|
The following is a summary and analysis of verbal and written comments received at and after the July/August 2000 Compostable Organic Materials Regulations Development Workshops conducted by staff of the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s P&E (Permitting and Enforcement) and WP&MD (Waste Prevention and Market Development) Divisions.
After the workshops, letters were received from the California Compost Quality Council (CCQC), California Organics Recycling Council (CORC), Northern California Technical Advisory Committee, California Biomass Energy Alliance, Will Bakx, and Kevin Barnes. The complete summary should be referred to for verbatim comments from the workshops. Some comments may not be reflected in this summary and analysis. Information was gathered from flipcharts and handouts completed during the workshops. Flipchart comments may come from an individual or a group.
ADC | Agriculture | Appropriate Oversight |
Beneficial Use | Best
Management Practices | Biomass | Certification |
Chipping and Grinding |
Contamination | Definitions | Enforcement |
Financial Assurances | Flexibility |
Food Waste | 48-Hour Exclusion | Green Material |
Labeling Requirements | Land
Application | Metals | Mushroom Farms |
Non-Green Material | Odor | Pathogen
Reduction | Permitting | Product Quality |
Report of Composting Site Information
| Run-on/Run-off | Sampling | Sewage Sludge |
Solid Waste | State Minimum Standards
| Storage | Street Sweepings | Training/Education |
Odor Impact Minimization Plan
Some participants do not consider ADC the best use of compostable organic material. The use of compostable organic materials for ADC has grown rapidly since 1995 and this trend is seen by some as harmful to the compost industry. As ADC may contain more contaminants than most compost feedstocks, there may be less of an incentive for clean collection systems and increased costs for clean compost feedstocks. Statutes passed over two years ago indicate that ADC constitutes diversion. The California Organic Recycling Council (CORC) has indicated that they will be revisiting the ADC policy in 2000 and assess impacts upon the composting industry.
California Biomass Energy Alliance has voiced strong opposition to “the regulatory exclusion of compostable organic materials when used as alternative daily cover”.
The ADC regulations (27 CCR 20690, 20695) do not require pathogen reduction for mulch. Compost will still be required to meet time/temperature requirements. However, the EA would have flexibility concerning mulch derived from green materials. The proposed regulations would allow alternative methods of compliance to meet the pathogen reduction requirements. This could include a determination by the EA that time/temperature requirements are not required for certain
end uses for mulch. This would require additional regulatory language to make this clear.
- Would orchard prunings chipped on site be subject to the regulations?
- Will silage be subject to regulations? It can be a source of odor complaints.
- Under the current and proposed regulations, an operation that composts agricultural commodities and returns the product to the same source is excluded. Some believe that agricultural operations should be held to the same standards as commercial composting operations.
- Agricultural operations would be held to the same standards as green material operations, except for a reduced inspection frequency subject to EA approval. The reduced inspection frequency would only apply to two types of agricultural operations, those that only compost agricultural material feedstocks and those that sell or give-away
less than or equal to 2,500 cubic yards of material annually. Does this fit with our goal of a level playing field? What is the justification for allowing a reduced inspection frequency for agricultural operations and not green material operations since the same amount of urban materials would be allowed at both types of operations? Should annual inspection only be allowed if no material is brought from
off site?
- Agricultural operations are excluded unless considered a commercial operator (i.e., sell or give-away >2,500 cubic yards) or accept non-agricultural feedstocks. Staff believes it is appropriate for these types of operations to be subject to the same composting regulations as other commercial operators as the potential impacts to public health, safety, and the environment are similar. Also, there are separate standards for the management of manure and agricultural wastes (14 CCR 1801 et seq). The Board had considered repealing these regulations, but a small group of LEAs voiced opposition and it was decided to keep them. The standards are weak and staff believes they are not widely used.
The proposed regulations ease some of the requirements but add new requirements. They would allow a greater volume of non-agricultural material to be composted by agricultural operations for their own use. Also, agricultural operations would be allowed to sell or give-away an unlimited volume of product derived from
non-gricultural materials (currently £1,000 cubic yards) and remain in the EA Notification tier. This is consistent with the proposed changes to green material operations. Agricultural operations, as well as other types of operations, would be subject to additional requirements, including an RCSI and odor impact minimization plan.
- Manure is considered a green material. However, it is also considered an agricultural commodity.
- There is confusion over whether grape pomace and other processor “waste products” are agricultural commodities.
- A participant is concerned that an unlimited amount of non-agricultural material could be accepted by agricultural operations with EA approval. Based on risk, is this justifiable?
- Participants want regulations that are risk based and don’t over-regulate. Public health, safety, and the environment must be protected but over-regulation can be harmful to the industry and diversion goals.
- CORC recommends the use of stakeholder workgroups to redefine key regulatory definitions (e.g., green vs. non-green) and thresholds (e.g., contamination levels, yards of material that trigger tier levels, etc.). CORC and CCQC have offered their support in organizing this effort. Will Bakx suggests that the Wine Institute also be involved.
The regulations encourage beneficial use of material in a number of ways, including exclusion of materials that are used in a beneficial manner from the regulatory requirements. The proposed regulations exclude activities that store material for 48 hours or less and allow an alternative storage frequency for agricultural commodities subject to EA approval. One participant suggests a 72-hour storage time for beneficial use. It may need to be made clear that there is a storage time limit, even for compostable organic materials for beneficial use.
Top of page
One participant suggested that the CIWMB encourage BMPs through regulations. CCQC recommends making BMPs part of the standardized permit.
Activities are excluded if located at the site of biomass conversion. Concern was voiced at the Sacramento workshop that biomass plants that store material outside their site would be subject to the regulations, as well as independent facilities that supply material to them. It is unknown whether operations that currently supply material to the biomass industry have not been required to meet the regulations by LEAs. The proposed regulations would apply to operations that handled agricultural commodities or urban wood waste if the material met the definition of “active compost”. This would include a permit under some circumstances. Under the current regulations, these operations are subject to minimal regulation and may not be required to obtain a permit.
Biomass fuel is derived from three sources--silvicultural/wood product manufacturing activities, agricultural residues, and urban wood residues. California Biomass Energy Alliance believes compostable organic materials that are chipped and ground to produce biomass fuel, not compost, should be excluded.
Bioreactor
One participant indicated that sometimes it’s better for organic material to be landfilled as it adds moisture and fuel that will accelerate decomposition and gas production. Nothing in the regulations prevents this. A ban on landfilling of yard waste would require a statutory fix.
Buffer Zone
The issue of buffer zones was brought up at the workshops. At this time, buffer zone distance and related issues are the responsibility of local planning agencies. A prescriptive distance requirement would not allow for other factors, including size of facility, design of facility (e.g., enclosure of facility) and composting method (e.g., in-vessel, Ag-Bag, etc.). However, if research determines that composting facilities present a public health threat due to bioaerosols, a buffer zone or additional control measures may be appropriate.
Several participants, mostly at the San Diego workshop, indicated that operator certification should be required. Staff believes it is more appropriate for operator certification to be handled by a trade association and not be mandatory. CCQC supports thorough training and certification of
LEAs that oversee compost operations.
Top of page
- The proposed regulations slot transfer/processing operations, including C&G, into the same permit tiers as compost operations and facilities. Workshop participants strongly support this.
- The proposed regulations exclude activities that store material for 48 hours or less and allow an alternative storage frequency for agricultural commodities, subject to EA approval. One participant suggested that green material transfer/processing facilities, including C&G operations, also be allowed more than a 48-hour storage time, with EA approval. Transfer/processing facilities may store material for greater than 48 hours without prior EA approval – this does not exclude them from the composting regulations.
- Will Bakx recommends excluding a C&G facility that stores no more than 3 days of unprocessed material and no more than 3 days of processed material on-site, not exceeding 2,500 tons.
Clarity/Readability of Regulations
Several participants indicate that the regulations need to be clearer and simpler. However, there are limitations as to what can be done with regulatory language.
- Many participants pointed out gaps in the regulations concerning physical contaminants, including the lack of a definition, no method for determining the percentage of contamination, and the effect “no glass allowed in green material” would have on curbside collection. NCTAC suggested that the methodology for calculating the percentage of contaminants be identified and evaluated prior to adoption of the regulations.
- NCTAC concerned about allowing processing, including C&G, of wood containing lead based paints or preservatives. Should the composting and C&G of wood containing lead-based paint or wood preservative be prohibited if below hazardous levels?
- CORC believes levels of contamination should be reexamined and reflect industry standards. They indicate that the 0.5% threshold will result in very few green material operations.
Staff does not believe definitions are necessary for common words that may be found in any dictionary, such as storage. Also, definitions are not necessary unless the terms are used in the regulations. The regulations do contain a definition of “compostable organic material” that is broad, avoiding prescriptive requirements to determine whether a material will compost. The definition of “transfer/processing” is meant to include straight transfer of organic materials if they are compostable and stored long enough to reach 122 degrees Fahrenheit (i.e., active compost). It may be confusing that the definition states, “Transfer/Processing means the handling of compostable organic materials for the purpose of producing compost” seemingly excluding C&G. However, material at a C&G operation may compost and the operation would not be subject to the regulations unless it was actively composting.
- Some participants indicated that the regulations need enforcement teeth. CCQC believes the CIWMB needs to demonstrate a commitment to resolving odor issues through enforcement mechanisms and expert staff.
- CCQC wants clear enforcement language and procedure for shutting down non-compliant compost operations in a timely manner. NCTAC suggests language that supports the use of legal action over the administrative process (see August 18, 2000 letter).
On participant recommended that a bond be required for leased operations, not operations located on own land.
Fire
Two versions of a fire standard were included in the proposed regulations, the current language and an alternative.
Top of page
Staff believes the regulations need to strike a balance between flexibility and creating a level playing field. The proposed regulations would allow more flexibility than the current regulations in several areas, including the slotting of large green and non-green materials facilities, sampling requirements, and metals testing at green material operations and facilities. However, the uptiering/downtiering option may be impractical to implement. There are several problems with this, including political pressure on LEAs, potential lawsuits against the LEA for allowing a competitor to downtier (criteria would have to be tight), inconsistency between counties and maybe even within a county.
- Staff is not aware of problems related to the storage and handling of food waste at animal food manufacturing operations. These operations are already regulated by other agencies, including the USDA.
- The proposed regulations would not allow any amount of animal material or feedstock that was not source separated to be accepted by a green material facility. This would include vegetative food/soiled paper/waxed paper, etc. if not source separated. CORC believes a certain amount of non-green materials should be allowed in green material. Food scrap composting is increasing statewide. Co-collection of green material and food scraps is also increasing.
- Staff chose 48-hours as material would be processed so quickly that the likelihood of material becoming “active compost” would be minimized. The recent decision concerning Cal Bio Mass will have to be considered. The CIWMB has authority to regulate compost facilities as they are defined as a subset of solid waste facilities (PRC 40194). PRC 40116 states, ““Compost” means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes that are source separated from the municipal solid waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility. “Compost” includes vegetable, yard, and wood wastes which are not hazardous wastes.”” The statutory definition of “Transfer or processing station” (PRC 40200) states, ““Transfer or processing station” or “station” does not include any of the following: (2) A facility, whose principal function is to receive, store, convert, or otherwise process wastes which have already been separated for reuse and are not intended for
disposal.”
- Some participants believe a LEA should be allowed to approve an alternative removal frequency for feedstocks other than agricultural commodities.
- Should there be a limit on how long material can be stored on site?
Clean wood would be considered green material if separated or kept separate from the solid waste stream, at the point of generation and contained £0.5% physical contaminants. Green material would not include commingled C&D materials.
Health and Safety
One participant was concerned about health impacts from long-term exposure. Cal/OSHA is the agency with primary authority over worker health and safety.
Inspections
There will be increased costs from adding an inspection requirement for operations that currently don’t require an inspection.
Inter-Agency Issues
One participant indicates that the CIWMB needs to simplify and coordinate regulations between the multiple agencies involved, need to define roles of agencies.
Participant is concerned that competitors that C&G organic materials call a product compost even though it doesn’t go through time/temperature and other composting requirements. The issues include a level playing field and health of the compost industry. The first issue would be addressed by slotting of C&G into the regulatory tiers, resulting in a level playing field. However, the second may not be addressed by the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations do not include end-product standards, other than pathogen reduction, metals concentrations, and prevention or removal of sharps. Product sold as compost is required to meet time/temperature requirements. However, an operator could still make false claims that a product is compost when it isn’t. Compost producers registered with CCQC are required to disclose product information to prospective buyers.
Top of page
A definition for “agronomic rate” is not included in the proposed regulations. The participant may be concerned with over application of organic material that has not been composted and wishes for a mechanism to limit this. The regulations do state that, “Beneficial use includes…land application in accordance with California Department of Food and Agriculture requirements for a beneficial use as authorized by Food and Agricultural Code section 14501 et seq.” However, CDFA does not have regulations concerning land application of organic materials. CDFA does have labeling requirements for bagged compost.
Level Playing Field
Participants strongly favor a level playing field for all compostable organic materials transfer/processing activities, including C&G and agricultural operations.
The proposed regulations would allow the EA to approve alternative methods of compliance for green material transfer/processing operations and facilities to meet the maximum metal concentrations in section 17868.2. An alternative would be elimination of the metals testing requirement for these operations. Staff has not seen any evidence that green material operations ever exceed the maximum metal concentrations. However, it may be useful in certain cases for the EA to have the authority to require metals testing (e.g., at operations that use ash as an amendment).
One participant thought spent media should be regulated and a definition would be helpful, another indicated that they shouldn’t be subject to the composting requirements, and another believes they should be treated similar to vermicomposters. Spent media is considered an agricultural commodity. It would only be subject to the regulations if composted and 2,500 cubic yards or greater were sold or
given away per year. In any event, spent media is low in nitrogen and has to be mixed with other feedstocks in order to compost.
Newly Regulated Operations
A couple participants indicated that a mechanism is needed to allow the operation of newly regulated facilities until they can be permitted.
Participants don’t like the term “non-green”. One problem is that animal material is included in the proposed definition of “non-green material”. However, there are currently no known animal material facilities, with the possible exception of facilities that accept restaurant waste, etc. (e.g., B&J Compost, Solano Co.). The current definition of “Animal Material” could be kept or merged with “Mixed Solid Waste”. But, if mixed solid waste included animal material, operations that accept restaurant waste containing animal waste would be required to obtain a Full SWFP. A possible solution is to split up the materials currently included as “animal materials”--include restaurant waste and similar wastes that include a minimal amount of animal material in either the “green” or “green-class 2” category; facilities that accepted animal mortalities could be considered mixed solid waste.
Participants want more guidance on controlling and monitoring odors, etc. CCQC recommends the addition of professional staff at the CIWMB in the air quality field.
- Some participants were concerned that nurseries can mix manure with compost while they can’t. A nursery can mix manure into potting soil and other products without going through pathogen reduction since it’s not a commercial supplier of compost for unrestricted use. The use of manure by the nursery industry is considered an agricultural practice.
- Some participants questioned the need for daily temperature readings. This is a problem for some operations that are closed on the weekend and may result in additional costs that may be avoided if the current language was changed to allow some flexibility. For example, an operator could take temperature readings immediately prior to and after the weekend. However, this could result in some product not undergoing pathogen reduction in some cases (e.g., cold weather over the weekend could drop pile temperatures below 131 degrees Fahrenheit).
- The current regulations require that an aerated static pile be covered with 6 to 12 inches of insulating material--Ag
Bag/CTI systems do not meet this requirement. However, the operators of B&J Composting have stated that material reaches temperatures well above 131 degrees Fahrenheit, it remains in the bags for 60 days, is cured for 30 more days, and never exceeds fecal coliform or Salmonella sp. limits.
- Some participants indicated that pathogen reduction is not necessary for non-sludge composting facilities. Alternative methods of compliance are allowed in the current and proposed regulations. A review of literature, and records from existing green material composting operations and facilities indicates fecal coliform remains a health threat.
- Some participants were concerned that mulch would be required to meet PFRP if material was held for more than 48 hours. The proposed regulations would allow the EA to approve alternative methods of compliance, including allowing the operator to skip time/temperature requirements.
- Is material that is held for less than 48 hours required to meet PFRP?
- One participant asked about using Colony Forming Units (CFU) instead of Most Probable Number
(MPN).
- Some participants recommended that testing protocols, including chain of command, was needed for pathogen reduction testing. Staff believes the operator should contact their laboratory for information on the above subject.
Top of page
- Some participants suggested an annual loading limit or maximum daily throughput instead of volume of material on-site at any one time. Staff believes that total material
on site is more appropriate as operators are used to this, staff are not aware of any justification for changing this, and a site that brought in a relatively small amount of material for a long time would remain in a lower tier than appropriate.
- Some participants believe the uptiering/downtiering option should be eliminated. CORC believes downtiering will not result in equitable LEA permitting and enforcement activities and all operators should be treated equally.
- PRC 21159 (also see 14 CCR 15187 and 15189) requires the CIWMB to perform, at the time of adoption of a rule or regulation requiring a performance standard, an environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance. Would an environmental analysis be required for the odor impact minimization plan?
- Several participants don’t believe compost product should be included when determining permit tier.
- Some participants recommended that certain tiers be eliminated. CCQC believes the Full SWFP and registration tiers should be eliminated. Will Bakx suggests eliminating the registration tier.
- Should compostable organic materials transfer stations be regulated based on tonnage instead of volume to be consistent with the transfer station regulations?
- Some participants concerned with allowing up to 20,000 cubic yards of material in the Notification tier.
The CIWMB supports disclosure of the compost product properties developed by CCQC. The disclosure of additional parameters may be useful in some cases for certain markets.
Putrescible Waste
California Bio Mass issue.
- One participant indicated that a LEA needs the ability to require site specific operational documents. The proposed regulations require an RCSI for all facilities, including those requiring a registration permit. Operations, those requiring an EA notification, would not be required to submit an RCSI. Even if required to submit an RCSI, operations and facilities with a registration permit may only have their RCSI reviewed for completeness, not content. What could a LEA do if an RCSI submitted with an EA notification is deemed not complete?
- NCTAC indicates that the RCSI should include the following requirement: description of the methods used by the facility to comply with state minimum standards. The RCSI does require some of this, including “a description of the proposed methods to control litter, odors, dust, rodents, and
insects.”
Top of page
Runoff is not addressed unless it contacts waste materials (i.e., is leachate). The RWQCB has authority over water quality aspects. NCTAC believes EA authority over leachate control needs to be better defined. The proposed regulations include the following additional language: “The operator shall ensure that leachate is controlled to prevent contact with the public.”
- The proposed regulations allow flexibility in sampling, but EA approval is only required for green material operations.
- NCTAC believes that LEAs should have discretionary authority in reviewing and approving sampling plans, including the flexibility to require additional or less sampling requirements dependent on the potential risks associated with feedstock type and exposure.
Scientific Basis of Regulations
Participants indicated that the regulations should be based on science.
- One participant was unclear on whether Class A (EQ) sludges were subject to the compost regulations.
- One participant recommended changing the term “sewage sludge” to “biosolids.”
- One participant indicated sewage sludge was already regulated by several agencies. It is regulated by the CIWMB because there are issues of statewide significance that are not regulated by other agencies and are under the authority of the CIWMB.
When does organic waste processing turn a waste material into a nonwaste material product? WMX issue--they believe that we don’t have the authority to regulate compost product and that our interpretation of what constitutes a waste may have implications on other materials (e.g., recycled cans, bottles, etc.). The proposed regulations remove language indicating that storage or handling of compost that has been sold and removed from the site, bagged for sale, given away for beneficial use and removed from the site, or otherwise beneficially used is an excluded activity. This language would be replaced by the following: “Beneficial use of compostable organic materials is an excluded activity.” Compost product stored
on site would count towards the total volume used to determine the permit tier. Is the proposed language adequate to make it clear that compost product would be regulated?
Source Separated
One participant asked how source separated is source separated; 10 percent from where--how do you prove it?
Top of page
- A couple participants suggested separate standards for odor, litter, dust, vectors, etc. There’s room on the inspection report to explain what condition is considered to be a violation and area of concern.
- A participant indicated that non-green composting facilities should have minimum processing times to minimize vectors, odors, etc. Processing time is one factor in odor and vector problems. It is generally in the best interest of an operator to process the material as rapidly as possible. The exception would be for an operation that just wants to collect the tipping fee and is not really in the business of selling a product. The more important question is whether the proposed regulations adequately address de facto disposal. What would stop a sham operator from accepting tipping fees and storing material indefinitely? The operation would be subject to permitting requirements and SMS. The proposed regulations do not include a maximum storage time. One participant suggested that the rate of produced compost should be same as rate of incoming feedstock once the curing pile reaches a certain size. Do the proposed regulations adequately address de facto disposal?
- One participant indicated that an operator should be required to keep records on all materials moving in and out of the operation. The operator is required to record the quantity and type of feedstock received and quantity of compost and chipped and ground material produced [14 CCR 17869(d)]. The CIWMB does not regulate additives or amendments.
- NCTAC recommends that a standard be developed to establish safety procedures to protect facility users from heavy equipment and machinery. Section 17867, General Operating Standards, already has a performance standard requiring the operator to minimize hazards.
- How do you determine how old pile is for 48-hour exclusion? Are records required?
- Caltrans specifications call for 7-day storage and mulch to be composted. The specification is not in line with regulations. It is natural that specifications vary based upon the different end uses of mulch, the parameters of most importance to the user, and other factors. Requiring composting of mulch would drive the price up and possibly result in a product less appropriate for certain end uses.
Several participants indicated that the proposed regulations should address street sweepings.
Top of page
Participants indicated that training should be provided to operators, LEAs, landscapers, and farmers. NCTAC indicates that, “To promote employee health and safety, minimum training standards that pertain to site operations, maintenance, emergency procedures, and state minimum standards need to be established in the regulations”. Cal/OSHA handles employee health and safety.
Transfer/Processing
Should short-term storage of putrescible waste (i.e., 48 hours or less) be subject to transfer stations or composting regulations?
Workshop participants suggested the following changes in the proposed Odor Impact Minimization Plan:
- Exempt for agricultural composting
- Incorporate vectors, litter, hazards, nuisances, etc. into plan--this should be part of the permit process
- Need implementation requirement or time frame (like within 30 days of being notified by the LEA of a valid complaint) that this OIMP must be placed into use
- Not enough time to evaluate
- Allow LEA option of requiring OIMP
- An OIMP should only be required for facilities that get complaints
- Require that changes proposed to the plan must be reviewed and approved by the LEA prior to implementation
- Site-specific odor plan as approved by the LEA may be a problem
- Plan is vague, not enough guidelines for LEA if odor problem exists
- Believe meteorological testing is too much too soon
- There is no mechanism to require operator to resubmit a plan if the plan is inferior or needs further detail
- Need mechanism to review/revise/reject by LEAs
- Should be a progressive plan
- Use of performance standards through this mechanism is good, but need a progressive series of increasing mitigation measures. Cost goes up for O&M as the difficulty of the feedstock increases.
- Is this section even necessary if odor can be abated as a public nuisance under H&S code?
- Make sure LEAs have the authority and enforcement tools to ensure that the “bad apple” can be made to clean up act or be shut down so the neighboring community does not have to endure nuisance situations.
- Water response is already reported to RWQCB in annual reports. Can’t we attach report to OIMP?
- In section (a), time frame should be stated, i.e., within 45 days or 60 days
- Look at what other states have done or doing, e.g., Massachusetts; drainage--water management.
- Too detailed for all facilities. Should revise (b)(1)(2) for better directions and also cover remote location conditions.
- What odors can an EA waive?
- What is considered minimize odor? If you smell the product, is it a violation? Odors come and go -–you have to be there at the right time to smell the odor.
- All facilities should have a RCSI with the OIMP included, but not necessary to require it in regulations; changes should be made--maybe bring in the AQMD for a joint inspection on odors.
- OIMP is not necessary. Most elements are addressed by response to complaint (or complaint prevention) and threat of sanctions greater than those the EA would be able to impose.
- Seems like the bulk of the emphasis of OIMP is in monitoring and documentation. Aside from health concerns, if the neighbors aren’t complaining, you don’t have a problem. I would favor sections (f) and (g) which deal with correction and reasonableness.
- (b)(1)--Odor monitoring should include evaluating odors at the property boundary or at the edge of the operations area.
- (b)(4)--Add odor counteractant compounds to the list of potential odor treatments.
- Define requirements that allow EA to define minimum content of OIMP; actually, an OIMP should include all solid waste activities (landfills and transfer stations); see (f)--tighten this section; look at (e) too.
- See (b)(3) complaint response protocol: “I get the complaint and tell them it ain’t me.” This example is to illustrate a response, what defines a minimum acceptable protocol.
- BACT. Language to allow LEA to approve or disapprove. Add language to increase LEA control. Remove language to allow no plan.
- Reevaluate adding vermiculture, mushroom, and agriculture.
- Odor disclosure to public and put encroachment as a secondary regulation to protect operators that are in compliance.
- Odor plan for EA Notification only if there are reported problems.
- Contingency plan needed for odor incidents.
- Address mitigation, not just prevention methods.
- Two-tier approach based on number of complaints.
- How do you get operations without SWFP to write an odor plan?
- Description of meteorological conditions onerous?
- Address odor prevention in plan.
Enforcement
- Should be able to issue a notice and order or pursue remedy through court order
- Even though the proposed standard states an N&O may be issued for non-compliance, PRC (which takes precedence) does not allow for the issuance of an N&O unless you are a facility (according to our County Counsel’s interpretation).
- Section (e) and (f) equals remove N&O--give LEA flexibility to use whichever enforcement tool it wants
- Remove N&O--consider $ penalties
- What are penalties? Enforcement tools? Fines?
- Need to be more site specific; need to be more clear cut what EA can do for enforcement; EA often caught in the middle--can’t please either side and doesn’t have black and white regulation to back them up.
- Add definition of odor or concerns involving odors
- Add means to cease and desist operations until OIMP is complete; what about tying in permit suspension if OIMP isn’t followed
- Stronger enforcement tools
Subjectivity/Objectivity
- Subjective standards should be eliminated so that LEA and operator would then know what standard is being applied.
- OIMP does not do enough. CIWMB needs to go a lot farther in helping LEAs with parameters to determine when odors are a basis for penalizing operations or forcing closure.
LEAs are becoming more and more politicized in their role representing the State but owing their employment to a County Board of Supervisors. Similar to what we have said in other areas, the more clear are the parameters the more credibility the LEA will have with the public, the operator and their bosses--scentometers and basic training in odor sampling at the least.
- Odor monitoring: training and equipment for LEA to assist in reducing subjective odor complaint response.
Model Plan
- There should be a model OIMP available from CIWMB
Top of page | Regulatory Initiatives |
Compost Initiatives Home | Organics Home | LEA Central
|
