California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Enforcement Advisory Council Meeting

Minutes: July 14, 2005

Meeting called to order 9:40 a.m.

I. Introductions

Bill Prinz, Southern Cities Round Table
Leonard Grossberg, Southwestern Round Table
David Altman, North Central Round Table
Bob Holmes, CIWMB
Rachel Morton, CIWMB
Matt Fore, Southern Round Table
Donna Heran, CCDEH
George Nakamura, CCLHO
Ernie Genter, LPHSS
Sharon Anderson, CIWMB
Mark DeBie, CIWMB
Greg Pirie, Bay Area Roundtable
Howard Levenson, CIWMB
Rosalie Mulé,CIWMB, Board Member
Sue Markie, CIWMB
Bobbie Garcia, CIWMB
Joe Mello, SWRCB
Scott Harvey, CIWMB
John Cupps, Consultant
Kyle Bachoff, CAL-EPA

Next EAC Meeting: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 in Sacramento, 9:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

II. Agenda Review

Late Additions: Radiation training in South Central Region (Matt Fore) added to EAC discussion items.

III. Approval of Previous Minutes

Corrections to the May 11, 2005 Draft #2 minutes: Page 1, Introductions; corrected name spelling for Donna Heran.

A motion was made and seconded (Nakamura/Grossberg) to approve the minutes from the May 11, 2005 EAC meeting. Corrected Minutes were approved.

IV. EAC Resolutions: Status and Updates

  • 2005-01: “Training and Certification of Landfill Managers and Inspectors”: Is scheduled for open discussion at the Permitting & Enforcement (P&E) Committee meeting in September, to make recommendations for next step. The consensus is, there is a need for a broader training program, but staff is not starting from scratch!
  • 2005-03: “Recommendations for Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control At Active and Closed Disposal Sites (next steps)”: Scheduled to convene informal workshops, and eventually bring it to the committee in the form of a formal regulations package.

V. EAC Discussion Items

A. Proposed Regulations for Permit Implementation-Project Update: (handout dated July 14, 2005) Project is still in draft form, continued discussion of issues 1-6:

Issue 1: Significant Change and Modified Permit Process
The “decision tree” approach is a tool used by the LEA’s, which helps them make the decision as to when there is a significant change.

Issue 2: Public Notices and Hearings
Bumping up new noticing requirements of the report of facility information (RFI). LEA’s should be aware that any request made for a list of applications submitted should be readily available! Further definition of an “informational meeting” is needed.

Issue 3: Relationship of solid waste facility permit (SWFP) to Other Agency Permits
The LEA’s and Regional Water Control Board’s (RWCB) should share applications submittals as well as with local planning departments.

Issue 4: Community Outreach Efforts
If the applicant was aware of any notices or hearings held, they should include a list.

Issue 5: Five Year Permit Review Noticing
No changes.

Issue 6: Surprise and Random Inspections
No changes.

B. Partnership Workgroups for CEQA and Gaining Compliance: Two Working Issues Under CEQA:

  1. The final workgroup document is still under review. Once it is completed, the next phase (phase II) could be brought forward by California Conference of Directory of Environmental Health (CCDEH) or by an EAC resolution.
  2. Thresholds - Study of information by new student to determine if thresholds are significant or consistent.

Additional CEQA information has been approved and is available on the web! Check out the permit toolbox; search Toolbox Links under CEQA Tools.

“Gaining Compliance”: (see Enforcement Program Model)

  • Tracking complaints
  • Compliance
  • Referrals

C. New Permit Application (Questions and Issues from Roundtables)

Mark DeBie will finalize the list of Q & A by the end of July.

Incomplete submittals (those missing information) are being returned to the LEA’s for amendment or re-submittal.

Discussion (David Altman) of conflicting instructions received, about the same issue, from Permitting and Inspection (P&I) and Closure Sections regarding use or not of the application when amending joint technical document (JTD) sections addressing closure issues. It was suggested that better communication between the sections might prevent LEA’s being given conflicting guidance.

Discussion (Greg Pirie) on returned applications by the CIWMB that are deemed incomplete. How does it effect the time frames? Answer, the application is incomplete, and therefore must be completed before the clock can start. I think the timeframes stay on track, but the returned application cannot be deemed incomplete by waste board staff, rather sent to the LEA/operator to modify. If time frames were affected, it would have to come from the LEA or operator.

Discussion (Greg Pirie) on “Peak Daily Tonnage Numbers” on application and the “Other” section, on whether it must include recycling tons. All materials not considered wastes are excluded from the tonnage (for example: source separated cans and bottles). There was some confusion on what was in or out.

D. LEA Inspection Role for Tire Storage Piles and Tire Manifest Review at Permitted Solid Waste (SW) Landfills: (Mark DeBie) Role of LEA’s vs. Board staff discussion:

Tire Enforcement staff have been instructed to contact the LEA’s prior to going on-site.

Tire piles at a landfill that are covered under the permit conditions, should be inspected by the LEA.

Staff will communicate through e-mail to LEA’s to confirm relationship and protocols when tire enforcement calls.

LEA’s are not expected to check tire manifests!

E. Radiation Alarms at Scales: (Matt Fore)

South Central Roundtable initiated questions about radiation alarms at scales. Who does what? When? And how? What equipment is needed? They will host a radiation expert at their next roundtable to discuss solutions, and all are invited.

VI. CIWMB Topics, Updates and Discussion:

A. “Regulations/Legislation”: Bob Holmes reporting

4 regulations packages:

  1. Research Development and Demolition (RDD): Staff is working on final rulemaking file package for early Sept./Oct.
  2. Final Rulemaking File for Long Term Gas Regulations: Possibly in November.
  3. Permit Implementation Package (Package A- 1497): Staff is planning on holding additional workshops on August 22 in Sacramento plus two telephone conference locations (Long Beach and San Diego).
  4. Conversion Technology Regulations: Currently looking at three possible options; leave it as it is, tear it completely down, or wait until the legislature works the issues out.

    Legislation: (Most are two year bills, so they will carry over to next year.)

  5. (AB 1065) Grease Haulers – Registration of haulers with Food & Agriculture Dept.
  6. (AB 1133) Prohibition of Land Application of Grease – Better tracking and manifesting of wastes, if enacted, would shutdown existing sites!
  7. (SB926) Bio-Solids specific to Kern County – May go to local ballot initiative.
  8. (PR410) Air Quality Management District (AQMD) – see item H.

B. “CalEPA Working Groups”:

Model the regulatory framework for an ideal enforcement program. What’s driving this is the need for more enforcement by agencies.

Involvement by EAC with working group would be beneficial. It is important to raise the issue, gather input, and help direct the planning stages. EAC should designate a member to interact with committee/work groups.

C. “Update on Comprehensive Compost Odor Response Project”: Reported by Brenda Smyth

Alternatives available:

  • Odor neutralization
  • Misting
  • Pseudo bio-filters (thin layers of compost over the top)
  • Blending (aka: dilution)

Green Wastes – results on Terpene studies:

  • Odor neutralization, good for short term only
  • Pseudo bio-filters, good results

Odor Response Kits – pros and cons

  • Samples are well below maximum threshold limit levels
  • Very faint concentrations in sample vials
  • Samples wear out over time and use
  • Samples are masked by stronger odors

Training – Would we prefer a one-time training event with the kit, or individual kit to each LEA requesting them?

D. Water Board Coordination: Presented by Bobbie Garcia and Joe Mello. Handout: “Coordination with Water Board”

  • Tabulates level of coordination from none to some.
  • Exchange databases, GeoTracker for monitoring reports.
  • Initiate combining training, combining workshops, and opening the conferences to other agencies.
  • Enhance interaction with the regional boards. LEA’s should take the lead and initiate invitations, and if they fail to respond, invite Joe Mello to spark responses.

Concern was raised (David Altman) regarding the proposal to provide LEA’s with a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB’s) inspection report so that LEA’s could watch for items during routine inspections. LEA’s now watch for major RWQCB issues and will bring a problem to the Regional Boards attention. But asking LEA’s to watch for all items seems to go against AB1220 which separated the roles of the CIWMB/LEA and RWQCB.

E. “Odor Authority Over Compostable Materials at Transfer Stations”:

Additional guidance is needed on odor complaints versus referrals to AQMD at transfer stations and composting facilities.

Every district is different and will respond in a different manner.

F. “Department of Health Services (DHS) Letter on Possible Health Effects Regarding Bio-solids Composting Facilities”:

DHS distributed letter (from a concerned citizen in Adelanto) in response to complaints concerning odors and “potential health impacts on biosolid land use application.” They reviewed the data and concluded there could be potential concerns and health risks to exposures. They cautioned: “Precautionary measures at the local level would be prudent.”


  • There should be a response to the letter
  • Primary concerns to the letter and what reactions it will have
  • Repercussions to DHS on involvement
  • Federal funding of studies on health impacts
  • Continue coordination with CIWMB

G. “Fire Coordination Workshops”:

Workshops will provide coordination between the LEA’s and local fire authority on what are the functions and procedures at solid waste emergency incidents. This includes mulch, chip and grind, shredder fluff and municipal solid waste. It does not include tires! Workshops in November scheduled for the South Coast or Orange County, Fresno and Yuba areas.

Dennis Corcoran is still collecting case study information if you have any to give.

H. PR410 (South Coast AQMD proposed rule on odors at material recovery facilities [MRF’s] and transfer stations):

Working group is meeting on the magnitude of the problem. Proposed public hearing on rule is tentatively scheduled for September or October. It once again raises the question of odor authority. (Representatives: Patti Henshaw, Steve Moise, and Jacquie Adams on teleconference)

Although discussion was focus on the South Coast AQMD situation, it raised concern (David Altman) that the Board may want odor enforcement at all solid waste facilities to come back to the CIWMB instead of being handled by Air Districts. A request was made that, if being considered, all counties be surveyed to see what their feelings are regarding odor enforcement jurisdiction before a statewide decision is made.

VII.  Public Comment Period:

Public comments and discussion were received and addressed during item agendas.

VIII. Meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

EAC Archive

Please note: Past meeting agendas and notes are retained for historical purposes. Over time, some information and links on these pages may become dated and/or inaccurate.

Last updated: September 20, 2005
Enforcement Advisory Council (EAC)
Leta Forland: (916) 341-6395