02-04-1992 - Assembly Bill No. 20920 •
To City Manager and City Council
Michael L. Miller
FROM Community Services Division Manager
SUBJECT' ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2092
City of West Covina
Memorandum
AGENDA
ITEM NO. E=1b
DATE February 4, 1992
SUMMARY* This is a report on the legislative status of this State
bill to revise the deadlines for the submittal of a
Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
BACKGROUND
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires all cities to
prepare and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE). The deadline for the submittal of city -approved plans was
July 1, 1991. An Assembly Bill (AB 2092) was drafted in the Spring
of 1991 to extend the deadline to January 1, 1992. The bill was
not approved last year. It is now being considered in Sacramento.
Staff is recommending city support of the position of the League of
California Cities on this bill.
The original intent of AB 2092 was to solely address the extension
of the SRRE deadlines. As time passed, issues were raised on what
materials; what past programs, and what new programs should count
toward the diversion goals of the SRRE. These issues were
reactions to a few SRRE's that were submitted to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board. The issues were fueled by the
misconception there were cities that were abusing the regulations
and laws pertaining to SRRE development. Based on the information
in hand, such is not the case.
LEAGUE OF CITIES POSITION
Attachment A discusses the issues and the options available to us.
This was the information used at the League's Environmental Quality
Policy Committee. The Committee recommended to the full League
Board that the League support AB 2092 with the following
conditions:
A. Continue to allow cities to count diversion activities
involving inert solids (concrete and asphalt) scrap metal,
agricultural wastes and white goods (refrigerators and
stoves).
B. Broaden the definition of "local action" to include activities
undertaken by a waste hauler, landfill operator or recycler on
behalf of the city.
C. No changes will be imposed on the cities until their SRRE is
required to be revised as now provided in law and regulations.
The issue of "streamlining of reporting" is not currently a part of
AB 2092. The concept of measuring the disposal volumes annually
appears to be getting broader support. This would eliminate some
of the excessive costs associated with the annual reports to the
State.
The "streamlining of reporting" issue is not expected to be a part
of AB 2092. There is no further consideration in this staff
report. Staff merely wanted to inform the City Council on the
status of this issue.
MAYOR'S LETTER
Mayor Jennings has received a letter from Mayor Bremberg of
Glendale. She is urging city support to have AB 2092 focus on a
simple extension of the SRRE submittal deadliner and not deal with
"what counts" and "streamlining of reporting".
0 1 Q i
Staff concurs with Mayor Bremberg that AB 2092 would be better just
addressing the deadline extension. Unfortunately, the real world
of this State legislation is, that too much time has passed. Staff
expects the bill to addressithe issue of "what counts" when it is
finally approved. i
CITY POSITION
Staff believes it does not hurt to express two approaches to AB
2092. With this in mind, staff is recommending the City support AB
2092 addressing only the is of the SRRE submittal deadlines.
If, however, the "what counts" issues are to be included, staff
recommends the City Council support the League's Environmental
Quality Committee's position; to support AB 2092 with the following
additions:
f
A. Continue to allow cities to count diversion activities
involving inert solids ,(concrete and asphalt), scrap metal,
agricultural wastes and white goods (refrigerators and
stoves) .
B. Broaden the definition of "local action" to include activities
undertaken by a waste hauler, landfill operator or recycler on
behalf of the city.
C. No changes will be imposed on the cities until their SRRE is
required to be revised as now provided in law and regulations.
AB 2092 is currently at the ,State Senate. It has already gained
approval of the Assembly. As we understand it, the bill is to be
amended, passed by the Senate, concurred by the Assembly and sent
to the Governor. It was to move through this process in early
January. To date there has been no movement. The last report was
that it would be two months before it moves forward.
Staff is a part of the
We will continue this
reasonable legislation
RECOMMENDATION
League's technical
effort to assist
and regulations.
committee on this matter.
the cities in obtaining
It is recommended the City Council support Assembly Bill No. 2092:
1. To address the SRRE deadline extensions only.
2. If the "what counts" issues are to be addressed, the following
additions should be included:
A. Continue to allow cities to count diversion activities
involving inert solids (concrete and asphalt), scrap
metal, agricultural'wastes and white goods (refrigerators
and stoves).
B. Broaden the definition of "local action" to include
activities undertaken by a waste hauler, landfill
operator or recycler on behalf of the city.
C. No changes will be imposed on the cities until their SRRE
is required to be revised as now provided in law and
regulations.
Michael L. Miller
Community Services Division Manager
MLM:vs
El
Attachment A
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
1. AB 2092'(Sher). AB 939 Planning.
Background: As Committee members know, at the end of the 1991 Legislative Session the
League asked Assembly Member Sher to hold AB 2092 in the Senate, pending resolution
of the issue of what types of diversion activities will count towards a jurisdiction's AB 939
diversion goals. AB 2092 had originally addressed only the six month extension to the first
two AB 939 planning deadlines, but became caught up in end of the session politics and was
amended to address other issues as well. In its current version, AB 2092 provides that in
order to be eligible to count towards the AB 939 diversion goals, activities related to inert
solids, scrap metal, agricultural wastes, white goods and source reduction must be tied to an
action by a local government. Action by a local government includes ordinances, franchise
or contract conditions, existing local programs, and land use or solid waste permit
conditions.
Since the Legislature adjourned, the League and others have engaged in a series of
discussions on how to resolve the question of "what counts", as well as how to streamline the
reporting and implementat'non requirements of AB 939. Discussions have also been held
on alternate ways to calculate progress towards the 25% and 50%. goals so as to .make the
administrative requirements on local government less burdensome. At this time it is
unclear whether AB 2092, another bill, or a combination of the -two will be the vehicle to
address these issues. The following discussion will be divided into two parts: "what counts"
and streamlining the AB 939 planning process.
A. What Counts: The issue of what type of diversion activities count towards the AB 939
diversion goals is important because some in the Legislature and the California Integrated
Waste Management Board, as well as elsewhere, have contended that cities and counties
are inappropriately claiming credit for activities that skew their existing ,diversion levels.
This is because materials such as inert solids (concrete, asphalt) are heavy and it is easier
to divert and recycle a ton of concrete than a ton of aluminum cans. They observe that a
high existing diversion rate due to such activity is not consistent with the original intent of
AB 939.
The League has consistently maintained that _ until we know whether or not there is a
problem with skewed numbers due to counting inerts, scrap metal, agricultural wastes and
white goods, no major changes to the law should be made. However, if it is demonstrated
that a problem exists, then the League would be prepared to work to resolve the issue. It
should be noted that the majority of the objections to AB 2092 were on procedural grounds
and how such changes would impact the ongoing SRRE preparation process. Most cities
were concerned that if legislative and regulatory changes were made they would have to
rehire consultants, perhaps revise EIRs and once again hold public hearings for SRREs
close to formal adoption. Some cities, however, do object to linking diversion credit for
inerts et al to local action because this would reduce the level of existing diversion credit
they could receive.
In November 1991, the League convened a technical committee of city staff familiar with
AB 939 to review the issue of what) counts and identify possible preliminary options the
League might accept if it is determined that there is a problem. After a lengthy discussion,
the committee identified two possible acceptable options, and two unacceptable options.
The first.would be to. link the diversion activity of the four materials to an action by a local
government, similar to AB 2092, with several important clarifications.. These include
clarifying that local action includes activities underaken by a waste hauler, landfill operator
or recycler on behalf of the city. SimIilarily, concern was expressed about the type of detail
and documentation that would be necessary to demonstrate local action.
The second, but less .acceptable, opti
( ie 10%) on the amount of diversio
would be eliminating inert solids, scr,
types of materials eligible for diversi
increase above 50% the amount of di
of inerts or other heavy materials.
The committee also suggested simpli
public' -information and educational .
required. The decision of whether,
optional one made by the jurisdiction.
if would have .to demonstrate that the
government, including education .an(
necessity of quantifying an unquantifi
small diversion amount.
In all of these discussions, the League
changes made to existing law or regL
disrupt the ongoing formal SRRE plat
revise plans and hold additional public
the League has proposed that any char
to comments made by the Waste Boar,
The League has made it clear that we
939 that did not recognize this conc
Waste Board have acknowledged this
to ensure that such a problem is avoi
On December 4, the Waste Board's
preliminary results of Board staffs a
extent to which inerts are used as cre
results indicate that 61% of jurisdicti(
calculations and, 39% of the jurisdictio
inerts for 10% or more of their diversi
i the committee identified would'be to place a cap
eligible for each of these materials. Unacceptable
metal, agricultural waste and white goods from the.
i credit, as well as authorizing the Waste Board to
xsion required for jurisdictions counting large levels
ying the source reduction, requirements so that only
activities on source reduction at the local level be
o quantify source reduction activities would be an
If .a jurisdiction decides to quantify source reduction,
diversion is the result of an action taken by the .local
technical assistance. This proposal eliminates the
.ble activity that in most cases counts for a relatively
as stressed the need for explicit clarification that any
ations (as a result of this issue or others)., must not
-iing process, thus forcing cities to rehire consultants,
hearings. Instead, the committee recommended and
;es necessary be made when the jurisdiction responds
when it formally reviews elements for final approval.
would oppose any proposal for modification of AB
pt. Both Assembly Member Sher's office and the
:oncern and have promised to work with the League
ed in any amendments to AB 2092 or other bills.
lanning Committee held a workshop to discuss.the
alysis of 124 preliminary. SRREs to determine the
it towards calculating existing diversion levels. The
is evaluated do not include inerts in their diversion
s do count inerts. Thirty-one percent (39/124) count
n goals, 22% (27/124) count inerts for 25% or more,
-3-
and 13% (16/124) count inerts for 50% or more. At this time, data is not available for the
other three materials.
While this analysis is encouraging since it indicates that the perceived widespread problem
of skewed diversion levels due to inerts is not supported by the data, it shows thata small
percentage of jurisdictions may be counting an inappropriate amount of inerts, contrary to
what some contend is the intent of AB 939 -- to develop new diversion programs and divert
more material from landfills beyond existing activities. The concensus by members of the
Board's Planning Committee was that any legislative or , regulatory "fix" to this problem
should be narrow and clearly defined, so as not to have unintended broader impacts.
B. Streamlining Calculation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements: At the same time
that the above issues have been. examined, serious discussions have `taken place on how to
best streamline the reporting, administrative and implementation requirements of AB 939.
Suggestions being considered include the proposed source reduction revision described
above, limiting the amount of annual reporting required, streamlining the education
component, and modifying how progress towards the 25% and 50% diversion goals is
calculated. This latter proposal, revising the calculation methodology, is complex, but has
the potential for significantly simplifying future AB 939 requirements.
Currently, jurisdictions must calculate progress towards the diversion goals by quantifying
diversion activities. This requires compiling data from individual businesses, tracking
individual waste types, and complex methodologies far beyond that originally envisioned
when AB 939 was enacted. It requires an expenditure of funds that could otherwise be
more productively used to implement city programs. A change discussed by. many and
formally proposed by Assembly Member Sher would be to instead measure progress towards
the goals by calculating changes in disposal levels, adjusted for changes in population. Thus,
source reduction due to changes in manufacturing. processes; state programs or consumer
behavior would be easily included in the calculation, as would increased voluntary recycling
by, the private sector.. This is because it would result in less material going to a landfill.
While the League indicated to Assembly Mebmer Sher that we are still evaluating the
concept, we would insist that any proposal include a provision that -jurisdictions receive
"credit for existing diversion programs. (Note: Staff has reviewed this new calculation
proposal concept with a number of city staff who indicate that it has great promise and
should be considered seriously, assuming it does not have any unintended negative impacts.)
Clearly, the two issues of what counts and streamling AB 939 are interrelated. For example,
if the calculation method is changed to a disposal based, rather than diversion based one,
the proposal to change the source reduction component suggested by the League technical
committee would have to be modified accordingly. Similarly, while the new calculation
proposal would address future calculations, the question of what types of diversion activities
would count towards a jurisdiction's existing diversion levels would still be an issue. Besides
this structural interrelationship, there may be political connections as well.
Ise: What position .should the League take on the issues of 'what counts" and the
proposed AB 939 streamlining concept? In deciding upon a League. position on what
-4-
counts, the Committee may wish to consider the following:
ommittee a ree I th the ro osed o tions suggested by the technical
-- Does the:EQ C g p P P. gg
committee as the most acceptable way to addressproblemswith what counts and potential
skewing of diversion. numbers? Are there other options that the technical committee did
not identify?
-- Since 61% of cities do not include`inerts at this time in their calculations (the percentage
may be, different when all SRREs are evaluated), the majority of jurisdictions will not be
impacted. However, any change in the types of activities -that are eligible for diversion
credit has the potential to impact some cities negatively, to a-greateror lesser .extent.
--'Should -the Leagueo oPP ose any continue tproposal that would link all, existing diversion
activities to action by a local agency, not just- those related to inert solids,. agricultural
wastes, scrap metal and white goods? This concept was proposed. for an earlier version of
AB 2092 and rejected by the League, and others as unworkable and unfair.
=- What was the original intent of AB 939? This is a subject of much debate, and depends
upon one's,point of view. It does,.however, have implications for how one resolves the issue,
of what counts?
In deciding a position on the issue of the AB 939 streamlining concept, the committee may
wish �to consider whether it is worth pursuing a disposal -based calculation methodology that
may require some revision of SRREs in order to achieve greater efficiency, streamlining and
ease of calculation. Should the League continue to insist that any.discussin of such .a
.concept must include credit for _existing diversion activities?
At this time it is unclear exactly what proposal will be agreed upon and when they will be
included in a legislative vehicle. If concensus is reached, that vehicle will be AB 2092. If
the League does. not agree with the proposals, we have already requested that Assembly
Member Sher separate the issues of what counts and.the six month extension. It is our
understanding that Assembly Member Sher's. office anticipates resolution of. most, if not all,
of these issues will be completed by late January or early February.
Recommendation Discussion
0
•
endale', CALIFORNIA
613 E. Broadway, Room 200, Glendale, California 91206-4391 (818) 548 4844
:Office of the`
MAYOR;
Richard N.. Jennings
Mayor
City of West Covina
1444 W. Garvey Ave.
West Covina, CA 91790
Dear Mayor Jennings:
January 10, 1992
^rr
�8 J4N151992
! i��gi5i6
Since the passage of AB 939 in 1989, every city in. California has been 'active
in preparing- the.required Source: Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs)
and implementing the programs called for in those: documents. The City of.
Glendale is certainly no exception and we take pride in leading the waste
diversion efforts of the cities that dispose waste in the Scholl Canyon Landfill.
Given our experience with : AB. 939, we have, been: concerned with recent
proposals to change very basic. elements of the SRRE requirements. I am
writing to discuss the potential impact of these proposals and to urge you to join
me in opposing major changes until greater evidence of the need for the changes
is presented.
'The proposed vehicle for these changes is, AB 2092 (Sher), which was held on
the Senate floor at the end of the 1991 Legislative, Session. At first AB 2092
only addressed a six-month .extension in the first two AB 939 planning.
deadlines. Such a revision, which will how need to be modified to a one-year
extension; is reasonable and deserves our support.
The bill was :held because it became a vehicle, for controversial proposed
changes in "what counts" toward the diversion goals.. This debate, which was
based on evidently high diversion levels in some communities of certain
materials (particularly inerts), has now been expanded to include a number of
other issues, including how progress toward the diversion goals is calculated.
What is most disturbing is the inadequate amount of information available, from
the authors or the State Integrated Waste Management Board, on the
implications of the most significant proposed changes. Before we consider
adopting such changes, reliable information is needed .on: expected changes in
projected SRRE diversion levels and programs, the cost of modifying the SRREs
and SRRE programs, and how diversion levels calculated solely from landfill
disposal rates will account for the impact of economic trends on waste
generation. Given the large amount of limited resources devoted by cities
toward meeting the AB 939 mandates, it is difficult to understand the seeming
willingness to rewrite fundamental aspects of the legislation before the initial
SRREs have even been analyzed.
Since it is the cities that havl the most to lose through precipitous amendments
to AB 939, we must make our concerns known to the Legislature, the. State
Integrated Waste Management Board, and the League of California Cities.. I
hope you will join me in advocating that AB 2092 should focus on a simple one-
year time extension for the first two planning deadlines and should avoidmajor
changes, at this time, in either "what counts" toward the diversion goals or how
progress ,toward the diversion goals is calculated.
If you: would like further information of the proposed changes in AB 939, please
contact Steve Zurn, Public Works Division at (818) 548-3901.
Ginger Bremberg
Mayor