BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 901
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
901 (Gordon)
As Amended April 20, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Natural |8-1 |Williams, Dahle, |Harper |
|Resources | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Hadley, McCarty, | |
| | |Rendon, Mark Stone, | |
| | |Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Updates, revises, and expands the information recycling
and composting operations and facilities are required to submit to
AB 901
Page 2
the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that recycling and composting operations and
facilities are required to submit periodic information and
requires that information be submitted to CalRecycle, rather
than counties. Authorizes CalRecycle to 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 $500 to $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
$500 to $10,000 per violation.
4)Requires that all reporting required by the bill or related
regulations be submitted electronically.
5)Authorizes CalRecycle or its designee to conduct audits, perform
site inspections, observe facility operations, and otherwise
investigate recordkeeping and reporting.
6)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 penalties.
7)Requires that any penalties collected be deposited into the
Integrated Waste Management Account or retained by the city or
AB 901
Page 3
county that brought the action.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Estimated increased costs of over $330,000 (IWMA) for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 (second and third years of
implementation) for CalRecycle 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: In 2011, the Legislature established a statewide
recycling goal of 75% by 2020. According to CalRecycle, achieving
the 75% recycling goal will require CalRecycle to successfully
collect reliable waste flow data.
The existing lack of enforcement authority for waste flow
reporting contributes to a widespread lack of compliance.
According to CalRecycle, 65% of 2013 Disposal Reporting System
(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.
Additionally, 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 their recycling
requirements. Several recent cases in which disposal tonnages
were misallocated resulted in criminal action and involved
millions of dollars in fraud.
AB 901
Page 4
Existing law relating to disposal reporting, established in 1992,
is outdated. In 2007, CalRecycle implemented an electronic DRS
(eDRS), which simplified 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.
Moreover, 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 facilitate
that process.
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 last
several 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 are accused of
misclassifying construction waste as green waste and illegally
collecting fees on the material from landfill customers. The
defendants are also accused of misrepresenting the weight of
AB 901
Page 5
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 has been accused of collecting
residential and commercial solid waste from Los Angeles County,
creating 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 county.
In 2008, a number of employees of the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San
Jose were involved in a bribery scheme in which a waste hauler,
Resource Development Services, bribed the workers to allow his
trucks to pay reduced landfill fees. Six employees were arrested,
and five were fired but not charged. An internal investigation
found that Waste Management, the owner of the landfill, lost more
than $13 million in revenue.
Analysis Prepared by:
Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN:
0000672
AB 901
Page 6