Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Adjust Garbage Rates HHW 1 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT (9✓ —�`� CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Debember 21, 1989 4 I i SUBJECT: Review of Service Changes Required to Meet State Requirements for Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) (Report Prepared by Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager & Lou Ann Texeira, Administrative Assistant) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: o League of California Cities Guide to Understanding AB 939 o Summary of Local Recycling Programs RECOMMENDATION: ) Receive Staff Report 2) Provide input on desired components of a Residential Recycling Program and select method of pursuing a Residential Recycling Program from the following: a) Report back to the City Council after the outcome of the Countywide Citizen's Initiative is known. b) Develop a Pilot Program to evaluate the best method of implementation. This option would need to be funded by the General Fund. c) Develop an RFP for review by the City Council and distribute to firms interested in providing the service. d) Authorize Staff to pursue negotiations with Livermore-Dublin Disposal and its affiliated ' companies. 3) Review and provide input on the current program plans for the Household Hazardous Waste collection. 4) Select a method of funding the Household Hazardous Waste Collection from the following: a) Pay the cost from the City General Fund b) Direct Staff to work with DSRSD to impose a special surcharge on the water rates. c) Direct Staff to develop an adjustment to the garbage rate which would finance the j collection. I FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The preferred financing method is through adjustment to the garbage collection rates. The costs are discussed within the report. DESCRIPTION: AB 939 - California Waste Management Act of 1989 The Governor has signed AB 939 which will take effect January 1, 1990. This legislation will drastically alter the planning and implementa- tion of waste programs throughout the State. The legislation also includes inconsistencies and unclear language which will need to be resolved by the Legislature. The League of California Cities anticipates that the amendments will be handled as urgency legislation in early 1990. The following outlines the changes which are discussed in more detail within the attached League of California Cities Guide: o The nine member part-time California Waste Management Board is replaced with a six member full-time California Integrated Waste AGENDA STATEMENT Page 1 COPIES TO: Dave McDonald, Waste Management Inc. Bill Brandi, Livermore-Dublin Disposal ITEM NO. Dave Adams, City of Livermore Management Board. The State Senate and the Assembly leadership each have one appointment who are supposed to represent the public. The remaining four appointments are made by the Governor. Two of these appointments are to represent the public. One appointee is to have private sector experience in solid waste. The final appointee is to have served as an official of a non-profit environmental organization whose principal purpose is to promote recycling and protect air and water quality. The make-up of the State Board is important since they have review powers over local agency plans and are also empowered to levy penalties. o The bill eliminates the current County Solid Waste Management Plan. In its place, a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (COIWMP) is created. The status of current plans will be the subject of clean-up legislation. o Each COIWMP will be required to include a Source Reduction and Recycling Element. This Element must be prepared by each City and incorporated into the County Plan. The law does allow cities and counties to jointly prepare the Element. o The Element must identify how the jurisdiction will divert through source reduction, recycling, and composting 25% of solid waste from the landfill or incinerator by 1995. o A requirement to reduce 50% of the waste stream by the year 2000 is imposed. The Legislation also limits the use of incineration to achieve this goal. o In Alameda County, the Countywide Plan must be adopted by January 1, 1994. o Cities must complete a City Source Reduction and Recycling Element by July 1, 1991. As noted above, this activity may be undertaken as a joint project between cities and the County. o The Board is authorized to impose civil penalties on agencies which fail to develop an adequate Element or Plan. The penalties can be as much as $10, 000 per day. o The Legislation requires cities and counties to implement a household hazardous waste program. o The Legislation requires operators of solid waste landfills to increase tipping fees. These funds will be deposited into the State's new integrated waste management account. Beginning January 1, 1990, the fee will be 50 cents per ton; thereafter, it is set by the Board. Obviously, the landfill operator will pass the fee onto the hauler who then passes the fee onto the customer. The increase in tipping fees will affect rates. o The legislation also provides for increased involvement of the State Board with the local enforcement agency (LEA) inspection of solid waste facilities. It is apparent that this legislation has mandated the provision of recycling and household hazardous waste collection programs. The remainder of this report will address some of the options available to implement these programs and the estimated costs associated with them. The intent is to obtain City Council direction on policy and service issues in order to allow Staff to pursue the implementation of the programs. The final agreements and program descriptions would need to be brought back before the City Council at a future meeting. RECYCLING Comparison of Recycling Programs As indicated above, recent changes in waste management laws require local government to take an active role in reducing the amount and altering the type of waste going into the waste stream. While many cities are currently developing plans to meet future refuse disposal AGENDA STATEMENT Page 2 needs in accordance with AB 939, a number of cities have already implemented local recycling programs. In researching the issue of recycling, Staff has contacted a number of agencies currently operating local recycling programs. A matrix which presents a summary of the findings is attached to this report. It appears as though most cities have initiated their recycling efforts with residential curbside recycling programs. Other programs, such as commercial recycling, multi-family recycling and yard waste recycling programs are phased in once the residential curbside program is underway. Citizens' Recycling Survey In an attempt to gauge the community's response to recycling issues, the City recently conducted a brief survey on the subject. The recycling survey, included in the "Citizen Talkback" section of the Fall 1989 City Newsletter, was distributed to approximately 9, 000 Dublin residents and businesses. A number of citizens (1.4%) responded to the recycling survey and in general, the responses were positive. The survey attempted to measure a number of basic recycling factors, including the following: o Number of residents currently recycling o Materials currently being recycled o Any interest in developing a Citywide recycling program o What type of recycling program(s) would there be interest in o Are citizens willing to pay extra for a recycling program o General thoughts on the issue of recycling The results of the survey indicate the following: 0 86% of the respondents are currently recycling; 14% are not o The three predominant materials currently being recycled are newspaper, cans and bottles (in that order) 0 76% of the respondents would be interested in participating in a Citywide recycling program; 3% would not; 21% did not respond o Survey respondents are most interested in curbside recycling (bottles, cans, newspapers) and household hazardous waste recycling programs 0 73% of the respondents would support a slight rate increase to fund a Citywide recycling program; 16% were opposed to this and 11% did not respond. The survey also provided an opportunity for respondents to present their general thoughts on the issue of recycling. A number of respondents indicated that the recycling program should be simple, convenient and should be either weekly or biweekly. In addition, a number of respondents recognized the need for a significant public education/promotional program to accompany the recycling efforts. Options Available to Implement Recycling Program in Dublin Given that State Law now mandates local agencies to implement a Recycling Program, Staff has evaluated options which can be pursued. The implementation of this program had also been identified as part of the City's 1989 "Goals and Objectives". o Alameda County Citizen's Initiative: A private group is currently circulating an initiative which would increase tipping fees in Alameda County by $6. 00 per ton. If the proposal collects enough valid signatures, it will be presented to Alameda County voters in June of 1990. One of the purposes of the initiative is to generate funds to support recycling efforts undertaken by cities. Staff Analysis: The League of California Cities recommends that cities begin working as soon as possible to reach the 1994 goal. Staff believes that an unnecessary delay would occur in the event that AGENDA STATEMENT Page 3 the measure was not approved by the voters. There would also be considerable question as to when these funds would become available. Staff recommends that the City Council select an option which represents a proactive position to implement recycling. Staff will continue to monitor and report on the activities and implications of the proposed measure. o Develop a Pilot Program: In the past, it was popular to develop a pilot program in a specific area. The information was then used to develop a Citywide program. Some of these programs were implemented with grant funds. Staff Analysis: The development of a "Pilot" program is considered inappropriate, given the current environment. First, grant funds are not currently available for a "standard" curbside residential recycling program. Therefore, the cost of this type of program would need to be paid for by the City's General Fund. The industry has also developed in the past five years to the extent that substantial information is already available about the most effective way to implement the program. The final reason for recommending against a limited pilot program is the fact that the City is now mandated by State Law to provide recycling. o Develop an RFP and Solicit Proposals: The City has the option to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) and circulate it among firms which would be willing to provide curbside residential services. Staff would need time to develop the RFP and present it to the City Council. The proposal would then be circulated providing adequate time for vendors to respond. Staff Analysis: The RFP is a possible alternative. It will require significant Staff time to develop an RFP and review the responses. In addition, it may delay the implementation of a program, since the selected provider will need time to purchase equipment and set up the operation. The size of the City of Dublin's residential base also impact the ability of firms to cost effectively service the City. Currently, divisions of Waste Management Inc. , are the only companies offering curbside residential service in this area. This would include Livermore-Dublin Disposal in the City of Livermore and Valley Waste in the City of San Ramon. Because of the City's size, one estimate projects a 25% higher cost if the City of Dublin was operated separate from any other program. An additional problem with the use of a separate firm is the problem with delinquencies and uncollectibles. Typically, a curbside recycling program is a mandatory service. Again, this is necessary to achieve an economy of scale. In addition, it is necessary to protect the amount of landfill capacity available. If the only service billed by a firm is the recycling service, customers may ignore the billing. The delinquencies are typically reflected in the rates charged for the program (i.e. , increased delinquencies will result in increased program costs) . o Direct Staff to Negotiate the Provision of the Service with Livermore-Dublin Disposal: Staff has met and discussed the possible provision of this service with representatives of the Disposal Company. The Company is interested in providing a curbside service. The cost associated with the service would be included in an adjustment to the residential garbage rates. The intent would be to develop a program which would dovetail with services which the firm would be providing to customers in Livermore. Staff Analysis: This option was the most promising of those reviewed in that the program could potentially be implemented within six months. One consideration in determining an implementation timeframe is that the schools provide a good resource for promoting the program. If this option is selected, Staff would discuss this issue in detail with company representatives. The garbage company also has a billing system in place which lends itself to easily including the additional cost of the service. AGENDA STATEMENT Page 4 Type of Program Proposed by Livermore-Dublin Disposal The representatives of Livermore-Dublin Disposal have proposed providing a weekly residential service. The system would utilize three stacking bins, with newspapers tied or bagged next to the bins. Customers would need to sort materials with clear glass in one bin, colored glass (i.e. , brown and green) in a second bin, and cans and P.E.T. plastic bottles in the third. The Company would provide the bins to each customer. The cost of supplying the bins is included in the regular monthly rate. The bins serve dual purposes. They are convenient to use and they serve as a visual reminder to encourage participation. The collection would be done on the same day as the regular trash pick-up. However, the recycling bins would need to be placed at curbside. Staff discussed the alternative of having a single bin system. Company representatives indicated that although you save on the cost of purchasing the equipment, you increase the cost of processing the recyclables. The hauler would need to transport the mixed load from a single bucket program to a separating facility prior to delivering it to the final purchaser of the material. This additional handling would eliminate any cost savings from the purchase of fewer bins. The Company also indicated that firms purchasing the materials are also becoming more stringent on the condition of the goods received. The three bin system tends to improve the condition which improves the value obtained in the resale market. If the sales price goes down due to a contaminated load, this eventually will be reflected in the cost of providing the program. Staff also discussed the potential for implementing curbside oil recycling as part of the program. The intent would be to use special one gallon containers which would sell for between $1. 00 and $1. 25. This would be picked up on the recycling day. The customer would need to purchase a new container each time. The cost would be intended to cover the container cost as well as the disposal cost. Waste Management Inc. , the parent company of Livermore-Dublin Disposal is currently working on establishing a similar program in the Fremont area. Special consideration must be given to the potential for a spill and the clean-up responsibility in the event a container is spilled. In addition, the Company must take precautions to be assured that they are not collecting other types of hazardous materials. Waste Management is also working on finalizing the permits necessary to obtain State exemptions, for transporting and disposing of the oil as household hazardous waste. Company officials suggested that if the City considers implementing a recycling program that the oil collection be a separate component. This would be implemented at a later date, provided that the law allowed the company to provide the service. In addition, the company hopes to have program experience with the Fremont area at that time. Areas Not Initially Addressed by a Curbside Residential Program Three primary areas are not addressed by a residential curbside program. In the future, these services will need to be considered if the City is going to be successful in achieving the waste reductions mandated by AB 939. Also, as noted in the review of other programs, residential curbside recycling is typically implemented as a first phase. o Multi-Family Service: The curbside program typically does not address multi-family complexes greater than four units. Waste Management officials indicated they are currently experimenting with a complex in the City of Albany. The complex has 90 gallon cans placed in strategic locations and all types of recyclables are collected in the single bin. This material is then taken to a processing center in Oakland. The distance to this type of facility would result in high transportation costs if a similar program was implemented in Dublin, however, they are willing to investigate alternatives. AGENDA STATEMENT Page 5 o Composting: Yard debris represents a significant portion of the waste stream. Currently, the majority of this waste is transported with residential garbage to the landfill. Waste Management representatives estimate that this type of debris may comprise as much as 18% of the waste stream. A regular composting program would be one method of reducing residential waste. One of the largest difficulties to implementing this type of program is having a site available for processing and use of the debris. Waste Management indicated that one possible use is to reduce the amount of cover material imported at landfill operations. Unfortunately, the Altamont Landfill has adequate on-site material and does not import material. Therefore, if a program could be developed, the cost would need to include transportation to a suitable composting site. o Commercial Recycling: The final area which is not currently addressed is commercial recycling. Some of the larger retailers voluntarily separate corrugated cardboard, however, an active formal program does not currently exist in this area. The City of San Jose operates a voluntary program with bars and restaurants to recycle glass bottles. The impact of this type of effort ultimately depends upon the make up of the business community. Response to Areas Not Covered Waste Management representatives indicated to Staff that the 3 areas noted above are services being considered by the company. They recognize the need to address high volume segments of the waste stream in order to meet the requirements of AB 939. If the City Council elects to pursue a residential recycling program, it may be possible to include provisions in the agreement which require the firm to evaluate these services and/or to implement pilot projects, when feasible. As discussed, the areas not covered by a residential program are services which have not been widely implemented elsewhere in the State. Staff has discussed the possibility of grant funding with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Recycling Coordinator. It may be possible that the Authority will have grant funds available in the Spring of 1990. The Coordinator indicated that criteria for funding projects would probably emphasize new programs which are not widely in use. This would presumably include the three areas which are not addressed by the residential curbside program. Estimated Costs of Livermore-Dublin Disposal Residential Curbside Program City Staff has received preliminary estimates of the cost of implementing a curbside recycling program with the current garbage company. It was assumed that this would be a mandatory service for residential customers. In other words, their rates would include the cost of the program whether they participated or not. It was also assumed that the entire amount would be added to the first can of service. The City Council should be aware that these are preliminary estimates only and that additional refinement will be necessary in the development of any formal agreement. Livermore-Dublin Disposal representatives estimate that the cost of providing the 3 bin weekly residential service would result in an additional $1. 20 per month to each residential customer. They have indicated that the cost assumes that they are able to implement a program which would mirror the service provided in their Livermore service area. The company is currently discussing with the City of Livermore, the potential to expand their current biweekly program to a weekly program. If Dublin elected to pursue a program which was substantially different, the cost was estimated at $1. 50 per month. The estimated costs presented are substantially higher than programs in other agencies which currently have curbside services. These costs are being impacted significantly by the market value of the materials collected. Given that all cities will be required to implement AGENDA STATEMENT Page 6 programs, it is estimated that the supply of recyclable waste will increase. As a result, the amount paid for these materials will go down. The representatives of Waste Management are basing the estimated cost on their experience with other programs. An illustration of how the market can be affected was tea: shared by representatives of Waste Management. They indicated that disposal companies on the East Coast are paying $25 per ton to dispose of newspapers. The West Coast does have the advantage of being located closer to the "Pacific Rim", which provides a major export market for these materials. Therefore, even though the scrap value has gone down, it is hoped that it will not become a cost. It is also important to note that in most of the more recent agreements, the service provider has agreed to take all market risks. They have guaranteed the rate for providing the collection service, regardless of the scrap market fluctuations. This would be a desirable component of any agreement for the City of Dublin. Given the wide variance in the cost of comparable programs, Staff believes that further discussions will be required with the Company if the City Council selects this option. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Legislation AB 939 mandates that the City develop a HHW collection program. Under separate legislation, the City is also required to evaluate Non-Point Source Reduction which contaminates waterways. The concept of this program is that the City discharges liquids through the City's storm drain system. Presumably, the major content should be storm runoff. However, motor oil and other substances from roadways or illegal dumping may wind up in the storm drain. Eventually, this is transported to the Bay and it impacts clean water standards. The City must evaluate methods of reducing the evidence of these hazardous materials which cannot be identified as originating from a specific source. It is anticipated that the illegal disposal of hazardous materials is a major contributor to this problem. A convenient collection program would provide a legal alternative to those looking to dispose of household items. Proposed Alameda County Program The Alameda County Health Care Agency is developing a proposal to establish a HHW collection program. The program would be operated under the Environmental Health Division. The program outline was presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 13 , 1989. The Board reviewed the program and established public hearing dates for January, 1990. As reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, the program would have three sites for the collection of HHW. (One site would be in North County, one in South County, and a third site in the Valley. ) The Board also elected to pursue the financing of the program through "tipping fees". As discussed earlier, these costs are eventually passed on to the customer. The other primary financing alternative presented to the Board of Supervisors was the creation of a Special Benefit District. This alternative would require an election and the Board looked more favorably on the use of tipping fees. The County does not project having the program operational prior to July 1, 1991. The original proposal was to have a bimonthly program with two collection centers. The staff would operate the program at one facility at a time. It was also anticipated that the facility would be open for three weeks for collection and the fourth week would be used to package the waste. It is Staff's understanding that the Board approved adding a third facility location at its study session. It is not entirely clear as to how the revised program will operate, or the total cost of operation. If the County is able to implement an ongoing program, the City could discontinue its collection efforts. AGENDA STATEMENT Page 7 Dublin-Livermore-Pleasanton Project In September, 1989, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate the methods available to organize and fund a HHW collection day. Staff has worked with representatives of the two Cities to develop a program to be presented to each of the City Councils. At this time, the planning is in the preliminary stages. However, it is anticipated that an agreement would be presented to each City Council by February 1, 1990. The current approach assumes that the collection day would be held in the City of Pleasanton at their Fire Training Facility. The Staff Committee has been working with a contractor to conduct the collection in early May. City Staff indicated a preference to rotate the location of future collections in order to service the largest number of residents. It is hoped that the collection could be handled at a minimum of once per year until Alameda County has a permanent program in place. The joint City project anticipates working with Chem Waste, which is a firm related to the parent company of Livermore-Dublin Disposal. As required by law, each participant is only allowed to transport 50 pounds or 5 gallons of material. At the City's option, this limitation could be relaxed for latex paints only. The Staff Committee has discussed handling latex paint regardless of the quantity provided that it is household waste. A restriction would need to be in place to avoid having commercial painting contractors dispose of any commercial waste. Cost Sharing The preliminary method of apportioning costs between the three agencies is to divide the expenses into two categories. The first category would be the set-up costs. Since these are fixed costs, it is proposed to share them equally between the three Cities. Staff has discussed sharing the disposal costs based on the percentage of participation. Each resident who attends the collection day will complete a survey indicating home address and be asked to show identification. At the end of the collection day, the total for each City will be tallied. For budgeting purposes, Staff has assumed that attendance will be roughly the same as the percentage of households. For example, the State estimates that Dublin has 6,717 households, which is 15% of the total households for the three City area. The City of Livermore has 45%, and the City of Pleasanton has 40%. At this time, Staff has estimated the amount of waste to be collected based upon a 25% increase over the number of drums collected in 1987. Given that the amount of waste which will be collected cannot be known until the event has concluded, the estimates could easily be exceeded. Chem Waste will be providing Staff with a detailed and updated cost proposal in early January. Based on the preliminary discussions, it is estimated that Dublin's share would amount to between $10, 500 and $15, 000. This represents our estimated share of a total single day collection cost of between approximately $55, 500 and $75, 000. Staff will be working with the neighboring City Staffs to more precisely define the costs and scope of the program. Dublin Funding Options Staff has identified three options for funding the Household Hazardous Waste Collection. If Alameda County is able to implement their program, any of the options identified would be viewed as temporary measures. o Option 1: Pay the full cost from the General Fund The City Council could elect to pay the entire cost from the City's General Fund. This was not a budgeted expenditure in the approved 1989-90 City Budget. Therefore, the funding would need to come from reserves. AGENDA STATEMENT Page 8 o Option 2 : Request. a Water Service Surcharge Staff identified the possibility of requesting that the Dublin San Ramon Services District impose a special surcharge on Dublin customers. The special funds would then be transferred to the City of Dublin to implement the program. o Option 3: Include the cost in Garbage Rate Livermore-Dublin Disposal has indicated a willingness to adjust the garbage rates to collect funds necessary to pay for the collection event. Because of their relationship to Chem Waste, the garbage company would pay the HHW firm directly. Staff would recommend Option 3 . The first option appears inappropriate for a new service. The use of reserves to finance an ongoing program is not considered prudent. The second option unnecessarily complicates the funding by involving another agency. The third option is viewed as appropriate since the new service should be accompanied by a revenue source. The inclusion of the cost as part of the garbage bill also avoids having the City front the full cost in May and wait for reimbursements through a surcharge levied throughout the year. Inclusion of HHW Collection in Garbage Rate Assuming that the garbage rate funds a collection costing $15, 000, this would equate to approximately $3 .04 per residential customer per year. Livermore-Dublin Disposal representatives have indicated that the cost can also be spread by the level of service. One example of how the spreading by service levels would affect rates would be to charge an additional 20 cents per month for all single can customers. Customers with more service would pay an additional 10 cents per month for each additional can. This method would generate adequate funds to finance $15, 000 towards a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day. Since the City Council will be reviewing the basic garbage rate increase request, the documents to implement the HHW financing have not been prepared. Staff recommends that the City Council review the financing concept and direct Staff to include the necessary adjustments as part of a Garbage Rate Resolution to be presented at a future meeting. Conclusion AB 939 and the overall environmental concerns with declining landfill capacity have forced public agencies to consider conservation of our resources. The development of recycling or household hazardous waste collection cannot be implemented without additional funding. This report has outlined the City's legal responsibilities along with options available to meet these goals. Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed programs and provide further direction on the methods of implementing and financing the services. AGENDA STATEMENT Page 9 + ■mi ;m; League of California Cities MM- 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 Cali/omia Cities Work Together A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING AB 939 "THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989" November 1989 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This legislative session the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 939, the "California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989." AB 939 enacts a comprehensive reorganization of the state's solid waste management planning process, changing the focus from "solid waste management" to "integrated waste management." AB 939 includes four major parts. The first reorganizes the California Waste Management Board; the second creates a new, integrated waste management planning process, including recycling goals for cities and counties; the third strengthens the certification criteria and performance standards for Local Enforcement Agencies; the fourth simply reorganizes and consolidates existing law (AB 2448 - Eastin), with minor modifications, into different code sections in the Public Resources Code. Waste Board Reorganization AB 939 creates the California Integrated Waste Management Board, a six member, full- time Board, which replaces the current nine member, part-time California Waste Management Board. The new Board's membership consists of one representative from the private sector with experience in the solid waste industry, one representative from a non-profit environmental organization whose purpose is to promote recycling and protection of air and water quality, and four public members with no specified expertise. AB 939 establishes strict conflict of interest provisions for Board members and prohibits nonreported ex-parte communication. Integrated Waste Management Planning AB 939 creates the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (COIWMP), which replaces the County Solid Waste Management Plan (COSWMP). Each city in the county, and the county for the unincorporated area, must prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which identifies how the jurisdiction will divert through source reduction, recycling, and composting 25% of solid waste from landfill or incinerator by 1995, and 50% or the maximum amount feasible by 2000. 10% of the 50% goal may be achieved by incineration, at the discretion of the local government, provided that certain environmental conditions are met. These Source Reduction and Recycling Elements become part of the COIWMP. The COIWMP also includes a Countywide Siting Element, which is similar to the traditional COSWMP. The EXHIBIT Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan,except for the individual Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, is approved by the county, and the majority of the cities with the majority of the population in the incorporated area. The Source Reduction and Recycling Elements are reviewed and approved or disapproved by the Integrated Waste Management Board, at the same time the Board reviews the COIWMP, unless the city wishes to submit its Element earlier. The Board may grant a reduction or exemption from the recycling goals for small cities and may grant a one year time extension to jurisdictions not meeting the recycling goals due to unforeseen adverse market conditions for recycled materials. The Board may impose administrative civil penalties on the city or county of up to $10,000 per day for failure to develop an adequate Element or Plan. The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans are to be submitted to the Board , based upon the amount of landfill capacity remaining in the county, as shown below: Date Due # Years Capacity Remaining January 1, 1992 less than 5 years January 1, 1993 5 to 8 years January 1, 1994 more than 8 years City Source Reduction and Recycling Elements are due to the county by July 1, 1991. AB 939 authorizes cities and counties to charge fees to cover the cost of preparing, adopting, and implementing the Elements and Plans. It also authorizes the Waste Board to require landfill operators to charge a tipping fee schedule culminating in up to $1.00 per ton by July 1, 1991. Finally, AB 939 also requires cities and counties to implement a household hazardous waste collection program. Local Enforcement Agencies AB 939 strengthens the certification and performance standards for Local Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). It creates four categories under which an LEA may be certified: (1) permitting, inspection, and enforcement at solid waste landfills; (2)incineration; (3)transfer and processing stations; and (4) inspection and enforcement of litter, odor, and nuisance regulations at landfills. An LEA may be designated by a city, a county or through a JPA between a county and cities. The Board must approve the LEA designation. AB 939 also specifies that.no local government department or agency which is the operating unit for a solid waste facility may be the LEA for the types of solid waste handling or disposal it conducts. 2 o �a Follow-up Activity Due to the way AB 939 was amended in the last days of the legislative session, it includes many technical problems that require attention, such as conflicting dates, confusion over issues that were supposed to have been resolved, and drafting errors. These will be addressed in a technical clean-up bill early in 1990. Also, there are several policy issues with which the League continues to take exception and which we will attempt to address the 1990 legislative session. Finally, the League will monitor and be an active participant in the State's regulatory process to implement AB 939, which will start in late 1989 and continue into 1990. I. INTRODUCTION In 1989, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed AB 939 (Sher) (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. It includes a reorganization of California's waste management planning process, a new full time Waste Management Board, and a strengthening of Local Enforcement Agencies. The enactment of AB 939, along with a number of other bills designed to stimulate the development of markets for recycled materials, culminates several years of legislative activity in the solid waste field. While the League was an active participant throughout the legislative process, several key issues of importance to the League were decided in the final days of the legislative session by the administration and legislative leadership. This last minute amendment process allowed for no opportunity for review and changes by outside groups; thus while the League is and has been supportive of legislation requiring recycling, there are a number of serious technical and policy issues in AB 939 with which the League disagrees, and which we will attempt to address in the 1990 legislative session. The purpose of this Guide.is to provide a brief explanation of the key elements of AB 939, answer commonly asked questions, and identify issues and technical problems that may be addressed in legislation next year. The League will continue to provide updates on AB 939 implementation as needed, and will monitor and participate in the regulatory development process. II. OVERVIEW' There are four major parts to AB 939. The first part reor anize the California Waste Management Board. The second part reorganizes the current COSWMP to a process designed to develop a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, including city and county recycling plans. The third part strengthens the Local ' Information in parentheses and italics refers to specific sections of the bill, for those readers who wish more detailed information. 3 L40 Enforcement Agency structure. The fourth makes minor changes to, and consolidates existing law, primarily AB 2448 (Eastin-Chapter 1319, Statutes of 1987) with other solid waste codes in the Public Resources Code. This Guide provides a summary of the key elements of the first three parts. I1I. WASTE BOARD REORGANIZATION (Part 1, Chapter 3) AB 939 reorganizes the current California Waste Management Board from a 9 member, part-time Board, to a 6 member, full-time Board, called the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The Board consists of the following: -- One member who has private sector experience in the solid waste industry; -- One member who has served as an elected or appointed official for a non- profit environmental protection organization whose principle purpose is to promote recycling and air/water quality; -- Four members,with no specified expertise or experience,who represent the public. The bill includes strict conflict of interest provisions, as well as a prohibition on unreported ex-parte communication. If a former elected local government official is appointed to the Board as a public member, he or she is exempt from the provision that prohibits any person from serving on the Board if that person received more than 10% of his or her income the two years before appointment from a person or entity subject to regulation by the Board. The waste industry member also is exempt from the 10% income limitation. IV. COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS. CITY AND COUNTY SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENTS (Part H) One of the major impacts of AB 939 is the changes it makes in solid waste management planning at the city and county level. While it repeals County Solid Waste Management Plans (COSWMPs) and instead requires preparation of a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (COIWMP), many of the existing features and procedures of the traditional COSWMP remain intact. This section includes a summary of the key provisions involved. The reader is referred to Part H, Chapters 1-9 of AB 939 for a more detailed description of the process. A. Local Planning, Committees On or before March 1, 1990, and every five years thereafter, each county shall convene a countywide task force to assist in the development of a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, individual city and county Source Reduction Recycling Elements and the Countywide Siting Element (Each of these items will be described in more detail in later sections of the Guide). The goal of the task force is to ensure a coordinated and cost- 4 effective regional integrated waste management program. The task force shall undertake the following tasks: 1) Identify solid waste management issues of countywide or regional concern. 2) Determine the need for countywide solid waste collection systems, processing facilities and marketing strategies that can serve more than one local jurisdiction. 3) Facilitate the development of multi jurisdictional arrangements for the marketing of recycling materials. 4) To the extent possible, facilitate resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies among or between city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. This task force also guides the development of the Siting Element of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. B. C ounW8dde Integrated Waste Management Plan (Chapter 5) Each county shall prepare and submit to the California Integrated Waste Management Board a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, which consists of all of the following: 1) All the city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements; 2) The county's Source Reduction and Recycling Element prepared for the unincorporated areas of the county; 3) The Countywide Siting Element; The plan shall also include a statement of the goals and objectives set forth by the countywide task force. The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and any amendments to it, except for the individual city and counU Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, shall be approved by the county and by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated areas in the county, except in those counties which have only two cities, in which case the Plan is subject to the approval of the city contains the majority of the population of the unincorporated areas of the county. If a city fails to act upon the Plan or the proposed amendments within 90 days after receiving the Plan or the amendment, the city or county shall be deemed to have approved the Plan or the amendment as submitted 5 i . i (� n-� i°1 (It is important to note that this approval process is identical to the approval process for the COSWMP.) Each Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and the Elements of it shall be revised, and, if necessary, submitted to the Board every 5 years. (COSWMP revision was every 3 years.) The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans are to be submitted by counties to the Board for review and approval based upon the following schedule (Chapter 6, Article 2): Date Due # Years Capacity Remaining January 1, 1992 less than 5 years January 1, 1993 5 to 8 years January 1, 1994 more than 8 years City Source Reduction and Recycling Elements are due to the county by July 1, 1991. C. City Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (Part H, Chapter 2) On or before July 1, 1991, each city shall prepare, adopt, and submit to the county in which the city is located a Source Reduction and Recycling Element. This Element should be designed to place primary emphasis on implementing all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting programs while identifying the .amount of landfill and transformation (incineration) capacity that will be needed for solid waste which cannot be recycled, reduced or composted. The term "transformation" is used throughout AB 939; it refers to facilities which undertake incineration, pyrolysis, distallation, gasification, or biological conversioon other than composting. The local agency will have the sole determination of how to dispose of wastes that cannot be recycled, reduced, or composted -- that is, it will be a local decision whether or not landfill or incineration will be the disposal methodology that will be used. Each city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Element shall include all of the following components for wastes generated within the jurisdiction: a waste characterization component; a source reduction component; a recycling component; a composting component; a solid waste facility capacity component; an education and public information component; a funding component; a special waste component;and a household hazardous waste component. The local agency shall determine what mix of source reduction, recycling, and composting activities it will choose to achieve the waste diversion goals required by the bill, described below. 6 ler l� The household hazardous waste component of AB 939 is dictated by the requirements found in AB 888 (La Follette) (Chapter 809, Statutes of 1988). This bill requires cities and counties to develop household hazardous waste programs, but directs the Board to develop guidelines that will allow for the maximum flexibility in individual program development and implementation. The review and approval process for the household hazardous waste programs, as specified in AB 888, is different from that of AB 939, provides for more local flexibility, and is less restrictive than that of AB 939. An important feature of AB 888 is relief from liability exposure due to negligence on the part of public agencies undertaking household hazardous waste programs. The Source Reduction and Recycling Elements shall include an implementation schedule that,for the initial element,will show how the city will divert 25% of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. For the first revision of the element, the city must show how it will divert 50% or the maximum amount feasible, as determined by the Board, by January 1, 2000. Nothing in the bill prohibits a city or county from undertaking activities that are designed to exceed these goals. At the discretion of the local agency, 10%of the 50%may be from transformation facilities (i.e., incineration); however, for a community that is not able to achieve the 50% requirement, the Board may=require the city or county to use incineration to achieve that goal. (Chapter 6, Article 1) The Board may provide an exemption or a reduction in the goals if a city demonstrates and the Board concurs that the goal is.not feasible due to the small geographic size of the city and the small quantity of waste generated within the city or county. The Board may establish alternative, but less comprehensive requirements for those cities and counties wishing to receive the reduction or exemption. The Board may grant a one year time extension from the requirements of meeting the recycling goals to any city or county, if the Board finds that unfavorable,unforeseen,and severely adverse market conditions beyond the city's or county's control prevented the county or city from meeting the goal. The City and county must submit a plan of correction that shows how the agency will meet the requirements and that describes the activities that will be implemented to undertake the program. (Chapter 7,.Article 3) It should be noted that AB 939 includes detailed criteria through which a transformation project may be eligible to receive the 10% credit towards the 50% goal. It is important to note that use of a transformation project is solely at the discretion of the local agency. In addition, AB 939 also authorizes the Board to establish alternative Source Reduction and Recycling goals for local agencies which currently operate transformation facilities, provided certain conditions are met. 7 Following the Board's approval of a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, the city shall submit an annual report to the Board summarizing progress and implementing the element. In addition, each city or county shall review its Source Reduction and Recycling Element at least once every 5 years to correct any deficiency and shall submit this revised element to the Board for review or approval. A city may enter into a memo of understanding with another city, county, regional planning agency, agency formed under a JPA or a district established to manage solid waste in order to prepare and implement the Source Reduction Recycling Elements or the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Within 120 days of receiving a city or county Source Reduction and Recycling Element, or the County Integrated Waste Management Plan, the Board shall review the Element and Plan and either approve or disapprove them. If the Board disapproves an Element or a Plan, the Board must issue a Notice of.Deficiency to the city or county which identifies the specific reasons for the disapproval, and shall make specific recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. If the city or county fails to submit an adequate Plan or Element, the Board may impose administrative civil penalities of up to $10,000 per day. (Chapter 7, Article 2) In addition, not less frequently than every 2 years, the Board shall review each city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Element to determine whether the city or county is implementing the element. If, after a public hearing, the Board finds that the city or county has failed to implement its element, the Board shall issue an order of compliance with a specific schedule for achieving compliance. If, after the public hearing, and issuing the order of compliance, the Board still finds that the city or county has failed to implement its element, the Board may impose administrative civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day until the city or county implements the element. (Chapter 7, Article 4) Finally, AB 939 authorizes cities and counties to impose fees in order to pay for the costs of preparing, adopting, and implementing the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and the Elements. (Chapter 8) D. Countywide Siting Elements (Chapter 4) The Countywide Siting Element is very similar to the traditional COSWMP. Each county shall prepare a Countywide Siting Element which .includes a description of the areas to be used for development of adequate transformation or disposal capacity consistent with the development and implementation of the county and city Source Reduction Recycling Elements. The disposal capacity requirements in each Countywide Siting 8 Element is generally based upon the facility capacity components of the individual city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. These facility capacity components provide a projection of the amount of solid waste capacity which will be needed to accommodate the solid waste generated within the city or the county for a 15 year period, taking into consideration the total amount of solid waste generated, minus the amount of solid waste that is expected to be reduced, recycled, composted, or transformed. The Countywide Siting Element and any amendments to it, must be approved by the county and by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area except in those counties which have only two cities, in which case the element is subject to approval by the city which contains the majority of the population of the incorporated area in the county. This approval process is identical to that of the traditional COSWMP. The Countywide Siting Element shall include a resolution from each affected city or county stating that any areas identified for location of new or expanded solid waste transformation or disposal facilities is consistent with the applicable local agency general plan. III. FUNDING In addition to the local fee authority authorized in AB 939 and described above, AB 939 includes two new funding and financial programs. First, AB 939 directs the Board, in consultation with the State Board of Equalization and the appropriate legislative committees, to complete a report and propose model legislation for the introduction of legislation for disposal cost fee system on goods sold in California which are not subject to the bottle bill fees and which are normally disposed of in solid waste landfills or processed in transformation facilities (Chapter 3, Article 4). In evaluating any disposal cost fee, the Board shall give highest priority to those disposable goods which comprise the greatest percentage of materials being disposed and the greatest potential for environmental degradation, and shall take into consideration disposable goods which are already effectively recycled, reduced, or reused. This report is due to the Legislature January 1, 1991 for legislation to be introduced in the 1991-92 Legislative Session. Disposal cost fees, such as those added on by the bottle bill, are a means of generating revenue that could be used to offset the state's solid waste budgetary costs,backfill revenue lost to the state due to tax credits, or to provide technical assistance to local governments. Second, AB 939 requires operators of solid waste landfills to increase tipping fees that will be deposited in the state's new integrated waste management account. (Part 7, Chapter 2) The tipping fee initially shall be set at 50 cents per ton for waste disposed of during the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. The tipping fee for waste disposed of during the period July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991 shall be set by the Board at an amount sufficient to generate revenues 9 equivalent to the Board's approved budget for the 1990 to 1991 fiscal year,but shall not exceed 75 cents per ton. The fee for waste disposed of on July 1, 1991 and thereafter, shall be set annually by the Board at an amount sufficient to generate revenues equivalent to the approved budget for that fiscal year,but shall not exceed $1 per ton. IV. LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES (Part IV,, Chapter 2) AB 939 strengthens the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) process by enhancing performance standards and certification criteria. On or before August 1, 1991, the Board shall prepare and adopt new certification regulations for Local Enforcement Agencies. These regulations shall specify the requirements that a local agency must meet before being designated as an LEA. The regulations shall include, but are not limited to, all of the following: technical expertise, adequacy of staff resources, adequacy of budget resources, training requirements, and the existence of at least one permitted solid waste facility within the jurisdiction of the local agency. These regulations shall specify 4 separate types of certifications for which an enforcement agency may be designated, as described below: 1. Permitting, inspection, and enforcement of regulations at solid waste landfills; 2. Permitting, inspection, and enforcement of solid waste incinerators; 3. Permitting, inspection, and enforcement of transfer and processing stations; 4. Inspection and enforcement of litter, odor, and nuisance regulations at solid waste landfills. After August 1, 1992, no enforcement agency shall be designated unless the Board determines that the agency fully complies with one of the more certification types specified above. No existing enforcement agency shall, after August 1, 1992, exercise its powers as an enforcement agency unless the agency has been certified by the Board. The designation of an enforcement agency may be made by 3 procedures. 1. The board of supervisors of a county may designate the enforcement agency subject to the approval of the majority of the cities with the majority of the population in the incorporated areas. 2. The county and the cities within the county may enter into a JPA to establish an enforcement agency. 3. A city council may designate an enforcement agency. 10 If an LEA is not designated and certified within a county, the state Board shall be the enforcement agency within the county. No local government department or agency, which is the operating unit for a solid waste handling or disposal operation shall be the enforcement agency for the types of solid waste handling or disposal operation it conducts. Existing Local Enforcement Agencies will continue to operate until the new LEA is certified, but in no case, shall continue beyond August 1, 1992. V. A WORD ABOUT TECHNICAL PROBLEMS Due to the way AB 939 was amended in the closing two days of the 1989 Legislative Session, it includes a number of technical problems that will require immediate clean-up legislation in 1990. For example, as the reader of AB 939 will note, several dates are inconsistent, and it appears in several places that language that should have been deleted,was not, or clarifying language that should have been included was not. The League will work with other interested organizations, the Waste Board, and the author to identify these technical areas in need of clean-up. We anticipate that urgency legislation will be introduced early in 1990 to resolve these problems. Questions about these technical problems, or other issues, should be directed to the League's Sacramento office. In addition, there continue to be policy issues of interest to the League that may also be addressed in legislation next year. VI. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION As mentioned previously, there remain a number of unresolved issues that will be addressed in the next legislative session. In addition, there are several questions that are commonly asked about the bill. This section summarizes these two areas in an attempt to clarify AB 939 for the reader. 1. It appears there are conflicting dates in AB 939; is this correct? Yes, there do appear to be conflicting dates in AB 939. For example, Chapter 2, Article 1 states that on or before July 1, 1991, each city must submit to the county its Source Reduction and Recycling Element. However, Chapter 3, Article 1 states that on or before January 1, 1991 each county shall complete its Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Obviously, these dates are in conflict. It is unclear at this time what the correct date should be, although we anticipated it will be July 1, 1991. As soon as this is resolved, we will alert all cities. 2. When will the Board have guidelines available for preparation of the Source Reduction Recycling Elements, Countywide Siting Elements, and Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans? 11 AB 939 states that the new Waste Board shall complete preparations of guidelines for compliance with the requirements of the bill by January 1, 1990. Although this presents a short timeframe in which to prepare the regulations, the Board staff has indicated it intends to meet the January 1, 1990 deadline. The League will monitor closely the re 1,atory process as it relates to AB 939 and will particiRate as needed. 3. If my city already has a curbside recycling program,will we "get credit" for the solid waste already being recycled when calculating our progress in achieving the 25% goal? Yes. AB 939.contains language, included specifically at the request of the League, that,for the purposes of determining the recycling levels, cities and counties will get credit and shall include all existing residential,commercial, and industrial source reduction recycling and composting activities that divert solid waste from landfills and transformation facilities. (Part H, Chapter 6, Article 1) In order to take full advantage of existing recycling activities, it is suggested that cities not only evaluate the amount of residential solid waste that is diverted through curbside recycling, neighborhood collection centers, or AB 2020 centers,but also recycling that is going on in the commercial and industrial sectors. For example, many restaurants may be participating in the glass industry's Phoenix program, just as many businesses may have programs to recycle waste paper or cardboard. Similarly, industries that recycle scrap metal, thus returning it to the economic mainstream, should also be counted. 4. My city is considering starting a recycling program, however, our county's Integrated Waste Management Plan is not due until 1993 or 1994. Should we wait to start our recycling program? No, don't wait. The sooner your city begins activities to recycle or compost solid waste or other activities that will divert solid waste from landfills, the better. This is because, as stated above,you will receive credit for recycling activities already carried out. 5. Who will carry out the inspection, permitting, and enforcement activities until our new Local Enforcement Agency is certified? The existing LEA will continue to carry out its activities until the new LEA is designated and certified, as long as it is certified by August 1, 1992. The existing LEA will relate to the existing Waste Board as it has in the past, until the new Board is appointed. 6. What is the status of our existing COSWMP? This is another issue that will require clarification in the next legislative session. AB 939 deletes existing law related to COSWM[Ps and language 12 was supposed to be included to provide for a smooth transition between the existing COSWMP and the new COIWMP. At this point, it appears that a COSWMP that is currently delinquent will no longer be delinquent as of January 1, 1990, the effective date of AB 939. However, it is unclear exactly what will happen during the interim between January 1, 1991 and when the Countywide Plans are due. This is an important issue that was not clearly addressed in AB 939 and is now subject to different interpretations. The League is working with the Board and the author's staff to resolve the issue as soon as possible. We will notify cities as the issue progresses. 7. What does the phrase 'Integrated Waste Management Hierarchy,' mean? AB 939 states very simply that in implementing the requirements of the bill, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and local agencies shall promote waste management practices in the following order of priority: source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal (at the discretion of the city or county). This means that it is the policy of the state that source reduction, recycling and composting be given priority and that wastes that cannot be reduced at the source, recycled, or composted, shall be disposed of through landfill or transformation facility. It does not mean that a community must do recycling to the exclusion of siting a new transfer station or expanding an existing landfill. 8. Is there anything to prevent my city from cooperatively putting together a Source Reduction and Recycling Element with the county and a neighboring city? No. The bill specifically states that a city may join with other cities, a county or whatever means is appropriate to carry out the provisions of the bill. Thus, if your city is a member of a solid waste district, the district can carry out the requirements of the bill for all of the members of the district. Similarly, if one disposal firm handles the business for a part of the county and half of the cities in that county, it may be prudent to explore the feasibility of a cooperative effort with that county and the group of cities. The task force that must be convened by March 1, 1990 may provide an opportunity to explore such mutually beneficial cooperative arrangements. 9. What happens after my city transmits its Source Reduction and Recycling Element to the county? Your city's Source Reduction and Recycling Element will become an attachment to the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan that will be submitted to the Board for review and approval. The goals and strategies of your Source Reduction and Recycling Element,as well as those of the county and other cities within the county, may be summarized in the 13 Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Once your city's Source Reduction and Recycling Element is approved by your city, it will not be subject to any additional county approval process. Where feasible, the countywide task force may attempt to resolve inconsistencies among individual Elements, but the county has no authority to dictate to an individual city,just as the city has no authority to dictate to the county, the contents of an individual Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Each individual city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Element will be reviewed by the Board when it reviews the COIWMP, and approved or disapproved on its own merits. 10. What happens if my city does not reach the 25% goal by 1995? This is an issue the League will continue to address into the 1990 Legislative Session. AB 939 states that the Waste Board may grant a one year time extension from the goals to any city or county if a Board determines that "unfavorable, unforeseen and severely adverse market conditions beyond the control of the city or county," prevent the city or county from meeting the recycling goals. In order to receive the extension, the city must submit a plan of correction, which demonstrates how the city or county will meet the goal, including the source reduction, recycling, and composting steps the city will implement and how it will fund these programs, and if the city or county demonstrates that it is achieving the maximum feasible amount of source reduction, recycling, and composting within its jurisdiction. The "unfavorable, unforeseen, and severely adverse market conditions" criteria are more restrictive than language that the League had been seeking and had been discussed in various meetings. In addition, the League had strenuously been proposing language to also allow a time extension due to "unforeseen economic conditions which create a hardship in the community." This language was not included in the final version of AB 939. The League will continue to work in the coming legislative session to attempt to include more realistic criteria for extensions, and to clarify that more than one one year time extension may be permitted. 11. My city is already recycling and composting 20% of solid waste and we expect to reach 35% by 1995. Is there anything in AB 939 to prevent us from proceeding? No. AB 939 states that nothing prohibits a city or county from implementing source reduction,recycling,and composting activities designed to exceed the goals specified in the bill. 12. Can my city submit its Source Reduction and Recycling Element to the Board for review before the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan is due? 14 Yes. Any city may submit its Source Reduction and Recycling Element to the Board for review before the date that the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan is due. VII. OTHER INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION In addition to AB 939, the Governor also signed a variety of companion bills as part of the Integrated Waste Management package. The majority of these bills are designed to stimulate the markets for recycled materials, and include the following bills: SB 1322 (Bergeson) (Chapter 1096). Integrated Waste Management and Public Education SB 432 (Alquist) (Chapter 1090). Recycling Tax Credits SB 1221 (Hart) (Chapter 1339). Increase in Bottle Bill Redemption Values AB 4 (Eastin) (Chapter 1094). State Purchasing of Recycled Materials AB 888 (La Follette) (Chapter 809). Household Hazardous Waste AB 1305 (Killea) (Chapter 1093). Newspapers. Recycled Material AB 1306 (Killea) (Chapter 1092). Solid Waste. Paving Materials AB 1307 (Killea) (Chapter 285). Recycling. Industrial Development Bonds AB 1308 (Killea) (Chapter 1091). Recycling. Tax Credits AB 1507 (Sher) (Chapter 1226). Recycled Oil AB 1843 (Willie Brown) (Chapter 974). Solid Waste. Tires Of particular interest to cities are SB 1322, AB 888, and AB 4. A. BS 1322 (Bergeson) Integrated Waste Management and Public Education. SB 1332 directs the new Integrated Waste Management Board to implement a number of specified programs to promote integrated waste management, including activities to develop markets for recycled material and to provide technical assistance and public information related to integrated waste management. Of'interest to cities is the requirement for the creation of a Source Reduction Advisory Committee which will recommend specific actions to the Board and the Legislature to reduce the volume of solid waste materials generated in the state, and the creation of the Recycling 15 I o-p 1� Market Development Commission which shall make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for the expansion of markets for recycled materials. The Commission is charged with performing the following tasks: establishing a liaison with private industries to promote the increased utilization of recycled feed stock in manufacturing processes, assist local governments in including recycled activities into county economic development plans, promote utilization of all available financial resources for expansion of recycled industry capacity, review the research and development programs administered by the Board, and review state, local and private industry product and materials procurement practices and recommend improvements as appropriate. Also of specific interest to local governments are the enforcement agency training and assistance provisions and waste evaluation provisions in SB 1322. The bill directs the Board to provide periodic training to Local Enforcement Agencies,as well as ongoing technical assistance and guidance. In addition, to the extent that resources are available, it also directs the Board to provide technical assistance to the public and private sector in the form of government and business waste evaluations upon a request for that assistance. Finally, SB 1322 directs the Board to provide technical assistance to cities and counties to assist in the development, revision, amendment, and implementation of local city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements and Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans. The League will monitor the implementation of SB 1322 closely, with the goal of ensuring that the local technical assistance component is carried out as vigorously as possible. B. AB 4 (Eastin) State Purchasing of Recycled Materials, While AB 4 focuses primarily on state procurement policies, it does state that local agencies shall purchase recycled materials, primarily paper products and recycled oil and recycled paper, fitness and quality being equal. AB 4 also removes the 5% cap that was in existing law for the preference that local agencies may give to the purchase of recycled materials. Based upon the new language in AB 4, all local agencies give a preference to suppliers of recycled paper. However, the amount of that preference shall be determined by the local agency. C. AB 888 (La Follette). Hazardous Waste Programs, Household Hazardous Waste Programs AB 888 requires cities and counties to develop and implement a household hazardous waste program. Although the bill refers to the existing COSWMP process, clean-up legislation for 1990 will be required to make the planning process described in AB 888 compatible with the new Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan process, including city and 16 l-7 �-�- county Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, established in AB 939. Nevertheless, the household hazardous waste program criteria specified in AB 888 shall remain. Each city and county must implement a household hazardous waste plan as part of their Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The bill authorizes the Waste Management Board to review and comment on the household hazardous waste plan and to make recommendations to the local agencies to improve the program. However, the review process for the individual household hazardous waste program is different than that specified in AB 939, in that AB 888 requires the local agency to certify to the Board that the agency has implemented its plan. The Board shall prepare in guidelines in consultation with the Department of Health Services and an advisory committee established by the bill, to guide the efforts of local agencies in providing household hazardous waste collection programs. The guidelines shall allow adequate flexibility to local agencies in meeting their individual needs. The Board may exempt a city or county from implementing a household hazardous waste program due to its small size or population if the agency demonstrates that such a program is not feasible. If this exemption occurs, the agency must demonstrate that there is some means to address household hazardous wastes within the county. AB 888 also states that a city or county operating a household hazardous waste program is not liable for any damage or injury caused by an action taken by the city or county in the course of the operation of the program unless the action is performed in bad faith or in a negligent manner. Finally, after a specified date, it requires permits for solid waste facilities to contain a condition that precludes the facility from accepting waste from a county that does not have a household hazardous waste collection program. AB939.imp 17 SUMMARY OF LOCAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS 1lobr_ I� CITY PROGRAM MATERIALS COLLECTION COST TO PARTICIPATION COLLECTED SCHEDULE RATEPAYER RATE ALBANY Residential Aluminum Weekly 400 Curbside Glass Recycling Newspapers Tin cans BERKELEY Residential Aluminum Weekly Refuse fee 15% Curbside Glass of $1. 40 p/mo Recycling Newspapers subsidizes Tin- cans all recycling activities Drop-Off/ Aluminum Buy Back Glass Mixed paper Tin cans Pilot yard Yard waste waste recycling Pilot Multi- commercial material Pilot bars & Glass restaurants CLAYTON Residential Aluminum Weekly $ . 85 p/mo Unknown Curbside Glass New program Recycling Newspapers Includes PET plastic Multi-family CONCORD Residential Aluminum Weekly $.75 p/mo 90% (container- Curbside Glass ized areas) Recycling Newspapers 150 (non-contain- erized areas) Drop Off Glass Buy Back Cardboard Mixed paper plastic Commercial Glass (Bars and restaurants) DAVIS Residential Aluminum Weekly $1. 14 p/mo 670 Curbside Glass Recycling Newspapers Tin cans Plastic Corregated cardboard Drop Off Motor Oil Residential Yard Waste $3. 16 p/mo Yard Waste FXHI 1 . : I , dot I ° CITY PROGRAM MATERIALS COLLECTION COST TO PARTICIPATION COLLECTED SCHEDULE RATEPAYER RATE EL CERRITO Residential Aluminum Weekly $ . 50 p/mo 500 Curbside Glass (optional) Recycling Newspapers Tin cans Drop Off FREMONT/ Residential Aluminum Weekly $ . 88 p/mo Unknown NEWARK Curbside Glass New Program Recycling Newspapers PET Plastic LIVERMORE Residential Aluminum Every $ . 55 p/mo 370 Curbside Glass other Recycling Newspapers week Tin cans MARTINEZ Residential Aluminum Weekly Pilot 200 Curbside Glass Program Recycling Newspapers Cardboard Used motor oil SAN RAMON Residential Glass Weekly $ . 95 p/mo Unknown Curbside Aluminum New Program Recycling Newspaper Multi-Unit up to 4 UNION CITY Residential Aluminum Weekly $ . 88 p/mo Unknown Curbside Glass New Program Recycling Newspapers PET Plastic WALNUT CREEK Residential Aluminum Weekly $ . 85 p/mo 850 Curbside Glass Recycling Newspapers PET plastic Drop Off Aluminum Glass Newspapers Mixed plastics Cardboard Motor Oil Buy Back Glass Aluminun