The San Francisco Recycling Mandate and Composting Ordinance (No. 100-09) is a local city law that requires everyone in San Francisco to separate recyclables, compost and waste dumped and to participate in recycling and composting. program. Authorized by the San Francisco Supervisory Board in 2009, it became the first local city regulation in the United States to universally require the separation of resources from all organic materials, including food scraps.
Video San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance
Histori
Awal 1900-an
The roots of San Francisco's recycling and composting program can be traced back to the formation of the Scavenger Guard Union in 1879, when loose scavenger federations began. Most were Italian immigrants from one area of ​​Italy and they transported the city's garbage on a horse-drawn cart and separated with a valuable hand to throw away for resale. Scavengers make a living from materials similar to those rescued in today's recycling programs such as wood, metal, glass, cloth, page ornaments and food scraps. At that time, some materials were used as fuel, others were recycled and debris of the yard and food scraps were sold to pig farmers in remote urban areas for use as animal feed.
In 1921, the City began to organize garbage collection and around the same time, scavengers, who were very competitive for the same material, began to form associations. Prices are set under the 1932 regulations, and voter approval is required to change. This was modified by an amendment to the 1932 Ordinance, approved by the electorate in 1954 and effective in 1955, which established a tariff adjustment system administered by City staff.
Cooperation among former rivals allows them to unite their resources. Two loose associations are known as the Scavenger Protection Association and the Sunset Scavenger Company. These two entities eventually merge, and as a result all permits issued by City come to be held by one entity. Exclusive levying collection license for the City in 1932 - licenses are still held today under the parent company, Recology. This steady relationship between City and San Francisco Recology has resulted in a reliable public-private partnership, enabling San Francisco to design experimental experimental programs such as an organic collection on the edge of a city street.
1950s-1970s
Although San Francisco has the highest diversion rates among all major cities in the United States today, in the late 1950s, the emergence of packing trucks forced the recycling rate of the City to an all-time low. Because the separation of compacted material is not possible, in 1967, the Sunset Scavenger and Golden Gate Disposal companies have reduced their recycling operations to only two programs, metal and paper recycling. However, 1970 brought a renewed interest in the conservation of resources. The Federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were signed into law and the first Earth Day celebrations were held on April 22, 1970. In the spirit of this era, the people of San Francisco are proactively organized to create community-managed recycling centers for volunteers. In 1980, San Francisco had a total of ten community recycling centers, offering residents the opportunity to recycle their newspapers, glasses and cans.
1980s-1990s
In 1980, under the Chief of the City Administration Officer, the San Francisco Recycling Program (SFRP) was developed as a division of the Solid Waste Management Program. The goal of SFRP is to facilitate and develop recycling programs throughout the city. After receiving a grant from the country in 1981, City established three repurchase centers and launched its first curbside recycling program. With the passage of California's Bottle Bill (AB2020) in 1986, all community recycling centers in San Francisco began offering monetary compensation for materials with California Redemption Value.
Although this initial collection of roadside recycling was unsuccessful because of scavengers, San Francisco continues to promote recycling efforts. The City formed an advisory board to help design roadside dwelling pilots and collaboratively initiated two new programs targeting the collection of glass bars and restaurants as well as the recycling of municipal office paper. In 1988, the San Francisco Solid Waste Management Program set a diversion goal, calling for a 32 percent reduction in Municipal sewage streams in 1992 and 43 percent in 2002. However, in 1989, the California legislature preceded San Francisco's goal by passing the Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), which set a goal of 25 percent waste reduction in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. The purpose of City transfer was changed shortly after to reflect the requirements of the new state.
In 1989, City has initiated a series of new roadside pilot programs, collecting paper and mixed containers (glass, aluminum and plastic). The program was fully operational in 1991, and contributed to San Francisco's achievement of 27 percent in 1990. In 1997, the program has caused 15,500 tons of recycling to be sidetracked; however, the 1996 waste characterization study illustrates additional opportunities to achieve AB939 goals. According to the study, 60,000 tons of un-recycled waste remain in the waste stream, 26 percent of which is food waste. Because San Francisco is a crowded city, page wastes are found to account for only 5 percent of the housing waste stream. This finding, together with AB939's transfer requirements, prompted San Francisco to develop new roadside recycling pilots that included collecting food scraps.
Pilot programs are commonly used as mechanisms for determining prospective infrastructure investments and educational tactics including, "collection containers, vehicles, outreach needs, processing needs and environmental impacts with different demographics." In 1999, San Francisco and Recology launched their newest pilot, a special color-coded basket system called the Fantastic Three. The color coded basket system is designed to make recycling and composting easy for the population, with each color indicating the type of material received (blue = recycled, green = organic, black = dump). The Fantastic Three also integrates financial incentives for participation. Program pay as you throw a framework allows people and businesses to reap the savings as their waste volume decreases. Within seven months, the Fantastic Three helped boost the transfer of more than 90 percent between the business and the participating population and resulted in a 73 percent satisfaction rating. With this success rate, Recology is working with City, investing in plans to expand the program.
2000s to present
After investing in infrastructure to increase organic diversion and recycling from landfills, San Francisco realized a 50 percent switch rate shortly after the Fantastic Three program was officially introduced. However, the city decided to pursue a higher transfer rate than the state requested for several reasons. First, the 1997 Sustainability Plan adopted by the Supervisory Board, including the long-term goal "to maximize sustainable use of natural resources and to eliminate waste generation in San Francisco City and District." In addition, Alameda County adopted Measure D which, "sets the goal to achieve a waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2010 and as a condition of the Waste Disposal Agreement to dispose San Francisco waste at the Altamont TPA in Alameda County, City is required to recycle or divert waste at a level equal to or greater than that of the East Bay (Alameda County) jurisdiction using the Altamont TPA. "As a result, the Supervisory Board passed the Unwound Objective (Resolution No. 007-02-COE) in 2002, which required San Francisco to divert 75 percent of its waste in 2010 and to achieve zero waste by 2020.
While City's investment in the Fantastic Three program demonstrates its ability to achieve high transfer rates and encourage the creation of new goals, Zero Waste resolution builds the framework from which new waste reduction legislation can be drafted. Shortly after Zero Waste Goal passed, City began to adopt a series of waste reduction policies as a means to achieve its goal without waste. The timeline of the selected waste reduction law is listed below:
- 2004 Green Building Ordinance
- Goal : Requires urban development to manage the debris and provides adequate recycling space in buildings
- 2006 Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance
- Goal : Requires C & amp; D to use transporters and processing facilities listed in the city to improve the recovery of the debris
- 2006 Food Service Reduction Ordinance
- Goal : Need restaurants and food vendors not to use Styrofoam food utensils and instead use recyclable or compostable food.
- 2007 Plastic Bag Reduction Act
- Goals : Requires the use of recyclable paper and recycled paper and/or bags that can be reused by supermarkets and drugstores
There are a number of other San Francisco waste reduction policies legalized during this time and most of them focus on municipal operations. For example, the Mayor's Executive Order for Bottled Water prohibits the purchase of bottled water with city funds while the Precautionary Purchase Act, "requires municipal departments to purchase products that maximize post-consumer recycled content and materials that can be recycled or that can be made compost, and which support resilience, repair and reuse. "All such policies had a major impact on the transfer rate and by the end of 2007, the City had reached 72 percent. However, it is clear that increased participation in suburban dwelling collection programs is desirable if San Francisco reaches zero waste by 2020. According to Jack Macy, Unlimited Commercial Waste Coordinator for San Francisco City, if everyone in San Francisco participates in the program by separating all material received, a 90 percent transfer rate will be achieved. San Francisco realized that voluntary participation would not be enough, and in 2009, the Supervisory Board passed the Compulsory Recycling and Composting Law, which required everyone in San Francisco to separate their recyclables, garbage and dumped trash and to participate in recycling and composting programs.
The mandatory procedure represents further investment in recycling infrastructure and zero waste objectives in San Francisco. This has given effect to the degree of law and participation has increased as a result. Because compulsory legislation is in place, "composting has increased by 45 percent, and City now sends nearly 600 tons of food scraps, dirty paper, and page decorations to the Recology composting facility every day, up from 400 tons a year ago." In August 2010, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the city's transfer rate had reached 77 percent.
Maps San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance
Primary requirements
- Source separation in a color-coded container
- The owner/property manager must provide a place for junk
- Property owners/managers and vendors must subscribe to sufficient collection services
- Collectors should provide the Department of the Environment with the names and addresses of all customers and who are in the breach of the rules
- Collectors should provide the Department of the Environment with the tonnage of any material disposed of with each party
- Conditions for exceptions for recycling waste or processed compost
- For vehicles requested by the Department of the Environment, the transfer station must submit an audit report detailing the quantity or percent of cargo for recyclables and destructible goods.
- Facilities that produce new products from recycled or marketable compost from compost can send a small portion as residue processing to landfills.
Opposition
Since construction and demolition locations already have high diversion rates before mandatory procedures, the initial impact of the ordinances is largely on homes and businesses. The landlord expressed his initial concern over the challenge of finding space for the trash, as well as possible odors. Apart from these concerns, the ordinance remains popular overall, polling 85% before passing. Before graduation, the fine limit is also lowered from $ 1,000 to $ 100 to overcome rejection of possible fines.
From the Supervisory Board, only Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd oppose Gavin Newsom's proposal. Elsbernd is concerned about pre-existing scavenger problems in the trash and that the rules will aggravate the problem. He is also concerned about the fines being pursued heavily despite their assurance of being soft.
After a clause that keeps the apartment owners in charge of sorting their tenants is eliminated, the San Francisco Apartment Association takes a neutral stance on the rules.
Help Implementation and Enforcement
To assist San Francisco residents in a smooth transition to new regulations, Municipal Dumpster San Francisco, Recology offers free services including consultation and multi-lingual training sessions to educate citizens. They also offer materials to help with the physical gathering process: buckets to collect composts, marks and labels to instruct others on how to separate their recyclables, garbage, and food scraps.
There are also financial incentives to reduce waste dumped in the trash. Both composting and recycling are cheaper per month than junk bills. The city bulletin highlights this fact and suggests shifting more waste to recycling and composting, reducing waste bills by requiring less frequent garbage collection, and using smaller bins to reduce the financial burden on citizens.
If there is a case of "horrible" disobedience or failure to separate recyclables, compostable items and garbage, fines of up to $ 100 for single family homes and up to $ 1000 for large businesses are issued.
Connection to state and local statutes and initiatives
California Assembly Bill 32
San Francisco's mandatory legislation supports California greenhouse gas reduction goals as stated in the scoping plan for the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Commercial recycling, composting, diversion of waste from waste landfill sites (for the purpose of final zero waste), and overcoming the release of methane gas in these locations are all AB's targets. Recycling utilizes the energy contained in the restored material. Using recycled materials in the manufacture of the product so as to conserve energy to be consumed in material extraction, pre-manufacturing, and manufacturing the life cycle of the product. The transfer of organic materials for other uses similarly reduces greenhouse gas emissions (see Food Waste Processing section). The AB 32 coverage plan also lists organic diverted from waste streams as a potential source of biofuel production, which further reduces greenhouse gas emissions if replaced by fossil fuels.
AB 32 further directed that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will work with the California Recycling Resources and Recovery Resources Department (CalRecycle) to create a legally compulsory recycling program, and a partnership between California and a local government recycling and composting program such as the San Francisco ordinance is mandatory. Across the state, such diversions from waste streams are expected to conservatively produce greenhouse gas savings in millions of metric tons (MMTs) equivalent to carbon dioxide:
- Commercial recycling mandate: 5 MMT
- Organic product market: 2 MMT
- Anaerobic digestion: 2 MMT
- Methane control in a landfill: 1 MMT
San Francisco Climate Action Plan
San Francisco's Recycling Ordinance and Compensation Making also contribute to the San Francisco Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the greenhouse gases associated with waste are the result of energy consumed in the upstream life cycle stage of the landfill (material extraction, pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, and transportation), not from the landfill itself. In 2001, San Francisco's action to divert materials from the Altamont landfill into recycled products reduced greenhouse gas emissions from this upstream stage of life cycle to the equivalent of 768,000 tons of carbon dioxide, vs. producing this same product from virgin ingredients. This shift from virgin material represents a 75-80% savings in net greenhouse gas emissions for paper, glass, copper and steel, and a saving of 97.5% for aluminum. Paper recycling has an additional carbon sequestration effect through forest conservation. The transfer of organic matter into composting also reduces greenhouse emissions, as applying compost as a soil amendment helps sequester carbon. In this case, San Francisco's compulsory recycling and composting regulations support the 2002 GHG Reduction Resolution in the city to reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2012.
The San Francisco Action Plan for San Francisco 2004 recommends compulsory housing and commercial recycling and composting policies to improve the transfer of materials from landfills. The Climate Action Plan projects an approximate reduction of tons of carbon dioxide emissions from equivalent sectors and economic actions:
- Housing Sector: 70,000 tons
- Greater participation in the Fantastic Three bin residential program
- Expansion of recycling and composting into multifamily apartment buildings
- Commercial Sector: 109,000 tonnes
- Broader commercial recycling and composting
- Sorting and processing more sophisticated commercial flow
- Construction and Destruction Sector: 57,000 tons
- Recycled Alternative Collection: 66,000 tons
- Enhanced metal recovery technology
- Delivery program, donation to recycling center, and CRV repurchase
- Allow independent material handling. Examples include paper dealers who reuse organizations such as the Goodwill Industry.
Alameda County Landfill Blocking
As stated in the history section, the limited landfill placed in San Francisco by Alameda County influenced San Francisco's decision to move toward a larger diversion. Alameda County continues to move towards greater diversion, and on January 1, 2010 Alameda County implements a new landfill ban targeted at professional landscape experts. This prohibition prohibits waste contaminants (such as plastic bottles or films) in plant remnants brought to plant sewage facilities, as these contaminants may require an organic waste facility to reject all contaminated loads. Similarly, the ban prohibits the debris of discarded plants in the trash. This prohibition is backed by a fine of up to $ 500 per offense for repeat offenders.
Prohibition of plastic bag packaging
One of San Francisco's waste reduction measures, the City Plastic Reduction Bill (described in the historical section), has reached national and international attention. In one year of implementation, Boston, Portland, and Phoenix are investigating the ban on such plastic bags, and Ross Mirkarimi city inspector has asked questions from Paris and London. However, the Fairfax Marin County region withdrew from a similar ban when the plastic bag industry threatened legal action. Mayor Mary Ann Maggiore stated that the town was too small to fight the lawsuit. On April 26, 2011, the San Francisco Bay area of ​​Santa Clara also passed plastic sacks in unrelated areas of the area, but the prohibition did not include restaurants and non-profit organizations.
See also
- California Environment
References
External links
- Recology San Francisco
- Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative
- California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Scoping Plan
- C & amp; D Debris Recovery Ordinance
- Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance
- Green Building Ordinance
- Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance
- The Mayor's Executive Order for Bottled Water
- Plastic Bag Reduction Rule
- Prudential Buying Ordinance
- San Francisco Climate Action Plan
- San Francisco Waste Reduction Policy
- No Trash Resolution
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments