From: Robert McAllisterTo: Bailey, Peter@DTSCSubject: Federal Post-Closure Rule Draft State Regulations, Addition of Enforceable Documents & Flexibility for Postclosure

Requirements 45-Day Comment Period Public NoticeDate: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:59:33 AM

Hi Peter,TITLE 2245-DAY PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIODFEDERAL POST-CLOSURE RULEDRAFT STATE REGULATIONS,ADDITION OF ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENTS AND FLEXIBILITY FORPOSTCLOSURE REQUIREMENTSDepartment Reference Number: R-2017-02Office of Administrative Law Notice File Number: Z-2017-1003-03NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) proposes to adopt California Code ofRegulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5, sections 66264.90, 66264.110, 66264.121, 66265.90, 66265.110, 66265.121, 66270.1,66270.14, and 66270.28, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1325 (de León), approved by Governor Brown and filed with the Secretary of Stateon September 26, 2016.

Will this proposed language affect our Penrose Landfill within the San Fernando Valley ofLos Angeles?Thanks,Robert McAllisterManager, Penrose LLC12802 Valley View Street, Suite 9Garden Grove, CA 92845Office 714-828-3090

PL-1

Attachment 1Postclosure Rule Comments

1

Gaspari, Mary@DTSC

From: Maltz, Martha <martha.maltz@calchamber.com> on behalf of Lacey, Louinda <Louinda.Lacey@calchamber.com>

Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 2:48 PMTo: Gaspari, Mary@DTSCSubject: Postclosure RuleAttachments: Coalition Comment Letter re Postclosure 12-1-17.pdf

Ms. Gaspari, 

Attached is our coalition comment letter re the proposed regulations on the Postclosure Rule.  If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at Louinda.Lacey@Calchamber.com or 916‐930‐1260.  Thank you. 

Louinda V. Lacey Policy Advocate

California Chamber of Commerce 1215 K Street, 14th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

T 916 930 1260

Visit calchamber.com for the latest California business legislative news plus products and services to help you do business. This email and any attachments may contain material that is confidential, privileged and for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have reason to believe you are not the intended recipient, please reply to advise the sender of the error and delete the message, attachments and all copies.

December 1, 2017

Ms. Mary Gaspari Engineering Geologist Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826

Via email to: mary.gaspari@dtsc.ca.gov

RE: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FEDERAL POST-CLOSURE RULE DRAFT STATE REGULATIONS, ADDITION OF ENFORCEABLE DOCUMENTS AND FLEXIBILITY FOR POSTCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS; REF. NO. R-2017-02; OAL FILE NO. Z-2017-1003-03

Dear Ms. Gaspari:

The California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (hereinafter, “Coalition”) appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (“DTSC”) proposed regulations regarding enforceable documents and flexibility for post-closure requirements. While we commend DTSC in its efforts to adopt state regulations implementing the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) October 1998 revisions to the federal closure and post-closure rules, DTSC’s proposed regulations omit two critical elements authorized under the federal regulations and thus would not accomplish the positive regulatory reforms achieved by those regulations.

SUMMARY

First, the proposed regulations would adopt only those portions of the federal rule pertaining to the post-closure permitting process, while omitting the portions of the rule that address changes to the closure process. As written, the proposed regulations would allow enforceable documents issued by DTSC to operate only in lieu of a post-closure permit. However, the federal rule also allows closure of land-based units, such as landfills and surface impoundments, to be implemented through the corrective action process rather than through rigid, and potentially redundant or conflicting, closure plans. The omission of this critical component of the federal rule detracts significantly from the value of the proposed regulations.

Second, DTSC further diminishes the benefits of the rule by limiting the definition of “enforceable documents” to those that are issued by DTSC alone. Under the federal rule, enforceable documents issued under any state authority may function in lieu of post-closure permits or establish alternative closure requirements. By limiting enforceable documents to those issued by DTSC, the Department is disregarding corrective action and other similar orders issued by other state agencies, such as regional water quality control boards (“RWQCB”). This limitation is also

CCC-1

CCC-2

Ms. Gaspari December 1, 2017 Page 2

directly contrary to the hazardous waste facility regulation and permitting consolidation program established 25 years ago under Senate Bill 1082 (“SB 1082”),1 as explained more fully herein.

The Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed regulations is silent on these critical issues. DTSC’s failure to address them conflicts with the agency’s stated goal to “eliminate redundant processes without compromising enforceability.” While the Coalition supports the goal of increasing the use of alternative mechanisms in lieu of post-closure permits, we respectfully request that DTSC revise the proposed regulations consistent with state law, federal regulations and DTSC’s stated intent. The comments below offer policy rationale and specific recommended changes to the proposed regulatory language to accomplish this purpose.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

A. The Federal “Post-Closure” Rule Added Flexibility to Both Closure and Post-Closure Requirements; DTSC Should Do the Same

On October 22, 1998, EPA promulgated a final rule that substantially amended closure and post-closure requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) in three major ways.2 First, EPA modified the requirement for a post-closure permit to provide EPA and the authorized states discretion to use a variety of authorities to address the post-closure period. Second, it amended the permit application information requirements for post-closure only permits. Third, it amended the regulations governing closure of land-based units to provide EPA and authorized states discretion “to use corrective action requirements for solid waste management units, rather than closure requirements, to address regulated units co-located with solid waste management units.”3

EPA specified why corrective action requirements for solid waste management units (22 CCR § 66264.101) are acceptable alternatives to closure requirements under RCRA. In the preamble to the proposed federal rule, EPA explained that, after overseeing thousands of closure plans, it became “evident that closure of these units is frequently more complex than EPA envisioned [when issuing closure requirements.]”4 In many cases, closure activities are not “simply a matter of capping a unit, or removing waste from the unit, but instead may require a significant undertaking to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater. The procedures established in the closure regulations were not designed to address these types of activities.”5 Unlike the closure process, corrective action provides considerable flexibility for agencies to decide on remedies that reflect the conditions and the complexities of each facility.6 Without such a rule in place, “cleanup of … releases may be subject to two different sets of standards and two different sets of procedures. EPA [was] concerned that this dual regulatory structure may unnecessarily impede cleanups.”7

1 Stats. 1993, c. 418. 2 See Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Closed and Closing Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Post-Closure Permit Requirement and Closure Process; Final Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 56710 (October 22, 1998). 3 Id., emphasis added. 4 See Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Closed and Closing Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Post-Closure Permit Requirement; Closure Process; State Corrective Action Enforcement Authority; Proposed Rule; 59 Fed. Reg. 55779 (November 8, 1994). 5 Id., emphasis added. 6 63 Fed. Reg. 56712. 7 Id., emphasis added.

CCC-3

CCC-4

CCC-4A

Ms. Gaspari December 1, 2017 Page 3

This is true at RCRA facilities in California. Many facilities have regulated units co-located with solid waste management units that are subject to corrective action under 22 CCR § 66264.101. Typically, in these circumstances, releases to the environment are comingled under solid waste management units and the regulated units and the most protective remedies for the situation holistically incorporate the area occupied by both units into one remedy.

In 2011, DTSC adopted a portion of the 1998 EPA Post-Closure Rule as it related to groundwater monitoring at 22 CCR §66264.90(e)-(h) that incorporates this flexibility for DTSC to impose alternate requirements in situations where solid waste management units are co-located with regulated units, so that a more protective remedy can be selected. However, the 2011 amendments only relate to groundwater monitoring and do not allow DTSC to select alternate remedies in lieu of closure and post-closure care where it otherwise makes sense and is protective.

We respectfully submit that DTSC should adopt the remaining provisions of the federal rule by amending the following parts of §§66264 and 66265:

1. Section 66264.110 – Recommendation: replace Section (c) with the following:

(c) The Department may replace all or part of the requirements of thissubpart (and the unit-specific standards referenced in Section 66264.111(c)applying to a regulated unit), with alternative requirements set out in a permitor in an enforceable document (as defined in Section 66270.1(c)(7)), wherethe Department determines that:

(1) The regulated unit is situated among solid waste management unitsor areas of concern, a release has occurred, and both the regulatedunit and one or more solid waste management unit(s) or areas ofconcern are likely to have contributed to the release; and

(2) It is not necessary to apply the closure requirements of this subpart(and those referenced herein) because the alternative requirementswill protect human health and the environment and will satisfy theclosure performance standard of Sections 66264.111 (a) and (b).

2. Section 66264.112 – Recommendation: add the following subsections:

(b)(8) For facilities where the Department has applied alternative requirements at a regulated unit under Sections 66264.90(e)-(h), 66264.110(c), and/or 66264.140(d), either the alternative requirements applying to the regulated unit, or a reference to the enforceable document containing those alternative requirements.

(c)(2)(iv) The owner or operator requests the Regional Administrator to apply alternative requirements to a regulated unit under Sections 66264.90(e)-(h), 66264.110(c), and/or 66264.140(d).

3. Section 66264.118 - Recommendation: add the following subsections:

(b)(4) For facilities where the Department has applied alternative requirements at a regulated unit under Sections 66264.90(e)-(h),

CCC-5

Ms. Gaspari December 1, 2017 Page 4

66264.110(c), and/or 66264.140(d), either the alternative requirements that apply to the regulated unit, or a reference to the enforceable document containing those requirements.

(d)(2)(iv) The owner or operator requests the Department to apply alternative requirements to a regulated unit under Sections 66264.90(e)-(h), 66264.110(c), and/or 66264.140(d).

4. Section 66264.140 - Recommendation: add the following subsections:

(d) The Department may replace all or part of the requirements of thissubpart applying to a regulated unit with alternative requirements forfinancial assurance set out in the permit or in an enforceable document (asdefined Section 66270.1(c)(7)), where the Department:

(1) Prescribes alternative requirements for the regulated unit underSections 66264.90(e)-(h) and/or 66264.110(d); and

(2) Determines that it is not necessary to apply the requirements of thissubpart because the alternative financial assurance requirements willprotect human health and the environment.

By adopting the full 1998 EPA Post-Closure Rule, DTSC will be able to select protective remedies for areas at RCRA facilities with solid waste management units and regulated units in a holistic fashion to fully address releases from these units. This will result in more effective remedies tailored to site-specific circumstances and more efficient use of DTSC resources in the review and selection of remedies for co-located solid waste management units and regulated units.

B. The Definition of “Enforceable Documents” Should Extend to Corrective Actionand Orders Issued by Other State Agencies

The proposed regulations allow only DTSC-issued enforceable documents to act as alternatives to post-closure requirements. More specifically, as proposed, “enforceable document” is defined as “an order, a plan, or other document issued by the Department that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 271.16(e) including, but not limited to, a corrective action order issued by the Department …, a remedial action order issued by the Department, or a closure or postclosure plan.”8 In other words, the only alternative enforceable documents DTSC envisions may act in lieu of a post-closure permit are those issued by DTSC, but not other state agencies. This is inconsistent with the federal rule (in which EPA endorsed the use of legal authorities outside the context of RCRA to qualify as “enforceable documents”), and ignores existing state law that expressly allows for the delegation of corrective action and groundwater monitoring authority to the California RWQCBs.

SB 1082 delegated sole authority over RCRA groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements to the RWQCBs for a large number of facilities. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 25204.6(b)(1).) SB 1082 further required the California Environmental Protection Agency (“CalEPA”), by January 1, 1995, to develop a “hazardous waste facility regulation and permitting consolidation program” to increase efficiency and reduce redundancies across various state

8 See Proposed Regulation R-2017-02 at 22 CCR § 66270.1(c)(7).

CCC-6

CCC-7

Ms. Gaspari December 1, 2017 Page 5

agencies.9 The program was required to grant sole authority to either DTSC, or the State Water Resources Control Board and the RWQCBs, to implement and enforce the groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements for hazardous waste management facilities in the state. The statute required CalEPA to establish a workable, comprehensive framework that allocated roles and responsibilities either to DTSC or to the State Water Board and RWQCBs.10

The CalEPA framework noted:

Corrective action at many RCRA facilities may be currently overseen by either the RWQCB or DTSC. At sites where there is already a single agency overseeing corrective action, the corrective action oversight will continue until that corrective action is complete. … The RWQCBs will continue oversight of corrective action at approximately 79 facilities. If the RWQCBs are conducting inspections and enforcement or other corrective action activities in lieu of DTSC, DTSC will not duplicate the inspections, enforcement, or oversight of cleanup activities. The RWQCBs will consult with DTSC to ensure that the activities performed by SWRCB/RWQCBs are RCRA equivalent. DTSC will continue oversight of corrective action at all other hazardous waste facilities.

Today, numerous facilities throughout California are engaged in corrective action programs contained in orders issued by the RWQCBs.

As written, the proposed regulations do not allow corrective action orders issued by other state agencies to be valid alternatives to post-closure care requirements, even where such orders clearly meet the enforceability requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 271.16(e). We respectfully submit that DTSC should revisit this oversight.

Unless the proposed regulations are revised to recognize orders issued by RWQCBs and other agencies with corrective action authority in the state, whether pursuant to SB 1082 or other state laws, many facilities will be deprived of the heightened flexibility envisioned by the federal regulations and state law. Moreover, if the proposed regulations are not amended, facilities engaged in corrective action programs will be required to obtain duplicative post-closure permits or orders from DTSC that may needlessly complicate, if not impede, the cleanup at the facility. This was not the intention of SB 1082 or the CalEPA framework.11

C. Typographical Corrections

DTSC may wish to consider the following apparent typographical errors (identified with bold and underline):

1. Section 66265.90 – missing parentheses:

9 Health and Safety Code § 25204.6 10 California Environmental Protection Agency, Framework for the Implementation of Health and Safety Code Section 25204.6(b) (Senate Bill (SB) 1082) (1995); available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/sb1082frame.shtml 11 See Senate Committee on Toxics and Public Safety Management’s Analysis (May 10, 1993). Noting that recent hearings of the Senate Committee on Toxics and Public Safety Management had “revealed that significant problems exist in the environmental regulatory process. Many of these problems stem from duplication and overlap in the administration of statutes and regulations.”

CCC-8

CCC-9

Ms. Gaspari December 1, 2017 Page 6

(i) The regulations in this article apply to all owners and operators subject tothe requirements of section 66270.1(c)(7), when the Department issueseither a postclosure permit or an enforceable document (as defined inSection 66270.1(c)(7)) at the facility. When the Department issues anenforceable document, references in this article to “in the permit” mean “inthe enforceable document.

2. Section 66270.28 – list excludes (13):

For postclosure permits, the owner or operator is required to submit only the information specified in Section 66270.14(b)(1), (4), (5), (6), (11), (13), (14), (16), (18) and (19), (c), and (d), unless the Department determines that additional information from Sections 66270.14, 66270.16, 66270.17, 66270.18, 66270.20, or 66270.21 is necessary. The owner or operator is required to submit the same information when an alternative authority is used in lieu of a postclosure permit as provided in Section 66270.1(c)(7).

CLOSING

The Coalition respectfully requests that the proposed regulations be revised to apply to both closure and post-closure requirements under RCRA, and to allow use of enforceable documents issued by other state agencies as well as the Department, consistent with federal regulations. Revising the proposed regulations to reflect the complete federal “Post-Closure” Rule will also ensure the regulations are consistent with existing state law and achieve the full range of regulatory benefits envisioned by EPA when it adopted the corresponding federal rules in 1998.

Respectfully submitted,

Louinda V. Lacey Policy Advocate California Chamber of Commerce

On behalf of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association

cc: Barbara Lee, Director, Department of Toxic Substances Control C. David Johnson, Jr., Legislative Director, Department of Toxic Substances ControlGraciela Castillo-Krings, Legislative Secretary, Office of the GovernorRachel Wagoner, Chief Consultant, Senate Environmental Quality CommitteeJosh Tooker, Chief Consultant, Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials

Committee

CCC-10

CCC-11

CCC-12

1

Gaspari, Mary@DTSC

From: Glavin, Mike <Mike.Glavin@crc.com>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 5:03 PMTo: Gaspari, Mary@DTSCCc: Rodriguez, Raymond; Glavin, MikeSubject: Attn: Postclosure RuleAttachments: CRC Comments to DTSC Proposed Post-Closure Regulations - 120117 final.pdf

Mary,

CaliforniaResourcesElkHills,Inc.(CREH)’swishestoprovidetheattachedcommentstotheCaliforniaDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl(DTSC)’sproposedFederalPost‐ClosureRuleDraftStateRegulations,AdditionofEnforceableDocumentsandFlexibilityforPost‐ClosureRequirements.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Mike

Mike Glavin | Director, Sustainability | California Resources Corporation | Office location: 11117 River Run Blvd., 3rd Floor | Mailing Address: 11109 River Run Blvd. | Package Delivery: 11117 River Run Blvd. | Bakersfield, CA 93311 | Office: 661-529-4453 | Cell: 661-345-3078 | E-mail: mike.glavin@crc.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and privileged. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please contact sender immediately by reply email and delete the original message from your system.

1 December 2017

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Ms. Mary Gaspari

Engineering Geologist

Department of Toxic Substances Control

8800 Cal Center Drive

Sacramento, California 95826

Subject: Post-Closure Rule Comments

Dear Ms. Gaspari,

California Resources Elk Hills, Inc. (CREH)'s wishes to provide the following comments and

recommendations to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)'s Federal Post­

Closure Rule Draft State Regulations, Addition of Enforceable Documents and Flexibility for Post-Closure

Requirements. These revised regulations will provide flexibility for DTSC to use enforceable documents

to authorize hazardous waste post-closure activities at hazardous waste facilities subject to post-closure

care. In December 1997, a Final Hazardous Waste Facility Post-Closure Permit was issued for area of

concern (AOC) 074-001 located along the crest of Elk Hills. This permit expired in December 2007. In

July 2008, DTSC approved of a Revised Post-Closure Permit Application for AOC 074-001.

CREH's comments on the proposed rule are provided below.

Comments Related to Notice of Proposed Action:

1. Policy Statement Overview, Page 4 of 10:

Should this rule be adopted, it is unclear if current post-closure permit holders would be required to

transition existing post-closure permits to enforceable documents. If so, the proposed rule should

describe the transition process from current post-closure permits to enforceable documents.

Recommendation:

CREH recommends that for current post-closure permit holders that have formally engaged with

DTSC and stated their intent to pursue the Flexibility for Post-Closure Requirements (proposed rule)

process should not be held to a ten-year post-closure permit renewal timeline.

2. Proposed Regulation, Page 4 of 10:

It is unclear how enforcement mechanisms under the proposed regulation would differ from those

already in place under the existing post closure permit. Would enforcement mechanisms (corrective

action orders, remedial actions, etc.) for those facilities currently operating under a post-closure

permit be more or less restrictive than the existing post-closure permit regulations?

Recommendation:

CREH recommends that for current post-closure permit holders, with a proven historic low risk

exposure record, have enforcement mechanisms that are commensurate of the risk. The proposed

Pagel

11109 River Run Boulevard I Bakersfield, CA I 93311

CREH-1

CREH-2

,a. ��kJfs��J;iJ,�regulations should not contain conditional restrictions that far exceed the risk of a post-closure

permit holder.

3. Anticipated Benefits, page 4 of 10:The first paragraph of this section states that DTSC anticipates minimal application/demonstration

costs. Under current regulations, the post-closure permit must be renewed every ten years. The

proposed rule should describe, if possible, the anticipated duration of enforceable documents and

enforceable document fee schedule and other relevant costs (if different from existing post-closure

permit regulations).

Recommendation: CREH recommends that proposed enforceable document fees should not exceed current annual fees for existing post-closure permit holders.

Comments Related to Proposed Regulation Text:

1. 66270.1 (7) Page 5 of 6 - Purpose and Scope of These Regulations

This paragraph states that an "Enforceable document11 means an order, a plan or other document

issued by the department that meets the requirements of 40 CRF 271.16 (e) including, but not

limited to, a corrective action order ... 11Certain sites are currently operating under regulatory

oversight with existing environmental documents (i.e. Waste Discharge Requirements, permits, land

use controls, etc.).

Recommendation: CREH recommends these existing restrictions/regulatory documents serve as an "enforceable document11 under the proposed regulations in lieu of a post-closure permit.

Si;,:�i / -

rJl!i ..,Mike Glavin

Director, Sustainability

California Resources Corporation

cc: Raymond Rodriguez, CREH

11109 River Run Boulevard I Bakersfield, CA I 93311

Page2

CREH-3

CREH-4

1

Gaspari, Mary@DTSC

From: Dawn Koepke <dkoepke@mchughgr.com>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:15 PMTo: Gaspari, Mary@DTSCCc: Lee, Barbara@DTSC; Nazemi, Mohsen@DTSC; Johnson, David@DTSC; Graciela Castillo-Krings;

kip.lipper@sen.ca.gov; Wagoner, Rachel; Tooker, Josh; Jerry SecundySubject: CCEEB Comments Regarding the DTSC Post-closure RuleAttachments: CCEEB DTSC Postclosure Regulation Ltr FINAL 12-1-17.pdf

Good evening, Ms. Gaspari.

Attached for your review and consideration is the California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance’s (CCEEB) letter regarding the Department of Toxics Substances Control’s (DTSC) proposed Post-closure Regulation.

We appreciate your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding the letter. Thank you!

Dawn Koepke Partner McHugh, Koepke & Associates 1121 L Street, Suite 103 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 930-1993(916) 930-0580 Faxwww.mchughgr.com

December 1, 2017

Ms. Mary Gaspari Engineering Geologist Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, California 95826 Electronic Submission via: mary.gaspari@dtsc.ca.gov

Re: Comments Regarding the DTSC Post-closure Rule

Dear Ms. Gaspari:

On behalf of the members of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB), we appreciate the opportunity to offer the following comments regarding the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Post-closure regulation (“proposed regulation”).

CCEEB is a coalition of business, labor, and public leaders that works together to advance strategies to achieve a sound economy and a healthy environment. Founded in 1973, CCEEB is a non-profit and non-partisan organization.

While we greatly appreciate the time staff provided to meet with our members and discuss the proposed regulation in greater detail, we have concerns that the proposed regulation does not accomplish the goals of the enacting legislation under SB 1325 (de Leon, 2016). Notably, CCEEB moved from an “oppose-unless-amended” position on the measure to supporting it with the commitment from the Senate and DTSC that the regulation would adopt in-full the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) October 1998 revisions to the federal closure and post-closure rules. Unfortunately, we are concerned that this commitment was not maintained as the proposed regulations fail to include two critical elements of the federal approach.

Omission of Federal Closure Process Components

As currently drafted, the proposed regulations adopt merely the components of the federal rule that relate to the post-closure permitting process, omitting the closure process changes that are of value, important and the underlying basis for CCEEB’s support on the enacting legislation.

CCEEB-1

Under the federal approach, the closure of land-based units can be achieved through corrective action instead of the inflexible and sometimes conflicting or redundant closure plans. The proposed regulation, however, would allow enforceable documents issued by the Department to operate only in lieu of a post-closure permit.

The 1998 amendments to the federal rule affecting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure and post-closure requirements were significant, providing beneficial flexibility for both the regulated community and the Department, should it opt to utilize it. More specifically, it amended the requirements as follows:

- For post-closure permits, changes were instituted to provide EPA and theauthorized states flexibility to use a variety of current authorities toaddress the post-closure period

- For closure of land-based units, it provided EPA and authorized statesflexibility to utilize corrective action requirements instead of closurerequirements

EPA instituted such flexibility based on its experience overseeing thousands of closure plans and coming to the conclusion that closure of those units is typically more complicated than initially envisioned. It may not be sufficient to merely cap or remove waste from a unit, but instead contaminated soil and groundwater issues may need to be resolved as well. The flexibility provided under the federal approach gives agencies room to decide what remedies are best to address the site-specific conditions and complexities. We strongly believe this flexibility instituted at the state level could help both the Department and the regulated community in addressing potential duplication, inconsistency and efficiency issues that may impede cleanups as a result of two different sets of standards and procedures.

Limitation of Enforceable Documents

With regard to the components that are included in the federal rule, CCEEB must object to the limitation within the definition of “enforceable documents” that would include only those issued by the Department. This is inconsistent with the federal rule whereby enforceable documents issued by a sister agency under other statutory authority could apply in lieu of post-closure permits or establish differing closure requirements. Further, in cases where another state agency has established different closure requirements this limitation could create a conflict with the other agencies, prove unnecessary, duplicate efforts, impinge on other authorities, and more.

In this regard, CCEEB is concerned this limitation may, at best, lack clarity and,

at worst, be in conflict with the provisions and intent of SB 1082 (Calderon, 1993)1 that provided either the Department or state’s water boards sole authority over RCRA

1 Senate Bill 1082: An act to amend Section 15363.6 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 39661 of, to add Section 25204.6 to, to add Chapter 6.11 (commencing with Section 25404) to Division 20 of, and to add Division 37 (commencing with Section 57000) to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to environmental protection. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/sb1082text.shtml

CCEEB-2

CCEEB-3

CCEEB-4

CCEEB-5

groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Additionally, the bill specifically requires incorporation of the conditions, limitations and requirements imposed by the state and regional water boards.

CCEEB recommends the proposed regulation be revised to clearly and explicitly recognize orders issued by regional water boards and other agencies with authority over corrective action. Absent this clarity being provided within the proposed regulation, facilities engaged in corrective action programs will be required to obtain duplicative post-closure permits or order from the Department that may be unnecessary and still not properly address the cleanup needs at the facility.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration of our concerns and recommended revisions. CCEEB looks forward to working with DTSC to develop a Post-closure rule that is clear, workable, consistently applied, and protective of human health and the environment. Should you have questions, please contact CCEEB’s Water, Chemistry and Waste Project Manager Dawn Koepke with McHugh, Koepke & Associates at (916) 930-1993. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gerald D. Secundy CCEEB President

cc: Ms. Barbara Lee, Director, DTSC Mr. Mohsen Nazemi, Deputy Director, Site Mitigation & Brownfields Reuse Program, DTSC C. David Johnson, Jr., Legislative Director, DTSCGraciela Krings-Castillo, Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Office of the GovernorKip Lipper, Senior Advisor, Office of Senate Pro Tempore Kevin de LeonRachel Wagoner, Chief Consultant, Senate Environmental Quality CommitteeJosh Tooker, Chief Consultant, Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials CommitteeCCEEB WCW Project Members

CCEEB-6

Postclosure Rule Hearing December 1, 2017

Recorded Comments

Ms. Elizabeth Kimbrel with California Resources Corporation (EK): My name is Elizabeth Kimbrel. I am representing Langan Engineering on behalf of the California Resources Corporation. We have a question about Subsection 6627.1 Item 7. This paragraph states that an enforceable document, meaning an order, a plan or other document issued by the Department that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 27.16 Subsection E. Certain sites are currently operating under regulatory oversight with existing environmental documents and post-closure permits. So our question is, could these existing restrictions or environmental regulatory documents serve as enforceable documents under the proposed regulations, and how would the proposed regulations affect, specifically affect those sites currently operating with post-closure permits?

Mr. Mohsen Nazemi, Deputy Director, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration, Department of Toxic Substances Control (MN): Thank you for your comment. As I mentioned earlier, we are not going to engage in a dialogue here; we are here to listen to your comments. So do you have a recommendation on what you think we should be allowing to be done under your comment?

EK: We’re just looking for clarification at this point.

MN: You just want clarification. Okay, we will certainly respond to that in our final package, to make it clear whether or not that can be used.

EK: Okay. Thank you.

MN: All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay, this concludes the comments from the registered witnesses. Let the record show that no one else raised their hand or wished to speak here. Therefore, I am closing the oral testimony portion of this hearing at this time, which is 2:15.

CRC-1

1

Gaspari, Mary@DTSC

From: Elsa Silvestre <elsa.silvestre@lacity.org>Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:20 PMTo: Gaspari, Mary@DTSCSubject: Fwd: Letter: Federal Post-Closure Rule R-2017-02Attachments: Federal Post-Closure Rule Letter.pdf

Sorry, I had your name incorrect in original email.

Thank you,

Elsa Silvestre LA Sanitation|Regulatory Affairs Division 1149 S. Broadway Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 485-3997 www.lacitysan.org 

Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Elsa Silvestre <elsa.silvestre@lacity.org> Date: Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:16 PM Subject: Letter: Federal Post‐Closure Rule R‐2017‐02 To: mary.gasperi@dtsc.ca.gov Cc: Peter.Bailey@dtsc.ca.gov, Fernando Campos <fernando.campos@lacity.org>, Michael Mullin <michael.mullin@lacity.org>, Hassan Rad <hassan.rad@lacity.org>, Karen Coca <karen.coca@lacity.org>, Michael Simpson <michael.simpson@lacity.org>, Melinda Bartlett <melinda.bartlett@lacity.org> 

Please see attached comment letter regarding Post-Closure Rule R-2017-02.

Thank you,

Elsa Silvestre LA Sanitation|Regulatory Affairs Division 1149 S. Broadway Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 485-3997 www.lacitysan.org 

Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Ms. Buttle

December 12, 2017

Page 2 of2

These enforcement orders may allow a facility to continue to operate and conduct response and remedial activities to remove all contamination andior clean and close the facility. These enforceable orders are designed to be protective of human health and the environment, must meet all Federal and State requirements, and are designed to achieve superior environmental outcomes.

As intended, these changes to the regulations will accelerate clean-up actions and will attain positive environmental results. For these reasons the Bureau supports the regulatory changes proposed by the DTSC on the Federal Post-Closure rule to add enforceable orders and agreements.

If you need further information from LASAN, please contact Dr. Mas Dojiri, Assistant Director, at (213) 485-2210.

ECZ:BSM:bsm:jm

c: Fernando Campos, Board of Public Works Michael Mullin, Industry Safety and Control Division Hassan Rad, Regulatory Affairs Division Karen Coca, Citywide Recycling Division Michael Simpson, Industrial Waste Division

AR, Director

CLA-1