California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Enforcement Advisory Council Meeting

Minutes: February 26, 2014

CalEPA Building
1001 I Street
Sacramento

Meeting called to order at 9:33 a.m.

I. Introductions

Lars Seifert, Chair, Southern Roundtable
Lisa Jameson, Vice-Chair, North Central Roundtable
Linda Johnson, Vice-Chair, Southern Cities, City of Vernon LEA
Joe Doser, CCLHO (Health Officers)
Pete Oda, South Western Roundtable, Los Angeles County LEA
Brian Pitts, CCDEH
Marina Winslow, Northern Roundtable, Butte County LEA
Paul Tavares, Northern Cities, City of San Jose LEA
Chris Rummel, Bay Area Roundtable
Jeffrey Marshall, Kern County LEA
Greg Schirle, San Mateo County LEA
Becky Ng, CCDEH Solid Waste Policy Committee
Moushumi Hasan, Yolo County LEA
 
Mark de Bie, CalRecycle
Harllee Branch, CalRecycle
Georgianne Turner, CalRecycle
Wes Mindermann, CalRecycle
Ken Decio, CalRecycle
Susan Markie, CalRecycle
Leta Forland, CalRecycle
Jeff Hackett, CalRecycle
Bob Holmes, CalRecycle
Michael Wochnick, CalRecycle
Bonnie Cornwall, CalRecycle
Kevin Taylor, CalRecycle
Johnny Gonzalez, SWRCB
Leslie Graves, SWRCB
Julie Maceda, SWRCB
Stephanie Young, SWRCB
Melissa Hall, SWRCB 

Next EAC Meeting: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at CalEPA-Sacramento from 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

Minutes by Linda Johnson.

Some agenda items were discussed out of order. 

II. Agenda Review

The California Conference of Local Health Officers (CCLHO) wants to maintain participation in the EAC.  A letter was received by EAC Chair Lars Seifert dated January 6, 2014. The EAC wants to maintain participation for the north and south cities.

The Ralph Hunter Memorial Award procedures will be discussed first.  The State Water Resources Board discussion will be at 11:00 and closure permits discussed at 11:30.  EA notification will be discussed after lunch.

Welcome to Jeff Marshall. Janet Gardner will not be attending EAC meetings. Jeff will now be attending EAC meetings as the new chair of the South Central round table.  Thanks to outgoing chair Janet Gardner for all her contributions including, most recently, her work on revising the Ralph Hunter award nomination and voting procedures.

III. Approval of Previous Minutes

Corrections:  In previous minutes, Section F, “kiln” should be referred to as “EMSW conversion facility”.  No other changes, corrections or deletions.

A motion was made by Joe Doser and seconded by Linda Johnson to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2013 EAC meeting.  The minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

IV. EAC Resolutions Status and Updates

D. Ralph Hunter Memorial Award

  •  Discussion of proposed items and clarifications of language. Eligibility qualification discussed. Specific language as to eligibility was decided. Discussion of who can nominate. Past nominees and retirees are eligible for consideration. Motion by Joe Doser to make amendments to award criteria. Second by Pete Oda. All in favor. (Resolution No. 2014-01)
  • Ralph Hunter Nomination. Nominees are Bill O’Rullian and Lisa Jameson. Voting is conducted. A motion to accept the results of the voting was made by Jeffrey Marshall and seconded by Linda Johnson. All in favor. A letter of resolution will be submitted to CalRecycle for Lisa being named the recipient of the 2013 Ralph Hunter Memorial Award. (Resolution No. 2014-02) A letter of congratulations on his nomination will be sent to Mr. O’Rullian.

F. Closed, Illegal and Abandoned (“CIA”) Sites Work Group

  • Discussion with respect to white paper, LEA role, limitations to process. CIA work group should have members with CIA sites in their jurisdiction. CalRecycle states that the LEAs will have regulatory support from CalRecycle on high priority sites if statute supports it. The CCLHO will also be involved. CCDEH is the normal route for LEAs to pursue on issues. The goal for a successful CIA working group would be to have a unified voice from LEAs and CalRecycle senior staff. At this time CalRecycle will support LEAs having the CIA site discussion and are not yet providing an opinion. At this point in time, CalRecycle will have low-level initial involvement and asks that the LEAs come together in a workgroup or to the EAC. Discussion about how to start the workgroup: possible subcommittee with outreach to other agencies; report back to EAC; a resolution might be required. Kern County made a motion to create a CIA work group subcommittee. The motion was seconded. (Resolution No. 2014-03)

B. State Water Resources Control Board and Composting

  • Julie Maceda, regional counsel for the SWRCB, discussed Notices of Violation, Cleanup and Abatement Orders, Best Management Practices with respect to illegal land disposal. If LEAs find illegal disposal sites, the SWRCB should be contacted first, not the regional board.
  • Trash on property that may be waste and constitutes a discharge will have to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements. Each region does not currently have its own WDR. Questions to consider: is it mulch, is it trash, does the waste/discharge violate water code, what businesses are involved, is it approved/appropriate land application, is it a green waste, is it a soil amendment, does the land application contain contaminants? The SWRCB will look at each individual situation as “can it impact waters of the state?”. LEAs should discuss at their next respective roundtables. Illegal land disposal is ongoing and the material may be marketed to farmers as a legal land application.
  • LEAs would like a presentation by SWRCB regarding water code violations, illegal land disposal, where should this material go, SWRCB involvement. Land application thresholds are very low. CalRecycle commented that it would like to be updated on developments to provide assistance and perspective. Illegal land application can result in fines up to $10,000/day and other penalties.
  • Two other issues were discussed: an update on the compost order (still in development) and anaerobic digesters. LEAs have concerns about WDRs for anaerobic digesters. There is a regional water board component and WDRs unless the digester is completely exempt. There is a proposed exclusion for digesters: they must meet all applicable water board regulations.
  • Johnny Gonzalez from the SWRCB added that permits for Publicly Owned Treatment Works are written with a high level of compliance behind them. Discussion about POTWs, agency oversight, and possible POTW exclusions. If an LEA can determine that a POTW activity should be overseen by a different agency then the LEA can be excluded from oversight. SWRCB is working on standardized POTW standard operating procedures to assist LEAs with their inspections. Training is being considered. Discussion about POTW/anaerobic digestion siting.

C. Closure Permits

  • Greg Schirle of San Mateo County gave a presentation regarding landfill closure permits. His goal was to encourage a dialogue for regulatory change with respect to landfill closure questions and issues that LEAs have. Prior to Mr. Schirle’s presentation, Lars Seifert first explained that CalRecycle has formulated Recommended Procedures for issuing a solid waste permit that reflects closure and that this closure permit provides a stronger link between the permit, landfill closure, and ongoing regulatory authority.
  • In summary, Mr. Schirle’s presented 3 options for CalRecycle to consider with respect to landfill closure and solid waste facility permitting and posed the following question: should there be a stronger link between post-closure maintenance and the closure permit, should regulations be changed?
  • Mr. Schirle presented concerns that there is no Public Resources Code (PRC) statute or regulation that clearly requires a “closure permit”. The process to update or change the permit to enhance enforcement for closure does not appear to be consistent with current regulations for permit revisions. Several policy suggestions were presented. A follow-up discussion suggested that general EAC consensus is that a closure permit is beneficial to support LEA enforcement during post-closure. The current process is seen as a streamlined and efficient process. If additional concerns or conflicts are expressed at the next Bay Area roundtable meeting, the EAC would add those to the agenda at an upcoming meeting. Any ongoing concerns related to the interpretation of notes on LEA evaluations regarding closure permits should be discussed further with CalRecycle.
  • CalRecycle commented that half the LEAs in the state are meeting the requirements for permitting. There are 50 permits reflecting closure at this time; there should be no change to the guidance. CalRecycle commented that it sees advantages to the facility having a permit that states the site is closed and not receiving waste. Closure plans are reviewed separately from permitting actions. Further discussion regarding closure permits. CalRecycle has a closure permit template that is consistent with current applicable regulations. At this time, CalRecycle’s position is that the guidance is solid. The Public Resources Code is used for landfill design and operation, the permit should support that. LEAs are requesting permit tool for enforcement on pre-2003 sites. LEAs are required to inspect closed sites and may charge a fee for quarterly inspections.

A. EA Notifications

  • LEAs should coordinate with local planning jurisdictions. There may be potential regulatory changes to assist with EA notification process. CalRecycle states that the EA notification process was to be the most streamlined.
  • California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 18103.1 language states that the planning department of the jurisdiction where the tiered permit is being sought should notify the EA. LEAs are concerned that notifications are not being sent to them. CalRecycle does not have authority to write regulations governing planning departments. The LEA should notify planning department in a more effective manner. It is not CalRecycle’s intent to slow the permitting process because of timing with EA notifications. It was suggested by CalRecycle that LEAs write letters to their planning departments to speed the notification process. An example letter (LEA notification to Planning Department) is maintained in the CalRecycle ToolBox.
  • The LEAs job is not to enforce local land use; that is the purview of the local zoning/planning department, which is also to decide if CEQA is necessary. For sites that are in-and-out of compliance with the EA notification tier is something that CalRecycle can review.
  • Discussion on land use, inspections and regulation.

Break for lunch at 12:15 P.M. Reconvene at 1:15 P.M.

E. Partial Closed Sites

  • Tabled until the next EAC meeting on May 6, 2014.

V. CalRecycle Discussion Items

A. Director’s Report presented by Mark de Bie, Deputy Director

  • Extended Producer Responsibility legislation on mattresses: a few other states have passed mattress EPRs. CalRecycle will slowly enter regulatory process starting with planned components of the EPR, then looking at statutory requirements. There is overlap between EPR programs and solid waste infrastructure. CalRecycle has concerns as to how to define recycling, construction and demolition waste and transfer station. With respect to the carpet EPR, these issues were resolved. With mattress handlers, one of the issues is how the mattresses are being transported to the receiving facility. Will it meet a 3-part test. Discussions with CalRecycle legal must take place. Some mattresses will go to transfer stations and landfills. Guidance is coming.
  • Discussion of a carpet receiver in Northern California. At first the waste carpet was perceived as C&D waste, but there was an issue with holding times. The issue required analysis of the appropriate regulations.
  • POTW Exclusion. CalRecycle’s position is that nothing has changed. For example if the issue is food waste being introduced into an anaerobic digester, then the LEA can become involved. The question that will come up is why do POTWs receive special treatment with respect to exclusions.
  • Several jurisdictions are exploring less frequent pick-ups of solid waste (not including green waste, food waste or recyclables). CalRecycle wants LEAs input on whether less frequent pick-ups would be viable. CalRecycle is open to pilot studies to determine parameters and to update regulations.
  • Engineered MSW facilities (Municipal Solid Waste) CalRecycle’s position is that the existing regulatory structure is adequate. These facilities are not transfer stations. However, overlap does exist and operational/design requirements are the same as for transfer stations. The LEAs have a question about how feedstocks are managed.
  • The CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture) is developing regulations for managing meat scraps that are found in solid waste. Proper management of waste streams from butcher shops or grocers that generate more than 25 pounds per week or per month are being discussed.

B. Legislative Update (Bob Holmes)

  • AB 1594 (introduced February 3, 2014) will eliminate using green material as alternative daily cover as counting toward diversion and would be considered disposal.
  • AB 323 is no longer viable and has been replaced by AB 1594.
  • SB 1014 discusses a home-generated pharmaceutical EPR program. To be established by CalRecycle.
  • A number of bills are placeholders at this time.
  • A commercial organics recycling bill is coming soon.
  • Other bills are in the pipeline for beverage containers and plastic bag ban.

C. CalRecycle Staff Update

  • Zane Paulson has left CalRecycle and moved to a sister agency.
  • Nick Oliver has been hired in Permitting and Assistance Branch, Central section.

D. Training Update

  • On track for online Health & Safety Refresher Course, April 2014.
  • Four classroom trainings are being considered including landfill gas, permit CEQA and others.

E. Enforcement Program Plan Toolbox

  •  The EPP toolbox has been developed; in it are guidelines for LEAs on submitting electronic updates. There is also guidance on other issues and there is an FAQ section.

VI. Public Comments:

No one from the public was present at the meeting.

VII. Schedule Next EAC Meeting and Close Meeting

Next meeting scheduled for  May 6, 2014 at CalEPA Bldg., Sacramento

Meeting adjourned at 2:47 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: June 17, 2014
Enforcement Advisory Council (EAC) http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LEA/EACouncil/
Leta Forland: Leta.Forland@calrecycle.ca.gov (916) 341-6395