Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02052002 - D4 +r on[ra TBOARD OF SUPERVISORS O: tr Costa FROM. DENIMS N1. BARRY AICP Countv COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: February 5, 2302 SUBJECT: Continued H6aring on the Keller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant Project (CeUnty Flle L,P6121 1 s) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR ReCOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECaMM U0ATION' CONTINUE the hearing on the Keller Canyon Landfill Landfill Gas Power Plant project (County File LPO 12115) t4 April 9, 2002 at'',1 p.m. FISCAL IIcPACT No Impact to the County General Fund. The applicant is responsible for all processing costs.' BACKGR©UN© t A. Of4$ FDR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors opened the public hearing;on this matter on January 15 2002 and continued the matter to February 5, 2002 in order for staff to provide additional information related to air quality and franchise fee considerations. In order to allow additional research and discussions between staff, the applicant and the district supervisor, staff is recommending an additional continuance. The applicant has indicated their concurrence with this recommended continuance. Cl,�NTINUED ATTACI-IMENT.' YES SIGNATURE' ____RECOMME14411 AWN OF'CotINTY ADMINISTRATOR � RECOMMENDATION bir BOARD COMMIIeE APPROVE ' OTHER 'SIGNATURE S ACTION OF BOARD ON Fgbruary S. 2-0:02 APPROVE0 AS RECOMMENDED xxOTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ASSENT: rpt, I AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: ANIS ENTERED? ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT. ABSTAIN; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON TIME DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED February S 2002 JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF Contact: Deidra Dingman (925-335-1220 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS cc. Community Development (CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County,Administrator County Counsel BY ,�} ��^ i DEPUTY 01/30IO2 14:52: FAX 7 Aaao ENERGY 'DEVELOPMENTS EXEC [ ao2 evolopments 770o&m Felips,Sutra 480 Houston.Tema 77063.1613 USA Tel 713 7815353 Fox 713 7915303 January 29, 2002 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Deidra Dingman, Solid Waste Program Manager Contra Costa''County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing 4`h Floor Martinez, California 94553 RIE: Application for a Land Use Permit for a Landfill Gas Power Plant project to be Developed at the Keller Canyon Landfill (LP 012115) Ladies and Gentlemen: Energy Developments, Inc., requests that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors` suspend consideration of the Bio Energy (California) L.L.C., 'application to develop a, landfill gas to electricity plant at the Feller Carryon Landfill (EXT 012115) until April 9,;, 2002. This additional time is requested to allow local and state officials time to address taxation issues affecting two power plants recently sited in the City of Pittsburg. Your considerationof this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, e4gZte'ti Dennis Bollinger Vice President -Development CC: Norru Chirstensen—Keller Canyon Landfill Energy Developments, Inc. a Deloware corporation djb'o EDL Operofiions(U51, Inc. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM YFA `ES FEB 0 5 noz 8042 CALIFORNIA AVEC CLERK � s �aC� FAIR OAKS,CA 95629 CGN, NAP 81 0 fir, la�igy.ge�t I WILLIAM YI A7I fi (916)360-20(* M"Y 13.AKENS (916)860 2014 FAX KErrH G.WAGNER February 5 2002 Supervisor'John Gioia,Chair Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Keller Carryon Landfill Gas Power Plant Dear Supervisor Gioia: On behalf of the City Council of the City of Pittsburg,I am submitting the following comments on the proposed Keller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant, Bio Energy,the project sponsor and applicant,and Keller Canyon Landfill Company,the landowner,have applied to Contra Costa County for a land use permit(UJP##412115 amending LUP 2024-$9)to construct and operate a landfill gas power plant within the Keller Canyon Landfill. The power plant will be located adjacent to the existing flare,which currently bums off excess landfill gas,within an area reserved for environmental management Facilities servicing the landfill. BACKGROUND In October 2001 Contra Costa County circulated an initial study and negative declaration for public review and comment on the Keller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant pursuant to the California Environmental{duality Act. The initial study indicated the proposed project may have potentially..significant adverse impacts on aesthetics,hazards and hazardous materials,noise,and air quality. The draft negative declaration concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Pittsburg through its Director of Public Services John L.Fuller commented on the proposed project's potentiallylsiglificant adverse noise impacts on adjacent residential communities. Prior to the December 11,2001,continued public hearing held by the Contra Costa Planning Commission,the County LEA prepared a response to Director's Fuller's letter which was included in a December 4,2001,memorandum to the PlanCommission. On December 11, 2001,the Planning Commission recommended approval ofLUP 412115 with 17 conditions of approval. At the January 15, 2002,public bearing before the Contra.Costa County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Donna Gerber raised some,questions-about increased air emissions to the surrounding community. Despite the fact that the draft negative declaration has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the community's air quality,Supervisor Federal CAWINIDOWS\Ternpermy Internet Fi1esl0LKA0421L1r280S.doc Supervisor Gioia;Chair February 5,2002 Page 2 of 3' Glover and the Board directed County staff to meet with the project applicant to renegotiate the proposed energy;surcharge with a caveat that the project should benefit the local community. (The City assumes the Board-means the residential community immediately adjacent to Keller Canyon Landfill within the City of Pittsburg.) Also,County staff was'directed to work with the project applicant to examine if other technologies are available and feasible to minimizeair emissions from the proposed landfill gas power plant. The concerns raised by members,of the Board of Supervisors about the air quality impacts of the proposed project'on the adjacent residential community'encouraged City staff to re-review the draft negative declaration's evaluation of the proposed project's air quality impacts. The County's negative declaration uses basically the same information that Energy Developments Incorporated C EDr)provided to the Bay Area:Air Quality Management District. EUI hired SECOR to prepare an environmental assessment to support its request of BAAQMD to issue an Authority to Construct a new landfill gas fueled pouter plant within the Keller Canyon Landfill. SECOR completed the environmental assessment in January 1999. SECOR also prepared the Permit Application for the Authority to Construct. BAAQMD determined that the project was categorically exempt from CE+QA and issued EDI Authority to Construct on May 27, 1999. (On May 11,2001,BAAQMD extended EUI Authority to Construct to May 27,2003.) CITY OF PITTSBURG ISSUES'AND CQNCERNS After reviewing SECOR's environmental assessment and the County's negative declaration,the City has several questions concerning BAAQMD's review of the proposed landfill power plant, which now may affect the County's'evaluation within the draft negative declaration. The project under review includes three internal combustion("IC")engines. As ED.1 made clear to BAAQMD staff in its March 10,1999,letter responding to concerns BAAQMD staff had raised about the completeness of SDI's application: Our environmental assessment and air permit application are based on consideration of the potential environmental impacts and air emissions from the full project design which will utilize three IC engines. (A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit A to this letter.) As pointed out by SECOR in the Permit Application each one of these IC engines will generate a little over 16 tons of NOx per year. The total project will:generate 49 tons ofNOx per year. (A copy of Table 3-2 from the SECOR Permit.Application is attached as Exhibit B to this letter.) It appears that when comparing the allowable emission;for the existing flare to the projected maximum annual emission from the power station,SECOR made an error.' SECOR listed the maximum rate ofN€ ,x at 32 tons per year;instead of 49 tons per year. (A copy of page 4-14 from SECOR environmental assessment is attachedas Exhibit C to this letter.) Because County staff relied on EDI's environmental;assess ment in preparing the draft negative declaration,this error was Medd over to Table 3-1 (ConVarison of.Ermission Levels)in the County's negative declaration. (A copy of Table 3-1 is attached as Exhibit D to this letter.) Supervisor Gioia,Chair February 5 2042 Page 3 of 3' So,based on the foregoing assumptions,the adverse change to the community's air quality is the addition of 32 togs of N4x per year.'This projected increase in N©x is a significant adverse air qualityimpact. (See Keller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant Land Use Permit(LUP 012115) Initial Study and Negative Declaration (Oct. 2001)pp. 3-6—3-7.) Therefore,the use of negative declaration,which declares that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,may fail to comply with CEQA,when the project may have a significant environmental adverse impact on air quality. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15470,subd. (a),Appendix G.) If the initial study reflected that there were potentially significant impacts unless mitigated,at a minimum,Contra Costa County should have circulated a mitigated negative declaration,which sets forth the mitigation measures that are available to reduce or,avoid the proposed project's identified significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15071,subd.(e), 15073.5, subd.( )(1)) In addition,section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code would require Contra Costa County to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting plan that will ensure that the mitigation measures will be carried out. (See also CEQA Guidelines, § 15497,subd.(a).) Although the Keller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant emits less than 50 tans of NUx per year, and,therefore,may qualify for emission offsets from BAAQI 's Small Facility,Bannld-ng account in the District's Emission Bank,there must be evidence in the record that the decision makers, in this case the Board of Supervisors,that demonstrates that these offset credits are available each year that this project is operational. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15074, subd.(b)(I).)' Furthenrnore,the public, including the residential community immediately adjacent and downwind of this facility,must be given an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed mitigation measure that will reduce or avoid the significant increase in NOx emissions that will otherwise be emitted by the proposed gas power plant. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15071,subd.(e).) Finally,there must be a mitigation monitoring or reporting plan that ensures that these offsets are available and utilized by the projecteach year of operation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097.) The City Council of the City of Pittsburg respectfully requests that the Beard of Supervisors direct its staff to provide sufficient information to address the concerns raised above to demonstrate that at a minimum a mitigated negative declaration on the proposed Feller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant is not required. Sincerely, . William les cc:' BVI IC asey,City Manager Nasser Sharazi,Asst.'City Manager Randy Jerome,Acting Planriing/Building Deputy Director John Fuller,Public Services Director Laur&Vft gkit,l 1azardous/ aste Reduction Coordinator Linda Daube,City Attorney EX h ,bit A Energy be)relopmertt, March 10 1999 7700 s FAM Sift 480 rte;Tam= a1693 PO.BM 430068 UToms 7'i 263 M68 Carel Allen Tet 713 7815153 Senior Air Quality Engineer F= 713 781 5303 Permit Services Division Bay.Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San.Francisco, California 94109 Re: Permit Application Number 19432—Energy Developments,Incorporated Dear Ms.Allen: This letter is in response to your communication of February 1, 1999 to Energy Developments, Incorporated (EDI) regarding our permit application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD. for an Authority to Construct {ATC} and Permit to Operate(PTC) a new landfill gas to energy power station at the Keller Canyon Landfill. Your letter listed: sit items forwhich the application was determined to be incomplete. Please fiend below a response for each item or issue you have,noted. Each response is numbered to correspond to your incompleteness item of the same number. 1. Increase in condensate. As discussed by telephone on February 16, 1999, the generator units proposed are based on a low fuel-raid gas pressure reciprocating engine and hence do not require thehigh.compression required with units that have pre-combustion chambers (eg some Waukesha and the C.AT3600 series). As such, the; units will operate at approximately 40in B20 of gas pressure. The current blower/flare configuration will support such an arrangement with little modification and NO expected -'increase in condensategeneration. 2. You are correct that Section. 3.8 of our Proponent EnWranntental Assessment indicates projected start-up dates of 1999, 2000 and. 2002 for the tluee project IC engines. As Noted in the assesment, the three engine design represents EDPs'best estimate at this. time.of the capacityneeded to combust landfill gas which will be generated and collected at th site. The primary issue you have raised,i.e.expiration of the .ATC, was previously discussed in our meeting of August 20, 1"8 with Bob Nishirnuara'axnd Allen Chiu of your agency> At the meeting, EDI was erncourag�by the BAAQUO to apply at this time for all three IC engines ificnstallation could be achieved within four years.'.Zt was explained to us that the ATC would be valid for two years and a one-time two year extension could be granted. EDI wishes to continue with the application as fled which is for the t#*engine design. Our environmental assessment and air permit application are based on consideration afthe potential environmental impactsan air emissions from the full project design which will utilize three IC engines. In your Tetter, you commented that Mess EDI has begun substantial;construction on S-:I (the third IC ,engine:) within two years of issuance of the ATC, an extension cannot be obtatrne to the ATC. This conflicts whin the direction given to us at our August 20, 1998 meeting with the BAAQMD. We also note that Regulation 2-1-407 Permit Expiration does not link obtaining an extension to(substantial use of the ATC. The meaning of this section is correctly characterized as an ATC will expire after two years without substantial use of the permit unless a requestfor an extension is made in writing to the expiration date. EDI believes the BAAONM should view favorably a future ATC extension for this type of project. The project design uses a modular concept which is intended to account for the projected. increase (and eventual decrease) in landfill gas generation over time. It would seem beneficial to assess Ithe potential 'environmental impacts from'this Ml design rather than a smaller design which will only be present for a relatively short period of time. . Your comments relateto Section 6.0 of the permit application which contains the risk screening analysis iuua-ysi for the project. in your comment, you indicated that a revered screening analysis will be conducted with an expanded list of air toxics. In addition, you asked to be notified if IDI wishes to develop site specific data for air toxic emissions tough testing of landfill gas at the Keller Canyon.Landfill. Please note the list of air toxics and emission rates used in,the air permit;application for the risk analysis was discussed and shown to the BAA.QWD at our August 20, 1998 meeting. At the'meeting, we were''advised this air toxics mission inventory would be accept able for use in the application. As referenced:in the application,the inventory was developed, ftom source tests conducted on IC engines combusting landfill gas which were reported to the California Air Resources Board(GARB), who subequent y developed mission factors for this source type,and placed thein within the California Air Toxits Emission Factors(CATEF) Database. As stated by CARD, the emission factors in this database are for the use of facility owners and operators who must report air toxic emissions to California air management districts under the regirementts of AB258S - Air Tonics Hct Spots Progr�n. As such, we continue to believe potential air toxic emissions firom the proposed project are well characterized by this database the use of which has been already.approved by CRD under the AIB588 requirements. Exi ung site specific oar toxic emission data for the Keller Canyon Landfill is limited. EO does not intend tet supplement existing site data with new emissions testing The o* air toxic emission data.supplied to EDI from the landfill owner (BTS are the results of two annual testa conducted `at the inlet to the existing flare for ten'' 2 Compounds (referenced as Calderon cc rnpounds in the BFI permit and source test). Each of these ten compounds are also in Tables 2-4-1 and 2.4-2 of AP 42 as well as the C.A� database used in the peimit application. Results of tests for 1996 and, 997 are summarized below. FAI test results have previously been submitted to the BAAQMD. Note that as with. the AP-42 default values, these are uncontrolled emission rates. Also nate each tent value is lower than the corresponding value in AP42 except for 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Feller Canyon Air Toi cs Measurements--Uncontrolled CompoundConcentration Concenteation. Mean Value (PPM) (Ppm) (ppm) Test Date Test late 14122196 10/21/97 Cbz 1 Chloride 4.27 4.27 4.27 l th labs+Mori€le 1.6.0 6.84 11.4 Chloxofornz ND Nle ND 413 3.40 4.56 1.98 Carbon Tetraehoride ' Nd Nle ND Ben ens 4:74 039 4.76 oroetlline 4.17 4.15 OJA 'I'richlrrcethene 1.40 4.99 2t1 Tetrachlc�roetltene 1.70 1.34 1:54 l #h lent Dibromi ND ND ND If the $AAOID conducts an additional risk analysis, the values in the above table should be used for these ten compounds rather than the 'AP-42 default values. Additionally, these uncontrolled concent itious should be reduced by a control effi�y of at least 98%. The lean burn IC eng i es prc� sect for the proj act''will achieve at a minimum 98% destacuctior€ of nonmet ne organic. compounds as re� by the U.S. E'A blew Source Performance 'Standard for municipal solid waste landfills As shown in the permit application,considerable effort was devoted to conducting the risk nalys s in cotiI�fic6 with BAAQMD requirements. Rather than use a simple screen model, the approued Indu,iiral Source Cgxnplex Short Ter€ iSCST3)model was used follow1mg discussions with BA.AQQMD modeler Jim Cordova.. Model input and output tiles halve been PTOidpil wthe 13AAQ1V ew.on diskette for reviShould YOU decide to conduct another analysis, we request the continued USC of the:ISCST3 model. 4 Please see attached drawing as requested. 5. The lean bum IC engines selected for the project can achieve very high control eftioiencies for borocarbon,emissions. The Proposed UCT emission limit for POC 3" of 0.17 gll bOa br(equivalent to the EPA NSPSI standar of 2191 ppm as hexane) is fir below the exist ing;)RAA.QlV1 DA CT Guideline for IC engines cambusting landfill gas aid should be approved for the project. We anticipate actual hydrocarbon emissions to be well helm the proposed limit. As you tray be aware, in developing the la dhll HSPS, EPA provided',the 20 ppm alternative only to account for those limited periods of time when tthe initial hydrocarbon inlet concentration is so low that 98%tontrol is inleasible 6. Without knowing the content of the proposed rule you referenced, we cannot comment on it. We are confident the Iengines selected for the project will be able to meet any reasonable hydrocarbon control efficiency which has been cienionstratec in practice for IC engines burning lawf ill gas. 7. Regarding CEQA, we believe the application submitted to the BAAQNdD and other agencies should meet or exceed information requirements. Please let,us know if you determine otherwise and we will respond as quickly as possible. Please mid attached to this letter a check to the BAAQND :for$3096.00. T.lris is the full peer nit fee due The permit fee was not attached to the application as we were advised by the BAAQNM to'ndt include the fee, rather we would be informed after submission of the application as to the correct fee amount. You should find this information sufficient to rale the application complete and complete your review, Please contact myself at(713) 781-5353 as soon as possible regarding any questions you may have. Sincerely, rtxce sart Prof ect evelopment Supervisor cc Bill Blankenship, SECOR' Tffcl,SEC OR tbI Files,Houston Ref:response to BAAQbM-UGUS05EMA t 4` Exhibi t B SECOR TABLE 3-2 KELLER CANYON LFG I't(:)WER STATION'-EMISSIONS SUMMARY bi lutant. P hP '-y N©x €1.9 67 3.7 89.3 16 49 co i. 222 7.4 i79 33 98 IMHC U.1 36' 1 4.69 16.5 3.02 9;1 S4 Ci. iS 2.9 0.2 5.3 097 2.9 PM10 8.9 1;.6 4.9 'ppm value calculated as methane.' This value is equivalent to 20 ppm as hexane at 3%02 which is the HSPS emission standard for control of landfill gas using an enclosed combustion device. 3 -3 Alt ........ emissions from the facility. The Waver station will utilize up to 1400 k (188(3 horsepower [hPj} engines, which will have lean hum control technology, to keep exhaust emissions low. The control' system will be contirntously maintained to enure optimum combustion and operational effectiveness. Tfe primary air emission of concern with respect to gas-fired IC engines is NOx. As such, air regulatory, agencies such as the BAAQIv11D are primarily concerned with limiting emissions of this compound during the review of permit applications which require a determination'.of Best Available Control!:'Technology or BACT. The current BAAQ�D'SACT Guideline for IC engines using LFG as a fuel is 1.0 gallons per horsepower per hour (g/hp-hr).; EDI is proposing to achieve as BACT a NOx' emission limit.of 0.9 ger-lir' This valuewill be lower than the current BACT Guideline for similar projects. The following.table contrasts annual emissions with respect to the allowable emission for the existing', flare as compared to projected maximum annual emissions from the power station. Compound Allowable Emission Limit Projected l4laximum , for Existing Enclosed Flare Emission Rate fur Power , f (tons/year) Station (tons/ ear) Nitro en Qxides(NOx) 17 32 Carbon lono�cie(C€ 86 97 � Volatile 'Organic Compounds 7 0.5 MC) As required by BAA0MD Rule 2, emission offsets will be provided for NOx emissions from the power station, The use of emission offsets will erasure there will be no negative impacts to air quality' from this prtajected emission When compared to existing allowable emissions from the flare, the will be a small increase in CO emissions and a decrease in VOC emissions. The power station will not have the potential to emit any criteria p€rllutant or hazardous air pollutant in quantities, wluctt would' classify the facilityas a major facility or stationary source. Operation of the paver station will effectively reduce and control emissions of me an and trace' quantities of culler gases present in LFG. This type o ; project is strongly advocated by key environmental agencies such as the U.& Environmental Protection Agency Methane and Utility Outreach Program. An air quality benefit will be provided with respect to both focal--and global air quality. 4,3.6 'Transportation and Traffic No significant impacts to transportation and traffic are anticipated. 'A slight increase in traffic'would result frim 4 Ctf $ light vehicle trips per day to the facility dire to power facility work force. This is a less than significant increase. In addition; a small increase in traffic is anticipated to occur during the 4--6 week construction'period. 4.3.7 Biolo c.at Resources Nsignificant impacts to biological resources are anticipated. There will be no net less of significant habitat, wetland, woodland, or agriculturalMKCROLDOC production.' 1201Wy 12.19" 4-10 SECOR lob No,t!!#K3G)WI-lib SECOR Ir t rmt10 wi lsicorporated it D EXhib 3. E1tALUA110N of lVStiRON A�i�tCCAL d�lf�AC TS allowable air emissions for the existing flare with projected maximum emissions from the proposed power plant. Table 3-1 Comparison of Emission Levels Projected AllowableMaximum Emissions far Emissions for Existing Aare Power Change Com viand toosf ear Plant Const`ear ton ear Nitroen oxides(NOx) 17.0 32.4 +Mo arboni Monoxide (CCS) 86.0 97.0 +11.0 lfotatile organic Dorn ounds VOC 7.0 0 6,5 Source. Adapted from Proponent's Environmental Assessment and Air Permit Application for the Landfill Gas-to-Energy Power-Station at the Keifer Canyon Landli/l,December 1.988. As required by District Regulation 2, Rule 2, the projected 15.0 tons/year increase in lUox emissions will be offset through the use of NOX emission reduction credits and will be controlled to Best Available Control Technology levels. This impact is considered less than significant. Odors The anaerobic decomposition of organic components in the solid waste disposed at the landfill has the potential to generate odors if uncontrolled. However,either a flare or power plant must continually be used to manage landfill gas and thereby rninimi;dng potential odors associated with landfill gas_ Thepower plant is designed to burn landfill gas to generate energy. In doing so the potential far odor generation is greatly reduced. The plant gas extraction sys, tern would be used to C©ntt?i landfill OAS volumes, 7€ e plant's internal combustion engines would thermally ;dest ct potential odorous components.This impact is considered'less than significant. roxic Air Contaminants The BAAQMp used the iSCREEN model in a risk screening analysis to evaluate potential effects of toxics generatedi by the power plant. The carcinogenic risk calculated by the BAAQMD at the power plant site!S 1.55 in a million.A hazard index of 0.4 7 was also calculated Asa measure of the impact of non-carcinogens present I power plant emissions. Given that the carcinogenic risk to nearest receptors'is less than ten in a million, and the hazard index is less than 1.0 the BAAQMD XOR canyon LaodimGas Power Mart Land Use Pemr{E 3-9 October 2001 kutial Study and'IVegative baelaretion