Del Norte authority to remove non-marketable resin codes from outreach after audits show contamination

The Del Norte County Solid Waste Management Authority discussed changes to local recycling guidance and stepped-up contamination controls after staff and contractors reported that some plastic resin codes no longer reach viable markets.

Staff told the authority that some items currently listed in outreach materials as acceptable — notably resin code 7 ("other") and resin code 4 (LDPE, commonly plastic bags and flexible film) — no longer have local markets and should be removed from the county’s recycling list.

Why it matters: continuing to tell residents to place nonmarketable items in recycling creates persistent contamination that increases processing costs and leads to more material being landfilled. Authority staff said updating literature and a public information campaign are needed to align resident behavior with what can be sold to markets.

At the meeting Shauna, who presented the authority’s recycling education work, summarized outreach activity across Del Norte County, saying, “We have taken a broad and active approach to engage our community and promote sustainability through radio, newspaper ads, social media, and school partnerships,” and described school presentations, business audits, the yellow-tag program and presence at community events.

Chandra, the authority’s waste specialist, reported results of internal research and conversations with Recology: “Number 7 is a resin code of ‘other’ … there’s no viable markets where they can take this and have these melted or pelletized,” she said. Chandra said LDPE (number 4) is similarly limited in curbside markets and that some items carrying the recycling symbol nonetheless are not accepted in local curbside programs.

Board members and staff discussed corrective steps: revising stickers and literature to remove codes 4 and 7, running radio ads, producing clearer pictures of unacceptable items, and scheduling regular six‑month updates from the waste specialist to the authority. Staff proposed returning to a subsequent meeting with a timeline and communications plan for when and how the changes would be implemented.

The authority also discussed operational measures tied to contamination. Staff described recent audits of loads at the hard‑recycling facility, said some Smith River collection points had been heavily contaminated and that a small number of loads recently were redirected to the transfer station for disposal. Options discussed to reduce bad loads included more on‑site auditing, moving staff to the hard‑recycling facility for on‑arrival audits, and exploring deterrence such as camera monitoring in cooperation with local landowners.

Staff noted the discussion is linked to change order 19 in the service agreement with Recology, which includes periodic marketability presentations from the contractor. No change to the contract text was adopted at this meeting; board members asked staff to return with a formal timeline and outreach plan.

Staff and board members said outreach must also address “wish‑cycling,” where well‑intended residents place unacceptable materials in the recycling stream because packaging shows a recycling symbol. The authority committed to clearer messaging and closer coordination with Recology and statewide efforts to reconcile labeling with market reality.

The authority did not set an implementation date at the meeting; staff said they expect to return with a letter and a proposed schedule for outreach and literature updates.