Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Speaker 5
Frankie Menez with the Legislative Analyst Office. We don't have any prepared remarks for the department overview, but happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 6
Jamie Gonzalez, Department of Finance. No remarks at this time, but here to answer any questions.
Speaker 7
Thank you. First of all, I want to talk about food recovery. The department oversees many activities that do address organic waste, including food waste prevention, which would help reduce emissions among other problems. From what I understand, Cal Recycle is in the past had grant programs that supported the working, recovering food. I have a bill this year offering a tax incentive to farmers who donate excess food through food banks, etcetera.
But there are many others that are doing that work to recover food and distribute it. Where will there be funding for these will there be funding for these grants these grant programs again in the future?
Speaker 4
Thank you for that question, Senator. And the department very much appreciates the appropriations from the legislature over the years to support edible food recovery. For us to achieve our SB thirteen eighty three organics diversion goals, edible food recovery is one of the most powerful things that we can do from the perspective of both reducing methane emissions and also ensuring that we're getting food to the one in five Californians that are food insecure. So, to answer your question specifically, our grant program is dependent or grounded in existing statutory authority. Specifically, we're authorized upon appropriation from the legislature to provide grants that expand organic waste diversion, food recovery, and recycling infrastructure.
So, we don't have any additional funding right now to provide specifically to food recovery activities. So, while SB thirteen eighty three establishes the state's goals to recover edible food that would otherwise be sent to landfill, the grant program provides the practical means to achieve that goal by building food recovery infrastructure, expanding capacity, and preventing waste. And the investments that we've made since 2019 specific to edible food recovery have recovered over 300,000,000 meals for Californians. So, this is a really important program, one that doesn't currently have existing funding, but one where we've seen incredible benefits statewide. Also, it's worth noting that the requirements in 1383 require edible food recovery, and what that looks like is agreements generators, edible food generators, and food runners, food banks, and other organizations.
Jurisdictions have been incredibly creative, relying on funding from the Department, you know, and other funding sources to be able to build those programs, but there isn't currently a sustained funding mechanism to ensure that this continues. With that said, we're seeing incredible progress throughout the state, with 97% of our communities in California having expanded or existing edible food recovery programs.
Speaker 7
Well, trying to thank you. Great answer. Trying to read between the lines. Would the current trajectory end in reduced recycling and food distribution, or are we on a steady path?
Speaker 4
We're on a steady path right now. But once again, those organizations, mainly the nonprofit organizations and others, are competing with many right now to identify sustainable funding sources to keep this work ongoing.
Speaker 7
Okay. That gives us our marching orders here in the legislature, if you want to put it that way. I have the wine industry in my district, significant, and they're worried about the bag in a box processing, what that might look like. What where are the current fees on that program, on that process determined? How are they determined?
Speaker 4
Okay. So, it's a great question. And, just to add a little bit of background, wine and distilled spirits were added to the program a couple years back by SB ten thirteen. That includes bag in a box and, you know, your Tetra Pak cartons of wine and those sorts of things. And initially, when they were brought into the program, they were held at the processing fee for high density polyethylene, HDPE, which is often looks like your Tide bottles or detergent bottles and those sorts of things.
It was required for us this year to determine the processing fee associated with these specific material types. The processing fee looks at the cost of recycling. And the cost of recycling these products is really high in California because there isn't existing infrastructure to be able to properly manage those materials. So part of this is the producer responsibility component of the beverage container recycling program that requires, you know, higher fees associated with more difficult pathways towards recycling to be able to build up that recycling infrastructure in the state. With that said, since the introduction of wine and distilled spirits and these products that you're talking about in the program, we've seen an increase in recycling rates.
So, having them in the program is working. But with that said, the fee has gone up, and we have the numbers here. So, bag in a box is at approximately 0.32¢, per pound. Is it pound? Per container, I'm sorry.
0.32 per container. A multilayer pouch is 0.02 per container, and a paperboard carton is also point zero 2 per container. So, this is higher than the HDPE rate that they were initially paying before we could calculate the processing fee. And just to provide what that was, the HDPE container is 0.00867. So, we're hoping that as recycling increases and we see more that will make a more affordable processing fee over time.
But right now, that investment needs to be made into the state so that those recycling opportunities are there.
Speaker 8
Just to build on that, the processing fee is a percentage of the processing payment. Processing payment is calculated through a formula that is set in statute. So, Cal Recycle doesn't come up with those formulas on our own. We don't really have the authority to change the processing fee or the processing payment. We do the surveys.
We get the numbers. We plug them into the formula, and that is what the processing fee is. And so, what the director has laid out is that the processing fee that has been applied to these containers per statute under 10/13 was a different processing fee for containers that cost less to recycle. And so, now, the processing fee being applied is based on the information specific to bag in a box in these containers.
Speaker 7
Thank you. And Director, you mentioned that the infrastructure's not there yet. Where are we in terms of having that infrastructure in place?
Speaker 4
For some of these materials, it's more difficult. So, bag in a box is an example of that, where there just isn't a lot of infrastructure to support the recycling of those materials. Another material type, cartons, are finding pathways towards recycling. I understand that there's a new facility that's breaking ground in your district that will have the capacity to potentially increase the recycling rate for cartons in California. So, there's opportunities here for the producers to look towards ways to continue to build up that infrastructure.
Some of that will happen through the packaging EPR program, Senate Bill 54, where there's going to have to be more recycling infrastructure in the state. There's also opportunities to look at other materials, other solutions that have stronger recycling markets currently.
Speaker 7
Thank you. If the chair would allow, Senator Blankster asked me to ask a question on her Okay. This is Senator Blankster's question. Can you please give me Cal Recycle's most recent estimate of the amount in volume of single use packaging and plastic packaging being generated in California? And what is typically happening with the packaging once consumers throw it either in the garbage can or the recycling bin?
Speaker 4
Mindy's going to look for those specific numbers on generation, but I'll share with you disposal because I have those in my head. We're disposing of about 40,000,000 tons in the landfill. And by volume, about half of that is plastic. So that's by volume, not by weight. But that paints a picture of how much plastic is still being disposed in the state of California.
So, a significant amount. We do have some generation numbers that recently came out in our needs assessment. I don't have them at my fingertips, and if we can't locate them, we will send those to you and Senator Blakespeare and the committee and follow-up. But we know it's a lot of plastic that's currently being generated. As part of the overall needs assessment for the plastic packaging EPR law, what we've done is recently published a needs assessment.
And in this needs assessment, part of it is a source reduction baseline that estimates the amount of material that was sold into the state last year. So, that's the number I need to get to you. And what SB 54 requires is that that amount of material is reduced by 20% by 2,032 from that baseline. So, we'll get you what that big number is, but that will help illustrate the importance of implementation of Senate Bill 54 in achieving that source reduction goal. So, we're generating less plastic, managing more of it responsibly by recycling it into new products.
So, ultimately, less of it is ending up in landfill and almost more importantly, escaping into the natural environment.
Speaker 7
Well, I mean, plastic has stored energy. When you burn it, it burns in oxygen in the atmosphere. So putting all that in the landfill is putting a lot of stored energy into the landfill, which is, in my opinion, not a good, healthy thing to do. So, all in favor of that and finding ways to reduce that.
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair. Obviously, recycling is a very important part of the protecting our environment. I wanna go back briefly to the food waste from many restaurants. I understood for some reason that there was a mandated to collect them to collection agencies and what they do with that after that process is I don't know. But what I want to know is that if restaurants, since they produce a lot of food waste left from leftovers, is it by law mandated for them to store and to be turned in to collection agencies?
Is it done every day on a daily basis, every restaurant in the state or at this time?
Speaker 4
Thank you for that question, Senator. And yes, a component of Senate Bill thirteen eighty three, which requires 75% of diversion of organic materials, including food waste, from landfill by 2025, are implementing regulations, provide various options for jurisdictions to ensure that they're doing exactly what you just said. So, those businesses, they have two different responsibilities under law associated with food. If it's edible, that's where they would have an agreement with a food recovery organization that would be able to rescue that food and bring it to organizations that can distribute it to the communities that need it the most. If it's inedible, that food would ultimately go to an organics bin, most likely a green bin, front of house and back of house, hopefully or to a facility that could process all the materials together.
But that's not as common in California as having a separate bin specific to that food waste. So, that then is collected by various waste haulers and recycling service providers throughout the state.
Speaker 4
That material can have several different dispositions as far as where it goes to be processed into a valuable recycled organic waste material. Often in the state it's composted, either at large composting facilities or we have a growing community of community composters throughout the state. It can also go to an anaerobic digestion facility, where it's processed and made into renewable natural gas or other bioenergy products. So, there's a number of different pathways within the state, and we've seen capacity build significantly since this law was passed. The state has invested since 2019 over $350,000,000 into various kinds of infrastructure throughout the state.
And the infrastructure I didn't mention that I'd like to mention as well is co digestion at wastewater treatment facilities, where many of these facilities have capacity and can take additional material, like food waste, and process it within their existing processes to within their existing systems to make renewable natural gas, electricity, or other valuable products that can be utilized within California.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And that, I think, will definitely help rather than just grinding all the food waste down to the sewage and sanitation districts and what a treatment job will become less complicated to sort them out. Anyway, I think that's the level I just want to hear and that that's good news. And the second question I have is that bottlers and cans are big items that pollute our rivers and ocean fronts. And if especially after rain, a lot of them will end up even though we do have such an effort to reimburse for recycled items.
But many people do throw them away, and they end up on the rivers and beaches. Other than paying the value that you designate on the bottles of cans, do you have any program that you hire or use volunteer groups to regularly patrol certain heavily visible areas for plastic bottles or cans in the oceanfronts and the beaches? Do you have such a budget and an effort going on?
Speaker 4
Thank you for that question, Senator. And our beverage container recycling program is ever evolving in hopes to provide increased consumer convenience across the state so that people are utilizing those systems instead of throwing away or littering their beverage containers throughout the state. To answer your question specifically, we do have a number of grant programs that are funded through the Beverage Container Recycling Program. And the one that I would say most closely matches, but isn't an exact match with what you asked, is our ongoing contributions or grant programs specific to the California Conservation Corps, where they have a number of different beverage container collection programs that they manage within communities to be able to collect materials. They're generally collecting those materials more from places that are appropriately providing receptacles or opportunities for Californians.
So, it's less on the beach cleanup, the coastal cleanup sort of front, and more on the ensuring there's convenient opportunities for Californians so that they're not littering those beverage containers. The program is currently at a 70% recycling rate, and we anticipate with many of the changes to the beverage container program over the last couple of years, we'll see that recycling rate increase even more. And part of that is, once again, providing more convenience throughout California. Hope is that in the coming years, every single California knows a convenient place that they can take that beverage container, they can get their nickels and dimes back, and be part of the solution for developing circularity for beverage containers within the state. We'll get back to you if there's other programs that are specific to beach cleanups that we know of, but I'm not familiar off the top of my head, unless Mindy has.
Speaker 2
You see, my focus of the question was I know there are out there individuals and volunteer groups such as Americold, but you may not know one of them is PAVA, Pacific Asian Volunteer Association stationed in Los Angeles, largely that's a Korean junior and senior high school volunteer group. Their specialty is cleaning up all debris, any recycling items such as the bottles and cans and anything that they can pick up in the riverbeds and entire Southern California. And one time I arranged my city of Irvine for them to come and do the cleanup and they do that on a I think this probably weekly basis, this is a large organization, almost 500 volunteers. Such groups are existing, and when they collect, they just dump and sort them out and they may sell any saleable items such as a bottle or cancer. I'm not sure what they do with that.
But my question was whether your office has certain budget or effort and personnel to program paying or organize the team regularly that to inspect and collect such items, recyclable items from riverbeds, well, beachfronts from your office effort because I see that your personnel and budget has been increased annually. And then I just don't want to take too much time because I've got take my flight. But the California population has been reduced over the years, and we should the population less population should produce less garbages or such cans and empty bottles. So that's another set of questions of why your program cost is increasing, budget is increasing, and the personnel increases. So that's why whether you have such a your own office direct office directed efforts to have a team or a certain group using such existing volunteer groups in the communities and you pay for and make a contract and not leaving to the volunteer groups.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that additional context. And while I don't think we have a specific program to achieve what you just mentioned, we do have opportunities for nonprofits specific in the beverage container program, and we'd be more than happy to meet with them to talk through what they're doing and how their activities match with some of our existing programs at CalRecycle. And also wanted to mention that through the implementation of Senate Bill 54, part of that is a pollution prevention mitigation fund that will be collecting funds from producers to address and mitigate legacy plastic pollution and impacts from plastic pollution in communities. That money will be appropriated by the legislature in the coming years, and there may be some opportunities to identify some activities that haven't been funded by the state before that would be funded through producers to ensure that the plastic pollution that we're still seeing in our natural environment is effectively cleaned up and that local organizations are empowered in doing that.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Maybe perhaps we can you can reach out to the large group, PAVA, power volunteer group, but they are very dedicated environmental group in cleaning up our rivers and oceans.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that question, and thank you for bringing that group to our attention. I think what is interesting from the questions from Senator McNerney and Senator Choi is that we get to highlight the fact that 300,000,000 meals are recovered through the edible food recovery program. I think that's impressive. Same thing with Senator Choi's question when we're talking about the beverage container recycling program. Revenue generator for CalRecycle, 1,500,000,000.0 for this coming is projected for this coming year.
I think it's important for us to see that through the legislation that is passed and the way that it is implemented, in the end, we want exactly what we're all requesting is that we have a cleaner environment, and it's good that we have volunteers that work work on these programs. When we first had the organics materials laws that were passed, we had many restaurants who were very unhappy about having to do this, and individuals too, but to hear of the success, I think, is extremely important. So, I thank you for providing that information. Without any further questions, we want to thank you for your presentation.
Speaker 1
And we're going to move back to issue number one at this point. All right, issue number one: An Overview of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Secretary Garcia, welcome, and whenever you are ready.
Speaker 9
Thanks. Thanks very much. Very much appreciate the time with you all here this morning and for the opportunity to share with you a bit about our work at CalEPA at a particularly pivotal moment. I think you'd all agree this is a time where we're seeing fluctuating challenges and opportunities in front of us, ranging from, you know, record setting wildfires and storms, coupled with ongoing drought impacts and a federal administration that is remarkably hostile towards much of our environmental protection work and climate action. And so I want to share with you all a little bit about what we have going on in light of that context.
You know, first and foremost, I think, you know, given the situation we find ourselves in, but even notwithstanding some of those challenges, we've done really incredible work as a state in setting long term targets and goals. I think the charge that we have now in front of us is actually meeting the immediate needs of our residents, of our natural resources, our ecosystems, and our environment. And so that's what our focus is at the Environmental Protection Agency. As you know, our mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. That is quite a balancing act that we engage in day in and day out, and luckily, we have a very talented workforce dedicated to delivering measurable results to reduce pollution, strengthen climate resilience, and protect health across our state.
Our agency's proposed budget does include 7,992 positions and $5,600,000,000 in funding. And as I highlight some of the examples of our work, you know, I'd like to focus on a few of the ways in which we're, again, responding to a shifting federal and international political terrain as well as some of the evolving pollution challenges that are in front of us. So you heard a bit from director Heller about an aspect of some of our work to reduce methane. But I wanna share with you all, that this work is extremely critical given the absence of a federal administration in the, international sphere when it comes to climate action. This is an area where the state of California is no stranger to stepping into the shoes of an absent federal administration.
And so certainly, are occupying a familiar space, but it's also an area that is ripe with additional opportunity to dramatically slash methane emissions here at home in our state, but also across the globe, and to inspire international and global partners to do the same, to meet us in collaboration and in a strong coalition aimed at reducing methane and increasing accountability. So in addition to some of the great work that Director Heller mentioned and the notable, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, 700,000,000 meals recovered. We are also increasing our ability to monitor and mitigate methane at the source through the use of innovative technologies, satellite monitoring that help us to enhance accountability for those who are emitting methane and contributing to satellite observations of plumes. And this is something that we, again, on a worldwide stage, are really leading in, but is enhancing our ability to take direct action right here throughout California. Our federal rollbacks that we're experiencing all across our state are also leaving far too many communities increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of toxics.
And this ranges from our air to our water systems, and the lands that, we our neighborhoods live in and our communities live in. And so we're also enhancing much of the work that we're doing to reduce exposure to toxics. I'll talk a little bit about the work that we're doing with respect to air quality. You know, just today, the, governor and our our chair of the California Air Resources Board joined the attorney general, to announce our participation in a lawsuit against the federal administration for their unlawful rescission of the endangerment finding, which not only leaves communities vulnerable, to the impacts of climate change, but also leaves them vulnerable again to exposure from air toxics, and air quality impacts. We are continuing our work in the face of these federal rollbacks to partner with our air districts all across our state to reduce air pollution at the neighborhood level.
You'll of course, you know well, madam chair, that you know, our work in implementing AV six one seven, and other efforts in this regard remain critically important right now, as is our work to attain national ambient air quality standards. Again, we are very, closely coordinated with our air districts, particularly in South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley to ensure that we are dramatically reducing nitrous oxide emissions and improving our ability to reduce particulate matter, which lead to direct health impacts for far too many Californians. The State Water Board is also acutely focused on continuing the great work that they've been doing to deliver safe and clean drinking water to communities all across our state. It's an area that we're extremely proud of. Some of the progress that we've been able to make and know the urgency with which we have to approach the work that is still ahead of us.
We have brought over 300 failing drinking water systems into compliance over the past few years, and we have slashed in half the number of Californians that experience inadequate access to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water. In the face of much rescission of support for wastewater treatment and other water infrastructure projects, we are also increasing our ability to invest in water infrastructure as well statewide. And we're also looking at, you know, ways to increase our ability to respond to cleanups. I know that you all are familiar with the work around the Exide lead acid battery recycling facility. This work remains a key priority, for me as secretary, for us as an agency, for the Department of Toxic Substances Control, as we continue to clean up the legacy contamination from this facility and address a longstanding environmental injustice in our state.
Finally, I do want to mention some of the work that we've done, not only through the Department of Pesticide Regulation, but also in partnership with our colleagues at the Department of Food and Agriculture, in partnership with, many, like minded growers, with many in the agricultural community to reduce our reliance on some of the more harmful chemical based pesticide management products. These are products used not only in the agricultural space, but also in urban settings. And this is an area where the Department of Pesticide Regulation and we as an agency are extremely proud of our ability to invest in emerging research and knowledge around integrated pest management practices and more sustainable alternatives to our reliance on some of the chemical based products that we would like to see phased out over time. With these accomplishments and some of this work that's underway, you know, we still, of course, have quite a bit to do, as I mentioned, and the Governor's proposed budget is focused on targeted actions that help to strengthen our enforcement, in particular, and to ensure that we remain nimble enough to and prepared to respond to emerging environmental risks. Specifically, those risks are emerging from landfills, again, rollbacks of our longstanding authority to lead in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, and I'll talk a little bit about those starting with landfills.
So So as you all know and are seeing in real time, our waste streams are changing and our climate impacts are intensifying the ways in which our landfills are operating and the ways in which our closed landfills are also potentially degrading over time. So to address these risks, Cal EPA is proposing a coordinated strategy to strengthen landfill response and enforcement capacity across our boards and departments, but also in coordination with local enforcement agencies as well. Our proposal is designed to protect communities, to enhance a consistent statewide approach, and importantly, to ensure that we are insulating ourselves, the state, from financial risk. I think what we've seen, with certain operators in the past, is that they're, all too eager to leave, taxpayers in the state of California, footing the bill for legacy contamination, and we want to make sure that we get ahead of that through strengthened enforcement tools, as well as through multimedia coordination. With respect to some of the recent federal actions that have created uncertainty around some of our mission standards, I'll note that we have a proposal before you, the governor's proposal for a new incentive program designed to support first time buyers of zero emission vehicles.
This is a way that we are pivoting toward a strategy that will enhance our ability to continue the great work we have already done to see an uptick in the sales of zero emission vehicles all across our state. This proposal provides a point of sale incentive matched dollar for dollar by original equipment manufacturers for first time zero emission vehicle buyers. And we're excited to see how this could accelerate consumer adoption of new zero emission vehicles, particularly in light of, you know, some of the challenges that are all too real for too many Californians in terms of prices at the pump, which right now are about 30% above what they have been in the recent past. Again, with respect to X side and the cleanup work that is still ahead of us, we also have a proposal that would allow additional residential properties and impacted communities to be remediated. This is key to continuing our progress toward addressing long standing contamination in this area, and the State Water Board is also actively implementing Proposition four with anticipated awards from four of the five dedicated grant programs within this calendar year.
That is also part of our portfolio of proposed funding. We're also supporting in that vein specific work with tribes to address tribal drinking water infrastructure needs critically important in light of where the federal administration is today. And in the California Mexico border region, we're on track to adopt guidelines in April that will begin project selections for the fall for multi benefit urban stormwater management program that did not receive direct implementation funds in 2025. So, we're using those allocated resources to develop essential guidelines for future solicitations for this region, very important to us all in the state and certainly to those in the California Mexico border region. Finally, the state board is continuing its work to implement the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
This is one of the most important efforts underway to protect California's water resources. Advancing this work is critical to safeguarding water quality and supporting ecosystem health, and so this is something that is also a priority for us, in the budget, before you. So with that, I'm happy to answer questions. Again, thank you so much for your time this morning and chair and remaining members. I know that this is tricky time where folks are trying to take flights home, but I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Speaker 1
The important thing is that it's recorded, and there are others who are watching from their offices. Course. All important information. Appreciate your providing this overview. Questions?
Speaker 7
bit more flexibility, though, but certainly appreciate your presentation and the progress that's been made on all the issues that you covered. I have a couple of concerns. First of all, I represent the Valley, and we have significant air quality issues, although the air quality has improved significantly over the last twenty or twenty five years. Last year, we passed a bill to look at substituting regional gas blends instead of the carbop blend in drastic shortages like we're having now that could cause a lot of spikes. Do you see that as representing a significant increase in air pollution if that's implemented on, you know, on an emergency basis?
Speaker 9
Well, I'll say a couple of things here. One, we have a the benefit of, you know, I would say leaning on our low carbon fuel standard. And I think the benefit of that is that it does give us a set of options that are really designed to reduce emissions and air quality impacts from, fuels that are used in in combustion vehicles still. And I think this is an area where, considering the global context that, we are currently experiencing, and what is going on with, oil prices, but also the, carbon intensity of fuels, we're very lucky to be able to lean on this program. I can't necessarily weigh in on precise regional blends and what that might mean in terms of air quality impacts, but we're more than happy, as always, to talk at more length with you through the Air Resources Board staff, technical staff that we have on our team that would be happy to probably examine
Speaker 7
Well, mean, theory was that as we get more EVs and higher efficiency vehicles, moving to regional blends like Nevada or Arizona might not impact the air quality as much as it could have in past in the past.
Speaker 9
I'm not sure if that's based on an assumption around transport of those fuels or the intensity of the fuels themselves. So, I wouldn't necessarily be able to weigh in on that specifically, but we're happy to follow-up if
Speaker 7
I'm glad to see that there's agency wide approach to landfill issues. There was a significant problem in Chiquita Yes. And we don't want to see that problem arise in other landfills. Does EPA have the authority to step in and take control when there's an environmental disaster that arises that affects cow recycle, car bob, and other agencies? Do you have that authority?
And the authority, preventive authority as well. Sure.
Speaker 9
Chiquita Canyon, fully agree, remains a challenge, an issue that we are acutely focused on. We have stepped in with respect to Chiquita Canyon. We are actively working on several proposals to enhance our coordinated approach to landfills, yes, Chiquita, but also those landfills which, like Chiquita, may exhibit characteristics of some of the subsurface elevated temperature events that we're seeing characteristic of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill challenges and threats to the safety and health of the surrounding community. We are, again, actively looking at ways to enhance our ability to respond. Do we have the ability to respond currently?
Of course. But I would say, you know, the one of our top priorities is, strengthening our ability to, respond perhaps more directly earlier in the, onset of some of the characteristics of these events, and to make sure that we have the full might, of our authority to to weigh in and protect Californians when these events occur.
Speaker 7
Well, I've heard from different sources that 90 degrees is the right temperature, the standard is 130 degrees, and I've heard also that 140 degrees is fine. Do we know where we should be drawing lines, or when intervention would be appropriate?
Speaker 9
I think part of the challenge in front of us is to better understand when some of these issues are warranting of immediate action. I'm not in a position to be able to speak to exact degrees or exact temperatures, but again, happy to get you a more So, technical
Speaker 7
do these operators have the ability to control the temperature before a catastrophe like Chiquita Canyon occurs, or is this out of their control? I mean, I'm not clear on this, and I've got a landfill in my district that is operating at a higher temperature, so I'm a little concerned.
Speaker 9
I'm going to kick it over to my chief counsel to be able to weigh in on some of this, as some
Speaker 11
of this is an ongoing enforcement. Good morning. Alana Matthews, chief counsel for Cali, PA. The operators should have monitoring equipment that measures the temperatures, and that's one of the reasons that's really reflected in our proposal is that we want to make sure we have enough staff and resources to coordinate all of the data that landfill operators should and be should be able to provide and have it in a centralized, you know, location. So we need to build up the infrastructure, but we also need to monitor to make sure that the existing, infrastructure and data that different landfills have, that it is accurately captured and reported to, all of the agencies, because as you know, this is a very multi agency, whether it's federal, state, and local jurisdictions that are handling this.
So they do have the ability to monitor the temperatures. Again, I'm a lawyer and not a scientist, but there are indications from past set events that are, give us pretty good indications. One, if a set event has been confirmed or is it likely one? And then there are also temperature indications that let us know, if it has a more significant impact such as, you know, deteriorating the lining or it's going to lead to more disastrous results. So, we are working to in our proposal to have the infrastructure as well as the staff and resources to monitor and assess and address and appropriately respond.
Speaker 7
I guess that's good. Doesn't really answer my question. How much control do these operators have over the temperature of these landfills?
Speaker 11
Well, that's a mixed answer because part of that might be a compliance issue and an enforcement issue. So they should have control to actually understand, and when they have temperatures that are high enough that are indicating such as a set event, there are actions that they should take.
Speaker 1
Well, I think very specifically if I I just want to push back a little bit more. As an attorney also, I want to rely on the scientists. I want to know that there is somebody somewhere within Cal EPA who's going to be able to tell us, specifically if we're talking about Chiquita Canyon Landfill, and we know one of our colleagues has been very concerned about this, has brought this to our attention numerous times, and we have landfills that are on fire. It isn't just the fumes they're on fire, literally. What is it, and who is it, that is going to step in, so that we can then say, this is who's responsible, this is what the response will be.
Speaker 9
So, I'll say, you know, Senator and Madam Chair, I think one thing that we are more than happy to do is get you a more precise answer to the question around Chiquita to the extent we are able at this time. Again, as mentioned by our Chief Counsel, and as I understand you all appreciate, some of this is in live enforcement and investigation currently. That said, we are consistently in a position where we are sharing out information with the community and with elected representatives such as yourselves at the statewide level and locally. So we're happy to get a better answer to you from some of our technical experts. But suffice to say in response to some of the concerns here, quite frankly, we we are dealing with an evolving environmental challenge for our state.
Some of these issues are issues of first impression. We have not seen this type of challenge before. This is part of the reason, as I mentioned, we are acutely focused on strengthening our ability to respond to these events in real time, and certainly appreciate your partnership as we engage in that and your interest in your your, of course, our shared responsibility to protect residents from the impacts of these events.
Speaker 7
Madam Chair? Yes. That sort of brings up the question, do you have the scientific resources or engineering resources? If you don't, we need
Speaker 9
to know that. Sure. We have significant resources currently, but this is part of the reason we have a proposal before you. This is part of the reason. In fact, this is the reason we have proposed additional resources to enhance our ability, to strengthen our ability to respond appropriately to these matters as part of the Governor's proposed budget.
Speaker 1
I think that Cal EPA, when you have the U. S. EPA off the charts now, gone, the responsibility is greater, and I want to and I'm sure that it's shared by my colleagues we appreciate so much the work that is done by Cal EPA. There's a lot that you are responsible for, and the work that you do in so many areas, and covering so many areas, is extremely important to us, and I think to be able to it'll take me to one of my questions that, you know, even though it's a very important question, just by the responses we're getting here, we recognize what the answer might be, but the work that you do is extremely important, and you have great partners in with so many of the legislators who are interested in making sure that you succeed, because your success means that the community is being protected. You spoke earlier about AB six seventeen.
We talk about how the environment the air is cleaner, we can see the mountains, but the diesel particulate matter is they're smaller, but they're still affecting the lungs, and I appreciate your comments regarding that. On AB six seventeen, as you know, we're GGRF funding, we're hoping to have a continuous $250,000,000 put into that. It doesn't look like the Governor's budget includes all of that as of now, but this begins the negotiations, right? What more needs to be done specifically regarding AB six seventeen?
Speaker 9
I appreciate the question, and of course, your own personal history, Madam Chair, with, these priorities, reflected in AB six seventeen and and that law in particular. I would say that, you know, AB six seventeen has yielded a lot of success when it comes to better coordination, data, information sharing, monitoring, and localized enforcement activities in minimally the the the big three air districts in the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and and in South Coast. In my time, not only as secretary, but in in prior positions held within the agency at the Department of Justice and, frankly, as an advocate, I've seen quite a bit of progress, in this space, around air quality and some of the coordination, going on among the state, the air districts, and, pollution impacted communities. I think as we look ahead, a couple of intangibles and a few tangibles that can result from AB six seventeen. In terms of the intangibles, I think the inherent trust relationships that have been built between government and community cannot be overlooked, particularly at a time when trust in government is not only a problem sort of big picture politically, but is actually an immediate problem for people's safety and well-being.
Second, I think in terms of the more tangible results that can be that can come from AB six seventeen and our ongoing commitment toward it is really around, continuing to reduce pollution at the local level. I mean, we have the, accountability metrics, built into, AB six seventeen around implementing best available technologies for stationary sources in impacted communities. We have the transparency around emissions data. We have real enforcement results that we have to report on, that the Air Resources Board works in in close coordination with the air districts to report on. And so I think those will only remain all the more critical as we're seeing the federal rollbacks, before us, certainly in the climate space, but to the extent that impacts, again, communities' exposure to toxics and air quality impacts as well in that space.
Speaker 1
And I think that something that came to light is that AB six seventeen and the funding that was provided initially was just to tell us what the problem was, and tell us what the plan was, but I think with the new funding through GGRF, we should be able to now deal with the issue and solve it. If we have a plan that says, This is what you need to do, then here's the money to do it. So we're looking forward to more of that. I think we the landfill is an issue that we've I'm glad we dealt with that. I do want to ask, the governor's budget proposal is the last for this current administration.
The agenda notes that the budget for the office of Cali PA secretary has doubled in comparison to the final budget of the previous administration, and would you please tell us why? Tell us what programs, activities account for this increase from 69.4 positions to 124 positions, an increase of 79%.
Speaker 9
Sure. So, as I mentioned, you know, some of the emerging issues that we're certainly dealing with in terms of the characteristics of pollution and pollution impacts and how those are impacting Californians, as well as the change in the federal political terrain, certainly inform some of the ways in which we've had to pivot and enhance and grow some of our capacity. I'll note that the other couple of things underlying some of the growth that you've seen is a real strategic effort to strengthen coordination, to modernize our systems, and improve our ability to remain responsive. Now specifically, that deals with a few things. First, modernizing our technology infrastructure.
That's been a key priority of ours and something that we have had to do by necessity to support the work of our boards and departments and the agency that we operate. With new IT positions, we've been able to implement consolidated technology services across all of these boards and departments, but we've also been able to improve efficiency in cybersecurity and cost effectiveness across the agency. One example of this is the development of SIRS Nextgen, which some of you may be familiar with. This replaces an outdated reporting system with a more modernized and secure platform that will improve environmental data, environmental data management and supports local governments, including in their localized enforcement actions. Second, we've also strengthened coordination of our critical response and hazardous materials program.
This includes the Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Regulatory Management Program and our Hazardous Material and Oil Emergency Support, the California Accidental Release Program, CALARP. This is a critical program to work with and across businesses to bring our functions together and improve statewide coordination, preparedness, and response in the face of potential chemical and hazardous incidents all across our state. And then finally, but importantly, we've added legal capacity. And, you know, we have our partnership with the legislature to thank for this as well, and that's to respond to the more complex and evolving environmental issues, including actions to unlawfully rescind our authority and enhance our ability to engage in the courts with, again, a hostile federal administration.
Speaker 1
Very good. Thank you so much. Well, thank you for that. I know that we touched on issue number seven, and we'll come back to that in just a moment, but I'd like to, at this point, move over to issue number three. I thank you so much for your presentation Thank on issue number
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right, issue number three, budget change proposal on minimum standards for compostable material. We will first hear from the department, followed by finance, and then LAO. After that, members will have an opportunity to ask questions, especially Senator, as it is your bill.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Member. We'll, give an overview of the budget change proposal and then welcome any questions that you have. So CalRecycle is requesting two permanent positions with an ongoing cost of 3 and $27,000 to support the implementation of Senate Bill two seventy nine. This bill updates and modernizes composting regulations to expand composting activities, particularly for community composters and for specific agricultural activities in California, while maintaining appropriate environmental safeguards.
The requested resources will allow CalRecycle to complete the necessary regulatory updates and provide ongoing technical assistance to local enforcement agencies and operators as SB two seventy nine changes are implemented over the next several years. More broadly, this effort builds on the state's continued investment in composting and community based programs that reduce organic waste, support local green spaces, and strengthen California's circular economy.
Speaker 6
Jamie Gonzalez, Department Jamie Gonzalez, Department of Finance. No comments at this time, but here to answer any questions.
Speaker 5
Frankie Menace with the Legislative Analyst Office. The proposal didn't raise any concerns for us in our review, but happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 7
Well, again, I appreciate your work on this. The background is with SB two seventy nine, farmers and ranchers are no longer able to burn their ag waste, and so what SB two seventy nine did was allow them to expand the composting of their ag waste locally, which prevents them from having to pay people to ship their ag waste away and do this. So I appreciate that the governor's budget includes money for to start to implement this program. Now, what are the plans on implementing this? How specifically is that money going to be used to make sure this happens in a rational way?
Speaker 4
There's two critical activities that the department will take on. The first is updating our regulations to reflect the changes that are in February. And, you know, through our regulatory process, we'll be doing engagement with all relevant interested parties to make sure that they understand what those changes mean. For many, like the community composters that will be expanding their sites, or for the ag businesses, agricultural businesses that may be doing these large biomass composting operations, there's the regulations will change as far as their notification tiers and their requirements under law. But we, as CalRecycle, are supportive of continuing to provide technical assistance, which is part of our budget request as well, to ensure that there's those protections that are still in place that are needed, and that if there's any other assistance that they may need, we can provide it for them.
We also want to make sure our local enforcement agencies that are working with these various land owners or businesses throughout the state of California understand, you know, the change as far as what they'll be looking for and how they'll be working with these different businesses and composting sites. Our goal is to align with yours to ensure circular systems for organics wherever possible, diversify where we can, but do so where we're still ensuring strong protections for the environment.
Speaker 7
So the regulatory changes that is that a one year process about, or a two year process?
Speaker 4
Yeah, I don't have an exact timeline in front of me, but I anticipate that we will start understanding and initiating informal workshops so that we can make those changes. They're relatively straightforward, because they just reflect the changes in law. But with that said, I feel regulatory processes are also an incredible opportunity for outreach. Through the regulatory process, we can also provide an overview of what the changes do, who they impact, and how different responsibilities then change under the law. Once we initiate the formal, we have a year to finalize.
And we'll keep your office updated with when we start that.
Speaker 7
So what more can we do then to open up composting capacity so that to help these farmers and ranchers keep up with the program?
Speaker 4
This is a great first step. One thing that I'm committed to doing is building on our productive partnership with the California Department of Food and Ag, so that we're reaching the farmers throughout the state to understand the opportunities around compost. Also, through implementation of thirteen eighty three, you know, where we're at is 97% of communities all throughout the state of California have access to organics recycling. We're looking at what those numbers are as far as how close we are to achieving our goals, and ultimately what those next steps may be in implementation to bring on some less traditional partners or entities that we haven't worked as closely with to build up more composting, anaerobic digestion, community composting throughout the state.
Speaker 7
So I understand that ag waste streams are often cleaner than urban and suburban waste streams. Is that true?
Speaker 1
It was good you got that on the record. Yeah. Wonderful. Well, thank you. Thank you for that presentation.
We will now move on to issue number four.
Speaker 4
CalRecycle is requesting seven permanent positions from the Beverage Container Recycling Fund to carry out expanded compliance and enforcement responsibilities under Senate Bill ten thirteen. Senate Bill ten thirteen increases oversight needs by adding more dealers required to redeem in store or join a dealer cooperative in creating this new dealer cooperative model, which operate under different regulatory frameworks than our other program participants. New dealer cooperatives, which began operating this past year, have introduced a rapidly growing number and variety of redemption operations. This includes mobile recycling, bag drop recycling, and reverse vending machines, where you can pop your beverage container into something that looks like a vending machine and get your nickels and dimes back. To keep pace with this expansion, CalRecycle is requesting resources to provide compliance assistance and reduce the risk of fraud across these new redemption operations.
These resources will help ensure consumers continue to have convenient access to redeem their beverage containers, while safeguarding the integrity of the Beverage Container Recycling Fund.
Speaker 6
Jamie Gonsalves, Department of Finance. No comments at this time, but here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 5
The proposal raised no concerns for us during our in our review, but happy to answer questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I have just a few questions. Do other states have these dealer cooperatives, and if so, what are some lessons we can take from them to implement this new aspect of the bottle bill program?
Speaker 4
Thank you for that question. And dealer cooperatives are unique to California, in that they complement our existing recycling center infrastructure. Many other states have more traditional extended producer responsibility programs for beverage container recycling, so where the beverage container manufacturers and producers are running the program through nonprofit. So the dealer cooperatives have some of those elements that exist in like Oregon and other beverage container bottle bill states. I think some of the elements that we're most excited about that we're learning from other states that we are implementing here is the value of having more diversified options for redemption for Californians, because not every Californian has the same needs based on where they live, based on, you know, what their nine to five or other work schedule looks like.
So being able to offer options like mobile recycling, where there's a truck that moves around a community and those hours are posted can be helpful for some Californians. Others like the convenience of the reverse vending machines. So, these dealer cooperatives really provide an opportunity for the beverage dealers to come together under the nonprofit and determine what does convenient collection mean for this community, and how can we ensure that this community is able to conveniently get their nickels and dimes back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. You talked about fraud earlier. What types of fraud activity are you looking for, and what are your investigators looking for? Are you working with the D. A?
Tell us about this fraud.
Speaker 4
Yeah, thank you for that question. Know, fraud prevention is a big part of our overall beverage container recycling program, and we have partnerships with Department of Justice, with CDFA, and others to prevent fraud to the extent that we can, and catch it when it's happening in real time. One place where it happens quite frequently, and where we've, our partnerships with these other entities have been extremely productive, has been people that are bringing beverage containers over the state border. So, bringing in beverage containers from Arizona that have been purchased in Arizona, and attempting to bring them to a recycling center or recycling location in California. So, because there are so many new entities that will be covered in the dealer cooperative program, you know, we have over 30,000 beverage container dealers throughout the state of California, so your supermarkets and other entities like that.
We want to make sure that they understand that this is a potential threat and what to look for. We have a lot of experience in the many years that we've been implementing the program and understanding, you know, what these fraudulent activities could look like. So, that's one place in which we'll focus, where we've had a significant amount of experience and luck in deterring that, catching and deterring that kind of activity. So, that's an example of that.
Speaker 1
Very good, as you were talking about crossing state borders, reminded me of a Seinfeld episode.
Speaker 1
We know the one. All right. Well, thank you so much for that presentation. I have no one else to ask for questions, and we're going to then move on to issue number five. Issue number five is department overview, for Department of Toxic Substance Control.
We're going to hear from both the Department and the Board of Environmental Safety, Director Butler and Executive Officer Sharma. Welcome to both of you. Let's begin with Director Butler.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair Gomez Reyes. Nice to see you today. Thank you for this opportunity to share information on our department's work. We've made tremendous progress since DTSC fee and governance reform was implemented just five years ago.
But reform takes constant vigilance and diligence in carrying it through. And so the proposals we have before you today will keep DTSC at the forefront of science, innovation, and environmental protection. So at DTSC, we address the past, present, and future of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents. Our site mitigation and restoration program cleans up contamination from the past and restores land for beneficial uses. In fact, cleanup of brownfields and contaminated land is one of the biggest policy levers to reverse environmental injustices.
For present day hazardous waste operations, we oversee inspections, permits for hazardous waste operations. We work closely with our county partners, the local unified agencies, provide training, evaluation. They oversee inspections of generators of hazardous waste at a local level. So it really takes a team to do our job, and we work hard to hold operators accountable through timely, consistent, and equitable enforcement. For a more sustainable future, our Safer Consumer Products program has made huge strides recently, and they prevent harmful chemicals from even entering our waste streams, our environment in the first place.
They are charting the way to a safer future so that Californians are not exposed to toxic chemicals and we don't have to contend with these in the environment in the future. Our work is funded through about 20 different fund sources. Many of these are special funds. Two of the largest revenue sources are the environmental fee and the generation and handling fee, which allow us to continue our work protecting human health and the environment. So with reform came the necessary resources to support our mission driven workforce, The Board of Environmental Safety, and I'm happy to be joined here today by Andrew Rakestra, the chair.
They bring the necessary oversight that is key to a transparent, accountable organization. They also have a key role in setting our annual fee. Reform also brought community centered cleanup initiatives that have been tremendously successful, and our newly established Environmental Justice Advisory Committee. So we've been putting to good use these resources from reform, and I want to highlight just a few notable accomplishments. Our permitting backlog has always been a subject in this committee hearing.
I'm happy to report that out of 103 permits, we have eight left that are running on continued permits. The majority of these have actually been public notice with a draft decision. This is a huge improvement considering that five years ago, we had four times the number of continued permits still on our books. This has been a priority of mine since I came to the Department, to continue to clear this backlog, but let me be clear: we will not sacrifice community protections for timely issuance. So our permits are some of the strongest, most health protective in the nation.
And going forward, we will keep this culture of continuous process improvement alive and well at the department. Switching gears to our Safer Consumer Products program. We've heard concerns before this same committee about the pace at which we're moving, and we've talked about how important it is to onboard staff to ramp up our regulation process so that we can deliver more outcomes through our Safer Consumer Products program. And we've done exactly that. So in this current fiscal year, the Safer Consumer Products program has achieved more success than in the past two years combined.
We proposed four new product chemical combinations to address chemicals in nail products, shampoos, dish detergents, and cleaning products to be listed under RC for consumer product regulations. And we finalized a rulemaking for a fifth product chemical combination in nail products as well. We've demonstrated the efficacy of the impact this program has through compliance testing. We tested nail products for toluene, and demonstrated that 95% of the products we tested were compliant. We issued our first regulatory response for spray foam systems, and that response now requires spray foam manufacturers to do critical training, labeling, and invest in safer solutions that avoid regrettable substitutions.
So we're paving the way for a safer, more sustainable future. Now turning to the x side cleanup. As Secretary Garcia mentioned, this is a top priority for the agency and for the department, and we've successfully cleaned up over 6,000 residential homes. We've completed 100% of the parkway cleanups, and I credit much of this success to the community leaders, to the legislature, the partnership we have to continue this cleanup without any interruption, to continue to train, develop the local workforce that's now versed in environmental remediation, and we have a robust system of checks and balances to continue this cleanup successfully. We have a third party monitor in the field on a daily basis with our contractors, giving real time feedback to our teams, so we can continue this cleanup successfully.
With approval of our proposal for X Side for added funding over the next two years, we look forward to continuing our community engagement in the same way we're doing now, and our successful workforce development program. So while I'm pleased with what we've been able to accomplish, our work is far from over. The requested funding allocations will allow DTSC to make more forward progress in critical areas. Cost recovery and enforcement efforts. The added positions would directly support DTSC's enforcement efforts by building capacity for timely identification of responsible parties, and then holding them accountable for the cost of cleanups.
We have to avoid any future excise from happening again. Secondly, PFAS pollution efforts. I know there's a lot of interest in this among the legislature. It's a priority of the department, one of four priorities this fiscal year, to develop a holistic approach to PFAS, tackling it in the past, present, and future programs that we have. So with state of the art instrumentation for our environmental chemistry lab, combined with innovative science based compliance methods through Safer Consumer Program, we have an opportunity to really strengthen the preventative approach to addressing PFAS pollution, because we know how hard their PFAS is to destroy.
It's unfortunately forever chemical, that's why it has that unfortunate name. Third, recycling infrastructure efforts. We acknowledge that there's a growing demand for recycling infrastructure, particularly for solar panel and lithium battery recycling, and it has to be done safely. We have two funding proposals that are critical to addressing this demand: the Statewide Planning Division, which we'll talk more about later, dedicated to modernizing hazardous waste management standards and addressing emerging waste streams. And second, implementation of the Battery Recycling Act with our colleagues at CalRecycle.
We are focused on advancing policy for battery stewardship and promoting best management practices when it comes to lithium ion batteries. So ultimately, these efforts will help us identify and implement sustainable management practices for emerging waste streams. We will continue to foster an environment of continuous improvement, humility, and transparency across the department. We learn as we go. We use our scientific expertise.
We rely on community engagement for lived experience to inform our policies, our actions. So thank you for considering our proposals, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Next
Speaker 1
time I look up when I start introducing people who are coming up, Board Chair Andrew Riggstra.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you very much, Chair Valles, for the chance to speak about the Board of Environmental Safety, including its mandate, composition, funding, and twenty twenty six priorities. My
Speaker 13
is Andrew Riegstraw, and I have the honor of serving as Board Chair. So our Board of Environmental Safety became fully operational in 2022 when its members and staff first convened following the enactment of SB 158 the previous year. The board is a partial oversight board within DTSC to promote the department's transparency, fiscal stability, and accountability. In particular, the board promotes DTSC's transparency and public responsiveness by, for example, holding regular public meetings that provide the public the opportunity to understand and influence DTSC's decision making. Our meetings are all hybrid with Spanish language interpretive services.
The board also promotes DTSC's transparency in the permit appeal process by hearing and deciding permit appeals by the board in a public setting, a first for the department. The board promotes DTSC's accountability by, for example, approving strategic documents such as the hazardous waste management plan, developing performance metrics for DTSC's programs, and preparing an annual review of DTSC's performance as compared with its objectives. And the Board promotes DTSC's fiscal stability by setting fee rates for the Department. While the board sets annual fee rates for DTSC, it is not involved in developing DTSC's budget, including budget change proposals. On the board composition, this board is composed of five members, one full time chair, and four half time members.
Three of the members, including the chair, are appointed by the governor, one is appointed by the assembly, and one by the senate. So the governor appointed me, vice chair Alexis Strauss Hacker, and recently Reese Williams, who will join the board in the coming weeks. The assembly appointed Ingrid Bostrom, and the senate recently appointed former senator pro tem Tony Atkins. Board members are mandated to represent the general public interest and act to protect public health and reduce risks of toxic exposure with a particular focus on disproportionately burdened and vulnerable communities. On the board funding, the board is funded equally from the Hazardous Waste Control Account and Toxic Substances Control Account, which are funded by payments of the generation and handling fee and environmental fee, respectively.
The board does not have any pending budget change proposals at the moment. And since its inception, the board has had one BCP to increase funding to upgrade several staff positions. And finally, on our 2026 priorities, right now, the board is focused on onboarding our two new appointees, ensuring a timely, fair, and transparent appeals process for the two pending permit appeals for the Fibertech and EcoBat facilities in the Los Angeles area, providing oversight of DTSC's implementation of its hazardous waste management plan, adopting performance metrics for DTSC's safer consumer products and site mitigation and restoration programs, and ensuring the public can regularly engage with GTSE and senior leadership during our board meetings. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Jamie Consalves, Department of Finance. No comments at this time, but here to answer any questions.
Speaker 5
No prepared remarks for the department overviews, but happy to answer questions as always.
Speaker 1
Thank you. First, I want to congratulate you on taking care of this backlog. As you know, I was an assembly member for the first eight years, and that was always a big issue, and I'm really glad that that is something that has been addressed. I will leave it there. Very glad that that's being addressed.
So, what issues for DTSC, what issues do you see arising in the hazardous materials and waste arena in the next few years, and is there anything now that the Department should be doing to prepare for them?
Speaker 12
Yeah, thank you. I think we have a vision of the emerging waste streams that are expected to grow in coming years solar panels, lithium batteries, all necessary to meet our clean energy goals, And we have a vision that those do not end up in landfills, that they are recycled. And so we, and this is part of our statewide planning division proposal, we are anticipating the need to develop new regulations, new frameworks to deal with these emerging waste streams. And we currently don't have the resources to fully research, evaluate what those safe, responsible, health protective mechanisms for managing those wastes would be. And that's something we need to advance, we need to stay on top of before those waste streams become too large.
So now is a critical moment for us to address that and stay ahead of it. When it comes to other emerging issues, I wouldn't call it emerging. I would call it a now issue, PFAS, as I mentioned, and that's something that we continue to develop a holistic strategy at our department to tackle.
Speaker 1
I and I do want to push back just a little when we're talking about solar panels and lithium batteries, that it's an issue that I think you said you don't have the capacity to deal with that now, but it's something that should be have been dealt with already, and just my thought on that, and as you direct the department to make sure that these priorities that are your priorities, that you do have the personnel or redirect the personnel as needed to make sure that we do start thinking forward to make sure that we're able to deal with that, but your testimony regarding PFAS and your preparation in that regard, very important, and I appreciate that so much. I think sometimes, especially with a department like this, it does require that boldness that you've been able to bring in, and I hope that you will continue with that. Thank you. Thank you. For the Board of Environmental Safety, I do want to ask, what are the most pressing issues in disadvantaged communities that the Department needs to focus on, but specifically disadvantaged communities?
Speaker 13
Yeah, and thank you so much, Senator, for that question. We hear regularly from disadvantaged communities at our Board meetings, and a few of the issues that are top of mind for the department, I would say first is adopting health protective regulations on cumulative impacts of environmental pollution as required by SB six seventy three. The department is in the middle of a rulemaking process for that. There have been several very specific asks that the communities have put forward with regard to that rulemaking. I'd be happy to go into more detail if requested, and I'm sure the Director would as well.
The second, I would say, concern that DTSC's implementation of its hazardous waste management plan, which the board considered last year and worked closely with DTSC on, will ultimately lead to less health protective outcomes and an insufficient focus on waste reduction. The board did approve that hazardous waste management plan, but decided to retain oversight to of certain aspects of the implementation of the plan in response to the concerns that we heard from disadvantaged communities. Another issue, I would say, just kind of more generally, is stakeholders want more accessible and user friendly data on what's happening in their communities. We hear that really regularly with respect to facilities, enforcement actions, site cleanups, and finally, I would say the perennial issue we hear is kind of while DTSC has made progress with its communication efforts, stakeholders still want to be more engaged, have their input reflected, and to kind of turn, you know, not only a procedural engagement, but also substantively reflecting the disadvantaged communities' perspectives in whatever regulation or document or outcome that the department is working on. I would say those kind of come to mind as the four top ones.
And, course, I should also mention that the department now has an Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which kind of has its own perspective, and the board looks closely looks forward to closely working with that body as well.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. What do you see as the biggest changes that the Board has done or seen in the Department since the Board was established just a few years ago?
Speaker 13
Thank you. Thank you so much for that question, Senator. I would say kind of the biggest areas that we have both been involved in and witnessed with the Department, I would say, first, DTSC is now a more fiscally stable agency, or a fiscally stable department as compared with pre reform. So, however, of course, the hazardous waste control account, which includes the generation and handling fee, is in a structural deficit, and the department and the Board work together to write that. Second, as the Director mentioned, I think it really is quite impressive, the Department's role under the Director's leadership in clearing the backlog of long expired permits.
The ones that come up most acutely in front of the board are those that have been expired for more than five years, and so right now, I believe that number sits at just two, and so that is a substantial improvement from pre reform as well. I would say, fourth, the Board's permit appeals process, I think, a substantial improvement on the permit appeals process that was previously handled kind of exclusively within DTSC as well. In addition, the board's regular well attended meetings, I say, are a real step forward in DTSC's public engagement as compared with pre reform as well, and then I would say, finally, kind of the strategic vision of the department, as required by SB 158, is clearer and more publicly accessible than it certainly was. And so the board, of course, has a role in approving some of these strategic documents, but very much with the input of the community. So, just the regular engagement between the community and the department.
So, those are kind of the big areas that come to mind on DTSC pre reform versus now.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And finally, Director, you inherited a whole lot of problems. There's no doubt. I mentioned that earlier that in my time in the Assembly, it was something that it was always the same thing over and over and over again. Exide, as you mentioned, was a big problem.
I had colleagues who Assembly Member Garcia was a great concern for her continues to be, and she's one of those community members that continues to be very involved. I appreciate that, as you mentioned, over 6,000 homes have already been remediated, and 100% of the parkways. So keep up the great work, and I sincerely mean that. When you inherit a department that has had so many problems, it's trying to go back to take care of the problems that were there long before you became the director, but they are now your problems, and I go back to what I said earlier about leading in a bold manner because that is what it takes, and I know that your team looks to you for that boldness, and keep it up. Thank you both.
All right, that concludes Issue five, and we're now going to go to Issue six. BCP on Hazardous Waste Management Programs Statewide Planning Division. Director Heller. So,
Speaker 1
Right, let's see what happens when I look at what is written rather than looking up. Director Butler.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'm joined here by our Branch Chief of the Office of Policy, Gabby Nepmuceno, and we are requesting additional resources, essentially, to expand our current Office of Policy into a statewide planning division that will help us tackle exactly some of the topics we just covered, and meet our legislative mandates from DTSC fee and governance reform. This will be phased over two years, with eight positions in the fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven, and 13 positions in the fiscal year twenty seven-twenty eight. So our Office of Policy, to paint the picture for you, is a team of multidisciplinary scientists, data analysts, engineers, even economists.
And our hazardous waste rules and regulations are complex, and businesses often seek clarification or information from our department experts. So one aspect of their job is to be the first line of contact for businesses that want to understand whether their waste is hazardous, what options are available, for example, for recycling or reducing their waste streams, how to obtain waste identification numbers, or register their transporter. So this office is also responsible for technical assistance to our enforcement teams, to make sure our enforcement activities are consistent, timely, equitable. The same office has shouldered many of the Senate Bill 158, the fee and governance reform mandates, including new reporting requirements, development of the hazardous waste management report and plan, which was recently published and approved by the Board last year. And so these resources are required for us to begin implementing that plan.
We had in-depth analysis, to determine what the gap in resources are, and that's what's reflected in our proposal. We currently do not have staff capacity to implement the hazardous waste management plan that was developed as a result of DTSC reform. There's also a very practical benefit to our proposal. We currently have duplicate reporting systems, and this sort of came about as changes with reform came. And so this proposal would allow us to consolidate reporting systems, and that would help our data intake.
It also would help businesses with more streamlined reporting, overall improving our efficiency of how we regulate. So ultimately, we will be better positioned to advise businesses how they can reduce hazardous waste generation, to promote a more sustainable end of life management paradigm for newer technologies as they evolve. We didn't have smartphones or lithium ion batteries fifty years ago when our hazardous waste laws were first created. So this modernization is essential to a sustainable future, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank
Speaker 10
So, I'm Gabi Nepamaceno, and I'm the branch chief in our Office of Policy.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. All right, I appreciate what you've talked about, about being the first line of contact for our businesses. How are businesses advised that you are the first line of contact?
Speaker 12
So, one aspect right now, which we actually have an influx of calls, is for reporting into our electronic system, how much waste they're generating, the types of waste. We have increased some of the reporting requirements, so we have better data statewide and visibility on various waste streams. And so, sometimes it's simple questions as far as how to report, how to navigate our reporting systems. And then waste classification is a big topic that comes up, and there's complexities to how to approach waste classification, and the types of tests they may need to conduct. So that's an example of the type of advice that we give.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Tell me what the department's timeline is for getting this new division up and running, please.
Speaker 12
Great question. So, if we are allocated these resources, you know, we will get to work right away onboarding, the staff. From reform, our previous efforts, when we had, many new positions, we did take efforts in our human resource department to streamline hiring, and make more efficient onboarding. And so, I know from onboarding positions in the past from reform, we're ready to do that here. So, far as a specific timeline when the office would be fully staffed, probably a minimum of two years, but in short order, we would onboard as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1
What are your people going to do if they're not fully ready to work on it? If it's going to take two years, in the first year, you're going start with some of the staff, what are they going to be doing?
Speaker 12
Yes. So we've already started implementing some of the elements of the plan, redirecting folks to some of the highest priorities that we heard from the public during our workshops, as far as source reduction goes. And I'd like to ask Gabby if she wants to add anything.
Speaker 10
Sure. Yes, so to add on, we are implementing some of the plan already through the staff that we have, Some of those SB 158 positions that we've received in the 2022, 2023 timeframe are working on some of those through their core work now. For these BCP resources, the first year is focused on the eight positions that are really more management level, setting strategic direction for the division, starting to move forward on some of the more recent plan recommendations that haven't yet been started. And then year two would be more of the staff level positions. There'd be five in year two Who would actually be doing the work and following through on those recommendations?
Speaker 1
I will tell you that my a concern that I have is if we are creating new subdivisions for the work that should be done by DTSC, we're creating new subdivisions to create new positions for the work that needs to be done by DTSC, and that is a concern. Would you like to address that?
Speaker 10
Sure, I'd be happy to. At the moment, right now, the Office of Policy is two branches comprised of nine units that are essentially at their maximum for staffing. So part of this proposal is expanding it to three branches and 11 units, so we can redistribute that workload so that each unit is set up for success to do the core work of each of those units. So each of the current nine and then the 11 as part of this proposal do distinct work that covers everything from the federal program and making sure that we can actually administer and implement it at the state, all the way down to working with the public and the generators to making sure they're actually following all the requirements that are set out in the hazardous waste control bus. So we have a very wide mission, even within our Office of Policy alone, to make sure that the hazardous waste that's generated in California is managed safely.
Speaker 1
I absolutely understand that. I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that if it's within the Department of DTSC, that the work needs to be done, and creating new divisions and new departments doesn't necessarily warrant additional people if we're just calling it different departments.
Speaker 12
So, yeah, I see what you're saying, and so, we're utilizing our current structure, essentially, to build out gaps that we have identified over the past couple years, really, and then the plan recommendations, once they were solidified last year, that really gave us clearer direction on what resources we needed to proceed to implement the plan.
Speaker 1
Very good. I thank you so much for those responses, and again, this is has to do more with my many years of hearing from DTSC over the last ten years, and I appreciate the new direction, and hope that the results will justify the additional budget and additional personnel. Thank you. All right, and I think we're on our last issue, seven: Landfill Support Response and Enforcement. And for this, we're going to hear from Cali PA, who will present the proposal from we'll hear from DTSC, CalRecycle, and the Water Board will be available for questions.
Deputy Secretary Hunt, welcome. Please begin.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon, Senator Reyes. Again, I'm Deputy Secretary Brandy Hunt. I CALPA and I'm over fiscal policy. So, I do understand that we heard a lot from Secretary Garcia this morning, I will keep this brief. I will note that I do have my subject matter experts here today to answer questions, so hoping that we could spend more time on that.
From a fiscal perspective, what we're asking for in this proposal is $5,100,000 in 12 positions across CALIPA, CalRecycle, Department of Toxic Substance Control, and the State Water Resources Control Board. And this is to respond to subsurface elevated temperature events, two of which we have, currently happening in the state, but then also to provide tools to local governments, so that we can respond rapidly to any other sort elevated temperature events at any other landfills. And so, this is two pronged. First, we want to respond, then we want to make sure the tools are in place so that we can catch things quicker and respond quicker. So, a couple of, things that I want to go over about what the staff are currently doing, just to kind of, show how coordinated the approach needs to be, because, local government and in the state departments, we all have different authorities under these set events.
And so, really coordinating and working together as a team is very important. So, just within CalEPA and our Board's departments and offices, of course CalEPA coordinates all of the different activities that go into responding to the events, and we also do a lot of coordination under the enforcement area. We also have Cal Recycle who will be the lead on the grant program that we are requesting $1,000,000 for in this proposal. They also oversee landfill operations and respond to these events. We also have the California Resources Board, who is not requesting positions in this proposal however, they do provide expertise in landfill gas emissions monitoring, and assessing the potential air quality impacts associated with elevated temperatures.
We have Department of Toxic Substances Control, who has been instrumental in evaluating potentially hazardous conditions caused by hazardous waste, and offering technical support related to waste stability and overall environmental safety. For DTSC, there is quite a bit of monitoring on, the release of leachate, which is toxic at certain levels, and also benzene, which is both are very bad for the community. And the State Water Resources Control Board focuses on protecting our precious water resources, assessing impacts on leachate systems, and monitoring for any risks to nearby water bodies. And last but not least, we have our Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. They contribute their critical public health expertise, us evaluate potential exposure pathways and inform health based considerations for nearby communities.
And with that, Senator, I do want to open up the floor for questions, and give you time to speak to our scientists and our engineers that I have with us here today.
Speaker 1
These LCT events that you're talking about are relatively new phenomenon in the state. Is that true?
Speaker 16
Very good question, especially the second part. Yes, very new to the state, but not unknown elsewhere in other states and other countries. We're not sure why California is seeing what we're seeing at these two sites at this time, and we're very busy in addressing the issues as they exist. And in doing so, we're trying to gather the data to try to find a causal effect, so that, as Brandy was indicating, we can be more proactive in recognizing the potential and addressing it before they get out of hand. There are some theories that we are aware of based on events in other states.
It seems that in some cases, waste types that may be more reactive than others may have been brought to a landfill, and that may have caused high heats in the resulting set event. Operational issues may contribute to that. How the gas control system is operated may be a factor. And what we're seeing is not a true pattern as yet, because there isn't a lot of data out there. And what's frustrating is some landfills that seem on the surface, if you will, very similar to others, don't experience these set events.
And then, you know, a neighboring landfill will experience it. So, we're trying to ferret out, you know, what makes the difference, and we haven't drawn any conclusions as yet.
Speaker 1
You mentioned that it's new to California, but not in other states. What can we learn, or what have we learned from the other states? What have we learned?
Speaker 16
As I indicated before, some state set events, the cause was known. There was the one in Ohio, where a waste type aluminum dross is the term that's used, it's left over from processing aluminum, was brought into the site in very large quantities, and it reacted with the acidic wet environment in the landfill, and heated up and caused the event. So, that's a bit of knowledge and data that we are taking in. We are have learned a lot about how to address a set event once it begins. And industry the waste industry is very dialed into approaches.
So, we are watching or learning from other experiences, and seeing how they can or should be applied to the state of California's events.
Speaker 1
Are we keeping track? Do we have data to keep track of these S. E. T. S?
Speaker 16
There is data sets out there regarding sort of those elements that we think may be contributing to it, such as temperatures of wells that are drawing gas out of the landfill. Those data sets are available. Both the Air District and U. S. EPA maintain some level of those.
And then, in our process of addressing the set events, lots of data is being generated, and we're storing that. And when I say we, that's all of the agencies involved, DTSC, Water Board, Air District, Calricycle, our local partner, the local enforcement agency. So, we are capturing that data and analyzing it in real time to address the situation, but we anticipate that we'll also utilize that to look for patterns and be able to predict better new events. Hopefully, don't occur.
Speaker 1
Hopefully, they don't occur. I want to look to my fellow attorney. Since we most of these landfills are privately owned, and what enforcement power, what legal power do we have to have them clean it up, but more importantly, to shut them down if they are continuing to cause problems?
Speaker 11
So, that has become a priority when we look at this more holistically. I think we that was something that was shared by Secretary Garcia. There are various enforcement authorities that we have. And so, in that coordinated approach, it's not only coordination in the response, and sometimes the response is not just monitoring and assessing, but compliance. So, for instance, DTSC issued an order, so there is administrative authority, and if necessary, we coordinate on an approach for more aggressive or other enforcement alternatives.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Thank you. I know Secretary Garcia went into lots of detail about this earlier, and I appreciate that. I think what should be clear is that what you all do is very important to the work that we do. We are elected to represent the people, and when the people suffer, then we need to be able to do something, but we can't do it personally.
We do it through the departments, through the work that you do, through the scientific research, through the legal enforcement, and it's it is to have the dialogue is extremely important to be able to know what the needs are so that they can be addressed, and I know part of it is with additional positions, additional funding, but I think always trying to find the creative ways to be able to work collectively to make sure that we take care of the needs of our Californians, those who live in California, because that is our responsibility. It isn't one department's responsibility. It is our collective responsibility to make sure that we do everything that we can with the funds, so we know that sometimes we have lean years. This is not going to be the best of budget years, and now we have a structural deficit we have to deal with, and so as we try to figure out how we're going to spend the people's money, we want to make sure that it is to protect the people of California, and doing it in the best way possible, but recognizing that we still have this structural deficit we have to deal with, but I do want to thank you all for being at the table, and for answering my questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 6
Did you want to guess? Jamie Gonsalves, Department of Finance. Nothing to add at this time. Just here to answer any questions.
Speaker 5
Just as you mentioned, Madam Chair, the state does face lean budget conditions, but we find in this proposal in particular that it does meet a high bar of addressing critical health and safety needs. It provides state and local departments funding to address the two current active set events, and it provides ongoing funding to mitigate and prevent future events from happening.
Speaker 1
Very good. Thank you all so much. All of the items discussed today will be held open. For members of the public who wish to comment, please begin by stating your name and organization. First witness.
Speaker 3
You Madam Chair and members of the committee. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Stop Waste. Stop Waste is a joint powers authority located in Alameda County, and we help our member agencies and the community of Alameda prevent waste and help be better environmental stewards and wanted to appreciate the conversation earlier and some of the questions from the committee related to edible food recovery. That's a huge part of what StopWaste does, in our area, and we believe that more funding and, more ongoing funding is absolutely necessary in order to build upon some of the successes that were mentioned by CalRecycle earlier. Just to reiterate the context here, 2,500,000,000 meals edible meals are landfilled every single year.
Meanwhile, one in five Californians are food insecure. And so despite, you know, the goals and a lot of progress being made towards diverting 20% as required by SB thirteen eighty three from landfills back to food organizations, there's a lot more work that can be done. As was mentioned, the grant programs at Cal Recycle are in need of funding. We've put together a broad coalition of organizations to request $29,000,000 ongoing funding, which we believe would just further solidify the gains that we've made. It would go towards staffing these agencies because many of them are nonprofits.
They rely on volunteers, but in order to make this all work, they need full time staff, they need logistical and operational supports like refrigerated trucks, fridges in order to store this food and get it to the community. As was also mentioned, rotting food is a huge contributor to methane and GHD emissions. So we're really talking about a very efficient use of dollars here to reduce emissions, feed hungry Californians, and actually create local jobs in the area. So appreciate your consideration and your time. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste. I just want to start by strongly supporting issue seven on landfills. You know, the situation in Chiquita Canyon landfill is, has completely decimated nearby communities. These folks have been complaining for about three years now, these concerns, and you know, agencies have been pointing fingers. So we think that this approach laid out in issue seven is the right approach that should have been taken from the beginning to really stop this atrocity and tackle the issue head on.
We also appreciate the administration including illegal dumping in this BCP, and the dumping disguised as land application really mirrors what has been happening down in Chiquita Canyon in terms of the community has been raising concerns, nothing's being done, and so we think the BCP could help kind of tackle this head on as well. As one of the sponsors of SB two seventy nine, we support issue three and the implementation of this measure, and then lastly, as the person before me mentioned, we strongly support funding for cow recycles GGRF programs, including the edible food recovery, as well as the community composting for green spaces program, we think both these programs have been highly effective on a GHG basis, as well as diverting organic waste, and really supporting, small non profits that often don't have funding, ongoing funding. So really important issues. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon, madam chair. Christine Wolff with waste management here in support of item seven, the multiagency request on coordinated landfill response. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Christella Chavez, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners on issues five and twelve to express support for the BCP 3,630, Save for Consumer Products, Implementation and Enforcement of Product Bands at DTSC. This is important work, we are pleased to know that the funding is being discussed as a priority. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Hi. Matteo Kushner, Community Water Center on behalf of Clean Water Action Water Foundation Physicians for Social Responsibility LA. Just want to show our support for keeping increased staffing open at the State Water Board. And also just want to stress that we would like the State Water Board to consider the SAFR program in its budget and its need for backfill as its funding comes out of the GGRF, and to not have that backfill come out of Proposition four as we consider funding. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Well, you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were unable to testify, please submit your comments and suggestions in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation.
Thank you to our presenters also, and members for today's discussion on issues and department overviews. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. Senate Budget Subcommittee two is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.