Report of Regional Forum to Prepare an Issues Paper for Submittal to CIWMB
Organized by SCCED, May 18, 1999
Executive Summary
A total of 26 participants, including 18 cities and counties, 4 consultants and 4 haulers, met to review and comment on a survey report called “Concerns of Southern California Solid Waste/Recycling Professionals: Issues and Solutions” The discussion encompassed issues to raise to the CIWMB as well as issues to be dealt with on a local and regional level.
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