Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Planning Commission Informational Briefing.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Planning Commission Informational Briefing."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Planning Commission Informational Briefing

3 The Purpose of Today’s Meeting: Provide background on the County’s waste management system and programs Provide an overview of the proposed Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project

4 The Purpose of Today’s Meeting: Provide an overview of the Draft Subsequent EIR for the Project Receive input from the Planning Commission Note: Public Hearing on Draft SEIR, September 4 th

5 About the Project… How did we get here?

6 County Board of Supervisors approved the Tajiguas Landfill expansion in 2002 Directed staff to research alternatives to landfilling and increase reuse and recycling of materials Background

7 Communities served by Tajiguas Landfill: County of Santa Barbara City of Santa Barbara City of Goleta City of Solvang City of Buellton Background

8 The County Department of Public Works Operates the regional landfill (Tajiguas Landfill) Operates 3 regional transfer & recycling facilities 90 FT staff members Background 8

9 County manages three bin collection system for the region served by Tajiguas Blue Can – Transferred by County to Ventura for processing Green Can – Sent to County Facility for mulching Brown Can – Sent to Landfill 9

10 Background The County is current rolling out a new organics program Food Forward Food reuse and recycling program

11 Organics Recycling Tajiguas Landfill green waste mulching operations and marketing programs Backyard composting program Background

12 Hazardous Household Waste collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal County Collection Facility at UCSB Campus Collection Days in Santa Ynez Background

13 Operation Medicine Cabinet Disposal of Medications at 9 County Sheriff Stations Disposal of Used Sharps (hypodermic needles) at 5 County Health Clinics Background

14 School Recycling Business Recycling Green Business Program Education Campaigns

15 Successful Diversion Programs Dozens of other successful regional programs have also been implemented since the passage of AB939

16 Change in Diversion Jurisdictions served by Tajiguas divert more than 70% of their waste from the landfill 75%

17 Change in Disposal

18 The Waste Management Hierarchy EPA & international scheme Source Reduction & Reuse Recycling/ Composting Energy Recovery Disposal Most Preferred Least Preferred

19 The Next Step in Getting to Zero Waste Source Reduction & Reuse Recycling/ Composting Energy Recovery Disposal 80% to 85% Diversion 15% to 20% landfilled 70% Diversion 30% landfilled Existing Programs New Programs & Facilities

20 What we need … a way of managing the 170,000 to 200,000 tons per year in the trash can that is still being buried. But not a replacement for existing or planned recycling programs.

21 Sought Out Community Input Comprehensive and transparent outreach effort started at the beginning Over 100 presentations in the last 7 years to area stakeholders

22 Original Project Goals Increase diversion of our trash Reduce environmental impacts of landfilling Provide financial feasibility and sustainability

23 Original Project Goals Production of green energy and other marketable products Provide a humane work environment Result in a long-term waste management plan (20 years)

24 Original Project Goals Emphasis on: Reducing Landfill volumes and Not affecting existing or planned recycling programs

25 Milestones 2007: Subgroup formed of all participating jurisdictions 2009: Released Request for Proposals 2010: Received Responses 2011: Completed Review of Proposals 2012: Selected Project/Vendor 2013: Notice of Preparation of SEIR 2014: Draft SEIR Released

26 Proposed Project The facilities and what they do

27 Mustang Renewable Power Ventures: Dewey Group & Rossi Enterprises Participating Firms: Resource Recovery Project

28 Comprised of 3 facilities proposed at Tajiguas Landfill: 1.State of the art material recovery facility 2.Anaerobic digester to process organics 3.Landfill remainder (less than 50%) thus doubling life of the landfill

29

30 MRF = Materials Recovery Facility Sorting waste into the three streams

31 Current MRFs in Area

32 State of the Art MRF – Optical Sorting

33 State of the Art MRF - video

34 Proposed MRF – Less Labor

35

36

37 AD = Anaerobic Digestion Processing organic material into compost and energy

38

39

40

41

42 Project benefits Recovering resources & minimizing impacts

43 Economic Benefit Public/Private Partnership Over $60 million invested in local economy through private investment ~40 construction jobs >50 permanent jobs for operation of facilities Property tax generation

44 Cost-Effective All “no-project” alternatives include increased costs The proposed project has a minimal impact to ratepayers

45 Long-Term Solution State requirement: CalRecycle requires 15 years of planned capacity for all jurisdictions 20 year regional solid waste management plan

46 Environmental Benefits State requirement: AB 341 goal of 75% in 2020 Projected to raise region’s diversion level to 85%+

47 State requirement: SBX1 2 – 33% renewable energy Generates renewable energy (an additional net of 1 megawatt) Also aids community with Distributed Electricity Generation Environmental Benefits

48 State requirement: AB 32 – greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 Lowers greenhouse gas emissions by more than 130,000 MTCO2 (~22,000 cars off of the roads) Environmental Benefits

49 State requirement: AB 1826 (pending) – requires businesses generating 8 or more cubic yards/week of organics to recycle organic waste by 2016 Captures and recycles >98% of organic waste Environmental Benefits

50 Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Draft Subsequent EIR

51 The Purposes of CEQA Disclose significant effects of proposed projects Identify ways to avoid or reduce impacts Consider feasible alternatives

52 The Purposes of CEQA Foster interagency coordination Enhance public participation Inform decision-makers and public at large

53 Project Elements: Site Plan

54 Project Elements: MRF & AD Facility

55 Project Elements: MRF Elevations

56 Project Elements: ADF Elevations

57 Project Elements The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)… 311 days/year, up to 800 tons/day and 250,000 tons/year 60,000-70,000 sf building with offices, visitor/education center Solar panels on roof to produce electricity

58 Project Elements The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)… May accept commingled source separated recyclables (CSSR) Three worker shifts plus administration staff, 20 additional employees for CSSR

59 Project Elements The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)… Dust collectors and bio-filters to minimize discharge of odors from building Internal misting system to reduce dust and odors for workers 13 truck trips/day to export recyclables

60 Project Elements The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility… ~63,000 sf building housing up to 16 digesters Process up to 240 tons/day and 73,600 tons/year of organic materials Two thermophilic ( o ) digestion phases up to 28 days each

61 Project Elements The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility… Energy facility engine exhaust used to purge digesters before opening Flare to combust bio-gas released when digesters are opened Dust collection system and bio-filter to minimize discharge of dust and odors from the building

62 Project Elements The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility… Control room, water treatment unit, 3 percolate tanks Solar panels on roof to produce electricity

63 Project Elements Energy production at the AD Facility… Two 1,537 horsepower internal combustion engines Burn up to 237 million ft 3 /year of bio-gas Engine-driven generators to produce up to 13,714 MW-hours/year

64 Project Elements Energy production at the AD Facility… Provides heat to digesters NO x emissions controlled by selective catalytic reduction using ammonia CO and ROC emissions controlled by oxidation catalyst

65 Project Elements Composting area (~5 acres)… Digestate trucked from AD Facility 6 days/week Digestate composted in windrows for about 6 weeks to produce up to 60,000 tons/year of compost

66 Project Elements Composting area (~5 acres)… Emissions and odor from compost windrows minimized by blending with wood chips, irrigation after pile turning and application of finished compost to new compost piles as a pseudo bio-filter Storm runoff contained on site, filtered, stored and discharged to the north sedimentation basin

67 Subsequent EIR Scoping Notice of Preparation with SEIR scoping document distributed April 19, 2012 Public scoping meeting on May 14, 2012

68 Subsequent EIR Scoping Public testimony at Scoping Hearing Mike Lunsford and Ana Citrin (Gaviota Coast Conservancy) Bob Keats and James Smallwood (Surfrider Foundation) Bob Hart (local property owner) Concerns expressed focused on extension of the life of the landfill, assessing urban alternative locations, visual impacts and 24 hour operations.

69 Draft SEIR Study Areas 1.Aesthetics 2.Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas 3.Biological Resources 4.Hazards & Hazardous Materials 5.Geologic Processes 6.Cultural Resources 7.Noise 8.Land Use 9.Traffic 10.Water Resources 11.Public Health/Nuisance 12.Environmental Justice

70 Impact Classifications Class I: Significant and Unavoidable Class II: Significant but Mitigable Class III: Adverse but less than Significant Class IV: Beneficial Project Specific and Cumulative

71 This Project… Class I (Significant & Unavoidable) None, except for Landfill extension of life impacts (air quality and biology) Class II (Significant but Mitigable) Aesthetics, Biology, Hazards, Geology, Cultural Resources, Land Use, Water Resources

72 This Project… Class III (Adverse, but less than Significant) Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biology, Hazards, Geology, Noise, Traffic, Water Resources, Nuisance

73 This Project… Class IV (Beneficial!) Greenhouse gas emissions reduction Nuisance (litter) reduction

74 Impact Summary: Class I Impacts No project-specific or cumulative Class I impacts, excluding impacts associated with ongoing Landfill activities that would be extended in time as the project would extend the life of the Landfill by about 10 years

75 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Aesthetics (project & cumulative): degrade views from U.S. 101 Mitigation: building color, landscape screening Biology (project & cumulative): construction-related disturbance of sensitive vegetation Mitigation: delineate work areas, control invasive plants, minimize dust, stabilize soils

76 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Biology (project): construction disturbance of nesting birds and/or raptors Mitigation: avoid breeding season or avoid active nests Biology (project & cumulative): construction disturbance and loss of habitat for badger and ringtail Mitigation: identify and avoid den sites

77 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Biology (project & cumulative): construction disturbance and loss of habitat for desert woodrat Mitigation: identify and avoid nest sites Biology (project & cumulative): eliminate and/or disturb bat habitat Mitigation: avoid peak breeding season, identify and avoid roost sites

78 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Biology (project & cumulative): direct mortality of California red- legged frog Mitigation: minimize lighting, maintain litter fences, limit vehicle speed, limit nighttime vehicle travel, worker training, conduct surveys and avoid when found, biological monitoring during construction Biology (project & cumulative): direct mortality of ringtail, desert woodrat and badger Mitigation: see above

79 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Hazards (project): construction-related discovery of hazardous materials Mitigation: soil assessment and management plan, soil remediation as required Hazards (cumulative): use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials Mitigation: see project mitigation above

80 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Hazards (project & cumulative): increased fire risk from new fuel & ignition sources and increased staffing Mitigation: fire protection and prevention plan Geology (project): reduced slope stability due to application of treated wastewater Mitigation: avoid ponding of applied water, prevent concentrated over-slope drainage, engineering geologist review, establish and maintain vegetation

81 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Geology (project): expansive soils may damage proposed facilities Mitigation: construct building pads of non-expansive soils or utilize a foundation system designed for expansive soils, over-excavation and compaction Geology (project): differential settlement of buried waste at MRF/ADF site Mitigation: foundation design using caissons with grade beams, or end-bearing helical pier anchors

82 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Geology (project): differential settlement of buried waste at composting area Mitigation: allow for primary settlement prior to construction, structural pavement system over moisture-conditioned aggregate base Cultural resources (project & cumulative): construction-related discovery of unknown resources Mitigation: stop work and evaluate any artifacts or human remains found during construction

83 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Land use (project): conflicts with nearby residential, agricultural and recreational uses Mitigation: implement measures for all Class II impacts Water resources (project): landfill gas migration into groundwater caused by proposed well Mitigation: well screen location and sanitary seals

84 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Water resources (project & cumulative): construction period storm run-off to surface waters Mitigation: construction storm water pollution prevention plan, erosion and sediment control plan Water resources (project & cumulative): storm run-off and inadvertent discharge (percolate, domestic wastewater, spills in fueling areas) to surface waters Mitigation: industrial storm water pollution prevention plan, spill prevention, control & countermeasure plan

85 Impact Summary: Class II Impacts Water resources (project): storm run-off from the composting area to surface waters Mitigation: water quality testing, composting area management

86 Impact Summary: Class III Impacts Aesthetics: views from the landfill access road, Baron Ranch Trail and Upper Outlaw Trail, private views, construction lighting & glare, operational lighting & glare Air quality: construction emissions, operational emissions, exceed air quality standards, increased health risk, odors, H 2 S & sulfide ambient concentrations

87 Impact Summary: Class III Impacts Biology: vegetation loss, habitat loss and disturbance, special-status plants, California red-legged frog habitat, transient special-status birds, common wildlife, wildlife corridors Hazards: construction-related discharge of hazardous materials, use & storage of hazardous materials, bio-gas explosion, landfill gas fire, emergency response

88 Impact Summary: Class III Impacts Geology: stability of waste fill slopes, stability of mapped landslides, seismic ground shaking, seismic liquefaction Noise: construction noise, traffic noise on U.S. 101, operational noise, operational vibration

89 Impact Summary: Class III Impacts Traffic: construction traffic on U.S. 101 and landfill access road, operational traffic on U.S. 101 and landfill access road Water resources: flooding, groundwater supplies, groundwater quality, well interference, reduce rising groundwater Nuisance: attract and harbor vectors, spread of pathogens

90 Impact Summary: Class IV Impacts Beneficial Impacts Greenhouse gas emissions: reduce emissions by diversion of organic waste and export of electricity Greenhouse gas emissions: reduce emissions by improved recovery and recycling of materials Nuisance: reduce litter by indoor tipping of MSW

91 Impact Summary: Extension of Landfill Life Class I Extend the duration of existing significant and unavoidable air quality impacts (off-site mobile NO x emissions, 1-hour NO 2 air quality standard exceedances, 24-hour PM 10 air quality standard exceedances) Extend the duration of existing significant and unavoidable biological resources impacts (delay habitat restoration, extend disturbance of adjacent habitat)

92 Impact Summary: Extension of Landfill Life Class II Extend the duration of existing significant hazards (use and storage of hazardous materials, subsurface landfill fire, petroleum storage fire risk, unauthorized dumping) Extend the duration of indirect impacts to archeological sites Extend the duration of significant public health/nuisance impacts (unauthorized dumping, dust)

93 Alternatives Selection Required to look at alternatives that have the potential to reduce significant environmental impacts Some Alternatives are based on public input Some Alternatives studied at “project” level CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative

94 Alternatives Considered in the SEIR A.No project: continued use of the Tajiguas Landfill until capacity reached in ~2026 B.Urban Area MRF Alternative 1: MRF at 620 Quinientos Street, Santa Barbara (owned by MarBorg Industries), ADF and other facilities at the Landfill C.Urban Area MRF Alternative 2: MRF at South Coast Recycling & Transfer Station (SCRTS), ADF and other facilities at the Landfill

95 Alternatives Considered in the SEIR D.Off-Site Aerobic Composting: the MRF would be located at the Tajiguas Landfill, the AD Facility would be replaced with aerobic composting of organics at the Engel & Gray Composting Facility in Santa Maria E.No Project Alternative: expand capacity at the Tajiguas Landfill

96 Alternatives Considered in the SEIR F.No Project Alternative: export waste to the Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center G.No Project Alternative: export waste to the planned Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility

97 Alternatives Analysis: No Project No new impacts Impacts associated with Landfill operation would continue Landfill gas would continue to be emitted Solid waste disposal needs of the region would require action Landfill expansion or waste exportation to other landfills (Simi Valley or Santa Maria)

98 Alternatives Analysis: MarBorg MRF Similar impacts at the Landfill associated with the AD Facility, composting area and related project components Class I impacts at MRF site Aesthetics: views from U.S. 101, Calle Cesar Chavez, Chase Palm Park Air quality: 1-hour NO 2 standard, acute health risk Traffic: cumulative impact at Garden Street/U.S. 101 ramps Environmental justice: surrounding minority community disproportionately affected by the above impacts

99 Alternatives Analysis: MarBorg MRF Class II impacts at MRF site: nighttime lighting, odors, migratory birds, exposure of hazardous materials, tsunami hazard, liquefaction, settlement, cultural resources, construction noise, operational noise, land use conflicts, increased storm run-off, surface water quality

100 Alternatives Analysis: SCRTS MRF Similar impacts at the Landfill associated with the AD Facility, composting area and related project components No Class I impacts at MRF site Class II impacts at MRF site: migratory birds, exposure of hazardous materials, differential settlement, cultural resources, short-term traffic, construction and operational surface water quality

101 Alternatives Analysis: Off-site Aerobic Composting Similar but lesser impacts at the Landfill associated with the MRF Class I impacts at the composting site: ROC emissions from composting windrows Class II impacts: NO x emissions associated with transportation of organic waste to the composting site

102 Alternatives Analysis: Landfill Expansion Class I impacts Aesthetics: view from Upper Outlaw Trail Air quality: construction emissions, air quality standards, extension of health risk, greenhouse gas emissions Biology: loss of habitat, oak trees, sensitive plants, disturbance of special- status wildlife Land use: conflicts with adjacent open space and recreational uses

103 Alternatives Analysis: Landfill Expansion Class II impacts: odors, special-status mammals, California red-legged frog, migratory birds & raptors, slope stability, cultural resources

104 Alternatives Analysis: Export to Simi Valley Impacts at landfill site (contribution) Class I: aesthetics, air quality, land use Class II: biology, hazards, geology, cultural resources, water resources

105 Alternatives Analysis: Export to Simi Valley MSW consolidation impacts (SCRTS and/or MarBorg C&D RTF) Class I: cumulative traffic at Garden Street/U.S. 101 ramps Class II: none Class III: aesthetics (litter, tipping floor cover), air quality (emissions, air quality standards, greenhouse gases, odors), noise (traffic noise and on-site operations), traffic (increased truck trips)

106 Alternatives Analysis: Export to Santa Maria Impacts at planned landfill site (contribution) Class I: air quality, biology Class II: aesthetics, hazards, geology, cultural resources

107 Alternatives Analysis: Export to Santa Maria MSW consolidation impacts (SCRTS and/or MarBorg C&D RTF) Class I: cumulative traffic at Garden Street/U.S. 101 ramps Class II: none Class III: aesthetics (litter, tipping floor cover), air quality (emissions, air quality standards, greenhouse gases, odors), noise (traffic noise and on-site operations), traffic (increased truck trips)

108 SEIR Schedule Public Draft SEIR Hearing September 4 th, 5:00 p.m., Public Health Auditorium Receiving Comments until September 24 th, 5:00 p.m. ( or traditional mail or Fax) Final SEIR to be released in Fall 2014

109 SEIR Schedule All comments will be included All comments will receive a response within the EIR

110 Project Review Schedule Planning Commission Determination (Date TBD) Board of Supervisors Hearing (Fall 2014/Winter 2015 date TBD)

111 SEIR Comments Please send written comments by September 24 th (by 5 pm) to: Joddi Leipner, Division Planner Santa Barbara County Public Works Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division 130 East Victoria Street, Suite 100 Santa Barbara CA Phone: Fax:

112 Thank you!

113

114  Proposed rates are comparable to projected future landfill costs  If increase only disposal portion of residential rate to $100 per ton (currently $77) it would cost ratepayer an additional $3.48 per month  Important to note: costs for all other disposal alternatives will increase in the future  therefore cost of the project poses no to minimal additional increase to ratepayer compared to alternatives 114 Cost-effective


Download ppt "Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Planning Commission Informational Briefing."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google