duke basketball shorts
business credit line
auto trader
analog bit converter digital video
ford mustang coupe
civic engine honda
carlo chevrolet monte
free fashion design games online
motorcycle accessories
cheap hotel san francisco
Suggestions from Southern California Solid Waste/Recycling Professionals

Detailed Report of Survey Results
Prepared by the Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED)
June 8, 1999

Executive Summary

The detailed report below shows the top issues facing Southern California solid waste/recycling professionals who responded to a SCCED survey:
Priority Ranking

Issue

Score
1
Markets for recyclables too low
128
2
Disposal reporting system inadequate
119
3
Greenwaste not being recycled
119
4
C&D Waste not being recycled
117
5
Insufficient business incentives to reduce sources of waste
117
6
Insufficient funding
103
7
State not setting the example in recycling
100
8
Inappropriate enforcement procedures by the CIWMB
97
9
Inflexible adjustment procedures by the CIWMB
94
10
Inadequate consideration of Southern California issues by the CIWMB
91
11
Multi-family residences recycling rate too low
87
12
Difficulties in facilities siting
82
13
Insufficient regional cooperation
77
14
Self-haul reduces diversion
77
15
Insufficient incentives to increase diversion from landfills
76
16
Inadequate information from the CIWMB to local jurisdictions
73


Background

For the past several months the CIWMB has been engaged in the development of a "21st Century Policy Project," using a Future Search process.

Concerned that the open meetings of this process were occurring in Sacramento, a number of solid waste/recycling professionals convened a Southern California Regional Meeting on March 2, 1999, to provide input into the CIWMB regarding major issues and potential solutions for the 21st Century Policy.

A report of the March 2 meeting (available from SCCED by phoning (310) 281-8534 or at www.scced.org/hotissues/March2Rpt.html) was provided to the CIWMB. Their response was to ask for further clarification of the Southern California concerns.

To provide this response, the staff of SCCED, as an objective third party, volunteered to work with Southern California solid waste professionals to design and distribute a survey, the results of which are attached.

Summary of Methodology

The list of Issues and Solutions for the following survey was based on input from the March 2 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 included 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.

Survey of Southern California Solid Waste Issues and Solutions
Detailed Report of Survey Results

Rank
Issues and Suggested Solutions
Score
Raw Data


(Additional suggestions/comments in italic type)

H
M
L
1
Markets for recyclables too low
128
22
6

Remove tax advantages/subsidies for virgin materials
137
24
5
2

State and Federal tax incentives for recyclables
133
21
9
1

State take lead in market development for recyclables
123
20
6
5

Municipalities & counties buy recycled products
106
13
12
5

Fund R&D, pilot projects





Develop and implement new technologies, such as biomass conversion, organics into ethanol, etc.
91
6
18
7

More funding for more RMDZs (Recycling Market Development Zones)
83
9
9
11

Establish pre-disposal fees for products
69
5
12
8

Do education for farmers to use organic fertilizers/compost
5
1


Use life cycle costing
5
1


Provide big incentives for recycled products (see list in #5)
5
1


Post-consumer content minimums established through legislation
5
1


Big incentives for recycled products
5
1

2
Disposal reporting inadequate
119
19
7
3

Use continuous reporting at landfills (and transfer stations)
123
20
7
2

Make landfills and haulers responsible for reconciling the reports
11
1
1
3

Registration of all self-haulers
10
1
1
2

Require transfer stations to submit Disposal Quantity Reports to the County, as the landfills do right now.
5
1


Use a different system, maybe a more regional approach
5
1


Use a better way to track waste back to generator/city
5
1


Eliminate 50% goal and reporting system
5
1


Use hauler office reports, not driver data
5
1


Provide a means for cities to police the disposal reporting system or recognize its shortcomings for what they really are
5
1

3
Greenwaste not being recycled
119
17
11
1

More composting facilities
128
24
2
2

State funding for programs
105
16
6
7

Keep ADC regulation in place
33
6
1

Incentives for public/private partnerships
14
2
1
1

Reduce chemical use on lawns/gardens
5
1


Mandate gardeners/landscapers compost and grasscycle
5
1


Subsidize purchase of compost bins
5
1

4
C&D Waste not being recycled
117
20
4
5

Support C&D collection/diversion/recycling
135
25
3
1

Provide assistance to fund recycling facilities at landfills
25
5


Have state laws mandating using recyclable materials
22
4
2

Have state laws mandating recycling materials
17
3
2

State permits need to exclude mining sites from calculations
14
2
1
1

Push regional solution to C&D waste
5
1


Issues and Suggested Solutions
Score
H
M
L
5
Insufficient business incentives to reduce sources of waste
117
19
6
4

Legislation to require post-consumer content in packaging (this is really part of market development)
139
23
7
3

Legislation to reduce over-packaging
126
21
6
3

Advance disposal fees for paint, etc.
125
21
4
8

Emphasize producer responsibilities
124
18
10
4

CIWMB work with state & national hotel associations, retail grocers, etc. to increase diversion
124
19
9
2

Expand the bottle bill to cover all containers
123
19
8
4

Provide technical assistance to businesses for waste prevention
113
16
10
3

Incentives for easily recyclable plastics
111
16
9
4

Stop use of non-recyclable containers
108
17
6
5

Hold "Take It Back Conference" here
85
11
6
12

Collect money from the manufacturers (for what and how?)
83
13
3
9

Business environmental permit include waste diversion
83
9
10
8

Stop Miller plastic bottles
81
11
5
11

Incentives for source-separated recycling
75
7
10
10

Increase bottle fees
66
5
10
11

Business get a bill for pollution that is reduced by the amount of diversion (this goes way beyond solid waste issues)
63
6
7
12

Mandate manufacturers to take back products & packaging, just like Europe (needs to be a Federal mandate)
5
1


Increase used oil recycling incentive to 50¢ a quart
5
1


Heavily promote re-refined motor oil
5
1

6
Insufficient funding for programs by the CIWMB
103
12
13
4

Funding for food waste, organics pilot projects
101
14
8
7

Funding for ongoing support of programs, not just start-up
99
14
7
8

Funding for new technology
96
13
7
10

Funding for technical staff for commercial recycling
93
13
7
7

Grants for cities in need
91
10
10
11

Funding for public education on recycling, waste prevention, litter, etc. (has been done!)
89
13
5
9

Non-discretionary block grants for HHW
84
11
6
11

Reduce CIWMB staffing and return the money in local grants
63
6
7
12

Funding for waste characterization studies
52
5
5
12

Grants to establish "paint recycling centers" at places such as Home Depot
5
1


AB 939 is an unfunded state mandate, give cities property taxes back and their fair share of Prop 172 revenue
5
1

7
State not setting the example in implementing recycling/ diversion
100
11
13
6

Pass legislation requiring State to adhere to AB 939
116
18
7
5

Pass legislation requiring State facilities to report disposal and diversion to jurisdiction where facility is located
93
13
7
7

Allow jurisdictions to remove State/Federal tonnage from reports
90
14
4
8

State do SRRE for all its own agencies
80
10
6
12

More State-funded statewide public education campaigns on waste issues
74
9
7
8

Mandate state to recycle and the cities to fine the state
5
1


Require waste haulers for State facilities to have recycling component, including green waste, since local jurisdictions have no authority over Cal Trans, prisons, schools, etc.
5
1

8
Inappropriate enforcement procedures by the CIWMB
97
11
12
6

Clarify what "good faith effort" means
143
26
4
1

Hold cities accountable only to the degree they control the waste stream
110
16
8
6

Require haulers to know and report all waste sources
101
14
6
13

CIWMB concentrate staff effort on cities under 50% rather than above
93
11
11
5

Provide extensions beyond 2000 (already available!)
85
10
9
8

State should issue regulations for SB 1066
81
10
8
7

Mandate minimum efforts and then no fines
76
7
10
11

Replace 50% with a sliding scale depending on local waste stream
74
7
9
12

Eliminate fines (No, then what would be the teeth behind AB 939?)
39
3
4
12

Remove self-haul from disposal reporting
5
1


Require all cities to have a commingled recycling program
5
1


Legislation to eliminate 50% and establish program thresholds
5
1


Mandate minimum level of programs
5
1


Provide support to cities who are trying to police ghost tonnage problems. Either enforcement or adjustments.
5
1

9
Inflexible adjustment procedures by the CIWMB
94
10
13
5

Credit for source reduction (already exists) (shouldn't this show up if base-year waste generation study was done properly?) (how do you measure this?)
127
22
5
2

Correct for "phantom" or "orphan" tonnage in L.A. County
120
21
4
3

Credit for converting waste to a product, such as plastic lumber
106
17
5
6

Give 100% diversion credit for waste to energy, biomass conversion, etc.
101
15
6
8

Include market conditions for recyclables
94
11
9
12

Allow different base year (can't this already be done?) (is a controversy)
93
14
5
8

Support new solid waste generation studies (already exists)
86
10
9
9

Include rainfall, tourism, big increase in economy (already exists)
85
11
6
12

Expand the fixes to solid waste stream (is a "fix" an economic condition?)
73
9
7
7

Move away from quantitative assessments (50%) to qualitative (SRRE)
5
1


Correct current L.A. County reporting system
5
1


Stop emphasis on counting and start diverting
5
1


Correct/adjust for haulers dumping LA City trash at Puente Hills and claiming it is from other smaller cities
5
1

10
Inadequate consideration of Southern California issues by the CIWMB
91
10
11
8

CIWMB hold meetings in So. California before decisions made on policy
138
22
8
4

CIWMB local office in Southern California
109
15
9
7

CIWMB representatives at recycling coordinators' meetings in So. California
107
15
9
5

CIWMB put info on website and ask for feedback from all of us ( available)
94
12
10
4

Commission look at AB 939, with equal representation from So California
74
10
5
9

Move CIWMB headquarters to Southern California
41
3
4
14

CIWMB does a good job and works with us!
5
1


Focus on legislature, not the Board
5
1


Have more Board meetings in Southern California
5
1

11
Multi-family residences recycling rate too low
87
10
9
10

State funding for multi-family programs
71
8
6
13

Use MRFs
5
1


More education for multi-family recycling
5
1


Incinerate family waste
5
1


State assist in developing multi-language educational materials
5
1

12
Difficulties in facilities siting
82
5
17
6

Establish a simpler permit process
94
12
10
4

State assist in facilities siting
60
4
10
10

Eliminate NIMBY for siting MRFs
5
1

13
Insufficient regional cooperation
77
5
15
7

Report regionally
83
9
10
8

Develop regional site partnerships and share diversion credit
74
7
10
9

Develop regional recycling facilities
73
7
10
8

Form JPAs
5
1


Cooperate on program implementation, public education efforts
5
1


Continue regional/sub-regional coordination meetings
5
1


Have County hold count-wide coordinator meetings
5
1


Plan regional C&D and greenwaste facilities
5
1

14
Self-haul reduces diversion
77
7
10
12

Increase minimum landfill charges, share revenue with cities
79
9
8
10

Ban self-haul, unless hauler works with a MRF
41
3
3
17

Use better reporting systems
5
1


Report accurately the source of recycling material
5
1


Correct current L.A. County reporting system
5
1


Recycle more at landfills
5
1

15
Insufficient incentives to increase diversion from landfills
76
7
11
8

Landfill incentives so we pay less if more diversion
84
13
4
7

Make the NDFP fee part of SRRE
46
3
6
13

Raise all landfill fees to encourage diversion and use the money for grants to cities
31
6
1

L.A. County needs to increase landfill disposal fees. Currently it is cheaper to dump most material than recycle it.
5
1


Recycling on a large scale happens due to an economic shift. Added fees and mandates only go so far.
5
1

16
Inadequate information from CIWMB to local jurisdictions
73
2
18
9

More timely feedback on biannual reports
98
15
7
2

Better characterization of waste stream and sources
82
9
10
7

Real statewide reports on diversion percentages
81
8
12
5

State does a good job providing info
5
1


Timely responses on questions
5
1


Straight forward, plain language regulations.
5
1

17
Not recycling ash produced by waste to energy conversion
5
1