Waste-Reduction and Recycling Audit

The Waste Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Audit Program consists of the following elements:

1. Assessing and quantifying existing recycling programs (both postconsumer and preconsumer [internal] recycling),
2. assessing and quantifying existing source-reduction programs,
3. providing business-specific literature on waste reduction and recycling practices (developed and printed by the CIWMB) as part of a jurisdiction’s education and outreach effort,
4. assessing and quantifying additional recycling programs that could reasonably be implemented,
5. assessing and quantifying additional source-reduction programs that could reasonably be implemented
6. providing recommendations for new programs,
7. providing technical assistance (e.g., locate markets, provide a resource listing of recyclers, and call independent recyclers) as requested by the business,
8. conducting a follow-up to assess additional implementation,
9. assisting the exemplary businesses competing for recognition in the CIWMB Waste Reduction Awards Program,
10. conducting workshops with local business service or professional organizations,
11. auditing new businesses entering the jurisdiction,
12. developing local/regional resource guides for the jurisdiction.

The main goal of a comprehensive audit program is to obtain the information needed to develop targeted diversion programs. The data collected from an audit program can also be used to calculate the diversion rate for the commercial and industrial sector of a jurisdiction.

After four years of collecting disposal, recycling, and source-reduction data by conducting onsite waste-reduction and recycling technical-assistance audits at more than 1,000 random businesses in California, several significant findings were made.

Statistical analysis confirmed the validity of the 80/20 rule of thumb for the larger urban jurisdictions: The largest 20% of businesses in a jurisdiction will generate the majority (approximately 70-80%) of the waste.

The results of the study indicate that a statistically representative sample of businesses can be audited and that the diversion rate for the entire commercial/industrial sector can be calculated by extrapolation of the selected sample. The graph of the results shows that the cumulative percent of disposal, source reduction, or recycling generally follows the graphed curve for cumulative percent of employees.

The curve for cumulative disposal is slightly below the curve for cumulative employment. This is to be expected. It is a well-known fact that in larger businesses, the disposed-tons-per-employee-per-year correlative factor is lower in value than that of smaller companies (because of economy of scale, specialization, and so on).

The cumulative percent curve for existing source reduction and existing recycling closely follows that of the cumulative employment. The study shows that most of the existing diversion is being concentrated in the larger businesses and that diversion rates can be forecast using employment as a predictive variable.

The use of statistical methods to measure diversion has caused considerable controversy among some consultants because they feel that diversion should not be calculated from a statistical sample. From one point of view, the utilization of audit data enables jurisdictions to complete a generation-based diversion study at minimal cost and allows the jurisdiction to take diversion credit for what businesses have implemented (as allowed under California’s measurement method).

Others prefer to only count diversion for a jurisdiction that they have actually measured. This not only costs a jurisdiction more (fewer resources for program implementation), but might also be misleading. Under the method of only counting actual diversion with no statistical extrapolation, every ton of diversion identified increases the diversion rate. A jurisdiction can actually increase its diversion rate year after year by continuing to identify additional diversion from the businesses not previously audited. When a statistically extrapolated diversion rate is calculated from a representative sample, additional diversion identified from additional audits will generally not change the overall diversion rate because the rate is a proportion of overall generation. True increases in the diversion rate will generally have to come from implementation of new diversion programs.

When cumulative percent graphs are plotted for additional potential recycling and source reduction, the results are similar to that of existing diversion. This means that the larger businesses should be the target of additional diversion programs if a jurisdiction wants the “biggest bang for the buck.”

If a jurisdiction has a limited budget to assist businesses with program implementation, target the largest businesses first. They will be the largest source of additional diversion tonnage for your jurisdiction. For any program that can be shown to be cost-saving or income-producing, it doesn’t take much effort to convince the business to institutionalize it as standard operating procedure. It is also diversion credit that the jurisdiction can take without any additional expenditure.

The CIWMB should be commended for staying the course in promoting the Integrated Waste Management Approach, which emphasizes source reduction as the highest preference in the management of waste. The CIWMB definition of diversion includes both source reduction and recycling, so diversion credit is given for resource efficiency and waste prevention.

The members of CIWMB have taken the leadership role to develop tools, methods, and best management practices case studies to promote the integrated waste management hierarchy of source reduction first, recycling/composting second, and environmentally safe transformation and landfill third. Many states have excluded source-reduction or waste-prevention diversion credit from the measurement of their diversion goal because of the difficulty in quantifying it.

The following example illustrates the importance of providing credit for source reduction and waste prevention. A business prints 5,000 employee manuals every year, and it is revised every year. Each manual weighs 2 lb., so that 10,000 lb. of paper are consumed each year for their printing. The manuals that are replaced each year are put into the recycling bin and counted as recycling tons by the hauler.

The company implements a paperless office program so that employees can now access the manual on the company’s computers. The recycling volume will be reduced by 10,000 lb. The CIWMB method of measuring diversion properly shifts the recycling diversion credit to source-reduction diversion credit. The measurement method does not punish the business (or the jurisdiction) when the recycling tonnage decreases (or disappears, as in this case) because of resource conservation (10,000 lb. of paper not used). It is good policy to reward businesses that adopt waste management and resource conservation practices that are at the top of the integrated waste management approach.

This is why simple waste-prevention and resource-efficient practices are such environmentally friendly practices that should be utilized by all businesses.

The CIWMB has published a number of manuals and guides detailing how to conduct audits. A final draft for peer review of Conducting a Diversion Study: A Guide for California Jurisdictions is available on the CIWMB Web site www.ciwmb.ca.gov or by calling 916/255-2200. Businesses can also obtain useful information on waste composition and disposal rates on various types of businesses at this Web site.

The CIWMB also published Solid Waste Generation, Disposal, and Diversion Measurement Guide for State Agencies and Large State Facilities (March 2000). This guide provides information about the right measurement methods for state agencies and facilities to utilize in assessing the impact of their diversion programs.

One unique development is that several haulers, most notably, Waste Management, have embraced the waste-reduction and recycling audit as a tool to supplement/complement the traditional recycling program. Waste Management has been supporting the development and field-testing of standardized waste-reduction and recycling auditing procedures and methods in many of their franchise cities. There are several reasons for this.

First, Waste Management found that many property management companies (and even janitorial companies) have added waste-reduction and recycling program implementation to their list of services provided. Some entrepreneurial property managers offer to conduct waste-reduction and recycling audits and implement programs at no cost to the businesses and on an incentive/contingency basis. They only get paid a percent of the savings realized over the current trash-disposal costs. So either Waste Management implements the programs and has a grateful customer (even at the cost of lowered disposal charges, but hopefully for a longer contract period) or someone else does it, disposal costs are lowered, and Waste Management looks bad.

Second, many large corporations, specifically national accounts, have set significant waste-reduction and recycling goals as a cost-saving measure. Diversion goals of up to 75% are common. These companies have asked their trash haulers to assist them in implementing diversion programs to meet these goals. The waste-reduction and recycling audit is a service that is more often requested of the trash hauler.

Third, many larger multinational businesses are being certified for ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. To qualify for these certifications, infrastructure for waste-reduction and recycling practices has to be established and documented. In addition to the recycling goals from state legislation and local jurisdictions, the ISO requirements place tremendous pressure on management to implement environmental programs focused on reducing the generation of solid and/or hazardous waste.

Fourth, for Waste Management, every ton not disposed today is space saved in its landfill that can be utilized at a later date.

Fifth, the data obtained from the waste-reduction and recycling audit program will enable a jurisdiction to prepare a complete, new, generation-based diversion study that will provide a more accurate estimate of the diversion rate. Generally the original base-year (1990) studies conducted by jurisdictions in California did not take into account some of the existing recycling and source-reduction practices. Most jurisdictions were also unable to accurately estimate disposal tonnages in 1990.

Most important is that the waste-reduction and recycling audit program enables a jurisdiction to plan and implement new programs. One of the single most effective waste-reduction and recycling audits was conducted at a large computer manufacturing facility in southern California. With the implementation of a simple waste segregation program and a partnership with a local recycler, some 225 tons per month of mixed trash were turned into a large recyclable wastestream (83%) and a small wastestream (17%). The result was a savings of almost $30,000 per month for the business.

Depending on the market prices for the recycled materials, it might actually be cheaper in the long run for a jurisdiction and/or hauler to help businesses reduce their wastestream rather than to set up recycling programs to collect materials with very low value. This is especially true when businesses are able to realize cost savings from the implementation of a waste-reduction program.