|
During the 1997 LEA/CIWMB Conference in Asilomar, breakout sessions were held to
discuss issues related to closure, permitting, enforcement and CEQA. These issues were
recorded and the ones not identified as being addressed in the "Next Steps"
categories are encapsulated below.
Closure Breakout Sessions:
Issue: How to regulate multiple uses on a single site, especially if some of the uses
extend into the post closure period? (single permit, multiple permits, regulate some under
the post closure maintenance plan?)
Response: Two new LEA advisories have been written which address
multiple permits. The first Advisory is called "Waste Diversion Activities at Solid
Waste Landfills and Closed or Closing Disposal Sites". It is designed to provide
guidance and information to LEAs on solid waste Diversion activities and facilities. The
second advisory "Disposal Site Postclosure Land Use" provides LEA guidance and
information on over site of disposal site postclosure land use pursuant to Title 27,
California Code of Regulations (27 CCR), section 21190. Specific topics addressed include
regulatory authority, activities subject to the regulatory tiers, site boundary issues,
proposal review, local approvals, technical assistance and site inspections.
Issue: Burn Ash. Use RSU to push variances for burn ash, expand the RSU
process to delist sites that DTSC says via the ERAP process are no longer a health threat.
Response: A draft LEA advisory "Process For Evaluating and Remediating Burn
Dumps" is under final review by the CIWMB legal office. The purpose of this advisory,
is to provide guidance on the appropriate procedure to follow in evaluating the risks to
public health and safety and the environment posed by burn ash dump sites; identify the
steps to take to control these risks; describe the roles of other regulatory agencies in
burn dump regulation; and address burn dump issues raised at Asilomar.
Permits Breakout Sessions:
Issue: How much should we rely on the operator’s "closure date"
estimates to choose the "no permit action" scenario? What can the LEA do to
confirm or enforce that date?
Response: Closure dates are projections based on current scenarios of footprint
size, depth and height restrictions, daily tonnage, diversion programs, etc., and not
absolutes. These scenarios change constantly. A more enforceable restriction might be a
"closure date" specified within a CUP or other local permit. No further staff
action is deemed necessary.
Issue: What criteria can be used to decide to issue an N&O rather than take permit
action. Do we have authority?
Response: The term "criteria" needs to be defined. Was it intended to
really mean what alternative enforcement actions are available to the LEAs
rather than N&O’s or C&D’s?
Issue: Better guidance relative to the transition from permitted landfill to an
inactive/closing/closed disposal site. What incentive does a landfill that is closing in
one year have to comply with SMS?
Response: Good question. This is one of the items to be covered under the
pending enforcement regulations, currently being developed by Board staff. This also has
impacts on the enforceability of the closure/post-closure plan and responsible parties.
Issue: Do we need a set of criteria to decide whether to issue one
"mega-permit" or "multiple permits". Example: CEQA/cumulative
impacts/different operators/personnel/contracts/ identification of responsible party/etc.
Response: Each situation is unique, and each LEA must make that decision on a
case-by-case situation. What criteria may affect the decision of one LEA may not be
applicable nor be applied by another. Staff has currently scheduled the LEA Advisory for
review for potential changes to further address this issue.
This issue was at least partially included within LEA Advisory # 39, titled
"Issuance of Multiple Permits", dated 3/21/97.
The LEA Evaluations Workgroup has developed criteria and procedures for the LEA
evaluations to be undertaken this year. Those evaluation criteria to be used include
identification of the specific standards under PRC section 43214(d), and the failure of
the LEA to fulfill their obligations or responsibilities.
Issue: Should a proposed permit be "held hostage" over a SMS violation? (Even
if there is a plan and a N&O?) Should a proposed permit be used as an enforcement
tool?
Response: Staff is working with the Board and its Legal Office on addressing
these concerns. These issues might also be addressed within one of the Board’s
Priority Team assignments.
Issue: How can we better determine the difference between chipping and grinding and
composting?
Response: This is being addressed within the organics composting regulations
currently being processed by Board staff.
Issue: Do we need a set of criteria to decide whether to issue one
"mega-permit" or "multiple permits". Example CEQA/cumulative
impacts/different operators/personnel/contracts/identification of responsible party?
Response: This decision should be made by individual LEAs. For guidance and
criteria LEAs can refer to LEA Advisory No. 39 Issuance of Multiple Permits.
Enforcement Breakout Sessions: Permits
Issue: Clarification in regulation that "old" article 7.8 can be used
selectively and what triggers it?
Response: It is triggered by post closure land use or site condition. Conditions
at the site dictate which element of old Article 7.8 is to be implemented. Title 27 now
contains the provisions of Article 7.
Issue: Clarification in regulation that PRC 44002(b) applies to "unpermitted
sites", not sites with a permit that needs revision.
Response: This issue was addressed in a letter to all LEAs dated 8/20/96
regarding the triggers for AB59 compliance, the definition of an unpermitted facility, and
the date of compliance for nonpermitted facilities. This is also addressed in LEA Advisory #38, "LEA
Enforcement Advisory Board/Board Enforcement Policy", dated 3/17/97. Staff is
reviewing these documents to determine if further clarification is needed.
Issue: When does storage of material (green) become composting?
Response: This issue is addressed in LEA Advisory #49 for the
Permanent Regulations for Storage and Chipping and Grinding Activities.
Issue: Who is the operator of a closed site?
Response: The "operator" of a closed site is probably better referred
to as the "responsible party" since there is no longer an operation ongoing
there. That responsible party is whomever is defined within the closure/post-closure plan
or, by default, could be the landowner.
Furthermore, T27; section 20164, definition of "Operator" (CIWMB), states:
means the landowner or other person who through a lease, franchise agreement or other
arrangement with the landowner becomes legally responsible to the State for including, but
not limited to, the following requirements for a solid waste facility or disposal site:
(A) obtaining a solid waste facility permit;
(B) complying with all applicable federal, state and local requirements;
(C) the physical operation of the facility or site; and
(D) closing and maintaining the site during the post-closure maintenance period.
Enforcement Breakout Sessions – Odors:
Issue: Clarification of respective roles between LEA and Air Districts.
Response: This issue was addressed within LEA Advisory #32, titled
"Jurisdiction Over Odor Complaints", dated 9/30/96. Staff is
reviewing the Advisory for possible future consideration and modification.
Issue: Make more specific regulations specifying odor thresholds.
Response: The "Odor Detection and Analysis Training" session sponsored
by the Board, CCDEH, and ACP was conducted on 3/10/98 and again on 3/12/98. At this time
the development of threshold standards are not contemplated.
Enforcement Breakout Sessions – Gas Migration:
Issue: Additional standards Re: surrounding land uses.
Response: This issue was covered at the Gas Symposium in Ontario.
Issue: Additional guidance Re: trace gases associated with methane.
Response: This issue was covered at the Gas Symposium in Ontario.
Issue: More information on gas requirements from federal air districts.
Response: This issue was covered at the Gas Symposium in Ontario
Issue: Clarification on nearby structures and allowable limits. What constitutes a
structure? Is a trailer an on-site structure?
Response: Yes, a trailer (occupied or not) on the landfill property is
considered a structure.
T14; section 18010(18), Enforcement of Solid Waste Standards and Administration of
Solid Waste Facility Permits; Loan Guarantees, Definitions and General Provisions; states:
"Property" means the real property on which a facility or disposal site, any
part thereof, or any support structure exists or is proposed to exist, including any
portion of such real property that is not occupied by the facility or any support
structure but that is contained within the legal description of the land on which the
facility is located as that description is set forth in the most recently recorded deed.
T27; Section 20931, structure monitoring for LFG, states: (a) To
ensure that the requirements of '20923(a)(1) are met, the monitoring network
design shall include provisions for monitoring on-site structures, including
but not limited to buildings, subsurface vaults, utilities or any other
areas where potential gas buildup would be of concern. The proposal shall
address on-site structures, both adjacent to and on top of the waste deposit
area.
Issue: Clarification of subsurface gas monitoring (more explicit)
Response: This issue was covered at the Gas Symposium in Ontario.
Issue: Guidance on how to conduct gas surveys in homes.
Response: The Board and CCDEH sponsored a "Solid Waste Landfill Gas
Assessment & Management Symposium" training for LEAs, operators and regulators in
Ontario on 4/8-9/98. That training included a session specifically on "Conducting
monitoring and sampling in homes and businesses", presented by LA County DPW and
Health Services staff. LA County DPW staff also made a presentation on their LFG
protection policy.
Issue: At a closed site, who is the responsible party?
Response: The owner is.
Issue: Clarify which enforcement tools can be used at which types of sites.
Response: These tools will be developed by the Facility Compliance Priority Team
under Target #1.
Issue: When must neighbors be notified of (potential) gas violation?
Response: The response is under development by CCDEH.
CEQA Breakout Sessions:
Issue: What extent should the Board and LEAs work together w/no threat of negative
performance (decertification) relating to CEQA issues?
Response: This is targeted under Priority Team #3; Target #5: to formalize
discussions about the various roles and responsibilities of all parties for a competent
and complete CEQA document, that is inclusive and addresses the concerns of
each regulatory agency involved.
Issue: Early communication on CEQA projects relating to permit is key.
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled
for September and November.
Issue: Unclear of the intent of CEQA statute, with regard to project description,
permit issuance and adequacy of documents.
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: When there is a shift in lead agency, who decides who is lead agency CIWMB or
LEA? CIWMB should not be lead agency unless specifically requested.
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: Need for guidance in review.
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: How much information should be included in the project description to avoid the
appearance of speculation without painting oneself into a corner? A. project description
is equal to degree of complexity B. what triggers subsequent review?
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: Define LEA and Board roles under CEQA
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: Breadth of concerns
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: Conflict of Interests
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: Board comments on docs outside regulatory authority
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: Does Board recognize flexibility pertaining to site specific issues? I.e. rural
vs. urban
Response: This issue will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for
September and November.
Issue: With standardized permit, CEQA becomes more critical.
Response: the Board is currently undertaking the evaluation of the Tiered
Regulatory Structure, and issues identified with the structure overall and also with each
tier. The P&E Committee initiated action on this at their March 1998 meeting. Staff
held informational workshops in May 1998, and will present findings from those Workshops
at the P&E Committee’s September 1998 meeting, including analysis of the issues
and options for the Committee to consider.
The evaluation of the Regulatory Tire Structure is a subject to ongoing discussions and
strategies, and is the subject of a "mini-talk" at the upcoming LEA Conference
in August at Granlibakken.
|
