Request for Direction on Options for Modifying Waste Tire Storage Requirements Agenda Item 12

1. Request for Direction on Options for Modifying Waste Tire Storage Requirements Agenda Item 12 August 11, 2009

2. Why we are here • Follow-up to Board commitment to re-examine waste tire storage issue made at hearings last summer on a report to the Legislature on “Options to Increase Waste Tire Diversion.” • To discuss issue paper and stakeholder comment. • To request direction on whether or not to modify waste tire storage regulations

3. Issues and Objectives • Stakeholder desire for regulatory accommodation for temporary storage of TDA and/or other waste tire storage products above permit limits. • Stakeholder desire for bagged and other waste tire products to be exempt from Board regulation like crumb rubber and molded rubber products. • Waste Board desire to increase waste tire diversion. • Waste Board desire to reconcile diversion goals with pertinent fire safety regulations and environmental protection considerations.

4. Relevant Definitions and Regulatory Considerations Waste Tires • Waste tires” are defined in statute at Public Resources Code (PRC) section 42807 as follows: “ . . . a tire that is no longer mounted on a vehicle and is no longer suitable for use as a vehicle tire due to wear, damage, or deviation from the manufacturer's original specifications. A waste tire includes a repairable tire, scrap tire, altered waste tire, and a used tire that is not organized for inspection and resale by size in a rack or a stack in accordance with Section 42806.5, but does not include a tire derived product or crumb rubber.”

5. Relevant Definitions and Regulatory Considerations Crumb Rubber • “Crumb rubber” as defined in PRC section 42801.7 “… means rubber granules derived from a waste tire that are less than or equal to, one‐quarter inch …” • Crumb rubber is not waste tires and therefore, the storage of crumb rubber is exempt from the requirement to obtain a waste tire permit, and the amount of crumb rubber is not included in the permit conditions.

6. Relevant Definitions and Regulatory Considerations Tire Derived Product • “Tire derived product” (TDP) is defined in PRC section 42805.7 “…means material that meets both of the following requirements: • (a) Is derived from a process using whole tires as a feedstock. A process using whole tires includes, but is not limited to, shredding, crumbing, or chipping. • (b) Has been sold and removed from the processing facility.” (emphasis added)

7. Relevant Definitions and Regulatory Considerations Products Derived From Waste Tires • “Products derived from waste tires” (PDWT) is material not yet sold and/or removed from the facility and larger in size than crumb rubber. • Examples include primary or secondary shreds, final stage or near final stage processed products being prepared for sale, bagged, boxed or bulk shreds or chips greater than ¼ inch nominal size used for mulch, bedding and similar products

8. Relevant Waste Board fire-related regulations • Section 17350-56, Title 14 CCR set forth fire protection related requirements for waste tire product storage. • Section 17354(c) allows local fire departments, subject to Board concurrence, to determine that an alternative waste tire storage configuration outside of the specified width, height, and volume waste tire storage requirements is "adequate to meet the intent of the regulations for purposes of the prevention of fire and the protection of life and property."

9. Concerns with Local Fire Department Oversight • State Fire Marshall (SFM) has acknowledged that waste tires, whole or in part, do constitute a fire threat. • SFM acknowledges wide variation in enforcement of the California Fire Code (CFC) by local fire agencies. • SFM states that some provisions of the CFC were provided as guidance to local fire agencies for local adoption and had not been adopted by SFM as minimum standards that must be applied and enforced statewide.

10. AB 1249 Issues • Under this statute, codified in PRC 42820 (b), the SFM would develop, in consultation with the CIWMB, fire related regulations for major waste tire facilities. • Waste Board in consultation with OEHHA would then adopt regulations including by reference the regulations adopted by the SFM. • SFM officials indicated that it may take up to two years for the SFM to adopt waste tire storage regulations, due to SFM’s internal review procedures and the Building Standards Law’s rulemaking process (commencing with Health and Safety Code Section 18900). • In the interim, a bulletin addressing the storage of waste tires could be developed to provide direction to local fire authorities.

11. Option 1: • Propose a statutory change to include a new definition for Products Derived from Waste Tires (PDWT) and to exempt ALL OF THIS MATERIAL from the definition of “waste tire” in PRC Section 42807 and the permitting and State Minimum Standard requirements.

12. Option 1 Pros • Operators would be able to store more processed tires (PDWT) on site without increasing the storage quantity in their permit assuming all relevant fire codes and local land use concerns are met.

13. Option 1 Cons • Fire safety would be an issue unless clear State standards for material storage are in place and enforced. • Financial assurances likely would not cover the costs of remediating the site in the event the business fails. • This broad exemption for PDWT would require statutory and regulatory change. • Exemption would need to be developed in conjunction with and in consideration of proposed State Fire Marshall bulletin providing interim guidance to local fire agencies on alternative standards to apply and enforce pending the adoption of regulation pursuant to AB 1249.

14. Option 2: • Propose a statutory change to include a new definition for “SELECT” Products Derived from Waste Tires (PDWT) and to exempt this material from the definition of “waste tire” in PRC section 42807 and the permitting and State Minimum Standard requirements.

15. Option 2 Pros • Operators would be able to store “select high value” (PDWT) on site without increasing the storage quantity in their permit assuming all relevant Fire Codes and local land use concerns are met.

16. Option 2 Cons • Fire safety would be an issue unless clear State standards for material storage are in place and enforced. • Financial assurances may not cover the costs of remediating the site in the event the business fails , although the high value added nature of the material may have residual worth mitigating this concern. • This broad exemption for PDWT would require statutory and regulatory change. • Exemption would need to be developed in conjunction with and in consideration of proposed State Fire Marshall bulletin providing interim guidance to local fire agencies on alternative standards to apply and enforce pending the adoption of regulation pursuant to AB 1249.

17. Option 3: • Status Quo: Facilities can modify existing permits to maximize storage and ability to balance PDWT and waste tire permit limits. Crumb rubber and molded rubber products not regulated onsite but PDWT is regulated onsite.

18. Option 3 Pros • No changes to statute or regulations necessary. • This option allows for the maximum, safe utilization of a specific facility. • Site operators have operational flexibility to manage waste tire and PDWT inventories as market conditions allow to the maximum capacity of the site. • “Temporary storage area designation” allows the operator to be proactive rather than reactive to supplying PDWT to a specific project and, in the case of TDA, minimize the need for temporary staging areas when delivering large amounts of material. • Major waste tire facilities have ability under current regulations to amend a permit to accommodate increased PDWT storage needs. • Regulating PDTW, if not crumb rubber and molded rubber products, is supportive of the Board’s goal of protecting health, safety and the environment.

19. Option 3 Cons • Operators might have difficulty meeting large TDA demands in a timely fashion. • Operators are concerned about timeliness of major facility permit modifications. • Additional storage capacity at minor tire facilities may exceed major permit thresholds. • Obtaining necessary local land use and CEQA clearances can be difficult and time consuming. • Some civil engineering projects could be delayed or jeopardized by time required to amend permits and/or obtain local land use and fire department clearances. • Stated needs of Operators for maximum latitude in storing waste tire products other than crumb rubber and molded rubber products are only met through the permit process. • Doesn’t address issue that products that are ready to ship are regulated but other waste tire products, e.g., crumb rubber have statutory exemption. • Board’s increased waste tire diversion goals are arguably not supported. • Inconsistency in statute and regulation is not addressed. Various waste tire products, which all have fire potential and other adverse environmental threats have dissimilar local and state regulatory oversight.

20. Option 4: • Propose change to waste tire storage regulations to allow for a temporary increase in waste tire or PDWT storage at permitted waste tire facilities where (1) Board pre‐approved criteria are met including pile size/height, water supply, financial assurances and linkage via contract to a planned product delivery or civil engineering application; and (2)where this additional storage has been approved by the local fire and/or planning authority and appropriate fire prevention measures can be employed.

21. Option 4 Pros • Option can be implemented administratively (after initial regulatory change approvals), potentially offering more flexibility and timeliness. • Civil engineering projects will potentially be able to acquire the TDA they need on a more timely basis. This may minimize the need for temporary staging of TDA at the construction sites thus allowing more civil engineering projects to use TDA, to support the Board’s strategic directives. • Can be accomplished at present at larger facilities with adequate space requirements through permit modifications and adherence to Board or local fire storage standards

22. Option 4 Cons • Would require initial regulatory change to implement. • There may be a problem with getting local fire approval for storing, even temporarily, a large volume of TDA. • Smaller size facilities more likely to not have space and/or water supply available to store additional material and provide appropriate environmental safeguards. • This option does not address issue of appropriate storage and standards for other waste tire derived products.

23. Option 5: • Status Quo: Allow the temporary storage of TDA at civil engineering construction sites.

24. Option 5 Pros • Would allow a construction site with enough space to store TDA for civil engineering application. Current regulation (PRC section 42805.7) exempts all “tire derived product” (i.e., that which is processed, sold and delivered offsite) including TDA which meets these requirements; therefore, no regulatory modifications are necessary to implement.

25. Option 5 Cons • Although not required in current regulation, meeting desirable fire storage standards at construction sites may be difficult because of space and/or water supply considerations.

26. Option 6: • Propose a statutory change to remove the specific exemption for crumb rubber and add molded rubber products to the definition of a waste tire at PRC section 42807 to allow application of State Minimum Standards, and/or permitting requirements to crumb rubber and molded rubber products

27. Option 6 Pros • Uniform regulation of any size material produced from waste tires including material generated by slicing, cutting, shredding, chipping, ambient grinding and cryogenic grinding. Because of its flammability, crumb rubber poses a threat to health and safety and the environment just as larger particle sizes do. The current crumb rubber exemption means that there are no Board fire safety standards for storing crumb rubber. • Molded rubber products are also flammable but because of reduced surface area would be expected to be less so than crumb rubber (note binders and fillers in the rubber product could conceivably make the product more or less flammable). • Creates a level playing field for all materials derived from tires.

28. Option 6 Cons • Would be disruptive to those operators presently storing crumb rubber or molded rubber products. • Stated needs of operators for latitude in storing waste tire products other than crumb rubber and molded rubber products not met. • Some operators may have to have their permits revised to count all waste tire materials onsite and provide additional financial assurances. • There may also be local land use and CEQA considerations. • There may be additional water supply and/or space needs to accommodate appropriate setback and separation requirements. • This option would require statutory and regulatory change to implement.

29. Option 7: • Prepare guidance document on TDA use and storage on construction sites

30. Option 7 Pros • Will help to ensure that all TDA project participants are aware of requirements and/or exemptions under current regulations to allow storage of TDA at construction sites with recommendations for doing so in an environmentally sound way.

31. Option 7 Cons • None

32. Option 8 • Determine if consideration should be given for “value of tire derived product” as offset to financial assurances that would otherwise be required.

33. Option 8 Pros • Reflects input at stakeholder workshop.

34. Option 8 Cons • None

35. Stakeholder Input • Most understand that fire related considerations be addressed in any proposal to consider tire product storage regulation modification. • Request to have financial assurances requirements reflect “value” of product. • Most support for Option 4.

36. Staff Recommendations • Multi-step process reflecting consideration of issue paper options, stakeholder input and need to integrate AB 1249 regulation development.

37. Step 1 • Encourage facility operators to utilize flexibility in current regulation • Work with State Fire Marshall on bulletin or advisory with preliminary AB 1249 guidance • Prepare a guidance document on TDA used for civil engineering projects. • Time frame: 3-6 months but full integration of AB 1249 could be 2 years or more.

38. Step 2 • Reexamine financial assurance regulation and policy • Time frame: Concurrent with Step 1 but taking 9-12 months.

39. Step 3 • Develop proposed criteria for Board approval to be used for consideration of temporary permit storage increases. • Establish regulations for temporary tire storage increases. • Time frame: To commence after Step 1 and 2 in about 12 months. Regulation development and approval expected to take 12 to 18 months.