GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? SACRAMENTO APPROACH


Title: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? SACRAMENTO APPROACH


Helen,

I think the idea is to increase source separation from the business
sector and to therefore reduce hauler reliance upon as much "back-end"
sorting/processing.  It is anticipated that the original 30% diversion
required of haulers will no longer be necessary with the new business
requirements.  Another benefit is that recycling will be much more
visible to customers. 

In terms of enforcement, this is a great example of inter-agency
coordination and cooperation.  The local solid waste authority adopted
the ordinance and is partnering with the County's Environmental
Management Department to handle inspections and enforcement.  The
initial phase is education and outreach, and ultimately they will do
site inspections.  This will be accomplished through a mix of some
dedicated staff working specifically on the program and existing
inspectors (hazmat, environmental health, etc.) who will check for
recycling when they conduct their normal inspections.  For example,
health inspectors who conduct restaurant inspections have recently
started to additionally check for stormwater violations (on behalf of
local jurisdictions) and will now also be checking for recycling
compliance on behalf of the solid waste authority.

Ryan Bailey
Sacramento County
Business Environmental Resource Center
916-649-0173 direct
916-216-5622 cell
916-649-0202 fax
www.sacberc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On
Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:44 AM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? SACRAMENTO APPROACH

Thanks for this additional input, Ryan.

Are you saying that the failure of haulers to comply with the older
requirement resulted in shifting the onus from the haulers to the
business generators? What will be the enforcement measures?

Helen.

At 07:13 AM 7/18/2007, Bailey. Ryan wrote:


        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 <mailto:dvolturo@no.address> .
       
       
       
________________________________

        See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
       
        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.
       
       
       
       
________________________________________________________________________
____
        COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO EMAIL DISCLAIMER:
        This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
confidential,
        and
        privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.
Any
        review,
        copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments
thereto) by
        other
        than the County of Sacramento or the intended recipient is
strictly
        prohibited.
       
        If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
        immediately
        and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email
and
        any
        attachments thereto.
       
________________________________________________________________________
_____
       
       





[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]