|
This page provides information on the CIWMB's Strategic Directive 3
(SD-3). Each of the seven subdirectives links to further explanation
including baseline measurement, metrics or performance criteria, annual
targets, and key activities.
Directive
It is a core value of the CIWMB that all materials be properly managed in
order to minimize the generation of waste (source reduction,) maximize the
diversion of materials from landfills, and manage all materials to their
heights and best use, in accordance with the waste management hierarchy and
in support of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The
Board conducts these activities in accordance with all mandates directing
programs relative to special wastes, such as waste tires, used oil, and
household hazardous wastes, etc.
Specifically, the CIWMB will:
- Provide vigorous oversight of local jurisdictions to ensure that 50
percent
diversion is maintained among those that have already attained it.
- Increase the number of local jurisdictions that reach the 50 percent level.
- Continually increase the statewide annual diversion rate beyond 50
percent.
- Increase the annual waste tire diversion rate to 90 percent by 2015.
- Work with other State agencies to minimize litter and the uncontrolled
release of materials harmful to the environment.
- Seek statutory authority by September 2008 to develop a timely and accurate
compliance measurement system.
- Develop a full-cost accounting analysis to compare the costs and benefits of
recycling, composting, technology, and landfills.
3.1--Provide vigorous oversight of local jurisdictions to
ensure that 50
percent
diversion is maintained among those that have already attained it
This subdirective addresses the original core goal of AB 939, local
government achievement of 50 percent diversion. Many jurisdictions have
reached 50 percent, but the Board must monitor them to ensure they maintain it.
Waste stream changes, budget issues impacting diversion programs, or
decreased decision-maker interest may lead jurisdictions to falter, so the
Board must be vigilant.
Baseline
The baseline is number of jurisdictions at or above 50 percent diversion in
calendar year 2006.
Preliminary data for 2006 will not be available until later this year, while
final Board approved diversion rates will not be available until after the
next biennial review. Using 2004 biennial review data, 255 local
jurisdictions out of 424 were at or over 50 percent diversion (this includes only
those jurisdictions that have Board approved diversion rates of 50 percent or
more). This does not include 44 with approved good faith efforts or
approved reduced diversion requirements, or an additional 106 with approved
time extensions and hence delayed biennial review status.
Metrics or Performance Criteria
The Board will measure the number of jurisdictions at or above 50 percent
diversion, based on electronic annual reports submitted by jurisdictions and
subsequent Board review.
Annual Targets
The annual target is to maintain the number of jurisdictions at or above 50
percent
diversion and to ensure that jurisdictions currently at 50 percent do not slip
below this threshold. Legislative proposals to switch to county-level
measurement could simplify the system.
Key Activities
Board staff will oversee jurisdiction progress and achievement of the 50
percent
diversion rate by reviewing annual reports and conducting site visits to
assess diversion programs and identify diversion program gaps. This
will include monitoring changes in population growth and construction and
demolition activity, assessing new market opportunities, and assisting
jurisdictions to ensure that they do not decrease diversion below 50
percent.
Board staff will provide technical assistance to increase diversion program
implementation and if necessary, initiate the compliance order process for
jurisdictions failing to implement programs, achieve 50 percent diversion, or make
good faith efforts.
3.2--Increase the number of local jurisdictions that
reach the 50
percent level
This subdirective addresses the need for all local governments to reach 50
percent
diversion. While most jurisdictions are in compliance, many still need
to implement additional diversion programs that effectively target the right
materials in the right ways.
Baseline
The baseline is the number of jurisdictions in compliance with the Board's
diversion goals in calendar year 2006.
As with Strategic Directive 3.1, preliminary data for 2006 will not be
available until later this year, while final Board approved diversion rates
will not be available until after the next biennial review. Using 2004
biennial review data, 300 local jurisdictions out of 424 were found to be in
compliance and were either at or over 50 percent diversion (this includes those
jurisdictions that have Board approved levels of program implementation and
diversion rates of 50 percent or more) or had approved good faith efforts or
approved reduced diversion requirements.
Metrics or Performance Criteria
The Board will measure increases in the number of jurisdictions at or above
50 percent diversion, based on electronic annual reports submitted by jurisdictions
and subsequent Board review.
Annual Targets
The annual target will be to bring all jurisdictions into compliance.
Of the 106 jurisdictions with approved time extensions and hence delayed
biennial review status, preliminary review of annual reports and staff site
visits indicates that 90 or more are likely to be recommended by staff as
being in compliance. Staff therefore would target the 10 or so
remaining jurisdictions to bring them into compliance. Legislative
proposals to switch to county-level measurement could simplify the system.
Key Activities
- The Board will provide targeted
technical assistance to jurisdictions not yet at 50 percent diversion in order to
increase diversion program implementation, and achievement of the goal.
The Board has reorganized to increase coordination and collaboration of
Board programs for improved technical assistance to jurisdictions. By
combining local government assistance and market development, the Board will
provide greater targeted assistance to jurisdictions while also focusing on
regional diversion opportunities and market development. New regional
Market Assessment Action Plans (for jurisdictions not meeting the 50 percent
diversion requirement) will match targeted waste types within jurisdictions
to diversion and business opportunities.
- The Board will continue to
monitor jurisdiction progress and initiate the compliance order process for
jurisdictions failing to implement programs, achieve 50 percent diversion, or make
good faith efforts.
3.3--Continually increase the statewide annual diversion
rate beyond 50
percent
This subdirective addresses the highest measure of success in California.
Looking at the statewide diversion rate from year to year lets us judge our
overall progress and gauge our effectiveness. At this level, all the
Board's activities contribute to the result.
Baseline
The baseline is the statewide diversion rate of 54 percent for fiscal year 2006 (as
calculated in 2007).
Metrics or Performance Criteria
The board will annually measure the statewide diversion rate.
Annual Targets
The overall target will be a statewide diversion rate of 75 percent by fiscal year
2020. Staff will monitor progress towards that level on a yearly
basis. Current legislation could change the goals, while legislative
proposals to switch to county-level measurement could simplify the system.
Key Activities
The statewide diversion rate is the culmination of all Board activities.
Continually increasing the rate will require aggressive implementation of
the Strategic Directives, including maximizing jurisdiction diversion,
pursuing producer responsibility, developing markets and infrastructure, and
pioneering new technologies and strategies to divert waste.
3.4--Increase the annual tire diversion rate to 90 percent by 2015
This subdirective addresses the Board's mandate to regulate and manage
waste tires. California is faced with the significant challenge of diverting
or safely managing more than 40.2 million reusable and waste tires generated
each year. The CIWMB Waste Tire Recycling Management Program (Tire Program)
has been at the forefront of expanding research and development of waste
tire technologies and programs and continues to improve and build on its
successes. However, the ultimate measure of success will be how well these
program activities divert waste tires to the highest and best use.
Baseline
The baseline is the 75 percent statewide tire diversion rate in 2005.
Metrics or Performance Criteria
The board will annually measure the statewide tire diversion rate.
Annual Targets
The first annual target will be to reach 80 percent tire diversion by the end of
2008 (an increase of 5 percentage points from the current level).
Key Activities
- Implementation of the Board's
Five-Year Plan for the Waste Tire Recycling Management Program (Five-Year
Plan) approved in June 2007. Creating expanded and new markets for recycled
tire material is also crucial for the advancement of waste tire diversion.
Through implementation of the Board's Five-Year Plan, sound science, and
measurable results, the Board is developing the tools necessary to
aggressively address California's waste tire needs. A contract is underway
to assess and improve the accuracy of tire diversion metric.
- Legislative Analyst Office (LAO)
report due July 10, 2008; including analysis of effectiveness and success of
the Board's programmatic activities upon the development of markets for
additional waste tires and analysis of activities to increase waste tire
diversion rates. As part of the 2007/08 Budget analysis, the LAO
recommended that the board identify and report to the legislature activities
that would result in an increase in the number of waste tires diverted from
the state's landfills, as well as to advise the Legislature of the policy
implications that would allow appropriate legislative evaluation.
3.5--Work with other State agencies to minimize litter and the
uncontrolled
release of materials harmful to the environment
This subdirective addresses the problem of litter and contamination of the
environment, particularly the marine environment. Marine debris is a global
pollution problem that impacts human health and safety, endangers wildlife
and aquatic habitats, and costs local and national economies millions in
wasted resources and lost revenues. Marine debris from land-based
sources must be reduced through tighter controls on solid waste, with
plastic packaging being a key material of concern to be addressed.
Baseline
The California Coastal Commission database, which reflects total pounds and
types of debris collected since 1998 during Coastal Cleanup Events, could
serve as a baseline to reflect the success of programs implemented to reduce
litter. Data on the number of plastic film bags recycled pursuant to
AB 2449 would provide another baseline.
Metrics or Performance Criteria
As a starting point until an overall approach is further developed, the
following could serve as interim metrics:
- California Coastal Commission data.
- Reports from school districts who receive funding for containers from the
Education and the Environment Initiative (EEI) will contain baseline data and tonnages of material collected once
containers are in place.
- Cities and counties that apply
Used Oil funds for storm water pollution prevention activities are required
to track the number of storm drain inserts installed to reduce amount of oil
pollution entering storm drains.
- Board waste characterization
studies will identify the amount of plastic carryout bags in landfills and
transfer facilities and in bales of plastic from grocery stores.
Annual Targets
The annual targets for this subdirective must still be determined.
Key Activities
The Board is working collaboratively with the Ocean Protection Council (OPC)
to support its Marine Debris Resolution and with other agencies (Caltrans,
DOC, etc.) to reduce marine debris. In addition, under Chapter 845, Statutes
of 2006 (Levine, AB 2449), which became
effective on July 1, 2007, the Board must implement a statewide plastic
bag recycling program, which will address a major component of both litter
on land and of marine debris. Key activities:
- Completing the Chico State studies on degradable and compostable plastics,
and developing a fact sheet about them for interested parties.
- Providing technical assistance to school districts that apply for funding
from the EEI project to be used for purchase of recycling containers, signs,
and posters for collecting recyclables.
- Providing technical outreach regarding availability of funds from the Used
Oil Grant program for stormwater pollution prevention.
- Providing local governments with assistance in implementing the Plastic Bag
Recycling Program.
- Waste characterization studies with components regarding plastic carryout
bags.
3.6--Introduce legislation by September 2008 to develop a
timely and
accurate compliance measurement system
Measuring local government progress is a cornerstone for AB 939.
However, the current jurisdiction-level, diversion-based goals are too
complex and costly to use for both the Board and local governments.
The number games, delays, and inaccuracies make the current system unworkable
and leave decision-makers without hard, clear numbers on which to base their
decisions. Under the current system, the diversion rate and disposal
amounts can increase simultaneously. To reduce disposal a different
set of goals and a better measurement system are needed.
Baseline
The baseline is the current jurisdiction-level, diversion-based measured
system.
Metrics or Performance Criteria
The performance criteria for this subdirective will be the Board's success
in pursuing legislative changes to enact a set of simplified, county-level,
disposal reduction goals, and measurement system.
Annual Targets
The first target is enactment of legislation requiring a set of simplified,
county-level, disposal reduction goals, and measurement system.
Key Activities
Legislation is needed to accomplish this subdirective. The first
steps are to develop a proposal that addresses our needs, ensure that Board
language is incorporated into an appropriate bill such as SB 1016 (Wiggins) and then
to secure passage of that bill. The Board's Legislative and External
Affairs Office will work with the author's office, provide technical
assistance, and assist in the legislative process and with the enrolled bill
report.
3.7--Develop a full-cost accounting analysis to compare the
costs and
benefits of recycling, composting, technology, and landfills
Full-cost accounting tracks all of the costs (including long-term and
environmental costs) associated with a waste management option, not just the
current cash outlays. Full-cost accounting can help decision-makers make
cost-effective and informed decisions about the disposition of solid waste.
At the local level it can be used when selecting programs to determine what
disposal and diversion options will really cost, while at the statewide
level it could be used to compare alternatives or even help set disposal
fees. Full-cost accounting requires access to a broad spectrum of
information which some consider proprietary and may not voluntarily share.
Baseline
There is abundant anecdotal information on the need for, and problems
associated with, determining the full range of waste prevention, disposal,
and diversion costs. The baseline for this subdirective is a
compilation of existing studies on disposal and diversion costs.
Metrics or Performance Criteria
The performance criteria for this subdirective will be the Board's progress
in obtaining a full-cost accounting analysis of disposal and diversion
activities.
Annual Targets
The first target is to conduct workshops to scope out the project needs and
strategies, then to develop a scope of work.
Key Activities
The Board should conduct a series of workshops to determine how to best
approach a full-cost accounting analysis in California. Issues to
consider will include:
- Which parts of the solid waste management
system, including activities related to waste prevention and reuse, should
be included.
- Whether to develop tools for local governments to use or to
focus on statewide costs only.
- Whether the models developed by the U.S. EPA
or other states such as Florida are applicable or usable for our purposes.
- Whether legislation is needed to compel entities to provide the information
(considered proprietary by some) needed to calculate costs.
- How to
structure a contract to accomplish these goals.
Strategic Directives Home Page (SD 1-2) |
SD-4 |
