California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

LES Regional Roundtable Meetings

May/June 2011 Notes

Spring 2011 Roundtables (RT) were conducted in five venues throughout the state. The agendas for each RT may be different because the topics include issues of regional concern. LEAs from each of the venues worked with CalRecycle staff to develop the RT agendas. Each RT venue has an LEA Chair, selected by the LEAs in that region. The LEA RT Chair also serves on the Enforcement Advisory Council (EAC) as a representative of the LEAs in that region. This collection of notes summarizes some of the dialogue occurring at the RTs and may paraphrase a number of concerns or recommendations of the LEA staff that attended. Since not all LEAs and CalRecycle staff are able to attend every RT, this summary is being presented to make information available on some of the issues with statewide implications. Further, these summaries help focus all parties to determine if the EAC, California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health (CCDEH) or the CalRecycle staff recommends any program changes at the State and local level. This series of RTs were attended by 81 LEA staff representing 40 jurisdictions.


Minor Violation

A Minor Violation, as defined in PRC 40150.2, means the failure of a person to comply with a requirement or condition of an applicable law, regulation, permit, information request, order, variance, or other requirement that an EA or CalRecycle is authorized to implement or enforce. LEAs indicated that they are not using Minor Violations on inspection reports. Many LEAs indicated that Minor Violation is a more cumbersome process than Notice of Violation, and the 30 day compliance schedule is out of sync with their inspection frequencies. Several LEAs felt Area of Concern and Notice of Violation are better tools and prefer to issue a Violation than deal with the Minor Violation process. Some LEAs put remarks in the comment section of the Inspection Report in lieu of a Minor Violation. The general consensus was to leave Minor Violation alone for now, and if legislation or regulation package occur in the future, then possibly revisit the issue and make appropriate changes.

5-Year Permit Review

Public Resources Code (PRC) 44015 and California Code of Regulation (CCR) Title 27, Section 21640 set the requirement that any Solid Waste Facility Permit (permit) issued or revised shall be reviewed at least once every five years. There has been confusion as to when the five year period is calculated from, either the date of issuance of the permit, or the completion of last five year permit review. Below is sample of opinions expressed at the Round Tables:

  • Many LEAs felt that a Permit Revision equals 5 Year Review and covers everything that is required in the 5 year review.
  • Some LEAs felt that it is a waste of money and staff time to do a 5 Year Review if a major Revision will be coming after a 5 Year Review. LEAs and Operators are going to make as many changes as possible during a Revision instead of waiting for a 5 Year Review.
  • Some LEAs indicated the 5 Year Review is unnecessary, redundant, and should be eliminated. The current 5 year review form is too time-consuming and bureaucratic for minor permit changes. They prefer to streamline the process and have CalRecycle provide a permit checklist.
  • Many LEA’s indicated they can use inspections to start a 5 Year Review or Revision. Competent LEAs should be able to recognize when a permit needs to be revised, so there should not be outdated permits. LEA evaluations can spot problems on inspections and can encourage LEA to revise permits. Some LEAs indicated that the 18 month inspections are mini 5 year reviews.


CalRecycle staff sought input at the Round Tables regarding future training topics. LEA’s are interested in having CalRecycle offer 1-2 hour trainings at the Round Tables. Continuing education units (CEU’s) provide an incentive to attend the Round Tables. Potential training topics discussed at the Round Tables included: land use, waste storage times, 5 Year Review, treated wood waste, odor complaint response protocols, communication and coordination between Cal EPA Agencies, and refuse collection vehicle inspection program methods.

Proposed Rule 4566

In April 2008, the San Joaquin Valley Air District introduced its first draft version of Rule 4566. The rule is intended to cover composting operations, which handle greenwaste and food waste. In December 2008, the District’s governing board voted to delay action on the rule until scientific research on the efficacy of the proposed Tier 1 Mitigation Measures in the draft rule could be undertaken. This research was conducted in 2009, and a draft final report was issued in 2010. Rule 4566 is slated for adoption in 2012. The air district is updating compliance costs and feedstock input data and will hold a hearing in mid June 2011. Feedstock storage-time limits, the use of finished compost “cap” on windrows, and irrigating the tops of windrows are the primary emission-reduction measures included in this proposed rule.'


Several bills were discussed at the Round Tables, but Assembly Bill 34 (Williams) was the major focus. AB 34 would define terms and require the CalRecycle to adopt , by July 1, 2012, regulations with which enforcement agencies would be required to comply when adopting site-specific objective odor performance thresholds for compost facilities. The bill would authorize a compost facility operator to apply to an enforcement agency to adopt performance thresholds and to pay an application fee in accordance with a fee schedule adopted by the enforcement agency, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Many LEAs felt that odors are too subjective and regulations outlined in AB 34 would be difficult to develop.

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: June 21, 2011
LEA Roundtables,
Leta Forland: (916) 341-6395