California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Enforcement Advisory Council Meeting

Minutes: March 5, 2013

CalEPA Building
1001 I Street

Meeting called to order at 9:35 a.m.

I. Introductions

Lars Siefert, Chair, Southern Roundtable
Lisa Todd, Vice-Chair, North Central Roundtable
Linda Johnson, Vice-Chair, Southern Cities
Joe Doser, CCLHO (Health Officers)
Pete Oda, South Western Roundtable
Marina Winslow, Northern Roundtable
Paul Tavares, Northern Cities
Chris Rummel, Bay Area Roundtable
Glen Allen, South Central Roundtable/Fresno County
Vacant Position, CalRecycle EA
Vacant Position, Contract Counties

Mark de Bie, CalRecycle
Karen Denz, CalRecycle
Ken DaRosa, CalRecycle
Sue Markie, CalRecycle
Debbie Knight, CalRecycle
Georgianne Turner, CalRecycle
Leta Forland, CalRecycle
Jeff Hackett, CalRecycle
Bob Holmes, CalRecycle
Kevin Taylor, CalRecycle
Alfred Worcester, CalRecycle
Richard Castle, CalRecycle
Bonnie Cornwall, CalRecycle
Mike Wochnick (teleconference), CalRecycle

Next EAC Meeting: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 in Sacramento from 9:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

Minutes by Linda Johnson

Some agenda items were discussed out of order.

II. Agenda Review

  • 3-Part Test query
  • Closed, illegal and abandoned (CIA) sites questions with respect to arbitration, litigation
  • California Environmental Reporting System (CERS)-Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Digital Inspection Program (DIP) interface concerns
  • Welcome to Ken DaRosa

III. Approval of Previous Minutes:

Corrections by Lisa Todd to strike Kevin Taylor’s name from introductions (name placed twice on September 26, 2012 minutes)

A motion was made and seconded (Rummel/Doser) to approve the minutes from the December 4, 2012 meeting. The minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

IV. EAC Resolutions Status and Updates

A. Partial Closed Site Inspections

  • Mr. Siefert presented background of issues and concerns for issue papers.
  • Mr. de Bie stated that the document should be considered guidance-not an issue paper. He wants specific examples/definitive feedback from LEAs and has not yet received that feedback. He believed that CalRecycle was not yet well rounded on issues because of lack of input from LEAs. CalRecycle staff understands that LEAs seek clarification on how to evaluate closed portions of an active landfill and that evaluation hinges on maintenance and other standards already in place. CalRecycle stated that an active site with closure related activities requires monthly inspections, not quarterly.
  • Additional discussion with respect to multiple units and multiple owners at landfills. This type of facility is considered one site and is aligned with this over-arching policy: as a landfill site is phasing through closure, it must still be considered an active site. This fits with financial assurance requirements.
  • Based on past financial assurance and other issues, CalRecycle attempted to clarify a closed vs. active site. For sites with partial closures: one, active site inspection. The “bright line” is that a landfill site is active until totally closed.
  • Additional discussion was conducted with respect to partial closure. The Southern RT representative cited a specific example. CalRecycle commented that this is the type of response and feedback needed to better assist the LEAs with conducting/reporting a site with partial closures.
  • Based upon today’s discussion, CalRecycle stated that it would bring in its legal department to review and address the LEA concerns. Time was needed for review and possible revision.
  • Possible design changes, calculations, maintenance revisions and post-closure maintenance requirements were discussed.
  • LEAs: priorities are business practices, inspection report forms. Should certain aspects of inspection be placed in general comments section or in notes sections?
  • CalRecycle will look at some way to accommodate the LEA's request and possibly provide response at next EAC meeting. Maintenance language may need revision.
  • LEAs need enforcement tools rather than placing comments in notes or “other” section.

B. Non-Water Release Corrective Action Costs

  • LEAs seek information for this issue and CalRecycle provided an update and explanation.
  • CalRecycle predicted an increase in workload for submittals, some are overdue. Majority of sites still need to submit. Many are being approved first time through. CalRecycle would like LEAs to facilitate the process. CalRecycle stated that LEAs can assist by including a reminder along with a five-year permit review notification letter. CalRecycle stated that there is guidance and a FAQs page. Will provide link to LEAs.
  • Other discussion focused on permit review and final closure dates.
  •  CalRecycle is working on getting a new, updated list of sites and due dates for non-water release submittals but will forward list to LEAs.
  • There was some discussion of closure permits. Closed sites that initiated closure construction in February 2003 or later must have a closure permit. This is an enforceable document. CalRecycle recommends that earlier closed sites (non-CIA) also have a closure permit issued.
  • CalRecycle plans on providing further guidance by all-LEA email. Training sessions for closure permits may be considered for next training session.
  • Discussion for corrective action cost estimates, 5-year reviews and due dates, 3rd party reviews, default, and corrective action plan alternatives.
  • LEAs requested a consultant list. CalRecycle’s response is that there is no real list because it’s perceived as an endorsement- any licensed geologist is qualified. CalRecycle can provide a list of approved corrective action plans (CAP) and distribute to LEAs.

C. Update on Enforcement Work Plan

  • CalRecycle noted that there have been many comments received regarding this advisory and it is still a work in progress. Some history was provided in a handout circulated by Ms. Turner. CalRecycle would like to create an enforcement page as a portal to view enforcement examples, activities, etc.
  • Model procedures for enforcement program plans (EPP): some enforcement procedures are out of date. Developing and updating a model EPP will address EAC concerns. CalRecycle wants LEAs to update their enforcement procedures policy/manual (EPP). CalRecycle can approve updated EPPs.
  • LEA’s concern was that small jurisdictions may not have their own enforcement procedures. Does this create an enforcement dilemma? Does work plan specify each step of enforcement activity? Is flexibility lost when presenting case in court? CalRecycle responded that most EPPs are not specific, EPPs are just a model but need updating periodically.
  • Initial reason behind EPPs was that the LEA met CalRecycle’s requirements for operation as an LEA and that the LEA was approved and met CalRecycle’s certification requirement.
  • LEAs comment that a model that smaller jurisdictions and counties could use would be ideal. Suggested that a formal letter from CalRecycle stating that the LEA’s EPP is updated and meets current standards would provide “officiality”. CalRecycle stated that it is considering providing EPP comments with the annual review. A model will be provided prior to next EAC meeting and given to LEAs at their next roundtables to that they may provide comments to CalRecycle.
  • Short discussion with respect to Decade/CERS/SWIS DIP--If LEAs have specific problems, please bring to roundtables.
  • CIA sites: Can CalRecycle assist with enforcement moving forward? This may be a county-specific issue.
  • CalRecycle recommends that LEAs discuss enforcement at CIA sites at roundtables. CalRecycle struggles with abandoned and foreclosed sites along with other CIA problems

Break for lunch at 11:50 a.m. Reconvene at 1:06 p.m.

E. SWIS DIP Modifications (purposely out of order)

  • LEAs requested that different sections be put on inspection form for different operations at site. CalRecycle’s response: No. Multiple forms will be required. One form for each type of operation.
  • Discussion outside of agendized item. Training and outreach might resolve new questions on old issues. Is it an issue that needs a new look or is it already resolvable?

D. EA Notifications

  • Land use approvals and compatibility issues discussed.
  • Discussion regarding cross-department permitting, conflicting definitions.
  • Not currently an action item. CalRecycle believes that this issue is best for jurisdictions to handle in-house; pass their own ordinances? No regulations addressing that particular issue.
  • Role of CalRecycle in EA notification process: unbalanced approach with respect to which department should be agency lead; should be interagency cooperation. Some departments do not recognize their role in notification process. Point of future discussion: CalRecycle assisting local jurisdictions with EA notification efforts.

V. CalRecycle Discussion Items

A. Deputy Director Report (Mark de Bie)

  • Over 2,200 bills submitted to State legislature with 80+ related to solid waste.
  • Seventy-five percent initiative report: looking toward 75% goal through organics, composting, in-vessel digestion.
  • Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Carpet, mattresses, speculative accumulation of material: LEA question to CalRecycle: is new legislation needed, a new statewide regulatory approach?
  • There are various jurisdictional problems: waste from recycled material being used as fuel, some processes identified as transformation (solid waste activity!).
  • Current statutes indicate 80-90% of projects would be permittable solid waste activities (Ken DaRosa).
  • High percentage of bills related to CalRecycle/solid waste issues.
  • Batteries, mattresses, sharps legislation.
  • Hot topics: Cap & Trade, beverage container program.
  • Bill for waste tires: Refines tire broker definition.  Requires annual report to CalRecycle. CalRecycle instituted a monthly call-in program for stakeholders. 6 month pilot program.
  •  Tire fee sunsets in 2016.

B. Draft Regulatory Revisions to Title 14 and Title 27 (Bob Holmes)

  • Form E177
  • March 18, 2013 CalEPA/webinar
  • Small scale composting
  • Cottage law bill
  • New complaint response protocol--enhancement to EPP
  •  EAC/RT interest: San Diego has created a “3 Strikes” regulation for green material composting operations.
  • In-vessel digestion--stand alone regulations
  • Land application/publicly owned treatment works (POTW) exclusion
  • Dairy farm issues--Dairy digesters require some Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) oversight for waste discharge requirements (WDR). This mostly concerns counties in the Central Valley.

C. Legislative Update

  • AB 323-Organics; AB 158; SB700, SB 804 – Conversion Technologies
  •  Many bills relative to plastics bans
  • EPR Bills: SB 254 and SB 245-mattresses; AB 488-batteries; AB 403-sharps
  • CEQA Bills

D. CalRecycle Staff Update

  • Ken DaRosa-New Chief Deputy Director
  • 2 retirements: Scott Walker retired in late 2012. His position still open. Michael Bledsoe’s position was taken by Harllee Branch

E. Training Update (Bob Holmes)

VI. Public Comments:

No public comments

VII. Next Meeting Scheduled for June 11, 2013 in Sacramento

Meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.

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: July 17, 2013
Enforcement Advisory Council (EAC)
Leta Forland: (916) 341-6395