SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-17 • Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Revised Project • million cubic yards in the 2013 project, and the projected landfill closure date would be 2036 • versus 2039 for the 2013 project. From an air quality perspective, the additional 8.1 million • cubic yards would result in an increase in fugitive emissions from the landfill surface and an increase in emissions from LFG control devices due to the increase in LFG collected. The project • would also result in an increase above the current annual level of traffic-related trips, which would result in an increase in emissions associated with traffic-related trips. • Two Project scenarios were evaluated. The first scenario assumes that all LFG in excess of what • is currently permitted for destruction in an Ameresco LFG to energy (LFGTE) facility would be • destroyed in existing and future flares. The second scenario assumes that all LFG in excess of • the current actual quantity of LFG sent to the flares is destroyed in existing and future LFGTE • facilities. • Impact D.1. Initial construction activities for the expansion area would generate short-term • emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter (PM,.) • and equipment exhaust emissions (Revises 2013 EIR Impact D.1.). • The project would include two distinct types of construction phases: the relocation of the • Littlejohn Creek and the construction of new landfill cells. For the purposes of quantifying . construction emissions, it was assumed that the creek location would occur at the same time as • the construction of a new landfill cell. This assumption is conservative and would result in the maximum construction emissions for a given year. Construction emissions were calculated • using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMOd), a model developed by CARB to quantify emissions form land-use and construction projects for the purpose of evaluation under • CEQA. The maximum construction emissions for a given year are presented below in Table • IV.D-3. As shown below, all criteria pollutant emissions generated by construction activities would be well below the SJVAPCD's air quality thresholds of significance for construction • emissions. • Table IV.D-3: Maximum Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) • Scenario ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 S 7Cellonstruction(e ui ment) 0.36 1.34 3.19 0.12 0.12 0.003onstruction(workernd other sources) 0.19 0.91 1.80 0.08 0.08 0.000Cel Construction(dust) 0.62 0.02 • Creek Movement 0.31 1 1.74 2.38 0.08 1 0.08 0.000 • Creek Movement(dust) 0.18 0.09 • Total 0.86 3.99 7.37 1.08 0.39 0.003 • CEQA Threshold 10 100 10 15 15 27 • Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No • SOURCE: SCS Engineers,2018 • For all construction projects, compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII is required by law. Based on the size of the construction area and proximity to receptors, additional measures may • • • •