|
The Honorable Pete Wilson
Governor of California |
|
| The Honorable Bill Lockyer President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Members of the Senate
The Honorable Willie L. Brown Jr. |
The Honorable Kenneth L. Maddy Senate Minority Floor Leader
The Honorable James Brulte |
|
Dear Governor and Members
of the Legislature:
Although California has
positioned itself to manage its solid wastes intelligently, the
State has not taken the necessary steps to move its programs and
policies into the 21st century. Nowhere is this more clear than
in the area of recycling. To borrow a sports analogy, the State
has a clear game plan and a credible coach in place -- but for
some reason half of the team is playing on a different field and
is missing the game signals.
The Little Hoover Commission
last examined the state's solid waste management techniques in
1989 when it became clear that landfill space was disappearing
and that alterative would have to be vigorously pursued. Of particular
concern at that time was a state management structure that filtered
all solid waste decisions through a body that was more interested
in landfills than recycling. Since then the State has created
a rational structure to guide the integration of solid waste policies
and to emphasize source reduction, reuse of products and recycling
of used materials. But the state's major container recycling program
was created before this structure was put into place and it has
not been brought into the fold since.
A key policy question for
the State is whether an orphan recycling program can be as effective
and efficient as one that is an integral part of the State's overall
solid waste management program. The Commission undertook its current
study of that issue both in response to a legislative request
that expressed concern about the efficiency of the current container
recycling program and as a follow-up to the Commission's own assessment
when Cal-EPA was created that the effectiveness of California's
environmental efforts hinge on consolidating functions under one
agency. The report transmitted to the Governor and the Legislature
with this letter reflects the Commission's two findings and nine
recommendations.
The first three finding
deals with the fragmented structure that has arisen. Primary authority
and responsibility for solid waste management is vested in the
California Integrated Waste Management Board under Cal-EPA. The
State's container recycling program, which diverts 3 percent of
all solid waste from landfills, is run by the Division of Recycling
under the Department of Conservation in the Resources Agency.
This has resulted in overlapping functions, duplicated activities
and needless waste of resources. In addition, it has allowed a
mixed message to reach the public about the importance of reducing
solid waste disposal in landfills. While the Division of recycling
is busy emphasizing the success it has had in getting the public
to return the cans and bottles, the Integrated Waste Management
Board is trying to persuade consumers that recycling containers
is not enough and that more thoughtful decisions about buying
and throwing away materials are needed.
After careful analysis of
a range of options, the Commission recommends that the functions
of both the Division of Recycling and Integrated Waste Management
Board be merged in a new department under Cal-EPA. The streamlined
structure is expected to save more than $12 million annually,
provide more effective implementation of policy and centralize
accountability for solid waste management.
The Commission's second
finding examines the container recycling program, known as the
2020 program. While extremely successful in terms of meeting recycling
percentage goals, the program is complex and costly, both to the
State and to industry. One result is that the 2020 program has
not provided the expected solid foundation that would allow the
expansion of the recycling mandate to other containers and materials.
Of particular concern in
the 2020 program are the heavily subsidizes convenience zone recycling
centers and the "moving-target" processing fee. The
Commission recommends the overhaul of both aspects of the program
before any attempt is made to add further materials to the list
of mandated recyclables.
Finally, the Commission
notes that these organizational and program changes are important
not just because of the environmental effect of solid waste disposal
but also because of the emerging recyclable-materials industries.
California has the opportunity to encourage the growth of productive
businesses that will create jobs for citizens and revenues for
state programs, as well as, conserve resources. The Commission
looks forward to working with the State's decision-makers to bring
California's written solid waste policies into reality. |
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
Findings and Recommendations
Streamlining Recycling
Glossary
Appendices
Endnotes
Introduction
|
C
alifornia has been in search of a broad, effective
resource recycling system since the early 1970s when the capacity
of the State's landfills to handle increasing amounts of solid
waste was recognized as limited. In 1972, passage of the Solid
Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act established what was
described as a "comprehensive state solid waste management
and resource recovery" policy and system. New laws and agencies
were created to carry out the 1972 act, but recycling did not
emerge as a mainstay of the State's solid waste decisions and
policies. The 1986 creation of a beverage container recycling program was a quantum leap forward for recycling in California, and other steps have been taken since to increase recycling and reuse of waste. But in spite of California's efforts to "closethe circle" -- that is, to bring solid waste back into the production and reuse cycle -- gaps and overlaps remain in the system the State has created.
| |
|
Lack of
integration hampers efforts to increase recycling |
M
ost of the tools that are necessary to create a comprehensive
program are now in place, but the lack of integrated organizational
structures and functions have limited the effectiveness of the
state's recycling efforts. Two main issues are:
Divided responsibility for recycling has resulted in overlap of functions, creating public confusion, missed opportunities to maximize the use of staff expertise, lost economies of operations and some variance in the implementation of the State's recycling goals. The complexity of the beverage container recycling program -- generally referred to as the 2020 program -- raises concerns about cost-effective implementation and the ability to monitor its processes and enforce legal requirements. |
|
Recycling goal
has evolved during past two decades |
H
ow the State handles recycling is an issue that has
gained importance over the past two decades as compelling forces
-- such as diminishing landfill capacity and the creation of new
business opportunities in a recession-plagued economy -- have
gained momentum. The evolution of philosophy and public policy
has gone from the treatment of solid waste as mere garbage to
today's new competition over waste as a valuable resource and
commodity. From 1970 until today, there have been these phases:
|
|
Recycling helps
State's economy as well as environment |
T
his evolution has led to increasing awareness and
agreement within industry, the public and government that recycling
is both an important environmental and economic activity. A report
on pollution prevention in California, published by the California
Environmental Protection Agency, finds that:
Creating a demand for secondary materials is not
only important for landfill diversion, it is also important for
California's economy. As this State and others compete in a farther-reaching
world market, more efficient uses of our existing virgin and secondary
resources must be found to remain competitive. Additionally, California
is paying a cost in environmental degradation that cannot be quantified,
as minerals are mined, timber is cut and oil is extracted. And
this cost increases as raw materials become even scarcer. California
has an opportunity to discover the wealth it is currently discarding
in its landfills.1
The economic importance of recycling to California
has also been recognized in a report by the California Integrated
Waste Management Board:
Market development for recyclables has the potential
to solve an environmental problem as it creates an industry. Made
with material formerly considered garbage but now diverted in
increasingly large amounts from landfill, products made from recyclables
create jobs as they lessen the environmental impact of solid waste.
... [P]otentially 20,000 jobs could be created in California's
manufacturing sector, along with another 25,000 in sorting and
processing, and many more from multiplier effects.2
With the emerging importance of recycling as a landfill-
diversion necessity and an economic stimulus opportunity, California
has a strong incentive to maximize its recycling efforts and clearly
delineate its recycling policies. The widespread perception, however,
is that the State has thus far failed to accomplished that. With
this goal in mind (and at the request of Senator Dan McCorquodale),
the Little Hoover Commission decided to examine the State's existing
recycling efforts, focusing on two areas:
The Commission conducted a public hearing addressing
these issues in Los Angeles on November 16, 1993 (please see Appendix
A for a list of witnesses). The four-month study included
a review of literature and numerous interviews with government,
industry and environmental experts.
The study has resulted in this report, which begins
with a transmittal letter, Executive Summary and this introduction.
The following sections include a background, two chapters of findings
and recommendations, and a conclusion. The report ends with a
glossary, appendices and endnotes. |
|
Background
| T he nation's "throwaway" ethic is nowhere more vividly carried out than in California, where citizens dispose of twice the national average of garbage each day.3 For the past 25 years, California has made increasingly stronger efforts to encourage recycling and divert materials from hard-pressed landfills. But two thrusts not yet pursued aggressively by the State -- manufacturers' responsibility for packaging and the development of markets for recycled material -- are widely recognized as the key to making recycling a dynamic, successful policy in the future. | ||
|
State's garbage
weighed in at 40 million tons in 1992 |
C
alifornia produced almost 40 million tons of garbage
in 1992, which, after allowing for materials recovered for reuse,
comprised the "solid waste stream" flowing from homes,
businesses and industries to landfill facilities.4 But as the chart
on the next page indicates, this single figure does not tell the
whole story: |
| Chart A |
|---|
|
A
s Chart A reflects, there are more than 20 million
tons of hazardous waste produced annually that require special
handling under regulations established by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control.5 Of that amount, two million tons must be transported
from their point of generation to other facilities for recycling,
treatment, storage and/or disposal.6 Up to another 8.5 million
tons of recyclable commodities, in the form of metals and paper,
do not enter the waste stream (and therefore are not technically
"solid waste" or "garbage") because they are
purchased by salvage operations directly from factories and resold
for their scrap value.7
Although the popular perception is that used disposable
diapers are the prime reason that landfill space is quickly diminishing,
the reality is quite different. Table 1 on the next page shows
the composition of California's solid waste stream. |
Table 1
| |
Food and yard organic waste | |
Paper | |
Other (inert solids, household hazardous wastes, furniture, etc.) | |
Plastics | |
Metals | |
Glass | |
2020 recycled containers | |
Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board,
October 22, 1993
|
A
s Table 1 indicates, almost four-tenths of the solid
waste in California is made up of food and yard clippings. When
combined with paper products, these items make up more than two-thirds
of all garbage. Another way of classifying types of waste is by initial use. From this perspective, packaging and containers of all types equate to around 30 percent of the total.8 A document published by the California Integrated Waste Management Board observes, "The bulk of what we throw away is packaging and one-use, disposable items."9 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Americans spend more on food packaging than is spent on food.10 Because of its large contribution to the waste stream, packaging has been the priority target of most recycling programs across the nation, with special attention given to containers for beer, sodas and other beverages largely because of their high visibility as litter. | |
|
Landfill capacity
diminishing rapidly in counties with largest population |
T
he need to recycle is documented in another set of
statistics -- those that measure the extent to which landfills
can continue to cope with waste. About half of the state's counties,
which have 70 percent of California's population, report 13 years
of remaining landfill disposal capacity if 1990 waste generation
trends persist. Almost 40 percent of the state's population live
in ten counties reporting less than five years of disposal capacity.11
This might appear to be an adequate lead time for planning, but
it must be measured against the proven 10 to 14 years required
today to secure community approval and all permits for siting
a new landfill facility.12 The popular emphasis on recycling over recent years has not yet had a huge impact on the overall solid waste stream. California today diverts (that is, recovers, reuses, and/or recycles) about 12 percent of the total, leaving about 88 percent of all waste generated to be disposed of in landfills.13 But the effect is beginning to show in annual statistics, which used to reflect continuing growth in the amounts dumped in landfills. In 1985, disposed solid waste came to approximately 30 million tons14 and by 1990 it was about 43.6 million tons.15 Most projections for the year 2000 have estimated that California's solid waste will add up to 60 millions tons.16 However, between 1989 and 1992 waste actually reaching landfills has decreased each year, dropping to 39.5 million tons in 1992.17 This apparently is the result of improving diversion efforts, plus the recessionary consequences of consumers purchasing fewer products. |
|
Solid waste
policies have matured since beautification days |
T
he turnaround comes after many years of both major
overhauls and minor tinkering with the State's solid waste policies.
With the start of the 1970s and the so-called "age of ecology,"
initial legislative attention was given to litter control, an
extension of the beautification campaigns of the 1960s. While
scrap dealers have been recycling many materials for decades,
the first community bottle, can and newspaper recycling center
was in operation by 1971 in Berkeley. That year a container packaging
recycling bill, to be funded through per-unit fees paid by manufacturers,
was drafted but not introduced in the Legislature when industry
support diminished.
The concept of recycling did appear in legislation
in 1972, but had only a minor role in California's first effort
to create a State-level policy and program. The passage of the
Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act created the now-superseded
State Solid Waste Management Board, which became responsible for
regulation of solid waste landfills and other facilities. Among
the act's findings and declarations was: "Methods of solid
waste management emphasizing source reduction, recovery, conversion
and recycling of all solid wastes are essential to the long range
preservation of the health, safety and well-being of the public...."
The act declared it in the public interest to establish and maintain
a "comprehensive state solid waste management and resource
recovery policy" to "provide for the maximum reutilization
and conversion to other uses of the resources contained"
within solid waste.18
However, the act gave the solid waste board little
more than a directive to guide state research and development
efforts and to conduct special studies and demonstration projects
on "the recovery of useful energy and resources from solid
wastes."19 In time, the board was perceived as developing an
industry bias that relied extensively on landfill solutions, all
but ignoring recycling as an option.
The next phase of public interest saw advocacy of
a "bottle bill" program, again largely a reaction to
litter concerns and the high visibility of soda pop and beer containers
which consumers carried with them and often randomly discarded.
Traditional bottle bills required retail stores to charge a deposit,
usually a nickel, on each sale of a beverage container, then receive
empties back with reimbursement of the nickel to the consumer.
Retail outlets had the responsibility of holding these soiled
containers at their facilities until the distributors (wholesalers)
could return to pick them up. While nine states now have such
programs (please see Appendix B for a summary of other
states' recycling programs), grocery and retail outlets have resisted
them vigorously. This was also the case in California. Repeated
efforts to pass legislation into the early 1980s failed.
Environmental groups then took the initiative route
and, working through an organization called Californians Against
Waste (CAW), qualified Proposition 11 for the ballot in 1982.
With extensive opposition by retailers, container and beverage
manufacturers -- as well as consumers -- the proposal was rejected
by voters. |
|
Current recycling
program outgrowth of 1986 effort to compromise |
A
fter failure of subsequent bills in the Legislature,
CAW in 1986 again sought to qualify an initiative for the ballot.
To avoid another expensive campaign, representatives of the key
industries met with recyclers, environmental groups and legislative
staff to develop a bill that would address beverage containers
without a logistical burden being placed on retailers and distributors.
The result was the California Beverage Container Recycling and
Litter Reduction Act (AB 2020, Chapter 1290, Statutes of 1986),
often referred to as the "2020 program."20 This collection
program, based on a deposit and refund process, was placed in
the Department of Conservation, located in the Resources Agency,
as a political compromise when environmentalists opposed placement
in the State Solid Waste Management Board, which they felt was
tilted too strongly toward landfill policies.21
In the late 1980s, public policy began addressing
the concept of "integrated waste management," especially
as concern grew over diminishing landfill capacity. The need to
reduce the amount of waste produced and reuse more of it prior
to disposal became the cornerstone of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act (AB 939, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989),
which replaced the industry-leaning State Solid Waste Management
Board with the broader-based California Integrated Waste Management
Board.
Thus, within the span of three years, the State had
created a major recycling program from scratch and then established
an entirely separate entity with the mandates of integrating solid
waste options and emphasizing recycling -- a situation that remains
today. Many experts believe this split in responsibility makes
it difficult for the State to move forward in two areas that are
regarded as the key to further development of recycling efforts:
|
|
Challenge is to
move beyond simple recycling of cans, bottles |
W
ithout a coordinated, efficient structure to streamline
present efforts and pursue these new avenues, the State's ability
to meet solid waste challenges is diminished. The following two
findings and nine recommendations address the steps the State
needs to take to position itself to have a positive impact on
this important environmental and economic issue. |
|
| ||
|
Recycling
Duplication
Recycling Duplication
Finding #1: The placement of overlapping recycling
mandates in two separate agencies has resulted in duplication
of work, public confusion and lost opportunities for maximum effectiveness
in implementing state policies. | ||
|
B
ecause of the existence of multiple laws and two
state agencies addressing waste control and/or recycling (with
a third responsible for toxics waste management), there is lacking
a coordinated, comprehensive approach to waste reduction and resource
reuse and recycling in California. The evolution of several different
legislative approaches to recycling has splintered the State's
policy, created duplication of efforts, and reduced the needed
focus on primary objectives, such as ensuring markets are available
for increasing amounts of diverted waste materials. In addition,
both the Integrated Waste Management Board and the Department
of Conservation have organizational deficiencies that limit their
potential as lead agencies for a comprehensive recycling program.
Separate enabling acts have given two state agencies major, and sometimes conflicting, roles in recycling management:
| ||
|
Efforts to deal
with waste lack uniform base of laws |
T
hese acts, and others that deal with the recycling
of specific materials, have created important portions of a comprehensive
waste and recycling program for California. But the effort lacks
unity.
An example of the different emphasis of the Integrated
Waste Management Board and the Department of Conservation is found
in the enabling legislation for each. The laws contain separate
definitions of recycling, which demonstrates the potential for
disparate operations by these two agencies:
In addition to the Integrated Waste Management Board
and the Department of Conservation, the Department of Toxic Substances
Control in Cal-EPA also handles some recycling activities under
the Hazardous Waste Control Act and the Hazardous Substances Account
Act.26 This entity is responsible for the management of industrial
and commercial substances that are known to create risks to public
heath and safety. The recycling efforts include a market program
that is designed to find users for wastes; regulations for the
recycling of drained, used oil and the metal in used oil filters;
and regulations for the recycling of used latex paint. Even in
the arena of hazardous wastes, however, the distinctions between
agencies are not clear cut: While hazardous wastes fall under
the purview of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the
management of household hazardous wastes has been retained by
the Integrated Waste Management Board. In addition, the Board
has a well-publicized used-oil recycling program.
The result of these scattered mandates is a splintered,
unfocused series of efforts that do not come together to achieve
comprehensive results. The evolution of conflicts between the
state's recycling agencies was noted in the Secretary of Environmental
Protection's presentation at the Commission's hearing:
The passage of AB 939 in 1989 greatly changed
the face of waste management in California -- and planted the
seeds of the growing overlaps and duplications of effort which
subsequently arose between the Board and [the Division of Recycling].
AB 939 created a much broader mandate for the new Integrated Waste
Management Board ... and significantly expanded the scope of the
previous Board's activities to emphasize source reduction, recycling
and composting in order to meet aggressive waste diversion goals
statewide by 1995 and the year 2000. This expansion of the previous
Board's charter led to the unplanned intersection of these two
programs. These historical changes to the charter and mandates
of the Board require a fresh look at the proper relationship of
the beverage container recycling program to the larger waste diversion
and recycling goals created for the Board. | |
|
Double-agency
approach means duplication, overlap, conflict |
W
ith two agencies involved in recycling, it was undoubtedly
inevitable that some of their activities and expenditures would
become duplicative, fail to be mutually reinforcing or, at least
occasionally, conflict with each other. This duality has caused
public confusion in understanding the roles of the agencies. It
is not always clear to consumers that the Department of Conservation
has a narrow mandate -- to recycle certain beverage containers
-- and the Integrated Waste Management Board has the broad mandate
-- to promote the public's involvement in reducing, reusing, and
recycling waste materials, as part of the legislatively
mandated hierarchy of priorities.
Part of this confusion has been a consequence of
the Department's tendency to address recycling issues of all types,
reaching beyond just beverage container issues and crossing into
areas specifically assigned to the Board. This was noted in an
analysis of the Division of Recycling's public outreach and promotion
program, commissioned by the Department and published in November
1993, which observed that there has been a propensity of the program
to address the full spectrum of materials that can be recycled:
There is a large amount of work that could be
done to address these other recycling issues and the temptation
always exists to expand the [Division of Recycling's] activities
to address these broader issues.... The constant temptation to
"expand" beverage container recycling to the recycling
of other materials is evident in most all of the [Division] activities.28
This "temptation" has, no doubt, been stimulated
by the strong public interest in recycling and the fact that the
Department initially was the only state agency involved with the
issue. But the 2020 program's failure to maintain a focus on beverage
containers is not just an issue of duplication, but also one of
accountability of funding. All the funding for the Department's
recycling program comes from the unclaimed refunds from the sale
of beverage containers. As was stated by an industry speaker at
the Commission hearing, "We believe that the [Department]
should, as a general rule, use beverage container funds and resources
only for the purposes of promoting and forwarding the cause of
beverage container recycling."29 Creating public information
and other programs that address all issues of recycling beyond
those of cans and bottles puts an unfair fiscal burden on the
participating beverage industries that created a revenue base
intended for the 2020 program alone. | |
|
Duplication and
lack of coordination has costly implications |
T
here is ample evidence that duplication of activities
has occurred and that the lack of coordination between the Board
and the Department has been costly to the State. The results are
especially apparent in public education and information outreach,
market development, minimum-content monitoring, and grant and
loan programs. In addition, the most appropriate lead role between
the two agencies regarding curbside collection programs appears
to have become confused by legislative directives.
To be effective, any advertising and pubic education
program must be clear and consistent in its message. Anything
less can be a waste of the investment and even counter-productive
in results, according to public relations experts. Nevertheless,
the Department and the Board have engaged in separate advertising,
publishing and information services that have not been coordinated
by the two agencies.
An example of how public outreach programs can go
in separate directions is found in the separate outdoor advertising
campaigns conducted in 1993 by the two agencies. The Board's billboard
message, run in February, was "Leave Less Behind For The
Future. Reduce Reuse Recycle."31 The Department's message,
appearing during April-September, was twofold, with one billboard
declaring, "Let's Talk Trash. 1-800-RECYCLE" and the
other, superimposed over a picture of cans and bottles, announcing
"Over 11 Billion Recycled Last Year. It Works."32 | |
|
Mixed messages
of separate ad campaigns dilute results |
T
hese billboards, which had not been coordinated in
advance for timing or content, did not create serious conflicts,
although the "Let's Talk Trash" message would have more
effectively advertised the Board's 800 number rather than the
Department's, since it is the Board that deals with all solid
waste. But they illustrate the potential for the two agencies
to continue to create a variety of messages through various media
that may not be compatible or mutually reinforcing. In the words
of an observer from the Legislature, "With two agencies and
two advertising campaigns, the public is getting a fuzzy message
at best, and contradictory messages at worst."33
The problem is becoming more pressing as the Board
moves to use public education as the key tool for helping the
State meet diversion mandates -- a goal that requires a shift
away from emphasizing recycling. State law requires local governments
to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfills by 1995
and 50 percent by 2000. As the executive director of the Board
recently told a legislative committee, "It is clear that
unless we teach the public to change their long-ingrained habits
-- to prevent waste -- we will not be able to solve our waste
challenge in the long run."34 The Board's recent annual report
also addressed the need for its public information program to
move beyond the issue of recycling alone and more thoroughly address
the complete hierarchy of waste reduction and reuse actions:
Although there is substantial awareness of California's solid waste problem, both businesses and consumers believe they are doing all they can to help solve the problem by recycling bottles, cans and newspapers. Although a majority of Californians understand and accept recycling, many do not realize that there is far more they can do -- reduce waste, reuse products, and buy recycled, to name a few behavioral changes.35
In 1993, the Board undertook a communication campaign
designed to "leverage the momentum of high recycling participation"
and to convince Californians to take the next logical environmental
step of "think before you buy," then purchase recycled
and recyclable products. This campaign was believed to offer an
"infinitely more complex message" than the public had
previously heard:
Recycling dealt with beverage containers, and
provided a financial reward for compliance. Litter and toxic wastes
were straightforward and easy to comprehend. Source reduction
is a complex set of actions that requires an "unlearning"
of several environmental practices and a reorientation of the
way we shop and dispose of our trash.36 | |
|
Reduce, reuse
emphasis conflicts with push for recycling |
T
o reach the diversion goals, many believe the Board
must significantly increase the public's and the industrial/commercial
sectors' willingness to reduce and reuse solid waste, beyond just
recycling cans, bottles and newspapers. In the meantime, the Department
has not always recognized this distinction in its public outreach
efforts -- and with good reason since its mandate only concerns
recycling. The Department's message always leads with recycling
as the goal, while the Board's presentation is a cautionary reminder
"that recycling is not enough; that other actions such as
reducing waste, buying recycled or buying recyclable goods and
reusing materials are needed."37
Even when the Department does refer to the legislated
waste management priorities -- "reduce, reuse, recycle"
-- it has switched the sequence so that recycling is listed first.
On the following page, this is shown in a promotional handout
for the Recycle Rex "spokesdinosaur" persona that the
Department is using for elementary school student education.
The distinction of which goal to list first -- reduce,
reuse or recycle -- may seem minor. But when such variation in
presenting the State's objectives is extended through millions
of dollars of promotion, the Board believes it can have more than
a subtle impact on public thinking. A memo from the executive
director of the Board to the Cal-EPA Secretary reported that as
a result of the Department's promotion efforts, "Public perception
of beverage container recycling as the means of reducing
the quantity of waste generated may make it more difficult for
other forms of recycling and composting to succeed."38
At the Commission's hearing, the spokesperson for
the California Resources Recovery Association (CRRA) urged uniformity
in publicity efforts to overcome the present "dual approach:"
A more coordinated, comprehensive and consistent
approach is needed for disbursing any new money for recycling
promotion statewide. Both state agencies should coordinate the
launching of promotional campaigns with regard to time, message
and outreach approach. Campaigns should not continue to conflict
as in the past, with one state agency telling the public how horrible
the problem is while another state agency is saying how well they
are doing.39 | |
|
Both Board
and Department offer assistance to local government |
A
nother issue related to overlapping education and
outreach involves assistance to local governments. The Board is
specifically directed to provide assistance to cities and counties
in preparing local source reduction and reuse plans and county
integrated waste management plans.40 But the Department also responds
to governmental inquiries on broad recycling efforts and has conducted
a statewide survey of local governments on their waste diversion
programs that included the full range of materials in the waste
stream.41 In 1991, the Department published a study that offered
a "model planning approach for comprehensive city and county
waste reuse, reduction, recycling, and composting."42 Both
the survey and the report were directly duplicative of and intrusive
into the Board's mandate to assist local agencies with planning
matters.
Duplication in the public outreach area also is evident
in the "dueling 800 numbers" of the Department and Board.
The Program Development Section of the Department maintains a
toll-free 800 number (1800RECYCLE) for citizen's information
requests, an automated system that allows callers to input their
zip code to learn if there is a recycling center operating in
that area. The Department also publishes a computerized list of
these certified centers. Up to 52,000 calls a year are now being
received. In calendar year 1993, the first year that a streamlined
version of this service was in operation, the approximate cost
was $162,000.43 The Board also maintains a toll-free number (1-800-553-2962) for its own recycling hotline that is operator-answered and linked to an electronic database to service information requests, including the location of nearby recycling centers and household toxics collection sites. About 48,000 calls a year are received. The cost of this program was about $148,000 in FY 1992/93. The Board has contracted for a new, lower cost service and estimates its FY 1993/94 costs will be about $110,000.44
A random usage of these public information systems
suggests that improvements can be made. During the course of this
study, the Commission was contacted by a citizen who had been
unable to locate a recycling center in Mariposa County. To evaluate
the convenience of recycling in rural areas, Commission staff
called both 800 numbers. The Board's system identified a recycling
operation at the landfill site, but was then unaware of any certified
dropoff services in the county. (A followup call two
months later found an updated report that included one other buy-back
center and a household hazardous waste dropoff site.)
In comparison, the Department's computerized hot
line reported that there were no recycling centers in that area.
(A follow-up call two months later found that this report had
been updated and had information on the landfill site.) A current
computer printout of state certified operations provided by the
Department included the landfill operation plus four drop-off
centers. One of these did not have a working phone number and
another identified itself on the phone as also a CRV redemption
center and not just a dropoff site. | |
|
Efforts to
maintain separate hotline could be redirected |
T
his case example revealed enough discrepancies to
underscore the need for the staff time now being used in maintaining
two systems to be invested in ensuring the database is accurate
and more frequently updated. The existence of two 800 numbers
has become a symbol of the overall duplication between the two
agencies. Overlapping functions extend to publications issued by the Department and the Board. The Department has published a number of documents that address multiple topics in the overall recycling field. An example is the popular 15 Simple Things Californians Can Do To Recycle, which includes paper and oil, as well as container, recycling. Also discussing issues beyond beverage containers, including landfills, is a series of booklets entitled Recycling at Work, Recycling at School and Recycling as a Fundraiser. The Department's 1992 publication A Guide to Starting a Recycling Business overlaps the Board's mandated45 publication of a document entitled Guide to Developing a Post-Consumer Materials Business. In addition, the Department's Non-Profit Recycling Manual deals with materials other than beverage containers, including paper, cardboard and newspaper. | |
|
Each has
developed separate educational materials |
O
f particular importance is the duplication of publications
and related training programs by the two agencies in the area
of school curricula. Only the Board is legislatively mandated
to develop waste reduction and recycling materials for use in
the school system. It is also directed to develop a teacher training
and implementation plan, plus a program of source reduction and
recycling in the schools themselves.46 The Board's staff developing
these materials works closely with the Department of Education
and has received grants to assist in curricula preparation. A
total of $387,467, projected through fiscal year 1993/94, has
been spent in this area by the Board since its inception.47 In June
1993, the Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control and
the Department of Education jointly published a Compendium
for Integrated Waste Management for the use of educators.
Meanwhile, the Department of Conservation has published
an extensive and detailed teacher's packet on recycling,48 which,
while a good source of information, has not been coordinated with
the efforts of the Board or the Department of Education. The Department
of Conservation has also sent out surveys to public schools, an
information-gathering function already being conducted by the
Board.49 The Department has expended more than $750,000 from 1990
until early 1993 on this effort.50 It is not clear how the Department's
school-related activities fit into California education frameworks.
In the many facets of public outreach pursued by
both the Board and the Department, it is apparent that duplication
occurs, coordination is all but non-existent, messages are mixed
and there is a failure to maximize resources.
Under state law, the Board has an extremely broad
role in market development for recycled materials. A recent reorganization
created a Market Research and Technology Division which consolidated
all internal functions in this area. Much of the Board's work
is material-specific, and involves setting standards and evaluating
options for the reuse of specific materials, from metallic discards
to rice straw.
The Board maintains the California Materials Exchange
(CALMAX), a free database that can assist businesses that want
to find users for nonhazardous materials they have traditionally
discarded. The program is designed to avoid disposal costs; find
low-cost or no-cost supplies or feedstock; and enhance sales for
environment-friendly business. Through the Board, interested parties
that have a need or source for these materials can be listed in
the program. By September 1993 the exchange had resulted in the
reuse of more than 150,000 tons of waste. A mailing list of some
7,000 companies receives a bi-monthly catalog of classified listings.
This activity cost about $178,000 in fiscal year 1992/93.51
The Board also maintains a recycling equipment tax
credit program for equipment used in the manufacture of recycled-content
products. One of its major activities is the recycling market
development zone program. Similar to enterprise zones, these zones
provide low-interest loans as incentives to recycling-oriented
businesses that locate or expand within these approved locations.
The goal is to turn local "waste streams into resource streams."52
| |
|
Department's
market program reaches beyond bottles, cans |
T
he Department's primary market development mandates
are for its two material-specific programs, glass and fiberglass.
However, beginning in the 1992-93 fiscal year, the Department
also developed a market development strategy, largely through
its grants program, that includes:
While all these projects are valuable, they are duplicative
of work being done by the Board. In addition, most also are outside
of the 2020 program's mandated focus on beverage containers, with
the result that funds secured from the sale of beverages are being
used to increase recycling of other products. For example, the
Market Development Zone grant, listed last, funds a company that
handles material not covered by the 2020 program to participate
in a program that is administered by the Integrated Waste Management
Board.
In addition, the Division of Recycling has received
a $100,000 grant from the Federal Economic Development Administration
to develop a recycling-based economic development plan for California
cities. The Department is matching the grant with $33,000 in in-kind
services.54 However, this type of local government assistance falls
under the Board's mandate rather than the Department's.
The Department operates the California Market Watch
program, a database used to encourage the development and use
of recycled products, emphasizing glass, plastic and aluminum.
The program is designed to link participants who have resources,
such as recycling equipment vendors, industry organizations, material
brokers, and outlets selling recycled or reusable products. A
request has to specify the data needed and can be made by mail
or phone, resulting in a computer printout generated to meet the
specific request. This activity cost about $79,000 in fiscal year
1992/93.55 It should also be noted that the Department of Toxic Substances Control operates a similar program called the California Waste Exchange, which matches industries having recyclable toxic wastes with those that can use these materials. | |
|
Split between
agencies blocks focus on market development |
W
hile the agencies are not in direct conflict in the
arena of market development, there is again the situation of separate
employees involved in similar work with opportunities lost because
of a failure to combine expertise. In addition, resources cannot
be effectively targeted to meet the State's overall priorities
when coordination does not exist.
The Board is presently responsible for four programs:
While these programs do not overlap and are not competitive,
the program bifurcation creates one more area of confusion as
to which unit of government is the lead agency for recycling.
The Department's current grant program, totalling
62 recipients, is limited to $2 million and is used largely to
assist nonprofit recycling centers and local governments. Many
of these grants involve market development pilot projects. The
Department also is administering for two years a $1 million-a-year
subsidy of curbside collection services, as required by the Legislature.
Another legislated use of Department funds includes $7 million
for local conservation corps.63
The two grant programs do not clearly overlap or,
in their present applications, create conflicts. However, again
the lack of coordination between the agencies during the selection
and award process results in a lack of focus on the State's highest
priority needs, such as market development. With coordination
or integration, the Board and Department grant programs have the
potential of achieving a higher level of public return on each
investment.
In 1993, the Legislature directed the Department
of Conservation to spend $2 million for 1992/93 and $1 million
for each of the following two years to subsidize operation of
these programs. In spite of the fact that curbside services collect
materials and containers that are not in the 2020 program, the
Legislature has assigned monitoring and reporting functions to
the Department.65
Curbside collection programs have an influence beyond
recycling alone and can impact the broader issues of resource
recovery and reuse. A report by the Department evaluating the
overall program is scheduled for release in April 1994, but it
is not clear if it also will include the perspective of the Board
on the long-term value of curbside collection as a component of
integrated waste management techniques. | |
|
Overall
perspective: Results poor, reasons many |
W
hen the split of responsibility for curbside collection
programs is added to the conflicts noted above on public education,
market development, monitoring and grants, it becomes clear that
the activities of the Integrated Waste Management Board and the
Department of Conservation overlap in many areas. The reasons
range from fuzzy definitions to mixed directives from the Legislature
and institutional aggressiveness. Inefficiencies, missed opportunities
and wasted revenue resulting from Board and Department operational
overlaps could be reduced by individual, negotiated attention
to the present areas of duplication. But those familiar with both
entities see that outcome as unlikely since there have been discussions
for several years with no resolution of split authority. Some
observers hold the view that a "turf war" has been ongoing.
An internal analysis by the Department noted that:
While not publicly acknowledged, there is a subtle
competition between the Board and the [Department] regarding recycling
activities. This competition detracts from management focus on
policy and programs, causes duplication of efforts and sometimes
interferes with a free exchange of information between the agencies.
... [This causes] redundant contract expenditures, public confusion,
recycling industry confusion, overstaffing, and overall inefficiency
which runs counter to the Governor's desire to streamline government.66
It appears likely that without some reorganizational
intervention, competition and disputes over function will continue
to occur as long as there are two separate organizations involved
in similar issues. The continuing existence of two recycling agencies also fails to assign leadership for recycling in California. The absence of a single voice and a combined staff to advocate opportunities and manage problems is today the primary constraint limiting the State's development of a comprehensive system. Structural reforms, including some form of consolidation of the two agencies, would resolve issues of overlap, gaps and competition, plus create an integrated system that can move toward comprehensive recycling in California. | |
|
Many experts,
participants agree time is ripe for realignment |
T
here are signs on many fronts that the time is ripe
for a realignment of recycling efforts. The 1991 reorganization
plan that created Cal-EPA was described at the time as a "rolling
reorganization" that would continue to bring pertinent programs
under the new environmental umbrella agency. Specific objectives
of that plan included the creation of a primary point of accountability
for state environmental programs, the provision of more rapid
deployment of coordinated government action and the reduction
of overlapping and redundant bureaucracies.67 Since then, the Administration has indicated an interest in restructuring recycling. At the Commission's hearing in November, the Secretary for Environmental Protection said:
Given the growing efforts of the [Board] to achieve
broad reduction in waste generation, and increasing reuse and
recycling, we need an organizational structure that integrates
the efforts of the established [2020] program into the larger,
comprehensive waste management program of the [Board].... I would
argue that ... if consolidation is not made to these programs
that conflicts will grow in intensity.68
On January 5, 1994, in his State of the State address,
Governor Pete Wilson proposed the elimination of the Integrated
Waste Management Board. In the summary of his proposed fiscal
year 1993-1994 budget, he said: In order to realize greater efficiencies in government through the consolidation of related functions, it is proposed that the Integrated Waste Management Board be eliminated and its functions, along with the recycling program responsibilities of the Division of Recycling, be transferred to a new Department of Waste Management in Cal-EPA.69 | |
|
Industry leaders
back concept of comprehensive, streamlined program |
C
hange is sought as well by those directly affected
by the State's recycling efforts. While industry representatives
at the Commission's hearing were not enthusiastic about a new
role for the Integrated Waste Management Board in this area, there
was support from several for a comprehensive recycling program
for California that would absorb and streamline the 2020 program.
Quoting from testimony presented to the Commission:
The identification of a governmental apparatus that
can accomplish the wide variety of missions inherent in comprehensive
recycling requires careful analysis. From research and testimony,
it is clear that both the Department and the Board, in addition
to their overlapping functions, have organizational deficiencies
that limit their ability to assume leadership in a comprehensive,
integrated recycling program.
Such a realignment was recommended by the Legislature
in its Supplemental Report of the 1992 Budget Act and again
by the Legislative Analyst's Office in its Analysis of the
1993-94 Budget Act. The Legislature currently is looking at
consolidation through such proposals as SB 1089 (Killea). This
legislation seeks to transfer the Division of Recycling into the
Board and would reduce the size of the Board itself from six to
five appointees, a move recommended in the 1989 Little Hoover
Commission report on solid waste management as a necessity to
break deadlocked decision-making.74 | |
|
Putting 2020
program into Board mandate has little backing |
H
owever in general, support for transferring the smaller
beverage container program into the larger Board mandate is lacking.
The chairman of the Integrated Waste Management Board reported
at the Commission's hearing his finding of "no compelling
reason" to move the Division under the Board. He further
observed that such a transfer would probably just result in the
Division of Recycling being left intact and operated as it has
been at the Department.75
This option of a straight across-the-board transfer
was also found wanting by most industry spokespersons at the Commission
hearing. One noted:
While there may be some initial elimination of
duplicate functions, there may be little else accomplished by
merging the two organizations. In fact, merging the two organizations
may result in more confusion for all affected parties during the
transition and a less responsible administrator in the future.76
The spokesman for the Institute of Scrap Recyclers
Industries offered a similar view, noting that the Division of
Recycling was "a hands-on, accessible administrative agency
that is geared for the day-to-day operation of the kind of recycling
program that is currently in effect within the state."77 This
view is commonly cited. The Department is generally credited by
observers as having been an effective manager of a complex program
and has been accessible to participants in the 2020 process.
| |
|
Snail's pace of
Board action may not fit program needs |
T
he same observers fear that the beverage container
recycling program would become lost and mismanaged within the
Board's ponderous administrative processes, the key deficiency
cited by the Board's critics. Several examples of the Board's
decision-making process are illustrative of these concerns:
The Board has earned a reputation as a slow-moving
bureaucracy with a history of its six-member panel frequently
being involved in contentious debate. The unusual four-to-two
vote requirement fosters inaction, as does reliance on six committees,
each chaired by a board member, to which issues are assigned for
study. The chairpersons may engage in their own turf wars over
issues, and several committees can become involved either concurrently
or consecutively with a single study. This has contributed to
Board staff being diverted and important work being extremely
late or, in the view of some, simply buried. | |
|
Some see Board
as redundant and ready for elimination |
T
here is also the concern of some that the Board's
mandates and missions either have already been accomplished or
are duplicative of other agencies. This view sees the Board as
a redundant and expensive bureaucracy that can be terminated by
the transfer of its functions to other units of government, primarily
because the Board has already completed its major mission by having
assisted local governments put into place their solid waste plans
and management practices. All, or almost all, of these preliminary
documents, which are designed to meet the diversion goals of 1995
and 2000, have been approved,79 and it is believed that approval
of future updates does not necessarily require the continuation
of the present Board structure.
In addition, the Board's role in approving or denying
local government's plans for specific solid waste facilities is
said to be duplicative of decisions made by the regional water
quality control boards and the air quality maintenance districts.
It has been noted that since Cal-EPA is already working with the
Department of Toxics Substances Control to minimize similar duplications
in the conduct of its business, a future transfer of the Board's
regulatory function to that department would find many problems
of overlap already resolved.80
Among some interests there is also a belief that
the Integrated Waste Management Board is too closely involved
in solid waste management to be able to fully recognize that recyclables
should not be viewed as "solid waste" but as valuable
commodities, which are as important as any raw material used for
industrial feedstock. This issue goes beyond public policy goals
and has practical day-to-day management consequences. New debates
are being held over definitions of solid waste as the Legislature,
courts and regulating agencies attempt to address the increasing
interest in determining who has control of, or access to, valuable
materials in the solid waste stream. For instance, SB 450 (Dills)
proposes to add this language to the Public Resources Code: "Nothing
in the division ... limits the right of any person to donate or
sell any recyclable material which is source separated by material
type." Of key importance, this bill would also remove from
the existing legal definition the criterion that material becomes
solid waste only when it is discarded, which would be a
significant change.
Addressing the same issue, another bill, SB 1074
(Calderon), would add a new definition to the Public Resources
Code that defines "recovered materials" as those having
known recycling potential and which have been removed from the
solid waste stream for "sale, use, or reuse as raw materials."
The bill proposes that when recovered materials are removed from
the solid waste stream, they are no longer solid waste.81 | |
|
Recyclable goods
have too much value to be viewed as solid waste |
C
oncern over the practical impact of these definitions
was expressed at the Commission hearing by the representative
of the Institute of Scrap Recyclers Industries (ISRI), who argued
that "recyclable materials, in and of themselves, are not
solid waste" and that his industry's scrap, which annually
equates to about 8.5 million tons (including out-of-state imports),
are "valuable commodities." The speaker added that the
management of recycling programs should not be conducted by a
solid waste-oriented agency, since recyclable material is not
solid waste and requires special treatment.82
Thus, the solid waste management mandate of the Board
continues to be an argument against expansion of its role in recycling
operations. Ironically, this is the same point that was made in
1986 when the placement of the 2020 program went to the Department
and not to the solid waste board that preceded the current Board.
Taking into consideration the wide-ranging criticisms,
there is ample documentation for concerns that the Integrated
Waste Management Board has structural and operational deficiencies
that weigh against its selection as the proper agency to coordinate
all recycling efforts.
However, an equally compelling argument is that the human use of materials, in this case resulting in garbage itself, interjects other issues of health, safety and pollution control that are more appropriately addressed by the state agency responsible for environmental protection. In addition, many believe the Department is not well-suited to take on the overall task of promoting broad-based recycling. | |
|
Department would
be overwhelmed by housing all reuse, recycling |
T
he present Division of Recycling lacks the flexibility
and placement to assume all the resource reuse and recycling programs
that are now in the Board. It is housed in a department that has
a wide range of non-recycling functions, primarily regarding earth
sciences and mineral resources (oil and gas, mining and geology,
earthquake and landslide maps, farmland mapping). Subordination
of resource reuse programs within such a department puts several
levels of administrative overview between the recycling administrator
and the Agency Secretary, reducing both the program's prestige
and the ability to accelerate decision-making. In addition, with
increasing numbers of tasks that would be required of a comprehensive
program, the Division of Recycling would soon outgrow its own
Department.
Elevation of the beverage container recycling program,
alone, into a full department within the Resources Agency would
not resolve the issue of accountability and would only encourage
even more competition with the Board. If all the recycling functions
now in the Board were also transferred to a new department in
the Resources Agency, centralization of these activities would
be secured. Still remaining, however, would be the key issue of
accountability and the ability of a single Agency Secretary to
oversee all programs having interrelated problems and opportunities.
And this type of reorganization would still leave the solid waste
facilities regulation and the toxic substances functions at Cal-EPA
under the review of the Secretary for Environmental Protection.
As long as any of the waste management and resource
recycling units of government continue to be placed under two
different agency secretaries, some degree of overlap and failed
coordination will occur, and California will continue to lack
a comprehensive recycling program.
If neither the present Integrated Waste Management
Board nor the existing Department of Conservation is the ideal
location for a reorganized, focused and comprehensive recycling
program, then what are more suitable options?
At the Commission hearing, the Secretary for Environmental
Protection offered three principles that he believed had to be
met in establishing a consolidated recycling system: simplicity,
cost-effectiveness and environmental and economic accountability.84
In this study, the Commission has adapted these criteria to evaluate
several proposals regarding reorganization of recycling:
| |
|
Cal-EPA Secretary
outlined several options to reorganize recycling |
A
t the Commission's hearing, the Secretary for Environmental
Protection presented several options for organization of the state's
recycling programs, with one merging the Division into the Board,
but all others involving the creation of a new department to be
placed within Cal-EPA. He suggested that such a new department
could:
The Secretary believed that any of these options
could "achieve significant pay-offs in terms of improved
public education, effective outreach, reduced costs, and a new
ability to manage all waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs
through a single point of accountability."
Using the criteria of accountability, economy
and effectiveness, a variety of options for
reorganization, including those proposed by the Secretary, were
evaluated (see Appendix C for the item-by-item analysis).
These are the findings from that process:
| |
|
Creating new
department could save more than $11 million/year |
A
new Department of Recycling could result in substantial
operational savings arising from the termination of the Division
and the Board. The Department of Conservation has estimated savings
of more than $11 million per year from a combined operation of
the recycling functions of the two agencies, as follows:
In addition, there would be savings of an unknown
amount by integrating Board regulatory staff into the Department
of Toxic Substances Control's similar operations. The termination
of salaries for Board members, their advisors and committee analysts
would reduce operational costs by a minimum of $1.3 million a
year (not including state car usage and overhead).86 Hence, overall
savings could total well over $12 million annually. While this
estimate may be somewhat optimistic, the option of creating a
new Department of Recycling by terminating both the Division and
the Board does offer important fiscal benefits.
In summary, even when the recycling projects of the
Integrated Waste Management Board and the Department of Conservation
are not in direct conflict or duplicative of each other -- which
is often -- they still are not mutually reinforcing. Because of
"turf battles" between the two agencies, coordination
has not been adequate to ensure that their staffs, investments
and programs work consistently toward implementing the State's
goals of waste reduction and resource reuse and recycling. This
lack of one voice has resulted in public confusion and the failure
to make maximum use of staff expertise and agency resources. Reorganization
offers the opportunity to eliminate these problems, strengthen
the State's recycling posture and save substantial funding through
consolidation of staffs.
Recommendation #1: The Governor and the Legislature should
enact legislation establishing a consolidated and comprehensive
waste reduction, resource reuse and recycling program within Cal-EPA.
| |
|
B
ased on the Commission's analysis, the best approach
to reorganizing the State's recycling program to produce a higher
level of effectiveness and efficiency is to eliminate both the
Division of Recycling and the Integrated Waste Management Board,
creating in their place a single consolidated department under
Cal-EPA. Other alternatives also offer improvements, although
not of the same magnitude. The grid on the next page shows the
options that the Commission has reviewed and concluded would be
workable. All options eliminate the present Division of Recycling
and move recycling responsibilities from the Resources Agency
to Cal-EPA.
The mechanics of implementing the optimum recommendation
are detailed in Appendix D. |
||
|
|||
Choice | Optimum Recommendation | ||
Overview | Create Department of Solid Waste Management within Cal-EPA to handle all "reduce, reuse, recycle" programs and integrated waste management policies | Create Department of Recycling within Cal-EPA, transferring some functions from the Integrated Waste Management Board | Move all recycling functions to an improved Integrated Waste Management Board |
Status of present entities under options | Eliminate the Division of Recycling; eliminate the Integrated Waste Management Board | Eliminate Division of Recycling; retain Integrated Waste Management Board but removes some functions | Eliminate Division of Recycling; reform the Integrated Waste Management Board to a 5-member board |
New division of functions | The new department would handle everything now covered by the Division and the Board. An alternative with only minor modifications would shift the Board's current waste facility regulatory and waste transformation functions to the existing Department of Toxic Substances Control (which could be renamed the Department of Toxic and Solid Waste Management), leaving all other functions to the new department (which could be named the Department of Resource Reuse and Recycling). | The new department would incorporate all of the Division and the recycling public information and market development functions of the Board. The Board would continue to have authority over waste plans, solid waste facilities, waste transformation and source reduction. | The Division would be folded into the Board's current operations. The Board would be reformed to make it more accountable and efficient in operation, including reducing the membership from six to five so that deadlocked votes do not occur. |
|
Recommendation #2: Until the consolidation and reorganization
occurs, the Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation
clarifying that the California Integrated Waste Management Board
is the lead agency for all recycling issues outside of toxic substances
and beverage containers.
T
his legislation should identify the Board as the
lead agency in general recycling issues, resolving issues of duplication
and overlap. As a starting point, the legislation at minimum should
consolidate in the Board:
This act should also clarify that the use of funds
generated by beverage container recycling is to be limited to
functions related to the AB 2020 program. Such legislation should
also change the Board's composition from six to five, with the
chairperson appointed at the pleasure of the Governor.
Recommendation #3: The California Integrated Waste Management
Board and the Department of Conservation should execute a memorandum
of understanding to resolve areas of overlap and duplication.
| |
|
T
he Department and the Board can execute a memorandum
of understanding without a legislative directive. A task force
should be established as soon as possible to address the key issues
of duplication and, more importantly, program enhancement through
more effective use of expertise and resources in both agencies.
Special attention should be given to coordination of their public
education/outreach efforts, with priority given to the dual 800
number services. Since the Board has the larger mandate, it should
assume responsibility for the system.
Publications should be coordinated to ensure all
documents are consistent with the intent of the Integrated Waste
Management Act. Especially important is the issue of school curricula
development. Because of the legislative mandate given to the Board
and its resulting work with the Department of Education, the Department
of Conservation should cease producing more teacher packets and
should work with the Board and the Department of Education to
determine how its existing material can be used within the legislatively
mandated program. The joint agency task force should address this
matter as a top priority and ensure all efforts are fully and
promptly merged.
Recommendation #4: The California Integrated Waste Management
Board, the Department of Conservation and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control should establish an on-going task force to
coordinate all market and technology development activities of
the three agencies, with the immediate task of integrating CALMAX
(Board), the California Market Watch (Department) and the California
Waste Exchange (Toxic Substances) programs into a single computerized
format. | |
|
B
ecause the long-range future of recycling hinges
on market development, it is critical for the State to maximize
its efforts in this area. The current splintered efforts fail
to make the best use of resources and expertise. A task force
coordinated by the Office of the Secretary for Environmental Protection
would be best positioned to resolve problems and overlap in these
areas. |
|
| ||
|
Streamlining
Recycling
Recommendations :
| ||
Finding #2: The complexity of the beverage container
recycling program hinders its expansion, undermines cost-effective
implementation and increases opportunities for fraud.
|
T
he 2020 beverage container recycling program is a
complex mechanism that the State has designed to push containers
through a collection and reuse system, with financial penalties
and incentives -- rather than free-market forces -- prodding participation
by consumers and industry alike. The complexity and imperfections
of the program have led to continuous criticism and calls for
change. The original perception that the program would be a prototype
for other recycling efforts has faded, since the effort to efficiently
link government regulation and market processes has been viewed
by many as a failure. Especially cited for reform attention are
costly subsidies for convenience-zone recycling centers and a
convoluted, fluctuating processing fee structure. In addition,
the program limitation to containers for beverages that are carbonated,
while other similar container materials are excluded, is seen
as confusing to the public and limiting the recycling program
in an illogical way. And the complexity of the program, with large
amounts of money passing through multiple hands, continues to
cause concern that fraud is possible. The 2020 program was created as the State's prototype
recycling program with the goal of recovering and processing 80
percent of the aluminum, glass, plastic and bimetal containers
for certain beverages sold in California. The act lists the beverages
that require container recycling: carbonated mineral and soda
waters, soft drinks, beer and malt beverages, wine coolers and
distilled spirit coolers.87
The physical flow of containers and fee payments
in the 2020 program is complex, as is shown by the chart88 on the
next page:
A
s the chart indicates, a variety of participants
and funding methods are involved in the 2020 program:
The total CRV paid to the Department by distributors has grown from $85 million in 1987-1988 to almost $344 million in 1992-1993. During that same period, the amount of CRV the Department paid out ranged from $32 million in 1987-1988 to almost $266 million in 1992-1993.89 | |
|
Unclaimed funds
from containers not recycled pays for Department |
B
ecause not every container is redeemed by consumers,
unclaimed funds are used to finance the operation of the Division
of Recycling itself. In 1987-1988, its first year of operation,
the Division had 77 employees and an operational expenditure of
$9,893,126. Today the Division administers a recycling fund of
about $350 million, has a staff of 171 and a budget of $24,132,942.90
The Department also uses unclaimed CRV funds for
several purposes related to the 2020 program: financing the logistical
process of recycling in "convenience zone" centers (via
payment of a "handling fee" which replaced the earlier
version called a "convenience incentive payment"), as
well as for litter abatement, grants, public education and information
outreach, and other legislative assignments.
The AB 2020 act is acknowledged by all involved to
be complex, but that it has been successful is also clearly evident.
As Table 2 on the next page illustrates, within a relatively short
time the Department has secured dramatic increases in beverage
container collection. |
Table 2
| ||
1988 | 6.1 billion | 52% |
1989 | 6.9 billion | 56% |
1990 | 9.3 billion | 70% |
1991 | 10.5 billion | 82% |
1992 | 10.3 billion | 80% |
1993 (1st half) |
3.8 billion |
90% |
Source: Department of Conservation
|
A
s the table indicates, overall rates have climbed
from a 1988 level of 52 percent return of all containers sold
in the State to 90 percent in the first half of 1993. The return
rate for containers varies by material type, as Table 3 below
indicates. |
Table 3
| ||||
| Number Rate | Number Rate | Number Rate | Number Rate | |
1988 | 5.4 billion 61% | 665 million 35% |
24.3 million 4% | 13,237 .2% |
1989 | 5.9 billion 64% | 945 million 40% |
37.9 million 7% | 199,890 2% |
1990 | 7.5 billion 76% | 1.6 billion 57% |
171.8 million 31% |
314,760 3% |
1991 | 8.2 billion 85% | 1.8 billion 71% |
299.8 million 56% |
878,207 14% |
1992 | 8.4 billion 85% | 1.7 billion 72% |
371.5 million 68% |
796,519 12% |
Source: Department of Conservation
|
A
s Table 3 indicates, in 1992 aluminum was recycled
at a rate of 85 percent, glass at 72 percent, plastic at 68 percent
and bi-metal cans at 12 percent. The major beverage container
types have exceeded the 65 percent mandated in AB 2020, with one
also meeting the 80 percent goal established in the act and the
other two showing progress in that direction.
The early and growing success from a recycling policy
perspective led the Department to write glowingly in its 1989-90
Annual Report about the benefits of the program, even for the
industry it affects the most: In return for their cooperation in solving some of these recycling problems, manufacturers have greater volumes of reclaimed materials to remanufacture into marketable products. The remanufacturing process is less expensive and uses less energy than manufacturing from raw materials. The results are economically and environmentally positive for everyone associated with beverage container consumption and production in California.91 | |
|
Industry leaders
complain about 2020's cost, complexity |
W
hile there is common agreement that recycling does
offer multiple economic and environmental benefits, the report's
conclusion that the community of beverage and container manufacturers
finds the overall process to be "economically and environmentally
positive" was not justified. In fact, industry's displeasure
with the 2020 program has been and continues to be significant.
For example, a spokesperson for the glass packaging industry has
called it "perhaps a noble experiment, but unquestionably
a failed experiment."92 At the Commission's hearing, the representative from the Plastic Recycling Corporation of California declared
that "2020 is complex beyond the imagination," adding,
"The law inflicts a set of costs and regulations that run
contrary to free marketplace economics" and "perhaps
most perplexing to all affected parties is that this law is so
complex, always changing and intellectually confusing."93 Another industry spokesperson also noted that the container recycling
program was a "system of subsidies and hidden costs."94
The complaints of industry participants center on
four contentions:
Both the 2020 program and comprehensive proposals
to build on the program to achieve broader-based recycling would
appear to face an unclear future unless existing complexities
and deficiencies can be resolved. Two areas most often pinpointed
as key problems are the mandated convenience zones, with their
associated handling fees, and the processing fee.
One of the major innovations of AB 2020 was to establish
a "convenience zone" -- a half-mile circle around each
major grocery store -- within which the "dealers" (those,
other than restaurants and bars, who sell beverage containers
to consumers) must contract with a recycling organization to maintain
a container-redemption service in the grocery store parking lot
if a center is not already in the zone.95
If the dealers do not establish a recycling center,
each is required to receive empties and handle the deposits and
refund payments themselves, in the manner of the traditional bottle
bills. During the development of AB 2020, the convenience zones
were conceived as a compromise to meet the concerns of retailers
who did not want to handle returned containers and advocates who
felt recycling would not occur if drop-off points were not convenient
for consumers.
There are a total of 1,824 convenience zones in operation
throughout the State. Of this number, 1,441 recycling operations,
called supermarket sites, are located in grocery store parking
lots96 and can apply for "handling fees," which are state
subsidies from the recycling fund that are designed to reduce
the unprofitability of these operations. This fee guarantees that
centers processing at least 6,000 containers a month will receive
1.7 cents for each aluminum and glass container and 3.4 cents
for each plastic bottle (with a ceiling established at $2,300
a month). |
|
Convenience zone
centers appear expensive and inefficient |
F
rom October 1988 through December 1993, the public
subsidy of the convenience zone system of supermarket recycling
centers has totaled $82.4 million.97 The supermarket sites collect
only about 12 percent of beverage containers that are recycled,98
leading many to the conclusion that they are overly expensive
to operate and inefficient in practice. Increasingly, the view
of many participants in the 2020 program is that the convenience
mandate should be eliminated, thereby causing marketplace decisions
to guide recycling centers in determining if an area can be profitably
served without a subsidy. This would surely result in abandonment
of many sites, with only some of the old zones being taken over
by the larger, more-established recycling companies or by local
nonprofit groups. One result would be that consumers would have
fewer places to claim their container refunds, especially in the
short term.
The research organization California Futures and
others have argued that consumers who pay into the redemption
system with every beverage container purchase deserve the right
to be able to get their money back conveniently.99 In addition,
representatives of one of the industries operating the supermarket
centers have argued that their share of the CRV returns has ensured
that the 65 percent recycling target was reached.100 Others, however,
believe that today's increasing number of curbside collection
services is likely to ensure recycling levels remain above the
65 percent statutory mandate.
Advocates of eliminating the convenience-zone approach
believe other alternatives would meet concerns about consumer
convenience. The scrap industry favors a population-based system
with a three-tiered approach to urban, suburban and rural areas.101
This system would use census tracts to identify the boundaries
of cost-effective "recycling districts." Each district
would be drawn to include a population base large enough to ensure
profitable operations for a single certified recycling center
that is the sole CRV buy-back operator in that area. A competitive
bidding process for management of each district would be required,
with the Department making selections. Legislation could establish
preference points for operators already in the district and for
those that will process more than just CRV-covered materials,
such as newspapers.
These zones could develop into the "infrastructure"
for a future comprehensive recycling system that accepts all or
most recyclable materials. Such an expansion has not been available
at the supermarket sites with their space constraints. A State-run
bidding process would also allow the return to one of the original
premises behind convenience zones, which was to provide nonprofit
and community service organizations an opportunity to make money
for their causes.
Since existing recycling service in rural and even
many suburban areas remains inconvenient or nonexistent, it is
anticipated greater state resources would be needed to establish
and fund recycling service. In areas where population is small
or wide-spread, it may be necessary to rely on a variety of services
for the much larger zones, including a mix of non-profit operations,
professional recyclers, curbside service, mobile units and even
retention of existing grocery store centers. Subsidies for collection
service in low population areas, and perhaps others, would also
be required, at least for the short term. But many believe that
the subsidies required for such a system would fall short of the
funds now spent for the convenience zones. |
|
Processing fee
creates subsidies but is complex, constantly shifting | A nother innovation of AB 2020 was the "processing fee," which was designed to make the complex logisti |