|
Criteria for SRRE Implementation
Each source reduction and recycling element (SRRE) outlines the source reduction, recycling, composting, and public education
and information programs a jurisdiction will implement. Additionally, the SRRE identifies
funding mechanisms and monitoring for these programs, and describes their integration into
a comprehensive waste diversion program. A fully implemented SRRE both carries out the
described programs and achieves the diversion requirements.
Board staff have identified four scenarios to use in determining SRRE implementation:
- Implementing all or most programs, and meeting diversion
requirements.
- Implementing some/all programs, but not meeting
diversion requirements.
- Implementing a small number of programs and meeting diversion requirements.
- Not implementing programs and not meeting diversion requirements.
To determine the level of SRRE implementation, staff would use annual reports submitted by local
jurisdictions, the Board’s
biennial review process, and provide technical assistance,
when requested. This would apply
to all four scenarios.
Staff recommends using the following criteria to determine the extent to which a
jurisdiction has implemented, or shown a good faith effort to implement, their selected
diversion programs. These criteria reflect the four scenarios above, and may not be all
inclusive. These illustrative criteria are provided to serve as an
example. The criteria are not prescriptive and they are not a "checklist." They
indicate the issues that will be examined when the Board performs its biennial reviews.
There is no intent in this report to mandate that each criterion be adhered to, and
that
if not, then a local jurisdiction would be in a "failure" situation.
It is not the Board’s intention to micro-manage local jurisdiction’s decisions on
which diversion programs have been identified and selected for implementation. The Board
will attempt, with the identified criteria, to assist local jurisdictions who may need
help in identifying why implementation of diversion programs is failing to achieve the
results expected, or is failing to meet the diversion requirements.
Top
I. Implementing All or Most Programs and Meeting
Diversion Requirements
Jurisdictions implementing all or most of their diversion programs and meeting diversion requirements are not subject
to fines by the Board. Jurisdictions will be required to submit
information to the Board stating why diversion programs identified in SRREs
have not been implemented. Staff recommends using the following criteria to determine if a
jurisdiction fits this scenario.
- What is the measured diversion rate?
- What programs have been implemented, or what existing programs have been continued or
expanded, to achieve the diversion requirements?
- Will these programs maintain the desired level of diversion?
- Are contingency programs selected and available to implement, if necessary, to maintain
diversion levels?
Top
II. Implementing Some/All Programs, but Not
Meeting Diversion Requirements
If a jurisdiction is implementing some or all selected diversion programs,
and yet is not achieving the diversion requirements, it may be that the SRRE is
in need of revision. Staff recommends investigating the extent to which a
jurisdiction has tried to meet the diversion requirements through its selected
diversion programs, and the reasons it has failed to implement some or all
of those diversion programs.
Staff may recommend to the Board that a
jurisdiction has either made a good faith effort to implement is SRRE, should
apply for a SB 1066 extension, or should be put on a compliance schedule. In the case of a rural jurisdiction, the Board could instead recommend the
jurisdiction apply for a diversion rate reduction as allowed in PRC section
41787. If a compliance schedule was ordered and the jurisdiction failed to
meet the requirements of the order, the Board could then consider levying an
administrative fine against the jurisdiction. A fine, if determined to be
appropriate, would be decided by the Board on a case-by-case basis and could be
assessed at up to $10,000 per day.
Staff recommends using the following criteria to assess the specific
conditions that may have prevented a jurisdiction from meeting the diversion
requirements, and whether a good faith effort was made by the jurisdiction to
meet the requirements. Have some/all diversion programs been
implemented? If yes, then what may be the cause for not reaching
the requirements? For example:
- What is the measured diversion rate?
- Does the jurisdiction have a Board-approved reduced diversion requirement
or an extension?
- Were waste quantification problems encountered when calculating diversion
(25/50 percent) achievement?
- Have participation and program effectiveness been low?
- Has the jurisdiction utilized public education and information programs
to promote its diversion programs?
- Has the jurisdiction targeted the appropriate sector
(commercial/residential/industrial) in its public education and information
campaign?
- Is the program accessible to the targeted audience? Have language
barriers been addressed?
- Have incentives for participation been used (e.g., cash for recyclables,
free/reduced cost compost bins for workshop attendance, etc.)?
- What other program alternatives have been used to promote waste
prevention and reduction programs (e.g., increased tip fees, local land use
restrictions, increased business fees, etc.)?
- Has the jurisdiction utilized the Board's free public information
materials?
- Have markets for diverted materials continually remained low or poor?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated local and regional marketing options?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated development opportunities with the
private sector?
- Has the jurisdiction worked with the Board's market development program?
- Has the jurisdiction applied to the Board's Recycling Market Development
Zone (RMDZ) program?
- Were all significant waste materials selected in the SRRE targeted in the
implemented programs?
- Have conditions changed to make these materials less targetable and/or
marketable?
- Have waste generation characteristics changed such that selected programs
would no longer be feasible or appropriate?
- Were sufficient funds available to implement programs?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated grants and loans available from the
Board, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling (DOR),
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), etc.?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated regional approaches to programs and
expenses?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated all financial options selected in the
SRRE, including contingency funding?
- Have time frames projected in the SRRE been met?
- What factors have affected these time frames?
- Will time frames be adjusted to continue program implementation?
- Were local diversion programs implemented but the jurisdiction had
disposal increases due to a regional diversion facility generating and
disposing significant amounts of residue within the "host"
jurisdiction's borders?
- Have other State-mandated programs affected solid waste disposal tonnage
(such as a doubling of street sweeping activities due to Clean Water Act
requirements for certain cities)?
- What other problems has the jurisdiction encountered in program
implementation?
- Have all selected diversion programs been implemented? If no, then
what may be the reason for not implementing the programs? For example:
- What diversion programs were not implemented, and why?
- What selected diversion facilities (e.g., material recovery, composting)
are not yet on-line?
- Did financing options for a selected diversion facility (e.g., material
recovery, composting) fail?
- Did a jurisdiction face unavoidable regulatory delays? If so, explain
the regulatory delays and how they affected the project time lines.
- Did a jurisdiction elect to recover a certain type of material (e.g.,
cardboard), but the hauler/operator will not cooperate and recover the
waste type on behalf of the jurisdiction? Is the failure to recover the
material(s) due to logistical problems?
- Was insufficient staff available to implement programs?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated volunteer or internship programs?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated regional approaches to programs,
expenses, and staffing?
- Was there a high turnover in staff?
- Did the jurisdiction allot reasonable resources?
- Have time frames projected for program implementation in the SRRE been
met?
- What factors have affected these time frames?
- Have time frames been adjusted to continue program implementation?
- Have waste generation characteristics changed (e.g., a military base
closure, or a manufacturing/industry relocated or closed), such that
selected programs would no longer be feasible or appropriate?
- Have contingency diversion programs been implemented to reach the
diversion requirements?
- If contingency programs are significant in scale, has that caused a
delay?
- Have existing contractual or legal issues prohibited a jurisdiction from
implementing programs?
- Can the jurisdiction amend franchise agreements? If not, when do the
agreements expire?
- Can the jurisdiction prepare a request for proposal(s) for the
implementation of programs and facilities?
- What technical assistance can the Board provide to assist local
jurisdictions in implementing diversion programs?
Top
III. Implementing a Small Number of Programs and
Meeting Diversion Requirements
This scenario focuses on the level of SRRE implementation, and reinforces the
statutory requirement for SRRE (i.e., program) implementation in addition to
meeting the numerical diversion requirement. This scenario will allow the Board
to make a case-by-case determination of whether a jurisdiction has made a good
faith effort to implement its SRRE, or whether it should be issued a compliance
order. The Board could also recommend that the jurisdiction apply for a SB 1066
extension. Jurisdictions will be required to submit information to the Board
stating why diversion programs selected for implementation in the SRRE have not
been implemented.
Staff recommends using the following criteria to determine if a jurisdiction
fits this scenario:
- What is the measured diversion rate?
- What programs have been implemented, or what existing programs have been
continued or expanded, to achieve the diversion requirements?
- Will these programs maintain the desired level of diversion?
- Are contingency programs selected and available to implement, if
necessary, to maintain diversion levels?
- Have any implemented programs been dropped, and if so, why?
- Have programs selected for implementation not been implemented? If not,
why not?
- What selected diversion facilities (e.g., material recovery,
composting) are not yet on-line?
- Did financing options for a selected diversion facility (e.g.,
material recovery, composting) fail?
- Did a jurisdiction face unavoidable regulatory delays? If so, explain
the regulatory delays and how they affected the project time lines.
- Did a jurisdiction elect to recover a certain type of material (e.g.,
cardboard), but the hauler/operator would not cooperate and recover the
waste type on behalf of the jurisdiction? Is the failure to recover the
material(s) due to logistical problems?
- Were sufficient funds available to implement programs?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated grants and loans available from the
Board, DOR, US EPA, etc.?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated regional approaches to programs and
expenses?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated all financial options selected in
the SRRE, including contingency funding?
- Was insufficient staff available to implement programs?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated volunteer or internship programs?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated regional approaches to programs,
expenses, and staffing?
- Was there a high turnover in staff?
- Did the jurisdiction allot reasonable resources?
- Have participation rates and program effectiveness been too low?
- Has the jurisdiction utilized public education and information
programs to promote its diversion programs? Has the jurisdiction
targeted the appropriate sector (commercial/residential/industrial) in
its public education and information campaign?
- Is the program accessible to the targeted audience? Have potential
language barriers been addressed?
- Have incentives for participation been used (e.g., cash for
recyclables, free/reduced cost compost bins for workshop attendance,
etc.)?
- What other program alternatives have been used to promote waste
prevention and reduction programs (e.g., increased tip fees, local land
use restrictions, increased business fees, etc.)?
- Has the jurisdiction utilized the Board's free public information
materials?
- Have markets for diverted materials continually remained low or poor?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated local and regional marketing
options?
- Has the jurisdiction investigated development opportunities with the
private sector?
- Has the jurisdiction worked with the Board's market development
program?
- Has the jurisdiction applied to the Board's RMDZ program?
- Were all significant waste materials selected in the SRRE targeted in the
implemented programs?
- Have conditions changed to make these materials less targetable and/or
marketable?
- Have waste generation characteristics changed such that selected
programs would no longer be feasible or appropriate?
- What other problems has the jurisdiction encountered in program
implementation?
- Have waste generation characteristics changed (e.g., has a military
base closed, or a manufacturer/industry relocated or closed), such that
selected programs would no longer be feasible or appropriate?
- Have contingency diversion programs been implemented to reach the
diversion requirements?
- If contingency programs are significant in scale, has that caused a
delay in implementation?
- Have existing contractual or legal issues prohibited a jurisdiction from
implementing programs?
- Can the jurisdiction amend franchise agreements? If not, when do the
agreements expire?
- Can the jurisdiction prepare a request for proposal(s) for the
implementation of programs and facilities?
- What technical assistance can the Board provide to assist the local
jurisdiction in implementing diversion programs?
Top
IV. Not Implementing Programs and Not Meeting Diversion
Requirements
Staff will investigate the reasons a jurisdiction has failed to implement diversion
programs and thus failed to meet the diversion requirements. Staff will recommend
the Board issue compliance schedules to jurisdictions in this scenario. If
the requirements of the compliance schedule are not met, the Board could, at a
public hearing, consider assessing the jurisdiction an administrative fine of up
to a maximum of $10,000 per day.
Staff recommends using the following criteria to determine if a jurisdiction fits this
scenario.
- What is the measured diversion rate?
- Why were programs not implemented?
- Were insufficient funds available to implement programs? Explain, if sufficient funds
were available, explain why they were not dedicated to implementing programs.
- Did the jurisdiction investigate grants and loans available from the Board,
DOR, US EPA, etc.?
- Did the jurisdiction investigate regional approaches to programs and
expenses?
- Did the jurisdiction investigate all financial options selected in the
SRRE?
- Is there a lack of markets for diverted materials, and therefore programs were not
implemented? For example:
- Did the jurisdiction investigate local and regional marketing options?
- Did the jurisdiction work with the Board’s market development program and
apply for market development zone designation?
- Was sufficient staff available to implement programs? Was staff allocated?
- Did the jurisdiction investigate volunteer or internship programs?
- Did the jurisdiction investigate regional approaches to programs, expenses,
and staffing?
- Have existing contractual or legal issues prohibited a jurisdiction from implementing
programs?
- Can the jurisdiction amend franchise agreements?
- Can the jurisdiction prepare a Request for Proposal(s) for the implementation of
programs and facilities?
- What other problems has the jurisdiction encountered that resulted in no diversion
program implementation?
Top
  
As approved by the Board on August 14, 2001.
|
