Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) Central
2007 Financial Assurances Contracted Study

Task 1 and 5 Summary Comments: Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority

The following e-mailed comments were received from the Environmental Services Joint Powers Authority (ESJPA) for the first phase of the study, Tasks 1 and 5 Work Plans. Task 1 finalizes a detailed work plan for Tasks 2 through 4 indicating the steps that will be taken in completing each task. Task 5 finalizes a detailed work plan for Task 6 indicating the steps that will be taken in completing the task.

Comments

The Rural Counties' ESJPA appreciates the opportunity to participate in the review of the Revised Work Plan/Methodology for the CIWMB's Financial Assurance and Corrective Action Study. The following is a summary of our comments, and I also refer you to the attached Work Plan for embedded specific comments.

In Task 1, the "key background documents" should not be limited to the provided list. The Solid Waste Industry Group has an impressive list of additional documents and should have as much influence as the "Draft" Day of Reckoning report. They should also include the various documents and testimony provided by many in the industry to the CIWMB during the last few years.

Task 2, Step 2 should also include some discussion of the adequacy of the current system and mechanisms so that readers of the report are not operating without that information.

Task 3, Step 1 has several questions for the Board to answer on "key fund design questions". These questions should be resolved prior to finalizing the Work Plan. In addition, their comparison chart should include the existing system to allow a proper comparison. The first bullet references a list of 282 landfills covered under the contract. The list of covered landfills should be included or provided, or at least the criteria which establishes the list. The Work Plan should also limit review to active landfills and those landfills closed since financial assurance was required. The numerous references to "any" or closed landfills should be clarified.

Task 3, Step 4 indicates the owner/operator costs will be based on mandatory participation of about 282 currently closed and active solid waste landfills subject to financial assurance. This does not acknowledge that publicly owned landfills can provide "pledge pf revenue" as financial assurance and how this fits in with the design.

Task 3, Step 6 assesses equity in fund design; how/who pays into the fund and has access to fund coverage. Publicly owned facilities with "pledge of revenue" needs to be included in the assessment of equity.

Task 6, Step 1 artificially assigns 25 percent of the sites into a "high" and 25 percent into a "low" ranking system. The ranking should be determined by developed criteria. It is premature to indicate that up to 25 percent of landfills are in the high risk category.

Task 6, Step 3 does not include a process for an owner/operator to contest its ranking. The Work Plan should include the development of the process.

Again, thank you for this opportunity and please call if you have any questions.

Regards,

Mary Pitto
Regulatory Program Director
Regional Council of Rural Counties
(916) 447-4806

Task 1 and 5 Comments | Consultant Comments | Study Home

Last updated: April 18, 2008