Southern
California Solid Waste Issues and Solutions
Report
of Regional Forum to Prepare an Issues Paper for Submittal to CIWMB
Organized
by SCCED, May 18, 1999
Executive
Summary
CIWMB:
Major
solutions the group would like considered by the CIWMB include (see more
details and additional suggestions in the full meeting report below):
1. CIWMB
should increase markets for recyclables
Remove
tax advantages/subsidies for virgin materials
Establish
State and Federal tax incentives for recyclables
State
take the lead in market development for recyclables
Expand
RMDZs (Recycling Market Development Zones)
Educate
farmers to use organic fertilizers/compost
Support
use of life cycle costing for all purchases
Establish
post-consumer content minimums through legislation
State
purchase recycled content products
Provide
state subsidies for producing recycled content products.
Form
a group to address market development issues as required in SB 1066.
2. CIWMB
should support improved disposal reporting systems
Endorse
recommendations of the L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force
3. CIWMB
should support increased greenwaste recycling
Increase
state funding for programs such as compost bins
Educate
the public about the value of compost
Continue
credit for ADC
Educate
the public about reducing chemical use on lawns
Regulate
pesticides because they damage compost; not subsidize bad chemicals
4. CIWMB
should support increased C&D recycling
Cities
should get diversion credit for refilling a depleted gravel pit, if it has a
permit.
Support
use of recycled C&D materials in construction
5.
CIWMB
should increase business incentives to reduce waste and increase diversion
Work
with manufacturers associations to reduce over-packaging, and if that doesn't
work, pass legislation to mandate it
Establish
pre-disposal fees for products
Examine
the German green dot system
Support
SB 332 (Sher), "Beverage containers" to expand the bottle bill
Support
SB 1110 (Chesbro), "Rigid plastic packaging," to increase recycled content in
plastic containers
Provide
more technical assistance to businesses
Do
more education of the public on the advantages of using re-refined oil
6. CIWMB
should increase program support funding
Fund
public education in addition to collection to reduce the amount of HHW generated
7.
State should set the example in recycling/diversion
Support
passage of SB 75
8. CIWMB
should improve enforcement procedures for AB 939
CIWMB
must inform the cities and haulers what constitutes a "good faith effort"
9. CIWMB
should improve adjustment procedures for AB 939
Send
out a list of the acceptable fixes to base year
10.
CIWMB should improve consideration of Southern California issues
Hold
a special L.A. County fix meeting
CIWMB
hold meetings in Southern California before final decisions made on policy
[We
are pleased with the establishment of a CIWMB local office in Southern
California]
11.
CIWMB should support increased recycling in multi-family residences
Share
ideas from innovative programs that are working well.
12.
CIWMB could assist recycling facilities siting
Support
a simpler permit process for small recycling, composting and MRF facilities
16.
CIWMB provide improved information to local jurisdictions
More
timely feedback on biannual reports (many cities have not yet received a
response to their 1995 reports)
General
comments were very positive about the attitude and competence of the CIWMB staff.
Regional/Local:
Major suggestions for solutions to be adopted at the regional and local level
include:
1. Cities
should increase markets for recyclables
Purchase
recycled content products
Expand
RMDZs wherever possible
Use
life cycle costing for all purchases
2. Improve
disposal reporting systems
Implement
recommendations of the L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force
3. Increase
greenwaste recycling
Expand
programs such as compost bins
Educate
the public about the value of compost
4. Increase
C&D recycling
Mandate
use of recycled C&D materials in construction
5.
Increase
business incentives to reduce waste and increase diversion
Support
SB 332 (Sher), "Beverage containers" to expand the bottle bill
Support
SB 1110 (Chesbro), "Rigid plastic packaging," to increase recycled content in
plastic containers
Provide
more technical assistance to businesses
Do
more education of the public
11.
Increase recycling in multi-family residences
Share
ideas from innovative programs that are working well.
13.
Improve regional cooperation
Develop
regional partnerships and reporting
Develop
regional recycling facilities
Expand
regional/sub-regional coordination meetings
14.
Improve reporting on self-haul
15.
Improve incentives to increase diversion from landfills
Introduction
to the Meeting
Kathleen
Gildred
,
SCCED: I want to welcome you to this discussion. Many of you have been
involved in the conferences and forum that SCCED has conducted on solid waste
Issues. SCCED is a non-profit organization working for a sustainable future
for the region in open space, transportation, and waste management issues.
This
meeting is a follow-up to a meeting on March 2, 1999, in Diamond Bar to
increase Southern California input into the CIWMB 21st Century Project. Bendan
Blue, assistant to David Roberti, has assured me that Mr. Roberti is very
interested in our viewpoints.
Joe
Haworth
,
L.A. County Sanitation Districts: I will be facilitating this meeting. The
opinions expressed at this meeting are personal opinions, not formal positions
of the cities and counties, but they are valuable because they are from the
people who are actually involved in the implementation of solid waste programs.
Our purpose here is to be productive and positive, to work on solutions to
challenges we are facing recycling and solid waste management.
Jim
Stewart
,
SCCED: In front of you is a survey report called "Concerns of Southern
California Solid Waste/Recycling Professionals." The list of Issues and
Solutions for the survey was based on input from the March 2, 1999 Diamond Bar
meeting and from an Orange County solid waste task force. A total of 34 solid
waste/recycling professionals responded to the survey, including 29 cities, 3
consultants and 2 haulers. Respondents rated each proposed Issue and Solution
as High, Medium, or Low priority. They also suggested additional solutions,
which are presented in italics with one priority vote.
Scores
were assigned on the basis of 5 points for High priority, 3 for Medium, 1 for
Low, and 0 for no vote, meaning a maximum score of 170 points. The attached
report of findings shows the calculated scores as well as the number of persons
voting H, M or L priority for each issue and solution. Note that the issues
and solutions are calculated separately so that a solution can get a higher
score than its parent issue.
Comments
by Participants
1. Increase
markets for recyclables
We
need resolutions from the cities to support all the efforts mentioned below.
End
subsidies for use of virgin materials, remove tax incentives, end welfare for
wasting.
To
increase recycling, everyone should use life-cycle costing.
The
US government should mandate advance disposal fees. Newspapers have a
requirement for recycled content, we could require it for copier paper, etc.
Make it the manufacturers' responsibility. Use predisposal fees to internalize
the disposal expense in the cost of the product.
Encourage
government purchase of recycled content products.
Work
regionally for group purchases to reduce the higher costs for recycled content
products. (L.A. County is working on a group purchase contract for recycled
paper.)
Pass
legislation to require post-consumer content.
Recycled
content should not be limited to paper. We should include all metal and
plastics products. For example, recycled content playground equipment is
available. So is plastic wood. CIWMB should provide grants to business to
develop more such products.
Provide
state subsidies for producing recycled content products.
Plastic
containers should be required to have recycled content.
State
take the lead in market development for recyclables
State
should take the lead in purchasing recycled content products.
SB
1066 specifically required the CIWMB to form a group to address market
development issues, but the CIWMB has ignored that requirement.
State
is helping to educate farmers to do composting and use fertilizer from compost.
This is important.
Expand
RMDZs (recycling market development zones). There should be more RMDZs. The
state only allowed a limited number. A community should be able to establish
its own district.
RMDZ
low interest revolving loans are helpful, but so much paperwork is required,
some companies are rejecting them.
If
there is sufficient investment by private capital, then the state should make
that business eligible for loans without so much paperwork.
Should
have loans available anywhere for recycling businesses.
RMDZ
program should not sunset in 2006.
2. Support
improved disposal reporting systems
The
L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force is currently preparing recommendations to
CIWMB. We started with making recommendations on disposal counting to all 88
mayors. We also have a series of recommendations regarding legislation. The
recommendations from this meeting will be mutually supportive.
Because
of the problem of transfer stations not reporting, the L.A. County Task Force
recommends an audit of all transfer stations to record the amount from each
city.
Orange
County has a continuous reporting system. Until L.A. County has that, our
disposal counting is inadequate and not a good way to determine compliance for
a community.
We
do not want to create more jobs for consultants, we want to reduce bean
counting. Accuracy is a high priority concern, and it is being worked on by
the L.A. County Task Force. Beyond the year 2000, we want to look at quality
of our numbers. Now it seems like too much false accuracy, we should just do
the best we can.
The
CIWMB established a working group with 16 solutions, not one of which addresses
L.A. County issues. The CIWMB approved a staff report ignoring comments from
us. We need a new base year adjustment.
L.A.
County has 1/3 of the state's population and generates no more that 1/3 of the
waste, so we are not the "bad boy" some in the state try to imply.
It
is hard to adjust the base year, because of the proof CIWMB requires.
Riverside
County has a big problem.
Orange
County has waste leaving the County that is not accurately reported.
The
CIWMB should allow L.A. County jurisdictions to claim the orphan tonnage
without justification, to utilize additional base year tonnage as originally
approved.
3. Increase
greenwaste recycling
Relative
to greenwaste, high priorities are 3 a, b, g. We need state funding for
programs, compost bins.
More
composting is blocked by siting problems.
People
need to know the value of compost. The CIWMB should help educate the public
about the value of compost so they know to separate and save it. PSAs could
show how well fruits and vegetables grow in it.
L.A.
County has a smart gardening program.
L.A.
County is working with haulers to help educate people about greenwaste.
We
need to educate about reducing chemical use on lawns. The state needs to
regulate pesticides use because they damage compost. We should not subsidize
the bad chemicals.
The
ADC regulations need to stay in place.
The
City of El Monte has a program to distribute backyard composters for $10. We
need more compost seminars and subsidized bins.
Once
you get some people using them, their neighbors see how successful they are.
The
problem is an exclusive franchise that charges a set fee for residence.
The
City of Santa Clarita charges people $1.50 but gives them $1.50 off their bill
if they compost.
Some
haulers recognize the value of greenwaste and know how profitable it is and
fear backyard composters will take their business away.
Some
haulers take greenwaste to Arizona to get more money.
ADC
costs less than composting, because of L.A. County's reduced fee for ADC.
Pasadena
now pays $13/ton to recycle greenwaste. It would be better if we could pay a
hauler $10/ton to take greenwaste away.
It
is important to provide a menu of options, including backyard compost bins and
greenwaste collection cans.
4. Increase
C&D recycling
We
should get credit for refilling a depleted gravel pit, if it has a permit. AB
219 (Gallegos), "Surface mining and reclamation," would deal with this issue.
It states that if a depleted gravel pit with a reclamation plan approved by the
state, it should be not counted as disposal. These inert landfills, will not
counted as disposal. It would no longer be reported on either side of the
ledger.
Everyone
should recycle C&D and not use virgin materials in construction. The
CIWMB is talking about this also.
We
should have all cities adopt ordinances requiring that all contractors recycle
C&D in order to get a building permit.
A
problem is a lot of roofing waste is not covered by building permits.
Some
of the gravel pits are doing recycling on the spot and making money from it.
They are filling more slowly and that is ok.
The
L.A. County Task Force is developing a ban to prohibit inert waste at sanitary
land fills.
5.
Increase
business incentives to reduce waste and increase diversion
The
USEPA has said there will not be any federal mandate on packaging. They are
hoping the states will take on this role.
The
German green dot system requires that manufacturers take back the products and
packaging. This is the ISO 14000 system. An incentive is that Germany is
doing well economically using this system.
Over-packaging
needs to be tackled at the producer level.
We
should support SB 332 (Sher), "Beverage containers" to expand the bottle bill.
Support
SB 1110 (Chesbro), "Rigid plastic packaging," on plastic containers.
Technical
assistance is now being done at the local level. L.A. County has staff and
consultants that go to every business in unincorporated areas to provide
consulting.
The
state needs to take the lead on working with manufacturers associations to get
packaging reduction to happen, and if doesn't work, then we need to pass
legislation to mandate it.
We
should add restaurant chains.
The
CIWMB should promote the advantage of using re-refined oil.
6. Increase
program support funding by CIWMB
Everyone
gets funding for HHW, but little else.
The
CIWMB does not provide funds for any HHW activity except collection. Public
education needs to be funded.
L.A.
County proposed a program to increase participation in HHW, but was turned down
by the CIWMB. We need to inform people to bring their HHW to collection
centers routinely.
The
CIWMB should change its policies to support public education.
Huls
non-disc grants are competitive,
HHW
funding originally was non-discretionary and we could get money that could be
used for fliers, etc. The competitive grants category is now too small to get
enough money to do this.
The
CIWMB should do education to reduce the amount of HHW generated.
The
used oil block grant is 30¢ a resident.
We
could use money to prove the diversion of HHW.
We
are putting all the costs of HHW on the community and none on manufacturers.
The
CIWMB collects $1.34/ton times 12 million tons so L.A. County sends $16 million
every year to Sacramento. 9¢ of that is for HHW, which is over $1.1
million much of which is distributed to other places in the state.
7.
State should set the example in recycling/diversion
Support
passage of SB 75 (Strom-Martin) "State agency recycling" which requires State
agencies to be involved in waste reduction and to reduce waste 25% by 2002, and
50% by 2004, unless no markets are available or there is financial hardship.
If
AB 75 doesn't have the market and financial escape clauses, then it would put
more pressure on the State.
Under
AB 75 the CIWMB would have to develop regulations on how to measure diversion.
Now
agencies such as State facilities and schools don't have to comply with AB 939.
We
can report problems with State agencies as part of our good faith efforts.
It
costs money to analyze how much waste is being generated by the State, so the
State should be required to pay for or do these reports.
We
should ask that SB 1066 be implemented regarding the requirement to develop a
proposal to increase markets for recycled.
The
CIWMB has a list of 10 priorities, we should prepare a list of the top 10
priorities for our city councils to adopt and pass on to the CIWMB.
We
also want to include concerns of haulers.
8. Improve
CIWMB enforcement procedures for AB 939
CIWMB
must inform the cities and haulers what constitutes a "good faith effort"
Now
we have 50,000 extra tons we don't know what to do with.
If
a city is applying more than 8 pounds per person per day, then the CIWMB will
question it, which is ridiculous.
Cities
were not told their item was on the agenda, so they are required to use L.A.
County fix.
9. Improve
CIWMB adjustment procedures for AB 939
The
CIWMB has not told cities of their response to their 1995 report.
The
CIWMB never sent out the acceptable fixes.
If
a city can't adjust their base year, then they are in trouble.
10.
CIWMB should improve consideration of Southern California issues
We
need a special L.A. County fix meeting with the CIWMB.
The
CIWMB held a meeting on SB 1066 in October in Diamond Bar, but the notice was
poorly worded, so no one realized the importance of the meeting and very few
people showed up. Now the CIWMB has no plans to come to Southern California
for an open meeting.
We
want a opportunity to air our views.
The
CIWMB met in Southern California on January 21 in a meeting that was open by
invitation only.
There
are a lot of cities with few staff people and they cannot send staff to a
meeting on only a week's notice.
David
Roberti announced the CIWMB will have a local office in L.A. County in June.
We
don't get notices on CIWMB meetings, the Board staff that sets up meetings is
different from the staff we work with regularly.
The
Board staff are helpful.
We
are not hearing back from the Board. We have issues going to the Board but
never hear anything about what happens.
In
one year the tonnage in L.A. County dropped 100,000 tons, primarily because of
lowered tipping fees in Orange County following their bankruptcy.
CIWMB
should send one third of their staff here.
We
should congratulate the CIWMB on the good things they do.
The
CIWMB staff is responsive to our questions, but they don't contact us with new
information.
Kaoru
Cruz emails us regularly about the what is happening, but the others don't.
The
Board switches staff around a lot and L.A. County seems to get the new people.
The
Governor needs to complete the CIWMB appointments so the Board can move ahead.
11.
Increase recycling in multi-family residences
Using
MRFs is better than trying to educate people.
L.A.
County has contract people going out to multifamily residences, headed up by
George Dellao in Mike Mohajer's office.
The
state should share ideas from innovative programs that are working well.
The
state has a guidebook on multifamily residences.
There
is a CIWMB newsletter on information cycling.
12.
Support recycling facilities siting
We
need a simpler permit process for small recycling, composting and MRF facilities.
Siting
is a land use issue. L.A. County has been trying to site a composting facility
in Lancaster for 7 years. The result was the local people created their own
AQMD in the Antelope Valley.
SB
115 (Solis), "Environmental effect of project on minority and low-income
populations," will make facility siting even more difficult.
Siting
is especially hard in an urban environment.
The
CIWMB staff could help with public education about importance of the facilities
to reduce opposition.
13.
Improve regional cooperation
14.
Improve reporting on self-haul
15.
Improve incentives to increase diversion from landfills
16.
Improved information from CIWMB to local jurisdictions
More
timely feedback on biannual reports