BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 34
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 34 (Williams) - As Amended: April 14, 2011
SUBJECT : Solid waste compost facilities: odor
SUMMARY : Limits enforcement of odor complaints against compost
facilities to odors which can be verified to exceed "objective"
odor standards established pursuant to the bill.
EXISTING LAW , pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989:
1)Requires local agencies to divert, through source reduction,
recycling, and composting, 50% of solid waste disposed by
their jurisdictions.
2)Requires local enforcement agencies (LEAs) for solid waste
(generally cities or counties) to enforce statewide minimum
enforcement standards for solid waste handling and disposal.
3)Prohibits the operation of a solid waste facility, including a
compost facility, without a solid waste facilities permit
issued by the LEA having jurisdiction over the facility.
4)Requires CalRecycle to adopt regulations governing the
operation of organic composting sites, including "odor
management and threshold levels." CalRecycle regulations
require:
a) All compostable materials handling activities shall be
conducted in a manner that minimizes vectors, odor impacts,
litter, hazards, nuisances, and noise impacts; and
minimizes human contact with, inhalation, ingestion, and
transportation of dust, particulates, and pathogenic
organisms.
b) All compostable material handling operations and
facilities shall prepare, implement and maintain a
site-specific odor impact minimization plan, describing
protocols for monitoring and complaint response,
meteorological conditions, design considerations, and
operating procedures.
AB 34
Page 2
5)Exempts odors emanating directly from compost facilities from
air districts' general authority over air contaminants.
THIS BILL :
1)Requires CalRecycle, on or before July 1, 2012, to develop a
guidance document to assist LEAs in adopting odor standards,
as specified, for compost facilities. Requires the guidance
document to require:
a) Fenceline (at the compost facility) and receptor (at the
residence of a person making an odor complaint) performance
thresholds to be a numerical dilution-to-threshold ratio
measured with a field olfactometer or similar device.
b) Enforcement agencies to ensure that odor measurements
are verifiable and repeatable and that the odor at a
residence is the same odor as the odor originating at the
compost facility.
c) Standards limiting the maximum number of performance
threshold exceedance standards that can occur in a 24-hour
period.
2)Authorizes a compost facility operator to apply to a LEA to
adopt odor standards for that facility. The application must
include proposed odor standards and be accompanied by a filing
fee, unless the LEA has not established a fee.
3)Requires the LEA to provide draft odor standards to the
operator within 60 days, including an explanation of any
differences from the standards proposed by the operator.
4)Authorizes the operator to submit a response within 30 days.
5)Requires the LEA to provide final odor standards to the
operator and CalRecycle, including an explanation of why they
are appropriate in light of the relevant circumstances.
6)Authorizes CalRecycle to reject the final odor standards
within 30 days and requires CalRecycle to explain its reasons
and offer suggestions.
7)Requires the odor standards to be "deemed accepted" by
AB 34
Page 3
CalRecycle if no action is taken within 30 days.
8)Authorizes a compost facility operator to appeal the final
odor standards to CalRecycle, which is required to conduct a
de novo review. If CalRecycle finds that the LEA's odor
standards are inappropriate or improper, requires CalRecycle
to issue final odor standards that are appropriate and proper.
9)Authorizes a compost facility operator to appeal CalRecycle's
decision by filing a petition for writ of mandate in Superior
Court and requires the Court to exercise independent judgment
in its review.
10)Once an LEA has adopted odor standards, prohibits a LEA from
verifying an odor complaint originating from a compost
facility unless the odor violates the odor standards.
11)Requires participating compost facility operators to submit
to CalRecycle an annual odor regulation fee, to be set by
CalRecycle to cover its reasonable regulatory costs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)The nose knows. Like many other nuisance issues, the issue of
offensive odors seems inherently subjective. Since at least
2002, statute has required CalRecycle to establish odor
threshold levels for compost facilities. However, CalRecycle
has never adopted "objective" odor standards, deciding
instead, with agreement of LEAs and facility operators, to
require Odor Impact Minimization Plans (OIMPs). The compost
facility that gave rise to this bill, Jepson Prairie Organics
(JPO) in Solano County, has been the subject of odor
complaints from downwind residents comparing the odor to
"dirty diapers" and "rotting flesh." JPO is a major composter
of food waste from the Bay Area.
According to CalRecycle's website:
The olfactory system can distinguish thousands of odors.
Olfactory information travels to the limbic system of the
brain which governs emotions, behavior, and has memory
storage. The information from odors also goes to the
brain's cortex, or outer layer, where conscious thought
AB 34
Page 4
occurs. Therefore, odor is very subjective and difficult
to regulate due to the varied sensitivities and the
differing emotions, and memories which an odor elicits.
Some odors are generally considered unpleasant by most
people: odors containing ammonia are pungent; those which
have hydrogen sulfide smell like rotten eggs; and odors
with cadaverine have a rancid smell. However, even an
"agreeable" odor may produce different responses in
separate individuals?
?Odor is the number one operational challenge that
threatens (compost) sites in California. Due to the
encroachment of residential and commercial properties, all
sites, with the exception of a few agricultural sites, will
need to explore a strategy of odor minimization. Odors are
generally a nuisance, not a health risk to the
community?The human nose's ability to smell makes it the
most sensitive detection tool available. Although, it
should be remembered that sensitivity to odors is variable
from one person to the next. Quantifying the amount of
odor that constitutes an objectionable amount is virtually
impossible due to the wide variation in how people perceive
odors as well as the typically transient nature of odors.
Some possible detection tools are the scentometer, jerome
meter and field olfactory meter. Odor panels have also
been used to analyze odor samples?.
?Odors from composting can generate problematic odors
including ammonia, hydrogen sulfide (the smell of rotten
eggs). If an odor from the composting process occurs, the
odor characteristics may assist in identifying the source
and possibly remediating the problem. The composting
process breaks down feedstock and utilizes the nitrogen and
carbon. The best mix is about one part nitrogen to 30
parts carbon. Woody wastes contain lots of carbon and
green wastes contain lots of nitrogen. Too much carbon may
cause the pile to break down too slowly, while too much
nitrogen may cause odor. Carbon provides energy for the
microbes, and nitrogen provides protein. Ammonia contains
nitrogen and an ammonia smell may indicate that a compost
pile has too much nitrogen for the amount of carbon
present. Ammonia may indicate that the carbon pieces are
too large (not chipped enough) and therefore are not
available for the biological processing with the nitrogen.
Hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans (rotten eggs) signify that
AB 34
Page 5
an anaerobic condition exists which may have resulted from
too much water and/or not enough air spaces?
?The OIMP is an aggressive operational plan devised by the
operator to prevent odors from occurring and to plan in
advance the complaint investigation procedures and
mitigation measures that should be taken if odors do occur.
All composting sites, with the exception of some
agricultural sites, are required to have an OIMP.
2)Purpose of the bill. According to the author:
All compost facilities will create some odors, and it's the
job of the operator to minimize, not eliminate, odors. AB 34
proposes that California follow in the footsteps of other
states' regulators, and work to adopt objective odor standards
as a component of an operator's odor plan. AB 34 only
requires (CalRecycle) and the (LEA) to adopt a site-specific
standard if the operator requests it. And, the operator must
pay a fee that covers the cost of this work. This way the
operator can strive to meet an appropriate, measurable
standard.
Recology has an organics processing facility called Jepson
Praire Organics. This facility has had to contend with odor
complaints. To date, Recology has made a multitude of changes
in their operations to mitigate the compost odors, both
physical and operational. Such changes include, but aren't
limited at, hiring an engineering firm to ensure there is no
runoff offsite and that all runoff is aerobic, spending
millions to install a forced aeration composting system which
incorporates bio filtration to ensure the destruction of both
emissions and odors, adjusting the feedstock to ensure all
composting is aerobic, and requiring all operators to have
BlackBerrys that monitor weather and wind direction. If the
wind is blowing in the wrong direction, Recology shuts down
that part of the operation. In the face of all these changes,
complaints continue and it's time to offer the operator an
optional path for establishing an objective standard. This
method will protect composting in the face of unrealistic
expectations held by neighbors.
It is important to note that AB 34 does not legislate any
facility into compliance with the law. Further, there are a
number of facilities in California that are experiencing
AB 34
Page 6
similar issues and will benefit from this opportunity.
3)An objective standard demands an objective process. This bill
provides for the adoption of facility-specific odor
"performance thresholds" to create a more objective standard
to judge odor complaints. Once a standard is adopted, any
odor complaint must be confirmed against the standard,
creating a higher burden of proof for complaints. However,
the process outlined in the bill seems less than objective,
giving compost facility operators preferential rights compared
to LEAs and other interested parties. For example, the bill
establishes new appeals procedures where only an operator can
file an administrative or judicial appeal. It also applies an
independent judgment standard of review (denying deference to
the agency), where a substantial evidence standard would be
more appropriate. The author and the committee may wish to
consider deleting the new appeal procedures and relying on the
existing procedures for administrative and judicial appeals
applicable to CalRecycle under the Act. The bill also
suggests that odor complaints can only originate from the
fenceline of the compost facility or the complainant's
residence, which appears to exclude complaints from other
locations such as workplace, park, etc. The author and the
committee may wish to consider substituting "location" for
"residence." Finally, the "guidance document" to be developed
by CalRecycle includes criteria which are posed as
requirements that would be binding on LEAs. If these criteria
are to form the basis of odor standards that will be binding
and enforceable, they should instead be adopted as regulations
by CalRecycle.
AB 34
Page 7
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Bio-Mass, Inc.
Californians Against Waste
Recology
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092