Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management

Transcription

Cleaning Up Waste and
Recycling Management
and Securing the Benefits
A Blueprint for Cities
July 2015
Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management and Securing the Benefits
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Waste Sector Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Systems of Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recommended Reforms: Solving Problems and Securing Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction: From “Garbage Gulch” to “Los Recicladores”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Waste and Recycling Reform: A Priority for a Thriving and Responsive City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A Well-Run System for a Satisfied Citizenry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Taking Cues: California and Local Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Strengthening the Local Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Frameworks for Managing Waste and Recycling Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Municipally Collected Systems for Assured Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Private Waste Collection: Selecting Quality over Compromise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Best Practices in Exclusive Franchise Systems – and What to Avoid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Zero Waste L.A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Laying the Foundation with a Strong Contract Award Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Accountability Practices to Ensure Top-Notch Service, a Strong System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Steady and Transparent Rates: Exclusive Franchises Benefit Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Improving Standards for Sanitation Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Environmental Benefits of an Exclusive Franchise System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Debunking Diversion Myths in Favor of Maximum Recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Recommendations: Checklist for a Smart Waste System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Environmental Best Practices for All Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Cities Seeking to Strengthen an Exclusive Franchise System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Cities with Non-Exclusive Franchise or Open Permit Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix A: City of Los Angeles’ Waste and Recycling Collection Request For Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix B: City of Los Angeles’ Facility Certification Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
laane: a new economy for all
1
Acknowledgements
Lead author: Lauren Ahkiam
This report was only possible due to the incredible dedication of the Don’t Waste L.A. Coalition and the
City of Los Angeles, who spent years working to make Zero Waste L.A. a reality. It is dedicated to the civil
servants and sanitation workers who strive to keep our communities and environment healthy and safe.
Heartfelt thanks go out to all of those who lent considerable time and talent to shaping this report. LAANE
staff played a significant role, first and foremost Jackie Cornejo and Jon Zerolnick. Special thanks to Adan
Alvarez for his communications assistance, Chad Sells for his design work, and Erika Thi Patterson and John
Guevarra for their research contributions. Additional thanks to Patricia Castellanos, Gina Palencar, Laura
Joseph, Amardeep Gill, and the LAANE research department.
We also thank those who provided their expertise, including Ben Beach and Hays Witt of The Partnership
for Working Families; Paul More of Davis, Cowell & Bowe; Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste; and
Melanie Scruggs and Robin Schneider of the Texas Campaign for the Environment.
Sincere thanks to L.A. Sanitation and the Office of Mayor Eric Garcetti. Continued gratitude to Robert
Staley for his beautiful photographs.
The author takes full responsibility for the contents of this report and is responsible for any errors or
omissions it may contain.
Photo: Robert Staley
2
Foreword
Dear Colleagues,
I have had the honor of serving the City of Los Angeles as the Director of the Bureau of Sanitation (L.A.
Sanitation) since 2007. I have dedicated my career over the last 25 years to protecting the City’s public
and environmental health. As civil servants, we make sure solid waste is collected and processed efficiently
and responsibly, with accountability to our City, residents, and businesses. We have been charged with
achieving California’s new and ambitious, yet necessary, environmental goals – to improve air quality and
decrease dependence on landfills.
We know that we must make progress towards these goals to comply with state laws and create a more
sustainable tomorrow, and, to do so, we must dramatically expand the expectations for our solid waste and
recycling systems. Working together, City leaders and staff can meet these challenges – and in doing so,
enhance communities’ quality of life and cities’ resilience. Elected members, the Mayor and City Council, set
the vision towards environmental progress and high standards of service and performance, directing their
dedicated staff to design and implement the path forward.
This successful collaboration is what we have been able to achieve in L.A. Led by Mayor Eric Garcetti and
our City Council members, the City of L.A. recently adopted the nation’s most comprehensive waste and
recycling system, the Zero Waste L.A. exclusive franchise system for multifamily and commercial collection.
Guided by my colleagues’ expertise, L.A. Sanitation developed and is implementing the new system,
which will be in place by 2017. This system will enable us to reach the City’s Zero Waste goal of 90 percent
resource recovery of our solid waste by 2025. It will also enable us to meet our goals to ensure excellent
service and fair customer rates, secure environmental benefits, improve health and safety for solid waste
workers, and promote the infrastructure development needed to reach Zero Waste.
To get here, we conducted a thorough process to identify the most effective approach, consulting industry
and community stakeholders, waste and recycling experts, and members of the public. We worked with
the Mayor’s office, Council members and their staff, Zero Waste leaders from cities throughout California,
and with the Don’t Waste L.A. Coalition, a non-profit group of like-minded environmental and community
leaders, worker health and safety advocates, and small businesses. After years of study and exploration,
L.A. Sanitation, our Board of Public Works, and City elected officials agreed that the Zero Waste L.A.
system was the means by which we could achieve all of our goals.
As other cities in California face the same challenge of meeting the State’s environmental goals, we can
work together to succeed, building off of each other’s experience and best practices. The steps we are
taking in the City of L.A. were grounded in those taken by other cities, large and small. They can help to
inform your next steps towards achieving Zero Waste, and with it, the accompanying environmental and
community benefits.
Enrique C. Zaldivar
Director, L.A. Sanitation
3
Executive Summary
Managing a city’s waste and recycling sector is
a core governmental responsibility and, when
done well, helps cities realize benefits and meet
constituents’ expectations. Residents expect
government to prevent pollution and protect
neighborhoods, create good quality jobs, and
operate transparently and efficiently. Cities can
do just that by cleaning up waste and recycling
management, and establishing practices in full
compliance with California laws that call for an
increase in recycling.
City staff often lack the time and resources
needed to comprehensively research and resolve
the complex issues of waste and recycling
management. Management practices differ, with
varying degrees of effectiveness. Some cities
directly manage waste collection; others award
exclusive service contracts to franchised waste
haulers. Others enter into non-exclusive franchise
agreements with multiple companies, while a few
require only a hauler permit.
quality mandates, with consequences for cities
that fail. Local governments have faced media
and public scrutiny regarding local waste facilities,
or due to contracting practices that appear
controversial. Diverse challenges and opportunities
are abundant:
•
Landfill space is limited, and expensive. L.A.
County’s landfills could run out of capacity as
early as 2016, and cost hundreds of millions
of dollars a year to operate. L.A. County sent
8.6 million tons of material to landfills in 2012.
Disposal fees per ton have increased over
35 percent in less than ten years, and these
costs are often passed through to customers.
Alternative technologies like incineration and
waste-to-energy are even more expensive
than landfilling, and do not count towards
California’s 75 percent recycling goal.
Communities frequently raise protests to new,
nuisance, or expanding waste facilities.
•
Pollution from landfills and diesel powered
collection vehicles harms public health,
increasing hospitalization and leading to
missed school and work; increasing rates of
cancer, heart, and respiratory diseases; and
contributing to premature death. Collection
vehicles also contribute to traffic congestion
and damaged roads, with over 9,000 times
the impact on streets as SUVs. Increasing
route efficiency can reduce pollution and save
money on fuel and road repairs. Moreover, the
waste sector is the third largest contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions in L.A. County, with
landfilled organic waste a major cause.
•
Recycling reduces the need for landfills
and incinerators, and improved standards
can mitigate community concerns about
waste and recycling facilities. Cities will save
money, energy, and water, as well as reduce
air pollution and demand for virgin materials:
recycling an aluminum can uses 95 percent less
energy than creating a new can, and one ton
of recycled paper saves 7,000 gallons of water
Bringing together years of research and analysis
in waste and recycling management, this report
provides solutions – and a blueprint for cities to
follow. The report concludes that strong municipal
and exclusive franchise systems are the best ways
for cities to manage waste and recycling, and
defines the best practices that cities should adopt
to fine-tune these systems and secure benefits.
Cities with open permit or non-exclusive franchise
systems should begin the transition to an exclusive
franchise waste system for maximum benefits.
Waste Sector Effects
The waste sector is a source of considerable
environmental and public health impacts - impacts
that can be reduced with proper management.
This sector has the potential to be of great expense
to cities and taxpayers, or of great benefit by
generating revenues, creating jobs, and acting
as an economic development engine. California
law requires cities to meet state recycling and air
4
over virgin paper. Constituents want to recycle
– 82 percent of Americans feel proud when
they do.
•
•
•
•
A cleaner and more efficient system is a safer
system, saving customers yet more money.
Waste and recycling collection has the fifth
highest rate of fatality in the United States, with
fatalities ten times more likely than average;
17,600 collection workers were injured in 2013.
When companies invest in a well-trained and
well-protected workforce, there are fewer
regulatory and operational challenges and
costs, and taxpayers will save through reduced
public assistance costs.
Recycling can generate revenue and create
jobs. Across the country, recyclable materials
worth an estimated $11 billion were instead
landfilled. If cities in L.A. County recycled
75 percent of the recyclable materials that
are currently landfilled, almost 6,000 new
collection and processing jobs are possible.
Conservative estimates suggest 17,000 new
manufacturing jobs, and thousands of new
reuse and remanufacturing jobs, are possible
with regional infrastructure development.
Rigorous waste system administration can
ensure cities comply with California laws
requiring greenhouse gas reduction, 50
percent disposal reduction, mandatory
commercial recycling and compost collection,
and the statewide 75 percent recycling goal.
Through compliance, cities avoid stiff penalties.
•
Municipal waste and recycling collection gives
cities the unrivaled capacity to ensure high
standards and performance through direct
administration. Successful examples include
Santa Monica and the City of Los Angeles’
single-family collection. Examples from
Newport Beach to New York demonstrate
the importance to residents of long-term
relationships with “trash men.”
•
Cities with privatized collection can achieve
high standards, capture benefits, and hold
companies accountable via an exclusive
franchise system, where cities competitively
award contracts for exclusive rights of service
to the most qualified bidder. Waste experts
have identified exclusive franchise models as
the most efficient private method to achieve
Zero Waste goals.
•
Cities with exclusive franchise systems have
the flexibility to tailor contract requirements
to meet unique customer or city needs.
Contracts can limit customer rate increases,
and the structure of the exclusive franchise
system also saves customers money. Collection
efficiency and decreased disposal reduce
hauler expenses, and haulers favor longterm contracts that allow them to amortize
costs over time and to finance infrastructure
investments. Franchise fees and Assembly Bill
939 (AB 939) fees can fund education, system
administration, and recycling programming.
•
Cities are increasingly moving away from nonexclusive franchise and open permit systems,
which fail to meet cities’ needs and which lack
accountability mechanisms. Multiple haulers
pick up waste from customers all over the
city, exacerbating trucks’ impacts; LAANE
found up to ten different haulers on one block.
Additionally, under open permit systems,
federal law may preempt clean truck fleet
requirements imposed by local jurisdictions.
•
In non-exclusive franchise and open permit
systems, industry consolidation prevents
meaningful competition, and the scant
competition is based on price rather than
performance. This “race to the bottom” results
Transparent and open waste and recycling
management builds confidence in local
government and reduces controversy, such
as community concerns around neighboring
waste facilities, or press attention to alleged
corruption stemming from waste contracting
decisions.
Systems of Management
The system that cities choose to manage their
waste impacts their ability to solve the problems
created by the waste industry, while taking
advantage of the opportunities.
5
in low-paying and dangerous jobs, and the
lower recycling rates and unpredictability
of future business undermine potential job
growth.
•
Customer rates vary wildly in non-exclusive
franchise and open permit systems. LAANE
found customers paying four times as much as
their neighbors. Increasing industry costs, such
as fuel or disposal fees, can be passed along
to customers, and cities have had difficulty
collecting permit or AB 939 fees.
•
All systems should adopt “Zero Waste” goals
and plans to reduce waste and air pollution and
to recycle as much as possible. By maximizing
recycling, cities reduce their dependence on
landfills and on controversial and expensive
alternatives like incineration or “waste-to-energy.”
•
Cities should implement city-wide recycling
and organic waste collection in separate
containers from waste. Cities with this “three
bin” collection system report up to 80 percent
diversion, in contrast to “one bin for all”
systems that combine recycling, compost, and
trash to be sorted at mixed waste processing
facilities (also called “Dirty” MRFs). These
facilities recovered less than 20 percent of
materials on average.
•
Organic waste should be composted (or
otherwise processed), not landfilled as
Recommended Reforms: Solving
Problems and Securing Benefits
Regardless of what type of waste management system
a city employs, strategic reforms can improve the
system and secure broad benefits.
Summary Rating of Waste and Recycling Management Systems
Municipal
Exclusive
Franchise
Non-Exclusive
Franchise
Commercial System
4
64
12
8
Residential System
12
72
3
1
Rating
Competition
F
B+
C+
D+
Rates
A
B-
C
D+
Customer Service
B-
B
B-
C
Accountability & Compliance
A
A
B-
F
Fiscal Health
A
A
B-
D
Environment
A
A
C-
F
Local Economy
A
A
B-
D
Job Quality
A
A
C-
D-
Overall Score
A-
A-
C+
D-
Open Permit
Number of L.A. County Cities
6
Alternative Daily Cover, which the state no
longer considers “diversion.”
•
Education for all customers will promote
participation and reduce contamination.
Cities with exclusive franchise systems
•
•
•
•
and that the facility is operating smoothly
overall. Cities also have an opportunity to
alert the appropriate agency if they suspect
a company is not in compliance with state or
federal worker standards and protections.
Cities with an exclusive franchise structure
should bolster standards and performance
by amending their franchise agreements and
the design of their system to incorporate
these best practices. These cities have
the tools to implement the environmental
best practices recommended above, and
should require haulers to use clean fleets
and efficient routes, which will reduce air
pollution and truck impacts.
Periodic open bid processes with robust
Requests For Proposals will promote
competitive rates and service, bolster
governmental transparency, and reflect
city-specific needs. Cities should promote
good governance and city and customer
fiscal health by sharing recycling income,
limiting possible rate increases, and avoiding
perpetual contracts.
By prioritizing best value proposals over
the lowest bidder, cities can select haulers
that provide good service and safe, quality
jobs. Cities should review records like
training plans, maintenance records, legal
history and violations as part of the contract
award process, and should require bidders
to develop and follow Injury and Illness
Prevention Plans. Cities should also apply
living wage and whistleblower protection
policies.
•
Cities should hold companies accountable to
diversion goals and standards with extensive
reporting, performance reviews, liquidated
damages for failure to comply with the terms
of service, and through in-house, municipally
conducted, compliance monitoring. Cities
should require contingency plans to ensure
stable service and protect public health, and
include accountability measures, such as
penalties.
Cities with non-exclusive franchise and open
permit systems
•
Cities with these systems should move to
adopt an exclusive franchise system.
•
In designing their exclusive franchise
systems, cities should follow the system
recommendations above and adopt
the described environmental practices
applicable to all waste and recycling
systems.
“Urban infrastructure, when it
works well, is nearly invisible.”
-Robin Nagle, Anthropologist1
By assessing or certifying waste facilities,
cities can require nuisance control measures,
ensure that zero waste goals are being met,
7
Introduction:
From “Garbage Gulch” to “Los Recicladores”
Another day begins in Garbage Gulch. Before sunrise,
trash trucks from a dozen different haulers crowd the
streets, beeping and belching smoke, the same as
every morning. They wind down the road, leaching
“trash juice” as they go, nearly running into one another
on their overlapping routes. Joe the trash driver is
having a rough morning: the dumpster is too heavy for
him to position for pickup by himself, and his asthma
is acting up from his truck’s diesel fumes. He’s worried
about his sister, Diana, who sorts recycling for the same
company as Joe. She broke her foot when she slipped
at work – they still haven’t put down safety mats – and
the company says she does not qualify for workers
comp, health care, or even paid time off while her foot
heals. Inside a nearby apartment, Bill yawns and gets an
early start on the Help Wanted ads. The local economy
is not great in his town, and he got laid off last year.
His partner, Jamie, grumbles about the constant noise
and smog, and the dismal view of trucks snaking up the
street to the area landfill. “What good is all this racket
when I can’t even recycle!?” Jamie complains, adding
“And our rates just went up! Some bigwigs must have
made a backroom deal, because it sure doesn’t make
sense to me. I’m voting them all out next election.”
Photo: LAANE
8
In neighboring Los Recicladores, residents sleep in;
trash day is coordinated and just once a week. Jesse
and his helper Hector collect food scraps at Café
Grub Green, ready to be turned into compost. Café
customers are as excited as the chef knowing that
their food scraps help feed the crops that will be on
next season’s menu, and by downsizing to a smaller
trash bin the café was able to invest in new booths.
Inside the café, Kristy tosses her juice bottle into the
blue bin, and smiles thinking how it will be recycled
into the polar fleece jackets her company, Bottle Tops,
makes. Before recycling caught on, there weren’t
enough clean plastics to keep supplies steady, but
recently she’s hired additional staff. Erica, a recycling
sorter, grabs a coffee on her way to work. She can
afford the fashionable Bottle Tops fleece because
she makes a good wage – but at work, she stows it in
her locker and wears her company-issued protective
gear. She sees Mayor Diaz on her way out of the café
and gives him a high five. He’s just come from Three
Rs Park, which was converted from a landfill since the
citizens of Los Recicladores hardly throw anything in
the trash these days.
These exaggerated stories help paint a picture
of the waste and recycling sector’s impacts on
a city’s well-being. Whether waste or resource,
trash or treasure, there are always leftovers from
our daily lives, and at the end of the day the onus
for responsible waste and resource management
falls on the shoulders of city government. By
confronting challenges head-on and learning from
best practices, cities can shine rather than straggle.
While the issue is critical, many city staffs and
decision-makers have limited resources to
explore this complicated industry in depth, and
misinformation persists. Fortunately, there is a
growing body of best practices from which to
draw. Foremost among these is the City of Los
Angeles’s landmark waste and recycling system
overhaul, led by the Bureau of Sanitation (L.A.
Sanitation) and supported by the research and
advocacy of the Don’t Waste L.A. Coalition, a
project of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New
Economy (LAANE). In 2014, the City of L.A.
completed a multi-year, stakeholder intensive
process to develop and adopt a new exclusive
franchise waste and recycling system, Zero Waste
L.A. This system was designed to help the City
divert 90 percent of its waste from landfills by
2025, getting as close to “zero waste” as possible
by 2030.
Drawing from extensive industry and policy
research, this report will help inform other cities
in the region as they consider changes to their
waste and recycling systems. The report explores
why efficient and accountable waste and recycling
systems are so critical to a city’s well-being,
from customer satisfaction and environmental
stewardship to fiscal health and a stronger local
economy. It will look at what type of waste and
recycling collection systems can meet cities’ goals
– and how those systems are best structured
and administered. Any city can go from Garbage
Gulch to Los Recicladores, whether the city is
considering adopting a new system, or wants to
strengthen its existing contracts and protocols.
9
Waste and Recycling Reform:
A Priority for a Thriving and Responsive City
Managing a city’s waste and recycling sector is a
core governmental responsibility, and when done
well, helps cities meet constituents’ expectations.
Residents expect their governments to do
everything possible to prevent pollution and protect
neighborhoods, create good quality jobs, and operate
transparently and efficiently. Cities can do just that
with a well-designed, competitive waste and recycling
franchise system, one built on a transparent process
with high environmental and job quality standards.
By moving towards Zero Waste with increased
recycling, cities can save money, reduce effects
on neighborhoods and the environment, and help
stabilize customer rates. Doing so will also ensure that
cities are in full compliance with California law.
A Well-Run System for a
Satisfied Citizenry
The more cities recycle, the more they can save
In 2013, Californians threw away more than 30 million
tons of solid waste into landfills – that is nearly fourand-a-half pounds per person per day.2 Relying on
landfills is increasingly expensive, unpopular, and
has negative environmental impacts. The Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County budgeted over $100
million to operate and manage its just two open
landfills for one year.3 Even after they close, landfills
are expensive to manage. Just one site requires an
estimated $207 million in liabilities, closure, and postclosure costs – and 50 years of remediation.4
Landfilling is also expensive for customers, as
haulers’ costs to dispose of waste are often passed
on to the ratepayer. The disposal or “tipping” fees
that landfills charge haulers rose over 35 percent
from 2002 to 2010 (see Figure 1). 5 Puente Hills
Landfill, the largest regional landfill with a daily
disposal capacity of 13,200 tons, closed in October
2013.6 As a huge, publicly operated facility, Puente
Hills’ rates acted as a check on other area landfills’
tipping fees; with its closure, there is no longer the
local capacity or the regional check on rates.
L.A. County sent more than 8.6 million tons to
landfills in 2012.7 The L.A. County Department of
Figure 1:
Average Disposal Fees per Ton in L.A. County Public Facilities (2002-2010)
$50
$45
$40
$35
$30
Source: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (2010), all dollars in 2010 dollars
10
Public Works estimates the County, on its current
path, will exceed existing County landfill capacity
as soon as 2016.8 As nearby landfills approach
capacity, alternative disposal methods – other than
recycling and composting – are limited, expensive, and
environmentally dubious. For example, waste-by-rail is
capital-intensive, requiring a $450 million investment
and a projected initial tipping fee of $80 per ton, more
than double Puente Hills’ 2012 tipping fee. That rate is
projected to increase to $120 per ton by 2024.9 This
option is not yet operational.
Exporting waste to neighboring counties is also
costly, polluting, and politically unpopular. It increases
fuel costs, vehicle wear and tear, and environmental
impacts. Counties have begun to create disincentives
against outsider waste: Riverside and Ventura both
recently approved additional fees for waste originating
in L.A. County.10 Incinerating – euphemistically
called “converting” – waste is the most expensive
currently-available option, and is also one of the most
controversial alternatives (see Figure 2).11 In incinerating
or otherwise “converting” materials like plastics into
energy, the embedded resources are not able to
reenter the manufacturing economy.
The state’s Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery (CalRecycle) estimates that about 80
percent of what ends up in state landfills is recyclable.12
Given the value of recyclable materials, rather than
spending money to dispose of them, cities can make
money by increasing recycling. Many cities receive
a share of the income generated from recyclable
collection and processing. With less recycling comes
lost opportunities: last year, cities across the country
collectively forewent an estimated $11 billion in
commodity revenue that could have been generated
from the sale of recyclable packaging that was
landfilled.13 In the City of L.A. alone, recyclables worth
an estimated $158 million were landfilled in one year.14
Figure 2:
Costs per Ton by Disposal Method in L.A. County Public Facilities
$150
$120
$120
$100
$100
$80
$80
$61
$61
$50
$50
$0
$0
Cost to City
$40
$43
Recycling
(2015)
Calabasas
Landfill
(2015)
Incineration
Facility,
Commerce
(2015)
Waste-byRail
(Launch)
Waste-byRail (2024)
Profit to City
($50)
($50)
Source: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (2008, 2015)
($100)
($75)
11
Cities can avoid landfilling recyclable materials
by ensuring a cleaner supply. Previously,
contaminated recyclables would be exported,
but U.S. dependence on foreign markets is
increasingly tenuous. Once-reliable markets like
China have markedly cracked down on the import
of contaminated materials, rejecting nearly 8,000
tons of U.S. recyclable materials in just three
months of their “Green Fence” initiative (see Figure
3).15 Reliance on exports means that markets
are susceptible to incidents such as the recent
slowdown at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach,
and Oakland, which led to a backlog of recyclable
materials ready for export.16 Materials that are not
exported, particularly contaminated recyclables,
are instead landfilled or incinerated, resulting in
increased disposal costs.
Customer and community satisfaction: balancing
rates, service, and accountability
At first glance, a waste and recycling system might
appear to be a success if trash gets collected and
rates are low. However, when things do not go
according to plan in a system as far-reaching as
waste, there can be substantial impacts on the
community, environment, and economy. Waste
contracting practices and negotiations can also
become politically controversial.
Privatized waste systems mean lucrative collection
contracts that waste companies are eager to
secure. This powerful drive makes it imperative for
cities to preserve utmost transparency and follow
good governance protocols in order to avoid any
appearance of malfeasance. A sense of potential
corruption can exacerbate public response to
what might otherwise be a “temporary blip” in
Figure 3:
China’s “Operation Green Fence” Policy Affects
U.S. Recycling Exports
With less recycling comes
lost opportunities: last year,
cities across the country
collectively forewent an
estimated $11 billion in
commodity revenue that
could have been generated
from the sale of recyclable
packaging that was
landfilled.
trash service, such as Huntington Park residents’
frustration with the recent transition to a new
waste franchisee. The franchisee was awarded
the contract despite being eliminated in the first
round of selections, and critics were reported as
raising questions about the relationship between
the company and decision-makers.17 The Los
Angeles Times described the city as “freighted by
suspicion” and quoted a law professor specializing
in governance as saying it is “like any relationship
where you are trying to regain trust and someone
makes a mistake and it makes you question
everything. It feeds into their preexisting belief that
there is a problem with their government.”18
Some cities imprudently enter into perpetual
contracts called “evergreen” or “rolling” contracts,
garnering criticism from citizens and in the press
for failure to use good governance contracting
practices. While some evergreen contracts
automatically renew for one year at a time, others
may require ten, fifteen or even twenty years’ notice
before a city could release an open bid. The Orange
County Register described evergreen contracts
as “agreements [that] never really expire and
can renew into perpetuity, guaranteeing haulers
a constant flow of dollars and millions in profits,
virtually worry-free.” 19
Waste companies’ interest in these self-renewing
contracts has resulted in some over-zealous
lobbying. Low initial bids, without city protections
12
Figure 4:
Waste and Recycling System Examples across Southern California: Controversies and Opportunities
Zero Waste plan,
but pursuing EIR for
landfill’s expansion.
Considering transition
from current nonexclusive system.
Newly adopted
comprehensive
exclusive franchise.
Franchise
companies out
of compliance.
Top municipal
system.
Prioritized
diversion and
best value over
lowball bid.
Bribery scandal
resulted in
federal charges,
hauler bankruptcy.
Award-winning
programs, but
commercial system
has low recycling
rate and high
incineration rate.
to stabilize rates, can be dramatically increased by
“bait and switch” pricing, leading to citizen concern.
Some companies use low-cost or even under-valued
street-sweeping as an entrée to taking over a city’s
waste collection services – but then lock in other
imprudent contract terms or provide lower-quality
service.
The City of Upland was in the spotlight leading
up to approval of a contract extension without an
open bid, according to reports. 20 Waste hauler
Burrtec reportedly proposed street sweeping
services and payments to the City of Upland
in exchange for a significantly extended waste
hauling contract, without an open bid and with
increased customer rates. 21 This proposal raised
concerns of impropriety, given donations made
Concern over
contract extension without
going to an
open bid.
Outsourced beloved municipal
waste-hauling.
by the waste hauler, and the previous mayor’s
conviction on bribery charges, according to news
sources. 22 This extension was strongly resisted by
one councilmember, who was quoted as saying, “in
the private world, you do not do things like this. You
put it out to bid regularly. I really believe this is a
violation of our fiduciary and financial responsibility
to the Upland residents.”23
Given the frequently dangerous and low-paying
working conditions in this industry, workers without
representation have, at times, gone on wildcat
strikes to seek improved conditions. One local
example is from Orange County in 1994, when
over 100 drivers not represented by a union were
reported to have walked off the job in a strike
against Waste Management, protesting alleged
13
Figure 5:
Waste Facility Locations & Poverty Concentration in L.A. County
Source: American Community Survey (2013), CalRecycle (2011)
retaliatory firings and unfair work conditions. 24 This
labor dispute reportedly affected residential and
commercial customers throughout the County. 25
Land use planning and waste infrastructure
When cities increase recycling, they address a
pressing land use concern: no one wants to live near
a landfill. Over the past few years, residents have
raised their voices in protest over proposed new
or expanded waste-related facilities throughout
Southern California, including in Santa Clarita,
Hacienda Heights, Glendale, Irwindale, Azusa, and
Baldwin Park. 26 California county governments
are required by Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) to
14
have long-term plans, called a “countywide siting
element,” for how they will manage their waste. As
evidenced by L.A. County’s recent plan, more and
more focus is placed on preserving existing landfill
capacity rather than locating new sites for possible
landfills. 27
Waste facilities are more likely to be located near
disadvantaged or otherwise underrepresented
populations (see Figure 5). 28 Cities can address
the resulting environmental justice implications by
increasing recycling to reduce the need for landfills
and incinerators, and by ensuring that recycling
facilities operate according to high standards. For
example, an open-air facility in the working class
L.A. neighborhood of Sun Valley was operated
without a valid CalRecycle permit by former
owner Crown Disposal. 29 Neighborhood residents
were quoted as complaining of a constant stench
and “rats the size of small dogs.”30 The facility is
now under new ownership, and will be required
to comply with the City of L.A.’s new facility
certification standards in order to be a part of the
new system. 31 When facilities reduce neighborhood
impacts and provide quality jobs, they can serve as
a benefit rather than a detriment.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris’
office prioritizes environmental justice, affirming
that she “is particularly concerned that local
governments, in permitting new projects, consider
potentially significant environmental impacts on
communities already burdened with pollution, as
required by the California Environmental Quality
Act [CEQA].”32 Attorney General Harris and the
California Department of Justice released legal
guidelines in 2012 outlining the State’s provisions
promoting and requiring environmental justice,
citing the Code prohibiting unlawful discrimination
by local agencies that receive financial assistance
from the state. Violating this requirement can lead
to termination of funding or even civil action. The
guidelines specify that CEQA requires an agency
to find that a “project may have a ‘significant effect
on the environment’” if, among other things, “[t]
he environmental effects of a project will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.” Such a finding of significance
would require parallel project mitigations or an
alternative project. 33
When facilities reduce
neighborhood impacts and
provide quality jobs, they can
serve as a benefit rather than
a detriment.
images such Keep America Beautiful’s famous
“Crying Indian” ad campaign highlight how people
have been taught, often since childhood, that
recycling helps the environment, and that helping
the environment benefits public health. 36
Recycling reduces pollution from rotting landfilled
materials’ methane emissions and toxic runoff. 37
Research demonstrates that air pollutants, including
those from landfills, have serious impacts on
public health, including increased hospitalization
leading to missed school and work, increased rates
of cancer, heart and respiratory diseases, and
premature death. 38 Recycling also saves resources,
reducing pollution and energy use by reducing the
need for virgin materials. 39 For example, recycling
an aluminum can uses 95 percent less energy
than it takes to create a new can, and one ton of
recycled paper saves 7,000 gallons of water over
virgin paper.40
Taking Cues: California and Local Laws
State and local laws set the stage to ramp up recycling
and find ways to increase diversion from landfills. By
establishing high-standard waste and recycling systems,
cities can ensure compliance and avoid penalties.41
Residents want to recycle to benefit
environmental and public health
State standards for increased recycling:
Assembly Bills 939 and 341
Residents want access to recycling: a 2013 survey
found that 82 percent of Americans “feel a sense
of pride when they recycle,” and 62 percent “feel
a sense of guilt when they throw a recyclable
item in the trash.”34 Approximately two-thirds of
Californians support measures to curb emissions
and reduce climate change impacts, and four out of
five think climate change is a serious issue. 35 Iconic
Assembly Bill 939, as described in further detail in
the Glossary, requires all jurisdictions to divert 50
percent of their waste from landfills and to create
integrated waste management plans.42 Failure
to comply can result in fines of up to $10,000 a
day. Under this law, cities are allowed to levy a
compliance fee on waste haulers in order to fund
efforts to increase diversion. AB 939 also established
15
the state’s integrated waste management board,
CalRecycle.43
Nearly three-quarters of California’s solid waste
is generated by the commercial sector.44 Without
increasing commercial diversion, even a city with a
high rate of residential recycling has little chance of
moving beyond a 20 percent city-wide recycling rate.45
In 2012, California addressed this with the adoption
of Assembly Bill 341 (Chesbro), which requires
commercial and multi-family customers to subscribe to
recycling collection.46 The bill also set a statewide goal
to recycle, compost, or reduce 75 percent of waste by
2020.47 Significantly, waste “transformation,” including
incineration, will no longer count towards this goal.48
Recycling an aluminum can
uses 95 percent less energy
than it takes to create a new
can, and one ton of recycled
paper saves 7,000 gallons of
water over virgin paper.
Reducing climate change impacts with increased
recycling: Assembly Bill 32
Assembly Bill 32 (Núñez) mandates that California
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020.49 Waste is the third largest contributor to
greenhouse gases in L.A. County.50 Organic waste is
one-third of the waste stream, and landfilled organic
waste is the largest source of human-generated
methane in California, contributing up to a quarter
of methane emissions.51 Methane, over time, has
over 25 times the impacts on climate change as
carbon dioxide.52 Scientists recently found L.A. basin
methane levels to be over 60 percent higher than
expected, with hotspots centered on landfills.53 Given
the significance of the waste sector’s contribution
to greenhouse gas emissions, cities should outline
specific waste reduction and recycling strategies in
their required Climate Action Plans.54 By composting
rather than landfilling, cities would produce an
estimated 86 fewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions
per 100 tons of food scraps.55
16
Recent changes to organic waste laws: Assembly
Bills 1826, 1594
Governor Brown recently signed two bills into law
that will substantially impact how organic waste
is managed in California. 56 With the adoption
of Assembly Bill 1826 (Chesbro), commercial
customers will be required to sign up for
composting or anaerobic digestion service starting
in 2016. Composting these millions of tons will
create demand for organics infrastructure, as well
as investments by cities to update education and
collection practices. 57
With Assembly Bill 1594 (Williams), California cities
will no longer be able to consider green waste used
as “Alternative Daily Cover” (ADC) for landfills as
the “diversion” of those materials. 58 Many cities
relied on this source of tonnage to meet their
diversion goals: in 2011 alone, L.A. County and
Orange County together sent one million tons of
compostable yard waste to landfills. 59 California’s
recent state legislation around organic waste
parallels similar recent laws across the country to
require food waste collection or composting, or to
ban organic waste from landfills.60
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
composting is an economic boon: an estimated
14,000 new jobs could be created by 2020 as
California cities implement Assembly Bill 1826
and organic waste programming.61 Composting
also improves water quality by reducing the
need for pesticides, one of the largest sources of
groundwater contamination.62 Adding compost
to soil helps land retain water, potentially halving
the amount of water needed to produce crops.63
These potential savings are crucial, given
nearly 80 percent of California’s water goes to
food production, and only 0.03 percent of the
Southland’s water is from rainfall.64
While the Southland has limited capacity for
traditional open-air composting piles, the process
of anaerobic digestion, long used in agricultural
operations, is one promising alternative. Organic
waste decomposes in vessels or bulbs, where
gases generated can be used as a cleaner-burning
alternative source of energy and fuel. The resulting
“digestate” can be further processed to create
soil amendment.65 Some jurisdictions are piloting
food waste co-digestion in wastewater treatment
facilities, such as the East Bay Municipal Utility
District in Oakland (Figure 6). Local organic waste
processing reduces fuel costs and transportation
pollution associated with trucking materials to
distant counties, and acknowledges the increasing
reluctance of neighboring counties to accept
outsiders’ organic waste.66
Implications of new laws on city diversion
compliance
Recent legislation, especially AB 341 and AB 1594, will
likely be significant for how cities chart their progress
towards Zero Waste. Cities can no longer consider ADC
towards state-wide disposal reduction and diversion
requirements, and cannot consider transformation,
such as waste-to-energy, towards the state’s 75 percent
recycling goal. Without these environmentally dubious
forms of diversion, some cities’ recycling rates are
lower, particularly cities that do not have standardized,
separately collected, recycling service for all customers
(see Figure 7).67 Three cities’ actual recycling rate was
just half of the reported diversion rate.68
Truck impacts on air and road quality: SCAQMD
Rule 1193 and street repair
Heavy-duty diesel trucks like waste collection
vehicles are a significant source of air pollution
and toxic emissions, and are the largest source of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate black
carbon (soot) emissions in California.69 In 2011,
the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) adopted Rule 1193, requiring solid waste
collection vehicles to transition to alternative-fuel
vehicles (such as Compressed or Liquefied Natural
Gas) to reduce air pollution impacts. However,
because of the way this rule is written, many cities
may not be assured of these fleet upgrades. Rule
1193 only applies to municipal haulers or private
waste haulers in contract with municipalities (i.e.,
under a franchise system).70
Figure 6:
East Bay Municipal Utility District Digestion Facility in Oakland, California
Photo: Lauren Ahkiam
17
Companies that do not comply with air quality board
rulings can face steep fines, such as the $21,500 fine
NASA Services received for inadequate emission
control devices on their fleets, according to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).71 Absent the
rate protections of a strong exclusive franchise system,
such costs could be passed on to consumers, saddling
them with both poor air quality and increased rates.
Waste vehicles are also some of the heaviest on the
road, exerting over 9,000 times the pressure on city
roads as an SUV.72 A report by waste experts HF&H
Consultants found that “[m]ost of the deterioration
of streets is caused by vehicle size and weight.”73
This wear and tear adds up: for example, the City of
L.A. estimates a $3 billion deficit on street repairs in
coming years.74
Strengthening the Local Economy
In order to collect, process, dispose of, and recycle
our discarded materials, we rely on thousands of
workers along the chain. In L.A. County, there are
over 10,800 collection and processing workers.75
The waste and recycling field includes positions
from entry-level to highly trained, such as collection
vehicle drivers and accompanying helpers, who
position and load waste for collection; recycling
sorters, who separate material types to be baled
for recycling; forklift operators to position bales
of materials; engineers who monitor anaerobic
digestion energy output; technicians engaged in
deconstructing e-waste into component parts; and
manufacturing employees overseeing production of
aluminum cans out of scrap metal.
Thousands of jobs can be created as cities
implement policies to increase recycling and move
towards California’s 75 percent recycling goal. An
average of ten times as many jobs are possible
when materials are recycled instead of being sent to
landfills, varying depending on the material.76 If 75
percent of recyclable materials currently landfilled
were instead recycled, over 6,000 new collection
and processing jobs could be created (Figure 8).77
Even more jobs are possible if cities and companies
invest in local recycling and manufacturing
infrastructure, rather than exporting recyclable
materials; this investment could lead to over 17,000
additional jobs throughout the region.78 If materials
were sold for reuse or remanufactured, such as
Figure 7:
Real Recycling Rates in Cities without Comprehensive Recycling Collection
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Hauler records (2011)
18
Reported
Diversion
Recycling Rate
(Minus ADC & WTE)
Figure 9:
breaking down or “demanufacturing” electronic
waste, tens of thousands more jobs could be
created.79
Bales of Paper Awaiting Export
The cleaner the stream of recyclable materials, the
easier it is to support related job creation. Recyclingrelated industries rely on clean material streams, and
prefer exclusive franchise collection systems that use
separate collection bins, rather than a “one bin for all”
approach, which commingles waste with recycling
and compost to be sorted at the facility. These
“one bin for all” processing facilities are also called
“Dirty” Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), and
rely on technology or workers to capture materials
off of fast-moving conveyor belts, increasing the
risk of contaminated material streams. A LAANE
survey found that 88 percent of manufacturers
and remanufacturers had “experienced difficulties
securing and buying high-grade materials” and that
63 percent “could hire more people after securing a
consistent supply of recyclables.”80
While increased recycling presents tremendous jobcreation opportunities, without proper safeguards
these jobs are some of the most dangerous and
lowest-paying. Recently, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics found that refuse and recyclable material
collectors had the fifth highest fatality rate of any
industry, with 33 deaths in 2013; ten times the average
fatality rate across all industries.81 Another 17,900
injuries were reported.82 The true number is likely
even higher: up to 68 percent of work-related injuries
and illnesses are not captured by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ annual findings, which are based on
employer reporting.83 These reports are likely to omit
injuries and illnesses withheld by employees who fear
employer retribution, particularly common in fields
with a high number of immigrant workers, such as
waste and recycling.84
Beyond the obvious cost of human life, there are
economic impacts related to dangerous workplace
Figure 8
New Jobs Possible in L.A. County with Expanded Recycling
Manufacturing Jobs
Collection and
Processing Jobs
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
Source: Tellus Institute, L.A. County Department of Public Works (2012)
19
Figure 10:
Sorters Wearing Personal Protective Equipment
at an Area Recycling Processing Facility
conditions. A new Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) inspection is started nearly
every day at a waste or recycling workplace,
resulting in an average penalty of $1,800. 85 In one
notable example, OSHA levied a nearly $200,000
initial fine on one waste company after a worker
fatality. 86 Injuries on the job also mean missed work
and decreased productivity, with nearly 47,000
missed days in the waste industry nationwide in
2012. 87 Accidents at facilities or on the road impact
the community and threaten efficient collection
and processing. While the risks are high, the pay,
all too often, is not, with many workers making
minimum wage, confronted with wage theft and
few benefits. 88
Workplace conditions and protective gear
Fast conveyor belts, old equipment, broken trucks,
pools of unknown liquids, dangerous understaffing:
these are all potential threats to sanitation workers
at companies that fail to prioritize workplace
safety. Too few cities use the tools available to
them to address this constellation of problems.
Workers are often exposed to hazardous materials
like oil, blood, needles, and batteries, as well as
chemicals and medications, yet workers are often
not provided with laundry service or uniforms, and
potentially hazardous materials are tracked home. 89
Many facilities and truck yards lack clean places
20
for workers to eat and take breaks, or adequate
restroom facilities.90
Sorters are frequently exposed to dangerous
heights and machinery without proper training,
though they operate heavy machinery and are
exposed to toxic waste materials, particularly in
mixed waste processing facilities or “Dirty” MRFs.
Despite the risks, some sorters at low-road facilities
may be expected to climb on top of a sorting line
for repair or maintenance. One San Fernando
worker reported to researchers that he was
standing on the line when the supervisor turned it
on. The sorter fell and broke his leg; he stated that
the supervisor refused to call an ambulance.91
Many collection drivers at low-road companies
are saddled with old, polluting, and potentially
dangerous trucks – as well as long hours and no
helpers, exposing drivers to physical injury, strain,
and dangerous exhaustion.92 Truck drivers face
health risks in diesel waste vehicles: a study by
the Natural Resources Defense Council found that
drivers of heavy-duty diesel trucks were exposed
to ten times the particulate matter inside their truck
cabs as ambient levels.93 Drivers also report that
repair requests are routinely ignored.94 Recently in
Southern California, drivers have endured injuries
such as being crushed by a truck’s fork arms, a
broken pelvis and head fracture from a falling trash
receptacle, and fractured ribs from a rolling truck,
among others.95
Low-road waste and recycling companies often
fail to provide adequate protective gear, and lack
inexpensive basics like earplugs, reflective vests,
dust masks, safety gloves and proper training.96
Without proper gear or training, workers’ lives
are endangered, seen in the Kern County deaths
of two brothers. According to news reports, the
brothers were killed by toxic gases from a compost
facility’s drainage pipe, having been provided with
little more than painters’ masks for protection.97
California’s Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (CalOSHA) found nearly $170,000 in
penalties, the local government attempted to shut
down the operation and levy a $2.3 million fee,
and the community reportedly rallied in protest
against operator Community Recycling and
Resource Recovery.98 This company and facility
have since been purchased by San Francisco-based
waste company Recology, which has taken over
operations.99
In contrast, high-road companies prioritize worker
health and safety and protect the long-term
stability of their workforce by providing adequate
protective gear and training programs. For
example, LAANE research found comprehensive
protective gear and trainings programs at the
aforementioned Recology, where workers are
represented by Teamsters Local 350. Workers
are given high-quality gloves each month, along
with respirators, goggles, visibility gear, boots,
helmets, and monthly safety trainings. Recology
management described how “in a union shop,
safety is a priority and provides more oversight
over workers.” 100
Workers without a voice on the job are often not aware
of basic rights like workers’ compensation, legally
required breaks, or the provision of water. Many fear
losing their jobs or being deported if they complain.101
This fear was borne out when, according to court
records, a worker at one L.A.-area facility was fired
after speaking out about dangerous conditions.102 Per
the request of the NLRB Regional Office, a district
court administrative law judge ordered the company,
American Reclamation, to stop violating federal
law and to offer reinstatement, as well as to cease
intimidating employees for engaging in union activity.103
Compensation and benefits: bolstering job quality
and a strong local economy
Companies that compete based on quality service
often invest in workers and create good local jobs.
Others that compete primarily on price may pay
helpers and sorters close to minimum wage – or
even less, if hired informally.104 The average waste
collection driver makes more than minimum wage,
at around $16 an hour, but often falls victim to wage
theft, working unpaid overtime or working without
lunch breaks.105 Raises in non-union workplaces
can be infrequent, if they exist at all.106 One sorting
facility worker, who had previously worked at
Figure 11:
Protective Equipment Provided and Required for
Recology Employees
Source: Recology
American Reclamation, stated that no workers there
had ever received a raise.107 Many sorters report not
receiving any health benefits.108 In contrast, workers
who are represented by a union often work in the
industry for their entire careers, moving up within
the company and receiving better compensation
and access to benefits.109 Commercial drivers’
compensation starts at over $40 an hour at
one unionized San Francisco company.110 At this
company, which is also employee-owned, nearly
two-thirds of employees have been with the
company for more than five years, and two out of
five employees have been there longer than ten
years.111
Low wages impact cities’ fiscal health, as workers
making near minimum wage in California will have
a difficult time sustaining their own budgets, much
less their families or the local economy. A study
conducted by the University of California Berkeley
Labor Center found that nearly half of the “$21.2
billion of public assistance to low-income families
received by California families in 2002” went to
working families.112 Taxpayers are thus subsidizing
businesses, such as low-road waste companies, that
do not fairly compensate their workers.
With household budgets so tightly constrained due
21
to low-wage work, there is little room for the types
of spending at shops and restaurants that support
other local businesses. The Economic Policy
Institute recently released a report concluding low
wages and the “failure to adequately raise the wage
floor has contributed strongly to the stagnation
of wage growth at the bottom of the wage
distribution. This wage stagnation has, in turn, been
the single greatest impediment to making rapid
progress in poverty reduction in recent decades.”113
Cities can address this in strong waste and
recycling systems by requiring living wages and by
considering job quality as part of contract awards,
as discussed further in the Best Practices section.
Prioritizing permanent employees for good jobs
and happy customers
While permanent employees bring multiple
advantages, there is a troubling trend in the waste
and recycling industry to use staffing agencies
to hire temporary workers. The waste industry
uses more than 5,000 temporary workers per day
nationwide, and this number is expected to rise.114
Temporary workers encounter greater risk for less
pay than permanent employees: they generally
make 25 percent less than what permanent workers
make, relying on public subsidies like taxpayerfunded health care.115 OSHA is concerned that
“some companies may use temps to avoid meeting
compliance obligations and that temps can get
placed in the most hazardous jobs.” 116 Temporary
workers’ workplace injuries were nearly 50 percent
higher than for permanent employees, and a study
of higher-risk industries found that temporary
workers had twice the claims as permanent
employees doing the same work.117 Injuries are likely
even higher, given temporary workers are more
likely to be rehired for work if they do not report
safety issues.118
Research suggests this is in part because “contract
workers receive less safety training” as well as that
“the host company may exploit workers’ lack of
information by placing them in more hazardous
situations.” 119 OSHA director David Michaels said
employers “do not have the same commitment to
providing a safe workplace, to providing the proper
training, to a worker who they may only be paying
for a few weeks. I mean, we’ve seen just ghastly
situations.” 120 For example, after investigating the
death of a temporary worker, OSHA described the
landfill’s management as feeling “they were not
responsible to require or provide [the worker] with
the same PPE (personal protective equipment)
because they considered him a temporary
employee and not their employee.”121
Permanent waste and recycling employees have the
expertise to give their best performance and stay
safe on the job, providing the best service to cities
and residents. Reducing turnover saves employers
money, which could also help customers save.
An extensive study by the Center for American
Progress found that “it costs businesses about onefifth of a worker’s salary to replace that worker.” 122
Cities have ultimate responsibility for waste
handling that happens in their name. When cities
fail to address these problems, they overlook lowroad employment, contribute to a strained social
safety net, and miss out on the tax dollars and
spending associated with good jobs. By building
waste and recycling systems based on high
standards and accountability, cities can ensure that
their policies promote good quality and safe jobs.
Permanent employees help build civic strength, as residents interact with
their collection workers each week. In one heartwarming story, an Ojai
family made a special connection with their recyclables collection driver.
Their young son, Daniel, is autistic – and is fascinated by garbage trucks.
The driver, Manuel (whom, in a video of the interaction, the family knows
by name), gave the boy a replica truck, making the boy’s day.123
22
Profile: Ricardo Torres, Sanitation Worker, Republic Services
Ricardo Torres has worked in the Southern
California sanitation industry for 22 years. He
currently works for Republic Services in Long
Beach and is a member of Teamsters Local 396.
Because he has a strong union contract at his
workplace, Ricardo earns a fair wage, over $20
an hour, and has medical benefits for himself
and his family. He also has a pension, providing
him with financial security after retirement.
Republic Services also benefits from a stable
and experienced workforce that provides high
quality services to its clients.
Ricardo immigrated to the United States from
Tijuana, Mexico in order to seek a better life for
his wife and three daughters. Ricardo’s family
is thankful that because he has earned regular
pay-raises through his contract, they were able
to purchase their own home after renting an
apartment for 17 years.
Photo: Adan Alvarez
Ricardo’s typical day begins at 2 a.m., when he wakes up to get ready for his 4:45 a.m. shift.
As a “scout” driver, Ricardo drives a small pickup truck, hauling waste containers into more
accessible locations so that large waste trucks can collect the materials. Although the work is
hard, Ricardo has continued working at Republic Services because he has been able to make
this his career and improve his standard of living, something he was not able to do at other
sanitation companies.
Ricardo explains that he has worked at other sanitation companies where workers were not
treated with respect and were subject to dangerous working conditions. “They used to call
us dirty garbage men, and treated us like trash. Many managers in the sanitation industry still
think that we are trash. The truth is, we keep the streets clean. We do very hard work in order to
provide for our families, but we are also protecting the public and the environment. I believe that
all workers in this industry should be treated with respect and have safe working conditions.”
As a long-time sanitation worker, Ricardo knows about the significant dangers of working in the
waste and recycling industry. As part of the contract negotiated with their employer, Ricardo
and his coworkers are provided health and safety trainings and proper safety equipment that
allows them to work safely and effectively. Ricardo is thankful to work for a company in which
he and his coworkers have a voice on the job regarding important safety issues.
23
Frameworks for Managing Waste and
Recycling Collection
Depending on what system a city currently uses
to manage waste and recycling, improvements
can be built in by incorporating environmental
best practices, moving towards an exclusive
franchise model, and structuring that franchise
with the strongest possible standards and
greatest transparency. LAANE and the City of
L.A. extensively analyzed models for managing
waste and recycling systems and found open
permit and non-exclusive franchise systems to
have serious drawbacks. The exclusive franchise
system is conclusively the superior method given
the potential environmental, economic, and fiscal
benefits.
pickup, saying “one of the best parts of Newport
Beach is associated with the garbage, because
of the people that work it. They’re one of the few
points of contact that everybody has with the city.”
Another said to his trash man, “We love you guys.
We want to keep you here forever.” 124 The City of
New York is known for the skill and dedication of
its trash collectors, as captured by anthropologist
Robin Nagle in her book Picking Up.125 Municipal
collection workers undergo weeks at a training
academy and New York residents consider them
“true heroes,” and “the people who keep NY [sic]
moving!” 126
L.A. Sanitation: top notch single family collection
Municipally Collected Systems for
Assured Performance
Cities that currently have municipal collection
systems should retain them. While this report
focused on franchise models in the private market,
municipally-run systems offer unparalleled
accountability, transparency, and standards.
Municipally-run systems can ensure environmental
success by formulating and implementing a robust
Zero Waste Plan, one that provides comprehensive
education and maximizes recycling with “three
bin” collection service for all customers to reduce
contamination (“three bin” collection will be
discussed in more depth in the Best Practices
section).
Some argue that privatized waste hauling services
will save cities money, assuming this (if true) is a
sufficient reason to convert a municipal system
into a privately collected one. However, recent
examples show residents disagree. Newport Beach
recently moved to privatize its waste and recycling
collection, despite community uproar over the loss
of the high caliber of their municipal service and
familiarity with long-term “trash men” residents
knew by name. One lifelong resident of Newport
Beach bemoaned the loss of the municipal garbage
24
L.A. Sanitation, which serves the residential sector,
has acted in many ways as the blueprint – and
measuring stick – while the City considered an
exclusive franchise system for its commercial and
multifamily sectors. Their service has won dozens
of awards, including Gold Excellence awards from
the Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA) on its clean fleet and its multifamily
recycling program, as well as a Silver Excellence
award on its mulching and composting program for
yard waste collected from single family homes.127
All residences are provided with recycling and yard
waste collection, truck fleets are well maintained
and run primarily on Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG), and routes are efficient.128 Drivers are well
trained and well compensated for their crucial work,
and workers have a voice on the job through the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU).129
Even with L.A.’s higher municipal standards,
customer rates are within the range of neighboring
cities with private collection.
The quality of this system is also demonstrated in
the quality environmental programming the City
provides. The City’s overall diversion rate is over
76 percent, due in part to the high recycling rate
for single-family homes.130 L.A. Sanitation provides
collection services, including recycling and yard
waste collection, to 540,000 single family homes
and over 220,000 smaller apartment buildings, and
it provides recycling bins to another 430,000 larger
apartments.131 There is a food waste collection
and composting pilot program including 8,700
households, and the City is exploring food waste
collection as part of its most recent Request For
Proposal (RFP) for green waste processing.132
They also currently offer a Restaurant Food Waste
Recycling Program, which subsidizes compost
collection to around 15 percent of the city’s
restaurants.133
The high bar set by L.A. Sanitation showed the City
what was possible if similar high standards were put
in place for the multifamily and commercial sectors
via the new Zero Waste L.A. Exclusive Franchise
Waste and Recycling System (further described
in the Best Practices section). The exploration,
adoption, and transition to this new system was
and will be possible only with the expertise,
resources, and countless hours spent by dedicated
L.A. Sanitation staff, who will administer the new
commercial system.
Santa Monica: service and environmental
leadership
The City of Santa Monica, with a population over
92,000, provides waste collection services for all
customers and recycling and organics collection
for all residential customers through the Resource
Recovery and Recycling Division (r3) of its Public
Works Department.134 The City is committed to a
95 percent diversion goal by 2030 and reported
77 percent diversion in 2013.135 This municipal
service provides “three bin” collection (trash,
compost, and recyclables) with clean fuel fleets,
including food waste collection; it is one of the
few cities in Southern California that makes
food waste collection available to all homes and
restaurants.136 The City offers free recycling
collection to all customers and free food waste
and Fats, Oils and Greases (FOG) recycling to the
area’s restaurants, even daily pickup if necessary
to its commercial clients.137 With performance its
top priority, the division is “committed to being
an innovative, customer service driven, responsive
organization that provides comprehensive, cost-
Figure 12:
Sorter Wearing Personal Protective Equipment at an Area Processing Facility
Photo: LAANE
25
effective solid waste management to residents and
businesses in an environmentally sound manner,
while incorporating state-of-the-art methods
and technology, and educating the public on
responsible resource management.” 138 The City
hosts creative events like city-wide yard sales,
Halloween Costume Swaps, and a volunteer-run
Repair Café, and recently banned Styrofoam and
single-use plastic bags to reduce difficult-to-recycle
materials.139 With environmental commitment
so deeply ingrained, Santa Monica is considered
by many to be one of the “greenest” cities in the
nation, and won SWANA’s Gold Excellence Award
for its collection system in 2013.140
Private Waste Collection: Selecting
Quality over Compromise
Exclusive franchise for a successful system
Cities that are not able to retain municipally-run
systems can continue to ensure highest standards
with an exclusive franchise waste and recycling
system, whereby cities require waste companies
to comply with critical standards. A report from
the World Bank recommends exclusive franchises
awarded through a competitive bidding process
as the best option for solid waste management.141
Exclusive franchise systems are, increasingly, the
norm: 64 of 88 L.A. County cities have an exclusive
franchise for their commercial sector. Thirty-one
of 34 Orange County cities have an exclusive
franchise, as do major West Coast cities like San
Jose, Oakland, and Seattle. In an exclusive franchise
system, waste haulers submit bids in response to a
city’s published RFP. Responsive bidders selected
for a franchise award negotiate a contract with the
city to provide the defined services. The franchisee
has the sole right to provide the defined services
in that city – or, if so specified, in smaller franchise
zones within a city. For example, some cities have
separate franchise awards for commercial recycling
collection and residential recycling collection, or
cities may franchise both collection and processing.
In exchange for the exclusive right to provide this
service for the term of the agreement, cities may
negotiate for a franchise fee from the awarded
hauler to fund the administration of the franchise
26
system. Because of the system’s inherent flexibility,
in some cities customer billing is managed by the
city as if it were providing municipal services; in
others, the system is administered by the city, but
billing and service agreements are established
directly between customer and hauler.
Because a franchise agreement is a direct
contractual relationship between a city and a waste
company, the city has much greater leeway to
specify compliance requirements such as diversion
goals, living wages for workers, and educational
programming. For example, San Jose saw its
commercial recycling rate triple in just six months
after implementing its exclusive franchise system,
which includes compost collection.142 Analysis from
one waste industry expert found that the exclusive
franchise model was the best way to meet diversion
goals, increase participation in recycling programs,
ensure lowest rates, maximize environmental effects,
and increase program funding.143 For a successful
exclusive franchise system, cities must follow
best practices to ensure utmost transparency and
compliance with state laws and to avoid being taken
advantage of by unscrupulous practices.
Best practices in exclusive franchise system design
are discussed in the next chapter. Other forms of
managing private waste and recycling systems
do not provide nearly the level of accountability
possible via an exclusive franchise. Advocates
for alternatives – primarily open permit and nonexclusive franchise systems – promise greater
competition with parallel standards, but do not
deliver.
Non-exclusive franchise system: an unnecessary
compromise on quality
In a non-exclusive franchise system, haulers
interested in providing collection services enter
into a non-exclusive franchise agreement with
the city, and customers arrange service directly
with any of the franchisee haulers.144 Many of the
pitfalls of an open permit system (see page 29) are
present: a race to the bottom in which recycling,
truck, and job standards are sacrificed to win
individual accounts. Cities are not able to address
Figure 13:
Sanitation Collection Worker
facility performance or require innovative recycling
measures, and are dependent on self-reporting. It
would be nearly impossible for a city to attempt to
ensure job quality and safety with countless haulers
and facilities. All of these limitations persist with no
real benefit of “competition.”
infrastructure like clean truck fleets or new or
expanded facilities, stymieing job creation and
equipment upgrades. Increasing hauler costs
like fuel or disposal fees could be passed on to
customers rather than spread over the course of the
contract.
The promise of competition is illusory in a nonexclusive franchise. Without a long-term contract,
there is little incentive to meet high standards in
diversion, service, or other metrics. Investing in
service and quality equipment requires capital,
which may be difficult for companies that cannot
plan on steady revenue and secure clients.
Collection costs are higher due to route inefficiency;
as a representative of Athens Services was quoted
as saying, “traveling down the street and only
having one or two of six residents be a customer…
it’s a [sic] lot more costs involved.”145 Without
long-term contracts for substantial business,
waste companies cannot amortize costs over time,
which could dissuade them from investments in
Non-exclusive franchise cities do not have the
ability to negotiate consistent and transparent
rates or control rate increases.146 This means
customer rates will increase as industry costs rise
(such as landfill fees, fuel prices, new equipment,
etc.); increases would likely be even greater if
environmental or job standards rise. Like open
permit systems, non-exclusive systems favor large
customers – big companies and big landlords – who
can leverage their volume and number of properties
for a better price from a hauler. Small businesses
and landlords end up subsidizing the pricing for
larger customers. HF&H Consultants found that
non-exclusive franchise cities’ rates “cannot be
verified, since there is no official rate schedule.
27
The promise of competition
is illusory in a non-exclusive
franchise.
Each hauler may charge a different rate in a nonexclusive system, and sometimes the same hauler
will charge different rates to different customers
for the same level of service.” 147 San Jose city staff
found “that under the city’s non exclusive franchise
system…there was a large range of rates charged
for the same services and larger businesses could
leverage their size to negotiate lower rates.” 148 Lack
of exclusivity diminishes the asset of a franchise in
the long run by allowing a glut of haulers into the
system. Given the continued instability for hauling
companies’ investments, companies are unlikely to
pay a higher franchise fee.
Increased recycling is difficult in a non-exclusive
franchise because of the limited relationship
with city staff and the constraints on creative
programming and comprehensive education.
HF&H found that exclusive franchise systems
have “potential for higher waste diversion as a
result of increased recycling requirements in the
franchise agreement that may not be cost effective
or accessible to all haulers in a non-exclusive
system.” 149 For example, while the City of Long
Beach offers recycling collection to all residents,
the privately collected commercial sector does not
have consistent recycling collection and thus had a
14 percent diversion rate in 2010.150 Programs that
incentivize increased diversion, like “Pay As You
Throw” pricing, are not possible in a non-exclusive
franchise because there are no set rates (described
further in the Best Practices section).
In non-exclusive waste systems, haulers have
customers all over the city with separately
negotiated contracts and collection times,
inefficiently criss-crossing the city to collect a
full vehicle (see Figure 14).151 LAANE research
found up to ten different companies collecting
on any given block, which leads to congestion,
unnecessary air impacts, and considerable wear
and tear on the streets.152 Cities with non-exclusive
28
franchise systems may also have difficulty requiring
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1193, which requires
clean collection trucks. Because any customer
could still contract with any non-exclusive hauler,
there would still be multiple haulers on a single city
block, leading to increased driving, congestion, and
air pollution. One study found that non-exclusive
routes require three to four times as much fuel
for the same number of customers as would be
necessary under an exclusive franchise system.153
Southern California cities are reconsidering their
non-exclusive franchise systems. Pasadena moved
to close its non-exclusive franchise, making it more
like an exclusive franchise, finding the shift would
“continue to aid in reducing air pollution, traffic
congestion, and wear and tear of roads with fewer
trash trucks on City streets.” Pasadena also found
the enforcement of standards in a non-exclusive
system was “difficult and costly to manage” and
preferred fewer franchisees in order to have the
time for proper enforcement.154 In 2014, Pasadena
moved forward with a five-year notice that it is
considering an exclusive franchise commercial
system. In doing so, Pasadena cited its Zero Waste
Strategic Plan goals, stating “inherently, since nonexclusive haulers have an uncertain future, they may
be less likely to adhere strictly to the City’s rules
and regulations.”155 The City of San Diego recently
released a report recommending the City consider
Figure 14:
Route Inefficiency in a Non-Exclusive Franchise
Source: LAANE (2013)
moving to an exclusive franchise system in order to
meets its recycling goals.156 According
to city records, La Habra Heights transitioned to an
exclusive franchise system with Republic Services
after a major non-exclusive franchise hauler, Waste
Management, withdrew its service from La Habra
Heights, citing “non-exclusivity creating lack of
density.”157
Non-exclusive routes require
three to four times as much
fuel for the same number
of customers as would be
necessary under an exclusive
franchise system.
Open permit system: a race to the bottom
In an open permit system, any waste hauler can
conduct business in a city so long as it obtains a
permit to do so. Customers arrange service directly
with the permitted haulers. Cities in California
may still charge an AB 939 fee, but, as described
below, this may be difficult to accurately enforce.
Fortunately, increasingly few cities in Southern
California use such a system: at last count, fewer
than ten cities in L.A. County had an open permit
system for their residential or commercial sectors.158
While advocates of open permit systems may appeal
to ideals of “free market” competition, the lack of
information and accountability in the open permit
system preclude informed consumer participation.
Small businesses in particular suffer, as they lack
the leverage, information, or capacity to effectively
comparison shop for rates. LAANE surveyed
70 commercial customers in L.A.’s open permit
system, which will sunset in 2017. The surveys found
customers paying anywhere from $90 to nearly
$400 a month for the same services and within a
few miles of each other.159 Where some rates may
include “extras” like valet service (when trash bins
are retrieved from a parking garage), other rate plans
may charge significant additional fees.160
Open permit systems are also less competitive
than they appear. While the City of L.A.’s waning
system has over 100 permitted haulers, in this
cutthroat and rapidly consolidating industry, seven
companies controlled 95 percent of the city’s
commercial market in 2013 (see Figure 15).161 That
left only five percent of L.A.’s commercial market
for dozens of other companies to “compete” over.
Hypercompetitive pressures force companies to
offer the lowest possible rates, leaving little room
for high-road competition and the ability to invest in
infrastructure, performance, or job quality. A race to
the bottom results.
Small businesses have complained that they get
trapped in convoluted, long-term contracts, unable
to change their hauler or to get requisite services like
recycling. One area framing shop owner, committed
in his business model to sustainability, had repeated
trouble securing recycling service from his hauler,
saying he felt like he had to “arm wrestle” his
provider for affordable recycling service. He finally
took recyclable materials home and smuggled
them into neighbors’ blue bins.162 According to
another small business owner who thought he was
able to secure recycling, he was billed for it but did
not receive the recycling bin for months, and was
unable to change haulers because he was stuck in a
long-term contract with little recourse for the poor
service.163
In an open permit system, it is difficult for cities to
ensure hauler compliance with diversion goals or
critical city business, like the proper payment of fees.
For example, in a 2007 audit, the City of L.A. found it
was owed over $1.3 million in unpaid permit fees.164
In 2013, the City moved to revoke a company’s
permit for failing to pay $750,000 in AB 939 fees;
despite this revocation and in an apparent effort to
continue operating in the City, the company appears
to have shifted its business over to a new company
helmed by the wife of the delinquent company’s
president.165 The reporting requirements built into
the City of L.A.’s new system would prevent such an
evasion. This lack of accountability compounds the
environmental, worker and service concerns of this
type of collection system.
29
In an open permit system, recycling collection is not
consistently provided to all customers, which can
result in dismal recycling rates. The City of L.A.’s
open permit commercial sector diverts less than 20
percent, while the citywide diversion rate is over 75
percent.166 The City of San Jose had a 24 percent
commercial recycling rate prior to its new exclusive
franchise system – they are now close to 80
percent.167 Reporting and accountability to diversion
goals are nearly impossible in an open permit
system because the city has such a thin relationship
with the hauler, and individual customers have little
bargaining power.
An exclusive franchise sidesteps the pitfalls outlined
in open permit and non-exclusive sanitation
systems (see Table 1).169 Open permit and nonexclusive cities should transition to a strong
exclusive franchise waste system, as outlined in
the next section, in order to maximize the benefits
possible and avoid the false promise of a less
accountable system. Cities across the country,
including New York City, are considering moving
from open permit to exclusive franchise systems.170
In California, cities transitioning to an exclusive
franchise system are required by state law to
provide a five-year notice to permitted waste
haulers.171
The limited relationship possible between city and
hauler could also saddle open permit cities with the
old diesel trucks rejected from cities that require
clean fuel fleets compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1193.
In an open permit system, trucks can continue to
use polluting diesel – and there are more trucks and
truck trips. As described above, overlapping routes
contribute to air pollution as well as street quality
and congestion impacts.168
Figure 15:
Private Hauler Market Share in the City of L.A.’s Open Permit System
Waste
Management
20%
Crown
Disposal
10%
Athens Services
26%
Republic Services
32%
Source: Hauler reports (2013)
30
Other
12%
NASA 4%
UWS 2%
AAA Rubbish 1%
Other Haulers 5%
Table 1:
Comparing Waste and Recycling Management Systems
Municipal
Exclusive
Franchise
Non-Exclusive Open
Franchise
Permit
Number of L.A. County Cities
Commercial System
4
64
12
8
Residential System
12
72
3
1
High-Road Competition
N/A
A
C
F
Sheer Number of Haulers in the Market
F
C
B
A
Ability to Foster Development of Smaller Haulers
N/A
A
C
F
Stable, Transparent Rates for All
A
A
C
F
Large Customers Can Negotiate Below-Market Rates
N/A
F
A
A
Protects Small Customers from Unfair Rates
A
A
F
F
Accountable for Good Customer Service
A
A
B
F
City Can Intervene on Behalf of Customer
A
A
C
F
Customer Can Choose Any Hauler
F
F
C
A
Clear Path to Terminate if Bad Service
N/A
A
B
C
City and Hauler Goals are Aligned
A
A
B
F
City Can Enforce Requirements, Access Reporting
A
A
C
F
Potential for Strong Diversion Goals
A
A
B
F
A
A
B
F
A
A
C
C
Clean-fuel Truck Fleets (1193 compliant)
A
A
B
F
Can Ensure Recycling for All
A
A
C
F
Efficient Routes/Reducing VMT
A
A
F
F
Job Creation from Expanded Recycling/Processing
A
A
B
C
Processing/Manufacturing Infrastructure Investments
A
A
C
F
Enforceable Fair Compensation
A
A
F
F
Priority Placed on Worker Health and Safety
A
A
C
F
Long-term Sanitation Careers
A
A
B
C
A-
A-
C+
D-
Rating
Competition
Rates
Customer Service
Accountability & Compliance
Fiscal Health
Stable City Revenue
Self-funded System Administration
Environment
Local Economy
Job Quality
Overall Score
31
Best Practices in Exclusive Franchise Systems –
and What to Avoid
If a city has privatized waste collection, it should
employ an exclusive franchise system to manage
it. A city that already has an exclusive franchise
framework can realize additional system benefits
by strengthening its system, incorporating best
practices from its neighbors. Cities with open
permit or non-exclusive franchise systems can
begin to transition to strong exclusive franchises.
This chapter will lay out the best practices for a
strong exclusive franchise system and hazards
to avoid. It draws from the lessons learned while
designing the City of L.A.’s new exclusive franchise
system. As the second largest waste market
in the country, L.A. had access to substantial
resources to study, design and vet the new system,
incorporating best practices in waste management
and resource recovery from across the state and
nation. Neighboring cities can take advantage of
this accumulated analysis and public discussion
to guide their own reforms. Exclusive franchise
systems guarantee valuable long-term business for
waste haulers, meaning even the smallest city gains
leverage to help accomplish its goals.
Exclusive franchise systems
guarantee valuable long-term
business for waste haulers,
meaning even the smallest
city gains leverage to help
accomplish its goals.
Zero Waste L.A. Overview
With the adoption of the Zero Waste L.A.
Exclusive Franchise for Commercial and
Multifamily Waste and Recycling (Zero Waste
L.A. system), the City of L.A. is transitioning from
a regressive “wild west” to the gold standard in
private waste management. In this stride towards
32
Zero Waste, L.A. follows in the footsteps of
leading cities including San Francisco, Oakland,
San Jose, Seattle, and Austin. Drawing from
and adding to the best practices gleaned from
these and other examples, the City of L.A. has
designed a uniquely comprehensive system
that incorporates goals to reduce air pollution,
improves job quality for the people who
collect and process our waste, ensures fair and
transparent rates, and promotes accountability,
competition, and the highest possible service
standards.172
City decision-makers and staff, supported by the
Don’t Waste L.A. Coalition, adopted the Zero
Waste L.A. system after extensive consideration
and evaluation. The city had an overall diversion
rate over 76 percent in 2011, but the commercial
and multi-family sectors are responsible for
almost 70 percent of what L.A. sent to landfills,
and less than 20 percent of commercial waste
was being diverted.173 Recognizing the need for
further action to reach its Zero Waste goals,
the City talked with stakeholders, reviewed
studies, conducted surveys, incorporated staff
and decision-makers’ analyses, and assessed
other cities. For example, the City looked at San
Jose’s newly implemented exclusive franchise
system, which quickly demonstrated positive
results, standardizing customer rates and
tripling commercial recycling rates. Widespread
consensus, including the Environmental Impact
Report’s conclusion, recognized an exclusive
franchise system to be the environmentally
superior option.174 Following Council approval,
Mayor Garcetti signed the new system into law in
2014.
The Zero Waste L.A. System, under the direction
of L.A. Sanitation, creates 11 waste hauling
zones, including three smaller zones set aside for
smaller- to mid-sized haulers.175 The new system
covers multifamily and commercial collection,
and does not include streams such as hazardous
waste or Construction and Demolition (C&D)
debris.176 The transition to the new system will be
complete in 2017.177
Figure 16:
Mayor Eric Garcetti at the Zero Waste L.A.
System Signing Ceremony, April 2014
Laying the Foundation with a Strong
Contract Award Process
Taking into consideration the lessons learned in the
City of L.A.’s recent waste and recycling reforms,
as well as best practices from other systems
throughout the state, certain structural elements
are necessary to have a strong waste and recycling
system. By building a robust and transparent
waste and recycling system with a comprehensive
contract, a city will reap the benefits possible
with a well-managed system and avoid potential
controversy.
Designing a robust Request For Proposals,
tailored to local needs
A comprehensive RFP is the first step in the
competitive bidding process that will ensure the
highest quality service. The RFP sets out the
requirements with which the city expects the
franchisee to comply, and provides a basis for
the city to compare companies’ service. Cities
can identify objectives and goals they wish to
meet within their waste and recycling systems
and the RFP incorporates the measures to reach
those goals. This document serves as a basis for
what will become the contract between the city
and the franchise waste company, and provides
flexibility, allowing each city to tailor the contract
to its specific priorities and needs. By way of
example, Appendix A details the City of L.A.’s RFP
requirements.
Some industries within a city might have unique
needs. The flexibility of the RFP process, combined
with smart stakeholder outreach, allows cities to set
standards to address special needs. For example,
in the City of L.A.’s new system, L.A. Sanitation
accounted for the needs of hospitals, apartments,
and major film and television studios. To address
hospitals’ unique needs, the City of L.A.’s RFP
includes background checks, prescribed response
Photo: Allison Mannos
time and specific collection windows, response
procedures for emergency situations, reporting
requirements, and technological support. The RFP
also makes provisions in the event of any interruption
in operations of the franchisee (including but not
limited to a labor dispute) by prioritizing backup
haulers for hospitals. Franchisee haulers may face
liquidated damages if they fail to comply with the
contract agreement, and could even lose the service
zone contract if they fail to provide adequate service
to hospitals or other customers.178 Of the more than
100 exclusive franchise systems in California, all
include private hospitals in the exclusive franchise
waste system, and the majority of top private
hospitals as ranked by U.S. News and World Report
are in exclusive franchise cities.179
Building stakeholder confidence with an open
and transparent process
Whether implementing reforms to an existing
franchise system or transitioning to a new one,
maximum transparency is critical to ensure a city’s
waste management practices are embraced by
constituents, rather than leading to controversy.
Waste contracts can be quite valuable, and
controversies surrounding their awards have
provoked memorable accusations of corruption,
“sweetheart” deals, or the influence of campaign
33
contributions. For example, according to news
sources, a former South Gate treasurer was indicted
on federal charges of bribery and fraud after he
and colleagues received donations totaling nearly
$450,000.180 According to news sources, collection
was disrupted when the implicated franchisee
hauler went out of business.181 Cities must engage
in a transparent public process at every step, from
releasing the RFP to reviewing selected bidders to
setting the terms of the franchise agreement and
contract award process. An open contract award
process can help put contract decisions beyond
reproach by making each step of the decisionmaking process clear, inviting public participation,
selecting haulers based on high standards, and
holding haulers accountable throughout the
contract term.
By incorporating extensive
transparency into the
contract award process,
residents will feel
comfortable with their new
system and confident in their
representatives.
Cities must create opportunities for citizens to
engage with decision-makers to review of haulers’
performance, and for any potential customer
dissatisfaction to be addressed throughout the
contract. This not only contributes to customer
satisfaction and ensures haulers meet city
standards, but also builds trust in the transparency
of the system. Documents related to the system, its
administration, and any new or extended contract
processes should be made public to the extent
possible.
Good governance and contracting practices –
such as putting expired contract out to an open
bid – similarly contribute to trust in an aboveboard system where the good of the public is
prioritized. An open bid ensures competitive
34
rates and good service, as well as foreclosing
any appearance of favoritism or insider dealmaking. It is similarly imperative to avoid “rolling”
or “evergreen” contracts (discussed further in
the section on Competition), given the value of a
contract perpetually awarded without competition
or provisions for public input. By incorporating
extensive transparency into the contract award
process, residents will feel comfortable with their
new system and confident in their representatives.
Prioritizing the best value over the lowest bidder
Some companies have built their business by
being the lowest bidder, and while the cheapest
bid may seem initially appealing, the unexpected
pitfalls can mean a high cost of “cheap” – including,
surprisingly, unfair rate increases. Companies that
run on a shoestring often cannot provide job quality
to local residents, maintain their truck fleets and
equipment to high standards (leading to increased
pollution and safety risks), or invest in the types of
service and programming needed for a successful
system. Often, the lowest bidder relies on practices
that may not lead to reliable recycling rates,
compromising the value of the services provided
and requiring the city to take necessary and
potentially expensive corrective measures.
When cities build high performance standards
and rate-stabilization measures into their hauler
selection criteria, they can encourage the
necessary investments in quality service over the
long-term. For example, the City of Inglewood
recently changed franchisee haulers from
Waste Management to Republic Services, which
guaranteed a nearly doubled hauler-collected
diversion rate compared to the other two bids.182
The reviewing consultants found that while the
lowest bidder currently had low rates, “future
annual rate increases may exceed that of the other
proposers.” 183 Taking this and the guaranteed
diversion increase into account, Inglewood
eschewed the lure of the lowest bidder and instead
selected Republic Services.184
Because of the value to haulers of exclusive
franchise contracts, cities are able to negotiate
franchise fees in addition to AB 939 fees, while
balancing such fees with fair, stable rates. Cities
can use franchisee fees to fund the administration
of the system, staffing to ensure compliance
and levels of service, educational programs, and
other expenditures needed to provide waste
and recycling services. HF&H found the median
franchise fee to be ten percent; some cities leave
it open for the bidder to propose, while others
require one flat fee rather than a percentage.185
Fostering competition with small business support,
smart contract terms
A city can design its exclusive franchise in such
a way as to foster the growth of smaller or local
companies, with franchise zones for different
neighborhoods, or franchise contracts for
different pieces of the system such as organics
collection and processing. For example, San Jose
has a separate organics processing exclusive
franchise contract with a local company, and
Oakland separately contracts for recycling
collection and processing with a smaller, local
company. Seattle has both multiple zones and
separate exclusive contracts for collection,
recycling processing and organics processing.
The City of L.A. designed three smaller zones
centered near a publicly-run facility to ensure
smaller companies without their own facilities
can access fair tipping fees; companies awarded
one of these smaller zones will not be awarded
other franchise zones, limiting interest from
major national companies. 186 By carving out
room for smaller and medium-sized companies
to grow market share, there is a backstop against
an otherwise rapidly consolidating industry.
The vast majority of truly small waste hauling
companies are C&D or Roll-off haulers; cities
can decide not to include these sectors in their
exclusive franchise waste and recycling systems
if they have in place successful C&D diversion
requirements.
To ensure competition, cities should incorporate
periodic open bid processes into their systems,
rather than unwise “evergreen” or “rolling”
contracts, which can tie a city’s hands for
decades to come. The Orange County Register
found residents generally pay the highest rates
in cities with evergreen contracts and cities
where the contracts have never been put out
to bid. 187 Orange County citizens have voted
for competitive bid processes by overwhelming
majorities. 188 Overly short contract terms also
do not make sense; cities can set reasonable
contract terms, such as seven to ten years with
possible shorter extensions, before going through
a periodic open bid process. This will enable
haulers to successfully establish themselves and
invest in processing or collection infrastructure
based on the guaranteed business of the contract.
Figure 17:
Sanitation Worker Cleaning His Solid Waste
Collection Vehicle
Photo: L.A. County Federation of Labor
35
Ensuring stable service and protecting
public health
Cities can require contingency plans to ensure
uninterrupted service, protecting the community.
Interruptions to waste collection can lead to
public health impacts and nuisances as residents
are exposed to rotting and potentially hazardous
materials, odors, and vermin. The City will protect
its interest in efficient, uninterrupted solid-waste
collection by requiring a Labor Peace Agreement
prohibiting strikes or lockouts for the term of the
franchise between the franchisee waste hauler
and any union seeking to represent the hauler’s
franchise workers. This type of agreement has a
proven track record, and is a staple of municipal
contracting for construction (“project labor
agreements” or PLAs). Labor peace requirements
have been adopted at airports, including LAX,
and with contracted waste haulers in other
cities. 189
Accountability Practices to Ensure
Top-Notch Service, a Strong System
Reporting and access to information
Cities can build rigorous accountability into
contracts, including reporting and public hearings;
on-demand access to records, facilities, and
routes; well-maintained truck fleets and facilities.
Cities can access critical information such as how
much is recycled versus contaminated, track the
sale of recyclable materials to inform support for
local recycling industry such as the exportation
of recyclables, and hauler and facility health and
safety records. Many cities require monthly reports
on the waste collected by sector, material stream,
and facility, as well as regarding material sales.
Cities may require quarterly reports summarizing
customer service issues, outreach, and gross
receipts. Annual reports often include route audit
results, company and litigation records, equipment
maintenance logs, and hazardous waste records.
require public review processes every year to allow
customers to weigh in on performance while larger
cities may have less frequent evaluations. Some
cities require haulers to submit to and fund periodic
compliance audits.
Clear lines of accountability exist in an exclusive
franchise system and it is easier for cities to
track and enforce contract requirements. Small
businesses will have a collective ability to hold
haulers accountable – and haulers will be inclined
to provide good service with such a valuable asset
at risk. Franchisees who fail to meet contract
requirements, such as for high levels of customer
service or diversion performance, can be held liable
by liquidated damages or even contract termination.
Cities, from Downey to Portland, have in place
significant possible liquidated damages which can
be reviewed in their RFPs or contracts.190 Some
cities, such as Beverly Hills, San Jose, and the City of
L.A., operate as the point of contact for customers,
allowing the city to directly track hauler compliance
with customer service standards.
Figure 18:
Bales of Mixed Paper to Be Recycled
Performance reviews and liquidated damages
A number of cities in the region include provisions
for periodic public meetings to hear from
constituents regarding the waste hauler. Many cities
36
Keeping compliance and monitoring in-house
Figure 19:
Monitoring performance and holding companies
accountable are critical to ensuring a successful
system, yet some cities contract out their
compliance monitoring, constraining their
enforcement abilities. An assessment by the Florida
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability found that outsourced oversight
“weakens the relationship between the agency and
contractors” and “reduces the agency’s firsthand
knowledge about how contractors deliver services
[and] the quality of these services” as well as
“hinder[ing] communication between the two.”191 A
recent report from non-profit In the Public Interest
found that “in some instances, contracting agencies
may be aware of problems with a contract, but not
act on that information in a timely manner,” going
on to discuss how “failure to address mistakes early
in the contract can lead to costly or even irreversible
damage to contracted programs and services.”192
Sanitation Collection Worker
For instance, a privatized compliance monitor
helmed the investigation of El Monte’s franchise
hauler, American Reclamation – as well as overseeing
the City’s sanitation administration.193 An audit
released in December of 2013 by Integrity Waste
and Huls Environmental Services found that
franchisee waste hauler American Reclamation was
overcharging customers, underpaying AB 939 fees,
and potentially non-compliant with state diversion
requirements.194 Despite these findings and despite
concerns raised at Council meetings, as of this
writing, no action has been taken to substantively
rectify these problems.195
Steady and Transparent Rates:
Exclusive Franchises Benefit Business
Numerous rate studies have come to the same
conclusion: exclusive franchise systems allow far
greater transparency and control of rates because
rates are set across the entire service area through
contract negotiation. Exclusive franchise bidding
and contracting opens up competitive pricing for all
customers, making it impossible for haulers to pass
through costs arbitrarily or subsidize pricing benefits
for big businesses with increased rates for smaller
Photo: L.A. County Federation of Labor
businesses. At an industry level, the stability that
exclusive systems provide allows haulers to invest in
needed infrastructure and increase efficiencies – and
to incentivize the increased recycling necessary to
reduce reliance on costly landfilling and disposal.
L.A. County cities with exclusive franchise waste
and recycling systems have been able to protect
customers and ensure stability in their commercial
waste rates. Despite the volatility in costs affecting
the waste industry, commercial customer rates
remained stable in exclusive franchise cities. LAANE
compared rates in 34 exclusive franchise cities in
L.A. County and found that on average, customer
rates increased less than nine percent over almost
10 years (see Figure 20).196 Eight cities experienced a
decrease in customer rates.
This customer rate stability is made possible
by the structure of exclusive franchise systems.
Haulers submit competitive bids, cities negotiate
final rates in their franchise agreements, and
37
contracts codify how and by how much a company
may adjust rates each year. They do not allow for
unwarranted or dramatic rate increases; rather,
they require contracts that typically specify how
rate adjustments, or increases, are locked in for
a period of time. In these contracts, cities limit
how much haulers can adjust rates each year –
usually by allowing adjustments for inflation as
measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or a
combination of weighted costs (such as disposal
fees, fuel costs, equipment, and labor indices). In
order to increase rates beyond what is allowed in
the contract, haulers must provide justification to
elected bodies for approval. This rate adjustment
process demonstrates the capacity to balance
accountability with flexibility of service and
contract terms in an exclusive franchise. Haulers
maintain profitability in an exclusive franchise
with stable customer rates by earning money
from recyclable materials, by reducing operating
expenses (such as saving on fueling costs with more
efficient routes), by amortizing costs over time, or
through contracts that set a minimum necessary
profit margin.
The stability of exclusive contracts for five or ten
year terms provides additional structural rate
control. Exclusive franchises allow haulers to offer
better pricing by making it easier to secure low-cost
financing for necessary infrastructure investment,
while spreading costs over the term of the contract
and realizing operating efficiencies.197 Waste
haulers themselves speak in support of the stability
possible with exclusive franchise systems, such
as when seeking longer contract extensions. For
example, when discussing exclusive arrangements,
Figure 20:
Customer Rate Stability in an Exclusive Frachise Compared to Rising Costs to the Industry
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
76%
70%
60%
50%
40%
36%
30%
31%
20%
18%
10%
9%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
-10%
Diesel Fuel Costs (California)
Hauler Equipment Index (National)
Avg. Per Ton Disposal Fees (L.A. County Facilities)
Waste Collection Labor Index (National)
Exclusive Franchise Cities' Avg. Cumulative Rate Increase (34 Cities in L.A. County)
38
Thor Schmidt of Athens Services told the La
Cañada Valley Sun that “certainly we prefer longer,
exclusive contracts with which we can be a lot more
aggressive with pricing and offerings.” 198 Schmidt
stated in the article that the ten-year term and the
exclusivity of Athens’ contract for unincorporated
Altadena allowed the company to amortize the
costs of new capital equipment, resulting in lower
rates than Athens Services was able to offer in
La Cañada-Flintridge’s non-exclusive franchise
system.199
Good practices in rate negotiation
To maximize the rate stabilizing benefits possible in
an exclusive franchise, cities can incorporate proper
practices in rate negotiation, such as the controls
on allowable rate increases described above. Waste
and recycling consultants HF&H state that rate
adjustment provisions, such as those based on
the Consumer Price Index, are key to a system’s
“cost effectiveness.”200 Checking area rates and
franchise fees is a good practice to get a sense of
what might be fair when negotiating a contract.
Without this information, customers could feel
taken advantage of by a hauling company or could
suspect corruption.
Some cities’ negotiate to receive a portion of the
revenues haulers’ generate by selling recyclable
materials, which CalRecycle describes as
benefitting both hauler and city. 201 When cities
share in the recycling profits with haulers, it helps
to align interests, to underwrite collection costs for
Exclusive franchises allow
haulers to offer better
pricing by making it easier
to secure low-cost financing
for necessary infrastructure
investment, while spreading
costs over the term of
the contract and realizing
operating efficiencies.
the haulers, to encourage maximized recycling, and
to generate value for cities. One New Jersey county
has shared nearly $15 million in revenue over the
course of its recycling revenue sharing program. 202
Last year the City of L.A. received over $4 million in
net revenue. 203
Improving Standards for
Sanitation Workers
Thousands of jobs can be created by increasing
recycling and composting; as shown in Figure 8,
recycling 75 percent of what is currently disposed
could create over 6,000 collection and processing
jobs and over 17,000 manufacturing jobs in L.A.
County alone. To maximize the potential of these
jobs, worker health and safety and job quality are
key. Workers are the front line of recycling, the
ones who protect our environment, and help cities
meet their diversion goals, and ensure recyclable
materials get “re-born” as new goods. Workers
can blow the whistle on dangerous conditions
and employer misconduct. 204 Sanitation workers
are members of our communities, ones that keep
our neighborhoods clean and safe. Training and
skill are important to safe and proper collection
and processing, and companies with good safety
records can save on workers’ compensation
premiums, avoid CalOSHA fines, and pass
savings on to customers. 205 The quality of waste
and recycling jobs is particularly important for
immigrant communities and communities of color:
one recent survey of L.A.-area waste and recycling
workers found that over 90 percent of workers
were Latino immigrants. 206
When considering franchise contracts, cities can
take into account a company’s track record on job
quality and worker health and safety, ensuring these
lucrative agreements go to responsible contractors
that will strengthen the local economy. The waste
and recycling industry makes extensive investments
to establish local processing and collection capacity
and to build its reputation with local customers.
Because of these investments, it makes financial
sense for a company to take the high road and
meet cities’ increased expectations and thus,
continue to build on local investments. With high
39
standards, cities can take steps to structure their
waste and recycling systems to promote good
quality jobs that protect workers’ health, safety, and
livelihoods.
Recycling careers: quality jobs and a skilled
workforce
By prioritizing top-caliber service, a city can select
a company that invests in its workforce with safe,
quality jobs, well-maintained equipment and
facilities, and regulatory compliance. Because
exclusive franchise systems are direct relationships
between cities and service providers, cities are
also able to directly address some job quality
measures in their contracts, by including, for
example: provisions regarding living wages, first
source hiring and worker retention (to prevent job
loss in the case of a contract transition), contractor
responsibility, and whistleblower protection. A
number of cities, such as Beverly Hills, San Jose,
Azusa, and West Hollywood, require franchisees to
comply with living or prevailing wage requirements,
and a number require employees to receive health
benefits. 207 Maywood, Carson, and Santa Ana
are just a few of the cities with worker retention
ordinances applicable to sanitation workers,
adopted to ensure “seamless service” in case of a
transition between waste companies. 208 In Seattle,
underpayment of wages is considered a material
breach of the contract, and failure to pay equal
Figure 21:
Sorters Wearing Personal Protective Equipment
in Area Recycling Processing Facility
benefits to domestic partnerships can lead to
contract termination. 209 Cities that do not yet have
such worker protection measures should consider
developing them in order to protect local job
quality and service.
Cities can prioritize haulers that employ permanent
workers and realize the associated benefits,
rather than contribute to the risks of a heavily
temporary workforce. Public safety experts and
state legislators have recognized the importance of
reining in exploitation of temporary workers with
policies such as OSHA’s Temporary Worker Initiative
and the recently passed California Assembly
Bill 1897 (Hernandez). OSHA’s initiative includes
recommended practices defining employers
and staffing agencies as joint employers. 210 AB
1897 will hold corporations as jointly liable with
subcontractors and staffing agencies for issues
like wage theft and failure to provide workers’
compensation coverage. 211
Cities can support these efforts by ensuring
contractor compliance with these initiatives, as
well as by structuring their RFPs to reward highroad corporate practices rather than narrowly
evaluating for the lowest bidder. In order to achieve
high standards for environmental outcomes, cities
can encourage investments in trained permanent
staff. Companies will have difficulty meeting high
recycling requirements with temporary, low-wage,
and low-skilled workers who have no incentive to
do well or stay in the job. Meeting contracted levels
of recycling requires investing in skilled and reliable
diversion experts. Ensuring that all customers
receive separate collection bins for recyclables and
organics will help support end markets for those
materials, bolstering the development of recycling
industry jobs.
Encouraging facility investments that meet high
standards
Photo: LAANE
40
An exclusive franchise contract creates an incentive
to invest in facilities – the infrastructure a city needs
to process its waste and recyclable materials and
to increase jobs. For example, Oakland recycling
collections and processing franchisee California
Waste Solutions, will be building an $80 million
MRF in Oakland and investing in $40 million worth
of clean trucks, according to news reports. 212 As
a result of San Jose’s exclusive franchise awards,
Republic Services reportedly invested $55 million
in the Newby Island MRF to process the city’s
waste and recycling, and the Zero Waste Energy
Development Company invested nearly $12 million
on its new anaerobic digestion and composting
facility. 213
An exclusive franchise contract is also the only
way to ensure these facilities benefit communities
with quality jobs rather than burden them with
nuisances and hazards. The City of L.A. has
pioneered a facility certification process to
ensure companies’ facilities operate according to
high standards, including up-to-date CalRecycle
permits, certification from the California Division
of Occupational Safety and Health’s (CalOSHA)
Voluntary Protection Program, training standards,
nuisance abatement requirements, reporting,
and the right for the City to inspect the facility
at any time. Haulers must take their waste only
to city-certified facilities. The facility certification
standards are based in part on the City’s
Construction and Demolition facility certification
program, and can be reviewed in Appendix B. 214
The City of L.A. has allocated facility inspection
personnel, funded by the franchise fees haulers pay
to the City, to ensure compliance with this annual
certification process. 215 The City of Oakland also
requires bi-monthly inspection access to facilities to
ensure diversion compliance. By protecting workers
as well as communities from nuisance facilities,
policy-makers ensure waste and recycling facilities
are a local asset, not a burden.
Improving worker health and safety
Cities can address workplace health and safety as a
part of contractor or franchisee selection by rewarding
companies with strong health and safety practices
by giving points for performance, and requiring a
showing that any past health and safety violations have
been corrected. Cities can also require contractors,
lessees, and franchisees to submit a written Illness
and Injury Prevention Program (I2P2). Following
Figure 22:
Sorters in Personal Protective Equipment in Area
Recycling Processing Facility
award of a contract or franchise, the I2P2 should
be audited annually, and the company should be
required to submit proof that any deficiencies will be
corrected. Maintenance standards will ensure vehicles
are in good repair for both environmental and safety
reasons. Cities can hold haulers further accountable
by requiring maintenance reports and records. As
mentioned above, local ordinances such as contractor
responsibility and whistleblower protection will also
encourage safer conditions for workers.
Cities should also be aware of the limitations of
programs that appear to encourage safety, such as
safety bingo or safety raffles. These programs actually
incentivize workers to not report injuries and can lead
to OSHA enforcement activity. OSHA recently released
a memorandum on “Employer Safety Incentive and
Disincentive Policies and Practices” which emphasizes
that OSHA considers “reporting an injury to always be
a protected activity,” and cautions that “programs that
unintentionally or intentionally provide employees an
incentive to not report injuries” could be considered in
violation of OSHA rules.216 These incentive programs
cannot compete with robust training, equipment
maintenance, and provision of personal protective
equipment. By demonstrating a priority on worker
health and safety in the RFP, cities can award franchise
contracts to high-road employers rather than low-road
companies.
41
Environmental Benefits of an Exclusive
Franchise System
Air quality and community impacts
Air quality improvements can be significant in
an exclusive franchise system. HF&H found that
exclusive franchise systems require the fewest
number of trucks as well as “decreasing truck
traffic, vehicle emissions, pavement impacts, and
noise.”217 Southern California franchisees are subject
to SCAQMD clean fuel fleet requirements, and
cities can incorporate additional fleet requirements
into the contract. For instance, the City of L.A. will
require haulers seeking to retain their contracts to
maximize route efficiencies and minimize Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT). Some cities, such as Oakland,
require access to truck GPS monitoring systems in
order to track truck routing and VMT. A number of
exclusive franchise cities require collection vehicles
to be consistently upgraded (such as no older than
eight or ten model years old), leaving room for the
next generation of fleets to incorporate developing
technologies like hybrid or electric engines. 218
Tracking and compliance for truck standards will
be feasible and practicable due to contractual
accountability, increased auditing of maintenance
registration reports, and because the city will know
which trucks are servicing which areas.
Routes are more efficient: for example, the City
of L.A.’s Environmental Impact Review (EIR) of
Figure 23:
Route Efficiency in an Exclusive Franchise System
its new system found that the exclusive franchise
model would have the lowest VMT of all project
alternatives analyzed, even lower than the No
Project alternative, while expanding recycling
and organic waste collection to all commercial
customers. Municipal collection was the only
alternative with equally low VMT (compare to
Figure 23). 219 Given that collection costs make up
as much as 70 percent of the total cost of waste
management systems, reducing collection costs
can allow for hauler and customer savings. 220
Maximizing recycling with diversion goals,
creative programming, and a “three bin” system
One of the first steps a city can take to guide waste
and recycling reform efforts is to set Zero Waste
goals and establish plans to implement those goals.
That is, setting a timeline by which to divert as
much waste from landfills as possible by reducing
disposal and increasing recycling and reuse,
without relying on transformation, conversion,
ADC, or other questionable “diversion” methods.
By adopting city-specific waste and recycling
goals, decision-makers will set policy landmarks
to guide programming and management, and will
contribute to California’s statewide 75 percent
recycling goal. Cities of all sizes and populations
have set such goals, from Sonoma to San Diego.
Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena have all set goals
to divert 90 percent by 2040 (Glendale by 2030);
these three cities have also adopted Zero Waste
Strategic Plans. 221 The City of L.A., in addition to its
90 percent diversion goal, incorporated goals such
as fair customer rates, improving air quality, and
improving health and safety for waste workers. L.A.
also developed a Solid Waste Integrated Resources
Plan (SWIRP), which lays out strategies for how
to meet its Zero Waste goals. 222 Seattle adopted
Resolution 30990 in 2007 to bolster its Zero Waste
goals, which set in place programming and contract
requirements that increased recycling rates from
around 52 percent to around 63 percent, increased
composting eight-fold, and reduced disposal by
around 50,000 tons a year. 223
To make progress towards Zero Waste, cities should
plan for expanded food and yard waste collection,
42
and address Household Hazardous Waste (HHW),
Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris, and
waste reduction and reuse programming. 224 For
instance, the City of Long Beach developed an
award-winning program to educate residents on
Hazardous Waste and promote proper disposal. 225
Cities can incorporate requirements into their
exclusive franchise systems to address these
critical elements, such as incorporating HHW
collection or drop-off into their exclusive franchise
contract. Redondo Beach requires its franchisee
hauler to collect and reuse or donate paint, while
La Mirada and other cities require haulers to reuse
or breakdown bulky items prior to disposal. 226
Calabasas requires its hauler, Waste Management,
to provide recycling to all customers and food and
yard waste collection to residential customers,
including small apartment buildings. 227 Given that
C&D represents one-quarter of landfilled materials,
many cities require a certain percent of this stream
to be recycled. In the City of L.A., all C&D material
must be taken to City-certified processing facilities
to be sorted for recycling recovery. The City of
Pasadena recently increased its C&D diversion
requirement to 75 percent. Waste reduction and
reuse programming includes redesigning products,
smart purchasing, and Extended Producer
Responsibility for hazardous and difficult-to-recycle
materials; these are critical to Zero Waste but may
require actions at higher levels of government, and
are beyond the scope of this report.
Once Zero Waste goals are established, cities
can incorporate expectations to meet specified
diversion goals in their waste and recycling
contracts with haulers to make progress towards
Zero Waste. Waste experts HF&H concluded that
an exclusive system “may allow [for] the most
aggressive overall diversion goal due to routing
and processing efficiencies.”228 Comprehensive
recycling collection for all customers can be
required, which is more likely to encourage
participation than systems where customers have
to actively opt in to recycling collection. Cities
can hold franchisee companies contractually
responsible for meeting recycling goals, punishable
by liquidated damages or even contract termination
if not met. For example, Bellflower considers it a
material breach of the contract if they determine
the company commingled recycling with refuse,
or landfilled recyclable materials. 229 Cerritos can
fine their hauler $20,000 if AB 939 diversion goals
are not met. 230 Some cities also offer incentives to
promote additional diversion: San Jose offers rate
incentives if its hauler, Republic Services, exceeds
diversion goals, and the City can charge the hauler
a $25,000 fine if they fail to meet those goals. 231
The combination of a competitive bid process with
a strong penalty system gives bidders the incentive
to balance ambitious goals with achievable ones.
Franchise requirements for frequent, detailed
reports are critical to enable cities to confirm
diversion goals are met in accordance with city
standards. Many cities, from Azusa to Cerritos
to Inglewood, from San Jose to the City of L.A.,
require monthly or quarterly reports on tonnage
collected by customer and material type and facility
processed. 232
The contractual obligation to meet a targeted
diversion or Zero Waste goal encourages creative
programming such as expanded composting
collection, Waste Characterization studies of
different sectors to better target services, and
innovative pricing systems. Cities can require
franchise haulers to provide comprehensive
education for all customers to ensure participation,
or can fund through franchise and AB 939 fees
education programming to be provided by City
staff or by community-based organizations. For
example, San Francisco’s extensive customer
education programming has contributed to the
city’s leading diversion rate (see next page).
Redondo Beach requires haulers to partially fund
a recycling outreach staff person; many other
cities require education and outreach plans and
participation in city events. 233 The City of L.A.
encouraged companies to partner with community
organizations as part of their outreach and
education plans, and to describe these plans in their
proposals.
To make progress towards Zero Waste goals and
support the recycling industry with clean streams,
cities can require companies to provide standardized
recycling and organic waste collection services to all
43
San Francisco: The Fantastic Three
San Francisco has, in many respects, modeled an environmentally and fiscally responsible
waste and recycling system, one with great job quality and successful participation. The
City adopted mandatory recycling and composting ordinances to increase recovery and
reduce contamination, requiring all residents, businesses, and even visitors to recycle and
compost. 234 The “Fantastic Three” system of three bins – trash, compost and recyclables –
and a comprehensive education campaign have helped the City achieve 80 percent diversion
citywide. 235 Disposal declined from 800,000 tons in 2000 to half that in just ten years. 236
The City’s Department of the Environment and its hauler, Recology, use visual-heavy labeling
and educational materials that are easily understandable by people of all languages and
literacy levels (see Figure 24). 237 Funded by fees from the hauler, the City conducts extensive
citywide door-to-door outreach. 238 City and Recology staff, as well as the City’s green jobs
training program, Environment Now, work directly with landlords and business owners,
tailoring locations of bins or frequency of service, educating customers on what is recyclable
and what is not, and even helping set up restaurant kitchens to effectively take advantage of
the three bins. 239
Recology has done business in the City since 1921, and is the sole permitted waste collector
in San Francisco. 240 They have been an employee-owned company since the 1980s. 241 From
the drivers and the mechanics to the sorting line, workers have a voice on the job. 242 Workers’
health and safety is protected with frequent trainings and protective gear. 243 Through an
agreement with the city, the company
hired from neighboring zip codes for
Figure 24:
its San Francisco MRF, located in the
Example of San Francisco’s Customizable, Multiworking class community of color
lingual, and Visual Signage
Bayview-Hunters Point. 244
Customers repeatedly vote to maintain
the City’s contract with Recology due
to the high standards of environmental
sustainability and customer service;
the head of the Chamber of
Commerce was quoted as stating,
“This isn’t broken. There is no reason
to make [a] change” from the contract
with Recology. 245 While a competitive
bidding process would strengthen
San Francisco’s system, the current
system rightly prioritizes service and
performance over the lowest bidder.
44
Source: San Francisco Department of the Environment
Figure 25:
Landscaping Materials Generated from Recycled
Construction and Demolition Debris
Photo: Lauren Ahkiam
customers. In what this report refers to as a “three
bin” system, all recyclable materials will be collected in
one bin, often blue (also called commingled or singlestream recyclables).246 Trash goes in a second, often
black bin, and yard (and sometimes food) waste in a
third bin, often green.247 Recycling-related industries,
dependent on reliable and clean material streams,
prefer separately collected recycling.248
Many environmentally conscious cities across the
country rely on this form of collection to maximize
recovery of recyclable materials. For example, the
City of L.A. captures about two-thirds of the materials
from single-family homes.249 By keeping materials
separate at the point of collection, contamination is
minimal: many of L.A.’s processors of single-family
recyclables have a rate of zero contamination, and
the overall contamination rate of all L.A.-certified
blue bin processing facilities is less than 14 percent.250
The City will extend this three bin approach to all
businesses and apartments through its new system,
which will require subscription to trash collection,
include free recycling collection, and offer green
bin collection to all commercial and multifamily
customers. San Francisco’s “Fantastic Three” leads the
nation, diverting 80 percent of the city’s waste from
landfills.251
The potential increase in recycling with standardized
three bin recycling collection is demonstrated in
cities where there is a residential three bin system
but no commercial recycling bin. In one city, the
residential recycling rate was over twenty times higher
than the commercial rate (see Figure 26).252 These
low commercial diversion rates are stark, given the
commercial stream is rich with recyclables, such as the
organic waste constituting nearly three quarters of the
restaurant sector’s waste stream.253
Three bin systems can create economic benefits
for customers through “Pay As You Throw” (PAYT)
pricing, also referred to as Save Money and Reduce
Trash (SMaRT) pricing. This pricing system charges
for trash collection while recycling is offered for
free or at a discounted rate, allowing customers to
“downsize” to a smaller black bin at a lower rate.254
The EPA estimated that cities with PAYT/SMaRT
pricing reduced disposal by up to 50 percent.255 These
initiatives are only possible in a system that keeps
waste and recycling separate.
By seeing exactly how much they throw away versus
recycle, customers gain awareness of their consumer
choices, incentivizing and inspiring decreased
consumption. For example, Northern California’s
Johnson family takes such care that they only produce
a quart of trash each year.256 This awareness can also
motivate efforts to curb waste production such as
single-use plastic bag bans, redesigned packaging,
and Extended Producer Responsibility policies
encouraging or requiring producers to “take back”
hard to recycle materials like paint or electronics.
Cities and property owners can have success with
separated recycling collection even in small spaces
and find it is worth the effort. For example, an
estimated 61 percent will be recycled from the City
of L.A.’s multi-family sector once blue and green
bins are collected from all apartments.257 Some area
apartment associations initially raised concerns about
the logistics of separately collected recycling and the
City of L.A.’s new system. After a number of meetings
discussing the specifics of the new system and after
reviewing LAANE’s research on rate stability, one of
the largest such associations signed a joint letter of
agreement with LAANE vouching that both parties
“promise their support for an exclusive franchise
system for Los Angeles’ multifamily and commercial
45
waste and recycling sectors” if the new system
limited possible rate increases for rent stabilized units,
accommodated unique apartments’ needs without
an undue rate burden, and if enforcement focused on
education rather than penalties.258 Working together,
cities, franchisee haulers, and the commercial sector
can tailor services to meet buildings’ needs.259
Potential solutions for limited space include smaller bin
sizes for small lots, split dumpsters that hold waste on
one side and recycling on the other, and bins shared
among adjacent buildings. Some high-rise buildings
retrofit trash chutes by designating certain chutes
for recycling; in others, waste haulers or maintenance
workers provide door-to-door recycling pickup.260
Debunking Diversion Myths in Favor of
Maximum Recycling
The false promises of “one bin for all” and
“Dirty” MRFs: it is smarter to separate
The success possible with three bin systems is clear,
but not so with “one bin for all” or mixed waste
processing, where recyclable and compostable
materials are mixed together with trash in one bin
to be sorted later at “Dirty” MRFs. Consider sorting
through a blue bin of recycling: the worst thing
one is likely to encounter is a sticky soda bottle.
Consider instead sorting through a dumpster,
trying to pick out the rotten apples from the paper
from the plastic – while avoiding everything else
that ends up in the trash. Despite this, some waste
companies offer, or even actively advocate for,
this type of one bin system – touting it as “easy,”
“simple,” implying or even explicitly stating that
separating recycling is too complicated. 261
Aside from the offense of implying customers are
not smart enough to recycle, experts and analysis
reveal the promise of Dirty MRFs to be illusory. One
industry expert concluded, a “Dirty MRF means
garbage in, garbage out.”262 Susan Collins, executive
director of the Container Recycling Institute, stated
that “Dirty MRFs, that’s probably the system that
leads to the most cross-contamination of materials,
because everything’s mixed together in one bin…
you can’t unscramble an egg; you can’t un-break
glass.”263
Quantitative analysis confirms this. 264 CalRecycle
found that on average, only 19 percent of recyclable
materials are recovered from Dirty MRFs – meaning
81 percent of what is sent to Dirty MRFs ends up in
landfills (see Figure 27). 265 In contrast, the average
contamination rate at City of L.A.-certified blue
bin processing facilities was 14 percent. Even San
Figure 26:
Comparing
Diversion between Standardized “Three Bin” Collection and No Standardized Recycling
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Commercial
(No Standardized Recycling)
30%
Residential
20%
(Standardized “3 Bin” Service)
10%
0%
Bellflower
Calabasas
Source: Hauler reports (2011)
46
San Dimas
West Hollywood
Jose’s Newby Island, the top-of-the-line new wet/dry
MRF, owes its recovery rate “not [to] a big bump in
commodities recovered, but the impact of a wasteto-energy anaerobic digester on the 30 percent to
40 percent of waste that is organic.”266 Some cities
that rely on “one bin for all” systems may appear
to have competitive diversion rates, but this can be
deceiving. As demonstrated in Figure 7 (see page
18), a number of cities rely on diversion credits
from ADC and WTE, which will soon no longer be
considered towards state compliance. 267
Some cities have reconsidered the “one bin for
all” model, motivated by California’s diversion
requirements. In a Cerritos City Council meeting,
the environmental service coordinator stated, “We
made a commitment to mixed waste processing
and that didn’t work…all we can do is move forward
and commit ourselves to source separation.”268
California’s commercial recycling requirement only
counts mixed waste processing when the recycling
rates are “comparable to source separation,” which
would appear to put this practice in a legal gray
area. CalRecycle would then evaluate compliance
on a case-by-case basis, as the agency works to
develop a quantitative standard, which could force a
change in a city’s practices. 269
A number of companies that advocate for a “one
bin for all” system also operate disposal facilities,
creating misplaced incentives as markets for
contaminated recyclables diminish. Covanta, a
waste-to-energy company with a contract to
incinerate one city’s un-recycled material, proposed
the city move to a Dirty MRF system that Covanta
would operate, according to news reports. 270 In
one local example, a now-shuttered pro-Dirty MRF
company also operated two incineration facilities,
which could undermine efforts to capture as much
recyclable material as possible. 271
There is great demand for clean commodity streams
of recyclable materials, and job-creating industries
that rely on these materials have come out in force
against Dirty MRFs. For example, the National
Recycling Coalition recently adopted a stance
against Dirty MRFs, as has the Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries, Inc. and the Paper Recycling
Coalition. 272 The Recycling Industries Coalition, which
represents large recycling industry groups, stated
firmly “separate collection of recyclables continues
to be the most effective and cost-efficient method
of maximizing the collection of clean recyclable raw
materials. Simply put, collecting recyclable materials
in the same bin as garbage basically just creates
more garbage.”273
Source separation is imperative for high quality
compost, given the public safety implications
possible with contamination. Farmers talk about
their concerns with “shiny” compost – so-called
because of the glass and plastic contamination. One
farmer was quoted as saying that with compost
from a Dirty MRF, “there’s almost more plastic than
natural green waste. It’s kind of disturbing. You
cannot compost plastic.”274 An Urban Agriculture
advocacy group based out of the Los Angeles Food
Policy Council (LAFPC) supports a three bin system
for all City residents, stating that “such a system will
ensure that the City’s composting facilities provide
high-quality compost for residential and community
gardens.”275 They encouraged the City “to ensure
that all waste haulers use ‘Clean’ Material Recovery
Facilities to ensure safe, high quality compost.”276
One area Dirty MRF was decertified as a Restaurant
Food Waste Processor in the City of L.A. due to
food waste contamination. 277
Figure 27:
Average “Dirty” MRF Recovery Rate, California
Diversion
19%
Landfill
81%
Source: CalRecycle (2006)
47
Just as contamination affects the recycling industry,
it also affects the workers sorting the materials. This
exposure creates concerns around both physical
and psychological safety and led one recycling
executive to deem Dirty MRFs “inhumane.”278
Recycling expert David Pellow extensively
researched working conditions at a Dirty MRF in
Chicago and found “routine manual handling of
chemical toxins, hazardous waste, and infectious
medical wastes...razor blades and homemade
explosives.” Pellow found that pricks from syringes
and needles were common; he also uncovered
cases of worker death due to exposure to battery
acids. 279 Workers are even exposed to human
remains. In a two-year span, four dead bodies were
reported at one Dirty MRF facility in the City of
Industry. 280 Three others were reported in L.A.-area
facilities since 2011. 281
Figure 28:
Material Recovery Facility’s “Tipping Floor”
48
Southern California-area mixed waste processing
facilities have, unfortunately, recently seen health
and safety issues. In late 2013, a worker at the
former Crown Disposal Dirty MRF in Sun Valley
was injured, reportedly struck in the back of the
head by a conveyor belt while cleaning in a fourfoot deep pit. 282 In 2012, CalOSHA found the
American Reclamation Dirty MRF and its subsidiary,
South Coast Fibers, to have committed thirty-four
violations, including five serious violations, resulting
in an initial penalty of over $37,000. 283
Transformation: too risky a gamble
Boosters often promote conversion or
transformation technologies, like incineration
or other heat-based processes, as an easy
solution to reducing dependence on landfills.
These technologies are expensive and raise
Dirty MRFs and Community Outcry: a Houston Case Study
Community groups have been reluctant to embrace Dirty MRFs, particularly given their frequent
relationship with incineration projects. One proposed Dirty MRF project in Houston drew
national attention due to support from the Bloomberg Foundation, and has been referred to as
a test case, with one trade paper saying “a battle is brewing over the future of DMRFs here.”284
Community opposition has been quick and substantial: a reported 4,700 residents wrote letters
of concern to local decision-makers. 285 In neighboring Austin, the city’s Zero Waste Commission
took swift action denouncing Dirty MRFs. 286 Dallas is reported to have moved away from a
failed Dirty MRF proposal, instead passing a Zero Waste ordinance calling for source separated
organics and recyclable collection, and welcoming a “Clean” MRF that sorts only recyclables. 287
Advocates at the Texas Campaign for the Environment and the Zero Waste Houston coalition
have led efforts supporting alternatives to the Dirty MRF proposal, such as recycling for all
Houstonians, stating it is “smarter to separate.”288 They are joined by noted environmental
advocate and Houston resident Dr. Bob Bullard, considered the godfather of the
environmental justice movement, who stated:
We are in the midst of a heated battle over this plan to somehow move away from single
stream recycling, that’s been proven in almost every major city in this country, to come
up with this notion that we can put everything in a bin…and then ship it somewhere and
build this plant to burn what’s not recycled…there’s no place that this one bin facility plan
is working, so it’s all experimental. The city of Houston should not be experimenting on its
people of color communities...real recycling is the way to go. 289
The proposal has faced significant delays, and in March 2015 Houston’s outgoing Mayor,
Annise Parker, acknowledged the city might not move forward with the “one bin for all”
proposal and that “certainly, the project won’t happen on [her] watch,” stating it would be up
to the next administration to determine how to proceed. 290
Figure 29:
Community Protests Against Houston’s “One Bin for All” Proposal
Photo: Caitlin Murphy, courtesy of the Texas Campaign for the Environment
49
many environmental and public health concerns.
“Transformation” of materials into energy drives
up demand for virgin materials by destroying a
material after one use that could otherwise be
endlessly recycled. 291 This process can undermine
recycling efforts because materials that are
otherwise recyclable can be of the highest energy
value, such as plastic. 292 Efforts to redesign
materials that are difficult to recycle, like packaging,
can also be undermined if transformation is
a readily available alternative to producer
responsibility. 293 California will not consider
transformation applicable towards the statewide
75 percent recycling goal; this could affect cities
like Long Beach, where over 203,000 tons of waste
were incinerated in 2012 alone. 294
These types of facilities are also financially risky.
Long Beach’s Southeast Resource Recovery Facility
(SERRF) is facing economic viability questions
given increased environmental measures. 295
Assembly Bill 32’s cap-and-trade regulations will
impact the facility; a representative of the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) was quoted as stating
that the total emissions from SERRF were over
ten times the threshold amount triggering AB 32
compliance measures. 296 Facility use is reported to
have decreased, and its primary power purchase
contract will expire in 2018. 297 The City estimates it
will spend almost $7 million a year to dispose of the
ash in Orange County, given the closure of Puente
Hills Landfill, which had accepted the ash at no
cost. 298 One possible outcome is co-ownership with
the Sanitation Districts of L.A. County and the City
of L.A., a possibility that has been in development
since 2007 and would require investments in Best
Available Control Technology. 299
Elsewhere, projects have stalled, provoked
community outcry, or even jeopardized the
fiscal health of the city. 300 The Texas Campaign
for the Environment’s research has determined
that “there has not been a single instance of a
gasification plant processing household trash
being constructed or successfully implemented in
the U.S. at a commercial scale.”301 The plants are a
substantial investment for customers; jurisdictions
that utilize gasification technology have tipping
50
fees ranging from $120-$400 per ton disposed. 302
Not only are these facilities controversial,
expensive, and of questionable safety, they are also
questionable as a source of energy, generating less
energy than recycling would save. 303 One study
found that “recycling saves 15-25 times the energy
produced by gasification, pyrolysis and other
phased incineration technologies.”304 While some
consider more recent conversion technologies
like pyrolysis, catalytic conversion, arc-plasma,
and gasification as distinct from incineration, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
treats these technologies the same as they do
incineration. 305 The variable sources of risk are
not worth the moderate and theoretical payoff of
these gambles. Investing in increased recycling and
reduced disposal provides a stable and predictable
fiscal benefit to cities with recycling revenues,
quality local jobs, and a strengthened recycling
industry.
Figure 30:
Recycling Bins
Recommendations:
Checklist for a Smart Waste System
By taking into account lessons from across the
region, cities can ensure peak performance,
constituent satisfaction, and maximum benefits
from their waste and recycling systems. Whether
cities have municipal systems, open permit or
non-exclusive systems, or exclusive systems, there
are concrete steps cities can take to strengthen
their systems’ management and improve results.
Strong waste and recycling systems are built on
the accountability and transparency only possible
in municipal or exclusive franchise systems, and
they incorporate high standards to ensure the
systems meets cities’ goals while reducing negative
impacts on community residents, customers, and
workers. With a robust and well-managed waste
and recycling system, a city can increase voter
confidence in local government, strengthen the
economy, improve environmental quality, and
protect public health.
Environmental Best Practices for
All Cities
No matter which system a city uses, decisionmakers should take the following steps to ensure
progress towards environmental goals.
Set Zero Waste goals to meet and exceed
California’s 75 percent recycling goal.
Ensure all customers are provided with and use
a “three bin system” to maximize recycling and
organics collection, avoid contamination, and
comply with California’s new waste collection
laws.
Implement a comprehensive education
program for all customers that incorporates
visuals for easy interpretation by all education
levels and languages; staff the education effort
adequately.
Consider a rate structure that provides
incentives to increase recycling and decrease
disposal, such as Pay As You Throw (PAYT) or
recycling discounts.
Cities Seeking to Strengthen an
Exclusive Franchise System
With exclusive franchise contracts, cities have the
ability to build deep relationships with their waste
haulers and design high-road waste and recycling
systems that will help them meet diverse goals.
Cities that have the structure in place but do not
yet have the standards in place will be well served
by amending the terms of their agreements and the
design of their franchise systems according to the
following best practices.
Customer service and resident satisfaction
Design and release a Request For Proposals
(RFP) with high standards.
Establish contract award processes that
prioritize quality of performance over lowest
bid.
Accommodate unique industry and customer
needs with tailored service.
Expand organics collection to include food
scraps as well as yard waste.
Ensure stable services and protect public
health with contingency plans and Labor Peace
Agreement requirements.
Prioritize recycling and composting to reduce
landfilling, avoiding controversial “conversion”
technologies like gasification or pyrolysis.
Create and enforce facility standards to reduce
neighborhood impacts.
Ensure accountability to robust requirements
51
through rigorous reporting requirements,
periodic performance reviews, liquidated
damages, and the right to terminate service.
Good governance and fiscal health
Check area rates, share recycling income, and
tie allowable rate increases to cost of living.
Avoid common contract pitfalls like evergreen
or rolling contract terms.
Engage in periodic, competitive bid processes
with a comprehensive RFP.
Operate with utmost transparency to preclude
any appearance of corruption.
Negotiate franchise and AB 939 fees to expand
education and administer the system.
Strengthening the economy with good and
safe jobs
Require a “three bin” collection system for
all customers, thereby encouraging local
infrastructure development with ample clean
material streams made possible by maximizing
recycling, promoting organics collection, and
reducing contamination.
Consider job quality and working conditions
when awarding a contract.
Consider compliance with worker health and
safety rules and abatement of violations when
awarding a contract and require adoption of an
Injury and Illness Prevention Program.
Require compliance with policies such as Living
Wage, Contractor Responsibility, First Source
Hiring, and Worker Retention. If not currently in
place, consider adopting such policies.
Include and enforce whistleblower protections
for workers.
52
Environmental benefits
Take the six environmental steps described for
all systems.
Reward or require increasing route efficiency
and decreasing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT),
which will benefit air quality and street
conditions, as well as encourage infrastructure
investment in local facilities.
Cities with Non-Exclusive Franchise or
Open Permit Systems
Where an unlimited (or hardly limited) number
of haulers is permitted to collect waste, cities
have limited ability to get information about their
system’s rates, service quality, or environmental
progress, and few tools to establish ambitious
expectations in their agreements with haulers.
By moving to an exclusive franchise system, they
can remedy the shortcomings of open and nonexclusive systems.
Take the first step to an exclusive franchise
by giving five-year notice to permitted waste
haulers.
Design an exclusive franchise system that
includes the above provisions for a strong
system.
Take the six environmental steps described for
all systems.
Glossary
Alternative Daily Cover (ADC)
At the end of each day, landfill operators must cover
active portions of the landfill in order to mitigate
odors and for vector control. While they historically
used soil, operators also use “alternative” cover
materials such as chipped and processed green
waste, shredded glass, tarps, or other materials. Such
methods will no longer be considered as “diversion”
under AB 1594.
Anaerobic Digestion
A biological process used to decompose organic
waste (including green waste, food waste, and
human waste) in-vessel, capturing the biogas
produced. The residual material, digestate, can be
added as an amendment to soil.
Assembly Bill 32
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (Núñez) requires greenhouse gas emission to
be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.306 The California
Air Resources Board (ARB) outlines the strategies by
which to do this, including Landfill Methane Control
and High Recycling/Zero Waste.307 Recent state laws
requiring mandatory commercial recycling (AB 341)
and compost collection (AB 1826) were developed
to reduce greenhouse gases in order to comply with
AB 32’s reduction requirements.308
Assembly Bill 341
In 2012, California adopted AB 341 (Chesbro), which
requires all commercial and multi-family customers
over a certain size to subscribe to recycling
collection. Businesses (producing over four cubic
yards of waste per week) and apartments (of five
units or more) are required to recycle. Compliance
can include: self-haul of recyclable materials to
a recycling center; subscribe to a hauler(s) that
collects recycling; arrange for the pickup of
recyclable materials; or subscribe to a recycling
service that may include mixed waste processing
that yields diversion results comparable to source
separation.309 Cities are required to implement a
recycling program and report on implementation.310
The bill also set a new statewide 75 percent recycling
goal by 2020.311 Waste “transformation” (which
includes incineration) does not count towards this
recycling goal.312
Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill 939, passed in 1989, requires all
jurisdictions to reduce landfilling by half. This law
set minimum compliance standards and created
the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) and “established an integrated framework
for program implementation, solid waste planning,
and solid waste facility and landfill compliance.”313
Jurisdictions were required to meet 50 percent
diversion of solid waste by 2000, and to maintain
at least this level thereafter.314 Failure to meet these
requirements can result in fines up to $10,000 a
day.315 AB 939 also allows for a compliance fee to be
levied on waste haulers in order to fund cities’ efforts
to increase diversion.
In 2007, Senate Bill 1016 (Wiggins) implemented a
different compliance measurement, tracking a 50
percent or greater reduction in per capita disposal as
compared to a base measurement (the average of a
jurisdiction’s 2003-2005 disposal).316
Assembly Bill 1594
Authored by Assemblymember Williams and signed
into law in 2014, this bill states that green waste
used as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) will no longer
be considered as “diversion through recycling and
would be considered disposal” for the purposes of
AB 939 compliance, starting in 2020.317
Assembly Bill 1826
Adopted in 2014, AB 1826 (Chesbro) requires
widespread commercial enrollment in compost
collection services. By 2016, customers that generate
eight cubic yards or more of organic waste per week
will need to subscribe to recycling service for their
organic waste, such as composting or anaerobic
digestion. The threshold will decrease to four cubic
yards of organic waste per week in 2017. In 2019,
commercial customers and public entities that
generate at least four cubic yards of solid waste per
53
week, as well as apartments of five units or more, will
be required to subscribe to organic waste recycling
services. The state reserves the right to lower this
threshold further by 2020 if needed. As part of the
implementation of this new requirement, the bill calls
for each jurisdiction to implement an organic waste
recycling program and to report to CalRecycle on
its process in implementing this new system so that
CalRecycle may determine compliance.318
C&D
Construction and demolition debris, which
accounted for nearly 30 percent of California’s waste
stream in 2008. Much of this material can be reused
and recycled, including lumber, carpet, and pipe.319
CalOSHA
The California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health.
CalRecycle
The California Department of Resource Recycling
and Recovery, formerly known as the California
Integrated Waste Management Board. Established
by AB 939.
CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act.
CNG
Compressed Natural Gas, a “clean” fuel in a gas form
that is used in solid waste collection vehicles.
used as a verb to refer to the processing technique.
Diversion
Preventing waste from being disposed in a landfill.
For purposes of compliance with AB 939, diversion
means “the combined efforts of waste prevention,
reuse, and recycling practices.”320 Some cities have
considered ADC or waste-to-energy as counting
towards “diversion.” California enacted AB 1594
(2014), which no longer allows organic waste used as
ADC to be considered diversion for purposes of AB
939 compliance.
Diversion Rate
The rate at which materials are diverted away from
landfills. For purposes of compliance with California’s
50 percent diversion mandate, CalRecycle considers
it the “combined efforts of waste prevention, reuse,
and recycling practices.”321
Exclusive Franchise Waste and Recycling System
In an exclusive franchise waste and recycling system,
a city enters into a direct contract with one waste
company to provide collection or processing service
to the specified sector (such as commercial or
residential) in a specified geographic area (such as
the entire city or a section of the city).
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Materials banned from landfills, which in California
includes materials such as paint, motor oil, electronic
waste, and “universal waste” like batteries,
fluorescent light bulbs, and cathode ray tubes.322
Clean MRF
Materials Recovery Facility that sorts only recyclable
materials, also called a blue bin processing facility or
a single-stream recycling facility.
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas, a “clean” fuel in a liquid form
that is used in solid waste collection vehicles.
Compost
The organic material that cannot decompose
further, used to fertilize plants or amend soil. Also
the process by which organic materials becomes
compost.
MRF
Materials Recovery Facility, where different materials
are sorted from one another for sale as recyclable
commodities or disposal in a landfill. Also see “Clean
MRF” and “Dirty MRF.” Pronounced “murph.”
Dirty MRF
Materials Recovery Facility that processes municipal
solid waste combined with recyclable materials. Also
referred to as a “Mixed Waste MRF.” Can also be
Municipal Waste and Recycling System
Waste and recycling is collected, administered, and
in some cases, processed, by the City.
54
Non-Exclusive Franchise Waste and Recycling
System
In a non-exclusive waste and recycling franchise
system, any waste company with a signed
agreement may provide the specified waste services
within the specified area.
Open Permit Waste and Recycling System
Any waste haulers may collect and operate in a city if
they comply with the city’s permitting requirements,
which in California may include AB 939 fees.
Recycling
According to CalRecycle, recycling is “using waste as
material to manufacture a new product…Composting
is a form of recycling.”323 A recycling rate would
consist of the amount of materials recycled or
composted into new materials and would not include
other landfill reduction measures such as waste-toenergy or ADC.
RFP
A Request For Proposals is a solicitation by an entity
(such as a city) for bids to provide a service.
Tipping Fee
The fee paid by waste haulers, usually per ton, to
dispose of materials at a landfill or waste transfer
station.
SCAQMD Rule 1193
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule
1193, also known as the “Clean On-Road Residential
and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles” rule,
was adopted in 2000 and significantly amended in
2010. It applies to solid waste collection vehicles,
transfer vehicles, and roll-off vehicles, and applies
to government fleets and government-contracted
private fleets (if the contract specifies the haulers’
compensation for service or is a franchise agreement
where the number of potential haulers is limited).
This rule requires companies with fleets of fifteen or
more vehicles to transition to alternative fuel fleets,
such as CNG or LNG. Smaller fleets are required to
phase in alternative fuel vehicles as they acquire or
replace vehicles.324
Single-Stream Recycling
Also known as commingled recycling, “blue bin”
recycling, or all-in-one recycling, where customers
may combine different recyclable materials into one
bin, which is kept separate from waste.
Valet Service
Valet service is when the trash collector removes and
replaces the trash or recycling bin from within the
customer’s building or parking garage, rather than
the customer placing the bins outside for collection.
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled is a method of measuring
transportation impacts by the number of miles
driven, and can be used to compare potential project
impacts in an Environmental Impact Report, as
required by CEQA.
Zero Waste
The Zero Waste International Alliance provides the
following as the “only peer-reviewed, internationally
accepted definition and principles describing what
Zero Waste means:”
Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical,
economical, efficient and visionary, to guide
people in changing their lifestyles and
practices to emulate sustainable natural
cycles, where all discarded materials are
designed to become resources for others
to use. Zero Waste means designing and
managing products and processes to
reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and
materials, conserve and recover all resources,
and not burn or bury them. Implementing
Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to
land, water or air that may be a threat to
planetary, human, animal or plant health.325
Cities with Zero Waste goals often establish
individual percentage thresholds of waste reduction
in order to track progress towards Zero Waste,
including through reducing disposal and maximizing
reuse, recycling, and composting: for example,
90 percent diversion from landfills by 2025 or 70
percent recycling by 2025.326
55
Appendices
Appendix A: City of Los Angeles’ Waste and Recycling Collection Request For
Proposals
System Basics and Accountability
•
Franchise Terms: 10-year agreements with two five-year renewal options.
•
Franchise Zones: There are 11 exclusive franchise zones including three smaller zones designed for
smaller- to medium-sized hauling companies. Haulers can win multiple zones, except those awarded
a smaller zone. No one company may be awarded more than 49 percent of the market. Zones were
designed by the City in order to balance geographic boundaries, number of accounts, material
tonnage, and density of accounts.
•
Outside of Franchise System: Medical, hazardous, radioactive, and pharmaceutical waste;
construction and demolition debris; recyclable materials sold or donated by the generator; yard
waste incidental to a landscaping business; specialty waste (e.g. biosolids, fats, oils and grease,
electronics, universal waste, etc.); waste currently collected by City staff.
•
Evaluation Criteria: The review committee will evaluate proposals based on:
o Qualifications: 10 percent
o Customer Service, Outreach and Education/Training: 25 percent
o Service Plan: 20 percent
o Diversion Plan: 25 percent
o Cost and Franchise Fee Proposals: 20 percent
•
Qualifications and City Standard Provisions: The City requires compliance with a number of legal
requirements such as bonding levels, reporting requirements, and participation in the Business
Inclusion Program. For full details, see Articles 5 and 7 of the RFP.
•
Mid-way Performance Review: The City will conduct a performance review of each Contractor after
the fifth year of the term.
•
Accountability: Failure to meet standards is punishable by liquidated damages or even contract
termination.
•
Reporting Requirements: Franchisee haulers must provide the City substantial reports and access
to information, including on customer service performance, field operations, accidents, materials
tonnage including type and destination, fleet maintenance, and VMT.
Environmental Provisions
•
56
Zero Waste Goals and Diversion Plan: Haulers propose disposal reduction targets for each
franchise zone and will then be held accountable to those targets; failure to meet targets will result
in liquidated damages or even termination. Hauler will identify opportunities to share the sale of
recyclable materials with the City. The Diversion Plan shall also include innovative ideas, such as
waste audits.
•
Recycling for All: Blue bin recycling collection must be provided for all customers, bundled
together with the solid waste collection (i.e., at no additional cost). No “one bin for all” or “Dirty”
MRF systems reliant on mixed waste processing. Collection must be at least once a week for all
containers.
•
Organics Collection: Initially, the Hauler must continue organic waste collection to existing
customers and any commercial customers that request it, including making the service known to all
customers and conducting additional outreach with reluctant customers. Hauler must provide a plan
to ultimately provide organics collection to all customers.
•
Clean Air Vehicles: All collection vehicles must be certified under the SCAQMD Low Emission
Vehicle clean fuel program and be less than eight years old. Before start of service, all vehicles must
comply with SCAQMD Rule 1193, i.e., be clean fuel fleets.
•
Efficient Routes/VMT Reduction: Haulers must propose VMT as part of their response and
demonstrate ability to minimize VMT such as through smart-routing technology. Franchisee must
submit reports on VMT.
Worker and Facility Standards
•
Local Ordinance Compliance: Haulers must comply with L.A.’s First Source Hiring Ordinance,
as well as Living Wage Ordinance, Worker Retention Ordinance, and Contractor Responsibility
Ordinance.
•
Facility Certification: Franchisee haulers must take all materials only to city-certified facilities.
Facilities must meet certain requirements to be certified by the City, including Cal/OSHA Voluntary
Protection Program certification, Injury and Illness Prevention Plans, training programs, and noise/
dust/odor controls. For more information, see Appendix B.
•
Facility Inspection: The City has the right to inspect all facilities at any time during operating hours,
and plans to hire eight facility inspection staff.
•
Subcontractors: Haulers should meet the City’s minimum subcontracting percentage in conjunction
with its Business Inclusion Program for women- and minority-owned business outreach;
subcontracting may be done on any piece of franchise work (e.g. outreach or customer service) and
no additional minimum is required. Subcontracts over $10,000, and changes in subcontractor, must
be approved by the City. The City will consider the franchisee hauler responsible for the actions of
its subcontractor and requires of subcontractors similar levels of reporting, safety plans and records,
contingency plans, history of enforcement actions, right of inspection, etc.
Customer Service and Education
•
Customer Service: Franchisee waste companies will be held to specific performance standards
for metrics such as missed collections and call wait times. Haulers must offer a web- and mobilebased tools and a 24-hour service request function. Customer service standards will be enforced by
liquidated damages and consistently poor performance could result in contract termination.
•
Customer Outreach and Education: Contractors will submit and implement outreach and education
plans as well as distribute City-designed education and outreach.
•
City as First Point of Customer Contact: L.A. Sanitation’s call center will serve as the first point of
57
contact for customer complaints, service requests and informational inquiries. This way the City can
track contractor compliance with customer service requirements.
•
Smooth Transition: Haulers must submit a detailed transition plan per zone, including containers,
transition outreach/education. Haulers must participate in City’s transition team.
Contingency Plan for Seamless Service
•
Contingency Plan: Haulers must provide a Contingency Plan. If there is a service disruption, the
waste hauler could face financial penalties. The City will provide backup service in case of an
emergency and would then require reimbursement from the waste hauler.
•
Labor Peace Agreement: Franchisee haulers must provide proof of a signed Labor Peace
Agreement barring strikes and picketing; this is in place to protect the City from disruptions in waste
and recycling service, which could impact public health.
Fees and Rates
•
AB 939 Fee: Haulers must pay the City ten percent of the solid waste portion of gross receipts.
•
Franchise Fee: Haulers must propose a franchise fee, not less than ten percent of gross receipts.
•
Extra Services at Pre-established Rates: Haulers must use rates pre-established for the listed extra
services, such as container cleaning, extra collections, or contaminated loads refused at point of
disposal. Any services not listed on the rate table are considered part of basic service, such as valet
service for recycling collection in multi-family buildings.
•
Customer Rates: Haulers submit their component costs for providing service to the City; the City
will use these costs to establish rate tables for different levels of service. Compensation to the
hauler may be adjusted annually, not to exceed five percent, and based on an index that includes the
Consumer Price Index.
58
Appendix B: City of Los Angeles’ Facility Certification Standards
As part of the Zero Waste L.A. exclusive franchise waste and recycling collection system in the City of Los
Angeles, the City will require franchisee haulers to take collected materials only to city-certified disposal,
transfer, and processing facilities. This requirement is included in the City’s RFP and subsequent addendum.
In order to attain this certification, the City will require:
•
Facilities to possess and maintain a Solid Waste Facility Permit issued by CalRecycle.
•
Facilities to maintain certification from CalOSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program at SHARP level or
higher.
o While facilities await approval from CalOSHA’s program, they will be required to submit an
annual health and safety audit report from a third-party firm.
o Facilities must have minimum required training programs, including Injury and Illness
Prevention among other trainings.
•
All facilities are required to have measures in place to reduce community impacts, such as dust
control, odor control, litter control, and noise control.
•
Facilities must comply with all storm water runoff requirements as well as local entitlements.
•
Facilities must maintain a logbook of complaints and respond to complaints within 24 hours.
•
All transfer facilities, facilities that process solid waste, and facilities that process source-separated
organic waste shall be enclosed. Solid and organic waste must not be handled or stored outside
(this does not include composting facilities).
•
City certification must be renewed annually, and the City will have the right to inspect all certified
facilities at any time within their hours of operation. The City will provide eight facility inspectors as
part of its staffing plan for the new system.
59
References
Cover photos, clockwise from top left: Adan Alvarez, Robert Staley,
and Tuxyso (via a Creative Commons Attribution license).
1.
Heather Horn. “The Secret Lives of Garbage Men.” The Atlantic,
April 1, 2013.
2.
CalRecycle. “Solid Waste Disposal Tonnage Summary Data.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/
Landfills/LFData.htm.
3.
Grace Robinson Hyde. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
California: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, June 30, 2014, pp. 69-73.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=9877.
4.
Robinson Hyde, Sanitation Districts, p. 68.
5.
The arithmetic mean fee rose 35.7% from 2002 to 2010, adjusted
for inflation in 2010 dollars. Puente Hills Landfill fee rose 70.2%
from 2002 to 2010. Data compiled by the Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County for the public solid waste materials recovery,
transfer and disposal facilities. Fees used are for municipal solid
inert waste per ton. Puente Hills MRF opened in 2005 and shares
the same rates as the Puente Hills Landfill.
6.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Puente Hills Landfill:
Discover How the Latest Technologies Are Keeping Neighborhoods Cleaner and Greener. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3708.
7.
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. County of
Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan:
Countywide Summary Plan & Countywide Siting Element. August
2013, p. 18. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/
epd/swims/docs/pdf/CIWMP/ 2012.pdf.
8.
County of L.A. DPW, Countywide Integrated Waste Management
Plan, p. 33.
9.
Janet Coke. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County:
Waste By Rail System. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(presentation), September 18, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/EWE_committee/
waste_by_rail_091808.pdf.
10.
11.
60
Riverside is charging a $5 additional fee per ton for “out of
county incidental amounts of refuse” (County of Riverside Waste
Management Department. “Schedule of Waste Disposal Fees
for Riverside County Waste Management Department Effective
July 1, 2014.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.rivcowm.
org/opencms/PublicNotices/pdf/PriceListHandout-English.pdf).
Ventura recently approved a $4 “sustainability fee” on top of disposal fees for each ton of Los Angeles County waste over 75,600
tons per quarter (Harris, Mike. “Supervisors Approve Simi Valley
Landfill Expansion.” Ventura County Star, July 19, 2011).
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. “Tipping Fees for Solid
Waste and Recyclables” (rate sheet). 2010. Janet Coke. “Waste
By Rail System” (presentation). County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, September 18, 2008. Accessed from http://
www.lachamber.com/clientuploads/EWE_committee/waste_by_
rail_091808.pdf.
12.
Cascadia Consulting Group. Contractor’s Report to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board: California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. California Integrated Waste
Management Board, August 2009, 7. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/PubExtracts/2009023/
Summary.pdf.
13.
Based on assumptions of commodity values at the time of the
report (MacKerron, Conrad. Unfinished Business: The Case for
Extended Producer Responsibility for Post-Consumer Packaging.
As You Sow, 2012, p. 13).
14.
John Guevarra. From Waste to Resource: Restoring Our Economy
with Recycling Careers. Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy,
2014, p. 37.
15.
Paula Felps. “Operation Green Fence Highlights Issues with U.S.
Recycling Plan.” Earth911, July 19, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://earth911.com/general/operation-green-fence/. Jason
Margolis. “China’s ‘Green Fence’ Is Cleaning Up America’s Dirty
Recycling.” Public Radio International’s The World, February 18,
2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/
chinas-green-fence-cleaning-up-americas-dirty-recycling. Headline source: Jerry Powell. “Operation Green Fence Is Deeply Affecting Export Markets.” Resource Recycling, April 2013. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://resource-recycling.com/node/3679.
16.
Shan Li. “Ports Congestion Hinders Southland Recycling Industry.”
Los Angeles Times, February 17, 2015.
17.
Ruben Vives. “Trash-hauling Contract Leaves Huntington Park
with a PR Mess.” Los Angeles Times, January 17, 2015.
18.
Vives, “Trash-hauling Contract.”
19.
Teri Sforza. “Trash Contracts Worth Billions Lack Competition.”
Orange County Register, November 8th, 2013.
20.
Liset Marquez. “Upland Extends Trash Contract with Burrtec.”
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, May 30, 2014. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.dailybulletin.com/business/20140530/uplandextends-trash-contract-with-burrtec. Martin Hildreth. “Stephen
Dunn Carries Too Much Baggage: Letters.” Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin, October 27, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
dailybulletin.com/opinion/20141027/stephen-dunn-carries-toomuch-baggage-letters. Venturi. “Sans Landfill Job, Burrtec Seeks
To Lock Cities In On Long Term Pacts.” San Bernardino Sentinel,
September 29, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://sbsentinel.
com/2013/09/sans-landfill-job-burrtec-seeks-to-lock-cities-in-onlong-term-pacts/.
21.
Sandra Emerson. “Upland Still Facing Shortfall In Solid Waste
Program.” Redlands Daily Facts, October 30, 2013. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.dailybulletin.com/government-andpolitics/20131030/upland-still-facing-shortfall-in-solid-waste-
program. Venturi. “Sans Landfill Job, Burrtec Seeks To Lock Cities
In On Long Term Pacts.” San Bernardino Sentinel, September 29,
2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://sbsentinel.com/2013/09/
sans-landfill-job-burrtec-seeks-to-lock-cities-in-on-long-termpacts/.
22.
Martin Hildreth. “Stephen Dunn Carries Too Much Baggage:
Letters.” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, October 27, 2014. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinion/20141027/
stephen-dunn-carries-too-much-baggage-letters. Sandra Emerson. “Ex-Upland Mayor Pomierski Sentenced to Two Years in
Prison for Bribery.” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, August 6, 2012.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.dailybulletin.com/generalnews/20120806/ex-upland-mayor-pomierski-sentenced-to-twoyears-in-prison-for-bribery. Venturi, “Sans Landfill Job.”
23.
Marquez, “Upland.”
24.
Eric Lichtblau and David Reyes. “Trash Truck Drivers Stage 5-Hour
Strike.” Los Angeles Times, January 21, 1994.
25.
Lichtblau, “Trash Truck.”
26.
Perry Smith. “Chiquita Canyon’s Val Verde Landfill Plan To Be
Discussed In Castaic.” Santa Clarita News, July 31, 2014. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.hometownstation.com/santa-claritanews/chiquita-canyons-val-verde-landfill-plan-to-be-discussedin-castaic-43035. Steve Scauzillo. “Puente Hills Landfill Will
Close Forever Thursday.” San Gabriel Valley Tribune, October
30, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.sgvtribune.com/
environment-and-nature/20131030/puente-hills-landfill-willclose-forever-thursday. Arin Mikailian. “Eagle Rock Residents
Raise a Stink Over Glendale’s Landfill Plans.” Los Angeles Times,
August 21, 2014. News reports indicate that the City of Irwindale
attempted to halt development of a proposed Waste Management facility in Azusa near the Irwindale border, while the City of
Baldwin Park registered concern over a proposed Athens Services
facility in Irwindale near the Baldwin Park border (J.D. Velasco.
“Judge Throws Out Irwindale’s Suit Against Azusa Trash-Sorting
Facility.” Daily Breeze, October 15, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20121016/judgethrows-out-irwindales-suit-against-azusa-trash-sorting-facility.
Vijay Singhal. “Re: Irwindale MRF/TS Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2008121079)” (letter). City of Baldwin Park, September
14, 2009. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.baldwinpark.com/
index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=816
&Itemid=317&mode=view).
27.
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. “Countywide Siting Element FAQs.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://dpw.
lacounty.gov/epd/cse/faq/.
28.
Brenda Platt, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi.
Stop Trashing the Climate. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Global
Anti-Incinerator Alliance/Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, and Eco-Cycle; 2008. David Pace. “More Blacks Live with
Pollution.” Associated Press, December 13, 2005. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/
item/59265:more-blacks-live-with-pollution. Robert D. Bullard,
Paul Mohai, Robin Saha, and Beverly Wright. Toxic Waste and
Race at 20: 1987-2007. United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, March 2007. Map sources: U.S. Census Bureau.
“Place Of Birth By Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months in the
United States.” American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(2009-2013), Table B06012. Facilities depicted accept material
originating from the City of Los Angeles. Some facilities that do
not accept City of L.A.-originating material may not be depicted
(CalRecycle. “Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/
Site Search.” Accessed June 24, 2014. http://www.calrecycle.
ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx. CalRecycle. “Facility
Information Toolbox (FacIT).” Accessed June 24, 2014. http://
www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/. County of Los Angeles Sanitation
Districts. “Disposal Reports.” Accessed June 24, 2014. http://dpw.
lacounty.gov/epd/swims/OnlineServices/reports.aspx).
29.
Wayne Tsuda. “Community Recycling and Resource Recovery,
Inc., aka Crown Disposal American Waste Industries Cease and
Desist Order (Community Recycling 06-01)” (letter). City of Los
Angeles Environmental Affairs Department, November 9, 2006.
Michael LoGrande. “Recommendation Report to City Planning
Commission: Community Recycling and Resource Recovery (Case
No. CPC 2008-4336-CU-SPR).” City of Los Angeles Department of
City Planning, July 24, 2014.
30.
Jessica Garrison. “Sun Valley Recycling Plant Expansion Faces
Neighborhood Opposition.” Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2013.
31.
Recology. “Crown Disposal & Community Recycling Are Becoming
Part of Recology Los Angeles.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.recologylosangeles.com/index.php/88-about-recology/240crown-disposal-and-community-recycling-are-now-recology-losangeles. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Addendum
No. 2 to RFP for City-Wide Exclusive Franchise for Commercial
and Multi-Family Solid Waste Collection Program.” August 24,
2014.
32.
State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General. “Environmental Justice.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
oag.ca.gov/environment/communities/justice.
33.
California Public Resources Code, Section 21083, Subdivision (b)
(3); see also California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
California Code Regulations Title 14, Section 15126.2. Quoted in
General. “Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level:
Legal Background.” July 10, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/ej_fact_
sheet.pdf?.
34.
Michelle Robinson. “Memo: Executive Summary Report “
Recycling Study.” Harris Interactive for Environmental Industry
Associations, November 5, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
beginwiththebin.org/images/documents/for-communities/MorePublicRecycling-report-11-12-13.pdf.
35.
Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek, and Jui Shrestha.
Californians and the Environment. Public Policy Institute of California, July 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.ppic.org/
content/pubs/survey/S_714MBS.pdf.
36.
Keep America Beautiful. “People Start Pollution, People Can Stop
It” (ad campaign). The AD Council, 1971.
37.
The California Air Resources Board found that landfills are the
second largest source of human-generated methane in California
(California Air Resources Board. Landfilling of Waste. September
61
17, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://arb.ca.gov/cc/waste/
landfillingofwaste.pdf). The recently closed Puente Hills Landfill,
the nation’s largest active landfill, produced 31,000 cubic feet of
landfill gas per minute, constituting a mix of methane and carbon
dioxide (Edward Humes. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair with
Trash. New York: Penguin, 2012, p. 24). It will continue to produce enough landfill gas to power 70,000 homes for the next 20
years (Scauzillo, “Puente Hills.”). The toxic runoff from landfilled
materials, called leachate, has significant potential impacts to
groundwater, yet has only been widely contained, treated, and
regulated since 1991 (Humes, Garbology, p. 27).
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
62
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the University of
Southern California have each put together summarizing documents that compile comprehensive overviews of research on air
quality’s impacts on health (Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Gasping for Air: Toxic Pollutants Continue to Make Millions Sick
and Shorten Lives.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.nrdc.
org/health/files/airpollutionhealthimpacts.pdf. University of
Southern California’s Environmental Health Centers. “Living Near
Busy Roads or Traffic Pollution.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
usceh.blogspot.com/p/living-near-busy-roads-or-highways.html).
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that “cutting back waste generation to 1990 levels could
reduce GHG emissions by 11.6 million metric tons” of carbon
equivalent (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4.
“Source Reduction and Recycling: A Role in Preventing Global
Climate Change.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/
region4/rcra/mgtoolkit/documents/Climate_Change_Fact_Sheet.
pdf). The EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM model) tracks
greenhouse gas reductions possible from recycling, composting,
and reduced landfilling (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“Waste Reduction Model (WARM).” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/index.html).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach.
“The Facts.” Reduce, Reuse, Recycle website. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.re3.org/facts.htm.
In states that lack the strong standards and requirements in
place in California, much can still be done with local leadership
to improve the environment, governance, and economy via the
waste and recycling system. Across the country, a number of
local governments are taking the lead in setting high standards
for increasing recycling and accountability. For instance, with
support from advocacy groups Citizen Action of Wisconsin and
Partnership for Working Families, Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has pledged to dramatically increase the city’s
residential recycling rate by fifteen percentage points. Cities like
New York City, Seattle, Portland, Austin, and others are also setting inspiring examples.
As amended by SB 1016 (Wiggins), the calculation used to demonstrate compliance with AB 939 is determined by a per person
(or per employee) pounds per day (PPD) disposal reduction rate
compared to a baseline average, usually 2003-2009 (CalRecycle.
“Per Capita Disposal and Goal Measurement [2007 and Later].”
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/
basics/PerCapitaDsp.htm). This calculation does not necessarily give an accurate sense of what proportion of a city’s waste
stream is being recycled.
43.
CalRecycle. “History of California Solid Waste Law, 1985-1989.”
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/legislation/calhist/1985to1989.htm#1989.
44.
Cascadia for CalRecycle, California 2008 Waste Characterization.
45.
Urban Sustainability Directors Network. Roadmap for Implementing Effective Commercial Waste Reduction Strategies. The City
and County of Denver, Colorado, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/771/documents/Commercial%20Waste/Commercial%20Waste%20Report%201-31-14.pdf.
46.
Businesses and apartments, defined in this law as businesses
producing over four cubic yards of waste per week and apartments of five units or more, are required to recycle. CalRecycle
estimates that this legislation will require about 470,000 businesses and apartments to comply (approximately half of that
total are businesses, the other half apartments). The affected
businesses are responsible for three quarters of the waste
generated in the state, but are only about 20% of the state’s
businesses (CalRecycle. “Mandatory Commercial Recycling: Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/FAQ.htm).
47.
California Public Resources Code, Chapter 476. Assembly Bill 341,
Chesbro; Solid Waste: Diversion. (2011).
48.
Cities can count up to 10% of “transformed” waste towards the
state’s 50% per capita disposal reduction mandate under AB 939
as amended by SB 1016 (CalRecycle. “Basics: Transformation
Credit.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/
lgcentral/basics/transform.htm).
49.
Air Resources Board. “Assembly Bill 32 Overview.” Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
50.
County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, with ICF
International. Final Unincorporated Los Angeles County Community Climate Action Plan 2020. July 2014. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/ccap_
draft-201407.pdf.
51.
In open composting (aerobic digestion) of organic materials,
decomposition has little impact on climate change. In landfill
conditions, where organic materials are compressed under layers
of other materials and denied air (anaerobic), decomposition
produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas (U.S. Composting Council. “Keeping Organics Out of Landfills.” Accessed May
15, 2015. http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/
uploads/2011/11/Keeping-Organics-Out-of-Landfills-PositionPaper.pdf). Dana Gunders. Wasted: How America Is Losing Up
to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. National
Resources Defense Council, 2012, p. 14. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf.
52.
Environmental Protection Agency. “Overview of Greenhouse
Gases.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://epa.gov/climatechange/
ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html.
53.
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “NASA Mountaintop Sensor Finds High Methane Over Los Angeles.” January 16, 2015.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150116144624.htm. Tony Barboza. “L.A. Basin
Methane Emissions Found up to 61% Higher Than Estimates.” Los
Angeles Times, January 13, 2015.
54.
55.
56.
General. “The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing
Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.” December 9, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.cacities.org/
UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/d1/d149c4fa-fb9a-441c-a314a7e2c338b3a2.pdf.
Composting would reduce 15 tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(MTCO2E) per every 100 short tons of food scraps, whereas
landfilling produces 71 tons of greenhouse gas emissions for the
same amount of material (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“WARM Emissions Factors, Waste Reduction Model (WARM).”
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/
tools/warm/index.html).
In California, an estimated 13 million tons of organic waste are
landfilled each year (Californians Against Waste. “Governor Signs
Historic Organic Waste Legislation” [press release]. September
29, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.cawrecycles.org/
whats_new/recycling_news/sept30_organics_press_release).
57.
California Public Resources Code, Chapter 727. Assembly Bill
1826, Chesbro; Solid Waste: Organic Waste (2014).
58.
California Public Resources Code, Chapter 719. Assembly Bill
1594, Williams; Waste Management. (2014).
59.
The Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter. “The Organics Project: News
Alert” (brochure). Accessed May 15, 2015. http://angeles2.sierraclub.org/sites/angeles2.sierraclub.org/files/docs/environmental_issues/TOPBrochurev0809.pdf
60.
Many cities have measures to encourage or require food waste
collection and composting. San Francisco has a mandatory
composting requirement for all commercial and residential
customers. New York City recently approved composting collection requirements for large producers of organic waste, starting
with those that generate more than one ton a week (Editorial
staff. “New NYC Food Waste Recycling Law Will Have a National
Impact, Say American Biogas and Composting Groups.” BioCycle, December 20, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
biocycle.net/2013/12/20/new-nyc-food-waste-recycling-law-willhave-a-national-impact-say-american-biogas-and-compostinggroups/). Austin will require restaurants throughout the city to
subscribe to compost collection, as well as recycle certain materials, beginning in 2016; restaurants have generally been supportive of the shift, in part due to the staggered roll-out of requirements (Sarah Coppola and Marty Toohey. “Austin Restaurants
Must Compost Food Scraps Starting in 2016.” Austin AmericanStatesman, April 26, 2013). States are also banning organic waste
from landfills (Mark Henricks. “More States Ban Organic Waste in
Landfills.” American Recycler News, January 2014. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.americanrecycler.com/0114/2428more.
shtml). An early example is Vermont’s 2012 Universal Recycling
Law, passed in response to rapidly dwindling landfill capacity.
This law also starts with large-scale producers before extending
to all customers, with a provision that, prior to 2020, it is only required if a organics recycling facility is available within 20 miles of
the customer (Robert Spencer. “Rolling Out a Statewide Organics
Ban.” BioCycle, March/April 2014, Vol. 55, No. 3, p. 82. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.biocycle.net/2014/03/28/rolling-outa-statewide-organics-ban/).
61.
CAW, “Governor Signs.”
62.
The L.A. ten-county “foodshed” uses 27,945 tons of pesticides
each year (Los Angeles Food Policy Council. Los Angeles Food
System Snapshot 2013: A Baseline Report of the Los Angeles
Regional Foodshed. October 2013, 24. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://goodfoodla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/L.A.-FoodSystem-Snapshot-Oct-2013-small.pdf). Center for Watershed
Sciences at University of California, Davis. “Assessing nitrate in
California’s drinking water: Report for the State Water Resources
Control Board report to the legislature.” 2012. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu/files/138956.pdf.
63.
M. Charles Gould. “Compost Increases the Water Holding Capacity of Droughty Soils.” Michigan State University Extension, July
20, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://msue.anr.msu.edu/
experts/merrill_gould.
64.
LAFPC, Food System Snapshot, 25.
65.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Anaerobic Digestion.”
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic/.
66.
For example, Kroger reports they will save 500,000 miles a year
by processing food waste at their Compton facility (Tiffany Hsu.
“A Powerful Use for Spoiled Food.” Los Angeles Times, May 16,
2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/
may/15/business/la-fi-ralphs-energy-20130516). Tatiana
Sanchez. “Coachella Considering New Plan for Green Waste
Disposal.” The Desert Sun, May 25, 2014.
67.
Real recycling rates were calculated by excluding green waste
tonnage used as ADC, and tonnage sent to waste-to-energy/
transformation facilities. City of Bell Gardens. “Quarterly Solid
Waste Report and Franchise Fees: Residential and Commercial”
(report from waste hauler). 2011. City of Manhattan Beach. “Tonnage/Diversion Report” (report from waste hauler). 2011. City of
Monterey Park. “Franchise Hauler Annual Report Form” (report
from waste hauler). 2011. City of San Marino. “San Marino AB
939 Reporting Quantities” (report from waste hauler). 2011.
City of South Pasadena. “AB 939 Reporting Quantities” (report
from waste hauler). 2011. City of Temple City. “AB 939 Reporting
Quantities” (report from waste hauler). 2011. City of West Covina. “AB 939 Reporting Quantities” (report from waste hauler).
2011.
68.
Bell Gardens, “Quarterly Report.”
69.
Dev Millstein and Robert A. Harley. Effects of Retrofitting Emission Control Systems on In-Use Heavy Diesel Vehicles. University
of California, Berkeley, July 2010. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.uctc.net/research/papers/UCTC-FR-2010-15.pdf.
70.
Fleets of fifteen or more solid waste collection vehicles, including roll-off and transfer vehicles, are required to transition to
alternative-fuel fleets, such as Compressed or Liquefied Natural
Gas. Smaller fleets are required to phase in alternative fuel vehicles as they acquire or replace vehicles (South Coast Air Quality
63
Management District. “Summary of Rule 1193 Requirements:
Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection
Vehicles Fact Sheet.” July 2011. Accessed May 15, 2015. www.
aqmd.gov/TAO/FLEETRULES/1193Refuse/index.htm).
71.
Karen Cesar. “Los Angeles County Waste Hauler Fined $21,500
for Emissions Violations” (press release). California Air Resources
Board, August 11, 2009.
72.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Pothole Report:
Can the Bay Area Have Better Roads? June 2011, 4.
73.
HF&H Consultants. City of Los Angeles: Solid Waste Franchise
Assessment, Final Report. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, January 23, 2012, p. 25. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.lacitysan.org/solid_resources/pdfs/2012/city-of-la-sw-franassmt-final-report.pdf.
74.
Adam Nagourney. “Infrastructure Cracks as Los Angeles Defers
Repairs.” The New York Times. September 1, 2014.
75.
76.
77.
Based on Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Environmental
Protection Agency studies, the following NAICS were used to assess the processing sector. Compost and miscellaneous organics
producers (NAICS 325314), MRFs (NAICS 56292), and recyclable
material wholesalers (NAICS 42193). Employment numbers were
derived from 2010 County Business Patterns data.
Neil Seldman. Job Creation through Product Reuse. Institute for
Local Self-Reliance, Waste to Wealth Program, 2006.
Job projections assume 75% of L.A. County’s currently landfilled
recyclable materials are recycled. Methodology based on Tellus
Institute jobs multipliers for collection, processing, and manufacturing as used by CalRecycle’s AB 341’s 75 Percent Goal and
Potential New Recycling Jobs in California by 2020, 2013, p. 8.
Jobs multipliers are from the Tellus Institute’s More Jobs, Less
Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S., 2011, p. 34.
The more conservative “collection” multiplier was used, which
assumes single-stream (i.e. “blue bin”) recycling collection. “Collection” and “landfill” job estimates for the currently disposed
portion of the stream were subtracted from the recycling-related
“collection” and “processing” jobs to better estimate new jobs.
To be more conservative, jobs were not calculated for “other”
or “other inert,” but projections were added for “textiles.” L.A.
County’s total currently disposed tonnage is from the County of
Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Countywide Integrated
Waste Management Plan 2012 Annual Report, p. 16. Ratios of
material classes disposed taken from the City of Los Angeles
Waste Characterization and Quantification Study Year 2000.
78.
Using above described methodology.
79.
The Tellus Institute states remanufacturing can produce 2.8 to
20 jobs per 1,000 tons of material remanufactured (More Jobs,
p. 34).
80.
Guevarra, Waste to Resource, p. 49.
81.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Table A-5.
Fatal Occupational Injuries by Occupation and Event or Exposure.” Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2013. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0281.pdf. U.S.
Department of Labor. “Inspection: 126196252 - Crown Disposal
64
Company Inc.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Inspection Data, September 16, 2004.
82.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Table 2.
Numbers of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Case
Type and Ownership, Selected Industries, 2013.” Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 2013. From “Employer-Reported
Workplace Injuries and Illnesses “ 2013” (press release), December 4, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.bls.gov/news.
release/pdf/osh.pdf.
83.
Kenneth Rosenman, Alice Kalush, Mary Jo Reilly, Joseph C.
Gardiner, Mathew Reeves, and Zhewui Luo. “How Much WorkRelated Injury and Illness is Missed by the Current National Surveillance System?” Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, Volume 48, Number 4, April 2006. Accessed May 15,
2015. https://www.msu.edu/~kalush/projects/JOEMWorkplaceInjuries.pdf.
84.
Jeffrey Taylor Moore, Konstantin P. Cigularov, Julie M. Sampson,
John C. Rosecrance, and Peter Y. Chen. “Construction Workers’
Reasons for Not Reporting Work-Related Injuries: An Exploratory
Study.” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2013.
85.
National Waste and Recycling Association. “Making the Waste
Industry Safer.” Accessed May 15, 2015. https://wasterecycling.
org/our-work/safety.
86.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 315464289 - Resource
Management Companies.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Data, June 12, 2011. U.S. Department of
Labor. “Inspection: 315652776 - Resource Management Companies.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection
Data, June 12, 2011.
87.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Table 1.
Number, Median Days Away From Work, And Incidence Rate for
Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Involving Days Away
From Work by Ownership, Industry, Musculoskeletal Disorders,
and Event or Exposure.” Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 2013. From “Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
Requiring Days Away from Work” (press release), November 26,
2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
pdf/osh2.pdf.
88.
Workers’ testimony provided by a representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
89.
Catherine Clarke and Marcos Martinez. Occupational Hazards of
Waste and Recycling Workers. University of California Los Angeles Labor Occupational Safety and Health program, 2010, p. 9.
90.
Kareen Espino and Ashley Kissinger. Occupational Hazards of
Waste Recycling Workers: LAANE’s “Don’t Waste L.A.” Campaign.
University of California Los Angeles Labor Occupational Safety
and Health program, August 12, 2011, p. 26.
91.
Espino, Occupational Hazards, p. 10.
92.
Clarke, Occupational Hazards, p. 9.
93.
This study addressed port truck drivers (Bailey, Diane, Zach Goldman, and Maria Minjares. Driving on Fumes: Truck Drivers Face
Elevated Health Risks from Diesel Pollution. Natural Resources
Defense Council, December 2007, p. 4. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/driving/driving.pdf).
94.
Worker testimony provided by a representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
95.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 315342394 - Edco Waste
& Recycling Services, Inc.” Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Inspection Data, October 13, 2011. U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 315347286 - Edco Waste & Recycling
Services, Inc.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Inspection Data, January 10, 2013. U.S. Department of Labor.
“Inspection: 315526848 - Universal Waste Systems Inc.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Data,
November 29, 2011.
96.
Espino, Occupational Hazards.
97.
Henry Barrios. “Family Says Arvin Brothers Killed, Injured at Composting Site Protected Only by Painters’ Masks.” The Bakersfield
Californian, October 13, 2011.
98.
U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 315072637 - Community
Recycling & Resource Recovery.” Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Inspection Data, October 12, 2011. County Of
Kern Board of Supervisors. “Summary of Proceedings: Regular
Meeting.” November 15, 2011. John Cox. “County Supervisors
Hear About Investigation Into Community Recycling.” The Bakersfield Californian, October 25, 2011. Jose Gaspar. “Residents Urge
County to Seek Action on Community Recycling.” Bakersfield Now
Eyewitness News, December 10, 2013.
99.
Recology, “Crown Disposal.”
100. Rebecca Jewell, Recology. Personal interview by John Guevarra.
101. Espino, Occupational Hazards.
102. William G. Kocol, Administrative Law Judge. American Reclamation, Inc. and Package and General Utility Drivers, Teamsters
Local Union No. 396: Cases 31-CA-067258, 31-CA-067259,
31-CA-067262, 31-CA-067263, 31-CA-067265, 31-CA-068671, 31CA-070330, 31-CA-070331, 31-CA-070334, 31-CA-072357, and
31-CA-074588. U.S.A. before the National Labor Relations Board
Division of Judges, September 17, 2012.
103. Mori Pam Rubin, Regional Director of Region 31 of the National
Labor Relations Board v. American Reclamation, Inc., Respondent. Case No. CV 12-04674 DDP (JCGx): Order Granting Temporary Injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
July 23, 2012. Office of Public Affairs, National Labor Relations
Board. “Federal Judge Orders Los Angeles Recycling Firm to Stop
Threatening Union Supporters and Offer Reinstatement to Fired
Employees” (press release). August 2, 2012. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/federaljudge-orders-los-angeles-recycling-firm-stop-threatening-union.
104. Philip Mattera. High Road or Low Road? Job Quality in the New
Green Economy. Good Jobs First, February 03, 2009, p. 27.
Worker testimony provided by a representative of the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters.
105. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Waste
Management and Remediation Services: NAICS 562 “ Earnings
by Occupation.” Industries at a Glance, 2014. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag562.htm#earnings. Worker
testimony provided by a representative of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
106. Worker testimony provided by a representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
107. Brave New Foundation. “We Are Not Garbage” (documentary
short). MyCuentame project, May 11, 2012. Accessed May 15,
2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDhBGD9BDh4.
108. Espino, Occupational Hazards.
109. Mattera, High Road, 28.
110. “Collective Bargaining Agreement 2012-2016 Between Recology Sunset & Recology Golden Gate and Sanitary Truck Drivers
and Helpers Union Local 350, IBT.” May 11, 2012, p. 3. City and
County Government of San Francisco Office of the City Administrator. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://sfgsa.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1585.
111. Information provided by Recology staff, 2015.
112. Dr. Carol Zabin, Dr. Arindrajit Dube, and Ken Jacobs. The Hidden
Public Costs of Low-Wage Jobs in California. Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California Berkeley, 2004. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2004/
workingpoor_summary.pdf
113. David Cooper. Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10
Would Save Safety Net Programs Billions and Help Ensure Businesses Are Doing Their Fair Share. Economic Policy Institute,
Issue Brief #387, October 16, 2014, p. 2.
114. Phil Hagan. “Temporary Workers Need Training to Reduce Risk
of Injury”Especially in the Heat.” Waste360, June 19, 2014.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://waste360.com/blog/temporaryworkers-need-training-reduce-risk-injury-especially-heat. National Waste and Recycling Association. “Understanding OSHA’s
Temporary Worker Initiative.” Accessed May 15, 2015. https://
wasterecycling.org/component/mijoevents/event/53-webinarunderstanding-osha-s-temporary-worker-initiative. Editorial staff.
“OSHA Urged to Launch Temp Worker Emphasis Program.” Occupational Safety & Health, November 05, 2013. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://ohsonline.com/articles/2013/11/05/osha-urged-tolaunch-temp-worker-emphasis-program.aspx?admgarea=news.
115. Michael Grabell. “The Expendables: How the Temps Who Power
Corporate Giants Are Getting Crushed.” ProPublica, June 27,
2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.propublica.org/
article/the-expendables-how-the-temps-who-power-corporategiants-are-getting-crushe.
116. Craig Johnson. “Safety First: Fatal Temp Injuries Draw OSHA’s
Attention.” Staffing Industry, May 19, 2014. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.staffingindustry.com/Research-Publications/
Publications/Staffing-Industry-Review/June-2014/Safety-First-Fatal-temp-injuries-draw-OSHA-s-attention#sthash.PK7Q3fQP.dpuf.
117. Michael Grabell, Olga Pierce, and Jeff Larson. “Temporary Work,
65
Lasting Harm.” ProPublica,December 18, 2013. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.propublica.org/article/temporary-worklasting-harm. Caroline K. Smith, Barbara A. Silverstein, David K.
Bonauto, Darrin Adams and Z. Joyce Fan. “Temporary Workers
in Washington State.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
Vol. 53, Issue 2, July 17, 2009. From Rebecca Smith and Claire
Mckenna. Temped Out: How the Domestic Outsourcing of BlueCollar Jobs Harms America’s Workers. National Employment Law
Project National Staffing Workers Alliance, March 2015. Accessed
May 15, 2015. https://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/
Temped-Out.pdf.
118. Grabell et. al., “Temporary Work.”
119. Yong-Seong Park and Richard J. Butler. “The Safety Costs of
Contingent Work: Evidence from Minnesota.” Journal of Labor
Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, Fall 2001.
120. Grabell et. al., “The Expendables”.
121. Grabell et. al., “Temporary Work.”
122. Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn. There Are Significant
Business Costs to Replacing Employees. Center for American
Progress, November 16, 2012.
123. Alicia C. Dennis. “Boy with Autism Gets a Special Gift from
Sanitation Worker.” People Magazine, February 17, 2014.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20787780,00.html.
124. Emily Foxhall. “Newport Beach Residents May Be Losing Their
Beloved ‘Trash Men’.” Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2013.
125. Robin Nagle. Picking Up: On the Streets and Behind the Trucks
with the Sanitation Workers of New York City. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2013.
126. Tatiana Schlossbergaug. “At This Academy, the Curriculum Is
Garbage.” The New York Times, August 15, 2014.
127. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “About Us.” Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.lacitysan.org/general_info/about_us/
awards.htm.
128. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Solid Resources: Curbside Recycling Program.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://san.lacity.org/solid_resources/recycling/curbside/Curbside_Recycling.
htm. University of California Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles Zero
Waste Progress Report. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation,
March 2013, p. 11.
129. The Heads of Departments, Offices, or Bureaus Represented
Herein and the SEIU Local 721. “Memorandum of Understanding
for Joint Submission to the City Council Regarding the Equipment
Operation and Labor Employees Representation Unit (MOU #4).”
December 10, 2007.
130. UCLA, Zero Waste Progress, p. 11, pp. 14-15. L.A. Sanitation.
“Curbside Recycling.”
131. As of 2012 (Enrique Zaldivar and Daniel Meyers. Report to Board
of Public Works: Authority to Implement an Exclusive Franchise
Waste Hauling System in the City of Los Angeles. City of Los
66
Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, February 13, 2012, p. 5. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://san.lacity.org/ZeroWasteLA/PDFs/reports/
Adopted_Board_Report_2-13-12.pdf). Single-family residences
and apartment buildings that currently receive City of Los
Angeles’ Bureau of Sanitation collection will continue to receive
this service; multi-family buildings that currently receive City of
Los Angeles’ recycling collection will be provided with recycling
services at no additional cost as part of the franchise system
(City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Request For Proposals:
Citywide Exclusive Franchise System for Municipal Solid Waste
Collection and Handling. Solid Resources Citywide Recycling Division, June 11, 2014, pp. 4, 8. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://san.
lacity.org/ZeroWasteLA/PDFs/Final_Hauler_Franchise_RFP.pdf).
132. UCLA, Zero Waste Progress, p. 13. City of Los Angeles Bureau
of Sanitation. Request For Proposals: Receipt, Processing, and
Reuse of Green Material, Food Material, and Horse Manure from
the City of Los Angeles’ Curbside Collection Program. 2013, pp.
10-11.
133. As of 2012 (City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation et. al. City of
Los Angeles Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan “ A Zero Waste Master Plan [SWIRP] Volume II. October 2013, pp. 25, 36).
134. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Survey of other Cities
Waste Agreements (Responses).” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
san.lacity.org/ZeroWasteLA/PDFs/reports/Other_Citites_Survey_Response.pdf.
135. Kim Braun. “From 77% to 95% by 2030: City of Santa
Monica’s Road to Zero Waste” (presentation). City of Santa
Monica Resource Recovery & Recycling Division, 2013.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.hfh-consultants.
com/2013LakewoodWorkshop/3_Kim_Braun_Santa_Monica_
Zero_Waste_Plan.pdf.
136. Editorial staff. “In the Spotlight - The City of Santa Monica’s
Resource Recovery and Recycling Division: Setting a Standard of
Excellence.” Waste Advantage Magazine, February 10, 2015. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://wasteadvantagemag.com/spotlightcity-santa-monicas-resource-recovery-recycling-division-settingstandard-excellence/.
137. Santa Monica Public Works Resource Recovery and Recycling.
“Commercial Collection Services.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/ContentRecycling.aspx?id=8208. Santa Monica Public Works Resource
Recovery and Recycling. “Food Waste.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/ContentRecycling.aspx?id=10152. Zach Behrens. “Santa Monica Now Offering
Oil and Grease Recycling for Restaurants.” LAist, November 30,
2009. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://laist.com/2009/11/30/
santa_monica_now_offering_oil_and_g.php.
138. Santa Monica Public Works Resource Recovery and Recycling.
“Our Mission.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.smgov.net/
departments/publicworks/recycling.aspx.
139. Waste Advantage, “Spotlight: Santa Monica.”
140. Waste Advantage, “Spotlight: Santa Monica.”
141. David Ehrhardt and Rebecca Burdon. “Free Entry in Infrastruc-
ture.” The World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper, March
1999.
142. City of San Jose Environmental Services Department. Republic
Services Quarterly Reports Summary, 2012 and 2014.
143. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. for HF&H Consultants. Increasing Recycling In The Commercial Sector: Assessment
Of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program And Exclusive
Hauler Arrangements. Stop Waste, the Alameda County Waste
Authority, April 28, 2009, p. 8.
144. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Environmental Programs Division. “Frequently Asked Questions for Non-Exclusive Commercial Solid Waste Collection Franchise Customers”
brochure. 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://dpw.lacounty.
gov/epd/swims/TrashCollection/docs/FAQ%20Customers.pdf.
145. Daniel Siegal. “Trash Choice Brings High Price.” La CaÃ±ada Valley
Sun, September 14, 2011. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
lacanadaonline.com/news/tn-vsl-0915-trash,0,430912.story.
146. Interested parties can find extensive analysis of industry costs,
rate impacts, and waste and recycling franchise systems in
LAANE’s 2013 whitepaper, “Stabilizing Customer Rates in Exclusive Franchise Systems: An Analysis of Commercial Rates and
Cost Drivers in L.A. County” by Lauren Ahkiam. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.neweconomyforall.com/dwla/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DWLA-Whitepaper_Stabilizing-Customer-Ratesin-Exclusive-Franchise-Systems11.pdf.
147. HF&H Consultants. City of Los Angeles Commercial Solid Waste
Cost and Fee Analysis: Final Report. August 24, 2012, p. 3.
148. HF&H, Franchise Assessment, p. 24.
150. City of Long Beach Environmental Services Bureau. Hauler reports furnished in response to a Public Records Request, 2012.
Department’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs: Opportunities Exist to Improve Recycling Rates and Reduce Adverse
Impacts Generated by Waste Hauling. City of San Diego Office of
the City Auditor, August 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.sandiego.gov/auditor/reports/fy15_pdf/audit/15-003_Environmental_Services_Recycling.pdf.
157. Gabriella Yap and Shauna Clark. “Withdrawal of Solid Waste Collection Service by Waste Management” (memo). City of La Habra
Heights Office of the City Manager, May 10, 2012. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://la-habra-heights.granicus.com/MetaViewer.
php?meta_id=17109&view=&showpdf=1.
158. This does not include the City of Los Angeles, given its transition
to an exclusive franchise system.
159. Sabrina Bornstein. Don’t Waste L.A.: A Path to Green Jobs, Clean
Air and Recycling for All. Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy,
January 2011, p. 16.
160. HF&H, Cost and Fee Analysis, pp. 3-5.
161. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “2013 Hauler Annual
Reporting Tonnage E-file Gross Receipts & Trucks.”
162. Aaron Ballard, proprietor, Ballard Art Framing. Personal interview.
163. Alex Maslansky, shop manager. Personal interview.
164. Bornstein, Don’t Waste L.A., p. 16.
165. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Request for the Revocation of Key, Inc.’s Solid Waste Hauling Permit For Failure to
Comply with the Terms and Conditions of its Permit and with the
Requirements of LAMC 66.32.” Board Report No. 2. March 2013.
County of Los Angeles Contractor Hearing Board. “Debarment Of
Key Disposal, Inc., John Katangian, Dan Katangian and Shelline
Katangian.” December 27, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/81332.pdf.
151. Foth Infrastructure & Environment. Analysis of Waste Collection
Service Arrangements. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June
2009, p. 5. Figure source: Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, designed by Rosten Woo and Colleen Corcoran. “Reducing
Trucks on the Road.” 2013.
166. HF&H, Franchise Assessment, p. 7. UCLA, Zero Waste Progress,
p. 11.
152. Waste collection vehicles have little fuel efficiency because of
their weight and frequent starting and stopping, using up to 20
times as much fuel each year as other vehicles. Deborah Gordon,
Juliet Burdelski, and James S. Cannon. Greening Garbage Trucks:
New Technologies for Cleaner Air. INFORM Inc., 2003, p. 12.
153. Foth, Analysis, p. 139.
154. City of Pasadena Department of Public Works. “Review Of NonExclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise System” (memo).
December 6, 2010.
155. City of Pasadena Department of Public Works. “Review Of NonExclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise System” (memo). April
28, 2014.
156. Eduardo Luna. Performance Audit of the Environmental Services
167. City of San Jose Environmental Services Department. Republic
Services Quarterly Reports Summary, 2012 and 2014.
169. Table depicts author’s assessment based on analysis. Whittier
has a municipal/exclusive hybrid, and is classified municipal here.
The City of L.A. is transitioning to an exclusive franchise and is
thus classified as one here. A number of cities with municipal
residential collection offer commercial collection in addition to
private commercial collection, but are not classified as municipal
here.
170. Mayor Bill de Blasio. One New York: The Plan for a Strong and
Just City. The City of New York, 2015, p. 186.
171. California Public Resources Code, Section 49520.
172. The full goals adopted by the City include: “Meet the City’s Zero
Waste goals by establishing the maximum disposal for each zone,
67
providing Blue Bin recycling, at minimum, at every customer site,
and preserving existing organic waste separation and recycling
programs. Meet and exceed California requirements for waste
diversion and mandatory commercial and multifamily recycling.
Improve health and safety for solid waste workers under City
contract provisions. Improve efficiency of the City’s solid waste
system by maximizing system routing. Improve the City’s air quality by requiring late model, low emission, clean fuel vehicles. Provide the highest level of Customer Service through communication and delivery of services. Create a consistent, clearly defined
system with uniform unit rates and contingency plans to ensure
reliable service. Create an environment that ensures long-term
competition by utilizing an RFP process that yields the best value
service template for customers. Ensure sufficient staffing to meet
Program Goals. Ensure reliable system infrastructure to provide
uninterrupted service to City customers” (Alex Helou for Enrique
C. Zaldivar. “Report to Energy and Environment Committee: Final
Environmental Impact Report on the Exclusive Franchise System
For Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Handling.” City of Los
Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, March 13, 2014. See also City of
Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Final Implementation Plan
for Exclusive Commercial and Multifamily Collection Franchise
System. Solid Resources Citywide Recycling Division, April 2013,
Section 2.1).
173. UCLA, Zero Waste Progress, p. 6. L.A. Sanitation, SWIRP Vol. II, p.
47.
174. Because of the size of the proposed new system, the City of Los
Angeles decided to pursue a program environmental impact
review. This may not be necessary in smaller markets.
175. No one hauler may be awarded more than 49% of the City’s
market share (L.A. Sanitation, RFP, p. 7).
176. The Bureau of Sanitation will continue providing collection to
single-family homes and multifamily customers that currently receive municipal waste collection (L.A. Sanitation, RFP, pp. 2, 12).
177. L.A. Sanitation, RFP, p. 7.
178. Medical “red bag” waste, hazardous, radioactive, and pharmaceutical waste will continue to be handled by specialty subcontractors and will not be affected by L.A.’s new system (L.A.
Sanitation, RFP, p. 13).
179. U.S. News and World Report ranked the top 20 hospitals in state
out of 430 hospitals in California. Ten of those 20 are either
public or located in Los Angeles’s current open permit system
and were thus excluded. Six of the remaining ten hospitals are
in exclusive franchise cities. The top ten private hospitals are
Stanford Hospital and Clinics in Palo Alto (exclusive franchise),
John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek (exclusive franchise),
Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, Hoag Memorial
Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, City of Hope in Duarte
(exclusive franchise), Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center in Downey (exclusive franchise), John Muir Medical
Center in Concord (exclusive franchise), Loma Linda Hospital in
Loma Linda (exclusive franchise), Scripps Mercy Hospital in San
Diego, and Scripps La Jolla Hospitals and Clinics in the community
of San Diego (“Best Hospitals in California.” U.S. News and World
Report, 2013).
68
180. Kenneth Ofgang. “Court Throws out Some Convictions in South
Gate Corruption Case.” Metropolitan News-Enterprise, April 16,
2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/robl041613.htm.
181. Hector Becerra. “Settlement Clamps the Lid on South Gate Waste
Hauler.” Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2005.
182. City of Inglewood Public Works Department. “Solid Waste Rate
Adjustment: Consolidated Disposal Service” (memo). October
30, 2012. HF&H Consultants. “City of Inglewood: Special Meeting
of City Council, Evaluation of Solid Waste and Recycling Services
Proposals” (presentation). February 23, 2012. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.cityofinglewood.org/pdfs/wastemanagement/
hfh.pdf.
183. HF&H, “City of Inglewood.”
184. City of Inglewood. “Waste Services.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.cityofinglewood.org/depts/pw/divisions/public_services/waste_collection.asp.
185. HF&H, Rates and Costs, p. 14. HF&H, Final Assessment, p. 21.
186. L.A. Sanitation, RFP, p. 7.
187. Sforza, “Trash Contracts.”
188. Sforza, “Trash Contracts.”
189. Los Angeles World Airports. “Business Opportunities: Administrative Requirements - Labor Peace Agreement (LPA).” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.lawa.org/welcome_LAWA.
aspx?id=1796. Frederick Melo. “St. Paul: Eureka Recycling
Scrambles As City Steps Back On Composting Plan.” Twin Cities
Pioneer Press, July 30, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.twincities.com/ci_21192018/st-pauls-rethinking-composting-efforts-put-eureka-recycling. Lynn Hoffman, Eureka Recycling. “Changes to Zero Waste Plan in Saint Paul.” Dayton’s Bluff
Community Council blog. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
daytonsbluff.org/changes-to-zero-waste-plan-in-saint-paul/.
Maya Rao. “Longtime Trash Hauler Wins Five-Year Contract.” Star
Tribune, November 12, 2013.
190. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Survey of Other Cities
Waste Agreements (Responses).” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
lacitysan.org/ZeroWasteLA/PDFs/reports/Other_Citites_Survey_Response.pdf.
191. In the Public Interest. Standing Guard: How Unaccountable Contracting Fails Governments and Taxpayers. December 2014, p.
13. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/
sites/default/files/Standing%20Guard_web.f.pdf.
192. In the Public Interest, Standing Guard, p. 11.
193. Integrity Waste and Huls Environmental Management. “2012
Compliance Evaluation and Financial Review of Solid Waste
Services: Revised Final Hauler Audit Report.” City of El Monte,
December 3, 2013. City of El Monte. “Special Meeting Agenda
of the City Council of the City of El Monte: December 10, 2013.”
Agenda item 15.4.
194. Integrity and Huls, “2012 Compliance,” pp. 14-15.
195. Concerns regarding progress on audit raised in council meeting
(El Monte City Council Meeting, May 12th, 2014. Agenda Items
#18.D.3 and #18.D.4. Minutes as attached to the agenda for the
June 10th, 2014 council meeting).
istration and Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Recommended Practices: Protecting Temporary Workers. August 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3735.pdf.
196. Refer to source report for full reference information. Ahkiam,
“Stabilizing Customer Rates.”
211. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 728. Assembly Bill No.
1897, Hernández; Labor contracting: client liability (2014).
212. Sam Levin. “Waste Management Wins Back Oakland Garbage
Contract, Will Split Franchise With California Waste Solutions.” East Bay Express, September 23, 2014. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2014/09/23/waste-management-wins-back-oakland-garbage-contract-will-split-franchise-with-california-waste-solutions.
198. Siegal, Daniel. “Trash Choice Brings Higher Price,” La CaÃ±ada
Valley Sun, September 14, 2011. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.lacanadaonline.com/news/tn-vsl-0915-trash,0,430912.
story.
199. Siegal, “Trash Choice.”
200. HF&H, Franchise Assessment, pp. 16, 24.
201. CalRecycle. “Incentive Programs for Local Government Recycling
and Waste Reduction.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Library/Innovations/Incentives/
HaulIncen.htm#Revenue.
202. Ocean County, New Jersey. “Recycling Revenue Sharing Returns
Almost $15 Million” (press release). August 20, 2014. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.co.ocean.nj.us/PressReleaseDetailPage.aspx?Name=2095.
203. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Report to the Board of
Public Works, No. 1: Authority to Execute a Renewal Option with
CR&R Inc.” November 24, 2014.
213. Paul Rogers. “Milpitas is New Home to What’s Being Billed as
World’s Largest Recycling Plant.” San Jose Mercury News, May
24, 2013. Editorial staff. “Anaerobic Digest.” BioCycle, Vol. 55,
No. 1, January 2014, p. 20. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
biocycle.net/2014/01/20/anaerobic-digest-35/.
214. L.A. Sanitation, “Addendum No. 2 to RFP.”
215. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Staff Resources Plan:
City-Wide Exclusive Franchise System for Municipal Solid Waste
Collection and Handling. Solid Resources Citywide Recycling Division, September 2014.
216. Richard E. Fairfax. “Employer Safety Incentive and Disincentive
Policies and Practices.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration, March 12, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. https://www.
osha.gov/as/opa/whistleblowermemo.html.
204. For example, four workers at one area Dirty MRF, American Reclamation, testified that they were instructed to dispose directly
in a landfill the materials collected from the City of El Monte,
which the city’s contract stated should be processed and recycled
(workers’ testimony submitted to the Metro Board of Trustees,
June 2012).
205. Johnson, Craig. “Safety First: Fatal Temp Injuries Draw OSHA’s
Attention.” Staffing Industry, May 19, 2014. Accessed May 15,
2015. http://www.staffingindustry.com/Research-Publications/
Publications/Staffing-Industry-Review/June-2014/Safety-First-Fatal-temp-injuries-draw-OSHA-s-attention#sthash.PK7Q3fQP.dpuf.
219. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Exclusive Franchise System for Municipal Solid Waste Collection Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. November 2013, p. ES-7.
206. Clarke, Occupational Hazards, p. 7.
207. L.A. Sanitation, “Survey of Other Cities.”
208. City of Maywood Municipal Code, Title 4: Public Safety, Chapter
13: Waste Disposal Worker Retention Ordinance. City of Carson
Municipal Code, Chapter 2: Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials, Section 5229.2: Seamless Service Requirements.
City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Chapter 16: Garbage, Trash,
and Weeds, Article 2: Solid Waste Collection Regulations, Section
16-41: Employee Retention/Preferential Hiring/Wage Maintenance.
209. City of Seattle. “Solid Waste Collection and Transfer Contract
Between the City of Seattle and Waste Management of Washington, Inc.” 2008, p. 63-67.
210. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
218. L.A. Sanitation, RFP, p. 31. City of Beverly Hills. “Franchise Agreement Between City of Beverly Hills and Crown Disposal Co., Inc.
for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Services and Residential
Solid Waste Processing.” December 13, 2010, p. 29.
220. G. Tavares, Z. Zsigraiova, V. Semiano, and M.G. Carvalho. “Optimization of MSW Collection Routes for Minimum Fuel Consumption
Using 3D GIS Modelling.” Waste Management, Volume 29, 2009,
pp. 1176-1185.
221. City of Glendale. “Resolution No. 11-241: A Resolution of the
Council of the City of Glendale, California Establishing a Zero
Waste Goal for the City of Glendale.” Adopted December 6, 2011.
City of Burbank. “Zero Waste Policy and Strategic Plan.” Adopted
on June 10, 2008. City of Pasadena. “Zero Waste Strategic Plan.”
Adopted October, 2014.
222. L.A. Sanitation, SWIRP.
223. City of Seattle. Recycling Rate Reports, 2007-2013. Compiled by
Justin Wood, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
224. It is important for cities to address Household Hazardous
Waste (HHW) and Construction and Demolition (C&D) in order
to prevent contamination and increase diversion. Some cities
69
incorporate HHW collection or drop-off responsibilities into their
exclusive franchise contracts, such as the City of West Hollywood.
Other cities, like Redondo Beach, require a HHW center to be
open to the public. Given C&D’s quarter share of the materials
landfilled, many cities require a certain percent of this stream to
be recycled. In the City of L.A., all C&D material must be taken
to City-certified processing facilities to be sorted for recycling
recovery; many other cities in L.A. County require at least 50% diversion from this stream. The City of Pasadena recently increased
their diversion requirement to 75%. Waste reduction and reuse
programming, such as redesigned products, smart purchasing,
and Extended Producer Responsibility for hazardous and difficultto-recycle materials are critical to Zero Waste “ but may require
actions at higher levels of governance, and are beyond the scope
of this report.
225. The Solid Waste Association of North America. “SWANA Announces 2013 Excellence Award Winners.” Accessed May 15, 2015. https://swana.org/Awards/
ExcellenceAwards/2013Winners.aspx.
226. City of Redondo Beach. “Solid Waste Handling Services Agreement Between the City of Redondo Beach, California and
Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. Dba Athens Services.” December 21,
2010, p. D-4. City of La Mirada. “Contract for the Provision of
Solid Waste Services Executed Between the City of La Mirada and
EDCO Disposal Corporation.” December 2009, p. 31. City of Manhattan Beach. “Franchise Agreement Between City of Manhattan Beach and USA Waste of California, Inc. for Integrated Solid
Waste Management Services.” May 7, 2002, p. 21.
sfenvironment.org/news/press-release/mayor-lee-announcessan-francisco-reaches-80-percent-landfill-waste-diversion-leadsall-cities-in-north-america.
236. John Guevarra. “Bay Area Summary” (internal memo). Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, November 2012.
237. San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Zero Waste
Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste/overview/zero-waste-faq.
San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Make Your Own
Compost, Recycle, and Landfill Signs.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.sfenvironment.org/signmaker.
238. Kevin Drew and Jack Macy, San Francisco Environment. Personal
interview, March 12, 2015. Mark Andrew Boyer. “San Francisco’s
Trash Inspectors Get up Earlier than You Do.” The Atlantic’s CITYLAB, April 4, 2013. http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/04/
san-franciscos-trash-inspectors-get-earlier-you-do/5191/.
239. Boyer, “Trash Inspectors.” San Francisco Department of the
Environment. “Zero Waste Toolkit for Successful Participation.”
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.sfenvironment.org/article/
business-recycling-and-composting/technical-assistance-for-sfbusinesses-restaurants-office.
240. Recology San Francisco. “History.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.recologysf.com/index.php/recology-history. San
Francisco has a unique waste and recycling management system
established by the Refuse Collection and Disposal Ordinance,
adopted in 1932 as part of the City’s charter. This ordinance
established exclusive permits to collect waste for companies
specified in the ordinance, which “created a City-regulated utility
model.” Recology is now “the sole holder of all permits to collect
refuse” (S.F. Environment, “Zero Waste FAQ.”).
229. City of Bellflower. “Agreement Between City Of Bellflower and
CR&R Incorporated for Integrated Solid Waste Management
Services.” October 27, 2004, p. 54.
241. Recology. “Employee Ownership.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.recologysf.com/index.php/recology-employeeownership.
230. City of Cerritos. “Agreement Between City of Cerritos and Calmet
Services, Inc. for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services.”
December 13, 2007, p. 88.
242. “Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Recology. “News release.”
December 9, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.recologymedia.com/press_room/index.php
231. City of San Jose. “Commercial Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection Franchises Agreement Between the City of San
Jose And Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, DBA Allied
Waste Services of Santa Clara County, Exhibit B.” September 16,
2011.
243. Mattera, High Road, 28.
227. City of Calabasas Municipal Code, Section 8.16.500 - Collection of
Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials.
232. L.A. Sanitation, “Survey of Other Cities.”
233. Redondo Beach. “Services Agreement,” p. 109.
234. City and County of San Francisco. Ordinance 100-09: Mandatory
Recycling and Composting. Amended June 9, 2009. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/
policy/sfe_zw_sf_mandatory_recycling_composting_ord_100-09.
pdf.
235. Mayor’s Office of Communication, City of San Francisco. “Recology & City Recycling & Compost Program Creates Jobs, Stimulates
Growth of Green Economy & Supports City’s 2020 Zero Waste
Goal.” October 5, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
70
244. Aaron Sankin. “Recology Wars: Proposition A Backers Look To
Take Down San Francisco’s Biggest Monopoly.” The Huffington
Post, May 29, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/recology-san-francisco_n_1526149.
html.
245. A proposed 2012 local measure would have restricted the ability
of one company to operate all of the waste system’s components, among other changes (Tony Kelly. “Proposed Ordinance:
City and County of San Francisco Competitive Bidding and Zero
Waste Ordinance.” City and County of San Francisco. Filed June
8, 2011). Recology’s CEO was reported as saying the proposed
structure would undermine their model, which “works because
it is integrated” (Eric Young. “Critics Hope to Split Recology’s
Monopoly.” San Francisco Business Times, May 11, 2012). The
proposed change was roundly rejected by voters, with over 75
percent voting to retain the current system (City and County of
San Francisco Department of Elections. “June 5, 2012, Consolidated Presidential Primary Election: Local Measure A - Garbage
Collection and Disposal.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.
sfelections.org/results/20120605/#a24). Dan Schreiber. “Prop A
Fails; City Won’t Junk Garbage System.” The San Francisco Examiner, June 6, 2012. Editorial staff. “Prop. A: Haul Trash Measure to
the Landfill.” San Francisco Business Times, May 11, 2012.
246. In the early days of recycling, residents were often required to
keep each recyclable material (e.g., glass, plastic, paper) separate, to be collected separately or self-hauled these materials to
recycling centers. This system is still in use in some parts of the
country.
247. Bin colors may differ, and some areas may offer a fourth bin for
horse manure.
248. Guevarra, Waste to Resource, pp. 29, 49.
249. L.A. Sanitation, SWIRP Vol. II, p. 36.
250. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Draft Environmental Impact Report: City of Los Angeles Solid Waste Integrated Resources
Plan. Appendix C. October 2013.
251. Aaron Sankin. “America’s Greenest City: San Francisco Now
Reuses 80 Percent Of Its Waste.” The Huffington Post. October
8, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2012/10/08/americas-greenest-city_n_1949160.html. City
of San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Mayor Lee
Announces San Francisco Reaches 80% Landfill Waste Diversion,
Leads All Cities in North America” (press release). Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.sfenvironment.org/news/press-release/
mayor-lee-announces-san-francisco-reaches-80-percent-landfillwaste-diversion-leads-all-cities-in-north-america.
252. City of Bellflower. “Solid Waste & Recycling Tons Summary Table”
(report from waste hauler). December 2011. City of Calabasas.
“Solid Waste Diverted: Residential and Commercial” (report
from waste hauler). 2011. City of San Dimas. “Tonnage Report”
(report from waste hauler). 2011. City of West Hollywood. “AB
939 Reporting Quantities” (report from waste hauler). December
31, 2011.
253. Cascadia Consulting Group. Contractor’s Report to the Board
“ Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Waste
Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups.
CalRecycle, June 2006, p.5. May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.
ca.gov/WasteChar/PubExtracts/34106006/ExecSummary.pdf.
254. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Complex Recycling Issues: Strategies for Record-Setting Waste Reduction in MultiFamily Dwellings.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/
osw/conserve/downloads/f99022.pdf.
255. Green Waste Solutions. Unit Based Garbage Charges Create Positive Economic and Environmental Impact in New England States.
2010. From “Get SMART with Pay-As-You-Throw: Help Your
Community Stabilize Revenues and Protect the Environment”
(bulletin). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summer 2010.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/
tools/payt/tools/bulletin/summer10.pdf.
256. Alexis Petru. “Meet the Zero Waste Family.” Earth911. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.earth911.com/home-garden/zerowaste-johnson-family/. Deb Wandell. “Zero Waste - How Green
Can You Go?” San Francisco Gate, April 22, 2013. Accessed May
15, 2015. http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/ZeroWaste-How-green-can-you-go-4453596.php.
257. L.A. Sanitation, SWIRP Vol. II, p. 36.
258. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Stakeholder Comments
in Full.” 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://san.lacity.org/ZeroWasteLA/PDFs/reports/FranchiseComments-Complete.pdf.
259. For example, as outlined by the City of Chicago in its guidelines
for multi-family buildings (City of Chicago Department of the
Environment. Multi‐Unit Residential Recycling Toolkit. 2009. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/
depts/doe/general/RecyclingAndWasteMgmt_PDFs/MultiUnit/
RecyclinginLargeResidentialBuildings.pdf).
260. CalRecycle. Recycling in Multifamily Dwellings: A Model for Local
Government Recycling and Waste Reduction. September 1, 2001.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Detail.aspx?PublicationID=920.
261. Crown Disposal. “AB 341: You. Have. Options” (brochure).
262. David N. Pellow. Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental
Justice in Chicago. Boston: MIT Press, 2004, p. 105.
263. Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. “Susan Collins, Executive Director, Container Recycling Institute” (video interview).
Accessed May 15, 2015. https://vimeo.com/102613875.
264. Golder Associates. Planning Study for the Assessment of Mixed
Solid Waste Processing Technology and Siting Options: City
of Toronto. May 2009, p.7. Kit Strange. “Overview of Waste
Management Options: Their Efficacy and Acceptability.” Issues in
Environmental Science and Technology, No. 18. The Royal Society
of Chemistry, 2002.
265. R.W. Beck, Inc. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study:
Characterization and Quantification of Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities. California Integrated Waste Management
Board, June 2006.
266. David Engle. “The Shape of MRFs to Come.” MSW Management,
April 5, 2015. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/The_Shape_of_MRFs_to_Come_22190.
aspx. Dirty MRF advocates point to the brand-new Newby Island
Resource Recovery Park in San Jose as an example of what is possible with new technology. This facility is, however, a misleading
example for two critical reasons. First, it relies on a wet-dry collection system where organic materials are collected separately,
rather than a “one bin for all” system. It is also a misleading example because of the dramatic amount of funds and technology
invested in its success “ investments largely unparalleled across
the nation “ meaning it is unlikely for local Dirty MRFs, even new
ones, to realize similar success.
267. Five of the cities depicted in Figure 7 (Monterey Park, San Marino, South Pasadena, Temple City, and West Covina) provided
“one bin for all” collection rather than “three bin” separately
collected recycling service.
71
268. Mike O’Grady. Minutes of CalRecycle Meeting from January 23,
2008. California Integrated Waste Management Board.
269. CalRecycle. “Mandatory Commercial Recycling Frequently Asked
Questions: Compliance.” Last updated November 6, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/
Commercial/FAQ.htm.
270. Kathleen McLaughlin. “Coalition Fights Ballard Plan to Shake up
Curbside Recycling.” Indianapolis Business Journal, June 9, 2014.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.ibj.com/articles/48041coalition-fights-ballard-plan-to-shake-up-curbside-recycling.
271. The company stated, while describing its Sun Valley MRF, that
“[w]e collect and distribute all of the materials that come out
of our MRF for use in manufacturing, composting and in some
cases, to fuel our power plants at Madera Power or Dinuba Energy” (Crown Disposal. “Sun Valley MRF.” Accessed May 15, 2015
via Google Cached. http://www.crowndisposal.com/communityrecycling/about/sun-valley-mrf).
272. Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Board of Directors.
“ISRI One-Bin Collection Policy.” Adopted July 23, 2014. Accessed
May 15, 2015. https://www.isri.org/docs/default-source/policyposition-statements/one-bin-collection-policy.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Fran
McPoland, Paper Recycling Coalition. Letter to the Editor. The
Houston Chronicle, August 21, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/
Friday-letters-Vests-recycling-grand-jury-5704413.php.
273. National Recycling Coalition. “NRC Supports the Recycling Industry Coalition Policy Opposing Dirty MRFs.” November 21, 2014.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://nrcrecycles.org/nrc-supports-therecycling-industry-coalition-policy-opposing-dirty-mrfs/.
274. Editorial staff. “Arvin, Lamont Residents Raise Stink Over Controversial Composting Facility.” Bakersfield Now, July 11, 2007.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/
local/8449942.html.
275. The LAFPC grew out of a 2009 initiative of former City of Los
Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, “working to make Southern California a Good Food region for everyone.” The Urban
Agriculture working group is a coalition effort made up of dozens
of organizations, farmers, experts and individuals (Los Angeles
Food Policy Council. “Mission.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
goodfoodla.org/about/mission/).
276. Los Angeles Food Policy Council. Letter to Lisa Carlson. December
16, 2013.
277. Karen Coca. Response to Public Records Request. Solid Resources
Citywide Recycling Division, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, June 28, 2013.
278. Kerry Getter, Balcones Recycling. Personal interview conducted
by John Guevarra, December 5, 2012.
279. Pellow, p. 145.
280. Ari Bloomekatz. “Third Body in Year’s Span Found at MixedWaste Plant in Industry.” Los Angeles Times. December 20, 2013.
Adolfo Flores. “Dead Newborn Found at Industry Trash Site;
Investigation Continues.” Los Angeles Times. December 11, 2012.
72
Veronica Rocha. “Human Remains Discovered at Trash Site, The
4th Such Case in 2 Years.” Los Angeles Times. September 30,
2014.
281. Sharon Knolle. “Dead Baby Found on Conveyor Belt at Recycling
Plant.” LAist, October 25, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
laist.com/2013/10/25/dead_baby_found_on_conveyor_at_recy.
php. Lindsay William-Ross. “LAPD Investigate Decomposed Body
Found in Recycling Center.” LAist, September 11, 2010. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://laist.com/2010/09/11/lapd_investigate_decomposed_body_fo.php.
282. City News Service. “Sun Valley Worker in Pit Injured by Conveyer
Belt.” Daily News, November 4, 2013. U.S. Department of Labor.
“Inspection: 316671718 - Community Recycling And Resource
Recovery.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Data, November 6, 2013.
283. California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health. “Cal/OSHA Cites Southern California Recycling Company for Multiple Safety Violations” (press release).
May 23, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. https://www.dir.ca.gov/
DIRNews/2012/IR2012-21.html. U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 314860867 - American Reclamation Inc.” Occupational
Safety and Health Administration Inspection Data, November 30,
2011. U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 126202530 - South
Coast Fibers Inc.” Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Inspection Data, November 30, 2011. CalOSHA found their staffing agency, Steno Employment, guilty of additional violations and
penalties (U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 126203686 Steno Employment Services Inc.” Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Inspection Data, February 2, 2012).
284. Engle, “Shape of MRFs.”
285. Engle, “Shape of MRFs.”
286. Zero Waste Advisory Commission. “Meeting Minutes: Discussion
and Action “ Dirty MRF Resolution.” October 10, 2012. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.
cfm?id=179417.
287. Engle, “Shape of MRFs.” HDR Engineering for City of Dallas
Sanitation Services Department. City of Dallas: Local Solid Waste
Management Plan 2011-2016. February 2013. Accessed May
15, 2015. Staff. “MRF of the Month: Republic Services North
Texas Recycling Complex.” Resource Recycling, February 2014.
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.resource-recycling.com/
images/MRF/mrf_0214.pdf.
288. Texas Campaign for the Environment. “Greater Houston: Big
Green Bins and Justice for All.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.texasenvironment.org/local_campaigns_houston.cfm. Zero
Waste Houston. “’One Bin for All’ is Not Recycling.” Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://zerowastehouston.org/.
289. Dr. Robert Bullard. “Climate Change and Vulnerability: Why a
Southern Region Climate and Community Resilience Initiative Is
Needed” (remarks). South By Southwest Eco Conference, Austin,
Texas, October 6, 2014.
290. Katherine Driessen. “City’s One Bin Proposals Raise Financial,
Technology Concerns.” Houston Chronicle. March 29, 2015.
291. Brenda Platt, David Ciplet, Kate M. Bailey, and Eric Lombardi.
Stop Trashing the Climate. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Global
Anti-Incinerator Alliance/Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, and Eco-Cycle, June 2008, p. 19.
292. Dinesh Surroop and Mohee Romeela. “Power Generation From
Refuse Derived Fuel”. International Proceedings of Chemical,
Biological & Environmental Engineering, Volume 17, 2011, p.
245. From Texas Campaign for the Environment and Zero Waste
Houston. It’s Smarter to Separate: How Houston’s Trash Proposal
Would Waste Our Resources, Pollute our Air and Harm Our Community’s Health. July, 2014.
293. CRADLE2 and Upstream Policy. “Public Interest Principles of Producer Responsibility for Reducing, Reusing and Recycling Packaging.” June 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://upstreampolicy.
org/cradle2-packaging-platform/.
294. CalRecycle, “Transformation Credit.” County of L.A. DPW, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, p. 22.
295. Tiffany Rider. “Long Beach Waste-To-Energy Facility Impacted
By AB 32; Increase In Recycling Efforts.” Long Beach Business
Journal, July 17, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://lbbusinessjournal.com/biz-quiz/741-long-beach-waste-to-energy-facilityimpacted-by-ab-32-increase-in-recycling-efforts.html/.
296. Rider, “Long Beach.”
297. Rider, “Long Beach.”
298. Patrick H. West. “Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Budget.” City of Long
Beach Office of the City Manager, 2014, p. CM 34.
299. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. “Authority to Negotiate
An Agreement with the City of Long Beach and the Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County for a Partnership in the Ownership and Operation of the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility
(SERRF) for the Processing of Municipal Solid Waste for the City
of Los Angeles.” Board Report No. 1., August 22, 2014.
300. Shelby Sebens. “New Hanover County and R3 terminate
agreement.” South Carolina Star News, March 11, 2011. Romy
Varghese. “Harrisburg Sets Sale of Incinerator That Drove Insolvency.” Bloomberg. November 25, 2013.
301. Texas Campaign, Smarter to Separate, p.9.
302. Eugene Tseng, UCLA Solid Waste Association. Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council (presentation). March 2, 2015.
303. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Energy Impacts.” Waste
Reduction Model (WARM), Version 13, March 2015. Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/
SWMGHGreport.html. Energy Information Administration.
Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic
and Non-Biogenic Energy. Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and
Alternate Fuels, U.S. Department of Energy, May 2007.
304. Texas Campaign, Smarter to Separate, p. 17.
305. Texas Campaign, Smarter to Separate, p. 10.
306. Air Resources Board website. “Assembly Bill 32 Overview.” Ac-
cessed May 15, 2015. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
307. CalRecycle website. “Climate Change.” Accessed May 15, 2015.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/climate/.
308. CalRecycle website. “Commercial Mandatory Recycling.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/
Commercial/.
309. CalRecycle, “Commercial.”
310. CalRecycle, “Commercial.”
311. California PRC, AB 341.
312. Cities can count up to 10% of “transformed” waste towards the
state’s 50% per capita disposal reduction mandate under AB 939
as amended by SB 1016 (CalRecycle, “Transformation Credit.”).
313. Californians Against Waste. “California Recycling Laws.” Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.cawrecycles.org/facts_and_stats/
california_recycling_laws. CalRecycle. “AB 939 in the New Millennium.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/
Archive/21stCentury/Events/FutureMar99/issues1.htm.
314. In order to measure progress towards these goals, CalRecycle
would look “at the base-year solid waste generation (waste normally disposed of into landfills) to determine the amount of solid
waste diverted” (CAW, “CA Recycling Laws.”).
315. CalRecycle. “History of California Solid Waste Law, 1985-1989.”
Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/legislation/calhist/1985to1989.htm#1989.
316. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 7. Assembly Bill 1016,
Wiggins; Diversion: Compliance: Per Capita Disposal Rate (2007).
317. CA Pub. Res. Code, AB 1594.
318. CA Pub. Res. Code, AB 1826.
319. CalRecycle. “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ConDemo/.
320. CalRecycle. “Waste Prevention World: Waste Prevention Terms
and Definitions.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.
ca.gov/reducewaste/define.htm
321. CalRecycle, “Terms and Definitions.”
322. CalRecycle. “Household Hazardous Waste Home Page.” Accessed
May 15, 2015. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/homehazwaste/.
323. CalRecycle, “Terms and Definitions.”
324. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1193 Implementation Guidance. July 2011. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://
www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/support-documents/rule-1193/guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
325. Zero Waste International Alliance. “Zero Waste Definition.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/.
326. City of Seattle. “Zero Waste Resolution 30990.” July 3, 2007. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Resolu-
73
464 Lucas Ave. Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90017
www.laane.org

Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management

Transcription

Similar documents

Recycling Bloopers

Introducing Envirosealed Windows from Vytex the industry`s most

AVI Recycling Services - Amador Valley Industries

Nordstroms Ewe

Teacher/Administrator Letter

Leaflet Catalyst Recycling

What can go in my bin?

BarstowEnviroJuly2015 copy

West U. Recycling Center is Closed - What Happens to

Let`s Talk Trash