Skip to: Content | Footer | Accessibility

California Integrated Waste Management Board

Local Enforcement Agency Compostable Organic Materials Regulatory Initiative

Summary of Data Collected at the July/August 2000 Workshops

The following is a summary of verbal and written comments received at 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. Information was gathered from flipcharts and handouts completed during the workshops. Flipchart comments may come from an individual or a group. A given topic may include several individual quotes. Note that there are limitations on what can be captured during a one-day workshop and some comments do not reflect the views of the majority of the participants. In some cases, the number of similar comments on a particular subject may be misleading and not reflect the view of the majority of workshop participants. Some of the major topics commented upon are:

Interests Exercise

Workshop participants viewed ten stations designed to stimulate their thoughts and identify their concerns related to the compostable organic materials regulations. The workshop locations are identified in parentheses as follows – Merced (M), San Jose (SJ), Bakersfield (B), Redding (Rd), Ventura (V), San Diego (SD), Riverside (Rv), and Sacramento (Sac). The participants identified the following regulatory interests:

ADC

Green Material - I see it as a material that needs to be reused, land applied, not buried as ADC. (SD)

ADC does not require temperature measurement. If ADC is sent off-site to other uses such as land application, what is the standard? (Rv)

17868.3(c) – specify that green waste transfer or C&G operations that ship to a compost facility or landfill for ADC use do not have to comply with pathogen reduction or make it clear that the LEA has the power to waive pathogen reduction requirement if destination or end use justifies it. (Rv)

I was disturbed by comment that maybe "ADC should be tested for metals" by participant. These approaches are bad public policy by spending effort on elements not needed. (Sac)

Top of Page

Agriculture

My company (farm) would like to be exempt from much of the composting regulations. We receive only agricultural commodities and compost them for use on our lands only. My concern seems to be addressed by the proposed regulations. (B)

Would reduction in metals testing make compost from agricultural source less marketable? (Rd)

Agricultural operations should be held to same standards. (V)

Orchard removal at grower’s location, chipped on-site – what tier? (V)

Will silage be subject to regulations? (V)

Dairies haul silage, backhaul manure, odor complaints from silage. Exempt composted dairy manure? Unfair, not level playing field. Exempt from permit, not state minimum standards. (V)

Agricultural exclusions when urban derived material is applied need more regulations/greater oversight, not less. Litter, etc. (V)

Agriculture should have separate regulations? (Rv)

Make separate regulations and limit no sale of product because they then will be commercial composters. (Rv)

Selling/give-away at a certain level should be considered commercial. (Rv)

Board needs to be more sensitive to the agriculture community as far as over-regulation – the market for the compost is agriculture, yet the agricultural community resents or is scared by the required regulations. (Rv)

Clarify that agricultural commodities don’t include manure – already included in "green material". (Rv)

Clarify that "agricultural commodities" does not include manure. (Rv)

Agricultural exclusion: How do you determine? Need record keeping requirement on sell/give away amounts. Add burden of proof of requirement to regulations. "Sell/give away or otherwise market" – in case they pay to get rid of material. (Rv)

Requirement to return compost product to agricultural source is too limiting to small operator; inspection costs, etc. (Rv)

Recommend having a tonnage limit on agricultural exemptions. My experience says that agricultural facilities have more of a health and safety concern than many typical green waste sites. Oversight is different and not based on environmental health and safety. Sites with same environmental concern need same regulatory permit or standards. (Sac)

Top of Page

Appropriate Oversight

Balance control with encouraging composting. (SJ)

Regulations are necessary for public safety, etc. – they should not become micro-management. (Rd)

Regulations prevent bad stuff, but also prevent good stuff. The proposed regulations will stop too many good things. Loosen up on the regulations. Don’t depend on LEAs to be reasonable. They generally just use regulations to stop stuff. (V)

Regulate based on odors/spores rather than feedstock/volume, etc. (SD)

Ensure that low risk operations encounter low-level regulation, while higher-risk operations are sufficiently monitored. (Rv)

There is current and great potential for productive use of compostable organics if: regulations are sufficient but not inhibitive (do not conflict, not a one size fits all scheme), composting can be done in a manner not impacting communities, material composted has an end market. (Rv)

Regulations that lay people can trust since public perception is very important in this field. (Rv)

Over-regulation can stifle creativity. On the other hand, the inspector needs a format to follow when going onto a new site that might be very different from what he has seen before. Difficult to compromise both sides. (Rv)

Don’t want over-regulation. (Rv)

More concrete regulations if operator not meeting state minimum standards. (Rv)

Clear regulation, black and white, CIWMB take charge. (Rv)

Location, control, abatement. (Sac)

Encourage composting but create reasonable fair regulatory standards. (Sac)

Regulations should improve, not restrict. Incentives should not act as barriers to other high-value uses. (Sac)

I would like to relax current regulations where possible while still addressing public health and safety issues. (Sac)

Regulations should provide enough structure and "teeth" to effectively protect public health without hindering the composting industry. (Sac)

Workshop should have been focused on identifying major "problems" and whether regulations could solve them. Parts of existing regulations that adequately addressed "problems" should be retained and strengthened only to solve major problems. CIWMB should assist by education and let local implementers and market shape industry. (Sac)

Over-regulation can stop projects - e.g., odor issues are really nuisance issue, not really human health and safety. Public awareness about the issue needs to be increased. (Sac)

Regulations can make the process too complicated and limit projects. (Sac)

Arbitration

The CIWMB should offer arbitration service. (Rv)

Beneficial Use

Beneficial use of material to be composted should be a high priority. (B)

Beneficial use and determination of what is beneficial use is outside the scope of the regulations. This section could be deleted. (V)

Better definition for Article 2 section 17855 (5)(a) - include stockpile limitation for beneficial use – 72 hour time limitation. (V)

"Beneficial Use" – sets up difficult situations between shaky "use constituting disposal" operators and LEAs. (SD)

LEA should be able to determine a "beneficial use". (SD)

Allow LEA to determine what beneficial use will be to accommodate microclimate, local needs and concerns. (SD)

Best Management Practices

Encourage BMPs of operators through regulations. (M)

Biomass

Address production of energy from organic feedstocks. Acknowledge alternative methods of addressing organic material processing in the "composting" regulations. (Sac)

Bioreactor

Sometimes better for organic materials to be landfilled – adds moisture and organic material to landfill. (Sac)

Buffer Zone

Do we need to add buffer zone for composting operation or facilities? (M)

Need protection from new residential neighbors. (Rv)

Certification

Interested in operator certification/training. (Rd)

I support operator certification systems instead of tonnage-based criteria for regulations. (SD)

Require operator certification for composting. (SD)

Voluntary operator certification for compost facility operators. (SD)

Consider operator certification program. (SD)

I’m opposed to certification. I believe it will prevent "little guys" from getting into the market or even to operate at all. I believe in performance of operation. (SD)

Certification process may not work. Landfill operators have SWANA certification but it doesn’t help. (SD)

University/private as source for certifications and consulting expertise; LEA certification with a soil/composting specialist. (SD)

Chipping and Grinding

Chipping & grinding – Board should control processes (shredding and screening) – may cause nuisances such as dust and odor. (SJ)

Inclusion of all composting activities in regulations – from C&G, all require RCSI. (SJ)

C&G could be regulated by strict storage standards. Minimizing (and enforcing) storage of mulch would minimize inadvertent composting, fires, odors, and dust. Seventy-two hours would allow facilities to operate and accommodate closing weekends. Define facilities by "inclusion" not "exclusion." It is difficult to determine by reading the regulations whether or not C&G operations are exempt if they store material less than 48 hours. It would be better to clearly state that these facilities are exempt. (V)

Mulch that reaches 131 degrees Fahrenheit should fall under compost regulations. (V)

More regulations and oversight needed for chipping and grinding facilities. (V)

How much mulch can a private user have on-site? (V)

Storage facilities of C&G should be all encompassing. (V)

Proposed regulations meet my interest by closing loophole on C&G. (SD)

17855(a)(5)(a) – Include green transfer and green C&G facilities re: ability to get >48 hour removal frequency with EA approval. 17855(a)(5) - Agree that transfer or C&G should be excluded, but actual composting should be subject to the regulations, but not the permit requirements. (Rv)

Not clear if C&G facilities regulated as composting facilities. (Sac)

Top of Page

Clarity/Readability of Regulations

Would like regulations to be easier to organize/read/decipher. (M)

Change regulations to be understood by common person. (M)

Need regulations that are easy to interpret by all parties. (M)

I like the idea of a matrix document that explains the regulations. (V)

Simplify regulations. (SD)

Need to simplify regulations to make them easier to understand – proposed regulations are difficult to grasp and quirky. The format they are presented as proposed is difficult to read and understand – and somewhat arbitrary. Also vague standards exempting (e.g., v). Also need plain English version if input from laymen is desired. The proposed regulations have some highly shaded nomenclature, e.g., "clean green," "green materials" that carry implications not easily understood. (SD)

Have simplified regulations so it’s easier to regulate. (SD)

Need regulations that make sense and can actually be put into use and easily enforced. (Rv)

Complex language – difficult for regulator to come to conclusion on what an operation or facility is. (Sac)

Contamination

What should we look for in feedstock that is considered contamination? (M)

How do we determine the percentage of contamination in clean green and green materials? (M)

Regulations don’t address the adverse effect of contaminated feedstock on finished product. (M)

Encourage practices that would lead to a cleaner source, i.e., curbside or MRF. (M)

How is 10% measured? Per load? Daily? Quarterly? (SJ)

Physical contaminants need to be defined in regulations. (SJ)

Define "physical contamination" clearly to avoid problems with interpretation. (SJ)

We would like to comment on the proposed text for the definition of Green Material. The text in the handout refers to a 0.5 percent maximum for physical contaminants, but then goes on to say "no" glass or other physical contaminants of a size or shape that can cause injury to humans. Taking this language literally would exclude most source-separated, residential curbside green waste from the intended definition of Green Material, due to the likelihood that an occasional glass bottle may be collected in a curbside green waste container. Perhaps the language should be revised accordingly. Otherwise, most curbside Green Material operations would have to be classed as Mixed Solid Waste operations. (B)

I would like to see specific standards for inerts (glass, film plastic). I’m not sure the proposed regulations do this. (V)

Measure percentage of contaminants by weight by measuring disposal from facility. (V)

10% residual is the property of the waste hauler. (V)

Require front-end removal of contaminants. Curbside green waste is dirty. (Rv)

Contamination levels – 0.5% too restrictive. (Rv)

Food waste/green – what is a contaminant, shrink-wrap vs. cardboard. (Sac)

Definitions

Need definition for "source separated". (SJ)

Define stored material and finished product. (V)

Green: clarify "contains no glass…" Non-green: Specify processing time. (V)

Detailed definition of compostable or organics. (Rv)

The definition of "transfer/processing" is confusing – it needs to be clarified to exclude straight transfer of materials. Also, if you’re only doing C&G and not also doing composting, it appears that you are not doing "transfer/processing" because the definition specifically says, "for the purpose of producing compost". (Rv)

Regulations need to be understandable. Definitions: compost, non-green, food waste, food processor waste, food waste transfer, odor, and odor control. (Sac)

Top of Page

Enforcement

Regulations do not address risk of operation or consistent enforcement. Regulations must have enforcement teeth. Use mediation and then go to arbitration to enforce regulations. (Rv)

No retroactive enforcement. (Rv)

Conflict on regulations – have middle person (CIWMB) to solve the problem. (Rv)

Enforcement must be based on a clear understanding and an on-going program of training and research. (Sac)

Improve enforcement regulations. (Sac)

Provide "teeth" for LEA’s to do effective enforcement. (Sac)

Financial Assurances

Differentiate between land owned and leased operations. Require bond for leased operations. Have mechanism to go after previous owner. (V)

Fire

Fire to local authority not in regulations. (V)

Flexibility

Need flexibility in regulations to determine if an issue is a problem. (B)

Regulations need more flexibility. As a compost producer, markets are dynamic and our operations are held rigid through regulation. Regulations need a paradigm shift. Less heavy-handed and more facilitative. (B)

Need ability to interpret regulations to suit local needs. (Rd)

LEA needs ability to require site specific operational documents, condition permits, and have flexibility in regulations to meet local needs. (Rd)

Need consistent regulations for businesses. LEA discretion can potentially cause conflict between jurisdictions. (V)

Performance based regulations vs. number based regulations – good operators should be allowed to exceed "the numbers". (SD)

LEA prefers working with concrete and precise regulations – language that’s easy to enforce, not vague and too flexible language. (SD)

Shift from solid waste style regulations/laws and allow flexibility in regulations/laws. (SD)

Flexibility for LEA’s to stretch limits if other criteria are being met. (Sac)

Regulations sometimes are not practical – hard to implement. LEAs need more flexibility to make regulations work. (Sac)

Top of Page

Food Waste

Need a definition for reusable "human edible" and "animal edible" so they can be excluded from tiers and people know that a company like DEXT wouldn’t be treated like a compost operation. Your problem is in your current definition of non-green material (post consumer food scraps; any material…/consumption by humans or animals). I am not sure the CIWMB understands reusable food (e.g., post consumer human edible or animal edible because of the way your current definitions are written. And because these categories are in your definitions then a LEA could get confused and cite a post consumer food processor like DEXT as needed to be a part. Instead, it’s better to recognize these operations and make them clearly outside the system. (SJ)

All food/soiled paper/waxed – allow a maximum of 20-25% (?) with otherwise green material to be considered a green facility – could distinguish between private vs. public collection areas or behind vs. in front of counter. (SJ)

City of San Jose/Oakland – physical contaminants equal 5%. (SJ)

Certified collection program criteria? (SJ)

Source-separated post-consumer food waste that meets the 0.5% threshold should be included under the green material definition. The material is clean and easier to process than some of the other "green" materials. This would increase diversion without requiring facilities to revise their permits. (V)

Despite meat, why are pre-and-post-consumer scraps being differentiated? Contamination? (Sac)

Currently exempt facilities – institutions/schools/research – will these remain exempt even when post-consumer/meat scraps in process? On-site, in-vessel system at private business – ex. Gaia machine. Currently a "pilot project" although process 1 ton/day. Clarity needed for definition. Research composting – does this include private companies trying out new technologies? Which entities pilot? Is there a time frame? Need clarification. (Sac)

Guidelines on food waste composting to be stated in simple terms with other concerns – odor, etc. (Rv)

Would like to see the regulations encourage and facilitate food composting. However, they must also provide LEAs with the "teeth" to deal with possible problems (e.g., vectors, odors, and flies). (Sac)

Encourage and facilitate food waste composting. (Sac)

Take food waste out of "non-green" definition. (Sac)

Tracy Safeway food transfer should be permitted under transfer regulations. (Sac)

48-Hour Exclusion

What is basis? Why different than composting? (SJ)

Regulate chip and ship with immediate ship out for agricultural land application. (SJ)

Does 48 hours apply to one pile or all piles? (B)

How do you determine how old pile is? What records, how do you regulate? (B)

Too arbitrary – base on impacts (i.e., vectors, odors, etc.) (B)

LEA should be allowed to approve an alternative removal frequency for more than just agricultural commodities. (Rv)

Suggest that no more than 3-days worth of material be allowed on-site at one time. (Sac)

Funds

If the CIWMB makes regulations, then they should draw from a fund to pay for new improvements. (Rv)

Green Material

If we have a C&D program, does clean wood count as clean green material? (V)

Source-separated at facility – not at point of generation – should be considered "clean green", not "non-green." (V)

Health and Safety

Hazards are real, and some are industrial, long-term exposure related. (Sac)

Top of Page

Inspections

Separate inspection grouping allowing for identifying individual problem areas, not grouping multiple areas. (B)

We need to simplify the process to be legal to compost. Once you cross the 10,000 cubic yard mark, the costs are astronomical when you need to pay for monthly inspections. (Sac)

Inter-Agency Issues

Simplify and coordinate regulations between the multiple agencies involved. Confusing to applicants! Define roles of agencies and applicable regulations. (M)

Simplify regulations; have agencies work together. Guideline document. (M)

Too many people regulate what we need to do. (M)

Labels

Chip and ship call product compost when it isn’t. All compost/wood operation terms should be defined in statute and enforced everywhere. These definitions may need to be in another part of the code that deals with labels on finished products. (SJ)

Let the public know what product they are buying, so agricultural vs. urban may compete more fairly. (V)

Land Application

Use of chips on fallow land should be monitored. (SJ)

When is land application disposal? Define beneficial use/agronomic rate. (SJ)

New regulations are needed for enforcement of illegal operations. What is the difference between continual landspreading of green waste and disposal? Is landspreading a beneficial use or soil amendment? (B)

Define agronomic rate for land application. (B)

Level Playing Field

Don’t over-regulate small composters that would prohibit composting. (M)

Level playing field – municipalities are currently given a break. (M)

Competition by agricultural/nursery operations that may produce a product that a permitted compost facility may not. Example: Ag industry may produce a "manure mix" product with no pathogen reduction and sell it off. Or, may sell a product that they call "compost" but is just a blend of materials that have not been composted. Manure mix could be a blend of manure and compost product. (SJ)

There should be consistency across California from site to site. (SJ)

Give local jurisdictions flexibility, but somehow a consistent regulatory playing field. (SJ)

Balance in all aspects of composting – don’t penalize people for composting when compared to chip and ship. (SJ)

More regulatory oversight is needed for chipping and grinding, for example place in either enforcement notification or registration tiers. (SJ)

Balance and consistency – chip and ship don’t have to pass the same standards as compost operations, i.e., doesn’t do what is actually done under ADC. (SJ)

Too many ways to be "outside" the regulations. (SJ)

Unequal playing field between green/non-green and sewage sludge. It would not be good if sewage sludge is allowed to downtier. (SJ)

Uniform structure (C&G) with enforcement that recognizes market forces and provides environmental protection. (B)

Have regulations site specific. Use scientific knowledge. Do not pass one size fits all regulation. Before changing interpretation of a regulation, look for industry input. (B)

Equality between compost vs. mulch. (V)

Any or all landscape/soil amendment company now composts or uses for soil amendment. (V)

Excluded category should be reduced in scope. (Rv)

Same activity should be regulated to same degree regardless of location, i.e., level soccer field. (Sac)

Local/State Roles

LEA needs more authority to deal with composting sites. (M)

Account for regional concerns, like cities. (SJ)

LEA selective program (like for tires). (SD)

I would encourage operational concerns such as odor problems to be tied to use permit conditions and not to Title 14 permits. (Sac)

Marketing

Advertising campaigns – focus on recycling of organics to change public perception, television spots, like HHW programs. (Rv)

Encourage business/diversion/re-use. (Sac)

Metals

LEA could vary requirement for testing metals based on previous results; e.g., if comes clean 10 times in a row allow once a year test. (SJ)

Would reduction in metals testing make compost from agricultural source less marketable? (Rd)

LEA needs the flexibility to require or not. Data collected in our jurisdiction show that these tests are not necessary for non-sludge composting operations. Remove these requirements from the regulations. (V)

All testing should be eliminated for green waste facilities – there have been no (to my knowledge) elevated metal levels. (SD)

Good to hear that if metals are not problem in green waste, testing could be dropped. (Sac)

Mushroom Farms

Most of our mushroom farms compost and sell the spent media. Regulations and definitions should include this material. (SJ)

Mushroom farms don’t belong in the compost requirements. (SD)

Mushroom grower definition should read similar to vermicomposter. (Rv)

Newly Regulated Operations

Need a plan for how to allow operation of newly regulated facilities – mechanism or tool to allow operation during implementation. (SD)

C&G – grandfather grace period, how to ease into regulations? (Sac)

Non-Green Material

Non-green is a misnomer – call it "unclean green". (Rv)

Can we call greenwaste with >0.5% <10% physical contaminants "contaminated green"?

"Non-green" is a misnomer. (Sac)

Top of Page

Odor

OIMP – increased cost for operators. More guidance for controlling odor and acceptable limits for public and employee welfare and to determine the cost effect on the operators. (V)

Odor control guidance documents – LEAs need a LEA advisory on what to look for in a good odor monitoring and control plan. (V)

Odor problem concerns – more information on an odor impact minimization plan. LEA needs more guidance – i.e., how, when, help in developing a plan. (V)

Odor issues with public may be governed by other regulatory agencies. (V)

What can the LEA do when he sees an ongoing odor complaint? (SD)

Quantitative methodology. (Rv)

Have regulatory agencies use more technical odor monitoring techniques – odor monitoring plan to include technical monitoring systems. (Rv)

Provide more direction on technologies (Kellys); scentometer. (Rv)

Odor management will not work to satisfy everyone. (Rv)

Require use of odor monitoring devices. (Rv)

Organic Materials Management

Look at value inherent in "waste" – sort to highest value. This may or may not be toward composting – recovery is key – reduction is needed. (Sac)

Top of Page

Pathogen Reduction

Nurseries can mix manure, but operators can’t. (SJ)

Can’t blend manure to finished compost because may not meet pathogen reduction treatment times. But a nursery can take compost and add manure. They have market accessibility. (SJ)

Daily temperature readings shouldn’t be required – before and after temperature readings should be acceptable. (SJ)

Address the alternative technologies currently used - Ag Bag and CTI – sampling, pathogen reduction methods. Improvements in sampling procedures, isolation of tested feedstock prior to release of sample results/re-sampling. (SJ)

Need flexibility in temperature reading requirement. (Rd)

My concern is a space issue. 15-day PFRP residency for mulch is a problem for my facility – we lack the space. (V)

The mulching operation that holds material more than 48 hours will now be required to undergo PFRP. (V)

How does a C&G operation meet pathogen reduction if shipping material within 48 hours? (V)

What are the storage regulations related to time/temperature? (V)

Reduced testing requirement if a pattern of safe material. (Sac)

All testing should be eliminated for green waste facilities – there have been no (to my knowledge) health impacts from fecal coliform. Study used to support regulations don’t mention adverse health impacts. (SD)

What about "flesh eating bacteria" – 2 cases in San Diego associated with green waste last year, possibly mycobacterium. (SD)

What about using Colony Forming Units (CFU) instead of MPN (Most Probable Number)? (SD)

If the operator has several compost streams, e.g. manure, green waste, grape pomace, etc., the 5,000 cubic yard required for sampling is for which stream? (SD)

Testing protocol needs to be explicit for pathogen reduction testing, i.e., time and temperature controls on samples, chain of custody. (Rv)

LEA – testing protocols – time/temperature chain of command – need to be spelled out, more guidance, some flexibility. (Rv)

Should be no pathogen reduction requirement if material is composted. C&G – should be requirement for pathogen reduction (what do studies show?). I believe every green material composter falls way below the standards. (Rv)

No pathogen reduction needed for green material. (Sac)

PFRP should be based on risk assessment, end markets. (Sac)

PFRP may destroy some types of products if required. (Sac)

Why doesn’t CIWMB do risk assessment on green material rather than base regulations on 503b regulations. (Sac)

Top of Page | Part 2 of Summary | Regulatory Initiatives | Compost Initiatives Home | Organics Home

Last updated: April 18, 2008

LEA Support Services http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LEACentral/
Andy Marino: amarino@ciwmb.ca.gov (916) 341-6713