Here in
Sacramento, CA, we now have mandatory business recycling. State law requires
cities and counties to divert 50% of the waste generated in their jurisdiction from
landfill disposal. This can be accomplished through direct public agency
programs and private sector efforts. Diversion is accomplished through
residential, multifamily, and commercial programs. For ten years, non-exclusive
franchised commercial waste haulers in Sacramento have been required by local
ordinance to recycle 30% of what they collect from commercial accounts. This
30% requirement has been based on tonnage, with no requirements for diverting
specific commodities. The current commercial recycling rate is estimated
to be only 15 to 20 percent, with only one in five businesses have a recycling
program available. Instead of requiring the haulers to divert waste, the
regulatory requirement has been shifted to the business generators to require
them to recycle designated recyclable materials if generating four cubic yards
of garbage per week. See news item below.
Recycling Means Good Business!
The Sacramento Regional Solid Waste
Authority (SWA) has adopted a new Business Recycling Ordinance that requires
businesses in the City of Sacramento and the unincorporated area of Sacramento County to keep designated recyclables including cardboard, office paper and
beverage containers separate from the garbage.
All businesses and all non-residential properties who subscribe to garbage
service of four (4) cubic yards or greater per week are required to have a
recycling program. For information and resources, see the SWA Business
Recycling website at http://www.sacramentoswa.com/business.html.
Ryan Bailey
Sacramento County
Business Environmental Resource Center
916-649-0173 direct
916-216-5622 cell
916-649-0202 fax
www.sacberc.org
From:
GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On Behalf Of Pete Pasterz
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:15
AM
To: Helen Spiegelman
Cc: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling
to be mandatory? Compromise bill may bevoted on soon in House
Helen--
I don't agree
that bans and collection mandates necessarily lead to the same outcome...here
in North Carolina, we have several banned items, but voluntary provision of
recycling services by local communities, and voluntary citizen
participation. Those municipalities that don't provide service, or that
provide inferior programs have a majority of the banned items still going to
landfill. Even in Mecklenburg County, which has
[had] been an early leader in recycling and education programs,
more materials, including banned ones like aluminum cans, go to the
landfill than the MRF. If there were some [any] enforcement of the
bans, this may have the desired effect of directing the materials to a
recycling stream...or to a roadside dump, depending on the incentives given to
the generators.
So, the
combination of bans and voluntary programs is not optimizing recycling
here. I'm not sure that mandates would necessarily change this, without
also a framework for a better focus on economic and intrinsic incentives to
generators. The financial incentives don't necessarily need to be
PAYT-type rewards/penalties, or RecycleBank coupons; they could also be
product/packaging costs which reflect their impacts...
Pete Pasterz
Cabarrus
County, NC
From:
GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:40
PM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling
to be mandatory? Compromise bill may bevoted on soon in House
Importance: Low
I am interested in the dualism of "mandatory recycling" and
"disposal bans" which lead to the same outcome. Does anyone have
experience that compares the effectiveness of the two approaches?
Helen Spiegelman
At 08:52 AM 6/21/2007, Reindl, John wrote:
This is great news ! Wisconsin has had mandatory recycling in place
since the early 1990's and, while not perfect, it has worked very well. Without
mandatory recycling, I doubt that we would have the economies of scale for
either collection, processing, or marketing.
Best wishes,
John Reindl
Dane County, WI
-----Original Message-----
From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On
Behalf Of RicAnthony@no.address
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:17
AM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject:
[GreenYes] Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill may be voted on soon in
House
Published: Jun 19, 2007 - 11:19:49
pm EDT
Recycling to be mandatory?
Compromise bill may be voted on soon in House
By Drew Volturo, Delaware State News
DOVER -- Lawmakers pushing two separate
curbside residential recycling bills have reached a compromise on legislation
that would be mandatory and charge a $3 per ton assessment on solid waste.
The
measure, a combination of two bills that had their supporters and detractors,
was being shopped around Legislative Hall Tuesday and could find its way to the
House of Representatives floor for a vote soon.
"We
have been doing voluntary recycling for several years and can't get much above
15 percent (participation among residents)," said Rep. Pamela S. Maier,
R-Newark, who is sponsoring the compromise legislation.
"I
don't want folks to be afraid of the word 'mandatory,' which always raises red
flags."
Rep.
Maier originally sponsored a bill that would mandate curbside residential
recycling, while Gov. Ruth Ann Minner backed legislation calling for voluntary
recycling and setting up a $3 per ton assessment.
The
compromise measure incorporates many of the tenets of the Minner-backed
legislation, including the assessment, which would create a fund to help with
startup costs associated with recycling programs, and the establishment of
recycling goals.
Secretary
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control John A. Hughes said his
department could live with the mandatory recycling bill, but he prefers the
original voluntary measure because it would be more palatable to legislators
and residents.
"We
agree with getting recycling started, planting the seeds," Mr. Hughes
said.
"We
will reach the point when the majority of people see how well recycling
functions and the costs are balanced out by large-scale participation."
Then,
Mr. Hughes said, adopting a mandatory system would be less controversial.
He
noted that his hometown of Rehoboth Beach has implemented voluntary curbside
recycling through Delaware Solid Waste Authority and many of his neighbors
already have signed up for the program.
Mr.
Hughes said he is concerned that mandatory recycling might not pass, and the
voluntary proposal might end up on the cutting room floor as well.
Clean
Air Council community outreach director James Black said he would have
preferred a mandatory recycling bill without the assessment, which is estimated
to cost the average household 38 cents a month.
"Mandatory
recycling is not as much of a problem as it used to be because people realize
to reach the goals we set, it has to be mandatory," Mr. Black said.
"It's
better to have a compromise bill now because every year we wait, the trash in
the landfills is going to pile that much higher."
But
Delaware Solid Waste Authority CEO Pasquale "Pat" Canzano said not
establishing the assessment while requiring recycling creates an unfunded
mandate, which often is difficult to meet.
"(The
bill) provides the ability for public and private entities to apply for grants
for recycling programs, which should increase the amount of recycling,"
Mr. Canzano said.
Under
the legislation, a recycling fund would be established and financed by a $3 per
ton assessment on all solid waste -- excluding recyclables -- collected and/or
disposed of in Delaware.
That
money, Deputy DNREC Secretary David Small said, would be available to private
companies, municipalities and community organizations as startup funds for
recycling programs and could be used to purchase equipment, such as a truck or
recycling containers.
Once
a local government reaches a recycling rate of 30 percent, it would not be
assessed the $3 a ton surcharge.
"At
some point, around 30-40 percent recycling, towns would be saving enough in
tipping and disposal fees to cover recycling costs," Mr. Small said.
But
how would the mandatory component of the legislation be enforced?
Rep.
Robert J. Valihura Jr., R-Wilmington, a sponsor of the original voluntary
recycling bill and co-sponsor of the compromise measure, said there are
mechanisms in place to ensure the program's success.
Refuse
brought to a landfill already is inspected for contraband, asbestos and other
contaminants. If trash haulers start bringing in refuse with too many
recyclables, the landfills would reject the loads and could fine the haulers,
Rep. Valihura said.
DSWA
and DNREC, he said, would develop the exact process.
The
measure carries the goal of increasing Delaware's recycling from 15 percent to
30 percent recycling by 2010 and 51 percent by 2015.
Post
your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at newszap.com.
Staff
writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296 or dvolturo@no.address.
See what's free at AOL.com.
DISCLAIMER:
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.