Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management - LAANE · Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management...

July 2015

Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Managementand Securing the Benefits

A Blueprint for Cities

Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management and Securing the Benefits

laane: a new economy for all 1

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 all2

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.

Acknowledgements

Photo: Robert Staley



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

Foreword



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.

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 EffectsThe 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

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

Executive Summary



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.

• 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 ManagementThe 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.

• 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 long-term 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 non-

exclusive 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



• 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

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.

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.

MunicipalExclusive Franchise

Non-Exclusive Franchise

Open Permit

Number of L .A . County Cities

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-

Summary Rating of Waste and Recycling Management 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 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.

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

• 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.

• By assessing or certifying waste facilities, cities can require nuisance control measures, ensure that zero waste goals are being met,

“Urban infrastructure, when it works well, is nearly invisible .” -Robin Nagle, Anthropologist1



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.

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.”

Introduction: From “Garbage Gulch” to “Los Recicladores”

Photo: LAANE



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.

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




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 post-closure 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

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 four-and-a-half pounds per person per day.2 Relying on

Waste and Recycling Reform: A Priority for a Thriving and Responsive City

Figure 1:Average Disposal Fees per Ton in L.A. County Public Facilities (2002-2010)

Source: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (2010), all dollars in 2010 dollars

$50

$45

$40

$35

$30



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

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

Figure 2: Costs per Ton by Disposal Method in L.A. County Public Facilities

$43

$61

$80

$120

Cost to City

($75)

Pro�t to City

($100)

($50)

$0

$50

$100

$150

CalabasasLand�ll(2015)

IncinerationFacility,

Commerce(2015)

Waste-by-Rail

(Launch)

Waste-by-Rail (2024)

Recycling(2015)

Source: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (2008, 2015)

$50

$100

$0

($50)

$120

$80

$61

$40



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

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

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 .

Figure 3: China’s “Operation Green Fence” Policy Affects U.S. Recycling Exports



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

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

Figure 4:Waste and Recycling System Examples across Southern California: Controversies and Opportunities

Zero Waste plan, but pursuing EIR for landfill’s expansion.

Newly adopted comprehensive exclusive franchise.

Considering transition from current non-exclusive system.

Franchise companies out of compliance. Concern over

contract exten-sion without going to an open bid.

Top municipal system.

Prioritized diversion and best value over lowball bid.

Award-winning programs, but commercial system has low recycling rate and high incineration rate.

Bribery scandal resulted in federal charges, hauler bankruptcy.

Outsourced be-loved municipal waste-hauling.



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

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

Source: American Community Survey (2013), CalRecycle (2011)

Figure 5:Waste Facility Locations & Poverty Concentration in L.A. County



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

Residents want to recycle to benefit environmental and public health

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

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 LawsState 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

State standards for increased recycling: Assembly Bills 939 and 341

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

When facilities reduce neighborhood impacts and provide quality jobs, they can serve as a benefit rather than a detriment .



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

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



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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 7: Real Recycling Rates in Cities without Comprehensive Recycling Collection

Source: Hauler records (2011)

Reported Diversion

Recycling Rate (Minus ADC & WTE)



breaking down or “demanufacturing” electronic waste, tens of thousands more jobs could be created.79

The cleaner the stream of recyclable materials, the easier it is to support related job creation. Recycling-related 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 job-creation 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 8New Jobs Possible in L.A. County with Expanded Recycling

Source: Tellus Institute, L.A. County Department of Public Works (2012)

Figure 9: Bales of Paper Awaiting Export


Collection and Processing Jobs

Manufacturing Jobs

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000



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

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

Figure 10: Sorters Wearing Personal Protective Equipment at an Area Recycling Processing Facility




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

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

Figure 11: Protective Equipment Provided and Required for Recology Employees

Source: Recology



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 taxpayer-funded 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 one-fifth 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 low-road 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



Profile: Ricardo Torres, Sanitation Worker, Republic ServicesRicardo 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.

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.

Photo: Adan Alvarez



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

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

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.

Municipally Collected Systems for Assured PerformanceCities 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

Frameworks for Managing Waste and Recycling Collection



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-

Photo: LAANE

Figure 12:Sorter Wearing Personal Protective Equipment at an Area Processing Facility



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

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 non-exclusive 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



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.”

The promise of competition is illusory in a non-exclusive 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

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.

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.


Figure 13:Sanitation Collection Worker



Each hauler may charge a different rate in a non-exclusive 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

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 non-exclusive 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

The promise of competition is illusory in a non-exclusive franchise .

Figure 14:Route Inefficiency in a Non-Exclusive Franchise

Source: LAANE (2013)



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.

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



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.

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

An exclusive franchise sidesteps the pitfalls outlined in open permit and non-exclusive sanitation systems (see Table 1).169 Open permit and non-exclusive 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

Figure 15: Private Hauler Market Share in the City of L.A.’s Open Permit System

Source: Hauler reports (2013)

Republic Services32%

Athens Services26%

Waste Management

20% Crown Disposal

10%NASA 4%

UWS 2%

AAA Rubbish 1%

Other Haulers 5%

Other12%



MunicipalExclusive Franchise

Non-Exclusive Franchise

Open Permit

Number of L .A . County Cities

Commercial System 4 64 12 8

Residential System 12 72 3 1

Rating

Competition

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

Rates

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

Customer Service

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

Accountability & Compliance

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

Fiscal Health

Stable City Revenue A A B F

Self-funded System Administration A A C C

Environment

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

Local Economy

Job Creation from Expanded Recycling/Processing A A B C

Processing/Manufacturing Infrastructure Investments A A C F

Job Quality

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

Overall Score A - A - C + D -

Table 1: Comparing Waste and Recycling Management Systems



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.

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

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,

Best Practices in Exclusive Franchise Systems – and What to Avoid

Exclusive franchise systems guarantee valuable long-term business for waste haulers, meaning even the smallest city gains leverage to help accomplish its goals .



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

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

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

Figure 16: Mayor Eric Garcetti at the Zero Waste L.A. System Signing Ceremony, April 2014

Photo: Allison Mannos



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 decision-making process clear, inviting public participation, selecting haulers based on high standards, and holding haulers accountable throughout the contract term.

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 above-board system where the good of the public is prioritized. An open bid ensures competitive

rates and good service, as well as foreclosing any appearance of favoritism or insider deal-making. 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

By incorporating extensive transparency into the contract award process, residents will feel comfortable with their new system and confident in their representatives .



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



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 SystemReporting 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.

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

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




Keeping compliance and monitoring in-house

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

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 BusinessNumerous 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

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

Photo: L.A. County Federation of Labor

Figure 19:Sanitation Collection Worker



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,

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Diesel Fuel Costs (California)

Avg. Per Ton Disposal Fees (L.A. County Facilities)

Hauler Equipment Index (National)

Waste Collection Labor Index (National)

Exclusive Franchise Cities' Avg. Cumulative Rate Increase (34 Cities in L.A. County)

Figure 20: Customer Rate Stability in an Exclusive Frachise Compared to Rising Costs to the Industry


9%

18%

31%

36%

76%



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

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 WorkersThousands 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

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 .



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

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 high-road 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

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

Figure 21: Sorters Wearing Personal Protective Equipment in Area Recycling Processing Facility

Photo: LAANE



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

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.

Figure 22: Sorters in Personal Protective Equipment in Area Recycling Processing Facility




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,

Environmental Benefits of an Exclusive Franchise SystemAir 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




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



San Francisco: The Fantastic ThreeSan 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 its San Francisco MRF, located in the working class community of color 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.

Figure 24: Example of San Francisco’s Customizable, Multi-lingual, and Visual Signage

Source: San Francisco Department of the Environment



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 single-stream 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

Figure 25: Landscaping Materials Generated from Recycled Construction and Demolition Debris

Photo: Lauren Ahkiam



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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Bellflower Calabasas San Dimas West Hollywood

Figure 26: Comparing Diversion between Standardized “Three Bin” Collection and No Standardized Recycling

Source: Hauler reports (2011)

Commercial (No Standardized Recycling)

Residential (Standardized “3 Bin” Service)



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 waste-to-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

Source: CalRecycle (2006)

Diversion 19%

Landfill 81%



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

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 four-foot 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

Figure 28: Material Recovery Facility’s “Tipping Floor”




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



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

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




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, decision-makers 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.

Expand organics collection to include food scraps as well as yard waste.

Prioritize recycling and composting to reduce landfilling, avoiding controversial “conversion” technologies like gasification or pyrolysis.

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 SystemWith 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.

Ensure stable services and protect public health with contingency plans and Labor Peace Agreement requirements.

Create and enforce facility standards to reduce neighborhood impacts.

Ensure accountability to robust requirements

Recommendations: Checklist for a Smart Waste System



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.

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 SystemsWhere 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 non-exclusive 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.



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

Glossary



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.

Clean MRF

Materials Recovery Facility that sorts only recyclable materials, also called a blue bin processing facility or a single-stream recycling facility.

Compost

The organic material that cannot decompose further, used to fertilize plants or amend soil. Also the process by which organic materials becomes compost.

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

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

LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas, a “clean” fuel in a liquid form that is used in solid waste collection vehicles.

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.”

Municipal Waste and Recycling System

Waste and recycling is collected, administered, and in some cases, processed, by the City.



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-to-energy 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



AppendicesAppendix 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 percento Customer Service, Outreach and Education/Training: 25 percento Service Plan: 20 percento Diversion Plan: 25 percento 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

• 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 mobile-based 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



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.



Appendix B: City of Los Angeles’ Facility Certification StandardsAs 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.



References

1. Heather Horn. “The Secret Lives of Garbage Men.” The Atlantic, April 1, 2013.

2. CalRecycle. “Solid Waste Disposal Tonnage Summary Data.” Ac-cessed 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. Sanita-tion Districts of Los Angeles County, June 30, 2014, pp. 69-73. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blob-dload.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 Neighbor-hoods 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. 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 dis-posal 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).

11. 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 State-wide 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. Head-line source: Jerry Powell. “Operation Green Fence Is Deeply Af-fecting 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/upland-extends-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-too-much-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-on-long-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-and-politics/20131030/upland-still-facing-shortfall-in-solid-waste-

Cover photos, clockwise from top left: Adan Alvarez, Robert Staley, and Tuxyso (via a Creative Commons Attribution license).



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/240-crown-disposal-and-community-recycling-are-now-recology-los-angeles. 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 State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney 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/More-PublicRecycling-report-11-12-13.pdf.

35. Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek, and Jui Shrestha. Californians and the Environment. Public Policy Institute of Cali-fornia, 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

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-term-pacts/.

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 Em-erson. “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/general-news/20120806/ex-upland-mayor-pomierski-sentenced-to-two-years-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-clarita-news/chiquita-canyons-val-verde-landfill-plan-to-be-discussed-in-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-will-close-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 Manage-ment 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/judge-throws-out-irwindales-suit-against-azusa-trash-sorting-facility. Vijay Singhal. “Re: Irwindale MRF/TS Draft EIR (State Clearing-house #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. “County-wide 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 Alterna-tives, 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 Wit-ness Ministries, March 2007. Map sources: U.S. Census Bureau. “Place Of Birth By Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months in the



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 pro-duce 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. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the University of Southern California have each put together summarizing docu-ments 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).

39. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) esti-mates 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).

40. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources, Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach. “The Facts.” Reduce, Reuse, Recycle website. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.re3.org/facts.htm.

41. 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 Milwau-kee, 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 set-ting inspiring examples.

42. As amended by SB 1016 (Wiggins), the calculation used to dem-onstrate 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 necessar-ily 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/leg-islation/calhist/1985to1989.htm#1989.

44. Cascadia for CalRecycle, California 2008 Waste Characterization.

45. Urban Sustainability Directors Network. Roadmap for Implement-ing Effective Commercial Waste Reduction Strategies. The City and County of Denver, Colorado, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/771/documents/Commer-cial%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 apart-ments of five units or more, are required to recycle. CalRecycle estimates that this legislation will require about 470,000 busi-nesses 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: Fre-quently 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 Com-munity 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. Compost-ing Council. “Keeping Organics Out of Landfills.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Keeping-Organics-Out-of-Landfills-Position-Paper.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 Sen-sor Finds High Methane Over Los Angeles.” January 16, 2015.



Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re-leases/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. State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. “The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.” Decem-ber 9, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/d1/d149c4fa-fb9a-441c-a314-a7e2c338b3a2.pdf.

55. 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).

56. 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.sierra-club.org/sites/angeles2.sierraclub.org/files/docs/environmen-tal_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 collec-tion 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.” Bio-Cycle, December 20, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.biocycle.net/2013/12/20/new-nyc-food-waste-recycling-law-will-have-a-national-impact-say-american-biogas-and-composting-groups/). Austin will require restaurants throughout the city to subscribe to compost collection, as well as recycle certain materi-als, beginning in 2016; restaurants have generally been support-ive of the shift, in part due to the staggered roll-out of require-ments (Sarah Coppola and Marty Toohey. “Austin Restaurants Must Compost Food Scraps Starting in 2016.” Austin American-Statesman, 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 re-quired 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-out-a-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.-Food-System-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 Capac-ity 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. “Ton-nage/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 Co-vina. “AB 939 Reporting Quantities” (report from waste hauler). 2011.

68. Bell Gardens, “Quarterly Report.”

69. Dev Millstein and Robert A. Harley. Effects of Retrofitting Emis-sion 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, includ-ing 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 ve-hicles as they acquire or replace vehicles (South Coast Air Quality



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 Sanita-tion, January 23, 2012, p. 25. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.lacitysan.org/solid_resources/pdfs/2012/city-of-la-sw-fran-assmt-final-report.pdf.

74. Adam Nagourney. “Infrastructure Cracks as Los Angeles Defers Repairs.” The New York Times. September 1, 2014.

75. Based on Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Environmental Protection Agency studies, the following NAICS were used to as-sess 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.

76. Neil Seldman. Job Creation through Product Reuse. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Waste to Wealth Program, 2006.

77. 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 manu-facturing 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. “Col-lection” 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 Expo-sure.” 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

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 Occu-pational Injuries and Illnesses, 2013. From “Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses “ 2013” (press release), Decem-ber 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 Work-Related Injury and Illness is Missed by the Current National Sur-veillance System?” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Volume 48, Number 4, April 2006. Accessed May 15, 2015. https://www.msu.edu/~kalush/projects/JOEMWorkpla-ceInjuries.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 Ergo-nomics, 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 Ad-ministration Inspection Data, June 12, 2011. U.S. Department of Labor. “Inspection: 315652776 - Resource Management Compa-nies.” 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 Ill-nesses, 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 Interna-tional Brotherhood of Teamsters.

89. Catherine Clarke and Marcos Martinez. Occupational Hazards of Waste and Recycling Workers. University of California Los Ange-les 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 Gold-man, 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 Interna-tional 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. Depart-ment 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.” Oc-cupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Data, November 29, 2011.

96. Espino, Occupational Hazards.

97. Henry Barrios. “Family Says Arvin Brothers Killed, Injured at Com-posting 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 Bakers-field 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.


102. William G. Kocol, Administrative Law Judge. American Reclama-tion, 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, 31-CA-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., Respon-dent. Case No. CV 12-04674 DDP (JCGx): Order Granting Tempo-rary Injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Rela-tions 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/federal-judge-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 Interna-tional 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 Interna-tional 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.


109. Mattera, High Road, 28.

110. “Collective Bargaining Agreement 2012-2016 Between Recol-ogy 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 Adminis-trator. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://sfgsa.org/modules/show-document.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 Re-search and Education, University of California Berkeley, 2004. Ac-cessed 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 Busi-nesses 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/temporary-workers-need-training-reduce-risk-injury-especially-heat. Na-tional Waste and Recycling Association. “Understanding OSHA’s Temporary Worker Initiative.” Accessed May 15, 2015. https://wasterecycling.org/component/mijoevents/event/53-webinar-understanding-osha-s-temporary-worker-initiative. Editorial staff. “OSHA Urged to Launch Temp Worker Emphasis Program.” Occu-pational Safety & Health, November 05, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://ohsonline.com/articles/2013/11/05/osha-urged-to-launch-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-corporate-giants-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-Fa-tal-temp-injuries-draw-OSHA-s-attention#sthash.PK7Q3fQP.dpuf.

117. Michael Grabell, Olga Pierce, and Jeff Larson. “Temporary Work,



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 Divi-sion, 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 Was-te 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_Sur-vey_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. Ac-cessed May 15, 2015. http://wasteadvantagemag.com/spotlight-city-santa-monicas-resource-recovery-recycling-division-setting-standard-excellence/.

137. Santa Monica Public Works Resource Recovery and Recycling. “Commercial Collection Services.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/Conten-tRecycling.aspx?id=8208. Santa Monica Public Works Resource Recovery and Recycling. “Food Waste.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/ContentRecy-cling.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-

Lasting Harm.” ProPublica,December 18, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.propublica.org/article/temporary-work-lasting-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 Blue-Collar 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/ar-ticle/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: Curb-side Recycling Program.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://san.lac-ity.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



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 Consul-tants. 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 Environmen-tal Programs Division. “Frequently Asked Questions for Non-Ex-clusive 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 Exclu-sive 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/up-loads/2013/06/DWLA-Whitepaper_Stabilizing-Customer-Rates-in-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 re-ports furnished in response to a Public Records Request, 2012.

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 Econ-omy, designed by Rosten Woo and Colleen Corcoran. “Reducing Trucks on the Road.” 2013.

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 Non-Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise System” (memo). December 6, 2010.

155. City of Pasadena Department of Public Works. “Review Of Non-Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise System” (memo). April 28, 2014.

156. Eduardo Luna. Performance Audit of the Environmental Services

Department’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs: Op-portunities 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_En-vironmental_Services_Recycling.pdf.

157. Gabriella Yap and Shauna Clark. “Withdrawal of Solid Waste Col-lection 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 inter-view.

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 Re-vocation 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.

166. HF&H, Franchise Assessment, p. 7. UCLA, Zero Waste Progress, p. 11.

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,



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 qual-ity by requiring late model, low emission, clean fuel vehicles. Pro-vide the highest level of Customer Service through communica-tion 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 re-ceive 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 pharma-ceutical waste will continue to be handled by specialty sub-contractors 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 Rehabilita-tion 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).

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/ar-ticles/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_ser-vices/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: Admin-istrative Requirements - Labor Peace Agreement (LPA).” Ac-cessed 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-compost-ing-efforts-put-eureka-recycling. Lynn Hoffman, Eureka Recy-cling. “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_Sur-vey_Response.pdf.

191. In the Public Interest. Standing Guard: How Unaccountable Con-tracting 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).

196. Refer to source report for full reference information. Ahkiam, “Stabilizing Customer Rates.”


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/PressReleaseDetail-Page.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.

204. For example, four workers at one area Dirty MRF, American Rec-lamation, 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-Fa-tal-temp-injuries-draw-OSHA-s-attention#sthash.PK7Q3fQP.dpuf.

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 Recy-clable 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 Mainte-nance.

209. City of Seattle. “Solid Waste Collection and Transfer Contract Between the City of Seattle and Waste Management of Washing-ton, Inc.” 2008, p. 63-67.

210. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Admin-

istration and Center for Disease Control National Institute for Oc-cupational Safety and Health. Recommended Practices: Protect-ing Temporary Workers. August 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3735.pdf.

211. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 728. Assembly Bill No. 1897, Hernandez; Labor contracting: client liability (2014).

212. Sam Levin. “Waste Management Wins Back Oakland Garbage Contract, Will Split Franchise With California Waste Solu-tions.” East Bay Express, September 23, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/ar-chives/2014/09/23/waste-management-wins-back-oakland-gar-bage-contract-will-split-franchise-with-california-waste-solutions.

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 Divi-sion, September 2014.

216. Richard E. Fairfax. “Employer Safety Incentive and Disincentive Policies and Practices.” Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-tration, March 12, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2015. https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/whistleblowermemo.html.


218. L.A. Sanitation, RFP, p. 31. City of Beverly Hills. “Franchise Agree-ment 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.

219. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Exclusive Franchise Sys-tem for Municipal Solid Waste Collection Draft Program Environ-mental Impact Report. November 2013, p. ES-7.

220. G. Tavares, Z. Zsigraiova, V. Semiano, and M.G. Carvalho. “Optimi-zation 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



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% di-version 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 difficult-to-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. “SWA-NA Announces 2013 Excellence Award Winners.” Ac-cessed May 15, 2015. https://swana.org/Awards/ExcellenceAwards/2013Winners.aspx.

226. City of Redondo Beach. “Solid Waste Handling Services Agree-ment 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 Man-hattan Beach. “Franchise Agreement Between City of Manhat-tan Beach and USA Waste of California, Inc. for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services.” May 7, 2002, p. 21.

227. City of Calabasas Municipal Code, Section 8.16.500 - Collection of Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials.


229. City of Bellflower. “Agreement Between City Of Bellflower and CR&R Incorporated for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services.” October 27, 2004, p. 54.

230. City of Cerritos. “Agreement Between City of Cerritos and Calmet Services, Inc. for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services.” December 13, 2007, p. 88.

231. City of San Jose. “Commercial Solid Waste and Recyclable Materi-als 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.

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. “Recolo-gy & 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.

sfenvironment.org/news/press-release/mayor-lee-announces-san-francisco-reaches-80-percent-landfill-waste-diversion-leads-all-cities-in-north-america.

236. John Guevarra. “Bay Area Summary” (internal memo). Los Ange-les 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 CITY-LAB, 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-sf-businesses-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.”).

241. Recology. “Employee Ownership.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.recologysf.com/index.php/recology-employee-ownership.

242. “Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Recology. “News release.” December 9, 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.recolo-gymedia.com/press_room/index.php

243. Mattera, High Road, 28.

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.huffing-tonpost.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 compo-nents, 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, Consoli-dated 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 Exam-iner, 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) sepa-rate, 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 Im-pact 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-landfill-waste-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 Is-sues: Strategies for Record-Setting Waste Reduction in Multi-Family Dwellings.” Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/downloads/f99022.pdf.

255. Green Waste Solutions. Unit Based Garbage Charges Create Posi-tive 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/zero-waste-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/Zero-Waste-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/Ze-roWasteLA/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. Ac-cessed 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/publica-tions/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, Execu-tive 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 Materi-als 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.mswmanage-ment.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 pos-sible with new technology. This facility is, however, a misleading example for two critical reasons. First, it relies on a wet-dry col-lection system where organic materials are collected separately, rather than a “one bin for all” system. It is also a misleading ex-ample 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 Ma-rino, South Pasadena, Temple City, and West Covina) provided “one bin for all” collection rather than “three bin” separately collected recycling service.



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. Ac-cessed 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/48041-coalition-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 En-ergy” (Crown Disposal. “Sun Valley MRF.” Accessed May 15, 2015 via Google Cached. http://www.crowndisposal.com/community-recycling/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/policy-position-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 Indus-try Coalition Policy Opposing Dirty MRFs.” November 21, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://nrcrecycles.org/nrc-supports-the-recycling-industry-coalition-policy-opposing-dirty-mrfs/.

274. Editorial staff. “Arvin, Lamont Residents Raise Stink Over Con-troversial 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 South-ern 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 Sanita-tion, 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 Mixed-Waste 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.

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_de-composed_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 In-spection Data, November 6, 2013.

283. California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupa-tional Safety and Health. “Cal/OSHA Cites Southern California Re-cycling 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. “In-spection: 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 staff-ing 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 Alterna-tives, 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 Com-munity’s Health. July, 2014.

293. CRADLE2 and Upstream Policy. “Public Interest Principles of Pro-ducer Responsibility for Reducing, Reusing and Recycling Packag-ing.” June 2013. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://upstreampolicy.org/cradle2-packaging-platform/.

294. CalRecycle, “Transformation Credit.” County of L.A. DPW, County-wide 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://lbbusiness-journal.com/biz-quiz/741-long-beach-waste-to-energy-facility-impacted-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 Owner-ship 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 Insol-vency.” Bloomberg. November 25, 2013.

301. Texas Campaign, Smarter to Separate, p.9.

302. Eugene Tseng, UCLA Solid Waste Association. Glendale Home-owners 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.” Ac-cessed 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 Millen-nium.” 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 nor-mally 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/leg-islation/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.” Ac-cessed 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 Imple-mentation Guidance. July 2011. Accessed May 15, 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/support-docu-ments/rule-1193/guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

325. Zero Waste International Alliance. “Zero Waste Definition.” Ac-cessed May 15, 2015. http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/.

326. City of Seattle. “Zero Waste Resolution 30990.” July 3, 2007. Ac-cessed May 15, 2015. http://clerk.seattle.gov/~archives/Resolu-

464 Lucas Ave. Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90017

www.laane.org

Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management - LAANE · Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management...

Documents

Transcript of Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management - LAANE · Cleaning Up Waste and Recycling Management...