allied food waste and recovery is - contra costa county · 2020. 5. 6. · (swfp) 007–aa–0027....

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CONTRA COSTA TRANSFER AND RECOVERY STATION

COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE COLLECTION AND RECOVERY PROGRAM

December 2010

LEAD AGENCY:

Contra Costa Environmental Health 2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200

Concord, CA 94520 (925) 692-2528

PREPARED BY:

Scheidegger & Associates P.O. Box 324

Danville, CA 94526 (925) 210-2271

WITH ASSISTANCE FROM:

Illingworth & Rodkin (Noise) William Popenuck (Air Quality)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 The Integrated Waste Management Act .......................................................................... 1-1 Strategic Directives .......................................................................................................... 1-3 The CCCSWA and Pilot Program ................................................................................... 1-3 Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station ................................................................... 1-4 Facility Description .............................................................................................. 1-4 Major Facility Permits ......................................................................................... 1-4 Surrounding Land Use ..................................................................................................... 1-7 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................... 1-8 Purpose of Initial Study ................................................................................................... 1-8 CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 2-1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-1 SWFP Revision ................................................................................................................ 2-2 Public–Private Partnership ............................................................................................... 2-2 Construction ..................................................................................................................... 2-3 Operation.......................................................................................................................... 2-3 Food Waste Collection Program .......................................................................... 2-3 Processing ............................................................................................................ 2-4 Site Operational Layout ........................................................................... 2-5 Material Delivery and Handling .............................................................. 2-7 Equipment ................................................................................................ 2-7 Staffing ..................................................................................................... 2-8 Cleanup .................................................................................................... 2-8 Monitoring and Reporting...................................................................... 2-11 Contingency Measures ........................................................................... 2-11 Station Throughput ................................................................................ 2-12 Beneficial Use / Disposal ............................................................................................... 2-12 Project Traffic Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-13 Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 2-13 Permits and Regulatory Approvals ................................................................................ 2-14 CHAPTER 3. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................... 3-1 CHAPTER 4. REFERENCE SOURCES .................................................................................. 4-1 CHAPTER 5. DETERMINATION ........................................................................................... 5-1

12-01-10/Allied Food Waste Collection and Recovery IS/lal

i


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix A. SWFP 07–AA–0027 Appendix B. CCTRS Commercial Food Waste Recovery Program Operations Appendix C. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Appendix E. Supporting Data for Air Pollutant Emissions Evaluation

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Location .................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2 View of Morbark 1000 Diesel Tub Grinder at Newby Island ................................. 1-5 Figure 3 CCTRS Location and Surrounding Land Use ......................................................... 1-6 Figure 4 CCTRS Site Plan and Traffic Flow Under Project Conditions................................ 2-6 Figure 5 Facility Layout Plan ................................................................................................. 2-6 * Figure 6 Food Waste Processing Operation Layout ............................................................... 2-6 * Figure 7 View of Morbark Woodhog 2600 Diesel Horizontal Grinder ................................. 2-9 Figure 8 Wind Rose at the CCCSD Treatment Plant ........................................................... 3-10 Figure 9 View from Southwest of Wood Waste Storage and Grinding Operation .............. 3-36 Figure 10 Noise Monitoring Locations .................................................................................. 3-38

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Project Traffic Characteristics at 60 TPD .............................................................. 2-13 Table 2 Net Emissions Increase from Proposed Project ..................................................... 3-12 Table 3 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data on April 15, 2010 (dBA) ...... 3-37 _____________

* Foldout follows page indicated.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Allied Waste Services (Allied), a subsidiary of Republic Services Inc., is proposing to operate a commercial food waste collection and recovery project (Project) at the Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS) in Martinez. Allied, in partnership with the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), proposes to operate the Project in a public–private partnership designed to increase diversion from CCCSWA service area and potentially other areas of Contra Costa County as well. The proposed Project involves collection of source-separated food waste by Allied with transport to the CCTRS in Martinez for processing. An electric horizontal grinder would grind the food waste within the existing transfer building. The processed material would then be transported to the EBMUD Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (Main Plant) in Oakland where it would be fed into the plant's anaerobic digesters. Methane gas would be produced and beneficially used in EBMUD's Power Generation Station (PGS) for energy production. Figure 1 shows EBMUD Main Plant and CCTRS regional locations. This chapter provides discussion of relevant background information, while Chapter 2 includes the Project description.

THE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

In 1989, Assembly Bill 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act, was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. As a result, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)—now known as of January 1, 2010, as the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and referred to as such throughout the remainder of this report—was established. A disposal reporting system oversight was established, and facility and program planning was required. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed: jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. AB 939 also established an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. AB 939 required counties to prepare a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Contra Costa County's CIWMP was approved in 1993.1

1 All references for this Initial Study are provided in Chapter 4.

12-01-10/Allied Food Waste Collection and Recovery IS/lal 1-1

1-3


STRATEGIC DIRECTIVES

Waste diversion continued to increase with implementation of the Integrated Waste Management Act. In 2006, the statewide diversion rate was 54%. During that time, CalRecycle began to examine how to continue to affect change after meeting the Integrated Waste Management Act mandate of reaching 50% diversion statewide. As a result, a series of strategic directives were adopted at its February 13, 2007, meeting. Included in the directives (Strategic Directive 3.3) was a statewide diversion rate target of 75% by 2020, and a reduction of organics in the waste stream by 50% by 2020.2 According to a 2008 Waste Characterization Study, food waste represented 15.5% (about 6.1 million tons) of the material landfilled in California.3 California's diversion rate increased to 58% by 2007.4 Additional refinements to the various directives were adopted by CalRecycle on February 13, 2007, and again on March 24, 2009.

THE CCCSWA AND PILOT PROGRAM

The CCCSWA provides solid waste and residential recycling services for Central Contra Costa County. CCCSWA holds franchise agreements with Allied for the collection, transfer, and disposal of residential and commercial solid waste, and with Valley Waste Management for the collection and marketing of residential recycling, green waste, and food scraps. The CCCSWA member agencies include:

• Town of Danville

• City of Lafayette

• Town of Moraga

• City of Orinda

• City of Walnut Creek

• Other areas of the county including Alamo, Blackhawk, Diablo, and unincorporated areas near Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, and Walnut Creek.

Based on CCCSWA's June 17, 2010, Agenda Report, the garbage generation rate within the service area is 3.7 pounds per capita against a goal of 4.7. This translates into a waste diversion rate of 58%. With implementation of the proposed Project, the diversion rate would increase by about 5%.5 The proposed Project has been in development since November 2008 when CCCSWA, Allied, and EBMUD began participation in a pilot program for food waste collection and recovery. Three days per week, an Allied packer truck collects 10 to 12 tons per day (TPD) of source-separated food waste from over 100 commercial accounts (restaurants and grocery stores) within the CCCSWA service area and then transports the material to Allied's Newby Island Composting Facility in Milpitas where it is ground outdoors in a Morbark tub grinder as shown

1-4


on Figure 2. The ground food waste is then transported to EBMUD's Main Plant in Oakland where it is processed further and fed into existing anaerobic digesters for methane production. The methane is then beneficially used in the District's PGS for energy production. Grinding is necessary to prepare the material for the digesters in compliance with EBMUD's requirements. The objectives of the pilot program included gaining operating experience for a full-scale program, assessing generator response, and effectiveness of contaminant control in the source- separated food waste. From all accounts, the program has performed well with generator participation and the production of a high-quality feed stock for EBMUD.5 The pilot program will continue until the proposed Project is implemented.

CONTRA COSTA TRANSFER AND RECOVERY STATION

In the proposed Project, food waste processing would occur at the CCTRS in Martinez. Allied is the operator of the CCTRS, which is owned by Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) of California, a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. Figure 3 provides a detailed view with surrounding land use. Facility Description

The CCTRS is located at 951 Waterbird Way in Martinez. Regional vehicle access is provided by Interstate 680 while local access is provided via Waterfront Road to Waterbird Way. The CCTRS functions as a transfer station authorized under Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) 007–AA–0027. This permit, which is included in Appendix A, must be revised to accommodate the proposed Project, will be renumbered to 07–AA–0027, and is referred to as such throughout the remainder of this report. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is brought to the facility by franchise haulers and the public, then loaded into larger transfer trucks for transport to the Keller Canyon Landfill near Pittsburg, about 11 miles away. The CCTRS is permitted to receive up to 1,900 TPD of MSW, a total of 1,130 vehicles per day, and is also permitted to operate a wood grinding facility. The 19-acre site is a former borrow pit which was used as a source of cover for the nearby Acme Landfill operation. Thus, the station's ground elevation is substantially lower than its surroundings by about 45 feet. According to 2009 quarterly materials activity reports, incoming tonnage averaged between 750 to 800 TPD with a maximum day 1,253 TPD. Incoming vehicles averaged about 310 to 345 per day with a maximum day of 454 vehicles. These values are well below permit limits and likely reflect the economic conditions in 2009. Major Facility Permits

The major operating permits for the CCTRS include the following:

1-7


• SWFP 07–AA–0027. This permit was issued by Contra Costa Environmental Health as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) with concurrence by CalRecycle and must be reviewed every five years.6 SWFP 07-AA-0027 restricts incoming tonnage, type of waste and numbers of vehicles, and imposes self-monitoring requirements and a number of conditions that address CCTRS design and operation. The CCTRS is inspected by the LEA on a monthly basis.

• Land Use Permit (LUP) 2122–86. LUP 2122–86 was originally approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1987, and last amended on April 21, 1992.7 The LUP contains well over 50 conditions of approval governing the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the CCTRS (facility name in the LUP is "Acme Fill Waste Recovery & Transfer Station"). No land use permit amendment is necessary for the material handling modifications being proposed because LUP 2122-86 already includes conditions that require operational changes to be phased in over time, where feasible, to increase diversion of the waste stream. However, LUP 2122-86 acknowledges that the facility operator may be required to obtain additional regulatory agency approvals, including possible environmental review, depending upon the nature of the proposed operational changes.46

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Permit to Operate, Plant #9680.8 This permit is renewed annually and applies only to the main refuse transfer building. Five conditions are included in the permit which restricts incoming waste type and facility operation for odor abatement. This permit may need to be revised for the proposed Project.

According to the LEA, occasional operational issues have arisen over time, but CCTRS operation has been in substantial compliance with its operating permits.22

SURROUNDING LAND USE

As shown on Figure 3, the CCTRS is bounded by US Concrete and a closed Vine Hill hazardous waste treatment site to the north, the Martinez Gun Club to the east, two Contra Costa Water District storage tanks to the south, and the Vine Hill residential area to the west. A 10-foot-high sound barrier wall was constructed along the site boundaries to the west and east to address noise and visual impacts to the Vine Hill neighborhood and Martinez Gun Club. Both County General Plan and zoning designations for the CCTRS site are heavy industrial.9 Figure 3 also shows the location of four future residential development projects in the Vine Hill area, including Seal Island (approved), Bayview, Palms 10 (approved), and Hilltop Estates (approved). Seal Island consists of 22 single-family units and is the closest project to the CCTRS. Both of these projects are delayed pending resolution of the applicant securing the necessary water supply and rezoning approvals.10 Bayview is the largest project and includes 163 single-family homes on 42 acres. Palms 10 and Hilltop Estates are 10 and 7 single-family units, respectively.

1-8


ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In developing the Project Description for the food waste recovery program, Allied considered an alternative involving outdoor grinding and processing of food waste versus the proposed indoor grinding operation that forms the Project Description described in Chapter 2 of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The outdoor alternative was rejected because it did not meet Allied's objectives for ensuring that the food waste recovery program was substantially consistent with the recovery operations defined in the original 1987 Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR),11,12,13 various permit conditions of approval, and the overall goal of avoiding potential impacts to the surrounding community. The factors considered include43:

• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines – analysis of project alternatives under an IS/MND is neither required nor discouraged.

• Original 1987 Project EIR – Allied's objective for indoor processing is to ensure the Project's consistency with the original EIR's project description, analyses, evaluation, and mitigation measures.

• Waste Recovery – Allied's position (which has been supported by other public agencies) is that the proposed food waste Project is a waste recovery program which, by definition, is designed to divert waste from landfill disposal. The original project EIR defines recovery operations of this type as occurring within the existing transfer building (see EIR Chapter 2. Summary, Project Rationale, pages 2-2 through 2-6). The Report of Station Information also designates that recyclables operations shall be conducted in the transfer building along the west wall as shown in Figure A-3c Building Site Plan.44 Allied successfully operated a recyclables operation at this location without impacts to the CCTRS operation.

• Unavoidable or Adverse Impacts – Allied concluded that an outdoor operation was infeasible and would result in potential unavoidable impacts related to noise, air quality/odors, vectors (especially seagulls, rats, and flies), and construction impacts. Construction of a new building and any required infrastructure for drainage of leachate would involve alteration of existing roadway configuration and capacity. Each of the preceding impacts would be avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level by conducting the operation within the existing transfer building as proposed in the Project Description.

PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY

The original project EIR for the CCTRS, which was mentioned above, was prepared in 1987 and consisted of a draft, final, and addendum.11,12,13 It is the position of the LEA, as Lead Agency, and the County Department of Conservation and Development, which is assisting the

1-9


Lead Agency, that the proposed Project is substantially consistent with the original CCTRS EIR in that it is a resource recovery operation anticipated in the original project description. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15152) encourages the use of tiering when an earlier EIR has been prepared and later additions to a facility and its operations are proposed and additional CEQA review is required. Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR with later CEQA documents on narrower projects, incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later CEQA document solely on the issues specific to the later project. For the proposed Project, it has been determined that the issues requiring further review include the following:

• Land use compatibility

• Noise

• Hydrology and water quality

• Odors and air quality

• Vectors

• Traffic

• Public health and safety.

An IS is prepared to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines provides for preparation of an IS as a tier document. The purposes of an IS under CEQA are to:

1. Provide the Lead Agency with information on which to base their decision to either prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration.

2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling a project to qualify for a Negative Declaration.

3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR if one is required.

4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.

5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

6. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project.

1-10


This IS was prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis is based on the proposed Project, site conditions, documented sources of information and professional judgment, and represents a true and accurate evaluation of the potential environmental impacts. Complete references to resource documents for this IS are included in Chapter 4. This IS, including the original CCTRS EIR, is now available for review at:

Contra Costa Environmental Health 2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520

CHAPTER 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed commercial food waste collection and recovery program (Project) is discussed in this chapter. The main source of information is the Project Description prepared by Allied Waste Services, Inc. (Allied) in support of their proposed solid waste facility permit (SWFP) revision for the Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS), and related operations information.14,15

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The proposed Project represents a public–private partnership between Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA), Allied, and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Its implementation would provide a significant increase in diversion from the CCCSWA service area and potentially other areas of Contra Costa County as well, reduce landfill disposal of organic material, and provide a processed material that can be beneficially used for electricity production at EBMUD's Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (Main Plant). Allied's Project goals comprise a state-of-the-art commercial food waste collection program; a food waste processing operation with extensive control measures designed to minimize impacts on station operations and worker and customer safety; and avoidance or mitigation of potential environmental impacts at the CCTRS facility, the natural environment, or the surrounding community. Specific objectives of the Project include the following:

• Demonstrate a new method for collection of commercial food waste that requires minimal processing/clean-up prior to transport for processing.

• Provide an opportunity for commercial generators to divert 50% or more of food wastes from landfill disposal.

• Create a convenient, hygienic, and easily understood set of procedures for separation of food from other waste by the generator.

• Establish a hygienic and compact method for storage and collection of food waste by the designated collector.

• Secure a method of food waste processing (anaerobic digestion) that will recycle a high percentage (90%+) of collected waste material.

• Create a collection and processing system with costs that are sustainable and incorporates user fees that will create incentives for participation.

• Implement a quality assurance program that ensures that all incoming food waste, regardless of origin, is subject to the same criteria for acceptance and handling.

• Create a quality assurance and monitoring program to minimize the potential for contamination.


2-2


SWFP REVISION

Contra Costa Environmental Health, serving as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and with concurrence of the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), issued SWFP 07-AA-0027 for the CCTRS, as discussed in Chapter 1. The LEA has indicated that the recovery and on-site processing of commercial food waste will require a revision of the SWFP. No other aspects of the CCTRS and its operation will be changed, including:

• Permitted operation as a transfer station.

• Permitted tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per operating day.

• Permitted traffic volume.

• Permitted operating hours.

• CCTRS site acreage, property boundaries, buildings, or infrastructure.

A SWFP for the CCTRS would not increase the current permitted maximum daily tonnage of 1,900 but would allow for acceptance and processing of up to 60 tons per day (TPD) of commercial food waste. With this quantity of food waste, the permitted MSW limit would flex depending on the amount of food waste accepted on any given day. At no time will the total daily tonnage exceed 1,900 TPD.

PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

As discussed above, the proposed Project would be implemented by a public–private partnership whose responsibilities include the following:

• Allied – will design the routing, select the route participants, provide collection containers, collect the food wastes, implement the recovery process at the CCTRS operated by Allied under SWFP 07-AA-0027, and transport the recovered material to the EBMUD Main Plant located in Oakland.

• CCCSWA – with support of Allied's full-time food waste coordinator, will design, manage, and oversee the collection program and provide start-up funding to support collection, waste recovery, and transfer of collected material to the EBMUD Main Plant.

• EBMUD – will accept recovered commercial food waste for anaerobic digestion in plant digesters, subsidize purchase of collection containers, and assist as requested by Allied's food waste coordinator on any issue involving restaurant participation.

2-3


CONSTRUCTION

Minor construction activities would be necessary for the proposed Project. A Morbark 2600 Woodhog horizontal electric grinder or equivalent grinder/processor with integral conveyor would be used at the CCTRS. This unit requires a 480-volt electrical system. The minimum improvements necessary would be to extend the electrical supply lines currently located at the east wall of the transfer building to the west wall near the grinder location. Allied has ongoing discussions with Pacific Gas & Electric over the need for further improvements to the transfer building electrical service.41 Another construction activity would be to install a push wall. The push wall would be 10 feet long and 6 feet high and made of 3-foot by 5-foot concrete blocks faced with an impervious steel panel. The push wall would be used by the driver of the Caterpillar 950 wheel loader to assist in loading the unprocessed food waste into the bucket, particularly the last remnants of a given pile.

OPERATION

The operational components of the proposed Project include collection of food waste and transport to the CCTRS, grinding within the transfer building, and transport of the processed food waste to EBMUD's Main Plant in Oakland. Initially, the Project is expected to accommodate 19 to 28 TPD of food waste from within the CCCSWA service area. As the program expands, up to 60 TPD would be largely collected from within the CCCSWA service area and from other areas of the county, and possibly outside the county, as well. Appendix B provides details on Allied's proposed operations. Further discussion of the operational features is provided below. Food Waste Collection Program

A description of the food waste collection program as contained in Allied's Project Description is included as Appendix C. The food waste collection program would target commercial accounts such as restaurants, food/grocery stores, schools, hospitals, and other commercial entities and would collect all pre- and post-consumer food scrap items, including:

• Fruits and vegetables

• Meat and seafood

• Small- to medium-sized bones

• Dairy and eggs

• Breads and pastas

• Oils and sauces

• Tea bags and coffee grounds.

2-4


As discussed in Chapter 1, the existing food waste pilot program has about 100 accounts. Once the Project is implemented, there are projections of increasing to 320 accounts or more within 1.5 years.5 Appropriate-sized containers would be provided for each generator. One of Allied's responsibilities is the design of efficient collection routes and pickup schedules so that food waste is not stored at the source for excessive periods. Food waste would be picked up by three-axle collection trucks Monday through Friday. These trucks are water-tight to industry standards, have a maximum load capacity of about 12 tons, and are currently transporting MSW (which includes food waste) to the CCTRS. Larger accounts would be serviced several times per week and the smaller accounts once per week. Food waste would be delivered to the CCTRS during weekday mornings (Monday through Friday) and processed inside the transfer building. A primary focus of the food waste collection program is to eliminate contamination at the source, which will minimize costly cleanup at the CCTRS, help contribute to an efficient and safe grinding process, and provide as clean a product as possible for EBMUD's Main Plant digesters. Accordingly, quality assurance is a major feature of the program, as discussed in Appendix C, with key components including participant assessment, training, containers/signage, and oversight. Processing

The goal of the food waste recovery program is to maximize efficiency and safety while minimizing impacts on the facility's main function of transferring MSW (throughput), and potential impacts to the environment and surrounding community. The operation would consist of the following:

• Existing traffic control and spotting will remain in effect.

• Placement of collected commercial food waste on the tipping floor of the transfer building adjacent to the west wall of the building. Leachate emptied by the collection vehicle would be squeegeed into the load-out pit, along with wash-down waters, during each day's cleanup process.

• Load checking (picking) through delivered food waste to remove any "hard materials" such as bottles, metal, wood, or other contaminants prior to loading into the grinder.

• Loading of food waste by an existing Caterpillar 950 wheel loader with a 3 to 5 cubic yard capacity bucket, or equivalent.

• Grinding of food waste by a portable electric horizontal grinder.

• Conveyance of the processed food waste immediately from the horizontal grinder to a water-tight roll-off bin or water-tight end dump truck.

• Limiting loads in the 40 cubic-yard bins to 10 tons of ground food waste providing about a 4-foot freeboard for control of spillage. Load limits for end dump trucks would be 15 to 20 tons of ground food waste and design measures for spillage control include use of baffles and a bulkhead with a series of 1-foot openings for load

2-5


stabilization. Tarping of the roll-off bin or end dump trucks will be done to provide further control of "bounce out" of food waste during transport.

• Removal of any residual food waste on the transport vehicles by sweeping.

• Transport of processed waste to the EBMUD Main Plant.

• Daily cleaning of grinder and food waste operations area at the conclusion of food waste grinding.

Site Operational Layout. Figure 4 is an aerial view of the CCTRS. The figure shows

the main components of the CCTRS, traffic flow under Project conditions, the location of the sound walls, and adjacent land use. The transfer building is about 200 feet by 300 feet or approximately 60,000 square feet in gross floor area. Currently, after passing through the gatehouse via Waterbird Way, franchise haulers and the public are directed to one of three locations within the transfer building (Areas 1, 2, or 3) where the MSW is off-loaded and pushed by wheel loaders to the load-out shoots (Pits 1 and 2 on Figure 4) and into transfer trailers that haul the MSW to Keller Canyon Landfill near Pittsburg. Pit 1 is the primary pit and Pit 2 is the secondary pit. Once the proposed Project is operational, transfer building and traffic flow would be altered until the food waste processing and cleaning operation is completed for that day as illustrated on Figure 4. General public unloading and bulk unloading would be confined to the public unloading area (Area 1) and franchise haulers would enter the building at Area 2 and exit at Area 3. The public unloading area will be monitored by station staff. If material accumulates so that potential obstructions to vehicle circulation could occur, the area will be cleared by equipment operators. A traffic spotter would continue to be used to facilitate traffic flow. The MSW "pile" within the transfer building is normally rectangular in shape, but Allied may modify the pile in the future to be a triangular pattern to maintain throughput and operational safety margins.

Figure 4 also shows the area just south of the transfer building where wood waste is stored and ground, usually once per week. The figure also shows Area 4, the approximate location of the food waste processing operation within the transfer building. Figure 5 is the facility layout plan showing the location of the horizontal grinder along the west wall of the transfer building and Figure 6 shows the operational layout. The food waste operations area, to be designated along the west wall of the transfer building, is 68 feet long and 50 feet wide, or about 3,400 square feet (sq. ft.). Reference marks would be placed either on the floor or west wall to ensure reliable long-term grinder placement. The optimal location for unloading of unprocessed food waste would be designated by floor markings. Floor area available for waste placement and loading would be 2,616 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. minus 30 sq. ft. for the push wall, 290 sq. ft. for setback, 336 sq. ft. for the grinder, and 128 sq. ft. for the roll-off bin). Unprocessed food waste assumes an irregular circular mound shape

2-7


when unloaded onto a hard surface such as a transfer building's concrete floor. Based on observations at the Newby Island food waste pilot program, an 8- to 10-ton load typically has dimensions of about 12 by 15 feet with a mound at the center ranging from 24 to 32 inches. Such a pile would cover about 180 sq. ft. During non-grinding periods, including nights and weekends, the operations area would be reduced to about 1,300 sq. ft. (52 feet long by 25 feet wide) and would include the grinder footprint, 5-foot setback from the west wall, and 12-foot clear zone between the grinder and main tipping floor. The operational footprint area represents about 5% of the total gross floor area at the transfer building. The food processing area would be about 120 feet from the public unloading area. Material Delivery and Handling. Food waste delivery during initial operation would likely be several days per week, while at 60 TPD five days per week delivery and processing is anticipated. In either case, food waste would be delivered, processed, and transported off-site within the same day of arrival. There would be no overnight or weekend storage of pre- or post-processed food waste. CCTRS workers would continually monitor the incoming food waste for any contaminants and remove them from the pile for proper disposal. Equipment. An existing Caterpillar 950 wheel loader with a 3 to 5 cubic yard bucket, or equivalent, would be used for loading the food waste into the horizontal grinder. A 10-foot-long by 6-foot-high push wall faced with an impervious steel panel and located along the west wall of the transfer building would be used by the operator to help load the food waste pile into the bucket. A skid steer loader would also be used during daily cleanup. The Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder would be a new piece of equipment proposed for use at the CCTRS. Allied has proposed this grinder for use; however, Allied reserves the right to replace this grinder with an equivalent processor, with LEA approval, to take advantage of evolving technologies and equipment in food waste processing, provided that a replacement grinder is substantially consistent with the equipment design features, performance specifications, and operating parameters. The Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder would be oriented to minimize encroachment into the general transfer building floor, as discussed above, thereby minimizing potential conflicts with the main transfer function that occurs in the remainder of the building floor areas. The portable grinder can be moved as desired although Allied proposes to keep the grinder at its assigned location since its operations area minimum footprint during non-grinding periods is about 1,300 sq. ft. However, if needed, the portable electric grinder could be stored outside of the transfer building on the paved area near the truck wash. A demonstration of a Morbark Woodhog 2600 diesel horizontal grinder was conducted at the Newby Island Composting Facility by the manufacturer's representative on July 28, 2010. A view of the grinder is shown on Figure 7. The Morbark horizontal grinder can process about 25 tons per hour of wood waste, possibly more with food waste which is a comparatively soft product. Thus, if the 60 TPD of food waste were available for grinding all at once, only a 2- to 2.5-hour processing time would be required; however, incoming loads of food waste would be

2-8


staggered over several hours in the morning, followed by cleaning at the end of the grind for the day. Food waste handling, processing, and cleaning would most likely occur in the period 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., assuming 60 TPD. The Morbark Woodhog 2600 horizontal grinder contains a design feature that is important, particularly when food waste grinding is within a building. "Thrown objects," unwanted materials contained in the food waste, can be ejected laterally from the infeed bed of the grinder. As sited within the transfer building, thrown objects could be dispersed toward the north wall of the transfer building and represent a safety hazard to workers or franchise truck drivers. However, the Morbark 2600 grinder is equipped with a debris deflector mounted to the end of the infeed bed for containment of thrown objects, which is shown on Figure 7. The unit would also be equipped with a solid hinged door at the end of the infeed bed to contain food waste and provide further protection from thrown objects. The Morbark 2600 horizontal grinder operator safety manual provides further safety considerations.16 Ground food waste has a high liquid content and produces "splatter" as it is discharged to the receiving unit, based on operating experience at the Newby Island pilot program. Loading a full roll-off box onto a truck can also produce spillage. Thus, any water-tight roll-off box to be used would be oversized to avoid spillage. Roll-off bins with capacities of 40 cubic yards are proposed initially for use as a receptacle for processed food waste. The loads in the bins would be limited to 10 tons of ground food waste because of weight limitations associated with loading the bins onto the trucks. This would provide about a 4-foot freeboard to provide control of spillage during loading and during transport to the EBMUD Main Plant.47 Once the load is ready to be transported to the EBMUD Main Plant, it would be tarped and swept of residual food waste. If spillage still occurred during transport with these controls, Allied would either increase the freeboard or utilize receiving bins with lids. In the future, two end dump trucks may be used for transport of processed food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant. Load limits for the end dump trucks would be 15 to 20 tons of ground food waste. The trucks would also be tarped and swept of residual food waste prior to transport to the EBMUD Main Plant. Design measures for spillage control during transport include use of baffles and a bulkhead designed to have a series of 1-foot openings for stabilization of the food waste load. Staffing. Processing and cleanup is expected to require up to a two-man crew, including the equipment loader operator who would operate the electric tub by remote control and one laborer to spot and perform clean-up. Staffing would be monitored by Allied and adjusted as necessary, in coordination with the LEA, to maximize operational efficiency. All food waste workers would be required to wear common safety gear, including hard hats, eye protection, safety vests, inhalation protection such as masks, gloves, and hearing protection. Cleanup. As discussed above, during the initial phase of the Project, food waste would be processed several days per week, increasing to Monday through Friday as the program expands. For various environmental reasons, such as odor and vector control, each day's incoming food waste would be processed and transported to EBMUD's Main Plant that same day. Equally important is the use of a series of cleanup measures following completion of each

2-10


day's grinding activities so that the floor area, wall, and equipment are left clean of remnants of unprocessed food waste and "splatter" in anticipation of the next day's processing or down time, such as over the weekend. Key components of the cleanup program include the following:

1. To the greatest extent practicable, the residual food waste in the grinder, conveyor, bin, and floor area would be collected and added to the bin outgoing to the EBMUD Main Plant.

2. At the end of each work day, a limited quantity (about 2.5 cubic yards) of ground wood waste would be fed to the tub grinder to help clean the grinding chamber, augers, and conveyor. Then, any residual material remaining in the grinder would be removed by hand using small implements.

3. At the close of each work day, the area used for placement of food waste would be cleaned with a small skid steer loader or by hand with brooms, picks, and shovels. All hand tools would be dedicated for use in the food processing area.

4. A shallow layer of ground wood waste would be spread over the affected floor area to absorb residual moisture.

5. All residual material including the layer of wood waste would then be pushed into a MSW pile for load out and transfer for landfill disposal.

6. Wash-down of the grinder and conveyor, floor area, and portions of the west wall if needed would be performed daily. Deodorants and disinfectants would be used as needed.

7. All roll-off boxes or end dump trucks transporting ground food waste to EBMUD's Main Plant would first be swept to remove splatter prior to entering public roadways, and would be power washed after unloading at the Main Plant.

The wash-down process would include use of an industrial hose which is approximately 1.5 inches in diameter and has a calculated flow rate of approximately 27 gallons per minute (Appendix B). Assuming a 5-minute continuous wash time, approximately 135 gallons of wash water would be generated per food waste operating day. Annual production would be estimated at:

135 gallons/day × 5 days/week × 52 weeks/year = 35,100 gallons per year. The wash water/leachate that is generated would drain to the load-out pit and ultimately be collected in two 10,000-gallon tanks with a total capacity of 20,000 gallons (Figure 5). Typically, these tanks are emptied once or twice a year depending on annual tonnage. With the increase of 35,100 gallons per year of potential wash water, this would necessitate emptying the collection tanks about two times more per year. In the initial year of the Project, leachate volume in the collection tanks would be monitored on a bi-monthly (every two months) basis to determine whether a change in frequency of disposal is required to accommodate the food waste operation.

2-11


Occasionally throughout the year, the tank contents are emptied and the leachate is transported to the Seaport Environmental Wastewater Treatment Facility in Redwood City. No leachate from within the transfer building is allowed to enter the public sewer system pursuant to the CCTRS Class III Industrial User Permit issued by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.17 Monitoring and Reporting. Operation of a food waste processing operation within a transfer building as proposed is a new concept and Allied anticipates various elements of the operation could require adjustment or modification to ensure maximum safety and efficiency and minimize impacts. Ongoing coordination would be maintained with the LEA to ensure the operation meets performance goals and specifications, including verbal and written status reports concurrent with the LEA's monthly inspection of the CCTRS. Examples of parameters to be monitored and reported include, but are not limited to, gross food waste tonnage; net food waste tonnage of processed food waste transported to the EBMUD Main Plant; estimated food waste tonnage transferred to MSW; reports on Special Occurrences (e.g., any contingency plan(s) implemented); and effectiveness of control measures as observed. Contingency Measures. Unforeseen events could temporarily affect food waste processing operations and could preclude regular transport of processed food waste from the CCTRS to the EBMUD Main Plant. These potential events could include:

a. Traffic accident involving an outbound CCTRS truck destined for the EBMUD Main Plant.

b. EBMUD Main Plant upset or other systems constraints that temporarily prevent acceptance of processed food waste.

c. Natural disasters that result in closure of freeways which provide access to Oakland.

d. Man-made disasters such as acts of terrorism or traffic tie-ups, which also result in freeway closure or otherwise restrict vehicle access to the Oakland area.

e. CCTRS or localized power failure.

Based on the occurrence of these events, Allied would implement the following contingency measures:

1. If events a–d were to occur and if the CCTRS driver were off-site, the driver would immediately notify the dispatch at Allied and request assistance. Allied's dispatch would follow established procedures as necessary for notification of local and/or state emergency services.

2. If events a–d or e were to occur, transport all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste to Allied's other food waste grinding and composting operations at their Newby Island facility in Santa Clara County or Forward Landfill in San Joaquin County for incorporation into existing food waste grinding and composting operations, or

2-12


3. As a last resort, transfer all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste as MSW and transport all loads for disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill.

4. An "Incident Report" would be prepared describing the date, cause of disruption, tonnage disposed and any corrective measures, and submitted to the LEA as part of the monthly inspection.

Station Throughput. Appendix B contains Allied's CCTRS throughput analysis, which is a component of an operations addendum to the Project Description submitted with their application to revise the SWFP.15 This information was developed to help address concerns for the effect the food waste processing operation could have on maintaining efficient MSW transfer. The throughput analysis addresses designation of the food waste operations area and safety features, designation of specified vehicle access and egress routes, maximization of floor space for franchise collection vehicle circulation, and additional operational changes.

BENEFICIAL USE / DISPOSAL

Once the food waste is processed, it would be transported to EBMUD's Main Plant in Oakland. At the Main Plant, the material would be unloaded into underground tanks, processed, and anaerobically (in the absence of air or oxygen) digested. Anaerobic digestion converts organic carbon into carbon dioxide and methane, which are used in EBMUD's 6-megawatt on-site Power Generation Station for electricity production. As discussed in Chapter 1, diverting a portion of food waste from landfill disposal can provide a significant contribution toward achieving state and locally mandated solid waste diversion goals. EBMUD, like over 130 other special districts and communities in California, has wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic digesters with an estimated excess capacity of 15 to 30%. This provides a significant recycling opportunity for pre- and post-consumer food waste.18 Food waste creates 3 to 3.5 times the amount of energy as the same volume of municipal sludge. According to EBMUD, 20 TPD of food waste creates power for more than 250 homes per day.19 In addition, diverting food waste from landfill disposal prevents uncontrolled emissions of its breakdown products, including methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Allied has been transporting ground food waste from Newby Island to the EBMUD Main Plant for about 1.5 years pursuant to a contract with CCCSWA. According to EBMUD staff, the ground material has been of good quality.20 The primary quality requirements for the ground food waste is that the particle size must be less than two inches, and the contaminant level be less than 10%. EBMUD staff does monitor incoming loads and the ground food waste does undergo additional grinding prior to being fed into the anaerobic digesters.

2-13


PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1 summarizes traffic characteristics for the proposed Project assuming the collection and processing of 60 TPD of food waste. For food waste collection, and with each load expected to vary between 7 and 10 tons, 6 to 9 trucks would be required, or 12 to 18 additional two-way trips per day. Transport of processed food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant would require up to 6 trucks per day, assuming 10 tons per load, or a total of 12 trips. Thus, the Project would generate 12 to 15 new one-way trips or 24 to 30 two-way (total) trips. Table 1 also shows that the Project would result in 3 fewer transfer vehicles (6 total trips) being required to transport 60 TPD of food waste (assuming 20 tons per load) that would otherwise be comingled with the MSW waste stream going to the Keller Canyon Landfill for disposal, and a small reduction in trips associated with the Newby Island pilot program. With this reduction of vehicles, the net increase in Project-related vehicles (one-way trips) would be 8 to 11, or 16 to 22 total trips.

Table 1. Project Traffic Characteristics at 60 TPD

Number of Trips per Day Traffic Component One-way Trips Two-way (Total) Trips

Food waste collection 6 – 9 12 – 18 Transport to EBMUD Main Plant 6 12 Subtotal 12 – 15 24 – 30 Reduction of transfer vehicles to Keller Canyon Landfill 3 6 Reduction of collection vehicles Allied Pacheco to Newby Island 0.5 1 Reduction of transfer vehicles from Newby Island to EBMUD 0.5 1 Total 8 – 11 16 – 22

Note: Traffic data assumes use of roll-off bins for transport of ground food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant. If end dump trucks were used, it is estimated that one-way trips to the Main Plant would be reduced by two and two-way trips by four.

Sources: Allied, References 14 and 41. Scheidegger & Associates, August 2010.

SCHEDULE

The needed electrical modifications at the transfer building are a constraint to the timely implementation of the Project. It is estimated that about 1 to 2 months would be required to construct the necessary improvements. Following adoption of the CEQA document, the required permits must be obtained. During this time, the Morbark 2600 horizontal electric grinder must be constructed. Current projections are that the Project would be operational during the first or second quarter of 2011.

2-14


PERMITS AND REGULATORY APPROVALS

Permits and regulatory approvals for the proposed Project include the following:

• Revision of SWFP 07–AA–0027.

• Revision of CCTRS's BAAQMD Permit to Operate may be required.

• Permit from the County Building Inspection Division will be required to modify the CCTRS in-building electrical system.

As discussed in Chapter 1, an amendment to the County's Land Use Permit 2122–86 for the Project is not required.

CHAPTER 3

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A discussion of the environmental checklist is included below. 1. Project title: Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station

Food Waste Collection and Recovery Program

2. Lead agency name and address: Contra Costa County Environmental Health 2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200 Concord, California 94520

3. Contact person and phone number:

Lori Braunesreither (925) 692-2528 or Joe Doser (925) 692-2535

4. Project location: 951 Waterbird Way Martinez, California

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Allied Waste Industries, Inc. 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, California 94565

6. General plan designation: Heavy Industrial

7. Zoning: Heavy Industrial

8. Description of project: Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) revision to allow food waste processing. Detailed description provided in Chapters 1 and 2 of this document.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: See page 1-7 and Figure 3.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: See page 2-14.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality

Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population / Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance


3-2


In general, the format followed includes a discussion of the setting and an impact analysis for each resource category per the CEQA Guidelines. Reference and information sources for the checklist are included in Chapter 4. The impact analyses in this chapter include a summary of control measures incorporated into the Food Waste Collection and Recovery Project (Project) by Allied Waste Services (Allied) to minimize potential impacts. This is followed by the environmental checklist significance criteria and an analysis and evaluation of potential impacts. Control measures are procedures or Best Management Practices known to further reduce the potential for impacts based on regulatory agency requirements, standards in the industry, and construction/operating experience. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited following each question. A "No Impact" answer is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis). As appropriate, Initial Study (IS) mitigation measures are included to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included as Appendix D.

A. AESTHETICS

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Control Measures Incorporated by Allied

None.

Significance Criteria

RESOURCE CATEGORY / SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

A. AESTHETICS

Would the Project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

21

2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state or County scenic highway or County-designated scenic road?

21

3-3




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings that are open to public view?

21

4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

21

The Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS) is a heavy industrial facility located in a former borrow pit. A 10-foot-high sound wall separates the facility from the Vine Hill residential area to the west and the Martinez Gun Club to the east. No Impacts: Criteria A1–A4

The proposed Project involves processing of food waste within the partially enclosed CCTRS transfer building. When not in use, the portable electric grinder is proposed for storage within the transfer building. However, if needed, the grinder could be stored outside the building on the paved area near the truck wash. No new structures would be constructed. Project activities would be indistinguishable from existing operations and not discernable from nearby areas. No aesthetic impacts would occur. The finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None required.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None.

3-4





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

Would the Project:

1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

21

2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

21

3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)?

21

4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

21

5) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

21

No Impacts: Criteria B1–B5

There are no agricultural lands and forest resources within or adjacent to the Project site and surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures

None required.

3-5


C. AIR QUALITY

IMPACT ANALYSIS


C1. Use a Morbark Woodhog 2600 horizontal electric grinder, or equivalent grinder/ processor, in lieu of a diesel unit.

C2. Conduct grinding indoors. Expand existing misting/deodorizing system to include coverage of food waste operations areas.

C3. Design collection routes to optimize collection frequency and minimize storage time.

C4. Use water-proof collection bins to prevent leakage.

C5. Use water-tight collection vehicles and wash collection vehicles daily.

C6. Provide ongoing inspections of generators' food waste storage locations. Inspections to be performed routinely by collection truck drivers and Allied's full-time food waste coordinator. If odor problems occur, either increase the frequency of collection or identify if possible the food waste component that is the apparent contributor to odor production and remove from the collection program (i.e., fish).

C7. Develop and implement a container exchange program that provides a reasonable schedule for replacement of food waste storage containers.

C8. Comply with Permit to Operate, SWFP, and LUP conditions.

C9. Prohibit storage of food waste (pre- or post-processed) overnight or weekends.

C10. Grind food waste as soon as possible, but no later than one hour after receipt.

C11. Tarp water-tight roll-off bins or use bins with lids or use water-tight end dump trucks prior to transport to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (Main Plant).

C12. Sweep bins and trucks to remove "splatter" before exiting the CCTRS site and power wash the units after unloading at the EBMUD Main Plant.

C13. Wash horizontal grinder and operating area daily.

C14. Use processed wood waste to purge/clean grinder, spread processed wood waste on operations floor to absorb residual food waste, and using hand tools and/or a wheel loader, remove this material from the operations floor for incorporation into the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream for disposal.

C15. Clean hand tools daily.

C16. Wash wheel loader bucket and receiving bins daily.

C17. Provide ongoing odor monitoring of food waste processing within the CCTRS; if necessary, apply safe deodorizing chemicals until the problem abates.

3-6


C18. In the event of unforeseen circumstances (such as an EBMUD Main Plant upset or other systems constraints, access to the Oakland area was not possible, or if a power failure occurred at the CCTRS), CCTRS management would either:

a. Transport all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste to the company's other food waste grinding and composting operations at their Newby Island Facility in Santa Clara County or Forward Landfill in San Joaquin County, or

b. As a last resort, transfer all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste as MSW and transport all loads for disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

C. AIR QUALITY

Would the Project:

1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

21, 31, 32

2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

21, 33, 34

3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

21, 33, 34

4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

21

5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

21-27

Regulatory and Planning Framework

The existing regulatory and planning framework for the proposed Project is discussed below. Discussion is provided on regional air quality plans, air quality impact guidelines and significant thresholds, odor regulations, and existing CCTRS operating permits.

3-7


Air Quality Plans. The proposed Project and its associated activities would occur within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the National and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, developing regional clean air plans, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, and monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions.

Areas that do not meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as nonattainment areas and are required to prepare plans to show how the area will come into compliance with the standards. The SFBAAB is designated as nonattainment for the State ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and nonattainment for the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards. The most recent air quality plan, the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, and the latest update to the plan, the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy, were developed by BAAQMD to address the ozone nonattainment issues.31,32 The plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The plan is designed to achieve a region-wide reduction of ozone precursor pollutants through the expeditious implementation of all feasible measures. An update to the Clean Air Plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, is currently under development by the BAAQMD. This update is expected to be completed in 2010 and will include strategies to control ozone precursor emissions and address particulate matter and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The applicable air quality plan for the Bay Area is the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan, which is the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy, adopted in 2006.32 This plan is based on population projections through 2020 compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). CEQA Guidelines and Significance Thresholds. The BAAQMD has prepared California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines which include significance criteria that can be used to assess the potential impacts caused by the proposed Project.33,34 The BAAQMD has identified emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. The recently adopted BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds (adopted June 2, 2010) for projects were used to evaluate air quality impacts from the proposed Project.24

A project’s significance is judged by comparing the direct and indirect project emissions to the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or PM2.5, and 82 pounds per day for PM10. There is no emission threshold for carbon monoxide (CO). Potential CO impacts are caused by significant increases in localized CO concentrations above the State ambient air quality standards.

3-8


Odor Regulations. The BAAQMD has enacted an odorous substance control program as part of its effort to control the use and emission of odorous substances within the Bay Area. Regulation 1-301 is a general public nuisance standard that is used to address odors. Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific limitations on odorous substances. Regulation 9-2-301 places limitations on hydrogen sulfide emissions because of its human toxicity and environmental effects on vegetation. Regulation 7-102 provides a framework for addressing odor complaints. Existing Operating Permits. The CCTRS main operating permits do address odor abatement. BAAQMD Permit to Operate has the following conditions relative to odor8:

• The refuse transfer station shall not accept sewage sludge, liquid waste, dead animals, septic tank liquid, manifested waste, and hazardous waste. (Basis: Reg. 7)

• The incoming refuse shall be transferred out as soon as possible. At no time shall the refuse be kept for more than a day in the transfer building. (Basis: Reg. 7)

• Water spray nozzles shall be installed over the refuse transfer area. (Basis: Reg. 6)

• If District receives more than five confirmed odor complaints in any month, the owner/operator shall take immediate action to install odor control devices at the transfer building. (Basis: Reg. 7)

• The owner/operator shall practice good housekeeping; such as sweeping and cleaning of floors, walls and accessible equipment and periodic deodorizing of the transfer area. (Basis: Good Housekeeping)

SWFP 07-AA-027 requires all solid waste received Sunday through Friday to be removed from the facility within 24 hours, and since the Keller Canyon Landfill is closed on Sundays, all waste received on Saturdays must be removed from the facility within 48 hours.6 Land Use Permit (LUP) 2122-86 calls for preparation and implementation of an odor control program, the use of odor suppressants within the transfer building when necessary, and restrictions on waste storage consistent with the Permit to Operate and the SWFP.7 Site Conditions

As discussed in Chapter 1, the 19-acre CCTRS site is a former borrow pit that was used as a source of cover for the nearby Acme Landfill Operation. A 10-foot-high sound wall separates the facility from the Vine Hill residential area to the west and from the Martinez Gun Club to the east. At the closest point, homes in the Vine Hill area are about 270 feet from the west wall of the transfer building. The closest planned unit of the future Seal Island residential development would be about 660 feet from the southern wall of the transfer building.

3-9


Wind Rose

The BAAQMD operates a network of permanent air quality monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area. The closest station to the CCTRS is at the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Treatment Plant located about 0.7-mile south of the CCTRS. Figure 8 is a wind rose from this station based on data from 2001–2005. The wind rose shows the direction from which the winds blow and wind speed based on hourly averages. As can be seen, the winds are predominantly from the west and south directions. Easterly winds that blow from the CCTRS to the Vine Hill residential area occur only a few percent of the time based on the wind rose data. Odor Complaint History

Contra Costa Environmental Health serves as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and performs monthly inspections of the CCTRS. According to their files, no odor complaints have been received over the past five years.22 The BAAQMD public records database was consulted whether the District had received any odor complaints relative to CCTRS operations over the past five years. According to their records, two unconfirmed and one confirmed odor complaints were received, but no violation notices.23 BAAQMD considers a source to have a substantial number of odor complaints if the complaint history includes one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three-year period or three unconfirmed complaints per year also averaged over a three-year period.24 The CCTRS has not approached these thresholds over the past five years. No Impacts: Criterion C1

A project is considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the regional growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed Project would not affect population or VMT forecasts that would affect regional air quality planning and, therefore, would have no impact on implementation of the Clean Air Plan. Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Criteria C2–C5

Air Quality Violations: Criteria C2 and C3. The proposed Project involves collection of up to 60 TPD of food waste from commercial food waste generators within the CCCSWA service area and other areas of the county, and possibly outside the county as well; processing the food waste at the CCTRS; and transporting the processed material to the EBMUD Main Plant where it would be used in anaerobic digesters to produce methane gas for use as fuel in turbine engines to produce electricity. Processing would involve using a wheel loader to load the food waste into a Morbark Woodhog 2600 electric horizontal grinder for size reduction then discharged directly into a water-tight roll-off box or water-tight end dump truck. Other than the addition of a new Morbark electric grinder and possibly two end dump trucks, no additional equipment would be required for the processing activities beyond that already in use at the CCTRS.

3-11


Food waste is already being transported to the CCTRS in the form of MSW and

transferred for final disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill. The proposed Project would separate up to 60 TPD of food waste at the source, thereby diverting commercial food waste from landfill disposal. Currently, a small amount of food waste, about 1,100 tons per year, is being collected and transported to Allied’s Newby Island facility where it is processed using a tub grinder driven by a diesel-fueled engine. After processing the food waste, it is loaded into trucks and transferred to the EBMUD Main Plant. Once the proposed Project is operational, processing of food waste from Contra Costa County would be terminated. Pollutant emissions from the above activities are considered existing or baseline conditions which would be reduced or eliminated once the proposed Project is operational.

Increased emissions from the proposed Project were calculated and compared to the BAAQMD emissions significance thresholds. For the proposed Project, emissions would be associated with the trucks collecting the food waste and transporting it to the CCTRS and from transporting the processed material to the EBMUD Main Plant. Since an electric grinder would be used for processing (Control Measure C1), it would not produce emissions. Although a wheel loader would be used to assist in the processing operation its emissions were not considered to be increased emissions since the facility equipment is already handling the equivalent amount of food waste mixed in with the other MSW currently being processed at the facility.

In order to calculate the increase in emissions from the proposed Project, emissions from both the existing operations (baseline conditions) and from the proposed Project were calculated. The net increase was then calculated as the difference in emissions between the proposed Project and baseline conditions. Truck travel associated with current and proposed food waste collection and disposal activities were estimated and emissions from these trucks calculated. For existing operations, there are about 38 daily and 11,981 annual one-way truck trips. The proposed Project would have about 49 daily and 14,629 annual one-way truck trips, resulting in a net increase of about 11 daily and 2,648 annual one-way trips with the proposed Project. The net increase of 11 daily one-way trips is equivalent to the upper range of one-way trips shown in Table 1, Chapter 2, and assumes use of roll-off bins for transport of ground food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant. The net increase in truck travel mileage for the proposed Project would be about 660 miles per day and 159,750 miles per year. In calculating the truck travel emissions, it was assumed that all trucks would be heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling at an average speed of 40 mph. Table 2 summarizes the daily pollutant emissions from existing and proposed operations and the net increase in emissions that would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Details of the truck trip, mileage, and emission calculations are provided in Appendix E.

In addition to truck travel, use of the diesel-fueled grinder at Newby Island would no longer be used for processing Contra Costa County food waste once the Project becomes operational; emissions from the existing grinder were calculated and used as offsetting emissions for the proposed Project. These emissions are also shown in Table 2, along with the overall net increase in Project emissions and comparison the BAAQMD significant emissions thresholds.

3-12


Table 2. Net Emissions Increase from Proposed Project

Emission Source

ROG (lb/day)

NOx (lb/day)

CO (lb/day)

PM10a

(lb/day) PM2.5

a (lb/day)

Existing Operations Truck Travel 0.6 10.7 2.7 15.2 2.7 Diesel Tub Grinder 0.05 1.1 0.4 0.04 0.04

Total 0.65 11.8 3.1 15.2 2.7 Proposed Project

Truck Travel 0.9 17.2 4.3 25.4 4.5 Electric Grinder 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0.9 17.2 4.3 25.4 4.5 Net Increased Project Emissions 0.25 5.4 1.2 10.2 1.8 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 54 54 – 80 54 a PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from truck travel include emissions from re-entrained road dust.

Source: William Popenuck, August 2010.

The proposed Project’s increased emissions, under conservative assumptions of using roll-off bins for transport of ground food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant, are all well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and there would be no significant impacts on a project or cumulative level for any criteria pollutant. The use of end dump trucks in lieu of roll-off bins, although not reflected in the emissions calculations, would have a favorable impact on air quality by reducing total daily trips to the EBMUD Main Plant by a factor of one-third (12 total trips to 8) and associated air emissions. Although there is no emission threshold for CO, the Project’s CO emissions are considered insignificant for purposes of this IS and would not cause a significant increase in local CO concentrations. Additionally, the Project would meet the BAAQMD screening criteria for localized CO concentrations since the Project would be consistent with applicable congestion management programs and would not perceptibly increase the hourly traffic volumes at affected intersections.24 Thus, emissions from the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts and no mitigation is required. Sensitive Receptors and Substantial Pollutant Concentrations: Criterion C4. As discussed above, sensitive residential areas around the CCTRS would not be exposed to substantial air pollutant emissions. In transit, the 6 trucks from the CCTRS would pass through or near potentially sensitive residential areas such as West Oakland. These trucks would be heavy-duty diesel transfer trucks and would emit diesel particulate matter. The primary concern for nearby sensitive receptors would be from exposure to diesel particulate matter emissions. Diesel particulate matter is designated as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and is classified as a carcinogenic

3-13


compound (causes cancer). Potential health risks can result for long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter. Typically, cancer risks due to exposure to a TAC are evaluated for an exposure period of 70 years.

Due to the limited number of truck trips (three one-way trips at 60 TPD) and since they would occur during the daytime when atmospheric dispersion of pollutant emissions is the greatest, potential health risks from diesel exhaust are expected to be below threshold levels used by the BAAQMD to determine significant health-related impacts. As discussed under Criteria C2 and C3 above, the use of end dump trucks for transport of ground food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant would have a favorable impact on health risk by reducing total daily trips and associated emissions by about one-third. Additionally, the CARB has implemented regulations that will significantly reduce diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks over the next 10 years, which would further minimize the potential for any health risks due to exposure to diesel exhaust. Thus, the impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Odor Generation: Criterion C5: Criterion C5 addresses creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Food waste is a high organic waste subject to odor generation as it decomposes. Higher ambient temperatures accelerate degradation and the potential for odor generation. Additionally, the various components of the food waste stream have different potentials for odor generation. It should be noted that food waste is already a component of the MSW stream that is stored at the generators' site as well as that which is handled at the CCTRS for transfer haul to the Keller Canyon Landfill. The distinction is that at both locations, the food waste is mixed within a proportionately larger volume of MSW. The proposed Project would separate out and concentrate the food waste at the generators' site and CCTRS and thus represent a potentially greater source of odor generation. Potential odor impacts are associated with the collection and processing of food waste which are discussed below. Collection. As discussed in Chapter 2, the existing pilot food waste collection program has about 100 accounts and as the proposed Project is implemented and expands, more than 300 accounts are expected to be secured.5 Smaller accounts would be serviced once per week, while larger accounts would have food waste collection several times per week. The key to odor abatement is to tailor the collection frequency to the generator so that food waste does not have an unnecessarily prolonged residence time in the containers provided by Allied. From all reports, the pilot food waste collection program has proceeded without significant odor issues. There were two odor complaints (by the generator) during the summer of 2009 but these were attributed to (1) the generator had just begun participation in the program with once per week collection although there was an unnecessarily long lag in time before collection actually occurred, (2) it was hot, and (3) the food waste storage bin was in a tightly enclosed area and virtually surrounded by two- and three-story buildings so air movement and circulation were highly restricted. Since those events, no further odor complaints have been received.25

3-14


The City of Berkeley also has a source-separated food waste collection program where food waste is hauled to their transfer station, mixed with green waste, and transported off-site to a composting facility. Pick-up frequencies vary from twice to six times per week and food waste is held in the transfer station no longer than 24 hours. Generators are initially given a two-week supply of biodegradable plastic storage bags, and steam cleaning of the storage cart is done if needed based on inspections by the generator and driver. No odor problems have occurred.26 The City of San Francisco continues to operate their food waste collection program. About 500 tons per day (TPD) of food waste are collected, although food waste and green waste are co-mingled. These materials are transported to a dedicated tipping floor at the San Francisco Transfer Station Organics Annex, then transferred hauled to Recology's Hay Road Landfill in Solano County where most of it is composted but a portion is processed and returned to EBMUD's Main Plant and fed into their digesters. Food waste is collected daily on some accounts. Generators can request exchange containers or steam cleaning of containers. No odor and vector problems have been reported.27 The temporary storage of food waste at the generator's site has the potential to cause localized odor problems but not to substantial numbers of people. The risk may be greater with smaller generators where collection may be only once per week and some portion of the stored waste is 5 to 7 days old, or with certain components of the food waste stream that has a higher potential for odor generation. Control Measures C3–C7, however, have been included in the Project to address this issue. These measures provide for the design of collection routes to optimize collection frequency and minimize storage time, use of water-tight collection bins and daily washing of collection trucks, ongoing inspections of food waste storage locations with procedures to increase the collection frequency or modify the acceptable waste stream if odor problems develop and persist, and the use of a food waste storage container exchange program. Given that these measures are in place and the favorable experience gained during the pilot food waste recovery program, the potential odor impact associated with storage of food waste at the generators' sites is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Processing. Discussion in Chapter 2 described the operational layout within the CCTRS transfer building and the procedures for grinding the food waste. The operational area would be along the west wall of the building and about 6 to 9 collection trucks per day (assuming 60 TPD) would unload their food waste loads onto the floor where a wheel loader would then feed a Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder. The ground product, which resembles “oatmeal,” would then be deposited by the unit’s conveyor assembly into a water-tight roll-off bin or water-tight end dump truck for transport to the EBMUD Main Plant. As indicated previously, the closest existing residences of the Vine Hill area are 270 feet from the west wall of the transfer building while the closest future residence of the Seal Island development is about 660 feet from the southern wall. The CCTRS site is roughly 45 feet lower than the surrounding area and a 10-foot-high sound barrier wall borders the Vine Hill residential area. Figure 8, the wind rose, illustrates that the winds blow away from these residential areas

3-15


the majority of the time. The CCTRS site characteristics together with wind direction patterns are considered to be important factors in assessing the significance of potential odor impacts. During preparation of this Initial Study, the Newby Island food waste grinding operation was visited. As described in Chapter 1, this food waste is collected and transported from the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) service area and is representative of the food waste quality that would be transported to the CCTRS once the proposed Project is implemented. Though it is recognized that the odor characteristics of a given load of food waste may vary, neither the unprocessed food waste nor ground food waste at Newby Island were considered to be objectionable odor sources. Up to 60 TPD of food waste, perhaps with varying odor characteristics, would be processed at the CCTRS. All the food waste would not be unloaded at once but rather staggered during a several hour period of each weekday morning. Allied has recognized in their Project Description the importance of three key factors for odor control: (1) incoming food waste would be processed approximately within one hour of receipt, (2) food waste would be removed the same day it has been received, and (3) the prompt cleanup of all soiled areas each day once grinding is complete. The various control measures for odor control were listed previously in this section. Allied would comply with all conditions of the Permit to Operate, SWFP 07-AA-027 as revised, and the LUP (Control Measure C8). Control Measure C9 would not allow for storage of pre- or post-processed food waste either overnight or weekends while Control Measure C10 provides for food waste grinding within one hour of receipt. The water-tight roll-off bins or water-tight end dump trucks would be tarped after loading and prior to transport to EBMUD’s Main Plant (Control Measure C11) to provide further control of potential spillage. Control Measures C12–C16 provide for cleanup of the operations area and equipment. Control Measure C17 provides for ongoing odor monitoring of the processing operation within the CCTRS and the temporary use of deodorizing chemicals if necessary. Finally, conditions could occur where the CCTRS could have a power failure or transport of ground food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant was temporarily not possible due to problems at the plant or with access. Potentially, either of these conditions could result in accumulation of pre- or post-processed food waste within the CCTRS and creation of nuisance odor conditions. However, Control Measure C18 provides for transport of all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste to other Allied food waste grinding and composting operations in the regional area, or, as a last resort, transfer of this material as MSW for disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill. It is important to note the proposed Project would not be implemented at 60 TPD but rather at 19 to 28 TPD according to Allied’s Project Description.14 Thus, this initial period would be a time when operation may be adjusted or modified with review and oversight of the LEA to ensure minimization of impacts. Based on this, the CCTRS is downwind from residential areas the majority of time, the lack of BAAQMD violation notices and substantial

3-16


odor complaint history for the CCTRS, and the control measures that have been incorporated into the Project, the potential odor impacts associated with processing of food waste at the CCTRS are less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures

None required.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the Project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?

21

2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

21

3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

21

3-17




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

21

5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

21

6) Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

21

The CCTRS is a permitted industrial use, and food waste grinding would be conducted within the transfer building. The closest significant biological resources are located within McNabney Marsh about 1,600 feet to the north of the CCTRS (Figure 3). No Impacts: Criteria D1–D6

Biological resources are not an issue associated with the CCTRS property, its location, or the proposed Project. This finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None required.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None.

3-18





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the Project:

1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

21

2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

21

3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature of paleontological or cultural value?

21

4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

21

No Impacts: Criteria E1–E4

The 19-acre CCTRS site was a former borrow pit for the Acme Landfill operation and thus highly disturbed with no documented cultural resource value. Because of this, and since the proposed Project involves no excavation, no impacts would occur. This finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None.

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Control Measure Incorporated by Allied

None.

3-19





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the Project:

1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

21

b) Strong seismic ground shaking?

21

c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

21

d) Landslides? 21

2) Result in substantial soil erosion, siltation, changes in topography and the loss of topsoil or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill?

21

3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

21

4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 16-I of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?

21

5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

21

6) Result in substantial soil degradation or contamination?

21

3-20


No Impacts: Criteria F1–F6

The proposed Project does not involve construction of any structures and food waste would be ground using a portable grinder on a concrete surface. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures

None required.

G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the Project:

1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

21, 34-37

2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

21, 34, 35

Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) emitted into the

atmosphere from a variety of sources around the world. GHGs are those gases that have the ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, a process that is analogous to the way a greenhouse traps heat. GHGs may be emitted as result of human activities, as well as through natural processes. GHGs have been accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere at a faster rate than has occurred historically. Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are leading to global climate change.

3-21


Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic (human caused) GHG because it comprises the majority of total GHG emissions emitted per year and it is very long-lived in the atmosphere. Common GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine, or bromine). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, while methane emissions are primarily related to off-gassing associated with agricultural activities and landfills.

Typically, when evaluating GHG emissions they are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO2e, which is a means of weighting the global warming potential (GWP) of the different gases relative to the global warming effect of CO2, which has a GWP value of one.

Contra Costa County has developed a Climate Action Plan which quantifies the County’s GHG emissions, adopted a long-term GHG emission reduction target to reduce countywide GHG emissions to 80% below baseline levels (2000 levels) by 2050, and identified GHG reduction measures to reduce GHG emissions.35 The Climate Action Plan does not identity specific thresholds for determining the level of significance of GHG emissions.

The BAAQMD released GHG emission thresholds as part of their air quality guidelines.34 The CEQA guidelines identify project operation-related thresholds of significance for GHG emissions of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year for projects other than stationary sources. The threshold was used to evaluate the level of significance of GHG emission increases from the proposed Project. Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Criteria G1 and G2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Criterion G1. Long-term operational GHG emissions from the proposed Project would include emissions from trucks transporting food waste, as well as indirect emissions from stationary sources that produce electricity that would be consumed by the Project. The primary electricity consuming source at the Project site would be the electric horizontal grinder. Operation of the proposed Project would result in increased GHG emissions of approximately 293 metric tons of CO2e per year. Details of the GHG emission calculations are provided in Appendix E.

The GHG emission estimates for the proposed Project do not include any reductions in methane emissions resulting from reduced landfilling of 60 TPD of food waste. The U.S. EPA has estimated that the net emissions of methane from landfilling food waste are 0.72 metric tons of CO2e per ton of food waste based on projected national average methane recovery at landfills in the year 2003.36 Since the Keller Canyon Landfill uses a landfill gas collection system in conjunction with power production using collected landfill gas, their GHG emissions from food waste would be lower than the national average. However, there would still be a reduction in GHG emissions due to avoided landfilling of the food waste. In addition to these GHG emission reductions, using the food waste as a feed stock for the EBMUD anaerobic digesters to produce methane gas, which is then used for production of electricity, also reduces GHG emissions due to the avoided use of fossil fuels for energy production. The U.S. EPA reported that digesting 100

3-22


tons of food waste per day, 5 days per week, provides sufficient power for an estimated 800 to 1,400 homes for one year.37

The proposed Project’s net GHG emissions of 293 metric tons of CO2e per year, assuming use of roll-off bins for transport of ground food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant, would be less than the BAAQMD draft threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. The use of end dump trucks in lieu of roll-off bins would reduce trips to the EBMUD Main Plant and further minimize GHG emissions by about 47 metric tons of CO2e per year. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Plan Consistency: Criterion G2. In response to the increasing body of evidence that GHGs will continue to affect the global climate, the State has enacted key legislation in an effort to reduce the State’s contribution to climate change. In 2006, the State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Act requires that California cap its GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. GHGs, as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, hydro fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride. The CARB is the State agency designated with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs in order to reduce their emissions. The legislation requires CARB to determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit so it may be applied to the 2020 benchmark. CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions, establish a program for statewide GHG emissions reporting and monitoring/ enforcement of that program.

As discussed earlier, Contra Costa County has developed a Climate Action Plan which includes measures to reduce municipal GHG emissions.35 One of the potential GHG reduction measures identified in the Climate Action Plan is to reduce GHG emissions through waste reduction and recycling. The proposed Project would assist the County in achieving its GHG emission reduction goals by diverting food waste from landfill disposal, thereby reducing methane emissions.

As discussed in Section C, the GHG emissions from the proposed Project (293 metric tons of CO2e per year) would be lower than the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year for GHGs. As such, it is not expected that the Project would conflict with the requirements of AB 32, the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan, or other plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures

None required.

3-23


H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

IMPACT ANALYSIS


H1. Designate the food waste operations area in an approved recyclables recovery location along the west wall inside the transfer building, and orient all equipment to minimize potential conflicts with transfer station operations. Existing traffic control and spotting will remain in effect.

H2. Train and monitor workers at the generator site to minimize contaminants in the food waste.

H3. Provide workers at the CCTRS to monitor the delivered food waste pile and remove any unwanted contaminants.

H4. Conduct grinding indoors and utilize a Morbark Woodhog horizontal electric grinder or equivalent grinder/processor. The horizontal grinder will be equipped with a debris deflector and hinged door mounted to the end of the infeed bed for containment of thrown objects.

H5. Comply with the recommendations of the Morbark Woodhog 2600 electric grinder operations safety manual.

H6. Grind food waste as soon as possible but no later than one hour after receipt.

H7. Prohibit storage of food waste (pre- or post-processed) overnight or weekends.

H8. Require food waste workers to wear dust masks and gloves and otherwise comply with the CCTRS health and safety program including washing and use of personal hygiene during breaks and upon completion of the day’s activities.

H9. Designate hand tools for food waste only and clean daily.

H10. Tarp water-tight roll-off bins and end dump trucks and remove “splatter” before exiting the transfer building and prior to transport to the EBMUD Main Plant.

H11. At the conclusion of grinding for the day, use processed wood waste to purge-clean the grinder, spread processed wood waste on operations floor to absorb residual food wastes, and using hand tools and/or a wheel loader, remove this material from the operations floor and push into the MSW pile for disposal.

H12. At the conclusion of the day's food waste grinding, and after all ground food waste and mixed material (ground food waste and ground wood waste) have been collected and/or disposed, the grinder, floor area of the food waste operation, and portions of the west wall (if needed) would be washed down. A non-toxic cleaner with disinfectant and anti-bacterial agent would be used, such as NABC Cleaner or equal. The cleaner would be applied per the manufacturer's recommendations as to concentration and method.

3-24


H13. Modify existing access and egress routes to minimize circulation conflicts between franchise collection vehicles and public self haulers, including having all public unloading using the public unloading area via the entrance along the east wall and the franchise vehicles using the east entrance along the south wall.

H14. Use oversized (40 cubic yard) water-tight collection bins or water-tight end dump trucks to receive processed food waste. Loads for the collection bins will be limited to 10 tons to permit loading into the transfer truck, to provide an approximate 4-foot freeboard, and will be tarped for spillage control. If spillage during transport were to occur with these controls, the freeboard will be increased or bins with lids will be utilized. The end dump trucks will be equipped with hinged baffles and a bulkhead designed to have a series of 1-foot openings for stabilization of the load and spillage containment.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the Project:

1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

21

2) Create a significant hazard to the public, or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment or risk explosion?

21

3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

21

4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

21

3-25




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

21

6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

21

7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

21

8) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

21

9) Expose people to existing or potential hazards and health hazards other than those set forth above?

13, 21, 22

This resource category addresses potential health and safety issues associated with the proposed Project, specifically the grinding of food waste within the CCTRS. Health and safety issues apply to CCTRS workers and members of the public who work in and utilize the facility for disposal of MSW and who could be exposed to the food processing operation. It should be noted that the health and safety program for the CCTRS, which is described in the Report of Station Information (RSI, Chapter III Operations Plan, Operations Section C.6, page 32), will continue to provide the framework for the protection of health and safety for workers and users of the facility.30 The health and safety program addresses sanitary facilities, water supply, communication facilities, lighting, fire fighting equipment, protection of users, safety equipment, and power failure. No Impacts: Criteria H2–H8

The proposed Project has no impacts associated with hazardous materials (Criteria H2–H4), safety hazards due to proximity to airports (Criteria H5 and H6), emergency response plans (Criterion H7), or wildland fires (Criterion H8).

3-26


Less-Than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated: Criteria H1 and H9

There are four areas of potential impact related to health and safety that are not addressed by Criteria H2–H8. These are related to CCTRS operational safety, thrown objects from the horizontal grinder, vectors, and health-related issues related to the food waste processing operation. Only the latter issue requires mitigation to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. CCTRS Operational Safety. The location of the food waste processing area and operational layout of the CCTRS are described in Chapter 2. Currently, as shown on Figure 4, the public use the public unloading area using the entrance along the east wall of the building for unloading, while public bulk unloading is done using the east entrance of the south wall. Franchise haulers use the west entrance along the south wall. Allied has prepared an Operations Plan for the CCTRS and the proposed Project.15 Noting that one of the main objectives of the proposed Project is to maximize efficiency and safety of food waste processing without impacting the primary station function of efficient MSW transfer, the Operations Addendum reviewed the various aspects of the food waste recovery program to meeting this objective as follows:

• Designation of the food waste operations area in an approved recyclables recovery location, and the orientation of the grinder, conveyor, roll-off bin, and transport vehicle to minimize potential conflicts with transfer station operations.

• Incorporation of a variety of safeguards (Control Measures H1–H10) into the Project to protect workers and public safety.

• Modification of existing access and egress routes to minimize circulation conflicts between franchise collection vehicles and public self haulers, including designating public bulk unloading area using the entrance along the east wall only, with the franchise haulers using the east entrance along the south wall. The west entrance along the south wall would be reserved for food waste collection vehicles and franchise vehicles as they exit the transfer building.

Allied indicates these modifications would create an additional vehicle maneuvering area between the food waste recovery operation and the public unloading area, enabling the MSW transfer operation to be conducted in an efficient and safe manner, noting the food waste operation would be expected to be inactive on weekday afternoons, and all weekends. Other operational changes could be employed in the future, such as re-configuring the MSW load-out pile to provide an additional buffer area between the food waste processing area and MSW transfer operations. All components of the CCTRS health and safety program would continue in effect. As a result, the potential impact of the Project on CCTRS operation safety is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3-27


Thrown Objects. Source-separated food waste is moist and, in general, without significant contamination. However, unwanted materials may still be present and when processed in a grinding operation could be ejected and become "thrown objects." Thrown objects could become a safety hazard to workers or the public.

A series of operational and design measures have been included in the proposed Project to address this issue. Control Measure H2 requires training and monitoring of workers at the generator site to minimize contaminants in the food waste, and Control Measure H3 provides further quality control by having CCTRS workers inspect unloaded food waste piles and remove unwanted contaminants. Control Measure H4 provides for the horizontal grinder to be equipped with a debris deflector and hinged door mounted to the end of the infeed bed (Figure 7). The debris deflector consists of a series of closely spaced, vertical, rubberized panels that would provide containment of thrown objects within the discharge pathway associated with this model of grinder.16 As a result of these operational and design measures, the potential safety impacts of grinder operation are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Vectors. Vectors are defined as organisms that are capable of transmitting a pathogen (disease-producing agent). For solid waste facilities, they can also be viewed as nuisances and include flies, mosquitoes, rodents, and seagulls.

Vectors such as flies or mosquitoes have not been an issue thus far at the food waste generator locations. Most of the accounts are restaurants and the remainder are grocery stores who are already subject to regulatory oversight and inspections. Most of the generators also use clear plastic bags in the collection containers which helps keep the containers from accumulating residual waste. If molds are noticed in the containers by the driver or Allied inspector, the containers are exchanged immediately. Potential vector impacts at the generator locations are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

According to the LEA, vectors have also not been a problem with CCTRS operations.22 As a moist organic product, food waste would be an attractive medium for vectors and their propagation. It is clear, based on observations at the Newby Island pilot food waste processing project, that outdoor food waste processing would be a certain attractant to seagulls. However, the proposed Project would process food waste within the transfer building where a variety of equipment operations and activities occur (Control Measure H4) that would dissuade seagulls from entering. Based on experience at Newby Island, the ground food waste product has been shown not to be an attractant to seagulls.

There are control measures important for vector control. Food waste would be ground within one hour of delivery and there would be no storage overnight or on weekends (Control Measures H6 and H7) which would enable insect propagation. A series of good housekeeping measures would be used to clean the processing area and all soiled equipment on a daily basis (Control Measures H9–H11). Residual mixed material resulting from the cleaning process

3-28


would be incorporated into the MSW for disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill. Liquid drainage would be directed to on-site leachate storage tanks, also for off-site disposal. As a result of the operational features and cleanup procedures to be employed, potential health and nuisance-related impacts of the proposed Project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. Health-Related Issues. There are several potential health-related issues associated with the proposed Project. Food waste is a waste product composed of a variety of materials which will have been stored for varying lengths of time prior to being unloaded at the CCTRS. Though no data are known to exist, potentially the food waste could contain microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi spores, and mycelia, which would be a health hazard to workers in the area through direct contact. As discussed in Chapter 2, food waste is a moist material. The grinding process produces a product of oatmeal consistency/texture but also generates “splatter,” particularly from the conveyor assembly and through discharge to the receiving bin. Because the material is moist, it is reasonable to expect aerosols to be generated which could contain micro-organisms, thus air would be a potential exposure route for workers and nearby users of the CCTRS. At the closest point, franchise haulers would be about 60 to 70 feet from the grinding operation. Allied has incorporated a variety of control measures into the Project to address health-related issues. These safeguards include dust masks and gloves for food waste workers and use of appropriate hygienic procedures (Control Measure H8); use of designated hand tools and daily cleaning (Control Measure H9); tarping of water-tight roll-off bins and water-tight end dump trucks and washing of bins and trucks as necessary to remove splatter prior to transport to the EBMUD Main Plant (Control Measure H10); use of processed wood waste to purge-clean the grinder and for absorbing residual food waste from the floor with incorporation into the MSW system for disposal (Control H11); and daily washing of all soiled equipment and floor areas (Control Measure H12), including use of a non-toxic cleaner with disinfectant properties such as NABC Cleaner or equal. NABC Cleaner is a versatile germicidal cleaner with excellent disinfecting, cleaning, and deodorizing properties that can be spray-applied after initial floor rinsing, left on the floor for 10 minutes, and followed by final rinsing.42 Finally, the processed food waste would be discharged to either oversized (40 cubic yard) water-tight collection bins or water-tight end dump trucks (Control Measure H14). The loads for the bins would be limited to 10 tons of ground food waste to permit loading into the transfer truck. This would provide about a 4-foot freeboard to provide control of spillage during loading and during transport to the EBMUD Main Plant.47 If spillage during transport were to occur with these controls, Allied would either increase the freeboard or utilize bins with lids. Load limits for end dump trucks would be 15 to 20 tons of ground food waste. Design measures for spillage control during transport include use of hinged baffles and a perforated bulkhead for load stabilization. Proposed control measures would reduce potential health-related impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level.

3-29


Mitigation Measures

H1. During cleaning of the horizontal grinder, processed food waste material from the conveyor assembly shall not be discharged directly onto the floor but rather into an appropriately sized receiving bin in order to help reduce splatter and generation of aerosols.

H2. A biological aerosol hazard assessment shall be completed once the Project is operational. It is reasonable to expect food waste can have varying levels of fungal and/or bacterial contamination but no data are known to exist on the relative health risk of the food waste grinding process in a mostly enclosed environment such as the transfer building.45 Using a forensic analytical consulting firm, an appropriately detailed work program shall be developed and implemented to assess the relative health risk and reasonableness of proposed control measures. Work activities shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

a. An aerosol sampling program that shall have stationary and mobile components. Food waste workers shall be equipped with impactors, equipment which can be used to pump and filter the air breathing zone with subsequent laboratory analysis of the particles captured.

b. Review of all control and mitigation measures for the proposed Project as related to health-related issues by a certified industrial hygienist. Based on the analytical program and this review, the measures may be discontinued, reduced, kept as–is, or expanded.

c. Preparation and submittal to the LEA of a written report describing how the assessments are performed and documenting and summarizing the findings.

With incorporation of these mitigation measures, potential health-related impacts of the

proposed Project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

IMPACT ANALYSIS


I1. In the initial year of the Project, monitor leachate levels in the leachate storage tanks on a bi-monthly (every two months) basis to determine whether a change in frequency of disposal is required to accommodate the food waste operation. Empty as necessary based on increased drainage flows.

3-30





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the Project:

1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

21

2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

21

3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

21

4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site?

21

5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

17, 21, 30

6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

21

7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

21

3-31




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

21

9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

21

Drainage generated from within the CCTRS transfer building is managed separately from storm water outside the structure. As discussed in Chapter 2, drainage water (leachate) generated within the transfer building waste handling areas drains to the load-out scale pits. Drain lines from the scale pits lead to a sump pump, and then to two above-ground 10,000-gallon leachate storage tanks (Figure 4). Usually these tanks are emptied twice per year and the contents are transported to the Seaport Environmental Wastewater Treatment Facility in Redwood City. No leachate from the transfer building is allowed to enter the public sewer system pursuant to the CCTRS Class III Industrial User Permit issued by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.17 No Impacts: Criteria I1–I4, I6–I9

The proposed Project has no impacts associated with violation of water quality standards (Criterion I1), depletion of groundwater supplies (Criterion I2), alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site (Criteria I3 and I4), water quality degradation (Criterion I6), or flooding (Criteria I7–I9). Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Criterion I5

The proposed Project would generate additional sources of polluted runoff. Food waste has a high moisture content. As discussed in Chapter 2, cleanup procedures would be conducted each day once grinding operations are completed. The objective of the cleanup process is to minimize to the greatest extent practical, the amount of processed food waste that would be mixed with the ground wood/greenwaste. This mixed material resulting from the grinder purging/cleaning process would be unsuitable for use in EBMUD's Main Plant digesters and thus would be disposed as MSW. Residual processed food waste in the grinder, discharge chute, conveyor, and the floor area would be collected and added to the load outgoing to the EBMUD Main Plant. The remainder (estimated at less than 10% of gross tonnage) would be included in the purging and resultant mixed material. It is this material that would be pushed into the pits and ultimately disposed as MSW at Keller Canyon Landfill.41 Final cleanup does include wash-down of all equipment, and other soiled areas including the transfer building west wall (as needed) and floor areas. Wash-down water would be squeegeed by a wheel loader and directed to the scale pits. As a result, drainage flows within the

3-32


transfer building would increase by about 35,000 gallons per year over existing levels because of the proposed Project.41 Control Measure I1 would include increased monitoring of liquid levels within the leachate storage tanks and emptying them as necessary for off-site disposal. Because the system is contained and the only effect would be increased emptying of the tanks, the potential impact associated with drainage system capacity and additional sources of polluted runoff is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures

None required.

J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None. The CCTRS is considered a compatible land use. Significance Criteria



Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the Project:

1) Physically divide an established community?

21

2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

6, 9, 21

3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

21

The CCTRS site is designated heavy industrial in both the Contra Costa County (County) General Plan and zoning ordinance.9 The facility is consistent with the County County-Wide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP).6

3-33


No Impacts: Criteria J1-J3

The proposed Project has no impacts with dividing an established community (Criterion J1) or conflicting with a habitat or natural community conservation plan (Criterion J3). There are also no impacts with Criterion J2 as the proposed Project would supplement the resource recovery and waste transfer facilities at an existing industrial facility. The LEA would need to make a Conformance Finding that the proposed Project is consistent with the CIWMP for purposes of the SWFP revision. This no-impact finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None required.

K. MINERAL RESOURCES

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None. Significance Criteria



Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

K. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the Project:

1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

21

2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

21

No Impacts: Criteria K1, K2

The proposed Project has no impact associated with mineral resources.

3-34


Mitigation Measures

None required.

L. NOISE

IMPACT ANALYSIS


L1. Require operators to wear appropriate hearing protection devices in conformance with OSHA requirements.

L2. Comply with relevant provisions of LUP 2122-86 and SWFP 07-AA-027.

L3. Conduct food waste grinding indoors within the CCTRS.

L4. Prohibit food waste grinding after 5:00 p.m.

L5. Prohibit food waste grinding on weekends.

L6. Monitor noise levels for 30 to 60 days following Project startup to determine if noise levels exceed threshold values. Provide data to the LEA and DCD. If thresholds are exceeded, develop appropriate abatement measures in consultation with the LEA.




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

L. NOISE

Would the Project result in:

1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

7, 14, 21, 28

2) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

21

3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

7, 14, 21, 28

3-35




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

21

5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

21

6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

21

CCTRS Site Configuration

There are several physical characteristics of the CCTRS site that are important to the noise assessment. As discussed in Chapter 1, the CCTRS site is a former borrow pit, which was used as a source of cover for the nearby Acme Landfill operation. Thus, the station is situated in a bowl-like location with the ground plane roughly 45 feet lower than the surrounding area. In addition, a 10-foot-high sound barrier wall was constructed at the top of slope along the western and eastern site boundary separating the CCTRS from the Vine Hill residential area and the Martinez Gun Club, respectively (Figure 3). Surrounding Land Use

Surrounding existing and future land use is also shown previously on Figure 3. The Vine Hill residential area is the closest sensitive land use, being about 270 feet from the western wall of the transfer building. The future Seal Island residential development is the next closest sensitive land use. This development would consist of 22 single-family units. The closest planned unit would be about 660 feet from the southern wall of the transfer building, but not within line-of-sight. No sound wall exists or is planned in this area. Existing Noise Environment

The existing noise environment in the CCTRS area is dominated by CCTRS operations involving incoming and outgoing public and franchise MSW haulers, transfer trucks, and routine equipment operations. The most substantial noise-producing activity is the occasional grinding of wood waste just south of the transfer building as shown on Figure 9. Wood waste is stored in this area and ground once per week or every two weeks depending on need. Other noise-

3-37


producing land uses in the area include US Concrete, Martinez Gun Club, and background noise from I-680. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) completed a noise assessment to calculate noise level increases associated with the proposed Project. The noise assessment reviewed existing data, documented baseline noise levels at nearby residential land uses, calculated noise levels resulting from the Project, added Project-related noise to ambient noise levels measured at the adjacent residences, and compared the resultant noise levels to ambient noise levels and applicable noise level limits. A noise monitoring survey was conducted by I&R staff on Thursday, April 15, 2010, to document existing noise levels at residential land uses bordering the site during typical CCTRS operations within the transfer building and wood waste grinding operations occurring outside the transfer station building. The noise monitoring survey included one fixed noise measurement position located approximately 120 feet from the center of the wood waste grinding operation (LT-1) and several short-term noise measurements at the westernmost site boundary and along Irene Drive (ST-1 to ST-6), as shown on Figure 10. Table 3 summarizes the results of the noise measurements made by I&R. As indicated in this table, noise levels resulting from operations within the transfer station building and during wood waste grinding operations (worst-case operational noise levels) ranged from 58 to 60 dBA

Table 3. Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data on April 15, 2010 (dBA)

Noise Measurement Location Lmaxa Leq

b Lminc

LT-1: 120 feet from the center of wood waste grinding operations. Operating equipment included a Morbark "Woodhog" 5600, CAT 950G Loader, and CAT Dozer.

92 80 72

ST-1: Residential property line northwest of transfer building and wood waste grinding operations, east side sound barrier wall. 63 58 54

ST-2: Residential property line west of transfer building and wood waste grinding operations, east side sound barrier wall. 69 60 56

ST-3: Residential property line southwest of transfer building and wood waste grinding operations, east side sound barrier wall. 62 58 55

ST-4: Michele Drive residences southwest of transfer building and wood waste grinding operations, partially shielded by noise barrier wall. 61 56 51

ST-5: Irene Drive residences southwest of transfer building and wood waste grinding operations (shielded by noise barrier wall and residences). 59 48 45

ST-6: Irene Drive residences northwest of transfer building and wood waste grinding operations (shielded by noise barrier wall and residences). 58 49 43

a The maximum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. b The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. c The minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, May 2010.

3-39


Leq at the residential property line west of the site (on the east side of the existing sound barrier wall). Noise levels in the rear yards of the nearest residential land uses are estimated to be 56 dBA Leq or less assuming the shielding provided by the approximate 10-foot-high noise barrier that separates the residential land uses from the CCTRS site. Worst-case operational noise levels at the front of Irene Drive residences were approximately 48 to 49 dBA Leq. The data collected by I&R was reviewed and compared to the noise data collected by Allied on August 10, 2009.14 The review found that the two data sets correlated well with one another and that the existing CCTRS operation is compliant with Condition 22.1 of LUP 2122-86. Planning and Regulatory Framework

The planning and regulatory framework for the CCTRS consists of the Noise Element of the County General Plan and the facility's LUP 2122-86.7,28 These policies and permits are discussed below. Contra Costa County. The Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan identifies goals and policies that are designed to control noise and minimize noise impacts throughout the community.28 The goals identified include improving the overall environment in the county by reducing annoying and physically harmful levels of noise for existing and future residents and for all land uses, maintaining appropriate noise conditions in all areas of the county, ensuring that new developments will be constructed to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents, recognizing citizen concerns regarding excessive noise levels, and utilizing measures through which the concerns can be identified and mitigated. The policies identified state that new projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. The Ldn is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn is calculated from hourly average noise levels (Leq) measured over a 24-hour period. Another policy indicates that if an area is currently below the maximum "normally acceptable" noise level, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not be allowed necessarily. The policies also state that public projects shall be designed to minimize long-term noise impacts on existing residents, and that construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive. Land Use Permit 2122-86. LUP 2122-86 was originally approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1987, and was last amended on April 21, 1992.7 It contains thirty sections and over 100 conditions of approval governing the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the CCTRS. Section 22 of the permit addresses noise control. Relevant conditions include the following:

• Condition 22.1. This condition establishes a CCTRS boundary line maximum noise level of 60 dBA Leq during daylight hours or 50 dBA Leq during the evening or at night which is slightly more restrictive than the 60 dB Ldn General Plan threshold

3-40


assuming operations would yield the maximum allowable noise level at the CCTRS boundary line during the day, evening, and night. The Vine Hill residential area and Martinez Gun Club are recognized as sensitive land uses. For purposes of this IS, it is assumed these maximum noise level requirements apply to the noise controlled environment, that is on the opposite side of the wall away from the CCTRS. Condition 22.1 also requires additional noise reduction measures at the CCTRS if these noise criteria are exceeded. This same requirement exists in SWFP 07-AA-027.

• Condition 22.6. This condition requires the CCTRS to have a late hours program to reduce noise levels between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The program is to include: (a) discontinuing the use of west-facing unloading bays and closing bay doors, and (b) closing the west-facing transfer truck bay doors except when trucks are entering or leaving the transfer building.

No Impacts: Criteria L2, L4, L5, and L6

The recovery and processing of commercial food waste will occur about 270 feet from the nearest residences located southwest of the site along Irene Drive. The grinding of food waste would not result in measurable or perceptible groundborne vibration levels at such a distance (Criterion L2). The Project does not propose major construction activities. Noise from minor construction activities, such as the installation of the push wall and the necessary electrical modifications, would not generate noise levels above those resulting from current operations at the CCTRS site (Criterion L4). The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of an airport, or within 2 miles of a private airstrip and would not expose workers to excessive aircraft noise (Criteria L5 and L6). Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Criteria L1 and L3

During the initial phase of the proposed Project, 19 to 28 TPD of food waste would be processed, increasing to 60 TPD as the program expands to its maximum. At full development and depending on load size, 6 to 9 new inbound truckloads of food waste would be brought to the CCTRS, five days per week. The food waste would be placed on the tipping floor of the transfer building adjacent to the electric horizontal grinder and loaded into the grinder by a wheel loader. The wheel loader used for this process would be the same loader that currently operates within the transfer station building. The processed food waste would be conveyed from the grinder to a roll-off bin or end dump truck. At 60 TPD, up to 6 new truckloads of processed food waste would be transported to the EBMUD Main Plant, assuming use of roll-off bins. Actual food waste processing time within the transfer building would amount to 2 to 2.5 hours although incoming loads would be staggered so actual processing time may approach 5 hours per day at 60 TPD. Potential noise exposure issues extend to both workers and the nearby sensitive land use. Noise levels resulting from the operation of a Morbark Woodhog 2600 diesel horizontal grinder were measured at a Newby Island demonstration on July 28, 2010, yielding an average noise

3-41


level of 87 dBA Leq at a distance of about 33 feet. The average noise level at an operator, assumed to be 10 feet from the equipment, is calculated to range from 97 to 100 dBA Leq. Operational noise levels would exceed OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limit of 95 dBA Leq assuming four hours of operation per day. Control Measure L1 requires operators to wear appropriate hearing protection devices in conformance with OSHA requirements, thus the potential noise exposure impact to operators is less than significant. To assess potential noise impacts to the Vine Hill residential area and the future Seal Island residential development, it was calculated that during operation, the proposed Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder would generate an average noise level of 76 dBA Leq at a distance of 120 feet, which is approximately 4 dBA Leq less than the average noise level resulting from outdoor wood waste grinding operations utilizing a Morbark "Woodhog" 5600 grinder. The calculation assumes a source noise level of 87 dBA at 33 feet for the Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder and a standard attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the noise source [20*log (33/120) = -11 dBA]. The electric horizontal grinder would be located within the CCTRS transfer building along the west wall, and the transfer building itself would provide about 15 dBA of noise reduction on the exterior of the building for sounds associated with the indoor food waste processing operation. Assuming the shielding provided by the CCTRS transfer building, operational noise levels are calculated to be 61 dBA Leq at a distance of 120 feet. Average noise levels resulting from the indoor food waste recovery operation are calculated to be 54 dBA Leq at the nearest residential property line (monitoring location ST-1) located approximately 270 feet from the CCTRS transfer building on the east side of the sound barrier wall, assuming the attenuation with distance from the noise source [20*log (120 ft. / 270 ft.) = -7 dBA]. The average noise level from this operation is calculated to be 50 dBA Leq in the nearest residential rear yards, assuming the 4 dBA of shielding provided by the existing 10-foot-high noise barrier. The closest residential area planned within the future Seal Island residential development site would be about 660 feet from the southern wall of the transfer building, and would not have line-of-sight to CCTRS operations. Average noise levels resulting from the indoor food waste recovery operation are calculated to be 47 dBA Leq at this residential site, assuming attenuation with distance from the noise source [20*log (120 ft. / 660 ft.) = -14 dBA]. At 60 TPD, the food waste recovery operation would accept commercial food waste on 5 days per week over a period of 3 to 5 hours per day. The additional noise resulting from the food waste recovery operation would increase hourly average noise levels at the nearest existing residences by about 2 dBA Leq on days where CCTRS transfer station activities are the predominant noise source (i.e., no wood waste grinding) and by 1 dBA Leq on days where CCTRS transfer station activities and wood waste grinding occur (worst-case noise generation at CCTRS site). The food waste recovery operation would increase noise levels by 1 dBA Leq at the nearest proposed residential land use located approximately 660 feet to the south of the transfer station building. The Ldn at existing or planned residential uses is calculated to increase by less than 1 dBA under each of the above scenarios.

3-42


Overall noise levels at the property line of the nearest residential land uses (east side of noise barrier) are calculated to reach 61 dBA Leq on a worst-case day assuming typical CCTRS transfer station activities, wood waste grinding activities, and the operation of the food waste grinder within the transfer station building. The noise level in the rear yard of the nearest residential land uses would be 57 dBA Leq or less, assuming the 4 dBA of attenuation provided by the existing noise barrier that separates the residential land uses from the CCTRS site. Overall noise levels at the property line of the nearest future residential land uses are calculated to reach 58 dBA Leq on a worst-case day. Exterior noise levels a the nearest residential properties would continue to meet the 60 dBA Leq daytime noise level limit, and the increase in noise levels resulting from site operations would not be substantial on an hourly average or daily average basis. As discussed earlier, this assumes Control Measures L2 through L6 are implemented. Control Measure L6 further requires monitoring during initial operation to verify actual noise levels and, if thresholds were to be exceeded, developing and implementing appropriate noise abatement measures. The potential noise exposure impacts to the Vine Hill residential area and the future Seal Island residential development are less than significant and no mitigation is required. Relative to noise impacts associated with transport of food waste, and assuming use of roll-off bins, the proposed Project would require approximately 12 to 15 additional vehicles per day or 24 to 30 total additional commercial food waste truck trips to and from the site on days where food waste grinding would occur (see Table 1 in Chapter 2), and these trips would be spread out over operational hours. Because the Project would result in 6 fewer total transfer vehicle trips for MSW disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill, the actual net increase in total trips to be experienced in the area would be 18 to 24. If end dump trucks were used in lieu of roll-off bins, the total trips would decrease to 14 to 20. Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way currently experience a high volume of truck trips as a result of existing operations at the site and in the site vicinity, and the additional truck trips expected with the Project would not substantially increase traffic noise levels over a permanent basis (Criterion L3). The increase in noise levels is calculated to be less than 1 dBA Ldn [10*log (1,145 existing plus project vehicles per day / 1,130 existing vehicles per day) = 0.1 dBA = < 1 dBA], which is not a measurable or perceptible increase in noise, is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures

None required.

M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None.

3-43





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the Project:

1) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?

21

2) Substantially change the demographics in the area?

21

3) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

21

4) Substantially alter the location, distribution, or density of the area’s population?

21

5) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

21

6) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

21

7) Conflict with adopted housing elements?

21

No Impacts: Criteria M1-M7

The proposed Project has no impacts associated with population and housing. This finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None required.

3-44


N. PUBLIC SERVICES

IMPACT ANALYSIS





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

N. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the Project:

1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? 21

b) Police protection? 21

c) Schools? 21

d) Parks? 21

e) Electrical power or natural gas?

21

f) Communication? 21

g) Other public facilities? 21

No Impacts: Criteria N1

The proposed Project would not require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities so there would be no impact on public services (Criterion N1). This finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None required.

3-45


O. RECREATION

IMPACT ANALYSIS





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

O. RECREATION

Would the Project:

1) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

21

2) Include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

21

No Impacts: Criteria 01, 02

The proposed Project would have no impact associated with recreation facilities (Criteria 01 and 02). This finding is consistent with the finding contained in the Draft EIR for the CCTRS.11 Mitigation Measures

None required.

P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

IMPACT ANALYSIS


None.

3-46





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the Project:

1) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

6, 21, 38

2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

6, 21, 38

3) Result in a change in air, rail or water-borne traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

21

4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

21

5) Result in inadequate emergency access?

21

6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

21

Access to the CCTRS is via Waterfront Road and Waterbird Way. According to SWFP 07-AA-0027 for the CCTRS, incoming traffic volume is limited to 1,130 vehicles per day.6 Based on 2009 quarterly CCTRS materials activity reports, daily incoming traffic averaged between 309 and 344, with a maximum day of 454 vehicles.

3-47


No Impacts: Criteria P3, P5, P6

The proposed Project has no impacts associated with air, rail, or water-borne traffic patterns (Criterion P3); would not result in inadequate emergency access (Criterion P5); and has no issues associated with alternative transportation (Criterion P6). Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Criteria P1, P2, P4

Local Circulation System and Congestion Management Program: Criteria P1 and P2. The traffic generating characteristics of the proposed Project were discussed in Chapter 2 and presented in Table 1. At 60 TPD, and with each load expected to vary between 7 and 10 tons, collection of food waste would result in 6 to 9 additional incoming vehicles to the CCTRS and for transport to the EBMUD Main Plant up to 6 vehicles per day, assuming use of roll-off bins. However, because 60 TPD of food waste would not be transferred to the Keller Canyon Landfill, 3 fewer transfer vehicles would be entering the CCTRS. This level of traffic increase would be quite minimal, well within SWFP limits, and would result in a less-than-significant impact on the local circulation system (Criterion P1) and would not conflict with the local congestion management program, Contra Costa County Measure C (Criterion P2). Only up to 6 vehicles per day would be transporting processed food waste to the EBMUD Main Plant. However, an earlier study for a potential Norcal Waste Systems (and Recology) and EBMUD food waste/digester project at the Main Plant revealed that two intersections near the Main Plant (West Grand Avenue and Maritime Boulevard, and West Grand Avenue and I-880 Frontage Road) were projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) Fa with or without that project’s traffic contribution under cumulative conditions.38 Theoretically, any project’s traffic contribution would result in a significant unavoidable impact. The City of Oakland, however, does have adopted policies for these situations. A project's contribution to a LOS F intersection would be significant if it either:

• Increases the total intersection average vehicle delay by two or more seconds;

• Increases the average delay for any of the critical movements by four or more seconds; or

• The volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds three percent (but only if the delay values cannot be measured accurately).

It was determined by the traffic consultant, Abrams Associates, through detailed LOS calculations that the Project’s traffic contribution would not exceed any of the City’s criteria, resulting in the impact being less than significant. Thus, the proposed Project would also result in a less-than-significant impact on traffic conditions near the Main Plant.

a Forced flow or operation. If signalized, intersection operations are below its vehicular capacity, resulting in stop-and-go traffic or jammed traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing at both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

3-48


Increased Hazards: Criterion P4. Criterion P4 addresses increased hazards due to a project’s design feature. CCTRS operation safety was discussed in Section H under Criterion H9. Allied has proposed to modify existing on-site access and egress routes for public bulk self haulers and franchise collection vehicles to create an additional vehicle maneuvering area between the food waste recovery operation and the public unloading area enabling the MSW transfer operation to be conducted in an efficient and safe manner. The potential impact associated with safety hazards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures

None required.

Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

IMPACT ANALYSIS





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the Project:

1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

21

2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

21

3) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

21

3-49




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

21

5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

21

6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?

21

7) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?

21

8) Have a direct impact on utilities or other infrastructure improve-ments not addressed above.

21

No Impacts: Criteria Q1–Q3, Q6, Q7

The proposed Project has no impact associated with wastewater treatment requirements (Criterion Q1), would not require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (Criterion Q2), or stormwater drainage facilities (Criterion Q3), would reduce the amount of MSW going to Keller Canyon Landfill (Criterion Q6), and would comply with State and local solid waste regulations (Criterion Q7). Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Criteria Q4, Q5, Q8

Water Supplies: Criterion Q4. The CCTRS is within the service area of the CCWD. Water is provided from an existing water line located at the intersection of Waterbird Way and Arthur Road. The incoming water line is sized for the built-out facility.30 The proposed Project would include only a minimal increase in CCTRS water use, primarily for wash water. The estimated amount of water to be used is about 35,000 gallons per year.41 The potential impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Wastewater Treatment Capacity: Criterion Q5. Drainage water generated within the transfer building is stored in two 10,000-gallon leachate holding tanks, emptied usually once or twice per year and transported to the Seaport Environmental Wastewater Treatment Facility in Redwood City. The facility treats hazardous liquid waste and following treatment, a flow rate of 75,000 gallons per day is discharged to the South Bayside System Authority municipal treatment

3-50


facility. Solids are centrifuged and disposed off-site.29 According to Seaport, the facility has adequate capacity to accommodate increased flows of about 35,000 gallons from the CCTRS.39 Utility Impacts: Criterion Q8. The Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder requires a 480-volt electrical system. The existing in-building electrical system would be modified to accommodate the grinder. The potential impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures

None required.

R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

IMPACT ANALYSIS





Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

1) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

21

3-51




Impact




Impact

No Impact

Beneficial Impact

Information Sources

2) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

21

3) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

21

No Impacts: Criteria R1 and R2

The proposed Project has no issues associated with aesthetics (Criteria A1–A4), agricultural resources (Criteria B1–B5), biological resources (Criteria D1–D6), cultural resources (Criteria E1–E4), geology and soils (Criteria F1–F6), land use and planning (Criteria J1–J3), mineral resources (Criteria K1 and K2), population and housing (Criteria M1–M7), public services (Criteria N1(a)–N1(g)), or recreation (Criteria O1 and O2), or cumulative impacts. Less-Than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated: Criterion R3

Health and safety impacts are discussed in Section H. Categories discussed include CCTRS operational safety, thrown objects, vectors, and health-related issues. Control Measures H1–H14 have been included in the proposed Project to address these issues and reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels, except for health and safety where the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. Mitigation Measures

H1. During cleaning of the horizontal grinder, processed food waste material from the conveyor assembly shall not be discharged directly onto the floor but rather into an appropriately sized receiving bin in order to help reduce splatter and generation of aerosols.

H2. A biological aerosol hazard assessment shall be completed once the Project is operational. It is reasonable to expect food waste can have varying levels of fungal and/or bacterial contamination but no data are known to exist on the relative health risk of the food waste grinding process in a mostly enclosed environment such as the transfer building.45 Using a forensic analytical consulting firm, an appropriately detailed work program shall be developed and implemented to assess the relative health risk and reasonableness of

3-52


proposed control measures. Work activities shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

a. An aerosol sampling program that shall have stationary and mobile components. Food waste workers shall be equipped with impactors, equipment which can be used to pump and filter the air breathing zone with subsequent laboratory analysis of the particles captured.

b. Review of all control and mitigation measures for the proposed Project as related to health-related issues by a certified industrial hygienist. Based on the analytical program and this review, the measures may be discontinued, reduced, kept as is, or expanded.

c. Preparation and submittal to the LEA of a written report describing how the assessments are performed and documenting and summarizing the findings.

With incorporation of these mitigation measures, potential health-related impacts of the

proposed Project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

CHAPTER 4

REFERENCE SOURCES 1. Contra Costa County, County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Approved 1993.

2. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Board Info/Strategic Plan. February 13, 2008.

3. CIWMD. 2008 Waste Characterization Study.

4. CIWMD. Strategic Directives Progress Report.

5. Personal communication from Mr. Bart Carr, Senior Program Manager, Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. April 29, 2010.

6. CCTRS. SWFP 07-AA-0027, last review date January 19, 2006.

7. CCTRS. LUP 2122-86. Approved December 15, 1987, last amended April 21, 1992.

8. BAAQMD. CCTRS Permit to Operate for Plant #9680.

9. Personal communication from Mr. John Oborne, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. March 29, 2010.

10. Personal communication from Mr. Ryan Hernandez, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. May 18, 2010.

11. Contra Costa County. Draft EIR for Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. June 1987.

12. Contra Costa County. Response Document, Final EIR for Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. September 1987.

13. Contra Costa County. Addendum, Final EIR for Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station. October 1987.

14. Allied. Project Description for Proposed SWFP Modification, CCTRS. September 2010.

15. Allied. Draft Operations Addendum for CCTRS Commercial Food Waste Recovery Program. May 20, 2010.

16. Morbark, Inc. Model 2600 Woodhog Operator Safety Manual. March 2005.

17. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Class III Industrial User Permit for the CCTRS. November 1, 2008.


http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Board

4-2


18. EBMUD. Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste, Final Report. March 2008.

19. EBMUD. EBMUD: Food Waste Digester Initiative, Power Point Slides. October 2, 2008.

20. Personal communication with Mr. Joe Augustine, Process Control Operations Supervisor, EBMUD Main Plant. May 19, 2010.

21. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, and review of Project Description information.

22. Personal communication with Mr. Eric Fung, Senior Environmental Health Specialist, Contra Costa Environmental Health. May 17, 2010.

23. BAAQMD. Response to Public Records Request for CCTRS. May 6, 2010.

24. BAAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Adopted June 2010.

25. Personal communication with Mr. Bart Carr, Senior Program Manager, Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority. May 27, 2010.

26. Personal communication with Ms. Tonja Leidy, Assistant Management Analyst, City of Berkeley Recycling Program. March 25, 2010.

27. Personal communication with Mr. Alex Dmitriew, City and County of San Francisco Recycling Program. March 25, 2010.

28. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. January 18, 2005.

29. http://www.seaportenvironmental.com.

30. Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery. CCTRS Report of Station Information. February 2002.

31. BAAQMD. 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. December 2000.

32. BAAQMD. 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy. January 2006.

33. BAAQMD. CEQA Guidelines. December 2009.

34. BAAQMD. Draft Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010.

35. Contra Costa County. Municipal Climate Action Plan, Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. December 2008.

4-3


36. U.S. EPA. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases, A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 3rd Edition. September 2006.

37. U.S. EPA. Turning Food Waste into Energy at the EBMUD: Investigating the Anaerobic Digestion Process to Recycle Post-Consumer Food Waste.

38. Scheidegger & Associates. Air Quality, Traffic, and CEQA Compliance Assessments, Norcal/EBMUD Food Waste/Digester Project. June 30, 2008.

39. Personal communication from Joaquin Camara, Plant Manager, Seaport Environmental Wastewater Treatment Facility. June 7, 2010.

40. Personal communication from Susan Talatala, Allied Food Waste Coordinator. June 7, 2010.

41. Personal communication from Joel Sabenorio, Allied Waste Services. August 6, 2010.

42. Information Bulletin for NABC. Spartan News. © Spartan.

43. Personal communication from Joel Sabenorio, Allied Waste Services. August 6, 2010.

44. Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery, CCTRS Report of Station Information. February 2002.

45. Personal communication from Mr. Ron Cofee, Forensic Analytical, Inc. August 12, 2010.

46. Personal communication from Ms. Deidra Dingman, Contra Costa County Conservation Programs Manager. August 16, 2010.

47. Personal communication from Mr. Glenn Bohling, Republic Services Newby Island Composting Facility Operations Manager. August 20, 2010.

CHAPTER 5

DETERMINATION

Title of Proposal: Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station,Commercial Food Waste Collection and Recovery Program

Lead Agency: Contra Costa Environmental Health,Local Enforcement Agency

Lead Agency Address: 2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200Concord, California 94520

Lead Agency Contact: Lori Braunesreither (or) Phone: (925) 692-2528

Joe Doser (925) 692-2535

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

a) I find that the proposed Project could not have asignificant effect on the environment, and

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

b) I find that although the proposed Project couldhave a significant effect on the environment, therewill not be a significant effect in this case becausethe mitigation measures described in the InitialStudy have been added to the Project.

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONwill be prepared.

c) I find that the proposed Project may have asignificant effect on the environment, and

an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTis required.

-

__________

Signature “I Date

Randy Sawyer,Interim Director of Environmental Health

- For: Contra Costa Environmental health

2-If-(gAUicd Food Waie (olleclion and Recoier is mi 51

APPENDIX A

SWFP 07—AA--0027

2. Name and Street Address of Facility: 3. Name Mailing Address of Operator: 4 Name & Mailing Address of Owner:

Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station Allied Waste lndustnes, Inc. BFI of California, Inc.951 Waterbircl Way 901 Bailey Road 441 N. Buchanan CircleMartinez, CA 94553 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pacheco, CA 94553

5. Specifications:

a. Permitted Operations: [1 Composting Facility Processing Facility(mixed wastes)

Corn posting Facility [XJ Transfer Station(yard waste)

[3 Landfill Disposal Site ) Transformation Facility

Material Recovery Facility [X] Other: Wood Grindingb. Permitted Hours of Operation: 7:00 am, to 5:00 p.m., 7 days a week for public Users. Closed on New Years Day, Easter Sunday. Thanksgiv’ng andChristmas Day, Station open to franchise haulers continuously.

c. Permitted Tons per Operating Day: 1900 Total: Tons/Day

Non-Hazardous - General 1 900 Tons/DayNon-Hazardous - Sludge NA Tons/DayNon-Hazardous - Separated or commingled recyclables 1900 Tons/DayNon-Hazardous - Other (See Section 14 of Permit) NA Tons/DayDesignated (See Section 14 of Permit) NA Tons/DayHazardous (See Section 14 of Permit) NA Tons/Day* See LEA Condition ft17D.

ci. Permitted Traffic Volume: 1130 Total: Vehicles/Day

Incoming waste materials 1130 Vehicles/DayOutgoing waste materials ([or disposal) 1130 Vehicles/DayOutgoing materials from material recovery operations 1130 Vehicles/Day

e. Key Design Parameters (Detailed parameters are shown on site plans bearing LEA and CIWMB validations):Tn*I

Tnnfnr flnIi*nOiHn Area (in ari

Car,a,’ih

Man 51”a1””

____________________________________

A* flnn+h (RI 001

_______________________________

Upon a significant change in design or operation from that described herein, this permit is subject to revocation or suspension. The stipulated permit findings anconditions are integral parts of this permit & supersede the conditions of any previously issued permit.6. Approval:

7. Enforcement Agency Name and Address:

Contra Costa Environmental HealthApproving Officer Signature2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200Concord, CA 94520Richard Lee Assistant Director of Environmental Health

__Namemtle

8. Received by CIWMB: 9. CIWMB Concurrence Date: 10. Permit Issued Date’

hA. Nect Permit Review Due Date: 118. Permit Transfer Date: IIC. Permit Review Date:January 2011January 19, 2006

SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT i. Facility/Permit Number:

007-AA-0027

MA

MA

kitMA

.-.

MA

1. Facility/Permit Number:SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT

2. Name and Street Address of Facility: 5. Name and Mailing Address of 4. Name & Mailing Address of Owner:Operator:

Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station Allied Waste Industries, Inc. BFI of California, Inc.951 Waterbird Way 901 Bailey Road 441 N. Buchanan CircleMartinez, CA 911553 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Pacheco, CA 945535. Specifications:

a. Permitted Operations: I J Composting Facility Ii Processing Facility(mixed wastes)II Composting Facility IXI Transfer Station

(yard waste)Ii Landfill Disposal site [1 Transformation Facility

13 Material Recovery Facility [XI Other: Wood Grindingb. Permitted Hours of Operation: 7:00 a.rn. to 5:00 p.m., 7 days a week for public users. Closed on New Year’s Day, Easter Sunday,Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Station open to franchise haulers continuously.

c. Permitted Tons per Operating Day: 1900 Total Maximum Tons/DayNon-Hazardous-- General (including green & wood waste) 1900* Tons/DayNon-Hazardous - Sludge

NA Tons/DayNon-Hazardous - Separated or commingled recyclables 1900 Tons/DayNon-Hazardous- Other (See Section 14 of Permitl NA Tons/DayDesignated (See Section 14 of Permit)NA Tons/DayHazardous (See Section 14 of Permit)NA Tons/Day*See LEA Condition #170.

d. Permitted traffic Volume:1130 Total Maximum Vehicles/Day

Incoming waste materials1130 Vehicles/DayOutgoing waste materials (for disposall 1130 Vehicles/DayOutgoing materials from material recovery operations 1130 Vehicles/Day

e. Key Design Parameters (Detailed parameters are shown on site plans bearing LEA and CIWMB validations):, Tn4

Trr,cr

6. Approval:7. Enforcement Agency Name andAddress:

Approving Officer SignatureContra Costa Environmental Health.

2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200.ennt-h ctiiirt, flirectooLEmLtr000ntaLliealth. Concord, CA 94520Namè(Tltle

8. ReceIved by CIWMB: 9. CIWM Concurrence Date: 10. Permit Issued Date:March 19, 2002April 2, 2001March 27, 2002

hA. Next Permit Review Due Date: 118. Permit Transfer Date: I1C. Permit Review Date:January 2006 February 1, 2002

007-AA-0027

1_t

A

Pn,1f* l,r* ( *,r*,,__tli

__________________________

flndnn t*r,,riñ,—

_________________________________

t’v KF* TIAJ

Av 1,,th !f I2Q

upon a significant change in design or operation from that described herein, this permit is subject to revocation or suspension. Thestipulated permit findings and conditions are integral parts of this permit & supersede the conditions of any previously issued permit.

Mt

2. Name and Street Address of Facility: 3. Name and Mailing Address of 4. Name & Mailing Address of Owner:Operator:

Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station Allied Waste Industries, Inc. VIneHill Investments, Inc.951 Waterbircl Way 901 Bailey Road 4080 PIke Lane, Suite AMartinez, CA 94553 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Concord, CA 945205. Specifications:

a. Permitted Operations: [.1 Composting Facility 1) Processing Facility(mixed wastes)Composting Facility LXI Transfer Station(yard waste)

(I Landfill Disposal site Transformation Facility

I Material Recovery Facility [XI Other: Wood Grindingb. Permitted Hours of Operation: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 7 days a week for public users. Closed on New Year’s Day, Easter Sunday,Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Station open to franchise haulers continuously.c. Permitted Tons per Operating Day:

Non-Hazardous — General (including green & wood wastelNon-Hazardous - SludgeNon-Hazardous - Separated or commingled recyclablesNon-Hazardous - Other (see Section 14 of Permit)Designated (See Section -14 of Permit)Hazardous (See Section 14 of Permit)*See LEA Condition #170.

d. Permitted Traffic Volume:1130 Total Maximum Vehicles/Day

Incoming waste materials1130 Vehicles/DayOutgoing waste materials (for disposal)1130 Vehicles/DayOutgoing materials from material recovery operations 1130 Vehicles/Day

e. Key Design Parameters (Detailed parameters are shown on site plans bearing LEA and CIWMB validations):Tnt flkl Trnfpr MPF C,trnrw-,trv, Trf(,rr*

,.,A,.,A

hi A I‘Iti

J_ii A

,IA

7. Enforcement Agency Name and

“Kiroving Officer SignatureContra Costa Environmental Health2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200Kenneth Stuart, Director of Environmental Healthconcord, CA 94520Name/Title

10. Received by ClWM: 9. CIWMB Concurrence Date: 10. Permit Issued bate:JAN 2 3 2fl01 LOU7 April 2, 2001hA. Next Permit Review Due Date: 11g. Permit Transfer Date: IIC. Permit Review Date:January 2006

SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT 1. Facility/Permit Number:

007-AA-0027

1900 Total Maximum Tons/Day

1900* Tons/DayNA Tons/Day

1900* Tons/DayNA Tons/DayNA Tons/DayNA Tons/Day

Permitted Area (in acres)

Design Capacity

Max, Elevation (Ft MSL)

Max. Depth (Ft 8GS)

________________________

Upon a significant change in design or operation from that described herein, this permit is subject to revocation or suspension. Thestipulated permit findings and conditions are integral parts of this permit & supersede the conditions of any previously issued permit.

rsolid Waste Facility Permit Local Facility No:

Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station swis No. 007-AA-027

12. Site Boundary Description:Lat 301’ 30” N: Long. 1225, W

13. LEA Findings:

A. This facility is consistent with the Contra Costa County County-wide Integrated Waste ManagementPlan (CIWMP). Public Resources Code, Section 50001.

B, This permit is consistent with the standards adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Public ResourcesCode, Section 44010.

C. The design and operation cf the facility is in compliance with the State Minimum Standards for solid waste handling and disposal asdetermined by the LEA.

D. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has determined that the facility is in conformance with applicable fire standards asrequired by Public Resources Code, Section 44151.

E. An environmental determination is filed with the Stale Clearinghouse for at facilities that are not exempt from the Cailfornia EnvironmentalQuality Act and documentation pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6.

F. The Contra Costa County County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan has been approved by the California Integrated WasteManagement Board (May 1993).

C, The following authorized agent has made a determination that the facility is consistent with, and designated in, the Contra Costa CountyGeneral Plan: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Public Resources Code, Section 50000.5(a).

H. The County of Contra Costa has made a written finding that the surrounding land uses are compatible with the facility operaon pursuant toPublic Resources Code, Section 50000.5(b): Board of Supervisors.

14. Prohibitions:

The permittee is prohibited from accepting any liquid waste, septage, sludge, ash, dead animals, largeconstruction/demolition waste, non-hazardous waste requiring special handling, medical waste, designated waste.radioactive waste, highly flammable or pyroforic wastes, or hazardous waste unless such waste is specificallylisted below, and unless the acceptance of such waste is authorized by all applicable permits.

The permittee is additionally prohibited from burning wastes and scavenging or salvaging by the public

15. The following documents also describe az,d/or restrict the operation ofthis facility:

Report of Facility Information, November 2000 RQWCB Waste Discharge Requirements,Waiver Granted for Water Quality Certiflcation Dec. 1992Land Use Permit No. 21 22-86, Amendments 1 & 2Contra Costa County Ordinances Code, Chapter 418-4BAAQMD Permit to Operate, Exp. Nov. 2001California Water Resources Control Board General PermitCalifornia Environmental impact Report, to Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity, Sept. 1990State Clearinghouse No. 86090906, Sept. 1987

LEA

Permit Review Report, June 1997Lease Agreements — owner & operator, Mar. 1994CIWMB Waste Tire Facility Exclusion #07-Tl-0171, Aug. 1995Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, June 1995

Solid Vs/aste Facility Permit Locf Facity No:

Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station swis No. 007-AA-027

16. Self Monitoring:Results of all self—monitoring programs as described in the Report of FacilityInformation, will be reported as specified in the table below. Each report is duewithin 31 days of the end of the quarter.

Program Reporting Frequen2 Agency Reported PoNumber of vehicles using the site per day. 1 Quarterly 1. LEA2. The record of the tons of waste received each day. 2. Quarterly 2. LEA Community Development Dept.3. The types and quantities of waste received each

day including separated and recycled material, 3. Quarterly 3. LEA, Community Development Dept.4. All special/unusual occurrences and the operators

action(s) taken to correct/resolve each 4. Available upon 2. LEAproblem/situation. Special occurrences may request.include weather conditions that adversely affectfacility operations; fires; explosions; propertydamage; accidents and/or injuries; any incidentsinvolving hazardous waste or prohibited waste;any condition or incident requiring closure of thefacility. (NOTE: The LEA must be notifiedwithin 24 hours of occurrences that may be ahealth andlor safety risk.)

5. Summary of all complaints regarding this facilityand the operator’s action(s) taken to resolve these 5. Quarterly 3. LEAcomplaints.

6. Results of noise monitoring and abatementprogram. If the noise levels exceed allowable 6. Quarterly 4. LEAlimits, then include the abatement proceduresimplemented.

7. Results of the landfill decomposition gasmonitoring program.

7. Quarterly 5. LEA8, Results of the odor control program.

8. Quarterly 6 LEA9. The quantities and types of hazardous wastesfound in the waste stream and the disposition of

9. Quarterly 7. LEAthese materials.

10. An employee training log with dates of training,course description, etc. shall be maintained and

10. Available Upon 8. LEAkept current.Request

11. The record of the tons and/or cubic yards of greenand wood waste received and stored on-site each

11. QUaIFy 9 LEAday.

12. The amount of time the tub grinder is used eachday and the amount of material in tons and/or

12. Quarterly 10. LEAcubic yards processed each day.

APPENDIX B

CCTRS Commercial Food Waste

Recovery Program Operations

Operations Appendix December 2010

APPENDIX B

Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery Station Commercial Food Waste Recovery Program

OPERATIONS

A Revised Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) for the CCTRS would not increase the current Permitted Maximum Daily Tonnage of 1,900 but would allow for acceptance and processing of up to 60 tons per day (TPD) of commercial food waste. With this quantity of food waste, permitted MSW would flex depending on the amount of food waste accepted on any given day. At no time will the total daily tonnage exceed 1,900 TPD. This appendix provides more detail and specificity on the operation of the Food Waste Recovery Program at the CCTRS. A matrix of control measures is included at the end of this appendix. It is organized by impact category, project objective addressing each impact, and specific control measures. 1. Commercial Food Waste Recovery The Commercial Food Waste Recovery program involves four (4) distinct but related processes:

Separation of commercial, pre- and post-consumer food waste at the generator e.g. restaurants, food/grocery stores, hospitals, institutions and other sources with food service,

Collection of food waste in designated bins or receptacles at individual source

and transport to the CCTRS,

Processing of the food waste at the CCTRS, involving load checking, grinding in an electric horizontal grinder, conveyance to a bin or end dump truck for transport to EBMUD, and

Clean up of the receptacle bin, transport truck, horizontal grinder, and

operations floor and wall areas. Commercial food waste would be source-separated through a program designed and monitored by Allied, CCCSWA and EBMUD; and collected by Allied Waste Services and transported to the CCTRS for final recovery and processing. The processed food waste material would be transported to the EBMUD wastewater treatment plant and loaded into plant digesters for decomposition. Methane gas produced during the decomposition of food waste will be used to power existing co-generation equipment at the EBMUD plant.

B-1


2. Food Waste Collection One of Allied’s responsibilities is the design of efficient collection routes and pick up schedules to ensure food waste is not stored at the source for excessive periods. Food waste would be picked up and transported via a front-loading “Auto Car” three-axle collection truck. These trucks are water tight to industry standards and have a maximum load capacity of approximately 12 tons. These collection vehicles are currently transporting MSW (which includes food waste) to the CCTRS. Up to 60 tons per day of commercial food waste would be collected from within and outside of the CCCSWA service area and processed within the same day as it is received. Approximately six (6) to seven (7) collection trucks will be required for the maximum project of 60 tons per day. 3. Transport of Food Waste to the CCTRS Food waste material will be delivered to the CCTRS during week day morning (Monday through Friday), processed inside the main transfer building, and transported off-site within the same day of arrival. It is expected that the food waste collection routes will be the “first load of the day” on the route designated to collect it. There will be no overnight or weekend storage of pre- or post-processed food waste. This will eliminate potential problems with odor, birds, and vectors such as rodents, flies, and mosquitoes. 4. Operating Assumptions and Procedures The goal of the food waste recovery program is to maximize efficiency and safety while minimizing impacts on the facility’s main function of transferring municipal solid waste (throughput), and potential impacts to the environment and surrounding community. Assumptions: Maximum tonnage of 60 tons per day.

Food waste delivered five days a week, via front loader collection trucks.

Up to 6 trucks to CCTRS per day generally between the hours of 7 AM and 1 PM

(+/-). Caterpillar 950 wheel loader with 3 to 5 cubic yard bucket, or equivalent.

Grinding to occur within one (1) hour of receipt.

1- to 2-person crew: one to load/operate electric horizontal grinder; one to

perform clean-up. Existing traffic control and spotting will remain in effect.

B-2


Ground food waste conveyed to a roll-off bin (up to 40 cubic yards) or end dump truck.

Operations area consists of:

o Push wall - about 10 ft long x 6 ft high, faced with impervious steel panel (or other), made of existing 3 ft x 5 ft blocks (30 sq ft)

o Grinder – (horizontal) – 8 ft wide x 42 ft long (336 sq. ft.) – conveyor overlaps bin by 6 ft

o Grinder set-back about 5 ft from west wall, 5 ft wide x 58 ft long (290 sq. ft.) o Roll-off bin up to 40 cubic yard capacity or end dump, 8 ft wide x 22 ft long

(128 sq. ft., with overlap) o Deodorizing nozzles (overhead) o Electrical connection for grinder o Food waste handling tools (disinfectant, broom, shovels, picks, buckets etc) o Water hose for use in clean up

Operations area to be designated along west wall of transfer building, covering

area 68 ft long x 50 ft wide or 3,400 sq. ft. (approx) during active food waste grinding. Reference marks would be placed either on the floor or west wall to ensure reliable long-term grinder placement. Optimal location for unloading of unprocessed food waste loads would be designated by floor markings.

Floor area available for waste placement and loading would be a minimum of: 3,400 sq. ft. total – 30 sq. ft. (push wall) – 290 sq. ft. (setback) - 336 sq. ft. (grinder) – 128 sq. ft. (roll-off bin) = 2,616 sq. ft.

During Inactive Food Waste (non-grinding periods such as nights and weekends), the operations area would be reduced to include the push wall, grinder footprint (8 ft x 42 ft), 5 foot set-back, and 12 ft clear zone between the grinder and main tipping floor. These boundaries correspond to an area 52 ft. long x 25 ft. wide or about 1,300 sq. ft.

Residual liquid emptied by collection vehicle or remaining after grinding each

load would be pushed into the MSW pile. Upon conclusion of grinding for the day:

o The grinder would be cleaned and material added to the transfer load-out chute

o The floor area contacted by food waste would be sprayed with a disinfectant and washed down with a pressure hose

The material as it is collected from the commercial food waste generator is too bulky for use in the EBMUD treatment plant digesters and will not decompose properly. EBMUD specifications for particle size and texture will be used to optimize the horizontal grinder’s hammer mill and screening. The electric horizontal grinder would process the material to a size of approximately < 2" minus.

B-3


The grinder is proposed for storage within the transfer building; however, if needed, the portable electric grinder could be stored outside of the transfer building on the paved area near the truck wash. Operational Procedures 1. Area Set Up – Active Food Waste operations area cordoned off (with traffic

cones or other) 50 ft from west wall, corresponding to about 68 feet in length. 2. Roll-off Bin – moved into position allowing for 6 ft overlap with conveyor. 3. Crewman directs incoming front loader collection vehicles to unload food waste

near grinder load-in hopper. 4. Crewman soft starts grinder, and using wheel loader begins pick up and loading

of grinder. 5. Crewman would “rev up” motor to processing RPM via remote control - then load

first load and continue until all unprocessed food waste is removed from transfer building floor.

6. Upon completion of loading, Crewman moves wheel loader out of operations

area. 7. Crewman performs quick clean up of processed food waste from floor and

grinder and loads residual into roll-off bin. 8. Crewman directs haul driver to roll-off bin and observes loading of bin onto truck. 9. Bin or end dump is covered with tarp and transported off-site. 10. Crewman readies Active Food Waste operations area for next incoming load. 11. Procedures #2 through #10 are repeated for each load until completion of

processing of the last food waste load of the day. Upon completion of food waste grinding for the operating day: 1. Crewman performs end-of-day cleaning of grinder and operations area consisting

of: Collection of ground food waste from grinder hopper and conveyor and

pushing it into MSW pile Purging of grinder with ground wood waste if needed; mixed material is

pushed into MSW pile Quick rinse of grinder and operations area floor (and wall if needed)

B-4


B-5

Application of cleaner/disinfectant; lets sit for 10 minutes or as directed by manufacturer

Rinse off of grinder and floor area and push residual liquid into MSW pile 2. Crewman closes Active Food Waste area and stores grinder; relocates cordon to

about 25 feet from west wall allowing for about 12 feet of clearance between the grinder and cordon creating Inactive Food Waste area of about 1,300 sq. ft. By creating the Inactive Food Waste area for grinder storage, about 2,100 sq. ft. of floor space would be returned for use for MSW transfer.

5. Site Operational Layout The proposed Food Waste Recovery operation will involve placement of new equipment (a horizontal grinder) along the west wall within the CCTRS transfer building. Although portable, the proposed horizontal grinder would be located in a semi-permanent location in an operating area of approximately 68 ft. long x 50 ft wide (3,400 sq. ft.). Appropriate reference marks will indicate the boundaries of food waste processing, and proper placement and orientation of the processing equipment. This area constitutes the “Active Food Waste” component during weekday mornings to early afternoon. “Active Food Waste” means food waste operations conducted concurrently with regular MSW transfer operations. It includes floor space for a push wall, horizontal grinder with conveyor, and roll-off bin. The grinder and bin would be set back about 5 ft. from the west wall. The “Inactive Food Waste” operation means the grinder would be stored. These periods include late weekday afternoons, nights, and weekends. The “Inactive Food Waste” component covers an area of about 52 ft. long x 25 ft. wide (1,300 sq. ft.). Appropriate reference marks will indicate the boundaries of the Inactive Food Waste area. This storage area includes floor space for a push wall, horizontal grinder, 5 ft. setback from the west wall, and a 12 ft. of separation between the grinder and main tipping floor. Figure B1 presents a Plan View of the processing area and illustrates the footprint of the material staging area, grinder, load-out area, and vehicle circulation. A detail of the layout is presented in Figure B2. The grinder will be oriented to minimize encroachment into the general transfer building floor area thereby minimizing potential conflicts with the main transfer function which occur in the remainder of the building floor area.


6. Staffing At full project implementation, up to 60 tons per day of food waste would be received and processed. The receipt and processing activity will occur 5 days a week for an estimated period of up to 6.0 hours per day. Processing is expected to involve at least 2 workers: a loader operator and one laborer. Staffing changes in coordination with the LEA may be made to maximize operational efficiency. The actual grinding and loading time for 60 tons of food waste is estimated to involve less than 2 hours in real time. Clean up would result in an additional hour resulting in a total processing of 3.0 hours real time, assuming all the 60 tons were processed at the same time; however, incoming loads of food waste are expected to be staggered over several hours in the morning from around 6:00 to 10:30 AM. Food waste handling, processing, or cleaning would most likely occur in the period of 6:00 AM to 1:00 PM. The loading, unloading, and monitoring of the food waste grinder will be performed by an existing wheel loader assigned to the transfer building floor. The wheel loader operator will operate the electric horizontal grinder by remote control and purge–clean the grinder and push mixed material into the MSW pile. One worker would mechanically clean the residual waste from the grinder. 7. Equipment Wheel Loader A Caterpillar 950 wheel loader with a 3 cubic yard bucket would be used for loading the food waste into the horizontal grinder. This equipment is currently listed as equipment in Table 4 of the RSI. This front end loader has a lift height capability of up to 14 feet. The load height of the Morbark 2600 is 7'-0". There would be no constraints to efficient and safe loading of food waste into the horizontal grinder. Electric Horizontal Grinder and Conveyor As noted, the Morbark 2600 electric horizontal grinder would be a new piece of equipment proposed for use at the CCTRS. Allied has proposed this grinder for use; however, Allied reserves the right to replace this grinder with an equivalent processor to take advantage of evolving technologies and equipment in food waste processing, provided that a replacement grinder is substantially consistent with the equipment design features, performance specifications, and operating parameters described in this Project Description. The grinder has one motor: a 300-HP motor to drive the mill and run the hydraulic system. The motor’s rated output is at 1,800 rpm. The Morbark 2600 can process 25 to 30 tons of wood waste per hour. This processing rate is expected to be slightly higher with processing of food waste due to the comparatively soft and liquid nature of food waste.

B-8


The Morbark 2600 electrical horizontal grinder requires a 480 volt/60 Hz, 3 phase electrical system. The existing in-building electrical system will be modified to accommodate the grinder. A permit from the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division may be required. Modifications will involve an upgraded electrical service on the west wall of the Transfer Building. Morbark, Inc. will provide electrical equipment and service specifications for the electrical system modifications. Actual electrical upgrades would be performed by a local electrical contractor. Final inspection would be performed by the County. A Morbark specialist would perform start-up and monitoring of initial operation. Roll-off Bin or End Dump At this time, a roll-off bin with a capacity of up to 40 cubic yards in capacity is proposed for use as the receptacle for processed food waste. With a 10-ton load of processed food waste, freeboard (the distance between the food waste and top of bin rail) would be about 4 feet. After loading the water-tight bin it would be tarped and its outside surfaces swept of residual food waste prior to transport off the CCTRS site. If the tarp proves to be inadequate, bins with lids will be used to minimize the potential for bounce-out or spillage of food waste during transport. In the future, an end dump truck may be used for transport of processed food waste to EBMUD; however, this piece of equipment is not proposed at this time. An end dump truck would have the advantage over a roll-off bin in its greater load capacity and ease of unloading at the EBMUD plant. An end dump is mentioned here for future reference. 8. Equipment Cleaning The objective of the clean up process is to minimize to the greatest extent practical, the amount of processed food waste that would be mixed with ground wood/greenwaste. The grinder will be cleaned regularly as part of regular maintenance. At the close of each work day, the grinder, floor area used for placement of food waste, and the floor and wall areas around the horizontal grinder will be cleaned with either a small skid steer loader or by hand with brooms, picks, and shovels and wash water as needed. After the final quantity of food waste is processed for the day, any residual food waste remaining within the horizontal grinder, hammermills, discharge chute, conveyor, or floor will be removed by hand implements such as shovels and picks and added to the receptacle of processed food waste. As noted earlier, after all recoverable food waste is loaded for off-site transport the waste receptacle and/or truck will be swept down prior to the truck leaving the premises. All hand implements used for food waste clean up will be so-designated and used only for that purpose and not for other tasks within the transfer building.

B-9


Mixed Material Upon completion of food waste processing for the day, a limited quantity (approximately 2.5 cubic yards) of previously processed wood waste may be loaded into the horizontal grinder to further remove residual food waste from the horizontal grinder, grinding chamber, augers, and conveyor. Processed wood waste would also be spread on the operations floor area to absorb (or adsorb) residual food waste. This mixed material resulting from the grinder purging/cleaning process would be unsuitable for use in EBMUD’s plant digesters and thus would be disposed as MSW. Residual processed food waste in the grinder, discharge chute, conveyor, and the floor area would be collected and added to the load outgoing to EBMUD. The remainder, estimated at less than 10 percent of gross tonnage) would be included in the purging and resultant mixed material. It is this material that would be pushed into the MSW pile and ultimately disposed at Keller Canyon Landfill. Records of inbound and outbound food waste will be maintained. At the conclusion of the day’s food waste grinding, and after all ground food waste and mixed material (ground food waste and ground wood waste) have been collected and/or disposed, the grinder, floor area of the food waste operation, and portions of the west wall (if needed), would be washed down. A non-toxic cleaner with disinfectant and anti-bacterial agent would be used such as NABC Cleaner or equal. The cleaner would be applied per the manufacturer’s recommendations as to concentration and method. Per design of the building drainage system (see page 36, paragraph 3 of the current RSI), drainage from waste handling areas (tipping floor and load out chutes) drains to the load out scale pits. Drain lines from those scale pits lead to a sump pump, and then to two above-ground tanks. Collected liquids are stored in these tanks prior to being emptied and delivered to a treatment plant or other approved facility. Residual liquids resulting from food waste processing will be pushed into the MSW pile. No excess liquid waste would enter a public sewer system. A typical industrial hose used on-site is approximately 1½ inches in diameter and has a calculated flow rate of approximately 27 gallons per minute. Assuming a 5 minute continuous wash time, approximately 135 gallons of wash water would be generated per food waste operating day. Annual production would be estimated at:

135 gallons/day x 5 days/week x 52 weeks/year = 35,100 gallons per year. The wash water that is generated would drain to the load-out pit and ultimately collected in two (2) 10,000-gallon tanks with a total capacity of 20,000 gallons. Typically, these tanks are emptied once or twice a year depending on annual tonnage. With the increase of 35,100 gallons per year of potential wash water, this will necessitate emptying the collection tanks about 2.0 times more per year. In the initial year of the project, liquid volume in the collection tanks will be monitored on a bi-monthly (every two months) basis to determine whether a change in frequency of disposal is required to accommodate the food waste operation.

B-10


9. Vehicular Access, Egress, and Circulation The issue of vehicle circulation is related to maintaining overall station throughput. Franchise collection vehicles must have efficient and safe access and egress to, and within, the main transfer building. The food waste operation addresses this issue with prescribed circulation patterns and separation of franchise and public vehicle traffic as described below: The floor space requirements of the proposed Active and Inactive Food Waste components could affect vehicle circulation patterns and thus overall throughput capacity. Under the existing condition, inbound vehicles use both south doors for entry and exit. A spotter typically directs inbound traffic to unloading locations. Recognizing that the Food Waste Recovery operation is designated for the west wall, vehicle entry via the west door could conflict with the Active Food Waste component. Drivers entering the building at this location potentially have constrained sight distance into the building, and their vision could be affected as they drive from the bright outdoors into the comparatively dark indoors. To address this issue, the Operator proposes continued use of a traffic spotter as needed, and to modify entry and exit patterns. Of the two (2) doors on the south wall, the east door would be used for entry, and the west door would be used for exit.

New signage will be posted indicating these designations, and transfer station will direct traffic as needed

Public self haul of bulk waste would be relocated to occur exclusively at the

designated Public Unloading Area, accessed from outside of the building on the east wall. This area will be monitored by station staff. If material accumulates such that potential obstructions to vehicle circulation could occur, the area will be cleared by equipment operators.

These changes would maximize floor space for safe and efficient vehicle circulation. Potential circulation conflicts between collection vehicles, and also between collection vehicles and public bulk unloading would be minimal. Entering drivers would be at a safe distance from the Food Waste Recovery operations area and have sufficient time to note its location and whether it is active or inactive. Exiting drivers would be able to clearly see the Active or Inactive Food Waste operation which will enhance the safety and efficiency of their exiting movement. As mentioned previously, if additional floor space is desired proximate to the east and west doors, the indoor recycling area for metals and appliances could be re-configured. If implemented, this measure would further enhance circulation efficiency.

B-11


10. Worker and Customer Safety The issue of worker and customer safety within the main transfer building is addressed in several ways. All food waste workers will be required to wear safety gear such as hard hats, safety vests, inhalation protection, contact protection (gloves), and hearing protection. In addition, all hand tools such as shovels, picks, brooms etc., shall be designated for use in the food waste operation only and not allowed for general use in other tasks within the main transfer building or other station operations. Food waste workers will be required to practice standard personal hygiene best management practices to minimize inadvertent spread of processed food waste to other workers or operations within the CCTRS. 11. Station Throughput An analysis of station throughput was requested by the LEA to assess the potential for the Food Waste Recovery operation to affect MSW transfer and storage within the building. As a basis for analysis, floor space requirements of the Food Waste Recovery operation were compared to approved Station Design capacity and other design parameters. An Existing Condition was established that defined the space allocated for MSW transfer, and storage volume and tonnage. The Existing Condition was then compared to potential changes that may result from space requirements of both the Active and Inactive Food Waste components. The analysis in this appendix shows that during Active Food Waste, 1,840 tons of MSW can easily be processed with only a minor modification in the width and length of the MSW pile dimensions. The calculated storage volume based on modified pile dimensions would accommodate more than 1,840 tons without any modification to stacking height. With the reduction in MSW from 1,900 TPD to 1,840 TPD, throughput in tons per hour would decrease slightly from 240 to 230 for an 8-hour shift. Based on Operator experience and judgment, this potential reduction in operating floor space is negligible. Throughput would be unaffected. MSW pile dimensions would be managed accordingly to ensure a steady rate of MSW is loaded into the transfer load out chutes. During Inactive Food Waste when the grinder is stored, no modification to the MSW pile dimensions would be required. The footprint of the Inactive Food Waste component extends 25 feet from the west wall. Under Existing Conditions, a 30-foot space is typical. During grinder storage about 17 feet of total separation would exist between the grinder and the main tipping floor. One of the main objectives of the food waste recovery program is to maximize efficiency and safety of food waste processing without impacting the primary station function of efficient MSW transfer. The LEA and CalRecycle staff have expressed interest that the proposed 60 tons per day (TPD) involving 6 inbound franchise collection vehicles transporting food waste operation should not conflict or impede

B-12


with the operation of moving MSW into and out of the transfer building. Known as “throughput”, factors that influence throughput include: Design capacity and normal operating capacity and storage volume, Adequate floor space for general station MSW operations simultaneously after

formally designating food waste operations along the west wall Lineal space for vehicles, circulation, parking, and unloading, Adequate floor space for safe and efficient vehicle entry, circulation, and exit, and The ability of material moving equipment (dozers loaders and compactors) to

move MSW into the load-out pits for transfer. A quantitative analysis was requested to demonstrate that no adverse effect would occur to throughput. Design Capacity The Design Capacity of the CCTRS is defined in the Report of Station Information (RSI), Section 2a, page 6. It is generally defined as:

Design capacity of the station is expressed in tons per operating day. This figure represents the maximum quantity of material the facility is capable of handling during the intended hours of operation without resulting in stacking of traffic onto public streets, overflowing of storage capacity for waste, separated materials or residuals awaiting removal to a disposal site, without overloaded sorting, processing, or volume reduction equipment, or without preventing residual wastes removal ability within 48 hours.

Design load for normal operating conditions is 240 tons per hour (TPH), or 1,920 tons in an eight-hour shift. Design capacity (as defined above) is estimated to be 2,500 TPD. The fundamental design criterion for size of the Station is the volume needed to store 24 hours throughput (i.e., 1,900 tons of refuse). The maximum floor area available for refuse storage lies within a rectangle 140 feet by 220 feet, at the north end of the building, with the long axis of the rectangle the same as the long axis of the building. The calculated storage volume is 29,900 square feet of floor area x 10 feet stacking height; the volume is 11,074 cubic yards, which holds over 1,930 tons, using a density of 350 lb/yd3.1 Floor Space Requirements The CCTRS transfer building is approximately 200 ft. wide x 318 ft. long for a total of 63,600 gross sq. ft. Within the building envelope, all MSW transfer operations occur including unloading of MSW by franchise collection vehicles, movement of MSW into the transfer load out chute, unloading of solid waste by the public at the Public

1 Calculation: 29,900 sq. ft. x 10 ft. = 299,000 ft3 /27 ft3 per yd3 = 11,074 yd3 x 0.175 ton per yd3 = 1,938 tons +/-.

B-13


B-14

Unloading Area, recycling of metals and appliances (an indoor area of about 3,000 sq. ft.), and storage of MSW consistent with the conditions in the SWFP. The general area for MSW storage/pile formation is defined in the RSI in part for calculating design and operational capacity. There is no condition in the SWFP that stipulates precise dimensions for the MSW pile. The size and shape of the MSW pile at any one time is determined at the operator’s discretion to best meet daily throughput requirements. As noted previously, the area devoted to MSW storage and loadout lies within a rectangle of about 140 ft. wide x 220 ft. long, with the area located roughly equidistant between the east and west walls. This layout allows for about 30 ft. of clear space along the east and west walls. Food Waste Recovery As a basis for comparative analysis to baseline, floor space parameters for existing operations were compared to estimated floor area for the food waste operation. The food waste recovery operation has two components:

“Active” to correspond to days or time periods in which food waste would be ground concurrent with regular MSW transfer operations and transported off site. As defined in other project documents, the Active Food Waste component would cover an area of about 68 ft. long x 50 ft. wide for a total of about 3,400 sq. ft. The Active Food Waste component includes a push wall, horizontal grinder and conveyor, roll-off bin, and open floor area for food waste placement and loading.

“Inactive” to correspond to days or time periods in which food waste would not

be ground and the grinder is stored. These periods include late weekday afternoons, evenings, or weekends. The Inactive Food Waste component would cover an area of about 52 ft. long x 25 ft. wide for a total area of about 1,300 sq. ft. The Inactive Food Waste component includes the push wall, and horizontal grinder and conveyor.

The parameters for both the Active and Inactive Food Waste components are compared to existing conditions in Table B1. Impact of Food Waste Components on Throughput As shown in Table B1, during Active Food Waste, 1,840 tons of MSW can easily be processed with only a minor modification in the width and length of the MSW pile dimensions. The typical pile dimension of 140 ft. wide x 220 ft. long would be narrowed by 20 ft. in width (to 120 ft.) and increased in length by 20 ft. (to 240 ft.) Calculated storage volume based on modified pile dimensions would be approximately 10,667 cubic yards, which “holds” about 1,866 tons at a density of 350 lbs. (0.175 tons) per cubic yard. This volume is sufficient to accommodate more than 1,840 tons and can be achieved without any modification to stacking height.


TABLE B1 CCTRS TRANSFER BUILDING FLOOR SPACE (in sq. ft.)

EXISTING + FOOD WASTE OPERATION

Operating Condition

Station Design Capacity in

Tons Per day 1

Dimensions for MSW Storage

Total Area for MSW Storage

MSW Max Daily

Tonnage 2

Throughput in Tons Per

Hour 3

Stacking Height of MSW (ft)

Calculated Storage

Volume (yd3) 4 Tonnage

Processed 5

1. Existing 2,500 140 x 220 1 29,900 1 1,900 240 10 1 11,074 1,930

2. Existing + Active Food Waste – 60 TPD6 2,500 120 x 240 A 28,800 1,840 230 10 10,667 1,866

3 Inactive Food Waste (Grinder Storage) – 0 TPD7 2,500 140 x 220 B 29,900 1,900 240 10 11,074 1,930

Footnotes: 1. Report of Station Information, Section 2a, page 6. 2. SWFP permitted tonnage is 1,900 tons MSW per day; If revised, would allow for 1,840 tons MSW, and 60 tons food waste per day. 3. Throughput defined as tons per hour over an 8-hour shift. 4. Per the RSI, page 7, Stacking Height for Peak Loading is assumed to be 13 ft. 5. Tonnage shown is approximate tonnage contained in Calculated Storage Volume x Density of 0.175 ton/yd3. 6. "Existing + Active Food Waste" is a day or time period when food waste is ground concurrent with regular MSW transfer operations, and consists of push wall, grinder with

conveyor, roll-off bin, 5 ft setback, and loading area. 7. "Existing + Inactive Food Waste" is a day or time period when the grinder is stored and no grinding is occurring e.g. later afternoon, evenings, and weekends.

Conclusions and Comments: A. Accommodating Active Food Waste requires minor adjustment in MSW pile dimension: width would be narrowed by 20 ft.; length would be increased by 20 ft. B. During Inactive Food Waste, no adjustment to MSW pile dimension is required. Inactive Food Waste would be located in existing 30-ft.clear space, with 17 ft separation

from grinder to main floor. C. Should additional length be desired for MSW pile during Active Food Waste, consideration would be given to reducing the indoor area currently used for metals and

appliance recycling. D. Reduction of metals/appliance recycling area by 1/2 (to 20 ft wide x 75 ft long) would add about 1,500 sq. ft. to Net Floor Space. E. Metal recycling bins would be moved outdoors to the area previously used for this purpose (between doors on the south wall). F. The remaining indoor recycling would be used for CRTs, TVs, and other appliances requiring indoor storage.

B-15


With the reduction in MSW from 1,900 TPD to 1,840 TPD, throughput over an 8-hour shift (in tons per hour) would decrease as expected from 240 to 230. Based on Operator experience and judgment, throughput would be unaffected. MSW pile dimensions would be managed accordingly to ensure a steady rate of MSW is loaded into the transfer load out chutes. During Inactive Food Waste (grinder storage) no modification to the MSW pile dimensions would be required. The footprint of the Inactive Food Waste component extends 25 feet from the west wall. Under Existing Conditions, a 30-foot space is typical. The difference of 5 feet plus the proposed 12 feet to be kept clear from the grinder, results in about 17 feet of total separation between the grinder and the main tipping floor. Based on these calculations, the food waste operation would not have a significant impact on throughput or net floor space available for MSW transfer in either the Active or Inactive component. Operator experience and judgment would mitigate potential factors by managing MSW pile formation accordingly. The Active Food Waste component is of a limited duration in the morning or at worst into early afternoon. Vehicle Parking and Unloading Capacity Franchise collection vehicles and public bulk self-haul customers are required to back their vehicle up to the MSW pile to unload. The theoretical capacity or Existing Condition for parking of collection vehicles side-by-side for unloading includes the approximate building width of 200 lineal feet (LF) minus the average distance the Public Unloading Area extends into the building (about 30 LF.) resulting in a dimension of about 170 LF(the distance the Public Unloading Area extends into the building varies from 20 LF to 50 LF). A franchise collection vehicle requires approximately 20 LF, taking into account a 10 foot vehicle width and 10 feet of separation between parked vehicles. This dimension (170 LF) and space requirements represent a theoretical capacity of about eight (8) franchise collection vehicles parked side-by-side. The Active Food Waste boundary extends about 50 LF from the west wall. Again, the east-west dimension of the building is approximately 200 LF. Deducting 50 LF allocated to Active Food Waste and approximately 30 LF (varies) for the Public Unloading results in approximately 120 LF for collection vehicle parking and unloading. This dimension roughly translates into a capacity of about six (6) franchise collection vehicles parked side-by-side. The Inactive Food Waste boundary extends about 25 LF from the west wall. Deducting 25 LF for Inactive Food Waste and approximately 30 LF for the Public Unloading Area from the building width results in about 145 LF for collection vehicle parking and unloading. This dimension roughly translates into a capacity of about seven (7) franchise collection vehicles parked side-by-side. The comparison of the

B-16


B-17

parking capacity between the Active, Inactive, and Existing Condition is shown in Table B2. Based on Operator experience and judgment, this potential reduction in vehicle side-by-side capacity is insignificant and the potential for excessive queuing time is minimal. A former recyclables recovery operation was conducted in the same general location without any adverse effect on station operations. Also given the time requirements for unloading and driver preferences for maintaining as wide a separation as possible, the existing condition capacity of up to 8 vehicles may be unrealistic and more theoretical in nature. A maximum of six (6) to seven (7) vehicles is more commonly observed during peak weekday operations. Should it be necessary, adequate space exists for collection vehicles to queue south of the MSW pile, and prepare their vehicles for unloading until a parking space becomes available. The rate of inbound franchise collection vehicles to the CCTRS is essentially “metered” both by the Operator’s Hauling dispatcher and by the attendants at the scalehouse. The potential for excessive queuing either inside or outside of the transfer building is minimal. 12. Contingency

Unforeseen events could temporarily affect food waste processing operations and could preclude regular transport of processed food waste from the CCTRS to the EBMUD wastewater treatment plant. These potential events could include:

Building or localized power failure

Traffic accident involving an outbound CCTRS truck destined for the EBMUD treatment plant

EBMUD plant upset or other systems constraints that temporarily prevent

acceptance of processed food waste

Natural disasters that result in closure of freeways which provide access to Oakland

Man-made disasters such as acts of terrorism or traffic tie-ups which also

result in freeway closure or otherwise restrict vehicle access to the Oakland area

If off-site when the event occurs, the CCTRS driver would immediately notify

the dispatch at Allied Waste Services and request assistance. Allied Waste Services dispatch would follow established procedures for notification of local and/or State emergency services.


TABLE B2 CCTRS TRANSFER BUILDING PARKING AND UNLOADING SPACE (in LF)

EXISTING + FOOD WASTE OPERATION

Operating Condition Building

Width1 (LF)

Food Waste Operation

Width2

Existing Public

Unloading Area Width3

Net Lineal Feet

Available

Average Vehicle Width

with Separation4

Capacity of Parked Vehicles

Change Over

Existing Percent Change

1. Existing 200 -- 30 170 20 8 -- --

2. Existing + Active Food Waste – 60 TPD5 200 50 30 120 20 6 -2 -25%

3. Inactive Food Waste (Grinder Storage) – 0 TPD6 200 25 30 145 20 7 -1 -12.5%

Footnotes: 1. Transfer building width is approximately 200 ft W x 318 ft L. 2. Proposed Active Food Waste area is about 68 ft long x 50 ft wide; Proposed Inactive Food Waste area is about 52 ft. long x 25 ft. wide. 3. Existing Public Unloading Area extends about 30 LF into the transfer building from the east wall. 4. The average width for a franchise collection vehicle is 10 ft. A minimum of 10 ft of separation between vehicles is recommended for side-by-side parking. 5. "Existing + Active Food Waste" means a day or time period when food waste is ground concurrent with regular MSW transfer operations, and consists of push wall, grinder

with conveyor, roll-off bin, 5 ft setback, and loading area. 6. "Existing + Inactive Food Waste" means a day or time period when the grinder is stored and no grinding is occurring e.g. later afternoon, evenings, and weekends. Conclusions and Comments: A. Based on operator's experience and judgment, a "1 to 2 lane" reduction in parking spaces is insignificant and poses no constraint to normal operations. B. A former recyclables recovery operation was conducted in the same general location. No adverse impact to parking occurred. C. Should additional floor space for vehicle circulation be desired, consideration would be given to reducing the indoor area currently used for metals and appliance

recycling to allow for vehicle queuing.

B-18


If any of the above events occur, CCTRS management personnel would immediately determine which of two main contingency measures to implement:

Transport all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste to Allied’s Newby Island facility in Santa Clara County, or Forward Landfill in San Joaquin County for incorporation into existing food waste grinding and composting operations, OR

As a last resort, transfer all processed and remaining unprocessed food waste as MSW and transport all loads for disposal at the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California.

If contingency measures are implemented, the CCTRS site manager would note the dates, reasons for contingency, the actions taken, and tonnages of food waste involved. Tonnage routed to Newby Island or Forward Landfill would be reported as “diversion.” Tonnage routed to Keller Canyon Landfill would be reported as MSW. 13. Monitoring and Reporting It is anticipated that various elements of the proposed food waste operation could require adjustment or modification to ensure maximum safety and efficiency and minimum potential impacts. The Applicant would coordinate with the LEA as needed to ensure the food waste operation meets performance goals and specification. For at least the first six months of operation or longer as directed by the LEA, the Applicant would provide brief verbal and written status reports on the food waste operation concurrent with the LEA’s monthly inspection of the CCTRS. Examples of parameters to be monitored and reported include, but are not limited to, gross food waste tonnage; net food waste tonnage of processed food waste transported to EBMUD; estimated food waste tonnage transferred as MSW, reports on Special Occurrences (e.g., any contingency plan(s) implemented) and effectiveness of control measures as observed.

B-19

Sep

tem

ber

2010

Contr

aC

ost

aT

ransf

er&

Rec

ov

ery

-F

ood

Was

teR

ecover

yP

rogra

mM

atri

xof

Pro

ject

Obje

ctiv

es,

Imp

acts

,an

dA

ppli

can

t-P

rop

ose

dC

ontr

olM

easu

res

Pro

ject

Obje

ctiv

e:

Ope

rate

aco

mm

erci

alfo

odw

aste

reco

very

prog

ram

atth

eC

CT

RS

that

com

plie

sw

ithal

lpe

rmit

san

dre

gula

ions

;ha

sno

adve

rse

impa

cts

onth

esu

rrou

ndin

gco

mm

unit

yhea

lth

and

safe

tyof

faci

lity

wor

kers

and

cust

omer

s,th

ena

tura

len

viro

nmen

t,an

dov

eral

lst

atio

nop

erat

ions

for

tran

sfer

ofM

SW.

The

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

cepr

ogra

mfo

rw

aste

sepa

rati

onan

dco

llec

tion

will

beim

plem

ente

dre

gard

less

ofth

eor

igin

ofth

efo

odw

aste

.

Noi

seM

aint

ain

com

plia

nce

with

LU

PC

OA

for

nois

ele

vels

Nui

sanc

eno

ise

inV

ine

Hill

area

1.C

ondu

ctgr

indi

ngin

door

s

2.G

rind

ing

coul

dbe

gin

by7:

00A

M;

proh

ibit

edaf

ter

5pm

3.G

rind

ing

proh

ibit

edon

wee

kend

s

4.M

onito

rno

ise

leve

lsfo

r30

to60

days

Pro

ject

Ele

men

tO

bje

ctiv

eP

ote

nti

alIm

pact

Pro

pose

dC

ontr

olM

easu

reL

and

Use

Com

pati

bili

tyP

reve

nt/a

void

impa

cts

toV

ine

Hill

resi

dent

ial

area

Indu

stri

alac

tivity

Non

ere

quir

ed.

Zon

edIn

dust

rial

Noi

seS

eebe

low

Air

Qua

lity

Em

issi

ons

&O

dors

See

belo

w

Air

Qua

lity

-E

mis

sion

sP

reve

ntfu

gitiv

eem

issi

ons

beyo

ndC

CT

RS

Die

sel

fum

es;

unco

ntro

lled

dust

1.O

pera

teel

ectr

icho

rizo

ntal

grin

der

2.C

ondu

ctgr

indi

ngin

door

s

Air

Qua

lity

-O

dors

Min

imiz

eod

ors

atth

eco

llec

tion

sour

ce;

min

imiz

eO

dors

atso

urce

1.D

esig

nro

ute

toop

tim

ize

coll

ecti

onfr

eque

ncy

tood

ors

inco

llec

tion

truc

ks,

min

imiz

eod

ors

with

inm

inim

ize

stora

ge

tim

eat

the

sour

cem

ain

tran

sfer

build

ing

2.W

ater

proo

fbi

nsto

prev

ent

leak

age

Odo

rsin

coll

ecti

ontr

ucks

1.U

sew

ater

-tig

htco

llec

tion

vehi

cles

2.W

ash

coll

ecti

onve

hicl

espe

rre

gula

rsc

hedu

le

Odo

rsw

ithin

tran

sfer

build

ing

1.C

ompl

yw

ithco

ndit

ions

ofP

erm

itto

Ope

rate

and

SW

FP

2.N

ost

orag

eof

food

was

te(p

reor

post

pro

cess

ed)

will

occu

rov

erni

ght

orw

eeke

nds

3.G

rind

food

was

tew

ithin

1.0

to1.

5ho

urs

ofre

ceip

t;re

mov

e

food

_was

te_o

n_da

y_of

_rec

eipt

1of

3

Sep

tem

ber

2010

Wat

erQ

ualit

yP

reve

ntdr

aina

geof

resi

dual

liqui

dto

was

tew

ater

syst

em

Deg

rada

tion

ofw

ater

qual

ity

Pro

ject

Ele

men

tO

bje

ctiv

eP

ote

nti

alIm

pact

Pro

pose

dC

ontr

olM

easu

reA

irQ

uali

ty-

Odo

rsM

inim

ize

odor

sat

the

coll

ecti

onso

urce

;m

inim

ize

Odo

rsw

ithin

tran

sfer

build

ing

4.E

xten

dex

isti

ngov

erhe

adde

odor

izin

g/m

isti

ngsy

stem

over

(con

tinu

ed)

odor

sin

coll

ecti

ontr

ucks

,m

inim

ize

odor

sw

ithin

(con

tinu

ed)

food

was

teop

erat

ing

area

mai

ntr

ansf

erbu

ildin

g5.

Tar

pro

ll-of

fbi

nsor

use

bins

with

lids

for

tran

spor

tto

EB

MU

D

6.S

wee

pof

fbi

nsan

dtr

ucks

befo

reex

iting

CC

TR

Ssi

te

7.C

lean

grin

der

and

oper

atin

gar

eada

ily

8.U

sepro

cess

edw

ood

was

teto

purg

e-cl

ean

grin

der;

Spr

ead

pro

cess

edw

ood

was

teon

oper

atio

nsfl

oor

to

abso

rbre

sidu

alfo

odw

aste

;pu

shto

MSW

pile

sam

eda

y.

9.C

lean

food

was

teha

ndto

ols

daily

10.

Was

hlo

ader

buck

etaf

ter

last

food

was

telo

adof

the

day

Hea

lth

&S

afet

yM

inim

ize

heal

than

dsa

fety

impa

cts

tost

atio

nM

inin

ize

risk

ofin

fect

ion

or1.

Foo

dw

aste

wor

kers

will

bere

quir

edto

wea

rdu

stm

asks

empl

oyee

san

dcu

stom

ers

(con

tinu

ed)

inju

ryan

dgl

oves

2.H

and

tool

sw

illbe

desi

gnat

edfo

rfo

odw

aste

only

3.F

ood

Was

tew

orke

rsw

illbe

requ

ired

tow

ash/u

se

pers

onal

hygi

ene

upon

com

plet

ion

4.S

eeco

ntro

lm

easu

res

1th

roug

h10

for

Air

Qua

lity

-

Odo

rsW

ithin

Tra

nsfe

rB

uild

ing

(abo

ve)

5.C

olle

ctio

npr

ogra

mw

illtr

ain

&m

onit

orw

orke

rsat

gene

rato

rsto

min

imiz

eco

ntam

inat

ion

6.W

orke

rw

ill“p

ick

thro

ugh”

food

was

teup

onde

live

ry

and

rem

ove

fore

ign

obje

cts

e.g.

bott

les,

cans

,

7.L

ocko

utpr

oced

ures

shal

lbe

used

atal

lti

mes

duri

ng

mai

nten

ance

orm

achi

nesh

utdo

wn

Tra

ffic

Min

imiz

eco

noes

tion

impa

cts

toC

CT

RS

Tra

ffic

cong

esti

onon

loca

lro

ads

1.P

ush

resi

dual

liqui

dto

MSW

pile

,dr

ains

tost

orag

eta

nk

2.M

onito

rra

teof

liqui

dac

cum

ulat

ion

inab

ove

grou

ndst

ora

ge

tank

sbi

mon

thly

(eve

ry2

mon

ths)

3.E

mrt

v(r

ump)

coll

ecti

onta

nks

asnee

ded

Non

e.T

otal

trip

s(f

ewer

than

20pe

rda

y)is

with

inS

WF

Plim

it

2of3

Sep

tem

ber

2010

Pro

ject

Ele

men

tO

bje

ctiv

eP

ote

nti

alIm

pac

tP

ropose

dC

ontr

olM

easu

re

Hea

lth

&S

afet

yM

inim

ize

heal

than

dsa

fety

impa

cts

tost

atio

nM

inin

ize

risk

ofin

fect

ion

or8.

All

lock

out

proc

edur

esre

com

men

ded

byth

em

anuf

actu

rer

(con

tinu

ed)

empl

oyee

san

dcu

stom

ers

inju

ry(c

onti

nued

)sh

all

befo

llow

edas

desc

ribe

din

the

mac

hine

safe

tym

anua

l

Sta

tion

Oper

atio

ns

Min

imiz

epo

tent

ial

for

food

was

tere

cove

ryop

erat

ion

Min

imiz

eim

pact

onst

affi

ng1.

Mon

itor

effe

cton

staf

fing

ofa

2-pe

rson

food

was

tecr

ew

toad

vers

ely

affe

ctov

eral

lst

atio

nm

issi

onto

tran

sfer

Staf

fing

for

stat

ion

oper

atio

nw

illbe

incr

ease

das

nee

ded

MSW

safe

lyan

def

fici

ently

.

Min

imiz

eim

pact

onst

atio

n1.

Col

lect

ion

vehi

cle

acce

ssw

illbe

conf

ined

toth

eea

st

thro

ughp

utdo

or;

egre

ssco

nfin

edto

the

wes

tdo

or.

2.C

ontr

acto

rpu

blic

unlo

adin

gw

illbe

conf

ined

toth

epu

blic

unlo

adin

gar

eaon

the

east

wal

lto

max

imiz

efl

oor

area

.

3.R

educ

efo

otpr

int

ofgr

inde

rdu

ring

stor

age

4.S

eeC

ontr

olM

easu

re1

for

staf

fing

(abo

ve)

5.S

eeC

ontr

olM

esau

rsfo

rH

ealt

han

dS

afet

yab

ove

Con

ting

ency

ifp

roce

ssed

food

1.P

roce

ssed

food

was

tew

ould

bese

ntto

New

byIs

land

or

was

teca

nnot

bese

nt

toE

BM

UD

For

war

dL

andf

illfo

rus

ein

exis

ting

com

post

ing

oper

atio

ns

2.If

faci

litie

sou

tlin

edin

#1ab

ove

are

not

avai

labl

e,pro

cess

ed

food

was

tew

ould

bese

ntto

Kel

ler

Can

yon

Lan

dfill

asM

SW

Oth

erst

atio

ndi

srup

tion

1.In

the

even

tof

fire

orot

her

stat

ion

disr

upti

on,

the

stat

ion

man

ager

wou

lddi

vert

all

inbo

und

unpro

cess

edfo

odw

aste

to

Kel

ler

Can

yon

Lan

dfill

for

disp

osal

asM

SW.

3of3

APPENDIX C

Commercial Food Waste

Collection Program

APPENDIX C

COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM

Purpose and Need

According to recent Department of Resources, Recovery and Recycling (CaiRecycle)disposal data, food waste in the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA)service area made up approximately 37 percent of the organic material of the wastestream. Of this disposal, almost 19 percent consisted of food waste discarded bycommercial and institutional generators, such as restaurants, grocery stores, schools, etc.Official disposal data demonstrate that significant amounts of food waste exist in wastedisposal from CCCSWA member communities. It is important that the CCCSWA and itsmember communities identify remaining large fractions of recoverable and recyclablewaste materials. Commercial food waste is an ideal candidate for program response.

Table CI presents food waste disposal data for CCCSWA member cities. Since theCCCSWA does not have recent waste audit information of its own, data from theCaiRecycle Disposal Reporting System (DRS) is being used. The DRS assigns apercentage allocation for food waste generation between sectors which is being usedhere. The recent data offered for food waste generation for all sectors is for AnnualReport Year 2005. Although this information may not provide the precision that a localwaste audit may offer, it does give an accurate representation of the amount of food wastethat probably exists in the waste stream. In fact, due to a higher concentration of largefood waste generators in the CCCSWA service area, the percent allocation assigned bythe State for the commercial sector may be low.

The CCCSWA has been contacted by a number of large food waste generators, includingrestaurants, hotels, a local restaurant trade group, grocery stores, and schools to join thenew commercial food waste collection program. There is growing interest and demandfor expanding the program because businesses recognize that food is a prevalent wastematerial that can be recycled.

Food Waste Program Objectives

• Demonstrate a new method thr collection of commercial food waste that requiresminimal processing/clean-up prior to transport for processing.• Provide an opportunity for commercial generators to divert 50% or more of foodwastes from landfill disposal.• Create a convenient, hygienic, and easily understood set of procedures for separationof pre- and post-consumer food waste from other waste by the generator.• Establish a hygienic and compact method for storage and collection of food waste bythe designated collector.

C- 1

Table ClFood Waste Disposal by CCCSWA Sector

TOTAL FOODWASTE LANDFILLED Percentage Disposal(TONS) BY SECTOR 2005 Disposal by by Sector Percentage Food Waste(2005) Disposal Sector (Tons) Food Waste (Tons)

Danville 30,157Commercial 47.0% 14,173.8 18.80% 2,664.7Residential 31.6% 9,529.6 17.30% 1,648.6Self-hauled 21.3% 6,423.4 1.10% 70.7

Total 99.9% 30,126.8 4,384.0Lafayette 19,383

Commercial 47.0% 9,110.0 18.80% 1,712.7Residential 31.6% 6,125.0 17.30% 1,059.6Self-hauled 21.3% 4,128.6 1.10% 45A

Total 99.9% 19,363.6 2,817.7Moraga 8,465

Commercial 47.0% 3,978.6 18.80% 748.0Residential 31.6% 2,674.9 17.30% 462.8Self-hauled 21.3% 1,803.0 1.10% 19.8

Total 99.9% 8,456.5 1,230.6Orinda 13,244

Commercial 47.0% 6,224.7 18.80% 1,170.2Residential 31.6% 4,185.1 17.30% 724.0Self-hauled 21.3% 2,821.0 1.10% 31.0

Total 99.9% 13,230.8 1,925.3Walnut Creek 66,202

Commercial 47.0% 31,114.9 18.80% 5,849.6Residential 31.6% 20,919.8 17.30% 3,619.1Self-hauled 21.3% 14,101.0 1.10% 155.1

Total 99.9% 66,135.8 9,623.9

TOTAL FOOD WASTE CCCSWA SERVICEAREA 19,981.4

Source: CCCSWA, June 16, 2009.

(‘-2

• Secure a method of food waste processing (anaerobic digestion) that will recycle ahigh percentage (90%+) of collected waste material.• Create a collection and processing system with costs that are sustainable andincorporates user fees that will create incentives for participation.• Implement a quality assurance program that ensures that all incoming food waste,regardless of origin, is subject to the same criteria for acceptance and handling.• Create a quality assurance and monitoring program to minimize the potential forcontamination.

Participant Recruitment/Training

CCCSWA will contract with solid waste specialists to assess, select, and train programparticipants. Allied Waste Services (Allied) and CCCSWA staff members will alsoparticipate in the selection and training phase. Assessment, selection, and training willconsist of:

1. Review Allied’s commercial trash and recycling customer list (customer name,address, contact, service levels, days of week of service, price of service, notes).

2. Review waste management commercial recycling customer list (customer name,address, contact, service levels, days of week of service, price of service, notes).

3. Meet with Allied staff to discuss criteria for inclusion in initial assessments.

4. Conduct on-site assessments of businesses to qualify potential participants.

5. Recruit businesses based on diversion potential, feasibility, and interest.

6. Help recruited businesses to establish appropriate collection service levels.

7. Train management and staff about proper food waste materials separation andhandling procedures. Bi-lingual materials will be provided as needed.

8. Introduce and promote various additional recycling and green businessopportunities that the CCCSWA or its partners offer, such as: other wastereduction and recycling activities, fats/oils/grease diversion to biodieselproduction, and environmentally preferable purchasing practices.

Material Description and Maximum Daily Tonnage

The commercial food waste program will collect all food scrap items, including:• Fruits & Vegetables

Meat & Seafood• Small to Medium Bones• Dairy & Eggs

C-3

Breads & Pasta• Oils & Sauces• Tea Bags & Coffee Grounds

Materials that will not be accepted by this program include:• All Plastics (including biodegradable)• Styrofoam

Metal

Paper• Cardboard• Wood• Yard Waste• General Refuse

The Commercial Food Waste Program plans on servicing approximately 320 commercialand institutional generators in the CCCSWA service area once fully expanded. Thesegenerators include:

• Restaurants• Food/Grocery Stores• Schools/Colleges• Hospitals• Miscellaneous entities that may have food service as part of the operation, includingretirement homes, recreation facilities, office buildings, etc.

The initial phase of the program is estimated to generate approximately 19 to 28 tons perday of collected food waste.

Quality Assurance

A primary focus of this program is to eliminate contamination at the source. Eliminatingor significantly reducing contamination removes the need for costly clean up duringprocessing at the Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCTRS) prior to transferto East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Therefore, emphasis is placed ontraining and oversight to prevent contamination of both pre- and post-consumer foodwaste and to identify and make corrections when it is detected. The digestion process cantolerate up to 10% contamination. However, some contaminants at lower levels may beproblematic for EBMUD digestion processes. The Quality Assurance program will beimplemented by Allied and CCCSWA in coordination with EBMUD. Steps that will betaken to control contamination include:

C-4

Participant Assessment:

1. Acceptable food waste includes: fruits, vegetables, meat, seafood, small bones,dairy, eggs, breads, pastas, sauces, cooking oil, grease, tea bags, coffee groundsand filters, and other related food waste materials.

2. Potential participants for the food waste program include restaurants, assistedliving facilities, countly clubs, delis, groceries, schools, hospitals, and any otherbusiness or institutional facility that has food service.

3. Source separation is required. Program participants will be required to separateacceptable food waste from non-acceptable materials and place the acceptablematerials in designated containers. The ideal candidate for the program will havesignificant pre-served food waste available for collection and may be permitted toinclude post-consumer food waste if adequate practices are established to controlcontamination.

4. Zero Tolerance Rule for Contamination. The program will clearly establish zerotolerance for any unacceptable waste materials. Unacceptable waste materialsconsidered contamination by this program includes: Plastic (except plastic bagsused for collection of acceptable food waste), Styrofoam, glass, metal, liquids,paper, cardboard, wood, yard waste, and all other non-food waste materials.

5. If food waste delivered to the CCTRS is found to contain discrete bulky inorganiccontaminants, they will be removed prior to grinding and placed on the transferbuilding floor for load out.

6. Repeated contamination incidents and disinterest or inability by management tocolTect the problem will result in removal of that participant from the program.

7. Assess the level of control that management has over their kitchen staff. Iscontrol sufficient to detect and correct contamination issues?

8. Assess level of motivation that management has to participate in program.Motivation will determine the level of interest to participate in the correct way,capturing most food waste and preventing contamination.

9. After the program is operating successfully, review the method of handling ofpost-served/post-consumer food scraps to ensure this material can be includedonce the participant has proven its ability to consistently deliver clean pre-andpost-consumer food scraps.

Training:

1. Conduct training sessions for all kitchen staff describing procedures, acceptablefood scrap materials, and zero tolerance for contamination.

C-S

2. Training will be conducted in the predominant language spoken by kitchen staff.

3. Once participation has started, conduct one follow-up visit. If deficiencies arenoted, conduct retraining with kitchen staff and management.

4. Participants must use clear plastic bags to allow route collector to observecontents prior to collection.

Containers/Signage:

1. Each participant will receive an appropriate number of 25-gallon “slim Jim”collection containers for indoor use and clearly marked 64-gallon carts oryard boxes for outdoor storage of food scraps.

2. Participants will be instructed to use clear plastic bags for containment of foodscraps to preserve cleanliness and hygiene. Clear bags will permit the programroute collector to observe bag contents and check for contaminants.

3. Each participant will be provided with the following signage to instruct staff inproper participation procedures and maintain awareness:a. 11” x l7 posters displaying approved and prohibited food scraps for

placement on walls

b. 8” x {“ posters displaying approved and prohibited food scraps forplacement on walls or collection containers

c. 5” x 12” “bumper sticker” signage for differentiating food collectioncontainers from refuse containers.

4. Signs will be distributed in sufficient numbers to serve needs of new participants.Additional posters and signs will be provided upon request.

Oversight:

1. Route Collector will check contents of collection carts and/or clear collectionbags prior to disposal. In instances where contaminants are detected, food scrapswill be left uncollected and a notice of non-collection left on the call. Therestaurant name will be marked on the route sheet for follow-up by routesupervisor/program managers.

2. Collector staff will conduct spot checks of participants to assess participation,sufficient number of collection containers, fill levels of containers, andcontamination. Inspectors will use these spot check opportunities to updaterestaurants on procedural changes or other important information.

C-6

Program Collection, Processing, and Transfer to EBMUD

Once a business has been trained and set up to participate, they will separate all pre-andpost-consumer food waste for collection, primarily coming from food prep areas of thekitchen. Post-consumer food waste, which has a greater potential for contamination, willbe included in the program and will be subject to the same quality control and trainingrequirements as pre-consumer food waste. A participant must prove its ability to keeppre-served and post-consumer food waste clear of contamination. Sufficient signage willbe used to instruct and remind kitchen staff about program guidelines for collection andcontamination prevention.

Allied will work with businesses to identify locations where filled carts can be placed forcollection. Allied will collect food waste once every two or three days, or as often asnecessary to keep containers clear of food waste and prevent creating a nuisance.Collected food waste will be taken to the CCTRS for processing.

C-7

APPENDIX D

Mitigation Monitoring

and Reporting Plan

MIT

IGA

TIO

NM

ON

ITO

RIN

GA

ND

RE

PO

RT

ING

PL

AN

Pot

enti

alIm

pac

tM

itig

atio

nM

easu

reR

espo

nsib

ilit

yA

ctio

nC

ompl

etio

nD

ate

H.

Haz

ards

and

Haz

ardous

Mat

eria

ls

H9:

Hea

lth-

rela

ted

Impa

cts

Hi:

Dur

ing

clea

ning

ofth

eho

rizo

ntal

Alli

edSe

cure

and

use

rece

ivin

gD

urin

gop

erat

ion

Rel

ated

toFo

odW

aste

Proc

essi

nggr

inde

rw

ithpr

oces

sed

woo

dw

aste

,bi

nm

ater

ial

from

the

conv

eyor

asse

mbl

ysh

all

not b

edi

scha

rged

dire

ctly

onto

the

floo

r,bu

tra

ther

into

anap

prop

riat

ely

size

dre

ceiv

ing

bin

inor

der

tohe

lpre

duce

spla

tter

and

gene

ratio

nof

aero

sols

.

H2:

Abi

olog

ical

aero

sol

haza

rdA

llied

Ret

ain

cons

ulta

nt,

At

Proj

ect

star

tup

asse

ssm

ent

shal

lbe

com

plet

edon

ceth

eco

nduc

tw

ork

Proj

ect

isop

erat

iona

l.It

isre

ason

able

toex

pect

food

was

teca

nha

veva

ryin

gle

vels

offu

ngal

and/

orba

cter

ial

cont

amin

atio

nbu

tno

data

are

know

nto

exis

ton

the

rela

tive

heal

thri

skof

the

food

was

tegr

indi

ngpr

oces

sin

am

ostly

encl

osed

envi

ronm

ent

such

asth

etr

ansf

erbu

ildin

g.U

sing

afo

rens

ican

alyt

ical

cons

ultin

gfi

rm,

anap

prop

riat

ely

deta

iled

wor

kpr

ogra

msh

all

bede

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted.

Wor

kac

tiviti

essh

all

incl

ude,

but

not

nece

ssar

ybe

limite

dto

,th

efo

llow

ing:

a.A

nae

roso

lsa

mpl

ing

prog

ram

that

shal

lha

vest

atio

nary

and

mob

ileco

mpo

nent

s.Fo

odw

aste

wor

kers

shal

lbe

equi

pped

with

impa

ctor

s,eq

uipm

ent

whi

chca

nbe

used

topu

mp

and

filte

rth

eai

rw

ithsu

bseq

uent

labo

rato

ryan

alys

isof

the

part

icle

sca

ptur

ed.

D-1

MIT

IGA

TIO

NM

ON

ITO

RIN

GA

ND

RE

PO

RT

ING

PL

AN

(con

tinu

ed)

Pot

enti

alIm

pac

tM

itig

atio

nM

easu

reR

espo

nsib

ilit

yA

ctio

nC

ompl

etio

nD

ate

H.

Haz

ards

and

Haz

ardo

usb.

Rev

iew

ofal

lco

ntro

lan

dm

itiga

tion

Mat

eria

ls(c

ont.

)m

easu

res

for

the

prop

osed

Proj

ect

asre

late

dto

heal

th-r

elat

edis

sues

bya

cert

ifie

din

dust

rial

hygi

enis

t.B

ased

onth

ean

alyt

ical

prog

ram

and

this

revi

ew,

the

mea

sure

may

bedi

scon

tinue

d,re

duce

d,ke

ptas

is,

orex

pand

ed.

c.Pr

epar

atio

nan

dsu

bmitt

alto

the

LE

Aof

aw

ritte

nre

port

desc

ribi

ngho

wth

eas

sess

men

tsar

epe

rfor

med

and

docu

men

ting

and

sum

mar

izin

gth

efi

ndin

gs.

D-2

APPENDIX E

Supporting Data for Air

Pollutant Emissions Evaluation

Tab

leI

-S

um

mar

yo

fB

asel

ine

and

Pro

pose

dP

roje

ctN

etT

ruck

Tri

ps

and

To

tal

Mil

eage

for

Em

issi

ons

Ev

alu

atio

n

Pro

pose

dP

roje

ct-

Sum

mar

yof

annu

alon

e-w

aytr

ips;

Tra

nspo

rtof

233.

270

tons

per

year

ofM

SW

(35.

01)0

tons

food

was

te)

toK

elle

rL

andf

illat

20to

nspe

rtr

uck,

or11

.667

annu

alon

e-w

aytr

ips.

•R

educ

tion

inIt

aul

trip

sfr

omC

CT

RS

toK

elle

rL

andf

illof

6Oto

nspe

rda

yat

20to

nspe

rtr

uck,

or3

dail

yon

e-w

aytr

ips

and

768

annu

alon

e-w

aytr

ips

tbr

256

oper

atin

gda

yspe

rye

ar.

•C

olle

ctio

nof

111.

24)1

ions

pet

year

offo

odw

aste

witi

tinC

CC

SWA

serv

ice

area

at7

tons

per

truc

k,or

1.46

3an

nual

one-

svav

trip

s.•

Col

lect

ion

of5.

12(1

tons

per

year

offo

odis

asIc

outs

ide

the

CC

CS

WA

serv

ice

area

at7

tons

per

truc

k,or

731

annu

alot

ie-s

vav

trip

s.T

rans

port

of(5

.360

tons

ofgr

ound

food

was

tefro

mth

eC

CT

RS

toE

BM

UD

Mat

nP

lant

at0

tons

per

truc

k.or

1.53

6an

nual

one_

way

trip

s.

Tot

alan

nual

one-

ssay

trip

sof

14,6

29.

.B

asel

ine

Condit

ions

Pro

po

sed

Pro

ject

One

One

Ton

sT

ons

W’a

yB

asel

ine

Ton

sT

ons

Way

Pro

ject

Net

Cha

nge

inA

nnua

lP

erP

erD

ist.

One

-Way

Tri

psT

otal

Mile

age

(mi)

Ann

ual

Per

Per

Dis

t.O

ne-

Wa

Tri

ps

Tot

alM

ilea

ge(m

l)T

ruck

Mil

eage

(ml)

Hau

lT

ruck

Rou

tes

Ton

sD

ayL

oad

(mi)

Ann

ual

IDai

lyA

nnua

lD

aily

Hau

lT

ruck

Rou

tes

Ton

sD

ayL

oad

(mi)

Ann

ual

Dai

lyA

nnua

lD

aily

Ann

ual

Dai

lyF

ood

Was

teit

,L

andf

ill

Foo

dIt

asic

toL

andJ

ill

CC

TR

Sto

Kel

ler

Lan

dfil

l’35

,000

112

.54

2011

11.6

6737

,525

6,66

7[

825

CC

TR

Sto

Kel

ler

Lan

dfil

l’35

.000

12.

5420

11I1

.667

37.5

256,

667

825

Red

ucti

onin

haul

trip

sfr

omC

CT

RS

toK

elle

r15

,360

6020

II-7

68-3

.0-1

6.89

6-6

6S

ubto

tal

Mile

age

—25

6.66

782

5S

ubto

tal

Mile

age

239.

771

759

-l6.

896

-66

Foo

dW

aste

Col

lect

ions

Foo

dW

aste

Col

lect

ions

All

ied

Pac

hec

oto

New

bv

1.10

03.

57

4515

70.

538

.186

123

Wit

hin

CC

CS

WA

Ser

vice

Are

a40

730

.........,,,,,.

87.7

8034

3Is

land

-

Out

side

CC

CS

WA

Ser

vice

Are

a5,

120

207

4073

I3

58.4

8022

9S

ubto

tal

Mile

age

——

38,1

8612

3S

ubto

tal M

ilea

ge—

—14

6.26

057

110

8.07

444

9F

ood

U’a

sie

Hau

lR

oute

sF

ood

Was

teH

aul

Rou

te,s

‘cw

bIs

lan

dto

EB

MU

D1.

1110

3.5

736

157

0.5

11.3

0436

CC

TR

Sto

EB

MU

DM

ain

Pla

nt15

,360

60Il)

261.

536

679

.872

312

Sub

tota

lM

ilea

ge11

.304

36S

ubto

tal M

ilea

ge79

.872

312

68.5

6827

6

Tot

al11

,981

38.5

306,

156

984

Tot

al14

,629

4946

5,90

31,

643

159,

746

658

aA

ssum

esN

.1SW

cont

ains

I50

,th

od

svas

le

Bas

elin

e-

Sum

mar

yof

annu

alon

e-w

aytr

ips:

•T

ransp

ort

of23

3.27

))In

nspe

rye

arM

SW

135.

01)1

1io

nsfo

odsv

astc

lto

Kel

ler

Lan

dfil

lat

20io

nspe

rtru

ck,

or11

.667

annu

alon

e-w

aytr

ips

•T

rans

port

at1,

101)

tons

atto

adis

asic

per

year

toN

eseh

yIs

land

at7

tons

per

truck

.or

57an

nual

aiic

—si

avtr

ips

•T

rans

port

of1.1

)111

ions

otg

rou

nd

food

was

tepe

rye

artr

amN

esvh

oIs

land

toE

I3M

UD

\Iai

nP

lant

atli

ons

per

truc

k.or

I5an

nual

one-

wao

trip

s.•

Tota

lan

nual

inc-

iva

trips

of11

.981

trips

per

year

.

Net Daily Mileage (miles) =

Average Number of Daily Trips =

Net Annual Mileage (miles)Average Annual Trips =

Average Round Trip Distance(miles) =

Average Vehicle Speed (mph) =

Idle Time per Trip (minutes) =

98439306,15611,98125.64010

Emission Factors ROG CO NOxj PM10 CO2

Running Exhaust (gram/mile) 0.21 0.98 4.13 0.05 1,753

Idle (grams/idle-hour) 7.74 43.69 122.65 0.11 6,542

Tire & Break Wear (gram/mile) - -- 0.06 -

Re-Entrained Dust (gram/mile) - - - 6.90 -

Daily Daily_Emissions_(Iblday)

AdditionalTrips Daily Miles Exhaust Total Exhaust Total

Generated Type Mile/Trip Traveled ROG CO N0 PM.0 PM.3 PM2.5 PM2.5 C02e

39 Total --> 984 0.6 2.7 10.7 0.1 15.2 0.1 2.7 3,896

39 Heavy-Duty Diesel 25.6 984 0.56 2.74 10.70 0.11 15.21 0.11 2.69 3,896

BAA QMD Daily Significance Threshold (lb/day) 54 - 54 82 82 54 54 -

Annual Annual Emissions in (tonslyear)

Exhaust Total Exhaust Total

ROG CO NOx PM,3 PM., PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2e*

Annual Total --> 306,156 0.1 0.4 1.7 0.02 2.4 0.02 0.4 606

Trips

11,981 Heavy-Duty Diesel 306,156 0.09 0.43 1.66 0.017 2.37 0.017 0.42 606

BAA QMD Daily Significance Threshold (ton/yr) 10 - 10 15 15 10 10 1,213

Notes: • C02e are in short tons per year. not moms tons per year. RMQMD C02e significance threshold is 1,100 metric tons or 1.213 short tons

Exhaust, die, tire and brake wear emission factors from EMFAC2007 for Contra Costa vehicle mix, year 2010

for heavy duty diesel trucks at an average speed indicated.

Total PM,, includes PM,0 from exhaust, fire and break wear, and re-entrained road dust

Table 2 - Existing Conditions

Existing Emissions From Transport of Foodwaste

Analysis Year = 2010

Table 3 - Proposed Project

Proposed Project Emissions From Transport of Foodwaste

Analysis Year2OlO

Net Daily Mileage (miles) = 1,643

Average Number of Daily Trips 49

Net Annual Mileage (miles) 465,903

Average Annual Trips = 14629

Average Round Trip Distance(miles) 33.5

Average Vehicle Speed (mph) = 40

Idle Time per Trip (minutes) = 10

Emission Factors ROG CO NOx PM10 CO2

Running Exhaust (gram/mile) 0.21 0.98 4.13 0.05 1,753

Idle (grams/idle-hour) 7.74 43.69 122.65 0.11 6,542

Tire & Break Wear (gram/mile) - - - 0.06 -

Re-Entrained Dust (gram/mile) -- - 6.90 -

DailyDaily Emissions (Ibiday)

AdditionalTrips Daily Miles Exhaust Total Exhaust Total

Generated Type Mile/Trip Traveled ROG CO NO PM10 PM15 PM2.5 PM2.5 C02e

49 Total --> 1643 0.89 4.33 17.17 0.19 25.40 0.18 4.49 6,469

49 Heavy-DutyDiesel 33.5 1643 0.89 4.33 17.17 0.19 25.40 0.18 4.49 6,469

BAA QMD Daily Significance Threshold (lb/day) 54 - 54 82 82 54 54 -

AnnualAnnual Emissions in (tons/year)

Exhaust Total Exhaust Total

ROG CO NO PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 C02e*

Annual Total --> 465,903 0.13 0.62 2.45 0.026 3.60 0.026 0.64 918

Trips

14,629 Heavy-Duty Diesel 465,903 0.13 0.62 2.45 0.026 3.60 0.026 0.64 918

BAA QMD Daily Significance Threshold (ton/yr) 10 - 10 15 15 10 10 1,213

Notes:* C02e are in short tons per year, not metric tons per year B/tAQMU C02e significance threshold is 1 100 metric tons or 1 213 short tons

Exhaust, idle, tire and brake wear emission factors from EMFAC2007 for Contra Costa vehicle mis year 2010

for heavy duty diesel trucks at an average speed indicated.

Total PM10 includes PM10 from exhaust, tire and break wear, and re-entrained road dust

Tab

le4

New

byIs

land

Em

issi

on

sF

rom

Die

sel

Tub

Gri

nd

erfo

rF

ood

Was

te

Uni

tC

um

ula

tive

Equ

ip.

Equip

.D

aily

Annea

lH

ears

tem

Na.

Age

Mad

elH

ears

Hea

rsL

ead

Op

erat

lee

Eng

ine

Fee

lE

mis

siee

Fas

ter

(glh

p-E

r)M

aaim

amH

eart

yE

mis

slee

s(l

blhr

)D

aily

Em

issi

ons

(tt,

lday

)A

seaal

Em

issi

on

s(t

oel

yr)

No

Equip

men

tT

ype

Uni

ts(y

ears

)Y

ear

InU

seU

seF

acto

rP

erU

nit

(Hp)

Typ

eN

Os

CD

VO

CPM

1U5

02

coz

Non

co[V

OC

PMSU

50

2C

02

HO

eC

DV

OC

FM

1I5

02

C02

Non

CO

VO

CPM

1U5

02

C02

Off

-Rea

dE

qai

pm

aat

I1

Mar

yark

1555

Gri

nder

12

2D

110

00,

5032

005

0iiL

sy2

33

0.53

01

1y

yyy

yy

os

505.

3I

yy043

yy5

0.04

1y,

yyo

253

1.1

yd

y55

00

4y.

yy25

3y

yyy•

yo0.

004

y00

35.

000

21

Ter

al1.

000.

430.

050.

041

y,yy

325

3IO

U0.

43y,

y50.

040.

0020

30

00

0.03

0.00

0.00

30.

000

21

roe

Fac

tors

-O

ff-R

oad

Con

ao

sies

tgei

ted

En

gin

esN

onC

DR

OD

TP

RIg

C02

1cm

ZR

EF

OR

Fuel

ZH

EF

OR

Fact

ZH

EF

OR

Fuel

jZ

IIE

FO

RF

art

ZH

EF

DR

Fuetj

Na

SFtD

‘glh

p-h

r)(R

iHp.h

?t

CF

tgis

p-sr

)ls

ivp

hri

CF

(gih

p-H

r)(g

ihph

ru)

CF

)gih

p-H

r)g

ihp

-hr

CF

glhp

-Hr

)glH

phra

)C

FIl

g(y

toL

SySy

y205

v24

53

leE

-st

y,yy

052

t.52E

-05

ion

yIn

2,50

E-0

51

nos.

ssc-

os

0.0

0ss

t.3I

5.0

05+

00

12

2

Nv

iru

2v

Erz

rrrh

uure

ecare

iart

r,

vs

yere

rai,

o’

SOU

era

leesr

ii&

r.e.e

i.iS

cu,-

’erj

iur.

053iS

.euR

ai

CF

rue

mee

00

aeia

+ie

Cee,w

.sar

rae

Rri

s5

50

5nuru

a0002m

yeei

irea

-iie

eee

as

cag

a+

ree,a

aie

r+

r,r

r0

rsrr

crr

2005

S’a

caa-r

C”.’

saoeveaasa.C

aa

or.

a1E

r-acu

,cs-u

eeo

ryio

rnO

n’r

-arr

Crr

’crr

raar.

Q’r

niC

i;E

rSre

si>

2S

SP

-SS

C.5

1-3

2

Sao

ra,e

esr

AQ

uas

Co

ecrr

t:e.-

yeo

ncaa

Sle

gas

o.

Cal

noas

m

Table 5

GHG Emissions From Use of Electric Grinder for Food Waste Processing

Morbark 2600 Grinder - Electric

300 hp - total grinder horsepower60% load factor (assumed)

GHG Emission Factors for Electrical Use

C02 CH4 N20 Totallb/MW 724.12 0.0302 0.0081 -

lb C02e/MW/hr 724.12 0.6946 2.3976 727.2

Facility Grinder Use and Electricity Consumption

134.2 kw/hr2.5 hr/day

5 days/week260 days/year650 hours/year

87.2 MW/yr

GHG Emissions399.3 MW/year x 727.2 I lb CO2eiMW = 63447.01 lb C02/year

= 31.7 ton (02E/year= 28.8 metric ton CO2elyear

allied food waste and recovery is - contra costa county · 2020. 5. 6. · (swfp) 007–aa–0027....

Documents