SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-25 r Forward Inc.Landfill 2014 Expansion Project LFG Engine scenario would result in power displacement and thus, its GHG emissions would be slightly less than the flare scenario. - Table IV.D-6 GHG Emissions (metric tons equivalent CO: per ear) Methane Energy Off-Site Haul Total Scenario Credits Truck Emissions Emissions Emissions Current Actual 35,536 -387 10,491 45,640 Current Permitted 52,957 -387 30,682 83,252 Project(Flare) 60,474 -4,570 30,682 86,586 Project(LFG Engines) 62,126 -7,941 30,682 84,867 Project(Flare)—Current Actual 40,946 Project(LFG Engines)—Current Actual 39,227 Project(Flare)—Current Permitted 3,334 Project(LFG Engines)—Current Permitted 1,615 SOURCE: SCS Engineers,2014;modified by RCH Group NOTES:GHG emissions were calculated for four scenarios: •Current Actual,which assumes waste placement at Forward stops in 2014; •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(engine),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 Table 3-10 of the AQIA for more information.Based on 8,668 tons per day of waste acceptance:same as current permitted levels,but higher than actual baseline(3,500 tons per day of waste acceptance). 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=86,586-45,640=40,946 metric tons Values are averaged over a 60 year period and are representative of overall impacts.Peak emissions would be higher than emissions shown. Lastly (Item C), the project would be in compliance with AB 32 regulations for landfill 1 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 impacts24;therefore a BPS is not necessary to demonstrate that GHG emissions are less than significant. The SJVAPCD has no approved BPS for landfill GHG 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 Z'Factsheet flowchart reviewed September 3,2014 at: httn: www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP I b12s/Fact Sheet Stationary Sources pdf