Encina Wastewater Authority Board of Directors June 25, 2014

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Encina Wastewater Authority Board of Directors June 25, 2014"

Sara Day
6 years ago
Views:

5 Encina Wastewater Authority Board of Directors June 25, FY 2014 Fourth Quarter Operating Program Budget Transfer Attachment Page 13 The Board of Directors adopted the Community Engagement Plan (Plan) on September 23, At that time, staff indicated that implementation of the Plan would cost approximately $100,000. The recommendation fully funds the professional services of Rising Tide Partners to execute the Plan during FY The FY 2014 Operating Program Budget includes $264,000 in Contingency Appropriations to help ensure Member Agencies appropriate sufficient funding for EWA's operations and offset authorized but unbudgeted expenditures. The proposed transfer exceeds the General Manager s authority and therefore requires Board of Directors approval. The Policy and Finance Committee and the Capital Improvement Committee reviewed this item and approved staff s recommendation. Recommendation: Authorize the transfer of $97,545 from EWPCF Contingency to the Administration Internal Service Fund Professional Services to fund implementation of EWA s Community Engagement Program. Staff Reference: Kevin M. Hardy, General Manager ~~~ END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ~~~ ~~~PUBLIC HEARING~~~ 14. Notice Of Public Hearing Related To Adoption Of A Mitigated Negative Attachment Page 14 Declaration For The Pyrolysis Demonstration Project On May 15, 2014, the General Manager awarded a contract to RMC Water and Environment Consultants for the preparation of an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for the Pyrolysis Demonstration Project in compliance with Sections to of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On May 22, 2014, the General Manager authorized staff to file a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Publishing the Notice of Intent started a thirty (30) day public comment period for the Draft MND that will conclude on June 23, On June 25, 2014, staff will present any public comment letters received on the MND. Staff will recommend the Board of Directors adopt the Final MND, along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), only if it finds, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the Pyrolysis Demonstration Project will have a significant effect on the environment. Recommendation: a. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive Public Comments. b. Adopt the Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. c. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors. d. Discuss and take other appropriate action Staff Reference: Kevin M. Hardy, General Manager ~~~END PUBLIC HEARING~~~ iv Ref: Admin

68 DRAFT Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Prepared for: Encina Wastewater Authority 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA Prepared by: May 2014

69 This page intentionally left blank May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority

70 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Table of Contents DRAFT Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose of This Document CEQA Process Impact Terminology Chapter 2 Project Description Project Overview Purpose and Need for Project Background/Need for Project Purpose of Project Project Location Existing Facilities Proposed Project Construction Activities and Schedule Equipment Operation and Maintenance Permits Required Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Chapter 4 Report Preparation Report Authors References May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority i

71 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Table of Contents DRAFT List of Figures Figure 2-1: Vicinity Map Figure 2-2: Location Map Figure 2-3: Flow Diagram for PBM Process Figure 2-4: Flow Diagram for Digester Pilot Figure 2-5: Site Plan Figure 2-6: Site Photos List of Tables Table 3-1: San Diego County Air Basin Attainment Status Table 3-2: Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions Table 3-3: Level of Service (LOS) at Nearby Intersections May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority ii

72 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Acronym List Table of Contents DRAFT BMPs Best Management Practices Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CWA Clean Water Act dba Decibel, a-weighted EWA Encina Wastewater Authority EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility HCP Habitat Conservation Plan I-5 Interstate 5 IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LOS Level of Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PM Particulate Matter RAQS Regional Air Quality Standards RMC RMC Water and Environment RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan UBC Uniform Building Code May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority iii

73 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Table of Contents DRAFT This page intentionally left blank May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority iv

74 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of This Document Chapter 1 Introduction DRAFT The Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to provide the public and Responsible and Trustee Agencies reviewing the proposed Project with information about the potential impacts on the environment. This IS/MND was prepared in compliance with Sections to of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines of 1970 (as amended), and California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division, Chapter 3. In accordance with Section 15070, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared if the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or if the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions to the project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. EWA as the CEQA lead agency has determined that an IS/MND should be prepared for the proposed Project. EWA, the Lead Agency for the project, is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed by the City of Carlsbad, City of Vista, City of Encinitas, Leucadia Wastewater District, Vallecitos Water District and Buena Sanitation District. EWA operates the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). 1.2 CEQA Process In accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, this document is being circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report. EWA has circulated the IS/MND to the State Clearinghouse for distribution and a 30-day public review (May 22 June 23, 2014). EWA will evaluate comments received on the draft IS/MND, and will prepare responses to address any substantial evidences that the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment. If there is no such substantial evidence, EWA as lead agency will adopt the MND in compliance with CEQA. Written comments should be submitted to EWA by 5:00 PM, June 23, Submit comments to: James Kearns Capital Projects Manager Encina Wastewater Authority 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA This IS/MND and any comments received during the public review process will be considered by the EWA Board of Directors at a public hearing: Encina Wastewater Authority Wednesday June 25, :00 a.m Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA Impact Terminology The environmental impact analysis for each resource defines the criteria used to judge whether an impact is significant based on the CEQA Initial Study Checklist and regulatory agency standards. Impacts that exceed identified threshold levels are considered significant. In describing the significance of impacts, the following categories of significance are used and are based on the best professional judgment of the preparers of the Initial Study: May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 1-1

75 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 1 Introduction DRAFT No Impact: An effect that would have no impact, or would have a positive impact on the environment, such as reducing an existing environmental problem. Less than Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. Less than Significant with Mitigation: An impact is potentially significant, but can be reduced to below the threshold level (to less than significant) given reasonable and available mitigation measures. Potentially Significant: An impact that would cause substantial, or potentially substantial, impacts above the threshold level. Such an impact requires further evaluation and would trigger the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 1-2

76 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter Project Overview Project Description Chapter 2 Introduction DRAFT Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) is proposing the Pyrolysis Demonstration Project to evaluate technology that would improve their process for handling biosolids at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) in Carlsbad, California. Biosolids are produced from the sewage sludge that is separated during the treatment of municipal wastewater and treated to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pollutant and pathogen requirements for land application and surface disposal. The demonstration project would use a technique called pyrolysis to reduce the mass of biosolids requiring disposal and to increase the production of biogas, a byproduct of the solids digestion process that is used to generate energy at the EWPCF. Pyrolysis is the process of decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. 2.2 Purpose and Need for Project Background/Need for Project Wastewater treatment is an energy intensive process and energy costs in southern California have increased substantially over the last decade. EWA has a goal to generate 95 percent of the EWPCF total electrical needs and 50 percent of the EWPCF gas needs by the year 2020 (EWA 2013). The EWPCF currently has cogeneration facilities that produce almost 75 percent of the facility s electrical demand. The demonstration project would evaluate technology that might allow a 20 to 25 percent increase in production of biogas, which would, in turn, increase the production of electricity at the EWPCF. The EWPCF also generates about 6,200 tons/year of biosolids, which must be disposed of by hauling off site. The pyrolysis process could reduce the volume of biosolids up to 45 percent, thereby reducing disposal costs substantially Purpose of Project The purpose of the demonstration project is to optimize process operating parameters specifically for the wastewater treatment process at the EWPCF. The demonstration project would enable EWA to evaluate the pyrolysis technology and fine-tune the process to maximize biogas production and biosolids mass reduction. Specific demonstration project objectives are as follows: 1. Increase the EWPCF biogas production rate to increase electricity generation. 2. Demonstrate the ability to produce renewable energy from an existing renewable fuel source (existing plant dried biosolids). 3. Reduce the mass of dried biosolids for subsequent handling, thus reducing the plant output. 4. Retain all nutrient value of the dried biosolids in the resultant bio-char. 5. Reduce hauling fees associated with disposing or handling of the dried biosolids. 2.3 Project Location The project would be located at the existing EWPCF, at 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California, Figure 2-1 shows a vicinity map. The EWPCF site is a 24-acre parcel bordered by Interstate 5 (I- 5) on the east; EWA-owned land to the south, which includes a vacant parcel and the City of Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility; Avenida Encinas and the Amtrak/North County Transit District railroad tracks to the west; and an industrial/commercial area to the north. Figure 2-2 shows an aerial of the project location. The demonstration project would be constructed and operated entirely within the existing EWPCF site. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-1

77 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Figure 2-1: Vicinity Map Chapter 2 Introduction DRAFT May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-2

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Figure 2-2: Location Map Chapter 2 Introduction DRAFT 2.3.

78 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Figure 2-2: Location Map Chapter 2 Introduction DRAFT Existing Facilities The EWPCF is a conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment plant with liquid capacity of 40.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and solids capacity of 43.3 MGD. EWPCF is currently treating 24 MGD. The highly treated effluent is either returned to the member agencies for recycling (currently up to 5.0 MGD) or is discharged to the Pacific Ocean through the Encina Ocean Outfall. Solid by-products are pelletized and sold as an alternative fuel or fertilizer. The EWPCF produces about 6,200 tons per year of biosolids pellets. EWA currently utilizes its digester gas (biogas) to produce electricity, in addition to heat, through a cogeneration system. Cogeneration has been used at EWPCF since For EWPCF, this source of electrical power allows EWA to avoid purchasing electricity at peak daily electricity demand and rates. Specifically: The EWPCF currently produces electricity using four (4) Caterpillar Model G3516, water cooled cogeneration engines. Due to air emissions permit restrictions and biogas production, engine run time is limited and thus EWPCF must also purchase electricity from SDG&E. Each of these cogeneration engines can be fueled by biogas produced in the EWPCF anaerobic digesters or by natural gas purchased from a statewide natural gas joint powers authority. At current biogas production rates all biogas is used in the cogeneration engines and a biosolids dryer is fueled by natural gas. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-3

79 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 2 Introduction DRAFT Using various heat exchange technologies, cogeneration engine cooling water is used to heat the EWPCF s anaerobic digesters and cool the main plant switchgear room. Engines that produce energy in the form of both electricity and heat are commonly referred to as cogeneration engines. EWPCF s cogeneration engine and heat exchange array is known as the EWPCF Cogeneration System. 2.4 Proposed Project The demonstration project would use a pyrolysis process known as PyroBioMethane (PBM). The process would use approximately 50 percent of the biosolids pellets currently produced at the EWPCF as raw material. The pellets would be subjected to the pyrolysis process, which would produce two products: bio-char (a charcoal-like product that can be used as a soil amendment) and Pyrolysis gas (volatile matter released from the biosolids during pyrolysis). The Pyrolysis gas is then passed through a direct condenser, where some of the gas is dissolved in a condensable liquid referred to as pyro-oil and the non-condensibles remain as a pyrolysis gas. The bio-char would be hauled off site. The Pyrolysis gas would be injected into one of the existing digesters and would mix with existing biogas that would be sent to the cogeneration engines. The pyro-oil would also be injected into one of the existing digesters, and combining with existing sludge is expected to increase overall biogas production in the existing digester. The biogas would be used to power the existing cogeneration facility. In addition, there would be three small digester pilot units that would be used to study the effectiveness of the pyro-oil at increasing digester gas production. The three digester pilots would be manually filled with sludge drawn from the existing digesters. Two of the digesters would simulate existing operating conditions and would be used as the control digesters, while the third would be feed with different ratios and feed rates of pyro-oil to determine the effectiveness of pyro-oil in increasing bio-gas production. The digester pilots would have a small amount of biogas produced that would pass through a carbon filter before being sent to atmosphere. The digestate would be conveyed to the existing EWPCF digestate dewatering facility. Figure 2-3 shows a flow diagram of the overall PBM process. Figure 2-4 shows a flow diagram for the digester pilots that would be used for the demonstration project. The demonstration project would include installing a biosolids pyrolysis unit within the EWPCF, capable of handling 0.5 ton/hr of dried biosolids feed. The pilot project would also include three 150-gallon digesters, mounted on skids (a platform for holding machinery or equipment). Two digesters would be used as controls while the remaining digester would be used for co-digestion of biosolids and pyro-oil at different ratios and feed rates. The PBM process equipment would be largely contained within two 40- foot shipping containers. One container would house the pyrolizer and the other would house two 1,500- gallon condensate tanks. The demonstration facility would also include a standalone baghouse (an air pollution control device to remove dust). The facilities would be located in the central portion of the EWPCF, between the existing power building and primary clarifier No. 6. A small amount of piping would also be required within the EWPCF site. The pyrolysis unit would be operated 24 hours a day, 5 days a week to match to the plants drying process regiment, and be able to handle about half of the plant s dried biosolids production. Figure 2-5 shows a site plan for the demonstration project. shows site photos of the proposed demonstration project location at the EWPCF. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-4

80 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Figure 2-3: Flow Diagram for PBM Process Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-5

81 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Figure 2-4: Flow Diagram for Digester Pilot Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-6

82 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT Figure 2-5: Site Plan May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-7

Photos Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT Location

Dried Product Loading Station Utility bridge along

83 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Figure 2-6: Site Photos Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT Location of PBM Trailer #1 and #2 Utility bridge to Heat Dried Product Loading Station Utility bridge along Power Building to Digester No.5 May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-8

84 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT Construction Activities and Schedule Because project components would be modular and housed either on skids or in shipping containers, very little construction would be required. Installation is expected to begin in June 2014, and would be complete within about a month. During construction, approximately five workers would be on site. Up to six truck trips per day would be needed to deliver equipment to the site Equipment Installation of the demonstration project would require the following equipment: A crane for unloading and placement of the PBM containers (on site for one day), and A fork lift to position skids Operation and Maintenance The project would start operating in July 2014, and would operate continuously at the EWPCF for a sixmonth period. Operation would require no new EWA employees working at the EWPCF. Outside contractor staff would visit the site two to three times per week. 2.5 Permits Required Because the project would be constructed entirely within the EWPCF, the only permits that are expected to be required would be permits from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). EWA would obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from SDAPCD. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-9

85 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 2 Project Description DRAFT This page intentionally left blank May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 2-10

86 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT 1. Project Title: Pyrolysis Demonstration Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Encina Wastewater Authority 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: James Kearns Capital Projects Manager Project Location: Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA Project Sponsor s Name: Encina Wastewater Authority 6. General Plan Designation: Public Utilities (U) City of Carslbad 7. Zoning: Public Utility Zone (PU) City of Carlsbad 8. Description of Project: The Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) is proposing a demonstration project to evaluate technology that would improve their process for handling biosolids at the EWPCF. Biosolids are produced from the sewage sludge that is separated during the treatment of municipal wastewater and treated to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pollutant and pathogen requirements for land application and surface disposal. The demonstration project would use a technique called pyrolysis to reduce the mass of biosolids requiring disposal and to increase the production of biogas, a byproduct of the solids digestion process that is used to generate energy at the EWPCF. Pyrolysis is the process of decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The EWPCF site is a 24-acre parcel bordered by Interstate 5 (I-5) on the east; EWA-owned land to the south, which includes a vacant parcel and the City of Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility; Avenida Encinas and the Amtrak/North County Transit District railroad tracks to the west, and an industrial/commercial area to the north 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Project implementation would require an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-1

87 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The proposed project could potentially affect ( Potentially Significant Impact or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated ) the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor and present mitigation measures that would reduce all impacts to less than significant. Land Use Air Quality Geology and Soils Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hydrology and Water Quality Population and Housing Recreation Hazards/Hazardous Materials Cultural and Paleo. Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mineral/Energy Resources Transportation and Circulation Public Services Agricultural and Forestry Resources Noise Biological Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental documentation is required. Signature Date Printed Name For May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-2

88 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project 3.1 Aesthetics Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Discussion b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) The primary visual resource in the project area is the Pacific Ocean, which is about ¼ mile west of the EWPCF site. The demonstration project does not include any structures that are taller than existing structures on the site. The project facilities would be located in the central portion of the site and would not change the visual character of the existing EWPCF. The project would not have any effect on a scenic vista. There would be no impact. b) Interstate 5, which borders the eastern portion of the EWPCF site, is not a designated scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2014). There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. There would be no impact. c) The demonstration project would be installed in the central portion of the existing EWPCF site in areas that are already graded and paved. Facilities would be consistent with the existing visual character of the site. The proposed facilities would not be taller than existing infrastructure at the site, and would not be visible from outside the EWPCF site. There would be no impact. d) The project does not include addition of new lighting. Existing on-sight lighting would be sufficient for the needs of the demonstration project. The demonstration project facilities would not add new sources of light or glare. There would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: None required or recommended. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-3

89 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the Project: a) 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? Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion a-e) c) Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resource Code section (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resource Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) 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? The project is located on a previously developed site that is designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built Up Land (California Department of Conservation 2010). There is no farmland or forest land at the project site, thus there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures: None required or recommended. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-4

90 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project 3.3 Air Quality Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Discussion b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The EWPCF is in the San Diego County Air Basin, under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). EWA is applying to the SDAPCD for an Authority to Construct for the demonstration project. All air basins are characterized as to whether the air quality in the basin is in compliance with the National and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Standards for criteria air pollutants are established to ensure protection of human health and public welfare. Table 3-1 shows San Diego County s federal and state designation for each of the criteria pollutants. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-5

91 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Table 3-1: San Diego County Air Basin Attainment Status Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (1-hour) Attainment Nonattainment Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment PM 10 Unclassifiable Nonattainment PM 2.5 Attainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO x ) Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO x ) Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment Hydrogen Sulfate (no federal standard) Unclassified Visibility (no federal standard) Unclassified Source: SDAPCD 2010 a) EWA has previously determined that projects at the EWPCF are subject to the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) (Encina Wastewater Authority 2013). The RAQS contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. The emission inventories and emission projections in the RAQS reflect the impact of all emission sources and all control measures in the air basin. SDAPCD is responsible for reflecting federal, State, and local measures in a single plan to achieve State ozone standards in San Diego County. The emission inventories and emission projections in the RAQS are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans. Because the Project is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan, and pursuant to SDAPCD rules and regulations, it is considered consistent with the RAQS. As such, Project-related emissions, which are discussed in greater detail, below, are accounted for in the RAQS, and implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There would be no impact. b,c) The SDAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds for construction or mobile-source related impacts. Construction activity would be limited because the demonstration project consists primarily of modular facilities that would be brought to the EWPCF for installation. Installation of equipment for the demonstration project would only require use of a crane for unloading and placement of containers and a forklift for moving the small skids on which equipment be housed. There would thus be minimal emission from construction equipment, so this impact would be less than significant. Operation of stationary sources is subject to SDAPCD s new source review rule, which would require an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for facilities that exceed emissions levels specified in Rule 20.2 (SDAPCD 1998). For purposes of this Initial Study, the trigger levels are used to establish significance thresholds for evaluation of emissions of criteria pollutants. Trigger levels and estimated project emissions are shown in Table 3-2, along with the results of the emissions analysis for the project. The pilot-scale PBM process would emit particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) from biosolids and biochar transfer points. These transfer points would be controlled by a baghouse. The three pilot-scale digesters would emit volatile organic compounds May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-6

92 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT (VOC), which would be a small fraction of the digester gas produced in these units. The pilotscale digesters would be controlled by an activated carbon filter. As shown below, operational emissions from the demonstration project are expected to be very small, and would not be expected to violate any air quality standards or result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants. Operational emissions are thus expected to be less than significant. Table 3-2: Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions Criteria Pollutant AQIA Trigger Level (lb/day) 1 Estimated Project Emissions (lb/day) 2 Carbon monoxide (CO) 550 No incremental increase projected Nitrogen oxides (NO x) 250 No incremental increase projected Particulate Matter (PM 10) Sulfur oxides (SO x) 250 <10 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Sources: 1 SDAPCD 1998; 2 Sierra Research Inc (see Appendix A); 3 Threshold for VOCs is based on the threshold of significance for VOCs from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d) For the purposes of CEQA analysis, San Diego County defines sensitive receptors as residences, schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality (San Diego County 2007). There are no schools, hospitals, day care centers or convalescent homes located within 1,000 feet of the EWPCF. The closest sensitive receptors are in a residential area west of the Amtrak/North County Transit District railroad tracks, which is located almost 900 feet from the site of the demonstration project. As noted in item b,c) above, operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be minimal. The project would have to comply with SDAPCD Rule 1200, (Toxic Air Contaminants New Source Review). This Rule identifies standards and procedures for health risk assessments. Cancer risk criteria are based on whether the proposed project elements are considered to be Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT). If T-BACT is applied to an emission unit, the maximum incremental cancer risk at every receptor location cannot exceed 10 in 1 million. If T-BACT is not applied, the maximum cancer risk cannot exceed 1 in 1 million. Additionally, the increase in the total acute and chronic non-cancer health hazard index at every receptor cannot be greater than 1 as result of a new project. The only source of Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with the demonstration project would be exhaust emission from the existing EWPCF cogeneration engines. The demonstration project is not expected to result in substantial changes to the properties of digester gas. However, it is not possible to predict the exact nature of the change in emissions. Because it is not possible to estimate the change in TAC emissions, this impact is considered potentially significant; Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be implemented to reduce this impact to less than significant. e) Activated carbon canisters would be used to remove odors from both the digester gas produced by the demonstration facility and the air vented from the storage tank for the pyrolysis oil. The carbon canisters would control odor emissions from these sources. Odor impacts are thus expected to be less than significant. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-7

93 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT EWA will follow the monitoring requirements that are to be finalized in the SDAPCD permit. It is anticipated that the permit will require baseline testing of emissions from the cogeneration engine(s). The baseline test will look at a targeted group of air toxics to be defined in the finalized permit, and will establish the TAC levels before the start of the demonstration project. Once the demonstration is in operation, emissions testing, following the same protocol as the baseline testing, will be conducted to evaluate whether TAC emissions from the cogeneration engine have increased due to operation of the demonstration facility. If emissions have increased, EWA will prepare a screening-level health risk assessment in a accordance with SDAPCD Rule 1200 to determine if applicable health risk thresholds have been exceeded. If heath risk thresholds have been exceeded, EWA would cease operating the demonstration project until modifications can be made to reduce TAC emissions. All sampling and mitigation measures defined in the final SDAPCD permit will be closely adhered to for the life of the demonstration project. 3.4 Biological Resources Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) 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? d) 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? May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-8

94 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a-f) The demonstration project would take place entirely within the footprint of the existing EWPCF. All construction and operational activities would occur on previously developed, paved land. Biological resources within the site are extremely limited. The EWPCF contains no suitable habitat for sensitive species, no riparian areas or federally protected wetlands, and no wildlife migratory corridors. The demonstration project would not require removal of trees. The EWPCF lies within the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, a subregional plan of the San Diego region (SANDAG 2003). The EWPCF site lies within area categorized as developed, carrying no habitat or conservation value. Sensitive biological species preservation and protection in the project area are guided by the Habitat Management Plan of the City of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 2004), which was developed in cooperation with federal and state wildlife agencies. The EWPCF site is not located within boundaries of the preserve system established through the Habitat Management Plan. The preserve system management unit closest to the project site is the Poinsettia/Aviara management unit, which is separated from the project site by Interstate 5. The demonstration project would thus not result in any impacts on biological resources. Mitigation Measures: None required or recommended. 3.5 Cultural Resources Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-9

95 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Discussion a-d) The demonstration project would be located within the existing EWPCF site, which has been previously developed, graded, and compacted. All facilities would be above-ground, either in trailers or mounted on skids with above-ground piping attached to existing facilities. No grading or excavation would be required for installation of the demonstration project. There is thus no potential for encountering important cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources. There is no evidence of historic or archaeological objects or formations that could indicate presence of cultural resources within the EWPCF site (Encina Wastewater Authority 2013) and therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would occur with project implementation. The EWPCF is not identified as a significant historical or cultural resource and is not included in a local, state, or federal register of historical resources. Within the City of Carlsbad, there are two resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California State Parks 2013), both of which are located greater than two miles away from the project area. As a result, the proposed project would not have any effect on California historical resources. Mitigation Measures: None required or recommended. 3.6 Geology and Soils Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-10

96 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project c) Be located on 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? Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT Discussion d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) 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? a) The demonstration project is located in southern California, a seismically active region. A review of the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map (California Department of Conservation, 2007) found that the proposed project is not located within a USGS quadrangle where Alquist-Priolo fault zones occur, nor is the project area located within landslide and liquefaction zones. There would thus be no impact associated with surface rupture. While no faults have been identified within the project area, faults located outside of the area, such as the Rose Canyon, Elsinore, and San Andreas Faults, may pose significant seismic threat to the project site. Major earthquakes on regional faults could result in ground displacement and intense groundshaking that would be expected to damage vulnerable structures and could result in localized ground failure. b-d) The facilities that would be used for the demonstration project would be modular and selfcontained, installed on skids and in containers. Due to the nature of facilities, the project is not expected to expose people or property to a substantial risk of adverse effects from seismic hazards, including fault rupture and groundshaking. Impacts would be less than significant. Liquefaction is the process in which poorly consolidated, sandy soils take on the properties of a liquid when subjected to strong ground shaking. All proposed work would occur on previously developed and paved land within the existing EWPCF site. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be negligible; impacts would be less than significant. The existing EWPCF site is situated on a relatively flat developed parcel, with no source of a landslide in the immediate proximity. According to landslide maps from the California Department of Conservation (1986) the EWPCF site is located within an area of marginal susceptibility to landslides, where material is considered unlikely to remobilize under natural conditions. No impact associated with landslides would be expected. The demonstration project would occur within the previously developed and paved land of the existing EWPCF site. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As noted above in item a), the potential for liquefaction is considered to be negligible. e) The demonstration project does not include the use of septic systems. There would thus be no impact associated with soils incapable of supporting septic systems. May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-11

97 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pyrolysis Demonstration Project Mitigation Measures: None required or recommended. Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Form DRAFT 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion a-b) The demonstration project supports EWA s ongoing cogeneration program. Biofuel is considered a biogenic renewable fuel and the demonstration project is intended to optimize generation of biogas and increase electricity generation from the existing cogeneration facility. This would reduce the use of natural gas at the EWPCF and would offset purchase of electricity from SDG&E, which is considered an indirect GHG emission. The demonstration project is part of EWA s program to reduce indirect GHG emissions (electricity purchased from SDG&E) as well as non-biogenic GHG emissions (natural gas), while increasing use of biogenic emissions. The demonstration project is thus expected to have a beneficial impact, and is consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measures: None required or recommended. 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) 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? May 2014 Encina Wastewater Authority 3-12

APPENDIX M CEQA Initial Study Checklist

APPENDIX M CEQA Initial Study Checklist Appendix G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be Completed by Applicant) 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4.