California Proposal Creates Concern

If the California Integrated Waste Management Board decides to define recyclables as solid waste, the impact could be far-reaching.

Traditional recyclers have long maintained the distinction between recyclable materials and solid waste, contending that recyclables have an inherent value and should be treated as any other commodity. This notion has been debated on many fronts, with the state of California being one of the primary battlegrounds.

A related fight concerns the notion of solid waste flow control. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Carbone vs. Clarkstown, N.Y., which ruled solid wastes were a commodity the public sector could not control, pressure to legislate flow control continues.

Now the state of California, through the California Integrated Waste Management Board, is currently attempting to include recyclables under its jurisdiction as a solid waste. The attempt has not escaped recyclers who feel the move, if successful, would put recyclers in direct competition with waste management groups.

Furthermore, most recycling advocates feel the issue is a further step towards allowing communities to franchise an area for the recyclables along with solid waste, which, some feel, would prohibit recycling companies from servicing accounts in any community with a franchise policy in place.

PANDORA’S BOX

The heated debate between two sides surfaced due to a proposed tiered permitting process for solid waste and recycling facilities. The state, according to representatives from the CIWMB, is attempting to clarify the landscape for the future of the waste management industry.

Unlike the past when waste management companies were of a similar nature, present-day operations cover the gamut. Transfer stations, composting facilities, source-separated material recovery facilities, mixed-waste processing facilities, landfills, and recycling operations, among others, are operating within the state. The CIWMB proposes classifying the various types of operations by environmental impact, according to an established methodology.

Advocates of the tiered permitting process claim that traditionally, waste management companies all had to comply with the same regulatory controls. While operating under similar restraints, facilities often are performing very dissimilar jobs. Establishing a tiered permitting structure would require different operations to operate under a more updated regulatory oversight.

To accomplish this, the CIWMB convened a General Methodology Advisory Committee. The role of this 30-member group was to devise workable definitions to separate different types of waste management and recycling companies.

Earlier this year the committee agreed to pursue the following approach to develop a general methodology: identify indicators, define agency jurisdiction, define and evaluate critical factors, establish thresholds for critical factors, identify level of review and oversight to address concern, and identify corresponding tiers.

The methodology was then to be used to facilitate placement of solid waste operations into one of five regulatory tier structures. The framework adopted by the board includes five different levels: full permit, the strictest permit; standardized permit; registration permit; EA (enforcement agency) permit; and excluded, the least regulated level.

As a part of the tiered standard, the CIWMB developed general methodology parameters. The parameters are the following: methodology serves to protect public health and safety and the environment from the threat a solid waste handling operation/facility may pose; methodology doesn’t include placement of any operations into regulatory tiers; methodology applies only to areas of CIWMB authority and doesn’t overlap/duplicate another jurisdiction’s authority; methodology recognizes clear distinctions between tiers; use of the methodology will result in a consistent regulatory program; and methodology is empirical, based on reliable and acceptable information, and methodology is defensible.

According to the CIWMB, tiers set out provisions which vary in the amount of information which must be submitted for review, and in the amount of time the enforcement agency and the board have to review the information and determine whether the operator may commence operations.

RAMIFICATIONS

Since the passage of California’s AB 939, which established significant statewide source reduction goals, recyclers and waste haulers have fought a legislative and judicial battle over where recycling fits in with the waste management industry. As part of this a number of waste haulers have attempted to impose franchise domain over recyclables in a number of cities, typified in the Rancho Mirage case, which pitted Waste Management of the Desert vs. Palm Springs Recycling. That case eventually was heard by the California State Supreme Court with both sides claiming victory.

Joan Edwards, formerly in charge of the city of Los Angeles’ Waste Board and now principle in an industry consulting firm, stresses the issue sets the table for some big problems. "This process is wrong and dangerous. They have made a decision about permitting without defining solid waste," says Edwards. "This permitting process opens up the regulatory doors to franchising and flow control."

These two issues, always linked together in California, have been attacked by many recyclers as the way to kill the independent recycling industry.

"There are terrible implications," says Edwards. "Recyclers ought to be darn scared about this issue."

While the lack of a clear-cut understanding by the waste board is one reason for the decision to include recyclables as a solid waste, a number of watchers feel that the solid waste industry may be supplying much of the impetus.

Further, several CIWMB officials have openly stated a desire to see recycling operations under the Board’s jurisdiction.

A SIMPLE GOAL