2004 Annual Report: Cross-Media Coordination

On this page...

• Electronics Waste
• Environmental Justice
• Biodiesel Fuel
• Organics Regulatory Issues
• Landfill Study

Electronics Waste

In September 2003, former Governor Gray Davis signed the Electronic Waste Recycling Act (Chapter 526, Statutes of 2003, SB 20, Sher). The law enacts an advance recycling fee to finance an electronic waste collection and recycling program. Board staff is working closely with DTSC to implement the act.

Key elements of the Electronic Waste Recycling Act include:

• Collection of an electronic waste recycling fee at the point of sale for most televisions and computer monitors beginning January 1, 2005. The fee ranges from $6—$10 depending on the screen size.
• Distribution by the Board of recovery and recycling payments to qualified entities covering the cost of electronic waste collection and recycling. Payments are limited to activities occurring after January 1, 2005, and only cover specified electronic wastes generated in California.
• Reporting by manufacturers on sales, use of hazardous materials, use of recycled-content materials, and design-for-recycling efforts.
• Reduction in hazardous substances used in certain electronic products sold in California by 2007.
• Directive to establish environmentally preferred purchasing criteria for State agency purchases of certain electronic equipment.

E-waste is the fastest growing component of the municipal waste stream, and it presents challenges and opportunities for government and industry. E-waste generation is increasing due to advances in technology, reductions in price to consumers, and the general pervasiveness of electronic products in modern life. An estimated one-half billion computers in the U.S. will become obsolete and require disposal options within the next five years.

The Board has established www.eRecycle.org as the initial portal for consumers, manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers to obtain information on the program. Emergency regulations are in place to govern program implementation.

Graphics, media support and point-of-purchase information is available at eRecycle.org to assist retailers in explaining the fee and other aspects of the act. Interested parties are encouraged to check back often, or subscribe to an e-mail newsletter to be kept apprised of developments and events. Application and payment forms are also available online.

In addition to specific information on the Electronic Waste Recycling Act, the Board’s website includes:

• Completed and published guidelines for procurement, use, and end-of-life management to improve environmental performance of State agencies with regard to electronic equipment consumption.
• Completed and published “Best Management Practices for the Collection of Electronic Waste” guidelines.

Back to Top

Environmental Justice

Public Resources Code 41701(e) requires a county when amending its countywide siting element (CSE) to include a description of the actions taken by the county to solicit public participation by the affected communities, including, but not limited to, minority and low-income populations. No prescribed specific actions must be taken in order to satisfy the requirement, but the Board is required to provide guidance to jurisdictions on the types of actions that could be taken.

The Board will be updating its model siting element web page to include environmental justice strategies and resources. These include the Cal/EPA Advisory Committee on Environmental Justice’s Recommendations Report, as well as information from other State agencies. This information will help counties develop appropriate environmental justice strategies when amending a CSE.

Residents in many communities have complained for many years about not being able to readily participate in local planning and permitting. These complaints have been made despite requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for circulation of environmental documents and conduct of public meetings related to CEQA documents.

To provide another venue for public participation, Chapter 823, Statutes of 2003 (AB 1497, Montanez) requires the Board to develop regulations requiring local enforcement agencies (LEA) to conduct public hearings for revised solid waste facility permits. The law also charges the Board with defining “significant change” relative to these revisions.

This legislation was fostered in part due to concerns about the lack of public notification and participation in initial proposals to revise a solid waste facility permit at a major landfill. Board staff began developing the regulation in 2004 and will hold public workshops in spring 2005 to solicit stakeholder input.

In keeping with the spirit of Chapter 823, the Board when it acts as enforcement agency in specified jurisdictions has also conducted public meetings on permit-related issues before any proposed permits are developed.

For example, the Board is the enforcement agency (EA) for Stanislaus County. The Fink Road Landfill, operated by the County Department of Public Works, is located near the community of Crow’s Landing. Permitting issues surrounding this landfill have been controversial due to local concern surrounding the proposed expansion of the facility. An active local citizens’ group formed to address matters relating to the landfill. One of these issues is environmental justice. The Board, acting in its capacity as EA, held a public meeting in the community in February 2004.

Back to Top

Biodiesel Fuel

Disposal of fats, oils, and grease is a waste of valuable resources, and it reduces landfill capacity. The use of biodiesel fuel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, particulates, total hydrocarbons, and sulfates. In 2003, the Board funded a study examining the feasibility of converting used vegetable oil waste generated at Yosemite National Park into biodiesel fuel for use in the park’s fleet of buses and other vehicles. The Board, the Air Resources Board (ARB) and University of California, Riverside developed an emissions testing plan for these vehicles that involves the use of ARB and private industry testing equipment. Field testing was completed in January 2005 and emissions data is currently being analyzed.

Organics Regulatory Issues

In 2003, the Board remained actively engaged in many key regulatory issues related to organic materials management. The Board worked with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on proposed rule (PR) 1133 (regarding emissions from composting facilities), which became regulation in 2003. The Board coordinated compost facility emissions testing with industry that proved essential in rule development.

These efforts helped achieve a regulatory position with alternative control strategies for co-composting. These strategies in Rule 1133.2 protect the multimedia interests of both air quality and waste management. They also maintain California diversion efforts to meet the Integrated Waste Management Act requirements.

The Board is currently conducting additional tests to develop more cost-affordable ways to reduce air emissions through best management practices for green waste composting. The results from this research will provide essential data in anticipation of the SCAQMD rule development of PR 1133.3 for reducing emissions from green waste composting.

Continuing its lead role on organics regulatory issues, the Board continued to work with herbicide manufacturers, the composting industry, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) on the issue of persistent herbicides in compost. The Board is coordinating with compost operators to gather information on pesticides in compost and on the potential effects of clopyralid on California compost markets. The Board and DPR continue to monitor long-lasting herbicide residues in compost to ensure that their use does not adversely impact diversion of organic materials in California. DPR proposed the following regulations:

• Prohibit application of clopyralid to residential lawns.
• Prohibit applications to lawn and turf unless the applicator assures that treated clippings will remain on the property.
• Require applicators to sign statements agreeing not to apply clopyralid to residential lawns and to only apply it to sites where grass clippings will remain on the property.

Board-funded testing of compost for clopyralid residues at 15 facilities located throughout California was completed in November 2004. Although this is a very limited study, the highest detected levels of clopyralid continue to drop.

The Board is also concerned with Sudden Oak Death (SOD) in central coastal California. Staff participated in various committees of the California Oak Mortality Task Force to ensure disposal, biomass utilization, composting, and other uses of organic materials are not interrupted.

The Board funded research by the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) to determine the effectiveness of composting as a method for recycling/treating SOD-contaminated material. This UCB research has helped provide alternatives for organics processors receiving host material from the quarantined area, thereby protecting markets for organic materials. As a result, markets throughout California for organic materials processed within the 12 quarantined counties remained viable in 2004.

Another issue that became a major challenge was tree mortality associated with bark beetles in southern California. This has become a significant burden to the organics infrastructure and federal, State, and local government. Tree mortality is a threat to the environment, as demonstrated by the devastating fire siege in the fall of 2003. Of the more than 600,000 acres manifesting tree mortality in San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, roughly 50,000 acres burned during the fire siege. This leaves a significant threat.

The Board continues to support local government representatives and the strained organics infrastructure in this region. This includes exploring the possible use of local dead trees for beneficial use, such as erosion control. Transportation of the logs or processed chips can easily double the cost of removing dead trees from the threatened mountain communities and the national forest areas.

Back to Top

Landfill Study

The Board initiated the unique, two-phase Landfill Facility Compliance Study to provide a comprehensive picture of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill environmental performance across all environmental media (Phase I). The Board also funded an assessment of current MSW landfill regulatory effectiveness in controlling environmental impacts over time (Phase II).

At the Board meeting of June 15–16, 2004, the contractor for the independent study, GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. (GeoSyntec) of Oakland, presented comprehensive findings and recommendations from the complete study. This presentation concluded the two-phase study. A final report and seven deliverables were produced as part of the two-phased study.

An important component of the landfill study was its cross-media approach. It is the most comprehensive cross-media inventory ever undertaken of California landfills, involving multiple regulatory agencies in measuring the overall environmental effects of MSW disposal in California.

Collecting environmental performance information for landfills is complex because of the number of different agencies regulating various aspects of landfill operation in the state. It included the collection and evaluation of cross-media data from 224 California landfills. Fifty-three landfills were evaluated in additional detail addressing the ability of the existing regulations to protect human health and safety and the environment. GeoSyntec also examined cross-media regulations from other states and countries as well as emerging landfill technologies being implemented worldwide. In its report, GeoSyntec evaluated the applicability of these technologies to California.

Some of the key recommendations in the report include the following:

• Greater coordination is needed between the three primary regulatory agencies involved in landfill oversight—the Board and its LEAs, the State and Regional Water Boards, and local air districts. These three agencies will implement the study’s recommendations for improved coordination beyond that provided under the existing regulations. In response, the Board has initiated an effort with the Water Board to increase coordination in the oversight of solid waste facilities. Several meetings have taken place between Regional Boards and LEAs to identify areas where coordination may be needed and possible approaches to improve coordination. The Board and LEAS will develop recommendations and an action plan for achieving ongoing coordination between both agencies. The Board also is exploring a similar effort for improving coordination with the air districts.
• The landfill gas monitoring and control requirements should be the same at both active and closed landfills. In response, the Board has directed staff to initiate a rulemaking to incorporate this change.
• Guidance on post-closure land use is needed. In response, the Board has proposed the development of a workshop on PCLU for 2005 to increase understanding of the issue and identify necessary Board actions.
• Consider scientific standards that define the end of the post-closure care period. These standards should apply when a landfill no longer poses a threat to public health and safety or to the environment. The Board will respond to this concern on financial assurance/postclosure maintenance.

Back to Top | 2004 Annual Report Home | Next Section: Waste Prevention and Market Dev.>>>