DOCSLIB.ORG

Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan April 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan April 2010 Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan April 2010 Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. Pasco, WA 2010 - Franklin County ISW Management Plan Acknowledgements Planning Participants City of Pasco: Mike Garrison, Tom Larsen and Staff: Jeff Adams City of Connell: Art Thacket City of Mesa: Cade Scott City of Kahlotus: Don Watt Waste Industry: Darrick Dietrich, BDI, Candy Thornhill, Poland and Sons; and Jim Bruce, Con-Agra Foods/Lamb Weston Benton Franklin Health Department: Rick Dawson, Kay Rotell and Jim Coleman Washington Department of Ecology: Jim Wavada Franklin County Citizen Representative: Todd Samuel and Brad Smallridge Franklin County Commission: Rick Miller Franklin County Public Works: Tim Fife, Guy Walters and Sally McKenzie HDR (Pasco Office): Sharon Edgar, Ben Floyd, Mike Murray and Jack Clark 2010 - Franklin County ISW Management Plan Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms Glossary of Terms Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Planning Authorities ........................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Role of Local Governments .................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Role of the Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) . 1-2 1.3 Regulatory Review ............................................................................................. 1-2 1.3.1 Solid Waste Management Act ................................................................ 1-3 1.3.2 Waste Not Washington Act – Chapter 431, Laws of 1989 ...................... 1-3 1.3.3 Hazardous Waste Management Act ....................................................... 1-3 1.3.4 Clean Washington Act – SSB5591 ......................................................... 1-4 1.3.5 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling ...................... 1-4 1.3.6 WAC 173-350 ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.7 WAC 173-351 ........................................................................................ 1-6 1.3.8 Relevant Oregon Solid Waste Regulations ............................................ 1-6 1.4 Solid Waste Planning in Franklin County ........................................................... 1-7 1.4.1 The 1977 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Benton and Franklin Counties) ................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.2 Status of 1977 Plan Recommendations ................................................. 1-8 1.4.3 The 1992 Moderate Risk Waste Plan (Benton and Franklin Counties) .. 1-8 1.4.4 1994 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Benton and Franklin Counties) ................................................................................... 1-9 1.5 Current Planning Process in Franklin County ................................................... 1-10 1.5.1 Planning Requirements ........................................................................ 1-10 1.5.2 Plan Development ................................................................................ 1-11 1.5.3 Amendment, Review, and Revision Process of the Plan ...................... 1-11 1.6 Relationship of the Solid Waste Plan to Other Plans ....................................... 1-11 1.6.1 Comprehensive Land Use Plans .......................................................... 1-12 1.6.1.1 State Goals ............................................................................ 1-12 1.6.1.2 State Mandates ...................................................................... 1-13 1.6.1.3 County Goals, Policies, and Strategies .................................. 1-13 1.6.2 Zoning Codes ....................................................................................... 1-13 1.6.3 Shoreline Management Plans ............................................................... 1-13 1.6.4 Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan1-14 1.6.5 Franklin County Emergency Management Disaster Recovery Plan ..... 1-14 1.6.6 Air, Water, and Soils ............................................................................. 1-14 2 Background of the Planning Area 2.1 Economic Development ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Non-agricultural Economy ...................................................................... 2-1 Franklin County ISW Management Plan i Table of Contents 2010 2.1.2 Agriculture............................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Population .......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.1 Urban Growth Areas ............................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2 Rural and Resource Lands ..................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Natural Environment ........................................................................................... 2-9 2.4.1 Physical Description ............................................................................... 2-9 2.4.2 Geology .................................................................................................. 2-9 2.4.3 Statigraphy............................................................................................ 2-10 2.4.4 Seismology ........................................................................................... 2-10 2.4.5 Hydrogeology/Hydrology ...................................................................... 2-10 2.4.6 Soils ...................................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.7 Biological .............................................................................................. 2-15 2.4.8 Wetlands ............................................................................................... 2-15 2.4.9 Floodplains ........................................................................................... 2-16 2.4.10 Aquifer Recharge .................................................................................. 2-16 2.5 Evaluation of Potential Landfill Sites ................................................................ 2-16 3 Waste Stream Analysis 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Historical Solid Waste Data ................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Solid Waste Forecast ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Waste Stream Composition ................................................................................ 3-2 3.5 Seasonal Variations in Waste Stream ................................................................ 3-3 4 Reducing, Reusing, and Recycling Wastes in Franklin County 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Public Education and Outreach .......................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Existing Education and Outreach Programs ........................................... 4-2 4.2.1.1 Public Outreach and Educational Program Recommendations .............. 4-3 4.3 Waste Reduction ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Programs in Franklin County ........................ 4-4 4.3.2 Waste Reduction Program Recommendations ....................................... 4-4 4.3.2.1 Commercial Sector (Business and Industry) ............................ 4-5 4.3.2.2 Residential (Rural and Urban) ................................................. 4-5 4.4 Recycling ............................................................................................................ 4-6 4.4.1 Past Recycling Legislation ...................................................................... 4-6 4.4.2 Markets for Recyclables ......................................................................... 4-7 4.4.3 Existing Recycling Services in Franklin County ...................................... 4-9 4.4.3.1 Basin Recycling, Inc. .............................................................. 4-10 4.4.3.2 Support for Private Recycling Efforts. .................................... 4-10 4.4.3.3 Composting Services. ............................................................ 4-13 4.4.4 Recycling Program Recommendations ................................................ 4-13 4.4.4.1 Residential Recycling ............................................................. 4-13 4.4.4.2 Commercial/Industrial Sector Recycling ................................ 4-15 4.4.4.3 Food Waste Composting ....................................................... 4-16 4.4.4.4 Yard Waste Composting Recommendations ......................... 4-17 Franklin County ISW Management Plan ii Table of Contents 2010 4.5 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................... 4-18 5 Moderate Risk Waste 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report
    RECONNAISSANCE SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF THE LATE CENOZOIC SEDIMENTS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN, WASHINGTON by James G. Rigby and Kurt Othberg with contributions from Newell Campbell Larry Hanson Eugene Kiver Dale Stradling Gary Webster Open File Report 79-3 September 1979 State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Olympia, Washington CONTENTS Introduction Objectives Study Area Regional Setting 1 Mapping Procedure 4 Sample Collection 8 Description of Map Units 8 Pre-Miocene Rocks 8 Columbia River Basalt, Yakima Basalt Subgroup 9 Ellensburg Formation 9 Gravels of the Ancestral Columbia River 13 Ringold Formation 15 Thorp Gravel 17 Gravel of Terrace Remnants 19 Tieton Andesite 23 Palouse Formation and Other Loess Deposits 23 Glacial Deposits 25 Catastrophic Flood Deposits 28 Background and previous work 30 Description and interpretation of flood deposits 35 Distinctive geomorphic features 38 Terraces and other features of undetermined origin 40 Post-Pleistocene Deposits 43 Landslide Deposits 44 Alluvium 45 Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Colluvium 46 Sand Dunes 46 Mirna Mounds and Other Periglacial(?) Patterned Ground 47 Structural Geology 48 Southwest Quadrant 48 Toppenish Ridge 49 Ah tanum Ridge 52 Horse Heaven Hills 52 East Selah Fault 53 Northern Saddle Mountains and Smyrna Bench 54 Selah Butte Area 57 Miscellaneous Areas 58 Northwest Quadrant 58 Kittitas Valley 58 Beebe Terrace Disturbance 59 Winesap Lineament 60 Northeast Quadrant 60 Southeast Quadrant 61 Recommendations 62 Stratigraphy 62 Structure 63 Summary 64 References Cited 66 Appendix A - Tephrochronology and identification of collected datable materials 82 Appendix B - Description of field mapping units 88 Northeast Quadrant 89 Northwest Quadrant 90 Southwest Quadrant 91 Southeast Quadrant 92 ii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Waste Prevention & Recycling Report
    s 2019 ANNUAL WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING REPORT i Submitted to Seattle City Council (SCC) October 2020 [Page deliberately left blank] ii CONTENTS GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Results................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Seattle’s Recycling Rate Goals ................................................................................................................................... 3 Moving Upstream ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Annual Waste Prevention & Recycling Report..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Characteristics of the Hanford Reservation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington
    Geology and Ground-Water Characteristics of the Hanford Reservation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 717 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Geology and Ground-Water Characteristics of the Hanford Reservation of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,Washington By R. C. NEWCOMB, J. R. STRAND, and F. J. FRANK GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 717 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600205 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 2401-00241 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract...................................................................................... 1 Geology Continued Introduction............................................................................... 2 Physiography..................................................................... 23 Purpose............................................................................... 2 Mountain slopes................................................ 23 Previous investigations..................................... ........... 2 Plateaus................................... .............................. 23 Scope and methods of investigation............................. 2 Terraces.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cans for Cash
    A Quarterly Newsletter of The City of Irvine (949) 724-7669 Waste Management of Orange County (949) 642-1191 ® Fall 2009 Cans for Cash Put a little green in During 2007 and 2008, the City of Irvine Halloween partnered with Irvine Unified School District and local businesses to take part The origins of the Halloween tradition in a nationwide aluminum can recycling started hundreds of years ago as an ancient challenge. Through this community Celtic festival that marked the end of partnership, the City of Irvine won an award summer harvest and the beginning of two years in a row for the most innovative winter. During this celebration, they would campaign and donated the award proceeds, adorn themselves in costumes and tell each totaling $10,000, to the Irvine Public other’s fortunes. Schools Foundation to support the school Today, many of us participate in district’s recycling program. Halloween celebrations and adorn ourselves This year, the City is participating in in costumes. But instead of fortune-telling, the recycling challenge once again. So, we head out for a bounty of candy or for please save your aluminum cans and recycle a lively party. Halloween has become them in Irvine during the month of October. the second biggest holiday season of the For more information about the year, with over $5 billion in annual sales, Cans for Cash contest, please visit www. according to the National Retail Federation. cityofirvine.org/environmentalprograms or This year, help make Halloween more call (949) 724-6459. environmentally friendly. Here are some tips to add a little green to your orange and black celebrations and help save some money in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Prevention
    Chapter II Chapter Two Waste Prevention 1. Introduction Terms introduced in this chapter include: Waste Prevention Waste Prevention Precycling In the United States, each person uses, directly or Consumerism indirectly, about 125 pounds of material every Eco-marketing day. That amounts to 23 tons per year per person. Degradable U.S. citizens constitute about five percent of the Recyclable world population but use 25 percent of the natu- Consumable products ral resources. U.S. national waste equals at least Durable products 250 trillion pounds and only five percent of that Planned obsolescence is recycled. For every 100 pounds of product Mixed-material package manufactured, 3,200 pounds becomes waste Composite material packaging through natural resource extraction and pro- Disposable product cessing. It appears to be easier to create waste The Natural Step than to create products. Sustainability Source reduction Solid waste generation in Linn and Benton Selective shopping Counties is beginning to decrease. Figure II-1 Bulk buying illustrates the per capita waste generation rates from 1998-2012. is one of the most effective ways to decrease The question: What can be done to further household garbage. It is easier to manage gar- check the flow of garbage? bage by preventing it than to deal with it once it is created. Reducing waste this way is called Recycling and composting reduce waste. How- waste prevention, sometimes referred to as ever, preventing waste before it enters the home precycling. In the hierarchy of solid waste Waste Generation, Linn and Benton Counties 3000 2500 2000 1500 Benton 1000 Linn Pounds per Capita (lbs) 500 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure II-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ringold For111ation and Associated Deposits
    LI.I u The Miocene to Pliocene Ringold For111ation and Associated Deposits 0 of the Ancestral Columbia River System, South-central Washington and North-central Oregon by Kevin A. Lindsey WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY I- AND EARTH RESOURCES Open File Report 96-8 c( November 1996 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources Jennifer M. Belcher· Commissioner of Public Lands Kaleen Cottingham· Supervisor CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 Setting 3 Structural geology 4 Late Neogene depositional framework 6 The Ringold Formation 6 Previous studies 8 Age 8 Stratigraphy 10 Methods 10 Sediment facies associations 14 Facies association I 21 Facies association II 22 Facies association Ill 26 Facies association IV 26 Facies association V 26 Facies association distribution 27 Informal member of Wooded Island 33 Informal member of Taylor Flat 34 Informal member of Savage Island 35 Top of the Ringold Formation 37 Ringold correlatives outside the Pasco Basin 38 Conclusions 40 Acknowledgments 41 References cited Appendices A-D: Measured sections, core geologic logs, cross sections, and isopach and structure contour data, respectively ILLUSTRATIONS 2 Figure 1. Map showing regional geographic setting of the Columbia Basin and Hanford Site, south-central Washington, and north-central Oregon. 4 Figure 2. Map showing geographic setting of the Pasco Basin and Hanford Site, Washington. 5 Figure 3. Maps showing geologic structures in and near the Pasco Basin, and . Hanford Site. 7 Figure 4. Generalized surficial geologic map of the Pasco Basin. 9 Figure 5. Diagram showing late Neogene stratigraphy of the Pasco Basin emphasizing the Ringold Formation. 15 Figure 6. Outcrop photo of facies association I.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis, "Structure and Evolution of the Horse Heaven Hills in South
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Michael Curtis Hagood for the Master of Science in Geology presented February 21, 1985. Title: Structure-and Evolution of the Horse Heaven Hills in South-Central Washington. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Marvin H. Beeson, Chairman Michael L. Cummings Gilbert T. Benson Stephen P. Reidel The Horse Heaven Hills uplift in south-central Washington con- sists of distinct northwest and northeast trends which merge in the lower Yakima Valley. The northwest trend is adjacent to and parallels the Rattlesnake-Wallula alignment (RAW; a part of the Olympic-Wallowa lineament). The northwest trend and northeast trend consist of aligned or en echelon anticlines and monoclines whose axes are gener- ally oriented in the direction of the trend. At the intersection, La 2 folds in the northeast trend plunge onto and are terminated by folds of the northwest trend. The crest of the Horse Heaven Hills uplift within both trends is composed of a series of asymmetric, north vergent, eroded, usually double-hinged anticlines or monoclines. Some of these "major" anti- clines and monoclines are paralleled to the immediate north by lower- relief anticlines or monoclines. All anticlines approach monoclines in geometry and often change to a monoclinal geometry along their length. In both trends, reverse faults commonly parallel the axes of folds within the tightly folded hinge zones. Tear faults cut across the northern limbs of the anticlines and monoclines and are coincident with marked changes in the wavelength of a fold or a change in the trend of a fold. Layer-parallel faults commonly exist along steeply- dipping stratigraphic contacts or zones of preferred weakness in intraflow structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Del Norte Zero Waste Plan
    Del Norte Zero Waste Plan Prepared by Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority staff Self-Reliance, Inc. Urban Ore, Inc. University of California Extension, Santa Cruz, Business Environmental Assistance Center Gainer & Associates Richard Anthony & Associates KirkWorks Edited by Tedd Ward & Gary Liss funded in part by a grant from the United States Forest Service Rural Community Assistance Program, Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Acknowledgments The staff of the Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority wish to thank all of the people and organizations which contributed to this plan, the first of its kind in the United States. The contributing authors: Commissioners of the Del Norte Solid Neil Seldman, Kelly Lease, Waste Management Authority who Dan Knapp, Gary Liss, Ann Schneider, served during the preparation and Richard Anthony, Margaret Gainer, review of the ZWP: Clyde Eller, Jack Maureen Hart, David Kirkpatrick, Reese, George Mayer, Kenneth Pavitra Crimmel, Steve Salzman, Hollinsead, Mike Scavuzzo, C. Ray Kevin Hendrick, and Tedd Ward Smith, and Randy Hatfield For inspiration, review and comment: Cadre of Corps Members 1997-8 Clarke Moore, Joe Mendez, Neil Austin, Bill Sheehan, Eric Lombardi, Julindra Recycling: Jordan Kekry Brenda Platt, Rick Best, Ed Boisson, Suzy Smith, Ted Weston Del Norte Disposal: Tommy Sparrow For support during and after the Pacific Waste Services: Gary Ainger, Summit: Michael Penney, Mickey Kelly Burr, Tom Valentino Youngblood, Arthur Reeve, and Ellen Brown Eco-Nutrients / Hambro: Irv Elliott Patricia Visser, US Forest Service All the other Summit participants This document is printed on 20 pound, off-white Fox River Bond, 100% recycled, 30% post-consumer paper. The cover stock is 80 pound warm white Fox River Bond, 100% recycled, 50% post-consumer content.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Fishes from the Miocene Ellensburg Formation, South Central Washington
    FISHES OF THE MIO-PLIOCENE WESTERN SNAKE RIVER PLAIN AND VICINITY IV. FOSSIL FISHES FROM THE MIOCENE ELLENSBURG FORMATION, SOUTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON by GERALD R. SMITH, JAMES E. MARTIN, NATHAN E. CARPENTER MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 204 no. 4 Ann Arbor, December 1, 2018 ISSN 0076-8405 PUBLICATIONS OF THE MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 204 no.4 WILLIAM FINK, Editor The publications of the Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, consist primarily of two series—the Miscellaneous Publications and the Occasional Papers. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. Occasionally the Museum publishes contributions outside of these series. Beginning in 1990 these are titled Special Publications and Circulars and each are sequentially numbered. All submitted manuscripts to any of the Museum’s publications receive external peer review. The Occasional Papers, begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, initiated in 1916, include monographic studies, papers on field and museum techniques, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, and are published separately. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A complete list of publications on Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fishes, Insects, Mollusks, and other topics is available.
    [Show full text]
  • Reduce Reuse Recycle Reject React
    Remember the This guide is designed to help you 5Rs: make a difference in the environment REDUCE by changing your REUSE purchasing habits. RECYCLE REJECT REACT Developed By The Solid Waste Division Bergen County Utilities Authority P.O. Box 9, Foot of Mehrhof Road, Little Ferry, New Jersey 07643 For more information, call the Environmental Programs Hotline at 201-807-5825 or visit www.bcua.org Printed on recycled paper. Environmental Programs Hotline 201-807-5825 www.bcua.org EACH PERSON IN NJ GENERATES REMEMBER It’s easy to ABOUT 4.5 POUNDS OF GARBAGE A DAY. REDUCE waste. Reduce waste before it starts. S: Become an “environmental shopper:” THE 5R Borrow items you use only once in a while. Examples: specialized power PRECYCLE! REDUCE the amount of waste tools, ladders, slide projectors, partyware. produced. Each of us generates 3 to 5 Rental shops save you the burden of Precycling is the art of making waste plastics are recyclable. Choose them when you shop. pounds of garbage every single day. If storing and maintaining equipment. less wasteful. It is the step BEFORE recycling — the one in which we make a we send less trash to landfills and Renting an item will let you know if you BUY RECYCLED! Lack of demand conscious choice to purchase or use incinerators, we help protect the want one of your own and give you time for recycled paper products is one of the to find the best one. Tool rental shops products which will have a less harmful environment. biggest factors limiting the recycling of carry a wide variety of equipment, from effect on the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Prevention Evan Blackwell Untitled Eusapia, 2010 Wood Window Frames 36 X 38 X 2.5 Inches
    3 Waste Prevention Evan Blackwell Untitled Eusapia, 2010 Wood window frames 36 x 38 x 2.5 inches Contents Chapter 3 Waste Prevention ............................................... 3 3.1 Recommendations from 1998 Plan and 2004 Amendment ...................................... 3 3.2 Planning Issues for this Update ................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Zero Waste Resolution ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Recession ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.3 Beyond Waste .................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.4 Product Stewardship Legislation ............................................................................................................... 6 3.2.5 Green Jobs ................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Current Programs and Practices .............................................................................. 10 3.3.1 Reuse ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.3.2 Sustainable Building ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits, Challenges and Critical Factors of Success for Zero Waste
    Waste Management 67 (2017) 324–353 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman Benefits, challenges and critical factors of success for Zero Waste: A systematic literature review ⇑ Natália Pietzsch, José Luis Duarte Ribeiro, Janine Fleith de Medeiros Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Industrial Engineering Department, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5° Andar, 90035-190 Porto Alegre, Brazil article info abstract Article history: Considering the growing concern with solid wastes problems and the pressing need for a holistic Received 15 December 2016 approach to their management, this study developed a literature review about the subject ‘‘Zero Revised 5 April 2017 Waste”. To that end, a systematic literature review was executed, through which 102 published articles Accepted 2 May 2017 were analyzed with the aim to, initially, comprehend the concept of Zero Waste, and, then, map its ben- Available online 29 May 2017 efits, challenges, and critical success factors. The results show that scholars have not reached a consensus regarding the concept of ZW. While some studies fully address this philosophy, other studies are based on Keywords: just one or on some of its topics. The benefits were grouped and organized into four dimensions: benefits Waste management to the community, financial-economic benefits, benefits to the environment and benefits to the industry Waste reduction Waste mitigation and stakeholders. As to the challenges, barriers were identified both in the macro environment (mainly Recycling and reuse political and cultural) and in the meso and micro environments (stakeholders, industries, and municipal- ities). The analysis of the articles enabled listing critical success factors, supported by a set of activities that must be carried out.
    [Show full text]