Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station Fresno County, California Prepared for: Selma Disposal an d Recycling Incorporated P.O. Box 708 Selma, CA 93662 559.891.7694 Contact: Larry Johnson, Owner/Operator Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 2444 Main Street, Suite 150 Fresno, CA 93721 559.497.0310 Contact: Dave Mitchell, Project Manager Elena Nuno, Air Quality Analyst 11111111 11111111 Brnll(lnull .\ssociart"s May 13, 2009
112
Embed
Air Quality Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Air Quality Impact Analysis Report
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station
Fresno County, California
Prepared for:
Selma Disposal an d Recycling Incorporated P.O. Box 708
Selma, CA 93662 559.891.7694
Contact: Larry Johnson, Owner/Operator
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates 2444 Main Street, Suite 150
• Community Cleanup Events Thursday - Sunday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM (§pring and FaiL F()ur Days) (Dates to ~~ determined)
• Emergency Operations As Required 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM
Source: George H. Larson & Associates Inc. and International Engineering Services,lnc., January 2009
Existing Facilities
The proposed site is currently operating as a recycling facility that periodically accepts limited
volumes of recyclable materials and MSW (County of Fresno, Community Health Department,
2004). The facility processes segregated recyclables and transfer ofMSW. The current volume
ofMSW is not to exceed 15 tons per day, in accordance with requirements specified in CCR
Section 17403.3 for Limited Volume Transfer Operations. Typical operations include periodic
community wide clean up and collection programs. MSW is disposed of at the American Avenue
Landfill or other permitted facility. Recyclables are processed and transferred to end use markets
as appropriate. No hazardous waste is accepted at the facility. Current hours of operation are
7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.
The 1,000 square foot Office/Shop is located in a sixty (60) by eighty (80) foot building located
near the entrance.
A sixty (60) by eighty (80) foot steel building houses the current recycling facilities.
Michael Brandman Associates S,IClienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Sludy\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
10
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
SECTION 2: SETTING
2.1 • Regu latory Setting
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different
degree of control. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the
national level. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level and
TCAPCD regulates at the county level.
2.1.1 - Federal and State
EPA handles global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. EPA
sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), provides research and guidance in air pollution programs, and sets
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as federal standards. There are
NAAQS for six common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, which were identified
resulting from provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970. The six criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Particulate matter (PMIO and PM2.5) • Lead
• Nitrogen dioxide • Sulfur dioxide
The NAAQS were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the
standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of
the criteria pollutants.
The SIP for the State of California is administered by ARB, which has overall responsibility for
statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. A SIP is prepared by each state
describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and
maintain NAAQS. The SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air
districts. Federal attainment plans prepared by each air district are sent to ARB to be approved
and incorporated into the California SIP. Federal attainment plans include the technical
foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring)
control measures and strategies and enforcement mechanisms.
ARB also administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the ten air
pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The ten state air pollutants are the
six criteria pollutants listed above as well as visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide,
sulfates, and vinyl chloride.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\FinaJ Air Srudy\36330001_AirQuaJilyReport.doc
12
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
Federal and state ambient air quality standards and the most relevant effects are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Pollutant
Averaging Time
California Standard
National Standard Most Relevant Effects
Ozone I-hour 0.09 ppm (a) Decrease of pulmonary function and localized
8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm lung edema in humans and animals; (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) increased mortality risk; (d) risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) vegetation damage; (f) property damage.
discomfort) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) possible increased risk to fetuses.
Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; (c) contribution to atmospheric discoloration.
Sulfur I-hour 0.25 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms dioxide (S02)
24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical
Mean 0.030 ppm activity in persons with asthma.
Particulate 24-hour 50 Jlg/m3 150 Jlg/m3 (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients matter (PMIO)
Mean 20 Jlg/m3 with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) declines in pulmonary function growth in
Particulate matter (PM2.s)
24-hour
Mean 12 Jlg/m3
35 Jlg/m3
15.0 Jlg/m3
children; (c) increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in the elderly.
Sulfates 24-hour 25 Jlg/m3 (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d)
, vegetation damage; (e) degradation of visibility; (f) property damage.
Lead 30-day 1.5 Jlg/m3 (a) Learning disabilities; (b) impairment of blood
Quarter 1.5 Jlg/m3 formation and nerve conduction.
Abbreviations:
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Study\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
13
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
Air Averaging California National Most Relevant Effects Pollutant Time Standard Standard
ppm = parts per million (concentration) Ilg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Mean = Annual Arithmetic Mean 30-day = 30-day average Quarter = Calendar year quarter Sources: CARB 2oo8a
Recent Air Quality Standard Actions
In 2006, EPA changed the 24-hour PM2.S standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (~g/m3)
to 35 ~g/m3 and retained the existing annual standard of 15.0 ~g/m3. EPA promulgated a new 8
hour standard for ozone on March 12, 2008, effective March 27, 2008.
In February 2007, ARB established a new annual average nitrogen dioxide standard of 0.030
parts per million (ppm) and lowered the I-hour nitrogen dioxide standard to 0.18 ppm. These
changes became effective March 20,2008.
On October 15, 2008, EPA reduced the federal lead standard from 1.5 ~g/m3 to 0.15 ~g/m3. In
addition, EPA revised the averaging time and form of the lead standard. EPA will retain the
existing 1978 lead standard until one year after designations for the new 2008 standard. ARB is
required to make recommendations for areas to be designated attainment, nonattainment, or
unclassifiable by October 2009. Final designations will be effective no later than 2012.
Applicable Toxic Air Contaminant Regulation
ARB approved a regulatory measure to reduce emissions oftoxics and criteria pollutants by
limiting idling of heavy-duty diesel vehicles (CARB 2005a). The driver of any vehicle subject to
this section (I) shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location and (2) shall not idle a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for more than 5 minutes to
power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth
and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).
ARB's Land Use Hand book
ARB adopted the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Land
Use Handbook) in 2005. The Land Use Handbook provides information and guidance on siting
sensitive receptors in relation to sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The sources ofTACs
identified in the Land Use Handbook are high-traffic freeways and roads, distribution centers, rail
yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gasoline dispensing
facilities. If the project involves siting a sensitive receptor or source ofTAC discussed in the
Land Use Handbook, siting mitigation may be added to avoid potential land use conflicts, thereby
reducing the potential for health impacts to the sensitive receptors (CARB 2005b).
2.1.2 - Local and Reg ional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The air pollution control agency for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is the SJVAPCD.
The SJVAPCD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JNI3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air SlUdy\36330001_AirQualilyReporl.doc
14
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
SJVAPCD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the basin. The SNAPCD, in
coordination with the eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for
developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Plans (AQPs) for the SNAB. In
addition, the SJVAPCD has prepared the GAMAQI, which sets forth recommended thresholds of
significance, analysis methodologies, and provides guidance on mitigating significant impacts.
Attainment Status There are three terms used to describe if an air basin is exceeding or meeting federal and state
standards: Attainment, Nonattainment, and Unclassified. Air basins are assessed for each
applicable standard, and receive a designation for each standard based on that assessment. If an
ambient air quality standard is exceeded, the air basin is designated as "nonattainment" for that
standard. An air basin is designated as "attainment" for standards that are met. If there is
inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation for an air quality
standard, the air basin is considered "unclassified." The current attainment designations for the
project area are shown in Table 3.
Federal nonattainment areas are further divided into c1assifications--dassified as severe, serious,
or moderate as a function of deviation from standards. As of June 15,2005, the EPA revoked the
I-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact
(EAC) Areas. The SJVAPCD is not listed as an EAC area; therefore, the federal I-hour ozone
standard does not apply to the project area. However, the SJVAPCD is still subject to anti
backsliding requirements such as continuation of I-hour ozone control strategies
Table 3: SJVAPCD Attainment Status
Designation/ClassificationPollutant _. -
Federal State
, Ozone (I-hour) No Federal Standard' NonattainmentiSevere
I The federal one-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15,2005.
2 On April 30, 2007, the Governing Board of the SJVAPCD voted to request EPA to reclassify the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standards. The CARB, on June 14,2007, approved this request. This request must be forwarded to EPA by the CARB and would become effective upon EPA final rulemaking after a notice and comment process; it is not yet in effect.
3 Although EPA has determined that the SJVAB has attained the federal PM IO standards, their determination does not
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JNI3633 Selma DRTSlFinai Air Study136330001_AirQuaiityReport.doc
15
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
constitute a redesignation to attainment in accordance with Section 107(d)(3) of the Federal Clean Air Act. The SlVAB will continue to be designated nonattainment until all of the Section 107(d)(3) requirements are met.
4 The SNAB is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 federal standards. EPA designations for the 2006 PM 2.5 standards will be finalized in December 2009.
Source: SlVAPCD, 2008.
As described above under Federal and State Regulatory Agencies, an SIP is a federal
requirement; each state prepares an SIP to describe existing air quality conditions and measures
that will be followed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In addition, state ozone standards have
planning requirements. However, state PM 10 standards have no attainment planning
requirements, but air districts must demonstrate that all measures feasible for the area have been
adopted.
Ozone Plans
The SNAB is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for
ozone. To meet CAA requirements for the one-hour ozone standard, the SJYAPCD has adopted
an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (2004), which has an attainment date of201O.
However, the federal one-hour ozone standard has been revoked by EPA and replaced with an 8
hour standard. The planning requirements for the one-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by
a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan.
The SJYAB is classified as serious nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard with an
attainment date of2013. On April 30, 2007, the SJYAPCD's Governing Board adopted the 2007
Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be unfeasible. The
2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an "extreme
nonattainment" deadline of2026. At adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJYAPCD also
requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment.
State ozone standards do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all
feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible.
PM Plans
The SJYAB is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for
respirable particulate matter (PM). Under the federal classification scheme, the SJYAB is
classified serious nonattainment for the PM IO (particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in
diameter) standard. To meet CAA requirements for the PM IO standard, the SJYAPCD has
adopted a PM IO Attainment Demonstration Plan (Amended 2003 PM IO Plan and 2006 PM IO Plan),
which has an attainment date of 20 1O.
EPA revoked the annual PM IO standard effective December 18,2006. The SJYAB air monitors
showed that the SJYAB had not exceeded the 24-hour federal PM IO standard from 2003 to 2005
Michael Brandman Associafes S:\Client PN-JNI3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air Study13633000 1_AirQualityReport.doc
16
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
(a 3-year period). The SJYAPCD submitted a request to be designated attainment for the federal
PM 10 standard. The SJYAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for
Redesignation (2007 PM10 Plan) on September 20,2007. The 2007 PM IO Plan contains modeling
demonstrations that show the SJYAB will not exc~ed the federal PM10 standard for 10 years after
the expected EPA redesignation, monitoring, and verification measures, and a contingency plan.
Even though EPA revoked the federal annual PM IO standard, the 2007 PM IO Maintenance Plan
addresses both the annual and 24-hour standards because both standards were included in the
EPA-approved SIP. EPA finalized the determination that the SJYAB has attained the PM IO
standards on October 17,2007, effective October 30,2007. On September 25,2008, EPA
redesignated the San Joaquin Yalley to attainment for the PMIO National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM I0 Maintenance Plan.
The SJYAB is also designated nonattainment for the new federal PM2.S (particulate matter less
than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) annual standard. The SJYAPCD adopted the 2008 PM2.S Plan
on April 30, 2008. The PM2.S plan that demonstrates the air basin will attain the 1997 federal
standard by 2014 and makes progress toward attaining the 2006 federal 24-hour standard.
Barring delays due to legal challenges, the SJYAPCD estimates that attainment plans for the 2006
standard will be required by 2012 or 2013 with an attainment deadline of 2020. Measures
contained in the 2003 PM IO Plan will also help reduce PM2.S levels and will provide progress
toward attainment untit new measures are implemented for the PM2.S Plan, if needed.
State PM IO standards have no attainment planning requirements, but air districts must demonstrate
that all measures feasible for the area have been adopted.
Rules Applicable to the Project
The SJYAPCD rules and regulations that apply to this project include but are not limited to the
following:
• SJYAPCD 20 I0 - Permits Required- The purpose of this rule is to require any person
constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit,
or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate.
• SJYAPCD Rule 2201 - New and Modified Stationary Source Review. The purpose of this
rule is to provide for the review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution
and to provide mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which Authorities to
Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the attainment or
maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards; and ensure no net increase in emissions
above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment
pollutants and their precursors.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air StudyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
17
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Setting
• SlVAPCD Rule 4102 - Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and
safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air
contaminants or other materials. Odor emissions are subject to the rule.
IAbbreviations: > =exceed ppm = parts per million I-lglmJ = micrograms per cubic meter I
I ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum iCAAQS =California Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard Mean = i
Annual Arithmetic Mean • No Data •• The CARB does not report I-hour average CO concentrations in its database, only 8-hour CO concentrations. I
Therefore, the I-hour CO concentration was derived by dividing the 8-hour concentration by 0.7 (UCD, 1997) Source: CARB 2009.
I !
Local Sources of Air Pollution
Nearby sources of air pollution include State Route 99 (SR-99), Golden State Boulevard and the
In order to quantify air quality impacts, several assumptions were made. Table 10 provides a list
of assumptions used in estimating the potential long-term impacts from the project operation.
The applicant provided an estimate of the maximum number of vehicle traffic anticipated for the
project. As stated previously, the project does not promote growth in vehicle trips, rather
redirects where those vehicles travel to.
Table II provides a list of assumptions used in estimating the long-term impacts of not operating
the project. The No Project emissions include business as usual operations of the Selma
Collection Vehicles traveIling to the local landfills and the regional collection vehicles travelling
out to the local landfills. Not operating the project will not eliminate vehicle trips as these trips
are part of the existing baseline for handling solid waste in the region.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN·JN\3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air Studyl36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
54
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Table 10: Modeling Assumptions with Project
Source Category
Mobile Sources Pick up Trucks ( <,5750 Ibs) General Use Employee Vehicles (Light Auto) Collection Trucks (Diesel) (Heavy Heavy Duty Truck - HHDT) Debris Box Trucks (Diesel) (HHDT) Container Truck (Diesel) (Lite-Heavy Truck) Service Truck (Diesel) (HHDT) Employee Vehicles (Light Auto)
Daily Collection Vehicle Traffic Collection Trucks Debris Box Trucks Recycling Trucks Greenwaste contractor (City of Selma) Transfer Vehicles
Portable Toilet Pumping Vehicle Street Sweeper
Off-road Mobil Equipment Water Truck (Diesel) (250 hp) Front-end Loaders (rubber-tired) (175 hp) 4-WD Loader (John Deere 624e or equiv.) (135 hp) Petty Boom Lift (120 hp) Ford Tractor (120 hp) Skid Loader (120 hp) Forklifts (120 hp) CAT 315 Excavator (115 hp) Mobile Grinder (475 hp)
Stationary Equipment Walking Floor Trailer (powered by HHDT) Baler (50 hp - electric powered) Sorting Conveyor (10 hp- electric powered)
Source: MBA, Appendix A
Quantity
4 5
7
4 1 1
24
Variess
Varies Varies Varies Varies
1 4 2
1 1 1 4 1 I
2 I 1
Operational Activity
2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way)
2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way)
2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) 1 round trip per day (10.8 mi.-one way)
24 round trips per day (3 mi.-one way) 16 round trips per day (3 mi.-one way) 16round trips day (3 mi.-one way) 12 round trips per day (3 mi.-one way) 12 round trips per day (53 mi.-one way) 6 round trips per day (3 mi.-one way) 8 round trips per day (0.25 mi.-one
i way)
2 hours per day 12.75 hours per day 12.75 hours per day
12.75 hours per day 12.75 hours per day 12.75 hours per day 12.75 hours per day 12.75 hours per day 2 hours per day
15 hours per day 17 hours per day 15 hours per day
Notes: I. Mobile emission vehicle estimates were based on project proponent estimates of maximum daily traffic. 2. Vehicle trip lengths were based on City of Selma boundaries, the transfer vehicle trip length was based on the
average.distance to local landfills (American Avenue, Kenleman, Avenal). 3. Mobile equipment annual emissions were based on an average of 12.75 hours per day of operations. 4. The mobile grinder will operate periodically onsite, for purposes of analysis it was assumed to operate 2 hours
per day. 5. The number of vehicles will vary depending on the volume of solid waste and the amount of round trips one
vehicle can make in one day, but will not exceed the total round trips indicated.
Michael Brandman Associates ss S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Srudy\3633000I_AirQualiIyReport.doc
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Table 11: Modeling Assumptions without Project
Source Category Quantity Operational Activity
Mobile Sources Pick up Trucks ( <,5750 Ibs) 4 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) General Use Employee Vehicles (Light 5 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) Auto) Collection Trucks (Diesel) (Heavy Heavy 7 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) Duty Truck - HHDT) Debris Box Trucks (Diesel) (HHDT) 4 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) Container Truck (Diesel) (Lite-Heavy Truck) I 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) Service Truck (Diesel) (HHDT) I 2 trips 2 x per week (10 mi.-one way) Employee Vehicles (Light Auto) 24 I round trip per day (10.8 mi.-one
way) Daily Collection Vehicle Traffic
Collection Trucks 12 24 round trips per day (53 mi.-one way)
Debris Box Trucks 2 16 round trips per day (3 mi.-one way) Recycling Trucks 8 16 round trips per day (53 mi.-one
way) Greenwaste contractor (City of Selma) 6 12 round trips per day (53 mi.-one
way)
Off-road Mobil Equipment Water Truck (Diesel) (250 hp) I 2 hours per day Front-end Loaders (rubber-tired) (175 hp) 4 7.5 hours per day 4-WD Loader (John Deere 624e or equiv.) 2 7.5 hours per day (135hp) Petty Boom Lift (120 hp) I 7.5 hours per day Ford Tractor (120 hp) I 7.5 hours per day Skid Loader (120 hp) I 7.5 hours per day Forklifts (120 hp) 4 7.5 hours per day CAT 315 Excavator (115 hp) I 7.5 hours per day Mobile Grinder (475 hp) I 2 hours per day
Source: MBA, Appendix A Notes: I. Mobile emission vehicle estimates were based on project proponent estimates of maximum daily traffic.
2. Vehicle trip lengths were based on the average distance to local landfills (American Avenue, Kettleman, Avenal and City of Selma boundaries.
3. Mobile equipment annual emissions were based on an average of existing 7.5 hours per day of operations. 4. The mobile grinder will operate periodically onsite, for purposes of analysis it was assumed to operate 2 hours
per day. 5. Numbers of trucks based on assumption that each collection and recycling truck would make two runs per day
and debris box trucks could make 8 trips per day.
Equipment Emissions and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from this project include emissions associated with the transport of
waste/recycling material to and from the project site, emissions produced from recycling
processing equipment, emissions from various work-related and delivery trucks as well as
emissions from employees traveling to and from the site. Emitted pollutants include CO, ROG,
NOx, SOx, and PM IO.
Michael Srandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Study\3633000 I_AirQualityReport.doc
56
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Exhaust emissions will vary substantially from day to day. The numerous variables factored into
estimating total project emissions include: level of activity, number of pieces and types of
equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of employees, and the amounts
of materials to be transported on/off site.
In order to provide emissions estimates for the proposed project it was determined that CARB' s
EMFAC 2007 model would provide the most accurate depiction of predicted emissions impacts
from on-road mobile sources. The SlVAB emission factors were estimated for the various
vehicle classes were estimated using the following inputs:
• Season: Annual
• Vehicle model years: 1966 - 20 10
• Temperature and Humidity: 85 degrees Fahrenheit and 40 percent relative humidity
• Average Speed: 35 miles per hour
Emissions for the project's dedicated offroad mobile equipment were determined using
appropriate emissions factors from the construction module within the URBEMIS modeling
program. The 20 10 emission factors were used.
4.1.1 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and
provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Air Quality Attainment Plan Consistency
Impact AQ·1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact Analysis
Air Quality Plans (AQPs) are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The
assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the SlVAB can reach
attainment for the ambient air quality standards. In order to show attainment of the standards, the
SlVAPCD analyzes the growth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant
emissions and formations and existing and future emissions controls. The SlVAPCD then
formulates a control strategy to reach attainment.
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the proposed project
would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI
does not provide specific guidance on analyzing conformity with the AQP. As discussed earlier,
this assessment will use the criteria under Conformance with Air Quality Plans:
Michael Brandman Associates S:IClienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air Srudy\36330001_AirQualityRepon.doc
57
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
I. Will the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity ofexisting air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air
quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs? This
measure is determined by comparison to the regional and localized thresholds identified
above in Regional Air Pollutants and Local Air Pollutants.
2. Will the project conform to the assumptions in the AQPs?
3. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs?
Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure ofdetermining if the project is consistent with the AQP is if the project will not result
in an increase in the frequency or severity ofexisting air quality violations or cause or contribute
to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission
reductions specified in the AQPs. As shown in Impact AQ-2, the project would not cause a CO
violation. As shown in Impact AQ-3, the project would not exceed SlVAPCD thresholds of
significance for the construction phase, nor, as shown in Impact AQ-4, would the project exceed
SlVAPCD thresholds of significance for the operational phase.
Consistency with Assumptions in AQPs
The primary way of determining consistency with the AQP's assumptions is determining
consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the project's population density and
land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin.
As required by California law, city and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that
details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for
future growth, and that designates locations for land uses to regulate growth. Growth estimates
used in a General Plan often come from the State of California's Department of Finance. The
Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) uses the growth projections and land use
information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips (ADT) and then
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are then provided to the SlVAPCD to estimate future
emissions in the AQPs. It is assumed that the existing and future pollutant emissions computed in
the AQP were based on land uses from area general plans. AQPs detail the plan and calculations
for reaching attainment of the air standards.
The proposed project is consistent with the current general plan and will not require a General
Plan Amendment. The project will not result in a substantial increase in project intensity over the
current land use designations that would increase air quality impacts. This is a less than
significant impact.
Michae' Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air Study\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
58
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Control Measures
The AQPs contains a number of control measures, including the rules outlined by the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District. The control measures in the AQPs are enforceable
requirements. The project will comply with all of the SNAPCD's applicable rules and
regulations. Therefore, the project complies with this criterion.
The subject property and all of the parcels located immediately adjacent to the parcel are zoned
M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial) by the City of Selma.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot
Impact AQ-2: The project would not significantly contribute to a carbon monoxide hotspot that would exceed federal or state air quality standards.
Impact Analysis
Because increased CO concentrations usually are associated with roadways that are congested
and with heavy traffic volume, the SJVAPCD has established that preliminary screening can be
used to determine with fair certainty that the effect a project has on any given intersection would
not cause a potential CO hotspot. Therefore, the SJVAPCD has established that if all project
affected intersections are negative for both of the following criteria, then the project can be said
to have no potential to create a violation of the CO standard.
• A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more
streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F;
or
• A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS
F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.
The project estimates a maximum of24 workers, but does not indicate if the workers will be split
into shifts. Assuming one single shift of 24 employees would add a maximum of 24 vehicles to
the existing roadways at in the morning and evening hours. Additionally, collection vehicles,
recycling trucks, and greenwaste truck would make trips to and from the site.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air Sludy\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
59
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
The traffic in the vicinity of the site is currently very limited. The level of congestion anticipated
with the addition of project traffic does not exceed SlVAPCD screening thresholds contained in
the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Therefore, no CO hotspots are
anticipated as a result of traffic-generated emissions by the proposed project.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Construction Emissions - Criteria Pollutants
Impact AQ-3: The proposed projects would not result in significant emissions of criteria pollutants during project construction.
Impact Analysis
Construction impacts include fugitive dust and other particulate matter, as well as exhaust
emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation ofgrading equipment during site
preparation. Construction emissions are caused by onsite or offsite activities. Onsite emissions
principally consist of exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle
operation, and fugitive dust from disturbed soil. Offsite emissions are caused by motor vehicle
exhaust from delivery vehicles, as well as worker traffic, but also include road dust.
The unmitigated analyses include compliance with SlVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10
Prohibitions). Compliance with Regulation VIII is required. When reviewing the URBEMIS
printouts in Appendix B, please note that the URBEMIS program lists any measure that reduces
emissions to be "mitigation," regardless if the measure fulfills a requirement or is truly
considered mitigation by CEQA standards. The following measures were included in the
analyses:
• Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas.
• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly.
• Water exposed surfaces twice daily.
• Stabilize soil in equipment loading/unloading areas.
• Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph.
• Manage haul road dust by watering twice daily.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Study\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
60
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, Callfomla Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
As discussed previously, construction emissions were estimated using URBEMIS 2007 and were
based on the grading of 7.8 acres and paving 1.95 acres for the facilities. The project construction
durations was estimated to last a total of3 months and begin and end in 2009.
Table 12 shows the emissions associated with construction after compliance with SlVAPCD
Regulation VIII.
Table 12: Estimated Construction Emissions
Year ROG NOx CO PM1~ PM2.1 (tonslyear) (tonslyear) (tonslyear) (tonslyear) (tonslyear) .
2009 0.07 0.56 0.33 0.04 0.03
Source: URBEMIS 2007
As shown above, construction emissions of ROO, NOx, CO and PM IO do not exceed the regional
significance thresholds and therefore result in a less than significant impact.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Operational Emissions - Criteria Pollutants
Impact AQ-4: The project would not result in significant emissions of criteria pollutants during project operations.
Impact Analysis
Operational, or long-term, emissions occur over the life of the proposed projects. Operational
emissions include onroad and offroad mobile and stationary source emissions. The net long-term
operational emissions are characterized by looking at the project emissions and the emissions that
would occur without the project. The project will involve having collection vehicles, recycling
vehicles, and greenwaste vehicles transport their materials to the site for processing with residual
materials sent out to the landfills via the transfer vehicles. The use of transfer vehicles reduces
VMT because fewer trucks have to travel out to the landfill. A transfer vehicle can hold between
two to four loads from a collection vehicle. The 48 collection vehicle trips that would be made
directly to the landfills could reduce their VMT by at least 50 percent by bringing their loads to
the SORTS and utilizing transfer vehicles. Assuming two loads per transfer vehicle would reduce
the VMT by having only 24 transfer vehicles trips travel to the landfill and substantially reduce
Michael Brandman Associates S:ICHen! PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air Study\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
61
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analys" Report Impact Analysis
VMT compared to the amount that would occur with the SORTS. The combined air quality
impact from the various emission sources identified in Table 10 and II are summarized below:
Table 13: Operational Emissions (tons per year)
Source Category . ROG CO NOX PM10 Onsite Mobile Sources 0.03 0.22 0.40 0.02
Daily Incoming/Outgoing
Project Vehicle Trips 0.48 2.73 7.58 0.31 Offroad Mobile
EquiPment 2.01 9.30 14.16 0.98 TOTAL -. -
2.52 12.25 .-. - 22.14 1.31
. , ..-.------ -._--. - . - . .._. -
Onsite Mobile Sources : 0.03 0.22 ..
i -_._-
0.40 0.02 I
Daily Incoming/Outgoing
, No Project Vehicle Trips 1.51 9.01 23.36 0.93 Offroad Mobile
Equipment 1.28 - . 6.24 9.04 0.62
TOTAL 2.82 15.47 32.80 1.57
Net Emissions -0.30 -3.22 -10.66 -0.26
Significance Threshold 10 N/A 10 15
Significant? No No No No -
As shown above, the project results in a net air quality benefit, net operational emissions for the
project will not exceed the SJVAPeD's regional thresholds of significance and would result in a
less than significant impact.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\FinaJ Air SlUdy\36330001_AirQuaJityRepon.doc
62
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Toxics Air Contaminants
Impact AQ-6: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would be a source ofTACs as offroad mobile equipment and the collection
vehicles and transfer vehicles would run on diesel and gasoline. Activities associated with the
project operations that require the use of diesel-fueled vehicles for extended periods, such as
forklifts, front loaders, and delivery vehicles to and from the Transfer Station, would generate
DPM emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to DPM. The DPM emissions generated by
these uses would be produced within the project (Le., travel route within the project to various
unloading and transfer points) on a regular basis. The existing residences to the east and schools
to the northwest of the project site may be exposed to elevated levels of DPM emissions on a
recurring basis.
A health risk assessment (HRA) technical report was prepared to assess the potential health risk
impacts on local air quality associated with the operation of the Selma Transfer Station Project.
The health risk assessment report is included in its entirety in Appendix B.
Project Generated TAe Emissions
DPM emissions from the various sources were calculated using information derived from the
project description, delivery truck information, mobile source emission factors from the CARB
EMFAC2007 emissions factor model, the CARB Off-road Model, and the URBEMIS Model.
Diesel Truck Operations
Table 14 provides an inventory of the diesel trucks accessing the project. Trucks will access the
facility from Dockery Road.
Table 14: Forecasted Number of Delivery Trucks
Truck Type Trucks per Day EMFAC Truck Class
Collection Trucks
Debris Box Trucks
Recycling Trucks
Green Waste Trucks
, Transfer Vehicles
Notes: , All trucks assumed to be diesel trucks.
6 i Heavy Heavy Duty (HHDT) ;. . - - - ". - -- _._-_._.'~_.~--_._- --
4 I Heavy Heavy Duty (HHDT)1--.0..•
6 : Heavy Heavy Duty (HHDT) - . _.. ,._..
6 Medium Heavy Duty (MHO)
6 Heavy Heavy Duty (HHDT)
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air StudyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
i
63
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Table 15 provides the DPM emission factors for the mobile source diesel PM 10 emission sources
as derived from the CARB EMFAC2007 emission factors specifically for Fresno County.
Onsite emissions were calculated for vehicle exhaust and idling. Likely onsite travel links were
defined from the project entrance to the unloading locations for each class of solid waste material,
including solid waste, green waste, and recycling. Delivery vehicles were assumed to idle for a
maximum of 5 minutes per vehicle per day during unloading, in keeping with the CARB Air
Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), which regulates truck idling time (CARB 2005).
Table 15: Emission Factors for Operational DPM Emissions
Emission Source Emission Factors - 2011 t'.~,4J
Exhaust Emission
HHDT (g/mi) (2) 1.8
MHD(g/mi) 0.647
Idling Emissions (3)
HHDT (g/hr) 2.356
MHD(g/hr) 1.l02
Notes: . (I) All motor vehicle emission factors were derived from Ihe EMFAC2007 model for Fresno County as diesel PM 10
exhaust (2) Exhaust emissions for Ihe HHD DSL trucks assumed a travel speed of 10 mph; air temperature of 40 degrees
Fahrenheit and a relative humidity of 50% were assumed as representative of average winter wealher conditions. (3) The idling emission factors assumed a speed of 0 mph. (4) Emission factor units: g1mi (grams per mile); gIhr (grams per idle-hour) g/hp-hr (grams per brake horsepower-hour).
Diesel Transfer Equipment Operations
Processing the waste material as it arrives at the transfer station requires several pieces ofdiesel
powered equipment. Table 16 lists the type of equipment, the size of the engine, load factors and
emission factors. Table 16 also shows the emission factors for the various pieces of off road
equipment. (Please refer to the Health Risk Assessment Report Appendix A for a detailed
Notes: Transfer Station Operations (I) The location of the maximum exposed cancer risk at a residential receptor occurs at a residence located 170 ft ea
the project site. (2) The location of the maximum exposed worker occurs at the office building 0.1 mile south of the project site. (3) The location of the maximum impacted student is at the Early Childhood Development Center 0.8 mile southeas t of
the project site. (4) The PMI or Point of Maximum Impact is a location without people present at which the total cancer risk has the
highest numerical value. Risks at the PMI are calculated using residential exposure assumptions. Location ofth PMI for the Transfer Station operation is on the project boundary approximately 100 meters west ofthe northeas comer of the project boundary. There are no sensitive receptors at that location. It is highly unlikely there will any sensitive receptors at that location in the future.
Source: See HRA Appendix B for the health risk assessment modeling results.
As shown above, the excess cancer risks associated with the operation of the project with
mitigation are not expected to exceed the cancer risk significance level of 10 in a million at any
nearby sensitive, worker, or student receptor.
The non-cancer impact was also calculated for the project. The highest chronic non-cancer
Hazard Index was calculated to be 0.04 without compliance to CARB's waste vehicle collection
Michael Brandman Associates S:IClient PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air StudyI36330001.AirQualityReport.doc
66
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
regulation and 0.007 with compliance to the regulation. In either case the estimated Hazard Index
is two or three orders of magnitude less than the significance threshold of 1.
Risk Assessment Uncertainty
There are substantial uncertainties involved in assessing the health risk of air pollutants. There
are uncertainties in dispersion modeling, toxicological factors, and exposure assessment. The
methodology for assessing health risks involving emission estimations, dispersion modeling, and
toxicity risk factors have been developed to provide conservative results (in terms of over
predicting impacts).
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommends using
the 70-year exposure duration for determining residential cancer risks. Although it is unlikely
that people will reside at a single residence for 70 years, it is common that people will spend their
entire lives in a major urban area. While residing in urban areas, it is very possible to be exposed
to the emissions of other facilities. In order to help ensure that people do not accumulate an
excess unacceptable cancer risk from cumulative exposure to stationary facilities at multiple
residences, OEHHA recommends the 70 year exposure duration for risk management decisions.
However, it is important to note that a person who has resided in his or her current residence for
less than 70 years will have a cancer risk less than what is calculated for a 70-year risk.
Nonetheless, this assessment attempts to be conservative and provide a worst-case scenario for
exposure.
Further, the factors used to calculate emissions reference a particular fleet year: 2009. The cancer
risk projected for 2009 is assumed to apply over the next 9, 40, or 70-years, depending on the
type of receptor analyzed. However, emission projections using the CARB EMFAC mobile
source emission model indicate that mobile source diesel emission factors will decline
substantially over the next 30 years, particularly for the heavy heavy-duty truck vehicles, with the
result that the cancer risks predicted for the year 2009 will also decline in future years. For
example, the DPM exhaust emission rate for heavy heavy-duty diesel trucks is expected to
decrease from 2.356 grams/mile in 2009 to 0.10 gram/mile in 2030, a decrease of95 percent.
Thus, using the cancer risk predictions for 2009 as representative of the cancer risk from the fully
operational project over the next 9, 40, or 70 years provides a conservative cancer risk estimate.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required
Level of Significance After Mitigatio.n
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\FinaJ Air Studyl36330001_AirQuaJityReport.doc
67
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Less than significant impact.
Objection able Odors
Impact AQ-6: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact Analysis
There are two situations that have the potential to cause odor impacts:
1. A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors
2. A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor
Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal
facilities, or agricultural operations.
Odors associated with the proposed recycling and transfer station would be primarily associated
with the decomposition of wastes. Municipal solid waste, food waste, and certain yard wastes
such as grass have a high potential for odor generation. The odor generation potential increases
during warm or wet weather conditions. If not properly cleaned and maintained, surfaces within
the proposed project facility that come in contact with waste materials, such as the tipping floor,
processing equipment, haul trucks can also be sources of odors.
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature,
frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive
receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be unpleasant and
often generate citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.
Odor impacts associated with recycling and transfer stations typically occur as a result of poor
management, if waste is maintained onsite for extended periods of time (Le., greater than 48
hours), or if waste is processed in exterior areas. Compliance with existing regulatory
requirements (Le., 14 CCR §17408.5) would require maintenance and operational practices that
would ensure that the proposed facility would not have a nuisance odor-related impact to nearby
receptors.
SORTS has proposed operational practices that will minimize odor impacts. The practices
include load checking of recycle trucks to minimize putrescible and unacceptable wastes. Any
putrescible material detected in the recycling processing area will be separated and directed to the
solid transfer area. The greenwaste processing and storage will be conducted in a manner to
prevent natural composting, aerobic or anaerobic to occur, thereby reducing potential odors.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN·JNI3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air SludyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
68
from the solid waste stream in the recycling building and would then immediately load the
remaining solid waste into transfer trailers. Although not currently anticipated by the project
proponent, the project's operational statement allows for the possible use of a direct transfer
operation. The design of the direct transfer operation reduces odor impacts through the use of
walking floor transfer trailers, which minimizes the handling of solid waste. No disposal of solid
waste or tipping of solid waste 011 native ground will occur at the facility. The direct transfer
operation occurs when the route compactor collection vehicle backs up to the transfer dock and
transfer trailer. The trailer rear walls expand to allow the collection vehicle to discharge directly
into the trailer. Regulatory requirements for this type of handling require that the solid waste not
be placed on the ground or outside of the vehicle during transfer (14 CCRR § 17402(a)(3). Solid
waste can be transferred only once and all of the contents of the original transferring container or
vehicle must be emptied during a single transfer. Any waste that may unintentionally fall outside
of the vehicles is promptly cleaned up and placed within the transfer vehicle by site personnel.
Once the transfer operations are completed and the transfer trailer is full, the trailer is sealed and
hauled to an approved solid waste facility for disposal. No solid waste transferred into transfer
vehicles will remain on the SDRTS site for a period of more than 48 hours, pursuant to CCR §
17410.1.
Another source of odor emissions is from diesel exhaust, which would be emitted during
construction and operation of the project.
The project will be subject to SlVAPCD Rule 4102 - Nuisance. If the project generates
confirmed odor complaints, the SlVAPCD would initiate enforcement action that would require
the operator to correct any problems that are creating the excessive odors. Typically, the
SlVAPCD works with the operator to identify the source of the odor and helps identify measures
or practices that reduce the odors.
Routine cleaning of floors, walls, and equipment shall be conducted per the requirements ofCCR
Title 27. Compliance with the practices required by this regulation is expected to prevent
significant odor issues from occurring. However, on occasion weather conditions, equipment
failures, and unforeseen problems could result in objectionable odors.
As discussed previously, the nearest sensitive receptor are located on the east side of Dockery
Avenue 170 feet from the project site and may detect the odor sources at the facility. Therefore,
odor impacts would be potentially significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air StudyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
69
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
MM-AQ-1 Loaded transfer vehicles shall be covered and properly maintained to ensure that
solid waste materials are contained entirely within the vehicle for the duration of
its transport;
MM·AQ·2 Odor complaints received by the City or the SlVAPCD shall be responded to
within 24 hours. This response shall include an inquiry into the source of the
odor and identification of the measures necessary to eliminate the odor source. If
excessive complaints are received, as defined by the City, additional measures
shall be implemented to control odors. Additional measures may include, but are
not limited to: (a) install plastic curtains on entrances and exits to contain odors
when doors are opened to allow vehicles to enter and exit and (b) use of
deodorants to mask or neutralize odors as needed.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Cumulative A ir Quality
Impact AQ·7: The project would not result In a cumulatively considerable net Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region Is nonattalnment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact Analysis
The analysis for cumulative air quality impacts includes the following: regional thresholds
analysis (Impact AQ-3 and Impact AQ 4), CO hotspot (Impact AQ-2), and consistency with the
existing AQAP (Impact AQ- I), which are found in impacts discussed above.
The project would not exceed the SlVAPCD's regional significance thresholds during
construction or operation. The project is consistent with the AQAP. Because the project does not
exceed SlVAPCD's thresholds of significance it would not result in a cumulatively considerable
air quality impact and is expected to provide a net benefit to regional air quality.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN·JN\3633 Selma DRTSIFinaJ Air SlUdy\36330001_AirQuaJiryReport.doc
70
Impact AQ·8: The project would not significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32.
Impact Analysis
This report does not just analyze whether the Project would result in an increase in GHG
emissions, but also assesses whether the Project would result in an increase in GHGs that would
significantly hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32.
This analysis contains two components. One component consists of the Project's GHG emissions
inventory. The emissions inventory describes the sources of emissions, the emissions without
incorporation of mitigation measures, and the emissions after the incorporation of mitigation
measures, if required. The second component consists of the measures used to compare the
Project with the applicable state and local strategies and known mitigation measures to reduce
GHGs. In the discussion below, the unmitigated emissions inventory are provided before the state
and local strategies.
Inventory of Greenhouse Gases during Construction
The project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources (the manufacture of
building materials such as cement) and direct sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles
and construction equipment).
An upstream emission source (also known as life cycle emissions) refers to emissions that were
generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the project.
Upstream emission sources for the project include but are not limited to the following: emissions
from the manufacture of cement; emissions from the manufacture of steel; and/or emissions from
the transportation of building materials in other countries. The upstream emissions were not
estimated because they are not within the control of the project and to do so would be speculative
at this time. Additionally, the CAPCOA White Paper on CEQA & Climate Change supports this
conclusion by stating, "The full life-cycle ofGHG emissions from construction activities is not
accounted for ...and the information needed to characterize [life-cycle emissions] would be
speculative at the CEQA analysis level" (CAPCOA 2008). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15144 and 15145, upstream /life cycle, emissions are speculative and no
further discussion is necessary.
Emissions from the combustion of fuel from construction equipment and associated worker
vehicles were estimated using URBEMIS2007.
The emissions of carbon dioxide from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are
shown in Table 19 below. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are negligible.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN·JNI3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air StudyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
11
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Table 19: Construction Exhaust Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Unmitigated)
MfCo,e = metric tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalen~ converted from Ions by multiplying by 0.9072 and lbe global warming potential of I.
Source of carbon dioxide emissions: URBEMIS2007 output in Appendix A.
Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions during Operation
Operational emissions are emissions that would occur over the life of the project and include
emissions from motor vehicles, natural gas combustion, indirect emissions from electricity
generation, indirect emissions from transporting water to the project, aerosols (from the exhaust
of diesel vehicles) and refrigerants (air conditioning and refrigerators).
The processing water requirements for the project operations will be obtained from Cal Water's
Selma District. Water use was estimated using an employee factor of200 gallons per person per
day (the USGS estimates U.S. per capita water use of200-275 gallons per day). Additionally, the
facility will periodically clean recycling operation areas with low water volume, high pressure
washers. An II HP electric-powered pressure washer with a 5 gallon per minute rating was
assumed to estimate annual water use of31,200 gallons (twice weekly cleanings with 300 gallons
per use). The California Energy Commission developed an estimate of electricity used to convey
water in Northern California of approximately 3,950 kWh per million gallons of water
transported (CEC 2005). The total amount of water used was estimated at 4,900 gallons per day.
The project includes steel buildings and may require the cooling of buildings. In order to provide
a conservative estimate of possible refrigerant use, it was assumed for this analysis that a total of
2 air conditioning units would for the office/shop space and the recycling processing area.
The emissions from the vehicles were estimated based on the anticipated activity of employees,
collection vehicles, recycling and greenwaste vehicles, and miscellaneous maintenance vehicles
on the project site. EMFAC 2007 was used to provide the C02 emission estimates based on
vehicle miles traveled.
The operational emissions are shown in Table 20. As shown, the main source of emissions is
from otT-road mobile sources. The increase in offroad mobile source emissions are mitigated by
the decrease in mobile source emissions, particularly the collection trucks.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN·JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Study\3633000I_AiJQualityRcpon.doc
72
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Table 20: Project OperatIonal Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated)
Source Emissions (MTC02e1year) Onsite Mobile Sources 53.78 Daily Incoming/Outgoing Vehicle Trips 886.88 OfTroad Mobile Equipment 1192.92 Electricity 73.30
Project Natural Gas 321.30 Landscape 0.70 Water Transport 3.50 Air Conditioning,Refrigerants 25.90 Total 2558.28
Onsite Mobile Sources 53.78 Daily Incoming/Outgoing Vehicle Trips 2814.87
No Project
OfTroad Mobile Equipment Electricity Natural Gas
753.47 18.80
321.30 Landscape o Water Transport 3.50 Air ConditioningiRefrigerants 25.90
Total 3991.62 Net Emissions -1433.34
Notes: I. Landscape and Natural Gas Emissions were obtained from URBEMIS based on acreage and square
footage of the steel buildings. 2. Indirect emissions from electricity and water transport were obtained from the GHG spreadsheets
found in Appendix A.
Negligible Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Several sources described below are considered to produce negligible amounts of greenhouse gas
emissions:
The project does not contribute substantially to water vapor because water vapor concentrations
in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from
project-related activities.
Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere
is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Therefore, it is
assumed that project emissions of ozone precursors would not significantly contribute to climate
change.
As mentioned previously, there is a ban on chlorofluorocarbons; therefore, the project would not
generate emissions of these greenhouse gases and they are not considered any further in this
analysis.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSlFinaJ Air Study13633000 1_AirQuaJilyReport.doc
73
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California AIr Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of
which would be used by the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit
any of these greenhouse gases
Project Design Features that Reduce GHG Emissions
As stated in the Executive Summary, one the objectives of the project are to provide the City of
Selma with a full range of solid waste management services that will allow the City to meet its
solid waste service needs and to increase the City's diversion of recyclable materials, in order to
achieve state mandated goals. Additionally, the Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer
Station (SORTS) will provide the region with services that can reduce operating expenses and air
quality impacts for smaller community service providers through the use of the transfer and
recycling operations.
Applicable State and Local Strategies, Known Mitigation
Under AB 32, ARB has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions. However, the
many public agencies involved in land use decisions, energy use, waste streams, construction, and
other areas also are involved in the creation and implementation of strategies to reduce GHG
emissions in California. The CAT addresses strategies for certain California public agencies. In
addition, the California Attorney General's office has been active in advising public agencies on
reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the Project's early implementation
of applicable state strategies. State strategies include measures in the 2006 CAT Report and
ARB's Early Action Measures. This analysis also focuses on the Project's implementation of the
applicable California Attorney General's Office suggested mitigation strategies for reducing
GHG emissions. To assess significance, the following documents were used.
• The 2006 CAT Report to Governor Schwarzenegger (CAT 2006).
• ARB's Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
California (CARB 2007b).
• California Attorney General's Office Mitigation Letter (AG 2008).
Project consistency or applicability with those measures is assessed below.
Table 21: California Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies
Project DeslgnlMltlgatlon Strategy to Comply with Strategy
Apply advanced technology systems and management Consistent. The project is using transfer strategies to improve operational efficiency of trailers to reduce the number of collection transportation systems and movement of people, goods and . vehicles transporting MSW to landfills.
iservices. !
Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including Consistent with California Air Resources delivery and construction vehicles. Board regulatory measure, which reduces
Michae' Brandman Associates S:\Oient PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTSlFinaJ Air SludyI36330001_AirQuaJityReport.doc
74
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysts
emissions by limiting idling of heavy-duty diesel vehicles (ARB 2005).
Alternative Fuels - Biodiesel Blends: CARB would Not consistent. The measure is presently not develop regulations to require the use of I to 4 percent feasible due to limited availability ofbiodiesel biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. fuels and certified equipment and remoteness
of the project site. Additionally, there is a great deal of uncertainty of the effects of biodiesel on NOx emissions. The use of biodiesel has been shown to either keep NOx emissions the same or slightly increase them. (NREL 2005).
Water Use Efficiency: Approximately 19 percent of all Consistent. The project is planning on using electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million low water volume, high pressure washers and galIons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute and implementing standard water conservation use water and wastewater. Increasing the efficiency of measures. water transport and reducing water use would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Recycling and Waste: Increase waste diversion, Consistent. The project will assist the City of composting and commercial recycling and move toward Selma in meeting its mandated waste zero-waste. diversion goals and will also assist smaller
community service providers with recycling services.
Source for Measures: California Attorney General 2008; CAT 2006, CARB 2007b
The project would generate a minor amount of construction-related carbon dioxide, with most of
the emissions generated by off-road construction equipment and construction worker trips. Long
term operational GHG would decrease as result of the project.
Level ofSignificance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
The nature of the project as a transfer station that reduces the VMT ofcollection vehicles reduces
the project's overall GHG emissions, additionally, the project is consistent with applicable
feasible mitigation measures, which reduce the project's emissions of greenhouse gas.
Additionally, even if the project's GHG emissions were all new they would fall below the draft
threshold developed by CARB of7,000 MTC02e/year from non-transportation related GHG
sources.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
Cumulative Level-Analysis
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN·JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Study\36330001_AiIQualilyReport.doc
75
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report Impact Analysis
The project would provide a net reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions of 1,433 metric tons per
year. Therefore, the project would not result in a contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas
impacts. In fact, the project would provide a cumulative benefit that would help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JNI3633 Selma DRTSlFinai Air SludyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
76
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report References
SECTION 5: REFERENCES
The following references were used in the preparation of this analysis and are referenced in the
text and/or were used to provide the author with background infonnation necessary for the
preparation of thresholds and content.
AG 2008 California Attorney General's Office. January 7, 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act Mitigation for Global Wanning Impacts.
CA 2006 State of California. August 31,2006. Assembly Bill No. 32. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2008.
CAPCOA 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. www.capcoa.org/, Accessed April 8, 2008.
CARB 2009 California Air Resources Board. Historical Air Quality, Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed April 6, 2009.
CARB 2008a California Air Resources Board. November 17, 2008. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2009.
CARB 2008b
CARB 2007a
California Air Resources Board. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqalmeetings/102708/prel imdraftproposall 02408. pdf California Air Resources Board. The California Almanac ofEmissions and Air Quality. 2006 Edition. Website http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac.htm
CARB 2007b California Air Resources Board. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. April 20, 2007. www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html. Accessed April 16, 2009.
CARB 2005a California Air Resources Board. 2005. Reducing Idling Emissions From New and In-use Heavy-duty Trucks. October 25.
CARB 2005b
CAT 2006
California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Accessed January 2009. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Website: www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html, Accessed April 8, 2008.
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Studyl36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
77
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report References
CEC 2005 California Energy Commission. California's Energy-Water Relationship. Final Staff Report. November 2005. CEC-700-2005-0 II-SF. Website: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-0 II/CEC-7002005-011-SF.PDF
County of Fresno County of Fresno Community Health Department, Enforcement Agency Notification, SWIS ID # 10-AA-019I, October 8, 2004
EPA 2008a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Six Common Air Pollutants. Health and Environmental Impacts ofNOx• Last updated on May 9,2008. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/hlth.html. Accessed December 22, 2008.
EPA 2008b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution - Organic Gases (Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs). Last updated on May 9, 2008. Website: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html. Accessed December 22, 2008.
EPA 2008c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Six Common Air Pollutants. Health and Environmental Impacts of Particulate Matter. Last updated on May 9, 2008. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/ health.html. Accessed December 22, 2008
EPA 2008d U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Six Common Air Pollutants. Health and Environmental Impacts of Carbon Monoxide. Last updated on May 9,2008. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/co/index.html. Accessed December 22,2008.
EPA 2002 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPN600/8-90/057F. May 2002. Website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfrn/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. Accessed January 11,2007.
EPA 1999a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 15, 1999. "Ozone and Your Health." Website: http://www.epa.gov/airnow/ozone-c.pdf. Accessed December 22,2008.
EPA 1997 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. Nitrogen Oxides: Impact on Public Health and the Environment. 1997. Website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t I/reports/noxrept.pdf
EPA 1997b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. Emission Factors for Locomotives. Website: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/nonroadllocomotv/frrn/42097051.pdf
Larson & Assoc. George H. Larson & Associates Inc. and International Engineering Services, Inc., "Transfer Processing Report and Operational Statement, Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station", January 2009.
Michael Brandman AssocIates S:lelien! PN·JNI3633 Selma DRTSIFinal Air StudyI36330001_AirQualilyReport.doc
78
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report References
IPCC 2004 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2004. 16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention. December 2004. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/I Oth-anniversary/anniversary-brochure.pdf Accessed April 8, 2008.
NREL 2005 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2005. Effects of Biodiesel on NOx Emissions. ARB Biodiesel Workgroup. NRELJPR-540-38296. June 8, 2005. Website: http://www.nre1.gov/vehic1esandfuels/npbf/pdfs/38296.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2009.
OPR 2008 Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory. CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19,2008. www.opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html
OPR 2009
Selma 2008
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. April 13, 2009. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfsJPA_CEQA_Guidelines.pdf City of Selma, Draft General Plan Policies Statement, August 2008
SJVAPCD 2002 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. 2002.
SJVAPCD 2008 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed April 8, 2009.
SJVAPCD 2008b San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Comment Letter received from the SJVAPCD on June 19, 2008 regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report: Tulare Motor Sports Complex.
SJVAPCD 2006a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2006. 2006 PM I0 Plan: San
Joaquin Valley Strategy for Meeting Federal Air Quality Requirements for
Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller.
UNFCCC 2007 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Essential Background. http://unfccc.int/essential_backgroundiconvention/items/2627.php, Accessed April 8, 2008.
WH 2008 White House. G8 Summit 2008. www.whitehouse.gov/g8/2008/
Michael Brandman Associates S:\Client PN-JNI3633 Selma DRTSlFinal Air StudyI36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
79
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report
This page intentionally left blank
Michael Brandman Associates BO S:\Clienl PN·JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Finai Air Study136330001_AirQuaiityReport.doc
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report
Appendix A: Table of Assumptions, Emission Spreadsheets, URBEMIS 2007 Model Output,
GHG Spreadsheets
Michael Srandman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air Study\36330001_AirQualityReport.doc
Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station - Selma, California Air Quality Impact Analysis Report
This page intentionally left blank
Michael Brllndman Associates S:\Clienl PN-JN\3633 Selma DRTS\Final Air SlUdy\3633lJOOI_AiIQualilyReport.doc
Water truck used 4x per day @ 30 minluse for dust suppression
The mobile equipment was assumed to be used in the baling and loose recyclable activities trom 5 AM to 10 PM, we assumed they would operate 75% of the time
The mobile grinder will operate periodically onslte. For purposes of analysis it was assumed to operate an average of 2 hours per day.
Powered by Truck engine
baler and conveyor are electric-powered
Project Assumptions Page1 Trip Length
Gross Vehicle , of Trips (miles) (one- Dally Annual Vehicle Quantity Weight· Horsepower'" per day way) VMT VMT Trips
On-site Mobile Sources Employee Vehicles (Ught Auto) 24 < 5,750 Ibs 2 10.8 518.4 161741 14976 Pick Up Trucks 4 3,750 - 5,750 Ibs 2 x per week 10 8320 208 General Use Employee Vehicles (Light Truck) 5 < 5,750 Ibs 2 x per week 10 10400 208 Collection Trucks - Diesel 7 >66,000 Ibs 400 2 x per week 10 14560 208 Debris Box Trucks - Diesel 4 >66,OOOlbs 365 2 x per week 10 -&320 208 Container Truck (Ford 350) 1 10,000 305 2 x per week 10 2080 208
Service Truck (Ford 8000) Diesel 1 54,000 Ibs 225 2 x per week 10 2080 208 TOTAL 207501 16224
Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org
Project - Water Use
Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Project: SORTS Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: , 4/24/2009
I
kWhlMG Northern California Southern California
Water Supply and Conveyance 2,117 9,727 Water Treatment 111 111 Water Distribution 1,272 1,272 Wastewater Treatment 1,911 1,911
Emission factor for electricity source: Califomia Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org
CEC 2006. Navigant ConSUlting, Inc. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in califomia. California Energy Commission, PIER IndustriaVAgricunurallWater End Use Energy Efficiency Program. CEG-50Q-2006-118. www.energy.ca.govlpier/projecUeportslCEC-5002006-118.html
Natural Gas Combustion SORTS Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates
4/2412009
Annual Natural - • Square Gas Uaage Natural Gas Em_Ion Feet or Factor" Uaage for Project Factor Emiasions Emi..ions Emi..ions
Gas Type of LAnd Use Units (kBTUlsf) (MMBTUIyear) (glMMBTU)** (gt'year) (tonelyeer) (poundalday)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Leaders. May 2008. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-03-004. http://www.epa.gov/stateply/documentsiresourceslmfgrfg.pdf. Accessed in July 2008.
No Project - Electricity
Electricity - Indirect Emissions Project: SDRTS Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: : 4/2412009
.. EI~lqltylJ" . Electricity Use Land Use s9uare feet (sn .... . (kWtvlf...t)- ••.. (kWhlyear) ()fffqe . 13100 Shop 16910 Processing Area 21360
Total 51370 51 MWhlyear
Emission Factor (pounds per Emissions Emissions
Greenhouse Gas MWh/year) (poundalyear) (tonalyear) Carbon dioxide 804.54 41,329 21 Methane 0.0067 o 0.00 Nitrous oxide 0.0037 o 0.00
Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org
*
No Project - Water
Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Project: SORTS Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 0 4124/2009
I
Water Supply and Conveyance Water Treatment Water Distribution Wastewater Treatment
Totsls From CEC 2006
kWhlMG Northern California Southern California
2,117 9,727 111 111
1,272 1,272 1,911 1,911 5,411 13,021
Water Usage Gallons per day
···•·•··•·•. 4800
Millions Gallons (MG) per year
1.752
Energy Usage kWh
9,480 MWh
9
Greenhouse Gas Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous oxide
Indirect Electricity Emission Factor
(pounds per MWhlyear)
804.54 0.0067 0.0037
Emissions (poundslyear)
7,627 0.06 0.04
Emissions (tonslyear)
4 0.000 0.000
Emission factor for electricity source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org
CEC 2006. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. California Energy Commission, PIER Industrial/AgriculturallWater End Use Energy Efficiency Program. CEC-500-2006-118. www.energy.ca.gov/pier/projecueportslCEC-5002006-118.html
Natural Gas Combustion SORTS Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates
Table E-1: Overview of Energy Usage in the Statewide seMat Areapounds per day 0.00 0.00 tons per year 0 0 GWP 21 310 MTC02 Eqlyear 0.01 0.00
• ·Table E·1 from Califomia Energy Commission. California Commercial EndUse Survey. Consultant Report. March 2006. CEc-400-2006-005
•• USEPA, 2004: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, Climate Leaders Greenhouse Inventory Protocol, CoI8 Model Guidance. October 2004
Q. til 182.90
Q.Il3 22.AD
-III!l3lI
AI~
-.ant
".
!!!!!!!..!!!!!.
"
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Fugitive Emissions Project: SORTS Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 412412009
Annual Leak Rate in Global Metric Tons
Capacity of percent of Emissions Emissions Warming C02 TyPe of Unit Units Unit (kg) capacity (kgiyear) (tonsiyear) Potential Equiv.!year Domestic Refrigeration 0.5 0.5% 0 0.000 ··;1aQO 0 Commercial Refrigeration 1000 35.0% 0 O.oool~ 0
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Leaders. May 2008. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-Q3-004. http://www.epa.gov/stateply/documentslresourceslmfgrtg.pdf, Accessed in July 2008.
Page: 1
5/1/2009 11 :33:22 AM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (TonsNear)
File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\ENuno\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Selma_DRTS.urb924
Project Name: Selma Disposal and Recycling and Transfer Station
Project Location: Fresno County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
2009 TOTALS (tonslyear unmitigated)
2009 TOTALS (tonslyear mitigated)
Percent Reduction
BOO
0.11
0.11
0.00
liQx
0.69
0.69
0.00
~
0.43
0.43
0.00
SQ2.
0.00
0.00
0.00
PM10 Dust PM10 Exhayst
0.43 0.05
0.10 0.05
77.26 0.00
EMm
0.47
0.14
69.86
PM25 Dyst
0.09
0.02
77.22
~ ~
0.04
0.04
0.00
~
0.13
0.06
52.66
.c.Q2.
64.37
64.37
0.00
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)
BOO
0.04
liQx
0.15
~
0.40
SQ2.
0.00
EMm
0.00
~
0.00
.c.Q2.
178.35
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)
BOO
0.04
liQx
0.15
~
0.40
SQ2.
0.00
EMm
0.00
~
0.00
.c.Q2.
178.35
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated