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 ?