Partnership 2000

Summary of Second Annual Conference

October 1998

Status Report--First Conference Issues | Organics Workshop | Land Spreading | AB 59 Hearing Panel Process | Old Sites and Sensitive Habitats | Evaluation Summary

1998's conference at Granlibakken was attended by nearly 200 LEAs and Board staff. The conference was designed to continue and extend the work started in the first conference through a series of activities, workshops, mini-talks, tables/booths, computer demonstrations, networking opportunities, and presentations done by LEAs and Board staff, as well as experts from various fields.

The following conference summary includes notes of the presentations by Pamela Bennett, San Bernardino LEA, CCEDH Solid Waste Policy Committee Chair, and Keith Smith, Chief Deputy Director, CIWMB. Also included are transcriptions of the workshop presentations provided by participants on day 3, a summary of the conference evaluation results and documentation of some of the conference events.

The next conference is scheduled for August 11-13, 1999 in Asilomar.

Hope to see you there.

Return to table of contents

Pamela Bennett, San Bernardino Co. LEA and CCDEH Solid Waste Policy Committee Chair Status Report--1^st Conference Issues

The Titanic Year Since Asilomar

How to regulate multiple uses on a single site, especially if some extend into closure.

• Two New Advisories:

  1. Waste Diversion Activities at Landfills and Closed Disposal Sites
  2. Disposal Site Postclosure Land Use

Use of RSU to provide a variance for burn ash

• A draft LEA Advisory "Process for Evaluating and Remediating Burn Dumps" is under evaluation by CIWMB legal office.
• CCDEH Solid Waste Policy Committee has representative on the DTSC RSU Committee to address LEA issues.

How do you determine if one "megapermit" is needed or multiple permits?

• The LEA must decide this on a case-by-case basis to fit the unique situation at the site.
• LEA Advisory #39: Issuance of Multiple Permits may provide assistance and is scheduled for revision.

Should a proposed permit be held hostage because of a SMS Violation?

• CIWMB staff is working with its legal office to address these concerns.

When does storage of green material become composting?

• Issue was addressed in LEA Advisory #49: Implementation of Permanent Regulations for Storage and Chipping and Grinding Activities.

Clarify that PRC 44002(b) applies to unpermitted sites.

• Issue was addressed in Lea Advisory #38: LEA Enforcement Advisory/Board Enforcement Policy.
• Issue was also addressed in a letter to LEAs on 8/20/96 concerning the following:

þ Triggers for AB59 compliance
þ Definition of an unpermitted facility
þ Compliance date for nonpermitted sites

Who is the operator of a closed site?

• "Responsible Party (RP) is a better term since there is no "operator." The RP is the party defined in the Closure/Post-Closure Plan or, by default, the landowner.
• Title 27, Section 20164 defines "operator."

Clarification of respective roles between LEA and Air District

• Addressed in LEA Advisory #32: Jurisdiction Over Odor Complaints (at Composting Operations and Facilities).
• This advisory is under review for possible update.

Make more specific regs specifying odor thresholds

• CIWMB, CCEDH, and APC sponsored the "Odor Detection and Analysis Training."
• Further development of threshold standards is not contemplated.

Gas Migration--Further standards for surrounding land uses and guidance concerning trace gases associated with methane.

• These issues were covered at the gas symposium in Ontario.

How Should the Board and LEAs work together on CEQA Issues?

• This is targeted under Priority 3, Target 5: to formalize discussions about the various roles and responsibilities of all parties for a competent and complete CEQA document.

Numerous CEQA issues: Early communication, intent of CEQA statute, lead agency status, guidance in reviewing CEQA documents, etc.

• These issues and others will be covered in the CEQA training scheduled for September and November 1998.

With the standardized permit, CEQA becomes more critical.

• In March 1998, the P&E Committee initiated action to evaluate issues associated with the tiered regulatory structure.
• Staff held informal workshops in May and will present those findings in September.
• Also the topic of a "mini-talk" at this conference.

In summary:

• The CIWMB and LEAs worked together to answer questions and resolve problems--allowing each group to spend its time taking care of business.

A. Keith Smith, Chief Deputy Director, CIWMB

Introduction

• Prepare for the next decade by:
  • Understanding today’s situation
  • Making today work better
  • Envisioning our role in 2010
  • Developing policy options, strategies, and plans to get there.

Today’s situation

• For each type of regulated facility, what are the risks and nuisances that regulations are designed to address and the standards for each?
  • Leachate control
  • Landfill gas management
  • Closure
  • Financial reliability
  • Vectors
  • Etc. etc. etc.
• What are the significant gaps between expected and current performance and in which practice/geographic areas are improvements needed?
• Long term/major
• Short term/minor

Making today work better.

• What tools do we have to address these gaps and are they effective?
• Plan--permit
• Do--operate
• Check--inspect
• Adjust--notice and enforce
• Should additional approaches be considered?
• Plan--environmental management systems?
• Do--operator certification?
• Check--self-audit and reporting?
• Adjust-best practices/research/recognition?
• How can CIWMB and LEAs build upon the successes of Partnership 2000 to close these gaps?
• Information?
• Best practice listing?
• Operator education/certification?
• Facility recognition?
• Research and experimentation?
• Etc.

Envisioning our role in 2010.

• What are emerging trends and issues that might affect waste and material facility operations?
• R.S.U?
• Landfill gas/global warming?
• New materials/facility types?
• Multimedia permits?
• ISO 14000?
• Technology certification?
• Restoration?
• What emerging practices/technologies might lead to improved performance in regulated areas or make economic use of materials that are currently waste?
• Conversion technologies?
• Landfill mining?
• Etc.

Developing policy options, strategies and plans

• How can CIWMB and LEAs fully participate in the upcoming "21st Century Waste Management" process to ensure that their knowledge is fully used to identify issues and their ideas are fully considered to develop policy?
• Joint future team?
• Full participation!

Return to table of contents

Summary of Conference Workshop Presentations

August 21, 1998

Organics Workshop--Doug Danz, Glenn County, Presenter

Enforcement of Composting Regulations

A presentation of conceptual ideas on how to achieve compliance through "good" enforcement and the idea for the development of a document called an "agreement to operate."

The "agreement to operate" comprises the following elements:

• Developed by the LEA and operator.
• Done at the county level following a predescribed format.
• County generated permit which would enable the funding to be from the local government.
• Document would have a condition required in the language to include a "cease and desist" clause.
• Contingency plan or diversion description would be included within the document.

Factors involved in the "agreement to operate" would include the following:

• Option to self-monitor available to low-impact public operators.
• Self-monitoring conditions would include:

1) Operator certification
2) Good record keeping
3) Nonexistent public nuisance
4) Good neighbor practices

Operator Certification

• Standardized certification process involving training and testing requirements.
• Workbook test administered by the LEA.

Benefits to LEA and Operator

• "Agreement" is crafted by both the LEA and operator.
• Operator is self-monitored.
• LEA inspections are ceased.
• Compliance is achieved.

Organic Regulations Waste vs. Product--Irene Fellman, Imperial County, Presenter

Organic composting facilities and operations want to have product excluded from regulations and excluded as tonnage on site premise. The group brainstormed this statement and reached the following conclusions:

• All materials on site should be regarded as waste except bag material.
• Mulch can be broken down into a more refined product.
• Environmental concerns should remain the same.
• In summary--all materials found on site at greenwaste facilities should be regulated as waste.

Organic Regulations Waste vs. Product--Darrell Siegrist, Ventura County, Presenter

What are some of the strategic long-term issues at organic material facilities and operations?

• Site cleanup.
• Develop the authority to require financial assurance mechanisms for greenwaste remediation.
• What would be the financial assurance mechanisms?

1. Required for certain types of facilities.
2. Local bond, local land use requirements.
3. Seizure of assets when property value exceeds site cleanup.
4. When the operator has demonstrated responsibility to the LEA, then no bond would be required.

What conditions are problematic?

• Consideration to the location of the site operation.
• Existing exemptions seem to be dichotomous.
• Steer manure.
• Facilities located on a landfill or POTW.
• Diversion credits--should only be given when waste is totally removed from site.

Organic Workshop/Tiered Permit Workgroup

Kim Yapp, Los Angeles County--Presenter
Raymond Cooke, Kings County--Presenter

Highlighted the main points from the workgroup discussion on the general issues that affect permitting of organic operations:

• LEAs need more controls and operators need more education resources other than monthly inspections.
• There should be more flexibility to do more or less inspections based on need.
• All facilities and operations should be required to submit a work plan that is affordable and detailed enough to assist the LEA in their review prior to the opening of the site.
• Site exclusions are difficult for the LEAs to track and should be minimized.
• Monitoring requirements should be flexible based on the site track record.
• All tiers should allow for site-specific conditions to be placed on the operation or facility.
• The Board should delegate the ability to write and approve conditions for the registration or standardization permits to the Deputy Director.
• The needs in large jurisdictions differ from rural jurisdictions.
• Composting is expensive to do.
• Heavy metals are a concern when it comes to greenwaste.
• Epidemiological studies need to be done.
• LEAs need flexibility to deal with operations that are very diverse.
• LEAs need to be empowered to go after operators.

Return to table of contents

Landspreading--Paul Schraeder, Contra Costa County, Presenter

Pros and cons of the beneficial use involving biosolid land spreading in the following categories:

• Economic/technical feasibility
• Health and safety
• Environmental protection

The beneficial uses can be viewed as follows:

• Packaged fertilizer
• Landfill daily cover
• Landfill final cover/erosion control
• Land application
• Land restoration (e.g., mining)
• Desert golf course/landscape

Land Spreading--Steve Mindt, San Joaquin County, Presenter

Landspreading--Agronomic Loading Rates

This group shared some thought provoking questions with regard to biosolids landspreading processes.

*Agronomic loading rate is the rate at which an element, nutrient, or other constituent reaches a defined maximum value.

Factors that play a decisive role in the equation:

1. Crops
2. Soil
3. Soil pH
4. Percolation rate
5. Release rate of nutrients

Groups that play a significant role in the process:

1. Local Heath Department
2. Regional Water Quality Control Board
3. Groundwater Agencies
4. CDFAs
5. Local Agriculture
6. Landowners
7. POTWs
8. Haulers
9. Landspreaders

Active Forces That Drive Maximum Loading Rates

• POTWs--view land spreading as a low cost means of disposal.
• Haulers and land spreaders are paid by the ton for the amount of biosolid materials that are distributed.
• Landowners--are paid to accept the material on their land.
• Reclaimed water--has a higher nitrogen level and other trace elements.
• Application process requires that the biosolid material sit for a period of time before planting can be done.

Problems that arise from the application process:

• Runoff during rainy season.
• Poor soil.
• pH problems.
• Low levels of toxic substances.
• Levels are harmful to livestock and other mammals.

Annual Bioload--Everything that has accumulated during the year.

Residual Mineralization--Could raise nitrogen levels up to 40 percent higher than expected.

Public Perception

• Viruses potentially transmitted though the food chain.
• Adequate safeguards are needed.
• Monitoring and sampling should be ongoing.

Recommendations:

• Encourage an increased role by agricultural agencies.
• Encourage CDFAs to complete their standards.
• Support long-term evaluations of virology.
• Support studies on environmental maximum.

Land Spreading--Heidi Sanborn, CIWMB, Presenter

Sensitive Receptors in Relation to Biosolids Land Spreading

Sensitive receptors could be described as:

• Schools
• Hospitals
• Convalescent homes
• Food establishments
• Parks and recreation areas
• Single and multiple family dwellings
• Environmentally sensitive areas

Reasons counties support biosolids land spreading:

• Local control
• Pre-existing history of use
• Economic benefit to farmers

Reason counties oppose biosolids land spreading:

• Politics
• Activism
• Farm Bureau
• Negative impacts on land value and use
• Competition with manure industry
• Rural vs. Urban
• Farmers and water districts
• Previous bad experiences

Six main areas of concern are as follows:

• Protection of ground and surface water
• Nuisance control
• Contingency plan
• Public notification
• Tracking land use and crops (minimum three years)
• Staff training

Sensitive receptor problems can be minimized by:

• Create a citizens advisory committee to develop guidelines.
• Select an ombudsman to eliminate bias.
• Hold public workshops with USEPA.
• Adopt CWEA Manual of Good Practice.
• Address public concerns in CUPs, ordinance, and permits.
• Develop contingency plans with generators and operators for:

• Nuisances
• Spills
• Transportation
• Wet weather operation

Return to table of contents

AB 59 Hearing Panel Process Introduction--Paul Willman, CIWMB, Presenter

The AB 59 hearing panel workshop was designed to take an existing manual on hearing panel procedures developed by Santa Barbara LEA Mike Schmaeling and refine it into a model document that can be used by all LEAs. The workshop consisted of a taking an enforcement scenario through the various stages of the procedural manual including documentation of violations, LEA and operator follow-up, request for hearing, case development, and mock hearing panel proceedings, complete with deliberations and a final verdict. The workshop participants played all the various parts in the scenario and through their experience were able to develop suggestions for improving the procedural manual. The group’s suggestions were documented and Board staff will incorporate them into the manual and come up with a final product for dissemination to LEAs.

Hearing Panel LEAs Perspective--Marcia Kiesse, CIWMB, Presenter

Suggestions for refining the procedural manual included the following:

• Determine the order of presentation before the hearing panel based on compliant type.
• Aggrieved party would be first and the LEA second unless a clarification of the charges by the LEA is needed.
• The first presenter should cite the statutes/regulations from the Statement of Issues.
• Appointment of a secretary for the hearing panel would be at the level of a professional staff person from the environmental health department, but not from the same division as the LEA.
• Draft guidelines to address the scheduling process for a hearing panel.

Hearing Panel Complainant's Perspective--Dennis Ferrier, City of San Jose, Presenter

• The complainant should be specific about the regulation that is being violated
• State in a concise manner whether or not the LEA took action as required by law
• LEAs do not have enforcement authority to issue a subpoena

Return to table of contents | Next page

Last updated: November 01, 2007