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]