is the most important factor for
meeting HHW goals. Periodic collection events could supplement the permanent facility. Periodic
collection events may be used when it is determined,through the monitoring program of this element,
that more localized collection opportunities are needed in all areas of the county. Free collection
events could also be held if it is determined that the fee disposal would discourage use by certain
segments of the population. Mobile collection events could be held at any of the eleven transfer
stations in the county, or other community locations. Reduced fee or free collection events could be
held at mobile locations or the permanent facility.
16
� � •
This alternative is only recommended where the HHW monitoring program determines a need for
periodic collection or where grants or some other equitable local funding program is available. A
periodic collection program should compliment the goals of the RTRF collection facility where fees
are charged to encourage source reduction of HHW and to partially offset the cost of recycling or
remediation.
With this in mind, any periodic collection program should maintain similar collection policies to those
used at the permanent facility. A similar collection fee should be charged to most segments of the
population. To minimize cost, a handling and funding agreement should be arranged to take the
collected HHW to the RTRF for reuse, recycling, or remediation.
Mobile periodic collection events would require either a contract to provide collection equipment and
services or the direct purchase of the necessary equipment by the jurisdictions involved. Necessary
equipment includes a trailer, safety shower, storage containers, and a HazCat kit. Equipment for one
mobile collection unit would cost approximately $40,000.
Qualified staffwould receive additional training to collect, sort, and containerize the materials at the
collection sites and transport them at the end of the collection event to the RTRF. The recyclable
HHW would be deposited at the RTRF with like materials. The non-recyclable HHW would be
appropriately combined and stored at the RTRF and disposed through the normal hazardous material
contractors utilized by the City of Redding. If the RTRF will not accept the material, another
certified facility or hauling contractor would need to be used.
A mobile collection program may not be as essential for the three incorporated cities as it could be
for the unincotporated area. The three cities are contiguous and the permanent collection facility is
within a convenient drop-offrange for all households within these jurisdictions. The cities may wish
to provide these programs, however, for less mobile residents and to raise public awareness.
No inter jurisdictional agreements are necessary at this time. If the program is needed, and the
program is not funded through special grants, an equitable local funding agreement would need to
be reached. In addition, an agreement for processing of the collected HHW at the RTRF would be
desirable. This could be incorporated into the agreement for countywide use of the RTRF.
5.2 TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF HHW TO BE REDUCED, COLLECTED, RECYCLED,
AND/OR DISPOSED THROUGH SELECTED PROGRAMS
It can be anticipated that the demand for HHW services will grow as residents become more aware
of the situation and as the population of the county increases. Public education efforts aimed at
source reduction will also result in buying-habit changes and use of safer, traditional alternatives.
17
� ! �
The amount of Household Hazardous Materials collected from 1995 to�2000 will depend upon
county resident participation and available funding. All HHW will be targeted in this comprehensive
program (including all waste listed in California lntegrated Waste Management Board Form 303).
Emphasis will be placed on collection of recyclable materials, educational information on alternatives
to commercial cleaners, and alternatives to pesticides.
Unfortunately, 100%of all HHW cannot be diverted from illegal disposal. It is anticipated that these
efforts will result in a recovery rate of approximately 700 additional tons annually by the year 2000 --
an 80% recovery rate.
5.3 RECYCLING AND REUSE EFFORTS
Recycling and reuse will be stressed in all of the collection programs. Continuation of local recycling
business opportunities will be encouraged countywide such as the program for used motor oil
recycling. Reuse is currently encouraged for all material collected at the RTRF. Since the RTRF
could serve as a clearinghouse for all collection programs, a unique opportunity may exist to promote
reuse opportunities. In addition, state legislation will be looked upon to increase recycling incentives.
6. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
The HHWE represents an integrated countywide effort involving all jurisdictions. The Director of
the Shasta County Department of Public Works, as the coordinator of the countywide Integrated
Waste Management Plan, is responsible for overall coordination of the HHWE programs. Other
responsibilities, by program, are listed below.
Recycling Programs
The Director of the Redding General Services Department, through operation of the RTRF, and the
Director of the Shasta County Department of Resource Management for any grant-based programs,
will be responsible for implementing and promoting each task in the countywide area.
Agreement for Countywide Use of RTRF
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of Redding, Anderson, and Shasta
Lake will be responsible for implementing this agreement.
18
� • , ,.
Load Checking Programs
The Director of the Shasta County Division of Environmental Health, as the Local Enforcement
Agency, is responsible for enforcement of load checking programs to all transfer stations and landfill
operators countywide.
Periodic Collection Events
Agency responsibilities for periodic collection events will depend on where the events are held. This
would be determined through the monitoring process outlined in this element. For events held in the
unincorporated areas of the county, the Director of the Shasta County Department of Resource
Management will be responsible for implementation. Responsibilities for this program in any other
areas would be detailed in a funding agreement established for the collection events.
Table 5 summarizes jurisdictional participation by program and the agency responsible for the
program.
6.2 IlVIPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Table 6 shows implementation tasks and scheduled completion dates for each selected program.
Target starting and ending dates are represented by the shaded blocks. Each block represents the
calendar year from January 1 to December 31.
19
. � � � �
TABLE 5
;::;: .. ;;>::;. .
�'A`x'���'.z�'�'�G,����►��TT�Q����:::���'f3�T��3��T���'U�:`�',�E�'�L}��'��tG. :
; ::.::.::.:.: . ..:::.: , :. ;:.::::..>: :
:�' '
:::>::;:.;::>:::
>. .: ::>::::;.
R.£}�G�i; . �:
�S.::>:
�.R>::>:<:< ```�iE. :::> ::, . .>.. `.'`,.."
�`�,,�Gl��
;:::::<..: >::;: .
;::;::: .... ; :::;;::>.;::; >::;::
,
;: ;: <:
;:;.
�N.�'1�£�N;::.>:<:<>>;<::;:::;::<.<.. , <; ...:;;;>::>::::::::>..<::::: .. .,:>:>;.<
;:.;:.. ;:.:;:::..; ;:::::
::::>::;:.::>;::;..::... >:::.:.
2.
;:>::<;��[J�T'��4'IDE I1SE�F RTI� .;. ': :<:>::::
,:.:... . ,... , ; ,.
�'R���tA.1V.�S
3::., ��(J1�:I�:�����lY�
> ;
�:;;;;;.: �'��0����fiJL�,��`����E'��'� ;
;
;:
>
�
;::. .. , �
; 3 ; � ;
;:.
;
�',t�;�'�'��G�';A,�'�G.�V�S���'T�£�N� ;
SHASTA COUNTY(UNINCORPORATED) �( �( �( •
CITY OF REDDING �( �( x �
CITY OF ANDERSON �( )( X �
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE �( �( x �
;::.. ,;;.: .:.... ::.. .:. ;;
; , ;
��PpNS���,�:A�G��t�X >.... : : ;
SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �(
REDDING CITY COUNCIL x
ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL �(
SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL �(
SHASTA COUNTY DIIZECTOR OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT �( �( �
REDDING GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR �( �
� - This is a contingency program and all jurisdictions could participate. The responsible agency depends on�vhich
jurisdictions need to participate but will likely be one or both of the jurisdictions noted.
20
� � � � ,
TABLE 6
;PROGRAM TASKS AND iMFLEMENTATION I
PROGR:AM/.TASK 1995 t;996 1997 1998;; 1999 2000;
1. RECYCLING/RECLAMATION*
::::;:::>:r:::::::
A. Research and select potential HHW targets
":`;:�:
B. Secure funding source for I-II�W type
C. Develop program for HHW type
D. Provide any needed program capital
E. Im lement ro am
P P �'
F. Monitorin
g
2. COUNTYWIDE USE OF RTRF
A. Develop tentative inter jurisdictional agreement
B. Implement program
B. Monitor funding vs. increase in O&M costs
D 1 im lement 1 n -term a eement
C. eve o / o
g �
P P
3. LOAD CHECKING PROGRAM
A. ontinue existin ro am/monitorin
C
gP � g
4. PERIODIC COLLECTION EVENTS
A. Monitor need for program in conjunction
with HHWE annual review
B. If needed,develop funding agreement and
agreement for use of RTRF
C. Program planning
D. Program implementation
E. M ni rin
o to
g
*NOTE: The recycling/reclamation program consists of many sub-programs,each for a specific type of HHW.
A recycling/reclamation pro�-am may commence any time during the planning penod and would follow
a schedule similar to the one provided above except with a different starting date.
21
� s •
6.3 FUNDING
Table 7 summarizes funding for different components of each selected program. It includes the
estimated five-year cost (1995-2000) for each program, existing revenue sources available and
additional revenue sources which could be used if necessary.
Program expenditures depend on available funding. Many existing HHW programs are funded by
special grants. Although not a guaranteed funding source, grant funding has been a consistent and
significant revenue source, particularly in the rural areas of the county. It is the intent of this HHWE
to ensure a permanent, baseline funding source and amount for all programs whether through grant
funding or a contingency source. If additional funding becomes available, such as grant funding, the
programs will be expanded. Any jurisdiction may also increase funding within its area to expand
selected programs.
The types of funding sources which could be developed are summarized in the "Contingency Funding
Sources" section below. Table 7 shows projected program costs and revenue sources for selected
programs. No program requires local mandates on private businesses. Private businesses are
included in the recycling program to accept recyclable HHW either voluntarily or as required by state
or federal laws. The recycling program does, however, include public funding to assist these
businesses in voluntarily providing these recycling services.
Funding amounts for the countywide use of the RTRF is limited to the administrative cost of
obtaining the agreement only. The agreement will result in funding by non-Redding jurisdictions for
actual use of the facility. The cost will depend on the nature of the agreement and the outcome of
monitoring to deternune how widely the facility is used by non-Redding residents. Once an amount
is determined, additional funding sources will be developed. A large portion of this funding will be
used for HHW recycling programs at the facility.
22
� � .
1NSERT TABLE 7 PROGRAM FUNDING TOTALS AND BREAKDOWN BY PHASE HERE
23
� �
6.4 CONTINGENCY FUNDING SOURCES
If, for some reason, the proposed funding sources are deemed inadequate, several alternatives e�st.
Increased funding sources would only be considered if all other contingency measures listed in
Section 7.4 are ineffective. The types of available funding sources are as follows:
• Discontinue Ineffective Programs: This would allow a shift of the available funding to
reallocate resources to more successful programs.
• Grants: Several grants sources are available for specific HHW programs, particularly those
which encourage recycling and collection. Grant funding sources may fluctuate annually, but
have been a significant funding source. HHVV�OiI grants from the California lntegrated Waste
Management Board have been particularly effective for funding the recycling programs.
• Tipping Fees: A tipping fee is the amount charged by a transfer station or landfill to accept
a specified amount of general refuse.
• User Fees: A user fee is the amount charged for acceptance of waste. A specific fee may be
charged for collection of HHW. Collection fees for HHW can assess the actual user based
on the volume or type of HHW brought in. Unfortunately, a collection fee representing the
true cost of HHW handling would be unaffordable to most residents and would discourage
proper disposal. On the other hand, a minimal fee representing only a portion of collection
cost may encourage source reduction.
• Solid Waste Utility Fund: This fund is generated by ratepayers for general solid waste
services.
• Franchise Fees: A franchise fee is a percentage of proceeds paid to a jurisdiction by the solid
waste contractor allowed to operate within that jurisdiction.
• Joint Powers Agreement (7PA): This is an agreement between two or more government
bodies to pool resources and allow more efficient use of funds.
• In-Lieu Services: This is an agreement between jurisdictions to offer services instead of
paying money into a fund. In-lieu services work to the mutual benefit of the jurisdictions
involved. For example, the unincorporated area can offer regional services at the county
owned landfill and the City of Redding can offer regional services at the RTRF. The in-lieu
service agreements are voluntary and may take the form of a Joint Powers Agreement.
� General Obligation Bonds: General obligation bonds are debt instruments backed by the full
faith and credit of a governmental unit. City backed obligation bonds must go to a public
vote for approval.
• Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds are also debt instruments secured by the pledge of certain
revenues of a utility, such as a tipping fee.
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Methods will be applied to monitor the achievement of the program objectives specified in Section
2.2. The Shasta County Department of Public Works is the lead agency for the countywide
Integrated Waste Management Plan and will be responsible for coordinating the HHW Program's
monitoring, evaluation, and reporting requirements with the jurisdictions.
24
� � ,
7.1 MONITORING METHODS
Surveys will be conducted during HHW collection for the selected programs. Results for distribution
of collection event participants, quantities of HHW brought in, and general awareness of the subject
will be analyzed. In addition,waste generation and waste characterization studies may be conducted.
Information will be compiled on the types and amounts of HHW collected and managed.
Assessments may be made of the types of material brought in to determine the types of source
reduction which should be targeted. The City of Redding currently has a program in effect for
infonnation gathering and monitoring. In the event a mobile collection program is implemented by
the Department of Resource Management, they would be responsible for this monitoring program.
The surveys can be forwarded to the County Department of Public Works for consideration with
other monitoring results and to include the results in the annual report of the Integrated Waste
Management Plan.
7.2 MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION, RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES, AND FUNDING
The implementation schedule for monitoring is included in the implementation schedule for each
program(See Table 6).
Each agency responsible for the program is also responsible for the monitoring component of that
program. The County Department of Public Works is responsible for coordinating the monitoring
results for incorporation into the annual report of the Integrated Waste Management Plan. Agency
responsibilities by program are shown in Section 6.1.
The monitoring cost is included in the estimates for the overall project costs. The same funding
source for the overall program will be used for monitoring of that program. Usually, monitoring is
anticipated to account for about five-percent of the program cost. Monitoring funding information
is included in Table 7.
7.3 CRITERIA FOR MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HHW PROGRAM
The following criteria will be used to measure the effectiveness of the HHW programs selected:
• percent reduction in HHW generated as deternuned by the rate of increase of HHW recovered
and any waste characterization studies
• percent and distribution of resident participation at the permanent collection facility
• Incidences of load check discoveries
• percentage of collected Household Hazardous Materials reused or recycled (types and
volumes)
• involvement by private businesses in providing HHW collection services
25
. � • � �
7.4 CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
The following measures will be implemented if the HHW objectives are not met:
• Contact and interview similar jurisdictions who are meeting HHW objectives.
• Modify e�sting programs while maintaining overall program cost.
• Modify any objectives which may prove to be infeasible.
• Use surcharges, special assessments, and higher fees to fund additional programs if no other
means can be found to meet the agreed upon and feasible objectives.
8. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
8.1 OBJECTIVES
In July 1991, the Shasta County Department of Resource Management implemented a HHW Public
Information and Education Program. Its purpose is to decrease HHW generation, promote safer use,
storage, and disposal of Household Hazardous Materials and HHW, and encourage use of safer
alternatives to chemical-containing products.
The SWGS shows that 3,346 tons of HHW are generated yearly in Shasta County. Based on this,
public education and information is now a priority and plays an important role in the integrated HHW
program. In addition, public information regarding available HHW collection sites goes hand-in-hand
with the collection programs themselves. The objectives are as follows:
• Continue the existing in-school and community presentation programs and make
improvements where needed.
• Emphasize HHW source reduction by giving residents information about less hazardous and
nonhazardous alternatives.
• Continue to respond to public inquiries by addressing their specific needs, including follow-up
with complaints about improper HHW disposal by neighbors.
• Search for new locations to collect HHW, especially in the outlying areas where fewer HHW
collection services exist and residents are less likely to drive to the permanent HHW facility.
• Continue to encourage public recycling of hazardous materials by publicizing existing
recycling locations and importance of recycling.
• Strive to provide information that is consistent, accurate, and clear concerning disposal and/or
safe alternative instructions. This is essential to encourage participation in HI3W programs.
• Continue to promote reduction, reuse, and recycling of household hazardous materials at the
point of purchase.
26
� •
8.2 EXISTING PROGRAM DESCRII'TION
Three programs are currently in use and have been effective in providing HHW information to all
population groups. They are as follows:
• In-School Educational Presentation Program
• Community Education Presentation and Information Program
• Media-utilized HHW Information Campaign
In-School Educational Presentation Program
The Community Education Section of the Shasta County Department of Resource Management will
continue to be responsible for administering a comprehensive Public Information and Education
Program. The Community Education Section has taken an active involvement in the Shasta County
school districts since 1991. Education and awareness presentations on HHW are available year-round
to a11 schools and related groups. Programs vary in focus and are tailored to provide information to
specific age groups. Presentations are structured for grades K-12, with level delineation of K-3, 4-6,
7-9, and 10-12. Emphasis is placed on grades K-6, and life and earth science's curriculum is worked
into units with a HHW focus. Field trips can also be arranged at the West Central Landfill and the
RTRF.
A typical presentation would cover: the definition of what makes waste a HHW; how HHW adversely
impacts our health and environment; and action-oriented ideas on how students can take responsibility
to prevent pollution to the land, air and water. Community Education staff also provide exhibits at
science, career, and related school activities upon request.
During the summer of 1995,the Community Education Section began introducing the environmental
education cumculum "Closing the Loop" provided by California lntegrated Waste Management
Board. The Community Education Section will work with one of the 26 school districts in Shasta
County at a time, adding new districts as requested. Staff has arranged for a California lntegrated
Waste Management Board representative to present Closing the Loop at a workshop or School In-
Service Presentation(SIP)days. Sta$'will lead workshops in the future as they become more familiar
with the environmental curriculum. It is anticipated that all school districts will have the opportunity
to acquire this curriculum.
27
� . o •
Community Education Presentation and Information Program
The Community Education Section of the Shasta County Department of Resource Management
makes presentations at community events open to the public, to special interest groups, and other
various community groups wanting HHW information. The Community Education Presentation and
Information Program is targeted toward certain community events conducive for HHW awareness
(e.g., Shasta District Fair, Earth Day event, Cool April Nights, Redding Boat Show, Shasta Area
Health Fair). Presentations are made to community groups (e.g., Redding Lions, Kiwanis, Boy
Scouts, etc.) upon request. Besides presentations, written material is distributed to local businesses
where HHW is purchased. The Community Education Section has developed, and will continue to
prepare, materials targeting the various audiences for community group presentations, direct point-of-
purchase education, and information dissemination.
The Community Education Section gives presentations countywide and will continue to do so.
Although not required, the City of Redding also provides valuable in-school presentation programs
which extend beyond the city limits. They also provide presentations at the RTRF to any interested
party.
Media-utilized HHW Information Campai�n
The Community Education Section utilizes television, radio, and newsprint media to advertise HHW
recycling locations and collection events on a regular basis and during certain campaigns each year.
This program aims to provide public relations support for HHW efforts during events such as
Pollution Prevention Week, Earth Day, and other appropriate campaigns. It also encourages local
media to write articles or cover stories related to HHW.
8.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives to be administered are those preferred programs which are already existing in Shasta
County. They were implemented in the short-term period and will be maintained to achieve the
ongoing Education and Public Information objectives. Again, they are as follows:
• In-School Educational Presentation Program
• Community Education Presentation and Information Program
• Media-utilized HHW Information Campaign.
8.4 COMMUNITY AUDIENCES
As described in the Program Description (Section 8.2), the three HHW Education and Public
Information components target a different audience. The In-School Educational Presentation
Program targets grades K-12, with level delineation of K-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12. Emphasis is placed
on grades K-6. The Community Education Presentation and Information Program targets a
variety of age groups, depending on the type of community event. At community events and special
interest groups, more emphasis is placed on residents 18 years of age and older, who are likely to
purchase and use HHW. Where community events are specifically related to a particular HHW (i.e.,
used motor oil and filters), the education and information materials target the"do-it-yourselfers" that
28
• � . ,
work with the HHW. Information brochures targeting HHW users are placed at point-of-purchase
locations when possible. A similar audience is targeted in the Media-utilized HHW Information
Campaign. While the three components of the Public and Information Program target all Shasta
County residents, the program strives to search out those who are least educated about proper
handling and purchasing of HHW.
8.5 AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE
The Shasta County Department of Resource Management Community Education Section is
responsible for implementing the HHW Education and Public Information programs. The Community
Education section draws up a work plan to administer these programs each fiscal year. This plan
begins with a list of community events and programs with the best settings/environment to
disseminate or conduct a HHW presentation. The schedule also allows for unplanned requests by
special interest groups and schools for HHW e�ibits or presentations.
8.6 IlVIPLEMENTATION TASKS
The Community Education section work plan is created at the beginning of each fiscal year to
deternune HHW Education and Public Information programs. Implementation tasks are as follows:
• Identify community events where HHW presentations/exhibits can be conducted.
• Schedule HHW activities for related campaigns, such as Earth Day or Pollution Prevention
Week.
• Restock existing or create new HHW educational materials to accompany exhibits and
presentations.
• Tailor presentation/exhibit formats for various audiences.
• Prepare new public relation Public Service Announcements or advertisements as needed.
� Maintain reports for HHW activities and funding, and secure additional funding, if needed.
• Monitor, evaluate and adjust presentations and e�ibits as needed to ensure successful
implementation of HHW programs.
8.7 IlVIPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Table 8 provides an implementation schedule for each identified task. Education programs are
constantly run, revaluated, and improved. Implementation tasks run on a yearly cycle which allows
flexibility in the program to address changing issues. The annual implementation schedule would be
continued each year through the 1995-2000 planning period.
29
...... ......... ....._.,:.... .,
_......:. : .. .. ..
... ......... .... -�;::.:. ..: _.:...., ._. ........, . :-.
„ � ' • •
.::::.:..:::::::r.:. .�:.�:::..........
'� �� '�::�: i.i:•.•.•:?•i:i:?+.'F..:•:. .::.:�:.•.•:v:•.•:•i::•i
�
...........�......
:. .:.�: x:n�::::..}:•`•:•:•:•
......�..... ::.�.; .•�{:•:•ii:i'i:•.•..•.•.•:
. . . .•y..•...
'� :..•..•.•:e{x?r.;;.;y<
�� •:•.:.:•::•:�::::.�.:•
. . .. .:a:•.:::..:::.�:,,;•.�.,..:•.:.,�..::•:
.. .,.; ..::.......:.. .............::....
��� :.:�..:•:::::::.:::::..:::>:::::....,..:.
: :i��� :.;•..,•:::::::....;;•:::•t•:px•:rc:::.�::
. ...�: :: .;.;.
. ., � ..;•.;•::.,.•::.........
. . .. { .r::•:....:.•..,va•.v:.
� ..� � y ,:.;•::e.::•t:v:•:�r:�•}
:;:��t�
�. :::::::::.�:.:::::.........,:.::....:
:. ,.-. :..:;.;.;<:>:•..;,:.;.
;
,
:�:
.: � � ;; . i...
.�: ��: . �`k. ,` �.
.`•.I
::.f'..i_{�: ._..
�:�:Ei::
,�'y -
.:::::.::::.:::•::•;:•
.:::::::.:.:.::::: ..
.....:...:........
A
:::..:..,.:::::::.
� x
°H _:z .
.:..:.............
O ;Z ,
a
.:::.:............
0 ..........
w:
:�
0
:<.;;;:.;;;:.::::�:>:.::::.:>::::.:>;;:;.::;:.
�
.........,:....... ::.�:::::..:�:::.::.:
........ ........
� ' .....::::...:.....
Q .;.:...:...:...:�::.
.::::.:�:::::::,.;
.:..:::::::.�::: _
::..:::::::::::::: ..
� .:::..:::::::::::. ..
E+ � .
�d
;W;:
;:�;
>�
U:: .;:.>:.;;:�;;>::;.::::-::.:_:.:>::::.::;:.:::
�;.;�> : >;,>
�
A .
�
�
.,..:...:.�:::::..:::.......:..::.::.::.::.::
:�::::.�::::::...:,....:.............
:,:�.:::.:.::..:..:::.
. ....................
................:....:...:.:::::.:>::>::>;::::_::;::::;::::>:::�:::;>::::::>:::::>::>::>:::::;::::::::::::>::
w :
W; ::::::>::>::::«-:::::::::<:::::::::::::.<:>::::::::::::::::<::::::<:::>::::>::::::::::::::::<::::>:::::>::>:::<::::<::>:<:::>:>:::>::::>:::::::>::::�:::::::::>:::>
w
.::::;::::::::><::::::::::::.:::<::::<::::<:<::::>::::::::::::::::::::::>::::>::::>::::::::<::::>.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<:>:::::::::>::::::::;::>:::::::::::::>::>
x ........................:...... .........................................�............:.........
a ^� .�. o
� ,� ”' � ,, r,
� � .: � � +=-� O
H � � � �
� ;Q a �s a� � � �
.� � r. � � �
�;,, H � � � '' v a' � �
�
wa ;:•y' � `� � � bn a�i �
n
� ;Fr � o � � � � -rs o
?,;� °� �� `� o � � o,
�
� �' � '� � � � �
� �
W `�' °�' � o o � � °�' ��
� .a +-� �+. � v� '� +�
� � � ;� v, �' a> N � o
Q, � � � � � � .� '� � �
o � ..� • w �, �
►",� � .}, �� va�, � .n ? ..., �.., o
''� s-. t-. � 3 N �. � �+-' O.'+=,
U � `� o > � � � � `� .� � �
� � `" s.�. a� '� o -r� ^, a�
� � Q' � � :� '� � � � � �
w � � •� O a� � � � � � � �
..� �> . c> .� a� �.. � � �
�� U � �"' '� �'�' U � p � ,
p � , � ...
� �
� � � k •� � � � •� � �
� y � � N � � � � ;� � c�
� �
� L1" c� G�
� � � � Q., � v� N � � N � V
V � N cd x � p,, U � rn � � t"" �
� � � -d Q O � G" y ¢ � � N � �
� ,_., U O ,_, �
` � � � U � N � '� "C7 � > �cd '� p v�i
' E-+ � a. zn W r� ° E-� � a � � � � �
� c�i c�i v v; � c�
• • �,
8.8 PROGRAM COSTS AND REVENUE SOURCES
Implementation of these progams has been funded based on franchise fees from the unincorporated
area. Annual funding at this time is $10,000, plus a declining fund derived from asbestos taken to
the Anderson Solid Waste Landfill ($2/cubic yard of asbestos disposed). Besides this permanent
source of funding, special gants are sought from the California lntegrated Waste Management Board
(i.e.,Used Motor Oil Recycling and HHW). Program cost is based on administrative stafftime and
HHW educational materials.
Although this program is funded by the unincorporated county, the program applies countywide. The
City of Redding also provides additional community education programs. Currently, the Cities of
Shasta Lake and Anderson do not fund the countywide education programs and should provide
funding for a percentage of the e�sting programs based on population.
8.9 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES
To promote the primary goal of HHW source reduction, the education and public information
program will also focus on the use of various alternative products, materials, or techniques which can
be used in place of HHW products. Pamphlets in the form of recipe cards which encourage and
outline tradiiional cleaning supplies or safer alternatives have already been developed. They have
been distributed at community events and group presentations.
8.10 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
To measure achievements in this program, the Community Education Section tracks the number of
inquiries for household proper handling and disposal of HHW. It also monitors the number of
requests by schools, special interest groups, and community event sponsors for HHW information,
presentations and e�ibits. Recently the Community Education Section began documenting these
inquiries and requests in a monthly report. The HHW program is also evaluated by tracking
households using the permanent HHW facility.
Since education is an integral component of the overall HHW program, the evaluation criteria listed
in Section 7.3 for other programs will also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the education
program. In addition, the goals set for the education work plans, which are developed each year, are
used for a focused evaluation of the education program only.
The Community Education Section of the Department of Resource Management is the responsible
agency to monitor, evaluate, and report on the HHW Education and Information Program.
31
' • •
Monitoring and evaluation of the HHW education program is funded by the same sources as the
entire program and is required for California lntegrated Waste Management Board grants.
Monitoring is an administrative cost and accounts for about 5% of the $10,000 annual budget --
about$500 a year. Monitoring of the load check and collection programs selected in this element use
separate funding sources and serve to gauge the success of community education programs.
The contingency measures listed in Section 7.4 for other programs will also be used to conect any
deficiencies in the education program. This includes the ability of the Community Education staff to
increase or reallocate resources for meeting perceived HHW needs.
Monitoring is conducted at the end of each fiscal year. Reporting is conducted quarterly each fiscal
year. Monitoring and reporting is included within the tasks of the overall education program
implementation schedule (Table 8).
32
• • .
APPENDIX A
EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFII�IITIONS
1. Effectiveness in Waste Diversion Potential (Volume and Weight)
Effectiveness in diverting waste volume and weight is the estimated percentage of the total
waste stream by weight that the alternative reduces or diverts waste, as allowable under AB
939, from disposal. This is a measure of the alternative's diversion effectiveness.
Low: 0-3%
Medium: 3-7%
High: >7%
2. Absence of Hazard
Absence of hazard reflects the extent to which hazards could impact the alternative. Hazards
could include health risks, injury, fire, or others identified for the alternative.
Low: Potential hazards are not completely understood, or the alternative
increases the potential hazards.
Medium: Potential hazards are known and controllable. Some impacts remain.
High: There are few or no potential hazards or unmitigated impacts.
3. Flexibility
Fle�bility measures the alternative's ability to accommodate changing economic, technological, and
social conditions.
Low: The alternative has a limited ability to respond to changing conditions.
Limitations may include inflexible or unpredictable markets for
diverted materials, operational limitations, or others identified for the
alternative.
Medium: The alternative is anticipated to demonstrate a moderate ability to
respond to changing conditions. Significant changes in the program
may be required.
High: The alternative is anticipated to be readily adaptable in meeting
changing conditions. No significant changes in the program are
necessary.
I
+ • •
4. Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation
Limited shift in waste type generation measures the alternative's abilify to limit the consequences of
diversion on the characterized waste, such as shifting solid waste generation from one type of solid
waste to another.
Low: The alternative would significantly shift solid waste production to the
generation of non-recyclable, unmarketable, or uncountable (under
AB 939)materials.
Medium: The alternative would result in the creation of little non-recyclable,
unmarketable, or uncountable (under AB 939) wastes.
High: The alternative would result in the creation of no non-recyclable,
unmarketable, or uncountable (under AB 939) wastes, or may shift
waste production to the generation of recyclable or compostable
wastes or new markets.
5. Ease of Implementation
Ease of implementation measures the relative extent to how quickly the alternative can be
implemented.
Low: Implementation of the alternative could not be completed until after
2000.
Medium: Implementation of the alternative is anticipated to be completed by
2000.
High: Implementation of the alternative is anticipated to be completed by
1997.
6. Facility Needs
This measures the need for expanding existing facilities or building new facilities to support the
implementation of the alternative.
Low: New facilities must be developed to accommodate implementation of
the alternative.
Medium: Existing facilities must be expanded or altered to accommodate
implementation of the alternative.
High: The alternative can be easily integrated into existing facilities.
II
• �
7. Consistency with Local Policies
Consistency with local policies measures the alternative's compatibility with e�cisting local plans,
policies, and ordinances.
Low: The alternative would require major changes to existing local plans,
policies, or ordinances for implementation.
Medium: The alternative would require minor changes to existing local plans,
policies, or ordinances for implementation.
High: There are no existing local plans, policies, or ordinances that would
impede the implementation of the alternative.
8. Absence of Institutional Barriers
Absence of institutional barriers evaluates the extent to which institutional barriers, such as long-term
franchise agreements or other contracts, may impact the implementation of the alternative.
Low: The alternative is impacted by existing institutional barriers which are
not under the control of the jurisdiction.
Medium: The alternative is impacted by existing institutional barriers over which
the jurisdiction maintains some control.
High: There are no existing institutional bamers to the alternative.
9. Estimated Cost
Estimated includes capital costs and operating costs over the lifetime of the alternative and are
evaluated based on the following range:
Low: >$200,000
Medium: $50,000-200,000
High: $0-50,000
10. End Uses
End uses measures the short-term marketability of the diverted materials.
Low: End uses are currently nonexistent or unreliable, though the potential
for the development of long-term or medium-term markets may exist.
Medium: End uses exist, but are subject to moderate fluctuations. The potential
for the development of short-term markets may exist.
High: Existing end uses are relatively stable.
III
`' ` Y . •
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION OF HHW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
#1 HHW Recyclin�and Reclamation Program
A countywide recycling and reclamation program for used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries,
latex paint, and antifreeze has a "high„ waste diversion potential and could feed into established
mazkets that can foreseeably handle increased recyclable materials. Both end-uses and flexibilitv were
given "hi�h" ratings(see Section 5.1 for common uses). Absence of hazard was given a "high" rating
due to proper containment measures at collection facilities that will be required versus risk of
widespread contamination that would result if used motor oil was illegally disposed of. Since these
materials are recyclable, a "high" limited shift rating was given because options to switch to non-
recyclables are presently limited. This alternative was brought into service during the short-term
planning period giving it a "�h" rating. Adding to the ease of implementation is the already existing
full-service recycling facility in Redding. A "medium" rating was given to facility needs due to
necessary expansion of existing facilities needed on some sites to accommodate a recycling operation
for countywide transfer stations and landfills. This alternative was given a "medium" rating for
consistency with existin local policies due to permitting and possible zoning needs. Cooperation
with private franchise impacts results in a "medium" rating. Est;mated costs are appro�mately
$21,000 annually or $105,000 during the medium-term planning period giving it a "hf�h".rating.
#2 Countywide Use of Permanent Collection FacilitX
The existing permanent collection facility does not landfill any HHW received giving it a "hi�h" rating
for waste diversion potential. The hazards involved are relatively low since the facility provides safe
means for permanent legal disposal giving it a "hi�h" rating. A permanent facility can change
practices under new conditions but may require new capital expenses that can be difficult to
implement giving it a"medium" rating for flexibili . A"�h"rating for ease of implementation, lack
of institutional barriers and facility needs was given since the capital improvements have already been
made. A "medium" rating was given to limited shift in waste ty�e ,�eneration since the facility is
willing to accept some non-recyclable substances. A "high" was given for its consistency with local
and state policies. Although the capital improvements have been made, the estimated cost for
operation and maintenance of the facility will be high but depend on how heavily the facility is used
by non-Redding residents giving it a "medium" rating. End uses are actively developed by the city
for materials collected. The city has been successful in creating markets for reuse and recycling
giving it a "hi�h" rating.
I
... ........ ...... ............... .. ............, ..
; ... . : .: _.. .. . . .._
..-.....
.... .._ , ; ,...... :..
• � y ' -
#3 Load Checking and Monitoring Program
The purpose of a Load Checking and Monitoring Program is to screen out and exclude HHW from
entering county landfills giving it a "�h"rating for waste diversion potential. The hazards involved
in this Program include risk from exposure and handling of waste which can be minimized with use
of proper equipment, training, and management giving it a "medium" rating. Load checking programs
are required by the CIWMB (CCR Title 14, Section 17258.20) giving it a "medium" rating for
fle� ili . A "high„ rating for ease of implementation was also given for this reason; it could be
implemented in the short-term planning period. A "high" rating was given to limited shift in waste
t�pe �eneration due to likelihood of residents choosing less ha.zardous substitutes to decrease their
chance of illegal landfill disposal of hazardous waste. If prohibited waste is identified and the
generator cannot be found, then an area would be necessary to store the recovered HHW; a
"medium" rating was given due to storage area facility needs to institutional barriers involved which
is also a "medium" rating. A "high„ was given for its consistenc,y with local and state policies.
Estimated costs are under$30,000 during the five-year planning period giving it a "h�h" rating. End
uses besides HHW disposal may increase for recovered recyclables and public education campaigns
giving it a "medium" rating.
#4 Periodic Collection Events
Periodic collection events could serve as an interim collection service until something more permanent
and ongoing is established. Historically throughout California participation rates are between 1-4
percent, giving the waste diversion potential a "low" rating. Potential health and safety hazards
associated with most HHW collection methods give this alternative a "medium" rating. HHW
collection events are structured as to have limited adaptability to changing conditions (inflexible)
because of the structure of each event including a one-time set date and times. A "medium" rating
was given to limited shift in waste tXpe,generation due to public perception. HHW collection events
will be implemented in the Short-Term Plannin Pg eriod and were given a "�rating. Local policies
such as the Hazardous Waste Management Plan support this Program and there is an absence of
institutional barriers. Both were given "h� ratings. Estimated cost per event would be high.
Regularly scheduled events will cost an estimated $287,500 during the 1995-2000 planning period.
Frequency of the events will depend on available funding which gives it a "low" rating. Recyclable
HHW will be collected and contribute to marketable end-uses, giving it a "medium" rating.
II
< c � �
#5 Door-to-Door HHW Collection Unit
Implementation would be difficult due to the need to provide vehicles, routes, billing and personnel
giving it a "low" rating. A "medium" rating has been given for facility needs, since this program
would rely on the permanent facility to accept the HHW collected. This program could anticipate
about 7 percent participation if a permanent collection facility is not available. The diversion rate may
be considerably less if the permanent facility is available to the same households (at a lesser cost).
A"medium" rating for waste diversion.�otential was given. Also, flexi ilit adds to waste diversion,
but a"medium" rating was received due to its moderate adaptability to chan�e relative to economic
conditions. Annual operation cost would be high. ost for the program is conservatively estimated
at$60 per household annually and depends on the number of households served, pick-up frequency
and the type ofmaterial received. A service for 10,000 households (14 percent of the households in
the county) would cost approximately $600,000 annually and $3 million during the 1995-2000
planning period. Cost receives a "low" rating. Both programs are consistent with most local �olicies
and lack most institutional barriers, thus receiving a "medium" rating. Potential heatth and safety
hazards associated with most HHW collection methods give these alternatives "medium" ratings.
"Medium" ratings were given to limited shift in waste ty�e �eneration due to public perception of
acceptable disposal of their HHW. Both Programs will also collect recyclable, marketable materials,
thus giving end uses a "medium" rating.
#6 Curbside pick-up of HHW
This program received a fatal flaw rating, thus eliminating this alternative altogether from further
consideration. The potential exists for exposure to the public while the material is left unattended at
the curb.
III
• � �
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Shasta County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Shasta County Department of Public
Works and Shasta County Planning Department, June 1989.
B. Source Reduction and Recyclin�Element, Coun of Shasta, City of Anderson and City of
Reddin�, CH2M Hill, January 1992.
C. Shasta County Solid Waste Generation StudX-- 1990.
D. Household Hazardous Waste, Antifreeze, California lntegrated Waste Management
Board, September 1990.
E. Household Hazardous Waste. Lead-Acid Batteries, California lntegrated Waste
Management Board, September 1990.
_ ... ... _.. _.......... . _. ... ... ... ... ... .._......