PURPOSE

To update Council on three elements of the City�s recycling and waste diversion programs. The first element addresses a recent waste characterization study.  The second defines Zero Waste and provides examples and considerations.  The final element looks at  increased waste diversion through a redesign of the Recycle Center.

BACKGROUND

In October 2005, Public Works staff presented a State of Recycling report to Council.  The report called attention to the available capacity for collecting more recyclable materials in the curbside routes.  In response, Council asked staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the Recycle Center�s programs by conducting a waste characterization study.  Council also expressed an interest in more information on Zero Waste.   

 Waste Characterization Study

A �before and after� waste characterization study was carried out over a two-week period in May 2006 to evaluate the potential effects of additional public outreach on recycling behavior.  This additional outreach supplemented the Recycle Center�s ongoing educational program that promotes recycling throughout the City.  The ongoing program includes the Public Works newsletter (mailed twice each year to all Burbank addresses); TV Channel 6 programs and calendar listings; flyers distributed to City counters; radio ads, truck signs, and print ads in dailies; and at approximately 15 annual Citywide events.  Staff also provides facility tours, speakers, school programs, and phone help.   To help address individual issues, refuse drivers tag curbside carts when contaminants are spotted, and staff sends letters to homes with high contamination rates.    

The waste characterization study included 44 randomly-selected single-family and multi-family households.  During each week of the study, a City truck collected the contents from green, blue, and black carts on the normal collection day and in the normal fashion. After the material was collected during the first week of the study, a packet of educational material was either attached to the curbside cart or hung on the front door of the residence.  The packets included three bilingual cart hangers, a Materials Accepted pamphlet, a bilingual S.A.F.E. Collection Center flyer for household hazardous waste, two decals listing the accepted materials, and a cover letter inviting residents to comment on these outreach materials and/or recycling services by calling, emailing, or writing. None of the targeted households contacted the Recycle Center by any of these methods.  

Once the recycling, refuse, and greenwaste cart contents were collected, they were taken to the Burbank Recycle Center for sorting, weighing, and recording.  The contents of the refuse, recycling, and greenwaste carts were manually sorted into 37 categories (Table 1), and weight of each material category was recorded. 

Figure 1 illustrates the findings from the waste sorting events.  During the first week, the recycling carts were found to contain approximately 77 percent recyclables and 23 percent non-recyclables, or contaminants (paper, plastics, organic material, etc.).  The refuse carts contained approximately 81 percent refuse and 19 percent material that could have been placed in the recycling cart.  The greenwaste containers showed almost no contamination. Data from the second week are very similar, indicating that the targeted educational materials had little if any effect.  

While the results of the study did not indicate a direct relationship between enhanced outreach efforts and recycling behavior, the study did provide valuable information about residential recycling habits.  It showed what materials were incorrectly placed in the curbside carts and where material-specific outreach efforts should be focused. In particular, the most common contaminants in the recycling carts were food, wet disposable paper products, and mixed plastics. In the refuse carts, recyclable paper comprised the majority of the material that should have been placed in the recycling container.  Of all the material found in the refuse carts, mixed plastics[1] and disposable (wet) paper products[2] together represented approximately one third of the volume. Study results indicate that focusing on food waste and plastics disposal might reduce contamination.    

Zero Waste Program Overview  

As usually defined, Zero Waste   

• strives to eliminate waste rather than �manage� it 
• incorporates a �cradle to cradle� design philosophy that eliminates waste and its liabilities at conception and throughout a product�s life
• transforms the waste disposal industry into a value-added resource recovery industry
• transforms wastes into resources in the same way nature does (no matter is lost in nature)
• develops local economies, sustains jobs and is an economically viable option to landfilling
• reduces consumption because it produces products that are made to be reused
• repaired or recycled back into nature or the marketplace.

In 2001, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) adopted a Strategic Plan to reduce waste within the State.  The plan�s key themes include: sustainability, product stewardship, energy recovery, environmental justice, safe disposal of waste, and the promotion of a �Zero Waste California� where the public, industry, and government strive to reduce, reuse or recycle all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Consistent with the CIWMB�s direction, several cities and counties throughout the state (Santa Monica, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Alameda County, Del Norte County, and San Luis Obispo County) have either set recycling goals of Zero Waste or diversion goals of over 70 percent.   

The practical application of a Zero Waste philosophy depends upon partnerships with local, state, national, and international entities, both public and private.  It requires continuous public education, green business development, and financial incentives. In other words, it is a systemic and sustainable design platform.  Public agencies are examining ways to help lift the burden from public collection programs and share responsibilities with product producers.  For example, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has been popular in Europe since the early 1990s when Germany�s Green Dot program required manufacturers to take back packaging from products they produced; and in early 2006, the City of San Francisco approved a resolution addressing EPR. Moreover, in July 2006 the European Union (EU) implemented the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standards, which limits the hazardous materials found in electronic devices.  These standards will affect all American electronic companies exporting goods to the EU.  In March 2007, China will implement the same European RoHS.   

The road to Zero Waste is strewn with new and potential state legislation.  Effective July 1, 2006, California law requires most cell phone and rechargeable battery retailers to provide consumers with in-store take-back and recycling of those devices.   Pending in Sacramento are the following bills:  AB 1866 asks for a ban on expanded polystyrene (aka �Styrofoam�) in state facilities. AB 2202, a �Toxic Electronics� bill, phases out the use of specified hazardous materials in consumer electronics, as the EU has done.  AB 2271 establishes a consumer recycling value and financing system for the collection and recycling of household batteries.  AB 2449 requires that California supermarkets take back and recycle plastic bags while providing consumers with a reuse option.  SB1345 increases the minimum content of recycled materials for mulch and compost used by government agencies.   Although we do not know if all of these bills will become law, they indicate that the public and our legislators are well aware of the need to further reduce waste and hazardous materials.  

Zero Waste in Burbank 

The Burbank Recycle Center unveiled the concept of Zero Waste in a 1997 Public Works newsletter story that reported on its introduction at the California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) annual statewide conference.  The City followed with a �Race to Zero Waste� policy that won the League of California Cities� Helen Putnam award in 2001.  Burbank�s dedication to Zero Waste was also recognized in the CIWMB quarterly statewide publication InfoCycle, a year later.   

Burbank�s Zero Waste programs, which in 2001 were listed as a materials recovery facility (MRF), an automated collection program, a variable can (cart) rate, commercial recycling, �one-stop drop off� for all recyclables, greenwaste collection, backyard composting, and an emphasis on public education, have kept City recycling rates over 50 percent since 1997, with Burbank�s most recent recycling rate estimated to be 60 percent.  

The City�s renewed commitment to waste prevention and recovery would extend the life of our landfill, increase recovery at the Recycle Center, and aid the long term health of the community.  Zero Waste efforts can decrease the impacts of mining, drilling, logging, and refining that often impact watersheds, habitats, biodiversity, and indigenous cultures.  By adopting Zero Waste goals as many cities have done, Burbank would be increasing its commitment to the protection of the planet�s living systems.   

A Zero Waste resolution would guide and encourage the City to set an example for the community at large.  Burbank has been recognized at the state and federal level for its advanced waste diversion programs; however, further achievements can be reached through the following:   

Expanded and Augmented  �Green Purchasing� Specifications

The City now purchases recycled paper, motor oil, toner cartridges, and other products.  Purchasing specifications can help reduce disposable, toxic, and non-renewable products.  The benefits of a green purchasing mandate include resource and energy conservation, air, water and habitat protection, cost savings, improved employee safety, and fewer toxic liabilities passed forward.    

By exercising its economic power, the City can encourage the development of safer, healthier, and more environmentally-friendly (�green�) products.   A green purchasing policy may include: 

�                   Purchasing non-toxic office maintenance, office janitorial, and landscaping products including cleaners, carpets, furnishings, paints, herbicides, pesticides, batteries, and electronics

�                    Purchasing energy-efficient products, renewable energy technologies, alternative fuel vehicles, and alternative fuels

�                    Developing criteria for selecting green service providers who commit to higher environmental standards or meet minimum City conservation goals 

There are numerous existing guidelines to assist cities with green purchasing efforts:

�                    Santa Monica�s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy

�                    American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Guidance for commercial and institutional buildings� use of green cleaning and housekeeping practices

�                    Green Seal Standard for Industrial and Institutional Cleaners (GS-37) lists products and their environmental impact

�                    King County�s (Washington State) sample procurement policy

�                    Both the EPA and the Department of the Interior provide online guidance and training on ways governments can �green� their services and products 

Other examples of cities advancing green practices are:

• Pasadena is now preparing a recommendation for its Council to adopt a citywide law �that reduces the use of disposable, toxic, and non-renewable products by at least 50 percent in seven years.�
• Santa Monica replaced traditional cleaning products with safer alternatives in 15 of 17 categories and reduced costs by five percent.  Santa Monica�s custodians tested the effectiveness of less-toxic or nontoxic cleaning products.  Consequently, bids from product vendors include environmental and health specifications, as well as performance and cost criteria.  The city�s Integrated Pest Management program has shown a 30 percent cost savings and at the same time reduced human exposure to toxics. 
• Long Beach custodians voluntarily converted custodial supplies to environmentally preferable products. 

Construction and Demolition (C&D) Recycling

In November 2004, the City adopted a voluntary green building ordinance that included a construction and demolition element.  Burbank�s voluntary program was an attempt to gradually introduce C&D recycling to the development community.  However, since 2004 no recycling has been reported from any private construction projects within the City. Although C&D recycling is not state-mandated, many neighboring cities such as Pasadena, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and Glendale have mandatory C&D recycling programs, as do many other California cities. Each city in which C&D recycling is required has set a minimum project size. For instance, Pasadena requires all residential additions of 1,000 square feet or more to recycle 50% of the C&D wastes generated. Now that C&D MRFs such as Community Recycling in Sun Valley and Downtown Diversion in  Los Angeles are readily available, C&D recovery is achievable.    

The Community Development Department�s Building Division has assembled a �Green Building Coordinating Council� with representatives from Planning, Burbank Water & Power (BWP), and Public Works to discuss enhancements to the current voluntary Green Building Ordinance and C&D   guidelines, and the integration of that ordinance with BWP�s rebate and conservation programs.  The primary goal of the committee is to coordinate all �Green Building� programs within the City to provide the maximum benefit to the applicant while more effectively promoting the City�s efforts in encouraging energy conservation and sustainable construction.  The first meeting was held in July.  The Green Building Coordinating Council will review successful programs from other cities to see how the incentives and C&D mandates were implemented.  It is expected that the proposed revisions to the Green building ordinance will be completed and ready for council approval by the 2^nd quarter of 2007.  

Develop Zero Waste Administrative Procedure

To best demonstrate leadership in Zero Waste, each City employee will need to apply the principles in daily work routines and be held responsible for reducing wastes, buying quality recycled products, providing recycling at City-sponsored events, minimizing the use of disposable products,  and adjusting to other Zero Waste practices.  An Administrative Procedure that reflects Zero Waste practices would need to be developed to institutionalize these practices.        

Provide Waste Hauler Recycling Incentives

Commercial waste haulers licensed in Burbank landfilled 74,683 tons of waste and recycled 18,831 tons in 2005. The City could explore requiring licensed refuse haulers to reach a minimum level of diversion in order to hold a City refuse haulers license.   

Performance-Based Refuse Fees for BUSD

Currently the City of Burbank provides a 50 percent discount on refuse service for the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD).  The annual cost of services to BUSD is estimated at $230,000 per year (with a City discount of equal value).  The recycling staff has worked closely with the BUSD since 1994 to increase recycling and provides bins and pickup service, field trips, assemblies, speakers, Recycle Center tours, recycling containers for classrooms and campuses,  workshops for teachers and administrators, email newsletters, grant writing assistance,  Environmental Ambassador Pilot Program (EAPP) assistance, and  special event coordination.  In addition, in the past year, through a BWP-funded  Resource Conservation Manager assigned to manage utility conservation and recycling,  BUSD has improved its recycling programs and  strengthened its commitment to those efforts.   Tying BUSD�s refuse rates to its waste diversion results could provide a financial incentive for increased school recycling.   

Support State and Federal Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Take Back Program Legislation

In response to environmental protection regulations, landfill bans, and consumer needs, local governments have increased hazardous waste collection programs.  However, as costs and staff demands have increased, many local governments are advocating for upstream reduction of hazardous waste in products and shifting collection and recycling responsibilities of hazardous and other problematic products from publicly funded agencies back to the producers (or EPR).  

The City can support state and national EPR legislation requiring manufacturers to take responsibility for collecting and recycling a product at the end of its life (two such California laws that became effective July 1, 2006, require retailers to take-back cell phones and rechargeable batteries).  Some corporations now see take back programs as a positive marketing strategy that not only bring useful materials back to manufacturers, but also return customers when they are ready to buy again -- at the end of the product�s life.  EPR sometimes involves long-term leases, whereby the manufacturers own the materials and the customer pays for their service. After the useful product life, items go back to the manufacturer for recycling and remanufacturing.  City purchasing specifications could also include EPR concepts.     

Increase Backyard Composting

Home composting (including mulching and grasscycling) is the one recycling technique that could be easily managed by a majority of single-family homeowners. Unlike the process of recycling plastics, metals, paper or glass, composting is a simple, natural process requiring no technical equipment and little training.  The Recycle Center offers free composting bins and classes to residents and has distributed over 4,600 bins since 1989. By increasing backyard composting program (outreach, workshops, and bin distribution), the City could reduce a greater portion of the approximately 20,000 tons of yard clippings now hauled to Ventura County for farm application each year.  By removing yard trimmings, Burbank landscapes are loosing an estimated 300,000 pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium along with soil-building humus and water-saving and weed-reducing mulches.  These nutrients and benefits could be applied more efficiently if they never left the landscape and remained in our own backyards. Air quality would also benefit; since the large trucks that currently  travel some 50,000 miles per year hauling green waste out of the City consume an estimated 13,000 gallons of diesel fuel.    

Other Zero Waste Programs

After paper, plastics, glass, and metals are recovered from the waste stream, other materials show up in a larger proportion of the remaining wastes.  Carpet, food, and manure  recycling programs offer additional potential for increased diversion and waste reduction. Collection, storage, and management systems and markets would need to be established for these now-difficult-to-recycle materials.   

Redesign of Recycle Center: 

Another consideration for increasing Burbank�s diversion and recycling is a redesign of the Burbank Recycle Center to include a refuse sorting line.   

The state claims that about 60 percent of landfilled materials in California could be recycled.  Burbank�s residential refuse study showed that about 20 percent of the total weight consists of recyclable materials that were misplaced in refuse carts.  Currently, the City�s annual average refuse delivered to the landfill is 40,000 tons.  Visual inspections of refuse loads at the landfill confirmed that, with the City�s current list of accepted recyclable materials, over 20 percent of discarded material (an estimated 8,000 tons per year) is lost to landfill burial. 

Burbank Recycling Inc. (BRI) has been processing the City recyclables since 1999 (previously under the name of BLT Recycling).  BRI is interested in expanding its current contract with the City to include the managing of a refuse sort line operation at the Recycle Center.  The refuse sort line operation would involve construction of additional sorting space and the relocation of the customer drop-off operations to another as-yet-undetermined nearby site.  Green waste could also be sent to the new Burbank recycling facility for truck transfer and shipment to a facility outside the City.  The City would pay for the additional facility improvements at the Recycle Center and BRI would purchase the necessary sort line equipment.  BRI has operated refuse sort lines in Sacramento and Oxnard.  The preliminary cost estimate for the facility enhancements (formulated in September 2005) is $2.4 million

Moving refuse and green waste to the Burbank Recycle Center would increase vehicle traffic near the Recycle Center while decreasing truck traffic to the City�s landfill.  Currently, on average the Recycle Center has 45 heavy vehicles (15 City automated trucks, 20 third-party tractor trailers and compactors, and 10 transfer trucks) delivering and removing recycled material. With the additional sort line, the number of vehicles would increase to an estimated total of 84 (45 City automated, 20 third party tractor trailers and compactors, and 19 transfer trucks).  The area immediately surrounding the Recycle Center can be described as a combination of commercial and light industrial businesses, which has served as an appropriate area for a recycling center since the early 1990s.  A management plan for additional truck traffic in the area would be needed.    

A benefit of adding a refuse sort line to the Recycle Center would be increased diversion from the landfill and an extension of the life of the landfill.  The City refuse vehicles would see less wear and tear since the steep incline route to the landfill would be eliminated.   

RECOMMENDATION 

Staff recommends that Council provide direction to staff on the following proposed activities:  

1. Adopt a Zero Waste Resolution by 1^st quarter 2007.
2. Revise Administrative Procedures by 1^st quarter 2007.
3. Prepare analysis of Recycle Center optimization by 2^nd quarter 2007.
4. Continue outreach study through 1^st quarter 2007.

The following would also be considered: 

• Develop performance-based refuse fees for BUSD by July 2008.
• Adopt a Green Purchasing Policy.
• Revise Green Building Ordinance by 2^nd quarter 2007.
• Review waste hauler recycling incentives or requirements.
• Support State EPR legislation.
• Assess the feasibility of food, manure and carpet recycling collections.

 

Attachments:    Table 1 � Waste Characterization Material Categories

                          Figure 1 � Cart Content Summary

                          Figure 2 � Composition of Material in Recycling and Refuse Carts