HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 WASTE REDUCTION 05-18-98DATE: MAY 18, 1998
NO. 12
5-18-98
, n t e r- C o
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT ON SOLID WASTE REDUCTION
PROGRAMS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the response to the Orange County Grand Jury
Report titled "Solid Waste Reduction Programs" and authorize the City Clerk to send the
response to the Grand Jury.
FISCAL IMPACT
None with this action.
DISCUSSION
Recently the Orange County Grand Jury reviewed the implementation of AB 939 in Orange
County (See Attachment B). Tustin was identified as being one of eight cities in the County that
have not yet complied with the 1995 25% waste diversion requirement. The other cities not
complying with the 25% diversion requirement are Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Lake
· Forest, Los Alamitos, Orange, and San Clemente.
In response to the Grand Jury's critique of Tustin' s solid waste program, it should be noted that a
statistical comparison does not measure the "good faith" of a particular City. The California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff and the Board itself have indicated this
point on several occasions.
Further, the City has a CIWMB approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that
details those measures that the City will undertake to achieve the goals of AB 939. The most
significant measures identified in the SRRE have been implemented by either City staff or the
City's contract hauler, Great Western Reclamation, with a major exception being the
implementation of a green waste composting program.
Response to Grand Jury Report on Solid Waste Reduction Programs
May 18, 1998
Page 2
Green waste diversion was addressed in the SRRE and was to be largely dependant upon either
the County or a private firm establishing a regional composting facility for landscapers, residents
and other self-haul customers. Currently, residents place green waste with other waste at
curbside for weekly collection. Landscapers typically will take the green waste directly to the
landfill. Without the regional facility, the City continues to utilize its hauler to collect and haul
co-mingled residential waste and separate the green waste at the Sunset Material Recovery
Facility. A regional facility likely will not be constructed because of economic concerns. The
lack of success with this one component of the City's SRRE is disappointing and can only be
addressed with the cooperation of the County and the City's contract hauler. Relying entirely on
the hauler now would require a fundamental restructuring of the City and hauler's contractual
arrangement.
Each year, staff stibmits a mandated report to the CIWMB which details the City's efforts to
comply with AB-939. At its core, AB-939 requires the city to divert from landfills 25% of all
waste generated within the City by 1995 and 50% of all waste generated within the City by the
year 2000. The report required by the CIWMB includes a computation that uses 1990 as a base
year for citywide waste generation. The 1990 waste generation number was identified in the
City's SRRE. That base year waste generation number is then adjusted upward to the current
year using a complex formula which factors in population growth, sales taxes, the employment
rate, and the Consumer Price Index. The adjusted number (which is only theoretical) is then
compared against actual waste disposed in all landfills.
The 1995 report prepared by staff indicated that the City's diversion rate was 26.27%. However,
after the report was submitted to the state, the County of Orange revised their landfill disposal
numbers and reported to the state that the City was disposing more waste in the landfills than had
been previously identified. Consequently, during their review of the 1995 report, the CIWMB
concluded that the City's effective waste diversion rate was 17% as opposed to the state
requirement of 25%. No response to this finding was requested by the CIWMB as a more
complete analysis (which will also include the 1996 report) is scheduled to be released later this
year. It should be noted that the 1996 annual report to the CIWMB showed some improvement.
Staff has calculated the waste diversion rate to be 24.82%.
Staff did anticipate that there would be some disagreement on the actual amount of waste
disposed in landfills that originated in Tustin. In the 1995 annual report, staff discussed the
City's lack of jurisdiction over MCAF, Tustin and the Tustin Unified School District (each has
its own contract hauler, which are exempt from the City's trash disposal regulations) and pointed
out some potential flaws in the County's solid waste disposal reporting system. In addition, the
base and school district haulers were not complying with the County's "voluntary" disposal
Response to Grand Jury Report on Solid Waste Reduction Programs
May 18, 1998
Page 3
reporting requirementS. This precluded virtually any analysis of their recycling and waste
diversion efforts by the City, County'or State. These issues make it virtually impossible for city
staff to determine if all the waste attributed to Tustin by all haulers and self-haulers, did, in fact,
originate from within the incorporated limits of Tustin.
Staff has alSo expressed to the state an additional concern regarding the accuracy of the waste
disposal measurement system utilized by the County. The County IWMD has required self-
haulers to identify a source of waste for each load when the 10ad may come from multiple
locations. Haulers themselves often may not know where the jurisdiction boundaries lie and how
much of the load came from each jurisdiction. In Tustin' s case, waste from Santa Ana and the
unincorporated areas may be erroneously reported at the landfill gate as originating in Tustin.
The County IWMD does not discourage self-haulers because of hauler convenience and their
own revenue concerns.
It should be noted that while the state has the authority to levy fines up to $10,000 per day for
failure to comply with AB-939, the City has not been warned or "put on notice". The CIWMB
recently did assess fines to some agencies, but those fines were assessed to agencies that the
CIWMB determined had not made a good faith effort to comply with the law.
Penal Code 933.05 (a) and (b) require a response to the Grand Jury Report by the City's Mayor.
The proposed response is included as Attachment A to this report.
Tim D. Serlet
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Public Works
TDS:JM:eeg:CCRpt.Grand Jury repogt
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED RESPONSE TO
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON
SOLID WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
May 19, 1998
The Honorable Kathleen E. O'Leary,
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Subject:
Response to the Grand Jury Report on Solid Waste Reduction Programs
Dear Judge O'Leary,
The City of Tustin appreciates this opportunity to respond to the Orange County Grand Jury'
report on solid waste programs. The City respects the Grand Jury's review of and perspective on
this important program.
The City's annual report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB),
which the Grand Jury did not have the opportunity to review, noted that the City disputed
statistical information provided by the County to the CIWMB. The. essence of the issue is that
the City of Tustin does not have true control over all waste generated in the City. While Great
Western Reclamation is the City's exclusive waste hauler and does provide residential and
commercial services in the City, other haulers do operate within the City's boundaries without
any over-site or control by the City. Prime examples for 1995 included Federal Disposal, who
has the contract for the Marine Corps Air Facility, Tustin, and Five Star Disposal, who had the
contract for the Tustin Unified School District. To the best of our knowledge, neither of these
companies prOvided proper disposal reports to the County for 1995.
An additional problem is the virtual inability for all Cities to verify the information gathered by
the 'County. Self-hauling of waste in a common practice for many landscape and construction
businesses as well as individuals who have large loads. The City suspects that in many cases, the
people who haul the 'waste to the landfill improperly report to the County that the waste was
collected in Tustin when the load (or some portion) may, in fact, be from unincorporated
communities such as North Tustin.
It should be noted that the City's 1996 report to the CIWMB, while still not showing compliance
with the 25% mandate, did indicate significant improvement in the waste diversion percentage
(24.82%) over the 1995 report.
In addition, the City has utilized the services of a consultant (Dr. Eugene Tseng of UCLA) to
analyze current waste handling practices. Dr. Tseng is providing recommendations to improve
waste handling for Tustin's residents and businesses in order to meet the Year 2000 goal of 50%
diversion. It is likely that some or all of the measures will be implemented to meet Year 2000
requirements
In conclusion, be assured that the City of Tustin is fully committed to complying with all State
law and regulations. Should the Grand Jury wish to discuss this issue further, please contact
Tim Serlet or Joe Meyers at 714-573-3150
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Salterelli
Mayor
ATTACHMENT B
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
"SOLID WASTE REDUCTION ROGRAMS"
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701' 714/834-3320
March 6, 1998
Jeffrey M. Thomas, Mayor
City Hall
P. O. Box 1089
Tustin, CA 92781-1089
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Attached is a copy of the 1997-98 Orange County Grand Jury's report entitled
"Solid Waste Reduction Programs".
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(e), a copy of the report is being provided to you
two working days prior to its public release. Please note that "No officer,
agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any
contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report."
.Emphasis added. (Public release date- March 11, 1998)
It is requested that your city provide a response to each of the findings and
recommendations of this report directed to your city, in compliance with
Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b), copy attached. For each Grand Jury
recommendation, be sure to describe the implementation status, as well as
provide a schedule for future implementation.
Please execute the attached ",Acknowledgement of Receipt" and return it in
the stamped envelope addressed to the Grand Jury no later than five days
after receipt of this letter.
It is requested that the response to the findings and recommendations be
mailed to Kathleen E. O'Leary, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, 700
Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy mailed to
the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA
92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date (March 11, 1998) in
compliance with Penal Code 933, copy attached. The due date then is June 11,
1998. '-
-2-
Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further
analysis~ Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) permits an extension, of time up to six
months from the public release date. Such 'extensions should be advised in
writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933:05(b)(3), to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with a separate copy. of the request to
the Grand Jury (address above).
Very truly yours,
James P. KeJ4y, Foreman
Attachments
Grand Jury Report
Penal Code 933, 933.05
Acknowledgement of Receipt
Self-addressed, stamped envelope to Grand Jury
SOLID WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
SUMMARY
In 1989, California enacted Assembly Bill 939, the California Solid Waste
Management, Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Market
Development Act of 1989, to conserve landfill space by reducing the amount
of solid waste being buried in landfills.
The Orange County Grand Jury reviewed the many approaches among cities
for collecting, recycling, and disposing of solid waste, but found no direct
association between any one city's approach and that dty's success in meeting
AB939 goals. For most cities, however, green waste separation was found to be
an important factor in reducing the amount of landfill disposal. Eigh.t Orange
County cities did not appear to meet the AB939 goal for solid waste diversion
from landfills in 1995. The Orange County Grand Jury also found that Orange
County is subjected to conflicting requirements in that AB939 requires efforts
to divert solid waste from landfills, but less solid waste entering the County's
landfills reduces the revenues needed to operate the landfills.
The Grand Jury is of the opinion that the State of California is sending the
wrong message to the counties and cities by relaxing the goals of AB939
through the recent enactment of Senate Bill 1066, which provides for
additional waivers and extensions for complying with AB939. Additionally,
by not operating a more timely system of AB939 reporting and feedback, the
State of California, through the California Integrated Waste Management
Board, appears to be placing insufficient emphasis on the importance of
AB939 goals.
The Grand Jury also found that solid waste collection and disposal rates
charged to households and businesses for those services vary widely and .that
these rates are influenced by many factors.. Some of the factors that influence
rates are unrelated to waste collection and disposal.
INTRODUCTION
In 1989, California enacted the California Solid Waste Management, Source
Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Market Development Act of 1989, also
known as Assembly Bill 939. One of the principal requirements of AB939 is
that each city and county take action to conserve the diminishing landfill
space in California by reducing the amount of solid-waste material going into
landfills.
The 'focus of the study by the Grand Jury was to review the programs for solid
waste diversion from landfills currently being implemented by each city in
Orange County and by the County of Orange for unincorporated areas for
their effectiveness in achieving the goals of AB939.
METHOD OF STUDY
This study was conducted during the period of August 13, 1997, to March 4,
1998. Members of the Orange County Grand Jury began by meeting with
Orange County's Integrated Waste Management Department-and touring the
County-operated Frank Bowerman .Landfill near Irvine and .the-Prima
Deshecha Landfill near San Juan Capistrano to beCome familiar with the
.: County's role in solid waste management and to observe landfill operations.
Orange County Grand Jury members also visited Anaheim, Brea, Fountain
Valley, Laguna Beach, Midway City Sanitary District (Westminster); Mission
Viejo, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, and
Stanton in order to discuss with city and district officials their solid waste
reduction and recycling programs and to understand contractual agreements
between cities and their haulers and material recovery facilities (MRFs).
Further, to observe solid waste processing and recycling activity, members of
the Grand Jury toured four MRFs (pronounced "merfs") that serve 30 of the
31 cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. These MRFs are
operated by CR&R in Stanton, Rainbow Disposal Company in Huntington
Beach, Taormina Industries in Anaheim, and Waste Management of Orange
County in Irvine. (A fifth MRF, operated by the City of Orange, was not
visited.)
The Grand Jury studied the various methods of trash sorting at the curb, the
role of MRFs in the solid waste recycling and disposal process, and the
various terms and conditions associated with the contractual agreements
between some cities and their haulers or MRFs. Data were analyzed to
identify the principal factors that influence the amount of solid waste disposal
going to landfills and to determine how these factors might explain
variations among cities in meeting AB939 goals. Further, the study attempted
to identify the principal factors that influence the costs of solid waste disposal
to help understand the variations in the rates charged to citizens' from city to
city.
The Grand Jury used as a reference AB939 and its many amendments,
including the most recent amendment, SB1066. Also referenced were several
contractual documents dealing with solid waste pickup and disposal
agreements between cities and haulers or MRFs and the 1995 Annual Reports
submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board by the
County, Midway City Sanitary District, and Laguna Beach in the course of
conducting its own investigation. The " California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) staff provided the. Grand Jury with data on
their appraisal of the 1995 percent diversion rate based on the adjusted 1990
tonnage of solid waste materials sent to landfills that was achieved by the
County's unincorporated areas and each Of the 31 dries toward meeting the
AB939 goal. CIWMB also provided to the Grand Jury the 1996 waste diversion
rates it has received. The Grand ]'ury sent letters to all cities requesting
verification of the data derived from the aforementioned meetings and
researched documents before completing this report.
BACKGROUND
To understand and analyze how Orange County cities are complying with the
intent of AB939, some background information on the specific requirements
of the Act is necessary, along with general information about factors that
determine the amount of solid waste generated and the factors that'determine
trash rates.
AB939
In 1988, Californians generated over 37 million tons of solid waste. This solid
waste amounted to more than 2,500 pounds of waste for each person living in
California, more than any other state in the Country and over twice the per
capita rate of most other indUstrialized countries. Over 90 percent of
California's solid waste was disposed of in landfills. Such disposal threatens
ground, water, air quality, and public health. Furthermore, if the rate at which
solid waste went to landfills in 1988 continued, it was possible that California
could exhaust most of its remaining landfill space by the mid-1990s.
AB939 was designed to address California's growing problems with solid
waste. AB939, section 40191, defines solid waste as follows:
· "(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), 'solid waste' means all
putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid
wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes,
industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes,
abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and
industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed
'sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, manure, vegetable'
or animal solid and semisolid wastes,- and other discarded solid
and semisolid wastes."
Solid waste does not include hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or medical-
waste.
The most direct impact of AB939 on the counties and cities of California was
the requirement that each city and county prepare, adopt, and submit to the
California Integrated Waste Management Board (established by AB939) an
Integrated Waste Management Plan that will do the following:
"(a)
Encourage the reduction of generation of waste by
minimizing unnecessary packaging, increasing product
life span, and providing for the reusability,
remanufacturability, and recyclability
currently disposed of in landfills.
of materials
Capture concentrated sources of recyclable materials before
they reach landfills.
"(c)
Process selected waste stream fractions into new
products."
(AB939, Chapter 1, Article 2, page 2, February 27, 1989)
Furthermore, according to AB939, all cities and counties were required to
achieve a 25 percent reduction to their adjusted 1990 tonnage of solid waste
materials being sent to landfills in 1995 and must achieve a 50 percent
reduction in 2000. The term "adjusted 1990 tonnage" is a way of making the
1990 tonnage reflect factors that change 1990 conditions to current year
conditions. A formula is used to calculate the factor used to adjust the 1990
tonnage number. The adjustment factor accounts for changes in population,
employment (number of jobs), taxable sales, and the Consumer Price Index
between 1990 and the current year. The adjusted 1990 tonnage is compared to
the actual tonnage disposed of in landfills for the current year. Corrections to
the current year total tonnage are allowable for unusual events such as
additional waste generated by disasters (floods, fires) and related medical
waste. These data are used to determine the percentage of reduction of
material going to landfills. Cities and counties not meeting the goal for 2000
could be subjected to daily fines.
Waivers and Extensions
AB939 originally contained provisions for cities and counties to request from
the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) a goal of less
than 50 percent solid waste diversion in 2000. CIWMB can grant this lesser
level of solid waste diversion provided that (1) all feasible source reduction,
recycling, and composting measures are being effectively implemented and
(2) the "less than 50 percent" goal represents the greatest feasible amount
achievable. Also, if a city must use a transformation project (incineration,
pyrolysis, distillation, gasification, or biological conversion other than
composting or biomass conversion) to achieve ttTe 50 percent goal and the city
chooses not to use a transformation project, CIWMB shall not require that the
city do so or impose any penalty on the city.
CIWMB may als0 reduce diversion requirements for a rural city or rural
county when it is not feasible to meet the AB939 goal because of the small
geographic size of the city or county or its low population density, and because
a small quantity of solid waste is being generated. Rural'cities and rural
counties may join to form rural regional agencies, and if certain criteria are
met, CIWMB may reduce diversion requirements When it is not feasible to
meet them because of adverse market or economic conditions beyond the
control of the rural regional agency.
CIWMB may grant a one-year extension from the 50 percent diversion
requirement to any city, county, or regional agency based on adverse market
conditions beyond its control, based on a plan to meet the requirement, and
by demonstrating that it is achieving the maximum feasible amount of source
reduction, recycling, and composting of solid waste.
AB939 contains a further "good faith effort" provision for yet another way for
cities, counties, and regional, agencies to avoid meeting AB939 requirements.
After holding a public hearing and issuing an order of compliance, CIWMB
_may fine a city, county, or regional agency that fails to achieve 50 percent solid
waste diversion from landfills, The fine is up to $10,000 a day and is~.imposed
until the requirement is met, unless there are relevant circumstances that
prevent the requirement from being met, such as natural disasters, budgetary
conditions that cannot be remedied by increasing solid waste fees, work
stoppages that prevent carrying out the source-reduction program, or if "good
faith efforts" were made to meet the 50 percent diversion rate.
More Extensions: SB 1066
An amendment to AB939, Senate Bill 1066, which was approved by the
Governor on October 3, 1997, permits increasing the current one-year
extension provision for meeting AB939 goals to one or more single or
multiyear extensions not to go beyond January 1, 2006. Yet with only 3 years to
go in a 10-year program to achieve the 2000 diversion rate goal, adding more
provisions for extension at this time could give some counties and cities an
excuse to further defer necessary actions to reach AB939 goals.
Cities visited by the Grand Jury that have aggressively implemented curbside
sorting and recycling programs at considerable expense expressed
dissatisfaction with a change in the rules at this late date. MI'iF operators
interviewed by the Grand Jury also expressed displeasure with SB1066 because
they have made substantial capital investments in their facilities to
accommodate those cities trying to meet AB939 goals.' Cities that have not yet
implemented effective programs to divert solid waste from landfills seem to
have taken a "wait and, see" attitude. Although it appears that these cities
were correct in adopting that strategy, they will likely not meet the 2000 goal.
Many cities have aggressively acted to divert solid waste from landfills
through recycling. These extensions come too late for those cities. Other cities
have chosen a lower-cost, higher-risk approach toward meeting the diversion
goals of AB939 by not seriously attempting to meet those goals. Apparently
many cities think that fines will not be imposed on those cities that fail to
·
meet AB939 goals. This situation is unfair to the cities that accepted the AB939
goals as the law and expended resources to meet these goals. A city falling
short of the 50 percent diversion goal in 2000 could achieve that goal simply
by separating green waste at the curb and recycling it. With the relaxation of
AB939 goals by SB1066 on landfill diversion, a city is more likely to avoid the
added expense of green waste bins, sorting, and recycling, .and simply take the
inexpensive approach by continuing to include green waste with the solid
waste already going to the landfill. Such an approach defeats the underlying
purpose of AB939: to conserve diminishing landfill space.
AB 939 Reporting and Feedback
The State of California, through the California Integrated Waste Management
Board, diminishes the importance of AB939 by operating a slow AB939
reporting and feedback system. For 1995, counties and cities were to achieve
solid waste diversion from landfills of 25 percent for the calendar year ending
December 31, 1995. The reports are not required to be submitted to CIWMB
until August 1, 1996, a full 7 months after the diversion rate was to have been
achieved. The CIWMB staff must then review the reports, check the
calculations and the data, establish a diversion rate for each county and city
that will be recommended to the CIWMB, which may or may not be what was
submitted in the report (this process may entail back-and-forth
communications with the city or county in question), and finally notify the
counties and cities of CIWMB staff's appraisal of each city's estimated
diversion rate. The CIWMB must then meet and make an official
determination of the extent to which the diversion programs of each county
and dty have been implemented, if the 25 percent diversion goal for 1995 was
achieved, and if the dty or county (for unincorporated areas) made good faith
efforts. As of the release of this report, CIWMB had not completed its biennial
review for 'the 1995 and 1996 reports. In other words, CIWMB has yet to
validate whether or not California counties and cities have achieved the
required 25 percent reduction.
With this same timeline, the 2000 diversion rates for the counties and cities
upon which fines could be imposed would perhaps not be determined before
2003. The fines, if any, would not be imposed until after a public hearing is
held and orders of compliance are issued. It would seem that everyone gets an
automatic 3-year extension, and landfill space conservation no longer seems
to be an !mportant issue. Such a policy, appears to defeat the purpose of
AB939.
AB939: In Conflict with Landfill Operations?
Orange County, through its Integrated Waste Management Department, .must
conduct its business with conflicting demands. AB939 requires the County to
conserve landfill space and to meet its goals for solid waste diversion from
landfills for the unincorporated areas in the County. In operating landfills,
however, the Integrated Waste Management Department must receive a
level of solid waste flow to its landfills suffident to cover operating expenses.
At the countywide level, AB939 is accomplishing its underlying purpose:
solid waste is being diverted from landfills. When AB939 was enacted, Orange
County landfills accepted 4.2 million tons of solid waste each year. By 1994 the
solid waste flow to Orange County landfills decreased 45 percent to 2.3 million
tons a year, partly due to AB939 and partly due to solid waste leaving Orange
County for landfills with lower gate fees. The County continues to strive for a
50 percent diversion rate for unincorporated areas in 2000 and works with the
cities in planning to achieve that goal.
Orange County is also achieving the g°al of conserving landfill space. In the
normal course of operating a landfill business, the landfill managers strive to
conserve landfill space or "air space" because it is a source of revenue and a
limited resource. Substitutes for the 6 to 12 inches of' soil that must cover the
solid waste deposited at the end of each day are being sought to save air space.
Landfill site managers are planning to use alternative materials, such as
processed green waste, tarpaulins, and foam, in the near future. These
produCts will adequately cover the daily waste deposits but take up much less
air space than soil. Partially filled landfill areas are covered with a large
stockpile of soil to cause settlement and thus gain more air space before
landfill operations are resumed.
In its role as' operator of a public business-the operation and maintenance of
the County's landfills-the Integrated Waste Management Department, on
behalf of the County, entered a 10-year contract with all 31 titles, all 5 MRFs,
and nearly all haulers starting in July, 1997. Under this contract, all entities
have agreed that all solid waste generated in the County will go to Orange
County landfills. In exchange for this agreement, the County offered to charge
a low gate fee of $22 per ton for 10 years. The $22 gate fee should keep rates
down for residents and businesses. The County believes it can better run its
landfill business by having a predictable flow of waste to landfills and thus a
predictable cash flow.
To further improve its cash flow, the County has entered into short-term
contracts with haulers from other counties to import solid waste 'to Orange
County landfills. Gate fees are a little less than $22 a ton to offset the costs of
traveling from other counties and to make importation attractive.
Importation revenues contribute to future landfill closure expenses, the
Environmental Fund, capital project costs, and the County General Fund to
assist in bankruptcy recovery. Proposition 13 allows landfill revenues from
other counties to be used in the General Fund, since this revenue is not
classified as a tax on Orange County residents. The amount going toward
bankruptcy recovery varies from year to year, depending on the operational
needs of the landfill, but should average $15 million a year until 2018.
Factors Determining Amount of Solid Waste Entering Landfills
The principal factors that influence the amount of solid waste generated,
which in turn affects the amount of solid waste going to landfills, are
population growth or decline, level of business activity, natural disasters, the
degree of sorting that takes place at curbside and at MRFs, and green waste
taken to landfills by private landscapers and tree trimmers. Imported waste
that is generated outside of Orange County adds further to the amounts
deposited in landfills.-Each of these factors is explained below.
Population growth or decline. The CIWMB formula that adjusts the
1990 tonnage of solid waste entering landfills for comparison with
actual current year tonnage recognizes that population changes affect
the amount of solid .waste entering the waste stream and thus the
amount entering landfills.
B.usiness activity. Solid waste amounts are influenced by-the level of
business activity. Thus, the 1990 CIWMB tonnage adjustment formula
recognizes business-related factors that indicate the increase or decrease
· of solid waste generation. These factors are employment or number of
jobs, taxable sales, and the Consumer Price Index.
Natural disasters. Fires, floods, earthquakes, and even heavy rains can
all contribute to added tonnage of solid waste entering landfills.
Solid waste importation. Orange County has set low gate fees to attract
out-of-county haulers and MRFs to bring their solid waste material for
disposal in County landfills.
10
Degree of sorting recyclables. Generally, residents can reduce the
amount of solid waste going to landfills by sort.ing recyclables at the
curb. Uncontaminated green waste sorted at the curb will not reach the
landfill. Cities that needed to increase diversion have distributed green
waste'containers to residents to achieve their AB939 goal. Paper
products, including newspaper, sorted and placed at the curb are
usually not contaminated with stains and.odor, whereas MRF sorting
of commingled refuse recovers somewhat less usable paper products.
However, sorting at the curb cannot guarantee the elimination of
contamination to recyclables' without an effective education program
by the cities.
MRFs.can further reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills
by doing a more thorough job of sorting recyclables. Additional sorting
can be accomplished by slowing the conveyor belts to allow more time
to manually separate and sort paper, plastics, glass, and metals from the
waste stream. This activity may require more people per shift or the
addition of another shift or both. Of course, additional personnel will
add to the cost of MRF sorting, but'the option is available.
Green waste entering landfills. Green waste is taken directly to landfills
by many private landscapers and tree-trimmers rather than to a MRF
for delivery to a. composting location or to a fertilizer company.
Factors That Determine Trash Rates
The factors that influence trash rates are explained below.
Solid waste pickup and transportation expenses. Hauler operating
expenses include the costs for facilities;.truck ownership, maintenance,
and amortization; labor; fuel (distance to landfill, MRF, or recycling
center);' trash bins and containers; degree of separation of recyclables
and green waste at the curb; and automatic or manual loading at
curbside. Trucks equipped for curbside automatic loading do not
require a second person, to manually load the truck and personnel are'
not subject to on-the-job injuries from lifting. However, automatic
11
loading trucks are more expensive to buy or lease. All of these costs
apply directly to the rates charged for solid waste collection and
disposal.
MRF processing and transportation expenses. MRF operating expenses
are based on facility and plant costs; the degree of sorting required
(based on degree of sorting at the curb); ownership and maintenance of
transfer trucks, which haul solid waste to landfills, and other
specialized equipment; labor; fuel costs, which relate to the distance
between the Mi'iF and the landfill; and miscelIaneous costs, such as the
fees paid to companies that accept green waste. All of these costs are
charged to the hauler and passed on to be included in the rates charged
for waste pickup and disposal.
Landfill gate fees. Orange County operates the landfills. A gate fee is
charged to deposit solid waste into a landfill. The current rate is $22 per
ton, a rate that will be in effect for 10 years under a contract with each
city, each sanitary district, each MRF, and 22 of the 27 haulers in the
County, as of July 1, 1997. The money derived from gate fees is used to
operate the landfill, open and close new landfill areas, monitor closed
landfills, fund capital improvement projects, and maintain an
environmental fund. Due to strict California environmental
requirements, landfill operation is a very expensive undertaking.
Heavy earth-moving equipment used in landfill operations is bought
or leased by the County and operated by County employees. Closed
landfills require monitoring to detect contamination above or below
the surface. The gate fee charged to the hauler or MRF is included in
the waste collection and disposal rates charged to households and
businesses.
Revenues from recycled materials. In most cases, revenues from the
sale of recyclables by a MRF or a hauler are kept by the business. Due to
the volatiiity in the recycled materials market, especially for
newspaper, most cities have chosen not to share in that money. A few
cities, however, do share'50/50 with their hauler/MRF. Since the
hauler/MRF takes the risk during market downturns and shares
12
revenues from sales of recyctables in good times, it is very likely that
this revenue sharing is factored into the negotiated contract with the
city to cover the hauler/MRF risks and protect profits. In other words,
residential and business customers pay a little more in their trash rate.
City fees. All Orange County cities, with the exception of Orange and
Fullerton, charge their haulers a franchise fee or some other
administrative fee, or both. Buena Park and Fullerton charge residents
an administrative fee, but do not charge a fee to their hauler. Rarely are
the funds collected by the cities used to adjust the waste collection and
disposal rate in favor of households and businesses. In most cases this
money goes into the cities' general fund, rather than being used to
reduce trash bills. Stanton owns 5 acres of the MRF's 10-acre site in
Stanton. The MRF pays Stanton an annual base rental fee and an
additional (tonnage rent) currently calculated to be $1.59 per ton based
on the amount of solid waste delivered to the MRF or transferred from
the MRF for disposal. In addition to Stanton's solid waste, the MRF
receives solid waste from Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, La
Palma; Mission Viejo, and the unincorporated area of Rossmoor.
Stanton is collecting a fee that is paid for from the trash fees collected
from the residents of all these cities, as well as Stanton. Stanton
justifies this fee (tonnage rent) because Stanton's streets are being
subjected t° heavy MRF traffic, largely from these other cities. These
fees are a part of the trash bills for businesses and households in all the
cities listed above.
Taxes. There are other situations where the taxes collected by the city or
county are applied to the trash bill. This system is the opposite of a
hidden tax. Westminster receives its solid waste pickup and disposal
services from the Midway City Sanitary District for $6.75 a month per
household. This sum does not cover the cost of the service, so the
remainder of the cost is obtained through property taxes. A sum of
three hundredths of a percent (0.03%) of the assessed value of a
homeowner's property goes to Westminster to be applied to residential
trash bills. For example, a home assessed at $200,000 would result in
$5.00 of property tax applied to the trash bill each month.
13
Another such example is Newport Beach, where residents are not
billed for solid waste collection and disposal service, except for a
monthly recycling fee of $1.28. The money for trash service comes from
the Newport Beach General Fund, and Newport Beach does its own
pickup and transfer of household solid waste to the MRF. Businesses,
however, must negotiate their own solid waste collection and disposal
fee wi'th one of 15 haulers within the city, who pay a franchise fee to
Newport Beach. Thus the fees collected from businesses in Newport
Beach indirectly subsidize trash service to residents.
FINDINGS
After ..reviewing the existing documentation and evaluating other
information obtained through meetings and tours, the Orange County Grand
Jury has arrived at five major findings. Some of these findings do not require
a response.
o
No direct association'could be found between the many approaches
,taken by cities to collect, sort, recyde, and dispose of solid waste.and the
cities' success in meeting AB939 goals.. Table 1 summarizes the Grand
..Jury's study of each city's sorting methods, monthly residential rates, and
diversion rates for 1995 and 1996. As noted earlier, AB939 requires a 25
per.cent diversion rate in 1995 and.a 50 percent diversion rat~,by 2000.
The data in Table 1 show that no single sorting method to recover
recyclable materials emerges as the solution to achieving high diversion
rates. However, in cities with no curbside sorting and where all sorting is
done by a MRF, residential rates are usually higher than in cities with at
least some sorting.
14
Table 1
Solid Waste Sortin$ Approaches and Diversion Rates Achieved
Jurisdiction Curbside MRF Monthly 1995 1996
Sorting Sorting Residential Diversion Diversion
Rates Rate! (%) Rate2 (%)
,Unincorporated Varies Varies Varies 40 38
Anaheim 2 bins Recyclables $14.33 44 46
Brea 3 bins Recyclables $13.65 39 41
Buena Park None All waste $11.28 28 29
Costa Mesa None All waste $12.52 26 27
Cypress 2 bins Recyclables $13.02 62 84
Dana Point 3 bins Recyclables $12.74 19 21
Fountain Valley None All waste . $15.94 3 51 54
Fullerton None All waste $12.30 32 35
Garden Grove 3 bins Rec¥clables $13.45/$14.35 46 52
Huntington None All waste $16.49 45 48
Beach
Irvine 3 baskets for All waste less $9.92 18 27
recyclables recyclables
Laguna Beach 3 baskets for All waste less $11.00 20 28
recyclables recyclables
Laguna Hills 3 bins Recyclables $11.39 55 50
Laguna Nis-uel 2 bins Recyclables $13.06 40 37
La Habra 3 baskets for All waste less $12.89 32 34
recyclables recyclables
Lake Forest 3 bins Recyclables $10.47 18 19
La Palnqa None All waste $12.49 $2 59
Los Alamitos 2 bins Recyclables $12.56 .17 35
Mission Viejo 3 bins Recyclables $12.64 38 46
Newport Beach None All waste $1.28 4 51 43
Orange' 3 baskets for All waste less $10.13 24 .26
rec¥clables recyclables
Placentia 3 bins Recyclables $13.96 36 53
San Clemente 2 bins Recyclables $12.18 19 23
San Juan 3 bins Recyclables $13.47 26 22
Capistrano
Santa Ana 3 bins Recyclables $13.39 34 31
Seal Beach 3 bins Recyclables $12.75 63 64
Stanton None All waste $13.19 35 41
Tustin None All waste $12.17 17 25
Villa Park 3 bins Rec¥clables $14.62 49 56
Westminster 2 bins Recyclables $6.75 5 55 35
Yorba Linda 3 bins Recyclables $15.78 43 57
Notes: 1. Bold numbers reflect the CIWMB staff's appraisal of diversion rates for 1995. They
are not yet approved by the CIWMB. Stanton's 1995 diversion rate has not been appraised by
the CIW..MB s. taff due to Stanton's late submittal of their 1995 revort.
2. .These diversion rates were reported to the CIWMB. The CIWMI~ staff has yet to provide
their appraisal of these diversion rates.
3. lncludh~a $3.00 ?c~cling fee.
4. Recycling fee only. trash service is provided by the city at no charge.
5. Trash service is subsidized with property taxes.
15
2.
o
In cities using two bins, one bin is for all recyclables (aluminum cans,
plastic bottles, glass, paper, cardboard) and the second is for all other solid
waste. A MKF receives unsorted waste from the haulers, separates the
recyclable materials, including uncontaminated green waste for resale or
disposal, and transfers the remainder of the solid waste to County
landfills. Five MRFs 'serve Orange County's 31 cities and unincorporated
areas. These MRFs are operated by CR&R in Stanton, Rainbow Disposal
Company in-Huntington Beach, Taormina Industries in Anaheim,
Waste Management of Orange County in Irvine, and Orange Resource
Recovery System in Orange.
In cities using three bins, the third bin is specifically for green waste and
all such waste is recovered. In cities with no curbside sorting, all sorting
for recyclables.and green waste is done by a MKF. Some cities sort
recyclables into three baskets and a MKF sorts the remaining waste. After
sorting at a MRF, unusable solid waste is transported to one of the
County landfills for disposal. Monthly rates for service are provided in
Table 1 for information only.
..
The Grand Jury dOes not require a response to this finding.
The Grand Jury found that of the 31 cities and unincorporated areas in
O. range County, 23 cities and the unincorporated areas appear to have
achieved the 1995 solid waste diversion rate .goal for 1995 set .by AB939.
Final approval by the CWMB of the 1995 diversion rates is pending. (See
Table 1.)
The Grand Jury does not require a response to this finding.
The cities of Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Lake Forest, Los
Alamitos, Orange, San Clemente, and Tustin had not achieved a 25
percent diversion rate in 1995, as .required by AB939, as shown in Table
1. (See Recommendation 1.)
16
Actions that these cities might take if they are not already doing so are to
separate green waste at the curb for composting or for use by fertilizer
manufacturers in order to divert more solid waste from landfills. Green
waste can make up as much as 30 percent or more of the solid waste
stream. Residents of Brea sort green waste and pay an extra $2.50 per
household each month for the green waste bin and service. Laguna
Beach waste contains 36 percent green waste, some of which is sorted at
the MKF, but more green waste is going to the landfill in the absence of
curbside sorting. While green waste curbside sorting works for most
cities, it may not be the total solution. Lake Forest sorts green waste, but
still failed to achieve a 25 percent diversion rate in 1995 and 1996.
Unless these cities take timely and decisive action to improve their
diversion rates, they will experience difficulty in meeting the AB939 goal
of a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000. Therefore, if a city could not
achieve a 25 percent diversion rate in 1995, it has little hope of. aChieving
a 50 'percent diversion rate in 2000 without implementing major changes
in its solid waste recycling and disposal program.
The Grand Jury requires a response to this' finding from the mayors and
city coundils of Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Lake Forest, Los
Alamitos, Orange, San Clemente and Tustin.
,,
Of the eight, dties that"have failed to meet. the 1995 goal, the six that do
not divert green waste are Irvine, Laguna Beach, Los Alamitos, Orange,
San Clemente, and Tustin. (See Table 1.) Green waste separation has
been demonstrated by some cities to be an important'contributor to
reducing solid waste taken to landfills, but remains an underexploited
strategy for many cities. (See Recommendation 1.)
In the opinion of the Orange County Grand Jury, a city that has not
achieved the 1995 diversion goals and has not adopted a green waste
diversion strategy has not demonstrated a good faith effort to comply
with AB939.
17
The Grand Jury requires a response to this finding from the mayors and
city councils of Irvine, Laguna Beach, Los Alamitos, Orange, San
Clemente and Tustin.
o
Solid waste collection and disposal rates charged to households and
businesses are influenced by many factors, some of which are unrelated
to the collection and disposal of solid waste. Thus, monthly trash rates
do not reflect of the actual cost of the service.
The Grand Jury does not require a response to this finding. (See
Recommendation 2.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings, the 1997-98 Orange County Grand Jury recommends'
that:
o
The mayors and dry councils of Dana Point, h'vine, Laguna Beach, Lake
Forest, Los Alamitos, Orange, San Clemente, and Tustin implement a
more aggressive program in order to meet the AB939 goal for 2000. (See
Findings 3 and 4.)
,
The Director, Integrated Waste Management and all Orange County city
mayors and city councils make a full annual disclosure of the costs
reflected in the trash bills sent to each of the city's residences and
businesses that identifies and quantifies the basic cost of solid waste
collection, processing, and disposal; fees charged to residents, businesses,
haulers, and MRFs; landfill gate fees; and credits from revenues earned
from the sale of recyclables. (See Finding 5.)
18
COMMENDATIONS
Orange County and the Integrated Waste Management Department in
particular are to be commended for satisfying the conflicting demands of
conserving landfill space and ensuring a level of solid waste flow to its
landfills to cover its operating costs. The County is doing its fair share of
landfill conservation, through its AB939 program to reduce solid waste
entering landfills from the unincorporated areas of the County and by
employing air space conservation techniques in its landfill operations.
Concurrently, the County has ensured a level of Solid waste flow to its
landfills by setting Iow gate fees in exchange for a 10-year agreement with the
County's cities and solid waste management businesses.
19
Appendix
Meetings and Tours
August 13, 1997. Meeting at the Integrated Waste Management
Department, Santa Ana.
August 18, 1997. Tour of Frank Bowerman (Bee Canyon) Landfill near
Irvine.
September 8, 1997. Meeting at City Hall, Fountain Valley.
September 8, 1997. Tour of Rainbow Disposal Material Recovery
Facility (MRF), Huntington Beach.
September 10, 1997. Meeting at City of Anaheim maintenance facility.
September 10, 1997. Tour of Taormina Material Recovery Facility
(MRF.), 'Anaheim. -.'
September 15, 1997. Meeting at Public Works Agency, City of Santa
Ana.
September 22, 1997. Meeting at City of Brea maintenance facility.
September 22, 1997. Tour of Waste Management of 'Orange County and
its Sunset Material Recovery Facility (MRF), Irvine.
September 29, 1997. Meeting at City Hall, Mission Viejo.
October 2, 1997. Meeting at City Hall, Stanton.
October 2, 1997. Tour of CR&R Material Recovery Fadlity (MRF),
Stanton:
October 6, 1997. Tour of Frank Bowerman (Bee Canyon) Landfill to
observe liner installation.
October 9, 1997. Meeting at the Integrated Waste Management
Department, Santa Ana.
October 22, 1997. Meeting at the Midway City Sanitary District,
Westminster.
November 5, 1997. Meeting at City of San Clemente maintenance
facility.
November 5, 1997. Tour of Prima Deshecha Landfill, near San Juan
Capistrano.
November 19, 1997. Meeting at City of Newport Beach waste
management facility.
January 14, 1998. Meeting at the Integrated Waste Management
Department, Santa Ana.
January' 15, 1998. Meeting at City Hall, Laguna Beach.
January 28, 1998. Meeting at City Hall, San Juan Capistrano.
References
Agreement for Purchase and Sale of District Facilities and Accounts,
Recycling of Refuse and Granting of Exclusive Franchise between Midway
Sanitary District and CR&R Incorporated and Rainbow Disposal Company,
October 27, 1992.
20
Annual Report Findings Sorted by County, 1995. Document Tracking
System of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, current as of
December 17, 1997.
California State Assembly, Assembly Bill No. 939, The California Solid
Waste Management, Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Market
Development Act of 1989, Introduced by Assembly Members Sher and Eastin,
February 27, 1989, as added by SB1322 (Bergeson), Stats., 1989; SB761 (Vuich)
and SB937, Stats., 1990; SB235 (Hart), Stats., 1991; AB1405 (Morrow), Stats.,
1993; AB688 (Sher) and AB2138 (Aguiar), Stats., 1994; AB626 (Sher) and
AB1647 (Bustamante), Stats., 1996; and as amended by AB1641 (Mojonnier),
AB1820, AB2707 (LaFollette), and AB3992 (Sher), Stats., 1990; AB719 (Wright),
Stats., 1991; AB260 (Epple), AB961 (Alpert), AB2092, AB2494 (Sher), and
AB2696 (Wright), Stats., 1992; AB54 (Sher), AB440, AB1220 (Eastin), and SB951
(Hart), Stats., 1993; SB469 (Beverly), Stats., 1994; AB381 (Baca), Stats., 1995;
AB3358 (Ackerman) and SB1497, Stats., 1996; and SB1066, Stats., 1997.
Financial Statements. County of Orange--Integrated Waste
Management Department, June 30, 1997 and 1996 with Report of Independent
Auditors dated November 24, 1997.
Integrated Waste Management Department. Presentation charts, An
Introduction to the Department and the Challenges Ahead. Report to the
Grand ~ury by Vicki Wilson, Director, July, 1997.
Sforza, Teri, The Art of the Trash Deal: Do It Long Term. The Orange
County Register, October 12, 1997: p. 1.
~. Cozy Long-Term Relationships Make Cities Reluctant to Seek
Cheaper Hauling Alternatives. The Orange County Register, October 12, 1997,
· Competition Can Bring Savings --or Disaster, The Orange
County Register, October 12, 1997: p. 25.
Trash Fee Is Illegal, Some Say. The Orange County Register,
October 13, 1997, p. 1.
System Financial Management Plan, Summary of Results.
Consolidated Orange County Landfill System, for Fiscal Years 1998 through
2012
Wilson, Janet. 2nd Chance. Los Angeles Times Orange County edition,
September 21, 1997, p. B1.
~."Cities Approaches Are a Mixed Bag," Los Angeles Times
Orange, County edition, September 21, 1997, p. B1.
1995 County of Orange Annual Report to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board. Report prepared by Integrated Waste
Management Department, October, 1996.
1996 AB939 Annual Report, City of Westminster, Prepared by Midway
City Sanitary District, July, 1996.
21