2007 Solid Waste Management Plan

4.2 Recycling and Waste Prevention
Since Nevada's recycling goal of 25% was established by legislation adopted in 1991, Carson City and Washoe County have made significant progress in recycling and have surpassed the goal. Clark County's recycling rate has remained below the goal. With the exception of Humboldt County, which modified their property tax structure in 2006 to allocate funds for a recycling program in Winnemucca, minimal recycling is occurring in the rural Counties. With the majority of the State's population located in the greater Las Vegas area the greatest opportunities for improving a statewide recycling rate lie in Clark County.

4.2.1 Improving Recycling in Clark County
In the last few years, the NDEP has promoted recycling in Clark County and implemented measures to increase recycling activity. In March 2001, the NDEP co-hosted a Recycling Forum with the Southern Nevada Health District in Las Vegas, with support provided by US EPA Region IX staff. Key stakeholders and citizens were asked to identify what they perceive to be barriers to recycling and to suggest strategies for improving recycling programs. Below are a few findings from this forum.

Following the Clark County Recycling Forum, a number of actions were taken to improve recycling. The NDEP launched a modest advertising campaign in the Las Vegas Valley to promote recycling, including television and outdoor advertising. The NDEP's recycling hotline was advertised which resulted in a measurable increase in calls to the hotline. In addition, the NDEP has provided continued support for the UNLV Rebel Recycling program that provides a drop-off recycling center to area residents and the University community.

In 2002, the US EPA Region IX also sponsored a study by the Tellus Institute, culminating in a report titled "Assessing the Potential for Resource Management in Clark County, Nevada." Resource Management, in this context, refers to a method of contracting for disposal services where incentives for recycling and waste prevention are built into the contract. Tellus examined franchise agreements for most municipalities in Clark County and assessed the potential for increasing recycling through a resource management approach to franchise contracts. This study provides valuable information that could guide local government leaders and disposal companies toward a win-win revision of the existing franchise agreements. Region IX has also provided grant funding to the Clark County Public Education Foundation (http://www.ccpef.org/), a non-profit group in Clark County that set up an educational re-use warehouse. Local institutions and businesses donate materials and tools, including computer equipment that teachers can use in their classrooms.

The Southern Nevada Health District and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection co-hosted the Las Vegas Recycling Summit in 2006. The objective of the summit was to motivate discussions about recycling amongst the business community, elected officials, governing agencies, and the public. Of primary concern was how, collectively, these entities can improve avenues to encourage recycling and begin to develop a strategy to increase the recycling rate.

4.2.2 Legislative Changes to Municipal Recycling Programs
Chapter 444A of the Nevada Revised Statutes and Administrative Code sets up a 3-tiered structure of municipal recycling programs based on county population size. Counties with populations greater than 100,000 are required to have a higher level of service available than smaller Counties with populations between 40,000 and 100,000. No requirements apply in counties that have a population smaller than 40,000. Clark and Washoe Counties are in the upper tier; Carson City and Douglas and Elko Counties are in the second tier.

Introduced in the 72nd Nevada Legislative Session (2003), AB-447 contained several changes to recycling programs, including the requirement that the upper tier (Clark and Washoe Counties) establish a County recycling coordinator position and to revise the County building codes to require large apartment complex and commercial building developments provide space for recycling containers. Each of these provisions would have laid important groundwork for recycling programs in our urban communities had AB-447 not died in committee; two other important provisions in AB-447 survived to become part of SB-396 concerning municipal recycling programs, which was passed in the 73rd Legislative Session (2005). One was a requirement for the large urban counties to promote recycling in the business community by providing information on the availability of recycling services when an application is received for a new or renewal business license. This provision will provide greater transparency of the recycling programs in our urban areas and should create new opportunities for commercial recycling. The second modification was a requirement for any county with a population greater than 40,000 to conduct a biennial review of its recycling program and submit its findings and proposed revisions to the NDEP for approval. This provision strengthens a pre-existing requirement to make communities periodically assess their progress toward recycling goals. The 74th Legislative Session (2007) passed AB-178 which amended NRS 444A to include "The board of county commissioners in a county whose population is 400,000 or more shall, in conjunction with each licensed hauler of garbage and refuse operating in the county, establish a pilot program for collecting and separating recyclable material that has the potential to be used as a source of renewable energy or converted into renewable fuel. The pilot program must include an exploration of technologies and processes that are able to use recyclable material as a source of renewable energy or convert recyclable material into renewable fuel." The 74th Legislature also passed SB-331 which modifies NRS 444A.110 requiring the NDEP to encourage the Nevada System of Higher Education to research and develop methods for the reduction, reclamation and conversion of solid waste.

While other statutory revisions could benefit recycling, many of the same benefits may be achieved through initiatives at the local level. The biennial municipal recycling program review (NRS 444A.050.2.b., see Appendix 7) provides municipal solid waste planners with an opportunity to consider whether changes such as revisions to local ordinances or franchises, municipal government staffing, funding reallocations, etc., are appropriate to reach community and State recycling goals.

4.2.3 Recycling at Public Buildings
Public buildings continue to present opportunities to reduce waste and increase recycling. Assembly Bill 564, passed in the 70th Nevada Legislative Session (1999), amended several statutes related to recycling at public buildings. In general, the revisions:

Courts
Legislature
State government offices
School districts and
University of Nevada and Community College System

Pursuant to the above amended statutes, the State Environmental Commission adopted NAC revisions to the municipal recycling program regulations in Ch. 444A, and the State agency recycling requirements in Ch. 232. In October 2001, the NDEP issued a model plan for public building recycling programs.

Although the legal authority to implement recycling programs has been significantly broadened, public building recycling programs have achieved only spotty success, even in urban areas where collection services should be available. The following lists possible improvements to consider for expanding public building recycling programs:

In an effort to improve recycling at public buildings in Clark County, the NDEP administered an EPA grant in 2004-2005 to identify and assess recycling in large public buildings and commercial office complexes in the Las Vegas area, and to identify the recycling services available to them, providing public information about and facilitating access to these services. The report on this study is online at: http://nevadarecycles.gov/main/pb_model_report07.htm.

4.2.4 Items for future consideration, Sec. 4.2 - Recycling and Waste Prevention
1. Consider making recycling available to apartment-dwellers through either: 1) statutory revisions that would require the large municipalities to adopt ordinances requiring that provisions for storage of recyclable material be included in applications for building permits for new multi-family residential complexes with 20 or more units, or 2) coordination with local governments and franchisees to provide more drop-off centers in areas lacking convenient access to them.

2. Coordinate with the State Public Works Board and other agencies to promote the allocation of space and facilities for recycling in new public buildings.

3. Improve the submission of recycling center reports by seeking statutory changes that would establish penalties for non-reporting and make the report a condition of renewal of a municipal business license. Add a statutory provision for confidentiality to protect the interests of reporting businesses.

4. Improve accountability of municipalities with approved recycling programs by enforcing the requirement to conduct a biennial assessment of their recycling programs, including recommendations, and submitting them to the NDEP for approval.

5. Establish a program to provide State recognition to individuals, institutions and businesses for outstanding efforts to reduce waste and recycle.

6. Continue to investigate the feasibility of adoption of a State "Bottle Bill," or beverage container redemption value.

7. Coordinate with State agencies on recycling within agency offices to conform with NAC 444A.500 (Appendix 8) and pursue expansion of the recycling efforts to include other recyclables such as bottles, cans, etc.

8. Encourage and support opportunities to develop organic materials composting and/or anaerobic digestion for green waste, wood waste, food waste, and food soiled paper.

Home Page – Waste Management
Site Index -- Topic Index
NDEP Home Page