El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
• Agency Response
Material Recovery Facility Reason For The Report The 2003/2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint concerning the
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
Page 2
Waste Management, Inc., is currently operating under the original El Dorado Disposal Company Agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County must enforce the State-recycling requirements of 50%.
F2
Page 2
The State mandated recycling requirements of AB939, have not been met by the county since 1995.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 1
The County must expedite the new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc., or contract with a company that will meet state AB939 mandates.
F3
Page 2
The County received a “good faith” extension (July 2000 to July 2004) from California’s 50% recycling requirement of AB939. Another extension request is being considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 1
The County must enforce California State Regulations requiring all non-recycled material be removed within 24 hours, including weekends.
F4
Page 2
On 7/17/02, the County issued a Notice of Default to Waste Management, Inc., for failure to operate the transfer station/recycling facility in accordance with the contract.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 2
The County must not rely exclusively on camera monitoring of the MRF activities, and must re-instate on-site inspections to ensure AB939 compliance.
F5
Page 2
The County will incur a $10,000 a day fine, if they do not meet the 50% recycling requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 2
The County must enforce compliance with state law regarding a freezer for animal carcasses.
F6
Page 2
The County is no longer making regular on-site inspections of MRF to assure compliance with AB939.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 3
The County must direct Waste Management, Inc., to improve non-commercial customer service at the MRF.
F7
Page 2
The state requires that non-recycled materials be hauled away within 24 hours.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 2
There is a manual sorting of waste conducted at the MRF to help meet the recycling requirement.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 2
A camera system has been installed to monitor operational activities at MRF.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 2
There is a non-refrigerated bin provided for animal carcasses.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 2
There is only one register at the MRF for non-commercial refuse drop off payment. Findings 1. By not enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements, County faces a $10,000 a day fine. Response to Finding 1: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. Every California county, city, and regional agency potentially faces a $10,000 per day fine by not enforcing the State mandated “diversion” requirement. The finding, as stated, infers that the County is not enforcing the State mandated diversion requirement. The County disagrees with this inference. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) determines compliance with the 50% diversion requirement by using a two- part criterion, namely: • Implementation of each jurisdiction’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), referred to as “program implementation”; and • Diversion rate achievement. The County has (and continues) to implement the programs adopted in its SRRE and HHWE in addition to developing and implementing new programs while expanding existing programs. The Materials Recovery Facility is one of 46 programs being implemented by the County. The implementation status of 43 of these programs was described in the most recent County AB 939 annual report, as required, to the CIWMB (see attached report). The remaining three programs are new programs not previously selected, which are now being implemented. The two-fold test is noteworthy to recognize because there have been jurisdictions, which have not been deemed in compliance, because: 1) They exceeded the 50% diversion rate requirement but could not demonstrate satisfactorily to the CIWMB that programs supporting the diversion rate were sufficient; or 2) They were implementing selected programs but did not achieve the 50% diversion rate requirement. For example, the City of Point Arena in Mendocino County attained a 20% diversion rate in 2000 and was deemed to be in compliance and not considered for a $10,000 per day fine. Although El Dorado County did not achieve the 50% diversion rate requirement in 2000, it was granted a time extension by the CIWMB under the SB 1066 Extension option. When the CIWMB approved the County’s request for a time extension, the CIWMB deemed that the County was demonstrating a “good faith effort” to fulfill compliance with AB 939. During meetings with CIWMB staff, they have indicated that the County is implementing programs and demonstrating a “good faith effort” to reach the diversion rate goal. The CIWMB officially accepted the County’s diversion results for 1997 and 1998. And, the CIWMB officially approved the County’s results for 1995, 1996, and 1999. In addition, the County has taken enforcement actions with respect to Waste Management’s operation of the Materials Recovery Facility. As the Grand Jury report notes, the County has issued a Notice of Default to Waste Management, Inc., notifying Waste Management, Inc. that it is in default of its Materials Recovery Facility Operations Agreement with the County. The County’s Notice of Default concludes that Waste Management, Inc. is not operating the Materials Recovery Facility, as required by its Agreement with the County, by processing all incoming loads of solid waste to remove the recyclable materials from those loads. In response to the County’s Notice of Default, Waste Management has made improvements in the operation of the Materials Recovery Facility. These improvements include an increase in the number of pickers that are staffing the picking lines at the Materials Recovery Facility, as well as taking source separated recyclables collected by Waste Management, Inc. to Waste Management’s recycling facility in Lodi, California. The Lodi facility reportedly recycles in the range of 85-90% of all incoming materials. Lastly, County staff has negotiated a new agreement with Waste Management, Inc., which combines Waste Management’s collection and recycling facility operations under the umbrella of a single agreement. The new agreement will provide incentives for Waste Management, Inc. to increase its recycling levels, as well as provide the County with additional enforcement tools, including cross default provisions, in the event that Waste Management, Inc. does not increase its recyclable materials. The County takes its AB 939 responsibilities seriously, and believes that it is exercising a “good faith effort” to fully comply with AB 939 while also working with CIWMB staff to improve program implementation. The County does not believe that it faces the prospect of being assessed a fine. If it were, it would have been issued a compliance order by the CIWMB – the initial step leading to a conduct of a public hearing and possibly a penalty assessment.
No recommendations for this finding