PROPOSED MANDATORY COMMERCIAL RECYCLING REGULATION

Background

 

As a result of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Air Resources Board developed a Scoping Plan that was adopted with a Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure.  The stated goal is to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents by increasing the recovery of recyclable materials in order to divert more material from landfills.  These measures are expected to result in the following benefits:

• reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing process, including the extraction of raw materials
• avoided methane emissions at landfills from the decomposition of organic materials
• increase use of composted organic materials

 

The commercial sector is not presently directly subject to the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), to divert waste from landfills.  Note, however, that a number of local jurisdictions have already implemented commercial recycling ordinances.

 

CalRecycle's Efforts

In order to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing recycling, CalRecycle is concentrating its efforts on increasing the commercial recycling rate by directly regulating commercial recycling activity.  To that end, CalRecycle has taken steps to draft a Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation.

CalRecycle's Mandatory Commercial Recycling Website

  http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/Recycling/default.htm

 

CalRecycle's Informal Stakeholder Workshops

  http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/Recycling/Workshops/default.htm

 

Select CalRecycle Documents

  Draft Proposed Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation ("Draft Proposed Regulation")

  CalRecycle's Summary of the Proposed Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation

 

Allan Company's Position

 

In essence, Allan Company takes the position that "commercial solid waste" is so different from "recyclable material" that different approaches are required for each (e.g. franchises may be acceptable for commercial solid waste, but not for recyclable materials generated by businesses).

 

The following is a summary of Allan Company's comments and recommendations regarding the Draft Proposed Regulation:

 

• Eliminate duplicative and unnecessary definitions f
  rom the Draft Proposed Regulations.  Duplicative or unnecessary definitions introduce ambiguities, increase the likelihood of confusion, and impose a greater burden upon regulators and those whom they regulate.

 

• Revise the requirements of §9XXX2 to broaden the choices available to businesses, not restrict them.  As currently drafted, there are only two options for source separated recyclables: (1) self hauling, and (2) hauling provided by one who collects, hauls, or transports solid waste for a fee.  The result of these requirements is incompatible with the goal of increasing commercial recycling, and creates artificial, unreasonable and unwelcome barriers to legitimate recycling activity.  Moreover, such limitations conflict with §41952 of the Public Resources Code, which expressly protects and preserves the right of any person to donate, sell, or otherwise dispose of his or her recyclable materials, by interfering with the exercise of that right.
  

 

• Franchises have a chilling effect on recycling activity.  Accordingly, if the intent is to increase commercial recycling in order to help meet the goals of AB 32, franchises for source separated commercial recyclables should not be allowed or encouraged.
  Subsection (f) of §9XXX3 should be amended to add an express prohibition of franchise agreements concerning source separated recyclables.  Jurisdictions should not be encouraged to implement an ordinance requiring franchises for commercial recycling that may encompass source separated recyclables.  More competition, not less, will increase the commercial recycling rate.

 

• Eliminate the requirement that jurisdictions assess whether businesses are “subscribing to recycling services” and “participating in recycling services.”  Subscribing is a concept that is foreign in market-based commercial recycling.  In our experience, the bulk of commercial recycling takes place without written contracts, and imposing this new requirement would likely disrupt existing recycling activities.

 

• We further recommend that CalRecycle be mindful of, and sensitive to, the competing interests of recyclers and solid waste management companies.  Greater care should be taken to clearly differentiate between solid waste and recyclables.

 

For the full text of Allan Company's comments and recommendations, you can view the PDF below.

  Allan Company's comments and recommendations to CalRecycle