D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O

Transcription

1 D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O RIALTO BIOENERGY FAC ILITY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 16, 2017

2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3 D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O RIALTO BIOENERGY FAC ILITY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Rialto Department of Development Services Planning Division 150 South Palm Avenue Rialto, California Contact: Daniel Casey, Associate Planner (909) x 2075 Prepared by: Trinity Consultants, Inc J Street Sacramento, California (916) November 16, 2017 The City of Rialto has independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised its judgment in the analysis contained in this Environmental Impact Report and supporting documentation pursuant to Section of the California Environmental Quality Act.

4 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

5 D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O RIALTO BIOENERGY FAC ILITY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE CEQA LEAD AGENCY OVERVIEW OF THE EIR PROCESS EIR CONTENT AND FORMAT AREA-WIDE, REGIONALLY, OR STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANT PROJECT DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PROPOSED PROJECT ISSUES ADDRESSED AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY TO BE RESOLVED ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION, AND LEVEL OF IMPACTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW PROJECT SUMMARY/PROPOSED ACTION PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS CEQA PROCESS PROPOSED PROJECT OBJECTIVES REQUIRED ACTIONS AND PERMITS PREVIOUS RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES

6 Table of Contents, continued 4.0 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES OVERVIEW EXISTING SETTING EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AIR QUALITY EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS METHODOLOGY THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ADDITIONAL TOPICS REQUIRED BY CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT CEQA SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED CEQA SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ENERGY CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED FURTHER ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS CITY OF RIALTO TRINITY CONSULTANTS, INC ACRONYMS

7 APPENDIX A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION / INITIAL STUDY A.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION / INITIAL STUDY... A.1-1 A.2 COMMENT LETTERS... A.2-1 A.3 TRIBAL CONSULTATION LETTER... A.3-1 APPENDIX B. EMISSION CALCULATIONS B.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS... B.1-1 B.2 BASELINE LANDFILL EMISSIONS... B.2-1 B.3 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS... B.3-1 B.4 STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS... B.4-1 B.5 NOx MODELING METHODS... B.5-1 B.6 HEALTH RISK MODELING METHODS... B.6-1

8 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

9 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared using information from City of Rialto (City) planning and environmental documents, technical studies prepared for the Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project (RBF or Proposed Project), and other publicly available data. Alternatives to the Proposed Project are also discussed and mitigation measures that would offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts from the Proposed Project have been identified. This section of the EIR provides an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, outlines the document s format, summarizes public review of the EIR, describes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), identifies the environmental issues discussed in the EIR, and defines the parameters and data to be used in the analysis of cumulative impacts. 1.1 CEQA LEAD AGENCY The City was incorporated in 1911 and is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project. As such, it is the CEQA Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15367). CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR for any project that may have the potential to significantly affect the environment. 1 Through its review, the City has determined the Proposed Project may have a CEQA significant impact 2 on the environment for an individual impact and, therefore, has required the preparation of this EIR. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to prepare, process, and consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action on a project. The EIR must be prepared directly by or for the CEQA Lead Agency. Trinity Consultants, Inc. (Trinity) has prepared this EIR under the direction of City staff. As permitted under CEQA Guidelines (Section 15084), when prepared by a party other than the Lead Agency, the EIR must be subjected to Lead Agency review and reflect the City s independent judgment. The City has undertaken an independent review of 1 CEQA Guidelines Environment is defined as the physical conditions which exist within the areas that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be that in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The environment includes both natural and man-made conditions. 2 The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment is a critical step in the CEQA process. This determination should be based on information in the record and on scientific and factual data. The CEQA Guidelines (link is external)section 15382, sets forth the following definition for significant effect: Significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 1-1

10 this EIR by having City planning staff work with Trinity on the EIR, and by employing a third-party consultant to independently review the EIR. 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE EIR PROCESS CEQA Guidelines (Section 15002) states the basic purposes of the CEQA are to: Inform government decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities; Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governing agency finds the changes to be feasible; and Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. An EIR is an informational document used to inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the potentially significant environmental effects of a project. The EIR contains a detailed description of the Proposed Project under consideration, establishes the existing environmental conditions of the Proposed Project site and adjacent areas, assesses the environmental effects that would result from the Proposed Project, identifies measures to reduce or eliminate any potentially significant environmental impacts, and evaluates alternatives that may reduce the impacts associated with Proposed Project development. The standard 3 for EIR adequacy requires analysis that presents an adequate, complete, and good faith effort to provide decision-makers with the information to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the Proposed Project under consideration. While not requiring exhaustive evaluation, the EIR must include a reasonably feasible assessment of Proposed Project impacts. Where disagreement amongst experts occurs, the EIR must detail the main points of disagreement. The Draft EIR is distributed to public agencies and made available to the general public for review and comment. Upon completion of the public comment period, the Lead Agency prepares responses to comments received and, as appropriate, revises the EIR to accommodate minor corrections or modifications to the Draft EIR. The revised document, the Final EIR, must be certified by the CEQA Lead Agency prior to or in conjunction with the decision to approve the Proposed Project. 3 CEQA Guidelines Introduction and Purpose Section 1.0

11 The City and responsible agencies 4 with the authority or responsibility to issue permits or funding related to the Proposed Project will consider the information contained in this EIR in their evaluation of the Proposed Project. The information presented in the EIR does not serve to control the decision(s) related to the Proposed Project; rather, it is provided to foster informed decision-making and appropriate public participation. 1.3 EIR CONTENT AND FORMAT To assist the reader s review of the document, the EIR is organized as follows: Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose outlines the EIR document s format including technical appendices; describes the purpose of the EIR including the legal purpose of CEQA, the intended use of EIR, and the EIR s incorporated documents and referenced technical reports; summarizes the public review of the EIR to date; identifies environmental issues that are discussed; and defines the cumulative analysis provided in the EIR. Section 2.0 Executive Summary provides a summary of the Proposed Project; identifies potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures, and the level of significance of each impact following mitigation; and Proposed Project alternatives. Section 3.0 Project Description details the geographical setting, Proposed Project location, Proposed Project setting, applicable land use and zoning designations, Proposed Project characteristics, Proposed Project objectives, and discretionary actions required to implement the Proposed Project. Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Evaluation provides the detailed analysis of each environmental issue. Based on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for this EIR, there will be one technical chapter, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG). Section 4.0 presents the detailed evaluation of the air quality and GHG environmental topic contained in this EIR. Evaluation of each issue follows the following format: Summary. Provides an introduction to the issue to be discussed, summarizing the content of the analysis to follow. This section will 4 CEQA Guidelines Responsible Agency means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration and includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project. Examples include the Regional Water Quality Control Board(s), South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the U.S. Department of Energy. Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 1-3

12 Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project identify the specific reference material utilized in the environmental analysis. Existing Setting. Identifies the existing local and regional environmental conditions (natural and built) in existence at the time the EIR was prepared. Existing setting information provides the reader with the existing conditions or baseline from which future impacts are analyzed, and provides a standard against which to measure these impacts. Existing Policies and Regulations. Details the local, State, and Federal regulations, ordinances, and policies applicable to the issue area under discussion. Methodology. A brief summary of the methods and resources utilized in the preparation of the environmental analysis. Thresholds of Significance. Provides the CEQA criteria against which the relative significance of impacts resulting from Proposed Project implementation are determined. Impacts and Mitigation. This discussion focuses on the potential short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project. For these issues where no impact or a less than significant impact would occur, either no mitigation would be required or adherence to established regulations, standards, and policies would sufficiently mitigate Proposed Project impacts. For impacts determined to be significant, the measure(s) to reduce or eliminate the impact, as well as the level of impact upon implementation of any such measure(s), will be identified. Impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level will be identified as significant. Cumulative Impacts. This discussion focuses on the potential environmental effect of the Proposed Project combined with the effects of reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects within the Proposed Project study area. Section 5.0 Other CEQA Topics contains discussions of additional topics required by CEQA, including effects found to be significant and unavoidable, irreversible environmental changes caused by the Proposed Project, and a discussion of Proposed Project energy usage. Section 6.0 Alternatives contains discussion of alternatives to development of the Proposed Project. As allowed by CEQA, the impacts of these alternatives are evaluated at a more general level than the analyses of the Proposed Project that is contained in Section 4.0. This section also evaluates the proposed effects of the No Project No Build Alternative and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. 1-4 Introduction and Purpose Section 1.0

13 Section 7.0 This section identifies the references used in the preparation of the EIR, the persons contacted, and the other source material. Section 8.0 This section identifies City and Consultant staff who participated in the preparation and review of the EIR. Section 9.0 This section defines the acronyms and abbreviations used in the document, and definitions of terms used, including those specific to the Proposed Project. Appendices The Appendices contain the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS), NOP/IS mailing list, and NOP/IS comment letters; the various technical studies that support the EIR analysis; referenced materials; and other relevant material utilized during the preparation of the EIR. 1.4 AREA-WIDE, REGIONALLY, OR STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANT PROJECT CEQA Guidelines Section establishes the criteria for identifying projects of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. Projects that include the adoption or amendment of a local General Plan or General Plan element, exceed the numerical thresholds defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, or cause significant impacts (e.g., significant amounts of traffic or exceedance of State or Federal air quality standards) beyond the boundary of the jurisdiction in which the project is located are representative conditions that would be considered of area-wide, regional, or statewide significance. The EIR for such projects must be sent to the State Clearinghouse and the appropriate metropolitan area council of governments for review and comment. The Proposed Project does not include amendments to the City s General Plan and does not cause significant impacts beyond the boundary of the jurisdiction in which the Proposed Project is located. The Proposed Project is a regionally significant project because of the extent of regional waste currently being transported to regional landfills proposed for diversion to the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the EIR is required to be transmitted to the State Clearinghouse and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. A Public Scoping Meeting is not required for the Proposed Project. 1.5 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE CEQA Guidelines (Section 15150) permits the incorporation by reference of portions or all of other documents that provide information relevant to the Proposed Project and the environmental analysis. Documents incorporated by reference must be available for public review at an office of the Lead Agency or other public building. The documents identified below are incorporated by reference, and where relevant, the information therein has been summarized throughout the EIR. Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 1-5

14 There are two previous environmental analyses for the Proposed Project site and area: 1) EnerTech s 2004 EIR for the Construction and Operation of a Regional Biosolids Processing Facility SCH No (City of Rialto 2004 et. al.) including 2006, 2007, and 2008 addenda (ET Project EIR), which provides sitespecific environmental analysis; and 2) the Caprock Distribution Center III EIR SCH No (City of Rialto 2016) (Caprock EIR), which provides recent relevant cumulative analysis in the Proposed Project area. The EIR for the Caprock project is a comprehensive document. Due to various references to the Caprock EIR in this current RBF Project EIR, and its importance relative to understanding the environmental analysis that has occurred to date with respect to development in the Proposed Project area, this previous EIR, and amendments, are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section The EIR for the ET Project is a comprehensive document. Due to various references to this Project site in this current RBF Project EIR, and its importance relative to understanding the environmental analysis that has occurred to date with respect to development of this specific property, this previous EIR, and amendments, are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section The Caprock EIR and the ET Project EIR, as amended, can be reviewed at the City of Rialto s office: City of Rialto 150 S. Palm Avenue Rialto, California Contact: Mr. Daniel Casey, Associate Planner (909) PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS Notice of Preparation An Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the Project. The NOP/IS was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies and organizations that may provide comment on the Proposed Project and the potential environmental impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed on-site uses. The NOP/IS was released by the State Clearinghouse for the opening of the NOP/IS review period on September 8, 2017, for a 30-day review period ending on October 9, Comments received during the public review of the NOP/IS have been 1-6 Introduction and Purpose Section 1.0

15 previously detailed in Table 2.A and were used to identify potential impacts addressed in Section 4.0 of this EIR Tribal Consultation As the Proposed Project does not include a General Plan Amendment (GPA), consultation with Native American Tribal Government(s) pursuant to applicable provisions of Local and Inter-Governmental Consultation (SB 18) is not required. The Proposed Project is required to comply with the provision of (Assembly Bill) AB 52 regarding consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources. On August 28, 2017, the City sent letters to six California tribes requesting they provide information regarding the Proposed Project s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. The following California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have been notified of the project: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleño Kizh Nation, Gabrieleño Tongva Nation, Gabrieleño Tongva San Gabriel Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section As of the date of this EIR, one tribe requested consultation. Staff held a conference call with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation representative Mr. Andrew Salas on September 27, Mr. Salas gave staff a brief background on the tribe s history in the region and stated that they are concerned about the potential for artifacts at the project site. Ultimately, the tribe requested a condition of approval allowing them the ability to place a monitor on site during all ground disturbance activities. The City agreed to incorporation of the condition of approval This EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092(b)(3), the EIR has been provided to all parties who have previously requested copies. The Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) of the EIR have been distributed as required by CEQA. During the 45-day public review period, the EIR and technical appendices have been made available for review. The EIR will be available for review on the City s website during the public review period: Written comments related to this EIR should be addressed to: Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 1-7

16 Daniel Casey Associate Planner, City of Rialto 150 South Palm Avenue Rialto, California Phone: (909) x dcasey@rialtoca.gov Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all comments on the Draft EIR raised will be prepared. These responses will be available for review for a minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearings before the City s Planning Commission and City Council, at which time the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. The City will respond as appropriate to comments made at public hearings on the Proposed Project and this EIR. The Final EIR (which will include the Draft EIR, the public comments and responses to the Draft EIR, and findings) will be included as part of the environmental record used during the consideration of the Proposed Project by the City decision-makers. 1.7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM An MMRP will be prepared for this EIR to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section ). When mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce the severity of significant impacts, State law requires the adoption of an MMRP. The monitoring program is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the program. An MMRP will be adopted by the City Council concurrent with certification of the Final EIR for the Proposed Project. 1.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA defines cumulative effects as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). The Guidelines further state that the individual effects can be the various changes related to a single project or the changes involved in a number of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (Section 15335). Section of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of a proposed project. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period of time. The Proposed Project has the potential to result in cumulatively significant air quality impacts (including criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and 1-8 Introduction and Purpose Section 1.0

17 GHGs). Potential adverse air quality and GHG emission impacts could also adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly. Potential adverse effects on humans will be included in the air quality and GHG analyses. With respect to the analysis of cumulative impacts, CEQA generally requires the following: (a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130, the assessment of cumulative impacts contained in EIRs is typically based on either: (i) past, present, and probable future projects, which are either approved or being considered for approval by the City or other municipalities (or anticipated to be submitted for consideration, including projects in the design phase or under construction); or (ii) growth projections set forth in regional plans, including regional modeling plans. As previously discussed in Section 1.5 above, the Caprock Final EIR, including its cumulative impact analysis, has been incorporated by reference. It includes sufficient evaluation of past, present and probable future projects that could contribute to cumulative environmental impacts in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. It is expected that the cumulative impact analysis set forth in the Caprock Final EIR will be conservative and would tend to overstate (rather than understate) cumulative impacts. The significance of a cumulative impact may be greater than the effects resulting from the individual actions if the effects of more than one action are additive. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this EIR will reduce the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project to the extent feasible. In many cases, the mitigation measures result in reducing the Proposed Project s cumulative impact to a less than significant level. The analyses indicate to what degree the Proposed Project makes a significant contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts for each environmental issue (in this EIR, air quality and GHG). Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 1-9

18 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by Trinity Consultants, Inc. (Trinity) on behalf of the City of Rialto (City) to identify and evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Rialto Bioenergy Facility, LLC (RBF) project (Proposed Project). This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act 1 (CEQA Guidelines), both of which regulate the preparation of EIRs. According to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123), this section of the EIR serves to summarize the Proposed Project; the environmental impacts and mitigation required to reduce or eliminate those impacts determined to be significant; areas of controversy known by the City, including those raised by other agencies and the public; the issues to be resolved; and alternatives to the Proposed Project that could reduce the extent and/or severity of the Proposed Project s environmental impacts. While this Executive Summary provides an overview of these issues, more detail is provided in subsequent sections of this EIR as follows: Project Description (Section 3.0) Environmental Impact Evaluation (Section 4.0) Other CEQA Topics (Section 5.0) Project Alternatives (Section 6.0) 2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT The Proposed Project consists of modifying an existing 5.7 acre biosolids plant a non-operating facility previously owned and operated by EnerTech. Once complete, the RBF will produce megawatts (MW) in equivalent electricity of renewable energy from up to 1,080 tons per day of a combination of food waste, liquid waste, and municipal biosolids. Renewable energy will be produced in the form of electricity (3.0 MW) used for sale to Southern California Edison (SCE) through the BioMAT program and biogas upgraded for delivery to the Southern California Gas Company (8.2 MW of equivalent power) for use in offsite power generation and vehicle fuels. The Proposed Project will use up to 2.15 MW of equivalent power on-site for its operations. The Proposed Project may also capture adjacent City of Rialto wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) biogas and upgrade it for delivery to Southern California Gas Company. This Proposed Project site is located at 503 East Santa Ana Avenue, east 1 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Chapter 3: Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, , January 1, Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-1

19 of South Riverside Avenue in the City of Rialto in San Bernardino County. The regional location and Proposed Project vicinity can be seen in Figure 2.1 below. Figure 2.1: Regional Location and Proposed Project Vicinity 2-2 Executive Summary Section 2.0

20 The entire Proposed Project site is within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan, which zones the Proposed Project site as Heavy Industrial. Because the Proposed Project is consistent with the City s General Plan and zoning, the Proposed Project does not require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or Zone Change (ZC). The following Proposed Project objectives have been identified: Revitalize the existing, non-operational previous EnerTech Bioenergy Facility. Provide organics recycling as part of AB 1826 compliance to meet the objective for recycling organics from local municipal solid waste into renewable natural gas and electricity. Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by over 433,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) over the next 10 years regionally through diverting 1,080 tons per day of food waste and municipal biosolids from landfill disposal and converting it into MW or equivalent electrical power from recycling organics waste streams. Create additional income stream for the City of Rialto (lease and tip fees) and employment opportunities for the citizens of Rialto and surrounding communities. Implement the City s General Plan General Industrial Land Use policies and objectives. Implement the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan by developing a land use envisioned and previously authorized by the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. A detailed description of the Proposed Project is included in Section 3.0 (Project Description) of this EIR. 2.3 ISSUES ADDRESSED AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY TO BE RESOLVED In the Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study (IS), the City assessed the environmental impact areas listed below. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-3

21 There are two previous environmental analyses for the Proposed Project: 1) EnerTech s 2004 EIR for the Construction and Operation of a Regional Biosolids Processing Facility SCH No (City of Rialto 2004 et al.), including 2006, 2007, and 2008 addendums (ET Project EIR), which provides site-specific analysis; and 2) the Caprock Distribution Center III EIR SCH No (City of Rialto 2016) (Caprock EIR), which provides relevant cumulative analysis in the Proposed Project area. The City provided an analysis of the ET Project EIR and the Caprock EIR in the NOP/IS for the Proposed Project dated August 24, Based on the analysis presented in the NOP/IS, the City has determined that the only environmental impact area that may be potentially significant is Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR for any project that has the potential to significantly affect the environment. As such, the City has prepared this EIR to assess the potential impacts on Air Quality and GHG Emissions resulting from the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project, including cumulative impacts. The Proposed Project s impact, the severity of any impact, and the mitigation required to reduce or eliminate the impacts relative to Air Quality and GHG Emissions are addressed in Section 4.0 and are summarized in Table 2-2. Issues of concern and/or controversy related to the Proposed Project were further identified by the City through responses to the NOP/IS Environmental Resources Evaluated and Dismissed from Detailed Analysis The following is a list of environmental resources evaluated in the NOP/IS and dismissed from detailed analysis in the EIR: Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems 2-4 Executive Summary Section 2.0

22 2.3.2 Notice of Preparation The objective of issuing an NOP is to solicit public comment, ensuring the full and appropriate examination of issues of concern in the EIR. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as to the agencies, organizations, and persons considered likely to be interested in the Proposed Project and its potential impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP have been used to identify potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project. The NOP was distributed on August 24, 2017, for a 46-day review period ending on October 9, The NOP, NOP distribution list, and response letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Table 2-1 provides a general summary of NOP comments received by the City. As appropriate, Table 2-1 identifies in which section of the EIR each specific NOP comment has been addressed. Table 2.1: Notice of Preparation Comments Agency/ Organization/ Individual South Coast Air Quality Management District San Bernardino County Public Health, Environmental Health Services Date Summary of Comments 9/27/2107 Scope of air quality and greenhouse gas impact assessments 9/27/2017 Request to coordinate with them (as the Local Enforcement Agency) on their permitting requirements. Response to Comments or Location of Where Addressed in the EIR Section 4, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases No additional action required in EIR. Inland Empire Biking Alliance San Bernardino County Department of Public Works 10/10/2017 Preserve bicycle access. 10/10/2017 Coordination during construction and operations; Request for additional off-site biological surveys for Dehli Sands Flower. Given no long-term changes in roadway operations are proposed, no additional action is required in the EIR. The RBF is currently developed; no off-site biological resource impacts anticipated. The change in on-site runoff from the Proposed Project area anticipated to be no different from existing conditions because the RBF site is already developed and paved. If any encroachment within the Rialto Channel is to occur during the Proposed Project construction, the Proposed Project applicant will obtain the necessary encroachment permit. No additional action required in EIR. Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-5

23 2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project, or to the location of the Proposed Project, which would feasibly attain most of the Proposed Project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen its significant effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section ). The EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative; rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that foster informed decision making and public participation. The City, as Lead Agency, is responsible for selecting the range of Proposed Project alternatives and must disclose their reasoning for disclosing those alternatives. The City has identified the following alternative to the Proposed Project: No Project No Build. Section 6.0 (Alternatives) of this EIR provides a detailed description of the Proposed Project alternative, analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the alternative, and provides justification for the selection of the environmentally superior alternative Alternative 1: No Project No Build This alternative assumes that no new development would occur on the Proposed Project site. This alternative provides a baseline of existing conditions for comparison to the Proposed Project. No ground-disturbing activities would take place, nor would any additional industrial structures or facilities be erected. Under this alternative, the impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project would not occur. 2.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION, AND LEVEL OF IMPACTS Table 2-2 provides a summary of the Proposed Project impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of each impact following the application of identified mitigation measures. Impacts other than those associated with Air Quality and GHG Emissions are addressed in detail in the NOP/IS. As such, the section numbers referenced in Table 2-2 for impacts associated with areas other than Air Quality and GHG Emissions refer to the section number of the NOP/IS. Impact areas not specifically addressed in Table 2-2 were addressed in the NOP/IS and were determined to have less than significant impact before mitigation. Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-6

24 Table 2.2: Rialto Bioenergy Facility Proposed Project Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Summary Significance Before Issues/Impacts Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures 4.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Quality Management Plan Consistency: The Proposed Project is an industrial development that is consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations. Emissions due to new industrial development within this area of the City were anticipated by the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the goals of the adopted AQMP. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required Operational Localized Emissions: The air quality emission modeling shown in Table 4.7.A of Section demonstrates that the Proposed Project s operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable NAAQS and CAAQS for NOx Health Risk Assessment: Even with the conservative modeling technique used (assuming that an adult or child stays outdoors at his or her residence 24 hours per day for 30 years, which is the state-required period of time that all HRAs must assess), no sensitive receptor would be exposed to an unmitigated inhalation cancer risk greater than 1.45 in 1 million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in a million. The 25 year worker cancer risk (with a worker adjustment factor of 4.2) is 2.69 in a million. The greatest Chronic Hazard Index at a commercial or residential receptor would be 0.11 at the neighboring facility, which is less than the threshold of 1.0. The greatest Acute Hazard Index would be 0.53 at the neighboring facility, which is less than the threshold of 1.0. The 70 year Residential Cancer Burden for all population within an 8 kilometer radius of the facility is 0.11, which is less than the threshold of 0.5. Based on conservative assumptions, these risk levels are much higher than are actually expected to occur. As these results show, all health risk levels to nearby residents are well below SCAQMD s HRA thresholds. Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant No mitigation required. No mitigation required. No mitigation required. Significance After Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-7

25 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Long-Term CO Hotspot Impacts: Historical air quality data show that existing CO levels for the Proposed Project area and the general vicinity do not exceed either state or federal ambient air quality standards. The CO concentrations in the Proposed Project area are much lower than the federal and state CO standards. The Proposed Project would not result in any significant increase in CO concentrations at intersections in the Proposed Project vicinity; furthermore, the Proposed Project would generate fewer truck and employee trips than assessed in the previous EnerTech Project EIR, incorporated by reference. Therefore, Proposed Project related traffic would not significantly affect local CO levels under future year conditions, and the CO concentrations would be below the state and federal standards. No significant impact related to local CO levels would occur, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Odors: Substantial odor-generating sources at the site may include transportation of food waste and sludge to the site, digestion and flaring of biogas, and combustion of biogas. The facility will be installing a foul air capture system which will capture, combust, or apply an emissions control system to the foul air prior to discharge into the atmosphere. This includes an ammonia scrubber on the on-site wastewater treatment system. This air treatment will prevent the foul air from escaping into the atmosphere and causing an odors injury or nuisance to nearby facilities and sensitive receptors during Proposed Project operations. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air from any source that causes injury, nuisance, or annoyance to the health, safety, or comfort of the public. Since construction odors would not be discernable beyond the Proposed Project boundary, the Proposed Project includes foul air treatment systems, and the nearest sensitive receptor is one mile from the facility, potential odors impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-8

26 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Construction-Related Regional Emissions: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project will result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The Proposed Project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules, such as Rules 402 and 403, to control nuisance emissions and fugitive dust. The Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD s short-term construction emissions thresholds; no significant impact related to short-term construction emissions would occur and therefore no mitigation measures would be required. Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Construction-related Localized Emissions: The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the Federal and/or State AAQS. For the Proposed Project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST analysis is the Central San Bernardino Valley area (SRA 34). For construction and operational emissions, the localized significance for a project greater than 5 acres can be determined by performing the screening-level analysis using the 5-acre LSTs before using the dispersion modeling because the screening-level analysis is more conservative, and if no exceedance of the screening-level thresholds is identified, then the chance of local concentration exceeding national or state AAQS is small. Since the total gross area for the Proposed Project site is larger than 5 acres, the LST screening thresholds for 5 acres are used in this analysis for construction emissions. It is assumed that a maximum of 5 acres would be disturbed on a daily basis. As detailed in Table 4.7.F, localized emissions would all be well below SCAQMD thresholds of significant. Construction LST impacts are therefore less than significant. Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Greenhouse Gas Plan, Policy, Regulation Consistency: The CAT and CARB have developed several reports to achieve the Governor s GHG targets and rely on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-9

27 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation and community groups, and State incentive and regulatory programs. The reports identify strategies to reduce California s emissions to the levels proposed in EO S-3-05 and AB 32 that are applicable to the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will comply with existing State and federal regulations regarding the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, and lighting, which will reduce the Proposed Project s electricity demand compared to older buildings. Given the Proposed Project is an industrial renewable energy facility, this is mostly not applicable. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with specific policies contained in the CARB Scoping Plan and its first update (CARB, 2008; CARB 2014b). The strategies included in the Scoping Plan that apply to the Proposed Project are contained in Table 4.7.G, which summarizes the extent to which the Proposed Project would comply with the strategies to help California reach the emission reduction targets, as applicable Greenhouse Gas Emissions: GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Project would consist predominantly of CO2. In comparison to criteria air pollutants such as O3 and PM10, CO2 emissions persist in the atmosphere for a substantially longer period of time. While emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4 and C02 and are important with respect to GHG levels, emission levels of other GHGs are less dependent on the land use and circulation patterns associated with the proposed land use development project than are levels of CO2. The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.J show the total emissions associated with the full build out of the Proposed Project with no mitigation. Because climate change impacts are cumulative in nature, no typical single project can result in emissions of such a magnitude that it, in and of itself, would be substantial on an individual basis. However, the SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds to determine whether an individual project would result in cumulatively considerable amounts of GHG emissions. This threshold is Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-10

28 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation 10,000 MT/yr of CO2e for industrial projects. Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD s GHG emissions threshold of 10,000 MT/yr of CO2e, and therefore would not result in significant GHG impacts, and no mitigation measures are required Operational Regional Emissions: As detailed in Table 4.8.A, nearly all operational emissions of the Proposed Project would be below SCAQMD daily thresholds. Emissions of NOx, however, would exceed the 55 lb/day operational threshold due to stationary source emissions. NOx emissions from operations would be mainly associated with combustion sources from RBF operations. The Proposed Project would result in a significant operations impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8.A, NOx emissions would be reduced but would remain above the 55 lb/day threshold of significance. Consequently, a significant air quality impact would still occur. Potentially Significant The applicant shall enter into a Title V permit with the SCAQMD and further reduce NOx emissions as part of the air permit application process, including participating in emissions reduction programs such as purchasing emission reduction credits, removing equipment, and/or accepting permit conditions to limit operations. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions: The Proposed Project s long-term operational emissions would potentially exceed SCAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds for NOx. As the regional threshold for NOx is exceeded, the Proposed Project s emissions are considered cumulatively significant. Although there is feasible mitigation for this impact (Mitigation Measure 4.8.A), it does not reduce the Proposed Project s NOx emissions impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, the Proposed Project s cumulative contribution is considered significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Potentially Significant The applicant shall enter into a Title V permit with the SCAQMD and further reduce NOx emissions as part of the air permit application process, including participating in emissions reduction programs such as purchasing emission reduction credits, removing equipment, and/or accepting permit conditions to limit operations. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative GHG Emissions: The Proposed Project s long-term operational GHG emissions would result in less than significant impacts. The Proposed Project is a renewable energy facility and is diverting an existing waste stream from landfill disposal; the facility is thus reducing overall GHG emissions from the regional air basin. With removal of those existing landfill emissions, the Proposed Project s GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD s threshold of significance Less than Significant No mitigation required. Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-11

29 Issues/Impacts for an industrial project. Therefore, although the cumulative projects would potentially result in significant long-term cumulative impacts, the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable with respect to GHG emissions. Cumulative impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project associated with GHG emissions would be cumulatively less than significant. 2.6.IV Biological Resources 2.6.IV(a) Adverse Impact on Sensitive Species 2.6.V Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources 2.6.V(a) Adverse Change to Historical Resource 2.6.V(b) Adverse Change to Archaeological Resource 2.6.V(c) Destroy Paleontological or Geological Resource 2.6.V(d) Disturb Human Remains 2.6.V(e) Adverse Change to Tribal Cultural Resource Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Identified in the NOP/IS Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Summary of Mitigation Measures BIO-1: All trenches must be inspected twice daily to ensure no wildlife become entrapped. Trenches shall be covered at night. All pipes must be inspected prior to closure to ensure no wildlife are present. If wildlife became entrapped in a trench, escape ramps shall be provided at each end for them to exit the trench. If a potential den or wildlife is observed at any time during construction, a qualified biologist must be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action. CR-1: The grading permit must contain a clause that, in the event that subsurface archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities in the project area, these activities must be suspended in the vicinity of the find until the deposits are recorded and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If human remains of any kind are found during construction activities, all work must cease immediately and the San Bernardino County Coroner must be notified. If the coroner determines the Significance After Mitigation Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-12

30 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation remains to be of Native American origin, he or she will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); the NAHC will then identify the most likely descendants to be consulted regarding treatment and/or repatriation of the remains. CR-2: Monitoring of ground-disturbing construction activities below depths of 5 feet by a qualified paleontologist is required to avoid inadvertent impacts to buried paleontological deposits. At the beginning of the project, monitoring should take place periodically (e.g., one or two days per week). If paleontological specimens are observed, a decision can be made to continue the schedule of periodic monitoring or to increase the frequency. If paleontological specimens are encountered during ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or redirect work until the find(s) can be identified, removed, documented, and evaluated. Recovered specimens must be curated in a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage (e.g., San Bernardino County Museum). A report must be prepared with an appended itemized inventory or specimens, if any are recovered. Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-13

31 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation 2.6.VI Geology and Soils 2.6.VI(a) Expose People or Structures to Seismic Risk 2.6.VI(b) Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss 2.6.VI(c) Unstable Soils 2.6.VI(d) Expansive Soil Creating Risk Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant G-1: Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the soils on the site are stable for construction of the Regional Biosolids Processing Facility or that the grading plan or facility engineering has been designed to account for any site-specific soils issues related to the landfill. Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant 2.6.VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2.6.VII(a) Routine Hazardous Materials 2.6.VII(b) Release of Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Potentially Significant HAZ-1. RBF will prepare and implement a CalARP compliant Risk Management Plan for sulfuric acid. CalARP is authorized under Health and Safety Code Sections to , with program regulations in CCR Title 19, Section through The intent of the Risk Management Plan is to provide basic information that may be used by first responders to prevent or mitigate damage to public health and safety and the environment from the release or threatened release of a hazardous material. A Risk Management Plan is prepared by the owner containing detailed information, including, but not limited to, the following: 1) regulated substances held on-site at the stationary source; 2) off-site consequences of an accidental release of a regulated substance; 3) the accident history of a stationary source; 4) the emergency response program for the stationary source; 5) coordination with local emergency responders; 6) hazard review or process hazard analysis; 7) operating Less than Significant Less than Significant Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-14

32 Issues/Impacts Significance Before Mitigation Summary of Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation procedures at the stationary source; 8) training of the stationary source s personnel; and 9) maintenance and mechanical integrity of the stationary source s physical plant; and incident investigation. 2.6.VIII Hydrology and Water Quality 2.6.VIII(a) Water Quality and Waste Discharge 2.6.VIII(b) Groundwater 2.6.VIII(c) Drainage Patterns Affecting Erosion 2.6.VIII(d) Drainage Patterns Affecting Surface Runoff 2.6.VIII(e) Exceed Stormwater Capacities 2.6.VIII(f) Degrade Water Quality Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Potentially Significant W-2: Prior to issuance of City permits, the project applicant shall apply to be enrolled in the existing NPDES Statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit) as required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Biosolids Facility will be subject to annual storm water reporting requirements to SWRCB in addition to the preparation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan. Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant W-4: Prior to issuance of City permits, the project applicant will need to complete and file Form 200 (Form Report of Waste Discharge) as required by the Santa Ana RWQCB to document/disclose the disposal of the water that was dewatered from the sludge. Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2-15

33 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 OVERVIEW Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project The information in this section is provided pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Section 15124), and the City of Rialto s Planning Division s requirements and guidelines. These regulations and guidelines govern the identification of the project s location, features, and objectives at a level of detail sufficient to evaluate its environmental impacts. 3.2 PROJECT SUMMARY Rialto Bioenergy Facility, LLC, (RBF) will produce megawatts (MW) in equivalent electricity of renewable energy from up to 1,080 tons per day of a combination of food waste, liquid waste, and municipal biosolids. Renewable energy will be produced in the form of electricity (3.0 MW) used for sale to Southern California Edison (SCE) through the BioMAT Power Purchase Agreement and biogas upgraded for delivery to the Southern California Gas Company (8.2 MW of equivalent power) for use in offsite power generation and vehicle fuels. The Proposed RBF Project (Proposed Project) will use up to 2.15 MW of equivalent power on-site for its operations. The Proposed Project will also capture adjacent City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) biogas and upgrade it for delivery to Southern California Gas Company. The Proposed RBF Project will be converting organic waste streams by 2019 and assist large-quantity commercial food waste generators with meeting the AB 1826 s new mandatory commercial organic waste recycling program requirements. 3.3 PROJECT LOCATION The Proposed Project consists of modifying an existing 5.7 acre biosolids plant a non-operating facility previously owned and operated by EnerTech. This facility is located at 503 East Santa Ana Avenue, east of South Riverside Avenue in the City of Rialto (City) in San Bernardino County. The Proposed Project site is located in Section 25 of Township 1 South and Range 5 West, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series San Bernardino South, California quadrangle (latitude north and longitude west). Figure 3.1 shows the regional location and Proposed Project vicinity. Figure 3.2 illustrates the site plan for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project site consists of one parcel of land with the following San Bernardino Assessor s Parcel Number (APN): The topography of the Proposed Project site is generally flat with a gentle slope moving from the northwest corner to the southern boundary. The elevations on site are approximately 940 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-1

34 Figure 3.1: Regional Location and Proposed Project Vicinity Source: Google Maps, Project Description Chapter 3.0

35 Figure 3.2: Proposed Site Plan Source: Rialto Bioenergy Facility, Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-3

36 3.4 EXISTING LAND USE AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The following section summarizes existing and adjacent land uses on site and in the Proposed Project area and identifies the existing General Plan and zoning designations in the Proposed Project area Existing Land Uses On site The Proposed Project site was previously developed as a regional biosolids processing facility for wastewater treatment facilities solids in the greater Los Angeles area. The existing non-operational biosolids plant is in a heavy industrial zone on a parcel owned by the City of Rialto. There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity. Existing on-site equipment, including biosolids drying components and wastewater processing components, will be incorporated into the Proposed Project. As depicted in the aerial view of the area shown in Figure 3.3, the site was previously developed land that has been graded, paved, and has little vegetation, except for minimal landscaping Adjacent The Proposed Project site is generally surrounded by industrial uses and vacant land. Large, vacant, undeveloped lots are located north, east, and south of the Proposed Project site. Immediately west of the facility is the City of Rialto WWTP; an asphalt, aggregate and concrete producer; and a recycled parts yard. Immediately east of the site is a tributary to the Santa Ana River (the Rialto Channel). Northwest of the site is a pallets and skids operator, another aggregate materials producer, and a fuel depot storage field. A large railroad yard and the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) are located beyond the general industrial land uses to the north of the site. South of the site are more industrial land uses, a landfill and vacant undeveloped land adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Surrounding land uses are within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan and designated for Heavy Industrial Uses. The General Plan land use designation for the surrounding area is General Industrial. The existing on-site and adjacent land uses are summarized in Table 3.1 and depicted in Figure 3.3. Views from the site boundary looking north, east, south and west are presented in Figures 3.4 through Project Description Chapter 3.0

37 Table 3.1: Existing On-site and Adjacent Land Uses and Land Use Designations Location Current Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation On site Industrial uses General Industrial North Santa Ana Avenue, Undeveloped and Industrial uses General Industrial South Landfill General Industrial East Undeveloped General Industrial West Undeveloped and Industrial uses General Industrial Sources: City of Rialto General Land Use Map; City of Rialto Zoning Map. Zoning Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan Heavy Industrial Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan Heavy Industrial Agua Industrial Corridor Specific Plan Heavy Industrial Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan Heavy Industrial Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan Heavy Industrial Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-5

38 Figure 3.3: Existing Aerial View of Proposed Project Area Source: Google Earth, Project Description Chapter 3.0

39 Figure 3.4: Existing View Looking North from Proposed Project Area Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-7

40 Figure 3.5: Existing View Looking East from Proposed Project Area 3-8 Project Description Chapter 3.0

41 Figure 3.6: Existing View Looking South from Proposed Project Area Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-9

42 Figure 3.7: Existing View Looking West from Proposed Project Area 3-10 Project Description Chapter 3.0

43 3.4.2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project The City s General Plan is a long-range planning document for future growth and development. The General Plan identifies the City s goals with respect to both built and natural environments, and establishes the policies and implementation measures to achieve the stated goals. The General Plan land use for the Proposed Project area is designated as General Industrial (GI). This allows for a broad range of heavy industrial activities requiring large areas of land with convenient access for trucks and rail. Permitted uses include manufacturing and processing, warehousing and distribution, chemical or petroleum products processing and refining, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses. GI uses have a maximum intensity of 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Existing Zoning Designations The City s Zoning Ordinance (Rialto Municipal Code, Title 18) regulates the type, scale, and intensity of physical development and use that may occur in specific zoning districts. The entire Proposed Project site is within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. According to the Land Use Plan for the Specific Plan, the Proposed Project site is designated as Heavy Industrial. Areas designated as Heavy Industrial are intended to be used for manufacturing, resource extraction, freight, compounding of material, packaging, treatment, processing, or assembly of goods. Surrounding uses are all within the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan; are designated as Heavy Industrial; and consist of resource extraction, storage and transport, industrial manufacturing, industrial/commercial freight, and warehouse storage and distribution services. 3.5 PROPOSED PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Overall Facility Operations RBF will produce MW electrical equivalent of renewable energy from up to 1,080 tons per day of a combination of food waste extracted from municipal waste streams, liquid waste, and municipal biosolids and biogas captured from the adjacent WWTP. When fully operational, the Proposed Project will convert up to 700 tons per day (TPD) of food waste extruded from local municipal solid waste (MSW) into 5.15 MW of electrical power from biogas. Three MW of this power would be sold to SCE via the BioMAT Power Purchase Agreement, with the balance used in powering the RBF onsite loads. An additional 8.2 MW of electrical equivalent in the form of biogas would be injected into the local natural gas pipeline, which would include up to 1,400 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of biomethane. Previously referenced Figure 3.2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the Proposed Project. In addition to the anaerobic digestion process, the facility will include solids dryers to allow for drying of dewatered sludge cake from the digestion process. The drying 1 FAR is gross floor area divided by the total net area of the site. Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-11

44 system will be sized to allow for reception and drying of up to 300 TPD of onsite dewatered digestate and dewatered sludge from regional wastewater treatment plants. Dried material from the solids dryers will undergo pyrolysis to allow for generation of a pyrolysis oil to be introduced into the Anaerobic Digesters. This oil will assist in additional biogas production as well as gas for use in heating of the solids dryers. The pyrolyzed char will be shipped off site via truck for land application. The facility will be operating 24 hours a day, seven days per week for biogas production and drying operations. The materials reception will be for 16 hours per day, 6 days per week. For this analysis, trucking activities are therefore assumed to occur 16 hours per day, 7 days per week. The facility would operate with up to 13 employees. Daily truck traffic would include 47 in-bound trips as follows: 43 biosolids feedstock, 1 biochar pellets, 1 chemicals/polymer materials delivery and waste pick-up, and 2 general supplies delivery. A summary of the proposed operations is provided in Table Project Description Chapter 3.0

45 Table 3.2: Summary of Rialto Bioenergy Facility Operations Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project Parameter Proposed Project Char Production (TPD) 27 Dry Biosolids Pellets (TPD) 76 Pyrolysis Gas Production (scfm) 11,752 Biogas Production (scfm) Digesters Rialto WWTP Biogas Utilization (scfm) CHP Engines Upgrading Pipeline (Biomethane) 3, ,260 2,010/2,340 (avg/max) 1,203/1,400 (avg/max) Electricity Consumption (kwh) 30,660,000 Electricity Generation (MW) 5.15 Natural Gas Consumption (scfh) 8,300 Water (GPD) Potable Plant Water Wastewater (GPD) Average Maximum Truck Activity Per Day Inbound Outbound TOTAL 29,728 41, , ,000 Number of Employees 13 Source: Rialto Bioenergy Facility, Process Description Receiving Food waste extruded from local solid waste (wet fraction) and dewatered sludge from municipal wastewater treatment facilities will be trucked to the site and unloaded into receiving bins containing live bottom screws. From the receiving bins, both the wet fraction and dewatered sludge will be pumped to storage silos Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-13

46 Processing From the storage silo, the wet fraction will be polished to remove any remaining contaminants in a two-stage process. The first stage uses a dynamic cyclone to remove floatable contaminants, such as large plastics and fibers, from the stream. These removed contaminants will be disposed of at the local municipal landfill through weekly waste hauler trips. In the second stage of the process, after floatables are removed, the wet fraction stream would be pumped to a hydrocyclone, or equivalent technology, to remove grit including sand, dirt, rocks, and broken glass prior to entering the digester. This separated grit will be cleaned and picked up by a waste hauler to be disposed of at a Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill or recycled. If there is not sufficient wet fraction, the facility has the capability of receiving liquid food wastes for treatment in the anaerobic digesters. The liquid waste receiving process will consist of a screen and conditioning skid to remove contaminants that might be in the liquid waste. There will be a storage tank onsite to meter the food material directly into the digesters Digestion Two 3.5 million gallon water level anaerobic digester tanks will perform the controlled anaerobic digestion of the wet fraction and pyrolysis oil. The tanks will be constructed of either concrete or steel. Wet fraction loaded to the digesters will be converted into biogas. In addition to the biogas produced in the digesters, the plant may receive biogas from the Rialto WWTP that is currently flared with no beneficial reuse. Primary use of the biogas is for renewable energy production. The two digesters will have a total of three emergency flares to be used during plant start-up, power loss, or other unplanned interruptions to safely dispose of the biogas Biogas Conditioning From the digesters, biogas will undergo conditioning to remove contaminants to meet the requirements of all applicable equipment specifications, air permits, and pipeline injection requirements. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) removal will occur in two caustic scrubbers (or equivalent technology) to reduce H2S content for applications downstream. The caustic scrubbers will use biological regeneration of the caustic to minimize chemical consumption. Biogas will then be directed into the gas conditioning system for the combined heat and power cogeneration (CHP) engines and to the biomethane upgrading system (BUG). The CHP biogas conditioning system will perform additional removal of H2S, moisture, and other volatile compounds to meet engine fuel quality requirements before combustion for power generation. Each CHP engine will be outfitted with emission controls to meet all requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Proposed Project will generate up to 5.15 MW of renewable energy, with 3 MW being sold to the electrical grid and 2.15 MW being used to provide 3-14 Project Description Chapter 3.0

47 power to the facility. In addition to providing electricity through the combustion of biogas, the CHP system will produce usable waste heat which will be used in the drying process described below. The efficiency of the CHP system will be over 80%. The balance of the biogas will be delivered to the BUG, where the biogas will be conditioned to remove carbon dioxide and any other contaminants to meet pipeline specifications before injection into the local natural gas distribution system. Southern California Gas Company and Public Utility Commission Rule 30 govern the biomethane quality and additionally continuous monitoring of the gas will be done by the gas utility Dewatering After digestion of the remaining solids in the digester, the product, known as digestate, will be pumped to horizontal decanters for dewatering. In the decanter, solids will be separated from the liquids by centrifugal force and a dewatered cake will be generated. Liquids separated in the decanter, or centrate, will be collected in a tank and pumped to the wastewater equalization tank prior to treatment. Dewatered cake from the centrifuges and biosolids from local wastewater treatment facilities received and stored in the second storage silo will be dried. The dryer will use a combination of on-site sources for heating, including direct engine exhaust from the CHPs, jacket water recovered from the CHPs, and a burner that will utilize pyrolysis gas. Biogas and natural gas will be available as backup sources of heat for drying. Cake in the dryer will be dried from 24% solids to greater than 90 percent solids, with each dryer rated for 4.95 ton per hour (TPH) of evaporation capacity Emission Control Systems Exhaust from the dryers will be treated to meet emission requirements prior to discharge into the atmosphere. The emission control system will consist of a condenser for removal of solids and cooling of the exhaust, an acid scrubber for removal of ammonia, a regenerative thermal oxidizer for destruction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and a sulfur oxides (SOx) scrubber for removal of sulfur compounds before exhaust to the atmosphere. In addition to the dryer exhaust, all foul air from odor control at the site will be treated in the above emission control system. This uses the foul air as makeup air for the dryer, minimizing the size of the emission control equipment. The treatment of the dryer exhaust will generate additional wastewater as the hot dryer exhaust is condensed to remove moisture from the air. This wastewater will be sent to the wastewater equalization tank. The WWTP will collect all wastewater from the facility for treatment prior to discharge to the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL). The WWTP will consist of an activated sludge basin and solids separation using a clarifier or membrane system. The plant will reuse a portion of treated wastewater for dilution instead of using potable or recycled water at the WWTP. Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-15

48 Pyrolysis Dried solids from the dryers will be delivered to a pyrolysis system. In the pyrolysis system, the solids will be heated to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen, further recovering available energy locked inside the material. The pyrolysis system will produce three products: 1) a condensable oil which will be fed back to the digesters, increasing biogas output; 2) a non-condensable gas that will be used to heat the pyrolysis system and provide additional heat to the dryer; and 3) a char consisting of ash and fixed carbon. The pyrolysis system has a storage tank and emergency flare that will operate if needed to ensure proper disposal of the pyrolysis gas at all times. Char from the second stage will be stored in a silo and will be trucked from the facility for land application as a soil amendment. There will be approximately 1,080 wet tons (260 dry tons) per day of material that enter the facility and only 25 tons per day of material leaving by truck. This is over 90 percent reduction in dry mass, with almost 100% reuse of all products. In addition, any wastewater discharged will eventually reach the Orange County Sanitation District, which currently recycles roughly half of its influent wastewater. The Proposed Project also includes an emergency backup generator for powering the gas safety equipment in the event of loss of facility power. A list of equipment used in the process is summarized in Table 3.3 below. Figure 3.8 depicts the process flow for the Rialto Bioenergy Facility at a schematic level. Table 3.3: Major Facility Equipment Service / Name: New (N) / Existing (E) Rated Capacity RECEIVING Biosolids Receiving Unit #1 (WWTP Cake) E 86 yd 3 Biosolids Receiving Unit #2 (Wet Fraction) E 86 yd 3 Biosolids Receiving Unit #3 (Wet Fraction & WWTP Cake) N 86 yd 3 WWTP Cake Transfer Pump N 60 TPH Wet Fraction Transfer Pump N 60 TPH Wet Fraction /WWTP Cake Transfer Pump N 60 TPH Wet Fraction Storage Silo E 1,125 tons WWTP Cake Storage Silo E 1,125 tons PROCESSING Cake Blend Bin E 30 yd3 HP Biosolids Feed Pump #1 E GPM HP Biosolids Feed Pump #2 E GPM Dynamic Cyclone #1 N 140 GPM Dynamic Cyclone #2 N 140 GPM Hydrocyclone N 735 GPM 3-16 Project Description Chapter 3.0

49 Service / Name: New (N) / Existing (E) Rated Capacity DIGESTION Anaerobic Digester #1 + Four Electrical Mixers N 3.5 M GAL Anaerobic Digester #2 + Four Electrical Mixers N 3.5 M GAL Three Emergency Flares N 40 MMBTU/hr each, total flare heat load of 120 MMBTU/hr Digestate Heat Exchanger #1 N 1,200 kw Digestate Heat Exchanger #2 N 1,200 kw DEWATERING Centrifuge #1 E 240 gpm Centrifuge #2 E 240 gpm Bulk Bag Mixing (Polymer Tank Feed) E Centrifuge Polymer Tank #1 E 750 GAL Centrifuge Polymer Tank #2 E 750 GAL Centrifuge Cake Bin (Recycle Bin) E 60 yd 3 Centrifuge Centrate Tank E 5,600 GAL Biosolids Drier #1 N 16.5 MMBTU/hr Biosolids Drier #2 N 16.5 MMBTU/hr Pneumatic Transporter Package E Solids Storage Silo & Loadout E 900 yd 3 BIOGAS CONDITIONING Biogas Upgrading System N 1,400 scfm RNG Biological H2S Treatment System #1 N 1,900 scfm Biological H2S Treatment System #2 N 1,900 scfm H2S Scrubber Vessel N 1,500 scfm Biogas Compression & Dehumidification System N 1,500 scfm Glycol Chiller N Siloxane Scrubber Vessels N 1,500 scfom CHP Unit #1 N 800 kw CHP Unit #2 N 800 kw CHP Unit #3 N 1,550 kw CHP Unit #4 N 2,000 kw Cooling Tower E 43 MMBTU/hr Cooling Tower E Cooling Tower E Biosolids Feed Hopper N PYROLYSIS Pyrolysis System N 3.2 TPH solids feed 10.5 MMBTU/hr burner 11,944 SCFM pyrolysis gas 1.1 TPH char Pyrolysis Oil Tank N 7,300 gallons Emergency Flare N 27 MMBTU/hr Pyrolysis Gas Storage Tank N Char Storage Silo & Loadout N 900 yd 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT WWTP Buffer Tank N 217,000 GAL Aeration Basin N Aeration Blower N Clarifier N WAS Buffer Tank N 30,000 GAL Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-17

50 Service / Name: New (N) / Existing (E) Rated Capacity EMISSIONS CONTROL Ammonia Scrubber N 30,000 CFM Acid Holding Tank N 5000 GAL Acid Dosing Tank N RTO E 30,000 CFM SOx Scrubber E 30,000 CFM Caustic Holding Tank N 5000 GAL Emergency Generator N 500kW Figure 3.8: Process Flow Schematic Off-Site Improvements The Proposed Project includes construction of an off-site six-inch gas pipeline. The gas pipeline will be located within the East Santa Ana Avenue right-of-way from the Proposed Project entrance westward to South Willow Avenue, extending approximately 4,500 feet; the construction impact area is anticipated to be four feet wide for installation of the six-inch pipeline. Figure 3.9 depicts the location of the offsite gas pipeline. The final alignment of the gas pipeline will be approved by the Southern California Gas Company Project Description Chapter 3.0

51 Figure 3.9: Location of Off-Site Gas Line Source: Google Earth, Site Preparation and Construction Currently, elevations on the site range from approximately 960 feet amsl along the northern boundary to approximately 920 feet amsl along the southeastern boundary. The construction period is estimated to extend over 14 months, and is scheduled to start in late 2018 and end in early Construction activities are planned for five days per week during regular workdays. The existing site is the non-operational Rialto Biosolids Facility previously owned and operated by EnerTech. The site preparation will start with demolition of parts of existing buildings, equipment, and concrete from the existing facility. Equipment that will be reused includes two reception bins within one pit, two solids storage silos, a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), two centrifuges, and various equipment inside an existing superstructure. The Proposed Project will extend the existing reception pit and add another reception bin. Building demolition includes removal of approximately 38,000 square feet (sf) of existing structures, for a total of 1,500 tons of building debris. Materials will be hauled off-site to a nearby disposal site located 2.7 miles from the Proposed Project location. Following building and equipment demolition will be the demolition and removal of 2,016 tons of existing asphalt and concrete; these materials will also be hauled offsite to the nearby disposal site. Construction would then proceed with grading, excavation for the digester, and exporting 5,587 cubic yards of soil from the digester excavation to the nearby disposal site. There will then be concrete work for new foundations (building, digester, CHP), underground utilities, digester construction, CHP, and equipment installation. After the installation of equipment, the system will be interconnected and tested. There will be new perimeter walls and fencing, paving and hardscape (including a new 5,000 sf surface lot and 22,275 sf of internal paving for circulation), fine grading, and Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-19

52 landscaping. Following completion of construction will be a startup period extending a few months. Table 3.4 below includes the relevant equipment being built for the Proposed Project and corresponding materials and dimensions. Table 3.4: New Equipment Details Service / Name: Material Dimensions Biosolids Receiving Unit #3 (Wet Fraction & WWTP 35' L x 13' W x 20' H Black Carbon Steel Cake) located in below grade bunker Dynamic Cyclone #1 304 SS 25'-4" L x 13' 4"W x 18'-1" H Dynamic Cyclone #2 304 SS 25'-4" L x 13' 4"W x 18'-1" H Hydrocyclone 24.75' L x 9.8' W x 10.8' H Anaerobic Digester #1 + Four Electrical Mixers Prestressed Concrete 96' dia. X 72' ht, bottom 10' buried, 78 ' total height with digester dome considered Anaerobic Digester #2 + Four Electrical Mixers Prestressed Concrete 96' dia. X 72' ht Biosolids Drier #1 304 SS 50' W x 104' L x 25' H covered with 35' tall steel canopy Biosolids Drier #2 304 SS 50' W x 104' L x 25' H covered with 35' tall steel canopy Biogas Upgrading System Contained in 40'W x 80'L x 20' H steel building Biological H2S Treatment System #1 stainless steel 40' vertical scrubber Biological H2S Treatment System #2 stainless steel 40' vertical scrubber H2S Scrubber Vessel stainless 12' dia. X 12' ht Biogas Compression & Dehumidification System stainless steel 10' W x 25' L x 10' H Glycol Chiller stainless steel 8' W x 16' L x 8' H Siloxane Scrubber Vessels 10' dia. X 12' Ht 10' dia. X 12' Ht CHP Unit #1 green shipping 40' L x 10' W x 10' H with 30 ft container exhaust tack CHP Unit #2 green shipping 40' L x 10' W x 10' H with 30 ft container exhaust tack CHP Unit #3 green shipping 40' L x 10' W x 10' H with 30 ft container exhaust tack CHP Unit #4 green shipping 40' L x 10' W x 10' H with 30 ft container exhaust tack Pyrolysis System 50' L x 20' W x 20' H Pyrolysis Oil Tank HDPE 10' - 2" dia. x 14' -2" ht WWTP Buffer Tank bolted steel 32' dia. X 40' ht WAS Buffer Tank bolted steel 16' dia. X 24' ht Figure 3.10 presents the elevations of the Proposed Project from all four directions Project Description Chapter 3.0

53 Figure 3.10: Elevations Utilities and Storm Water Management The Proposed Project will require the extension of utility services to the proposed onsite uses, including electricity, water, and natural gas. Actions associated with the extension of utility services include, but are not limited to, providing new utility connections, adjusting utility alignments, and/or upgrading existing utility features. As there are a variety of utility lines currently located at the existing facility, it is not anticipated that the major expansion of utility systems will be required. All utility services for the Proposed Project would connect to existing infrastructure; no off-site improvements would be required Water Potable water is expected to be used at the facility for the caustic scrubber, polymer makeup water, and general use. The facility is expected to use approximately 30,000 gallons of water per day for these operations. Plant water from the Rialto WWTP will also be used for the dynamic cyclone, hydrocyclone, dryer over-emission control, char cooling, and plant wash down. Approximately 41,015 gallons per day of WWTP water is expected to be used for these operations. Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-21

54 Wastewater Wastewater is expected to be produced from the solids separation process clarifier at the facility. The on-site WWTP will collect all wastewater from the facility for treatment prior to discharge. The WWTP will consist of an aeration basin and a clarifier. All wastewater from the facility operations will be discharged to the IEBL. The facility is expecting a maximum of 310,000 gallons per day (GPD) of wastewater discharge Storm Water Management Within the Proposed Project site, storm water and water quality management features will be installed subject to applicable City requirements. The City, being subject to provisions of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), requires that development and municipal activities within its jurisdiction implement appropriate storm water pollution control measures. Construction-related storm water management measures will be implemented by a City-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Other Utilities The facility will also require electricity and natural gas utilities. The facility is expecting an average electricity load of 3,500 kw for an annual electricity use of 31,000 MW-hr. Natural gas will be used as a backup for the dryer burners, pilot lights for the biogas and pyrolysis flare, and as a backup for the pyrolysis burner. Natural gas will be the primary fuel in the RTO burner. The maximum natural gas usage for the facility operations is expected to be 8,300 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) Landscaping, Open Space, and Lighting Landscaping The facility will be located in an area that is designated as General Industrial by the City of Rialto General Plan (City of Rialto, 2010). Therefore minimal landscaping is being proposed at the facility Lighting Facility operations are expected to be a maximum of 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Therefore, the site will have adequate lighting throughout the facility for nighttime and safety requirements. All lighting will be located, installed, and maintained per applicable City requirements including Section (Lighting) of the Municipal Code Project Description Chapter 3.0

55 3.6 CEQA PROCESS Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project The intent and the review process for CEQA includes analysis, public engagement, and document preparation. Per the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation, the Proposed Project would require that an EIR be prepared to analyze the environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the RBF and to identify mitigation measures, as appropriate. 3.7 PROPOSED PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Proposed Project objectives are outlined below. Revitalize the existing, non-operational Rialto Biosolids Facility. Provide organics recycling as part of AB 1826 compliance to meet the organics recycling objectives from local municipal solid waste into renewable natural gas and electricity. Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by over 433,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) over the next 10 years regionally through diverting 1,080 tons per day of food waste and municipal biosolids from landfill disposal and converting it into 14 MW or equivalent electrical power from recycling organics waste streams. Create additional income stream for the City of Rialto (lease and tip fees) and employment opportunities for the citizens of Rialto and surrounding communities. Implement the City s General Plan General Industrial Land Use policies and objectives. Implement the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan by developing a land use envisioned and previously authorized by the Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor Specific Plan. 3.8 REQUIRED ACTIONS AND PERMITS Development of the Proposed Project as proposed will require a number of discretionary and non-discretionary actions, permits, and/or related consultations, as summarized below U.S. Department of Energy This EIR is a stand-alone CEQA document. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct its own National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance separately to address its funding involvement which is focused on design and securing permits and potentially also including construction. Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-23

56 3.8.2 City of Rialto Actions and Permits The Proposed Project will also require discretionary approval from the City of Rialto, which is the CEQA lead agency for the Proposed Project. As established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(2), If a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA should be listed. Actions necessary to fully develop the site as proposed include the following: Certification of the EIR; Approve Conditional Use Permit; Approve Precise Plan of Design; and Approve Encroachment Permit. In addition to these discretionary actions, the Proposed Project will require City review and approval of construction, grading, drainage, and related permits to allow for the development of Proposed Project features and facilities Other Required Actions CEQA Guidelines require that the City, to the extent the information is known, include a list of the agencies that are expected to use the CEQA document in their decisionmaking processes, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the Proposed Project, and a list of related environmental review/consultation requirements established by Federal, State, or local law, regulation and/or policy. Based on the project as proposed, the additional actions that may be required include, but are not limited to, those outlined below. U.S. Department of Energy: RBF has applied for federal funding from DOE. DOE may reference this CEQA document during preparation of its NEPA review. California Energy Commission: The facility will require approval from the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding the Proposed Project process and completion timeline to receive anticipated grant money for the Proposed Project. The CEC also has responsibility of reviewing and licensing energy facilities in California. Rialto Water Services: The City of Rialto previously issued an Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permit # to EnerTech. RBF will update this Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permit # with City of Rialto, Water Services. A Water Quality Management Plan will also be prepared subject to approval by the City of Rialto. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: An existing storm water plan was previously approved for the site. RBF has been discharging storm water under the existing storm water plan since acquisition of the site. The storm water permit will require an update to ensure that the storm water plan accounts for all flows in the final design of the site Project Description Chapter 3.0

57 South Coast Air Quality Management District: RBF will apply to the SCAQMD for an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit as a facility that will generate regulated airborne emissions; SCAQMD will authorize construction of new equipment for the facility. The existing permits have been transferred to RBF. The only new ATC permit will be associated with the proposed digestion and power generation. RBF already holds a Permit to Operate (PTO) for the existing facility; RBF will require only an update of that existing permit. The existing PTO authorizes the facility to operate as a regulated emissions source. The existing PTO will be modified to reflect anticipated emissions from the updated facility, in accordance with emissions thresholds set in the ATC for the new equipment. RBF must also comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations including (but not limited to) those listed below. o o o o o o o o o o o o Rule 201: Permit to Construct Rule 203: Permit to Operate Rule 212: Standards for Approving Permits Rule 301: Permitting and Associated Fees Rule 401: Visible Emissions Rule 402: Nuisance Rule 404: Particulate Emissions Rule 1303: New Source Review Requirements Rule 1401: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants Rule 1402: Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources Regulation XX: Regional Clean Air Incentive Market (RECLAIM) including key rules (Rule 2005: NSR for RECLAIM Pollutants) Regulation XXX: Title V Permits San Bernardino County Flood Control District: The City of Rialto, as the underlying property owner, has permits from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for RBF operations located within the Rialto Channel. RBF will have to renew and update the license agreement for the continued operations and maintenance of a 6-inch underground water pipeline on approximately linear feet of San Bernardino County Flood Control District land on the west side and parallel to the Rialto Channel, south of Santa Ana Avenue. The existing license is due to expire in December San Bernardino County Department of Public Works: The facility may need a Flood Control Encroachment Permit in the event there is work within the right-ofway of the Rialto Channel. San Bernardino County Health Department: RBF currently holds a solid waste facilities permit issued by the San Bernardino County Health Department that authorizes the facility to process 1,080 tons per day of solid waste, including Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-25

58 organic waste extracted from MSW, Biosolids, and liquid organic waste. The updated PTO will be acquired after completion of commissioning. City of Rialto Building Division: RBF will apply for a building permit from the City of Rialto Building Division, where the City will review and provide approval on construction-ready engineering documents. RBF has already begun coordinating with the City regarding a building permit, and anticipates acquisition of the permit within two weeks of construction. San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Material Division: The facility will need to complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for submittal to the fire department. This plan will need to include all contingency measures and hazardous materials and waste onsite. Utility providers (connection permits/work permits): The RBF site already has working utility (water, electricity, natural gas, and sewer/wastewater) connections. The facility includes construction and operation of an off-site gas pipeline with Southern California Gas. Natural gas export would be permitted through an anticipated gas purchase agreement. 3.9 PREVIOUS RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES There are two previous environmental analyses for the Proposed Project: 1) EnerTech s 2004 EIR for the Construction and Operation of a Regional Biosolids Processing Facility SCH No (City of Rialto 2004 et. al.) including 2006, 2007, and 2008 addenda (ET Project EIR), which provides site-specific environmental analysis; and 2) the Caprock Distribution Center III EIR SCH No (City of Rialto 2016) (Caprock EIR), which provides recent relevant cumulative analysis in the Proposed Project area Tiering Tiering refers to the relationship between a program-level EIR, such as the Caprock EIR, or previous site-specific EIR, such as the ET Project EIR, and subsequent environmental analyses, such as the subject document, which focus primarily on issues unique to a project site. Through tiering, a subsequent environmental analysis can incorporate, by reference, discussion that summarizes general environmental data found in the previous documents. The Caprock EIR and ET Project EIR established large-scale or cumulative impacts and mitigation measures, the planning context, and/or the regulatory background. These broad-based issues need not be reevaluated subsequently, having been previously identified and evaluated. Tiering focuses the environmental review on project-specific significant effects that were not examined in the prior environmental reviews or are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by specific revisions in the project, the imposition of conditions, or other means Project Description Chapter 3.0

59 The use of tiering is limited to projects that are consistent with the regional Caprock EIR (for cumulative analysis) and the ET Project EIR (for site-specific analysis), such as the Proposed RBF Project. Additionally, Section 21093(b) of the Public Resources Code requires the tiering of environmental review whenever feasible, as determined by the Lead CEQA Agency. The Caprock EIR provided a comprehensive and an up-to-date cumulative analysis. The Caprock EIR includes discussion of a full range of alternatives and growthinducing impacts associated with urban development of the Proposed Project area. The ET Project EIR contained a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with development of the 5.7 acres of City of Rialto land located between the City of Rialto WWTP, the Rialto Channel, and the WWTP sludge drying beds. The ET Project EIR also included discussion of a full range of alternatives and growth-inducing impacts associated with urban development of the Proposed Project site. Therefore, RBF is a project related to both the Caprock EIR and ET Project EIR and, pursuant to Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering of environmental documents is appropriate. CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(e) specifically provides that, [w]hen tiering is used, the later EIRs or Negative Declarations shall refer to the prior EIR, as amended, and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later [environmental document] should state that the Lead Agency is using the tiering concept and that the [environmental document] is being tiered with the earlier EIR. The Caprock EIR and the ET Project EIR, as amended, can be reviewed at the City of Rialto s office: City of Rialto 150 S. Palm Avenue Rialto, CA Contact: Mr. Daniel Casey, Associate Planner (909) Incorporation of the Caprock EIR and ET Project EIR by Reference The EIR for the Caprock project is a comprehensive document. Due to various references in this current RBF EIR, and its importance relative to understanding the environmental analysis that has occurred to date with respect to development of this Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-27

60 specific property, this previous EIR, and amendments, is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section The EIR for the ET Project is a comprehensive document. Due to various references in this current RBF EIR, and its importance relative to understanding the environmental analysis that has occurred to date with respect to development of this specific property, this previous EIR, and amendments, is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Summary of Caprock EIR The Caprock EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with adoption of the 525,110 square foot warehouse building, ancillary office space, and high dock clearance for use by high-cube distribution warehouse operators for development of approximately acres in the southern portion of the City of Rialto. The Caprock project is located in the Agua Mansa Specific Plan and is approximately 3,500 feet west of the RBF site. The following impacts were considered less than significant in the Caprock EIR: Aesthetics Geology and Soils Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Population, Housing and Employment Public Services Recreation and Parks Utilities and Service Systems The following impacts were potentially significant that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened: Air Quality (construction) Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Transportation and Traffic (project level) 3-28 Project Description Chapter 3.0

61 There were significant and unavoidable impacts for the three impact areas listed below. Air Quality (operational and cumulative emissions) Greenhouse Gases Transportation and Traffic (cumulative) Summary of ET Project EIR The ET Project EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with adoption of the biosolids facility project for development of approximately 6.2 acres of City of Rialto land located between the City of Rialto WWTP, the Rialto Channel, and the WWTP sludge drying beds. The ET Project EIR evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the abovedescribed development on a comprehensive basis, including discussion of the full range of impacts that would occur due to future development. The following impacts were considered less than significant in the ET Project EIR: Land Use Traffic Air Quality Noise The following impacts were potentially significant that could be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened: Geology/Earth Resources Water Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Biological Resources Cultural and Paleontological Resources There were no significant and unavoidable impacts from implementation of the ET Project. Chapter 3.0 Project Description 3-29

62 3.9.3 Comparison of Proposed RBF Project with ET Project EIR Table 3.5 compares the Proposed Project with the ET project as it was assessed in the ET Project EIR. While there are differences in operational characteristics, the location of the facility is nearly identical and the numbers of truck deliveries and employees are greater for the ET Project than the Proposed Project. Table 3.5: Comparison of Proposed RBF Project with ET Project EIR Parameter Proposed RBF Project ET Project EIR Char Production (TPD) 27 N/A Dry Biosolids Pellets (TPD) Pyrolysis Gas Production (scfm) Biogas Production (scfm) Digesters Rialto WWTP Biogas Utilization (scfm) CHP Engines Upgrading Pipeline (Biomethane) Electricity Consumption (KWh) (per year) Electricity Generation (MW) Natural Gas Consumption (scfh) Water (gallons per day) Potable Plant Water ,752 N/A 3, ,259 2,010/2,340 (avg/max)1,203/ 1,400 (avg/max) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31,000, , N/A 8,300 48,381 30,000 41,015 Not reported Wastewater (GPD) Average Maximum 196, , ,600 N/A Truck Activity Per Day Inbound Outbound TOTAL Number of Employees to Project Description Chapter 3.0

63 4.0 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES 4.1 OVERVIEW Provided below is an overview of the local and regional air quality environment, the physical setting of the Rialto Bioenergy Facility (RBF, or Proposed Project ) area, a discussion of global climate change, existing regulations related to air quality climate change, and an analysis of pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the Proposed Project. This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the Proposed Project s potential air quality and GHG impacts by examining the short-term construction and long-term operational impacts associated with RBF. The evaluation was prepared in accordance with the standards, procedures, and methodologies established in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook and utilized the latest CalEEMod computer program developed and maintained by the SCAQMD (SCAQMD, 1993). Air quality data posted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) web sites are included to document the local air quality environment. 4.2 EXISTING SETTING The RBF site is located on the south side of the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, within the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin encompasses Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, as seen in Figure 4.1 below. The SCAQMD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Proposed Project area. Figure 4.1: The South Coast Air Basin Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-1

64 The SCAQMD develops and adopts Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs), which serve as a blueprint to bring the South Coast Air Basin into compliance with federal and state clean air standards and adopts rules to reduce emissions from various sources, including specific types of equipment, activities, processes, and products CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is affected not only by local and regional emission sources, but also by the geography, climate, and meteorological conditions. The South Coast Air Basin is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, and the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains to the east. The Pacific Ocean provides a prominent atmospheric marine layer to the otherwise arid region. The western part of the South Coast Air Basin generally has a more temperate climate than the eastern part of the basin, which has a more variable climate due to the decreased marine influence. Meteorological conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, precipitation, and cloud cover also influence the region s air quality. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Redlands, California meteorological data station (ID CA047306), which is located approximately 10 miles east of the RBF site, was used to review local meteorological data because it is the closest station with the most up-to-date data near the RBF site (WRCC, 2016). The Redlands Station indicates that the average annual temperature measured from April 1898 to December 2015 is 63.7 F. The hottest monthly average temperature over that same time period is 77.4 F, which occurred in the month of July. The coldest monthly average temperature is 52.2 F, which occurred in January. The area has an average annual rainfall of 13.6 inches, measured between years 1898 and 2012 (WRCC, 2016). The majority of that rainfall occurs from November through April, with the summer and autumn months typically experiencing less than one inch of rain per month. The area does not typically experience snowfall. Conversely, the area experiences the clearest days with the least cloud cover from May to October. During these months, the skies range from about 50% to 75% clear (Weather Spark, 2016). On the shortest day of the year, there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine; on the longest day, there are approximately 14.5 hours of possible sunshine (World Climate, 2016). The wind speed and direction in the area vary with geography and time of year. Typically higher wind speeds occur between November and June, with average speeds of 3.4 miles per hour (Weather Spark, 2016). Between July and October, wind speeds average 2.8 miles per hour (Weather Spark, 2016). The prominent wind direction is from the west, which occurs for almost nine months of the year (Weather Spark, 2016). The South Coast Air Basin experiences maximum photochemical smog concentrations during the summer and fall months when there is less precipitation and more sunlight. The area is prone to atmospheric temperature inversions given its proximity to the sea and typically warm land climate. During inversions, air pollutants are typically transported to the eastern part of the South Coast Air Basin 4-2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Section 4.0

65 4.2.2 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY Rialto Bioenergy Facility Project The U.S. EPA sets national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These standards establish the maximum concentrations of pollution considered to be acceptable, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The State of California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), which in some cases are more stringent than the national standards. California has set state standards for O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Pb, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. Note that NAAQS do not exist for non-criteria pollutants. Both state and national air quality standards consist of two parts: an allowable concentration of a pollutant, and an averaging time over which the concentration is measured. The allowable concentrations are based on the results of studies of the effects of the pollutants on human health, crops and vegetation, and, in some cases, damage to paint and other materials. The averaging times are based on whether the damage caused by the pollutant is more likely to occur during exposure to a high concentration for a short time (e.g., one hour), or to a relatively lower average concentration over a longer period (e.g., 8 hours, 24 hours, or one year). For some pollutants there is more than one air quality standard, reflecting both its short-term and long-term effects. Table 4.1 below presents the state and national ambient air quality standards for selected pollutants. Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-3

66 Table 4.1: Ambient Air Quality Standards Mass Daily Thresholds a Pollutant Construction b Operation c NO x 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM lbs/day 55 lbs/day SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor, and GHG Thresholds TACs (including carcinogens and non-carcinogens) Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities NO 2 1-hour average annual arithmetic mean Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants d SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 0.18 ppm (state) 0.03 ppm (state) and ppm (federal) PM hour average annual average PM hour average 10.4 g/m 3 (construction) e & 2.5 g/m 3 (operation) 1.0 g/m g/m 3 (construction) e & 2.5 g/m 3 (operation) SO 2 1-hour average 24-hour average Sulfate 24-hour average CO 1-hour average 8-hour average Lead 30-day Average Rolling 3-month average 0.25 ppm (state) & ppm (federal 99 th percentile) 0.04 ppm (state) 25 g/m 3 (state) SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 9.0 ppm (state/federal) 1.5 g/m 3 (state) 0.15 g/m 3 (federal) a. Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) b. Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojave Desert Air Basins). c. For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the same as the construction thresholds. d. Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. e. Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. KEY: lbs/day = pounds per day ppm = parts per million g/m 3 = microgram per cubic meter = greater than or equal to MT/yr CO 2 e = metric tons per year of CO 2 equivalents > = greater than 4-4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Section 4.0

67 The determination of whether a region s air quality is healthy or unhealthy is made by comparing pollutant concentrations in ambient air samples to the state and national standards presented in Table 4.1. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment by the State if the measured ambient air pollutant levels of O3, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period; and the national standards (other than O3, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth-highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above the standard is equal to or less than one. Non-attainment areas are subject to additional restrictions and standards, as required by the U.S. EPA. The air quality data collected at local monitoring stations are also used to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. Under the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, the South Coast Air Basin is classified as either in attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified/attainment with regards to the NAAQS. Table 4.2 provides the NAAQS classification status for South Coast Air Basin based on the local criteria pollutant concentrations and federal designations. The Proposed Project location has been designated as in attainment of the NAAQS for the CO and Pb standards and unclassified/attainment for the NO2 and SO2 standards (SCAQMD, 2016). The Proposed Project location has been designated as extreme non-attainment for the O3 eight-hour average standard, moderate nonattainment for the PM10 standard, and non-attainment for the PM2.5 standard (SCAQMD, 2016). Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-5

68 Table 4.2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant NAAQS a California AAQS b 1-Hour O3 Nonattainment (Extreme) c Nonattainment hour O3 (0.080 ppm) hour O3 (0.075 ppm) hour O3 (0.070 ppm) State 8 hour O3 (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment/Extreme d Nonattainment/Extreme d Designation Pending -- Nonattainment PM10 Attainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment/Serious Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Lead (Particulate) Partial Nonattainment f Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (SCAQMD, 2016) Notes: AAQS = ambient air quality standards. a. See 40 CFR Part 81 b. See CCR Title 17 Sections c. 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the standard has not been attained based on data and has some continuing obligations under the former standard. Attainment demonstration included in 2016 AQMP. d hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the 1997 O3 standard and most related implementation rules remain in place until the 1997 standard is revoked by U.S. EPA. e. Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; redesignation to Attainment of the 24- hour PM10 standard in f. The partial nonattainment status designation for lead reflects an area of Los Angeles County which is not in attainment of the lead NAAQS LOCAL AIR QUALITY The SCAQMD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides average concentrations of pollutants for which state or federal ambient air quality standards exist. Information from the various monitoring stations is available from the corresponding agency s websites. A map of the monitoring stations in San Bernardino County, Orange County, and Riverside County is provided in Figure 4.2 below. 4-6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Section 4.0

69 Figure 4.2: CARB Air Quality Monitoring Network in Three South Coast Air Basin Counties (CARB, 2009a) The air quality monitoring station closest to the RBF site is the Riverside-Rubidoux Station, located approximately 4.7 miles southwest of the Proposed Project site. The Riverside-Rubidoux Station monitors O3, CO, NO2, SO2, total non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), PM10, and PM2.5. The air quality trends from this station, as well as from three other nearby stations (San Bernardino-4 th Street Station, Fontana- Arrow Highway Station, and Riverside 5130 Poinsettia Place Station) located within ten miles of the RBF site, are used to represent the ambient air quality in the Proposed Project area. Table 4.3 presents the most recent three years of data ( ) available for these four stations. The number of days the ambient air quality standards Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-7

70 were exceeded for the Proposed Project area, which was considered to be representative of the local air quality, is also identified in Table The ambient air quality data in Table 4.3 show that NO2, SO2, 24-hour PM10, and CO levels are below the applicable state and federal standards. At most monitoring stations in 2013, the federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) were exceeded on one or more days for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. No areas within the Basin exceeded federal or state standards for NO2, SO2, CO, sulfates, or lead. Attainment status designations can be seen in Table 4.2 above. Table 4.3: Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Proposed Project Area Days Exceeding Standard Maximum Concentration Pollutant and CARB Monitoring Station Location O3 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street O3 8-hour CAAQS (0.070 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street O3 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street PM10 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m 3 ) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street PM10 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m 3 ) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street PM hour NAAQS (35 µg/m 3 ) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street Data for SO2 have been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the Basin and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations. 4-8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Section 4.0

71 Days Exceeding Standard Maximum Concentration Pollutant and CARB Monitoring Station Location CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street NO2-1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street NO2-1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street SO2 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3) Riverside-Rubidoux Fontana-Arrow Highway San Bernardino-4th Street Source: CARB 2016b Notes: ppm = parts per million, -- There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. The criteria pollutants measured throughout the South Coast Air Basin are regulated using standards based on impact to human health and the environment. Criteria pollutants, their impacts on human health, and typical sources are identified in Table 4.4 below. Table 4.4: Generalized Summary of Health and Environmental Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Health Effects Environmental Effects Examples of Sources PM10 and PM2.5 Increased respiratory disease Lung damage, Asthma Cancer Premature death Reduced visibility Surface soiling Cars and trucks (especially diesel), fireplaces, wood stoves, windblown dust from roadways, agriculture, and construction activities Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-9

72 Table 4.4: Generalized Summary of Health and Environmental Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant O3 CO NO2 SO2 Lead Source: CARB, 2009b. Health Effects Cough Chest tightness Breathing difficulties Asthma Lung inflammation Chest pain in heart patients Headaches, Nausea Reduced mental alertness Death at very high levels Increased response to allergens Lung irritation and damage Increased lung disease Breathing problems Learning disabilities Brain damage Kidney damage Environmental Effects Damage to rubber and some plastics Examples of Sources Formed by chemical reactions of air pollutants in the presence of sunlight; common sources are motor vehicles, industries, and consumer products -- Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks, construction and farming equipment, and residential heaters and stoves. -- See CO sources Reacts to form acid rain Coal or oil burning power plants, refineries, diesel engines -- Metal smelters, resource recovery, leaded gasoline, lead paint Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, mobile sources are the primary source of CO in the South Coast Air Basin. CO can also be formed by photochemical reactions in the atmosphere from methane and non-methane hydrocarbons and organic molecules in water and soil (CARB, 2017a). Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) is a colorless gas at ambient temperatures, with a pungent, irritating odor. SO2 enters the atmosphere mainly as the result of burning sulfur-containing fuels such as diesel and coal. It is also formed from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX) (CARB, 2017a). Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen or NOx) is a pungent smelling gas that is brownish red in color. Of the gases referred to as NOx, NO2 and nitric oxide (NO) are the two most prevalent gases. Nitrogen oxides are created during combustion processes and are also created in the atmosphere when NO photochemically reacts with other pollutants to create NO2. NOx is a major contributor to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects. Ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, and as such, commuters in heavy 4-10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Section 4.0

73 traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors (CARB, 2017a). Ozone (O 3 ) is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx, both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. Ozone is a main contributor to visible smog in the South Coast Air Basin and is also a strong oxidant which can kill living cells such as those in human lungs (CARB, 2017a). PM 10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns) is a major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (about inch or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. Sources of PM10 include combustion as well as construction sites, landfills, agricultural operations, wildfires, and pollen. PM10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant (CARB, 2017a). PM 2.5 (Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns) consists of tiny solid or liquid particles that are 2.5 microns or smaller (often referred to as fine particles). These particles are formed from combustion activities and via chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Atmospheric reactions between primary gaseous emissions such as SO2 and NOx from power plants form particulate sulfates as PM2.5. The chemical composition of fine particles depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions. PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant (CARB, 2017a). Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal that is present in the atmosphere as small particles. In the past, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. Currently, emissions of lead are mainly from stationary sources such as lead smelters and aircrafts, which fire leaded aviation gasoline. It should be noted that the Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions. Lead is a criteria air pollutant (CARB, 2017a) SENSITIVE LAND USES IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA There are no known sensitive land use areas or sensitive receptors located within a one mile radius of the RBF site, as seen in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 below (Google Earth, 2017). Between one and two miles outside of the RBF site there is one hospital, one high school, one middle school, two elementary schools, one preschool, and several residential neighborhoods. Immediately beyond the two-mile radius is a high school, a middle school, two elementary schools, and additional neighborhoods. The closest sensitive receptors are a residence located one mile southwest of the Proposed Project site and the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center located 1.49 miles northeast of the Proposed Project site. Additional details about the nearest sensitive receptors can be seen in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 below. Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-11

74 Figure 4.3: Schools and Hospitals near RBF Site Table 4.5: Schools and Hospitals near RBF Site Pin Description Address A Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Distance from RBF (miles) 400 N Pepper Ave, Colton, CA B Colton High School 777 W Valley Blvd, Colton, CA C Woodrow Wilson Elementary School 750 S 8th St, Colton, CA D San Salvador Preschool 471 Agua Mansa Rd, Colton, CA E F G Crestmore Elementary School Slover Mountain High School Ruth Grimes Elementary School Jurupa Ave, Bloomington, CA Orange St, Bloomington, CA Spruce Ave, Bloomington, CA H Joe Baca Middle School 1640 S Lilac Ave, Bloomington, CA I Morris Elementary School 1900 W Randall Ave, Colton, CA J Jehue Middle School 1500 N Eucalyptus Ave, Colton, CA Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Section 4.0

75 Figure 4.4: Residential Receptors near RBF Site Table 4.6: Residential Receptors near RBF Site Direction from RBF (red lines) Distance of Nearest Neighborhood from RBF (miles) West 1.25 a Northwest 1.68 North 1.62 Northeast 1.47 East 1.58 Southeast 1.49 South a. With the exception of a single residence (323 Jurupa Ave.), which is located one mile away from the facility. N/A Section 4.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 4-13