HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 92-182 - Approve & Adopt the County of Shasta Source Reduction & Recyling Element dated Jan 1992 & County of Shasta Household Hazardous Waste Element dated Nov 1992 Ic
RESOLUTION NO.
�J
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF SHASTA SOURCE
REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT DATED JANUARY 1992 AND
THE COUNTY OF SHASTA HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
DATED NOVEMBER 1992, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 40000 ET. SEQ.
WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code Section 41000
requires the City of Redding to prepare and adopt a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element that proposes programs to reduce
or recycle 250 of the City' s solid waste which is currently
landfilled by January 1, 1995, and 50% by January 1, 2000; and
i� WHEREAS, Public Resource Code Section 41500 requires the
City to prepare and adopt a Household Hazardous Waste Element
that proposes programs to safely collect, recycle, treat, and
dispose of household hazardous .wastes generated by households in
the City which should be separated from the solid waste stream;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Redding, the City of Anderson, and the
County of Shasta have developed a regional Source Reduction and
Recycling Element and a regional Household Hazardous Waste
Element, as allowed by Public Resource Section 41823; and
WHEREAS, said Elements have completed a 30-day local review
and comment period, and have been considered and recommended by
'i the Solid Waste Local Task Force; and
WHEREAS, said Elements were considered and adopted by the
County of Shasta Board of Supervisors at a duly noticed public
hearing on March 10, 1992, at 1: 30 p.m. ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Redding held a
ii
workshop on September 24, 1991, at 5: 15 p.m. , to review and
comment on the draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element and
the draft Household Hazardous Waste Element;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Redding as follows:
'i 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element dated January 1992 and the
Household Hazardous Waste Element dated November 1991, copies of
which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
2 . The City Council hereby directs the City Manager or his
designee to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the
County of Shasta Director of Public Works, notifying the County
Ii that the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Household
q Hazardous Waste Element have been adopted by the City of Redding
.for incorporation into the County-wide Integrated Waste
Management Plan.
'.� I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of
d� the City of Redding on the 21st day of April , 1992 , and was duly
'I adopted at said meeting by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Anderson, Arness, Dahl, Kehoe & Moss
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Mayor - Charlie Moss
City of Redding
ATST:
f l .o 7 sd
CONNIE STROHMAYER '�ity Clerk
i
i
I
FO. APPROVED:
If- 01
il
R ALL A. HAYS, City Attorney
2
s
SOURCE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING E AlENT
�,�•l OF s�
y
O
County of Shasta
City ofAnderson
City of Redding
CWHILL
)anuarv7992
fl
SOURCE REDUCTION AND
I , RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE)
I '
Prepared for
Shasta County
Anderson
.i
Redding
y
Prepared by
II CH2M HILL
2525 Airpark Drive
Redding, California 96001
RDD26788.AB
I�
January 1992
II '
i
This report printed on recycled paper.
i
9
' CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
Chapter
1 Introduction 1-1
I ' Planning Requirements uirements 1-1
II County Profile 1-2
u ' 2 Solid Waste Generation Study 2-1
Introduction 2-1
' Waste Disposal Characterization 2-2
Waste Diversion Characterization 2-9
Waste Generation Characterization 2-20
Seasonal Variation 2-20
Waste Types Targeted by SRRE Programs 2-26
II Waste Stream Projections 2-27
3 Source Reduction 3-1
Goals and Objectives 3-1
Existing Conditions 3-7
Identification and Evaluation of Alternative
Programs 3-7
Selection of Source Reduction Program 3-13
Program Implementation 3-18
Monitoring and Evaluation 3-22
0
4 Recycling 4-1
Goals and Objectives 4-1
Existing Conditions 4-7
Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives 4-9
Selection of Recycling Program 4-19
Program Implementation 4-24
Costs, Revenues, and Revenue Sources 4-24
Monitoring and Evaluation 4-25
5 Composting 5-1
Goals and Objectives 5-1
Existing Conditions 5-3
Identification and Evaluation of Composting
!, Alternatives 5-4
Selection of Program 5-13
i' RDD/R2/014.51 111
I
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Program Implementation 5-17
Monitoring and Evaluation 5-19
Contingency Measures 5-21
6 Special Wastes 6-1 1
Existing Conditions 6-3
Identification and Evaluation of Alternative
Special Waste Programs 6-4
Selection of Special Waste Alternatives 6-6
Special Waste Program Implementation 6-9
Monitoring and Evaluation 6-12 O
7 Education and Public Information 7-1
Goals and Objectives 7-1
Existing Programs 7-3
Targeted Generators 7-4 ,
Selection of Program Alternatives 7-4
Implementation 7-7
Monitoring and Evaluation 7-9
8 Disposal Facility Capacity Component 8-1
Description of Existing Facilities 8-1
Disposal Facility Capacity Needs
Projection 8-3
Plans to Close or Phase Out Facilities 8-6
Plans to Establish New or Expanded
Facilities 8-6
Plans to Export Waste 8-6
9 Funding 9-1
Estimated Program Costs 9-1
Funding Sources 9-6
Contingency Funding Sources 9-7
10 Integration 10-1 '
Solid Waste Management Programs 10-1
Component Integration 10-5
Component Priorities 10-7
RDD/R2/014.51 iv
III
i
CONTENTS (Continued)
I � APPENDIXES
�I
n
Appendix A. Waste Characterization Methodology
Appendix B. Waste Stream Projections
Appendix C. Source Reduction Evaluations
Appendix D. Recycling Evaluations
Appendix E. Special Waste Evaluations
TABLES Page
�I 1-1 Summary of Landfills 1-4
i�
j 2-1 1990 Estimated Population 2-2
2-2 Waste Categories and Waste Types 2-3
2-3 Random Field Sampling Results--Residential 2-4
2-4 Random Field Sampling Results--Commercial 2-5
! r 2-5 Random Field Sampling Results--Self-Haul 2-6
2-6 1990 Countywide Waste Disposal 2-8
2-7 1990 Residential Waste Disposal 2-9
2-8 1990 Commercial Waste Disposal 2-10
2-9 1990 Self-Haul Waste Disposal 2-11
2-10 1990 Industrial Waste Disposal 2-12
1 2-11 Weight to Volume Conversion Factors 2-16
2-12 1990 Countywide Waste Disposal 2-17
2-13 1990 Countywide Waste Diversion 2-21
2-14 1990 Countywide Waste Generation 2-22
2-15 Waste Disposal Projections, Current Conditions 2-28
2-16 Waste Disposal Projections, SRRE Conditions 2-29
3-1 Source Reduction, Shasta County 3-5
3-2 Source Reduction, City of Anderson 3-5
3-3 Source Reduction, City of Redding 3-6
3-4 Source Reduction, Estimated Diversion Totals 3-6
3-5 Summary of Source Reduction Alternatives Evaluation 3-13
3-6 Diversion Objectives by Source Reduction Program
for Shasta County 3-16
,I 3-7 Diversion Objectives by Source Reduction Program
for the City of Redding 3-16
3-8 Diversion Objectives by Source Reduction Program
for the City of Anderson 3-17
I�
RDD/R2/014.51 v
i
i
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
TABLES (Continued)
3-9 Source Reduction Implementation Schedule Shasta County,
Anderson, and Redding 3-19
3-10 Source Reduction Programs, Cost and Revenue,
Shasta County 3-21
3-11 Source Reduction Programs, Cost and Revenue, Anderson 3-21
3-12 Source Reduction Programs, Cost and Revenue, Redding 3-22
4-1 Recycling, Shasta County 4-4
4-2 Recycling, City of Anderson 4-5
4-3 Recycling, City of Redding 4-6
4-4 Estimated Diversion Totals, Recycling 4-6
4-5 Curbside Recycling Program, Anderson-Cottonwood
Disposal Service, February-April 1991 4-7
4-6 Pilot Residential Curbside Recycling Program
Redding 4-8
4-7 Existing Conditions-Recycling, Based on Calendar Year 1990 4-10
4-8 Summary of Recycling Alternatives Evaluations 4-19
4-9 Diversion Objectives by Recycling Program
for Shasta County 4-23
4-10 Diversion Objectives by Recycling Program
for City of Redding 4-23
4-11 Diversion Objectives by Recycling Program
for City of Anderson 4-24
4-12 Recycling Implementation Schedule 4-26
4-13 Recycling Programs and Costs for Shasta County 4-28
4-14 Recycling Programs and Costs for Anderson 4-28
4-15 Recycling Programs and Costs for Redding 4-28
5-1 Composting, Yard Waste Diversion 5-3 '
5-2 Collection Alternatives for Yard Waste Diversion 5-5
5-3 Diversion Objectives by Composting Program
for Shasta County 5-16
5-4 Diversion Objectives by Composting Program
for the City of Redding 5-17
5-5 Diversion Objectives by Composting Program
for the City of Anderson 5-17
5-6 Composting Implementation Schedule 5-18
5-7 Composting Programs, Shasta County Costs 5-20
5-8 Composting Programs, Anderson Costs 5-20
5-9 Composting Programs, Redding Costs 5-20
RDD/R2/014.51 vi
CONTENTS (Continued)
'i
Page
TABLES (Continued)
i � 6-1 Special Waste, Shasta County 6-2
6-2 Special Waste, City of Anderson 6-3
6-3 Special Waste, City of Redding 6-3
6-4 Diversion Objectives by Special Waste Program
1; for Shasta County 6-8
6-5 Diversion Objectives by Special Waste Program
it for the City of Redding 6-9
' 6-6 Diversion Objectives by Special Waste Program
for the City of Anderson 6-9
6-7 Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding Special
Waste Implementation Schedule 6-10
6-8 Special Waste Programs, Shasta County, Costs
!I and Revenue 6-11
j 6-9 Special Waste Programs, Anderson, Costs and Revenues 6-11
6-10 Special Waste Programs, Redding, Costs and Revenues 6-11
,i 7-1 Education and Public Information Implementation Schedule 7-8
7-2 Education and Public Information Programs, Costs, Revenue 7-9
8-1 Permitted Landfill Summary 8-1
8-2 Disposal Capacity Needs Projection, Current Conditions 8-4
9-1 Estimated SRRE Program Costs 9-2
10-1 Targeted Waste Types by SRRE Program 10-5
10-2 Annual Waste Diversion by SRRE Program, Shasta County,
California 10-6
10-3 Annual Waste Diversion by SRRE Program, City of Anderson,
California 10-6
10-4 Annual Waste Diversion by SRRE Program, City of Redding,
California 10-7
i
FIGURES
,i 1-1 County Location 1-3
d 2-1 1990 Disposal Tonnage by Landfill 2-13
2-2 1990 Waste Stream Composition 2-14
2-3 Percent by Weight and Percent by Volume Waste
Disposal Comparison 2-18
' 2-4 1990 Seasonality of Total Disposal Tonnage 2-23
u RDD/R2/014.51 vii
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
FIGURES (Continued)
2-5 1990 Seasonality of Commerical Waste Stream
Composition 2-24
2-6 1990 Seasonality of Residential Waste Stream
Composition 2-25
RDD/R2/014.51 viii
I
it
I �
i
I �
I
1 �I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
j �
i �i
' i
'i
1
t
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I �
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (also known as Assembly
Bill 939 (AB 939)) was passed in September 1989. This legislation mandated a
25 percent reduction in the solid waste stream going to landfills and transformation
facilities by the year 1995 and a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. These reduc-
tions are to be made through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
AB 939 initiated a new planning process that replaced the existing County Solid Waste
Management Plan with Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE). Each city
and the unincorporated areas of each county must prepare an SRRE and a Household
Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and an Integrated Waste Management Plan must
' be prepared for each county.
The SRRE is to include the following components:
• A waste generation study
• A source reduction component
• A recycling component
• A composting component
• A disposal facility capacity component
I� An education and public information component
• A funding component
• A special waste component
• An integration component
p
Goals for specific components include:
Source Reduction--Toroduce less waste b changing consumer and
P Y g g
manufacturing practices.
• Recycling--To divert or recover materials from the waste stream that can
be reused.
i�
• Special Wastes--Divert wastes that require special handling. The special
wastes identified in Shasta County are ash, industrial sludge, tires, and
white goods.
Composting--To divert yard wastes from the waste stream and create a
it reusable product.
• Education and Public Information--To increase awareness and to gain
support and participation necessary to successfully implement the
programs.
RDD/R69/006.51 ix
it
J
SRRE PROGRAM SUMMARY
The diversion goals for the years 1995 and 2000 are presented in Tables ES-1 through
ES-12 for each specific component. The tables are distinct for each county jurisdiction
(Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding), and also summarize the specific programs
selected by each jurisdiction for each component. Table ES-13 shows that if the
programs presented in this SRRE are successfully implemented, all three jurisdictions
will meet the AB 939 mandates.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
RDD/R69/006.51 X
Table ES-1
Source Reduction Summary
Shasta County
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
I; Diversion Percent of Material Diversion Percent of Material
Targeted Goal Waste Reduction Goal Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream (%)
Mixed Paper 289 0.1 10 785 0.4 25
Other Paper 1,109 0.6 10 3,011 1.4 25
Film Plastic 355 0.2 10 965 0.4 25
Yard Waste 4,425 2.2 35 4,805 2.2 35
Food 981 0.5 10 3,728 1.7 35
i
Total 7,159 3.6 13,294 6.1
Selected Programs:
d
Bag-Tag System--Instead of a monthly rate with regular pickup, this is a collection system
that is based on the customer paying for the volume generated. The resident would set out a
bag as needed and would be charged per bag.
Jurisdictional Lobbying--The local jurisdictions would lobby the state to work with
manufacturers in reducing excessive packaging and using recyclable materials.
Master Backyard Composting--Residents would be offered technical assistance and advice on
i
how to compost in their backyards.
Public Awareness Programs--Residents, schools, and businesses would be provided brochures,
a speakers bureau, and workshops to inform them of waste reduction practices.
Waste Audits--Audits would be conducted for schools, businesses, and manufacturers to
evaluate the waste stream and make reduction recommendations.
Procurement/Waste Managing Policies--This program could include purchasing recyclable
products; encouraging source reduction activities such as using ceramic mugs, electronic mail,
'j and double-sided copying; establishing purchasing requirements and specifications that favor
recyclability, reusability, and durability; and adopting an ordinance establishing a source-
reduction policy.
Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances--This program may include relaxing zoning and
permitting re9uirements to encourage development of thrift and repair shops, requiring
g
public works and park projects to use xeriscaping techniques, and relaxing zoning
�I requirements to allow for composting projects.
i �
RDD/R69/006.51 X1
Table ES-2
Recycling Summary
Shasta County
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000 ,
Percent Targeted Percent Targeted
Diversion of Material Diversion of Material
Targeted Goal Waste Reduction Goal Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream (%)
Newspaper 3,522 1.8 50 5,738 2.7 75
Corrugated 8,338 4.2 50 13,583 6.3 75
Cardboard
Ledger Paper 250 0.1 25 543 0.3 50
PET Plastics 73 <0.1 25 158 0.1 50
HDPE Plastic 381 0.2 25 827 0.4 50
CA 1,253 0.6 40 2,551 1.2 75
Redemption
Glass
Other 1,486 0.7 40 3,025 1.4 75
Recyclable
Glass
Aluminum 709 0.4 65 888 0.4 75
Cans
Ferrous Metal 2,310 1.2 40 4,705 2.2 75
Nonferrous 227 0.1 55 1,600 0.7 65
Metal
Construction 5,117 2.6 25 9,526 4.4 60
Debris
Total —T-23,666 11.9 43,144 20.1
Selected Programs:
Voluntary dropoff containers at transfer stations--Current locations include Shingletown,
Round Mountain, Lakehead, Buckeye, French Gulch, Old Shasta, Platina, Burney, and Fall
River Mills.
Commercial cardboard program--Pick up cardboard from stores and offices.
Commercial beverage container program--Pick up cans and bottles from bars and
restaurants.
Curbside recycling for residents.
Buy-back Centers--Clayton Ward, Short's Scrap Metal, and Bigfoot Recycling.
RDD/R69/006.51 X11
1
Table ES-3
Composting Summary
Shasta County
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Percent Targeted Percent Targeted
Diversion of Material Diversion of Material
Targeted Goal Waste Reduction Goal Waste Reduction
� Materials (Tons) Stream
( ) (Tons) Stream (%)
li Yard waste 0 0 0 6,178 2.9 45
Total 0 0 0 6,178 2.9
Selected Programs:
II
Curbside pickup.
i
Yard waste disposal ban at landfill.
Composting facility.
Table ES-4
jSpecial Waste Summary
1 Shasta County
i
Estimated Diversion Amount
II �
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Targeted Materials (Tons) Stream (%) ('Ions) Stream (%)
I� White Goods 1,422 0.7 65 1,663 0.8 70
Tires 745 0.4 90 809 0.4 90
Ash 25,210 12.7 40 44,488 20.6 65
Industrial Sludge 0 0 0 6,118 2.8 35
Total 27,377 13.8 53,078 24.6
Selected Programs:
Expand existing salvage operations at landfill for appliances.
Burn tires as fuel at Calaveras Cement Plant.
Land application of ash for agricultural uses.
Land application of industrial sludge for mulching and composting.
RDD/R69/006.51 X111
d
r
Table ES-5
Source Reduction Summary
City of Anderson
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent of Material Diversion Percent of Material
Targeted Goal Waste Reduction Goal Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream (%)
Mixed Paper 31 0.2 10 84 0.6 25
Other Paper 127 1.0 10 350 2.4 25
Film Plastic 40 0.3 10 111 0.8 25 '
Yard Waste 485 3.7 35 537 3.7 35
Food 108 0.8 10 416 2.8 35
Total 791 6.0 1,498 10.3
Selected Programs:
Bag-Tag System--Instead of a monthly rate with regular pickup, this is a collection system
that is based on the customer paying for the volume generated. The resident would set out a
bag as needed and would be charged per bag.
Jurisdictional Lobbying--The local jurisdictions would lobby the state to work with
manufacturers in reducing excessive packaging and using recyclable materials.
Master Backyard Composting--Residents would be offered technical assistance and advice on
how to compost in their backyards.
Public Awareness Programs--Residents, schools, and businesses would be provided brochures,
a speakers bureau, and workshops to inform them of waste reduction practices. ,
Waste Audits--Audits would be conducted for schools, businesses, and manufacturers to
evaluate the waste stream and make reduction recommendations.
Procurement/Waste Managing Policies--This program could include purchasing recyclable
products; encouraging source reduction activities such as using ceramic mugs, electronic mail,
and double-sided copying; establishing purchasing requirements and specifications that favor
recyclability, reusability, and durability; and adopting an ordinance establishing a source-
reduction policy.
Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances--This program may include relaxing zoning and
permitting requirements to encourage development of thrift and repair shops, requiring
public works and park projects to use xeriscaping techniques, and relaxing zoning
requirements to allow for composting projects.
RDD/R69/006.51 xjv
II
li
I
Table ES-6
Recycling Summary
' City of Anderson
Estimated Diversion Amount
Il; 1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Targeted Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream (%)
Newspaper 402 3.0 50 666 4.6 75
Corrugated 922 7.0 50 1,528 10.5 75
Cardboard
' Ledger Paper 29 0.2 - 25 64 0.4 50
I
PET Plastics 8 0.1 25 19 0.1 50
HDPE Plastic 44 0.3 25 96 0.7 50
CA 138 1.0 40 285 2.0 75
Redemption
Glass
Other . 163 1.2 40 338 2.3 75
? Recyclable
Glass
Aluminum 78 0.6 65 99 0.7 75
Cans
I
Ferrous Metal 241 1.8 40 500 3.4 75
Nonferrous 137 1.0 55 179 1.2 65
Metal
,I Construction 400 3.0 25 1,065 7.3 60
Debris
Total 2,562 19.2 4,839 33.2
Selected Programs:
Voluntary dropoff at landfill.
Commercial cardboard program--Pick up carboard from stores and offices.
Commercial beverage container program--Pick up cans and bottles from bars and
restaurants.
Curbside.recycling for residents.
Buy-back Centers--Clayton Ward, Short's Scrap Metal, and Bigfoot Recycling.
RDD/R69M6.51 xv
I
Table ES-7
Composting Summary
City of Anderson
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Targeted Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream M
Yard waste 0 0 0 690 5.2 45
Total 1 0 0 0 690 5.2 45
Selected Programs:
Curbside pickup of yard waste for residents. ,
Yard waste disposal ban at landfill.
Composting facility.
Table ES-8
Special Waste Summary
City of Anderson
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Targeted Materials (Tons) Stream M (Tons) Stream M
White Goods 156 1.2 65 186 1.3 70
Tires 84 0.6 90 93 0.6 90
Total 240 1.8 279 1.9
Selected Programs:
Expand existing salvage operations at landfill for appliances.
Burn tires as fuel at Calaveras Cement Plant.
RDD/R69/006.51 Xvi
Table ES-9
Source Reduction Summary
City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent of Material Diversion Percent of Material
Targeted Goal Waste Reduction Goal Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream (%)
Mixed Paper 244 0.2 10 663 0.6 25
Other Paper 1,021 0.9 10 2,771 2.3 25
Film Plastic 328 0.3 10 890 0.7 25
Yard Waste 1,259 1.1 10 1,368 1.1 10
Food 903 0.8 10 3,432 2.9 35
Total 1 3,755 3.3 9,124 7.6
Selected Programs:
Pay-for-Weight System--Instead of a monthly rate with regular pickup, this is a collection system
that is based on the customer paying for the volume generated. The resident would pay a certain
amount per pound of solid waste in the container.
Jurisdictional Lobbying--The local jurisdictions would lobby the state to work with manufacturers
in reducing excessive packaging and using recyclable materials.
Master Backyard Composting--Residents would be offered technical assistance and advice on how
to compost in their backyards.
Public Awareness Programs--Residents, schools, and businesses would be provided brochures, a
speakers bureau, and workshops to inform them of waste reduction practices.
Waste Audits--Audits would be conducted for schools, businesses, and manufacturers to evaluate
the waste stream and make reduction recommendations.
Procurement/Waste Managing Policies--This program could include purchasing recyclable products;
encouraging source reduction activities such as using ceramic mugs, electronic mail, and double-
sided copying; establishing purchasing requirements and specifications that favor recyclability,
reusability, and durability; and adopting an ordinance establishing a source-reduction policy.
Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances--This program may include relaxing zoning and permitting
requirements to encourage development of thrift and repair shops, requiring public works and park
' projects to use xeriscaping techniques, and relaxing zoning requirements to allow for composting
projects.
RDD/R69/006.51 Xvil
Table ES-10
Recycling Summary
City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000 '
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Targeted Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream
Newspaper 3,243 2.9
50 5,282 4.4 75
Corrugated 7,532 6.8 50
12,269
Cardboard
Ledger Paper 230 0.2 25 499 0.4 50 '
PET Plastics
67 0.1 25 145 0.1 50
HDPE Plastic 358 0.3
25 778 0.6 50
CA
1,154 1.0 40 2,349 2.0 75
Redemption
Glass
Other
1,368 1.2 40 2,785 2.3 75
Recyclable
Glass
Aluminum
652 0.6 65 818 0.7 75
Cans
Ferrous Metal 2,024 1.8
40 4,121 3.4 75
Nonferrous 1,148 1.0
55 1,473 1.2 65
Metal
Construction 3,365 3.0
25 8,769
Debris
Total 21,141 18.9 39,288 32.6
Selected Programs: ,
Voluntary dropoff at transfer stations and landfill.
Commercial cardboard program--Pick up cardboard from stores and offices.
Commercial beverage container program--Pick up cans and bottles from bars and
restaurants.
Curbside recycling for residents.
Buy-back Centers--Clayton Ward, Short's Scrap Metal, and Bigfoot Recycling.
RDD/R69/006.51 Xvlll
u
w�
Table ES-11
Composting Summary
City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
I
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Targeted Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream (%) (Tons) Stream M
I
Yard waste 9,446 8.5 75 10,257 8.5 75
Total 9,446 8.5 10,257 8.5
Selected Programs:
Curbside pickup for residents.
Yard waste disposal ban at landfill.
ii Composting facility.
I' r� Table ES-12
Special Waste Summary
City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Diversion Percent Material Diversion Percent Material
Targeted Goal of Waste Reduction Goal of Waste Reduction
Materials (Tons) Stream M (Tons) Stream M
White Goods 1,309 1.2 65 1,531 1.3 70
I� Tires 686 0.6 90 744 0.6 90
Total 1,995 1.8 2,275 1.9
Selected Programs:
r Expand existing salvage operations at landfill for appliances.
Burn tires as fuel at Calaveras Cement Plant.
� r
I
M
RDD/R69M6.51 XiX
I
Table ES-13 '
Estimated Diversion Totals
1995 2000
Diversion Percent of Diversion Percent of
Goal Waste Goal Waste
Jurisdiction (Tons) Stream (Tons) Stream
Anderson 3,593 27.1 7,306 50.0
Redding 36,337 32.5 60,944 50.7
Shasta County 58,202 29.3 115,694 53.6
Total 98,132 183,944
SRRE PROGRAM FUNDING
TableS-
E 14 summarizes the costs of fully implementing the SRRE programs. The City
of Redding will most likely fund its SRRE programs by imposing a monthly recycling
user fee on its clients, and by issuing debt instruments.
The City of Anderson and Shasta County will fund their SRRE programs through a
combination of increased user fees and increasing the tipping fee at the West Central
Landfill.
RDD/R69/006.51 XX
I
Ln C) Ln v O v 0 ao O r- (D Lo m O O C. 0 O 0 0 O v co
0 N N (C LOn Lin n co COD CO COD N (ID 69 69 fA 69 O N 00 N N v
C r
O coco CID co v m r co
N v N M
Lm CI) to to fA
0�.
O Co Cn C'o O n O O O N O O O O O O O O m v
.:I Cn O Ln N O O O (D CC) O N In i- 69 69 69 69 O O O O N O)
O n N r N C -: N N h Ln N v O N O N O M
�
O CO (D cc) v C7 N — ^ (A A sOs�{ 69 N co
N c9 69 69
0 c) C7 v O LnaY O of CD co c) O O O O O O O O CD CID On O) LO O N N c'7 co N Lo Lo m 69 49 O O O O O O C) v)
Cn O O L n N O co O (D a O r O N O N h N
0OD O OD M v C\Icc) n N v O (�' U') Lo 6m9 CC) O
n W n Lo O to h O O O m (o v O O O O O O O o (D to
O c) CD O O C7 � a) co N N v v fA 69 O_ O_ O O O O v O
O C7 00 O N (n O U) N V O N O N L1f
(D Cn Cn (D v ofO r� Ln N v v O O m Dj
co ^ C7 - (`� h N M 669 669 6 69 69
CD Lo O Ln O O CD O O N (") O O O O O O O O v
O N O O N O CD 0 O 0
O 69 69 O_ _O
O Lo (o m Ln (D N m O N Oo Co In O N O N co 0)
O C N C7 C') Cn ci C7 6 O v v O Cn M O
f\ n c7 cD CD
NCI) i Ln 6 69 69
", oc
p Lo MNOO Lo m (D O N CD O cD 0000 40000 a)
q 0 CD v O O CD N m W st Lo O O O O O O O O O O (n a)
Cn (D v Ln n O n 0 It (D N OD tl O CO (D N O N O N N
N Cn (D Co C7 C.`7 O r� Co 6 m Ln 69 cD O Cn co N
it .vr V co f- CD m c7 (D O M 69 t 49 69 69 69
u O
v N D) O O N (D O CO I, O O O O O O O O O n
6. O Lo N O O CA N N C7 U) O 69 49 O O O O O O V) O
f\ N Co CD c) (D LA CD O O N t:7 .- O N O N N to
O O v v N Co O Ln v Cl) co Lo v v O v v CID Lo
V CID N CO m N (D 0 O Lo 69 41 69 49
s 69
II � _ _
m O v 00 (D 0 O o O o (D 0000 o O O CD
� (D o v m o 6% 69 (& o $ O o 0 0
ac O O CJI Ln CD N CSI v O CD O N O N v co
C^D Cn m
(00 C7 N N COD r O v CSD C7
N CO) 69 69 69
N 0 C'7 O N In c) O y Ln c) O O O O O O o o v Cn
O (D CD m O V) CA (D CC N O O O O O O O O O O 0 CO
I CO n N (T n to v ^ CO Cp Ln o co to r O N O N (D
CD CO CD O C.) CO N at N co O Ln � v O O v v_ CD
N
n to c7 (D c0 O N 19 0 f9 (9
I
H
N n O Co Lo N O m Ln O v W O O O O O O O O O O
(D N (D O N O O NZ 0 0 69 69 69 E9 69 69
O
CP Ln v CI OV! r r C' v Cn O
I� W CD Ln N N mN (D 0 N O m d
N
� O
U
� m Z
0 O
Cc
d °) U (1)
> >. aa)) >. D 681 >1
q Q � = = m � � N � 2 �
C 0 C 0 C 0 C (L 0 0 C .6 0 C 0
} (Uv N _O y (Uc N tr 3 cUa N _o) U (o O O R N �)
Z in m o in m in m
= n co � E (a n iv co a $ c m
C Q Q H Z Q CC (L ¢ Q cn U Q CC ~ Q Q Q H
I �
III
a
O O O N N_ O O V V 0 O 0 0 0
h O N M CD O C0 N 69 69 O O C sf C0 ¢� I� .- N CD
C a? CD O h co N N N O O N 0 (D N N O M N
6V O N 69 69 69 N N O n Oa n � O N N Cl) M
M Cl) N 69 1- 0)
pV0 69 fA 69 69 69
a
0) IRco O CD CD 0! � O O N N O O 0 O o 0 0
M O 1� V! 69 7 O O *7 of C0 r Cl) R 'T M
O N 1� LO0j w Cl) m N N O O N N CD sT Lq CD CD Q m
00 N 69 69 FAO N O ^ a) 4 co� CO N
E9 1 tri 2 69 69 609
a) O N a` ^ n �_ O O N_ N O O O O O tD 0 0 0
69 69 O O v 4 0 n CO O
Cn O L6 nD (O M M M N I `-u O O N N M Ci cD N O h P-
N
h Of 69 69 N! , Lq � O N to M N N
M Cl) N 69 N 0 M M h
69 69 69 69 69
o O - 00 o Q) O h O O O O 1� _� CD 1� O '
(0 N 69 69 O C0 O O Cl) N 1l
0 0 In hLAi C7 t_A CD co O O N N M to 0 Ln
LO (D 69 V 'a U, M O N
cCZ)
00 7 M N 69 N O M N co
69 69 69 69 69
N O 0 to O O O O V v O '1* "0
O o 0 0
a) Ln (7D co to 69 69 0 m O O a v V to m = On O CD
Cn !7 O a CD 7 4 4 0) CD CD O O N N C O 'R Cn C6 N
69
"D CV O � ^ C) n N M N� N N
'Q Cn to N o 0 0 0) n Q) O O O O v V CD N 0 0 0 0
`cj CA fn 0 Co O co N O 0 69 44 aD aD O O a of CD CD w CD 0 N 0
C9 CO M CD CD � tD O O N N fD In � M 6 c6
W M 69 69 CVco co 0 M M N 69 Ln N 0 N
S N
G 69 69
69 69 69
F aM o 0 o at tc'> n O O O O v 't co 0) v o 0 0
Z of 0i NP, u) a CO O O Fo O O O v v 0 u, M co N Ln M .
0 to V N 4 CV h h to O LQ OD O C N CD Lq O CD CO
N c0 (9 E9 69 N N m w O ^ On N Q) N N
N 0 M CD N 69 n 0
S 0 69 69 69 69 69
4
O a)co O (o co N co O O CT 0) O O O O t` M NCD a` o
f� (0 N 69 69 CD co O O O O N CD U) a f+
C.j O C6 Q O O N N 0 n N 0) CD t�; c7
Cnf9 N N On N a CD In
69 FA (D 69 O 69 O G M
69 LO 69
N to c0 0 0 0 to to co O O O O O O O OCD N 0 0 0 0
cm N Il 0 � 0 O M O O O O O O O O Ot` M O (p 0
0 N cD p O N U) N O to ' 0 O O n n N M O CD CO O O
N N 0 69 69 N On a C0 69 M N N �
fA 69 N 69 N M N
69 f9 69 69
O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O 0 N Q) v o 0 0
O O O 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 M co
O O O (D 0 CP Cn v CC) h
i co
H
Z
LU0
(D _T _T O _T T T T
> C > C C D 7 7
O O o 0) O o m Z U V o o> O V o 0) > V o O U o v
¢ f- d Cl) a ¢ j cn ¢ ¢ j v� ¢ ¢ Q 0 a � � � cLn ¢ Q � a 0 ¢ ¢M
to O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o r- to 0 0 0 m o o
O Q M f\ fA 69 FA 69 00 00 O O f` (MD N N N to co
N 69 49 69 CD 69 CD M O O t- 69 � N
M
69 C\j
69
0.
M r\ to 00 O O O O O O O O N O cD M o 0 o00r.
M O 69 69 69 69 O O O O h M N sr N to to
M to C`7 O O O n n r CD M N V Cn 0) O
69 ffl Mfg (p 609 COD � to O to 6A N9
f9 N Cl)
69 FA
VIII CD O CD 0000 0000 O O to M o o o M M
Q) co N CD 60 0 O O O O O O 1-tM M (D 7 to 0 co N
a) L6 4 M V V O O n nn V O N coM CA CD M M
I, 69 69 CO Nr
69 6rl 9 � 609 0 N co M O � 69 FA 619
co
69 69
N a V to O O O O O O O O O Co co (D o 0 o M (p
M to OD Cl) 69 0 O O O O O O M M M N CV to V � �•
M
(D4 o V st O O n f` N cq CD N C6 4 O 7
H! fA O O W OD O 0 co m N (A N ff9 69 69
0 FA 69 6CV 9 n
N0)CD N N in O0 O O O O O O O M 0 v o 0 0
FA V
V to M O O O OO OOO N M M 0 O t (.0
CD M p ppM ^ o O O O N N O O f` � r` C7
0 V O N 0) (D tO 00 to M O O M
NN 60 NM 4C
69 69 69 69
'i
toCD a to O O O O O O O O O O CD CD o 0 o M
M CD CD W Q 69 O O 8 0 O O v v O O to
M c6 CD M v N N c� f� h O O C6
69
v� r 69 69 69 69
' Grp u
V N (DV 0000 0000 O O M O 0 0 o co
[Q 0) N CD M 69 0 O O O 0 O O O O M
(r a y M 4 O 4 N N O n f` O O O O CD r`
Qr'
V969 69 N N 69 CD CD N CC) O (D
9
V N N '
69 69 69 0
t co O to N O O O O O O O O O O M n c0
U � (D 0) r 9AmOO A O O V � O O N (D
co vaicoM
C; o v ai
FA 69 6699 to vi LI) i» cCDvD (DD v i i v
69 69 69
Nf` O O O O O O O O O O U7 Ln 0 0 0 to
'.� a) M r to 69 69 O O O 69 to O (D (D O O co
M N N M oc O O N N O O N t7
69 69 69 LO 6L9 fA EA 69
0000 0000 O O O (D o 0 0
(T 69 0 69 0 69 69 69 69 O O O �
M
r ) o 0 0 zw
,I W z
I� �I z CL
CL O
� � U
jl ) O °>), v w
h > U Z � :3 d >
_ C) > U �
o) co U o o) O o OU O CT i o o) > O 'a
CT J
o O i c c m i o
O a (Na a o (u'a $ y cNv a U
¢ [C L Cj CO ¢ ¢ 1� ¢ Z3 ¢ Fes- 0 ¢ � I-� tLn < � 0 co ¢ a
I
d
O O O O O O O O O m m to No 0 0 (D N0) O O O O
OO O O O O N N CD
o N 0 to O O Cl) N to N 69
e m 69 � r" to to 9
69 6
m
a
Q) 0000 O O O O CA CD (D O o . . n N N 6969 p69 069 69
CP O O O O n N N N N O O C5
Cl) � � r.-oco N N
L 69 69
69 69 69
co O O O O O O O O N0 C7 (D o 0 o N n O O O O
a) 69 69 69 69 O O O O co N N co R m CD N (7 69 69 69 E9
to
O O a) vi
LO to O O Cl) N tr) N 69
m 69 co r- C C 69 69
Ca9 69 69
t\ O O O O O O O O O to m 0) oN ao c c70 O O O O O
O 69 69 69 69 O O O O n N O O . t. O O V 69 69 0 69
CO p of
Lr; Cn O O n N O 69
O 0000 0000 NO N o 0 o O O O C) OO CD O
O) 0 0 69 0 O O O O N 0 a O C> O
O O O O O to N O c0 (O _ O
C 44 C\J
m 0 Cl) ^O V) N 69 69
69 69 69
to O O O O O O O O r\ O to N o 0 o Co m 'Ir O O O O
p CY) 0 69 69 69 O O O O Co N Q) (D co m O N Co O 69 69 69 69
on to to O O n CA 69 N —
Rcr Co 6969 N N 69 69
t' 'T 0000 Coco WNOO o 0 0
F O 69 69 fA 69 O O O O N co O n 169 69 64 0
i O) O O O O st N m Q M CV;
O co 69 U9 V9 69 Cl) rl N N 69 f9
A m o o o o 0 0 0 0 r. o 0 0 0 0
(7) 69 0 69 69 O O O O C> N( D ON C ) n CD Lr) N n O O O O
N
LO In O O C7 tri E9 N n
M V9 m N N N 69 69
(9 69 69
NO O O O O O O O V N n m 0 0 0 Cl) to O O O O O
O 69 69 0 69 O O O O V O 't O (D (D to CD n a 0 69 0 69
O O O O O N to
U) to O O C7 69 N O
69 � N N 69 69
Z
O
a
0 0 0 0 o o o o rn r`Or. D 0 o o 61) Off'to Cn O Cao (D to
rn a to � o O
LL
U
CL
co d �
T z
v T T
Z
y 7 7 7 > 7 > 7 Z Cn =3_ N
Uvcoi (D)O .0 > 0 w N m 0 of U U o 60 0oo m Q
c o
in m
U a0 m -0 0 m 'fl -7, 0 0 d N d 10 c6 �y m .ao0 Co L c c c
U) n n a c
O 0 O O 0 v .SCD It o o o O O (D (D Cl) CD (-
O Ln O in O M O v CO O h to O O Ln
h O O f-- N O CD Cl) C.j p p o v M
r, CD N O U7 I: O M Ln Lo (n h V O N 69 669 N
ho 6 669 cD m fA
69 69
a _
O O 0 O O M a Ln c c c O 0 (D (.O f�
Ln O cl O (T M (D(D Ln O r r to O 0 O Ln O
M O f` N O (D (Cl r to p) CD O O Vi M M to Ln V)
O N O M Ln Co (D co P, V' O N 6A 69 N L
t 69 69 f9 O In CD 69
M 69 V co
69 _ _
69 69 t9
L
co O O O O m (D n N o 0 0 �
Q) Ln O to O M to M M O N OLO O O Ln N N co L
O O N N O r lT NM M O O LT 0
(o N o ci rS L.6 1-7 c a v v N v a (0 6`44 69 oM 3
r Ln FA N n LT Ln Ln Cn Cl) Ln co 69
69 69 69 co Efl Ln O) Ln
69 N
469 (0 O
M O O ON O M M LO N 7 O O O 0 M M O Ln O N
N Ln O Ln O t, Ln N r f` Ln O fl-LO N co f` N L
0 N O O M Ln N Cl) Cl) co N -It N O 69 69 M ~
� ba
69 669 69 N V co M 6A Co O C
O
1 691 69
OO O OLO O N O N co CV n o OLO O N N n Ln O Q
0 O N O Ln V M M (p O O r r
Cl) M co r` (D Ln � 69 C
Ul) cs
64 � N CoO � r (D N co 69
Efl 69 EAr LF 66469 CD r cz
T
N
69
LO O O O O N co h N o 0 oO O Ln Ln T O
Q) Ln O Ln O O M M Cl) M r Ln Ln O f` N
N to M r fn ^ N O to CD N O Lb O
O N O (n co CO CD CC) N N co h O 69 CA C
Q4 A NEA 6 � Ln co O) � 64 O O L
oi
69 69 T
L, O O O O M M st Ln o 0 o O O Ln Ln M N
< In O Ln O 't O O O O n n
t1 O O � N O V m M M O N (D C V r O N 0tb j
F" CO N O O O N m N N N N N (D Ul) m Ln
C4 Ln 69N f� Ln N N Ln M CD 69 69 69 d
64 69 69 Co 69 O M S]
O 64 r N
U 69 fA 3
M O O O O co L` N o o c O O M O O Ln U
O O O CDM M co O O O O (D CD Ln CO L
f m O V' O O "Cl co O r nj C0 0 O "Cl r M
co N M V N N N N N N V C7D O N 69 69 c
Ln 69N "r N (D M 'p O 69
69 69 69 NN M M [[
N O O O O M (T to o 0 o O O O O co Q) M .r
m Ln O Ln O O CD (D a r O r to O Ln O co O co O
tT C' O N O M r� Ln (D m -4 Ln M N r h L
O U7 ll
69
C 609 c m ")L6n 6m M O a 69 9 6969 '^
fA 69 69 69 69 Q O
w L)
O O O O m V CD m c c c O O O O Q O O O L
69 69 69 Efl O tT O N V 69 0 69 0 W O O O N N
Ln LT 6 > O O O U
N _ O CO 6H 69 EA D
O M
CL Z L
W W a m
W E5 Cl) CO CO
> z 0U Ov U) 75
T c T V T Q T Q a a
c Z c c c n 0 m
0 UJ Z= Z N (a
N roQ [L Q J O_
OOO UO0) UOO U OO U O
L - ( CLn C ) C -0G G N 0
Z5 d - N 0 ' ( N il -0 a W O O
LON
A 'D -O o 'a _ M (L ' �
B Z�O
ZLC ¢ LCO � LCO LC
U) Cn Q CL CQ O Q o
II�
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�I
I
I �
i
I
I{
� �
� �
� �
i
� �
, �
I
��
��
�.
��
i
��
i
��
a
i
,r�
I�
��
��r
t
a
t
i
i
i
n
'I
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as Assembly
Bill 939 (AB 939), was passed in September 1989. This legislation mandated a
25 percent reduction in the solid waste stream going to landfills and transformation
facilities by the year 1995 and a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. These reduc-
tions are to be made through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
Since the passage of AB 939, additional legislation has modified the original require-
ments. These modifications include the separation of Household Hazardous Waste
Elements (HHWE) and modifications to the original AB 939 definitions.
AB 939 initiated a new planning process that replaced the existing County Solid Waste
Management Plan with Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE). Each city
and the unincorporated areas of each county must prepare an SRRE and an HHWE,
and an Integrated Waste Management Plan must be prepared for each county.
The SRRE is to include the following components:
• A waste generation study
A source reduction component
• A recycling component
• A composting component
A disposal facility capacity component
An education and public information component
• A funding component
• A special waste component
An integration component
Following the completion of the SRREs and HHWEs, each county must then prepare
a countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and a countywide Siting Element.
The Siting Element must identify areas for transformation and disposal facilities to
provide a 15-year capacity for solid wastes generated in the county that cannot be
reduced or recycled.
Shasta County has two incorporated cities, Anderson and Redding. The County and
the cities have prepared a single SRRE and HHWE. This was requested and approved
by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff. The diversion
objectives for each jurisdiction are included individually in the SRRE and HHWE as
j requested by the CIWMB staff.
RDD/R2/013.51 1-1
COUNTY PROFILE
LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Shasta County is located at the northern end of the Sacramento Valley and is bounded
on the north by Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, on the east by Lassen County, on the
west by Trinity County, and on the south by Tehama County, as shown on Figure 1-1.
Shasta County has an area of 3,788 square miles, of which approximately 450 square
miles lie in the Sacramento Valley.
The County is situated in the midst of a recreational area that includes nine national
forests, six wilderness areas, two state parks, and one national park. Approximately 75
percent of Shasta County consists of national forests and parklands. The County exper-
iences hot and dry summer and mild winters. Annual precipitation is approximately
37 inches. Elevations range from 425 feet in the Sacramento Valley to over 10,000 feet
in Lassen National Park.
Redding is the largest city in the County; the size of Redding as of January 1, 1991, was
52.8 square miles. Redding is located on the valley floor and is surrounded on the
west, north, and east by mountainous, forested areas which contain a multitude of
streams, rivers and •lakes, and abundant wildlife. These factors have contributed to
Redding's establishment as a regional center for recreation and tourism, as well as a
popular retirement area.
The City of Anderson is also located in the valley, approximately 10 miles southeast of
Redding. Anderson is approximately 6.2 square miles. Anderson's economy is base(
primarily on the timber products industries.
POPULATION
The County's population is 147,036, according to the 1991 Department of Finance
estimate. Redding's population was estimated at 66,462, and Anderson's at 8,299.
There are only two incorporated cities in Shasta County, although there are seven com-
munities of 1,000 or more population scattered throughout the County: Burney,
Central Valley, Cottonwood, Johnson Park, Pine Grove, Project City, and Summit City.
The majority of the population is located in the south-central region of the County
adjacent to the north-south Interstate 5 corridor. This region has approximately 80
percent of the County's total population and represents less than 9 percent of the
County's total area. Population density in this region is almost 10 times the County
average.
RDD/R2/013.51 1-2
County Location
j
II�
i
N
0 50 100 150 200
q FIGURE 1-1
COUNTY LOCATION
SHASTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RDD26788.AB.10 JULY 1991
CWHl1L
SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
Planning responsibility for solid waste-related functions lies with the County for all
areas in Shasta County, except the City of Redding. The County contracts out the
hauling of refuse to two haulers, Anderson Cottonwood Disposal Service and Burney
Disposal. In addition, a small area in the northwestern portion of the County,
approximately 200 homes, sends its waste to Siskiyou County.
The City of Redding operates independently of Shasta County and has a city-run refuse
service. The City operates the solid waste collection services and also the West Central
Landfill, which is owned by Shasta County.
Four landfills are currently operating in Shasta County: Anderson Solid Waste,
Intermountain Landfill, Simpson Landfill (Twin Bridges), and West Central Landfill.
Three of the four sites are privately owned and operated, and one site is a monofill
used only for disposal of sludge from a paper mill. Information on the landfills is sum-
marized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1
Summary of Landfills
Shasta County, 1990
Size
Landfill Name Type Owner Operator (acres)
Anderson Solid Class III Anderson Solid Anderson Solid 270
Waste Waste, Inc. Waste, Inc.
Intermountain Class III Intermountain Intermountain 164
Landfill Landfill. Inc. Landfill, Inc.
Simpson Landfill Class II Simpson Paper S ion Paper 26
(Twin Bridges) Company Company
West Central Class III Shasta County City of Redding 1,08
Landfill
Anderson Solid Waste is a Class III landfill that is privately owned and operated by
Anderson Solid Waste, Inc. The landfill receives approximately 600 tons per day of
solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sources. It also
receives asbestos-containing waste, shredder waste, and other hazardous wastes that
have received a variance from the Department of Health Services.
The Intermountain Land` i is a privately owned and operated Class III site. It receives
approximately 30 tons pe: 'ay of municipal waste and an additional 54 tons per day of
wood ash. The municipal -taste includes residential, commercial, and industrial sources.
RDD/R2/013.51 1-4
I
Simpson Paper Company owns and operates Simpson Landfill, known as the Twin
Bridges sites. The landfill, a Class II site, receives approximately 50 tons per day of
'I residual sludges from the paper manufacturing process.
The West Central Landfill is a Class III site owned by Shasta County and operated by
the City of Redding. The landfill receives approximately 325 tons per day of non-
hazardous waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sources.
I �
I �
II�
IISII
N�.
RDD/R2/013.51 1-5
t
r
t
i
i
Chapter 2
SOLID WASTE GENERATION STUDY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes results of a solid waste generation study for Shasta County.
Where possible, the results have been desegregated to distinguish waste generation by
Anderson, Redding, and the unincorporated areas of the County. Information from
this study is designed to provide representative data about County waste generation and
disposal, and will be used during the County's AB 939 planning efforts.
The study consisted of two major components:
• Waste Disposal Characterization: This component relied on random
field sampling of solid waste from residences and commercial businesses
in the County and known "special waste" disposal quantities. Records
from the landfill operators were used to estimate the disposal of certain
special wastes that were likely missed in the random field sampling due
to seasonal variation or an irregular disposal schedule.
i
• Waste Diversion Characterization: This component relied on obtaining
records from individuals, organizations, and industries operating in the
County that are currently recycling or reusing solid wastes.
Expressed as an equation, the total waste generated by the County is then defined as
the sum of the total waste disposed of and diverted:
GEN = DISP + DIVERT
'! where:
i
GEN = the total quantity of solid waste generated within the jurisdiction.
DISP = the total quantity of solid waste generated within the
q tY � g jurisdiction,
which is transformed or disposed of in permitted solid waste
facilities.
DIVERT = the total quantity of solid waste, generated within the jurisdiction,
which is diverted from permitted solid waste transformation and
disposal facilities, through existing source reduction, recycling, and
composting programs.
!
RDD/R17/014.51 2-1
Results from this study have been desegregated to provide data for each County juris-
diction, as required by CIWMB guidance. Table 2-1 summarizes the 1990 estimated
populations of the three jurisdictions in Shasta County.
Table 2-1
1990 Estimated Population
Shasta County
Jurisdiction Population
Anderson 8,299
Redding 66,462
Unincorporated areas 72,275
Total 147,036
WASTE DISPOSAL CHARACTERIZATION
Disposal characterization required random field sampling and interviews with landfill
operators and waste generators:
• Random Field Sampling: Random field sampling was performed to help
characterize solid wastes disposed of by residential, commercial, and self-
haul waste sources. Appendix B summarizes the field sampling methods
used in this study.
• Interviews: Interviews were performed with major industrial waste gener-
ators identified in the County to characterize the amount and type of
waste disposed of by industrial sources. Records from landfill operators
were obtained to estimate the disposal of solid wastes that were not rep-
resented in the random field sampling.
Table 2-2 lists waste categories and waste types used in the waste disposal characterize
tion. Waste types with a footnote were not represented in the random field sampling.
Records from landfill operators' were obtained to estimate the disposal of these
wastes. Tables 2-3 through 2-5 summarize the results of the random field sampling for
residential, commercial, and self-haul waste sources.
'Annual sludge disposal was estimated by interviewing wastewater treatment plant operators.
RDD/R17/014.51 2-2
d
Table 2-2
Waste Categories and Waste Types
Shasta County
Waste Category Waste Type
Paper Corrugated cardboard (corr)
Mixed paper
Newspaper (news)
Ledger paper
Other paper
Plastics HDPE containers
PET containers
Film plastic
Other plastic
Glass Refillable bottles
CA redemption
,i Other recyclable
Other nonrecyclable
Metals Aluminum cans
Bimetal containers
Ferrous metal
Nonferrous metal
White goods
Yard Wastes
Other Organics Food
Rubber
Textiles
Tires
Wood waste
Other Wastes Construction debris
Household hazardous waste
Nonsampled "Special Wastes"a Ash
Tires
Sewage sludge
Industrial sludge
Medical Waste
aThese wastes were not represented in the random sampling.
RDD/R17/014.51 2-3
Table 2-3
Random Field Sampling Results--Residential
Shasta County,California
Waste Category N X -90%CI X (%) �' +90%CI S 90%Cl
Paper
Newspaper 23 5.647 7.080 8.513 4.002 1.433
Cardboard 23 7.059 8.139 9.218 3.015 1.080
Comp Ledger 23 -0.072 0.189 0.449 0.728 0.261
Mixed Paper 23 1.029 1.375 1.720 0.965 0.346
Other Paper 23 8.864 10.171 11.478 3.651 1.307
24.220 26.953 29.686 7.633 2.733
Plastic
PET 23 0.206 0.300 0.395 0.264 0.095
HDPE 23 1.068 1.227 1.386 0.445 0.159
Film Plastic 23 2.373 2.641 2.909 0.749 0.268
Other Plastic 23 2.402 2.794 3.186 1.095 0.392
6.385 6.962 7.539 1.612 0.577
Glass
Refillable 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
CA Redemption
Value 23 1.626 2.198 2.769 1.597 0.572 :
Other Recyclable 23 3.210 4.040 4.870 2.319 0.830
Nonrecyclable 23 0.415 0.663 0.910 0.690 0.247
5.739 6.900 8.061 3.243 1.161
Metal
Aluminum Cans 23 0.276 0.367 0.458 0.254 0.091
Tin and Bimetal 23 1.815 2.160 2.505 0.964 0.345
Ferrous 23 0.431 0.860 1.290 1.198 0.429
Nonferrous 23 0.186 1.340 2.495 3.225 1.155
White Goods 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
3.488 4.728 5.968 3.464 1.240
Yard Waste 23 16.953 22.235 27.517 14.753 5.282
Wood Waste 23 0.553 1.576 2.599 2.857 1.023
Household Hazardous 23 0.040 0.806 1.572 2.140 0.766
Waste
Disposable Diapers 23 2.502 3.709 4.917 3.372 1.207
Other Organic Waste 23 10.732 13.324 15.915 7.239 2.592
Construction Debris 23 8.336 12.808 17.279 12.489 4.471
Total 100.000
Notes:
N = Number of samples.
X = Mean percent by weight.
S = Standard deviation.
90%Cl = Confidence Interval based on student's t-test.
RDD/R17/014.51 2-4 1
Q
�i
Table 2-4
Random Field Sampling Results--Commercial
Shasta County,California
Waste Category N X -90%CI �' (%) �' +90%CI S 90%Cl
Paper
Newspaper 23 2.817 3.584 4.351 2.143 0.767
Cardboard 23 13.221 15.785 18.349 7.161 2.564
Computer/Ledger 23 0.048 1.283 2.519 3.451 1.235
Mixed Paper 23 1.435 3.607 5.779 6.066 2.172
Other Paper 23 8.900 11.167 13.435 6.332 2.267
30.928 35.427 39.926 12.566 4.499
Plastic
PET 23 0.123 0.179 0.235 0.155 0.056
HDPE 23 0.989 1.687 2.385 1.950 0.698
Film Plastic 23 2.784 4.016 5.247 3.440 1.232
Other Plastic 23 3.609 5.620 7.632 5.618 2.011
8.926 11.503 14.080 7.198 2.577
I
li Glass
Refillable 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
CA Redemption
Value 23 2.156 2.881 3.606 2.024 0.725
Other Recyclable 23 1.699 2.389 3.080 1.929 0.691
,I Nonrecyclable 23 0.217 0.819 1.421 1.681 0.602
4.465 6.089 7.714 4.537 1.6
Metal 24
Aluminum Cans 23 0.333 0.399 0.466 0.187 0.067
Tin and Bimetal 23 0.837 2.573 4.308 4.849 1.736
Ferrous 23 3.614 5.778 7.942 6.043 2.164
Nonferrous 23 0.366 0.709 1.053 0.960 0.344
White Goods 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
6.084 9.459 12.235 7.553 2.776
Yard Waste 23 2.082 4.847 7.613 7.724 2.765
Wood Waste 23 1.464 3.527 5.589 5.761 2.063
Household Hazardous 23 0.221 0.540 0.858 0.890 0.319
ii
Waste
Disposable Diapers 23 0.854 1.490 2.126 1.778 0.636
Other Organic Waste 23 9.362 12.182 15.002 7.876 2.820
Construction Debris 23 9.413 14.936 20.459 15.426 5.523
Total 100.000
Notes:
N = Number of samples.
X = Mean percent by weight.
S = Standard deviation.
90%CI = Confidence Interval based on student's t-test.
IN
11
1 RDD/R17/014.51 2-5
�I
Table 2-5
Random Field Sampling Results--Self-Haul
Shasta County,California
Waste Category N X -90% CI �' (%) X +90%CI S 90% Cl
Paper
Newspaper 23 2.614 1 !.04 5.594 4.162 1.490
Cardboard 23 5.695 7.-,44 9.793 5.72-1 2.049
Computer Ledger 23 -0.000 0.024 0.049 0.068 0.024
Mixed Paper 23 0.317 0.632 0.947 0.880 0.315
Other Paper 23 5.672 8.459 11.246 7.785 2.787
14.296 20.962 27.628 18.618 6.666
Plastic
PET 23 0.123 0.210 0.297 0.243 0.08
HDPE 23 0.640 0.823 1.006 0.512 0.183
Film Plastic 23 1.801 2.283 2.765 1.347 0.482
Other Plastic 23 3.843 4.845 5.846 2.798 1.002
6.406 8.161 9.815 4.899 1.754
Glass
Refillable 23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
CA Redemption Value 23 0.648 1.557 2.467 2.541 0.9is
Other Recyclable 23 1.895 2.941 3.988 2.922 1.0
Nonrecyclable 23 0.007 2.813 5.619 7.838 2.80
2.350 7.312 12.074 13.301 4.76-
Metal
Aluminum Cans 23 0.184 0.265 0.346 0.226 0.081
Tin and Bimetal 23 1.630 2.123 2.616 1.378 0.493
Ferrous 23 4.484 6.994 9.505 7.012 2.511
Nonferrous 23 1.076 1.693 2.311 1.725 0.618
White Goods 23 6.710 11.008 15.306 12.005 4.298
14.083 22.083 30.084 22.346 8.000
Yard Waste 23 3.173 3.857 14.542 15.879 5.685
Wood Waste 23 3.002 ,.056 13.110 14.117 5.054
Household Hazardous 23 0.702 1.424 2.145 2.016 0.722
Waste
Disposable Diapers 23 0.353 2.187 4.021 5.123 1.834
Other Organic Waste 23 7.117 9.378 11.638 6.313 2.260
Construction Debris 23 8.844 11.581 14.318 7.645 2.737
Total 100.000
Notes:
N = Number of samples.
X = Mean percent by weight.
S = Standard deviation.
90%Cl = Confidence Interval based on Student's t-test.
Annual disposal tonnages for all the waste types shown in Table 2-2 were calculated for
each waste source and County jurisdiction using the following procedures:
1. Determine total solid waste disposed of: Based on landfill records from all of
the County's permitted landfills, approximately 241,349 tons of solid waste were
disposed of in 1990.
RDD/R17/014.51 2-6
2. Determine percent of County's disposed-of waste that is residential, commercial,
industrial, or self-haul in origin: Hauler and landfill records were reviewed, and
interviews with major industries in the County were conducted to estimate the
percentages. The following definitions were applied for each waste source:
Residential--A solid waste source composed of single-family or multi-
family dwellings.
i , Commercial--A solid waste source composed of any of the following:
stores, businesses, offices, commercial warehouses, hospitals; educational,
health care, military, and correctional institutions; nonprofit research
organizations; and government offices.
Industrial--A solid waste source composed of any of the following:
mechanized manufacturing facilities, factories, refineries, construction and
demolition projects, and publicly operated treatment works.
i
�. Self-Haul--A solid waste source composed of individual citizens who haul
their wastes to landfills and/or transfer stations without utilizing commer-
cial hauling companies or municipalities.
I
3. Determine annual disposal tonnages for waste types that were represented in
the random field sampling. This is done by subtracting from the total disposed-
of waste stream the estimated annual disposal tonnages of the nonsampled
waste types. The sampling information presented in Tables 2-3 through 2-5 is
then used to estimate annual disposal tonnages for each individual sampled
waste type.
4. Determine jurisdiction-specific annual disposal tonnages: Waste types for which
jurisdiction-specific disposal information was not available were assigned jurisdic-
tion-specific disposal tonnages based on the jurisdiction's population
(Table 2-1).
Table 2-6 summarizes the annual Countywide disposal tonnages for Shasta County.
.I Tables 2-7 through 2-10 present the disposal tonnages segregated by waste source (resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, and self-haul). Based on the residential waste stream,
Shasta County residents on average dispose of 2.8 lb/person/day.
Figure 2-1 shows the gu h 1990 disposal tonnages for the five major landfills operating In the
County. The disposal tonnages only include waste that was generated in Shasta
County, and do not include imported waste. Anderson solid waste imported
approximately 24,145 tons in 1990. The Benton Landfill operated only during the first
3 months of 1990, and has since ceased operation. Waste that was being disposed of at
Benton is now being disposed of at West Central Landfill. It can be seen that
residential and commercial sources of waste compose over 70 percent of the County's
disposed-of waste stream. Figure 2-2 illustrates the composition of the County's
i
RDD/R17/014.51 2-7
disposed-of waste stream by major waste categories. The figure shows the paper waste
types (corrugated cardboard, newspaper, etc.) are the major components of residential
and commercial waste. Industrial waste is largely composed of ash from cogeneration
plants, whereas self-haul waste has a large metal component consisting largely of white
goods and other ferrous metals.
Table 2-6
1990 Countywide Waste Disposal
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction
Percent of Total
Waste Category Anderson Redding County Total Disposal
Paper 3,244 26,348 29,100 58,691 24.32
Newspaper 522 4,210 4,574 9,305 3.86
Cardboard 1,276 10,466 11,641 23,383 9.69
Computer/Ledger 80 645 701 1,426 0.59
Mixed Paper 264 2,129 2,519 4,912 2.04
Other Paper 1,102 8,897 9,665 19,664 8.15
Plastic 991 8,058 8,713 17,762 7.36
PET 24 192 209 425 0.18
HDPE 151 1,246 1,325 2,723 1.13
Film Plastic 351 2,855 3,098 6,303 2.61
Other Plastic 465 3,765 4,081 8,311 3.44
Glass 679 5,481 5,954 12,115 5.02
Refillable 0 0 0 0 0.00
CA Redemption
Value 263 2,126 2,310 4,699 1.95
Other Recyclable 321 2,593 2,816 5,730 2.37
Nonrecyclable 94 763 828 1,686 0.70
Metal 893 7,211 8,077 16,182 6.70
Aluminum Cans 39 319 346 704 0.29
Tin and Bimetal 248 2,006 2,179 4,433 1.84
Ferrous 413 3,336 3,867 7,616 3.16
Nonferrous 108 871 946 1,925 0.80
White Goods 84 681 739 1,504 0.62
Yard Waste 1,257 10,144 11,019 22,419 9.29
Wood Waste 325 2,834 3,137 6,295 2.61
Household Hazardous 74 593 644 1,311 0.54
Waste
Disposable Diapers 253 2,039 2,215 4,506 1.87
Other Organic Waste 1,300 10.588 11,398 23.286 9.65
Food 975 7,870 8,549 17,393 7.21
Textiles 260 2,194 2,280 4,733 1.96
Rubber 65 525 570 1.160 0.48
Construction Debris 1,453 11,730 12,742 25,925 10.74
Nonsampled Wastes 74 586 52,196 52,856 21.90
Tires 34 257 280 571 0.24
Ash 0 0 37,765 37,765 15.65
Sewage Sludge 40 239 122 401 0.17
Industrial Sludge 0 0 14,029 14,029 5.81
Medical Waste 0 90 0 90 0.04
Total 10,542 85,612 145,195 241,349 100.00
RDD/R17/014.51 2-8
Table 2-7
1990 Residential Waste Disposal
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction Percent of
Waste Category Anderson Redding County Total Residential Disposal
Paper 1,112 8,973 9,747 19,831 26.86
Newspaper 292 2,357 2,560 5,209 7.06
Cardboard 336 2,709 2,943 5,988 8.11
Computer/Ledger 8 63 68 139 0.19
Mixed Paper 57 458 497 1,012 1.37
Other Paper 419 3,386 3,678 7,483 10.14
Plastic 287 2,318 2,518 5,122 6.94
PET 12 100 108 221 0.30
HDPE 51 408 444 903 1.22
!� Film Plastic 109 879 955 1,943 2.63
Other Plastic 115 930 1,010 2,056 2.78
I
Glass 285 2,297 2,495 5,077 6.88
I
Refillable 0 0 0 0 0.00
CA Redemption
Value 91 732 795 1,617 2.19
Other Recyclable 167 1,345 1,461 2,972 4.03
Nonrecyclable 27 221 240 488 0.66
Metal 195 1,574 1,709 3,478 4.71
Aluminum Cans 15 122 133 270 0.37
Tin and Bimetal 89 719 781 1,589 2.15
j Ferrous 35 286 311 633 0.86
Nonferrous 55 446 485 986 1.34
White Goods 0 0 0 0 0.00
Yard Waste 917 7,402 8,040 16,359 22.16
Wood Waste 65 525 570 1,160 1.57
Household Hazardous 33 268 291 593 0.80
Waste
Disposable Diapers 153 1,235 1,341 2,729 3.70
j� Other Organic Waste 550 4,435 4,818 9,803 13.28
Food 412 3,327 3,614 7,352 9.%
Textiles 110 887 964 1,%1 2.66
Rubber 27 222 241 490 0.66
Construction Debris 528 4,264 4,631 9,423 12.76
Nonsampled Wastes 15 116 126 257 0.35
Tires 15 116 126 257 0.35
Ash 0 0 0 0 0.00
Sewage Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Industrial Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Medical Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total 4.139 33,405 36,287 73,832 100.00
I �
J
RDD/R17/014.51 2-9
d
�i
Table 2-8
1990 Commercial Waste Disposal
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction
Percent of County
Waste Category Anderson Redding County ToW Disposal
Paper 1,988 16,043 17,427 35,458 35.28
Newspaper 201 1,623 1,763 3,587 3.57
Cardboard 886 7,148 7,765 15,799 15.72
Computer/Ledger 72 581 631 1,284 1.28
Mixed Paper 202 1,633 1,774 3,610 3.59
Other Paper 627 5,057 5,493 11,177 11.12
Plastic 645 5,209 5,658 11,512 11.46
PET 10 81 88 179 0.18
HDPE 95 764 830 1,689 1.68
Film Plastic 225 1,819 1,976 4,020 4.00
Other Plastic 315 2,545 2,765 5,625 5.60
Glass 342 2,757 2,995 6,095 6.06
Refillable 0 0 0 0 0.00
CA Redemption
Value 162 1,305 1,417 2,884 2.87
Other Recyclable 134 1,082 1,175 2,391 2.38
Nonrecyclable 46 371 403 820 0.82
Metal 531 4,284 4,653 9,468 9.42
Aluminum Cans 22 181 1% 399 0.40
Tin and Bimetal 144 1,165 1,266 2,575 2.56
Ferrous 324 2,617 2,842 5,783 5.75
Nonferrous 40 321 349 710 0.71
White Goods 0 0 0 0 0.00
Yard Waste 272 2,195 2,384 4,851 4.83
Wood Waste 198 1,597 1,735 3,530 3.51
Household Hazardous 30 245 266 540 0.54
Waste
Disposable Diapers 84 675 733 1,491 1.48
Other Organic Waste 683 5,517 5,993 12,193 12.13
Food 513 4,138 4,495 9,145 9.10
Textiles 137 1,103 1,199 2,439 2.43
Rubber 34 276 300 610 0.61
Construction Debris 838 6,764 7,348 14,950 14.88
Nonsampled Wastes 19 231 154 404 0.40
Tires 19 141 154 314 0.31
Ash 0 0 0 0 0.00
Sewage Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Industrial Sludge 0 0 ' 0 0 0.00
Medical Waste 0 90 0 90 0.09
Total 5,630 45,516 49,347 100,493 100.00
RDD/R17/014.51 2-10
7
I�
Table 2-9
1990 Self-Haul Waste Disposal
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction
Percent of Self-Haul
Waste Category Anderson Redding County Total Disposal
Paper 145 1,167 1,268 2,579 19.73
Newspaper 29 230 250 509 3.89
Cardboard 55 443 481 979 7.49
Computer/Ledger 0 1 2 3 0.02
Mixed Paper 5 38 41\ 84 0.64
Other Paper 56 454 493 1,004 7.68
Plastic 58 472 513 1,043 7.98
PET 1 11 12 25 0.19
HDPE 6 48 52 105 0.80
Film Plastic 16 132 143 291 2.22
Other Plastic 35 282 306 622 4.76
Glass 53 427 463 943 7.21
Refillable 0 0 0 0 0.00
CA Redemption
Value 11 90 97 198 1.52
Other Recyclable 21 166 180 367 2.80
Nonrecyclable 21 171 186 378 2.89
Metal 167 1,351 1,468 2,986 22.84
Aluminum Cans 2 16 17 35 0.26
j Tin and Bimetal 15 121 132 268 2.05
Ferrous 53 430 467 950 7.26
Nonferrous 13 104 113 230 1.76
j White Goods 84 681 739 1,504 11.51
Yard Waste 68 547 594 1,209 9.25
I
II�' Wood Waste 62 498 541 1,101 8.42
Household Hazardous 10 80 87 178 1.36
Waste
Disposable Diapers 16 129 141 286 2.19
Other Organic Waste 67 541 587 1,195 9.14
Food 50 406 441 8% 6.86
Textiles 13 108 117 239 1.83
Rubber 3. 27 29 60 0.46
Construction Debris 87 702 763 1,552 11.87
i� Nonsampled Wastes 0 0 0 0 0.00
Tines 0 0 0 0 0.00
Ash 0 0 0 0 0.00
Sewage Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Industrial Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Medical Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total 733 5,914 6,425 13,072 100.00
N�
RDD/R17/014.51 2-11
i
Table 2-10
1990 Industrial Waste Disposal ,
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction Percent of
Waste Category Anderson Redding County Total Industrial Disposal
Paper 0 165 658 823 1.53
Newspaper 0 0 0 0 0.00
Cardboard 0 165 452 617 1.14
Computer/Ledger 0 0 0 0 0.00
Mixed Paper 0 0 206 206 0.38
Other Paper 0 0 0 0 0.00
Plastic 0 60 24 84 0.16
PET 0 0 0 0 0.00 i
HDPE 0 26 0 26 0.05
Film Plastic 0 26 24 50 0.09
Other Plastic 0 8 0 8 0.01
Glass 0 0 0 0 0.00
Refillable 0 0 0 0 0.00
CA Redemption
Value 0 0 0 0 0.00
Other Recyclable 0 0 0 0 0.00
Nonrecyclable 0 0 0 0 0.00
Metal 0 3 247 250 0.46
Aluminum Cans 0 0 0 0 0.00
Tin and Bimetal 0 0 0 0 0.00
Ferrous 0 3 247 250 0.46
Nonferrous 0 0 0 0 0.00
White Goods 0 0 0 0 0.00
Yard Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Wood Waste 0 214 291 505 0.94
Household Hazardous 0 0 0 0 0.00
Waste
Disposable Diapers 0 0 0 0 0.00
Other Organic Waste 0 95 0 95 0.18
Food 0 0 0 0 0.00
Textiles 0 95 0 95 0.18
Rubber 0 0 0 0 0.00
Construction Debris 0 0 0 0 0.00
Nonsampled Wastes 40 239 51,916 52,195 96.74
Tires 0 0 0 0, 0.00
Ash 0 0 37,765 37,765 70.00 I
Sewage Sludge 40 239 122 401 0.74
Industrial Sludge 0 0 14,029 14,029 26.00
Medical Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total 40 776 53,136 53,952 100.00
�I
B
RDD/R17/014.51 2-12
� Y
i
A
!i BENTON 9,402
SIMPSON 14,029
II�.
INTERMOUNTAIN 27,864
B
d ANDERSON SOLID WASTE
100,805
�i
I
WEST CENTRAL 88,588
i
I� NOTE:
A BENTON LANDFILL CEASED
OPERATION IN APRIL,1990.
1,
B ANDERSON SOLID WASTE
IMPORTED AN ADDITIONAL
24,145 TONS IN 1990.
FIGURE 2-1
1990 DISPOSAL TONNAGE
1 BY LANDFILL
SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT
I�
RDO 26788J18.10 JUNE 1991 SHASTA COUNTY,CAL FORNIIA
�; CIf3bIHILL
- w
- - W 1.
i
U
�r3 � W Q i
cc
m o
Z� r
NZi<
W o ��
ac3 �UJ w
W� 1
t9 0 ¢
0
o r
M D
Z
U M
co O
M � �
N N
MI
N J N r
d Q
W �
d
Q
a w
f
a �
E 'v W
O = .1a
M
E
N
m � o,
z 0) - .
� w �
O
U a �
o of
p U ti O a
O f-CD
J
� � U
IC
O
► _J
4
w
f � Z
CL s
I c h O
n
Q
I
i
Quantities of wastes were reported in either tons or cubic yards. Weight-to-volume
conversion factors (densities) used for this study are presented in Table 2-11. These
conversion factors were obtained from two references (Franklin & Associates, 1990,
and CH2M HILL, 1990). Waste types identified in this study were correlated to waste
types in the references. When no direct correlation between waste types could be
1 established, an estimate of the in-place density was made based on values given for
materials with similar characteristics and ranges available in the literature.
i
Disposed-of waste volumes are summarized in Table 2-12. Figure 2-3 contrasts the
percent by weight and by volume for the waste categories.
i.
t
RDD/R17/014.51 2-15
Table 2-11
Weight to Volume Conversion Factors
Shasta County
Approximate Density
Waste (lb/cu yd)
Paper
Corrugated 750
Mixed 800
Newspaper 800
Ledger 800
Other 800
Plastics
HDPE container 355
PET containers 355
Film 667
Other 300
Glass
Refillable 2,800
CA redemption 2,800
Other recyclable 2,800
Other nonrecyclable 2,800
Metals
Aluminum cans 250
Bi-metal 550
Ferrous 550
Nonferrous 550
White goods 550 C
Yard Wastes 1,500 Y
Wood Waste 800
Household Hazardous Waste 300
Disposable Diapers 300
Other Organics
Food 2,000
Rubber 343
Textiles 435
Construction Debris 2,000
Nonsampled :
Tires 140
Ash 2,000
Sewage Sludge 800
Industrial Sludge 800
Medical Waste 500 C
r
e
RDD/R17/014.51 2-16 �,
it
i
` Table 2-12
1990 Countywide Waste Disposal
Shasta County,California
(cubic yard/year)
I
Jurisdiction
Waste Category Anderson Redding Unincorporated Total
Paper 8,197 66,571 73,512 148,279
Newspaper 1,391 11,227 12,196 24,814
Cardboard 3,190 26,164 29,103 58.458
Comp Ledger 200 1,614 1,753 3,566
Mixed Paper 600 5,323 6,298 12,281
Other Paper 2,756 22,243 24,162 49,160
Plastic 5,140 41,763 45,137 92,040
PET 134 1,083 1,177 2,394
HDPE 852 7,020 7,467 15,338
Film Plastic 1,051 8,562 9,288 18,901
Other Plastic 3,103 25,098 27,206 55,406
Glass 485 3,915 4,253 8,653
Refillable
CA Redemption 188 1,519 1,650 3,356
Value 229 1.852 2,012 4,093
Other Recyclable
Nonrecyclable 67 545 592 1,204
Metal 3,420 27,613 30,882 61,915
Aluminum Cans 316 2.548 2,768 5,632
Tin and Bimetal 904 7,293 7,922 16,119
Ferrous 1,501 12,129 14,062 27,683
Nonferrous 392 3,167 3,441 7,001
White Goods 307 2,475 2,689 5,470
Yard Waste 1,676 13,525 14,962 29,892
Wood Waste 811 7,085 7,842 15,738
Household Hazardous 490 3.955 4,297 8,742
" Waste
Disposable Diapers 1,684 13,593 14,765 30,042
q Other Organic Waste 2,549 21,014 22,353 45,916
Food 975 7,870 8,549 17,393
Textiles 1,195 10,085 10,481 21.762
Rubber 379 3,059 3,323 6,761
I
Construction Debris 1,453 11,730 12,742 25,925
Nonsampled Wastes 130 1,640 73,978 75,748
Tires 130 1,043 1,141 2,313
Ash 0 0 37,765 37,765
Sewage Sludge 0 598 0 598
Industrial Sludge 0 0 35,073 35,073
Medical Waste 0 360 0 360
Total 26,035 212,764 304,452 543,251
I
I
i
RDD/R17/014.51 2-17
I
it _ .
z
W w
W
z
Z
p
Z
a}sDM iduios-uoN Q W NQ =i _
�
Qz
� Qom
z
< .
sijgaQ uoilonilsuoo } } 0 O S
N F- ® '� �z
a
Cc UJ
a)snM oiuo6a0 aau}0 CC cc N w~
sjadDla a gosodsia
MHH
0
a}sDM pooh
0
3
I
a}soM p�o,�
�o}aW
ssoi':
DI}sol
d
aadod
w
D
0 o n o Ln o
O
}uaaiad m
a
CY
N
cc
Q
i
ii
WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION
The amount of waste diverted in Shasta County was estimated by interviewing major
recycling buy-back centers and other businesses/industries that divert substantial
portions of their waste stream. Appendix A includes the questionnaires used for the
waste diversion interviews.
Results of the interviews include:
• Three major�o certified recycling _buyers currently operate In Shasta
County.2 These centers take aluminum cans, cardboard, white paper,
computer paper, newspaper, glass, and PET and HDPE plastic.
There are no transformation facilities in Shasta County.
O
• ne of the recycling centers also collects and recycles scrap metal
(ferrous and nonferrous) and white goods. These materials are obtained
from individual haulers, various industries, businesses, and the County's
landfills.
•
Industrial ash is generated by cogeneration plants in the County.
Approximately 31 percent of the ash is currently diverted by farm appli-
cation.
• Due to their high value, most large equipment and commercial truck tires
in the County are retreaded. Shasta County diverts approximately
61 percent of its tire waste through retreading.
• The City of Redding has a centralized yard waste composting facility. In
1990, the City of Redding estimates that 833 tons, or 3.6 percent of the
yard waste, was diverted via composting.
Interviews with household hazardous waste recovery facilities indicate
that the following quantities are currently diverted in Shasta County:
� - 1,529 tons/year of used oil
6 tons/year of automotive antifreeze
- 500 tons/year of batteries
The companion Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) discusses programs to
improve the diversion of Household Hazardous Waste.
2
The recycling centers are: Short's Scrap Metal in Redding,Bigfoot Recycling in Anderson,Clayton Ward Recycling in
Redding.
RDD/R17/014.51 2-19
Jurisdiction-specific waste diversion data were available for yard waste and ash. The
diversion estimate for the remaining waste types was obtained from aggregated County
records, and the diversion tonnage for each jurisdiction was assigned based on a
jurisdiction's population.
Table 2-13 summarizes diversion totals by jurisdiction. Overall, the County currently
diverts 14.3 percent of its waste stream.
WASTE GENERATION CHARACTERIZATION
The total waste generated is defined as the sum of the waste diverted and waste
disposed of. Table 2-14 presents the 1990 waste generation estimates for Shasta
County.
SEASONAL VARIATION
As described in Appendix A, the field waste characterization was conducted over three
distinct seasons: winter, summer, and spring. Figure 2-4 shows the seasonality of the
total disposed-of waste tonnage in 1990. This information was obtained via monthly
records from the five major landfills operating in the County. I�I�
Figures 2-5 and 2-6 illustrate the seasonality of the composition of the disposed-of
g Y P P
waste stream. The composition of the waste stream is presented for the 10 waste
categories that were represented in the field sampling for the three seasons (winter,
summer, and spring).
xooix17ro14.51 2-20
I �j
d -
Table 2-13
1990 Countywide Waste Diversion
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction
I
Diverted Percent
Waste Category Anderson Redding County Total of Total
Paper 530 4,261 4,630 9,420 13.83
Newspaper 179 1,442 1,566 3,187 25.51
Cardboard 330 2,664 2,893 5,887 20.11
Computer/Ledger 21 155 170 346 19.52
Mixed Paper 0 0 0 0 0.00
Other Paper 0 0 0 0 0.00
Plastic 5 42 46 94 0.53
d
PET 5 41 44 90 17.46
HDPE 0 2 2 4 0.15
Film Plastic 0 0 0 0 0.00
Other Plastic 0 0 0 0 0.00
Glass % 776 843 1,714 12.40
Refillable 0 0 0 0
CA Redemption
Value 48 388 421 857 15.43
Other Recyclable 48 388 421 857 13.01
Nonrecyclable 0 0 0 0 0.00
Metal 453 3,653 3,%8 8,074 33.29
Aluminum Cans 69 556 604 1,229 63.58
Tin and Bimetal 0 0 0 0 0.00
Ferrous 133 1,075 1,168 2,376 23.78
Nonferrous 117 948 1,030 2,095 52.11
White Goods 133 1,074 1,167 2,375 61.22
Yard Waste 0 833 0 833 3.58
Wood Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Household Hazardous 122 916 997 2,035 60.81
Waste
{
Disposable Diapers 7 54 59 120 2.59
Other Organic Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Fwd 0 0 0 0 0.00
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0.00
Rubber 0 0 0 0 0.00
Construction Debris 0 0 0 0 0.00
Nonsampled Wastes 50 407 17,610 18,067 25.50
Tires 50 407 442 899 61.16
Ash 0 0 17,168 17,168 31.25
Sewage Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Industrial Sludge 0 0 0 0 0.00
Medical Waste 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total 1,263 10,942 28,153 40,357 14.33
Diverted as Percent 10.70 11.33 16.24 14.33
of Total
it RDD/R17/014.51 2-21
I
a
Table 2-14
1990 Countywide Waste Generation
Shasta County,California
(tons/year)
Jurisdiction
Percent of Total
Waste Category Anderson Redding County Total Waste Stream
Paper 3,774 30,608 33,729 68,111 24.18
Newspaper 700 5,652 6,140 12.492 4.43
Cardboard 1,606 13.129 14,535 29,270 10.39
Computer/Ledger 101 800 871 1,772 0.63
Mixed Paper 264 2,129 2,519 4,912 1.74
Other Paper 1,102 8.897 9,665 19,664 6.98
Plastic 996 8,101 8,759 17,856 6.34
PET 29 2?3 253 515 0.18
HDPE 151 1,248 1,327 2,727 0.97
Film Plastic 351 2,855 3,098 6,303 2.24
Other Plastic 465 3,765 4.081 8,311 2.95
Glass 775 6,257 6,797 13,829 4.91
Refillable 0 0 0 0 0.00
CA Redemption
Value 311 2,514 2,731 5,556 1.97
Other Recyclable 369 2,980 3,238 6,587 2.34
Nonrecyclable 94 763 828 1,686 0.60
Metal 1,346 10,864 12,046 24,256 8.61
Aluminum Cans 108 874 950 1,933 0.69
Tin and Bimetal 248 2,006 2,179 4,433 1.57
Ferrous 546 4,410 5,035 9,991 3.55
Nonferrous 225 1,819 1,976 4,020 1.43
White Goods 217 1,755 1,906 3,879 1.38
Yard Waste 1,257 10,977 11,019 23,252 8.25
Wood Waste 325 2,834 3,137 6,295 2.23
Household Hazardous 196 1,509 1,641 3,346 1.19
Waste
Disposable Diapers 259 2,093 2,274 4,626 1.64
Other Organic Waste 1,300 10,588 11,398 23,286 8.27
Food 975 7,870 8,549 17,393 6.17
Textiles 260 2,194 2,280 4,733 1.68
Rubber 65 525 570 1,160 0.41
Construction Debris 1,453 11,730 12,742 25,925 9.20
Nonsampled Wastes 59 993 69,806 70,858 25.15
Tires 84 664 722 1,470 0.52
Ash 0 0 54,933 54,933 19.50
Sewage Sludge 40 239 122 401 0.14
Industrial Sludge 0 0 14,029 14,029 4.98
Medical Waste 0 90 0 90 0.03
Total 11.804 96,554 173,348 281,706 100.00
RDD/R17/014.51 2-22
F-
z
06-)a0 w
W 2
w
0 w
O
W 2v =
06-AON D.W t
JQ¢
E Q Iz
Zz<:.3c
rU
06-1D0N Q N z
D
' NaW LU
C� pa
06-d;S1—
I
i
�i
06-6ny
06-Inf
w
i c
06-unp
I
06—Aow
06-jdy
i
06—low
06-qal
�i w
z
06—uDF
0
C) 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 o m
0 0 C 0 0 o Q
C) o o U'N
M N N
n
JOVNNO1 N
cc
cc
0
I
Q
U
W ZZ
2 Om 2
sugaQ uoi}oni}suoo 2 F �
O W
C7
o E m g I
U.
02
Q 2
a}soM o uo6io Jagjo F" i S
Z
n0 � �� ,
® W W 6 2 z
s.ado Q aIgosods Q W ¢v
�
8 U)D
Ic
MHH
alsoM pooh T
0
0
U
a�
0
aIsoM pJD, 3
SDA
ssoJO
o}sold
jadod
w
z
o n o n o Ln o n o n o
N17
N
0
Iuaoaad
m
a
n
cm
N
� Q
1
I
a
v W Zi
o w
LU =
cn �3: cn N J
■ ❑ ® W
L U
Oaf
siagaQ uoilonu}suoo Q ¢ccz
cz
Z WOo
a}soM oiuo6i0 aay}o W o 0
W
cc CO ~ W U
� Qy
� saadoiQ algosodsiQ
� 3 loci
MHH
a}soM pooh
0
a
a}soM paoA 3
i
Plan
�I
ssoIO
)J}sold
I
aadod
w
z
D
o n o n o Ln o Ln o Ln o
.-
Cd
� O
� n
cm
,� N
WASTE TYPES TARGETED
BY SRRE PROGRAMS
The following list summarizes waste types currently disposed of in Shasta County that
are targets for diversion via source reduction, recycling, composting, or special waste
programs:
Paper: Plastics: Glass: '
Corrugated paper HDPE All types
Newspaper PET
Ledger paper Film
Mixed paper
Other paper
Metals: Other Organics: Yard Wastes
Aluminum cans Food
Ferrous metal
Nonferrous metal
Special Wastes: Construction Debris
Industrial sludge
Tires
White goods
Ash
These materials were selected based on two criteria:
1. Amount of waste type generated--Waste types that composed a large
fraction of the total waste stream were preferentially targeted for
diversion.
2. Cost of diversion--Waste types that could be diverted at a relatively low
cost (e.g., aluminum cans) were preferentially targeted for diversion.
Waste types not targeted for additional diversion either because they are too expensive
to divert or because they do not make up a large fraction of Shasta County's waste
stream are listed below:3
Plastics: Metals:
Other Tin and bimetal containers
Other Organics: Special Wastes:
Rubber Disposable diapers
Textiles Sewage sludge
Medical waste
3Some diversion may be occurring currently for these materials,but the materials are not the targets of any of the new SRRE
diversion programs.
RDD/R17/014.51 2-26
lI WASTE STREAM PROJECTIONS
Annual waste stream projections over the next 15 years were performed for:
• Current Conditions: The waste stream grows commensurate with popula-
tion growth, and no additional waste diversion programs are
implemented. Population growth estimates were taken from the
I, California Department of Finance, 1990.
• SRRE Conditions: The waste stream changes by implementation of
programs presented in this SRRE.
Tables 2-15 and 2-16 summarize estimated aggregate waste stream disposal by year for
Shasta County under current and SRRE conditions. Appendix B presents detailed
projections for waste generation, disposal, and diversion over the next 15 years.
i
I
RDD/R17/014.51 2-27
M a [- M a v'; N v'i 00 a 10 1) M N
N IO C 00 ^ O 00 00 a a w 'o ~
t- l- A 00 a O O N N M
N N N N N N N N M M M M co) M M
F p�
O O M v-, ,n cI N O 10 oc 00
v; M O �
oC% IC b 7 O N 10 V N M O D\ O Ic
V C Q\ -zt7 00 M [- C M `C 00 NM 'T�O [� a O N M v� �O [- 00
h v1 v1 10 b \o b Io b 10 r n r r r
U
N ' M [- N a "o
to 0q
c+1 O� O M v1 l0 00
o 'Ir 00 N \ C M r.-
W-1
� M �D
t F h � o r m oo a7 a a
QLa
V
C
E7 O N �o a .-i N v1 v1
E M o 0o r` a oo h r- M a ao ao
lC 00 a a �O 0` O a '. 00 M a
Y �2 R N O a [� -'Ta; 00 h N O� H N_ 00
M M M M M M M M M M M M V C' R
tn
U
C
U
NCL .� eo .. v1 N M v�-� O 000 O W) N M b
C O M W ? v� aq
Y N L C) N of DD O N ate. ^
v� F o o o '.
A � C
S
q v c a ao o va a v M h a o
Y 0p p r-
L. lC O0 a a0 N a to --� 00
7 � N00 et o, C o+ D\00 M a0 N
N N M M R Q h h b r F.-
04
�N N N N N N N N
U
M M
qC i
d y
7
m �O O vn 00 00 v) -IT In \0 It N a W) .ao a0
y n 00 r- v, h x a cc vn OcQ a o 0
' O n V .-1 O C C %o N 00
of O+ ON N M M � V1 v1
N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M
U
ti
Y °a O^ a N N N N N
a
2-28
00 M
C C D\ GC r V N o0 V O V^ [h 00 C� O
[- h V M M v1 (- O N
N N N
O
F N N C\ n \O V N W O C,
[� C,
cc '. M_ v, M_ N C N
V O0 V Cl. 00 V '.
M O b M v� Ln �O
O h h h V � V M M M M M M M M M
U
C S M vim, C+ w vi N aD V t�
M �O 0` M N N O C N M 00 rcn C,
F v oG o0
l-
O
C
C
III O V 00 N N vn 00 O N \O v, N
M 00 M C+
L M N
i
U U
� u �
% O O
-� a
O+ �eO� pp� M t� O M h N eh
N s C O N R b 00 O+ N R vii' M O 0M0' �O
u
F ON coNw) 00 10 M O [� 00 a O O
o n w, v, w, 'T V w,
F
A oa
6
ai N O S Mof
a h N W h N h O- M b
o h N 00 N 10 C, M [- Q, ': V .O 00
V-
0
0 OT 0 M
V S to O n O 'r N M V v1
O� 00 00 l- l� 10 IO IO 10 1O
I C
S
1 �O M O [� M �O G1 N v1 00 N O V V O
[� M C� V O M Y,> O M \O �O 'C �O v) v1
V O 00 h M .--� .. N N N v1 00 .-+ ' n
vi V M N O 42 00 l� [- [- W o0 w
i U
N
,I e. N M V v, 10 t� a0 ON to �
c� a a SS S S S S
N N N N N N N
N
2-29
II .
t
1
1
1
A
1
1
f
1
r
r
i
i
II
Chapter p 3
SOURCE REDUCTION
'j Source reduction is a front-end preventive approach to managing solid wastes. It is
recognized as the first priority of an integrated waste management plan. It focuses on
reversing the trend of increasing volumes of waste and emphasizes a reduction in the
amount of waste generated. Each year more waste is generated than the previous year,
and the rate continues to rise.
In addition, products are being developed with shorter useful life spans. Items that
cannot be reused or repaired are also growing in popularity. Source reduction includes
actions that promote increased product longevity, reuse, repair, and remanufacture.
Source reduction requires significant changes in production methods and consumption
resen-
i
i
C
tt
paerns. Cooperation s required from designers, manufacturers, marketing re
�I P
tatives, and consumers to make source reduction activities successful.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of source reduction is to minimize the quantity of solid waste generated. This
can be achieved by altering consumer behavior to purchase less and changing
' manufacturing practices to produce less. This goal can also be accomplished by
reducing the waste at the source of generation, such as backyard composting, before it
enters the waste stream.
SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES
Shasta County
1. Reduce use of nonrecyclable materials.
2. Replace disposable materials with reusable materials and products.
� 3. Reduce packaging.
II
4. Purchase repairable products.
5. Increase efficiency of use of materials in businesses and industries.
6. Reduce residential yard waste by 35 percent through backyard composting.
7. Develop and adopt a County ordinance or resolution establishing a waste reduc-
tion and recycling policy.
r
RDD/R24/023.51 3-1
J
8. Develop and implement
a source reduction education program targeting con-
sumers, stores, offices, and large generators of waste.
9. Develop and institute incentives for businesses to promote source reduction
activities.
10. Provide ongoing technical assistance and information to businesses and commer-
cial waste generators.
11. Develop and implement solid waste procurement policies and practices in which
preference is given to purchase of recyclable and reusable products.
Anderson
1. Reduce the use of nonrecyclable materials.
2. Replace disposable materials with reusable materials and products.
3. Reduce packaging.
4. Purchase repairable products.
5. Increase efficiency of use of materials in businesses and industries.
6. Reduce residential yard waste by 35 percent through backyard composting.
7. Support a Count ordinance or resolution establishing a waste reduction and
Y S
recycling policy.
8. Develop p and implement a source reduction education program targeting con-
sumers, stores, offices, and large generators of waste.
9. Develop and institute incentives s for businesses to promote source reduction
activities.
10. Provide ongoing technical assistance and information to businesses and commer-
cial waste generators.
11. Develop and implement solid waste procurement policies and practices in which
preference is given to purchase of recyclable and reusable products.
Redding -
1. Reduce the use of nonrecyclable materials.
2. Replace disposable materials w1
th reusable materials and products.
RDD/R24/023.51 3-2
3. Reduceacka in .
P g g
4. Purchase repairable products.
5. Increase efficiency of use of materials in businesses and industries.
li
' 6. Reduce residential yard waste by 35 percent through backyard composting.
7. Support a County ordinance or resolution establishing a waste reduction and
recycling policy.
j8. Develop and implement a source reduction education program targeting con-
i ! sumers, stores, offices, and large generators of waste.
9. Develop and institute incentives for businesses to promote source reduction
activities.
10. Provide ongoing technical assistance and information to businesses and commer-
cial waste generators.
11. Develop and implement solid waste procurement policies and practices in which
preference is given to purchase of recyclable and reusable products.
II MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES
i
Shasta County
1. Reduce residential yard waste by 35 percent.
2. Continue with a backyard composting program.
3. Continue source reduction education and public information programs.
r 4. Review procurement and waste management policies in order to remain current
with new products and technology.
5. Monitor state and national source reduction legislation.
� 6. Study the feasibility and impact of developing land use/zoningordinances that
encourage source reduction.
7. Continue providing technical assistance and information to waste generators.
RDD/R24/023.51 3-3
I
Anderson
1. Reduce residential yard waste by 35 percent.
2. Continue with a backyard composting program.
3. Continue source reduction education and public information programs. I
4. Review procurement and waste management policies in order to remain current
with new products and technology.
5. Monitor state and national source reduction legislation.
6. Study the feasibility of developing land use/zoning ordinances that encourage
source reduction.
7. Continue providing technical assistance and information to waste generators.
Redding
1. Reduce residential yard waste by 35 percent.
2. Continue with a backyard composting program.
3. Continue source reduction education and public information programs.
4. Review procurement and waste management policies in order to remain current '
with new products and technology.
5. Monitor state and national source reduction legislation.
6. Study the feasibility of developing land use/zoning ordinances that encourage
source reduction.
7. Continue providing technical assistance and information to waste generators.
TARGETED MATERIALS
Targeted materials for source reduction include w
g yard waste, mixed paper, other paper,
film plastic, and food. Currently, these materials account for approximately 25 percent
of Shasta County's total waste stream.
The 1995 and 2000 goals for source reduction in the waste stream are summarized in p
Tables 3-1 through 3-4. These reductions will be difficult to,measure and quantify �1
because they are expected as a result of less product packaging, altered consumers
habits, and reducing waste generation at the source.
RDD/R24/023.51 3-4
r
Table 3-1
Source Reduction
Shasta County
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Percent of Material Percent of Material
Targeted Waste Reduction Waste Reduction
�i Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
II Mixed Paper 289 0.1 10 785 0.4 25
Other Paper 1,109 0.6 10 3,011 1.4 25
Film Plastic 355 0.2 10 965 0.4 25
Yard Waste 4,425 2.2 35 4,805 2.2 35
Food 981 0.5 10 3,728 1.7 35
Total 7,159 3.6 13,294 6.1
Table 3-2
Source Reduction
City of Anderson
it Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Percent of Material Percent of Material
Targeted Waste Reduction Waste Reduction
Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
j r Mixed Paper 31 0.2 10 84 0.6 25
Other Paper 127 1.0 10 350 2.4 25
'I Film Plastic 40 0.3 10 111 0.8 25
Yard Waste 485 3.7 35 537 3.7 35
Food 108 0.8 10 416 2.8 35
Total 791 6.0 1,498 10.3
I
I
�� RDD/R24/023.51 3-5
Table 3-3
Source Reduction
City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Percent of Material Percent of Material
Targeted Waste Reduction Waste Reduction
Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%) I
Mixed Paper 244 0.2 10 663 0.6 25
Other Paper 1,021 0.9 10 2,771 2.3 25
Film Plastic 328 0.3 10 890 0.7 25
Yard Waste 1,259 1.1 10 1,368 1.1 10
Food 903 0.8 10 3,432 2.9 35
Total 3,755 3.3 9,124 7.6
Table 3-4
Source Reduction
Estimated Diversion Totals
1995 2000
Percent of Percent of
Waste Waste
Jurisdiction Tons Stream Tons Stream
Anderson 791 6.0 1,498 10.3
Redding ,
3,755 3.3 9,124 7.6
Shasta County 7,159 3.6 13,294 6.1
Total 11,705 3.6 23,916 6.8
RDD/R24/023.51 3-6
I'
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are no identifiable source reduction programs in Shasta County, Anderson, or
'
Redding at this time. No formal backyard composting programs exist in Shasta
County,
Anderson, or Redding.
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS
i
This section identifies and evaluates alternative source reduction programs needed to
!� achieve the source reduction objectives. Four categories have been identified:
• Rate Structure Modifications
• Economic Incentives
• Technical Assistance, Instruction, and Promotional Activities
i
• Regulatory Programs
d RATE STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
I
The volume-based rates are as follows:
Variable Can System--This program would be based on a garbage collec-
tion system using a subscribed service level (i.e., one can, two cans, etc.)
with the full cost of service appearing on the customer's garbage bill.
The program would be flexible in terms of incremental pricing of can
� service levels.
II
Bag-Tag System--This program would consist of a garbage collection
system based on the customer paying for the actual service used.
Weight-Based Rates--As part of this program, customers would pay based
on the amount of waste they generate. Rates would be designed with a
separate monthly customer charge to recover fixed costs and a per-pound
' charge based on the amount of waste generated.
Effectiveness. Rate structure modifications would provide direct financial incentives for
residential, commercial, and industrial generators to reduce the amount of their waste.
An effective program would be to combine a rate structure modification with curbside
or dropoff recycling. As the fees increase, the participation in the recycling and source
reduction programs would increase. Studies have demonstrated that volume-based rate
systems are effective at reducing the amount of waste disposed.
RDD/R24/02351 3-7
J
Hazard. There are no hazards with this alternative. Illegal dumping could occur if
rates were increased past a certain point.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative is adaptable and can accommodate
changing conditions.
Consequences eq on the Waste Stream. The rate structure modifications would result in
higher participation in recycling, backyard composting, composting, and source
reduction programs. The waste stream should have a reduction in the amount of glass,
cans, food, yard waste, paper, cardboard, and metals going to the landfill.
Implementation Period. The rate changes could be made during the short-term
planning period. A rate increase would be more acceptable after the recycling,
composting, and source reduction programs were in place. These programs could also
be implemented during the short-term planning period.
Facility Requirements. No facilities are required to implement a rate structure
modification.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. The rate structure modifications are
consistent with the County and cities' policy for reduction of waste. The modifications
do not conflict with current waste disposal plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. Rate structure modifications could be implemented for
Anderson, Redding, and the portions of Shasta County that are served by a refuse
hauler. Changing the rate structure at the landfill for self-hauls would be more difficult
to implement and monitor.
Estimated Cost. The cost involved in a weight-based system would include modifying
current equipment for acquiring new equipment to have an automated data collection
system that records enough information to send a customer an accurate bill. Estimates
range between $7/year and $10/year per household to change from the current flat rate
monthly fee to a pay-by-weight system in the City of Redding. The City of Anderson
and portions of the unincorporated area of the County will implement a bag-tag
system. There would be no additional cost of instituting this program; existing
equipment would be used.
End Uses for Diverted Materials. This is not applicable to rate structure modifications. '
ECONOMIC INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE ALTERNATIVES
• Business License Fees--This program could include reduced license fees for
businesses with source reduction and recycling programs.
• Low Interest Loan Incentives--This program would provide low interest loans to
manufacturers using a certain percentage of postconsumer recycled materials.
Y
RDD/R24/023.51 3-8
I;
j Low interest loans could also be provided to source reduction businesses, such
j as thrift stores and repair shops.
• Jurisdictional Lobbying for Economic Incentives/Disincentives--This program
would include lobbying the state to impose fees on excessive packaging, lobbying
the state to impose a fee on virgin materials, and lobbying the state to offer tax
credits to industry for upgrading plants in order to reduce waste generation.
• Packaging Incentives--An ordinance could be enacted offering incentives for
using recycled materials for product packaging.
Effectiveness. The effectiveness of economic incentives and disincentives is difficult to
determine for cities and counties. These programs would be more effective on a state
j or national level.
Hazard. There are no hazards with this alternative.
i � Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative could be easily changed or modified
to accommodate changes in technology.
i
Consequences on the Waste Stream. If economic incentives and disincentives were
implemented and a reduction in excessive packaging occurred, there would be less
paper and plastic in the waste stream.
i
Implementation Period. Business license fees, jurisdictional lobbying, and packaging
incentives could be implemented in the short-term planning period. Low interest loan
incentives could only be implemented if funds were available for the loans.
Facility Requirements. No new facilities are required for this alternative.
i
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. Implementation of this alternative would
require changes to current plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. The incentives and disincentives would need to be approved by
if the City Council or the Board of Supervisors and would require public hearings. This
,I could be a lengthy and time-consuming process.
Estimated Cost. The cost of reducing business license fees could be lost revenue to the
city. The cost of the low interest loan incentive would depend on the cost of funds to
the jurisdiction and the interest rate provided on the loans. The cost involved in
jurisdictional lobbying would be staff time to monitor legislation. The cost of enacting
an ordinance would be staff time for preparing the ordinance and also for monitoring
the program.
p' RDD/R24/023.51 3-9
MI
End Uses of Diverted Materials. This is not applicable to this alternative.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND
PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
• Master Composting Program--This program would provide brochures on
backyard composting; make compost bins available upon request; hold
community workshops; provide demonstrations; and make technical assistance
available for any questions or problems.
• Waste Exchange--This program would provide a location for residents or
businesses to deposit items that are being discarded. Items such as furniture,
appliances, books, and equipment could be left and then would be available for
reuse by another resident or business.
• Waste Audits--This program would consist of providing waste stream evaluations
and waste reduction recommendation to commercial and indu-trial waste
generators. Waste audits would be similar to energy audits; the amount of
waste being generated would be calculated, and ways of reducing the waste
would be proposed.
• Public Awareness--This program may include mailing the County's procurement
and waste management policy to local firms for use as a model, providing
reusable product information, conducting resident and business source reduction
workshops, providing a speakers bureau, and providing source reduction
brochures for consumers.
• Recognition and Awards--This program would recognize and provide awards to
residents, businesses, and industries with source reduction programs. Awards
could be given on the basis of new and innovative ideas, large reductions in
volume, cost savings, or number of programs instituted.
Effectiveness. The program having the most potential for effectiveness would be a
Master Composting Program. A backyard composting program with a high
participation rate could be effective in reducing yard waste and fruit and vegetable
waste. The effectiveness of a waste exchange, waste audits, public awareness, and
recognition and awards is difficult to assess until the programs are implemented and
monitored.
Hazard. No hazards would be created by implementation of these alternatives.
Ability to Accommodate Change. All of the programs are adaptable to changing
conditions and could be modified to accommodate changes in technology and the waste
stream.
�I
r
d
RDD/R24/023.51 3-10
r
I
it
I�
Consequences on the Waste Stream. With the implementation of a backyard
composting program, a reduction should occur in yard waste and fruit and vegetable
waste.
Implementation Period. These programs can be implemented in the short-term
planning period.
Facility Requirements. No new facilities are required for this alternative.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. Backyard composting would need to be
I ' coordinated with the city and County health departments. The waste exchange, waste
audits, public awareness, and awards programs are consistent with local plans and
policies.
I � Institutional Barriers. There are no institutional barriers to this alternative.
Estimated Cost. The majority of costs to these programs would be staff time. The
i ' master composting program, waste exchange, waste audits, awareness, and awards
programs may require additional staff.
I � End Uses of Diverted Materials. This is not applicable to the alternative.
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
,i Procurement/Waste Management Policy--This program could include purchasing
' recyclable products that meet state and/or federal requirements for recycled
content; encouraging departments to implement source reduction activities such
as using ceramic mugs, electronic mail, double-sided copying, reusing scrap
paper for scratch pads, reducing mailing and distribution lists, using more
durable and repairable equipment, and using reusable items for food service;
establishing purchasing requirements and specifications that favor recyclability,
' reusability, and durability; requiring that vendors submit bids and requests for
proposals on double-sided paper and/or recycled-content paper; and adopting an
ordinance establishing a source reduction policy.
I
• Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances--This program may include encouraging
development of thrift stores and repair shops (for durable consumer goods, such
1 41 as appliance repairs, shoe repairs, etc.) through relaxation of zoning and
permitting requirements; requiring new commercial and multifamily
developments to include storage area for recycling facilities; and relaxing zoning
requirements to allow for onsite composting in commercial developments and
vacant lots.
'' RDD/R24/023.51 3-11
Effectiveness. The effectiveness of this alternative would depend on the regulations
adopted by each jurisdiction, the education effort required for participation in the '
programs, and the staff available for enforcement of the programs.
Hazard. The regulatory alternatives would not present a hazard. '
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative is adaptable to changing conditions.
Policies and ordinances can be modified to accommodate new technology or changes in
consumer behavior.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative could result in a reduction in '
paper (electronic mail, double-sided copying, scratch pads), and paper and plastic
(reduced packaging, reduced use of disposable items).
Implementation Period. This alternative could be implemented during the short-term
planning period. However, public hearings would be required for adoption of new
regulations, and the approval process could become lengthy if opposition occurs. ,
Facility Requirements. No new facilities are required for this alternative.
Requirements for this alternative may be additional staff. I
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This alternative does not conflict V. JR
existing plans and policies. This alternative involves developing new policies in addition '
to existing plans and ordinances.
Institutional Barriers. Adoption of new planning and zoning ordinances would require
approval of city and County planning commissions and adoption by the City Councils
and Board of Supervisors.
Estimated Cost. The cost to this :ernative would be staff time in preparing policies
es
and ordinances, educating the residents and businesses, and enforcing the adopted
regulations. ,
End Uses of Diverted Materials. This is not applicable to this alternative.
Each alternative was evaluated and ranked for diversion potential. The Evaluation of
Alternative forms are in Appendix B. The results of the evaluation are presented in ,
Table 3-5.
RDD/R24/023.51 3-12
� 1
i
Table 3-5
i
Summary of Source Reduction Alternatives Evaluation
Category Ranking Diversion Potential Points Assigned
Rate Structure Modification
I
1. Variable can rate 6 High 44
2. Bag-tag system 5 High 47
3. Weight-based rate/residential 4 High 46
II Economic Incentive/Disincentive
4. Lobbying efforts 2 High 50
i
5. Business license fees 11 Moderate 40
I ' 6. Low interest loans 12 Low 39
7. Packaging incentives 13 Low 38
Technical Assistance, Instructional,and Promotional
8. Master composting 7 Moderate 46
9. Public awareness program 1 High 52
i
10. Waste audits 3 High 49
11. Waste exchange 10 Moderate 41
Regulatory
12. Procurement/waste 8 High 45
management policies
1 13. Land use planning zoning 9 Moderate 42
ordinances
i
SELECTION OF SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM
The following alternatives were selected for source reduction:
SHASTA COUNTY
Short-Term Planning Period
1. Bag-Tag System
2. Jurisdictional Lobbying
' 3. Master Backyard Composting
4. Public Awareness Programs
5. Procurement/Waste Management Policies
i
I
I' ' RDD/R24/023.51 3-13
r
Medium-Term Planning Period
r
1. Waste Audits
2. Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances
ANDERSON r
Short-Term Planning Period ,
1. Bag-Tag System
2. Jurisdictional Lobbying
3. Master Backyard Composting
4. Public Awareness Programs
5. Procurement/Waste Management Policies '
Medium-Term Planning Period
1. Waste Audits r
2. Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances
REDDING
Short-Term Planning Period
1. Pay-for-Weight
2. Jurisdictional Lobbying
3. Master Backyard Composting
4. Public Awareness Programs '
5. Procurement/Waste Management Policies
Medium-Term Planning Period
1. Waste Audits
2. Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances '
Quantity-Based User Fees. The bag-tag and pay-for-weight systems were selected to
promote participation by the residents in the source reduction, recycling, and compos-
ting programs. Charging fees based on the amount of waste generated will promote
awareness and reduction of waste.
Jurisdictional Lobbying. This alternative was selected because the appropriate place r
to set packaging standards is at the state and federal level. The cities' and County's
role would be to follow state and national legislation, and to lobby not only for changes
in packaging standards, but also for a means of funding local source reduction r
programs.
r
RDD/R24/023.51 3-14 '
I
Master Backyard Composting. A reduction in yard waste and fruit and vegetable waste
could be accomplished through backyard composting. The master composting program
will offer residents advice on backyard composting. Backyard composting programs
involve residents developing a compost pile on their property to reduce yard wastes and
fruit and vegetable wastes. This type of program reduces the volume of waste requiring
disposal, and therefore, collection and handling costs associated with that portion of the
waste stream are eliminated. Backyard composting can be encouraged by supplying
residents with information on how and what to compost, through demonstration proj-
ects and community workshops, or by providing a compost receptacle and a compost
i ' lesson.
' Public Awareness. This alternative was selected because educational efforts are the
most cost-effective means of achieving source reduction diversion goals. The long-term
solution to source reduction and waste management is to change purchasing habits of
residents and businesses. Public awareness efforts will include conducting resident and
business source reduction workshops, providing a speakers bureau, and providing
II source reduction brochures for consumers.
Procurement/Waste Management Policies. A policy for waste management is necessary
' to provide guidance in promoting source reduction. The cities and the County should
take the lead and be model for promoting the purchase of useable, repairable, and
recyclable products. Purchasing practices should take into consideration extending the
' useful life of materials, products, and packaging, and determine whether the waste type
is recyclable.
Waste Audits. This alternative was selected to assist schools, businesses, and manufac-
turers in identifying materials to be targeted for source reduction and recycling. The
waste audits are an opportunity for education on waste management practices, and they
also provide a means for potential cost savings with reduced disposal fees.
I �
Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances. This alternative was selected to encourage
development of source reduction businesses, such as thrift shops and repair stores, to
encourage new building design to include storage areas for recycling bins, and to allow
composting projects in residential and/or commercial areas.
Tables 3-6 through 3-8 summarize the diversion objectives for each of the source
reduction programs.
ry ,I
RDD/R24/023.51 3-15
I
Table 3-6
Diversion Objectives by '
Source Reduction Program for Shasta County
Percent of Percent of
Total Waste Total Waste '
Diversion Goal Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Bag-Tag System 1,432 0.7 2,659 1.2
Jurisdictional Lobbying 716 0.4 1,329 0.6
Master-Backyard 1,432 0.7 2,659 1.2 '
Composting s.
Public Awareness 1,074 0.5 1,994 0.9
Programs
Waste Audits 715 0.4 1,329 0.6
Procurement/Waste 1,074 0.5 1,994 0.9
Managing Policies ,
Land UsePlanning/ 716 0.4 1,330 0.7
Zoning Oidnances
Source Reduction Totals 7,159 3.6 13,294 6.1
Table 3-7 ,
Diversion Objectives by Source Reduction Program
for the City of Redding
Percent of
Percent of Tota'. Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000) '
Pay-For-Weight 751 0.7 1,825 1.5
System
Jurisdictional 376 0.3 912 0.8 1
Lobbying
Master-Backyard 751 0.7 1,825 1.5
Composting
Public Awareness 563 0.5 1 1,369 1.1
Programs I I
Waste Audits 375 0.3 912 0.8
Procurement/Waste 563 0.5 1,369 1.1
Managing Policies
Land Use Planning/ 376 0.3 912 0.8
Zoning Ordnances
Source Reduction 3,755 3.3 9,124 7.6
Totals
RDD/R24/023.51 3-16 '
i
� e
Table 3-8
Diversion Objectives by Source Reduction Program
for the City of Anderson
i
Percent of
j Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Bag-Tag System 158 1.2 300 2.1
i
Jurisdictional 79 0.6 150 1.0
Lobbying
ij Master-Backyard 158 1.2 300 2.1
Composting
Public Awareness 119 0.9 225 1.5
;
Programs
Waste Audits 79 0.6 150 1.0
j Procurement/Waste 119 0.9 225 1.5
Managing Policies
Land Use Planning/ 79 0.6 148 1.0
Zoning Ordnances
' Source Reduction 791 6.0 1,498 10.3
Totals
Types of Waste to be Source Reduced
The types of wastes that are expected to be diverted through the source reduction
programs include:
APackaging materials, including paper and plastic
1 Single-use items, including disposable cups, plates, and silverware and
disposable diapers
' Paper, including grocery bags, junk mail, and copy paper
• Yard waste and food waste, including fruit and vegetable waste
' The targeted materials, diversion estimates by program and waste type for short-term
and medium-term planning period, and percentage contributed to 25 and 50 percent
reduction goals are shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3.
RDD/R24/023.51 3-17
End Uses for Diverted Materials. End users are not applicable to the rate structure
modifications, economic incentives, public awareness, and regulatory programs. The
end users of the backyard composting program are the residents who are composting.
Methods for Handling Materials. This is not applicable to the source reduction
alternatives.
Facilities Needed. No new facilities are required for implementation of the sou:-_. ,
reduction programs.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ,
Shasta County. The Director of Public Works will be responsible for implementing
source reduction programs.
Anderson. The Director of Public Works will be responsible for implementing
source reduction programs.
Redding. The Director of General Services will be responsible for implementing the
source reduction programs. ,
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND TASKS
The tasks necessary for implementation and the schedule for the short-term ar:_
medium-term planning periods are shown in Table 3-9.
COSTS AND REVENUES '
The costs involved in implementation of the source reduction programs are shown in
Tables 3-10, 3-11, and 3-12. No revenues are expected to be generated from these
programs. ,
Funds to cover the costs projected for these programs w? De from the following
sources: '
• City of Redding Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Fund
• County of Shasta Solid Waste Enterprise Fund ,
Chapter 9 presents a detailed funding discussion.
;DD/R24/023.51 3-18
I �
I' Table 3-9
Source Reduction Implementation Schedule
Shasta County.Anderson,and Redding
Medium-Term
Short-Term
1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Tasks
' Policy(Shasta County.Anderson,and Redding)
Procurement/Waste Management
Review purchasing practices
Mahe recommendations for source
reductionhvaste management policies
Adopt policy
' • Notifv vendors _
• Educate employees
Land Use Planning/Zoning ordinances(Shasta County.Anderson.and Redding)
No tifv political body,business groups of
_
need for regulaton changes
iDevelop land use master plan and source
reduction element
+� Develop land use zoning requirements
for composting/source reduction
Revise zoning code to require recycling
i
it facilities
II . Develop/implement monitoring/evaluation
system _
Adopt land use zoning requirements for
i ' composting/source reduction
Develop/adopt illegal dumping ordinance
Jurisdictional Lobbying(Shasta County.Anderson,and Redding)
Conduct lobbying efforts
' Monitor results of lobbving efforts
County.Anderson.and Redding)
public Awareness Program(Shasta
Determine scope of activities,audience, _
L , and timelines
Hire Solid Waste Recycling Coordinator
to plan activities _
Hire/train staff/volunteers
Implement campaign
Develop/implement evaluation
monitoring system
Refine materials/program
9
3-19
RDD/R24/023.51
Table 3-9
Source Reduction Implementation Schedule
Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding
Short-Term Medium-Term
Tasks 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ,
�(3
Bag-Tag System (Shasta County and Anderson)
,
•
I
Notify customers of service
• Implement program
Pay-for-Weight System(Redding)
• Obtain equipment '
• Change billing sv_stem
• Train personnel
• Start collection
Master Composting Program(Shasta County,Anderson,and Redding) ,
• Review existing programs to select
method
• Develop materials
• Develop public information program
• Train volunteers ,
• Implement selected program
• Monitor and evaluate program
• Revise program
Waste Audits(Shasta County,Anderson,and Redding) '
• Develop format for audit
• Train staff/volunteers to perform audits
• Identify targets for audits '
• Perform audits
• Monitor and evaluate program
RDD/R24/02351 3-20 '
i �
Table 3-10
Source Reduction Programs
Costs and Revenue
,i Shasta County
Annual
Capital Costs O&M Costs
Program ($) ($)
I ' Procurement/Waste Management Policy 5,000 0
Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinance 5,000 0
Jurisdictional Lobbying 0 10,000
Public Awareness Programa 0 0
Bag-Tag System 0 15,000
Master Composting Program 0 15,000
I � Waste Audits' 0 0
i
aThese costs are included in Chapter 7, Education and Public Information.
l
I
i
i
Table 3-11
Source Reduction Programs
' Costs and Revenue
Anderson
Capital
Costs Annual O&M Costs
Program ($) ($)
Procurement/Waste Management Policy 600 0
i ' Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinance 600 0
Jurisdictional Lobbying 0 1,200
q
I� Public Awareness Programa 0 0
N Bag-Tag System 0 2,000
Master Composting Program 0 1,000
I
Waste Auditsa 0 0
'These costs are included in Chapter 7, Education and Public Information.
RDD/R24/023.51 3-21
Table 3-12
Source Reduction Programs
Costs and Revenue
Redding
Capital Annual
Costs O&M Costs
Program ($) ($)
Procurement/Waste Management Policy 4,500 0
Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinance 4,500 0
Jurisdictional Lobbying 0 9,000
Public Awareness Program f) 0
Pay-for-Weight System 54,t00 50,000 1st year
25,000 thereafter
Master Composting Program 0 5,000 '
Waste Audits 0 0
aAssumes capital costs are incurred in fiscal year 1994 and are financed at 10 percent interest over
5 years.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The method that will be used by Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding to monitor the
source reductions and evaluate the compliance with mandated diversion requirements
includes the following:
• Waste generation studies to be conducted every 2 years (1992, 1994,
1996, 1998, 2000)
• Annual surveys
• Targeted solid waste characterization studies. ,
The written criteria for evaluation include:
• What percentage of the residents are participating in a backyard
composting program?
• How many workshops were conducted?
• Has the amount of yard waste in the waste stream decreased? ,
RDD/R24/023.51 3-22
Has a source reduction policy been adopted by the Cities and the
County?
• Has the amount of recyclable materials increased?
How many businesses have adopted source reduction and recycling
policies?
Has a public awareness program been implemented?
• Has the amount of disposable items in the waste stream decreased?
• Has state or federal legislation been adopted that addresses packaging
requirements?
�I Based on data from these criteria, estimated diversion amounts will be derived and
compared to the goals stated in Tables 3-7 through 3-9.
The persons responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting include:
• Shasta County--Director of Public Works
• Anderson--Director of Public Works
• Redding--Director of General Services
The funding requirements for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting would include staff
i for the waste generation studies, waste characterization studies, surveys, and record-
keeping.
' The contingency measures that would be adopted if the objectives and diversion goals
were not met include:
• Increase staffing
• Expand the programs
• Consider fines for noncompliance
i
J
i
i
i ,
RDD/R24/023.51 3-23
7
t
Chapter 4
RECYCLING
The states first priority for waste management is source reduction, which is generating
less waste. The secondP Y recycling,riorit is rec clip , which turns materials back into the
economy. Recycling also preserves landfill capacity and generates revenues from the
1 sale of materials.
:I The recyclable portions of the waste stream for Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding
are approximately 30 percent, including cardboard, newspaper, ledger paper, glass,
!'I HPDE, PET plastic, aluminum cans, ferrous and nonferrous metal, wood, and
construction debris. The purpose of this component is to increase the amount of
materials recycled. To achieve this increase, changes are required in the waste
handling system and also in the resident's consumption and disposal behaviors. The
proposed program includes a public information and education program to achieve
participation, a collection system to retrieve recyclables, and a marketing plan to place
the recyclables after collection.
, i
? GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of recycling is to divert or recover materials from the waste stream that can
be remade into new products.
I � SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (1991-1995)
Shasta County
1. Establish a residential curbside collection program.
2. Place dropoff containers at transfer stations located at Shingletown, Round
'J Mountain, Lakehead, Buckeye, French Gulch, Old Shasta, Platina, Burney, and
q ' Fall River Mills.
{ 3. Place dropoff containers at the landfills.
4. Encourage private sector haulers to develop a materials recovery facility to pro-
cess recyclables.
5. Establish a commercial collection program for beverage containers, including
bars and restaurants.
d
� ' RDD/R 16/003.51 4-1
6. Provide assistance to P rivate sector haulers in settingu office paper a er and card- ,
P
board recycling programs.
7. Develop recycling clingPro rams in schools.
g
8. Establish an education and public information program to promote participation
in recycling programs.
9. Encourage the use of private recycling companies for marketing recyclable
materials.
Anderson
1. Establish a residential curbside collection program. '
2. Encourage private sector hauler to develop a materials recovery facility to pro-
cess recyclables. ,
3. Establish a commercial collection program for beverage containers, including
bars and restaurants.
4. Provide assistance to private sector hauler in setting up office paper and card-
board recycling programs.
5. Develop recycling programs in schools.
6. Establish an education and public information program to promote recycling.
7. Encourage the use of private recycling companies for marketing recyclable '
materials.
Redding
1. Establish a citywide residential curbside collection program.
2. Develop a materials recovery facility to process recYclables from residences and
businesses.
3. Expand the office paper and cardboard recycling programs.
4. Establish a commercial collection program for beverage containers, including
bars and restaurants.
5. Develop a marketing plan for recyclable materials using private recycling
companies.
i
RDD/R16/003.51 4-2 '
I
6. gPro Expand recycling rams in schools.
P Y g
I � 7. Expand the education and public information program promoting recycling.
,j MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES (1996-2000)
Shasta County
I ' 1. Increase participation in curbside, dropoff, office paper, cardboard, and bever-
age container collection programs.
2. Research markets and develop recycling programs for mixed paper.
3. Encourage increased recovery of recyclable materials from the landfills.
i
Anderson
1. Increase participation in curbside, office paper, cardboard, and beverage con-
tainer collection programs.
I � 2. Research markets and develop recycling programs for mixed paper.
Redding
1. Increase participation in curbside, office paper, cardboard, and beverage con-
tainer collection programs.
2. Separate mixed paper from waste stream. Research uses and develop markets
for mixed paper.
3. Increase recovery of recyclable materials from the landfill.
The 1995 and 2000 diversion goals for Shasta County, Anderson and Redding are
shown in Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4.
i
RDD/R16/003.51 4-3
i
Table 4-1
Recycling
Shasta County
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeteii Targeted
Percent Material Percent Material '
Targeted of Waste Reduction of Waste Reduction
Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
Newspaper 3,522 1.8 50 5,738 2.7 75 ,
Corrugated 8,338 4.2 50 13,583 6.3 75
Cardboard
Ledger Paper 250 0.1 25 543 0.3 50
PET Plastics 73 <0.1 25 158 0.1 50
HDPE Plastic 381 0.2 25 827 0.4 50
CA 1,253 0.6 40 2,551 1.2 75
Redemption
Glass
Other 1,486 0.7 40 3,025 1.4 75 '
Recyclable
Glass
Aluminum 709 0.4 65 888 0.4 75
Cans
Ferrous Metal 2,310 1.2 40 4,705 2.2 75
Nonferrous 227 0.1 55 1,600 0.7 65
Metal
Construction 5,117 2.6 25 9,526 4.4 60
Debris
Total 23,666 11.9 43,144 20.1
RDD/R16/003.51 4-4 '
1
I '
Table 4-2
j Recycling
City of Anderson
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Percent Material Percent Material
Targeted of Waste Reduction of Waste Reduction
Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
Newspaper 402 3.0 50 666 4.6 75
Corrugated 922 7.0 50 1,528 10.5 75
Cardboard
Ledger Paper 29 0.2 25 64 0.4 50
PET Plastics 8 0.1 25 19 0.1 50
HDPE Plastic 44 0.3 25 96 0.7 50
CA 138 1.0 40 285 2.0 75
Redemption
Glass
Other 163 1.2 40 338 2.3 75
Recyclable
Glass
Aluminum 78 0.6 65 99 0.7 75
Cans
Ferrous Metal 241 1.8 40 500 3.4 75
Nonferrous 137 1.0 55 179 1.2 65
Metal
Construction 400 3.0 25 1,065 7.3 60
Debris
Total 2,562 19.2 4,839 33.2
I �
d
RDD/R16/003.51 4-5
1
Table 4-3
Recycling
City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Percent Material Percent Material '
Targeted of Waste Reduction of Waste Reduction
Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
Newspaper 3,243 2.9 50 5,282 4.4 75
Corrugated 7,532 6.8 50 12,269 10.2 75
Cardboard
Ledger Paper 230 0.2 25 499 0.4 50 ,
PET Plastics 67 0.1 25 145 0.1 50
HDPE Plastic 358 0.3 25 778 0.6 50
CA 1,154 1.0 40 2,349 2.0 75
Redemption
Glass
Other 1,368 1.2 40 2,785 2.3 75
Recyclable
Glass '
Aluminum f 652 0.6 65 818 0.7 75
Cans
Ferrous Metal 2,024 1.8 40 4,121 3.4 75
Nonferrous 1,148 1.0 55 1,473 1.2 65
Metal ,
Construction 3,365 3.0 25 8,769 7.3 60
Debris
Total 21,141 18.9 39,288 32.6
Table 4-4 i
Estimated Diversion Totals
Recycling '
1995 2000
Percent of Percent of
Jurisdiction Tons Waste Stream Tons Waste Stream
Anderson 2,562 19.2 4,839 33.2
Redding 21,141 18.9 39,288 32.6
Shasta County 23,666 11.9 43,144 20.1
Total 47,369 14.4 87,271 25.0
RDD/R16/003.51 4-6
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As part of the Waste Generation Study, existing recycling centers and programs
throughout Shasta County were identified. There are three major certified recycling
centers in Shasta County. These centers buy newspaper, cardboard, computer paper,
white paper, PET and HDPE plastic, glass, metals, and white goods. In 1990 all
�I materials recycled in the County were processed through one of the three recycling
centers.
SHASTA COUNTY AND ANDERSON
One hauler, Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal, serves the major part of the unincorpor-
ated area of the County and also the City of Anderson. Its service area includes
I approximately 12,600 residences. Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal started a curbside
� recycling program in February 1991. Since this program was started in 1991, the
volumes are not included in the Waste Generation Study, which was based on
January 1 through December 31, 1990. Each residence was given three bins, one each
for glass bottles and jars; plastic containers and aluminum and tin cans; and
newspapers. Prior to starting the service, Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal mailed flyers
to its customers announcing the start of the curbside recycling service. In addition,
articles were published in the local papers announcing the program and describing the
details. Table 4-5 shows the tons collected during the first 3 months of service.
i
Table 4-5
Curbside Recycling Program
Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal Service
February-April 1991
i�
(tons)
Material Shasta County Anderson Total
II �' Glass 70 10 80
Plastic and cans 32 4 36
1 � Newspaper 150 20 170
Total 252 34 286
The collected materials are sold to a company in Marin County. Anderson-
Cottonwood Disposal estimates that the recycling program will reduce the amount it
sends to the landfill by approximately 13 to 14 percent, and the company plans to con-
tinue and expand its program.
� r
RDD/R16/003.51 4-7
� i
1
I�
REDDING
The City of Redding received a Department of Conservation grant in 1990 for a pilot
curbside recycling program. The pilot program involves 2,500 residents in seven neigh-
borhoods throughout the city. The program started in November 1990, with residents
receiving three bins, one each for glass and plastic; aluminum cans; and newspaper.
The City of Redding mailed flyers to all residents involved in the pilot program prior to
the start, and articles were also published in the newspaper. The City also established ,
a Recycling Block Volunteer program, and a monthly newsletter was published.
Table 4-6 shows the tons collected during the first 6 months of service.
Table 4-6
Pilot Residential Curbside Recycling Program
Redding
Tons Collected
November 1990 Through
Material May 1991
Glass 47.0
Aluminum 2.0
PET 1.0
HDPE 1.0
Cardboard 0.3
Newspaper 120.0
Total 171.3 ,
The collected materials are sold to one of the local recycling companies based on the
highest bid. The City of Redding estimates that a citywide recycling program would
reduce the tonnage sent to the landfill by approximately 12 to 15 percent.
The City of Redding also has a pilot project for recycling cardboard, white paper, and ,
computer paper. The City picks up these materials from schools, public agencies, and
businesses. For the first 6 months of 1991, the City picked up 14 tons of white paper,
3 tons of computer paper, and 98 tons of cardboard. The collected materials are sold
to one of the local recycling companies.
PRIVATE RECYCLING COMPANIES
Three recycling centers are available for businesses or residents who want to turn in ,
their own recyclables:
RDD/R16/003.51 4-8 '
• Big Foot Recycling. Accepts aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic con-
tainers that are marked "California Redemption Value," newspapers, and
cardboard.
Clayton Ward. Accepts cardboard (including cereal boxes and dog food
bags), aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic containers (including milk,
soap, and bottled water containers), office paper, and computer paper.
I ' Short's Scrap Iron and Metal. Accepts most metals, including tin, iron,
brass, aluminum, copper, and car bodies. Also accepts aluminum and tin
cans, glass bottles, plastic containers that are marked "California
Redemption Value," newspaper, cardboard, office paper, and computer
paper.
The total amount of waste diverted through recycling is shown in Table 4-7, 1990
Recycling - Shasta County.
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives were identified and evaluated for the three jurisdictions for residential and
commercial wastes. The industrial wastes, ash, and sludge, are discussed in Chapter 6,
Special Waste.
I �
SHASTA COUNTY
'I
The following alternatives were identified and evaluated for the unincorporated area of
the County:
� 1. Curbside recycling
2. Commercial recycling programs--cardboard, white paper, and computer paper;
J beverage container recycling program for bars and restaurants
3. Dropoff recycling bins at transfer stations and landfills; buy-back recycling cen-
ters
4. Manual material recovery operations
5. Mechanized material recovery operations that produce a marketable product
I
6. Salvage at the landfills
,i
i
� i
n RDD/R16/003.51 4-9
0
� V V
y
w
C
,r0 •-� x M x x N M
M 1-1)
p I
CIO
y f C � O O G lJ• O ^ .... O O 7
V V p
y
J
C � C
L
L �r
T
:Q
U U CC y
7N .t N x x p U x a �
y y s C "t \C y
.X f
C ,
ca
J
p � J
J
C
L
J
L
L
U d �
U U
x
Z y
i
N
4-10
i
�i
I � ANDERSON
The following alternatives were identified and evaluated for the City of Anderson:
1. Curbside recycling
2. Commercial recycling program for cardboard, white paper, and computer paper;
and beverage containers
3. Buy-back recycling centers
4. Manual material recovery operations that produce a marketable product
5. Mechanized material recovery operations
,i
6. Salvage at the landfills
REDDING
The following alternatives were identified and evaluated for the City of Redding:
1. Curbside recycling
2. Commercial recycling programs for cardboard, white paper, and computer
paper; beverage container recycling program for bars and restaurants
3. Dropoff recycling center; buy-back recycling centers
4. Manual material recovery operations
5. Mechanized material recovery operations that produce a marketable product
i � 6. Salvage at the landfills
Alternative 1--Curbside Recycling
This alternative includes collection of recyclable materials from single family residences
and multiunit apartment buildings. Containers which would be picked up at the curb
by the refuse hauler would be provided to the residents.
Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Materials that are currently being collected by the
contract refuse hauler include glass (California Redemption Value and household glass
food containers), aluminum cans, PET and HDPE plastic containers, and newspaper.
This program has been in operation since February 1991, and results of the first
3 months indicate that approximately 13 to 14 percent of the total tonnage collected is
being recycled.
d
RDD/R16/003.51 4-11
;i
Hazard. Curbside recycling has no known environmental health or safety hazards.
Y g Y
Ability to Accommodate Change. This program can adapt to accommodate change.
Materials can be added or subtracted from the collection program as markets change.
If the processing of the materials changes, a commingled collection system could be
installed instead of a three-bin system.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. There should be no impact on the waste stream.
This alternative can be expected to divert approximately 10 to 15 percent of the total
waste going to the landfill. This alternative should not increase generation of another
type of waste.
Ability to be Implemented. This program is currently being implemented. It could be
expanded in the medium-term as markets for more materials are available and as pub-
lic awareness increases.
Facilities Needed. Additional equipment, trucks, and personnel for collection may be ,
required if the program is expanded. A material processing facility for crushing, com-
pacting, baling, and preparing the recyclables for marketing could be required as parti-
cipation in the curbside program increases.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This program is consistent with County
plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. None
Estimate of Costs. Curbside collection programs include capital costs (trucks bins,
balers, etc.) and operational costs (personnel, maintenance, etc.). An estimate of the
cost of curbside recycling is approximately $1.50 per household per month.
Market Availability for Materials. Currently the materials collected are marketed by
the contract refuse hauler, Anderson Cottonwood Disposal Company.
Public vs. Private Ownership of Recycling Programs and Facilities. This curbside ,
collection program in Shasta County is part of the contract with the refuse hauler.
Recycling facilities would be privately owned.
Technical Reliability. Collection equipment (i.e., recycling trucks) is technically reliable
as demonstrated by the program in operation with the City of Redding and many other
cities in California and throughout the country.
Public Acceptance. Many cities are currently operating curbside collection programs.
A recent survey of 17 cities nationwide indicated that the majority of weekly collection
programs have participation rates of 50 to 70 percent (the Biocycle Guide to Collecting,
Processing, and Marketing Recyclables, 1990).
RDD/R16/003.51 4-12
N�i Alternative 2--Commercial Recycling Programs
This alternative would include collection of cardboard from stores; whitepaper and
computer paper from offices and schools; and beverage containers from bars and
restaurants.
Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. This alternative would be effective in diverting
cardboard, whitepaper, computer paper, aluminum cans, and glass bottles. A pilot
program with the City of Redding has demonstrated that the programs would be effec-
tive, and in a telephone survey of approximately 200 offices, approximately 75 per cent
of the interviewees stated that they would be willing to participate in a recycling
program.
Hazard. There are no known environmental, health, or safety hazards to these
programs.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This program is adaptable to changing conditions.
The collection program could be altered to add or subtract materials, and routes could
be changed to accommodate new businesses.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. There should be no impact on the waste stream.
l Generation of another type of waste should not be increased.
Ability to be Implemented. A pilot project in the City of Redding has demonstrated
that this project could be implemented in the short-term planning period. It could be
�� expanded in the medium-term.
Facilities Needed. Additional equipment, trucks, and personnel may be required for
collection. No new facilities would need to be constructed.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This program is consistent with local plans
and policies.
Institutional Barriers. None.
Estimate of Costs. Costs
associated with this program could include new containers
and additional staff. Equipment costs are estimated at $5,000 per year, and personnel
at $10,000 per year.
Market Availability for Materials. The collected materials would be marketed by the
contract refuse hauler. The current market conditions for cardboard, white paper, and
computer paper are strong. The glass and aluminum cans would be California
Redemption Value containers.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-13
0
Public vs. Private Ownership of Recycling Program and Facilities. This program
would be part of the contract that Shasta County has with the refuse hauler. No new
facilities are required.
Technical Reliability. A pilot program for cardboard and paper collection in the City
of Redding has demonstrated that this is a reliable alternative.
Public Acceptance. The participation in the City's current program and a telephone
survey of stores and offices indicate a potentially high participation rate.
Alternative 3--Dropoff and Buy-Back Recycling Centers
This alternative would provide residents the additional opportunities of dropping off
recyclables at transfer stations and landfills, and taking their recyclables directly to a
buy-back center.
Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. This alternative would be effective for collecting ,
recyclables in areas that do not have curbside recycling. This program would be parti-
cularly effective in the rural areas of the County, and for residents who self-haul.
Hazard. There are no environmental or health hazards to this alternative. The dropoff
sites are generally unstaffed, and therefore could become littered or messy.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative is adaptable to change. Dropoff
containers can be removed if a site is not being used. Additional containers can also
be provided if new materials will be collected.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. There should be no impact on the waste stream;
no shifts are expected.
Ability to be Implemented. This program could be implemented in the short term.
Placement of additional containers at transfer stations and landfills would take approxi-
mately 2 to 3 months. Buy-back centers are currently in operation.
Facilities Needed. This alternative would involve purchase of additional containers.
Containers would be placed at existing locations; no new facilities would be required.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This alternative is consistent with local
plans and policies.
Institutional barriers. None.
Estimate of Costs. Cost of purchasing additional containers is estimated at $5,000 per
year.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-14 ,
0
9
I�
i� Market Availability for Materials. The materials would be collected and marketed by
the contract hauler.
Public vs. Private Ownership of Recycling Programs and Facilities. This program
would be part of the contract that Shasta County has with the two refuse haulers. The
containers would be privately owned and maintained. The haulers would empty the
containers and handle the marketing of the materials. The buy-back centers are pri-
vately owned.
Technical Reliability. Dropoff and buy-back centers are currently in operation.
Public Acceptance. These centers are being used by the public.
j Alternative 4--Manual Material Recovery Operations That
Produce a Marketable Product
.I
This alternative involves having the equipment to prepare source-separated materials
for market. The materials collected from the curbside recycling program would be
sorted further, crushed or baled, and prepared for shipping. This type of facility is
more labor-intensive than a mechanized material recovery facility.
Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. This alternative would rely on collection of
materials from curbside recycling and dropoff containers. This alternative is primarily
processing and handling of materials for marketing, and would not result in an addi-
tional reduction of waste.
i� Hazard. Since heavy equipment will be involved, health and safety policies for person-
nel should be implemented.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative is adaptable to changing conditions.
Materials may be added or deleted as market conditions vary. Staff may need to be
added if the volume of materials increases.
d
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative would not impact the waste
stream.
Ability to be Implemented. The ability to be implemented depends on the location of
i the manual materials recovery operations. If a new location is not required, implemen-
tation could be in the short-term and would take approximately 12 months. A manual
material recovery facility could be added at the hauler's existing yard or at the landfill.
Permits would be required, but no additional land would need to be acquired.
Facilities Needed. The manual material recovery operation would be located at an
existing facility, either at the haulers yard or at the landfill. The site would need to be
developed, and buildings would be constructed to house the equipment.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-15
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. The manual material recovery operation
would be placed at a location approved for its use. This would be consistent with local
plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. None.
Estimated Cost. The capital cost of the site improvements, building, and equipment is
approximately $275,000. Annual operations and maintenance costs are estimated at
$100,000.
Market Availability for Materials. Additional markets would be available for pro-
cessed materials. The processing, sorting, and baling of materials usually results in a
cleaner product, and therefore it is more marketable and generates higher revenue.
Public vs. Private Ownership of Recycling Programs and Facilities. The facility would
be privately owned by the hauler under contract to Shasta County.
Technical Reliability. These facilities are technically reliable and are in use throughout
the state for processing materials.
Public Acceptance. If the facility is located at an existing yard or landfill, it should be
acceptable to the public.
Alternative 5--Mechanized Material Recovery Operations
Mechanized material recovery facilities (MRFs) are centrally located operations that
separate, process, and market recyclable materials. In general, an MRF is used when
a large volume of materials is collected. In Shasta County, an MRF would be used by
all three jurisdictions. The City of Redding is currently considering an MRF, and
Shasta County and Anderson would participate in using the City's MRF.
Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Mechanized facilities are effective in diverting
recyclable materials and reducing the amount of waste.
Hazard. Health and safety policies and procedures for personnel would need to be
developed. MRFs have the potential for explosions and are a minor fire hazard.
Ability to Accommodate Change. MRFs are less adaptable to change. Changes in the
waste stream may require modification of equipment or purchase of new equipment.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative has no impact on the waste
stream; no shifts are anticipated.
Ability to be Implemented. This alternative would probably not be implemented in the
short-term if siting a facility at a new location is required. Siting studies and permits
can take 3 to 5 years.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-16
I�
Facilities Needed. Facilities required could include land, buildings, and equipment.
g
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. If a new site were chosen, it would need to
be determined that it was consistent with local plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. The siting and permitting of a MRF can take 3 to 5 years.
Estimate of Costs. The cost of a MRF varies depending on the site and the size of the
MRF. Costs could range from $1 million to $5 million.
Market Availability for Materials. Materials processed would be marketed to one of
the local recycling companies.
I
Public vs. Private Ownership of Recycling Programs and Facilities. An MRF can be
i� publicly or privately owned. If an MRF is built by the City of Redding, it will be
publicly owned and operated.
Technical Reliability. MRFs are accepted as technically reliable and are in operation
throughout the state.
Public Acceptance. The siting of an MRF can pose public acceptance questions.
Alternative 6--Additional Salvage at the Landfills
This alternative includes separating items from the mixed waste stream as it arrives at
the landfill. Recoverable items include white goods, scrap metals, and construction
debris (brick, concrete, and wood).
Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Salvage is currently occurring at the landfills and
is particularly effective in reducing the scrap metals, white goods, and tires from the
waste stream.
Hazard. Some health and safety hazards occur with salvaging at the landfill. Policies
and procedures for personnel would need to be followed.
I
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative is adaptable to change. Materials
recovered can be changed, added, or subtracted at any time.
Consequences on Waste Stream. This alternative has no impact on the waste stream.
Ability to be Implemented. Additional landfill salvaging can be implemented in the
short-term planning period. It could require additional personnel, and it could be
implemented within 6 months.
Facilities Needed. No new facilities would be required. Additional storage areas at the
landfill could be required.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-17
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This program is consistent with plans and r
policies.
Institutional Barriers. None
Estimate of Costs. This alternative may require additional personnel, and the cost is
estimated at $20,000 per year.
Market Availability. A market currently exists with a local recycler for materials being '
salvaged at the landfill.
Public vs. Private Ownership of Recycling Programs and Facilities. One of the land-
fills in Shasta County is publicly owned and operated; two landfills are privately owned
and operated.
Technical Reliability. Salvage operations currently occur at all three landfills.
Public Acceptance. This is not applicable to salvaging at the landfill.
ADDITIONAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Modifications to Zoning and Building Codes
The County and the cities could consider zoning and building code modifications to
encourage recycling. Zoning requirements could be relaxed to allow recycling facilities,
such as buy-back centers. Building codes could be changed to require storage areas in
buildings for recycling containers. This could occur for residential, commercial, and
industrial buildings.
Rate Structure Modifications
This plan recommends a "bag-tag system" under Rate Structure in Source Reduction,
Chapter 3.
This would encourage residents to pull out recyclables to minimize disposal fees. For
self-haulers, disposal fees at the landfill could be changed to encourage using dropoff
boxes for recyclables.
Methods to Increase Markets
The County and the cities could consider adopting recycled product procurement
policies. They could also work with local manufacturers and industries in identifying
opportunities to increase the uses of post consumer wastes in their manufacturing or
industrial processes. For example, the local paper mill could consider using white
paper, computer paper, and cardboard in their manufacturing processes. The County
and the cities could also work with local markets and grocery stores to establish a
RDD/R16/003.51 4-18
9
1
consumer awareness to campaign purchase recycled p products or products with recycled
packaging. As part of the education and public information program established to
implement this plan (See Chapter 7, Education and Public Information), schools and
businesses will be encouraged to purchase recycled products to be used in the offices
and classrooms. The message of "buying recycled products" could be included on the
brochures developed as part of the education and public information program.
Handling Methods
The collection methods for recycling recommended in this plan are curbside and
dropoff. Both of these methods preserve the integrity of the materials. Separation
occurs at the source, not at the processing facility.
The Evaluation of Alternative forms are in Appendix C. The results of the evaluation
are presented in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8
Summary of Recycling Alternatives Evaluation
'I
Waste Diversion Points
Program Ranking Potential Assigned
1. Curbside Collection of Recyclables 5 High 49
2. Dropoff Centers 7 Moderate 47
i
3. Buy-Back Centers 1 High 56
4. Manual Material Recovery Operations 8 High 46
5. Mechanized Material Recovery P g Operations 9 High 40
6. Salvage at Landfill 3 Moderate 51
7. Commercial Recycling--Cardboard 6 High 48
j Collection from Stores
8. Commercial Recycling--White Paper and 4 Moderate 50
Computer Paper Collection from Offices
9. Commercial Recycling--Beverage Container 2 High 52
!I Collection from Bars and Restaurants
SELECTION OF RECYCLING PROGRAM
The following alternatives were selected for recycling.
SHASTA COUNTY
Short-Term Planning Period
RDD/R16/003.51 4-19
1. Residential curbside recycling. This program started in February 1991 for that
portion of Shasta County served by Anderson Cottonwood Disposal (12,600 resi-
dences, including the City of Anderson). Residents are provided with a set of
three containers, and materials collected include newspaper, aluminum and tin
cans, and glass bottles and jars. The hauler states that participation rates are
increasing, and the program is expected to continue and expand. This alternative
was selected because of the high diversion potential and the ease of
implementation.
2. Commercial recycling program for cardboard; white paper and computer paper; '
and beverage containers. This alternative would be a new program. It would be
implemented by the two haulers under contract to Shasta County. For cardboard,
stores would be contacted about participating in the program. Containers would
be provided, and a pickup route would be established. For white paper and
computer paper, schools and businesses would be contacted; containers would be
provided; and a pickup route established. Bars and restaurants would be
contacted for pickup of glass and aluminum beverage containers. This program
was selected because of its high diversion potential, and a telephone survey
conducted of local offices indicated that participation rates would be high.
3. Dropoff and buy-back centers. Voluntary dropoff boxes would be placed at
current transfer station locations: Shingletown, Round Mountain, Lakehead,
Buckeye, French Gulch, Old Shasta, Platina, Burney, and Fall River Mills. It is
expected that the education and public information program would ensure par-
ticipation rates at these collection boxes. Three buy-back centers currently exist:
Bigfoot Recycling, Clayton Ward, and Short's Scrap Metal. Brochures developed
as part of the education and public information program would encourage more
participation in private recycling programs. Materials that can be sold at these
centers include newspaper, cardboard, white paper, computer paper, plastics,
glass, aluminum, scrap metals, and some auto parts. This alternative was selected
because of the low densities in the rural parts of the County. Curbside recycling
would not be cost-effective in these areas.
4. Salvage at the landfills. This program currently exists at two landfills and one
transfer station in Shasta County: Anderson Solid Waste, Intermountain Landfill,
and Benton Temporary Transfer Station. Materials salvaged include wire, scrap
metals, and white goods. This program would be expanded to include tires and
construction debris (concrete, brick, and wood). This program was selected
because of the high diversion potential, ease of implementation, and cost-
effectiveness.
Medium-Term Planning Period
Manual material recovery operations. The manual material recovery operation would
be implemented in the medium-term. This would require new equipment, and it is
RDD/R16/003.51 4-20
i
anticipated that the volume of materials being collected by 1995 will require additional
processing facilities.
i
ANDERSON
Short-Term Planning Period
1. Residential curbside recycling. This program started in February 1991. Residents
are provided with a set of three containers, and materials collected include
newspaper, aluminum and tin cans, and glass bottles and jars. The hauler states
that participation rates are increasing, and the program is expected to continue
and expand. This alternative was selected because of the high diversion potential
and the ease of implementation.
2. Commercial recycling program for cardboard, white paper and computer paper,
and beverage containers. This alternative would be a new program. It would be
implemented by the hauler responsible for Anderson. For cardboard, stores
would be contacted about participating in the program. Containers would be
provided, and a pickup route would be established. For white paper and com-
puter paper, schools and businesses would be contacted; containers would be
provided; and a pickup route established. Bars and restaurants would be con-
tacted for pickup of glass and aluminum beverage containers. This program was
selected because of its high diversion potential, and a telephone survey conducted
of local offices indicated that participation rates would be high.
3. Dropoff and buy-back centers. A dropoff box would be placed at the landfill for
Anderson residents who want to self-haul their recyclables. Also, three buy-back
centers currently exist: Bigfoot Recycling, Clayton Ward, and Short's Scrap
Metal. Brochures developed as part of, the education and public information
program would encourage more participation in private recycling programs.
Materials that can be sold at these centers include newspaper, cardboard, white
paper, computer paper, plastics, glass, aluminum, scrap metals, and some auto
parts. This alternative was selected because of the ease of implementation and
cost-effectiveness.
i
Medium-Term Planning Period
Manual material recovery operations. The manual material recovery operation would
be implemented in the medium-term. This would require new equipment, and it is
anticipated that the volume of materials being collected by 1995 will require additional
processing facilities.
■
RDD/R16/003.51 4-21
REDDING
Short-Term Planning Period
1. Residential curbside recycling. This pilot program was started in November 1990
with 2,500 residents participating from seven neighborhoods in the city. Residents
are provided with a set of three containers, and materials collected include
newspaper, aluminum cans, and glass bottles and jars. This alternative was '
selected because of the high diversion potential and the ease of implementation.
2. Commercial recycling program for cardboard; white paper and computer paper;
and beverage containers. The city currently has a pilot program for recycling
cardboard, white paper, and computer paper from stores and offices. Participa-
tion rates are increasing, and this program has been targeted for expansion. The
city also plans to start a pickup route for bars and restaurants; glass and
aluminum beverage containers would be recycled. These programs were selected
because of their high diversion potential, ease of implementation, and high
participation rates.
3. Dropoff and buy-back centers. Dropoff boxes will be placed at the transfer
station and the landfill for Redding residents who want to self-haul their recycla-
bles. Also, three buy-back centers are in operation: Bigfoot Recycling, Clayton
Ward, and Short's Scrap Metal. Brochures developed as part of the education
and public information program would encourage more participation in private
recycling programs. Materials that can be sold at these centers include
newspaper, cardboard, white paper, computer paper, plastics, glass, aluminum,
scrap metals, and some auto parts. This alternative was selected because of the
ease of implemental and cost-effectiveness.
4. Salvage at the landfill. This program currently exists at Benton Temporary
Transfer Station, operated by the City of Redding. Materials salvaged include
wire, scrap metals, and white goods. This program would be expanded to West
Central Landfill and could also include tires and construction debris (concrete,
brick, and wood). This program was selected because of the high diversion '
potential, ease of implementation, and cost-effectiveness.
Medium-Term Planning Period
Mechanized material recovery operations which produce a marketable product. The
city is currently reviewing locations for a materials recovery facility (MRF).
Environmental documents are being prepared, and research and feasibility studies are
underway. All materials would be processed at the MRF after it is constructed and
becomes operational. This alternative was selected because of its high diversion
potential.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-22
1
I
II�11 Diversion Objectives
Tables 4-9 through 4-11 summarize the diversion objectives for each of the recycling
programs.
I� Table 4-9
Diversion Objectives by
Recycling Program for Shasta County
i
Percent of
Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Voluntary Dropoff at 3,171 2.8 5,893 4.9
j Landfill
Commercial 5,285 4.7 9,822 8.2.
i Cardboard Program
Commercial Beverage 3;171 2.8 5,893 4.9
Container Program
Curbside Recycling 5,285 4.7 9,822 8.2
Buy-Back Centers 4,229 3.9 7,858 6.4
Recycling Totals 21,141 18.9 39,288 32.6
i
I
Table 4-10
Diversion Objectives by
Recycling Program for City of Redding
Percent of
'I Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
i
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Voluntary Dropoff at 384 2.9 726 5.0
Landfill
Commercial 641 4.8 1,210 8.3
Cardboard Program
Commercial Beverage 384 2.9 726 5.0
Container Program
Curbside Recycling 641 4.8 1,120 8.3
Buy-Back Centers 512 3.8 967 6.6
Recycling Totals 2,562 19.2 4,839 33.2
RDD/R16/003.51 4-23
C
Table 4-11
Diversion Objectives by
Recycling Program for City of Anderson
Percent of
Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Voluntary Dropoff at 3,550 1.8 6,472 3.0
Landfill
Commercial 5,917 3.0 10,786 5.0
Cardboard Program
Commercial Beverage 3,550 1.8 6,472 3.0
Container Program
Curbside Recvcling 5,917 3.0 10,786 5.0
Buy-Back Centers 4,732 2.3 8,628 4.1
Recycling Totals 23,666 11.9 43,144 20.1
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Table 4-12 outlines the implementation schedule for the selected program for recycling,
including responsible agencies, tasks required, and schedule.
The agencies and persons responsible for program implementation include:
• Shasta County--Director of Public Works
• Anderson--Director of Public Works
• Redding--Director of General Services
To deter the unauthorized removal of recyclable materials, the Cities and Counties will
consider adopting an antiscavenging ordnance.
COSTS, REVENUES, AND REVENUE SOURCES
Tables 4-13, 4-14, and 4-15 list the costs incurred for each of the recycling programs.
Funds to cover the costs projected for these programs will be from the following
sources:
RDD/R16/003.51 4-24
• City of Redding Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Fund
• County of Shasta Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Chapter 9 presents a detailed funding discussion.
d
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The results of the recycling programs will need to be monitored and evaluated to
ensure attaining the 25 and 50 percent diversion goals for 1995 and 2000. The follow-
ing methods will be used by Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding to monitor the
r results:
• Waste Generation Studies. The County and the cities plan to continue
annual waste sampling. Waste generation studies would be updated
every 2 years. The study will be conducted for the residential, com-
mercial, industrial, and special waste streams. Comparing future waste
characterization and generation data with the 1990 study should provide
it an indication of what types of materials are being diverted and should
help establish targets for diverting additional materials.
• Records from Haulers. The hauler responsible for the curbside recycling
program will maintain monthly or quarterly records. These records will
state quantities of each type of material collected. The same records will
be provided for the commercial programs. These records will allow the
I'I jurisdictions to project diversion rates.
Survey of Recycling Firms. An annual survey of recycling firms will be
made. The survey will involve determining the total amount of recycla-
bles being diverted through private recycling firms.
g P Y g
Survey of Residential Recycling Program. Monitoring and evaluation
programs for residential recycling will include annual questionnaires
mailed to residents to determine participation in programs, and periodic
random phone checks.
• Survey of Commercial Recycling Activities. Questionnaires will be mailed
to public and private offices, telephone surveys will be conducted, and
waste audits will be conducted.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-25
r
E:_ Table 4-12
Recycling Implementation Schedule
Short-Term Medium-Term
Tasks 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Curbside Recycling--Residential Program ('Redding)a '
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Public awareness program
• Start collection
Dropoff Centers--Residential Program
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Public awareness program :
• Start collection
Cardboard Recycling from Stores and Offices--Commercial Program
• Identify participants
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Public awareness program
• Start collection
Paper Recycling from Offices--Commercial Program
• Identify participants
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Public awareness program
• Start collection
Beverage Container Recycling from Bars and Restaurants
0
• Identify participants
• Purchase equipment and containers �.
• Public awareness program
• Start collection
Salvage at Landfills (Shasta County and Redding)
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Public awareness program
• Implement program
Manual Material Recovery Facility (Shasta County and Anderson)
• Select location
• Prepare site
• Purchase equipment
RDD/R16/003-51 4-26
I
i
Table 4-12
Recycling Implementation Schedule
I �� Short-Term Medium-Term
Tasks 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
• Train personnel
• Stan operation
Mechanized Material Recovery Facility (Redding)
• Select location
i
Prepare site
• Construct facility
• Train personnel
Start operation
aThis program is currently operating in Anderson.and the urban density portion of Shasta Countv.
,I
�I
I
i'
I
i
r
4-27
RDD/R16/003.51
Table 4-13
Recycling Programs and
Costs for Shasta Countv
Capital Cost Annual O&M Costs
Program ($) ($)
Dropoff Centers at Transfer Stations 50,000 40,000
Cardboard Recycling(Stores) 55.000 15,000
Paper Recycling(Offices) 20.000 15,000
Beverage Containers(Bars and Restaurants) 50.000 15.000
Salvage at Landfill 0 20,000 '
Manual Material Recovery Facility 275,000 100,000
Table4-14
Recycling Programs and
Costs for Anderson
Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost
Program ($) ($)
Cardboard Recycling(Stores) 5,000 4.000
Paper Recycling(Offices) 5,500 1,500
Beverage Containers(Bars and Restaurants) 2,000 1,500
Manual Material Recovery Facility 27,500 10,000
Table 4-15
Recycling Programs and
Costs for Redding
Program Capital Cost($) Annual O&M Cost ($)
Curbside Recycling62469a 252.500
Dropoff Center 3,700 7,500
Cardboard Recycling(Stores) 25,900 76,400
Paper Recycling(Offices) 13,400 76,400
Beverage Containers(Bars and Restaurants) 13,400 76,400
Salvage at Landfill 0 15,000
Mechanized Material Recovery Facility 322,212a 246,044
aCapital costs are financed beginning in the fiscal year 1993 for curbside recycling and 1194 for the MRF.
RDD/R16/003.51 4-28
I
II� • Load Checks at Landfills and Transfer Stations. Load checks of trucks
entering the landfills or transfer stations will be made to monitor the
effectiveness of recycling programs. These checks will include estimates
of the amount of recyclable materials being disposed.
WRITTEN CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PROGRAM'S EFFECTIVENESS
The written criteria for evaluating the program's effectiveness include:
• Are the diversion goals and objectives being met?
a Are the programs being implemented?
• Is an education and public information program in place?
• What is total volume reduction at the landfill?
• What is participation rate in recycling,programs?
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES FOR MONITORING, EVALUATING, AND
REPORTING
'I
Shasta County
The Director of the Public Works Department is responsible for the monitoring, evalu-
ating, and reporting.
ii
Anderson
The Director of the Public Works Department is responsible for the monitoring,
evaluating, and reporting.
Redding
I `
The Director of General Services is responsible for the monitoring, evaluating, and
reporting.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING,
EVALUATING, AND REPORTING
To manage the recordkeeping, additional staff and computer hardware and software
may be required. Funds may also be required for waste generation studies and for
surveying the recycling firms, residents, businesses, and industries.
The contingency measures that would be adopted if the objectives and diversion goals
were not met include:
• Increase staffing
• Expand the programs
• Consider fines for noncompliance
RDD/R16/003.51 4-29
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
Chapter 5
COMPOSTING
jComposting is the controlled biological decomposition of organic waste to a relatively
stable humuslike material. As a waste diversion method, composting provides an
opportunity to substantially reduce the volume of yard waste and other organic material
that is presently landfilled. In addition, composting produces-an environmentally useful
end product that can be sold or distributed as a soil amendment for improving soil
texture, increasing air and water absorption capacity, and decreasing erosion.
' Composting can be carried out at the source, at another location, or at the landfill.
Activities at the -source are considered source reduction. A program for backyard
Composting, which has been selected as the short-term alternative for Shasta County
and Anderson, is included in Chapter 3, Source Reduction.
The programs outlined for composting will play an important part in meeting the diver-
sion goals. Yard wastes are approximately 8 percent of the waste stream in Shasta
County. In addition, other compostable materials, such as woodwaste, can be pro-
cessed through these programs.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal is to divert yard waste from the waste stream by composting.
� i
SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (1991-1995)
Shasta County and Anderson
i
The short-term objective is to divert 35 percent of the total generated yard waste by
� 1995. It is anticipated that this can be achieved by instituting a backyard composting
program, which is discussed in Chapter 3, Source Reduction.
Redding
1. Divert 75 percent of the yard waste by composting
2. Establish a curbside collectionY
ram ro for and waste
P g
3. Develop a permanent composting facility
i
4. Distribute compost to public agencies for use
RDD/R2/007.51 5-1
5. Use compost in final closure plan for closed landfill
6. Develop education and public information program to guarantee participation
MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES (1996-2000)
For the medium-term the City of Redding plans to have a permanent composting
facility that will be used by Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding.
Shasta County
1. Divert 45 percent of the yard waste by composting -�
2. Establish a curbside collection program for yard waste in urban areas
3. Place dropoff containers for yard waste at transfer stations for rural areas
4. Place dropoff containers for yard waste at the landfills
5. Consider a ban on disposing of yard waste in the landfills
6. Develop a marketing plan with the City of Redding for the compost
7. Encourage acceptance of compost as landfill covers
8. Develop education and public information program to ensure participation
Anderson
1. Divert 45 percent of the yard waste by composting
2. Establish a curbside collection program for yard waste
3. Develop a marketing plan with City of Redding for compost
4. Develop education and public information program to ensure participation
Redding
1. Divert 75 percent of the yard waste by composting
2. Continue curbside collection of yard waste
3. Place dropoff containers for yard waste at transfer stations
4. Place dropoff containers for yard waste at the landfill
RDD/R2/007.51 5-2
4
,I
5. Consider a ban on disposing of and waste in the landfill
P g Y
6. Develop a marketing plan for sale of the compost
7. Maintain and monitor quality of compost to guarantee acceptance by end-users
j �
8. Continue education and public information program
The diversion goals for the three jurisdictions are shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1-
Composting
-1Composting
Yard Waste Diversion
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
iTargeted Targeted
Percent of Material Percent of Material
Waste Reduction Waste Reduction
Jurisdiction Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
Shasta County 0 0 0 6,178 2.9 45
Anderson 0 0 0 690 5.2 45
Redding 9,446 8.5 75 10,527 8.5 75
Total 9,446 8.5 -- 17,125 4.9 --
i,
j EXISTING CONDITIONS
SHASTA COUNTY
Currently, the unincorporated area of Shasta County generates approximately 11,019
P Y
tons of yard waste per year. This represents 3.9 percent of the waste stream.
There is no identifiable organized composting program in Shasta County at this time.
All yard waste, brush, and prunings are landfilled. No program exists that converts
organic wastes to soil amendment or mulch for distribution or sale. Since there is no
program, no material is currently being diverted, and no decrease in activity will occur.
No market development activities are occurring.
ANDERSON
The City of Anderson generates approximately 1,257 tons of yard waste per year,
which represents 0.4 percent of the waste stream.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-3
There is no composting program in Anderson currently. All yard waste, brush, and
prunings are landfilled. Therefore, no material is being diverted, no decrease in activity '
will occur, and no market development activities have taken place.
REDDING
The City of Redding is operating a composting facility at Benton Temporary Transfer
Station which was started in 1989. Yard waste is accepted at no charge and materials
accepted include grass clippings, pruned branches, and pulled weeds. The yard waste
must be clean, with no rocks, dirt, concrete, trash, tree stumps, or construction debris.
All material is put through a tub grinder, and the materials from the tub grinder are
used for compost or hog fuel (wood chips). The hog fuel is sold to a cogeneration
plant, and the other material is put in the compost pile. The composting material is
placed into windrows approximately 120 feet long, 12 feet wide, and 8 feet high.
The temperatures are monitored, and the piles are irrigated and turned. The length of
time in the piles in approximately 9 to 12 months.
In 1990 the facility turned out 833 tons of compost and 544 tons of hog fuel (wood
chips). The wood chips are sold to a cogeneration plant. The production of wood
chips is not considered composting under AB 939. This method of diversion is transfor-
mation, and it will count 10 percent towards the year 2000 goals. The wood chips have
not been included in the diversion numbers in this plan. However, it is considered a
viable alternative to landfill disposal as it saves space and generates revenues. Approx-
imately 78 tons of compost was sold to Caltrans, and the City plans to sell or use the
remainder of the compost as topsoil in the closure plan for Benton Landfill. No
market development activities have occurred to date because there has not been an
excess of compost. It is estimated that using the compost as topsoil on the landfill
cover will use the compost generated from the operation until 1995.
The City of Redding plans to expand its composting operation. With the start of curb-
side collection of yard waste in 1992, the volume is expected to increase. The City will
operate the facility at Benton until a permanent site is located.
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF
COMPOSTING ALTERNATIVES
These three categories of alternatives have been evaluated using the criteria in the
AB 939 regulations: collection, processing, and marketing. Any yard waste diversion
system has three parts:
RDD/R2/007.51 5-4
Yard Waste
Collection 1 + Processing + Marketing _ Diversion
System
L--------------J L---------------J L-----------------J L------------_-J
The three collection alternatives evaluated were curbside, dropoff, and commingled, as
shown in Table 5-2. With curbside collection, the household or business separates the
yard waste and places it in a container for pickup. With dropoff sites, the resident or
business owner separates and bags the yard waste and takes it to a dropoff location.
With commingled collection, the yard waste is not separated at the source by the resi-
dents or businesses, but is sorted later at a transfer station or at the landfill.
Table 5-2
Collection Alternatives for Yard Waste Diversion
Curbside Dropoff Commingled
Features: Features: Features:
Segregated waste
' ated and g g y Used in absence of 0 Requires sorting facility
collected at curb pickup services and in
rural areas • Less labor intensive
,I • Mandatory or voluntary
participation Special or permanent • Participation high
� collection
• Recovery levels high • Can use carts and auto-
0 Used by self-hauls mated loading
• Materials may be loose mechanism
or contained • Sites may be for trans-
fer or processing
i
` Curbside collection of yard waste could be established in high density areas. Residents
would place their yard waste in containers for collection. The containers could be
purchased by the residents or provided by the refuse hauler. Collection could be along
with regular refuse pickup or it could be collected at a separate time. Dropoff would
include placing bins at the transfer stations and the landfills. This. would be
appropriate in the rural areas of the County. Self-hauls could bring their recyclables
and yard waste to a local facility. Residents would be encouraged to participate in a
recycling and yard waste dropoff program through an education and public information
program, as discussed in Chapter 7, Education and Public Information. Commingled
collection could occur if a mechanized materials recovery facility were established. The
commingled refuse would be taken to a central location and sorted mechanically.
The processing technology considered is windrow composting at a facility for the two
cities and the unincorporated area of the County. The windrow method is commonly
used in areas where space and time are not restrictive. The organic material is
arranged in elongated piles on a surfaced area to undergo decomposition. Although
RDD/R2/007.51 5-5
the windrows receive passive aeration at all times, windrows can be turned, mixed, or
somehow agitated to increase aeration and speed decomposition.
Windrows are commonly 5 to 8 feet high by 14 to 16 feet wide, depending on the
equipment available to turn the piles. The dimensions must allow for proper heat
retention while allowing diffusion of air to the bottom portions of the pile. This pro- i
cess may take 2 months to 2 years to complete, depending on the frequency of agita-
tion and the initial composition of the windrow.
The marketing alternative would involve the sale or no-cost distribution of the compost
to residents, businesses, and other agencies. A further alternative is to ban the yard
waste from the landfills.
COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative: Curbside Collection of Yard Waste
This alternative proposes curbside collection of yard waste for residential areas with
urban densities. Residents would put yard waste on the curb for collection by the
refuse haulers. Collection containers, either boxes, bags, or bins, could be provided by
the hauler or by the residents.
Effectiveness. Curbside collection is expected to have a higher participation rate than
dropoff because of the convenience. Yard waste is approximately 8 percent of the
waste stream.
Hazard. This alternative creates minimal hazards.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative will accommodate change. The
program can be stopped, altered, or changed at any time. Materials can be added or
subtracted in the collection program.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative does not shift waste generation
from one type of production to another.
Implementation Period. Curbside collection could be implemented in the short-term
and medium-term planning periods. .
Facility Requirements. A composting facility is currently operating for the City of
Redding. The City of Anderson and Shasta County could use the Redding composting
facility when their curbside collection programs start. Facilities required for curbside
collection include trucks and containers.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This alternative is consistent with local
plans and policies.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-6
I
II
i
Institutional Barriers. There are no institutional barriers that would prevent imple-
mentation of a curbside collection program. The County's contracts with existing
haulers would need to be considered.
Estimated Cost. The equipment required may be an additional truck and containers.
j The per ton collection costs are expected to range from $20 to $80.
Technical Reliability. Curbside collection is technically reliable, as demonstrated by
programs in other cities in California.
Public Acceptance. Curbside collection of yard waste is expected to be accepted by the
jpublic, as demonstrated by the participation rates in the existing curbside collection
programs in Anderson, Redding, and Shasta County. It is assumed that the residents
would set out yard waste along with recyclable.
Alternative: Dropoff Collection
This alternative proposes dropoff collection for yard waste in rural areas where curb-
side collection is not cost-effective. Dropoff containers would be placed at the transfer
stations. In addition, dropoff containers would be placed at the landfills so the resi-
dents can self-haul their own yard waste.
j Effectiveness. In general, dropoff collection is expected to have a lower participation
rate than curbside collection. If participation rates prove to be low, this alternative
.j
could be used in conjunction with a ban on disposing of yard waste in the landfill.
Hazard. If the dropoff centers are unattended, the potential hazards include contami-
nation (mixing refuse with the yard waste) and dumping of materials around the site
instead of in the containers.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative can easily accommodate change.
More containers can be added if participation rates are high. Locations can be added
or subtracted as demand changes.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. No shift in waste stream generation is expected
from this alternative.
Implementation Period. The dropoff containers are expected to be in place in both the
short-term and medium-term periods.
Facility Requirements. Additional equipment will be required to collect the yard waste
from the transfer stations and landfill sites. Collection containers (dropoff bins) will be
required at the transfer stations and landfill sites.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-7
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This program is consistent with local plans
and policies. Dropoff containers at existing transfer sites and landfills should not
require additional permits.
Institutional Barriers. There are no institutional barriers to prevent implementing this
alternative. The County's contract with existing haulers may need to be considered.
Estimated Cost. The equipment required may be an additional truck and collection
containers. These costs would range from $5 to $20 per ton.
Technical Reliability. This alternative is technically reliable; dropoff collection facilities
currently are working in Redding and many other cities in California.
Public Acceptance. This alternative is acceptable to the public, as demonstrated by the
participation rate in the City of Redding's dropoff facility at the transfer station. At
this facility the public is allowed to drop off any clean yard waste at no charge.
Alternative: Commingled Collection
This alternative proposes separating the yard waste at a mechanized system, such as a
materials recovery facility (MRF). At the MRF the yard waste material would be sepa-
rated from the mixed waste and either processed onsite or taken to the composting
facility for processing.
Effectiveness. Commingled collection could be effective in urban areas that have col-
lection service. It would not be effective in rural areas where the majority of waste is
self-hauled.
Hazard. There are no hazards associated with commingled collection; this is the
present method of collection.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative could be changed if a curbside or
dropoff program were implemented.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative does not shift waste generation
from one type to another.
Implementation Period. The implementation of this alternative would depend on the
construction of a MRF, and would be in the medium-term period.
Facility Requirements. Commingled collection would require construction of a MRF.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. The siting for the MRF would need to be
consistent with local plans and policies.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-8
I
i
Institutional Barriers. The commingled collection would have no institutional barriers.
Siting and development of a MRF could require extensive permits and approvals.
Estimated Cost. There would be no additional cost to commingled collection. Cost
estimates for a MRF vary widely, ranging from $1 million to $5 million.
Technical Reliability. Material recovery facilities are technically reliable, as evidenced
by the number of facilities in operation throughout California.
j
Public Acceptance. The MRF can be acceptable to the public, depending on the loca-
tion of the facility.
PROCESSING ALTERNATIVE: WINDROW COMPOSTING SYSTEM
I
This alternative proposes a windrow system that would process and compost yard
wastes from the three jurisdictions. This system involves grinding and screening the
yard waste materials, placing the materials in long rows, turning the materials periodi-
cally for aeration, and keeping the materials moist.
Effectiveness. Windrow is an effective technology for processing yard waste. This is
the system most commonly used in California and throughout the country. The yard
waste collection programs .and the windrow processing technology together should
,I divert approximately 8.5 percent of the waste in the short-term, and maintain 8.5
percent of the waste in the medium-term, for the City of Redding.
�I
Hazard. The hazards associated with windrow composting include potential for con-
tamination, odors, vectors, and leachate. Contamination can be minimized by screening
materials before they are placed in windrows. Odors can be controlled by turning the
piles. Vectors can be deterred by turning, increasing moisture content, and controlling
temperatures.-
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative is adaptable to changing conditions.
tY g P g g
The process can be low or high technology. Additional equipment can be purchased to
handle more compost or speed up the processing time.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. No shift in waste generation is expected.
Implementation Period. This alternative is currently in use and will be expanded in the
short-term and medium-term periods.
�. Facility Requirements. A temporary facility currently is in use. A permanent facility
will be required in the medium-term. Additional equipment required for an expanded
facility could include a grinder, turner, and loader.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-9
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This alternative is consistent with local
plans and policies. Siting of a permanent facility would need to be consistent with local
plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. A composting facility requires permits from the Local Enforce-
ment Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Integrated
Waste Management Board.
Estimated Cost. Costs include capital equipment and operations and maintenance.
The costs vary widely, depending on the equipment required. Estimates range from
$500,000 to $800,000.
Technical Reliability. The windrow technology system is reliable, as demonstrated by
the fact that it is currently in use by the City of Redding and many other cities in
California.
Public Acceptance. The windrow system is acceptable to the public, depending on the
location of the composting site.
MARKETING ALTERNATIVES '
Alternative: Marketing of Compost
This alternative proposes sale of the compost. The compost can be sold to residents,
businesses, or other agencies. Potential markets include landscape contractors, tree
farms, golf courses, farms, ranches, and nurseries.
Effectiveness. If a marketing plan were developed and successfully implemented, this
alternative could be effective.
Hazard. This alternative creates no hazards.
Ability to Accommodate Change. This alternative can accommodate change. If market
conditions change and the compost cannot be sold, an alternate plan for giving away
the compost would need to be implemented.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative does not shift waste generations
from one type of production to another.
Implementation Period. A marketing plan for selling the compost could be
implemented in the short-term and medium-term planning periods. .
Facility Requirements. A composting facility is currently operating. If a marketing
plan to sell the compost were adopted, possible facility and equipment requirements
would be trucks for delivery, equipment for loading the trucks, and storage facilities if
the compost needs to be stored.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-10
1
i
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This alternative is consistent with local
plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. There are no institutional barriers that would prevent imple-
mentation of a marketing plan for compost.
Estimated Cost. The costs involved in this alternative include both labor and
equipment. Labor costs would involve a staff person supervising the loading of the
compost.
Technical Reliability. This is not applicable to a marketing program.
Public Acceptance. It is anticipated that either marketing alternative, sale or give away
of the compost, would be acceptable to the public.
Alternative: No-Cost Distribution of Compost
q
' This alternative proposes to distribute the compost at no charge to residents,
businesses, or public agencies. The compost would be given away to farmers,
ranchers, residents, landscape contractors, tree farms, golf courses, and public agencies,
such as Caltrans and the U.S. Forest Service.
Effectiveness. This alternative could be effective in distributing the compost,
particularly if there is no market for selling the compost.
Hazard. The potential hazard with this alternative would be with loading of the
compost. Supervision would be required from the City of Redding.
Ability to Accommodate Change. If a demand occurs for selling the compost, this alter-
native could be changed to the sale of the compost.
'i Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative does not shift waste generation
from one type of production to another.
'I
Implementation Period. Direct distribution of the compost at no cost could be imple-
mented in the short-term and medium-term planning periods.
Facility Requirements. The composting facility currently is in operation; no new facili-
ties would be required.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. This alternative is consistent with local
plans and policies.
Institutional Barriers. There are no institutional barriers that would prevent imple-
mentation of this alternative.
� r
RDD/R2/007.51 5-11
i
i
Estimated Cost. The cost of this program would be the labor to supervise the loading
of the compost into private vehicles.
Technical Reliability. This is not applicable to direct free distribution of compost.
Public Acceptance. Both marketing alternatives, sale of compost and no cost distribu-
tion, should be publicly acceptable.
ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE
Alternative: Banning Yard Waste from Disposal at the Landfills
This alternative proposes t w t t landfills after
p p o ban yard rite from being disposed of a he r
alternatives are in place. The ban would be put in effect after permanent composting
facilities had been sited, after curbside collection of yard waste had been implemented, ,
and after dropoff containers for yard waste had been located at the transfer sites and
landfills.
Effectiveness. A ban on yard waste, combined with curbside collection and dropoff
boxes, would be effective in reducing the amount of yard waste landfilled.
Hazard. The potential hazards to passing an ordinance banning yard waste are illegal
dumping and illegal burning of yard waste.
Ability to Accommodate Change. An ordinance banning yard waste can be changed,
modified, or rescinded if conditions warranted.
Consequences on the Waste Stream. This alternative does not cause a shift in the
waste stream.
Implementation Period. This alternative would be implemented in the medium term
period after all composting facilities were in place.
Facility Requirements. This alternative would require that dropoff boxes be placed at
transfer station and landfills, and that a permanent composting facility be sited.
Consistency with Local Plans and Policies. An ordinance would have to be adopted to
enact a ban at the landfill, and enforcement measures would need to be implemented.
Institutional Barriers. There are no institutional barriers (ownership agreements, fran-
chise contracts, or special permits) that would affect this alternative.
Estimated Cost. The cost of adopting an ordinance through Shasta County is estimated
to be low.
Technical Reliability. This is not applicable to this alternative.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-12
II
I
I
Public Acceptance. The public acceptance of this alternative is uncertain; however,
bans on yard waste exist in at least 14 states.
j SELECTION OF PROGRAM
i
The selection of the program was based on the evaluation criteria and the appropriate-
ness of the alternative for each jurisdiction. These programs were selected to take
advantage of existing programs and to increase participation and the quantity of yard
wastes collected.
i
' SHASTA COUNTY
The selected program includes:
{I Curbside collection of yard waste in areas of urban densities
Dropoff containers at transfer stations and the landfills
•
Composting ata facility shared by Anderson, Redding, and Shasta
County using windrow technology
• Marketing compost to wholesalers
• Direct no-cost distribution of compost to residents, businesses, and
agencies
• Ban on disposal of yard waste in the landfills
The County will participate in the City of Reddin 's composting program, establish
collection programs, work with the City of Redding in developing a marketing program,
and consider enacting an ordinance banning disposal of yard waste at the landfills after
facilities have been established.
Justification. Two methods of collection were chosen for Shasta County because there
are both urban and rural areas in the County. In a rural area dropoff collection is the
most feasible alternative; curbside collection is not considered an economically feasible
alternative due to population size and haul distances. The amount of yard waste
recovered does not justify the expense of driving the long distances required on the
collection routes. In the more urban areas curbside collection is a feasible alternative.
Recycling programs for glass, cans, and newspaper are already in effect; yard waste
would be added to the same route.
'! Commingled collection was not considered an economically feasible alternative. It
would be less labor intensive for the residents and businesses, but would be more labor
RDD/R2/007.51 5-13
i
J
intensive at the transfer or landfill site where it would be sorted. This alternative would
be feasible when a mechanized recovery facility is put in operation, and this alternative
should be reexamined at that time.
Quantities and Types of Waste to be Diverted. The curbside and dropoff collection of
yard waste is expected to divert 6,178 tons of yard waste from the landfill by 2000.
This represents a total waste stream reduction of 2.9 percent.
Method of Handling Materials. The method of composting chosen was windrow tech-
nology because this is the existing system being used, and plans are currently in process
to expand this facility. The materials collected from the curbside and dropoff programs
will be taken to the City of Redding's facility.
Facility Requirements. New or additional facilities required for the selected program
include:
• Curbside collection--Truck and driver
• Dropoff collection--Containers at transfer sites and landfills, truck and
driver
ANDERSON
The selected program includes:
• Curbside collection of yard waste
• Compost facility shared by Anderson, Redding, and Shasta County using
windrow technology
• Marketing compost to wholesalers
• Directs a
no-cost distribution of compost to residents, businesses, d n
agencies
The
City of Anderson well participate in the City of Redding's compostingprogram,
implement a curbside recycling program, and work with the City of Redding in develop-
ing a marketing program.
Justification. Curbside was chosen as the collection method for City of Anderson
because it is an existing system. Curbside collection for recyclables was started in
February 1991, and this has proven to be a feasible program. The program would be
expanded in the medium-term to add curbside collection of yard waste. In addition,
the residents or businesses would be able to self-haul any yard waste to a dropoff at the
landfills.
RDD/R2/007.51 5-14 e
Commingled collection was not considered an economically feasible alternative at this
time. It would be less labor intensive for the residents and businesses, but would be
more labor intensive at the transfer or landfill site where it would be sorted. This alter-
native would be feasible when a mechanized recovery facility is put in operation, and
this alternative should be reexamined at that time.
Quantities and Types of Waste to be Diverted. The curbside collection of yard waste is
expected to divert 690 tons of yard waste from the landfill by 2000. This represents a
total waste stream reduction of 5.2 percent.
Method of Handling Materials. The method of composting chosen was windrow tech-
nology because this is the existing system and plans are in process to expand the
operation. The materials collected from the curbside program will be taken to the City
of Redding's composting facility.
Facility Requirements. New or additional facilities required may include an additional
'i truck and driver for the collection and delivery to the composting facility.
REDDING
' The selected program includes:
i
• Curbside collection of yard waste
• Dropoff container at transfer site
• Compost facility shared by Anderson, Redding, and Shasta County using
windrow technology
• Marketing compost to wholesalers
Direct no cost distribution of compost to residents, businesses, and agen-
cies
The City will start a curbside collection program, expand the existing composting
facility, and develop a marketing program.
i
Justification. The City currently operates a composting facility at Benton Transfer
Station, and materials can be dropped off at this location at no charge. To increase the
amount of materials collected, a curbside collection program was selected. A pilot
curbside recycling is in process, and it is anticipated that a curbside yard waste program
would have high participation rates and could be implemented in the short-term plan-
ning period.
I
Commingled collection was not considered an economically feasible alternative at this
time. It would be less labor intensive for the residents and businesses, but would be
RDD/R2/007.51 5-15
I
more labor intensive at the transfer or landfill site where it would be sorted. This alter-
native would be feasible when a mechanized recovery facility is put in operation, and
this alternative should be reexamined at that time.
Quantities and Types of Waste to be Diverted. The curbside and dropoff collection of
yard waste is expected to divert 9,446 tons of yard waste from the landfill by 1995 and
10,257 tons by 2000. This represents a total waste stream reduction of 8.5 percent.
Method of Handling Materials. The method of composting chosen was windrow tech-
nology because this is the system being used, and is the most cost-effective method.
Facility Requirements. New or additional facilities required for the selected program
include a truck and driver for curbside collection.
End Markets and End Users. The selected program for marketing is both sale and no
cost distribution. The City is working on a marketing plan for selling the compost. If
sale of the compost is not feasible, then the compost would be distributed at no cost to
residents, businesses, or agencies. If market conditions are unfavorable for sale of the
compost, and if it is not possible to give away the compost, the City's contingency plan
would be to stockpile the compost and use it in the closure of Benton Landfill. The
City's former landfill has ceased operation and is scheduled to close in April 1992.
DIVERSION OBJECTIVES '
Tables 5-3 through 5-5 summarize the diversion objectives for each of the composting
programs.
Table 5-3
Diversion Objectives by
Composting Program for Shasta County
Percent of
Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Curbside Pickup 0 0 2,471 1.2
Yardwaste Disposal 0 0 1,236 0.5
Ban '
Composting Facility 0 0 2,471 1.2
Composting Total 0 0 6,178 2.9
RDD/R2/007.51 5-16
i
d
iti
Table 5-4
Diversion Objectives by
Composting Program for the City of Redding
Percent of
' Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Curbside Pickup 3,778 3.4 4,103 3.4
Yardwaste Disposal 1,889 1.7 2,051 1.7
Ban
Composting Facility 3,779 3.4 4,103 3.4
Composting Total 9,446 8.5 10,257 8.5
'I
Table 5-5
Diversion Objectives by
Composting Program for the City of Anderson
it Percent of
�j Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
j
Curbside Pickup 0 0 . 276 2.1
Yardwaste Disposal 0 0 138 1.0
Ban
Composting Facility 0 0 276 2.1
i
Composting Total 0 0 690 5.2
I�
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Shasta County. The Department of Public Works will be responsible for implementing
or developing and managing the contracts for implementing the selected program.
Anderson. The Director of the Department of Public Workswill be responsible for
implementing or developing and managing the contracts for implementing the selected
program.
Redding. The Director of General Services will be responsible for implementing or
developing and managing the contracts for implementing the selected program.
�, RDD/R2/007.51 5-17
IMPLEMENTATION TASKS AND SCHEDULE '
i
A list of tasks that will be required to implement the project and a schedule for short- i
term and medium-term planning periods is included in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
Composting Implementation Schedule
Short-Term Medium-Term
Tasks 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Curbside Collection(Shasta County and Anderson)
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Develop public education program
• Start collection
Curbside Collection(Redding)
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Develop public education program
• Start collection
Dropoff Containers at Transfer Stations(Shasta County)
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Develop public education program
• Start collection
Dropoff Container at Landfill(Redding)
• Purchase equipment and containers
• Develop public education program
• Start collection
Composting Facility
• Select location
• Prepare site
• Purchase equipment
• Train personnel
• Begin operation
Marketing Plan
• Research potential markets
• Interview potential buyers
• Develop plan j
Ban at Landfill
• Draft ordinance
I
• Review period
• Adoption of ordinance
RDD/R2/007.51 5-18
i
h
COSTS, REVENUE, AND FUNDING SOURCES
The estimated costs are shown in Tables 5-7, 5-8, and 5-9.
Funds to cover the costs projected for these programs will be from the following
' sources:
• City of Redding Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Fund
• County of Shasta Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Chapter 9 presents a detailed funding discussion.
N ' MONITORING AND EVALUATION
MONITORING METHODS
tTo monitor the program for effectiveness in meeting diversion goals, the following
could be implemented:
Record quantities of yard waste collected from curbside collection
programs
• Record quantities of yard waste collected from dropoff containers
i
• Institute load checking programs to ensure that all yard waste is diverted
to the composting facility
' Conduct annual surveys of residents and businesses to obtain information
on participation
i
• Record quantities of yard waste received at the composting facility
i
• Conduct waste generation studies to verify amount of yard waste
removed from the waste stream
CRITERIA FOR MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
' The written criteria for measuring effectiveness include:
tQuantity of yard waste diverted from the landfills
• Quantity of yard waste composted by type and source
• Percent of resident participation in the yard waste division
i
RDD/R2/007.51 5-19
d
r
• Quantity of yard waste marketed
• Cost-effectiveness of program
Table 5-7 '
Composting Programs
Shasta County Costs
Capital Costs Annual O&M '
Program ($) Costs ($)
Curbside collection of yard waste 70,000 60,000 '
Dropoff containers at transfer stations 25,000 1,000
Ban yard waste at landfill 0 0 '
Table 5-8 '
Composting Programs
Anderson Costs
Capital Costs Annual O&M
Program ($) Costs ($)
Curbside collection of yard waste 7,000 6,000
Table 5-9 '
Composting Programs
Redding Costs
Capital Costs Annual O&M '
Program ($) Costs ($)
Curbside collection of yard waste 41,000a/yr 166,700 ,
Dropoff containers at landfill 5,000 1,000
Composting facility 33,300b/yr 96,000
Marketing plan 0 5,000 '
aFinanced beginning in fiscal year 1992 over 5 years at a 10% interest rate.
bFinanced beginning in fiscal year 1994 over 5 years at a 10% interest rate. '
B
V
V
RDD/R2/007.51 5-20 '
I ,
AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING,
EVALUATION, AND REPORTING
I ,
Shasta County. The Director of the Public Works Department will be responsible for
monitoring and evaluating the composting program, and he will be responsible for re-
tporting or managing the reporting of the results of the program.
Anderson. The Director of the Public Works Department will be responsible for moni-
toring and evaluating the composting program, and will also be responsible for report-
ing or managing the reporting of the results of the program.
Redding. The Director of General Services will be responsible for monitoring and
evaluating the composting program, and will also be responsible for reporting or man-
aging the reporting of the results of the program.
COSTS/FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
I ' FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
The costs associated with monitoring the effectiveness of the yard waste diversion pro-
gram are primarily administrative in nature and are not expected to require additional
funding.
CONTINGENCY MEASURES
I �
In the event the established objectives are not achieved, the following measures will be
considered:
• Increase education and public information program to increase participa-
tion rates
• Institute mandatory participation in collection programs
I
0 Require City and County agencies to use compost if marketing programs
are not successful
�J 0 Modify the objectives or reexamine diversion alternatives
I ,i
i'
RDD/R2/007.51 5-21
I �
i
Chapter 6
SPECIAL WASTES
' Special wastes are solid wastes that require unique handling and disposal methods.
Any solid waste that presents a hazard to human health or the environment if not
properly handled, or a waste that requires unique handling or disposal methods, is a
special waste. Handling and disposal of special waste may also require permits from
one or more state agencies.
i
I ' Examples of special wastes include bulky, difficult to handle wastes such as tires, white
goods (large appliances), and construction debris. Special wastes also include poten-
tially hazardous wastes such as industrial woodwaste, sewage sludge, and medical
wastes. Special wastes identified in Shasta County include tires, sewage sludge, wood-
waste, white goods, industrial sludge, and medical waste. Asbestos, a special waste, is
disposed of in Shasta County at the Anderson Solid Waste Landfill. This facility is
permitted to import asbestos from areas outside the County.
SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (1991-1995)
Shasta County
1. Divert tires from landfill by sending them to a cement plant to be used as
cement additive.
2. Divert white goods by salvaging at the landfill.
' 3. Divert ash for agricultural uses.
y' Anderson
d, 1. Divert tires by sending them to a cement plant to be used as cement additive.
2. Divert white goods by salvaging at the landfill.
Redding
1. Divert tires from the landfill by sending them to a cement plant to be used as a
cement additive.
2. Divert white goods by salvaging at the landfill.
N
RDD/R2/004.51 6-1
J
MEDIUM-TERM -2000 1996
OBJECTIVES J (1996-2000)
Shasta County ,
1. Continue diverting tires for use at a cement plant.
2. Continue diverting white goods by salvaging at the landfill.
3. Continue diverting ash for agricultural uses. i
4. Divert industrial sludge from paper mill by land application. ,
Anderson
1. Continue diverting tires for use at a cement plant.
2. Continue diverting white goods by salvaging at the landfill.
Redding
1. Continue diverting tires for use at a cement plant. ,
2. Continue diverting white goods by salvaging at the landfill. ,
TARGETED MATERIALS
The targeted special waste materials are tires white goods, ash and industrial sludge.
,
g P , wg , e.g
Tables 6-1 through 6-3 summarize anticipated diversion amounts for these materials in ,
1995 and 2000.
Table 6-1 '
Special Waste, Shasta County
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted y
Percent Material Percent Material '
of Waste Reduction of Waste Reduction
Targeted Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
White Goods 1,422 0.7 65 1,663 0.8 70 '
Tires 745 0.4 90 809 0.4 90
Ash 25,210 12.7 1 40 44,488 20.6 65
Industrial Sludge 0 0 0 6,118 2.8 35 '
Total 27,377 13.8 53,078 24.6
RDD/R2/004.51 6-2 ,
I
.I
Table 6-2
,i Special Waste, City of Anderson
Estimated Diversion Amount
i� 1995 2000
1 Targeted Targeted
Percent Material Percent Material
of Waste Reduction of Waste Reduction
Targeted Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
White Goods 156 1.2 65 186 1.3 70
Tires 84 0.6 90 93 0.6 90
Total 240 1.8 279 1.9
Table 6-3
Special Waste, City of Redding
Estimated Diversion Amount
1995 2000
Targeted Targeted
Percent Material Percent Material
Targeted of Waste Reduction of Waste Reduction
Materials Tons Stream (%) Tons Stream (%)
White Goods 1,309 1.2 65 1,531 1.3 70
Tires 686 0.6 90 744 0.6 90
Total 1,995 1.8 2,275 1.9
II EXISTING CONDITIONS
Some programs currently exist in Shasta County which divert several of the special
waste materials.
TIRES
I' Approximately 1,470 tons of tires are generated annually in Shasta County. Tires are
accepted at all landfills. Through tire retreading programs, the County currently diverts
i' approximately 900 tons of tires annually.
WHITE GOODS
White goods are enamel-coated major appliances such as washing machines, clothes
dryers, hot water heaters, stoves, and refrigerators. These items are accepted at all of
I'
1
I
' RDD/R2/W4.51 6-3
the landfills. Salvage operations occur at all the landfills in the e County. The lar ,
g p Y g
appliances are taken out of the waste stream as the trucks are unloaded, and stock-
piled. After enough material has been stockpiled, a scrap metal company compacts the
appliances and hauls away the compacted materials for recycling. Approximately
3,879 tons of white goods are generated, and 2,375 tons are diverted annually.
ASH
Wood ash is produced at three cogeneration plants in Shasta County. The cogenera-
tion plants burn sawdust and other wood scraps as fuel in steam-driven powerplants.
Approximately 54,933 tons of ash per year are generated, and currently, 17,168 tons are
diverted by using it on agricultural lands as soil amendment. The ash is taken to local '
farmers who disk it into the soil. The remainder of the ash, approximately 37,765 tons,
is taken to the landfills. The land application of the ash requires a permit from the '
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB has developed
guidelines and practices to be followed during application.
INDUSTRIAL SLUDGE
Approximately 14,029 tons per year of industrial sludge are being generated from a '
paper mill. The sludge is currently being dewatered and disposed of at a private land-
fill, which is a monofill for the sludge. There are currently no permitted uses for the
sludge other than taking it to a landfill.
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE
SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAMS
Alternatives were identified for the four targeted special wastes, including recycling and
reuse programs.
ALTERNATIVES FOR TIRES '
The following alternatives were identified for tire diversion:
• Rubberized Asphalt--One alternative that the CIWMB is investigating is
using used tires for paving material. Tires are shredded and blended
with other products to produce rubberized asphalt. The technology is p
currently in the testing phase, and preliminary results indicate that the p
rubberized asphalt material is excellent for paving roads in colder
climates. Caltrans is testing and evaluating the material. The CIWMB
estimates that the rubberized asphalt technology could be available for
general use in 5 or 6 years. One mile of roadway is expected to use '
approximately 16,000 tires.
N
RDD/R2/004.51 6-4
i
J
Cement Plants--Tires can be sent to cement plants. The tires are used as
fuel along with natural gas. The ash and steel left after burning are used
as a cement additive. There is no residue left to dispose of. Calaveras
Cement in Shasta County has indicated that it could start accepting tires
q' from Shasta County in August or September 1991. The plant would use
approximately 2 million tires per year and could take all tires generated
1n Shasta County.
Waste to Energy--Tires can be burned using environmentally acceptable
technologies to fuel steam powerplants. The first U.S. tire-burning
powerplant is currently operating in Modesto, California. Tires can also
be ground into small rubber chips and used as a supplemental fuel in
boiler operations.
' ALTERNATIVES FOR WHITE GOODS
d The following alternatives were identified for white goods:
• Salvaging at Landfills--The current salvaging program would be expanded
to increase the percentage of white goods recovered at the landfills.
i
• White Goods Collection Days--Collection days would be specified
throughout the year when residents could set out or pick up, white goods
from specified locations. Salvage companies, such as Short's Scrap Metal,
could recover white goods not picked up by the residents. This alterna-
tive would require centralized collection points with adequate space for
parking, loading and unloading, and storage of excess white goods not
picked up during the day. A special white goods collection day staff
would be required by this alternative, as well as a thorough advertising
campaign.
ALTERNATIVES FOR ASH
The following alternatives were identified for ash:
Agricultural Land Application--The ash would continue to be applied to
agricultural land as a soil amendment.
• Other Land Applications--The ash could be mixed with sewage sludge
and used along freeways and in burn areas of forestlands.
�I
• Reinjection at Plant--The ash would be reinjected and burned again,
i' which could result in a 50 percent volume reduction.
• Cover Material at Landfill--The ash could be mixed with dirt and used as
a cover material at the landfills.
RDD/R2/004.51 6-5
Research Alternative Uses--The California Integrated Waste Manage-
ment
'
' g ge-
ment is preparing a study on the alternative uses of ash. The study will
be used to evaluate future alternatives for uses of ash in Shasta County. ,
ALTERNATIVES FOR INDUSTRIAL SLUDGE
• Land Application--The sludge would be applied to tree farms owned by
the paper company in Tehama and Glenn Counties.
• Research Alternative Uses--Additional uses for the sludge will continue
to be examined. Any use would require a permit from the RWQCB. ,
• Continue Landfilling--The sludge would continue to be landfilled until
another use is found and permitted. ,
SELECTION OF SPECIAL WASTE ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were selected for implementation in Shasta County:
• Tires--Send to cement plant for use as fuel.
• White goods--Continue and expand salvaging at landfill.
• Ash--Use on agricultural land as a soil amendment.
• Industrial Sludge--Apply to land for tree farms.
TIRES TO CEMENT PLANT '
Justification and Amount Diverted
Approximately 1,470 tons of tires are generated per year in Shasta County. Currently,
61 percent of these tires, or approximately 900 tons, are diverted. ,
Burning at the cement plant was chosen because it is an existing use; it has no
residue--the ash and steel are used in making cement; no new public facilities are
required; the private sector is providing facilities and services; the entire amount of ,
tires generated can be used for this one program; whole tires can be used so no split-
ting or chipping is required; and the program can be funded from fees collected from
the public; no new funding sources would be required.
Methods for Handling and Disposal, End Uses, and Facilities Required
The Calaveras Cement plant, or its contractor, Cemenergy, will provide and place col-
lection containers for the tires. Trailers or bins can be placed at landfills or tire stores, ,
and these will be emptied and the tires trucked to the cement plant by private
RDD/R2/004.51 6-6 ,
contractor. A contract will need to be signed between Calaveras Cement and Shasta
County.
No new County or city facilities will be required. It is expected that the storage con-
tainers and the hauling will be provided by the private sector.
u
WHITE GOODS SALVAGING AT LANDFILLS
Justification and Amount Diverted
Approximately 3,879 tons of white goods are generated per year in Shasta County.
Currently, 61 percent, or 2,375 tons, of the white goods are diverted.
i
This alternative was selected because it has already demonstrated success in diverting
' some material. It is anticipated that expansion of the existing salvaging operation will
be relatively easy to implement.
Methods for Handling and Disposal, End Uses, and Facilities Required
The current white goods salvaging operations at the landfills would be expanded. The
local salvage operation will pick up the white goods from the landfills. The end use for
white goods is scrap metal.
it ASH AS SOIL AMENDMENT
Justification and Amount Diverted
Approximately 54,933 tons of ash are generated per year. Currently, 31 percent of the
ash, or approximately 17,168 tons, are being diverted. This alternative can potentially
divert 90 percent of the ash.
This alternative was selected because it is an existing use. It is beneficial in that it
improves the soil, no new public facilities are required, the private sector can provide
the necessary materials and services, and no new funding sources would be required.
Methods for Handling and Disposal, End Uses, and Facilities Required
.I
1 The ash is trucked from the cogeneration plants to the farms and ranches, and it is
disked into the soil, according to "Suggested Management Practices for Application of
Wood Ash as a Soil Amendment" by the RWQCB. No new facility would be required.
RDD/R2/004.51 6-7
v
LAND APPLICATION OF I ,
NDUSTRIAL SLUDGE
Justification and Amount Diverted
Approximately 14,029 tons of industrial sludge are generated per year. None of the
sludge is currently being diverted. This alternative would divert 35 percent of the '
sludge by the year 2000, approximately 6,118 tons.
This alternative was selected because the site is existing; no new facilities are required.
Also, this alternative can be handled by the private sector, and no new funding sources
would be required. �I
Methods for Handling and Disposal, End Uses, and Facilities Required
The sludge would be trucked by the paper company to the tree farms in Tehama and
Glenn Counties. It would be applied to the land, and no new facilities would be
required.
DIVERSION OBJECTIVES
Tables 6-4 through 6-6 summarize the diversion objectives for each of the special waste
programs.
Table 6-4
Diversion Objectives by
Special Waste Program for Shasta County
Percent of
Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
Expand Salvage 1,422 0.7 1,663 0.8 ,
Operations
I
Burn Tires at 745 0.4 809 0.4 ,
Calaveras Cement
Plant G
Land Application of 25,210 12.7 44,488 20.6
Ash
Land Application of 0 0 6,118 2.8
Industrial Sludge
Special Waste Total 27,377 13.8 53,078 24.6 G
e
0
6
RDD/R2/004.51 6-8 '
�I
Table 6-5
Diversion Objectives by
Special Waste Program for the City of Redding
Percent of
Percent of Total Total Waste
N Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
�I Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
i' Expand Salvage 1,309 1.2 1,531 1.3
Operations
i
I� Burn Tires at 686 0.6 744 0.6
Calaveras Cement
Plant
Special Waste Total 1,995 1.8 2,275 1.9
'i
Table 6-6
Diversion Objectives by
Special Waste Program for the City of Anderson
Percent of
Percent of Total Total Waste
Diversion Goal Waste Stream Diversion Goal Stream
Program (Tons) (1995) (Tons) (2000)
i
Expand Salvage 156 1.2 186 1.3
Operations
I� Burn Tires at 84 0.6 93 0.6
Calaveras Cement
Plant
I
I Special Waste Total 240 1.8 279 1.9
d,
SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Table 6-7 shows an implementation schedule for the short term and medium term. It
-lists tasks, the responsible agency, and a timeframe.
q
Tables 6-8, 6-9, and 6-10 are cost and revenue summaries for the selected alternatives.
RDD/R2/004.51 6-9
Table 6-7
Shasta County, Anderson,and Redding
Special Waste Implementation Schedule
Short-Term Medium-Term
Tasks 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Tires to Cement Plant
• Negotiate and sign contract with
cement plant
• Obtain and place containers
• Arrange transportation to plant
• Implement program ,
White Goods Salvaging at Landfills
• Obtain necessary equipment
• Develop public awareness program
• Arrange for pick up as required
Ash-Agricultural Land Application (Shasta County)
• Survey agricultural areas
• Identify potential farms
• Implement program
Industrial Sludge-Land Application (Shasta County)
• Identity area for application t
• Obtain permits for disposal
• Implement program
1
�I
RDD/R2/004.51 6-I0
I
I�
Table 6-8
i� Special Waste Programs
Shasta County
Costs and Revenue
d Capital
Costs Annual O&M Revenue
R Program ($) Costs ($) ($)
Tires 0 20,000 20,000
• Cement Plant Fuel
White Goods 0 35,000 0
I, Landfill Salvage
I Ash 0 0 0
• Agriculture Application
I, Industrial Sludge 0 0 0
• Land Application
-T
.;i
Table 6-9
u Special Waste Programs
Anderson
Costs and Revenue
d
Capital
Costs Annual O&M Revenue
Program ($) Costs (&) ($)
Tires 0 2,500 2,500
• Cement Plant Fuel
White Goods 0 5,000 0
Landfill Salvage
i
Table 6-10
q Special Waste Programs
Redding
Costs and Revenue
Capital
Costs Annual O&M Revenue
Program ($) Costs ($) ($)
Tires 0 20,000 20,000
• Cement Plant Fuel
White Goods 0 30,000 0
• Landfill Salvage
' RDD/R2/004.51 6-11
1
,I
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
This section summarizes monitoring and evaluation programs that will be used to help
ensure that the 1995 and 2000 special waste diversion goals are met.
TIRES !
Annual tonnage records of tires transported to the cement plant will be kept by the ,
landfill operators receiving tires from local residents, and by the private contractor who
transports tires from the landfill to the cement plant. These records will be reviewed
annually to check that the SRRE goals are being achieved. '
WHITE GOODS
The landfill operators will keep annual records on the tonnage of white goods received, '
and the tonnage of white goods recovered by the scrap metal companies. These
records will be reviewed annually to check that the SRRE goals are being achieved.
ASH
The cogeneration plants will be keep annual records on the tonnage of ash taken to
g P P g
agricultural lands. Records are also kept by the landfills on how much ash is received.
The program is also monitored by the RWQCB.
INDUSTRIAL SLUDGE
The paper company will keep annual records on the tonnage of sludge taken to tree
farms. The County will also check the amount reported as required by the disposal
permit. The program will also be monitored by the RWQCB.
The persons responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting include: '
• Shasta County--Director of Public Works
• Anderson--Director of Public Works
• Redding--Director of General Services
Funds to cover the costs for monitoring and evaluation will be from the following ,
sources:
• City of Redding Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Fund
• County of Shasta Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Chapter 9 presents a detailed funding discussion.
RDD/R2/004.51 6-12
I�
i
The contingency measures that would be adopted if the objectives and diversion goals
were not met include:
• Increase staffing
Expand the programs
• Consider fines for noncompliance
1
�i
�1
1
i
RDD/R2/004.51 6-13
��
t
1
1
1
1
1
' Chapter 7
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
An education and public information program is an essential part of successfully imple-
menting the selected alternatives in the SRRE components. The purpose of the SRRE
is to take an integrated approach to waste management in order to meet the
'! 25 percent and 50 percent reduction requirements. To achieve the participation in the
I source reduction composting, recycling, and special waste programs, methods will be
' required to inform and educate the waste generators. Education explains why the inte-
grated waste management programs are necessary; public information lets people know
I�
how to participate in the programs.
Each of the components includes an education and public information program as part
of the implementation. In newly developed programs, it will be necessary to change
consumer behavior as well as promote participation. This component targets educating
and informing children as well as adults. The next generation of consumers, the
children, needs education on the prevention and management of solid waste. If these
practices are taught in elementary school, perhaps, by the time the children reach
adulthood, practices of materials separation will become part of their lifestyles.
In Shasta County, City of Anderson, and City of Redding, the education and public
information programs will play a particularly important role. Some of the programs
will be new to the residents, businesses, and schools, and participation will be depen-
dent upon the level of support and encouragement provided. This component identi-
fies the objectives, describes existing programs, and outlines the program selected to
ensure meeting the 25 percent and 50 percent waste reduction goals. Shasta County,
Anderson, and Redding plan to use the same education and public information
program.
I�
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals are to (1) increase awareness of waste management practices, (2) gain sup-
port and participation necessary to successfully implement an integrated waste man-
agement system, and (3) achieve an overall 25 percent diversion by 1995 and a 50
percent diversion by 2000.
I
SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (1991-1995)
Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding
1. Provide Recycling/Solid Waste Coordinator to oversee waste management
programs.
RDD/R218/021.51 7-1
2. Teach a waste management curriculum in all schools in Shasta County.
3. Develop a recycling program in all schools in Shasta County.
4. Hold public meetings to announce goals and programs required for meeting
25 percent and 50 percent reductions in waste.
5. Gather existing promotional materials, including pamphlets, brochures certifi-
cates, posters, stickers, buttons, and magnets.
6. Develop a monthly or quarterly newsletter.
7. Arrange for radio announcements on recycling programs.
8. Provide articles and special features to local newspapers. '
9. Establish a speakers bureau to give presentations to schools, businesses, resi-
dents, and groups.
10. Participate in annual events focussing on waste reduction and recycling.
11. Develop display materials and participate in local events to distribute informa-
tion on waste reduction.
12. Develop slide shows and video presentations for schools, residents, businesses,
and community groups.
13. Present awards to schools, businesses, and community groups to recognize out- '
standing waste reduction practices.
14. Provide tours of the landfill and recycling centers for schools, businesses, and ,
community groups.
MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES (1996-2000)
Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding
The short-term objectives will continue in the years 1996 to 2000. The following objec-
tives will be added.
1. Develop materials to track the progress of meeting the diversion goals.
2. Develop and distribute technical information brochures on source reduction,
recycling, and composting. Brochures will also include information on special
wastes, household hazardous wastes, tires, oil, batteries, and other materials.
RDD/R218/021.51 7-2
.A
�r
EXISTING PROGRAMS
'r PRIVATE PROGRAMS
Ip Three private recycling companies have public education and information programs.
Their programs consist of advertising on radio and in newspapers, speaking to commu-
nity groups and business, and holding recycling contests among schools. These
companies are buy-back centers, and residents can drop off aluminum cans, glass,
plastic, newspaper, and cardboard. For businesses, they also have cardboard and white
paper recycling programs.
,j SCHOOL PROGRAMS
II The schools in Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding participate in several programs
regarding waste management practices. The City of Redding's Recycling Coordinator
contacts all schools in Shasta County each year and offers the following services: talks
on recycling; a slide show on reducing recycling and reusing; and a tour of the transfer
'I r station/recycling facility and the landfill.
The Recycling Coordinator also assists the schools in setting up paper recycling
programs. Approximately 30 schools in Shasta County have paper recycling programs
at this time.
' rI
PUBLIC PROGRAMS
I
For the past 4 years, the City of Redding has used education and public information as
a means of promoting participation in its Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse programs. The
City also provides these services to the City of Anderson and Shasta County. Their
j programs target schools, businesses, community groups, homeowners associations, youth
groups, and individuals. Services available include:
i�
• Speakers bureau
• Tours of landfill and recycling center
• Slide shows
i
Videos
• Brochures
Puppets
• Costumed characters
Block volunteer organization
• Booths at local events
• Hand-outs, including buttons, magnets, T-shirts, and posters
Recycling contests
• Annual Clean-a-Thon
r
' RDD/R218ro21.51 7-3
® 1
The City of Redding has a pilot curbside recycling project underway. The City received
a Department of Conservation grant in 1990 and started a curbside collection program
for 2,500 households in seven neighborhoods. The City realized that a great deal of
exposure was required to encourage residents to participate in the recycling program.
At the start of the program, articles were published in the local newspaper, a neighbor-
hood block leader was organized, flyers were mailed to all residents in the recycling
area, public service announcements were on the radio, the Recycling Coordinator
appeared on a weekly program of the local television station, and a monthly newsletter
was established. This program has been successful, and currently approximately 40
percent of all residents in the test areas participate in recycling.
A white paper pilot project has been started by the City of Redding. The City is pick- ,
ing up cardboard, white paper, and computer paper 2 days a week from city, county,
and state offices as well as private businesses and schools. A brochure, A Guide to
Office Paper Recycling, is mailed to the major offices and businesses in Redding to
encourage participation.
TARGETED GENERATORS
As a result of the waste generation study, the generators targeted for the education and
public information program include:
• Residential--both single-family and multiunit dwellings
• Schools--including kindergarten through twelfth grade, and the junior
college
• Commercial/industrial--including bars, restaurants, offices, public agencies, ,
and the timber and agricultural industries
SELECTION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
The following programs have been selected to be added to the existing programs.
WASTE COORDINATOR '
A Recycling/Solid Waste Coordinator is essential to oversee the various programs.
These programs, described in the following sections, include media, communication,
education, and special campaigns. This person would present the programs as well as
arrange for presentations. The coordinator would also monitor participation levels in
programs.
RDD/R218/021.51 7-4 '
r,
MEDIA PROGRAMS
Radio Announcements
Radio advertisements and public service announcements can be effective in increasing
� participation in recycling efforts. The private recycling companies pay for advertising
on local radio stations. Public service announcements are also broadcast by local sta-
tions for public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and community groups.
Newpapers
! Articles will be written for local newspapers describing waste management programs.
In particular, maps of collection boxes for recyclable will be published to direct people
to specific locations. Special features should also be written covering specific events,
! such as the Clean-a-Thou.
COMMUNICATION
Newsletter
A monthly or quarterly newsletter could be prepared and distributed to residents. The
newsletter would convey information on existing waste management programs, as well
as give updates or participation rates. The City of Redding currently has a monthly
newsletter; a newsletter could be developed for the County and the City of Anderson.
Speakers Bureau
A speakers bureau will be organized that includes persons knowledgeable about solid
waste issues. The list of speakers will be made available to schools, businesses, resi-
dents, and groups in the County and the Cities of Anderson and Redding.
' Workshops
I
A series of workshops would be held to provide instruction and assistance on backyard
composting. Volunteers could be trained to lead these workshops. In addition to back-
yard composting, other workshop topics could include consumer awareness, product
purchasing, source reduction techniques for offices, reuse of materials, and recycling at
i
home and at the office.
Promotional Materials
A variety of promotional materials should be gathered from available sources, including
the CIWMB, and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling.
Materials include pamphlets, brochures, certificates, posters, stickers, buttons, and
magnets. These items can be distributed at meetings, workshops, and special events.
RDD/R218/021.51 7-5
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS '
Whiskeytown Environmental Center
The Whiskeytown Environmental Center has a nature education camp for school
children. As part of its program, the environmental center teaches recycling, reusing,
reducing, and composting.
Carter House Museum
This organization currently conducts energy audits in schools in Shasta County. This
program could be expanded to include waste audits in addition to the energy audits. ,
PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL EVENTS
Display and exhibit materials should be developed that can be used at local events,
such as the County Fair and the Science Fair. Brochures and handouts should be pre-
pared for distribution at these events.
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
Presentations should be made at meetings at local business, professional, and service
organizations, including the Chambers of Commerce. This would be an effective means
of contacting businesses to distribute information or establishing source reduction and
recycling programs in the commercial sector.
EDUCATION '
Waste Management Curriculum
A curriculum to teach waste management in elementary, junior high, and high schools
should be developed. Some materials are already available, such as the Wizard of
Waste, the third-grade component of the Solid Waste Environmental Education
Program (SWEEP), and the Trash Monster, the sixth-grade component of SWEEP. '
These kits contain a teachers guide, film strip, cassette tape, game cards, booklets, tests,
badges, and home information leaflets. The CIWMB sponsored the creation of
SWEEP, and the board is currently in the process of developing more educational
materials for use in the classroom, including videos. The County and cities should keep
current with the development of these materials through the Public Affairs Division of
the CIWMB.
Recycling Programs in Schools
A recycling program will be established in each school in Shasta County. The recycling
activities in schools promote participation in community recycling programs. Children
will take what they learn in school and apply it at home.
i
RDD/R218/021.51 7-6
i
' TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Composting Education
i
A program will be established to teach residents in the County and the Cities how to
compost in their backyards. Residents would be supplied with information on how and
what to compost; demonstration projects would be developed, and community work-
shops would be held.
I �
Another program would be developed when composting is started at the landfills.
Information would be distributed to have compostable materials taken to the areas, and
a marketing program would be established to sell or give away the compost product.
Junk Mail Reduction Program
Residents can remove themselves from junk mailing lists by writing to the Direct Mar-
keting Association Mail Preference Service. This information can be distributed to
households as part of a regular mailing, such as the County tax bill.
Technical Information Brochures
Brochures will be developed and distributed to residents, schools, businesses, and com-
munity groups to provide technical information on source reduction, recycling, and
composting. The brochures will also include information on special wastes, household
hazardous wastes, tires, oil, batteries, and other materials.
AWARDS
'! An awards program will be developed to recognize individuals, schools, businesses, and
community groups that have developed and implemented successful waste management
practices. The program will reward participation and encourage further support of the
County's programs.
i
IMPLEMENTATION
'I
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
i
The agencies responsible for implementing the program is Shasta County Department
of Public Works, City of Anderson Public Works Department, and City of Redding
General Services Department. The City of Redding currently has a recycling
.coordinator. An additional person may be required. This could be a staff person,
consultant, volunteer, or a person sponsored by a nonprofit agency.
RDD/R218/021.51 7-7
TASKS REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The first task is providing sufficient staffing for the Recycling/Solid Waste Coordinator
to design, manage, implement, and monitor the programs. The Recycling/Solid Waste
Coordinator would oversee the programs in Shasta County.
The tasks necessary to implement the education and public information programs are
summarized in Table 7-1. The tasks are for source reduction, recycling, composting,
and special waste.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The schedule for short-term and medium-term implementation is shown in Table 7-1.
COSTS AND REVENUE ,
The costs and revenue for implementation of the education and public information
programs are shown in Table 7-2.
Funds to cover the costs projected for these programs will be from the following
sources:
• City of Redding Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Fund
• County of Shasta Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Chapter 9 presents a detailed funding discussion.
Table 7-1
Education and Public Information Implementation Schedule
Short-Term Medium-Term
Tasks 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ,
• Provide recycling/solid waste coordi-
nator
• Develop promotional materials
• Place ads on radio
• Write newspaper articles
• Develop newsletters
• Establish speakers bureau
• Conduct workshops
• Obtain speakers for schools
• Develop recycling programs at
schools
• Establish awards program
• Arrange landfill tours
• Monitor program for effectiveness
RDD/R218/021.51 7-3 �'
I�
Table 7-2
w Education and Public Information Programs
Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding Costs and Revenue
Annual
Capital O&M
tlCosts Costs Revenue
Program ($) ($) ($)
;i Recycling/Solid Waste Coordinator 0 40,000 0
Media Programs 0 15,000
• Radio announcements 0
'I Newspaper articles 0
Communication 0 10,000
• Newsletter 0
• Speakers bureau 0
• Backyard composting workshops 0
Education 0 15,000
• Speakers at schools 0
• Coordinate recycling programs at all schools 0
ii
Awards Program 0 5,000 0
a Ordinator cost is shared between Shasta County and Anderson only.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
METHODS TO MEASURE ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The following methods will be used to monitor the waste reduction programs:
• Survey recycling firms
• Mail questionnaires to residents, schools, and businesses
• Conduct random telephone surveys of residents, schools, and businesses
• Conduct random waste audits of schools and businesses
Check loads at landfill periodically
'! 0 Interview landfill operators and review their records
• Interview haulers and review their records
Conduct annual waste generation and waste characterization studies
I
With the use of these methods, the County should be able to determine the participa-
tion rate in the waste reduction programs, the increase in volume of recyclable
materials, and the decrease in the amount of waste generated.
eRDD/R218/021.51 7-9
WRITTEN CRITERIA TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of the education and public information programs will be evaluated
using the following criteria:
• Has sufficient staffing been obtained?
• What are participation rates in each of the waste reduction and diversion
programs?
• Is a waste management curriculum being taught in each school in Shasta
County? �
• Has a speakers bureau been set up, and how many speaking engage-
ments have been scheduled for residents, schools, businesses, and com-
munity groups?
• Are there public service announcements on the radio and articles in the
newspapers?
AGENCIES AND PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING,
EVALUATING, AND REPORTING
The Shasta County Department of Public Works is responsible for monitoring, eval-
uating, and reporting the effectiveness of the education and public information
programs.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS,
REVENUE, AND REVENUE SOURCES
The cost involved in monitoring and evaluating the education and public information
programs is for staffing the Recycling/Solid Waste Coordinator position.
CONTINGENCY MEASURES
The following measures will be implemented if the diversion objectives are not met:
• Increase staffing if additional exposure is necessary ,
• Increase funding if more materials are required
• Add new programs if certain items are not being recycled or composted
• Contact and interview similar jurisdictions who are meeting diversion
requirements
RDD/R218/021.51 7-10
• Use surcharges, special assessments, and higher fees if no other means
can be found to meet diversion objectives
'r
Funds to cover the costs of the coordinator will be from the following sources:
City of Redding Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Fund
• County of Shasta Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
,r
it
� r
� r
� r
� r
� r
� r
RDD/R218/021.51 7-11
t
��
�I
��
� I
Chapter 8
DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY COMPONENT
J
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires jurisdictions to identify cur-
rent and future disposal facilities as part of their Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements. This section contains a description of the existing facilities in Shasta County,
identifies the anticipated capacity needs for Shasta County over the next 15 years, and
identifies those existing disposal facilities expected to close within 15 years and the
County plan to establish new or existing facilities within the next 15 years.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Four disposal sites are currently operating in Shasta County. Table 8-1 summarizes
pertinent information for these landfills, including class, type, owner, operator, quantity
of waste received, disposal fee, permitted site acreage, permitted capacity, and remain-
ing capacity in cubic yards and years for each disposal site. Each of the four sites is
I; discussed briefly below.
i
i
Table 8-1
Permitted Landfill Summary
Shasta County,California
,i 1990 Annual Permitted Permitted
Landfill Name Disposal Fee Estimated Site Daily Remaining
and Type Owner Operator ($) Quantitya Acreage Capacitya Capacity
Anderson Solid Anderson Anderson 13.00/ton 100,805 tons 270 acres 1,400 cu 9,953,000 cu yd
j Waste--Class III Solid Waste, Solid Waste, 6.50/cu yd 201,610 cu yd yd/day 29 years
Inc. Inc.
Intermountain Intermountain Intermountai 36.00/ton 27,864 tons 164 acres 480 cu yd/ 873,250 cu yd
Landfill-- landfill, Inc. n Landfill, 55,728 cu yd day 26 years
Class III Inc.
i
Simpson Land- Simpson Simpson None 14,029 tons 26 acres Peak-- 950,000 cu yd
fill(Twin Paper Paper 28,058 cu yd 72 cu yd/ 29 years
�I Bridges)-- Company Company day;
Class III monthly
average--
40 cu yd/
day
West Central Shasta County City of 21.73/ton 88,588 tons 1,058 1,400 cu 7,078,000 cu yd
Landfill-- Redding 177,176 cu yd acres yd/day 31 years
Class III
aAssuming a weight-to-volume conversion factor of 2 cubic yards per ton.
i
RDD/R56/009.51 $-1
ANDERSON SOLID WASTE '
This Class III landfill is owned and operated by Anderson Solid Waste Inc. The landfill
receives approximately 600 tons/day of solid waste from residential, commercial, indus-
trial, and agricultural sources. It also receives asbestos-containing waste, shredder
waste, and other hazardous wastes that have received a variance from the Department
of Health Services. In 1990, Anderson Solid Waste imported 24,145 tons, or roughly
48,290 cubic yards, of waste from jurisdictions located outside of Shasta County.
INTERMOUNTAIN LANDFILL
This Class III landfill is owned and operated by Intermountain Landfill, Inc. The land-
fill receives approximately 30 tons/day of municipal waste and an additional 54 tons/day
of wood ash. The municipal waste includes material from residential, commercial, and
industrial sources.
SIMPSON LANDFILL (TWIN BRIDGES)
This Class II landfill is owned and operated by the Simpson Paper Company. The
landfill receives approximately 50 tons/day of residual sludges from the paper manufac-
turing process. The landfill is permitted to operate at a peak capacity of 90 tons/day,
with a monthly average not to exceed 50 tons/day.
WEST CENTRAL LANDFILL
This Class III landfill is owned by Shasta County and operated by the City of Redding
under contract. The landfill receives an estimated 325 tons/day of nonhazardous waste
from residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sources. Septage sludge and
wood ash may be accepted with authorization from the RWQCB and the Shasta
County Department of Environmental Health.
DISPOSAL FEES
Table 8-1 summarizes the disposal fees for all the landfills. There is no fee associated
with the Simpson Landfill, because the Simpson Paper Company is the sole user.
WASTE TYPES
Nonhazardous municipal and industrial waste is received at the Anderson Solid Waste,
Intermountain, and West Central Landfills. Hazardous asbestos-containing wastes and
shredder wastes are also received at Anderson Solid Waste, which has received a vari-
ance from the Department of Health Services. As previously mentioned, the Simpson
Landfill only receives residual sludges from the paper manufacturing process. The
actual composition of the waste stream in the County was addressed in detail in
Chapter 2.
RDD/R56/009.51 8-2 '
DISPOSAL FACILITY CAPACITY NEEDS PROJECTION
The disposal needs capacity to accommodate anticipated solid waste generation within
Shasta County for a 15-year period commencing in 1991 is based upon the waste gener-
ation analysis performed pursuant to Title 14 CCR, Article 6.1. The anticipated solid
I� waste disposal facility capacity was calculated using the following equation developed by
the CIWMB:
Additional CapacityY., n = [(G+1) - (D+TC+LF+E)]rar n _
where:
G = The amount of solid waste projected to be generated in the jurisdiction.
I = The amount of solid waste that is expected to be imported to the jurisdiction
for disposal in permitted solid waste disposal facilities through interjuris-
dictional agreement(s) with other cities or counties, or through agreements
with solid waste enterprises, as defined in Section 40193 of the Public
Resources Code.
D = The amount diverted t
i� hrough successful implementation of proposed source
reduction, recycling, and composting programs.
TC = The amount of volume reduction occurring through available, permitted
transformation facilities.
I
LF = The amount of permitted solid waste disposal capacity that is available for
disposal in the jurisdiction, or solid waste generated in the jurisdiction.
E = The amount of solid waste generated in the jurisdiction that is exported to
solid waste disposal facilities through interjurisdictional agreement(s) with
other cities or counties, or through agreements with solid waste enterprises,
as defined in Section 40193 of the Public Resources Codes.
i � _
n Each year of a 15-year period commencing in 1991. [Iterative in 1-year
increments].
I ' Results of the solid waste capacity needs projection are shown in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 for
current conditions and SRRE conditions, respectively. The results of the needs projec-
tion indicate that Shasta County will not need additional disposal capacity during the
15-year planning period if the diversion goals of AB 939 are met.
RDD/R56M9.51 8-3
Z
v'; v, 4 rt N,
C :l
� f
.j
K
d
zc
J
•L C =_ J
N v L O
r C - R
ze
C C S � •,� C C C O O C C O O C ^� C
C K
` y 7
.fir J
1.
a s
c
Z
r.
3
f`J N N C`J N N
N
8-4 ,
9
z
v v
I '� Z
x x N r 7
I � xx rJ G
^ x ^J N t
`�.. R r T x ? �J 1 x J
x r i
I J
x v: r. T 7
Z K N' N O T x r eG
S T
i� 41 ., f v
` 6 41
� J
-
'I c v T o _ o
y. W
x r
Q 7D
II 3� _
N x `G: 7 N O '.0 ^C x x N ^J x
N N x x �. N. .,'� x Nr
y n
N
N v,
I
1 C
'I
c
C U
x M r O M '^ x ...
3 a
7 N
<f v; r x
Z
I N
8-5
PLANS TO CLOSE OR PHASE OUT FACILITIES
The Benton Landfill ceased operation closed in April 1990 and is planned to be closed
and capped in April 1992. Shasta County has plans to close and cap one section of
the West Central Landfill in the summer of 1992 (Phase I closure). No additional
closures are planned during the 15-year AB 939 planning period.
PLANS TO ESTABLISH NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES
Anderson Solid Waste is currently obtaining the permits to.expand its storage capacity.
The City of Redding is currently looking for a new transfer station location. The trans-
fer station could potentially function as a composting site, materials recovery facility,
and transfer facility.
PLANS TO EXPORT WASTE
Shasta County has no plans to export significant quantities of waste for disposal within
the 15-year planning period. A negligibly small amount of waste (<0.1 percent of total
waste disposed of) is exported from rural portions of Shasta County to Siskiyou
County.
RDD/R56/009.51 8-6 ,
A
Chapter 9
FUNDING
1 �
The purpose of the Funding component is to demonstrate that there is sufficient fund-
ing and allocation of resources for integrated waste management planning of Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) programs.
The following funding sources are commonly used throughout California to provide
solid waste management:
Tipping Fees--A tipping fee is the amount charged by a transfer station,
landfill, or transformation facility to accept a specified amount of waste
(usually expressed in terms of tons or cubic yards).
• Property Taxes--Property taxes involve those taxes that are levied on the
person or corporation recorded on the deed of record. These taxes can
support a variety of public services including solid waste management.
Property taxes have limitations such as statutory ceilings on tax rates,
competing public services such as public education, lack of income or
economic activity to support higher taxes, and lack of votes support.
User Fees--These fees are essentially applied to household waste and
industrial waste. User fees offer a fair means of payment for waste col-
lection and disposal. User fees assess the actual user based on weight
j and volume or number of containers collected instead of a flat fee and
local tax-financed systems.
Currently Shasta County and the City of Anderson fund their solid waste budgets
through a combination of tipping fees paid at the West Central Landfill and monthly
based user fees paid by residences, commercial business and industries to a private
solid waste hauler. The City of Redding relies entirely on monthly based on user fees
�I
to fund its solid waste budget.
ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS
Table 9-1 summarizes estimated costs to implement all of the SRRE programs costs to
implement all of the SRRE programs presented in Chapter 3 through 7. The most
notable startup costs are incurred by the City of Redding for the following programs:
• Pay-for-Weight Source Reduction Program. This program will require
revisions in the current billing system, and equipment modifications so
that the weight of each residents weekly trash can be recorded before
' RDD/R53/001.51 9-1
11
!�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
l
I �
I
'i C) co v r C) v co co o � cD Ln w o 0 0 o p o C) 0 cn
cD c0 V f� O Ln n O O O O Ln 69 f9 c9 69 O O O O m O
h O M V O to Ln r cc cD clO N O O N O N N v
N O V CD cD V M V V O O O V (7) M cn
S O r co c0 M M ^ N r N cam') E9 69 69
r I I
m co O co O 1l V O O O r N O O O O O O O O m Q
O O Ln f� O O O cD co O N In � 69 0 69 69 O O O O I- o)
O n N r N C r In N V O N O N O M
O O MM Lo V co co Lo V O Q7 O V Q) M N
c0 M m co M f- N cam) 69 69 69
it
cc) M M V O r Ln V O (3) O co co O O O O O O O O CD cc
1� Q) Lo CD co ON N M N 1-- Lo Ln O EA 69 O O O O O0 O Ln
O O O Lo 1-- N O O cccD O r r r O N O N I. N i
00 O O Ln V N r V c0 V V O V O M O
co M M M ^ N M - 6
9 69 69 69 69
n M n Lo O Lo I- w O w M M 'C O O O O O O O O O Ln
O M cD Q) O M � O [O N n V V E9 to O_ _O O O O O ,j. O�
O M N p N Lq O O V Lo I� V O N O N L!')
co ai m cD v M o N v ri N v v o v ai co m
CO 1� n M C7 I� O c\j _ cl) 64 � � 69 64 �
�� cD p o p v co p o co M o 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 v co
p N CD O cD N O c0 c0 CD O 64 69 O O O O O O M to
_ O Ln cD co Ln cD c0 M O N co M Li') O N O N M m
O c0 N M MO M M M O V 'I? O V O M cD
c
9 0 Nt� M ch cD N cMo � 64 6 69 m to �
r '
C to M N O C) Lo O O O N M O O O O O O O O O O O
,� ✓ a1 co 1.11m O M N M co Lo O O O O -O O O O O O Ln Q)
�, Q) O IT Lo t� O 1� cD V cD N CO n O ID M N O N O N r 1�
N O p
L p M M cD m co 49 6A 69 69 69
Y Y
'C
_ r _
V N N Q1 O N CD O M I� O O O O O O O O
Q)
C p) to N O O O N N 6
M Ln r O 9 69 OI O O O O co
M cD
7 O N CO M cD O? O O N M r r O N O N N to
O Q1 V V N c7 Q) Ln V M co Ln V O V 'ct cD Ln
M O M N cD Q) O 9
to to V 6A cD O
M 6`3 69 669
M O O O cD V O O Lo O O cD O O O O O O O O r co
O V •t O M O cD co V N O fA E9 69 c9 O O O O r co
Ipl O M O O � co cD N M V 01 cc r O N O N V M
co O M O M O V' O N Ln co O V V cD co
N cDCD O O "3 69 � LO
M O 69
N to M O V
r to co O O O O O O O O O
N co O O N O O O O O O O O O O O W
O) cD r-
O M n coM N QO) 1�Lo to t� RCO r In O O Lo O N O N cD
co co r cD O co N N V N M O Ln V O O V co
t� r- In co N O M O O 613 69 6969
69 69
N I� O co Lo N O m Lo O V W O O O O O O O O O O
Q) N cD r O co N CD co 1l O O N to 69 0 69 69 E9 f9 69
Ln V Q) D) V r- r r M V Q) z
I� M co Ln N M N O co N O O
r � ID z -
�,
Q T 7 T
F—
O O r O C C M C N C
Q 7 = 7 m 7 W 7
C OO O CZ O O O
C C c C C Q) O c
o c) U o m U o m W U U o m O U o w > U o
M- 'ca 2 c 2 � c � a � c U F � � c � a c C5 c n
L C O O C L C O p L C O p L C O O L C O C
CLCn Q CC F Z Cn Q CC H Cn Q CL F- U) uI Q CL 1- Q Cn Q CL I- Cn Q
p C CD o 0 o O n O O N N OO V � V O) CO o 0 0
O N O O O W N69 69 O O V V v Cl) CD N (D
h O Cn (o p c j CV N N O O N N - N N O n N
N O) c) 69 69 69 N N LO 1� O N Cl) V O N Cl) Cl)
` N Cl) co N 69 1\ Q1 V N CO
N 69 69 69 EF) 69
d
S
0 0
O � p (oD c0 O C7 O 69 64 N N O O v v c") r v om
� Qj (o (h (h � N N O O N N O t.() (C CD 0 (7)
co N 69 64 69 C4 C\T LO N N O 1� O O V Ln a) Cl) N
N 69
69 69 69 69 69
co Cl) f- 0 0 0 O O N N O CD V O (D co (D o 0 0
Cn co -ch 69 EA O O V a U') M 1` -
O O Lr) co co Cl) Cl) N N O O N N C7 Q) cc N ri r
f- Cn 69 69 N N u) fl_ O N u) M N N
cA N N O u7 1- C')
Cl) m N Cn
ffl 69 69 69 69
Cl) 0 0 0 O N O O *- u) (D N o_ o o
Q) O u) O [D I� 69 69 N CO O O V V C') N N Co C)
O C' LC V ^ m V') (D (D O O N N C7 to Cli Lr) 4 V
o (D 69 69 to r- O N co Co N N N
69 co CO O u) N C') N (D
Cl) C) N 69 69 69
69 69 6969 69
(D CO 0 0 o O CY) Lo O O O O 7 O V CD O o 0 0
Cn (.D (o O N Co ('') to 69 69 N cD O O 7 V v (o . . to O O
O t` O CD V Cn cD (D O O N N V O V T M N
C V V 69 fA 69 CIt o co O n O N N co N -01
N N
'D m C) N 69 N O
69 69 69 69 69
S'
(o � � 0 0 o Q) ^ O O O O V V O N 0 0 0
CD O C"1 N O Cn 69 64 CO N O O <t 'cf co O V (D D7 N Cn
co (D Cl) (D cD N (D (D O O N N (D to ClCn
; r c7 69 69 N .11 V to N O N C) N 1�
O+ C 69 69 69, N a) N
J
A 64
Co 0 0 0
a ^ co 0 0 u) ^ O OO O O V C) CF)
o 0
L O O NN CO V6 O CO O O (n c") coO t.() c')
O) to V N C' N C Lq cc! -I O O N
JN CO 69 69 69 N 69 CO (D NO 69 Lo N LO O � N f\ CO)
69 69 69 69 69 69
i
S
L
z CO O o-0 a o Cl) N co O O Cn O O O O C) f� Cl) t- (D o 0 o
O Cn Cn Co O (D N Co N fA 64 (D (D O O O O N (D � V I� to
O O V C7 O CO V' V O O N N O t\ N cli cp co c7
L0 69 N N to f- V (D Lr) V
V> 69
69 69 69(D O 69 O C'7
69 O
fA 69 69
CVLo CD o 0 0 (o Lo (o O O O O O O O O (D N a) o 0 0
O N f- a, O M V O O O O O O O O ON co CD
(n Co CD O O o N f- L O to v O O O 11- f` N C7 O Cfl O O O
N N N N to N (D C') u) 1- CD CC) N V
69 EA 69 1� 69 69 N FA N c') N
69 69 69 69
O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O (A 1� CA V o 0 0
O O O 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 V rn c') O c0 rn ,�
O O
H
z
W
Z
CL 4
a � �
T
o
-CE
69 _T _T Q) T
C Q) C U to C C C C
> > > 7
a U o o U o m z U U o m O U o (r > U o m U o cn
c c co v c U 2 '2 c v U) c n c ro n c
N O L C N O L C Q) U cu L C Q) p C L C Q) p L C Q) `p L C Q)
CC F U Q CC U CO Q T- U U) Q CC F- Q Cn Q C H Cn Q (n Q CL
i
,j
CD L *- o 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 o co 0 1 Ln o 0 n o 0
oO f� c•> oa 69 6c) 69 O O O O c�D N N Cl) CV Ln co t� N
N LO CO ai co
69 N
69 N CD CD in CD O r 69 CA
h 69 O CA CD Cl) EA
O 6) CA
M
at
�I ^ O co O O O O O O O O CO V
co 69 69 EA 69 O O O O I� C) �' CV � t` 00 u7
O tf) C7 Oll. T N -ti- CO 0) O
63 69 co CD CD M LO H9 CD Cl) to O to 69 �
69 N co
69). CA
I
I,
co O CD V O O O O OO O O O co In C) 0 0 0
C) co N Co (A 6, O O O O O O V () O) co — L O
O In V C"J V (::: O h f� co V O N C7 co CD Co C)
69 69 Cl) O O CD co m Cl) O — 2
69 69 FA co Cl) 69 CA EA
69 Cfl
O O O O O O O O O O N CD C o o O O n
Ll? Co C) 69 69 O O O O O O 0) O M N N In V V
O co V O V V O O 1� r\ V N c0 O N c0 V O V
69 69 V O O CD co Ln N 0) N N N co
69 69 fA 69 69 619, Fri 69
n
O 1` 1\ to O O O O O O O O O m CD 0 0 o CV
Q1 V to C') O O O O O O O O N C) Cl) 0) CO O Ln CD N
O) 1` U) O O C N N O O rl 1\ N CD 0)
69 69 V O 1, 0) CD O CO to O O O_ 0) V
EA � 64> N N 69 N m C4 69 EA
x CA 69 69 69
7
Y to CD V co O O O O O O O O O O CD CD o 0 0 V
_ Z O 00 CD c') O 69 N O 00 Cfl O O 'IT v O O co
69 69 to U') V 0) h co 0) CF) i
it C 69 N N '7 CA CO Co i 69
N
.: Cfl 69 Cfl 69
_ o
� t z 3 v �n 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o co w o 0 0
S X< m N O c7 69 EA O O O 69 O O � az O O c7
O O CD
N ON CO V V' 1— co CO CD t`
69 69 Efl N 69 N N i i to
63
CA 69 69 fA
7
r. co O to N O O O O O O O O O O 0) (7) 0 0 0
rnO CCO O Cl) co O O 1-
co
Co m O) O cc
t` f` V "' O O Qj
` 69 CA � LO ClCfl COO C^D V
' 69 69
I 69 EA
0 LO
O O O O O O O O O O LO U) 0 0 0
(7) C) r Ln ffl 0 O O O 613, fA O CD CD O O CD
0) _ oc ol O O_ r O O N
li N N Cl) Cl) N N i N
j 69 69 EA to to Efl 69 i i CA
69 69
I
o 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0) 69 61). 69 69 69 ffl K9 69 �
O O O O z
LLJ z
p
LU
Z OL
O
O
0 LU
� W
T T C4 T T T T Cn
U o o C/) U p o m O U o m > U o 0) CJ o a> U o m J
o c p c m c p ro c a c o �a c C
n c a_ n a`)\ a ro n n a U) a) a — n m U
o(� cn 0 LU
c Cn O O Q Q n Q QQ co C Q
U
i
O I O O O O O O O O co O cO N o 0 o CD N O O O O O
cD � Q) cD O 69 69 f9 69
OO O O O O N N CD
C> c o r
` N mIn O O Cl) N to N 69
M 69 M 1.- to LO 69 69
69 69 69
m
S
O O O O O O O O O CO CD CD O o 0 o N N V O O O O
C O O C t� N N N N O CD co
Ln LO C) p co N N N 69 FA
69 69 /fl
i
CO O O O O O O O O N O M CD o 0 0 N I- O O O O
O C O O M N N CD p m O m M
Lr) Lo O O Cl) N to N14
M 69 M r� V V 69 69
69 69 69 69 69 69
r- O O O O O O O O O m M M o 0 o Cl) O O
0� 69 69 69 61 O O O O t- N O O N CO M M O V 69 69 69 ui
M O (7) V
O to O O f- N O Efl
M 64 M 1l_ Cl) V 69 69
169 69 69
0
CD O O O O O O O O N O N o 0 o CO O O O O O
m 69613, 69 69 O O O O N LO O N M O O 69 69 69 69
OO O O O to N O Co �p _
Lr) to O O N N fA N
M 69 M 1l_ Cl) Cl) fA 69
C 69
77
6+
y� o O O O O O O O O O LO No o c CO Cl) V O O O O
O) 69 69 EA 69 O O O C Cl V M O m N M O 69 69 69 69
7 O O O O O N Q) CD C.j O
LO Ul)C
'+. co 69 OM � N N 69 69
r C 69 69 69
a J
v �
0
Z ` C O O O O O O O O Co N O O o o Co 'It O O O O
EA 69 69 69 O O O V N CO V Cry n ^ M N O 6<3 69 69 EF3
O
a
C M 69 LO LO m r- N N 69 69
j 69 69 69
L co OO O O O O O O I-_ C) M o 0 o O co V O O O O
Z � 69 69 69 E9 O0 0 CD CD O O O OM N CO_ N M f� CD to f� I- 69 69 69 E9
N N h
Lo to O O co LO 64 N
Cl) 69 Cl) r� N N 69 69
69 69 69
N O O O O O O O O VN tIr M o 0 o M Lr) O O O O O
O) 69 69 69 fA O O O O V O ct O CD CD to (D f, V 69 Era 69 69
Q) O O O C V N u3 _ 4 �
LO tO O O M J3 N
co 69 69 69 69 N N 69 69 z
O
0
Q
0000 Coco Q1 n 0 0 o 2 O O O O
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 V M O O Co O � 6969 69 69
O LL
U
CIO
J
CO
a
N 7 7 W 7 > 7 _> J z 7
o O C 06 O c 6 O c p O c C] O c O O O c _.6
U U o a O U o m > U o a U o m e U o m U U o 0) O
c u c a i c v c o a � c c
a U 0 0 W '0 .A
a cs C a ca '0 _0 2 m 'p � N m -0 - � 'a c0 7 c
L C m p C L C 4) p O L C 4) p c) L C O O L C O m r" O O
U (n C CC F- C (n Q CC Cn Q CC H CL CO Q M U U7 G CC � U Cn Q CC F- Q
�I
I
o O O (D (D M N n .
o (n o (n o m o a Nr W O n m o o (n v fl-
0 O n N O (D M M m M O O O m a M M M
O N co N O a) M n (Oo Cl) LO (17 (1) m M M O fA 69 N
69
6A 64 to Cl) 69 V N
!, 9 69 69
O O (D (D (D n
M to O M O M M (O O to O O to n N It N
m O n N O (D (Cl -- pj (D r` O m M m LO Ln m
(D N O m (fl (D (D N n V O N 69 69 N
l LO 69 E9 69 69 O to co m 69 Nr M
I 6% 69 cu
L
N O O O O M (D n N o 0 o O O (D (D (D (D d
m � O m O M (A M M O N m O O m N co Cl) S]
m O n N O r M N M a (.j O O M cD _
(D N O m M (n O n v a (D 6s 69 co '3
In 69 N n - m In U) m M In m 69
69 69 64 M W. m m (n
� in
n O O O O M Cl) O n o o LO O
m ((7 O (n O v n to O � n °'
(n (n m n o
m O n N O m N m (D m O m M Cl M n N =
(D N O m to lM N Cl) Cl) co n V n m 69 69 M ~
69 64 64 LO 69 cli NM M M 0 (o O C
N N
I
691 69 O
OOi O O O O M O N M N n o O O to u7 N N (D
Lr) In O n N n (n m C
! m O n N O tD 'r M co a (p O M <
(D N O m m v O a Cl) M M n (D (n 61) 69
Ln Y 69 6o 69 fA (D (D fA O co 64
p 69 r C\
I � C
NMNN o 0 o O O (n LO m p
m ( O LO O O MM M ( 7
C m O n N O N (n M .- m n N O (A (o N O co O U
)I y C m N O m m M (D m N N M n m 69 64 v N
f .. 69 69 64 � M M m MNNN
69 (D O to
64 _ N -C
O O O O m Cl) v 0 0 o O O � to M n10
m Ln O Ln O v (D m O O n n
n N O m N M (p N CO C? V l M N O) 06 j
(D N O m O N w N N N N N (o vj (+) �
II 69 E9 N69 169 to N M (D LO 66% to
m fA 69 6A -C
49 0
i) t M O O O O V n N o 0 o O O m m O (17 U
ry ;/ m O O O O Cl) c0 c0 O st M O O (D (o ((7 L
m (D V O O W M O r (V co O (D (D r M
M N CO � N N N n N N v co m N69 69 N 3
II 69 69 V3 69 a N O N 0 61)
� O ¢
6% 69
69
N O O O Om n m (n c O O O O co m M
Ml Ln O m O O M (D at O U) O m O co O co
II m M MM CD n O M n (n CD m V (f) M N .- n
m (n N N N O N d' O n N T
6 69 69 M M Cl) � M 69 69 69
69 to 69 Q O
W c
F-
O O O O co V (D N c 0 o O O O O ¢ O O O L ¢
69 69 69 69 O m Vv r M n V' 0 0 0 64 W o O O O c 3
1 N m ) '64 fDM N
O is
Z t
¢
O
W W CL
L¢L.I D fn (no
c
Q Z
.. T T V ,. Q
c Z c cL c c c
C\j in O W ca N mc
CM
Z Z (O
U v V QU ¢ U o o m v) o) o m o
ca (n a c Q
Z) N ni � (2) <m 10 70 �
v7 O L O
o Zt c p o Z t c a� L c m p t c a) c°
U) < ¢ F- a Cl) a ¢ 1- a U) < ¢ 0 cn < ¢ F- 0 (n < ¢ m 0
��
,�
, �
r
� I
r
i
I �
being hauled away. The program is scheduled to begin in 1994 with an anticipated
startup cost of $200,000, which will be financed over 5 years.
• Mechanized Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The MRF may also
function as a new transfer station, and possibly a composting facility.
Costs associated with purchasing equipment specific to the MRF are
estimated at $1,200,000 beginning in 1994. This cost will be financed
g g
i
over 7 years.
• Composting Facility. The composting facility will require an estimated
startup cost of $800,000 in 1994. These costs will be financed over
5 years.
Shasta County and Anderson may also benefit from the City of Redding's MRF and
composting facility, and may provide the City of Redding with some funds to offset
some of the costs associated with these facilities.
FUNDING SOURCES
The Shasta County's Solid Waste program is accounted for as an Enterprise Fund. All
the costs of collection and disposal are borne by the users/rate payers. The collection
of solid waste is performed by two private collection companies who have been granted
franchises by the County. Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal Company is the franchisee
for the unincorporated area in and around Redding and Anderson and eastward to
Montgomery Creek and Shingletown. Burney Garbage Disposal Company is the
franchisee for the Intermountain area. Their rates are regulated by Shasta County. As
new requirements for recycling and/or collection are developed, the collectors are
allowed a rate increase to cover the increase in costs associated with these programs.
All refuse collected by Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal Company in the unincorporated
'I area is required to be hauled to the West Central Landfill. Burney Garbage Disposal
Company hauls the refuse they collect to the Intermountain Landfill, a private landfill.
As landfill rates change, the collectors are granted rate adjustments to cover these
changes in costs. To cover the administrative costs of the County for programs such as
the implementation of AB 939 franchise fees and surcharges are placed upon the
collector or included in the tipping fees. In this way, the costs of the solid waste
operations are paid for by the end users.
The City of Redding's Solid Waste Utility is an Enterprise Fund. This fund was
established to account for the operations of the City's Solid Waste collection services,
and, as such, is a self-supporting activity which renders service on a user charge basis to
resident and businesses. Annually, the Solid Waste Division budgets for its various
programs, i.e., collection, closure of Benton Landfill, litter abatement, recycling,
temporary transfer station, compost, dropoff center, and household hazardous waste.
The budgeted expenses do not exceed estimated revenues. The Solid Waste Utility is
RDD/R53/001.51 9-7
based on a breakeven method of operations, since it is a governmental entity and not a
profit-motivated endeavor. Actual revenues for the Solid Waste Utility for fiscal year
1990-91 are $5,719,956; estimated revenues for 1991-92 are $6,901,660. The second
phase of a three-phased residential rate increase went into effect on September 1,
1991, as well as an increase to commercial rates. The last phase of the residential rate
increase will be implemented in the spring of 1992.
CONTINGENCY FUNDING SOURCES
If, for some reason, the proposed funding sources are deemed inadequate several
alternatives exist. These alternatives include the previously mentioned tipping fees, �?
property taxes, and user fees. Other alternatives include:
• County Service Areas--County service areas are a means of funding cer-
tain services for local government. A county service area is a geographic
section of a county on which special assessments of the property tax are
levied for services to that area.
• Joint Powers Agreement--A joint powers agreement is an agreement
between two (or more) different government bodies to pool their
financial resources. This offers the advantage of having more than one
source of funding.
• Developer's Fees--As an alternative means to financing, fees could be
charged to developers for solid waste management services when they
submit their plans to develop a housing and/or industrial community.
However, developers may pass such costs on to the home buyer. Overall
fees could be reduced by an incentive program; for example, the devel-
opers could agree to institute source reduction and recycling programs or
other innovations in their developments.
obligation General Obligation Bonds--General
• g g ton bonds are debt instru-
ments backed by the full faith and credit of a governmental unit. City-
backed obligation bonds must go to public vote for approval.
• Revenue Bonds--Revenue bonds are also debt instruments secured by the
pledge of certain revenues of a utility, such as tipping fees.
RDD/R53/001.51 9-8
i
i
Chapter 10
INTEGRATION
The County and the Cities will integrate source reduction, recycling, composting, special
waste, and education and public information programs to achieve the 25 percent and
50 percent diversion mandates required by AB 939. This component will demonstrate
that the Cities of Anderson and Redding and the unincorporated areas of Shasta
County have prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that accom-
plishes the following:
• Establishment of solid waste management practices that fulfill the legisla-
tive goals of an integrated waste management hierarchy in the following
order:
Source reduction
Recycling and composting
- Environmentally safe transformation and land disposal of solid
wastes
I � • Integration of SRRE components to achieve the maximum feasible
implementation of source reduction, recycling, and composting program
alternatives
• Creation of component priorities
!i
The City of Redding currently has a Solid Waste Recycling Coordinator and does not
plan to add staff to implement the SRRE programs. The City of Anderson and unin-
corporated areas of the County are planning to hire a new Solid Waste Recycling
I� Coordinator to oversee implementation of the SRRE programs.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
The Cities of Anderson and Redding and the unincorporated areas of Shasta Count
i P Y
have selected a number of component programs as outlined in Chapters 3 through 7 of
this SRRE.' The selected component programs will be implemented so as to promote
the integrated waste management hierarchy in the following order.
q
I
'Shasta.County and the City of Anderson have selected similar programs.
RDD/R2/003.51 10-1
SOURCE REDUCTION
The following source reduction programs were selected for implementation:
Shasta County and the City of Anderson
Bag-Tag System--Instead of a monthly rate with regular pickup, this is a
• Y g P P�
collection system that is based on the customer paying for the volume
generated. The resident would set out a bag as needed and would be
charged per bag.
• Jurisdictional Lobbying--The local jurisdictions would lobby the state to '
work with manufacturers in reducing excessive packaging and using
recyclable materials.
• Master Backyard Composting--Residents would be offered technical
assistance and advice on how to compost in their backyards.
• Public Awareness Programs--Residents would be offered technical
assistance and advice on how to compost in their backyards.
• Waste Audits--Audits would be conducted for schools, businesses, and
manufacturers to evaluate the waste stream and make reduction
recommendations. I
• Procurement/Waste Managing Policies--This program could include
purchasing recyclable products; encouraging source reduction activities
such as using ceramic mugs, electronic mail, and double-sided copying;
establishing purchasing requirements and specifications that favor
recyclability, reusability, and durability; and adopting an ordinance
establishing a source-reduction policy.
• Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances--This program may include
relaxing zoning and permitting requirements to encourage development
of thrift and repair shops, requiring public works and park projects to use
xeriscaping techniques, and relaxing zoning requirements to allow for
composting projects.
City of Redding
• Pay-for-Weight--Customers would pay based on the amount of waste
generated. Charges would be established on a per-pound basis.
• Jurisdictional Lobbying--The local jurisdictions would lobby the state to
work with manufacturers in reducing excessive packaging and using
recyclable materials.
RDD/R2/003.51 10-2
II
L -_
Master Backyard Composting Residents would be offered technical
assistance and advice on how to compost in their backyards.
'I Public Awareness Programs--Residents, schools and businesses would be
' g
i provided brochures, a speakers bureau, and workshops to inform them of
waste reduction practices.
�1
• Waste Audits--Audits would be conducted for schools, businesses, and
manufacturers to evaluate the waste stream and make reduction
recommendations.
• Procure ment/Waste Managing Policies--This program could include
purchasing recyclable products; encouraging source reduction activities
such as using ceramic mugs, electronic mail, and double-sided copying;
establishing purchasing requirements and specifications that favor
recyclability, reusability, and durability; and adopting an ordinance
establishing a source-reduction policy.
• Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances--This program may include
relaxing zoning and permitting requirements to encourage development
of thrift and repair shops, requiring public works and park projects to use
xeriscaping techniques, and relaxing zoning requirements to allow for
composting projects.
7 RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
The following recycling and composting programs were selected for implementation:
I,
Shasta County and the City of Anderson
• Voluntary dropoff at transfer stations--Current locations include
Shingletown, Round Mountain, Lakehead, Buckeye, French Gulch, Old
Shasta, Platina, Burney, and Fall River Mills.
i
r • Commercial cardboard pickup program
Commercial beverage container pickup program
i
Curbside recycling
• Buy-back centers--Clayton Ward, Short's Scrap Metal, and Bigfoot
Recycling
• Curbside pickup of yard waste
Q Yard waste disposal ban at landfill
i
RDD/R2/003.51 10-3
i
• Composting facility
• Expand existing salvage operations at landfill for appliances
• Burn tires as fuel at Calaveras Cement Plant
Land application of ash for agricultural uses Shasta Count onl
• ( Y Y)
• Land application of industrial sludge for mulching and composting
(Shasta County only)
City of Redding
• Voluntary dropoff at transfer stations
• Commercial cardboard pickup program
• Commercial glass pickup program
• Curbside recycling or materials recovery facility
• Buy back centers--Clayton Ward, Short's Scrap Metal, and Bigfoot
Recycling ,
• Curbside pickup of yard waste
• Yard waste disposal ban at landfill
• Composting facility
• Expand existing salvage operations for appliances
Burn tires as fuel at Calaveras Cement Plant
TRANSFORMATION AND LAND DISPOSAL
Solid wastes that cannot be diverted from landfills will be safely handled and disposed
of at permitted landfills within the County.
RDD/R2/003.51 10-4 '
u
COMPONENT INTEGRATION
WASTE-TYPE TARGETING
The SRRE components have been designed to minimize redundancy in targeting waste
types. This is accomplished, in general, by targeting a given waste type with only one
SRRE component. Table 10-1 shows the targeted waste types for each SRRE
component. Some redundancy does occur for yard waste, which is backyard composted
in the short-term and composted at the landfill in the medium-term.
Table 1-0-1-
Targeted
O-1Targeted Waste Types by SRRE Program
Shasta County
Source Reduction Recycling
Yard waste Newspaper
Mixed paper Corrugated paper
Other paper Ledger paper
Film plastic Aluminum cans
Food Ferrous metals
y PET plastics
q HDPE plastics
' CA redemption glass
Other recyclable glass
Nonferrous metal
Construction debris
H Composting Special Wastes
Yard waste Tires
White goods
Ash
Industrial sludge
ANNUAL DIVERSION SCHEDULE
Tables 10-2, 10-3, and 10-4 show the predicted annual diversion percentages according
to the SRRE program. The Recycling and Special Waste components provide the
largest diversion, whereas Composting provides the least. All of the jurisdictions will
meet the 25 percent and 50 percent diversion requirements if the programs presented
in this SRRE are successfully implemented.
I �
RDD/R2/00351 10-5
Table 10-2
Annual Waste Diversion by SRRE Program '
Shasta County, California
Percent Diversion
Source Special
Year Reduction Recycling Composting Waste Total
1991 0 4.8 0 10.8 15.6
1992 0.9 6.6 0 11.6 19.1
1993 1.8 8.4 0 12.3 22.5
1994 2.7 10.2 0 13.1 26.0
1995 3.6 11.9 0 13.8 29.3
1996 4.1 13.5 0.6 16.0 34.2
1997 4.6 15.1 1.2 18.2 39.1
1998 5.1 16.7 1.8 20.4 44.0
1999 5.6 18.4 2.4 22.6 49.0
2000 6.1 20.1 2.9 24.6 53.6
Table 10-3 '
Annual Waste Diversion by SRRE Program
City of Anderson, California
Percent Diversion
Source Special ,
Year Reduction Recycling Composting Waste Total
t
1991 0 8.1 0 1.6 9.7
1992 1.5 10.9 0 1.6 14.0
1993 3.0 13.7 0 1.7 18.4
1994 4.5 16.5 0 1.7 22.7
i
1995 6.0 19.2 0 1.8 27.1
r�1996 6.9 22.0 1.0 1.8 31.7
1997 7.8 24.8 2.1 1.8 36.5
1998 8.7 27.6 3.1 1.8 41.2
1999 9.6 30.4 4.2 1.9 46.1
2000 10.3 33.2 5.2 1.9 50.7
I
RDD/R2/003.51 10-6
Table 10-4
1 Annual Waste Diversion by SRRE Program
City of Redding,;California
Percent Diversion
Source Special
Year Reduction Recycling Composting Waste Total
' 1991 0 7.9 0 1.5 9.4
1992 0.8 10.7 2.1 1.5 15.1
1 1993 1.6 13.5 4.2 1.6 20.9
1994 2.4 16.3 6.3 1.7 26.7
1995 3.3 18.9 8.5 1.8 32.5
1996 4.2 21.6 8.5 1.8 36.1
1997 5.1 24.3 8.5 1.8 39.7
1998 6.0 27.0 8.5 1.9 43.4
I
' 1999 6.9 29.8 8.5 1.9 47.1
2000 7.6 32.6 8.5 1.9 50.7
i
I
COMPONENT PRIORITIES
Three factors were considered in developing the prioritization of components:
'I
i
1. Fulfillment of the state-mandated waste management hierarchy
1 2. Cost of each component (see Table 9-1)
i
3. Potential waste diversion for each component
Based on these factors, the following priorities are established:
' Source Reduction--This component is low in cost and is also the state-
mandated priority in integrated waste management.
' Recycling--This component is low in cost and provides a substantial por-
tion of the total waste diversion for all of the jurisdictions.
' Special Wastes--This component provides little diversion for the Cities of
Anderson and Redding, but provides substantial diversion for the
y
d RDD/R2/003.51 10-7
unincorporated areas of Shasta County via ash and industrial sludge ,
diversion.
• Composting--This component is expensive androvides for only a small '
P Y
portion of the total diversion for the City of Anderson and
unincorporated areas of the County. Composting provides a larger frac-
tion of the total waste diversion for the City of Redding, which plans to
begin a yard waste curbside pickup program in 1992.
The Education and Public Information component is required for all of the above '
P
programs. '
COMPONENT SCHEDULE '
The following is a schedule of implementation by year for each jurisdiction. For Shasta
County, the County Director of Public Works will be responsible for implementing the
programs. The City of Redding Director of General Services will be responsible for
implementing Redding's programs. In Anderson, the City Director of Public Works will
be responsible for the programs. The funding source for Shasta County, Anderson, and '
Redding is user fees.
Shasta County '
1992 '
Source Reduction '
• Review County's purchasing practices
• Conduct jurisdictional lobbying program for State to adopt more efficient
i
packaging requirements
• Identify activities, audiences, and timelines for public awareness program '
• Notify customers of availability and start bag-tag program
• Start backyard composting program, including selecting a method, '
developing materials, developing a public information program, and
training volunteers
Recycling '
• Purchase equipment and containers for dropoff centers at transfer N
stations and start public awareness program
• Identify participants for commercial cardboard, paper, and beverage
container programs G
d
RDD/R2/003.51 10-8
II
I
i
� Composting
Purchase equipment and containers for dropoff of yard waste at transfer
I
stations
Special Waste
• Start program for sending tires to cement plant, including signing a
II contract, obtaining and placing containers, and arranging transportation
of tires to cement plant
Education and Public Information
' Provide solid waste coordinator
1993
Source Reduction
• Make recommendations and adopt a procurement and waste
� amanagement policy
'! Start a public awareness campaign, including hiring and training staff and
volunteers
• Implement a backyard composting program
Recycling
Start collection of dropoff containers at transfer stations
• Start collection of commercial cardboard, paper, and beverage container
i ' programs
• Purchase equipment and containers for salvage at landfill
Composting
Start r collection of yard waste from dropoff containers at transfer stations
Special Waste
Identi
• fy potential
areas for land application of ash
Education and Public Information
• Place ads on radio, write newspaper articles, develop newsletters,
establish speakers bureau, and conduct workshops
1994
Source Reduction
• Implement procurement and waste management policy, including
notifying vendors and educating employees
• Monitor results of jurisdictional lobbying program
RDD/R2/003.51 10-9
Recycling
• Implement recycling at the landfill program, including a public awareness
program '
• Select a location, prepare the site, and purchase equipment for the
manual material recovery facility
Composting
• Assist City of Redding in selecting a location and preparing the site for a
composting facility '
• Assist City of Redding in developing a marketing plan for the compost
Special Waste '
• None
Education and Public Information '
• Continue programs in place
• Establish an awards program
1995
Source Reduction
• Notify political bodies and business groups of a need for regulation '
changes in the land use planning and zoning ordinances
• Develop and implement an evaluation monitoring system for the public
awareness program '
• Monitor and evaluate the backyard composting program
Recycling
• Purchase equipment, train personnel, and start operation of the manual
material recovery facility
Composting
• None
Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information
• Continue programs in process '
i
RDD/R2/003.51 10.10 ,
1996
'I Source Reduction
• Develop land use master plan and source reduction element
Develop land use and zoning requirements for composting and source
reduction
� Revise the zoning code to require recycling facilities
• Refine the materials for public awareness program
• Develop a format for waste audits, and train staff and volunteers to
perform waste audits
Recycling
• None
Composting
• Purchase equipment and containers, develop a public education program,
I'tltlI and start a curbside collection program for yard waste
I'
Special Waste
• Identify areas for land application of industrial sludge and obtain permits
for disposal
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs
II,
i
!, 1997
Source Reduction
II0 Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation system for the land
use planning and zoning ordinances programs
0 Revise the backyard composting program if necessary, after reviewing
results of monitoring and evaluating program
0 Identify targets for waste audits
I
Recycling
II' None
Composting
' 0 None
Special Waste
I� None
V
RDD/R2/003.51 10-11
Education and Public Information
• Continue programs in place
1998 '
Source Reduction '
• Adopt land use and zoning requirements for composting and source
reduction
• Develop and adopt an illegal dumping ordinance
• Start performing waste audits
Recycling '
• None
Composting '
• Draft an ordinance banning yard waste at the landfill
Special•Waste ,
Obtain permits for disposal of industrial sludge and start program
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs '
1999 '
Source Reduction ,
• Monitor and evaluate the results of the waste audit program
Recycling
• None
Composting
• Adopt an ordinance banning yard waste at the landfill
Special Waste '
• None
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs l'
f
d
RDD/R2/003.51 10-12 '
i
2000
I.
j ' Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information
' Continue existing programs
II
it
d,
i
I
I� RDD/R2/003.51 10-13
1
Ci of Redding
g
1992
Source Reduction ,
• Review City's purchasing practices
• Conduct jurisdictional lobbying program for State to adopt more efficient
packaging requirements
• Identify activities, audiences, and timelines for public awareness program
• Start backyard composting program, including selecting a method, '
developing materials, developing a public information program, and
training volunteers
Recycling
• Purchase equipment and containers for curbside recycling program
• Identify participants for commercial cardboard, paper, and beverage '
container programs
Composting
• None
Special Waste
• Start program for sending tires to cement plant, including signing a
contract, obtaining and placing containers, and arranging transportation '
of tires to cement plant
• Start white goods salvaging at the landfill, including obtaining necessary
equipment and developing a public awareness program
Education and Public Information
• Develop promotional materials and obtain speakers for schools
1993 ,
Source Reduction
• Make recommendations and adopt a procurement and waste ,
management policy
• Start a public awareness campaign, including hiring and training staff and
volunteers ,.
• Start a backyard composting program
C
RDD/R2/003.51 10-14
it
I
Recycling
• Establish a public awareness program and start collection for a curbside
recycling program
i, Start collection of commercial cardboard, paper, and beverage container
programs, including purchasing equipment and containers
Purchase equipment and containers for salvage at the landfills
Composting
• Purchase equipment and containers and develop a public education
program for curbside collection of yard waste
uSelect a location for a composting facility
• Research potential markets for compost and interview potential buyers
Special Waste
Arrange for pickup of salvaged white goods at landfill, as necessary
Education and Public Information
• Place ads on radio, write newspaper articles, develop newsletters,
establish a speakers bureau, and conduct workshops
1994
Source Reduction
Implement procurement and waste management policy, including
notifying vendors and educating employees
• Monitor results of jurisdictional lobbying program
' Obtain equipment, change the billing system, and train personnel for pay-
for-weight system
Recycling
• Implement salvage at the landfill program
Composting
• Start curbside collection of yard waste
• Prepare composting facility site
i ' Develop a marketing plan for compost
1 Special Waste
iNone
I
Education and Public Information
• Monitor the existing programs for effectiveness
RDD/R2/003.51 10-15
1995 '
I
Source Reduction '
• Notify political bodies and business groups of a need for regulation
changes in the land use planning and zoning ordinances
• Develop and implement an evaluation monitoring system for the public ,
awareness program
• Start collection using the pay-for-weight system
Recycling
Select location for the mechanized material recovery facility
Composting
• Purchase equipment and train personnel for the composting facility '
Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs and monitor for effectiveness
1996 ,
Source Reduction
• Develop land use master plan and source reduction element
• Develop land use and zoning requirements for composting and source
reduction
• Revise the zoning code to require recycling facilities '
• Refine the materials for public awareness program
• Develop a format for waste audits, and train staff and volunteers to
perform waste audits
Recycling
• Prepare the site and start construction of the mechanized material
recovery facility
Composting '
• Purchase equipment and containers and develop a public education
program for dropoff containers for yard waste at the landfill '
• Begin operation of the composting facility
RDD/R2/003.51 10-16
I
�I
i
Special Waste
• None
eEducation and Public Information
• Continue existing programs
V
1997
Source Reduction
• Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation system for the land
ruse planning and zoning ordinances programs
• Revise the backyard composting program if necessary, after reviewing
results of monitoring and evaluating program
' Identify targets for waste audits
Recycling
P ' None
Composting
Start collection of yard waste from dropoff containers at the landfill
Special Waste
None
Education and Public Information
i
• Continue existing programs
� 1
1998
Source Reduction
• Adopt land use and zoning requirements for composting and source
reduction
! , Develop and adopt an illegal dumping ordinance
N Start performing waste audits
Recycling
h Train personnel and start operation of the mechanized material recovery
I , facility
Composting
Draft an ordinance banning yard waste from the landfill
i
RDD/R2/003.51 10-17
Special Waste '
• None
Education and Public Information r
• Continue existing programs
1999
Source Reduction
i
• Monitor and evaluate the results of the waste audit program
Recycling
• None '
Composting
• Adopt an ordinance banning yard waste from the landfill '
Special Waste
• None ,
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs ,
2000
Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Waste '
• None
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs
I
RDD/R2/003.51 10-18
� r
' City of Anderson
it
j� 1992
IrSource Reduction
'I Review County's purchasing practices
• Conduct jurisdictional lobbying program for State to adopt more efficient
packaging requirements
• Identify activities, audiences, and timelines for public awareness program
• Notify customers of availability and start bag-tag program
• Start backyard composting program, including selecting a method,
Mdeveloping materials, developing a public information program, and
training volunteers
j Recycling
Identify participants for commercial cardboard, paper, and beverage
container programs
Composting
None
Special Waste
• Start program for sending tires to cement plant, including signing a
contract, obtaining and placing containers, and arranging transportation
of tires to cement plant
Education and Public Information
1 Provide solid waste coordinator
1993
Source Reduction
• Make recommendations and adopt a procurement and waste
management policy
• Start a public awareness campaign, including hiring and training staff and
volunteers
• Implement a backyard composting program
rRecycling
• Start collection of commercial cardboard, paper, and beverage container
programs
r
RDD/R2/003.51 10-19
Composting ,
• None
Special Waste
• None
Education ,
and Public Information
• Place ads on radio, write newspaper articles, develop newsletters, ,
establish speakers bureau, and conduct workshops
1994
Source Reduction ,
• Implement procurement and waste management policy, including
notifying vendors and educating employees
• Monitor results of jurisdictional lobbying program
Recycling
• Select a location, prepare the site, and purchase equipment for the
manual material recovery facility
Composting
• Assist City of Redding in selecting a location and preparing the site for a
composting facility
• Assist City of Redding in developing a marketing plan for the compost
Special Waste
• None I
Education and Public Information
• Continue programs in place
• Establish an awards program
1995
Source Reduction
• Notify political bodies and business groups of a need for regulation
changes in the land use planning and zoning ordinances ,
• Develop and implement an evaluation monitoring system for the public
awareness program
• Monitor and evaluate the backyard composting program
RDD/R2/003.51 10-20 '
u �q
it Recycling
• Purchase equipment, train personnel; and start operation of the manual
material recovery facility
�I
Composting
p , None
I
' Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information
Continue programs in process
N
I
i
1996
i
Source Reduction
• Develop land use master plan and source reduction element
II Develop land use and zoning requirements for composting and source
" reduction
• Revise the zoning code to require recycling facilities
• Refine the materials for public awareness program
• Develop a format for waste audits, and train staff and volunteers to
perform waste audits
Recycling
• None
iComposting
• Purchase equipment and containers, development a public education
program, and start a curbside collection program for yard waste
Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs
1997
Source Reduction
• Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation system for the land
use planning and zoning ordinances programs
RDD/R2/003.51 10-21
• Revise the backyard composting program if necessary, reviewing '
results of monitoring and evaluating program
• Identify targets for waste audits
Recycling
• None
Composting
• None '
Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information '
• Continue programs in place
1998
Source Reduction
• Adopt land use and zoning requirements for composting and source
reduction
• Develop and adopt an illegal dumping ordinance
• Start performing waste audits
Recycling
• None
Composting
• Draft an ordinance banning yard waste at the landfill
Special Waste
• None
Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs
1999
Source Reduction '
• Monitor and evaluate the results of the waste audit program
RDD/R2/003.51 10-22 ,
II �
it
Recycling
• None
Composting
Adopt an ordinance banning yard waste at the landfill
n � Special Waste
ii
• None
Education and Public Information
J Continue existing programs
2000
Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Waste
• None
'i Education and Public Information
• Continue existing programs
i
li � P
N
II ,
d
RDD/R2/003.51 10-23
� I
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
it
, 1
APPENDIXES
i
i
i
i
I �
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
i
i �
I �
Appendix A
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY
j
j �
! 1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1�
1
1
1
1
1
f
i
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
� I
'I
it
q Waste Disposal Characterization
I . Three Discrete Seasons of Waste Generation -- These
seasons were determined by the experience and judgement of
City of Redding Solid Waste Division management. Data
collected during study confirmed this conclusion ( see
Disposal Seasonality Chart) .
I A. Winter
B. Summer
C. Spring
II . Solid Waste Generation Population -- The City of
I Redding' s population was determined by computer billing
ii information which lists all solid waste generators within
the City Limits . Shasta County unincorporated areas and
the City of Anderson' s population was determined by solid
waste franchise computer billing information. This
information was used to select residential and commercial
samples .
i
III . Solid Waste Characterization Sources
A. All solid waste generators were broken out
into the following Sources :
I . Residential -- All residential customers
are contained in computer billing
information.
'I 2 . Commercial -- All commercial customers are
contained in computer billing information. The
commercial sub-group excluded multi-family
residences .
j 3 . Industrial -- The industrial sub-group was
developed commercial sub-group using SIC codes
II which are included in the computer billing
information. In addition, Chamber of Commence
was consulted and a telephone directory search
was completed.
4 . Self-haul -- Self-hauler are solid waste
generators which haul directly to the landfill.
B. It has been determined that there are no other
sources of solid waste within Shasta County because
of size and economic composition of the area.
IV. Sampling Size
A. In order for the quanitiative field analysis to
accurately represent the composition of Redding' s
waste stream, the number of samples taken will be
determined by the formula found in: Klee and Carruth,
i American Society of Civil Engineers Journal, August
1970 .
I B. The above formula can only be utilized with
current waste stream composition approximations for
each waste category.
Wage 2
1 . In light of the fact that a waste disposal
characterization had never been done in Redding,
there are no waste stream composition
approximations for the City of Redding.
2 . The California intergrated Waste Management
Board had not established State-wide guidelines
for waste stream composition approximations at
the time the study was initiated.
3 . Waste stream composition approximations must be
determined by each jurisdiction conducting a
waste characterization study.
C. Waste stream composition approximations for Shasta
County were set by considering waste characterization
studies from other jurisdictions , namely the City of
San Diego and the County of Santa Cruz .
D. Fourteen percent was established as the largest waste
category.
E. 23 samples was determined as the study sample size .
F. The industrial sub-group will not be sampled at
the same level as the residential and commercial
sub-groups .
1 . Shasta County' s economy does not have a
substantial heavy industrial base, thus industry
only accounts for small portion of the waste
stream.
2 . Most industries are served by 30 cubic yard
debris boxes on a call in basis ; there is no set
route schedule for the collection of industrial
debris boxes .
3 . The industrial sub-group was sampled by visual
inspection of debris boxes and telephone
interviews with all industrial solid waste
generators .
G. Self haul was sampled at the level determined by the
Klee and Carruth formula.
V. Random Selection Of Samples
A. In order for the waste disposal characterization to
be representative of Shasta County waste stream, the
selection of households and businesses for study will
be completely random.
B. Two study subject lists will be compiled:
residential and commercial . ,
C. Using the computer billing information for
residential and commercial customers , a computer
program will be developed to randomly select study
subjects .
D. The computer program will be seeded with a random
number from the random number table, and every 300th
customer will be selected as a study subject .
E. Each list will contain at least 50 study sudjects to
allow for vacations or misses .
F. For each sample season a new lists will be randomly
generated.
;I
Page 3
SG. Industrial study subjects will be selected from
the industrial sub-group list by the project team
in a manner which fairly represents the limited
industrial base in Redding.
H. Categories of industries that represent Shasta
County' s limited industrial base:
1 . Lumber yards
2 . Hair Care Product Formulators
3 . Beverage Bottlers
4 . Paper Manufacturer
5 . Cogeneration Electricity Plant
6 . Clothing Manufacturer
I . Because of light vehicle traffic at the landfill,
self haul samples were selected as availiable .
VI . Collection, Sorting and Measurement
A. Collection and sorting of samples for each season was
originally planned to be completed in one week, but
after difficultly completing the summer sample, the
winter and spring sample periods were extended.
B. Study subjects on the random selected lists had their
waste collected, sorted and measured on their normal
collection schedule .
C. Study sudjects were not informed that their waste is
being measured, because it was likely that study
sudjects would change their normal waste pattern if
they knew their waste was being measured.
D. All samples were collected early in the
morning of their regular collection day, and brought
back to a centralized sorting location.
E. Daily samples were not be collected individually; all
daily samples were gathered by two collection
vehicles , one commercial and one residential. Daily
samples were be mixed together in the hoppers of
their respective collection vehicles .
F. Residential and commercial waste samples were kept
separated from each other in the centralized
collection area. In addition, residential and
commercial waste samples were sorted and measured
separately. ( See Appendix C for proposed waste
sorting diagram. )
H. Samples were sorted into the waste categories
listed in Appendix A, and measured the same day as
collection.
I . All waste categories will be measured, and the
data recorded by weight and volume .
J . All project team personnel sorting waste
received four hours of training in waste category
identification by the project manager .
K. All personnel sorting waste will wear dust protection
apparel and gloves .
L. It will be the project manager ' s responsibility to
oversee and maintain quality control during the waste
sorting.
,I�
Page 4
M. The project manager assigned a senior member
project team to be the data measurement officer . The
data measurement officer ' s sole responsibility was
the measurement and recording of waste sorting data.
N. Equipment:
1 . 'Iyvek coveralls and booties
2 . Vinyl examination gloves
3 . Large tables
4 . Garbage cans
5 . Loader with clam shell bucket
6 . 30 cubic yard debris box
7 . Floor scale
8 . Spatulas
VIZ . Record Keeping and Data Tabulation
A. A daily worksheet was developed to record measurements
taken during the sorting process .
B. Daily worksheets were be compiled into one
central file . At the end of each season' s sampling, waste
category weights , volumes, and percentages of weight and
volume will be calculated. The data from all three sample
seasons will then be compiled at the end of the final week
of sampling.
C. Using the collected data, the sample mean and 900
confidence limit around the mean will be calculated for
each waste category.
D. Final waste characterization results will be presented in
a format approved by the California Integrated Waste
Management Board.
�i
J1 10:47 U225 4434
i
I � WASTE DIVERSION CHARACTERIZATION
I . Determining Solid Waste Diversion --The total quantity
of solid waste diverted from the waste stream was
determined by interviewing all recycling, source
reduction, and composting facilities within the Shasta
' County.
II . Solid Waste Diversion Facilities In Shasta County
A. Recycling buy back centers
B. Recycling drop off centers
C. Second hand & thrift stores
D. Scrap metal dealers
E. Auto Repair Shops
F. Tire Retreading Shops
G. Diaper Services
H. Large Retail Stores
I . City of Redding Brush Diversion and
Composting Program
J. Cogeneration Electricity Plants
I � III . Solid Waste Diversion Sources
A. Residential
B. Commercial
q C. Industrial
D. Self-haul
IV. Interviewing Diversion Facilities
A. Diversion facilities were identified by using the
telephone directory.
B. A standardized interview questionarie was
developed and used.
C. The focus of the interview was on the types and
volumes of materials diverted though the facility
D. Facilities were requested to provide written
records on diversion activities.
E. Where written records not available, facility
managers were requested to provide their best
estimate on diversion activities .
V. Determining Diversion Source
A. Material volumes from each diversion facility were
assigned to a solid waste diversion source.
B. In certain cases, materials from specific
diversion facilities were assigned to one solid
waste diversion source. For example , diaper
I � service source reduction activities were assigned
to residential.
C. Where diversion source was not identifiable ,
i material volumes were assigned in the same
proportion as the solid waste- disposal sources .
� I
� I
� I
� ',
��
t
t
1
1
1
i�
1
'I
DIVERSION QUESTIONNAIRES
I �
i
N
i
1
� .
1 �
1
1
1
1
1 ,
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY
CITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Respondent's Name Phone Number
Name of City
GENERAL INFORMATION
i
1. Approximately how many single-family residences in your city?
2. How many commercial businesses (e.g., government office buildings, grocery
stores, restaurants, motels, etc.) in your city?
3. How many industrial businesses (e.g., mills, shops) in your city?
4. Are there any businesses that have 50 or more employees? If so, please list
them.
TONNAGE INFORMATION
5. Annual overall amount (i.e, tonnage or cubic yards) of waste generated by your
city
6. Annual amount of waste generated by residential community
7. Annual amount of waste generated by commercial businesses
8. Annual amount of waste generated by demolition/industrial sources
9. What is your source of information for Questions 5 through 8? (Best guess is an
okay answer)
RDD/R63/022.51 1
DISPOSAL PROFILE
10. What landfill does your city use?
11. What kind of vehicles are used to pick up residential refuse? For example,
front loaders or side loader, etc.
i
12. What kind of vehicles are used to pick up commercial refuse.?
CITY SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
13. What, if any, recycling programs are currently in place in your community?
Please describe.
14. Does your city have a dedicated staff position assigned to recycling/solid waste
issues?
Please name.
i
RDD/R63/022.51 2
i
OTHER SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
j15. Are you aware of any other recycling programs in schools, office buildings, res-
taurants, shopping centers, charity organizations, etc.? If so, please describe.
it
it
I �
I �I�
16. Does your city devote any funds for solid waste/recycling programs? Explain.
17. If yes, are the funds spent on a line item, tonnage, or cubic yard basis?
I
i
18. Has any waste characterization study ever been conducted in your community?
If yes, please describe and attach results.
RDD/R63/022.51 3
�I
� I
� I
1 �
1 �
1
1
1
1
� ��
1
1
f
1 ',
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY
HAULER QUESTIONNAIRE
All responses will remain confidential, and only aggregate information will be included
in our report.
Name
Address
I �� Contact Person
I�
Phone Number
1. How many trucks do you operate on an average day?
If applicable, by city.
2. How many routes do you pick up per week (average)?
3. Please indicate the number of routes you operate by city and source (include
unincorporated areas if applicable) and estimate source percentage.
Number of Routes Per Week
100% 100% 100% Mixed
City Residential Commercial Industrial Routes Total
Please use a itiona s eets if ui
RDD/R63/021.51 1
4. How many tons (or cubic yards) of waste do you pick up per week?
5. Please estimate annual tonnage (or cubic yards) hauled by city, if applicable, and
source.
Tons Tons Tons Other
Total Residen- Commer- Tons (Please
City Tons tial cial Industrial Specify)
Please use additional sheets it required.
6. Where is this waste currently delivered to?
City Disposal Site
7. Please estimate (by %) the, relative composition of the waste stream for the area
(i.e., city or unincorporated) you collect from.
RDD/R63/021-51 2
1
Waste Composition
(Estimate by %)
Category Residential Commercial Industrial
Paper (e.g., cardboard, newspaper,
white office paper, etc.)
Plastics (e.g., soda bottles, milk jugs,
food packaging, film plastics, etc.)
Glass (e.g., California Redemption
Value containers, jars, bottles, etc.)
Metals (e.g., aluminum cans, tin
cans, scrap metals, etc.)
:I
II �' Yard Waste
Food Waste
Tire and Rubber Products
Wood Wastes
IAgricultural Wastes
Manure
Inerts (e.g., rock, concrete, brick,
sand, soil, etc.)
Total (%)
8. Do you provide any recycling services?
Yes
No
If yes, please complete table below.
RDD/R63/021.51 3
FF
Type of
Tons of Recycl- Recyclable
ables Collected per (glass, aluminum,
City Week Delivered to paper, etc.)
Please provide any additional information that you think might be important to solid
waste planning efforts in your collection area.
Thank you for your help and cooperation.
i
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY
LANDFILL OPERATOR SURVEY
i
1
Information from this questionnaire will be held confidential and only be used for
I
purposes related to meeting the requirements of AB 939.
Name
9
Address
I' Contact Person
Phone Number
1. Which landfill doP
ou operate?
Y
How long have you been the operator?
i 2. What are your hours of operation?
r
3. Please estimate the average amount (i.e., tons or cubic yards) of waste you
receive on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis. If possible, please provide
copies of any disposal records for the past year.
j Weekly
Monthly
Annual
4. Please estimate (by %) how much of the total wasteou receive comes from
Y .
self-haul, how much from city or private garbage collection vehicles (e.g., packer
trucks), and from other sources. If possible, please specify the vehicle types
(e.g., rear-loader, rolloff, etc.).
Self-haul %
Garbage vehicles %
Other sources %
(specify)
5. Please estimate (by %) the relative composition of the wastes received at your
landfill (best guess is okay).
RDD/R63/020.51 1
Waste Composition
(Estimate by %)
Category Residential Commercial Industrial
Paper (e.g., cardboard, newspaper,
white office paper, etc.)
Plastics (e.g., soda bottles, milk jugs,
food packaging, film plastics, etc.)
Glass (e.g., California Redemption
Value containers, jars, bottles, etc.)
Metals (e.g., aluminum cans, tin
cans, scrap metals, etc.)
Yard Waste
Food Waste
Tire and Rubber Products
Wood Wastes
Agricultural Wastes ,
Manure
Inerts (e.g., rock, concrete, brick,
sand, soil, etc.)
Total (%)
6. Do the amounts of waste you receive vary significantly by day, month, season, '
etc. (e.g., more agricultural waste in fall, spring; more yard clippings in sum-
mer)? Please specify.
7. Do the types of waste you receive vary by day, month, season, etc. (e.g., more
agricultural waste in fall, spring; more yard clippings in summer)? Please
specify.
� I
RDD/R63/020.51 2
1
i
8. Are there currently any recycling or resource recovery activities under way at
your landfill? If so, please complete the table below.
i
i
j . Amount of Final Market
Recyclables
Activity Collected Buyer Location
White goods
Metal waste
Compost material
Salvage
'! Glass
9 , Aluminum
Paper
i
� Batteries
I
f
Tires
Other:
_ 9. If you answered no to the previous question, do you plan on or are you
interested in beginning any recycling activities in the future?
RDD/R63/020.51 3
i
f 'I
1
1
Y
i
1
1 �
1
1
A �'�
1 �
1 �
1 �
1 �,
I
9
II �
SHASTA COUNTY--GROCERY CHAINS, MAJOR RETAILERS,
MAJOR SHOPPING CENTERS, AND MALLS
(Corrugated Containers)
Company:
Contact: Telephone No.:
Address:
Describe Program:
II Status of Program:
Current Program - Operational Since (date):
Future Expansion/Reduction Plans:
I'
Corrugated Materials Collected - January 1 to December 31, 1940, b month if available:
i Y
Store Location Tons/Month Data Period
I
Collection:
Frequency:
By Whom:
Who Buys Your Materials:
Other Recycling Programs:
RDD/R218/085.51
SHASTA COUNTY TIRE RECAPPING PROGRAMS
Company Name:
Contact:
Telephone No.:
Date:
1. How many tires did you recap in 1990? (Jan-Dec)
2. What types of tires? (need average size or weight)
3. What percent of those tires were from Shasta County Vehicles? (approximately)
4. Where do tires go that are not recapped? (landfill, owner, etc.)
RDD\R63\0195 L
d
IIS
i
SHASTA COUNTY AUTO REPAIR SHOPS
i
Company Name:
Contact:
'I
.� Telephone No.:
Date:
1. Do you recycle batteries? When did you start`? Where do they go?
'.I
2. Do you recycle oil? When did you starat? Where do they go?
I
3. Do you recycle antifreeze. When did you start? .Where do they go.
A
�i
i�
I
RDD\R63\019.51
I
J
� I
� �
1
! �
1
1
1
1
II
i
1
r
I
1
Appendix B
WASTE STREAM PROJECTIONS
(Tons/Year)
i
r
� !
� j
� �
�I
f
i .
1
Vh
I
I �
y
O — a ^ v — a O O O M c0 O O M1 h ✓� v �O a — h � N v O O M -- � v 00
Lo
ry
IIO .cl ✓} M O� v v a M
O M1t2 �D �O o0 rn O M O to 00 W I� O -- 00 N aD V1 O v�
—
O 00 `N
r
a ry 7 a v M h 00 — O O 00 v N M N to 00 v N M O 00 M1 00 M .0
tf1—
N
I L V ; a � N v v � O — M1 M v M to h N N N to M 00 M N tp Ol M M v N — 00 -- —
z � U
I � _
CD
^J U Q� v c ip pp M N M M 00 00 N b N 00 Ol Ol O O
OL, 00
i �S�l (/J O� v O� ^ •T � O �!"f — CO Ot � � — h HCl � O Ol < M ^ � � M 00 ✓) — M OJ cV
00 O �O O
O O O — O C, 00 ^ �D
o ^ rn — oo — � rn � � N �n � � � — < <n a+ o, � �•-� oo rn — o
u� O — va O� N �["f ✓) — O M 00 !� ip O �A v N N O_ M1 �!f M1 ^ M N iD ap O v
o, iD cp N v M1 h M v M — tD c0 N N O �") h N Ol M N M 00 O cp 00 O
O O t0
rn h 00 � � O N — — O v M 00 Ol N aD tp N M1 N !� cO O � � M1 v O Ol v h N O� u7 a
C,
O
•�i ry t0 — tp Q � N O tD M M1 Ol O � � O Ol h � a N l0 In � M1 � b O � M1 Ol CP !� c0 N N O —
a O N �O M N — N Ol Ol h ry cp 00 00 M Ol M1 t0 O �D — O N N S M M N — �0 M
a O_ M a0 M1 t0 t0 �O � M1 N T — tp c0 t_n t0 10
3
o Y �
U E
n D a v o avi - _u o o a`' y 3 3 L o O v • D a o o
i� O UO
o Z U `L LZ r5 O d' Z
M v� M — � N M � .— — O M ✓) rn v O
N v
y
0 00 M M — O 00 h 0 tp 0 — O c0 00 O O M M O tp r 00 00 O o a0 h 00 0 0 o O
O �O ✓� v cO — N aD !� N 00 O O cp 00 N ^ O) O CO 'b
O 00 OO cD l0 O� e h T N DD Q p ,�
l
O O tp O — to O c0 CKJ O O M M O c0 h 00 W O O a0 h rn 00 O O O O
O �D M 07 N — �!l �L"J N t0 t!1 N 00 O O tp 00 I� N Ol O 00 CO
O 00 r cp c0 Ot v h h N N 07 v O
N M M M N M 00 v — — O M M 01 v O
N i{
N O o7 0 10 O Cl 10 ao O c0 t� Oi 00 O O O O
OCl Oa0 O O cp r Ol 00 0 0 0 O
N cp N to 00 O O �O 00 N n ^ N O� O OO 00
O cp �[l N h O Ol — 00 Ol HCl �(l O W 00 cp �O Oi v � N 00 v O
M S M M — � N M 00 v � — O '•'� M O� v O
O Do CO O O O O
00 M O Of O —
O� M 01 M 07 CO M n y r O � — — �(1 N N — f� M M N Ol'M •.p
Ol t0 N civ v tp i0 — 00 O N h N 00 v In cp t0 �A — — cp v h cp ro
00 Oi N V7 t0 h O V v O� — O ^ O N 07 O — c0 O h — O O Ol N Os O O N O M f� O o 0 O+
Ol Ol � W N 00 to Ol N N M O 00 � tp 1
0 QD M N l0 cD 00 r '
•O .7 w — — M M s
C C r rn oo h o �n rn rn o o N N o M — o co �n ao 00 0 o 0 0 0 — N o 0 0
rn
Ln v� �o
Z � � oo ,n rn ao rn r o o h o � o M e o � .n o rn o h o N o 0 0 0 o rn N co �o 0 0 o rn
—
O� ifl Ol M M M O v v M h M h M < h I� tc � Ol Op h O O
4y+ ✓� — iA M O� •--- •— M — — �p N — � — —
3 00 N N O O T A O O O M O O O O O h N O a0 v ^ — 0 0 r C P 0 0 0 0
O� O M �!') 00 O O 00 Vl M •!') 00 c0 O — N N N •!'f op o0 — N p
O� h Ol �!l h t0 t0 t0 O M O Qi v O 00 O O 00 v N N O O O �A
Ol M O O N N 00 a0 N N N O N N c0 O •— M M 00 h h 00
M O N Ot — a0 Ol 00 O h O �_ N O 00 N O Ol Nv u7 M O M N — O O rn M Oi v O O O
O
0-0
Ol N to
N N
N — c0 O t0 N h o0 N r pi O N O N O O O v O N c0 O N tp N O O rn N cp cp O O O a
00 O v DO O c0 O a0 v v r Qt N c� M
O� O M — N M ap ap N — Ol N N 10
N — M
— N — O — O O h a N O O O M M O O h 0 0 0 0 0 0 — M a0 O O O
— .n
^ — N
O
3
v o o v o � o a 3 � o o• o v I�,
70
a s S o y c
v O 3 O � �
Z U O S i� O K O Z a '— Z p p a r Co p := 4 In C : o
r 3 x b o
9
—
00
it M — M1 t0 OJ
M -
y
oo v rn M1 rn h rn � � o
o o o m - - oo rn M u-, - o co i� - - h - i0 0o N o v �n �n v
o � M N e- o � M1 v rn o o co 0 0 �n uh-> M1 — < o — N Cn rn � o �_
M 07 Ol O M1 N t0 07 — O� v O �0 00 to O < W 07 v cp
a0 O c0 M1 M 10N N O\ O ao v h N 01 v O v tp
O O M1 — M O\ N OO CTl Clt — Ol i.p
N M — •— — — !� c0 �
'0 m N M O
1
M Ol — tp — 00 M N — --• c0 N N t0 — — CT � O �D t0
I
I
O M1 — v O M O — 00 cp — HCl O v o0 CSV — M M W O M
i O
rn �f1 M N OJ �(> 00 v v M O �0 M op M o0 N O v c0 M1 m ap — v N v _N i0 00
CT o0 M1 tp 00 C1l l0 N N N N N ^ � v v < O — N O O "f tD 00
J
N tp N O 00 00 O v 00 N CIl 00 t0 �O 00 Ol t0 00 � !� Cd W T M CO v O CP
— Cl\ U n — CSV h Ol N tp M1 c0 t0 O
yCT � c0 O
h
C IC`
O o0 t0 h N M OD c0 Ol aD N — O O_ ^ O O c0 v N O
C)l — � — •— vl � Cn M 00 M � � � N O O 00 � M1 00 � O\ � N t0 O Ot Q\ v Ol h
•� \..� ami C)l O M o0 a0 O O\ N M �!] � t0 N Cp � — O M h O\ O� O G1 O v M N v M Ol Ot pJ Cn
0 CT
v M o0 N b
3
O 00 DD c0 O M O O �0 v h CTl R — < M1 O 00 oo
C)l h DO O M O N M M 00 oo
O N o0 M M1 N N O M N RJ — c0 !� 00 N O c0 N c0 c0 v O\ O m ul N O
O\ M c0 N Ol v CO M M Ln o? h v M1 OO M1 M1 M M O t0 O Ol O\ O> c O
O —
M c0 �
I
M N — N M CT N 00 — W O O M O O CT Ol M O cD M1 00 h v 0 �A aD . o
-
-
�Do0 C'\ CO N p t0 O O t0 O _ p
O\ �0 i(1 M l0 M N DD tD O CT O M1 M O t0 M N t� CT
O\ O l0 HCl 00
Nv t0 N M O Q7 O M M CT — N O CT h O t0 M to N b h — c0
Cl\ 00 — M M M1 N M N D N — M — N 00 N M O tp M
—
70 M1 N c0 O �!"1 O tD
d
I 3
I j �
o
o T a U
o o o v o -
u o o N o
a a s v
O
O
p Z U U O O Cl S LZ O U O Z Q —
a S c3 > 3 x 6 o U Z
I
i
i
� I
i
t
ii
� I
I
i
—
,
O — ✓� OO 0 0 0 0 0 0
O In � CJl M
N N O M P O P Ol Y) DO O O tD 00 �_ P — c0 O \A of P 00 O M1 0 0 rn
O b M1 M c0 00 N aD M M1 M 00 0-0 op — Ol Ol \A ap M Cn 00 00
. .—
N N N to ^ vA N M — •--• P � �• \!) — — �0 P — c0 CJl
— rn rn M rn rn M1 M1 M1 tD Co \D O
O CT — �tl t0 O Ol M1 Ol N Cn O v v — M1 c0 00 N 00 O M c0 v O O+ M1 M 00
_ 00
O .!1 ^ op Ol aD M1 Ol a0 N PNc0 O M1 P ul 00 00 cD P C7 iD
O — _ 00 P e-') P r7 OO
rn — c0 00
O O CD — N cD — P 00 00 — c0 O O O c0 K'1 �-�- O � Ol N
— —
^
i A
O\ O tD P O M Cl1 O O ^ P ^_ M Cfl M1 N Ol M1 M y O M1
01 c0 M v� 0 — M1 M M S P v — N O \[l M c0 M N CT M M "'> M -
- �0 N c0 — �!1 � — N M — — — N c0 — -- \0 P � M1 M
rn ou O rn P 0 O� M1 — DD � M1 � O QO O M1 O P 00 \0 00 rn O
1
I�0 � capD � T \c—A0 —
M
ca �
x _
Q r tD rn o co 00 ^ P \n oo aD M1 � � o \n o \n P oo co — o
--
N J CT — CSV _ P — DD CIl Y7 M1 O N P M P O OO P N M — — N Ol
LO
co
N c0 N �L'1 � to N N DO — Ol t0 — M DO O Ol M1 M M QO M
Qi O O M1 DD — 00 O t� M 20 N P cD P R Ol P c0 P _ N QD
P N N tD N
to 00M1_ l c0
v M cD t0 N CP — — M 00 \0 N 00 P — —
O — M1P 00 O �0
Ch — M M1 ^ — CP N O M O \0 00 N cp t0 c0 — t0 M M1 N N c0
a0 W 10 — m co
M c0 ^
00 N Ol — N M1 CT CO — O'\ cD "l — 00 c0 O M1 O O
Ol M N — cD M1 — M1 P O M1 M N — P co
—
CT N M1 00 01 O — O M QD 0O70 c0 P
—
N O N — ul tD u7 O P — P rn M O 1.0 M1 N O P M1 N w b rn t0 \!� c0 \0 M O\ t0 t� O M O O of
O� M — N � M ti tD � .--• — cD � tD M Ol O M1 O N � QD !� M1 _ cD \A V M1 P — M
O+ M — Ol cp O c0 — M1 cD N O P M1 CT M O N 00 t0 h to t!) CT \(] O rn � N ✓) N
— M ^ ^ cD CT o+ w M1 w 00.CD O c0 — N 00 CT h N O N \(1 O M1 — — 10 M1 M M1 O DO O O 10
L P M — Ol !� Ol c0 N f� Ol _ CT tD N I"') Ol N N1 00 N cD M M
CP c0 N M M — N CT Ol c0 N CD M1 \"') — 00
CP 00 _ N M S N N M1 N M O N N O GO N N Ol
I�� y
3
I
a J on on Tn o v E v u E
E
v O O O
o Z 0 00 O _ O 0 6 0
(� (3 ZE Y 2 b 0 U Z ~
� N N o� rn ✓� — M � X 0 0 O rn � O M 00 O — ^ — h O — M N N O O rn v v O O O O O I
N
y I
0 0 0 O
—
"'°
O N � W — R a7 •— N N Ol 00 — � N � v v h h —
.(l N ill v O M M 00 O
O 00 00 t0 v � — M1 M v 07 v — N R M i!f M M M c0 Cb
O N N �0 M1 OO — R 00 M
N
t0
pi O) M — M DO 0 0 O m O M_ O — ^ — h 0 — M N O O C11 v v 0 0 0 0 O
00 00 00 �0 s � h 00 — h of M M � CT 00 N � �_ � M ✓) M a0 h h 00
O O Cn ^ R 0 0 0
O N 00 �0 v R — Cn M < 00 v — N v M M M ✓1 �0
—
N
co M1 t0 O O 00
00
O 00 O 0p
O� t0 00 M v a i0 —• tp tp — M R R O �O C)l O� t0 M
.J n
L
•' � = ao m � < - � - rn < o �n o rn o - ao o rn N o N M N M o rn h o 0 0 o R - - o 0 0 o M
C C Y
c0 Cll h 00 N — CO c0 M O R O N .Cl O R 00 O M 00 00 O O v T �!t O O M1 Cn O� 0 0 0 0 p
•L
i0 M — Cn v 00 M N O O e O M — O O M M M OO O ap — O� Cts O O �O 00 00 O O O O h
pi — �C'J x] N R cJ 07 v Ol 3 10 O 0 10
.t7 O M N O ^ M h 0p 00 O N O 00 O M N O v CO CT t0 O N M M M O O O O O
— M
MO O
CT M 00 M N � N — O� 00 �O c0 N O W a0 cp � b t0 iD
N
M O N N — CT �D CA O t0 O O O 00 O — �"'> /� O M N O O M O O 1=1
O cO
cD O O O N M O� c0 M N O � 1 oo N 'r
e
N
CT 00 C11 �O � N � CT 00 r N N M M1 N C11 �O O7 � N a0 _
O� HCl — 00 — N N c0 t0 N �p M O — r CTI N N 00 v
I
O — — 00 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 �!1 O 00 M O R Ol R 0 0 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 00 of O O I=>
O N
— — M
rn R t0 00 v v rn c0 Ot O a v O
O
3
� v I
a C a c o 8 °' 3 � o o, o• °'
a `v o o o 3
O O n d 0 d p NO CT U n O
n n s o pv o o v ai 0
Q 6;i
U O U O O O K L L N Z $ Q � W Z
Z O o 2 0 O K
a s L3 a o v z
i'
L
I
IrI
O rn iD rn rn O rn M1 M ..� O N M o'r O O M M W rn rn O rn 0 v'J O p civ
.0
�0 rn t0
I y —
� M1
_rn v v a0 � 00 c0 O O a0 � � M _ _ _ _
p N M o0 M O h v 0 0 0 0 0
N h — OO � .— N N W ✓1 v ^ — tp .-_ Ol �O Yl O� N �() O N r� O� Ol pt =
� v
N a0 N N n r1 c0 M1 M !� N O Ol N00 N p QO O to �A ^
co
00 00 N O h
r+') v nl O O T O O
— M
✓1 N h
O 00 O N o0 00 00 N v N O O P in O') c0 O 00 0 0'i v
O Cl rn a0 O rn < 00
O O v O N �(') O v p CU O o0 N r� ap QN P N M1 N o0 rn ✓1 h M1 _ O
II O OJ 07 N — N ON W M R Owl Q�l Ol 07 Ol V T '- W 00 00 M O OON O W O O
O
00 00 O v Ol h O 00 N ^ h
� O v O N O O
M1 Ql V ry
_ a0 v a0
Of � M1 M1 .0 C.
J O
y vJ
—
^ .: 9 m ID
o0 0o e Lo o21
6>
_ _ _
O N O O Ol O iA O+ p0 OO 00 p ✓7 O O M
�O h � O a7 ✓� O N 00 !� O � a0 O PO M N � M1
—
'Jl
10 O n r'l O c0 O O b Ol pN p t0 N N — — — v — iA
c0'
O O O O O ^ v t0 h 00 O M v rn
— O N iA o+ a0 00 M — O O h p O- ^ O — O O —
M t0 tp C—V N N tp N M O W CO Ol my 01 — 00 N OM1
00 c0 —
N O M rn O� � 00 0+ 0 — O O M h rn hV N O N1 S O N O
O N CSV O � N
� N Ol c0 Ol 00
Ol
O t0 O — 00 h — r+y cp h O O'� K1 r+)
M C:,
N tp � r+� O� O M1
rn N m W oo
DD
vi
o�
v+ M y civ c v M1 110 00
0o
00 N N N U 01 T M cp O0 - M1 O� Ol N M a0 N O W O p b
tD N ✓� M1
O
y
O
3
u � v
� u
43 o 0 0 3 a v
o v y c c o y a`i o
w 3 3 u o 6 0 = .t E o '" u
i� o Z .� z 3 o n a o y uo, b o
o . _ _
U Z
1
1 '
� I
� I
1
1
1 '�
1
� I
1
1 �
1
1
1i
1 '',
r
r
r
O 00 M N l� Cn -- O h pl p) P 00 c0 �D M M v a] rn O� h v 0 0 0 0 �D
1 � P h P
r N
M P M POS O W M — P S P O <' O0 O P �(1 N A N O — � � tO � N O� M P D7 O t!1 O O
F�1
00 — - — O O O O
�
14, N N P —
Ul — to
N rn M 00 00 h QO pi M 00 h 00 lO — M O P M O P P O O cO h 00 P —O� O P O O P
O C1� M I� ul CO — CO O CV O Kl 00 N r tp h CT P h M 1 N �O
10 N 00 O M O O 'D
00
N �
O P N N P
10 00 — P 00 N M O O tO — M 00 M O c0 t� 00 Ol Ol tC) f_� 10 N O
C —
U <
r
h o 00 o h .n
aO
Pm
W O M CO CO N c0 M N 07 Ol tp O) M DD Ol 00 M N
!r h — N 00 N ^ CT 10 O �
y f J —
"l. —_
a, O O � � O � n � -- O P h 00 M C.n — N
�!'� h � 00 � N CSl h Ol O P O N � � N — � 00 — M �_ — •"> CT � O N O O
Cly i0 v O N DD N M S N N h N M O N N O h N
r v h c0 M Cn 0p h h 00 DD — — M O N ^ — ^ P Ol — ^ M P OP = ao DO 00
00 N N
M V CO Ol O h O O O
Ol O� a0 N — — M N N N CTl 00 N M fMV Ol (� � O t0 M Ol Ol �(J t0 N M
N Ol
N
Ol
h oO h M P — — N M N N O P Ol 00 N — M o0 O 00 O_ h M rn D7 P t0 M ^ M O N O O
u� i0 00 O N O� M P t0 N — 00 O
rn M M N — O —
IfO^ O
v o o v o y o n 3 D o o• '�
q co o u 0 3 t o 0 v E o f o
E �
r n Z 3> 3 O O 2 0 O 2 O Z
n S Z5 > 3 2 GS o s z
1
i
I
I
t0 W O tD a cp -- O M O W O a 0 0 a c0 h O M v tp �O I=> 0 HCl M M 0 0 0 0 M
O a �D N W to N ^ Ol N N M �O a O h W N h tp a s W
4r O cp
O0 0 0 0 M
M W p
N �p W O �O a cp O M O W O v a 0 0 a �O h O M v cp t
O a N — a — W M �D a O h 00 N h — —
O N
N N cD 00 v O t0 a tD -- O M O W O < a O O a �O h O M v t0 �O O O M M 0 0 0 0 M
h
O tp
N c0 00
' 00
O N c0 00 v v 0 �O a — O M O 00 O v a0 0 rn t0 h O M v cp �o O O
a O h CO N h — —
N N
a o0
1.0 h to I a h <p h O a O aD M O v N O W _ O a O a O O N — — 0 0 0 0
a v O O h O
W
— N ^
1
M O v O t0 00 O M -- O ap N v O O 1A M M O O a a a O O O O 7
a _ 'n W cp tD f� -- h 00 a N Cp N a a to h M 00 a s a OO W O
a � N N ^ < N N co M a N N h a
h
c0 N �A o0 0 0 0 h M O M 10 O to v W N O O -- — 0 0 1000
oo O
10 W W
mJ
W O N N O 00 O O O O M
W W a v c0 M a l� h M W W M
axe '
N W v O O — O W M O N W O — h cD O N t0 W W O O D 0 0 0 0
JJ a ^ O N N M O 00 OO O
O O M 0 h cp O O o0 O ao M M O 0 O O '
-
- — M
'D 'D va h 0 0 8 O N a - My O !� f� O O O a0 W O O O O O '
— N
O O h 0 O h N t0 O Q h h h 0 0 ::>
0 0 0 0 0 0 a
— — h W h ap N N N N O c0 tp M
— O� ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 O N h O M — M O O N CO O O O O O N N O 0 0 0 N
Gl
O
3
N
� v
o o ." 3 ✓� o
a Cl. o D °' �` N 3
a s o v u o o v n v o
`" O
O O'
CL s c3 > 3 S 6 o U z
i
CO a < O a M a M M a0 10
Lo CO O VQ M �n N N t
O h a M — N O 00 — M N � � — —o n
'rfJ �!l O — M ip O �* h h O /� 00 v M Yl v h — uJ O N a O� 07 N 0 0 0 •!'f
00
_
CO (O M N �n O �n V M CA a — �n O O �n M v M — N rn
O m a N O 00 — M O �n ul — N N a — — N O — —
M
O
1.N2
C;; v Ma .n
oo a M aJ
I
a N o0 h a M e O h M Oo O a a (XJ O CT h M CO N h M < N a 'o v a �n (� — O �n O O
a cp M a O M a — M h — 00 h — t, �n cD M M M — N Lo
p p
— M
O
•;J a M a — — N a 00 — M M a Q — tp N N - - — a -- h — a
Y n —
I L �
•y }�+ h 00 — v O — �O M h O !� — — O M
p O
oo a co h M M �D cO M oo v 0 0 0 CT 0 0 M
pLo t N N — N a
•fl a N W O — N O OO ✓� M a M V' M — _ cp N N t0 N — - — a —
y o a o N h N M N o h o0 00 0 oo ^ M N N Ln n 0 0o N oo o o m 0o N o 0 0 0 o N
a o �n — a Q — r� N co — �n h M h co — a o N N co a �n O o
N O N O (KJ — M M oo
G
a N v('1 a a N �O N h tLl OM O O
o o M
a O 00 (KJ N O a — M Cd M M -- N �n N N N — N a �n — •--
O a — M —
Lo
M — N
to 1� v = a0 !� M N N — O a oo 0 0 0 .n O 00 — a a v M a0 O N O O N
M M h
MO M O N N M O
o75S 43
o 0 3 �'
ov d 2 C� a o � T �+ C. 7; a v ai (n O
o u c v o `^ o o a �, n v o
3 O O L V E L N �•= L O O O C d O J V O O O J D O O
Z U 2' O Z y 4 '- l.. Z 0 o O h r �' p p Q N C O
a S c-3 r 3 2 6 o c-> z
, �
' i
� ,
� i
� �
,�
�i
R
O LO Ol Cd CT (1J C)1 C� C:11 CTS Ol Ol M Ol 00 Ol Ol CSV — 00 — O� 00 OO Ol 00 M 00 a0
O
C
oP O M M1 M1 M1 O O�
O M Ol I") v v o0 O M O cp v h N _ h � h O v t0 to ✓) O e t0 O O I� r} � h l0
OC O M N h CT
— LO
—
h00 O M1 v N o0 C;T t!2 tp O N
O — CT 00 N O� h — h Q t0 N M Ol M1 O Q O N S _ 00 t h h
�O N O tp M M1 Ol v O �('f tp Ol M1 N O� M1 — ip _ M1 Lrl M1 O �n N O ^ N o0 N M O M1
L(1 M M v v M �O o0 cD M
O O Cl N pi v _ 00 O N
N00 _
iA M t0 00 U 00 _O
' ^ CP N o0 N N CJl N O O M O V' <p _ O O O O
O M «'1 �l'> cp o0
—
�(l
O v �O Ol N O CR c0 Ol c0 O O o0 a0 v o0 v v7 O M1 v — O �O
00 op
ap Oo O O O+ O v M M1
N h O < 00 O — M1 07 _ O M1 O M1 M1 a p N
0 _ M ul h N M _ O N _ M M N — O N �A M1v M1 O
••� — — — — ap ._ W
n
C W O N N ap Ol _ 00 M1 � M1 M O o0 0 OO O N
CIS v h O� — O P v O� N tp M1 M M1 M �N 1p Ol O o0 M o0 t0
ip
O
t.
C M1 �O v v7 CT M N O _ O M u7 �- O h Ol c0 O M1 00 M1 Ol O �— M W N O O
00 _ � �O O �O o0 h O v M N M
C
O lO M1 — rn rn to O) M1 Ot c0 O/ O 4-) M1 O t0 'P O v 0 lO < O c0
it Ol i0 �fl N _ O� v N M M I� M1 OO ^ M M1 M O Ol O aD K M1 ^
�OQD Ol K7 N Ql M N <
< O m loN Ol 11 M1 M o0 (7 < Ol M < M N O
mcc m ^ V N cp In _ Ql M to
O� M M M N CTl O� t� OO t0 — Ol M O 07 tp
— M HCl M N O CTl _ M V tp N M CT N �T — N M N M CIl N < Ol M cp 1p
m �
O — M1 rn O� N cp CT M1 N O a0 rn 0 0 ^ O v
M O o0 M HCl M1 v a0 �O tp M M M N - M1
Q7 l0"Cb O tD O CO N N N M V' _ O 07 00 OJ 00
O m oo M M P O 00 O v cb 00
N t0 Op
v 00 N O Ol M tp M M1 O a0 N v Ol Ol O N V• 00 O Ol
O� N ul Ol M N Oi r Ol M M1 < 00 M1 M1 N 00 oo N M < M1 O M N Ch o0 N N
oo
tp M M _ O M1 M1 M cp M N V tp cD cp N N — O C:)l
Co
N O u7 M1 Om a0
Ol N OO O h m O� O N M N Q 00 00 M N O Cll M1 N �O N Ol Ol � N N N N _ �p O
— O v N N Ol CT — M v cp N N 00 N '�T M N o0 N M Ol
O
3
0
v
v u o o v o o n 3
= c c v
a, o _ oa oa o o y E y T EM o � ai � v y � o u �+ 0 3
O O O p S] •V O
n a n S o v co o �+ O v .°' a E o N u
o o c o ,,CC v v N o v oo p —
o Z U U o 2 l.. O O ck O Z y < - Z 3 p Q L i,,. � c:
F= ¢ N
m O C o
d s < 3 Y 3 2 b 0 U Z
I
C> 0 Ol 0 0 0 0 0
tD N M N M
N
N
y M M M T O O — M 0 0 — 0 0 0 07; i0 O M h M O O N rn 0 0 0 0 0 r O_ O O O CO
O'+ Ol N O O
� M
_v I
—
O �
Ol Cn v O O Cn �O M O O O M M O �O O h O h 0 0 0 Vl O O O O O �O —
O 00 S a0 00 < Ol 00 Ol — Ol — h < c0 2
O rn 0 — O � �!'f O O N
N N
O O� < — O O o0 itl M O O h 0 O t0 M O
co
o0 r o0
N N
0 0 0 0 0
v
o0 M O
N N M
r
CT �O Ol ^ O CO N N — 1C1 O
C —
O
n
•y C h �p M o0 v 0 0 N O O O� O O — 0 0 ^ h .— O O r 0 0 0 0 0
'' ^J pi
o � U
M � O M N M O O N a] O O O
.�
�. y
� L S
U rn N O O O N O N O O O M M O m Ol O N c0 N O O lO x 0 0 0 (=> 0 a0 O O O O to '
O� N M M �O � � tp o0 W Ol M tp M cp cp O N
3 N M
O O M O N ^ O M M O — o -- 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 lO m N O O O
p� O op r v o0 o0 O '
M
M N h tD rn O O O o0 N O O — O — — O Ol r O O N O O O N v 0 0 0 0 0 ul cp rn 0 0 0 N
N o0 L O O N 0 0 0 0 0 1l N 0 0 0 N
—
O+ W O'J O
M
O O o0 00 O r v 0 o0 r w O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 — M o0 O I=> O
v —
v+ 00 v �O N O N O � or0 rn
v ^
25
o
`vv n o c5 o v ^! 6 o o 6 N 3
p 7 O N V V
a s a o
-s:
s o w v o
O O V1 N O OO C `y O p p
Z U
L.> =E O o S 0 o K U O Z y 6 i-7- - Z t �+ Or
a S c3 > 3 = a o c-) z ~
I
i
' f7 O tfJ O� O� � O� 00 � O e Ol to h v M N — O� Qi Cn — 00 .--• N h 00 � Ot h W — M � tb N
T
� to J
O h — M 00 O M to tO h Q
�O
— — v v N
N N O VJ b — h ^ Ol M O
N �O N M � _ M v v v
N
O O N to 01 h M1 N t0 N to to M 0 0 O — M 00 O 00 Ol N^ Ol to M h
t!)
-- Z �
00 tp N O v c0 M1 Cn 00 O h W to aO b to O M cp OO t_A N O N M M1 N M O 00
O N 00 M O M tO 00 N — O� N O cO 00 M to cp Ol tO — h M— to cD O
N
-- O 00 �O to W 00 h O O O� O h CI+ ^ K'I h O M1 N v ✓1 to N O O M1 v O O O
O Q 00 00 to tb — W M to M Ol tp h M O �!1 N < N M 00 QJ Ol M !� M — to
O O O — M N M � O� N h to O O to N o0 to u7 v O 00 by O rn h o0 O� h — —
N
O v M. M CO v O� M t(J M N O CO O Ol O V tO OO 00 00 C 00 < N N — O
p� O� h 0p M — M h Cly tp O
Trn ^ O O O rn rn M iD !� O rn 0 0 h M < M h rn O M1 v 00 h M1 a0 M
— 00 — M — O — �"� to Op M M to N � N N M M N N O N to �W b �
III —
W to h 00 N — M O� 00 Nv 00 O h
b - ip M — to vO to O
00 O h — t0 N M M 00 O M1 O o0 iO "s 00 O ^ N
1.0N N M N N O
� N to - h
^ — — N
J 'n M1 O 07 N Ol Ol O t0 00 N O O O Ol — O 00 Ol M1 0_7 00 00 M1 M 00 O M a0 to M N v O� — O
.^ C m to O to h — — tO h OJ O D1 O W M1 to W h tO 00 M1 O tb to M
",' Ol M v ^ O U N to tD tb — N 00 Ol v c0 O M N N M1 Ol tp h h cp M 00 h — 00 �D
Zo cO c0 O
r
r
�.J ap O to t!t 00 cD M v O to O O O — v to N O N v rn v M M1 O10
� J Ol N M 00 O� v M1 O� M M h N to cp O M h N � ul ^ ap Ol t0 M CT M
•` .Z CT N � O Ol 00 N N t(J to !� Ol CT1 — to D1 M N CT t0 Ql c0 O �O Q h 00 M — to M
� L L
y L vh
O O to
h h Q Ol O7 CO W M1 00 < < Ol M OJ Gp M M O
oy+ �\ Ol M u7 to t0 M D1 a0 O CT �O Ot to Ol � N < 00
�A Ql tO — c0 O� 00 Cl't O N !� t0 01 00 O 00 N .� tO 00 tll — 00 t0 �O [D Ol OO Ol --
"l. -- .0
3
CO t0 00 O v O v
Ql h O� N CIS W N v Q t0 O � Ol to O v ap — — M t(J 00-� tb to tO t0 M O h —
CO
h O 00 to N 00 CO 00 v O rn O O v 0 —_ rn to 00 h M1 O v
rn N N N O 00 h ✓> M M O h O ^ CO to v 00 �0 /) -- t0
tb 00 Ol to N v M y O N O M to O O 00 v N ✓> vJ cD Ol N !� O t(1
v N M Ol v <n e M CO O W M M O M �_ M N O to c0 cD a0 Ol ^ CT �D CT M y tb O _
Ol V cp O� Ol M N (�V O� t(J M to N Ol 00 Ol N CIl M M1 <' cO 00 M Y O M ap to cp N N
Ol Cn tpCO
M M O ap tp 00 — 00 M1 O ^
O0l1 MO rn O 00 ��D �OOi O— uNJ tM0 h— NN cOp t0o0 OM 0tO0 1
M0 ' ' C> �^O 00 00p0 00 Ov OM1� N M1 O
t!'f
t(J Ol N N O Of V N M1 M T Ol v t!1 N < h O ^ cD N
O
3
..
0 0 o c o n 3 v
61 V
.o n on o u E u r 03 c o y al x o o v cn o 3
0 0 arL
O -2 C_ y O .0 V O d `y 00 t y rA vOi N ; y�j O
n Z U U O O S LZ O O d' C..J Z y Q ti Z �i p O O L l'" �' O o �" ¢ N C O
0- s c3 ME > 3 x a o U z
� ;
, ��
� i
, i
' I
� .
� �
, �
i
M O N 00 N o0 civ N O N �O o0 ^ � O� �!l O O o0 � — rn O b o0 00 P o0 N N 00 M N
N M P P
G1 t0 00 — Q� �O O N M h N O CT CP h Ol M M O OO Ol N M M Ol Ql tp M N 00 O — 0 0 N
O M N N O N D7 M1 M 'n N 00 N CO N Ol Ol co 'o (p Ql Ql O P
O M1 O a0 — rn N cp 00 — oo O o P M1 O
M v O M Ol 00 00 t0 N O M P cp N N m M 00 Ol m M ^ Oi N O O O �D
�O — O M c0 — Q P W M1 O t0 Ol O� M h N CD CA
o0 .0
M h tp M t0 M1 O tD O O 00
O �D 00 O 00 N h O M OO O tD Ol M O� !� N Ol �(l a0 O N O M1 00 OO M N N
O M A N CO 00 !� �!t N � M1 Q 00 M D7 � P ry M 00 M !� cp CO M CO c0 M1 M P N
O
O P 00 h M N � tf1 T N Ol
Ol N CSV N O co
P N M N M Ol N P o0
rn rn rn h O �!'t N O+ M N M1 O N O 00 rn O P ao h �O M v a0 O �A O 01 P O O g 0 0 rn
to
O� c0 !1 00 DD 10 = O N M v DD LO ^ T O M to ^ O DD t0 M h L co cD c0 M1 h M �
N A N O M c0 N M Ol N P S N M N M Ol N i0
O O N
oo
O� N N tp c0 O� 00 N P t0 t0 cp Ol CO N h to 00 tp
J n cp W O� rn o0 O N M O P h M M1 rn — 01 c0 O rn DO P u7 N 00 a0 O O O O
;A Cn ?'� N O M1 b O v o0 a� M1 ^ ^ h tD CT N N O t0 M tp O Cn vl
•J pi � — P !� � t0 N M � �A � O O� h M P pi O 00 N ^ !� P tp < � cp
P
O N O O —
Cl�
y i•.
' L y O Ol O v O� 01 ap t!1 O O P O v P Q M cp Ol N �A P M1 c0 M1 M O� Ol !� O M O O M
Q� _ O 00 O. N O� M1 N 00 v h cp t!7 N QD 00 DD 00 h M �A 00 P 00 cl)
—
U
3 _
O O N
00
Ol c0 M O O M -- — M OO o0 M M Ol !� P T t0 M M1 oo M N tp N M op
tp N N 00 N M N N 00
^ — � 01
to V
Oo 0o ^ M O Cn M W DO mM N �D Ol h -- r t0 N �A lO
— W N Ol 00 M P t!1 N N N M N — 00 N N M
^ C1l
O+ M �D v7 Ol 00 CT 00
N O O 00 N h 00 M1 M D7 M1 00 N cp N N �O �O N M M
00 —
^ Ol
M N M M1 ap Cn CT 00 h o0 OO
O� N h M1 N to M1 P M ^ Ol N f� Ol c0 N M M1 01 —• 01 t0 N M �A Ol N M 00 N cp M M
pi M1 cD N M M N r Ol �O cN.1 h M 00 h M1 t0 O� N N t0 N M O_
— P O N CT CO M � M1 N M O N N O 00 N N
O
3
`
o _o ' a' •v' aNi
v o n n E iZo u n� x a o o v in 3
Cl O O O T O pp
N O
V1 p d
31 75
O O C O N O V p N L L v
o Z 0 0 G L Z O 00 nL l.r CO i= G N C O
a S Z3 r 3 x E8
v z
i '
1 �
00
N
o a a o
00
M u� M v 00 O O O O O O O O O O O t0 10 O O O O rn
c0 �A O O c0 c0 O O O N O — O O a a 0 0 R a 0 0 0 O O r r O O O O 1
0 O t!7 ^ O P 'A O O P r O O O O O rn rn 0 0 0 0 1
N � N M — — •� M
0 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,
00 O �0 ^ �0 O O rn 0 0 0 0 0 — -=-O O O O
j W rn 0� rn O O N N O O O �O O M M O N N O O — O O O O O O N N O O O O N
�0 L!1 c0 R v v
L 1
C
0 0 'O O M M O "•1 O O — N O O O O O N N O 0 0 0 cD
•y
Ci L
M — O O O O O O O P N C> O ✓� O t0 CO O O �A O O O O O O N N O Cl 0 0
y U a 0 — O � � O Cl O O O O O O r r r 7 I
3 _
O t0 O O 00 rn 0 0 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0
ocry r s v
cp 00 �0 N O O 00 00 O O O a 0 O� of O O O — R 0 0 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 0 �D
M _M a p O R x 0 0 0 i0 O 00 00 O O � O r O R O O P a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0
P P N
O
PN p i
—
C:>
a M 00 R P aP N 10 — M
a �0 r t0 N P P a c0 Of O P P O
y
O
3
� y
a o o v c
0
75
E
y # 5 to w
o Z U U O o 2 O o K 4 0 Z
CL Z:5 r 3 = 6 o cs z
c0 h O M a cp 07 O M M1 — O a a N a — M O il'1 � � HCl M P M a pl c0 M (� M O O O M1
O P O� M M M O 0 p a O K a
N O P M1 N w 00 N (D 00 t0 O M OJ P pp
cD — a
ISI P P P M1 — --
a0 �O N Q O c0 rn M1 N OO rn pl rn M .Cl u7 rn O O O N
O 07 M a i[l OO 00 UO a cD N N a ^ n N M M a a 00 M c0 — M O 00 ^ M M M
O
O O v7 P O Op O 00 O M O tp N a M1 O a M � � � M M1 O N O 00 ^ ap a
O
OM
0 0 ^ M O h M N N M1 O N O) a c0 CO N N 01 M O c0 M a h cp Ol N 00
IIF N a �O N — O M P OO M M M N Y7
C Ol — M N _M N M1 O 00 O 00 — a O — O7 M 00 0.J �!1 M O c0 �!'1 O pl h --O S O O
Ol Q a N cD Ol cD Q — a RJ Ol _M P to P to M M W O N M — O t� O P N' O
•V — 00 M1 c0 ^ N — O — M h M M M -- N � N N N M N N M Ol N P p)
y y M
a0 N M N N ^ O 00 — — P O� O pl M1 h W M h cp M 00 P W"> O h 0 0
'fl O 00 c0
-
-
0 0 0 0 0
O
pf M 00 a P M N N M N M ^ cav CO c0 O M ^ 0 0 cp
M —
M
00 N CO O h 00 — O N P Ol O b t0 M a tp — cp P O N N OO M !� N N 00 O O O OO
N^ Ol h M N M U !XJ
M O
O) 00 O.7 N UO O O CNV 00 Ol Ql pl !� �"") 1(7 tD M O h M OJ
N Q) 00 ^ M P cp
M ^ O
N c0 P _ N M 00 Ol Ol O O — h M N O a0 a0 ;7-
^ — M h vl M O_ 00 O ap O
pl 00 M 00 N m cp N N O O !� h — 00 !� Of M1 Qf pl OJ 00 N N N to cp O h /� M
N cp M N Ol 00 N
M M W rn 0 _ c0 N t0 M f� O O O O N Ol cD !� N c0 O o0 O O o0
Oc M N N M 00 O) 00 N M M h pl �O p� a Ol N M OO N M c0
Ql O N P W N M ^ N N pl a cD — h P pt — v 00 00 h U — O l M O
— N cp M N Ol M — O N ^ N O OO N N O
1
0
3
I
2
0
u .o o n
72a n - .o E u >
a o o 0 o v y v j iMo
��_ _' Np � -L'
75 d 3v ,
o � o
zU p ' 3 N ¢
3
O�u
o
6 0 z
N
I,
� �
r
� I
� '
�,
�I
�I
i
� i
i
� i
� O c — M S M v c0 Ol ✓1 e — — M .A — — v — M — M M O — v
— ._ v
y O O v O R N N N Cn O < ^ OO R O v to 00
—
Q —
A
0
W 0
O O O O R N.N Ol v O �A v N O� Y7 ✓) P — h M .0
O O O
O � Ol M1 O Q CSV C)l � O 00 — N M1 � M M M — Q Ol M O R 00 O Ol T �
O O0 O VN R N 07 Ol R O N N � N M M O — sfN Of N R to 00 Ol P � Op
II O 00 M1 N P M �D M1 -- CO
N
C=>
O+ M t0 00 O 00 00 P t0 M 00 O_ O 00 V M1 ap CT v7 N ^ � N N � K W 00 Ol -- N Cll O O O O c0
C
O
V ✓� DD M1 v W N M — �0 O V7 v O N c0 W — N — M M T - O rn 0 0 —
C
Ol -- OO tp i0 i0 R h R tp CO O t0 01 N M R M N t0 — M — 00 M M N t0 10 M CO DO O DO O O 00
O C. pl po M N Ol — N 00 N R -- 1( O — R — h P O N O O 01 00 O 4,>
J O� 00
a e o
m 00 R v rn O+ M vl M 00 <_ N O rn.^- O — 10R N P Ol N M R M1 —N 00 ^ R M1 R O M1 O O 00
rd ILi Cn O — < Ol O CT �D N M1 O Ol O h — N < Cll e N Cn M1 00 CD O� M O O 00 M P �0
Q O�
U —
3 v 1 M N d 0 C O Cn N P O M 00 00 O N — R O _� O M1 N N M CO 7 0 O P O O O
Cn N O l0 Ol O tp M N �O CT M M1 O �0 O N D7 M1 N � M 00 Ol 00 — O h t0 00 M O�
v R O O� O O O c vl O _O t0 O P M O 00 v M M N 10 — rn M u") O P O O
O� M Cn 01 O� — N c0 Ol V7 01 O O < 00 aD O 10 00 .0
N V DO Ol R QD M
1p N M R N M — O N Q M O N l0 LO
00 O DD O R M CT Ol P t0 M R M 0 0 0
T M1 N 00 M1 M N �A l0 00 O R N CT M P t0 <N 00 O h tp O h a0 R M tp
CJP M S M N — O M R N M Ol N ^ M M N M O N �A CT
N —
O
3
� O
3 O`
o O CL o s D o _. N 6 0• o Q N o 3
W ���LLLyyy}}}
` ; O O x L U (1i. O O 2' 4�4 L O ^O 0 `-- t� O O O n O C C .U
d Z U U M 0 o U O Z y 6 '— Z p O O L O O < N O
a s c3 M >- 3 = 6 o c) Z `
I
I
Ln P o Ln rn o o r r o 0 o P o ^ ^ o oMo 0 o rncd o � o o ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 � � o 0 0 0
b.n
N
0 0
y o
o r oo P P r r o 0o Ln co r — co co ip
:0 — �
O v �
O� �0 Ln 00 O O r r O O O 00 O 00 r O <=> 0
N 0 0 0 tD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln 0 0 0 00 Ln 00 c0 — tp
O N v <O
N r r
N 00 r O O r r 0 0 0 c0 O 00 00 O W Ln O r P r O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 P P 0 0 0 0
N —
O O r r 0 0 0 P O r r 0 00 O P r P 0 0 0 01 O O O O Cl M M Cl 0 0 0 '
O b c0 O N M t0 LO 00 CT r P r LO Lp c0 t�D
rn M M P LD O O r r 0 0 0 _ O 00 0 00 rn 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0
Ol W tp p� N M LO r CT r r �O cp N
O 0o t0 O O Cl O O m O P O r O O r v r O O Ln Ol O O O O O — — 0 0 0 0 c0
J � ^� Cn r N 00 N N � � c0 CT cD c0 Ln LO c0 S
:7 y
C r M CT Ln 0 0 O N Ot 0 0 0 0 0 CIl CT 0 0 0 0
rn In Ln r N N l0 t0 00 (O M t0 Ln Ln Ln 10
•r w 4.n _
L ` C
y
0 0O O O P O O 00 01 0 0 0 0 0
Cn P r N N c0 t0 tb LD M ap Ln � M
r J
3 N C]� v M y 0 0 LO LO 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 M O O P 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0
pL N t0 N LO � M 07 u7 M � Ln � v
Ol Qap P O O LO LO 0 0 0 00 0 0l rn O O M O M O M O O N 00 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln O O O O M
M N Ln to N 00 Ln M Ln
— _
I
M O — a0 M O O t0 t0 0 0 0 to O 00 00 O r _ O O r 0 0 0 <X] tb 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 rn ,
CT O M P N Ln Ln O 00 Ln N K7 M � Ln N
O O O O O N O tp aD O LCl Oi 0 to P c0 O O Ln 00 0 0 0 0 0 M M O 0 0 0
— O Cn v+ N O O Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln O O O N 00 O O O O O N N O 0 0 0 00
pi r N N LntL') LL')
v
0
3
v u o o u o i p v 3 � p p• � v
o o
72 rl
u o o
Z 3 o po o n L o o r= < <n o
d 0 } 3i 2 6 0 U Z
jl
M O N — cD 00 !� P R] O_ O N N M O h — r7 tp M1 M1 01 M — O 00 O M O O cp
O rn � M c Q O M CT � O — 00 N 00 M — r cOv v civ P O M1 00 O
—
O
O 0 0 N
Q� N ^ O� R M 00 M M1 O� �!1 Ol 00 r h tp O P — O
�'l M a0 N N �Ll CV M c0
w
O N N M1 000 M O O O
0 t0 uM'1 00 O O hO r M1 rM') O� v 00 N h hN p� rn M1
` 07 Ol CT — M M N — P Y1 CT ✓1 P — ap .� r� tp N N — N M 00
M1 M1 — tp CO r'l N h M1 l0 O Ol N N Ol M h 1 M — O N ✓7 N tp tp �"') 00 M1 O CO O O M
tp t0 O
t2 N7 N M t2 —
y C .�
C y
W _
P OLn O M1 O O O
3 0 0 D M O G O M M o0 O CA O CA CT n
t0 O C N N 1 DO — M 0 0 0 o0
N O t0 N Cn to � M M D7 CO -- O
0 0 0 O
00 CT h M O'l P
—
M
o+ O o0 CT �O 00 O O O o0 N M1 O P P r — 00 — ap 00 �O CTf M 00 v7
O
N O h Qt 00 — — M 00 M1 _ N O M1 P O — 0 m O O M
O'l O M1 lD — N — O — M P 00 M ✓1 — �- N � N N �"") �'�] N N "") O N K1 — c0
M1 M1 b P — tp h rh N N — O 07 P o0 P M1 M 0 0 0 0 00 — Ol P 10 r) a0 P O N O O _
O
3
v v a a> v
v o o7ES. 43 v o v o v 3 3 u
v E v E o u " 6 �^ 0 3
n a S "
y
E c
o Z U V O o 2 LZ O o � U O Z y < '� Z o p p n ¢ �! o
n. s c3 3 x b o v z
� i
I
i
� �
i
i '
1
� �
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix C
SOURCE REDUCTION
I ,
I '
Appendix C
SOURCE REDUCTION
Program Evaluation
Alternative 1--Variable Can Rate Structure
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
i
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
'+ (Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
i
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
�. Total 44
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative would require new cans for the City of Redding; the City has an automated
system with wastewheelers, and residents do not have cans. This alternative would not apply
to the rural area of the County,which self-hauls.
RDD/218/019.51-1 C-1
r
i
Program Evaluation
Alternative 2--Bag-Tag System Rate Structure
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
i
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very LowLow Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 4 ,
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable I Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 47
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative would be implemented by Anderson-Cottonwood Disposal for approximately
12,600 households in the unincorporated area of Shasta County.
i
1
1
1
1
RDD/218/019.51-2 C-2 '
Program Evaluation
} , Alternative 3--Weight-Based Rate Structure
p Points
I CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
h Implementability
IIInstitutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
( ' Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
I
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
!I (Short-and Medium-Term) I Very Low Low Moderate High Very High ��4 Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
IConsequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 5
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 46
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative would be implemented by the City of Redding.
RDD/218/019.51-3 C-3
Program Evaluation
Alternative 4--Jurisdictional Lobbying Program o1 .
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
Implementability ,
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5 ,
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 50
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County,Anderson,and Redding.
-
RDD/218/019.514 C-4
a
Program Evaluation
Alternative 5--Business License Fees Reduction
Points
CRITERIA L 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 3
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
d (Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 3
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 3
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 40
�I [O�RLL COMMENTS: Shasta County does not have business license fees. This alternative could apply to Anderson
and Redding.
I�
'� RDD/218/019.51-5 C-5
i
Program Evaluation
Alternative 6--Low-Interest Loan Incentives '
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 1 2
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 2
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 2
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Untlexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 39
OVERALL COMMENTS: There are currently no funds available for Shasta County, Anderson, and Redding for a low-
interest loan program.
- i
1
d
i'
RDD218/019.51-6 C-6 �I
i
1
Program Evaluation
Alternative 7--Packaging Incentives
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
I
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 2
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 2
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
7 Very
NAvailability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
I� (Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
d Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 38
'll OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative is most appropriate for manufacturing plants.
I
JI�
V
J
RDD/218/019.51-7 C-7
I
Program Evaluation
Alternative 8--Master Composting Program
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low I Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 4
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Untlexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 46
OVERALL COMMENTS: This program could be implemented in all three jurisdictions.
RDD218/019.51-8 C-8
I
Program Evaluation
Alternative 9--Public Awareness Program
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
i Change Unflexible Flexible
I � Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 52
OVERALL COMMENTS: This program could be implemented in all three jurisdictions. Additional staffing would be
required for Shasta County and the City of Anderson.
RDD/218/019.51-9 C-9
l
Program Evaluation
Alternative 10--Waste Audits
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 49
OVERALL COMMENTS: This program could be implemented in all three jurisdictions. Additional staffing may be
required.
RDD/218/019.51-10 C-10
Program Evaluation
Alternative 11--Waste Exchange Program
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
'i Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low I-ow Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
I
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexibie Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 41
OVERALL COMMENTS:
d
I �
RDD/218/019.51-11 C-11
Program Evaluation
Alternative 12--Procurement/Waste Management Policy
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate LowT Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5 p
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable P
Total 45
OVERALL COMMENTS: This program could be implemented by all three jurisdictions.
RDD/218/019.51-12 C-12
i
f
I �
Program Evaluation
Alternative 13--Land Use Planning/Zoning Ordinances
I Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
a Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
1
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 3
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
i
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available N/A
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low I Moderate J High I Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
' Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 42
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative could be implemented by all three jurisdictions.
j�
1
I�
1I�
r
RDD/218/019.51-13 C-13
t
��
11
��
ij
��
��
�I
�,
��
�I
�'
t
Appendix D
RECYCLING
1
I �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix D
RECYCLING
Program Evaluation
Alternative 1--Curbside Collection
Points
CRITERIA L 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
i�
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
i
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 4
Ability to be Implemented
I; (Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable I Reliable
Total 49
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative is appropriate for Anderson, Redding, and the urban-density portions of the
unincorporated area of Shasta County.
�l
RDD/R218/018.51-1 D-1
II
Program Evaluation
Alternative 2--Dropoff Centers
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 4
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 4
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 47
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative would be appropriate in the rural areas of Shasta County.
RDD/R218/018.51-2 D-2
Program Evaluation
' Alternative 3--Buy-back Centers
I t Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
� Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
'j Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
NInstitutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 5
I
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 5
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
� rPotential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change , Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 56
�I OVERALL COMMENTS: Three buy-back centers currently exist in Shasta County. This alternative assumes that these
centers will continue and new centers could open.
II
i
' RDD/R218/018.51-3 D-3
I
i
Program Evaluation
Alternative 4--Manual Material Recovery Operations
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 4
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 4
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 46
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative assumes that a manual material recovery facility would be located at an existing
permitted solid waste facility such as the hauler's yard,a transfer station,or a landfill.
`1
RDD/R218/018.51-4 D-4 ,
Program Evaluation
Alternative 5--Mechanized Material Recovery Operations
N
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
I
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 2
I� Implementability
Institutional.Barners Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
I
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 3
'I Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
I
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 2
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 4
�.
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
,I Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Vets Flexible 3
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 5
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
i� Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 40
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative would be implemented by the City of Redding. The facility would be available
I for use by Anderson and Shasta Countv.
a
d�
I
�r
' RDD/R218/018.51-5 D-5
Program Evaluation
Alternative 6--Salvage at Landfill
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
,
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High VeryHigh 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 4
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 4
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 4
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Untlexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Untlexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable I Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 51
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative could be implemented by all three jurisdictions.
RDD/R218/018.51-6 D-6
Program Evaluation
Alternative 7--Cardboard Collection from Stores
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 3
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 4
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
i�
J Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
it Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
I � Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
I
'I Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
t' Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 48
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative could be implemented by all three jurisdictions.
d
I,
RDD/R218/018.51-7 D-7
't�
Program Evaluation
Alternative 8--Collection from Offices
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 T-3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4 ,
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 4
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 5
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 3
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable I Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 50
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative could be implemented by all three jurisdictions.
�I
r
RDD/R218/018.51-8 D-8
t
Program Evaluation
Alternative 9--Beverage Container Collection from Bars and Restaurants
• Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
,i Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility
Requirements Extensive Moderate None 4
Very
Availability of Markets Limited Limited Available 5
Ability to be Implemented
(Short-and Medium-Term) Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 5
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 5
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
1 Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 52
OVERALL COMMENTS: This alternative could be implemented by all three jurisdictions.
9�
I
1�
1
RDD/R218/018.51-9 D-9
� �
� I
tl
� I
� I
�I
�I
�I
tl
�I
�I
�I
�!
i
1
Appendix E
SPECIAL WASTES EVALUATION
■
1
1 .
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
�I
1
t
1
t
1
r
Program Evaluation
Alternative 1--White Goods: Salvage at Landfill
-T
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 4
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 5
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unilexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unilexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 51
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County,Anderson,and Redding.
RDD\R234\019.51-1
Program Evaluation
Alternative 2--White Goods: Collection Days
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
i
i
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 2
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 3
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 4 .
Requirements
Availabilitv of Markets Very Limited Available 5
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Abilitv to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 43
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County, Anderson.and Redding.
RDD\R234\019.51-2
Program Evaluation
Alternative 3--Tires: Current Plant
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
Consistencv with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies.and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 5
Requirements
Availabilitv of Markets Very Limited Available 5
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliabilitv Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 52
OVERALL COMMENTS:
' This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County,Anderson, and Redding.
'I
RDD\R234\019.51-3
Program Evaluation
Alternative 4--Tires: Waste to Energy
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 5
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 2
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 2
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 1 �.
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 3 `
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 2
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4 �.
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Untlexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable I Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 37
i
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County. Anderson. and Redding. '
RDD\R234\019.51-4
Program Evaluation
Alternative 5--Tires: Rubberized Asphalt
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 2
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 3
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 5
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 4
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 4
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 39
I
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County,Anderson,and Redding.
9
it�!
RDD\R234\019.51-5
Program Evaluation
Alternative 6--Ash: Agricultural Land Application
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4 �r
Implementabilitv
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistencv with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 5 .
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 5
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Vett'High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Untlexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 49 `
i
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County.
RDD\R234\019.51-6
m
Program Evaluation
Alternative 7--Ash: Other Land Application
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 5
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 2
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 3
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unt7exible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change UnElexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 46
OVERALL COMMENTS:
�1. This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County.
i1
RDD\R234\019.51-7
Program Evaluation
Alternative 8--Ash: Reinjection at Plant
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistencv with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies.and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 3
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 3 ,
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 2
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 4
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Abilitv to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 3
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 3
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 41
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County.
RDD\R234\019.51-8
• FF '
Program Evaluation
Alternative 9--Ash: Cover Material at Landfills
Points
CRITERIA t 2 3 4 5 Assigned
�1 Cost-Effectiveness
i
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 4
Policies,and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 5
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 3
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 2
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
hnpacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 3
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 4
Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 43
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County.
I�
' RDD\R234\019.51-9
Program Evaluation
Alternative 1.0--Industrial Sludge: Land Application
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
i
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 4
i
I
Implementabilitv
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 3
Consistency with Local Plans, Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 3
Policies, and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 5
Requirements
I
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 3
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 2
Potential Risks/Upsets P
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 2 1
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 4
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 4
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes j
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
Unreliable Unreliable I Reliable Reliable
Total 43
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta Countv.
i
r.
�I
RDD\R234\019.51-10 '
u
Program Evaluation
Alternative 11--Industrial Sludge: Continue Landfilling
Points
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned
Cost-Effectiveness
Waste Diversion Potential Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 1
Estimate of Costs Very High High Moderate Low Very Low Z
Implementability
Institutional Barriers Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5
1
Consistency with Local Plans. Inconsistent Somewhat Consistent 5
Policies.and Ordinances Consistent
New or Expanded Facility Extensive Moderate None 2
Requirements
Availability of Markets Very Limited Available 3
Limited
Ability to be Implemented Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 4
(Short-and Medium-Term)
Public Acceptance Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 3
Potential Risks/Upsets
Potential Hazards Potential Some Moderate Minor No or 2
Significant Potential Impacts Positive
Impacts Impacts Impacts
Ability to Accommodate Unflexible Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very Flexible 2
Change Unflexible Flexible
Consequences on Waste Major Some No Change Some Major 3
Stream Negative Negative Positive Positive
Changes Changes Change Changes J
Technical Reliability Very Somewhat Moderate Somewhat Very 5
I� Unreliable Unreliable Reliable Reliable
Total 37
OVERALL COMMENTS:
This alternative would be implemented by Shasta County.
RDD\R234\019.51-11
t
� i
1 �
1 �,
� i
� I
t '
11
l
Ii
l
�I
1�
l
1�
1!
i
I
I
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE ELEMENT
of sy
°
q4 FOF;��
i
Prepared for:
Shasta County and incorporated cities
of Anderson and Redding for the
management of Household Hazardous Waste
Prepared by:
Shasta County Department of Environmental Health
for the Department of Public Works (Lead Agency)
November 1991
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' INTRODUCTION
SHASTA COUNTY POLICY BACKGROUND
1. 0 GOALS
' 2 . 0 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
2 . 1 OBJECTIVES FOR SHORT-TERM PLANNING PERIOD
(1991-1995)
2 . 2 TARGETED MATERIALS
2 . 3 OBJECTIVES FOR MEDIUM-TERM PLANNING PERIOD
' (1995-2000)
2 . 4 TARGETED MATERIALS
j 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3 . 1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
AND RESULTING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVERTED
3 . 2 FUTURE STATUS OF PROGRAMS
3 . 3 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
4.0 ALTERNATIVE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
' 4 . 1 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
4 . 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
4. 3 RANKING SYSTEM METHODOLOGY
4 .4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
ALTERNATIVES: RANKING RESULTS
4 . 5 EVALUATION OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVES: DISCUSSION
5. 0 SELECTION OF HHW PROGRAMS
5. 1 SHORT-TERM PLANNING PERIOD PROGRAMS SELECTION
5.2 MEDIUM-TERM PLANNING PERIOD PROGRAMS SELECTION
5. 3 TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
ANTICIPATED TO BE REDUCED, COLLECTED, RECYCLED,
i AND/OR DISPOSED OF THROUGH SELECTED PROGRAMS.
5.4 RECYCLING AND REUSE EFFORTS
6.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
6. 1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
6. 2 FUNDING
7. 0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
7. 1 MONITORING METHODS
7 . 2 CRITERIA FOR MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
i' 7. 3 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
I
r
TECHNICAL APPENDIX � N
I
A. EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFINITIONS
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TEXT ,
CIWMB - California Integrated Waste Management Board
HHW - Household Hazardous Waste
PRC - Public Resources Code
SWGS - Solid Waste Generation Study (1990)
DEFINITIONS
Class I Landfill - Hazardous Waste Management Unit
(CCR 23, Chapter 15) '
Class II Landfill - Designated Waste Management Unit
(CCR 23, Chapter 15) '
Class III Landfill - Nonhazardous Solid Waste Management Unit
(CCR 23, Chapter 15)
t�
G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' The HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT herein has been prepared for
the unincorporated area of Shasta County as well as the Cities of
Anderson and Redding. The Shasta County Department of Public Works
is the lead agency for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management
Plan which will be completed in 1994 and include this Household
Hazardous Waste (HHW) Element. Shasta County's Department of
Environmental Health is developing and planning to implement a
comprehensive Household Hazardous Materials Program. If either
Anderson or Redding develop a program specific to their city in
p subsequent years, an addendum to this Element will be submitted to
fll the California Integrated Waste Management Board at the appropriate
' time.
II
' INTRODUCTION
HHW is generated from products containing potentially hazardous
e chemicals that are used in the home, garden, 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 antifreeze can cause harm and pose a risk to human health and
the environment when disposed of improperly.
Improperly-managed HHW may end up in municipal landfills, 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, and potentially hazardous leachate
migrating from municipal solid waste landfills.
A substance is classified as a hazardous waste, according to the
I ' Department of Health Services if it falls into one of -the following
four categories:
i ' CORROSIVITY - Acids and bases. Household examples include toilet
bowl cleaners, ammonia-based cleaners, caustic
sodas, drain openers, lye, some bathroom cleaners,
and metal polishes.
IGNITABILITY - Flammable. Household examples include fuels, nail
polish remover and polish, aerosols, oil-based
N' paint, solvent-based adhesives, and solvents such
1 as paint thinner and remover.
I, REACTIVITY - Oxidizes 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.
i
TOXICITY - Poisonous. Household examples include pesticides,
rat or gopher poison, and some cleaning fluids.
�r
J
This classification system is the same one than is 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.
The need for source reduction is clear in order 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 should decrease overall waste
generation. Local governments nationwide have been administering
HHW programs since the early 1980's on a variety of levels, yet the
majority of programs have only recently been established.
Typically though, funds are 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. Historically and currently, the least
amount of funding has been directed toward public information and
education programs that has a source reduction focus. Fortunately ,
this is changing and source reduction is becoming targeted in
public education and information programs. Source reduction has
the potential to decrease HHW generation, thus widespread improper
disposal in Shasta County.
SHASTA COUNTY POLICY BACKGROUND
The Hazardous Waste Management Plan was adopted by the Board of ,
Supervisors on May 23 , 1989 by Resolution Number 89-106. It
addresses HHW as a source of Hazardous Waste that is generated by '
the County and projects an increase in waste generation in this
category due to anticipated population growth that will reach
179, 628 residents by the year 2000, (see Table 1 for 1990-1991 ,
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 '
POPULATION AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS - ESTIMATED 19911)
Jurisdiction Population Housing Percentage '
Units of Total
Shasta County 151, 800 62,727 100 '
Redding 70, 000 28, 925 46
Anderson 8, 375 3,460 5.5
Unincorporated 73 , 500 30, 371 48.4
POPULATION AND TOTAL HOUSING UNITS - 1990(2)
' Jurisdiction Population Housing Percentage
Units of Total
' Shasta County 147, 036 60, 552 100
Redding 66,462 27,238 45
Anderson 8, 299 3, 324 5. 6
Unincorporated 72 , 275 30, 080 49
Source: Population, California Department of Finance
Estimates. Housing calculated based on 1990's 2 . 42 occupants
N per housing unit and 1991 population estimates (see Attachment
A for County map) .
i
rn Source: 1990 Census
1
' The Plan also states that "a joint cities-county committee shall be
established to study the alternatives and develop a workable
program for the management of household wastes in Shasta County" .
It recommends three basic options or a combination of "home pickup
service, periodic collection site, and an on-going collection
site/facility" . The Local Task Force established by the County
that is required by AB 9. 39 could serve as an interim "cities/county
committee" to provide input on selection of alternatives and
development of a HHW management program.
1. 0 GOALS
The goals of Shasta County and its two incorporated cities for the
safe and responsible management of HHW are as follows:
I
• 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
i ' from other improper disposal methods.
• Provide residents with safe effective collection
opportunities for the proper treatment and disposal of
HHW.
• Support advanced disposal legislation and legislative
efforts intended to increase consumer awareness
II'
product hazard and impending disposal requirements prior
to purchase. Advocacy of this nature would increase the
likelihood of product recycling or proper disposal. ,
• Continue to evaluate and develop the Countywide Household
Hazardous Materials Program to achieve maximum reduction '
of HHW.
2. 0 PROGRAM 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 Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 according to
PRC, Section 40052 is to "reduce, recycle, and reuse waste
generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible to conserve ,
water, energy and other natural resources, to protect air and water
quality. " However, our Household Hazardous Materials Program
objectives are better met when the order is reduce, reuse, and
recycle. ,
2. 1 Objectives for Short-term Planning Period (1991-1995)
The data provided by the Solid Waste Generation Study shows that
HHW is being generated and disposed of improperly in Shasta County.
The Study groups all HHW in one category, although specific
materials will be targeted within applicable objectives. Landfill '
disposal of HHW will be reduced by achieving the following
objectives during the Short-Term Planning Period:
Collection• '
To safely collect, recycle, treat, and dispose of HHW/HHM in Shasta ,
County.
• Work with cities, transfer station operators, and local
businesses to increase the number of established ,
recycling facilities for household hazardous materials.
• Conduct collection days (one or more times per year '
depending on available funding) prior to establishing a
permanent facility to provide residents of Shasta County
access to HHW collection services. ,
• Work to establish a permanent facility and/or a mobile
collection system for HHW in Shasta County.
Public Information and Education:
• Develop and implement in-school and community
presentation programs.
• Provide residents with information about source '
reduction, less hazardous and non-hazardous alternatives
e
1
to hazardous chemical-containing commercial products, and
' safe handling and usage.
• Provide information in response to residents inquiries
that addresses their specific needs.
• Encourage the public to recycle hazardous materials by
publicizing the availability of recycling locations and
informing them of the importance of their actions. In
areas where participation may be low, additional efforts
will be made to increase the percentage of residents
utilizing available service.
I
• Promote reduction, reuse, and recycling of Household
Hazardous Materials at point of purchase.
2.2 Targeted Materials (1991-1995)
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 during the Short-term Planning Period will be
' placed on recycling used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries,
latex paint, and antifreeze; reducing hazardous cleaning product
usage; safer pest control measures; and other HHW categories.
2 .3 Objectives for Medium-Term Planning Period (1995-2000)
j Landfill disposal of HHW will be further reduced, and possibly
' eliminated, by achieving and continuing (from the Short-Term
Period) the following objectives during the Medium-Term Planning
Period:
i
i � • Work to establish a permanent HHW collection facility in
the County and/or a mobile collection system.
I ' • Continue public education and information dissemination
1 campaign as described in short-term objectives and
elaborate and redesign these programs as necessary based
on monitoring feedback. .
2 .4 Targeted Materials (1995-2000)
Emphasis will be placed on all materials contributing to HHW
pollution in the surrounding environment. Reduction impact will
i ' depend upon available and viable alternatives for the particular
product and its subsequent use.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The magnitude of the HHW that is improperly disposed of is hard to
document in light of the fact that individual households are a
contributing non-point pollution sources and improper disposal
often, if not always, goes unreported. According to the sampling
ll'
i
completed for the Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) conducted by '
the City of Redding for the year 1990-1991, Shasta County generates
241, 349 tons of solid waste annually. HHW makes up 1. 19 percent of
the total tonnage of waste generated (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 . 54 percent of waste
disposed of. It can be estimated that 1, 311 tons of HHW are
currently being improperly disposed of based on the SWGS.
TABLE 2 1
HHW QUANTITIES GENERATED AND DISPOSED OF PER JURISDICTION ,
Jurisdiction Ouantity Generated Quantity Disposed
(In Tons) (In TonsZ
Shasta .County Total 3 , 346 1, 311
Redding 1, 509 593
Anderson 196 74
Unincorporated 1, 641 644
Source: Solid Waste -Generation Study - 1990
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS AND RESULTING HHW DIVERTED
Currently, two established programs divert HHW from the landfill.
3.1.1 Recyclable Household Hazardous Materials Collection
Recycling Household Hazardous Materials has the potential to reduce '
overall HHW. Presently, Household Hazardous Materials recovery
facilities are scarce in Shasta County for recyclable materials.
The City of Redding operates the Benton Transfer Station facility ,
that accepts used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries, latex
paint, and antifreeze for recycling. The Benton Transfer Station
drop-off facility is available to all Shasta County residents. '
The City of Redding General Services Department took over operating
responsibility of the drop-off center in January, 1990. In
September, 1990 an antifreeze collection operation was implemented
and in February, 1991 a latex paint collection. Latex paint was
not collected in the 1990 study year. There are also commercial
establishments that accept used motor oil, lead-acid automotive ,
batteries, and antifreeze for recycling. As a result of both these
recycling opportunities, 500 tons of batteries, 1, 529 tons of used
motor oil, and 6 tons of antifreeze have been collected for ,
recycling in Shasta County.
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 oil = 7 . 3 pounds;
' 1 gallon of antifreeze = 8. 1 pounds.
I
Using these conversion factors, the total HHW that has been
diverted in Shasta County is 2 , 035 tons. This is 60. 8 percent of
the total 3 , 346 tons generated.
TABLE 3
1 ' HHW DIVERSION IN 1990
i
Total Batteries Oil Antifreeze
(In Tons)
SHASTA COUNTY DIVERSION 2, 035 500 1, 529 6
BENTON TRANSFER STATION(only) 20. 6 11. 3 9. 3 N/A
Source: Solid Waste Generation Study - 1990
e3.1.2 Solid Waste Management Facility Load Checking Programs
Site operators of landfills and transfer stations are required to
implement a load checking program pursuant to CCR 23 , Section 2523 .
A landfill's Report of Facility Information and a transfer
y station's plan of operation presently have 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 Class III solid waste
landfills. Load checking programs are in operation; HHW that is
discovered is returned to the generator.
y The Shasta County landfills of Anderson Solid Waste, Intermountain,
and West Central are directly used by the public via self-haul.
Intermountain and West Central receive solid waste from franchise
residential waste collectors.
II ' 3.1.3 Non-Recyclable Household Hazardous Waste Collections
Events
There are currently no collection programs for proper HHW disposal
such as collection days, a permanent facility, or a mobile unit.
1 � 3.2 FUTURE STATUS OF PROGRAMS
i The recycling programs that are presently in operation are expected
to continue and are not likely to decrease operative capacity. It
j � is expected that participation could only increase in conjunction
with increased awareness due to the Shasta County Department of
Environmental Health's Public Education and Information Program.
I ,
;1
HHW collection events will be planned to provide proper disposal ,
opportunities while other collection options are considered. HHW
collection event(s) will provide diversion quantities for all '
categories of HHW as well as used motor oil, lead-acid automotive
batteries, latex paint, and antifreeze. In addition, diversion
quantities (beginning February, 1991) will be available for latex '
paint collected at the Benton Transfer Station. Set-up and
operation of more recycling facilities throughout the county will
be encouraged and subsequently will contribute to recycling these
materials.
Load checking programs in Shasta County will continue to run with
emphasis being placed on diligent implementation. HHW that is
found should not be accepted. A permanent HHW collection facility
could make load checking programs economically feasible when HHW is
found and the owner cannot be assessed.
3.3 HHW MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
A hierarchy of waste management practices has been established.
Source reduction and sound methodology of managing collected t
Household Hazardous Materials and HHW reduces the potential for
adverse effects on the environmental and public health.
• Source reduction
• on-site recycling
• Off-site recycling '
• On-site treatment
• Off-site treatment
• Land disposal at properly permitted facilities ,
4 . 0 ALTERNATIVE HHW PROGRAMS
This Section presents the identification and evaluation of HHW
Program alternatives that were considered for local implementation
by the County of Shasta to meet its Short and Medium Term
Objectives for the reduction of HHW generation and improper
disposal. An evaluation criteria and ranking system were used
pursuant to the HHW Element Regulations (CCR 14) . A discussion of
each alternative's evaluation appears in Section 4. 5.
4. 1 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following HHW Program alternatives will be evaluated pursuant '
to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989:
r
1) Collection Programs ,
A) Periodic community-wide collection events;
B) Permanent HHW drop-off sites at existing solid '
waste management facilities, and proposed new
transfer station (hub with satellites) ,
C) Mobile household hazardous waste collection;
D) Encourage the formation of privately or publicly 1
operated fee-for-service, door-to-door, curbside
HHW collection programs.
' 2) Load-checking programs at all County solid waste
management facilities.
3) Recycling programs for used motor oil, lead-acid
i
r automotive batteries, latex paint, and antifreeze.
4) Public information and education programs to support
household hazardous waste collection and recycling
efforts and to encourage increased use of safer
substitute methods and products to hazardous household
chemicals that reduce overall HHW waste generation.
4 .2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
iThe Planning Guidelines and Procedures for Preparing and Revising
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (CCR 14, Division 7,
Chapter 9, Section 18733 . 3) requires certain criteria be used in
evaluating HHW program alternatives. All criteria have been
assigned a scale, with regard to positive impact of high, medium,
and low. The criteria include the following (see Appendix A for
criteria details) :
1. Effectiveness in Waste Diversion Potential (Volume and
Weight)
2 . Absence of Hazard
3 . Flexibility
4 . Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation
5. Ease of Implementation
6. Facility Needs
7. Consistency with Local Policies
8 . Absence of Institutional Barriers
i 9 . Estimated Cost
10. End Uses
r4.3 RANKING SYSTEM METHODOLOGY
A numerical system has been developed for the evaluation criteria
with points assigned as follows:
• high 3 points
• medium 2 points
• low 1 points
The total points were then summed for each alternative and the
results analyzed. Working with County and City staff, as well as
the Local Task Force, the alternatives were selected for
implementation based on the ranking system results and professional
r judgement. An infeasible alternative received a "fatal flaw"
rating, thus eliminating it from being selected.
�I
''I
1
i
4.4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF HHW ALTERNATIVES: RANKING RESULTS
The alternatives evaluated received the following ranking:
Rank Program Alternative
1 Public Education and Information
2 Recycling/Reclamation
3 Load Checking/Monitoring D
4 Periodic HHW Collection Events
5 Mobile Collection Unit
6 Permanent Collection Facility
7 Door-to-Door Pick-Up
4.5 EVALUATION OF HHW PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES: DISCUSSION
An evaluation of each alternative based on the criteria set forth D
by the • CIWMB is presented in this Section. It is important to
recognize that Shasta County has unique population density and
geographical characteristics which have been taken into '
consideration in the forthcoming discussion.
4.5.1 Public Information and Education Program - A
Comprehensive Public Education and Information Program
with a source. reduction emphasis eliminates potential HHW
generated giving it a "high" rating for waste diversion
potential. Information about safe disposal and
alternatives must be accurate to minimize hazards; a
"high" rating was given. Due to the low capital
investment for this type of program, flexibility
depending on economic and social conditions would be
accomplished, thus giving flexibility a "high" rating.
Public education has the potential to decrease HHW
generated giving it a "high" rating to limit shift of
waste generation. No factors can be seen to slow down
implementation of this Program giving it a "high" rating
for ease of implementation in the Short-Term Planning
Period; there is no apparent need for expansion of any
facilities. Even though the Shasta County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan does not specifically address HHW ,
public education, it seems to be consistent with overall
County waste reduction trends. Lack of institutional
barriers to impact local implementation of this
alternative gives it a "high" rating. Costs for this
Program could vary giving the projected cost a "medium"
rating. Public education can inform residents about ,
recycling opportunities for used motor oil, lead-acid
automotive batteries, latex paint, and antifreeze, and
reclamation efforts (i.e. , community paint swap) . A
"high" rating was assigned to end-uses.
D
a
Public Information and Education - Ranking: 1
Criteria Evaluation Measure
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 3 High
i Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 3 High
j Flexibility 3 High
Limited Shift 3 High
Ease of Implementation 3 High
Facility Needs 3 High
Consistency with Local Policies 3 High
Absence of Institutional Barriers 3 High
I Estimated Cost 2 Medium
End Uses 3 High
TOTAL 29
4.5.2 HHM Recycling and Reclamation Program - A Countywide HHM
rRecycling and Reclamation Program for used motor oil,
lead-acid automotive batteries, latex paint, and
antifreeze where the waste diversion potential is "high"
where it would feed into established markets that-- can
j� foreseeably handle increased amounts of recyclable
materials. Both end-uses and flexibility were given
"high" ratings (see Section 5. 1. 1. 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 potential risk of widespread
contamination that would result if used motor oil was
illegally disposed of. Case and point - used motor oil.
(In addition, we do not plan to implement a curbside
e pick-up for any HHW eliminating related accidental spills
and exposure. ) Since these materials are recyclable, a
"high" limited shift rating was given because options to
switch to non-recyclables are presently limited. This
alternative can feasibly be brought into service in the
j Short-Term Planning Period giving it a "high" rating.
Adding to the ease of implementation is the already
existing full-service recycling facility located 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 existing local policies due to permitting and
possible zoning needs. Cooperation with private
franchise impacts results in a "medium" rating.
Estimated costs are minimal giving it a "high" rating.
e
Recycling/Reclamation - Ranking: 2
Criteria Evaluation Measure '
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 3 High
Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 3 High
Flexibility 3 High
Limited Shift 3 High
Ease of Implementation 3 High 1
Facility Needs 2 Medium
Consistency with Local Policies 2 Medium
Absence of Institutional Barriers 2 Medium ,
Estimated Cost 3 High
End Uses 3 High
TOTAL 27
4.5.3 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
"high" rating for waste diversion potential. The '
potential hazards involved in this Program include
potential 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 Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CCR 23, Section 2523 .a) giving it
a "medium" rating for flexibility. 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 type
generation due to likelihood of residents choosing less
hazardous 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
consistency with local and state policies. Estimated
cost depends on facility and staffing needs giving it a
"medium" rating. End uses besides HHW disposal may
increase for recovered recyclables and public education
campaigns giving it a "medium" rating.
i
1
1
1
Load Checking/Monitoring - Ranking: 3
Criteria Evaluation Measure
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 3 High
' Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 2 Medium
Flexibility 2 Medium
Limited Shift 3 High
Ease of Implementation 3 High
Facility Needs 2 Medium
d Consistency with Local Policies 3 High
Absence of Institutional Barriers 2 Medium
J Estimated Cost 3 High
? End Uses 2 Medium
TOTAL 25
I
'
4.5.4 HHW Collection Programs - Combined collection efforts were
evaluated with the intention that an overall HHW Collection Program
could provide residents with accessible locations and days to
participate in proper disposal activities.
' • Periodic Collection Events could serve as an interim
collection service until something more permanent and on-
going 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 gives this alternative a "medium"
rating. HHW collection events are structured as to have
7 i 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
t limited shift in waste type generation due to public
perception of acceptable disposal of their HHW. HHW
collection events will be implemented in the Short-Term
Planning Period and were given a "high" rating. Local
policies such as the Hazardous Waste Management Plan
support this Program and there is an absence of
institutional barriers - both were given "high" ratings.
Estimated cost per event could be high and frequency will
depend on available funding which gives it a "low"
' rating. Recyclable HHM will be collected and contribute
I � to marketable end-uses, giving it a "medium" rating.
,I
a
Periodic Collection Events - Ranking: 4
Criteria Evaluation Measure '
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 1 Low
Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 2 Medium
Flexibility 1 Low
Limited Shift 2 Medium
Ease of Implementation 3 High
Facility Needs 3 High
Consistency with Local Policies 3 High
Absence of Institutional Barriers 3 High
Estimated Cost 1 Low
End Uses 2 Medium
TOTAL 21
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 population density of Shasta County, - HHW
collection opportunities need to be accessible to all residents
throughout the estimated 3 , 840 square miles.
• A Mobile HHW Collection System implementation in the
Medium-Term Planning Period gives it a "medium" rating.
It may rely on a permanent collection facility as a hub,
giving it a "medium" rating for facility needs. The
permanent facility received a "low" rating due to site
and buildings necessary as facility needs. Both a
permanent facility and mobile collection unit could
anticipate about a 7 percent participation on an on-going
basis and a "medium" rating for waste diversion
effectiveness was given. Also, flexibility adds to waste
diversion for both Programs, but received a "medium"
rating due to its moderate adaptability to change
relative to economic conditions. Annual operation cost
may be high after a preliminary cost-analysis but overall
would reduce per participant cost over the long run.
Consequently, estimated costs are generally high and
received a "low" rating. Although siting a permanent
facility is a complex process in addition to permits and
siting for the mobile locations, both Programs are
consistent with most local policies and lack most
institutional barriers, thus receiving a "medium" rating.
Potential health and safety hazards associated with most
HHW collection methods gives these alternatives "medium"
ratings. "Medium" ratings were given to limited shift in '
waste type generation 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. Implementing operation of a
r
r
completed permanent facility may or may not be done in
the Short-Term Planning Period, so was given a "medium"
rating for ease of implementation.
Mobile Collection System - Ranking: 5
Criteria Evaluation Measure
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 2 Medium
Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 2 Medium
� 1Flexibility 2 Medium
Limited Shift 2 Medium
Ease of Implementation 2 Medium
Facility Needs 2 Medium
Consistency with Local Policies 2 Medium
Absence. of Institutional Barriers 2 Medium
Estimated Cost 1 Low
End Uses 2 Medium
TOTAL 19
Permanent Collection Facility - Ranking: 6
Criteria Evaluation Measure
i
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 2 Medium
Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 2 Medium
Flexibility 2 Medium
Limited Shift 2 Medium
Ease of Implementation 2 Medium
Facility Needs 1 Low
Consistency with Local Policies 2 Medium
' Absence of Institutional Barriers 2 Medium
Estimated Cost 1 Low
End Uses 2 Medium
TOTAL 18
d
• Door-to-Door HASH Collection will be considered in the
Medium-Term Planning Period as an option to allow pick-up
for elderly and disabled residents.
' 1
� i
I
' r
Door-to-Door Pick-II - Ranking: 7
Criteria Evaluation Measure
Effectiveness in Waste Diversion 1 Low
Potential (Volume & Weight)
Absence of Hazard 1 Low
Flexibility 2 Medium
Limited Shift 1 Low
Ease of Implementation 2 Medium
Facility Needs 3 High
Consistency with Local Policies 2 Medium
Absence of Institutional Barriers 1 Low
Estimated Cost 3 High
End Uses 1 Low
TOTAL 17
• Curbside pick-up of HHW received a fatal flaw rating, '
thus eliminating this alternative altogether due to
potential hazards of accidental spillage or leakage and
exposure risk to the community.
5. 0 SELECTION OF HHW PROGRAMS
The selection of HHW management alternative programs was based on
the evaluation and resulting ranking described in Section 4 and the
results of the SWGS for the 1990/1991 year. Implementation of
selected programs will be guided by the Shasta County Department of
Environmental Health's Household Hazardous Materials Program, for
the County in cooperation with local jurisdictions and the Shasta
County Department of Public Works as the lead agency for the
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The stated Goals and
Objectives set forth in this HHW Element and will guide these '
programs which will become part of that Plan.
In general, implementation will be structured into the Short and '
Medium-Term Planning Period timetables for each program selected.
Each alternative was selected to achieve optimum reduction of HHW
generation and the potential of widespread improper disposal in
Shasta County. Because these program alternatives cannot be
developed and implemented on an individual basis, an integrated
approach to HHW management is needed to succeed in diverting the
HHW from municipal landfills, as well as other improper disposal
mechanisms. Likewise, Short-Term Planning Period Programs will
surely overlap into the Medium-Term Planning Period due to the
long-term effectiveness.
I
5. 1 SHORT-TERM PLANNING PERIOD PROGRAMS SELECTION
During the planning period between 1991-1995, Shasta County will
incorporate a combination of several of these selected alternatives
into a comprehensive HHW Program with public information and
' education aspects integrated throughout the programs.
1 Public Information and Education (Source Reduction Focus)
2 Recycling/Reclamation
3 Load Checking/Monitoring
4 HHW Collection Events (Periodic Drop-Off)
5. Permanent HHW Collection Facility (pending)
5. 1.1 HHW Collection Programs - Three programs have been
selected in the Short-Term Planning Period for Shasta County. They
are Recycling/Reclamation, HHW Collection Events, and a Permanent
HHW Collection Facility. The Medium-Term Planning Period Programs
will include a mobile unit HHW collection system and door-to-door
pick-up service added to the overall HHW collection program. (It is
important to recognize that the Permanent Facility, Mobile
Collection System, and Door-to-Door Pick-up operation
implementation will depend on availability of funding and local
j agency approval. )
These combined collection efforts are proposed to ensure that
residents are given the opportunity to properly dispose of their
HHW. Because the intention of the overall HHW Collection Program
is to provide accessible collection opportunities, it is important
II , to do so as soon as possible with periodic drop-off days. Ideally,
a permanent facility combined with a mobile collection system will
eventually provide residents with both accessibility to more than
one drop-off location and more days to participate.
i
Collected HHW will be handled and disposed of in accordance with
all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Program
j1objectives to reduce, reuse, and recycle HHW to the maximum extent
feasible will be applied to handling and disposal methods.
5. 1.1.1 Recycling/Reclamation - Preventing materials from
becoming waste can be done through recycling, reprocessing, and
a reusing, thus eliminating it from the waste stream altogether. A
I � Recycling/Reclamation Program would be able to divert the higher
volumes of HHW which are recoverable resources as opposed to
improper disposal at a Class III municipal landfill or even
potential land disposal at a Class I site. Because there is a
market for these materials, end-use possibilities are good and it
can provide an incentive for local businesses to pursue recycling
and reclamation opportunities. Although source reduction is
preferred in the HHW Management Hierarchy, some materials such as
motor oil and lead-acid automotive batteries have no safer
alternative. Recycling these materials reduces their waste stream.
Practices that will result in lower overall waste generated will be
stressed in the Public Education and Information Program.
Recycling used motor oil, lead-acid automotive batteries, latex f
Y g
paint, and antifreeze to the maximum extent possible will be both
financially and environmentally sound. Reclaiming materials such
as latex paint for reuse will be strongly encouraged. 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 exteriorly to cover
graffiti and community housing projects.
• 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.
• Lead-acid automotive batteries - According to the CIWMB, 70 '
percent of spent lead-acid batteries are recycled nationwide.
In California, state law requires retailers to accept trade-in
of used batteries. The average lead-acid battery contains
17 . 5 pounds of lead and 1.5 pounds of sulfuric acid. After
the lead is separated from the non-metallic components of the
battery, it is then smelted to produce soft lead and lead
alloys. The sulfuric acid is then neutralized. (CIWMB,
Household Hazardous Waste, Lead-Acid Batteries, September,
1990) .
• Antifreeze - Used 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. (CIWMB, Household
Hazardous Waste, Antifreeze, September, 1990) .
Local existing recycling programs will continue and be encouraged ,
to expand countywide. Recycling Household Hazardous Materials will
be part of other HHW collection activities. Recycling and
reclamation actions have the potential of reducing costs of the
overall HHW Collection Program as there would be a reduction in the
amount of HHW sent for more expensive hazardous waste treatment and
disposal.
5. 1. 1.2 HHW Collection Events - HHW collection events will serve
in the interim to provide safe disposal opportunities to residents
on an annual or biannual basis (depending on available funding) .
5. 1. 1.3 Permanent HHW Collection Facility - Depending on the
complexity of final siting, additional environmental review, local
agency approval, funding availability, facility needs, and
subsequent permitting process, a facility may be operational within
the Short-Term Planning Period or early part of the Medium-Term
Planning Period. Presently the City of Redding has a facility in
their transfer station siting document that could be available to
Shasta County residents as well which is part of the cooperative
approach to implementation of the HHW Program.
5. 1.1.4 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. If prohibited waste
' is identified, the generator is notified and becomes responsible
for removing the waste. If a generator is not identified, then
operators would store the materials. Other waste control
1 activities in this Program will include sign posting at landfills,
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.
I
5.1. 1.5 Public Information and Education Program - A well
targeted Public Information and Education Program has a very high
potential to decrease HHW generated by Shasta County residents.
The ultimate goal of this Program is source reduction which
consists of the following:
• decrease overall HHW generation;
• promote safe use and storage of hazardous household chemical
products;
• inform residents of the importance and availability of
t recycling household hazardous materials;
• educate residents about the adverse effects of improper
disposal of HHW and the monetary costs associated with
collection of HHW for proper disposal;
• provide accurate and consistent information to promote the
use of safe alternatives to hazardous household chemicals.
This will be a focus leading to source reduction.
The Program will canopy and support other HHW programs with related
information and education. Information that is consistent,
accurate, and clear is essential in relaying source reduction facts
to residents.
The Shasta County Department of Environmental Health's Household
Hazardous Materials Program will implement a comprehensive Public
Information and Education Program. It will target all age groups
countywide and organized as follows:
j , 1. An In-School Educational Presentation Program; and
i
2 . A Community Educational Presentation and Information
Program.
The In-School Educational Presentation Program will consist of
presentations structured for grades K-12 , with level delineation of
K-3 , 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 . Life and Earth Sciences curriculum will
be worked into units with a HHW focus. K-6 will be the initial
grades emphasized.
The Community Educational Presentation and Information Program will
consist of materials developed targeting various audiences for
community group presentations, direct point-of-purchase education,
and information dissemination.
A comprehensive audience-specific campaign should be highly
effective in reducing overall waste - volume and weight. Ideally,
a correlative relationship should be seen with increased amounts of
source reduction being equal to the intensity of the educational
campaign. Positive results in waste reduction will most likely
span beyond designated planning periods.
5.2 MEDIUM-TERM PLANNING PERIOD PROGRAMS SELECTION
1 Public Information and Education Program
2 Recycling/Reclamation
3 Load Checking/Monitoring
4 Permanent HHW Collection Facility(pending)
5 Mobile HHW Collection Unit(pending)
6 Door-to-Door- Pick-Up(pending)
Again, taking an integrated approach to HHW management will require
a combination of several programs to achieve maximum reduction in
HHW.
The Public Information and Education Program will undoubtedly
canopy all of the programs and will be designed to encourage public
participation and change through consumer behavior. The
Recycling/Reclamation and Load Checking/Monitoring Programs will
continue in the Medium-Term Planning Period. If a Permanent HHW
Collection Facility has commenced operation it will continue. A
Mobile HHW Collection System, in conjunction with a permanent
facility will have the ability to provide immediate need service in
a cost-effective (with relation to per participant cost) manner
with advantages with accessible locations and frequency of service.
Again, these programs were selected to achieve optimum reduction of
HHW generation and the potential for widespread improper disposal
in Shasta County. Additional source reduction and other program '
options will be explored in the Medium-Term Planning Period.
5.3 TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF HHW ANTICIPATED TO BE REDUCED,
COLLECTED, RECYCLED, AND/OR DISPOSED OF THROUGH SELECTED PROGRAMS.
It can be anticipated that the demand for HHW services, especially
collection opportunities to dispose of existing waste that is being
stored in basements and garages, as well as information on
available alternatives will grow as residents become more aware of
the situation and as the population of the County increases.
i
Concurrently, public education efforts aimed at source reduction
should result in buying habit changes and maintenance/housekeeping
' behavior modifications that would decrease overall HHW generation.
The amount of Household Hazardous Materials and HHW collected from
1991 to 2000 will depend upon County resident participation and
available funding. All HHW will be targeted in this comprehensive
Program. Emphasis during the Short-Term Planning Period will be
placed on collection of recyclable materials, educational
information on alternatives to commercial cleaners, and
alternatives to pesticides. Emphasis during the Medium-Term
Planning Period will continue with the Short-Term emphasis as well
as include all HHW that could be generated in Shasta County.
5.4 RECYCLING AND REUSE EFFORTS will be stressed throughout all
of the collection programs. Materials collected will be recycled
' to the maximum extent feasible. Formation of local recycling
business opportunities will be encouraged countywide. A community
reuse program ,such as a "paint-swap" operation for latex paint
should be explored. In addition, state legislation will be looked
upon to increase recycling incentives.
6. 0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Programs will be implemented in the Short and Medium-Term Planning
Periods which extend to the year 2000 and may depend on available
funding.
6.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
9
The responsible agency for the HHW Element is the Shasta County
I � Department of Public Works. A comprehensive Household Hazardous
�I Materials Program focusing on Public Education and Information
aimed at source reduction is being implemented by the Shasta County
Department of Environmental Health.
The HHW programs that each jurisdiction intends to implement are
essentially the same. Although each jurisdiction can add to it.
Cooperation with local jurisdictions may be necessary in order to
facilitate completion of implementation tasks. The Short and
Medium-Term Programs will be ongoing and scheduled according to
Section 5.
6.2 FUNDING
I � There are specific costs and possible facility needs associated
with the programs selected that will depend on funding
availability. Generally though, the Shasta County Department of
Environmental Health's Household Hazardous Materials Program
administrative staffing expenditures are provided for via a Land
Use Mitigation Agreement. Funding for the initial HHW collection
i� event has been funded by a CIWMB Grant, County of Shasta, and the
City of Redding. Contingency measures may be taken if funding
falls short of the necessary amounts needed to achieve stated
objectives of this Element. Additional funding mechanisms will be
researched.
7. 0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Methods will be applied to monitor the achievement of the Program
Objectives stated in Section 2 . 0 in order to evaluate the success
of reducing or eliminating HHW generation and disposal. The Shasta
County Department of Public Works is the lead agency for the
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and will be responsible
coordinating the HHW Program's monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting.
7. 1 MONITORING METHODS
Load Checking/Monitoring - Documentation of the results of County
landfills and transfer stations load checking programs will be used
to monitor incidence of improper HHW disposal attempts.
Collection - Surveys will be conducted at HHW collection activities
and the results of distribution of collection event participants,
quantities of HHW brought, and general awareness of ' the subject
will be analyzed. Further 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 original materials which affect HHW
generation.
Public Information and Education - Surveys from HHW collection
events regarding general awareness of HHW issues, along with
telephone and mail surveys will be conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Public Education and Information Program
countywide. Also, records will be kept of public inquiries made to
Shasta County Department of Environmental Health regarding HHW
including the specific topic of question and date of inquiry.
7.2 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 determined by
annual waste characterization studies.
• Percent resident participation at the collection
facility.
• Incidence of load check discoveries.
• Percentage of collected Household Hazardous Materials
that is recycled (types and volumes) .
i
Involvement of private sector in providing HHW
collection, management or disposal services.
The monitoring and reviewing portions of the overall plan will be
subject to modification, such as increasing frequency, based on
ongoing evaluation of the Program's effectiveness. Consequently,
a list of known costs is difficult to define.
i
� r
� 1
'� t
APPENDIX A
EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFINITIONS
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
Flexibility 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
i
4. Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation
tLimited shift in waste type generation measures the alternative's
ability 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
i solid waste production to the generation of
non-recyclable, unmarketable, or uncountable
(under AB 939) materials.
d Medium: The alternative would result in the creation
of little non-recyclable, unmarketable, or
j uncountable (under AB 939) wastes.
High: The alternative would result in the creation
of no non-recyclable,
uncountable (under
AB unmarketable,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 extent to which the alternative
can be relatively quickly implemented, i.e. , whether it can be
implemented in the short-term or medium-term planning periods.
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 1995.
6. Facility Needs
rFacility needs 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.
N � Medium: Existing facilities must be expanded or
altered to accommodate implementation of the
alternative.
High: The alternative can be easily integrated into
existing facilities.
7. Consistency with Local Policies
Consistency with local policies measures the alternative's
compatibility with existing local plans, policies, and ordinances.
u �q
r,J
Y
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 barriers
to the alternative.
9. Estimated Cost
Estimated cost is the estimated cost of the alternative, including
capital costs and operating costs over the lifetime of the
alternative. This may also be presented by a range of costs.
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 non-existent 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.