Transcript Presentation for the Joint Board Meeting June 24

Strategic Plan
June 24, 2009
Strategic Planning Meeting
June 24, 2009
• A Joint Meeting of:
– The Alameda County Recycling Board, and
– The Alameda County Waste Management Authority
• Some “Housekeeping” Before We Begin:
– Your Binders Contain All Relevant Documents or URLs
– Including Schedule and Today’s Presentation (Tab A)
– Our Planning Horizon is 10 Years, But Flexible
– No Actions Until September 23, 2009
– Earliest Date For “Final Actions” Is February 2010
What Are We Trying to
Achieve?
• A “High-Level View” of Ourselves
• An Expansive Dialogue About Possible Futures
• Board Direction to Staff At A High-Level (No = +)
– Priority Among the Outcomes We Seek
– Priority Between Approaches and Programs
• For Example, Mandatory Recycling Versus Grants
• For Example, Green Building Versus Business Audits
• Note: Budgets & Implementation Details Later
Topics To Be Covered Today
(Summaries Only: Separate Briefings Can Be
Arranged)
•
•
•
•
The Global Context For Our Planning
Our Governing Documents
Our Current Programs
2008 Waste Characterization Study
– How It Was Done; Key Factual Findings
– Some Possible Lessons
• Challenges We Face; Our Current Approaches
• Where To From Here? (Future Meetings, etc.)
The Global Context:
Being Green Creates a Competitive Advantage
Masdar City is the most ambitious
sustainable development in the
world today - it will be the world's
first zero carbon, zero waste, carfree city powered entirely by
renewable energy sources. It is part
of the Masdar Initiative; a long-term
strategic endeavour by Abu Dhabi to
accelerate the development and
deployment of clean future energy
solutions. By taking sustainable
development and living to a new
level, Masdar City will lead the world
in understanding how all future cities
should be built.
The Global Context:
Young People See the World Differently
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY
Governing Documents
Mission Statement
The Waste Management Authority and the Source
Reduction and Recycling Board form an integrated
Agency dedicated to achieving the most environmentally
sound solid waste management and resource
conservation program for the people of Alameda County.
Within this context, the Agency is committed to achieving a
75% and beyond diversion goal and promoting
sustainable consumption and disposal patterns.
Mission Statement (cont.)
In achieving this goal, the Agency will:
• Provide strategic planning, research, education and
technical assistance to the public, businesses and local
governments.
• Initiate innovative programs and facilities to maximize
waste prevention, recycling and economic development
opportunities.
• Serve as a pro-active public policy advocate for long term
solutions to our challenges.
• Partner with organizations with compatible goals.
Three Documents
• CoIWMP (Shared planning authority under
the Joint Powers Agreement)
• Recycling Plan (Required by County
Charter “Measure D” in 1990)
• Open Space Initiative (County Charter
Amendment in 2000)
CoIWMP Elements
• Waste Management System, Countywide Waste
Diversion & Disposal Needs, Countywide Issues
• Countywide Goals & Policies
• Siting Criteria and Conformance Procedures
• Waste Management Programs
• Local government Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements (SRREs)
CoIWMP
Goals, Objectives and Policies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Promote environmental quality
Achieve maximum feasible waste reduction
Provide public information and education
Meet disposal capacity needs
Provide cost-effective waste services
Ensure adequate financing
Promote inter-jurisdictional cooperation
Recycling Plan
• Source Reduction and Recycling Initiative (Measure D)
• “75% and beyond” waste diversion goal
• Emphasizes preserving natural resources, long-term
sustainable consumption and disposal patterns
• Identifies the programs and policies to implement goals
of the charter amendment
• Sets priorities and targets
• Fully integrated with the CoIWMP
Open Space Initiative (2000)
• County charter amendment
• Additional landfill capacity must not
impede “75% and beyond” goal
• Ability to site landfill or diversion facilities
within some zoning categories is unclear
Questions?
Expenditures by Program Area
Questions?
Waste Characterization
Basic Facts
Purpose
• Why?
– Provide detailed data and analysis on what’s in waste
stream to inform future program direction
– Identify and quantify waste streams and material
types
– Compare to previous studies (2000 & 1995)
– Where possible, evaluate program progress
Methodology
• Four season sorting and sampling in 2008
• Five waste streams: single family, multi-family,
commercial, roll-off and self-haul
• Material types – 48
• Physical sorts (1,100 samples, minimum 200 lbs. each)
• Visual sorts for certain loads (1,200 observations)
• Data for all jurisdictions
• Self-Hauler surveys
• “Divertability analysis”
Manual Sort
(Add more photos)
• Click through quickly with minimal speaking points
Introduction to Results
• Tons & Proportions
• Activity (Generator)
• Material definitions
– Residential
– 9 major groups
– Commercial
– 48 types under those
– Construction
• Sector (Collection method)
– Manufacturing
– Single Family
• Jurisdiction
– Multi-Family
– 17 Member Agencies
– Commercial
• Previous Studies
– Roll-Off
– 1995 & 2000
– Self-Haul
Waste Composition
Historic Comparison of Composition
Waste by Sector
(Collection Method)
Changes by Sector
Waste
Stream
1995
2000
2008
% Change
2000 – 2008
Single Family
333,000
332,700
275,000
- 17%
Multi-Family
112,000
123,000
132,000
+ 7%
Commercial
265,000
354,000
237,000
-33%
Roll-Off
339,000
406,000
273,000
-33%
Self-Haul
466,000
336,000
269,000
-20%
1,514,000
1,553,000
1,187,000
-24%
Total*
*Note: Waste delivered directly to out-of-county facilities or MRF residuals are not included.
Roll-Off By Activity
Self-Haul by Activity
Waste By Activity
2000
2008
Changes By Activity
(1995, 2000, 2008)
Activity
1995 Tons
2000 Tons
2008 Tons
% Change
2000 – 2008
Residential
641,000
518,000
631,000
22%
Commercial
539,000
637,000
469,000
-26%
Construction
244,000
322,000
60,000
-81%
Manufacturing
90,000
76,000
27,000
-64%
1,514,000
1,553,000
1,187,000
-24%
Total
Next Steps
• StopWaste Staff Review
– Countywide
– Sector
– Activity
• Member Agency Staff Review
• Database & Other Sources of Information
– In depth analysis
• Feed Into the Strategic Planning Process
Questions?
Waste Characterization
Some Lessons Learned
Lesson 1
Target Materials Still Important
Target
2000
2008
Change
% of Total
% of Total
2000-2008
12%
14%
2%
Unpainted Wood
9%
4%
-5%
Other paper
8%
9%
1%
Yard Waste
7%
4%
-3%
Mixed paper
5%
3%
-2%
Cardboard
5%
2%
-3%
Composite Bulky
5%
2%
-3%
Film Plastic
4%
4%
-1%
Crushable Inerts
4%
3%
-1%
Newspaper
3%
1%
-2%
% of Total Waste
61%
61%
0%
Food Waste
Lesson 2
Progress, But Work Left To Do
2000
2008
Food Waste
185,000
222,000
% Change
2000-2008
20%
Unpainted Wood
137,000
61,000
-55%
Other paper
122,000
135,000
11%
Yard Waste
109,000
68,000
-38%
Mixed paper
79,000
53,000
-33%
Cardboard
77,000
36,000
-53%
Composite Bulky
76,000
37,000
-51%
Film Plastic
67,000
58,000
-13%
Crushable Inerts
57,000
49,000
- 14%
Newspaper
42,000
9,000
-79%
951,000
728,000
-23%
Target
Subtotal
Lesson 3
Hard to Recycle Materials Important
• Even though we have targeted 60% of the waste stream,
still have 40% left
• Hard to recycle materials include:
– Treated wood and other C&D: 13%
– Misc organics: 10%
– Plastics: 4%
– Hazardous Waste (incl. electronics): 1%
Lesson 4
Be Ready for the Rebound
• Construction activity down
substantially
• 70% of the overall decrease
in tons is due to construction
• Most susceptible to a rebound
• Most impact on total
• Current in-county capacity
inadequate
• Ordinances may not be
enough by themselves
Construction
Activity
Total Tons
2000
2008
321,000
60,000
21%
5%
% Total
Total 2000-2008 Change
- 366,000
Construction Change
- 261,000
% Due to Construction Change
70%
*Overall decline in construction materials
across all sectors/activities is 40%.
Questions?
Nine Challenges
Spanning Three Areas
Challenge 1
• Multiplicity of Objectives
– Tons to Landfill Reduced
– Waste Prevention vs. Material Recovery
– Other CoIWMP Goals and Objectives: e.g., Remove
Hazardous Waste From the Waste Stream
– Sustainable Consumption Patterns (Natural Gas,
Electricity, and Water Use, GHG Emissions, Others)
• Current Approach:
– Weighted Average Project Evaluation Scores
– Try to Accommodate Everyone To Some Extent
Challenge 2
• Limited Control
– Many Decisions Are Outside the County, CA, or US
– Commodity Market Prices Fluctuate
• Current Approach:
– Limited Participation in State and National Coalitions
– Considerably More Local Coalition Building (e.g., GB, BFL)
– No Clear Approach to Commodity Price Fluctuations
Challenge 3
• Fragmented Control
– Franchise Terms Are Jurisdictional Decisions
•
•
•
•
Services Offered
Relative Rates for Service Categories (Customer Incentives)
Incentives for Franchisee to Support Diversion
Materials are Controlled by the Franchisee
– Desire for Local Uniqueness and Autonomy Is Natural
• Current Approach:
– Model Ordinances, Franchise Language, Etc.
– StopWaste Regional and Sub-Regional Role
Challenge 4
• Diversion Is Not a Top Priority
– Plenty of Landfill Capacity in Alameda County
– Dollar Savings From Diversion Are Often Modest
• Current Approach:
– Multiple Benefits Used To Broaden Support
– Technical Assistance and Specialized Outreach
(for example, GHG Benefits of Recycling)
Challenge 5
• Public Perceptions and Misunderstanding
– Example: Glass in Compost
– Example: The “Yuck Factor” With Food Scraps
• Current Approach:
– Education of the Next Generation
– Mass Media For Some Topics (e.g., Food Scraps)
Challenge 6
• Siting Issues for Material Processing,
Composting, and Manufacturing Facilities
– Land, Labor, and Energy Are Expensive Here
– The NIMBY Syndrome
– No Incentive For Jurisdictions to Host Facilities
• Current Approach:
– Try, Try Again
Challenge 7
• Financial Incentives Not Always Aligned
– Landfill Disposal Is Relatively Inexpensive
– Price Signals to Customers Not Always Clear
– Revenue Loss From Recycling Is a Penalty
• Current Approach:
– Be Willing to Impose Disposal Fees
– Buy Down the Cost of Diversion In Various Ways
– Offer Franchise Negotiation Assistance
Challenge 8
• Mission Success = Declining Revenues
• Current Approach:
– Some Diversification of Income (e.g., Wind Revenue)
– But No Clear Approach At Present
Challenge 9
• Need Many Technical and Managerial Skills
– Wide Range of Programmatic Skills
– Emerging Needs: Enforcement, Communications,
Economic Development, Revenue Audits, ???
• Current Approach:
– Use Consultants Extensively
– Ask Staff To Be Flexible
– But Need A More Explicit Approach
Other Challenges?
Comments?
Schedule
• Six Discussion Topics Over the Summer
• September 23 Joint Meeting
• November Seminar
• February “Final” Decisions
• FY10-11 Budget
Where To From Here?
Four Types of Materials Management Decisions
The Six Topics:
Production
Consumption
Virgin Materials
Materials
Processing
Landfills
Discard
HHW
– Communications & LongTerm Behavior Change
– Targets & Measurement
– Buildings & Landscapes
– Operations & Maintenance
– Facilities & Collection
– Revenue