SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-29 Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Revised Project Table IV.D-6: GHG Emissions (metric tons equivalent CO2 per year) ' Methane Energy Off-Site Haul Total Scenario Credits Truck Emissions Emissions E s Current Actual 23,147 -5,088 9,236 27,295 Current Permitted 45,385 -6,846 27,011 65,550 Project(Flare) 51,561 -6,846 27,011 71,726 Project(LFG Engines) 65,315 -23,999 27,011 68,327 Project(Flare)-Current Actual 44,431 Project(LFG Engines)-Current Actual 41,033 Project(Flare)-Current Permitted 6,176 Project(LFG Engines)-Current Permitted 2,777 SOURCE: SCS Engineers,2018;modified by RCH Group NOTES:GHG emissions were calculated for four scenarios: •Current Actual,which assumes no waste placement occurs at Forward after 2017, •Current Permitted,which assumes waste placement continues until the site reaches its current permit limit; •Future Permitted(Flare),which is the Project scenario assuming all LFG not sent to the LFGTE or Ameresco facilities is destroyed in a flare; •Future Permitted(LFG Engines),which is the Project scenario assuming all LFG resulting from the Project is destroyed in an engine and the energy is recovered as electricity. See AQIA Table 3-10 for more information on landfill GHG emissions.See AQIA Table 3-14 for off-site haul vehicle emissions. On-site operational equipment emissions are not included because the use of such equipment will not increase with the project,see AQIA Table 3-16. Energy Credits(negative number in the table)reflect the amount of GHG emissions that are displaced by the electrical power generated by the LFGTE facilities at the Forward Landfill under the various scenarios. Because of the electricity generated by the LFGTE facilities,there is less demand for electricity from other power plants and thus the criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions from the other power plants are reduced(resulting in the GHG Energy Credits). Bold Underlined Values are above significance threshold Example:Project(Flare)—Current Actual=71,726—27,295=44,431 metric tons Values are averaged over a 60-year period and are representative of overall impacts.Peak emissions would be higher than emissions shown. The flare scenario(Project compared to Current Actual) and the LFG Engine scenario (Project compared to Current Actual)both would exceed the threshold of 25,000 metric tons/year of COze, indicating substantial emissions of GHGs under these scenarios. The LFG Engine scenario would result in power displacement and thus, its GHG emissions would be slightly less than the flare scenario. Lastly (Item C), the project would be in compliance with CARB regulations for landfill methane emissions. The landfill methane emission rule regulates emissions from the landfill surface, landfill gas collection system,flares, and LFG engines. Compliance with a statewide plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions would render this project less than significant according to the flowchart guidance provided by the SJVAPCD in the fact sheet related to addressing GHG emission impacts27;therefore a BPS is not necessary to demonstrate that GHG emissions are less than significant. The SJVAPCD has not approved BPS for landfill GHG 1 emissions. The majority of analyses of items A through C indicate that the project would not have a significant impact on the State's goals for reducing GHG emissions. If carbon sequestration of "Factsheet flowchart reviewed September 3,2014 at: httl2://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/bps/Fact Sheet Stationary Sources.ydf