1. Cal/EPA Building Room 550 Financial Assurances Phase II Informal Rulemaking Group Meeting May 12, 2008 9:00 am to 12:00 pm Financial Assurances Phase II Informal Rulemaking Group Meeting May 12, 2008 9:00 am to 12:00 pm

2. AGENDA 9:00 - 9:10Introductions and General Overview (Bill Orr) 9:10 – 9:45Staff Proposal (Richard Castle) 9:45 – 10:15Deferred Text from Phase I (Bernie Vlach) 10:15 – 11:45General Discussion (Mike Wochnick/Ed Wosika) 11:45 – 12:00Wrap Up and Next Steps (Bill Orr) 9:00 - 9:10Introductions and General Overview (Bill Orr) 9:10 – 9:45Staff Proposal (Richard Castle) 9:45 – 10:15Deferred Text from Phase I (Bernie Vlach) 10:15 – 11:45General Discussion (Mike Wochnick/Ed Wosika) 11:45 – 12:00Wrap Up and Next Steps (Bill Orr)

3. Staff Proposal Postclosure Maintenance Cost Estimates Non-Water Quality Corrective Action Pooled Fund Postclosure Maintenance Cost Estimates Non-Water Quality Corrective Action Pooled Fund

4. ========Phase II Regulations======== ===========Statute Change========= Defaults on FA/No PCM Contingency

5. PCM Cost Estimates FA Demonstrations Annualized cost multiplied by 30 Allow “step down” reductions in FA Contingency Current closed – out Review/revised at least every 5 years If pooled fund established – repeal contingency FA Demonstrations Annualized cost multiplied by 30 Allow “step down” reductions in FA Contingency Current closed – out Review/revised at least every 5 years If pooled fund established – repeal contingency

6. Step Down PCM FA Reduction At 5-year intervals (permit review) Based on Participation in ITRC/EREF type monitoring program Good PCM record No significant variances from plan Full disclosure of costs No recent history of CA At 5-year intervals (permit review) Based on Participation in ITRC/EREF type monitoring program Good PCM record No significant variances from plan Full disclosure of costs No recent history of CA

7. Step Down PCM FA Reduction (cont’d) Closed LFs – opportunity to demonstrate immediately Reductions to floor value 15 multiple Until operator demonstrates < 15 years of PCM Closed LFs – opportunity to demonstrate immediately Reductions to floor value 15 multiple Until operator demonstrates < 15 years of PCM

12. ========Phase II Regulations======= ==========Statute Change=========== Defaults on FA/Extraordinary CA

13. Non-Water Quality CA Reasonably foreseeable CA Conjunction w/ Water CA – not additive LFs operating July 1991 Required for SWFP concurrence Cost estimate – approvable format FA = maximum CA estimate Reasonably foreseeable CA Conjunction w/ Water CA – not additive LFs operating July 1991 Required for SWFP concurrence Cost estimate – approvable format FA = maximum CA estimate

14. Corrective Action Possible Scope of a CA Plan One combined plan Release to water (current requirement) Non-WQ release issues - Top types from Compliance Survey Release driven (similar to current requirement) LFG migration Leachate seep Event driven (e.g., quake, flood, rain, etc) Within design criteria for type of LF One combined CA demonstration Most expensive type CA Reasonably foreseeable Known(s) One combined plan Release to water (current requirement) Non-WQ release issues - Top types from Compliance Survey Release driven (similar to current requirement) LFG migration Leachate seep Event driven (e.g., quake, flood, rain, etc) Within design criteria for type of LF One combined CA demonstration Most expensive type CA Reasonably foreseeable Known(s)

15. California Landfill Compliance Survey - Summary Results Most Common Corrective Actions 1. Ground Water (47%) 2. LFG Migration (29%) 3. Slope Failure 4. Surface Water 5. Liner Issues 6. Waste Boundaries 7. Fires (Sub-sfc and sfc) 8. Erosion Most Common Corrective Actions 1. Ground Water (47%) 2. LFG Migration (29%) 3. Slope Failure 4. Surface Water 5. Liner Issues 6. Waste Boundaries 7. Fires (Sub-sfc and sfc) 8. Erosion

16. Pooled Fund LFs operating Jan 1988 Default only Individual FA demonstrations for PCM/CA Extraordinary CA LFs operating Jan 1988 Default only Individual FA demonstrations for PCM/CA Extraordinary CA

17. Deferred Text – Phase I Closure/PCM Plans Insurance Closure Costs Greatest Extent of Closure Closure Cost Estimate PCM Cost Estimate Closure/PCM Plans Insurance Closure Costs Greatest Extent of Closure Closure Cost Estimate PCM Cost Estimate

18. Closure/PCM Plans Update/revision every 5 years At time of permit review/revision If no permit – every 5 years maximum Update/revision every 5 years At time of permit review/revision If no permit – every 5 years maximum

19. Insurance Treat insurance FA as true insurance Existing insurance FA are in reality GICs Recommendation from FA Study Treat insurance FA as true insurance Existing insurance FA are in reality GICs Recommendation from FA Study

20. Closure Costs Actual costs submitted with closure certification report

21. Greatest Extent for Closure Option A - Phased closure approach Largest area open at any time Option B – Non-phased approach Entire permitted LF less area certified closed Option A - Phased closure approach Largest area open at any time Option B – Non-phased approach Entire permitted LF less area certified closed

22. Closure Cost Estimate Reflect outcome of Closure Cost Estimating Dialogue Address premature closure US EPA requirement Reflect outcome of Closure Cost Estimating Dialogue Address premature closure US EPA requirement

23. PCM Cost Estimate No anticipated reductions Reasonable contingency No anticipated reductions Reasonable contingency

24. FA Step Down Details ITRC/EREF Portions to be used PCM Plan/Costs Consistency with plan Full disclosure of costs Corrective Action What is CA vs. PCM ITRC/EREF Portions to be used PCM Plan/Costs Consistency with plan Full disclosure of costs Corrective Action What is CA vs. PCM

25. Participate in ITRC/EREF Type Program Monitoring over and above SMS Sufficient data to demonstrate Overall condition of site Consistency Trends Monitoring over and above SMS Sufficient data to demonstrate Overall condition of site Consistency Trends

26. PCC Evaluation Elements 4. Cap maintenance and monitoring 3. Gas migration control/ monitoring Gas probes Monitoring structures 2. Groundwater monitoring Groundwater monitoring wells 1. Leachate collection and recovery system operation and maintenance Leachate recirculation Primary and secondary leachate collection system Liner system Other factors Gas collection system Surface water monitoring Perimeter security Grounds maintenance

27. PCC Evaluation Flowchart

28. 1. Module-specific Requirements Leachate –Steady improvement in leachate quality and quantity Landfill gas (LFG) –No impacts Groundwater –Detection monitoring Cap –All other modules are completed –Dependence of other outcomes on the cap are defined Purpose: Evaluate whether module- specific requirements are met

29. 5. Module Completion

30. Outcome: Optimize Post- Closure Care Intensity or scope can be reduced Justification depends on human health and the environment considerations Requires changes to PCC operation and/or maintenance plans Needs to be customized to reflect California Law Intensity or scope can be reduced Justification depends on human health and the environment considerations Requires changes to PCC operation and/or maintenance plans Needs to be customized to reflect California Law

31. Good Maintenance Record Plan Consistency No significant variations from plan Less PCM than planned is OK Full Cost Disclosure Actual PCM costs Comparable to estimate Include longer-lived items Plan Consistency No significant variations from plan Less PCM than planned is OK Full Cost Disclosure Actual PCM costs Comparable to estimate Include longer-lived items

32. No Corrective Action No CA within (or ongoing) 5-year evaluation period CA Definition Result of violation E.g., LFG migration > 5% Not part of normal PCM Not included in plan Event driven Event < design standard = CA E.g., 50-yr, 24-hr storm Event > design standard = OK E.g., 200 year flood No CA within (or ongoing) 5-year evaluation period CA Definition Result of violation E.g., LFG migration > 5% Not part of normal PCM Not included in plan Event driven Event < design standard = CA E.g., 50-yr, 24-hr storm Event > design standard = OK E.g., 200 year flood

33. Unanswered Questions?

34. Workshops/Meetings May - July 2008 DateLocationActivity 5/12/08Coastal Hearing Room Update On Landfill Long-Term Financial Assurances Activities For Postclosure Maintenance And Corrective Action P&C Committee Meeting 5/27/08CalEPA Rm-550Phase II Rulemaking, New PCM, and CA Language 6/9/08Coastal Hearing Room Discussion and Request for Additional Direction P&C Committee Meeting 6/18/08CalEPA Rm-550Phase II Rulemaking Language 7/14/08Coastal Hearing Room Request for Rulemaking Direction for Phase II P&C Committee Meeting 7/17/08CalEPA Rm-550Pooled Fund, Items Needing Additional Statutory Authority

35. Next Steps