Getting to 50%
Los Angeles, California, June 10, 1998
Organized by the Southern California Council on Environment and Development
Summary Notes by Jim Stewart
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Grateful appreciation to the following people who put in many hours for the planning and implementing of this conference: Carmen Carso, Joe Haworth, Michael Huls, John Jakupcak, Mike Miller, and Joan Satt. And a special thank you to the sponsors of the conference: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, GTE California, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and the Hewlett Foundation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over a hundred waste management professionals attended "Getting to 50%," a conference produced by the Southern California Council on Environment and Development (SCCED, pronounced "succeed"). SCCED works toward building a sustainable future for Southern California by bringing together people from government agencies, environmental and community groups, universities, and businesses in the Greater Los Angeles Area. In facilitated task forces, forums, and conferences, SCCED works to build consensus on programs and policies to protect the environment, strengthen the economy, and ensure equity for the region's 15 million residents.
The conference took place at the L.A. County Department of Public Works. It featured numerous presentations on programs to help cities reach the state mandate of 50% waste diversion by 2000.
Keynote speaker, Keith Smith, CIWMB Deputy Director, announced that the statewide diversion rate increased from 17% in 1990 to 32% in 1997. As early as 1995, 15% of jurisdictions reported over 50% diversion, with 60% between 25-50%; 25% fell below 25% diversion. He stressed CIWMB wants every jurisdiction to make the goal, if not by 2000, then by 2003 or 2005 at the latest. He urged agencies to focus on the biggest sources left, organics and construction and demolition (C&D). Together these comprise about 40% of the remaining waste stream.
Judith Freedman, also from CIWMB, outlined ways to deal with low diversion percentages, such as adjusting the base year. Then Susan Collins, a consultant, mentioned there are actually 45 options for adjusting the base year.
Consultant Eugene Tseng described how audits of 95 companies in Carson yielded a 77.6% diversion rate from those companies. This diversion was previously not included in the municipal waste report. Jamie Herbon, from the City of Fountain Valley, described methods for public education and waste prevention. Gail Kaufman reported how the City of Thousand Oaks has made it illegal to deliver unwanted newspapers and handbills to any home that requests no junk mail and flyers.
Doug Walters, Mike Miller, David Hardy, and Roger Van der Wende presented solutions for recycling organics, including transforming "zoo doo" into the popular fertilizer "TOPGRO." The panel on innovative funding, including Mike Mohajer of L.A. County Public Works, Constance Hornig, esq. and consultant Nancy Hicks shared diversion cost savings strategies and ways to raise fees without violating Prop 218.
Jim Mang from Long Beach overviewed using a recycled market development zone to generate markets for recycled materials, while Vince Bonfanti explained how Fort James Paper Company finances MRFs and recycling operations to feed their mills.
Several speakers, including Mark Harmon, Joe Delaney, and Mike Silva presented approaches to develop and market variable can rates. Kelly Ingalls and his colleague Danielle Britton told how the City of Los Angeles works with architects and contractors to recycle up to 98.5% of a demolished office building. John Agamalian provided tips on creating a recycling plan for a construction project.
David Little, Chip Clements, and Tim McNamara described the challenges of multi-family residential recycling and overcoming them by skillful work with building managers. In another panel on commercial sector recycling, Jaime Lozano reported how Carson worked with students to complete waste audits of 95 large businesses for a cost of only $10,000 paid for by their franchise hauler. Karen Higgins described the technical support Los Angeles provides business, while Joe Sloan of Consolidated Services Company outlined the challenges for small businesses.
PRESENTATION BY THE CIWMB
Keith Smith, Deputy Director of CIWMB: The focus of the Board is to work with cities and counties to achieve the 50% diversion goal. The chart shows statewide diversion has increased from 17% in 1990 to 32% in 1997. In 1995, 15% of jurisdictions were already over 50% diversion, 60% between 25-50%, and 25% below 25% diversion.
The estimated pounds disposed per resident per day (40% of the waste stream), has declined 40%, from 3.1 in 1990, to 2.4 in 1997. However, non-residential waste (40% of the waste stream) has only declined 20%, from 9.7 pounds per employee in 1990 to 7.9 in 1997.
Judith Freedman, CIWMB:
Some reasons for low diversion percentages and how to deal with them include:
- Lack of implementation of programs to reduce waste sent to landfills.
- Base-year problems, such as missed non-franchised hauler disposal.
- Adjustment method problems, such as not correcting for large C&D projects or large changes in the industrial sector.
- Systemic reporting problems, such as drivers not telling the specific jurisdiction of origin of the waste.
Our role is to work with you; any compliance enforcement is a last resort. Good faith efforts are all reasonable, feasible efforts to implement the progress and achieve the results.
SB1066 has provided for an extension up to January 1, 2006. You must submit a request and all documentation by July 1, 1998.
Compliance process:
- CIWMB's biennial review will initiate the compliance process.
- CIWMB will provide targeted assistance to maximize diversion program implementation.
- After a public hearing the Board may impose a compliance order and schedule.
- The compliance order and schedule will be developed with the jurisdiction on a case by case basis.
- If the compliance order and schedule are met, then there will be no fine; if not, the Board may impose a fine.
Smith: Our goal is for every agency to make it; the flexibilities will help you. We are focusing on the biggest sources left, comprising 40% of the remaining waste stream:
- Increasing organic material diversion (now about 30% of the waste stream): We are encouraging yard and food waste recycling, source reduction, grass recycling, increasing composting, making it easier to get into the compost business, improving the quality of the product and how to get it into the marketplace.
- Increasing C&D debris recycling on and off site (now about 25% of the waste stream): We are seeking two big jurisdictions to establish partnerships to set up a system for source reduction and re-use; looking at obstacles to reuse of C&D material; working with the architects and engineering boards to encourage use of recycled products; partnering with Home Depot to display more recycled products.
- Improving facility compliance: We are bringing unlicensed facilities into being licensed, looking at chronic violations, bringing old permits up to date, bringing together local enforcement agencies and recycling coordinators.
- Improving local government performance: We will publicize those at 50% and put your ideas on our website.
We encourage you to achieve 50% as soon as possible, but some of you may have go to 2003 or 2005. Use the four Ps:
- Perspective: be clear on what waste is left out there.
- Partnerships: form cross-functional relationships with businesses and other governments.
- Priorities: work on the biggest sources.
- Persistence: keep at it.
UPDATE: Analyzing Your Base Year
Susan Collins, Hilton, Farnkopf, and Hobson, consultant:
The basic formula is to take your 1990 waste generation, adjust it to create a projected year 2000 total, and multiply by 50% to get your allowable disposal amount in 2000. There are many adjustment factors, such as changes in population, taxable sales and employment. Use the most favorable adjustment factors. You can mix and match and use the city or county factors that work best for you.
Four approaches to correct a data problem:
- Adjust the base year.
- Adjust the reporting year.
- Start over, create a new base year now.
- Submit annual generation-based analysis.
Always provide sufficient documentation for whatever options you choose. The Board studied 45 options for adjusting the base year and found several acceptable. Improve your data, such as examine current records, identify all haulers, look at self-haul and non-franchise haulers (especially for C&D). It is very valuable to contact all landfills and get accurate records for your municipality.
Talk to your CIWMB representative about possible corrections to your base year. For anyone in Los Angeles County, in 1990, there was a countywide lack of allocation. Jurisdictions reported a total of 10.5 million tons, but the amount received at landfills was 15.9 million, so that 5.4 million or 34% was unallocated. This problem is still not solved in Los Angeles County.
When I worked with Pasadena, we found a diversion of negative 83% without adjustment, but got a positive 36% diversion after adjustment. In the case of Long Beach, without adjustment they reported 7% diversion, but after adjustment of base year got 24% in 1995 and 29% in 1996.
SB1066 created an extension of the 50% deadline beyond January 1, 2000. You can get a single or multi-year extension not to exceed a total of 5 years. The bill sunsets in 2006. The bill also requires market development for recyclables by the CIWMB. The extensions are based on substantial evidence in your annual reports to implement source reduction, etc. You need to identify what alternatives produce the greatest achievable diversion.