2000 Annual Report: Local Assistance
|
Local Assistance Topics |
|
Local Planning Documents |
Local Planning Documents
To achieve the mandates of AB 939, each county or region was required to develop a comprehensive plan (countywide or regional “integrated waste management plan”) that evaluated and described needed diversion programs and other programs required to meet the requirements of AB 939. The integrated plans include five elements, two that are countywide or regionwide, and three that must be prepared by each jurisdiction.
The county or regional “summary plan” summarizes the diversion programs and disposal capacity of all the jurisdictions in the county or region. The county or regional “siting element” describes the facilities needed to meet the required 15-year disposal capacity. Each jurisdiction in the county or region prepares a “source reduction and recycling element,” which identifies the diversion programs that will be implemented; a “household hazardous waste element,” which identifies programs to promote the safe handling, collection, and disposal of household hazardous waste; and a “nondisposal facility element,” which identifies the diversion facilities needed to meet the diversion goals.
Because of small geographic size or low population density and small quantity of waste generated, statute allows rural jurisdictions to request a reduction in the planning and diversion requirements. In addition, the IWMB is required to develop programs and materials to assist these jurisdictions. To date, 30 jurisdictions have received reductions in the diversion or planning requirements.
The IWMB assists local governments in preparing and implementing local plans, and the IWMB reviews and approves the plans and elements. Through its review, the IWMB determines if local jurisdictions are experiencing difficulties in implementing their diversion programs and provides technical assistance to help overcome barriers. To date, the IWMB has reviewed more than 1,700 local elements and plans from more than 400 local governments and regional agencies.
Infrastructure
Local implementation of programs has created a diversion infrastructure that includes collection and processing facilities and equipment, bins, trucks and personnel. Materials recovery facilities (MRF), transfer stations, composting operations, and other facilities used for collection and diversion of materials have become prominent in California’s waste management system. Significant investments, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, have been made in these infrastructures throughout California. In Orange County, for example, $80 million has been invested in four MRFs. Put in place by private industry and local government during the last decade, these infrastructures can now accommodate diversion of half of the state’s entire waste stream.
Included in this infrastructure are waste reduction and recycling programs developed and implemented by local jurisdictions in partnership with private industry. As a result of these investments, jobs have been created, adding to the local economy; and an estimated 28 million residents and businesses in California have access to curbside collection programs. From 1990 through 1996, residential and commercial diversion programs almost doubled. In addition to this:
- Commercial green waste pickup increased by 417 percent.
- Residential curbside pickup increased by 29 percent.
- Materials recovery facilities increased by 326 percent.
- Residential green waste pickup increased by 448 percent.
- Residential drop-off increased by 40 percent.
Regional Agencies
In addition to the establishment of new facilities and investment in programs, changes brought about by AB 939 have resulted in establishment of cooperative relationships between cities, counties, and service providers that never before existed. Cities and counties realize many benefits from working together as regional agencies to achieve economies of scale in developing and funding solid waste diversion programs, reducing duplication in preparation of waste management plans and progress reports, and improving the accuracy of diversion measurement. Regional agency members rely on one another to succeed, and jointly share the consequences of failure.
Since 1993, when regional agencies were first authorized, 106 cities and unincorporated counties have entered into binding agreements to form 22 regional agencies. More regional agencies are located in rural areas than in urban areas. As of December 1999, regional agencies are located in the counties of Amador, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Glenn, Inyo, Kings, Lassen, Marin, Merced, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare and Yuba. The number of regional agencies continues to grow as jurisdictions see the benefits.
Establishing Base Levels
The local planning documents established a base year from which to measure future achievement of the diversion mandates. Each local plan provides base information on each jurisdiction’s waste stream, including amount of waste diverted, disposed, and generated (generation = disposal + diversion). Each jurisdiction was required to include in the base information a solid waste generation study identifying the types and amounts of solid waste generated within the jurisdiction. The solid waste generation study was used locally as the basis for designing diversion programs as well as the base amount from which to measure future achievement of the diversion mandates.
These solid waste generation studies that established the base level were the first attempt ever in California to quantify the amounts and types of wastes generated, diverted, and disposed. As a result, many jurisdictions lacked experience and knowledge, and many studies ultimately included inaccurate or incomplete data. In many cases, large segments of their waste streams were not tracked or adequately accounted for, such as waste hauled to disposal facilities by someone other than an authorized local hauler, e.g., roofers, landscapers, etc. Over half of the state’s landfills didn’t have scales to establish and accurately track tonnage. There were no standard statewide conversion factors relating volume to weight for the waste delivered to these facilities.
It was also difficult for jurisdictions to obtain accurate information on waste that was source-reduced. Quantifying source reduction proved virtually impossible because source reduction is focused on the reduction of waste generated rather than management of materials after they have become waste. Determining quantities and types of wastes recycled also proved difficult in some areas because that required obtaining information for private as well as public waste diversion activities. Private recyclers were concerned about protecting proprietary information. Much of the data jurisdictions included in their initial studies was later found to be incomplete.
Jurisdictions conducted these studies and prepared plans during the early years, receiving limited guidance from the IWMB while State planning regulations were being developed. During this process, legislative revisions continued to refine the requirements of AB 939.
Over the last several years, the IWMB has worked with the jurisdictions to develop better estimates that more accurately reflect base year figures. It is critical to have the most accurate figures available to numerically measure achievement of the diversion rate that reflects program implementation.
Program Implementation
To meet the goals of AB 939, jurisdictions began to implement diversion programs even before they received IWMB approval of their planning documents. In 1990 there were about 1,000 residential and commercial recycling programs and drop-off and buyback centers. By 1996, there were nearly 2,000 of these programs throughout the state. The diversion efforts also include a wide variety of programs such as public education, curbside collection, buyback strategies, composting, MRFs, business waste reduction, and buy recycled procurement policies. The total number of diversion programs increased from about 7,000 programs statewide in 1990 to more than 13,000 programs statewide in 1996, out of 62 diversion program categories.
Disposal Reporting System
The original measurement system was generation-based and required jurisdictions to quantify diversion and disposal in 1995 to determine if they met the 25 percent diversion goal, and again in 2000 to determine if they met the 50 percent diversion goal.
It is essential that jurisdictions use accurate information in measuring their diversion programs’ successes. Jurisdictions expressed concerns that the most difficult and costly requirement was obtaining accurate information on quantities and types of wastes recycled or otherwise diverted, and calculating source reduction.
The solution was to redesign the measurement system. With the passage of AB 2494 (Sher, Chapter 1292, Statutes of 1992), measurement of 25 and 50 percent diversion was changed to a disposal-based measurement system, and the IWMB was required to establish a mechanism to track disposal tonnages. Diversion achievement would be determined by comparing jurisdiction disposal amounts (as measured by the disposal reporting system) to the calculated annual waste generation, adjusted for changes in population and economics.
Regulations were developed to provide minimum reporting requirements for collecting disposal data and to allow flexibility at the local level to customize the data collection to local needs. After considering much public input on the regulations, the IWMB and the Office of Administrative Law approved the final regulations in 1994. With the disposal reporting system in place, counties began disposal reporting in 1995. By 1999, with nearly four complete years of disposal reporting, the IWMB had acquired a clearer picture of disposal activities in California, including waste flow patterns and waste flow variation.
Along with this, jurisdictions expressed concerns about the difficulty in getting accurate information regarding self-haul and waste allocated to jurisdictions. The IWMB held a special hearing in November 1999 on the disposal reporting system to discuss issues related to data accuracy in these areas and to gather ideas for improvements. At the hearing, the IWMB decided to begin publicizing successful local government disposal measurement techniques and to develop additional training programs for local governments. The IWMB will be exploring whether additional changes, including regulatory and statutory changes, are needed to improve data accuracy.
Statewide Waste Characterization
Knowing what's in our waste stream is an essential step in designing effective programs to reduce waste disposal. A decade ago jurisdictions prepared their waste management plans quickly to meet the deadlines in the law. Base-level data were often inaccurate and diversion program selection was not closely linked to the amount and types of waste in the waste stream. Now, with the possibility of up to 60 percent of California jurisdictions requesting time extensions, it is vital that each jurisdiction know the amounts and types of waste being disposed to select appropriate programs to divert those wastes.
Changes in California businesses and in the habits of residents have changed the characteristics of the waste stream during the last 10 years. Up-to-date data are needed by the jurisdictions that have not yet achieved 50 percent diversion and will be requesting time extensions. Businesses’ waste comprises approximately 60 percent of California’s waste stream, and businesses will need characterization data to do their part to achieve 50 percent diversion.
Waste characterization means finding out how much paper, glass, food waste, etc., is discarded in our waste stream. Waste characterization information is critical in planning how to reduce waste, set up recycling programs, and conserve money and resources. Local agencies need to know what is in their waste to design a program to reduce waste entering the waste stream. Planners for local government, haulers, and recyclers can use characterization data to estimate the amount of certain materials in their waste stream. Individual businesses can also use waste characterization to understand what is in their waste streams-a vital first step in devising ways to reduce waste and cut disposal costs.
The IWMB commissioned a statewide waste characterization study in 1999 and, in 2000, added the results of the study to its Web-based tools for diversion planning. The new data is a significant step forward, since this is the first time a single method has been used on a statewide basis. The database now provides information for both the residential and commercial sector waste streams for California cities and counties. The business waste characterization and residential waste characterization data tables show details of the information included in the database.
Local Jurisdiction Compliance
AB 939 requires cities, counties, and regional agencies to (1) prepare “adequate” waste management plans to achieve 25 percent diversion in 1995 and 50 percent diversion in 2000 and (2) implement the IWMB-approved plans. Local governments that fail to prepare adequate waste management plans, fail to implement the programs identified in their approved plans, or fail to meet the diversion mandate after an IWMB hearing may be placed on compliance schedules. If a jurisdiction fails to meet the provisions of the compliance schedule, the IWMB may hold a hearing to determine whether to impose fines of up to $10,000 per day.
In 1993, the IWMB adopted a policy for reviewing and evaluating waste management plan adequacy (Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Enforcement Policies Part I: Plan Adequacy). In 1995 the IWMB adopted the second half of the policy concerning program implementation and the biennial review process (Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Enforcement Policies Part II: Plan Implementation). The plan implementation policy was incorporated in statute by reference with the passage of SB 1066 (Sher, Chapter 672, Statutes of 1997).
In 1997, after several years of working with jurisdictions to urge them to submit their overdue plans, the IWMB developed a step-wise compliance process. This graduated compliance process includes notifying the jurisdiction of late documents, notifying local elected officials of the jurisdiction’s failure to submit documents, setting deadlines for the jurisdiction’s submittal of documents, scheduling an IWMB hearing to consider a compliance order, and, finally, scheduling an IWMB hearing to consider penalties if the jurisdiction fails to meet the compliance order.
At the start of the process, approximately 67 plans had not been submitted or were deemed inadequate. In April 1997, 50 cities and counties were placed on compliance schedules and 46 cities and counties complied, making the total number of jurisdictions in compliance 532 out of 536. Consequently, in January 1998 the IWMB held plan adequacy hearings for three cities (Santa Fe Springs, Guadalupe, and Point Arena) and one county (Mariposa). All four received fines, and all are now in compliance.
About the CIWMB http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BoardInfo/
Office of Public Affairs: opa@ciwmb.ca.gov (916) 341-6300