BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 901
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
901 (Gordon) - As Amended April 20, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Natural Resources |Vote:|8 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable:
SUMMARY:
This bill modifies and expands the information recycling and
composting operations and facilities are required to submit to
CalRecycle. This bill establishes penalties for failing to
submit information or filing false reports. Specifically, this
AB 901
Page 2
bill:
1)Specifies recycling and composting operations, in addition to
facilities, are required to submit information to CalRecycle,
rather than counties. CalRecycle may provide this information
to local jurisdictions upon request.
2)Establishes penalties for any person who refuses or fails to
submit waste tracking information required by law or
regulation of not less than $500 and not more than $5,000 per
violation.
3)Establishes penalties for any person who knowingly or
willfully files a false report, or any person who refuses to
permit CalRecycle to perform an inspection or examination of
records of not less than $500 and not more than $10,000 per
violation.
4)Authorizes cities and counties to be designated by CalRecycle
to enforce these provisions.
5)Requires all required reporting to be submitted
electronically.
6)Authorizes CalRecycle or its designee to conduct audits,
perform site inspections, observe facility operations, and
otherwise investigate the recordkeeping and reporting.
7)Authorizes CalRecycle to issue an administrative complaint to
any person on whom civil liability may be imposed, as
specified, and specifies that existing formal adjudicative
procedures apply for the imposition of administrative
AB 901
Page 3
penalties.
8)Requires any collected penalties to be deposited into the
Integrated Waste Management Account (IWMA) or retained by the
city or county that brought the action.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Estimated increased costs of over $330,000 (IWMA) for FY15-16
and FY16-17 (second and third years of implementation) for
CalRecyle to conduct an enforcement program. Costs may be
offset by streamlined data collection workloads and unknown
revenue increases resulting from the penalty authority
established in the bill (IWMA).
2)Minor, absorbable costs for first year implementation (IWMA).
COMMENTS:
1)Rationale. AB 341 (Chesbro), [Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011],
directed CalRecycle to achieve a statewide recycling goal of
75% by 2020. According to the author, moving toward the more
progressive 75% recycling goal will require CalRecycle to
successfully collect reliable waste flow data.
The current absence of enforcement authority contributes to a
widespread lack of compliance. According to CalRecycle, 65%
of 2013 DRS reports were late, incomplete, or inaccurate.
Inadequate waste flow data comprises California's ability to
make informed decisions about how and where to allocate
resources to achieve the 75% recycling goal.
AB 901
Page 4
The author further states, inaccurate reporting can defraud
local jurisdictions and the state out of millions of dollars
in revenue and hinder the ability of local jurisdictions to
comply with requirements. Several recent cases where disposal
tonnages were misallocated resulted in criminal action and
involved millions of dollars in fraud.
This bill provides improved reporting accuracy and enforcement
authority.
2)Background. Existing law relating to disposal reporting,
established in 1992, is outdated. In 2007, CalRecycle
implemented an electronic Disposal Reporting System (eDRS), to
simplify the process for disposal facility operators, local
governments, and CalRecycle.
Under the updated system, disposal facility operators can
update DRS directly on an ongoing basis. Currently, 22
counties report using eDRS, 30 continue to submit paper
reports, and 6 are not subject to reporting requirements.
This bill requires that all reports be submitted using eDRS.
Existing law as it relates to reporting requirements for
recycling and composting facilities has been in effect since
1992; however, CalRecycle has never implemented the provision
that requires recycling facilities to report on the types and
quantities of materials that they accept.
CalRecycle has indicated that in order to achieve California's
75% recycling goal and ensure compliance with organic waste
recycling requirements, it intends to begin implementing these
provisions. This bill updates and streamlines the existing
requirements to ease that process.
AB 901
Page 5
3)Major Violations. While all counties in which solid waste
facilities are located are required to submit DRS reports,
compliance is a significant issue. Currently, 65% of DRS
reports received by CalRecycle are not properly filed. Just
under 30% (126 facilities) submitted their annual reports to
counties late in 2013, and 29 facilities never submitted their
2013 annual report and remain out of compliance.
There have been a number of high profile violations over the few
years. Earlier this year, four former employees of the Ox
Mountain Landfill in San Mateo County were charged with grand
theft of nearly $1.4 million. The employees misclassified
construction waste as green waste and illegally collected fees
on the material from landfill customers. The defendants are
also accused of misrepresenting the weight of materials
disposed of by certain customers and stealing the difference
between the amount they charged consumers and the amount paid
to the landfill.
In 2014, a jury ordered Recology (a waste management company) to
repay $1.3 million to San Francisco ratepayers for bonuses it
received in 2008 from the city for meeting recycling goals.
The jury found that the bonus was paid based on false
information provided by Recology to the city. This case is
currently pending appeal.
Also in 2014, the Kern County District Attorney filed suit
against Benz Sanitation for illegally disposing of solid waste
on property east of the company's Tehachapi recycling
facility. This case is pending.
In 2012, Benz Sanitation was fined $2.375 million for
falsifying records. The company collected residential and
commercial solid waste from Los Angeles County, created
fraudulent documents showing that the trash was generated in
Kern County and disposed of the material in Tehachapi Landfill
in Kern County, thereby avoiding disposal fees for either
AB 901
Page 6
county.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081