HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05081984 - 2.11 Contra
` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
@Costa
TO
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR County
DATE: May 8, 1984
SUBJECT: Support for Senate Bill 2225 - Air Pollution Emissions:
Resource Recovery Projects
Specific Requests or Recommendations & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a position in support of SB 2225., if amended to assure that future resource recovery
projects are given equal treatment concerning obtaining emission offsets.
BACKGROUND
As directed by your Board, the Solid Waste Commission, at its April 18, 1984 meeting heard
Mr. Edward McHugh of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. He discussed Senate
Bill 2225 concerning air pollution emissions from resource recovery projects. Because
the Commissioners did not have. time to adequately review the bill and solicit other opinions,
they voted to defer their decision on SB 2225 until the next Solid Waste Commission meeting
on May 16, 1984.
The following is a staff summary and opinion of Senate Bill 2225.
Senate Bill 2225, introduced by Senators Foran and Rosenthal , and amended March 26 and
April 9, 1984, would require Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management
Districts to issue permits for construction of resource recovery projects producing 80
megawatts or less of electricity if:
1. The projects are located in a district whose state implementation plan revisions
have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency;
2. The facility processes municipal waste from one or more municipalities.
Presently, state law exempts resource recovery projects of 50 megawatts or less from securing
offsets if the applicant makes a "good faith effort" to secure them and if the project
utilises the appropriate degree of pollution control technology required by the new source
review rule of the District. SB 2225 would modify this requirement by allowing a resource
recovery project that produces 80 megawatts or less of electricity to be permitted under
the same requirements as those available for a project of 50 megawatts or less. However,
the bill has two additional stipulations that would affect all resource recovery projects
producing 80 megawatts or less of electricity. The first is that a project producing
80 megawatts or less must be located in a district whose state implementation plan revisions
have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and for which sufficient growth
allowances are available in the Air Quality Maintenance Plan. Secondly, in the event
Continued on attachment: X yes Signatur
Recommendation of County Administrator Recommen ion of Board ommittee
Approve Other:
Signature(s)-
Action of Board on: 2hA, Approved as Recommended/Other
Supervisor Fanden abstained, stating she still had reservations.
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF. THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
Attested
Orig. Div.! Public Works (EC) J.R. 01-M,,couNTY CLERK AND
cc: County Administrator EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Bay Area Air Qual.Mgmnt.Distr.(via EC)
Solid Waste Commission (via EC) ,
By DEPUTY
00 151
S
the project would cause any criteria pollutant to exceed the available or possible future
growth allowance, the applicant will be responsible for securing offsets in an amount
equal to the excess in the growth allowance. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
has set aside a 5.7 tons per day limit as the future growth allowance for resource recovery
projects. This amounts to the emissions given off by a plant(s) producing approximately
110 megawatts. In effect, this means that should San Francisco build an 80 megawatt facility,
the West County Agency 20 megawatt facility, and Tri-City (Fremont, Union City, and Newark)
10 megawatt facility, there will be no more future grown allowances available. Thus,
any future resource recovery projects beyond the 110 megawatt ceiling, would be required
to secure offsets in the amount needed for the project.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is scheduled to have their Air Quality Plan
reviewed and revised by 1987. At that time they may allow an increase in the growth allowance
or they may require existing facilities to lower their emissions. In any event,, there
is no guarantee that future projects will not have to secure utility offsets.
Due to the fact that this proposal may significantly impact resource recovery projects
in Contra Costa County, due to the high cost of offsets should they be required, staff
recommends support of the bill only if a fair and equitable system can be developed to
assure that resource recovery projects requesting permits after the growth limit (5.7
tons per day) has been achieved will not be unfairly burdened with the high cost of obtaining
offsets. This assurance can be obtained either by amending the bill or by having the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District commit that all future resource recovery projects
will be given equal treatment.
DBO:cl
dbo.bo.sb2225.t5
. f.
i
00 152