|
The California Integrated Waste Management Board accepted questions regarding the Household Hazardous Waste 16th Cycle Grant (HD16) until April 23, 2007.
The following is a compilation of questions and answers typically asked about Board grant programs adapted for the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) 16th Cycle grant. For your convenience questions have been grouped
into the following topics:
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: Is the HHW 16th Cycle offering two different types of grants?
Answer: Yes. The HHW 16th Cycle is offering a non-competitive
grant (County-Wide Coordination Grant to facilitate discussion of Regional
Sharps/U-Waste and/or Product Stewardship) and a competitive grant
(Infrastructure Grant).
The county-wide Coordination Grant is (Coordination Grant) not competitive and provides
funds to each county-wide area to bring stakeholders such as governments,
water, air and waste agencies, industry, and the public together to discuss
the most cost-efficient methods of collecting and processing the sharps, u-waste
materials and product stewardship. The grant uses a streamlined application
and simplified final report.
The Infrastructure Grant is similar to previous cycle HHW competitive
grants for individual or multi-jurisdiction projects, except that preference
points will be given to projects that plan or construct new sustainable HHW
collection facility(ies), or expand an existing permanent HHW collection
facility(ies) to accommodate sharps and u-waste, or develop innovative
sharps and u-waste collection opportunities that promote public/private
partnerships. Rural, small city and regional projects also receive
preference points.
Question: How is the HHW 16th Cycle grant different from last years HHW 15th
Cycle grant program?
Answer: This year's HHW 16th Cycle grant is very similar to the
15th cycle. The changes include:
- Overall theme--"getting ready for sharps," and continued u-waste
support. During the scoring of the HHW 16th Cycle grant application,
preference points will be given for sharps and u-waste related projects
and programs.
- Up to $4,500,000 will be available to be awarded in competitive grants
for infrastructure projects and innovative programs
See the application and the sections below for more information.
Question: Can I use California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) Used Oil
Block Grant money to pay for the preparation of my CIWMB HHW 16th Cycle grant
application?
Answer: No. Since the Used Oil Block Grant is, in effect, a
continuously appropriated grant and is an entitlement grant, it is allowable
to use Used Oil Block Grant funds to pay for preparation of Used Oil Block
Grant applications. However, that does not extend to the preparation of
other non-entitlement CIWMB competitive grants, such as the Opportunity Grants or HHW grants, or
for other agency's grants such as the Department of Conservation (DOC)
grants. HHW grant application preparation must be supported by the local
jurisdiction.
Question: Who can apply for an HHW 16th Cycle grant?
Answer: All California cities, counties and local agencies,
including Indian reservations and rancherias with direct responsibility for
HHW management, may apply individually or as a regional group. Businesses
and not-for-profit groups may partner with a local government, but are
not eligible to apply on their own.
Question: Will an applicant score fewer points if they were awarded an HHW 15th
Cycle Grant or other CIWMB grant in the past?
Answer: No. If an applicant was previously awarded any other CIWMB
grant there would be no effect on the points scored for the HHW 16th Cycle.
However, an applicant with unspent grant funds on an "open" grant must
clearly demonstrate the reasons for having unused grant funds and justify
the need for new 16th Cycle funding in light of the other available funding
sources.
Question: The Infrastructure Grant Term ends March 31, 2010 but the Final Report
is not due until May 30, 2010. Can expenses be incurred during the April/May
period?
Answer: No. All grant expenses must be incurred by March 31, 2010
(i.e., from the Notice to Proceed date to the end of the grant term date
listed on the Grant Agreement.)
Question: Can we make it good for more than 1 fiscal year as the Used Oil Block
Grant (UOBG) program
lets us obtain a resolution for 5 years?
Answer: Please see page 18 of HD16 application.
The resolution may be specific to this Fiscal Year (FY) 2007/08, or it
may cover all authorized grants for up to a maximum of five (5) years (i.e.,
fiscal years 2007/08 through 2011/12).
Question: The Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) and Application package state that
HHW 16th Cycle grant applications must be postmarked no later than June 8,
2007. In addition to the U.S. Postal Service postmark, will a postmark from
Federal Express or UPS also be accepted?
Answer: Yes. Those two companies fall into the category of
"commercial delivery service" and their postmark tracking system will be
accepted. However, keep in mind that the time and date you take your
application to the commercial delivery service may not be when it is
actually mailed or postmarked. To ensure the application is mailed by the
deadline, you must obtain "proof" from the carrier, i.e., a dated receipt
that shows that the package was mailed to the CIWMB's address. A receipt
that merely shows the date and cost of mailing or other delivery will not be
sufficient evidence of mailing of an application for this grant. The burden
is on the applicant to demonstrate timely mailing or delivery of the
application. Late postmarked applications will not be accepted, i.e., they
will be disqualified.
Question: My local government does not hold a Council Meeting until after the
June 8th, 2007 deadline, so I can't get a resolution before submitting the
application. Can resolutions for the grant be turned in after the application
package is submitted? What is the final deadline?
Answer: Yes. The approved Resolution for either a single or a
regional jurisdiction, and all supporting documents for a regional program
should preferably be submitted with the application on June 8, 2007, but
must be received no later than July 11, 2007. Submitting an incomplete
application will affect the application's "Completeness" score. Incomplete
applications after July 11, 2007, will be disqualified.
Question: My Board currently has an approved Resolution that authorizes the
submittal of grant applications for up to a maximum of five years. Is that
Resolution still valid for this application?
Answer: Yes. A five year Resolution is acceptable as long as it is
effective when the HHW 16th Cycle application is submitted and includes
authorization to apply for the CIWMB's HHW grant.
Question: Please clarify what an overhead or indirect cost is. Are we restricted
to a maximum percentage?
Answer: Overhead/Indirect costs are expenditures that can not be
assigned or readily itemized to a particular project or activity, but are
considered necessary for the operation of the organization and the
performance of the program. Examples could include, but are not limited to:
costs of operating and maintaining facilities, accounting services, etc.
Overhead/Indirect costs for the HHW 16th Cycle must not exceed 10% of the
grant award amount. The same restrictions apply to contractors and
subcontractors for the grant, including any entities that may be partnering
with the local jurisdiction.
Question: Where can we find the Procedures and Requirements (PandR's) and the
Terms and Conditions (TandC's) for this grant cycle?
Answer: If your application is awarded, you will receive a final
copy of the PandR's and TandC's with your Grant Agreement.
Question: Will points be taken away from our final score if we do a pilot
project before launching our program?
Answer: No. Pilot programs and surveys provide valuable insight
for program design and are encouraged, particularly in those projects using
community-based social marketing.
Question: Are there any errors in the HD16 application?
Answer: On page 16, under Coordination Grant Letters of Support
and Participation. Second paragraph, the last word in the paragraph "or" should not be there. Instead the sentence should read as follows:
A letter from the recycling or HHW coordinator from each participation
jurisdiction in the county-wide area (see Sample Letter Attachment 2-C)
stating that the jurisdiction wants to participate in the county-wide
coordination project and authorizing the lead to act on its behalf as both
applicant and grant administrator.
Multiple Proposals, Multiple Projects, and
Regional Applications
Question: The HHW 16th Cycle competitive Infrastructure Grants allow individual
jurisdictions to request up to $200,000, and multi-jurisdictional or regional
groups to request up to $300,000. What is your definition of an individual
jurisdiction and a regional group?
Answer: An individual jurisdiction is a single city government or
county government, applying by itself. The jurisdiction may have project
partners or subcontractors but is the only applicant and is individually
responsible for the grant.
A multi-jurisdictional or regional group is comprised of two or more
eligible applicants, i.e., cities or counties, with a lead jurisdiction
designated to act on behalf of all participating jurisdictions. The lead
jurisdiction will be the Grantee and will be responsible for the performance
of the grant, recordkeeping and for submission of all required
documentation. Jurisdictions participating in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
may designate the JPA as their regional lead jurisdiction if the JPA
agreement includes solid and/or hazardous waste management.
If a jurisdiction is a participant in a multi-jurisdictional regional
application for a competitive Infrastructure Grant, it may not also
apply as an individual jurisdiction for a competitive Infrastructure Grant.
Question: Can an individual jurisdiction submit more than one application for HHW 16th Cycle, even though an applicant may only receive up to $200,000?
Answer: Yes, but only if one of the two applications proposes that
the applicant be the lead coordinator for a Coordination Grant,
and the other application proposes an eligible HHW 16th
Cycle Infrastructure Grant.
Question: Under the grant proposal, can funding be granted for multiple related
endeavors, such as establishing a permanent HHW collection facility and also
establishing a sharps/u-waste program, or must only one task be chosen for the grant?
Answer: A grant proposal may include as many endeavors as the
applicant deems necessary to accomplish its goals and objectives, while
meeting the needs of the community, as long as all goals and objectives are
in line with the jurisdiction's currently adopted Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE).
However, the applicant will have to "choose" one of the program criteria
listed below that best characterizes the proposed program to
potentially qualify for preference points. The applicant must designate or
declare this criterion on the application Cover Sheet.
- Plan and design a permanent and sustainable HHW collection
facility(ies); or
- Establish a permanent and sustainable HHW collection facility(ies);
or
- Expand permanent HHW collection facility(ies) to accommodate
sharps or universal wastes; or
- Innovative sharps or u-waste collection opportunity that promotes
public/private partnerships
Question: Can the facilities or programs included in one application be
initiated in two separate geographic areas?
Answer: If the separate geographical areas are in different
jurisdictions, there must be a regional partnership between the
jurisdictions in the form of a multi-jurisdictional application for the
grant. If the separate geographical areas are within the legal boundaries of
the same jurisdiction, they may be included in the application of an
individual applicant.
Question: The Venus Waste Authority representing Moon City and Saturn County
wants to apply for an Infrastructure Grant. Other Counties want to submit a
letter of participation and support for the Authority's application, but are
also applying for an Infrastructure Grant themselves. Will the letters of
support and participation from the outside Counties deem them ineligible to
apply for their own Infrastructure Grant?
Answer: Letters of Support from eligible HD16 agencies, and or
jurisdictions, for competing Infrastructure applications are permissible.
Letters of Support for competing projects will not result in
disqualification of the supporting entity. However, if the jurisdiction is a
participant in a regional Infrastructure Grant, it may not also apply as an
individual jurisdiction for an Infrastructure Grant.
Question: Is the Coordination Grant competitive, and what do I have to do to
apply?
Answer: Coordination Grants are not competitive. They will
be given to any county-wide area that applies and is willing to complete the
tasks and terms outlined in the Grant Agreement. Any jurisdiction may apply
to be the coordination lead for its county-wide area. See the instructions
in the application package. There is also a
separate grant program offered in the HHW 16th Cycle for development of
Infrastructure that is competitive. Review this Questions and Answers page and the Application Instruction package for more information.
Question: Where can I find out how much coordination funding my county-wide area
could receive under the HHW 16th Cycle?
Answer: Each county-wide area is eligible to receive $7,000 to
$15,000 for coordination, depending on population. See "Item
1, Attachment 1" of the February 2007 Board Meeting Agenda for a list of
county-wide areas and their funding amounts. Funding allocations above
$7,000 are also listed in a chart in the Application Instructions. All
funding is contingent on the passage of the California State Budget Act for
Fiscal Year 2007/2008 and appropriation of funds for this program.
Question: How is the "lead coordinator" jurisdiction for the Coordination Grant
chosen, and what work do they have to do?
Answer: Counties are the "de facto" lead coordinator for their
county-wide area. Exceptions may be made to accommodate local conditions.
The duties are primarily administrative; to apply for the grant, notify all
stakeholders about the opportunity to coordinate, select appropriate
activities, keep accounting records of the grant spending, turn in a final
report and perform other administrative duties. Duties may be shared with
other jurisdictions, but the lead will be ultimately responsible for
fulfilling the requirements of the grant as reflected in the Grant Agreement
(i.e., Terms and Conditions and Procedures and Requirements).
Question: Besides local jurisdictions, who are the "stakeholders" for the
Coordination Grant? What if some don't want to participate?
Answer: Stakeholders are any entities that can assist in or should
be consulted with in solving the local sharps/u-waste collection problem. Because
most county-wide waste collection systems are unique, stakeholders will vary
by location; but they usually include HHW collection facility operators,
recycling coordinators, air, water, and health agencies, waste haulers,
sharps/u-waste generators, interested community groups, and retailers that can be a
partnership resource for take back and education programs.
Question: What if some jurisdictions or "stakeholders" in my county don't want
to participate in the sharps, u-waste or product stewardship Coordination Grant?
Answer: Members or representatives of stakeholder groups must be
invited, but are not required to participate. The CIWMB seeks to provide an
opportunity for county-wide coordination on these issues and requires only a
good faith effort among participating stakeholders to improve the amount and
efficiency of sharps and u-waste collection, and/or product stewardship.
Question: Does the CIWMB staff or Board have to "approve" our county-wide
sharps, u-waste or product stewardship strategy or plan?
Answer: The goal of the Coordination Grant is to develop an
improved local sharps, u-waste or product stewardship collection system that
will be accepted by the stakeholders. The CIWMB is primarily interested in
whether all stakeholders have been invited to participate in the decision
making process, and that a coordinated local strategy has been developed to
meet the sharps and u-waste problem. The results or recommendations of the
coordinating group will be submitted to the CIWMB on a form as the final
deliverable for the grant so that the strategies developed can be shared
with other jurisdictions statewide.
"Approval" in the context of the grant simply means that the final report
document contains all the required information, meets the requirements of
the grant, etc. The CIWMB may review but will not approve the coordination
strategy or plan results.
Question: Can we use the HHW 16th Cycle Coordination Grant funds to update our
County Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)?
Answer: No. Maintenance of the HHWE of the AB 939 County
Integrated Waste Management Plan is a local responsibility. However, some of
the information developed by the sharps/u-waste coordinating group, such as the
expected amount of waste material, and the best methods and locations for
collection facilities, might be useful in a future upgrade of the HHWE.
Question: Can we use the HHW 16th Cycle Coordination Grant funding to coordinate
a county-wide sharps/u-waste collection event?
Answer: No. The purpose of the coordination grant is to bring
local officials and other stakeholders together to develop information and
strategies for improving the sharps/u-waste collection system. Sharps/U-waste collection
is not an allowable expense.
The separate competitive Infrastructure portion of the HHW 16th Cycle
would be the appropriate place to propose funding for a sharps/u-waste collection
program; however competitive programs should be innovative models,
especially those that promote public/private partnerships. Routine
collection events would be fundable but would score lower in the competitive
scoring process because they would not receive the preference points for
innovation.
Question: I am working with several counties that want to have one county be the
"lead agency" for 5 other counties (all neighboring) to participate in the
development of a sharps management strategy using the countywide coordination
grant money. It states on page 9 of the grant instructions that individual
counties are encouraged to combine their funding allocations and work together
on regional planning based on waste-shed patterns; however, it isn't crystal
clear if the participating counties need a resolution or a letter of
participation. If the lead county is Grapes County for example, and Zucchini
County wants to let Grapes be the lead and participate, please confirm or
correct my understanding that Zucchini HHW staff only needs to submit a Letter
of Support and Participation, NOT a resolution, to participate as a group.
Please confirm this is the case.
Answer: In an effort to ensure that the HD16 Coordination Grant
application process is efficient and convenient for regional participants, a
letter of support/participation is all the CIWMB is requiring of
participants. The lead jurisdiction is the only party that will need a
resolution.
Question: If our jurisdiction applies for HD16 Coordination Grant
funds to coordinate activities for sharps, are we limited
to only examining disposal options of sharps at Household Hazardous Waste
facilities (HHW facilities) and/or solid waste facilities?
Answer: Jurisdictions who consider their HHW facility a possible
disposal location for sharps are encouraged to discuss all viable disposal
locations to ensure they select the best option for their community's needs.
Legislative Background: In 2006, SB 1305 (Figueroa),
Statutes of 2006, Chapter 64 (SB 1305), updated the Medical Waste Management
Act by making it against the law for persons to knowingly place home
generated sharps waste (sharps) in the trash as of September 2008. It also
enumerated allowable disposal options noted below, including, but not
limited to HHW facilities. The intent of the Coordination Grant is for local
jurisdictions, who consider their HHW facility a possible disposal location,
to come together with relevant stakeholders to discuss the current practices
related to the disposal of sharps in their countywide area and to discuss
which disposal location is best for their community. Disposal options
outlined in the bill include:
- A household hazardous waste facility
- A "home-generated sharps consolidation point"
- A medical waste generator's facility
- A facility through the use of a medical waste mail-back container
approved by the California Department of Health Services
Question: What are current mandates that enable HHW facilities to be
consolidation points for household sharps? We currently do not collect sharps,
and really do not want to, as we feel it is not a solid/hhw facility issue. If
there are current mandates, are we required to examine disposal options at solid
waste or HHW facilities?
Answer: HHW facilities may accept home generated sharps under
specified conditions set out in SB 1305 and SB 1362 (Figueroa). Among other things, SB 1362 authorizes a DTSC
permitted HHW facility to accept sharps as a Department of Health Services
approved "home-generated sharps consolidation point." This bill also enables
local jurisdictions to include a sharps collection program in their Household
Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE). However, it is left up to the local jurisdictions to
determine which option(s) is best for them.
The Board encourages local jurisdictions, who consider their HHW facility
a possible sharps disposal location, to apply for the Coordination Grant to
examine the options outlined in the Medical Waste Management Act within the
context of their own county-wide area. SB 1305 does not require local
jurisdictions to collect home-generated sharps at HHW facilities, but lists
them as an option. Therefore, after a thorough examination of all disposal
options, the county-wide planning team may determine that HHW facilities are
not the best option.
Question: With respect to HD16 Coordination Grant's focus on sharps, it
seems the CIWMB is sending out conflicting messages by asking local
jurisdictions to focus on disposal options that include HHW facilities. By
distributing Coordination Funds to local jurisdictions, is this the most
efficient use of these funds?
Answer: By applying for HD16 Coordination Grant funds, grantees,
who consider their HHW facility a possible sharps disposal location, are
encouraged to look at all viable options and after a thorough examination
based upon their unique needs, it is for their county-wide planning team to
determine whether HHW facility is their best option. The Board is providing
the grant funding in order to facilitate planning for the eventual landfill
ban and is encouraging local jurisdictions to examine options that are
consistent with the intent of the Medical Waste Management Act within the
context of their own county-wide area.
Question: Exactly what is a facility design and planning grant?
Answer: The purpose of this category of competitive Infrastructure
Grant is to allow jurisdictions to address the pre-construction tasks for a
new facility such as conceptual design, site location, cost estimates and
financing, zoning and permitting, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, and governing body
commitments and approvals. This category may be especially useful for small
cities and rural areas that do not have staff in-house with the special
expertise to perform these tasks.
Question: If I am awarded a facility design and planning grant, can I also apply
for a construction grant?
Answer: No, you can only apply for one category of competitive
Infrastructure Grant in this 16th Cycle, either a facility design grant, or
a facility construction grant, but not both.
If you are awarded a competitive grant for facility design in the HHW 16th Cycle, you may apply for future competitive grant to address
construction; however, each Cycle is separate and competitive. Just because
you are awarded a design grant in this Cycle does not mean you will
automatically receive a grant for construction in a future grant cycle. Each
proposal is judged on its own merit compared to the competing proposals in
that Cycle.
Question: If we are proposing building a HHW facility that would be open to all
residents of the county and its cities; would we be able to apply for $300,000?
Answer: Yes, if the applicant represents a regional group (two or
more cities/counties participating in the grant project), it may request up
to $300,000. A lead agency would need to be designated with a
resolution and a Letter of
Authorization would be required from each participating jurisdiction. This
project would also qualify for preference points because it is a
multi-jurisdictional project or program that meets regional needs.
Question: It is assumed there will be reasonable profit and mark-up by
subcontractors providing equipment and service for facility development. Will
these profit and mark-up costs need to be identified separately, and is the
intent of this restriction really intended for additional mark-ups over standard
pricing practices?
Answer: Please reference page 11: "Profit or mark-up by the
Grantee or subcontractors" is an ineligible cost. Mark up is not addressed
separately--it is contained in the original cost estimate. The
summarization of mark ups is an accurate interpretation.
Question: The development costs to complete our jurisdictions Permanent HHW
Facility is estimated at $700,000. Our jurisdiction may request up to $300,000.
To what extent should the grant application focus of activities and component
details that comprise the $400,000 not covered by the grant? To what extent will
matching or exceeding funds provided by the CIWMB HHW Grant increase
eligibility?
Answer: Please reference page 2 on the HD16 Scoring Criteria
Attachment 11: "Applicants are encouraged to discuss the costs (dollar
figures) associated with activities necessary to complete the project." In
addition, please reference the entire Budget Scoring Criteria section as
matching funds is described in more detail. The applicant should focus on
needs to be addressed and funded by the grant. The grant's competitiveness
will be affected by the viability of alternative funding sources to support
those components of the project that aren't funded by the grant. The clearer
the applicant can make the prospect or likelihood for additional funding of
specific activities during and after the grant term is what the applicant
should address.
Question: Should the application focus on more easily verifiable costs, such as
equipment and supplies, rather than construction items such as concrete,
electrical or ventilation work?
Answer: Please reference page 2 on the HD16 Scoring Criteria
Attachment 11, applicants are encouraged to discuss the entire cost of the
project. One of the main objectives of the grant process is for the CIWMB to
grain a better understanding how much the project will cost in full.
Applications that contain more complete cost data, the clearer the project
is to the review panel. The application's budget must be comprehensive and
as accurate as possible for all components funded. Even activities or
equipment supported by matching funds or other ongoing revenue should be
clearly supported to demonstrate that the facility will be built.
Question: Our County's unincorporated government contracts with a private waste
management business to collect HHW materials at its privately owned landfill
site located inside our jurisdictional boundaries. Can we use HHW 16th Cycle
grant funds to buy more equipment for storing our u-waste at their site?
Answer: Jurisdictions that want to expand permanent HHW facilities
located on private property must prove a legally binding long-term
commitment between the company/private landowner and the jurisdiction that
will require the facility to be operated with an emphasis on promoting the
public interest in a manner similar to the activity described in the grant
application, throughout the life of the facility and/or purchased equipment.
Question: Must the competitive infrastructure project focus on the sharps and/or u-waste
theme?
Answer: Other project topics can be proposed; however, projects
not related to sharps/u-waste will not receive the preference points.
Question: Can we use the HHW 16th Cycle infrastructure grant funds to fund one of
our HHW collection events if it also includes sharps/u-waste collection?
Answer: The infrastructure grant portion of the HHW 16th
Cycle grant is the appropriate place to propose funding for sharps and/or
u-waste collection program; however programs should be innovative models,
especially those that promote public/private partnerships. Routine
collection events would be fundable but would receive a lower score under
this grant's scoring criteria because they would not receive the preference points for innovation, and
all jurisdictions will probably have a similar need for running sharps/u-waste
collection activities.
Question: What procedure would a local jurisdiction follow if it was going to
partner with a local business for delivery of program services under the HHW 16th Cycle Infrastructure Grant?
Answer: The local jurisdiction is designated as the grant
"applicant" and will be ultimately responsible for the performance of the
grant, submission of all documentation, and for any payments to the local
business partner. However, a local business partner may deliver program
services under HHW 16th Cycle and thus be eligible to receive grant funds as
a subcontractor. The CIWMB will only make payment to the grantee (e.g. local
jurisdiction). If awarded a grant, the local jurisdiction, as the "applicant" will be responsible for obtaining the required resolution
documentation. All subcontractors are subject to the same terms, conditions
and requirements as the grantee, in particular, only charging overhead up to
10% and not billing for profit. Therefore, to ensure all entities are
following the grant requirements a copy of the Grant Agreement, including
the Procedures and Requirements and Terms and Conditions should be provided
to the local business partner.
Question: Would a project which seeks funds for a public agency applicant to
purchase of a vehicle (truck) to aid in the door to door collection of HHW from
seniors and disabled be considered for funding if the public agency applicant
were to lease the vehicle to a private contractor (since we use contracted
service provides to accomplish our community's HHW services).
Answer: Please see page 11: "purchasing or leasing of vehicles by
non-governmental agencies" is an ineligible cost. However, if a local agency
is the Grantee and the vehicle is under ownership from the local agency, the
agency might be able to allow the contractor use the vehicle, depending upon
requirements from their own department. The local agency has sole
responsibility for the vehicle.
Question: What materials are covered under sharps?
Answer: Disposable hypodermic needles, syringes, lancets, and other medical
devices used for self-injection or blood test, which may have a sharp tip or
end.
Question: What are eligible collection methods for sharps?
Answer:
1) A household hazardous waste facility
2) A "home-generated sharps consolidation point"
3) A medical waste generator's facility
4) A facility through the use of a medical waste mail-back container
approved by the State Department of Health Services
Question: The grant announcement identifies Program scoring criteria that
includes "expand a facility for u-waste/sharps, or innovative u-waste/sharps
partnerships program." [page 13]; however, the announcement specifically
identifies "Management, handling, disposal, or treatment of …..medical wastes,
and…"[page 11, ineligible costs, bullet 17]. Please verify that sharps are not
included in the definition of medical wastes and are for this grant purpose,
defined as universal wastes.
Answer:
Senate Bill 1305 (Figueroa, statutes of Health and Safety Code, Chapter
64, updated the Medical Waste Management Act by excluding home generated
sharps waste, as defined, from the definition of medical waste. Sharps are
not considered universal waste, but rather a "special waste" in California.
For a complete list of universal waste, please see the
list from DTSC.
Question: Please verify that public education costs associated with development
of sharps program is directly tied into HHW collection or prevention [page 11,
ineligible costs, bullet 18].
Answer: Public education costs associated with development of
sharps programs that are directly tied to HHW collection are deemed eligible
costs. However, the development or redevelopment of a school's curricula
to incorporate sharps would be deemed as an ineligible cost/activity.
Question: Please provide clarification if the development of education materials
focusing on u-waste/sharps that are included in school presentation are eligible
costs under the infrastructure grant. [page 11, ineligible costs, bullet 16].
Answer: The development or redevelopment of school curricula is an
ineligible expense, however the development of education materials focusing
on u-waste/sharps for school presentations are eligible costs under the
infrastructure grant.
Question: The application on page 11 states that grant funds cannot be
used to transport medical waste (ineligible cost). Can HHW 16th Cycle grants
funds be used to transport home-generated sharps waste from the consolidation
point to the disposal facility since the sharps become medical waste once
consolidated?
Answer: Home-generated sharps waste, once collected at the
consolidation point is considered medical waste as per California Heath and
Safety Code § 117690. Accordingly, grant funds may not be used to transport
the medical waste as set forth in the instruction on page 11 of the grant
application.
However, in order to implement a pilot home-generated sharps collection
program, HHW 16th Cycle grant funds can be used for the transportation of
sharps from the consolidation point to the disposal facility.
The transportation of home-generated sharps from the consolidation point
onward is still subject to all other statutory and regulatory requirements
for the transportation of medical waste. All transportation of medical waste
must be done by a registered hazardous waste transporter per California
Health and Safety Code § 118000.
Question: What materials are covered under u-waste?
Answer: See the CIWMB Web page and the
links to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Web pages found at
Universal Waste
page for more information about these materials.
Question: My City is interested in doing an e-waste collection program. Does HHW 16th Cycle cover this?
Answer: Proposed HHW 16th Cycle collection programs should be
innovative models, especially those that promote public/private
partnerships. Routine collection events would be fundable but would receive
a lower score under this grant's scoring criteria because they would not
receive the preference points for innovation.
HD16 grant funds could cover some forms of e-waste; but only those
materials not listed as covered electronic waste (CEW) under Electronic
Waste Recycling Act of 2003 (SB 20). Non-CEW materials include:
- Computer peripherals (including, keyboards, scanners, and printers,
etc.)
- Small electronics (including cell phones, calculators, VCRs, DVDs,
etc)
SB 20 CEW
materials such as computer CRT monitors, television CRT monitors and
laptop LCD screens are eligible for reimbursement from the SB 20 advance
disposal fees.
Question: It states on page 11 of the grant application that out-of-state travel
is an ineligible activity/cost. However, in our project, we have consultants
from other parts of the US and are also inviting experts from around the world
to speak about how they have successfully managed u-wastes in their locations,
some of which are as far away as Europe. The cost to travel from Europe is
significant and although we hope to have the parties provide some in-kind
donations to help defray the costs, there are some government persons who may
not be able to attend without travel costs being paid for and/or an honorarium
or stipend being provided in addition to the hotel for them to stay a night in
Sacramento.
With this background, we have the following questions:
Are project consultants and international speakers coming to California from
other locations in the U.S. to assist CA local governments able to be reimbursed
for their travel costs?
Are project consultants and international speakers from out-of-state able
to be reimbursed for meals while staying in California?
Can meals for project consultants or international speakers be reimbursed
by per diem rates as is done with state employees or with receipts?
Can hotel stays for project consultants or international speakers be
reimbursed by per diem rates as is done with state employees or with receipts?
Are honorariums/stipends (or any other similar term) for speakers eligible
costs under the grant?
Are there any cost limits for honorariums?
Answer: The Procedures and Requirements say that out-of-state travel is ineligible for
reimbursement, international travel is also ineligible. Honoraria would not
be an eligible expense. However, grant funds could be used to purchase
reports from these experts. Grant funds could be used to pay for the
conference call and mobile conferences.
16th Cycle Home | HHW
Grants Home
|
