Author: admin

January 23, 1996, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Presented by 
The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Recycled Water Information Clearinghouse, 
Central Basin Municipal Water District and West Basin Municipal Water District
in association with
The Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)Introduction — Ray Remy, President, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

We are pleased to be part of the Recycled Water Information Clearinghouse because it gives us a chance to be part of solving a very important issue for business in our area — sufficient supplies of reasonably priced water. We like the idea of business, government and environmentalists sitting around the table to find common solutions. It seems hard to get elected officials in Southern California interested in water issues, but in the Northern California, people are more concerned about it.

The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce will continue to be very active in water issues, especially with the involvement of both Dennis Paulson, the First Vice President, and Ron Lamb, the Vice President for Governmental Relations.

Water Supply and Demand for Economic Development — Richard Atwater, West Basin MWD

All of us in the water supply business want to talk to you about how we can provide you better water at less cost, and protect the environment at the same time — and the secret is recycled water.

The West Basin and Central Basin MWDs have over 150 major business customers using recycled water, including Exxon, LAX, golf courses, nurseries, as well using it for groundwater replenishment. We have taken advantage of the construction of the Century freeway to put new pipes into the Downy Springs area, opening up the opportunity for many more customers to use recycled water.

Water from Water, a new video by the National Water District Institute, which is funded by the Irvine Family to do research on water issues, with emphasis on outreach.

The video says that only 1% of water is currently being actively recycled in the U.S., but every drop of water in nature is recycled many times, in fact the total amount of water on earth never changes, only the distribution of it varies. Nature uses rocks and sand in streams, and percolation through rock to clean water for us. In our plants we are just repeating naturešs processes.

Water recycling has been used across the country for many years. For example, Clayton Georgia is using recycled water to irrigate natural forests and other land.

Michael Cook, USEPA, has found recycled water is of very high quality. For example, the Upper Occupan Sewage Treatment Authority provides a source of drinking water for parts of Virginia.

In Yuma, Arizona, the nationšs largest recycling facility of runoff from agriculture, desalts the water and puts it into the river for reuse. In heavy industry, Bethlehem Steel has been using treated sewage water since 1942.

In the Irvine Ranch Water District the reclamation system makes water available for landscaping. Using a drip irrigation system eliminates evaporation and runoff, and a subsurface irrigation eliminates a muddy soccer field.

The challenge is the publicšs perception, but as our population grows, we have to balance the agriculture and municipal uses of water. We know the public will have confidence as long as the treatment plants are functioning well.

State Policies and Support for Water Recycling — Mike Hoover, HYA Associates

The State of California recognizes water recycling as a win-win opportunity, so it is popular topic, with a number of bills proposed every session. People recognize the state will be short of water, by perhaps 3 – 5 million acre-feet per year (AFY) in next 20 years.

There is a California action plan for water recycling. I have put together the 90 California statues on water recycling. The California Water Reclamation Act of 1991 set goals of recycling 700,000 AFY by 2000 and 1 million AFY by 2010, but more is needed. The Urban Water Management Act says that planning to consider recycling water is required for all new construction, but actual usage is not. Another act ensures that industries using recycled water receive relief on water and sewage bills. There is a mandate that businesses consider maximizing opportunities for water reuse in irrigation, industrial supply, cooling system, toilet flushing, etc. But California has a reasonable use doctrine that balances reasonableness against beneficial uses.

Who Uses Recycled Water Now?– Tom Holliman, Long Beach Water Department

Use of reclaimed water is increasing across the state. In 1989, it was 150,000 AFY, by the year 2000, we estimate at least 1 million AFY, and by 2010, over 1.4 million AFY.

Statewide, 53% of recycled water goes to agriculture, 21% to ground water recharge, 17% for landscapes, and only 2% to business. Since recycled water is less costly, L.A. is showing big increases in business use of reclaimed water. We are aiming to reduce the price of recycled water to 48% of potable water. Remember that so far 1995-96 is in a drought rainfall pattern, but the supply of recycled water is always reliable.

What Current Users Say about Recycled Water

— Chris Spurrell, Chevron El Segundo Refinery

We process more water than oil in our refinery. We built it on the coast to use sea water for cooling water, but we have found recycled water works better in many of our cooling applications. Right now wešre using 10,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (14 million gallons per day), allowing 4,000 gpm to evaporate.

Wešve found the recycled water has just a little more phosphate than drinking water, but by adding chemicals to reduce scale, we are reusing it five cycles before flushing. The bottom line is we are actually getting better performance than from drinking water, and it is cheaper. So wešre bringing recycled water on for the rest of the refinery.

— Chuck Jones, Tuftex Industries, Santa Fe Springs

We make carpets for businesses and homes. We use a million gallons a day to carry the dye as we color the carpet, using 20 pounds of water for every pound of carpet. We need to control the chemicals in the water for the dye to work well. At first we found the reclaimed water had a rotten egg odor, and without the chlorine in it, we got bacteria growth in our tanks. With a lot of work to get the pH where we want it, now it works well.

Before using recycled water, our re-dye jobs were 7% of production. Now they are half of that, now down to 3% (much lower than any other factory in the business), because our water is more stable. It is costing us less money to buffer it than before, and the cost of the water is less, so we are pleased.

Cost Savings and Benefits of Recycled Water — Jim Graham, Las Virgenes MWD

We are recycling over 3,000 AFY for landscape irrigation purposes. Our Board of Directors is pricing reclaimed water at 75% of the cost of potable. It is a drought-proof supply — there are no drought restrictions placed on use of reclaimed water.

The plant nutrients in the recycled water have enabled our customers to eliminate the use of lawn fertilizers, and they save on their sewage charges.

The only expense is the plumbing conversion (it would be best if installation was done at the beginning), but the expense is recouped in a short time. Since schools have no capital funds available, we developed a painless conversion financing, in which they would pay potable water rates until they paid back our loan. The $30,000 was recouped in less than 3 years. We have recycling very successful, the community has embraced it whole-heartedly.

What Does It Take To Go From Potable to Recycled? — Earle Hartling, Recycling Coordinator, L.A. County Sanitation District

All water on the planet has been reused many times (as someone said, we all are drinking dinosaur pee). Our agency collects and treats waste water and provides a very clean reusable source of water. We are pleased that SCCED has helped to get the business community on board in support of recycled water.

One of the main reasons for reusing reclaimed water is that, if there is a water shortage, recycled water is dependable. In fact, the cost of water is not as important as reliability of water supply for most businesses, such as refineries, concrete manufacturers, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.

The County Sanitation District has 10 reclamation plants capable of providing over 200 million gallons per day. Our intent is to divert any additional increased flow since 1962 to reclamation facilities. We manufacture reclaimed water and provide it to the water purveyors to get it to your door. They build another infrastructure, with pipes and pumps, coded with the purple pipe color. The water is actually drinking water quality but the State does not allow it to be mixed with potable water, they put in back check valves, etc. You donšt have to say the water is dangerous, you just have to say ŗDonšt drink this water,˛ and mark the pipes in purple.

Recycled water distribution lines are expanding and the cost is lowering. Cost savings vary from 28% to 80% of the cost of potable.

Questions and Answers — Adán Ortega, Central Basin MWD

Q: What is the Recycled Water Information Clearinghouse?

A. The Clearinghouse was established in 1994 to inform business and the community about the issue. The Chamber has prepared a position paper on water, including recycled water. We want to outreach to business, to hold seminars across the 5 county region.

Q: Can recycled water be used around homes?

A. Yes, it can be used in greenbelt areas around homes, Las Virgenes has one home irrigated with reclaimed water. Some home owners associations use it to water lawns, but California Health authorities does not want it readily available to the average home owner because of concern he might get the pipes mixed up. In Florida and other areas it is used for yards and for toilets.

Q: Will recycled water be available in Wilmington?

A: Yes, soon.

Q. Are there any cost savings for recycling water back into the system?

A: Sewage treatment cost is the same to us, but if we can use smaller diameter sewer lines, that saves money. Sacramento is discharging secondary treated effluent into the Sacramento river which is reused by other cities. Whittier Narrows is using it for recharging groundwater, which is then used for drinking supplies. Someone has calculated that New Orleans water has gone through 5 people before they pump it from the Mississippi for their water supply.

Q: What about health risks?

A: Ca

Prepared in Cooperation with the Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED) Water Task Force by Jim Stewart and Neal Shapiro

Summary:

Why We Should Recycle Water

Water recycling is:

Needed: To meet current and projected water demand, the SCAG region needs to fully exploit the locally-available potential for water reclamation.

Available: Water from existing water reclamation plants is readily available for recycling, but is not being fully used. Additional facilities can be built.

Safe: Recycled water is highly treated and disinfected, making it safe for all permitted uses, which are strictly regulated by state and local authorities.

Economical: Recycled water can be provided to users at less cost than imported water, plus it enhances the local economy by using a local resource.

Environmental: Recycled water is environmentally sound, reducing depletion of watersheds, saving energy and reducing air pollution.

Useful: Recycled water is used for many applications, including industrial processes, landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barriers, environmental enhancement and recreation.

Acceptable: Government bodies, businesses and organizations have endorsed the use of recycled water.

Doable: Water recycling is prent throughout the world. In Southern California, a number of steps can help increase the use of recycled water.

The Need for Water Recycling in Southern California

About 75% of the state’s rain falls north of Sacramento, but 80% of the net water demand is south of Sacramento¹. Therefore 6 million acre-feet per year (AFY) [an acre-foot = 325,851 gallons] must be moved from Northern California to Central and Southern California, plus another 5 million AFY are brought in from the Colorado River¹, but still the demand is not met.² The State Department of Water Resources predicts statewide shortfalls of up to 4.1 million AFY by the year 2010.¹ The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation draft report on water use and reclamation has identified a shortage in Southern California of 0.23 million AFY in 1990, increasing to nearly 3 million AFY by 2040.³

The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) serves 85% of the population of the SCAG region plus the County of San Diego. The following table shows the actual sources (in millions of acre-feet per year) for MWD’s service area in fiscal year 1993-4 which was a “wet year.” The table also shows the MWD preferred resource mix projected for 2020 if it were a “dry year” (such as the severe drought in 1991), assuming the population of the MWD service area grows from the current 15.7 million to 21.5. (The drought year “supply” also includes 0.16 million AFY in drought management reductions, plus conservation practices.)

Sources 1993-4 2020 (if severe drought)

State Water Project (SWP) 0.82 1.37

Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) 1.30 1.20

Los Angeles Aqueduct 0.21 0.21

Local Groundwater (wells) 1.03 1.64 (includes wells & dams, and

Surface Production (dams) 0.17 drawing from storage)

Groundwater Recovery 0.003 0.05

MWD Storage & Transfers 0.45

Recycled Water (direct uses) 0.25 0.55

Total 3.78 5.47

However, there are some concerns about these projections, such as possible reductions in Colorado River water as more of the Central Arizona Project comes on-line. There are possible further reductions in the SWP from environmental concerns in the Delta. And there is always the possibility of future extended droughts.⁵

Groundwater is an important local source, supplying over 25% of our current needs, yet we are over-pumping the underground aquifers in SCAG’s rural areas.² Because of past overdrafts in urban areas, about 50,000 AFY of freshwater must be injected back into the ground at key locations along the coast to keep the sea water from contaminating aquifers.⁶ There is additional storage capacity available in local aquifers, which could be recharged with recycled water as a protection against drought, which would also reduce the need to import distant fresh water for groundwater recharge.

Water reclamation is crucial for diversification of sources, to protect ourselves against any decrease in SWP or CRA supplies. The projections in the table for the year 2020 of 450,000 AFY from recycled water assumes the completion of currently planned projects. There could be substantially more if we as a society decided to fully utilitze water reclamation. (Note that the table includes as “groundwater” over 120,000 AFY in the Santa Ana River Recharge Project which is supplied by treated wastewater from San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.⁴)

Potential Sources for Recycled Water

The Draft Report by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is just completing a study of water use and reclamation in Southern California.³ They identified the total wastewater production in the SCAG region at over 1.6 million AFY in 1990, increasing to 2.5 million AFY in 2010. They believe all of this water could eventually be reclaimed (which could eliminate the need for any imports from the SWP, for example). This water source is also “drought resistant” because it flows independent of rainfall.

However, only a fraction of the wastewater is currently being recycled. For example, L.A. County Sanitation Districts process about 564,000 AFY, nearly all of which could be treated for recycling. In 1994-5, only 9% or 54,000 AFY was actively recycled, the rest sent to the ocean.⁷ Similarly, the City of Los Angeles Hyperion and Terminal Island Wastewater Treatment Plants discharge over 400,000 AFY of treated water into the ocean. None of the water from these plants was recycled in 1994-5. Two upstream treatment plants, Tillman and LA-Glendale, built specifically to be water reclamation plants, produced 86,240 AFY of reclaimed water, but only 22,900 AFY were re-used⁸; the other 95% of L.A. wastewater was discharged to the ocean. Half of the Las Virgenes Tapia Water Reclamation Facility is discharged to the ocean due to lack of off-season storage facilities.

The reasons for these ocean discharges include a lack of policy support for reclamation, insufficient piping to consumers and recharge basins, and state limitations on the amount of reclaimed water recharge allowed in certain groundwater basins.

There are a number of projects under construction or consideration which could substan-tially increase the amount of recycled water. The West Basin project, now beginning to recycle Hyperion water, is projected to reuse over 100,000 AFY by 2015. The L.A. Office of Water Reclamation 1990 study looked at long term options to utilize all of L.A.’s waste-water for purposes ranging from groundwater recharge to export for agricultural use.⁹

Another potential mean of recycling water is the use of gray water from households and businesses. With precautions, this can be recycled on site for landscape irrigation, reducing overall demand for fresh water.

Recycled Water Is Safe

Since state authorities already require tertiary treatment of wastewater before it can be discharged to local waterways (secondary treatment for ocean outfalls), effluent from the water reclamation plants in the SCAG area is safe and suitable for all purposes (except direct human consumption), including swimming, irrigation, and groundwater recharge.¹⁰ It is virtually micro-organism-free, containing less than the detection limit of bacteria. One agency, the L.A. County Sanitation Districts, found only one virus in 890 samples from 1979 – 1995,¹⁰ which is considerably better than normal drinking water. It is well below the health limits set for 46 metals and organic compounds in drinking water, as shown in the attached table.¹⁰

Another example of its safety is that most of the population of Orange County drinks groundwater recharged by the Santa Ana River, whose primary dry weather flow is from the treatment plants in San Bernardino and Riverside. In fact, the Santa Ana Watershed recycles 43% of its wastewater (nearly 200,000 AFY)¹¹ through groundwater recharge or direct irrigation. Studies have shown that percolation through the soil in Southern California can easily purify treated recycled water and make it suitable for drinking. Thus using recycled water for groundwater recharge does not contaminate aquifers.¹⁰

Recycled Water is Economical

Because of subsidies from federal and state governments and from the MWD, recycled water is usually sold to consumers at a discount, ranging from 10% to 85% of the cost of imported potable water.¹⁰ A recycled water customer also does not have to pay the sewer charge, which is about $1.35 per 749 gallons in Los Angeles.⁴

In addition, local water reclamation projects provide local jobs and retain money, some of which would otherwise be used for purchase of foreign oil and out-of-state coal to produce electricity for pumping imported water.⁴ The L.A. County Sanitation Districts estimates that the 54,000 AFY it recycled in 1994-5 saved over 160 million kWhr of electricity (worth $6 million).⁷

Recycled Water is Environmental

The impact on fish and other wildlife caused by water transfers from Northern California has been the subject of much contentious debate; it is likely that the less transferred, the less impact on the environment of Northern California. In addition, energy is required to move the water such great distances. It takes about 30 times less energy to distribute local recycled water than to pump it in from Northern California.⁴ Every 100,000 AFY recycled avoids the release of 228 tons of pollutants that otherwise would have been caused by burning oil to produce the electricity for pumping.⁷

Another environmental benefit is using the nutrient or fertilizer content of secondary quality reclaimed water, which increases crop yields, reduces pollution from fertilizer run-off and saves the costs of adding chemical fertilizers, estimated at $20 to $45 per AF.⁴

Uses for Recycled Water

Water has been recycled for decades. The U.S. EPA reports Baltimore, Maryland, started supplying treated sewage water to industry in 1936.¹² A California 1993 statewide survey of water reuse reported the following uses in thousands of AFY:¹³

Category Thousands of AFY Percentage

Groundwater Recharge 185 48%

Agriculture 80 21%

Landscaping & Parks 47 12%

Environmental Uses 29 8%

Industry 7 2%

Seawater Intrusion Barriers 7 2%

Miscellaneous 29 8%

Total 384 100%

All of these uses could be greatly increased.

Steps to Increase the Use of Recycled Water

Some of the ways to increase knowledge of, acceptance and implementation of recycled water use are:

1. Public policy statements by government bodies and water companies. 
(See attached Statement of Support for Water Reclamation.¹⁴)

2. Analysis of water policies and costs and benefits to identify the best approaches to increase incentives for use of recycled water.

3. Expansion of integrated resources planning, as the MWD is already doing.

4. Education of business and industry on the urgency, safety and cost savings of recycling water themselves or by using recycled water from water districts.

5. Education of the public on the urgency, safety and cost savings of recycling water, especially for groundwater recharge. This could include media features, water bill stuffers, etc.

6. Education and incentives to encourage the installation of home gray water recycling systems, thus saving money and helping the environment. Laws and regulations requiring the use of gray water recycling systems in new businesses and housing developments.

7. Increased funds to expand recycling projects, especially using the output of the region’s Water Reclamation Plants to supply the various uses.

8. Integration of the agencies and the public into an improved regulatory review process.

9. Involve the public in all stages of project development through citizen advisory committees, public workshops, hearings and other review processes to facilitate recycling facilities’ acceptance by the public and rapid implementation.

10. Revision of the State Department of Health regulations which currently unrealistically limit the use of tertiary treated wastewater especially for groundwater recharge.

Endorsements of the Use of Recycled Water

Government bodies endorsing the use of recycled water include:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
California Water Resources Control Board (January 6, 1977, resolution)
California Department of Water Resources
California Department of Health Services
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Orange County Grand Jury
L.A. Department of Water and Power
L.A. Department of Public Works
Orange County Water District
L.A. County Sanitation Districts
West Basin Metropolitan Water District
Central Basin Metropolitan Water District

Businesses endorsing or actively using recycled water include:
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Chevron Oil
Mobil Oil
ARCO
UNOCAL
Tuftex Carpet Dying
Robertson Ready Mix
Water Gardens Commercial Complex in Santa Monica

Organizations endorsing the use of recycled water include:
California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health
WateReuse Association of California
Sierra Club
Heal the Bay
Mono Lake Committee
Surfrider Foundation
Audubon Society
TreePeople

In addition, many organizations (see attached list) have specifically endorsed the San Gabriel Valley recharge project, which is currently being opposed by the Miller Brewing Company.⁹

References for Footnotes

¹ California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-93, California Department of Water Resources, October 1994.

² California Water 2020, A Sustainable Vision, May 1995 (quoting Department of Water Resources estimates).

³ Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Draft Report, November 1995.

⁴ Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, October 1995.

⁵ Water Resources Inventory in the City of Los Angeles, Neal Shapiro, 1995.

⁶ Estimate by Bahman Shiekh, West Basin Municipal Water District, 1995.

⁷ Annual Status Report on Reclaimed Water Use for Fiscal Year 1994-5, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.

⁸ Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, November 1995.

⁹ Water Reclamation in the Past: Opportunities and Plans for the Future, City of Los Angeles Office of Water Reclamation, January 1990.

¹⁰ Water Recycling in Los Angeles County, Earle Hartling, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 1995.

¹¹ Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, fiscal year 1994-5 data.

¹² Guidelines for Water Reuse, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1992.

¹³ Survey of Future Water Reclamation Potential, WateReuse Association of California, July 1993.

¹⁴ Statement of Support for Water Reclamation, WateReuse Association of California, June 1994.

The State of the Local Environment and Economy – 1997

Prepared by the Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)

The following documents present past data and projections for the future. In most cases the data are for the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) 6-county area (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial Counties).Population, Economy and Equity IndicatorsAir Quality and Associated Health RisksTransportation Congestion, Modes of Travel, EquityEnergy Sources and FuelsWater Supply for the RegionWater Quality in Santa Monica BaySolid Waste and RecyclingLand Use

California High Speed Rail Plans
Held 4/19/99 at the MTA HQ in Los Angeles
Notes by Jim Stewart
Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)

The 50 representatives from Los Angeles Environmental and Transportation Activist Groups were mainly supportive of potential reductions in air pollution and highway congestion and less need for expansion of LAX. The group focused on the following issues.

1. Route alignments : The route along the I-15 corridor could encourage new suburban sprawl, while a route through Orange County would mainly go where there are already people living.

2. Station locations : Stations should be in existing downtown centers and transportation hubs.

3. Equity: Several people were concerned that the sales tax would mean everyone would be supporting a system used primarily by businessmen.

4. Quality of life : Will this promote more livable communities? Can it bring more benefits than comparable funds on improved local and regional transit?

Notes from the Meeting

Kathleen Gildred , Director of Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED), welcomed the group of about 50 people, primarily from environmental and transportation activist groups.

Gloria Ohland , Director of Los Angeles office of Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), raised the question of the transportation/land use connection. We are facing the issues of the Central Valley tripling in population and suburban sprawl spreading throughout the state. The question is will high speed rail promote outlying development or help reduce sprawl?

As California’s population increases, either we build more highways, or a high speed train network. Will we have stations in the suburbs with huge parking lots that encourage more driving to the stations? In the city, where will we find space with huge parking lots? Can it link up with the existing transportation system? If done well, high speed rail could be useful.

Will funding for high speed rail compete with funding for local rail? Will we raise the tax on the general populace or on the users?

What are the political realities? Governor Davis called it a Buck Rogers scheme.

Dan Leavitt , Deputy Director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, presented an outline of the purpose and plans for high speed rail in California: Our process is to get input from across the state so that the plan speaks to the needs of all California. High speed rail is important because the state’s population is expected to increase by 50% to over 50 million in the next 25 years, mostly from births to the current inhabitants. Currently many highways are congested, and airports are close to capacity.

High speed rail can move people safely, efficiently and environmentally. The High Speed Rail Authority is a state agency with the authority to build a system. However, the financing method is not yet determined. A 1/4% sales tax could pay for all capital construction costs, then the system would operate at a surplus.

High speed rail technologies have been in use for over 20 years by the French and Japanese. They work well at 200 miles per hour, and have been tested at 300 mph. No fatalities have occurred from train malfunctions. Magnetic levitation technology (called Maglev) could travel faster, but so far it has never operated in a revenue mode.

The proposed route would include the major population areas of San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego and the fastest growing parts of the state, including the Central Valley, Palmdale, and the Inland Empire. Anticipated travel times between San Francisco and Los Angeles would be 2 hours and 52 minutes using steel rail technology, and only 2 hours and 5 minutes with Maglev technology.

High speed rail will travel on different tracks but it could operate in rail or freeway corridors on elevated structures. It will have non-stop, skip-stop and local trains. It will travel only about 125 mph in the Los Angeles urban area. We anticipate 52 through trains/day each direction, and could accommodate an additional 150 trains per day for local service. Ridership projections are 20 million passengers per year by 2015, using steel rail technology, producing annual revenues of $27 million. The higher speed Maglev technology would gain more passengers and more income.

The complete 676-mile system would cost $23 billion for steel rail technology, more for Maglev. It would cost about $10-15 million per mile to construct in rural areas, more in urban areas. Our plan is to secure funding by the end of 2000, requiring a voter measure on the November 2000 ballot.

We are now developing our business plan, updating ridership forecasts and designing corridor plans. We are also looking at the comprehensive statewide rail plan, with improvements in conventional rail to serve as feeders to the high speed rail system.

We are looking at various route alternatives (see the maps on the website www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov). We hope to include most of the major airports in the system. Recommended routes will be presented at the Authority meeting in Los Angeles on June 16 .

Discussion

Gloria Ohland asked about revenues?

Leavitt: Our revenue projections are based on a ticket costing 70% of the airfare from Los Angeles to San Francisco, but much less than the current air costs from the Central Valley. So Los Angeles to San Francisco would be $45 one way, and $30 from Fresno to Los Angeles.

Ohland: Is a sales tax fair way to raise revenue?

Leavitt: This system serves most of the California population, 90% of population will live near a station. It will benefit all of California’s economy, through the ability to move people and goods rapidly and pollution-free.

We are contemplating a sales tax rather than gas tax, which has less stable revenue. Also some County laws make gas tax not available for non-highway uses. We anticipate raising $800 million/year with 1/4% for 15-20 years (depending on our business plan). We anticipate 1 million riders/year, primarily long distance between cities.

Audience: $20-30 billion is an enormous price tag and the MTA says it can’t afford $700 million for rail to Pasadena. Could we do it on an interim basis, start with a conventional upgrade of the current rail system?

Leavitt: Parts of the Amtrak Los Angeles to San Diego corridor run at 90 mph, but it cannot compete with the car. The U.S has invested $8 billion (primarily Federal money) to upgrade and grade-separate the NE corridor cost to add tracks and increase speed and it does compete with airplanes and cars. Now, to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco by rail, you have to take a bus part of the way and it takes 9.5 hours. Or you can take the rail coastal route in 11.5 hours. We calculate that a service that would compete effectively with airplanes and cars would take 3 hours.

This is an opportunity to build a completely separated corridor for both high speed rail and regular freight. It complements the Alameda corridor.

The sales tax increment will cover capital costs, revenue in excess of operating costs will reduce the period the tax will be needed.

In terms of the relation with the SCAG proposed intra-region rail, there will be a application for Federal planning funds by the Authority, that will integrate both the statewide and SCAG planning need into one application.

Audience: Has TransRapid Germany stopped its Maglev system?

Leavitt: No.

Susan Bok , City of L.A. Department of Transportation: It may reduce air flights, will it reduce auto trips?

Leavitt: It will help reduce both auto and air trips. Now the Central Valley and Temecula people have no decent air service. The short hops are very expensive, our main airports are congested, we need to reduce commuter flights. Since the people are already living in the Central Valley and Temecula, high speed rail would focus growth around urban areas near the stations. It will reduce air emissions from both cars and planes. It will divert more auto passengers than air passengers. We have estimates of the number of trips and costs.

Sheldon Plotkin , Southern California Federation of Scientists: What about a direct LAX-Palmdale airport link?

Leavitt: It is too costly to run high speed rail along the 405 and there is less ridership on that route than from Palmdale to downtown. LAX has looked at feasibility of a link from LAX to Palmdale and the ridership forecasts are too low to justify the cost.

Audience: El Toro airport, if approved, could have 40 million annual passengers and is on the Amtrak route. Can you include it?

Leavitt: The potential direct link to Anaheim could be extended to El Toro. We are also looking at conventional rail improvements in Orange County.

Audience: Why not just do a conventional rail upgrade program or do parts of it?

Leavitt: To get a rail system with enough revenue you have to connect the major transportation markets with high speed service. That’s why we are presenting the 3 major connections: Los Angeles-San Francisco, Los Angeles-San Diego, San Francisco-Sacramento.

Audience: To get a statewide ballot measure passed, you need to show the benefits to the average taxpayer.

Dana Gabbard , Southern Calif. Transit Advocates: Do you have strong support from the Governor and Legislature? I heard the Governor referred to it as a Buck Rogers idea.

Leavitt: The Governor and Legislature cannot formally support it until we have a plan, but they are talking about it. This is not a Buck Rogers plan, these systems have been working in other countries for decades. He has people in his administration who are very interested in seeing this happen.

It is true that Maglev is a new technology, but the company would have to guarantee it would work and post money to ensure that.

Audience: You forecast a ridership of 1 million people per year. Those would primarily be white business people taking business trips. So the rest of us would have to pay 1/4% extra sales tax to subsidize business trips by white people. I believe it will be an environmental disaster and a seismic disaster. The benefits will go primarily to the corporations that build it, such as Bechtel and Jacobs Engineering. A lot of black and Hispanic groups will oppose it.

Ohland: Will it promote more livable communities? How will it affect neighborhoods? Where will the stations be?

Leavitt: The route and station options in the Central Valley are to be determined. The stations in the urban area will be at the current transportation hubs, such as Union Station.

Dan Silver , Endangered Habitats League: The Norm King article calls high speed rail an insupportable public subsidy. He says it doesn’t help traffic congestion, there are other ways to spend 30 billion.

Leavitt: We have invested billions into our highway system and more is needed. CalTrans says they need $150-200 billion for highway maintenance and improvements over the next 25 years. This project will not end congestion in Los Angeles or the Bay Area, but does allow you to have some transportation options. You could get from Riverside to San Diego in less than an hour. This 2 track system has the capacity of an 8-lane freeway.

Silver: SCAG has an application for Federal funds to develop a high speed rail system within the region.

Leavitt: There is now an agreement that there will be one application through the High Speed Rail Authority working with SCAG. It is similar to the SCAG proposal,

The Japanese bullet train now carries 120 million passengers per year.

Audience: A sales tax separates those that benefit from a project from those that pay for it, a gas tax would be fairer.

Jim Stewart , SCCED: Using the income tax would be much fairer because the higher income people more likely to use the rail will pay more than lower income people.

Bok: Here in Los Angeles, many taxpayers do not want to pay more for transportation services, the people are likely to vote it down.

Audience: Local transportation is underfunded. We need a lot more money for welfare to work needs. How did this proposal get started? Who really needs it. It would be a big benefit to the Central Valley, but not statewide.

Leavitt: It was started by Senator Kopp, from San Francisco, and Senator Costa, from the Central Valley. There is strong support for it currently from the Inland Empire and elsewhere.

Lynn Plambeck , Sierra Club: High speed rail will help you to live in the Antelope Valley and get downtown quickly. The result will be to promote suburban sprawl, unless you can tie it in with location-efficient mortgages so people have incentives to live near the stations and you don’t eat up more farmland and open space.

Audience: Who will decide on the route?

Leavitt: The California High Speed Rail Authority, which has 5 members appointed by Governor Wilson, and 4 appointed by the state legislature, will make the decision on the route. Past feasibility studies have shown this system will work.

Audience: Now about 45% of Orange County travelers use LAX. How could they use high speed rail to go to Ontario airport? How would the drive time and high speed rail travel time compare from Anaheim to Los Angeles, LAX and Ontario?

Leavitt: I don’t have those numbers in the top of my head, but we do have some calculations.

Charles DeDeurwaerder : From a professional planner’s point of view, we are developing an individualized non-integrated planning approach. If you develop high speed rail, you need a parallel plan for limiting urban sprawl, such as growth boundaries, so the trains are supporting an intensified urban growth.

Audience: It would be better to have the route be where people are, such as through Orange County, so you are not promoting sprawl, as in the Riverside route. I suppose that route is less expensive because Riverside to Escondido is outside populated areas.

Audience: If you took an incremental approach, upgrading the current rail system would not be dependent on a tax increase.

Leavitt: that incremental approach would not get the travel time down to where it could compete effectively with planes or cars.

Audience: The average speed of Amtrak today is 44 mph, which is same as it was in 1930.

Leavitt: Our task is to prepare a statewide plan for a high speed rail system with some additional conventional rail improvements.

Audience: Benzene and other pollution from airplanes into LAX causes cancer in South Central. How can we can reduce the number of planes into LAX? The route along the 15 would not get people from Orange County to Ontario. But if you develop El Toro airport, then you don’t need to get to Ontario airport.

Leavitt: This system could link all the airports in Southern California. Now 1/3 of flights from San Diego are flying only to LAX. A high speed rail system would reduce that number.

Audience: In the San Gabriel Valley, we are concerned about freight lines. You are going to piggyback on the existing rail system, can you move freight?

Leavitt: We can move light freight, similar to that now carried in planes, but heavy freight would have to be carried by the regular freight lines.

Audience: An earlier proposition for intercity rail got a 80% no vote. What about an airport tax to raise money to mitigate its own problems, rather than tax all of us?

Leavitt: It takes federal legislation to allow the use of airport funds for this. But there have been some federal-state partnerships that have improved travel to airports.

Audience: Could a proposition provide alternatives for within-corridor travel, with conventional improvements between cities?

Leavitt: Our projection is the most revenue will come from Los Angeles to San Francisco travel. It will be comparable to the total travel time by air from Los Angeles to San Francisco which is about 3 hours end to end. This system would be even more convenient for people from San Jose and other intermediate cities.

Audience: What about giving the voters alternatives, e.g. build the Los Angeles – San Diego corridor first?

Leavitt: The feasibility of such a system was determined in 1996 by the High Speed Rail Commission, so the question for the Authority is how to best implement it. For example, you could do the San Francisco to Sacramento leg, and Los Angeles to San Diego leg first.

Dana Gabbard , Southern California Transit Advocates: The people who will fund the campaign to pass the tax will be the people who will benefit from the project, like Bechtel and the other big companies. How do you feel when you find out that the people who are supporting it are out to make a buck, not for environmental reasons. Can we do this with that kind of allies?

Audience: There is no rail system without an operating subsidy, some are being subsidized at 50 – 90% of costs. The Century Freeway is only 16 miles long and took 20 years to build and took away a lot of homes.

Audience: We need a marriage of airports and rail. SCAG is doing various airport scenarios. High speed rail is assumed. We need a feeder system to get people to the airports. Rail is an investment in the future. There is a lot of air cargo at LAX, you could use the cargo to gain revenue for high speed rail. Perhaps the feeder systems could be funded by County bond measures. The air passenger facility charge paid for the JFK rail system to Manhattan.

Leavitt: We are looking at feeder lines from San Luis Obispo, and Palm Springs. Our routes include LAX, Palmdale, Ontario, and potentially El Toro.

Gabbard: Is Orange County supporting it.

Leavitt: The original draft had an Orange County route. Orange County is favorable, but there is too much opposition along the coast to take that route.

Stewart: What about using Route 5?

Leavitt: It would be too expensive on the 5 because there is no extra right of way, so it would have to be aerial all the way.

Ohland: Every transportation mode is subsidized, including highways. Bechtel will also benefit if highways are built instead of high speed rail. We need more investment in urban areas.

Leavitt: CalTrans said to maintain the roads needs $200 billion over the next 25 years.

Leavitt:: The alignment to LAX would go along the rail corridor, but the average speed would be 60 mph.

Audience: What stations are you considering?

Leavitt: We looking at Temecula, in addition to Riverside.

Audience: How can a person in South Orange County get to I-15 corridor?

Leavitt: You can use the Metrolink corridor to Riverside along the 91. We are also looking at the option of a high speed rail link through Fullerton.

Gildred: What about the different technologies?

Leavitt: CyberTran is for short distances. It won’t get to 200 mph and it is an unproven technology, with no revenue-generating system in operation.
Maglev will achieve speeds of 300 mph. The Japanese have built a test track, Germany has plans to build a Berlin-Hamburg line, but revenue-generating system testing is important. Japanese high speed rail has over 200 trains per day, with less than a minute between trains. It has to work very reliably.

Sen. Moynihan put Maglev in the T21 Federal bill because he wants to have it built somewhere. It is attractive because it can run through tighter curves and accelerates quicker than steel wheel technology. We think it is premature to decide on Maglev technology unless they can put up financing to guarantee it will work.

Audience: The French TGV high speed rail uses old tracks and stations.

Leavitt: Conventional trains, including Metrolink, are too heavy to use our aerial high speed rail tracks, so high speed rail will have to use different tracks.

Anthony Loui , Southern California Transit Advocates: We need to have alternatives that would not foster urban sprawl. We need to work with the MPO’s to place the corridors and the stations in the best places. We need to help public to understand the benefits. The American Institute of Architects is doing a design for the next 10 million people in the Central Valley. We need to show the benefits of the high speed rail system for those people.

Leavitt: The preferred draft alternative route will be presented in June in Los Angeles.

Anthony La : The public needs to see the numbers to be convinced that no operating subsidy is needed. You could use a design, build, operate and maintain agreement by a private company.

Leavitt: It is easy to have private business operate a system once they are built with public money. Even private sector contribution of $1 billion would be a modest part of the total cost. We will do a detailed financing plan to be presented late this year.

Audience: Who will benefit by the use of this train, and who will pay? The reality is that all of us will pay, whether we use it or not.

Leavitt: This system is needed for California’s future. The question is how do we handle transportation for another 20 million people? The question is how do we grow? Does this high speed rail make our state a better place to live?

The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be. The cost to build the initial part of BART was only a few billion dollars for 70 miles, now it will cost $1 billion for seven miles. Is it worth the price for California’s future to delay?

The urban rail commuter systems need operating subsidies, but air transportation and high speed rail can make money. Now conventional rail service cost $100 million per year because we are subsidizing a few people to use it.

But if you put the money in to build the infrastructure, then the private sector can operate it at a profit. The airports and highways were built by the taxpayers.

Walter Siembab : I did a rail station-oriented development study. Look at the website to see models of station-oriented development.

Additional comments

Other comments received by phone and email from people unable to attend the meeting:

Elizabeth Moule , MPArchitects: I am not able to attend this very important meeting and would like to give you my comments and concerns.

First, it is critical that high speed rail has stops in the major city centers,
like downtown LA and not have stops in peripheral suburban centers. The
stops are far more important than alignments. Growth will develop
concentrically around these stops and these stops could induce further
suburban sprawl. The best way of thinking about how to plan such a rail
system is to look at traditional European Cities and look how all train stops are
in cities, not just the TGV. Japan also has a pretty good network of rail stops.

Now it is important to plan alignments correctly because it is important not to make breaks or divisions in important wildlife corridors or have them encroach upon large tracts of undeveloped land- whether natural or agricultural.

Second, high speed rail is an important part of a comprehensive rail
system for many reasons. High speed rail can increase the popularity of
all rail because it is so efficient, clean, safe etc. It will definitely
reduce air traffic and will decidedly question the expansion of other
airports, not just LAX, but Ontario, Burbank etc. It will do little to
reduce local traffic congestion- only to the extent that there is
traffic generated by airport trips.

A high speed rail system must be well integrated into a comprehensive
rail/ bus system so that the traffic currently going to airports is not
just relocated to high speed rail stops. One should be able to entirely
by rail or bus (quickly) from one’s home or workplace to a high speed rail stop.

It is important to remember that the effectiveness of high speed rail as
a serious competitor to air will depend on total travel times. This is
also why it is crucial for the success of such a system to have stops in
the densest localities within the current city and in localities where
future growth is meant to go. Stops need to be located where they have
the greatest access for the most people. And certainly future growth
needs to be contained within existing centrally located urbanized areas
– so stops like Pasadena, somewhere in the middle of the San Fernando Valley and
so on, are good choices.

Finally, it is important not to pit high speed rail against other rail
systems. It is important that it is compared to car systems and, yes, to
bus systems. While bus systems have a short-term effect on reducing
vehicle use, they have less of a positive long-term effect on
development patterns. Because bus systems are mobile themselves, they
have no effect on solidifying development in certain patterns. Because
rail is fixed, it can attract and organize development around it which
can establish permanent patterns which reduce further suburban sprawl.

Ellen Stern Harris , Fund for the Environment: It must have accommodation for the disabled, like the airlines have wheel chairs and porters. To get the tracks off the beach at San Clemente, they should put them in a tunnel under the water.

Deborah Murphy , Los Angeles Walks: We need a route through the San Fernando Valley, with a stop in Van Nuys. It would be better to have high speed rail along Route 15 than none at all.

Dr. Bob Gottlieb , Occidental College: I am very concerned about community and environmental impacts. I want the follow-up notes and to be included in future discussions.

Jeffry Carpenter , Community Redevelopment Agency (personal view only): I think this is great that you are bringing some exposure to this topic and my congratulations to your organizations for your efforts. I can offer some perspectives to your questions:

1) Will high speed rail (HSR) promote Sprawl or Not? Absolutely vital question. The answer is, of course, “it depends”…on what others do.

I would say that HSR is a vital and important tool-but only a tool and not
in itself a panacea-that developing communities can use to focus,
structure and add richness of scale to their growth. If the Central
Valley is to be saved from the pressures for sprawl that are
increasingly bearing down upon it, HSR will be an essential tool for
Valley communities searching for catalysts to help them create more
compact, transit and pedestrian-oriented districts, villages, town
squares and what have you around HSR stations.

One such “village” every 50-100 miles by itself a Smart Growth landscape
doth not make. But it can provide a powerful example and stimulus. It
can provide an enormous shot in the arm to local transit and
inter-community bus systems by providing uniquely active nodes
delivering a unique supply of non-auto using visitors, most of whom will
be looking to make a connection to someplace in the local area. Rail
delivers travelers in an environment that can be made uniquely
supportive of the transit choice. Our airports, for lots of reasons,
almost invariably do not.

The self-interest here: A big city (like LA, but Oakland and San
Francisco, et al. as well) needs to make it easy for people to visit to
do the things here that Big Cities do best. But, for an awful lot of
potential clienteles, we are not easy to get to. You have to go to an
airport, fly, get to another airport-which is still nowhere-and schlep
yourself somehow into the center of Where Things Are. For LA in
particular, inter-city rail is a key strategy in helping realize a lot
of urban potentials. Metrolink is a very major step and the City, I
believe, wants to very much continue to enhance the inter-regional rail
option. But we need another, fundamental tier of rail service. Having
to rely up the present array of air, auto and present-day Amtrak
effectively precludes most big cities in California, in many ways, from
“delivering the destination”.

I think the idea of HSR stations as catalysts for multi-purpose locally-scaled community nodes needs to get a lot more emphasis and worked up with allied constituencies. Would it be possible to get the Local Government Commission involved in this area, as an
element of the State’s Livable Communities initiatives?

2) Upgrade or Not: Two responses. First, this is not a question!
Of course we upgrade and maintain what we have.

Second: But that is not the question. What are we talking about
upgrading that responds to the needs and the outcomes we are seeking?
Tripling the runways and the gates we give to Southwest Airlines? Are
the commuter airlines really going to respond to the needs of the
50-100-200-300-400-500-mile etc. trips that HSR can serve? Have not the airlines
spent the last two decades withdrawing what commitments they had been
making? And even if they reversed themselves to provide these
competitive-speed connections, do we really want to spend the money and
endure the disruption of expanding the State’s regional airports? Will
all of that really get us “where we want to go”?

Isn’t the handwriting been put on the wall with how citizens around LAX, El Toro, John Wayne and Lindbergh Field feel about these issues? Would we be smart to have commuter air travel as our only time-efficient option for longer-distance intra-state travel? How much is this “option” already costing us? (we don’t have the faintest idea!) How much, truly, are the incremental costs of purchasing additional amounts of capacity (we don’t have any idea, but it is a lot more than what we
have been paying-and there is a real question whether the industry could
really “deliver”).

Or are we talking about “upgrading” US 101 and/or I-5? How? Doubling
the number of lanes? Are these sorts of options truly just
“upgrading”-or are we, in the long term, essentially committing to
building a new system? Why would we support these options with the
penalties they entail in pollution, petroleum dependency, promotion of
sprawl and loss of community scale?

Or are we talking about Amtrak improvements…like raising the speed in
Rose Canyon (North San Diego) or Simi Hills (east Ventura County) from
15 mph to 25 mph…? …things that are absolutely essential to do and
should have been done a long time ago-but will not, by themselves,
constitute the fundamental response in terms of competitive speed and
capacity that will guide future growth in any smarter direction than
what we have today.

I think the routes being considered are plainly designed to compliment
existing inter-city rail services. The Coast route-which really only
serves Santa Barbara and misses most other population centers, will
continue on the coast at a scale that is appropriate to that special
environment. The HSR corridors, by contrast, attack the core issues of
growth in the Central Valley and the lack of connectedness between the
Bay Area, the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley and the Southern
California basin.

From LA south, my assessment of the issues turns gray. Apparently the
rationale is that HSR could be difficult and disruptive through some
segments of the LOSSAN corridor, so the I-15 corridor is proposed
instead. HSR would seem to partially duplicate the Inland Empire
Metrolink routes (although there could be utility to an effective
connection with Ontario Airport, per question 4). Putting the Inland
Empire at the apex of a LOSSAN/HSR triangle could create a powerful
inducement away from more historic urban centers. I think State policy
should uate what we should be doing in that regard.

In short, we need to be sure that we are comparing “apples to apples”.
What are the alternative ways that the people of California can purchase
“x” thousands (1,000? 10,000? 50,000? 500,000?) of daily trip
capacity between these “y” points (e.g. the centers of dozens of rural
towns and of big cities) with an average portal-to-portal travel speed
(in excess of 75 mph? 125 mph? May need to benchmark what the
competitive ranges are here.)

We should be aware that, in particular, the airline industry and others,
such as the trucking industry, will ultimately bring enormous resources
to bear against HSR in California. These are both very important
participants in the State’s economy and their rightful roles need to be
acknowledged and supported.

But the agendas they have pursued in past debates have sought to obscure
the true, underlying issues and borne no accountability to the future of
California and its citizenry. An enormous effort has to be made to keep
the debate centered and not allow people’s fears about very large costs
and amounts of money (which, in fact, are at stake in any action or
inaction) be pandered to.

3) Inter-City Verses Intra-City Priority. This is an interesting
and challenging question. My inclination is to say, however, that they
are really two separate, non-substitutable needs. Can we really ask,
“should we buy clothing or should we buy food?” Does the airline
industry or the trucking association have to defend itself against, for
instance, the Pasadena Blue Line or MTA bus service improvements in the
San Fernando Valley? Are not we, then, being unfair by singling out HSR
to do battle in such contests? If we are going to change the rules and
the playing field, we need to be consistent and across-the-board.

In addition to responding to very different-but, arguably, equally
legitimate-needs, we can note that the clientele base is very different.
Hence, the implied resource base that would be called upon to support
one or another option would be different.

I think it is also important to note that the playing field is very
tilted here: Where do the status quo players have to go to justify
their State-wide operations? Do they have to endure a plebiscite for
their long-term public cost burdens for, say, grants from the US
Airports and Airways Act, long-term municipal bonds, subventions from
FHWA? Of course not. It is a game of selective divide-and-conquer,
almost entirely out of public view or scrutiny. We do not have a State
Department of Transportation that has generated a State-wide planning
framework that would promote these cost-effective choices. In the
meantime, we will just have to make do-but recognize that
problem-solving initiative is very highly penalized in this area. The
State’s structure has the effect of powerfully conspiring on behalf of
the status quo.

Finally, I believe that in the case of HSR, there is something
fundamentally different about this question than when we ask it (if we
could) of the status quo. In the contemporary environment, the debate
between inter- and intra-city typically involves an inter-city element
that is often destructive to the best intra-urban choices. More airport
runways supply capacity, but markedly diminish livability and, as
mentioned before, are biased against transit choices. A new
super-highway adds capacity but not a scale that reinforces community
scale and values. With inter-city rail alternatives-whatever the
speed/range configuration-there is the potential for a powerful,
mutually-reinforcing synergy. We typically do not have a way of
factoring this into the equation. We need to work on framing this.

4) Can HSR Reduce the Imperatives of Airport Expansion and Help
Contain Ground Access Congestion? The short answer is “yes, of course”.

The caveat is “…depending upon whether all involved can work together”.

Municipal airport authorities will insist that they really want to
achieve an “optimum” transportation balance. But with no other choices,
this is an empty platitude, since there is nothing else to “balance”
with. Will they readily accede to a more calibrated role, should HSR
arrive to help them achieve broad transportation goals? Not likely.
They have fought transit as a threat to rental car revenues; sharing of
the “core business” can be expected to be fought even more vehemently.
Again, another example of a failed State mandate for a transportation
planning framework….

Air cargo, the fastest growing component of ground access traffic, could
conceivably benefit from a railroad (electrified, grade-separated,
semi-automated) to one or more intermodal transfer yards. LAX was
contemplating such a railroad for passengers between LAX and the
Hawthorne airport. That could take a lot of truck traffic to better
connected, less congested locales.

It is not discussed much (outside of one technical report from the
former Commission), but HSR would appear to have significant potential
for the some of the same kind of cargo now carried in aircraft. Mail
and high-value small parcels, for instance, which

Wednesday, November 18, 1998
Santa Monica, California

Organized by the
Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)
626 Santa Monica Blvd. #253, Santa Monica, CA 90401-2538
Phone: 310-281-8534 Fax: 310-455-3011 Website: www.scced.org
Email: [email protected]

The report is divided into eight files:
Executive Summary (3 pages)
Introduction and Keynote Presentations (4 pages)
Procurement Track (23 pages)
Maintenance Track (6 pages)
Resources for Buying Recycled (6 pages)
List of Conference Participants (5 pages)
List of Vendors (2 pages)
Report on Conference Feedback (2 pages)
Below is the Table of Contents followed by acknowledgments of the Sponsors, Co-sponsors and Conference Task Force. (Note that page numbers are approximate, depending on margin settings.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. INTRODUCTION AND KEY NOTE ADDRESSES
Environmentally Smart Purchasing in Santa Monica, Craig Perkins – Page 1
Environmental Purchasing in King County, Eric Nelson – Page 2

3. PROCUREMENT TRACK

RECYCLED PRODUCT SUCCESS STORIES
Successes in the City of Los Angeles, Susana Estreller – Page 1
Successes in Victorville, Claudia Roberts – Page 4
Making the Shift to Sustainability, Ron Weber – Page 5

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE POLICIES FOR BUYING RECYCLED
Environmental Purchasing in Santa Monica, Dean Kubani – Page 7
Alameda County Recycled Product Purchase Preferences Program, Beth Eckl – Page 10

COOP BUYING, Eugene Grigsby – Page 13

EDUCATING THE END USER
Developing an Interactive System with the Users, Eric Nelson – Page 14
Ways to Involve the Users, Beth Eckl – Page 16

NEW BID SPECS: REMOVING BARRIERS TO BUYING RECYCLED
Executive Order on Preventing Waste and Acquisition Policy, Timonie Hood – Page 18
Buying Recycled – An Historical Perspective, Gretchen Brewer – Page 20

COOPERATIVE BUYING: COST EFFECTIVE BUYING STRATEGIES
Master Contracts Available from the State of California, Pat Bailey – Page 21
Get Serious About Buying Recycled, or Lose Recycled Paper, Jennifer Pinkerton – Page 22

4. MAINTENANCE TRACK
Buying Green Cleaning Products, Debbie Raphael – Page 1
Recycled Products at the U.S. Post Office, Martin Graham – Page 3
No-Maintenance Recycled Plastic Lumber Saves Money, Larry Wheaton – Page 4
Re-refined Oil Works Well, Grahame Watts – Page 4
Environmental Practices in the Fleet Maintenance Facility, Ralph Merced – Page 5
Environmentally-friendly Street Maintenance, Robin Jarrett – Page 5
Stocking Recycled Products at the Central Warehouse, Mark Breed – Page 6
APPENDICES
5. Resources for Buying Recycled
Websites
Listserves
Other Buy Recycled Resources
Other Purchasing Resources & Websites
6. List of Conference Participants
7. List of Vendors
8. Report on Conference Feedback

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sponsors included: America Recycles Day/California, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Founding Chapter.

Co-sponsors included: American Public Works Association, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), California Association of Public Purchasing Officers (CAPPO), California General Services Administration, California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA), City of Beverly Hills, City of Claremont, City of Culver City, City of Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, City of Redondo Beach, City of Santa Monica, City of West Hollywood, Los Angeles Metropolitan Public Purchasing Agents Cooperative (LAMPPAC), League of California Cities, Local Government Commission, Maintenance Superintendents Association, Municipal Equipment Maintenance Association, National Marketplace for the Environment, UCLA County-Wide Solid Waste Policy Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX.

Conference Task Force included: Joe Haworth, Mike Miller, Kim Braun, Joan Satt, Carmen Carso, John Jakupcak, Kathleen Gildred, Kate Lutz, and Jim Stewart.

Report of Regional Forum to Prepare an Issues Paper for Submittal to CIWMB
Organized by SCCED, May 18, 1999

Executive Summary

A total of 26 participants, including 18 cities and counties, 4 consultants and 4 haulers, met to review and comment on a survey report called “Concerns of Southern California Solid Waste/Recycling Professionals: Issues and Solutions” The discussion encompassed issues to raise to the CIWMB as well as issues to be dealt with on a local and regional level.

CIWMB: Major solutions the group would like considered by the CIWMB include (see more details and additional suggestions in the full meeting report below):

1. CIWMB should increase markets for recyclables
Remove tax advantages/subsidies for virgin materials
Establish State and Federal tax incentives for recyclables
State take the lead in market development for recyclables
Expand RMDZs (Recycling Market Development Zones)
Educate farmers to use organic fertilizers/compost
Support use of life cycle costing for all purchases
Establish post-consumer content minimums through legislation
State purchase recycled content products
Provide state subsidies for producing recycled content products.
Form a group to address market development issues as required in SB 1066.

2. CIWMB should support improved disposal reporting systems
Endorse recommendations of the L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force

3. CIWMB should support increased greenwaste recycling
Increase state funding for programs such as compost bins
Educate the public about the value of compost
Continue credit for ADC
Educate the public about reducing chemical use on lawns
Regulate pesticides because they damage compost; not subsidize bad chemicals

4. CIWMB should support increased C&D recycling
Cities should get diversion credit for refilling a depleted gravel pit, if it has a permit.
Support use of recycled C&D materials in construction

5. CIWMB should increase business incentives to reduce waste and increase diversion
Work with manufacturers associations to reduce over-packaging, and if that doesn’t work, pass legislation to mandate it
Establish pre-disposal fees for products
Examine the German green dot system
Support SB 332 (Sher), “Beverage containers” to expand the bottle bill
Support SB 1110 (Chesbro), “Rigid plastic packaging,” to increase recycled content in plastic containers
Provide more technical assistance to businesses
Do more education of the public on the advantages of using re-refined oil

6. CIWMB should increase program support funding
Fund public education in addition to collection to reduce the amount of HHW generated

7. State should set the example in recycling/diversion
Support passage of SB 75

8. CIWMB should improve enforcement procedures for AB 939
CIWMB must inform the cities and haulers what constitutes a “good faith effort”

9. CIWMB should improve adjustment procedures for AB 939
Send out a list of the acceptable fixes to base year

10. CIWMB should improve consideration of Southern California issues
Hold a special L.A. County fix meeting
CIWMB hold meetings in Southern California before final decisions made on policy
[We are pleased with the establishment of a CIWMB local office in Southern California]

11. CIWMB should support increased recycling in multi-family residences
Share ideas from innovative programs that are working well.

12. CIWMB could assist recycling facilities siting
Support a simpler permit process for small recycling, composting and MRF facilities

16. CIWMB provide improved information to local jurisdictions
More timely feedback on biannual reports (many cities have not yet received a response to their 1995 reports)

General comments were very positive about the attitude and competence of the CIWMB staff.

Regional/Local: Major suggestions for solutions to be adopted at the regional and local level include:

1. Cities should increase markets for recyclables
Purchase recycled content products
Expand RMDZs wherever possible
Use life cycle costing for all purchases

2. Improve disposal reporting systems
Implement recommendations of the L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force

3. Increase greenwaste recycling
Expand programs such as compost bins
Educate the public about the value of compost

4. Increase C&D recycling
Mandate use of recycled C&D materials in construction

5. Increase business incentives to reduce waste and increase diversion
Support SB 332 (Sher), “Beverage containers” to expand the bottle bill
Support SB 1110 (Chesbro), “Rigid plastic packaging,” to increase recycled content in plastic containers
Provide more technical assistance to businesses
Do more education of the public

11. Increase recycling in multi-family residences
Share ideas from innovative programs that are working well.

13. Improve regional cooperation
Develop regional partnerships and reporting
Develop regional recycling facilities
Expand regional/sub-regional coordination meetings

14. Improve reporting on self-haul

15. Improve incentives to increase diversion from landfills

Introduction to the Meeting

Kathleen Gildred , SCCED: I want to welcome you to this discussion. Many of you have been involved in the conferences and forum that SCCED has conducted on solid waste Issues. SCCED is a non-profit organization working for a sustainable future for the region in open space, transportation, and waste management issues.

This meeting is a follow-up to a meeting on March 2, 1999, in Diamond Bar to increase Southern California input into the CIWMB 21st Century Project. Bendan Blue, assistant to David Roberti, has assured me that Mr. Roberti is very interested in our viewpoints.

Joe Haworth , L.A. County Sanitation Districts: I will be facilitating this meeting. The opinions expressed at this meeting are personal opinions, not formal positions of the cities and counties, but they are valuable because they are from the people who are actually involved in the implementation of solid waste programs. Our purpose here is to be productive and positive, to work on solutions to challenges we are facing recycling and solid waste management.

Jim Stewart , SCCED: In front of you is a survey report called “Concerns of Southern California Solid Waste/Recycling Professionals.” The list of Issues and Solutions for the survey was based on input from the March 2, 1999 Diamond Bar meeting and from an Orange County solid waste task force. A total of 34 solid waste/recycling professionals responded to the survey, including 29 cities, 3 consultants and 2 haulers. Respondents rated each proposed Issue and Solution as High, Medium, or Low priority. They also suggested additional solutions, which are presented in italics with one priority vote.

Scores were assigned on the basis of 5 points for High priority, 3 for Medium, 1 for Low, and 0 for no vote, meaning a maximum score of 170 points. The attached report of findings shows the calculated scores as well as the number of persons voting H, M or L priority for each issue and solution. Note that the issues and solutions are calculated separately so that a solution can get a higher score than its parent issue.

Comments by Participants

1. Increase markets for recyclables

We need resolutions from the cities to support all the efforts mentioned below.

End subsidies for use of virgin materials, remove tax incentives, end welfare for wasting.

To increase recycling, everyone should use life-cycle costing.

The US government should mandate advance disposal fees. Newspapers have a requirement for recycled content, we could require it for copier paper, etc. Make it the manufacturers’ responsibility. Use predisposal fees to internalize the disposal expense in the cost of the product.

Encourage government purchase of recycled content products.

Work regionally for group purchases to reduce the higher costs for recycled content products. (L.A. County is working on a group purchase contract for recycled paper.)

Pass legislation to require post-consumer content.

Recycled content should not be limited to paper. We should include all metal and plastics products. For example, recycled content playground equipment is available. So is plastic wood. CIWMB should provide grants to business to develop more such products.

Provide state subsidies for producing recycled content products.

Plastic containers should be required to have recycled content.

State take the lead in market development for recyclables

State should take the lead in purchasing recycled content products.

SB 1066 specifically required the CIWMB to form a group to address market development issues, but the CIWMB has ignored that requirement.

State is helping to educate farmers to do composting and use fertilizer from compost. This is important.

Expand RMDZs (recycling market development zones). There should be more RMDZs. The state only allowed a limited number. A community should be able to establish its own district.

RMDZ low interest revolving loans are helpful, but so much paperwork is required, some companies are rejecting them.

If there is sufficient investment by private capital, then the state should make that business eligible for loans without so much paperwork.

Should have loans available anywhere for recycling businesses.

RMDZ program should not sunset in 2006.

2. Support improved disposal reporting systems

The L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force is currently preparing recommendations to CIWMB. We started with making recommendations on disposal counting to all 88 mayors. We also have a series of recommendations regarding legislation. The recommendations from this meeting will be mutually supportive.

Because of the problem of transfer stations not reporting, the L.A. County Task Force recommends an audit of all transfer stations to record the amount from each city.

Orange County has a continuous reporting system. Until L.A. County has that, our disposal counting is inadequate and not a good way to determine compliance for a community.

We do not want to create more jobs for consultants, we want to reduce bean counting. Accuracy is a high priority concern, and it is being worked on by the L.A. County Task Force. Beyond the year 2000, we want to look at quality of our numbers. Now it seems like too much false accuracy, we should just do the best we can.

The CIWMB established a working group with 16 solutions, not one of which addresses L.A. County issues. The CIWMB approved a staff report ignoring comments from us. We need a new base year adjustment.

L.A. County has 1/3 of the state’s population and generates no more that 1/3 of the waste, so we are not the “bad boy” some in the state try to imply.

It is hard to adjust the base year, because of the proof CIWMB requires.

Riverside County has a big problem.

Orange County has waste leaving the County that is not accurately reported.

The CIWMB should allow L.A. County jurisdictions to claim the orphan tonnage without justification, to utilize additional base year tonnage as originally approved.

3. Increase greenwaste recycling

Relative to greenwaste, high priorities are 3 a, b, g. We need state funding for programs, compost bins.

More composting is blocked by siting problems.

People need to know the value of compost. The CIWMB should help educate the public about the value of compost so they know to separate and save it. PSAs could show how well fruits and vegetables grow in it.

L.A. County has a smart gardening program.

L.A. County is working with haulers to help educate people about greenwaste.

We need to educate about reducing chemical use on lawns. The state needs to regulate pesticides use because they damage compost. We should not subsidize the bad chemicals.

The ADC regulations need to stay in place.

The City of El Monte has a program to distribute backyard composters for $10. We need more compost seminars and subsidized bins.

Once you get some people using them, their neighbors see how successful they are.

The problem is an exclusive franchise that charges a set fee for residence.

The City of Santa Clarita charges people $1.50 but gives them $1.50 off their bill if they compost.

Some haulers recognize the value of greenwaste and know how profitable it is and fear backyard composters will take their business away.

Some haulers take greenwaste to Arizona to get more money.

ADC costs less than composting, because of L.A. County’s reduced fee for ADC.

Pasadena now pays $13/ton to recycle greenwaste. It would be better if we could pay a hauler $10/ton to take greenwaste away.

It is important to provide a menu of options, including backyard compost bins and greenwaste collection cans.

4. Increase C&D recycling

We should get credit for refilling a depleted gravel pit, if it has a permit. AB 219 (Gallegos), “Surface mining and reclamation,” would deal with this issue. It states that if a depleted gravel pit with a reclamation plan approved by the state, it should be not counted as disposal. These inert landfills, will not counted as disposal. It would no longer be reported on either side of the ledger.

Everyone should recycle C&D and not use virgin materials in construction. The CIWMB is talking about this also.

We should have all cities adopt ordinances requiring that all contractors recycle C&D in order to get a building permit.

A problem is a lot of roofing waste is not covered by building permits.

Some of the gravel pits are doing recycling on the spot and making money from it. They are filling more slowly and that is ok.

The L.A. County Task Force is developing a ban to prohibit inert waste at sanitary land fills.

5. Increase business incentives to reduce waste and increase diversion

The USEPA has said there will not be any federal mandate on packaging. They are hoping the states will take on this role.

The German green dot system requires that manufacturers take back the products and packaging. This is the ISO 14000 system. An incentive is that Germany is doing well economically using this system.

Over-packaging needs to be tackled at the producer level.

We should support SB 332 (Sher), “Beverage containers” to expand the bottle bill.

Support SB 1110 (Chesbro), “Rigid plastic packaging,” on plastic containers.

Technical assistance is now being done at the local level. L.A. County has staff and consultants that go to every business in unincorporated areas to provide consulting.

The state needs to take the lead on working with manufacturers associations to get packaging reduction to happen, and if doesn’t work, then we need to pass legislation to mandate it.

We should add restaurant chains.

The CIWMB should promote the advantage of using re-refined oil.

6. Increase program support funding by CIWMB

Everyone gets funding for HHW, but little else.

The CIWMB does not provide funds for any HHW activity except collection. Public education needs to be funded.

L.A. County proposed a program to increase participation in HHW, but was turned down by the CIWMB. We need to inform people to bring their HHW to collection centers routinely.

The CIWMB should change its policies to support public education.

Huls non-disc grants are competitive,
HHW funding originally was non-discretionary and we could get money that could be used for fliers, etc. The competitive grants category is now too small to get enough money to do this.

The CIWMB should do education to reduce the amount of HHW generated.

The used oil block grant is 30¢ a resident.

We could use money to prove the diversion of HHW.

We are putting all the costs of HHW on the community and none on manufacturers.

The CIWMB collects $1.34/ton times 12 million tons so L.A. County sends $16 million every year to Sacramento. 9¢ of that is for HHW, which is over $1.1 million much of which is distributed to other places in the state.

7. State should set the example in recycling/diversion

Support passage of SB 75 (Strom-Martin) “State agency recycling” which requires State agencies to be involved in waste reduction and to reduce waste 25% by 2002, and 50% by 2004, unless no markets are available or there is financial hardship.

If AB 75 doesn’t have the market and financial escape clauses, then it would put more pressure on the State.

Under AB 75 the CIWMB would have to develop regulations on how to measure diversion.

Now agencies such as State facilities and schools don’t have to comply with AB 939.

We can report problems with State agencies as part of our good faith efforts.

It costs money to analyze how much waste is being generated by the State, so the State should be required to pay for or do these reports.

We should ask that SB 1066 be implemented regarding the requirement to develop a proposal to increase markets for recycled.

The CIWMB has a list of 10 priorities, we should prepare a list of the top 10 priorities for our city councils to adopt and pass on to the CIWMB.

We also want to include concerns of haulers.

8. Improve CIWMB enforcement procedures for AB 939

CIWMB must inform the cities and haulers what constitutes a “good faith effort”

Now we have 50,000 extra tons we don’t know what to do with.

If a city is applying more than 8 pounds per person per day, then the CIWMB will question it, which is ridiculous.

Cities were not told their item was on the agenda, so they are required to use L.A. County fix.

9. Improve CIWMB adjustment procedures for AB 939

The CIWMB has not told cities of their response to their 1995 report.

The CIWMB never sent out the acceptable fixes.

If a city can’t adjust their base year, then they are in trouble.

10. CIWMB should improve consideration of Southern California issues

We need a special L.A. County fix meeting with the CIWMB.

The CIWMB held a meeting on SB 1066 in October in Diamond Bar, but the notice was poorly worded, so no one realized the importance of the meeting and very few people showed up. Now the CIWMB has no plans to come to Southern California for an open meeting.

We want a opportunity to air our views.

The CIWMB met in Southern California on January 21 in a meeting that was open by invitation only.

There are a lot of cities with few staff people and they cannot send staff to a meeting on only a week’s notice.

David Roberti announced the CIWMB will have a local office in L.A. County in June.

We don’t get notices on CIWMB meetings, the Board staff that sets up meetings is different from the staff we work with regularly.

The Board staff are helpful.

We are not hearing back from the Board. We have issues going to the Board but never hear anything about what happens.

In one year the tonnage in L.A. County dropped 100,000 tons, primarily because of lowered tipping fees in Orange County following their bankruptcy.

CIWMB should send one third of their staff here.

We should congratulate the CIWMB on the good things they do.

The CIWMB staff is responsive to our questions, but they don’t contact us with new information.

Kaoru Cruz emails us regularly about the what is happening, but the others don’t.

The Board switches staff around a lot and L.A. County seems to get the new people.

The Governor needs to complete the CIWMB appointments so the Board can move ahead.

11. Increase recycling in multi-family residences

Using MRFs is better than trying to educate people.

L.A. County has contract people going out to multifamily residences, headed up by George Dellao in Mike Mohajer’s office.

The state should share ideas from innovative programs that are working well.

The state has a guidebook on multifamily residences.

There is a CIWMB newsletter on information cycling.

12. Support recycling facilities siting

We need a simpler permit process for small recycling, composting and MRF facilities.

Siting is a land use issue. L.A. County has been trying to site a composting facility in Lancaster for 7 years. The result was the local people created their own AQMD in the Antelope Valley.

SB 115 (Solis), “Environmental effect of project on minority and low-income populations,” will make facility siting even more difficult.

Siting is especially hard in an urban environment.

The CIWMB staff could help with public education about importance of the facilities to reduce opposition.

13. Improve regional cooperation

14. Improve reporting on self-haul

15. Improve incentives to increase diversion from landfills

16. Improved information from CIWMB to local jurisdictions
More timely feedback on biannual reports

Closing the Loop: 
Buy Recycled 
Wednesday, November 18, 1998 
Santa Monica, California
Organized by the 
Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED) 
626 Santa Monica Blvd. #253, Santa Monica, CA 90401-2538 
Phone: 310-281-8534 Fax: 310-455-3011 Website: www.scced.org 
Email: [email protected] 

The report is divided into eight files:

1. Executive Summary (3 pages)
2. Introduction and Keynote Presentations (4 pages)
3. Procurement Track (23 pages)
4. Maintenance Track (6 pages)
5. Resources for Buying Recycled (6 pages)
6. List of Conference Participants (5 pages)
7. List of Vendors (2 pages)
8. Report on Conference Feedback (2 pages)

Below is the Table of Contents followed by acknowledgments of the Sponsors, Co-sponsors and Conference Task Force. (Note that page numbers are approximate, depending on margin settings.) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2. INTRODUCTION AND KEY NOTE ADDRESSES 
Environmentally Smart Purchasing in Santa Monica, Craig Perkins – Page 1
Environmental Purchasing in King County, Eric Nelson – Page 2

3. PROCUREMENT TRACK 

RECYCLED PRODUCT SUCCESS STORIES 
Successes in the City of Los Angeles, Susana Estreller – Page 1
Successes in Victorville, Claudia Roberts – Page 4
Making the Shift to Sustainability, Ron Weber – Page 5

DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE POLICIES FOR BUYING RECYCLED 
Environmental Purchasing in Santa Monica, Dean Kubani – Page 7
Alameda County Recycled Product Purchase Preferences Program, Beth Eckl – Page 10

COOP BUYING, Eugene Grigsby – Page 13

EDUCATING THE END USER 
Developing an Interactive System with the Users, Eric Nelson – Page 14
Ways to Involve the Users, Beth Eckl – Page 16

NEW BID SPECS: REMOVING BARRIERS TO BUYING RECYCLED 
Executive Order on Preventing Waste and Acquisition Policy, Timonie Hood – Page 18
Buying Recycled – An Historical Perspective, Gretchen Brewer – Page 20

COOPERATIVE BUYING: COST EFFECTIVE BUYING STRATEGIES 
Master Contracts Available from the State of California, Pat Bailey – Page 21
Get Serious About Buying Recycled, or Lose Recycled Paper, Jennifer Pinkerton – Page 22

4. MAINTENANCE TRACK 
Buying Green Cleaning Products, Debbie Raphael – Page 1
Recycled Products at the U.S. Post Office, Martin Graham – Page 3
No-Maintenance Recycled Plastic Lumber Saves Money, Larry Wheaton – Page 4
Re-refined Oil Works Well, Grahame Watts – Page 4
Environmental Practices in the Fleet Maintenance Facility, Ralph Merced – Page 5
Environmentally-friendly Street Maintenance, Robin Jarrett – Page 5
Stocking Recycled Products at the Central Warehouse, Mark Breed – Page 6APPENDICES
5. Resources for Buying Recycled     Websites
     Listserves
     Other Buy Recycled Resources 
     Other Purchasing Resources & Websites 
6. List of Conference Participants 
7. List of Vendors 
8. Report on Conference Feedback 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sponsors included: America Recycles Day/California, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Founding Chapter. 

Co-sponsors included: American Public Works Association, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), California Association of Public Purchasing Officers (CAPPO), California General Services Administration, California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA), City of Beverly Hills, City of Claremont, City of Culver City, City of Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, City of Redondo Beach, City of Santa Monica, City of West Hollywood, Los Angeles Metropolitan Public Purchasing Agents Cooperative (LAMPPAC), League of California Cities, Local Government Commission, Maintenance Superintendents Association, Municipal Equipment Maintenance Association, National Marketplace for the Environment, UCLA County-Wide Solid Waste Policy Committee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX. 

Conference Task Force included: Joe Haworth, Mike Miller, Kim Braun, Joan Satt, Carmen Carso, John Jakupcak, Kathleen Gildred, Kate Lutz, and Jim Stewart.

DRAFT, 8/19/98

This draft resource list, which has been assembled by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), identifies individuals working on waste prevention related programs who are able to discuss their programs with other waste reduction coordinators. Please be considerate of their time and understand your inquiries will be responded to as time permits. (Note: Any results mentioned are self-reported.)

We were not able to contact everyone we wanted to include on this list. If your program is working well and you are able to be a resource person, please contact the Waste Prevention Info Exchange at (916) 255-INFO or send an e-mail to [email protected]. We will be posting the list at our web site: http://www.ciwmb.ca. gov/mrt/wpw/wpmain.htm

General Information

Waste Prevention Info Exchange
CIWMB, 8800 Cal Center Dr., MS 23
Sacramento, CA 95826-3268
Phone (916)255-INFO 
Fax (916) 255-4580
E-mail: wpinfoex@ ciwmb.ca.gov
Web site: http://www.ciwmb.ca. gov/mrt/wpw/wpmain.htm

Search the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s (CIWMB) Waste Prevention Info Exchange on-line database of waste prevention resources. Includes abstracts and contact information for hundreds of waste prevention programs. Web site: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/cgi-shl/foxweb.exe/wpieqry@Wpiedbs/ wpieqry

National Waste Prevention Coalition
c/o King County Solid Waste Division
400 Yesler Way, Rm. 600
Seattle, WA 98104-2637
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.metrokc.gov/nwpc
Participate in the Waste Prevention Forum, a project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition, by sending an e-mail message to Forum moderator Tom Watson. You receive periodic e-mail messages on waste prevention topics. You can also submit questions. The Forum covers source reduction and reuse, NOT recycling.

Anthony Eulo
City of Morgan Hill, 17555 Peak Ave.
Morgan Hill, CA 95037-4128
(408) 779-7247
E-mail: [email protected] 
Previously wrote a waste prevention newsletter so has a broad perspective. Tony now works on the City of Morgan Hill’s green business program.

Business Programs

Rory Bakke
Alameda County Waste Management Authority, 777 Davis Street, Suite 200 
San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: (510) 614-1699 
Fax: (510) 614-1698 
E-mail: [email protected]
The Alameda County Waste Management Authority & Source Reduction and Recycling Board provides assistance to businesses in the areas of waste prevention, recycled product market development, technical assistance and public education. Provides free comprehensive environmental assessments to large and medium-sized companies and institutions in Alameda County that fall into selected industries which include: healthcare, universities, colleges, electronics, food processing, large recreational facilities, biotech-nology, business parks. Distribute guides, reports, and an overview of their services can be viewed at their web site: http://www.stopwaste.org/

Liz Citrino
Humboldt County
100 H St. Ste. 100, Eureka, CA 95553 
Phone: (707) 445-7429
E-mail: [email protected] 
County has already surpassed 50% diversion! Worked with largest waste generator, a company generating 1/3 of waste. This company reduced waste at source through new technology that reduced ash generated from co-generation. Additionally, the county’s materials exchange program has a cooperative agreement with a weekly shopping newspaper whereby each party receives free advertising space. The education program selects a different theme each year so citizens are not overwhelmed with too much information at once.

Jim Jensen
Sound Resource Management Group
119 Pine Street, #203, Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-622-9454 Fax: 206-622-9569 
Implemented Snohomish County’s Packaging Waste Prevention Project in Washington. Snohomish Co. focused on preventing packaging waste as key to overall waste prevention strategy. Participating businesses received hands-on assistance from packaging professionals. More than $443,000 was saved initially and hundreds of tons of waste prevented or material diverted annually. The cost was about $40,000.

Karen Higgins
City of Los Angeles
Bureau of Sanitation, Integrated Solid Waste Management Office
200 N. Main Street, Rm. 1450, 
City Hall East, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 485-1978 Fax: (213) 847-3054
E-mail: [email protected]
Conducts an annual survey of target generators and uses this info to design programs. Did analysis on what waste generators create and options to divert waste. L.A. has achieved about a 46% diversion rate. 

Michelle Sackman
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Stanislaus County 
1716 Morgan Rd., Modesto, CA 95458
Phone: 209-525-4160
Stanislaus County’s business program takes advantage of the CIWMB’s Waste Reduction Award Program (WRAP). Every other year the co. sends out two newsletters to businesses. One provides waste reduction tips, announces workshops , and encourages businesses to apply for the WRAP award. The second profiles local WRAP winners.

Rudy Umana
City of Glendale
Integrated Waste Management Section
548 West Chevy Chase Dr.
Glendale, CA 91204
Phone: 818-548-3916
Compiled 13 business case studies in a guide for businesses. Guide includes source reduction examples and some of the cost savings that result from source reduction. 

City Facilities

Susana Estreller
City Facilities Recycling Program (CFRP)
115 East First Street, Room 501
City of Los Angeles, 
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 213-847-2821, fax 847-6041
E-mail: [email protected]
CFRP involves thousands of employees and many facilities (police, libraries, government offices, special events, etc.) Program includes: City-wide policy on copying, new specifications for copiers, workshops on “Effective Publications–the Environmental Way” to teach source reduction in printed materials, promotes “reuse-a-mug” at City offices, and a City materials exchange program (CitiMAX) to encourage reuse of excess and outdated supplies and increase donation opportunities to schools. 
Material exchanges and reuse

SonoMAX
Karina Mahl, Public Educ. Coordinator
Sonoma County Waste Management 
575 Administration Dr. Room 117A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Phone: (707) 527-3668 
Eco Desk Hotline: (707) 527-3375 
Fax: (707) 527-3701
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.recyclenow.org/sonomax/
A local minimax that shares listings with CALMAX, the California Materials Exchange, a program of the CIWMB. Listings range from 67-80 per quarter, about half are new. About 50 listings are in the “available” category, the rest are “wanted”. Materials in the “available” category have best success. Reported diversion is 12-40 tons per quarter. 

ProMAX
Victor Aguiar
Ecology Action of Santa Cruz
P.O. Box 1188, Santa Cruz, CA 95061
Phone: (408) 426-5925 ext 13
Fax: (408) 425-1404
E-mail [email protected]
A local minimax that shares listings with CALMAX. Reported referrals made the first year were 8 tons. This jumped to 58 tons the second year and expected to increase significantly again. Also – contract with local governments to perform waste assessments for businesses. 

Measuring Source Reduction

Tom Padia
Alameda County Waste Management 
777 Davis Street, Suite 200 
San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: (510) 614-1699 
Fax: (510) 614-1698 
E-mail: [email protected]
Profiting From Source Reduction: Measuring the Hidden Benefits identifies costs savings from source reduction beyond the commonly reported disposal and purchasing costs. Measures larger benefits of source reduction and resource efficiency, can be used to convince companies to invest in changes that are more efficient, less wasteful, and help meet AB 939 goals. The study presents 4 key measurement tools: 1) source reduction cost analysis, 2) productivity modeling, 3) resource productivity, and 4) waste intensity used county-wide or per company. These methods capture a range of impacts from source reduction by focusing on material use costs rather than just purchase and disposal costs. Report includes case studies focused on paper use, retail packaging, and construction materials. The Executive Summary is online at: http://www.stopwaste.org/srcred/index.html

Eugene Tseng
Eugene Tseng & Associates
30023 W. Rainbow Crest Dr.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(818) 889-8628
Business Waste Prevention Quantification Methodologies a guide on measurement techniques for a variety of waste prevention activities common to many large businesses. Activities: paper reduction, computer networking, electronic data interchange, packaging reduction, pallet reduction and reuse, toner cartridge remanufacturing, office supply and reuse. Copies from Waste Prevention Info Exchange at (916) 255-INFO.

Organics recycling

Joe Keyser
Montgomery County
Division of Solid Waste Services
Dept. of Environmental Protection
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 217-2361
E-mail: [email protected] 
Composting Hotline: (301) 590-0046
Web site: http://www.dpwt.com/SolWstSvcDiv/solid/grass~1.htm
A yard trim disposal ban was initiated in 1994 to remove the yard trim fraction from the waste stream. Weekly curbside collection is provided with material processed at the County’s compost facility. To avoid expanding the compost facility, a capital investment of $2.5 million, the County promoted composting and grasscycling. Key to campaign success was a phone research survey of 1,100 homes to determine habits and attitudes towards yard trimmings recycling. By end of 1994, only 54,000 tons of material entered the recycling stream; more importantly, less than 9,000 tons of grass put at the curb — reduction of 27,000 tons due to grasscycling. With grass reduced, an additional 11,000 tons of shredded wood mulch (brush) were given back to residents free at neighborhood sites. Only 43,000 tons of trimmings needed to be composted — and the $2.5 million facility expansion was avoided.

Richard Shaw 
City of Folsom
Solid Waste Recycling Diversion
50 Natomas Street, Folsom, CA 95630
Phone: 916-985-0738
Minimizing Organic Waste with Education and Recycling (MOWER) Rebate Program. 250-300 citizens attend composting and grasscycling classes each year. Participants receive free compost bin or mower rebate, 89% of participants chose the compost bin. City found that 64% of compost bins issued are being used. The city pays a $35 rebate for gas mowers, matched by a $35 discount from the vendor, Troy Built. The electric cordless mowers have a $75 rebate and $75 discount. The city estimates it takes five grasscycling mowers to divert one ton of grass clippings. A survey in fall 1998 will determine if mulching mowers are used as intended. 

Sharon Gates
Integrated Urban Forestry
23382 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 225
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Phone: (714) 837-5692 Fax: (714) 588-5058 
E-mail: [email protected]
Integrated Urban Forestry (IUF) has implemented green waste programs for City of Glendale and Leisure World (retirement community with a highly regarded yard trimmings management program in Laguna Hills). IUF worked with managers of large landscapes. Significant changes were made by six organizations. Five began separating green waste and four began or increased grasscycling. Diversion was 1,800 tons of green waste per year. Over 10 years the anticipated diversion is 18,000 tons. The project budget was $90,000 so the cost is $5 per ton over ten years.

Teresa Eade, Program Coordinator 
Megan Starkey
Alameda County Waste 
Management Authority
Home Composting Program
777 Davis Street, Suite 200 
San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: (510) 614-1699 Fax: (510) 614-1698 
E-mail: [email protected]
From 1991-96 the county sold 24,126 discount compost bins, educated 9,900 adults in workshops, responded to 24,000 phone calls via the “Rotline”, distributed 150,000 brochures and trained 126 master composters in an annual 13-week intensive training. There is also an educational video. Based on survey findings, the residents who purchased bins on average divert 543 pounds per year. Over ten years they will divert 49,000 tons at a cost of $18 per ton (amortized over the ten-year life span of the bin). Expenses incurred the first year were $141/ton. Information on this program is at the web site: http://www.stopwaste.org/fscompost.html 

Kevin Miller
City of Napa Public Works Dept.
1600 First Street, PO Box 660
Napa, CA 94559-0660
Phone: (707) 257-9520 X7552
Fax: (707) 257-9522 
E-mail: [email protected]
In the past year 800 people have attended ten composting and grasscycling classes. About 200 people were turned away! At the end of the class attendees receive one of the following: a free compost bin, or $25 rebate on selected worm bins, mulching lawn mower, or retrofit/ attachment. Kevin announced the classes in garbage bill inserts. Classes conducted next to a golf course that practices grasscycling.

Reducing Unwanted Mail

Christine Vitalis
City of San Leandro
14200 Chapman Rd.
San Leandro, CA 94578-3424
510-577-6026
The City’s Public Works Department reduced their incoming mail by over 1/3. This reduction was attributed to junk mail reduction campaign. Companies that sent unwanted mail were contacted. It turned out two companies contributed most of it. It took persistence to get them to send less.

Shopping Campaigns

David Assmann 
Senior Administrator
San Francisco Solid Waste Management
Program
1145 Market Street, Suite 401
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 554-3400
Save Money and the Environment Too Campaign is a unique public/private partnership, combining the efforts of 110 cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay area, working in partnership with 400 supermarkets, state agencies, and other partners. 1999 will be the fourth consecutive year for the campaign, which occurs for three weeks in January. Reported good results in the first year, based on surveys conducted before and after the campaign.

Schools

Wendy Harrison
Tuolumne Co. Superintendent of Schools Office
175 S. Fairview Lane
Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: 209-533-8710
The educational program is done in partnership with US Waste. School groups tour the local MRF where there are interactive displays and activities geared to 4-6th grade, these also deal with water and energy conservation. Teachers must attend a workshop before bringing students to the MRF. This program uses the “Closing the Loop” curriculum available from the CIWMB schools section — contact Tricia Broddrick at (916) 255-2389 for more information.

Doug Eubanks
Recycling Specialist
Commercial Diversion Programs
Co. of Sacramento
Dept. of Public Works Agency
9850 Goethe Road
Sacramento, CA 958279700 Goethe Rd., Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95827-3500
Ph (916) 875-7165 Fax (916) 875-6767 
[email protected]
County has a good IWM education outreach program that includes school assemblies on recycling. They provide curriculum to teachers, and work with the schools on their diversion programs.

Variable Can Rates (Pay-as-you-throw or Unit pricing)

Sharon Blaufus
Public Works Section, City of Lodi
Assist. City Manager
PO Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241-1910
209-333-6706
The City of Lodi, population 55,000, started a variable can system in 1993, with a 38-gallon trash cart, 65-gallon recycling cart, and a 95-gallon yard waste cart. Lodi reports 30.5 percent diversion in 1995. Diversion was at 10 percent in 1990. Many families can’t fit all their trash in the 38-gallon container so they are encouraged to recycle.

Jan Canterbury 
U.S. EPA
Mail stop: 5306W, 
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-7264
The U.S. EPA distributes a Pay As You Throw Tool Kit that includes fact sheets, a guide book with detailed information, community testimonials, video, resource list, etc. Order a free kit at 1-888-EPA-PAYT. Also materials are available at the web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ non-hw/payt/

March 29, 2001, Diamond Bar, California
Sponsored by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and the City of Los Angeles
Produced by the Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Commercial Sector Recycling – Jon Root, Eco Telesis (310-575-3934):
I will be talking about five examples of commercial sector recycling programs for small and medium businesses in Central Contra Costa County and the Cities of Laguna Beach, Lompoc, Santa Monica, and Ventura. The Appendix provides details and a contact name for more information.

C&D Recycling – Kelly Ingalls, CMRA (818-548-8996):
C&D recycling has improved with new processing facilities as well as new markets for gypsum drywall and carpets. I will also talk about the options for municipal policies and ordinances to ensure contractors recycle C&D materials.

Multi-Family Recycling – Michael McCartney, QLM Consulting (888-692-9292):
We want to share information on public outreach, site optimization, collection options, etc. We have put up on the Internet over 60 pages of materials, including kits for managers, residents, haulers, etc., which can be downloaded from www.sacgreenteam.com.

Organics Recycling – Roger Vander Wende, Community Recycling (818-767-1203):
In most cities there are a lot of organics left to recycle. For example, 2% of waste is street sweepings, which can be recycled with no change in operations. In mixed C&D, 15% is organics. Our supermarket compost program started with 28 stores in 1974, now it encompasses 1100 stores.

Pay-as-You-Throw – Cynthia Vant Hul, City of Claremont (909-39-5431):
Claremont has adopted market incentives, using a variable can rate (VCR) in which residents pay more if they throw away more. We charge for the size and number of cans at the curb. The benefits have included a greater public awareness of environmental issues as well as reduced trash (our residential diversion rate has increased from 26% to 62%).

Procurement – Brian Johnson, City of Santa Monica (310-458-8228) and Manuel Jaquez, City of Los Angeles (213-847-1434):
Santa Monica uates all goods and services the city purchases, requiring that we buy environmentally preferable products, whenever possible. The results have included improved cleanliness as well as less employee sick days. The City of Los Angeles purchased $16.8 million of recycled products in 29 product categories in FY 1997-8.

Electronics Recycling – Wayne Omokawa, City of Los Angeles (213-473-8226) and Gerald Kapuscik, County of Ventura (805-648-9241):
We need to look at where all types of electronics go at the end of their life. The problem is that all computer monitors and televisions contain five pounds of lead in the cathode ray tube (CRT), and thus are subject to California’s hazardous waste regulations, and should not be disposed of in landfills.

Keynote Address – Senator David Roberti, CIWMB Boardmember (916-341-6038):
Jurisdictions that do not make 50% diversion may petition for an extension through January 1, 2006, if the Board determines they are making a “good faith effort.” In order to find evidence of “good faith efforts,” we will uate both the diversion numbers and the extent of your program implementation. (A summary of Mr. Roberti’s speech is at the end of this report. The complete text is in the Appendix.)

WELCOME

Kathleen Gildred, SCCED (310-455-1603): We will start with brief presentations on the different topic areas. Then you will have a chance to do more dialog at the tables with the people who have experience in each topic, so you can get a picture of what is working in the different areas. There are a lot of good ideas that can help you meet CIWMB requirements for a “good faith effort.” (The notes below include both summaries of the presentations and notes from some of the table discussions.)

PRESENTATIONS

COMMERCIAL SECTOR RECYCLING- Jon Root, Eco Telesis (310-575-3934):
Resource person: Julie Hast, Eco Telesis (818-889-8628):

It has been 12 years since the passage of AB 939 and we can see great accomplishments. Many diversion programs have been implemented. In 1990, only 17% of waste was being diverted from landfills statewide, but now it is up to 42%. The programs implemented include residential, multi-family households, C&D waste, commercial recycling, etc. We have seen the evolution of recycling programs from solely user source separation to commingled waste streams that are separated at MRFs.

I will be talking in our breakout session about five examples of commercial sector recycling programs for small and medium-sized businesses in Central Contra Costa County, and the Cities of Laguna Beach, Lompoc, Santa Monica, and Ventura. Each of them have set up the infrastructure to promote the programs and do recycling. These 5 programs divert a total of 14,000 tons of recyclables annually. The full report in the Appendix provides more details and a contact name for more information for each jurisdiction.

Rather than wait for businesses to sign up, Contra Costa County distributed free recycling containers to small businesses (less than two cubic yards per week). It is a voluntary program, but the businesses have to call to get the container removed. As a result, 1,000 of the 1,200 eligible businesses are participating. The 96-gallon containers are collected on residential routes. For larger businesses, they send people out to the field to get them into recycling programs with the haulers.

The City of Laguna Beach also provides 96-gallon containers are collected on residential routes with no separate charge to the 300 participating businesses.

The City of Lompoc does all collection in the city. They provide 225 businesses with either 2-yard or 3-yard bins for cardboard collection at no additional cost, so the businesses save money. Lompoc, which owns its own landfill, segregates organic debris at the landfill, grinds it and makes it available as mulch (it is not used as ADC). Scrap metal is separated out, crushed on site and collected by scrap metal dealers.

The City of Ventura has launched a “Unicycle” program so businesses only need one bin for both trash and recyclables, which is sorted at a MRF. However, producers of wet waste streams such as restaurants have separate bins.

Santa Monica is an open city. They issued RFPs for haulers that would provide the commercial recycling services they wanted. The contractor provides service at 400 locations — 300 bins in commercial areas, 100 bins in multi-family neighborhoods. The 3-cubic yard bins are often shared by businesses and residents.

All programs are driven by the jurisdiction, which found the type of services they wanted and put together the infrastructure they needed. It is important for recycling coordinators to be leading the way on developing these programs. Don’t turn it over to the hauler or consultant, because it is the responsibility of the jurisdiction to ensure the program is implemented.

C&D RECYCLING – Kelly Ingalls, Construction Materials Recycling Association of Southern California (CMRA) (818-548-8996):
Resource Person: John Richardson, Community Recycling (818-767-6000):

The state of the art of C&D recycling has improved with new processing facilities. There are now plants in underserved areas, such as Wilmington, El Segundo, etc. Please inform me of any new recycling plants as they come on line. The markets for crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) are strong, but prices are volatile for scrap metal, and especially for wood and brick. There are new markets for recycling gypsum drywall, and recycling carpets through Evergreen and others. There is a controversy over the proposed site in Santa Clarita Valley, at which Cemex wants to mine 56 million tons of aggregate. This would create serious competition with recycled CMB.

You should compare the cost of $32 per ton to landfill versus $42 to recycle, considering the transportation cost of $75 per hour each way.

CMRA is an association of stakeholders to support processes and technologies for recycling C&D and markets for recycled materials. We also monitor legislation and public polices that affect the C&D industry. Let me know and I will get a membership packet out to you.

The City of Los Angeles has prepared a C&D recycling guide with list of recycling facilities for all types of materials, and will soon update it. The CIWMB website has a list of recycling locations. We need to update locations, uate sites, note changes in contact persons and conditions/requirements.

We are reviewing the draft tiered regulations for C&D recycling, and will work with CIWMB to revise them. We will be talking to them about markets, and supporting local policies for recycling.

We have a paper that describes the local policy options, plus a set of actual ordinances from a variety of cities. I can send you a copy on request. There is a lot of this information on the CIWMB website. The issue is tailoring the ordinance to make sure it works for your municipality. For example, the City of Los Angeles has 75,000 building permits per year, while the City of Santa Monica has 2,200 permits and can ensure C&D recycling through the building permit process.

Setting the correct threshold is important. For some cities any project over 10,000 square feet is appropriate, for others 5,000 square feet is better. Our advice is don’t set the threshold levels in the ordinance, put it in your regulations so it can changed by your planning commissions without having to go back to City Council. Look at how much staff time it will take to enforce the ordinance. If you hold contractors to C&D reporting, you get a lot of paper. One 10,000 ton recycling project had weight tickets over an inch and a half thick. In Los Angeles we had an intern enter the information from the summary reports into a data base. We found the Staples Center achieved a 98% recycling rate during site development in Spring 1998.

Ventura has a reporting system on line, so everyone is entering it into the same format. If they don’t want to enter it on line, they can download it and email in the report each month. For more information, contact Richard Nagelschmidt, County of Ventura.

A mandated recycling rate can work, if you have the facilities to do the recycling, but a performance bond will not work. If a contractor doesn’t comply, talk to them and remind them they will save money by recycling.

One question is whether to apply the policy to tenant improvements. Some communities apply it to new and redevelopment projects over certain number of square feet and/or dollar amounts. We need to decide what we need to capture. Most communities don’t include improvements by individual homeowners.

The residue from roofing jobs is hard to recycle. Some clean asphalt shingles can be reused in asphalt materials, but most cannot be reused.

John Richardson: New gypsum drywall can be recycled by Community Recycling, but not old drywall because it has paint on it. We will provide marked bins and pick them up for a charge depending on the distance from our facilities, but it will be less than trash disposal. New gypsum drywall is recycled into compost and an agricultural mineral supplement.

American Waste C&D in Sun Valley is doing source separation, because they claim diversion is cheaper than landfilling. The challenge is showing contractors the economic incentive to recycle. No processor can compete with the $18/ton at Puente Hills. We are at $28/ton. Others are higher. When Puente Hills closed at noon, we got a lot of loads, but now they stay open to 4 pm and we have less. Bradley and Sunshine Canyon will charge $32/ton, so we will be less expensive.

Ceiling tiles are collected by Honeywell. Carpet and padding are collected by Evergreen. They will pay $128/ton if it is Nylon 6. Collins Aichman will take your old carpet back and provide new carpet from the recycled materials. Interface will also do that, and it is no more expensive than regular carpet.

MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING – Michael McCartney, QLM Consulting (888-692-9292):
Resource Persons: Hope McAloon & Al Zorn, City of Burbank (818-238-3900):

Often it seems multi-family recycling is what you do last, because it is so labor intensive, but diversion rates in multi-family communities can exceed 25% because, in addition to the curbside recycling mix, the community is an excellent source for corrugated cardboard, green waste, and a wide variety of reusable items. We have seen mature programs in place yielding diversion rates exceeding 40%.

We want to share information on our experience in public outreach, site optimization, collection options, what can be done to overcome the barriers. We have put up on the Internet over 60 pages of materials, including kits for managers, residents, haulers, etc., which can be downloaded from www.sacgreenteam.com.

Phase I of the Sacramento rollout is going well. The goal in Alameda County is 75% diversion. We will be working with 15 cities in that county. Both Santa Monica and Beverly Hills have successful programs using 300 gallon (1.5 cubic yard containers that can be picked up automatically. The contamination rate in Santa Monica is about 5%.

Strong public outreach is key. You can link up to sites that have recycling information.

One question is how do you measure diversion in the low income multi-family community, when the residents are already taking all reusable materials out of the waste stream before pick up? You can do onsite surveys, and check nearby buy-back locations.

ORGANICS RECYCLING – Roger Vander Wende, Community Recycling (818-767-1203):
Resource Person: Terry Brennan, CIWMB (916-341-6024):

Our supermarket compost program started with 28 stores in 1994, now it encompasses supermarkets throughout California and Nevada. We calculate that we have diverted 14,000 trash truck loads from landfills. We now include Vons, Ralph’s, Food4Less, Save Mart and Safeway, but not all market chains are players yet. Supermarket compost is used on 20,000 acres of California farmland.

In most cities there are still a lot of organics left to recycle. For example, 2% of waste is street sweepings, which can be recycled with no change in operations, you just need a firm that can handle it. In mixed C&D, 15% is organics. If you have a processor that can handle those materials, then you can get large diversion numbers.

We have found very little contamination in street sweepings. In terms of landscape waste, there are collection programs in place, but you need outreach to the gardeners, which can often be done through their associations. It is best to provide a nearby recycling location, such as a roll-off, with an incentive there such as a catering truck. On-site grasscycling with a mulching mower is the best way to deal with grass clippings. Even pine needles can be used to make an acidic mulch good for strawberries and azaleas.

We recommend prevention first, then diversion to animal feed, with composting as final step for organics. The main barriers seem to be cost, education, and time. Biodegradable products are still too expensive.

PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (VCR) – Cynthia Vant Hul, City of Claremont (909-39-5431):
Resource Person: Joe Sloan, Aardvark (310-830-3606):

Many communities have found it difficult to do recycling economically. In 1997 Claremont adopted market incentives, using instead of a fixed rate, a variable can rate (VCR), or “pay-as-you-throw, in which residents pay more if they throw away more. We charge for the size and number of cans at the curb. the curb. The benefits have included a greater public awareness of environmental issues as well as reduced trash (our residential diversion rate has increased from 26% to 62%).

We provided a choice of 40, 64, or 90-gallon trash containers, plus 90-gallon green and blue cans. They can get more green and blue cans on request. We found 87% use the 64-gallon trash containers.

It works well in the City of Claremont, especially since we are the hauler. Mark Harmon started the program in 1995. We sent out a letter to all residents with pricing information. New residents get a packet that explains how the program works and we provide handouts. The rates are $16.46 per month for a 40 -gallon container, $19.67 for 64 and $25.07 for 90-gallon. Our rates include two free bulk item pickups per year.

Joe Sloan: It seems like, “We create our trash with capitalism and dispose of it with socialism.” However, businesses have always paid on the basis of volume, and that is working very well, but we have not usually done this for residences. For example, we can’t do VCR in the City of Los Angeles because trash collection is part of the base tax rate. But Claremont is a huge success.

Automation is now making VCR more technologically feasible. Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation has done a lot of work on this topic. Lisa Skumatz of the Skumatz Environmental Research Foundation in Seattle has done some good analysis. Daniel Bloome has written a thesis describing how and when communities should adopt this, which is available on the internet.

VCR is like a “carrot” approach in that it gives the individual the option to choose what they want. We can also make it a justice issue, is it fair that a family that puts out 6 cans be charged the same as a retiree with one small can?

The proof is in the results, the cities that have implemented VCR have seen less trash. For example, Ithaca NY had an average of 66 to 125 tons/week drop to 12 to 30 tons/week. Rock Falls saw an 88% increase in recycling and a 65% reduction in disposal.

What about contamination? We have found Claremont works well because people there follow instructions. However in another city, we gave everyone the same 64-gallon trash can, plus 2 green cans free. We charged $8 for an extra trash can, and $2 for an extra green can. We found people put trash in the green containers. The commingled blue recycling can was clean, but the greenwaste was contaminated.

Cynthia Vant Hul: Our drivers can watch the can as it is being dumped in the truck. If there is contamination, they are tagged. After 3 tags, they receive a tag notice that we will pull your green container and they have to buy an additional black container. We found that people call and ask for their green container back and it is clean after that.

Pricing is best if it is tied to reality in terms of the disposal cost per ton. A municipal hauler has it easier, because they can figure out what the overall system costs, total of all drivers, trucks, disposal, waste reduction program costs, etc. Private haulers don’t want to separate out their costs, and to make that information public, because then they can be asked tough questions by other municipalities they do business with.

The CIWMB recognizes VCR as an incentive program that meets your test of implementation programs.

PROCUREMENT – Brian Johnson, City of Santa Monica (310-458-8228 and Manuel Jaquez, City of Los Angeles (213-847-1434):

Brian Johnson: In the early 1990s Santa Monica made the connection between waste and purchasing. Through the Sustainable Cities program, we looked at procurement polices. We decided to uate all the goods and services the city purchases, and require that we buy environmentally preferable products, whenever possible.

We started looking at a single attribute, such as re-refined oil, or retread tires. Now we are looking at multiple environmentally preferable attributes, including building materials, custodial supplies, etc. This program takes significant resources to research and manage. It takes a lot of learning by staff at all levels. Environmentally preferable purchasing is here to stay. The federal EPA now has guidelines for what local governments can do to ease the burden on our environment and improve the health and safety of our employees.

Environmentally preferable purchasing is a collaborative effort that needs the engagement of many different agencies in the city. In Santa Monica the Risk Management Division is involved in assessing all cleaning products. When we found non-toxic cleaners lower the numbers of sick days, both the Custodial Department and City Manager got interested. We are doing both a top-down, and a bottom-up approach. We got memos of support from the City Manager, and worked with the users to see if new products cleaned effectively

The purchasing people can’t do it on their own. My job is to support the purchasing agents with specifications on the products. I tell the purchasing agents exactly what we want, so the vendors will all meet those specifications. This way, if someone has a non- environmentally preferable product, they don’t get to bid, even if they are cheaper.

In addition, the purchasing agents need feedback from the users. For example, they need to know if the product doesn’t last or perform well. In custodial products, we had 17 bidders, and we awarded the bid based on the attributes and performance of the products. Then we gave the products to some custodians to test. They reported some products were not working well enough. We reported that to the vendor and they reformulated the product to meet our needs, so we got customized products.

Manuel Jaquez: In attaining consistency of quality, product performance, and standards for recycled products, one must develop the collaborative involvement of many city agencies, plus industry, and federal and state governments. The key is what criteria one must specify to be in place. One also needs to identify the long term use and disposition of that product, the benefits to the environment, operations, and the public relations value to the mayor and city council, and ultimately showing benefits to the taxpayers.

The City of Los Angeles has purchased $16.8 million of recycled products in 29 product categories in FY 1997-8, or a combined total of $42.8 million from 1994 to 1999. This expenditure figures comes from the City’s procurement of 28 product categories with recycled content criteria and related recycling services.

End users need first to sit down with buyers and go over the specifications to make sure that the operational needs are satisfied. One way to ensure recycled products are available for procurement is to list only recycled products in a separate section to the catalogue.

Brian Johnson: We have identified the greenest products in the Santa Monica City version of the Office Depot catalog. So when you order paper, the default is recycled paper.

Question of higher price? We have identified the total life-cycle cost of the product, using web-based tools. We are saving money buying green products,

Both the City of Los Angeles and Santa Monica have changed their charters to allow bid selection to be based on product attributes, not just price.

What about the product quality? It is just a perceptual issue. People need to be educated. The bottom line is our cleaning people have ended their headaches. Some businesses associations have complimented us on the cleanliness of the Third Street Promenade.

Manuel Jaquez: Procurement starts with the purchasing policy, but needs cooperation between the buyer, users and seller. We need to look at the cradle to grave experience. Purchasing starts with the end user’s needs written into the bid spec provided to the purchasing agent. Source reduction starts up front with specifying recycled content. Inspection of the product delivered before acceptance is to verify if the bid spec was satisfied and recycled product content requirements were met. End user and purchasing agent need to track and monitor the product performance, and when necessary go back to the manufacturer to tell them of a product’s inferior performance which is not meeting the end user’s operational needs.

Development of recycled content purchasing criteria involves the input and participation from the city’s Environmental Affairs Department and Safety Agency to ensure environmental and safety requirements are integrated with those from federal, state and other regulatory agencies, including the CIWMB.

Electronics Recycling – Wayne Omokawa, City of Los Angeles (213-473-8226) and Gerald Kapuscik, County of Ventura (805-648-9241):

The City of Los Angeles just started electronics recycling in mid-2000. We need to address where all types of electronics as well as computers go at the end of their life. The problem is that all computer monitors and televisions contain about five pounds of lead in the cathode ray tube (CRT), and thus are subject to California’s hazardous waste regulations. Californians are expected to dispose of approximately 30 million CRTs in the next several years. If only 10% were thrown in the trash, that would mean 15 million pounds of lead in our landfills, with the potential to contaminate soil and water supplies.

Gerald Kapuscik: Think globally, act locally. We have had success both from special collection events and drop off at existing recycling locations. We recommend:

Experiment, be flexible.
Focus on producer responsibility.
Think out of the box.
Ventura has collected 44 tons of computers and electronics. We found the quantity of resalable computers is very low. Still you need to look at partnerships with job training programs. We have partnered with the Community Union, and St. Vincent De Paul Society. We can refurbish computers with Calworks job training programs.

We need help from the CIWMB, we need state involvement in uation of the end users of the recycled computers. Our primary focus is to reuse them here. If they are exported, we would like to know whether they going to a good end use or are they contaminating someone else’s landfill?

KEYNOTE ADDRESS – Senator David Roberti, CIWMB Boardmember (916-341-6038):
(Please note that the complete text of Mr. Roberti’s speech is in the Appendix.)

I appreciate the efforts of the Southern California Council on Environment and Development throughout the years providing forums to help everybody respond to the challenges of AB 939.

Since 1990 California has diverted 40 million tons of what was once garbage. From a statewide perspective, California has reached 42% diversion in 2000. Although still short of the 50 percent goal, diversion is on the increase and has risen 9% since 1998.

About 500 local jurisdictions will be submitting annual reports to the Board by August 1 of this year. Once received, the Board will conduct a review of the 1999 and 2000 diversion and recycling data. We’re estimating that 150 – 200 jurisdictions will reach 50 percent diversion. Those that do not may petition for an extension through January 1, 2006, if the Board determines they are making a “good faith effort.”

In order to find evidence of “good faith efforts,” we will uate both the diversion numbers and the extent of your program implementation in light of each jurisdiction’s unique situation. Disposal reporting issues, access to markets, the degree to which you’ve purchased recycled-content products, and how you’ve tried to make the system work will all go into our consideration.

Because of concern about extrapolating the amount of diversion, the Board temporarily chose not to accept any extrapolation-based revised base years that have a significant effect on source reduction numbers. To work through the issues of diversion accounting, the Board again commissioned a working group to review the Diversion Study Guide and New Base-Year Modification form. The Board will consider both the Guide and the certification form in April.

So, what happens after 2000? SB 2202 clarifies that AB 939 extends beyond 2000, and that cities and counties must divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after 2000. Therefore, if you have reached 50% – keep up the good work! If not — let Board staff help you – you are still going to have to get there.

In addition to what the Board does, due to AB 75, all state agencies are also required to meet the 50 percent goal. This will help the market for recycled materials.

The Board set aside funding for the Second Annual Recycled Product Trade Show, scheduled for April 11, 2001 in Sacramento. We anticipate over 175 recycled product vendors, with over 2,000 attendees. I am determined to have a Southern California venue in 2002, and am optimistic we will be bringing this unique show to YOU next year.

But we are still missing significant business participation. In my view, the few product stewardship mandates (for newsprint, rigid plastic containers and trash bags), or as they used to be called, “manufacturer responsibility laws,” aren’t enough to move our business community as quickly as has been required of local governments. Personally, I believe that tires, paint, anti-freeze, plastics and electronic wastes could all use a whole lot more environmental stewardship.

So, with these goals in mind, the Board has been working with the Product Stewardship Institute, a national organization committed to establish cooperative agreements with industry, and to reduce the health and environmental impacts of consumer products. I hope this growing partnership will not only promote our commitment to product stewardship, but also to environmental justice, pollution and waste minimization.

Waste paint represents over 42% of all household hazardous wastes collected, and amounts to over 35% of local household hazardous waste management costs. Because of these costs, local government must limit what they can collect. Since 1993, CIWMB has granted $23 million for improved collection strategies, but only 5% of households have access to these programs.

Electronics recycling is ripe for the development of a thoughtful and economical infrastructure, in time, we hope, to prevent problems like illegal dumping, or worsening environmental damage.

Currently Packard and IBM both operate computer recycling facilities; Dell operates an extensive leasing program to address corporate E-waste. IBM is the first original equipment manufacturer to roll out a national initiative that accepts PCs made by any manufacturer. Under IBM’s program, consumers can send their used PCs to a designated recycling center for $29.99. Still, who would have thought that you’d have to spend thirty dollars to get rid of your obsolete TV or computer?

Energy recovery from waste materials continues to present a unique way for jurisdictions to address resource management issues as well as aid our energy supply.

Senator Escutia’s SB 876 Waste Tire Recycling Act increased revenues for the Board’s waste tire management program four-fold to $30 million a year. The clean up and market development from these new funds will go a long way towards a more permanent solution to the state’s tire problem.

To summarize, I’d like to leave you with a few main points. In the past, environmental programs have been routinely blamed for a variety of economic ills. But largely overlooked until recently, is the fact that environmental concerns in the last forty years have spawned a major industry in the areas of abating and controlling pollution. Recycling businesses have become a serious player in California’s economy. And in so doing, environmental protection has become a major industry for the United States.

Waste reduction and recycling lowers the overall disposal cost by California manufacturers, leading to greater efficiency and helping them become more competitive in the state and global markets. But even more importantly, protection of our natural resources should be a high priority for all of us as custodians of the land we live on, alongside the need to ensure that resources will be available for future generations.

Questions and Answers

Q: Should electronics be part of household hazardous waste?

Roberti: Yes it should. We envisioned less paper, but there is a lot more paper being generated. We have that program in other areas.

Q: The Board chair should be elected.

Roberti: I think the chair should be appointed by the Governor, and help implement the policy of the Administration.

Q: I appreciate your leadership on the diversion study guide and base year study issue. Is it moving toward resolution?

Roberti: There will be reluctance to accept the new base year studies without program formulation. It is not science, it is an art form. We are told to measure progress by programs. If we only rely on numbers, we could be flimflammed. The CIWMB board is to exercise judgement as to when the programs or the numbers are more important. Everyone will be open minded when you show us both the programs and the numbers. You should show the Board your unique case history.

Q: Good faith effort is about programs. The 50% goal was dreamed up by politicians and cannot be attained by every jurisdiction. San Marino can get 70% diversion with just green waste collection. But in a city like Bell, they cannot hit 50%.

Roberti: You need a certifiable number to reduce the amount of trash in the waste stream. We need to judge the efficacy of programs. We need the bottom line numbers to get the extra effort from the program managers. Programs without some computations would lack push. We need dedication in the program management.

Q: You should close the loop, have the manufacturers take back their own products.

Roberti: We are trying to get that to happen for paint. Some are taking back their computers. We don’t have the power without some legislation.

Q: Europe is doing that now.

Roberti: Great idea. Reuse is at the top of the hierarchy. We should have a conference. To compel them is controversial, but I have no problem with that.

APPENDIX

SHARING SUCCESSES IN WASTE REDUCTION
Keynote Address by Senator David Roberti, CIWMB Board Member
March 29, 2001

OPENING REMARKS
Hearing the discussions in the room today, I am reminded how fortunate we are to have such a dedicated and resourceful group of professionals working to reduce waste throughout California. And my appreciation would not be complete without acknowledging the efforts of the Southern California Council on Environment and Development. Ms. Gildred’s group has been consistent throughout the years providing forums to help everybody respond to the challenges of AB 939.

You know, over the last decade, the Board has come to view the management of solid waste as a fluid and constantly evolving process. You have no doubt seen this exemplified by the Board’s evolving policies on permit issues, base years, market development efforts. And while some have been frustrated with the Board’s direction, we must remember that this Board has been a groundbreaker. An effort of this magnitude has never been undertaken before. And many eyes will be watching to see how the Board handles the job this coming year especially.

We have since 1990 overseen and promoted the diversion of 40 million tons of what was once garbage. This has process has had some growth pains, but it has been largely successful due to the commitment of people like you to conserving our natural resources.

From a statewide perspective, California has reached 42 percent diversion in 2000. Although still short of the 50 percent goal, diversion is on the increase and has risen nine percent since 1998. In terms of total tonnage, this is a 51 percent increase, to 28 million tons in 2000!

REACHING THE 50% GOAL — GOOD FAITH EFFORTS

So I will talk to you today about two of my favorite waste subjects — the 50% goal and product stewardship, and the inevitable link between the two. So while I have been congratulating you on your accomplishments, I know many of you have concerns about how the state will view your diversion efforts. So I will begin on that topic.

About 500 local jurisdictions will be submitting annual reports to the Board by August 1 of this year. Once received, the Board will conduct a review of the 1999 and 2000 diversion and recycling data. We’re estimating that 150 – 200 jurisdictions will reach 50 percent diversion. For those that do not, they may petition for an extension through January 1, 2006, if the Board determines they are making a “good faith effort.”

What will the Board be looking at? In order to find evidence of “good faith efforts,” we will uate both the diversion numbers and the extent of your program implementation in light of each jurisdiction’s unique situation. Disposal reporting issues, access to markets, the degree to which you’ve purchased recycled-content products, and how you’ve tried to make the system work will all go into our consideration.

Several jurisdictions have initiated new base year studies, since their original base year data was not accurate enough. During the September Board meeting there was concern about extrapolating the amount of diversion, specifically the amount of source reduction resulting from that method. As a result, the Board temporarily chose not to accept any extrapolation-based revised base years that have a significant effect on source reduction.

Now, while extrapolation makes excellent financial sense for a local government, and is in fact the only possibility for medium and large jurisdictions, our analysis of this method has been quite telling. The majority of the extrapolated diversion numbers resulted in 2 -3 times as much source reduction as direct measurement, regardless of city size or location.

Now, understanding that source reduction is at the top of the waste management hierarchy, one might suspect it would be a large portion of diversion. However, as the Board is the national trailblazer in implementing and enforcing the 50% goal, we must be sure that these numbers are based on true waste reduction, not just pencil-pushing.

So, to work through the issues of diversion accounting, the Board again commissioned a working group to review the Diversion Study Guide and New Base-Year Modification form. The Board will consider both the Guide and the certification form in April. I understand the aggravating position this delay must cause some of you. I too am looking forward resolving this issue in a way that that is both realistic to implement, defensible, and fair to the goals of AB 939.

So, what happens after 2000? Well, the Legislature enacted SB 2202 in order to respond to post-2000 diversion goals. This legislation clarifies that AB 939 extends beyond 2000, and that cities and counties must divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after 2000. Therefore, if you have reached 50% – Keep up the good work! If not — let Board staff help you – you are still going to have to get there.

STATE EFFORTS

In addition to what the Board does, the state as a whole is getting into the act. Due to AB 75, all state agencies are also required to meet the 50 percent goal. This will further bolster the recycling infrastructure, and help cities and counties reach their goals. I am personally very pleased the state finally put its money where its mouth is.

Complementing AB 75 is the Governor’s Executive Order, which created a sustainable building goal for state buildings. It dictated that state buildings should be constructed, renovated, and operated as models of energy, water, and materials efficiency, while providing healthy indoor environments. This Order, coincidentally, is quite similar to the one recently adopted by the L.A. Unified School District.

Through 2003, it is projected that the state will spend $17 billion dollars on construction and remodeling of K-12 schools. Los Angeles Unified School District alone has budgeted $2 billion dollars to build 150 new schools and renovating numerous others. If these facilities incorporate recycled materials in construction, that will certainly shore up the markets for recycled materials.

The Board’s efforts are not limited to helping the public sector with sustainable building. Last month, the Board set aside funding for the Second Annual Recycled Product Trade Show, scheduled for Wednesday April 11, 2001 in Sacramento. Based on the terrific showing at the first trade show this year, we anticipate over 175 recycled product vendors, with over 2,000 attendees. I am determined to have a Southern California venue in 2002, and am optimistic we will be bringing this unique show to YOU next year. Nevertheless, I encourage you to go and see the many products available that will help us all reach our goals.

So the State is involved, local jurisdictions are motivated, and we are well on our way to 50 percent diversion. So what is missing? Significant business participation.

MANUFACTURER STEWARDSHIP

There are currently a handful of laws on the books that mandate manufacturers to use recycled materials, or otherwise help in the recycling and waste prevention loop. These are rigid plastic packaging containers, trash bags, and newsprint. Now we know that mandates do change behavior, otherwise I probably wouldn’t be standing before you today on this subject.

In my view, these few product stewardship mandates, or as they used to be called, “manufacturer responsibility laws,” aren’t enough to move our business community as quickly as has been required of local governments. Personally, I believe that tires, paint, anti-freeze, plastics and electronic wastes could all use a whole lot more environmental stewardship.

Before you think this is all sour grapes, there are many stellar exceptions to this rule. Many, many businesses have done an incredible job getting rid of waste. Disney, Raytheon, Playa Vista Capital Company, and the multitude of WRAP winners are examples of the environmental ethic the Board tries so hard to convey. We would much rather see this type of voluntary participation drive our disposal rates down than mandates.

Although many of these companies began waste prevention practices from an environmental ethic, many later discovered the cost savings associated with their new business practices. Some in the business community are embracing the concepts of waste reduction and pollution prevention for several reasons. If manufacturing processes can be re-designed for greater efficiency, then less money will be spent on raw materials, and then less on disposal.

Secondly, many producers are finding an additional market niche appealing to customers who want to “buy green.” These customers are willing to be loyal to one brand, and perhaps even pay more if they perceive a product to be earth-friendly.

And finally, many are committed to looking beyond immediate profits to the future of the company, and are finding that environmental custodianship is part of that goal.

It’s not just the businesses that benefit. Nowhere else has recycling made such a dramatic impact on the economy as in the City of Los Angeles, which estimates that the local recycling industry, including collectors, processors, and manufacturers, generates over $600 million in sales and employment annually.

Local re-use industries, including automobile and appliance repair shops and second hand goods stores, add an additional $600 million to the local economy. That’s $1.2 billion in direct economic benefits to one city, not to mention the multiplier effect of that money’s purchasing power on other aspects of the economy.

So, with these goals in mind, the Board has been working with the Product Stewardship Institute, a national organization committed to establish cooperative agreements with industry, and to reduce the health and environmental impacts of consumer products. I hope this growing partnership will not only promote our commitment to product stewardship, but also to environmental justice, pollution and waste minimization.

I am confident these efforts will motivate industry to step forward and share the responsibility for collecting and recycling the products from which they profit. When manufacturers share the costs of recycling, they have an incentive to design less toxic products and packaging, make products easier to recycle, and use recycled materials in place of raw materials.

Here is a clear cut example of seriously needed industry reform. Since 1993, the Board has granted over $20 million for household hazardous waste programs to increase participation, address escalating collection costs, improve collection strategies, and develop a collection infrastructure. Yet only 5% of California households have access to these programs.

So why is participation so low? Waste paint represents over 42% of all household hazardous wastes collected, and amounts to over 35% of local household hazardous waste management costs. Because of these costs, local government must limit what they can collect. This is undoubtedly no surprise to those of you here today. Local governments and our taxpayer’s dollars should not be, and clearly cannot be, solely responsible for managing these wastes.

Industry has indicated that they will only support this method if it is done on a voluntary basis; and a few have stepped up to the plate. One of the Kelly Moore stores located in Northern California is taking paint back for recycling, and Wal-Mart is the only retail chain taking paint back – although they only take their own brand.

Clearly this is not enough. The introduction of a waste paint management fee on the sale of new paint would go a long way in reducing the financial burden on local collection programs, keeping paint and other hazards out of the dump.

Obviously a stronger market for recycled paint would provide more revenue to processors and lower recycling costs to locals. Purchasing recycled paint en masse could also go a long way towards establishing a “good faith effort” when it comes to uate your year 2000 diversion efforts.

Another issue on the horizon is electronic waste, or “E-waste” , especially given the recent announcement from the Department of Toxic Substances Control that clarifies that used computer monitors and television sets are hazardous waste.

While the growth of electronics sales highlights how accessible they’ve become to people of all income levels, the proliferation of e-waste is occurring at an alarming rate. It is estimated that some 500 million PC’s will be obsolete by 2007. With the advent of flat screen television technology, and with the 50 million plus televisions and computer monitors that will be sold in the United States this year alone — we have, and will continue to have, an ongoing glut of e-waste in this state. With up to seven pounds of lead each, this is a serious problem.

Currently, there is no standard approach to promote electronics recycling, so this field is ripe for the development of a thoughtful and economical infrastructure, in time, we hope, to prevent problems like illegal dumping, or worsening environmental damage.

Generally, many computer manufacturers help their large corporate clients reuse and recycle products as part of their purchase contracts. As you heard earlier today – Hewlett Packard and IBM both operate recycling facilities; Dell operates an extensive leasing program to address corporate E-waste, and IBM is the first original equipment manufacturer to roll out a national initiative that accepts PCs made by any manufacturer. Under IBM’s program, consumers can send their used PCs to a designated recycling center for $29.99. Still, who would have thought that you’d have to spend thirty dollars to get rid of your obsolete TV or computer?

In the meantime, energy recovery from waste materials continues to present a unique way for jurisdictions to address resource management issues. The last twenty years witnessed biomass plants using over two million tons of organic materials as fuel in California. Once numbering as many as 60, only 26-biomass plants continue to operate in the state. The decline of these facilities came about when pricing agreements ended and deregulation took effect. Now, interest in biomass energy has been reinvigorated as a result of our current energy situation. It is possible that ten plants that are currently idle could possibly restart in the near future.

Some of these conversion technologies also convert biomass into alternative sources of clean energy for transportation. These include fuel additives, pure fuels and fuel cells. Given the interest in this technology, the Board will be hosting a Conversion Technology Forum on May 3rd and 4th, in Sacramento. I recommend that you to attend this forum; it promises to be very insightful, and obviously timely.

In discussing conversion technologies, the use of tires as an energy source is one method that the Board is considering for managing the 31 million waste tires generated each year in this state. I personally am in favor of burning tires for energy, less for the energy result, and more for this principle: track and playgrounds are excellent alternative uses for old tires, and an improvement for children and people with disabilities. But the amount of tires these projects can use is limited. Civil engineering products and rubberized asphalt concrete are up-and-coming applications but are not yet the status quo. Burning tires keeps them out of landfills, and keeps them from becoming dangerous nuisances when illegally dumped. Let’s face it — tires are fabulous for cars, but after that, they are a toxic hazard.

Since 1990, the Board has invested $12 million dollars in market development efforts to find other uses for tires besides burial. During that time, the tire-recycling rate in California has increased from 34 percent to nearly 65 percent. So while we made progress in the past ten years, and did so on the lowest-funded tire program in the nation, it was only enough money to introduce new ideas into the marketplace.

When Senator Escutia’s SB 876 was passed last year, the landmark Waste Tire Recycling Act, it increased revenues for the Board’s waste tire management program four-fold to $30 million a year. The clean up and market development from these new funds will go a long way towards a more permanent solution to the state’s tire problem.

CLOSING REMARKS

To summarize, I’d like to leave you with a few main points. In the past, environmental programs have been routinely blamed for a variety of economic ills. The loudest complaints have been about increasing the costs of products, forcing industries into premature decline, and generally making the US economy less competitive in the global marketplace.

Largely overlooked until recently, is the fact that environmental concerns in the last forty years have spawned a major industry in the areas of abating and controlling pollution.

Where recycling businesses used to be on the fringe of traditional businesses, they have now, with AB 939 and the investment of over a billion dollars in infrastructure, become a serious player in California’s economy. And in so doing, environmental protection has become a major industry for the United States.

Waste reduction and recycling lowers the overall disposal cost by California manufacturers, leading to greater efficiency and helping them become more competitive in the state and global markets.

But even more importantly, protection of our natural resources should be a high priority for all of us as custodians of the land we live on, alongside the need to ensure that resources will be available for future generations.

Thank you

COMMERCIAL SECTOR RECYCLING
By Jon Root, Eco Telesis
Central Contra Costa County

Starting in July 1999, the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (SWA) began providing small businesses with weekly collection of recyclable materials (mixed paper, cardboard, and in some cases rigid containers). Small businesses are defined as those with two cubic yards/week (or less) of trash collection. Participating businesses are provided with 96-gallon recycling carts for their materials. The carts are collected on the residential recycling collection routes.

There are currently 1,000 businesses participating in the program out of a potential 1,200 (84% participation). Rather than wait for businesses to sign-up for the program, the SWA distributed containers to eligible small businesses along with participation information. If a business did not want to participate, they had to call and ask to have the container removed.

The commercial program is voluntary and provided at no additional charge to participating businesses. Over 1,600 tons/year of recyclables are diverted through this program (133 tons/month), with a contamination rate of five percent. The program costs $220,000/year to operate, which is two percent of the SWA’s residential recycling collector’s annual compensation. It is funded through refuse collection fees charged to all customers, both commercial and residential. The SWA is comprised of five cities and the unincorporated areas of Central Contra Costa County.

For More Information Contact:
Heather Abrams, Waste Prevention & Recycling Specialist
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (925) 906-1804 [email protected]

City of Laguna Beach

Beginning in 1992 and expanded in 1998, the City of Laguna Beach provides mixed recyclables collection to commercial businesses on a voluntary basis. Materials collected include newspaper, mixed paper, cardboard, and rigid containers. The city’s franchised waste hauler, Waste Management Inc., provides the recycling collection service.

Participating businesses are provided with 96-gallon carts or three-cubic yard bins for their materials, though the majority of accounts use carts. One reason that carts were selected over bins is because of space constraints in the commercial areas of the city. Businesses with carts may have their materials collected on the same route with residential recycling. The program is funded through the commercial refuse collection fees, but there is no separate charge to businesses that participate.

There are nearly 300 businesses participating in the commercial recycling program, with approximately 780 tons/year of recyclables collected (65 tons/month). All commingled recyclables are taken to Sunset Environmental in Irvine for transfer to a sorting and processing facility.

For More Information Contact:
Bernadette McCusker, Department of Public Works
City of Laguna Beach (949) 497-0323

City of Lompoc

Since 1995, the City of Lompoc has provided commercial businesses with cardboard collection on a voluntary basis. The city is the sole provider of refuse and recycling services to both the residential and commercial sectors. Participating businesses are provided with either a two-or three-cubic yard bin for flattened cardboard. The bins are collected a minimum of once a week, and businesses are not charged directly for the service. The program currently services 225 businesses and collects 758 tons/year of cardboard.

Lompoc also operates its own landfill, and has instituted several recycling programs at the landfill. In 1990, the landfill began diverting segregated loads of landscape debris and wood waste for grinding and screening. The finished product is offered free-of-charge as mulch to residents and businesses and is also used as landfill cover. Sixty-five hundred tons/year of organics are diverted through this program.

Bulky white goods and other scrap metals are also recycled at the landfill. The city contracts with a scrap metal recycler to crush the materials on-site for recycling (CFCs and lubricating oils are removed before crushing). This program diverts 805 tons/year of scrap metal.

For More Information Contact:
Claudia Stine, Solid Waste Superintendent
City of Lompoc (805) 875-8023 [email protected]

City of Santa Monica

Since December 1994, the City of Santa Monica has provided mixed paper collection to commercial businesses on a voluntary basis. The service is provided by American Waste Industries, however the contract is not an exclusive franchise, and other permitted recyclers and haulers are allowed to collect recyclables.

Businesses are provided with a three-cubic yard bin for their materials. The contractor provides service at 400 locations — 300 bins in commercial areas, 100 bins in multi-family neighborhoods. Bins are often shared by businesses and residents. The program collects 4,200 tons/year of recyclable materials (350 tons/month).

Participating businesses are not charged directly for the service. Funding for the program is built into the refuse rate structure charged to all customers. The city pays American Waste $10,500 per month, but receives a credit of $10.50 per ton of recyclable material collected. The tonnage is tracked by requiring the recycler to weigh its collection truck daily at the city’s transfer station before going to the processing center.

The city also provides beverage container recycling to restaurants in high-traffic areas, including the Third Street Promenade, Main Street, and the Santa Monica Pier. Participating businesses are provided with

39-gallon carts, with the materials collected by city crews.

For More Information Contact:
Wes Thompson, Solid Waste Supervisor
City of Santa Monica, (310) 458-8546 [email protected]

City of Ventura

Starting in March 2000, the City of Ventura launched its Unicycle Program for commercial businesses, using one bin for trash and recyclables. Commercial customers are asked to bag messy, non-recyclable trash in regular plastic bags, and place recyclable materials in the bin loose or in clear plastic bags that the city can provide upon request. All materials are taken to a local materials recovery facility (Gold Coast MRF) for sorting. One reason for selecting the one-bin program is that many businesses stated they did not want an extra collection bin. Commercial accounts with predominantly wet waste streams (e.g. restaurants) remain on the previous recycling system that uses separate bins for trash and recyclables.

The Unicycle Program collects 6,300 tons/year of recyclable materials (525 tons/month). There is no additional charge for commercial customers for this service, even though the tipping fee at Gold Coast is higher for Unicycle ($50-$60/ton) versus non-recyclable trash ($33/ton).

The city also instituted a recycling program for construction and demolition debris by requiring C&D haulers to charge an additional $7 per ton on roll-off containers. This additional fee is paid to Gold Coast to offset the cost of sorting for recyclable materials. The diversion rate from this C&D program exceeds 25 percent.

For More Information Contact:
Ray Olson, Environmental Services Specialist
City of Ventura (805) 652-4525 [email protected]

Getting the Biggest Bang for the Buck

Diamond Bar, California, September 27, 2000

Sponsors: City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts,

Construction Materials Recycling Association of Southern California

Produced by: Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)

Meeting room provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District

Executive Summary

Welcome

Kathleen Gildred, SCCED (310-281-8534): This conference is part of an ongoing series on waste management, environmentally preferable purchasing and sustainability. We hope you can use this information to help your municipality to achieve 50% diversion. Please see our website www.scced.org under “Hot Issues” to get reports of our previous conferences and forums.

Commercial Sector Recycling/Waste Audits

Eugene Tseng, E. Tseng & Associates (818-889-8628): A waste reduction and recycling audit is a tool that provides information to both the company and the jurisdiction to help increase recycling and waste diversion. I will present an overview of audit methods and outcomes.

SmartBusiness Recycling Program

Jon Root, Eco Telesis (310-575-3934): This LA County DPW program assists businesses through a website, hotline, newsletter, technical assistance and outreach efforts. Our message is, “recycling is smart business, it doesn’t cost, it pays.”

Multi-Family Waste Diversion

Michael McCartney, QLM Consulting (888-692-9292): The City of Sacramento set up a community team, made up of all stakeholders, to develop a flexible approach aimed at achieving a 30% diversion rate. In addition to the website www.cityofsacramento.org>www.cityofsacramento.org, a complete resources guide can be downloaded from www.sacgreenteam.com.

Assessing Community Diversion

Steve Uselton, CIWMB (714-449-7076) (pictured to the right): Board staff are working directly with cities to analyze, develop and implement appropriate new programs. The Planning Annual Report Information System (PARIS) database is on the Board website (www.ciwmb.ca.gov). This tool can help local jurisdictions identify the types of programs we are crediting cities with.

Lisa Rapp, City of Lakewood (562-866-9771 x2510): Before AB 939, we pledged all our trash to be burned in a waste-to-energy facility (but received no diversion credit under AB 939). We have met with the Board, established new programs, and are now removed from our Compliance Order.

Increasing Diversion and Recycling of Organic Wastes

Kevin McCarthy, California Organics Recycling Council (CORC) (510-563-4214): CORC monitors state and federal regulations regarding organics and provides information and technical assistance. We see increased composting, but we need more sustainable value-added end markets. Municipal procurement can be helpful.

Reuse and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Materials

Kelly Ingalls, Construction Materials Recycling Association of Southern California (818-548-8996): Some of the public policies to support C&D recycling include: local ordinances, local conditions for approval of projects, EIR language, construction specifications and procurement ordinances. In addition, resource contact information is provided.

John Richardson, Community Recycling (818-767-6000):

We operate a number of facilities, including a transfer station, dirty MRF, and recycling center. We have developed a processing facility to take mixed C&D debris and recycle over 80% of it.

Cara Morgan, CIWMB (916-255-2350) (pictured at left) We have a variety of resources to aid C&D recycling, including the Governor’s Executive Order D-1600 regarding green buildings, model ordinances on our website, and assistance in organizing workshops involving deconstruction companies, engineers, etc.

Summary of Presentations and Discussions

Commercial Sector Recycling/Waste Audits

Eugene Tseng, E. Tseng & Associates: A waste reduction and recycling audit is a “tool” that provides information and data to accomplish our goals:

Goal 1: Institutionalize the Integrated Waste Management Hierarchy

Goal 2: Develop the Infrastructure to Support Diversion Programs

An audit can be used in any or all of the following ways. Doing the first two is a minimum, but we recommend on-site visits and accomplishing all seven.

Evaluate and quantify current and/or future disposal practices at a business.
Evaluate and quantify current and/or future waste reduction and recycling practices at a business.
Provide technical assistance, literature, outreach and education, promote use of recycled content.
Provide business-specific programmatic recommendations for each business.
Provide recognition for exemplary programs, this helps to institutionalize waste management practices so there can be more funding for them within a business.
Develop teaching and peer match models so that one business can learn from another.
Provide long-term planning data for jurisdictions.
Ways audits can be conducted include:

Telephone surveys
Letter surveys
On-site/in-person visits (e.g. Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works)
Electronic surveys (e.g. City Departments of the City of Los Angeles)
Part of business license renewals (e.g. City of Commerce)
Combinations of various of the above
Choosing the method depends on the purpose and what you want to use the data for.

How do you meet AB 939 compliance for the year 2000?

Meet the 50% diversion rate.
Show a good faith effort by successfully implementing the programs you agreed to in your SRRE.
Provide documentation to show how your programs justify the diversion rate by tying the diversion quantities to programs.
Current compliance controversies include:

CIWMB’s temporary moratorium on new base year studies.
Using actual diversion measurements vs. statistical extrapolation of diversion from a representative sample of your businesses. I believe that sampling and extrapolation is a more accurate method and more conservative, otherwise you could just keep going to businesses to count your way to 50%.
How much do you actually change the diversion rate by implementing programs?
Definition of source reduction. For example, if you send ten tons of lettuce to a compost facility, it is recycling, if you send it to a pig farm, it is source reduction. If you move to two-sided copying, that means half your reams of paper disappear. Is that called source reduction? We need better standards.
Inaccuracy of the base year 1990 studies.
Are we counting our way to 50%?
In South El Monte, they had a negative diversion rate and received a Compliance Order in 1998. But through commercial audits, we found 62% diversion rate. The audit program provides a basis for new programs. Starting Oct 1, 2000, South El Monte will be doing MRF processing for the entire waste stream. Their costs are going up, but it will increase diversion. They now have a new area of study on textile waste.

Each jurisdiction has the responsibility to develop the appropriate infrastructure for diversion programs.

The City of Carson, under Jaime Lozano, has found the following signs of a successful waste reduction and recycling program:

Businesses, on their own, call to request waste reduction and recycling audits to be performed (spread by word of mouth).
Businesses volunteer to become models for BMPs case studies.
Businesses volunteer to become teaching models and provide tours to showcase their recycling and waste reduction practices.
Businesses refer other businesses to the City for the waste reduction and recycling audit program.
Businesses serve as mentors to local youth environmental programs.
Businesses participate in the Regional Environmental Science Fair.
Businesses participate in a regional business environmental organization to address AB 939 (the South Bay Business Environmental Coalition).
Businesses work with the City to pilot innovative technologies.
SmartBusiness Recycling Program

Jon Root, Eco Telesis (310-575-3934):

We have a subcontract through Edelman with LA County DPW to assist businesses with implementing waste prevention and recycling programs. Our message is, “recycling is smart business, it doesn’t cost, it pays.”

We have targeted reaching 20,000 businesses in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County through technical assistance and outreach efforts. We have a Hotline (800-741-9236) and a Website, (www.BusinessRecycling.com). Businesses want hard information, such as exactly who to call for food pick up.

We also provide public educational outreach through twice yearly newsletters, brochures, posters, and presentations at community events, trade shows, etc. We provide free promotional items and also award Smart Business Recycling Plaques to businesses with newly implemented waste diversion programs. So far we have awarded 74 plaques.

We provide site visits by three business recycling consultants who do on-site surveys/uations/assessments. (We don’t call them audits because the term scares some businesses.) The consultants collect data on the amounts and types of waste and recyclables generated and put it into a Microsoft Access database. They also provide recommendations to businesses for implementing or improving waste diversion programs. So far they are recording a 49% diversion rate for the commercial program. We have developed professional materials, and are pushing waste minimization,

The website (www.businessrecycling.com) provides waste prevention tips for various industries. It has links to:

– Los Angeles County Materials Exchange, www.Lacomax.com

– CalMax

– County Environmental Resources, www.888cleanla.com

By October 2000, it will have a database of 350+ recycling companies in Los Angeles County, arranged by type of material to recycle.

Here are sample success stories:

Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, Whittier Area

Based on recommendations from a site visit by the business recycling consultants, the College converted its standard lawnmowers to mulching mowers, and began grasscycling three acres of lawn. As a result, the college now saves $3,600 in annual operating costs and 128 staff hours a month.

Sungdo, Rancho Dominguez

Sungdo, a textile finishing company, instituted a collection program for mixed paper, film plastic, and textiles. The business recycling consultants helped Sungdo locate several recycling companies, which are now collecting over 80,000 pounds of scrap materials each month. The company has reduced its annual waste disposal fees by $6,000 to $10,000.

Quaker City Plating, Whittier area

Based on assistance from the Smart Business Recycling Program, Quaker City Plating, a plating and polishing company, now recycles 900 pounds of cardboard every week. In addition to receiving money for the cardboard, Quaker City also reduced its waste hauling costs and increased its annual bottom line by $1,200.

Discussion of Commercial Diversion

Q: Will the Board do training for cities?

A: Cara Morgan, CIWMB: We are doing regional training and one on one training for jurisdictions that is very beneficial. We did a waste audit training program for Loma Linda. We can custom design the program for you.

Q: South El Monte has a new collection system and has increased rates to cover the MRF. How is that working out?

A: Tommy Ouzoonian, Athens Disposal: There are 1500 business in the city and only 5 came to the City Council meeting. The residential community is only 22,000 people. The increased cost for the MRF processing wasn’t a big issue.

Q: What is the status on solid waste studies on waste generation?

A: Cara Morgan: The Board placed a moratorium on new studies that have extrapolation or source reduction greater than EPA’s 11% national average for source reduction. The Board wants to understand the extrapolation methodology better. They don’t want the studies brought before them until they understand the process better.

For any jurisdictions on compliance orders, they will do extensions, if necessary (a Board letter is going out soon).

Q: What about the moratorium on all new base years?

A: Cara Morgan: If you establish a new base year, the three year limit for corrections does not apply. Once you establish a new base year, you have three years to do a correction.

Q: Does the website list of resources include all the County of Los Angeles?

Jon Root: We have compiled a list of County-wide resources that will go up on the website at the end of October. We send out our newsletter only to the 20,000 businesses in unincorporated areas of the County.

The three consultants are working with any size business. They do both appointments and drop-in visits. Since 1994, a total of 5-6,000 businesses have been seen. In this 24-month contract, we will do about 2,000 site visits. We have a database from prior contracts and go back to some of them to make sure the programs are still in place.

Joe Delaney, Solid Waste Operations Manager for the City of Santa Monica:

In Santa Monica we have put out bins for mixed paper and beverage containers near businesses. We also have a program for restaurants. We offered 36 restaurants to give them a container which we would pick it up, but less than a third were interested.

We sent out 20,000 newsletters about recycling to our Access database of businesses. We had a spike of 35 additional calls after the newsletter, many of them from 1 to 4 person businesses.

Relative to electronics recycling, we will do a one day collection for America Recycles Day and keep a on-going drop off station at our recycling station. Some businesses are doing an electronics change-out program and we are working with them. Often they donate the old equipment to educational institutions.

Q: How are you using GIS technology to identify large waste generators to improve efficiency of recycling pick ups?

Tseng: We are working with some cities to geocode every business we visit, and we are seeing if that information can optimize routing.

Redondo Beach is doing electronics recycling via a drop off location. The City of Los Angeles is doing that in conjunction with HHW roundups.

Michael Huls: We need to identify who is picking up waste at every business, and make an inventory all recyclers and handlers of waste.

GIS is now cheaper. You can use handheld units when on site and download the data into a computer at the end of the day.

Multi-Family Waste Diversion

Michael McCartney, QLM Consulting (888-692-9292):

In Marin County we worked with largest owner of multi-family units in seven cities. In San Jose we worked with the hauling community and the green team and recycling coordinators to start multi-family diversion. We spent a year and a half working with Waste Management Inc. I would like to summarize our experiences in multi-family situations for you to consider for your programs.

The City of Sacramento passed a law mandating 30% diversion from all 18 permitees. The first ordinance Solid Waste Authority (SWA) #2 required them to offer recycling to multi-family customers, however this resulted in less than 1% participation The new ordinance SWA #5 is the most flexible multi-family ordinance I have seen in the country. Copies of the Ordinance can be downloaded at the Sacramento County Web site at www.sacgreenteam.com, go down to the multifamily level to find all resource material.

We worked with all the stakeholders to make sure that the program would satisfy the needs of all of the communities. In December 1998 at the request of the Solid Waste Authority, the City of Sacramento established a community recycling team to uate the best approach to take to meet the requirements of increased diversion and AB939. This was an inclusive process involving the following working group of stakeholders and ultimately led to the passage of a new SWA Ordinance 5. The group included:

– Rental housing association

– Property management firms

– Apartment complex owners

– Renters For Recycling

– Californians Against Waste (CAW)

– Commercial haulers

– Waste processors

SWA 5 Results:

Goal is 30% diversion rate from multi-family dwellings
The County is the SWA enforcement agency (cost $1 per unit per month)
Prices for service will be set by the market place
Flexible implementation – Plan A or alternative Plan B (see www.sacgreenteam.com for details)
Funding from $500 per year assessment on front-loading commercial collection vehicles provided $100,000
City and County will assemble promotional materials, “how to kits,” and conduct workshops and educational forums with stakeholder associations
SWA Summary

Phased implementation over a year and a half (3 groups, each involving 6 months)
Recognizes realistic limitations; Allows for 10% of all multi-family dwellings (MFDs) to be excluded and allows initially for mixed paper collection, expanding to the full range of materials after one year
Includes strong anti-scavenging language and enforcement
Annual review of the program will allow for changes
Adoption of SWA Ordinance 5

Supported by SWAC (Solid Waste Authority Committee)
Fulfills requirements of AB 939
Implements a recycling program to a significant population of the community – 110,000 living units
Fairness and equity – provides convenient access to recycling for tenants
MFDs are now part of the solution along with single family residences
Where we are now:

Successful programs hinge on public participation and awareness
Extensive and on-going outreach planned – using the web for distribution of materials
Comprehensive Recycling Guide includes:
User-friendly contents
Conversational tone
Making materials useful
Diskettes provided with templates for you to put your own info on.
Held over 20 public forums and 1 TV workshop
Communications
Benchmarked existing programs throughout the US, reviewed materials, discussed successful outcomes and learned lessons from failures
Created a comprehensive multi-family community recycling guide and resource materials
Interactive websites: www.cityofsacramento.org, www.sacgreenteam.com
Website includes description of program, listing of 30 pages of resource guide in pdf formats, as well as downloadable documents and clip art
Key Suggestions:

You need a different skills set for multi-family staff. You need a different person speaking to property owners, managers, real estate trust with thousands of units, multi-ethnic residents, etc. You need to train them in communications skills for a wide range of stakeholders, including:

The ability to effectively deliver the recycling message to a diverse group of stakeholders-RHA, RFR, CAW, Independent Recyclers, Permitted Haulers and MRF owners
Facilitation skills – the capability to listen and hear the recommendations to meet the marketplace
Community Empowerment — in our case the people who implement the program directly created the law
We had best success with staff people in their mid-30s with a passion about the environment. Relative to costs, first you have a big start-up cost, then it goes down to maintenance, then you need to provide new materials, because after 2 years you have different people managing and living there.

Overall Framework for Increasing Diversion:

Listen to your customers
Be opportunistic
If it works use it
Take a continuous improvement approach
Establish feedback loops at every point in the diversion chain
Create, maintain and grow a recycling reuse network – we created a CalMax in Marin County
Next Developments

Cultivate community feedback
Continue to improve materials
Promote success stories
Make changes visible on website
Share information with other jurisdictions
Develop program metrics
Joe Delaney, City of Santa Monica (310-458-8554):

In Pasadena, we implemented recycling for single family and multi-family dwellings up to four units. We had a requirement in our hauler contracts.

In Beverly Hills (where 75% of the population lives in multi-family dwellings), we put out two containers for bottles and for newspapers.

In Santa Monica we established 100 zones throughout the community, each with 3 bins for newspaper, mixed paper, and bottles and cans. We have found 100 zones are not enough. We are now testing commingled recycling with signs on the bins of what can go in. That is doing very well, with contamination less than 5%.

For multi-family buildings without alleys, we try to give them 90 gallon containers, but it is a hard sell, they don’t want another container to put out at the curb.

Jon Emerson, City of Redondo Beach Recycling Coordinator:

For up to 10 units, we use blue bins. For larger complexes, we use two 95-gallon containers, but we have a lot of contamination. We are distributing refrigerator magnets. We also have a website.

Tim Flanagan, Waste Management, Inc., District Manager in Orange County:

In the City of Irvine, we have a master planned community, so we don’t have problems of integration of multi-family units in our recycling collection. One of the biggest challenges is location of the bins. We find that the most convenient bins are overflowing, while bins only 20 feet away are half full.

We want to work with our cities to incorporate multi-family dwellings into existing recycling programs, if possible.

Discussion of Multi-Family Diversion

Q: Have you achieved 30% diversion from MFDs in Sacramento?

McCartney: We are now at 15%. I believe we could get into the 20s, 30% is difficult, but we have achieved and sustained greater than 30% in many multi-family communities.

Becky Guay: In Camarillo, our multi-family program requires a recycling bin at every refuse container, for up to 4 units. Our hauler provides a 3 yard bin or 90 gallon cart for commingled recycling. The requirement must be implemented in 3 years. It is working very well. Our previous ordinance said you had to have a recycling container anywhere on the property. We still have the issue of continuing education of the residents.

Tim Flanagan, Waste Management: In Irvine the city allows for reduction of landscaping or parking requirements to provide for access to recycling.

Joe Delaney, Santa Monica (seated at left): For developments above a certain square footage or dollar amount, there is a requirement for Solid Waste staff sign-off on the design. One of our biggest challenges are chutes systems. For 40,000 square feet and beyond, they have to have a waste and recycling plan including how the materials will go through the building. You can find the ordinance on our website, www.santa-monica.org, look for Municipal Code Section 4.

Cara Morgan, CIWMB (standing at left): It is a state law requirement to either adopt your own ordinance or use the model on the Board website.

Q: What about old buildings with small trash enclosures?

Joe Delaney: We put out blue containers or 90 gallon containers that fit anywhere. We do need to change our codes requirement enclosure for solid waste containers.

McCartney: Some chute systems allow for a blue bag to collect recyclables

Q: What do you do about anti-scavenging?

McCartney: Sacramento has 2 motorcycle policemen dedicated to trash and a hotline for the public to call in tips. The police find it useful to go after scavenger people in vehicles because they often have outstanding warrants.

Jon Emerson: In Redondo Beach, we have a part-timer 20 hours per week dedicated to scavengers. We have a hotline that will go to the Police Department if he is not on duty.

Q: In Orange County there is a 15-20% turnover rate which creates problems.

Delaney: In Santa Monica, we distribute a city newspaper 2 times per year to every resident that includes recycling procedures. We also put large stickers on the container, we find the bigger the better, even 20 x 17 inches.

Assessing Community Diversion

A Report of the Latest Information from CIWMB Assessments of Diversion

Steve Uselton, California Integrated Waste Management Board (714-449-7076):

The first thing is to know your waste stream, where it is generated and in what quantities. More importantly, know what programs are being done to keep that waste from going to the landfill. Implement programs that target waste generated in your community. We have a lot of cities below 50%. So we are asking what programs are you implementing to target the major waste categories?

In 1998, the Board intensified its effort to work directly with jurisdictions that had unusually low numbers identified in the 95/96 Biennial Reviews.

The Board wanted to take a different approach to the way we assist jurisdictions. We needed to research your communities, go to them, hear your issues, and find out what has been accomplished and what more can be done. To accomplish this the Board created teams of staff to provide hands-on support to jurisdictions that were the farthest behind in getting to 50 percent.

The Board envisioned that these teams would help jurisdictions identify programs to maximize diversion. The concept seems to be working where is has been used. We developed a cooperative process in which the Board and local agencies worked together to identify programs for reaching the diversion requirements and committed to time-specific strategies for implementing them. Over 65 cities, seven counties and three regional agencies have participated in this process. More visits are planned and the CIWMB is changing its organization to allow more staff time to participate in this practice.

We define the process of needs assessment as “A systematic approach to gathering data on a jurisdiction’s history and progress to date and forming recommendations to meet their challenges and program needs.” We identify local government need for assistance in a three step process:

Gather background data on what the jurisdiction has done to date.
Conduct a site visit.
Develop a plan.
We see four types of needs assessments:

Compliance Order — required by the Board, based on biannual reviews — we need to develop a performance plan.
1066 Extension Process — we need to uate program gaps and develop a timeline with the jurisdiction.
1999-2000 Biannual Review — after uating annual reports, we identify gaps. We will go over the reports with the jurisdiction and improve the information or expand on it to present to the Board as a report on their efforts.
Voluntary — at the jurisdiction’s request, we will provide assistance on specific issues, such as C&D.
Step 1: Background Data Search, which involves:

Match profiles: using city profiles available on our website, we find cities with similar residential mixes, to identify a peer group that you can work with.
Review the PARIS database at the Board, and the annual reports. We want to look at the programs that didn’t work for you, and identify alternatives.
Look at the city’s website in terms of how it is communicating about recycling to your residents and businesses.
Look at Info USA (www.info.usa.com) that lists every business in a local jurisdiction.
Review SRRE/SWGS.
Review file history of correspondence.
Examine relevant CIWMB databases.
The CIWMB databases include:

Disposal Reporting System.
Waste Characterization Database — using a form on our website, you can put businesses in SIC groupings, and find out how about much waste each is likely contributing.
Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) – identify businesses in your community that are doing well.
Grants Database — identify funding available to support recycling programs, such as used motor oil and other programs.
Recyclers of C&D Debris — this is often where you can get a big bang for the buck.
Materials Exchange (CALMAX)
Step 2. Site Visit

Visual survey of city — it is very important for our staff to get a perception of the community. For example, in one tour we noticed large piles of C&D debris. We worked with the city attorney to develop requirements for the concrete and asphalt to be reused on the site.
Meet face to face with city staff – to improve communication.
Complete PARIS review — we go through the program codes in the PARIS glossary on our website, and see what programs you are doing in source reduction, HHW, etc. There are 60 different program codes you can take credit for. You don’t have to implement all 60 programs, but often you can see the possibility of doing a new program. We sent out a complete set of our notes from our PARIS database for you to add programs, but we didn’t get many responses.
Effectiveness of existing programs – we will go through every program code and ask if the city is doing them and what the results have been.
Discuss planned programs — we will review the status of your planned programs.
Identify program gaps — and talk about possible new programs.
Tour key facilities.
We especially look at four key waste categories:

Commercial
Who are your largest generators of waste?
What types of diversion programs are they implementing?
What types of waste are they generating?
Are you planning waste assessments for city programs, commercial or industrial generators?
Construction and Demolition
How much C&D is happening in your city?
Do you have a C&D diversion program?
Does the city require contractors to have a plan for diverting C&D waste?
Does the city require contractors to purchase recycled concrete/asphalt?
Organics
Do you educate landscapers about greenwaste diversion?
How do you promote backyard composting?
Are there any contamination problems with the greenwaste collection programs?
Do you purchase back composted organic material?
Do you promote grasscycling, xeriscaping?
Do you ensure city tree trimmings are turned into mulch?
– Procurement

Do you have a procurement policy relative to recycled products?
If yes, describe your procurement program.
How is the program monitored?
How are employees educated about buying recycled?
Step 3: Develop a Plan

Plan can be formal or non-formal.
Must be time specific.
State what the jurisdiction will do.
State what Board staff will do.
Lisa Rapp, Public Works Director, City of Lakewood (562-866-9771 x2510):

Ten years ago, before AB 939, we were encouraged to become involved in a waste-to-energy facility. So we pledged all our trash to be burned in the Long Beach SERRF plant. But it turned out we received no diversion credit under AB 939.

We were given a Compliance Order in November, 1999 because we had not met our reduced goal of 21 percent for 1995. We had a very strained relationship with the Board because of the Compliance Order and because they refused to recognize Lakewood’s claim for ash diversion credit from the SERRF plant. We applied to the Board for a new base year, promised to implement some new programs to boost diversion, and the Board granted an AB 260 goal reduction of 8%. In 2000, when we finally receive a 10% credit for transformation, we believe that we will meet our reduced goal of 42%. (Please note that the AB 260 reduction law only applies to Lakewood.)

In order to resolve our compliance order and establish a new base year, we set up a meeting with the Board to establish a frame work for negotiations. The Board staff has been good to work with.

The process Steve just described was what we did. We hired a consultant, Michelle Leonard, to help us. At the site visit, we went through the PARIS code and found many programs we could take credit for. We did some business audits. We found the AARP mailing center for the entire US is in Lakewood. And they do substantial recycling.

We have established significant recycling programs and documented that. We established a new base year of 1999. It was hard to convince City Council to do that, but we had far better data than for 1990.

We wanted the Board staff to understand our unique position, and our investment in our existing programs, namely sending our MSW to a transformation facility. Once we were able to dialogue with Board staff, our relationship improved significantly.

Michelle Leonard, SCS Engineers: We did a diversion study on the largest generators and found Lakewood was doing a lot more than they thought. There is a large private recyclers buyback program. We identified the City’s C&D roadbase recycling efforts, grasscycling, etc.

We also were able to identify new programs the City could focus on for next year. Lakewood pledged they would implement 12 new programs, including establishing a drop-off greenwaste site and taking some waste to a MRF.

We are on the right track now. The Board has removed us from the Compliance Order,

Discussion of Assessing Community Diversion

Cara Morgan, CIWMB: I would like to make some announcements. By the end of October, CIWMB staff will be on board in LA County.

SB 2202 will require a task force to make a recommendation to the Board on GIS. If you want to bring your expertise to this task force, let us know. We want to use GIS to make this a good system. The system is good, but we need some improvement..

Q: Will source reduction include reusable pallets?

Morgan: Yes. The Board also passed a resolution to review all regulations. Plastic pallets and grasscycling are effective methods of source reduction. Many businesses are making money from source reduction.

Q: Global Green is working with municipalities on energy efficiency. Do green building programs fit into your assessment?

Cara Morgan: Yes, the green building programs of a jurisdiction relate to C&D and procurement aspects. The Board is emphasizing C&D and green buildings. We are working on a project with the California Energy Commission on a guide for school districts.

Q: How does “green building” give credit to local jurisdictions?

Uselton: A green building program is a procurement practice. We want to document these practices where they are encouraged by local jurisdictions

Q: How was the 11% number for source reduction produced?

Uselton: That is an EPA national average.

Q: How long will the moratorium on new base years last?

Morgan: We don’t know.

Q: If we had a report in for 1999 with a request for a new base year, that would hold up uation of our report?

Morgan: Yes, but the moratorium only applies to new base year reports. We have caught up on our biannual reviews. Get your 1999 report in now, so we can process it.

A report will be out in the next month and posted on our website.

Increasing Diversion and Recycling of Organic Wastes

Kevin McCarthy, California Organics Recycling Council (CORC) and Recycling Manager for Waste Management, Inc. (doing electronics scrap recycling) (510-563-4214):

CORC is a technical council within the California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA). The CRRA is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1974, involving representatives of recycling companies, consultants, haulers, public agencies, and others dedicated to promoting waste reduction, reuse, recycling, pollution prevention, composting and expanding the market for recycled content products. For more information, see our website at www.crrra.com.

CORC monitors state and federal regulations regarding organics and provides public information. We were founded in 1992 and operate on an all-volunteer basis. We comment on proposed laws and regulations regarding organics. However, we are not trying to be the Compost Council; our constituency includes compost and mulch operators, and the municipalities who want to increase diversion of organics.

The CORC Board Members include:

Sean Edgar, California Refuse Removal Council (CRRC) (916) 444-0300

Cliff Feldman, City of Oakland (510) 238-6815

Stephen Grealy, City of San Diego (858) 573-1275

Michael Gross, Zanker Road Landfill (San Jose) (408) 934-2416

David Krueger, Davis St. Transfer Station (San Leandro) (510) 638-2303

Jack Macy, City and County of San Francisco (415) 554-3423

Brian Mathews, Alameda County Waste Management Authority (510) 614-1699

Kevin McCarthy, Waste Management Inc. (510) 563-4214 [email protected]

Chris Trott, Ogden Power Pacific (Jamestown) (209) 984-4660 x14

If you are setting up a greenwaste program, call someone on this list, we have a lot of experience that can help you.

CORC’s goals are:

Maximize diversion of organics from the waste stream by:
Restoring a “program” focus to AB 939, moving away from an accounting-based focus
Supporting diversion programs that promote the following waste management practices in order of priority (same as AB 939 priorities):
Source reduction
Recycling and composting
Environmentally safe transformation
Land disposal (last on the list)
Support development of environmentally superior and diverse end markets involving the highest and best use of organic materials.
Serve as a technical clearinghouse and resource on organic materials recycling programs.
Provide expert testimony and comments on legislation and regulations.
The current proposed CIWMB draft regulations would have severe negative implications for our operators. We are suggesting they start over.

We see a mixed future for composting:

Continued difficulties with permitting composting facilities.
Improved economics for recycling and composting as tip fees rise.
Greater composting of food waste.
Difficulty in maintaining a supply/demand balance for products (we don’t want to overwhelm the market by ending alternate daily cover (ADC) in land fills all at once).
Unknown future for biomass: will state subsidies end and will new federal subsidies emerge providing credits for alternative energy sources?
ADC use of greenwaste will decline; it is starting to slow down across the state now.
In summary, you will definitely see increased composting, but we need more end markets before we ban yard waste in landfills. The key strategy is to convert it to higher value end products.

Composting is a natural process; we are just speeding it up. Here are some examples of the latest technology for food waste composting:

Small scale in-vessel system, called CM-Pro Digester, by NaturTech, uses small containers (approximately a 4-foot cube). One or more could go behind a food mart or large restaurant. They cost $2,000 and can process 1500 pounds of food waste in 15 days.
Naturtech and other vendors also offer roll-off-sized composters. They also are tightly enclosed so they can process material without odors. (For more information, see www.composter.com, or contact: Craig Benton at 206-790-5751 or email [email protected].)
An aerated static pile “Express Composting System being offered by Rexius Express Blower of Eugene, Oregon, uses a larger windrow approach. Air systems blow through the material with an air filter to cut down odor. Or they can look like greenhouses as are used by Cedar Grove Composting near Seattle. This process is called the C:N System. (For more info, call Jan Allen at CH2M HILL, 425-453-5005 x5110 or email [email protected].)
Waste Management Inc. also has its own systems for composting.

In conclusion, we need more ability to process wet waste. Some people out in the San Joaquin Valley are finding doing it in windrows is easier.

Discussion of Organics Recycling

Q: Has the deregulation of electricity had any impact on use of biomass?

McCarthy: Originally, we were concerned that the biomass industry would be undercut by “cheap” electricity. But that has not happened so far. The state has put in $550 million over a 4 or 5 year period to help support biomass and renewable sources, which is helping keep them open. We don’t know what will happen after that funding sunsets.

Q: When do you expect tipping fees to rise?

McCarthy: It depends on the situation with the neighbors of the landfills, as to whether they can be expanded or not.

Joe Haworth: Puente Hills’ current permit expires in 2003, but we have the possibility of a ten year extension, with 2013 as the absolute closure date. There is a MRF next door to Puente Hills, that is now charging $18/ton, and will rise to $23/ton soon. Greenwaste disposal for ADC is now charged about $10/ton.

McCarthy: There are case studies for various cities of the impact per household if you go to composting, instead of ADC. Generally it would be less than $1 per household per month, in some cases only 10¢ a month.

Q: What is the new composting facility in Irwindale off the 605?

A: It is doing wood recycling.

Q: Can Community Recycling handle a San Francisco type of program?

Roger Vander Wende, Community Recycling: We can handle it. We can handle street sweepings plus food waste. Supermarket waste is cleaner than restaurant waste.

McCarthy: Adding 15-20% food waste should not kick us up to a higher level permit.

Vander Wende: We had our permit increased, so we are in good shape. We think a clay-lined trench makes sense.

Cara Morgan: There are challenges in permitting. Our permitting program coordinator needs to work with local composters. We also need to look at the jurisdictions’ use of compost to help stimulate the market.

Vander Wende: We actually get resistance from people to using our compost because they don’t want the grass to grow so fast, because they have to cut it so often.

Morgan: We are changing the mindset of school districts to do grasscycling and save labor and money. Supermarket recycling is important. Look at your organic waste stream and what you can do.

Morgan: We have found very few municipalities buy the compost. You need to adopt a procurement policy.

Elyse Olson, City of San Diego: San Diego processes between 75,000 and 100,000 tons of green waste per year. The last year it was 90,000. At first we had difficulties marketing our material to Park and Recreation and other City departments, because they knew the quality of our “old” product left much to be desired. It contained plastic and had not been through a pathogen elimination process. Currently, only about 5% of our now clean, high quality mulch and compost goes to Park and Recreation. For the most part, the rest goes to the general public.

Vander Wende: Oregon puts compost near streams to help the forest grow because it supports the salmon.

Q: What is the progress on grasscycling? Landfills don’t want “stinky” grass. Is grass a problem for composting?

McCarthy: In terms of the diversion hierarchy, mulching mowers that leave the grass to fertilize the lawn are the best.

Comment: The challenge is the property management firms don’t want grass left on the lawn because they see it as ugly. You need to mow it when it is not too tall.

Haworth: Two-thirds of the people have gardeners. These are “mow and blow” guys. We are working with them. The large landscapers do mulching mowing because of the labor savings in handling the grass clippings. We charge $27/ton for grass clippings. The composters don’t want grass clippings either.

Elyse Olson: We need some high profile examples of mulching and use of compost.

Comment: The County of Orange is using it on the parks. The City of Leisure World has its own recycling facility. They have no complaints of odors. They save $250,000 in trash hauling fees per year.

Q: What about meat and dairy products?

Vander Wende: Renderers are handling meat waste, but dairy waste is harder.

McCarthy: We don’t see much meat and dairy waste in the bins.

Olson: We just started a program to mix food waste with yard waste.

Q: What about cooking oils?

Vander Wende: That is part of meat rendering.

Comment: Rancho Cucamonga recycles all its greenwaste. We use grasscycling in all parks. All tree trimmings are ground up and used in parks. Combined with C&D recycling, we have cut our land fill costs by 75%.

Comment: Southern California actually produces more compost than Northern California. San Joaquin is the largest compost producer. Compost facilities also produce some left over material from screening that goes to ADC.

Q: What jurisdictions have model ordinances?

McCarthy: San Jose, San Francisco, and Santa Monica have good ones. Mike Leon of CIWMB has been compiling a report. You can contact him at [email protected].

CORC can help facilitate interagency integrated waste management strategies. We need more partnership among the public agencies. We need to move away from an oil-based to a bio-based economy.

Public Policies and Programs for Reuse and Recycling of
Construction and Demolition Materials

Kelly Ingalls, Construction Materials Recycling Association of Southern California (818-548-8996):

First I want to present some basic definitions:

Public Policy: a general course of action taken to resolve a problem or issue.
Programs: formalized measures to achieve desired results.
Practices: discrete set of activities to implement program objectives.
Responsible parties to involve include:

Owner – the driving force (it could be a public agency or a private project developer)
Architect/engineer
Contractor
Hauler
Public Policies to support C&D recycling include:

Local ordinances for C&D recycling.
Local conditions for approval of projects.
Environmental impact report (EIR) language.
Construction specifications.
Recycled product procurement ordinances.
Types of local requirements can range from descriptive to prescriptive:

Descriptive: locality states a policy and promotes awareness of C&D recycling (incentive-based).
Prescriptive: locality states a policy with minimum C&D recycling requirement, financial deposits, or other “hard” requirements.
Combined programs with both descriptive and prescriptive elements.
Basic elements of effective C&D recycling programs include:

Ordinance or public policy
Best management practices (BMPs)
Implementation program
Monitoring
Reporting/documentation
Program modification process
Industry outreach programs include interaction with organizations, such as:

Construction Specifications Institute
Contractor’s associations, such as the Building Industry Association (BIA) and National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
National Association of Demolition Contractors
Waste management associations
Environmental organizations
Public education outreach programs can include:

C&D recycling guides
Information brochures
News releases and public information
Technical magazine articles
Workshops and seminars
Case studies
Construction specifications may include:

Solid resources management specifications
Contractor guidelines or requirements for recycling C&D materials
Solid resources management plan
Summary of diversion and disposal (tonnage report) (We used this for all L.A. City projects.)
Examples of Programs

The City of Los Angeles C&D Program:

Prescriptive Contract Specifications for C&D for City-Owned Buildings.
Prescriptive Council Conditions of Approval & EIR Requirements.
Descriptive Policies for Private Sector Projects.
Public Education & Building Industry Outreach Program.
City of Santa Monica Green Building Development Guidelines (Construction Management Practices)

Required practices:
Demolition and site protection plan.
Recycle construction waste.
Recommended Practices:
Crush concrete and masonry for reuse.
Use pre-engineered materials and reusable forms for construction.
Santa Monica Draft Construction and Demolition Material Ordinance

Covered Projects: Over $50K in construction costs or 1,000 sq. ft. including commercial, residential, and city projects.
Waste Management Plan required with application for building or demolition permits.
C&D Reporting requirement.
Security deposit: the lesser amount of 3% of project value or $10 K.
Infeasibility exemption procedures.
A big issue is the workload on your staff. The lower the threshold for a plan, the higher the workload.

City of San Jose Proposed C&D Program

Prescriptive Program for Public Sector and Private Sector.
C&D Debris Deposit Program – City collects deposit from Contractor for C&D debris, based on estimated quantities to be recycled.
Deposit is returned if materials are recycled. (San Jose is proposing $50 per ton of materials to be recycled, if the contractor only recycles half of it, he gets half the deposit back.)
Town of Atherton C&D Recycling Ordinance

Prescriptive Program.
50% waste diversion rate required.
Applicant completes “Recycling and Waste Reduction Form.”
$50 per ton deposit required for each ton recycled.
Town retains $50 per ton for C&D waste that is not recycled.
Waiver process for designated projects.
Sacramento Capitol Area East End Complex

Demolition and new construction phases require C&D recycling.
Required diversion rate for demolition, excavation & new construction debris is 75%.
Contractor submittals required: C&D Recycling Plan and Contractor Solid Waste Reports.
Use of recycled-content products.
City of Hawthorne C&D Recycling Program

Franchised hauler has exclusive rights to C&D waste, except self-haul and City projects.
Locality requires franchised hauler to recycle C&D debris & report quantities.
City requires Public Works contractors to report C&D quantities.
Private projects over 10,000 square feet must make a cash deposit and report quantities of C&D as a condition of obtaining a certificate of occupancy.
Localities must be careful when adopting policies and programs in the model ordinances. It turns out Hawthorne doesn’t have very many projects over 10,000 square feet, so they should have made their threshold lower. I suggest you don’t have a detailed threshold in the ordinance, but specify in your regulations. The ordinance should spell out what you want in terms of policy, but let the details of the deposits and thresholds be set by responsible department.

Resources and Contacts

Construction Materials Recycling Association, Bill Turley, (630) 548-4510, [email protected]. Ask for “Construction Materials Recycler.”
CMRA of Southern California, Kelly Ingalls, (818) 548-8996, [email protected]. Ask for “Fact Sheet” & “Position Paper on CMB/Class 2 Aggregates.”
City of Los Angeles Solid Resources Citywide Recycling Division: Nady Maechling, (213) 473-6226, [email protected]. Ask for Building Industry Recycling Tool Kit and Sustainable Building Reference Manual.
California Integrated Waste Management Board: (916) 255-2296, www.ciwmb.ca.gov. Ask for A Technical Manual for Materials Choices in Sustainable Construction.
City of Santa Monica, Environmental Programs Division: Susan Munves: (310) 458-8229, www.santa-monica.org/environmental. Ask for Green Building Design & Construction Guidelines.
Town of Atherton: Ed Cooney, Recycling Specialist, (650) 614-1224. Ask for Construction and Demolition Recycling Program & Council Resolution.
Should add Oakland and _
John Richardson, Community Recycling (818-767-6000):

We operate a number of facilities, including a transfer station, dirty MRF, and recycling center. In 1989 we put in a compost facility in Bakersfield, making motor fuel out of wood. We developed a processing facility to take mixed C&D debris and get the wood out of it. We were handling up to 75 tons per day. Then in 1994 after Northridge earthquake, we said we could handle 300 tons per day, but they brought us 900 tons, then 1500 tons. We processed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 18 months. We processed a total of a half million tons.

We saw the input materials changed over time. At first it was very high concrete content with some wood fencing that was easy to separate. We were able to recycle 95%. Then we got more mixed materials as remodeling took over, and we were down to 82% recovery, but it took a lot of labor. Now we handle 300-700 tons per day. We have put in a new permanent facility, with an 82-85% recovery rate. We separate out all the wood, metals, wiring, and rock, and send the dirt to land fills for ADC.

We can process other types of materials, such as street sweepings, in which we separate out broken glass. We find 3-5% refuse in street sweepings and recycle the rest. We can also separate the seaweed from sand and get a 98% recovery rate.

We would like to process 1000 tons per day. We are priced at $28 per ton, equivalent to the land fills in our area.

Cara Morgan, CIWMB (916-255-2350) We have resources to aid C&D recycling, including the Governor’s Executive Order D-1600 regarding green buildings at www.gov.ca.gov/briefing/execorder/d1600

This Executive Order tells state agencies to have a sustainable building plan. The Secretary for Consumer Services will ensure all agencies have a green building plan, including construction, remodeling and operations, covering both owned and leased properties.

We have added new model ordinances to the C&D portion of our website. In the local government section there are resources, such as model procurement policies. Many jurisdictions are passing ordinances with a deposit system, some charge a straight fee, some are scaled to the size of the project. Many are using a “carrot and stick” approach to companies, in that to get a final operating permit, they have to submit a report on how much was recycled and where. The key question is how big the deposit has to be to get their attention.

Some have a reporting requirement that the companies submit a waste management plan. The Oakland ordinance requires them to state where they intend to take the materials and the amount they will divert. Oakland provides technical assistance to help companies develop the plan.

The City of Hawthorne requires, as a part of their redevelopment program, an EIR which details how the developers are going to recycled the material. They define what are C&D materials and provide information on C&D haulers.

Some jurisdictions have found such ordinances have been blocked by the City Council, because they do not want to put additional taxes on businesses. Some cities have set up joint task forces to develop a consensus. We are ready to help you with presentations at City Council, if needed.

We would like to help organize workshops, involving deconstruction companies, engineers, etc.

Holly Groza: The City of Santa Fe Springs passed an ordinance that will require all contractors to recycle 75% of their C&D materials. There was not much opposition. We did a presentation at the Chamber of Commerce. We distributed a draft to businesses and got feedback. The City Council was supportive.

San Mateo County has an ordinance that you can get from Kathleen Gallegher, [email protected]. They have a 50% diversion requirement. Contractors have to post a bond of several thousand dollars.

You need to get the haulers involved. The longer the drive to the landfills the more they are interested.

Orange County has been getting 85% recycling in residential demolition, and over 90% for commercial. Contractors can save more than $1 million if they recycle rather than take it to a landfill.

Discussion on C&D Recycling

Q: L.A. County Sanitation has stopped recycling C&D for ADC because of alleged patent infringement. Someone claims to have a patent on the process for using C&D in ADC.

Richardson: County Sanitation takes all mixed C&D material and grinds it up for ADC. We use a different process to separate the material that is not covered by the patent.

Ingalls: That is a very strange patent. I think you can make ADC by a different process and get around the patent.

Q: Do the ordinances include an infrastructure for reporting?

Ingalls: In the City of Los Angeles we have a format including some narrative, plus the information we need for the recycling plan, including the amount and type of materials.

To get a copy, ask Nady Maechling, (213) 473-6226, [email protected].

Joe Haworth: The ADC price is based on the price of grinding the materials, not on the cost of landfilling at Puente Hills. I believe that composting has to grow. Now we are getting too much greenwaste for our ADC needs and we need to export some to off-site facilities.

I thank you for doing such a good job at promoting recycling. When it was first proposed, some people at my agency were cynical, but you have shown that the public can respond and do the right thing. Perhaps the most cost-effective solid waste management approach is to get the public to “play” with their trash 10 minutes more a