California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Enforcement Advisory Council Meeting

Minutes: June 29, 2011

CalEPA Building
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California

Meeting called to order 9:30 a.m.

I. Introductions

Joe Doser, Chair, CCLHO (Health Officers)
Greg Pirie, Vice-Chair, Bay Area Roundtable
Lars Seifert, Vice-Chair, Conference Call, Southern Roundtable
Pete Oda (Jerry Villalobos for), Conference Call, South Western Roundtable
Jacquie Adams, Conference Call, Southern Cities
Marina Winslow (John Wells for), Northern Roundtable
Lisa Todd, North Central Roundtable
Brian Pitts, CCDEH
Dennis Ferrier, Absent, Northern Cities
Bill O’Rullian, South Central Roundtable
Vacant Position, Contract Counties
Vacant Position, CalRecycle EA
Mark de Bie, CalRecycle
Bob Holmes, CalRecycle
Kevin Taylor, CalRecycle
Ken Decio, CalRecycle
Lorraine Van Kekerix, CalRecycle

Next EAC Meeting: Tuesday, September 7, 2011 in Sacramento from 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

Minutes by Greg Pirie and Lars Seifert.

The agenda items presented below were generally discussed in the order listed.

II. Agenda Review

No additions

III. Approval of Previous Minutes

A motion was made and seconded (Todd/Pitts) to approve the minutes from the April 25, 2011 EAC meeting. The minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

IV. EAC Discussion Items

A. Retail Food Facility Composting-Enforcement Issues (Chris Rummel)

  • Mr. Rummel explained the FRG food material desiccators’ operational specifics
  • Many food facilities using the machine to reduce garbage, increase recycling. FRG unit removes moisture from the food material, does not technically compost, reduction of the garbage waste stream, dry organic material.
  • Discussed material as a waste, always a waste.
  • FRG conducts weekly pickups. Has facility in Napa. 9-17 hours to convert to dry product.
  • Tried to re-hydrate, could not be done. Some mold, no vector attraction.
  • Discussed issues of pick-up by non-franchised haulers, loss of diversion credit, non registered haulers.
  • Forward to CCDEH-SWPC as update. Next steps? Review plan-check in L.A. County

B. Biosolids Update (O’Rullian)

  • Discussed the biosolid impact on quality of life, water quality and Kern ban of only land application.
  • Legal stay was lifted. County enforced and challenged by generators. Currently in Superior Court.
  • Kern case involves almonds and salmonella. Orchard previously receiving biosolids. Property experienced rains at land application site. Possible effects of runoff?
  • Discussed issue of goat dairy milk to produce cheese. Goat die-off. Received feed from out-of county hay. Land was used for land application of biosolids or publically owned treatment works effluent.
  • Discussion of local ordinance vs. state regulation. Not a commerce issue in state court, but planning issue as county vs. state rights.

C. 5-Year Permit Review Update

  • Major issues include the 5-year permit review as similar to a permit revision, lack of administrative change in 5-year process, and notification to operator being adequate or useful.
  • Possibly have one determination at permit revision.
  • Discussed previous CalRecycle request of agency to conduct 5-year review prior to acceptance of permit revision. Issue of inconsistent requests to LEAs on when to conduct or not conduct a 5-year review.
  • Next steps to discuss at roundtables, bring back to EAC and to CCDEH-SWPC.
  • Discussed the issue of the permit revision review of documents not being consistent with 1995 regulations and AB1220. Should we be reviewing all other conditioning documents like WDR’s?
  • Costs of permit reviews are also expensive-$4,000 for Kern Co.

D. Minor Violation

  • Majority indicate they have not used minor violations and are still not applicable without enforcement options.
  • Member comments include:
    • Since we have not used it, we don’t want to be penalized for not using even though it is not useful.
    • No action, leave it alone, could lead to worse legislation if a Bill were to carry and morph a recommended fix.
    • Leave it alone.
    • Not opposed to CCDEH eliminating the language.
  • Passed Resolution 2011-03 (1st Doser, 2nd O’Rullian), Current Minor Violation language not a priority, if regulation opened, include language change. Send EAC summary to CCDEH-SWPC.

E. Three-Part Test

  • Cal Poly conducted the most recent research.
  • Hard to apply with source-separated waste (outhaul from transfer station, including dry-wall).
  • O’Rullian examples: SMRFiT – City of Bakersfield receives mixed loads, process and does not meet 3-part test – not regulated. Feed Processor, Doritos plant – meets test for putrescibles, some C/D OK due to no putrescibles.
  • Ferrier example of recycling facility’s that have environmental health issues with residuals, need to have cap on residuals (large facility allowed large amount of residual even if under 10%).

V. CalRecycle Items

A. Deputy Directors Report (Lorraine Van Kekerix)

  • Assembly/Senate raised questions on CalRecycle budget, reviewing organization.
  • Mark Leary looking for input, may be another shift coming.
  • Currently at one-furlough Friday a month.
  • EAC member mentioned it works better for LEAs to have one CalRecycle contact per function.
  • Next acting Deputy Director will be Mark DeBie.

B. Fees as Permit Condition (Doser)

  • Mr. Bill O’Rullian suggested that conditions on a Notification Tier operation may need to be discussed due to potential or actual abandonment of contaminated soil sites. A local mitigation fund in addition to financial assurances with local authority for establishing the fund may be one solution.
  • Ms. Todd stated that various jurisdictions require bonds as part of the local land use permitting process and that CUPA permits often state that permit will be nullified if operator does not pay fees. She stated that counties are experiencing difficulties recovering costs for some sites.
  • Mr. Joe Doser explained the history and context of the fee condition placed on a solid waste facility permit (SWFP). The operator had not paid a substantial amount of LEA fees and their attorney stated that if the County wanted to collect fees it would need to be a permit condition, so the LEA added it as a permit condition. No appeal of the condition was requested by operator. An important part of LEA reviews should be financial stability to maintain program rather than arguing that the LEA had placed an improper condition in a solid waste facility permit. (See letter of response to CalRecycle from Contra Costa Environmental Health dated November 18, 2010).

EAC members concurred that the permit condition placed on the SWFP was appropriate and consistent with LEA authority in statute. (LEA Condition: The operator shall pay all tonnage and other applicable fees to the LEA as required by Contra Costa County ordinance and fee resolution).

  • Ms. Todd stated that they had a county ordinance that allows their department to deny, suspend or revoke any permit for failure to pay required solid waste fees. Mr. Doser responded that solid waste facilities are not under county ordinance in Contra Costa County.
  • Mr. O’Rullian and Mr. Doser both expressed concern that CIA sites often take additional LEA staff time, but costs are not recovered through fees.
  • Mr. Dennis Ferrier suggested that PRC Sections 43213 and 43222 provide authority to establish fees for a “comprehensive solid waste enforcement agency”, which includes duties beyond permitted solid waste sites. Fees should be structured to account for other LEA activities. Although, Mr. Doser expressed some concern that solid waste fees utilized to cover nuisance complaints could be challenged under Proposition 26.
  • Mr. Brian Pitts stated that the use of unfair business practice filings through a local DA office may be a good method to recoup unpaid costs.

C. Legislation Update (Decio)

For updated status info visit CalRecycle's Legislation page.


  • AB 480 (Solorio)-Would establish captive insurance as a mechanism for financial assurances. The proposed bill would change restrictions on self-insurance for solid waste facility operators. Mr. Holmes stated that this would be a revision to the insurance code rather than the Public Resources Code.
  • AB 34 (Williams)-Would require CalRecycle to establish regulations that would require the site-specific objective odor performance thresholds for compost facilities. Mr. Holmes stated that this bill was stuck in appropriations and would not likely be moving forward.
  • AB 1178 (Ma)-Would prohibit the restriction or limiting the importation of solid waste into a privately owned solid waste facility within a particular jurisdiction. The bill was backed by Recology and was currently under consideration by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and has until July 8 to be heard in Committee. Mr. Seifert noted to Mr. Bill O’Rullian that this may also have implications for negating ordinances enacted by ballot initiatives on importation limits for biosolids as well since they are defined as a solid waste in the PRC.
  • SB 589 (Lowenthal)-Would require product stewardship plans by manufacturers for the management of end-of-use household mercury-containing lamps (i.e. fluorescent lamp bill).

Mr. Bill O’Rullian provided an update on Rule 4566 proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for organic material composting emissions.

Mr. Holmes stated that the last day of the legislative session is September 9, 2011 and the Governor has until October 9, 2011 to sign the bills.

D. Input from EAC on Compliance Toolbox/Enforcement Website

  • Need input on ways to conduct and provide training.
  • Suggest using training liaison, volunteer. Assist with roundtable contact.
  • Landfill cover design training on May 18.
  • Need state minimum standards and permit training ideas/topics.
  • Pirie mentioned the waste tire training. CalRecycle will hold tire conference in Sacramento in Fall of 2011. Could be effective for waste tire grantees to attend this with an enforcement track. Much more effective use of time than splitting waste tire and LEA tracks at the LEA/CalRecycle training conference.

E. Future EAC Meeting Format (Decio)

  • Mr. Ken Decio provided possible options for future EAC meetings due to the current travel restrictions at CalRecycle (and for travel reimbursements to EAC members). Options provided:
    • Skype Video Conferencing
    • GoTo Meetings
    • Other VOIP Service Meetings
  • Mr. Brian Pitts and Mr. Lars Seifert (on phone) both stated that it was worth meeting and that it is valuable to meet in person. The EAC members concurred that the meetings were worth continuing. Mr. Seifert added that if the meeting format was changed, then it would likely become the new status quo for the Enforcement Advisory Council. Mr. Doser stated that the same format will be maintained in the short-term with EAC members calling in if they cannot travel to the meetings. If the travel restrictions are extended for the long-term, then the EAC and CalRecycle will need to re-visit options.

F. Future Training (Marie Sessler)

  • Ms. Marie Sessler stated that she would send out a training list of tailgate training topics for review and prioritization.
  • Mr. Ken Decio suggested that another option (in the event roundtable venues do not have suitable internet connection or video conferencing capabilities) was to record the presentation and then provide a conference call for questions.
  • Ms. Lisa Todd asked whether other LEA training events have been scheduled. Ms. Sessler stated that they had not been developed yet due to travel restrictions.

Upcoming training opportunities are included on the LEA training master schedule.

VI. Public Comment Period

No public comment.

VII. Next EAC Meeting September 7, 2011 in Sacramento

Meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

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 26, 2011 
Enforcement Advisory Council (EAC)
Leta Forland: (916) 341-6395