DOCSLIB.ORG

Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan Document and Contact Information Program Manager: Nye County Public Works (775) 751-6855 [email protected] File Name: Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan To obtain this document or to make Pahrump Public Works Office inquiries: (775) 751-6855 [email protected] Requirements for document acceptance Acceptance of, and changes to this document must be reviewed and and changes: approved by the Director of Public Works, Nye County Manager and subsequently the Nye County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). History of Revision Date Version Comments June 21, 2011 1.0 BoCC Adoption of Plan Ver. 1.0 Public Works – Nye County, Nevada i June 21, 2011 Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan Table of Contents 1 Purpose of Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 3 3 History of Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste in Nye County ............ 4 4 Regulatory Requirements and Statutes ............................................................................................ 5 5 County-Wide ....................................................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Education/Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 5 5.2 Existing Programs ......................................................................................................................... 6 5.3 Slogan and Logos .......................................................................................................................... 6 5.4 County-Wide Solid Waste Minimization Implementation Measures ........................................... 7 5.4.1 No to Low Cost ($0-$1,200) ................................................................................................. 7 5.4.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000) ....................................................................................... 9 5.4.3 High Cost ($25,001 +) .......................................................................................................... 9 5.5 County-Wide Household Hazardous Waste Management Implementation Measures ................. 9 5.5.1 No to Low Cost ($0-$1,200) ................................................................................................. 9 5.5.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000) ..................................................................................... 11 5.5.3 High Cost ($25,001 +) ........................................................................................................ 11 6 Pahrump Valley Landfill.................................................................................................................. 12 6.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Communities Served ................................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Waste Stream .............................................................................................................................. 14 6.3.1 Major Sources ..................................................................................................................... 14 6.3.2 Nature and Volume of Solid Waste other than Household Hazardous Waste .................... 14 6.3.3 Nature and Volume of Household Hazardous Waste.......................................................... 15 6.4 Pahrump Valley Landfill Solid Waste Minimization Implementation Measures ....................... 16 6.4.1 No to Low Cost ($0-$1,200) ............................................................................................... 16 6.4.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000) ..................................................................................... 16 6.4.3 High Cost ($25,001 +) ........................................................................................................ 16 6.5 Pahrump Valley Landfill HHW Management Implementation Measures .................................. 16 6.5.1 No to Low Cost ($0-$1,200) ............................................................................................... 16 6.5.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000) ..................................................................................... 16 6.5.3 High Cost ($25,001 +) ........................................................................................................ 16 7 Round Mountain Landfill ................................................................................................................ 16 Ver. 1.0 Public Works – Nye County, Nevada 1 June 21, 2011 Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan 7.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 16 7.2 Communities Served ................................................................................................................... 17 7.3 Waste Stream .............................................................................................................................. 17 7.3.1 Major Sources ..................................................................................................................... 17 7.3.2 Nature and Volume of Solid Waste Other than Household Hazardous Waste ................... 17 7.4 Round Mountain Landfill Solid Waste Minimization Implementation Measures ...................... 18 7.4.1 No to Low Cost ($0-$1,200) ............................................................................................... 18 7.4.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000) ..................................................................................... 18 7.4.3 High Cost ($25,001 +) ........................................................................................................ 18 7.5 Round Mountain Landfill HHW Management Implementation Measures ................................. 18 7.5.1 No to Low Cost ($0-$1,200 per Year) ................................................................................ 18 7.5.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000 per Year) ...................................................................... 18 7.5.3 High Cost ($25,001+ per Year) ........................................................................................... 18 8 Tonopah Landfill .............................................................................................................................. 18 8.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 18 8.2 Communities Served ................................................................................................................... 18 8.3 Waste Stream .............................................................................................................................. 19 8.3.1 Major Sources ..................................................................................................................... 19 8.3.2 Nature and Volume of Solid Waste other than Household Hazardous Waste .................... 19 8.3.3 Nature and Volume of Household Hazardous Waste.......................................................... 20 8.4 Tonopah Landfill Solid Waste Minimization Implementation Measures ................................... 20 8.4.1 Low Cost ($0-$1,200 per Year) .......................................................................................... 20 8.4.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000 per Year) ...................................................................... 21 8.4.3 High Cost ($25,001+ per Year) ........................................................................................... 21 8.5 Tonopah Landfill Household Hazardous Waste Management Implementation Measures ......... 21 8.5.1 Low Cost ($0-$1,200 per Year) .......................................................................................... 21 8.5.2 Mid-Range Cost ($1,201-$25,000 per Year) ...................................................................... 21 8.5.3 High Cost ($25,001+ per Year) ........................................................................................... 21 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 21 10 Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 Ver. 1.0 Public Works – Nye County, Nevada 2 June 21, 2011 Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan 1 Purpose of Plan The Nye County Solid Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan) is designed to: (1) raise awareness among County residents of management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Collaborative Consumption: Sharing Our Way Towards Sustainability?
    COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION: SHARING OUR WAY TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY? by SAMUEL COUTURE-BRIÈRE A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Political Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2014 © Samuel Couture-Brière, 2014 ABSTRACT Collaborative consumption (CC) refers to activities surrounding the sharing, swapping, or trading of goods and services within a collaborative consumption community. First, this MA thesis evaluates the factors contributing to the rapid increase of CC initiatives. These factors include technology, personal economics, environmental concerns, and social interaction. Second, the thesis explores the prospects and limits of CC in terms of sustainability. The most promising prospect is that CC seems to generate social capital and initiate a value shift away from ownership. However, institutional forces promoting growth limit this potential. The thesis concludes that CC itself is not enough to achieve sustainability, and therefore, more political solutions are needed. The paper ends with a critical discussion on the future of our growth-based economic model by suggesting that certain forms of CC could represent the roots of a “post- growth” economy. ii PREFACE This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, S. Couture-Brière. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Crossroad of Self, Market and Society
    On the crossroad of Self, Market, and Society By Mihăilescu Vintilă Mihail Submitted to Central European University Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisors: Professor Prem Kumar Rajaram Professor Jakob Rigi CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2013 On the crossroad of Self, Market, and Society A (n)etnography of Freecycle in Romania By Mihăilescu Vintilă Mihail Submitted to Central European University Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisors: Professor Prem Kumar Rajaram CEU eTD Collection Professor Jakob Rigi Budapest, Hungary 2013 Abstract Somebody offers twenty books on mathematics. Someone else raises the stakes with a Walkman from the pre-digital era. Maybe you need some cat litter or a couch with signs of usage? Or a small counter or skis or clothes or functional or not so functional computers? A multitude of different objects. Why throw away an object when you can give it away as handout? The Freecycle Network comes with a pertinent response. All these offerings of objects do not take place in a mall or in a market somewhere at the end of town. They all happen in your email inbox. And in the inboxes of the other few thousand members of the Freecycle Network in Bucharest. Freecycle is a simple Yahoo group that makes connections between people who have objects for which they do not have a usage anymore and want to get rid of, and people who have a usage, if not even a need for those objects.
    [Show full text]
  • International Expansion of Social Enterprises As a Catalyst for Scaling up Social Impact Across Borders
    sustainability Article International Expansion of Social Enterprises as a Catalyst for Scaling up Social Impact across Borders Ignacio Bretos * , Millán Díaz-Foncea and Carmen Marcuello Department of Business Organization and Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zaragoza, Paseo de la Gran Vía 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain; [email protected] (M.D.-F.); [email protected] (C.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 April 2020; Accepted: 15 April 2020; Published: 17 April 2020 Abstract: Scaling social impact and solutions beyond the local context is argued to embody a key mechanism for social enterprises (SEs) to contribute to the achievement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and to generate welfare-enhancing systemic change. In light of this, this article explores the potential of SE international expansion as a catalyst for scaling social impact across borders. From our reading of the literature, we discern three major typologies of cross-border scaling: Control-based, altruism-based, and hybrid. Drawing on a multiple-case study of nine international SEs, we examine why and how SEs deploy these scaling strategies on an international scale; the challenges to maximize social impact across borders associated with each of the scaling strategies, and the resources and actions that SEs can mobilize to manage such challenges associated with international expansion. Contrary to conventional wisdom and mainstream theory depicting SEs as small-sized organizations that suffer from different limitations to expand beyond their traditional national boundaries, our findings illustrate how these organizations can successfully operate on an international scale and simultaneously generate financial, social, and environmental value. Keywords: cooperatives; international expansion; organizational growth; scaling; social economy; social enterprise; social entrepreneurship; social impact; sustainable development 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Reuse Explorations Guide Innovative Programs and Strategies
    Reuse Explorations Guide Innovative Programs and Strategies Written by Athena Lee Bradley and Mary Ann Remolador Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) With funding from the Rural Utility Services, United States Department of Agriculture NERC is an equal opportunity provider and employer. August 2016 Acknowledgements The Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) is a nonprofit organization that conducts projects in the eleven Northeast states, as well as around the country. Its mission is to promote sustainable materials management by supporting traditional and innovative solid waste best practices, focusing on waste prevention, toxics reduction, reuse, recycling and organics recovery. NERC received a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Utility Services for “Innovative Strategies & Best Management Practices for Implementing Reuse Programs in Rural Communities in New York State & the St. Regis Mohawk Nation.” Through the project NERC provided webinars, trainings, resources, and technical assistance. The following individuals and organizations provided invaluable and generous assistance in the development and implementation of the project. NERC would like to extend its appreciation to and acknowledge the following people who worked with NERC on reuse: • Jan M. Oatman, Regional Recycling Coordinator, Development Authority of the North Country • St. Lawrence County Reuse Partnership: John Tenbusch, St. Lawrence County Environmental Management Council; Larry Legault, Operations/Recycling Manager, St. Lawrence County Solid Waste Operations; Chelle Lindahl, Co-Coordinator, Local Living Venture; and, Jennifer Lauzon, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 6 • Larry Thompson, Recycling Coordinator, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (Akwesasne) • Catherine (Katie) Liendecker & others with Lyons Falls, New York and Lyons Falls Alive • MaryEllen Etienne, The Reuse Institute • Diane Cohen, Executive Director, Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Freecycle Akron
    Freecycle akron The Akron Freecycle™ Network is open to all in the Greater Akron-area who. Give and get free stuff in your local community on your local Freecycle, Freegle and Akron Freecycle like Freecycle, Freegle, ReUseIt or Full Circles? Akron Freecycle. Free stuff in Akron plus local listings and wanted items (Akron, Summit OH). Akron, Freecycle. Free stuff in Akron, plus local listings and wanted items (Akron, Summit OH). Akron Freecycle. Free stuff in Akron plus local listings and wanted items (Akron, Lancaster PA). A description for this result is not available because of this site's akron-canton free stuff - craigslist. favorite this post Oct 16 89 90 91 Integra LS Dash Complete (Akron) pic map hide this posting restore restore this posting. Freecycle, Akron/Cuyahoga Falls/Mogadore and Surrounding Areas Buy Sell Trade- Akron Ohio Buy/Sell/Swap/ or Give. Give and get free stuff in your local community on your local Freecycle, Freegle and Akron Freecycle like Freecycle, Freegle, ReUseIt or Full Circles? Akron. 2. WANTED posts: Currently we allow 1 WANTED post every 7 days, not to repeat the same request more than 1x every 30 days. Do you think this is necessary? Giveaways, free stuff, free to good hands items in Akron, OH. Craigslist %x10%20picture% The Akron Ohio Freecycle seems to be unresponsive. I will be looking for other like-minded groups. Is there any that "work"? We all know that we should recycle, but do you know that you can also freecyle usable items that you would otherwise place in the trash? The Freecycle Network™ is composed of many individual groups across the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Grassroots Social Innovation and the Mobilisation of Values in Collaborative Consumption: a Conceptual Model
    Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model * Chris J. Martin a, , Paul Upham b, c a Department of Public Leadership and Social Enterprise, The Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK b The Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK c The Energy Research Institute, School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK article info abstract Article history: There is growing interest in the potential of grassroots innovations to play a role in the transition to Received 16 December 2014 sustainable production and consumption systems. However, the role of values has been little considered Received in revised form in relation to the development and diffusion of grassroots innovations. We develop a conceptual model 19 March 2015 of how citizens' values are mobilised by grassroots innovations, drawing on the value theory of Schwartz Accepted 18 April 2015 et al. (2012) and the theory of collective enactment of values of Chen et al. (2013). Using the results of a Available online 28 April 2015 large scale survey of free reuse groups (e.g. Freecycle and Freegle), which enable collaborative forms of consumption, we apply the conceptual model to explore how participants' values are mobilised and Keywords: fi Grassroots innovation expressed. We show that while the majority of free reuse group participants do hold signi cantly Reuse stronger self-transcendence (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the New Sharing Economy
    Exploring the New Sharing Economy APRIL 2015 | WHITE PAPER John Madden Director of Sustainability and Engineering Campus + Community Planning University of British Columbia On behalf of Light House Sustainable Building Centre Prepared for and Funded by the NAIOP Research Foundation. © 2015 NAIOP Research Foundation There are many ways to give to the Foundation and support projects and initiatives that advance the commercial real estate industry. If you would like to do your part in helping this unique and valuable resource, please contact Bennett Gray, senior director, at 703-904-7100, ext. 168, or [email protected]. Requests for funding should be submitted to [email protected]. For additional information, please contact Margarita Foster, NAIOP Research Foundation, 2201 Cooperative Way, Suite 300, Herndon, VA 20171, at 703-904-7100, ext. 117, or [email protected]. Contents Introduction ............................................... 1 What Is the Sharing Economy? ................................. 2 Social Dimensions ....................................... 3 Scale and Design ........................................ 3 An Example: Tool Libraries ................................. 3 Growth ............................................... 4 Key Drivers ............................................ 5 Challenges and Opportunities for Large Companies ............... 6 Transportation and Mobility .................................... 8 Car Sharing ............................................ 8 Bike Sharing ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • A New Theoretical Prototype of Sharing in an Online Community☆
    JBR-08453; No of Pages 10 Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Business Research Positive marketing: A new theoretical prototype of sharing in an online community☆ Michael T. Krush a,⁎, Julia R. Pennington b,1, Aubrey R. Fowler III c,2, John D. Mittelstaedt d,3 a North Dakota State University, Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business, 316 Richard H. Barry Hall, 811 2nd Avenue North Fargo, ND 58108-6050, United States b University of Tampa, Department of Marketing, College of Business, 401 W Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33606, United States c Langdale College of Business, Valdosta State University, 1500 North Patterson Street, Thaxton 318, Valdosta, GA 31698, United States d College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, United States article info abstract Article history: Positive marketing champions exchange that benefits individuals, firms, and society at large. One method in- Received 1 January 2012 creasingly used to exchange goods is sharing. Sharing describes the non-monetary transfer of goods between ac- Received in revised form 1 April 2014 tors. Scholars have called for greater understanding regarding an online community's ability to perpetuate Accepted 1 April 2014 sharing. This study uses empirical research to explain the structural elements that facilitate sharing within the Available online xxxx Freecycle community. Fifty-seven in-depth interviews are conducted with participants and analyzed using grounded theory. The authors introduce a new theoretical prototype of sharing, provide insight on how modern Keywords: Positive marketing consumers engage in a sharing activity, and describe the structural characteristics that facilitate sharing within an Sharing on-line community.
    [Show full text]
  • "Beyond the Bin" Recycling Guide
    Beyond the Bin RECYCLING GUIDE SKAGIT PLASTIC REDUCTION & RECYCLING COALITION Protecting shorelines and oceans by reducing plastic waste in Skagit County Beyond the Bin RECYCLING GUIDE Refuse – Reduce – Repurpose – Recycle Skagit Plastic Waste Reduction & Recycling Coalition A Project of Friends of Skagit Beaches August 2019 Acknowledgments Special thanks to Jan Hersey for collecting and collating much of the information in this guide over many months, as well as for donating her time as a professional writer. Also, thanks to Betty Carteret for her work researching, writing, and collaborating with Jan to edit and organize this booklet. This guide would not be possible without their hard work and dedication to reducing waste and envisioning this community resource. Additional thanks to Callie Martin, Skagit County marketing and outreach coordinator, and to research volunteers Michelle Marquardt and Ruth Taylor for their time and contributions to the guide. 04 CONTENTS Recycle Right! ...........................................................................................ii Start Here—Read This ..........................................................................ii Part I – Recyclable Items ...................................................................1 Avoid Wishful Recycling .......................................................................1 Understanding Battery Types .............................................................2 Battery Recycling ....................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Competition in the Sharing Economy
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Demary, Vera Working Paper Competition in the sharing economy IW Policy Paper, No. 19/2015 Provided in Cooperation with: German Economic Institute (IW), Cologne Suggested Citation: Demary, Vera (2015) : Competition in the sharing economy, IW Policy Paper, No. 19/2015, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW), Köln This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/112778 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified
    [Show full text]
  • Issue: the Sharing Economy the Sharing Economy
    Issue: The Sharing Economy The Sharing Economy By: Patrick Marshall Pub. Date: August 3, 2015 Access Date: September 30, 2021 DOI: 10.1177/2374556815601429 Source URL: http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1645-96738-2690068/20150803/the-sharing-economy ©2021 SAGE Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ©2021 SAGE Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Is it really different from traditional business? Executive Summary What's called the sharing economy—peer-to-peer transactions conducted via the Internet and smartphones—has changed how people arrange car rides, find vacation lodging and more. Revenue is projected to soar in the coming years, although profitability remains untested. But as businesses such as Uber, Lyft and Airbnb flourish, regulation and collection of taxes, primarily by state and local authorities, have become more difficult to enforce. Traditional businesses such as taxis and hotels complain that these newcomers are gaining an unfair advantage by ducking oversight that's meant to protect consumers. Additionally, debate has grown over whether service providers in the sharing economy are independent contractors or employees. Some of the key issues under debate: Is the sharing economy more efficient than traditional markets? Should regulators treat the sharing economy the same way as conventional competitors? Are sharing-economy companies platforms for independent contractors, or are they employers? Overview The “sharing economy”—in which consumers connect with service providers using Internet applications instead of relying on traditional providers—is booming. On a typical day, an estimated 247,000 items are sold on Etsy, 140,000 people rent accommodations through Airbnb and 1 million people ride with Uber.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharebox: Designing a Physical System to Support Resource Exchange in Local Communities
    ShareBox: Designing A Physical System to Support Resource Exchange in Local Communities Matthew V. Law, Mor Naaman, and Nicola Dell Information Science The Jacobs Institute, Cornell Tech [mvl24;naaman;nixdell]@cornell.edu ABSTRACT Indirect resource exchange (IRE), where individuals share physical items with one another but do not receive direct bene- fits (e.g. payment), has the potential to increase communities’ access to resources, reduce consumption and waste, and boot- strap social ties. Although social technologies could play a key role in realizing this potential, significant barriers have emerged to the adoption of IRE services, including concerns related to trust, reciprocity, and coordination. To explore these issues, we designed and iterated on a concept called Share- Box, a system that enables IRE through a smart lockbox. We developed ShareBox as a technology probe following a set of design guidelines including: creating a physical-virtual system, enabling asynchronous and anonymous exchange, allowing for low-entry-barrier interactions, and emphasizing affordabil- ity and flexibility. We explore the benefits and trade-offs of Figure 1. ShareBox—a physical and virtual platform for borrowing and lending items in local communities—at one of the deployment sites. these design guidelines through short deployments and semi- structured interviews with community members, and present Indi- findings that highlight both the potential and the remaining for lending and borrowing physical items, which we call rect Resource Exchange challenges of our design. (IRE) has proven elusive, even as such exchange holds great promise to benefit local communities. ACM Classification Keywords Prior work has associated sharing of physical resources H.5.m.
    [Show full text]