Supervisors Take Stand Against Bill on 'Misguided and Expensive' Waste Collection

By City News Service:

The Board of Supervisors this week went on record against legislation that would require local governments to establish door-to-door household hazardous waste collection programs, which Riverside County officials argue would drive up residents’ costs and pose risks to public health and safety.

“This bill mandates a statewide approach to hazardous waste collection,” said Supervisor John Benoit. “Our biggest objection is that this takes a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. It’s misguided and expensive to the taxpayer. We have an effective process in the county. A mandate from state legislators is not the right approach.”

Assembly Bill 45, sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, would amend the California Public Resources Code to give the Department of Resources, Recycling & Recovery -- better known as Cal Recycle -- the authority to broaden household hazardous waste disposal requirements, mainly by making counties and municipalities responsible for retrieving items, instead of having consumers and businesses dump them on their own.

Under AB 45, Cal Recycle would create benchmarks for all jurisdictions to meet annually, with the goal of having localities collect a certain percentage above the benchmarks during each reporting period.

“State and local efforts to address disposal of (household hazardous waste) have been well-intended, but ultimately these piecemeal and truncated approaches have not proved effective,” Mullin wrote. “These approaches fragment collection ... and move it away from the closest and most practical point of disposal -- the consumer’s residence.”

In his proposal, Mullin identifies dozens of hazardous sources, including empty insect spray cans, spent oil filters, paint thinner, discarded computer monitors and printers, old batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, pool chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

Several Riverside County residents spoke in favor of the legislation, including Gary Grant of Meadowbrook, who felt each community should have a secure hazardous dump site.

“You might as well do it and get rid of waste in a manner that’s logical,” he told the board.

County Department of Waste Management Director Hans Kernkamp touted the county’s current programs as an example of best practices, pointing out that hazardous waste collection events are being held every month and are well- received.

“What’s problematic about AB 45 is it essentially puts our program aside,” Kernkamp said. “All data show door-to-door collection is very expensive and has a low participation rate. It also puts hazardous waste curbside , where there’s potential risk.”

Kernkamp expressed concern about discarded pharmaceuticals and other products being placed within easy reach of kids.

That fear was echoed by Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, who wondered whether supporters of the legislation had considered “what kind of toxic brew” might be left sitting at the bottom of bins positioned on a sidewalk or at the end of someone’s driveway.

In a letter composed by county Executive Office staff, the county emphasized that its current household hazardous waste diversion program is “comprehensive,” providing a convenient means by which residents can drop off their discarded articles.

Officials acknowledged that some jurisdictions offer door-to-door retrieval, but said such a costly process is not an appropriate fit for all communities.

“Household hazardous waste management is very expensive, as these toxic products require very specific handling, and local governments and taxpayers should not have to bear the entire burden of managing these products,” staff wrote.

According to the county, the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility program, under which businesses provide safe and easy methods for consumers to get rid of toxic products, has proven to be an “excellent tool” that would likely be abandoned if AB 45 becomes law.

Jeffries recommended -- and the board agreed -- to append a statement to the opposition resolution encouraging lawmakers to allow localities to determine how best to implement the measure if it becomes law.

AB 45 is slated to be reviewed on April 22 by the Assembly Committee on Local Government.

(Image via Shutterstock)