Download Zero Waste Resolution: Extended Producer Responsibility for Reducing Product Waste and more Exercises Waste Management in PDF only on Docsity!
ZERO WASTE 2020: A Vision Statement and Action Plan for Zero Waste in
Santa Clara Count y
A. Introduction
Local governments are encouraged to adopt policies and develop plans that move community members to eliminate waste. This vision statement and action plan were developed to provide Santa Clara County jurisdictions with a working document that can be used to guide decision making policies and programs toward achieving zero waste by 2020. In addition, it provides the community with an understanding of their role in moving toward zero waste.
B. Santa Clara County Zero Waste 2020 Vision
By 2020, all discarded materials in Santa Clara County are recovered for their highest and best use, and no
materials are sent to landfills or incinerators.
To achieve this vision, Santa Clara County will work to:
- Educate and engage businesses, organizations, public agencies and residents.
- Adopt and implement supporting policies and Zero Waste Action Plans.
- Support legislation and adopt policies that require minimized environmental impacts through improved product design.
- Ensure that facilities and infrastructure are in place to properly manage all recovered materials.
C. Guiding Principles for the Zero Waste 2020 Vision for Santa Clara County
Zero Waste actions, program design and spending priorities are guided by scientifically‐derived data and analyses, based on the following guiding principles:
WASTE REDUCTION: Reduce the Amount of Materials to be Managed
- All products shall be designed to reduce the consumption of resources associated with their production and use.
- Upstream impacts of product development and manufacturing shall be identified, reduced, and included when considering the environmental footprint of a product.
- Products shall be designed to eliminate the downstream impacts associated with their use and disposal.
- Products that cannot be reutilized after their intended use shall be redesigned or eliminated.
- The financial and physical responsibility for material recovery shall be shifted to the producers of products by legislative and regulatory actions.
RECYCLING & COMPOSTING: Manage Materials to Minimize Environmental Impacts Downstream
- All organic materials shall be recovered and productively used.
- Recovered materials shall be directed to their highest and best use.
- Materials sent to landfill shall be minimized.
ZERO WASTE 2020: A Vision Statement and Action Plan for Zero Waste in
Santa Clara Count y
What is Zero Waste?
Zero Waste is a systems approach to eliminating the impacts of products and packaging, resource use and reutilization through the implementation of modern materials management and greenhouse gas reduction programs. Impacts are designated as upstream impacts (e.g., pre‐consumer, resource extraction and production of goods); and downstream impacts (e.g., post‐consumer, end of life, waste management).
Why is Zero Waste Important?
It is widely acknowledged that our current way of life is unsustainable in many ways including the pace at
which we are consuming our natural resources and the environmental impacts associated with the ongoing
pollution of our water, air, and land. Zero waste programs and policies address both of these issues by
identifying inefficiencies in the use of materials and energy and striving to eliminate them. In doing so, zero
waste programs lead us to a more sustainable future.
More specifically, as addressing the issue of climate change has become the focal point for sustainability
among most of the governmental agencies in Santa Clara County, it is essential to recognize the significant
way that achieving Zero Waste will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG emissions from materials
consumption fall into two broad categories: (1) methane generated as organics decompose in a landfill, and
(2) emissions produced in the extraction of resources, the use of energy in the production of goods and
services and transportation of goods. Zero waste programs directly address both of these categories in the
following ways:
- A recent study by the Sierra Club identified that, in the short term, methane is 100 times more potent a
GHG than carbon dioxide. Methane is released from even the best designed and managed landfills,
therefore, eliminating organics from landfills will reduce the amount of methane produced.
- A 2009 study by the U.S. EPA, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials
and Land Management Practices , highlights that 44% of all GHG emissions are related to the extraction
of resources and the use of energy in the production of goods and services. Reusing those resources
eliminates the need to extract additional resources and the resulting GHGs and also reduces GHG
emissions from disposal in landfills.
2. Upstream impacts of product development and manufacturing shall be identified, reduced, and included when considering the environmental footprint of a product.
Resource extraction – mining, logging, or oil drilling – and the use of energy for manufacturing and fuels for transportation all have significant environmental impacts. These can be eliminated by increasing the use of recycled content in a product, using less toxic materials, or creating a more efficient manufacturing model.
3. Products shall be designed to eliminate the downstream impacts associated with their use and disposal.
A product that is designed to be easily repaired, recovered or reused will significantly reduce downstream impacts. Likewise, using a product that is made of natural, nontoxic materials will eliminate natural resource consumption. For instance, the use air pillows or shredded paper eliminates the use of expanded polystyrene peanuts and the environmental impacts from oil extraction and the manufacturing process. Reusing expanded polystyrene peanuts instead of throwing them away would also reduce impacts.
If soda bottles had caps that were attached to the bottle and made of the same kind of plastic, the problem of bottle caps as litter and waste would be eliminated in same way as aluminum flip tops were replaced by pop tops.
4. Products that cannot be reutilized after their intended use shall be redesigned or eliminated.
Striving for a standardization of materials used in specific products would help make recovery more effective. For instance, using only one plastic for all food containers would eliminate confusion around recycling plastic and would produce a better recycled product.
Products made of materials that have no second life, that are made of too many materials to be recoverable, or that are made of bonded materials (like aseptic packaging), should be eliminated.
5. The financial and physical responsibility for material recovery shall be shifted to the producers of products by legislative and regulatory actions.
Expanded Producer Responsibility policies and actions assign the costs of environmental impacts to the resulting products by requiring the manufacturer to accept the products at their end of life. Internalizing the cost of recovery and recycling by the manufacturer in the purchase price of the product creates an incentive to create better products and to find ways to capture and reuse materials.
The last three guidelines focus on downstream impacts through proper materials management practices
RECYCLING & COMPOSTING: Manage Materials to Minimize Environmental Impacts Downstream
6. All organic materials shall be recovered and productively used.
This requires the separate collection of organics, processing these materials into a high quality, marketable product; and selling (or otherwise distributing) the product. This may include banning the collection and disposal of organic materials when they are mixed with other materials (garbage).
Organics still make up over 30% of materials being disposed of in landfills, yet organics are easily composted. Compostable organics consist of plant trimmings, food scraps, papers and cardboards, natural cloth, and animal droppings.
7. Recovered materials shall be directed to their highest and best use.
Encourage highest and best use through contractual requirements and financial incentives. Recovered products should be marketed for use in manufacturing high quality materials to maximize their value. Recycled or up‐cycled; not down‐cycled. The additional cost of processing the materials to a higher standard must be borne by the collector or processor; but will be offset by higher revenues received.
8. Materials sent to landfill shall be minimized.
If green waste or plastic bottles were banned from the landfill, another use for these items will be found. Make sure that construction and demolition debris is sent to a facility that can recover the materials. These three items – green waste, recyclables, and construction and demolition debris – not only make up a large portion of what is disposed, but they are also easily recoverable.
Mid‐Term Priority List (requires longer time frame to implement)
- Adopt collection rates that encourage waste reduction by consumers and that will support local zero waste programs.
a. Having charges only on garbage collection and disposal is not sustainable as the county moves toward zero waste; however, this does increase the amount of diversion. To support an ongoing zero waste program, other options that would provide funding for ongoing programs while continuing to encourage less disposal should be analyzed and considered.
- Manage household hazardous waste through producer and local seller funded collection and take‐back programs.
- Support programs and partnerships that include the take‐back approach. Local jurisdictions cannot afford to cover the cost of managing the massive amounts of household hazardous wastes that are discarded by the public. The cost of managing these materials must rest with the manufacturers and sellers of these products.
- Identify and implement incentives for businesses to take steps toward the Zero Waste Vision.
a. Financial incentives will induce businesses to move toward zero waste by changing the way that they design and manufacture their products. These can be built into the system so that they naturally stimulate better design. b. Zero waste businesses could be recognized for their contribution.
- Ban plant trimmings from landfills, including its use as alternative daily cover, and/or ban landfill
disposal.
a. Organic materials generate methane, only a portion of which can be recovered when disposed in landfill. The first step in eliminating this source of methane is to remove plant trimmings from being buried in a landfill. b. Organic materials are still a large part of the disposal waste stream, and therefore use up valuable space.
- Establish mandatory recycling requirements for businesses and multi‐family residences.
a. Mandatory recycling can take many forms: the mandate can be placed on the generator, the collector, the processor, the landfill operator, or all of the above. b. The mandate can require that certain materials be recycled, that selected materials not be placed in the garbage containers; or both of the above c. Requirements to recycle should include a recommendation to buy recycled as well. d. Mandatory green waste composting could be combined with an opportunity for businesses to receive free or discounted compost.
- Provide a comprehensive educational outreach program designed to effect environmental behavior change.
a. A first step in getting to zero waste is communicating with residents and businesses about the vision and objectives and defining their role in helping communities achieve zero waste.
b. Education and outreach will continue to be an on‐going activity and should be included in many places in the ZWAP. Supporting countywide or regional campaigns is another way in which a local government can provide some outreach. Long‐term Priority List. These items may require longer lead times or may require state or national action.
- Require productive use of all organics and develop programs and incentives to eliminate landfill disposal of organics.
a. In addition to banning plant trimmings from being buried at landfill, other organics could be banned or redirected to composting to maximize the environmental benefits and achieve zero waste. b. Productive uses in addition to composting will need to be identified and implemented to provide options for these materials.
- Implement a continual improvement approach to Zero Waste that will identify products in the waste stream and develop Zero Waste action strategies for addressing these products.
a. Keep checking on what is still being disposed b. Identify changes that can be made to those products. c. Ask, what programs do we need to expand or implement to get to the goal?
- Support and encourage legislative, regulatory and administrative actions, including but not limited to these actions:
a. Increase AB 939 fees at landfills and from other sources to fund programs; identify the amount of funding necessary to implement sufficient programs to achieve goals; and develop a funding structure that will continue to be effective as the community approaches the zero waste goal. b. Pursue legislation and regulations to eliminate toxic substances in waste stream by removing them from products and making the manufacturers responsible. c. Pursue mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility regulations. d. Amend AB 2020 to include more container types and products and adequately fund the costs of recycling and litter control. e. Pursue legislation and other methods to fully fund litter control, education and litter or illegal dumping enforcement. f. Promote tax incentives and tax credits for businesses that implement zero waste initiatives.
Executive Summary August 7, 2010
Countywide Actions
These are actions that will be most effective when done collectively and therefore are good projects for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to address on behalf of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission. However, a local ZWAC should include a statement of support for these actions.
- Permit only those new processing facilities that maximize recovery rates for the materials received. Processing facilities that are not designed to minimize residue from their processing activities should be encouraged to upgrade their equipment to increase recovery rates before being allowed to increase the amount of materials received.
- Encourage local or regional partnerships when evaluating or permitting new conversion facilities or technologies. Conversion facilities may achieve efficiencies by serving a larger service area with a larger total tonnage. This may allow the use of more expensive equipment than could be justified by a smaller materials flow. The benefits of these factors should be considered in evaluating new facilities and technologies.
- Ensure that sufficient facilities are in place to properly manage all recovered materials by integrating the Zero Waste Vision into planning processes and any future updates of Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Nondisposal Facility Elements, Household Hazardous Waste Elements, County Integrated Waste Management Plans and Countywide Summaries.
- Develop joint zero waste education campaigns and include the Zero Waste Vision in other waste reduction campaigns or programs.
- The continual improvement approach described in #13 above is also applicable to a countywide approach: Identify products that are still in the waste stream and develop Zero Waste action strategies for addressing these products.
a. Keep checking on what is still being disposed b. Identify changes that can be made to those products. c. Ask, what programs do we need to expand or implement to get to the goal?
Regional and National Actions
- Metrics – Interested city and the County staff and/or the TAC can participate in ongoing work to refine the metrics on impacts from consumption and waste. A clear measurement tool that illustrates environmental and climate change benefits from resource conservation and waste reduction would help to change the way decisions are made.
- Support Legislation – The RWRC and each local government can take positions on legislative possibilities.
Zero Waste Vision Statement and Action Plan August 7, 2010
Appendices
The appendices contain sample language, resolutions or policies that a city can utilize in the review or
preparation of their own documents.
A) Morgan Hill model contract language for hauler
B) Sunnyvale Policy for Zero Waste
C) Model resolution for Extended Producer Responsibility
D) Sample EPP policy from Mountain View with description
E) City of San Francisco Resolution for a 75% Diversion Goal
Appendix A) Morgan Hill model contract language for hauler
This language directs the hauler to not pick up yard trimmings or corrugated cardboard, thereby
reducing the amount of organics going to the landfill.
COMPANY shall not collect yard trimmings (organic materials including grass clippings, cuttings, leaves, Christmas trees and other yard trimmings) during the collection of residential garbage unless the yard trimmings are not reasonably visible to the COMPANY employee. COMPANY shall not collect corrugated cardboard during the collection of residential garbage unless the cardboard is not reasonably visible to the COMPANY employee. If, in the process of emptying a garbage container, yard trimmings or cardboard become visible to a COMPANY employee, said employee shall stop emptying that container. COMPANY employees shall leave a CITY‐approved explanatory notice on all garbage containers not emptied because they contained yard trimmings or cardboard. If a customer requests that the COMPANY return to an address to collect garbage that has had yard trimmings or cardboard removed from it and is now collectable, COMPANY shall return within 24 hours after the customer has agreed to pay the extra collection fee contained in Exhibit A, Schedule of Rates.
Zero Waste Vision Statement and Action Plan August 7, 2010
C) Model resolution for Extended Producer Responsibility
Definition: Product Stewardship involves consumers, government agencies and product manufacturers
sharing the responsibility of reducing the impact of product waste on public health, the environment,
and the economy. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a strategy to place a shared responsibility
for end‐of‐life product management on the producers, and all entities involved in the product chain,
instead of the general public; while encouraging product design changes that minimize a negative
impact on human health and the environment at every stage of the product's lifecycle. This allows the
costs of treatment and disposal to be incorporated into the total cost of a product. It places primary
responsibility on the producer, or brand owner, who makes design and marketing decisions. It also
creates a setting for markets to emerge that truly reflect the environmental impacts of a product, and to
which producers and consumers respond.
RESOLUTION NO. ________ RESOLUTION OF THE (Jurisdiction name) SUPPORTING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
WHEREAS , approximately ______ tons of discarded materials and products are currently sent to disposal from our community each year at a cost of $_______ per ton; and
WHEREAS , on February 8, 2006 California’s Universal Waste Rule (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 23) became effective; and
WHEREAS, the Universal Waste Rule banned landfill disposal of certain products that are deemed hazardous, including household batteries, fluorescent bulbs and tubes, thermostats and other items that contain mercury, and electronic devices such as, televisions, cell phones, microwave ovens, printers, and computers; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the list of waste products determined to be hazardous or problematic will continue to grow and will therefore be banned from landfills as demonstrated by the 2007 ban of treated wood and the 2008 Sharps ban; and
WHEREAS , state policies currently make local governments responsible for achieving waste diversion goals and enforcing product disposal bans, both of which are unfunded mandates; and
WHEREAS , the costs to manage Universal Waste and problematic products are currently borne by taxpayers and rate payers and, because of the bans these costs are increasing substantially and will continue to do so unless policy changes are made; and
WHEREAS, data from City and County annual reports show that, statewide, less than ten percent of the household hazardous waste and Universal waste generated is being collected; and
WHEREAS , local governments do not have the resources to adequately address the rising volume of discarded products; and
WHEREAS , costs paid by local governments to manage products are in effect subsidies to the producers of hazardous products and products designed for disposal; and
Zero Waste Vision Statement and Action Plan August 7, 2010
WHEREAS , in (year), (Jurisdiction name) spent the equivalent of $_____ to properly manage household hazardous wastes; and
WHEREAS , if (Jurisdiction name) were able to collect all of the batteries and fluorescent tubes generated in (Jurisdiction name), such a service cost would more than all of the other current household hazardous waste programs combined (or language that is true for your jurisdiction); and
WHEREAS , the Board/City Council of (Jurisdiction name) supports statewide efforts to hold producers responsible for the Universal Waste products and other product waste they create; and
WHEREAS , there are significant environmental and human health impacts associated with improper management of Universal Waste, sharps, and other products; and
WHEREAS , Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach in which producers have cradle-to-cradle responsibility for the products they create and sell and are responsible for designing, managing and funding effective end-of-life systems for those products; and
WHEREAS , EPR encourages reuse and recycling and also encourages producers to consider the health and environmental costs associated with the products they create and to include those costs in the product price, thereby creating an incentive to design products that are more durable, easier to repair and recycle, and are non-toxic; and
WHEREAS , EPR framework legislation is a holistic approach that establishes transparent and fair principles and procedures for applying EPR to categories of products and ensures a level playing field for all producers of those products; and
WHEREAS , the California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) is a non-profit organization of California local governments working to speak with one voice in advancing transparent and fair EPR systems in California; and
WHEREAS , in (Date), the (Jurisdiction name) adopted a municipal Zero Waste Plan (if applicable), and this plan emphasizes the need to incentivize manufacturers to reduce the toxics in their products and design them to be reusable and recyclable; and
WHEREAS , the (Jurisdiction name) wishes to incorporate EPR policies into the (Jurisdiction name) procurement practices to reduce costs and protect the environment; and
WHEREAS, in January 2008 the California Integrated Waste Management Board adopted a Framework for an EPR System in California; and
WHEREAS , in April 2008 the California League of Cities adopted a policy statement in support of a framework approach to EPR;
WHEREAS, in July 2008 the National Association of Counties adopted a resolution in support of a framework approach to EPR; and
WHEREAS , in November 2009 the National League of Cities adopted a policy statement in support of a framework approach to EPR;
Zero Waste Vision Statement and Action Plan August 7, 2010
D) Sample EPP policy from Mountain View with description
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EPP)
An Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EPP) encourages the purchase of the most
environmentally responsible products and services that meet performance needs, are competitively
priced and are readily available. Many recycled and environmentally preferable products now cost the
same as, or are only slightly more than, other products. The EPP documents an agency’s practice of
preference for sustainable products that perform well, are readily available at a reasonable price and
comply with the agency’s specifications, operational needs, goals and objectives.
The US Environmental Protection Agency developed five guiding principles to provide broad guidance
for applying environmentally preferable purchasing. Although these guiding principles were developed
for the Federal government setting, they offer a good overview of how EPP can work in any government
setting.
Principle 1: Environment + Price + Performance = Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Environmental considerations should become part of normal purchasing practice, consistent with such
traditional factors as product safety, price, performance and availability.
Principle 2: Pollution Prevention
Consideration of environmental prefer ability should begin early in the acquisition process and be
rooted in the ethic of pollution prevention, which strives to eliminate or reduce, up‐front, potential risks
to human health and the environment.
Principle 3: Life Cycle Perspective/Multiple Attributes
A product or service’s environmental preferability is a function of multiple attributes from a life cycle
perspective.
Principle 4: Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Determining environmental preferability might involve comparing environmental impacts. In comparing
environmental impacts, agencies should consider: the reversibility and geographic scale of the
environmental impacts, the degree of difference among competing products or services, and the
overriding importance of protecting human health.
Principle 5: Environmental Performance Information
Comprehensive, accurate, and meaningful information about the environmental performance of
products or services is necessary in order to determine environmental preferability.
Following is a sample EPP Resolution and Policy adopted by the City of Mountain View.
