Get documents about "Project Recycle Business Plan
Document Sample
Attachment 2
PROJECT RECYCLE
Program Overview, Barriers, and Recommended Actions
INTRODUCTION
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) estimates that California
generates 52 million tons of waste annually. Although waste generation for all State
facilities is estimated to be just 1 percent of the State’s total waste stream, it is important
that the State serve as a model and provide leadership to local jurisdictions and
businesses in developing effective waste diversion programs. The mission of Project
Recycle, the State's waste diversion program, is to assist and oversee State facilities in
reducing the amount of waste they generate and dispose of in landfills. The mandates
for this program include: Public Contract Code (PCC) Section 12159 (b) and Sections
12164.5–12167.1, Public Resources Code Sections 42560 and 42562, and Executive
Order W-7-91. (See Attachment 1)
The Supplemental Report of the 1998 Budget Act (Item Number 3910-001-0281 #2)
directed the IWMB to address the following:
Actions the IWMB will take to (1) identify State facilities that are not maximizing their
recycling efforts, and (2) assist these facilities in establishing recycling programs;
Barriers identified by the IWMB that are limiting the willingness or ability of State
facilities to recycle; and,
Recommendations for statutory changes or additional fiscal resources necessary to
remove the identified barriers.
In addition, the IWMB was directed to develop statutory language to require all state
agencies to report to the IWMB on their recycling activities.
This report provides a background and the status of the program and responds to the
requests in the Supplemental Report. This report also provides steps the IWMB would
take if the recommended actions are approved and the IWMB is allocated the
necessary fiscal resources.
BACKGROUND
Project Recycle was initially managed by the Department of General Services (DGS),
Office of Records Management and operated in approximately 150 State offices and
buildings. Upon assuming management of the program in 1991, the IWMB continued to
purchase recycling containers and equipment, signs, and training materials for use by
State departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. The IWMB became a liaison
between recyclers, DGS custodial staff and/or building managers, and departmental
recycling coordinators. The IWMB adopted the new responsibility of initiating and
implementing contracts for the collection and sale of recyclable materials. In addition,
the IWMB also began documenting amounts of materials diverted from disposal.
Program Accomplishments
Following are highlights of the major accomplishments of the program since 1991.
Increased the amount of materials reported as recycled by 1,750 percent [from
2,000 tons per year to over 35,000 tons per year (See Chart 1)].
Chart 1
Amounts of Materials Reported Recycled
Per Year at State Facilities
40,000
35,000
P
30,000 r
o
25,000 j
e
Tons of Materials c
20,000
Reported Recycled t
e
15,000 d
10,000
5,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Increased the number of State facilities with recycling programs by 1,200 percent
from 1991 to 1998 [150 to over 1,800 facilities (See Chart 2)].
Chart 2
Number of State Facilities with Diversion Programs
2000
1800
P
1600 r
o
1400
j
1200
e
c
Number of Sites 1000 t
e
800 d
600
400
200
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
2
Expanded the types of facilities covered by the program from primarily State offices
only to include: prisons, hospitals, universities, community colleges, developmental
centers, maintenance stations, roadside rests, parks, and conservation camps.
Expanded from a paper-only collection program to include over 77 different types of
materials.
Implemented 14 State contracts to recover scrap paper and metal, textiles, pallets,
telephone directories, and laser toner and ink jet cartridges. This is an increase from
only four scrap paper contracts.
Purchased new, durable, plastic recycling containers for use in State offices to
increase participation.
Developed a database to track: the types of materials and quantities recycled;
recyclers; and recycling data.
Added a chapter to the State Administrative Manual outlining the IWMB’s policies on
waste prevention and recycling and procedures for reporting recycling data to the
IWMB.
Implemented three Interagency Agreements to carry out model waste reduction
programs at the California State Universities at Humboldt, San Francisco, and San
Marcos.
Worked with DGS, Division of Real Estate Services in the planning and construction
of five new State office buildings to incorporate provisions for recycling (i.e. the Elihu
M. Harris Building-Oakland, San Francisco Civic Center, Cal EPA building-
Sacramento, the Attorney General Building-Sacramento, and the State Office
Building-San Bernardino).
Coordinated the work of seven Local Conservation Corps, 15 non-profit
organizations, and over 200 recyclers to collect recyclables from State facilities.
Provided hydraulic balers to seven State office buildings and facilities to improve the
collection and marketability of corrugated cardboard.
Developed and distributed new educational and promotional materials, including
recycling posters, newsletters, brochures, Project Recycle video, Internet web page,
and information on other IWMB programs.
Current Program Status
The IWMB estimates that there are at least 3,319 State facilities that are clearly
identifiable. Of those, 1,854 (approximately 56 percent) have recycling programs. (See
Table 1)
3
Table 1
Facility Type Total Number of Number of Percentage
Facilities Facilities with with Recycling
Recycling Programs
Programs
State-Owned 936 616 66%
State-Leased 1,470 1,014 69%
Colleges and
Universities 141 119 84%
State Parks 346 36 10%
Caltrans Maintenance
Facilities
310 52 17%
Air and Army National 116 17 15%
Guard Facilities
Total 3,319 1,854 56%
To measure the success of waste diversion at State facilities by the percentage of
programs alone does not take into consideration several important factors. These
factors include the size of the facility, the number of employees served by the diversion
program, and the amounts and types of materials diverted from disposal. However,
lists of State facilities come from different sources and contain different information on
the size of facilities and the number of employees. This makes it difficult to compare the
success of recycling at different types of facilities. For example, information regarding
State-owned facilities is available from DGS Real Estate Services Division and is
provided only in square footage, not in the number of full time employees. However, the
State-leased facilities are listed by the number of employees and not square footage.
Information, such as location, size, and the number of employees at colleges and
universities, State parks, Caltrans maintenance stations, Army and Air National Guard,
and other facilities must be collected from sources other than DGS.
State-owned facilities, based on information from DGS, encompass 24.8 million square
feet. There are recycling programs covering over 22.1 million square feet (89 percent)
of the total square footage in State owned buildings. At State leased facilities, there are
68,024 employees, base on information provided by DGS, and at these leased facilities,
53,151 (78 percent) of the employees are covered by a recycling program.
Of the 3,319 facilities listed in Table 1, approximately 26 percent, provide data to the
IWMB on quantities diverted. The balance of the facilities has programs in place, but
does not report recycling data.
The IWMB estimates the current diversion rate to be 12 percent based on a sampling of
those facilities reporting. This percentage primarily reflects a recycling rate only. It
does not include: waste prevention measures; confidential materials that are shredded
and then recycled; materials that are incinerated; or materials that were collected by
recyclers that did not report collection data to the IWMB.
4
The diversion rate was calculated based on actual diversion (recycling) tonnages
reported by facilities, and estimates of disposal tonnages for each facility that reported.
Disposal tonnages were estimated using information on number of employees (for
offices), inmates (for prisons), or students (for universities) and factors for annual tons
disposed per employee, inmate, or student. The factors are from the IWMB Waste
Characterization Database and from studies conducted by the City of Los Angeles. The
diversion rate was calculated by dividing the tons recycled by tons generated
(generation = diversion + disposal), times 100.
Revenues and Fund Status
PCC Section 12167 allows the IWMB to receive revenues from the sale of recyclable
materials and to use them to offset Project Recycle program costs. The IWMB has
continuous appropriation authority to expend $670,000 annually. During FY 1997/98,
the IWMB received $207,000 in revenue and expended $159,000. The program has
operated with a reserve of approximately $600,000 since fiscal year 1994/95 when
market conditions were favorable and material prices hit an all time high. Since that
time, material prices have been declining and program revenues have declined
correspondingly. As the primary source of revenue, white paper is the leading indicator
for fund condition (See Chart 3).
Chart 3
Price Paid Per Ton for White Ledger
$300.00
$200.00
$100.00 Price Paid Per Ton
for White Ledger
$0.00
1991/92
1993/94
1995/96
1997/98
There are an increasing number of State facility recycling programs that are overseen
by Project Recycle. This, in conjunction with declining revenues, has dictated that the
program retain a sufficient reserve to ensure that there are funds available to maintain
existing programs and add new facilities.
BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
In 1994, the IWMB identified a goal of implementing recycling programs at all State
facilities and diverting 50 percent of the State facility waste stream. This is consistent
with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) which requires each local
jurisdiction to divert 50 percent of its waste in the year 2000. Project Recycle still has
the goal of reaching 50 percent. However, several barriers prevent full implementation
5
of the program. Project Recycle staff believes that eliminating these barriers will
significantly contribute to achieving the waste diversion goal. The following is a
description of the major barriers to full program implementation and recommended
actions to overcome those barriers.
Barrier 1: Lack of Incentives to Comply
One of the greatest barriers to full program implementation is that the IWMB has
responsibility for overseeing the Project Recycle program and State agencies have the
responsibility for implementing diversion programs, yet the IWMB has no authority to
enforce this implementation. This results in poor compliance with program
implementation, loss of revenue, poor program coordination, and overlap and
duplication of contracts.
Recommended Action: Barrier 1
Develop legislation that requires all State agencies and departments to provide an
annual report to the Legislature and the IWMB regarding their waste diversion
programs.
Develop legislation that requires the IWMB to publish a list of State facilities that are not
in compliance with Project Recycle mandates.
Develop legislation that allows State facilities upon IWMB approval, to retain revenues
in excess of the current $2,000 limit to offset recycling program costs. Departments
would be required to set waste diversion goals based on the results of the waste
characterization study conducted by IWMB as noted in Barrier 2. Departments would
be subject to an administrative fee. Departments meeting their waste diversion goals
would have the administrative fees reduced. Failure to meet goals would result in
increased administrative fees.
Barrier 2: Lack of Measurable Baseline and Ongoing Data
The IWMB does not have a complete picture of the quantities and types of waste
generated and the amounts of materials diverted and disposed from each facility or
within specific geographic locations. This prevents the IWMB from being able to most
effectively identify the State facilities that need diversion programs, target material types
for diversion, develop suitable recycling contracts, and allocate resources judiciously.
Recommended Action: Barrier 2
Conduct a waste generation and disposal characterization study of State facilities. This
would require an allocation of approximately $75,000 in Project Recycle funds for a
contract to conduct the study. The study would be conducted in the 1998/99 fiscal year.
There is also an ongoing need to collect data on disposal and diversion at State
facilities. This need would be addressed by establishing Departmental Recycling
Coordinators, who would be responsible for accurately reporting disposal and diversion
data. For details on this responsibility, refer to Barrier #5 and the corresponding
Recommended Action.
6
Barrier 3: Revenues Not Submitted to the IWMB
A majority of departments not utilizing IWMB established statewide recycling contracts
retain revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. These revenues are thus not
available for Project Recycle’s use in offsetting program costs.
Recommended Action: Barrier 3
Propose legislation to amend PCC Section 12167 to require State facilities to do one or
more of the following:
a) Use IWMB established statewide recycling contracts.
b) Submit all revenues generated from the sale of recyclables to the IWMB.
c) Submit all proposed non-IWMB established statewide recycling contracts to the
IWMB for approval and show how these contracts will meet Project Recycle program
goals. Upon IWMB approval, the departments would be allowed to retain revenues
from the sale of recyclable materials, with the exception of an administrative fee
provided to the IWMB for program oversight.
Barrier 4: Not All State Facilities are Covered by Project Recycle Mandates
Quasi-autonomous State facilities, such as those identified below, are not required by
law to implement recycling programs or report data on the quantities and types of
materials diverted.
California State Legislature Supreme Court of California
Courts of Appeal Judicial Council of California
Comm. on Judicial Appointments Comm. on Judicial Performance
University of California California State University
Community Colleges California Exposition & State Fair
California State Lottery Division of Fairs & Expositions
Prison Industry Authority State Comp. Insurance Fund
Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Consequently, not all State facilities are accountable under Project Recycle. Yet, many
of these facilities are located in jurisdictions that have expressed concern that State
agencies are not doing their fair share to assist in achieving the AB 939 diversion
mandates imposed upon local governments. Because these agencies are not included
in the Project Recycle mandates, the IWMB does not know the full extent to which they
have programs, what types of programs they have, and the types and quantities of
materials they divert.
Recommended Action: Barrier 4
Propose legislation to amend PCC Sections 12164.5–12167.1 and PCC Section
12159(b) to include all State agencies, departments, offices, commissions, boards
authorities, and all other entities within the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches
of State government and the quasi-autonomous entities described in the State
Administrative Manual Section 4802.
7
Barrier 5: Recycling Coordinators Lack Program Responsibility and Authority
Recycling Coordinators have little or no authority to ensure that recycling is maximized
at their facilities. There is little effort to coordinate and centralize waste diversion
activities at agencies with multiple facilities. Consequently, departmental recycling
programs receive low priority and recycling efforts achieve poor results. In addition, the
IWMB’s effectiveness in creating new programs or expanding existing programs is
impeded because Project Recycle staff must interact with approximately 3,200 facilities
statewide, significantly more contacts than required if agency efforts were coordinated
and centralized.
Recommended Action: Barrier 5
Develop legislation to amend PCC Section 12159 (a) to require each State department
to appoint a recycling coordinator with responsibility and authority to implement
programs and undertake activities aimed at achieving Project Recycle’s diversion goals.
Designated responsibilities would include: utilizing IWMB statewide recycling contracts;
investigating opportunities to coordinate diversion programs with other State facilities,
local agency facilities, and private businesses in rural locations or in locations with few
employees, reporting on diversion efforts, and managing overall departmental waste
diversion programs.
Barrier 6: Reluctance of Recyclers to Collect Materials
It is often difficult to find recyclers that are inclined to collect recyclable materials at
State facilities. Small facility size, remote location, small quantities of materials, and low
market prices make the collection of recyclable materials cost prohibitive for most
recyclers. Even non-profit organizations, which have been a resource in many
locations, are not able or interested in collecting recyclable materials at such State
facilities because of the high costs associated with pick-up and transportation to
markets.
Recommendation Action: Barrier 6
The IWMB is aware of similar problems faced by some jurisdictions that also must
contend with the fluctuation of market prices, location and size of facilities, and the
impact on program costs associated with collection. Staff will continue to work with the
IWMB’s Waste Prevention and Markets Division to identify markets for all materials. In
addition, staff will work with State facilities to encourage cooperative efforts with local
jurisdictions to find markets that will address their respective needs.
Barrier 7: Lack of Complete Identification of All State Facilities
There is no single point of responsibility for identifying State facilities. Therefore, the
IWMB is not able to easily and accurately determine the universe of State facilities and
is unable to determine whether all facilities have recycling programs. No single up-to-
date database has the necessary data. In addition, State facilities often move, close, or
consolidate and the IWMB is not notified of these changes.
8
Recommended Action: Barrier 7
Develop legislation to require the Department of General Services to provide a
comprehensive, current, and detailed list of all State facilities to the IWMB on an annual
basis. In addition, DGS should notify the IWMB within 30 days of changes to the list.
Barrier 8: Lack of Facility Design for Recycling Activity
Many existing facilities do not have sufficient space for office recycling containers nor do
they have sufficient space for bulk collection containers. In addition, new facilities are
not designed to provide space for collection containers and recycling activities. This
results in ineffective recycling programs and hinders participation.
Recommended Action: Barrier 8
Develop legislation to require each State agency to provide adequate space for storage,
collection, and centralized pickup of recyclable materials at their facilities.
Additional Fiscal Resources Necessary to Remove the Identified Barriers
To implement the recommended actions, it is estimated that the IWMB Project Recycle
staff would need to be increased by eight person years (8 PY). This would provide
resources to: implement and monitor IWMB contracts; review departmental requests to
retain revenues; approve departmental contracts; provide necessary assistance to
individual facility recycling programs; provide reports to the Legislature and the IWMB;
and provide oversight over department recycling programs. Should recommended
actions be increased or reduced, the resource estimates would have to be adjusted
accordingly.
If departments are allowed to retain revenues generated from the sale of recyclable
materials, it may be necessary to obtain State General Fund monies to fully implement
and maintain Project Recycle.
The recommended actions may also have a fiscal impact on other departments
depending on the size of the departments and the availability of resources. Each
department would most accurately determine the impact.
Implementation Steps
If the recommended actions are approved and the IWMB is allocated the necessary
fiscal resources, the IWMB would take the following steps to identify State facilities that
are not maximizing their recycling efforts, assist those facilities without recycling
programs, and remove the barriers identified in this report.
1. Amend State Administrative Manual (SAM) Section 1900 regarding Waste
Prevention and Recycling. The amended language would provide:
9
a. Direction to State departments regarding the content of the annual
departmental report on recycling and waste diversion to be submitted to the
Legislature and IWMB.
b. Procedures for requesting retention of revenues from the sale of recyclable
materials in excess of $2,000 annually.
c. Procedures for submitting departmental revenues to the IWMB.
d. Outline of responsibilities for Recycling Coordinators.
2. Identify and amend other SAM sections as necessary, such as the section
delineating procedures for contract approval and responsibilities over providing
information on locations and size of State facilities.
3. Continue to receive and analyze data from contracted recyclers and
provide assistance in the form of recycling containers, equipment, and training.
4. Determine the most appropriate and economical means of contracting
for the waste generation and disposal characterization study of State facilities. One
option that Project Recycle staff would explore is augmenting the existing contract
for a statewide disposal characterization study to include State facilities and produce
a combined report to be provided to the IWMB and State departments.
5. Develop criteria for determining those departments that are not in
compliance with Project Recycle mandates and develop procedures for publishing
the list of departments that are not in compliance.
6. Implement contracts for the collection of additional materials types and additional
geographical locations based on the results of the waste generation and disposal
characterization study.
7. Notify all quasi-autonomous facilities that would be subject to PCC
Section 12159 (b) and Sections12164.5 through 12167.1 and inform them of their
responsibilities under these laws.
8. Provide enhanced technical assistance to new State facilities and facilities not in
compliance with Project Recycle mandates.
CONCLUSION
To date, Project Recycle has made great strides in assisting State facilities to establish
and implement waste diversion programs. However, State facilities need to take a more
aggressive leadership role by implementing waste diversion programs and providing a
model for local jurisdictions. The actions recommended in this report are aimed at
removing the barriers that hinder the full implementation of Project Recycle and clearing
the way for State facilities to maximize their diversion.
The recommended legislative and administrative changes along with the associated
implementation steps provide the IWMB with the authority and resources necessary to
10
accurately document State facility diversion programs and focus Project Recycle toward
meeting its ambitious goal of diverting 50 percent of the State facility waste stream. The
proposed actions include giving State facilities more responsibility for implementing,
documenting, and reporting their diversion activities. This will allow Project Recycle to
focus its resources on expanding and improving the program.
Through improvements to the program as outlined in this report and by working in
partnership with State facilities, Project Recycle will exponentially increase the
quantities of waste diverted by State facilities and will be in position to meet the waste
diversion challenges of the 21st Century and beyond.
11
Related docs
