MANAGEMENT
and
PLAN
-------
-------
SW2TSG
CALIFORNIA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY (1968)
AND PLAN (1970)
This report (SW-Ztsg), which has been reproduced
as received from the grantee with the exception
of a new title page and foreword, was prepared by
the California State Department of Public Health
under State Solid Waste Planning Grant S02-UI-00008
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
This is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication and
is also in the Public Health Service serial publication series
as Public Health Service Publication No. 2118.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 2118
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 77-608769
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Price: $2. 50
-------
FOREWORD
TO ENCOURAGE SYSTEMATIC PLANNING for better management of the Nation's
solid wastes, Congress in the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act provided
grant monies for the States for solid waste planning. By June 1966,
fourteen States had met the stipulations of the Act and had embarked
upon the planning process with the help of the Federal funds. Today,
almost every State has applied for and received a solid waste planning
2
grant. From each of the grants the Federal government expects two
practical results: first, a plan (and report) for the State's manage-
ment of its solid wastes; second, development of an agency for the
3
managing function.
The present document publishes the data base for the California
solid waste management plan, developed by the State under a Federal
solid waste management planning grant that went into effect June 1, 1966.
The data reported on in the first part of the book provide the base for
the California plan objectives reported on in the second part of this
volume. But, the planning process is dynamic; future revision will be
The Solid Waste Disposal Act; Title II of Public Law 89-272, 89th
Congress, S.306, October 20, 1965. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1966. 5 p.
2
Toftner, R. 0., D. D. Swavely, W. T. Dehn, and B. L. Sweeney, comps,
State solid waste planning grants, agencies, and progress—1970.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2109. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office. (In press.)
3
Toftner, R. 0. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031. Washington, U.S, Government
Printing Office, 1970. 50 p.
iii
-------
an important part of the process to take account of changing conditions
and better data. Moreover, a plan is not an end in itself. Its formu- ->
lation is the key to action: to legislation, standards, technical
/
assistance, public relations, and enforcement.
Besides providing the State solid waste management agency with a
guide for action, the State plan will help to guide local and regional
solid waste planning and subsequent implementation. The plan can also
provide support for improved State legislation related to solid waste
management.
California's plan is designed, therefore, to: (1) begin the planning
process; (2) establish policies and procedures to guide the State solid
waste agency, the Department of Public Health; (3) guide regional planning;
(4) provide a documented base for improved solid waste legislation and
operating regulations. With these objectives in mind, this plan report
presents and analyzes pertinent solid waste data, identifies problems
indicated by the data, sets objectives that if achieved would solve
identified problems, and finally, proposes immediate, intermediate, and
long-range measures for achieving objectives. This plan should thus
provide the California solid waste agency with an invaluable management
tool with which to begin solving the State's solid waste management
problems.
—RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Assistant Surgeon General
Acting Commissioner
Solid Waste Management Office
iv
-------
SYNOPSIS
*• California possesses incomparable natural beauty and an environment which is conducive
to the enjoyment of living. The quality of this environment, however, is being threatened
by ever-increasing quantities of solid wastes which are being disposed of into our air, our
V'ater, and onto our land. Solid wastes are creating health hazards and nuisances, and are
causing water and air pollution; they are steadily degrading land values and are imposing
a rising economic burden on California's population. The pollution of land has also become
increasingly evident in the desecration of forests, fields, and hillsides by open dumps,
litter, piles of automobiles, and mounds of manure and in the frequent indiscriminant dump-
ing of infectious and toxic wastes.
The California Department of Public Health, assisted by a planning grant from the U.S.
Public Health Service, has completed an intensive statewide study and analysis of current
solid waste management practices. This interim report (Volume I) presents the study's find-
ings and conclusions relating to the existing status of solid waste management. A second
report, which will include recommendations for a comprehensive state program to establish
effective solid waste management practices, will be presented to the Legislature in the
latter part of 1969.
During 19&7, California's municipalities, industry, and agriculture generated an esti-
mated 70 million tons of solid wastes, an average of 20 pounds per person per day. In an
uncompacted condition, this product of a single year may be visualized as a mass of solid
wastes 100 feet wide and 30 feet high stretching from Oregon to Mexico. This staggering
and cteadily increasing volume challenges a technology which is struggling unsuccessfully
to meet only the most fundamental existing needs.
Five basic areas of deficiency are evident in the present status of solid waste manage-
ment in California: (l) fragmented authority and lack of cooperation and coordination; (2)
inadequate planning; (3) nonexistent or inadequate standards; (k) primitive technology; and
(5) inadequate financing.
At the present time, various governmental jurisdictions representing 58 counties, 399
incorporated cities, numerous special districts, and several state and federal agencies are
attempting to manage solid waste operations in the absence of common purpose or defined
objectives and with an inevitable lack of consistency with respect to policy, planning, and
standards.
State laws regarding solid wastes are, for the most part, directed primarily towards
minimizing water and air pollution, preventing forest fires, protecting fish and wildlife,
assuring the health of livestock and preserving the aesthetics of highways. What is lacking,
however, are solid waste laws designed specifically to protect the health and well-being of
people.
Most of the municipal solid wastes produced in California are disposed of in 7l6 general
use disposal sites of which 71$ are open burning dumps. Less than 10$ can be classified as
sanitary landfills. No comprehensive plans for solid waste management have been developed
for the future and present action is stimulated primarily by impending crises. Only 16 of
the 58 counties have undertaken any solid waste study or planning activities and many of
these plans ignore the needs of the incorporated cities and adjacent counties.
The quality of California's land, air, and water resources is vital to the future of
the state. Yet, the present system of solid waste management, which directly affects all of
our natural resources, is clearly inadequate to assure the preservation of the quality of
these resources at levels that best serve the public interest.
California can no longer afford to delay in facing its basic responsibilities in solid
waste management. The increasing volumes of solid wastes and related environmental effects
threaten to soon reach unmanageable proportions. It is imperative that the state assume
leadership and initiative in coping with these problems. In close collaboration with local
jurisdictions and the private sector, the state should develop solid waste policies and pro-
grams which adequately protect human health and well-being, and which can be looked upon to
conserve and improve the quality of our total environment.
-------
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, GOVERNOR
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
LOUIS F. SAYLOR, M.D., DIRECTOR
JOHN M0 HESLEP, PH.D.
RICHARD F. PETERS
CHIEF, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CHIEF, BUREAU OF VECTOR CONTROL AND
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROJECT DIRECTOR
PETER A. ROGERS, P.E.
Senior Sanitary Engineer
PROJECT COORDINATOR
DONALD R. ANDRES, P.E.
Associate Sanitary Engineer
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
PROJECT STAFF
JAMES CORNELIUS, P.E.
Associate Sanitary Engineer
ROBERT H. HULTQUIST
Junior Civil Engineer
LAWRENCE A. BURCH, P.E.
Associate Sanitary Engineer
JEFFREY L. BUNNELL
Engineering Aide
STUART E. RICHARDSON, JR., R.S.
Public Health Sanitarian
RICHARD P. MAYNARD
Associate Vector Control Specialist
VI1
-------
1968 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
R. E. Bergstrom
Director of Sanitation
Fresno County Health Department
Paul W. Madsen, Sr.
Garden City Disposal Company
Prank R. Bowerman, President
Institute for Solid Wastes
American Public Works Association,
Assistant to the Vice President
Aerojet-General Corporation
and
James L. Martin
Director of Public Works
City of Fresno
Samuel A. Hart, Ph.D.
Professor of Agricultural Engineering
University of California
Lester A. Haug
Deputy Assistant Chief Engineer
County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County
P. H. McGauhey
Professor of Sanitary Engineering
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory
Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richard P. Stevens, President
Universal By-Products, Inc.
Donald M. Keagy
Regional. Representative
National Center for Urban and
Industrial Health
U.S. Public Health Service
Richard S. Titera
Assistant Director
Department of Public Works
Humboldt County
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE BY
Bureau of Vector Control & Solid Waste Management — Area Office Personnel
Division of Research — Data Processing Center
Local Health Departments and Public Works Agencies
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION Page
k. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF STUDY 1-1
B. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1-3
C. GENERAL PROCEDURE 1-5
II. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
A. DEFICIENCIES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT II-l
B. SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION II-5
C. ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL II-6
D. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION II-8
E. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL II-9
F. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SOLID WASTES 11-10
G. SOLID WASTE PLANNING - CURRENT STATUS 11-12
III. SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
A. TOTAL QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTES PRODUCED III-5
B. DISCUSSION OF WASTE PRODUCTION BY CATEGORY III-8
1. Municipal Wastes III-8
2. Agricultural Wastes 111-12
3. Industrial Solid Wastes 111-17
a. General Procedure 111-17
b. Total Quantities of Wastes 111-20
c. Discussion of Major Types of Industrial Wastes . . . 111-20
(l) Food Processing Wastes 111-20
(2) Lumber Industry Wastes 111-27
(3) Chemical and Petroleum Industry Wastes .... 111-33
(k) Manufacturing Wastes ... 111-36
IV. ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL
A. INVOLVEMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCIES IV-2
1. Federal Laws . IV-2
2. Federal Agencies '..'..'.. IV-3
B. INVOLVEMENT OF STATE AGENCIES IV-k
1. State Laws IV-4
2. State Agencies IV-6
C. INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IV-9
V. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
A. REGULATION OF COLLECTION PRACTICES V-2
B. COLLECTION PRACTICES IN CITIES V-4
1. Extent of Service V-U
2. Ordinances V-5
3. Type of Operator V-6
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
U. Control of Service .............. V-10
5. Mandatory Service .............. V-12
6. Frequency and Amount of Service ......... V-13
7. Billing for Service ............. V-l6
C. COLLECTION PRACTICES IN IMTNCORPORATED AREAS ...... V-l?
1. Extent of Service .............. V-19
2. Ordinances and Control ............ V-19
3. Frequency and Amount of Service ......... V-21
D. COLLECTION PRACTICES IN DISTRICTS .......... V-21
E. COLLECTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT .......... V-23
F. TRANSFER FACILITIES ............... V-2^
VI. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
A. DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT ............... VI-2
B. METHODS OF PROCESSING OR DISPOSAL .......... VI-5
1. Landfilling ................ VI-5
2. Incineration ................ VI-8
3. Composting ................ VI-11
k. Grinding to Sewers .............. VI-13
5. Salvage and Reclamation ............ VI-14
6. Ocean Disposal ............... VI-14
7. Open Burning ................ VI-15
8. Pyrolysis ................. VI-16
9. Animal Feeding ............... VI-16
10. Disposal on Fields .............. VI -17
C. EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL SITES ............ VI-17
1. Classification of Disposal Sites ......... VI-17
a. Uncontrolled Burning Dump .......... VI-18
b. Supervised Dump with Burning ......... VI-20
c. Modified Sanitary Landfill with Controlled Burning . . VI-20
d. Modified Sanitary Landfill .......... VI-20
e. Sanitary Landfill ............. VI-20
f. Other ................. VI-23
2. Capacities of Disposal Sites .......... VI-23
3. Operation of Disposal Sites ........... VI-29
a. Owners and Operators of Disposal Sites ...... VI-31
b. Cost of Operating ............. VI-36
c. Materials Excluded from Sites ......... VI-37
d. Equipment Used at Sites ........... VI-40
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SOLID WASTES
A. EFFECTS ON HEALTH ............... VII-3
1. Public Health Concerns ............ VII-3
a. Flies ................. VII-3
b. Rodents ................ VII-6
c. Occupational Health and Safety Hazards ...... VII-9
d. Public Nuisances ............. VII-13
2. Sanitary Control at Existing Sites ........ VII-13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
B. EFFECTS ON WATER VII-15
1. Physical Impairment VII-16
2. Chemical and Biological Impairment VTI-lS
3. Gas Production VII-20
C. EFFECTS ON AIR VII-21
D. EFFECTS ON LAND VII-2.k
VIII. SOLID WASTE PLANNING - CURRENT STATUS
A. STUDY AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES VIII-2
B. EXISTING SOLID WASTE PLANS VIII-U
C. AGENCIES WITH PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES VIII-8
APPENDICES
A. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC)
B. SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
C. CALIFORNIA DISPOSAL SITES 1967
D. DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF DISPOSAL SITES WITH RELATED DATA BY COUNTY
LIST OF TABLES
III-l Total Solid Waste Production III-7
III-2 Statewide Municipal Waste Production 111-10
III-3 Municipal Solid Waste Production III-ll
III-4 Statewide Agricultural Waste Production 111-14
III-5 Agricultural Solid Waste Production by County 111-15
III-6 Industrial Solid Waste Production by SIC Classification 111-21
II1-7 Industrial Solid Waste Production by County 111-22
III-8 Ten Largest Industrial Solid Waste Producing Counties
Annual Production 111-23
III-9 Method of Cannery and Frozen Food Wastes Disposal 111-27
111-10 Major Manufacturing Waste Producing Counties 111-36
III-ll Solid Waste Production Data from Manufacture of
Transportation Equipment 111-37
V-l Types of Wastes Routinely Collected in Cities V-4
V-2 City Ordinance Data V-6
V-3 Type of Waste Collected in Cities by Type of Operator V-9
V-k Establishment of Residential Collection Areas in Cities V-ll
V-5 Billing Methods Used by Cities V-l7
V-6 County Ordinance Data V-l9
V-7 Methods of Establishing Residential Collection Areas in
Unincorporated Areas V-20
V-8 Basic Level of Residential Refuse Collection Service
in Unincorporated Areas V-21
V-9 Transfer Station Data V-27
XI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
VI-1 Statewide Summary of Types of Sites
VI-2 Disposal Site Capacity and Life Expectancy
VI-3 Remaining Site Life and Planned Replacement
VI-4 Land Use Adjacent to Disposal Sites
VI-5 Type of Site by Operator
VI-6 Number of Sites Excluding Specific Types of Wastes
VII-1 Status of Daily Covering by Type of Site VII-15
VII-2 Fire Protection at Disposal Sites VII-32
VIII-1 County Agency Primarily Involved in Solid Waste Planning VIII-9
VIII-2 City Agency Primarily Involved in Solid Waste Planning VIII-10
LIST OF FIGURES
III-l Distribution of Agriculture Wastes 111-16
III-2 Distribution of Food Processing Wastes 111-25
III-3 Distribution of Lumber Industry Wastes 111-30
III-4 Distribution of Chemical and Petroleum Industry Wastes 111-35
III-5 Distribution of Manufacturing Wastes 111-38
V-l Cities with Publicly-Operated Residential Refuse
Collection Service V-7
V-2 Cities with Privately-Operated Residential Refuse
Collection Service V-8
V-3 Cities with Unlimited Residential Refuse Collection
Service V-15
V-4 Cities with Twice-Per-Week Residential Refuse
Collection Service V-18
VI-1 Location of Sanitary Landfills VI-9
VII-1 Counties with Open Burning at Disposal Sites VII-23
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Varied Types of Solid Wastes III-3 Rats and Flies VII-7
Stockpiling of Large Quantities Safety Hazards VII-11
of Food Processing Wastes III-4 Hazardous Wastes Found in Dumps VII-12
Water Pollution VII-19
Transfer Facilities V-26 Open Burning of Solid Wastes VII-22
San Francisco Bay Filling with
Uncontrolled Burning Dumps VI-19 Solid Wastes VII-26
Supervised Dump with Burning VI-21 Land Degradation VII-27
Modified Sanitary Landfills VI-22 Positive Results of Landfills VII-30
Sanitary Landfills VI-24
xii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. RATIONALE AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
The National Academy of Sciences has defined pollution as "an
undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological character-
istics of our air, land, and water that may or will harmfully affect
human life or that of other desirable species, our industrial processes,
living conditions, and cultural assets; or that may or will waste or
deteriorate our raw material resources!'^
The solid wastes produced by municipalities, industries, and
agriculture are some of the most significant pollutants in California.
These wastes are being produced in staggering quantities and occur as
an endless variety of materials. The deleterious effects that the
disposal of these materials have on our environment are matters of
growing concern. Solid wastes pollute land, water, or air, depending
in degree and kind upon the method of disposal. Indiscriminate disposal
of solid wastes is seriously degrading various elements of our environ-
ment, resulting in obvious adverse effects such as health hazards and
nuisances. Many of the debilitating effects on human beings are
difficult to assess either physiologically or psychologically.
I/National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Waste
Management and Control, Publication 1^00 (Washington, D.C., 1966), p.3
1-1
-------
The quality of California's land, air, and water resources is of para-
mount importance and concern to the future of the state. Yet, the present
system of solid waste management, which directly affects all of these elements,
/
is clearly inadequate to assure the preservation of the quality of these re-
sources at levels that best serve the total public interest.
The growing environmental problems identifiable with solid wastes in
California may be summarized as:
(l) The creation of severe disease-carrying domestic fly and rodent
densities as a result of poorly managed solid wastes;
(2) Air pollution and smoke nuisance problems from widespread burning
of solid wastes;
(3) Pollution of ground and surface waters from inadequate solid waste
disposal systems; and,
CO The proliferation of public nuisances from odors, smoke, fire
hazards, and unsightliness.
Other more indirect effects of current solid waste disposal practices include
a rising economic burden, degraded property values from land pollution, and
continued erosion of the natural beauty of California1s communities and country-
side.
Solid waste is inherently integrated into the total problem of air and
water pollution. For example, the burning of solid wastes may increase air
pollution, while the use of garbage grinders increases the load on the sewage
disposal systems. On the other hand, measures undertaken to abate air pollu-
tion or to decrease the concentration of solids in liquid wastes usually
result in an increase in the quantity of solid wastes that must be handled.
Solid wastes are inevitable by-products of households and municipalities and,
in fact, all of man's living activities and productive processes. Business,
industry, and agriculture all generate solid wastes.
1-2
-------
Since the turn of the century, California's population has increased
from less than 1.5 million to nearly 20 million. Along with its new rank
as first among the 50 states in population, agricultural production, and
V
industrial growth, California is also a leader in the production of solid,
liquid, and gaseous wastes. Considerable attention has been focused on the
problems of controlling liquid and gaseous wastes and noteworthy progress
has been made toward their solution. In the field of solid waste manage-
ment, however, we are lagging far behind the times in the development of
management techniques and a technology adequate to meet the problem.
The growing recognition of environmental degradation by solid wastes
has brought a new awareness of the issues concerning solid waste management.
The increased crowding together of urban, industrial, and agricultural areas
is resulting in a rapidly diminishing land area for waste disposal. This
situation, accompanied by a logarithmic increase in production of wastes
and a lagging technology, is compounding the problems of disposal.
B. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
Rising concern for the solid waste crisis by the federal government
led to legislative enactment of the "Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965".
This act provided funds for the purpose of developing and demonstrating
new techniques and methods of managing solid wastes. Also included were
funds for use by state agencies, in developing comprehensive plans for
dealing with this problem. The availability of this support, coupled
with a growing awareness of solid waste management needs by the state,
led to a directive by the Governor in 1966 designating the Department of
Public Health as the State's agency to receive these planning funds. The
State Department of Public Health was thereupon assigned the responsibility
1-3
-------
for undertaking a three-year study to develop the basis for a statewide
planning program for effective management of solid wastes in California.
This study, known as the California Solid Waste Planning Study, was initiated
in July 1966. The final report of the study will be available in 1969.
The primary objective of the California Solid Waste Planning Study is to
develop the framework of a statewide plan for the management of solid wastes,
recognizing the interests and responsibilities of local, regional, and state
agencies, and private industry. Specific objectives of the study include the
following:
1. To determine the quantities and sources of each major type of
municipal, industrial, and agricultural solid wastes produced in
the state.
2. To document and evaluate existing facilities and methods for handling
solid wastes and to determine their potential for continued use.
3- To determine the extent of adverse or beneficial environmental modi-
fications created by present solid waste handling and disposal
practices.
4. To identify and evaluate current regulatory controls, policies, and
management practices and respective functions of state, county,
district, and city jurisdictions relating to solid wastes.
5. To determine the extent and nature of local planning for solid waste
management and to evaluate local and regional solid waste master
plans.
6. To project future problems facing California in terms of: (a) quanti-
ties of solid wastes produced by municipalities, industry and
agriculture, (b) changes and trends affecting solid waste management
practices, and (c) their impact and effect on environmental quality.
7. To develop a foundation for a comprehensive state program for the
I-k
-------
effective management of solid wastes produced in California.
, This interim report summarizes the findings of the study relative to
objectives 1-5- Further evaluation of current problems and projected
>r
requirements, and the recommendations for future program development will
be presented in the final report in
C. GENERAL PROCEDURE
It was determined that two generalized types of information were needed
to evaluate the existing status of solid waste management in California.
One was information on solid waste management per se. In other words,
determining the specific role of governmental jurisdictions, industry,
and agriculture in solid waste regulation and control; planning; policy
determination; and storage, collection, and disposal practices. A
questionnaire was developed by the Department for the purpose of obtaining
much of this information. This form was utilized in interviews with
representatives of all of the counties and incorporated cities, and many
of the more directly concerned special districts.
Inasmuch as most of the solid wastes in California are disposed of on
land, the second category of information needed was data on the disposal
sites. Information regarding the description of the site, types and
quantities of wastes received, size and capacity, operational practices,
and evaluation of existing or potential problems was gathered by means of
a disposal site survey. This survey included a field visit to every
recognized disposal site in the state. Disposal sites were divided into
two categories: "general use" and "supplemental". General use sites were
those which received wastes from the general public and collectors and
received a variety of wastes. Supplemental sites were those which received
1-5
-------
only a specific type of waste (e.g., street sweepings, slag, cannery wastes,
etc.), or served only a special group such as a resort, campground, or _
construction site. Unlike general use sites, supplemental sites in many
^
instances were not regulated by the local jurisdictions. Operational details
were unavailable for many of these supplemental sites. Only the data regard-
ing general use sites have been included in this report.
The procedure followed in collecting data on solid waste management
throughout the state included a field inventory as indicated above, using
the county as the basic unit of work activity. The initial contacts in the
58 counties were with the local health agencies, all of which had previously
assured the Department of their willingness to participate in the study.
Usually the local agency held an organizational meeting several weeks in
advance of the survey to allow the state staff to explain the project to
representatives of the various county and city-agencies and others having
an interest in the proposed study. At this meeting there was a general
discussion of local conditions and a work schedule for the purpose of
gathering information was outlined. The meeting provided the necessary
contacts and background and established the proper working relationships
with the local interests.
This study is being conducted within the Department of Public Health
by the staff of the Solid Waste Engineering Section, Bureau of Vector Control
and Solid Waste Management. The local health agencies throughout the state
have participated and immeasurably assisted the state staff in the gathering
of basic data. The participation and assistance of private industry, as
well as other state and local agencies have contributed significantly to
this interim report.
Since solid wastes include such a wide range of materials, it is impor-
tant that standardized definitions and terminology be adopted to minimize
1-6
-------
confusion. Unfortunately, such confusion is already extensive in statutes,
.literature, and in the vocabularies of professionals and laymen alike,
particularly when such terms as garbage, rubbish, refuse, trash and solid
>r
wastes are used interchangeably. Wastes may be classified by physical
character such as organic or inorga'nic, putrescible or nonputrescible,
combustible or noncombustible, or further by their point of origin such
as household, commercial, institutional, industrial, and agricultural.
Further description and confusion is added when one separates the various
types of solid wastes such as dead animals, sewage solids, abandoned vehi-
cles, demolition wastes, ashes, and street refuse. The following are
definitions of some of the general terms used in this report:
Solid Wastes - All those materials that are solid or semi-solid and
that the possessor no longer considers of sufficient value to
retain. For the purposes of this report, the term solid wastes
is all inclusive and considers all types of classifications,
sources and properties.
Refuse - All of the solid wastes normally handled in any waste manage-
ment system. This term is commonly used to denote a heterogenous
mixture of solid waste materials from several sources.
Garbage - Animal, fruit, or vegetable residues resulting from the
handling, preparation, and cooking of foods. When stored
separately or used as animal feed (more free liquid usually
exists), it sometimes is referred to as swill.
Rubbish - Combustible and noncombustible solid wastes of households,
commercial establishments, institutions, etc., exclusive of the
highly putrescible wastes (garbage). Rubbish consists of such
materials as paper, metal, wood, cans, furniture, yard trimmings,
and ceramics.
1-7
-------
Further detail regarding categorization and composition of municipal, indus-
trial, and agricultural solid wastes is found in Chapter III, SOLID WASTE
PRODUCTION.
1-8
-------
II. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
Solid waste management may be defined as a planned system of effectively
controlling the production, storage, collection, transportation, processing,
and disposal or utilization of solid wastes in a sanitary, aesthetically accep-
table, and economical manner. It includes all administrative, financial, legal,
and planning functions as well as the physical aspects of solid waste handling.
It is the purpose of this interim report to present the findings of a
comprehensive survey of the existing status of solid waste management in Cali-
fornia. Included in this report are summary data on sources of origin and the
quantities of wastes currently being produced, a summary of current laws and
regulations concerned with solid wastes, the methods utilized for collection
and disposal, an analysis of the effects of current solid waste management on
public health and environmental quality^ and the current status of planning
for solid wastes.
A. DEFICIENCIES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
An analysis of the data results in a readily formed conclusion that solid
waste management, as currently practiced in California, is most unsatisfactory.
During 196? a total of "1-5 million tons of solid wastes was produced in the
state. This staggering amount of material, confronting a technology inadequate
to meet barest existing needs, presents a formidable threat to the future
II-l
-------
environment of California. These aspects, however, are not the only factors
contributing to the solid waste problem as it now exists. Perhaps of gravest .
concern are the unrealistic approaches to solid waste management as practiced
*
today. Solid waste management problems facing metropolitan, suburban, and
rural regions have reached crisis or near-crisis points in many areas. The
critical need for effective statewide and regional approaches to waste manage-
ment has been emphasized by many outstanding private consultants as well as
by some local and state agencies and officials.
Solid waste disposal in California has been and is based upon a fragmented
jurisdictional approach. Each political entity bases its waste disposal method
on inherited operational procedures or on methods that are the result of hasty
decisions to provide a stopgap solution to a pressing disposal problem. Since,
at its source, solid waste is of negative value, the modus operand! has been
to provide at the least possible direct cost, a method of disposal that would
satisfy only the immediate minimum requirements for health and safety.
Solid waste management generally has become a function of a haphazard com-
bination of public and private sectors. While this combination need not be an
inherent deterrent to effective waste management operations, it has in most
instances, as currently practiced, reduced their effectiveness. This condi-
tion, along with the existence of a large number of fragmented local juris-
dictions, has compounded the problems of waste management. If each local
government attempts to manage the solid wastes within its political jurisdic-
tion, the criteria for making its decisions are necessarily based on a rela-
tively small number of technically feasible alternative solutions. This also
imposes economic limitations and enhances the environmental abuses that usually
result from small-scale operations.
At the present time, California has 58 counties, 399 cities, numerous
special districts, and several state and federal agencies attempting to
II-2
-------
manage solid waste operations. The inability of jurisdictions to absorb their
own wastes is evidenced by the fact that 363 of the 399 cities dispose of some
or all of their wastes outside of their city boundaries. In addition, 25 coun-
ties export some refuse for disposal to other counties.
While subsequent sections of this report provide an analysis in further
detail, the areas of deficiency can be summarized under these five major cate-
gories:
(l) Fragmented Authority and Lack of Cooperation. Numerous governmental
jurisdictions and private interests are concerned with the regulation,
collection, utilization, and disposal of solid wastes in California.
Cities, counties, special districts and numerous state and federal
agencies in California are empowered to establish policy and standards,
conduct planning programs, and operate collection and disposal systems
in the field of solid wastes. The most notable deficiency observed is
the general lack of consistency with respect to policy, planning, and
standards. In addition, with but few exceptions, cooperative effort
between jurisdictions is largely nonexistent.
(2) Inadequate Planning. Adequate plans to cope with the increasing vol-
umes of solid wastes and diminishing land for disposal purposes have
not been developed. Only l6 of the 58 counties have developed any
form of a county plan for solid waste disposal, and many of the plans
which have been developed have not been adopted or implemented.
Several of the existing county plans ignore consideration of the
needs or plans of the incorporated cities in the county. Very few
of the county plans include provisions for accommodating major indus-
trial wastes such as cannery wastes and no county solid waste plan
developed to date has considered the needs or problems of adjacent
counties or cities.
II-3
-------
(3) Inadequate Standards. There are 7l6 general use solid waste disposal
sites now serving municipalities and the general public in the state.
In addition, there are some 500 or more supplemental or "special use"
sites. Over 75 percent of all of the major disposal sites inspected
fell under the classification of open burning dumps. These dumps were
accompanied by the usual flies, rats, smoke, odors and unsightliness.
Less than 10 percent of the sites were classified as acceptable sani-
tary landfills. Only 17 of the 58 counties have attempted to incorpo-
rate into local ordinances some form of minimum standards for location
and operation of disposal facilities. Moreover, most of the standards
that have been adopted are not enforced. Lack of uniformity of stand-
ards from one area to the next was particularly apparent. What is
considered a sanitary landfill by one jurisdiction is nothing more
than an open dump by another jurisdiction's standards.
(k) Poorly Developed Technology. Solid waste technology is many years
behind that available for the management of liquid and gaseous wastes.
Almost all disposal methods now in use are forms of burning or burying.
These systems are unfortunately often operated in a highly inefficient
and unsanitary manner.
(5) Inadequate Financing. Many local agencies are financially unable to
undertake the planning and implementation programs necessary for
effective solid waste management. Collection and disposal of domes-
tic and commercial refuse in California are now costing an estimated
300 million dollars per year. Over 20 million dollars annually are
spent in just operating the 716 (largely unsatisfactory) disposal
sites now in existence. When the additional amounts also spent for
collection and disposal of industrial and some agricultural wastes
are included, the total cost may well exceed 500 million dollars
-------
per year.
In summary, it must be acknowledged that the management of solid wastes
in California consists largely of piecemeal, uncoordinated activities, designed
to meet the immediate needs of artificially segmented geographical units with
little or no regard for regional planning and cooperation. The following sec-
tions summarize the principal findings from each chapter.
B. SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
One of the primary objectives of the study was to determine or estimate
the amounts and types of solid wastes produced in the state. For the purpose
of this study all solid wastes produced have been grouped into three general
categories: municipal wastes, industrial wastes, and agricultural wastes. The
following are the major findings in regard to solid waste production.
• During 196?? approximately 71-5 million tons of solid wastes of all
types were produced in California. This is broken down as:
Municipal wastes .... 22.9 million tons
Agricultural wastes .... 3^-9 million tons
Industrial wastes .... 13.7 million tons
• Based on a statewide population of 19-5 million persons, the total per
capita production of solid wastes amounted to 20.2 pounds per day,
broken down as:
Municipal wastes .... 6.5
Agricultural wastes .... 9-8
Industrial wastes .... 3-9
• The five leading counties in total amount of solid wastes produced in
1967 by descending order are:
II-5
-------
(l) Los Angeles (12,6^5,000 tons), (2) Fresno (3,609,000 tons),
(3) San Bernardino (3,169,000 tons), (4) Tulare (2,98U,000 tons),
and (5) Stanislaus (2,601,000 tons).
*
• The breakdown by categories of the 71.5 million tons produced in Cali-
fornia in 1967 is as follows:
Municipal Wastes Tons
Residential 8,866,000
Commercial 9,717,000
Demolition 2,988,000
Special 1,3^3,000 22,91^,000
Agricultural Wastes
Manure 21,809,000
Fruit and Nut Crops 2,361,000
Field and Row Crops 10.731,000 3^,901,000
Industrial Wastes
Food Processing 2,127,000
Lumber 7,993,000
Chemical & Petroleum U-64,000
Manufacturing 3.103.000 13.687.000
1967 Total 71,502,000
• During 19675 19-5 million tons (27 percent) of the total amount of solid
wastes produced was disposed of in the 7l6 major general use sites in the
state. Most of this material was municipal wastes.
C. ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL
All of the solid waste planning and operation functions and most of the
regulatory controls are now transacted at the local level. There are a great
number of cities, counties, and districts empowered by law to regulate solid
waste management. Many of these agencies have exercised this right and have
II-6
-------
thereby developed a maze of conflicting, duplicative, inconsistent, and inade-
quate laws and regulations. Many of these laws have been promulgated to meet
some specific crisis or have been "complaint" motivated. The fact that almost
t
no two cities have identical laws regarding solid wastes hampers efficient col-
lection service by both private and public agencies. The need for greater coor-
dination of these fragmented interests for the development of sound, uniform
laws and regulations is evident.
The fragmentation and inconsistency is not confined to local jurisdictions
but exists at the state level as well. In California 12 different state agencies
are involved to some extent in solid waste regulation. Each of these agencies
has developed rather specific, narrow regulations pertaining to its own area
of interest with little regard for the total system. The terms "garbage" and
"refuse", for example, are defined six different ways in various state codes.
Most California code sections are aimed at such things as protecting the
waters or air, preventing forest fires, protecting fish and wildlife, protecting
the health of hogs, and preserving the aesthetics of highways. What is lacking,
however, are solid waste laws designed specifically to protect people, their
health and well-being. One of the more apparent deficiencies in existing
state statutes is that no state agency has the necessary broad statutory res-
ponsibility for solid waste management. Additional pertinent findings are as
follows:
• 58 counties, 399 cities, and I,l62 special-purpose districts are empowered
by law to engage in solid waste management activities.
• 42 counties in California have some form of solid waste ordinance.
• 361 cities (90 percent of the cities) have enacted some form of refuse
ordinance, in most cases regulating only collection of refuse.
II-7
-------
• 5 federal agencies, not including military establishments, are directly
concerned with some aspect of solid waste management.
D. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
The greatest amount of cost in a solid waste management system is that
required for the collection and transportation of the wastes from the source
of production to the point of disposal. Information obtained from cities,
counties, and private collectors, relative to solid waste collection and
transportation, may be summarized as follows:
• Every city in California is provided with some form of refuse collection
service.
• 2.2 million people (12 percent of the population) do not have refuse
collection service; 1.7 million of these persons live in unincorporated
areas. The remaining 500,000 are those living in cities where service
is available but who do not subscribe to the service.
• Only two counties in the state have no collection service in any portion
of the unincorporated areas.
• 9^- cities have public agency collection of residential refuse, 9 have
a combination of public and private service, and 296 have private
industry collection service.
• 285 cities have a basic once-a-week collection service of residential
refuse and llU cities have twice-a-week or more refuse collection.
• Mandatory subscription to the collection service is required by 227
cities; only k counties require mandatory subscription in some portion
of the unincorporated area.
II-8
-------
• Back yard burning of rubbish is prohibited in 158 cities.
»
• There are approximately 900 refuse collection agencies operating
« throughout the state,
• There are 21 major refuse transfer stations in operation, handling
900,000 tons of refuse per year.
E. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Solid waste disposal methods now in use in California generally involve
some variation of burning or burying and in a few situations organic conver-
sion. Agricultural wastes are disposed of primarily by spreading on land-or
burning. Municipal wastes are in almost all cases, disposed of by burning
or burying in landfills; industrial wastes are commonly disposed of in small
landfills on plant property, transported to other landfills, or burned.
All disposal sites which accept municipal-type wastes (general use sites)
were inspected, evaluated, and classified according to disposal operation.
Two uncontrolled disposal classifications (generally referred to as "dumps")
and three controlled operation classifications (referred to as "controlled
landfills") were utilized. The following are some of the major findings of
the disposal site survey:
• 7l6 general use disposal sites are now in operation, receiving approxi-
mately 19«5 million tons of refuse per year.
• 511 disposal sites (71 percent) are burning dumps; 205 (29 percent) are
controlled landfills.
• Only 67 disposal sites were rated as acceptable sanitary landfills.
• 535 sites (75 percent) are operated by public agencies. Site operation
II-9
-------
is summarized as follows:
Counties
Cities
Districts
State
Federal
Private
380
99
l4
14
28
181
• Refuse disposal sites in California contain more than 56 square miles
of land. The remaining capacity in these sites is estimated to be about
• ?19jOOO acre feet (e.g., 25 square miles, ^5 feet deep). These figures
may be misleading, however, since only 2 percent of the sites contain
5^4- percent of the remaining capacity.
• 27 percent of the existing sites will be filled in less than 5 years.
• The chief need expressed by local officials in regard to solid waste
management was for more disposal sites.
• While U2 of the 58 counties have ordinances concerning solid wastes,
only 17 ordinances actually regulate the disposal of solid wastes.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SOLID WASTES
Inadequate management of solid wastes may adversely affect the environ-
ment by creating a potential mode for the transmission of certain diseases
by polluting the land, water and air, and by generally degrading those envi-
ronmental characteristics essential to human comfort and enjoyment of life.
Of these considerations, primary attention has been given to the threat that
solid wastes constitute on man's health and well-being.
Domestic flies are the most prominent public health factor associated
with solid wastes. Poorly managed solid wastes are also a medium for the
production of other disease vectors and reservoir animals. The pollution
11-10
-------
of land has become increasingly evident in the desecretion of the fields and
hillsides by open dumps, piles of automobiles, and mounds of manure, and in
the frequent indiscriminant dumping of infectious and toxic wastes. Improper
disposal of solid wastes may add physical, chemical, and biological pollutants
to the water, causing degradation of water quality. Air pollution is an inevi-
table by-product when smoke, particulate matter, toxic vapors, and odors are
discharged from burning dumps, burning in fields, and other inadequate burning
operations. The following are some of the pertinent summary findings regarding
the environmental effects of solid wastes:
• Improperly stored solid wastes and poorly operated disposal sites support
large populations of flies, rodents, and other vectors of disease.
• Solid wastes pollute the land, air, and water of the state as a result
of poor management practices.
• Occupational or safety hazards prevalent at disposal sites include injuries
from fires and explosions, high embankments with no safety barriers, traffic
hazards, and contact with hazardous wastes, such as pesticides.
• Complete daily covering (the chief deterrent to environmental problems) is
provided at only 85 (12 percent) of the general use disposal sites.
• 14-68 disposal sites provide no covering of the refuse on a routine basis.
• Only 20 percent of the sites have effective control over blowing papers.
• 33 disposal sites were found to be discharging solid wastes directly into
surface water. At 8l sites, solid wastes are in contact or appear to be
in contact with ground waters. 207 sites have not made adequate provisions
for control of surface water drainage.
11-11
-------
disposal sites in 51 counties contribute to smoke, odor, and air
pollution problems through open burning of refuse.
• More than 250 fires, requiring the use of outside fire control equipment,,
originated from refuse disposal sites during 196?.
G. SOLID WASTE PLANNING - CURRENT STATUS
One major deficiency in solid waste management in California is the lack
of adequate planning at all levels of government. Few plans have been devel-
oped for the future, and present action is stimulated primarily by impending
crises. Authority in solid waste management is fragmented and cooperation is
lacking. A mechanism is needed for stimulating planning for solid waste manage-
ment on a rational geographical basis, coordinated to insure escalation of stand-
ards of environmental quality. Some of the findings regarding the status of
planning are as follows:
• Only l6 of the 58 counties have undertaken any solid waste study or
planning activities. These have generally been incomplete studies. No
county at the present time has a complete solid waste management plan.
Deficiencies of existing plans include lack of planning for the entire
county, for the entire waste loading, and for reasonable projection of
future requirements.
• While 25 counties export some refuse to other areas, no county plan has
properly considered the needs or problems of adjacent areas.
• Responsibility for local solid waste planning programs generally rests
with the public works or engineering departments. County planning de-
partments have this responsibility in 7 of the 58 counties.
11-12
-------
SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
In reviewing various reports it is noted that many estimates of solid
waste production have been utilized and quoted. Almost all of these estimates
have been based on "rule-of-thumb" measurements such as four pounds per capita
per day. These estimates rarely defined what types of wastes were included and
almost never included all solid wastes.
One of the primary objectives of this study was to attempt to determine,
on a rational basis, the magnitude of the total solid waste production in Cali-
fornia. In this study, solid waste production was evaluated and analyzed under
the three major waste categories of municipal wastes, industrial wastes and
agricultural wastes. The following are examples of the types of waste material
under these categories:
(l) Municipal Wastes
(a) Residential wastes:
Household garbage and rubbish
Lawn clippings and prunings
Furniture, appliances, and miscellaneous items
(b) Commercial wastes:
Refuse from stores, markets, offices and shopping centers
Refuse from schools, churches, hospitals, public buildings,
airports, etc.
(c) Demolition and construction wastes
(d) Special wastes:
Street refuse (sweepings, leaves, tree trimmings)
III-l
-------
Sewage treatment residue (sludge and screenings)
Dead animals (dogs, cats, etc.)
Automobile bodies
(2) Agricultural Wastes
(a) Livestock manure
(b) Fruit and nut crop wastes
(c) Field and row crop wastes
(3) Industrial Wastes
(a) Food processing wastes
(b) Lumber industry wastes (sawmills, planing mills, logging)
(c) Chemical and petroleum industry wastes
(d) Manufacturing wastes
In determining quantities of wastes, an effort has been made in this
chapter to estimate the amount of wastes "produced" as distinguished from
the amount of wastes "disposed of" in landfills or other disposal sites. A
considerable amount of waste material generated in any area never actually
finds its way to a disposal site under current practices. Procedures such
as back yard burning of residential refuse, on-site disposal of industrial
wastes, field disposal of agricultural wastes, incineration, grinding to
sewers, etc., create the differential between waste "production" and "disposal".
The quantity of wastes delivered to general use sites is presented in Chapter
VI.
In estimating quantities of wastes produced, considerable use was made
of waste generation or production factors. These factors generally relate
the average quantity of wastes produced over a specific period of time to a
basic unit of production. In the municipal waste segment, factors such as
pounds-per-person-per-day were utilized. For agriculture, the factors utilized
were pounds-per-animal-per-year for manure or tons-per-acre-per-year for crop
wastes. Factors for industrial wastes were usually related to the number of
III-2
-------
VARIED
TYPES
OF
SOLID
WASTES
j: j^y^jglllM
-------
-------
employees or expressed as a percentage of raw material processed (on a weight
.basis) or on a tonnage per production unit. The methodology utilized to deter-
mine quantities of solid wastes produced is discussed further in this chapter.
A. TOTAL QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTES PRODUCED
As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, attention has been
directed to sources and quantities of waste generation rather than to that
merely collected or disposed of in traditional manner. In order to establish
a sound basis upon which to establish effective plans and programs, reliable
forecasts of solid waste quantities are needed. A survey of the quantities
of solid waste collected or accepted at disposal sites provides an insuffi-
cient basis for making future projections. Solid waste quantities when re-
lated to specific sources of generation, provide a better basis for future
projections. Advantages of this method are that it takes into account: (a)
different growth rates of various sources of waste generation; (b) technolog-
ical changes affecting specific sources and types of wastes; (c) more detailed
information concerning the various streams of wastes (e.g., waste factors can
be developed for specific sources).
It should also be recognized that only a portion of the total solid waste
production can be directly attributed to the density of population in a given
area or region. Certain specific wastes such as residential garbage and rub-
bish, commercial wastes, demolition wastes and sewage residue are directly
proportional to population density and increase or decrease in direct propor-
tion to the population. Wastes such as agricultural manure, crop wastes,
industrial processing wastes are not related to population but are reflected
by the economy and physical characteristics of a region. These wastes cannot
be realistically expressed as a function of population density on a per capita
basis. The quantities of waste expressed in this chapter are shown as total
III-5
-------
quantities according to category. Per capita figures are reflected in some
cases for comparison purposes only.
During 196?} total solid waste production in California amounted to a
total of 71,502,000 tons. Of this total 32.0 percent (22,91^,000 tons) was
municipal waste, 4-8.8 percent (3^,901,000 tons) was agricultural waste and
19.2 percent (13,687,000 tons) was industrial waste. The amount of solid
wastes produced by each county is listed by categories in Table III-l. The
ranking of each county, .according to the total amount of wastes produced, is
also shown. Somewhat surprising was the fact that Los Angeles, Fresno, San
Bernardino, Tulare and Stanislaus counties lead the state in total amounts
of solid waste produced.
Chapter VI is a discussion of solid waste disposal in California. As
indicated in that chapter, only 19,^7^,600 tons per year or about 27 percent
of all of the solid wastes produced in California finds its way to general
use disposal sites. Much of the reason for this, of course, is due to the
fact that agricultural waste is normally disposed of at the source. Municipal
and industrial wastes are the wastes which normally are amenable to disposal
through traditional solid waste disposal facilities. It was found, however,
that only about 53 percent of the municipal and industrial wastes are actually
disposed of in the 7l6 general use disposal sites in the state. This would
indicate that considerable amounts of these types of wastes are handled and
disposed of by other means. An example is lumber industry wastes (7,9933000
tons), which are either left in the forest or burned in "teepee burners".
A general rule-of-thumb factor of k or Mj- pounds per person per day has
frequently been quoted and has been accepted as a national average for solid
waste production. For comparison purposes, the more than 71 million tons of
solid wastes produced annually in California by a population of almost 20
million persons represent a production factor of 20.2 pounds per person per
III-6
-------
TABLE III-l
TOTAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
County
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Korn
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Mar in
Mariposa
Mendocino
Morced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Additional Statewide
Total!/
Municipal
TonsAear
1,3117,000
< 1,000
10,000
90,000
10.000
11,000
5U9.000
13,000
Uo.ooo
1479,000
16,000
101,000
79,000
12,000
322,000
60,000
15,000
lU.ooo
8,985,000
la, ooo
196,000
li.ooo
[45,000
102,000
7,000
14,000
21*0,000
714.000
21,000
1,557,000
66,000
10,000
1483.000
733,000
lU.ooo
7114,000
1,559,000
1,071,000
277,000
95,000
589,000
2145,000
1.17U.OOO
100,000
70,000
2,000
30,000
173,000
167,000
168,000
36,000
26,000
8,000
173.000
17,000
353,000
77,000
lio.ooo
22,9114,000
Industrial
TonsAear
388,000
3,000
62,000
llli.OOO
Sli.OOO
0
253,000
372,000
318,000
2&.000
53,000
1,802,000
9,000
1,000
62,000
15,000
69.000
117,000
1,881,000
107,000
9,000
10,000
901,000
15,000
92,000
0
73,000
6,000
102,000
223,000
198,000
361i,000
88,000
73,000
5,000
920,000
107,000
122,000
182,000
8,000
99,000
39.000
3li3,000
1142,000
659,000
208,000
687,000
la, ooo
216,000
156,000
16,000
288,000
260,000
182,000
310,000
68,000
31,000
38,000
392,000
13,687,000
Agricultural
TonsAear
125,000
< 1,000
15,000
U56,ooo
11,000
5Uo,ooo
378,000
33,000
19,000
2,876,000
526,000
250,000
2.U93.000
11,000
2,117,000
1,396,000
Ii3,ooo
28,000
1,779,000
635,000
313,000
142,000
89,000
2,101,000
77,000
2,000
777,000
mo, ooo
18,000
Ii56,ooo
91,000
5,000
1,539,000
8147,000
175,000
1,535,000
7ia,ooo
0
1,773,000
1457,000
29,000
328,000
387,000
97,000
153,000
2,000
157,000
511,000
9i5,ooo
2,277,000
577,000
152,000
2,000
2,629,000
8,000
820,000
769,000
180,000
31* , 901, 000
Annual
Total
Tonnage
1,860,000
3,000
87,000
660,000
105,000
551,000
1,180,000
las, ooo
377,000
3,609,000
595,000
2,153,000
2,580,700
23,000
2,521,000
1.U71.000
127,000
189,000
l2,6U5,coo
783,000
518,000
56,ooo
1,035,000
2,218,000
176,000
6,000
1,090,000
220,000
Ha, ooo
2,236,000
355,000
379,000
2,110,000
1,653,000
1914,000
3,169,000
2,U07,000
1,193,000
2,232,000
560,000
717,000
612,000
i,9oU,ooo
339,000
882,OCO
212,000
8714,000
725,000
1,290,000
2,601,000
629,000
1466,000
270,000
2,981»,000
335,000
i,2ia,ooo
877,000
258,000
392,000
71,502,000
Rank
in
State
15
58
5U
30
53
35
21
38
ho
2
33
12
6
56
7
17
52
1)9
1
27
36
55
23
11
50
57
22
U6
51
9
111
39
13
16
Ii8
3
8
20
10
3U
29
32
Hi
Ii2
2b
U7
26
28
18
5
31
37
Ui
li
U3
19
25
US
I/ The data In this and the following tables may not balance due to errors
~ inherent in maintaining significant figures.
III-7
-------
day. This per capita figure breaks down into 6.5 pounds per day of munici-
pal waste, 9-8 pounds per day of agricultural waste, and 3-9 pounds per day
of industrial waste.
B. DISCUSSION OF WASTE PRODUCTION BY CATEGORY
A discussion of the waste production categories and the methods used to
estimate quantities of wastes produced is presented in the following sections.
1. MUNICIPAL WASTES
In addition to being attributable to population, some types of municipal
wastes are also related to or dependent upon the density of the population.
This is particularly true of commercial and demolition wastes. In other words,
the more "urban" or built-up an area may be, the more stores, shopping centers,
department stores, offices, etc., located in that area. Urban renewal and
razing of old structures for new construction is more prevalent in larger
urban cities than small communities. For these reasons, the entire state's
population was divided into population groupings. Waste production factors
were then established for each population density grouping for commercial,
demolition and special wastes. Each population center, whether it was an
incorporated city or located in unincorporated areas, was grouped into one
of the following categories:
Less than 1,000 persons
1,000 - 10,000 persons
10,000 - 100,000 persons
More than 100,000 persons
In the case of metropolitan areas, the populations used were those of
the cities plus high density unincorporated areas surrounding the cities.
The population living in other unincorporated areas were categorized
III-8
-------
by communities or other density area. Scattered persons or small villages
were placed in the less than 1,000 group.
The factors used in this study were based upon an analysis of data
*
gathered by the Department during previous studies: the California Solid
Waste Planning Study, the Fresno Integrated Solid Wastes Study, data pro-
vided by other state and local agencies and miscellaneous published reports.
Table III-2 presents the total amount of municipal wastes generated in
California during 196?5 listed by the various categories. Once again it
should be pointed out that this represents the quantity of wastes "produced"
not necessarily the quantity collected or taken to disposal sites. As indi-
cated in the table, almost 23 million tons of municipal wastes representing
6.5 pounds per capita per day were generated in 196?-
The column indicating "applicable population" refers to the total popu-
lation to which the appropriate waste production factor was applied. In this
regard residential wastes were found to be very consistent and did not appear
to fluctuate significantly with the size of the community. The factor for
residential wastes, therefore, was applied to the total population. Commer-
cial wastes varied according to population density and are reflected as such.
Demolition and construction wastes were applied only to population densities
greater than 1,000 persons and according to grouping. Inasmuch as street
cleaning, etc., is routinely performed primarily in cities, the factor for
street refuse was applied only to population living in incorporated cities
or large metropolitan areas (the total for state highways is added in sepa-
rately). The sewage treatment residue factor was applied only to population
groups more than 1,000 persons.
One specific material which is sometimes considered as solid waste is
junked or abandoned automobile bodies. Without question, in many parts of
the state, automobile bodies are definitely a waste product with many
III-9
-------
TABLE HI-2
STATEWIDE MUNICIPAL WASTE PRODUCTION
Residential Waste
Countywide Average
Commercial Waste
"= 1,000
1,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 100,000
> 100,000
Demolition Waste
1,000 - 10,000
10,001 - 100,000
> 100,000
Special Waste
Street Refuse
Sewage Residue
Applicable
Population
19,U32,620
1,722,770
1,928,0^0
8,U33,500
7,3U8,300
1,928,050
8,^33,500
7,3U8,300
111, Ul 2, 080
17,709,850
Waste
Generation
Factor
2.5 Ib/capita/day
Annual
Total
Tonnage
8,866,100
Subtotal 8,866,100
1.5 Ib/capita/day
2.0 Ib/capita/day
2.5 Ib/capita/day
3.5 Ib/capita/day
U71,600
703,700
3,8U7,800
U, 693, 700
Subtotal 9,716,800
100 Ib/capita/yr.
250 Ib/capita/yr.
500 Ib/capita/yr.
96,UOO
1,05U,200
1,837,100
Subtotal 2,987,700
120 lb/capita/yr.
5U lb/capita/yr.
86)4,700
U73,200
Subtotal 1,3U2,900
TOTAL 22,913,500
III-10
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
associated environmental and disposal problems. This is particularly true
in the rural parts of Northern California, where abandoned autos appear along
roads, streams, ravines and public refuse disposal sites. These constitute
aesthetic eyesores as well as presenting disposal problems to public officials.
The large majority of junked automobile bodies in California, however, are
salvaged as scrap metal. These auto hulks have value in the large metropoli-
tan areas. In the Los Angeles area, for example, many hundreds of thousands
of these are processed annually into scrap metal. The "problem", therefore,
is primarily one of location and handling of these bodies.
Because of the fact that automobile bodies are not considered as wastes
in many areas of California at the present time due to their salvage value,
the quantity of this material is not included in municipal waste production
as described in this chapter. Any solid waste planning agency, however,
should consider this material on an individual basis to determine its pres-
ent and future status and its method of handling and disposal.
Table III-3 shows the municipal waste production by counties and general
category.
2. AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Agricultural wastes consist primarily of animal manures, residue from
harvested field crops, and prunings and residue from fruit and nut orchards.
The waste generation factors for agricultural wastes are not related to popu-
lation but are reflected in terms of the amount of wastes produced by each
type of source.
The agricultural waste survey included interviews with state and local
agencies, agricultural commissioners, local farm advisors, University of
California and others to obtain data relative to wastes from agricultural
activities. From these data and other published reports, the amounts of
111-12
-------
wastes originating from unit agricultural activities were determined.
In the category of manure, only those animals which are confined, such
as in corrals, pens, or houses, were considered as waste sources. Pastured
or range animals were excluded since wastes from these animals are not, in
a practical sense, subject to "management". The amounts of animal manures
were estimated by determining the number of animals of each type for each
county and applying the appropriate waste production factor. In this report
the waste factor represents manure in a wet condition as produced.
County agricultural crop reports were utilized to determine the acreage
of each type of waste-producing crop. Inasmuch as several crops were subject
to approximately the same waste production factor, these crops were grouped
together and designated as Class 1 through 5- The following is a listing of
the classes and the type of crops in each class.
(l) Fruit and Nut Crops
Class 1 Grapes, peaches, nectarines
Class 2 Apples, figs, pears
Class 3 Plums, apricots, quince
Class k Almonds, olives, avocados and all miscellaneous
fruits or nuts
Class 5 Walnuts, prunes, citrus, cherries, dates
(2) Field and Row Crops
Class 1 Field and sweet corn (not silage corn)
Class 2 Cauliflower, lettuce and broccoli
Class 3 Rice, sorghum, cantaloupes, tomatoes, melons,
sugar beets, cabbage, squash, brusselssprouts
Class k Beans, onions, cucumbers, carrots, peas, peppers,
potatoes, garlic, peanuts, cotton, celery, and
all miscellaneous vegetables
Class 5 Barley, oats, wheat, milo, safflower, asparagus
The sum total acreage for each class was multiplied by the appropriate
111-13
-------
TABLE III-4
STATEWIDE AGRICULTURAL WASTE PRODUCTION
Manures
Chickens (Fryers)
Hens (Layers)
Hogs
Beef Cattle (feedlot)
Dairy Cattle
Fruit and Nut Crops
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Field and Row Crops
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Ifumber of
Applicable Units
99,977,770 birds
37,797,900 birds
193,300 head
1,078,700 head
857,930 head
557,320 acres
77,330 acres
59,300 acres
12,670 acres
484,900 acres
230,360 acres
170,650 acres
944,030 acres
897,300 acres
2,923,670 acres
Waste
Production
Factor
4. 5 tons/1000
47 tons/1000
1.75 tons /head
7-5 tons/head
13 tons/head
Annual
Total
Tonnage
449,900
1,776,500
338, 300
8, 090, 800
11,153,100
Subtotal 21,809,000
2. 5 tons /acre
2.25 tons /acre
2.0 tons /acre
1.5 tons /acre
1 . 0 tons/acre
1,393,300
174, ooo
118, 600
190, ooo
484, 900
Subtotal 2, 361, 000
4.5 tons /acre
4.0 tons/acre
3.0 tons /acre
2.0 tons /acre
1.5 tons/acre
1, 036, 600
682, 600
2,832,100
1,794,600
4, 385, 500
Subtotal 10, 731, 000
TOTAL 31*, 901, 000
111-14
-------
TABLE III-5
AGRICULTURAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION BY COUNTY
County
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaverag
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoo
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Sisfciyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Total
Manures
TonsAear
58,900
0
10,900
86,900
e.iioo
1*6,600
21*7,200
33,000
12,300
1. Oil*, 000
229,700
21*8,1*00
1,676,500
10,200
1,1*22,1*00
719,700
19,600
10,500
1,687,900
270,100
312,200
1*0,900
56,700
1,61*8,300
13,000
1,300
213,800
100,700
17,700
361,600
1*0,800
3,200
919, 200
1*91*, 700
97,900
1,1*57,500
661*, 000
0
91*1,600
182,600
25,500
181,600
237,1*00
39,200
11*1*,600
l,5oo
62,900
257, 200
831*, 000
1,883,800
52,200
91,600
1,600
1,796,200
7,000
618,700
97,800
95,600
21,809,000
Fruit &
Nut Crop
Waste
TonsAear
8,300
0
2,000
1*3,000
1,800
15,800
30,200
0
6,1*00
519,300
11,100
100
i,5oo
0
106,600
20,200
22,200
0
11,000
100,000
100
Uoo
28,500
85,700
0
100
5,5oo
37,000
600
19.100
11,500
0
71*, 900
11*, 600
23,900
61*, 200
27,300
0
193,200
13,200
0
11,000
72,1*00
19,900
2,100
0
0
28,000
70,200
150,300
69,300
18,900
0
299,600
1,100
67,700
25,100
26,000
2,361,000
Field &
Row Crop
Waste
TonsAear
57,500
100
1,700
326,200
0
1*77,700
100,200
0
0
1,31*2,1*00
285,1*00
1,900
8ll*,700
300
588,100
656,300
1,500
17,000
80,500
265,000
800
600
3,700
366,700
61*, 300
100
557,500
2,000
0
71*, 900
38,500
2,000
5U5.100
338,100
53,500
I3,5oo
1*9,800
0
638,500
261,300
3,800
135,600
77,100
37,500
6,200
700
91*, 1)00
225,1*00
10,600
21*3,100
l*55,eoo
1*1,800
0
533,1*00
200
131*, 000
61*6,200
58,200
10,751,000
Annual
Total
Tonnage
125,000
< 1,000
15,000
1*56,000
10,000
5Uo,ooo
378,000
33,000
19,000
2,876,000
526,000
250,000
2,U93,000
11,000
2,117,000
1,396,000
1*3,000
28,000
1,779,000
635,000
313,000
1*2,000
89,000
2,101,000
77,000
2,000
777,000
l!*0, 000
18,000
l*56,ooo
91,000
5,000
1,539,000
81*7,000
175,000
1,535,000
71*1,000
0
1,773,000
1*57,000
29,000
328,000
387,000
97 , ooo
153,000
2,000
157,000
511,000
9iS,ooo
2,277,000
577,000
152,000
2,000
2,629,000
8,000
820,000
769,000
180,000
3U, 901, ooo
Rank
in
State
37
57
1*9
aii
51
20
27
1*1*
1.7
1
21
30
3
SO
$
11
1*2
1*6
7
18
29
h3
1*0
6
la
51*
15
36
1*8
21*
39
53
9
13
32
10
17
58
8
23
U5
28
26
38
31*
51*
33
22
12
1*
19
35
51*
2
52
11*
16
31
111-15
-------
FIGURE Ill-l
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE WASTES
-1967-
v
ANNUAL TONNAGE PRODUCED BY COUNTY
HJH GREATER THAN 1,000,000 TONS
500,000 TO 1,000,000 TONS
LESS THAN 500,000 TONS
111-16
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
waste factor per acre to estimate the total waste produced. For fruit and
nut crops, non-bearing acreage was excluded although it is recognized that
some considerably lesser amount of wastes may be associated with this acre-
age. The waste production factors shown in Table III-^ were derived primarily
from other published reports: the University of California, Agriculture Exten-
sion Service and by Departmental studies in Fresno County.
As indicated in Table TLI-k, a total of 3^,901,000 tons of agricultural
wastes were produced in California in 196?' The major portion (62.5 percent)
of these wastes consisted of animal manure. In addition to representing the
greatest amount of agricultural wastes produced, the manures also cause some
of the more critical environmental problems. As might be expected, the major
agricultural waste-producing counties are located in the San Joaquin and Impe-
rial Valley. The five leading counties in terms of agricultural waste produc-
tion are Fresno, Tulare, Imperial, Stanislaus, and Kern. The amounts of
agricultural wastes generated by counties are shown in Table III-5 and the
distribution of the major producers is shown on Figure III-l.
3. INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
a. General Procedure
The industrial waste section is presented in greater detail than the
other categories. This was done because less published data are available
for this category and -additional detail was needed to explain the develop-
ment of industrial solid waste data.
In the analysis of industrial wastes, by-products presently being uti-
lized (e.g., slag from some steel mills and some residue from sawmills) were
excluded. These quantities are not reported in the totals presented in this
chapter.
The data on quantities of industrial solid wastes produced in California
111-17
-------
were determined from field surveys (interviews), mail surveys, and the appli-
cation of waste production factors to employment data and production data.
Sources of data included special studies by this Department, information from
local, state, and federal agencies, and particularly information from industry.
Information from private industry was obtained both directly from industrial
companies and through industrial trade associations. Special industrial solid
waste surveys were conducted in cooperation with this study by the National
Canners Association, the National Frozen Food Association, the Chemical Indus-
trial Council of Northern California, and the Western Oil and Gas Association.
Useful information was also provided by the Bay Area League of Industrial Asso-
ciations, the California Manufacturers Association, the State Chamber of Com-
merce, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Agricultural Extension Service of the
University of California.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), developed by the federal
government, was utilized for the classification of establishments in California
according to t-ype of activity. More detailed information on the SIC code and
its utilization by this study is presented in Appendix A. The industrial wastes
considered in this report with the exception of wastes from industries designated
by SIC Codes 0715, 0716, 50*4-0 and 50^1 (fresh pack of fruits and vegetables) were
limited to those industries within Division D, designated by the SIC Manual as
"manufacturing". These were considered to constitute the major waste producers
in terms of industrial processing wastes.
Employment data from the 196? County Business Patterns-^ were used for all
Standard Industrial Classifications except seasonal industries. This publica-
tion reports employment data tabulated in terms of "reporting units", with each
I/ U.S. Bureau of the Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual 196?»
(Washington: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1967).
2/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns 1967, California CBP-67-6,
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968).
111-18
-------
manufacturing location of an industry counted as a separate reporting unit.
-Therefore, in manufacturing industries "units" are similar to "establish-
3/
ments" reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in the Census of Manufacturers.
This is an important fact because it means that data such as "value added by
manufacture" and "value of shipments" can be used in the development of waste
production factors. During this study, data from the 19&3 Census of Manufac-
turers were also used to a limited extent.
It should be noted that employment data in the 196? County Business
Patterns are the count of employees on the payroll as of March 12, 1967.
Therefore, special care must be taken when waste factors relating to the
number of employees are applied to industries with seasonal employment, such
as food processing. In this study, for example, although the quantities on
fresh pack of fruits and vegetables were estimated by the application of waste
production factors applied to the number of employees, monthly employment data
were obtained from the California Department of Employment and the factor was
based on man/months instead of man/years. Data on cannery wastes were obtained
from a statewide survey of actual wastes produced, conducted by the National
Canners Association for this Department.
It is recognized that much additional work must be done in the field of
industrial solid wastes to develop better factors and to determine the ulti-
mate disposition of all of the types of industrial wastes. The industrial
waste data gathered during the development of this report are comprehensive
for the food processing, lumber, and chemical and petroleum categories. The
factors used for the manufacturing category are based on estimates, and addi-
tional work needs to be done in this area.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1963 Census of Manufacturers, California-Area
Statistics MC 63(3)-!?, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966)
111-19
-------
b. Total Quantities of Wastes
During 196?, an estimated 13,687,000 tons of industrial wastes were pro- -
duced in California. As shown in Table III-6, these wastes are composed of
\.
four major groups: food processing (2,127,000 tons); lumber (7}993}000 tons);
chemical and petroleum (U6^,000 tons); and manufacturing (3,103,000 tons).
These four major groups are discussed individually later in this chapter.
Also in Table III-6 is the quantity of wastes produced by each subgroup, shown
by its Standard Industrial Classification.
In Table III-7, Industrial Solid Waste Production, the quantity of indus-
trial solid wastes for each group by county is shown. Also in Table III-7 is
a county-by-county tabulation of total industrial solid wastes.
The ten counties with the greatest industrial solid waste production are
listed in Table III-8. This table lists counties by total industrial wastes
and by industrial wastes with lumber wastes excluded.
The right-hand figures are presented because lumber industry wastes could
almost be considered a separate type of waste, lying somewhere between agricul-
tural and industrial wastes. Hence, its production is not indicative of the
"industrial" nature of the counties in the traditional sense.
c. Discussion of Major Types of Industrial Wastes
(l) Food Processing Wastes
As was shown in Table III-6, an estimated 2,127,000 tons of food process-
ing wastes were produced in California during 1967. Food processing wastes
are a major concern, not only because of the large quantities produced, but
because of the potential for environmental pollution. Due to the organic and
highly putrescible nature of food processing wastes, a major problem associated
with its disposal is its great capacity to act as a breeding media for the pro-
duction of flies. Water and air pollution (in the form of obnoxious odors) are
111-20
-------
TABLE III-6
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION - 196?
Statewide Totals by SIC Classification
-
SIC CODE
Misc. Codes
201
2033
2037
Other 203
Other 20 Series
2^11
21+21
TYPE OF WASTE
Food Processing Wastes
Fruit and Vegetable Fresh Pack
Meat Processing
Cannery
Frozen Foods
Other Preserved Foods
Misc. Food Processing
Sub -Total
Lumber Industry Wastes
Logging Debris
Sawmills and Planing Mills
Sub-Total
SOLID WASTE
TONNAGE
1+09,500
100,000
750,000
170,000
197,500
500,000
l+, 956, 900
3,036,Uoo
2,127,000
7,993,000
Chemical and Petroleum Industry Wastes
28
29
19
33
3^
35
36
37
22
23
2U
25
26
27
30
31
32
38
39
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining and Related
Industries
Sub-Total
Manufacturing Wastes
Heavy Manufacturing
Ordinance
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Machinery (other than electrical)
Electrical Machinery and Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Light Manufacturing
Textile Mill Products
Apparel, etc.
Wood Products (except 21+11 and 2 1+21 )
Furniture
Paper and Allied Products
Printing, publishing
Rubber and Plastic
Leather
Stone, Clay
Professional and Scientific Inst.
Misc . Manufacturing
Sub-Total
Total Industrial Wastes
126,800
336,800
5!+, 600
1,307,600
181,000
332,200
3^6,100
32l+, 900
2,500
21,000
203,000
16,800
63,500
1+1,300
96,600
1,000
10l+,100
3,^oo
3,800
i+6i+,ooo
3,103,000
13, 687 j ooo
nr-21
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
also associated with the disposal of food processing wastes.
TABLE III-8
TEN LARGEST INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE-PRODUCING COUNTIES
ANNUAL PRODUCTION - 196?
Rank
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total Industrial Wastes
County
Los Angeles
Humboldt
San Bernardino
Mendocino
Siskiyou
Shasta
Alameda
Del Norte
Plumas
Santa Clara
Tons
1,881,000
1,802,000
920,000
901,000
687,000
659,000
388,000
372,000
36^,000
3^3,000
Lumber Industry Wastes Excluded
County
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Alameda
Santa Clara
Contra Costa
Orange
Stanislaus
Fresno
San Joaquin
San Francisco
Tons
1,817,000
885,000
371,000
3^3,000
253,000
223,000
156,000
1^9,000
11+8,000
122,000
A difficulty in providing proper disposal for many of these wastes is
their seasonal nature. For example, 68 percent of the cannery and frozen
food wastes are produced during August, September, and October. At the pre-
sent time no fully satisfactory means for disposing of this material have
been developed.
The quantity of food processing wastes produced by each county in Cali-
fornia is shown in Table III-7. As shown on Figure III-2, the largest food
processing waste-producing counties are Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Stanislaus,
Alameda, San Joaquin, and Fresno, with each county producing in excess of
100,000 tons per year. The seven additional counties indicated on the map
111-23
-------
each produce in excess of 50,000 tons per year. The subgroups listed in
Table III-6 are discussed below:
(a) Fruit and Vegetable Fresh Pack Wastes
Wastes from fresh fruit and vegetable processing are estimated by the
application of waste production factors to the numbers of employees in SIC
Codes 0715, 0716, 501*0, and 501*1. It should be noted that these are special
classifications used by the California Department of Employment and are not
the same as those listed in the 1967 Standard Industrial Classification
Manual.
The codes used by the State of California are as follows:
0715 - Contract sorting, grading, and packing of noncitrus fruits
and vegetables for the growers.
0716 - Contract sorting, grading, and packing of citrus fruits for
the growers.
501*0 - Assemblers of noncitrus fruits and vegetables.
50^1 - Assemblers of citrus fruits.
Since the employment under these classifications is very seasonal, fac-
tors were developed relating to tons of wastes per man month and applied to
monthly employment data obtained from the California Department of Employment.
The waste factor used was l^r tons per man month.
A total of 1*09,500 tons of fresh pack wastes were estimated to be pro-
duced in California during 1967. The five largest fresh pack waste-producing
counties are Fresno, Tulare, Monterey, Ventura, and Riverside, with each
county producing greater than 30,000 tons during 1967. Six additional coun-
ties produced greater than 10,000 tons during 1967.
(b) Meat Products Processing Wastes
An estimated 100,000 tons of wastes were produced in California during
1967 from the processing of meat products. The largest quantity of meat
III- 24
-------
FIGURE III-2
DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD PROCESSING WASTES
-1967-
ANNUAL TONNAGE PRODUCED BY COUNTY
GREATER THAN 100,000 TONS
50,000 TO 100,000 TONS
25,000 TO 50,000 TONS
LESS THAN 25,000 TONS
111-25
CALIF DEPT, OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
product waste is the paunch material from the approximately 3.2 million head
of cattle slaughtered in California each year. The Los Angeles area accounts .
for nearly 50 percent of this waste and the San Francisco area for about 15
k/
percent. The usual method of disposal of the paunch material is by spread-
ing on fields which often results in numerous fly and odor problems.
(c) Cannery Wastes and Frozen Food Wastes
At the request of this Department, the National Canners Association and
the National Frozen Food Association each made statewide solid waste surveys
of their respective industries. The National Canners Association reported
6kh,1.6k tons of cannery wastes from companies representing 85 percent of the
industry. The statewide total for cannery waste production was estimated by
the Department at 750,000 tons for 1967. The National Frozen Food Associa-
tion reported a total of 133>^29 tons of wastes from 73 percent of the indus-
try. The total frozen food waste production has been estimated at 170,000
tons for 1967.
The major cannery and frozen food waste-producing counties are Santa
Clara, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Alameda. These four counties produce
greater than 50 percent of the total tonnage of these types of wastes. The
920,000 tons of cannery and frozen food wastes produced during 19&7 were
reportedly disposed of by the methods indicated in the following table.
kj Logan, S. H. and G. A. King, Beef Cattle Feeding and Slaughtering in
California, University of California Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 826, (Berkeley, 1966).
Ill-26
-------
TABLE III-9
METHOD OF CANNERY AND FROZEN FOOD
WASTES DISPOSAL - 196?
Method
Landfill Disposal Sites
Spread on Fields
Animal Food
Charcoal
Other*
Non-food Wastes**
Totals
Tons
285,000
110,500
276,000
U6,ooo
101,250
101,250
920,000
Percent
31
12
30
5
11
11
100
*0ther methods of disposal include ocean disposal.
**Non-food solid wastes consist of wood, paper,
and metal materials.
(d) Other Preserved Foods and Miscellaneous Food Processing Wastes
The 197,500 tons of "other preserved foods" processing wastes and
500,000 tons of "miscellaneous food processing wastes" were estimated from
the results of a statewide survey and the use of solid waste production fac-
tors applied to employee data. The Department's Bureau of Food and Drug
Inspection, in cooperation with this study, recorded information on solid
waste quantities, characteristics, and disposal at 113 food processing plants
of various types throughout California during 1967. A special questionnaire
was used for this survey so that the data could be gathered during routine
scheduled inspections.
(2) Lumber Industry Wastes
Lumber is obtained from one of California's greatest natural resources,
commercial forests. Commercial forests occur in ^5 of California's 58 coun-
ties; however, more than half of the total acreage is located in six counties
(Siskiyou, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Shasta, andPlumas). Approximately
17.3 million acres of land in California have been classified as commercial
III- 27
-------
forest land. The lumber industry focuses primarily on sawmill and planing
mill operations (SIC Code 2^21); however, in this report the logging camps
and logging contractors (SIC Code 2Ul) are also included as part of the
industry.
Almost eight million tons of solid wastes were produced by the lumber
industry in 196?. As shown in Figure III-3, the counties of Humboldt, Mendo-
cino, Siskiyou, and Shasta each produced in excess of 600,000 tons of lumber
wastes during 196?; 13 other counties produced in excess of 100,000 tons each
during 1967• Lumber industry wastes are reported as sawmill and planing mill
wastes and as logging debris in Tables III-6 and III-7. These two subgroups
are discussed in the following two sections.
(a) Logging Debris
Logging debris is the single largest source of industrial solid wastes
in California, with approximately five million tons produced per year. As
shown in Table III-7> the five major timber-producing counties (Humboldt,
Mendocino, Siskiyou, Shasta, and Del Norte) produce approximately 2.8 million
tons (56.8 percent of the total) of logging debris annually. In Humboldt
County alone, approximately 1.2 million tons were produced which is nearly
25 percent of the total.
Logging debris could be considered as a completely separate type of
solid waste, falling somewhere between agricultural and industrial wastes.
This debris consists of slash, cull logs, and brush. However, since the
SIC manual classifies logging as an industry (SIC Code 24l - Logging Camps
and Logging Contractors), logging debris is considered an industrial waste.
The quantity of logging debris produced in California was estimated by
5/ Zinuska, John A., et al, The Commercial Forest Resources and Forest
Products Industries of California, University of California, Agricultural
Experiment Station, (Berkeley, 1965).
111-28
-------
applying the waste factor of one ton of logging debris per 1,000 board feet
of logs harvested to the latest available county data on timber cut (1966)
obtained from the California Division of Forestry.—' The factor was only
applied to the timber cut for veneer logs and saw logs.
The factor of one ton of debris per 1,000 board feet of merchantable
timber volume was developed on the basis of information from three studies
conducted by the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station,
U.S. Forest Service,I/£/2/i2/
Presently, logging debris is left in the forest, stacked and burned, or
chipped. Problems associated with just leaving this debris in the forest
include fire hazards, timber reproduction losses, and the possibility of dis-
ease carry-over. Burning is not without problems since it usually cannot be
conducted safely during the summer months because of fire danger, and winter
conditions are often too wet. Another important factor is the public nuisance
and air pollution which result from burning logging debris. Because of the
problems associated with burning, the U.S. Forest Service conducted a feasi-
bility study in the Stanislaus National Forest to determine if logging debris
9/
could be disposed of by burying.-*^ It was reported that this method of slash
disposal shows promise and has some distinct advantages over disposal by chip-
ping or burning. The cost of burying these wastes was found to be many times
6J California Division of Forestry, State Forestry Note No. 33» January, 1968.
7/ Sundahl, William E., Slash and Litter Weight After Clear-Cut Logging in Two
Young-Growth Timber Stands, U.S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-12V,
(Berkeley, 1966).
8/ Hall, Dale 0. and Robert C. Neal, Reproduction Losses from Slash Disposal
at the Challenge Experimental Forest, U.S. Forest Service Research Note
PSW-N15, (.Berkeley, 1963).
_9_/ Schmike, Harry E. and Ronald A. Dougherty, Disposal of Logging Slash,
Thinnings, and Brush by Burying, U.S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-111,
(Berkeley, 1966).
ICi/Boe, Kenneth N., Sound Wood Residue Left After Experimental Cutting in Old-
Growth Redwood, U.S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-136, (Berkeley, 195?).
Ill- 29
-------
FIGURE 111-3
DISTRIBUTION OF LUMBER INDUSTRY WASTES
- 1967-
ANNUAL TONNAGE PRODUCED BY COUNTY
GREATER THAN 600,000 TONS
250,000 TO 600,000 TONS
100,000 TO 250,000 TONS
| | LESS THAN 100,000 TONS
111-30
CALIF DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
higher than the method of piling and burning, but slightly less than chipping.
Considering the great emphasis now being placed on basin-vide air pollution
control, the burying of logging debris appears to be a good alternative to
burning.
(b) Sawmill and Planing Mill Wastes
The second largest type of industrial solid wastes was the 3*036,000
tons of sawmill and planing mill wastes produced during 1967. (This subgroup
includes only the wastes from SIC Code 2k2l, Sawmills and Planing Mills.)
The five largest sawmill waste-producing counties are Humboldt, Mendocino,
Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama. These five counties produced approximately
1.6 million tons, slightly more than 50 percent of the total during 1967.
The total quantity of sawmill and planing mill residue (bark, chips,
sawdust, etc.) was estimated by applying a factor to the latest available
data on timber cut for veneer logs and saw logs. The factor of 1.225 tons
of residue per 1,000 board feet log scale was developed by the Forest Pro-
ducts Laboratory, University of California, Agriculture Extension Service.—=/
The total quantity of wood residue was then divided among the counties in
proportion to the employment under SIC Code 2^21 and adjusted according to
the amount of utilization of this material. For example, in Shasta County
12/
55 percent of the wood residue is utilized for by-products.—' Humboldt and
Shasta counties utilize a greater portion of the wood residue than the rest
of the state because of export and pulp mill operations. The quantity of
sawmill and planing mill wastes for each county is reported in Table III-7.
At the present time most of the wood wastes are burned in "teepee" type
incinerators. These burners usually produce vast quantities of smoke which
lly Forest Products Research Society, Proceedings of Northern California
Section, April 20-21, (Fresno, California, 1967).
12/ William A. Dost, Report to the Shasta County Forest Products Council,
Forest Products Laboratory, University of California, 1966.
Ill-31
-------
can often be seen for miles.
A report by the Forest Products Laboratory presented detailed informa-
tion on the production, uses and disposal of wood-processing residues in
Shasta County, California, during 1966.— The following data adapted from
that report are presented to illustrate the types and quantities of wood
residues produced by the sawmill and planing mill industries.
Sawmill Residues
Shasta County - 1966
„ f Log yard
Bark < ... , , , ,
1 Mill deck
Fine f Dust
Wood \ Shavings
Coarse I Chippable
Wood \ Dry trim and
1 other losses
Totals
Total
Tonnage
25,807
108,544
100,922
68,445
236,722
81,897
622,337
Tons
Utilized
0
37,012
57,406
175,109
27,082
341,113
(55*)
Tons
Wasted
25,807
71,532
43,516
23,941
61,613
54,815
281,234
The following quotation from the above report summarizes the problem and
presents possible solutions:
"Problems associated with the residues from wood processing
operations have become increasingly acute in recent years. On
one hand, operators are faced with the necessity of increasing
the percentage of raw material converted to products in order to
maintain a competitive position. On the other, they are faced
with increasing pressure from the community to reduce or elimi-
nate the smoke and ash problems caused by common residue disposal
methods.
"The industry generally, and in Shasta County, have responded
to both of these pressures. Examples of the first type can be
seen locally in the production of pulp chips and particle board
from waste wood and soil amendments from bark. Examples of the
137 See footnote No. 12, page 111-31
111-32
-------
second type axe the recent cooperative study of burner modifica-
tion conducted by the State Department of Public Health and the
extensive and expensive modifications of residue collection and
disposal systems by U.S. Plywood-Champion papers.
"The magnitude of the problem remaining should not be under-
estimated. Only slightly more than half of the residues generated
in the county (Shasta County, California) is presently being put
to economic use. From a qualitative standpoint, the problem is
even more difficult in that much of the material useable under the
technology and economics of today is already being recovered."
(3) Chemical and Petroleum Industry Wastes
During 1967, as reported in Table III-6, an estimated 126,800 tons of
chemical waste and 336,800 tons of petroleum refining waste were produced in
California. In this report, chemical waste refers to the waste produced by
industries within SIC Major Group 28, Chemicals and Allied Products. Petro-
leum waste refers to waste produced by industries within SIC Major Group 29,
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries (oil field wastes are not included
in this group). These two groups are combined for discussion purposes because
of the similar characteristics of their wastes. The environmental effects and
hazards to the,public from these wastes are discussed in Chapter VII, ENVIRON-
MENTAL EFFECTS OF SOLID WASTES.
As shown in Table III-7 and Figure III-^, the major portion of these wastes
(an estimated 382,^4-00 tons, 82.5 percent) is produced in Los Angeles and Contra
Costa counties. These counties each produce in excess of ten times as much
chemical and petroleum wastes as the third highest producer. Data on the esti-
mated quantities and the development of waste production factors for chemical
and petroleum industry wastes are presented in the next two sections under
their respective headings.
(a) Chemical Wastes
With the cooperation and assistance of the Chemical Industrial Council
of Northern California, a survey was made of chemical solid waste production
and disposal in the San Francisco Bay Area. An industrial waste survey form
111-33
-------
developed by the Department was mailed by the council to their membership.
The returned forms from eight firms in Contra Costa County (representing
over 25 percent of the total statewide employment in SIC Code 28l, Industrial
Inorganic and Organic Chemicals) were used in developing the waste factor of
10 tons per employee per year for SIC Code 28l. It was considered that these
relatively large basic chemical companies would have a larger waste factor
than the more specialized firms. These eight firms employ approximately
2,350 persons and during 1967 produced approximately 2k,000 tons of solid
and. semi-solid wastes. Five of these firms disposed of at least a portion
of their wastes (a total of 5,500 tons) on their own premises. The remaining
18,500 tons of wastes were picked up by private collectors or industrial waste
haulers and hauled to other sites for disposal.
The waste production factor of 2.25 tons per employee per year was used
for paint manufacturing firms (SIC Code 285) and the factor of 0.5 ton per
employee for the remaining firms in SIC Code 28.
(b) Petroleum Wastes
A survey of the four major petroleum refineries in Contra Costa County
was conducted jointly by the Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) and the
Department. A survey form was completed by each firm and the data tabulated
by WOGA. The 115,655 tons produced by these refineries represent 95 percent
of the petroleum refining wastes produced in Contra Costa County and 37 per-
cent of that produced in the state. Based on this data, a waste production
factor of 23-5 tons per employee per year was developed for SIC Code 2911,
Petroleum Refining. Inasmuch as petroleum refining related industrj.es are
similar to the chemical industry, a similar factor of 10 tons per employee
per year was applied to these employment data. Statewide, approximately 91
percent of the wastes reported in Table III-6 as petroleum refinery and
related industries is actually refinery waste and the remaining 9 percent
is from the related industries.
Ill- 34
-------
FIGURE 111-4
DISTRIBUTION OF CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRY WASTES
-1967-
ANNUAL TONNAGE PRODUCED BY COUNTY
GREATER THAN 150,000 TONS
,000 TO 15,000 TONS
! LESS THAN I ,000 TONS
(a) NO COUNTY PRODUCES BETWEEN
15,000 AND 150,000 TONS
111-35
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
Manufacturing Wastes
During 196? an estimated 3,103,000 tons of manufacturing wastes were
produced in California. These manufacturing wastes have been divided into
two subgroups: Heavy Manufacturing (2,5^6,000 tons) and Light Manufacturing
(557,000 tons).
The quantity of each subgroup of manufacturing wastes is presented in
Tables III-6 and III-7. The major manufacturing waste-producing counties
are shown in Figure III-5 and below in Table 111-10. In this table the 15
largest manufacturing waste-producing counties are presented in the order of
their magnitude of manufacturing waste production.
TABLE 111-10
MAJOR MANUFACTURING WASTE-PRODUCING COUNTIES - 1967
County
(l) Los Angeles
(2) San Bernardino
( 3 ) Alameda
(k) Orange
(5) Santa Clara
(6) Contra Costa
(?) San Diego
(8) San Francisco
(9) San Mateo
(10) Riverside
(ll) Humboldt
(12) San Joaquin
(13) Siskiyou
(l^) Fresno
(15) Sacramento
SIC Codei-^/
33>36,35,37
33
33,32,35,37
36,35,37
36,35,37
33,3^
36,33,35,19
37,33,3^,36,35
33,35,36
33,37,2^,35,36
2k
2^,35
2k
35, 2>*, 32
2^,37,35,3^
Quantity
Tons Per Year
1,2*46,000
839,200
208,800
132,900
105,600
82,200
67,800
58,900
1+9,900
37,600
31,300
25,300
24,500
20,600
17,900
Ik/ This column shows the type of manufacturing waste by SIC Code.
The SIC Codes are presented with those representing the largest
quantity of waste first. Any SIC Code which represents at least
10 percent of a county's total manufacturing waste is shown. See
Appendix A for identification of code numbers.
111-36
-------
The quantities of manufacturing solid wastes presented in this report
.were primarily estimated by the application of waste production factors to
employment data. These factors were based on a limited number of interviews,
mail surveys, and analysis of published reports.—2/—'—U
The following example is presented using the industries manufacturing
transportation equipment (SIC Code 37, in the Heavy Manufacturing subgroup)
to illustrate the procedure used to estimate the production of manufacturing
solid wastes.
TABLE III-ll
SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION DATA FROM
MANUFACTURE OF TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
Number of
Employees
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-1*99
> 500
Number of
Reporting Units
680
2¥*
125
122
5^
Annual Waste
Production Factor
50 tons/unit
100 tons/unit
250 tons/unit
600 tons/unit
3,000 tons/unit
Annual Total
Tonnage
3^,000
2U,UOO
31,300
73,200
162,000
Total 32^,900
15/ Aerojet-General Corporation, Fresno Region Solid Waste Management
Study - Vol. Ill - Appendices"(a report to the California Depart-
ment of Public Health, June 1967).
l6/ FMC, Machinery/Systems Group, FMC Corporation, Solid Waste Disposal
Systems Analysis, (prepared for the City of San Jose and the County
of Santa Clara, 1968).
IT/ Combustion Engineering, Inc., Technical-Economic Study of Solid Waste
Disposal Needs and Practices - Industrial Inventory. Vol. 2, (prelim-
inary report for the U.S. Public Health Service, 1967).
Ill-37
-------
FIGURE 111-5
DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURING WASTES
-1967-
ANNUAL TONNAGE PRODUCED BY COUNTY
GREATER THAN 100,000 TONS
35,000 TO 100,000 TONS
15,000 TO 35,000 TONS
LESS THAN 15,000 TONS
111-38
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
The solid waste production factors for this industry are related to the size
(number of employees) of the firm. As of March 12, 196?, 2^7,726 persons
were employed by the 1,225 companies manufacturing transportation equipment
187
in California.Table III-ll is the tabulation of the solid wastes produced
by the various employment-size ranges of firms. The data in this table are
for the industry state-wide. To determine the production of solid wastes from
the industries manufacturing transportation equipment on a county basis, the
same procedure was applied to the firms located in each county.
Industrial solid waste production data for each of the 17 standard indus-
trial classifications shown under Manufacturing in Table III-6 was calculated
using the above procedure. In those cases where actual solid waste production
data have been obtained, it was used.
l_q/ See footnote 2, page 111-18
111-39
-------
-------
IV. ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL
The development of adequate laws and regulations is a major factor
in the success of an overall solid waste management program. Such
regulations provide basic working requirements for all who are involved
and reflect the minimum conditions a community (city, county or state)
will accept. Without such regulations a community suffers from the lack
of delineation of responsibilities, not only to the private entrepreneurs
but to the public agencies that must serve the people within their
jurisdictions.
Laws and regulations regarding solid wastes at all levels of govern-
ment are incomplete and outmoded. The federal government has only
recently initiated a solid waste program. This is primarily in the
form of financial support to aid in research, planning, demonstration,
and training programs. State agencies have developed laws in the speci-
fic fields which the individual agencies are involved. These laws are
far from being all-encompassing and reflect only the programs and the
specific interests of these agencies. Local government controls solid
waste management to a greater extent than the other levels of government.
However, this involvement often stems from emergency or complaint motiva-
tions. In other words, as complaints arise, regulations are developed to
abate the isolated problem. A description of the various agencies and the
IV-1
-------
sxisting laws and regulations follows. The fragmented, approach and lack of
overall authority in administration and control of solid waste management will
oecome evident to the reader.
A. INVOLVEMENT OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
1. FEDERAL LAWS
Until the passage of the Solid Waste Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-272), the
federal government had little involvement with solid wastes in the nation.
This legislation authorized 92.5 million dollars:
(l) "To initiate and accelerate a national research and development
program for new and improved methods of proper and economic solid
waste disposal, including studies directed toward the conservation
of natural resources by reducing the amount of wastes and unsalvag-
able materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources
in solid wastes, and,
(2) "To provide technical and financial assistance to state and local
governments and interstate agencies in the planning, development,
and conduct of solid waste programs."
The Act established the Solid Waste Program within the Public Health
Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and within the Bureau
of Mines, Department of the Interior.
There are two additional federal laws that deal with specialized effects
of solid wastes. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 relates to the obstruc-
tion of navigable waters; and the Federal Plant Pest Regulations relate to
1 ::e dissemination of plant pests. A brief discussion of these two laws
follows.
Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 makes it unlawful to
deposit, throw, etc., onto the bank or into any navigable water or tributary
of any navigable water in the United States, any "refuse matter" of any kind
or description. This act provides, however, that a permit may be granted by
IV-2
-------
the Secretary of War for such deposit of these materials subject to strict
requirements enforced by the Corps of Engineers.
Federal Plant Pest Regulations (subpart, Garbage 330.UOO) provide for
inspection of all ships and planes arriving in the United States from any
place outside thereof, and keeping under surveillance all movements and
disposal of "garbage" from these vessels so as to prevent the dissemination
of plant pests.
In addition to the two preceding laws, Executive Order 11282 dated
May 26, 1966 regulates burning on "Federal Installations". This is not
a law and affects federal installations, such as military bases, only. The
order states:
"In urban areas refuse shall not be burned in open fires and in rural
areas it shall be disposed of in such a manner as to reasonably
minimize pollution. Refuse shall not be left in dumps without being
covered with inert matter within a reasonably short time. Whenever
incinerators are used, they shall be of such design as will minimize
emission of pollutant dusts, fumes, or gases."
2. FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Public Health Service (Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare) is the federal agency primarily involved with solid waste manage-
ment through its Solid Waste Program. This office administers federal
research, training, statewide planning, and demonstration grant funds;
coordinates research efforts throughout the country; conducts research
directly and through contracts; conducts training courses in solid waste
management; and provides technical assistance and consultation to states
and other agencies. The Public Health Service is also developing recom-
mended guidelines on various aspects of solid waste management. They
also review and make recommendations regarding applications to the Bureau
of Land Management for surplus land to be used for refuse disposal.
IV-3
-------
U.S. Bureau of .Mines (Department of Interior) is involved in the
development of technically and economically attractive metallurgical or
chemical processes for utilization of solid wastes resulting from extracting,
processing, or using minerals or fossil fuels. This involves automobile
scrap; mine, mill and smelter residues; nonferrous scrap; and fly ash.
U.S. Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) regulates and provides
for the collection and disposal of refuse from recreational areas and regu-
lates timber wastes in the management of national forests. This agency
administers the use of U.S.F.S. lands, some of which may be delegated for
public use as disposal sites through the issuance of a use permit.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense) removes and disposes
of floating debris and other solid wastes from navigable waters. This agency
issues permits on any "work" in navigable waters or flood control projects
and enforces the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899-
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Department of Interior) may lease or
sell surplus federal land to public agencies for use as refuse disposal sites.
This agency also establishes regulations, controls, and policies for the use
of these lands.
B. INVOLVEMENT OF STATE AGENCIES
1. STATE LAWS
The existing laws are extremely fragmented, incomplete, and inconsistent.
For example, "garbage" and "refuse" are defined in various codes at least
six different ways. A uniform understanding is lacking in these laws because
most statutes have been directed towards a specific, narrow viewpoint and
developed without consideration of overall needs. The existing code sections
are aimed at protecting water, air, and wildlifei preventing forest fires;
IV-k
-------
and maintaining highways free of litter. Even the health of hogs is
protected from the disease hazards of garbage. Conspicuous by their
absence, however, are laws designed specifically to protect people, their
"health, and well-being from degradation by solid wastes. Perhaps the
most notable deficiency found in a review of existing state statutes is
the fact that no state agency has the overall responsibility for regulating
solid waste management. Without such guidance, each agency seeks laws to
control their own specific interest without regard for overall needs.
Following are summaries of the various state codes which regulate
some form of solid waste. More detailed descriptions of these codes are
included as Appendix B.
The Health and Safety Code and Title 17 of the Administrative Code
include only a few public health aspects of solid wastes. There are pro-
visions for preventing dumping in public places and navigable waters; the
storage conditions and removal of "garbage" from hotels, restaurants, and
mobile home parks; the handling and disposal of hospital and radioactive
wastes; and the formation of districts for the collection and disposal of
refuse.
The Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful for individuals to deposit
or dump any refuse or solid material in the waters of the state.
The Public Resources Code requires all "rubbish dumps" located in
unincorporated areas of the state to have a permit issued by the State
Forester. This section also sets forth requirements for fire protection.
Highway litter, "rubbish vehicles", abandoned cars, and junk yards
are topics briefly considered in the Vehicle Code, and Streets and High-
ways Code. The Penal Code prohibits roadside littering and dumping in the
waters of the state and establishes and defines the general condition of
IV-5
-------
a "public nuisance" in a community.
The Government Code permits each county to contract for collection of
"garbage" and levy taxes for same. It also allows, but does riot require, a
county to include in its general plan an element for "public service" such
as refuse disposal.
There are also provisions in various codes which allow some responsibility
in solid waste management by 13 of the 50 types of special districts of the
state. Few, however, actually participate. These districts are discussed in
greater detail later in this chapter.
2. STATE AGENCIES
A number of state agencies are currently involved either directly or
indirectly in solid waste management. The agencies concerned with solid
wastes are listed below with their related function.
State Department of Public Health is the primary state agency involved
in solid waste management. Because of the public health nature of solid
wastes, the State Department of Public Health, through its Division of
Environmental Health, has conducted a minimal solid waste program for a
number of years. These activities have been conducted as a part of a general
vector control program within the Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste
Management^/. This Bureau has a general responsibility for protection of
the public health from vector-borne diseases and nuisances. This work has
covered many aspects of solid wastes consisting primarily of solid waste
and vector control surveys and studies. These studies included such elements
as fly control, rodent control, water quality control, air pollution, and
other specific public health problems.
I/ The name of this Bureau (originally the Bureau of Vector Control) was
changed in August 1968.
IV-6
-------
With the grant funds provided for the three-year California Solid
.Waste Planning Study, the Department was able to expand the Solid Waste
Engineering Section. While the primary function of this section is to
conduct the Statewide Solid Waste Planning Study, the staff has been able
to provide a limited amount of consultation assistance to public and pri-
vate agencies. Unfortunately, the number of requests for this service
greatly exceeds the resources available for this function.
Department of Agriculture regulates the disposal of refuse from
international vessels and aircraft. No garbage can be collected or
transported from international carriers unless the collector holds a
valid permit issued by the Department of Agriculture. Facilities used
for the disposal of the garbage must also be approved by the Department.
The Department of Agriculture also regulates the feeding of garbage to
hogs. Licenses to feed garbage to swine are issued and inspections of
garbage feeding premises are made.
Division of Forestry is directly involved with solid waste disposal
through that agency's rubbish dump permit program. Any disposal site in
the unincorporated portion of the state must obtain a permit from the
Division of Forestry. These permits serve to alert the operator of the
disposal site to the control of fires and provide fire protection agencies
with a method of establishing reasonable fire prevention measures for each
specific disposal site. These measures are limited only to matters of
fire prevention such as cleared areas for firebreaks, removal of flammable
material, and time or season burning is permitted.
State Air Resources Board develops statewide policy for control or
prevention of air pollution including that from burning of solid waste
materials.
IV-7
-------
State Water Resources Control Board develops statewide policy to protect
the quality of waters of the state. This board has financially-supported
researcu related to pollution of ground waters by solid waste disposal.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for defining
reasonable and beneficial use of the waters of the state, and the regulation
of waste discharges to protect water quality and those beneficial uses. Thest
regulatory agencies regard solid waste disposal sites to be a form of waste
discharge which may affect water quality. No uniform statewide policy or
regulations exist relative to water quality control and solid wastes, with
several of the regional boards not routinely regulating solid waste disposal.
Several of the regional boards in Southern California have adopted a disposal
site classification system to facilitate the consideration of solid waste
disposal sites. This system controls the type of solid waste acceptable at
eacn disposal site based upon the potential pollution of underlying ground
water as controlled by the geology and hydrology of the site. Specific
waste discharge requirements adopted by the boards may include maintaining
a minimum distance between ground water and the bottom of the disposal site
fill, controlling surface drainage and prevention of water-caused nuisance
conditions.
Division of Highways conducts roadside litter control programs and
collects refuse from state highways.
Department of Motor Vehicles establishes requirements for the legal
disposal of abandoned or wrecked vehicles and the control of litter from
refuse collection vehicles.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission regulates the
filling of San Francisco Bay, including projects utilizing solid wastes.
Department of Water Resources provides technical service to state and
IV-8
-------
regional water quality control boards regarding water quality aspects of
solid waste disposal. They also conduct studies under contract of solid
waste disposal as it affects water quality, for example the landfill-
water quality studies in Southern California conducted under the Porter-
Dolwig Ground Water Basin Protection Law.
Department of Fish and Game has the authority to control the disposal
of solid wastes relative to surface water as it relates to the protection
of fish and wildlife.
University and State Colleges provide basic research on various aspects
of solid wastes. The Agricultural Extension Service provides advice, con-
sultation, and performs research on management of agricultural wastes.
C. INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Currently, all of the solid waste planning, operational functions,
and most of the regulatory controls are transacted at the local level.
Cities collect and dispose of their own solid wastes or contract with
private agencies. Most of the regulations regarding solid waste collection
are developed at the city level. In addition to regulations, counties are
often involved in planning and operating refuse disposal sites and issuing
franchises for collection in unincorporated areas. Forty-two of the 58
counties have developed solid waste ordinances. Expanded discussion of
these ordinances will be presented in the collection and disposal chapters.
The local departments involved in solid waste management are health,
planning, public works or roads, or some other special governmental unit.
The county board of supervisors and the city council, however, are the
major policy-setting body for their jurisdiction's activities in the area
of solid waste management.
IV-9
-------
The "special district" is another type of agency that may become involved
with solid wastes at the local level. As defined by the State Controller's
office, there are 3,676 "special districts" (exclusive of school districts)
in California of which 1,162 are empowered to regulate, collect, or dispose
of refuse. The district's powers and range of activities vary from complete
control to establishment of requirements for operation. At the present time
there are 13 types of special districts involved in solid wastes.
There is one type of district in the state, "Garbage Disposal District",
that may be formed exclusively to provide for the collection and disposal of
"garbage" or other "refuse matter" of the district. A second type, "Garbage
and Refuse Disposal District", exists in the state for the maintenance and
operation of "garbage disposal sites" (since October 1, 1961, they may no
longer be formed).
There are 11 other types of districts in the state that may involve them-
selves with solid wastes in one way or another. All of these districts have
been originally formed for other primary functions, adding solid waste handling
to their activities at a later date. Even though there are approximately 1,162
3f these districts (as of June 30, 1967)5 only a handful actually have a
solid waste program.
The following is a list of the 13 special districts and a description of
their activities involving solid waste. The number in parentheses following
the name of the district indicates the total number of districts of that type
as of June 30, 1967- Each district's enabling legislation is also listed
following the name of the district.
Air Pollution Control District (9) Health and Safety Code Sec. 2^198-2^399
May adopt regulations to prevent open burning of solid wastes from any
source. Empowered to set requirements for incinerator stack emissions.
Community Services District (155) Government Code Sec. 6lOOO-6l936
May be formed in the unincorporated territory in one or more counties tc
IV-10
-------
provide "garbage service".
Park and Recreation District (ill*) Public Resources Code Sec. 5 780- 5788
May provide "garbage collection" or disposal services in district
.where such service is not provided by any other public agency.
County Sanitation District (136) Health and Safety Code Sec. ^-70
May construct, maintain, and operate within the district boundaries a
system for transfer and/or disposal of refuse, provided, however, that such
system shall not include "refuse collection".
County Service Area (332) Government Code Sec. 25210-25210.8
May provide any service that a county is not prohibited from doing.
County Water District (207) Water Code Sec. 30000-332^0
May acquire, construct, and operate facilities for, or may contract
with others for, the collection and disposal of the "garbage waste" and
"trash" of the district and its inhabitants.
Garbage Disposal District (10) Health and Safety Code Sec. i+100-4l65.7
May provide for the collection and disposal of "garbage" or other
"refuse matter" of the district.
Garbage and Refuse Disposal District (2) Health and Safety Code Sec. ^170
May provide for the maintenance and operation of a "garbage disposal
site". (As of 1961, this type of district may no longer be formed.)
Local Health District (l) Health and Safety Code Sec. 850-972
May acquire, construct, maintain, and operate all facilities and
equipment necessary for the disposal of "garbage and wastes". (As of
1959, they may no longer be formed.)
Municipal Utility Districts (5) Public Utilities Code Sec. 11^01-1^09
May acquire, construct, operate, etc., within or without the district,
facilities for supplying a means for the collection, treatment, or disposi-
tion of "garbage and refuse matter".
Public Utility District (66) Public Utilities Code Sec. 15501-1805;?
Activities similar to those of a Municipal Utility District.
* Includes Resort Improvement District
IV-11
-------
Resort Improvement District (*) Public Resources Code Sec. 13000-13230
May acquire, construct, maintain, operate facilities for the collection
or disposal of "garbage and refuse matter".
Sanitary District (128) Health and Safety Code Sec. 6^00-69^1.9
May acquire, etc., "garbage dump site" and "garbage collection and
disposal systems".
Included in Park and Recreation District
IV-12
-------
V. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Collection is the most expensive activity in a solid waste system.
It is this portion of the solid waste handling cycle that most directly
affects the citizenry.
Almost all solid waste materials must be removed for disposal on a
frequent and regular schedule. Solid waste collection systems were
originally established out of necessity to remove the problem wastes,
these being most commonly the putrescible organic materials comprising
garbage. Today sociological changes and respect for a decent environ-
ment dictate the necessity for removal of a higher percentage of all the
solid wastes produced. Solid waste handling practices must now transcend
the original concept of merely protecting the health of the people from
materials that breed flies, rats and other vectors of disease. These
practices, in addition to combining vigilance against spread of disease
and good housekeeping practices, must protect the total environment.
This protection may be evident in many ways. For example, the collection
practices should not burden society by being incomplete and,therefore,
leaving the home owner with a volume of uncollected wastes for which he
must find another means or place of disposal. Other environmental factors
exist including offenses to man's senses, such as the collection system
being too no-isy.
V-l
-------
It has been well-established that a suitable method that will minimize
public health hazards is the removal of all refuse from each residence at
least two times a week. Adequate containers, clean storage areas, and good
disposal facilities also play important roles.
In California every city and county is empowered to provide collection
service to their citizens; in addition, many special districts have this
power. Government may provide the service directly or may contract with
private firms,or both may operate in the same city. It is estimated that
there are a total of about 900 refuse collection agencies operating in
California.
Even with these provisions and the acknowledged necessity for collection,
there are over 2.2 million people in the state who do not have collection
service.
In the area of agricultural wastes, no systematic means of collection
have yet been developed. In spite of the many problems associated with agri-
cultural wastes, the means of managing, collecting, and disposing of these
wastes are currently left to the discretion of the individual producer.
Manure is occasionally collected from the source and transported beyond the
property of the owner when the source is too close to population centers or
when there is a customer for the product as fertilizer. Orchard prunings,
vines, crop residues, and other types of agriculture wastes are usually
burned or returned to the soil at the source. Food processing wastes are
sometimes collected and transported back to the fields for use as green
fertilizer or animal feed.
A. REGULATION OF COLLECTION PRACTICES
Controls placed on the collection agencies in California vary from quite
V-2
-------
stringent to virtually uncontrolled„ In some jurisdictions, the private
collector must have a franchise, annual vehicle permit, and approval of
disposal facilities. In other areas the collector only needs a business
4
license, if that, and is free to collect and transport wastes wherever he
so desires. This latter condition is most prevalent in the rural areas of
the state.
Local regulations vary but basically appear in local ordinances as
four basic components. These are as follows:
(l) Frequency of Collection Service - minimum interval for collection
of residential, commercial, industrial, etc., refuse, usually
once a week for residential wastes and more frequent for commercial
and industrial wastes.
(2) Mandatory Collection Service - the requirement that all establish-
ments be served with collection and that all residents use the
service. Some counties apply mandatory collection provisions to a
population density factor, e,g,, number of residents per acre or
dwellings per square mile,
(3) Billing ~ includes service rates and who is liable for payment of
service; also considers the billing agency and. method of billing.
(U) Containers - specific size, volume, weight, material's physical
characteristics, and cleanliness of containers.
Additional items such as definitions, storage and collection practices,
enforcement, and special handling such as burning and importation of refuse
are considered in a few ordinances.
The following sections present a discussion of collection practices as
they occur in incorporated cities, unincorporated areas, and special dis-
tricts in California, Inasmuch as these types of jurisdictions and their
collection practices are quite dissimilar, they are discussed separately.
-------
B. COLLECTION PRACTICES IN CITIES
Every city (399) in California has some collection service available to
its residents. This collection has become a necessity rather than an optional
service because of the dense population and urban growth most cities in the
state have been experiencing. Due to the more and more distant disposal sites
and the increasing closeness of the next door neighbor, the residents are
finding it necessary to remove the refuse by a collection system that requires
little involvement of the property owner.
1. EXTENT OF SERVICE
With the exception of residential garbage and rubbish, many collection
systems do not make provisions for the pickup of all types of solid wastes.
Wastes which are not collected become the responsibility of the producers to
dispose of individually. The following table shows the distribution of col-
lection by the number of cities collecting each particular type of solid waste.
TABLE V-l
TYPES OF WASTES ROUTINELY COLLECTED IN CITIES
Type of Wastes
Garbage
Rubbish
Yard Rubbish
Bulky Refuse
Commercial Refuse
Industrial Wastes
Number of
Cities
399
399
310
193
392
250
Percentage of
All Cities
100
100
78
U8
98
63
v-k
-------
Those cities without a certain type of collection indicate that in a
_few cases this waste is either not generated or the city is so small that
individuals haul their own. For example, of the seven cities that do not
collect commercial wastes, five do not have any commercial establishments
and two have such small populations that commercial establishments remove
the waste themselves.
It was found that 82 percent of the cities (32^-) serve 90 percent or
more of their population whereas only 5 percent of the cities (20) have
less than pO percent of their individual population1 served with some type
of collection. Only one city in California has less than 10 percent of
its population using the collection service. A basic city population
trend was noted in the percentage of people served in the incorporated
areas of the state. A correlation was found to exist between these data
and the size of the city population. As the population becomes larger a
higher percentage of the population subscribes to the service.
In contrast with refuse collection in the unincorporated areas, city
collection usually presents an economic situation that makes collection
considerably more feasible. This, coupled with the public health problems
and nuisances that would present themselves to a greater degree in a more
populated area, has compelled the cities to establish an organized col-
lection system.
2. ORDINANCES
It is essential that every city in California has an ordinance regu-
lating refuse storage and collection for the protection of public health
and the prevention of nuisances. At the present time, 361 cities have
ordinances regulating collection. The remaining 38 cities have no
collection ordinance, although a few are being developed. Unfortunately,
V-5
-------
there is generally little uniformity as to detail among these many ordinances.
The contents range from bare minimum to comprehensive statutes covering all
elements of storage and collection.
The distribution of the four basic components of collection ordinances
as discussed in the introduction to this chapter are shown in the following
table. Most cities have one or more of these requirements in their ordinance.
TABLE V-2
CITY ORDINANCE DATA
Component
Frequency of Collection
Mandatory Collection
Billing
Containers
Number of Cities Including
This Item in Ordinance
310
22?
253
3. TYPE OF OPERATOR
A decision regarding collection which confronts city officials is whether
municipal crews should do the collecting or whether it should be done by pri-
vate industry. Residential refuse collection by private firms is the method
of choise in 296 (7^ percent) of the cities in California. Public agencies
collect the residential refuse in 9^ cities, whereas another nine cities have
a combination (part of city served by public and part by private). Collection
by public agencies appears to be more popular with larger cities (10 of the
15 largest cities in California have public collection), with the majority of
smaller cities relying on private contractors. Public collection also appears
to be more prevalent in Southern California than in the northern part of the
state. Figures V-l and V-2 show the locations of the public and private
V-6
-------
FIGURE V-l
CITIES WITH PUBLICLY
OPERATED RESIDENTIAL
REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
-1967 -
V-7
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
FIGURE V-2
CITIES WITH PRIVATELY
OPERATED RESIDENTIAL
REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
-1967-
V-8
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
residential collection systems. In terms of population served, private
.industry collects the refuse from approximately 52 percent of the incor-
porated population. Table V-3 points out the degree of involvement by
public and private agencies.
TABLE V-3
TYPE OF WASTE COLLECTED IN CITIES
BY TYPE OF OPERATOR
Type of Waste
Garbage combined
with rubbish
Garbage separately
Rubbish separately
Yard rubbish
Bulky refuse
Commercial
Industrial
Public
87
7
11
106
75
76
hO
Private
267
29
25
I9h
110
300
195
Combination
8
1
1
10
7
16
12
Total
362*
37*
37*
310
192
392
2^7
^Garbage and rubbish are collected in 399 cities — 37 collect these
items separately.
Table V-3 also indicates that the same type of collection agency may
not provide collection service for all types of wastes within a city.
For example, many cities with public collection of residential refuse
allow private companies to collect wastes from commercial and industrial
establishments,and cities with a contract for residential refuse collec-
tion may have a special yard rubbish collection.service operated by
municipal crews. With these types of arrangements, a governmental agency
may be collecting one type of waste and the private entrepreneur may be
collecting another type of waste from the same residence or establishment.
V-9
-------
k. CONTROL OF SERVICE
Proper control over refuse collection requires some type of permit
system-which protects the private hauler who has made a large investment in
equipment, and prevents undesirable types of refuse collection. In 28l cities
private collectors are required to obtain a permit other than a routine busi-
ness license. Adding the 9^- public collection systems existing in the state
to this number results in 375 cities or approximately 95 percent either issuing
a permit to the collector or directly operating the system themselves.
Of the 28l cities requiring permits, 256 issue franchises or contracts
and 55 issue collection permits. One or both may be issued in a given juris-
diction. These permits in some cases merely guarantee a collector the right
to do business in the city. More common, however, is for a city to issue an
exclusive franchise to a collector on a 5 to 20-year basis. These are
generally obtained by competitive bidding. In a number of cases the cities
receive a franchise fee or revenue from the collection in return for the
franchise. Some cities do not serve commercial or industrial establishments
nor do they issue a franchise for this service. This uncontrolled arrangement
has led to the condition where a few cities in the metropolitan Southern
California area each has over 50 separate firms competing for the collection
of commercial wastes in the city.
In addition to authorizing residential refuse collection by a private
collector, a city frequently establishes the area boundaries where he may
collect. The methods used by cities to establish these boundaries are listed
in Table V-4.
V-10
-------
TABLE V-^
ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION AREAS IN CITIES
Collection Area
Established by
Franchise
Permit
Agency Designation
Agreement Among Collectors
Uncontrolled
Nonapplicable (City Collection)
Number of Cities
6
11
7
39
87
The significant aspect of Table V-U is the fact that in 46 cities the
governmental agency exercises no control over the establishment of collec-
tion areas. As an example of this problem, one city in California recently
had as many as four refuse firms collecting residential refuse on the same
city street. This situation obviously creates an atmosphere of critical
competition where none of the firms can provide adequate or efficient
service.
From first glance at Table V-4 and the previous paragraphs, it would
appear that control over the numerous collectors in the state is adequate.
This is not necessarily the case. These previous requirements do not
control or establish the performance or conditions under which the collector
must operate. In essence, the only controls that frequently exist are in
the form of assuring the right of the collector to provide collection for
a period of time and in a given location. This is often the only contact
the governmental agency has with the collector. His trucks may not be
adequate, he may not be disposing of the material in a sanitary manner,
and he may not be providing good service to the customer or community.
V-ll
-------
An interview in one city indicated that the city manager did not even know
who the collector was, where he transported the wastes or what he was charging.
In fact, the city manager hauled his own wastes to a dump some distance from
k
the city. Whether private refuse collection service or public collection is
utilized should "be relatively immaterial. Both are capable of providing good
service. The need, however, for adequate standards and controls over both
types of collection service is essential for the benefit of the community.
5. MANDATORY, _SERVICE
Even thc-^gh all cities in California provide for collection of residential
garbage and rubbish, not all residents make use of the service. Over 5305000
people residing in the cities of the state do not subscribe to available col-
lection service. This represents approximately five percent of the incorporated
population. These pecpla fall into a category of either not wanting to pay the
price for the service or preferring to haul their wastes themselves. If a
collection system is tc fulfill the objective for which it was established, it
is essential that all producers of wastes in the city utilize the collection
seivice.
One means cf assuring that all waste producers subscribe to the collection
service is by means of a mandatory subscription provision in the city ordinance.
The major benefits of mandatory collection are as follows:
(l) This is the cnly means of assuring that all residents are receiving
collection service and that refuse is being removed at frequent
intervals.
(2) When all residents subscribe to collection service, there is less
likelihood, cf refuse accumulating around ths premises. Refuse which
accumulates c,2Xn..nd hones leads to severe fly and rodent problems as
well a? nuisances from odors.
(<} When rubtisn .v; frequently collected, there is a reduction in
-------
the fire hazard which results from accumulations of such material
around the home,.
Mandatory service generally reduces the amount of individual
back yard burning or burying of refuse. This in turn reduces
the nuisances of smoke and odors as well as aiding air pollution
control.
(5) When all residents are receiving collection service, there is
considerable reduction in the amount of individual hauling of
refuse to the disposal site. This reduces the amount of littering
caused by refuse being hauled in unsuitable vehicles and illegal
dumping. It also tends to reduce the traffic problems at the
disposal site which aids in a more efficient disposal operation.
Mandatory collection, unfortunately, is required in only 57 percent of the
cities. Mandatory collection commonly appears as a requirement in the
larger cities of the state.
6. FREQUENCY AND AMOUNT OF SERVICE
Another important aspect in reducing many public health hazards and
nuisances is the volume of wastes which are collected. Since the basic
objective of a collection system is to remove all of the wastes of a
community, limitations on the volume of wastes collected may lead to
many of the problems listed under mandatory collection. Unlimited resi-
dential refuse collection service is provided in 178 (^5 percent) of the
cities. Unlimited collection service means that all of the refuse put
out by a customer, regardless of the amount, is picked up at one fixed
charge. (For the purposes of this survey, all cities Which had three
cans or more per week pickup as the basic service were considered to have
unlimited collection service.) With unlimited collection, the only
V-13
-------
restriction is usually that the customer must store wastes in a manner that
is easy for the collector to handle. Some cities require that all the
material be placed in 30-gallon cans while others merely require the customer
to be able to get the waste material to the sidewalk curb, whether it be a
sofa, refrigerator, or refuse containers. Unlimited basic service is pro-
vided by 58 public agencies, 115 private firms and 6 combination. Therefore,
approximately 62 percent of the public collection agencies operate unlimited
service while only 39 percent of the cities with private collection have this
level of service. Figure V-3 shows the distribution of unlimited collection
service in the state. Unfortunately, 180 cities in the state only have one
can pickup once a week as the basic service.
The increasing concern over air pollution (in addition to other problems
such as odors) has led 158 California cities to pass ordinances banning
back yard "burning of refuse. While this action'is highly commendable, it
should also be recognized that it creates more wastes to be collected.
Therefore, a higher level of service is needed to remove these additional
wastes. Of these 158 cities, 123 °r ?8 percent have expanded to provide
unlimited service. Only three of the remaining 35 have not provided extra
service such as two cans, yard refuse pickup or special pickups of any type.
It is noteworthy that 106 of the cities with expanded service are located
in the Los Angeles County and Orange County Air Pollution Control Districts.
Experience in these areas has shown that a ban on back yard burning should
be accompanied by an expansion of collection service sufficient to handle
resulting increased quantities.
In addition to mandatory subscription and unlimited service, the fre-
quency of refuse collection is important in preventing health hazards and
nuisances. Flies, for example, are a major nuisance in most California
V-.lA
-------
RGURE V-3
CITIES WITH UNLIMITED
RESIDENTIAL REFUSE
COLLECTION SERVICE
-1967-
V-15
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
communities. Previous studies by the Department have shown that the most
significant source of domestic flies in a community is the refuse container.
These containers, on the average, produce from several hundred to several
thousand flies per container per week on a once-a-week pickup basis. The
single most effective means of reducing this prolific fly production is
to increase the frequency of pickup to twice a week. This frequency of
collection prevents the fly from passing through its entire growth cycle
to adulthood. Recent studies conducted by the Department-'—''^' have
shown that the domestic fly population in a community can be reduced as
much as 90 percent when collection frequency is increased to twice a
week.
At the present time, only 11^ cities (28 percent) have twice-a-week
residential refuse collection. In addition, 10 cities provide twice-a-
week refuse collection during summer months only. Figure V-U shows the
statewide distribution of the cities that have twice-weekly collection.
A few desert cities are providing three-times-a-week pickup. These cities
are included in the totals for twice-a-week pickup for simplicity.
7. BILLING FOR SERVICE
Table V-5 shows a summary of the methods utilized by the cities in
California to bill for collection service. Although 25 cities pay for
collection services with general taxes, the most commonly utilized method
of billing the customer for refuse collection is a separate bill by the
collection agency. Billing in 6l percent of the cities is by this manner.
I/ D. H. Ecke, et al, "Migration of Green Blow Fly Larvae From Six Refuse
Container Systems", California Vector Views, XII, No. 8 (August 1965).
2/ D. H. Ecke and D. D. Linsdale, "Fly and Economic Evaluation of Urban
Refuse Systems (Part l)", California Vector Views, XIV, No. h (April 1967)
3/ J. D. Walsh, et al, "Fly Larval Migration From Residential Refuse
Containers in the City of Fresno", California Vector Views, XV, No. 6
(June 1968).
V-l6
-------
It is interesting to note that 80 cities, which utilize private collectors,
.bill the customer by means'of a public billing system. This practice appears
more prevalent in larger cities.
*
TABLE V-5
BILLING METHODS USED BY CITIES
Type of
Collection
Public Agency
Private Firm
Combination
Totals
No. of
Cities
9h
296
9
399
General
Taxes
11
Ik
0
25
Public
Utility
Bill
69
56
6
131
Separate
Bill By
City
11*
10
3
27
Separate
Bill By
Collector
0
216
0
216
The billing method which appears to be working the most satisfactorily for
collection is a charge on the public utility bill. By this method every
occupied residence and. establishment is billed automatically whether it uses
the refuse collection service or not. If the customer fails to pay the
utility bill, all utilities are discontinued (water, etc.). This, inciden-
tally, is an excellent means of enforcing mandatory collection of refuse.
The general tax method affords the same incentive to use the service in that
the customer automatically pays for the service even though he may not use
it. This billing method is not limited to public refuse collection as there
are 1^ cities with private refuse collection using this method.
C. COLLECTION PRACTICES IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Collection in the unincorporated areas is not organized as well as in
the cities of the state. This results from the sparse population in many
V-17
-------
FIGURE V-4
CITIES WITH TWICE PER
WEEK RESIDENTIAL REFUSE
COLLECTION SERVICE
- 1967-
V-18
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
of the ruraJ unincorporated areas. Since service to these residents is not
economically attractive, inhabitants must haul their wastes to the nearest
disposal site.
1. EXTENT OF SERVICE
In the unincorporated areas of the state, approximately 65 percent of
the population has residential collection service. This leaves 1.7 million
people without refuse collection service. At the time of the survey, one
county government (Sacramento) was in the process of initiating a public
collection service. The remaining counties are either served by private
firms or no collection service exists. This collection service usually
covers the areas that fringe on cities or those areas with a population
density sufficient to economically support routine collection. Outlying
areas receive little or no service.
2. ORDINANCES AND CONTROL
Only 1+2 counties have ordinances which regulate the storage and col-
lection of refuse. Table V-6 categorizes the four components contained in
the ordinances and indicates the number of counties which include each
component.
TABLE V-6
COUNTY ORDINANCE DATA
Component
Frequency of Collection
Mandatory Collection
Billing
Containers
Number of Counties Including
This Item in Ordinance
21
1*
8
23
v-19
-------
Sixteen counties in California have no solid waste ordinance; however,
10 of these have indicated plans to develop one. These plans span the total
spectrum of actively writing an ordinance to merely thinking about one.
Thirty-seven of the counties require the collector to obtain some sort of
permit other than a routine business license. These permits are in the
form of contracts, exclusive franchise, collection permits, or vehicle per-
mits. A county may require a collector to have more than one type of permit.
Fifteen counties issue contracts or franchises, 31 require collection permits,
and 21 counties do not require any form of permit. Various county agencies
issue these permits. The two most common are the county health department
(21 counties) and board of supervisors (19 counties).
Collection areas in the unincorporated portions of the county are estab-
lished by different methods as shown in Table V-7.
Table V-7
METHODS OF ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION AREAS
IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Collection Area
Established by
Numoer
! of Counties
Franchise
Specified by County Permit
Agency Designation
Agreement Among Collectors
Uncontrolled
Not Applicable
17
9
2
6
22
2
The two counties that are in the "not applicable" classification include
Modoc and Sierra. These counties do not have any organized collection service
available to the people in the unincorporated areas.
V-20
-------
3. FREQUENCY AND AMOUNT OF SERVICE
The level of residential service in the unincorporated areas of the
state is basically one can collected weekly. The counties of Kern, Kings,
and Imperial are the only jurisdictions with a frequency of collection
greater than weekly. In ten counties the basic collection service includes
the pickup of more than one container. Seven of these are unlimited col-
lection systems which generally restrict the customer to the size of
discarded items, but not the number of containers. Table V-8 lists the
counties and the level of service they maintain.
TABLE V-8
BASIC LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SERVICE
IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS
No Service
Modoc
Sierra
One Can
k6 Counties
Two Can
Lake
Merced
Santa Barbara
Unlimited
Colusa Kern
Del Norte Mariposa
Fresno Orange
Imperial
D. COLLECTION PRACTICES IN DISTRICTS
There are 1,162 special districts (13 types) in the state which may
legally be involved in solid waste management. As outlined in Chapter IV,
ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF SOLID WASTES, 1^8 special districts (k types)
are restricted from collecting wastes. The remaining 1,01^ special districts
are empowered to collect or contract for collection of refuse within their
jurisdiction. The garbage disposal district is the only type of district
that can be formed that has the sole purpose of refuse management. All ; T
the other types of special districts have broader interests in which refuse
V-21
-------
handling is only an additional function.
The gathering of complete information on all special districts was consid-
ered to be impractical. This was based on their varied responsibilities and
the fact that many county officials did not know the degree of involvement of
the local districts. The following data reflect only the information obtained
from the ten garbage disposal districts in the state. Of these ten districts,
only one (Cambria Garbage Disposal District, San Luis Obispo County) operates
the collection service. The nine other garbage disposal districts contract
or franchise with private collectors to provide the service. Eight of these
are located in Los Angeles County.
Collection service in nine districts is paid for by means of general taxes,
with reimbursement to the private collector. In the other district (Atascadero
Garbage disposal District, San Luis Obispo County) the private collector bills
the customers directly.
The frequency of service in the districts includes four districts with
once-a-week collection and six with twice-a-week collection. All districts,
but one, provide for the collection of an unlimited quantity of refuse.
Of all the other special districts, only 31 districts were identified
during the survey as being involved in residential refuse collection. These
districts are primarily sanitary districts and a few community service districts.
The low number is considered to represent the order of magnitude of active
participation on the part of the various special districts. The involvement
of most of these districts is limited to enacting a minimum solid waste ordi-
nance and issuing a franchise for collection in their service area. A few
districts, however, were found to operate the collection service. These
districts primarily serve more densely populated unincorporated areas, although
a few districts have continued in this function after incorporation of part
or all of the district area.
V-22
-------
Detailed evaluation and inventory of various types of collection
equipment in use in the state is beyond the scope of this survey. However,
it must be clearly pointed out that collection practices and various equip-
ment usage is an integral part of the total management system.
Equipment varies over the state from the most recent and sophisticated
models to old open trucks converted for collection of solid wastes. The
lack of uniformity in types of equipment used throughout the state is due
to the peculiarities and preferences of each area. These differences,
such as length of haul, condition of streets and alleys, population density,
method of collection, type of material collected, collection frequency, and
financial abilities of the collector, dictate what type of equipment is to
be used. In general, development of collection equipment has been slow
and has not kept pace with advancing technology in other fields. Only
within the last few years has there been any measurable effort in the
development of more efficient and specially designed vehicles. Even with
new equipment being developed, there are still many unsanitary open trucks
in use which not only create public nuisances, but also promote potential
public health hazards. The unrestricted use of this type of vehicle should
not be tolerated by any community.
One consistent trend is apparent -- the growing use of compacting
vehicles for items other than large, hard-to-handle wastes. This type of
truck uses a packing device, either hydraulic or otherwise, to compact
more material into a given volume. These vehicles may utilize one-man,
two-man or three-man crews and be of the front, side or rear loading type
units.
Additional vehicles have been developed for the handling of special
V-23
-------
wastes such as manures, sludges, etc. Although this type of equipment has
not been investigated in any detail, attention must be given to the hauling
cf these wastes by a community.
Containerization is playing an important role in the storage and design
of collection equipment. Large containers or bins are used in commercial,
industrial, multiple dwelling, and other establishments producing large
volumes of wastes. These containers range in size from one to fifty-yard
capacities. The economics of utilizing containerized systems is quite
significant. The time required to empty one large container is much less
than that required for numerous smaller containers.
Local governmental control of refuse vehicles is almost nonexistent
throughout the state. Some of this is due to the fact that the state
vehicle laws have preempted local government from adopting certain refuse
vehicle requirements. Little attention is given, for example, to the type
or condition of vehicle being used.
F. TRANSFER FACILITIES
The use of transfer facilities to transport refuse from collection
vehicles to the disposal facility has reduced the long haul and corresponding
high costs of collection. As urban areas force disposal facilities farther
from the source of waste generation, the collector must spend more time
hauling refuse to the disposal site. The establishment of transfer stations
reduces this waste of man power and affords a more efficient use of collection
equipment. In many instances the collector may save a round trip haul distance
of 50 miles or more.
For this report, a transfer station is defined as any facility operated
for the purpose of transferring refuse from collection trucks and other
-------
vehicles to larger capacity trucks. These larger units, ranging in size
up to 120 cubic yards, with a legal limit payload of about 20 tons, trans-
port the refuse to the disposal facility.
As shown in Table V-9) there are 21 major transfer stations in the
state. These handle nearly 900,000 tons of refuse per year. This repre-
sents approximately four percent of the total wastes hauled to general
use disposal sites. In addition to these 21, there are numerous other
stations operated by cities for the transfer of city street sweepings,
tree trimmings, and other related wastes. These were not surveyed and
have been categorized as "supplemental transfer stations". It is estimated
that as many as 50 of these stations may exist in California.
It should be pointed out that the five.largest transfer stations
handle nearly 80 percent of all the wastes transferred in the state.
These are county or district-operated facilities which were planned and
constructed as part of the county plan for municipal refuse disposal.
Six of the reported transfer stations are small private operations in the
City of Los Angeles, primarily for the use of gardeners and haulers of
small amounts of demolition wastes. In addition, two are transferring
only wet garbage or swill. This material is being hauled to hog ranchers
for use as hog feed. Only five of the 21 transfer stations are located
outside of the Los Angeles-Orange County area, and only four of these are
located in the central or northern parts of the state.
As shown in Table V-9j there is no uniform pattern to the length of
haul distances to disposal facilities. The economical justification is
not necessarily the number of miles to the disposal site but must also
consider the haul time, ease of hauling, price set for receiving the wastes,
and types of wastes a disposal facility can accept.
Railroads are also being considered in addition to the conventional
V-25
-------
TRANSFER
FACILITIES
# „
Typical closed transfer truck.
Collection vehicles dumping directly to transfer trailers.
-------
IS
s
§
T a
> g
W co
ffl «
cd
Q
Crf
"d
D
3
H
OJ
CM
co
CD
0)
CO
3
<4H
dcpcrfc3cdcdo)^crfcrf
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
-4- CM H \O LT\ LA OOVO VD OO O LA LA
OJCOCMOOC— rH VDJ-
VO LA CM H
-P
0)O 0) 1)0)0)1)0) 0)0)
-P-rH -P -p-p-p-p-p -P4J
cd^-t cd cdcdcdcocd cdcrf
•H CO -P -H -P -H -rH -H -H -rH -P -H -H
fiSSASftft&fifigfiiJ
h h h
0) OJ QJ
WWW
c! c3 C ^
cd ro cd r^
£.4 £-( £^ (P £-1
EH EH EH y 0
•H |2
. co co co JH o
O -H {H -H 0) -rH
O O JD ft £1 W .-1
•H £> fl £1 £> Crf
i — 1 ft 3 ^ 3 " — 1 3 erf ^3
erf co p fxj PH r^l cd ft _p cd
cd co H l>> co -H bO
o O i — | r— ( co co co o co ,a cd
0) -H Pi -H O CD 0) 0) ft O) CO ^
-P a CO tlj | r— I r — | i — f W i — 1 2 J3
cdcdo-H ^cDCDaj-rHOJcoS
fnCSSQ >sO) bObObDQ bO-P
f) t-HHaaa acdj=[iS bO
co-p-pyo>bO H ^i
c~J ^ CZJ i — j ^ a CO CO M -H W ^ O
HOcd-rHOl-HOOOcdOOO)
•H
£
;>3
£}
0) cd
CO £•
cd o
Is o
0 H
-P cd
a co
tt) O
i &
iM -H
CJ Q
Crf
CO
O
-p
Q
3
o
co
LA
CM
CO
CD
X
D
CO
^
D
O
O
m
^
H
01
-p
cti
•H
CD
O
11
0)
J^
Q
^
•r-j
CT
£3
O
•-D
3
CO
CM
OJ
CO
0)
CU
CO
£j
0)
o
O
O
-^
_J-
, — [
-p
9
o
o
CO
^
cd
O
H
cd
a,'
,a
,^_j
cd
0
TO
PH
(Q
^j
cd
fD
rrj
^
CU
re
V-2?
-------
truck transfer systems in use. In this manner, undeveloped lands located
several hundred miles from metropolitan areas might be used as disposal
areas.
Transfer facilities should be planned and developed as part of the
overall solid waste management plan. In essence, the option of transfer
and economical haul permits increased latitude in regional solid waste
management planning.
V-28
-------
VI. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Past history of solid waste disposal has been limited primarily to
the disposal of municipal refuse by the primitive methods of dumping on
land or open burning. Due to the revolutional development in the urban-
industrial-suburban complex, many other types of solid wastes are now
becoming an increasing burden on the community. Demolition, industrial
and agricultural wastes must now be included in the solid waste manage-
ment system. Coupled with the additional types of solid wastes requiring
handling, is the increasing quantity of wastes being produced as a result
of population growth and per capita increases. An additional adverse
factor involved in the solid waste management scheme is lagging technol-
ogy in the field of solid waste disposal.
Solid waste disposal is restrained by the fundamental fact that
ultimate disposition of the wastes must be through reutilization, con-
version, or to one of two receptacles, the land or the ocean. With the
exception of dumping at sea, all processing or disposal methods currently
being considered require disposal to land of some percentage of the
original waste (a major percentage). Current disposal methods involve
some variation of burning or burying and in a few situations organic
conversion. With the increasing awareness of the public regarding
resources management and environmental quality, an accelerated program
of research in solid waste disposal technology is underway and new
VT-1
-------
techniques may be developed to arrest the growth of the solid waste disposal
problem.
A« DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT
Disposal management is the provision of a long-range, comprehensive
solid waste disposal program which meets acceptable criteria for environ-
mental quality, public health, social aesthetics, and economic efficiency.
With the exception of the two heavily-populated metropolitan areas,
disposal sites have been developed to receive municipal wastes for each city
largely on an individual basis. Since these sites do not accept all of the
wastes generated, numerous other sites are often developed to receive spe-
cialized materials such as demolition debris and industrial wastes. These
special use sites are not included in the waste disposal plan of the juris-
diction. In the unincorporated county areas, disposal sites are usually
distributed in a manner to serve the small individual centers of population.
Although these sites are often located in agricultural areas, they frequently
exclude agricultural wastes. The disposal of agricultural wastes currently
remains the responsibility of the producer.
Cooperative agreements between jurisdictions to share disposal sites
are lacking in most sections of the state. In some instances, two neighbor-
ing cities operate separate disposal sites on adjacent pieces of property.
Also, cities often do not allow the residents or collection agencies in the
unincorporated fringe area to use the city's site; therefore, another site
must be located nearby in the county area. The lack of cooperation stems
primarily from reluctance to relinquish authority to another jurisdiction
and the hesitancy to allow "other people's garbage" to be imported into
their city. There are only 257 disposal sites (out of ?l6) in the state
VI-2
-------
which serve more than one jurisdiction. The majority of these multipJ t—u:jr;
__ sites are found in large metropolitan areas and are often privately-owned
and operated.
*
Local regulations of disposal site operations are extremely inconsis-
tent, and for the most part, generally lacking. A striking reaction which
was evident from the survey was that the attitude of many counties (and
local governmental officials in general) toward solid waste disposal was a
lack of concern; phrases which describe this apathy might include: "out of
sight — out of mind", "use the least expensive disposal method", "let some-
one else handle it", and "keep us out of the disposal business".
Where regulations do exist, they are in the form of zoning requirements,
land-use permits, disposal site permits, and solid waste disposal ordinances.
Some solid waste disposal ordinances outline the approved methods of disposal
and requirements for disposal site operation. In some instances, the land-
use permit is used to regulate the operation of a disposal site by writing
disposal site requirements into the permit as conditions which must be main-
ta^ned. Controls may also be incorporated into a contract or agreement
between the local jurisdiction and private operators of sites.
Of the ^-2 counties having solid waste ordinances, only 17 include dis-
posal regulations. These regulations frequently stipulate only the method
of disposal to be used. Thirteen counties have actual solid waste disposal
standards although these are not always enforced. Most of these standards
consider only a limited number of items, generally including: intervals
between covering, limiting access, control of rodents and control of fires.
Most county disposal standards do not apply to incorporated areas and stf.ce
and federal operations. A few county ordinances go so far a^ to specifically
prohibit the importation of refuse. While the majority of solid wastes
Vl-3
-------
produced in a county are disposed of within the county, an illustration of
the high degree of intercounty transfer of refuse is the fact that 25 counties
currently export some refuse to neighboring counties.
•
Disposal of food processing wastes and agricultural crop wastes by spread-
ing on land is common in many agricultural areas of the state. Animal manures
from cattle feedlots, dairies, egg and poultry establishments are also commonly
spread on land or heaped into large piles. The adequate regulation of the
disposal of these wastes is lacking in almost all counties of the state.
Those few counties with controls have instituted regulations only because of
overwhelming environmental problems and after considerable public complaints.
The necessity of having a collection service in dense population areas
is generally recognized. After the waste is collected, however, most cities
tend to ignore the disposal process. In some cases, local agencies have estab-
lished policies and standards for improved operations only to find neighboring
jurisdictions unwilling to meet the same goals and their own efforts are thus
defeated. Locating disposal sites within city limits is regarded with consid-
erable disfavor by city officials to the extent that city zoning laws often
discourage this type of activity. Because of this attitude, 366 of the 399
cities in California dispose of some or all of their wastes outside their
city limits. In one-third of the cities, existing zoning regulations do not
allow the establishment of a disposal site.
The obvious fact emerging from the confused status of solid waste dis-
posal management is that it should be without question the responsibility of
government to protect the health of its citizens by providing adequate waste
disposal service for the community, for refuse as well as for sewage. Whether
this responsibility is met by suitable arrangements with private firms, other
jurisdictions, or whether a jurisdiction operates its own disposal service is
immaterial, as long as the responsibility is met. Private industry has long
VI-4
-------
assumed the burden of this responsibility in some areas of the state. The
responsibility for health protection of the public should not, however, be
totally delegated by public agencies to private interests.
*
B. METHODS OF PROCESSING OR DISPOSAL
There are many factors which may affect the type of disposal method
utilized. The acceptance or rejection of a particular processing or dis-
posal method may depend upon: (l) the technical limitations of the system;
(2) specialized local conditions; (3) public health criteria; (4) economic
considerations; (5) public acceptance and aesthetics; (6) type of collection
system; (7) characteristics of the wastes; and (8) governmental regulations.
The methods of disposal described in this section should not be consid-
ered as absolute systems in themselves but should be viewed as eligible choices
in a comprehensive system which might employ a combination of these methods.
This section will discuss those methods of solid waste processing or disposal
currently in use or applicable to California. These methods include land-
filling, incineration, composting, grinding to sewers, salvage and reclama-
tion, ocean disposal, open burning, pyrolysis, animal feeding, and disposal
on fields.
1. LANDFILLING
Landfilling is the most widely used method of solid waste disposal
throughout the state. Detailed information was obtained on the 7l6 general
solid waste disposal sites in use during 1967* Information on 284 of the
more than 500 supplemental sites in existence was also collected. The dis-
tribution and location of all disposal sites on which information was obtained
is shown in Appendix C.
VI-5
-------
The landfill method has the advantages of being inexpensive and appli-
cable to a wide variety of terrains. It may be utilized in low swampy areas
or tidelands to raise the elevation and reclaim the land for other use. It
%
may also be used in steep terrain to fill canyons or depressions. The popu-
larity and widespread use of landfill disposal has been due to:
(l) The availability of suitable low-cost land such as canyons,
nonproductive lands, and marshlands.
(2) Low capital outlay and cost of operation.
(3) Traditional acceptance by the public.
(k) Its adaptability and flexibility to accept a wide variety of wastes
of varying composition and amount with no pretreatment required.
Some of the disadvantages and problems encountered by this disposal
method are:
(l) Rising land costs and critical competition for usage of available
land resulting in difficulty in site acquisitions.
(2) Growing pressure by conservation interests against use of certain
open spaces as disposal sites.
(3) Increasing urban pressure requiring more stringent operating controls.
There are several classes or types of landfills ranging from sanitary
landfills down to open dumps. These two extremes illustrate the range be-
tween "controlled" and "uncontrolled" landfilling. Controlled landfills
include those sites at which all or most of the materials are routinely
buried. As the name would imply, control is exercised over the wastes; type
of materials accepted at the site may be restricted; dumping operations are
confined to one portion of the site; and a program of compaction and covering
retains materials in the site. Terminology used in this report to designate
specific types of controlled landfills includes "sanitary landfill", "modified
sanitary landfill", and "modified sanitary landfill with burning". Uncontrolled
VI-6
-------
landfills include the open burning dumps at which control of the solid wastes
is virtually lacking. Terms used in this report to designate these sites are
"uncontrolled burning dump" and "supervised dump with burning".
The most acceptable form of landfill, from a public health point of view,
is the sanitary landfill. Although a number of specific variations in con-
struction procedure are used depending on the terrain, it is generally a pro-
cess of dumping and compacting the solid wastes to the smallest practical
volume and covering them daily with compacted earth in a systematic and sani-
tary manner. In this method, wastes are spread in thin layers, and compacted
by mechanical equipment until a lift 5 - 15 feet deep is achieved. At the
end of each day an intermediate earth cover is applied and compacted. Subse-
quent lifts of refuse may be placed over each lift with intervening layers of
earth cover until the height limit of the site is reached. Final cover of the
fill consists of a minimum of two feet of compacted earth. While landfill is
by far the most commonly used method of disposal, only 67 sites in the state
were classified as sanitary landfills. Figure VI-1 shows the location of these
67 sites. As readily seen on the map, the majority of the sanitary landfills
in the state are located in Southern California. In fact, 55 percent of the
sanitary landfills in the state are located in Los Angeles and San Diego
counties. The reasons for this are primarily the great population density
in these areas and the high degree of control by the local programs.
The more common form of controlled landfilling encountered in California
is some type of "modified" sanitary landfill (138 sites). This form of land-
fill involves periodic covering of the refuse but not usually at daily intervals.
Included are sites where the top surface of the fill is covered each day, but
the face of the fill is left open. Also included are the sites where the fill
is only covered every two or three days. In essence, a modified sanitary land-
fill follows the sanitary landfill construction procedures with the major
VI-7
-------
exception of daily covering of all exposed solid wastes. This kind of opera-
tion is not compatible with urbanized land use. There may also be some
burning of selected combustible materials at modified sanitary landfills,
such as seasonal accumulations of brush and hard to handle items such as
long pieces of lumber.
Open dumps (the opposite of "controlled" landfills) are the most preva-
lent type of disposal site used in the state. All but seven counties have
at least one such operation with a statewide total of 511 sites (71 percent).
This type of operation is usually accompanied by continuous or periodic
burning and these disposal sites have minimal organization and operating
procedure. The refuse is dumped on the ground, over a bank or into a trench
and burned in place. In many sites equipment is used only when dumping or
entrance to the site is impaired by the accumulation of burned-over refuse.
The large number of open dumps found in California is due to:
(l) Minimum amount of land required.
(2) Essentially no development or operating cost.
(3) Lack of environmental quality control standards.
This type of disposal site has many disadvantages, some of which are:
(l) Creation of health and safety hazards through breeding of flies and
rats; air pollution; odors and unsightliness.
(2) Creating land blight and reduction of adjacent property values.
(3) Increasing urban pressure requiring more remote location of these
sites and difficulty in obtaining sites.
(U) Generally poor aesthetic conditions.
2. INCINERATION
Incineration, as applied to the disposal of solid wastes, is the process
of burning solid or semi-solid combustible wastes to an inoffensive gas and
VI-8
-------
FIGURE Vl-l
LOCATION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
-1967-
VI-9
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
a residue containing little or no combustible material. Open burning is not
considered incineration, and single chamber incinerators have been found to
be unacceptable for disposal of municipal wastes.
Many types of solid wastes cannot be economically processed in an incin-
erator. The wastes may have to be pretreated, such as dried, reduced in
size or segregated. Noncombustible wastes are essentially unaffected by
incineration and must by-pass the incinerator (such as concrete, etc.).
Residue (ash and noncombustibles) from an incinerator processing municipal
refuse will range between 5 and 15 percent of the volume of the original
quantities. The residue combined with the by-passed materials will approxi-
mately be one-half of all the municipal solid wastes. This quantity must
still be disposed of, normally in a landfill. Incineration, therefore,
should not be considered a means of disposal itself but rather as a tech-
nique to reduce the volume of wastes going to ultimate disposal.
The principal advantages of incineration may be summarized as follows:
(l) Less land is required for disposal.
(2) Incineration may take place at a close,central!zed point, reducing
collection haul costs.
The disadvantages listed below must be weighed against the advantages
and possible other methods.
(l) High capital outlay and cost of operation.
(2) Possible source of air contaminants and loading on the atmosphere.
(3) Not a complete disposal method.
There are no municipal incinerators operating in the state at the. pre-
sent time. A few municipalities have attempted incineration in the past,
notably the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, and San Francisco, but these
operations have been discontinued. It appears that the chief deterrent to
municipal incineration is the high cost. Much of this high cost is the
VI-10
-------
result of strict air pollution requirements.
There are numerous incinerators utilized by various institutions, com-
mercial and industrial establishments and federal facilities in the state.
Some of these installations have capacities as large as ^0 to 50 tons per
day. A few wood waste burners are closer to 100 tons per day; particularly
those that are incorporated into a steam generating complex. One popular
type of incineration in the form of teepee burners is extensively used by
the lumber industry to dispose of sawdust and wood wastes. It is estimated
that there are approximately 500 of these in present use throughout the
state, disposing of over three million tons of wood waste each year. Smaller
incinerators are often used by schools, shopping centers, etc., for the incin-
eration of paper and other combustibles. Many hospitals use special incinera-
tors in order to dispose of infectious and hazardous wastes. Residential
back yard incinerators, while used extensively throughout the state, are
unsuitable for urban areas because conditions for adequate combustion cannot
be provided economically. A number of air pollution control districts and
municipalities have banned back yard burning because of the nuisances created
by this practice.
3. COMPOSTING
Composting is the aerobic, biological decomposition of solid organic
material under controlled conditions. The objective of composting is to
convert the organic matter to a nuisance-free, humus-like end product which
can be used as a soil conditioner or a fertilizer base.
Composting, like incineration, cannot be considered an ultimate disposal
method inasmuch as inorganic material must be disposed of by other means.
Therefore, compostable materials must either be collected separately or the
total refuse must be processed by sorting and other separation procedures
VI-11
-------
to reduce the amount of noncompostables. Composting, therefore, is often
conducted in conjunction with the salvage of certain materials for which
there is a market. Many types of organic wastes such as food processing
wastes, manures, crop residues and sewage sludge are amenable to aerobic
decomposition and may be composted individually or with the compostable
refuse. At the present time much research is being conducted relative to
composting sewage sludge in combination with refuse.
While composting has been successful to a limited extent in Europe,
there have been few successful, large-scale operations in the United States.
A substantial number of pilot plants have been constructed and operated at
various times.
In general, the problems seem to be more economic than technical. The
advantages are:
(l) Conserves resource material.
(2) Provides a useful end product.
(3) Reduces initial volume of wastes.
(U) Centralized processing may reduce haul distances.
The disadvantages of the system are:
(l) High capital and operational costs for mechanical equipment.
(2) The major problem of finding markets or outlets for the final
product.
Composting of refuse at the present time is finding limited application
in California. A mechanical municipal refuse composting operation utilizing
the Dano process was attempted in Sacramento. This pilot plant operation
which processed ^0-5© tons of refuse daily operated from 1956 to 1963.- During
1963-614- a 70-ton-per-day composting plant was operated in San Fernando.
At the present time the only composting conducted in California is in
the area of special wastes, such as sewage sludge, animal manures and food
VT-12
-------
processing wastes.
-4. GRINDING TO SEWERS
Selected refuse can be disposed of by grinding it and flushing the
garbage slurry into the sewerage system with ultimate delivery to the
sewage treatment plant. Grinders are currently used throughout the state
in homes and in commercial establishments, such as restaurants, produce
terminals, and supermarkets. These installations are operating with satis-
factory results. Grinders in centrally-located stations operated by a
municipality have been utilized in the East. The Los Angeles County Sanita-
tion Districts have experimented with the grinding and transport in sewers
of household refuse.
The principle of the operation is the same for all: garbage is stored
or collected separately from other refuse; it is ground or shredded in the
grinder as water is added and flushed into the sewers. Very little waste
material other than garbage is committed to a home disposal unit. Commer-
cial or municipally-operated units, however, would be required to accept
garbage and selected refuse. Preliminary sorting or salvage is necessary
for all operations in order to prevent damage to the equipment.
In general, new subdivisions include a home-installed garbage disposal
unit as part of a packaged, modern, built-in kitchen. There are no municipal
or private collection agencies operating central-grinding installations in
the state.
This method has the advantages of:
(l) Garbage storage on premises is eliminated.
(2) Amount of putrescible wastes transported throughout the community
in trucks is reduced.
(3) Convenience to the waste producer.
VI-13
-------
The disadvantages are:
(l) Increased loading on sewerage system and sewage treatment facilities.
(2) Increased water pollution threat.
(3) High cost per unit treated.
5. SALVAGE AND RECLAMATION
The terms salvage and reclamation include a number of disposal processes:
sorting of refuse for metals, tin cans, glass, paper and cardboard that may
have a local market; reduction of garbage or rendering of animal wastes for
fats, tankage and other products; use of swill, garbage, and food processing
wastes for animal feed; salvage of automobile bodies and scrap metal; and
the reclamation of miscellaneous industrial wastes.
Salvage and reclamation cannot be considered exclusively as a means of
disposal but is usually a part of another disposal process. Many of the dis-
posal sites in the state salvage metals and other materials with varying
degrees of organization. One commercial salvage company operates magnetic
separators at several controlled landfill sites to remove tin cans. Many
tons of cans are salvaged and reclaimed for use in the copper industry. A
large amount of waste paper and cardboard amounting to many thousands of tons
per year are salvaged and processed through centralized baling stations. In
some cases paper is also salvaged at disposal sites.
6. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Disposal of municipal refuse at sea is generally not an approved method
of disposal. Even though such wastes may be barged considerable distance
from shore, eventual return of flotsam to beaches and shorelines has not
been satisfactorily controlled. Ocean disposal of municipal refuse, while
practiced by some San Francisco Bay Area cities in the Thirties, has com-
VI-14
-------
pletely disappeared. This may be attributed to high cost, threat of water
pollution, and loss of recreational use of coastal areas.
Presently, only some special wastes are hauled to sea. Food processing
»
wastes from Oakland area canneries amounting to about 20,000 tons per year
are currently barged out and disposed of in the ocean primarily because of
a lack of suitable disposal facilities on land. This method, while expen-
sive, appears to be satisfactory in that no large solids or other materials
have been found to return to the shore.
Garbage from ocean vessels in the Long Beach-Los Angeles harbor area is
hauled to sea for disposal as provided for in the California Agricultural
Code. Approximately 1,000 tons per year are handled in this manner from
nonmilitary sources. A report on the Naval facilities at San Diego indicates
that military sources 'in this area were disposing of about 4,700 tons of gar-
bage per year at sea.
In addition to the vessel garbage, chemical wastes (especially cyanide),
classified parts, acids, and confiscated materials amounting to approximately
3,000 tons were disposed of at sea by ocean disposal firms operating out of
the Los Angeles harbor during 196?•
Digested sewage sludge is disposed of to the ocean through outfall lines
in many locations along the California coast and in San Francisco Bay.
7. OPEN BURNING
A considerable amount of solid waste is disposed of annually through
open burning. This is the primary means for disposal of agricultural wastes
such as orchard prunings, wheat and rice stubble, and brush and tree trimmings.
In those counties not included in air pollution control districts, open
burning is extensively practiced at disposal sites. While some counties have
banned burning at disposal sites, there are cities within the county that
VI-15
-------
still operate open burning sites. Agricultural operations are also frequently
exempt from burning regulations.
Special wastes such as tires and automobiles are frequently burned be-
cause of the difficulty in handling these materials or as a means of salvage.
In the case of tires, the rubber is sometimes burned off and the metal threads
inside are salvaged. Automobiles are burned to remove the upholstery and paint
finish in preparation for reuse as steel. Open burning of these wastes and
others create heavy atmospheric pollutant loadings.
8. FYROLYSIS
Pyrolysis is defined as the chemical change brought about by the action
of heat. It is a process of destructive distillation carried out in a closed
retort in an atmosphere either completely, or almost completely, devoid of
oxygen. This process is used to make charcoal. It is also applied commer-
cially to wood for the recovery of such organic by-products as methanol, acetic
acid and turpentine.
Similar to incineration and composting, pyrolysis cannot be considered an
ultimate disposal method inasmuch as the inorganic material must be disposed
of by other means.
This process has generally been in the development stage and not utilized
for total municipal refuse disposal. There are few installations in California
known to have functioned on solid waste materials. The U.S. Navy Concord Wea-
pons Station disposed of dunnage at a two-ton-per-hour private plant for approx-
mately two years. Peach pits are currently converted to charcoal near Milpitas.
9. AHIMAL FEEDING
The amount of garbage and swill being fed to hogs has greatly decreased
in recent years due to stringent regulations regarding the cooking of garbage,
VI-16
-------
specifically the State Department of Agriculture regulation requiring the
cooking of mixed garbage at 212°F for 30 minutes. Approximately 2^,800 tons
*
of cooked garbage and swill were disposed of through this method in Califor-
nia. In addition, more than 1^,000 tons of uncooked material such as market
greens, bakery wastes and candy are fed yearly. During the food processing
season, many ranchers also feed culls.
Culled fruit and vegetables are also fed to cattle. In this method the
food processing wastes are spread on fields and cattle are allowed to graze
on these materials.
10. DISPOSAL ON FIELDS
Agricultural manures and some cannery wastes are often disposed of by
spreading on agricultural fields and eventually plowing into the soil. In
some cases of food processing wastes, animals are allowed to feed on the
wastes when first deposited. This practice unfortunately has led to some
severe insect, rodent, and odor problems as well as pollution of some streams.
The objective of this method is to spread these wastes thin enough to permit
rapid drying or removal of moisture.
C. EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL SITES
Land disposal of solid wastes is by far the most prevalent means of dis-
posal in California. As indicated earlier in this report, a considerable
portion of the field survey involved an evaluation of each solid waste dis-
posal site in the state. The results of that survey are presented in the
following sections.
1. CLASSIFICATION OF DISPOSAL SITES
It was necessary at the start of the field survey to determine which
VI-17
-------
disposal sites were significant enough to warrant evaluation. To attempt to
obtain information on illegal dumps, individual sites serving only a few homes,
roadside litter locations, etc., would be impractical and time consuming. All
landfill sites in California, therefore, were determined to be either "general *
use" sites or "supplemental" sites. General use sites are sites which receive
wastes from the general public and collection agencies, and receive a variety
of wastes. These are the "official" or "authorized" sites which are recognized
by the local agencies as designated disposal areas.
The very small or single use sites were classified as supplemental disposal
sites. These sites include disposal areas at city corporation yards, street
sweeping dumps, single user solid fill areas, military sites, and disposal
sites serving the property owner only, such as a ranch or industrial facility.
These sites are usually not recognized or regulated by local agencies as offi-
cial sites. While some information was obtained on supplemental sites, this
information is incomplete and inconclusive and was not included in this report.
It is estimated that approximately 500 of these sites may exist in California
in addition to the J1.6 general use sites.
Each general use site in California was inspected, evaluated and perti-
nent information was obtained. The data presented in this report are based
on this information.
All general use sites were rated according to their type of disposal
operation. Two uncontrolled disposal classifications(generally referred to
as dumps) and three controlled operation classifications (referred to as
controlled landfills) were utilized. The definitions of these classifications
follows as well as photographs depicting typical examples of each type.
a. Uncontrolled Burning Dump - USD
The uncontrolled burning dump is an open dump and the lowest classifica-
Vl-18
-------
UNCONTROLLED
t
„ BURNING
DUMPS
*
(UBD)
Wastes scattered over large area.
Wastes dumped over embankment.
Unloading area obscured by smoke.
• *:• *-
-------
tion used in the survey. It is generally considered to be an unacceptable
type of operation from a health and safety viewpoint. Characteristics of
these sites include little or no supervision, little or no maintenance and
numerous environmental and public health problems, such as smoke, odor, flies,
rodents, and the improper disposal of hazardous materials such as pesticide
containers.
b. Supervised Dump with Burning - SDB
A supervised dump with burning is an open dump at which dumping opera-
tions are supervised by a site caretaker. The appearance of the site and the
control of dumping operations are better than that of an uncontrolled burning
dump; however, similar environmental problems are present.
c. Modified Sanitary Landfill with Controlled Burning - MSLB
A modified sanitary landfill with controlled burning is a much superior
type of operation than an open dump. Burning of garbage is not allowed at
this type of site and controlled burning is limited to brush and other cellu-
lose material. These sites have a routine program of periodically compacting
and covering the solid wastes with suitable cover material. A MSLB usually
has fewer environmental problems than either of the open dump types depending
on the frequency of cover.
d. Modified Sanitary Landfill - MSL
A modified sanitary landfill is similar to a MSLB, only burning is not
allowed. Refuse material is covered periodically but not necessarily at
daily intervals.
e. Sanitary Landfill - SL
A sanitary landfill is the ideal classification of landfilling. The
most essential operational feature of a sanitary landfill is adequate covering
VI-20
-------
SUPERVISED
DUMP
WITH
BURNING
(SDB)
*/ i*>y
J'™-.™| IP) . ,-,«3l
«3fai
JTote appearance of some control.
Dumping into a trench or over an
embankment.
• &, ' -1W- '<•••& y'-PfM '
••^,:-A»9ttim''
Special attempt to control
blowing material before and
during burning.
-------
4**
MODIFIED
Sides of trench and elevated mound
covered completely — working face
remains open.
SANITARY
LANDFILLS
(MSL)'
Exposed wastes covered periodically.
-------
of the refuse. At a sanitary landfill, a uniform compacted layer of suit-
able cover material must be placed over ai1 exposed solid wastes by the end
of each working day; complete daily covering of the fill must be provided.
Other important operational details are compaction, total absence of burning,
minimum-sized working face, and an overall neat appearance. Environmental
and public health problems are absent or controlled.
f. Other
Grouped into this classification are special landfill sites which receive
only relatively inert material such as nondecomposable demolition debris and
concrete {"solid fill sites"). These sites usually do not require the same
operational criteria as sites receiving readily decomposable organic materials.
2. CAPACITIES OF DISPOSAL SITES
The location of a 11 of the general use sites in California is shown on
maps in Appendix D. Tables accompanying each map indicate the type of opera-
tion and other pertinent information for each site. Table VI-1 below shows
the statewide summary of the number, the total area, and total daily tonnage
received for each classification of disposal site. It should be noted that
material received is weighed at only 32 disposal sites and, including those
sites, only 117 site operators keep any kind of quantitative records. The
material received (daily tonnage) at the remaining 599 disposal sites was,
therefore, estimated as closely as possible.
The total land area devoted to solid waste disposal sites in California
at the present time is approximately 56 square miles. As can be seen in
Table VI-1, there are 511 dumps (72 percent of the total sites) which utilize
burning as the primary means of handling the waste. These same 5H sites
have a total area of 12,320 acres or 35 percent of the land in current use
VI-2 3
-------
SANITARY
LANDFILLS
(SL)
Wastes deposited in small canyon. Daily cover
material obtained from sides of canyon.
Wastes deposited at bottom of slope and spread
upward. Face completely covered daily.
a« .->',* >
Trench constructed ahead of active
face — all wastes covered daily.
Large canyons filled with wastes and
final grade contoured for future use.
-------
for solid waste disposal. The amount of wastes received daily at these sites
is quite small, amounting to almost 35200 tons or only 6 percent of the state-
wide total. It is quite significant that 72 percent of the disposal sites in
the state are burning dumps which in turn only dispose of 6 percent of the
total refuse. The proliferation of this type of operation and the low quan-
tity of wastes handled are due principally to the extensive use of these small
sites in rural areas. These burning dumps (UBD and SDB) may be found in 51 of
the 58 counties of the state.
TABLE VI-1
STATEWIDE SUMMARY OF TYPES OF SITES
Type of Site
Uncontrolled Burning Dump
Supervised Dump With Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill
With Controlled Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
Other
Totals
No. of
Sites
377
13^
29
96
67
13
716
Area
In Site
(acres)
6,620
5,700
2,38^
10,752
9,755
Uo6
35,617
Daily Wastes
Received
(tons)
1,080
2,080
1,250
1^,290
33,^90
1,280
53,^70
Number of
Counties Using
This Type Site
k&
37
18
2»f
16
5
In contrast, there are only 67 or 9 percent of the total sites in the
state classed as a sanitary landfill (SL), the most acceptable form of land-
fill disposal. These are generally large sites as reflected by a total land
area of 9,755 acres or 27 percent of the statewide total; they receive about
33,500 tons per day of wastes or 63 percent of the total. It is interesting
to note that 27 of the 67 sanitary landfill sites are located in Los Angeles
VI-25
-------
County. Disposal sites in Los Angeles County dispose of kQ percent of the
total quantity of wastes handled by all disposal sites in California.
More acreage (13,136 acres; 37 percent) is in use as modified sanitary
landfills (MSL and MSLB) than any other type of disposal site although only
17 percent of the number of sites are of this type. This type of operation
handles 29 percent of the total wastes received at disposal sites. Exclusive
of Los Angeles County, this type of site receives 51 percent of the wastes of
the other 57 counties.
The type of operation designated as "other" was used limitedly in the
survey. This low number was caused by the fact that many disposal sites
locally regarded to be very restrictive in the type of wastes received (such
as solid fill only), were found to actually receive other types of wastes,
therefore, causing the site to fall under the MSL classification. This accept-
ance of the other wastes is due to the lack of control of materials received
because of limited supervision and the tendency for loads to be composed of
mixed wastes. Additional sites were found to handle insignificant volumes of
material and, therefore, were considered as supplemental disposal sites.
An effort was made to determine the capacity of each general use site.
In the absence of definitive operational plans (such as the contemplated
final depth of fill), estimates were required at many sites. An estimate
was also made of the number of years the site could continue to receive wastes
(life expectancy) based on the existing operational procedure. It was impos-
sible to determine the capacity of a few disposal sites. These were primarily
those small sites where solid wastes are dumped over the rim of a large canyon
or into flowing water. In a few sites, the potential capacity extended the
related life expectancy beyond the period of time the land would be available
(such as the term of lease). In this case, the lesser time was assumed.
Table VI-2 shows the cumulative capacity of the sites within each county
VI-26
-------
TABLE VI-2
DISPOSAL SITE CAPACITY AND LIFE EXPECTANCY
County
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial.
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Las sen
Los Angeles
Made r a
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Butter
Tehama
Trinity
Tul are
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Totals
Total
Number
of Sites
11
2
6
12
8
7
U
It
15
27
6
20
16
17
37
5
7
15
39
7
3
7
lit
13
12
18
13
5
5
10
lit
13
27
9
it
31*
23
it
6
lit
13
6
17
6
18
6
27
7
9
7
1
8
16
28
11
7
9
7
Total Capacity of Sites
Acre Feet
2lt,350
170
100
1,320
390
200
It8,000
1,200
3,020
10,050
320
1,180
5,630
2,720
13,120
500
2,800
520
158,000
1,580
8,500
520
2,650
2,320
1,650
380
28,890
5,780
300
It2,060
2,920
740
103,770
66,950
700
56,170
18,220
870
15,780
6,1+30
6,000
17,870
16,020
3,310
it, 980
20
1,300
3,750
2,000
1,000
10
it,690
650
8,OlfO
930
2,590
2,120
2,750
718,800
Sites Unknown
0
0
1
It
0
0
0
0
1
It
1
7
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
2
It
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
It
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
2
It6
Life Expectancy
No. of Sites
0-5
Years
It
1
1
It
1
5
1
0
2
15
2
5
2
3
7
l
0
0
13
1
1
1
5
l
0
6
0
0
0
2
It
3
7
3
1
5
6
3
2
6
8
l
8
l
2
0
10
2
6
It
0
3
5
6
2
it
1
it
191
6-10
Years
3
1
2
It
1
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
5
1
1
6
10
0
0
3
1
0
1
It
1
2
0
5
1
2
6
2
0
It
It
0
0
2
1
It
2
0
6
0
7
1
1
2
1
2
4
6
1
0
0
0
119
11-20
Years
0
0
0
0
It
0
1
3
it
2
0
1
3
1
3
0
1
it
9
2
0
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
0
3
2
3
it
0
0
7
1
1
3
it
2
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
3
it
5
it
0
1
0
in
>20
Years
It
0
3
it
2
0
2
0
7
9
It
13
10
12
22
3
5
5
7
It
2
1
5
10
9
6
10
2
5
0
7
5
10
It
3
18
12
0
1
2
2
1
It
3
10
6
5
2
2
1
0
0
3
11
it
3
7
3
295
VI-27
-------
and the ranges of life remaining for the disposal sites. The total remaining
capacity of all the existing sites in the state was found to be 718,800 acre
feet. This might be visualized as 25 square miles, approximately ^5 feet
*
deep. Approximately 5^ percent of this capacity is found in just 16 sites
(in other words, 2 percent of the sites contain 5^ percent of the capacity).
As would be anticipated, the larger counties tend to have the larger disposal
site capacities, but these capacities are generally being used at a more rapid
rate.
While the existing capacity at first appears large, the most frequent
need expressed by public officials during survey interviews was the need for
more disposal sites. This need is evident from the data in Table VI-3. It
is significant to note that approximately 27 percent of the existing disposal
sites will be filled within the next five years under present operating condi-
tions and 76 percent of these have no replacement planned.
TABLE VI-3
REMAINING SITE LIFE AND PLANNED REPLACEMENT
Status
Replacement Site Planned
Sites With No Planned
Replacement
Totals
Life Expectancy - No. of Sites
0 - 5
Years
^5
ll*6
191
6-10
Years
17
102
119
11 - 20
Years
11
100
111
20
Years
13
282
295
The assumption was made when computing site capacities that existing
operating conditions will continue in the future; this is subject to con-
siderable doubt. Open burning at disposal sites is coming under more crit-
icism each year and if burning is banned, more than half the sites in the
VI-28
-------
state would probably find themselves with less than five years of life remain-
ing. More stringent fire control regulations, water pollution prevention,
and analysis of the use of federal lands are also currently threatening the
'continued use of many sites statewide. The nine counties indicated in Table
VI-2 as having no sites with less than five years of life remaining will not
continue in this unique circumstance with the growing pressures for improved
environmental conditions.
The capacity of a disposal site is also directly affected by the degree
of compaction of the solid wastes. Good compaction increases the quantity of
wastes which can be disposed of in the site and reduces the future settlement
of the completed project. At h&3 disposal sites no compaction is provided.
These sites are composed predominantly of dumps (UBD and SBD). Only at 118
sites was the degree of compaction considered to be adequate; for example,
sites where the solid wastes were spread in thin layers and compacted using
large-sized tractors or special compaction machines.
3- OPERATION OF DISPOSAL SITES
One of the principal disadvantages of landfill disposal is the fact that
suitable land is becoming increasingly more difficult to locate and acquire.
The announcement of a proposed location of a new disposal site invariably
results in a great public outcry and complaint against the location. This
is principally due to the public attitude that disposal operations are poor
neighbors; a belief that may be well founded based on some of the crude methods
currently in use. The public has not been made aware that there is a differ-
ence between a dump and a sanitary landfill; in fact, many times they have
been solid the latter only to receive another dump.
Most of the existing sites in California are located in relatively unde-
veloped areas. In view of the type of operations generally found throughout
VI-29
-------
the state, the need for this isolation is quite obvious. Good sanitary land-
fills can, however, be operated close to populated areas. This has been well
demonstrated in the Los Angeles area and in a few other scattered locations
where landfills are operated without nuisance in residential areas. '
Table VI-4 summarizes the various types of land usage found adjacent
to existing disposal sites.
TABLE VT-4
LAND USE ADJACENT TO DISPOSAL SITES
Type of Site
Uncontrolled Burning Dump (UBD)
Supervised Dump with Burning (SDB)
Modified Sanitary Landfill (MSLB)
with Controlled Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill (MSL)
Sanitary Landfill (SLJ
Other
Totals
Number of Sites by Adjacent Land Use
^
H o>
Oj ,0
-p a
o 3
HS
377
134
29
96
67
13
716
H
oj
•H
-P
a
0)
•d
•H
CO
CD
K
5
3
2
11
7
3
31
H
cd
•H
O
?H
0)
w
H
O
U
0
0
0
k
0
0
4
3
•H
Sn
-P
w
3
•d
d
H
10
3
3
15
11
7
49
H
cd
£
-P
H
3
O
•H
Jn
tjD
<
71
53
12
25
16
0
176
Tt
01
Pi
0
H
(U
>
0)
tf
c
D
289
73
12
38
30
3
445
0)
CO
D
^
0)
43
4J
0
2
2
0
4
3
0
11
As indicated in the table, there appears to be a greater acceptance of the
controlled landfill (SL and MSL) operations in developed areas. This enables
the completed disposal sites to be more closely integrated into the overall
community development. The need for isolation of a dump-type operation is illus-
trated by the fact that only four percent of the dumps are located in developed
VI-30
-------
areas whereas 31 percent of the controlled landfills are in developed areas.
Two of the "other use" sites are prison property and the remaining nine are
existing recreational areas. It is only a matter of time until the state's
growth will preclude the existing ability to deposit wastes out of sight
without infringing on someone else's back yard. In some areas, time has
already run out.
a. Owners and Operators of Disposal Sites
A number of different agencies operate disposal sites. County agencies
are presently the major operator of disposal sites, currently operating 380
sites or 53 percent of the sites in California. Private refuse firms also
operate a substantial portion (l8l sites or 25 percent) of the disposal sites.
Table VI-5 shows the number of disposal sites operated by the various agencies
in the state.
The total column in Table VI-5 indicates the number of general use dis-
posal sites operated by private firms and the various levels of governmental
jurisdictions. The state and federal governments actually operate a large
number of supplemental sites in addition to those shown. Those not included
in the general use category are the supplemental disposal sites serving facil-
ities such as highway maintenance stations, state and federal parks, military
installations and campgrounds. When the use was by a state or federal agency
exclusively, the site was categorized as a supplemental site. Where these
sites were also used by local residents, such as occurs in some sites serving
the federal campgrounds in the mountainous regions, they were included as
general use disposal sites. For the most part, the federal sites listed are
small operations intended for national forest use but also used by the general
public in the area. The state operations listed in the table are generally
restricted in use and serve large state institutions.
VI-31
-------
TABLE VI-5
TYPE OF SITE BY OPERATOR
£_J
o
-p
CO
f-t
0)
cf)
City
County
District
State
Federal
Private
Type of Site
p4
£
Q
bD
d
•rH
£]
b
m
•d
0)
H
H
O
^
-P
d
o
0
^
32
273
5
5
2k
38
bO
d
•rH
d
M
pq
c|
-P
•H
ft
£i
P
Q
*d
(D
ra
•H
{>
^i
0)
ft
ra
35
67
2
6
3
21
H bD
•H d
T! d
d H
CO d
>-3 PQ
r-'a'd
JH 0)
cd H
-P H
•H O
d ^
CO -P
ra d
o
T3 O
0)
•H '"I
^H -p
•H -H
'd Is
o
s
9
3
0
1
0
16
H
•H
Is
d
cO
^p
^>J
cS
-p
•H
d
CO
ra
-d
_^
J>3
^
cd
4J
•H
£1
CO
ra
13
19
6
1
0
28
^i
cu
c{
-P
O
1
2
0
0
0
10
ra
CO
-P
•H
ra
! 1
CO
-P
0
EH
99
380
1 Ji
1 ][
28
181
Disposal sites are operated by county agencies in ^5 of the 58 counties.
A significant observation is that 90 percent of the county-operated sites are
open burning dumps. The reasons for this kind of operation need to be con-
sidered because they constitute a major problem in California. Most of these
county-operated sites are located in sparsely populated rural areas. In these
areas there is insufficient volume of refuse to economically justify a sanitary
landfill operation. Private firms are generally unavailable or uninterested,
therefore, the burden of providing disposal sites for these small communities
falls upon the county. To prevent illegal dumping, many rural counties find
VI-32
-------
it necessary to provide a great number of small dumps. Siskiyou County, for
example, has 27 disposal sites for 35j30° people; whereas, Orange County has
ten sites for 1,291,000 people.
In most counties the sites are operated by either the public works or
the road department. Site operation usually is assigned to these agencies
with the justification that they are familiar with the equipment. In two
counties (San Bernardino and Santa Barbara), special departments have been
established to manage the disposal programs. Many of the larger counties
with public works departments have assigned the disposal program to a special
division. Where the operating agency has dual responsibility or shares equip-
ment with other functions, the disposal operation almost always comes out
second-best. Operation by the administrative group refers to immediate
direction by the board of supervisors as opposed to having a full-time em-
ployee responsible. This kind of operation is usually conducted on a constit-
uent complaint basis which has obvious drawbacks.
Only nine of the counties with publicly-operated disposal sites levy user
charges at the sites and five of these charge at all sites. It is, of course,
impossible to levy a charge at the unattended sites. There are divergent
opinions on the merits and consequences of charging at sites. The most common
concern is an increase in roadside litter. Those agencies who have made the
switch indicate that their fears were far greater than fact. In a few cases,
a franchise for disposal site operation has been let out for bid. In these
cases the county generally retains control of the land and the right to review
and establish rates for use of the facility.
Table VI-5 indicated that there are 99 city-operated sites. City agencies
operate disposal sites in $k cities with three cities operating more than one
site. Approximately one-half of the cities in the 2,500 to 10,000 population
range operate their own disposal site. This group accounts for slightly more
VI-33
-------
than one-half of all the city-operated sites. Almost all city-operated sites
are run by the public works department.
-j
There are 15 disposal sites operated by districts in the state. The five
sites operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts are among the *
largest disposal sites in the state (based on tonnage received). Of the ten
garbage disposal districts, only one district (Cambria) actually operates a
disposal site. Only two garbage and refuse disposal districts exist in the
state; they include the Monterey Peninsula Garbage and Refuse Disposal District
which includes six cities and a portion of the unincorporated Monterey peninsula
area, and the South County Garbage and Refuse Disposal District which includes
five cities and certain unincorporated areas in southern San Mateo County.
Districts whose primary function is waste disposal have better quality opera-
tions than the other local jurisdictions who are maintaining sites primarily
because they have equipment.
Privately-operated disposal sites are generally found in areas where dis-
posal operations are profitable or where there is sufficient population to
support collection services. Some private disposal sites are not operated as
a matter of choice, but rather as a required condition to obtaining the fran-
chise for collection service. This relieves the city or county of the respon-
sibility of providing a disposal service. In these arrangements the amount of
reimbursement to the private operator varies. The city or county may or may
not furnish the land and rarely provides funds. The site operation is then
financed by user and collection charges. If the site is to be open to the
public without charge, the entire cost of the site operation is paid out of
the revenue from collection service fees.
As would be expected, many of the privately-operated sites have user fees
(117 of the l8l). Those that do not charge are in the following categories:
(l) sites used exclusively by the collector; (2) publicly-owned sites operated
VI-34
-------
by private collectors as part of the franchise agreement; or (3) burning
operations.
Ownership of disposal sites is quite varied. Private ownership accounts
'for 231 sites (32 percent) and the remaining ^5 sites (68 percent) are in
public ownership. Public agencies lease 97 °f the privately-owned sites for
publicly-operated disposal sites. A breakdown of the public ownership is as
follows:
City
County
District
State
Federal
118
198
9
18
lk2
Total Public
The large amount of federally-owned sites (20 percent of total sites) is
due to public agencies using lands of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management. Both of these federal agencies have land-use permit proce-
dures which recognize the use of lands for waste disposal. These agencies
are becoming more concerned about the type of operation used for disposal and
are placing more restrictions on their use (especially no burning). Some
administrators of national forests feel the fire hazard is too great to have
accumulations of refuse and, hence, do not allow any disposal sites.
The Bureau of Land Management is a source for public agencies to buy land
inexpensively for use as a disposal sites. Restrictions are placed on what the
ultimate use of the land must be (recreation, etc.), but the land may be filled
with refuse prior to the final use. Land may also be leased from this agency.
The following list sunsnarizes the public and private involvement in owner-
ship and operation of disposal sites in California:
ywucr Operator Number of Sites
Public Public ^38
Public Private k7
Private Public 97
Private Private
VI-35
-------
b. Cost of Operating
An attempt was made to collect operational cost data during the survey.
This information was found difficult to obtain. The details and methods of
budgeting and maintaining operational records vary considerably between agen-
cies. Private operators often would not disclose this information since they
considered it confidential. As a consequence, this information is incomplete
and generalization of the gathered data has been necessary.
Operational cost (exclusive of land cost) exceeds 15 million dollars per
year for the controlled disposal operations (SL, MSL and MSLB type sites)
which constitute 29 percent of all the general use sites. The remaining 71
percent of the general use sites, which use open burning as the principal
method of disposal, spend approximately 1 million dollars annually for opera-
tion. Unaccountable loss through defacing the land and reducing its useful-
ness, plus damages to the surrounding properties, frequently accompany the
latter operations. Millions of additional dollars are spent yearly by industry,
governmental agencies and private individuals on sites categorized as supple-
mental sites.
It must be remembered that the previous figures represent only disposal
cost, exclusive of land, and that collection and haul costs are also additional.
The total estimated cost for collection and disposal of the 19-5 million tons
of solid wastes handled at the general use sites is approximately 300 million
dollars per year.
The solid wast<= disposal industry in California employs the equivalent
: T ',,100 men at general use disposal sites. Approximate1.^ 6,100 man-lours
are utilized at the sites on an average day. These figures represent only
tae man poorer utilized in operation of the site. The use of this man power
per site is a function of the volume of wastes handled at the site; the larger
the site, the more man-hours required. Usually, no more than two men are
VI-36
-------
involved in the operation of supervised dumps with burning; the controlled
landfills require more employees. In fact, sanitary landfills which comprise
nine percent of the sites by number employ 38 percent of the man power in
«
this industry.
Almost all controlled disposal sites have limited hours during which
refuse is received. Only two sanitary landfills and 12 modified sanitary
landfills are open greater than l6 hours per day. Seventy-nine percent are
open six days per week and six percent are open five days or less per week.
Ninety percent of the general use disposal sites (6h2 sites) are open
for use by the general public; at kO percent of the sites, they are the only
contributor. The latter group of sites include primarily the small rural
sites where there is no collection service.
As suggested throughout this chapter, records in the field of solid wastes
are sparse and nonstandard. During the survey it was found that operational
records were maintained on less than one-third of the sites in use and only
one-sixth of the sites maintain quantitative records. Frequently, the county
operations charge all disposal work to a single fund code and, hence, the
detail for individual sites is lost. Under this system it is impossible to
determine actual cost, logical maintenance, and needed improvements.
c. Materials Excluded From Sites
A common item at many disposal sites is a sign denoting the types of
wastes which are prohibited from disposal in the site. These regulations are
usually local rules, sometimes required by the county or city ordinance. In
some areas of the state the Regional Water Quality Control Boards have estab-
lished discharge requirements for sites which preclude the acceptance of liq-
uid or hazardous wastes that would impair water quality. Table VI-6 indicates
the restriction of various solid wastes in controlled and uncontrolled disposal
VI- 37
-------
sites. At the controlled landfills (SL, MSL, and MSLB; 192 sites) there
usually are sufficient equipment and personnel to handle all types of wastes
received. Open burning dumps (UBD and SDB; 511 sites) usually do not have
equipment available to handle the wastes received and, of course, the unat-
tended sites do not have any effective method of excluding specific types of
wastes.
TABLE VI-6
NUMBER OF SITES EXCLUDING SPECIFIC
TYPES OF WASTES
Wastes Excluded
Garbage
Industrial Wastes
Sewage Treatment Residue
Agricultural Wastes
Demolition Wastes
Abandoned Vehicles
Liquid Wastes
Dead Animals
Tires
Controlled Sites
(SL,MSL,MSLB)
35
25
84
19
22
93
6k
77
lU
Uncontrolled Sites
(UBD, SDB)
39
25
190
3^
37
122
63
238
5
As can be seen, sewage treatment residue, dead animals, and abandoned
vehicles are the items most commonly excluded. The exclusion of garbage is
a difficult item to control and rarely is it completely effective. Those
sites which are attempting to exclude garbage and be "rubbish dumps" only
are still faced with numerous environmental problems. The 13 sites classi-
fied as "other" type operations usually exclude all of the above items except
demolition materials.
VI-
-------
Many types of solid wastes present hazards to health and safety and,
.. therefore, dictate the need for safe and proper disposal. Examples of
hazardous materials include toxic chemicals from industrial and agricul-
»
tural operations, dead animals, septic tank sludges and pesticide contain-
ers. Past problems experienced with these types of materials include the
detonation of explosives, contact with bacteriologically contaminated wastes,
and a civil defense evacuation alert resulting from the burning of discarded
chlorine capsules at a disposal site. In this survey an attempt was made to
determine what provisions have been made at disposal sites for handling haz-
ardous or special wastes. In essence, provisions should be made to handle
these materials at almost all sites. The results of the survey are limited
to the observance of hazardous type wastes in the site at the time they were
visited. These materials were noted at 6h sites where handling provisions
were considered to be needed. Only h2 disposal sites were considered to have
effective handling of these materials.
The severity of problems encountered in the handling and disposal of
abandoned automobiles varies between areas. The large urban areas produce
the major numbers of these vehicles, but these areas also possess the indus-
trial facilities (the automobile dismantlers, the scrap yards, the metal
reclamation firms) to handle this solid waste. Probably the most critical
conditions occur in the less populated, remotely located counties. Although
these sources produce lower numbers of abandoned vehicles, the limited salvage
value of this waste and the extreme distances to salvage facilities cause these
vehicles to accumulate. These vehicles are, therefore, left in the back yard
or along roadsides creating safety hazards to children and a blight on the
landscape. If they are deposited in disposal sites, they become an opera-
tional problem since it is these same counties that do not have equipment
capable of properly handling them. Several counties have established special
VI-39
-------
disposal areas for these vehicles or require that the vehicles be cut into
several pieces before disposal in the county sites.
d. Equipment Used At Sites
The most common piece of equipment found at a landfill is a track-type
tractor with a bulldozer blade. This machine is used to compact and spread
cover material. The size of the tractor is related to the volume of material
handled at the site; at large disposal sites several tractors may be used.
The track-type tractor is able to crush and compact most types of solid wastes
from cardboard boxes and wood crates to discarded washing machines and auto-
mobiles. For optimum compaction, wastes should be spread in layers and com-
pacted by repeated passes of the tractor. An adequate number of tractors
should be provided to maintain the size of the active face. The equipment
must be able to spread and compact as rapidly as the rate at which material
is received. If cover material is located nearby, this material may be moved
and spread by the tractor. In sites where the cover material must be hauled
long distances (generally over 500 feet), a scraper-type earth-moving machine
may be used.
At small sites where the capital investment in equipment is limited, a
loader-type machine is often used. This machine can compact, carry cover
material short distances and spread the cover material. At disposal sites
using trenches, often this trench is excavated under a separate contract
using outside equipment. In this manner sufficient volume is provided for
six months to one year of operation.
Draglines are used at 37 disposal sites in the state. This machine is
used commonly in marshland sites. As the fill progresses forward across the
marsh, the dragline is used to excavate mud from the front of the fill for
use as cover material.
VI-40
-------
Lately, specialized compaction machines have been given increased atten-
tion. These machines, equipped with steel wheels, weigh up to 60 tons. Like
the track-type tractor, the compaction machines spread refuse and then com-
•
pact it during repeat passes over the fill. These machines are designed to
achieve high pressures under the wheels and operate at more rapid speeds than
a tractor. Generally, they are used most efficiently in conjunction with a
track-type tractor in only the very large sites.
Other types of equipment include water trucks for dust and fire control
and motor graders for road maintenance.
VI-41
-------
-------
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF SOLID WASTES
A fundamental reason for concern about solid wastes is the threat
that they impose on the health and well-being of the public and the
role that they may play in the spread of communicable diseases. A
report recently published by the U.S. Public Health Service-' on the
relationships of solid wastes to disease transmission supports the
contention that there are definite, if not well defined, etiologic
implications with a number of infectious diseases.
The most prominent health factor associated with solid wastes is
domestic flies. Flies are carriers of many disease agents and evidence
exists that they are significant vectors of shigellosis and other enteric
infections. The demonstrated ability of flies to propagate in enormous
numbers in organic wastes, to contaminate themselves in fecal material,
and ultimately te contaminate man or his environment, clearly incriminate
the fly as a health hazard. Thus, the wastes in which flies develop or
in which they become contaminated constitute the primary hazard. The
fly is an indicator of a breakdown in basic sanitation when present in
a community.
Other disease vectors whose populations are enhanced by the presence
1/U.S. Public Health Service, Solid Waste/Disease Relationships, by
T. G. Hanks, M.D., (Cincinnati, 1967).
VII-1
-------
of solid wastes include rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes. Their numbers
may become excessive and spill over into suburban and urban areas in
situations where inadequate solid waste storage and disposal methods are
employed. The threat of plague, a disease enzootic in certain of Cali-
fornia's sylvatic rodent populations, is increased by poor solid waste
management.
While control of communicable disease is of paramount importance, it
is more meaningful in discussing the problem of solid wastes to take a
broad view of the term "public health". No longer can we restrict
attention only to the factors involved in the spread of communicable
diseases. Of equal importance is the broad and pressing public interest
in all factors of environmental health including the aspects of comfort,
enjoyment of life, and the general physical and mental well-being of the
public. On the basis of this broader outlook, there are many points of
public health concern which relate to the manner by which solid wastes
adversely affect our land, air and water. In addition to the direct
effect of solid wastes on the quality of these three elements, are the
accompanying physiological or psychological effects on man. These may
range from immediate danger, such as physical harm, to merely a less
pleasant or comfortable environment, such as that which offends the five
senses.
It is recognized that there are three forms of wastes: liquid, solid
and gaseous. There are also three possible receptacles for these wastes:
the air, the water and the land. Solid waste is perhaps unique in that it
is the one waste which can directly affect all three elements.
Solid waste disposal as now practiced is a significant contributor to
air pollution. Although burning of solid wastes is a traditional means of
VII-2
-------
disposing of this material, this process merely transforms the nature of
the material from solid to gaseous waste. Burning is frequently carried
out in open dumps, fields, or by other inadequate methods which produce
smoke, odors, unsightliness, and contribute to overall air pollution.
Another familiar practice in California is disposal of solid wastes
into the ocean, bays, streams and ground waters. The leachate, gases and
floating debris thus produced contribute to the degradation of ground and
surface water quality. The grinding and discharge of solid wastes into
sewers are adding to an already overburdened liquid waste conveyance and
treatment system and to the loading on receiving waters.
The third element of our environment, the land resource, is suffering
severely from "land pollution". The prevalence of open dumps, illegal
littering, and indiscriminate deposition of solid wastes constitutes
aesthetic eyesores while degrading adjacent property values.
When considering the effects of solid wastes on air, water, and land,
and the relationships to disease transmission, it should be borne in mind
that we are dealing with a highly complex ecosystem. The environment must,
therefore, be considered as a whole in any meaningful evaluation of our
ultimate responsibilities in the management of solid wastes.
A. EFFECTS ON HEALTH
1. PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
a. Flies
As stated earlier, domestic flies are the most prominent factor associ-
ated with organic solid wastes. Flies pose a multiple threat to a community:
(l) they are vectors of disease, (2) they threaten the cleanliness and
wholesomeness of processed foods, and (3) they become intensely annoying
pests. Any warm, moist, organic material is a potential source of fly
VII-3
-------
breeding.
The ability of flies to quickly find suitable material on which to
deposit their eggs is well known. The "garbage can" and storage area often
play an important role in this phase of the fly's activity. The life cycle
of these flies (Phaenicia spp.) is well adapted to the garbage can environ-
ment. The adult female enters the can and lays 50 to 200 eggs that hatch
in about eight hours. The larvae (maggots) feed in the garbage for about
five days, and then they crawl out of the garbage can and pupate in the
ground. With once-a-week garbage collection, many larvae crawl out of the
can before the garbage is removed.
In a study of 1^5 garbage cans conducted by the Department in Fresno-^
during the summer of 196 7> "the weekly median number of larvae that crawled
out of the containers with once-a-week garbage collection was 262, and the
weekly median for containers with twice-a-week collection was four. During
the summer in Fresno, once-a-week collection is not frequent enough to pre-
vent fly production. This is well demonstrated by one can, in good condition
and kept clean by lining with newspaper, that produced 55,^28 flies during the
seven-week study.
Studies on fly production were also conducted by the Department in Santa
2/3/ V 5/ 6/ 7/
Clara County,—' —' Concord, Pasadena, Long Beach, and Compton.—' The results
I/ J. D. Walsh, et al, "Fly Larval Migration From Residential Refuse Containers
in the City of Fresno", California Vector Views, XV, No. 6 (June 1968).
2/ D. H. Ecke, et al, "Migration of Green Blow Fly Larvae From Six Refuse Con-
tainer Systems", California Vector Views, XII, No. 8 (August 1965).
3/ D. H. Ecke and D. D. Linsdale, "Fly and Economic Evaluation of Urban Refuse
Systems (Part l)^' California Vector Views, XIV, No. h (April 1967).
k/ E. Campbell and R. J. Black, "The Problem of Migration of Mature Fly Larvae
From Refuse Containers and Its implication of the Frequency of Refuse Col-
lection", California Vector Views, VII, No. 2 (February 1960).
5/ H. I. Magy and R. J. Black, "An Evaluation of the Migration of Fly Larvae
From Garbage Cans in Pasadena", California Vector Views, IX, No. 11
(November 1962).
6/ California Department of Public Health, Fly Larval Migration From Residential
Garbage Cans, City of Long Beach, by D. L. Rohe, et al (Berkeley, 1963).
7/ California Department of Public Health, An Evaluation of Fly Larval Migration
From Containers of Combined Refuse in the.City of Compton. California, bv
D. L. Kone, et al ^BerKeley, Uctober —
VII-4
-------
of these studies indicated: (l) the use of garbage grinders substantially
reduces the number of flies produced in refuse containers; (2) fly larvae
tend to migrate out of refuse cans in less than seven days even though
the garbage may be wrapped and the cans clean: (3) twice-weekly collection
to be effective in significantly reducing fly production; (U) no significant
-tiffsrence in fly production between covered and uncovered refuse cans.
Even with adequate storage and collection, flies can still be produced
i4!' the final disposal of the refuse is not adequate. Most refuse, upon
delivery to a disposal site, already contains many fly larvae which are
ready to emerge as adult flies. Unless immediate measures are taken to
prevent emergence, large numbers of adult flies will result. The only
effective preventive measure now in use by communities in California is
the disposal of solid wastes in a sanitary landfill. It is very important
to compact the soil after covering a sanitary landfill. Emerging adult
flies can crawl up through more than five feet of loose soil, but they
cannot penetrate through six inches of compacted soil. Unfortunately the
refuse from many communities is taken to a dump rather than to a sanitary
landfill. Even if the wastes in the dump are burned every day, most of the
fly larvae will not .be killed because the wet garbage containing the larvae
is not burned. The fire burns only the paper and garbage on the surface;
therefore, when the ashes are removed from the surface, the larvae are
exposed in the garbage.
The presence of large numbers of adult flies at a refuse disposal
operation always indicates a sanitary deficiency. This problem becomes
serious when the fly population pressure becomes so high that spillover
to the surrounding area occurs. When this happens, flies leave their
"source point" and go to an "attractant point" such as a residence, res-
taurant, or business. Flies have been reported to migrate as far as
VII-5
-------
twenty miles from a source of production.
Several other sources of flies often exist in or near communities.
Some of these are:
(l) Grass clippings which are placed in piles or containers for
several weeks.
(2) Animal manure from stables, poultry ranches, feedlots, and dairies
where the manure is not managed properly.
(3) Cull fruits and vegetables which are dumped in piles or improperly
fed to livestock.
In order to obtain effective fly control, adequate management of solid
wastes at their source is essential to prevent fly breeding. Consequently,
fly control requires area-wide solid waste management from the standpoint
of geography as well as types of wastes. Waste management systems that do
not include the urban fringe and do not include all types of wastes that
are capable of producing flies are not adequate.
b. Rodents
Solid wastes are one of the primary sources of support of domestic
rodents in communities as well as in rural areas. In addition to rats and
mice, several other species of small wild mammals are attracted to man's
wastes. These include opossums, skunks, ground squirrels and cats. Rodents
have certain basic environmental needs which are not usually as exacting as
those for flies. Stated simply, the two requirements are food and shelter.
Exposed refuse furnishes both on a lavish scale.
Improperly stored solid wastes provide an ideal food supply for domestic
rodents and other small mammals. Improper storage of household garbage goes
hand in hand with the presence of Norway rats in densely settled urban neigh-
borhoods. The use of sturdy containers with tightly fitting lids goes far in
VII-6
-------
In garbage can.
White specks are
fly larvae (maggots),
On open dump.
-------
reducing the availability of garbage to rats and mice.
Open disposal sites (those in which the wastes are not covered daily with
compacted soil) can provide food and harborage for large numbers of rats and
mice. The population of rats on a disposal site sometimes runs into the
thousands. These rodents are difficult to destroy with poison baits because
of the abundant and varied food supply. Burning, even daily, does not elimi-
nate animals from a disposal site. Daily covering with compacted soil does.
Industrial and agricultural wastes attract and sustain rodent populations, too.
A disposal site may contain enough food and shelter to support a given
rat population level. At certain times of the year, however, an excess of
young animals is produced and in order to survive, some animals may move from
the disposal site into adjacent areas. An example of this occurence was found
in one northern California city where the city dump was located about one-
quarter mile from a nearby residential area. Residents had for several years
been periodically bothered by invading rats until the dump was closed and
moved. With the site gone, so were the rats. A properly operated sanitary
landfill would have prevented this situation.
A factor of major public health concern arises from the fact that a
refuse dump affords a meeting place for field and domestic rodents. Field
rodents, such as ground squirrels and chipmunks, are the primary reservoirs
of bubonic plague (Pasteurella pestis) infection in this state. The. refuse
dump becomes important if it provides a point of transfer of infected fleas
from wild to domestic rodents, thereby increasing the potential for human
exposure within the urban population.
In addition to the hazard of infectious disease transmission, Norway
rats attracted or sustained by solid wastes may attack infants or small
children. While such attacks have been infrequent in California, rat-bite
statistics, gathered from throughout the United States, indicate that as
VII-8
-------
many as 1^,000 persons are bitten annually.
Proper storage, collection and disposal of solid wastes can be a signi-
ficant deterrent to the rodent population. The open, unmanaged dump often
•supports many rats, whereas the properly managed sanitary landfill will be
free from rodents. For that matter, none of the accepted procedures for
processing wastes, if properly designed and managed, should support or
attract rats.
c. Occupational Health and Safety Hazards
Occupational health and safety hazards of refuse workers and the general
public from solid waste management practices are not often thought to be
of any serious nature. However, studies have revealed that refuse workers
have an extremely high injury rate.2/ These studies show that the refuse
collector has an injury rate twice as high as that for firemen and police-
men. These occupational hazards include skin diseases, back ailments, hernia,
muscle and tendon injuries and cardiovascular diseases.
Disposal operations also give rise to a high risk exposure among site
operators and the public using these facilities. Open burning and unsuper-
vised dumps are the setting for numerous safety hazards. Where there is
open fire, burn injuries can be expected. Also, there have been various
reports throughout the state of permanent eye damage and other injuries
from explosions of aerosol and glass containers.
The physical layout of some disposal operations creates special safety
hazards. Many sites are constructed in such a manner that an individual
finds himself dumping over the side of a high embankment. In some cases
there may be a precipice of several hundred feet. Barriers or stops have
8/ D. P. E. Sliepcevich, The Effect of Work Conditions Upon the Health of
Uniformed Sanitation Men of New York City, Doctoral Dissertation Series,
Publication No." 20,008, University of Michigan, (Ann Arbor:University
Microfilms, Inc., 1955).
VII-9
-------
been installed in some sites; however, through use and wear, these safety
guards in time become ineffective. At one such site a man was killed when
he backed his car over the edge of the embankment. There have been other
*
accounts of operators rolling their equipment over embankments or steep
operating faces of disposal sites. These are ever-present dangers if care
and attention to the operation is not taken.
Uncontrolled traffic creates still another potential safety hazard.
If good traffic lanes are not established and equipment operation and
vehicular traffic are not supervised, all types of encounters may occur.
Of the many kinds of wastes that axe deposited at disposal sites,
some, such as insecticides and other poisons, sewage sludges, and hospital
wastes, are particularly hazardous. Hazardous pills, insecticide containers,
infectious bandages, etc., can be found lying with such exposure that a
person unaware of the hazards could easily pick the item up and remove it
from the site. For example, there have been reports of children playing
with syringes and needles retrieved from disposal sites. Allowing children
access to a site at any time is extremely dangerous and should be prohibited.
The exposure of refuse collectors to these hazardous wastes is a constant
problem. In many cases these wastes are stored inadequately in open containers
and in places where dogs, cats, and children could easily come in contact with
them.
There are special public health problems associated with the handling
and disposal of many industrial wastes because of their toxic nature. During
1966 this Department, together with the Contra Costa and Solano County Health
Departments investigated an occupational and community health problem related
to the reclaiming, transportation, and disposal of chemical sludge containing
tetraethyl lead (TEL). In this case, the fumes from the waste not only caused
VII-10
-------
*, ** ,, v "4 1
wji .*'*..-<•« . *%*
.
•* -^«
Ij
.«a«.Ai«; v» S. *; j- *.TK - " -
-M^
'^f*'''
r.W|r^i
_l^
/**;• x
s«t'***\- ^W«,
^, • *c^.\^4 *Ai ^l^e/ ^SftP
• '-'.^
SAFETY
>1
HAZARDS
-------
Packages with small amounts of chemical remaining
inside.
7 v ,
W^PP^PI
HAZARDOUS WASTES
FOUND IN DUMPS
Offal from recently slaughtered
animals.
Discharge of sewage pumpings.
Pesticide containers.
-------
illness to the workers at the scene of reclamation, but allegedly caused
chemical poisoning in an employee of another firm across the highway from
the waste reclamation area. For some time the waste was being hauled across
the Carquinez Bridge from Contra Costa to Solano County in open trucks,
causing the bridge toll takers to become nauseated. At the disposal site
eight dead cattle, which had been grazing near the site, were reported to
have excess lead found in their livers.
Additional, infrequently encountered, special waste items may create
special safety hazards if not properly handled. For example, one site in
the state receives a large quantity of fibreglass wastes. As the tractor
driver incorporates the wastes with other refuse, a glass dust is created
causing severe skin rash to the operator. In another site, all the tractor
operators find it necessary to wear dust masks because the soil in the area
forms a fine dust particle that causes lung and skin irritations.
d. Public Nuisances
Collection and disposal of solid wastes present other features which
are sometimes objectionable to the general public. Examples of these are
early morning noise from collection operations; dust, dirt, and papers blown
from the collection vehicle or the disposal site; odors; unsightliness of
vehicles or sites; spillage of liquids or solids onto the street; and the
convergence of large numbers of heavy vehicles to the disposal facility.
All of these are offensive to the public and can be eliminated or minimized
through good management practices.
2. SANITARY CONTROL AT EXISTING SITES
Disease potentials associated with flies and rodents, occupational
health and safety hazards, and public nuisances at disposal facilities can
VII-13
-------
best be minimized by an adequate program of daily covering and compaction
with earth of suitable characteristics. This covering affords the following
benefits:
a. Reduces attractiveness of the site.to insects, rodents and birds
by eliminating the food supply and shelter.
b. Prevents fly larvae in the incoming refuse from emerging as
adult flies.
c. Eliminates prolonged exposure to hazardous materials.
d. Minimizes public nuisances.
?or the proper protection, this cover material should be placed as rapidly
•v-. possible and no later than at the end of the day's operation.
Complete daily cover, unfortunately, is provided at only 85 (12 percent)
of the general use disposal sites in the state. At 4-68 sites, no covering
whatsoever is provided. The lack of standards and increased costs are given
as reasons for the numerous sites deficient in this regard. The status of
daily covering at California's disposal sites are shown in Table VTI-1.
For covering to be truly effective, the enclosed solid wastes must be
sealed in "cells" using an adequate volume of compacted earth material.
Creating the cells through daily covering, including the working face of
the fill, prevents animals from foraging on the wastes at night and restricts
accidental fires to only one cell. In addition to controlling flies and
rodents, covering also minimizes the blowing and scattering of paper, con-
trols the production of odors, reduces fire hazards, reduces the attraction
of birds, and improves the appearance of the disposal site.
Certain operations at a landfill site should receive special attention
to provide assurance that the compaction and covering- program will be effec-
tive. Adequate supervision must be provided to control access to the site,
VII-lH
-------
to direct dumping operations, and to supervise equipment operation. The size
of the active open face of the disposal site should be kept to a minimum so
as to be easily maintined with available equipment. Only 173 sites (2^ per-
cent) were considered to have minimum-sized working faces.
TABLE VII-1
STATUS OF DAILY COVERING BY TYPE OF SITE
Type of Site
Uncontrolled Burning Dump
Supervised Dump with Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill
with Controlled Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
Other
Totals
Number of Sites
Complete
Daily
Cover
0
0
9
9
67
0
85
Daily
Except
Face
0
0
k
27
0
0
31
Every
Other
Day
0
0
8
22
0
0
30
Intermit-
tently
21
29
8
37
0
7
102
No
Routine
Cover
357
105
0
0
0
6
it68
B. EFFECTS ON WATER
When solid waste residues of any type are ultimately disposed of to the
soil, a potential for water quality impairment exists. Even if waste mate-
rials are burned, the ash will contain soluble substances which may dissolve
in runoff and percolating water and, thereby, affect the quality of the adja-
cent surface water or underlying ground water.
Broadly considered, solid wastes may affect water quality through physical
means, chemical and biological means, and gas production.
VII-15
-------
1. PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT
Refuse dumped into streams and other surface waters results in condi-
tions of poor aesthetic appearance and creates nuisances. Dumping over
river banks and on flood plains is also an undesirable procedure since these
materials may be washed into the river during periods of high water. In
addition to creating unsightly conditions, these materials may litter the
streambed and beaches; create hazards to swimmers, boaters and fishermen;
and jam weirs on water diversions.
2. CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT
Analyses of waters that have been in contact with solid wastes such as
refuse, have shown that both chemical and biological pollutants are present.
These waters, generally termed leachate, occur when water percolates through
solid wastes. The refuse in a disposal site (the fill) can be compared to
a large sponge. Before leachate can emerge from a fill, the fill material
must be saturated with water. The amount of leachate and its composition
are dependent upon the material in the fill (organic or inorganic, soluble
or insoluble), conditions in the fill (temperature, pH, moisture content),
soil conditions (chemical characteristics, permeable or impermeable), and
volume and type of percolating water.
There are two primary ways the fill can be saturated:
(l) The fill can be in contact with the ground water or surface
water, resulting in direct horizontal leaching through the fill
material.
(2) Water can be recharged down through the fill.
A considerable amount of water is required for the second condition;
in arid climates, the normal incident rainfall is usually insufficient to
VII-16
-------
saturate the fill. In climates with higher amounts of rainfall, saturated
.conditions may be created. During the construction of the fill, saturated
conditions may be created by poor drainage conditions which allow water to
•
percolate into the solid wastes. Unsatisfactory drainage and the applica-
,ior of excessive amounts of water to the surface, such as irrigating agri-
il'~. irai crops and watering of parks and golf courses, are potential problem
: oas for completed sites.
Ground water in the immediate vicinity of the disposal site may become
grossly polluted and unsuitable for domestic or irrigation use if the solid
••/aster; intercept the zone of saturation (i.e., below the level of the water
oable; or if the leachate reaches the ground water. Concentrations of com-
mon mineral constituents such as hardness, chloride, and total dissolved
solids can increase many times over those found in unpolluted ground water.
Tests have shown that continuous leaching of one acre-foot of refuse can
9/
result in a minimum extraction of approximately seven tons of various ions;-*^
most of this material would be removed during the first year. Although
studies have shown leachate from refuse fills to contain significant numbers
of bacteria, the filtering action achieved in a few feet of soil will proba-
bly protect the ground water from bacterial contamination. Distribution of
pollutants is largely controlled by the pattern of ground water movement.
If pollutants leached from solid wastes reach the ground water, they will
have the greatest travel in the direction of the ground water flow. Normally,
only limited vertical diffusion will occur because of the limited mixing con-
tions in the acquifer. An exception to this may occur in the vicinity of a
well, since the natural pattern of water movement may be changed by pumping.
University of Southern California, Factors Controlling the Utilization of
Sanitary Landfill Sites, Final Report to USPHS, National Institute of
Health, by R. C. Merz and R. Stone, (Los Angeles, 1963).
VII-17
-------
The contact of decomposable solid wastes with surface water may also
result in Increasing the organic and mineral content of the adjacent sur-
face water. In ponded water, the decomposing organic material will cause
*
the water to become depleted of dissolved oxygen, resulting in production
of odors and discoloration of the water.-
Recently the Department conducted a study to review and evaluate the
effects of solid waste disposal in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Area on
10/
ground and surface water quality.— The study indicated that the location
of disposal sites in close proximity to the Bay-Delta surface waters may
result in contact between the solid wastes and the water in the form of
direct discharge of solid wastes, tidal action, levee seepage, or storm run-
off. Forty-seven disposal sites were found to have contact with adjacent
surface water. Presently, disposal sites in the Bay-Delta Area are the
source of only small amounts of chemical and physical pollutants. It appears,
however, that the disposal sites may be sources of bacterial organisms affect-
ing the sanitary quality of adjacent surface waters. One serious problem noted
at many of the disposal sites was water-caused nuisance conditions, particularly
odors and appearance, resulting from improper solid waste disposal.
The disposal of chemical waste sludges also presents potential water pol-
lution hazards. A 1965 report by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board presented a lk-page summary of chemical wastes being improperly
disposed of at one site along San Francisco Bay.—'
In the Bay-Delta report by this Department the following recommendation
was made:
Id/California Department of Public Health, Solid Wastes & Water Quality - A
Study of Solid Wastes and Their Effect on Water Quality in the San Fran-
cisco Bay-Delta Area, (Berkeley, 1968).
11/San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Checking Program
Report - Resolution 569, April 8 and 9, 1965.
VII-18
-------
Wastes dumped directly into river
and ocean.
WATER
POLLUTION
i^-v**,
•3»
^•k'-i.
Wastes dumped directly into water.
-------
"In view of the potential hazard to surface water in the Bay-
Delta Area, no toxic waste, insecticide residue, chemical waste
or ether similar hazardous material should be disposed of in sites
which are within 500 feet of Bay-Delta surface waters."
'n'rJng tat decomposition of refuse, gases are produced. The major gases
»re "jrb^u dioxide arid methane. Since methane is insoluble in water, it does
jt contribute to water pollution but is discussed under Section D, Effects on
L. ,a.
Carbon dioxide gase may diffuse through the soil and can be dissolved in
water causing increased mineralization. Carbon dioxide combines with water to
fern! carL-ouic acid which then can react with calcium or magnesium salts such as
those present in many soils. In this process calcium and magnesium ions are
released leading to increased hardness; carbonate is dissolved from the soil
along with other impurities such as sulfates, chlorides, silicates, with the
total reaction leading to higher mineralization of the water. The impact of
gas production on the quality of the underlying ground water is not definitely
known.
In California, water pollution and water quality control are under the
jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards. Some refuse disposal sites (especially in
Southern California) have waste discharge requirements adopted by these
regulatory agencies prescribing conditions which must be prevented or limi-
tations which must not be exceeded. Although subsequent water application
to the finished site may produce leachate for many years, presently there is
no administrative procedure available to control the discharge of materials
from the disposal site after its completion and possible change in ownership.
The primary measure to prevent water quality impairment is maintaining
a separation between the solid wastes and the adjacent surface water or
VII-20
-------
underlying ground water. In this survey 33 disposal sites were found dis-
charging solid wastes directly into water. Inadequate control of surface
water drainage was found in 207 disposal sites. At 8l disposal sites the
lowest part of the fill was or appeared to be in contact with underlying
Around water.
C. EFFECTS ON AIR
There are two classifications of air pollution problems related to
solid waste disposal. The first type results from the discharge of smoke,
particulate matter, dust, and odorous and possibly toxic vapors into the
atmosphere. These conditions are objectionable in themselves in that they
create hazards and annoyance to people and tend to decrease surrouding
property values.
A subtle but immensely important part which refuse disposal can play
in the field of air pollution involves the occurrence of urban-type smog.
Smog in California may best be visualized as the end result of slow combus-
tion in the atmosphere of gaseous hydrocarbon material to end products of
aldehydes, organic acids and other irritants. The resulting aerosols may
obstruct visibility, destroy or stunt the growth of sensitive plants,
severely irritate the eyes and other mucous membranes of humans and perhaps
increase morbidity and shorten life. Refuse disposal contributes to this
situation principally through the inefficient combustion of solid wastes
in dumps, back yard burning, and incinerators.
Burning of solid wastes at disposal sites has been prohibited by air
pollution control districts in the two major metropolitan centers, the
greater Los Angeles area and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Figure VII-1
delineates the counties with disposal sites where wastes are burned. The
counties where major amounts of solid wastes are burned are the more rural
VII-21
-------
OPEN
"P^
BURNING
OF
SOLID
WASTES
-------
FIGURE Vll-l
COUNTIES WITH OPEN BURNING AT DISPOSAL SITES'1967
MAJOR AMOUNTS OF BURNING
MODERATE AMOUNTS OF BURNING
LITTLE OR NO BURNING
CALIF. DEPT. OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
areas, generally being composed of agricultural land or undeveloped lands
such as forest or range. As mentioned previously, there are 5^-0 disposal
rites (75 percent) in California where solid wastes are burned.
The principal advantage of open burning at disposal sites is the reduc-
fon '..L volume of a portion of the wastes. The combustion is, of course,
; r?;:]-trolled and, therefore, the results are not uniform nor complete. The
.. "TT.P with a high moisture content rarely burn. The small amount of burning
":h takes place around the edges is only sufficient to create the foul odors
., . oiated with burning garbage and does not reduce the environmental problems
as .-'-isted with putrescible wastes. Storage of green brush and the like for
"'•yir 5 .",: H common practice, but it is unsightly and creates harborages for
"•: :.'_-nts and other animals infesting the site.
The pall of smoke rising from the open burning of refuse not only has
unpleasant odors, but carries particulate matter into the air. Downwind areas
are showered with the particulate matter as the gases cool.
Current disposal practices of agricultural solid wastes are also sources
of air pollution. Dust and obnoxious odors from accumulations of manure are
common in the vicinity of many cattle feedlots and dairies. Smoke from agri-
cultural and lumbering waste burning operations also adversely affects the
air quality of many portions of the state. Recently the new Sacramento air-
port had to be closed for several days because of low visibility resulting
from the burning of rice stubble in neighboring counties.
D. EFFECTS ON LAND
Degradation of the value, usefulness, desirability, and beauty of land
can result from inadequate, indiscriminate, or improper disposal of solid
wastes. Land pollution results in a wide variety of adverse effects, some
of which are obvious, others quite subtle.
-------
One of the more insidious forms of land pollution is the destruction of
aesthetic values of land areas by unsightly burning dumps, exposed piles of
refuse, indiscriminate littering, piles of junked automobiles and appliances,
.open piles of manure, and metal salvage operations. It is difficult to place
actual dollar losses on scenic landscapes which have been defaced by improper
solid waste disposal. Those attempting to sell land in the vicinity of a
burning dump, however, are well aware of the lowered real estate values caused
by the dump operation.
Prompt and adequate application of cover material does more to overcome
the poor aesthetic conditions at disposal sites than any other single measure.
The cover immediately removes the refuse from sight, which is extremely impor-
tant. Compaction and prompt covering will also aid in reducing the amount of
material scattered by the wind. Blowing papers not only create aesthetic pro-
blems at the disposal site but also nuisance problems when spread over adjacent
property. Only 20 percent of the disposal sites in the state were considered
to have effective paper control; over 50 percent of the disposal sites had no
control of blowing paper.
Covering will contain most odors or control their release into the atmos-
phere. This will not only make the site more pleasant to people, but also
reduce its attractiveness to insects, rodents, and other animals. In some
areas, exposed refuse will attract large numbers of seagulls or ravens feed-
ing on solid wastes. While principally an aesthetic problem, they are also
a hazard to low-flying aircraft. Some 66 disposal sites were found to have
bird control problems.
Although reclamation of solid wastes is held in high regard by some as
a possible solution to the solid waste problem, salvaging at disposal sites
is of questionable value. Successful salvage operations usually require the
separated collection of waste materials to reduce the amount of other wastes
VII-25
-------
SAN FRANCISCO BAY FILLING
WITH
SOLID WASTES
-------
LAND
DEGRADATION
Mt. Shasta in background.
Dumping in field near city
and in Redwood Forest.
•
Blowing paper from nearby dump.
-------
which interfere with the salvaging process. At disposal sites, the mixed
character of the solid wastes received does not lend itself to simple segre-
gation processes and usually the value of the materials salvaged does not
compensate for the resultant aesthetic and operational disadvantages. Much
too frequently the salvage operations are better described as "scavenging"
and "picking". Salvaging is not practiced at 78 percent of the sanitary
landfills. It is practiced in 552 sites (77 percent of all sites) with most
of these being dumps (UBD and SDB-type sites). Some 57 percent of the super-
vised dumps with burning store the salvaged material on site, providing an
open market with resultant aesthetic problems. The salvaged materials make
the operation appear unsightly and provide harborage for rodents.
A second form of land pollution is solid waste disposal which results
in undesirable topographic changes. These topographic changes, while some-
times undesirable in themselves at the time, often result in subsequent envi-
ronmental changes of much greater consequence. For example, the current
popular practice of filling San Francisco Bay tidelands and marshlands with
solid wastes may be objectionable from an aesthetic and conservation view-
point. Perhaps more profound, however, are the resultant adverse effects on
the ecology of the marine life of the bay, water and tidal currents and
flushing action, and even the climate of the area.
Landfill operations that substantially raise the ground level in areas
of flat terrain may result in interference with land drainage or may create
barriers which obstruct views, both of which constitute a serious detriment
to the environment of nearby residents.
Any finished landfill project should blend in with the landscape and be
adaptable to an acceptable use. Positive results may be obtained through
landfill operation such as the filling of quarries, marshlands, and canyons,
creating more useable land area. It is important to remember that the final
VII-28
-------
land does not have to be flat. The planned sculpturing of finished fills
'for use as golf courses and parks is an example of this. By not filling
.the disposal site "to the brim", the site may be more compatible with future
land use. The location and planning at 575 (80 percent) of the existing sites
in the state show no clear evidence of this kind of constructive long-term
I.linking. Some of the positive effects that are being achieved include land
improvement for ultimate use, recreational use enhancement, or the elimina-
ti.Ji: of an environmental hazard such as an abandoned quarry.
Organic material deposited in a fill undergoes biological decomposition
arid chemical changes, resulting in physical changes (subsidence) and gas pro-
duction. The subsidence of a completed fill must be considered in the ultimate
use. The amount of settlement will vary according to the degree of compaction,
types of materials deposited, soil conditions, depth of fill and the amount of
decomposition. Planning, design, and operation of a landfill which do not
consider eventual subsidence may decrease the usefulness and capability of
construction on the completed project. Thus, the ultimate use and beneficial
value may be materially impaired.
The production of methane gas and its movement from landfills may present
serious fire and explosion hazards to the neighboring areas and to buildings
located on the landfill. Additionally, as the gas escapes from the disposal
site, it may chemically burn trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. Methane
concentrations of 10 percent were detected at a distance of 600-700 feet from
several landfills under study by the Los Angeles County Engineer's office.
The type of soil and pressure of gas in the fill are reported to be the domi--
nant factors affecting the distance of gas movement. Gas control methods and
venting should be carefully considered in the planning and use of completed
landfill projects.
Surrounding land values can be seriously impaired because of fire hazards
VII-29
-------
POSITIVE RESULTS
OF
^W" jw i A4 #•# ' *.
i_ , .*L f^*
LANDFILLS
*-4''»' -i** '
<>•%, • «s,,
-------
from an unsupervised burning dump. This is particularly true in forest and
recreational areas. The large number of forest and brush fires caused by
burning dumps led to the recent enactment of State Forestry regulations
ft
regarding fire protection. These regulations do not apply to all disposal
sites, but are restricted to those located only in unincorporated areas.
These fires are not only costly but threaten lives and property and result
in subsequent land erosion and blight. The fire problem not only arises
from the intentional burning at disposal sites, but more so from the un-
planned or accidental fire. Some people feel a responsibility to burn the
refuse they leave behind contrary to signs which often prohibit burning.
The large amount of combustible material which accumulates at the open dumps
between maintenance (generally between burning), or during periods when burn-
ing is not allowed, increases the danger from accidental fire. The cost of
forest fires caused by burning dumps in California may well range into several
million dollars annually.
In 196?} 13^ disposal sites required the use of outside fire control
equipment to suppress accidental fires. Many sites had two or more fires
last year. In total, there were more than 250 fires at disposal sites that
requiredoutside help to control. Several major fires were traced to fires
escaping from disposal sites. One disposal site in San Francisco required
fire control equipment 18 times in a three-month period, with almost 850
man-hours expended and the use of 65 pieces of apparatus. It is ironic that
a number of small communities and cities have almost burned down from their
own refuse disposal. The sites, however, remain and burning practices con-
tinue to threaten these same communities.
Table VII-2 indicates the status of fire protection measures found in
existing disposal sites.
VII-31
-------
TABLE VII-2
FIRE PROTECTION AT DISPOSAL SITES
Type of Site
Uncontrolled Burning Dump
Supervised Dun?) with Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill
with Controlled Burning
Modified Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
Other
Type of Fire Protection
Number of Sites
None
135
29
2
13
h
6
Firebreak
229
70
12
25
16
5
Water
h
10
k
18
7
0
Firebreak
& Water
9
25
11
IK>
ko
2
VII-32
-------
VIII. SOLID WASTE PLANNING -
CURRENT STATUS
The lack of adequate planning at all levels of government is one
major deficiency in solid waste management in California. Few plans
have been developed for the future, and present action is stimulated
primarily by impending crises. In the minor amount of planning effort
that has been accomplished, only the municipal fraction of the total
solid wastes has been considered. As has been mentioned previously,
authority in solid waste management is fragmented and cooperation is
lacking. Coordination of local planning effort is badly needed
between various jurisdictions and also between the departments within
each jurisdiction. Even at the state level, no agency is charged with
the authority or statutory responsibility for solid waste management.
Local governments (city, county and district) are empowered to
control waste management practices within their own area of jurisdic-
tion. Where policies, methods and standards do exist, they have been
established without uniformity or benefit of guidance, meeting only
the needs of the immediate local area. This approach tends to preclude
taking advantage of broader-based operations which often could result
in more economical operations with minimal adverse effects upon the
environment. What appears to be urgently needed is a mechanism for
stimulating planning for solid waste management on a rational geogra-
phical basis, coordinated to insure the maintenance of high standards
VIII-1
-------
of environmental quality.
A. STUDY AND FLAMING ACTIVITIES
*
Planning is an essential element of a solid waste program. Solid waste
planning should provide an acceptable, immediate, and long-range plan or solu-
tion to the solid waste management problem. To aid in comprehending the funda-
mentals of solid waste planning, the following are listed as items which should
be considered in a solid waste planning program:
(l) The Problem
Existing - Determination of present quantity and composition of
solid waste, its seasonal variations and its geographical distribution.
Determination of the source of all solid wastes (including industrial
and agricultural, where applicable).
Future - Estimation of population and industrial growth for study
period and prediction of geographical growth patterns. Estimation of
future solid waste production.
(2) Objectives of the Plan
A statement of the goals, objectives and policies of the community
regarding the needs and desires for management of solid wastes and the
protection of environmental quality.
(3) Analysis of Collection Systems
Evaluation of collection and transportation systems and methods
to determine the most economical and satisfactory methods consistent
with the degree of service required by the public.
(U) Analysis of Disposal Systems
Evaluation of possible disposal methods required to meet the long-
range needs of the area for the study period regarding economics, public
health aspects, nuisance potential and public acceptability. Estimation
of disposal capacity required for study period and remaining life of
present disposal facilities.
(5) Evaluation of Total System
Evaluation of various combinations of collection, haul, transfer,
processing, and disposal alternatives to arrive at the optimum overall
solid waste program. Compare governmental operation with contractor
or private operation of the solid waste program or certain phases
thereof.
VIII-2
-------
(6) Cost Estimates
Development of complete estimates of capital and operating
, costs for the various elements of the optimum solid waste program
and for other alternatives.
« (?) Method Df Implementation
Outline method of financing and implementing of the proposed
program as well as the method of administration, control, and
regulation.
(8) Report
Compilation of the results of the studies into a formal report
which shows clearly the solid waste problem, the alternatives for
dealing with the problem, evaluation of these alternatives, and
the recommended program.
In California, study and planning activities in the field of solid
waste management can be grouped into three categories: surveys, studies,
and plans. Within the present status of solid waste management in Cali-
fornia, there is little distinction between the contents of a study and a
plan.
The following distinguishes the three categories of planning activi-
ties; key words have been underlined to indicate the specific differences:
(l) Surveys - evaluation and accounting of status of present conditions.
(2) Studies - consideration of various elements of the problem, com-
parison of alternate solutions and recommendations for future
action.
(3) Plans - detailed program of action to solve problem, based upon
evaluation of needs and possible solutions.
In summary, the study recommends necessary action and the plan is
adopted to implement that action. The survey, study or plan can be further
categorized in the field of solid waste management (or its elements such
as refuse collection and/or disposal, or disposal sites); i.e., a survey
of refuse disposal, a study of solid waste management, a plan for refuse
disposal, a plan for solid waste disposal, etc.
VTII-3
-------
B. EXISTING SOLID WASTE PLANS
Using the foregoing categories of study and planning activities, the
status of planning has been compiled for California. The following list is
a brief description of the study and planning activities undertaken by counties*
in the state; the absence of a county's name indicates no action had been
taken by that county as of the end of 1967.
Contra Costa - Study of refuse disposal defining service areas, proposed
location of future disposal sites, proposed regulation of collection
and disposal operations. No action taken. Status report prepared
by private consultant in 1963 reviewing refuse collection and dis-
posal. Currently a comprehensive study of water-sewage and solid
wastes is underway.
Fresno - A systems study of solid waste management is underway in central
Fresno County as a U.S. Public Health Service solid waste demonstra-
tion project. All solid wastes generated in the study area, and all
phases of the management system are considered.
Los Angeles - Original plan for refuse disposal established by Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts in 1955- Included detailed study of
collection and disposal alternatives and recommended system of trans-
fer stations and landfill for metropolitan area. Survey of refuse
disposal facilities reviewed in 1965 report by County Engineer.
Mendocino - Survey of refuse disposal completed in 1967• Included review
of county disposal site program and recommendations for future pro-
gram.
Monterey - Refuse disposal site plan adopted in 1961 which indicated the
areas where disposal sites should be established and method of
financing. Recommended system of franchises be established for
collection in unincorporated area.
Orange - Plan for refuse disposal adopted in 1959- Provides for location
of landfills and transfer stations. Does not include collection of
refuse. Program reviewed and second report prepared 1965.
Placer - Plan for refuse disposal sites adopted as element of county
general plan in 1964. Provides for location, design criteria, and
operation of county-wide system of disposal sites to handle needs
to year 1980.
Sacramento - Plan for refuse disposal prepared in 1965 by a consultant.
Subsequently, County Department of Public Works completed three-
phase study to evaluate site locations. Only northern half of
county included in plan.
VIII-4
-------
San Benito - Study of refuse collection and disposal prepared in 1966
by a consultant. Studied collection iaiJ. disposal needs for por-
tion of county in San Juan Bautista-Holli.ster area.
San Bernardino - Survey of refuse disposal completed in 1959- Reviewed
disposal needs, method of financing for disposal program for 10-
, year period.
San Joaquin - Plan for refuse disposal prepared in 196? by a consultant.
Studied disposal needs of entire county and recommended area?
where disposal sites should be established. Recommended franchiser:
collection in unincorporated area.
San Mateo - Study of refuse disposal sites completed by consultant in
1963. Studied disposal needs and recommended areas where disposal
sites should be established. Considered volume of refuse generated
by both San Mateo and San Francisco counties. No implementation
by county.
Santa Barbara - Plan for refuse disposal established in 1965. Provides
for location of transfer station and landfills. Includes only
south coastal area of county.
Santa Clara - A regional study of solid waste disposal is currently
underway as a Public Health Service solid waste demonstration
project. All solid wastes generated in the county are considered.
Collection of solid wastes not included.
Sonoma - Preliminary refuse disposal plan completed in 196?• Studied
disposal needs of county and recommends county-wide system of
disposal sites. Wastes from cities included. Does not include
collection of refuse.
Ventura - Plan for refuse disposal completed in 19^7- Provides for
location of landfills serving entire county. Does not include
collection of solid wastes.
In summary, only lb of the 58 counties have undertaken study and plan-
ning activities. These activities generally have been very rudimentary.
No county has a complete solid waste management plan. The only compre-
hensive study undertaken which considers all aspects of solid waste management
and the total environment is in Fresno County. This rather elaborate SLudv
is a demonstration project funded in part by the U.S.. Public Health J-rv'ce
and administered by the State Department of Pablic Health. The regional solid
waste management study also underway in Santa Clara County considere all
solid wastes, but is oriented only to the disposal aspects.
VIII-5
-------
Of the lU other counties, only seven counties have actual plans.
These seven plans are related to the disposal of residential and commercial
refuse only; two of these plans basically define disposal site locations
only. The activities of the other seven counties include three counties
w' ,,h studies completed, one county with a solid waste study underway, and
three counties with surveys of refuse disposal.
The deficiencies of the seven existing plans include lack of planning
for the entire county, for the entire waste loading, and for extended time
periods. The jurisdictional areas covered by the plans include the entire
county in five plans; the other plans were restricted to only portions of
a county. Incorporated areas were considered in all seven plans. An
example of this is Orange County where the volume required in the disposal
sites includes that needed for disposal of municipal solid wastes from the
cities in the county.
With the exceptions of the Fresno and Santa Clara studies, industrial
and agricultural solid wastes were not considered in any plans. The exclu-
sion of these materials leaves the management of these wastes a responsibi-
lity of the individual waste producers. Also not included were abandoned
vehicles, sludge from sewage treatment facilities, residues from street
cleaning operations, and dead animals. All of these wastes should be
considered in a solid waste management plan.
A definite future planning period was not considered in all plans.
The plans that did not incorporate a specific design period assumed existing
conditions would continue and that the plan would be amended when required.
In others, the planning period ranged from five to thirty years into the
future. If the solid waste management program is to function effectively,
long-term advance planning is needed; this is especially necessary if
sufficient disposal site capacity is to be obtained in the metropolitan
VI.TI-6
-------
areas.
Cooperative handling of solid wastes from adjacent counties was not
- considered in any existing plans. In the study of disposal sites for San
Mateo County,, wastes from San Francisco were included because they had
I
oeen historically disposed of in San Mateo County. Presently 25 counties
export a portion of their refuse. Three counties have adopted specific
regulations which prohibit the importation of garbage or refuse into the
Bounty; however, wastes from two of these three counties are exported to
neighboring counties. Counties which operate "free" (no charge) sites
usually prohibit the dumping of wastes at these sites to all but county
residents. This situation, in essence, restricts the flow of wastes from
one county to another. A few counties have entered into cooperative agree-
ments for joint use of sites near county lines where small populations are
concerned. In these cases maintenance costs are- divided in some proportion
to the use of the sites.
Similar to the status of county solid waste planning, very few cities
have conducted solid waste planning. Most of these efforts have been limited
to studies related to disposal; optimum collection systems are usually not a
part of the study or plan. Existing city study and planning activities con-
sider only municipal wastes and include planning for the city area only.
Only ten percent of the cities are engaged in a program which actively
involves their participation with another jurisdiction in solid waste planning
or operation of disposal facilities. An additional 30 percent are included
in the plans of other jurisdictions but do not take an active part in the
development or implementation of the program. Numerous cities in California
have delegated the responsibility for planning for future solid waste disposal
programs tp private collectors and scavengers.
Disposal sites are not allowed by existing local zoning regulations in
137 cities. This, coupled with urbanization and a lack of open land
VTII-7
-------
necessitates the dependency of many California cities on other jurisdictions
for disposal areas. Presently, only 33 cities dispose of their municipal
wastes within their own boundaries; 293 cities are totally dependent on
another jurisdiction for a place to dispose of their solid wastes and the «
other 73 are partially dependent. Cities most dependent on other jurisdic-
tions; for location of disposal sites are commonly those which are the most
luctant to engage in cooperative action or joint use of disposal facilities.
lois is often the result of public officials shirking their responsibilities
jn protecting the health and welfare of the public.
It is conceded that the poor operations generally in use have caused the
negative attitude toward the disposal of solid wastes resulting in location
of these facilities away from populated areas. As municipalities improve and
upgrade their operations and the public becomes more aware of the difference
between a dump and a sanitary landfill, solid waste planning is more readily
integrated into the comprehensive planning of a community or region.
C. AGENCIES WITH PLANNING- RESPONSIBILITIES
As was previously indicated, complete planning for solid waste management
has been quite limited. The various county agencies which have the primary
responsibility for solid waste planning in their respective counties are
shown in Table VIII-1. Most of the planning effort conducted by these agencies
is limited to disposal planning only and usually limited only to finding a
new site when the immediate need arises.
VIII-8
-------
TABLE VIII-1
COUNTY AGENCY PRIMARILY INVOLVED
IN SOLID WASTE PLANNING
Agency Number of Counties
Public Works Department 18
Road Department 10
Administration 8
Health Department 7
Planning Department 7
Engineering Department 3
Special Solid Waste Agency 2
Refuse Committee 1
No Agency Involved 2
The public works and road departments are the agencies most frequently
responsible for solid waste disposal planning, principally because they are
the present operators of the disposal sites. Specific agencies grouped
into the administration classification include the board of supervisors,
county administrative officer, finance department and purchasing department.
The various city agencies primarily involved in solid waste planning
are shown in Table VIII-2.
VIII-9
-------
TABLE VIII-2
CITY AGENCY PRIMARILY INVOLVED
IN SOLID WASTE PLANNING
Agsncy Number of Cities
Administration 157
Public Works Department 12^
Planning Department 23
Engineering Department 8
Special Solid Waste Agency 5
Health Department 2
Road Department 1
No Agency Involved 79
The city agencies most frequently involved are the administrative and
public works departments; planning responsibilities are undertaken by the
administrative sections in the smaller cities and by public works depart-
ments in the larger cities. Seventy-nine cities have no agency involved
in solid waste planning.
Solid waste planning by local district agencies has been limited to
only those which operate disposal programs. Much of the planning activity
of the districts has been in the form of disposal site evaluation. The
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts are a notable exception. The
districts have entered into several joint power agreements with the County
of Los Angeles and through these agreements the districts have conducted
studies of solid waste disposal in Los Angeles County. These studies have
not been limited to only the areas within the districts, but have been
applied to the entire county, with special emphasis on the metropolitan
area. In general, these studies have been limited to municipal wastes.
VIII-10
-------
Their program encourages private enterprise to operate landfills in the hope
.that a large portion of the short-range need will continue to be met in this
manner. The districts' funds can then be used to provide long-range facili-
•
ties which are not so attractive to the private investor. As part of their
activities, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts have also studied
other methods of disposal. Methods considered were incineration, composting,
central-grinding stations with discharge into the sewerage system, and dis-
posal at sea. Considering all factors, the districts believe that the
sanitary landfill will continue to be the most practical method of solid
waste disposal in Los Angeles County. The districts are not empowered to
collect wastes and, therefore, their planning activities are restricted to
transfer and disposal facilities. Regulation of the collection system for
solid wastes in Los Angeles County remains dispersed among the individual
jurisdictions.
The two garbage and refuse disposal districts (this particular type of
district can no longer be established) in the state are also examples of
cooperative planning action. The six cities on the Monterey Peninsula and
Monterey County formed a district for the cooperative and coordinated dis-
posal of solid wastes. This district has completed one disposal site and
is operating a second which is projected to last in excess of 50 years. As
in Los Angeles County, responsibility for collection remains with the cities.
The South (San Mateo) County Garbage and Refuse Disposal District is the
other such district conducting a similar program. Presently, dissension
among some of the member cities is threatening the stability of the district
and it is questionable whether this district will continue to operate.
Several multi-jurisdictional agencies are giving more attention to
solid waste problems in their respective areas. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), covering the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, probably
VIII-11
-------
has been the most active. The State Department of Public Health conducted
an inventory study of refuse disposal needs in 1963-65 as requested by
ABAG, as part of the Association's regional planning program. This study
pointed out the need for solid waste management on a region-wide basis in
the Bay Area. No formal action has been taken to date.
Since solid waste disposal affects the various elements of our environ-
ment — land, air, and water — it is natural that regional regulatory
agencies should become alerted to the necessity of planning for proper dis-
posal of solid wastes. Actions taken by each of these agencies can affect
solid waste management as shown by the following examples. The Bay Conser-
vation and Development Commission (BCDC), created by the State Legislature
to regulate the filling of San Francisco Bay, controls and limits the
landfilling projects around the periphery of the bay. Hence, the amount
of land potentially available for solid waste disposal has been reduced.
This is in effect forcing the location of many future sites into inland
areas. If air quality control agencies ban back yard burning of rubbish,
the urban dweller is usually burdened by an increased volume of wastes
requiring disposal off of his premises. In many communities, the existing
collection system may not be capable of handling this overload. If augmented
collection service is not provided, these materials may end up "stockpiled"
in back yards. Regional water quality control agencies are also adopting
stricter standards of operation for solid waste disposal sites in their
fight to preserve the quality of waters in the state. Each of these regu-
latory agencies is fulfilling the individual purpose for which it was
created. A basic need is the coordination of solid wasle planning to fit
solid waste disposal practices into these controls, thus achieving the end
result — a better environment.
VIII-12
-------
APPENDIX A
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION
(SIC)
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC)
*
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) has been prepared by the
Office of Statistical Standards in the Federal Bureau of the Budget.
This classification was developed for the purposes of collecting, tabulating,
presenting, and analyzing data in a uniform and comparable manner by the
various agencies, associations, and organizations presenting statistical
data. Establishments are classified by the type of activity in which they
are engaged. The SIC covers the entire field of economic activity which is
divided into the following divisions: (A) agriculture, forestry, and fisher-
ies; (B) mining; (c) construction; (D) manufacturing; (E) transportation,
communication, electric, gas, and sanitary service; (F) wholesale and retail
trade; (G) finance, insurance, and real estate; (H) services; (l) government;
and (j) nonclassifiable establishments. The 196? edition of the SIC manual
has been utilized in this report.
The industrial wastes considered in this report have been limited to
those from manufacturing establishments (Division D) and wastes from the
fresh pack of fruits and vegetables (a portion of Division A). The above
establishments were considered to constitute the major solid waste producers
in terms of industrial processing wastes. The manufacturing division is
defined in the 1967 manual as follows:
"The manufacturing division includes those establishments
engaged in the mechanical or chemical transformation of inorganic
or organic substances into new products, and usually described as
plants, factories, or mills, which characteristically use power-
l/ Office of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget. Standard
Industrial Classification Manual, 1957 and 1967 editions.
A-l
-------
driven machines and materials handling equipment. Establishments
engaged in assembling component parts of manufactured products are
also considered manufacturing if the new product is neither a struc-
ture nor other fixed improvement.
"The materials processed by manufacturing establishments include
products of agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and quarrying.
The final product of a manufacturing establishment may be "finished"
in the sense that it is ready for utilization or consumption, or it
may be "semi-finished" to become a raw material for an establishment
engaged in further manufacturing. For example, the product of the
copper smelter is the raw material used in electrolytic refineries;
refined copper is the raw material used by copper wire mills; and
copper wire is the raw material used by certain electrical equipment
manufacturers.
"The materials used by manufacturing establishments may be pur-
chased directly from producers, obtained through customary trade
channels, or secured without recourse to the market by transferring
the product from one establishment to another which is under the
same ownership. Manufacturing production is usually carried on for
the wholesale market, for interplant transfer, or to order for indus-
trial users, rather than for direct sale to the domestic consumer.
"Printing, publishing, and industries servicing the printing
trades are classified as manufacturing industries.
"There are borderline cases between the manufacturing division
and the other divisions in the classification system. Specific
instances will be found in the descriptions of the individual indus-
tries."
In the SIC system, a four-digit code is assigned to each establishment
based on its major activity, which is determined by the product or group of
products produced or handled, or by services rendered. The first two digits
signify the major group within the division. The third digit indicates the
industrial group number within the major group, and the fourth digit speci-
fies the type of industry within the group. As an example, consider the
manufacturing of food products:
Major Group 20 Food and Kindred Products
Industrial Group 203 Canning and preserving fruits,
vegetables and sea food
Industry 2037 Frozen fruits, fruit juices,
vegetables and specialities
A-2
-------
The manufacturing division includes major groups 19 through 39- All
of these major groups have been included in this report except 21 - Tobacco
Manufacturers - which is not applicable in California. The following is a
listing of the applicable major groups:
19 - Ordinance and Accessories
20 - Food and Kindred Products
22 - Textile Mill Products
23 - Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics
and Similar Materials
24 - Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture
25 - Furniture and Fixtures
26 - Paper and Allied Products
27 - Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries
28 - Chemicals and Allied Products
29 - Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
30 - Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products
31 - Leather and Leather Products
32 - Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
33 - Primary Metal Industries
3^ - Fabricated Metal Products, Except Ordinance, Machinery,
and Transportation Equipment
35 - Machinery, Except Electrical
36 - Electrical Machinery, Equipment and Supplies
37 - Transportation Equipment
38 - Professional, Scientific, and Controlling Instruments;
Photographic and Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks
39 - Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The following includes state regulations related to solid wastes. A
brief excerpt, by section numbers in the various codes, is presented to pro-
vide information on their content.
Health and Safety Code
Section No.
850-972 Local Health District may acquire, construct, maintain, and
operate all works and equipment necessary for the disposal
of garbage and waste.
Garbage Disposal District may provide for the collection and
disposal of garbage or other refuse matter of the district.
Garbage and Refuse Disposal District may maintain and operate
a garbage disposal site. This district cannot be formed after
October 1, 1961.
Any county may grant a franchise, exclusive or otherwise, for
the collection and disposal of garbage, waste, offal, and
debris.
U250 Any city may contract for the collection or disposal of
garbage, waste, refuse, rubbish, offal, trimmings, and other
refuse matter.
U260 No city, county, district or public or municipal corporation
shall acquire and operate a disposal site, collection point,
or transfer station for garbage or refuse within a city with-
out the consent of the city council, or within the unincorpo-
rated area without the consent of the board of supervisors.
4300-^302 No person shall operate a crematory for the destruction by
"fire heat" of garbage, ashes, offal, or other refuse matter
unless operated in such a manner as will prevent the propa-
gation of disease through the contamination of the atmosphere.
Every person who destroys or who attempts to destroy the carcass
of any dead animal, or the offal from any slaughter pen. . .
within one-fourth mile of any city, town, or village, except in
a crematory, the construction and operation of which is satis-
factory to the board of health of the city or the health officer
of the town, is guilty of a misdeameanor.
Pollution of waters and public places include the following
items:
B-l
-------
For the purpose of this article the term "garbage" includes
any or all of the following:
(a) garbage (d) cans (g) vegetable matter
(b) swill (e) bottles (h) carcass of animal
(c) refuse (f) paper (i) offal from any slaughter
pen or butcher shop
(j) trash
(k) rubbish
(l) radioactive waste materials
(Ml-Ol) Unlawful to deposit garbage in or upon the navigable waters
of the state or at any point in the ocean within 20 (twenty)
miles of the coastline of the state.
No person shall put the carcass of any dead animal or the
offal from any slaughter pen, corral, or butcher shop into
any river, creek, pond, reservoir, or stream.
Every person who violates, refuses or neglects to conform
to any sanitary rule, order, or regulation prescribed by
the State Department of Public Health for the prevention
of the pollution of springs, streams, rivers, lakes, wells
or other waters used or intended to be used for human or
animal consumption is guilty of a misdeameanor.
As used in this article, "garbage" includes any or all of
the following: (a-k same as khOO), (l) abandoned and uniden-
tifiable vehicles or vehicle bodies, (m) abandoned iceboxes
and refrigerators.
(W/6) Prohibits throwing of garbage on streets, alleys, etc. (does
not apply to the use of private property with permission of
owner).
^700-4859 County Sanitation District may construct, maintain, and operate
within the district boundaries a system for transfer or disposal
of refuse, or both; provided, however, that such system shall not
include "refuse collection", which is defined as the house-to-
house pickup of refuse or any part thereof.
In this article "refuse" includes all of the following:
(a) animal, fruit and vegetable refuse; (b) offal; (c) leaves
and cuttings, trimmings from trees, shrubs and grass; (d) inor-
ganic refuse and rubbish; (e) garbage; (f) anything thrown
away as worthless.
6^00-69^1.9 Sanitary Districts may acquire, construct, maintain and operate
such garbage dump sites and garbage collection and disposal
systems. Before any garbage dump shall be established, the
location shall first be approved by the county health officer,
and if the location is within two (2) miles of any city, the
consent of the governing body of the city shall first be
secured. It may make and enforce all necessary regulations
and compel all residents and property owners in the district
B-2
-------
to use the garbage collection and disposal system.
18680-18681 Metal or plastic waste containers with tight-fitting lids
shall be provided in every mobile home park and removed and
disposed of without creating a nuisance. The area of the
park shall be kept clean and free of refuse, garbage, rubbish,
etc., (Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks Act).
2^198-2U399 Air Pollution Control District may adopt regulations to pre-
vent open burning of solid wastes from any source. Empowered
to set requirements for incinerator stack emissions.
28201 Every bakery must provide for the sanitary storage and the
adequate frequency of removal of all food wastes and waste
material (Bakery Sanitation Law).
28565-28568 Same as above, for restaurants (Restaurant Act).
28610-28613 Same as above, for itinerant restaurants (itinerant Restaurant
Sanitation).
Administrative Code - Title 17
313>8?l-7 Hospitals - Garbage shall be stored and disposed of in a
and 5H?(d) manner not to permit the transmission of communicable disease,
etc. All containers shall be watertight, have tight-fitting
covers, and be rodent proof.
and Hospitals - Infected dressings, surgical dressings and other
5122 similar materials shall be disposed of in an incinerator which
will provide complete combustion. Alternate methods may be
allowed if approved by local health officers.
Hospitals - An area shall be provided for storage of garbage
and trash. In all facilities of more than six beds, a room
or screened enclosure with minimum cement floor (25 sq. feet)
shall be provided, etc.
1325 Local Health Service - Funds available to local health depart-
ments for use only to augment local appropriations provided
for public health purposes, including garbage and refuse col-
lection and disposal.
7955 Sanitation, Healthfulness and Safety of Ocean, Water-Contact
Sports Areas, — "Refuse" means domestic or industrial garbage,
trash, or other debris not of sea origin.
30285 No user shall dispose of any radioactive material as waste
except :
(a) by transfer to a person holding a specific license to
receive the radioactive wastes, or,
(b) as authorized pursuant to Section §0269 — Concentra-
tions in effluents to uncontrolled areas ; 30287 —
B-3
-------
30731
Disposal by release into sanitary sewerage systems;
30288 — Disposal by burial in soil.
Organized Camps - Requires the sanitary storage of refuse
containers.
Agricultural Code
16001-1615U
10901-10990
"Garbage" means waste materials, such as food scraps, table
refuse, galley refuse, and refuse from stores of vessels and
aircrafts, including such waste materials in passengers' and
crews' quarters, which is derived, in whole or in part, from
fruits, vegetables, or animal products. (16004)
If means of incineration of, or other approved processing,
garbage are not available aboard any vessels, . . . the
master. . . shall provide containers, . . . with tight-
fitting covers in which garbage shall be retained while
within the territorial waters or on land in California,
pending incineration or approved treatment. (l6lOl)
It is unlawful for any person to throw. . . . garbage from
any vessel, aircraft, etc., into territorial waters or onto
land within the state, except for any of the following:
(a) Immediate burning in incinerators.
(b) Approved treatment and disposal under the supervision
and pursuant to the regulations of the director.
(c) Delivery to garbage collector. . . licensed by the
director or federal government. (l6l5l)
"Garbage" - any waste which consists in whole or in part of
animal waste that results from the handling, preparing,
cooking, and consuming of food, including the offal from
any animal carcass or from part of an animal carcass. It
does not, however, include such waste from ordinary house-
hold operations which is fed directly to swine on the
premises. (10901)
All garbage before being fed to swine shall be heated to
212°F for 30 minutes. (10952)
Persons feeding garbage to swine must have annual license.
(10982)
Fish and Game
5650-5652
Unlawful to dispose within 150 feet of the high water mark
or to allow to pass into the waters of the state any refuse,
liquid or solid. . . . However, 150 feet requirement does
not apply to depositing of such materials in a container or
"refuse disposal dump" maintained by any federal, state or
local governmental agency, or the property owner.
B-4
-------
Public Resources
^371-^375
5780-5788
13000-13230
A person shall not maintain a rubbish dump outside the
exterior boundaries of any city unless he has a permit to
do so issued by the State Forester and the rubbish dump is
maintained, used, or operated in strict accordance with the
terms and conditions prescribed in the permit. (Permit
involves clearance of combustible materials around disposal
facilities and burning restrictions.)
Park and Recreation District may provide "garbage collection"
or disposal services in district where such service is not
provided by any other public agency.
Resort Improvement District may acquire, construct, maintain,
or operate facilities for the collection or disposal of
"garbage and refuse matter".
Vehicle
23112-23113
2311^-23115
22659-22856
No person shall throw or deposit any bottle, glass, garbage,
etc., on any highway or street.
No vehicle loaded with garbage, swill, cans, bottles, etc.,
shall be driven or moved upon any highway unless the load
is covered with a cover sufficient to prevent the load or
any part of the load from spilling upon the highway. Does
not apply to vehicles engaged in transportation of wet
waste fruits or vegetable matter from a food processing
establishment.
Provides for the removal of parked and abandoned vehicles.
Streets and Highways
22k
7^5-759-3
888.2
Unlawful to deposit or throw waste in safety roadside rest,
other than in receptacle, ....
Unlawful to locate junk yard within 1,000 feet of highway
without compatible zoning and screening. Provides for
screening of junk yards visible from highway.
Unlawful to deposit or throw any substance in parkway or
deposit in receptacle items other than that which arise out
of the use of the parkway by a member of the traveling
public.
Penal
370-373(a)
Unlawful to create public nuisance.
B-5
-------
Unlawful to deposit or dump on any public highway, private
highway, or private property any garbage, bottles, etc.
Not restricted to private owner and use of his own property.
Unlawful to deposit, dump garbage, etc., within 150 feet of
high-water mark.
Government
23010.2
25210-25210.8
25820-25822
25827
38790
61000-61936
65303
The board of supervisors may loan money to any city within
its limits for collection as indicated in 25827.
County Service Area may provide any service that a county
is not prohibited from doing.
The board of supervisors may acquire, construct, contract,
alter, enlarge, maintain, and operate dump sites, incinerators
and other disposal plants for the disposal of combustible or
noncombustible garbage or rubbish or both; and may permit the
use of, by lease or otherwise, by municipalities or other
governmental agencies.
The board of supervisors of each county may collect or con-
tract for the collection or both, of garbage, waste, refuse,
etc., and may for the purposes levy a yearly tax on property
within the unincorporated area of the county, excluding
territory within existing garbage disposal districts.
By gift, purchase, etc., any city may acquire land within the
county where the city is located for garbage disposal sites
and rights of way for roadways to the site. "Garbage" includes:
(a) animal, fruit and vegetable refuse; (b) offal; (c) leaves
and cuttings, trimmings from trees, shrubs and grass; (d) inor-
ganic refuse and rubbish; (e) anything thrown away as worthless.
Community Services District may be formed in the unincorporated
territory in one or more counties to provide "garbage service".
Elements'permitted, not required in the general plan, may
include the following or any part or phase thereof. . .
(f) public services and facilities element showing
general plans for sewerage, refuse disposal,
drainage, and local utilities, and rights of way,
easements and facilities for them.
Water Code
30000-332^0
County Water District may acquire, construct, and operate
facilities for, or may contract with others for, the col-
lection and disposal of the "garbage waste" and "trash"
of the district and its inhabitants.
B-6
-------
Public Utilities Code
11501-1^509 Municipal Utility District may acquire, construct, operate,
etc., within or without the district, facilities for supplying
a means for the collection, treatment, or disposition of "garbage
. and refuse matter".
15501-18055 Public Utility District - Activities similar to those of a
Municipal Utility District.
B-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
CALIFORNIA DISPOSAL SITES
-1967-
-------
-------
Section 4121.1
—"garbage and other refuse" should be changed to
"refuse"
Section 4127
—"garbage and other refuse" should be changed to
"refuse"
Part 2, Chapter 1.5 (Sec. 4170-4197)
—Title "Garbage and Refuse Disposal Districts"—no
change needed, title technically correct and this
type of district may no longer be formed
Section 4200, 4201
—"garbage, waste, offal, and debris" should be
changed to "refuse and solid waste"
Part 2, Chapter 2.5
—"City Garbage Disposal Contracts" should be
changed to "City Refuse Disposal Contracts"
Section 4250
—same change as 4200
Part 2, Chapter 2.6
—Title "Garbage and Refuse Dumps" should be
changed to "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facili-
ties"
Section 4260
—(third line) "operated a dump or site for the dis-
posal of garbage or refuse or transfer station or col-
lection point for garbage or refuse" changed to
"operated a disposal site or facility for the disposal
of refuse, or transfer station or collection point for
refuse"
Part 2, Chapter 3
—Title "Fumes Escaping From Burning Garbage"
should be changed to "Fumes Escaping From Burn-
ing Solid Wastes"
Chapter 3, Article 1
—"Cremation of Refuse, Generally" should be
changed to "Incineration of Refuse"
Section 4400
—change the term "garbage" to "solid wastes"
—make new listings by striking the following lined-
out words:
(a) Garbage
(b) Swill
(c) Refuse
(d) Cans
(c) Bottles
(0 Pap^
(g) Vegetable matter
(h)
of
any
dead
Carcass
animal
(i) Offal from any slaugh-
ter pen or butcher shop
()) Trash
(k) Rubbish
(1) Radioactive waste ma-
terials
Section 4401, 4402, 4403
—change "garbage" to "solid wastes"
Section 4475
—change the term "garbage" to "solid wastes1'
—make new listings by striking the following lined-
out words:
(a) Garbage
(b) Swill
(c) Refuse
(d) Cans
(e) Bottles
(f) Paper
(g) Vegetable matter
(h) Carcass of any dead
animal
(i) Offal from any slaugh-
ter pen or butcher
shop
()) Trash
(k) Rubbish
(1) Abandoned and un-
identifiable vehicles or
vehicle bodies
(m) Abandoned iceboxes
and refrigerators
Section 4476
—change "garbage" to "solid wastes"
Section 4740
—revise definition
Section 6406
—change "garbage" to "refuse"; make consistent with
any action taken in Sec. 4740
Section 6512
—(2nd line) change "garbage dump sites and garbage
collection and disposal systems" to "refuse disposal
sites and facilities and refuse collection and disposal
systems"
— (2nd paragraph) change "garbage dump" to "ref-
use disposal site or facility"
Section 6518.5, 6520,6521
—change "garbage" to "refuse"
Section 18680, 18681
•—no changes made at this time
Section 28201, 28567
—change "rubbish" to "refuse"
Section 28568
—add "and refuse"
Section 28612
—change "rubbish" to "refuse"
Section 28613
—add "and refuse"
37
-------
Article 6. Other Powers and Duties
SEC. 4535. The Department shall establish a
solid waste advisory committee to provide con-
sultation to the Department concerning matters
covered by this Act. The committee shall advise
on the development of standards, rules and regu-
lations for solid waste management, and shall
supply recommendations concerning methods by
which existing solid waste management practices
and the laws authorizing them may be supple-
mented and improved. The committee shall con-
sist of 10 members appointed by the Director and
shall consist of persons knowledgeable in solid
waste management. The members shall represent
the interests of the public, local government, agri-
culture, manufacturing industry, local health de-
partments, and the refuse removal industry.
Article 7. Enforcement
SFC. 4540. The minimum standards and regu-
lations adopted by the Department pursuant to
this Act shall be enforced by the Department or
any local health officer. When established state
standards and regulations are being satisfactorily
enforced by any approved local health depart-
ment the enforcement of the standards and regu-
lations shall not be duplicated by the Department.
The Department shall investigate to make this de-
termination and may take direct enforcement ac-
tion where appropriate.
SF.C. 4541. Whenever, in the judgment of the
Department, any person has engaged in or is
about to engage in any acts or practices which
constitute or will constitute a violation of any
provision of this chapter, or any rule, regulation
or order issued thereunder, and at the request of
the Department, the Attorney General may make
application to the superior court for an order
enjoining such acts or practices, or for an order
directing compliance, and upon a showing by
the Department that such person has engaged in
or is about to engage in any such acts or prac-
tices, a permanent or temporary injunction, re-
straining order, or other order may be granted.
SKC. 4542.
(a) Every civil action brought under the pro-
visions of this Act at the request of the Depart-
ment shall be brought by the Attorney General
in the name of the people of the State of Cali-
fornia and any such actions relating to the same
disposal of solid wastes may be joined or con-
solidated.
(b) Any civil action brought pursuant to this
Act shall be brought in a county in which the
disposal of solid waste is made, or proposed to be
made.
(c) In any civil action brought pursuant to this
Act in which a temporary restraining order, pre-
liminary injunction, or permanent injunction is
sought, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove
at any stage of the proceeding that irreparable
damage will occur should the temporary restrain-
ing order, preliminary injunction, or permanent
injunction not be issued; or that the remedy at
law is inadequate, and the temporary restraining
order, preliminary injunction, or permanent in-
junction shall issue without such allegations and
without such proof.
SEC. 4543. No provision of this Act shall apply
to the use of solid wastes in normal farming op-
erations or in the processing or manufacturing of
other products in a manner that will not create a
public nuisance or adversely affect the public
health. And, provided further, that these provi-
sions shall not apply to an individual disposing of
solid wastes originating from his own residence
onto land or facilities owned by him when dis-
posal of such wastes do not thereby create a
public nuisance or adversely affect the public
health.
SUGGESTED REVISIONS OF THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE
The Health and Safety Code includes provisions for
the formation and maintenance of specific local dis-
tricts to operate refuse collection systems or disposal
facilities; for authorization of counties to issue fran-
chise and cities to contract for refuse handling; for
regulation of solid waste disposal to prevent pollution
of waters and public places; and for regulation of
refuse storage practices. Terminology used in the
Code is not consistent, especially the definition of
"garbage". Revisions are necessary to achieve uniform-
ity with current language usage. The following are
changes suggested for the various Code sections that
pertain to solid waste management. These changes
are primarily updating of terminology; the changes
were made with an attempt to maintain the original
intent of the law.
Section 936 (f)
—"garbage" should be changed to "refuse"
Part 2, Chapter 1
—Title "Garbage Disposal Districts" should be
changed to "Refuse Disposal Districts"
Section 4105
—"Garbage Disposal District" should be cnanged to
"Refuse Disposal District"
Section 4106
—"garbage" should be changed to "refuse"
Section 4107
—"garbage disposal district" should be changed to
"refuse disposal district"
Section 4113
—-"garbage and refuse disposal site" should be changed
to "refuse disposal site"
Section 4120 (a)
—"garbage and other refuse matter" should be
changed to "refuse"
Section 4120 (c)
—"garbage or other refuse matter" should be changed
to "refuse"
Section 4121
—"garbage and other refuse" should be changed to
"refuse"
36
-------
(e) Render technical assistance to state and
local agencies and others in the planning and op-
eration of solid waste programs.
(f) Provide for appropriate surveillance of
solid waste handling and disposal practices in the
state to determine compliance with state stand-
ards and regulations.
SEC. 4517. The Department may adopt and
enforce all reasonable rules and regulations neces-
sary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes
of this Act.
Article 4. Solid Waste Disposal Requirements
SEC. 4520. Effective January 1, 1973 it shall be
unlawful for any person to maintain, conduct, or
operate an existing solid waste disposal site or
facility or to establish a new disposal site or fa-
cility unless that site or facility is registered with
the Department.
SFC. 4521. Applications for registration of a
disposal site or facility shall be on forms pre-
scribed and furnished by the Department and
shall contain a description of the proposed and
existing facilities and operations at the site as well
as such additional information the Department
may deem necessary in order to determine
whether the site and facilities located thereon will
comply with minimum state requirements.
SEC. 4522. Following proper application, the
Department or its delegated agency shall issue a
registration certificate for the operation of each
solid waste disposal site or facility which meets
the criteria and standards as adopted by the De-
partment. Such certificate shall remain in effect
until the completion or discontinuance of use of
the disposal site or facility unless revoked by the
Department. Such certificate shall not be trans-
ferable should changes in disposal site or facility
ownership occur.
SEC. 4523. Each applicant for disposal site or
facility registration shall first secure approval for
operation of said disposal site or facility from the
local governmental agency having apppropriate
jurisdiction over land use. The Department shall
not issue a registration certificate for any disposal
site or facility until satisfactory proof or indica-
tion of such local approval is submitted.
SEC. 4524. Any registration certificate issued
by the Department or its delegated agency as
provided in this Article shall be revocable or sub-
ject to suspension at any time the Department de-
termines that the disposal site or facility is being
operated in violation of this Act or the regula-
tions or standards adopted pursuant to this Act,
or is creating a nuisance. The certificate may also
be revoked for similar reasons by the Department
upon recommendation of the local health officer.
SEC. 4525. In the event any registration cer-
tificate is to be denied, suspended or revoked, the
affected persons shall be notified in writing and a
hearing shall first be held thereon before the De-
partment within thirty days after request therefor
is made by the person whose registration is to be
denied, suspended or revoked. Within fifteen days
following the date of such hearing the Depart-
ment shall notify all parties in writing of the de-
termination of said hearing and the actions to*be
taken.
SEC. 4526. The provisions of Section 4520 may
be waived by the Department as to specific types
of disposal sites or facilities when it determines
that such sites will not adversely affect the public
health or the environment and will not create a
public nuisance. Such waiver shall be conditional
and may be terminated at any time by the De-
partment.
SEC. 4527. Each approved local health depart-
ment shall establish a solid waste program which
meets the criteria established by the Department
for compliance with the objectives and require-
ments of this Act. When the Department has de-
termined that a local health department has de-
veloped such a program, it shall delegate such
responsibilities under this Article as may be mu-
tually agreeable to the Department and that local
health department. The Department shall pe-
riodically review the solid waste programs of
local health departments to determine compliance
with this Act.
Article 5. Submission of Plans
SFC. 4530. Each county within the state, in co-
operation with the various local jurisdictions lo-
cated within such county, shall prepare a co-
ordinated, comprehensive solid waste management
plan. The appropriate County Health Department
shall represent the Department in coordinating the
preparation and development of the solid waste
management plan. Such plan may cover more
than one county.
SEC. 4531. Each comprehensive county solid
waste management plan developed under Section
4530 shall be submitted to the Department for
technical review and approval within three years
after the effective date of this Act. The Depart-
ment may recommend revisions essential to the
achievement of the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 4532. The Department shall prepare
guidelines for local comprehensive plans and shall
provide technical assistance in the preparation, re-
vision, and implementation of solid waste man-
agement plans required by this Act.
SEC. 4533. Each county or city, or county and
city may adopt regulations or ordinances govern-
ing solid waste handling implementing the com-
prehensive solid waste management plan cover-
ing storage, collection, transportation, treatment,
processing, utilization, and final disposal. Such
regulations or ordinances should assure that solid
waste handling and disposal facilities are located,
maintained, and operated in a manner so as to
protect the public health, prevent air and water
pollution, and avoid the creation of nuisances.
Such regulations or ordinances may be more
stringent than the minimum standards adopted by
the state.
35
-------
control required of solid waste management ac-
tivities. The Department in exercising any au-
thority assigned in this Act shall conform to and
implement the policies of this Chapter and shall
at all times coordinate its activities with those of
other state agencies and local political jurisdic-
tions'so as to achieve a unified and effective solid
waste management program in this state.
SEC. 4503. It is the purpose of this Act to
effectuate the policies set forth in this Article by
assuring programs which:
(a) Assign primary responsibility for adequate
solid waste handling to local government, reserv-
ing to the state, however, those functions neces-
sary to assure effective programs throughout the
state.
(b) Provide for coordinated development of
comprehensive plans for solid waste management
by local government.
(c) Provide for the adoption and enforcement
of basic minimum state standards for solid waste
handling and disposal.
(d) Provide technical assistance to local gov-
ernments in the planning, development, and con-
duct of solid waste management programs and
operations.
(e) Coordinate and facilitate research and de-
velopment in the technical phases of solid waste
management.
(f) Encourage utilization, wherever appropri-
ate and feasible, of the capabilities of private in-
dustry in accomplishing the objectives of this Act.
SKC. 4504. No provision of this Act or any
ruling of the Department is a limitation:
(a) On the power of a city or county, or city
and county to adopt and enforce additional regu-
lations, not in conflict therewith, imposing further
conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect
to the handling or disposal of solid wastes.
(b) On the power of any city or county, or
city and county to declare, prohibit, and abate
nuisances.
(c) On the power of the Attorney General,
at the request of the Department, or upon his
own motion, to bring an action in the name of the
people of the State of California to enjoin any
pollution or nuisance.
(d) On the power of any state agency in the
enforcement or administration of any provision
of law it is specifically permitted or required to
enforce or administer.
(e) On the right of any person to maintain at
any time any appropriate action for relief against
any private nuisance as defined in the Civil Code.
Article 2. Definitions
SEC. 4510. As used in this Act, unless the
context indicates otherwise:
(a) "Person" also includes any city, county,
district, the state or any department or agency
thereof.
(b) "Department" means the State Department
of Public Health.
(c) "Solid waste" or "refuse" means all putres-
cible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid
wastes including garbage, rubbish, ashes, indus-
trial wastes, demolition and construction wastes,
abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded
home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable
or animal solid and semisolid wastes, and other
discarded solid or semisolid materials.
(d) "Solid waste handling" includes the stor-
age, collection, transportion, treatment, utiliza-
tion, processing, and disposal of solid wastes.
(e) "Disposal facility" means any facility or
location where any treatment, utilization, process-
ing, or deposition of solid waste occurs.
(f) "Disposal site" means the location where
any final deposition of solid waste occurs.
(g) "Nuisance" means anything which: (1) is
is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive
to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use
of property, so as to interfere with the comfort-
able enjoyment of life or property; and (2)
affects at the same time an entire community or
neighborhood, or any considerable number of
persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
damage inflicted upon individuals may be un-
equal; and (3) occurs during or as the result of
the handling or disposal of solid wastes.
Article 3. General Powers and Duties
SF.C. 4515. The Department shall prepare and
adopt, and may revise when appropriate, mini-
mum standards for solid waste handling and for
the location, design, operation, maintenance and
ultimate reuse of solid waste disposal sites and
facilities. The Department may adopt varying
standards for different areas of the state depend-
ing on population density, climate, geology and
other factors relevant to solid waste handling and
disposal.
SFC. 4516. The Department, in performing its
duties under this Act shall:
(a) Establish procedures for evaluation and co-
ordination of research and development regarding
new or improved methods of solid waste handling
and disposal and may conduct studies as
appropriate.
(b) Prepare and implement a statewide solid
waste management information storage and re-
trieval system coordinated with other state in-
formation systems.
(c) Implement a public information program
on matters concerning solid wastes and maintain
a technical reference center on solid waste prac-
tices and programs and related information.
(d) Formulate technical criteria and suggested
guidelines for use by local agencies in develop-
ment, planning, implementation and operation
of local solid waste management programs.
34
-------
The development of adequate laws and regulations
is a major factor in the success of a comprehensive
solid waste management program. Existing state laws
regarding solid waste management are generally in-
complete and outmoded. Code sections are now aimed
at protecting water, air, and wildlife; preventing forest
fires; and maintaining highways free of litter. Even
the health of hogs is protected from the disease haz-
ards of garbage (cooking requirements for vesicular
exanthema control). Laws designed specifically to
protect people, their health, and well-being from haz-
ards and nuisances of solid wastes are, however, gen-
erally lacking. Perhaps the most notable deficiency is
that no state agency has an overall responsibility for
establishing solid waste management policy.
Regardless of the validity of a program plan, it is of
little value unless it can be implemented. The program
plan presented in this report cannot be imple-
mented within the existing framework of laws in Cali-
fornia. It is essential, therefore, that an adequate statu-
tory basis be established. Specific enabling legislation
providing for authority and responsibility for solid
waste management is needed. A comprehensive en-
abling act such as those which established the air and
water quality programs in California should be the
basic mechanism for an effective solid waste program.
The program plan proposed in Chapter IV was de-
veloped on the premise that such basic legislation
would be developed.
The following section presents a suggested "Solid
Waste Management Act" which would overcome
existing legislative deficiencies and allow the proposed
program to proceed. Initial enabling legislation such
as that proposed would establish the mechanism for
solving the immediate problems as well as providing
the structure for achieving long-range goals and
objectives. The second section presents suggested
changes in the State Health and Safety Code to pro-
vide uniformity and continuity which would supple-
ment the enabling legislation.
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
An act to add Chapter 5 to Part 2 of Division 5 of
the Health and Safety Code relating to solid waste
management; defining responsibilities and delegating
authority therefor; establishing procedures; and de-
claring effective dates.
The people of the State of California do enact as
follows:
Article 1. State Policy
SEC. 4500. The Legislature finds that the
volume of solid wastes being generated within
the state and the present provisions generally
made for managing such wastes have resulted in
conditions threatening to the public health, safety
and well-being, specifically causing severe prob-
lems of flies, rodents, water and air pollution, lit-
ter and widespread environmental degradation.
This situation arises from a combination of con-
current factors, including rapid population
increase, decentralized residential growth, indus-
trial expansion, agricultural changes, transporta-
tion improvements and technological develop-
ments in manufacturing, packaging and marketing
consumer products, collectively causing grave
economic limitations upon land availability for
traditional solid waste management practices.
The Legislature further finds and declares that
traditional methods of solid waste management in
this state, largely directed toward land disposal,
are no longer singularly adequate for future solid
waste management. Conservational methods di-
rected toward salvage, recycling and utilization
are regarded as essential to the long-range preser-
vation of the public health, safety, well-being,
economy and environmental quality of the state.
The Legislature further declares that it is nec-
essary to the health, safety and well-being of the
people of this state that there be established a
state directed program of solid waste manage-
ment, providing for the coordination of solid
waste management activities of the various state
agencies, the political subdivisions of the state
and private enterprises engaged in solid waste
activities, in order to protect the environment and
to assure systematic implementation of sound
solid waste management practices.
SEC. 4501. It is the policy of the State of
California, in furtherance of its responsibility to
protect the public health and safety, to institute
and maintain a comprehensive statewide program
for solid waste management which will assure
that solid waste systems do not adversely affect
the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
do not degrade the quality of the environment by
reason of their location, design, method of opera-
tion, or other means; and to the extent feasible
and practical, that solid waste management sys-
tems be designed and operated to make maximum
utilization of the resources contained in solid
wastes.
SEC. 4502. It is the intent of the Legisla-
ture that the State Department of Public Health
shall be the agency charged with primary re-
sponsibility for the direction, coordination, and
33
-------
-------
CHAPTER V
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
e. Providing technical information and assistance to
local solid waste programs to improve facilities
and practices.
f. Support and assist local officials in developing a
public information program devised to minimize
the amount of "litter" that exists in escalating
amounts on public and private property.
g. Assisting colleges and universities in developing
curricula and conducting classes and seminars on
solid waste management and environmental
quality.
h. Establishing a government-industry liaison group
to review, discuss, and seek solutions to solid
waste problems of industry.
SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION
The transition from existing unsatisfactory solid
waste management practices to acceptable programs
will take time, with full implementation of all pro-
posed objectives requiring a period of many years.
During this period, the energies of many agencies
and individuals must be directed toward achieving the
goals of the program. To bring substandard practices
up to the minimum level of acceptance, for example,
requires the following sequential steps:
1. Enactment of enabling legislation providing the
Department with authority to establish the nec-
essary solid waste program.
2. Organization and staffing of the Department to
meet this responsibility.
3. Perform work where necessary, preparatory to
establishing proposed standards and regulations.
4. Necessary reviews, public hearings, and adop-
tion of standards and regulations along with
schedule for enforcement.
5. Local program organization and staffing.
6. Completion of plans by affected agencies and
persons for improvement of solid waste facilities.
7. Development of necessary financing arrange-
ments, capital expenditures, and budgetary pro-
cedures.
8. Land acquisitions, purchase of equipment, modi-
fications to existing facilities, construction, and
other possible implementation steps.
9. Reviews and evaluations to assure compliance
with standards and enforcement proceedings
where necessary.
Program objectives such as improved technology,
projected planning, and public information develop-
ment, require different timetables for accomplishment.
While the broad plan proposed in this report will re-
quire an extended period of time, some important spe-
cific goals, such as the elimination of open burning
dumps, can be achieved within a relatively short
period.
It is difficult to distinguish "short range" and "long
range" goals in all cases. For purposes of this report,
short-range goals are those which should be attained
within a 5 to 10 year period; long-range goals prob-
ably will require more than 10 years.
The program proposed in this report, if imple-
mented, would achieve the following goals:
Short Range ,
1. Establishment of environmental criteria and
solid waste management standards.
2. Bringing existing disposal operations in the
state to acceptable minimum levels, eliminating
open burning of solid wastes at disposal sites,
and eliminating open dumps and their attend-
ant health hazards.
3. Prevention of unacceptable new disposal op-
erations.
4. Completion of local comprehensive solid waste
management plans for all areas of the state.
5. Improvement of solid waste management tech-
nology to achieve greater effectiveness and
efficiency.
6. Establishment of public awareness and support
for improved solid waste programs.
Long Range
1. Development of solid waste technology and
programs which incorporate utilization of
wastes instead of disposal.
2. Development of solid waste programs which
enhance rather than degrade the environment.
3. Development of long-range plans for solid
waste management on a broad regional basis
for the entire state.
4. Incorporation of solid waste management pro-
grams into a broad consolidated environmental
program of air, water, and land resource man-
agement.
The sequential steps necessary to initiate the pro-
posed program as well as the time schedule for action
are outlined in Table 2. This schedule outlines the
administrative functions to establish the program ele-
ments as well as the continuing program activities.
PROGRAM RESOURCES AND COST
REQUIREMENTS
The principal resource required to initiate this pro-
gram is manpower. Few of the program activities re-
quire specialized equipment or laboratory facilities.
The manpower needed would include engineers,
planners, and others with disciplines related to solid
waste management. There is not a large source of
trained manpower to draw from since provisions for
formal training have been meager and opportunities
for professional experience in solid waste management
have been limited. Some time will therefore be re-
quired to orient and train new personnel.
To determine the amount of personnel needed to
accomplish the objectives stated, each task was ana-
lyzed in depth and the necessary minimum profes-
29
-------
and coordinating local enforcement programs;
and providing assistance and consultation where
needed.
«
e. Enforcement of the requirement that all disposal
sites in the state be registered with the Depart-
. ment.
f. Developing reasonable administrative rules and
regulations to facilitate development and imple-
mentation of the standards and the facility regis-
tration program.
SURVEILLANCE
An adequate baseline of information is essential for
state and local agencies to develop and formulate
sound policies, programs, and financing plans for solid
waste management. The statewide study documented
existing practices, programs, and facilities. This valu-
able information is being used by the Department and
other agencies in developing solutions to solid waste
problems. There is, however, no mechanism for sus-
taining this data on a current basis nor is there a
projected plan for systematic compilation, assessment,
and evaluation of information on solid waste manage-
ment in California.
Surveillance Objectives
Sustained surveillance is required to determine the
location and extent of problems, the effectiveness of
programs and facilities, progress being made toward
meeting goals, and to develop and keep current basic
information on solid waste management.
Recommended Means of Accomplishment
These basic objectives can best be accomplished by
the Department undertaking the following tasks:
a. Periodic inventories and updating of the present
basic programs, facilities, and operational data to
provide information needed for program devel-
opment and revising or updating standards and
operational criteria.
b. Requiring that certain basic information be sub-
mitted periodically for each registered disposal
facility.
c. Compiling this information in the technical in-
formation reference center (as indicated under
Technology), which would be a central source
of information for all state and local agencies and
interested persons. The reference center would
be kept current through information input from
surveys, investigations and evaluations, program
reviews, facility inspections, permit applications,
review of research projects, and other sources.
d. Conducting special studies and surveys to evalu-
ate actual or potential solid waste problems, as
well as the effectiveness of new techniques, prac-
tices, and programs.
e. Conducting routine monitoring of solid waste
disposal facilities to evaluate the degree to which
state standards are being met. Since primary
monitoring and inspection would be done by
local health departments, these evaluations would
usually be made on an infrequent basis and would
supplement the basic inspection program of
local health departments.
f. Periodically reviewing local solid waste programs
to evaluate their effectiveness, and determine
where assistance may be needed.
INFORMATION AND TRAINING
One of the major obstacles to establishment of ef-
fective solid waste management programs is a lack of
public awareness of problems and of the need for
comprehensive solutions. There have been marked in-
creases in public interest and concern over pollution
of the environment in recent years. There remains,
however, a general lack of knowledge about environ-
mental effects of solid wastes and the need for im-
proved programs. This is sometimes evident among
those officials who must make program decisions as
well as the public who must support and finance these
programs.
Among those who have recognized the problems,
there often is a lack of technical knowledge and ex-
perience needed to conduct or implement solid waste
programs. With the advent of higher standards, im-
proved programs and facilities are a necessity. Those
responsible must have sufficient technical training to
carry out their programs effectively.
A dynamic program is needed to provide necessary
training, create the proper public awareness, interpret
the results of research, and disseminate information.
There is no present mechanism to provide an orga-
nized approach to public information and training.
This is vital to a comprehensive statewide program of
solid waste management.
Information and Training Objectives
The basic objectives of this aspect of the program
would be to develop public awareness of solid waste
problems and responsibilities, and generate improved
programs through a comprehensive approach toward
public education, training, and information.
Recommended Means of Accomplishment
These objectives can best be achieved by accom-
plishment of the following tasks:
a. Establishing a service for disseminating informa-
tion on the various aspects of solid waste man-
agement. Information would be supplied to agen-
cies on request as well as through reports,
publications, presentations, articles and other in-
formational media.
b. Organizing, sponsoring, and encouraging tech-
nical seminars, training courses, workshops, and
demonstrations of improved practices and tech-
nology for local officials, program managers, and
operators of facilities.
c. Supporting and encouraging local public educa-
tion programs by supplying information and
technical assistance.
d. Developing visual aids for public information in-
cluding films, slides, displays, and other material.
28
-------
are planned and designed to prevent the creation of
nuisances and hazards and environmental degradation
during operation and subsequent reuse.
Recommended Means of Accomplishment
The role of the State in solid waste planning should
be to provide the guidance, stimulation, coordination,
and assistance necessary to develop effective solid
waste management programs. Detailed planning for
solid waste management should be accomplished at
the local level with coordination provided by county
health departments.
The objectives relating to general solid waste man-
agement plans would be achieved by the Department
of Public Health undertaking the following tasks:
a. Establishing criteria and guidelines for use by
counties or regional agencies in developing their
solid waste plans.
b. Requiring that all counties develop a compre-
hensive plan for solid waste management to be
reviewed by the Department for conformance
with state standards.
c. Coordinating solid waste plans of adjacent coun-
ties, considering the needs of long-range regional
plans.
d. Providing assistance in resolving planning con-
flicts between local jurisdictions.
e. Stimulating regional planning through solid waste
planning loans or grants, as may be made avail-
able from State or Federal sources, in a manner
which offers financial incentives for cooperative
planning.
f. Rendering technical planning assistance to local
agencies.
The objectives relating to detailed plans -for individ-
ual disposal facilities would be achieved through the
following tasks:
g. Developing design criteria and guidelines for use
in preparing disposal facility plans.
h. Requiring that sufficient information for each
new disposal facility be submitted as part of the
application to the Department for registration for
determination of its capabilities to meet standards.
i. Providing planning assistance on public health
and other environmental quality aspects of lay-
out and design of disposal facilities.
STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
Volume I of this study demonstrated the existence
of public health hazards, nuisances, and related envi-
ronmental problems attributable to current solid waste
management practices. Most of the disposal sites fall
into the category of open dumps. While the reasons
for such a large percentage of unsatisfactory opera-
tions are complex, one of the most apparent factors
is the lack of adequate standards and regulations gov-
erning solid waste management.
A number of state agencies have developed regula-
tions pertaining to their specific interests (i.e., fire
control laws and water quality protection), but there
are no comprehensive standards relating to the pro-
tection of public health and the environment from
the effects of solid wastes.
Only 17 of the 58 counties have incorporated into
local ordinances some form of minimum standards for
location or operation of disposal sites, and sorne of
these ordinances are not enforced. The inconsistency
of standards from one jurisdiction to the next is
particularly apparent. What is considered a "sanitary
landfill" by one jurisdiction is essentially an open
dump to another. Jurisdictional problems are also
encountered in attempting to enforce standards. A
county, for example, cannot enforce its standards
within city boundaries or vice versa.
Local regulations regarding disposal sites usually refer
only to the general-use sites which receive residential
refuse. A considerable amount of waste material (dem-
olition, industrial, agricultural, etc.) is disposed of in
unrecognized sites, and therefore unregulated. One of
the more urgent needs is for standards applicable to
management of hospital wastes, pesticides, and other
hazardous materials.
Standards for storage, collection, and disposal should
take into account the varied conditions found through-
out the state and should facilitate local government
enacting more restrictive standards. Enactment of
standards must allow for an interim period during
which substandard operations could be phased out
or upgraded. This interim period should also make
allowance for schedules developed for local planning
purposes.
Standards and Regulation Objectives
The primary regulatory objectives are to develop,
establish, and ensure enforcement of reasonable basic
standards and regulations to assure orderly and sani-
tary storage, collection, transportation, processing and
disposal of municipal, industrial, agricultural, and
special hazardous wastes.
Recommended Means of Accomplishment
These objectives can be effectively achieved by the
Department through accomplishment of the following
tasks:
a. Identifying those aspects of solid waste manage-
ment which are in need of basic state standards
and undertaking necessary data-gathering and
developmental work, preparatory to enacting
standards.
b. Developing minimum standards for management
of solid wastes cooperatively with other state and
and local agencies and with the assistance of a
Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
c. Reviewing proposed standards with concerned
persons and agencies, holding public hearings,
making necessary revisions and adopting final
standards.
d. Making provision for inspection and enforce-
ment, either directly or by local health depart-
ments; establishing criteria and procedural guide-
lines for enforcement of standards; reviewing
27
-------
There are major deficiencies in coordination of solid
waste research and developmental work in California.
This lack of coordination has resulted in an anomalous
piecemeal approach toward technological develop-
ment. A focal point at the State level is needed to
coordinate technological efforts, avoid duplication,
and to stimulate effort in all areas of need.
The lack of good basic data on solid waste tech-
nology is hindering research and developmental ef-
forts. There is need for a centralized source of infor-
mation including a technical reference center or data
bank, which would serve as a mechanism for exchange
or dissemination of data and information. The results
of studies could thereby be made readily available to
operational programs.
Technology Objectives
The objectives are to stimulate, coordinate, and
participate in a broad program of solid waste tech-
nological development in order to develop knowledge,
techniques, and methods of solid waste management
which will minimize public health and other environ-
mental problems, provide greater efficiency in solid
waste handling, and provide maximum conservation
of our natural resources.
Recommended Means of Accomplishment
In general, the State's role in this effort should con-
cern itself with coordination of state and local efforts,
participation in studies, supplying consultation on in-
dividual projects, and providing some degree of finan-
cial assistance. This role would be accomplished by
the Department of Public Health through the follow-
ing tasks:
a. Promoting, conducting, and participating in spe-
cial research and development projects which
relate to public health or other aspects of the
environment. These projects would be con-
ducted either independently, jointly with other
agencies, or by contract with other agencies or
private firms. These projects would be under-
taken with available resources supplemented by
maximum utilization of grant funds.
b. Coordinating technical research and demonstra-
tion projects. This would involve functioning
as a focal point for information regarding these
activities, establishing liaison with the Federal
government and the State's universities and col-
leges, and conducting periodic review of on-
going projects.
c. Functioning in a technical advisory capacity to
new and on-going projects to provide maximum
communication between projects and to avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort. This would
necessitate participation on technical review
committees for individual projects as well as
providing assistance in obtaining grants and de-
veloping new projects. The Department would
also promote and stimulate technical develop-
mental activity in those areas of need where in-
sufficient attention is being directed.
d. Establishing a technical reference center of solid
waste information and providing for maximum
utilization of new knowledge and improved
methods through the accumulation and dissemi-
nation of current information regarding solid
waste developments.
e. Administering for the State, any financial assist-
ance or grant programs for solid waste tech-
nological development.
PLANNING
Adequate solid waste planning at all levels of gov-
ernment is vital if solid waste management programs
are to be effective. Few comprehensive long-range
plans have been developed. Most planning efforts are
stimulated primarily by impending crises. Planning
for proper solid waste handling should be given a
priority equal with planning for other service utilities.
Solid waste planning efforts at the local level have
generally been hampered by lack of money, public
apathy or opposition, and lack of coordination. Co-
operative planning is essential since 83% of our in-
corporated cities rely on another jurisdiction, usually
the county, for the location of disposal facilities for
some or all of their wastes. The county, therefore,
would appear to be the logical existing governmental
level to provide detailed local solid waste planning.
Only 16 of the 58 counties have developed a general
plan for solid waste management. Many of these are
incomplete, including only certain types of wastes,
considering only part of the county, or considering
only disposal aspects. Several of the completed plans
have not been adopted or implemented.
No state mechanism or authority exists to encour-
age cooperation, to stimulate more regional programs,
or to coordinate planning efforts. One means of pro-
viding this stimulation would be through financial as-
sistance based on regional planning.
Detailed planning for the individual disposal sites
is also deficient. Planning in this regard often con-
sists of the acquisition of the most readily available
land, followed by the immediate initiation of dumping
operations. Frequently local agencies are forced to ac-
quire land which is unsuited to sanitary landfill op-
erations because of public opposition to more appro-
priate locations. Disposal operations are sometimes
commenced before it is determined that the location,
topography, soil conditions or other factors will make
it impractical to operate a suitable landfill operation.
The lack of a definite, engineering plan for a landfill
site usually results in health hazards, nuisances, en-
vironmental degradation, and unnecessarily high op-
erational costs.
Usually little thought is given to the ultimate reuse
of the completed landfill. Planning for site acquisition
and reuse frequently is not integrated with other land
use planning.
Planning Objectives
The objectives are to assure coordinated develop-
ment of projected plans for effective and efficient
solid waste management for all areas of the state, and
to assure that individual solid waste disposal facilities
26
-------
In order to establish the framework of a coordinated
solid waste program, it is essential that the State assume
program responsibilities of the type outlined in the
previous chapter. In general, these responsibilities have
not been acknowledged by the State nor have adequate
provisions been made to meet them.
To achieve an effective program of solid waste man-
agement, a comprehensive action plan must be devel-
oped and implemented. Such a program must recog-
nize several important limiting conditions including:
1. The action plan must be compatible with the ex-
isting political structure of the state and cannot
exceed the financial capabilities of affected agen-
cies and persons.
2. The division of responsibilities for implementing
each element of the plan must be clearly denned.
3. The action plan must be based upon workable
technology. To establish standards or regulations,
for example, which would require technology
beyond that which exists or is readily attainable
would be self-defeating.
4. The action plan should strive to achieve maxi-
mum benefit to the people at a reasonable cost
input.
5. The plan must be viable and sufficiently flexible
to respond to changes in objectives, technology,
and program modifications.
In developing the action plan outlined in this chap-
ter, the above constraints have been carefully con-
sidered and adhered to. Full cognizance has been taken
of established state programs in other fields of envi-
ronmental management, such as air and water pollu-
tion control. Many elements of the proposed program
have been patterned after those of other environmental
programs in the state which have proven to be effec-
tive and efficient.
Before programs dealing with liquid and air-borne
wastes were developed in California it was necessary
to adopt basic enabling legislation providing the nec-
essary authority and responsibility. Similar legislation
is urgently needed in the solid waste field. The basic
provisions of a suggested legislative act are detailed in
Chapter V of this report. Without such basic statu-
tory authority, an effective statewide solid waste pro-
gram cannot be implemented.
There is no intent or desire to detract from or limit
any existing responsibilities or authorities granted to
other state agencies relative to solid wastes. Currently,
the Air Resources Board carries principal State re-
sponsibility for air pollution control. The Water Re-
sources Control Board has a similar role relative to
water pollution and water quality. Yet several other
departments continue to have significant responsibil-
ities in these areas, which relate to their broad mis-
sions. A comparable relationship is envisioned here
with respect to solid wastes, with the Department of
Public Health having primary, but not exclusive, re-
sponsibility.
In the same context, the proposed state program
does not remove or limit any existing responsibilities
or authorities of local governments. It would, in fact,
strengthen local programs by providing guidance,
assistance, continuity, and greatly needed additional
enforcement tools. The proposed program would also
provide for maximum coordination through the al-
ready established interaction that exists between State
and local health departments.
In developing the proposed plan, various alterna-
tives for meeting the program objectives were evalu-
ated. The primary guidelines used to evaluate alterna-
tives were: (1) probable effectiveness in achieving
desired results; (2) manpower resources and experi-
ence; and (3) financial considerations. Each recom-
mended action represents what was believed to be the
most promising alternative based on these criteria.
The proposed plan is divided into five areas of re-
sponsibility: (1) Technology; (2) Planning; (3)
Standards and Regulations; (4) Surveillance; and (5)
Information and Training. Each of these areas of re-
sponsibility is defined to meet specific program objec-
tives.
TECHNOLOGY
Technology that has been applied to solid waste
management lags many years behind that applied in
the management of liquid and air-borne wastes. Almost
all disposal methods now in use are forms of the tra-
ditional practices of burning or burying. Technology
for solid waste handling is primarily deficient in two
general areas: those areas requiring further basic re-
search, and those areas calling for demonstration and
refinement of known techniques.
While many new methods and concepts may have
potential merit, most local governments cannot risk
the expenditure of public money necessary to attempt
unproven processes. Demonstration and development
of these techniques must therefore be financed by pri-
vate interests, undertaken directly by state or federal
government, or by some kind of financial assistance
program.
25
-------
-------
CHAPTER IV
PROPOSED STATE PROGRAM
-------
-------
Keep pace with technical developments and re- At the same time, governmental agencies should rec-
lated knowledge in the field of solid waste man- ognize the capabilities of the private sector in achiev-
agement and utilize the best available information ing solutions to solid waste management problems, and
toward providing the most efficient, effective, should utilize these capabilities to the fullest-practi-
and economical service to the public. cable extent.
21
-------
2. Establish guidelines for solid waste management
plans; review and approve local solid waste man-
agement plans for conformance with state poli-
ties; and coordinate these plans when practical
into regional or statewide, long-range solid waste
management plans.
3. 'Develop and adopt minimum standards for as-
pects of the solid waste handling system such
as storage, collection, transportation, processing,
disposal and utilization of solid wastes and estab-
lish and coordinate an effective means of enforce-
ment.
4. Provide for continuing surveillance and monitor-
ing of solid waste management practices in the
state; maintain an inventory of solid waste proc-
essing or disposal facilities; and serve as a source
of information for all interested agencies and
persons.
5. Provide technical assistance and consultation
(supplementing that available from local agen-
cies) to local agencies requesting aid.
6. Conduct and encourage high priority technical
studies related to unmet problems of solid waste
management. These studies might be conducted
by the State independently, jointly with other
agencies, or by contract, and should fully utilize
federal, state, and contract funds available for
this purpose.
7. Define needs and facilitate and coordinate research
and development; evaluate new or improved
methods, materials, techniques, and equipment;
and establish a technical information reference
center for exchange of solid waste information.
8. Maintain liaison with federal solid waste pro-
grams to provide coordination of grants and
loans for solid waste planning and program im-
plementation.
9. Establish and maintain a program of training,
education, and public information regarding solid
waste management.
10. Administer such financial assistance as may be
established by the State Legislature.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Responsibilities of cities, counties, and districts
should include establishment and administration of
local policies, detailed planning, regulation, and oper-
ation of solid waste programs and systems. These
agencies when possible should also conduct needed
studies and public education programs.
Specifically, within their jurisdictions, local agencies
should:
1. Develop detailed, short and long-range plans for
the management of solid wastes generated within
their respective areas. Each county should have
the responsibility for developing an overall, co-
ordinated county plan which takes into account
the specific needs and plans of cities and districts.
2. Determine the methods of disposal to be utilized
as well as the locations of disposal facilities.
3. Develop and adopt local ordinances governing
storage, collection, transportation, and disposal
of solid wastes. These ordinances should be com-
patible with the minimum standards established
by the State, but could be more restrictive and
comprehensive.
4. Assure that the location and operation of all
solid waste systems comply with applicable state
and local standards and ordinances, and provide
necessary inspection services therefor.
5. Assure adequacy of collection, transportation,
and disposal systems, including those provided
by private firms or by agreement with another
jurisdiction. This might involve the establishment
and regulation of collection agencies, determin-
ing the type and level of service needed, pro-
viding permits and franchises, and determining
rates and charges.
6. Determine the methods to be used for financing
local solid waste management programs, includ-
ing the utilization of federal and state grants or
loans.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY
Private industry has a broad base of affiliation with
solid waste management. This affiliation must account
for: (1) industrial and agricultural activities as sources
of solid wastes; (2) producers of consumer products
which may eventually become waste; (3) private serv-
ice associated with collection, transportation and dis-
posal of solid wastes; (4) the activities of salvage and
reclamation of waste products through secondary ma-
terials industries; (5) manufacturers and suppliers of
equipment used in solid waste handling and; (6) con-
sulting firms which serve the planning function in solid
waste management. To be effective, a statewide pro-
gram of solid waste management must be cognizant of
the capabilities and resources of these entities.
Private industry should develop an acute awareness
of the vital role they play in solid waste management.
In order for industry to meet its responsibilities effec-
tively it must:
1. Recognize the possible effects of its activities on
people and the environment, and develop policies
directed toward enhancement of environmental
quality.
2. Conduct its operations and activities in manners
which do not create health or nuisance prob-
lems.
3. Participate in community affairs, public meetings,
and other functions which concern solid waste
management.
4. Work jointly with governmental agencies and
contribute appropriate talents toward stimulating,
planning, developing, and implementing sound
solid waste management programs.
20
-------
Resolution of the problems created by the ever
increasing production of solid wastes in California can
only result from a coordinated program incorporating
the resources of state and local government and pri-
vate industry. It is neither feasible nor desirable to
consider any single level of government competent to
assume all of the responsibilities to be assigned in a
comprehensive solid waste management program. Each
level of government must assume its logical and equi-
table responsibilities, so defined as to minimize duplica-
tion and conflicts, and to maximize cooperation and
collaboration.
The basic objective of the statewide program should
be the development of solid waste management sys-
tems that protect the health, welfare, and well-being
of the public, and that offer positive approaches to
improving the quality of the environment. Meeting
this objective will require management practices de-
signed to eliminate health hazards and environmental
degradation, with priority attention focused on: flies,
rodents, and other vectors; air, water, and land pollu-
tion; scenic blight and aesthetic eyesores; and public
nuisances related to the accumulation, storage, col-
lection, processing, and disposal of solid wastes. A
comprehensive program should also give maximum
attention to economic efficiency, reduction of waste
production, reutilization of materials in solid wastes,
conservation of natural resources, and preservation of
the ecological balance of the environment.
The following sections elucidate the proposed divi-
sion of responsibilities between state and local govern-
ment. Clear lines of division will in some instances be
difficult, and certain responsibilities must, of necessity
be shared by both state and local governments. This
will require close effective communication, active co-
operation, and flexible interaction between state and
local governments. The State Department of Public
Health and local health departments, operating under
the State Health and Safety Code, now possess this
required framework for effective collaboration.
The delegation of responsibility has been assigned
on the basis that the state should direct its attention
primarily to those aspects of solid waste management
which are of statewide concern. Matters of local in-
terest only should be the concern of city, county, and
regional agencies. It is implied that factors of state
concern primarily include responsibilities which may
have a broad bearing on public health or the overall
environment. Each element of the program should be
assigned to the most responsive governmental level
which can effectively handle it.
Basic factors inherent in any comprehensive solid
waste program must include the following:
a. Formulation of policy
b. Program establishment and administration
c. Establishment of regulations
d. Planning
e. Financing
f. Acquisition and operation of facilities
g. Training and education
h. Public information
i. Surveillance, monitoring, and evaluation
j. Enforcement
k. Research and development
The term "local governments" in this report refers
to incorporated cities, counties, and special purpose
districts which are empowered to participate in solid
waste management. A solid waste management system
designed as a regional concept is highly desirable and
should be encouraged; however, this report does not
specifically propose the establishment of a new level
of regional government. In this program existing local
agencies are encouraged to seek regional solutions
through cooperative planning and action. This is par-
ticularly true in the planning function, which should
be strongly encouraged. Possible incentives such as
financial assistance for regional planning would be
highly desirable.
It is important that the capabilities of private enter-
prise be considered in meeting the program objec-
tives. Considerable contributions are available from the
private sector in the aspects of operation, research,
equipment and hardware development, and materials
reclamation.
The following are the proposed primary responsibil-
ities of the state and local governments in solid waste
management.
STATE RESPONSIBILITIES
The program at the state level should centralize its
policy formulation, provide overall coordination and
guidance of state and local efforts, emphasize conser-
vation of resources, develop environmental objectives
and standards, and stimulate improved technology.
Specifically, the State should:
1. Formulate basic statewide health and environ-
mental policies regarding solid waste manage-
ment.
19
-------
-------
CHAPTER III
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
-------
eral government for improvement of the storage, col-
lection, transportation, processing, and disposal aspects
of solid waste management. However, no radically
hew techniques, such as some new exotic disposal
method, are visualized as becoming available in the
next 10 years. Most methods now in use will un-
doubtedly continue to be used in the immediate future
with new and improved techniques arising by gradual
evolution from these existing processes and methods.
Storage methods are in need of improvement from
the standpoints of environmental sanitation and effi-
ciency in waste removal. During the next 10 years, on-
premise storage techniques for residential solid wastes
will probably involve changes limited to improving
sanitation aspects only. Metal containers will find ris-
ing competition from plastic containers and "dispos-
able" paper or plastic refuse bags. Small compaction
units will become available to compress the refuse
from a home into smaller volumes as a convenience to
the householder. Containerization, of wastes, especially
commercial and industrial, will increase through the
use of large movable bin-type containers due to the
savings in collection costs that may be accrued.
The major influences on collection practices will be
increasing labor costs and the additional travel time
involved in reaching more distant disposal points. Col-
lection of refuse will include greater use of large com-
pactor collection vehicles having improved compaction
and ability to receive bulky wastes. Automated pickup
concepts utilizing various hoisting and lifting equip-
ment will be developed for these vehicles to reduce
the amount of labor required and allow greater ease
in the loading process.
As disposal sites require longer hauling distances
from the centers of production more transfer stations
will be used. Extreme long-distance hauling (200 miles
or more) to distant disposal sites may be used involv-
ing transport via railroads. Another possible long-dis-
tance transfer method may be pipelines employing
slurry pumping or pneumatic transport.
Automated systems to convey refuse from multiple
production points are pointed to as the space age
technology. With such systems, refuse from homes
may be collected through use of underground tubes
evacuated by a collection truck at the curb or by a
neighborhood pneumatic tube system that discharges
the collected refuse to a central pickup point. For
large buildings such as offices, apartments, and hos-
pitals, piped collection systems are becoming avail-
able that may be built into the structural complex re-
ducing the storage needs and providing a link with a
centralized storage and collection system. Ultimate
development could result in conveyance of the refuse
pneumatically all the way to the point of processing
or disposal. The concept of grinding garbage to sew-
ers may also be expanded to use the transport capac-
ity of the existing sewer system. However, for such
a system, improved techniques will have to be avail-
able to process the sewage-refuse mixture at the treat-
ment plant to avoid increasing the burden on the
water resource.
The future will bring greater emphasis on reclama-
tion and conversion of wastes to useful products.
However, large scale processing systems will probably
not be available in the next 10 years. In this interim,
land disposal will be the dominant system. Future
landfill practices will involve construction of larger
sites, use of specialized equipment to increase the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of landfill operations, and pre-
processing by baling, grinding, or pulping prior to
landfilling. Interest in methods other than land disposal
is growing, especially with the expected increase in
transportation and land disposal costs. Incineration
will play a larger role in solid waste management in
California through various refinements of incinerators
to ensure more complete combustion, to utilize the
heat, and to reduce or eliminate the air pollution prob-
lem involved with the combustion products. Specialized
on-site incinerators serving high volume waste pro-
ducers will be a valuable volume reduction tool and
will be the area of greatest application of incineration
for the next 10 years. Other processing methods such
as wet oxidation, pyrolysis and composting will be
more widely used for certain wastes.
Management methods of the future will develop
from planning for solid wastes as regional systems, in-
corporating all municipal, industrial^ and agricultural
wastes. Within a wasteshed there will be a variety of
processing and disposal methods utilized to adequately
handle the diversity of wastes. Evaluation techniques
will be improved so decision-making processes may
assess proposed management methods by a cost bene-
fit ratio between system costs and the effect on en-
vironmental quality. With' a better understanding of
the total costs and not just the initial monetary cost,
systems recognizing the resource value of solid wastes
will be more prevalent.
-------
f. Complete daily covering, the major deterrent to
environmental problems, was provided at only
12% of the general-use disposal sites. No cover-
ing of the refuse on a routine basis is a charac-
teristic of 468 disposal sites.
g. Open burning of refuse was found at disposal
sites in 51 counties. Burning was observed at 540
disposal sites, contributing to smoke and odor
problems. More than 250 fires requiring the use
of outside fire control equipment originated from
refuse disposal sites during 1967.
h. Agricultural wastes are not "managed" at all in
any real or systematic sense.
i. Essentially no effort is being devoted to recycling
solid wastes in the interests of resource conserva-
tion and prevention of environmental degrada-
tion.
Some of the environmental effects of mismanaged
solid wastes are pictured on page 14.
Solid waste disposal need not be a restraint on en-
vironmental quality. Proper planning and operational
practices can result in positive effects from properly
handled solid wastes, achieving a dual purpose or dis-
posal of the wastes while reclaiming more marginal
quality lands such as quarries, low lands, and canyons.
Completed projects often provide the open spaces
needed for parks, golf courses, and other recreational
facilities.
Deficiencies of Solid Waste Management
Conclusions drawn from the 1967 statewide survey
provide compelling evidence that solid waste manage-
ment, as currently practiced in California, is unsatis-
factory. The areas of deficiency, detailed in Volume
I, are summarized below.
a. Fragmented Authority and Lack of Cooperation.
Numerous governmental jurisdictions and private
interests are concerned with the regulation, col-
lection, utilization, and disposal of solid wastes in
California. Cities, counties, certain special dis-
tricts, and several state and federal agencies in
California are empowered to establish policy and
standards, conduct planning programs, and op-
erate solid waste collection and disposal systems.
The most notable deficiency observed is the gen-
eral lack of consistency with respect to policy,
planning, and standards. In addition, cooperative
efforts that might result in mutual benefit be-
tween jurisdictions often have been overlooked
or sometimes avoided.
b. Inadequate Planning. Adequate plans to cope
with the increasing volumes of solid wastes and
diminishing land for disposal purposes have not
been developed. Only 16 of the 58 counties have
developed any form of county plan for solid
waste disposal, and many of the plans which have
been developed have not been adopted or im-
plemented. Several of the existing county plans
ignore consideration of the needs or plans of the
incorporated cities in the county. Very few of
the county plans include provisions for accom-
modating major industrial wastes (e.g., cannery
wastes) and no county solid waste plan devel-
oped to date has considered the needs or prob-
lems of adjacent counties or cities.
c. Inadequate Standards. Over 70% of all of the
major disposal sites inspected fell under the clas-
sification of open burning dumps. These dumps
were producing flies, rats, smoke, odors, and un-
sightliness. Less than 10% of the sites were classi-
fied as acceptable sanitary landfills. Only 17 of
the 58 counties have attempted to incorporate
into local ordinances minimum standards for lo-
cation and operation of disposal facilities. More-
over, most of the standards that have been
adopted are not enforced. Lack of uniformity of
standards from one area to the next is particularly
apparent. What is considered a sanitary landfill
by one jurisdiction is nothing more than an open
dump by another jurisdiction's standards.
d. Lagging Technology. Solid waste technology is
many years behind that available for the man-
agement of liquid and air-borne wastes. Almost
all disposal methods now in use are forms of
burning or burying. Progress toward conserva-
tion, reclamation, and reutilization of resources
represented in solid wastes has been agonizingly
slow.
e. Inadequate Financing. Many local operations are
financially unable to undertake the planning and
implementation programs necessary for effective
solid waste management. Collection and disposal
of domestic and commercial refuse in California
are now costing an estimated 300 million dollars
per year. Over 20 million dollars annually are
spent in just operating the 716 general-use dis-
posal sites. When the additional amounts spent
for collection and disposal of industrial and some
agricultural wastes are included, the total cost
may well exceed 500 million dollars per year.
In summary, it may be acknowledged that the man-
agement of solid wastes in California consists largely
of piecemeal, uncoordinated activities, designed to
meet the immediate needs of artificially segmented
geographical or operational units with little or no
regard for regional planning and cooperation or for
the preservation of environmental quality.
OUTLOOK
Poor solid waste management practices in use today
will be replaced in the near future due to the increas-
ing concern for protection of environmental quality.
Existing technology is available to manage solid wastes
without creating nuisances and pollution; in addition,
people are becoming more aware that additional costs
will have to be borne to obtain improvements. New
guidelines and more restrictive regulations coupled
with dissemination of existing technical information
will undoubtedly be useful in stimulating improve-
ments.
Research, investigations, and technical development
efforts are in progress under sponsorship of the fed-
15
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MISMANAGED SOLID WASTES
Open burning and unsupervised dumps are the
setting for numerous safety hazards and are also
a source of domestic flies and rodents which are
a threat to surrounding communities. Where
ther,e are open fires, burn injuries can be ex-
pected. Also, there have been reports through-
out the state of permanent eye damage and
other injuries from explosion of aerosol and glass
containers. In addition, numerous fires are caused
each year from open burning dumps.
Some sites are constructed in such a manner
that an individual finds himself dumping over the
side of a high embankment. At some of these
sites there are no guardrails. At one such site a
man was killed when he backed his car over the
edge of the embankment.
.v*
Some of the finest landscapes in California are
presently impaired by open burning dumps, caus-
ing air pollution, water pollution, and land deg-
radation. Over 70% of the refuse disposal sites
in California are open burning dumps.
14
-------
The increasing volume of wastes being produced
is exhausting the capacity of landfills at record rates.
From 1967 survey data it is possible to extrapolate that
27% of the existing disposal sites will be filled by 1973
under present operating conditions. The total remain-
ing capacity of all existing general-use sites in the state
was estimated to be 718,000 acre feet. Figure 4 pro-
jects the remaining capacity of disposal sites on a
statewide basis. Landfill requirements for municipal
solid waste disposal in general-use sites predicated
upon discontinuation of open burning indicate that
the remaining capacity would be exhausted by 1978.
If all the existing sites could be converted to sanitary
landfill operations, greater quantities of wastes could
obviously be accommodated through higher compac-
tion (Figure 4—shaded area), extending the service of
these sites almost ten years. These comparisons pro-
vide only a partial analysis of the problem since suit-
able disposal areas are not uniformly available
throughout the state. Over 50% of the total remaining
disposal capacity is centralized in 2% (14 sites) of the
existing sites. This indicates something of the addi-
tional disposal site capacity required for the future.
The existing disposal site capacity will be exhausted
in 31 of the 58 counties by 1985. Municipal wastes
will require an estimated disposal capacity of 1,800,-
000 acre feet by the year 2000. All of the foregoing
figures are referenced to municipal solid wastes only.
Requirements for disposal of industrial wastes and
some agricultural wastes will be an additional burden
on many community landfill operations.
A summary of the more significant statewide survey
findings regarding environmental effects indicate, that:
a. Solid wastes are unique in that they may pollute
the land, air, and water of the state primarily as
a result of poor management practices. »
b. Improperly stored solid wastes, inadequate col-
lection systems, and poorly operated disposal sites
support large populations of flies, rodents, and
other vectors of disease.
c. In many areas the policy for refuse collection
service encourages residents to retain their solid
waste at their homes rather than having it re-
moved on a frequent enough basis.
d. Occupational or safety hazards prevalent in the
handling of solid wastes include injuries from
fires and explosions, moving equipment, traffic
hazards, and contact with hazardous wastes (e.g.,
pesticides).
e. Solid wastes were being discharged directly into
surface water at 33 disposal sites. At 81 sites,
solid wastes were or appeared to be in contact
with ground waters. Inadequate provisions for
control of surface water drainage were found at
207 sites.
1,400
1,200 -
1,000
800
"2.
O
600
400
200
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
ACCUMULATION
CONVERSION OF ALL SITES
TO SANITARY LANDFILLS
- CONTINUATION OF ^ |
EXISTING
PRACTICES
1965
'70
'75
'90
'95
2000
'80 '85
YEAR
FIGURE 4. PROBABLE RANGE OF REMAINING LIFE OF DISPOSAL
SITES
13
-------
In addition, there are 1126 special-purpose districts
empowered by law to perform solid waste manage-
ment functions.
The programs, policies, and roles of the 58 counties
and 399 cities range from high interest to total dis-
regajrd. Many of these governmental units function
exclusively on the basis of economically oriented pri-
orities with little awareness of conservational needs
or environmental quality considerations.
Refuse collection services may be publicly oper-
ated, performed by private firms, or both types of
operations may serve the same city. It is estimated
that there are about 900 refuse collection agencies
now operating in California, providing every city
and most urban communities in the state with some
form of refuse collection service. Nearly 2 million
persons, about 10% of the population, do not sub-
scribe to any kind of collection service, either because
it is unavailable or they do not wish to use the service.
Solid waste disposal methods in use generally in-
volve some variation of burning or burying. Municipal
wastes in California are disposed of almost exclusively
by open burning or burying in landfills. Industrial
wastes are in many cases disposed of on-site by land-
fill or are burned either in industrial waste incinerators
or in the open. Crop stubble and tree prunings are
burned at the end of the agricultural growing season
and cull fruit and vegetables are sometimes plowed
into the soil.
In the 1967 statewide survey, disposal sites were di-
vided into two categories: "general-use" and "supple-
mental". General-use sites were those which received
municipal refuse or a variety of wastes. Supplemental
sites were those which received only a specific type of
waste (e.g., street refuse, slag, cannery wastes, etc.)
or served only a special group, such as a resort, camp-
ground, or construction site. Approximately 500 sup-
plemental sites were located and many more are
known to exist. In most instances these supplemental
sites were not regulated by local jurisdictions, and
operational details were unavailable.
The 716 general-use disposal sites in use in Cali-
fornia during 1967 received some 19.5 million tons of
refuse per year. All disposal sites which accepted
municipal refuse were inspected, evaluated, and classi-
fied according to the quality of operation. Basic
information on each general-use site is included in Vol-
ume I. Each of these was classified as follows: un-
controlled burning dump, supervised dump with burn-
ing, modified sanitary landfill with burning, modified
sanitary landfill, sanitary landfill, or other. These clas-
sifications are completely defined in Volume I.
The sanitary landfill is generally accepted as the
ideal classification for a land disposal site. The most
essential operational feature of a sanitary landfill is
complete daily covering of all solid wastes. In addi-
tion, there must be no burning, and there should be
a minimal working face and an overall neat appear-
ance. Only 67, or 9% of the total 716 general-use sites
in the state, were classified as sanitary landfills. A large
percentage of these sanitary landfills are in southern
California. Los Angeles County, for example, has 27
and San Diego County has 10. Figure 3 shows the
numbers and the relative percentages of the different
types of sites.
OTHERS , 13 sites (I 8%)
SANITARY LANDFILLS , 67 sites (9.4%)
MODIFIED SANITARY LANDFILLS , 96 sites (13.4%)
MODIFIED SANITARY LANDFILLS WITH
CONTROLLED BURNING , 29 sites (4.0%)
SUPERVISED DUMP WITH BURNING,
134 sites (18.7%)
UNCONTROLLED BURNING DUMPS , 377 sites (52.7%)
12
FIGURE 3. TYPES OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES, 1967
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
-1967-
192%
320%
488%
Based on a population of 195 million this is -
MUNICIPAL 6 5 Ib / capita / day
AGRICULTURAL 98
INDUSTRIAL 39
202
-1985-
-2000-
12 3%
40 3%
Based on a population of 295 million this is ~
MUNICIPAL 71 Ib / copita / day
AGRICULTURAL 85" "
INDUSTRIAL 2.2
Based on a population of 40 6 million this is —
MUNICIPAL 7 7 Ib / capita / day
AGRICULTURAL 71
INDUSTRIAL 20 "
17 8
16 8
FIGURE 2. PRODUCTION OF SOLID WASTES IN CALIFORNIA ,
1967 - 1985 - 2000
-------
The Volume I report, Status of Solid Waste Man-
agement in California, thoroughly documented the
problems associated with present solid waste handling
practices in California. This chapter summarizes these
problems. Divided into three sections, the first dis-
cusses the magnitude of the problem, current and
projected. The second section describes the existing
practices and deficiencies of solid waste management.
The third section presents a future outlook for solid
waste management.
SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
In 1967, more than 71 million tons of solid wastes
were produced. By the year 2000, an estimated 125
million tons of solid wastes will be generated annually
by domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
activities.
Projections presented in this section reflect totals of
solid wastes generated, resulting in production figures
comparable to those in Volume I. Other reports often
cite only portions of the solid wastes from a commu-
nity, generally those amounts that are being disposed
of at general-use disposal sites. Included here is the
total output of solid wastes, thus accounting for all
residential wastes including the materials which are
discharged to the sewer, burned in the backyard, and
removed by refuse collection services; industrial wastes
incinerated in on-site facilities or disposed of on the
plant properties; and the agricultural wastes which are
piled in mounds or plowed into the earth. Derivation
of the forecasted data for the years 1985 and 2000 was
accomplished through evaluation and adjustment of
the waste generation factors developed for 1967 solid
waste tonnages, taking into consideration anticipated
technological, demographical, and sociological changes.
The three major categories of municipal, industrial,
and agricultural wastes are used to present the quan-
tities of solid wastes produced. The following are
examples of solid wastes in these three categories:
1. Municipal Wastes
a. Residential garbage, rubbish, and other refuse
b. Commercial refuse
c. Demolition and construction wastes
d. Special wastes including street refuse and sew-
age treatment residue
2. Agricultural Wastes
a. Manure from penned livestock
b. Fruit and nut crop wastes
c. Field and row crop wastes
3. Industrial Wastes
a. Food processing wastes
b. Lumber processing wastes (sawmills, planing
mills, logging)
c. Chemical and petroleum processing wastes
d. Manufacturing wastes
Table 1. is a tabulation of the estimated solid waste
production in California for the years 1967, 1985, and
2000. The quantities of solid wastes which must be
managed in the future are graphically illustrated in
Figures 1 and 2.
125
100
CO
u_
o
CO
z
o
75
50
25
0
1967 1985 2000
FIGURE I. ESTIMATED ANNUAL SOLID
WASTE PRODUCTION
-------
-------
CHAPTER II
THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
-------
d. provide for the monitoring and inventory of the level of expertise and public awareness of
solid waste facilities and practices to deter- solid waste management.
mine problems and effectiveness of programs, State and local responsibilities are outlined in
and to provide information on solid waste further detail in Chapter III. The specific ele-
" management1 and ments of the State programs are described in
Chapter IV.
e. establish and maintain a program of training, 2. That a "Solid Waste Management Act" such as
'education, and public information to improve is proposed in Chapter V be enacted in 1970.
-------
California's most urgent need concerning solid
wastes is an effective mechanism for coordinating
state, local and private responsibilities in managing
these wastes in a manner consistent with optimum
public health and environmental quality criteria. Meet-
ing this need will require a carefully conceived, thor-
oughly planned, and vigorously executed program
based on clearly defined authority and adequate re-
sources for both state and local government partici-
pation.
CONCLUSIONS
The following are the major conclusions derived
from the intensive study conducted by the Depart-
ment of Public Health. They are based upon data
gathered by field investigations, interviews with in-
volved agencies and interests, and analyses by a broad
group of experts in the field.
I. Solid wastes are creating health hazards and nui-
sances; they are causing impaired air and water
quality; they are steadily degrading land values;
they have a destructive influence on the quality
of the total environment; and they are imposing
a high economic burden on the people of Cali-
fornia. Present provisions for statewide solid
waste management are inadequate to resolve these
problems.
2. Rapidly increasing quantities of solid wastes pro-
duced in California threaten to reach unmanage-
able proportions and are emerging as a formidable
threat to the future environment. In 1967, 71
million tons of solid wastes were produced; by
2000, annual production will increase to over
125 million tons.
3. The continued use of the land as a sink to receive
solid wastes will not be adequate. Solid waste
management must have a goal of reclamation and
reuse as an ultimate solution.
4. The basic areas of deficiency in solid waste man-
agement in California are: (1) fragmented au-
thority and lack of coordination; (2) inadequate
planning; (3) nonexistent or inadequate stand-
ards; (4) lagging technology; and (5) insufficient
financing.
5. State laws relative to solid wastes are, for the
most part, directed toward minimizing water
pollution, preventing forest fires, protecting fish
and wildlife, assuring the health of livestock, and
preserving the aesthetics of highways. There is
a very notable lack of solid waste laws concerned
specifically with protection of the health and
and well-being of people, or to deal with the
problems in a comprehensive way.
6. It is imperative that the State assume leadership
in coping with these problems by initiating an
effective program of solid waste management
with the involvement of local governments and
participation by private industry.
7. It is essential that there be a legislatively man-
dated solid waste program at the State level to
centralize its policy formulation, provide overall
direction and guidance, coordinate state and local
efforts, develop and implement minimum stand-
ards, stimulate improved technology, encourage
reductions in waste production and support re-
utilization of materials in our solid wastes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the above conclusions the State Depart-
ment of Public Health recommends the following
actions:
1. That the State, through the Department of Public
Health, initiate the development of an effective
solid waste management program to meet re-
sponsibilities in the areas of technology, planning,
standards and regulations, surveillance, and in-
formation and training. Activities of the Depart-
ment in such a program would include:
a. promote and coordinate research and develop-
ment for improvement of solid waste tech-
nology and participate in studies associated
with various aspects of solid waste manage-
ment;
b. provide for the coordinated development of
solid waste management plans, and require
that each county develop a comprehensive
solid waste management plan, with the De-
partment of Public Health providing co-
ordination, technical assistance and financial
loans or grants to assist in the development of
these plans;
c. develop and adopt minimum standards and
regulations for solid waste storage, collection,
transportation, and disposal to prevent health
hazards, nuisances, and environmental pollu-
tion;
-------
-------
CHAPTER I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
-------
FOREWORD
The discards of our affluent, creative, and tech-
nological society are continually increasing in quan-
tity and complexity, representing a threat to health and
well-being, and creating serious burdens on the en-
vironment. Solid wastes have recently come into focus
as competition for land, rising costs, and archaic
practices emerge in direct conflict with demands for
improved environmental quality and conservation of
resources. Yesterday's meal, broken furniture, yard
rubbish, manure, manufacturing rejects, and the mul-
titude of other waste materials must be dealt with
when the possessor no longer finds use for these
items.
The protection of public health is of paramount im-
portance. However, the quality of our land, water and
air resources, and a habitat free of nuisances is also
of vital concern to our State's future. California has
mounted noteworthy efforts to combat air and water
pollution, and effective mechanisms and resources
have been developed to fulfill the State's responsibil-
ities in meeting these needs. Similar accomplishments
have not been achieved with respect to solid wastes.
The deficiencies in management of these wastes are
evident through observation of the casual manner in
which they are handled in a system which often ap-
pears predicated on keeping them as far out of sight
and smell as is necessary to keep them out of mind.
The present state of solid waste management, which
directly affects our entire ecosystem, is clearly in-
adequate to assure the preservation of minimum ac-
ceptable levels of public health and environmental
quality.
The Congress acknowledged the solid waste crisis
by the enactment of the "Solid Waste Disposal Act of
1965". This Act provided funds for developing and
demonstrating new techniques and improved methods
of managing solid wastes. Also included were funds
for use by state agencies to assess the problems and
to develop comprehensive plans for meeting them.
The availability of federal support, coupled with a
growing awareness of the solid waste management
needs by the State, led to a directive by the Governor
designating the Department of Public Health to re-
ceive these planning funds.
The ensuing study and analysis was one of the most
comprehensive statewide investigations of solid wastes
and their resultant problems ever undertaken in the
country. The initial phase entailed a survey to develop
the basic foundation of information upon which an
effective statewide program of solid waste management
could be structured. Two years and the assistance of
a wide variety of local agencies and private concerns
were required to gather and assimilate the extensive
field data. Development of a specific program plan
constituted the second phase of the study.
In 1968, legislation was adopted requiring the De-
partment of Public Health to submit a final report, in-
cluding results of the solid waste planning study and
attending recommendations, to the newly created
State Environmental Quality Study Council by Feb-
ruary 1, 1970. The legislation requires that the Coun-
cil review and comment on the report and submit it
to the Legislature within 30 days after it is received.
The results of the California Solid Waste Planning
Study are being presented in two reports. The first
report (Volume I), The Status of Solid Waste
Management in California, September 1968, summa-
rizes the results and findings of field surveys, provides
analyses of major solid waste problems, tabulates types
and quantities of wastes produced, and documents
and interprets the basic data regarding solid waste
facilities and practices. The second report, presented
here, is entitled A Program Plan For Solid Waste
Management in California.
This final report contains the recommendations and
elements for a coordinated statewide solid waste man-
agement program drawing upon the collaborative
efforts of state and local governments and private in-
dustry. This plan can deal effectively with the immedi-
ate problems and provide the framework for achieving
ultimate goals and objectives. The major conclu-
sions and resulting action recommendations are sum-
marized in Chapter I. Important details regarding
the status of the solid waste problem in California
are summarized for ready reference in Chapter II.
Chapter III outlines the responsibilities which the
state government might properly assume, as well as
those responsibilities which logically should be as-
signed to local government. Chapter IV presents the
detailed elements of the proposed state action pro-
gram embracing the five elements of technology,
standards and regulation, planning, surveillance, and
public information. Specific objectives for each ele-
ment are presented and the recommended means for
accomplishment are described. Chapter V contains
suggested basic enabling legislation in the form of a
comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act. Such
legislation is required to initiate the proposed program.
1
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD 1
CHAPTER I-CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
CHAPTER II-THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM 7
Solid Waste Production 9
Municipal Wastes 11
Agricultural Wastes 11
Industrial Wastes 11
Status of Solid Waste Management 11
Summary of Practices and Programs 11
Deficiencies of Solid Waste Management. 15
Outlook 16
CHAPTER IN-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 17
State Responsibilities 19
Responsibilities of Local Government 20
Responsibilities of Private Industry. 20
CHAPTER IV-PROPOSED STATE PROGRAM 23
Technology 25
Planning 26
Standards and Regulations 27
Surveillance 28
Information and Training 28
Schedule of Implementation 29
Program Resources and Cost Requirements 29
CHAPTER V-PROPOSED LEGISLATION 31
Proposed Solid Waste Management Act 33
Suggested Revisions of the Health and Safety Code 36
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Quantitative estimates of solid waste production 11
2 Implementation schedule 30
3 Manpower allocation and program costs 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Estimated annual solid waste production 9
2 California solid waste production 10
3 Types of solid waste disposal sites, 1967. 12
4 Probable range of remaining life of disposal sites 13
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Department acknowledges the valuable assistance rendered by the State Solid Waste Advisory Com-
mittee whose members, listed below, willingly donated considerable time and effort in assisting the conduct
of the study and development of the final report.
R. E. Bergstrom Paul Madsen, Sr.
Fresno County Health Dept. Garden City Disposal Company
Frank R. Bowerman James L. Martin
Zurn Industries City of Fresno
Samuel A. Hart, Ph.D. P. H. McGauhey
University of California, Davis University of California, Berkeley
Lester A. Haug Richard P. Stevens
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Universal By-Products, Inc.
Donald M. Keagy Richard S. Titera
U.S. Public Health Service Humboldt County Public Works Dept.
The Department also expresses appreciation for the advice and comments of the following agencies and asso-
ciations in reviewing portions of the final report.
County Supervisors Association of California, Solid Waste Committee
California League of Cities, Solid Waste Management Committee
California Conference of Local Health Officers, Legislative Committee
California Conference of Directors of Sanitation, Solid Waste Committee
State Water Quality Advisory Committee, Solid Waste Subcommittee
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ronald Reagan, Governor
HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
Spencer Williams, Secretary
STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Louis F. Saylor, M.D., Director
John M. Heslep, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Program
Richard F. Peters, Chief, Bureau of Vector Control and Solid Waste Management
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Peter A. Rogers, P.E.
Senior Sanitary Engineer
PROJECT STAFF
Donald R. Andres, P.E. Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S.
Senior Sanitary Engineer Public Health Sanitarian
James Cornelius, P.E. Robert H. Hultquist
Associate Sanitary Engineer Assistant Engineering Specialist
Lawrence A. Burch, P.E. Jeffrey L. Bunnell
Associate Sanitary Engineer Engineering Technician
-------
-------
CALIFORNIA SOLID WASTE PLANNING STUDY
Final Report
A PROGRAM PLAN FOR
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 1970
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
-------
£
CO
CO
ID
cn
I
Ul
.
ID
<
-
8
<
o
X
LU
0
z
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
*
Type Ope
Site Name of ate
Site
r- Total Daily
>r Acreage Tonnage
(l3) IMPERIAL
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8RAWLEY UBD CI
CALEXICO SDB CO
CALIPATR1A UBD CO
TY 030 0025
nos oo3o
032 PQ02
El CENTRO UbD PVT 040 OQ4Q
HQLTVJLLE UBD CJ
HOLTVILLE WEST UbD CO
HOT SPA BOMBAY BEACH UBD CO
IMPERIAL UdD CO
LYONS CROSSING USD CO
NILAND UbD co
MJLAMD MARINA UbD CO
OCQTJLLU U&D CO
PALO VERDfc UBD CO
SALTDN CITY UBD co
VfcRDE UbD CO
WESTMORELAND UBD cj
TY 002 HQ03
014 0002
040 <1
0 4 0 0 0 H 3
015 0001
040 <1
160 <1
n 4 0 0001
160 <1
32P <1
007 <1
TY 005 0002
©SAN DIEGO
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
oa
0»
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ALPlNfc SDB CO
ARIZONA SL CI
OD7 001Q
TY 139 0236
BORRfcGQ UbD CO 040 0001
CAMPO UBD CO
CHOLLAS SL CI
006 OQ05
TY 367 0648
CORQMADO SUB PVT 025 CQ4Q
DESCANSU SDB CO
FALLBROOK SL CO
JACgMBA UbD CO
JAMACHA SL CO
JULIAN UtJD CO
MJRAMAR SL CI
OCEANSIDE HSL CI
QTAY SL CO
PALUMAR MOUNTAIN SDB co
PJNfc VALLfcY UBD CO
POWAY SL CO
RAMQNA USD cu
SAN ELUO SL CO
SAN MARCOb SL CO
SYCAMORfc SL CO
VALLEY CENTER SDB CO
0 G 2 0 C 0 9
019 OQ?0
0 1 C 0001
042 C196
n 1 4 0007
TY 449 Ob79
TY 012 OQ7Q
265 0200
002 0003
0 1 C 0007
040 0038
ndO 0015
040 OQ96
024 0186
113 0169
042 0020
WARNER SPRINGS UBP PVT oo? OQOI
-------
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
*
Site
> Code
Type Ope
Site Name 0? ate
Site
>r- Total Daily
>r Acreage Tonnage
1
(30) ORANGE
^-^ 01
02
03
•Q4
05
06
07
08
09
10
BOLSA CWICA MSL PVT 010 0010
CANNERY SlTfc 16 OTHER Co
COYOTE CANYON 24 SL co
FQRSTER CANYON 17 SL CO
OLINDA 20 SL co
SANTIAGO CANYON 25 SL co
028 0150
593 1650
146 0170
233 1400
160 0250
FERM OTHER PVT 012 OU10
BRUCE OTHER PVT 019 QQlQ
MCCLELLAND OTWfcR PyT 015 OQ10
STEVErtSQN OTWfeR PVT 040 0025
(33) RIVERSIDE
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
ANZA UBD CO
BADLANDS MSL CO
BANNING SDB ci
010 <1
660 OQ22
TY Q3P Q05Q
SeAUMONT CITY SDB CITY 005 0005
BEAUMONT COUNTY SUB CO
BLYTHE CITY UBD ci
BLYTHE COUNTY USD co
018 0010
TY 08C OQ07
335 0005
CABAZON UBD PVT 010 <1
CORONA MSL CO
CRESTMORE RD SOLID FlL OTHER CO
DESERT HOT SPRINGS SDB CO
ELSlNORfc SDB CI
HJGHGROVE SOB CO
HgMET MSL CU
JDYLLWILD MSL CO
EDOM HIlL MSL CO
INDJO MSL CO
096 0185
005 0013
200 0008
TY 060 0005
020 0035
090 0065
009 0017
642 OQ85
006 0053
KAISER UBD PVT 005 0006
19 KENNARD UBD PVT 080 <1
20
21
23
24
25
2*.
27
LAKEVJE* SDB CO
MECCA UBD CO
MENIFE6 SD'&~ CD
007 0001
010 <1
020 00^25
PERRIS SDB CITY 020 0005
RIVERSIDE SL CI
TEMECULA USD CO
THERMAL S.&B CO
WEST RIVERSIDE MSL CO
TY 110 0175
004 0001
030 0002
062 0095
-------
LEGEND ON INDEX MAP
AUGUST 1968
CALIF. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
ft
Site
. Code
(TO) LOS
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
00
09
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
n
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Type
Site Name of
Site
ANGELES
ANTELOPE VALLEY MSI
LANCASTER DUMP CQ*P SL
PEBBLY BEACH UBD
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY SL
SOUTHWEST CONSERVATION MSL
VALLEY LAND DEV CO SL
WERD1N OTHER
ASCQN DISPOSAL SL
BISHOPS CANYON SL
BRADLEY PIT SL
HARDWJCK DISPOSAL PIT SL
HEWITT PIT SL
JAN COMPANY MSL
LIVINGSTON PIT OTHE'R
PORT DISPOSAL COMPANY SL
NORTH VALLEY SL
SHELDON ARLfcTA SL
TOYQN CANYQhi SL
TUXFORD PIT SL
ALPHA INVESTMENT OTHER
AZUSA WESTERN INC SL
8URBANK RECLAMATION SL
CANYON PARK SL
KQBRA MSL
LA BYPRODUCTS INC OTHER
NQRWALK DISPOSAL CO MSL
DAIRY VALLEY RECL PRQJ MSL
OPERATING INDUS SL
OWL PARK CORP SL
PUENTE KASTE DISPOSAL SL
REFUSE DISP LAND HECLA SL
RULLO OTHER
WEST COVINA LANDFILL SL
WHITTJER SL
PALOS VERUES SL
SPADRA SL
MJSSJON CANYON SL.
8CHQLL CANYON SL
CALABASAS SL
Oper- Total
ator Acreage
I
PVT 040
PVT 024
PVT 003
PVT 550
PVT 036
PVT too
PVT 009
PVT 060
CITY 020
PVT 030
PVT 031
PVT 063
PVT 022
PVT o4o
PVT 044
PVT 300
CITY 060
CITY iso
PVT 066
PVT o5o
PVT 040
CITY iso
PVT oi5
PVT oi5
PVT 030
PVT 018
PVT 017
PVT 182
PVT 060
PVT 080
PVT 097
PVT 004
PVT 030
CITY 032
DJST 220
DJST 185
DIST 485
DJST 345
DIST 380
Daily
Tonnage
0055
OQ6Q
0002
2000
095Q
014Q
0030
0350
1500
0400
0500
075Q
0200
0500
1000
015Q
1100
1000
0800
0185
045Q
0200
0850
015Q
0150
0620
OQ4Q
1500
0961
01QO
009Q
0100
0400
0175
2250
0500
3500
1850
0725
-------
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
*
Site
Code
*
(3§) SAN
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Type Ope
Site Name of ate
Site
BERNARDINO
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
ADEL.ANTO UBD CO 060 QQ25
APPLE "VALLEY UBD co oao 0015
BAKtR UBD CO 040 0005
BARSTQW UBD CO 160 OQ15
CAJQN BLVD SL CO 127 0240
CALIFORNIA ST SL CO 075 027Q
CEDAR SPRINGS UBD CO 010 0001
CRESTLINE USD CO OiO OQ4Q
DAGGETT UBD CO 080 OQQ5
DESERT DISPOSAL UBD PVT 005 OQ50
DOBLE SDB CO 020 0015
HEAPS PfcAK HSL CO 010 0100
13 HfcSpERlA SL CO 080 P015
14
15
16
17
HIGHLAND AVE SL co 060 0125
HINKLEY SDB CO 160 0007
JOSHUA TREE UBD CO 025 0005
KRAMER JCT U8D CO 130 0001
18 LAMQERS UBD FfeD 020 0005
4V
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
LUCERNE VALLEY udD co 019 0007
MlUUlKEN AVt MSL CO 070 046Q
HILL CREEK UBD co 010 0007
MORAMGQ VALLEY SDB CO 075 OQ15
NtEDLtS SDB CO 040 0004
NfcWSERHY UBD CO 040 0002
OAK GLENM ROAD MSL CO 520 OQ4Q
PARKER DAM UBD CO 04Q QQD2
PriELAN DESfcKT SPRINGS UBD Co 060 DQ02
THQ,NA ARGUS UBD Cg 048 0008
TKOPICA RANCHO SL co 090 *i3g
TWENTY NINE PALMS UBD eg 070 0002
UPLAND CITY M5»L C
ITY 034 QQ75
VjCTQRVlLLE SDB CO 080 OQ3Q
^RIGWTWQOD UBD CO 010 OOlQ
YERhO UBD CO 040 OQOt>
-------
LU
I- LL.
00 O
e>
13 t-
< Q-
QJ
Q
00
CO
Q.
<
X
LU
Q
o
Q
LJ
Ld
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
• Code
© KERN
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
06
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
?e
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Type Ope
Site Name Of ate
Site
ARVIN SOB CO
r- Total Daily
>r Acreage Tonnage
060 OOIQ
SAKtRSFlELD Si. CITY 160 0200
BAK6RSFIEUD BRUSH UBD CITY 020 0005
BORON UBD CO
BUTTQNWILLOW USD CO
010 0005
040 0002
CALIFORNIA CITY UBD PyT 001 OOC1
CHINA GRADE SUB PVT 080 02DO
DELANO SDB CITY 040 OQ40
DfcRBY ACRES UbD CO
F£LLn«S UBD CO
GLENNVILLE UBD CO
004 <1
CIS D001
OQ5 <1
GREENFIELD SDB PVT 040 0120
GREENHORN UBD CO
INYOKERN UBD CO
KEENE UBD CO
KERNVILLE UbD Cu
UAKfcVlEU UBD CO
LfcBEC UBD CO
LOST HILLS UBD CO
MARICUPA UBD co
MCFARLAND SDB co
MCKITTRICK UBD CO
MOJAVb UBD CO
NORTH OF THt RIVEH soe co
RANDSBURG UBD CO
RIDGECRfcST SDB Co
ROSAMOND UBD co
ROSfeDALfc SDB CO
003 <1
020 0002
002 <1
020 OOIQ
007 <1
010 0003
002 <1
010 0001
040 0006
004 0001
020 DOG8
022 PQ75
160 <1
020 0010
010 0002
022 CQ03
SHAFTfcR CITY UBD CITY 003 noib
SHAFTfcR COUNTY SDB CO
TAFT COUNTY SDB CO
040 G Q 0 6
0 2 0 0 0 2 Q
TAFT CITY SDB PVT OQ4 OQ12
TfcHACHAPI SDB CITY 010 CC10
TUPMAN UbD CO
VALLF.Y ACRES UBD CO
WASCO SDB co
WfcLDQN UBD CO
nio
-------
SUBMAP "N"
LEGEND ON INDEX MAP
AUGUST 1968
CALIF DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
« Code
Type Ope
Site Name of ate
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
(40) SAN LOUIS OBISPO
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
10
11
12
13
14
ATASCADfcRO SL PVT 020 0007
ATASCAPfcRQ STATfc HQSP UBQ _ STATE. ..Olll . ._
-------
-I
8-ai
(- U.
V) O
LU
Q
<
O
s
J5
Q.
<
2
CQ
13
CO
x
LU
Q
Q
UJ
s
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
Type Ope
Site Name of ate
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
(Te) KINGS
01
02"
03
04
05
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
AVENAL CSD UBD DIST 005 OQ02
' CQR'CORAJxi SDB "" CITY" 165 "" "'~QOlQ
MAMFORD MSLB co
080 003Q
LfcHOORfc SDB CITY 075 OQ12
STRATFORD UBD CO
-*c
RE
ALPAUCiH UBD CO
BADGER UBD CO
BALANCE' ROCK TiBD " ""CO
CAMP NELSON UBD CO
D I NUBA HBO ci
015 0002
002 0001
007 <1
005 <1
008 <1
TY 007 0035
EXETER QITY SUB CITY 020 0023
EXETER COUNTY SDR CO
EARLIMAHT SDB CO
040 0006
040 0003
0§ FAIRVIEW ' UBD F6D 004 <1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
LINDSAY SUB CI
PQRTERVlLLE M$L8 CI
PJNE FLAT UBD CO
RICHGROVE SDB co
SPRJNQVILLE SDB CQ
'STRAfHMORfc "" SDB CO
TY 008 D010
TY 005 OQQ3
001 <1
047 0001
013 0002
016 GO 08
SURBURBAN DISPOSAL UBD PVT 005 D025
TEAPOT DOME SDB CO
TERRA BfcLLA SDB DI
TIPTON SDB CO
132 0030
ST 070 OOQ2
004 0001
TULARE CITY SDB CITY 030 0055
TULAR6 COUNTY SDB " CO
VISALU SDB CO
WQQDLAK6 SDB CU
WQODVILLE SDB co
KENNEDY MEADOWS UBD CO
0RQS! SDB Co
018 0002
135 OQ63
007 0015
073 0004
010 <1
040 0005
KlNGSBURG " SDB "CITY ""030 0007
WOODWARD CRfeEK UBD FED - 0001
-------
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
. Code
(j?) INYO
^-^ 01
02
03
04
95
06
07
Type Ope
Site Name of ato
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
BARLOW LANE UBD CO 010 0001,
'BEACON " UBD " " CO "065 OQ15
BIG PlNfe UBD CO 010 0001
DEATH VALLEY JUNCTION UBD PVT 001 <1
FURNACE CREEK SDB FED 010 0002
GRAPEVINE SDB FED 001 <1
INDEPENDENCE UBD CO 04P 0001
OS "'KEELER'"" " " "UBD CO OQ4 <1
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
LAWS UBD CO 015 0002
LONE PINE UBD CO 020 0001
OLANCHA COUNTY UBD co 002
-------
UJ
, X
gj OD
CL
CO <
o
=3 I-
< Q.
UJ
Q
2i
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
•
Type Ope
Site Name or ate
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
(JO) FRESNO
^-^ 01
02
0'3
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14 ~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AUBERRY UBD DJ
ST 006 <1
CHATEAU FRESNO" " MSL P\/T ' Qbfi ' Q0"20
CL.OVIS MSLB ci
CQALINGA SDB CI
DOS PALOS SDB CI
TY 056 0013
TY 130 0015
TY 017 OOD5
FJREBAUGH SDB PVT 005 PQ03
FOWLER SDB CI
FRESNO "MSI" CI
TY 003 0001
TY 110 03CO
GLEN MEADOW USD FED 002
-------
LEGEND ON INDEX MAP
AUGUST 1968
CALIF. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
. Code
Type Ope
Site Name of ate
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
@) MONTEREY
01
02
03
04
Ob
C&
07
08
DV
15
11
12
BRADLEY UBD CO OQ5 <1
CHUALAR ROAD SDB CO 019 0013
CKAZY HORSE MSLB P
3GNZALES UBD C
VT 135 0125
ITY 015 0005
GREENFIELD SD8 CO 010 0001
Kl<-.;Ci CITY UBD C
ITY 015 0002
LEW IS ROAD SDB CO 028 0006
LOCKWOOU UBD C
•;u*Tt:RfcY PENINSULA SL D
0 OQ5 <1
{ST 550 0200
PA^KFIfcLD UBD CO OU» <1
SAN ANTONJO LAKb HEC MSL CO 018 <1
SV-,; AKDO UBD CO 005 <1
13 SuLeDAD SL PVT 130 0008
(S) SAN
01
02
03
04
BENITO
MULLISTER SOB C
JTY 065 0015
SA-'v JUAiv BAUTISTA SUB PVT 006 0002
•M=W tUKlA UBD P
PHuACLES MSL F
VT OQ1 <1
ED 005 <1
(43) SANTA CLARA
01
02
03
04
135
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
,15
16
17
PALU ALTO MSL C
^UUivTAIN VIEW MSL P
STItRLlN ROAD MSL P
ITY 170 0140
VT 055 0090
VT 027 0080
SUMwYVAUE MSL PVT 095 025U
SAMTA CLAHA MSL c
ITY 0/3 0070
EDQfcWATfcR MSL PVT 040 0200
LOS ALTOS RANCH MSL PVT 114 0300
NbWBY ISLAND MSL PVT 342 0500
CUSTOMER UTILITY MSL PVT 009 QQ55
STOKY ROAD MSL PVT 090 0160
SiNlaUtTON RQAU SL PVT 015 OQ40
SAN JUSE SL c
ITY OJ5 0150
EASTSJDt MSL PVT 014 0100
SUADAUUPE SL PVT 026 0370
MORGAN HILL MSL PVT oso 0010-
PACHECO PASS SL PVT 075 QOIQ
GJLROY ' MSt PVT 100 OQlO'
@) SANTA CRUZ
01
0-2
03
04
OS
06
BEN LOMOND MSL PVT 019 0005
DAVENPORT UBD PVT 001 0001
SANTA CRUZ SDB C
ITY 100 0100
PUEKA VISTA MSL GO 100 0030
WATSONVILLE MSL C
JTY 010 006Q
SANTA CRUZ LUMBER cu- UBD PVT~ "Tor
-------
X
LJ
Q
O
UJ
e>
- i
it
UJ
Q
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
Site Name
Type
of
Site
Oper-
ator
Total
Acreage
Daily
Tonnage
MARIPOSA
0* _BBAR_ VALLEY
02 BUCK MEADOW
03 CQULTERVILLE
04 EU PORTAL
05 GREELY HILL
06 MARIPOSA
07 HQRNITQS
MERCED
Qi
02
03
0^
05
06
0?
UBD
UBD
UBD
SOB
USD
UBD
UBD
09
10
11
12
13
DELHI H
EL NIDO
QUSTINE
INGOMAR
LE GRAND
LIVINGSTON "
LOS BANOS CITY
LOS BANOS COUNTY
MERCED
SHAFFER
UBD
UBD
UBD
UBD
UBD
UBD
UBD
SOB
UBD
UBD
STEVlNSQN
STANISLAUS
01 GREiR RANCH
02 MODESTO
03 OAKDALE
04 PATTERSON
05 NbWMAN
06 """fURloCK
07 BONZI
TUOLUMNE
01 CHINESE CAMP
02 GROVELAND
03 JAMESTONN
04 PJNECREST
06
07
od
09
IQ
11
SQNQRA
TWAINE HARTE
COLUMBIA
RQTELLI
SIERRA CONSERVATION C
TUU.QCH. RESORJ
"~T COLUMN 6 " ' - • ~ -
UBD
MSL
MSL
UBD
UBD
(JBTF
MSL
UBD
UBD
SDB
UBD
""
SUB
SDB
SDB
SDB
USD
„
"CO "
CO
FED
CO
CO
CO
CITY
CO
CO
CITY
CO
CO
CITY
CO
CITY
CO
CO
PVT
PVT
PVT
CITY
CITY
CiTY"
PVT
CO
CO
CO
CO
CTTY
CO
CO
PVT
STATE
C_P^
CO
030
004
003
005
004
060
OQ2
"TCfO
005
004
010
020
003
005"
050
037
100
018
070
'010"
030
035
017
006
002
041
003
010
OQ2
030
040
005
005
_
"do'oi
-------
UJ
GO
CO
25
Q
O
Q
LU
UJ
o.
(/) O
to .
3 t
Ul
Q
<
O
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
" r Acreage Tonnage
T 025 0105
_T -^6 QiTQ.
T 449 043Q
T 9QO 088Q
/T 051 0085
ETY 110 0-127
/T 8QO 0057
/T ITS 013:3
ITY 043 0060
/T 005 0003
VT 100 1600
VT 100 028Q
VT 090 0100
V'T " " 032 ' 6iOQ
VT 146 0400
1ST 064 0200
VT - 0010
VT 005 OQ15
VT 043 0079
10"" PACIFfCA ~" - "SL " TVT 635 QQ6Q
1J, HALF MOON BAY MSL PVT 006 0001
12 HALF MOON BAY RUBBISH MSL PVT OQ5 0003
14 PfcSCADERO MSL PVT 003 0005
(6Q) ALAMEDA
01 ALBANY MSL PVT 135 0165
02 BERKELEY MSL CITY 050 0095
03 ~ AUAMiUA™" " """ " ~M?L" ""P'VT 029 0225'
04 DAVIS ST * OAK SCAV MSL PVT 240 0975
05 SAN LEANDRO MARINA MSL PVT 150 006Q
06 WEST WINTON-B OAK SCAV MSL PVT 700 0400
07 FIBREBOARD^EMERYVILLE OTHER PVT 134 0100
11 TURK ISLAND CO ' MSL PVT 137 0025
FU^HAM""fiOAD ,rd"Ak SCAV MSL" PVT 385 025Q
13 EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY MSL PVT 3g5 OQ5g
14 PLEASANTON MSL PVT 040 OQ3Q
@) SAN FRANCISCO
01 JSLAIS CREEK MSU PVT 155 0900
03 LEONETTl MSL PVT 004 Offlfi
Q4 PkORj^CRANE MSj. pyT_ QQ4_ _ 8.Q6.5
05 MIRZA MSL PVT 003 005Q
-------
J~
<
£
oo y
(D
Ol
O?
ii.' =)
CL
.
CO O
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Type Ope
5ite Site Name Of ate
' Code Site
(02) ALPINE
^^ 01 ALPINE UBD FE
02 WOODFORDS MSLB PV
@) AMADOR
01 BEAR LAKE USD FE
02 ION6 UBD CQ
03 JACKSON UBD CO
04 PINE GROVE UBD CO
OS PLYMOUTH UBD CO
06 • SUTTEfTCHieK UBD CO
(0§) CALAVARAS
01 ANGELS CAMP UBD CO
02 AVERY UBD CO
03 BIG MEADOWS UBD Fi
04 COPPERQPL1S UBD CO
06 MURPHYS UBD CO
0? "" 'SANTA1DRE"AS ~ UBD CO
08 VALLEY SPRINGS UBT) CO
09 WILSEYVILLE UBD CO
(pi) EL DORADO
01 COLQMA LOTUS UBD PV
02 EL DORADO HILLS UBD Cq
o3 GEORGETOWN SDB cc
04 GREENWOOD USB" CC
05 KYBURZ USD Ffc
06 MEYERS MSLB PV
07 QMO RANCH UBD P\
08 QUTJNGDALE SDB CC
09 PARK CREEK SDB CC
10 " ' PILOT HILL UB^ ~51
11 SILVER LAKE UBD cc
12 WILLOW USD CC
13 FRIGHTS LAKE UBD Ffc
14 UNION MINE SDB CC
15 MEEKS BAY UBD PV
r- Total Daily
>r Acreage Tonnage
D 005 0001
t 020 tiOOl
D 003 <1
- 0004
004 0005
002 <1
003 <1
TO?" " sirra'
d03 0004
003 0002
D 002 <1
005 <1
014 0002
_. _ ^^ .- "QQ-Q3
007 0001
010 OOQ2
T 010 0002
) 050 <1
) 003 0004
Q0"4~ <1
D 006 0001
tf 007 0035
/T 005 Q005
) 010 0003
) 010 0001
5 Old OOTI
) 004 <1
) 004 <1
:D 003 <1
) 217 0015
If 004 <1
-------
<
- UJ
O
00 '
to m
w o
CD .
ID I-
< a.
ui
Q
<
o
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
Type Oper- Total Daily
Site Name of ator Acreage Tonnage
Site
(zj) MARIN
01
02
x-X °5
(28) NAPA
•^^f'
01
02
03
04
03
RbP*QUD Si. PvT 6nn '>i3;j
SAM QUENTJN *al PvT a 34 OC6Q
MARTINELLI ^[>16
NAPA siATt HOSPITAL itin STATE- 002 20^2
AMERICAN CANYON SDB PVT 3V6 00^1)
DEL SANTI b3D PvT no5 roni
(JA) SACRAMENTO
01
02
03
04
06
07
03
09
10
iSLtTON1 'ifaD CITY na? ic(12
FOLSOH PRISON SUP STATfc 001 GG"5>
AfcRQJtT GENbRAL ^S>L PvT 15C U010
SACRAMENTO CITY SL CITY 130 C763
SACRAMENTO COUNTY i SL cu 6^5 D26b
GkRBER ROAD ^SL PvT 16P Clio
ELK GROVE ^!i>L PvT T22 OG13
SALT 'JtiD CITY 003 DOC^
WHITE ROCK ^SsL pVT 400 C0"d
® SOLANO
03
04
06
07
08
09
10
FAIHFIEID MbLB PVT 070 ^O^d
SULANO COUNTY M$Ld PVT 127 03?b
DIXOM >'S18 CITY 035 1315
RgJ MbLd PVT .162 r.ut'u
RIO VISTA MblB CITY 021 TQ12
CALIF MEDICAL FACILITY SDB STATE 003 non^
EVERS ^SL PVT OU5 r^oic
(49) SONOMA
01
02
03
04
05
•f)6
07
08
1*
© YOLO
01
02
03
04
05
06
Q7
08
09
SUNQMA ^i>LB Cu n28 r.oQ3
PETALUMA CITY DUMP SDB CITY 021 coc3
CLOVtRDALfc SDB CO 006 ^007
HEALDSBURG SDB CO 004 f?053
WINDSOR H&LB CO T22 C173
GUERNEVILLE SDB co oso to35
OCCIDENTAL SDB Cu OD2 CQ20
ROBLAR " MSL CO H76 C04C
SEA RANCH MSLri PVT 002 <1
DLJNNIGAN USD CU 010 <1
GUINDA UBD CO 013 <1
KNIGHTS LANDING UBD CO Ou4 fQDl
ESPARTO USD CO 010 OQ02
WQODLAND SDB PvT 16n no30
ALBERICCI SDB PVT 010 OU20
DAVIS SDB CITY 010 ^025
UNIV OF CALIF - DAVIS SL STATE 028 roii>
WINTERS SDB CltY 030 0010
-------
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
* L>itL- Name Of uu
Code
oltC
•
© BUTTE
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Toiuiuye
01 BIGGS GRIDLEY SDB P;T 012 CQ04
02 BUftE MEADQwS UBD C'J
Ou5 <1
03 CHICO AIRPORT OTNfcR CITY 02.C <1
OS FEATHfcR FALLS UbD PVT OQ3 <1
06 FyRBESTQWN UtiD CO
TQ2 <1
07 JOMSUN UbD PVT 015 ^(jSi!
OB LAKE MADRONE UbD Co
GO? < 1
09 MATHERS RAWCW \;BT PVT OU3 OQlu
10 NtlL ROAD SLB PVT T7C OQ^C
11 OROVlLLb UoD CU
n 1 o r o ? b
12 PARIDISfc CLARK ROAD SD9 PVT HIT ^ 0 1 0
13 STIRLING CITY UBD CU
(29) NEVADA
^"^ 01 GKASS VALLEY DISPOSAL SDB PV
no? < i
T 438 T T 1 i:
02 HJRSCHDALE SD& PvT 116 ^D"5
03 MCCOURTNEY RD SDB PVT nar ,:o;,4
04 NEVADA CITY t'faD CI
/~-^ $5 WASHINGTON ubD CO
(3g) PLACER
01 AUBUR'^ ^iL PV
02 BIG REND UdD PV
03 COLFAX SUB CJ
TY - "Cr|4
OJ3
10 MONTE VISTA SDB PVT 012 ^QM
11 RUCKLJN SDB ci
12 SAUGSTAD PARK MbL CI
13 TAHOE CITY MiL P>V
14 WEIMAR MEDICAL FACIL SDB co
(4§) SIERRA
01 SIERRA CITV iJbD CO
02 FIRST DIVIDE bBD CO
03 FOREST LSD CU
04 ALLEGANY UBD CO
05 LOYALTON UBT CI
^_^^ 06 SATLEY SIERRAVlLLfc L'BD CO
(51) SUTTER
01 PEAR rtlVEH l'3D Co
(5§) YUBA
01 BROOMS VALLEY ubD CO
n2 CAMPTONJVILLfc USD CO
03 CLIPPER MILLS DUMP UbD Cu
04 MARQGINA N'^>L^ pv
05 SMARTVILLE I'BD CU
06 TEXAS HRL IBD Cu
07 YURA SUTTcR SCAV CO ^'bLca PV
TV 0 Q 5 0 0 n 3
T> 017 -!Q3:j
T OoO r-012
Oj2 OOQii
00? <1
0 u 5 >" o f: i
Oul <1
0 til <1
T Y 0 o 2 r o r. ^
303
-------
SUBMAP "D"
LEGEND ON INDEX MAP
AUGUST 1968
CALIF. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
, Code
Type Ope
Site Name Of ate
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
(0§) COLUSA
01
02
03
04
05
06
^-^ 07
AR8UCKLE UBD CO HID OQnS
"CCLUSA UBD CO "004 0015
GRIMES UBD CO OQ2 <1
PRlNCfcTQN UBD CO
MAXWELL U&D co
005 <1
010 0001
STONYFOKD UBD FED oo5
-------
SUBMAP "C"
LEGEND ON
INDEX MAP
AUGUST 1968
CALIF DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
Type Ope
Site Name of ato
Site
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
>(J8) LASSEN
^^^ 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
ADI^ USD CO
BlEBER liBD CO
CLEAR CREEK UBD CO
DOYLE UBD CU
HfcRLQNG COUNTY UoD CO
JQHNSTONVILLE UBD CD
LITCHFIELD UBD Co
MADELINE UBD co
PJTTVILLE UdD CU
RAVENDALE UBD co
SPAULDIisG UbD CO
SUNMYSIDE uen co
SuSA^VlLLfc SUB CI
WENDfcL UBD CO
wfcST^ooo UBD co
ooe
-------
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Site
Code
Type Ope
Site Name Of ate
Site
r- Total Daily
>r Acreage Tonnage
@) SHASTA
01
ANDERSON SDB CO 160 0020
02 " BIS RENO UB~D " " CQ~ '" OQ8 " DQ'Ol
03
04
05
06
07
03 "
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BUCKEYE SDB CO 005 C025
8URNEY UBD CO OQ3 0006
CLEAR CREEK UBD CO
ENTbRPRISE SDB CO
FALL RIVER HILLS UBD CO
" FRENCH" GULCH ' ' ~ UBD ' CO
040 C01C
040 OQ40
040 0002
00,2 <1
HAT CRE6K UBD Co OQ3 <1
IGO - ONO SUB CO
LAKfcHEAD UBD CO
OLD STATION UBD CO
ROUND MOUNTAIN UBD CO
"SHASTA " " " UBD ' CO
SHINGLETQWN UBD CO
WHITMORE UBD CO
REDDING MbLB CI
040 rooi
005 OQH3
010 <1
008 <1
005 <1
080 <1
005 <1
TY 416 GQ60
HARRISON GULCH UBD FfcD 001 <1
© SISKIYOU
01
03
04
05
06
07
0$
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
TULfe LAKE UBD CO 010 CQ05
DORR IS UBD C]
TY 007 0003
MACDOtL UBD CO 01C <1
BRAY UBD CO 002 <1
TENNANT UBD Co Ou2 <1
MCCLOUD SUB DI
DUNSMUIH UBD C]
MT SHASTA UBD CJ
UEED SDB CJ
S T DID "004
TY 002 r. o 0 1
TY 040 0 0 U
TY OQ7 D02Q
GA26LLB. UBD CO Qi)5 CCfll
GRENADA UBD CO n4P roo3
LlTTLt SHASTA UBD CO 003 POOl
YREKA SUB Cl
TY 33 V D010
HORNBROOK UBD co 010 0001
HILT UBD PVT OQ5 rooi
OAK KNOLL UBD Ft
:D 002 <1
HORSE CRefcK UBD CO OQ5 <1
SElAD UBD CO OQ2 d Q '' 1
HAPPY CAMP UBD CO 010 nOt'2
SCOTT BAR UBD FtD HUl <1
GREEMVlfcW UBD CD 002 <1
ET^A UBD c
TY 002 9001
CALLAHAw UBD CO 002 <1
C&ClLVlLLfc UdD CO f!02 <1
OAK BOTTOM UBD FfcD TC'2 <1
MONTAGUE UBD c
FORT JONES UBD C
TY Ol)5 C-Or'l
[TY 003 <1
-------
LEGEND ON INDEX MAP
AUGUST ' 1968
CALIF DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
-------
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
• Site
» Code
(08) DEL
^^ 01
02
03
04
Type Ope
Site Name of w ato
Site
NORTE
r- Total Daily
r Acreage Tonnage
2/ 3/
CRESCENT CITY SLJ8 CO H40 Oolu
FORT DICK UBD CO 022 <1
GASQUET UBD CO 006 <1
KIAMATH UBD co oie 04 OQ02
FOREST GLEN UBD co oo9
-------
INDEX TO SUBMAPS AND
CORRESPONDING TABLES
-1967 -
LEGEND
SUBMAP CODE
SUBMAP BOUNDARY
LEGEND FOR EACH SUBMAP
• DISPOSAL SITE
@ COUNTY CODE
COUNTY SEAT
HIGHWAYS
COUNTY BOUNDARY
SEE FACING TABLE FOR
SITE IDENTIFICATION NO.
NEARBY SITES IN ADJACENT
COUNTIES PLOTTED BUT NOT
IDENTIFIED ON THIS SUBMAP
N
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF DISPOSAL
SITES WITH RELATED DATA BY COUNTY
-------
-------
------- |