1 / 65

Diversion Rate Measurement System Review January 25 & 31, 2001 Public Workshops

Diversion Rate Measurement System Review January 25 & 31, 2001 Public Workshops. 50%. Report to the Legislature Required by Senate Bill 2202. (effective January 1, 2001). Report to Legislature.

ellard
Download Presentation

Diversion Rate Measurement System Review January 25 & 31, 2001 Public Workshops

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diversion Rate Measurement System ReviewJanuary 25 & 31, 2001 Public Workshops 50%

  2. Report to the Legislature Required by Senate Bill 2202 (effective January 1, 2001)

  3. Report to Legislature • Board required to establish, at minimum, working group regarding the disposal reporting system (PRC Section 41821.5) • Board required to submit report to legislature with changes and improvements by January 1, 2002

  4. Report to Legislature • Not all diversion rate measurement issues are related to disposal reporting system • There may be options for improvements to the disposal reporting system and diversion rate measurement system based on experience

  5. Diversion Rate Measurement System • Board now has more data available regarding issues with the measurement system • All parties now have experience with the existing measurement system • Many parties have developed solutions to issues that could be: • used by others • used to improve the system

  6. Structure for Developing Report to Legislature • Some working groups would focus on improvements to the existing system • Disposal Reporting System • Adjustment Method • Another working group would focus on alternatives to the existing system • Synthesis group combines solutions from all groups to develop a workable, improved diversion rate measurement system

  7. Working Groups • Board has convened several working groups related to diversion rate measurement in the past • Purpose of working groups is to provide: • comprehensive technical review of options based on experience • technically sound recommendations for Board consideration

  8. Working Groups • Working groups will be performing technical review of issues and potential solutions • Several meetings per working group • Review technical materials ahead of time • Solicit input to ensure the working group hears all points of view • Develop technically sound solutions and recommendations

  9. Working Groups • Limited number of working group members representing all parties • Jurisdictions and their consultants • Urban and rural • Northern, central and southern • Waste and materials management industry • Haulers • Disposal & recycling facility operators • Environmental and special interest groups • Advisors

  10. Reviewers • All other interested parties may serve as reviewers • Receive all information at the same time as working group members • Provide comments to working group members for consideration during the working group meetings

  11. Web Tools • Board will establish a discussion web where working group members and reviewers can discuss issues and solutions • Discussion web is currently under development

  12. Board Report to Legislature • Working group develops recommendations for the Board • Board Agenda item includes: • working group recommendations • staff analysis of the recommendations • any additional staff recommendations • Draft report

  13. Proposed Timeline

  14. Forms • Forms are included at the back of the issue paper • Please turn in forms to: • Identify additional issues and solutions • Volunteer to be a working group member • Volunteer to be a reviewer

  15. Diversion Rate Measurement System ReviewJanuary 25 & 31, 2001 Public WorkshopsDisposal Reporting System Overview 50%

  16. Disposal Reporting System

  17. Each jurisdiction responsible for meeting diversion mandates Each Jurisdiction had to quantify all diversion and disposal In the Beginning . . . 1989 Assembly Bill (AB) 939

  18. Followed by . . . . . . . . AB 2494 (1992 statutes, chapter 1292) Diversion rate measurement focus changed from measuring diversion and disposal to measuring disposal reduction Allows regionalization to simplify reporting, reduce cost & duplication of effort

  19. “Clarified 12/94 by . . .” DRS Regulations (Title 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 9) Specify results not methods Requires quarterly waste origin surveys Local level flexibility Jurisdiction disposal tonnage allocation based on survey estimates

  20. Disposal Reporting System Quarterly report is estimate of tonnage disposed by each jurisdiction County provides data quarterly to IWMB & jurisdictions Jurisdictions use the data to calculate their diversion rate

  21. What Is Disposal? All Tons Disposed At IWMB Permitted Landfills All Tons Disposed At IWMB Permitted Transformation Facilities Measured Disposal Tonnage All Tons Exported Out-of-State = + +

  22. Who Reports? 1000’s of Haulers Origin Origin & Tons Exported 176 Landfills & 3 Transformation Facilities Origin Origin & Tons Disposed Origin 347 Transfer Stations and Material Recovery Facilities 64 Counties and Reporting Agencies Origin & Tons Exported Disposal Summary 449 Jurisdictions CIWMB Annual Report

  23. Haulers Report During Survey Week Transfer Station Reports Due Disposal Facility Reports Due County & Regional Agency Reports Due Jurisdiction Annual Reports Due Disposal Reporting Timeline Example 1/28 4/15 12/8 to 12/14 2/15 8/1/2001 4th Quarter 2000

  24. DRS Data Uses Estimate: Jurisdiction goal achievement Countywide & Statewide diversion rates Analyze: Potential regions Waste export ADC usage Goal measurement issues Forecast local and statewide disposal As a check for BOE data

  25. What’s Been Learned Amounts and types of waste disposed vary over time DRS minimum requirements may not fit local needs Disposal issues change over time Waste flow is complex

  26. Orange County Waste Flow

  27. DRS Summary Waste flow is complex and ever changing Obtaining reasonably complete & accurate disposaldata requires cooperation of many parties 116 jurisdictions have formed 22 regional agencies and eliminated issues of allocating waste to individual jurisdictions

  28. DRS Issues Allocation to Jurisdictions

  29. DRS Issues Special Waste

  30. DRS Issues Disposal Accuracy

  31. Diversion Rate Measurement System ReviewJanuary 25 & 31, 2001 Public WorkshopsAdjustment Method Overview 50%

  32. Base-YearsThe Foundation for Estimating Current Generation BASE-YEAR PRC 41780.2 & 41781

  33. Adjustment MethodEstimating Current Generation ADJUSTMENT METHOD BASE-YEAR PRC 41780.1 & 41780.2

  34. 1990 Adjustment Method Premise 1999 PRC 41780.1 & 41780.2

  35. Standard Diversion Rate CalculationADJUSTMENT METHOD More People? More Jobs? More Sales? D I V E R T G E N E R A T I O N More Waste Generated D I S P O S E Estimated 1999 Generation Base Year Generation Adjustment Method PRC 41780.1 & 41780.2 PRC 41781

  36. Adjustment Method Development Do not penalize jurisdictions for changes in economy, population, and other factors like disasters Board adopted method developed by working group of interested parties First time this method used to estimate waste generation PRC 41780.1

  37. Adjustment Method Factor Sources Uses readily available factor sources to keep costs down and maintain consistency: Population (CA Department of Finance) Employment (CA Employment Development Department) Taxable Sales (CA Board of Equalization) Inflation Corrected using Consumer Price Index (CPI)

  38. Adjustment Method Factor Choices A jurisdiction may use: Default (standard) countywide or jurisdiction- specific factors supplied by the Board Alternative factors from independent third-party sources Each factor must be from same published source and use same method for both years

  39. Adjustment Factors and Disposal Trends California, 1991-1999 (Base-Year = 1990)

  40. Jurisdictions: Diverse & Dynamic 1990 – 1999 Change -31% to +223% -21% to +64% -50% to +171%* *Adjusted for Inflation 1999 Pop: 85 to 3.8M Emp: 460 to 4.4M Txble Sls: $155,000 to $28.4B

  41. The Adjustment Method Factor change reflects change in residential and commercial waste streams differently Must know what part of base-year waste stream is residential (the Residential percentage) % %

  42. Jurisdictions Have Diverse Waste Stream Sectors Residential Sector • Smallest: < 0.01 % Residential • Middle: 40 % Residential • Largest: 97 % Residential

  43. Estimating 1999 Generation Estimated 1999 Jurisdiction Generation = + 1999 Non-Residential Generation 1999 Residential Generation

  44. Adjustment Method Limits Waste generation sector change, and/or activities that have less impact on taxable sales, employment, and population, are not reflected by the adjustment method: Disasters, Military Base Closures, Large Construction or Demolition Projects Large changes in type of employment rather than number of employees Changes in nature of production of solid waste over time Only as good as base-year

  45. Standard Diversion Rate CalculationADJUSTMENT METHOD More People? More Jobs? More Sales? D I V E R T G E N E R A T I O N More Waste Generated D I S P O S E Estimated 1999 Generation Base Year Generation Adjustment Method PRC 41780.1 & 41780.2 PRC 41781

  46. AM 1Adjustment Method Accuracy

  47. AM 2Adjustment Method Awareness

More Related