California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Optional Page Branding

Study to Identify Potential Long-Term Threats and Financial Assurance Mechanisms for Long-Term Postclosure Maintenance and Corrective Action at Solid Waste Landfills

The California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) directed its staff to conduct a study to identify potential long-term threats and financial assurance mechanisms for long-term postclosure maintenance and corrective action at solid waste landfills. The Board's direction is consistent with the requirements of Assembly Bill 2296 (Montanez, Chapter 504, Statutes of 2006) (AB 2296), enacted on September 27, 2006.

The study consists of a staff report and a contractor's report. The Board commissioned ICF Consulting Services of Fairfax, Virginia (ICF or Contractor), beginning in June 2007, to conduct a study and prepare a contractor’s report of their findings.

The staff report provides staff’s analysis and recommendations for long-term postclosure maintenance and corrective action financial assurances for landfills. It consists of:

  • Analysis of the contractor’s report
  • Presentation of a menu of policy options for Board discussion and direction, and staff recommendations triaging the options into groups to: implement now, continue to develop, and to pursue no further.

The contractor’s report and the staff report were heard at the Board's Permitting and Compliance (P&C) Committee Meeting on Dec. 3, 2007, where the Committee fully supported the recommendations in the staff report. The staff report is intended to fulfill the Board’s study responsibility under AB 2296.

Consultation

In conducting the study, Board staff worked with a consulting group as required by AB 2296, providing an opportunity for extensive input from represented stakeholders throughout the process. A summary of responses to consulting group comments was developed by staff to assist the reader in understanding the contractor’s report and the staff report.

Finding Difference

Of particular importance to note when accessing the staff report is that Board staff strongly differs with the conclusion in the contractor’s report regarding the pledge of revenue agreement FA mechanism currently allowed by the Board. Board staff’s assessment is based on years of experience regarding FA mechanisms which are allowed within Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. The pledge of revenue agreement has proven to be a secure assurance which relies on the abilities of independently elected officials within local government bodies to act in the best interest of public health, safety, and the environment. These differences between the findings of ICF and Board staff are explained in more detail within the staff report.

A series of workshops was held with stakeholders on the Working Model Scenarios for a State-wide Pooled Fund, Postclosure Maintenance, Corrective Action, and Phase II regulations.

Last updated: March 21, 2013
Financial Assurances, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Financial/
Richard Castle: Richard.Castle@calrecycle.ca.gov (916) 341-6343