Best Practices for Local Government Solid Waste Recycling, Diversion from Landfill and Waste Reduction December 2011 Prepared by Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency, Solid Waste Division Acknowledgement Mecklenburg County, NC would like to thank all of the local governments that reviewed profiles and provided comments, answered emails, and spoke with our staff via phone, providing the information necessary to complete this study. Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 1 1.0 Introduction Page 4 2.0 Waste Recycling and Diversion Background Page 4 2.1 Factors Affecting Waste Diversion Page 4 2.2 The Character of Solid Waste and Organization of Programs Page 6 2.3 Infrastructure and Facilities Page 6 3.0 Methodology Page 7 3.1 Literature Review Page 7 3.2 Selection of local governments Page 8 3.3 Profile Development Page 9 4.0 Best Management Practices ‐ Program Elements Page 10 4.1 City Residential Curbside Programs Page 12 4.1.1 Residential Multi‐family Page 16 4.2 County Residential Programs Page 17 4.3 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Page 19 4.4 Construction and Demolition Waste Page 22 4.5 Schools Page 25 4.6 Event Recycling Page 26 4.7 Local Government In‐house Recycling Programs Page 27 4.8 Waste Prevention (Reduce, Reuse Page 28 4.9 Litter Page 30 4.10 Summary of Best Practices Page 31 Appendix A: Local Government Profiles Executive Summary In preparation for its upcoming Solid Waste Management Plan, Mecklenburg County solid waste division staff conducted a study of 24 local government recycling and waste diversion programs. Staff was seeking to identify program elements that offer successful diversion of solid waste from landfills. Staff conducted a literature review and then selected 24 local governments to examine. Staff reviewed website content and other available documents such as Solid Waste Management Plans from the selected communities. A profile was developed for each of the 24 local governments. The profiled communities were contacted via phone or email and asked to review completed profiles and/or interviewed prior to profile development. Many of the local governments responded with information, some did not. Local Governments Profiled Alameda County, CA Greensboro, NC Philadelphia, PA Atlanta, GA Indianapolis, IN Portland, OR Austin, TX Jacksonville/Duval County* FL San Francisco, CA City of Boulder, CO King County, WA San Jose, CA Chicago, IL Nashville/Davidson County* TN Seattle, WA Denver, CO Oakland, CA Toronto – Canada Fairfax County, VA Orlando/Orange, FL Metro Vancouver BC Canada Fresno, CA Orange County, NC Wake County, NC * Combined City/County Government Following profile development, essential data was pulled from each profile and organized to provide better understanding. The data was organized by program category, such as residential curbside, multi‐ family, commercial, and construction/demolition. The data presented in the Best Practices section, identify some program elements that may contribute to the higher diversion/recycling levels reported. Following are some of the program elements identified by program area. City Residential Curbside • mandatory recycling participation and/or mandatory provision of recycling service, • variable rate system where garbage charges are based on the size of subscribed container and recycling and composting collection are free (i.e., the less garbage you produce, the less you pay ‐ also called Pay‐As‐You‐Throw or PAYT) • food waste collection program (usually combined with yard waste) • ban on disposal of recyclable and compostable items in the garbage container (garbage is not picked up if recyclable or compostable items are in trash or a fine is levied). Multi‐family • Recycling service required with garbage either free with garbage service or at an extra charge. • Mandatory recycling requirement • Some have food waste collection for multi‐family 1 Commercial • Mandatory recycling • Mandatory food waste (San Francisco is absolute, others if food waste generating business) • Free collection • Styrofoam ban for restaurants • Food‐service containers must be recyclable or compostable (local govt. decides/approves containers) • Recycling plan Construction/Demolition • Mandatory recycling percentage • Economic incentive – fee required with permit, fee returned if recycling quota met (50‐65%) • Disposal bans • Materials must be taken to a certified facility with mandated recycling percentage requirements • Waste management plans submitted with construction and/or demolition permit application (this is used in conjunction with mandatory or deposit fee), and final reporting after project completion. Waste Reduction (Reduce, Reuse) • Green purchasing (buy recycled, lower toxicity) • Product reuse centers/exchanges • PAYT • Grants • Educational partnerships • Opt‐out of yellow pages and junk mail • Extended Producer Responsibility Event Recycling • Recycling requirement • Styrofoam ban • City provides containers or collection services • Recyclable or compostable food/beverage packaging requirement Many local governments also had school, litter and in‐house recycling efforts. These are presented in the body of the report. The table below provides a matrix of program elements and the communities employing them. 2 FL NC VA CA PA IN NC OR CA CA County, CO IL Canada GA CO WA CA County, County, TX County, Jose, Francisco, Toronto Seattle, San San Portland, Philadelphia, Orange Orange Oakland, Indianapolis, Greensboro, Fresno, Fairfax Denver, Chicago, Austin, Boulder, Alameda Atlanta, Residential Single‐Family Mandatory Curbside Recycling X X X X Variable Rate – PAYT X X X X X X X X X Food Waste Collection X XX X X XX Disposal Ban X Multi‐family Recycling Service Required 1 X X X X Mandatory X X XX X XXX Food Waste Service Commercial Mandatory Recycling X 4 2 X X 4 X 4 X Mandatory Food Waste 5 X X Required Recycling Svc. 3 Food service containers must be X recyclable/compostable Styrofoam ban X X Construction/Demolition Mandatory recycling percentage X X X X X X X X Economic incentive – refundable X deposit fee with permit Disposal Ban X X Must use certified facility X X Waste Reduction Green purchasing (buy recycled, X lower toxicity) Product reuse X X X X X X X centers/exchanges Grants Opt out (yellow pages and/or X X junk mail Extended Producer X X Responsibility Event Recycling Recycling requirement X X XX Recyclable/compostable X X food/bev. packaging required Provides containers/services X X X X 1‐Required if more than 100 units), 2‐Mandatory if 50% or greater recyclables in trash, 3‐required if 100 employees or more, 4‐paper and cardboard mandatory, 5‐mandatory if food waste generating business, city decides 3 1.0 Introduction As Mecklenburg County strives for continuous improvement and in preparation for the County’s 2012 Solid Waste Management Plan update, Mecklenburg County Solid Waste staff conducted a study to identify successful “waste diversion” practices among communities in the United States and Canada. The County reviewed the practices, policies and programs of twenty four communities. Profiles of diversion, recycling, and waste management practices and systems were created for each community. Staff was seeking to identify program elements that offer successful diversion of solid waste from landfills. This report does not include a “Recommendations Section” as the intent of this study was to present practices and programs which could increase knowledge on current and future practices and policies that divert waste from landfills. Many of the programs identified, if successfully implemented in a local community could bring about the expansion of waste reduction and recycling. This report contains a menu of options for communities to consider for implementation into their waste management systems. The study begins with a discussion of waste recycling and diversion basics. This includes Factors Affecting Waste Diversion which provides a basic understanding of recycling and markets for recycled materials. In addition, government policies that can influence recycling and waste diversion are discussed. The Character of Solid Waste and Organization of Programs helps the reader understand why solid waste recycling programs are organized the way that they are. Infrastructure and Facilities explains the critical role these elements play in making recycling and waste diversion work. The Methodology section provides results from a literature review that was conducted, how we selected the communities to study and how profiles were developed. The Best Practices chapter pulls the essential data from each profile and organizes the information into program element categories (e.g., residential curbside programs, commercial/business, etc.). 2.0 Waste Recycling and Diversion Basics 2.1 Factors Affecting Waste Diversion Recycling Basic information about the nature of recycling is helpful in understanding both the choices that communities make and the opportunities available for recycling. In our economic system, there is a need/demand for products, so manufacturers make products and then distribute them through a system of wholesale and retail outlets. The products are purchased by consumers and eventually the products are no longer useful or desired and they are disposed. Recycling is the reverse of this process where discarded materials must find their way back to a manufacturer and it begins with private sector demand for the materials (markets). Markets and Market Demand (price) Recycling is only possible if there is a market demand for