In summary, the working group recommends
that a jurisdiction be allowed to select from this list of options:
| Option |
Applicability |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| 1. Correct
Existing Base-Year Data |
Must be able to
diagnose data problem(s), and then quantify a correction using a Board-approved
methodology & meeting specified criteria. (Attachment A) [Must
be corrected within 3 years per Board decision of January 2000] |
May be able to
increase accuracy of existing data without having to conduct a new study. |
Investigation can
be very time and cost intensive, and in some instances, more accurate data may not be
available for a correction. |
| 2. Form a
Regional Agency. |
Must be able to
form contractual agreement with other jurisdiction(s) that meets all legislative &
regulatory requirements. |
Regional Agency
reports as a single entity, eliminating many regional allocation problems. |
Potential
liability for fines if region does not demonstrate good faith efforts have been made in
implementation. Note: Fines would only occur after a compliance schedule has not been met. |
| 3. Replace
Base-Year Data by Presenting Generation-Based Data Annually. |
Best suited to
jurisdictions tracking programs w/large diversion amounts (such as curbside w/ composting,
and/or MRFs). |
Would not need to
waste time/$ correcting base-year data or conducting new studies, yet could still have
more accurate data. |
Since all
diversion programs are not quantified, diversion rate could be understated. Would
potentially be very costly. |
| 4. Replace
Base-Year Data by Creating a New Base-Year (such as 1997) with Disposal Tonnage from
Disposal Reporting System & Diversion Tonnage from a New Diversion Study. |
Must be willing
to quantify a sufficient portion of the diverted waste stream in order to demonstrate
achievement of the goal. |
Has the potential
of providing the most accurate data. |
Diversion studies
can be very time and cost intensive. It may be most cost effective to quantify only the
largest diversion tonnage, which could understate the diversion rate. Note: A potential
no-cost option is discussed under B)1. |
| 5. Revise Reporting-Year
Data. |
Must be able to
diagnose data problem(s), and then quantify a correction using a Board-approved
methodology & meeting specified criteria. (Attachment B) |
May provide a
more accurate estimate of a jurisdiction’s waste disposal. |
Investigation can
be time and cost intensive. Additionally, the majority of the disposal reporting issues
can best be resolved on a local level by a jurisdiction working with the hauler, disposal
facility and/or the county to correct an error. If the issue is not resolved to a
jurisdiction’s satisfaction, the information could then be included in the
jurisdiction's annual report. |
