California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Enforcement Advisory Council Meeting

Minutes: April 29, 2004

I. Introductions. All present except for two members (Dennis, Matt). One came in later.

II. Agenda Review. Was quick agenda. Will add/subtract as necessary--flexible. Bit of discussion about some time certain items and adjustment to accommodate people who could be at meeting during certain time periods.

III. Approval of Minutes. Ernie volunteered to keep this meeting’s minutes.

Comment was made that it is better if minutes are done soon after meeting rather than waiting too late and till the last minute before next meeting. Minutes for February 19, 2004 meeting were approved.

IV. EAC Resolutions. Status and Updates

2003-02 - Partnership Issue Statements and 2003-05 - Odor and Possible Health Effects: Both are included in later “discussion” items, so will hold off discussion till then. Odor concern is being addressed, with not much correlation between odor and health effects, but will roll into later discussion on C-Corp project.

V. EAC Issues for Discussion (Note: discussion did not necessarily follow agenda, and bounced around a bit.)

Regulations Concepts. Mark De Bie provided a matrix of permit/regulatory issues mainly driven by AB1497 and new construction, demolition and inert debris (CDI) requirement issues. Concept Document--“Hot off the Press”. EAC first to see, but going to go out to the Round Tables. Suggested to take to California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH) next week. Mark explained the document and background of issues/problem statements and concepts.

AB 1497. Also in AB2159. Significant change of when a permit needs to be revised is a major CIWMB issue, but also of LEA importance. EAC/LEAs need to keep an eye on this issue.

CDI. From Board, others from LEAs, regulation clean-up, etc. Some tie in together. Significant change may also identify “nonsignificant” which might be used to develop a modified permit process that does not require a public hearing but allows some changes to the permit.

At Round Tables, Mark De Bie wants to see which issues are important to the LEAs and which aren’t, as soon as the issues are received/confirmed with the LEAs then go to other groups such as Board, operators, etc.

Then the revised list will go forward with development of a plan to address those issues that are important to continue with discussion or actions to address the “problem” or no further action required.

There was some discussion about LEA voice verses industry and lobbyists. That was one reason this is now coming out to LEAs first with this grounding/buy-in process, allow it to be filled in a bit more with Board staff and LEA input, then others. Want to be responsive and reflective of LEAs.

Hearings. there was a fair amount of discussion about the public hearings required for revised permits. Some LEAs have begun to implement the Public Hearings, and a few who experienced some provided input and recommendations. There was recommendation to provide some training on conducting these hearings, and some (down south) will be providing their own training at their next Round table. CIWMB is starting to put frequently asked questions on the web site, and will be trying to provide guidance. Some asked so far were “what does the LEA do with input?” and “when in the process do you hold it?”. Comments made were “the process needs to be clear”, “LEAs need to establish the ‘scope’ of the meeting”, and “LEAs need to take or use the ‘high ground’ in conducting these, being as up front, open and responsive to the public and these processes as possible”. One LEA is going to have hearings for a small modification of a landfill permit this time with limited focus, but with possible future significant expansions, and but this coming hearing could get blown out of proportion unless it is made very clear what the scope of this permit and hearing are for.

CEQA Issues. Clarifications of what are needed for various permit tiers and for LEAs permit “findings.”

EAC Tracking of Regulation Concept. EAC will be in the loop throughout and there will be open communication on the process. Patti Henshaw will help track for the EAC. This is a “preliminary” informal process. There was some discussion that there will be too much information provided for immediate digestion and response at the Round Tables. Mark will be explaining and hitting the high points with some discussion and clarification. After Round Tables, LEAs can send Mark and Round Table/EAC reps comments for summarization for presentation/discussion at next EAC meeting. Some technical advisory committees (TACs) may meet to discuss and consolidate comments. What sticks, is thrown out, combined, etc. will be based on issues/comments from LEAs, etc. The “Plan” will then be developed before going out to the other stakeholders.

Justin Millan/CCDEH

Governor/Committee proposal for streamlining Government out by May. CCDEH inputting and supporting the “Board.” Board provides good “representation.” Their amount of money, effort, etc. on special wastes needs supported. Costs go up significantly as items get classed as hazardous waste and are under Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Need to manage more of these special waste as solid waste verses hazardous waste.

Manager of Landfill Operations (MOLO)/Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) Training. Realize a large number of EAC members oppose the mandatory MOLO training. CCDEH not at odds with EAC, but need to consider full picture, and is endorsing “training” for LEAs. Much discussion about different “certifications” of REHS’s in many sub-programs, and those being at odds with REHS existence. Discussed possible ways to fit all into REHS program. Concepts of the REHS program include use of CEU’s and then these could all fit into it. CIWMB looking at a series of options regarding LEA trainings, CEU’s, certification (MOLO or non-MOLO driven), CIWMB training, etc.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If LEA’s can’t get “counsel” at Board meetings for CEQA issues, then CCDEH is looking at hiring one for LEA issues with CIWMB over CEQA. There is much concern over the CIWMB’s interpretation of their roll in the CEQA process (CEQA Super Agency).

Training. developing a list of training needs, list of training available, and matrix for CEU’s needs and available.

AB 2633. Kitchen Grease and Grease Traps. The CCDEH food, solid waste and hazardous materials committees all looking at this. Probably the Land Use (septics) committee should also be involved. It requires the transportation system for grease pumpings be tracked by using the hazardous waste manifest system of DTSC, but local enforcement agencies would be involved. This is a multiple State agency issues.

AB 2254. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) and Used Diesel Filters

AB 2901. Cell Phones

Spot Bills. for Environmental Justice. CIWMB/EPA Organization

AB 2159. An outcome of Audit and will change the hearing panel process. Greg Pirie and Justin Malan reviewing and following this Bill closely. CCDEH is not opposing or supporting. A lot was happening a month or so ago. One issue is the Non-permitted sites/activities. Another is the stay of enforcement orders during the appeal process and this is being closely discussed between operators and the author of the Bill. Permitted sites, probably not the issue and “stay” should remain (unless “eminent threat”). The Bill also provides for Hearing Panel or Hearing Officer. Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) opposing, as they supported AB59 years ago. Bill would require tracking of non-permitted sites. It was felt that excluded sites should only be tracked if LEA gets complaints or referrals. Exempted sites could or should be tracked. The Bill is also looking at time frames looking at “expediting the process and number of days for hearings”, but there are conflicts with “legal” requirements in the reference to Government Code (30 days will not work). Some discussion regarding that and the “formal court hearing” the hearings essentially become because of the reference to Government Code. Some discussion and request for any ideas that might help remedy the issues (Get any comments/ideas--specific requirements that would streamline--to Greg and/or Justin). There were some discussions regarding a proposed amendment from WM--(b)(1)--and that should be removed. Some discussion about the “standard” for Burden of Proof to make a “stay” stick or not is on the LEA for permitted facilities and on operator for non-permitted operations. A new “standard” for eminence cannot be frivolous. We can not lower the bar for the standard, so we lower the “process”.

VI. CIWMB Topics, Updates and Discussion

Comprehensive Compost Odor Response Project. Brenda Smyth and Bridget Brown. Evaluating markets, permitting and enforcement. Working on dealing with odor complaints at compost facilities. 2-year project. Dual prong approach. To promote composting and provide LEAs and operators with responsive tools for dealing with complaints/problems, and a pro-active part for new facilities and for education of operators and local agencies, public, etc. Problem identification and assessment. There will be Odor Kits, initially to LEAs with the most problem sites, and eventually to all. Will have categories of odors and their causes, so they can be identified, assessed and addressed. There will be list of alternatives to deal with various identified problems (a Mitigation Strategy Menu – BMPs). Allow for “odor complaint to solution/resolution. Later there will be outreach, educations and training on all this plus permitting and siting.

As process continues, they would like lots of feedback. They have already gotten some from Bill Prinz (EAC tracker) regarding the “scope of work” for the project. His comments and responses to them were provided to EAC members. There was some discussion that Air Districts should be involved/addressed. South Coast is to some degree, but looking mostly at ammonia and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. There has been some disconnect between LEAs, air districts and response to complaints, etc. There needs to be a correlation to the odor impact minimization plans (OIMPs) and regulations. They are compiling existing knowledge and expanding on it. There was a discussion that there was no LEA on the “working group,” but working group right now is really just a Contract Management. Bill Prinz is the EAC point person for this issue.

Health Impacts Associated with odors seems to be a dying issue, with difficulty pinning any down. Appears to be little correlation.

Training/MOLO. Howard Levenson. CIWMB had two workshops on draft regulations. Lots of comments, 20 to 30 people at each, about and LEAs and operators. Looking at what is the problem, what is needed and relationship with other programs, etc. Daryl going back to step two and will be examining and analyzing the full spectrum of approaches from both ends (full blown to nothing) and 2 or 3 in the middle, justification of each, with no timing yet for re-introducing the reg. concept.

LEAs (EAC) and CCDEH not opposed to, and support “training,” but are opposed to the “format” of the training, certification, MOLO, etc. CCDEH frustration with multi-program certifications and REHS program (undermining REHS and making it irrelevant). The LEA certification issue is in response to industry. The training should probably also be for more than just landfills. Some discussion that really shouldn’t be an issue, as CIWMB is already mandated, as one of it’s primary responsibilities, to provide training for LEAs, it already “certifies” and evaluates LEAs, and it provides “standardization” through 18 month inspections (for landfills at least). We need to consider types of facilities, operators, and DHS/REHS program.

Staff will be going back to Board with comments and recommendations in a few months.

Regulations Update. Bob Holmes

ADC and Closure Loans at Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and will probably be approved in May and June, effective 60 and 30 days later, respectfully.

Staffing Regulations (for rural counties--definition): approved by CIWMB and going to OAL.

Permit Application: going through approval, probably another 15 day comment period. Will require additional information on capacity and reporting. Some discussion regarding impacts/needs for rural sites.

Long Term Violations: Notice for formal 45-day comment period will probably occur in July.

Research development and Design (Alternative Technologies, i.e. bioreactors): to be consistent with Feds. is discretionary (not “required” for Subtitle D certification). Some industry verses environmental issues/concerns.

New Board Members. Howard Levenson. Two new members appointed by Governor. Will probably be at June Board Meeting. An at-large rep (ex. US Treasurer) and solid waste rep (Waste Management). No committees in May, maybe in June or July.

Governor reorganization: pending, many rumors, probably postponed until end of the year.

Another “FIRE.” Vasco Road “auto shredder fluff” fire. Raises questions regarding enforcement (fire standards), large storage piles, and auto shredder fluff (even treated). LEA will be called to Board to discuss/explain (may be MO for future issues/problems).

CDI Sites. Last month there was an update item, regarding the ones (37) known about. Permit status of each. Staff analyzing to see what really are the barriers to CDI permitting and recycling. Will be sending out a survey of LEAs in next month or two. Will be info gathering from LEAs and operators. A joint effort of Planning, Permitting and Enforcement (P&E), and Market Development. Why so few sites (37). Initially about 50, but many inert fill, recyclers. Some opting for to be transfer stations. Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) problem appears to be more of not having tried to update verses difficulties in doing so. Take about 1 months when get to it.

Conference/Training. Mindy Fox. Conference will be in May 2005. Will probably be in Southern Cal (Anaheim).

Upcoming Training. Gas, field trips (2 verses original 4 days) scheduled and going on. Will be sending out a training survey (want suggestions, wide open), state minimum standards (SMS) and permit training planned every other year, CEQA tool kit in process for future on-the-road training, load checking, inspector gadget, and top ten unexploded ordinance.

Parntership Issues. CEQA and Gaining Compliance. An E-mail was sent out April 21 to workgroups to fire up the follow-up and to prepare for upcoming teleconferences. Please share ideas if you have some.

Toolbox. Matt Fore was going to give update, but not available to attend meeting. Jon Whitehill will be sending out (or did) an e-mail with survey for ideas, etc. Suggestion that toolbox include guidance/section on NDFE updates.

Ralph Hunter Award. Some questions arose from previous process regarding some specifics of the nomination form, the process, and criteria. Some discussion about: the wording “last year” (what about previous or “career”?), accomplishments (other info/data), criteria, should there only one winner per year or can there be more?, individual and/or team?, should criteria be looser or more specific (consensus was looser), those nominated and not selected can be reviewed and used in future year (3 or 5?), once won (especially if for career) should person be eligible again?, should impact of accomplishments be weighted for statewide or local (is there a difference or should there be), and nomination should include specific accomplishments. Greg Pirie and George Nakamura will work on this and bring back recommendations to the EAC.

Next Meeting: June 24, 2004

EAC Archive

Please note: Past meeting agendas and notes are retained for historical purposes. Over time, some information and links on these pages may become dated and/or inaccurate.

Last updated: January 9, 2005
Enforcement Advisory Council (EAC)
Leta Forland: (916) 341-6395