BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 901
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
901 (Gordon)
As Amended September 1, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 78-2 |(June 1, 2015) |SENATE: |26-10 | (September 10, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY: Updates, revises, and expands the information
recycling and composting operations and facilities are required
to submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle).
The Senate amendments:
1)Require solid waste facilities to report specified information
to counties upon request.
2)Specify that the information reported may exclude contract
terms and conditions, including information on pricing, credit
terms, volume discounts, and other proprietary business terms.
AB 901
Page 2
3)Require, rather than authorize, CalRecycle to adopt
regulations pursuant to this bill, and require that the
regulations include procedures to ensure that an opportunity
to comply is offered prior to enforcement action and factors
to be considered when determining penalty amounts.
4)Delete a provision that authorized CalRecycle to delegate
enforcement of this bill's requirements to a local agency.
5)Clarify that information submitted to CalRecycle or inspected
by CalRecycle as part of an audit is confidential and not
subject to the Public Records Act.
6)Authorize an employee of a government entity to inspect and
copy records at a disposal facility relating to tonnage
received on or after July 1, 2015, and originating within the
government entity's geographic jurisdiction for purposes of
enforcing the collection of local fees.
7)Authorize a disposal facility operator to redact confidential
pricing information from the records, as specified.
8)Make related technical and clarifying changes.
EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the California Integrated Waste
Management Act (Act):
1)Establishes a state recycling goal of 75% by 2020 and requires
each local jurisdiction to divert 50% of solid waste from
landfill disposal.
2)Requires a commercial waste generator, including multi-family
dwellings, to arrange for recycling services and requires
AB 901
Page 3
local governments to implement commercial solid waste
recycling programs designed to divert solid waste from
businesses.
3)Requires generators of specified amounts of organic waste
(i.e., food waste and yard waste) to arrange for recycling
services for that material.
4)Requires cities and counties to report specified information
to CalRecycle using the Disposal Reporting System (DRS), which
tracks the amount and origin of waste disposed in California
and sent from California to out-of-state landfills.
5)DRS information must be submitted by cities and counties at
least quarterly to CalRecycle.
6)Requires disposal facilities to report the origins and
tonnages of all material accepted at the facility to the
county in which it is located.
7)Requires recycling and composting facilities to submit
periodic information to counties on the origin, types, and
quantities of materials that are disposed of, sold to end
users, or that are sold out of state.
8)Requires each county to submit period reports to the relevant
cities, regional agencies, and CalRecycle on the origin and
amounts of waste disposed in the jurisdiction.
9)Grants CalRecycle regulatory authority to adopt practices and
procedures related to waste tracking in the state, as long as
the regulations do not impose an "unreasonable burden" on
waste handling, processing, or disposal operations.
AB 901
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill has annual fiscal impacts of $168,000 for
two years to the Integrated Waste Management Account (special)
for increased enforcement by CalRecycle.
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.
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 counties continue to submit paper reports, and
six counties 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
AB 901
Page 5
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 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.
AB 901
Page 6
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: 0002334