PCR Environmental's Comments On Bill No. 263
Pending And Passed Legislation

PCR Environmental's comments on Bill No. 263 relative to establishing a Volume-based tipping fee.

(Notes: Our comments are in black. Links are given to Senator Mark Forbes' excellent website (in black). The Link to Bill No. 263 on Senator Forbes' website refers to a previous version of the Bill as introduced. We are told that the actual Bill passed into law is as follows here)

Bill No. 263  (Public Law 25-70)

An Act to amend §§51116(c) and (e) of Article 1, Chapter 51, Part 2 of Title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated, Relative to Establishing a Volume-based, Commercial and Residential Tipping/User Fee.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF GUAM:

Section 1. Legislative Statement. I Liheslaturan Guċhanfinds that the tipping fee authorized by Public Law Number 24-272 and designed by the government based on weight does notpromote and maximize the practice of recycling, reduction and reuse as called for in the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Furthermore, the implementation of weight-based tipping fee requires the purchase of scales by the government for use by commercial haulers and at the sanitary landfill. This will require additional capital and continuing operation expenses for repair and maintenance of the scales, by both the government and the private sector, which ultimately will be passed on to the consumer.

Reference in this paragraph to the Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWMP) is confusing. There is an ISWMP in the works and in draft format at Guam EPA. However, this document evaluates waste streams on a weight basis (tonnage) not by volume. There is no community in the U.S., and possibly worldwide, that has established tipping fees for commercial businesses on a volume basis!

The introductory paragraph also refers to the government having to purchase weight "... scales for use by commercial haulers and at the sanitary landfill." We are not aware of any government entity anywhere purchasing scales for private business use. The landfill does need one (and has one at the moment), but should purchase another one to act as a backup, and to speed things along when weighing trucks going in and coming out of the landfill.

I Liheslaturan Guċhanalso finds that the initiative of unit pricing volume-based system of tipping fees led by the Federal Environmental protection Agency ("EPA") Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has resulted in communities and individuals taking control of municipal solid waste costs by providing direct incentives to reduce the amount of waste each generates. The benefits of such a system of tipping fee realized by the over two thousand (2,000) communities that have implemented the system generally fall into two (2) areas:

We do not know which "initiative of unit pricing volume-based system of tipping fees" the author(s) of this Bill is referring to. The EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) website has good information on different disposal options and municipal solid waste streams. The Bill's author may be referring to a "Pay as you Throw" billing scheme that bills residents for actual volume of waste generated (i.e. pre-purchased bags or labels). However, the purpose of this Bill is to set volume-based tipping fees for commercial haulers and residents pay $8 per month per household, regardless of volume.

  1. Economically sustainable: It allows communities to generate the revenues necessary to cover the cost of municipal solid waste disposal, including recycling and composting. Moreover, residents now can control the cost of disposing their household waste.
  2. Environmentally Sustainable: The incentive to recycle is great and communities have experienced reductions in the waste stream flowing into the landfill ranging from twenty-five to forty-five percent (25-45%), resulting in fewer natural resources being extracted from the community. Consequently, the life of landfills have increased and thus precluded the implementation of less environmentally friendly disposal alternatives.

1. This is the purpose of tipping fees, regardless of which methodology is adapted (weight vs. volume).

2. "Fewer natural resources being extracted from the community" does not pertain to our situation on Guam. There are no natural resources being extracted on Guam (we don't mine aluminum ore, we don't harvest trees for paper, etc.) The author also refers to "precluding ... less environmentally friendly disposal alternatives" by extending landfill lives. The emissions generated during the recycling (and collection) process and composting operations is a hot debated topic. The current fire and odors at Malojloj are a good example that composting is not without environmental problems.

The switching from a weight-based tipping fee to a volumetric system does not provide for the best incentive for recycling. One can reduce the volume of trash my simply removing air surrounding the trash. One can crush glass, cans and plastic bottles to reduce their volume, but the weight stays the same.

It is the intent of I Liheslaturan Guċhanto establish a volume-based tipping fee that is in accord with the original intentions of this body, to effectively implement a tipping fee which is critical to the closure of the Ordot dump, and the opening of a new sanitary landfill in compliance with EPA's Subtitle D Regulations.

Section 2. Section 51118(c) of Article 1, Chapter 51, Part 2 of Title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated is hereby amendedto read as follows:

"(c) Commercial and Government Tipping Fees. A commercial tipping fee of Four Dollars ($4.00) per cubic yard, uncompacted, is hereby established. For compacted trash, a commercial tipping fee of Four Dollars ($4.00) per cubic yard multiplied by the compaction ratio of any vehicle or container with compaction equipment, is hereby established. Commercial haulers shall provide the Department of Public Works the compaction ratios of all equipment used to haul solid waste to the landfill to insure the accurate assessment of tipping fees for compacted trash. This fee does not include collection charges which are independently set by licensed, commercial haulers."

One problem with this approach is that the "name plate" compaction ratio of hydraulic equipment changes when the equipment gets older. However, commercial establishments that use compactors or haulers that employ compaction trucks will have to pay for the maximum rated compaction ratio, even if the equipment is not able to provide this kind of compaction anymore. Weight-based systems have been adopted worldwide because of the simplicity of these systems. The only thing needed is a working scale. Individual compaction ratios of hundreds or thousands of pieces of equipment have no bearing on this system.

Section 3. Section 51118(e) of Article 1, Chapter 51, Part 2 of Title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated is hereby amendedto read as follows:

"The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is hereby authorized to set tipping fees to replace the commercial and residential tipping fees mandated in this Section three (3) years after enactment of this Act. Rate setting by the PUC shall be based on volume and actuarial analysis of costs of services and focused management audit of existing operations."