tajiguas resource recovery project

Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project

Planning Commission Informational Briefing

The Purpose of Today’s Meeting:

• Provide background on the County’s waste management system and programs

• Provide an overview of the proposed Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project

The Purpose of Today’s Meeting:• Provide an overview of the Draft Subsequent EIR for the

Project

• Receive input from the Planning Commission

• Note: Public Hearing on Draft SEIR, September 4th

About the Project…

How did we get here?

• County Board of Supervisors approved the Tajiguas Landfill expansion in 2002

• Directed staff to research alternatives to landfilling and increase reuse and recycling of materials

Background

Communities served by Tajiguas Landfill:

• County of Santa Barbara• City of Santa Barbara• City of Goleta• City of Solvang• City of Buellton

Background

The County Department of Public Works

• Operates the regional landfill (Tajiguas Landfill)

• Operates 3 regional transfer & recycling facilities

• 90 FT staff members

Background

8

Background

BackgroundCounty manages three bin collection system for the region served by Tajiguas

• Blue Can – Transferred by County to Ventura for processing

• Green Can – Sent to County Facility for mulching

• Brown Can – Sent to Landfill

9

Background

The County is current rolling out a new organics program

• Food Forward• Food reuse and recycling

program

• Organics Recycling

• Tajiguas Landfill green waste mulching operations and marketing programs

• Backyard composting program

Background

• Hazardous Household Waste collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal

• County Collection Facility at UCSB Campus

• Collection Days in Santa Ynez

Background

• Operation Medicine Cabinet

• Disposal of Medications at 9 County Sheriff Stations

• Disposal of Used Sharps (hypodermic needles) at 5 County Health Clinics

Background

Background• School Recycling

• Business Recycling

• Green Business Program

• Education Campaigns

LessIsMore.org

Successful Diversion Programs

• Dozens of other successful regional programs have also been implemented since the passage of AB939

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Change in DiversionJurisdictions served by Tajiguas divert more than 70% of their waste from the landfill

75%

Change in Disposal

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130.00

50,000.00

100,000.00

150,000.00

200,000.00

250,000.00

300,000.00

The Waste Management Hierarchy EPA & international scheme

Source Reduction & Reuse

Recycling/Composting

Energy Recovery

Disposal

Most Preferred

Least Preferred

The Next Step in Getting to Zero Waste

Source Reduction & Reuse

Recycling/Composting

Energy Recovery

Disposal

80% to 85% Diversion

15% to 20% landfilled

70% Diversion

30% landfilled

Existing Programs New Programs &

Facilities

What we need

… a way of managing the 170,000 to 200,000 tons per year in the trash can that is still being buried.

But not a replacement for existing or planned recycling programs.

Sought Out Community Input

Comprehensive and transparent outreach effort started at the beginning

• Over 100 presentations in the last 7 years to area stakeholders

Original Project Goals

Increase diversion of our trashReduce environmental impacts of landfillingProvide financial feasibility and sustainability

Original Project Goals

Production of green energy and other marketable productsProvide a humane work environmentResult in a long-term waste management plan (20 years)

Original Project Goals

Emphasis on:

• Reducing Landfill volumes and

• Not affecting existing or planned recycling programs

Milestones

2007: Subgroup formed of all participating jurisdictions

2009: Released Request for Proposals

2010: Received Responses

2011: Completed Review of Proposals

2012: Selected Project/Vendor

2013: Notice of Preparation of SEIR

2014: Draft SEIR Released

Proposed ProjectThe facilities and what they do

Mustang Renewable Power Ventures: Dewey Group & Rossi Enterprises

Participating Firms:

Resource Recovery Project

Resource Recovery ProjectComprised of 3 facilities proposed at Tajiguas Landfill:1. State of the art material recovery

facility

2. Anaerobic digester to process organics

3. Landfill remainder (less than 50%) thus doubling life of the landfill

MRF = Materials Recovery FacilitySorting waste into the three streams

Current MRFs in Area

State of the Art MRF – Optical Sorting

State of the Art MRF - video

Proposed MRF – Less Labor

AD = Anaerobic Digestion Processing organic material into compost and energy

Project benefitsRecovering resources & minimizing impacts

Economic BenefitPublic/Private Partnership

• Over $60 million invested in local economy through private investment

• ~40 construction jobs

• >50 permanent jobs for operation of facilities

• Property tax generation

Cost-Effective

• All “no-project” alternatives include increased costs

• The proposed project has a minimal impact to ratepayers

Long-Term Solution

• State requirement: CalRecycle requires 15 years of planned capacity for all jurisdictions

• 20 year regional solid waste management plan

Environmental Benefits

• State requirement: AB 341 goal of 75% in 2020

• Projected to raise region’s diversion level to 85%+

• State requirement: SBX1 2 – 33% renewable energy

• Generates renewable energy(an additional net of 1 megawatt)

• Also aids community with Distributed Electricity Generation

Environmental Benefits

• State requirement: AB 32 – greenhouse gas reductions by 2020

• Lowers greenhouse gas emissions by more than 130,000 MTCO2 (~22,000 cars off of the roads)

Environmental Benefits

• State requirement: AB 1826 (pending) – requires businesses generating 8 or more cubic yards/week of organics to recycle organic waste by 2016

• Captures and recycles >98% of organic waste

Environmental Benefits

Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Draft Subsequent EIR

The Purposes of CEQA

• Disclose significant effects of proposed projects

• Identify ways to avoid or reduce impacts

• Consider feasible alternatives

The Purposes of CEQA

• Foster interagency coordination

• Enhance public participation

• Inform decision-makers and public at large

Project Elements: Site Plan

Project Elements: MRF & AD Facility

Project Elements: MRF Elevations

Project Elements: ADF Elevations

Project Elements

• The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)…

• 311 days/year, up to 800 tons/day and 250,000 tons/year

• 60,000-70,000 sf building with offices, visitor/education center

• Solar panels on roof to produce electricity

Project Elements

• The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)…

• May accept commingled source separated recyclables (CSSR)

• Three worker shifts plus administration staff, 20 additional employees for CSSR

Project Elements• The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)…

• Dust collectors and bio-filters to minimize discharge of odors from building

• Internal misting system to reduce dust and odors for workers

• 13 truck trips/day to export recyclables

Project Elements• The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility…

• ~63,000 sf building housing up to 16 digesters

• Process up to 240 tons/day and 73,600 tons/year of organic materials

• Two thermophilic (131-140o) digestion phases up to 28 days each

Project Elements• The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility…

• Energy facility engine exhaust used to purge digesters before opening

• Flare to combust bio-gas released when digesters are opened

• Dust collection system and bio-filter to minimize discharge of dust and odors from the building

Project Elements

• The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility…

• Control room, water treatment unit, 3 percolate tanks

• Solar panels on roof to produce electricity

Project Elements

• Energy production at the AD Facility…

• Two 1,537 horsepower internal combustion engines

• Burn up to 237 million ft3/year of bio-gas

• Engine-driven generators to produce up to 13,714 MW-hours/year

Project Elements

• Energy production at the AD Facility…

• Provides heat to digesters

• NOx emissions controlled by selective catalytic reduction using ammonia

• CO and ROC emissions controlled by oxidation catalyst

Project Elements

• Composting area (~5 acres)…

• Digestate trucked from AD Facility 6 days/week

• Digestate composted in windrows for about 6 weeks to produce up to 60,000 tons/year of compost

Project Elements• Composting area (~5 acres)…

• Emissions and odor from compost windrows minimized by blending with wood chips, irrigation after pile turning and application of finished compost to new compost piles as a pseudo bio-filter

• Storm runoff contained on site, filtered, stored and discharged to the north sedimentation basin

Subsequent EIR Scoping

• Notice of Preparation with SEIR scoping document distributed April 19, 2012

• Public scoping meeting on May 14, 2012

Subsequent EIR Scoping• Public testimony at Scoping Hearing

• Mike Lunsford and Ana Citrin (Gaviota Coast Conservancy)

• Bob Keats and James Smallwood (Surfrider Foundation)

• Bob Hart (local property owner)

• Concerns expressed focused on extension of the life of the landfill, assessing urban alternative locations, visual impacts and 24 hour operations.

Draft SEIR Study Areas

1. Aesthetics2. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas3. Biological Resources4. Hazards & Hazardous Materials5. Geologic Processes6. Cultural Resources

7. Noise8. Land Use9. Traffic10. Water Resources 11. Public Health/Nuisance12. Environmental Justice

Impact Classifications

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

This Project…

• Class I (Significant & Unavoidable)

• None, except for Landfill extension of life impacts (air quality and biology)

• Class II (Significant but Mitigable)

• Aesthetics, Biology, Hazards, Geology, Cultural Resources, Land Use, Water Resources

This Project…

• Class III (Adverse, but less than Significant)

• Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biology, Hazards, Geology, Noise, Traffic, Water Resources, Nuisance

This Project…

• Class IV (Beneficial!)

• Greenhouse gas emissions reduction

• Nuisance (litter) reduction

Impact Summary: Class I Impacts

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

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Aesthetics (project & cumulative): degrade views from U.S. 101

• Mitigation: building color, landscape screening

• Biology (project & cumulative): construction-related disturbance of sensitive vegetation

• Mitigation: delineate work areas, control invasive plants, minimize dust, stabilize soils

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Biology (project): construction disturbance of nesting birds and/or

raptors

• Mitigation: avoid breeding season or avoid active nests

• Biology (project & cumulative): construction disturbance and loss of habitat for badger and ringtail

• Mitigation: identify and avoid den sites

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Biology (project & cumulative): construction disturbance and loss of

habitat for desert woodrat

• Mitigation: identify and avoid nest sites

• Biology (project & cumulative): eliminate and/or disturb bat habitat

• Mitigation: avoid peak breeding season, identify and avoid roost sites

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Biology (project & cumulative): direct mortality of California red-

legged frog

• Mitigation: minimize lighting, maintain litter fences, limit vehicle speed, limit nighttime vehicle travel, worker training, conduct surveys and avoid when found, biological monitoring during construction

• Biology (project & cumulative): direct mortality of ringtail, desert woodrat and badger

• Mitigation: see above

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Hazards (project): construction-related discovery of hazardous

materials

• Mitigation: soil assessment and management plan, soil remediation as required

• Hazards (cumulative): use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials

• Mitigation: see project mitigation above

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Hazards (project & cumulative): increased fire risk from new fuel &

ignition sources and increased staffing

• Mitigation: fire protection and prevention plan

• Geology (project): reduced slope stability due to application of treated wastewater

• Mitigation: avoid ponding of applied water, prevent concentrated over-slope drainage, engineering geologist review, establish and maintain vegetation

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Geology (project): expansive soils may damage proposed facilities

• Mitigation: construct building pads of non-expansive soils or utilize a foundation system designed for expansive soils, over-excavation and compaction

• Geology (project): differential settlement of buried waste at MRF/ADF site

• Mitigation: foundation design using caissons with grade beams, or end-bearing helical pier anchors

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Geology (project): differential settlement of buried waste at composting

area

• Mitigation: allow for primary settlement prior to construction, structural pavement system over moisture-conditioned aggregate base

• Cultural resources (project & cumulative): construction-related discovery of unknown resources

• Mitigation: stop work and evaluate any artifacts or human remains found during construction

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Land use (project): conflicts with nearby residential, agricultural and

recreational uses

• Mitigation: implement measures for all Class II impacts

• Water resources (project): landfill gas migration into groundwater caused by proposed well

• Mitigation: well screen location and sanitary seals

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts• Water resources (project & cumulative): construction period storm

run-off to surface waters

• Mitigation: construction storm water pollution prevention plan, erosion and sediment control plan

• Water resources (project & cumulative): storm run-off and inadvertent discharge (percolate, domestic wastewater, spills in fueling areas) to surface waters

• Mitigation: industrial storm water pollution prevention plan, spill prevention, control & countermeasure plan

Impact Summary: Class II Impacts

• Water resources (project): storm run-off from the composting area to surface waters

• Mitigation: water quality testing, composting area management

Impact Summary: Class III Impacts

• Aesthetics: views from the landfill access road, Baron Ranch Trail and Upper Outlaw Trail, private views, construction lighting & glare, operational lighting & glare

• Air quality: construction emissions, operational emissions, exceed air quality standards, increased health risk, odors, H2S & sulfide ambient concentrations

Impact Summary: Class III Impacts

• Biology: vegetation loss, habitat loss and disturbance, special-status plants, California red-legged frog habitat, transient special-status birds, common wildlife, wildlife corridors

• Hazards: construction-related discharge of hazardous materials, use & storage of hazardous materials, bio-gas explosion, landfill gas fire, emergency response

Impact Summary: Class III Impacts

• Geology: stability of waste fill slopes, stability of mapped landslides, seismic ground shaking, seismic liquefaction

• Noise: construction noise, traffic noise on U.S. 101, operational noise, operational vibration

Impact Summary: Class III Impacts

• Traffic: construction traffic on U.S. 101 and landfill access road, operational traffic on U.S. 101 and landfill access road

• Water resources: flooding, groundwater supplies, groundwater quality, well interference, reduce rising groundwater

• Nuisance: attract and harbor vectors, spread of pathogens

Impact Summary: Class IV ImpactsBeneficial Impacts• Greenhouse gas emissions: reduce emissions by diversion of organic

waste and export of electricity

• Greenhouse gas emissions: reduce emissions by improved recovery and recycling of materials

• Nuisance: reduce litter by indoor tipping of MSW

Impact Summary: Extension of Landfill Life• Class I

• Extend the duration of existing significant and unavoidable air quality impacts (off-site mobile NOx emissions, 1-hour NO2 air quality standard exceedances, 24-hour PM10 air quality standard exceedances)

• Extend the duration of existing significant and unavoidable biological resources impacts (delay habitat restoration, extend disturbance of adjacent habitat)

Impact Summary: Extension of Landfill Life• Class II

• Extend the duration of existing significant hazards (use and storage of hazardous materials, subsurface landfill fire, petroleum storage fire risk, unauthorized dumping)

• Extend the duration of indirect impacts to archeological sites

• Extend the duration of significant public health/nuisance impacts (unauthorized dumping, dust)

Alternatives Selection• Required to look at alternatives that have the potential to reduce

significant environmental impacts

• Some Alternatives are based on public input

• Some Alternatives studied at “project” level

• CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative

Alternatives Considered in the SEIRA. No project: continued use of the Tajiguas Landfill until capacity

reached in ~2026

B. Urban Area MRF Alternative 1: MRF at 620 Quinientos Street, Santa Barbara (owned by MarBorg Industries), ADF and other facilities at the Landfill

C. Urban Area MRF Alternative 2: MRF at South Coast Recycling & Transfer Station (SCRTS), ADF and other facilities at the Landfill

Alternatives Considered in the SEIR

D. Off-Site Aerobic Composting: the MRF would be located at the Tajiguas Landfill, the AD Facility would be replaced with aerobic composting of organics at the Engel & Gray Composting Facility in Santa Maria

E. No Project Alternative: expand capacity at the Tajiguas Landfill

Alternatives Considered in the SEIR

F. No Project Alternative: export waste to the Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center

G. No Project Alternative: export waste to the planned Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility

Alternatives Analysis: No Project• No new impacts

• Impacts associated with Landfill operation would continue

• Landfill gas would continue to be emitted

• Solid waste disposal needs of the region would require action

• Landfill expansion or waste exportation to other landfills (Simi Valley or Santa Maria)

Alternatives Analysis: MarBorg MRF• Similar impacts at the Landfill associated with the AD Facility, composting area and

related project components

• Class I impacts at MRF site

• Aesthetics: views from U.S. 101, Calle Cesar Chavez, Chase Palm Park

• Air quality: 1-hour NO2 standard, acute health risk

• Traffic: cumulative impact at Garden Street/U.S. 101 ramps

• Environmental justice: surrounding minority community disproportionately affected by the above impacts

Alternatives Analysis: MarBorg MRF

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

Alternatives Analysis: SCRTS MRF

• Similar impacts at the Landfill associated with the AD Facility, composting area and related project components

• No Class I impacts at MRF site

• Class II impacts at MRF site: migratory birds, exposure of hazardous materials, differential settlement, cultural resources, short-term traffic, construction and operational surface water quality

Alternatives Analysis: Off-site Aerobic Composting

• Similar but lesser impacts at the Landfill associated with the MRF

• Class I impacts at the composting site: ROC emissions from composting windrows

• Class II impacts: NOx emissions associated with transportation of organic waste to the composting site

Alternatives Analysis: Landfill Expansion

• Class I impacts

• Aesthetics: view from Upper Outlaw Trail

• Air quality: construction emissions, air quality standards, extension of health risk, greenhouse gas emissions

• Biology: loss of habitat, oak trees, sensitive plants, disturbance of special-status wildlife

• Land use: conflicts with adjacent open space and recreational uses

Alternatives Analysis: Landfill Expansion

• Class II impacts: odors, special-status mammals, California red-legged frog, migratory birds & raptors, slope stability, cultural resources

Alternatives Analysis: Export to Simi Valley

• Impacts at landfill site (contribution)

• Class I: aesthetics, air quality, land use

• Class II: biology, hazards, geology, cultural resources, water resources

Alternatives Analysis: Export to Simi Valley

• MSW consolidation impacts (SCRTS and/or MarBorg C&D RTF)

• Class I: cumulative traffic at Garden Street/U.S. 101 ramps

• Class II: none

• Class III: aesthetics (litter, tipping floor cover), air quality (emissions, air quality standards, greenhouse gases, odors), noise (traffic noise and on-site operations), traffic (increased truck trips)

Alternatives Analysis: Export to Santa Maria

• Impacts at planned landfill site (contribution)

• Class I: air quality, biology

• Class II: aesthetics, hazards, geology, cultural resources

Alternatives Analysis: Export to Santa Maria

• MSW consolidation impacts (SCRTS and/or MarBorg C&D RTF)

• Class I: cumulative traffic at Garden Street/U.S. 101 ramps

• Class II: none

• Class III: aesthetics (litter, tipping floor cover), air quality (emissions, air quality standards, greenhouse gases, odors), noise (traffic noise and on-site operations), traffic (increased truck trips)

SEIR Schedule

• Public Draft SEIR Hearing September 4th, 5:00 p.m., Public Health Auditorium

• Receiving Comments until September 24th, 5:00 p.m. (email or traditional mail or Fax)

• Final SEIR to be released in Fall 2014

SEIR Schedule

• All comments will be included

• All comments will receive a response within the EIR

Project Review Schedule

• Planning Commission 65402 Determination (Date TBD)

• Board of Supervisors Hearing (Fall 2014/Winter 2015 date TBD)

SEIR CommentsPlease send written comments by September 24th (by 5 pm) to:

Joddi Leipner, Division Planner

Santa Barbara County Public Works

Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division

130 East Victoria Street, Suite 100

Santa Barbara CA 93101

Email: JLEIPNER@COSBPW.NET

Phone: 805-882-3614 Fax: 805-882-3601

Thank you!

www.ResourceRecoveryProject.com

Program Fees11%

Trash Collection26%

Greenwaste Collection20%Recy-

clables Collec-

tion12%

Trash Disposal28%

Greenwaste Processing7%

Recyclables Processing1%

Breakdown of a Typical $34.83 3-Can Trash Bill

Proposed rates are comparable to projected future landfill costs If increase only disposal portion of residential rate to $100 per ton (currently

$77) it would cost ratepayer an additional $3.48 per month Important to note: costs for all other disposal alternatives will increase in the

future therefore cost of the project poses no to minimal additional increase to ratepayer

compared to alternatives

114

Cost-effective