Upload
horatio-hart
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Diversion RateMeasurement System
April 4, 2006
2
Diversion RateMeasurement System
Diversion, Planning & Local Assistance Staff: Collect, verify and
maintain data Provide Automated Tools Review Annual Reports Conduct Biennial Reviews Provide Technical
Assistance to Jurisdictions
3
Diversion Rate EstimateOne Indicator of Diversion Program
Success
4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
5
Jurisdictions conducted solid waste generation studies Quantified amounts and types of both diversion &
disposal Submitted studies in Source Reduction & Recycling
Elements (SRRE) The Board reviewed, corrected and approved
studies First time generation was quantified
statewide for each jurisdiction Jurisdictions were to measure
generation again in 1995 & 2000
Diversion Rate Estimationin the Beginning (AB 939)
AB 939 (Sher), Stats. 1989, c. 1095
6
For measuring achievement of 1995 and 2000 diversion mandates: Generation study data became starting point
(Base-Year) for all future measurement Required “standard” methodology
for estimating waste generation Required new disposal reporting
system (DRS)
New Role for Original Waste Generation Studies
(AB 2494)
AB 2494 (Sher), Stats. 1992, c. 1292
7
THE “BIG PICTURE”
8
Farmers/Grower Remove & Bale
ContractHauler/Collector
WashingFacility
Baled, FlakesRe-Pellitize
Recycler/BrokerBales or
Washs & Bales
Agricultural & Food Processing Film
Film Plastic Recovery & Recycling Flow
Re-ProcessorWashs,Flakes
Re-Pellitize
Landfill
Export Broker
ManufacturerNew Film Product
Plastic Lumber
Food Processor/Other Agricultural
“Clean Film”
“Dirty Film”.
9
Three Primary Components of
Measurement System
Base Year Generation Base Data from Jurisdiction Generation
Studies Adjustment Method
To correct base data for changes over time Measurement Year Disposal
Measurement Year Data fromDisposal Reporting System
10
BASE YEAR GENERATION
+DisposalDisposal DiversionDiversion
11
BASE YEARBASE YEAR
The base year is the foundation for diversion rate measurement
An accurate base year is critical for accurate diversion rate estimates
Each jurisdiction (city, county, or regional agency) is required to establish a base year
Many jurisdictions have updated their base years since the original studies
12
Disposal of Waste Generated within Jurisdiction Borders
13
Diversion of Waste Generated within Jurisdiction Borders
14
Issues withBase Year Data
More accuracy issues have beenidentified over time
Initially generation based Less generation viewed as less to divert
Limited diversion data Disposal data issues
No disposal data by jurisdiction Missed self haul disposal Missed seasonal variations in disposal
15
Issues withBase Year Data (cont’d.)
Lack of scales at facilities Complex waste flows/significant
changes to waste stream over time No statutory requirement to
periodicallyestablish new base year data to reflect changes
16
ADJUSTMENT METHOD
More People?More Jobs?More Sales?
17
The IWMA required the Board to develop an adjustment method (AM)
The Board adopted the method developed by a working group
The adjustment method estimates changes in generation due to changes in population and the economy
without having to measure both diversion and disposal in the measurement year
Saves jurisdictions time and money
Depends on anaccurate base year
ADJUSTMENT METHODADJUSTMENT METHOD
18
Adjustment Method Premise
25
1990
200X
PRC 41780.1 & 41780.2
19
Adjustment Method Formula
Adjustment Method Formula Steps: (1) IM = Inflation Multiplier: CPIB/CPIR (2) CTR = Corrected Reporting—Year Taxable Sales in Dollars: TR x
IM (3) NRAF = Non—Residential Adjustment Factor: (ER/EB + (CTR/TB)/2 (4) RAF = Residential Adjustment Factor: (PR/PB) + NRAF/2 (5) Estimated Reporting Year Generation: (RWGB x RAF) + (NRWGB x
NRAF)
Glossary of Terminology: RWGB=Base-Year Residential Waste Generation in Tons NRWGB=Base-Year Non-Residential Waste Generation in Tons PR=Reporting-Year Population in Persons PB=Base-Year Population in Persons ERLF=Reporting-Year Labor Force Employment in Jobs ERIN=Reporting-Year Industry Employment in Jobs EBLF=Base-Year Labor Force Employment in Jobs EBIN=Base-Year Industry Employment in Jobs TR=Reporting-Year Taxable Sales in Dollars TB=Base-Year Taxable Sales in Dollars CPIR=Reporting-Year Consumer Price Index CPIB=Base-Year Consumer Price Index
20
Residential vs. Non-Residential
Measurement year residential and non-residential generation amounts are estimated separately Affected differently by changes in population
and the economy. Population is used only with the residential
estimate. The residential and non-residential
estimates are added to find total measurement year generation tonnage.
21
Population-(CA Department of Finance)
Employment-(CA Employment Development Department)
Taxable Sales-(CA Board of Equalization)
Inflation Index-(provided on another slide)
Adjustment Factors(and Sources)
22
Adjustment Factor Trends
This graph shows percent change in population, employment, inflation-adjusted taxable sales, and waste disposal for California, 1991-2004 (base year = 1990).
23
Taxable Sales Inflation Adjustment Factors (and sources)
Inflation Adjustment Factor adjusts taxable sales amounts for inflation
Consumer Price Index (CPI) -(CA Department of Industrial Relations)
Taxable Sales Deflator Index (TSDI)-(CA State Board of Equalization)
Note: Board Item in September 2005authorized future use as alternative factor
24
Comparison of Inflation Indexes: CPI vs. TSDICalifornia Consumer Price Index (CPI) vs. Taxable Sales Deflator
Index (TSDI), 1985-2004 (1985=100)
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
190.0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Ind
ex
CPI TSDI
25
Web Tools Perform Adjustment Method Calculations
26
Jurisdictions are Diverse
2004 PopulationSmallest: 95
Middle: 38,597Largest:
4,684,951
2004 Taxable Sales(x$1,000)
Smallest: 105Middle: 464,571
Largest: 45,664,110
% ResidentialMinimum: 0%
Middle: 37%Maximum: 97%
27
Review of the Adjustment Method
The Board reviewed the AM during SB2202 An AM Review Working Group also met
in 2004-2005 Taxable Sales Deflator Index recommended
Multiple reviews with many participants indicated there is no alternative method for the current diversion rate measurement system that Uses readily available data for all jurisdictions And is more accurate
28
Issues with the Adjustment Method Seldom well understood Data from other agencies not
available until December of the following year
Long delay in diversion rate estimates May not work well for:
Small jurisdictions Fast growing jurisdictions Industrial jurisdictions
29
DISPOSAL REPORTING SYSTEM
30
All sources of solid waste Residential, commercial, industrial, self-
haul, construction & demolition, military, institutional, marine, etc.
From all types of haulers Franchised, public and private,
commercial, self-haulers, etc. Disposed anywhere
Within same county or in other counties, states or nations
Export is not disposal reduction
DisposalIncludes:
31
Disposal Reporting System (DRS)
Uniform system to determine where waste is from
Extensive stakeholder input in the development of regulations
System requires tracking of information on an ongoing basis
Reported information is summary data based on the tracked information
32
Who Reports in the Disposal Reporting System
(Tracks tons by Jurisdiction-of-Origin)
33
END OF QUARTERLY PERIOD3/31, 6/30, 9/30, 12/31
FRANCHISED/CONTRACTED HAULER REPORTS ARE DUE TO
FACILITY OPERATORS4/15, 7/15 10/15, 1/15
TRANSFER/PROCESSING STATION REPORTS ARE DUE TO OTHER
TRANSFER STATION FACILITIES(IF APPLICABLE)
4/30, 7/31, 10/31, 1/31
TRANSFER/PROCESSING STATION REPORTS ARE DUE TO LANDFILL/
TRANSFORMATION FACILITIES5/15, 8/15, 11/15, 2/15
FACILITY OPERATOR REPORTS ARE DUE TO HOST AGENCY (AND AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS UPON
REQUEST)6/15, 9/15, 12/15, 3/15
AGENCY REPORTS ARE DUE TO THE BOARD AND TO AFFECTED
JURISDICTIONS7/15, 10/15, 1/15, 4/15
ANNUAL REVISIONS TO PRIOR YEAR ARE DUE BY 5/15
INVESTIGATE, RECONCILE, INPUT DRS DATA FOR JURISDICTION
ANNUAL REPORTS
2 weeks
2 weeks
2 weeks
4 weeks
4 weeks
Summer/Fall
34
Issues with Disposal
2004 Disposal (Tons)Smallest: 486Middle: 43,617
Largest: 4,747,081
Self-Haul Sector – More difficult to track by jurisdiction
35
Waste Flows Beyond Boundaries
Los Angeles County: Waste Outflow to Landfills in 2003
36
Revisions to Disposal ReportingRegulations (Effective 1/1/06)
Based on SB2202 recommendations and public input process
Revised regulatory requirements: Scales & weighing Training of staff Origin survey frequency Methods for determining jurisdiction of origin Tracking/reporting tons & origin Records & access to records
37
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
BASE YEARBASE YEAR
ADJUSTMENT METHODADJUSTMENT METHOD
DISPOSAL REPORTINGDISPOSAL REPORTING
38
Jurisdiction Base Year DataStandard Diversion Rate Calculation
80 Tons Base Year Generation
Disposal: All Landfilledand Transformed Waste
20 TonsDiverted
60 TonsDisposal
Base Year Generation
Diversion: All Source Reduction, Recycling, & Composting
=
+
BASE YEAR
39
Adjusting Base-Year to Estimate Measurement Year
Generation = 80 Tons
Adjusted Generation = 100 Tons
MEASURED IN BASE MEASURED IN BASE YEARYEAR
ESTIMATED IN MEASUREMENT ESTIMATED IN MEASUREMENT YEARYEAR
40
Jurisdiction MeasurementYear Disposal Data
e.g., Documented: -disaster waste -allocation errors
200X200X
41
Estimating MeasurementYear Disposal Rate
42
Estimating the Measurement-Year Diversion Rate
43
Transformation and Biomass Diversion Credits
Jurisdictions are allowed to claim two types of diversion credits (transformation or biomass) that modify the measurements.
If a jurisdiction claims one of these types of diversion credit, it may not claim the other type of credit.
44
Biomass Diversion Credit Biomass Credit Limit—10% of Generation
If the estimated measurement-year generation (without biomass) is 100 Tons
And the tonnage sent to the biomass facility is 20 Tons (20%) of measurement-year generation
And the diversion rate without biomass is 40%
Then the biomass credits allotted are 10% (max.)
And the biomass-adjusted diversion rate is 50%
45
Optional Transformation Diversion Credit
Waste sent to permitted transformation facilities counts as disposal
Transformation is also called waste-to-energy 3 permitted transformation facilities in California
Starting in 2000, a portion of waste sent to transformation may count as diversion
Up to 10% of a city’s waste generation that is sent to transformation may count as diversion each year
46
Landfilled = Disposal
Transformed = Disposal
Source Reduced, Recycled, or Composted = Diversion
Estimated 200X Generation
Traditional Diversion
Disposal
100 Tons Generated – 50 Tons Disposed =
50 Tons Diverted
40 Tons
100 Tons
50 Tons
Transformed = Diversion
200X DIVERSION RATE:Up to 10% Transformation Credit
Transformation Credit 10 Tons
10%Credit Limit
47
Diversion Rates are Indicators
The estimated diversion rates are only one indicator of jurisdiction’s compliance with AB 939
Diversion rates cannot be calculated until all adjustment factor data is available
48
2004
2005
20062004 Report Year
Population (May 2004)
CPI(March 2005)
Employment (June 2005)
Taxable Sales (December 2005)
Statute Due Date: August 1, 2005
Disposal Data Available
(September 2005)
Extended Due Date: March 1, 2006
2003/04 Biennial Reviews Begin:
September, 2006
49
Statewide Diversion Rate Estimate
50
SYSTEM REVIEW & IMPROVEMENTS
51
System Review & Improvements Background
Diversion rate measurement accuracy and compliance have been issues since early 1990’s
Diversion rate measurement system is complex
Several Board efforts over time to improve measurement accuracy and impact on compliance All involved extensive stakeholder input
Statutory and regulatory revisions have been made to improve accuracy
52
Current Efforts Fall 2004 -- started public process to identify
options for an alternative system Issues with existing system:
Measurement system is complex Some data needed to calculate diversion rates
(adjustment factors) not available until 1 year after measurement year
About ½ of jurisdictions have 1990 base years (used in calculations) that may no longer be accurate
Disposal data more accurate for larger areas with fewer boundaries rather than individual jurisdictions
Small, rural jurisdiction disposal data has large annual fluctuations
Addressing accuracy issues is time consuming
53
Current Efforts (cont’d.) Stakeholders wanted:
Timely measurement Flexible system Accountability Simple system Cost-effective system Use measurement as indicator and focus
on diversion program implementation
54
Option for Alternative Compliance System
Staff developed option to meet criteria Option distributed to stakeholders, discussed at
public workshops Option built on existing system
Legislature will set new goal/requirement Relies on countywide disposal data as indicator
Consistent with statutory intent to reduce waste disposal and Board’s zero waste goal
More accurate disposal data with newly revised regulations Focus on diversion programs – they reduce waste
disposed Reduce time spent on measurement issues and progress
reports to Board Keep Board’s existing Biennial Review framework for
reviewing jurisdiction progress with some changes
55
Comparison of SystemsExisting System Jurisdiction adopts plan
to achieve 50% diversion
Jurisdiction implements diversion plan
Jurisdiction submits annual progress report
Diversion rate Adjustment method
accounts for growth Diversion program
implementation
Board Option Jurisdiction adopts plan
to achieve new disposal requirement
Jurisdiction implements diversion plan
Jurisdiction submits biennial progress report
Countywide disposal as indicator
Describe growth Diversion program
implementation
56
Comparison (cont’d.)Existing System
Biennial Review (cont’d.) Allows “good faith
effort” if diversion programs fully implemented, but diversion rate is not met
Compliance order based on diversion program implementation
Board Option
Biennial Review (cont’d.) Allows “good faith
effort,” including consideration of growth, if diversion programs fully implemented, but countywide disposal requirement is not met
Compliance order based on diversion program implementation
57
Comparison of Systems (cont’d.)Existing System Board reviews
jurisdiction progress every two years (Biennial Review)
Diversion rate
Evaluate diversion program implementation
Increased scrutiny of diversion program implementation if diversion rate not met
Board Option Board reviews jurisdiction
progress every two years (Biennial Review)
Countywide disposal as indicator
Evaluate diversion program implementation
Increased scrutiny of diversion program implementation if countywide disposal requirement is not met
58
Statewide Diversion Rate Estimate
59
Status of Alternative Compliance System
Board directed staff to submit option for an alternative compliance system to Legislature
Board and stakeholders will have opportunity to participate in development of any legislation dealing with the option and the new disposal goal/requirement
60
“WRAP-UP” SUMMARY
61
Summary of Key Points
Diversion rate estimate is an indicator Jurisdiction progress is based on
Diversion rate estimate, AND Program implementation
Several adjustment method reviews concluded there is no alternative method that: Uses readily available data for all jurisdictions And is more accurate
62
Summary of Key Points (Cont.)
Many diversion rate estimate problems relate to base year data accuracy 192 jurisdictions (45%) have
1997-2003 base-years 232 jurisdictions (55%) have
1989-1996 base-years
63
Summary of Key Points (Cont.)
DRS accuracy should improve beginning with 2006 data
Board will be reviewing jurisdiction progress in upcoming biennial reviews starting September 2006
Legislative discussions will be starting on an alternative compliance system that addresses many issues
64
Questions?
For more information on the diversion rate measurement system, see www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGCentral/sitemap.htm