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  
          ?