Category: Advocacy

Zero Waste At G7 Workshop

EPA Hosts International G7 Alliance On Resource Efficiency Workshop on Sustainable Supply Chain Management
By Gary Liss, Gary Liss & Associates, 04/14/16
With support from The Northern California Recycling Association, U.S. Zero Waste Business Council and Zero Waste USA, I attended the first G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency workshop held in the United States. The Alliance, founded at the June 2015 G7 Summit, is a forum to share knowledge, create information networks across G7 countries, and encourage collaboration with businesses – large and small, and relevant stakeholders to advance resource efficiency, promote voluntary best practices and foster innovation. The G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States; the European Union is also represented.

Hosted by the USEPA, the workshop was held in the Washington, DC area on March 22-23, 2016. Over 150 dignitaries, corporate and government leaders and non-governmental organizations were invited to participate by Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Response, the highest ranking person in the USEPA responsible for solid waste and recycling. The meeting focus was the use of life cycle concepts in supply chain management to achieve resource efficiency. The automotive industry was showcased as an example where resource efficiency efforts have been pursued.

Speakers from the U.S. included Mr. Stanislaus, Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and representatives from General Motors, Toyota North America, Ford, 3M, General Electric, Mars Corporation, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, Johnson Controls, University of Tennessee UN Environmental Program, US Business Council on Sustainable Development,  Sustainable Purchasing Leadership Council and the Materials Marketplace, Stuffstr, Novelis Aluminum, Suppliers Partnership for the Environment. Bob Gedert, Austin Resource Recovery, and I were the key Zero Waste advocates there – in addition to leading Zero Waste businesses GM and Toyota. Bob was also there as President of the National Recycling Coalition.

The first day focused on upstream issues, and how to address resource efficiency in product design. It was one of the most exhaustive discussions I’ve ever heard on these issues. In addition to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like GM and Toyota, they had several auto parts recycling speakers. The latter provided some great ideas like asking the OEMs to label parts and participate in a database that would facilitate the use of salvaged and remanufactured parts. The remanufactured parts speaker suggested OEMs help promote these parts as “good as new”, as they are of the same quality and functionality and carry the same warranty as new. A presenter from Japan highlighted that remanufactured auto parts are used significantly more in the U.S. than in Japan, and they are trying to figure out why. One factor is that U.S. insurance companies allow remanufactured parts to replace broken ones. The discussion also highlighted how insurance companies could be a key partner in fostering reuse, and how that industry is championing addressing climate change – due in part to the potential catastrophic losses they may have to cover.

In the smaller group discussions, many ideas were presented and discussed how life cycle analyses (LCAs) and the more general life cycle management approach (LCM) could help with designing for resource efficiency. One of the best models was how 3M uses LCAs and LCM in evaluating new products. Traditional LCAs are very costly and time consuming, and not needed for all products. For 3M, they developed LCMs as a less rigorous tool that’s more of a checklist then the detailed analysis that would be done as part of a LCA.

I asked if a LCA yielded a result that recommended an approach inconsistent with Zero Waste, could they go beyond the LCA outcome? I highlighted the classic case shared by David Allaway of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, of a flexible, non-recyclable pouch being the better container for coffee than a steel can after a LCA was conducted. I suggested that manufactures could go beyond accepting a non-recyclable product and work on designing one that was reusable, recyclable or compostable. (For example, OSC2 of Piedmont, CA is working to develop a backyard compostable pouch for organic food products.) 3M responded that LCAs are only one of many tools used in evaluating new products and they could certainly go beyond LCA conclusions. 3M also noted that there has been an effort globally to develop a consistent framework for conducting LCAs that is due to be completed this year. That effort is also working to develop a simpler, more accessible LCM approach.

The second day, the focus was more on how to improve resource efficiency at product end of use and end of life. Stuffstr.com was an intriguing example of how new software/social media may assist consumers in tracking the value of their stuff, and where to recover the highest value when ready to discard it – whether selling as is, as repurposed, or recycled, depending on its condition.

In a small group discussion on Zero Waste and maximizing the value of discarded materials, after insightful presentations by GM and Toyota, we had a great brainstorm about what could be done, why it wasn’t being done, and what could be done to enhance Zero Waste and resource efficiency. Some of the ideas discussed are listed below in G7 Zero Waste Small Group Brainstorm.

A full USEPA report from the Workshop is due out in June. Mathy Stanislaus will be keynoting the 5th National Zero Waste Business Conference in Austin on June 3 where he will highlight the most significant outcomes from this Workshop.

I’d like to thank NCRA for their support of my participation in this important event. One of the most valuable things we can get from these impressive efforts to promote the circular economy, resource efficiency and Sustainable Materials Management (SMM), is a seat at the table so we can directly encourage businesses to consider Zero Waste in the design of products, packaging and services. If anyone is interested in working more in this area, let me know. I am co-chair of the SMM Committee of the National Recycling Coalition and would like to connect you with others working in this arena. I can be reached at gary@garyliss.com.

ZWAC Minutes, January 2016

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION
ZERO WASTE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MONTHLY MEETING, January, 2015   DRAFT.

This meeting was held on Tuesday, January 12, 2015 at the offices of John Moore, 1970 Broadway, 9th floor, Oakland. Called for 6 p.m. Call-in number is 510/891-9800.

Present were Chair Boone and committee members   Brooms, Knapp, Moore, Russell, Van Deventer, Wright, and Yee; no call-ins. The meeting started at 6:16 p.m. Minutes of the November meeting are now available but were not discussed. The meeting scheduled for December was canceled due to Boone’s illness. Yee (assisted by Boone) served as secretary.

AGENDA

Item 1: Zero Waste Plans in the Northeast Bay: David Tam, presenting.
This matter was pulled in Tam’s absence (We later learned he was ill and could not come.)

Item 2: CalRecycles meeting on December 15th regarding the state’s plan to meet 75% diversion. Arthur Boone, presenting.
Boone was present at this meeting; his first with Scott Smithline as ExDir. Boone was impressed with the openness of staff to new issues and concerns and pleased that our side on questions was well represented (Nick Lapis, Gary Liss, and others); the Waste Reduction and Garbage people were on equal footing. Staff’s major concern seemed to be the shortage of funds needed to capitalize organics processing operations that is widely expected to be the major part of getting to 75%. If the state gets to 75% and CR has only $1.40 per ton in revenue, then we will have a problem. AB 1063 (Das Williams) would raise tipping fees from $1.40/ton to $4.00/ton, (which CR likes), but while Boone does not have any objection to that increase, he would like to see the state trim its staff rather than relying on the taxpayer. (There are 750 employees in all of CalRecycles (includes old Department of Conservation folks) and includes facility regulators. Knapp suggested we ask CR to tell us at RU what all those 750 workers actually do.

Discussion ensued regarding fees for recycling and the issue of declining revenues in revenues from tipping fees. Administrators at CalRecycle expressed concerns around 1) declining revenue 2) how to reach 75% 3) how would the state collect fees? 4) why do the majority of our recyclables end up offshored? In Northern CA we already have a substantial composting infrastructure so Boone thinks the building of composting’s infrastructure should be funded by Southern California as Northern California’s infrastructure has already been developed with our ratepayers’ funds, not the state’s. Staff thinks it will cost about $630 million dollars to develop sufficient organics processing facilities. Some of it may be funded with cap and trade money, but there will be a significant remainder to fund. Knapp noted that the ADC Loophole has not yet been closed yet, and will not be closed until 2020. It was also mentioned that Southern California’s role in regenerative farming is significant since there is ample rangeland and desert. Reference to Alan Savory who long preceded the Marin Carbon Project. Boone said he thought that the crunch point on organics diversion is not markets but getting food out of the trash.

Boone thinks that California, like Oregon, needs to develop capture rate data so that we can have some sense of how successful current diversion programs are. Mary Lou disagreed, thinking that if enough stuff showed up in the landfill audits, that would be data enough. Boone disagreed. Krueger recounted the original AB 939 statistical problems and the 1994 calculated generation data we live with today.

Another topic discussed at the meeting was the offshoring of most of our recyclables for reprocessing and conversion back into basic goods. Boone thinks the state is dodging the fact that California has pursued a de-industrialization program for at least a generation and that paper mills, smelters, glass plants, etc. have been closed and not replaced with in-state capacity. Boone thinks there’s a conspiracy not to talk about the lack of reprocessing infrastructure in the state although plastic reprocessors have been moving ahead here in smaller facilities.

Another topic at this meeting was how the state should collect larger fees, from the local public agencies or the landfills; Boone recounted her had asvised the CR leaders to keep the fees on the landfills.

Kruger had transcribed CalRecycle’s goals for this meeting and reported they were:1)organics out of landfills, 2)expand recycling composting infrastructure, 3) how to fund zero waste programs in the face of declining tipping revenues, 4) state procurement of PCW products, and 5)promoting EPR. Boone noted that the current level of 31 million tons disposal would be cut to 16 million tons per year if we go from 50% to 75%.

Item 3: Voluntary Producer Responsibility [VPR]. Tom Wright, presenting.
Tom was present at the VPR meeting convened by Cal Recycles on January 4 in Sacramento. All major representatives of manufacturers in packaging industries were present EPR was discussed, with comparative discussion of the approaches in the US and Sweden. The meeting showed a propensity of the packaging industry to encourage incineration, and they were certainly not supportive of EPR; nobody spoke out against incineration. [Wright had copies of the ACC’s “Circular Vision for Plastics Recovery” that included “energy recovery” as a suitable end of post-consumer plastics.]

There seems to be a serious interest in stabilizing and unifying the lists of recyclable and compostable materials on the state level. Tom thinks that the packaging industry needs to develop its own plan for sustainable (i.e., no burn, no bury) packaging. Boone thought we should write CR staff on this question but it was generally agreed that too few of us had looked at the presentations from the meeting that are now on-line. No firm action to be taken; Boone and Wright will confer to plan next steps.

Item 4: Should NCRA solicit or accept as Zero Waste Week sponsors persons or entities that own landfills and/or incinerators? John Moore, presenting.
Moore moves and Knapp seconds. Moore thinks that we should not receive sponsorships from haulers and wasters as it would compromise the judgment of NCRA, the recipient and encourages greenwashing. Russell proposes to amend with caveats that sponsors shall not receive sponsorship promotion and funds shall be restricted to activities such as transportation for youth; Moore refuses to amend motion. Van Deventer then offers that NCRA memberships are for individuals so that the organization cannot be bought; NCRA did not take organizational sponsorships for a long time. Knapp then recounted some of his experiences with the NRC in the 1990s when Dow Chemical tried to exert undue influence on the NRC and there was a subsequent decline in membership which took down the National Recycling Coalition. If NCRA permits higher level sponsorships the organization would be compromised. Motion is then voted with 5 ayes (Knapp, VanDeventer, Yee, Boone, and Moore), none voting no, with four abstentions: Brooms, Tom Wright, Kruger, and Russell. The matter will be considered at the board meeting after the annual meeting on January 21st.

Item 5: Endorse Transfer Station Rebuild in Berkeley. Mary Lou VanDeventer, presenting. Van Deventer requested that the NCRA board write to Berkeley City Council to fund the rebuilding of the transfer station. ESA in 2005 recommended a complete rebuild of the area for maximizing recovery. Urban Ore made a redesign that would allow for rebuilding while the current transfer station is in operation. Kriss Worthington wants to put in the rebuilding of the transfer station in the city’s 2016 “wish list”(the matter needs to be prioritized financially by City of Berkeley before funding issues can be explored). Knapp noted that El Cerrito is drawing people away from Berkeley with its elaborate drop-off; Berkeley needs to re-capture the market. Moore suggested that he, as a boardmember, collaborate with Van Deventer and Knapp to draft this letter and then circulate as per board policy. Mary Lou accepted this plan..
Announcements: Krueger would like us to consider a position on the single use bag ban referendum at our next ZWAC meeting. Wright also circulated a letter signed by many “green” California non-profits and LPAs (but not NCRA) calling on the legislature to fully spend the $1.7 billion sitting in the cap-and-trade fund; no discussion.

Adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

Next meeting should be on February 8th; location TBD.
Respectfully submitted,
Herman Yee (with Arthur R. Boone), Acting Secretary

 

America Recycles Day Letter To Recycling Businesses, 2014

The 18th Annual “America Recycles Day” (ARD) will be on November 15, 2014.  ARD is the only nationally recognized day dedicated to encouraging Americans to recycle and buy recycled content products.  Since 1997, the ARD campaign has grown to nearly two thousand events, with more Americans pledging to increase their recycling habits at home and work.

There is no better opportunity to draw attention to the nation’s woeful consumption and discards habits that America Recycles Day.  According to the US EPA, in 2012, Americans generated 251 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), or 4.38 pounds per person per day.  Included however are 65 million tons of recycled and 21 million tons of composted materials, for a total diversion rate of 34.5%.

For 2012, the manufacturing of products to include reclaimed materials had saved our nation 1.1 quadrillion BTUs of energy (enough for 10 million households per year), and avoided 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (equivalent to removing 33 million passenger vehicles from our roads per year).  The reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) are beneficial towards global warming and climate change.  Additional benefits of recycling include the creation of jobs, pollution reduction, conservation of virgin materials and natural resources, and preservation of landfill capacities.

The Northern California Recycling Association (NCRA) is a non-profit organization with about 200 members, mostly throughout the Bay Area, representing a broad spectrum of the recycling community.  NCRA promotes waste reduction, reuse, salvaging, recycling, and composting as vital tools for resource and energy conservation, and as cost-effective, environmentally sound methods of disposing of discarded materials.  We support America Recycles Day, and have taken the online pledge and encourage others to take pledges likewise in solidarity.

In the short time remaining, consider whether your business and employees would be willing to also take pledges to help expand public awareness, underscore the importance of and the many benefits of recycling, and to recommit the role of your business.  You’ll find a link to the pledge and a partial listing of Bay Area ARD events at our web site www.ncrarecycles.org.

Whether or not your organization will support or participate in an ARD event this year, thanks for your ongoing efforts to help transform the public from the garbage as usual paradigm, more towards a zero waste mentality.  Thanks for sharing this with others.
Sincerely,
Laura McKaughan, President
NCRA Board of Directors
www.ncrarecycles.org  ncrarecycles@gmail.com

ZWAC Minutes, September 2015

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION ::
ZERO WASTE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MONTHLY MEETING, September, 2015   DRAFT.

This meeting was held on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at the offices of John Moore, 1970 Broadway, 9th floor, Oakland. Called for 6 p.m. Call-in number is 510/891-9800.

Present were Chair Boone and committee members Abbe, Brooms, Hoffman, Krueger, McKaughan, Moore, Wright and Yee; no call-ins. The meeting started at 6:07 p.m. Minutes of the August meeting were not discussed. Boone served as secretary.

NCRA POLICY ON ZERO WASTE: Abbe, presenting. There is currently a large conflict within the WR&R industry with many different ideas about what should be acceptable Zero Waste practices. NCRA has never formally adopted the ZW International policy statement and it was moved (Abbe), seconded (McKaughan), and voted (unanimous) that the NCRA board do so. Boone suggested that the NCRA board defer action until October as the NCRA News would not be able to include this matter in its September issue but, after some discussion, that idea was withdrawn.

PROPER MANAGEMNT OF CARTONS AND ASEPTICS: Abbe, presenting. She has been working in several different school districts in Alameda County and each has a different practice because its local public agency’s contract with Davis Street MRF varies so that some USDs teach kids that aseptics are not recyclable and others teach that they are. Tom Wright contributed a lot of detailed information about aseptics, the more advanced sorting machinery available in Southern California MRFs, etc. It was agreed that Wright will write up some background on this issue and suggest what can be done.

LOCAL CO-SPONSORS FOR THE ELLISON ZW BILL IN THE CONGRESS: Boone, presenting. Boone suggested that he write on behalf of NCRA to all Bay Area congresspersons suggesting that they co-sponsor the Ellison bill, agreed. Boone to execute.

TEXTILES AT CAL RECYCLES: Hoffman, presenting. At the CR public event in March, it was revealed that the agency has no detailed knowledge of the disposition of textiles (Hoffman says 85% go to landfill) and seems to have no plans to learn or do anything else. She asked that NCRA directors write CR on this matter; McKaughan reminded the ZWAC members that the 48 hour review period required of board actions would cause any such letter to miss the Friday at 5 p.m. deadline. Boone offered to write his own letter.

FORTUNE MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON CURBSIDE’S DIRE STRAIGHTS: Boone, presenting. It was widely agreed that the article’s heavy reliance on David Steiner’s mission (to shake more cash out of the local governments who pay his firm to run curbside programs) was transparent. Wright likes TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU, a book that details how big business twists the public’s perception of environmental issues. Kruger will draft a response of the NCRA board to the Fortune article and have it passed around for improvements and approvals.
FEEDBACK TO THE ASSEMBLY WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING COMMITTEE: McKaughan, presenting. She was present on August 18th when Assemblyperson Gordon’s committee met in Sacramento to take testimony about how the future could be better than the past. Gary Liss was present and recommended that the state adopt a Zero Waste goal. After some discussion, it was agreed that McKaughan should draft a similar letter for NCRA to sign onto.

VIRTUE IN THE NEW OREGON WR&R LAW: Boone, presenting. He had heard that the new Oregon law relied heavily on life cycle assessments to determine work programs of which he had an instinctive distrust; Wright said he had discussed these issues with David Alloway (Oregon DEQ) on several occasions and found that the results of any such study were too much a function of what assumptions were made. No further action.

OUR OWN WORK ON OUTSTANDING BILLS. Brooms, presenting. NCRA did get its 199, 751, and 1052 letters in; Krueger thanked Brooms for seeing these letters out the door.

CLOSING UP: Boone indicated he is going back east in early October for two months or more;  Yee volunteered to be secretary.

Adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

Next meeting should be on October 14th; location TBD.

Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Boone, Acting Secretary

ZWAC Minutes, July 2015

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING ASSOCIATION
ZERO WASTE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MONTHLY MEETING, July, 2015

This meeting was held on Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at the offices of John Moore, 1970 Broadway, 9th floor, Oakland. Called for 6 p.m. Call-in number is 510/891-9800.

Present were Chair Boone and committee members Abbe, Connolly, Hoffman, Moore, and Russell; regrets from Brooms (South Lake Tahoe) and Yee (work). The meeting started at 6:12 p.m. Minutes of the June meeting were not discussed. Boone served as secretary.

LEGISLATION: Moore, presenting. Moore as NCRA counsel has drafted position letters on ABs 199, 888, and 1103 for Chair Boone to sign; letters will be held until next board meeting on July 16 to ratify. Each member had a copy of each letter and it was MSV to approve all three as drafted. AB 199 was “support with clarification/amendment;”AB 888 was “support,” and AB1103 was “oppose unless amended.” The most interesting discussion was on AB 1103 where Abbe clarified that the issue of grocery chains backhauling their own organics to central depots for composting could be questioned by this bill and food donations could be left to the mercy of the waste hauler if such language were to be adopted.

SUSTAINABLE RECYCLING CAMPAIGN [SRC], Abbe, presenting. The second prong of this campaign was the third/green cart for all Oakland multi-unit buildings (3500 structures); all buildings now have their carts and collections have begun. Under NCRA’s grant from the EAB, 20% are being served by using McKaughan and JJ Robinson accompanied by sorters from ILWU employed by local sorting firms to interface directly with tenants. Another 20% are being approached by Cascadia hired hands paid by WMX to speak to property managers. The June 20th kick-off in Oakland CD#5 went well for NCRA and the language tie between the sorters and the residents (mucho Espanol) was very positive. After some discussion, it was MSV that all ZWAC members and all NCRA board members should be asked to give one Saturday by the end of June to volunteer to do outreach in Oakland.

OTHER MULTI-UNITS: Jessica Connolly, presenting. She presented in general terms their work at Marin Sanitary Service in setting up four different groups of multi-unit residents and measuring response based on type and nature of their introduction to the program. Others mentioned Lily Kelly’s work reported at RU-20 and the Stopwaste commercial recycling outreach.

NCRA’S APPLICATION FOR STOPWASTE FUNDING ON FOOD WASTE REDUCTION: Abbe, presenting. The team of Moore, Blachman, and Abbe has asked Stopwaste for about $20,000 to more clearly understand the obstacles of food transfers from those holding unwanted foodstuffs to those wanting such materials; this is an outgrowth of our food waste conference last fall. No funding decision yet. Food Shift has completed a study for Santa Clara County on this issue that is now available in draft. Food Shift also has a contract now with Andronico’s to get their unsalable foodstuffs to not-for-profits.

SF GARBAGE TO SOLANO: Abbe, presenting. The City’s decision to grant a negative declaration on an EIR for the transfer of the city’s wasted resources disposal from Altamont to Hay Road/Solano County has now been appealed by an interested party and the SF Bay Chapter has voted to support that appear but not to join the appeal. The SF Group has taken no position. After some discussion, ZWAC decided not to take a position on this issue at this time.

CLOTHING COLLECTION BOXES IN HAYWARD: Alex Hofmann, presenting. After some delays, the city of Hayward has a newly-revised but not yet published draft ordinance on the rights of and controls over clothing collection box operators. Not all of the contents of the draft ordinance are yet public but some are difficult for her firm to accept. After some discussion, it was MSV that Boone would prepare a letter for board consideration on the 16th that would object to unnecessary features known of in the draft ordinance and would be received in Hayward before the draft ordinance is released. Abbe said the City Council had proven itself worthy under the SRC issues and should be entrusted with any benefit of the doubt.

Adjourned at 7:34 p.m.

Next meeting should be on August 12th; location TBD.

Respectfully submitted, Arthur R. Boone, Acting Secretary