BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 385
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Chu |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |7/1/2015 |Hearing |7/15/2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Solid waste facilities: Newby Island Landfill:
stakeholder group.
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
AB 385 (Chu) Page 2 of
?
standards (or any air quality standards) at solid waste
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 bay district to establish a South Bay Odor
Stakeholder Group (SBOSG).
2) Requires membership of the group to include representatives of
the following:
a) Cities of San Jose, Milpitas, and Fremont;
b) San Jose LEA;
c) Bay district;
d) San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board
e) California Coastal Conservancy
f) California Environmental Protection Agency
g) South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project;
h) San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility;
i) Entity that represents the Newby Island Landfill and
associated landfill operations;
j) The dry fermentation anaerobic digestion facility that
operates in the City of San Jose; and,
aa) Two members of the public, who shall be appointed by the
city councils of San Jose, Milpitas, and Fremont.
AB 385 (Chu) Page 3 of
?
3) Requires SBOSG to do the following:
a) Hold a public meeting, at least once every six months
and to discuss issues related to odors emanating from the
Newby Island Landfill as well as odors from other locations
around the landfill.
b) Review information related to an independent odor study,
if such a study is completed, and make recommendations to
the governmental agencies represented on SBOSG and to the
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
4) Sunsets the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2019.
Background
1)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 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
AB 385 (Chu) Page 4 of
?
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.
2)Addressing and enforcing odor issues at the local level. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (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
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 experienced difficulty with
communicating their opinions. Codifying the current South Bay
Odor Stakeholder Group, which focuses on a myriad of odor
sources, will hopefully ensure that the public is involved in
resolution and mitigation of the many South Bay odor
concerns."
AB 385 (Chu) Page 5 of
?
2) From where does the odor come? There are a variety of natural
and industrial sources in the area at issue 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.
Although the purpose of the bill is to address the several
sources of odor, this bill highlights Newby Island Landfill.
Concern has been raised about the proposed Newby Island
Landfill expansion. It is questionable whether permitting the
expansion of the size of the landfill would worsen 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.
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 and not emphasize one among several odiferous
offenders?
1) South Bay Odor Stakeholders Group already established at the
local level. This bill proposes to slightly vary and codify
an existing entity. The "South Bay Odor Stakeholders Group"
recently formed at the local level 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
AB 385 (Chu) Page 6 of
?
San Jose LEA; the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board, CalRecycle, Republic Services (which owns the
landfill), San Jose Sewage Treatment 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.
The issue of odor is a local concern that is normally dealt with
at the local level. A question arises as to why the state
should weigh in on local land use and other local issues that
arise such as odor.
This bill is very similar to the South Bay Odor Stakeholders
Group that formed on its own earlier this year. It would
appear that this newly, locally formed "South Bay Odor
Stakeholders Group" is doing exactly that - dealing with the
odor issue at the local level without state legislation.
Considering the purpose of this newly created "South Bay Odor
Stakeholders Group" at the local level has formed for the
purpose of addressing the very same odor issues as the SBOSG
proposed in this bill, a question arises as to the need for
this bill.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
AB 385 (Chu) Page 7 of
?