YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Board of Environmental Safety (BES) Board Meeting - November 17, 2025

Board of Environmental Safety (BES) Board Meeting - November 17, 2025 — Transcript

by Board of Environmental Safety (BES) · 58,482 words · 9,229 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Good morning everyone and thank you all
0:02for joining us for the board of
0:03environmental safety meeting today. I am
0:06Courtney Bailey, board specialist and
0:08today's board clerk. Today we are joined
0:11by the following board of environmental
0:12safety staff persons both in person and
0:15remotely on Zoom. Swati Chararma,
0:18executive officer, Shaina Aila, staff
0:21engineer. Shaina Brooks, operations and
0:24outreach manager. Lauren Chandler,
0:26OMBbuds, Greg Forest, board counsel,
0:30Lindel Compo, senior staff engineer,
0:33Ferdos Permeza, environmental program
0:36manager, and Marcus Raymond, senior
0:38environmental scientist. This meeting is
0:41being livereamed and recorded. Your
0:43continued participation is
0:45acknowledgment that you are being
0:46recorded. Today is November 17th, 2025
0:50at 9:02 a.m. and the meeting is now
0:53called to order. Thank you, Courtney.
0:55Please call the role.
0:56>> Thank you, Chair Raikstraw. Member Batia
1:00here.
1:01>> Member Brostrom here.
1:03>> Member Gomez here.
1:05>> Vice Chair Stress Hacker
1:06>> here.
1:07>> Chair Rickstra
1:08>> here.
1:09>> Great. We have all members present and a
1:11quorum is established. Next slide,
1:13please.
1:16I will now review some logistical items.
1:19Today's hybrid meeting is being held
1:21both in person and remotely via phone
1:24and Zoom. For those joining us on Zoom,
1:27please select either English or Spanish
1:29as your preferred language option by
1:31clicking the interpretation icon located
1:33at the bottom of your Zoom toolbar. If
1:36you don't see the icon, you may need to
1:38update your Zoom application. Next
1:41slide, please.
1:45If anyone experiences connectivity
1:47issues with Zoom, you can call in for
1:49either English or Spanish. The phone
1:51numbers are provided to you now on the
1:53slide and they will be provided in the
1:56Zoom chat as well as posted on our
2:06Agenda times may fluctuate to
2:08accommodate agenda items. Meeting
2:10materials are available on the
2:12registration table outside the entrance
2:14of the room. They can also be found on
2:16our website at bees.dtsc.ca.gov.
2:23To protect everyone's virtual space and
2:25networks, the Q&A function will serve as
2:28our chat feature. It will be used for
2:30individuals that are experiencing
2:32technical difficulties or unable to make
2:34verbal comments. If you wish to have
2:36your written Q&A comment read out loud
2:39during the public comment session,
2:41please begin your comment with please
2:43read aloud.
2:45To ensure that all board members are
2:47fully present and focused on today's
2:49presentations and discussions, they are
2:51not reading or following along in the
2:54chat or Q&A. All participants will
2:57remain muted until a Zoom host unmutes
2:59them once recognized. Only presenters,
3:02videos and screens will be shared. Next
3:06com, next slide, please.
3:10We are looking forward to hearing the
3:11public throughout the meeting and have
3:13scheduled times on the agenda to do so.
3:16There are several different ways in
3:17which you can participate. For those
3:19joining us on Zoom, you may raise your
3:21virtual hand on your Zoom toolbar or
3:23press star 9 on your phone. I will call
3:26on participants using their name as
3:28displayed on Zoom. and I apologize in
3:31advance if I mispronounce any names. If
3:33you have joined the Spanish channel,
3:35you'll wait for the interpreters to
3:37provide instructions to comment. We do
3:40have a full agenda today and to ensure
3:42our board members are able to hear
3:43comments from all members of the public
3:45who wish to comment. We ask that your
3:47comment be no longer than 3 minutes. For
3:50those commenting in Spanish, there will
3:52be time doubled uh to allow for
3:55translation.
3:58For agenda item number four, the 2025
4:00hazardous waste management plan is
4:03scheduled to begin at approximately
4:0510:15 a.m. and we will be utilizing a
4:08numbered system to facilitate the public
4:10comments for our in-person commenters.
4:13At this time, I would like to take a
4:15quick poll of our participants to get an
4:18idea of how many folks plan to comment
4:20on agenda n item number four, the
4:23hazardous waste management plan.
4:26So if you plan to comment, uh please
4:28raise your hand
4:34six. Great. And on Zoom, if you plan to
4:38make a comment for agenda item number
4:40four, the hazardous waste management
4:42plan, if you can raise your virtual hand
4:44or press star 9 on your phone just to
4:46get an idea of how many commenters we
4:48might have on this item.
4:51And seeing five there. Great. So about
4:5411 so far and of course we will do
4:57another check as we get to that item. So
5:00thank you. We can go ahead and lower the
5:03hands now.
5:05For those commenting in person, did you
5:07all receive a number when you came in to
5:09make a comment? Great. Anyone did not
5:12raise their hand?
5:14Excellent. Oh, we do have one. Okay.
5:17Thank you. We'll have a staff member
5:19hand out those numbers.
5:22Our
5:24public forum for items not on the
5:26agenda, agenda item number eight, will
5:28be held at approximately 3:15 p.m. If
5:31you would like to express your comment
5:33in writing, you may submit your comment
5:34via email to bees info at
5:37bees.dtsc.ca.gov.
5:43And that concludes the introductory
5:45review for today's meeting. I'll now
5:47hand it over to Chair Raikstraw for
5:49agenda item number two. Thank you very
5:51much, Courtney. Uh, good morning to
5:52everyone and welcome to today's board of
5:54environmental safety meeting. Uh, the
5:56Board of Environmental Safety is a five
5:58member board established by Senate Bill
6:01158 in 2021, which enacted fiscal and
6:04regulatory reforms to the Department of
6:06Toxic Substances Control to improve its
6:09transparency, accountability, and fiscal
6:11stability. The board members represent
6:14the general public interest, protect
6:16public health, and reduce risks of toxic
6:18exposure with a particular focus on
6:20disproportionately burdened and
6:22vulnerable communities. We appreciate
6:24your participation here today as we work
6:26collectively to achieve the goals and
6:27objectives set forth in SB 158.
6:31Running to today's packed agenda, we'll
6:34begin by considering revisions to the
6:36rules for administration of appeals in
6:38existing standing order 24-01,
6:41including a presentation from a board
6:43council, Greg Forest. At approximately
6:4510:15 a.m., we will hear agenda item
6:48number four, where the board will vote
6:50whether to approve DTSC's 2025 hazardous
6:53waste management plan. The item will
6:56include a brief introduction from BEES
6:58staff engineer Shaina Avala and DTSC
7:01Hazardous Waste Management Program
7:03Deputy Director Mandy Bane. After agenda
7:06item number four, we'll take a 60-minute
7:08lunch break at around noon. When we
7:10return from lunch, we'll be joined by
7:12DTSC Director Katie Butler for her
7:14leadership report, which will include
7:16updates on the department, permitting,
7:19excite, and the 2025 to 2026 director's
7:22priorities. Director Butler's update
7:24will be immediately followed by agenda
7:26item number six, an environmental
7:28justice training presentation by DTSC's
7:30Office of Environmental Equity. The
7:32public comment period following the
7:34environmental justice training
7:36presentation will include an opportunity
7:38to comment on both agenda items five and
7:41six together. I'd like to pause here and
7:44discuss one outstanding item from our
7:45August 27th board meeting related to
7:48DTSC directors 2526 priorities. At that
7:52meeting, the board approved the
7:54director's priorities on the condition
7:56that the director consider adding a new
7:58priority related to SB673.
8:01So, we intend to consider the director's
8:03priorities, including the board's
8:05request related to SB673 at our January
8:08meeting, not today. The reason is
8:10twofold. First, the director has already
8:13agreed to consider refreshing her
8:15priorities in January, and so it seems
8:17appropriate to reconsider approval of
8:19the entire document. And second, today's
8:22agenda is jam-packed. That said, we are
8:25asking that Director Butler speak to the
8:26rulemaking process for SB 673 here today
8:30during her update.
8:33At approximately 2:30 p.m., we will
8:35continue with agenda item number seven
8:37where the board will hear from DTSC
8:39deputy director Mandy Bame regarding
8:41DTSC's hazardous waste facilities
8:43operating permit decision status report
8:46for the EcoBat facility located in the
8:48city of industry. Following the
8:50presentation, we will hear public
8:52comments specific to the updated permit
8:54schedule presented today. The board will
8:57then consider the amended schedule for a
8:59possible vote. We will not be discussing
9:01the merits of the facility permit
9:03renewal, only the amended schedule
9:04presented by DTSC.
9:07We will take a quick break at 3 p.m. and
9:09then when we return at 3:15, we'll go
9:11right into agenda item number eight,
9:13which is public forum for items not on
9:15the agenda. Following that, the board's
9:18performance metrics subcommittee will
9:19present recommended metrics for DTSC's
9:22hazardous waste management program for
9:24the board's consideration.
9:26And if we have time, we will then close
9:28out the day with board business,
9:29including considering the July 14th to
9:3215th and August 27th meeting minutes and
9:34reviewing the action items for today.
9:36This schedule is of course subject to
9:38change depending on our pace today.
9:40Before we jump in, I'll provide a brief
9:42update on the four site visits and
9:44community meetings that I had since our
9:45last board meeting in August. In late se
9:48in late September, I visited the
9:50Kettleman Hills facility, attended a
9:52town hall meeting with the supervisor,
9:54and met with the Kettleman City
9:55community. The following week, I
9:57returned to Kettleman City where board
9:59member Brostrom and I convened a roundt
10:01discussion with the facility and
10:02community. In mid-occtober, I toured the
10:05EcoBat facility in the city of industry
10:08and met with the clean air coalition.
10:10And finally, I intended I attended a
10:12tour of the Chevron Richmond Richmond
10:14facility as well. For the sake of time,
10:16I won't go into detail on each of these,
10:18but I'd like to deeply thank the
10:19communities and the facilities for
10:20hosting me. That concludes item number
10:23two, the introduction. So, uh, I'd like
10:26to introduce here for agenda item number
10:28three our board council, Greg Forest,
10:30who will review the proposed revisions
10:32to our board's rules for administration
10:34of appeals and standing order 24-01.
10:39These rules being considered for
10:40revision relate to public access to
10:42records, the availability of documents
10:45in electronic format and the process to
10:48complete the administrative record for
10:50the appeal, including the use of a new
10:52appeal management form. Over to you,
10:54Greg.
10:55>> Thank you so much, Chair Rake Straw.
10:57Good morning, board members and staff.
10:58Today I am presenting on our permit
11:00appeals process and I really appreciate
11:03the work being done with uh the board
11:06chair and vice chair and other staff
11:08members on this item. It's been a lot of
11:10work but we're proposing to bring some
11:11changes to our standing order to you
11:13today. And I really want my presentation
11:16to you today to be as interactive as
11:18possible. So please do not hesitate to
11:20stop me as any point if you have any
11:22questions and I will do my best to not
11:25race through my comments here. beating
11:27heart notwithstanding. Next slide,
11:29please.
11:32As you will recall, the board adopted
11:34regulations for the appeal process in
11:362023,
11:37which included two standing orders. One
11:40of those standing orders includes rules
11:42for the administration of appeals, and
11:44the board adopted amendments to that
11:46standing order in August of last year.
11:49At that time, we added a requirement for
11:51the permitting division to submit an
11:53index of the materials in the
11:55administrative record to the board. We
11:58also added an appendix that provided
12:00detail on what ought to be included in
12:02the administrative record. Lastly, we
12:05added a meet and confer process for the
12:08parties to try and resolve disagreements
12:10over the administrative record.
12:12Since then, we've begun to receive
12:14appeals of the larger renewal permit
12:17decisions, and we have had some
12:19challenges due to the size and
12:20complexity of the administrative
12:22records. Next slide.
12:26So, today we are proposing some
12:28amendments to the standing order in the
12:30rules related to the administrative
12:31record. We think these generally refine
12:34and build upon the same concepts that we
12:37addressed in the revisions last year.
12:41First, we're proposing to remove the
12:43appendix for greater clarity and
12:45simplicity. The contents of the
12:47administrative record are defined by a
12:49regulation, and we want to avoid any
12:52possible conflicts. Essentially, the
12:54administrative record includes all
12:56materials that the decision maker
12:58considered when making the permitting
13:00decision. Second, we are enhancing the
13:03meet and confer process by adding a new
13:05form that the parties submit to the
13:07board after they have separately met to
13:10work through any issues they have with
13:12the administrative record. It's part of
13:14our meet and confer process. We then
13:17hold a status conference to discuss
13:19those issues with them. This is more
13:21akin to the process that courts use
13:24during early stages of litigation. Next
13:26slide, please.
13:29As I mentioned, the larger permit
13:31renewal decisions present some
13:33challenges. So, we're proposing
13:35revisions to the standing order to
13:36clarify the board's expectations for the
13:39administrative record. As in the current
13:42standing order, the board clerk requests
13:44permitting to prepare an index when we
13:46receive notice of an appeal. The
13:49permitting division has 30 days to
13:51submit the index. That is not changing.
13:54What we are changing is to clarify that
13:57the materials in the administrative
13:58record must be made available to the
14:00public at the same time. We want to
14:03avoid situations where the parties
14:05receive the index but then cannot review
14:08the documents listed in the index
14:09because they're not available to the
14:11public. We recognize that this may be
14:14hard to do when there are hundreds of
14:16documents in the record. So, we allow
14:18for permitting to request additional
14:20time from the board chair and vice chair
14:23if needed.
14:24Finally, we are clarifying that the
14:26process to complete the administrative
14:28record, which includes the meet and
14:29confer process that I mentioned earlier,
14:32should be completed before the board
14:34considers the initial order for
14:35adoption.
14:37There has been some confusion about that
14:39timing. So, we feel this is an important
14:41revision to make sure that the process
14:44to complete the administrative record
14:45gets resolved before the admin the
14:47initial order goes to the board for a
14:49vote.
14:51Next slide, please.
14:55Other changes in the standing order
14:57relate to the index and the manner in
14:59which materials in the administrative
15:01record are organized. We are adding a
15:04requirement that the index have
15:05sufficient detail to allow the parties
15:08and the board to easily identify the
15:10materials that are listed.
15:12When someone looks for those materials,
15:15whether online or in the file room,
15:17those materials should be organized
15:19consistently with the index.
15:22Just like in our current standing order,
15:23we prefer to have all of those records
15:25in electronic format and we are
15:27retaining language in the standing order
15:29that requires digitization of records to
15:32the greatest extent feasible. And I want
15:34to emphasize that that is not a new
15:36requirement. It just appears in a
15:39different place in the new standing
15:40order. We move some things around. The
15:43last point here is a new requirement and
15:45that is regarding bates numbering also
15:48called bates stamping where the pages in
15:50the record are sequentially numbered. So
15:52each page of the record gets its own
15:54number in sequential order.
15:57We've researched this and found this to
15:59be a very standard practice and so we
16:02think it makes sense for the
16:03administrative record to use that for
16:04permanent appeals process to have all
16:06the pages sequentially numbered with the
16:08bates numbering.
16:11Any questions before I move on?
16:15Okay, next slide.
16:19All right.
16:21So, I mentioned that we pref prefer to
16:24have all the records digitized and I
16:26think you can all appreciate how that
16:28supports our permit appeals process.
16:30However, we recognize particularly with
16:32some of these larger permit renewals
16:33that it may not be feasible to digitize
16:36all of the materials in the
16:37administrative record. And so we also
16:38address paper records in the standing
16:41order. We have some new provisions that
16:43reinforce the need for paper files in
16:45the file room to be open for public
16:47inspection. So we do allow for public
16:50paper records. Uh but we require the
16:53permitting division to provide someone
16:55who can assist people to pull the
16:57records that they need. And actually the
16:59permitting division's been really good
17:01about providing that support.
17:03Of course that's limited to days and
17:05times when the office is open. So,
17:07normal business hours. Next slide.
17:11Okay. So, this last slide provides a
17:14flowchart depiction of our permit
17:16appeals process. As I mentioned, the
17:18changes to the standing order relate to
17:20the process to complete the
17:21administrative record. So, I've circled
17:23those steps here for emphasis. I also
17:26want to repeat that the administrative
17:27record is ordinarily completed before
17:29the board considers the initial order.
17:32This is because the initial order
17:33establishes a briefing schedule. So, it
17:36is best for any issues related to the
17:38administrative record to be resolved
17:40before the initial order goes to the
17:42board.
17:44Our goal would be to take about 6 months
17:46or less to get that far in the process.
17:50But since DTSC prepares the
17:53administrative record in the first
17:54place, a lot of that timing is out of
17:56our hands.
17:57Last thing I want to mention is that we
18:00previously referred to DTSC's permitting
18:02division in various places throughout
18:04the standing order and we had thought
18:06about simplifying that to just DTSC.
18:09This comes up for example when the board
18:11clerk requests the administrative record
18:13index for example. You probably noticed
18:17in the redline version of the standing
18:18order if you've seen that that we struck
18:20out permitting division many times in
18:22there. Uh but since we posted the draft
18:25standing order, we have received some
18:27feedback that caused us to reconsider
18:29that change in the order. So today we're
18:32proposing to revert back to the current
18:35version of the standing order with
18:36respect to those references to the
18:38permitting division. There's eight in
18:39total. So I'm sorry to throw a little
18:42bit of a curveball at you, but we want
18:44to continue to refer to DTSC's
18:46permitting division as in our current
18:48standing order. So bear with me on that.
18:51Um, I realize there's a lot to take in
18:54here. Uh, really this is focused just on
18:57the admin record part of the of the
18:59process. Um, but and I think a lot of
19:02these changes are are really reinforcing
19:04what we've always done. But, uh, feel
19:07free to ask any questions about the
19:08revisions or the pro permanent appeals
19:11process more generally. Happy to answer
19:13any questions that you've got or any
19:15concerns you may have. And I really
19:17appreciate again the support of uh chair
19:20and vice chair and our changes here and
19:23and hard work of the staff that went
19:25into this. I want to acknowledge
19:26everybody's hard work and participation.
19:29I really appreciate it. Thank you so
19:31much for the time.
19:33>> Thank you um so much Greg. Um so we'll
19:35now open it up for board discussion on
19:37this particular item. Member Gomez.
19:40>> Yeah, a question. So,
19:43um, six months,
19:45that's that's a long time.
19:47>> It's
19:47>> a long time.
19:48>> Why Why is that?
19:50>> Well, it depends on the extent of the
19:54permitting decision, right? And so,
19:57modifications are subject to appeal and
20:00we've already heard a modification, a
20:02temporary authorization. I think for
20:04those six months would be too long. I
20:07think we would be able to hear those
20:08much sooner. But uh these larger permit
20:12renewal decisions
20:14uh it it's just taken longer for us to
20:16receive the the index takes we you know
20:20the 30 days when it's an index that's
20:23over a thousand documents you know it's
20:25it takes longer to put together uh and
20:28then making sure that those documents
20:30are available to the public and and uh
20:33you know digitize can takes take longer
20:36but I mean I'm on the side of the board
20:40receiving this from permitting,
20:42>> right?
20:43>> And so, you know,
20:44>> so so is the problem that we're silent
20:47on how long it should take and which is
20:50DTSC takes that long or the question the
20:54question really is should we be putting
20:56a period of time to be gathering that
20:59information
21:01that it doesn't take that long, it
21:02doesn't take six months or eight months
21:04or a year.
21:06>> Yeah. I mean, believe me, we've had a
21:08lot of conversations about this just
21:10working through the process and we've
21:13really tried to reinforce our
21:15expectations that materials are
21:17available to the public much sooner.
21:19There shouldn't be a lag there. Um, it
21:23should be known what's in the
21:24administrative record when the decision
21:25is made,
21:27>> you know, and obviously some of these
21:30controversial permitting decisions,
21:33appeals are anticipated. So, you know,
21:36this idea that we have to then go into
21:38appeal mode, I I've never really fully
21:41understood that. So, I like you would
21:44like to see these timelines get shorter.
21:47Um, but I'm also aware of the fact that
21:50this is the first time that, you know,
21:52some of these larger, more controversial
21:55permit decisions have come to, you know,
21:58final resolution. And so it's a new
22:02process working with the board for
22:04permitting division. And that's about as
22:06much as I want to say on behalf of
22:07permitting division. We have we have
22:08representatives here that can do a
22:10better job of explaining.
22:13>> Thank you.
22:15In the ideal before the final permit
22:18decision is issued, the team within DTSC
22:23both um
22:26would have assembled the administrative
22:29record um and it would be ready and then
22:32the final permit decision would be
22:34wouldn't have this protracted waiting
22:37time.
22:39That is my goal is that that becomes the
22:42standard housekeeping practice. And I so
22:46strongly about this. We're now in an age
22:49where all of us need access to the
22:51permit decision materials um when that
22:54final permit decision. Therefore, it
22:58wouldn't make sense for you or I to
23:00travel, let's say, to Chadzsworth to
23:02look at a piece um and then travel home.
23:06And so everybody needs access digitally
23:09in this age and we need to help DTSC and
23:14it's not just DTSC obviously family that
23:18has this challenge of digitization. We
23:20need to be the catalyst for bringing
23:22these permit records in a very timely
23:25way when the decisions are issued.
23:31We have we are all I think committed to
23:33finding a better way forward. I think
23:36the standing order helps us on that
23:38path, but there's still some logistical
23:41obstacles to getting
23:43comment now is I agree it's too long
23:46after a permit decision is or I think
23:50more effort has to go into the front end
23:53of it before the permit decision is have
23:57the record ready.
24:06Thank you for the presentation. I have
24:08two questions. First is what does based
24:10on your understanding what does DTSC
24:12require to maintain the integrity of the
24:15paper records now and to digitize them
24:17in the future? Have a sense for what
24:19DTSC requires to make this?
24:23>> Uh so
24:27I think that it depends largely on each
24:30case. It's a case-byase situation and
24:35now um where we have a administrative
24:40record that's defined by the permitting
24:41division to include many historic
24:43documents
24:45then they uh have
24:50largely
24:52um had a large number of those historic
24:54documents included in the administrative
24:56record that are really maintained. ained
25:01as one would maintain the just archives,
25:06right? The permitting archives. And so,
25:10uh, I would like to see a little bit
25:12more strategic thought into putting into
25:15like which of those documents do we
25:17really need? How are they really
25:19supporting the decision? Because at this
25:22point, I think some sometimes the
25:24approach there may have been over broad.
25:27So, um, the other thing that I've heard,
25:31and again, I don't want to speak too
25:32much for permitting here, but the
25:34permitting division would like to and is
25:36very, very close to moving toward a
25:38fully digital paperless system where the
25:41applicant can submit and is expected to
25:44submit an electronic version of the
25:46application. And in that sense, then um,
25:50you know, everything's already
25:51digitized. And I think they're making
25:54greater use of Envir Store. They're
25:55they're posting records online. And so
25:58we're getting closer, you know, to not
26:00relying on the file room at all and not
26:02really needing it at all. Unfortunately,
26:05there are some hurdles to to pass to get
26:08there. Um, and it has to do with, you
26:10know, cyber security, data security,
26:12these sorts of things. Um, but but they
26:15are moving in that direction. And our
26:17hope expectation is that within a year
26:19or two, you know, they'll they'll be
26:21there. And so I don't know the next
26:24version of this board in 10 years won't
26:25have this problem but we we still are
26:27dealing with some of these permitting
26:29decisions that were last made you know
26:32over 10 or 20 years ago in some cases.
26:35>> Thank you. My second part of the
26:36question is related to security up until
26:39DTSC fully digitizes their records. A
26:42member of the public accesses the paper
26:44records are they able to make digital
26:46copies themselves and circulate within
26:48their community or are they prohibited
26:49from doing so? you know, if not we will
26:52ask DTSC, of course.
26:53>> Yeah. I mean, I I believe that the there
26:58is an ability to go to the file room and
27:00if you have certain records that you
27:02want, you can make copies, you can
27:04digitize on your own. Um, so yes, I I
27:08believe that's that's allowed.
27:10>> Thank you.
27:17>> Brost, anything from you or I can jump
27:19in. Okay.
27:21>> Um, thank you so much, uh, Greg for the
27:23presentation. I think a few comments
27:25from me. Um, the first would be, uh, I
27:29had a similar question to Geette or to
27:31member Gomez about the six-month thing.
27:33I think at least how I envision this is
27:35that from the time of permit decision to
27:38the time of the completion of the
27:39administrative record it's ideally 90
27:42days which is basically how we built it
27:44in here which is like the standard
27:46amount of time that DTSC has to provide
27:49public access to the administrative
27:51record materials which is defined what
27:54public access means uh is 30 days that
27:58then triggers a uh 60-day period uh
28:02where the appellants can then propose
28:05motions to uh augment the record in some
28:08way. After that period, we then have a
28:11complete administrative record. So,
28:12that's that's at least what I'm striving
28:14for is is a three-month period. I think
28:17the difficulty is that of course much of
28:20that is
28:21uh well at least that initial 30-day
28:24period is outside of the board's control
28:27uh in the sense that it's relying upon
28:29DTSC to compile and produce these
28:33records and provide public access to
28:34them. So I think you know my my my
28:38strong request to DTSC permitting
28:40division is to anticipate appeals ahead
28:43of time and get the administrative
28:46records uh in a place where they can uh
28:50kind of you know automatically meet that
28:5230-day request without asking for
28:55extensions. Um you know we can
28:58reasonably anticipate which of which
29:00facilities will be appealed. So I guess
29:01that would be my request as well. At the
29:04same time, I understand that there are
29:06growing pains associated with this. Um,
29:09so, you know, that's the kind of yin and
29:11yang, I suppose, of of this
29:13administrative appeal, uh, of this
29:15administrative record process.
29:17>> Yeah.
29:18>> If I could just speak to that, I wanted
29:19to clarify my remarks in the the six
29:22months. You know what I really meant
29:24there is I I think particularly outside
29:28parties when they're looking at our
29:29process their their main question is
29:31okay when are we going to see this
29:32initial order go to the board right I
29:35think the six months is not too far off
29:38of what you just illustrated right 90
29:40days to get to the point where we're
29:43able to start this meet and confer
29:44process 60 days for that meet and confer
29:47process to run its course another 30 to
29:49get us to a board meeting I think I'm
29:51I'm right there with you what with the
29:53six months basically in in how we would
29:56do that. So I didn't want to have
29:58confusion about what I meant by that. So
30:01um but you know again like that's that's
30:06kind of a goal we're working toward more
30:07than where we are presently with some of
30:09these.
30:10>> Thanks. I appreciate that. That's that's
30:11good to know that you were thinking that
30:12that six-month period was for the
30:15initial order. Um yeah as opposed to the
30:18completion of the administrative work.
30:20that
30:21um I at least don't have any other board
30:23discussion or comments. Anything else
30:26before we open up for public comment?
30:29So, why don't we go ahead and open it up
30:31for public comment? Courtney, will you
30:32please lead us through this? Thank you,
30:35Chair Rakestraw. We'll now open the
30:36floor for public comment regarding
30:38agenda item number three, revisions to
30:41the bees standing order on
30:43administration of appeals. For all
30:45public commenters, if you'd like to be
30:47identified for the record, please state
30:49your name and affiliation. You'll have
30:51three minutes to make your comment.
30:53We're going to start with our in-person
30:55participants first. And if you would
30:56like to make a comment, please raise
30:58your hand, and I'll invite you to step
31:00up to the microphone in the aisle.
31:04Please come up. You'll have three
31:06minutes to make your comment.
31:11Here
31:22we go. Uh Matt Williamson. I'm an
31:24attorney at the law firm of Manat Phelps
31:26and Phillips. Um I'm generally very
31:28supportive of the changes. I think
31:30they're a huge improvement. Um they very
31:32thoughtful. Um given how early in the uh
31:35cycle of the big appeals the board is,
31:37um I think these changes are are well
31:39timed as well. Um the board members are
31:42asking all the right questions. Um I I
31:44share concerns over the amount of time
31:47that the current appeal is taking to
31:48process the administrative record. Um I
31:51will say having processed and obviously
31:54I did the uh temporary authorization
31:56appeal that was a little bit different.
31:57Um having handled similar appeals and
31:59permits in in front of different
32:00agencies I actually think six months is
32:03probably a pretty aggressive timeline. I
32:05think there's two things that um the
32:08chair touched on one of them. The other
32:09one is is a bit out of our control. Some
32:12of these records are these
32:14administrative records are incredibly
32:15voluminous. So if you have 500,000 pages
32:18of documents that you're presenting to
32:20the public, it's difficult to expect
32:23them to have an appeal filed on the
32:25completeness of that AR within 30 days.
32:27So I think that's going to push some
32:28timeline. And then uh the topic that the
32:31chair touched on, but I think it's
32:33important to reemphasize is the amount
32:36of expected dispute over the contents of
32:38the AR and that's going to land on the
32:40board. And so I would urge the board to
32:42remember your role in this process to
32:44keep the um decisions on those motions
32:47happening quickly and management is
32:49going to be incredibly important in
32:50order to ensure these timelines. Um and
32:53it it is critical. The one thing I was
32:56the slide that Greg had showing the
32:58process of the appeal and to get to the
33:01initial order, you need to have a
33:02completeness of the administrative
33:04record. If we're pushing past six
33:06months, remember that until that initial
33:08order, the entire permit is stayed
33:10automatically. So, you could have a
33:12single permit or appeal of a single
33:14condition, excuse me, and it will stay
33:18the entire permit. So all of those
33:21improvements that are built into new
33:23conditions showing updated science,
33:25updated technology, those all remain
33:28stayed and facilities cannot start to
33:30comply with those new conditions while
33:32we're waiting for that initial order. So
33:34it's critically important that you guys
33:36manage the appeals in order to get to
33:38that initial order. And a final note to
33:41the extent the board can um encourage
33:44DTSC to do this and I'll have separate
33:45discussions with DTSC as well. I know
33:48permittes are typically ready, willing
33:51and able to assist in digitization,
33:54bates numbering and overall management
33:56of the administrative records. So to the
33:57extent that permitting is having trouble
33:59with resources, money, time, people, um
34:02encourage them to re to work with
34:04permittes in order to to assist to get
34:07these documents ready and and available
34:09to the public. Thank you.
34:11>> Thank you for your comments. Any other
34:14inerson commenters? please come up to
34:15the microphone and you'll have three
34:17minutes. Thank you.
34:21>> Thank you. Uh good morning. My name is
34:23Esme Levy and I'm an attorney with Earth
34:25Justice. I'm commenting not on behalf of
34:27a specific client, but as an attorney
34:29who regularly has matters that are
34:31affected by board decisions. So, first I
34:33appreciate the amendment to the standing
34:35order requiring bait stamping. It seems
34:37obvious why records that are potentially
34:39thousands of pages have page numbers and
34:41proper identification. um that the
34:43reason this amendment was made in the
34:45first place is permitting has so far
34:46refused to do so willingly. So I
34:48appreciate the board using its authority
34:50to make vape stamping requirement. Next,
34:52I want to comment on the greatest extent
34:54feasible language as it relates to
34:56providing records electronically. So as
34:58noted, this is the same language that
35:00the standing order had previously. So it
35:02is not actually an improvement to the
35:03appeals process. It is simply recycled
35:05language. More importantly, the phrase
35:07to the extent feasible does not mean
35:10anything in practice. There's no
35:11guidance on what feasibility actually
35:13means and no requirement that permitting
35:16explains the extent of their efforts.
35:18Otherwise, and what has been happening
35:20to this point is permitting can refuse
35:22to provide records electronically
35:23without any substantive explanation and
35:26days and months are wasted fighting
35:27about how to access the record instead
35:29of moving the appeal forward. There's
35:31really no excuse for this in 2025. As
35:33board members explained earlier,
35:34electronic records should be standard.
35:37An easy solution to this issue is
35:39requiring that permitting provide
35:40records electronically and if permitting
35:42claims they cannot do so, requiring them
35:44to explain their efforts so far and why
35:46they determined it wasn't feasible. The
35:48board has the authority to do this just
35:50like the board has the authority to
35:51require bait sthing. Finally, the
35:54addition of the effective date provision
35:56in the standing order says that the
35:57order shall be effective on the date
35:59adopted by the board and the order does
36:01not apply to appeals filed before the
36:03effective date. There are appeals
36:05currently before the board that the
36:07standing order would technically not
36:08apply to because of this provision, but
36:10that need the additional guidance of
36:12bait stamping specifically. So, I ask
36:14that the board interpret the effective
36:15date as broadly as possible so that the
36:17improvements made in the standing order
36:19apply to appeals currently before the
36:21board. Thank you. Thank you for your
36:23comments. Are there any other people in
36:26person that would like to comment on
36:27agenda item number three? Please go
36:30ahead and come on up to the microphone
36:32and you'll have three minutes to make
36:33your comment. Thank you.
36:40>> Good morning. I'm Angela Johnson Mazaros
36:42from Earth Justice and I'm not
36:44commenting on behalf of any particular
36:46client this morning. I just want to note
36:48three quick things about this process.
36:51First, the regulations currently require
36:56a um permitting to be able to to have
37:01all the documents it use in its decision
37:04when it issues the permit.
37:06So instead of doing that, we're now
37:09taking a turn into the world where they
37:12issue the permit and then they start
37:14putting together the records that they
37:16relied upon, causing not only this long
37:20delay between permit issuance and the
37:23time for the order, but also putting the
37:27burden on the parties to go through this
37:30long process. Now we're asked to do
37:32motions to complete. Now we're asked to
37:35have meet and confers. Now we're asked
37:37to engage in a long drawn out process
37:40about something that's actually quite
37:42basic and clear. The agency has to
37:45provide the documents that it used to
37:48make its decision. And so I
37:51fundamentally appreciate that these
37:53changes are being made because these are
37:55all important things. And I'm shocked
37:57that it's taken this long for us to have
37:59an order that has to come before the
38:01board that the DTSC permitting division
38:03has to bait stamp its record.
38:07And secondly, I'd just like to note that
38:12this um approach is starting more and
38:17more to be hardwired into the way that
38:20the bees and the department um staff are
38:23interacting.
38:26you need to give us the record. Make us.
38:29This is a dynamic that is problematic
38:32and this is something that's such
38:34lowhanging fruit that I'm surprised that
38:37we have an agenda item to have the board
38:40spend its time thinking about whether or
38:42not an administrative record should be
38:46bait stamped. This should be it. This is
38:50all DTSSE and this should be a simple
38:53conversation between the the bees and
38:58the director
39:00to say your staff needs to provide a
39:02bait stamped app um administrative
39:05record and it needs to be done in a
39:06timely way. And the third thing is this
39:11permitting um appeals process is
39:14complicated as this board continues to
39:17struggle what it with what it means to
39:19be a semi-professional board
39:24treating itself as a court
39:27fundamental flu. It's a fundamental
39:29structural flaw that we pointed out when
39:32this appeals process was first being
39:35envisioned and I think it just gets more
39:37complex and really I call for a
39:40rethinking of how you approach the
39:41issue.
39:43Thank you for your comments. Any other
39:46in-person commenters on this item?
39:49Okay, moving on to our remote
39:52participants. If any of our Zoom
39:54participants would like to comment on
39:56agenda item number three, please raise
39:58your virtual hand or press star 9 on
40:00your phone.
40:02Looks like we have one commenter,
40:04Veronica. We're going to invite you to
40:06unmute. Please accept our invitation and
40:08you'll have three minutes to make your
40:10comment.
40:18Veronica, are you there?
40:24Okay, we'll um see if we can get
40:25Veronica back online with us. Are there
40:28any other remote uh participants that
40:31would like to comment on agenda item
40:33number three, the revisions to the bees
40:35standing order on the administration of
40:38appeals?
40:42And if anyone would like to make a
40:43comment, you can always email us at bees
40:45[email protected].
40:51Okay, that looks like that wraps up the
40:53public comments for agenda item number
40:55three. Chair Raikstra,
40:58>> thank you very much, Courtney, and thank
40:59you to the public commenters. Um, so
41:01we'll now turn to the board vote uh uh
41:05section of this agenda item. Um, do we
41:08have Oh, member Ros before we go to
41:10that. Yeah, just in response to the the
41:12comments, I had a one more question for
41:14Greg around that feasibility definition
41:17and you know how how are we assessing
41:20what is feasible?
41:22>> So, uh we do say to the greatest extent
41:25feasible. So, we're trying to you know
41:28push for as much as possible. Um in my
41:32research I did find a similar standard
41:35that courts use and for example where
41:39there's a map that is you know too big
41:42to scan that would be something that
41:44would be infeasible and there'd be a
41:46basis to find that that particular
41:48document is infeasible. Um, otherwise
41:52it's a case-byase situation and it would
41:55involve a showing by permitting that a
41:59particular document or a certain set of
42:01documents can't be digitized. It's
42:03infeasible to do so because either
42:05there's too many and it would just take
42:07too long or something like that. My
42:10understanding so far is that essentially
42:13there are not resources and staff that
42:16are assigned specifically to the task of
42:18digitization. So, you know, going out
42:22for a bid on a contract takes time and
42:24and all of these things sort of are not
42:27doable within the time frame of an
42:29appeal for the most part, but um
42:33that's that's it's really a sort of a
42:35case by case determination.
42:41>> Vice Chair,
42:42>> the board would I think commonly very
42:45much want to make it an absolute
42:48requirement. What's troubling is that
42:50there
42:52formal step toward making that contract
42:56um
42:59continuing to have to worry about
43:02greatest extent feasible being something
43:05that
43:14apart from the participation of
43:15appellants in helping to digitize and
43:18stamp bait stamp records. We have to get
43:21this agency to the point
43:28or if this is the right time and place
43:30to combine.
43:36How do we how do we make this
43:40other than um
43:47I mean we're we're dealing with this as
43:50we hear appeals and each appeal we're
43:52we're dealing with it. So I think in the
43:54process of having that we're we're
43:57hopeful that practices do change over
44:00time as we're hearing more and more of
44:02these appeals. I mean, of course, the
44:04this is now only the, you know, very
44:06early in the board's appeal process just
44:09as a as an existing function.
44:14>> Yeah. Um,
44:16I have to say I I 100% agree with um
44:21Angela's comment
44:24that if DTSC is issuing a permit, the
44:27documentation should have been gathered.
44:31it shouldn't be coming afterwards.
44:34And I think there's something wrong with
44:37this conversation that we're having
44:38right now and it's really bothersome.
44:40Um, and I know this is not on us, but
44:43this is once again DTSC
44:46and and it really is showcasing
44:49showcasing
44:51the issues that the community has and
44:53some of the worrisomes that are being
44:55flagged constantly.
44:59I it's it's frustrating. I just I'm I'm
45:01really frustrated with this conversation
45:03right now. Not not not on you, Greg at
45:06all and not at us, but it's just DTSC
45:10how I I don't understand
45:13how one can issue a permit and not have
45:16the document knowing specifically on on
45:19on
45:21facilities that have been long in the
45:23making of coming to a decision and yet
45:27we're we're arguing about documentation.
45:30It's just it's it's it's just a little
45:33bit frustrating right now. So,
45:37>> Greg, did you I understand, correct me
45:39if I'm wrong,
45:42not that the documentation isn't
45:44compiled, it's the digitization,
45:46right? That's the piece that you know
45:48there there needs to be funding, there
45:50needs to be staff, there needs to be a
45:51budget to help this. And that's been
45:54that's been the hurdle. It's not that
45:56the documents aren't compiled, they are.
45:58It's just that they're not digitized.
45:59Can you correct me if I'm
46:02>> right? Right. Yeah. So, uh I mean the
46:06documents are always there. I I think we
46:09have encountered challenges around the
46:13way they're organized and you know from
46:16the perspective of a member of the
46:18public who wants to participate in an
46:21appeal process or in a permitting
46:22decision, is it free and easy for them
46:25to do that? And no. I mean, I I think at
46:29this point, no, it's not it's not at a
46:31place where all any of us as far as the
46:34board uh feel like we, you know, feel
46:36good about that situation. But again,
46:39it's really these longstanding
46:44permit renewal decisions that have this
46:47longer history where those barriers are
46:49are really, you know, most pronounced.
46:53And as we hear some of these
46:55modifications or more recent decisions
46:58that don't have such long and
46:59complicated histories, I think that will
47:01be much less of a problem.
47:05>> Maybe just to respond to member Gomez
47:07for just briefly, I I I agree the uh the
47:10assumption of our standing order here is
47:12that the record is the administrative
47:14record is compiled at the point that the
47:16final permit decision is made. I think
47:18the 30-day period is effectively to do a
47:21few different things. One is bait
47:22stamping it. The second is digitizing to
47:25the greatest extent feasible. And then
47:27the third is preparing an administrative
47:29record index. And so those those
47:31administrative tasks for the
47:33administrative record are what that
47:3530-day is for. So
47:40without making a motion, I wanted to
47:43suggest to to board members that we
47:46could do two things. we could uh make a
47:48motion to act upon this particular
47:52sorry two fingers now. Um I wanted to
47:56suggest that we could tackle this in two
47:58ways um depending how other board
48:00members see it. one, we could um take
48:04action on this particular item that um
48:07Greg Forest has presented and two, we
48:10could have a separate motion in which we
48:12ask um the department's senior man to
48:17act upon um this concern on digitization
48:22and to report back to us within 60 days
48:24on steps to be taken in the next months
48:28because 2026, as we all know, has the
48:30potential for three very significant
48:33permit appeals given the age of the
48:36Echoat, Button Willow, and um Clean
48:38Harbors permit. And I think that if we
48:41can use something more formal over what
48:44we've done behind the scenes to date to
48:46ask the department to report back on
48:48this and and how we can assist in making
48:50this happen, that could become the the
48:54basis of a second motion.
49:00very much. Do we do we have a motion uh
49:03to consider? Are there reactions to vice
49:05chakar's proposal?
49:08>> Vice chair ra. I move that we adopt the
49:11revisions to the bees standing order on
49:13administration of permit appeals.
49:17>> Thank you. Do we have a second for that?
49:18Oh, board council. If I could just make
49:21a request that we include that change
49:24around the the references to the DTSC's
49:27permitting division and we're going to
49:28keep those and not strike those as we
49:30had proposed in that red line.
49:35you like to amend the motion in response
49:36to
49:37>> yes we can um I don't entirely agree
49:40with it but for simplicity sake I move
49:42that we adopt the revisions to the bees
49:45standing order on administration of
49:47permit appeals and continue to refer to
49:49the department's permitting division
49:52>> vice chair do we have a second
49:57>> I second
49:58>> have a second are there is there any
50:01further discussion any amendments
50:07Okay. If none, Courtney, will you please
50:09call the vote on this first motion?
50:12>> Board members in support of the motion,
50:14please vote by saying I.
50:16>> I.
50:17>> I.
50:18>> Any opposed?
50:21Any abstensions?
50:24Okay. The motion passes unanimously with
50:26five eyes to accept the revisions to the
50:28BES standing order on administration of
50:30permit appeals with including that
50:32reference to DTSC permitting to put back
50:35in.
50:37>> Chair Rickstra.
50:38>> Thank you very much uh Courtney. I'll
50:39now turn it over to Vice Chair Stacker
50:42for um the the um her proposal on the
50:45second motion related to this.
50:47>> I I invite some word smithing by my
50:50board members here. Um, but I move that
50:53we, the board, ask the DTSC senior
50:58management team to report back to us
51:00within 60 days on steps to be taken to
51:04digitize
51:06um, per final permit decision files
51:10such that we could report back at our
51:12January meeting on what to expect in the
51:15coming months.
51:18Start full motion.
51:22Someone help me out with something
51:23better worded.
51:35I think I'm just frantically scram uh
51:37scribbling this down. So, um, we have a
51:39motion to ask DTSC's senior management
51:43team to report back within 60 days on
51:47their efforts to digitize the final
51:50permit decision files so as to have an
51:53update at our January board meeting.
51:56That correctly?
51:59>> Yes. Could
52:01I make a suggestion that maybe in
52:04addition that it's not restricted to the
52:07board meeting also be just internal?
52:13>> I agree. But I do think it's important
52:15given
52:16those who participate from the public in
52:18our board meetings to expect that by the
52:21time we convene in January, we would be
52:23able to report back on where this stand.
52:29uh can we strengthen the language a
52:31little bit to say not just report on the
52:33effort but report on the timeline and
52:34what's required to achieve full digitiz
52:37full digitization because then we can
52:39get into solutioning
52:42I agree
52:49um so we have a so was that a prop an
52:52amendment to it um so
52:56I guess my my my on amendment to that
52:59amendment would be not um it I don't
53:02know if the goal is full digitization of
53:05every single permit decision. So I think
53:07I think I guess I would just strike the
53:09full there. I think what I'm at least
53:11most concerned about is the those you
53:14know is anticipating the permit appeals
53:17that are likely to come before us as the
53:18board and getting ahead of those. So I
53:21think it would be um
53:24uh so as to
53:27well I don't know can you read back your
53:28your proposed amendment uh as a result
53:32>> mine was going to expand on the effort
53:34piece to add timeline and what's
53:36required to achieve digitization of the
53:40uh final permit decision files
53:47administrative records
53:49>> final
53:50decision files.
53:55>> 60 days would be after our next
54:03>> Yeah, I think it should be tied to the
54:04>> Can we just tie it to the next board
54:06meeting? Whatever that is.
54:17So, what I understand the motion to be
54:19right now is that we're moving that we
54:21ask DTSC senior management team to
54:23report back prior to the next board
54:26meeting on their efforts to digitize uh
54:30the final permit decision files
54:35and then as amended by board member
54:38Batia to include the timeline and what's
54:40required
54:43digitization of the final administrative
54:45record of a permit decision.
54:54Okay. So, we have an addition at the end
54:56on to include the timeline and what is
54:58required to digitize the record.
55:04There a second for that motion.
55:07>> I'll second. Gomez, there is there any
55:10board discussion on this particular
55:15um I guess I'll just say I mean I don't
55:18um
55:20I think uh I I I intend to continue to
55:24work with DTSC on on how to do this. I
55:26don't think this is like a one-off, you
55:28know, effort. I think it's in the
55:29board's broader interest and in our role
55:32as chair as vice chair to continue to
55:34work with DTSC on what is feasible and
55:36what is practical on how to move to a uh
55:39digital future for our permit appeals.
55:42Um I know that there are efforts within
55:45DTSC for example at federal EPA to get
55:49the authority to require uh dig uh
55:52digital documents to be submitted. So,
55:55um, all that to say, I don't view this,
55:58uh, this this motion or this effort as,
56:02um, you know, fundamentally different
56:05from our continued effort to achieve
56:07this. But I think this is a way to, uh,
56:09put a timeline on it, to, um, put put a
56:13a public transparency element on this
56:16uh, as well, and to put um, kind of the
56:19the the imperimentter of the full board
56:21behind this whole effort.
56:24Um, so, uh, with that, um, is the motion
56:27is the motion clear? It's clear to me.
56:29Is the motion clear to the clerks who
56:31are taking these down? You
56:33>> I just want to make sure it's clear to
56:34me if I could be helpful there. So, um,
56:36what you're really looking for here is a
56:38report to the board at the board
56:39meeting. So, a presentation from
56:42permitting at the board meeting. And I
56:44>> not from permitting. We said
56:46>> or from the from DTSC leadership,
56:47>> the senior management team.
56:49>> Senior management. Okay. And then is
56:52there do you want something submitted in
56:54advance in writing from them? Slides or
56:57something or
57:02>> Yeah, I think that would be a a normal
57:04part of the a presentation process.
57:07>> Yeah.
57:07>> Yeah.
57:07>> Like a like it's an item.
57:09>> Yeah.
57:10>> I'm just I know I know I'm just with I'm
57:14just going to be realistic here. Um we
57:16have holidays coming up. Uh our board
57:18meeting is right after the holidays. I'm
57:20just not sure if you're going to get
57:22like a timeline and details and all of
57:24that in 60 days um or before our next
57:26board meeting. I think this may be an
57:30ongoing discussion. So, I'm just sharing
57:33that that we may I I understand the need
57:35and the desire and there are many
57:38hurdles on digitization and we want to
57:40get there. I'm just I'm not sure if
57:42we're going to get
57:45>> member.
57:48So the way I'm seeing this is a report
57:50on what exists today. So if they
57:51continue down this path of digitization
57:53the way they are approaching it today,
57:55what will be the timeline and and if we
57:57were to change that collectively, what
57:58is required? I think it gives us a kind
58:00of a current state of what exists in
58:02terms of the digitization plans versus
58:04trying to change it so that we can
58:05figure out how to help them. I that's
58:07what I'm hearing.
58:07>> So are you all wanting to know like how
58:09much is it going to cost? What are the
58:11needs? Because now from that's the
58:13hurdle right is that digitization
58:18budget and that's the the challenge. Is
58:20that what you all are looking for?
58:22>> No. No. Okay. I think that that is sort
58:25of the classic 1980 way of going about
58:28this of let's take a year to think about
58:30doing a contract and then let's take a
58:32year to award the contract and then
58:33let's take and yet we're looking at
58:36three major permit decisions in the next
58:3812 months regardless of Thanksgiving,
58:40Christmas, New Year's, etc. So I don't
58:42think we have time um to to describe the
58:46status quo ante. I think we have to
58:49think about what are different ways
58:50forward and we've learned that there
58:54could be um for example equipment
58:57wheeled into a file room that will
58:59digitize and bait stamp a document um as
59:02opposed to what I did um as a young
59:05whippers snapper where I was sitting
59:06there with a handstamp. Um, so let's ask
59:10DTSC to come back and say what's the
59:12best way forward. I don't want to hear
59:15some ridiculous multi-million dollar
59:17estimate and three years of why it can't
59:20be done, but rather what are different
59:22ways forward? How can we partner with
59:24people who have an interest in the
59:26record? How can we have equipment come
59:29into the file room and do some of this
59:31with the most critical? How can we set a
59:33particular date like starting from the
59:36last permit decision going forward let's
59:38focus on the critical documents not on
59:41everything from the time the ark was
59:43floated. Um so I just think that I'm
59:46looking for a different way forward not
59:47the same excuses of the last 20 years.
59:52So can I just uh to put a final point
59:54then on the what's required essentially
59:56we're getting to if your current
59:58timeline looks like this what are the
1:00:00different options what's required for us
1:00:02to achieve that full digitization of the
1:00:04administrative record starting 2026 the
1:00:07three big decisions coming up in 2026
1:00:09okay so does that help you Greg answer
1:00:13the question of what is required
1:00:15>> it does that is helpful and you know
1:00:17keep in mind that the board has
1:00:20authority to hear the permit decision
1:00:23schedule, right? So, we're talking about
1:00:26permit decisions that are on that list
1:00:29of, you know, past due or, you know, and
1:00:33so I think what we're seeing and what
1:00:36we're saying here is that we're
1:00:37foreseeing appeals on these and we want
1:00:40to get a check-in and make sure that
1:00:41we're not going to have more delays or
1:00:43that we're going to be able to, you
1:00:45know, see this digitization occurring
1:00:47more in line with the board's
1:00:48expectations and that DTSC's permitting
1:00:52can turn to us and say, "Yes, we know
1:00:54what you want and we're in a position
1:00:56now to do that or you know this is the
1:01:00the what keeps us from doing that you
1:01:02know
1:01:06>> thanks very much um so just so I
1:01:08understand the the motion that's on the
1:01:10table so we have a motion that to move
1:01:12that we ask DTSC senior management team
1:01:15to report back uh at the next board
1:01:18meeting on uh efforts to digitize final
1:01:21permit decision files
1:01:24um to include the timeline and what is
1:01:30required to digitize the records. Is
1:01:33that a correct recap of the
1:01:36>> Okay.
1:01:37Okay. Well, why don't we just be super
1:01:39clear? Why don't we get a second on that
1:01:42again? Is there a second
1:01:44at that? Okay.
1:01:45>> Um so, are there any other discussion?
1:01:49Any other amendments? And if not, then
1:01:51we'll ask Courtney to go ahead and
1:01:54please call the vote.
1:01:55>> Thank you, Chair Raikstraw. All uh board
1:01:58members in support of the motion, please
1:02:00vote by saying I.
1:02:01>> I.
1:02:02>> I.
1:02:02>> Any opposed?
1:02:05Any abstensions?
1:02:08Okay, we have five eyes. The motion
1:02:09passes unanimously for DTSC senior
1:02:12management to report back at the January
1:02:14board meeting with the efforts to
1:02:17finalize the digitization of records
1:02:20including the timeline and requirements
1:02:22that will be included for the permit
1:02:24decision files.
1:02:27Okay, Chair Rakesstraw,
1:02:29>> thank you very much Courtney and thank
1:02:30you to the board for that really good
1:02:31discussion. Um so we are now um next on
1:02:36the docket is agenda item four. We are
1:02:38actually a bit ahead of time. Um, so I'd
1:02:41actually like to pause right here. We'll
1:02:42take a brief break and then we'll
1:02:44reconvene. Why don't we go ahead and
1:02:46reconvene? It is what um 10:03 right
1:02:51now. Why don't we reconvene at uh 10:20,
1:02:54so 5 minutes after the currently
1:02:56scheduled time, and then we will um
1:03:00start uh agenda item number four. So,
1:03:03thank you so much for the useful and
1:03:04productive morning discussion. We'll
1:03:06take a 15-minute break.
1:03:08>> Thank you. All right. Welcome back
1:03:10everyone joining us on Zoom and in
1:03:13person. It is now 10:25 and we do
1:03:16maintain a quorum by having four of the
1:03:18five board members present. Uh Chair
1:03:21Raikstraw, we are ready to proceed with
1:03:23agenda item number four, the DTSC 2025
1:03:27hazardous waste management plan.
1:03:30>> Thank you very much, Courtney. Um, so we
1:03:33will, as you said, now move into agenda
1:03:34item number four, where the board will
1:03:36consider whether to approve DTSC's 2025
1:03:40hazardous waste management plan. SB 158
1:03:44provides that the hazardous waste
1:03:45management plan will serve as a
1:03:47comprehensive planning document for the
1:03:49management of hazardous waste in
1:03:50California as an information source to
1:03:53guide state and local hazardous waste
1:03:55management and as a guide for DTSC in
1:03:58implementing its hazardous waste
1:04:00management program. SB 158 provides 12
1:04:03additional areas that the plan must also
1:04:05address. The board held a total of four
1:04:07public hearings on the draft plan. The
1:04:10first hearing took place on March 20th
1:04:12of this year in Fresno. Our second
1:04:13hearing took place on April 24th in
1:04:15Berkeley. Our third hearing took place
1:04:17on May 15th in Cypress. And our final
1:04:20hearing took place on July 14th uh here
1:04:22in Sacramento. Since those hearings, in
1:04:25collaboration with the board's hazardous
1:04:27waste management plan subcommittee, DTSC
1:04:30has revised their plan based on board
1:04:32and public public feedback and published
1:04:35a revised plan on October 10th. On
1:04:38October 29th, bees hosted a virtual Zoom
1:04:41webinar where DTSC Hazardous Waste
1:04:43Management Program Director Mandy Bane
1:04:46presented DTSC's updates to the plan. We
1:04:50heard from several webinar participants
1:04:52that provided remarks on the plan as
1:04:53well. In addition, board members, board
1:04:56staff, and DTSC have met with several
1:04:59community partners regarding the plan
1:05:01over the past few months. The board has
1:05:03carefully reviewed and considered all
1:05:04public comments and feedback in
1:05:06anticipation of today's vote. So, our
1:05:09board staff engineer Shaina Aila will
1:05:11start us off this morning to provide us
1:05:13with an introduction and present the
1:05:15board staff recommendation. We will also
1:05:17be joined by Deputy Director Mandy Bane
1:05:20to share a brief statement. We will then
1:05:23open the floor for board discussion
1:05:24followed by public comments. And after
1:05:27the public comments, the board will
1:05:28consider whether to approve the plan.
1:05:31Um, so over to you Shaina.
1:06:13Is it okay?
1:06:16Okay, got it. Okay, can you all hear me?
1:06:18Sorry about that. We'll go ahead and
1:06:20start over from the first slide, please.
1:06:26Thank you, Chair Rakestro. Good morning,
1:06:27everyone. I'm Shaina Avula, the board
1:06:29staff engineer. Today I will be
1:06:32presenting the technical team's
1:06:33recommendation on the 2025 hazardous
1:06:36waste management plan vote. Next slide
1:06:39please.
1:06:45The BEES hazardous waste management plan
1:06:47subcommittee consists of members Bathia
1:06:50and Brastrom and executive officer
1:06:52Swathy Chararma, four members of the
1:06:54BEES technical team and two members of
1:06:57the BEES operations team. Next slide,
1:07:00please.
1:07:04Today, I'll be discussing the statutory
1:07:06mandate associated with the plan,
1:07:09background and timeline with the board's
1:07:11role in the plan, revisions to the plan,
1:07:13and the technical team staff
1:07:15recommendation.
1:07:17Next slide, please.
1:07:21DTSC prepares a hazardous waste
1:07:24management plan every 3 years and
1:07:26presents it to the board for approval.
1:07:28The plan is based on 12 statutory
1:07:30mandates included in HSC25135
1:07:34as part of SB 158. Next slide, please.
1:07:42Prior to release of the first draft plan
1:07:44in March, the plan subcommittee met
1:07:46regularly with DTSC staff responsible
1:07:48for preparing the plan. The board is
1:07:51mandated to hold three hearings. The
1:07:53hearings were held in March, April, and
1:07:55May. Due to public requests, a fourth
1:07:58hearing was held in July. The board and
1:08:01staff met with several community
1:08:02organizations, residents, and industry
1:08:05representatives to discuss the draft
1:08:07plan. Bees staff and DTSC staff
1:08:11collaborated, incorporated board members
1:08:13comments, considered public comments,
1:08:16and re revised the draft plan as they
1:08:18deemed appropriate. The 2025 plan was
1:08:21released on October 10th. Next slide,
1:08:24please.
1:08:29Let's take a look at the timeline from
1:08:31the hearings through the vote. After the
1:08:33four hearings and the release of the
1:08:352025 plan, EEES and DTSC presented on
1:08:39the plan at a virtual webinar on October
1:08:4229th. Today, the board will vote to
1:08:45approve or deny the 2025 plan. Next
1:08:49slide, please.
1:08:53The technical team conducted a
1:08:54comprehensive review of the 2025 plan,
1:08:57including an evaluation of alignment
1:09:00with statutory requirements and an
1:09:02assessment of how board direction and
1:09:04public feedback was incorporated.
1:09:06DTSE restructured the 2025 plan for
1:09:10clarity with an updated vision. The plan
1:09:13emphasizes source reduction and reflects
1:09:15upon three updated goals aligned with
1:09:17what DTSC has the capacity to accomplish
1:09:21over the three-year plan horizon. Draft
1:09:24plan recommendation 7.2 which proposed
1:09:27to identify and evaluate alternative
1:09:29management standards for non-riggressil
1:09:31was removed from the plan at the
1:09:33direction of the board at hearing number
1:09:35three and is not included in the 2025
1:09:37plan.
1:09:38The technical team believes the 2025
1:09:41plan satisfies the board's direction.
1:09:44Next slide, please.
1:09:49On behalf of the technical team, we
1:09:51recommend the board approve the 2025
1:09:54plan recognizing the 2025 plans
1:09:57extensive updates, improved clarity, and
1:09:59its alignment with statutory
1:10:01requirements. Next, we'll hear from DTSC
1:10:04on the 2025 plan. Thank you.
1:10:07And uh Chair Raikstra, can I just add
1:10:10for the record at uh 10:30, Member Gomez
1:10:13joined us, so we have all members
1:10:14present. Thank you.
1:10:19>> Thank you very much, Courtney. Um and
1:10:20thank you, Shaya. Um Deputy Director
1:10:22Bane, please. Over to you.
1:10:25>> Great. Thank you, Chair Rickstra, and um
1:10:28thank you, Shaina, and uh the technical
1:10:32team who worked so closely with us as we
1:10:35refined the plan. Um, I really
1:10:38appreciated your thoughtfulness as we
1:10:39reviewed feedback and revised the goals
1:10:41and recommendations together. And I also
1:10:44want to extend a very heartfelt thank
1:10:46you to my staff within the hazardous
1:10:48waste management program who've worked
1:10:50tirelessly on this firstofits-kind plan.
1:10:54They each possess a remarkable level of
1:10:57expertise in hazardous waste management
1:11:00and a true passion for protecting all
1:11:02Californians and the environment. Thank
1:11:04you for all your hard work and
1:11:06dedication.
1:11:08As most of you know, uh SB158 set out a
1:11:12mandate for DTSC to deliver a report
1:11:14every 3 years and a hazardous waste
1:11:17management plan every 3 years. That
1:11:19first report was released in 2023.
1:11:23After that, we held 10 technical
1:11:25workshops in 2024 and released the draft
1:11:29plan in March of this year. Since then,
1:11:32we have presented at those four board
1:11:34hearings, received feedback from the
1:11:36board and the public, and then worked
1:11:39collaboratively with uh the board staff
1:11:42to revise the draft plan. We really
1:11:45worked to address the concerns that we
1:11:47heard and to enhance the clarity of the
1:11:49narrative, goals, and recommendations.
1:11:53The result of this work is the 2025
1:11:55hazardous waste management plan that is
1:11:58an aspirational plan. It's clear and
1:12:01it's direct. It really is a stepping
1:12:04stone toward identifying strategies
1:12:06needed for the future of hazardous waste
1:12:08management. The plan includes goals and
1:12:11recommendations that will allow DTSC to
1:12:14better support source reduction. We are
1:12:17working to more thoroughly evaluate the
1:12:20source reduction data that exists now to
1:12:23better understand efforts that have
1:12:26already been made and how hazardous
1:12:28waste generators have the ability uh to
1:12:32implement source reduction initiatives.
1:12:35The plan also includes recommendations
1:12:37that will allow DTSC to identify how we
1:12:41can divert hazardous waste away from
1:12:43landfills and incinerators, which are
1:12:45the least preferred strategies in the
1:12:48hazardous waste management hierarchy.
1:12:50The goals and recommendations in this
1:12:52first plan are intended to ensure
1:12:54hazardous waste is handled safely and
1:12:58appropriately within the system that
1:13:00exists today and with an eye towards
1:13:02waste management strategies needed for a
1:13:06healthy and sustainable future.
1:13:09We have also recently heard concerns
1:13:12with recommendation 1.2 in the plan. our
1:13:16intentions with the evaluation of
1:13:18federal recycling exemptions and
1:13:20exclusions
1:13:22um is in alignment with what we've heard
1:13:25from the board and interested parties.
1:13:28However, to make sure that the shared
1:13:31intentions
1:13:32um regarding this comprehensive
1:13:34evaluation of federal recycling
1:13:37exemptions and inclusions are very
1:13:39clear. We have provided language to the
1:13:42board to consider that would clearly
1:13:45state the purpose of the evaluations and
1:13:48I look forward to having that discussion
1:13:50momentarily.
1:13:52In addition, I want to reiterate that
1:13:54the plan itself does not change any laws
1:13:57or regulations.
1:13:59Recommendations to review and understand
1:14:01what the rest of the country and world
1:14:03are doing are an opportunity to learn
1:14:06from mistakes and understand best
1:14:08practices. In that review process, we
1:14:11will be looking to understand how those
1:14:14best p best practices may be applied in
1:14:17California with California's health and
1:14:20environmental protections as strong as
1:14:22ever.
1:14:24A truly transformative system requires
1:14:27input from all interested parties,
1:14:29communities, tribal nations, other state
1:14:32agencies, local governments,
1:14:34researchers, academia, and the regulated
1:14:36community to work alongside DTSC to
1:14:40understand how we create the sustainable
1:14:42future in which all Californians thrive
1:14:46free from harm by hazardous waste. The
1:14:49plan brings together recommendations on
1:14:52numerous topics in a complicated network
1:14:54of management. We have begun to evaluate
1:14:58tasks required to implement the
1:15:00recommendations and what resources we
1:15:02can dedicate to each. As implementation
1:15:05progresses, there will be continuing
1:15:08opportunity for engagement. Some
1:15:11recommendations will rely on formal
1:15:13public engagement processes like
1:15:15rulemaking while others will use
1:15:17reporting in future hazardous waste
1:15:19management reports and plans and other
1:15:22engagement points specific to each
1:15:24recommendation.
1:15:26We look forward to continued
1:15:27coordination with the board of
1:15:29environmental safety and to share our
1:15:32progress and continuing engagement on
1:15:34the future of hazardous waste management
1:15:36in our state. Thank you.
1:15:41Thank you very much um deputy director.
1:15:43Um so uh that concludes the introductory
1:15:47presentations. I think we'll now open it
1:15:49up for board discussion. Um after board
1:15:52discussion we'll then move to public
1:15:54comment. So who would like to kick off
1:15:56the the board discussion here this
1:15:58morning?
1:16:03Please
1:16:08Shaina and thank you Mandy. First I want
1:16:12to start by thanking the team that has
1:16:15been working tirelessly behind the
1:16:17scenes to edit the plan in front of us.
1:16:21Uh, thank you Mandy, Gabby, Ryan,
1:16:24Kenneth, Sean, Lubna, Spencer, Kayla,
1:16:29Tom, Karen, and Phiz. Uh, the reason I
1:16:33want to take a moment to acknowledge
1:16:34them is those are the invisible
1:16:37uh, teams working behind the scenes and
1:16:39they have made a lot of changes to not
1:16:42just listen to feedback, but also to
1:16:45triangulate the feedback and arrive at
1:16:47this updated version. uh acknowledging
1:16:50that sometimes arriving at an updated
1:16:52version requires balancing points of
1:16:55view that might actually run counter to
1:16:57each other. So, thank you for taking the
1:16:59time to do this um and for your
1:17:00continued passion. Um second, I I want
1:17:05to acknowledge also that this has been a
1:17:08journey for those of us on the
1:17:10subcommittee
1:17:11uh to get from the first version of the
1:17:14plan to the second version of the plan.
1:17:16it. Um, for those of you that have
1:17:19tracked the discourse know that we set
1:17:22out with a very high bar. We wanted our
1:17:26plan to have a great degree of precision
1:17:29in terms of what actions DTSC will take
1:17:32and when it will take them and what will
1:17:34the outcomes of those actions look like.
1:17:37And over this course of the last year
1:17:41and working with DTSC,
1:17:43one thing that's become clear to me is
1:17:46there is a a lot of work that's required
1:17:50to drive this nth degree of precision
1:17:53and perfection that I personally might
1:17:55desire. Uh and what we really need to
1:17:59collectively make happen is progress
1:18:01against the actions in the plan. So, so
1:18:04today I'm trying to balance the so my
1:18:06desire for perfection on the plan to my
1:18:09desire to also see progress against the
1:18:11actions that are included in the plan.
1:18:14Um, and that is the lens I'm bringing
1:18:15today. Um, I also want to reflect that
1:18:19the the language that Mandy used today
1:18:21about stepping stone is a really
1:18:24critical one. I I wish the the sto the
1:18:27step was steeper. uh however it is a
1:18:30stepping stone and I also believe that
1:18:33it is a good place for us to keep making
1:18:35continual progress. Um so that is again
1:18:38another lens I'm bringing is this what
1:18:40does progress look like? Is this a good
1:18:42first step for us to make further
1:18:45progress against? Uh I would I I do have
1:18:48one sort of very tactical set of actions
1:18:52that I see us taking as a subcommittee.
1:18:55Uh once this ver we get past this plan
1:18:59version, I would like to see us get back
1:19:02into our recurring syncs with DTSC's
1:19:04hazardous waste management plan team led
1:19:06by Mandy to get into line by line uh
1:19:10action list within the plan to
1:19:12understand what is the progress being
1:19:13made, how can we further accelerate the
1:19:17progress against those steps and um what
1:19:20is required? What is the what can we do
1:19:23as a board to help unlock DTSC to make
1:19:26sure that progress is happening and
1:19:28where do we need to make changes? How do
1:19:29we measure our progress and bring use
1:19:32our subcommittees to refine the
1:19:35definition of progress and then bring
1:19:36them back to the rest of the board and
1:19:38to stakeholders on what that progress
1:19:40looks like. I think that is a critical
1:19:41role for role for us to place to
1:19:43translate the plan to progress and then
1:19:45be accountable.
1:19:48>> Those are my reflections.
1:19:50very much. Member Batia,
1:19:56member Brastrom
1:20:01share ne uh next and I do do have quite
1:20:03a few reflections and um um but I want
1:20:07to start with with some of the things
1:20:09that I um appreciate about the the new
1:20:12plan. Um, you know, one is is one of my
1:20:15big concerns around the previous
1:20:16version, uh, you know, was that it
1:20:19appeared to be a smorgusborg of
1:20:21unrelated,
1:20:23um, you know, measures that weren't
1:20:25driving toward like a a common goal or
1:20:27or or vision for the state. And I really
1:20:29have always seen that the hazardous
1:20:30waste management plan is meant to to
1:20:33really be like the visionary document of
1:20:36where we want to get to as a state. And
1:20:37I and I um and so I you know I think the
1:20:41last version lacked that you know
1:20:44clarity of focus. So uh you know I for
1:20:47one do appreciate the simplification uh
1:20:49of the plan and kind of the the
1:20:51reorganization really with you know
1:20:53three driving goals around which the
1:20:57rest of the plan is organized. Now
1:20:59whether or not I agree with the vision
1:21:01I'll talk about in in a minute. I think
1:21:03in terms of how to approach the
1:21:05hazardous waste management plan that is
1:21:07that is more in line uh and getting us
1:21:10closer to to what I believe is the right
1:21:12structure for for a plan. Um you know
1:21:15some of the other things that I
1:21:17appreciate in the plan is the focus on
1:21:18source reduction um you know
1:21:21particularly around the reestablishment
1:21:22of the long overdue waste reduction
1:21:24program um that we haven't that you know
1:21:27that basically was defunded in 2012. um
1:21:30you know other things toward that end is
1:21:32um you know uh integrating the community
1:21:36considerate cleanups um you know in into
1:21:39DTSC's programming re you know a
1:21:41commitment to refunding um cleanup and
1:21:44vulnerable communities initiative CBCI
1:21:46um and making SB14 reports publicly
1:21:49available. I think those are all moving
1:21:51us in the right direction with a focus
1:21:53on source reduction which in my mind was
1:21:56a key focus of SB 158. And so there are
1:22:00definitely provisions in this plan that
1:22:02move us in in that direction that was
1:22:04envisioned um by 158. Um, so some of my
1:22:08continuing concerns, um, you know, I
1:22:11think, you know, we've talked a lot
1:22:12about this, um, but in in developing a
1:22:16vision of where we want to go as a
1:22:18state, um, I believe 158 was very clear
1:22:21that we wanted to to to have a uh,
1:22:26numerical goal, a reduction goal. Um and
1:22:30um I I I you know having have many
1:22:33conversations with DTSC I understand you
1:22:36know that in an ideal world we would be
1:22:39extremely data driven. We would have
1:22:41perfect data in order to really inform
1:22:43you know kind of those reduction goals.
1:22:45Um but in the absence of that I would
1:22:47have really liked to have seen um still
1:22:51you know even an aspirational goal
1:22:53really setting the course of what we
1:22:54want to do as a state. So that I believe
1:22:56is still missing in the plan. Um and I
1:22:59and I also want to acknowledge that I
1:23:01have heard from the public um you know
1:23:03concerns about you know this being a
1:23:05deregulatory
1:23:07um scheme and I am sensitive to that
1:23:10because we are not operating in a
1:23:11vacuum. I think on on on its face this
1:23:13plan you wouldn't you wouldn't see it on
1:23:15its face. um you there's no deregulation
1:23:18here and I understand anything that
1:23:19would happen in the future you know it
1:23:22would be you know many many years um in
1:23:24the making and there's lots of processes
1:23:26but I I am sensitive um to what I've
1:23:29heard from stakeholders because of you
1:23:32know some of the things that I read in
1:23:34the previous plan um you know and and
1:23:36and I will you know note that I myself
1:23:40one of probably my biggest concerns um
1:23:43you know was wanting to avoid a situ
1:23:46situation where we see permitting
1:23:47streamlining or um you know a move
1:23:51toward um you know making permitting
1:23:54easier by by reducing some of those
1:23:56standards that we have here. So um you
1:23:59know I I do appreciate the change in
1:24:021.2. It was very important to me. Um you
1:24:05know I think in the last iteration uh
1:24:07you know I made it very clear that I did
1:24:09not think it was appropriate to do an
1:24:11assessment of the Tanner Act. um
1:24:13particularly with the analysis in the in
1:24:15the appendix that really focused on you
1:24:17know the the the very few community
1:24:20protections that we had in the Tanner
1:24:22Act which are in my mind not AC
1:24:24adequate. Um but that was where the
1:24:26attention was on the last analysis and
1:24:28so it did raise some flags for me. Um
1:24:31and so I definitely appreciate you know
1:24:33working with DTSC over the past couple
1:24:35of days on on on removing um you know uh
1:24:39reference to the Tanner Act. Um and and
1:24:42then also including and and making sure
1:24:43that as we look at you know exclusions
1:24:47um you know that we are really putting a
1:24:49highlight on on public health um you
1:24:52know and and and and community
1:24:55protections and embed that into that
1:24:56recommendation. So I I very much thank
1:24:58DTSC for working with me on on those
1:25:01revisions.
1:25:02Um so uh I think I'll I'll I'll leave it
1:25:06there. I do look forward to hearing from
1:25:08from the public. Um and and I look
1:25:11forward to having more conversation with
1:25:12the board after we hear from from
1:25:17>> Thank you very much. Member Brostrom
1:25:20or Gomez or Vice Chair Stacker.
1:25:23>> I I'll be happy to
1:25:26give my beginning thoughts and I do want
1:25:29to hear from the public
1:25:32um to conclude my remarks afterwards.
1:25:36But um I I also want to acknowledge uh
1:25:41the DTSC's team in terms of working with
1:25:44the community, working with us and
1:25:46really reshaping uh reframing and
1:25:50reshaping this new draft.
1:25:52um want to acknowledge that
1:25:56um
1:25:58one of the things that and and I echo
1:26:00everything that Ingret has stated
1:26:02actually so I won't repeat but one of
1:26:05the things that I was pretty clear from
1:26:08day one and and related to this
1:26:10conversation and I continue to to really
1:26:14hold on to is the benchmarks that are
1:26:18still absent from this draft um that
1:26:21were really critical ical for me. A it's
1:26:23in the in the in in the legislation in
1:26:28terms of what should be incorporated,
1:26:32but yet it's still very much silent. And
1:26:34I hear staff um in terms of the why. But
1:26:39one of the things that I'm struggling
1:26:41with um
1:26:43is is that particular piece that is
1:26:45missing and it's pretty significant uh
1:26:47from someone that comes from the EJ
1:26:49movement um from an EJ community um from
1:26:53the advocacy world um benchmarks are
1:26:57what we hold on to as advocates as a
1:27:01community member that lives in EJ still
1:27:04lives lives in the EJ community. So to
1:27:06not have that um that is the
1:27:09accountability, the target um work in
1:27:12which we're stating this is what we're
1:27:14going to strive for. So that's something
1:27:16that I'm still struggling with that
1:27:18we're absent. Um and I I I want to hear
1:27:22from the public. Um and perhaps this
1:27:25will be a very lively conversation
1:27:28today, but um yeah, so looking forward
1:27:32to the future conversations
1:27:35and how all of this shapes up um as we
1:27:38move forward. But um yeah, that's that's
1:27:42that's where I'm at at this at this
1:27:43moment. And uh but I do want to
1:27:47acknowledge DTSC staff um and I see the
1:27:50director here in the audience. So thank
1:27:52you. Um, and I'm only hoping that we can
1:27:55only do better. As I stated, I'm coming
1:27:58at this conversation. I'm coming as a
1:28:00board member from an EJ lens, and I will
1:28:03always come from that perspective. So,
1:28:06the fact that that's not incorporated,
1:28:10uh, we shall see. So, thank you,
1:28:13>> member Gomez,
1:28:15Vice Chair Stacker, and then I'll
1:28:17provide my reflections.
1:28:19>> Thank you, Chair Rickstro. Um, thank you
1:28:21to Director Butler and Deputy Director
1:28:24Bane and their team for working with us
1:28:26so intensively. I'm reflecting on u the
1:28:30fact that in just three and a half four
1:28:32months we'll be looking at the next
1:28:34hazardous waste management report and
1:28:36I've been thinking about what it might
1:28:38contain and how do we begin to look at
1:28:42um the focus of that data gathering
1:28:44effort to inform implementation of
1:28:47whatever actions DTSC takes going
1:28:49forward after today. I'm very much
1:28:52looking forward to the public comment
1:28:53we're going to hear and thank everyone
1:28:56who took the time to prepare such
1:28:58thoughtful comments which I know all of
1:29:00us have taken very seriously. One of the
1:29:03things that I'm interested in is taking
1:29:05some of the more um maybe they're
1:29:08contentious or controversial, but some
1:29:10of the more complicated elements of the
1:29:13plan and I'll pick one for example, the
1:29:15wet test and going about what happens
1:29:19with looking at the wet test um in a
1:29:22couple of ways. One, I think it's always
1:29:25important after the long history that
1:29:27DTSC and its predecessor agency has in
1:29:30implementing the hazardous waste program
1:29:32that we look at ways that might need to
1:29:34be modernized. They may just be
1:29:36citations. They may be other
1:29:38developments in the field, but I do
1:29:41think that it's important to continue to
1:29:43push on the science of it and whether we
1:29:46are up to date and doing what we should
1:29:48be doing. But how we go about doing that
1:29:51matters greatly to me. And I think that
1:29:54in this and a couple of other examples,
1:29:56if we could um embrace the notion of
1:29:59doing this in a public forum, possibly
1:30:02something that this board and DTSC would
1:30:05co-host in a forum like this where you
1:30:08can be present in person, you could be
1:30:10present online, but we would convene a
1:30:13panel of experts on the wet test to talk
1:30:16about what it is and how it works and
1:30:19what recommendations they may have um
1:30:22for updating the wet test. What would be
1:30:24the consequences of doing that? What are
1:30:26the shortcomings of the current element
1:30:29of wet test implementation? I just think
1:30:31that we could lift um up our shared
1:30:34understanding of that and together um
1:30:37get to a different place on whether or
1:30:39not the wet test should be updated and
1:30:41what that would mean. But I would rather
1:30:43do that rather than having um the sort
1:30:46of classic route in which an agency
1:30:48forms its own internal work group and
1:30:50does its thinking and then brings a
1:30:52recommendation to the public. I would
1:30:54rather that we were part of that
1:30:55conversation at the front end on this
1:30:58for example and able to have um people
1:31:01in the audience submit questions to the
1:31:03experts that can be answered in real
1:31:05time. It doesn't guarantee an outcome,
1:31:08but I would rather change the process so
1:31:10that we can have a more informed
1:31:12conversation around some of the items in
1:31:16this plan where people are concerned
1:31:19that it will lead to a deregulatory
1:31:21outcome or a negative outcome. And I
1:31:24would rather pick out some of those and
1:31:26say we the board will provide the venue.
1:31:30We can invite the experts. You can
1:31:32suggest the experts. Let's have an
1:31:34informed conversation around each of
1:31:36these in a discrete way and move
1:31:38forward. So I would like to try and
1:31:40shape the implementation of the plan
1:31:42going forward in a more public way like
1:31:46that. Another example of that for me is
1:31:50um how we deal with lithium ion
1:31:52batteries. I know there have been
1:31:54communities that have been much affected
1:31:56by storage of lithium ion batteries. I
1:32:00feel like there's so much happening that
1:32:02I'm unaware of in the industry. But what
1:32:04if we had um a panel of experts from
1:32:07around the country around what is
1:32:09possible with lithium ion? What if we
1:32:11started with a panel of experts and used
1:32:14that to then inform DTSC's decision
1:32:17making around that? I just feel that
1:32:19when I look at the plan the timeline
1:32:21that is likely
1:32:24almost two to three years of
1:32:26implementation and by that point um
1:32:29there may be a a whole series of other
1:32:31battery technologies that leave our work
1:32:33um being slightly less relevant than we
1:32:35want it to be. So I would love to um at
1:32:39an appropriate time suggest how we might
1:32:42inform early 2025 implementation of
1:32:45certain actions that are key to board
1:32:48members and DTSC and try and do that by
1:32:51hosting a a different way of going
1:32:53forward. So with that um let me turn it
1:32:56back to you chair Bstro.
1:32:58>> Thank you very much vice chair. Um, so I
1:33:00guess I will go ahead now and provide uh
1:33:02my reflections um in a bit different
1:33:06way. I've actually kind of scripted out
1:33:08really thought through some of the way
1:33:09things that that I'd like to say here.
1:33:11So if it appears that I'm reading, I I
1:33:13partially am. Um so I'd like to first
1:33:15start by thanking uh the director uh her
1:33:18team and all the DTS DTSC staff that
1:33:21have been involved in in this effort.
1:33:23Um, I'd like to really appreciate the
1:33:25board staff and the board subcommittee
1:33:27for really digging into this this issue.
1:33:29This has been a really long process and
1:33:31I would like to also acknowledge the
1:33:33changes that have been made uh between
1:33:35the prior draft and this one both in
1:33:37terms of the structure as well as the
1:33:39substance. And I also like to thank the
1:33:41the stakeholders who provided many of
1:33:44which are in this room who provided uh
1:33:46an enormous number of comments. uh and I
1:33:48can assure you that I have read each and
1:33:50every one of them and have really
1:33:52thought through um uh many of the issues
1:33:55that were raised within those comments
1:33:57as well. So here I'd like to talk about
1:33:59what's in the draft plan, what I like in
1:34:01the draft plan, what I don't like, and
1:34:03what I think should come next here. Um
1:34:06assuming approval. So on what I like, um
1:34:09so first I I I do like that the plan now
1:34:12prioritizes reducing generation and
1:34:14increasing diversion. This reflects the
1:34:16comments from both the public and the
1:34:18board. Second, I also like that the plan
1:34:20removes the previous recommendation 7.2
1:34:23on alternative management standards for
1:34:25non-recrisil also following pe feedback
1:34:28from the public and the board. Um third
1:34:31uh the view the plan in my view does
1:34:33meet the statutory requirements in SB
1:34:36158 the um 12 statutory requirements
1:34:38that are in there.
1:34:40Fourth, um I do appreciate that the plan
1:34:43is more neutral in its language on
1:34:45certain contentious issues such as test
1:34:47testing methods to determine toxicity.
1:34:50Um so there is definitely a difference
1:34:54between the prior version which uh
1:34:56assumed certain outcomes in certain
1:34:59instances as compared to this version
1:35:01where these evaluations
1:35:03uh are more neutral in in our in my
1:35:06view. Um, I do think this is a subtle
1:35:09but important shift. Um, and then
1:35:12finally on the things that I like, um, I
1:35:14do particularly like that the I think
1:35:16it's the end of the first paragraph in
1:35:19the introduction to goal two now does
1:35:22include text that explicitly states that
1:35:24recommendations included in this goal
1:35:27uh, are related to the identification of
1:35:29hazardous waste, management methods that
1:35:31reduce health impacts, and
1:35:33identification of waste that may be
1:35:34managed under different standards while
1:35:36remaining as or more protective. So that
1:35:39was to me a really critical addition,
1:35:42the wall remaining as or more
1:35:44protective. Uh that applies to the
1:35:46entirety of everything that's in goal
1:35:49two. And I intend for the board in its
1:35:52oversight role to hold DTSC to the
1:35:54standard that it set for itself. Um so
1:35:57on what I uh don't like, um this is
1:36:00echoing some of the other comments that
1:36:01I've heard. Um first um it does read
1:36:04like a series of uh tasks rather than a
1:36:06complete vision for the future of
1:36:08hazardous waste management in
1:36:09California. For example, much of goal
1:36:12three is a data gathering exercise.
1:36:14After many discussions with DTSC, I
1:36:16understand why this is the case and that
1:36:19um uh and that uh DTSC um has been
1:36:23reluctant to commit to things prior to
1:36:25gathering data and doing the analysis.
1:36:27So I understand why, but I'd still like
1:36:29to point that out. Um second, similarly,
1:36:32the um plan does not include
1:36:34quantitative reduction or diversion
1:36:36goals, echoing the comments from member
1:36:38Gomez. Again, I understand why this is
1:36:41the case and I think this is related to
1:36:42the first issue. Um but I still do think
1:36:46it's a shame. Um third, uh there's no
1:36:48timeline for implementation or
1:36:50indication of which activities have
1:36:52started, which activities are planned,
1:36:55and which activities require additional
1:36:57funding. So kind of given all this um
1:37:01would I propose uh assuming approval on
1:37:03what comes next? Um first I'd like the
1:37:06board to retain uh oversight authority
1:37:09in terms of um how this plan is
1:37:11implemented. Um that could take a number
1:37:14of different forms and different ways.
1:37:17Um, so for example, we could ask that
1:37:19the board develop an implementation plan
1:37:22on kind of what uh and provide it to the
1:37:25board in the early part of 2026 that
1:37:27speaks to these issues of what happens
1:37:29next, how are they funded, uh, and what
1:37:32and when and which of the 27
1:37:34recommendations are prioritized.
1:37:37Similarly, um, I'd also ask that DTSC
1:37:39regularly report to the board in written
1:37:42verbal comments on its efforts to
1:37:44implement this plan. And then finally in
1:37:48terms of the um oversight uh role I I do
1:37:52think that the board should play a role
1:37:54in uh oversight of at least certain of
1:37:57these the particularly contentious
1:37:59recommendations. So we uh can anticipate
1:38:02what those are and we've heard
1:38:03significant public feedback on those. So
1:38:06those include recommendations 1.2 and
1:38:09recommendations 2.2 to 2.5. Um, so I
1:38:14mean I welcome other board members
1:38:15comments, but I do think, you know, it
1:38:16could be uh useful for the board to work
1:38:19with DTSC on the specific implementation
1:38:21of these and other recommendations that
1:38:24the board members are particularly
1:38:26interested similar to what Vice Chair
1:38:28Strauss Hacker has indicated as well.
1:38:31Um, so I'll I'll stop my comments there.
1:38:33Those were kind of my initial
1:38:35reflections and reactions, but like
1:38:37others, I'd really like to turn to the
1:38:39public comment and hear public's uh
1:38:41feedback and reaction as well. I
1:38:42understand there's quite a lot of public
1:38:43interest. So, are there any other board
1:38:45member comments or discussion before we
1:38:49turn it over to Courtney to facilitate
1:38:50public comment?
1:38:54>> Okay. Thank you. Please, Courtney.
1:38:56>> Thank you, Chair Rakest. We're going to
1:38:58open up public comment for agenda item
1:39:00number four, DTSC's 2025 hazardous waste
1:39:03management plan. Yes. And we'll go ahead
1:39:05and have Faith line up. To be fair to
1:39:08all those who wish to comment today, we
1:39:10are limiting comments to three minutes.
1:39:12The timer will be displayed on the
1:39:15screens in the room. If you anticipate
1:39:17your comments will be longer than 3
1:39:19minutes, we invite you to submit your
1:39:21comments to us in writing at beesinfo at
1:39:24bees.dtsc.ca.gov.
1:39:29If you would like to be identified for
1:39:30the record, please state your name and
1:39:32affiliation. We are going to start with
1:39:35those that are joining us in person
1:39:37first and who wish to comment. If you do
1:39:40wish to comment and have not yet
1:39:41received a number, please raise your
1:39:43hand and we will pass out a number to
1:39:45you.
1:39:47Okay, great. Uh then we're going to go
1:39:50ahead and after faith, we're going to
1:39:52ask that the numbers 1 through five line
1:39:55up
1:39:57in the aisle
1:39:59after faith. So we'll go ahead and uh
1:40:01kick things off. So, uh, Faith, you'll
1:40:04have three minutes. Thank you.
1:40:15>> The the board, thank you. You guys have
1:40:17just been really fabulous and thank you
1:40:20for looking after us. Um, and and this
1:40:25is just I mean what my comment will be
1:40:27probably will be the same comment of our
1:40:30colleagues. So
1:40:32we ask you not to approve the hazardous
1:40:35waste plan today. The board has already
1:40:37done the job. You made sure a plan was
1:40:40submitted but you do not need to vote
1:40:42for a plan that is not ready and not
1:40:44good for the people. I think basically
1:40:47you know what the chairman uh vice chair
1:40:49Alexis have said I I I really agreed on
1:40:52what they're saying and if we can and
1:40:55this is what the national diversity
1:40:57coalition and most of our members are
1:41:00really asking to remove the
1:41:02recommendation 2.2 two through 2.5 and
1:41:061.3 from the plan.
1:41:10We have to do a lot of more studies,
1:41:13right? I mean the the experts of this
1:41:15like that the wet test, you know what
1:41:18what's that really mean? What what will
1:41:22be truly the effect of these people? We
1:41:26are serving a lot of the medical
1:41:28providers and they're just throwing a
1:41:30lot of hazardous waste and and them also
1:41:33they're they're not even educated. I
1:41:36think a lot of plan is needed on the
1:41:39marketing and outreach and education.
1:41:43Um,
1:41:45you know, let's work for a better plan,
1:41:48one that reduce toxic waste, cleans up
1:41:51contamination, and truly protects the
1:41:54health of California people.
1:41:56the DTSC. I appreciate all the work and
1:41:59I know it's not easy to create a plan
1:42:02and I know it's not easy to find a
1:42:05balance on what's right but I think for
1:42:08the the board to oversee this and I
1:42:11truly appreciate also that this is the
1:42:14first time I think I've heard that the
1:42:16BS is really taking the the the
1:42:20authority of this of the DTSC plan and
1:42:24DTSC if they can do more um one-on-one
1:42:28outreach, you know, people that can
1:42:30really understand what it means, not
1:42:33just changing the words, but then it
1:42:36would be the same result. So, speak the
1:42:39language of the people that are on the
1:42:44ground, right? The the the the minority
1:42:48groups, the the tribal communities.
1:42:51>> 15 seconds. So, you know, we're here.
1:42:54We've been here and we'll still continue
1:42:57being here for you. Thank you so much.
1:42:59>> Thank you for your comments. The next
1:43:01round of commenters, if you've received
1:43:04numbers 1 through five, you can go ahead
1:43:05and line up in the aisle now.
1:43:08We'll proceed with the next commenter.
1:43:10You have three minutes. Thank you.
1:43:13>> Hi, Kirsten Kopiki. On behalf of the
1:43:15California Council for Environmental and
1:43:16Economic Balance, or seat, I appreciate
1:43:19the opportunity to provide the following
1:43:20comments to you. you consider adoption
1:43:22of the draft hazardous waste management
1:43:24plan. Given the lack of dedicated state
1:43:27resources to advance elements of the
1:43:29plan and the overall complexities of
1:43:31hazardous waste control laws in
1:43:33California, the draft plan rightly
1:43:35attempts to focus on some nearterm
1:43:38uh initial foundational efforts to serve
1:43:40as the basis for broader longerterm
1:43:42goals and objectives related to
1:43:44hazardous waste generation,
1:43:46classification, management, remediation,
1:43:49community impacts, and costs. We believe
1:43:51ongoing engagement of stakeholders will
1:43:53be important to ensure clear
1:43:54understanding of the recommended goals
1:43:56and objectives, the level of workload
1:43:58and cost to advance them and what is
1:44:01reasonably achievable in the near term
1:44:03before the plan is required to be
1:44:04updated and released again. To that end,
1:44:07Cennet's board members CB and its
1:44:09members urge board and department to
1:44:11consider the following with regards to
1:44:13source reduction. SE and its members
1:44:15appreciate the deep interest and
1:44:17priority of reducing the generation of
1:44:18hazardous waste. However, real
1:44:21complexities and challenges exist to
1:44:22meaningful reduction. Further, with
1:44:25ongoing increases in generation and
1:44:26handling fees, there is clear incentive
1:44:29for generators to reduce whenever and
1:44:31wherever possible in their processes.
1:44:34Nevertheless, generators across sectors
1:44:36are continually testing the waters for
1:44:39new processes, recycling, reuse, and
1:44:41other strategies to reduce generation,
1:44:43but not all efforts and pilots uh
1:44:46ultimately work out. Sustainable
1:44:48funding. See continues to have concerns
1:44:50with long-term sustainability of the
1:44:52current DTSC funding structure. We look
1:44:55forward to continued engagement with the
1:44:57department and board on ensuring a
1:44:58well-resourced department while
1:45:00minimizing everinccreasing fees on the
1:45:02regulated community and diminishing
1:45:04hazardous waste permitted facilities.
1:45:06Ultimately, SEB urges the administration
1:45:08and the legislature to commit resources
1:45:10from the general fund uh for the purpose
1:45:13of advancing the elements of the plan
1:45:15and other important DTSC functions given
1:45:18the broad statewide benefit and impact
1:45:20much of this work encompasses water code
1:45:23updates. While SEB hears and con the
1:45:26concerns raised regarding waste
1:45:28classification and alternative
1:45:29management standards, hazardous waste
1:45:31characterization and management for
1:45:33soils and inorganic solid waste is
1:45:36complex and warrants additional
1:45:38discussion and detailed analysis in the
1:45:39coming years. Cross agency collaboration
1:45:42and efficiencies. See urges the
1:45:44department and board through the goals
1:45:46within the plan to leverage existing
1:45:47knowledge study IT systems and
1:45:50regulation by other states and state
1:45:51agencies to ensure maximum efficiency in
1:45:54its work and reliance on the best
1:45:56science wherever possible.
1:45:57>> 15 seconds.
1:45:59>> SEB urges the department and board to
1:46:00establish a stakeholder advisory group
1:46:02made up of a cross-section of regulated
1:46:04entities, community representatives, and
1:46:07environmental organizations with the
1:46:08goal of providing guidance and
1:46:10constructive feedback on the next
1:46:11iteration of the plan. And finally, C
1:46:13believes that the draft plan is a fair
1:46:15starting point and urges the board to
1:46:16adopt the plan presented, albeit with
1:46:18full recognition that much work is left
1:46:20to be done in the coming years. Thank
1:46:21you.
1:46:22>> Thank you for your comments. Next
1:46:24commenter, you'll have three minutes.
1:46:30Okay, thank you. Is this Can people hear
1:46:33me? Okay, great. All right, good
1:46:35morning. Hi, my name is Ivana Castanos
1:46:37with Physicians for Social
1:46:38Responsibility Los Angeles. Uh before I
1:46:41dive into the plan, I want to regground
1:46:43ourselves on this board's purpose and
1:46:45role as we consider what it means to
1:46:47accept or not accept this plan. The
1:46:50board's operating plan states that it
1:46:52will use the precautionary principle to
1:46:54serve its core mission, which is to
1:46:57oversee DTSC's reform. It also reminds
1:47:00us that the board members represent the
1:47:02public's interest, particularly dis
1:47:04disproportionately burden communities
1:47:05and that the board acts to protect
1:47:07public health and reduce risks of of
1:47:09toxic exposure. The board also defines
1:47:12principles for how it will approach this
1:47:14work. Building a culture of
1:47:16transparency, driving accountability,
1:47:18and rebuilding public trust. So, with
1:47:21this in mind, let's return to the plan.
1:47:25In listening and reading the many
1:47:26comments shared over the year and that
1:47:28I'm sure we will keep hearing today,
1:47:30it's clear that environmental justice
1:47:32communities and advocates have raised
1:47:33many concerns about this plan that were
1:47:35not addressed in the revision. The
1:47:37revision also does not address many of
1:47:40the feedback much of the feedback
1:47:42provided by the board itself. The
1:47:44revision may at first glance appear to
1:47:46be more balanced by updating language to
1:47:49say they'll review or evaluate instead
1:47:50of encourage exemptions or weakening
1:47:52standards, for example. But this is a
1:47:54thin veil. The recommendations are
1:47:56virtually unchanged, just reordered and
1:47:59with alarmingly fewer details. without
1:48:02stronger recommendations or additional
1:48:04research provided to substantiate the
1:48:06updated language is reflective of an
1:48:08actual shift in DTSC's interests. I
1:48:10remain concerned that this plan
1:48:11continues to focus on capacity as the
1:48:14driving problem it wants to address
1:48:16rather than reducing risk to public
1:48:17health, preventing exposures, reducing
1:48:20generation of hazardous waste, and
1:48:21cleaning up communities. Instead, this
1:48:24plan invites future deregulation efforts
1:48:26by advancing initiatives that are again
1:48:28and again asking the wrong questions,
1:48:30which will usually lead to the wrong
1:48:32answers, many of which I suspect may be
1:48:35predetermined and were already shared by
1:48:37DTSSE in its first draft of the plan.
1:48:39And who gets to refine or answer these
1:48:41questions? Many of the recommended
1:48:43collaborations include various industry
1:48:45stakeholders, but don't engage impacted
1:48:47communities, public health, or
1:48:48occupational health experts. So, we're
1:48:51continuously asking the wrong questions
1:48:52to an incomplete panel. The revision
1:48:55continues to be inadequate on source
1:48:57reduction as the first draft. Um, and it
1:49:00lacks any meaningful strategy related to
1:49:02addressing contaminant mixtures or other
1:49:03emerging contaminants. I know this has
1:49:06been a long process and you are probably
1:49:08feeling worn down and you may not be
1:49:11sure what even happens next if you don't
1:49:12approve. But these are simply not good
1:49:15enough reasons to approve this plan.
1:49:17Instead, let your own mandates and
1:49:19principles guide you
1:49:20>> in seconds.
1:49:21>> Does this meet its requirements? Does
1:49:23the plan live up to its purpose to serve
1:49:24as a comprehensive planning document?
1:49:27Will accepting this plan reduce risk of
1:49:29toxic exposure? Will accepting this plan
1:49:31improve public health? Will it improve
1:49:33transparency or drive accountability?
1:49:35Will it rebuild public trust? You have
1:49:37the opportunity today to demonstrate to
1:49:38the public and overburdened communities
1:49:40you represent that this board has the
1:49:42willingness to do the difficult and
1:49:43often inconvenient work of oversight.
1:49:45>> Thank you for your comments.
1:49:47Please don't approve.
1:49:49>> Next commenters.
1:49:53>> Thank you. You have three minutes.
1:49:57>> Good morning, Vas. My name is Andrea
1:49:59Loera and I'm an attorney with Earth
1:50:01Justice and I'm here today to quickly
1:50:04summarize a letter that we um signed on
1:50:06to and submitted to you last week just
1:50:08in case anybody didn't have a chance to
1:50:10read it. So last week we submitted a
1:50:12letter. It was over 20 environmental
1:50:15justice coalition me groups and um
1:50:18community members. We submitted a letter
1:50:20asking you to please vote no on the
1:50:22plan. And a big reason we want you to
1:50:24vote no on this plan is because um we
1:50:28find this plan to be extremely
1:50:29deregulatory. And I want to go into what
1:50:31we mean when we say deregulatory.
1:50:34Before that though, I do want to
1:50:36highlight that we do not think this plan
1:50:38is progress and we do not think this
1:50:40plan is visionary. This second draft is
1:50:43virtually unchanged from the first
1:50:45draft. And I think we all know this.
1:50:47Deputy Director Mandy Bane at the
1:50:49October 29th hearing or presentation
1:50:52where she spoke about the plan, she
1:50:54explicitly said that the language was
1:50:55largely the only thing that was changed.
1:50:58She said that the recommendations were
1:50:59largely untouched. DTSC mostly focused
1:51:02on simplifying the language. We don't
1:51:05need a simpler plan. We understood it
1:51:07the first time around. We appreciate
1:51:09that it's easier to read, but that's not
1:51:11what we need. We need a plan that
1:51:13actually protects frontline communities.
1:51:15And this brings us back to the fact that
1:51:16we find this plan to be extremely
1:51:18deregulatory and paving a path for DTSC
1:51:20to adopt more loopholes for industry.
1:51:23And I'm going to take us back to uh
1:51:25recommendation 1.2, formerly 9.2.
1:51:30Three of the board members here did
1:51:32previously express displeasure with this
1:51:34recommendation.
1:51:36Right. And now DTSC has changed
1:51:38language. They are no longer considering
1:51:40whether to adopt these exclusions, but
1:51:43whether they are now reviewing these um
1:51:45exclusions. And we want to highlight
1:51:47that review. Using the word review does
1:51:50not change DTSC's general strategy of
1:51:52wanting to roll back exist existing
1:51:54protections. We already know that
1:51:57recycling is a dirty business. We
1:51:59already know that we need more
1:52:00oversight, not less. As evidenced by
1:52:03Exide, the plan assumes that recycling
1:52:06exemptions and exclusion could advance
1:52:08the goal of reducing hazardous waste.
1:52:10But this is a fallacy. Excluding
1:52:12hazardous waste from the law does not
1:52:14make hazardous waste dangers magically
1:52:16disappear. And that is what these
1:52:18loopholes would essentially do. Why does
1:52:21DTSC need to devote three years of
1:52:25research, review, time, taxpayer monies
1:52:28to reviewing exemptions that would
1:52:30essentially make it easier for industry
1:52:32to adopt exclusions that the federal
1:52:35government has adopted? It is not the
1:52:38time right now for us to stand on par
1:52:41with the federal government as Trump
1:52:43tries to dismantle hazardous law
1:52:45protections. And your mandate, I know
1:52:48you know, is to stand with vulnerable
1:52:50communities. The organizations that
1:52:53submitted these letters, we are the
1:52:54communities or allied with these
1:52:56communities and we're asking you to vote
1:52:58no. This plan does not protect our
1:53:00communities. Thank you for your
1:53:02comments.
1:53:03The next commenters and those that have
1:53:05the numbers uh 5 through 10, you can
1:53:08line up now in the aisle if you would
1:53:10like.
1:53:12>> Hi.
1:53:13>> Hi. You have three minutes.
1:53:14>> First respond. My name is Jenny Knack
1:53:16with Parents Against SSFL. I want to
1:53:17first respond to some of the things I
1:53:19heard the board saying before public
1:53:21comment. And the first one was about
1:53:23bees in the future assuming approval um
1:53:27redefining what progress is.
1:53:30That sounds very dangerous to me.
1:53:32Progress should have been laid out in
1:53:34the plan by DTSC for you to evaluate.
1:53:38If they can't give us a plan, I I highly
1:53:42I'm highly suspect of their ability to
1:53:45meet whatever those guidelines were that
1:53:47you were going to lay out in the future
1:53:49that we won't be able to, you know, help
1:53:51you with.
1:53:53Nor should the BES have to redefine
1:53:56what progress is or help DTSC decide how
1:54:01to devel decide how they're going to
1:54:04develop the plan's implementation. The
1:54:06work plan or at least some type of
1:54:10explicit plan should have been included
1:54:12in this plan as opposed to a loose
1:54:15um
1:54:18a loose outline. I'll say
1:54:22I beg you not to accept excuses or
1:54:24assurances because the plan and an
1:54:26inclusive work plan should be explicit
1:54:29um not forever forthcoming at some
1:54:31future ren rendition of the plan in the
1:54:33future. Um I'm also concerned because we
1:54:36can't implement and imply weaker
1:54:38standards as done in other states or as
1:54:41the federal government is planning to
1:54:43do. Um that
1:54:45is dangerous. I understand it's the
1:54:48easiest thing to do. Um, but I think
1:54:51California can stand strong right now.
1:54:54We should stand strong if we roll back.
1:54:58It it's laying out more work for us in
1:55:00the future. We already have our we
1:55:02already have enough work to do. Let's
1:55:03not go backwards. Um, I do think that
1:55:06this pan plan simply is a pathway to
1:55:08deregulation.
1:55:10Um, there was a a discussion of an
1:55:14expert panel being developed. I'm
1:55:17concerned about that because every
1:55:18expert panel that we've been able to
1:55:21meet with that DTSC has devised has
1:55:23always been hired by the contractors of
1:55:25the responsible parties. They're never
1:55:28scientifically independent.
1:55:30Um DTSC claims that there's a data gap
1:55:32in their ability to identify hazardous
1:55:34waste. Um I want us to just think about
1:55:37that for a second. The Department of
1:55:38Toxic Substance Control is identifying
1:55:42self-identifying a data gap in their own
1:55:45ability to identify hazardous waste. I
1:55:48think that that is completely
1:55:49disingenuous. At our site, we have seen
1:55:52um the explicit refusal to strengthen
1:55:56sampling methodologies.
1:55:58Um
1:56:00>> 15 seconds. I wish this plan was more
1:56:03explicit in its goals and outlined
1:56:08uh
1:56:10goals that are going to be met. It
1:56:12hasn't done that and I think that we
1:56:13should I I beg you to vote no.
1:56:16>> Thank you for your comments. Those that
1:56:18have received numbers 6 through 10, we
1:56:20invite you to go ahead and line up in
1:56:22the aisle now so we can make sure
1:56:24everyone gets an opportunity to comment.
1:56:32Thank you. You'll have three minutes.
1:56:34>> Good morning. I'm Melissa Bumstead with
1:56:36Parent Against Santa Susanna Field Lab.
1:56:38And um first I'd like to thank member
1:56:40Strauss Hacker for her idea of creating
1:56:42the work groups. That is something that
1:56:44as a community we have for a long time
1:56:47advocated for more independent science
1:56:49being actually incorporated into DTSC's
1:56:52decision-making process as well as
1:56:54community meaningful community
1:56:56conversation. I think Jenny is correct
1:56:58in what she said that that needs to be
1:57:00safeguarded. Uh but if it can be done
1:57:02purely and properly, uh I think that
1:57:04would be extremely helpful to have these
1:57:06conversations in a meaningful way and I
1:57:08think we've we've said that through many
1:57:10many uh and we've heard you say that as
1:57:12well that we need to work together
1:57:14instead of decisions being made and
1:57:16forced onto the community. So thank you
1:57:17for that. Um
1:57:20the Santa Susanna Field Lab is kind of a
1:57:22prime example of how this is happening
1:57:24um with with what we're seeing with this
1:57:26hazardous waste management plan. Um
1:57:29given the opportunity, these polluters
1:57:32have a lot of money at stake and they
1:57:35will use any loophole, any soft ground
1:57:38to do insufficient testing to have
1:57:40influence over what is classified as
1:57:41hazardous. they will mclassify hazardous
1:57:44waste and take it to frontline
1:57:46communities into our our municipal
1:57:50landfills. We're seeing that now again
1:57:51with the Santa Susanna Field Lab. They
1:57:53will be testing one out of every 10 t
1:57:56dump trucks of soil. Boeing has
1:57:58preemptively said they will classify 85%
1:58:01of it as non-hazardous and send it to
1:58:03the Seami Valley Municipal Landfill
1:58:05without any any justification. This is
1:58:08what the kind of worst case scenarios
1:58:11that we need you to have the toughest
1:58:13and most stringent and most specific
1:58:16plan possible to prevent this kind of
1:58:19situation from happening all across
1:58:20California.
1:58:22Um,
1:58:24this plan lacks measurable commitments
1:58:26to reduce hazardous waste generation, to
1:58:28strengthen enforcement or address
1:58:29contamination. And I'd like you to just
1:58:31consider for a moment, for a moment,
1:58:33having to justify your vote today to the
1:58:38elected officials who put you on this
1:58:39board. And then imagine bringing your
1:58:42conversation to your local city council
1:58:45where maybe you have a landfill and why
1:58:47that waste might be coming to your
1:58:48landfill. Imagine explaining it to your
1:58:50family, justifying it to your children,
1:58:52your grandchildren, to all of
1:58:53California. And can you say it to us,
1:58:55the members of the EJ, where many of us
1:58:58live near either hazardous landfills,
1:59:01some people here, or even municipal
1:59:02landfills that are at risk of hazardous
1:59:05waste. Um, because we want you to
1:59:08remember that we're real people. You
1:59:10know, we are not statistics. It's so
1:59:11easy to look at a plan and forget the
1:59:13faces of the people who are impacted
1:59:15behind it. And this impacts our kids,
1:59:17our communities, and especially our
1:59:18future and future Californians.
1:59:21Um, and I would just like to ask, how
1:59:24many passes did DTSC get? It's like it's
1:59:26like a elementary school kid who can't
1:59:28read or do math, but they just keep
1:59:30getting pushed to the next grade because
1:59:31it's just it's easier, right? But is
1:59:33that good for the kid? Is that good for
1:59:35our community? Is that good for
1:59:36California to just give DTSC another
1:59:38pass?
1:59:39>> Thank you for your comments.
1:59:41>> Whatever it takes to protect California,
1:59:43do that. Thank you.
1:59:44>> Thank you for your comments. Uh, number
1:59:46seven through 10, if we can go ahead and
1:59:48have you line up behind the microphone.
1:59:51And if you could please speak directly
1:59:52into the mic to make sure all of our
1:59:54participants in person and in Zoom can
1:59:57hear you. Thank you.
1:59:58>> Can you hear me? Great. Um, hi, my name
2:00:01is Allea Cretcher. I'm an attorney with
2:00:03Communities for a Better Environment.
2:00:05Um, we're a place-based environmental
2:00:07justice or working with communities in
2:00:09Richmond, East Oakland, Wilmington, and
2:00:12Southeast LA. Um, as this board knows,
2:00:14Southeast LA is home to a staggering
2:00:16number of hazardous waste generators.
2:00:18One of the worst is the infamous Exide
2:00:20facility, um, now home to the largest
2:00:22environmental cleanup in the state's
2:00:24history. A cleanup required only because
2:00:26DTSC failed to hold them accountable for
2:00:28so many years. Many of our members live
2:00:31near the former Exide site and are still
2:00:33dealing with a decade's worth of lead
2:00:35pollution in their yards. Even so, our
2:00:38members show up to every XI technical
2:00:40advisory group, provide public comments,
2:00:43and voice their concerns for the Exide
2:00:45Working Group. Our members in the city
2:00:47of Southgate have to deal with toxic
2:00:49metal pollution from the former central
2:00:51metal facility. Again, hazardous
2:00:53pollution that exists due to a lack of
2:00:55meaningful regulation. Even so, our
2:00:58members showed up, they door knocked and
2:01:00advocated for the LA County Green Zones
2:01:02ordinance to prevent the development of
2:01:04facilities like CMI.
2:01:06I bring up work on these two sites
2:01:08because even though our members have
2:01:10been failed over and over again by DTSC,
2:01:13they still work to make things better.
2:01:16One such example is our members
2:01:17advocating for SB 158. The idea was that
2:01:21there would be this board that would
2:01:22represent their needs and there would be
2:01:23this plan that would be proactive and
2:01:25protective of their health. Instead,
2:01:28today we're looking at a plan that takes
2:01:29a deregulatory approach. A plan with no
2:01:32measurable outcomes or any actionable
2:01:34recommendations that would lead to
2:01:36accountability. The new version of this
2:01:38plan has virtually the same
2:01:40recommendations as the first draft. And
2:01:42what are goals without meaningful steps
2:01:44to achieve them? nothing. Both the first
2:01:47draft and the current version of the
2:01:48plan fall extremely short of what SB 158
2:01:51requires. However, we do still have this
2:01:54board. I urge you to vote no on this
2:01:56plan. Member Batia noted that this plan
2:01:59should be used as a stepping stone. I
2:02:01think if we're analogizing it as a step
2:02:03somewhere for those most affected, it's
2:02:05a step in the wrong affected, it's a
2:02:07step in the wrong direction. I also
2:02:09heard some sentiment um that you could
2:02:10work with DTSC staff to fill in the gaps
2:02:12later. I don't think that's how public
2:02:14participation and public protection
2:02:16should work. People on the ground harmed
2:02:19by hazardous waste mismanagement have
2:02:21worked tirelessly to improve things and
2:02:23they deserve a plan that contributes to
2:02:25that improvement and not hinders it. Um
2:02:27I urge you to vote no. Thank you.
2:02:30>> Thank you for your comments. A
2:02:32commenters uh up through 10. Any other
2:02:35numbers through 10? Oh great. Hi
2:02:38Caroline. All right. You'll have three
2:02:40minutes. Thank you.
2:02:44Good morning. My name is Caroline Frell.
2:02:47I'm with the Environmental Law and
2:02:48Justice Clinic at Golden Gate University
2:02:51and I've submitted some comments on
2:02:53behalf of the National Diversity
2:02:55Coalition, Green Action, and the
2:02:58California Environmental Justice
2:03:00Coalition throughout this process. Um,
2:03:03and I incorporate our comments from
2:03:04April 24th, May 15th, and August 13th.
2:03:07And then there was another uh letter
2:03:09that was submitted by a coalition of
2:03:11groups on November 12th that I also uh
2:03:13incorporate.
2:03:15The board should reject the hazardous
2:03:17waste management plan because it hasn't
2:03:18changed substantively from the original
2:03:20draft. It's been rewritten. The plan is
2:03:24not comprehensive and it does not focus
2:03:26on protecting public health and the
2:03:28environment as the legislature intended.
2:03:31The plan is a list of activities that
2:03:34has not undergone an SQL review to even
2:03:37determine if these are the best um or
2:03:41environmentally protective um
2:03:43alternatives that the DTSC should be
2:03:46prioritizing.
2:03:48And to adopt a plan in anticipation of
2:03:50an implementation plan illustrates that
2:03:53there's no measurable outcomes
2:03:56um in the plan itself to approve it in
2:03:59the first place. I think is kind of
2:04:01putting the cart before the horse.
2:04:04Rather, the plan focuses on reducing
2:04:06hazardous waste by exempting waste,
2:04:08changing protocols, and finding ways to
2:04:10reclassify waste as hazardous. Changing
2:04:13the label without plans to reduce the
2:04:15danger to low-income communities and
2:04:17communities of color living near
2:04:18hazardous waste generation, storage,
2:04:21transportation routes, and disposal
2:04:22sites. The legislature anticipated this
2:04:25type of gamesmanship in SB 158 for
2:04:29contaminated soils and health and safety
2:04:31code 25135D325B.
2:04:35[Music]
2:04:37The legislature prohibited DTSC from
2:04:39claiming reductions in hazardous waste
2:04:41solely by reducing removal of
2:04:43contaminated soil from sites. Paper
2:04:46reductions do not count as reductions
2:04:48under SB 158, regardless of the waist
2:04:50stream. DTSC's limited time and
2:04:52resources should be spent on identifying
2:04:54reductions to remove hazardous materials
2:04:57throughout the life cycle of waste. This
2:04:59first plan the state has produced is
2:05:02important and approving an inadequate
2:05:05non-compliant plan is bad precedent and
2:05:07undermines public confidence that waste
2:05:10reduction goals of SB 158 will ever be
2:05:12achieved. Um the bees should re reject
2:05:15this plan. Thank you.
2:05:17>> Thank you for your comments.
2:05:20Uh, next commenters, any others 5
2:05:22through 10 or up to 10 that have not
2:05:24commented yet but received that number?
2:05:27Okay, then we'll go ahead and move to uh
2:05:29those who received numbers 11 through
2:05:3115, if we could please ask you to go
2:05:33ahead and uh line up behind the
2:05:36microphone in the aisle, please. Thank
2:05:38you. And Sheena will go ahead and take
2:05:40your number.
2:05:43Thank you very much. And you'll have
2:05:44three minutes.
2:05:50Good morning and uh thank you boards uh
2:05:52board members. Um I'm going to make it
2:05:56um simple and short. Um my name is uh
2:05:58Chris Abad, a member of National
2:06:01Diversity Coalition and an owner of um
2:06:04Ohana Senior Care Agency. So basically
2:06:08we um work with seniors um work with
2:06:11home health, hospice, laboratory and
2:06:13pharmacy. So um because of the people
2:06:17that we work with and we help, we cannot
2:06:20support this plan, right? Um this plan
2:06:22does not clearly protect our
2:06:24communities. It has um on my own view um
2:06:28it has no strong goals, no real actions
2:06:31and it weakness uh weakens safety rules.
2:06:34Uh it also brings back ideas that were
2:06:36already removed including changes that
2:06:38could allow um hazardous soil to be sent
2:06:42to regular um landfills. Right.
2:06:44So we are not against the planning. We
2:06:47just simply want a strong protection um
2:06:50and plan that keeps our family
2:06:52especially uh seniors in our communities
2:06:56right uh to be safe. So we respectfully
2:06:59asked you to reject and delay this plan
2:07:01and work on one that really protects
2:07:03California and our community. Thank you.
2:07:06>> Thank you for your comments. Next
2:07:08commenters that have numbers between 11
2:07:10and 15, if you could please come up to
2:07:12the microphone and you'll have three
2:07:14minutes to make your comment. Thank you.
2:07:17>> There's uh chair and members, Rodney
2:07:19Wilson, uh realtor with Century 21 um
2:07:22advocate for the National Diversity
2:07:24Coalition and Father. Um so I wanted to
2:07:28um share just with the families I serve
2:07:31um as a realtor. Um many of them live
2:07:34next to hazardous waste facilities and
2:07:36landfills. Um when toxins migrate off of
2:07:40um you know outside of those facilities,
2:07:43two things happen. Um our kids get
2:07:46exposed to um you know toxins and home
2:07:50values collapse, especially historically
2:07:52those in overburdened communities of
2:07:55color. Um many of those, you know, are
2:07:58left holding the bag. I was encouraged
2:08:01to hear um some of the board's comments
2:08:04on um the EJ uh community and those
2:08:07communities of color um that have been
2:08:10impacted that resonates with this. Um as
2:08:13the uh board considers next steps um I
2:08:17think any future plans considered should
2:08:20um have a few things considered. um
2:08:22number one uh zero off-site migration of
2:08:25hazardous constituents.
2:08:27Two, a mandatory um cumulative impact
2:08:30reviews for any future permits uh for
2:08:33facilities nearest homes or schools. And
2:08:36three, um mitigation funding um to
2:08:39ensure that impacted communities aren't
2:08:41left holding the bag. Um this could be
2:08:45uh you know uh uh pro programs that um
2:08:49not necessarily just monies but programs
2:08:51that uh you know help address you know
2:08:55some of the
2:08:58consequently um you know the things that
2:09:01are just going to have to um come out of
2:09:03these communities.
2:09:06So, as a dad, I don't want to see our
2:09:08children um breathe someone else's
2:09:10poisons or otherwise be exposed to
2:09:12hazardous toxins. Uh that's a given. As
2:09:14a realtor, um I don't want to see the
2:09:16communities and families that I serve um
2:09:18lose their biggest investment to weak
2:09:20oversight and lack of metrics and
2:09:22concrete standards. Again, I'm
2:09:24encouraged by um some of the board's
2:09:26thoughtful comments around um the
2:09:30departure from any um metrics or
2:09:32standards in future plans. Um I believe
2:09:35that the the word uh deregulation is a
2:09:38very strong one. Um you know it should
2:09:41not be used lightly. Um but moving
2:09:44forward um you know I think you know
2:09:48you're the experts you know what to do
2:09:50there.
2:09:52Um so the board has a choice today to
2:09:54maintain the integrity of the hazardous
2:09:56waste tests. Um you know I was here to
2:09:58comment in July. Um, so moving forward,
2:10:01I ask that the the board please adopt
2:10:03strong
2:10:05>> protections, our kids and in health and
2:10:07our home equity. Count on it. Thank you
2:10:10very much.
2:10:13>> Thank you for your comments. Next
2:10:15commenter
2:10:17for numbers 11 through 15. Perfect.
2:10:20Thank you.
2:10:21>> Good morning, chair, members of the
2:10:24board. My name is Audrey Perau. I'm with
2:10:27the National Diversity Coalition. I'm
2:10:29also a local realtor and a longtime
2:10:32housing advocate. I've actually been in
2:10:34the housing advocacy space for over 30
2:10:36years. I represent many low and moderate
2:10:40income homeowners,
2:10:42um, communities of color, seniors,
2:10:46working families, and members of the EJ
2:10:50community.
2:10:52I ask that you vote no on this hazardous
2:10:54plan today.
2:10:56It is not ready. It does not protect the
2:11:00people and their health.
2:11:02Um, it has an impact to potentially
2:11:06harm equity in the communities that I
2:11:09serve.
2:11:11This plan is missing key elements. It
2:11:14does not have clear measurable goals or
2:11:18outcomes to reduce hazardous waste nor
2:11:21clean up pollution or enforcement
2:11:25capability.
2:11:26It does not focus on protecting
2:11:28communities.
2:11:30It also brings back ideas that have
2:11:32previously been discussed. I was here in
2:11:35July as well.
2:11:37Now it's called studying the wet wet
2:11:39test, but that is just another weekend
2:11:43protection.
2:11:45Changing the test
2:11:47um can um this means more than um just
2:11:52talking about it. Um
2:11:55what we're concerned with is not just
2:12:00um we're concerned with if you have a
2:12:03liner
2:12:04um we're still concerned with dust.
2:12:06We're concerned with poor air quality.
2:12:10Um in the communities I serve there's a
2:12:13lot of people that have respiratory
2:12:15conditions. So that's a concern. And
2:12:18we're also concerned with other harmful
2:12:21conditions and the impact that it has on
2:12:23property values. I ask that you remove
2:12:26recommendations 2.2 through 2.5 and 1.3
2:12:31from the plan. And if you want to study
2:12:34the rules in the future, engage in the
2:12:37with the community and the public health
2:12:39advocates from the onset and not after
2:12:42the plan has been um prepared. I also
2:12:47ask that there be cross agency
2:12:49collaboration like with Cal Recycle and
2:12:52the water board working together
2:12:54alongside so that there's um community
2:12:58engagement from the onset. We want to
2:13:01work with you. Um we are not against
2:13:04planning. We just want there to be 15
2:13:07seconds
2:13:08>> community engagement involvement from
2:13:10the beginning to the end. So, I thank
2:13:12you for your time and thank you for
2:13:14taking this um um matter under
2:13:18advisement and consideration today.
2:13:20Thank you so much.
2:13:21>> Thank you for your comments. Um those
2:13:24that have additional numbers between 11
2:13:26and 15. Yeah, thank you so much. You'll
2:13:28have three minutes.
2:13:32>> Hello. Oh, sorry. Good morning,
2:13:34everyone. Um members of the board, thank
2:13:37you. Um my name is Jake Kelsece, a
2:13:41member of uh NDC as well and uh also a
2:13:45small business owner in um Victorville,
2:13:48California.
2:13:51So which is also one of the underserved
2:13:54communities down in South California.
2:13:58With respect, we cannot support this
2:14:01plan in its current form.
2:14:04We urge board to remove the
2:14:06recommendation 2.3 to through 2.6 and
2:14:101.3 which could reopen hazardous waste
2:14:14exemptions and put communities at risk.
2:14:19Strong consistent standards
2:14:22uh protect small businesses like mine
2:14:25and safeguard local facilities such as
2:14:29the Victorville landfill
2:14:32from unnecessary environmental and
2:14:35financial burdens. We respectfully ask
2:14:38the board
2:14:40and to reject or defer this plan and
2:14:44develop one that truly protects
2:14:46communities and uh the environment.
2:14:50Lastly, we are not opposed on this plan.
2:14:54Um we are opposed to lowering the
2:14:57standards and ignoring community input.
2:15:01Thank you.
2:15:02>> Thank you for your comments.
2:15:04at the next round of commenters. So, if
2:15:07we have if you have numbers between uh
2:15:0911 and 15 or even 16 and 20, please come
2:15:12on up. Thank you.
2:15:19>> Hi board. Uh my name is Daniel Tamontes.
2:15:21I'm with the Clean Air Coalition North
2:15:23Whittier here in Avocado Heights. Um
2:15:25while the framing of this plan has
2:15:27changed, the picture is more or less the
2:15:29same. The plan codifies status quo. Um,
2:15:33I echo the board members and much of the
2:15:34community's concerns. A lack of a
2:15:37substantial performance index or a
2:15:39quantitative effort for measuring source
2:15:41reduction at its best is problematic.
2:15:44Uh, but this isn't just about technical
2:15:46issues. It's about values. Um what is
2:15:50important the hazardous waste plan under
2:15:52cons uh consideration today will set a
2:15:55critical precedent for how California
2:15:57protects or fails to protect communities
2:16:00from contamination and pollution for
2:16:02years to come. Like pollution, injustice
2:16:05is cumulative. If this plan is the core
2:16:08of an effort to improve the impact of
2:16:10habitous waste, then it is likely to go
2:16:12the way of harm experienced in frontline
2:16:14communities. Communities across the
2:16:16state deserve uh across the state
2:16:19deserve a comprehensive plan that
2:16:21prioritizes public health, environmental
2:16:23justice, and regulatory strength.
2:16:26Approving a incomplete or flawed plan
2:16:28rises uh risks embedding deregulatory
2:16:31loopholes and weakened oversight that
2:16:33will be much harder to fix in the
2:16:35future. Please vote no.
2:16:38>> Thank you for your comments.
2:16:40Next round of inperson commenters.
2:16:43Any numbers up through 20? We'll invite
2:16:45you up. Thank you so much. You'll have
2:16:47three minutes.
2:16:50>> That's good.
2:16:51>> Hi, my name is Matt Holmes. I'm here
2:16:53with the California Environmental
2:16:54Justice Coalition. We represent about a
2:16:56100 uh member communities and technical
2:16:58allies across the state of California.
2:17:01Um, this plan really matters to us. I
2:17:02can kind of give you an idea of the
2:17:04scope. I was doing a mapping exercise
2:17:06for the Air Resources Board landfill
2:17:08methane rulemaking. That'll happen in
2:17:09this room later this week, Thursday. Uh,
2:17:12and landfills aren't next to everybody.
2:17:14They're next to secondass California.
2:17:16We've been denied equal protection under
2:17:17the law for decades. And so that's
2:17:19that's really was always the promise of
2:17:21this board is that this board was going
2:17:22to help us look back and address that
2:17:24history and recognize that hazardous
2:17:26waste everywhere isn't equal. And so I'm
2:17:28really worried about the plan right now
2:17:30being the first task for this board and
2:17:32for it to be approved in the current
2:17:34condition that it is in because it
2:17:36because it doesn't address our problems.
2:17:38We still have unsettled title six
2:17:39settlements at Avenue and all. I got to
2:17:41say I was really troubled to hear that
2:17:43like small steps are acceptable or that
2:17:45our input needs to be triangulated. Our
2:17:47input is lived experience. These are
2:17:49factual clusters of cancer. these are
2:17:51factual uh low infant birth weights and
2:17:54and to and to
2:17:57you know into and to into and to I think
2:17:59I think it's illustrative that you can
2:18:00see who supports this plan and who
2:18:02doesn't. Those of us that live next to
2:18:04this plan live next to these facilities
2:18:06want you to reject this plan because we
2:18:08want to protect you. We want this board
2:18:10to have a meaningful role moving forward
2:18:12with really the most unresponsive state
2:18:14agency that I've ever worked with. Uh it
2:18:16should come as no respon surprise to you
2:18:18that when I was asked to help identify
2:18:21uh offending facilities across the state
2:18:23of California for multi- agency
2:18:24reporting for US EPA and Cal EPA, your
2:18:27parent agency, most of the facilities
2:18:29are originally regulated entities by
2:18:31DTSC. Um so there's there's really
2:18:35there's really a lot to be lost by not
2:18:36being bold and not taking our time with
2:18:38this plan and not getting it right. Um
2:18:40there's very little to be lost by
2:18:42rejecting this plan. So I urge you to
2:18:43vote no.
2:18:45Thank you for your comments. Are there
2:18:47any other in-person commenters that
2:18:49would like to comment before we move to
2:18:51our Zoom participants?
2:18:54Okay, great. We'll go ahead and move on
2:18:56to our Zoom participants and we will
2:18:58start in with in which the order the
2:19:00hands were raised. If you would like to
2:19:02comment and don't have your hand raised
2:19:04yet, you can use uh the star9 button on
2:19:07your phone or raise your hand on your
2:19:09Zoom toolbar. So, the first commenter we
2:19:12have, Rebecca Overmmyer Velasquez, we're
2:19:15going to invite you to unmute. Please
2:19:17accept our invitation and you'll have
2:19:19three minutes.
2:19:22>> Hi, good morning. You can hear me? Okay.
2:19:25>> Yes, thank you. Well, if you can see me,
2:19:27but hi. Good morning. Hi, my name is
2:19:30Rebecca Overmire Velasquez and I am the
2:19:32coordinator of the Clean Air Coalition
2:19:34of North Whittier and Avocado Heights.
2:19:36Well, here we are near the end of 2025
2:19:40and you, the board, are about to make a
2:19:42decision about DTSC's first ever plan to
2:19:44manage hazardous waste in California.
2:19:47After four hearings and a webinar, you
2:19:49have heard and read scores of comments
2:19:51provided by the public about the draft
2:19:53plan. Comments that came with the hope
2:19:55that the final draft would be the best
2:19:57possible plan for our state. As your own
2:20:01website website states, the hazardous
2:20:04waste management plan quote is a roadmap
2:20:07for improving how hazardous waste is
2:20:08handled in California. It will use
2:20:11research and public input to identify
2:20:13current challenges and create strategies
2:20:15to manage hazardous waste more safely
2:20:17and efficiently. The plan will guide
2:20:19decisions on how to manage hazardous
2:20:21waste responsibly to reduce harmful
2:20:23impacts on public health and the
2:20:24environment. The website unquote the
2:20:27website also states the purpose of the
2:20:29plan is to serve as a comprehensive
2:20:30guide for managing hazardous waste in
2:20:32California. The plan will inform and
2:20:34direct state and local efforts and help
2:20:36shape future policies to make waste
2:20:38management more effective and safer for
2:20:40human health and the environment.
2:20:43Like many of us unquote like many of us
2:20:46speaking today, I wonder where that
2:20:48version of the plan is. And I have many
2:20:50unanswered questions about this final
2:20:52draft. Where is the research that
2:20:55clearly identifies current challenges
2:20:56and proposes clear strategies to manage
2:20:58hazardous waste safely? How did DTSC
2:21:01actually use public input to revise the
2:21:04initial draft when the current version
2:21:06before us today is basically the same as
2:21:08that first draft? Where is the
2:21:10comprehensive guide for managing
2:21:12hazardous waste? And there are more
2:21:14questions. What are DTSC's measurable
2:21:16goals that prioritize community health
2:21:19and well-being? Where is the hazardous
2:21:21waste in California? How much is there?
2:21:23How much can be reduced? What is the
2:21:25timeline for this reduction? What
2:21:27happens if DTSC does not meet its waste
2:21:29reduction targets? Where are the various
2:21:31lithium ion batteries in use in
2:21:33California? How many are there? How many
2:21:35of these can be reused or repurposed?
2:21:37How many will need to be recycled? Where
2:21:39will recycling take place using what
2:21:41processes? How will DTSC prioritize
2:21:44community health and well-being in the
2:21:46management of the lithium ion battery
2:21:48waist stream? What are the steps DTSC
2:21:51will take to complete the new SB673
2:21:53permitting rules that include
2:21:54accumulative impacts risk assessment?
2:21:56What is the timeline for completing
2:21:58these rules given that they are almost a
2:22:00decade overdue? We know the consequences
2:22:02for communities that remain unprotected
2:22:05by these new rules. What are the
2:22:07consequences for DTSC when it
2:22:10>> legal obligations? What are the
2:22:12consequences for DTSC when it does not
2:22:14meet its legal obligations? We are
2:22:16counting on the bees to hold DTSC
2:22:18accountable. Our questions need
2:22:20comprehensive answers. Reject the
2:22:23hazardous waste management draft plan
2:22:25and tell staff to start over, please,
2:22:27with a real plan. Thank you.
2:22:29>> Thank you for your comments. Next
2:22:31commenter, uh, Elizabeth, we're going to
2:22:33invite you to unmute. Please accept our
2:22:36invitation and you'll have three
2:22:38minutes.
2:22:39>> Hi. Thank you. Elizabeth Esavl with the
2:22:41California Manufacturers and Technology
2:22:43Association representing a v a various
2:22:46manufacturing sector statewide. We thank
2:22:49you for the opportunity to provide the
2:22:50comments on the draft plan. Uh CMTA does
2:22:53appreciate that the plan recognizes both
2:22:55the absence of dedicated state resources
2:22:57and the significant complex complexity
2:23:00of California's hazardous waste laws. At
2:23:02the same time, the plan should not move
2:23:04forward by placing additional burdens on
2:23:06permites who are already subject to very
2:23:09high and continually rising fees. We
2:23:11support the plan's emphasis on near-term
2:23:13foundational actions that can guide
2:23:15broader longerterm goals around
2:23:17hazardous waste generation,
2:23:19classification, management, remediation,
2:23:23community impacts, and cost. We do
2:23:25believe that continued robust
2:23:27stakeholder engagement will be essential
2:23:28as the department implements the plan.
2:23:31With respect to source reduction, we
2:23:33note that while rising generation and
2:23:35handling fees create strong incentives
2:23:37to reduce hazardous waste, achieving
2:23:39meaningful reduction is often far more
2:23:41challenging than it may appear. We also
2:23:43remain concerned about the long-term
2:23:45sustainability of DTSC's current funding
2:23:48structure and CMTA looks forward to
2:23:50working with the department and the
2:23:52board to ensure that the agency is
2:23:53adequately sourced while limiting the
2:23:56need for further fee increases given the
2:23:58broad statewide benefits of DTSC's work.
2:24:01General fund support should be a part of
2:24:03that solution. Hazardous waste
2:24:05characteration and management are highly
2:24:07complex and updates to the waste codes
2:24:09will require detailed analysis and
2:24:10discussion in the years ahead. We also
2:24:13encourage the department and the board
2:24:14to strengthen cross agency collaboration
2:24:16and make full use of existing studies,
2:24:19IT systems, and regulatory frameworks
2:24:21both within California and other states
2:24:23to improve efficiency and reduce cost.
2:24:26Finally, we urge the establishment of a
2:24:28stakeholder advisory group composed of
2:24:30regulated entities, community members,
2:24:32and environmental organizations to
2:24:34provide ongoing feedback as future
2:24:36iterations of the plan are developed.
2:24:38CMT believes that the draft plan is a
2:24:40strong starting point and encourages the
2:24:42board to adopt it. Thank you.
2:24:45>> Thank you for your comments. And we have
2:24:47about 13 additional commenters in the
2:24:50queue. So the next commenter, Amar
2:24:52Rivera, we're going to invite you to
2:24:55unmute. Please accept our invitation and
2:24:57you'll have 3 minutes.
2:25:03Am
2:25:11okay, you have three minutes. Thank you.
2:25:13>> Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.
2:25:15>> Um, hi, my name is Ambara. I'm a
2:25:17researcher at CBE, an environmental
2:25:19social justice group here in Southeast
2:25:20LA. Uh, first, I urge you to vote no on
2:25:23adopting the hazardous waste management
2:25:25plan as is currently written. This plan
2:25:28still fails to provide specific,
2:25:30comprehensive, measurable benchmarks to
2:25:32manage hazardous waste, let alone an
2:25:35equitable public health protection plan.
2:25:37The plan is vague and opaque language,
2:25:40quote unquote, data gaps that leaves
2:25:42frontline communities vulnerable to
2:25:44hazardous waste exposure and continues
2:25:46to favor industry over people. Not to
2:25:49mention the plan still falls short of
2:25:51implementing an EJ F framework,
2:25:54furthering harm in communities already
2:25:56facing a disproportionate amount of
2:25:57toxics and hazardous waste exposures.
2:26:00The plan wants to regulate hazardous
2:26:02waste, but there continues to be a lack
2:26:04of monitoring and enforcement processes,
2:26:06including meaningful public
2:26:08participation.
2:26:10Hazardous waste can be toxic to human
2:26:12health and the environment and at times,
2:26:14depending on the mix of chemicals, a
2:26:16carcinogen.
2:26:17Xite Technologies in Vernon is
2:26:19California's biggest poller, exposing
2:26:21over 10,000 homes to lead contamination
2:26:24and southeast LA communities continue to
2:26:26be impacted by highly toxic soil. This
2:26:30and this plan would only continue
2:26:31harming communities who have been
2:26:33advocating over a decade on a complete
2:26:35community cleanup and an equitable
2:26:38hazardous waste management plan that
2:26:39protects all EJ communities. Now is not
2:26:42the time to go back and loosen
2:26:44regulations and oversight. We have to
2:26:46move forward and think of future
2:26:48generations. The board has the authority
2:26:51to vote no on this plan and I urge you
2:26:53to vote no and hold DTC accountable and
2:26:55protecting our communities and our
2:26:57future. Thank you.
2:26:59>> Thank you for your comments. Next
2:27:02commenter online, Vanessa Vasquez. We're
2:27:05going to invite you to unmute. Please
2:27:08accept our invitation and you will have
2:27:103 minutes.
2:27:12>> Thank you. Can you hear me? All right.
2:27:14>> Yes. Thank you.
2:27:15>> Okay. Um, good morning VES members. My
2:27:18name is Vanessa Vosquez and I'm with
2:27:20Communities for a Better Environment. I
2:27:22urge you to vote no on adopting the
2:27:24hazardous waste management plan. As
2:27:26written, I have family members who live
2:27:28within and just outside of the Exide PIA
2:27:30cleanup boundaries in communities that
2:27:32have historically experienced cumulative
2:27:34impacts from nearby industrial land
2:27:36uses. Some of those relatives developed
2:27:39cancer. The disaster caused by oxide was
2:27:42made possible due to decades of facility
2:27:44violations that went unadressed for far
2:27:46too long. Moreover, expo exposures to
2:27:49chemicals like lead have been prolonged
2:27:51due to a series of missteps with cleanup
2:27:53efforts that are still ongoing.
2:27:55Occurrences like these are no stranger
2:27:57to the communities of color and
2:27:58low-income communities that CBE
2:28:00organizes in, especially the community
2:28:02of Southeast Los Angeles. Southeast Los
2:28:05Angeles has been overburdened by nearby
2:28:07industrial facilities, including the
2:28:09former Exite and Central and Central
2:28:11Metal facilities. Residential areas and
2:28:13frontline communities near these sites
2:28:15are still contaminated, and families are
2:28:17unable to fully enjoy their homes
2:28:19because of the fear of being made sick
2:28:20in a country where healthcare costs
2:28:22continue to rise. The updates made to
2:28:24this plan blatantly fail to center the
2:28:27cleanup and protection of environmental
2:28:28justice communities. This plan fails for
2:28:31many reasons, some of which include its
2:28:33inability to center environmental
2:28:35justice communities, its failure to
2:28:37prioritize source reduction, and its
2:28:39dangerous proposal of pathways that will
2:28:41lead to deregulation.
2:28:43First, the plan fails to center
2:28:45environmental justice communities
2:28:46because it notably removed explicit
2:28:48mention of environmental justice, which
2:28:50had previously been included in the
2:28:52earlier draft. The part the plan also
2:28:55curtailed its draft recommendations that
2:28:56would have helped facilitate the
2:28:58participation of environmental justice
2:29:00communities in future hazardous waste
2:29:01management efforts. Now the updated plan
2:29:04lacks sufficient details on how DTSC
2:29:07will improve access to information
2:29:08amongst diverse audiences. These changes
2:29:11are concerning for disadvantaged fence
2:29:13line communities who deserve the ability
2:29:15to meaningfully contribute and
2:29:17substantively impact the management of
2:29:18the waste that pollute the communities
2:29:20that they live, work, play, and pray in.
2:29:23Second, the plan fails to prioritize
2:29:25source reduction. The plan does not
2:29:27adequately push industry to switch to
2:29:29non-hazardous materials as alternatives
2:29:31to the substances that we know are
2:29:33harmful to human health in the
2:29:35environment. DTSC missed its opportunity
2:29:37to take a preventative health focused
2:29:39approach. Lastly, the plan dangerously
2:29:42proposes pathway pathways that will lead
2:29:44to deregulation. One of the ways that it
2:29:46does this is by opening the door to
2:29:48federal exemptions and exclusions that
2:29:50could dangerously narrow what is defined
2:29:51as hazardous waste in California.
2:29:54Although the language is not as explicit
2:29:56explicit as it was in the draft plan and
2:29:58the new language shown today is also
2:30:00vague, DTSC made it clear during its
2:30:02recent webinar that it wants to apply
2:30:04such policies in California. Regardless
2:30:07of adjustments that DTSC makes to the
2:30:09exemptions and exclusions that it seeks
2:30:11to incorporate, such adoptions will
2:30:12weaken California's hazardous wast waste
2:30:15management standards. For these reasons,
2:30:17we ask that the Board of Environmental
2:30:18Safety vote no on adopting the plan. It
2:30:21is your job to protect public health and
2:30:23reduce risk of toxic exposure and
2:30:24vulnerable vulnerable communities. Thank
2:30:26you.
2:30:26>> Thank you for your comments.
2:30:28The next commenter, Adil Adil, we're
2:30:32going to invite you to unmute. Please
2:30:34accept our invitation and you'll have
2:30:36three minutes to make your comment.
2:30:38>> Uh good morning board members uh and DTC
2:30:41members. Uh I'm my name is Adil. I'm a
2:30:44chief legal officer and research an
2:30:46analyst with National Diversity
2:30:47Coalition. Um previously I have committ
2:30:50uh submitted comments before the board.
2:30:52Um the I urge to the board to vote no as
2:30:57the plan has written right now. Uh there
2:31:00are three issues primarily on the
2:31:02hazardous waste management plan has
2:31:04written. Firstly uh the the spirit of
2:31:07deregulation still exist in the plan as
2:31:09recommendation 1.2 although the wording
2:31:12is like review it is the DTSC have a
2:31:15clear objective or a goal to look into
2:31:17review and exemptions as a way to lower
2:31:20the standard that is what community
2:31:22fears and and that spirit is although
2:31:24the 7.2 into of earlier plan was
2:31:26removed. U it still haunts uh how they
2:31:30are uh trying to look into loopholes in
2:31:33order to lower the standard and the goal
2:31:35of deregulation or the the the effect of
2:31:38the deregulation will always be much
2:31:40more impactful on the local communities
2:31:42and the communities of color because
2:31:44they will be the one who beer the burden
2:31:46of the any kind of um hazardous waste uh
2:31:50impact. The second issue is that the
2:31:53plan does not have any uh measurable
2:31:55outcome and the the impact of lack of
2:31:58measurable outcome even in the good PL
2:32:01good uh recommendation like
2:32:03recommendation 2.8 eight or uh or even
2:32:06the source reduction mentioned in 1.1
2:32:09there's no measurable outcome DTC
2:32:11proposal uh we understand that um the
2:32:14lack of um the the capacity to create
2:32:17such a um it will be it is not the
2:32:19creation of benchmark is not that they
2:32:21have to achieve within 3 years but what
2:32:23it gives is that at the end of the 3
2:32:25years a community will be able to
2:32:27evaluate what DTSC had done when there's
2:32:29a measurable outcome and the lack of it
2:32:32allow the DTSC to escape gave
2:32:34accountability at the end of 3 years
2:32:36because we don't know what is the
2:32:37benchmark in source reduction or in the
2:32:40recommendation 2.8 in creating a um uh
2:32:43permanent uh cleanup. So the absence of
2:32:46that makes it very difficult to hold
2:32:48DTSC accountable after the end of 3
2:32:50years. And uh the third point is that
2:32:53there is no prioritization of community
2:32:56health or environmental uh protection as
2:32:58a as a goal in a in a context of uh that
2:33:02we understand the data integration the
2:33:04data gaps are important to identify
2:33:06where the hazardous waste is there but
2:33:08if we don't prioritize the community
2:33:10health at the end of the day it is it
2:33:12will impact a large scale of people. So
2:33:15the prioritize dep prioritization of the
2:33:17community health or environmental
2:33:20production is another issue uh which NDC
2:33:23have with the uh the current plan. Thank
2:33:26you.
2:33:28>> Thank you for your comments. The next
2:33:30commenter we have on Zoom is Bradley
2:33:34Angel. We're going to invite you to
2:33:36unmute Bradley and you'll have three
2:33:38minutes to make your comment.
2:33:41>> Good morning. Uh this is Bradley Angel
2:33:43and I'm the director of Green Action for
2:33:46Health and Environmental Justice and I
2:33:49want to echo the really um uh excellent
2:33:53and really compelling and important
2:33:55comments of my environmental justice
2:33:57colleagues across the state who's who
2:33:59have testified this morning.
2:34:02I have and dealt with DTSC along with uh
2:34:07our community partners across the state
2:34:09since DTSC was born decades ago. And
2:34:13unfortunately, this draft hazardous
2:34:15waste plan really should be called a
2:34:16mismanagement plan or sticking your head
2:34:18in the sand plan. First of all,
2:34:22uh and and we very much echo the call to
2:34:26vote no on this defective plan. And I
2:34:28want to give a few specifics. Now, one
2:34:30is DTSC uh along with CALIPA continues
2:34:34to be in bold and clear and indisputable
2:34:38violation of the law of uh Senate Bill
2:34:42673
2:34:44as well as the Kettleman City Title 6
2:34:47civil rights settlement that Green
2:34:49Action and El PBLO of Kettleman City
2:34:51reached with DTSC and Calipa years ago.
2:34:55And both the state law 673 and the
2:34:58federal civil rights settlement under
2:35:00title six of the civil rights act
2:35:02required it wasn't optional. It required
2:35:04DTSC 10 almost 10 years ago to adopt
2:35:08criteria regulatory criteria to consider
2:35:11the impacts of uh cumulative impacts on
2:35:14permit decisions. It still doesn't exist
2:35:18and that needs to be one of the first
2:35:19points in the DTSC plan. come into
2:35:22compliance and actually use uh
2:35:24cumulative impacts as required by the
2:35:26law and the federal civil rights
2:35:28settlement. Now why is this important?
2:35:30Because this plan draft plan is a early
2:35:33holiday gift to the waste disposal
2:35:35industry both for hazardous waste and
2:35:37solid waste both in California and in
2:35:40other vulnerable communities and nearby
2:35:42states and um to industrial polluters
2:35:45who are not being held accountable to
2:35:47reduce toxic waste. DTSC has made
2:35:50improper predetermined permit decisions
2:35:53on the Kettleman City and Button Willow
2:35:55hazardous waste dumps, continuing the
2:35:57pattern and practice of dumping on some
2:35:59of our most vulnerable communities and
2:36:00not coming up with a plan B. There are
2:36:03no teeth to the source reduction uh uh I
2:36:06don't even want to call it a plan. Uh it
2:36:09continues giving the blessing to dump
2:36:11California toxic waste on vulnerable
2:36:13communities in Arizona and Utah. And
2:36:16these are communities that we know very
2:36:18well. We work with those communities. Um
2:36:20and DTSC also vi has failed to do
2:36:23adequate work to um remediate toxic
2:36:26contamination in communities across the
2:36:28state from the
2:36:29>> 15 seconds
2:36:30>> from Santa Susanna to Leightonville to
2:36:32Treasure Island and the Hunters Point
2:36:33Shipyard. So um
2:36:37in some we respectfully ask you to
2:36:39reject this plan and let's do it right.
2:36:41Thank you.
2:36:42>> Thank you for your comments. The next
2:36:45commenter we have on Zoom, we have
2:36:46Haimeme Sanchez. We're going to invite
2:36:49you to unmute. Please accept our
2:36:51invitation and you'll have three minutes
2:36:52to make your comment.
2:36:58Uh, hi May Sanchez if you're there.
2:37:01Perfect.
2:37:01>> Yes, I'm here.
2:37:03>> Great. We can hear you. You can go ahead
2:37:04and proceed with your comment. Thank
2:37:06you.
2:37:08>> My name is Hi Miss Sanchez. I'm a
2:37:10resident of Los Nettos and a member of
2:37:12Neighbors Against Fibert.
2:37:14As we speak, democracy is under attack
2:37:18at the federal level and at the state
2:37:20level.
2:37:22How is this possible? Consider DTSC as
2:37:26an example and their failure to fulfill
2:37:28their mandate.
2:37:30Who here can deny that DTSC has failed
2:37:33to protect the public, communities, and
2:37:37the environment in favor of the toxic
2:37:40substances industry?
2:37:43Who here is blind to the fact that the
2:37:46hazardous waste management plan is weak,
2:37:49rolls back protections, proposes
2:37:52deregulation, and the elimination of
2:37:55manifest requirements?
2:37:57Who here has no clue that DTSC has
2:38:00ignored all bees and environmental
2:38:03justice concerns in the final version of
2:38:06their proposed hazardous waste
2:38:08management plan.
2:38:10I ask bees to close your eyes and
2:38:13imagine that you are in this idyllic
2:38:15setting where you can actually visualize
2:38:19DTSC and the public working together to
2:38:22address this problem and where in the
2:38:25end bees simply approves the plan.
2:38:29Now I ask bees to open your eyes and see
2:38:33the truth and recognize that in fact the
2:38:37opposite is true. that interacting with
2:38:40DTSC is nothing more than an exercise of
2:38:43futility
2:38:45and that the only protection remaining
2:38:47is your oversight.
2:38:50Bees, take a moment to look around you
2:38:53and look into the eyes of the public who
2:38:55you too are mandated to protect. Apply
2:38:59your acumen to this scenario and
2:39:01recognize that democracy does not exist
2:39:04where a public entity fails to represent
2:39:07the people, fails to fulfill their
2:39:10mandate.
2:39:12Bees, you are faced with a decision
2:39:14whereby you either cut the baby in half
2:39:17as a convenient solution by promoting
2:39:20the fallacy that such a compromise is
2:39:23fair or you lead from the front by being
2:39:27bold enough to acknowledge the truth
2:39:30that the hazardous waste management plan
2:39:33is unacceptable and must be denied.
2:39:36Therefore, be principled and bold.
2:39:39fulfill your mandate because DTSC
2:39:42continues to fail in theirs.
2:39:45Thank you.
2:39:47>> Thank you for your comments. We have
2:39:50about nine additional commenters on Zoom
2:39:53and the next commenter uh we have
2:39:55actually two commenters under CBE
2:39:57community. So, we're going to invite
2:39:59that first one uh on the panelist list
2:40:02or participant list to unmute. Please
2:40:04accept our invitation and you'll have
2:40:06three minutes to make your comment.
2:40:13under CBE community if you could accept
2:40:16our invitation to unmute.
2:40:18Thank you.
2:40:23>> Hola.
2:40:24>> Hello. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
2:40:27>> Yes.
2:40:30>> Thank you. This is the interpreter. I'm
2:40:31going to provide our Spanish speaking uh
2:40:34member with some instructions.
2:40:37Lopez.
2:41:02Good afternoon, Bees members. My name is
2:41:05Ilma Lopez. I live in Carrie, LA, and
2:41:08I'm a member of CBE.
2:41:21Transparences,
2:41:26we let you know that you are the link
2:41:28between us and DTSC personnel and that
2:41:30you owe us personal help and
2:41:32transparency.
2:41:38>> We ask you please not to forget that
2:41:40responsibility. Do not
2:41:56So for our enviral environmental
2:41:57protection agency, we ask you to please
2:41:59continue looking for ways to protect the
2:42:01environment. We need to protect it from
2:42:04this unmeasured or this uh unmeasured
2:42:06contamination and from these uh sources
2:42:09that are affecting our communities
2:42:11because of this contamination.
2:42:23And we ask you do this by an exhaustive
2:42:27uh supervision process of oversight in
2:42:30which we can make sure that public
2:42:32health and environmental health takes
2:42:34priority and precedence at all times.
2:42:40Our
2:42:47earth is contaminated in so many
2:42:49different ways and so many uh different
2:42:51severities throughout all our
2:42:53communities. So we need you to take
2:42:55seriously your uh your responsibility to
2:42:59clean it up and to do your part to
2:43:01protect it.
2:43:12[Music]
2:43:15I personally have lived in my own life
2:43:17the danger of being next to one of these
2:43:19dangerous uh landfills. X side and
2:43:22U-Haul.
2:43:40We constantly live with news and I
2:43:42personally have seen the death of many
2:43:44friends, neighbors, people who died
2:43:46because of cancer and because of other
2:43:49uh health problems that have come up. In
2:43:50fact, the frequency of the diagnosis now
2:43:53for cancer and some of these other
2:43:55illnesses is so so alarming.
2:44:11And honestly and unfortunately this is a
2:44:14consequence of DTSC prioritizing an
2:44:16industry over health that because we saw
2:44:20that Xside was able to operate while
2:44:23having so many violations for so so
2:44:25long.
2:44:32We're currently dealing with the impact
2:44:34and the effects of being exposed to
2:44:36lead.
2:44:52And so to our agency of environmental
2:44:54protection, we ask you please allow more
2:44:57time, listen to the suggestions
2:44:58regarding this plan. Please vote no at
2:45:01the moment and please listen to our
2:45:02communities. Thank you for hearing me
2:45:04out.
2:45:06>> Thank you very much for your comments
2:45:08and thank you to our interpreter Mark.
2:45:11The next commenter we have on Zoom is
2:45:14also under CBE community. So, we're
2:45:17going to invite that commenter to unmute
2:45:23and if they could accept our invitation
2:45:24to unmute.
2:45:26>> Yeah. Good afternoon. Can you hear me
2:45:28here?
2:45:28>> Thank you. Yes, we can hear you.
2:45:30>> Good afternoon, Bees members. My name is
2:45:33Elsa Barios and I am a resident of Kahi.
2:45:36I am a member of CBE community. I urge
2:45:39you to vote no on adopting the hazardous
2:45:41waste management pan as written. DTSC
2:45:47and the bees o community that have been
2:45:50burdened by the toxic waste for too
2:45:54long. A comprehens comprehensive and
2:45:57preventative plan. There is nothing in
2:46:00the plan that creates actionable and
2:46:03measurable goals to reduce waste on and
2:46:06protect us. And for that I urge you to
2:46:10vote no on adopting the hazardous waste
2:46:12management plan as written. Thank you
2:46:14very much.
2:46:16>> Thank you for your comments. The next
2:46:19commenter we have, Deja McCaulay. We're
2:46:21going to invite you to unmute. Please
2:46:23accept our invitation and you'll have
2:46:25three minutes.
2:46:28>> Hi. Um my name is Deja McCauley and I'm
2:46:30with Physicians for Social
2:46:32Responsibility Los Angeles. Um just want
2:46:35to thank everyone for their comments
2:46:36today and thank you to the board for
2:46:38your for your insightful comments and
2:46:39engagement with the plan. Um despite the
2:46:42revisions, um the hazardous waste
2:46:45management plan still falls far short of
2:46:47its stated goals. It lacks a clear
2:46:49vision, meaningful strategies, and the
2:46:51protections necessary to safeguard
2:46:53vulnerable communities and public
2:46:55health. For the past seven months, since
2:46:57the original draft was released, we and
2:46:59many others um have consistently raised
2:47:02concerns that the plan fails to
2:47:03strengthen safety for vulnerable
2:47:05communities. Yet, even after extensive
2:47:08feedback from both the public and the
2:47:09BES, the updated plan prioritized uh
2:47:13simplified language instead of
2:47:14addressing the need for stronger
2:47:16protections against hazardous waste,
2:47:18which should be the plan's core purpose.
2:47:20It was deeply concerning to see the
2:47:22updated plan largely disregard public
2:47:24input, remove it its explicit mention of
2:47:27environmental justice, and maintain most
2:47:30of the original recommendations,
2:47:31including pro-industry exclusions and
2:47:33exemptions that could further harm
2:47:35communities. Today, I heard some members
2:47:38um of the BES say that the plan does a
2:47:40good job of centering source reduction.
2:47:42However, I I disagree. The plan
2:47:45continues to lack a meaningful focus on
2:47:46source reduction. Although it defines
2:47:48source reduction clearly and mentions it
2:47:51frequently throughout the plan, it still
2:47:53does not explain how source reduction
2:47:55will be achieved. For example, goal one
2:47:58states that DTSC will pilot source
2:48:00reduction technologies and activities,
2:48:02but does not specify what those
2:48:04technologies are or how they will reduce
2:48:06hazardous waste generation. The
2:48:08recommendation to develop a hazardous
2:48:10waste reduction grant program also
2:48:12raises major questions. Will DTSC be
2:48:15giving money to hazardous waste
2:48:16generators to incentivize them to reduce
2:48:18their own waste? If so, why is the why
2:48:21is public funding being proposed for
2:48:23industry practices that should already
2:48:26be required? These elements of the plan
2:48:28are confusing and need far more clarity.
2:48:31The plan lacks measurable goals, leaving
2:48:33the bees and the public with no way to
2:48:35evaluate whether any progress has been
2:48:37made in three years. How will we know if
2:48:39source reduction has occurred? How will
2:48:41we know if um how will effectiveness be
2:48:44be assessed? How will we know if
2:48:46communities are being protected without
2:48:48metrics? The plan offers no
2:48:50accountability. At some point, we must
2:48:52stop relying on remaining hopeful that
2:48:54DTSC will do the right thing when given
2:48:56vague broad discretion. Hope is not a
2:48:59regulatory strategy and it will not
2:49:01protect our communities. You do not need
2:49:03to approve this plan in order to
2:49:05continue in your roles and provide
2:49:07oversight, offer direction, or continue
2:49:09collaborating with DTSC on strengthening
2:49:12public health protections and advancing
2:49:13genuine source reduction. I urge you to
2:49:16vote on this plan. Thank you.
2:49:19>> Thank you very much for your comments.
2:49:21We have about six additional commenters
2:49:23on Zoom. So, next commenter, Veronica,
2:49:26we're going to invite you to unmute.
2:49:28Please accept our invitation and you'll
2:49:30have three minutes.
2:49:38Hey, good morning. Can you hear me?
2:49:39Okay.
2:49:40>> Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.
2:49:42>> Good morning again. Well, or I'm sorry,
2:49:45it's not good morning anymore. Good
2:49:47afternoon, board members. My name is
2:49:48Veronica Agiri. I'm a member of the um
2:49:52Avenue community and a community
2:49:54organizer with Green Action for Health
2:49:56and and Environmental Justice. I'm here
2:49:59today to urge you to vote no on the
2:50:01adoption of the hazardous waste plan. As
2:50:04as has already been mentioned, hazardous
2:50:07waste impacts are not fair. And coming
2:50:09from a frontline community, I have a
2:50:11front row seat to this unfairness. I
2:50:14have family and friends in Kettleman
2:50:16City who can attest to the injustice.
2:50:18Some have survived cancer. These are
2:50:21real people facing real problems, and
2:50:24these are problems that can be prevented
2:50:26with your leadership. Frontline
2:50:28communities are being left vulnerable
2:50:31and we are here today pleading for the
2:50:33health and safety of our families.
2:50:35Please send this plan back, reject it,
2:50:38and do not move forward in its current
2:50:40form. Please vote no. Respectfully, I
2:50:43ask that you please vote no. Thank you.
2:50:46>> Thank you for your comments.
2:50:49Next commenter, Ariel McCarti, we're
2:50:51going to invite you to unmute. Please
2:50:54accept our invitation and you'll have
2:50:55three minutes for your comment.
2:50:58>> Good afternoon, chair, members of the
2:51:00board. My name is Ariel Mccardi. I'm
2:51:02with the National Diversity Coalition
2:51:04and we represent low to moderate income
2:51:06communities statewide and nationwide. We
2:51:09ask you to not We ask you not to approve
2:51:12this hazardous waste plan today. The
2:51:14board has already done your job. You
2:51:15made sure a plan was submitted, but you
2:51:18do not need to vote for a plan that is
2:51:19not ready and not good for the people.
2:51:22This plan is missing clear goals to
2:51:23reduce hazardous waste or clean up
2:51:25pollution. Moreover, it does not focus
2:51:28on protecting our communities and it
2:51:30brings back the idea of putting
2:51:31hazardous soil into city landfills,
2:51:34something this board has already removed
2:51:36last year. The same concept has been
2:51:38reintroduced under a new label by
2:51:40shifting focus to the waste extraction
2:51:42test and related toxicity criteria. We
2:51:45asked the board to please remove
2:51:47recommendations 2.2 2 through 2.5 and
2:51:511.3 from the plan. We also ask you to
2:51:54remove recommendation
2:51:57wi 1.3 which opens the door to new
2:51:59exemptions and exclusions that undermine
2:52:01the integrity of California's hazardous
2:52:03waste standards. If you want to study
2:52:05waste rules in the future, please make
2:52:07it public with community voices,
2:52:09experts, and agencies like Cal Recycle
2:52:11and the Water Board working together. We
2:52:14want to work with you on a better plan,
2:52:15one that reduces toxic waste, cleans up
2:52:18contamination, and truly protects the
2:52:20health of California's people. Thank you
2:52:22so much.
2:52:24>> Thank you for your comments. The next
2:52:26commenter on Zoom, Karen A, we're going
2:52:29to invite you to unmute. Please accept
2:52:32our invitation and you'll have three
2:52:33minutes to make your comment.
2:52:38>> Good afternoon.
2:52:41I'm Karina from the National Diversity
2:52:44Coalition.
2:52:45First, I want to say that I agree with
2:52:47board members on the importance of
2:52:50integrating community cleanup effort
2:52:51that is in the direction we should be
2:52:54moving forward. We are finally getting
2:52:57closer to the vision we are all share. A
2:52:59state that does not only manages hazard
2:53:01waste but actively works to clean up
2:53:04past contamination and protect impacted
2:53:07communities.
2:53:08SP 158 was very clear. California must
2:53:12pursue hazard waste reduction goals
2:53:14based on real data. We set a goal as a
2:53:17state. We are committed to it. That
2:53:20means reducing the creation of hazard
2:53:22waste itself. Not finding a new pathway
2:53:25exceptions of or disposal options that
2:53:28weaken environmental protection or shift
2:53:31the burden into already overimpacted
2:53:33neighborhood. And fortunately, this
2:53:36draft plan does not align with those
2:53:38reduction goals. It opens the door to
2:53:41policies that could increase risk to
2:53:43communities like mine in Los Angeles
2:53:45County, communities that have long been
2:53:48exposed to toxic sites, landfills,
2:53:50industrial waste, and environmental
2:53:52injustices. Any proposal that allow
2:53:54contaminated materials even under
2:53:56certain conditions to be sent to
2:53:58facilities that were never designed to
2:54:01manage them safely is a step backwards.
2:54:05Instead of loosening standards, we
2:54:07should be strengthening oversight,
2:54:10investing in safer technology, and
2:54:12prioritizing reduction at the source.
2:54:14California should lead in environmental
2:54:16protection, not compromise the health of
2:54:19the communities who have historically
2:54:21carried the greatest burden. I urge the
2:54:24board to reject this draft plan and
2:54:27bring forward version that is fully
2:54:29consistent with the AB158 that centers
2:54:32community cleanup and that genuinely
2:54:34protects public health and the
2:54:37environment. Thank you.
2:54:39>> Thank you for your comments. Next
2:54:41commenter, um, also listed under CBE
2:54:44community, uh, we're going to invite you
2:54:47to unmute. Please accept our invitation
2:54:50and you'll have three minutes.
2:54:53>> Buenosardes,
2:54:55Miss
2:54:57>> Thank you. We'll have our interpreter.
2:54:58Oh, thanks, Mark.
2:55:00>> Thank you. Yes, we'll provide them the
2:55:01same instructions.
2:55:21toxic.
2:55:25>> Good afternoon. My name is Ros. I live
2:55:27in the area of Walnut Park, very close
2:55:30to the areas most affected by his
2:55:31landfills like Eggside and U-Haul.
2:55:46And as it's shown in its current form
2:55:59>> because of the situation in which we're
2:56:01in right now, myself and both of my
2:56:03daughters have seen ourselves with many
2:56:06health problems. Both of us diagnosed,
2:56:08excuse me, all three of us diagnosed
2:56:10with asthma and other respiratory
2:56:11issues.
2:56:19There are other families affected by
2:56:20even more severe diagnosis like cancer.
2:56:34Prioritize environmental justice or
2:56:36public health.
2:56:47>> Why? Because it's lacking in EJ
2:56:50practices and it's lacking in cleanup uh
2:56:53cleanup measures for the affected lands.
2:57:08The plan did not ensure that Central
2:57:11Metal took any responsibility for the
2:57:13actions. And because of this, our homes
2:57:15are now affected by contaminants such as
2:57:17lead.
2:57:27And of course, there's been no cleanup
2:57:29efforts for the homes other than the
2:57:31cleanup that was done on the actual
2:57:33property of land.
2:57:40And this of course is creating or
2:57:41opening the way to even more industrial
2:57:44contaminants.
2:57:55>> Our EJ communities and those who are
2:57:57most impacted are now forced to deal
2:58:00with the effects of this land that's
2:58:02contaminated that's affecting us so
2:58:03horribly.
2:58:10Shouldn't this plan prioritize cleanup
2:58:12and the health of our communities?
2:58:24>> The toxic contamination in our area is
2:58:26the cause of thousands of deaths in our
2:58:29area.
2:58:33Our
2:58:39children, our schools are surrounded by
2:58:41these toxins, these contaminates,
2:58:44contaminants, excuse me, that poison
2:58:46them and even kill them.
2:58:57They're constantly in contact because
2:58:59they participate in open air sports and
2:59:01that leaves them even more exposed.
2:59:09>> I ask you please to vote against this
2:59:12hazardous waste management plan.
2:59:15>> Gracias.
2:59:16>> Thank you.
2:59:19Thank you for your comments and for our
2:59:21interpreter, Mark. The next commenter we
2:59:24have on Zoom is Jennifer Elkins. We're
2:59:27going to invite you to unmute. Please
2:59:29accept our invitation and you'll have
2:59:31three minutes.
2:59:33>> Hi, good afternoon. My name is Jennifer
2:59:35Elkins. Um, as a community member who's
2:59:38directly impacted by hazardous waste at
2:59:40mismanaged landfills, I urge you to vote
2:59:42no on the current plan as it is written.
2:59:45We must do better. I also urge you to
2:59:47ask for public input within communities
2:59:49as we are the ones being most impacted
2:59:51by these decisions. Most community
2:59:53members that I know have no knowledge of
2:59:57this hazardous waste management plan or
2:59:59that you're even meeting today to vote
3:00:00on it. Community outreach should be a
3:00:02priority. Please vote no on the
3:00:04hazardous waste management plan as it is
3:00:07currently written. Thank you.
3:00:09>> Thank you for your comments. Next
3:00:12commenter, we have Jane Williams. Jane,
3:00:16we're going to invite you to unmute.
3:00:18Please accept our invitation and you'll
3:00:20have three minutes.
3:00:29Thank you for the opportunity to speak
3:00:30today. I'm Jane Williams.
3:00:37I'm the executive director of California
3:00:39Communities Against Toxics
3:00:42and I live in Roseman, California, which
3:00:45is the site of one of the state's worst
3:00:47childhood cancer clusters,
3:00:50mainly due to the illegal dis disposal
3:00:55of hazardous waste.
3:00:57And what I wanted to tell you today is
3:01:00that back in the 1990s, in the mid
3:01:051990s,
3:01:07during the governorship of Pete Wilson,
3:01:11the state of California grappled with
3:01:13many of these same questions. What to do
3:01:15with California's hazardous waste?
3:01:19We had gone through throw it in the
3:01:20ocean, dump it in the rivers, bury it on
3:01:23the land, um try to recycle it. all
3:01:26these same questions. The regulatory
3:01:29structure update was a three-yearong
3:01:31process that looked at headto toe
3:01:34California's hazardous waste management
3:01:37superstructure.
3:01:40Many of the same ideas that are in this
3:01:44plan that is before you were
3:01:49examined,
3:01:51chewed on, and in the end roundly
3:01:55dismissed.
3:01:58And the reason was precisely
3:02:01what you're hearing now is that we could
3:02:04not change California's hazardous waste
3:02:06management planning and its
3:02:08infrastructure without damaging
3:02:10environmental justice communities.
3:02:13The only way to do a better job than
3:02:16what we're doing now is to do it with
3:02:19new technologies and pollution
3:02:21prevention.
3:02:22And I spent three years over at the
3:02:24California Air Res Air Resources Board
3:02:27working on the chromeplating rule. That
3:02:30chrome plating rule
3:02:32will reduce, if not eliminate
3:02:36the production of the PAS fume
3:02:38suppressants that are used to suppress
3:02:40the hexavalent chromium in the boiling
3:02:42vats
3:02:44and dramatically reduce the state's
3:02:46production of hazardous waste from this
3:02:48industry.
3:02:50That was not part of the regulatory
3:02:52reason we did that, but it is part of
3:02:54the regulatory outcome.
3:02:57So, I feel like I'm in Groundhog Day
3:03:00with this lengthy process that the state
3:03:04has undertaken that spit out the same
3:03:06answers. Adopt the transfer based
3:03:08exclusion. Oh, get rid of the wet test.
3:03:10Oh, let's recycle hazardous waste into
3:03:13fertilizer and asphalt shingles.
3:03:15>> So,
3:03:17on this, there is so much better that we
3:03:19can do. We do have new technologies that
3:03:21we did not have back in the mid 90s and
3:03:24I will be happy to serve on an advisory
3:03:26committee to talk about all of this.
3:03:28Thank you so much for the opportunity to
3:03:29talk today.
3:03:32>> Thank you for your comments. Next
3:03:34commenter, Thomas Helm. Thomas, we're
3:03:37going to invite you to unmute. Please
3:03:39accept our invitation and you'll have
3:03:41three minutes.
3:03:45>> Yes. Uh thank you. Uh my name is Thomas
3:03:48Helm. Uh I'm the co-founder of Valley
3:03:50Improvement Projects uh in the Northern
3:03:53Sanwaqin Valley. Also the co-coordinator
3:03:55of California Environmental Justice
3:03:57Coalition. Um here to stand in
3:04:00solidarity and echo uh many of the
3:04:03points that were made uh by many of the
3:04:06environmental justice uh advocates that
3:04:08you heard from today. um valley
3:04:11improvement projects uh was started uh
3:04:15because we had at the time one of the
3:04:17the three trash incinerators in the
3:04:19state of California which was built uh
3:04:22just a few years after uh the state of
3:04:25California commissioned the Surell
3:04:27report which talked about uh if you want
3:04:30to site a waste facility um to look at
3:04:33low income uh low education uh
3:04:37communities specifically mentioning
3:04:39rural
3:04:40ranching and farming areas um where
3:04:44Catholics uh live. And then the
3:04:47incinerator in West Stannis County uh
3:04:50began to be built in an area uh that's
3:04:53about 80% uh Latino communities uh many
3:04:57farm workers uh in that area. Um, and
3:05:00not only that, um, DTSC allowed the
3:05:03incinerator to put its toxic ash, um,
3:05:07from burning trash into the local
3:05:09landfill. Uh, now in December of of last
3:05:12year, almost a year ago now, the
3:05:14incinerator stopped operating and we
3:05:16were glad to hear that there wouldn't be
3:05:18any more toxic ash going into our uh,
3:05:21local landfill. Um, and then we were
3:05:24made aware um of of this plan uh to uh
3:05:29look for ways to take uh contaminated
3:05:32toxic soils to uh those local landfills.
3:05:36And we were worried that we were going
3:05:37to have another source of of toxic waste
3:05:40um going into our local landfill uh
3:05:43which is right next to where the
3:05:44incinerator was operating in uh western
3:05:47Stannis County. Um we do appreciate that
3:05:52after a lot of advocacy that that
3:05:55recommendation
3:05:56uh 7.2
3:05:59um was taken out of the plan. Um but it
3:06:03appears that you know it might have been
3:06:06uh in name only uh because a lot of the
3:06:10other exceptions um that are put into
3:06:13this plan um are looking for a way to
3:06:16reclassify something as not being toxic
3:06:19instead of actually reducing the toxic
3:06:22waste that we produce and making
3:06:24polluters that create this toxic waste
3:06:27responsible uh for the cost uh on
3:06:30communities. ities and the cost uh of
3:06:33cleanup. Um I stand in solidarity with
3:06:37the others that have spoke to say that
3:06:38this plan should be rejected. No plan is
3:06:42better uh than a bad plan and we need to
3:06:45start over with the recommendations
3:06:47given uh in the numerous comments and
3:06:50letters submitted by environmental
3:06:51justice organizations
3:06:54>> um and start over with a new plan. and
3:06:56I'd be glad um to be a part of those
3:06:58conversations uh that happen.
3:07:00>> Thank you for your comments.
3:07:01>> Thank you.
3:07:02>> Thank you. Okay, the final commenter we
3:07:05have uh on Zoom and if we can also just
3:07:07double check with our interpreters that
3:07:09there's no one on the Spanish channel or
3:07:11if there is anyone on the Spanish
3:07:13channel that would uh like to comment um
3:07:16we'll double check that. Uh but then we
3:07:19have Jeff Ellsworth. Uh Jeff, we're
3:07:22going to invite you to unmute. Please
3:07:24accept our invitation and you'll have
3:07:26three minutes.
3:07:28>> Thank you. Can you hear me?
3:07:30>> Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.
3:07:32>> Thank you. My name is Jeff Ellsworth. I
3:07:34was the mayor of a small town in Napa
3:07:36Valley, Napa County, that saw uh
3:07:38significant problems with our local
3:07:40landfill with contamination and fires
3:07:42and also impacts to the workers. Um and
3:07:45so, uh I'm now with CLUAC, which is the
3:07:48League of United Latin American
3:07:50Citizens. And what we're trying to talk
3:07:52about is uh the the contamination
3:07:55incidents as relates to not only the
3:07:58larger community but the workers as well
3:08:00and the workers being part of that
3:08:02general public that uh these agencies
3:08:05are mandated to protect. Uh what we
3:08:08recently saw was a was a a hearing and a
3:08:12um an audit of Cal OSHA that was brought
3:08:15forth by Assembly Member Liz Ortega that
3:08:18brought forth significant deficiencies
3:08:21at the OSHA process. And so the workers
3:08:23complaints and concerns regarding
3:08:26hazardous and toxic materials weren't
3:08:28coming forward. So, we're we're we're
3:08:31trying to talk to agencies about making
3:08:33sure there's proper portals and with
3:08:35things like the hazardous management
3:08:37plan for worker complaints and concerns
3:08:39to come forward and not just be being
3:08:41deferred to a frankly a broken OSHA
3:08:44system. Um my so my comments today uh
3:08:48pertain to this item. I won't be on for
3:08:49the environmental justice item, but
3:08:51these comments also pertain to that. And
3:08:53I'm going to submit something as well
3:08:55that's going to be a request for an
3:08:57agendaized time for us to do a
3:09:00presentation on the nexus between what
3:09:02we're seeing as ongoing California
3:09:04Latino waste worker fatalities and
3:09:07impacts and and this pertains to all
3:09:09waste workers associated civil rights
3:09:12complaints and environmental water
3:09:13quality impacts relevant to the water
3:09:16and air boards as well as the department
3:09:18of toxic substance control. So nexus
3:09:21between that and the recent assembly
3:09:24senate joint audit and hearing related
3:09:26to the deficiencies at Cal OSHA um and
3:09:30and how these all tie together as a
3:09:32problem where those folks who are the
3:09:35boots on the ground the workers their
3:09:37concerns and complaints are not coming
3:09:39forward. We're seeing significant
3:09:41comment today from folks with concerns
3:09:44and we know that that um those those
3:09:47workers are really in the face of it.
3:09:49So, I'll submit this and hopefully we
3:09:52can find a time to uh uh agendaize this
3:09:55because we think you need more
3:09:57information that can come from these
3:10:00folks who are actually working in those
3:10:01conditions and that might help you see a
3:10:04a better pathway to coming up with a a
3:10:07really full plan. Thank you.
3:10:09>> Thank you for your comments. So, that
3:10:12concludes the the comments on Zoom. Uh,
3:10:16we do have an additional in-person
3:10:18commenter that would like to make a
3:10:19comment at this time. So, we'll go ahead
3:10:22and invite Angela up to make a comment.
3:10:37>> Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm
3:10:40Angela Johnson Mazaro, senior attorney
3:10:42justice. Today's statements are not on
3:10:44behalf of any particular client.
3:10:47Today
3:10:49I'm feeling
3:10:51betrayed.
3:10:54Here we are in Sacramento.
3:10:57It's 12:30
3:10:59and it's this distant and sheltered
3:11:01place where this board decided to vote
3:11:04on a plan meant to establish the
3:11:06direction of the department's efforts
3:11:08for years. Now, the powerful
3:11:10manipulating time and place to suit the
3:11:12needs of the powerful, of course, is
3:11:14nothing new. Nevertheless, sometimes it
3:11:16feels important to state the obvious.
3:11:20Rarely is there a moment when it is
3:11:23clear that a decision will mark an
3:11:25inflection point, and this, I believe,
3:11:27is one of those moments.
3:11:30The plan before you today embraces
3:11:33DTSC's status quo.
3:11:35The director and the deputy director set
3:11:37this plan before you and us having made
3:11:41their decision about the path forward.
3:11:43This plan calls for this plan answers
3:11:46the calls for change with timidness and
3:11:50tasks and whispered stories about the
3:11:54department's challenges.
3:11:56This plan ignores a simple truth. This
3:11:59is not the time or the place to center
3:12:02DTSC's challenges. Rather, this is the
3:12:05moment to inhabit the challenges
3:12:08experienced by real people living on the
3:12:10front lines of California's hazardous
3:12:12waste management failures. This is a
3:12:15moment for problem solving and focus and
3:12:19courageous leadership.
3:12:21This choice is particularly jarring
3:12:24because in this moment, those who
3:12:27embrace the use of power to strip
3:12:29dignity
3:12:31and safety from those deemed unworthy
3:12:35are pushing for the change they want to
3:12:37see nationally and here. For decades,
3:12:42California has mostly refused to embrace
3:12:45the federal project of adopting
3:12:47exemptions, exclusions, and
3:12:49industryfriendly workarounds to the
3:12:51mandate central to the hazardous waste
3:12:54law. Ensure protection of health and the
3:12:56environment from the ravages of
3:12:58hazardous substances.
3:13:01But DTSC staff, focusing on itself, is
3:13:05failing to respond with the vision and
3:13:07the leadership that's needed in this
3:13:09moment.
3:13:11In SP 158, we were promised that this
3:13:14board would be the people's allies in
3:13:16nudging, guiding, and when necessary,
3:13:19dragging DTSC off of the path that it
3:13:22has been on for far too long.
3:13:25The people turned out to voice the
3:13:27reality of how hazardous substances this
3:13:29department is charged with ma with
3:13:32managing impacts them, their loved ones,
3:13:35and their communities. And we testified
3:13:37and we chanted and we wrote letters and
3:13:40we had meetings and we called for
3:13:42change.
3:13:44And for a moment you were moved to
3:13:47leadership. You were skeptical about the
3:13:50plan's direction and you asked the
3:13:52director and the deputy director to
3:13:54rethink it. And after months
3:13:57they returned with essentially the same
3:14:00plan. But they extracted a penalty. They
3:14:04removed timelines.
3:14:06They obscured what lacks funding. They
3:14:09struck language that provided insight
3:14:11into their attentions as if we should
3:14:14unsee what we've already seen.
3:14:17Building into the plan the excuses that
3:14:20they'll later use. There was no money.
3:14:22Oh, we're still in progress.
3:14:25And like before, this plan lacks a
3:14:28vision for how DTSC will make real
3:14:31people's lives better.
3:14:34As 23 organizations from the round
3:14:36estate pointed out in our most recent
3:14:39letter to you, all of the
3:14:41recommendations in the March plan are
3:14:43included in this October plan, save
3:14:46four. One was removed by you and three
3:14:51of the four tagged as solely related to
3:14:53environmental justice.
3:14:56This was not the change that we were
3:14:58promised and it is definitely not the
3:15:01change that we demanded. Rewriting the
3:15:04goals without changing the
3:15:06recommendations isn't change, it's
3:15:09defiance.
3:15:11So that's what I'm thinking about. But
3:15:14what about you? Are you excited to vote
3:15:17for this plan? Or were you more resigned
3:15:21to hearing angry three minute three
3:15:23minute statements from the people most
3:15:25harmed by the status quo and their
3:15:27allies punctuated by the couping comfort
3:15:31from the regulated entities telling you
3:15:33that this is all very reasonable?
3:15:36Did you rehearse statements about why it
3:15:38has to be this way? And did you think to
3:15:41yourself about how you were going to
3:15:43assure us that later, next time,
3:15:48someday, somehow in ways that you really
3:15:51can't describe but truly long for
3:15:54there'll be change?
3:15:56Is this really progress?
3:15:58Yes, this work is urgent. Yet somehow we
3:16:01have seven years and counting to wait
3:16:04for SB673 regulations, but no time to
3:16:08wait for a clear, coherent plan about
3:16:11hazardous waste management from DTSC's
3:16:13leadership. Time,
3:16:16including misplaced urgency, is a tool
3:16:20of the powerful
3:16:22and those who refuse to be courageous
3:16:25alike.
3:16:27You have the authority to prevent DTSC
3:16:30from going on this path. The board
3:16:33should vote no on this plan because it
3:16:35does nothing to make communities safer.
3:16:37Thank you.
3:16:39>> Thank you for your comments. Uh board
3:16:41members, in addition, we do have uh
3:16:44three comments that were submitted in
3:16:46writing with the request to be read out
3:16:48loud. So, I'm going to proceed with
3:16:50those comments now. The first commenter
3:16:54we have um that submitted the comment in
3:16:56writing is Andrea Ventura
3:17:00and it begins clean water action
3:17:03representing thousands of Californians
3:17:05urging urges the board and environmental
3:17:07safety to fulfill its mission to hold
3:17:09DTSC accountable and protect public
3:17:12health by rejecting this hazardous waste
3:17:14plan. Clean Water Action was deeply
3:17:17involved with the passage of SB 158
3:17:20because the need to reform DTSC was
3:17:23vital. The department's failures to
3:17:25enforce industrial permits, reduced
3:17:28actual hazardous waste generation, and
3:17:30remediate existing environmental
3:17:32contamination have real world
3:17:35consequences as whole communities suffer
3:17:37both the health and economic burdens
3:17:39that come with exposure to hazardous
3:17:42substances.
3:17:43SP 158 particularly created this
3:17:46oversight board to guide the department
3:17:48toward needed reform and to hold them
3:17:51accountable when they did not live up to
3:17:53their obligations.
3:17:55This plan represents the latter
3:17:57situation. It does not ensure real
3:17:59progress in reducing human and
3:18:01environmental exposures. It does not in
3:18:04incorporate community-based
3:18:06recommendations. It instead reflects the
3:18:08very departmental culture we saw when we
3:18:11were working on SB 158 including the
3:18:15couch trance in taking meaningful
3:18:18actions that bring results within a
3:18:20specified time frame timeline. We will
3:18:24offer three examples of how this plan
3:18:26which is all show but little substance
3:18:29fails. DTSC should have done its
3:18:31homework before developing this plan.
3:18:33This document should be a list of
3:18:36implementable actions and not a research
3:18:38project. DTSC was tasked with
3:18:41identifying specific steps to reduce
3:18:43hazardous waste, remediate
3:18:45contamination, and prevent further
3:18:47community exposure, not to compile data
3:18:50gaps. Communities have long shared their
3:18:52knowledge that that can inform
3:18:55priorities and strategies. DTSC should
3:18:58build on that expertise to propose real
3:19:00measures now, then refine future plans
3:19:03as new data emerges.
3:19:05Number two, California must lead, not
3:19:08follow deregulation. The department
3:19:11should remember that it does not
3:19:12represent the federal government or
3:19:14industry. It serves the people of the
3:19:16state. The recent election showed
3:19:18rejection of the federal roll back
3:19:20agenda. Reviewing federal recycling
3:19:23exemptions is out of step with the
3:19:25public will. Instead, DTSC must make a
3:19:28broad view of what constitutes hazardous
3:19:30waste and act boldly to eliminate its
3:19:33resources, its sources, and clean up
3:19:35contamination harming fence line
3:19:37communities. In addition, the department
3:19:40must mirror the legislaturator's
3:19:42rejection of advanced recycling, which
3:19:45are just incineration by another name as
3:19:48recycling. Number three, budget
3:19:51constraints have been constant excuse
3:19:53for in action. However, the state should
3:19:55only fund programs and plans that
3:19:57outline meaningful goals and strategies
3:20:00to achieve them. This plan fails that
3:20:03standard. DTSC must implement a robust
3:20:06enforcement plan with penalties and
3:20:08direct those monies to addressing needs
3:20:10of fence line communities. Lastly, when
3:20:14budgetary constraints do legitimately
3:20:16limit the department's capacity, there
3:20:18must be a transparent process by which
3:20:21priorities and timelines are realigned
3:20:23with public input.
3:20:25DTSC's credibility problem runs deep,
3:20:28and this plan by ignoring community
3:20:30input only widens the trust gap. We urge
3:20:34the board to demand a new plan that
3:20:36delivers measurable, tangible health
3:20:38improvements for California commu
3:20:40communities. say no to this plan. Andrea
3:20:43Ventura.
3:20:46The next commenter we have uh to read
3:20:49out loud.
3:20:52We have uh just uh from Brendan. Uh my
3:20:57name is Brendan Rohe, a resident and
3:21:01business owner operator in Southern
3:21:03California. I urge you to reject the
3:21:05current DTSC proposed hazardous waste
3:21:08management plan. As a concerned citizen
3:21:11active with the Clean Air Coalition, I
3:21:13have followed its progress for many
3:21:15months. Although I have no doubt that
3:21:17your technical team has worked
3:21:18tirelessly on this issue, my opinion is
3:21:21that the plan does not sufficiently
3:21:23address environmental concerns raised by
3:21:25the public currently being harmed by
3:21:28local polluters and doesn't do enough to
3:21:32help improve public health protection
3:21:34and reduce risk from toxic exposure. The
3:21:37proposed changes to the hazardous waste
3:21:40standards will allow harm to continue to
3:21:42residents and workers in communities all
3:21:45over California near recycling
3:21:48facilities, landfills, and sites
3:21:51generating or containing hazardous
3:21:53waste. Board, please stand up and do the
3:21:56right thing for the people of
3:21:58California. Send this plan back to the
3:22:00drawing board and demand better.
3:22:06And that concludes that comment. The
3:22:08final comment I have to read out loud
3:22:10today comes from Duncan McKe
3:22:13and it begins,
3:22:16"The hazardous waste management plan
3:22:18must definitively define lithium ion
3:22:21batteries as a hazardous waste that is
3:22:23permitted, regulated, processed, and the
3:22:26hazardous waste that is generated,
3:22:28disposed of under Rick guidelines. The
3:22:31plan should include requirements that
3:22:34facilities that process these and other
3:22:36batteries be cited where communities and
3:22:39the environment are not at risk.
3:22:41Exide and quo are textbook examples of
3:22:45where DTSC
3:22:47and SCA QMD fell short. And to the Exite
3:22:51case, taxpayers are footing the bill for
3:22:54a cleanup that should have never been
3:22:55necessary and is likely unattainable.
3:22:59Conspicuously absent are provisions to
3:23:02implement adequate financial assurance
3:23:04requirements for facilities that that
3:23:08DTSC and the SCA QMD permit to pollute
3:23:12our communities. DTSC must include a
3:23:15plan to monetarily penalize violators
3:23:19fines that shall be at the maximum that
3:23:21is permissible.
3:23:25DTSC would take in revenue that would be
3:23:28used to hire additional competent people
3:23:31to help with better permitted permitting
3:23:33enforcement corrective action and
3:23:35postclosure. This monetary incentive
3:23:38will result in big polluters,
3:23:40implementing new technologies, better
3:23:42control measures, and a significant
3:23:44improvement to the unacceptable status
3:23:46quo.
3:23:48The isotopic analysis should be included
3:23:50in the plan to help determine the source
3:23:53of the lead arsenic chromium and other
3:23:55toxic substances discharged from
3:23:58facilities. This along with examination
3:24:01under electron microscope TEM and SEM
3:24:06which will gather data on the texture
3:24:08and composition at high resolution to
3:24:10provide information on the properties
3:24:13and micro structure size and morphology
3:24:16of the particles which can be associated
3:24:19with a source. In addition, simple
3:24:22analysis on an ICPMS analyzer will give
3:24:25a clear picture of the relative
3:24:31uh relative concentration of the other
3:24:33metals associated with a particular
3:24:35source including orphan sites. These are
3:24:39just a few examples where the hazardous
3:24:41waste management plan needs to be more
3:24:43robust in specifics and therefore we
3:24:46urge bees to ask DTSC to come up with a
3:24:49comprehensive and responsible plan to
3:24:52vote on. Thank you for the opportunity
3:24:54to provide public comment.
3:24:56And that's from Duncan McKe.
3:25:01So with that in confirmation, there are
3:25:04no additional comments in Spanish. Uh
3:25:07this will officially conclude the public
3:25:10comment period for the 2025 hazardous
3:25:13waste management plan agenda item four.
3:25:19Uh Chair Rickstra,
3:25:20>> thank you very much, Courtney. Uh and
3:25:22thank you to each and every one of the
3:25:23commenters. I really truly appreciate
3:25:26all the thought uh that went into each
3:25:28of those comments. Um so what we're
3:25:31going to do now is we will take a brief
3:25:3315inut break. Um at this point I'd ask
3:25:36the board members to start thinking
3:25:38through uh motions. Um we will reconvene
3:25:41at 5 after. I know we're like well into
3:25:45lunch hour and I apologize for that. Um
3:25:47at five after we'll reconvene as the
3:25:49board. We'll consider u a motion um with
3:25:52regards to the hazardous waste
3:25:53management plan and then at that point
3:25:56we will take a lunch break probably a
3:25:58truncated lunch break and there's some
3:26:00time um that we have built in later in
3:26:02the day that we can make up. So let's
3:26:04take a 15-minute break right now. We'll
3:26:05reconvene here as a board at 10:05.
3:26:08Thank you.
3:26:09>> Welcome back everyone.
3:26:12Welcome back. It is 1:15 and we maintain
3:26:16a quorum by having all board members
3:26:18present. Uh, Chair Rickstraw, we are
3:26:20ready to proceed with agenda item number
3:26:22four, DTSC's 2025 hazardous waste
3:26:25management plan.
3:26:28>> Thank you very much, Courtney. Um so
3:26:29what we'll uh do right now is um our
3:26:32executive officer um Chararma here um
3:26:35has been um taking down a lot of the
3:26:37comments that the board members have
3:26:40been proposing and so she'll provide a
3:26:42brief recap of that to kind of
3:26:44synthesize some of the discussion um to
3:26:46date and then Ferdos um will provide
3:26:50speak to the um board staff's um
3:26:53assessment of uh the discussion so far
3:26:56at least. So that's my understanding of
3:26:58so over to you exe executive officer.
3:27:01>> Thank you so much. So I'm going to recap
3:27:03what we heard from the board members
3:27:05earlier today and what their hopes
3:27:08desires are uh for implementation as
3:27:11well as the next plan and what these
3:27:14next 3 6 9 12 months two years look
3:27:17like. So uh some of these items that we
3:27:20heard repeated from multiple board
3:27:22members. So, apologies if I misspeak and
3:27:26uh give credit to one board member over
3:27:28another, but from board member Batia, we
3:27:30first heard that you'd like to continue
3:27:32reoccurring subcommittee meetings with
3:27:34DTSC led by um deputy director Mandy
3:27:37Bane to get line by line action lists
3:27:40within the plan to understand what
3:27:42progress is being made, how to
3:27:44accelerate progress, and where progress
3:27:47can be measured. um to also use these
3:27:49subcommittees to refine the definition
3:27:51of progress and bring it back to the
3:27:54board and to the public. Um you would
3:27:57also like the board you also feel the
3:27:59board should translate the plan's
3:28:01progress and overall hold DTSC
3:28:04accountable of its implementation. We
3:28:06heard from board member Brostm that you
3:28:09wanted to have the plan have a numerical
3:28:11goal and a reduction goal that is more
3:28:14data driven. you would like to see an
3:28:16aspirational goal setting the course for
3:28:18what we want to see as a state. Uh
3:28:21develop a vision for where we want to go
3:28:23as a state. Um embedded in it is public
3:28:26health and community protections when
3:28:28making recommendations for um evaluating
3:28:31exclusions. You would also like to see
3:28:33an advisory body to the board to help
3:28:36with this plan and implementation plan.
3:28:39you would like a public and transparent
3:28:41process. And also um echoing what
3:28:44another board member had said, uh
3:28:46independent experts invited by the board
3:28:48to present on specific topics that are
3:28:52most contentious at board meetings and
3:28:55also um set source reduction goals. We
3:28:59heard from board member Gomez that you
3:29:01would like to see benchmarks in the plan
3:29:04and also to continue EJ as a lens for
3:29:06implementation. um but overall have more
3:29:09and have source reduction goals within
3:29:12the plan. From Vice Chair Hacker, we
3:29:14heard that you would like to have a
3:29:16panel of experts to discuss the wet test
3:29:18and lithium ion batteries and where we
3:29:21should go from here on some of those
3:29:23issues. You would also also like a
3:29:25public forum with DTSC to discuss the
3:29:27science aspects of the plan such as the
3:29:30wet test and you would like to shape the
3:29:33implementation of the plan in a more
3:29:35public way. From chair raikstraw, we
3:29:38heard that you would like to o retain
3:29:40oversight authority on how this plan is
3:29:42implemented in the early part of 2026
3:29:45and what happens next. You would like
3:29:47regularly report outs at board meetings
3:29:50with written verbal comments on the
3:29:52department's efforts to implement the
3:29:53plan. And you would also like the board
3:29:56to play a role particularly in
3:29:58contentious issues such as 1.2 and 2.4
3:30:01through 2.6 six and work with DTSC on
3:30:05specific implementation
3:30:07and you would like DTSC to work with the
3:30:09board to implement the above three
3:30:11recommendations. Was there anything that
3:30:14I missed?
3:30:21Thanks very much, executive officer. Um
3:30:24for dose, please over to you.
3:30:35Thank you, Chair Rickstra.
3:30:43I want to acknowledge and appreciate all
3:30:45the public comments provided today and
3:30:47previously at our various hearings and
3:30:50meetings with community organizations.
3:30:52Many of the comments mentioned today
3:30:54echo the same concerns the team has
3:30:56heard previously and I want to assure
3:30:59you all that the technical team has
3:31:01evaluated and considered all of the
3:31:03comments when making our recommendation.
3:31:06I would like to make clear that this
3:31:08plan does not make any changes to
3:31:09regulations that would weaken standards
3:31:11and make things less safe but rather it
3:31:14proposes to evaluate testing methods and
3:31:16other processes for the purpose of being
3:31:19more scientifically upto-date. Any
3:31:22regulatory changes proposed would be
3:31:25after an analysis is conducted and would
3:31:27occur years from now. As the plan
3:31:30states, recommendations that relate to
3:31:33the identification of hazardous waste
3:31:36and management methods would remain as
3:31:38or more protective.
3:31:41I also want to remind everyone that this
3:31:43is an iterative process and a new plan
3:31:45will be presented to the board again in
3:31:47a couple of years. Therefore, the
3:31:49technical team's recommendation still
3:31:51stands to approve the plan with the
3:31:54understanding that the board will play a
3:31:56part in overseeing the implementation.
3:31:58Thank you.
3:32:02>> Thank you very much, Herdos. Okay. Um so
3:32:05board uh we have had our board
3:32:08discussion. We've heard had our initial
3:32:10reactions to the plan. Uh we have heard
3:32:13public comment. Um, executive officer
3:32:15Chararma has summarized the um, board
3:32:18members feedback and particular on
3:32:20implementation and Perdos has provided
3:32:23an updated um, tech team recommendation.
3:32:26So, does anyone want to jump in and
3:32:29speak to um, either uh, a motion or
3:32:33respond to any of the other concerns or
3:32:35issues that we've heard today?
3:32:51Got please.
3:32:56One reflection that's coming up for me
3:32:58is um that
3:33:00I've heard today that the plan requires
3:33:03more specifics in terms of what gets
3:33:05implemented, when it gets implemented,
3:33:07how is progress going to be measured,
3:33:09all of the things that actually we've
3:33:11also we are also seeking. So I'm I'm
3:33:14fully in agreement that we need to get
3:33:17there. I think where
3:33:19the discussion we're having now is how
3:33:20we get there. Is the plan in its current
3:33:24form allowing us to take that baby step
3:33:27towards that path or is the plan
3:33:29fundamentally not even
3:33:33I personally feel like there's um this
3:33:37plan at least gives
3:33:42and to get an objective set of data that
3:33:44allows us to take those steps. Um I I
3:33:49feel like we're not disagreeing in terms
3:33:51of where we need to get to trying to
3:33:53figure out what is the path to getting
3:33:55there in terms of
3:33:58uh that we require so that we can hold
3:34:00DTS. Uh I feel like that's been some of
3:34:03the work we've been trying to do in the
3:34:04subcommittee construct which is sitting
3:34:06down with DTS
3:34:11and I I do feel like this will not um be
3:34:16sufficient
3:34:20subcommittees and make
3:34:28that we need more to do more.
3:34:30How we accomplish this? I'm pushing I us
3:34:33as subcommittee keep doing that work and
3:34:35bringing it back because without that I
3:34:37don't see how we can
3:34:43>> Thank you. Member Brstrom, please.
3:34:46>> So, I want to start with um you know,
3:34:50some of the concerns that I started out
3:34:52with and I I think were reflected in in
3:34:54a lot of the comments today about about
3:34:56this plan. um you know starting with and
3:34:59I mentioned this early on but um you
3:35:01know the fact that there is there's no
3:35:03uh uh benchmarks and goals as envisioned
3:35:07by SB 158. So um I I heard that loud and
3:35:11clear if we don't know like kind of
3:35:13where we're we're trying to get to it's
3:35:15very hard to get there. So um not having
3:35:17some of those goals you know to me is a
3:35:19a pretty fundamental flaw with the plan.
3:35:23And I also, as I mentioned before, share
3:35:26the concerns um about deregulation. Even
3:35:29though on on its face, I I don't think
3:35:31this plan reflects deregulation. Um I
3:35:35don't think it's fair to ask the public
3:35:37um to look at this plan in isolation.
3:35:40We we we have a history we have previous
3:35:42documents and I think looking in
3:35:45totality there is a real concern um you
3:35:48know that we are um taking the first
3:35:51step let's say to to deregulation
3:35:55um and I think very fundamentally even
3:35:57starting with the plan it the report
3:35:59itself um to me there hasn't been a
3:36:02clear problem statement in terms of what
3:36:04we're trying to address but you can read
3:36:06themes throughout the documents we have
3:36:08received that seems to imply um that one
3:36:12of the unstated goals is we need to
3:36:13build capacity in the state
3:36:16um disposal, treatment and recycling. Um
3:36:19and if that is a goal, you know, then
3:36:21you can see some of these um internal
3:36:24pressures, you know, to
3:36:27you know, there's many ways to to
3:36:30increase capacity in the state and one
3:36:32of which is to reclassify waste. That
3:36:35that is all to say that I share a lot of
3:36:38the the concerns that I heard brought up
3:36:40today, but I I I want to be very
3:36:42specific in terms of, you know, those
3:36:45provisions. So, my specific concerns are
3:36:48with 1.2 and recommendations 2.4 through
3:36:522.6. So, those are the ones that are,
3:36:54you know, um, you know, giving me the
3:36:58the most heartburn. Um so when I came
3:37:02today and and and in thinking throughout
3:37:05this this weekend um you know about what
3:37:07I think is the best path forward I I
3:37:10looked and I I've been thinking about
3:37:12the different options. Um and so
3:37:14fundamentally you know I thought about
3:37:16what do we gain as a board um you know
3:37:19by not approving this plan today. Um and
3:37:23I do believe it would send a strong
3:37:25message to DTSC. it would allow us to um
3:37:29you know provide more direction. Um
3:37:33however,
3:37:35it's not clear to me that if we uh that
3:37:39if we don't approve the plan today that
3:37:43um that we can compel DTSC to change
3:37:46course. DTSC has complied with SB158
3:37:50when it it submitted the the the plan to
3:37:52us. Um and so while we can, you know,
3:37:56make requests of DTSC, um it's not clear
3:37:58to me what we gain by not approving the
3:38:01plan and making these requests when we
3:38:03also have that same ability because we
3:38:06are starting the next iteration of this
3:38:09in March next year when we are going to
3:38:11see the next report. So then I think
3:38:14what do we lose by not approving today?
3:38:19Um, and so what I think we lose if we
3:38:22decide not to approve today is we lose
3:38:26that ability to provide oversight
3:38:30um uh to the to to DTSC. What's apparent
3:38:34to me is that DTSC has independent
3:38:37authority for most everything in this
3:38:38plan. Um and that it has in fact started
3:38:42some of the the you know some some of
3:38:45these measures um are already in in in
3:38:48progress and process. They do not need
3:38:50to be part of this plan in order to move
3:38:53forward. And so what I fear is, you
3:38:56know, if if we, you know, basically
3:39:00allow DTSC to move forward uh without
3:39:03the plan, we have simply removed our
3:39:06oversight, our ability to provide
3:39:08transparent mechanisms
3:39:10um and our ability to continue to be
3:39:12part of shaping the the um uh the
3:39:16implementation of this in a way that
3:39:18really addresses the concerns that I've
3:39:19heard that multiple people on this board
3:39:21have. So um so the the question for me
3:39:25is is having um this plan worse than
3:39:29having no plan at all? For me the answer
3:39:30is no. Um because as I mentioned before
3:39:33it is very important to me to start uh
3:39:37really diving into the source reduction.
3:39:40Um you know I want that I want that to
3:39:42move forward. To me it's one of the most
3:39:44important pieces of this plan. And I
3:39:47again I agree that we need more
3:39:49specifics. And so um you know along with
3:39:53you know where I sit now which is I see
3:39:56you know it more strategic to meet the
3:39:59goals that I've heard today and my own
3:40:01around some of these concerns. Um it's
3:40:04not going to be just simply a a vote for
3:40:07this plan. It's going to be also, you
3:40:10know, I I I plan to make additional
3:40:13conditions um that are important to me,
3:40:16you know, if we do move forward today um
3:40:19that I think will lay the groundwork to
3:40:21address the concerns from the public.
3:40:23And I know we can talk about those when
3:40:24we get to the motion part. Um but but
3:40:27for me, yeah, it'll have to be
3:40:28conditional on some very strict guard
3:40:31rails um and involvement on the board
3:40:33and and public transparency and thees to
3:40:36address the the very valid concerns I
3:40:38heard today.
3:40:41>> Thank you very much, Member Frostm.
3:40:43>> Excuse me, Chair Rakes. Can I just
3:40:44interject very quickly just to uh uh
3:40:46just a reminder to speak directly into
3:40:48the microphone to make sure everyone on
3:40:51Zoom is is able to hear. So, thank you.
3:40:54>> Thanks, Courtney. Um, member Strauss
3:40:56Hacker, member Gomez, any reflections
3:40:59before we get to the motion part of our
3:41:01discussion?
3:41:03>> Yeah, I I'll I'll share reflections.
3:41:07I don't think they're
3:41:09I continue to be torn, but at the same
3:41:12time, I'm not torn. I think I'm clear.
3:41:15Um, and perhaps I have a
3:41:20different perspective. Um, different but
3:41:23not too different.
3:41:25one is
3:41:29for me the the the
3:41:31the way that I'm looking at this is the
3:41:34the legislature is pretty clear on this
3:41:38particular exercise
3:41:40um relation to this plan which is
3:41:45it does it it it does cover the research
3:41:48it does cover perhaps different
3:41:50approaches but one where it's silent is
3:41:54on the measurable goals and I think we
3:41:57we all acknowledge it and but to me
3:42:00that's really important as somebody that
3:42:03comes from the EJ movement as somebody
3:42:06that sits here representing those
3:42:09communities
3:42:12that is
3:42:16that is practically everything.
3:42:20Um,
3:42:23and I was pretty clear in the last board
3:42:27meeting. I was pretty clear in the
3:42:29previous discussion around this
3:42:31particular topic in terms of what I
3:42:33wanted to see and yet it's not there.
3:42:39And and to me,
3:42:43I'm not I'm not afraid that we're going
3:42:45to lose oversight because I think we we
3:42:47are we're part of this. We're part of
3:42:50making sure that DTSC does right for the
3:42:54state of California,
3:42:56that it does right for the communities
3:42:58that have been the host of of these
3:43:03facilities, both production and the the
3:43:07the the waste side of things.
3:43:11But I think the exercise that we have of
3:43:14this board is to ensure that DTSC is
3:43:18meeting the EJ
3:43:21issues that have not been met for the
3:43:25many decades
3:43:27and this plan is missing that
3:43:31opportunity.
3:43:34know because of it and I get it and I
3:43:36get the challenges that I'm not
3:43:38dismissive of those challenges that DTC
3:43:41DTSC is faced with right now. Um we need
3:43:46more re it needs more resources to be
3:43:48able to do this. I get all of that, but
3:43:51at the end of the day,
3:43:55the the
3:43:58intent of why we were created,
3:44:02and I say this respectfully because one
3:44:06of the
3:44:08people that worked really hard in
3:44:10creating this board, sits here,
3:44:14is to really address these decades of
3:44:18ignoring ing what our communities are
3:44:20living with.
3:44:24And and I think this is one of the first
3:44:28meaningful
3:44:30ways to get there, but we're not.
3:44:34And because of it, it is unconscionable
3:44:38to me to even consider adopting this
3:44:42plan because we're not getting there.
3:44:45And it's not like I I I get that we're
3:44:48not going to get there tomorrow, but
3:44:50it's setting the foundation of a new
3:44:52tomorrow.
3:44:54And if we're silent, then we're not
3:44:56doing our job.
3:45:01Yeah.
3:45:04>> Very much member Gomez
3:45:07or Vice Chucker.
3:45:09>> Thank you, Chair Raw.
3:45:12For me, the plan is
3:45:15a glimpse at challenges that DTSC has
3:45:19committed to tackling in the years to
3:45:22come. And the board is committed to
3:45:25engaging with DTSC, both the hard work
3:45:28of the subcommittee and our staff, the
3:45:30board's interest as a whole, and in
3:45:32bringing it to the public through our
3:45:34regular board meetings. There is a host
3:45:37of other vital functions that happen
3:45:40within DTSC um in all different aspects
3:45:43that are not part of this plan that are
3:45:46also important in environmental and
3:45:50public health gains and we as a board
3:45:53have responsibility in a number of those
3:45:55areas. I think that we can all do both.
3:45:58I think we can support implementation of
3:46:01this plan which I support adoption of
3:46:04this plan. Um, I know it doesn't meet
3:46:07the expectations in many ways that have
3:46:10been articulated, but I would rather put
3:46:12my energies into supporting key of
3:46:17certain activities and bringing it
3:46:19forward to the public in this setting.
3:46:22Um, I had mentioned convening expert
3:46:24panels. I would be keen to work on that
3:46:26to make it happen in this setting. Um,
3:46:29because I'd like us to pull off some of
3:46:31those actions early into 2026. I know we
3:46:34have a big year ahead of us, but I do
3:46:37think that we can um bring a great deal
3:46:39of credibility to the process and honor
3:46:42the work that the DTSC staff and
3:46:44managers have done to date um by
3:46:47investing in those. I think also it's
3:46:49realistic to come to our January meeting
3:46:52with having worked through with the DTSC
3:46:55team what might some of those early
3:46:57implementation actions be ones will the
3:47:00board be very engaged in supporting. So
3:47:04following your comments, I'd like to
3:47:06make a
3:47:09>> Thank you very much, vice chair. Um, so
3:47:11just from my perspective, um, I just
3:47:13want to say uh I hear you uh and I
3:47:16understand the the source of much of the
3:47:19concern, the deep frustration
3:47:22uh of of many decades of engaging with
3:47:24GTSC. So I I I would like to really
3:47:26start by acknowledging that. Um I have
3:47:30heard both at this meeting at a meetings
3:47:33before serious concerns that the results
3:47:36of
3:47:38the uh evaluations called for in
3:47:41recommendation 1.2 and 2.4 2.5 and 2.6
3:47:47will necessarily lead to outcomes that
3:47:50are less protective for public health.
3:47:52And uh what I'm saying here right now is
3:47:55we as a board our mandate is to ensure
3:47:58that that does not come to pass. And so
3:48:00that when I talk about oversight is a
3:48:04core component of that is is retaining
3:48:06that oversight authority to ensure that
3:48:09the we don't head in that direction. Um
3:48:13and so you know um and that can take a
3:48:17number of different um ways many of
3:48:20which Swathy had covered covered
3:48:22earlier. Um and similar to Ingred I
3:48:26think you know we have this the choice
3:48:27here of whether to approve or reject
3:48:29this plan. Um you know approval provides
3:48:33the board and therefore the public with
3:48:36the ability to influence how DTSC
3:48:38implements these activities. And that's
3:48:40really what I'm most focused on. And
3:48:43rejection I doubt do think calls into
3:48:45question
3:48:47uh what happens next given that DTSC
3:48:50does have the existing authority to do a
3:48:52lot of these activities and is in fact
3:48:54doing some. So I think the effort here
3:48:57is to um highlight is to provide
3:49:00oversight of those that are kind of most
3:49:03at risk of heading in the direction of
3:49:05being less health protective while also
3:49:08kind of bu building up uh and um
3:49:11providing um a push to those
3:49:14recommendations that are most important
3:49:16for uh uh many of the uh efforts and
3:49:21source reduction um activities that many
3:49:25of you spoke to. So that's at least
3:49:27where where I am uh at the moment. Um so
3:49:31I'll I'll pause there. I think Vice
3:49:33Chair Stacker said that you have a
3:49:35motion to put before the board.
3:49:39>> I do and I offer it as a way of of
3:49:42getting into the process of of seconds
3:49:44and amendments. So I move that we accept
3:49:47the staff recommendation
3:49:50um to approve this plan.
3:49:55Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, is there a
3:49:57second?
3:50:00I will I will I will second. Um, and
3:50:03then I'll turn it to Member Brostrom,
3:50:04who I think
3:50:05>> I I I feel uncomfortable having this.
3:50:10To me, I would want the the approval of
3:50:13this to be coupled with some of the
3:50:16other guard rails. I I am uncomfortable
3:50:18with decoupling and having them as
3:50:21separate because to me, they're
3:50:22conditional.
3:50:24I my vote would be conditional on
3:50:26whether or not we can add some guard
3:50:29rails and and a bunch of these things
3:50:31that talked about earlier.
3:50:34>> Thank you very much. Member Brost. Are
3:50:36there so is there an amendment that you
3:50:37would like to offer to um Vice Trust
3:50:39Hacker's motion? Um yeah, I mean it'll
3:50:43need to be wordsmith, but some of the
3:50:44things that I would need to see is one I
3:50:46want I would like to condition this on
3:50:48having a um hazardous waste management
3:50:51plan advisory committee to the board. So
3:50:54basically would be an advisory body
3:50:55working with us um on the implementation
3:50:58of this. Um, I actually would like to
3:51:02condition this on DTSC subsequently
3:51:04coming up with an implementation plan
3:51:07that puts more of these details in with
3:51:10time frames and you know uh more
3:51:13specific um actions that DTSC intends to
3:51:16do um with this plan. Um I would like to
3:51:20condition it on um you know for uh for
3:51:24me it's um 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 six, that the
3:51:30analysis that is talked about um under
3:51:33those recommendations that that is done
3:51:35in conjunction with a public process
3:51:38with the board um and with the inclusion
3:51:41of independent experts um that we can
3:51:46get guidance from from members of the
3:51:48public on on and other stakeholders on
3:51:50on who that ought to be, but that we're
3:51:52bringing in um independent experts to
3:51:54help us um with that analysis. Um and
3:51:58then also I would also like to condition
3:52:00this on the um agreement that DTSC will
3:52:05develop a numeric hazardous waste
3:52:08reduction goal um you know in the next
3:52:11iteration of round two.
3:52:24Oh, I and sorry, I also uh would like
3:52:27the board to be involved with 1.1 the
3:52:29the planning around the hazardous waste
3:52:31reduction program. I I you know, it's
3:52:32very vague on what that would look like
3:52:34and that is such a fundamental piece for
3:52:36me that I also would like the board um
3:52:38to have continuing engagement on 1.1.
3:52:44Can I make a suggestion that maybe you
3:52:47have as we did earlier have two
3:52:50different motions only because there are
3:52:52things such as the advisory body that we
3:52:55need to look into and see you know do we
3:52:57have enough funding or not and we just
3:53:00need time so we won't be able to answer
3:53:03that. I think we can do it but we
3:53:05shouldn't necessarily have that hinge on
3:53:07the plan. So would it be a possibility
3:53:11to have two different motions, one on
3:53:14the plan and one on these, you know, the
3:53:1610 15 things that I listed that the
3:53:19board members have? I can add that to
3:53:20it, but only because I think some of
3:53:23these are going to require some ongoing
3:53:26discussion, at least for our teams, to
3:53:28look into what it would take for the
3:53:31board to have an advisory body.
3:53:37Executive Officer, I don't know, Member
3:53:38Bros, if you want to respond to that
3:53:40question.
3:53:40>> Uh, well, the order matters then for for
3:53:42those motions.
3:53:44I would I mean, I would want the uh the
3:53:47guard rails to be voted on before.
3:53:53Thanks very much. Are there any
3:53:54reactions from other board members on
3:53:56member Brastrom's amendment?
3:54:04>> Have a I have a clarifying question. Uh
3:54:08I'm I'm not sure I tracked every uh part
3:54:11of your recommendation, but what I'm
3:54:13trying to get to is we already have some
3:54:15of the discretion to do these things in
3:54:17the subcommittee. your intent is to
3:54:19codify it more clearly and except with
3:54:22the exception of like having that a
3:54:24separate expert body I think the rest of
3:54:26the things we are already able to do or
3:54:27do you feel like they're I I don't see
3:54:30any of these as being part of the
3:54:31subcommittee work implementation plan
3:54:34that would come from DTSC the advisory
3:54:36committee would be something new the
3:54:38public processes for you know 1.2 2.6
3:54:43six that would be done here in front of
3:54:45the whole board. I'm I'm I'm suggesting
3:54:47that that be a board process. Um and
3:54:51then at numeric hazardous waste
3:54:53reduction go that's more for DTSC. I
3:54:55don't know what we what we could do of
3:54:57these in the subcommittee.
3:55:00>> Um this is a minor point so we can move
3:55:03on but my interpretation of my ask from
3:55:06earlier was similar which is going line
3:55:08by line with DTSC to understand what is
3:55:11the implementation framework timelines
3:55:14goals and so on and then bringing them
3:55:16back to the full board meeting. So it's
3:55:18it's not very different from what I
3:55:20think you're recommending as part of 1.2
3:55:22for those specific things you're calling
3:55:23them out. I'd like to see that across
3:55:26the board, but I think my my lens is
3:55:29that we co-develop and shape them with
3:55:32DTSC based on the emerging science
3:55:34that's coming up. Um, but again, I think
3:55:38we're not differing in terms of the
3:55:40outcome we want to achieve, which is
3:55:42very public process of what that
3:55:44implementation is going to look like,
3:55:46what the outcome is going to look like.
3:55:52I could envision us getting um to a
3:55:55point of consensus with your four of
3:55:58your five contingencies. I think that
3:56:01creating the advisory committee um
3:56:04begets a whole bunch of logistical
3:56:05issues um that
3:56:08allow our executive officer to explore
3:56:11and report back. And if the board wishes
3:56:14to create one, the board can create one
3:56:16regardless of whether the board opts to
3:56:19act on the plan to approve or to
3:56:21disapprove. I do think that the other
3:56:23four items that you suggest all have to
3:56:26do with how we engage with DTSC
3:56:29in implementing the plan if the plan is
3:56:31approved by the board. And so I could
3:56:33see how we could fold those into um our
3:56:38motion or as our executive officer
3:56:40suggests put them in an accompanying
3:56:43motion. But I I hesitate on the first
3:56:45one um in terms of wanting to give her
3:56:48the difference to explore the logistics
3:56:50of that.
3:56:56>> I mean I I don't think we can come up
3:56:57with the structure and everything today.
3:56:59So I certainly think more needs to be
3:57:01done but I certainly think in terms of
3:57:04you know having some sort of advisory
3:57:06body it is doable. There's a way to get
3:57:08there. I think where the research really
3:57:10is is is how do we get there? So I mean
3:57:13I I guess I would like to see a
3:57:15commitment from the board that we're
3:57:17we're going to find a pathway to to a
3:57:20body that can provide advice on the
3:57:21implementation of this plan. One thing
3:57:23we could do though is um we could give
3:57:26our executive officer the time to
3:57:27explore the concept and how that would
3:57:30unfold. I mean we don't have two years
3:57:32to create some advisory committee and
3:57:35it's not what you're suggesting by any
3:57:37means. So if there was a nimble way to
3:57:40put together advice coming to the board,
3:57:42it might not be the same group of
3:57:45advisors on any given topic. It might be
3:57:48something that's more um more informal
3:57:51on a given matter, but she could come
3:57:54forward with options for us in a public
3:57:57setting, a future board meeting. And I
3:57:59would I would rather do that um than
3:58:02right now given the work we have and the
3:58:04desire to move forward on some of the
3:58:06implementation actions. I think they
3:58:08they can be brought under the board's
3:58:11umbrella to do with DTSC.
3:58:15Just one uh reminder that when we last
3:58:19reviewed the hazardous waste management
3:58:21report, this was one of our key
3:58:22recommendations is for DTSC to come up
3:58:24with some sort of an advisory committee
3:58:26of like academics and industry
3:58:29stakeholders and community members to
3:58:31pro be thinking about the future of
3:58:33hazardous waste. So this is not very
3:58:35different. However, I think the the lens
3:58:36here is we're saying we are going to
3:58:38establish that versus DDSC establishing
3:58:40it.
3:58:53Um, Ingred, I'm trying to kind of turn
3:58:56your text into emotion language here
3:58:58frantically, so just give me a moment.
3:59:56So, um, I'm I've just kind of like
3:59:57played around with some of the language.
3:59:59I just want to see if this this
4:00:00something like this could work. So,
4:00:01something along the lines of like the
4:00:03board will retain oversight of the
4:00:05implementation of the hazardous waste
4:00:07management plan. Period. This includes
4:00:10but is not limited to uh uh I think the
4:00:14issue of the advisory body. It could we
4:00:16could get around the kind of the the
4:00:18certainty of it by saying exploring the
4:00:20establishment of an advisory body for
4:00:22the hazardous waste management plan.
4:00:24That would be bullet one.
4:00:26ETSSC uh developing and submitting to
4:00:29the board an implementation plan for the
4:00:31hazardous waste management plan
4:00:34for recommendations 1.2 and 2.4 to 2.6.
4:00:39DTSC engaging the public and independent
4:00:42experts in its imple in their
4:00:44implementation.
4:00:46Third um sorry fourth board um the board
4:00:51remaining involved in the implementation
4:00:53of recommendation 1.1 and then finally
4:00:57DTSC developing a numeric reduction
4:01:00andor diversion goal in the next
4:01:03hazardous waste management plan.
4:01:06I think the only amendment would be for
4:01:08the um the transparent public process
4:01:12that it would it would be in conjunction
4:01:14like at a board it
4:01:19a public board meeting
4:01:29reflections or reactions. I can kind of
4:01:30read it out loud again.
4:01:33Greg
4:01:35Uh, nothing. I was just volunteering to
4:01:39share my screen if you wanted to try and
4:01:41use that as a mechanism to help to
4:01:44refine this. Um, I've been like you
4:01:46trying to document and keep track of a
4:01:49motion. So, um,
4:02:11I'm going to beat the ass.
4:02:27I think I'll see on the Should
4:02:32we just
4:02:34for the maybe you want to say next
4:02:36iteration?
4:02:38>> Well, do is it for the implementation of
4:02:41the hazard space and creation of the
4:02:44next one?
4:02:46>> Yeah, I think that's
4:02:49that's what I put there. The last part.
4:02:51>> Yeah,
4:02:53Ingred should be doing us.
4:02:56Should I get her up here?
4:03:04Share my screen.
4:03:58Think
4:04:11so.
4:04:21I don't know. Is it the establishment?
4:04:24Let's just let's just
4:04:28for the HWP and then we want it explicit
4:04:32for
4:04:35>> Yeah.
4:04:36>> Yes.
4:04:36>> Yeah. I think so.
4:05:03I think that's what proposed. Great.
4:05:13So, I think we'll ask uh Greg to screen
4:05:15share. And if it wasn't um any more
4:05:17clear that these meetings are not
4:05:19prescripted ahead of time, now should be
4:05:21a a pretty good indication that that's
4:05:23not the case.
4:05:26>> So, member Bronstrom, is I understand
4:05:28that this is generally along the lines
4:05:31of what you had proposed for the first
4:05:33uh of the two motions that we are
4:05:35considering here today. I'd like you to
4:05:37to read it and then other board members
4:05:39do the same and then we can have a
4:05:40discussion
4:05:55uh I'm trying to unpack why we have
4:05:58called out just 1.1 1.2 Do I I recognize
4:06:02that these were the sub action or
4:06:05recommendations that were called out by
4:06:06the community today, but sort of my ask
4:06:08was we are going to engage line by line
4:06:11on all of these items to get into the
4:06:14definition of success and also progress
4:06:16against them. So can we not couch it as
4:06:20all topics including these things?
4:06:24Yeah, I mean I think you should feel
4:06:25free to um make an amendment to add
4:06:28something about the role of the bees
4:06:29subcommittee
4:06:31um
4:06:33effort as well.
4:06:37For example, in item three, DTSC
4:06:40engaging the public and independent
4:06:42experts at BEES meetings in
4:06:46implementation of all recommendations
4:06:49including those
4:06:54after recommendations including
4:06:58>> the line above. In the line no we don't
4:07:01need all those words Greg just including
4:07:04and then go up and take out after
4:07:06experts comma take out including.
4:07:11>> Okay.
4:07:15>> All right.
4:07:23So now my question is how's five adding
4:07:26value beyond three?
4:07:29>> Can we consolidate and simplify?
4:07:33I think that would probably be best
4:07:35addressed by member Brastrom. I'm not
4:07:37sure how you feel about that.
4:07:41>> I I mean yes. I think I think the public
4:07:44it should be a public process for 1.1
4:07:47as well so we can add it to that that
4:07:49list. Um I I see a difference between
4:07:52the you know kind of the the the the
4:07:55issues where we have a particular
4:07:57concern around deregulation and the the
4:07:59desire to bring in like independent
4:08:02experts and transparency and 1.1 which
4:08:05is more about building that a shared
4:08:07vision on what we want the program to
4:08:09look like. So, I mean, I think they're
4:08:11slightly different in what they would
4:08:12look like in front of the board, but I'm
4:08:14fine with that.
4:08:19>> So, it sounds like we can combine.
4:08:21>> Yeah, perfect. Thank you.
4:08:25>> But, but add 1.1 to the list.
4:08:27>> Okay.
4:08:28>> Number three.
4:08:35With that, Chair Rickstra, I could um
4:08:39depending on our procedures here, I
4:08:42could restate a motion or if it's
4:08:45because we already have an amendment.
4:08:47So, what would be best?
4:08:51>> Yeah, please. Dr. Butler, of course.
4:09:07Okay, thank you. Um, also thank you to
4:09:09all the public who commented. Many of
4:09:12the comments resonated with me as well.
4:09:15Uh, as was already discussed. I don't
4:09:17want to belabor it too much, but we did
4:09:19have a very collaborative process to
4:09:21lead to this point where board staff and
4:09:24our DTSC staff met to revise the plan.
4:09:28And as I was listening to the comments,
4:09:30it did really strike me how
4:09:33DTSC's original goal one stating
4:09:37reducing environmental health and
4:09:38advancing environmental justice.
4:09:42It was removed.
4:09:45Many of the recommendations, however,
4:09:47were not removed and they're still in
4:09:49the plan. It was reorganized in that
4:09:52way. But I could see how that change
4:09:59may
4:10:01have a a different representation than
4:10:03it was intended to have
4:10:06because in the draft plan our leadership
4:10:08and our team and felt very strongly and
4:10:11we still do feel very strongly about
4:10:14that goal one and it wasn't a mistake
4:10:17that it was goal one.
4:10:21So I wanted to make sure that was clear
4:10:24in our intentions
4:10:27because in the current plan it clearly
4:10:31states
4:10:33as the sentence before all three goals
4:10:39that
4:10:41the intention is to protect
4:10:44health, safety, the environment and that
4:10:48is the lens in which we look at this
4:10:50entire plan.
4:10:54That being said,
4:10:56I am absolutely happy to honor and
4:11:00respect
4:11:01policy direction,
4:11:03more collaborative direction, more
4:11:06implementation direction from the board
4:11:08and thank you for that.
4:11:12There's many elements of these
4:11:13conditions that absolutely we can work
4:11:16together on.
4:11:18But I also honor
4:11:22the need for public engagement
4:11:25and collaboration on this kind of
4:11:28extensive motion.
4:11:30So, I ask that we come back at a future
4:11:34meeting
4:11:36with language that's pre-drafted,
4:11:41that our experts can weigh in on, that
4:11:43the public can weigh in on properly
4:11:46before it's voted on. So, that's my
4:11:48request to the board.
4:11:54>> Thank you very much, Director Butler.
4:11:56I appreciate that.
4:11:58So, how does that change uh I don't
4:12:01remember me brost. How does that change
4:12:02your your view of the original motion
4:12:05here?
4:12:08Also, think about it.
4:12:10There's two different motions right now
4:12:13on the table. There's the motion for
4:12:16approving the staff recommendations to
4:12:18approve the plan and then there's a
4:12:19second motion on the board's oversight.
4:12:27I I I I think that would make it hard to
4:12:29make one conditioned on the other by
4:12:33basically coming back a different day.
4:12:36Um, you know, I I appreciate the desire
4:12:39to get it right. Um, and so I just
4:12:41wonder if there's a way of of, you know,
4:12:45uh capturing the the the the intent or
4:12:48the outcome we want while providing
4:12:50space to kind of put the meat on the on
4:12:53the bones to get this motion right. I
4:12:54don't feel comfortable doing nothing or
4:12:56just kind of saying like, "Hey, we'll
4:12:58we'll figure this out later." I don't
4:12:59feel comfortable with that approach. Um
4:13:01I do feel like it would be okay for us
4:13:04to get more nuanced in in in how we want
4:13:06to word this. Um but I would like there
4:13:09to be some vote today. Um that kind of
4:13:12captures what we're trying to do with
4:13:14this.
4:13:21Please
4:13:25>> I just want to reflect on the
4:13:28our intent for being here and for
4:13:30passing this hazardous wisp marital
4:13:31plan. I think we all want to take action
4:13:34that ultimately drives health protective
4:13:37outcomes. I fundamentally do not believe
4:13:40that words on a page are what translate
4:13:42to outcomes. I think it's taking the
4:13:44action, implementing some
4:13:46recommendations, learning along the way,
4:13:48making continual improvements is what
4:13:50drives the health protective outcomes.
4:13:52So, I'm a little bit concerned about
4:13:54again punting to the future and not um
4:13:58taking action on the no regret moves,
4:14:00some of which are already included as
4:14:02part of the plan.
4:14:10Can we vote on something like this with
4:14:12the recognition that we'll, you know,
4:14:14kind of develop a more fleshed out
4:14:16version of this?
4:14:18But I mean, this kind of captures the to
4:14:20me the intent. It it doesn't obviously
4:14:22all of these need more details to figure
4:14:24out like how best to operationalize it.
4:14:28But to me, this does capture the intent.
4:14:32>> Question.
4:14:34One way forward would be to um vote on
4:14:39the first motion which is to approve the
4:14:42plan including the updated language in
4:14:451.2 two that was shown on the screen
4:14:47with red line strikeout and then to act
4:14:50on the second motion which is this
4:14:53language here with the understanding
4:14:55that
4:14:59would work with DTSC regarding this
4:15:02language and if there were things that
4:15:04the director wished to bring back to our
4:15:06January meeting with regard to this
4:15:08second motion then we would have a full
4:15:11public discussion around that but I
4:15:13would like to vote on the plan today.
4:15:25Okay. Um, I think that sounds like a
4:15:28reasonable way forward. I don't know if
4:15:32Director Butler, there were specific
4:15:34alarm bells in here that you that you
4:15:37wanted to speak to. Okay. So, I mean, I
4:15:40think my So, I I agree with Vice Chair
4:15:43Straw Hacker. I I think this is
4:15:44necessarily an incomplete
4:15:47uh set of activities that the board
4:15:49would like to work with DTSC on.
4:15:53Um, and so I do think that obviously an
4:15:56enormous amount of additional work will
4:15:58be needed to flesh out the details and
4:16:01then um of how how this happens when
4:16:03this happens and perhaps there's
4:16:05additional activities at the board or
4:16:07perhaps there's things in here that are
4:16:09just um uh you know
4:16:13not not possible for whatever reason we
4:16:15need to come back and reconsider. So I'm
4:16:17I'm I'm open to that possibility uh as
4:16:19well. But I am hearing quite strongly
4:16:21from member Brostrom that including this
4:16:24as part of the kind of package of the
4:16:26motion is very important um to you and
4:16:28so I I I understand that. So I think
4:16:31maybe with that kind of context in mind
4:16:34um that bees staff will work with DTSC
4:16:37on this how it's done and then we could
4:16:39kind of report back to the January
4:16:41meeting on you know what makes sense in
4:16:44light of those discussions um with the
4:16:47idea that this is kind of signaling the
4:16:50intent of the areas where we'd like to
4:16:51work most closely together. I think that
4:16:53could hopefully meet both of the
4:16:55concerns kind of of the board as well as
4:16:57the concerns that the director had laid
4:16:59out.
4:17:00Um, so why don't we go ahead and we'll
4:17:03kind of with that context in mind, we
4:17:05can I think move forward forward with
4:17:07this. Um, so I don't know if member
4:17:10Brost you want to rest restate this
4:17:11motion or I guess this is the amended
4:17:14version of the motion. I think did we
4:17:16already have a second Greg? We already
4:17:18had a second.
4:17:27I made a motion to plan with the updated
4:17:32language in 1.2. You
4:17:36pardon me. I'm talking about the first
4:17:38motion seconded and then
4:17:42member Brastrom offered an amendment
4:17:45that could become the text of a
4:17:52have up on screen.
4:18:00could do is if there's a second if
4:18:04there's a second motion on the
4:18:06implementation
4:18:07and pretty much have a vote that the
4:18:11next board meeting you will come back
4:18:13with more specifics on what this
4:18:16implementation oversight looks like. So,
4:18:19you keep it a bit more open-ended until
4:18:21our teams can do a bit of research,
4:18:24collaborate with DTSC, see what's
4:18:26possible because there's, as I listed
4:18:28earlier, there's about 12 things that
4:18:30board members listed earlier that are
4:18:32not captured here. And so, this list can
4:18:34become longer. And so, I would ask that
4:18:36you all give us a bit more time to see
4:18:40what may be included in this. And
4:18:42perhaps this is a future vote because as
4:18:46I mentioned earlier there's about 12
4:18:48things that are not included in this.
4:18:53Um I think one more thing I want to
4:18:55acknowledge is that the first point here
4:18:56about the advisory body we previously
4:18:59also talked about perhaps DTSC setting
4:19:02up the advisory body. There's already
4:19:03many forums that DTSC runs. There's now
4:19:05EJ and we haven't quite figured out the
4:19:07operating model across what exists. What
4:19:09are the gaps in the forums that exist
4:19:11that we're trying to fill with a new
4:19:13body? Does it make sense for the board
4:19:15to create that body? Does it make sense
4:19:16for DTSC to create the body? A new body
4:19:18is an existing body that's repurposed. I
4:19:21would really like to do the discovery
4:19:23because we are a what 9 10 12 person
4:19:26board team to and it the logistics of
4:19:29standing up an advisory body can be
4:19:32herculan. So, I just want us to have a a
4:19:34more informed
4:19:36uh decision based on what does good look
4:19:39like.
4:19:46>> Thanks. So, so, so from what I
4:19:48understand, Swati, what you're what
4:19:49you're basically saying is that the the
4:19:52So, effectively this work right here
4:19:55kind of the level of oversight is
4:19:57necessarily an incomplete list based on
4:20:00what what various board members have
4:20:02said. So, I think what we could do here
4:20:05is basically we retain oversight of the
4:20:08implementation of the 2025 hazardous
4:20:10waste management plan. That's kind of
4:20:11the that's the chapo
4:20:14uh and uh bees and and you could add
4:20:18something basically says and we'll
4:20:19report back at our January
4:20:24uh uh board meeting uh on how to achieve
4:20:29this. Um you know such issues could
4:20:32include but are not limited to the
4:20:35following
4:20:37if I think that is that what I that's
4:20:39what I understand. And so that captures
4:20:40the kind of the core concerns of Ingrid.
4:20:42It leaves the door open to adding
4:20:44additional issues to the table. Um and
4:20:48then it kind of then allows us to
4:20:50separately approve the plan.
4:20:53>> I guess just going back to the board
4:20:55already has authority on so many of
4:20:57these things. So I'm not even sure you
4:20:58need a vote on some of the specifics. I
4:21:01understand the need to make a statement
4:21:03about it, but you already have a lot of
4:21:06these authorities. So that's all that
4:21:09I'm reasoning is.
4:21:18I I don't know that that that is clear
4:21:20to me
4:21:23around some of these, you know,
4:21:25standards updating that that's going to
4:21:26be done here. Um, you know, I I I
4:21:31I don't know that that's that I wouldn't
4:21:34in that
4:24:45Okay. So, Greg, can you please go ahead
4:24:47and uh uh share your screen with the on
4:24:51this on the with the motion up here?
4:24:58Okay. So where we are right now is we
4:25:00have had a motion from vice chair
4:25:01strauss hacker and with a second and
4:25:05then an amendment from um member
4:25:08Rostrom. There any additional discussion
4:25:11on the motion that's up on this screen?
4:25:19Give the board members another chance to
4:25:21take a look.
4:25:23>> I don't see how two and three are very
4:25:24different.
4:25:26So we're saying implementation plan
4:25:28three saying implementation plan
4:25:31at public board meetings.
4:25:37I would imagine that an implementation
4:25:39plan from the the team would address the
4:25:4327 recommendations
4:25:45not all of which require the same level
4:25:47of independent experts and vetting in a
4:25:50public forum. um and DCSC could come
4:25:53back to us by saying these are the kinds
4:25:55of things we're moving forward on. We
4:25:58don't think they require the same level
4:26:00of public engagement, but they're things
4:26:02we need to work on. So, I wanted to sort
4:26:05of acknowledge that some of them really
4:26:06merit um a different
4:26:13Is there any other board discussion?
4:26:18Britney, can you please go ahead and
4:26:19let's go call a roll call vote on this
4:26:21particular motion.
4:26:22>> Thank you, Chair Rake Straw. We're going
4:26:24to proceed with a roll call vote. Member
4:26:26Batia,
4:26:28>> I'm sorry, I have a clarifying question.
4:26:30What about the first motion?
4:26:32>> The first motion.
4:26:34>> Oh, we're doing this first. Okay.
4:26:36Have the motions been merged or are they
4:26:39two separate motions?
4:26:40>> Now, two separate motions now.
4:26:42>> And are we voting on the first or the
4:26:43second one?
4:26:44>> Right now, we are voting on the motion
4:26:45that's up on the screen at the moment.
4:26:47We'll have to take up a second motion on
4:26:48the approval of the plan with the
4:26:51amended 1.2 immediately following this.
4:26:54>> So this is the second motion that had
4:26:56been proposed by board member Brastrom.
4:26:58>> Correct.
4:26:59>> Okay.
4:27:03Was it seconded by anyone?
4:27:05>> It hasn't been seconded by anyone
4:27:08>> because it came as an amendment to my
4:27:11motion.
4:27:21have to introduce it as
4:27:24>> so I I can make this motion.
4:27:27>> My suggestion is that we do the first
4:27:30motion first and then um this needs to
4:27:33be proposed as a motion and seconded and
4:27:36then called for a vote.
4:27:38So could we please chair um call the
4:27:41first vote on the first
4:27:56Okay. So, right now, um, it's a bit
4:27:59confusing because we have two different
4:28:01motions that are on the table right now.
4:28:03Well, actually, no, I take that back. We
4:28:04have one motion on the table that has
4:28:06been amended, and it was amended so much
4:28:08that it has now become an entirely new
4:28:10motion. Okay. So, uh, we have a proposal
4:28:14from Vice Chair Strauss Hacker to go
4:28:16ahead and, uh, uh, move go back to the
4:28:20original version of the motion as
4:28:22proposed. Um, and then presumably we
4:28:25would then follow that with member
4:28:27Brostrom's motion here, uh, as well. So,
4:28:31I think that seems like a reasonable way
4:28:33forward to me. So, why don't we just,
4:28:36uh, cross all of our, uh, tees and dot
4:28:38all of our eyes. And if member vice
4:28:40chair Josh Hacker if you would restate
4:28:42your motion um and then we can get
4:28:45another second and we can kind of
4:28:46restart the process because it's all
4:28:47becoming a bit meddled here as well.
4:28:50>> All right. Um chair rastro I move that
4:28:54we accept the staff recommendation
4:29:002025 hazardous waste management plan.
4:29:03The one edit to the plan is shown on the
4:29:07screen as an edit to goal 1.2 with the
4:29:10strikeout and insert of the red text.
4:29:16>> Thank you very much. Um, are there a
4:29:18second? Is there a second?
4:29:19>> I second.
4:29:20>> Second from member Batia. Is there any
4:29:22discussion or amendments?
4:29:25>> Courtney, please call a roll call vote.
4:29:28>> Thank you, Chair Raikstraw. Member
4:29:29Batia.
4:29:30>> Yes. Member Brostrom.
4:29:33>> Hi.
4:29:34>> Member Gomez.
4:29:35>> No.
4:29:37>> Vice Chair Stress Hacker.
4:29:39>> I
4:29:40>> and Chair Raikstra.
4:29:41>> I.
4:29:43>> Thank you. So for motion number one, we
4:29:45have four eyes and one no to uh approve
4:29:50uh the staff recommendations with the
4:29:51DTSC's 2025 hazardous waste management
4:29:54plan with the amendment uh to 1.2.
4:30:00So, uh, Chair Rakes Straw, we can now
4:30:02move on to the second motion.
4:30:03>> Thank you very much.
4:30:06Okay. So, member Boston, would you like
4:30:08to go ahead and introduce the second
4:30:09motion that's up on the screen now?
4:30:14Make a motion that uh the bees
4:30:20in oversight of the implementation of
4:30:23the 2025 hazardous waste management
4:30:25plan, including but not limited to the
4:30:28following issues.
4:30:30One, exploring the establishment of an
4:30:33advisory body for the implementation of
4:30:35the hazardous waste management plan and
4:30:37establishment of the 2028 plan. Two,
4:30:40DTSC developing and submitting to the
4:30:42board an implementation plan. Three,
4:30:46DTSC engaging the public and independent
4:30:48experts at BEES meetings in its
4:30:50implementation of all recommendations
4:30:53including 1.1, 1.2, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6
4:30:58six and DTSC including a numerical
4:31:01reduction and or diversion goal in the
4:31:022028 plan and the board will report at
4:31:06its January meeting on its progress
4:31:08including discussions with DTSC in this
4:31:10regard.
4:31:14>> I second the motion.
4:31:16>> Thank you very much. There's a motion
4:31:18and there's a second. Is there any board
4:31:20discussion or amendments to the motion
4:31:22that's up on the screen right now?
4:31:25Okay, seeing no seeing none. Courtney,
4:31:28will you please go ahead and call a roll
4:31:29call vote? Thank you.
4:31:30>> Thank you, Chair Rickstra. Member Batia.
4:31:45>> Yes.
4:31:46Member Brstrom. Hi.
4:31:49>> Member Gomez.
4:31:50>> No. Vice Chair Strath Hacker. Hi. And
4:31:54>> Chair Rickstra. Hi.
4:31:57Thank you. There are four yeses and one
4:32:00no to proceed with the oversight of the
4:32:03implementation measures as member
4:32:05Brastrom shared earlier. So that was for
4:32:08motion number two. Both motions pass.
4:32:13Thank you, Chair Rickstra.
4:32:16>> Thank you very much, Courtney, and thank
4:32:17you to the board and members of the
4:32:18public for your patience as this this
4:32:20went um quite a bit longer than um at
4:32:22least I was expecting. Um so we will now
4:32:26at this point we will take a 45minut
4:32:28lunch break. Um we will reconvene at
4:32:323:05
4:32:33um to continue uh with our agenda. Um
4:32:38between then and now we'll kind of look
4:32:39at the agenda and see if there are ways
4:32:41to to to cut things or speed things up a
4:32:43little bit. Um but almost certainly
4:32:45we'll have to go um a bit over time. We
4:32:47do have this room for uh beyond 5:00
4:32:50p.m. So, we would aim to keep you uh
4:32:53here no later than 6 p.m. So, we do have
4:32:55some wiggle room, but we'll try to
4:32:57figure out exactly how to use that
4:32:58additional time between now and then.
4:33:01Thank you all so much, and please enjoy
4:33:03your lunch.
4:33:05>> Thank you, Chair Rickstra, and thank you
4:33:07everyone. Uh it is now 2:22 and we will
4:33:11be coming back at 3:05.
4:33:15We will reconvene with agenda item
4:33:17number five, Director Butler's
4:33:19leadership report. Thank you. Good
4:33:22afternoon and welcome back everyone. It
4:33:25is now 3:08 and we maintain a quorum by
4:33:29having all board members present. Uh
4:33:31Chair Raikstra, I'll turn it back to you
4:33:33to continue today's agenda.
4:33:36>> Um thank you very much Courtney and hope
4:33:37everyone had a good if abbreviated
4:33:39lunch. Um so we are obviously running a
4:33:43bit behind schedule. Um, so I'd like to
4:33:45propose that we u both uh aim to um take
4:33:50up our items in as quick and efficient
4:33:52way as possible that are on the agenda
4:33:55and then also that we remove a few of
4:33:58the items from the agenda. Um here the
4:34:02ones that we would propose removing are
4:34:04items number seven or item seven which
4:34:07is the hazardous waste facilities
4:34:09operating permit decision status report
4:34:12uh for the EcoBat facility. We would
4:34:15then also um postpone consideration of
4:34:19the review and the approval of the
4:34:21minutes uh from our two most recent
4:34:23board meetings and then we would also
4:34:26postpone the review of action items and
4:34:29then we will um ideally cut the the
4:34:32break but we can kind of see how that
4:34:35goes. So, that should put us more more
4:34:37or less roughly um back on track or at
4:34:40least um add hopefully no more than a
4:34:42half an hour to today's board meeting.
4:34:46So, with that, um we'll now turn to item
4:34:48number five, which is the DTSC
4:34:49leadership report. And so, I'd like to
4:34:52introduce DTSC director Katie Butler,
4:34:55who is here to provide us with her
4:34:56leadership report. Um after the DTSC
4:34:59leadership report, um DTSC deputy
4:35:01director Serene Grant and DTSC
4:35:04environmental justice and tribal affairs
4:35:06manager Andreas Martinez will provide a
4:35:09training presentation to the board on
4:35:11environmental justice. It is after that
4:35:13agenda item where we we excuse me where
4:35:16we will hear public comment both the
4:35:18DTSC leadership report as well as the
4:35:21environmental justice training items. So
4:35:24um Director Butler, over to you.
4:35:47Okay, great. Thank you, Chair Raikstra.
4:35:49Thank you, board members, for this
4:35:50opportunity to give an update on DTSC's
4:35:53activities. Uh, we have a lot of good
4:35:55things going on at the department that
4:35:57I'd like to report out on. Next slide.
4:36:04All right, we can just go to the next
4:36:05slide. I'll dive right in with the first
4:36:08topic is uh toxic crusaders. Next slide.
4:36:16Okay, great. So toxic crusaders is
4:36:18DTSC's STEM outreach program and it's
4:36:21led by our environmental chemistry
4:36:22laboratory
4:36:24and we just completed our six-week
4:36:26curriculum
4:36:28and it was very successful. It's wildly
4:36:31popular with the Southern California
4:36:33high schools and this program has really
4:36:35grown from just being a one-day course
4:36:38to now a six-week course where students
4:36:41they're provided with five weeks of
4:36:43virtual workshops and they have a
4:36:46workbook that they're given uh sort of a
4:36:49101 to hazardous waste topics, other uh
4:36:54science experiment topics related to our
4:36:56work here at DTSC. And so this year we
4:37:00were privileged to host 254 students in
4:37:04our lab from 19 different high schools
4:37:07and this is at our environmental
4:37:09chemistry laboratory in Pasadena.
4:37:12Um this is really a treasure of our
4:37:14department to have this in-house
4:37:15laboratory capacity. So we're really
4:37:19happy to share that expertise we have
4:37:22inhouse with local students. And this
4:37:25year the students they learned how to
4:37:27collect uh air samples, collect samples
4:37:30from soil, how to analyze uh for metals
4:37:33in the soil and for other compounds in
4:37:36the air.
4:37:38So big kudos to our lab for having
4:37:40another successful year. Uh last year
4:37:43was the first year we also took this
4:37:45program on the road to high schools
4:37:48across the state. So we intend to do
4:37:50that again this year. So you'll be
4:37:51hearing more about that uh next calendar
4:37:54year. Next slide.
4:38:00So in midepptember uh we hosted uh
4:38:03co-hosted the sixth annual California
4:38:06land recycling conference along with the
4:38:09center for creative land recycling. And
4:38:12this event uh has been a critical
4:38:15outreach tool for us at the department
4:38:17to bring together leaders from cities,
4:38:20counties, uh environmental advocates,
4:38:23academic experts, uh environmental
4:38:25consultants, developers, regulators, uh
4:38:29so that we can uh constructively,
4:38:32productively discuss the future of land
4:38:35reuse in California.
4:38:38Uh and you know we heard today earlier
4:38:40today from environmental justice
4:38:42advocates just how important that is to
4:38:45reuse land to clean up properly
4:38:48contaminated land and then you know be
4:38:51in a position where it can serve
4:38:53communities and no longer be a blight
4:38:55for environmental justice communities.
4:38:58So that's the goal with this conference
4:39:00is how can we break through barriers to
4:39:02do this uh because it's not for the
4:39:04faint of heart to uh you know clean up
4:39:08and redevelop contaminated land. There's
4:39:10a lot of partners that have to come
4:39:12together for these projects to be
4:39:14successful. And one of the major
4:39:17highlights from this year was the summit
4:39:20for our ECRG program or the equitable
4:39:24community revitalization grant program.
4:39:26So we had an opportunity to hear from
4:39:29the ECRG grantees on their projects,
4:39:32their lessons learned, the highlights,
4:39:34the challenges that they face, and take
4:39:37those lessons learned, applied apply
4:39:39them more broadly to our work at DTSC.
4:39:42Partners can hear those lessons learned,
4:39:44apply them to work that they do. And
4:39:47this really had um these these stories
4:39:50had a positive impact, you know, not
4:39:52just on our staff but our partners to
4:39:54see what's possible. You know, we talked
4:39:56about earlier today the importance of
4:39:58having that vision and being able to
4:40:01strive for that vision to make our
4:40:03communities healthier and thrive. And so
4:40:06that was really at the heart of this
4:40:08ECRG summit. Um and I I had the pleasure
4:40:11to attend. Uh
4:40:15here's our team uh the DTSC team at the
4:40:17conference and big big kudos to our
4:40:21office of brownfields um where they're
4:40:23really leading the way in this work.
4:40:25Next slide.
4:40:29So while we're on the topic of the
4:40:31office of brownfields
4:40:33uh we have a few projects to highlight
4:40:36that really tell the story of the
4:40:39success of this program. So highlighting
4:40:43just a few of these. In early August, I
4:40:45attended the groundbreaking uh in
4:40:48Anaheim at the Lincoln Beach project. Uh
4:40:51this was long a vacant site
4:40:54um on a corridor in Anaheim that has
4:40:57traditionally been underresourced,
4:41:00underinvested. And so through our grant
4:41:02program, we awarded $1.3 million in
4:41:06funding to conduct the cleanup of this
4:41:08site, which was recently completed. And
4:41:12the property will soon become the site
4:41:14of 47 affordable housing units for
4:41:16seniors and transitional aged youth. So
4:41:19really providing those wraparound
4:41:21services so important for public health.
4:41:24The second item here, the Northgate
4:41:27Gonzalez Market grand opening, uh, was a
4:41:30very joyous celebration. Uh, it was
4:41:32almost 20 years in the making. This, uh,
4:41:36this site that was formerly a gas
4:41:38station turned into now a full-ervice
4:41:41grocery store for the community,
4:41:43bringing muchneeded food services, fresh
4:41:46food services to what once was a food
4:41:49desert.
4:41:51Um so again illustrating how investment
4:41:53in these formerly contaminated sites
4:41:56really serves the community.
4:41:59Uh and for that one uh they received uh
4:42:02$5 million in funding through our EC
4:42:04ECRG fun program.
4:42:07Um, also last week on Wednesday, I
4:42:11attended the groundbreaking for the
4:42:13Algarve Apartments in San Jose. And this
4:42:16is downtown San Jose where we provided
4:42:19$3 million through ECRG. And this was
4:42:23really instrumental in unlocking
4:42:26uh funding from the Department of
4:42:28Housing and Community Development.
4:42:31And this will provide 90 affordable
4:42:35housing units for the downtown San Jose
4:42:38area. Formerly a dry cleaner, now
4:42:41affordable housing. Uh and hopefully in
4:42:44two years that project will be complete.
4:42:46Uh so they're moving fast to to develop
4:42:49that uh what was once a vacant lot.
4:42:55And then
4:42:57uh I'll go ahead and go to the next
4:42:58slide.
4:43:04All right. For our safer consumer
4:43:06products uh program,
4:43:09we uh earlier this year initiated a
4:43:12former rule making to list microlastics
4:43:15on the candidate chemical list. Uh and
4:43:18in the initial public comment period, we
4:43:20received nearly 200 comment letters. So,
4:43:23a lot of interest rightfully so in this
4:43:26topic. Most of the feedback being
4:43:28positive. uh supporting the state's
4:43:31leadership in this area to really look
4:43:34closely at microlastics and
4:43:35opportunities to regulate microplastics
4:43:38to prevent them from in the first place
4:43:41even coming into our waist streams. So
4:43:44listing of microplastics as a chem
4:43:46candidate chemical would effectively
4:43:49allow DTSC to potentially regulate
4:43:53products that contain or generate
4:43:55microplastics. So, we're in the very
4:43:57early stages right now of researching,
4:44:00identifying consumer products that would
4:44:02release or contain microplastics.
4:44:05And we're holding a workshop on December
4:44:0811th where we'll present very early
4:44:11screening research. And one significant
4:44:15value of this workshop is for us to hear
4:44:18from stakeholders. And uh we invite the
4:44:21public to provide input at this
4:44:23workshop. Um and this engagement is a
4:44:27real key component to our research
4:44:29process. Uh so we've heard from a number
4:44:32of groups who already have interest as I
4:44:34mentioned and we hope to continue this
4:44:39scientific dialogue with the
4:44:41manufacturers with the innovators,
4:44:43researchers and advocates uh beginning
4:44:46with this workshop but definitely not
4:44:48ending with this workshop uh because
4:44:50we'll have much many more opportunities
4:44:52for public comment and input beyond this
4:44:56December workshop.
4:45:00Um there's a number of other updates
4:45:02from safer consumer products related to
4:45:04the director priorities and I'll touch
4:45:06on those in a minute. Uh for now next
4:45:09slide we'll move on to the metal
4:45:12shredder fees uh which is an emer
4:45:15emergency regulation
4:45:17development effort. Uh this last item
4:45:21under departmental news uh pertains to
4:45:24us implementing assembly bill 2851
4:45:28which requires air districts to develop
4:45:31requirements for facilitywide fence line
4:45:34air monitoring at metal shredder
4:45:37facilities. Uh so metal shredder
4:45:39facilities are required to monitor
4:45:41hazardous waste constituents uh and
4:45:44report those results to our department
4:45:46at DTSC.
4:45:48uh DTSC is required to collect analyze
4:45:52light fibrous material which is the
4:45:55material that sometimes is adi emitted
4:45:58from metal shredding facilities
4:46:01uh and determine what is the potential
4:46:03for release of hazardous waste. So, more
4:46:06routine sampling, monitoring, and
4:46:08tracking of any uh light fibrous
4:46:11material coming off of metal shredders
4:46:14that could negatively impact the
4:46:16surrounding communities. Um, that light
4:46:19fibrous material often contains lead,
4:46:21which as we know is um an extreme, you
4:46:24know, hazard for for families, people
4:46:27living and working nearby.
4:46:29Um so under these regs, DTSC is required
4:46:33to collect an annual fee from metal
4:46:36shredding facilities to fund um our
4:46:39oversight costs as well as oversight
4:46:42costs by OHA. We partner with OEHA on
4:46:45evaluation of the health aspect uh to
4:46:47implement metal shredder oversight. So
4:46:50we've scheduled this workshop for
4:46:52January 13th. We encourage folks to
4:46:54participate
4:46:56uh and we'll be soliciting public input
4:46:58on the proposed regulatory concepts
4:47:02uh specifically related to the fee
4:47:04administration, the fee schedule, the
4:47:08specific reporting requirements that we
4:47:10propose to put in place um and of course
4:47:13enforcement and penalties that come
4:47:15along with those requirements.
4:47:19Next slide, please.
4:47:25Okay, great. Um, so I'll touch on the
4:47:29director priorities and the progress
4:47:31we've made uh so far this fiscal year.
4:47:34Next slide.
4:47:37And at the last board meeting, I made a
4:47:39commitment to continue to report out on
4:47:42fiscal year 2425 priorities. And I
4:47:45understand and I appreciate the board's
4:47:48focus on this and request for us to do
4:47:51this to hold our department accountable
4:47:53to report out on these deliverables. So
4:47:56there were 13 deliverables from the
4:47:58previous fiscal year that were marked as
4:48:00either partially complete or delayed.
4:48:04Um five of those were carried over into
4:48:07the current year priorities. Um so we
4:48:10that means we continue to track
4:48:11implementation of six of the other ones
4:48:14um and two are now complete um with uh
4:48:19an exciting update on the third. So let
4:48:22me break it down. The completed
4:48:23deliverables um we did establish the
4:48:26climate change unit within site
4:48:28mitigation. Um that unit is now fully
4:48:31staffed.
4:48:33uh the ECRG outcomes report and that's a
4:48:37um holistic comprehensive report. You
4:48:40see the report cover here on the slide
4:48:42um from pollution to possibility uh
4:48:45where we summarize the outcomes of that
4:48:48um brownfields grant program I talked
4:48:50about earlier. Uh we did publish that
4:48:53report. It's now available on our
4:48:54website and I encourage all of you to
4:48:56take a look at it. Um we have some
4:48:59helpful case studies there metrics how
4:49:03um over 50% of those projects uh have
4:49:08resulted in affordable housing. Um which
4:49:11is a much higher percentage compared to
4:49:14the other projects that that we're
4:49:16working on in in our cleanup program at
4:49:18DTSC. Um so I think you'll find the
4:49:21metrics there interesting in that
4:49:23report. Uh
4:49:26let's see.
4:49:28Okay, what's not on this slide because
4:49:30it is new information since this slide
4:49:33was created uh is that our
4:49:36implementation of Senate Bill 673, the
4:49:40track 2 community vulnerabilities
4:49:43uh regulation package is moving forward.
4:49:47Um we submitted the full reggg package
4:49:50to OAL. The REGG package is based on the
4:49:54threeformational
4:49:56sheets on our website. It's uh very
4:49:59consistent with what we've rolled out
4:50:01publicly on the conceptual frameworks
4:50:03for the uh for the regulations and we
4:50:07anticipate that the public comment and
4:50:11the regulations themselves for 673 will
4:50:14be released November 21st.
4:50:21Next slide.
4:50:24Fiscal year 2025 2026 priorities. Um so
4:50:28for this year's priorities, progress is
4:50:31underway.
4:50:32Um and we did provide under the meeting
4:50:36materials for the public and for the
4:50:38board members uh specifics. Thank you to
4:50:41my chief of staff Grant Hassowl for his
4:50:44diligence in providing descriptive
4:50:46narratives there under each of the
4:50:48priorities and their progress. Um I do
4:50:50want to highlight two deliverables that
4:50:53are already complete both from safer
4:50:56consumer products program. Uh one is the
4:50:59formal information requests. Uh on
4:51:02October 15th, the safer consumer
4:51:05products program issued formal
4:51:07information requests to 16 manufacturers
4:51:11of products that treat textiles and
4:51:14leathers and contain POS.
4:51:17Uh so we've previously tested these
4:51:20products and we've found that they
4:51:22contained florine and that can often be
4:51:24an indicator of the presence of POS. So,
4:51:27we're seeking more information to more
4:51:30fully evaluate um the potential presence
4:51:33of POS.
4:51:35Uh and then second here is the nail
4:51:38products containing tuine compliance
4:51:40report um which I'm very proud of our
4:51:43SCP team for taking my enforcement
4:51:46priorities seriously. Um for SCP, you
4:51:49know, that translates to compliance
4:51:51assurance and publishing these reports
4:51:53on reg regulated products. So we have
4:51:55the hard data to understand whether our
4:51:59regulations are being followed or not.
4:52:01Uh and so I'm happy to announce that of
4:52:04more than 500 nail products purchased uh
4:52:08and tested through this um compliance
4:52:12effort, DTSC confirmed that 95% of the
4:52:16products had little to no tuine and
4:52:19touine in nail products is a chemical
4:52:22product combination that we started
4:52:24regulating uh a couple years ago. So now
4:52:27we have the data uh to show those
4:52:31regulations have been effective. Uh and
4:52:33it it really illustrates how you know
4:52:36that effective regulation combined with
4:52:39working with manufacturers, working with
4:52:42uh information from stakeholders can
4:52:45result in this positive outcome for our
4:52:47SCP program.
4:52:51Next slide.
4:52:57Okay. So, I'll briefly touch on some
4:52:59permitting updates. Next slide.
4:53:03Uh for the EOBAT final decision, uh
4:53:06we're anticipating that to be released
4:53:08this Friday, November 21st.
4:53:12Uh and
4:53:14we do have one other final decision
4:53:17coming up which is the Toro Carson
4:53:19refinery and that's a postclosure permit
4:53:22also in LA County. Uh and this we're
4:53:25anticipating later this year um in
4:53:29December.
4:53:35Next slide.
4:53:39Uh we have an upcoming draft decision
4:53:41and this is one we anticipate next month
4:53:44for Violia Technical Solutions. Uh this
4:53:47facility is located in Richmond and is a
4:53:50small storage facility. Uh this uh
4:53:54accepts hazardous waste from a variety
4:53:56of industries and so we'll be issuing
4:53:59that draft decision and opening the
4:54:01public comment period shortly for that
4:54:03as well.
4:54:06Next slide.
4:54:11Okay. Um, the Xside update here actually
4:54:14is in response to uh a specific
4:54:17question. Um, and thank you for allowing
4:54:19me to provide a short update on Exside.
4:54:22Next slide.
4:54:25Uh, board member Gomez, thank you. Last
4:54:27meeting or maybe it was earlier this
4:54:29year, you asked more specifically for
4:54:31how appropriations for Exide Cleanup are
4:54:34going to be used. So we wanted to
4:54:36provide uh clarity on the breakdown here
4:54:39for that. Um and so DTSC was given the
4:54:42flexibility to use 75 million for
4:54:46residential or facility cleanup. And so
4:54:50this really allows the department to
4:54:55uh focus 5 million of that 75 to be used
4:55:00for ongoing proper management of the
4:55:02facility. What that means is things like
4:55:05site security, utilities, landscape,
4:55:07storm water management, basically the
4:55:10kind of like basic operations and
4:55:11maintenance because recall the facility
4:55:13itself, DTSC took measures to stabilize
4:55:16it, uh, demo those buildings. So, we're
4:55:19in this stage of stabilizing and then
4:55:22just light maintenance on the property.
4:55:25Um, making sure we're still compliant
4:55:27with all the permits. Uh and then the
4:55:30bulk of that 7570
4:55:32million will be used to continue the
4:55:34residential cleanup uh until the third
4:55:37quarter of 2026.
4:55:40This funding will allow for cleaning up
4:55:42approximately 500 properties
4:55:46addressing lead levels at properties
4:55:50around 155 parts per million and above.
4:55:56So, right now we're at around 190 parts
4:55:59per million and this will allow us to go
4:56:02even further to clean up more
4:56:04properties.
4:56:06Um, until now, you know, we've conducted
4:56:086,000 residential property cleanups and
4:56:11we've completed all of the cleanups at
4:56:13the schools, parks, and daycarees in
4:56:15that preliminary investigation area, the
4:56:18PIA, totaling 139.
4:56:23Um, so I will acknowledge there was also
4:56:25a request I believe from the board to
4:56:27provide even a more detailed update in
4:56:29January when we have some more time. So
4:56:31we'll be prepared to give that update uh
4:56:34at the January meeting as well.
4:56:38I'm happy to take questions at this time
4:56:46much. Um, Director Butler, um, are there
4:56:49any questions?
4:56:52from board members. Vice Chair,
4:56:57>> thank you for the progress on many
4:56:59fronts, including permitting. Given the
4:57:02board's action earlier today on the
4:57:04administrative record, what can we do to
4:57:07help given the important permits that
4:57:10are um being finalized in the coming few
4:57:13months? What can we do to help make
4:57:20Yeah, thank you for that question.
4:57:23Um, our staff have been preparing for
4:57:26these admin records for some time using
4:57:29our existing records to do whatever we
4:57:31can and I understand it's been
4:57:33frustrating and it's taken longer than
4:57:35any of us would like. Um, but we have to
4:57:40appreciate
4:57:42what the extent of these admin records
4:57:44really are and really look like. And
4:57:46we've invited you and some of you have
4:57:48come to our file room to see in person
4:57:51what we're dealing with. Um, and this is
4:57:55an ugly symptom of the backlog of
4:57:59permitting that DTSC has been contending
4:58:02with for decades. So, we are dealing
4:58:05with it with the resources we have. Um,
4:58:09that being said, you know, we could
4:58:12always use more resources to digitize
4:58:14and deal with it faster. Absolutely. Um,
4:58:18so, you know, we'll continue to explore
4:58:20options. Um, I hope to do that
4:58:22collaboratively with you all. Um, and
4:58:24thank you for your support with that.
4:58:32have one question. Thank you for the
4:58:34report. Um the workshop that you
4:58:37mentioned about the microplastics on
4:58:40December 11, will that be in person or a
4:58:43hybrid? Virtual?
4:58:46Just curious.
4:58:47>> Yeah, I believe it's hybrid.
4:58:48>> Okay.
4:58:49>> Yeah.
4:58:51>> Our ours sent us a link to the workshop.
4:58:54>> Oh, it's virtual only. I'm sorry about
4:58:55that. Yeah, I had it wrong. It's it's
4:58:58virtual.
4:59:04Um just from my end um I appreciate the
4:59:06update um particular um on SB673. I
4:59:10think that's really encouraging that the
4:59:12regulation the regul uh the package is
4:59:15with uh OAL um uh and ready and about
4:59:19ready for for public comment. So so
4:59:21congratulations to to you and the team
4:59:23that has worked uh to get us to get us
4:59:26there. I was wondering if you could
4:59:27speak a little bit more like what what
4:59:29happens next. So it goes public comment
4:59:32and then if you could just kind of
4:59:34explain a little bit more of the details
4:59:36um of what the O process looks like.
4:59:40>> Yeah. So we'll hold a 45day public
4:59:42comment period and we will have a public
4:59:45hearing and that public hearing is not
4:59:47scheduled yet but as soon as we have it
4:59:49scheduled we'll be sure to announce it.
4:59:51>> Yep.
4:59:53>> Thanks so much. Are there any other
4:59:55board member discussion on this? I think
4:59:59we're all tired from from this morning.
5:00:02Well, thank you so much, director. I
5:00:03really appreciate that.
5:00:04>> Um, so before we turn to public comment
5:00:06on this item, we're going to go ahead
5:00:08and do the uh EJ training presentation
5:00:12and then after that item, we'll take
5:00:14public comment on both the director's
5:00:16presentation as well as the EJ
5:00:18presentation. Um, like I had mentioned
5:00:20at the at the at the beginning here. Um,
5:00:24so,
5:00:30okay. Um, so we'll now move into agenda
5:00:32item number six where I'd like to invite
5:00:35DTSC Deputy Director for the Office of
5:00:37Environmental Equity, Serene Grant, and
5:00:40DTSC Environmental Justice and Tribal
5:00:43Affairs Manager, Andreas Martinez, to
5:00:45provide a presentation on DTSC's
5:00:47environmental justice training. Serene,
5:00:50over to you.
5:00:51>> Thank you. Hi, good afternoon everyone.
5:00:54Thank you for this opportunity.
5:00:57Um, as agenda states, we're going to
5:00:59provide you with a preview of the
5:01:01internal internal trainings for the um
5:01:04that we're doing regarding environmental
5:01:06justice for DTSC
5:01:09uh staff. We're doing we're presenting
5:01:11this now because a few months ago we
5:01:14shared with the board that we were going
5:01:15to do this type of training and there
5:01:17was expressed curiosity and a number of
5:01:19questions about it. So this afternoon
5:01:22afternoon we will not go through the
5:01:24actual training but we will give you
5:01:25more details about the who, why, how
5:01:29kinds of uh information. Uh next slide
5:01:32please.
5:01:37So this training is important to us DTSC
5:01:40as a whole and specifically the office
5:01:42of environmental equity because we see
5:01:44our unit, those of us who are working on
5:01:47this as the corporate conscience, if you
5:01:49will, of our department. We see our
5:01:52charge is to make sure that our
5:01:54colleagues understand and are
5:01:55knowledgeable of equity and
5:01:57environmental justice and realizing that
5:02:00it's a supporting base to all the work
5:02:02that we do. And we have so many people
5:02:05coming from so many disciplines uh that
5:02:08we want to make sure that people
5:02:09understand why we're doing this work,
5:02:11the concepts and the language. And as a
5:02:14stated purpose on this slide, our
5:02:17primary goal is to broaden the staff
5:02:19knowledge and commitment to EJ to
5:02:22develop awareness and knowledge to
5:02:24better equip our team members across the
5:02:28board to work with environmental justice
5:02:30communities and continue with the comm
5:02:32committed leadership support and find
5:02:36and identify as I said where the
5:02:37foundation these places where it's very
5:02:39applicable um and that it's becomes part
5:02:44of the corporate uh for lack of a better
5:02:47word corporate culture of our
5:02:49department. So it's not an add-on or an
5:02:52afterthought.
5:02:54So this training is under the guidance
5:02:56of our environmental justice and tribal
5:02:58affair unit for which Dr. Andreas
5:03:01Martinez is the manager. And so Andreas
5:03:04is going to walk you through the
5:03:06training, how this came about, what
5:03:08we're doing, the different modules and
5:03:10all of that. So, I'm going to turn it
5:03:12over to Andre now.
5:03:16>> Great. Thank you, Serene.
5:03:17>> Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you
5:03:19for uh providing the time um and agenda
5:03:22item for this topic. Uh my name is
5:03:24Andres Martinez. I'm the environmental
5:03:25justice and tribal affairs manager, and
5:03:27I'll go over the rest of the the uh
5:03:29presentation today. So, this training
5:03:32initiative is primarily guided and
5:03:33supported by these three components.
5:03:35First, our uh strategic plan where we
5:03:38were uh guided to create and implement
5:03:42an internal training uh for programs on
5:03:44environmental justice um for all project
5:03:47leads and made available to all staff.
5:03:50Our environmental justice and tribal
5:03:51affairs program is in the office of
5:03:53environmental equity which has a common
5:03:55commitment to communicate and engage. In
5:03:58our program's mission to broaden
5:03:59departmental transparency, address any
5:04:01identified inequities, uh we seek we
5:04:04seek out fairness. Uh environmental
5:04:06justice uh for myself and my team and
5:04:08not is not just an issue around air,
5:04:09land, and water. Uh it's a dynamic idea
5:04:12that includes both environmental
5:04:14burdens, public health, vulnerability,
5:04:18um social, educational, and e economic
5:04:20injustices with community at its center.
5:04:23And finally, uh the work that we have
5:04:26started um directly supports our mission
5:04:28at DTSC to protect California's people,
5:04:31communities, and environment of harmful
5:04:33chemicals through our programs by
5:04:35bringing in a focus with an
5:04:36environmental justice lens uh and
5:04:38address the concerns of our most
5:04:39vulnerable communities. Next slide,
5:04:41please.
5:04:44So we've developed three major focused
5:04:45outcomes for the training and these
5:04:48three are internally for trainees uh to
5:04:51be able to gain the skills and knowledge
5:04:52and understanding of the history
5:04:54principles and best practices around
5:04:55environmental justice as they relate to
5:04:57DTSC's work and the broader community
5:05:00impact that we have. Uh adopt common
5:05:02language and communication around
5:05:04environmental justice with communities
5:05:06to better prepare staff to communicate
5:05:07and collaborate with uh EJ groups and
5:05:10their community members. uh to have
5:05:12tools uh to reflect critically on the
5:05:14role of DTSC in resolving environmental
5:05:17inequities and injustice injustices
5:05:20impacting these communities. Uh
5:05:23internally for our organization, we seek
5:05:26to gain a better understanding and what
5:05:27kind of data or information is needed
5:05:29for projects and initiatives so that an
5:05:31EJ focused engagement is addressed early
5:05:34and incorporated structurally within our
5:05:35department. Uh we also want to use this
5:05:38opportunity to identify topics and
5:05:40opportunities within our programs
5:05:41needing further exposure and follow-up
5:05:43discussions and development for EJ focus
5:05:45work. Externally, what we're hoping for
5:05:48is we should see an improved
5:05:49communication, relationship, and
5:05:51collaboration with environmental justice
5:05:52groups and community groups, which will
5:05:54then turn foster stronger relationships
5:05:56with these groups and community leaders
5:05:58that are rooted in trust and
5:06:00accountability. And these these
5:06:02relationships should assist DTSC staff
5:06:04with understanding the most effective
5:06:05ways to uh interface with these EJ
5:06:08communities and foster our partnerships.
5:06:11Uh next slide.
5:06:15Thank you. Uh and I wanted to highlight
5:06:17our environmental justice group and our
5:06:19programmatic mission uh directly
5:06:21supports the protection of people and
5:06:23environment with an EJ focus. Our team
5:06:26is dedicated to enhancing the capacity
5:06:27to promote and support healthy
5:06:30sustainable development in the
5:06:31communities that we serve by first
5:06:33increasing transparency and sharing in
5:06:35the decision-making process of DTSC's
5:06:37programs. We want to improve the access
5:06:39to DTSC staff and provide assistance
5:06:41with information sharing and develop
5:06:43trust by attending conferences,
5:06:44workshops, or community events organized
5:06:47by EJ organizations or community groups
5:06:49which allows us to actively listen to
5:06:51the concerns that these communities may
5:06:53have and where they reside.
5:06:56uh and also identify data and
5:06:58information from these EJ groups that
5:07:00can better inform how DTSC makes its
5:07:02decisions and elevate environmental
5:07:03justice and community involvement. So
5:07:05given this programmatic mission, uh
5:07:07we're responsible in leading the
5:07:09development of an environmental justice
5:07:10training.
5:07:12Uh next slide, please.
5:07:17Thank you. Uh for our training we have
5:07:19five proposed uh plan modules which
5:07:22include foundational EJ topics,
5:07:24community capacity building,
5:07:26collaborative relationship building,
5:07:28accessibility and analytical EJ tools
5:07:31with the first module drafted as a slide
5:07:33deck for presentation and a script. The
5:07:35other modules are outlined in a set of
5:07:37slides and will be taken feedback from
5:07:39participants when the first training is
5:07:41complete to better cater to trainees and
5:07:43their and their learning and their
5:07:45learning with their outcomes. Uh I'll
5:07:47provide more details and example of sets
5:07:49for module one uh later here in the
5:07:50presentation. Um next slide please.
5:07:55So here's an overview of an overview of
5:07:57module one curriculum topics. Uh we
5:07:59begin with a level setting introduction
5:08:01on why environmental justice training is
5:08:03being provided and outcomes similar to
5:08:05those that I shared earlier with the
5:08:06trainees followed by a word from Slene
5:08:09to set the intention of the training and
5:08:11why we're doing it. We introduce
5:08:13historical events and the primary
5:08:15outcome of this section is to establish
5:08:16a starting point with staff.
5:08:19Uh we'll highlight that EJ was built on
5:08:21previous events that involved the
5:08:23environment which includes people,
5:08:26industry and government and government
5:08:28responses. Uh and like many other
5:08:30movements, the EJ movement was built up
5:08:32over time across multiple events in
5:08:34history that lead us to how we
5:08:36understand EJ as we see it now.
5:08:40We then emphasize community perspectives
5:08:42and as we introduce environmental
5:08:43justice and its history, we share with
5:08:44the participants the need to have a
5:08:46unified definition of what we are
5:08:48referring to when we're using the term
5:08:50environmental justice. We share the
5:08:52government code for what environmental
5:08:54justice is since a regul since a
5:08:56regulatory agency like DTSC can refer to
5:08:59it and determine how our mission
5:09:00supports the advancement of it.
5:09:03We'll listen to EJ advocates from
5:09:05various parts of California as they
5:09:07share their perspective of environmental
5:09:08justice from their experiences.
5:09:11We also highlight the role of the the
5:09:13role of government regulatory agencies
5:09:15like GTSC and how they played in the
5:09:17development of environmental justice and
5:09:20use specific historical topics such as
5:09:22systemic racism, raining and the role of
5:09:26equity and equality and how it plays a
5:09:29how it plays a role in defining
5:09:31environmental justice.
5:09:34We finish this first module with uh an
5:09:36exercise to review then the 17
5:09:39environmental justice principles
5:09:40developed from the people of color
5:09:41conference. Understanding that these
5:09:43principles are are not directly
5:09:45applicable to DTSC's work. We plan to
5:09:47use these as a discussion point where
5:09:49participants will be assigned a breakout
5:09:51group. We'll be asked to take on three
5:09:52to four principles, rank them according
5:09:54to to their applicability to DTSC's work
5:09:57and discuss how they can modify these uh
5:10:00or those that aren't as relevant. um and
5:10:02how they can modify it so that that that
5:10:05way they are the group will then come
5:10:07back together create a list of those
5:10:09that are most applicable and use these
5:10:11uh as a as a similar exercise exercise
5:10:13exercise among themselves and their
5:10:15peers um to discuss environmental
5:10:17justice.
5:10:18Uh next slide please.
5:10:21So, I wanted to finish up with uh with
5:10:23an example of slides from module one
5:10:26that we've developed with our with help
5:10:27from our partners at California State
5:10:29University Sacramento ongoing education
5:10:31program uh and interviews from some
5:10:34community members that we've partnered
5:10:35with to provide their direct response on
5:10:37how they define environmental justice.
5:10:39This material is as close as we have
5:10:41arrived so far to introduce how the
5:10:43governmental definition of environmental
5:10:45justice is useful and needed, but also
5:10:47how it's applied and interpreted is
5:10:49based on who we interact with and where
5:10:51we can readjust our focus as a
5:10:52regulatory agency.
5:10:55Um, next slide.
5:10:58So, uh, here's an example of one of the
5:11:02slides. And as we continue our learning
5:11:03about environmental justice and its
5:11:05history, it's important for us to have a
5:11:06unified definition of what we are
5:11:08referring to when we use the words
5:11:09environmental justice. A key piece of
5:11:12legislator's language was placed in the
5:11:14government code and is a definition for
5:11:15EJ since regulatory agencies again like
5:11:17DTSC can refer to it and determine how
5:11:19our mission supports it advancement. So
5:11:22we'll take a moment to read it. We'll
5:11:24look at how the definition from the
5:11:26perspective of we can also look at the
5:11:27definition from a perspective of
5:11:29environmental injustices where we can
5:11:31think about the disproportionate impact
5:11:33of pollution on lowincome communities
5:11:35and communities of color.
5:11:39Lead me to the next slide please.
5:11:42So I'll follow up the review of the
5:11:44definition of environmental justice with
5:11:46an exercise with a group and ask the
5:11:48trainees as we learned from the history
5:11:50of environmental justice and the
5:11:52government code definition. we can ask
5:11:54ourselves what is environmental justice
5:11:56and more specifically what does it mean
5:11:58to you and the work that we perform at
5:11:59DTSC. The training group um will be
5:12:03asked in a few words uh or a sentence to
5:12:07take a few minutes and add to the chat
5:12:09or speak aloud about how they're they've
5:12:11interp how they've developed their
5:12:13definition of environmental justice in
5:12:15the in the training s so far.
5:12:18Next slide please.
5:12:21And now that we had dis we have
5:12:23discussed what environmental justice is
5:12:25from a governmental perspective and
5:12:27taken some time to develop our own
5:12:28definition of environmental justice on
5:12:30DTSC's work, we take a look at some of
5:12:32our community leaders in the areas that
5:12:34we serve uh and how they define
5:12:36environmental justice.
5:12:39So we'll listen to environmental justice
5:12:40advocates from various parts of
5:12:42California as they share their
5:12:43perspective on the definition of
5:12:45environmental justice. We'll ask
5:12:47trainees that while our community
5:12:50members are speaking that they hear for
5:12:53words, examples or phrases that reflect
5:12:55what we've already talked about as a
5:12:57governmental definition. We'll first
5:13:00hear from Miguela Ltori who's founder
5:13:02and member of the Unidos Unidito's
5:13:04network in Kettleman City. So hopefully
5:13:07the audio comes off clearly. Um but next
5:13:09slide please.
5:13:14[Music]
5:13:16It's the fact that there are places that
5:13:19generate the same amounts of money and
5:13:22they have certain infrastructures or
5:13:25certain programs and then there's other
5:13:27areas who generate the same money and
5:13:29don't have anything to show for that.
5:13:32There's also the fact that there's
5:13:34communities that have certain burdens
5:13:36that other communities do not have to
5:13:38face. And we can see that there's a
5:13:40pattern of what those communities look
5:13:42like and what kind of people are
5:13:44affected by those types of projects, by
5:13:46those types of inadequacies of
5:13:48infrastructure development. And we can
5:13:50see how it manifests in real time and
5:13:53what it does to people. It affects them
5:13:56um emotionally, physically, spiritually.
5:13:58It's really terrible to live in a town
5:14:00where um you're seeing it as the last
5:14:03option or you're seen as just a dumping
5:14:05ground. And so environmental justice,
5:14:07what it means to uh me personally is
5:14:10having the same opportunities for clean
5:14:13air and clean water and a clean life
5:14:15that all the other communities do.
5:14:20Thank you. Next slide.
5:14:24So Miguel highlights historical
5:14:26disparities that led to the
5:14:27disproportionate burdens of communities,
5:14:29inherent economic inequities, and
5:14:31subsequently opportunistic disparities
5:14:32as well. So referencing our governmental
5:14:35definition, he emphasizes inequity in
5:14:37terms of fairness. Uh the portion of the
5:14:39governmental environmental justice
5:14:42definition, he also mentions this
5:14:44historical disparity in the form of uh
5:14:47disproportionate burdens on communities
5:14:48and inherent economic disparities and as
5:14:52a result
5:14:53opportunistic disparities as well. And
5:14:56now we'll hear from another community
5:14:58leader, Miss Margaret Gordon, uh from
5:14:59the West Oakland Environmental
5:15:01Indicators Project.
5:15:05[Music]
5:15:07Ms. Margaret Gordon, founder and
5:15:10co-director in transition
5:15:13from West Oakland Environmental
5:15:14Indicators Project. When I say pollution
5:15:17number one, pollution number number one
5:15:20comes from the inability
5:15:23for government and industry to develop
5:15:29safeguards
5:15:30of that particular business to protect
5:15:35the most indigenous people while they
5:15:39are making money.
5:15:43and not having a structural system to
5:15:46make money and protect people.
5:15:50So that could be either through air,
5:15:52water or soil issues, refineries,
5:15:55agriculture,
5:15:56mining. It could be any of those things
5:15:59that uh that is a foundation for a
5:16:02industry have not been
5:16:06very proactive in the beginning to
5:16:09support health while they was health
5:16:13while they was doing their business.
5:16:18>> Thank you. Next slide. Thank you. Uh, so
5:16:20the focus from Miss Margaret's response
5:16:22touches on another major component of
5:16:23the governmental definition that
5:16:24addresses those disparities that Miguel
5:16:26brought up in the first example. Uh,
5:16:29often there's a result of failure of
5:16:30both government and industry to
5:16:32establish safeguards to protect people's
5:16:33health while pursuing profits. Many
5:16:36industries have historically been slow
5:16:38to support health initiatives as they
5:16:40conduct their business. And government
5:16:41agencies must take a significant role in
5:16:43prioritizing these communities health.
5:16:45And only then can communities be better
5:16:47protected from the injustices with input
5:16:49from its members and support from
5:16:51regulatory governmental agencies like
5:16:53DTSC. And the last video uh we'll hear
5:16:56from Kavon Page from Planting Justice in
5:16:58Oakland.
5:17:01[Music]
5:17:04change, equality, and just certain
5:17:06things that's kind of doesn't happen
5:17:07when you get in some of these areas cuz
5:17:09like u we spoke a little bit earlier
5:17:12about like this freeway back here behind
5:17:13us. And the reason why it's down here
5:17:16and there's none of that going on up on
5:17:18580 is because people up there have the
5:17:22money and the resources to fight against
5:17:25something like this when people down
5:17:27here don't even have either the the the
5:17:31time or or you know the money or even
5:17:35the know
5:17:37to figure out what they should be saying
5:17:39or should be worried about because like
5:17:41I said most people around here are
5:17:42struggling.
5:17:44uh uh uh single family homes and it's
5:17:47just like a lot going on to where people
5:17:49don't fully understand what's going on
5:17:50and why we have this freeway here, the
5:17:53trains all around us and why other areas
5:17:56don't. So,
5:17:59what it would look like to me is just
5:18:01like more information and resources to
5:18:04people in these lowincome areas, in
5:18:06these urban areas to know why it's even
5:18:08happening. I was dropped in here and
5:18:10I've been here ever since. And so that's
5:18:12why I'm so passionate about seeing this
5:18:14place change and just at least just
5:18:16having equality for everybody, not just
5:18:19certain areas and people in a certain
5:18:20tax bracket, but environmental justice
5:18:23and the environment should be clean and
5:18:26clear for everybody.
5:18:30Right. Next slide. Thank you. So, uh,
5:18:32the other important component in
5:18:33understanding and defining environmental
5:18:35justice is that when reading and
5:18:37understanding our proposed definition,
5:18:39um, there's a significant
5:18:40intersectionality between environmental
5:18:42issues and disparities that communities
5:18:45experience and how they are
5:18:46interconnected with the social, racial,
5:18:48and economic issues within a community.
5:18:50focusing on the development and
5:18:52implementation of laws and policies so
5:18:54that communities who are already
5:18:55burdened environmentally but are also
5:18:57encountering disparities regarding time,
5:19:00finances and knowledge to have an
5:19:02equitable opportunity to participate and
5:19:04advocate for a more just and healthy
5:19:06environment.
5:19:08Um and that is the end of the current
5:19:10content that we have so far uh in the
5:19:13example uh in this presentation. Um next
5:19:17slide.
5:19:21And as a review for the goals of the
5:19:22training, our ultimate outcome of this
5:19:24training, as Serene mentioned at the
5:19:26beginning, is to provide DTSC staff with
5:19:28background and information to better
5:19:29support their interaction with our EJ uh
5:19:32EJ communities. We want to provide uh a
5:19:35diverse set of topics that are relevant
5:19:37and applicable to the work that we do
5:19:39and plan to have the curriculum script
5:19:40and module one completed by the end of
5:19:42the month of November and start working
5:19:44internally with our training office to
5:19:46help promote uh and advocate um for
5:19:48participation.
5:19:50Next slide.
5:19:55With that, thank you for your time uh in
5:19:57this agenda item. I look forward to your
5:19:59feedback and discussion on um
5:20:01environmental justice training that
5:20:02we're developing.
5:20:05Um, thank you very much, um, Andreas and
5:20:07Deputy Grant. Um, so we'll now open it
5:20:09up for any board questions or comments
5:20:11or discussion on the presentation, um,
5:20:15that we just received.
5:20:23>> Member Rostrom, please. Oh, just um just
5:20:27uh maybe I missed it, but in terms of
5:20:29some of the you know the the logistics
5:20:31that I I saw it was going to start in
5:20:33November, but what is the timing? How
5:20:35many people are going to be taking it?
5:20:37Um you may have
5:20:40>> Yeah, some of the logistics.
5:20:42>> Yeah, we're we have a partnership with
5:20:45uh Cal State Sacramento. They're going
5:20:47to help us uh get the um the script
5:20:50cleaned up by the end of November. Our
5:20:53intention is to have all project manager
5:20:55or project leads um take it um and have
5:20:59that have that started being train the
5:21:02the training starting uh beginning of
5:21:03January 26 but the content should be
5:21:05done by the end of the month.
5:21:12>> Thanks. Maybe just a follow-up question
5:21:14um and you might have just answered it.
5:21:16who um who is expected to um take this
5:21:18training and is it a a mandatory
5:21:20training within DTSC?
5:21:22>> Uh right now we're looking at all
5:21:24project leads to take it. Um and if uh
5:21:29if applicable I think we can record it
5:21:31and then share it with all other staff
5:21:33uh and then managers um unit chiefs
5:21:36branch chiefs can determine uh who
5:21:38should take it.
5:21:43>> Thank you. Do you have a plan in place
5:21:45to update this on a regular cadence? Is
5:21:48it every year, every two years? And if
5:21:50yes, what is the plan for soliciting
5:21:52feedback and using that input to inform
5:21:55the updates?
5:21:57>> Uh yeah, thank thank you for that. It's
5:21:58a good that that's a good uh a good
5:22:00point. Uh for for us, I anticipate this
5:22:03training to have a shelf life of maybe
5:22:05about 3 years or so. uh for those um new
5:22:09uh staff members that are coming on um
5:22:12that they can they can watch it since
5:22:14it'll be recorded. Um so I would
5:22:16anticipate that uh and it if if it's
5:22:19something that the that the department
5:22:21is um advocating and supporting for for
5:22:24us to be able to revisit some of those
5:22:26topics and modify uh the videos uh at
5:22:28that time.
5:22:30But right now this was a onetime thing.
5:22:32it was part of our um you know initial
5:22:34strategic plan, our own programmatic
5:22:37mission uh to just get this rolled out.
5:22:39Um I think based on the response and the
5:22:42feedback from trainees and leadership
5:22:44with I I would I would see it being a
5:22:46ongoing continuing effort. And can I add
5:22:50that the roll out was the intent is to
5:22:52have the first one and the second the
5:22:54first one done and second one almost
5:22:56done so we can roll them out and keep
5:22:58them going and not have to roll one out
5:23:00and wait another year before there's
5:23:02number two another year before there's
5:23:04number three. So we want to have a
5:23:06continual flow.
5:23:08>> Right. Thank you.
5:23:10>> Thank you.
5:23:16>> Okay. Um well, thank you very much. I I
5:23:19really appreciate uh the presentation. I
5:23:21don't see any other board member request
5:23:24um to speak. Um so we'll go ahead and
5:23:26open up the floor for public comment
5:23:28now. So Courtney, can you please open
5:23:30the floor for public comment for both
5:23:32agenda item number five, which is the
5:23:34DTSC leadership report, and item number
5:23:37six, which is the environmental justice
5:23:38training presentation that we just
5:23:40received. Courtney, over to you.
5:23:42>> Thank you, Chair Raikstraw. As the chair
5:23:44mentioned, we're opening the floor for
5:23:46both agenda items number five and number
5:23:49six. I'm going to start with our
5:23:51in-person participants first. If there's
5:23:53anyone who would like to make a comment
5:23:55in the room, please raise your hand and
5:23:57I'll I'll call you up to the microphone
5:23:59in the aisle.
5:24:03Please, I think Angela had her hand
5:24:05first, so we'll have Angela come up
5:24:07first.
5:24:19Great. If you'd like to be identified
5:24:20for the record, please state your name
5:24:21and affiliation and you'll have three
5:24:23minutes.
5:24:29Um, I am Angela Johnson from Earth
5:24:33Justice. Um, I've got three uh things to
5:24:37note. So, first I wanted to make sure I
5:24:41understand um the director's report
5:24:44about SP 673. I think that what the
5:24:47director is indicating is that the
5:24:49cumulative impacts version portion of
5:24:52673 will be coming out on November the
5:24:5521st. Um and I'm just wondering what
5:24:58about VSSP? They released a rulemaking
5:25:01packet, a draft rulemaking packet in
5:25:03February of 2025 and we haven't seen or
5:25:06heard anything about it since. And so
5:25:08I'm also wondering about um BSP
5:25:13um on the EJ training. Um happy to see
5:25:18that moving forward and um would
5:25:21appreciate an opportunity to see the
5:25:23full um training once it's completed.
5:25:26Obviously, to the extent that the staff
5:25:27is talking amongst themselves, we don't
5:25:30anticipate wanting to see that, but it
5:25:32would be great to be able to see the
5:25:33full training. Um, I think it could have
5:25:36could have been helpful for public input
5:25:38on that, but um, it is what it is. And
5:25:42then the third thing um is I wanted to
5:25:46revisit this question about the permit
5:25:48from QUMCO which I understand that the
5:25:52that you're not going to hear that item
5:25:54today but uh in in the agenda it noted
5:25:59that the permit will be released also on
5:26:03November the 21st. Um,
5:26:07and just building on the conversation we
5:26:09had this morning, I think it would be
5:26:12appropriate to not release the
5:26:13permitting decision until the
5:26:15administrative record is complete. Um, I
5:26:19don't know where they are with all of
5:26:20that, but as we all know, that is a
5:26:22permitting decision that's been going on
5:26:24for quite some time. and um releasing
5:26:28the permit without the full
5:26:30administrative record just puts us back
5:26:32in the same place we already are. So um
5:26:37yes, this is urgent, but this is
5:26:39actually it's not a time saving measure
5:26:41to release the decision without the AR
5:26:44because we still have to go through the
5:26:45AR process. And so now that you're not
5:26:48going to hear the item, I um obviously
5:26:51it came up in the director's report, so
5:26:52I felt it appropriate to raise it now,
5:26:54but I'm not sure how or if there's a way
5:26:57to um address that issue. Thank you.
5:27:04>> Thank you for your comments.
5:27:07Next commenter.
5:27:08>> Oh,
5:27:10wait for a second. There was one more
5:27:11thing.
5:27:13It's been a long day and I just ate
5:27:15lunch. And anyway, um I wanted to also
5:27:18note on the director's priorities. I
5:27:20heard you say this morning that SP 673
5:27:23that it's always later, right? So
5:27:26there'll be something I guess in her
5:27:27priorities that will come up in in um
5:27:30January. But I just wanted to note that
5:27:32it's not clear to me how these
5:27:35priorities interface and overlap with
5:27:39what this plan that you've just
5:27:40approved. And further, I know later
5:27:43there's this thing about the metrics.
5:27:44It's not clear to me how all of these
5:27:46things go together and I think we've
5:27:47raised that before and I think it's
5:27:49still it's still a concern.
5:27:51>> Thank you for your comments. And next
5:27:53commenter, you'll have three minutes.
5:27:55Thank you.
5:27:57>> Thank you. Hi, Ivana Castanos with
5:27:59Physicians for Social Responsibility Los
5:28:01Angeles. I wanted to comment on the um
5:28:06regulation package that was submitted on
5:28:08SB 673 track 2. Uh we had repeatedly
5:28:13requested that the draft regulation
5:28:16package be released to the public um
5:28:18prior to the formal process. Um there
5:28:23were multiple comments um shared where
5:28:26the information sheets I think were
5:28:27difficult for people to digest,
5:28:29difficult to understand how they work
5:28:32together. And so I am very glad to hear
5:28:34that there's been progress on those
5:28:37regulations. Um but I am disappointed
5:28:39that there isn't uh more public
5:28:42engagement with the draft regulation um
5:28:45package. And I also think that a 45day
5:28:48public comment period starting on
5:28:50November 21st with the holidays um it
5:28:54absolutely feels like it's in in bad
5:28:56faith and it feels like there's an
5:28:59attempt to kind of circumvent deeper
5:29:01public engagement on this um which I do
5:29:04not appreciate. So that's my comment on
5:29:06that and thank you very much.
5:29:09>> Thank you for your comments.
5:29:11Next commenter, you'll have three
5:29:13minutes.
5:29:13>> Thank you. Um, I thought that Katie
5:29:16would be excited to tell you that our
5:29:19corrective measures sto uh corrective
5:29:22measures study on soils from the Boeing
5:29:24company had dropped. Um,
5:29:28according to our 2007 consent order,
5:29:30that cleanup was supposed to be
5:29:31completed by 2017. So, we're 18 years
5:29:35and we finally got the remediation for
5:29:39soil plan from Boeing, who is in charge
5:29:42of remediating 80% of our site. So, I'm
5:29:47sad that she left that out, but I'm
5:29:49going to take two minutes to tell you
5:29:51about it. So, it relates to the plan
5:29:53that was passed today in a couple
5:29:56different ways. And I know that
5:29:57remediation is different than hazardous
5:29:59waste, but um once that excavated soil
5:30:03comes out and is put on the staging
5:30:05area, it is then characterized.
5:30:09And we have a huge problem with the
5:30:10characterization methods. I'm going to
5:30:13back up just a minute because during the
5:30:14area 1 burn pit emergency evacue uh uh
5:30:18remediation, we were told that the waste
5:30:21characterization methods that we were so
5:30:23worried about were just a symptom of the
5:30:25emergency order that we they had to
5:30:28streamline it, fasttrack it, but they
5:30:30were going to come back to this area
5:30:32during the general soil cleanup.
5:30:35Our cleanup documents from Boeing
5:30:36proposed the exact same waste
5:30:38characterization methodologies. They're
5:30:41just as weak. When we got on a Zoom
5:30:44during the A1 burn pit with I think a
5:30:48couple of you and DTSC, we begged.
5:30:51We said, "Look, these are not health
5:30:52protective. We gave actionable
5:30:54solutions." They said, "That's not the
5:30:56way we do it." Now, we've got a wa waste
5:30:59management hazardous plan that still
5:31:00doesn't tell us that they're going to do
5:31:02anything different than what they have
5:31:04done. and we're watching the polluters
5:31:06propose the same characterization
5:31:10methods that they did during the
5:31:12emergency action, which we were told
5:31:13wasn't going to happen. So, we're it
5:31:16isn't the only lie that's been told. Um,
5:31:21but we're concerned because we've just
5:31:23passed a plan. They're going to put the
5:31:26shovels in the dirt next summer
5:31:28and we're worried that a good portion of
5:31:31our hazardous waste is going to be
5:31:33underclassified or mclassified
5:31:36and going to be disposed of improperly
5:31:38at municipal dumps.
5:31:41Um,
5:31:43we know that because Boeing in the same
5:31:45plan estimated that 85% of the waste
5:31:49would be characterized as non-hazardous
5:31:52or not radioactive. When DTSC pushed
5:31:55back asking for more information, they
5:31:57said, "Oh, it's a cost. It's a cost
5:31:58estimate."
5:32:00>> 15 seconds. I'm going to um to be
5:32:04continued during general comment, I
5:32:05think.
5:32:06>> Thank you for your comments. Any other
5:32:08in-person commenters?
5:32:10Thank you. You'll have three minutes.
5:32:12>> Yeah. Matt Holmes, California
5:32:14Environmental Justice Coalition. We'll
5:32:16let Jenny's comments settle in for a
5:32:17second.
5:32:21Uh I I just wanted to comment briefly on
5:32:22the environmental justice education
5:32:24training component. I salute that. I I
5:32:26think it's a great direction. Those are
5:32:27all my friends up there. They know what
5:32:29they're talking about. I'd highly
5:32:30encourage you to consult
5:32:33cyclical groups of hyperlocal activists
5:32:35each time you try to develop this
5:32:36training. But for a training uh that's
5:32:39supposed to be some sort of a
5:32:40certification, there's a whole world of
5:32:42literacy assessments, activities,
5:32:44trainings that have been developed by
5:32:46professionals. and I would encourage you
5:32:47to just put out a bid and seek
5:32:49professional design.
5:32:52>> Thank you for your comments. Any other
5:32:53in-person commenters on agenda items
5:32:56five and six? Okay, we're going to go
5:32:58ahead and move to our Zoom participants.
5:33:00If you would like to comment on this
5:33:02item, please raise your virtual hand on
5:33:05your Zoom toolbar or press star 9 on
5:33:07your phone.
5:33:09And um for our interpreters, if you
5:33:12wouldn't mind letting me know if there's
5:33:14anyone in the Spanish room that would
5:33:15like to comment on this item.
5:33:19Okay, seeing none and seeing no hands
5:33:21raised on Zoom, uh that concludes the
5:33:24public comment period for agenda item
5:33:26five, the DTSC leadership report and
5:33:29agenda item number six, the
5:33:30environmental justice training
5:33:32presentation. Chair Rakesstraw.
5:33:36Uh, thank you very much, Courtney, and
5:33:37and thank you to um DTSC and all the
5:33:40public commenters. I'll note that our
5:33:42OMBbuds is taking down um action items
5:33:45and follow-up requests based on many of
5:33:47the comments that we're receiving. And I
5:33:48know there a number of questions that
5:33:50were contained in there. Um so we'd ask
5:33:52our bbuds to follow up on those.
5:33:55Um so we'll now turn to item number
5:33:57eight, which is the public forum. Uh so
5:34:01this is for items that are not otherwise
5:34:04on the agenda. Um so bees staff again
5:34:08will record any action item or items for
5:34:11consideration
5:34:12uh that are raised during this public
5:34:14forum. They'll share these also with the
5:34:16DTSC leadership team and then report
5:34:19back on progress of these action items
5:34:21at a subsequent meeting. Um, so we'll
5:34:24now open it up for um public forum for
5:34:27comments uh that are on items not on the
5:34:29agenda. Courtney, please.
5:34:31>> Thank you, Chair Raikstra,
5:34:34and thank you to those that submitted
5:34:35written comments to us in advance of
5:34:37today's public forum. Those comments
5:34:39have been forwarded to the board members
5:34:41for their awareness and they've been
5:34:42shared with the board ombbuds and added
5:34:45to the official record. Uh, please note
5:34:47due to time limitations, we are
5:34:48shortening our public forum period to 15
5:34:51minutes. We're going to open the floor
5:34:54and for those that would like to submit
5:34:56comments or questions that might exceed
5:34:593 minutes, you can always email us at
5:35:01bees info at bees.dtsc.ca.gov.
5:35:08I will start with our in-person
5:35:09participants first. So, if you would
5:35:11like to make a comment for items not on
5:35:13the agenda, please raise your hand and
5:35:16I'll call you up to the aisle.
5:35:21Thank you very much. And you'll have
5:35:22three minutes to make your comment.
5:35:26>> Good afternoon. I'm Melissa Bumstead
5:35:27again with Parents Against Santa Susanna
5:35:29Field Lab. I wanted to update you that
5:35:32uh parents against SSL, we are one of
5:35:34the main plaintiffs in a SQA lawsuit
5:35:36about over uh the Santa Susanna Field
5:35:39Lab and um we will find the verdict of
5:35:41that SQA lawsuit this Friday. Obviously,
5:35:44my community is hoping that we will come
5:35:46out um with the victory on that because
5:35:48we see it as our only meaningful tool to
5:35:51get our cleanup back. Um
5:35:54and once that happens, we will be
5:35:56looking to our subcommittee for any
5:35:58intervention or oversight the BES can
5:36:01provide our our community and help with
5:36:03that. Um, I also wanted to let the board
5:36:06know that Boeing's corrective measure
5:36:07study or CMS uh has recently come out
5:36:10and it is a death of our cleanup by a
5:36:12thousand paper clips uh paper cuts. And
5:36:16this has been done with DTSC's not only
5:36:18knowledge of the way that our cleanup
5:36:20has been reduced, but with their
5:36:21support. Um, it is especially concerning
5:36:25as shovels will be in the ground next
5:36:26summer and me as a mom, my daughter's a
5:36:29two-time cancer survivor. Uh we recently
5:36:32updated our cancer map for for children.
5:36:35We've we've tracked over a hundred
5:36:36children in our community who have had
5:36:39cancer and I believe that many if not
5:36:41all of those cancers were preventable if
5:36:43we had had the cleanup of this site. Uh,
5:36:45one problem that I'd like to bring to
5:36:47your attention is on the CMS PDF page
5:36:50114 is a generalized human health risk
5:36:53assessment conceptual model. And on it,
5:36:56it lists different pathways of exposure
5:36:59and it's kind of a justification of how
5:37:01thorough the cleanup needs to be. When
5:37:03it came to the off-site
5:37:06pathway that they were showing in this
5:37:08chart, Boeing left it completely blank,
5:37:12meaning that Boeing does not believe
5:37:14that there is any off-site migration
5:37:17from our community. However, we have
5:37:19federally funded peer-reviewed
5:37:21independent studies that have tracked
5:37:22contamination offsite in addition to
5:37:25sister agency data such as the
5:37:26waterboard who has fined Boeing over a
5:37:28million dollars for Santa Susanna Field
5:37:31Lab polluting the LA River. So clearly
5:37:33this comes off site and again DTSC is
5:37:36well aware of these studies. However,
5:37:38DTSC's toxicology made no comments on
5:37:42this glaring obvious lack of study. all
5:37:46the other exposure path routes were were
5:37:48considered for hypothetical residents,
5:37:50but as soon as it came to offsite, it
5:37:52was completely left blank and and not
5:37:55blank with a will come soon. It was just
5:37:58assumed that it did not happen. And
5:38:00again, I was very disappointed in DTSC's
5:38:02toxicology when they had an opportunity
5:38:04in the SMOU to um to demand that that be
5:38:09reconsidered or re-evaluated. Um the
5:38:12water board did make a comment that
5:38:13Boeing's cleanup will not protect water
5:38:15but DPSD was silent. Um as mentioned
5:38:18earlier Boeing has estimated that 85% of
5:38:20the soil will be deemed non-hazardous
5:38:22non-raactive uh with no scientific
5:38:25justification of that number. DTS DTSC
5:38:29asked why Boeing said because and it was
5:38:31left at that.
5:38:32>> Thank you for your comments. Your time
5:38:34has concluded. I just want to let you
5:38:36know that um this is happening on DC
5:38:38DTSC's watch and with their
5:38:40understanding of our criticism, but it
5:38:41is continuing to move forward.
5:38:43>> Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
5:38:47Next inerson commenter, if you'd like to
5:38:49come up to the microphone.
5:38:54>> Yeah, go ahead and come on up and you'll
5:38:56have three minutes.
5:38:58Trying to make it fast so other people
5:38:59have time, too. And I hate to steal the
5:39:01time, but we're trying to tag team on
5:39:04the story. Um, because Katie didn't tell
5:39:06you, so we're going to tell you. Um,
5:39:08take it back to the waste
5:39:10characterization issues. What we're
5:39:12seeing at our site is what we deem a
5:39:15strategy,
5:39:17not a not a data gap. It's not they
5:39:19can't identify it. It is a strategy to
5:39:22avoid identifying it so it doesn't have
5:39:24to be remediated to a licensed site and
5:39:26it can just go to a landfill. And I
5:39:29think the claim that there's difficulty
5:39:32in identifying it is a bit disingenuous.
5:39:36We see modeling at our site um being
5:39:40used to for instance we have a thing
5:39:42called MLE multiple lines of evidence.
5:39:44We don't have enough time to go into it,
5:39:45but it has been the strategy that DTSC
5:39:48has used to claim that our background
5:39:50studies of chemical contamination must
5:39:53due to this modeling that's been created
5:39:55by DTSC must mean that half of those
5:39:59samples, those background samples must
5:40:01be false positives.
5:40:04So, we have to throw out what was a
5:40:06pretty decent background study that
5:40:08everyone has agreed for the past 10
5:40:10years is good and we were going to go
5:40:11forward. It is a strategy to let the
5:40:13responsible parties remediate less
5:40:16contaminated soil at SSFL. And if you
5:40:19look at our our
5:40:21CMS documents, it's not one thing. It's
5:40:25from the beginning to the end from
5:40:28how are we going to identify where are
5:40:31we going to take it from? And and if you
5:40:34look at our confirmation sampling, if
5:40:36you look under confirmation sampling in
5:40:37that document, it says, "Oh, see the
5:40:38settlement agreement 2022. Most of us
5:40:41are too lazy. I have to admit I looked
5:40:43at that three times until I said fine,
5:40:44I'll bite. Went found this, opened the
5:40:47settlement agreement, found, you know,
5:40:49the citation and it said that samples
5:40:53for confirmation sampling can be taken
5:40:57from adjacent areas. So, the idea is
5:41:00you're supposed to take a confirmation
5:41:01sample to decide when you're going to
5:41:02stop digging, right? But if you get a
5:41:05clean sample over here and say, "Oh,
5:41:08we're going to mix these together. I
5:41:10guess it's clean. We're out of here.
5:41:11That is one of the strategies they're
5:41:13using to avoid
5:41:16comprehensive remediation at our site.
5:41:19Um it's a mess and I'm worried with the
5:41:23plan that you just passed. What's going
5:41:24to happen when we get to the remediation
5:41:25plan? Um they're not forthcoming about
5:41:29the loopholes that are that they uh
5:41:31retain and exploit that we ultimately
5:41:35have to rid the consequences of. So, I'm
5:41:37hoping at our next plan, I I feel like
5:41:40we really lost an opportunity today to
5:41:42try to hold them to account, and I'm
5:41:43sure that you did try.
5:41:46I think we need to do something
5:41:47different on the reiation plan because
5:41:48they're not going to tell you
5:41:51the tricks they use. We have to, and
5:41:53that's a problem. Thank you so much.
5:41:58Thank you for your comments. Uh, was
5:42:01there any other in-person commenters?
5:42:06No. Okay. Well, unfortunately due to
5:42:08time or was that in the item before? Oh,
5:42:14go ahead. Come on up. I'm sorry. I was
5:42:17confusing all my items together.
5:42:20Please go ahead and come on up.
5:42:24Yeah, I apologize for that. I'm sorry.
5:42:26It's like, wait a minute. Okay. I'm so
5:42:29sorry, Angela. Yeah. Okay. You have
5:42:31three minutes. I'm so sorry.
5:42:35So, I'm not going to take three minutes.
5:42:37I don't I probably will. Okay. So, I
5:42:39wanted to um raise to the board's
5:42:41attention a rule making that DTSC is
5:42:43working on right now for the exemption
5:42:45of hazardous waste from manifesting in
5:42:48what they would call a very particular
5:42:50circumstance. And I wanted to raise this
5:42:52to your attention for three reasons
5:42:54because I always do things in threes.
5:42:56First, based on the conversation we were
5:42:58having this morning about how review
5:42:59just means think about, but it doesn't
5:43:01actually mean doing because really
5:43:03actually we're not going to roll back
5:43:04protections. I just want you to know
5:43:06that they've already done a packet on
5:43:08and we've already submitted comments on
5:43:10August 29th um for a rule making to roll
5:43:14back protections by um by creating an
5:43:17exemption to manifesting requirements
5:43:19for hazardous waste movement.
5:43:22The second thing I want to do is implore
5:43:26you to please go and look at that
5:43:28packet. Look at our comments and the
5:43:30comments that were submitted on the
5:43:32packet. What you'll see is DTSC telling
5:43:36us that creating an exemption actually
5:43:40makes the environment safer. What
5:43:42exemptions do particularly to
5:43:45manifesting is it makes the pollution
5:43:49invisible
5:43:51because then you can move pollution
5:43:53around and there's no way to know that
5:43:55they touched it, that they moved it,
5:43:58where it's supposed to go, where it did
5:44:00or didn't end up. Manifesting is the
5:44:03bedrock
5:44:04of the hazardous waste laws. And for
5:44:07DTSC to tell us that this exemption is
5:44:11just a small one. We shouldn't really
5:44:13worry about it is deeply problematic.
5:44:16Please look at the uh record for that
5:44:19exemption. Read the letters. Note who is
5:44:23standing where relative to that
5:44:25decision.
5:44:27The third thing I just um want to note
5:44:30is
5:44:32in um a after the public comment period,
5:44:38we submitted a public records act
5:44:40request for information about how DTSSE
5:44:43determined that it was going to
5:44:45undertake this rulemaking. And after
5:44:48request after request after request,
5:44:50we've had silence from DTSC.
5:44:54They gave us copies of the uh letters
5:44:58that were submitted but none of the
5:45:00documents were requested. This is not a
5:45:03transparent operation
5:45:05and their um assertions
5:45:09that they would never do anything to
5:45:12roll back protections are manifestly
5:45:14false when you look at their existing
5:45:17behavior. 18 seconds.
5:45:21>> Thank you for your comments. Next
5:45:23commenter. Thank you very much. You'll
5:45:25have three minutes.
5:45:27>> Just uh Matt Matt Holmes, California
5:45:28Environmental Justice Coalition. Just in
5:45:30keeping with our conversation this
5:45:32morning about going bees having
5:45:33oversight and going through line line by
5:45:35line through the implementation of the
5:45:37hazardous waste plan. Uh you know, one
5:45:40issue that I want to make sure everybody
5:45:41packs their lunch for is the export of
5:45:43hazardous waste out of state. Um I
5:45:45mentioned multi- agency reporting this
5:45:47morning. Uh, I will be working with US
5:45:49EPA to get mo to get reports and
5:45:51administrative histories out of the
5:45:53facilities that receive California's
5:45:55trash. They seem very interested in
5:45:56poking holes in the regulatory framework
5:45:58of California's posture around
5:46:00regulating hazardous waste. And many of
5:46:02our members, you know, like our friends
5:46:04up at Leightonville Rancheria who have
5:46:06been ignored for 40 years while we do an
5:46:08exhaustive speciation of every soil
5:46:10sample in the region, um they've reached
5:46:12out to the Trump administration and so
5:46:14will other members of our coalition
5:46:16because even though they're crazy, um
5:46:18crazy crazy can't be worse than
5:46:19consistent cool indifference.
5:46:22Help us with the DTSC board on that,
5:46:23please. Thank you.
5:46:25>> Thank you for your comments. We do have
5:46:27three hands raised on Zoom. Are there
5:46:29any other in-person commenters?
5:46:32Okay, thank you. We're going to go ahead
5:46:34and move to Zoom now. Uh James Williams,
5:46:37we're going to invite you to unmute.
5:46:40Please accept our invitation and you'll
5:46:42have three minutes to make your comment.
5:46:46>> Good evening everyone. Uh thanks to the
5:46:48board for this opportunity to present
5:46:50comments today on the 2025 draft
5:46:54hazardous waste management plan. As
5:46:56noted, my name is James Williams. I
5:46:58serve as executive director at the
5:46:59Environmental Technology Council in
5:47:01Washington DC. ETC is the leading trade
5:47:04association that represents all sectors
5:47:06of the industrial hazardous waste
5:47:08management industry. Our member
5:47:10companies must comply with the safety,
5:47:12security and environmental regulations
5:47:14of the Resource Conservation and
5:47:15Recovery Act, the Department of
5:47:17Transportation, the Clean Air Act, and
5:47:19the Risk Management Program, just to
5:47:21name a few. As part of their business
5:47:23practice, ETC member companies are
5:47:26continuously engaging with the
5:47:27communities in which they operate to
5:47:30ensure that their facilities are
5:47:31operating in a responsible, safe, and
5:47:33secure manner to protect against
5:47:36environmental injustices and to protect
5:47:38human health in the environment.
5:47:41I want to quickly talk about the plan
5:47:45and note that on page 14, first
5:47:47paragraph of the plan states that the
5:47:48national capacity for incineration is
5:47:51limited and this limitation is a barrier
5:47:53to proper management of incinerable
5:47:55waste. ETC and its members respectfully
5:47:58disagree with this assessment. It
5:48:01appears that DTSC
5:48:04is basing this assessment on the staff's
5:48:06review of the United States
5:48:08Environmental Protection AY's 2019
5:48:11National Capacity Assessment Report and
5:48:14not the AY's more recent 2024 report.
5:48:18Currently, national incineration
5:48:20capacity continues to grow. In December
5:48:23of 2024, ETC member company Clean
5:48:26Harbors opened its new Ritra permitted
5:48:29incinerator in Kimble, Nebraska, which
5:48:32will have a total capacity of 70,000
5:48:35tons per year once fully operable. In
5:48:38addition, ETC member company Violia
5:48:40North America will also soon open its
5:48:43new Rick permitted incinerator at Gum
5:48:46Springs, Arkansas, which will have a
5:48:49total capacity of 100,000 tons per year.
5:48:53It is also worth noting that in our
5:48:56opening statement, EPA requires risk
5:48:59assessment to be performed at ETC member
5:49:01company facilities and if these
5:49:03assessments find unreasonable risk that
5:49:07those waste shall not be incinerated.
5:49:10These combined actions help to reduce
5:49:12and in some cases eliminate health
5:49:14concerns for communities near Ricker
5:49:16regulated facilities. In closing,
5:49:20ETC respectfully requests that the board
5:49:23require DSTC to update its 2025 waste
5:49:27management plan to reflect information
5:49:30provided in EPA's 2024 national capacity
5:49:34assessment report.
5:49:35>> It is important for the information that
5:49:38the DSTC shares with the community. It
5:49:41is important that that information be
5:49:43accurate. Thank you for the opportunity
5:49:45to comment today. And if there are any
5:49:48questions, I'm more than happy to answer
5:49:50those.
5:49:50>> Thank you for your comments. The next
5:49:54Zoom commenter we have is Philip
5:49:57Chandler. We're going to invite you to
5:49:59unmute. Please accept our invitation and
5:50:01you'll have three minutes.
5:50:11Philip Chandler, if you're able to
5:50:13unmute,
5:50:16please accept our invitation to unmute.
5:50:21Okay, we'll we'll go to the next one and
5:50:24come back. Uh Duncan McKe, we're going
5:50:26to invite you to unmute for the public
5:50:29forum period. Please accept our
5:50:30invitation and you'll have three
5:50:32minutes.
5:50:33>> Very good. Uh thank you. My my name's
5:50:36Duncan McKe. I'd like to reiterate what
5:50:39Angela's Angela's concerns on the
5:50:42manifest
5:50:44and the gentleman who spoke before about
5:50:47exporting hazardous waste because we
5:50:49know well MCO over there has been
5:50:52exporting a lot of their hazardous waste
5:50:55over to Batty Nevada so they don't
5:50:57release it in California.
5:51:00But they also import hazardous waste
5:51:03from all over the world to process at
5:51:06that facility. And I'm not sure about
5:51:08some of their other facilities in the
5:51:10US, but we really need to be keeping
5:51:14track of what's coming in. US EPA
5:51:1820 or more years ago when they found 330
5:51:22some odd thousand parts per million lead
5:51:25on that property expressed concerns
5:51:28about them importing hazardous waste
5:51:31from all over the world. So our
5:51:34community should not have to bear that
5:51:37burden.
5:51:38Um in addition they my understanding is
5:51:42the parent company RSR owns the old
5:51:45Wickco Richardson battery facility that
5:51:48is directly adjacent. So we're really
5:51:51concerned about that. DTSC has cited
5:51:54them on cited them for ill or violations
5:51:59of storage of hazardous waste and train
5:52:01cars there. And my understanding is that
5:52:04some of the testing has shown uh some
5:52:09materials that shouldn't be there uh in
5:52:13it in in regards to the incineration of
5:52:16hazardous waste. I mean, they're
5:52:18incinerating plastic and rubber battery
5:52:20cases that are contaminated with acid
5:52:23and lead and chromium and cadmium and
5:52:27all kinds of other things over there.
5:52:28And uh it's wrong. Those are where a lot
5:52:32of the cancer-causing chemicals are
5:52:34coming from. DTSC shouldn't be allowing
5:52:37them to do this and they are. South
5:52:40Coast Air Quality Management District's
5:52:42letting them get away with it and
5:52:43they're not capable of
5:52:48of responsibly regulating them. Um,
5:52:53there's a lot of things here that DTSC
5:52:55really needs to get on top of and
5:52:57tighten up in regards to the hazardous
5:52:59waste. And I'm really concerned about
5:53:02just pretending like it's not hazardous
5:53:04and what people are calling deregulation
5:53:07is uh is a direction that we do not want
5:53:11to be going. And uh I think I'll leave
5:53:14it at that for now. But thank you very
5:53:16much for the opportunity to comment and
5:53:19I hope uh DTSC can start stepping up to
5:53:22the plate and protecting us like uh we
5:53:27are entrusting them to do and we're
5:53:29entrusting the board to give good
5:53:31oversight of that. Thank you again.
5:53:34>> Thank you for your comments. Uh it
5:53:37looked like our last uh commenter's room
5:53:39actually lowered their hand. So, uh,
5:53:42that does conclude the public forum
5:53:44agenda item number eight. That concludes
5:53:48the public forum, uh, period for items
5:53:52not on the agenda. Uh, Chair Raikstra,
5:53:56>> that's right. All right. Thank you so
5:53:58much, Courtney, and thank you to the to
5:54:00the public commenters. Um so we actually
5:54:02only have one item left on the agenda
5:54:04for today. Um which is uh item number
5:54:07nine, the hazardous waste management
5:54:09program performance metrics. Um so we
5:54:13now move to this uh agenda item number
5:54:15nine where the board will consider
5:54:16whether to approve the board
5:54:18subcommittee's recommended performance
5:54:20metrics for DTSC's hazardous waste
5:54:23management program. In accordance with
5:54:25SP 158, the board after consulting with
5:54:28the director will adopt clear
5:54:30performance metrics for the department
5:54:33and each of the department's programs.
5:54:35This is the first time the board is
5:54:37considering metrics from one of DTSC's
5:54:40programs. And the board is currently
5:54:42also working with DTSC to develop
5:54:45metrics for the safer consumer products
5:54:47program. I'd like to introduce Linda
5:54:49Okmpo, the board's staff senior engineer
5:54:53who's joining us remotely to present the
5:54:55subcommittee's recommendations for
5:54:57performance metrics. Uh we will also
5:55:00hear from member Brostrom as she shares
5:55:02an overview of how we got to this point
5:55:05as well as member Batia on next steps.
5:55:08Linda, please over to you.
5:55:14>> Hi, thank you chair chair Restro and
5:55:16members of the board. Um, and everyone's
5:55:18still with us. Can you all hear me?
5:55:21Okay.
5:55:23>> Yep, we can hear you.
5:55:25>> Thank you. All right. I will now present
5:55:27the metric subcommittee's proposed
5:55:28performance metrics for DTSC's hazardous
5:55:31waste management program. A more
5:55:34detailed exhibit of the metrics can be
5:55:36found in the board's meeting packet.
5:55:39Next.
5:55:44All right. Right. In this presentation,
5:55:45I'll provide a brief metrics introduc
5:55:47introduction covering the purpose and
5:55:49how we plan to use them. Then I'll go
5:55:51over the six proposed metrics for
5:55:53permitting, enforcement, and office
5:55:55criminal investigations.
5:55:57Finally, I'll outline the subcommittee's
5:55:59plan activities for 2026.
5:56:02Next,
5:56:07before diving into the metrics, I want
5:56:08to provide an overview of subcommittee's
5:56:10work completed so far. Um the hazardous
5:56:13waste management program metrics
5:56:14subcommittee consists of board members
5:56:16Ingret Brstrammatia
5:56:18along with executive officer Swati
5:56:20Chararma and myself Linda Alampo in the
5:56:23capacity of senior board staff engineer
5:56:26SB 158 test the board with developing
5:56:28performance metrics in consultation with
5:56:30the director and through a public
5:56:31process for the program's metrics
5:56:34setting we followed a two-part approach
5:56:36um first we worked closely with the
5:56:38program leadership to understand program
5:56:41operations and evaluate the physibility
5:56:43of metrics identified by the
5:56:45subcommittee.
5:56:46That collaboration shaped the set of
5:56:48metrics proposed today.
5:56:51The second part consisted of external
5:56:53engagement to receive public feedback on
5:56:55the proposed metrics. The initial set of
5:56:57metrics were revised and consideration
5:56:59of comments and recommendations received
5:57:01during a workshop and board meetings. We
5:57:04also received valuable input on the
5:57:06importance of qualitative metrics. And
5:57:09while we continue to explore the
5:57:11physibility of qualitative metrics,
5:57:13today the subcommittee recommends moving
5:57:15forward with the proposed quantitative
5:57:17metrics as a starting point. Next,
5:57:24right, I want to start with what we mean
5:57:26by metrics. Metrics are tools we use to
5:57:28measure how DTUC is performing. Instead
5:57:31of just describing activities, metrics
5:57:34give us numbers and trends we can track
5:57:36and assess over time. For example,
5:57:38rather than knowing that DTSC process
5:57:41permits, metrics provides us information
5:57:43to measure how many permits are
5:57:45processed on time, how many are overdue,
5:57:48and where process bottlenecks are
5:57:50forming.
5:57:52That way, we can see progress clearly
5:57:54and consistently, and identify what is
5:57:56working and can be improved. Next,
5:58:05the proposed metrics will be shared on
5:58:07public web platform and at board
5:58:10meetings when requested. The metrics
5:58:12will also inform the director's annual
5:58:14progress update to the board and the
5:58:16board's annual performance update to the
5:58:18legislature. These metrics will also
5:58:20support the evaluation of long-term
5:58:22goals related to permitting process
5:58:24efficiencies and implementation of
5:58:26enforcement activities.
5:58:28Next.
5:58:35All right. To get context to this set of
5:58:36metrics, the hazardous waste management
5:58:38program is organized into four
5:58:40divisions. The metrics proposed today
5:58:42were developed for three of these
5:58:43divisions. The permitting, enforcement,
5:58:45emergency response division, and office
5:58:48of criminal investigation. These are
5:58:50core operational areas. as the
5:58:51subcommittee is looking to bring
5:58:52transparency and accountability to with
5:58:55the set of metrics. The policy and
5:58:58program support branch is a fairly new
5:58:59unit and will be assessed in future
5:59:01iterations of the program metrics.
5:59:05Next,
5:59:10okay, now I'll go over the three
5:59:11proposed metrics for permitting. These
5:59:13metrics are intended to provide a clear
5:59:15picture of whether the division is
5:59:17meeting permitting processing timelines
5:59:19where delays occur and permitting
5:59:21process efficiencies.
5:59:24Next, please.
5:59:29Okay. The first metric is continued
5:59:30permits. This tracks how many permits
5:59:32remain in continued status after a year
5:59:34from permit term expiration.
5:59:37This matters because facilities
5:59:38operating without an updated permit
5:59:40decision, sometimes for years, delays
5:59:42the enforcement of updated environmental
5:59:44protections and community input. By
5:59:47tracking these metrics, we can clearly
5:59:49see whether the current outstanding
5:59:51permit decision backlog is decreasing
5:59:52over time and progress on upcoming
5:59:55permit renewals.
5:59:57Also provides insight into the number of
5:59:59facilities operating with continue
6:00:01permits and how far DTSC is from the
6:00:03ultimate stated goal of zero continue
6:00:05permits. The data will be reported
6:00:07continuously as permit decisions become
6:00:09overdue. Next, please.
6:00:14Next, we'll look at the on-time permit
6:00:15decision metric. This metric tracks
6:00:17whether permitting is issuing permits
6:00:19within the statutory deadline. It's
6:00:21reported as a percentage of final permit
6:00:23decisions made within one year of permit
6:00:25term expiration compared to all final
6:00:28decisions issued in that fiscal year. We
6:00:31thought this metric should be included
6:00:33in this initial set because it
6:00:35ultimately allows us to see whether
6:00:36permitting is made in the statutory
6:00:38requirement and provides visibility into
6:00:40how many permit decisions are becoming
6:00:42overdue.
6:00:44We do want to note that while DTSC's
6:00:46interpretation of on time aligns with
6:00:48the statutory timeline, the subcommittee
6:00:50intends to request for evaluation
6:00:53information on permit decisions made
6:00:55prior to this deadline.
6:00:58Next, please.
6:01:02This graph is just to show how metrics
6:01:03one and two work together um to track
6:01:05DTSC's performance on permit decisions.
6:01:08Under the statute, DTSC's has one year
6:01:11after permit fixed term ends to issue a
6:01:14final decision. These decisions are
6:01:16captured in metric 2. Once a year mark
6:01:19passes, those permits move into the
6:01:21overdue category which are tracked under
6:01:24metric one. These metrics provide the
6:01:27board an opportunity to monitor
6:01:28permittes performance around addressing
6:01:30permit backlog and meeting its statutory
6:01:33obligations.
6:01:35Next, please.
6:01:39This third metric, timely application
6:01:41reviews, tracks the efficiency of the
6:01:43technical review process, which is
6:01:45resource intensive and often leads to
6:01:47permit decision delays. It's reported as
6:01:49a number of technical reviews completed
6:01:51within 140 days compared to all initial
6:01:54technical reviews completed in the
6:01:56fiscal year.
6:01:58When these reviews are completed within
6:02:00140day time frame up to the first notice
6:02:02of deficiency, it significantly
6:02:04increases the likelihood of a timely
6:02:06permit decision. And importantly, this
6:02:08metric helps identify permits that are
6:02:10at risk of becoming continued as it
6:02:13highlights early delays in the process.
6:02:16Next, please.
6:02:19Okay, the slide illustrates major stages
6:02:22of the permit application review
6:02:24process. The highlighted yellow section
6:02:26shows the technical review phase. Metric
6:02:283 tracks whether the technical review
6:02:30phase is completed within the 140day
6:02:32time frame. Reviews longer than this
6:02:35time frame may be an early indicator
6:02:36that a bottleneck may be forming and
6:02:39permit might need additional attention.
6:02:42So in summary, the three permitting
6:02:44permit permitting metrics report on
6:02:47permitting processing performance
6:02:50and together they provide a structure
6:02:52and consistent way to assess and improve
6:02:54DTSC's permitting process.
6:02:57Next, please.
6:03:01Right now we'll move on to enforcement
6:03:02emergency respond divisions or EERD and
6:03:05the office of criminal investigation
6:03:06metrics. These metrics focus on
6:03:09understanding compliance trends,
6:03:10enforcement effectiveness, and equity.
6:03:13Next, please.
6:03:18This metric tracks the number of
6:03:19supplement environmental projects or
6:03:21steps for short, applications submitted,
6:03:23and how often they're used over time. We
6:03:25will track the number and dollar amount
6:03:27of steps funded as well as the number of
6:03:29applications received and evaluated.
6:03:32Next, please.
6:03:37The SEPS turn a penalty into a tangible
6:03:40community benefit. For example, a
6:03:42community air monitor, a park cleanup,
6:03:44or a neighborhood educational program.
6:03:46This data will inform us on whether DTSC
6:03:49needs to increase community outreach to
6:03:51generate more eligible SEP applications
6:03:54and whether facility owners are
6:03:56utilizing this opportunity to provide
6:03:58community benefit when available.
6:04:01Next, please.
6:04:05Metric five, compliance rates, is
6:04:07foundational to assessing enforcement
6:04:09effectiveness. It tracks the return of
6:04:11compliance rate, which is a number of
6:04:13violations corrected compared to the
6:04:15total violations issued. We are breaking
6:04:17down this data to provide a deeper
6:04:19understanding of compliance across three
6:04:21angles. The type of violation, class
6:04:24one, class 2, and minor,
6:04:27whether facility is permitted or
6:04:28non-perit. Um, examples of non-primitive
6:04:31facilities would be generators, metal
6:04:33shredders, transporters to name a few
6:04:36and critically whether the the facility
6:04:38is located in a vulnerable community.
6:04:41The return to compliance data will be
6:04:43evaluated on a quarterly and
6:04:44year-to-year basis.
6:04:47Next, please.
6:04:52Okay. The return compliance helps us
6:04:54understand whether inspections are
6:04:55actually resulting in improved
6:04:57compliance. This is a direct indicator
6:04:59of enforcement effectiveness.
6:05:02Second is data from vulnerable
6:05:04communities will help us identify any
6:05:06potential disparities in enforcement
6:05:07efforts.
6:05:10And finally, this information supports
6:05:12longerterm planning for the department's
6:05:13enforcement activities by highlighting
6:05:15where additional attention or resources
6:05:17may be needed.
6:05:20Next, please.
6:05:26Lastly, metric 6 tracks inspection
6:05:28completion rates to ensure DTSC is
6:05:30meeting its federal requirements. It
6:05:32tracks the percent of peritive facility
6:05:34inspections completed per fiscal year as
6:05:37required by the RECRA grant through the
6:05:39EPA compliance monitoring strategy.
6:05:43Facility inspections are the primary
6:05:44tool for monitoring compliance. This
6:05:46metric informs us whether DTSC is
6:05:48conducting the required inspections
6:05:50necessary to protect the public
6:05:52environment.
6:05:54Now, in summary, these enforcement
6:05:55metrics provide actionable insights into
6:05:57opportunities for community benefits,
6:05:59compliance trends, and enforcement
6:06:01effectiveness.
6:06:03Next, please.
6:06:07All right. As we look ahead, the metrics
6:06:09subcommittee will begin setting goals
6:06:10for the proposed metrics in the early
6:06:12part of 2026 and continuously review the
6:06:15data as it's shared with the board. By
6:06:18mid year of 2026, a separate
6:06:20subcommittee team led by chair
6:06:21Rickstraaw and board member Batia will
6:06:24work together will work towards
6:06:25completing the metrics for the safer
6:06:27consumer products program while another
6:06:30subcommittee team initiates the metric
6:06:32setting process for the site mitigation
6:06:34and restoration program.
6:06:37Next, please.
6:06:42In closing, the metric subcommittee
6:06:44recommends approval of this initial set
6:06:46of metrics for the hazardous waste
6:06:47management programs permitting and
6:06:49enforcement functions. These metrics
6:06:52provide a starting point to drive
6:06:54transparency, strengthen accountability,
6:06:57and support continuous improvement
6:06:58within the program.
6:07:00Also, the baseline data from these
6:07:02metrics will help us identify
6:07:04refinements needed to address any
6:07:06information gaps.
6:07:09Next, please.
6:07:12All right, this concludes this
6:07:13presentation on the subcommittee's
6:07:15metrics proposal. We'll now open the
6:07:17floor for subcommittee remarks,
6:07:20board discussion, public comments, and
6:07:22board's vote. And thank you and I'll
6:07:24turn it over to Chair Rickstro.
6:07:27>> Thank you very much, Linda. Thank you
6:07:28for the um detailed presentation. Why
6:07:31don't I turn it over now to members um
6:07:33Brstrom and Vatia um to speak for the
6:07:36subcommittee's work. Thank you.
6:07:39you. And um so I'm going to just give a
6:07:41a little brief recap. I know we're
6:07:43revisiting something that we um
6:07:45considered earlier earlier in the year.
6:07:47Um so uh so so uh early this year, we
6:07:51presented a set of board metrics uh for
6:07:54a board vote um on the hazardous waste
6:07:57uh permitting and enforcement um
6:08:00programs. Um and at that point we heard
6:08:03from members uh of the public and other
6:08:05stakeholders um a desire for more time
6:08:08to propose additional metrics for uh the
6:08:11subcommittee's assessment. Um and there
6:08:14was quite a a focus on qualitative
6:08:17measurements. Um uh so we we at that
6:08:20point decided to postpone the vote. Um
6:08:24in the interim we have received um
6:08:26additional suggestions from stakeholders
6:08:29quite a few actually uh from
6:08:31stakeholders and members of the public.
6:08:33Um again many many of them include
6:08:35qualitative metrics. Um in addition to
6:08:38reviewing uh metrics that we received um
6:08:41in in in various written formats we have
6:08:44also met with stakeholders uh and
6:08:46received additional input and ideas. Um
6:08:49we took all the recommendations that we
6:08:51received um and reviewed them both
6:08:53internally as the subcommittee um as
6:08:56well as with the DTSC permitting and
6:08:59enforcement teams. Um and I think um you
6:09:02know with the the subcommittee we really
6:09:04saw value um in in many of the
6:09:08qualitative metrics and and recognize
6:09:10that they can provide valuable context.
6:09:12Um but that uh you know we recognize
6:09:16that their implementation uh required
6:09:19the development of a consistent um and
6:09:21transparent framework that really
6:09:23assured reliability and comparability
6:09:26across data sets. and you know and
6:09:29frankly we we struggled um to to really
6:09:32figure out um how to meet those uh those
6:09:37parameters. Um at at that time uh we we
6:09:41also recognized um that there was um you
6:09:46know a desire for us to start collecting
6:09:49data on the on the on the on the
6:09:53quantitative metrics that we had or
6:09:55already um landed on. Um so at this
6:10:00point um we're recommending that we we
6:10:03move forward with the quantitative
6:10:05metrics while we continue to look into
6:10:08ways of integrating qualitative metrics
6:10:10in the future iterations. Um so uh we
6:10:14are sensitive to the need to establish
6:10:16and track metrics and also establish
6:10:18goals um so that we can start um uh you
6:10:22know tracking progress um in some of
6:10:24these uh the metrics that you heard
6:10:26about today. uh while we continue to
6:10:29think through the best ways to integrate
6:10:31the uh qualitative metrics where we we
6:10:34we do see value and alternative.
6:10:42>> Thank you Ingred. uh I'm now going to
6:10:45add some highlevel kind of learnings
6:10:48we've had from the process of working on
6:10:50the HWMP metrics and things that we
6:10:52expect to take us forward into SCP
6:10:56metrics and all the other future metrics
6:10:57that we're going to develop together
6:10:58with DTSC. So we learned two things one
6:11:01is that we need to do a better job of
6:11:03bringing all of the stakeholders along
6:11:06uh and sharing all the learnings we are
6:11:09having in the course of the
6:11:11collaboration with DTSC. So that's
6:11:13number one. And number two, we learned
6:11:14that it's important to also codify some
6:11:16of the guiding principles. We've talked
6:11:18about them in our board meetings, but we
6:11:19feel like it'll be really useful to
6:11:21codify as in to again reanchor us on the
6:11:24core principles that are going to remain
6:11:27consistent as we consider metrics for
6:11:30each of DDSC's programs. So those are
6:11:32the two learnings. So in the spirit of
6:11:35um reiterating what those guiding
6:11:37principles are, I'm going to read them
6:11:38out loud. We've discussed them to some
6:11:41degree in our previous board meetings,
6:11:42but there's five things I'm going to
6:11:44read out as our anchoring principles for
6:11:47metrics development. We're going to
6:11:48revisit them every time we talk about
6:11:50new metrics of a consideration. Okay.
6:11:53So, first guiding principle is that the
6:11:56proposed performance metrics will be de
6:11:58developed iteratively. We've spoken
6:12:00about that. Once adopted, metrics will
6:12:02be considered a living document. We the
6:12:05board will continue to uh consider
6:12:07feedback that we receive from
6:12:09stakeholders and we will consider them
6:12:11for adoption at least every two years.
6:12:13That is our goal. That's number one.
6:12:15Number two, performance metrics will
6:12:18consider the theory of change. This
6:12:20means we recognize that generating
6:12:22certain outputs will eventually drive
6:12:25the uh higher order higher order outcome
6:12:28we desire which is public health and
6:12:30environmental protection and improvement
6:12:32of the lived experience of communities.
6:12:34So to the degree possible we will aim to
6:12:36connect the programmatic activities to
6:12:39prevention of specific harms. So that's
6:12:41number two. Number three, we've talked
6:12:44about this too, which is the metrics
6:12:46will focus on a limited number of
6:12:48metrics that matter. The goal is to
6:12:51elevate them for tracking and oversight
6:12:53purposes. The goal is not to stop
6:12:55tracking the metrics that DTSC currently
6:12:58tracks. We intend to refine that signal
6:13:02to noise ratio. We spoke about this um
6:13:04because not everything that counts can
6:13:06be counted and not everything that can
6:13:08be counted counts. Um and we've heard
6:13:10that also from stakeholders. So again,
6:13:12this approach does not mean that that
6:13:14the board will ask DTSC to stop
6:13:15measuring, tracking or reporting the
6:13:17metrics that they currently track and
6:13:19report on. We simply this approach
6:13:21simply offers a way to prioritize
6:13:23certain metrics for oversight and
6:13:25evaluation. That's number three. Uh
6:13:27number four is the metrics will be
6:13:29trackable numbers. Um Ingred spoke about
6:13:31this earlier. We we want to identify
6:13:34trackable numbers that are able to be
6:13:35influenced in a positive direction
6:13:38through board established goals. uh
6:13:40trackable means that DTSC currently has
6:13:42a mechanism to systematically track them
6:13:44or can institute a mechanism to
6:13:46systematically track those on an ongoing
6:13:48basis and allow a longitudinal view of
6:13:51those changes. Uh and lastly that's
6:13:53number five which is metrics will be
6:13:55developed collaboratively with
6:13:57stakeholders and the public to gain an
6:13:58outside in view and to ensure that our
6:14:01adopted metrics are meaningful to a
6:14:03broader set of audience. So those are
6:14:05the guiding principles. This is also
6:14:08living we as we continue to learn um in
6:14:11this process of developing metrics with
6:14:13DTSC we might add to this but these are
6:14:15the core things we're carrying forward
6:14:16into SCP metrics as well. uh in terms of
6:14:19our approach I I think we've already
6:14:22done this with HW HWMP and we're doing
6:14:25this now with SCP is we are establishing
6:14:27subcommittees consisting of two board
6:14:29members and the board staff to develop
6:14:32metrics uh for consideration by the
6:14:35broader board and we're developing them
6:14:36together with DTSC uh we are holding
6:14:39recurring meetings with DTSC to
6:14:40understand the program structure their
6:14:43teams DTSC's team sub team structure and
6:14:45the deliverables or outputs generated by
6:14:47those teams and sub teams. We are
6:14:50reviewing the performance metrics or
6:14:52KPIs that are already being tracked and
6:14:54reported by DTSC to other governmental
6:14:57agencies or to the public and we're
6:14:59building off of those. Uh we are
6:15:02providing updates to other board
6:15:03members, stakeholders and the public
6:15:05through these board meetings. Uh and
6:15:07then the goal is to eventually propose
6:15:09metrics for broader adoption by the
6:15:11board when ready. uh we will of course
6:15:14solicit and consider public input prior
6:15:16to the adoption of any proposed metrics
6:15:19and as we've learned through HWMP it's
6:15:22important that we provide our own
6:15:23rationale for the treatment of the
6:15:25public input that we receive. So that
6:15:28will be our approach.
6:15:30>> Thank you very much.
6:15:34>> Yeah.
6:15:36>> Um I have a couple of questions and I'll
6:15:38try to be brief. Um one is um these
6:15:42guiding principles are great. How how
6:15:46are they being structured for is there a
6:15:49formal structure to this process? And
6:15:52the reason that I'm asking that is
6:15:53because it is a great principles that
6:15:55should be guiding uh this process and I
6:15:58appreciate that but I know that all of
6:16:00us are replaceable. So if they're not
6:16:05then whomever comes after us they might
6:16:09have a different approach. So is there
6:16:11some thought about that in terms of
6:16:14formalizing them? Should they be part of
6:16:17this adoption that we're doing today? Um
6:16:21yeah
6:16:23that's question number one and then I
6:16:25have other questions. I'll just give you
6:16:26my reaction and I think that's up for us
6:16:28to discuss as a board of how we would
6:16:30like to codify these guiding principles.
6:16:33Uh I think that the fact that we are
6:16:35discussing them in board meetings means
6:16:37that they are part of our record and
6:16:39we've done this in the past. These are
6:16:41not there's nothing new today that we've
6:16:43not previously communicated. So I hope
6:16:46that that itself provides a record and
6:16:48then the staff even if we all change I
6:16:50think the staff remain. So the idea is
6:16:52that they carry the principles forward.
6:16:54Having said that, if the group feels
6:16:56like we need to do more to codify it, I
6:16:58think it's up to the rest of us.
6:17:02>> I think I we I would want to I'm
6:17:04assuming that if we do approve these
6:17:08metrics for this for today's proposal,
6:17:12they're going to be placed in our
6:17:13website,
6:17:15right? I think we should incorporate
6:17:17them as part of the package, beginning
6:17:20package. So that means perhaps making it
6:17:23part of the motion. I don't know. But
6:17:26would love to see it in writing right in
6:17:29publish in the form of transparency. So
6:17:31that's one. Give it give it some
6:17:33thought. Whatever. The other one is I
6:17:36know that after
6:17:38the last meeting that we had on this, it
6:17:41seemed like there was a lot of uh um
6:17:44stakeholders wanting to participate and
6:17:47which resulted into written comments,
6:17:51meetings and all of that. Did we respond
6:17:54to any did did we have an official
6:17:56written response to the comments
6:18:00and in that
6:18:04or are we
6:18:08there's a uh there's a memo that um our
6:18:10board staff have compiled that includes
6:18:13all of the comments we received from the
6:18:15history of from the beginning of the
6:18:17metrics process but also since March and
6:18:20we've not just um we've tabulated them
6:18:22by theme and then our treatment and
6:18:24recommendation. So that memo is now out
6:18:26on on our website. I just want I want to
6:18:28confirm
6:18:29>> we have like a background or document on
6:18:31each of the metrics. Okay. And but you
6:18:34know the board members response what
6:18:36what's and kind of what to member
6:18:38Brastrom was saying is that some of
6:18:40those things we have the framing right
6:18:42now that we can start measuring the
6:18:44others they're going to be ongoing
6:18:46conversations.
6:18:47There isn't the framing just doesn't
6:18:49exist right now, but that doesn't mean
6:18:51the conversation stops on some of those
6:18:54metrics.
6:18:58We do have a background or document that
6:19:01um Linda worked on um collaboratively
6:19:04with our team. Okay. Just wanted to know
6:19:07I didn't know you put something on the
6:19:09website.
6:19:10And then last, if I heard you correctly
6:19:14in terms of for the next round of this,
6:19:17there'll be a subcommittee
6:19:20um same process, but I also heard you
6:19:22that one of the lessons was
6:19:25incorporating stakeholders. So what the
6:19:27committee's hearing, they too are
6:19:30hearing it. How is that going to what is
6:19:32that what does that look like?
6:19:37I just want to make sure I understood
6:19:38the correct uh question correctly which
6:19:40is you're asking if how would when we
6:19:42start tackling the next set of metrics
6:19:44how will everybody feel included in the
6:19:46process. Okay, cool.
6:19:47>> What would be different than what we
6:19:49did?
6:19:51>> Perhaps nothing. I don't know.
6:19:52>> Yeah. No, I think um this is a good
6:19:56question. This is something we grappled
6:19:58with. We felt like last time we were
6:19:59learning so much information and we were
6:20:00you doing some readouts in our board
6:20:02meetings, but perhaps we needed to do
6:20:04spend more time to articulate them more
6:20:07clearly so that everybody felt like they
6:20:08were part partaking in the learning we
6:20:11were having with TTSC. I think for we've
6:20:14now we are now starting the process with
6:20:16SCP and we it Andrew and I are part of
6:20:20the subcommittee and we need to take
6:20:22time at every board meeting and provide
6:20:25more extensive updates on our end about
6:20:28what we where the process is what we
6:20:30have learned and and what learnings are
6:20:32we taking into the next phase of the um
6:20:34metrics development. The other thing
6:20:36that we're doing differently with SCP
6:20:38this time around is having DTSC come and
6:20:41present about the program, right? Give
6:20:43background because we had extensive
6:20:45number of meetings just learning about
6:20:48HWMP like what are the goals? What are
6:20:50what's you know what's the intent? How
6:20:52how are things set up? How are all of
6:20:54that? And so we're going to be doing
6:20:56that with SCP, doing like an SCP 101
6:20:59presentation so that the public and the
6:21:02rest of the board members have that same
6:21:04shared understanding about that program,
6:21:07about its goals, how it works. So that's
6:21:11the
6:21:14>> Thank you.
6:21:18>> Thank you. Um can I ask a couple
6:21:19questions um as well? Um, so, uh, you
6:21:23mentioned here in the slides that, uh, I
6:21:26I guess it says set goals for HWMP
6:21:29metrics early 2026. I I assume that's
6:21:32DTSC setting those those goals. No, it's
6:21:36the board setting the goals for this
6:21:38metrics.
6:21:39>> It's the subcommittee. So, DTSC and the
6:21:42subcommittee. So it's not it's not the
6:21:44it's not a it doesn't come to the full
6:21:46board for
6:21:47a committee as those discussions with
6:21:50DTSC because those goals can change
6:21:53yeartoyear metrics are set but the goals
6:21:58depending on you know what's in front of
6:22:00DTSC
6:22:02what the prior year goals look like.
6:22:07I just want to anchor us on what is a
6:22:10goal versus a metric because I feel like
6:22:12we all got tripped up in the past about
6:22:13this. A metric is just a number that is
6:22:16being reported by DTSC. Those are the
6:22:18six metrics that Linda presented earlier
6:22:22through the stakeholder conversations.
6:22:23We heard about how how will the metrics
6:22:26help the board measure progress and what
6:22:29is the goal of measuring the metrics and
6:22:32that's where we just realized that we
6:22:34need to also have develop our own
6:22:36clarity on goal setting to say if if we
6:22:39if we want to track continued permits
6:22:41and we want eventually that number to be
6:22:43zero is there an interim goal we want to
6:22:45set for 2026 is an interim goal we want
6:22:47to set for 2027 and to Swati's point
6:22:50that number might contextually change
6:22:52every year But we want to at least point
6:22:54to the northstar for what that number
6:22:56needs to ideally look like. So I think
6:22:59that this is the first time we're going
6:23:01to do it. So I do I do feel like we need
6:23:03to give ourselves some space to iterate
6:23:05and figure out if this is the right way
6:23:06to do it. And that's why this I think it
6:23:08makes sense for the subcommittees to
6:23:10start the process for HWMP and if we
6:23:12need to change it and bring it to the
6:23:15board or do something different, we will
6:23:16have to do that later. But we need to
6:23:17start somewhere.
6:23:20has been thinking about what these goals
6:23:22look like too. So, it'll be a
6:23:24collaborative process.
6:23:26>> Got it. Thanks. That's that's that's
6:23:28helpful. Um, good to know. And then uh
6:23:30in terms of the reporting of both the
6:23:34goals and the metrics on a website, do
6:23:37we have clarity on exactly uh the format
6:23:40um through which that will be presented?
6:23:47>> I see. So, we'll have to get back to
6:23:49you. Right now there's the dashboard uh
6:23:51metrics that are on their website. Um I
6:23:55believe most of the metrics will be
6:23:58monthly. Uh but there'll be a report out
6:24:01and in an ideal again ideal setting
6:24:03there's cohesiveness between the metrics
6:24:07here and all of the measurements that
6:24:09DTSC does for either director's
6:24:11priorities and other areas. So I think
6:24:13there will be multiple ways to report
6:24:15out. We've also heard requests of
6:24:17reporting them out on our bees website.
6:24:19So, we'll make sure that those metrics
6:24:21are fully available and accessible to
6:24:24all.
6:24:25>> Can I just I think there's one thing
6:24:27worth uh reminding folks that are I
6:24:30believe it was um maybe two board
6:24:33meetings ago where we said DJC while
6:24:35we're still getting opening up for
6:24:37public comment uh can you still can you
6:24:40please start tracking the metrics for
6:24:42those six topics? So I would love to
6:24:45hear DTSC come back to us at the next
6:24:47board meeting and say okay here's we've
6:24:49started the process here's what the
6:24:50numbers look like we need a month more
6:24:52whatever that looks like I don't want to
6:24:54forget that thread because we did make
6:24:55that ask while and we said while we're
6:24:58keeping the public comment period open
6:24:59please start tracking these six metrics
6:25:06thank you so much there any other
6:25:08comments or questions before we open it
6:25:11up for public comment on this item
6:25:14Okay. All right. Let's open it up for
6:25:16public comment. Um Courtney, please lead
6:25:18us through that.
6:25:19>> Thank you, Chair Rickstra. We'll now
6:25:20hear public comments on agenda item
6:25:22number nine, the proposed performance
6:25:24metrics for DTSC's hazardous waste
6:25:26management program. I will start with
6:25:29our in-person participants. So, if you'd
6:25:31like to make a comment, please raise
6:25:33your hand and I'll call you up to the
6:25:34microphone in the aisle. Please, Ivana,
6:25:37come on up. Thank you.
6:25:49Hi, Ivana with Physicians for Social
6:25:51Responsibility again. Um
6:25:56I'm trying to figure out where to start.
6:25:58Um I'm disappointed I think um by these
6:26:03metrics. I um I I think there are some
6:26:07missed opportunities with um not only
6:26:10the qualitative metrics but I do think
6:26:11there were other
6:26:13metrics that could be quantified that I
6:26:16don't I I don't see any real changes
6:26:18here. Um but I think I guess I'll start
6:26:21kind of on the holistic pieces. I I I I
6:26:25disagree about not including qualitative
6:26:27metrics here, but I I also want to kind
6:26:31of raise the opportunity to take a more
6:26:34holistic approach um when for example
6:26:37doing the annual update to the
6:26:39legislature uh DTSC's performance
6:26:41evaluation. I think the metrics are not
6:26:43the only place where this kind of work
6:26:46can take place. And so I I think um it
6:26:49is important that we continue to wrestle
6:26:50with how to um
6:26:54think about some of these qualitative
6:26:56aspects of this work and how to
6:26:59represent the experience of um being an
6:27:02impacted community member and having one
6:27:04of these sites or a cleanup in your
6:27:06community. Um so I I I want to raise
6:27:09that. Um, and then I think for example,
6:27:13one of the missed opportunities I see is
6:27:15kind of around the inspection metrics,
6:27:17which um, I haven't had a chance to look
6:27:20at the memo too much in depth, but I I
6:27:23think I I saw something around there
6:27:24about kind of one of the barriers um, to
6:27:27other kinds of um, inspection metrics
6:27:30being sort of this confidentiality
6:27:33being a challenge. And for example, I
6:27:35think there's ways to maybe think about
6:27:37how to more creatively report out in
6:27:39kind of a deidentified way similar to
6:27:42some of the categories that um are in
6:27:44are already used in the compliance
6:27:46metrics. So I I I do think that there
6:27:48are some missed opportunities. Um, and I
6:27:52I I also want to raise sort of um I
6:27:55think it would be helpful to sort of
6:27:57keep a running list of
6:28:00sort of desired metrics or uh metrics
6:28:03that were part of this process. but
6:28:06maybe when um
6:28:09for whatever reason it was deemed not
6:28:11feasible, identifying what those
6:28:13challenges are um what it would take to
6:28:18have that become a metric. Um because I
6:28:20I I kind of I don't like sort of DTSC
6:28:25being oh we don't track that and then
6:28:27that's sort of having that be the end of
6:28:28the conversation. So I think publicly
6:28:30having that in a place where we can
6:28:33continue to maybe advocate for some of
6:28:35the different mechanisms to track that
6:28:36data more regularly would be really
6:28:38useful. And lastly, I just want to flag
6:28:41uh that this entire conversation feels
6:28:43like a little bit of a dja vu of this
6:28:45morning uh with this dynamic of sort of
6:28:47um having this public process
6:28:51um taking on the feedback going back to
6:28:54DTSC they raise oh these are all the
6:28:56challenges and this is why we can't do
6:28:58that and then nothing really changes and
6:29:00we call it a starting point and I just
6:29:01think this is the dynamic that we see
6:29:03over and over and over again that I'm
6:29:05frustrated with and I think as a board I
6:29:07would like to see you um think through
6:29:10different ways that we can get through
6:29:12these conversations. Sorry.
6:29:13>> Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
6:29:15Next commenter. Thank you so much.
6:29:19You'll have three minutes.
6:29:23>> I'm happy to see you. I came repeating
6:29:26the mantra. I will not see this space.
6:29:28So here I am. I have things to say about
6:29:29this too. So, um,
6:29:33first of all,
6:29:36I just want to reiterate something that
6:29:37I already noted, which is breaking all
6:29:41of these goals and metrics and plans and
6:29:45and priorities into little tiny pieces
6:29:49is a pathway that will always leave us
6:29:52disjointed.
6:29:54And I think that instead of trying to
6:29:57think about how do we get ever refined
6:30:00versions of little pieces of insight
6:30:02into things that are happening, it would
6:30:04be really helpful if this board would
6:30:06step back and think about where are we
6:30:09trying to where is this institution
6:30:11trying to go and how do we align all of
6:30:14our pieces to get there. And so there's
6:30:16a sense in which this feels like very
6:30:19painful busy work. Very painful.
6:30:23very painful.
6:30:25>> Um, and I don't know how to do that. But
6:30:28what I do think is that
6:30:31uh I I think board member Gomez, you
6:30:33raised really important questions that I
6:30:37think really need to be addressed in
6:30:39particular.
6:30:41How do you document this so that it
6:30:43doesn't go away?
6:30:45And I think leaving it to the good
6:30:47graces of the universe is probably not
6:30:50the strongest approach. If this is a
6:30:52principle that's going to be driving for
6:30:54this institution, it should be written
6:30:56up as a principle that's driving this
6:30:59institution. And the things that you're
6:31:02talking about sound very
6:31:04executive orderlike. The next people
6:31:06come up, they just change it. There's
6:31:09not a way for us to interact with it
6:31:10because we didn't get to decide these
6:31:12principles. It just happens. Somebody
6:31:13sits at the dice. It's just a different
6:31:15set of principles. I think it's
6:31:17problematic and it's not going to lead
6:31:19us to places that feel more um coherent
6:31:24and build trust in an institution.
6:31:28Then the other point that I think board
6:31:31member um Gomez raised that's really
6:31:33important is what is engagement look
6:31:35like? And you outlined um some steps
6:31:39that sound an awful lot like the steps
6:31:41we talked about this morning with the
6:31:42plan or this afternoon with the plan,
6:31:44which is we're going to learn a bunch of
6:31:46stuff and then we're going to come to
6:31:49this setting and then we're going to
6:31:50tell you what we learned and then you
6:31:52get three minutes at the microphone to
6:31:54end the minute, decide what you think
6:31:55about that and then we probably won't
6:31:58listen, but
6:32:00yeah, we'll come back later with it.
6:32:02This is a a pattern that um the board is
6:32:07falling into
6:32:09and uh it is not
6:32:13>> 15 seconds.
6:32:14>> It's not likely to yield anything that's
6:32:17much more than you sitting and listening
6:32:20to people be frustrated. You being
6:32:22frustrated that you don't understand why
6:32:24we're frustrated and then we all go away
6:32:25frustrated. And in the mi in the midst
6:32:28of all of that, frontline communities
6:32:30are still trying to deal with what it
6:32:31means for this agency to not effective
6:32:33manage h effect effectively manage
6:32:35hazardous waste.
6:32:36>> Thank you for your comments. Thank you.
6:32:39Any other in-person commenters?
6:32:43Okay, we'll go ahead and move to we have
6:32:46one hand raised on Zoom. Uh Rebecca
6:32:49Overmyer Velasquez, we're going to
6:32:51invite you to unmute. Please accept our
6:32:53invitation and you'll have three
6:32:54minutes.
6:32:57Hi. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh Rebecca
6:33:00Overmmy of Velasquez, coordinator of the
6:33:02Clean Air Coalition of North Whittier
6:33:04and Avocado Heights. And this will be
6:33:06quick. I just am struck by the uh
6:33:09conversation about metrics this
6:33:11afternoon. Um and the care we're taking
6:33:15to think about how to have measurable
6:33:17outcomes um to hold the agency
6:33:19accountable for the work that it's
6:33:21doing. Um and yet that was uh completely
6:33:26ignored all of the comments that um
6:33:29folks made unanimously almost from
6:33:32communities asking for real
6:33:34accountability that would depend on
6:33:36metrics and then of course Angela's
6:33:38question earlier what is the
6:33:39relationship of this metrics
6:33:41conversation to the plan hazardous waste
6:33:43management plan which has no metrics.
6:33:45Um, so I wanted to also shout out to
6:33:49board member Gomez for her standing with
6:33:53us and um recognizing the real deep flaw
6:33:58flaws in the plan. So I wanted to thank
6:34:01you for for doing that. I think it's
6:34:04well recognized by folks. we understand
6:34:07um what you did and we understand the
6:34:10subsequent decision and um how it feels
6:34:13really like a betrayal of the
6:34:15communities and our concerns. So I'm
6:34:18perplexed that we can have this
6:34:20conversation as if it's disconnected
6:34:22from what we talked about earlier today.
6:34:24It's very absurd actually. So uh I
6:34:27highly highly recommend that you take
6:34:29this conversation about important
6:34:31metrics and holding the agency
6:34:33accountable for the work that it does
6:34:35and putting those in the plan so that we
6:34:37can see when uh the plan is actually
6:34:40implemented that we've got some
6:34:42benchmarks to meet um and when they
6:34:44don't get met there are consequences for
6:34:46not meeting them. So thank you for your
6:34:48time.
6:34:50>> Thank you for your comments. Just
6:34:52confirming there are no other comments
6:34:54uh on Zoom. And if our interpreters can
6:34:56please let me know if there are any uh
6:34:58commenters in the Spanish room, please.
6:35:06Okay, seeing none, uh we're going to go
6:35:08ahead and uh conclude public comment on
6:35:10agenda item number nine and turn it back
6:35:13to Chair Raikstraw.
6:35:14>> Thank you very much, Courtney, and and
6:35:16thanks um to the public for their
6:35:18comments. Um so we are now at the board
6:35:21vote um consideration of this agenda
6:35:24item. Um, is there any additional
6:35:26discussion before we have a motion or do
6:35:29we have a motion from a board member
6:35:47quickly react to the the three pieces of
6:35:49input um I've heard so that we can not
6:35:53lose them. Um, one is the comment around
6:35:57taking um a top- down view and uh having
6:36:00a strategic plan lens perhaps versus
6:36:03doing a bottom-up route. Uh we we have
6:36:06previously talked about this in this
6:36:07forum and and I think where we landed
6:36:09was it's an and not an or. We tackle it
6:36:11in every possible way because ultimately
6:36:14all of the work kind of needs to make
6:36:16sense and converge towards a set of
6:36:18metrics that we can use for oversight
6:36:20and evaluation purposes. So that's one.
6:36:22Uh the the second piece of feedback
6:36:24which is ongoing which is the the uh
6:36:26finding a way to incorporate qualitative
6:36:29metrics. Um it's this is not lost on us
6:36:32that it's important. We couldn't
6:36:33tactically figure out a way to look um
6:36:37launch surveys or mechanisms that will
6:36:39give us unbiased input for now until we
6:36:41figure it out. That I think will remain
6:36:44um under consideration. And then the
6:36:47third point of feedback is a really good
6:36:50one which is the engagement piece is how
6:36:52do we not just provide readouts in
6:36:56conversation in these board meetings but
6:36:58ensure that every conversation is backed
6:37:00up with some sort of an update that you
6:37:03all can react to before you show up at
6:37:05the board meetings. I think that's
6:37:06something we can take back is uh give
6:37:09you more steer and time to react to
6:37:11information versus us just doing a
6:37:13readout. But thank you for that.
6:37:16So with that um I am happy to make a
6:37:18motion for uh accept accepting that the
6:37:23right word approving approving the board
6:37:25the staff recommend adopting adopting
6:37:27staff recommendation on the hazardous
6:37:28waste management program metrics.
6:37:36We have a motion to adopt the
6:37:39uh
6:37:42sta they made a recommendation, right?
6:37:44Okay. The bees staff's recommendation
6:37:49um with respect to the proposed
6:37:52performance metrics for DTSC's hazardous
6:37:55waste management program. We have a
6:37:56second. Are there any amendments or
6:37:59board uh additional board discussion on
6:38:03this motion?
6:38:05>> I have a um a request and perhaps it's
6:38:08not an amendment, but maybe for the next
6:38:13board meeting. I I really do believe I
6:38:17strongly believe that the principles
6:38:18that you laid out
6:38:20um are critical to tie to the whole
6:38:22process. So maybe writing those down and
6:38:26putting them out for public comment in
6:38:29which we then can discuss and adopt
6:38:33for the next meeting would be very
6:38:35important. So that would be a request
6:38:37that we do that as an action item. Um
6:38:41and I don't know if we'll get to
6:38:42adopting them, but at least
6:38:44incorporating them sooner rather than
6:38:46later. Um so that would be my only
6:38:50request.
6:38:54We can certainly take that as an AI. I
6:38:55will work with the board staff to find a
6:38:57way to produce the the written document
6:39:00as part of our record for for us to
6:39:02discuss further if required.
6:39:08>> Thank you very much. Um any other
6:39:11amendments, any other board discussion?
6:39:16Um, Courtney, will you please go ahead
6:39:18and call a vote?
6:39:20>> For board members in support of the
6:39:22motion, please vote by saying I.
6:39:25>> I.
6:39:25>> I.
6:39:26>> Any opposed?
6:39:29Any abstensions?
6:39:31Okay, we have five eyes and the motion
6:39:34to uh adopt the subcommittee's perform
6:39:38uh proposed performance metrics passes
6:39:41unanimously. Chair Rickstraw.
6:39:45Um, thank you very much. Um, so, uh,
6:39:47that actually concludes our business
6:39:50today, um, in what was a a very long,
6:39:53very difficult meeting. I won't attempt
6:39:54to recap, um, all of it, but just to
6:39:57really thank our board members here for
6:39:59all of their work that went goes on
6:40:01behind the scenes to get to this point.
6:40:04thank our board staff as well for all of
6:40:06their efforts um both with respect to
6:40:09this meeting uh as well as preparation
6:40:11for it and all of the work that goes
6:40:13into the subcommittee's work as well and
6:40:15to thank for the members of the public
6:40:17as well both who are here in person and
6:40:19who are online and then finally of
6:40:21course DTSC as well um for all of their
6:40:25engagement with the board uh along the
6:40:27way. So with that um can I have a motion
6:40:30to adjurnn?
6:40:32I will make a motion to adjourn.
6:40:35>> Second.
6:40:39>> I second.
6:40:41>> We have a motion and a second. Courtney,
6:40:44can you please call a vote?
6:40:46>> All in favor of adjourning?
6:40:48>> I
6:40:48>> I.
6:40:49>> Great. Thank you very much. The meeting
6:40:51is officially adjourned at 5:16
6:40:56p.m.
6:40:59Chair Rickstra, I just want to thank um
6:41:01our executive officer and our bees team
6:41:04for all their hard work in getting us to
6:41:06this point and to our wonderful team
6:41:09from CSUS, Corin and Vanessa.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Board of Environmental Safety (BES) Board Meeting - November 17, 2025 by Board of Environmental Safety (BES), generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 58,482 words across 9,229 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.