|
The first statewide LEA/CIWMB Conference was held in Asilomar on November 12-14. There
were 120 LEA and CIWMB participants from far as Shasta and Imperial Counties and
everywhere in between. The conference was a milestone in the Partnership 2000 effort.
Participants were treated to fair weather, great scenery, good food, and plenty of
opportunities to network, share information and problem solve issues facing LEAs and IWMB
staff.
Presentations on Partnership 2000, Title 27 changes, the Permitting and Enforcement
restructure, conflict management, and the hearing panel process were made. During the
conference various breakout sessions were also conducted. The sessions identified issues
needing resolution. These issues were shared with Pam Bennett, Don Koepp, Ralph Chandler,
and Dorothy Rice with a request for their ideas of what next steps could be taken to find
resolution. The following is a summary of some of the issues and suggested next steps.
I. Issues
Closure
Issues: multiple uses; burn ash sites
Next Steps: CIWMB with input from LEAs and others will review the existing
advisory on multiple permits. CIWMB with LEA input will provide decision making tools for
determining a course of action relative to permits. CIWMB take lead in cooperation with
LEAs in developing and making a proposal to DTSC relative to Burn dump ash sites
reclassification (outside of the RSU) and to move sites off the "list".
- Permits
Issues: closure date enforcement; N&O vs. permit action; landfill
transitions; one or multiple permits; chipping and grinding vs. composting.
Next Steps: CIWMB via the Evaluations Workgroup process will clarify what
performance standards they will use when evaluating LEA decisions relative to appropriate
permit, enforcement and closure actions.
The permit as an enforcement tool will be covered in the ongoing PCP process. Chip and
grind will be covered in the Organics Regulations process.
- Enforcement
Issues: clarify 7.8; clarify PRC 44002 (b); Closed site
operators;
Next Steps- CIWMB will revise closure regulations to clarify issues relative to
sites closed prior to 1980.For 44002(b) CIWMB to provide a letter of clarification. For closed site operators, CIWMB
will seek clarification in regulation and or statute.
Issues: roles between LEA and Air Districts; odor thresholds
Next Steps: CIWMB will provide clarification of changes from SB 675. Resources are
being requested in order to facilitate legislated workgroup implementation. Odor training
early next year will discuss thresholds.
Issues: Surrounding land use standards; trace gases; federal air districts gas
requirements; gas and structures, gas surveys in homes; subsurface gas monitoring.
Next Steps: Issues will be passed to Bob Anderson for inclusion in landfill gas
symposium planned for April 1998. Other guidance will be developed as needed.
Issues: Responsible party at a closed site; enforcement tools at closed sites;
notifying neighbors of potential gas violation.
Next Steps- CIWMB will seek clarification in regulation and or statute. Revise
guidance on enforcement to be inclusive of closed sites. CCDEH will examine notification
of potential off-site hazard issues
- CEQA
Issues –Board and LEA working together; communication; intent; lead agency,
shift; review guidance; project description details; site-specific issues.
Next Steps - CEQA training scheduled for Summer 1998 will address these issue. The
training will include planners and lead agencies. CIWMB staff will develop with LEA input
proposed CEQA procedure policy for CIWMB permit approvals.
Issues -With standardized permit CEQA becomes more critical
Next Steps - CIWMB staff with LEA assistance will bring forward an agenda item to
CIWMB that examines the standardized permit issues.
Based on the input received from the participants there is great interest in having an
annual conference. Plans are development relative to the next conference. If you have
ideas and suggestions please call Mark de Bie at (916) 341-6331 or send and e-mail to mdebie@ciwmb.ca.gov.
II. Critique of Asilomar Planning and Production
This is a brief summary of successes and recommendations for changes of administrative
processes for the next event.
- Successes
- Deadlines were met under tight timelines
- Cooperation was high between California Association of Environmental Health
Administrators (CAEHA) and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff.
- Registration processes were relatively smooth; room assignments were accurate.
- Logistically, the event and all activities ran very smoothly.
- CIWMB staff was extremely supportive and helpful in providing clerical and graphics
support. CIWMB clerical staff support was essential.
- Financial planning of the event, i.e., establishing sufficient registration fees, was
successful.
- The Asilomar Conference Center and its staff fulfilled all obligations extremely well.
- Recommended Changes for Future Events
- The registration desk should have:
- Prewritten registration receipts for each registrant.
- A separate list for off-site and on-site registrants; a merged list in the Asilomar
system causes some confusion.
- Provision for four simultaneous lines. During registrants high flow periods, a longer
waiting time in the two-line system was undesirable.
- The Registrar should arrive early morning the day of registration or the night before.
- Every effort should be made to have the binder materials in the binder prior to the
event. Last minute stuffing of binders was a real burden on the registration process.
- Reserve the conference facility nine months in advance.
- Begin conference planning a minimum of six months in advance of the event.
- Ensure that speakers have a microphone available for all rooms, except the Marlin. The
background noises are very high in the dining hall, so a microphone is a must even though
the space may seem small.
- Reserve larger meeting rooms, the Marlin was too small.
- Plan interesting entertainment such as a tour of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a beach
barbecue (weather permitting), or team building activities.
- If a social event is planned, try to schedule before dinner.
- If the event is held at Asilomar, the conference planner should establish a strong
working relationship with an Asilomar representative and become very familiar with
Asilomar’s system. With the 1997 event, the first Asilomar representative assigned
was not completely satisfactory and there were many nuances with conference financial
planning that needed clarification.
The "evaluation session" of pluses and deltas conducted at the end of the
conference during the general assembly is forwarded with this critique.
|
