After years of complaints from nearby residents about odors from recycling and waste transfer facilities, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is cracking down on trash companies.

Under a proposed rule that will be considered at a public hearing next month, operators of recycling and waste transfer facilities must submit an “odor management plan” either to the air district or to another solid waste regulatory agency and then take steps to reduce odors. These could range from covering all trucks entering and exiting the facility, to more frequent sweeping, to enclosing the entire site.

According to the AQMD, the rule would cover 48 existing facilities, unless they either have drawn or plan to draw up an odor management plan to submit to other local agencies with jurisdiction over solid waste.

Facilities that do not have any residentially-zoned property within 1,000 feet of their premises are exempted from the rule.

Many of the facilities targeted in the rule are owned and operated by two of the biggest trash hauling companies in the nation: Browning Ferris Industries and Waste Management Inc. Both companies participated in a “working group” that helped AQMD staff develop the rule.

Charles White, director of regulatory affairs for the western region at Waste Management, said that once the proposal was amended to allow companies to demonstrate compliance by submitting an odor management plan to other solid waste regulatory agencies, his company had no major objections to the proposed rule.

“We’d rather see the solid waste agencies be the ones responsible for enforcement of odor management plan, since they are the ones who have the experience with these facilities,” he said.

“But we have no major problems with this rule, since it does give the option to stick with the solid waste agencies.”

White said Waste Management tries to respond as quickly as possible to odor or noise complaints from nearby residents.

Break for Energy Companies


With energy supplies tight and getting tighter in Southern California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is considering giving energy producers a break.

With so many electrical generating facilities and other energy related projects under construction or coming on line in the L.A. area, there’s been a run on emission reduction credits for sulfur oxide, particulates and carbon monoxide emissions.

Emission reduction credits (ERCs) are purchased by companies in lieu of installing expensive devices to reduce emissions; the proceeds go to fund other emission control programs at the district.

The shortage has greatly driven up the cost of these credits if they are available at all.

Of course, this is exactly what regulators had initially intended to accomplish with the emission reduction credit program. Over time, as the price goes up, companies have more incentive to actually make the improvements to their plants.

But there’s now a competing imperative: ensuring adequate energy supplies for the region. The need for more electrical power was vividly demonstrated during the recent heat wave.

So, at its September meeting, the air district board will consider a proposal to open up its reserves of emission reduction credits. The idea is similar to what happens when President George W. Bush decides to open up the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to offset potential oil supply crunches: by opening up the reserve, more oil comes onto the market, helping to stabilize the price.

The AQMD took similar steps at the height of the power crisis in early 2001 but came under criticism from environmental groups who called the move tantamount to giving polluters a big break.

Business Victory


California businesses won a major victory recently when the state Supreme Court upheld the “at-will” employment law that allows companies to terminate employees without cause.

The case centered around an employee, Brook Dore, who in 1999 relocated to the Los Angeles office of Boston-based advertising agency Arnold Worldwide Inc. The firm terminated Dore’s employment without cause in August 2001. Dore sued, claiming that when he was hired, he was never told that he could be terminated without cause.

Arnold Worldwide (formerly Arnold Communications) countered that it did inform Dore in its written job offer that his employment with the firm was “at will” and that the company “has the right to terminate your employment at any time just as you have the right to terminate your employment with Arnold Communications at any time.”

The trial court sided with the company, but the Court of Appeal ruled that just because the company said it could terminate Dore at any time did not mean he could be fired without cause.

The Supreme Court overturned that opinion, saying that in the absence of any statements that Dore could only be fired with cause, the phrase “terminate your employment at any time” was unambiguous.

Reacting to the ruling, the California Chamber of Commerce in a newsletter said that by rejecting Dore’s bid to get out of the “at will employment” clause, “the Supreme Court believes that when an employer states in writing that it offers at-will employment, it means just that.

So, check your employment applications, employee handbooks, offer letters, etc. to be sure you are taking full advantage of the Court’s decision.”

Staff reporter Howard Fine can be reached by phone at (323) 549-5225, ext. 227, or by e-mail at

[email protected]

.