California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

Local Government Central: Enforcement

Failure to Implement Approved Integrated Waste Management Plans

Introduction

The source reduction and recycling element (SRRE), a household hazardous waste element (HHWE) and a nondisposal facility element (NDFE) are all elements that comprise the jurisdiction’s integrated waste management plan (IWMP) as required by the State waste diversion mandates for jurisdictions (Chapter 764, Statutes of 1999). For enforcement purposes, jurisdictions are evaluated on the effectiveness of their SRRE, and so this discussion will focus on the SRRE.

Once a California jurisdiction adopts a SRRE, it must implement the SRRE to the best of its ability. To help the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (now CalRecycle, formerly CIWMB) determine whether a jurisdiction is taking the appropriate steps to implement its SRRE, the jurisdiction submits an annual report to CalRecycle. Depending on the particular review cycle of the jurisdiction, CalRecycle staff review the jurisdiction's progress toward implementation of its SRRE, as well as its overall achievement of the 50 percent diversion requirement. The following summarizes CalRecycle's enforcement actions taken to date in the area of implementation. For information regarding CalRecycle's considerations made when a jurisdiction fails to submit an adequate plan, please see CalRecycle's enforcement guidelines and enforcement orders.

Good Faith Efforts | Compliance Orders | Penalty Hearings: City of Ridgecrest | City of McFarland | City of Fortuna | City of Gardena | City of Cerritos | City of Arvin

Background

If implementation of a jurisdiction's CalRecycle-approved SRRE does not result in 50 percent solid waste diversion, CalRecycle may do one of the following:

  • Decide that, even though the waste diversion requirement has not been met, the jurisdiction's program implementation efforts are sufficient to warrant "good-faith effort" status; or
  • Place the jurisdiction under a compliance order (PRC 41825). For additional information on active compliance orders, please click here.

A compliance order issued by CalRecycle at a public hearing mandates creation of a local implementation plan (LIP), formerly known as a local assistance plan (LAP). The LIP outlines specific steps and a schedule of deadlines which will bring the jurisdiction into compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act.

When a jurisdiction fails to implement the conditions of its compliance order, CalRecycle conducts a penalty hearing to determine whether to exercise its authority under PRC 41850 to fine the jurisdiction up to $10,000 per day.

To ensure consistency in its treatment of jurisdictions leading up to potential penalties, CalRecycle adopted enforcement policies in February 1995, and updated the policies in August 2001. Subsequently, these policies were incorporated by statute.

Good Faith Effort

To view jurisdictions granted "Good Faith Effort" status, visit CalRecycle's Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion Progress Report.

Compliance Orders

To view the jurisdictions under compliance, visit CalRecycle's Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion Progress Report.

Penalty Hearings

The following summarizes actions taken by the CIWMB or CalRecycle at penalty hearings. Individual fines and the Board's or CalRecycle's stated reasons for them are summarized below and detailed in the linked documents. To date, penalties have been assessed against the cities of Ridgecrest, McFarland, Fortuna, Gardena, Cerritos, and Arvin.

City of Ridgecrest

At a public hearing on September 19, 2007, staff review of the City of Ridgecrest (City) determined that the City failed to adequately implement programs identified in the SRRE that target significant portions of the City’s waste stream. In addition, the City failed to comply with PRC section 41780 in that its programs were not achieving all reasonable and feasible levels of diversion necessary to meet the requirements of PRC section 41780 and therefore, the City had failed to demonstrate that it had made a good faith effort to implement its SRRE.

Pursuant to PRC section 41825, the Board issued Compliance Order IWMA BR07-07 to the City. The compliance order included specific requirements that the City was to meet in order to be considered to have adequately implemented its SRRE. These included developing a new waste generation study in order to establish a new, more accurate base year for calculating the City’s waste diversion rate, working with the CIWMB to conduct a needs assessment and determine program gaps, and developing a Local Assistance Plan (LAP), with expanded and new programs designed to achieve 50 percent diversion rate, that the City would agree to by January 31, 2008.

On January 22, 2008, the City submitted the LAP and agreed to implement a number of programs by specified dates.

At a public hearing on March 24, 2009, the Board ruled that the City failed to meet the conditions of its compliance order. Specifically, the Board found that the City had not made a good-faith effort to implement its Local Assistance Plan (LAP) in that the City failed to implement a citywide launch of a mandatory commercial on-site collection of recyclables and also implement a mandatory curbside residential recycling program by March 31, 2009. The City also failed to submit a study by December 31, 2008, to evaluate the cost, feasibility and sustainability of constructing and operating a materials recovery facility within the City.

At the above hearing, the Board, imposed a $47,580 penalty for failure to meet the terms of the Compliance Order, based upon a fine of $780 per day, beginning from the date of the original Penalty Hearing Notice (January 23, 2009) through the date of the penalty hearing (Match 24, 2009). Due to the City’s efforts of implementing programs in the previous month, only $20,000 of the fine was due immediately. The remaining $27,580 of the fine is being held in abeyance to ensure compliance with the remainder of the CIWMB Order.

A new revised LAP was to be submitted by the City by May 29, 2009 with a full implementation of all programs identified in the revised LAP by January 4, 2010. A one year monitoring period is included in the revised LAP which ends on January 4, 2011.

If the City fails to fully implement the revised LAP by January 4, 2010, and maintain full implementation for the duration of the one year monitoring period, the $27,580 held in abeyance shall become due immediately, and the City shall be liable for an additional $1,950 per day until the City achieves full implementation.

The City of Ridgecrest paid the $20,000 fine on June 9, 2009.

City of McFarland

At a public hearing on January 14, 2003, the CIWMB issued Compliance Order IWMA BR03-01 to the City of McFarland. At that public hearing, the Board found that the city achieved a 2000 diversion rate of 34 percent and had not sufficiently implemented solid waste diversion programs it had identified in its planning documents and in its annual reports.

At a public hearing on July 14, 2004, the Board ruled that the city failed to meet the conditions of its compliance order. Specifically, the Board found that the city had not made a good-faith effort to implement its LAP in that it had failed to provide expanded recycling opportunities for the public and implement a mandatory commercial recycling program. As a result, the Board fined the City of McFarland $11,330. Further, the Board voted to impose a contingent fine of $36,960 on the city if it failed to complete program implementation by December 31, 2004. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 9)

McFarland paid the $11,330 fine on July 28, 2004.

At a public hearing on September 20-21, 2005, the Board ruled that the City of McFarland had satisfactorily met all of the requirements of the compliance order. The Board ended the city’s compliance order. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 23)

City of Fortuna

At a public hearing on September 17, 2002, the CIWMB issued Compliance Order IWMA BR02-01 to the City of Fortuna. At that public hearing, the Board found that the city achieved a 2000 diversion rate of 34 percent and had not sufficiently implemented solid waste diversion programs identified in its planning documents.

As part of the compliance order, the Board ordered the city to enter into a LAP with CIWMB's local assistance staff no later than by December 31, 2002. At a public hearing on July 19, 2005, the CIWMB ruled that the city failed to meet the conditions of the compliance order. Specifically, the city had not made a good-faith effort to implement its LAP, in that it failed to implement its curbside program and construction and demolition policy.

Based on the information provided in the city's LAP updates, multiple site visits, and numerous discussions with city staff, the Board fined the City of Fortuna $5,000 plus $100 per day for the days from July 19, 2005, until the tasks due were completed. However, the Board delegated to its ED the authority to review City of Fortuna's progress on the two programs and suspend the fine should the city successfully complete them as adjudged by the ED. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 25)

The fine was suspended after the ED was informed that the city had completed tasks that were due in the compliance order.

At a public hearing on January 23, 2008, the Board ruled that the City of Fortuna had satisfactorily met all of the requirements of the compliance order. The Board ended the city's compliance order. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 7)

City of Gardena

At a public hearing on January 14, 2003, the CIWMB issued Compliance Order No. IWMA BR03-02 to the City of Gardena. At that public hearing, the Board found that the city achieved a 2000 diversion rate of 13 percent and had failed to make a good faith effort to implement the programs as identified in its SRRE by inadequately handling diversion of waste from its commercial sector.

As part of the compliance order, the Board ordered the city to enter into a LAP with the CIWMB's local assistance staff no later than June 30, 2003. Due to delays by the city, the LAP was not finalized until August 18, 2003. As a result, the Board fined the City of Gardena $5,000.

At a public hearing on September 16, 2003, the CIWMB ruled that the City of Gardena failed to meet the conditions of its compliance order, and CIWMB fined the city $70,000. The fine was equal to approximately $1,460 per day for every day the LAP was late. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 12)

Gardena paid the $70,000 fine on October 27, 2003.

At a public hearing on January 17, 2007, the CIWMB ruled that the City of Gardena had satisfactorily met all of the requirements of the compliance order. The CIWMB ended the city's compliance order. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 4)

City of Cerritos

At a public hearing on February 13, 2007, the Board issued Compliance Order IWMA BR07-02 to the City of Cerritos. At that public hearing, the Board found that the city achieved a preliminary 2004 diversion rate of 45 percent, had not sufficiently implemented solid waste diversion programs identified in its planning documents, and failed to fully implement programs in their Plan of Correction by the December 31, 2003 due date. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 12)

The compliance order required the city to fully implement its LAP by December 31, 2007; however, the city notified Board staff that it would not reach full implementation of the LAP until March 31, 2008.

On October 1, 2007, Board staff received the city’s request for a 90-day extension to the deadline of full LAP implementation by December 31, 2007. At a public hearing on November 13, 2007, the Board ruled that the city did not provide good cause to support approval of the time extension requested, and so the city’s request to extend the deadline for full LAP implementation to March 31, 2008 was denied. The Board further directed Board staff to prepare and bring forward an agenda item presenting the options for the Board, including the potential of imposing administrative civil penalties pursuant to PRC 41850, should the city fail to achieve full LAP implementation by December 31, 2007. Public hearing for this item was scheduled for January 23, 2008. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 5)

At a public hearing on January 23, 2008, the Board ruled that the City of Cerritos failed to meet the conditions of the compliance order. The Board found the city had not made a good-faith effort to implement its LAP by expanding its residential recycling, commercial collection program, and a construction and demolition ordinance. As a result, the Board fined the City of Cerritos a one -time penalty of $82,800. Further, the Board voted to impose a contingent fine of $3,600 per day on the city until programs were fully implemented. The Board delegated to its Executive Director (ED) the authority to review the City of Cerritos’ progress in implementing the three programs and suspend the contingent fine should the city successfully complete them by March 31, 2008.

Finally, to ensure continued full program implementation, the Board imposed a potential penalty amount of $3,600 per day if the city fails to fully implement or to continue to implement its LAP tasks through March 31, 2009. Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 6)

The City of Cerritos paid the $82,800 fine on March 12, 2008.

City of Arvin

At a public hearing on January 13-14, 2004, the CIWMB issued Compliance Order IWMA BR03-05 to the City of Arvin. At that public hearing, the Board found that the city achieved a 2000 diversion rate of 28 percent and had not sufficiently implemented solid waste diversion programs identified in its planning documents.

As part of the compliance order, the Board ordered the city to enter into a local assistance plan (LAP) with CIWMB's local assistance staff no later than May 31, 2004. Based on information provided in the city's quarterly LAP updates, as well as numerous discussions with city staff, local assistance staff recommended to the Board that the city had failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to implement the specific tasks listed in the LAP by the required due dates.

At a public hearing on November 8, 2005, the Board ruled that the City of Arvin had failed to meet the conditions of the compliance order. The Board found the city had not made a good-faith effort to implement its LAP by expanding its commercial recyclable collection program, commercial green waste collection program, business waste assessments and technical assistance, and a construction and demolition policy. As a result, the Board fined the City of Arvin $5,000 for failure to meet the conditions of their compliance order.  Board Resolution | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda, (Item 1)

Arvin paid the $5,000 fine on December 21, 2005.

At a public hearing on September 19, 2007, the Board ruled that the City of Arvin had satisfactorily met all of the conditions of its compliance order. The Board ended the city’s compliance order. Board Resolution 2007-180 Final | Board Agenda Item | Board Meeting Agenda (Item 10)

Local Government Central Enforcement

Last updated: September 26, 2013
Local Government Central http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/ 
Local Assistance & Market Development: LAMD@calrecycle.ca.gov (916) 341-6199