SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-27 Forward Landfill Expansion Table IV.D-4 shows the total GHG emissions from the landfill for the current actual and future potential scenarios. As discussed previously, the methane emission is anthropogenic and is always considered a GHG emission from the landfill. The CO2 emission is biogenic,but is also considered as an emission from the landfill,but should not be attributed to the landfill since carbon dioxide from refuse would normally occur in the natural carbon cycle. The energy displacement credit is a credit for the landfill.The carbon sequestration is also a credit for the landfill. The total GHG emissions from Forward Landfill are the sum of the methane and CO2 emissions minus the power displacement and carbon sequestration credits. Negative totals indicate that more GHG is displaced and carbon is stored in the landfill than is GHG is emitted. Both the CARB default values and the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWICS) site specific values are shown. It should be noted that the amount of carbon sequestered is greater than the GHG emissions from the landfill for all scenarios. When carbon storage is included in the GHG total for the project, the Project lowers the GHG emissions of Forward Landfill because more carbon is sequestered in the landfill where it will not be emitted as either methane or CO2. Table IV.D-4 GHG Emissions (metric tons a uivalent CO2 er ear) SIN ®m m Future Project-Current Actual (Flare) -33,570 -23,676 Future Project-Current Actual (LFG Engine) -36,011 -26,361 Future Project-Current Permitted(Flare) -19,659 -15,609 Future Project-Current Permitted (LFG Engine) -22,099 -18,295 SOURCE: SCS Engineers,2009 With regard to Items B the project results in a decrease in GHG emissions as a result of increased power displacement and increased carbon storage. With regard to Item C,the project is located inclose proximity to the City of Stockton, which would minimize "hauling GHG emissions" in comparison to a landfill located in a . remote area (where all hauling trips would generate higher GHG emissions). The review of Items A, B, and C indicate that the project would not conflict with the State goals established in AB 32 and, therefore, the project's emissions of GHGs would constitute a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.D.6: None required. � q Impact IV.D.7.The project would contribute to a cumulative air quality impact in the project area. According to the SJVAPCD GAMAQI, cumulative impacts should be assessed for ozone, PMI(), CO and TAC. Ozone impacts are the result of the cumulative emissions from numerous sources in the region and transport from outside the region. Ozone impacts are assessed based on the