HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05181993 - H.2 (8) l�+
t
� y
Co
sta
cou
M
tra
r
Coo
l
r1�
°sat
~D en
• tl��
111
r ---
r -
« ; /� �! j
Fay � :�,►
450 -
r
r
19g'
r
r
r
r
r
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
NON-DISPOSAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
May 1993
Prepared By:
Contra Costa County
Community Development
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-4194
FAX (510) 646-1309
Printed on Recycled Paper
t
t
t
- �
t
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NON DISPOSAL.FACILITIES ELEMENT (NDFE) GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . 2
A. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Policies 3
III. PROPOSED NON DISPOSAL FACILITIES DESCRIPTIONS
AND LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CIWMB Resolution #92-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table I: Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table II: West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Fact Sheet . . . . . . . 7
' Table III: East Contra Costa County Community Collection Center Fact Sheet . . 9
Table IV: Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility Fact Sheet . . . . 11
1
i
•
1
NON-DISPOSAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
FOR
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
I. INTRODUCTION
In compliance with the original requirements of AB 939, Contra Costa County submitted
our Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and our Household Hazardous
Waste Element (HHWE) in draft form in October, 1991, to our Local Task Force and
to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Following receipt of
the comments from these reviews, the County modified our SRRE and HHWE and
' expects to adopt final elements in April, 1993, by Board.of Supervisors action.
Additionally, the County and cities within Contra Costa County, prepared and submitted
our Draft Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP) and our Solid
Waste Facilities Siting Element .on September 18, 1992 in compliance with AB 939's
requirements and deadlines, and in keeping with.the Draft Regulations promulgated by
the CIWMB.
Shortly after submission of the Draft CoIWMP, the State Legislature adopted, and the
Governor signed into law, AB 3001 which requires each city and each county.to submit
a Non Disposal Facilities,Element (NDFE) and AB 2494 which changes the method of
measurement from diversion to reduction in disposal. Recognizing the significant time
and costs for preparation, of SRREs, HHWEs, and the Draft CoIWMP and Draft
Siting Element, as well as the fact, that the Draft CoIWMP had no statutory
' deficiencies and only four regulatory citations, the CIWMB adopted a resolution on
December 8, 1992 providing for completion of our solid waste planning process in
' compliance with the statutory requirement of AB 3001. The CIWMB resolution is
attached as Appendix A.
AB 3001, Section 41732 requires that the NDFE "...shall include a description of new
e4 ,
facilities and the expansion of existing facilities, which will be needed to implement the
' jurisdiction's source reduction and recycling element and thereby meet the ..." 25% and
50%.reduction in disposal required by AB 24.94. Section.41732 further states that the
' element may include the identification of specific locations or of general areas for new
solid waste facilities..." Section 41733 defines the solid waste facilities to be included
Ad 2y 1993 - 1 - Contra Costa County
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
in the NDFE as "...all solid waste facilities and solid waste facility expansions, except
disposal facilities and transformation facilities, which will recover for reuse or recycling
at least 5% of the total volume of material received by the facility."
All jurisdictions within Contra Costa County currently use residential curbside collection
of recyclables as a means of diversion along with commercial collection programs.
These programs have achieved an average reduction in disposal of 13% to 16% on a
countywide basis. The County, itself, has attained a 9.5% reduction in disposal through
the use of residential and commercial collection programs and a 9.1% reduction through
transformation. Attainment of the 25% and 50% reduction in disposal will include the
use of the non disposal facilities described in this element.
II. NON DISPOSAL FACILITIES ELEMENT (NDFE) GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A. Goals
1. Reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills by
a. reducing the amount of solid waste generated (source reduction)
b. reusing as much of the solid waste generated as possible
(recycling), and
c. utilizing the energy and.. nutrient value of solid waste
(waste-to-energy and/or composting).
2. Provide for the safe, efficient, and cost-effective removal of waste from
residences, businesses, and industry
3. Assure the development of waste transfer, processing, and recovery
facilities which satisfy the highest established environmental standards and
regulations
4. Minimize the potential impacts of waste collection, transportation,
processing, and recovery facilities upon residential land uses.
Contra Costa Counts, - 2 - May 1993
Non-'Disposal Facilities Element
B. Objectives
1. Short-Term
a. . Implement residential curbside, and commercial recycling and
composting programs which, reduce by 25% the solid waste
disposed in landfills
b. Provide for the construction of, at least, one facility including
material recovery, composting, household hazardous waste
' drop-off/storage and waste transfer operations
2. Medium Term
a. Implement and expand source reduction, recycling, composting,
' and public education programs aimed at reducing by 50% the solid
waste disposed in landfills
C. Polices
' 1. Give highest priority to reducing the production and generation of waste
and to recycle and compost as a means of conserving natural resources
' and landfill capacity.
2. Implement programs and use subregional multi-functional non disposal
facilities on a multi-jurisdictional basis to achieve economies of scale and
reduce costs to ratepayers.
III. PROPOSED NON DISPOSAL FACILITIES DESCRIPTIONS AND LOCATIONS
Tables I-V present information describing and locating, where possible at this time,
proposed non disposal facilities to be used by the County for the unincorporated areas.
Additionally, Map I displays all the identified non-disposal facilities.
Mary 1993 - 3- Contra Costa County
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
It is important to note that changing technologies, costs, and other local considerations
may alter the proposed non disposal facilities, themselves, as well as the use of ,the
identified facilities by the County. The County may use all of the identified facilities or
some of the facilities in varying combinations. Changes in facilities and/or use of the
facilities will be made as amendments to our NDFE as necessaryand provided for by AB
3001: Additionally, any inconsistencies between this NDFE and our SRRE will be
resolved at the time of the first five-year revision, as provided for under AB 3001,
Section 41736.
In addition to the facilities identified in the. Tables, the County plans to implement
approximately three (3) drop-off/buy back centers within our boundaries or in
cooperation with surrounding jurisdictions. These centers will be located in West, south
Central, and East County. Development of these facilities.is outlined in greater detail
within our SRRE.
Contra Costa County - 4 - May 1993
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
TABLE I
a�
Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer.Station Fact Sheet
LOCATION Project includes operations at two sites. The
Permanent Waste Recovery and Transfer Station
is to be built on an existing borrow pit site on
the western part of the Acme landfill property in
a portion of unincorporated Contra Costa
County to the east of the City of Martinez.
SIZE The composting site would be located on the
East Parcel of the Acme Landfill.
CAPACITY Transfer station, approximately 22 acres;
pp Y
composting site, approximately 25 acres.
' LIFE EXPECTANCY Transfer Station, peak daily throughput of 1,900
tons per day; composting facility designed to
' process about 100 tons per day of compostable
yard waste.
' CURRENT LAND USE Not applicable °
PROPOSED USE Inactive landfill
SURROUNDING LAND USE Transfer station, MRF, public buy-back,
composting, and household hazardous waste
' collection facility.
PERMIT STATUS Cattle grazing to the north; IT Corporation Vine
` Hill Plant to the northeast; the Martinez Gun
Club to the east; Contra-Costa Water District
water storage tanks to the south; and Vine Hill
' residential neighborhood to the west.
All construction and operations permits
' obtained; construction under way. Start up,
mid 1992.
' May 199.3 - S - Contra Costa County
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
FACILITY INTEGRATED WASTE Waste diversion programs planned for the Acme
MANAGEMENT FUNCTION Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station will be
the principal means by which Central County
cities and the unincorporated central portion"Of
the County will attain mandated rates of waste
diversion. Achievement of these waste
diversion rates will prolong the life expectancy
of the County's new, landfills enabling the
County to more easily maintain the minimum 15
year disposal capacity.
Develo ment 'of project with provision to allow
drop-off of household hazardous wastes (HHW).
will enable the cities and unincorporated area of
Central County to achieve the goals of their
HHWEs by reducing the hazards associated with
disposal of HHW together with non-hazardous '
municipal solid waste.
,Contra Costa County - 6- May 1993 ,
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
TABLE 11
West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Fact Sheet
LOCATION Project includes activities at three sites. Central
Facility operations (transfer station, MRF, public
buy-back center, optional HHW collection
facility) located in unincorporated North
' Richmond.. Site bounded by Central and Third
Streets, Brookside Drive and Wildcat Creek.
The, Central Facility will be constructed in
' phases as the facility is expanded to meet
increased diversion requirements.
Operations at West Contra Costa Sanitary
Landfill/Processing - Facility (WCCSL/PF) "
(composting of vegetative wastes and
' processing of inert solids) will be.located on top
of the closed WCCSL, partially in the City of
Richmond and partially in the unincorporated
North Richmond area.
"The Interim Recycling Center (IRC) is . an
' existing facility located in unincorporated North
Richmond between Parr Boulevard, the RSS
Fleet Maintenance Center and Garden Tract
Road. The IRC processes material from, the.
residential curbside recycling program, small
amounts of source separated commercial
. ' materials and provides a buyback center and is
planned to process about 12,000 tons per year
by 1995."
SIZE . " -Central Facility, approximately 21 acres;
WCCSL/PF, 60 acres.
' CAPACITY Central Facility designed to handle peak daily
throughput of 1,233 tons; WCCSL/PF would
' process an average 15,000 tons per year of
compostables.
LIFE EXPECTANCY Not applicable
May 1993 - 7 Contra Costa County
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
CURRENT LAND USE Central Facility site currently vacant land
formerly used for agricultural purposes; '
WCCSL/PF site currently an active landfill.
PROPOSED USE Central Facility uses include transfer station, '
MRF, public buy-back, center and household
hazardous waste collection facility; WCCSL/PF
uses include composting of vegetative wastes, ,
shredding of bulky wood wastes, and
processing inert solids for re-use.
SURROUNDING LAND USE Existing land uses around the Central Facility
site include agricultural, industrial, and
residential; land uses around the WCCSL/PF site ,
are agricultural and industrial. The IRC is
surrounded by industrial uses.
PERMIT STATUS EIR for project has been certified. Project still ,
requires County General Plan Amendment,
possible annexation to the City of Richmond,
County Public Works approval of roadway
improvements and storm drainage design,
County Land Use Permit, Air District Authority
to Construct and Permit to Operate, NPDES
Stormwater Discharge Permit for Industrial
Activity, Bay Conservation and Development
Commission "(BCDC) permit and Solid Waste
Facilities Permit.
FACILITY INTEGRATED WASTE Waste diversion programs planned for the IRRF
MANAGEMENT FUNCTION will be the principal means by which West
County cities and the unincorporated western '
portion of the County will attain mandated rates
of waste diversion. Achievement of these
waste diversion rates will prolong the life
expectancy of the. County's new landfills
enabling the County to more easily maintain the
minimum 15 year disposal capacity.
Development of project with provision to allow
drop-off of household hazardous wastes (HHW)
will enable the cities and unincorporated area of
West County to achieve the goals of their
HHWEs by reducing the hazards associated with '
disposal of HHW together with non-hazardous
municipal solid waste.
Contra Costa County - 8- May 1993
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
TABLE III
1
East Contra Costa County Community Collection Center Fact Sheet
' LOCATION Unincorporated Contra Costa County within the
Sphere of Influence of the City of Antioch. On
Wilbur Avenue approximately one mile west of
Highway 160.
SIZE 30 acres
' CAPACITY Transfer station, 359 tons per day; MRF, 500
tons per day processed, 375 tons per day
' recovered; Recycling Center (IPC), 175 tons per
day materials handling capacity; Yard Waste
Composting Facility, 160 tons per day material
handling capacity.
LIFE EXPECTANCY Not applicable
' CURRENT LAND USE Industrial
' PROPOSED USE. Transfer station, MRF, IPC, HHW Collection
Facility, Public Buy-back-and Drop-off Recycling
Facility, Yard Waste Composting Facility.
' SURROUNDING LAND USE Industrial bordered on the west by the Gaylord
Container Corporation and on the east by the P
' G and E Contra Costa Power Plant.
PERMIT STATUS Project is still in conceptual stage. Preliminary
Draft Project Description Report completed.
Comprehensive Project Description not yet
prepared, EIR consultant retained, no
' environmental-documentation yet completed.All
land use, construction, and operations permits
yet to be acquired
' May 1993 - 9- Contra Costa County
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
FACILITY INTEGRATED WASTE Waste diversion programs planned for the East
MANAGEMENT FUNCTION Contra Costa CCC will be the principal means ,
by which East County cities and the
unincorporated eastern portion of the County
will attain mandated rates of waste diversion.
Achievement of these waste diversion.rates will
prolong the life expectancy of the County's new
landfills enabling the County to more easily
maintain the minimum 15 year disposal
capacity.
1
FACILITY INTEGRATED WASTE Development of project with provision to allow
MANAGEMENT FUNCTION drop-off of household hazardous wastes (HHW) '
will enable the cities and the unincorporated
area of East County to achieve the goals of their
SRREs by reducing the hazards associated with e
disposal of HHW together with non-hazardous
municipal solid waste.
Centra Costa County _ 10- May 1993 '
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
TABLE IV
Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment
' Facility Fact Sheet
' LOCATION Unincorporated Contra Costa County, North
Richmond area; northwest of the intersection of
Parr Boulevard and Goodrick Avenue.
' SIZE 4.3 acres.
' CAPACITY 30,000 tons per year of hazardous wastes
generated by industry, small businesses, and
households.
LIFE EXPECTANCY Not applicable.
CURRENT LAND USE Industrial; site includes several warehouses, a
parking area and a vacant lot.
PROPOSED USE Commercial Hazardous Transfer/Treatment
Facility
SURROUNDING LAND USE Industrial activity including a trucking firm, a
general contractor, trailer and container storage
facilities, steel and wood products
manufacturing and a plant nursery. South of
the site, is San Pablo Creek Corridor, a linear
strip of open space currently undergoing
' improvement for the purpose of flood control
and restoration of riparian vegetation.
PERMIT STATUS EIR certified, County General Plan amended,
Land Use Permit approved. State Department of
Health Services and Air Quality Management
' District permits have been issued. The EPA
permit has been appealed.
' FACILITY INTEGRATED WASTE Development of the project with provision to
MANAGEMENT FUNCTION allow drop-off of household hazardous wastes
(HHW) on an interim basis until service can be
' provided at transfer stations/material recovery
facilities. Provide. service to small quantity
generators (SQG) and industry.
y
M4 J993 - 11 - Contra Costa County
Non-Disposal Facilities Element
1
i
1
0 1
1 .
i
. 1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
_ 1
1
Contra Costa County - 12 - May 1993
:70.dcm Disposal Facilities Element
Appendix A: California Integrated Waste
' Management Board Resolution #92-210
(For Consideration of Support for the Concept Presented by
Contra Costa County for Complying with Requirements for
Submission of Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans)
' CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD "
RESOLUTION , 92-210
' POR CONSIDERATION CF
BVPPORT FOR THE CONCEPT PRERENTED BY
CONTRA COST), COUNT$', FDR COMPLYING' WIUN REQUIREMENTS' FOR
BQBMI88ION OF COMVMIDE INTAGRATED MWT8 MANAGEMENT PLANS
WHEREAS, Public Resources- Code section 40902 grants authority to.
the Board to adopt rules and regulations to carry out Division .30
' of the Public Resources Code; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 40900 at seg. describe
' the requirements to be met by cities and nounties. when developing
and implementing integrated waste managenomt plans; and
WHEREAS, newly enacted legislation found :in Public Resources code
' sections 41730 at seq. requires each city; exceptinq a city acid
county, and each county, excepting a city and county, to prepare
and adopt a Nondisposal Facility 4ement which includes a
description of neer facilities and the expatnsion.of existinq
' facilities, which ,wili be needed to impleiient" a jurisdiction's
Source Reduction and Recycling Element, and enable it to meet the
requirements of Section 41780; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that proper guidance is necessary to
enable local governments to submit County%ride Integrated Waste
' Management -Plans in the interim period beftre final regulations
guiding the process are approved and filed with the Secretary of
State; and
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County submitted a Draft Countywide
Integrated Waste Management Plan and" siting Element on September
18, 1992 and, upon review by staff, that Draft Plan was found to
have had only four regulatory deficiencies and no statutory
deficiencies; and
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has provided a coneept .for complying
with Public Resources Code 41730, at seq. prier t.n adnpt.ion and
filing of related regulations, .by drafting a generic Nondisposal
Facility Element which jurisdictions with:-n their County could
uso; . and
WREREAS; The Integrated Waste Management Planning Committee
considered the proposed concept at a publ:.c hearing during its
December 1,- 1992 meeting, and round the proposed concept to be
adequate; and
WHEREAS, The Integrated Waste Management Planning Committee
' directed Board staff to•work closely with County staff in the
drafting of the generic Nondisposal Fanil:.ty Elpment; and
May 1993 A-1 Contra Costa County
AlpDenx ix A Non-Disposal Facilities Element
WREFLUS, The integrated Waste Management Planning Committee
agrees that Doutd staff may develop alternative, but equal, '
methods of -compliance for other jurisdictions submitting
Countywide integrated waste Management Plans prior to fined
regulations.- being udorted;
]ROW, THEREFOU, BE IT USOL'VED that the Board hereby supports in
concept the,use of d generic documont by all jurisdictions within
Contra Costa County in order to provide consistent information on
all nondisposal facilities in the County which are currently '
being uaod, and which are planned, to divert wmate from
landfilling, and to meet the 254 Wid 50% statutory diversion
mandates. The document may be modified, ,as necessary, to '
accurataiy reflect Lhe existing and planned nandisposal
facilities which will be used by a jurisdiction.
CERTUICBTIO'i ,
The undersigned Executive Directoriof the California Integrated ,
Waste Management board does herebyt certify that the foregoingtis
a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly
adopted at a meeting of the California Integrated Waste '
Management Board held. on December 16, 1992.
Dated: DEC 1 6 1992
'
Ralph E. Chandler
Executive Director
r4wra Costa County A-2
Jive-Disposal Facilities Eleinent May 1993 '
Appendix A
1
1
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
�p`t �g 1993
cou
a
cost,
ootrIOUs
arc
�►, via
d
p�
S �1t
i a
tle
d#L
f
41L I
1993
1
C
cost
a
00coot"a �
d
d
�► of
eh ti
� 1
te
1 �
�I t
`%0
OST�y CO
1
T9�3
1
�-ay
t
a
. �
r
•
T A
CONTRA COST COUNTY
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
May 1993
!1�
Prepared By:
Contra Costa County Contra Costa County
Health Services Department Community Development
Environmental Health Division 651 Pine Street
4333 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553
Martinez, CA 94553 (510) 646-4194
(510) 646-2286 FAX (510) 646-1309
FAX (510) 2073
Printed on Recycled Paper
t
t
t
t
s
t
e.
s
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . I
2. EXECUTIVE'SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 6
4. SECTION 11: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it
5. SECTION III: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. SECTION IV: SELECTED PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 15
7. SECTION V: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 25
8. SECTION VI: MONITORING & EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CRITERIA DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B -- REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . A-4
APPENDIX C BASIS FOR COSTS USED IN H14W ELEMENT
FOR UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . . . . . . . -A-5
APPENDIX D SITES FOR JUNE 9, 1990 B.O.P DROP . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
t
t
t
t
r
s
1
1
1
1
INTRODUCTION
The California Integrated Waste Management Board has defined household hazardous waste HHW
g g (HHW)
as "any material discarded from homes which may threaten human health or the environment when
disposed of incorrectly." Household products which are categorized as.household hazardous waste
when no longer considered useful are furniture polishes, cleansers, batteries, paints, thinners, auto
products, hobby and art supplies, pool chemicals and pesticides.
California Assembly Bill 939, enacted in January of 1990, directed counties and cities to reduce the
amount of solid waste entering landfills by 25% in 1995 and by 50% in the year 2000. This law also
required counties and cities to prepare and implement a household hazardous waste management
program as part of their Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Assembly Bill 2707, enacted in
January of 1991, places more emphasis on the importance of an effective household hazardous waste
program by requiring counties and cities to prepare household hazardous waste elements which will
be included in countywide integrated waste management plans.
Although HHW comprises a relatively small proportion of the wastes entering our county landfills,
they present a risk to both public health and the environment. HHW which are disposed of in
landfills may cause toxic leachate which seeps down to the groundwater below, thus contaminating
potential drinking waters. HHW which are disposed by other illegal methods, such as depositing in
storm drains, sewers or directly on soil contaminate the environment. Many storm drains are not
connected to a sanitary treatment system. In these cases, HHW is transferred directly to the San
Francisco Bay/Delta system.,
Contra Costa County's household hazardous waste goals are to:
1. Reduce the amount and toxicity of household hazardous waste generated; and
2. Provide for the safe and effective management of household hazardous waste by
providing residents of the unincorporated areas with opportunities for the proper
disposal of household hazardous waste. d
Coma Costa County Page 1
Imusehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
0.73% of the solid wastesfream in the unincorporated areas of the county _are household,
hazardous wastes (HHW). This amounts to an annual 1,487 tons of HHW. There. are
57,311 households (both single and multi-family) in the unincorporated areas.
The County Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Contra Costa County calls for permanent
HHW collection facilities in the three regions of the county (east, central and west); public
education; and legislative advocacy to encourage proper labeling, smaller container sizes and
recycling of products at retail outlets.
A major effort to collect the recyclable HHW was undertaken on June 9, 1990. 4,000
participants brought to seven sites in the county 2400 car batteries, 16,000 gallons-of used
oil and 7,700 gallons of latex paint. No other on-going collection of the full range of HHW
currently exists.
2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES '
Short-term objectives, to be implemented by 1995, include:
Collection
♦ Work with cities, transfer stations and commercial hazardous waste management facilities
to.establish permanent, on-going and accessible HHW programs (Actions 1 through 4).
♦ Promote the reuse/recycling of HHW at point of sale, in waste exchanges or in collection
programs (Actions 5 through 8).
Education/Advocacy
♦. Educate the public regarding HHW issues and programs, promoting the responsible
handling and disposal of household hazardous materials (Action 10).
♦ Encourage the public to use less hazardous or non-hazardous alternatives to products
which create HHW (Action '11).
♦ Advocate for changes in product development, labeling, packaging and handling to
reduce the amount of household hazardous waste generated (Action 12).
Page 2 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
♦ Advo=xe fig ust cad less toxic or non-toxic products within Contra Costa County
government, and for adoption of the principles of integrated pest management (Action
13):
Medium-term objectives, to be implemented by 2000, include:
♦ Continue implementing permanent collection programs,redesigning program as necessary
based on evaluation feedback.
�,� ♦ Continue educating the public about proper handling, storage and disposal of HHW, and
about alternatives -to HHW products, redesigning program as necessary based on
evaluation feedback.
♦ Consider collecting small quantity generator wastes in permanent HHW collection
programs (Action 14).
3. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following actions have been chosen to implement the above objectives:
Action 1:
1 The Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility is required to establish a program
to accept HHW from residents in the unincorporated area of west County. The Facility's
program should be available to residents of the unincorporated areas of central and east
county, until permanent facilities are established in those two regions.
Action 2:
The Acme Fill Transfer Facility is currently required-, as part of the conditions of approval
for the transfer station land use permit, to establish a program to accept HHW from residents
of the unincorporated area of central County. The program should also be available to
residents of the unincorporated area of east County until a permanent facility for household
hazardous waste is established in that region.
Action :
The County should require as a condition of approval for a solid waste transfer station in east
County the establishment of a program for the acceptance of HHW from residents of the
unincorporated area of east County. The alternative collection program for east County
residents would be to require Acme Fill Transfer Facility in Martinez to accept HHW from
those residents.
rag ra Carta County Page 3
mold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
Action 4:
A mobile HHW collection system should be implemented countywide or regionally. This
could be done before or after the establishment of permanent HHW collection facilities. This
recommendation is necessary to provide sufficient access for all County,residents.
Action 5:
Wastes collected in H14W collection programs should be recycled to the maximum extent
feasible. Product exchanges should be added if they can be proven safe and effective.
Action 6:
The County should assist and encourage marina operators to provide for used oil collection
at their facilities.
Action 7:
The County should promote the recycling of paint by ensuring that paint collected at
permanent facilities is recycled to the extent feasible. The activities of the statewide Paint
.Task Force should be followed, advocating paint.recycling when appropriate and.necessary.
Action 8:
Used motor,oil, and perhaps latex paint, should be collected curbside in unincorporated.areas
which,are served by curbside collection.of other recyclables.
Action 9:
Load checking programs should be required at all solid waste transfer and disposal facilities
located.within the unincorporated area of the County to insure that HHW are not entering the
landfills.
Action 10:
An effective public education campaign should be implemented which would educate
residents about the proper handling, storage and disposal of HHW. The County supports
countywide implementation of public education campaigns.
Action 11:
A public education campaign should be implemented to encourage the use of less hazardous.
or non-hazardous household products.
Page 4 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
Acn 12:
Staff should work with the State and Federal governments and the private sector to advocate
for changes in product design, labeling, packaging and handling in order to reduce the
amount of HHW generated.
Action 13:
Purchasing less toxic or non-toxic products and adopting principles of P
integrated est
g
management should be advocated for within the departmental operations of Contra Costa
County.government.
Action 14:
Upon establishment of permanent HHW collection programs, consideration should,be given
to accepting wastes from small quantity generators (businesses).
Action 15:
HHW collection and education should be evaluated by monitoring records for load checking
and emergency response incidents; future waste characterization studies; records kept at
HHW collection programs; and consumer behavior surveys.
Action 16:
HHW collection and education programs should be implemented and financed multi-
jurisdictionally to achieve-the greatest cost savings.
4. IMPLEMENTATION
See the "Household Hazardous Waste Implementation" schedule for projected implementation
dates, program costs and revenue sources for the above actions.
5. MONITORING & EVALUATION
Program effectiveness will be evaluated using the following methods:
• Load checking program
0 Monitoring of emergency response incidents
• Future waste characterization studies
• Records kept in HHW collection programs
• Consumer behavior surveys
Cmrntra Costa County Page S
fibusehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
SECTION I: EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION & DISPOSAL:
Household hazardous wastes are generated by residents, and are then either (1) stored in their
homes (usually garages); (2)'landfilled by residents putting HHW in their garbage cans; or
(3) disposed of in the sewer system (sinks and toilets), down the stormdrains or in soil.
1. HHW Generated
The California Department of Health Services estimates that households generate 7.516
pounds of HHW annually in California. The Association of Bay Area Governments has
further refined that figure to an annual 6.63 pounds per household for the San Francisco
Bay Area. In fact, it has been estimated that at any one time there are between 50 and
100 pounds of HHW in an individual household (50 pounds is approximately equivalent
to six one-gallon cans of paint). This translates to between 1400 and 2800 tons of HHW
in the unincorporated area, and between 7,000 and 21,000 tons in the county as a whole.
Waste characterization studies currently being done throughout the state are, for the first
time, providing documentation on the amount of HHW actually being disposed of in
landfills. We believe that with this new disposal information, the average HHW
generation figures will be revised upwards.
2. HHW Landfilled
0
According to the 1990 Waste Generation Study conducted at the landfills by R.W. Beck"
& Associates for the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, 0.73% of the solid
waste stream is HHW. This totals 1,487 tons for the unincorporated areas of the county
in 1990 (there are 57,311 single and multi-family households in the unincorporated.
areas). None of the HHW were assumed to be diverted from the landfill and recycled
or reused. Countywide, at the 0.73% rate, HHW landfilled would amount to almost
8,000 tons annually.
The sampling completed for the waste generation study reveals that HHW received at the
landfills would break down into the following categories:
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ANNUAL QUANTITY % HHW
(HHW) (TONS)
Household Cleaners 695 47%
Latex Paint 303 20%
Aerosols 198 13%
Oil Based Paint 155 10%
Pesticides 68 5%
Solvents 68 5%
HHW received at landfills 1,487 tons 100%
Page 6 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
♦I:r at
These percentages, and overall amounts"vary from day to day and month to month
because, unlike other solid wastes, people dispose of HHW in an inconsistent manner.
They vary because people tend to throw away more HHW during annual spring
clearings, and when clearing out homes before a residential move or after the death of
relatives or friends. HHW representing many years of accumulation are then disposed
of in large amounts.
3. HHW Not Landfilled
Many people have garages full of HHW, including paints, solvents, pool chemicals,
pesticides, used motor oil and other products. Other HHW are disposed of in various
ways. Some are poured on the soil or down storm drains, ending up in creeks and
channels heading for the San Francisco Bay/Delta. Others are poured in sinks and
toilets,'entering the sewer system.
Although it is not possible to fully document what residents are doing with their HHW
which are not being thrown into the garbage, we believe we can make estimates.
According to surveys done over about one year at monthly HHW collection events in San
Mateo County (Rick Miller, Environmental Health Department), about 45% of residents
previously kept HHW in their garages; 45% threw them in the garbage; and 10%
disposed of them down sewers, stormdrains and in the ground. If this were the case in
the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, we. would find another 1800 tons
stored in homes and garages,,and 400 tons in sewers, stormdrains and soil.
B. POLICY BACKGROUND IN.CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Contra Costa.County began addressing household hazardous waste (HHW) in 1983 with the
formation of the County Hazardous Waste Task Force. The Task Force's recommendations,
which were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1986, included two which address HHW:
1. "Establish a residential and small generator hazardous waste disposal program designed
to help small generators dispose of hazardous wastes legally and safely."
.2. "Any successful household hazardous waste program needs a strong educational effort.
This might be funded by a collection program involving the collection companies and
sanitary districts, in cooperation with a designated lead agency, to provide a phone
"hotline", staff time, billing mechanisms and consumer education."
The Hazardous Materials Commission, established in 1986, was responsible for developing
the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Contra Costa County (1989). This
document, which laid out policies for the management of hazardous waste in the county,
included a section addressing the management of HHW. The specific policy
recommendations of the Plan are:
i
Czmwa Costa County Page 7
Behold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
1. Household Hazardous Waste Reduction
This county will work with the State, the Federal government and the private sector to,
encourage changes in product development, labeling, packaging and handling to reduce
the amount of household hazardous waste generated. Ideas such as modifications in
packaging, substitution of non-hazardous products,and returnable products and returnable
containers could significantly reduce the amount of household hazardous waste generated.
These types of programs are best developed at a State or Federal.level rather thanat the
local level.
2. Public Awareness/Education.
Residents in.the Countyneed to know how to properly handle and dispose of household
P P Y P
hazardous waste. Public education is also necessary to promote the use of non-hazardous
alternatives to products which create household hazardous waste. A public education
program is the most efficient method to raise public awareness. Household hazardous
waste public education should be part of the overall hazardous waste public education
program described in Chapter 9.
3. Household Hazardous Waste Disposal.
Points of disposal accessible to all residents of the Count should be provided. These
P Y
facilities should be open on a regular basis (frequency) and on a regular schedule
(consistent hours/days of operation) to provide the public with a safe and convenient
place to dispose of household hazardous waste. These facilities must meet the siting
criteria for hazardous waste transfer stations specified in this Plan. These locations could
be solid waste transfer stations or commercial hazardous waste management facilities.
Other locations may be appropriate, but including household hazardous waste disposal
with transfer stations or hazardous waste facilities will allow easier implementation.
4. Funding Household Hazardous Waste Pro rams.
The County Health Services Department shall coordinate activities of garbage franchisers
(cities and sanitary districts) and others to establish a funding mechanism for household ,
hazardous waste collection programs. Funding for household hazardous waste programs
should be on a broad base. Household hazardous waste disposal programs are very j
expensive. Funding of both the actual disposal and public education components of the
program should be evaluated in terms of other hazardous waste related programs to
determine an appropriate priority for the household hazardous waste program. It is
important to remember that household hazardous waste is a small portion of the total
waste stream, but almost always has a higher potential exposure risk to the public.
In January of 1989, the County's Hazardous Materials Commission and Solid Waste
Commission jointly established the Household Hazardous Waste Committee. Its
members developed the HHW Work Plan to promote HHW collection in two phases.
The first phase focused on the collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries which
are recyclable. The second phase was to promote the collection of the remaining, non-
recyclable wastes through the establishment of permanent HHW collection programs.
Page 8 Contra.Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
1,
TWO NA9rrUops were lied in the fall of 1989 for cities, garbage. collection companies,
marinas, and other interested individuals and organizations. The first workshop unveiled
the Committee's Work Plan, describing the Plan and how the various entities could begin
its implementation. The second workshop focused on methods of collecting used oil.
A follow-up meeting with marinas, the Bay Conservation & Development Commission
and Evergreen Oil (a used oil reprocessor) focused specifically on used oil collection at
marinas.
Finally, the Committee implemented_a collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries
in June of 1990 (described in the next subsection). This involved the cooperation of the
county, all cities and garbage collection companies in the county, as well as private
industry, and generated a great deal of interest through the media.
C. CURRENT HHW PROGRAMS
Previously implemented HHW programs include the following:
♦ Collection of the full range of HHW by County on April 13, 1985.
♦ Collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal.
♦ Collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries by County on June 9, 1990 (B.O.P.
Drop).
♦ Production of "Too Close for Comfort" videotape (1988).
♦ Design and printing of "It's Your Right to Know About Toxics in the Home" brochure
in 1988.
1. Counjy HHW Collection Da 1985 : On April 13 1985 the full range of HHW was
collected at two sites, located in Richmond and Pacheco. Only 308 households
participated in this collection event, with approximately 15 households coming from the
unincorporated area. The.waste type and quantity records kept from this collection event
were not sufficient to accurately document the impact of the collection on the
was testream.
2. Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Program: Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (685-4716)
began collecting used oil, latex paint and car batteries in.1989 in Pacheco and Antioch.
A site was opened in Rodeo in December, 1991. The service is free for their regular
garbage collection customers. For non-customers the charge is $1/gallon for used oil and
latex paint; $2 for car batteries; and $3/gallon for antifreeze.
Of the 1879 households bringing these three wastes to the Pacheco site in the first eleven
months of .1990, approximately 470 households were from the unincorporated area,
bringing in approximately the following amounts of HHW:
Casm Costa County Page 9
'fd msehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
PLEASANT HILL BAYSHORE PROGRAM
1990 HHW COLLECTION; PACHECO SITE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS GALLONS TONS"
WASTE*
Used Oil 1,500 5.6
Latex Paint 505 3.3
Car Batteries*** 94 1.6
* Does not include wastes collected at the B.O.P. Drop.
** Conversion rates used. 1 gallon used oil= 7.5 lbs, l gallon paint=
11.8 lbs., and 1 battery= 35 lbs.
*** Car batteries expressed by numbers, not by gallon. .
3. B.O.P. Droo: The B.O.P. Drop on June 9, 1990 collected the three recyclable wastes
of used oil, latex paint and car batteries at seven sites in the county: Richmond,
Martinez, Pacheco, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Antioch and Brentwood.* Of the 4,000
households participating throughout the county, approximately 325 were from
unincorporated areas. The following table identifies the types and quantities of waste
collected.
* (See Appendix D for exact locations.)
1990 B.O.P. DROP PROGRAM
4,000 Households 325 Households
(Countywide) (Unincorporated)
Waste Gallons Tons Gallons Tons
Used.Oil 16,000 60 11268 5
Latex Paint 7,700 45 618 4
Car Batteries 2,400 42 195 3
4. Educational Videotape: The "Too Close for Comfort" videotape was produced in 1988
by community members,, industry, the cities of Hercules and Pinole and Contra Costa
County Health Services Department. The video, narrated by Diane Kalas of KCBS,
received a number of awards, including the 1988 Western Access Video Excellence ,
Award from the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers. The videotape was
distributed throughout the county to schools, libraries and many other interested groups.
5. Educational Brochure: The brochure entitled Its Your Right to Know about Toxics in
the Home" was developed in 1988 by county staff. In addition to explaining how to
safely handle and dispose of HHW, it also promotes the use of a number of alternatives
Page 10 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
17
to. traditional toxic products used in the home. This brochure has also been widely
distributed throughout the county.
6. Other Programs and Facilities: In addition to these HHW programs, the County
Environmental Health staff respond to numerous phone calls from the public regarding
HHW handling and disposal. Bay Area Environmental in Richmond, recently acquired
by California Advanced Environmental Technology Corporation (AETC; 233-8001),had
been charging a minimum $50 fee for any HHW brought in by householders. AETC
currently accepts HHW one weekday per month, and charges $12.50/gallon container of
liquid HHW (used oil, latex or oil-based paint, solvents, liquid pesticides; antifreeze,
etc.), and $9/pound for solid HHW (solid pesticides, contaminated soils, etc.).
I
The County has established a position within,the Health Services Department entitled
"Risk Reduction Specialist." This position has coordinated HHW programs and issues,
including the B.O.P. Drop, the Safer Alternatives public education program, used oil
collection (including.marinas).; staffing the AB 939 Local Task Force, including the
writing of the HHW Element and the County Integrated Plan; and the design of the
mobile HHW collection.program.
Finally, used oil and batteries have been collected-at the EI Cerrito Recycling Center
(215-4350) for years. Although it primarily serves city residents, any resident is allowed
to bring in their used oil and batteries. As.is true with many drop-off centers, records
of participation are not kept. We consequently do not know what the participation has
been by the residents of unincorporated areas.
The County Health Services Department is currently developing a public education
program called a "safer alternatives" campaign, which will focus on reducing household
hazardous waste generation. The Department will be implementing this program in
mid4991.
SECTION II: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Contra Costa County's household hazardous waste management goals are to:
1. Reduce the amount and toxicity of household hazardous waste generated; and
2. Provide for the safe and effective management of household hazardous waste by
providing residents of the unincorporated areas with opportunities for the safe disposal
of household hazardous waste.
The following Collection and Education Objectives are consistent with these two goals. Please note
that the implementation date is listed for each objective. The programs chosen for implementation
(refer to Section IV) must be able to achieve these objectives.
• L
Contra Costa County Page 11
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
L SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (to be implemented by 1995)
A. COLLECTION OBJECTIVES:
♦ Work with cities, transfer stations and commercial hazardous waste management
facilities to establish permanent,on-going and accessible HHW programs(1992-1993;
Actions 1 through 4).
♦ Promote the reuse/recycling of household hazardous wastes at point of sale, in waste
exchanges or collection programs (1992; Actions 5-8)..
B. EDUCATION/ADVOCACY OBJECTIVES:
♦
Educate the public regarding household hazardous waste issues and programs,
promoting the responsible handling and disposal of household hazardous materials
(1992; Action 10)
♦ Encourage the public to use less hazardous or non-hazardous alternatives to products
which create HHW (1992; Action 11)--
♦ Advocate for changes in product development, labeling, packaging and handling to
reduce the amount household hazardous waste generated (On-going;Action 12).
♦ Advocate for use of less toxic or non-toxic products within Contra Costa County.
government, and for adoption of the principles of integrated pest management (1993;
Action 13).
II. MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES (to be implemented by 2000
♦ Continue implementing permanent collection programs,redesigning program as necessary
based on evaluation feedback (On-going).
♦ Continue educating the public about proper handling, storage and disposal of HHW, and
about alternatives to HHW products, redesigning. program as necessary based on
evaluation feedback.(On-going).
♦ Consider collecting small quantity generator. wastes in permanent collection programs
(1996; Action 14).
SECTION III: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
This section evaluates the various programs which could be used to achieve the household hazardous
waste goals and objectives. The programs required to be evaluated by the California Integrated
Page 12 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous.Waste Element
Waste Management.Board inciude permanent HHW collection facilities, mobile collection systems,
intefim collection days, recycling, curbside collection programs, load-checking programs, public
_ education promoting collection programs and promoting alternatives to HHW products. Each of
these programs has been evaluated according to the following criteria:
- Reduction Effectiveness: The program's effectiveness in reducing the quantity of HHW
generated by consumers.
- Collection Effectiveness: The program's effectiveness in collecting HHW.
- Environmental Impacts: The degree of hazard posed by implementing the program.
Impacts include hazards which could affect workers or surrounding communities, noise,
leachate etc.-
Adaptability
tc.-Adaptability to Change: The ability of the program to adapt to changing economic,
technical, or social conditions.
- Changes in Waste Type Generation: The extent to which the program shifts household.
hazardous waste generation to another waste type.
- . Ease of Implementation: The time required to implement the program.
- Facility Requirements: . The need to expand or build new facilities to. implement the
j program.
Consistency with Local Policies: The consistency of the program with existing
ordinances, local policies and regulations.
Institutional Barriers: The impact of institutional barriers on the successful
implementation of the program. Institutional barriers include waste stream ownership,
long term franchise agreements.
- Capital costs: The initial costs for items such as equipment, facility and land purchase.
Long-term Cost Effectiveness: . The relative cost of the program when considered
throughout the planning period (year 2000).
End-use Markets: The availability and necessity of markets for the collected wastes.
- Operating Experience: The extent to which the program has been successfully
implemented and proven effective elsewhere.
i n 1 criteria The summary of this evaluations presented m the Sectio III Table and c Lena and ranking
definitions are identified in Appendix A. A more in-depth discussion of each of these programs and
their evaluation is presented in the next section.
Cmara Costa County Page 13
ceehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
w
v
d
d -
00
C
U
W .
� a
PC
F .ti
a
w �
de
d
V C E..
� •� x .-� x x x x x x x x x x � ?
C+r a
O
C
cd
c �
c
L
Y
C
O
? C C H
d
•L V... w V ed ~ V y •�
cc 0
� 4^
E a '• C U W
> y o c`°i co F c
R
a U w ¢ u`3 u U a w
N 00 - 0�
Page 14 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
SECTION IV: SELECTED PROGRAMS
The programs selected for collecting HHW-and reducing the amount of HHW entering the landfills
are described in this Section, and are based on the previous evaluation which was summarized in the
Section III table. '
It should be noted that although program alternatives presented here will be applicable only for the
unincorporated areas of the county, it is difficult to separate out programs we would implement for
the unincorporated areas from those which should be implemented throughout the entire county.
From both a financial and a program effort standpoint, it is much more efficient for multi-
jurisdictional program efforts to be undertaken in managing HHW.
' A. COLLECTION PROGRAMS
This. subsection describes the four collection programs that have been selected for the
i unincorporated area of Contra Costa County: permanent facilities, a mobile collection
system, recycling and curbside collection. These programs should not be viewed separately;
rather, they should be seen as one, unified HHW management program.
It is important to keep in mind that the intention of the combined collection efforts is to
insure that residents have sufficient options so that they will properly dispose of their HHW.
j Regardless of the type of HHW collection program, HHW disposal would be free to residents
(although they would ultimately pay for these programs through their garbage bills).
Cost research has shown that approximately 80% of the cost of collection comes from the
cost of analyzing, properly labpacking, transporting and recycling/disposing of the wastes
collected. Program and start-up costs for administering either permanent or mobile collection
programs cost about the same, 20% of the final collection cost. The significance of this is
that from a.`cost standpoint, it does not matter whether the program is designed as a
permanent facility, as a mobile collection system, or a combination of both. However,
jbecause the intention of our HHW management effort is to collect as much of these wastes
as possible, other factors enter into our decision as to which program to implement, such as
the need to provide residents with sufficient access and with continual collection. Permanent
facilities basically provide residents with continual collection while mobile collection provides
them with access, as will be seen in the following sections. Mobile collection should be seen
1 as an integral part of the permanent program.
Finally, it should be generally noted that HHW collected would generally be disposed of in
the following manner: Used oil would be recycled by used oil re-refiners; latex paint would
be reused or reprocessed for further external use; car batteries would be recycled; household
batteries would either be recycled or landfilled (depending on recycling technology and
market demand); antifreeze would be recycled back into antifreeze; oil-based paints and
solvents would be used for supplemental fuel" programs; aerosols would have internal
ingredients incinerated and the empty cans be landfilled; and other lab-packed wastes would
either be landfilled or incinerated. Transportation would be provided by registered haulers.
C�srmra Costa County Page 15
1 H mwhold Hazardous Waste-Element May 1993
New processing/recycling technologies and market demand will continue to effect the
recycling of HHW.
It would.also be expected that for every 150 households, according to the experience of San
Mateo County's HHW collection program, the following amounts and types of wastes would
be received: about ten drums of solvents and oil-based paints; nine lab packs; 3 drums of
aerosols; about 100 car batteries, 600 gallons of used oil, and 300 gallons of latex paint.
1. Permanent HHW Collection Facilities:
The Contra Costa County Hazardous ,Waste Management Plan recommended the
establishment of three or four permanent HHW collection facilities in the county as the
long-term solution for HHW. This is consistent with the Section III evaluation chart in
that long-term effectiveness of collecting HHW is best served .by having permanent
collection facilities. This would allow residents, on almost any given day, to dispose of
HHW. In instances where people must immediately clear out their homes, the presence
of such a facility is critical. The other advantage of permanent facilities is that the high j
costs of collecting HHW can be spread throughout all of the households in the county.
Consistent with the above recommendation has been the approval by the County Board
of Supervisors of the requirement for new solid waste transfer stations to provide.for
HHW collection. The intent is that there be one permanent collection facility in each of
the three regions of the County. In addition, the County land use permit for the Erickson
Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility requires them to establish a HHW
collection program. The Erickson facility is scheduled to begin operations by summer
1992. This facility would be the only collection facility at this time. It will also be
available to all residents in the County.
The Section III table raQks permanent facilities as "medium" in ease of implementation,
facility requirements and capital costs. This is be they involve higher initial costs
and some construction of new facilities. In fact, the high costs of collecting HHW are
the real barrier to implementation of any of the collection programs, particularly for the
permanent programs.
Institutional barriers were also seen as a problem in'the implementation permanent
facilities. The long time period required to obtain a California Department of Health
Services (DHS) permit (it currently takes about 18 months) delays facility start-up. This
situation may be eased by the permit-by-rule regulations which are currently being
written. Additionally, the public process required for siting and financing lengthens the
time it takes for a permanent facility to begin operations.
The following recommendations are of critical importance in creating permanent
facilities.
Action 1: The Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility, located on Parr
Boulevard in North Richmond, should be available to all residents within the county as
a drop-off center until permanent facilities are established in the central and eastern
regions of the County. The facility is currently awaiting its EPA permit. As stated
Page 16 Contra Costa County .
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
cif tt�e 9flca1 environmental mitigation measures, the Land 'Use Permit
regtdres,that Erickson provide.a HHW drop-off and storage area. The mechanism for
funding operations of the HHW portion of the facility have not been established.
However, since the HHW service is' part of the facility's provisions for mitigation
measures, and a condition of land use approval, the facility is expected to bear a
negotiated share of the costs for operating the HHW portion of the facility. Drop-off at
the Erickson facility would be free for residents. A long-term alternative may be to build
a facility for collecting HHW at the West County solid waste transfer station.
Action 2: The Acme Fill Transfer Facilityjust east of Martinez is currently required,
J Y
as part of the conditions of approval for the transfer station land use permit, to establish
a program to accept HHW from residents of central County. Consideration will be given
to other permanent facilities as well.
Action 3: The County should require as a condition of approval for the solid waste
transfer station in east County the establishment of a program for the acceptance of HHW
from residents of east County. This facility, to be jointly owned by Delta-Diablo
Sanitation District, Pittsburg, Antioch and Contra Costa County, will be located just east
of Antioch.
Action 16: The establishment and operation of permanent household hazardous waste
collection facilities should be financed and implemented in conjunction with cities within
the region (or the agencies acting on their behalf). The basis for program costs is
identified in Appendix C. The revenue sources for the various programs are identified
in the Implementation Schedule on page 27.. It should also be noted that although tipping
fees would be the primary revenue source, annual sewer charges are also an option.
2. Mobile Collection System
It is recommended that a mobile HHW collection system be implemented to insure
sufficient access to residents Action 4). It is further recommended that a mobile
collection system be planned and implemented countywide in order to made the program
cost effective.
The basic design of the HHW mobile collection program for Contra Costa County
involves sending a set of vehicles and trained staff out on weekends (both Saturdays and
Sundays) to a site in a community, and having residents then bring in their'HHW to that
site. The wastes would be collected, analyzed, packed into drums, and sent off for
1 recycling or disposal at the end of each day. The collection sites would include parking
lots of city halls, shopping malls and other appropriate locations.
1 The collections will be by appointment only to insure short waiting times and no long
lines, and to provide maximum ability to safely handle wastes. Approximately 200 cars
will be serviced in one collection day. The collections would occur approximately 28
to 33 weekends depending on costs of disposing of wastes at incineration, supplemental
fuel, and recycling facilities. A total-of 11,000 to 13,000 cars would be served.
rAwra Costa County Page 17
Zkasehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
All residents in the County will be served. The most important advantage of operating
g
this program in the county is that it does insure access to all residents in a way that
permanent HHW collection facilities simply cannot provide. A 1987 study done in
Massachusetts, which showed the importance of locating HHW collection points within
four or five miles of residents to insure high participation rates, supports the need for
mobile collection systems. This convenience and access is -the reason it is so .highly
ranked in Collection Effectiveness in the Section IV evaluation chart.
Mobile collection should be seen as being a completely integral part of a permanent
collection program. In addition to providing convenience and access, it also has high
visibility in communities, which facilitates public education .regarding HHW and its
proper disposal.
Although more and more counties are planning for mobile collection systems, there is
little previous operating experience to draw from (thus the low ranking for Operating
Experience in the Section III evaluation table). It will therefore take slightly more time
to design the system.
This mobile HHW collection program would run independently of the permanent HHW
collection facilities proposed at the various solid waste transfer stations and at Erickson
in West County: Each of the three regions of the county can continue to work towards
implementation of a permanent facility if they so choose.
The start-up equipment and vehicles for this system will be purchased with approximately
$140,000 from Lesher Communications, Inc. (fine monies levied by Cal/EPA). The
annual operating budget is set at $1,590,000 (see Appendix, C for further cost
information).
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has approved of this countywide mobile
collection program being implemented in spring 1993, at a cost of $1,590,000, to be
financed through the transfer station tipping fee. Their approval is contingent upon the
approval of a majority of cities representing a majority of the incorporated population.
3. Recycling: .
The recycling of HHW was one of the program alternatives evaluated. As outlined in
the Section III table, utilizing recycling as a component of HHW programs received high
rankings in almost all of the evaluation criteria. It should be noted that source reduction
is preferred over recycling as the most effective way of reducing the amount of HHW
reaching the landfills. There are no institutional barriers to implementing recycling
programs. Contra Costa County's source reduction efforts are described in the section
entitled, "Alternatives Education.,"
Contra Costa County's program for recycling HHW will include three components:
L Recycling of HHW collected;
ii. Promoting the reuse of HHW products prior to collection; and
Page 18 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household'Hazardous Waste Element
aii. Enc r in ,the collection of recyclables.
� g Y
Because it makes financial and environmental sense to recycle the HHW which are
collected, this will be done to the maximum extent possible. Used oil, latex paint, car
batteries and antifreeze will all be completely recycled. Used oil will be refined into
lubricating oil by Evergreen.Oil; antifreeze will be redistilled into antifreeze; latex paint
will be reused or reprocessed into latex paint; and car batteries will be separated, with .
the lead resmelted into new batteries, the acid neutralized and the plastic cases recycled
for other uses.
Household batteries may be added to this list in the near future. Both San Francisco and
1 San Mateo Counties currently recycle at least 70 percent of the HHW they collect. It is
recommended that recycling and reuse of HHW collected be given first priority in
managing those wastes Action 5).
The second component of our recycling program is the reuse of.HHW products prior to
collection. Such reuse is in keeping with the fact that source reduction is the first
priority in solid waste management. The need to reuse HHW products will be an
important part of our public education program. It will also be encouraged through
"product exchanges." These are events or on-going programs 4n which paints or other
1 HHW products are allowed to be taken by other consumers.rather than disposed of
through HHW collection programs. Because these are relatively new program concepts,
effective ways to ensure the safety of products exchanged in reuse programs must be
resolved before they are implemented. It is recommended that such product exchanges
be added, provided they are proven safe and effective.
The final component of recycling is to encourage the collection of recyclables. This will
involve the continuation of recyclables collection at the El Cerrito Recycling Center and
at the Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal sites. It will also involve,exploring the feasibility
of establishing a service station used oil collection network, assisting marina owners in
establishing used oil collection opportunities and advocating paint recycling opportunities
with the statewide Paint Task Force.
A service station used oil collection network would provide significant opportunities for
the public to dispose of their used motor oil. Other communities have experienced
varying degrees of success with these types of networks. However, if curbside used oil
collection programs continue to expand, we may not need to pursue the implementation
of such a network.
The collection of used oil can also be achieved by assisting marina owners and operatorsY
in providing for used oil collection at their facilities. While some marina operators have
led the way in collecting used oil, a number of others have not collected it because they
believe collection is either too costly, that there are too many regulations involved, or
that improper used oil disposal is not really a problem. Because marina operators have
expressed much interest in collecting used oil, we have already begun to work with them
to identify the barriers to such collection. It is recommended that we continue working
with them in order to facilitate their collection of used oil (Action 6).
vantra Casts County Page 19
17ausehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
o
A third effort to encourage recycling is the statewide Paint Task Force which is working
to resolve obstacles to. paint recycling by paint manufacturers. The Task Force
membership includes representatives of the major paint manufacturers in California, the
Association of Bay Area Governments, the California Integrated Waste Management
Board, NorCal Solid Waste Systems, and the California Department of Health Services.
They are exploring the possibility of recycling at retail outlets. The work of the
statewide Paint Task Force will be followed in order to advocate for paint recycling when
appropriate and necessary (Action 7).
4. Curbside Collection:
Curbside collection was ranked g
"high" in.almost all categories in the Section III table
with two exceptions: Collection Effectiveness and Institutional Barriers. Curbside
collection is inexpensive and highly effective in collecting used oil as the City of
Sunnyvale's experience shows. Last year they collected 88% of their used oil curbside
and only 12% at their recycling center. It is probably the most effective method of
collecting used oil, and possibly latex paint (curbside recycling of latex paint is just now
being explored). It may not, however, be possible to collect any other types of HHW
from the curbside due to safety and possibly liability issues--thus the lower ranking on
Collection Effectiveness.
There are two reasons for ranking curbside collection as medium in Institutional Barriers.
One is that concerns about liability may need to be overcome in deciding to add used oil
to the list of recyclables collected at the curbside. Other communities in the county and
in the Bay Area have successfully collected used oil without incident, and without
liability problems. As the information about these successfully experiences is conveyed,
these liability concerns should dissipate.
The other reason for a lower ranking for Institutional Barriers is the lengthy amount of
time often required before franchisors canchange contract conditions with haulers. The
County has direct control over collection programs in West Pittsburg"and Discovery Bay
(in Byron). In the other unincorporated areas of the county, the County will be able to
require curbside collection of used oil through MOUS with current franchisors.
In Contra Costa County, curbside collection of used.oil has thus far occurred in a couple
cities. It is recommended that as garbage collection companies implement curbside
recycling programs, they also add collection of used oil, and perhaps latex paint Action
8)
Although some communities in the state have discussed the possibility of collecting other
HHW products curbside, this is not something we are recommending; state regulation
and liability concerns become significant issues when discussing the collection of these
other products.
0
0
Page 20 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
B_ M'ON'ITORING PROGRAM
1. Load Checking:
One of the programs evaluated and selected is "load checking", which is a program for
checking for the presence of hazardous waste.among the loads of solid waste entering
solid waste transfer stations and landfills.
The Acme Fill Interim Transfer Station is required to check loads for HHW. In
addition, the Conditions of Approval for the Land Use Permit for the Marsh Canyon and
Keller Canyon Landfill Sites include the following load-checking provisions. t
i. Eligible Vehicles and Loads. The Landfill operator shall screen loads to limit to
the extent practicable the intake of ineligible waste. Prior to receiving waste, the
Landfill operator shall prepare in writing a-program for identifying eligible vehicles
and screening,loads at the Landfill entrance, random sampling and inspection for
ineligible wastes, and checking loads at the Landfill disposal area. The Load
Inspection program shall include inspection for hazardous wastes and procedures
for their handling and off-site disposal consistent with the Contra Costa County
1 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The program shall be subject to the approval
of the County Health Services and County Community Development Departments.
ii. Transfer Station Pre-screening. The Household Hazardous Waste Program shall
include pre-screening at transfer station(s) for identification and separation of
hazardous materials. In addition, Landfill entrance load screening procedures and
a manual check program during unloading operations shall be.included. Landfill
operators shall be instructed to investigate suspicious containers for hazardous
materials during bulldozing and other activities. Any hazardous materials found
shall be set aside for proper collection and disposal.
These requirements have already been built into county permits. Institutional Barriers
are therefore.not an issue here.
Because of the importance of monitoring for HHW to insure that they are not entering
landfills, this Plan calls for load checking programs to be required at all solid waste
transfer and landfills within the County -Action 9).
IC. EDUCATION PROGRAMS
1. General Public Education
Public education is essential to the successful implementation of any HHW collection or.
source reduction effort. It is recommended that an effective education campaign be
implemented regarding HHW, and its proper reduction, management and disposal Action
QJ: A familiarity with many household toxic products and a lack of understanding
regarding the HHW issue have previously stood as obstacles to HHW reduction and
collection. On the other hand, given the toxic nature of these products and the public's
' Ccava Costa County Page 21 _
1msehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
growing health concerns regarding toxic substances, education efforts should prove
successful in changing behavior.
As with H14W collectionro rams we would like to see implementation of education
P g P
programs be done on a multi jurisdictional basis, and preferably countywide, with cities
and the county choosing to work cooperatively to educate residents about HHW.
A strategic approach to educating the public would be undertaken, employing health
education theory and community organization approaches. The most appropriate health
education .theory is Diffusion Theory. This theory, built on the experiences with
promoting new agricultural products and practices in the United States, provides an
understanding about how new practices and products are adopted in communities. The
theory identifies channels through which information passes, "opinion leaders" who are
critical in spreading the word. about new ideas, barriers to information flows, and the
importance of reaching a certain "critical mass" of 10% of the population which is
adopting the new product or practice.
Community organizing approaches include involving many appropriate individuals and
organizations, and having them be an integral part of the planning and implementation
of a program, as well as using the media in effective ways to both educate and involve
the public. Our June 9, 1990 collection was an example of this type of approach, in that
we drew a large number of relevant people and organizations into the project's planning
and implementation, and used co-sponsorship by cities and newspapers to educate the
public about both the event itself and the larger issue of HHW. These same approaches '
are appropriate for most HHW education programs.
As with all educational endeavors, when they involve schools and school districts, the
schools can become institutional barriers. We are therefore working towards a
coordinated approach with schools so as not to burden their curricula unnecessarily. It
should also be noted that for both education programs selected, we believe there are no
hazards associated with them.
2. Alternatives Education:
The only two programs which received "High" rankings in Reduction Effectiveness are
Recycling and Alternative Education. Alternative Education involves educating the
public about less toxic and non-toxic alternatives to household toxic products. Given that
disposal costs are so high, this type of source reduction of HHW is ultimately the most
effective and inexpensive way to control the HHW problem. This is consistent with
Assembly Bill 939 (Statutes of 1990)which places source reduction at the top of the solid
waste management hierarchy.
This Plan calls for the implementation of a public education campaign aimed, at
encouraging the use of less hazardous or non-hazardous alternatives to HHW products
Action 11). This. campaign, to .be implemented July 1, 1991, and funded by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board's HHW fund (AB2448), is to promote
the concepts of integrated pest management, and the use of less toxic or non-toxic
alternatives to pesticides which could be used in'homes, gardens and yards.
Page 22 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
Age, such a caftipa gn would go beyond brochures, using the community organization
and heath. education theory approaches described above. With little experience from
' otber, communities in designing and implementing such a campaign, we do not know at
the present time how much of a reduction in HHW generation will be achieved.
However, given the high expense of collecting, recycling and disposing of HHW, it is
critical to promote source reduction through such a public education campaign.
r 3. Product Change Advocacy
There are a number of changes in product design which could be made: (1) Smaller
sized containers for consumers requiring smaller amounts of a household toxic product;
(2) Better labeling to indicate product toxicity, and proper product handling, storage and
disposal; (3) Modified product designs which encourage returnable products and
returnable containers;and (4) New products containing less toxic ingredients.
These changes would lead to less HHW being produced, as well as recycling and safer
g gP Y g
handling, storage and disposal of the products themselves. Advocacy for such product
changes would require staff education of local, state and federal 'legislators, private
industry and the public in general, as to the need for these changes. It is recommended
that staff provide such education/advocacy (Action 12).
1 4. Coun1y Product Substitution
Product substitution at the county government level would require the County .to
implement the principles of integrated pest management in controlling pests and in
maintaining parks and landscaped areas. It would also require them to substitute less
itoxic or non-toxic alternatives to traditional cleaning products and cleaning methods.
It is important to recognize that Contra Costa County's own efforts to reduce use of
household toxic products is critical for two reasons: (1),It reduces generation of HHW;-
and (2) It sets an example for residents that substitution of household toxic products can
be made easily and at less cost, without compromising results (and hopefully improving
results). Residents will be more likely to follow the model of the county if our windows
are just as clean, our parks just as green and well-kept, 'and our ants and cockroaches
sufficiently controlled.
It is recommended that staff advocate for use of less toxic or non-toxicP roducts within
Contra Costa County government, and the principles of integrated pest management be
adopted (Action 13).
D. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTES
A small quantity generator is a business that generates no more than 100 kg/month of
hazardous wastes. -Many of these businesses are small and do not dispose of the hazardous
wastes properly. Examples of such businesses are paint contractors, auto repair shops and
dry cleaners. AB2641, which became law January 1, 1991, allows entities collecting HHW
to also collect wastes from small quantity generators (SQG). Although it is beyond the
J
Contra,Costa County Page 23
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
legislative intent for this HHW Element to deal with SQG wastes we believe that ultimately
-
g Q y
they should be collected in HHW collection programs.
Collecting SQG wastes should only be considered in the medium-term period, after
permanent collection programs have begun. It may be that SQG wastes could only be
appropriately collected, at permanent facilities, (and not. mobile collection programs).
Consideration would also need to be given to whether these wastes would be collected for
free or for a fee.
At this point it would be recommended that upon establishment of permanent collection
facilities consideration be given to accepting SQG wastes, and with what limitations Action
14).
E. PROGRAM FUNDING
Financing of -HHW collection programs is very expensive. The analyzing, lab packing,
transportation and disposal continually escalate costs of collection. Bay Area Environmental,
a commercial hazardous waste transfer facility recently bought out.by California Advanced
Environmental Technology Corporation, had been charging.households a $50 minimum
charge--for even one Can of latex paint. At the June 9, 1990 B:O.P. Drop, a very minimal
amount of non-recyclable hazardous wastes were collected, costing over $11,000 in disposal
costs. Reducing the generation of HHW and recycling the HHW that are collected thus make
sense from not only an environmental point of view, but from a financial one as well.
We have one example locally to.draw on for cost information. Alameda County, which will
be owning and operating three permanent HHW collection sites, including an on-going
mobile collection system and an extensive public education program, has budgeted,.annual
operating expenses at $2,375,000 (this does not include one-time expenses for facilities
acquisition and environmental impact reports). Financing for the program will come through
County landfill tipping fees ($1.25/ton on 1.9 million tons), which will be passed onto
residents through their garbage bills. With 506,449 households in the county, they are
planning on garbage bill increases of.39 cents per month per household to cover the cost of
the HHW program.
This.HHW Element for unincorporated Contra Costa includes sixteen programs or activities,
most of which will require additional funding. The appropriate funding mechanism varies,
and is dependent upon the ability to jointly implement programs with other entities in the
county. Program costs and revenue sources are located in the Implementation Schedules.
HHW programs which are planned and implemented multi jurisdictionally. are more cost
effective and successful than if implemented by any one single jurisdiction. It is therefore
strongly recommended that the county work with other cities to jointly plan and implement
both HHW collection and education programs (Action 16). The; Technical Advisory
Committee of the AB939 Local Task'Force would be an appropriate forum for initiating
multi jurisdictional efforts.
Page 24 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
If it spears that: implementation of HHW programs cannot be implemented on a multi-
jurisdictional basis, the County will fulfill its responsibility for collecting HHW in the
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa through a mobile collection program. Our clear
preference, however, is to implement programs multi jurisdictionally.
1
SECTION V: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The chart on the following page outlines, for each recommendation, the tasks required to implement,
the responsible agency, the implementation timing, program costs and possible revenue sources. The
basis for the program costs identified on the,implementation schedule are detailed in Appendix C.
■
I .
I
2 mara Costa County Page 25
Amsehokl Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
� W
O C •C U T
O •j •j �, y U .. U 'p
40 40
W O O
44
,QOCS
.. _ �: C app G '=pp O G ❑ G to C - •yy
Z -° va Z Z Z W Z w
W y FF � W
a a,' t
y
>> N .M M M G N
acd
w e
� cd
F
F o
Z: 0 N
U � y h 0
C W: E w o
A
es U
o 0E
¢ aci ¢ a°i a
�o 0 �o
s
G U VE .14
o
= y Z OG G
N E
wE GW7 W H F c a
Q" >' y o A o
O O ¢ O O o v a
E,O "" U �
o c Z; W A a O W. A h •o
A ° G z E U H x F x x W x s c
0 x W • Q v� w ❑ W Q A U A
U1.
$ U 2 W U a, U U ¢ U x o
w
—V8 O 3
" ti
O W Z a
-� r �'
E a O a°i � A e
EZ ao E :� O cu y ,o � F
ac O c Ew o. E a E a
a p 3 M3 d 3 E •T Ea
¢ ° a x � �
0 8 W a a Z
w > c o Wc cd °
° C 7� U O cl cd
eu
y "w •C
Z Q y v o Z Q y o 0 ° 0 E o4
a 3 a 3 c E 3 E o f
. .yr ,� F .moi 1-. (], F .�+ Lr r y > N U •N
¢ w oG ¢ Co a ¢ a ¢ 00 Q a' cd A °
Page 26 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
E E
as
__,. .. ... _ - o o w .
co Cd 12-4
0 3 0 3 0 >'
w Op � w )�D '•°r •04 � � 7 N C
en
Ny y O O O
O V >, U >, U >. U UUS
r. O
OL .. As 0s � t ie is U U $ w N
oo y 5 ao 5 on S S
C ' . 0 Q o o Q o 8 0 o A A c o v .�
U Z Z Z � Z x x �
Z
W O _C
WF
i� Ey
• �a, O�Wi, °- �
en C11 cl) m
°,
1 C
.. E °
O E
E" C Z a w N o O �O
U W °
E
Aas
Q
Im
1 z wa � � � � o A Q • �
U U s
r-� a s a A A A A A A x
0 x... U o 0 o U u. U w x x x 3 x
i. x
� w
O E
3 E
_ Fad
x E
E `°
p $ E E E U Z ,� Ea
U ;o
ao c ° E CC Eto
w N g0 C, E 5 a x
Cd
x
e e: o o e: ie
N
C -°_' E
> ° E 3 E O > E O o
Ix Cd d Q .. Q W G
U
camzr•a coda Coin; Page 27
ahold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
cd Z N y
c; cqs
O o •o c y y a a
o
'20
w 0 C cd cd R! N N
C4 0 > > o 0 0 w w w w
?,`
N _
OC C O Cc cy
U U
d m e t t pp
V
O
i Q O U N D Q Q .O .O.
x Z .S ac x x x in z. z
a � ~
c c E
H sra Oa a rn a a, > ,
V)
L o
d
0
O O
F �
c c
E e e e E E E
_
�O. N C1 z C
E
A
z z s
� c
O F x
Q A
w V h W p U A A L1
at a x x x x m a U U
E
OO a J N G o E z c a w t
G V v o a� yC C. A
o
o00 Vca
,
04 Z e se $ o Q c w c " a>i
0. y
o a F v c > > 3 0
yoO p 0.a� 0.C
E C
Z v z ° z 'E g c z Q Q N E
O E -- O o o O w o o O E
ILLLL LI
U N N V C 'gid O U 7 N 'p V •y �• N y
U
Page 28
g Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
1
N N N N
o g 91. o 0 0 0 0
to e to
IV od cd c* cl CIS
eCw
° eo a eo c° y y y FF F F
Oft tL LL f%
"0 "0 V e c e c
G� O v2 w w w w w v? C7 C7 C7 C7
C� ~
Q� 3 3 3 3
a � � a• � � � � x x x x ..
U U $ U U U U U m m m m
1 O A A c C A A A A vi vi
C.4 x x x x x U U U Uto) 611)
Z
W �
to to c
V W oqso on ori
F�
N N M M 'T M N N N -N N N M v1 W C: O, m a, O` ON a, a, o O\ rn ON
U a rn 0\ a o o+ O o 0 0 0 0l a a` a`
_rte,
C^ VO�I
cl
1 a
r
p o
SEI N N N N N H VJ N H to �•
�� C C C C C C C C G C a. �•+ - �•° 0
O O O. O O O O O -O O
F E ¢ E E E E E ¢ E E E E > a,
A Z �O N Z M N M C
�V d W
N w °
� Q
z o o
N
ax Z Q A U
O U UW U x
pp A A A A A A z A A A A A O A A A D
US v) v) &n cn r) p v) v) vn v)' v) v)x x x x x x x x x x , x x x x x
Zrw s x o
3
O _ w
_ w y U 3
. •V y y .X •D to A
s s F a o
aE
04 04 a
e c cyp e a
a = CzC a cl y U pl d
Fes+ W as ow
e
F � c .�
E .0 S a E C .e E E ..
I o cl m a E ^' �° 3 es
Z a " w s Z y �+ o °" a a x E
0.
E c 'a v c m = > °o U
•� O X X O O A
d A Q a D O 3 Q A ¢ A F. U 3 x w wU.
U
CmW
a Costa County Page 29
Am5ehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
E E
O y , CO:a c p
a c a c
t—
c c c
O w12 w' o o c r
U U U
Z (�► U U U c c
O
Z Z Z
O O
h+y y
cts
H � y
z � r
cr
N E
O N O O O
d
Uy
A Z
� � w a
x
W Ems., y w E
O Z a E y E d c a
Q Q - 64 L 0 N
x a Q z E
E
U
cc
a y a g z1-4
102
99
14
kn
Z 0 Z s Z
E
y o
v o b ° o_ U
Q
V N [^ •L: N •C ° y
U Q Q U
3 3 4
U
Zi
r
Page 30 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
t
SECTION VI: MONITORING & EVALUATION
The purpose of monitoring and evaluation of the HHW program is to determine whether the
programs selected are meeting the goals and objectives set forth earlier in this element. The HHW
programs would be flexible to changes identified in the evaluation as necessary to improve the
effectiveness of the program.
The HHW programs will be closely monitored through the following (Actions 11 and 15):
1. Load Checking Program. The above-described load checking program will monitor loads
of solid waste entering transfer stations and solid waste landfills, and will be our primary
source of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of diverting HHW from the landfills.
Implementation of this program is described in the Section V table. The frequency of
detecting HHW and the.quantity of HHW found through load checking should decrease and
eventually be eliminated.
Criteria for effectiveness: The frequency and quantity of HHW is reduced or eliminated.
1 2. Emergency Response Spills The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Division tracks
all hazardous materials incidents reported to them. In November 1990, a Valley Waste
Management garbage collection truck caught fire. The cause was the interaction of a
combination of pool chemicals (dry pool chlorine and hydrochloric pool acid) and latex paint.
With effective HHW programs, these incidents should no longer occur.
rCriteria for effectiveness: Spills which are attributed to the improper disposal of HHW are
reduced or eliminated.
' 3. Future Waste Characterization Studies. The regulations promulgated by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board require that subsequent waste generation studies be
1 prepared. HHW will be an element of these studies and will be used to monitor the
effectiveness of the HHW programs.
-Criteria for effectiveness: A reduction in the percentage of solid waste which is classified
as hazardous as determined by the subsequent waste characterization studies.
4. Record-keeping System in HHW Collection Programs. Each collection program will be
required to keep of records documenting waste types and amounts according to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board's Form 303. The number of participants and their
residency will also be tracked. Participation rates in other programs have historically
hovered around one to two percent. As households clear out accumulated HHW and as
consumers use fewer and less toxic household products, participation rates should naturally
decrease.
Criteria for effectiveness: Participation in the collection program will range from one to five
percent of the households in the service area. Participation rates should increase annually
during the next five years.
Contra Chita Cozns'y Page 31
R ma*old Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
0
In the event that permanent HHW collection facilities are not established in any (or all) of
the three regions of the county, HHW would be collected through the mobile HHW collection
program, with the wastes being brought to either the west or central county HHW facilities.
5. Knowledge. Attitude and Behavior Surveys. Surveys measure changes in the public's
understanding of the issue of HHW, and in their purchasing and use practices. Surveys
determine whether alternatives are being adopted, leading to a consequential reduction in the
generation of HHW. .Options for evaluating include:
L an*on-going anon-goingsurvey of those participating in collection programs;
ii. surveys of the general public;
iii. measuring attitude and behavior changes through.the use of focus groups. These groups
are made up of about six to twelve people, and are facilitated in such a way as to obtain
more in-depth information regarding HHW attitudes and practices; and
iv. a newspaper audit in which the local newspapers are reviewed for the number of column
inches devoted to HHW, and then analyzed as to their content.
This Monitoring and Evaluation Program will use option #i and one or more of the above
options.
Criteria for effectiveness: Findings from these evaluation methods should include: ,
i. an increased understanding of the toxicity of household products, the proper ways to
manage, store and dispose of them; and possible.alternatives;
ii. an increased use of collection programs; and
iii. an increased use of alternatives to toxic household products. ,
Page 32 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
e
'APPENDIX A -- CRITERIA DEFINITIONS
1. Reduction Effectiveness. The ability of the program to "source reduce." This means the
ability of the program to change the behavior of consumers to use less toxic or non-toxic HHW
products.
Low: Limited or no ability to change consumer behavior
Medium: Moderate ability to change consumer behavior
High: Substantial ability to change consumer behavior
2. Collection Effectiveness. The alternative's effectiveness in reducing amount of HHW
entering landfills or other improper channels of disposal (sewers, storm drains, soil).
Low: Less than 2% of existing HHW is collected*
Medium: 2% to 3% of existing HHW is collected
High: Greater than 3% of existing HHW is collected
*"Existing HHW" refers to 1,400 tons of HHW (50 pounds per household in the 57,311
unincorporated households); according to Dana Duxbury & Associates, -116
pounds/participant is collected in HHW events (11). 1% (an average participation rate) of
.57,311 households, each bringing in 116 pounds, would yield 66,500 pounds. This is about
1 2.5% of the 1,400 tons.
3. Environmental Impacts: The degree of hazard posed by implementing the program (worker
hazards, hazards created for workers and surrounding communities, leachate, noise, etc.).
Low: The option has environmental impacts or hazards that are not completely
' understood, or has a history of environmental violations.
Medium: The impacts or hazards are known and controllable; some nuisance effects are
evident.
High: Few or no hazards or nuisances exist. Hazards can be adequately,contained.
4. Adaptability to Change: The ability of the program to adapt to changing economic, technical
' or social conditions (including consumer habits).
Low: Little ability to adapt.
Medium: Some ability to adapt with significant program alteration.
High: Great ability to adapt.
1 5. Changes in Waste Type Generation: The extent to which the program shifts HHW generation
to another type of waste.
' Low: This alternative would cause an increased generation of a less desirable
material going to the landfill.
Medium: Little or no shift would be created.
High: There would be an increase in a more desirable, perhaps recyclable, material.
Ca ntra Cinin Coumy Page A-1
1ka mehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
6. Ease of Implementation: The time required to implement program.
Low; Greater than three years.
Medium: One to three years.
High: Less than one year.
7. Facility Requirements: The need to expand or build new facilities to implement the program..
Low: Development of major new or expanded facilities or programs—
Medium: Some expansion of program or facilities.
High: No significant expansion of existing facilities.
8. Consistency with Local Policies: The consistency with local policies and regulations (fire,
health and planning).
Low: Major changes to existing codes and ordinances would need to be adopted
prior to program implementation.
Medium: Minor changes needed.
High: No changes needed.
o ,9. Institutional Barriers: Implementation may be impacted by existing institutional
infrastructures such as waste stream ownership agreements and long term franchise contracts.
Low: Existing barriers; jurisdiction has no control. ,
Medium: Some existing barriers; jurisdiction has limited control.
High: No existing barriers;jurisdiction has complete control. ,
10. Capital Costs: The initial costs for items such as equipment, facility and land purchase.
Low; Greater than $1 million '
Medium: Between $100,000 and $1 million
High: Less than $100,000. ,
11. Long-term Cost Effectiveness: Long-term costs will be ranked between low, medium and
high.categories on a relative basis. The reason for this is that our experience with collecting_HHW
is so little that any distinction between categories with specific cost figures would be based on
conjecture.
12. End-use Markets: Availability and necessity of markets for the collected wastes.
Low: Markets are currently nonexistent or unstable.
Medium: Potential for short-term development of markets. markets.exist but are
subject to moderate fluctuations. ,
High: Existing.markets are available and relatively stable.
Page A-2 _ Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
>I . Qating Experience- The extent to which the program has been successfully implemented
and pro-ven,effective in other communities. It also considers the extent to which the alternative is
undergoing rapid technological change.
'
Low: No or little operating experience exists.
Medium: Some operating experience exists.
Nigh: Much operating experience exists.
i
Cma Costa County Page A-3
Himsehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
APPENDIX B -- REFERENCES D
1. California Integrated Waste Management Board, "California Cleaning';" 1988, p.1. a
2. Oral communication from Al Storm, Toxic Substances Control Division, California
Department of Health Services (with Catherine Kutsuris, Contra Costa Community Development
Department), 1989.
3. Larson, Suzanne, Emy Meiorin, Diana Tesh, Edward Wyatt, The San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, CA,
January 1989, p.II-13.
4. Denit, Jeffrey, "Keynote Speech," 1989 Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on
Household Hazardous Waste Management, November 6-8, 1989, Orlando, Florida, Andover, MA:
Duxbury & Associates, p.4.
5. "Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Interim Draft," Contra Costa
County Community Development Department, April 1989, p.vi, vii. ,
6. Ibid., p.6-9 & 6-10.
7. "Contra Costa County Household Hazardous Waste Program Work Plan for. Phase I '
Implementation, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, January 5, 1990.
8. Tuthill, Robert, Edward Stanek, Cleve Willis & Gary Moore, "Degree of Public Support for '
Household Hazardous Waste Control Alternatives," American Journal of Public Health, March 1987,
Volume 77, No. 3, p.305. ,
9. "Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan," W. cit., p.12-3.
10. Shahid, Rafat, "Proposal for a County-Operated Household/Mini-generator Hazardous Waste '
Collection Program," Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, June 14, 1990.,
11. Dana Duxbury & Associates, based on annual survey of U.S. HHW collection program
statistics.
Page A-4, Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
APPENDIX C --
' BASIS FOR COSTS USED IN HHW ELEMENT
FOR UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1. West County Permanent Collection Facility at Erickson.
a. Number households (hh): 31% of 57,311 households (single family) in unincorporated
areas live in west county (including Crockett and Rodeo): 17,766.
' b. Assumptions:
• 3% participation rate
• $90/hh for wastes collected (taken from Santa Clara County study on designing and
financing HHW collection program: "Countywide HHW Collection Program"
submitted to the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee by Pam Hodgins,
' 9/28/90).
c. Calculations: 17,766 hh x 3% x $90/hh = $47,968
2. Central County Permanent Collection Facility
1 a. Number hh: 36% of 57,311 hh live in unincorporated central county: 20,632.
b. Assumptions:
' • Assumes permanent facility is jointly financed by all entities in Central County.
• 3% participation rate
' • $90/hh for wastes collected
c. Calculations: 20,632 hh x 3% x $90/hh = $55.706
' 3. East County Permanent Collection Facility
a. Number of hh 33% of 57,311 hh live in unincorporated east county: 18,913.
b. Assumptions:
'. • Assumes permanent facility is jointly financed by all entities in East County.
•
3% participation rate
• $90/household for wastes collected
c. Calculations: 18,913 hh x 3% x $90/household = $51.065
1
Contra Costa County Page A-5
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
4. Mobile Collection System
a. The countywide mobile collection system, designed to serve all residents in the county,
has a total operating budget of$1,590,000. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the budget is
earmarked for site management, transportation, recycling and disposal of hazardous
wastes.. The budget also includes $75,000 for source reduction public education, leaving
$1,515,000 for the collection part of the program. The budget is based on approximately
12,000 vehicles being served, representing approximately 4% of the householders in the
county:
b. Twenty percent (20%) of the households are in the unincorporated areas of the county.
c. Twenty percent (20%) of $1,515,000 is $303,000.
Page A-6 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element '
b
J
APPENDIX D -- SITES FOR JUNE 9, 1990 B..O.P DROP
1. Richmond: 3260 Blume ,Road, at Hilltop Mall
' 2. Pacheco: Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal
441 N. Buchanan Circle
3. Martinez: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
5019 Imhoff Place
' 4. Antioch: City Corporation Yard, 4th and N Streets
5. Brentwood: .Liberty Union High School,
r Dainty and Second Streets
6. Walnut Creek: Dow Chemical, 2700 Mitchell Drive
7. San Ramon: Old Allstate Insurance building parking lot,
Crow Canyon and Bollinger Canyon Roads
1
r
Co om Costa County Page A-7
' Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
t
t
t
1
� '
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
f
1 coutra
costa
........... dOUS
arzareboloust
��.enlEle
-vv aSte
t
171A co1JJi�
............
.......... ............... ...............
may 1.993
.i
COUItl(
osta
colitra
rdous �
Ijaza
lid
llousello
t
eulElem
.
a
' jos
7'A Co
May
193
t
t
ti
ti
t
s
1
1
1
CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
May 1993
Prepared By:
Contra Costa County Contra Costa County
.Health Services Department Community Development
Environmental Health Division 651 Pine Street
4333 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553
Martinez, CA 94553 (510) 646-4194
(510) 646-2286 FAX (510) 646-1309
FAX (510) 2073
Printed on Recycled Paper
t
r
ti
t
s
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. SECTION II: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 11
5. SECTION III: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES 12
6. SECTION IV: SELECTED PROGRAMS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. SECTION V: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. SECTION VI-.- MONITORING &,EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CRITERIA DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. A-1
APPENDIX B REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
OAPPENDIX C BASIS FOR COSTS USED IN H14W ELEMENT
FOR UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . . . . . . . . .. A-5
APPENDIX D SITES FOR JUNE 9, 1990 B.O.P DROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
i
1
1
•
1
1
1
INTRODUCTION
The California Integrated Waste Management Board has defined household hazardous waste (HHW)
as "any material discarded from homes which may threaten human health or the environment when
disposed of incorrectly." Household products which are categorized as household hazardous waste
when no longer considered useful are furniture polishes, cleansers, batteries, paints, thinners, auto
products, hobby and art supplies, pool chemicals and pesticides.
California Assembly Bill 939, enacted in January of 1990, directed counties and cities to reduce the
amount of solid waste entering landfills by 25% in 1995 and by 50% in the year 2000. This law also
required counties and cities to prepare and implement a household hazardous waste management
program as part of their Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Assembly Bill 2707, enacted in
January of 1991, places more emphasis on the importance of an effective household hazardous waste
program by requiring counties and cities to prepare household hazardous waste elements which will
be included in countywide integrated waste management plans.
Although HHW comprises a relatively small proportion of the wastes entering our county landfills,
they present a risk to both public health and the environment. HHW which are disposed of in
landfills may cause toxic leachate which seeps down to-the groundwater below, thus contaminating
potential drinking waters. .HHW which are disposed by other illegal methods, such as depositing in
storm drains, sewers or directly on soil contaminate.the environment. Many storm drains are not
connected to a sanitary treatment system. In these cases, HHW is transferred directly to the San
Francisco Bay/Delta system.
Contra Costa County's household hazardous waste goals are to:
1. Reduce the amount and toxicity of household hazardous waste generated; and
2. Provide for the safe and effective management of household hazardous waste by
providing residents of the unincorporated areas with opportunities for the proper
disposal of household hazardous waste.
Contra Costa County Page I
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
0.73% of the solid wastestream in the unincorporated areas of the county are household
hazardous wastes (HHW). This amounts to an annual 1,487 tons of HHW. There are
57,311 households (both single and multi-family) in the unincorporated areas.
The County Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Contra Costa County calls for permanent
HHW collection facilities in the three regions of the county (east, central and west); public
education; and legislative advocacy to encourage proper labeling, smaller container sizes and
recycling of products at retail outlets.
A major effort to collect the recyclable HHW was undertaken on June 9, 1990. 4,000
participants brought to seven sites in the county 2400 car batteries, 16,000 gallons of used
oil and 7,700 gallons of latex paint. No other on-going collection of the full range of HHW
currently exists.
2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Short-term objectives, to be implemented by 1995, include:
Collection
♦ Work with cities, transfer stations and commercial hazardous waste management facilities
to establish permanent, on-going and accessible HHW programs (Actions 1 through 4).
♦ Promote the reuse/recycling of HHW at point of sale, in waste exchanges or in collection
programs (Actions 5 through 8).
Education/Advocacy
♦ Educate the public regarding HHW issues and programs, promoting the responsible
handling and disposal of household hazardous materials (Action 10).
♦ Encourage the public to use less hazardous or non-hazardous alternatives to products
which create HHW (Action '11).
♦ Advocate for changes in product development, labeling, packaging and handling to
reduce the amount of household hazardous waste generated (Action 12).
Page 2 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous waste Element
♦ Advocate for use of less toxic or non-toxic products within Contra Costa County
government, and for adoption of the principles of integrated pest management (Action
13).
Medium-term obJectives, to be implemented by 2000, include:
♦. Continue implementing permanent collection programs,redesigning program as necessary
based on evaluation feedback.
♦ Continue educating the public about proper handling, storage and disposal of HHW, and
about alternatives to HHW products, redesigning program as necessary based on
evaluation feedback.
♦ Consider collecting small quantity generator wastes in permanent H14W collection
programs (Action 14).
3. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following actions have been chosen to implement the above objectives:
Action 1:
The Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility is required to establish a program
to accept HHW from residents in the unincorporated area of west County. The Facility's
program should be available to residents of the unincorporated areas of central and east
county until permanent facilities are established in those two regions.
Action 2:
The Acme Fill Transfer Facility is currently required, as part of the conditions of approval
for the transfer station land use permit, to establish a program to accept HHW from residents
of the unincorporated area of central County. The program should also be available to
residents of the unincorporated area of east County until a permanent facility for household
hazardous waste is established in that region.
Action 3:
The County should require as a condition of approval for a solid waste transfer station in east
County the establishment of a program for the acceptance of HHW from residents of the
unincorporated area of east County. The alternative collection program for east County
residents would be to require Acme Fill Transfer Facility in Martinez to accept HHW from
those residents.
Contra Costa County Page 3
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
Action 4:
A mobile HHW collection system should be implemented countywide or regionally. This
could be done before or after the establishment of permanent HHW collection facilities. ,This
recommendation is. necessary to provide sufficient access for all County residents.
Action 5:
Wastes collected in HHW collection programs should be recycled to, the maximum extent
feasible. Product exchanges should be added if they can be proven safe and effective.
Action 6:
The County should assist and encourage marina operators to provide for used oil collection
at their facilities.
Action 7:
The County should promote the recycling of paint by ensuring that paint collected at
permanent facilities is recycled to the extent feasible. The activities of the statewide Paint
Task Force should be followed, advocating paint recycling when appropriate and necessary.
Action 8:
Used motor oil, and perhaps latex paint, should be collected curbside in unincorporated areas
Which are served by curbside collection of other recyclables.
Action 9:
Load checking programs should be required at all solid waste transfer and disposal facilities
located within the unincorporated area of the County to insure that HHW are not entering the
landfills.
Action 10:
An. effective public education campaign should be. implemented which would educate
residents. about the proper handling, storage and disposal of HHW. The County supports
countywide implementation of public education campaigns. .
Action 11:
A public education campaign should be implemented to encourage the use of less hazardous
or non-hazardous household products.
Page 4 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
Action 12_
Staff should work with the State and Federal governments and the private sector to advocate
for changes in product design, labeling, packaging and handling in order to reduce the
amount of HHW generated.
Action 13:
Purchasing less toxic or non-toxic products and adopting. principles of integrated pest
management should be advocated. for within the departmental operations of Contra Costa
County government.
Action 14:
Upon establishment of permanent HHW collection programs, consideration should be given
to accepting wastes from small quantity generators (businesses).
Action 15:
HHW collection and education should be evaluated by monitoring records for load checking
and emergency response incidents; future waste characterization studies; records kept at
HHW collection programs; and consumer behavior surveys.
Action 16:
HHW collection and education programs should be implemented and financed multi-
jurisdictionally to achieve the greatest cost savings.
+ 4. IMPLEMENTATION .
Seethe "Household Hazardous Waste Implementation" schedule for projected implementation
dates, program costs and revenue sources for the above actions.
5. MONITORING & EVALUATION
Program effectiveness will be evaluated using the following methods:
• Load checking program
• Monitoring of emergency response incidents
• Future waste characterization studies
• Records kept in HHW collection programs
• Consumer behavior surveys
czlQtlrmc cosw rounty Page 5
Ramehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
SECTION I: EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION & DISPOSAL:
Household hazardous wastes are generated by residents, and are then either (1) stored in their
homes (usually garages); (2) landfilled by residents putting HHW` in their garbage cans; or
(3) disposed of in the sewer system (sinks and toilets), down the stormdrains or in soil.
1. HHW Generated
The California Department of Health Services estimates that households generate 7.514
pounds of HHW annually in California. The Association of Bay Area Governments has
further refined that figure to an annual,6.63 pounds per household for the San Francisco
Bay Area. In fact, it has been estimated that.at any one time there are between 50 and
100 pounds of HHW in an individual household (50 pounds is approximately equivalent
to six one-gallon cans of paint). This translates to between 1400 and 2800 tons of HHW
in the unincorporated area, and between 7,000 and 21,000 tons in the county as a whole..
Waste characterization studies currently being done throughout the state are, for the first
time, providing documentation on the amount.of HHW actually being disposed of in
landfills.. We believe that with this new disposal information, the average HHW
generation figures will be revised upwards.
4
2. HHW Landfilled �.
According to the 1990 Waste Generation Study conducted at the landfills by R.W. Beck
& Associates for the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, 0.73% of the solid
waste stream is HHW. This totals 1,487 tons for the unincorporated areas of the county --
in 1990 (there are 57,311 single and multi-family households in the unincorporated
areas). None of the HHW were assumed to be diverted from the landfill and recycled
or reused. Countywide, at the 0.73% rate, HHW landfilled would amount to almost
8,000 tons annually.
The sampling completed for the waste generation study reveals that HHW received at the
landfills would break down into the following categories:
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ANNUAL QUANTITY % HHW
HW (TONS)
Household Cleaners 695 47%
Latex Paint 303 20%
Aerosols 198 13%
Oil Based Paint 155 10%
Pesticides 68 5%
Solvents 68 5%
HHW received at landfills 1,487 tons 100%
Page 6 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
These: percentag!es and' overall mounts vary from day to day and month to month
beca:�usey wnlike other solid wastes, people dispose of HHW in an inconsistent manner.
They vary because people tend to throw away more HHW during annual spring
clearings, and when clearing out homes before a residential move or after the death of
relatives or friends. I4HW representing many years of accumulation are then disposed
of in large amounts. ,
3. HHW Not Landfilled •
Many people have garages full of HHW, including paints, solvents, pool chemicals,
pesticides, used motor oil and other products. Other HHW are disposed of in various
ways. Some are poured on the soil or down storm drains, ending up in creeks and
channels heading for the San Francisco Bay/Delta. Others are poured in sinks and
toilets, entering the sewer system.
.Although it is not possible to fully document what residents are doing with their HHW
which are not being thrown into the garbage, we believe we can make estimates.
According to surveys done over about one year at monthly HHW collection events in San
Mateo County (Rick Miller, Environmental Health Department), about 45% of residents
previously kept HHW in their garages; 45% threw them in the garbage; and 10%
disposed of them down sewers, stormdrains and in the ground. If this were the case in
the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, we would find another 1800 tons
stored in homes and garages, and 400 tons in sewers, stormdrains and soil.
B. POLICY BACKGROUND IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Contra Costa County began addressing household hazardous waste (HHW) in 1983 with the
formation of the County Hazardous Waste Task Force. The Task Force's recommendations,
which were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1986, included two which address HHW:
1. "Establish a residential and small generator hazardous waste disposal program designed
to help small generators dispose of hazardous wastes legally and safely."
2. "Any successful household hazardous waste program needs a strong educational effort.
This might be.funded by a collection program involving the collection companies and
sanitary districts, in cooperation with a designated lead agency, to provide a phone
"hotline", staff time, billing mechanisms and consumer education."
The Hazardous Materials Commission, established in 1986, was responsible for developing
the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Contra Costa County (1989). This
document, which laid out policies for the management of hazardous waste in the county,
included a section addressing the management of HHW. The specific policy
recommendations of the Plan are:
Cvwro Costa County Page 7
Roamhold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
1. Household Hazardous Waste Reduction
This county will work with the State, the Federal government and the private sector to
encourage changes in product development, labeling, packaging and handling to reduce
the amount of household hazardous waste generated. Ideas such as modifications in
packaging, substitution of non-hazardous products,and returnable products and returnable
containers could significantly reduce the amount of household hazardous waste generated.
These types of programs are best developed at a State or Federal level rather than at the
local level.
2. Public Awareness/Education.
Residentsinthe Countyneed to know how to properly handle and dispose of household
hazardous waste. Public education is also necessary to promote the use of non-hazardous
alternatives to products which create household hazardous waste. A public education ,
program is the most efficient method to raise public awareness." Household hazardous
waste public education should be part of the overall hazardous waste public education
program described in Chapter 9.
3. Household Hazardous Waste Disposal.
Points of disposal accessible to all residents of the Count should be provided. These
P Y
facilities should be open on a regular basis (frequency) and on a regular schedule
(consistent hours/days of operation) to provide the public with a safe ,and convenient
place to dispose of household hazardous waste. These facilities must meet the siting -"
criteria for hazardous waste transfer stations specified in this Plan. These locations could
be solid waste transfer stations or commercial hazardous waste management facilities.
Other locations may be appropriate, but including household hazardous waste disposal
with transfer stations or hazardous waste facilities will allow easier implementation.
4. Funding Household Hazardous Waste Programs.
The County Health Services Department shall coordinate activities of garbage franchisers
(cities and sanitary districts) and others to establish a funding mechanism for household
hazardous waste collection programs. Funding for household hazardous waste programs
should be on a broad base. Household hazardous waste disposal programs are very
expensive. Funding of both.the actual disposal and public education components of the
program should be evaluated in terms of other hazardous waste related programs to
determine an appropriate priority for the household hazardous waste program. It is
important to remember that household hazardous waste is a small portion of the total
waste stream, but almost always has a higher potential exposure risk to the public.
In January of 1989 the County's Hazardous Materials Commission and Solid Waste
Commission jointly established the Household Hazardous Waste Committee. Its
members developed the HHW Work Plan to promote HHW collection in two phases.
The first phase focused on the collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries which
are recyclable. The second phase was to promote the"collection of the remaining, non-
recyclable wastes through the establishment of permanent HHW collection programs.
Page 8 Contra Costa.County.
May.1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
"Two,wairkshops wereMild in the.fall'of 1989 for cities,.garbage collection companies,
rnarhm, and o4her interested individuals and organizations. The first workshop unveiled
the Committee's Work Plan, describing the Plan and how the various entities could begin
its implementation. The second workshop focused on methods of collecting used oil.
A follow-up meeting with marinas, the Bay Conservation & Development Commission
and Evergreen Oil (a used oil reprocessor) focused specifically on used oil collection at .
marinas.
Finally, the Committee implemented.a collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries
in June of 1990 (described in the next subsection). This involved the cooperation of the
county, all cities and garbage collection companies in the county, as well as private
industry, and generated a great deal of interest through the media.
C. CURRENT HHW PROGRAMS
Previously implemented HHW programs include the following:
♦ Collection of the full range of HHW by County on April 13, 1985.
♦ Collection of used oil, latex paint and car batteries by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal.
♦ Collection of used oil, latex.paint and car batteries by County on June 9, 1990 (B.O.P.
Drop).
♦ Production of "Too Close for Comfort" videotape (1988).
♦ Design and printing of "It's Your Right to Know About Toxics in the Home" brochure
g P g g
in 1988.
1. CQunjy HHW Collection'Da 1985 : On April 13 1985 the full range of HHW was
collected at two sites, located .in Richmond and Pacheco. Only. 308 households
iparticipated in this collection event, with approximately 15 households coming from the
unincorporated area. The waste type and quantity records kept from this collection event
were not sufficient to accurately document the impact of the collection on the
wastestream.
- 2. Pl asant Hill Bayshore Disposal Program: Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (685-4716)
began collecting used oil, latex paint and car batteries in 1989 in Pacheco and Antioch.
A site was opened in Rodeo in December, 1991. The service is free for their regular
garbage collection customers. For non-customers the charge is $1/gallon for used oil and
latex paint; $2.for car batteries; and $3/gallon for antifreeze.
Of the 1879 households bringing these three wastes to the Pacheco site in the first eleven
months of 1990, approximately 470 households were from the unincorporated area,
bringing in approximately the following amounts of HHW:
Cmwra Cos2a Courdy. Page 9
Ramwhold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
PLEASANT HILL BAYSHORE PROGRAM
1990 HHW COLLECTION; PACHECO SITE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS GALLONS TONS** .
WASTE*
Used Oil 1,500 5.6
Latex Paint . 505 3.3
Car Batteries*** 94 1.6
* Does not include wastes collected at the B.O.P. Drop.
** . Conversion rates used: I gallon used oil= 7.5 lbs, I gallon paint=
11.8 lbs., and I battery= 35 lbs.
***
Car batteries expressed by numbers, not by gallon.
3. B.O.P. Drop: The B.O.P. Drop on'June 9, 1990 collected the three recyclable wastes
of used oil, latex paint and car batteries at seven sites in the county: Richmond,
Martinez, Pacheco, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Antioch and Brentwood.* Of the 4,000
households participating throughout the county, approximately 325 were from
unincorporated areas. The following table identifies the types and quantities of waste
collected.
* (See Appendix D for exact locations.)
1990 B.O.P. DROP PROGRAM
4,000 Households 325 Households
(Countywide) (Unincorporated)
Waste Gallons Tons Gallons Tons
Used Oil 16,000 60 1,268 5
Latex Paint 7,700 45 618 4
Car Batteries. 2,400 42 195 3
4." Educational Videotape: The "Too Close for Comfort" videotape was produced in 1988
by community.members, industry, the cities of Hercules and Pinole and Contra. Costa
County Health Services Department. The video, narrated by Diane Kalas of KCBS,
received a number of awards, including the 1988 Western Access Video Excellence
Award from the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers. The videotape was
distributed throughout the county to schools, libraries and many other interested groups.
5. Educational Brochure: The brochure entitled Its Your Right to Know about Toxics in
the Home" was developed in 1988 by county staff. In addition to explaining how to
safely handle and dispose of HHW, it also promotes the use of a number of alternatives
Page 10 Contra Costa County.
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
to traditional toxic products used in 'the home. This brochure has also been widely
disin-bated throughout the county.
6.. Other Programs and Facilities: In addition to these HHW programs, the County
Environmental Health staff respond to numerous phone calls from the public regarding
HHW handling and disposal. Bay Area Environmental in Richmond, recently acquired
by California Advanced Environmental Technology Corporation (AETC; 233-8001),had
been charging a minimum $50 fee for any HHW brought in by householders. AETC
currently accepts HHW one weekday per month, and charges'$12.50/gallon container of
liquid HHW (used oil, latex or oil-based paint, solvents, liquid pesticides, antifreeze,
etc.), and $9/pound for solid HHW (solid pesticides, contaminated soils, etc.).
The County has established a position within the Health Services Department entitled
"Risk Reduction Specialist." This position has coordinated HHW programs and issues,
including the B.O.P. Drop, the Safer Alternatives public education program, used oil
collection (including marinas); staffing the AB 939 Local Task Force, including the
writing of the HHW Element and the County Integrated Plan; and the design of the
' mobile HHW collection program.
Finally, used oil and batteries have been collected at the,El Cerrito Recycling Center
(215-4350) for years. Although it primarily serves city residents, any resident is allowed
to bring in their used.oil and batteries. As is true with many drop-off centers, records
of participation are not kept. We consequently do not know what the participation has
been by the residents of unincorporated areas.
The County Health Services Department is currently developing a public education
program called a "safer alternatives campaign, which will focus on reducing household
hazardous waste generation. The Department will be implementing this program in
mid-1991.
SECTION II: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Contra Costa County's household hazardous waste management goals are to:
1. Reduce the amount and toxicity of household hazardous waste generated; and
2. Provide for the safe and effective management of household hazardous waste by
providing residents of the unincorporated areas with opportunities for the safe disposal
of household hazardous waste.
The following Collection and Education Objectives are consistent with these two goals. Please note
that the implementation date is listed for each objective. The programs chosen for implementation
(refer.to Section IV) must be able to achieve these objectives.
Cowre Costa County Page 11
Romsehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
I. SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES (to be implemented by 1995)
A. COLLECTION OBJECTIVES:
♦ Work with cities, transfer stations and commercial hazardous waste 'management
facilities to establish permanent,on-going and accessible HHW programs(1992-1993; i
Actions 1 through 4).
♦ Promote the reuse/recycling of household hazardous wastes at point of sale, in waste
exchanges or collection programs (1992; Actions 5-8).
B. EDUCATION/ADVOCACY OBJECTIVES:
♦ Educate the public regarding household hazardous waste issues and programs, '
promoting the responsible handling and disposal of household hazardous materials
(1992; Action 10)
i or non-hazardous alternatives to products
♦ Encourage the public to use less hazardous s p odu
which create HHW (1992; Action 11)
♦ Advocate for changes in product development, labeling, packaging and handling to
reduce the amount household hazardous waste generated (On-going; Action 12).
♦ Advocate for use of less toxic or non-toxic products within Contra Costa County
government, and for adoption of the principles of integrated pest management (1993;
Action 13).
II. . MEDIUM-TERM OBJECTIVES (to be implemented by 2000)
♦ Continue implementing permanent collection programs,redesigning program as necessary
based on evaluation feedback (On-going).
♦ Continue educating the public about proper handling, storage and disposal of HHW, and
about alternatives to HHW products, redesigning program as necessary based on
evaluation feedback (On-going).
♦ Consider collecting small quantity generator wastes in permanent collection programs i
(1996; Action 14).
SECTION III: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
This section evaluates the various programs which could be used to achieve the household hazardous
waste goals and objectives. The programs required to be evaluated by the California Integrated
Page 12 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
"Wave Mianagem,en, Board 16cl,dde anent HHW collection facilities, mobile collection systems,
interiny collection, clays, recycling, curbside collection programs, load-checking programs, public
education promoting collection programs and promoting alternatives to HHW products. Each of
these programs has been evaluated according to the following criteria:
- Reduction Effectiveness: The program's effectiveness in reducing the quantity of HHW
generated by consumers.
- Collection Effectiveness: The program's effectiveness in collecting HHW.
- Environmental Impacts: The degree of hazard posed by implementing the program.
Impacts include hazards which could affect workers or surrounding communities, noise,
leachate etc.
- Adaptability to Change: The ability of the program to adapt to changing economic,
technical, or social conditions.
O - Changes in Waste Type Generation: The extent to which the program shifts household
hazardous waste generation to another waste type.
- Ease of Implementation: The time required to implement the program.
Facility Requirements: The need to expand or build new facilities to. implement the
program.
Consistency with Local. Policies: The consistency of the program with existing
ordinances, local policies and regulations.
Institutional Barriers: The impact of institutional barriers on the successful
implementation of the program. Institutional barriers include waste stream ownership,
long term franchise agreements.
- Capital costs: The initial costs for items such as equipment, facility and land purchase.
- Long-term Cost Effectiveness: The relative cost of the program when considered
throughout the planning period (year 2000).
- End-use Markets: The availability and necessity of markets for the collected wastes.
- Operating Experience: The extent to which the program has been successfully
implemented and proven effective elsewhere.
The summary of this evaluation is presented in the Section III Table. and criteria and ranking
definitions are identified in Appendix A. A more in-depth discussion of each of these programs and
their evaluation is presented in the next section.
rzwra Casta County Page 13
Ro achol'd Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
Q
W
c
eo
c
r
o
cn
F y AC
e
F U eo
Q �
{x c
C7
c. a
w ,
0
w -
r.+
C
a
0
•L _ T
N d y C O y C H d
U + E A U x
W W � S a S' � C,
0 o E a: c U c h S
v t
CSG U
00 O1 ..r N f1
i
Page 14 Contra-Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
._SECTION"IV: SELECTED PROGRAMS
The programs selected for collecting HHW and reducing the amount of HHW entering the landfills
are described in this Section, and are based on the previous evaluation which was summarized in the
Section III table.
It should be noted that although program alternatives presented here will be applicable only for the
unincorporated areas of the county, it is difficult to separate out programs we would implement for
the unincorporated areas from those which should be implemented throughout the entire county.
From both a financial and a program effort standpoint, it is much more efficient for multi-
jurisdictional program efforts to be undertaken in managing HHW.
A. COLLECTION PROGRAMS
This subsection describes the four collection programs that have been selected for the
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County: permanent facilities, a mobile collection
system, recycling and curbside collection. These programs should not be viewed separately;
rather, they should be seen as one, unified HHW management program.
It is important to keep in mind that the intention of the combined collection efforts is to
P P
insure that residents have sufficient options so that they will properly dispose of their HHW.
aRegardless of the type of HHW collection program, HHW disposal would be free to residents
(although they would ultimately pay for these programs through their garbage bills).
DCost research has shown that approximately 80% of the cost of collection comes from the
cost of analyzing, properly labpacking, transporting and recycling/disposing of the wastes
collected. Program and start-up costs for administering either permanent or mobile collection
programs cost about the same, 20% of the final collection cost. The significance of this is
that from a cost standpoint, it does not matter whether the program is designed as a
permanent facility, as a mobile collection system, or a combination of both. However,
because the intention of our HHW management effort is to collect as much of these wastes
as possible, other factors enter into our decision as to which program to implement, such as
the need to provide residents with sufficient access and with continual collection. Permanent
facilities basically provide residents with continual collection while mobile collection provides
them with access, as will be seen in the following sections. Mobile collection should be seen
as an integral part of the permanent program.
Finally, it should be generallynoted that HHW-collected would generally be disposed of in
Y
the following manner: Used oil would be recycled by used oil re-refiners; latex paint would
be reused or reprocessed for further external use; car batteries would be recycled; household
batteries would either be recycled or landfilled (depending on recycling technology and
market,demand); antifreeze would be recycled back into antifreeze; oil-based paints and
solvents would be used for supplemental fuel programs; aerosols would have internal
ingredients incinerated and the empty cans be landfilled; and other lab-packed wastes would
either.be landfilled or incinerated. Transportation would be provided by registered haulers.Camtr .
1
a Costa County Page 15
Rmsehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
t
New processing/recycling technologies and market demand will continue to effect the
recycling of HHW.
It would also be expected that for every 150 households, according to the experience of San
Mateo County's HHW collection program, the following amounts and types of wastes would
be received: about ten drums of solvents and oil-based' paints; nine lab packs; 3 drums of ,
aerosols; about 100 car batteries, 600 gallons of used oil, and 300 gallons of latex paint.
1. Permanent HHW Collection Facilities:
The Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan recommended the
establishment of three or four permanent HHW collection.facilities in the county as the
long-term solution for HHW. This is consistent with the Section III evaluation chart in'
that long-term effectiveness of collecting HHW is best served by having permanent
collection facilities. This would allow residents, on almost any given day, to dispose of
HHW. In instances where people must immediately clear out their homes, the presence
of such a facility is critical. The other advantage of permanent facilities is that the high 1
costs of collecting HHW can be spread throughout all of the households in the county.
Consistent with the above recommendation has been the approval by the County Board
r
of Supervisors of the requirement for new solid waste transfer stations to provide for
HHW collection. The intent is that there be one permanent collection facility in each of
the three regions of the County. In addition, the County land use permit for the Erickson r
Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility requires them to establish a, HHW
collection program. The Erickson facility is scheduled to begin operations by summer
1992. This facility would be the only collection facility at this time. Jt will also be t
available to all residents in the County.
The Section III table ranks permanent facilities as "medium" in ease of implementation,
facility requirements and capital costs. This is because they involve higher initial costs
and some construction of new facilities. In fact, the high costs of collecting HHW are
the real barrier to implementation of any of the collection programs, particularly for the
permanent programs.
Institutional barriers were also seen as a problem, in the implementation permanent
facilities. The long time period required to obtain a California Department of Health
Services (DHS) permit (it currently takes about 18 months) delays facility start-up. This
situation may be eased by the permit-by-rule regulations which are currently being
written. Additionally, the public process required for siting and financing lengthens the
time it takes for a permanent facility to begin operations.
The following recommendations are of critical importance in creating permanent
facilities. .
Action l: The Erickson Hazardous Waste Transfer/Treatment Facility, located on Parr
Boulevard in North Richmond, should be available to all residents within the county as
a drop-off center until permanent facilities are established in the central and eastern
regions of the County. The facility is currently awaiting its EPA permit. As stated
Page 16 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
a P 'ef the =1€roa engonmental mitigation measures, the Land Use Permit
requiiYes that Erickson provide a HHW drop-off and storage area. The mechanism for
funding operations of the HHW portion of the facility have not been, established.
established.
However, since the HHW service is part of the facility's provisions for mitigation
measures, and a condition of. land use approval, the facility is expected to bear a
negotiated share of the costs for operating the HHW portion of the facility. Drop-off at
the Erickson facility would be free for residents. A long-term alternative may be to build
a facility for collecting HHW at the West County solid waste transfer station.
Action 2: The Acme Fill Transfer Facility just east of Martinez is currently required,
as part of the conditions of approval for the transfer station land use permit, to establish
a program to accept HHW from residents of central County. Consideration will be given
to other permanent facilities as well.
Action 3: The County should require as a condition of approval for the solid waste
transfer station in east County the establishment of a program for the acceptance of HHW
from residents of east County. This facility, to be jointly owned by Delta-Diablo
Sanitation District, Pittsburg, Antioch and Contra Costa County,will be located just east
of Antioch.
Action 16: The establishment and operation of permanent household hazardous waste
collection facilities should be financed and implemented in conjunction with cities within
the region (or the agencies acting on their behalf). The basis for program costs is
identified in Appendix C. The revenue sources for the various programs are identified
in the Implementation Schedule on page 27. It should also be noted that although tipping
fees would be the primary revenue source, annual sewer charges are also an option.
2. Mobile Collection System
It is recommended that a mobile HHW collection system be implemented to insure
sufficient access to residents Action 4). It is further recommended that a mobile
collection system be planned and implemented countywide in order to made the program
cost effective.
The basic design of the HHW mobile collection program for Contra Costa County,
involves sending a set of vehicles and trained staff out on weekends (both Saturdays and
Sundays) to a site in a community, and having residents then bring in their HHW to that
site. The wastes would be collected, analyzed, packed into drums, and sent off for
1 recycling or disposal at the end of each day. The collection sites would include parking
lots of city halls, shopping malls and other appropriate locations.
The collections will be by appointment only to insure short waiting times and no long
lines,and to provide maximum ability to safely handle wastes. Approximately 200 cars
will be serviced in one collection day. The collections would occur approximately 28
to 33 weekends depending on costs of disposing of wastes at incineration, supplemental
fuel, and recycling facilities. A total of 11,000 to 13,000 cars would be served.
rt"mmun Cosza County Page 17
Hamehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993 .
All residents in the County will be served. The most important advantage of operating
this program in the county is that it does insure access to all residents,in a way that
permanent HHW collection facilities simply cannot provide. A 1987 study done in
J
Massachusetts, which showed the importance of locating HHW collection points within
four or five miles of residents to insure high participation rates, supports the need for
mobile collection systems. This convenience and access is the reason it is so highly
ranked in Collection Effectiveness in the Section-IV evaluation chart.
Mobile collection should be seen as being a completely integral part of a permanent
collection.program. In addition to providing convenience and access, it also has high .
visibility in communities, which facilitates public education regarding HHW and its
proper disposal.
Although more and more counties are planning for mobile collection systems, there is
little previous operating experience to draw from (thus the low.ranking for Operating
Experience in the Section III evaluation table). It will therefore take slightly more time
to design the system.
This mobile HHW collection program would run independently of the permanent HHW
collection facilities proposed at the various solid waste transfer stations and at Erickson
in West County. Each of the three.regions of the county can continue to work towards
implementation of a permanent facility if they so choose. '
The start-up equipment and vehicles for this system will be purchased with approximately
$140,000 from Lesher Communications, Inc. (fine monies levied by Cal/EPA). The
annual operating budget is set. at $1,590,000 (see Appendix C for further cost
information).
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has approved of this countywide mobile
collection program being implemented in spring 1993, at a cost of $1,590,000, to be
financed through the transfer station.tipping fee. Their approval is contingent upon the
approval of a majority of cities representing a majority of the incorporated population.
3. Recycling:
The recycling of HHW was one of the program alternatives evaluated. As outlined in
the Section III table, utilizing recycling as a component of HHW programs received high
rankings in almost all of the.evaluation criteria. It should be noted that source reduction
is preferred over recycling as the most effective way of reducing the amount of HHW
reaching .the landfills. There are no institutional barriers to implementing recycling
programs. Contra Costa County's source reduction efforts are described in the section
entitled, "Alternatives Education."
Contra Costa County's program for recycling HHW will include three components:
L Recycling of HHW collected;
ii. Promoting the reuse of HHW products prior to collection; and
Page 18 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
iii. Encouraging,the collection of recyclables.
Because it makes financial and environmental sense to recycle the HHW which are
collected, this will be done to the maximum extent possible. Used oil, latex paint, car
batteries and antifreeze will all be completely recycled. Used oil will be refined into
lubricating oil by Evergreen Oil; antifreeze will be redistilled into antifreeze;-latex paint
will be reused or reprocessed,into latex paint; and car batteries will be separated, with
the lead resmelted into new batteries, the acid neutralized and the plastic cases recycled
for other uses.
Household batteries may be added to this list in the near future. Both San Francisco and
San Mateo Counties currently recycle at least 70 percent of the HHW they collect. It is
recommended that recycling and reuse of HHW collected be given first priority in
managing those wastes Action 5).
The second component of our recycling proram is the reuse of HHW products pri.or to
collection. Such reuse is in keeping with the fact that source reduction is the first
priority in solid waste management. The need to reuse HHW products will be an
important part of our public education program. It will also be encouraged through
"product exchanges." These are events or on-going programs in which paints or other
HHW products are allowed to be taken by other consumers rather than disposed of
through HHW collection programs. Because these are relatively new program concepts,
effective ways to ensure the safety of products exchanged in reuse programs must be
' resolved before they are implemented. It is recommended that such product exchanges
be added, provided they are'proven safe and effective.
The finah component of recycling is to encourage the collection of recyclables. This will
involve the continuation of recyclables collection at the El Cerrito Recycling Center and
at the Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal sites. It will also involve exploring the feasibility
Iof establishing a service station used oil collection network, assisting marina owners in
establishing used oil collection opportunities and advocating paint recycling opportunities
with the statewide Paint Task Force.
A service station used oil collection network wouldrovide significant opportunities ortunities for
P g
the public to dispose of their used motor oil. Other communities have experienced
varying degrees of success with these types of networks. However, if curbside used oil
collection programs continue to expand, we may not need to pursue the implementation
of such a network.
The collection of used oil can also be achieved by assisting marina owners and operators
in providing for used oil collection at their facilities. While some marina operators have
led the way in collecting used oil, a number of others have not collected it because they
believe collection is either too costly, that there are too many regulations involved, or
that improper used oil disposal is not really a problem. Because marina operators have
expressed much interest in collecting used oil, we have already begun to work with them
to identify the barriers to such collection. It is recommended that we continue working
with them in order to facilitate their collection of used oil (Action 6).
Cawra Costa County Page 19
Musehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
r .
A third effort to encourage recycling is the statewide Paint.Task Force which is working
to resolve obstacles to paint recycling by paint manufacturers. The Task Force
membership includes representatives of the major paint manufacturers in California, the
Association of Bay Area Governments, the California Integrated Waste Management
Board, NorCal Solid Waste Systems, and the California.Department of Health Services.
They are exploring. the possibility of recycling at retail outlets. The work of the
statewide Paint Task Force will be followed in order to advocate for paint recycling when
appropriate and necessary Action 7). �.
4. Curbside Collection:
lection was ranked "high" in almost all Cate ories in the Section III table
Curbside col g g
with two exceptions: Collection Effectiveness and Institutional Barriers. Curbside
collection is inexpensive and highly effective in collecting used oil as the City of
Sunnyvale's experience shows. Last year they collected 88% of their used oil curbside
and only 12% at their recycling center. It is probably the most effective method of
collecting used oil, and possibly latex paint (curbside recycling of latex paint is just now
being explored). It may not, however, be possible to collect any other types of HHW .
from-the curbside due to safety and possibly, liability issues--thus the lower ranking on
Collection Effectiveness.
There are two reasons for ranking curbside collection as medium in Institutional Barriers.
One is that concerns about liability may need to be overcome in deciding to.add used oil
to the list of recyclables collected at the curbside. Other communities in the county and
in the Bay Area have successfully collected used oil without incident, and without
liability problems. As the information about these successfully experiences is conveyed,
these liability concerns should dissipate.
The other..reason for a lower ranking for Institutional Barriers is the lengthy amount of
time often required before franchisors can change contract conditions with haulers. The
County has direct control over collection programs in West Pittsburg and Discovery Bay
(in Byron). In the other unincorporated areas of the county, the County will be able to
require curbside collection of used oil through MOUS with current franchisors.
In Contra Costa County, curbside collection of used oil has thus far occurred in a couple
cities. It is recommended that as garbage collection companies 'implement curbside
recycling programs, they also add collection of used oil, and perhaps latex paint Action
8)
Although some communities in the state have discussed.the possibility of collecting other
HHW products curbside, this is not something we are recommending; state regulation
and liability concerns become significant issues when discussing the collection of these
other products.
Page 20 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
B- 1`+lIO1VMRING PROGRAM
1. Load Checking:
' One of the programs evaluated and selected is "load checking", which is a program for
checking for the presence of hazardous waste among the loads of solid waste entering
solid waste transfer stations and landfills.
The Acme Fill Interim Transfer Station is required to check loads for HHW. In
addition, the Conditions of Approval for the Land Use Permit for the Marsh Canyon and
i Keller Canyon Landfill Sites include the following load-checking provisions.
i. Eligible Vehicles and Loads. The Landfill operator shall screen loads to limit to
the extent practicable the intake of ineligible waste. Prior to receiving waste, the
Landfill operator shall prepare in writing a program for identifying eligible vehicles
and screening loads at the Landfill entrance, random sampling and inspection for
ineligible wastes, and checking loads at the Landfill disposal area. The Load
Inspection program shall include inspection for hazardous wastes and procedures
for their handling and off-site disposal consistent.with the Contra Costa County
f Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The program shall be subject to the approval
of the County Health Services and County Community Development Departments.
ii. Transfer Station Pre-screening. The Household Hazardous Waste Program shall
include pre-screening at transfer station(s) for identification and separation of
hazardous materials. In addition, Landfill entrance load screening procedures and
a manual check program during unloading operations shall be included. Landfill
operators shall be instructed to investigate suspicious containers for hazardous
materials during bulldozing and other activities.' Any hazardous materials found
shall be set aside for proper collection and disposal.
These requirements have already been built into county permits. Institutional Barriers
rare therefore not an issue here.
Because of the importance of monitoring for HHW to insure that they are not entering
landfills, this Plan calls for load checking programs to be required at all solid waste
transfer and landfills within the County Action 9).
C. EDUCATION PROGRAMS
1. General Public Education
Public education is essential to the successful implementation of any HHW collection or
source reduction effort. It is recommended that an effective education campaign be
implemented regarding HHW, and its proper reduction, management and disposal Action
LO). A familiarity with many household toxic products and a lack of understanding
regarding the HHW issue have previously stood as obstacles to HHW reduction and
collection. On the other hand, given the toxic nature of these products and the public's
1 lira Costa County Page 21
1sehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
growing health concerns regarding toxic substances, education efforts should prove
successful in changing behavior.
As with HHW collection programs, we would like to see implementation of education
programs be done on a multi jurisdictional basis, and preferably countywide, with cities
and the county choosing to work cooperatively to educate residents about HHW..
A strategic approach to educating the public would be undertaken, employing health
education,theory and community organization approaches. The most appropriate health
education theory is- Diffusion Theory. This theory, built on the experiences with
promoting new agricultural products and practices in the United States, provides an
understanding about how new practices and products are adopted in communities. The
theory identifies channels through which information passes, "opinion leaders" who are
critical in spreading the word about new ideas, barriers to information flows, and the
importance of reaching a certain "critical mass" of 10% of the population which is
adopting the new product or practice.
Community organizing approaches include involving many appropriate individuals and
organizations, and having them be an integral part of the planning and implementation
of a program, as well as using the media in effective ways to both educate and involve
the public. Our June 9, 1990 collection was an example of this type of approach, in that
we drew_a large number of relevant people and organizations into the project's planning
and implementation, and used co-sponsorship by cities and newspapers to educate the
public about both the event itself and the larger issue of HHW. These same approaches
are appropriate for most HHW education programs.
As with all educational endeavors, when they involve schools and school districts, the
schools can become institutional barriers. We are therefore working towards a
coordinated approach with schools so as not to burden their curricula unnecessarily. It.
should also be noted that for both education programs selected, we believe there are no
hazards associated with them.
2. Alternatives Education:
The only two programs which received "High" rankings in Reduction Effectiveness are
Recycling and Alternative Education. Alternative Education involves educating the
public about less toxic and non-toxic alternatives to household toxic products. Given that
disposal costs are so high, this type of source reduction of HHW is ultimately the most
effective and inexpensive way to control the HHW problem. This is consistent with
Assembly Bill 939 (Statutes of 1990)which places.source reduction at the top of the solid
waste management hierarchy.
This Plan calls for the implementation of a public education campaign aimed at
encouraging the use of less hazardous or non-hazardous alternatives to HHW products
(Action 11). This campaign, to be implemented July 1, 1991, and funded by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board's HHW fund (AB2448), is to promote
the concepts of integrated pest management, and the use of less toxic or non-toxic
alternatives to pesticides which could be used in homes, gardens and yards. ,
Page 22 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element '
AgYm,'such a campaign would go beyond brochures, using the community organization
and lheahh education theory approaches described above. With little experience from
other communities in designing and implementing such a campaign, we do not know at
the present time how much of a reduction in HHW generation will be achieved.
However, given the high expense of collecting, recycling and disposing of HHW, it is
critical to promote source reduction through such a public education campaign.
3. Product Change Advocacy
1There are a number of changes in product design which could be made: (1) Smaller
sized containers for consumers requiring smaller amounts of a household toxic product;
(2) Better labeling to indicate product toxicity, and proper product handling, storage and
disposal; (3) Modified product designs which encourage returnable products and
returnable containers; and (4) New products containing less toxic ingredients.
These changes would lead to less HHW being produced, as well as recycling and safer
g g P ,_ Y g
handling, storage and disposal of the products themselves. Advocacy for such product
tchanges would require staff education of local, state and federal legislators, private
industry and the public in general, as to the need for these changes. It is recommended
that staff provide such education/advocacy .(Action 12).
4. Coun1y Product Substitution
Product substitution at the county government level would require the County to
implement the principles of integrated pest management in controlling pests and in
maintaining parks and landscaped areas. It would also require them to substitute less
' toxic or non-toxic alternatives to traditional cleaning products and cleaning methods.
It is important to recognize that Contra Costa County's own efforts to reduce use of
�. household toxic products is critical for two reasons: (1) It reduces generation of HHW;
and (2) It sets an example for residents that substitution of household toxic products can
be made easily and at less cost, without compromising results (and hopefully improving
results). Residents will be more likely to'follow the model of the county-if our windows
are just as clean, our parks just as green and well-kept, and our ants and cockroaches
sufficiently controlled.
1 It is recommended that staff advocate for use of less toxic or non-toxic products within
Contra Costa County government, and the principles of integrated pest management be
adopted (Action 13).
D. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTES
A small quantity generatoris a business'that-generates no more than 100 kg/month of
hazardous wastes. Many of these businesses are small and do not dispose of the hazardous
wastes properly. Examples of such businesses are paint contractors, auto repair shops and
dry cleaners. A132641, which became law January 1, 1991, allows entities collecting HHW
' to also collect wastes from small quantity generators (SQG). Although it is beyond the
Contra Costa County Page 23
household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
• r
legislative intent for this HHW Element to deal with SQG wastes, we believe that ultimately
they should be collected in HHW collection programs.
r
Collecting SQG wastes should only be considered in the medium-term period, after
permanent collection programs have begun. It may be that SQG wastes could only be
appropriately collected at permanent facilities (and not mobile collection programs). .
Consideration would also need to be given to whether these wastes would be collected for,
free or for a fee.
At this point it would be recommended that upon establishment of permanent collection
facilities consideration be given to accepting SQG wastes, and with what limitations (Action
- _ r
E. PROGRAM FUNDING ,
Financing of HHW collection programs is very expensive. The analyzing, lab packing,
transportation and disposal continually escalate costs of collection. Bay Area Environmental,
a commercial hazardous waste transfer facility recently bought out by California Advanced
Environmental Technology Corporation, had. been charging households a $50 minimum
charge--for even one can of latex paint. At the June 9, 1990 B.O.P. Drop, a very minimal ,
amount of non-recyclable hazardous wastes were collected,.costing over $11,000 in disposal
costs. Reducing the generation of HHW and recycling the HHW that are collected thus make
sense from not only an environmental point of view, but from a financial one as well. ,
We have one example locally to draw on for cost information. Alameda County, which will
• be owning and operating three permanent HHW collection sites, including an on-going r
mobile collection system and an extensive public education program, has budgeted annual
operating expenses at $2,375,000 (this. does not include one-time expenses for facilities
acquisition and environmental impact reports). Financing for-the program will come through
County landfill tipping fees ($1.25/ton on 1.9 million tons), which will be passed onto
residents through their garbage bills. With 506,449 households in the county, they are
planning on garbage bill increases of 39 cents per month per household to cover the cost of '
the HHW program.
This HHW"Element for unincorporated Contra Costa includes sixteen programs or activities, ,
most of which will require additional funding. The appropriate funding mechanism varies,
and is dependent upon the ability to jointly implement programs with other entities in the
county. Program costs and revenue sources are located in the Implementation Schedules.
HHW programs which are planned and implemented multi jurisdictionally are more cost
effective and successful than if implemented by any one single jurisdiction. It is therefore
strongly recommended that the county work with other cities to jointly plan and implement
both HHW collection and education programs (Action 16). -The Technical Advisory
Committee of the AB939 Local Task Force would be an appropriate forum for initiating
multi jurisdictional efforts.
r
Page 24 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
'f•
If it appears that implementation of HHW programs cannot be implemented on a multi-
jurisdictional basis, the County will fulfill its responsibility for collecting HHW in the
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa through a mobile collection'program. Our clear
preference, however, is to implement programs multi jurisdictionally.
1
1
SECTION V: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
r
The chart on the following page outlines, for each recommendation, the tasks required to implement,
the responsible agency, the implementation timing,program costs and possible revenue sources. The
basis for the program costs identified 'on the implementation schedule are detailed in Appendix C.
1 .
1
r .
r
1 .
r _
1 .
r
r
r
r
Cmntra Costa County Page 25
Emsehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
w
s °
!A y
cgs
tko
a a a oc
€ € a CIS as co
w. �� �' 3 u. 3 'o E— a a a w a
cl co
`g
N 0
¢ a
000 0 0 a E
Atd U e
w = w = w w �w.., ,� w O
F H in h h 0 CO
-c; s o :e �a. �a o
V .0 Qq •C 04 S ,C _ .0 .0 e0 C .�
p p le £
s s tn y
U Z Z Z Z Z w. Z G4 W
N M M MC N N It C •.+ 7
¢ ¢ C
s w
cd
U W . v T `0 0
w E w >
o ,.a E
w `0' o
C r y C ° O y
A
y y w c0 € c C'sA
L e 0 0 U
� .
0 Z
y z a ° d
w ° °
¢ m m m m C
°o z x A o V ° x U) w x s '_
A 3 .s S c
x U U A U A x o
w U � U ¢ U
xsw o A �
.r
CA
Mme+ y ascd
O N
h�1 c o �° u
p ° E E w .� a E E E .5 c
0
o Q U to
to
o y OL X °E° v Q o >
h
T ,� 3 0 o U o o ° y
0 � � g � 2
., a c r N a a .� 0
y 4: �' O z ¢ 4" y 00 C E A
z € a o c E to
> " 3 3 E 3 E o ,
ycd
¢ w a ¢ m a ¢ a
A o
U a
Page 26 Contra Costa County f
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
E E E
N y Ir
v.. oo oo oo a a
_
7 C O1 C O C C Ct+ v wo U. U. a Gt a ,o •o w � �
0 3
y
0 3 0 � e � c u
Cd c cl co
U.
I z w � 13 0
C
O O O O w '� > V
Cd �8 v � �
�::: ,cam. � y •Ca � .c' � c $ C U U `: .SC C
co cl
E ' y E ' E 'o E E A t] �� E o
p4 o o O o o ,� o M o v o
0. Z U Z Z Z vi Z x x Z .E ¢
:z
W ca 0
W «.:
en et O
cy, a, a ON a
C
w Z
ti
� o 0
1 �
E
1� a U O
O EE.
o
Er C Z
F.xZX..
W E
N " �
d A
: w S.
y
M `� A A Om 0 Odra
Q cn U U
rig
U U s
W A n ' A 0 p A A A A.
O a U O O O U
x w F z a
V1 3 0 E
MO >• c .W.1 A
W 0 aEi e°i
' O v E E
to C W J o
vA 8 a oo E U " °'
W C _ v ctw
° E v o 0 owC x A
H
-- Q c c o .�� o c a
Z " " °' c d o f U c°i Z c u a°i Z -° J E
y ° P c 0 a3i E u 0 O V
Q
U
Umtra Costa County Page 27
' Raxsehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993.
as '_ s v u
O y
v, 0fj h a a
cd
cd cd co 0 ed 0
0 �
Z O o
uy
CA
e,Q U
10 A A A E E
1�+ 2iCGi iii i to O O N 0 0 (IO
... x Z .5 a= x x x 69 Z Z
y
F �
°on v v tn y
rI� U O a a
O a a
rI
G O
4.
cl
OC O O ~ O 0
a-
C C E E T E
O O O N r1 Z
ew/ aci
E
44
N W A
d
U
A � r
Z Z
�•-� ; g o ° x
O
F A A A GUzI A O A A a A
cue x x x a x m U It U U
W y h
E EE
O .. _
O a y E A ° E Z a $ a
M A y eq ao A r
E
rA C6 U °� c
E U o t o
F LL e G c 0as
c �' oo ° E v a ¢ °� a s = r
Z a Z ° -Eo Z ¢ Q4 E
Q ¢ � Q w •a � Q U A a -o Q as a � A r
A
U
Page 28 Contra Costa osta County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
r
� w
i✓ O� O� O� O�
U U V ' U v N N N N
al as Ll cd ad 03 CIS 0.
co Ll
a C C C y y y y
0--111 Li, fi fi f3,
f/}i<�i��i:% •p 'C 'C •O •O 'G
w w w w w '? C7 V V C7
.
� U1 U U U U U U m m m m Q w A 0 0 0 0 0 0
ro) (nX.
S 25 25
......
I � A Z.
vaa: 0 0 0
I ;.
�.: N N M M et M N N N a, N N M VJ
ISI Gil p: a, a, O% O, T. O, O� D\ O� D\
O� — — O, T O,
l .............
H
w
�/� is O
O
�.
G C C C C C C C C r-
0
O O O O O - O O O O 0
.r E Q E E E E E Q E E E E >, a, a m
A \O Z T �O \D N %O Z O, M N M
a
.i......i.i.i.i.i. .Q
Z 1 0 0 A c
V1 C m m t
W Z V A A x
Oxx
D D A A A D Z D A A A A A A A A
OL W x En in
x in Zn x x x x Z 2 x x
W d
�
w
y 0 3 E gi
Wy
IWI V N FSI N A
a s s F > A. o � Q
d a Z D h a a
Q o o
GZ JJQcd
..1 oD .tl S s S S A
oas
E E ego to
3 c
s o w 3 ° x =
Z a :? :: a " a a x E
Z
p c > E =0 3 O J: > c >° o. c
•, o0 o C C ae own
d 0 ¢ •aa. L1 is .3 Q A ¢ A � U 3 z w w U D y A
A
U
VOWM Costa County Page 29
Ifse3Jold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
U `o `o
y i a e o
o 0
C C C C T 7 V+
ix co cd ox ox
U xE-
w �v
t� a�
cl5T
W ac
x x x Z Z Z v�
r U:: O O O
F+� y
�I W
O
O
Q4 y L C C OA (%1
�'. OOq O Dp4 Opo OOp a1
O N N O O O
E
G� a.
� l
i L7 U y
A o 3 Z = i
a z o x
O U
W oG O x x w x a xx x x x
w >A
C
Z ;Dx v F d H c h d
cd L Z
E" A E a cas c OG ° $ ? Ob E
cd
p Q E x o
cc
o cc Q Oq o0 0
a 93 S
w
a u o
o _ X
u
Z
Z Z o Z w '�� y o c E
v Q .3 'H Q •p H Q p •p O O o
F F o y F e y F c 0 bbLLLL
3 o U l
U
Page 36 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
SECTION VI: MONITORING & EVALUATION
1 The purpose of monitoring and evaluation of the HHW program is to determine whether the
programs selected are meeting the goals and objectives set forth earlier in this element. The HHW
programs would be flexible to changes identified in the evaluation as necessary to improve the
effectiveness of the program.
The HHW programs will be closely monitored through the following (Actions 11 and 15):
1. Load Checking Program. The above-described load checking program will monitor loads
of solid waste entering transfer stations and solid waste landfills, and will be our primary
' source of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of diverting HHW from the landfills.
Implementation of this program is described_ in the Section V table. The frequency of
detecting HHW and the.quantity of HHW found through load checking should decrease and
eventually be eliminated. .
Criteria for effectiveness: The frequency and quantity of HHW is reduced or eliminated.
2. . Emergency Response Spills. The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Division tracks
all hazardous materials incidents reported to them. In November 1990, a Valley Waste
Management garbage collection truck caught fire. The cause was the interaction of a
combination of pool chemicals (dry pool chlorine and hydrochloric pool acid) and latex paint:
With effective HHW programs, these incidents should no longer occur.
Criteria for effectiveness: Spills which are attributed to the improper disposal of HHW are
reduced or eliminated.
3. Future Waste Characterization Studies. The regulations promulgated by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board require that subsequent waste generation studies be
prepared. HHW will be an element of these studies and will be used to monitor the
effectiveness of the HHW programs.
1 Criteria for effectiveness: A reduction in the percentage of solid waste which is classified
as hazardous as determined by the subsequent waste characterization studies.
' 4. Record-keeping System in HHW Collection Prop-rams. Each collection program will be
required to keep of records documenting waste types and amounts according to the California .
Integrated Waste Management Board's Form 303. The number of participants and their
residency will also be tracked. Participation rates in other programs have historically
hovered around one to two percent. As households clear out accumulated HHW and as
consumers use fewer and less toxic household products, participation rates should naturally
decrease.
Criteria for effectiveness: Participation in the collection program will range from one to five
1 percent of the households in the service area. Participation rates should increase annually
during the next five years.
' Contra Costa County Page 31
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
In the event that permanent HHW collection facilities are not established in any (or all) of
the three regions of the county, HHW would be collected through the mobile HHW collection
program, with the wastes being brought to either the west or central county HHW facilities.
5. Knowledge. Attitude and Behavior Surveys. Surveys measure changes in the public's
understanding of the issue of HHW, and in their purchasing and use practices. Surveys
determine whether alternatives are being adopted,leading to a consequential reduction in the
generation of HHW. Options for evaluating include:
i. an on-going survey of those participating in collection programs;
ii. surveys of the general public; '
iii. measuring attitude and behavior changes through the use of focus groups. These groups '
are made up of about six to twelve people, and are facilitated in such a way as to obtain
more in-depth information regarding HHW attitudes and practices; and
iv, a newspaper audit in which the local newspapers are reviewed for the number of column
inches devoted to HHW, and then analyzed as to their content.
This Monitoring and Evaluation Program will use option ##i and one or more of the above '
options.
Criteria for effectiveness: Findings from these evaluation methods should include: ,
L an increased understanding of the toxicity of household products, the proper ways to
manage, store and dispose of them, and possible alternatives; ,
ii. an increased use of collection programs, and
iii. an increased use of alternatives to toxic householdP roducts.
r.
Page 32 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element '
APPENDIX A CRITERIA DEFINITIONS
1
1. Reduction Effectiveness. The ability of the program Ito "source reduce." This means the
ability of the program to change the behavior of consumers to use less toxic or non-toxic HHW
products.
Low: Limited or no ability to change consumer behavior
Medium: Moderate ability to change consumer behavior
High: Substantial ability to change consumer behavior
2. Collection Effectiveness. The alternative's effectiveness in •reducing amount of HHW
entering landfills or other improper channels of disposal (sewers, storm drains, soil).
' Low: Less than 2% of existing HHW is collected*
Medium: 2% to 3% of existing HHW is collected
High: Greater than 3% of existing HHW is collected
*"Existing HHW" refers to 1,400 tons of HHW (50 pounds per household in the 57,311
1 unincorporated households); according to Dana Duxbury & Associates, 116
pounds/participant is collected in HHW events (11). 1% (an average participation rate) of
57,311 households, each bringing in 116 pounds, would yield 66,500 pounds. This is about
. 2.5% of the 1,400 tons.
3. Environmental Impacts: The degree of hazard posed by implementing the program (worker
1 hazards, hazards created for workers and surrounding communities, leachate, noise, etc.).
Low: The option has environmental impacts or hazards that are not completely .
understood, or has a history of environmental violations. .
Medium: The impacts or hazards are known and controllable; some nuisance effects are
evident.
' High: Few or no hazards or nuisances exist. Hazards can be adequately contained.
4. Adaptability to Change: The ability of the program to adapt to changing economic, technical
or social conditions (including consumer habits).
Low: Little ability to adapt.
' Medium: Some ability to adapt with significant program alteration.
High: Great ability to adapt.
5. Changes in Waste Type Generation: The extent to which the program shifts HHW generation
to another type of waste.
Low: This alternative would cause an increased generation of'a less desirable
material going to the landfill.
Medium: Little or no shift would be created.
High: There would be an increase in a more desirable, perhaps recyclable, material.
Contra Costa County Page A-1
- HDwehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
6. Ease of Implementation: The time required to implement program.
Low: Greater than three years. ,
Medium; One to three years.
High: Less than one year. ,
7. Facility Requirements: The need to expand or build new facilities to implement the program.
Low: Development of major new or expanded facilities or programs. .
Medium: Some expansion of program or facilities.
High:- No significant expansion of existing facilities. '
8. Consistency with Local Policies: The consistency with local policies and regulations (fire,
health and planning). ,
Low: Major changes to existing codes and ordinances would need to be adopted
prior,to program implementation.
Medium: Minor changes needed.
High: No changes needed.
9. Institutional Barriers: Implementation may be impacted by existing institutional '
infrastructures such as waste stream ownership agreements and long term franchise contracts.
Low: Existing barriers;jurisdiction has no control.
Medium: Some existing barriers; jurisdiction has limited control.
High: No existing barriers;jurisdiction has complete control. '
10. ` Capital Costs: The initial costs for items such as equipment, facility and land purchase.
Low: Greater than $1 million
Medium: Between $100,000 and $1 million
High: Less than $100,000. '
11 Long-term Cost Effectiveness: Long-term costs will be ranked between low, medium and
high categories on a relative basis. The reason for this is that our experience with collecting HHW t
is so little that any distinction between categories with specific cost figures would.be based on
conjecture.
12. End-use Markets: Availability and necessity of markets for the collected wastes.
Low: Markets are currently nonexistent or unstable.
Medium: Potential for short-term development of markets. markets exist but are
subject to moderate fluctuations. ,
High: Existing markets are available and relatively stable.
Page A-2 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element '
13. QDeng lxperienw: The extent to which the program has been successfully implemented
' and proven effective in other communities. It also considers the extent to which the alternative is
undergoing rapid technological change.
Low: No or little operating experience exists.
' Medium: Some operating experience exists.-
High:
xists.High: Much operating experience exists.
r
t
Contra Costa County Page A-3
itTourehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
APPENDIX B REFERENCES
1. California Integrated Waste Management Board, "California Cleaning'," 1988, p.I.. '
2. Oral communication from Al Storm, Toxic Substances Control Division, California
Department of Health Services (with Catherine Kutsuris, Contra Costa Community Development 1
Department), 1989.
3. Larson, Suzanne, Emy Meiorin, Diana Tesh, Edward Wyatt, The San Francisco Bad
Regional Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, CA,
January 1989, p.1I-13:
4. Denit, Jeffrey, "Keynote Speech," 1989 Proceedings of the Fourth National.Conference on '
Household Hazardous Waste Mana eg ment, November 6-8, 1989, Orlando, Florida, Andover, MA:
Duxbury & Associates, p.4.
5. "Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Interim Draft," Contra Costa
County Community Development Department, April 1989, p.vi, vii. '
6. Ibid., p.6-9 & 6-10.
.7. "Contra Costa County Household Hazardous Waste Program Work Plan for Phase I
Implementation; Contra Costa County Health Services Department, January 5, 1990.
.8. Tuthill, Robert, Edward Stanek, Cleve Willis & Gary Moore, "Degree of Public Support for '
Household Hazardous Waste Control Alternatives," American Journal of Public Health, March 1987,
Volume 77, No. 3, p.305.
9. "Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan," . cit.., p.12-3.
10. Shahid, Rafat, "Proposal for a County-Operated Household/Mini-generator Hazardous Waste
Collection Program," Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, June 14, 1990.
11. Dana Duxbury & Associates, based on annual survey of U.S. HHW collection program ,
statistics.
1
Page A-4 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element
APPENDIX C --
BASIS FOR COSTS USED IN HHW ELEMENT
FOR UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1. West County Permanent Collection Facility at Erickson
' a. Number households (hh): 31% of 57,311 households (single.family) in unincorporated
areas live in west county (including Crockett and Rodeo): 17,766.
' b. Assumptions:
• 3% participation rate
' • $90/hh for wastes collected (taken from.Santa Clara County study on designing and
financing HHW collection program: "Countywide HHW Collection Program"
submitted to the Solid Waste Technical Advisory Committee by Pam Hodgins,
' 9/28/90).
c. Calculations: 17,766 hh x 3% x $90/hh = $47,968
2. Central County Permanent Collection Facility'
1 a. Number hh: 36% of 57,311 hh live in unincorporated central county: 20,632.
b. Assumptions:
• Assumes permanent facility is jointly financed by all entities in Central County.
Y
• 3% participation rate
. • $90/hh for wastes collected
c. Calculations: 20,632 hh x 3% x $90/hh = $55.706
3. East County Permanent Collection FacilitX
a. Number of hh 33% of 57,311 hh live in unincorporated east county: 18,913.
b. Assumptions:
• Assumes permanent facility is jointly financed by all entities in East County.
• 3% participation rate
• $90/household for wastes collected
C*
Calculations: 18,913 hh x 3% x $90/household = $51,065
vmdra Costa County Page A-S
Mmehold Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
4.; Mobile Collection System
a. The countywide mobile collection system, designed to serve all residents in the county,
has a.total operating budget of$1,590,000. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the budget is
earmarked for site management, transportation, recycling and disposal of hazardous
wastes. The budget also includes $75,000 for source reduction public education, leaving
$1,515,000 for the collection part of the program. .The budget is based on approximately
12,000 vehicles being served, representing approximately 4% of the householders in the
county.
b. Twenty percent (20%) of the households are in the unincorporated areas of the county.
c. Twenty percent (20%) of $1,515,000 is $303,000.
Page A-6 Contra Costa County
May 1993 Household Hazardous Waste Element ,
APPENDIX D -- SITES FOR JUNE 9, 1990 B.O.P DROP
1
1. Richmond: 3260 Blume Road, at Hilltop Mall
' 2. Pacheco: Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal
441 N. Buchanan Circle
3. Martinez: . Central Contra.Costa Sanitary District,
5019 Imhoff Place
4. Antioch: City Corporation Yard, 4 1 and N Streets
' 5. Brentwood: Liberty Union High School,
Dainty and Second Streets
6. Walnut Creek: Dow Chemical, 2700 Mitchell Drive
7. San Ramon: Old Allstate Insurance building parking lot,
Crow Canyon and Bollinger Canyon Roads
1
1
Contra Costa County 'Page A-7
Household Hazardous Waste Element May 1993
t
t
t
t
t
t
t