BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
                              Senator Wieckowski, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 
           
          Bill No:            AB 385
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Chu                                                  |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
          |Version:   |4/29/2015              |Hearing      |7/1/2015        |
          |           |                       |Date:        |                |
          |-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:      |Yes             |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|Joanne Roy                                           |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          
          SUBJECT:  Solid waste facilities: local enforcement agencies.

            ANALYSIS:
          
          Existing law:  
          
          1) Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989  
             (IWMA):

             a)    Requires local agencies to divert, through source  
                reduction, recycling, and composting, 50% of solid waste  
                disposed by their jurisdictions and establishes a statewide  
                waste diversion from landfills goal of 75% by the year  
                2020.

             b)    Requires local enforcement agencies (LEAs) (generally a  
                city or county department) to enforce statewide minimum  
                standards for solid waste handling and disposal.

          2) Requires an LEA to issue, and the Department of Resources  
             Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to concur with, a solid  
             waste facilities permit (SWFP) if the permit complies with  
             state minimum standards for solid waste facilities.

          3) Prohibits a solid waste facility from operating without an  
             SWFP and requires an LEA to issue a cease and desist order for  
             any facility operating in violation of this provision.

          4) Prohibits CalRecycle from establishing or enforcing odor  
             standards (or any air quality standards) at solid waste  







          AB 385 (Chu)                                            Page 2 of  
          ?
          
          
             facilities and exclusively grants this authority to the Air  
             Resources Board (ARB) and local air districts.  Authorizes  
             LEAs to investigate and respond to odor issues at compost  
             facilities only.  (Public Resources Code §43021).

          5) Defines "solid waste facility," to include a solid waste  
             transfer or processing station, a composting facility, a  
             gasification facility, a transformation facility, an  
             engineered municipal solid waste facility, and a disposal  
             facility.

          This bill:  

          1) Requires the LEA that has jurisdiction over the Newby Island  
             Landfill to create a Newby Island Landfill Community Advisory  
             Committee (NILCAC). 

          2) Requires NILCAC to be comprised of representatives from each  
             neighboring city within one mile of the landfill, the LEA that  
             has jurisdiction over the landfill, the Bay Area Air Quality  
             Management District (BAAQMD), Newby Island Landfill; and, two  
             members of the public.

          3) Requires NILCAC to hold a public meeting at least every six  
             months to discuss issues related to the Newby Island Landfill  
             expansion.

          4) Require NILCAC to receive information related to an  
             independent odor study, if one is completed, and allows NILCAC  
             to make recommendations to the member agencies of NILCAC.

          5) Sunsets the provisions of this bill on December 31, 2018. 

            Background
          
          Newby Island Landfill.

          According to CalRecycle, Newby Island Landfill is located in the  
          City of San Jose and has been used as a landfill since the 1930s.  
           It was annexed into the City of San Jose as an operating  
          landfill in 1968.  The solid waste facility permit, issued on  
          March 14, 1997, allows for a maximum receipt of 4,000 tons per  
          day (TPD) of waste disposed and an equivalent of 4,000 TPD  
          maximum traffic volume.  Materials that pass through the gate of  








          AB 385 (Chu)                                            Page 3 of  
          ?
          
          
          the landfill include waste that is disposed in the landfill;  
          clean soil that is used for cover and for temporary roadways;  
          construction and demolition debris that is sorted, recycled and  
          processed for re-use both onsite and elsewhere; and, materials  
          that are used for alternative daily cover (ADC).  ADC materials  
          can include biosolids, processed construction and demolition  
          debris, contaminated soil, green waste, and organic material from  
          the onsite composting operation.  The facility also accepts  
          recyclables, including appliances, tires, carpet, and cardboard,  
          which are sent to the landfill and either recycled or diverted  
          for beneficial use.  Incoming organics received at the landfill  
          are processed and utilized as mulch for erosion control on-site  
          and ADC or are sent off-site to be anaerobically digested or  
          composted.

          Newby Island Landfill's current closure date is 2025.  Republic  
          Services proposes to extend the life of the Newby Island Landfill  
          to 2041 and raise the current 150-foot height to 245 feet to  
          provide for an additional 15.1 million cubic yards of garbage and  
          trash.  The growth would occur at the most westerly edge of the  
          property toward the bay.  

          On February 5, 2015, CalRecycle approved the expansion.  San  
          Jose's Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement  
          Division, LEA, also granted approval.  On May 6, 2015, the San  
          Jose Planning Commission voted to defer a decision on the  
          landfill's expansion until a City of San Jose-initiated odor  
          study could be completed before the end of 2015.

          Addressing and Enforcing Odor Issues at the Local Level.

          BAAQMD is the local air district with jurisdiction over odor  
          standards and the location at issue.  The agency has an  
          investigation and complaint process; and has an ongoing  
          investigation into the odor issue that is the subject of this  
          bill.  The complaint process includes a telephone hotline; and an  
          inspector, who must adhere to a rigorous confirmation process and  
          respond to each complaint.  

          BAAQMD has issued notices of violation to Republic Services and  
          has referred issues to the California Division of Occupational  
          Safety and Health and the LEA for possible enforcement action  
          against Zero Waste Energy Development (an anaerobic digestion  
          facility).  According to BAAQMD, the facilities are cooperating  








          AB 385 (Chu)                                            Page 4 of  
          ?
          
          
          with investigations and enforcement actions, and some operational  
          changes have occurred to minimize odors.  For example, Republic  
          Services has stopped using biosolids as ADC.

          For odor issues emanating from a compost facility, the LEA, not  
          the local air district, has jurisdiction over such issues  
          pursuant to Health and Safety Code §41705.

           Comments
          
          1) Purpose of Bill.  

          According to the author, "For years, residents in my community  
             contacted me regarding their concerns about the Newby Island  
             Landfill.  Residents in the landfill's immediate vicinity have  
             felt they have been left out of the decision making process.   
             This is why I authored this measure, which will allow  
             residents that live around the Newby Island Landfill to have  
             the opportunity to voice their concerns regarding its  
             undertakings.  The bill will create a Community Advisory  
             Committee that will hold various forums open to public  
             comment.  While this bill does not stop the expansion of the  
             site, it will create a much needed public space for residents  
             to have their voices heard."

          2) What's That Smell?

             a)    Multiple Sources.

             There are a variety of natural and industrial sources in the  
                vicinity that could be causing odor problems, including: 

                       Newby Island Resource Recovery Park (Newby Island  
                  Sanitary Landfill and Recyclery); 
                       Newby Island Compost Facility; 
                       Zero Waste Energy Development Company (anaerobic  
                  digestion facility); 
                       San Jose/Santa Clara Regional sewage treatment  
                  plant, which includes open air sludge drying ponds; 
                       Milpitas' sewage pump station; and,
                       Surrounding bay lands, which include salt ponds,  
                  marshes, and conservation areas, etc.

               This bill focuses on the Newby Island Landfill, but the  








          AB 385 (Chu)                                            Page 5 of  
          ?
          
          
               landfill is one of many possible odor sources.  As stated by  
               BAAQMD, there are other facilities in the area and  
               environmental causes of odors in the San Jose and Milpitas  
               areas.  Although the landfill has contributed to the smell,  
               it may not be the biggest source responsible for the odor.

               If the issue that is to be ultimately addressed concerns the  
               maliferous smells permeating the surrounding communities,  
               then would it be prudent to look at and treat this problem  
               more holistically than the bill proposes; that perhaps the  
               landfill should be looked at among potentially several  
               odiferous offenders?

             a)    Would the Proposed Committee Affect Change?

             NILCAC is proposed to be charged with discussing issues  
                related to the Newby Island Landfill expansion.  It is  
                questionable whether permitting the expansion of the size  
                of the landfill worsens the odor because although there may  
                be an increase in the total volume placed there, the permit  
                does not increase volume allowed into the facility each day  
                -the incoming, fresh garbage arriving on a regular basis to  
                the facility is likely to have a stronger scent than the  
                total mass that has been sitting for years.

             In addition, the NILCAC proposed in this bill is required to  
                meet at least twice a year to discuss these issues and  
                receive information related to an odor study, if one is  
                completed.  However, the bill lacks a timeline,  
                expectations, or potential outcomes - what is the goal of  
                NILCAC beyond talking about issues at least twice each  
                year?  Is NILCAC expected to make recommendations?  To  
                whom?  A question arises as to what change the proposed  
                NILCAC is meant to accomplish.

          1) South Bay Odor Stakeholders Group.

          The South Bay Odor Stakeholders Group has recently formed and  
             provides a forum for industry, regulatory bodies, and  
             communities in identifying and resolving odor issues in the  
             South Bay Area.  The group includes the Cities of San Jose,  
             Fremont, and Milpitas; the San Jose LEA; the San Francisco Bay  
             Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalRecycle, Republic  
             Services (which owns the landfill), San Jose Sewage Treatment  








          AB 385 (Chu)                                            Page 6 of  
          ?
          
          
             Plant, California Coastal Conservancy, Zero Waste Energy  
             Development, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, and  
             members of the affected communities.  

          The first meeting of the stakeholders group was held on April 30,  
             2015, to formulate a mission statement, which is to provide  
             public education about the problem and to encourage sharing of  
             technology and best practices to decrease odors.

          This bill proposes to address one potential source of odor in the  
             area.  However, as noted above, there are numerous sources  
             that may contribute to the smell.  Considering the purpose of  
             the newly created South Bay Odor Stakeholders Group is meant  
             to address the odor issue in a more comprehensive fashion and  
             is already underway, the Committee may wish to consider  
             whether this bill is necessary.

            SOURCE:               Author  

           SUPPORT:               

          None received  

           OPPOSITION:    

          None received   
                                           
                                      -- END --