Base Year/Reporting Year Change Policy

Comments from the Working Group and Responses from the Board Staff

The following is a list of additional comments received (and Board staff’s response) on the Working Group’s proposed options:

COMMENT: The County wishes to thank the CIWMB for the opportunity to be part of the Measurement Accuracy Working Group, a difficult process due to the diversity of interests of members in the group and the complexity of the issues. This collaborative effort has brought about a fine set of recommendations that will allow flexibility and consistency throughout the state.

Staff Response: Noted.

COMMENT: It is the County’s perception that many jurisdictions throughout the state still do not understand how and when files can occur so compliance information should be highlighted.

Staff Response: Although staff have conducted training throughout the state on the Board’s enforcement policy related to program implementation and goal measurement, there are still many jurisdictions that do not understand the enforcement mechanisms. Staff agree that further education would be helpful. The February 1997 issue of InfoCycling includes such an educational article entitled, "IWMA Flexibility and Enforcement". In addition, the 50 Percent Initiative strategy #23 deals with further developing a strategy to educate local governments in this area.

COMMENT: Let us not put too much faith solely on the disposal based accounting numbers. A jurisdiction may be able to show a good faith effort in spite of flawed or slightly inaccurate numbers. It is the hope of this County that the CIWMB will implement a compliance schedule with each jurisdiction, and that this agreement will be based on a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative review of all programs planned and implemented when assessing whether a good faith effort has been made.

Staff Response: As explained to jurisdictions in the statewide training last year, the Board must consider the extent to which each jurisdiction has implemented waste reduction and diversion programs, as well as the progress each has made toward achieving the 25 percent goal. Staff will conduct a biennial review to assess each jurisdiction’s progress. If at that time, a jurisdiction fails to met the goal and has failed to implement diversion programs, the Board is required to commence with a formal compliance process, including holding a hearing and issuing a compliance schedule.

COMMENT: Overall, the list of options will be helpful to jurisdictions.

Staff Response: Noted.

COMMENT: With regard to the development of assistance tools, it is recommended the Board keep it simple. Each jurisdiction faces idiosyncratic problems which make it difficult to develop one model or guide that would prove helpful to each particular problem.

Staff Response: Staff agree to keep solutions simple wherever possible. Although each jurisdiction may have some unique issues, there are many common issues that could be addressed in models and guides to simplify the process for jurisdictions.

COMMENT: Jurisdictions need more personal assistance. Some additional recommendations to assist jurisdictions with accuracy problems include:

1. Small group workshops
2. A "mentorship" program
3. Designation of a CIWMB "point person"
4. Informal list of techniques, data sources and methodologies the Board has found acceptable
5. Samples of successful diversion studies, associated costs and jurisdiction contacts.

Staff Response: Staff agree that many jurisdictions may need further personal assistance. Expanding Board staff’s technical assistance to jurisdictions is also proposed in strategies 27 and 28 in the Board’s 50 Percent Initiative.

1. Small group workshops could be arranged in response to requests from specific jurisdictions.
2. Jurisdictions that successfully correct data problems could become mentors for other jurisdictions.
3. It would be difficult to assign a single person as a point of contact for all 531 jurisdictions because of workload. Instead, the branch is organized so that each staff person is the "point of contact" for a number of jurisdictions. However, a point staff could be assigned to assist other staff as needed.
4. Such a list is provided as Attachment A to this item.
5. This is the type of information the proposed Conducting A Diversion Study Guide would include.

COMMENT: The City would like to stress that eventually the Board will have to deal with those situations in which a jurisdiction is unable to unwilling to develop an accurate baseline. In these situations, a "good faith effort" will be considered. Jurisdictions may want some additional clarification on exactly what the Board means by this, and what documentation would be deemed acceptable.

Staff Response: Board staff is currently working on policy and process issues for conducting biennial reviews that will address these concerns.

COMMENT: The City thanks the Board for being included in the working group. It was important to discuss and resolve these issues, which have caused jurisdictions a great deal of concern.

Staff Response: Noted.

COMMENT: The City is satisfied with the working group’s product and impressed with the efforts that staff have made to engage representatives from jurisdictions on these issues in order to develop consensus around appropriate solutions.

Staff Response: Noted.

COMMENT: The City is interested in developing understanding and eventual solutions for other problems that may obstruct a jurisdiction’s ability to meet their goals including unforecasted waste generation and inaccurate disposal statistics from the state-mandated Disposal Reporting System.

Staff Response: Unforecasted waste generation from special events or unforeseen circumstances are usually unique to each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions are already encouraged to discuss these types of issues in their annual report. Many local jurisdictions have successfully implemented changes to increase the accuracy of the data collected in the Disposal Reporting System. Board staff are analyzing the disposal reporting data and looking for additional methods to increase the accuracy of the disposal data.

COMMENT: The Waste Management Authority has concerns about the CIWMB adjustment method (believes it underestimates diversion rate). Local communities should have the option of using the CIWMB method or a per capita adjustment methodology.

Staff Response: The Board was directed in PRC Section 41780.1 (c) to develop a standard method to adjust for annual increases or decreases in population and other factors affecting the waste stream. Section 41780.1 also requires jurisdictions to use this method when calculating goal achievement. Extensive statistical testing during the development of the Board’s adjustment method indicated the factors that were selected had the best correlative relationship with statewide and countywide waste generation rates. However, some jurisdictions may have local conditions that fall outside "the norm" used by the standard method. To account for these exceptions, the Board’s annual reporting regulations allow those jurisdictions the flexibility of presenting additional information in their annual report that would explain why the adjustment method does not accurately reflect their unique situation and to propose a more representative method. Because statute directs jurisdictions to use the Board’s standard method to adjust for changes in the waste stream, a jurisdiction will need to explain why they believe the Board’s standard method does not accurately adjust for local changes in conditions and why their proposed alternative method is a more accurate method, for the Board’s consideration.

COMMENT: The working group’s recommendations should recognize the uniqueness of the problems faced by the jurisdictions within the various regions. In Los Angeles County, a jurisdiction’s underreporting of its base-year waste quantities may be attributed to the county’s solid waste management system which is one of the most extensive and complex systems in the state and nation. This complexity relates to the magnitude of the County’s size, population, number of jurisdictions, public/private relationships, political and economic structure, and the dynamic nature of its waste management system.

Staff Response: Staff recognize the increased difficulty in very densely populated areas with numerous jurisdictional boundaries and have noted in the agenda item the compounding of such problems in the Los Angeles area.

COMMENT: Most of the initial options suggested by the working group for correcting base-year data inaccuracies offer little help to the jurisdictions. Rather, jurisdictions will have little choice other than conducting new studies. New studies would not guarantee better or more accurate base-year data and requiring a new study may be contrary to the provisions of PRC Section 41821 (c).

Staff Response: There are many base-year revision methods acceptable to the Board listed in the agenda item attachment that do not require a new study. Additional revision methods may be proposed for staff’s consideration. Although the working group goals include flexibility and ease of use, these are secondary goals. The primary goal is to ensure increased accuracy of the data and staff can only recommend for Board approval revision methods that meet this criterion. Board staff will be available to work individually with jurisdictions to assist in finding applicable solution options. Lastly, PRC Section 41821 (c) applied only to one-time status reports that were to be submitted to the Board by October 1, 1994.

COMMENT: Many of the jurisdictions in Los Angeles County appear to have overlooked a significant portion of the disposal waste stream as the sum of the tons from the individual studies is much less than the countywide total. These jurisdictions should be allowed to readjust their 1990 waste disposal quantities using any reasonable method (such as base-year population ratio or any other reasonable means).

Staff Response: The negative diversion rates calculated in the Los Angeles area do indicate that significant portions of the waste stream, usually nonfranchised waste, were omitted in the original studies. The agenda item includes an attached table which lists acceptable revision methods such as applying the 1995 proportions of franchised/nonfranchised waste to the 1990 franchised portion. A flat rate increase to each jurisdiction based on the countywide missing portion, as some jurisdictions submitted, would result in more accurate data at the countywide level but not at the jurisdiction level. Similarly, proportioning the waste based on population would be relevant only to the residential portion of the waste stream as the commercial/industrial generation rate is dependent on factors other than population.

COMMENT: Since CIWMB has indicated that the 25 percent diversion rate was achieved on a statewide basis, each jurisdiction that has made a good faith effort to implement their selected SRRE programs should be given credit for the 25 percent disposal reduction goal for 1995. Additionally, they should be allowed to use the 1995 data as their new base-year (actual disposal plus 25 percent diversion) for measuring their waste reduction achievement for the year 2000.

Staff Response: Board staff cannot endorse this recommendation as statute specifies that each jurisdiction (or Board-approved regional agency) must demonstrate their progress toward goal achievement. This option would require a statutory revision.

COMMENT: All inert solid waste disposed at permitted unclassified landfills are now counted as disposal while inert waste disposal at unclassified landfills that are not permitted does not count as disposal, for the purpose of measuring compliance with the waste reduction mandates. This is a major deficiency which should be addressed by the Board. The inconsistency can be resolved by excluding inert waste disposed at all unclassified landfills from the disposal measurement.

Staff Response: PRC Section 40901 specifies that the amounts of solid waste disposed at all permitted disposal facilities must be reported for the purposes of determining whether the diversion reporting requirements of Section 41780 have been met. This proposal would require a statutory revision. The issue of which facilities should be required to be permitted should be addressed during the development of a tiered regulatory system for permitting which the Permitting and Enforcement Committee is overseeing. A revised schedule for this project is going before the Permitting and Enforcement Committee this month.

COMMENT: One of the main goals of the Working Group is to ensure that the Group’s final recommendations provide for solutions that are flexible, cost-effective, and fair. Jurisdictions should not be required to engage in costly new studies or other complex schemes. It is extremely difficult to quantify all diversion and to go back in time to correct inaccurate base-year data. Additionally, such requirements would not be consistent with PRC Section 41821 (c). The proposal should focus on a broader perspective, such as ensuring that each jurisdiction makes a good faith effort to implement the programs of their SRREs.

Staff Response: The Board must consider the extent to which each jurisdiction has implemented waste reduction and diversion programs, as well as the progress each has made toward achieving the 25 percent goal. Staff will conduct a biennial review to assess each jurisdiction’s progress. If at that time a jurisdiction fails to meet the goal and has failed to implement diversion programs, the Board is required to commence a formal compliance process, including holding a hearing and issuing a compliance schedule. Lastly, PRC Section 41821 (c) applied only to one-time status reports that were to be submitted to the Board by October 1, 1994.

Table of Contents

Last updated: October 26, 2007