Brentwood City Council
October 22, 2024

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 57 Initial Study
Project operations would require new sources of energy, including natural gas to operate the boiler, electricity to operate buildings, pumps, and other equipment, and some diesel fuel to operate the emergency backup generator. However, the project would also construct an anaerobic digester that would produce biogas that would be fed into an existing PG&E pipeline, resulting in a new form of alternative energy (i.e., renewable natural gas) through this cogeneration process. Table 9 summarizes energy consumption and generation from project operations.

The one-time expenditure of fuel and energy for construction in combination with the operation of a new form of renewable energy supply would not be considered a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. In contrast, generating a new form of renewable energy is consistent with CEQA Appendix G guidance for energy analyses and would further support the City’s and state’s objectives of reducing fossil-fuel sources of energy. Furthermore, the project would result in minimal increases in existing truck trips (i.e., 13 per day), thus would not result in substantial increases in mobile-source fuel. For these reasons, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or conflict with a local or state plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 9. Summary of energy consumption and generation from project construction and operations.

Gasoline
(gallons)
Diesel
(gallons)
Natural Gas
(MCF/yr)
Electricity
(MWh/yr)
Project Consumption
Construction
Mobile (worker, haul trucks) 16,142 15,366 — 160,707
Off-Road Equipment — 232,849 — —
Total 16,142 248,215 — 160,707
Operations
Mobile (worker, haul trucks) 84,353 55,090 — —
Stationary (boiler, flare, generator, pumps) — 939 64 9,417 Total 84,353 56,029 64 9,417
Project Generation
Anaerobic Digester — — 137 —
Net 100,495 304,244 -73 170,124
MCF/yr=million cubic feet per year; MWh/yr=megawatt hours per year Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2024. See Appendix A for details.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 58 Initial Study

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

3.7.1 Setting
The soils underlying the project site consist of Rincon and Delhi series soils. Rincon soils are mineral soils that generally lack organic material and typically occur on erosional surfaces and typically date to the Late Pleistocene (126,000–12,000 years ago) (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 1999:163 and 258). Delhi soils typically date to 15,000–12,000 years ago and represent soils that are not fully developed or weakly expressed because they are too young, erosion has removed material faster than soil can develop, or new material is added faster than soil develops (Rapp and Hill 1998:32).

The project site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone or Landslide Zone, as defined by the California Department of Conservation (2024b). The project site and much of the area surrounding the site is in a Liquefaction Zone (California Department of Conservation 2024b).

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 59 Initial Study

3.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Fault ground ruptures are unlikely at the project site as there are no active faults mapped across the site. However, the project site is subject to potentially strong ground-shaking during seismic events that could occur from active faults in the region and associated liquefaction, in which the soils become unstable and reduce in strength and stiffness. Project structures would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Brentwood Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction, which adopts by reference the California Building Standards Code. The California Building Standards Code is a minimum requirement intended to protect life safety and prevent structures from collapsing in the event of an earthquake. Because the project would conform to the applicable California Building Code regulations as well as specific geotechnical investigations and associated design recommendations, potential hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking, failure, or liquefaction would be minimized. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant on the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and ground failure, including liquefaction.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iv) landslides?
The project site is not susceptible to landslides because the site and surrounding area are mostly flat. Therefore, the project would have a no impact on the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Project construction activities have the potential to result in localized and temporary soil erosion if disturbed soils are exposed to rainfall. The potential for construction-related soil erosion is addressed in Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” As described in that section, soil erosion during project construction would be minimized through implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs. The project would not involve any operations-related activities that would cause or contribute to long-term soil erosion. Disturbed surfaces would either be paved or planted with native seed or landscape plants (e.g., grass, shrubs, trees). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on soil erosion and loss of topsoil. c,d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is considered unstable. The soils in the upper 6 feet are non-plastic and, therefore, have no or low expansion potential (Bianchin, pers.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 60 Initial Study
comm., 2024). The project would be required to adhere to the requirements of the California Building Standards Code, which includes specifications for site preparations such as compaction requirements for foundations. Project components at the Solid Waste Transfer Station—the new building, yard waste area and ancillary facilities—would be constructed at the existing grade.

Similarly, project components to be constructed on the parcel east of and adjacent to the WWTP—the new anaerobic digester, BDPS, and ancillary facilities—would be constructed close to the existing grade, though some grading to prepare the site would be completed to create levels areas on which to construct the new facilities. Fill that would to be imported would be specified to have low expansion potential. The renewable natural gas pipeline would be installed below ground and the overlying soil restored to the same elevation as existing conditions.

Finally, the new PG&E interconnector station at the parking lot located at the southeast corner of Sunset Park would be installed at the existing grade. Therefore, the project have a less than significant impact on the creation of unstable geologic units or soils, or substantial risks to life or property.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project would not contribute to use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact on soils utilized for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Previous investigations have concluded that potentially important vertebrate fossils may occur in two older alluvial deposits that occur in the project area consisting of Holocene and Pleistocene dune sands (City of Brentwood 2016). The Holocene deposits are too young to yield fossils, however, deep excavation in older Pleistocene units has the potential to encounter vertebrate fossils (City of Brentwood 2016). This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1: ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources (e.g., teeth, bones, fossils), the finds shall be set aside and all excavation activity shall cease within 100 feet of the specific place of discovery until a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian has assessed the find and, if deemed significant, salvaged the find in a timely manner. The decision to conduct paleontological salvage operations will be determined by the qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian in consultation with City staff. Work may proceed on other parts of the project while assessment and/or salvage by the qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian is underway. Finds determined significant by the paleontologist shall be conserved and deposited with a recognized repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 61 Initial Study

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Setting
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. The earth’s surface absorbs a portion of the solar radiation that enters the earth’s atmosphere, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space.

GHGs within the earth’s atmosphere absorb this infrared radiation (i.e., thermal heat). As a result, infrared radiation released from the earth that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the “greenhouse effect,” is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

GHGs are naturally present in the atmosphere, are released by natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) sources and are formed from secondary atmospheric reactions. Natural sources of GHGs include human, animal, and plant respiration; organic matter decomposition; and ocean evaporation. Anthropogenic sources include the combustion of fossil fuels, waste treatment, and agricultural processes. The following GHGs are widely accepted as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless GHG that results from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Methane is the main component of natural gas and is associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Nitrous oxide is a colorless GHG that results from industrial processes, vehicle emissions, and agricultural practices. Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic chemicals used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors. Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, and nonflammable GHG used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, and in semiconductor manufacturing.

Global warming potential is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to carbon monoxide. The reference gas for global warming potential is carbon dioxide; therefore, carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of 1. The other main

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 62 Initial Study
GHGs attributed to human activity include methane, which has a 100-year global warming potential of 25, and nitrous oxide, which has a global warming potential of 298 (California Air Resources Board 2024). The concept of carbon monoxide equivalents (CO2e) is used to account for the different global warming potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation. These global warming potential values are derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and used by CARB’s methodology for developing its statewide inventory.

Impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to the more localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and TACs. The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; however, no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature or to a global climate, local climate, or microclimate. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small additions, on a global basis.

Regulatory Setting
EPA is the federal agency responsible for implementing the federal Clean Air Act. On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the federal Clean Air Act and that EPA has the authority to regulate GHGs. However, in California and within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, project-level GHG impacts are assessed following guidance issued at the state-level by CARB, locally adopted climate action plans or GHG reduction plans, and adopted air district thresholds of significance.

CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan to Achieve Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which is the most current version of the Scoping Plan (California Air Resources Board 2022). The 2022 Scoping Plan outlines a strategy to achieve AB 1279 GHG reduction targets. The 2022 Scoping Plan outlines the strategies the state will implement to achieve carbon neutrality by reducing GHG emissions to meet the anthropogenic target, and by expanding actions to capture and store carbon through the state’s natural and working lands and using a variety of mechanical approaches. Local air districts, including BAAQMD, when establishing their thresholds, derive such thresholds that when projects meet them, they would also meet goals established by CARB.

Thus, projects that comply with BAAQMD’s established GHG thresholds would also meet CARB’s GHG reduction goals.

While the City of Brentwood has adopted General Plan policies that include commitments to develop and implement a climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions, to this date, no such plan has been prepared or adopted.

The BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating air quality and climate impacts in CEQA documents. The 2022 CEQA Guidelines recommend GHG thresholds of significance for new stationary sources. In accordance with BAAQMD guidance, new stationary source projects that do not exceed established thresholds would not result in significant effect on the environment or conflict with local or state goals for reducing GHG emissions.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 63 Initial Study
Thresholds of Significance
Based on the CEQA Appendix G questions and adopted BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the project would result in a significant GHG impact if it would:
• generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, exceeding 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (MTCO2e/year) resulting in a significant effect on the environment; or • conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

3.8.2 Discussion
a,b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, projects that meet established BAAQMD thresholds of significance would also not conflict with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan; thus, both CEQA Appendix G questions pertaining to GHG emissions are evaluated together.

GHG emissions would occur during project construction from the use of heavy-duty diesel equipment used onsite, heavy-duty truck deliveries, and worker commute trips. Project operations would result in GHG emissions associated with the new solid waste processing equipment (i.e., anaerobic digester, biosolids dryer, pyrolysis units), increases in mobile source emissions from solid waste hauling activities and biochar offsite deliveries, and the use of a backup emergency generator and flaring. The project also would result in the avoidance of landfill-related GHG off-gassing emissions due to the diversion of solid waste that is currently going to a landfill to the project, which would produce renewable natural gas.

To conduct the analysis, all new sources of GHG emissions and the anticipated reduction in emissions from landfill diversion were calculated. Emissions from construction activities were modeled using CalEEMod using project-specific construction equipment information. On-road mobile source emissions were quantified using CARB’s Emissions Estimator Model 2021. To account for the reduction in emissions, using the existing annual waste stream quantities that would be diverted to anaerobic digestion, a comparative emissions model using EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was conducted. The model generates annual GHG emissions associated with the existing solid waste processing operations (i.e., landfilling) compared to the proposed project (i.e., anaerobic digester) to estimate the net change associated with the proposed alternative waste processing process.

A summary of project-generated increases, anticipated reduction, and net changes in annual GHG emissions are included in Table 10. All emissions inputs and outputs are included in Appendix A.

Project construction-related emissions would result in annual average emissions of 36 MTCO2e/year. While the BAAQMD does not have adopted quantitative thresholds for construction, the total estimated construction emissions over the 30-month construction period

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 64 Initial Study
(i.e., 1,080 MTCO2e) were amortized over a 30-year period for comparison to the 10,000 MTCO2e/year operational threshold.

Project operations would result in a net increase in GHG emissions of 13,067 MTCO2e/year and when combined with construction result in a total increase of 13,103 MTCO2e/year. However, as a result of solid waste that is currently landfilled being diverted to the anaerobic digester under the project, GHG emissions would be reduced by 9,377 MTCO2e/year, offsetting some of the project-generated onsite (construction, stationary, and mobile) emissions and resulting in a net increase in emissions of 3,725 MTCO2e/year. Importantly, potential additional GHG reductions are expected to occur due to avoided emissions relating to energy consumption from the production of metals and plastics that could be reduced from future increased recycling efforts.

The WARM model accounts for these GHG emissions reductions in addition to the avoided landfill-related emissions. In addition, the WARM model combines the future conditions (without the project assuming landfilling would continue) to the project’s GHG benefits to result in a combined (avoided + project-generated benefit) net GHG benefit. However, for this analysis, because the project is primarily responsible for the change from landfilling waste to anaerobically digesting waste, only this portion of GHG emissions reduction was applied. All GHG emission calculations are included in Appendix A.

The emissions estimate includes all emissions sources (i.e., construction, mobile, stationary), thus is conservative when compared to a stationary-source threshold. Nonetheless, the project would not exceed applicable stationary source thresholds of 10,000 MTCO2e/year and would result in an overall net benefit to GHG emissions by reducing emissions associated with landfilling waste that would have otherwise occurred without the project. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 10. Change in greenhouse gas emissions for project operations compared to existing conditions (MTCO2e/year) Project Parameter MTCO2e/year
Project-Generated
Construction
Amortized over 30 years 36
Operation
Mobile Sources (worker commute, truck trips) 316
Stationary Sources (flare, boiler, tail gas, biodryer, generator) 12,751 Project-Generated Total 13,103
Project-Avoided
Landfill Diversion -9,377
Project Net 3,725
BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 10,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year A positive value means an increase relative to existing conditions and a negative value means a decrease relative to existing conditions.

Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2024.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 65 Initial Study

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

3.9.1 Setting
A hazardous waste is a substance, or mixture, with properties that make it potentially dangerous or harmful to human health or the environment. Specifically, hazardous wastes include waste listed on one of the four Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous wastes lists—the F-list (non-specific source wastes), K-list (source-specific wastes), P-list and U-list (both lists consist of discarded commercial waste products), or that exhibits one of the four characteristics of a hazardous waste—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

The project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area or a designated California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection area (refer to Section 3.20, “Wildfire”).

3.9.2 Discussion
a,b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 66 Initial Study
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Project construction activities would involve the use, storage, and transport of potentially hazardous products such as paints, solvents, glues, and cements. Petroleum hydrocarbon products such as gasoline, diesel, and lubricants would be used in heavy equipment and construction vehicles. By complying with all existing hazardous material regulations, project construction would be protective of public health and the environment. Also, the project would conform to the specifications in the SWPPP prepared under a Construction General Permit required by the SWRCB to avoid spills and releases of hazardous materials and wastes.

Inspections would be conducted to verify consistent implementation of General Construction Permit conditions and BMPs would be required to minimize the potential for spills and releases and help ensure the immediate cleanup and response thereto. BMPs include, for example, the designation of special storage areas and labeling, containment berms, coverage from rain, and concrete washout areas.

Project operations at the Solid Waste Transfer Station would not involve the use of additional hazardous chemicals. The transfer station has a load checking program to identify, isolate, and properly handle and dispose of any hazardous waste that is incidentally delivered in loads of municipal solid waste. The load checking program would be continued with the project.

WWTP operations currently involve the use of chemicals for treatment of wastewater. Project operations at the WWTP for the new project facilities would involve the use of additional chemicals that may be considered hazardous if released to the environment in sufficient quantity.

Operation of the new anaerobic digester would involve use of ferric chloride and sulfuric acid.

Operation of the biosolids dryers would also involve use of sulfuric acid. Operation of the pyrolysis systems would involve the use of sodium hydroxide. Installation of a new diesel generator would require storage of diesel fuel onsite. All chemicals and fuel would be stored and used onsite in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.

By complying with the Construction General Permit and all federal, state, and local regulations regarding storage and use, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the public and the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (City of Brentwood 2014). Therefore, the project would have no impact related to emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of a school.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 67 Initial Study
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (referred to as the “Cortese List”) (California Department of Toxic Substances and Control 2024). Therefore, the project would have no impact on the public or the environment related to such a site.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The project is not within an airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport is the Byron Airport operated by Contra Costa County, which is approximately 8.5 miles south of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on people residing or working in an airport land use plan area or vicinity of an airport. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
During installation of the renewable natural gas pipeline in Sunset Road, traffic flow would be maintained in both directions by traffic control flaggers who would be able to respond to and prioritize emergency vehicle access. Project facilities would not obstruct or otherwise interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact on implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As discussed in Section 3.20, “Wildfire,” the project is not in a high severity wildfire area.

Therefore, the project would have no impact on exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 68 Initial Study

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

3.10.1 Setting
Site Drainage Characteristics
The Solid Waste Transfer Station and WWTP sites are graded to prevent ponding of water and to provide positive drainage. Stormwater and surface drainage is directed across sloped areas to a catch basin. The catch basin drains into a City-owned detention basin and no stormwater leaves City property. The drainage system is designed to accommodate a 100-year storm event.

Drainage inside the transfer building from washdowns of the waste receiving and unloading areas, the wash pads, and from saturated loads of waste drain into a sand/oil separator then to the sanitary sewer. Drainage from outside storage areas also drain to the sand/oil separator then the sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer conveys this drainage to the City’s WWTP.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 69 Initial Study
Drainage in the grassland area adjacent to and east of the WWTP and Sunset Park either infiltrates and or is conveyed to Marsh Creek via a storm drain maintained by the City.

Marsh Creek is the dominant stream in the project area. Marsh Creek passes through Brentwood and traverses north to its confluence with the San Joaquin River and the large embayment area within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta known as Big Break. Rainfall runoff generated in the city is conveyed via the stream channels and constructed stormwater drainage systems that discharge to the ditches, streams, and Marsh Creek. All these streams within the city have generally been straightened with constructed flood control levees, which are under the control of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District (CCCFCWCD).

Regulatory Setting
The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board requires Contra Costa County municipalities, which includes the City of Brentwood, to implement a construction site control program to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants to receiving waters. Each permittee requires the submittal of an erosion control plan that includes appropriate site-specific BMPs, inspection of construction project, and implementation of an enforcement response plan to respond to and require timely corrections of non-compliant conditions.

California’s NPDES permit program requires permits for discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres. SWRCB adopted a general NPDES permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity (Construction General Permit) in Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, which became effective on September 1, 2023. The Construction General Permit includes specific requirements based on the “risk level” of the site. Obtaining coverage under the Construction General Permit requires filing of a Notice of Intent and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which specifies BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of BMPs that control pollutant discharges using the best available technology economically achievable for toxic and non-conventional contaminants, the best conventional technology for conventional contaminants, and any other necessary BMPs to meet water quality standards. The Construction General Permit contains technology-based numeric action levels for pH and turbidity and requires visual monitoring for potential contaminant runoff at all sites, and effluent monitoring at all risk level 2 and 3 sites, with follow-up actions required for exceedances of numeric action levels. The Construction General Permit also specifies runoff reduction requirements for all sites not covered by a municipal NPDES permit, to minimize postconstruction stormwater runoff impacts. Authorization for coverage under the Construction General Permit will be acquired for the project, and appropriate BMPs will be implemented to ensure compliance with the permit conditions.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 70 Initial Study

3.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Construction
Construction activities have the potential to affect surface and ground water quality if not properly controlled through BMPs. Construction activities with the potential to affect water quality consist primarily of ground disturbances from the use of earthmoving equipment for grading, excavation, trenching, backfilling, hauling, and soil compaction. These activities have the potential to result in temporary increases in total suspended solids, turbidity, petroleum products, and trash in runoff from the construction areas. Other potential construction-related contaminants and water quality effects include increased concentrations and loading of organic matter, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and other remnant historical contaminants that may be contained in the soil (e.g., trace metals, pesticides).

Stormwater from construction areas within the Solid Waste Transfer Station and WWTP would be routed to the existing onsite detention basin located adjacent to Elkins Way, as occurs under existing conditions. During construction in the grassland area adjacent to the WWTP where the new anaerobic digester and BDPS units would be located, stormwater would flow into the underlying CCCFCWCD storm drain for discharge to Marsh Creek until grading in that area is complete and the stormwater pump station is installed, after which stormwater would flow to a new intermediate treatment detention basin before flowing into the existing larger detention basin located adjacent to Elkins Way. The portion of the grassland area where the path would be realigned would continue to drain to the CCCFCWCD storm drain. Stormwater in the area adjacent to Sunset Park where the renewable natural gas line would be installed would flow into the adjacent storm drain, as it does under existing conditions. Within the paved areas of the Sunset Park parking lot and Sunset Road, stormwater during construction would be discharged to the existing stormwater collection system.

Implementation of the erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention BMPs described in Section 2.6.3, “Safety and Best Management Practices,” which includes preparing an erosion control plan and obtaining coverage under SWRCB’s NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ/NPDES Permit No. CAS000002) and development of a SWPPP, would minimize and avoid the potential temporary construction-related water quality effects of the project. Through implementation of erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention BMPs, the risk of direct discharges of project construction-related contaminants to surface and ground waters would be low and the stormwater discharge to Marsh Creek, as affected by stormwater runoff from the construction areas, would not substantially degrade water quality such that beneficial uses would be adversely affected.

Operations
Following completion of project construction, stormwater at the Solid Waste Transfer Station and WWTP would continue to be routed to the existing stormwater collection system and onsite detention basin located adjacent to Elkins Way. Similarly, stormwater from the new area with the

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 71 Initial Study
anaerobic digester and BDPS units would drain to a new detention basin located adjacent to these facilities. A new pump station would then pump the stormwater to the existing detention basin adjacent to Elkins Way. Because the site characteristics (e.g., paved areas, wastewater treatment structures) and types of operations and maintenance activities would be similar to existing conditions, the stormwater discharge quality at the Solid Waste Transfer Station and WWTP would be similar to existing conditions during project operations, and all stormwater would be contained on City property.

Runoff from the realigned pedestrian path would flow onto adjacent terrain, which drains to the CCCFCWCD storm drain and Marsh Creek. Stormwater in the area adjacent to Sunset Park where the renewable natural gas line would be installed would flow into the existing storm drain.

Within the paved areas of the new PG&E interconnector station (former parking lot) and Sunset Road, stormwater would be discharged to the existing stormwater collection system, as it does under existing conditions, and eventually to Marsh Creek. The stormwater discharge quality from these areas would be similar to existing conditions because the land cover types would be the same as existing conditions.

Based on the above discussion, the project construction and operations would have a less than significant impact on constituent discharges that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality of sufficient frequency and magnitude to adversely affect beneficial uses. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project involves conversion of approximately nine acres of existing earthen areas to impervious surfaces to erect the new anaerobic digester and BDPS units. This amount of impervious area is inconsequential compared to the amount available regionwide to recharge underlying groundwater aquifers. Furthermore, the project would not increase demand for groundwater supplies. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The project would not alter the existing drainage patterns in a manner that would create areas with high erosion potential. Facility ground surfaces would either be paved or planted with native seed or landscape plants (e.g., turf, shrubs). Furthermore, routing of stormwater drainage at the Solid Waste Transfer Station and WWTP would be addressed in the project design to be captured in onsite detention basins and be retained on City property. Runoff from other project

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 72 Initial Study
areas (i.e., pedestrian path, PG&E interconnector station) would be similar to existing conditions because the finished grade and amounts of impervious area would be similar. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on on- and off-site erosion and siltation, surface runoff, and stormwater drainage systems.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: iv) impede or redirect flood flows? The nearest waterway that conveys flood flows is Marsh Creek. The project does not involve placing vegetation, structures, or other impediments in Marsh Creek. Furthermore, as described above in “a,” stormwater from the new area with the anaerobic digester and BDPS units would be routed to an onsite detention basin. Therefore, the project would have no impact on flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project is not located in a flood zone, or an area subject to exposure to seiche or tsunami.

Therefore, the project would have no impact on the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation from flooding, seiche, or tsunami.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Stormwater discharges in the City are regulated by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The NPDES permit requirements implement federal and state water quality regulations, including relevant water quality objectives and implementation provisions in state water quality control plans. As described above in paragraph “b,” the project would not result in depletion of groundwater or impede groundwater recharge in the project area. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 73 Initial Study

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

3.11.1 Setting
The project site is designated in the City’s General Plan as “PF-Public Facility” (City of Brentwood 2014). The project site also is within the ECCCHCP area, which is discussed in detail in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources.”

3.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project facilities would be located at the existing Solid Waste Transfer Station, WWTP, a vacant parcel adjacent to the WWTP, and a current parking lot adjacent to Sunset Park, thus no communities would be physically divided by the project elements. Therefore, the project would have no impact on established communities.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the site.

The placement of the PG&E interconnector station in the existing, 5-space parking lot at the southeast corner of Sunset Park would not create an environmental effect due to conflict with the City’s land use plans, based on the resource-specific analyses presented in this Initial Study. A larger parking lot to serve Sunset Park is provided west of the interconnector station location.

Finally, the City has applied for coverage of the project under the ECCCHCP. Therefore, the project would have no impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 74 Initial Study

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Setting
The City’s General Plan identifies coal, oil and gas, and sand as significant mineral resources within the area (City of Brentwood 2014). The project site is not used for mineral resource extraction.

3.12.2 Discussion
a,b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The project is not in an area used for mineral extraction. Therefore, the project would have no impact on availability of known mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state, or the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 75 Initial Study

3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

3.13.1 Setting
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted in the form of a pressure wave from a disturbance or vibration. Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or disagreeable. The human ear is sensitive to a wide range of sound pressure fluctuations. Sound pressure levels are expressed in logarithmic units called decibels. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies, a “dBA” (i.e., A-weighted) frequency-dependent rating scale is used to reflect the range of sensitivity for the average human ear from the faintest sound audible to the maximum sensitivity. Based on the dBA scale, a10 dBA increase is perceived by the average human ear as a doubling of the loudness, thus a 70dBA sound is twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. Negative effects of noise exposure include nuisance effects (e.g., annoyance, sleep disturbance) to physical damage to the human auditory system. The dBA scale is used for purposes of environmental noise assessment and regulation.

Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and is a measure typically used to describe potential vibration effects to buildings. The root mean square amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The effects of ground vibration can vary from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, up to causing building damage at the highest levels.

Damage to structures from vibration is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely result in structural damage. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance.

Definition of Terms
The following are definitions of technical noise terms used throughout this section.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 76 Initial Study
• Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2013:2-48). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period.
• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period (Caltrans 2013:2-48, Federal Transit Administration 2018:207– 208).
• Community Noise Equivalent Level: This is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10 decibel (dB) penalty applied to sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Caltrans 2013:2-48).
• Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn): This is the energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a penalty of 10 dB applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). • Vibration Decibels (VdB): VdB is the vibration velocity level in the decibel scale (Federal Transit Administration 2018:Table 5-1).
• Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): PPV is the peak signal value of an oscillating vibration waveform, usually expressed in inches per second (Federal Transit Administration 2018:Table 5-1).

Existing Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for nighttime noise to result in sleep disruption. The area surrounding the project site is primarily developed with industrial, public, and agricultural land uses. The Sunset Park Athletic Complex is located along Elkins Way, south of the project site. Several industrial and commercial businesses are located along Elkins Way southwest of the project site. The project site is also adjacent to agricultural uses in unincorporated Contra Costa County to the east. The nearest existing noise-sensitive receptors to the project site where onsite construction would occur is a cluster of residential uses adjacent to the RC U-Pick Cherries Orchard approximately 500 feet east of the project site boundary, 650 feet east of the acoustical center of construction activities.

Additionally, there is a single-family residence located approximately 1,100 feet southeast of the project site boundary along Sellers Avenue. Regarding offsite pipeline installation, there are single-family residences south of Sunset Road, with the closest approximately 175 feet south of Sunset Road, where the pipeline would turn west along Sunset Road.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 77 Initial Study
Existing Noise Sources
The BNSF railroad line is an active freight and passenger rail line that crosses through the City of Brentwood and is located approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site. Funny Farm 4CA 2 is a privately owned airstrip located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. The nearest public use airport is Byron Airport located approximately 8.5 miles south of the project site.

To characterize the existing ambient noise environment at the project site, three long-term (LT) (24-hour continuous) and two short-term (ST) ambient noise level measurements were conducted in the project area on May 30, 2024. The locations of the noise monitoring sites are shown in Figure 6. A Larson Davis Laboratories and SoftdB Piccolo II precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise measurements. The meters were calibrated before use with Larson Davis Laboratories Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure measurement accuracy. The measurement equipment meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute. The results of the ambient noise short-term measurements are summarized in Table 11, and the results of the ambient noise long-term measurements are summarized in Table 12.

Table 11. Existing ambient short-term noise measurements summary.

Measurement Name Measurement Time Leq Lmax Lmin
Short-term 1 (ST1) (20-minute) 9:59 a.m. to 10:19 a.m. 63.5 83.0 55.9 Short-term 2 (ST2) (22-minute) 10:28 a.m. to 10:50 a.m. 59.8 76.1 45.4 Leq=equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax=maximum noise level; Lmin=minimum noise level Refer to Figure 6 for ambient noise level measurement locations.

Refer to Appendix C for noise measurement data.

Source: Data collected by Ascent Environmental 2024.

Table 12. Existing ambient long-term noise measurements summary.

Measurement Name Measurement
Date Measurement Time Ldn CNEL Leq Lmax Lmin
Long-term 1 (LT1)
(24-hour)
Thursday,
May 30, 2024
1:00 p.m. to
1:00 p.m. 57.9 58.2 51.9 86.7 39.7
Long-term 2 (LT2)
(24-hour)
Thursday,
May 30, 2024
2:00 p.m. to
2:00 p.m. 64.2 64.6 59.8 79.1 41.1
Long-term 3 (LT3)
(24-hour)
Thursday,
May 30, 2024
2:00 p.m. to
2:00 p.m. 61.9 62.2 57.5 87.6 34.9
CNEL=community noise equivalent level Ldn=day-night level; Leq=equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax=maximum noise level; Lmin=minimum noise level
Refer to Figure 6 for ambient noise level measurement locations.

Refer to Appendix C for noise measurement data.

Source: Data collected by Ascent Environmental 2024.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 78 Initial Study
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 6. Noise measurement locations.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 79 Initial Study
Applicable Noise Standards
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual guides engineers, planners, and consultants in assessing noise and vibration from the construction, operation, and maintenance of projects. To address the human response to ground vibration, the FTA has established guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses, shown Table 13. In addition, FTA has established construction vibration damage criteria, shown in Table 14.

Table 13. Ground vibration impact criteria for human response.

Land Use Category Frequent Events a Occasional Events b Infrequent Events c Category 1: Buildings where vibration would
interfere with interior operations 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB Category 2: Residences and buildings where
people normally sleep 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime uses. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB
VdB=vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch per second and based on the root mean square velocity amplitude. a “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. b “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. c “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day.

Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.

Table 14. Construction damage vibration criteria.

Land Use Category Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second) Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.

In addition to vibration criteria, FTA has established construction noise criteria based on the land use type affected by noise and the time of day the noise would occur. The FTA residential noise criteria used in this analysis are 90 dBA Leq for daytime and 80 dBA Leq for nighttime and 100 dBA Leq for nonresidential uses.

Contra Costa County General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan includes policies to address major noise sources within the unincorporated county. The following policies related to noise are applicable to the project (Contra Costa County 2005:11-37):

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 80 Initial Study
• Policy 11-2: The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a Ldn of 60 dB.

However, a Ldn of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies associated with multifamily housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative.
• Policy 11-8: Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods.

City of Brentwood General Plan
The City of Brentwood General Plan Noise Element contains policies to address major noise sources and to promote safe and comfortable noise levels throughout the city (City of Brentwood 2014:10-1). The following policies related to noise and vibration apply to the project:
• Policy N 1-3: Require new development to mitigate excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noisegenerating equipment, placement of noise tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials such as rubberized asphalt. • Policy N 1-7: For projects that are required by CEQA to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:

Stationary and Non-Transportation Noise Sources
• A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater.

Transportation Noise Sources
• Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant;
• Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.
• Policy N 1-9: Local truck traffic, including loading and unloading, shall be limited to specific routes, times, and speeds appropriate to each zoning district. • Policy N 1-11: Ensure that existing development is protected, to the greatest extent feasible, from noise impacts due to construction on adjacent or nearby properties.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 81 Initial Study
• Policy N 1-13: Control non-transportation related noise from site specific noise sources to the standards shown in Table N-2 [shown as Table 15 in this document]. • Policy N 1-15: Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices (see Action N 1e).
• Action N 1e: During the environmental review process, determine if proposed construction will constitute a significant impact on nearby residents and, if necessary, require mitigation measures in addition to the standard best practices controls. Suggested best practices for control of construction noise include:
o Construction period shall be less than 12 months;
o Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

No construction shall occur on Sundays or City holidays; o All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; o The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists;
o At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences;
o Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited; o Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible; o The required construction-related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment; o Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing; and
o The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.

The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 82 Initial Study
Table 15. Stationary (non-transportation) noise source standards in the City of Brentwood General Plan.

Land Use Receiving the
Noise
Hourly Noise-Level
Descriptor
Exterior Noise-Level Standard (dBA)
Daytime
(7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.)
Residential Leq 55 45
Residential Lmax 70 65
dBA=A-weighted decibels; Leq=equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax=maximum noise level. a The residential standards apply to all properties that are zoned for residential use. The exterior noise level standard is to be applied at the property line of the receiving land use or at a designated outdoor activity area (at the discretion of the Community Development Director) of the new development. For mixed-use projects, the exterior noise level standard may be waived (at the discretion of the Community Development Director) if the project does not include a designated activity area and mitigation of property line noise is not practical.

These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings). The City can impose standards that are more restrictive than specified above based upon determination of existing low ambient noise levels. b Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dBA for tonal noises characterized by a whine, screech, or hum, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. In no case shall mitigation be required to a level that is less than existing ambient noise levels, as determined through measurements conducted during the same operational period as the subject noise source.
c In situations where the existing noise level exceeds the noise levels indicated in the above table, any new noise source must include mitigation that reduces the noise level of the noise source to the existing level plus 3 dB.

Source: City of Brentwood 2014.

City of Brentwood Municipal Code
The City of Brentwood Municipal Code incorporates specific noise standards to control noise within the City. Chapter 9.32 “Noise Regulations” includes standards for conducting noise measurements, general noise regulations, and exemptions. The following standards included in the Brentwood Municipal Code are relevant to the project:

Section 9.32.050 Prohibited special noise sources.

A. Grading, Site Improvement, Infrastructure Improvements and Outside Heavy Construction. All operation of power construction equipment or any other construction device that creates noise in excess of the noise level limits of this article, and all performance of any outside construction work, including, but not limited to, grading and trenching, that creates noise in excess of the noise level limits of this article shall be limited to the following hours: Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., or until 5:30 p.m. with the express written approval of the city engineer or designee. No such work shall be performed on Saturday or Sunday or city holidays, except that such work may be performed on Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with the express written approval of the city engineer or designee…

2. Construction activities within city right-of-way, such as road work or installation of drainage facilities, may be performed outside of the specified work hours of this subsection A, including overnight work, with the express written approval of the city engineer or designee…
B. Outside Carpentry Construction. No person in a residential zone shall operate or permit the operation of any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder or similar tools, so

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 83 Initial Study
as to create any noise which exceeds the noise level limits of this article, except during the following hours: Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

1. No work described in this subsection B may performed on Sunday or any city holiday or on Monday through Saturday outside of the hours specified above unless all such work is conducted within a completely enclosed structure.

2. Home repairs, lawn mowing, gardening and routine maintenance of personal property is not considered construction.

Section 9.32.070 Exemptions
F. Construction activity or garbage collection performed by an agency of government, provided that all equipment is operated in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and is equipped with all noise reducing equipment in proper condition.

3.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? This discussion includes an analysis of short-term construction and long-term operational noise.

Construction Noise (Temporary)
To assess potential temporary construction-related noise impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure were identified.

Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in December 2024 and is expected to be completed in approximately 30 months. Construction would generally be performed between 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, with the potential to occur periodically on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Where work is located within 300 feet of an occupied residence, work would be limited to occurring between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Work located on Sunset Road requiring lane closure would be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. In all cases, construction work would comply with City Municipal Code Section 9.32.050, the City Standard Specifications, and the Traffic Control Plan Submittal Criteria.

The City and County have not adopted construction-specific noise standards. Thus, the FTA construction noise standards are used to assess construction noise impacts. FTA has a daytime construction noise standard of 90 dBA Leq for residential uses and 100 dBA Leq for commercial/industrial uses (Federal Transit Authority 2018:179).

Project-generated construction source noise levels were determined based on methodologies, reference emission levels, and usage factors from the FTA’s Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (Federal Transit Authority 2018) and Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (Federal Highway

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 84 Initial Study
Administration 2006). Reference noise levels for specific equipment and activity types are well documented, and the usage thereof is common practice in the field of acoustics.

Construction equipment with substantially higher noise-generation characteristics, such as pile drivers, rock drills, and blasting equipment, would not be used for construction of any phase of the project. Construction is a temporary activity and noise from construction ceases once construction is complete. Construction-generated noise levels would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of equipment used. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise-sensitive receptors, and the ambient noise environment at nearby receptors.

The typical maximum noise levels (i.e., Lmax) for various pieces of construction equipment at 50 feet away are presented in Table 16. However, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time.

Table 16. Typical noise levels from construction equipment.

Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (Lmax dBA) at 50 feet a,b Backhoe 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Compactor 80
Crane/Lift 85
Compressor (Air) 80
Dozer 85
Dump Truck 84
Excavator 85
Flat Bed Truck 84
Front End Loader 80
Generator 70
Grader 85
Paver 85
Roller 85
Pickup Trucks 54
Lmax=maximum noise level. a Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. b Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment.

Source: Federal Transit Agency 2018:176.

As shown in Table 16, the maximum noise levels at 50 feet for typical construction equipment could result in levels up to 85 dBA. Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source)

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 85 Initial Study
propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source.

Modeling for on-site construction noise conservatively assumed the simultaneous operation of three pieces of heavy equipment (i.e., a front-end loader, an excavator, and a dozer) within proximity and at the edge of the project site. These three pieces of equipment would generate a combined noise level of 81.6 dBA Leq and 85.6 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. See Appendix C for detailed calculations.

The attenuated noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor approximately 500 feet from the eastern project boundary would be 61.6 dBA Leq and 65.6 dBA Lmax. Thus, noise generated by onsite construction activities would not be expected to exceed FTA’s daytime construction noise standard of 90 dBA Leq for residential uses or 100 dBA Leq for commercial/industrial uses.

Calculations of these combined noise levels are provided in Appendix C.

Off-site construction would involve different activities than on-site construction; and thus, would require different types of equipment. As this work is linear, elevated noise levels would only occur temporarily in the location where construction occurs before moving along the roadway.

Modeling for the off-site natural gas pipeline construction assumed the simultaneous operation of three pieces of heavy equipment for trenching (i.e., an excavator, a front-end loader, and a flatbed truck) along the eastern boundary of the Sunset Athletic Complex where pipeline alignment would occur. Based on reference noise levels and accounting for typical usage factors of individual pieces of equipment, off-site construction-related activities could generate a combined hourly average noise level of approximately 79.6 dBA Leq and 83.6 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Detailed inputs and parameters for the estimated construction noise exposure levels are provided in Appendix C.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptor, a single-family residence, is located approximately 175 feet from the south side of Sunset Road where the pipeline construction would occur. At this distance, off-site construction noise would attenuate, through distance alone, to a level of

68.8 dBA Leq and 72.9 dBA Lmax at the sensitive receptor, which would not exceed the applicable daytime noise standard of 90 dBA Leq for residential receptors.

The project’s daytime construction noise would result in perceptible increases in noise (i.e., 10 dBA or more above existing noise levels). However, due to the temporary and transient nature of construction activities, elevated noise levels would not occur for extended periods of time at any one location. Furthermore, because construction would occur during the less-sensitive daytime hours, when other existing noise sources are also present (e.g., roadway noise, other nearby construction), the project’s construction noise alone would not result in substantial new noise sources that would exceed the applicable maximum noise level thresholds or result in noise level increases that could result in adverse health effects (i.e., sleep interruption, prolonged excessive noise leading to annoyance) to nearby receptors.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 86 Initial Study
Traffic Noise (Construction and Permanent)
Construction material deliveries (e.g., vendor, concrete) would occur throughout the construction period, with peak deliveries occurring during concrete work, when an estimated 15 concrete deliveries per day would occur. On these days, total peak-hour trips could be up to 45 vehicles (i.e., 30 worker trips and 15 truck trips), compared to the 145 truck and employee trips per day that occur under existing conditions (Table 2). Deliveries could occur in the early morning.

Deliveries would be made via Sunset Road to Elkins Way, which currently experience truck traffic in the early morning and during the day; the City’s solid waste collection trucks travel on Elkins Way as early as 4:00 a.m. and into the early afternoon (see Section 2.4.1, “Solid Waste Transfer Station and Solid Waste Handling”).

The project would minimally change operations from existing conditions to accommodate the new organic waste recovery system. As detailed in Section 2.6.2 (Table 2), the project would result in 165 combined truck and employee commute trips as compared to 145 under existing conditions (i.e., a net increase of 20 trips). However, some trip types would occur daily (e.g., workforce, high strength waste haul), while others would occur weekly (e.g., process byproduct hauling) or monthly (e.g., odor control chemical delivery), resulting in a daily increase of 13 trips (or a 9 percent increase) over existing conditions. Of these trips, employee commute trips would be dispersed over multiple roadways and truck trips (e.g., high strength waste delivery, process byproduct hauling) would be limited to the project site and Elkins Way via Sunset Road.

As such, incremental project-generated vehicle trips on any individual roadway would be less than the total anticipated increase in trips.

It is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dBA in typical noisy environments. A 5 dBA increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013:2-10).

Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3 dBA increase in sound would generally be perceived as barely detectable. A doubling of existing traffic on any roadway would not occur, therefore project-generated trafficrelated noise increase would not be perceptible (i.e. less than 3 dB).

Operational (Permanent) Stationary Noise
Operation of the project would introduce several new stationary noise sources, including various types of pumps (e.g., sump pumps, digester feed pumps), biogas and flare blowers, air compressors, chillers, and fans. These noise sources would be primarily associated with the anaerobic digester and scattered throughout the site. In addition, new equipment (e.g., conveyors, shredders) would be located within the newly expanded transfer station building. However, the new building would be entirely enclosed (i.e., no windows) and located next to the existing transfer station building, which would act as a barrier between the new building and offsite receptors and would be over 1,000 feet from existing offsite receptors. For these reasons, the noise sources within the new transfer station building would not contribute to offsite noise levels.

The new PG&E interconnection station does not include rotating equipment, therefore no operational noise from this facility is anticipated. This assessment focused on the new stationary equipment that would be located near the eastern boundary of the new anaerobic digester and BDPS, the project features closest to offsite sensitive receptors.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 87 Initial Study
Based on site-specific equipment details (e.g., equipment type, reference noise levels) and their proposed location on the project site, offsite noise levels, assuming the simultaneous operation of each piece of equipment were modeled (Appendix C). The nearest offsite receptor to the proposed stationary equipment is the residential use directly east of the project site, near the RC U-Pick Cherries operation. At this location, operational noise is anticipated to be 68.8 dBA Leq.

Applying this hourly noise level for daily continuous operation would result in a 24-hour noise level of 75.2 dB Ldn. Noise associated with exterior (not enclosed) pumps (e.g., chiller pumps, pump station, ammonia removal pumps) near the eastern edge of the project would be the primary contributors to the exterior noise levels.

The City of Brentwood has adopted daytime and nighttime noise standards for residential land uses (i.e., 55 dBA Leq and 45 dBA Leq, respectively). The nearest offsite receptor is located within Contra Costa County, where maximum noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn have been established for residential uses. Anticipated operational noise would exceed both the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County noise standards for residential uses. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, which requires that appropriate noise enclosures be installed, quieter alternative equipment be used, or a sound wall be constructed, to be verified by a qualified acoustical engineer, would ensure that offsite noise levels do not exceed the City of Brentwood or Contra Costa County noise standards, making this impact less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1. REDUCE OPERATIONAL (PERMANENT) STATIONARY NOISE To ensure that City of Brentwood’s daytime (i.e., 55 dBA Leq) and nighttime (45 dBA Leq) and Contra Costa County’s residential noise limits (i.e., 60 dBA Ldn) are not exceeded, the City shall implement the following measures.

Prior to commencing operation of the proposed anaerobic digester and BDPS, the City of Brentwood shall prepare an operational noise mitigation and monitoring plan, in consultation with a qualified acoustical engineer. Specific measures that may be recommended include the selection of alternative, quieter equipment options, selection and installation of equipment enclosures, and, or in combination with the aforementioned, construct a solid (i.e., no openings between noise sources and offsite receptors) sound barrier on the eastern boundary of the project site.

Based on the final selection of alternative equipment type, enclosures and barriers, and prior to final installation and operation of equipment, the plan shall be verified by the acoustical professional, using site-specific parameters (equipment sound pressure levels, enclosure transmission loss parameters, individual equipment operational activity hours) to confirm that the daytime and nighttime noise levels adopted by the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County are not exceeded at any nearby noise-sensitive receptor. Documentation (e.g., noise model inputs, noise reduction recommendations, residual noise levels) shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Brentwood for approval.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 88 Initial Study
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction activities that may expose people to excessive vibration, resulting in sleep disturbance or prolonged disruption to daily activities and work, are more likely to occur during extended construction schedules that involve impact equipment (e.g., pile drivers, jackhammers), blasting, or large haul trucks. Based on FTA guidance, transient vibrations, such as construction activity with a 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) PPV may be characterized as causing structural damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, 0.3 PPV in/sec for engineered concrete masonry, and 0.5 PPV in/sec for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber structures. In addition, peak vibration levels (VdB) established by the FTA recommend a level of 80 VdB to evaluate disturbance to sensitive land uses where people sleep.

Based on the proposed construction activity and types of equipment that would be used, the heaviest piece of construction equipment that would generate the highest levels of vibration would be a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller operated within approximately 26 feet of an existing building or structure could expose that structure to levels of ground vibration that exceed FTA recommended level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage.

Also, a vibratory roller operated within 73 feet of a building could expose the building occupants to ground vibration levels that exceed the FTA maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB with respect to human annoyance for residential uses. Because onsite and offsite construction activity would take place more than 73 feet from sensitive receptors (i.e., the nearest receptor to onsite construction would be approximately 500 feet from the eastern project boundary; the nearest receptor to offsite construction would be approximately 175 feet from where pipeline installation would occur), there would be no exceedance of FTA’s recommended level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage or FTA’s standard of 80 VdB with respect to human annoyance for residential uses. Vibration modeling calculations are provided in Appendix C.

Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project is not located in the vicinity of an airport as the nearest airport, Byron Airport, is located approximately 8.5 miles south of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and there would be no impact related to airport noise.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 89 Initial Study

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.14.1 Setting
The City’s current population is approximately 66,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2024).

3.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project would not include the construction of new homes or businesses. The project would not increase the permitted capacity of the Solid Waste Transfer Station or WWTP, thus would not be growth inducing. Similarly, the pedestrian path realignment similarly would not be growth inducing. The PG&E interconnector station and renewable natural gas pipeline would provide natural gas supplies in lieu of extracted supplies. Therefore, the project would have no impact on population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Housing does not exist where the project facilities would be located. Therefore, the project would have no impact on population growth in the area or the displacement of people or housing.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 90 Initial Study

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

3.15.1 Setting
The provision of public services in the project area is the responsibility of the City of Brentwood (e.g., police, parks) and other local special districts (e.g., school districts, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District).

3.15.2 Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) fire protection; ii) police protection; iii) schools; v) other public facilities?
The project would not cause changes to the level of fire and police protection services, schools, or other public services. Furthermore, the project would not result in an increase in population or facilities that would increase in demand for fire protection services nor would it affect service ratios. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the need for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities.
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 91 Initial Study
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: iv) parks? The project is not a land use development project that would result in increased use of existing parks or demand for a new park.

The project would involve temporary construction-related activities affecting the use of the pedestrian path connecting Sunset Park to Marsh Creek Trail. The public would not be able to use the path for approximately eight weeks. There are two nearby access points to Marsh Creek Trail, one is approximately 0.25 mile west of Sunset Park adjacent to the Black Diamond Kids Center and the other is approximately 0.5 mile west of Sunset Park near the intersection of Sunset Road and Jane Way. Increased use of other regional recreational paths is not expected because Marsh Creek Trail would continue to be accessible at these other locations.

The placement of the PG&E interconnector station in the existing, 5-space parking lot at the southeast corner of Sunset Park off Sunset Road would not create the need for an additional parking lot or result in demand for a new park. A larger, approximately 248-space parking lot is available west of the interconnector station location. There also is an approximately 184-space parking lot on the north side of the park accessible via Elkins Way.

Access to Sunset Park would be maintained during project construction. As described in Section

2.6.3.4, “Traffic Control,” traffic flow on Sunset Road would be maintained in each direction during construction of the renewable natural gas pipeline. Therefore, park users would still be able to access the large park parking lot off Sunset Road. Access to the park parking lot off Elkins Way would not be affected by construction activities as no construction activities would occur in Elkins Way and traffic volume would not be substantially affected, as described in Section 3.17, “Transportation.”
Because there are nearby access points to Marsh Creek Trail, ample parking is provided adjacent to Sunset Park, and access to Sunset Park would be maintained, the project would have a lessthan-significant impact on park services.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 92 Initial Study

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

3.16.1 Setting
The City’s 38-acre Sunset Park Athletic Complex is adjacent to the project site. Trails in the project vicinity connect the park to the Marsh Creek Trail.

3.16.2 Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As described in Section 3.15, “Public Services,” the project would involve temporary construction-related activities affecting use of the pedestrian path connecting Sunset Park to Marsh Creek Trail for approximately eight weeks, during which the public would not be able to use the path. However, there are two nearby access points to Marsh Creek Trail. Furthermore, access to Sunset Park would be maintained, the main park parking lots off Sunset Road and Elkins Way would be unaffected, and the project is not a land development project that would generate new park users. Therefore, the project is not expected to increase the use of other existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. As such, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on neighborhood parks and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project’s effect on the recreational use of the pedestrian path connecting Sunset Park to Marsh Creek Trail would be temporary. Furthermore, the project would not result in an increase in population resulting in an associated increase in demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the requirement for construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 93 Initial Study

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Setting
Transportation Network in Project Vicinity
The following roadways are in the project vicinity.
• IPARQ Way is a bidirectional north-south two-lane roadway that connects with Elkins Way at its southern end and provides access to the City’s Municipal Services Center. There are sidewalks along both sides of IPARQ Way. There are no bicycle facilities present along IPARQ Way.
• Elkins Way is a bidirectional two-lane roadway that provides direct access to the project site. Elkins Way runs north-south between Sunset Road and the Ford Training Center, at which point it transitions to an east-west roadway. There is a sidewalk along the entirety of the southern/eastern side of Elkins Way and a sidewalk along the northern/western side of Elkins Way between Sunset Road and IPARQ Way.
• Sunset Road is a bidirectional east-west two-lane roadway located south of the project site.

There is a sidewalk along the northern portion of Sunset Road between the City of Brentwood's eastern boundary and Brentwood Boulevard. There are Class II bicycle facilities present on the northern side of Sunset Road.

Bicycle facilities are classified in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2018:40–42). Class I bikeways are shared-use paths designated for the exclusive use of people riding bicycles and walking with minimal crossflow traffic. Marsh Creek Trail and the paved pedestrian paths east of the WWTP and Sunset Park that connect Sunset Road to Marsh Creek Trail are Class I bikeways. Class II bikeways are designated lanes on streets, typically adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes, using special lane markings. There is a Class II bike lane along the westbound portion of Sunset Road.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 94 Initial Study
Tri-Delta Transit provides fixed-route bus service in the cities of Antioch, Bay Point, Brentwood, and Oakley. The bus stop closest to the project site is near the intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Balfour Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site.

Applicable Plans and Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.3
The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA published by the Office of Planning and Research provides guidance for conducting transportation analyses for CEQA documents based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Per the guidance, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day can be presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact, absent substantial evidence indicating otherwise (Office of Planning and Research 2018).

California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code, which is codified as CCR Title 24 Part 9 incorporates by adoption the 2021 International Fire Code and contains regulations related to construction, maintenance, access, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include design standards for fire apparatus access (e.g., turning radii, minimum widths), standards for emergency access during construction, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, and other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.

California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control provides principles and guidance for the implementation of temporary traffic control to ensure the provision of reasonably safe and effective movement of all roadway users (e.g., motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians) through or around temporary traffic control zones while reasonably protecting road users, workers, responders to traffic incidents, and equipment.

Additionally, this document notes that temporary traffic control plans and devices shall be the responsibility of the public body or official having jurisdiction to guide road users (California Department of Transportation 2024:1029).

Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines
In July 2020, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted transportation analysis guidelines to assist project applicants and County staff in preparing transportation analyses. In accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory, the County Transportation Analysis Guidelines indicate that a project that generates fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact under CEQA and would not require further VMT analysis (Contra Costa County 2020:13).

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 95 Initial Study
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District provides fire protection services to the City of Brentwood. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Ordinance 2022-34 adopts the 2022 California Fire Code as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions included in the ordinance (Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2022).

City of Brentwood General Plan
The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan provides a framework for decisions concerning the city’s multi-modal (i.e., transit, roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, rail) transportation system and establishes standards to guide the development of the transportation system through goals, policies, and actions (City of Brentwood 2014). The following General Plan policies related to transportation are relevant to the project.
• Policy CIR 1-2: Ensure that the City’s circulation network is a well-connected system of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, and paths that effectively accommodates vehicular and non-vehicular traffic in a manner that considers the context of surrounding land uses and the needs of all roadway users.
• Policy CIR 1-3: When analyzing impacts to the circulation network created by new development or roadway improvements, consider the needs of all users, including those with disabilities, ensuring that pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders are considered at an equal level to automobile drivers.
• Policy CIR 1-12: Maintain and improve critical transportation facilities for emergency vehicle access and emergency evacuation needs.
• Policy CIR 2-1: Establish and maintain a system of interconnected bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian facilities that facilitate commuter and recreational travel, and that are consistent with the City’s parks, trails, and recreation goals and policies in this General Plan and the Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. • Policy CIR 2-4: Create an accessible circulation network that is consistent with guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act, allowing mobilityimpaired users such as the disabled and elderly to safely and effectively travel within and beyond the city.
• Policy CSF 2-5: Develop and maintain a system of parks, trails, and recreation facilities to create diverse opportunities for passive and organized recreation.

City of Brentwood Municipal Code
Section 15.06.010 of the City of Brentwood Municipal Code adopts the 2022 California Fire Code by reference, as amended by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Ordinance 2022-

34. Chapter 12.08 identifies the permits required for encroachments in a public right-of-way and the specific standards related to public safety and access to which project applicants must adhere.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 96 Initial Study
City of Brentwood Standard Plans and Specifications
The City of Brentwood Standard Plans and Specifications include design and construction standards and specifications (e.g., sight distance, grading standards) to guide development activities within the city. The City Engineer requires that all public and private improvements within the city be constructed in accordance with the Standard Plans and Specifications.

City of Brentwood Traffic Control Plan Submittal Criteria The City’s Traffic Control Plan Submittal Criteria establishes standards for the preparation and submission of a traffic control plan. The Traffic Control Plan Submittal Criteria requires that traffic control is provided in accordance with the latest edition of the CA MUTCD; establishes permissible hours for lane closures between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. unless otherwise approved; and lists minimum requirements to be included on a traffic control plan (City of Brentwood n.d.).

City of Brentwood Encroachment Permit
The City requires an Encroachment Permit for any work that is performed within the public right-of-way including streets and sidewalks. The City encroachment permit application includes provisions for any activity within the public right-of-way including the approval of a traffic control plan for work affecting the public right-of-way (City of Brentwood 2022).

3.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The project is not a land use development project that would result in increased demand for pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities, as there would be no operational activity associated with the project that would generate such trips, and the project would result in an increase of three to five new employees.

There are no existing or planned transit facilities within approximately 1.5 miles of the project site. Thus, the project would not disrupt existing transit service; interfere with the implementation of any planned transit facilities; or conflict with adopted plans, guidelines, polices, or standards related to such facilities.

The project would result in a slight increase in truck trips to and from the project site; however, these trips would not require the construction or alteration of any public roadways and thus would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing roadway facilities.

Equipment and materials delivery necessary for facility construction would be via Elkins Way.

There are sidewalks along both sides of Elkins Way that provide pedestrian access to the surrounding commercial and industrial sites. Construction of the new facilities is not anticipated to require temporary street closures and/or traffic detours on Elkins Way; thus, pedestrian access along Elkins Way would be maintained.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 97 Initial Study
Construction of the renewable natural gas pipeline in Sunset Road is not anticipated to require temporary street closures or traffic detours. As described in Section 2, “Project Description,” through traffic would be maintained in each direction by providing traffic control in accordance with the CA MUTCD. Section 6F of the CA MUTCD recommends implementing bicycle and pedestrian detour signs where flow is rerouted to ensure safe and effective movement during construction work within the public right-of-way (California Department of Transportation 2024). Therefore, safe navigation for bicyclists and pedestrians would be provided during project construction. Once construction of the pipeline is complete, the roadway would be returned to its original condition, thus the project would not permanently disrupt existing roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

To accommodate the new facilities, the pedestrian path between Elkins Way and Marsh Creek Trail would be realigned to the east of its existing location, as shown in Figure 2. The path would be designed and constructed in accordance with City design standards and specifications and would maintain the connection between Elkins Way and Marsh Creek Trail. Therefore, realignment of the path would not conflict with General Plan Policy CIR 2-1, which intends to maintain a system of interconnected pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The project would not involve the redesign of any roadways and thus would not interfere with any planned bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities, or conflict with adopted plans, guidelines, policies, or standards related to such facilities.

In summary, traffic control measures would provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians during construction. All transportation infrastructure would be returned to its original condition after construction such that the existing physical transportation network would not be adversely affected. For these reasons, the project would not permanently disrupt any existing or planned roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities; and would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or standards related to such facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
The City of Brentwood has not adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds that address CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Therefore, in the absence of lead agency-adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds of significance, the VMT analysis herein relies on the guidance provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and the Office of Planning and Research guidance. This analysis assumes that construction workers and project employees would not carpool and thus would generate two trips per worker per day.

Relevant to calculating trips is State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), which states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks (Office of Planning and Research 2018).

Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT) but need not be.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 98 Initial Study
Therefore, larger on-road vehicles that do not fall within the categories of cars and light trucks do not need to be considered in calculations of trips or VMT.

Construction activities associated with the project would not result in permanent increases in vehicular trips along roadways in and around the project site because construction trips would be temporary and intermittent. Although different phases of construction would require varying numbers of construction personnel, an estimated 30 workers would be required during peak construction. Assuming each worker would generate two trips per day, construction workers would generate a total of 60 daily commute trips during peak construction. Therefore, the number of construction worker trips would not exceed screening criteria for small projects in the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA of 110 new daily trips per day. Additionally, construction activities are expected to require an average of 15 workers, thus the number of trips generated by workers on a typical construction workday would be lower. For these reasons, the project would not result in a substantial increase in VMT during construction.

The project may require an additional three to five employees to operate and maintain the new facilities. Assuming each worker would drive alone to and from the project site each day, the project would result in a net increase of six to 10 new commute trips per day. Therefore, the project would not exceed 110 new daily trips per day and is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA threshold for small projects. For these reasons, the project would result in a substantial increase in VMT during operations.

Because construction and operational activities would generate fewer than 110 new daily trips per day, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision(b). This impact would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Construction
Project construction activities would require the hauling of heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, excavators, asphalt roller machine) to the project site and the operation of large trucks on the surrounding roadway network. The roads that would be used to access the project site (i.e., Sunset Road, Elkins Way) are already used by heavy trucks accessing existing industrial and commercial properties in the vicinity of the project site as well as under existing conditions on the project site itself. Thus, the use of heavy-duty construction equipment on the roadway network would not be considered an incompatible use.

Construction of the renewable natural gas pipeline by PG&E would require the temporary closure of the vehicular and bicycle lane on Sunset Road. Pursuant to Section 12.08.030 of the City of Brentwood Municipal Code, an encroachment permit would be required for construction in the public right-of-way. Per the City encroachment permit application, an approved traffic control plan is required to be in place before the start of any work affecting the public right-ofway (City of Brentwood 2022). In compliance with the City Traffic Control Plan Submittal

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 99 Initial Study
Criteria, the traffic control plan would be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the CA MUTCD, which provides guidance to ensure the safe and effective movement of all roadway users through or around temporary traffic control zones. Per Section 6B.01 of the CA MUTCD, adequate warning, delineation, and channelization should be provided to assist in guiding road users (e.g., motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) in advance of and through the traffic control zone (California Department of Transportation 2024:1032). Additionally, areas of the project site undergoing active construction would be closed (i.e., fenced) to prevent public access to the project site during construction. Therefore, because traffic control and other safety measures would be provided during project construction, such activity would not substantially increase transportation hazards. Furthermore, construction plans for work on Sunset Road would be subject to review by the City Engineer to ensure that the roadway would be restored in compliance with applicable roadway design standards. For these reasons, the project would not be anticipated to substantially increase transportation-related hazards during construction activities.

Operations
The project plans would be subject to review by the City Engineer to ensure that applicable design standards and specifications are met to minimize transportation hazards during operations.

Operational activities associated with the project would not require the construction, redesign, or alteration of any public roadways; thus, project operation would not substantially increase transportation hazards due to a design feature. Although operation and maintenance activities would result in additional truck trips to and from the project site via Elkins Way, the types of vehicles and equipment (e.g., heavy-duty trucks) accessing the project area during operational activities would be consistent with those used under existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to incompatible uses. For these reasons, the project would not be anticipated to substantially increase transportation-related hazards during operations.

Summary
The project would be subject to and adhere to all City design standards and safety regulations that are intended to reduce transportation hazards. A traffic control plan would be prepared to ensure that project construction would minimize potential safety impacts during construction on public right of way. Additionally, the project plans would be subject to review by the City Engineer to ensure that applicable design standards and specifications are met to minimize transportation hazards during operations. For these reasons, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. This impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District would continue to provide fire protection and emergency response services to the project site. The project would be required to comply with the 2022 California Fire Code, as adopted by reference in Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 2022-34. Section 3303.1 of the California Fire Code requires that an owner or authorized agent develop, implement, and maintain an approved written site safety plan

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 100 Initial Study
at the project site applicable during all phases of construction, repair, alteration, or demolition work. Section 3303.1.1 details the required elements that all site safety plans must have, which include fire department vehicle access routes. During construction in the public right-of-way, traffic control measures that comply with CA MUTCD guidelines would be implemented.

Section 6B.01.7D of the CA MUTCD requires that the needs of emergency service providers be evaluated and incorporated into traffic control plans (California Department of Transportation 2024). Thus, adequate emergency access would be provided during construction activities. The project would not involve the construction or redesign of any public roadways, and thus, existing emergency access to the project site would remain unchanged. For these reasons, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction or operations. This impact would be less than significant.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 101 Initial Study

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

3.18.1 Setting
“Tribal cultural resources” (e.g., sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and/or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe) is a term defined in PRC Section 21074. The stipulations of PRC Sections 21073, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, and 21084.3 as amended by AB 52 are the responsibility of the City.

Tribal Use of the Project Site
The project site is in the ethnographic territory of the Eastern Miwok, near the boundary between the territory of the Bay and Plains Miwok. Miwok primarily relied on gathering wild foods and hunting mammals (e.g., mule deer, tule elk, antelope) for subsistence. Among the plant foods exploited were greens collected in the spring and acorns collected in the fall. Miwok use the bow and arrow, snares, traps, nets, and enclosures or blinds for hunting land mammals and birds. For fishing, they made canoes from tule, balsa, or logs, and used harpoons, hooks, nets, and basketry traps. To collect plant resources, they used sharpened digging sticks, long poles for dislodging acorns and pinecones, and a variety of woven tools. Political units among the Miwok were structured by similarities in language and ethnicity, and villages were divided into “tribelets” that controlled specific lands and the natural resources within that territory. (Natural Investigations Company 2024)

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 102 Initial Study
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 establishes that, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

To initiate the AB 52 consultation process, Tribes must submit a written request to a lead agency to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribe (PRC Section 21080.3.1[b]). The following is the list of Tribes that have requested notification by the City of proposed projects:
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
• Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians
• Confederated Villages of Lisjan
• Guidiville Indian Rancheria
• Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe
• North Valley Yokuts Tribe
• Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wilton Rancheria
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
On May 1, 2024, the City sent AB 52 notification letters describing the project via both U.S. mail and email to the Tribes. The letter included a project description and map depicting the project location. Pursuant to PRC 21080.3.1 (b), the Tribes had thirty days from the receipt of the letter to request, in writing, consultation with the City regarding the Proposed Project. The City received an email from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista recommending searches through the CHRIS and Sacred Lands File, and NAHC outreach, cultural sensitivity training for construction crews, and presence of trained archaeological and tribal monitors during earth moving activities. The City also received an email from Confederated Villages of Lisjan requesting a copy of the CHRIS and Sacred Lands File results, and the CEQA document being prepared. No other Tribes responded to the AB 52 notification letter.

3.18.2 Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 103 Initial Study
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k);ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Buried tribal cultural resources may include, but are not limited to, deposits of stone, bone and shell artifacts, dark gray “midden” sediments, or cemeteries. As described in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” cultural resources investigations did not identify any cultural resources, historical resources, unique archaeological resources, human remains, or indication of the presence of buried deposits of any tribal cultural resources pursuant to PRC Section 21074 in the project area limits. Therefore, the project construction activities do not warrant the presence of monitors during earth moving activities. Nevertheless, because construction activities have the potential to encounter buried archaeological resources that could be considered tribal cultural resources if they are of Native American origin, the City would implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1 to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 104 Initial Study

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Setting
The City of Brentwood, which is the project proponent, is responsible for providing solid waste collection, water, and wastewater services for the community. Electric power and natural gas is provided by PG&E. The project site is located within the CCCFCWCD. Storm water and drainage from the Solid Waste Transfer Station and WWTP is routed to a City-owned detention basin located onsite.

3.19.2 Discussion
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project may require a small additional amount of recycled water use at the Solid Waste Transfer Station for dust control, cleaning of equipment, washdowns of receiving and unloading areas, and other operational activities, but the amount would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water treatment or distribution facilities.

The project may generate a small additional amount of washdown water from inside the transfer station that is routed to the City’s WWTP for treatment, but this additional wastewater inflow would be immeasurable relative to the WWTP influent flow rate. Therefore, the project would

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 105 Initial Study
not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.

The project would include features onsite to accommodate the stormwater drainage generated from additional impervious surfaces (e.g., building roof runoff, pavement drainage). Additional stormwater drainage from the project facilities would be conveyed to an existing detection basin located adjacent to Elkins Way by the newly installed pump station. The project would not require modifications to any offsite stormwater drainage systems. The realigned pedestrian path would have an impervious area similar to existing conditions, thus would not generate additional runoff. Similarly, the PG&E interconnector station would not change the amount of impervious area as a result of being installed at the current parking lot at the southwest corner of Sunset Park. Therefore, the project would not require or result in relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities.

The project would require installation of new electrical power facilities onsite, but would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical power offsite.

The project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications facilities.

The project would generate renewable natural gas and includes installation of a new pipeline to convey this natural gas to a PG&E mainline. The environmental effects of installing this new pipeline are addressed herein, and include effects on air quality (Section 3.3), biological resources (Section 3.4), noise (Section 3.13), and transportation (Section 3.17). The impacts to these resources would be less than significant with mitigation described in the respective resource sections.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As described above in “a,” the project may result in a small additional amount of recycled water use at the Solid Waste Transfer Station for operational activities, but would not require new water supplies. Therefore, the project would not affect the City’s water supplies relative to those described in its Urban Water Management Plan and would have a less-than-significant impact on water supplies.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
As described above in “a,” the project may result in a small additional amount of wastewater conveyed to the City’s WWTP, but would not measurably use WWTP capacity. Therefore, the project would result in a determination by the City that it has adequate capacity to serve the project and the impact would be less than significant.
d,e) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 106 Initial Study
goals? Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project would be operated primarily to divert organic waste from landfills and produce biochar that would be land applied within the City or hauled offsite for sale. The project would result in a reduction in the amount of waste going to landfills through the diversion of organics to energy recovery and biochar production. Consequently, the project would not generate excess solid waste, impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals, or conflict with solid waste statutes and regulations. Rather, the project could be consistent with solid waste statutes and regulations, and state-wide solid waste reduction goals.

Demolition of abandoned portions of the pedestrian path would not generate solid waste; the material would be reused at the project site as grindings.

Any solid waste generated during construction would go to Keller Canyon Landfill, which has remaining capacity through 2050 (CalRecycle 2023). Therefore, the project would not substantially affect the capacity of landfills.

The City’s solid waste operations currently comply with federal, state, and county requirements.

In addition, the City has an ongoing recycling program that would be employed during the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. There are no aspects of, or actions proposed under the project that would result in a failure to not comply with existing solid waste statutes and regulations. As a result, there is ample evidence to suggest that the facility would continue to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Therefore, the project would have less-than-significant impact on the capacity of the local solid waste infrastructure, attainment of solids waste reduction goals, and compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 107 Initial Study

3.20 WILDFIRE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Setting
In California wildfire protection jurisdictions are separated and overseen by local, state, or federal governments. The city of Brentwood is designated as a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that the local government is responsible for wildfire protection (CalFire 2023). There are no “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones” in or near the project site (CalFire 2023).

3.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As described in Section 3.17, “Transportation,” the construction and operations-related project trips would not substantially affect the capacity or congestion patterns on affected roads.

Emergency access to and from the site for construction and operations workers would continue to be provided via Elkins Way. Therefore, the project would have no impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
There would be little to no risk for wildfire during construction. There is a possibility for construction equipment that runs on fossil fuels to potentially generate sparks, and there is a possibility that grass could be ignited during grading. As such, construction vehicles would be equipped with fire extinguishers to address any possibility of a small fire that could be ignited by

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 108 Initial Study
construction activities. There would be little to no risk of wildfire during project operations. The project site would be comprised of buildings and paved areas, with little to no vegetation to fuel a fire. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on exacerbating wildfire risks and thereby, creating pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The project would utilize existing roads for access, existing water sources for operations and fire suppression, and existing utility services. Therefore, the project would have a no impact on wildfire risk and the environment as a result of installation or maintenance of infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities). d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
As discussed in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the project would not substantially increase in impervious area or runoff or change erosion rates compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, the project is not located on a slope that would become unstable postfire. Therefore, the project would have no impact on risks to people or structures as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 109 Initial Study

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

3.21.1 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
With respect to terrestrial wildlife resources, as discussed in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” the project has the potential primarily to result in temporary construction-related disturbance to potential habitats in the project area, and several wildlife species, if present during the time of construction. However, feasible project-specific mitigation measures are identified to minimize and avoid the potential adverse effects. There would be permanent impacts to potential habitats where the new facilities would be placed. The City would also participate in the ECCCHCP, which is designed to protect core habitat areas and populations of special-status species in the region, and promote recovery of species and habitats. The project would have no impact on fish or fish habitat.

The project has the potential to result in temporary construction-related disturbance to buried archaeological resources, human remains, or tribal cultural resources, as discussed in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources, and Section 3.18, “Tribal Cultural Resources.” However, feasible projectspecific mitigation measures are identified to address potential effects to these resources.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 110 Initial Study
Impacts to fish and wildlife species, and cultural and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation identified in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” and Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources.”
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Project construction would result in temporary construction-effects to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, recreation, transportation, and tribal resources. As documented in this Initial Study, project construction would result in minimal and localized effects with respect to most of these resources. Mitigation measures have been identified for biological resources cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources that when implemented would avoid or minimize the potentially significant impacts that may occur to these resources from project construction. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the temporary constructionrelated effects would not cause or contribute to any adverse long-term cumulative effects to these resources.

With respect to operations, the project would result in effects on air quality, biological resources, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. As documented in this Initial Study, project operations would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The potential contribution of operations-related effects of the project to cumulative impacts for these resources is discussed below.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: As discussed in Sections 3.3 (“Air Quality”) and

3.8 (“Greenhouse Gas Emissions”), the potential adverse effects of GHG emissions and the primary concern of air quality pollutants occur over local, regional, and global areas as a result of the cumulative emissions of sources. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards, or measurably influence global greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the thresholds for project-related emissions of regulated air pollutants and greenhouse gases established by BAAQMD consider the regional emissions necessary for maintaining compliance with the air quality standards and long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives. Because the estimated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions that would occur under the project are well below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative air quality or GHG impacts.

Biological Resources. The future cumulative biological resource conditions for terrestrial special-status species in the project area will improve relative to existing conditions given the ongoing implementation of the ECCCHCP, which is for the protection and recovery of species in the region. With the City adding facilities adjacent to the WWTP to the site, as well as realign the connecting path, the City would contribute to the fair share implementation of the ECCCHCP for the potential project-related permanent habitat disturbances, and thus not contribute considerably to any adverse cumulative terrestrial biological resource impacts.

Noise. As the City of Brentwood develops, additional temporary and permanent noise sources may occur within the project vicinity, from additional vehicle traffic or business activity. As

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 111 Initial Study
described in Section 3.13 (“Noise”), the project would contribute new permanent sources of noise that may be noticed by receptors in nearby residences. To ensure that noise from the project does not exceed the City’s and Contra Costa County’s residential noise limits, mitigation has been proposed consisting of reducing operational (permanent) noise from the project.

Transportation. No information exists to suggest that the future traffic conditions in Brentwood, including employee- and hauling-related trips that would increase slightly under the project, would be significantly adverse. It is assumed that City and regional transportation planning and construction of transportation systems will be implemented to accommodate the increased community development and population growth. Therefore, potential cumulative transportation impacts are not assessed further.

Based on the above discussion and information presented in this Initial Study, the project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project would support the state’s long-term goals of reducing waste in landfills, which would extend the life of existing landfills and reduce future impacts from needing to create new landfills to dispose of human waste. The project also would reduce GHGs associated with the breakdown of organics in landfills. Potential impacts from project construction would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Consequently, the environmental effects of the project would have a less than significant impact on human beings.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 112 Initial Study
4 LIST OF PREPARERS
Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

Michelle Brown, P.E.......................................................Associate Engineer / Project Manager Keith Whitener...............................................................Resource Director / Principal Scientist Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Dimitri Antoniou, AICP.....................................................................................Project Director Matthew McFalls............................................................................ Air Quality Technical Lead Jing Qian .......................................................................................Air Quality / GHG Specialist Peter Hoholick ...................................................................................................Noise Specialist Elena Savignano......................................................................................Transportation Planner Jazmin Amini..........................................................................................Transportation Planner Natural Investigations Company
Philip Hanes...........................................................................................Principal Archaeologist John Nadolski............................................................................................Principal Investigator Dylan Stapleton.....................................................................................................Archaeologist

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 113 Initial Study
5 REFERENCES

5.1 WRITTEN REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. Available:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. Available:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-actceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2023a. Stationary Source Screening Map.

Available:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b 9f4b805fb9d89a3. Accessed July 18, 2024
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2023b. Mobile Source Screening Map. Available:
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=c5f9b1a40326409a89 076bdc0d95e429. Accessed July 29, 2024.

CalFire. 2023. State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Contra Costa County.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022. Accessed April 25, 2024.

California Air Resources Board. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf.

California Air Resources Board. 2022. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

Accessed July 18, 2024.

California Air Resources Board. 2024a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-andhealth#:~:text=Diesel%20Particulate%20Matter%20and%20Health&text=In%201998%2 C%20CARB%20identified%20DPM,and%20other%20adverse%20health%20effects.

California Air Resources Board. 2024b. GHG Warming Potentials. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-gwps.

California Department of Conservation. 2024a. California Important Farmland Finder.

Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed April 25, 2024.

California Department of Conservation. 2024b. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp.

Accessed May 8, 2024.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 114 Initial Study
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 5. Available: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed June 10, 2024.

California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. 2024. Hazardous Waste and Substances site “Cortese” List. Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section65962-5a/. Accessed April 25, 2024.

California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes. September Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.

California Department of Transportation. 2019. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed August 25, 2024.

California Department of Transportation. 2024. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014 Edition, Revision 8 (January 11, 2024).

California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.

Available: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-plants. Accessed May 28, 2024.

CalRecycle. 2023. Solid Waste Information System facility database. Facility/Site Summary Details for Keller Canyon Landfill. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed August 16, 2023.

City of Brentwood. No date. Traffic Control Plan Submittal Criteria. Available:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/reference-information/-folder311.

City of Brentwood 2014. City of Brentwood General Plan. Adopted July 22, 2014. Available:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2900/63830104465650000

0. City of Brentwood. 2016. Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Project. Prepared by Robertson-Bryan, Inc. Elk Grove, CA.

City of Brentwood. 2022. Encroachment Permit Application. Available:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering.

City of Brentwood. 2023a. Resolution 2023-138, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Brentwood Adopting the Supplemental Initial Study and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amended Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 115 Initial Study
the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion – Phase II Project, CIP Project No. 592- 59140. November 14, 2023.

City of Brentwood. 2023b. Engineering Procedures Manual. Revised September 2023.

Available: https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering.

Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan. January. Available:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan.

Contra Costa County. 2020. Contra Costa County Transportation and Analysis Guidelines. June.

Available: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/70739/FINAL-CCCTransportation-Analysis-Guidelines-v3-5-10-21?bidId=.

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Ordinance No. 2022-34, Fire Code, Ordinance of the County of Contra Costa, the Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District, and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Adopting the 2022 California Fire Code with Amendments. November.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2018. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. July. Available: https://ccta.net/projects/countywide-bicycle-and-pedestrian-plan/.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

Washington, D.C. Prepared by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, MA. January. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm00.cfm.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Washington, D.C.

September. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-report-0123.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report.

Jones and Stokes. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. J&S 01478.01. San Jose, CA. October. Available:
https://www.cocohcp.org/221/Final-HCP-NCCP.

Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Natural Investigations Company. 2024. Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Brentwood Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project, Contra Costa County, California.

Sacramento, CA.

Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. April. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.

Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project Robertson-Bryan, Inc.

City of Brentwood 116 Initial Study
Pacific Gas and Electric. 2023. Power Content Label. Available:
https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/billing-and-assistance/billinserts/1023-Power-Content-Label.pdf.

Rapp, George, Jr. and Christopher L. Hill. 1998. Geoarchaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2011. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024. QuickFacts. Available:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/brentwoodcitycalifornia/PST045222.

Accessed April 26, 2024.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Soil Taxonomy:

A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, Second Edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Current as of June 30, 2024. Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. Species List. Available: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.

Accessed May 2024.

5.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Bianchin, Jim. Principal Engineering Geologist. Bajada Geoscience, Inc. May 9, 2024—Email to Bryan Evans (W.M. Lyles Co.) regarding results of soils testing at City of Brentwood project site for the Solid Waste Organics Diversion Project.

Henderson, Rochele. Staff Specialist II. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 22, 2024. Email to Dimitri Antoniou (Ascent Environmental, Inc.) pertaining to a public records search request for odor complaints for the City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant.

APPENDIX A
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Calculations

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND OZONE PRECURSORS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS ..... 4 Emissions Summary – Construction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Construction Emissions Detail ................................................................................................................................ 6 Off-Road Exhaust Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 7 Onsite Haul Truck Exhaust Emissions .................................................................................................................... 9 On-Road Truck Haul Exhaust Emissions .............................................................................................................. 10 Fugitive Dust Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Construction Input Parameters ............................................................................................................................. 13 Equipment Exhaust Emission Factors .................................................................................................................. 14 Offroad Equipment Emission Factors by Engine Tier ........................................................................................... 15 Welder and Generator Emission Factors .............................................................................................................. 16 Equipment Horsepower and Load Factors............................................................................................................ 17 EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Rates ............................................................................................................. 18 Emission Rates based on VMT, Trip, and Idle/Diurnal ......................................................................................... 21 EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Rates - Low Speed ....................................................................................... 22 Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors ........................................................................................................................... 23 Conversion Factors ............................................................................................................................................... 25 EMFAC Vehicle Classification and Weights .......................................................................................................... 26 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND OZONE PRECURSORS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS ...... 27 Emissions Summary – Operation ......................................................................................................................... 28 Mass Emissions from AD and BDPS Facilities ..................................................................................................... 29 Mobile Exhaust Emissions: On-Road ................................................................................................................... 31 Project Input .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Emission Factors based on VMT, Trip, and Idle/Diurnal ....................................................................................... 33 EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Query Result ................................................................................................. 34 Fugitive Dust Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 38 AD and BDPS Facilities Emission Calculations .................................................................................................... 40 Fd Calculations ..................................................................................................................................................... 43 GHG OFFSET CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 44 GHG Offset ........................................................................................................................................................... 45 WARM Inputs ........................................................................................................................................................ 46 WARM Model ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 A-2

ENERGY CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 77 Energy Consumption, Construction ...................................................................................................................... 78 On-Road Fuel Consumption Rates (Construction) ............................................................................................... 79 Off-Road Fuel Consumption Rates (Construction) ............................................................................................... 80 Energy Consumption, Operation ........................................................................................................................... 81 On-Road Fuel Consumption Rates (Operational) ................................................................................................. 82 Equipment Energy Load ....................................................................................................................................... 83 HRA MEMORANDUM ................................................................................................................................................. 84 CONSTRUCTION TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSION RATES AND RISK CALCULATIONS .......................... 95 DPM Cancer Risk, Chronic HI, and PM2.5 Concentration ...................................................................................... 96 Scaled DPM Concentrations at Receptors .......................................................................................................... 106 Scaled PM2.5 Concentrations at Receptors ......................................................................................................... 114 AERMOD Outputs ............................................................................................................................................... 122 TAC Emission Rates Calculation ........................................................................................................................ 132 Exposure Parameters used in HRA .................................................................................................................... 133 AERMOD Dispersion Modeling Report ............................................................................................................... 135 OPERATIONAL TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSION RATES AND RISK CALCULATIONS ........................... 228 Cumulative Risk Summary .................................................................................................................................. 229 Roadway Risks ................................................................................................................................................... 230 TAC Emission Rates - Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................... 232 TAC Emission Rates - Stationary Sources ......................................................................................................... 233 HARP Output of Cancer Risks, Chronic Health Index, and Acute Health Index ................................................. 237 HARP Project Summary Report .......................................................................................................................... 241 AERMOD Dispersion Modeling Report ............................................................................................................... 249 A-3

CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

AND OZONE PRECURSORS

EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
Emissions Summary – Construction
Construction Emissions Detail
Off-Road Exhaust Emissions
Onsite Haul Truck Exhaust Emissions
On-Road Truck Haul Exhaust Emissions
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction Input Parameters
Equipment Exhaust Emission Factors
Offroad Equipment Emission Factors by Engine Tier
Welder and Generator Emission Factors
Equipment Horsepower and Load Factors
EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Rates
Emission Rates based on VMT, Trip, and Idle/Diurnal
EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Rates - Low Speed
Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors
Conversion Factors
EMFAC Vehicle Classification and Weights
A-4

Construction Emissions Summary
Construction-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants GHG Yearly Emissions
ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Year
CO2e
(MTs/yr)
Year 1 1 126
Heavy-Duty Equipment 1.05 13.11 0.51 0.46 2 398
Mobile Sources (worker
commute, haul trucks)

0.45 2.09 0.20 0.19 3 446
Total 1.50 15.20 0.71 0.65 4 106
Year 2 Project Avg 269
Heavy-Duty Equipment 2.79 35.33 1.45 1.31
Mobile Sources (worker
commute, haul trucks)

0.45 2.09 0.20 0.19
Total 3.24 37.41 1.64 1.49
Year 3
Heavy-Duty Equipment 1.37 18.58 0.73 0.66
Mobile Sources (worker
commute, haul trucks)

0.45 2.09 0.20 0.19
Total 1.82 20.67 0.92 0.85
Year 4
Heavy-Duty Equipment 0.15 2.44 0.07 0.05
Mobile Sources (worker
commute, haul trucks)

0.45 2.09 0.20 0.19
Total 0.60 4.52 0.27 0.24
Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54
Exceed? No No No No
Emission Source
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Notes: ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter; PM2.5 = Fine particulate matter. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The mobile source emissions are dominated by worker commutes. Although comparatively negligible, the daily average haul truck emissions were also summed for all trips to maintain a conservative estimate.

Year 1 = 2024
A-5

Construction Emissions Detail
Onsite Emissions
Exahust
Off-Road Equipment
ROG NOx PM10E PM2.5E
1 1.05 13.11 0.51 0.46 42
2 2.79 35.33 1.45 1.31 314
3 1.37 18.58 0.73 0.66 362
4 0.15 2.44 0.07 0.05 22
Off-Road Hauling
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day MT/year
Project 0.000 0.021 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.31
Fugitive
Off-Road Equipment
PM10 PM2.5
lb/day lb/day
Project 2.47 0.37 BMP
Aggregate Storage Pile Fugitive Dust
PM10 PM2.5
lb/day lb/day
Soil 1.49 0.23 Unmitigated

0.58 0.09 BMP
Offsite Emissions
Exahust
Mobile On-road
ROG NOx PM10_Ex PM2.5_Ex PM10_D* PM2.5_D* CO2e
lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day MT/year
Export (soil/waste) 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93
Export (trees/veg.) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
Import (soil/fill) 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72
Import (concrete) 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46
Import
(material/supplies) 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34
Worker Commute 0.40 1.41 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.01 74.10
Project 0.45 2.09 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.01 83.72
Note:
* Dust emissions include breakwear, tirewear only.

Fugitive
Mobile On-road
Trip Purpose PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day)
Export (soil/waste) 0.00 0.00
Export (trees/veg.) 0.00 0.00
Import (soil/fill) 0.00 0.00
Import (concrete) 0.00 0.00
Import (material/su 0.00 0.00
Worker Commute 0.30 0.07
Project 0.30 0.00
Dust Mitigation 61% Reduction in fugitive dust emission from vehicle traveling on unpaved road by watering twice daily. 55% Reduction in fugitive dust emission from grading, bulldozing and truck loading by watering exposed area twice daily.

CO2e (MT/yr)
Material Type
Trip Purpose
Year
Daily Average by Year (lb/day)
A-6

Off-road Exhaust Emissions
Off-Road Exhaust Emissions
Annual
GHG
Emissi
on
TOG ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e TOG ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr g/hp-hr lb/day lb lb lb lb lb lb lb lb MT Site Prep (excavation,
grading, clearing) Excavator 1 165 IV 6 50 0.38 Excavators 300 0.189 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 528.09 0.021 0.004 530 0.04 2.07 10.8 153 0.41 0.41 21899.2 0.87 0.17 9.97 Loader 1 150 IV 6 50 0.36 Rubber Tired Loaders 300 0.268 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 526.16 0.021 0.004 528 0.05 1.79 9.29 132 0.36 0.36 18791.8 0.75 0.14 8.55 Dozer 1 367 III 6 50 0.4 Rubber Tired Dozers 300 0.441 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.08 532.17 0.022 0.004 534 0.19 8.74 225 252 8.74 7.77 51669.4 2.14 0.39 23.52 Compactor 1 367 III 6 50 0.38 Rollers 300 0.17 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.08 529.72 0.021 0.004 531 0.07 8.3 214 240 8.3 7.38 48860 1.94 0.37 22.22 Water Truck 1 150 2020 8 50 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 400 0.259 0.218 1.372 3.341 0.068 0.062 526.64 0.021 0.004 528 0.06 11 69 168 3.42 3.12 26471.9 1.06 0.2 12.04 Fuel Truck 1 350 2020 8 50 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 400 0.211 0.177 1.086 1.174 0.038 0.035 528.59 0.021 0.004 530 0.12 20.8 127 138 4.46 4.11 61995.8 2.46 0.47 28.2 Trenchinig Excavator 1 165 IV 6 75 0.38 Excavators 450 0.189 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 528.09 0.021 0.004 530 0.06 3.11 16.2 230 0.62 0.62 32848.8 1.31 0.25 14.95 Compactor 1 165 IV 6 75 0.38 Rollers 450 0.151 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 527.45 0.021 0.004 529 0.04 3.11 16.2 230 0.62 0.62 32809.3 1.31 0.25 14.93 Water Truck 2 150 2020 6 75 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 900 0.259 0.218 1.372 3.341 0.068 0.062 526.64 0.021 0.004 528 0.14 24.7 155 378 7.69 7.01 59561.8 2.38 0.45 27.09 Loader 1 150 IV 6 75 0.36 Rubber Tired Loaders 450 0.268 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 526.16 0.021 0.004 528 0.07 2.68 13.9 198 0.54 0.54 28187.7 1.13 0.21 12.83 Concrete Work Concrete Truck 5 367 2020 8 20 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 800 0.211 0.177 1.086 1.174 0.038 0.035 528.59 0.021 0.004 530 0.25 43.5 267 289 9.35 8.61 130014 5.17 0.98 59.13 Concrete Pump Truck 1 400 2020 8 20 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 160 0.211 0.177 1.086 1.174 0.038 0.035 528.59 0.021 0.004 530 0.05 9.49 58.2 63 2.04 1.88 28340.9 1.13 0.21 12.89 Forklift 1 175 III 8 125 0.2 Forklifts 1000 0.222 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.08 528.24 0.021 0.004 530 0.15 6.94 179 201 6.94 6.17 40760.3 1.62 0.31 18.55 Crane 1 375 III 8 50 0.29 Cranes 400 0.239 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.08 527.59 0.021 0.004 529 0.14 8.63 222 249 8.63 7.67 50596 2.01 0.38 23.01 Loader 1 150 IV 6 50 0.36 Rubber Tired Loaders 300 0.268 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 526.16 0.021 0.004 528 0.05 1.79 9.29 132 0.36 0.36 18791.8 0.75 0.14 8.55 Equipment Installation Crane 2 375 III 8 235 0.29 Cranes 3760 0.239 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.08 527.59 0.021 0.004 529 1.34 81.1 2091 2344 81.13 72.12 475602 18.93 3.61 216.31 Forklift 1 175 III 8 235 0.2 Forklifts 1880 0.222 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.08 528.24 0.021 0.004 530 0.29 13.1 337 377 13.06 11.61 76629.3 3.05 0.58 34.87 Welder 1 84 NA 8 235 0.45 Welders 1880 0 0.1164 1.32 1.9917 0.0521 0.0479 348.94 349.00 0.141 18.2 207 312 8.15 7.5 54668.9 0 0 24.8 Compressor 1 84 NA 8 235 0.38 Rollers 1880 0.29 0.244 2.6 3.414 0.129 0.118 528.03 0.021 0.004 530 0.18 32.3 344 452 17.07 15.61 69858.1 2.78 0.53 31.81 Generator 2 84 NA 8 235 0.74 Generator Sets 3760 0 0.0503 0.44 1.1852 0.0362 0.0333 162.93 163 0 25.9 227 611 18.68 17.18 83951.1 0 0 38.1 0 Paving/Landscape Dump Truck 1 125 2020 6 30 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 180 0.259 0.218 1.372 3.341 0.068 0.062 526.64 0.021 0.004 528 0.02 4.11 25.9 63 1.28 1.17 9926.97 0.4 0.08 4.51 Roller 2 40 IV 6 30 0.38 Rollers 360 0.675 0.09 2.75 4.1 0.01 0.01 586.9 0.024 0.005 589 0.04 1.09 33.2 49.5 0.12 0.12 7080.21 0.29 0.06 3.22 Paving Equipment 1 300 IV 6 30 0.42 Pavers 180 0.128 0.05 0.26 2.6 0.01 0.01 527.68 0.021 0.004 529 0.03 2.5 13 130 0.5 0.5 26384.2 1.05 0.2 12 Concrete Truck 1 367 IV 6 30 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 180 0.211 0.05 0.26 2.6 0.01 0.01 528.59 0.021 0.004 530 0.06 2.77 14.4 144 0.55 0.55 29253.2 1.16 0.22 13.3 10 wheeler AC truck 3 367 IV 6 30 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 540 0.211 0.05 0.26 2.6 0.01 0.01 528.59 0.021 0.004 530 0.17 8.3 43.2 432 1.66 1.66 87759.5 3.49 0.66 39.91 Mini-Excavator 1 45 IV 6 30 0.38 Excavators 180 0.478 0.09 2.75 4.1 0.01 0.01 587.14 0.024 0.005 589 0.02 0.61 18.7 27.8 0.07 0.07 3984.22 0.16 0.03 1.81 Cleanup/Decomissioning Loader 1 150 IV 6 40 0.36 Rubber Tired Loaders 240 0.268 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 526.16 0.021 0.004 528 0.04 1.43 7.43 106 0.29 0.29 15033.4 0.6 0.11 6.84 Mini-Excavator 1 45 IV 6 40 0.38 Excavators 240 0.478 0.09 2.75 4.1 0.01 0.01 587.14 0.024 0.005 589 0.02 0.81 24.9 37.1 0.09 0.09 5312.29 0.22 0.05 2.42 Dump Truck 1 150 IV 6 40 0.38 Off-Highway Trucks 240 0.259 0.05 0.26 3.7 0.01 0.01 526.64 0.021 0.004 528 0.04 1.51 7.84 112 0.3 0.3 15883.2 0.63 0.12 7.22 Forklift 1 175 III 8 40 0.2 Forklifts 320 0.222 0.09 2.32 2.6 0.09 0.05 528.24 0.021 0.004 530 0.05 2.22 57.3 64.2 2.22 1.23 13043.3 0.52 0.1 5.94 Total 353 5045 8313 208 187 1625969 59 11 739
Notes:

CalEEMod Default Diesel Fueled Offroad Equipment Emission Factors Equipment Emissions Modeled Equipment
Hours
per
Phase
The equipment emission factors are queried from CalEEMod 2022 Appendix G Table G-11 based on provided horsepower values.

Tier III and Tier IV engine emission factors are from CalEEMod 2022 Appendix G Table G-13.

Welder and Generator emission factors are from OFFROAD2021 emission inventory dataset (sheet other offroad EF).

Loading factors are from CalEEMod default diesel-fueled equipment loading factors (Sheet Default HP LF).

Equipment and hours provided
Element Type Equipment HP
Load
Factor
Equip
ment #
EPA Engine
Tier (or
Model Year) Hr/Day
Days
of
Phase
A-7

Off-road Exhaust Emissions
ROG NOx PM10E PM2.5E CO2e (MT)
Site Prep 53 656 26 23 105 50
Trenching 34 201 9 9 70 75
Concrete 70 736 27 25 122 125
Equipment 171 3206 138 124 346 235
Paving 19 148 4 4 75 30
Cleanup 6 97 3 2 22 40
ROG NOx PM10E PM2.5E
Site Prep 1 0.4 1.05 13.11 0.51 0.46 42
Site Prep 2 0.60 1.05 13.11 0.51 0.46 63
Trenching 2 1.00 0.45 2.69 0.13 0.12 70
Concrete 2 1.00 0.56 5.89 0.22 0.20 122
Equipmen
t Install 2 0.17 0.73 13.64 0.59 0.53 59
Equipmen
t Install 3 0.83 0.73 13.64 0.59 0.53 287
Paving 3 1.00 0.65 4.94 0.14 0.14 75
Cleanup 4 1.00 0.15 2.44 0.07 0.05 22
Emissions from Onsite Off-road Equipment
ROG NOx PM10E PM2.5E
1 1.05 13.11 0.51 0.46 42
2 2.79 35.33 1.45 1.31 314
3 1.37 18.58 0.73 0.66 362
4 0.15 2.44 0.07 0.05 22
CO2e
Year Weight (MT/yr)
Workday
s
Daily Average resolved by Year (lb/day)
CO2e
Year (MT/yr)
Phase
Phase
Phase Total (lb)
Daily Average by Year (lb/day)
A-8

Onsite Haul Truck Exhaust Emissions
GHG
Emissio
ROG NOx PM10_Ex PM2.5_Ex PM10_D* PM2.5_D* CO CO2e**
lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day MT/year Export (soil/waste) 13 125 1 HHDT 3.70E-05 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 Export (trees/veg.) 10 125 1 MHDT 2.96E-05 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 Import (soil/fill) 63 125 1 HHDT 1.85E-04 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.08 Import (concrete) 111 390 1 HHDT 1.05E-04 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.14 Import (material/supplies) 50 235 1 HHDT 7.87E-05 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 Notes:
*Particulate Matter from vehicle break wear only.
** GWP used for quantifying COe Emissions are values from IPCC Sixth Assessment Report in Sheet GWP Assumpiton, assuming two-years to estimate annual emission.

The calculation is based on EF from the following table VMT-based emission rate (g/miles)
Vehicle Category Fuel ROG NOx PM10_Ex PM2.5_Ex PM10_D PM2.5_D CO CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Units HHDT Diesel 0.16788208 8.2471382 0.03618963 0.034624087 0.12979144 0.045427 0.5961852 2607.3501 0.007798 0.41079 2719.71 g/mile MHDT Diesel 0.13237254 3.439499 0.0316685 0.030298537 0.05903841 0.02066344 0.3173583 1696.0001 0.006148 0.26721 1769.12 g/mile Notes:

EMFAC 2021 County-wide Emission Factors for Vehicle on paved road at low speeds are used to estimate off-road exhaust emissions.

Emission rates are aggregated over all speeds <=25 mph.

Average Daily Emission
Trip Purpose Total
VMT
Total Work
Days
Number of
Vehicles
Vehicle
Type
A-9

On-Road Truck Haul Exhaust Emissions
ROG NOx PM10_
Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D*
PM2.5_
D* CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
lb lb lb lb lb lb lb lb lb MT
Site Prep+Trenching Export (soil/waste) 13 20 260 125 1 HHDT Diesel 1.4 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4155 0.1 0.7 2 Site Prep+Trenching Export (trees/veg.) 10 5 50 125 1 MHDT Diesel 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 752 0.0 0.1 0 Site Prep+Trenching Import (soil/fill) 63 20 1,260 125 1 HHDT Diesel 1.4 22.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 7698 0.1 1.2 4 Concrete+Equipment Insta Import (concrete) 112 25 2,800 390 1 HHDT Diesel 4.5 64.6 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 20011 0.2 3.2 10 Equipment Install
Import
(material/supplies) 50 25 1,250 235 1 HHDT Diesel 2.7 37.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 10509 0.1 1.7 5 Entire Construction Worker Commute 16,650 25 416,250 555 30 Worker 224.28 782.1 108.9 104.2 15.7 4.8 332481 10.9 51.1 158 Total lb 234 928 109 105 17 5 178
Avg Daily (lb/day) 0.42 1.67 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.01
Note: The average daily emissions is estimated as the total emission over total work days, because worker commute dominates mobile onroad emission.

Notes:
*Particulate Matter from vehicle break wear and tire wear only. **GWP used for quantifying COe Emissions are values from IPCC 4th Assessment Report in Sheet GWP Assumpiton.

The calculation is based on the following Table
Operational days per year 365
Weeks per year 52
The bold entry indicate an emission reduction.

On-Road Emission Rates
ROG NOx PM10_E
x
PM2.5_
Ex PM10_D PM2.5_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx PM10_Ex
PM2.5_
Ex PM10_D PM2.5_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx PM10_Ex
PM2.5_
Ex
PM10_
D
PM2.5_
D CO2 CH4 N2O
HHDT Diesel 1.7E-2 1.9E+0 2.7E-2 2.6E-2 1.1E-1 3.6E-2 1.6E+3 7.8E-4 2.5E-1 0.0E+0 2.9E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 5.1E+0 6.1E+1 3.2E-2 3.0E-2 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 1.2E+4 2.4E-1 1.8E+0 MHDT Diesel 3.1E-2 1.2E+0 1.4E-2 1.4E-2 5.7E-2 1.9E-2 1.1E+3 1.4E-3 1.8E-1 0.0E+0 1.7E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 2.5E-1 1.3E+1 2.9E-2 2.8E-2 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 2.3E+3 1.1E-2 3.6E-1 Worker Fleet
EMFAC default
mix 1.6E-1 8.4E-1 1.2E-1 1.1E-1 1.7E-2 5.2E-3 3.6E+2 8.2E-3 5.4E-2 0.0E+0 3.4E-1 2.5E-3 2.3E-3 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 8.2E+1 9.2E-2 3.7E-2 2.1E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 Notes
Emission type -specific emission rates are provided in worksheet EMFAC EF.

Idle/Diurnal-Based Emission Rate (g/vehicle/day)
One-way
Trip
Length
Fuel Fleet
Type
Total
VMT
Total
Work
Days
Number
of
Vehicle
VMT-Based Emission Rate (g/mi) Trip-Based Emission Rate (g/trip) Phases
Fleet Type Fuel Type
Trip Purpose
Total
Oneway
A-10

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Onsite Stockpiling
Volume per Stockpile 2,000 cubic yard
Mass per Stockpile 1,686 tons
Total # of Piles during
Project 1
Estimated Total Mass 1,686 tons
PM10 EF 0.49 lbs/ton see sheet Fugitive Dust EF
Duration 555 days
Emission PM10 (lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Unmitigated 1.49 0.23
BMP 0.39 0.06
Onsite Bulldozing
Phase Workdays Equipment
Total
Equipment
Hour
PM10 EF
(lb/hr)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Site Prep 50 Dozer 300 0.47 2.85 0.43 Unmitigated

0.74 0.11 BMP
Onsite Off-Road Equipment Movement
Uncorrec
ted Correcte
PM10,
unmitig
PM10,
with BMP
Site Prep Excavator 1 6 50 39 300 150 0.3 45 2.70 2.26 101.6 26.4 Site Prep Loader 1 6 50 20 300 150 0.3 45 2.00 1.67 75.2 19.6 Site Prep Dozer 1 6 50 33 300 150 0.3 45 2.51 2.09 94.2 24.5 Site Prep Fuel Truck 1 8 50 165 400 200 2 400 5.17 4.32 1,728.3 449.4 Trenching Excavator 1 6 75 39 450 225 0.3 67.5 2.70 2.26 152.4 39.6 Trenching Loader 1 6 75 20 450 225 0.3 67.5 2.00 1.67 112.8 29.3 Concrete Work Concrete Truck 5 8 20 33 800 400 0.3 120 2.51 2.09 251.3 65.3 Concrete Work Concrete Pump Truck 1 8 20 35 160 80 0.3 24 2.57 2.15 51.6 13.4 Concrete Work Forklift 1 8 125 6 1000 500 0.3 150 1.16 0.97 145.9 37.9 Concrete Work Loader 1 6 50 23 300 150 0.3 45 2.13 1.78 80.1 20.8 Equipment Install Forklift 1 8 235 6 1880 940 0.3 282 1.16 0.97 274.2 71.3 Paving Dump Truck 1 6 30 30 180 90 2 180 2.40 2.01 361.1 93.9 Paving Concrete Truck 1 6 30 33 180 90 0.3 27 2.51 2.09 56.5 14.7 Paving 10 wheeler AC truck 3 6 30 30 540 270 2 540 2.40 2.01 1,083.4 281.7 Paving Mini-Excavator 1 6 30 15 180 90 0.3 27 1.76 1.47 39.7 10.3 Cleanup Loader 1 6 40 23 240 120 0.3 36 2.13 1.78 64.1 16.7 Cleanup Mini-Excavator 1 6 40 25 240 120 0.3 36 2.21 1.85 66.5 17.3 Cleanup Dump Truck 1 6 40 30 240 120 2 240 2.40 2.01 481.5 125.2 Cleanup Forklift 1 8 40 5 320 160 0.3 48 1.07 0.90 43.0 11.2 Notes
Onsite truck activites were assumed to be 50% mobile, 50% standby (load/unload) PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
Site Prep 50 519.84 77.98 10.40 1.56
Trenching 75 68.96 10.34 0.92 0.14
Concrete Work 125 137.51 20.63 1.10 0.17
Equipment Install 235 71.30 10.69 0.30 0.05
Paving 30 400.59 60.09 13.35 2.00
Cleanup 40 170.34 25.55 4.26 0.64
project average 2.46583097 0.369875
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
Onsite VMT
(unpaved
road)
Active
Hours
PM emissions
Workdays (lb/day), BMP
Certain equipment were assumed not to generate significant fugitive dust and thus excluded from this table due to their nature or usage (such as water trucks, paving equipment, and rollers) or limited movement (such as cranes).

Weights of equipment data were engineering estimates based on general industry reference and data from manufacturer such as Caterpillar, Volvo Trucks, Putzmeister America, Schwing America, Mack Trucks Industrial.

PM emissions (lb),
BMP
PM emissions (lb)
Phase
PM 10 EF (lb/VMT)
Phase Equipment
Equipmen
t # Hr/Day
Days of
Phase
Weight
(tons)
Hours
per
Phase
A-11

On-road Vehicles
Emission Factors
Paved
Roads
Paved
Roads,
Corrected
Export (soil/waste) 20.52 HHDT 30 20 4.1E-4 4.0E-4
Export (trees/veg.) 2 MHDT 17 16 4.1E-4 4.0E-4
Import (soil/fill) 16.4 HHDT 30 22 4.1E-4 4.0E-4
Import (concrete) 18.225 HHDT 30 21 4.1E-4 4.0E-4
Import (material/supplies) 25 HHDT 30 18 4.1E-4 4.0E-4
Worker Commute - A, LDT1, LDT2 2 2 4.1E-4 4.0E-4
Notes:

Emission factor for travel on paved roads is estimated using Eq 3 and 3a on worksheet "Fugitive Dust EF".

Average weight of worker commute vehicle is calcualted as the average of vehicle category max weight (LDA: 3,190 lbs, LDT1: 3,750 lbs, LDT2: 5,750 lbs, EMFAC2011) For calculating EF from paved road, the average weight of all vehicles traveling the road is assumped to be 2.4 tons Assuming BMP watering unpaved road twice daily.

Dust Emissions
Workdays PM10 (lbs) PM2.5 (lbs)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Export (soil/waste) 125 250 0.099 0.025 0.001 0.000
Export (trees/veg.) 125 50 0.020 0.003 0.000 0.000
Import (soil/fill) 125 1,250 0.495 0.000 0.004 0.001
Import (concrete) 390 2,778 1.101 0.000 0.003 0.001
Import (material/supplies) 235 1,250 0.495 0.000 0.002 0.001 Worker Commute 555 416,250 164.976 0.000 0.297 0.074
167.19 0.03 0.30 0.00
Notes:

Mitigation reduction 74% Reduction by BMP watering unpaved road three times daily.

Trackout distance 6 miles EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.1 Paved Road.

Industrial Roads are defined as the roads within trackout distance from the project site, to be conservative.

Miles on Industrial Roads is estimated as # of one-way trips multiplied by trackout distance.

PM2.5 to PM10 Mass Emission Ratio used in Calculation
Fugitive Dust Source PM2.5/PM10
Stockpiling 0.15
Paved road 0.25
Unpaved road 0.15 EPA. AP-42. Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust, Final

Reference
Total Emissions
Paved Road
(mi)
Vehicle
Category GVWR (ton)
PM10 EF (lbs/VMT)
Avg Daily
Trip Purpose
Avg. Weight
(tons)
Based on k-values of PM2.5 and PM10 in EPA. AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles EPA. AP-42. Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust, Final

Trip Purpose Load Capacity (tons)
A-12

Construction Input Parameters
Construction Input Parameters
Item Value Unit
Earliest Start Year 2025 year
Daily schedule 9 hours/day
Weekly Schedule 5 days/week
Total duration 555 work days*
Total Years 2.13 calendar years
OnRoad VMT
Worker Commute (one-way) 25 miles
Onsite Construction Worker 15 workers/day
Material Export
Distance
Off-Haul (soil/waste) Distance
(one-way) 20 miles
Off-Haul (Trees/Veg.) Distance 5 miles
Quantity
Material Export (Off-Haul)
Quantity 100 cy
Tree Removal (Off-Haul)
Quantity 5 trees
Material Import
Distance
Soil/Fill Source Site Distance
(one-way) 20 miles
Construction
Materials/Supplies Distance
(one-way) 25 miles
Quantites
On-Haul (Soil/Fill) Quantity 500 cy
Concrete Quantity 500 cy
On-Haul (Materials/Supplies)
Quantity 50
Total truck
deliveries
On-Haul (Trees/Veg.) Quantity 5 #trees
Onsite stockpiling Quantity 2,000 cy
Truck Capacity capacity assumed type
On/Off - Haul (Soil/Fill/Waste)
Truck Capacity 16 cy 33600 HHTD
Concrete Truck Capacity 9 cy 36000 HHTD
Vendor Import Truck Capacity 25 tons/truck 50000 HHTD
Tree Hauling Truck Capacity 2 tons/truck 4000 MHDT
Construction Trip and VMT calculation
Trip Type
Load
Capacity
(tons) # One-way Trips
One-way
Trip
Length
(mi) Daily trips
Number of
Vehicles
Total VMT
(Unpaved
Road)
Total VMT
(Paved
Road)
Export (soil/waste) 20.52 12.5 20 0.02 1 13 250
Export (trees/veg.) 2 10 5 0.02 1 10 50
Import (soil/fill) 16.4 63 20 0.11 1 63 1,250
Import (concrete) 18.225 111 25 0.20 1 111 2,778
Import (material/supplies) 25 50 25 0.09 1 50 1,250
Worker Commute 16650 25 30 30 0 416,250
Assumptions:

Worker commute trip rate 1 round trips/workeprovided
Mature tree weight 2 tons/tree
Topsoil (loose) 2,050 lb/CY https://www.trorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cubic_Yardage_Chart-D.p Topsoil (packed) 2,565 lb/CY https://www.trorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cubic_Yardage_Chart-D.p Concrete (gravel or stone mix) 4,050 lb/CY https://www.trorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cubic_Yardage_Chart-D.p Concrete (average wet mix) 3730 lb/CY https://www.trorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cubic_Yardage_Chart-D.p Construction Schedule/Phasing
1 2 3 4
Site Prep 50 2.5 0.4 0.6
Trenching 75 3.75 1
Concrete 125 6.25 1
Equipment Install 235 11.75 0.1702128 0.8297872
Paving 30 1.5 1
Cleanup 40 2 1
Number of workdays breakdown as phase percent by year
Source: data provided to Ascent by Brenwood WWTP
https://thetimberlandinvestor.co
*555 work days, or 27 months
Year Phase Check Work Days Calendar
Months
A-13

Equipment Exhaust Emissions Factors
Data Subset from CalEEMod Appendix G 11 Statewide Average Annual Offroad Equipment Emission Factors (grams per horsepower-hour) Equipment Year Fuel LowHP HighHP TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N2O Cranes 2025 Diesel 0 25 1.509 1.268 4.898 5.859 0.005 0.389 0.358 586.607 0.024 0.005 Cranes 2025 Diesel 25 50 2.245 1.886 5.81 7.309 0.005 0.565 0.52 592.06 0.024 0.005 Cranes 2025 Diesel 50 75 1.636 1.375 9.722 4.696 0.005 0.981 0.903 525.413 0.021 0.004 Cranes 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.456 0.383 3.564 3.727 0.005 0.206 0.19 526.436 0.021 0.004 Cranes 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.424 0.356 3.321 3.362 0.005 0.181 0.166 528.683 0.021 0.004 Cranes 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.322 0.27 2.772 1.537 0.005 0.118 0.108 527.564 0.021 0.004 Cranes 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.239 0.201 1.95 1.663 0.005 0.079 0.073 527.585 0.021 0.004 Cranes 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.452 0.38 3.764 2.675 0.005 0.187 0.172 527.208 0.021 0.004 Cranes 2025 Diesel 750 999 0.579 0.487 6.034 4.087 0.005 0.251 0.231 527.447 0.021 0.004 Dumpers/Tenders 2025 Diesel 0 25 0.691 0.571 4.367 2.359 0.007 0.163 0.15 572.88 0.023 0.005 Excavators 2025 Diesel 0 25 1.066 0.882 6.484 3.582 0.011 0.251 0.231 845.98 0.034 0.007 Excavators 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.478 0.402 3.446 4.211 0.005 0.107 0.098 587.138 0.024 0.005 Excavators 2025 Diesel 50 75 0.267 0.224 2.514 3.342 0.005 0.139 0.128 527.223 0.021 0.004 Excavators 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.235 0.197 2.045 3.46 0.005 0.081 0.074 524.872 0.021 0.004 Excavators 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.189 0.159 1.164 3.078 0.005 0.057 0.053 528.086 0.021 0.004 Excavators 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.158 0.133 0.987 1.099 0.005 0.033 0.03 528.274 0.021 0.004 Excavators 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.137 0.115 0.714 1.043 0.005 0.025 0.023 526.988 0.021 0.004 Excavators 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.26 0.218 2.427 1.51 0.005 0.089 0.082 530.428 0.022 0.004 Excavators 2025 Diesel 750 999 0.094 0.079 2.36 0.992 0.005 0.021 0.02 534.921 0.022 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.757 0.636 3.929 5.026 0.005 0.178 0.164 587.35 0.024 0.005 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 50 75 2.03 1.706 13.424 5.618 0.005 1.044 0.961 520.49 0.021 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.321 0.269 2.551 3.599 0.005 0.135 0.124 527.108 0.021 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.25 0.21 1.661 3.169 0.005 0.085 0.078 527.465 0.021 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.222 0.187 1.426 1.204 0.005 0.055 0.05 528.244 0.021 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.276 0.232 1.832 1.254 0.005 0.068 0.063 531.099 0.022 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.276 0.232 1.832 1.254 0.005 0.068 0.063 531.099 0.022 0.004 Forklifts 2025 Diesel 750 999 0.135 0.114 2.432 1.045 0.005 0.023 0.021 527.64 0.021 0.004 Generator Sets 2025 Diesel 0 25 0.656 0.542 4.347 2.869 0.008 0.177 0.163 568.322 0.023 0.005 Generator Sets 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.441 0.364 3.482 3.759 0.007 0.093 0.086 568.312 0.023 0.005 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.807 0.678 4.009 5.532 0.005 0.185 0.17 582.022 0.024 0.005 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 50 75 0.278 0.234 1.633 3.905 0.005 0.027 0.024 522.493 0.021 0.004 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.367 0.309 2.692 3.878 0.005 0.156 0.143 530.118 0.022 0.004 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.259 0.218 1.372 3.341 0.005 0.068 0.062 526.643 0.021 0.004 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.222 0.187 1.149 1.234 0.005 0.044 0.041 526.221 0.021 0.004 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.211 0.177 1.086 1.174 0.005 0.038 0.035 528.587 0.021 0.004 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.275 0.231 1.67 1.574 0.005 0.064 0.059 528.69 0.021 0.004 Off-Highway Trucks 2025 Diesel 750 999 0.201 0.169 2.949 1.134 0.005 0.049 0.045 524.321 0.021 0.004 Pavers 2025 Diesel 0 25 1.038 0.858 6.558 3.542 0.011 0.245 0.226 860.205 0.035 0.007 Pavers 2025 Diesel 25 50 1.089 0.915 4.118 4.929 0.005 0.264 0.243 587.425 0.024 0.005 Pavers 2025 Diesel 50 75 0.72 0.605 4.905 3.706 0.005 0.42 0.386 524.498 0.021 0.004 Pavers 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.295 0.248 2.646 3.445 0.005 0.139 0.128 526.537 0.021 0.004 Pavers 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.22 0.185 1.676 3.014 0.005 0.08 0.073 528.494 0.021 0.004 Pavers 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.13 0.11 1.069 1 0.005 0.036 0.033 528.337 0.021 0.004 Pavers 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.128 0.108 1.041 0.98 0.005 0.032 0.029 527.676 0.021 0.004 Pavers 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.075 0.063 0.263 0.954 0.005 0.009 0.008 527.836 0.021 0.004 Plate Compactors 2025 Diesel 0 25 0.662 0.547 4.144 3.471 0.009 0.162 0.149 568.406 0.023 0.005 Rollers 2025 Diesel 0 25 1.008 0.833 6.317 4.394 0.012 0.242 0.223 847.999 0.034 0.007 Rollers 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.675 0.567 3.678 4.113 0.005 0.166 0.153 586.902 0.024 0.005 Rollers 2025 Diesel 50 75 2.239 1.882 15.11 6.171 0.005 1.081 0.994 527.546 0.021 0.004 Rollers 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.29 0.244 2.601 3.414 0.005 0.129 0.118 528.034 0.021 0.004 Rollers 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.151 0.127 1.1 2.906 0.005 0.049 0.045 527.452 0.021 0.004 Rollers 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.248 0.208 2.175 1.522 0.005 0.087 0.08 528.085 0.021 0.004 Rollers 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.17 0.143 1.428 1.422 0.005 0.049 0.046 529.722 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.628 0.528 3.679 5.181 0.005 0.127 0.117 586.987 0.024 0.005 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 50 75 0.805 0.677 5.408 4.257 0.005 0.385 0.354 527.918 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.704 0.591 4.915 4.156 0.005 0.355 0.327 531.632 0.022 0.004 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.622 0.522 4.472 3.687 0.005 0.29 0.267 528.125 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.511 0.43 4.599 2.585 0.005 0.201 0.185 528.56 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.441 0.371 3.506 2.902 0.005 0.154 0.142 532.172 0.022 0.004 Rubber Tired Dozers 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.276 0.232 2.871 1.1 0.005 0.081 0.075 527.876 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 0 25 1.026 0.848 6.486 3.503 0.011 0.242 0.223 850.791 0.035 0.007 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 25 50 1.148 0.965 4.369 5.969 0.005 0.26 0.239 588.75 0.024 0.005 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 50 75 2.322 1.951 15.449 6.324 0.005 1.133 1.042 528.023 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 75 100 0.415 0.349 2.946 3.79 0.005 0.177 0.163 522.879 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 100 175 0.268 0.225 1.602 3.283 0.005 0.085 0.078 526.161 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 175 300 0.213 0.179 1.492 1.16 0.005 0.05 0.046 526.675 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 300 600 0.234 0.197 1.459 1.261 0.005 0.055 0.05 527.135 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 600 750 0.24 0.202 1.253 1.574 0.005 0.046 0.042 526.188 0.021 0.004 Rubber Tired Loaders 2025 Diesel 750 999 0.226 0.19 3.418 1.122 0.005 0.064 0.059 529.003 0.021 0.004 Welders 2025 Diesel 0 25 0.7 0.578 4.358 2.806 0.008 0.18 0.165 568.329 0.023 0.005 Welders 2025 Diesel 25 50 0.602 0.498 3.676 4.525 0.007 0.113 0.104 568.301 0.023 0.005 A-14

Offroad Equipment Emission Factors by Engine Tier
Data Subset from CalEEMod Appendix G-13. Offroad Equipment Emission Factors by Engine Tier (grams per horsepower Tier Low HP High HP ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 TOG
Tier 1 25 49 1.320 5.260 4.100 0.480 0.440 1.340
Tier 1 50 74 0.900 6.540 8.500 0.550 0.510 0.910
Tier 1 75 119 0.900 6.540 8.500 0.550 0.510 0.910
Tier 1 120 174 0.620 6.540 8.500 0.300 0.280 0.630
Tier 1 175 299 0.290 5.930 8.500 0.120 0.110 0.290
Tier 1 300 599 0.290 5.930 8.500 0.120 0.110 0.290
Tier 1 600 750 0.290 5.930 8.500 0.120 0.110 0.290
Tier 1 751 999 0.290 5.930 8.500 0.120 0.110 0.290
Tier 2 25 49 0.220 4.630 4.100 0.280 0.260 0.220
Tier 2 50 74 0.170 4.750 3.700 0.190 0.180 0.170
Tier 2 75 119 0.170 4.750 3.700 0.190 0.180 0.170
Tier 2 120 174 0.150 4.150 3.700 0.130 0.120 0.150
Tier 2 175 299 0.110 4.150 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.110
Tier 2 300 599 0.090 3.790 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 2 600 750 0.090 3.790 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 2 751 999 0.090 3.790 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 3 25 49 0.220 4.630 4.100 0.280 0.260 0.220
Tier 3 50 74 0.090 2.740 3.700 0.190 0.180 0.090
Tier 3 75 119 0.090 2.740 3.700 0.110 0.100 0.090
Tier 3 120 174 0.090 2.320 3.700 0.110 0.100 0.090
Tier 3 175 299 0.090 2.320 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 3 300 599 0.090 2.320 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 3 600 750 0.090 2.320 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 3 751 999 0.090 2.320 2.600 0.090 0.080 0.090
Tier 4 Final 25 49 0.090 2.750 4.100 0.010 0.010 0.090
Tier 4 Final 50 74 0.090 2.740 3.700 0.010 0.010 0.090
Tier 4 Final 75 119 0.050 0.260 3.700 0.010 0.010 0.050 Tier 4 Final 120 174 0.050 0.260 3.700 0.010 0.010 0.050 Tier 4 Final 175 299 0.050 0.260 2.600 0.010 0.010 0.050 Tier 4 Final 300 599 0.050 0.260 2.600 0.010 0.010 0.050 Tier 4 Final 600 750 0.050 0.260 2.600 0.010 0.010 0.050 Tier 4 Final 751 999 0.050 2.240 2.600 0.020 0.020 0.050 Tier 4 Interim 25 49 0.090 4.550 4.100 0.130 0.120 0.090 Tier 4 Interim 50 74 0.090 2.740 3.700 0.110 0.100 0.090 Tier 4 Interim 75 119 0.080 2.150 3.700 0.010 0.010 0.080 Tier 4 Interim 120 174 0.080 2.150 3.700 0.010 0.010 0.080 Tier 4 Interim 175 299 0.060 1.290 2.600 0.010 0.010 0.060 Tier 4 Interim 300 599 0.060 1.290 2.600 0.010 0.010 0.060 Tier 4 Interim 600 750 0.060 1.290 2.600 0.010 0.010 0.060 Tier 4 Interim 751 999 0.060 2.240 2.600 0.050 0.050 0.060 A-15

Welder and Generator Emission Factors
Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Statewide
Region: California
Calendar Year: 2025
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region
Calendar
Year Vehicle Category
Model
Year
Horse
power
Bin Fuel HC_tpd ROG_tpd TOG_tpd CO_tpd NOx_tpd CO2_tpd
PM10_tp
d
PM2.5_t
pd SOx_tpd NH3_tpd
Statewide T 2025
Military Tactical
Support - Misc -
Welder Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00032 0.00038 0.00046 0.00649 0.00429 1.13629 0.00017 0.00016 1.3E-05 9.3E-06 Statewide T 2025
Portable Equipment -
Rental Generator Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.02496 0.0302 0.03594 0.71215 0.26479 97.9005 0.02178 0.02004 0.00091 0.0008 Calculated Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)
Vehicle Category
Model
Year
Horse
power
Bin Fuel HC ROG TOG CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx NH3
Military Tactical
Support - Misc -
Welder Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.09777 0.11635 0.14079 1.99172 1.31833 348.945 0.05205 0.04789 0.00401 0.00286 Portable Equipment -
Rental Generator Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.04153 0.05026 0.05981 1.18517 0.44066 162.927 0.03625 0.03335 0.00151 0.00133 A-16

Equipment Horsepower and Load Factors
Equipment Fuel Horsepower Load Factor
Aerial Lifts Diesel 46 0.31
Air Compressors Diesel 37 0.48
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel 83 0.50
Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel 10 0.56
Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel 33 0.73
Cranes Diesel 367 0.29
Crawler Tractors Diesel 87 0.43
Dumpers/Tenders Diesel 16 0.38
Excavators Diesel 36 0.38
Forklifts Diesel 82 0.20
Generator Sets Diesel 14 0.74
Graders Diesel 148 0.41
Off-Highway Tractors Diesel 38 0.44
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel 376 0.38
Other Construction Equipment Diesel 82 0.42
Other General Industrial Equipment Diesel 35 0.34
Other Material Handling Equipment Diesel 93 0.40
Pavers Diesel 81 0.42
Paving Equipment Diesel 89 0.36
Plate Compactors Diesel 8 0.43
Pressure Washers Diesel 14 0.30
Pumps Diesel 11 0.74
Rollers Diesel 36 0.38
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel 96 0.40
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel 367 0.40
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel 150 0.36
Scrapers Diesel 423 0.48
Signal Boards Diesel 6 0.82
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel 71 0.37
Surfacing Equipment Diesel 399 0.30
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel 36 0.46
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 84 0.37
Trenchers Diesel 40 0.50
Welders Diesel 46 0.45
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Appendix G Table G-12
A-17

EMFAC
EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Rates Output
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Contra Costa
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region
Calenda
r Year
Vehicle
Categor
y
Model
Year Speed Fuel
Populati
on
Total
VMT CVMT EVMT Trips
Energy
Consum
ption
NOx_RU
NEX
NOx_IDL
EX
NOx_ST
REX
NOx_TO
TEX
PM2.5_
RUNEX
PM2.5_I
DLEX
PM2.5_
STREX
PM2.5_
TOTEX
PM2.5_
PMTW
PM2.5_
PMBW
PM2.5_
TOTAL
Contra Co 2025 LDA Aggregat Aggregat Gasoline 335916 1E+07 1E+07 0 2E+06 0 0.5459 0 0.4395 0.9854 0.016 0 0.0033 0.0193 0.0282 0.0363 0.0838 Contra Co 2025 LDA Aggregat Aggregat Diesel 1259.9 36194 36194 0 5295.1 0 0.0073 0 0 0.0073 0.0005 0 0 0.0005 8E-05 0.0001 0.0007 Contra Co 2025 LDA Aggregat Aggregat Electricity 22047 1E+06 0 1E+06 108839 407710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0023 0.0018 0.0041 Contra Co 2025 LDA Aggregat Aggregat Plug-in H 9851 453994 219887 234107 40734 70707 0.0016 0 0.0052 0.0068 0.0003 0 9E-05 0.0004 0.001 0.0007 0.0021 Contra Co 2025 LDT1 Aggregat Aggregat Gasoline 31581 1E+06 1E+06 0 139009 0 0.1397 0 0.0599 0.1996 0.002 0 0.0004 0.0024 0.0025 0.0038 0.0087 Contra Co 2025 LDT1 Aggregat Aggregat Diesel 15.059 179.44 179.44 0 42.739 0 0.0003 0 0 0.0003 4E-05 0 0 4E-05 4E-07 7E-07 4E-05 Contra Co 2025 LDT1 Aggregat Aggregat Electricity 90.268 4001.7 0 4001.7 433.48 1545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9E-06 7E-06 2E-05 Contra Co 2025 LDT1 Aggregat Aggregat Plug-in H 49.921 2645.4 1148.5 1496.9 206.42 452.1 8E-06 0 3E-05 3E-05 1E-06 0 3E-07 1E-06 6E-06 4E-06 1E-05 Contra Co 2025 LDT2 Aggregat Aggregat Gasoline 158167 6E+06 6E+06 0 736768 0 0.4254 0 0.2618 0.6873 0.0084 0 0.0016 0.01 0.0142 0.0214 0.0457 Contra Co 2025 LDT2 Aggregat Aggregat Diesel 656.91 27340 27340 0 3093.4 0 0.0013 0 0 0.0013 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 6E-05 9E-05 0.0003 Contra Co 2025 LDT2 Aggregat Aggregat Electricity 1078.9 39239 0 39239 5489.3 15149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9E-05 7E-05 0.0002 Contra Co 2025 LDT2 Aggregat Aggregat Plug-in H 1306.2 66002 30153 35849 5401 10828 0.0002 0 0.0007 0.0009 3E-05 0 1E-05 4E-05 0.0001 1E-04 0.0003 Contra Co 2025 MHDT Aggregat Aggregat Gasoline 731.79 39166 39166 0 14642 0 0.02 7E-05 0.0072 0.0273 6E-05 0 9E-06 7E-05 0.0001 0.0007 0.0009 Contra Co 2025 MHDT Aggregat Aggregat Diesel 5595.4 232125 232125 0 64605 0 0.3109 0.0814 0.1184 0.5107 0.0035 0.0002 0 0.0037 0.0008 0.0041 0.0085 Contra Co 2025 MHDT Aggregat Aggregat Electricity 48.088 2656.9 0 2656.9 606.94 2924.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9E-06 2E-05 3E-05 Contra Co 2025 MHDT Aggregat Aggregat Natural G 55.402 2558.3 2558.3 0 509.92 0 0.0003 0.0004 0 0.0007 3E-06 1E-06 0 5E-06 8E-06 5E-05 6E-05 Contra Co 2025 HHDT Aggregat Aggregat Gasoline 0.7268 63.253 63.253 0 14.541 0 0.0005 0 2E-05 0.0005 2E-07 0 2E-08 2E-07 3E-07 2E-06 3E-06 Contra Co 2025 HHDT Aggregat Aggregat Diesel 5216.8 600062 600062 0 76369 0 1.2299 0.3507 0.2448 1.8254 0.0171 0.0002 0 0.0173 0.0058 0.0182 0.0413 Contra Co 2025 HHDT Aggregat Aggregat Electricity 37.013 3826.2 0 3826.2 482.7 7059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E-05 6E-05 1E-04 Contra Co 2025 HHDT Aggregat Aggregat Natural G 485.56 32536 32536 0 4411.9 0 0.0345 0.007 0 0.0416 5E-05 1E-05 0 7E-05 0.0003 0.0017 0.0021 A-18

EMFAC
PM10_R
UNEX
PM10_I
DLEX
PM10_S
TREX
PM10_T
OTEX
PM10_P
MTW
PM10_P
MBW
PM10_T
OTAL
CO2_RU
NEX
CO2_IDL
EX
CO2_ST
REX
CO2_TO
TEX
CH4_RU
NEX
CH4_IDL
EX
CH4_ST
REX
CH4_TO
TEX
N2O_RU
NEX
N2O_ID
LEX
N2O_ST
REX
N2O_TO
TEX
ROG_RU
NEX
ROG_ID
LEX
ROG_ST
REX
ROG_TO
TEX

0.0174 0 0.0036 0.021 0.1127 0.1037 0.2374 3824.3 0 118.32 3942.6 0.0297 0 0.1212 0.1509 0.063 0 0.0567 0.1196 0.1114 0 0.5551 0.6665

0.0005 0 0 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003 0.0012 9.3157 0 0 9.3157 4E-05 0 0 4E-05 0.0015 0 0 0.0015 0.0009 0 0 0.0009 0 0 0 0 0.0093 0.0051 0.0144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0003 0 1E-04 0.0004 0.004 0.0019 0.0063 66.35 0 2.8773 69.228 0.0002 0 0.0019 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0009 0.0012 0.0007 0 0.0078 0.0085

0.0022 0 0.0004 0.0026 0.0098 0.011 0.0234 399.37 0 13.222 412.59 0.0067 0 0.0165 0.0232 0.0107 0 0.0061 0.0168 0.0293 0 0.0844 0.1137 5E-05 0 0 5E-05 2E-06 2E-06 5E-05 0.0821 0 0 0.0821 3E-06 0 0 3E-06 1E-05 0 0 1E-05 6E-05 0 0 6E-05 0 0 0 0 4E-05 2E-05 5E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-06 0 3E-07 1E-06 2E-05 1E-05 4E-05 0.3468 0 0.0154 0.3622 1E-06 0 1E-05 1E-05 1E-06 0 5E-06 6E-06 3E-06 0 4E-05 4E-05

0.0092 0 0.0017 0.0109 0.0569 0.0612 0.129 2379.8 0 69.689 2449.5 0.0182 0 0.0661 0.0843 0.0394 0 0.0303 0.0697 0.069 0 0.3011 0.3701

0.0002 0 0 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0007 9.3594 0 0 9.3594 2E-05 0 0 2E-05 0.0015 0 0 0.0015 0.0004 0 0 0.0004 0 0 0 0 0.0003 0.0002 0.0005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3E-05 0 1E-05 5E-05 0.0006 0.0003 0.0009 9.1022 0 0.4418 9.544 3E-05 0 0.0003 0.0003 4E-05 0 0.0001 0.0002 9E-05 0 0.001 0.0011 6E-05 0 9E-06 7E-05 0.0005 0.0019 0.0025 75.628 0.4276 0.7474 76.803 0.0006 0.0002 0.0008 0.0016 0.001 6E-06 0.0005 0.0015 0.0032 0.0008 0.0044 0.0084

0.0037 0.0002 0 0.0038 0.0031 0.0116 0.0185 291.32 14.032 0 305.35 0.0004 7E-05 0 0.0004 0.0459 0.0022 0 0.0481 0.0078 0.0015 0 0.0094 0 0 0 0 4E-05 7E-05 0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E-06 1E-06 0 5E-06 3E-05 0.0001 0.0002 2.7412 0.3229 0 3.0642 0.0021 0.001 0 0.0031 0.0006 7E-05 0 0.0006 3E-05 1E-05 0 4E-05 2E-07 0 3E-08 2E-07 1E-06 6E-06 8E-06 0.1427 0 0.0008 0.1435 1E-05 0 6E-09 1E-05 1E-05 0 4E-07 1E-05 6E-05 0 3E-08 6E-05

0.0179 0.0002 0 0.018 0.0233 0.052 0.0933 1063 67.49 0 1130.5 0.0005 0.0014 0 0.0019 0.1675 0.0106 0 0.1781 0.0111 0.0291 0 0.0403 0 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6E-05 1E-05 0 7E-05 0.0013 0.005 0.0063 49.179 5.6447 0 54.824 0.0793 0.0189 0 0.0982 0.01 0.0012 0 0.0112 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0018 A-19

EMFAC
ROG_DI
URN
ROG_H
OTSOAK
ROG_RU
NLOSS
ROG_TO
TAL
TOG_RU
NEX
TOG_ID
LEX
TOG_ST
REX
TOG_TO
TEX
TOG_DI
URN
TOG_H
OTSOAK
TOG_RU
NLOSS
TOG_TO
TAL
CO_RUN
EX
CO_IDLE
X
CO_STR
EX
CO_TOT
EX
SOx_RU
NEX
SOx_IDL
EX
SOx_STR
EX
SOx_TO
TEX
NH3_RU
NEX
Fuel
Consum
ption

0.5562 0.1624 0.4249 1.81 0.1626 0 0.6078 0.7703 0.5562 0.1624 0.4249 1.9138 9.6233 0 5.4878 15.111 0.0378 0 0.0012 0.039 0.4994 415.74 0 0 0 0.0009 0.001 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0.0122 0 0 0.0122 9E-05 0 0 9E-05 0.0001 0.8322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0048 0.0019 0.0017 0.0169 0.001 0 0.0086 0.0095 0.0048 0.0019 0.0017 0.0179 0.1018 0 0.0607 0.1625 0.0007 0 3E-05 0.0007 0.0096 7.3

0.0972 0.0269 0.0767 0.3145 0.0428 0 0.0924 0.1351 0.0972 0.0269 0.0767 0.3359 1.5654 0 0.8192 2.3846 0.0039 0 0.0001 0.0041 0.0442 43.507 0 0 0 6E-05 7E-05 0 0 7E-05 0 0 0 7E-05 0.0004 0 0 0.0004 8E-07 0 0 8E-07 6E-07 0.0073 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2E-05 5E-06 5E-06 7E-05 5E-06 0 4E-05 5E-05 2E-05 5E-06 5E-06 7E-05 0.0005 0 0.0003 0.0008 3E-06 0 2E-07 4E-06 5E-05 0.0382

0.2435 0.068 0.1838 0.8655 0.1007 0 0.3297 0.4304 0.2435 0.068 0.1838 0.9258 5.453 0 2.9031 8.3561 0.0235 0 0.0007 0.0242 0.2609 258.3 0 0 0 0.0004 0.0004 0 0 0.0004 0 0 0 0.0004 0.0039 0 0 0.0039 9E-05 0 0 9E-05 9E-05 0.8361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0019 0.0001 0 0.0011 0.0013 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.002 0.014 0 0.008 0.022 9E-05 0 4E-06 9E-05 0.0014 1.0064

0.0024 0.0006 0.0049 0.0162 0.0047 0.0012 0.0048 0.0106 0.0024 0.0006 0.0049 0.0184 0.0665 0.0122 0.0957 0.1743 0.0007 4E-06 7E-06 0.0008 0.0019 8.0987 0 0 0 0.0094 0.0089 0.0017 0 0.0107 0 0 0 0.0107 0.0294 0.0468 0 0.0762 0.0028 0.0001 0 0.0029 0.0538 27.277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4E-05 0.0021 0.001 0 0.0032 0 0 0 0.0032 0.0083 0.0022 0 0.0105 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.3542 6E-06 2E-06 2E-05 9E-05 9E-05 0 4E-08 9E-05 6E-06 2E-06 2E-05 0.0001 0.0032 0 5E-05 0.0033 1E-06 0 8E-09 1E-06 3E-06 0.0151 0 0 0 0.0403 0.0127 0.0332 0 0.0458 0 0 0 0.0458 0.0534 0.4239 0 0.4773 0.0101 0.0006 0 0.0107 0.1423 100.98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0.0018 0.0814 0.0193 0 0.1007 0 0 0 0.1007 0.4744 0.0393 0 0.5137 0 0 0 0 0.0302 6.3368 A-20

Emission Factors based on VMT, Trip, and Idle/Diurnal

AQ M X Q
,

C U,V AE AI AM
S,

V,AW O Z S AG AK AO
,

U N Y R AF AJ AN
ROG NOx
PM10
_Ex
PM2.
5_Ex
PM10
_D
PM2.
5_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx
PM10
_Ex
PM2.
5_Ex
PM10
_D
PM2.
5_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx
PM10
_Ex
PM2.
5_Ex
PM10
_D
PM2.
5_D CO2 CH4 N2O
HHDT Diesel 0.02 1.86 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.04 1607 0 0.25 0 2.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.07 61 0.03 0.03 0 0 #### 0.24 1.85 MHDT Diesel 0.03 1.21 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02 1139 0 0.18 0 1.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 13.2 0.03 0.03 0 0 2275 0.01 0.36 LDA Gasoline 0.01 0.04 0 0 0.02 0 271 0 0 0 0.26 0 0 0 0 69.2 0.07 0.03 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDA Diesel 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 233 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDA Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDA Plug-in Hybrid 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 133 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 64.1 0.04 0.02 0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Gasoline 0.02 0.11 0 0 0.02 0.01 325 0.01 0.01 0 0.39 0 0 0 0 86.3 0.11 0.04 2.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Diesel 0.3 1.56 0.23 0.22 0.02 0.01 415 0.01 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Plug-in Hybrid 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 119 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 67.8 0.04 0.02 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Gasoline 0.01 0.06 0 0 0.02 0.01 334 0 0.01 0 0.32 0 0 0 0 85.8 0.08 0.04 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Diesel 0.01 0.04 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 311 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Plug-in Hybrid 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 125 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 74.2 0.04 0.02 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worker Fleet EMFAC default mix 0.16 0.84 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.01 359 0.01 0.05 0 0.34 0 0 0 0 81.9 0.09 0.04 2.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assume Worker Fleet = 25/50/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1, and light duty truck class 2 EMFAC Emission Types Used to Estimate Onroad Emission Rates Pollutant

TOG, ROG
Gases
PM - Exhaust
PM - Dust
Acronyms:

RUNEX Running exhaust g/mile
PMBW PM brakewear g/mile
PMTW PM tirewear g/mile
STREX Start exhaust g/trip
HOTSOAK Hot Soak evaporative g/trip
RUNLOSS Running Loss evaporative g/trip
IDLEX Idle exhaust g/vehicle/day
DIURN Diurnal Loss evaporative g/vehicle/day

PMTW, PMBW

RUNEX STREX IDLEX

RUNEX STREX IDLEX
Notes:

VMT-based (g/mile) Trip-based (g/trip) Idle/Diurnal-based

RUNEX STREX, IDLEX, DIURN
Idle/diurnal-based (g/vehicle/day)
Summed columns in EMFAC
Vehicle
Category Fuel
VMT-based (g/mile) Trip-based (g/trip)
A-21

EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Rates - Low Speed
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Contra Costa
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption, mph for Speed, kWh/day for Energy Consumption Region Calendar YVehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel Total VMT CVMT EVMT NOx_RUNEPM2.5_RU PM10_RUNCO2_RUNECH4_RUNEN2O_RUNEROG_RUNEX TOG_RUNECO_RUNEXSOx_RUNENH3_RUNEPM10_PM PM2.5_PMBW Contra Costa 2025 HHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 714.2052 714.2052282 0 0.014697 9.09E-05 9.5E-05 2.703831 2.11E-05 0.000426 0.0004534 0.000516 0.001059 2.56E-05 0.000112 0.000123 4.29E-05 Contra Costa 2025 HHDT Aggregate 10 Diesel 5530.566 5530.566187 0 0.058298 0.000178 0.000186 18.80522 4.43E-05 0.002963 0.0009541 0.001086 0.004593 0.000178 0.001172 0.000898 0.000314 Contra Costa 2025 HHDT Aggregate 15 Diesel 11081.84 11081.84259 0 0.070809 0.000155 0.000162 30.42869 3.16E-05 0.004794 0.0006793 0.000773 0.004905 0.000288 0.002479 0.001748 0.000612 Contra Costa 2025 HHDT Aggregate 20 Diesel 26987.45 26987.44766 0 0.107913 0.000197 0.000206 62.11338 3.56E-05 0.009786 0.0007666 0.000873 0.007713 0.000588 0.006348 0.001975 0.000691 Contra Costa 2025 HHDT Aggregate 25 Diesel 13266.17 13266.16909 0 0.051821 0.00013 0.000136 28.18066 1.69E-05 0.00444 0.000364 0.000414 0.003199 0.000267 0.003006 0.001987 0.000695 Contra Costa 2025 MHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 784.4775 784.4775065 0 0.007184 4.59E-05 4.8E-05 2.038713 1.23E-05 0.000321 0.0002644 0.000301 0.000477 1.93E-05 0.000136 5.32E-05 1.86E-05 Contra Costa 2025 MHDT Aggregate 10 Diesel 6539.857 6539.856645 0 0.026279 0.000298 0.000312 14.39863 6.23E-05 0.002269 0.0013412 0.001527 0.003002 0.000136 0.001458 0.000443 0.000155 Contra Costa 2025 MHDT Aggregate 15 Diesel 10924.4 10924.40154 0 0.026673 0.000323 0.000338 18.93897 5.21E-05 0.002984 0.0011208 0.001276 0.003251 0.000179 0.002518 0.000741 0.000259 Contra Costa 2025 MHDT Aggregate 20 Diesel 14258.87 14258.86574 0 0.02578 0.000267 0.000279 21.03439 3.26E-05 0.003314 0.0007018 0.000799 0.003033 0.000199 0.003328 0.000953 0.000334 Contra Costa 2025 MHDT Aggregate 25 Diesel 19647.91 19647.90522 0 0.029746 0.000283 0.000296 26.12974 3.2E-05 0.004117 0.0006881 0.000783 0.003339 0.000247 0.004584 0.001079 0.000378 Onroad exhaust EF (lbs/mile) assuming vehicle travel with speed less than 25 mph on unpaved road Calendar
Year
Vehicle
Category
Model
Year Speed Fuel
Total
VMT NOx_RUNEX
PM2.5_
RUNEX
PM10_RU
NEX
CO2_RUN
EX
CH4_RUN
EX
N2O_RUN
EX
ROG_RUN
EX
TOG_RUN

EX CO_RUNEX
SOx_RUN
EX
NH3_RUN
EX
PM10_P
MBW
PM2.5_P
MBW
2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 57580.23 8.247138223 0.0346 0.03619 2607.35 0.007798 0.410789 0.167882 0.191121 0.5961852 0.02469 0.191498 0.129791 0.045427 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 52155.51 3.439498994 0.0303 0.031669 1696 0.006148 0.267206 0.132373 0.150696 0.3173583 0.01606 0.198547 0.059038 0.020663 A-22

Fugitive Dust Emission Factors
1 Aggregate Storage Piles 1
E(lb/ton)=(k)(0.0032)(U/5)^1.3/(M/2)^1.4
Where: PM10 Unit Source
k= Particle Size Multiplier: 0.35 dimensionless AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4-3, PM10 emissions U= mean wind speed 6.7 mph CalEEMod for Contra Costa County M= moisture content (%) 3.4 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4-3, Table 13.2.4-1, exposed ground PM10 Emission factor 0.49 lbs/ton
2 Travel on Unpaved Roads (Heavy Duty Trucks)2
E(lbs/VMT)=(k)(s/12)^a (W/3)^b
Where: PM10 Unit Source
k= Particle Size Multiplier: 1.5 dimensionless AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-2, PM10 emissions; industrial roads s= Silt Content (%) 6.4 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-1, municipal solid waste landfills disposal routes a= 0.9 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-2, industrial roads b= 0.45 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-2, industrial roads W=Vehicle Weight 19.7 tons Vehicle Weight
PM10 Emission factor 1.989 lbs/VMT For above weight truck 2a Correction for Natural Precipitation3
E(ext)=E[(365-P)/365]
Where: Unit Source
60 days AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2, Figure 13.2.2-1
Corrected EF PM10 1.662 lbs/VMT
Emissions result from several distinct processes within the stockpiling cycle: 1. loading of materials through batch or drop operations, 2.

P=#days/yr with >=0.01 inch precipitation during
A-23

3 Travel on Paved Roads
E(lbs/VMT)=(k)(sL)^.91 (W)^1.02
Where: PM10 Unit Source
k= Particle Size Multiplier: 0.0022 lb/VMT AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-1, PM10 emissions sL= road surface silt loading 0.06 g/m^2 AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-2 Baseline with ADT category 5,000-10,000

7.4 g/m^2 AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-3, Municipal solid waste landfill W= average weight of the vehicles traveling the ro 2.4 tons Statewide average vehicle weight in CA PM10 Emission factor 0.00041 lbs/VMT Public roads

0.03337 lbs/VMT Industrial roads
Correction for Natural Precipitation5
3a E(ext)=E[(1-P/4N)]
Where: Unit Source
Eext = annual or other long-term average emission factor dimensionless 60 days AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Figure 13.2.1-2
N=# days in averaging period 365 days
Corrected EF PM10 0.00040 lbs/VMT Public roads

0.03200 lbs/VMT Industrial roads
4 Bulldozing6
Equation is applied to graders and dozers to estimate fugitive dust from grading activity Emissions factors for P10 from bulldozing are scaled from those of PM15 E(lbs/hr)=1.0*s^1.5/M^1.4 AP-42 Table 11.9-1, PM15,overburden Where
E(PM10)=E(PM15)*F
PM15
Where: Unit Source
M= material moisture content 7.9 % AP-42 Table 11.9-3,Overburden s= material silt content 6.9 % AP-42 Table 11.9-3,Overburden F= scaling factor 0.75 constant AP-42 Table 11.9-1, PM10 PM15 0.63 lbs/hr
PM10 0.47 lbs/hr
Sources
1 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles, Eqn. 1 2 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads, Eqn. 1 3 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads, Eqn. 2 4 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.1 Paved Road, Eqn. 1 5 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.1 Paved Road, Eqn. 2 6 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry, 11.9 Mineral Products Industry, Table 11.9-1 Bulldozing P=#days/yr with >=0.01 inch precipitation during
A-24

Conversion Factors
Conversion
grams per pound 453.59237
pounds per ton 2000
pounds per metric ton 2204.62
days per year 365
grams per short ton 907185
grams per metric ton 1000000
cubic centimeteters per cubic yards 764555
Constants
Soil Density (g/cm3) 1.55
Concrete Density (g/cm3) 2.4 Jones, Katrina (1999). "Density of Concrete". The Physics Factbook Global Warming Potentials for Greenhouse Gases based on a 100-year horizon Source CO2 GWP CH4 GWP N2O GWP
IPCC Second Assessment Report 1 21 310
IPCC Third Assessment Report 1 23 296
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(w/o climate carbon feedback) 1 25 265
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(with climate carbon feedback) 1 34 298
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(Avg) 1 25 298
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Avg) 1 28 265
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 1 27.9 273
Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf Queried from map (Soil bulk density for Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, and New Mexico, USA), databasin A-25

EMFAC Vehicle Classfication and Weights
EMFAC202x Vehicle Class CalEEMod GVWR (lb)

LDA, MCY LDA -
LDT1 LDT1 <= 6000
LDT2 LDT2 <=6000
MDV, MH, LHD, T6, MHDT 14,001 – 33,000
T7, PTO, BUS, Motor Coach HHDT 33,000 – 60,000
A-26

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

AND OZONE PRECURSORS

EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
Emissions Summary – Operation
Mass Emissions from AD and BDPS Facilities
Mobile Exhaust Emissions: On-Road
Ops Mass Emissions
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Project Input
Emission Factors based on VMT, Trip, and Idle/Diurnal
EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Query Result
AD and BDPS Facilities Emission Calculations
Fd Calculations
A-27

Emissions Summary - Operation
Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants
Avereage Daily Emissions
ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Mobile 0.3 6.9 0.06 0.05
Stationary 38.1 23.0 4.6 4.6
Project 38.4 29.9 4.7 4.6
Thresholds of
Significance
54 54 82 54
Exceed? No No No No
Annual Average Emissions
ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Mobile 0.027 0.6 0.0049 0.0047 316
Stationary 7.0 4.2 0.8 0.8 11,481
Project Net
Increase 7.0 4.8 0.8 0.8 -6,177
Thresholds of
Significance
10 10 15 10 NA
Exceed? No No No No NA
GHG offset -17,974 MTPY based on WARM results, see Sheet "GHG offset".

Short tons to metric tons 0.907185
Notes: Stationary PM2.5 emissions are not available, used PM10 emissions as conservative estimates.

Emission Source
Emission Source CO2e MTPY
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/yr)
Note: Stationary PM2.5 emissions are not available, used PM10 emissions as conservative estimates.

A-28

Mass Emissions from AD and BDPS Facilities
Emission Source Pollutant Type Pollutant Max lbs/hour Average lbs/Hour Average lbs/day Annual (tons/year) Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.48 0.48 11.54 0.42
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.20 0.20 4.81 0.18
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC/ROG 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.40 0.40 9.50 0.35
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.07 0.07 1.58 0.06
GHG CO2e 3886.08 3886.08 93265.92 3404
TAC Acetone 2.31E-05 2.31E-05 5.54E-04 2.02E-05
TAC Benzene 9.14E-04 9.14E-04 2.19E-02 8.01E-04
TAC Chlorobenzene 6.60E-06 6.60E-06 1.58E-04 5.78E-06
TAC Ethylbenzene 3.30E-05 3.30E-05 7.92E-04 2.89E-05
TAC Ethly Dichloride 4.62E-05 4.62E-05 1.11E-03 4.05E-05 TAC Formaldehyde 4.46E-03 4.46E-03 1.07E-01 3.90E-03
TAC Hexane 3.33E-04 3.33E-04 8.00E-03 2.92E-04
TAC Hydrogen Chloride 2.13E-02 2.13E-02 5.11E-01 1.87E-02 TAC Methylene Chloride 3.30E-06 3.30E-06 7.92E-05 2.89E-06 TAC Methyl Ethyl Ketone 3.30E-06 3.30E-06 7.92E-05 2.89E-06 TAC Perchloroethlylene 1.65E-05 1.65E-05 3.96E-04 1.45E-05 TAC Toluene 3.33E-04 3.33E-04 8.00E-03 2.92E-04
TAC Trichloroethane 3.30E-06 3.30E-06 7.92E-05 2.89E-06 TAC Trichloroethylene 9.90E-06 9.90E-06 2.38E-04 8.67E-06 TAC Xylene 2.20E-03 2.20E-03 5.28E-02 1.93E-03
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.13 0.11 2.75 0.37
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 2.17 1.86 44.60 6.02
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC/ROG 0.05 0.04 0.94 0.13
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.06 0.05 1.29 0.17
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.01
GHG CO2e 968 830 19908 2688
TAC Acetaldehyde 3.56E-05 3.05E-05 7.32E-04 9.88E-05
TAC Acrolein 2.23E-05 1.92E-05 4.60E-04 6.21E-05
TAC Arsenic 1.65E-06 1.42E-06 3.40E-05 4.59E-06
TAC Benzene 6.61E-05 5.67E-05 1.36E-03 1.84E-04
TAC Berylium 4.96E-08 4.25E-08 1.02E-06 1.38E-07
TAC Cadmium 9.11E-06 7.81E-06 1.87E-04 2.53E-05
TAC Copper 7.03E-06 6.02E-06 1.45E-04 1.95E-05
TAC Ethylbenzene 7.85E-05 6.73E-05 1.62E-03 2.18E-04
TAC Formaldehyde 1.80E-03 1.55E-03 3.71E-02 5.01E-03
TAC Hexane 5.21E-05 4.47E-05 1.07E-03 1.45E-04
TAC Lead 4.13E-06 3.54E-06 8.50E-05 1.15E-05
TAC Manganese 3.15E-06 2.70E-06 6.47E-05 8.74E-06
TAC Mercury 2.15E-06 1.84E-06 4.42E-05 5.97E-06
TAC Naphthalene 5.04E-06 4.32E-06 1.04E-04 1.40E-05
TAC Nickel 1.74E-05 1.49E-05 3.57E-04 4.82E-05
TAC PAH (excl. naphthalene) 5.57E-08 4.77E-08 1.15E-06 1.55E-07 TAC Propylene 6.05E-03 5.18E-03 1.24E-01 1.68E-02
TAC Selenium 9.95E-08 8.53E-08 2.05E-06 2.76E-07
TAC Toluene 3.03E-04 2.60E-04 6.23E-03 8.41E-04
TAC Vanadium 1.90E-05 1.63E-05 3.90E-04 5.27E-05
TAC Xylene 2.25E-04 1.93E-04 4.63E-03 6.25E-04
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC/ROG 2.39E-06 2.39E-06 5.74E-05 8.38E-06 Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GHG CO2e 1179 1179 28287 4130
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC/ROG 1.50E-03 1.50E-03 3.59E-02 6.56E-03 Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GHG CO2e 0 0 0 0
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 15.43 0.00 15.43 1.16
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 15.43 0.00 15.43 1.16
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC/ROG 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.06283
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.01
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GHG CO2e 3111 0 3111 233
TAC Acetaldehyde 0.061 0.000 0.061 0.005
TAC Acrolein 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.001
TAC Benzene 0.058 0.000 0.058 0.004
TAC 1,3-Butadiene 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.001
TAC Formaldehyde 0.122 0.000 0.122 0.009
TAC PAH 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.000
TAC Propylene 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.002
TAC Toluene 0.012 0.000 0.012 0.001
TAC Xylene 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC 0.11 2.64 0.48
TAC H2S 0 0 0
GHG CO2e 50
TAC NH3 0.8 19.4 3.5405
Crtieria Air Pollutant VOC 0.11 2.64 0.48
TAC H2S 0 0 0
GHG CO2e 50
TAC NH3 0.8 19.4 3.5405
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.198 4.75 0.748
Boiler
Emergency Generator
Emissions Outputs
Flare
Tail Gass from AC Vessel
Future AMR
BDPS BioDryers emissions from Biofilter (Emission point 1) BDPS BioDryers emissions from Biofilter (Emission point 2)

A-29

Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.088 2.11 0.3335
Crtieria Air Pollutant ROG 0.006 0.144 0.024
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM2.5 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.044 1.06 0.1665
GHG CO2e 187 4488 700
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.198 4.75 0.748
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.088 2.11 0.3335
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.044 1.06 0.1665
Crtieria Air Pollutant ROG 0.006 0.144 0.024
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM2.5 0.00475 0.114 0.019
GHG CO2e 187 4488 700
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.198 4.75 0.748
Crtieria Air Pollutant ROG 0.006 0.144 0.024
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM2.5 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.088 2.11 0.3335
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.044 1.06 0.1665
GHG CO2e 187 4488 700
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.198 4.75 0.748
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.088 2.11 0.3335
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.044 1.06 0.1665
Crtieria Air Pollutant ROG 0.006 0.144 0.024
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM2.5 0.00475 0.114 0.019
GHG CO2e 187 4488 700
Crtieria Air Pollutant NOx 0.198 4.75 0.748
Crtieria Air Pollutant CO 0.088 2.11 0.3335
Crtieria Air Pollutant SOx 0.044 1.06 0.1665
Crtieria Air Pollutant ROG 0.006 0.144 0.024
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM10 0.00475 0.114 0.019
Crtieria Air Pollutant PM2.5 0.00475 0.114 0.019
GHG CO2e 187 4488 700
Notes:

Entries in red are data added from Bioforcetech Emission Data for CEQA XB9_CEQA_Data_Phase2.pdf.

BDPS Pyrolysis emissions: Anaergia reported combined PM2.5 and PM10 emission rates. These were evenly split (50-50) to derive conservative PM2.5 mass emission rate estimates BDPS Pyrolysis 3 emissions from stack (Emission point 5) BDPS Pyrolysis 4 emissions from stack (Emission point 6) BDPS Pyrolysis 5 emissions from stack (Emission point 7) BDPS Pyrolysis 1 emissions from stack (Emission point 3) BDPS Pyrolysis 2 emissions from stack (Emission point 4) A-30

Mobile Emission: On-Road
ROG NOx PM10_
Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D*
PM2.5
_D* CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
lb lb lb lb lb lb lb lb lb MT
Workforce—one way (per day) 21 25 4 1,460 15 21,900 365 4 Worker Gasolin
e 17 282 1 1 6 2 111,836 1 18 53 1
Trucks Bringing High Strength
Waste (per day) 0 20 20 7,300 50 365,000 365 20 HHDT Diesel 94 2,392 22 21 92 29 1,436,710 4 226 682 1 Chemical Deliveries (per 0 5 5 260 50 13,000 365 1 HHDT Diesel 5 99 1 1 3 1 53,804 0 8 26 1 Trucks Hauling Biosolids to
Landfill (per day) 1.5 0 -1.5 548 100 54,750 365 1 HHDT Diesel 6 261 3 3 14 4 197,197 0 31 94 -1 Trucks Hauling Biochar (per
week) 0 1 1 52 100 5,200 365 1 HHDT Diesel 2 1 0 0 0 0 3,459 0 0 2 1 Trucks Hauling Ammonia
Sulfate Fertilizer (per week) 0 3 3 156 100 15,600 365 1 HHDT Diesel 2 2 0 0 1 0 10,376 0 0 5 1 Total 114 2515 21 20 88 28 674
Avg Daily lbs/day 0.3 6.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Notes: Annual tons/yr 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MT/yr 316 *Particulate Matter from vehicle break wear and tire wear only. **GWP used for quantifying COe Emissions are values from IPCC 4th Assessment Report in Sheet GWP Assumpiton.

Operational days per year 365
Weeks per year 52
The bold font entries indicate an emission reduction.

On-Road Emission rates
ROG NOx PM10_
Ex
PM2.5
_Ex PM10_D PM2.5_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx PM10_Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D
PM2.5
_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx PM10_Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D
PM2.5
_D CO2 CH4 N2O
HHDT Diesel 0.0156 1.7419 0.0266 0.0255 0.1148 0.0367 1,558 0.0007 0.2454 0.0000 2.9550 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 5.0796 58.5861 0.0292 0.0279 0.0000 0.0000 11,377 0.2359 1.7924 MHDT Diesel 0.0204 0.9384 0.0094 0.0090 0.0576 0.0190 1,129 0.0009 0.1779 0.0000 1.6365 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.2126 11.4261 0.0166 0.0159 0.0000 0.0000 2,199 0.0099 0.3464 Worker Fleet Gasoline 0.0131 0.0662 0.0014 0.0013 0.0165 0.0050 301 0.0032 0.0059 0.8056 0.2968 0.0022 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 77 0.0781 0.0344 1.8413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 Notes
Emission type -specific emission rates are provided in worksheet EMFAC EF.

Idle/Diurnal-Based Emission Rate (g/vehicle/day)
Net
Increa
se
Oneway
Trip
Fleet
Type Truck Type
Total
Oneway
Total VMT
Total
Work
Days
Numb
er of
Vehicl
Fuel
VMT-Based Emission Rate (g/mi) Trip-Based Emission Rate (g/trip) Fleet Type Fuel Type
Existing
Condition
Project
Max
A-31

Project Input - Operational
Mobile Sources
Truck Type
Existing
Conditions Project Fleet Vehicle Type Fleet Fuel
One-way Trip
Length (mi)
Workforce—one way (per day) 21 22–25 LDA, LDT1, LDT2 gasoline 15 Trucks Bringing High Strength Waste (p 0 10–20 HHDT 100% diesel 50 Chemical Deliveries (per week) 0 5 HHDT 100% diesel 50
Trucks Hauling Biosolids to Landfill (per 1.5 0 HHDT 100% diesel 100 Trucks Hauling Biochar (per week) 0 1 HHDT 100% diesel 100 Trucks Hauling Ammonia Sulfate Fertiliz 0 2–3 HHDT 100% diesel 100 Stationary Sources
Source of Emission
Type of
release
Hours/Da
ys Days/Year
Annual
Fuel Use
Fuel Units
(e.g., therms,
BTU, gallons)
Stack
Height
(ft)
Stack
Diameter
(in)
Exhaust Exit
Stack
Temperatur
e (F)
Stack exit
velocity
(ft/s) or
Exhaust
Flow Rate
(cfm)
Stack
Exit Type
(e.g.,
flapper
cap, rain
cap,
horizonta
l outlet.

Default:

Uncovere
d)
Stack
Height
(m)
Stack
Diameter
(K)
Exhaust
Exit Stack
Temperat
ure (m)
Stack exit
velocity
(m3/s)
Flare Stack Stack 24/7 365, 20% 175472 MMBTU 31.74 40 2500 4030 dscfmUncovered 9.674225 1644 1.016 1.902 Activated Carbon Tail Gas stack 24/7 complementary to Fl N/A N/A 15 6 75 200 scfm Uncovered 4.572 297 0.1524 0.094 Boiler NG use stack 24/7 3 winter month max 46843 MMBTU 30 14 400 1145 dscfmUncovered 9.144 478 0.3556 0.540 Future AMR stack 24/7 365 N/NA N/A 30 30 70-90 3000 scfm Uncovered 9.144 0.762 1.416 Diesel Generator stack - 50 hr/yr 939 MMBTU 7 5 365 1000 ft/s Uncovered 2.1336 458 0.127 28.300 Emission point 3 Pyrolysis stack 24/7 365 843.26 dry tons/year 28 8 150 257 cfm Uncovered 8.5344 339 0.2032 0.121 Emission point 4 Pyrolysis stack 24/7 365 843.26 dry tons/year 28 8 150 257 cfm Uncovered 8.5344 339 0.2032 0.121 Emission point 5 Pyrolysis stack 24/7 365 843.26 dry tons/year 28 8 150 257 cfm Uncovered 8.5344 339 0.2032 0.121 Emission point 6 Pyrolysis stack 24/7 365 843.26 dry tons/year 28 8 150 257 cfm Uncovered 8.5344 339 0.2032 0.121 Emission point 7 Pyrolysis stack 24/7 365 843.26 dry tons/year 28 8 150 257 cfm Uncovered 8.5344 339 0.2032 0.121 Emission point 1 Bofilter area 24/7 365 22000 cfm ground 10.383 Emission point 2 Bofilter area 24/7 365 22000 cfm ground 10.383 cfm to m3/s 0.000472
A-32

Emission Factors based on VMT, Trip, and Idle/Diurnal

AQ M X Q AB,AC U,V AE AI AM
AS,AV
,AW O Z S AG AK AO AR,AU N Y R AF AJ AN
ROG NOx
PM10_
Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D
PM2.5
_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx
PM10_
Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D
PM2.5
_D CO2 CH4 N2O ROG NOx
PM10_
Ex
PM2.5
_Ex
PM10_
D
PM2.5
_D CO2 CH4 N2O
HHDT Diesel 0.015636328 1.742 0.027 0.025 0.115 0.037 1558 7E-04 0.245 0 2.955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.08 58.59 0.029 0.028 0 0 11377 0.236 1.792 MHDT Diesel 0.02044585 0.938 0.009 0.009 0.058 0.019 1129 9E-04 0.178 0 1.636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.213 11.43 0.017 0.016 0 0 2199 0.01 0.346 LDA Gasoline 0.006653083 0.033 0.001 0.001 0.015 0.005 260.5 0.002 0.004 0.59 0.232 0.002 0.002 0 0 65.84 0.062 0.031 1.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDA Diesel 0.022596553 0.156 0.013 0.013 0.016 0.005 230.1 0.001 0.036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDA Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.012 0.004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDA Plug-in Hybrid 0.001307977 0.003 5E-04 5E-04 0.012 0.003 128.8 4E-04 5E-04 0.259 0.116 0.002 0.002 0 0 62.38 0.042 0.02 0.457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Gasoline 0.018838254 0.091 0.002 0.001 0.017 0.005 312.4 0.004 0.007 1.017 0.336 0.003 0.002 0 0 81.52 0.09 0.036 2.367 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Diesel 0.258171859 1.307 0.206 0.197 0.018 0.006 400 0.012 0.063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.012 0.004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT1 Plug-in Hybrid 0.001180162 0.003 3E-04 3E-04 0.012 0.003 116.4 4E-04 5E-04 0.219 0.117 0.001 0.001 0 0 66.02 0.042 0.02 0.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Gasoline 0.008227355 0.05 0.001 0.001 0.017 0.005 318.3 0.002 0.005 0.597 0.283 0.002 0.002 0 0 80.9 0.071 0.034 1.261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Diesel 0.012882612 0.037 0.005 0.004 0.017 0.005 296.9 6E-04 0.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.012 0.004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LDT2 Plug-in Hybrid 0.001235721 0.003 4E-04 4E-04 0.012 0.003 121.8 4E-04 5E-04 0.224 0.117 0.002 0.001 0 0 72.14 0.042 0.02 0.294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worker Fleet Gasoline 0.013139237 0.066 0.001 0.001 0.016 0.005 300.9 0.003 0.006 0.806 0.297 0.002 0.002 0 0 77.44 0.078 0.034 1.841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worker Fleet EMFAC default mix 0.137955721 0.705 0.107 0.103 0.017 0.005 344.7 0.007 0.052 0.806 0.297 0.002 0.002 0 0 77.44 0.078 0.034 1.841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assume Worker Fleet = 25/50/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1, and light duty truck class 2 EMFAC Emission Types Used to Estimate Onroad Emission Rates Pollutant group

TOG, ROG
Gases
PM - Exhaust
PM - Dust
Acronyms:

RUNEX Running exhaust g/mile
PMBW PM brakewear g/mile
PMTW PM tirewear g/mile
STREX Start exhaust g/trip
HOTSOAK Hot Soak evaporative g/trip
RUNLOSS Running Loss evaporative g/trip
IDLEX Idle exhaust g/vehicle/day
DIURN Diurnal Loss evaporative g/vehicle/day
Summed columns in EMFAC
Notes:

VMT-based (g/mile) Trip-based (g/trip) Idle/Diurnal-based VMT-based (g/mile) Trip-based (g/trip) Idle/diurnal-based (g/vehicle/day) Vehicle
Category Fuel

RUNEX STREX, HOTSOAK, IDLEX, DIURN

PMTW, PMBW

RUNEX STREX IDLEX

RUNEX STREX IDLEX
A-33

EMFAC 2021 (On-Road) Emission Query Result
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air District
Region: Bay Area AQMD
Calendar Year: 2027
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region
Calenda
r Year
Vehicle
Categor
y
Model
Year Speed Fuel
Populati
on
Total
VMT CVMT EVMT Trips
Energy
Consum
ption
NOx_R
UNEX
NOx_ID
LEX
NOx_S
TREX
NOx_T
OTEX
PM2.5_
RUNEX
PM2.5_I
DLEX
PM2.5_
STREX
PM2.5_
TOTEX
PM2.5_
PMTW
PM2.5_
PMBW
PM2.5_
TOTAL
Bay Area 2027 HHDT AggregatAggregatGasoline 15.916 1649.3 1649.3 0 318.44 0 0.007 0 4E-05 0.0071 3E-06 0 2E-07 3E-06 9E-06 6E-05 7E-05 Bay Area 2027 HHDT AggregatAggregatDiesel 38307 4E+06 4E+06 0 563080 0 8.3435 2.4739 1.8341 12.651 0.1219 0.0012 0 0.1231 0.0422 0.1334 0.2987 Bay Area 2027 HHDT AggregatAggregatElectricity 711.6 75498 0 75498 9377.6 139180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0007 0.0013 0.002 Bay Area 2027 HHDT AggregatAggregatNatural G 3624.5 234581 234581 0 32827 0 0.2212 0.05 0 0.2711 0.0004 0.0001 0 0.0005 0.0023 0.0128 0.0157 Bay Area 2027 LDA AggregatAggregatGasoline 2E+06 8E+07 8E+07 0 1E+07 0 2.9196 0 2.5974 5.517 0.0941 0 0.02 0.1141 0.1758 0.2252 0.515 Bay Area 2027 LDA AggregatAggregatDiesel 6597.4 177295 177295 0 27686 0 0.0305 0 0 0.0305 0.0025 0 0 0.0025 0.0004 0.0005 0.0034 Bay Area 2027 LDA AggregatAggregatElectricity 208558 9E+06 0 9E+06 1E+06 3E+06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0198 0.0152 0.035 Bay Area 2027 LDA AggregatAggregatPlug-in H 76509 3E+06 2E+06 2E+06 316366 519336 0.0108 0 0.0406 0.0514 0.0018 0 0.0006 0.0024 0.0071 0.0049 0.0144 Bay Area 2027 LDT1 AggregatAggregatGasoline 202254 6E+06 6E+06 0 896513 0 0.651 0 0.3323 0.9833 0.0104 0 0.0023 0.0127 0.0143 0.0224 0.0494 Bay Area 2027 LDT1 AggregatAggregatDiesel 34.54 410.66 410.66 0 96.272 0 0.0006 0 0 0.0006 9E-05 0 0 9E-05 9E-07 2E-06 9E-05 Bay Area 2027 LDT1 AggregatAggregatElectricity 1024.8 43368 0 43368 4957 16744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-04 7E-05 0.0002 Bay Area 2027 LDT1 AggregatAggregatPlug-in H 657.82 29709 12525 17184 2720.1 5190.2 9E-05 0 0.0003 0.0004 1E-05 0 4E-06 1E-05 7E-05 5E-05 0.0001 Bay Area 2027 LDT2 AggregatAggregatGasoline 1E+06 4E+07 4E+07 0 5E+06 0 2.2828 0 1.6795 3.9623 0.0511 0 0.0107 0.0618 0.0922 0.1392 0.2932 Bay Area 2027 LDT2 AggregatAggregatDiesel 4608.7 167519 167519 0 21655 0 0.0068 0 0 0.0068 0.0008 0 0 0.0008 0.0004 0.0006 0.0017 Bay Area 2027 LDT2 AggregatAggregatElectricity 12843 421078 0 421078 64694 162571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0009 0.0007 0.0016 Bay Area 2027 LDT2 AggregatAggregatPlug-in H 13373 571302 252133 319169 55298 96398 0.0018 0 0.0071 0.0089 0.0002 0 9E-05 0.0003 0.0013 0.0009 0.0025 Bay Area 2027 MHDT AggregatAggregatGasoline 6299.2 331335 331335 0 126035 0 0.1086 0.0006 0.0555 0.1646 0.0005 0 7E-05 0.0005 0.0011 0.0058 0.0074 Bay Area 2027 MHDT AggregatAggregatDiesel 48915 2E+06 2E+06 0 583477 0 2.0568 0.6161 1.0525 3.7254 0.0197 0.0009 0 0.0206 0.0066 0.035 0.0621 Bay Area 2027 MHDT AggregatAggregatElectricity 1238.9 64890 0 64890 15852 70892 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0006 0.0008 Bay Area 2027 MHDT AggregatAggregatNatural G 566.01 25524 25524 0 5349.1 0 0.0031 0.004 0 0.0071 4E-05 1E-05 0 5E-05 8E-05 0.0005 0.0006 A-34

PM10_
RUNEX
PM10_I
DLEX
PM10_S
TREX
PM10_T
OTEX
PM10_P
MTW
PM10_P
MBW
PM10_T
OTAL
CO2_R
UNEX
CO2_ID
LEX
CO2_S
TREX
CO2_T
OTEX
CH4_R
UNEX
CH4_ID
LEX
CH4_ST
REX
CH4_T
OTEX
N2O_R
UNEX
N2O_ID
LEX
N2O_S
TREX
N2O_T
OTEX
ROG_R
UNEX
ROG_ID
LEX
ROG_S
TREX
ROG_T
OTEX
3E-06 0 2E-07 3E-06 4E-05 0.0002 0.0002 3.9599 0 0.0181 3.978 0.0002 0 4E-08 0.0002 0.0003 0 1E-06 0.0003 0.001 0 2E-07 0.001

0.1274 0.0012 0 0.1287 0.1687 0.3812 0.6785 7461.9 480.4 0 7942.3 0.0035 0.01 0 0.0134 1.1756 0.0757 0 1.2513 0.0749 0.2145 0 0.2894 0 0 0 0 0.0029 0.0036 0.0065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0005 0.0001 0 0.0006 0.0093 0.0367 0.0465 348.3 41.983 0 390.29 0.4811 0.1333 0 0.6144 0.071 0.0086 0 0.0796 0.01 0.002 0 0.012

0.1023 0 0.0217 0.1241 0.703 0.6435 1.4705 22888 0 738.18 23626 0.1598 0 0.6959 0.8557 0.3584 0 0.347 0.7054 0.5847 0 3.124 3.7087

0.0026 0 0 0.0026 0.0016 0.0015 0.0056 44.972 0 0 44.972 0.0002 0 0 0.0002 0.0071 0 0 0.0071 0.0044 0 0 0.0044 0 0 0 0 0.0793 0.0435 0.1227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0019 0 0.0007 0.0026 0.0284 0.0139 0.0449 457.36 0 21.754 479.12 0.0014 0 0.0147 0.0162 0.0019 0 0.0071 0.009 0.0046 0 0.0611 0.0658

0.0113 0 0.0025 0.0138 0.0572 0.064 0.135 2233.1 0 80.561 2313.7 0.0312 0 0.0888 0.12 0.0524 0 0.0357 0.0881 0.1346 0 0.445 0.5797 9E-05 0 0 9E-05 4E-06 5E-06 0.0001 0.1811 0 0 0.1811 5E-06 0 0 5E-06 3E-05 0 0 3E-05 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0 0 0 0 0.0004 0.0002 0.0006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1E-05 0 4E-06 2E-05 0.0003 0.0001 0.0004 3.8108 0 0.1979 4.0088 1E-05 0 0.0001 0.0001 2E-05 0 6E-05 8E-05 4E-05 0 0.0005 0.0006

0.0556 0 0.0116 0.0672 0.3689 0.3976 0.8337 14678 0 480.43 15159 0.1016 0 0.4205 0.5221 0.2257 0 0.2033 0.429 0.3794 0 1.8948 2.2742

0.0009 0 0 0.0009 0.0015 0.0016 0.0039 54.831 0 0 54.831 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0.0086 0 0 0.0086 0.0024 0 0 0.0024 0 0 0 0 0.0037 0.002 0.0057 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0003 0 1E-04 0.0004 0.005 0.0025 0.0079 76.707 0 4.3973 81.104 0.0002 0 0.0026 0.0028 0.0003 0 0.0012 0.0015 0.0008 0 0.0107 0.0115

0.0005 0 7E-05 0.0006 0.0044 0.0164 0.0214 630.16 3.6217 6.1398 639.92 0.0034 0.0018 0.0061 0.0114 0.006 5E-05 0.0045 0.0105 0.0165 0.0071 0.0327 0.0563

0.0206 0.0009 0 0.0215 0.0263 0.0999 0.1477 2475.4 118.54 0 2593.9 0.0021 0.0005 0 0.0026 0.39 0.0187 0 0.4087 0.0448 0.0115 0 0.0563 0 0 0 0 0.0009 0.0016 0.0025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4E-05 1E-05 0 5E-05 0.0003 0.0013 0.0017 27.382 3.2937 0 30.675 0.0214 0.0102 0 0.0316 0.0056 0.0007 0 0.0063 0.0003 0.0001 0 0.0005 A-35

ROG_DI
URN
ROG_H
OTSOA
K
ROG_R
UNLOS
S
ROG_T
OTAL
TOG_R
UNEX
TOG_ID
LEX
TOG_S
TREX
TOG_T
OTEX
TOG_DI
URN
TOG_H
OTSOA
K
TOG_R
UNLOS
S
TOG_T
OTAL
CO_RU
NEX
CO_IDL
EX
CO_ST
REX
CO_TO
TEX
SOx_R
UNEX
SOx_ID
LEX
SOx_ST
REX
SOx_T
OTEX
NH3_R
UNEX
Fuel
Consum
ption
6E-05 2E-05 0.0001 0.0012 0.0015 0 3E-07 0.0015 6E-05 2E-05 0.0001 0.0017 0.0573 0 0.0016 0.0589 4E-05 0 2E-07 4E-05 8E-05 0.4195 0 0 0 0.2894 0.0853 0.2442 0 0.3294 0 0 0 0.3294 0.346 3.1325 0 3.4784 0.0707 0.0045 0 0.0752 1.034 709.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0.012 0.4945 0.1362 0 0.6307 0 0 0 0.6307 3.0544 0.2977 0 3.3521 0 0 0 0 0.2149 45.111

3.3181 0.9419 2.554 10.523 0.8531 0 3.4204 4.2735 3.3181 0.9419 2.554 11.088 54.322 0 31.894 86.216 0.2263 0 0.0073 0.2336 3.2757 2491.3 0 0 0 0.0044 0.005 0 0 0.005 0 0 0 0.005 0.0618 0 0 0.0618 0.0004 0 0 0.0004 0.0006 4.0174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0385 0.0144 0.0146 0.1333 0.0068 0 0.0669 0.0737 0.0385 0.0144 0.0146 0.1413 0.7003 0 0.4747 1.175 0.0045 0 0.0002 0.0047 0.0665 50.522

0.5277 0.1458 0.4147 1.6679 0.1965 0 0.4872 0.6837 0.5277 0.1458 0.4147 1.7719 7.6824 0 4.4071 12.09 0.0221 0 0.0008 0.0229 0.2651 243.98 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0001 0 0 0.0001 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0008 0 0 0.0008 2E-06 0 0 2E-06 1E-06 0.0162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0002 7E-05 6E-05 0.0009 6E-05 0 0.0006 0.0006 0.0002 7E-05 6E-05 0.001 0.0058 0 0.0041 0.0099 4E-05 0 2E-06 4E-05 0.0006 0.4227

1.6019 0.4335 1.2179 5.5275 0.5536 0 2.0746 2.6282 1.6019 0.4335 1.2179 5.8815 31.731 0 18.873 50.603 0.1451 0 0.0047 0.1499 1.7734 1598.5 0 0 0 0.0024 0.0027 0 0 0.0027 0 0 0 0.0027 0.0248 0 0 0.0248 0.0005 0 0 0.0005 0.0006 4.898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0043 0.0016 0.0014 0.0188 0.0011 0 0.0117 0.0128 0.0043 0.0016 0.0014 0.0201 0.1173 0 0.0831 0.2003 0.0008 0 4E-05 0.0008 0.0117 8.5523

0.0164 0.004 0.0329 0.1096 0.0241 0.0103 0.0358 0.0702 0.0164 0.004 0.0329 0.1235 0.3327 0.1055 0.703 1.1412 0.0062 4E-05 6E-05 0.0063 0.0164 67.479 0 0 0 0.0563 0.051 0.0131 0 0.0641 0 0 0 0.0641 0.1945 0.4039 0 0.5984 0.0234 0.0011 0 0.0246 0.4689 231.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0.0005 0.0218 0.0104 0 0.0322 0 0 0 0.0322 0.0846 0.0235 0 0.108 0 0 0 0 0.0298 3.5456 A-36

Fugitive Dust Emissions
On-road Vehicles
Emission Factors
Unpaved
Roads,
BMP
Unpaved
Roads,
BMP,
Corrected
Public
Roads
Public
Roads,
Corrected
Industrial
Roads
Industrial
Roads,
Corrected
Workforce—one way LDA, LDT1, LDT2 2 2 0.000 0.000 4.1E-4 4.0E-4 3.3E-2 3.2E-2 Trucks Bringing High Strength Waste HHDT 20 17 7 0.000 0.000 4.1E-4 4.0E-4 3.3E-2 3.2E-2 Chemical Deliveries HHDT 20 17 7 0.000 0.000 4.1E-4 4.0E-4 3.3E-2 3.2E-2 Trucks Hauling Biosolids to Landfill HHDT 20 17 7 0.000 0.000 4.1E-4 4.0E-4 3.3E-2 3.2E-2 Trucks Hauling Biochar HHDT 20 17 7 0.000 0.000 4.1E-4 4.0E-4 3.3E-2 3.2E-2 Trucks Hauling Ammonia Sulfate Fertilizer HHDT 20 17 7 0.000 0.000 4.1E-4 4.0E-4 3.3E-2 3.2E-2 Notes:

Emission factor for travel on paved roads is estimated using Eq 3 and 3a on worksheet "Fugitive Dust EF".

Emission factor for travel on unpaved roads is estimated using Eq 2 and 2a on worksheet "Fugitive Dust EF".

Average weight of worker commute vehicle is calcualted as the average of vehicle category max weight (LDA: 3,190 lbs, LDT1: 3,750 lbs, LDT2: 5,750 lbs, EMFAC2011) For calculating EF from paved road, the average weight of all vehicles traveling the road is assumped to be 2.4 tons Assuming BMP watering unpaved road twice daily.

Dust Emissions
Total Oneway Trip Total VMT
PM10
(lbs)
PM2.5
(lbs)
PM10
(lbs) PM2.5 (lbs) PM10 (lbs) PM2.5 (lbs)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy)
Workforce—one way 1,460 15 21,900 8,760 13,140 280 70 5 1 286 71 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.04 Trucks Bringing High Strength Waste 7,300 50 365,000 43,800 321,200 1,402 350 127 32 1,529 382 4.19 1.05 0.76 0.19 Chemical Deliveries 260 50 13,000 1,560 11,440 50 12 5 1 54 14 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.01 Trucks Hauling Biosolids to Landfill 548 100 54,750 3,285 51,465 105 26 20 5 126 31 0.34 0.09 0.06 0.02 Trucks Hauling Biochar 52 100 5,200 312 4,888 10 2 2 0 12 3 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 Trucks Hauling Ammonia Sulfate Fertilizer 156 100 15,600 936 14,664 30 7 6 1 36 9 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.00 Project 1,791 448 4.91 1.23 1.02 0.26
Notes:

Unpaved road 0 miles
Trackout distance 6 miles EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.1 Paved Road.

Industrial Roads are defined as the roads within trackout distance from the project site, to be conservative.

Miles on Industrial Roads is estimated as # of one-way trips multiplied by trackout distance.

Mitigation reduction 61% Reduction by BMP watering unpaved road twice daily.

The bold font entry indicate a net reduction of emission due to project.

PM2.5 to PM10 Mass Emission Ratio used in Calculation
Fugitive Dust Source PM2.5/PM10
Paved road 0.25
Unpaved road 0.15
Trip Purpose
Public
Road (mi)
Industrial
Road (mi)
Public Road
Trip Purpose Load Capacity
(tons) Vehicle Category GVWR (ton) Avg. Weight (tons)
PM10 EF (lbs/VMT)
EPA. AP-42. Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust, Final One-way Trip
Length (mi)
Industrial Road Total Emissions Avg Daily Annual
Reference
EPA. AP-42. Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust, Final

A-37

Fugitive Dust Emission Factors
1 Aggregate Storage Piles 1
E(lb/ton)=(k)(0.0032)(U/5)^1.3/(M/2)^1.4
Where: PM10 Unit Source
k= Particle Size Multiplier: 0.35 dimensionless AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4-3, PM10 emissions U= mean wind speed 6.7 mph CalEEMod for Contra Costa County M= moisture content (%) 3.4 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4-3, Table 13.2.4-1, exposed ground PM10 Emission factor 0.49 lbs/ton
2 Travel on Unpaved Roads (Heavy Duty Trucks)2
E(lbs/VMT)=(k)(s/12)^a (W/3)^b
Where: PM10 Unit Source
k= Particle Size Multiplier: 1.5 dimensionless AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-2, PM10 emissions; industrial roads s= Silt Content (%) 6.4 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-1, municipal solid waste landfills disposal routes a= 0.9 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-2, industrial roads b= 0.45 constant AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2-2, industrial roads W=Vehicle Weight 2.0 tons Vehicle Weight
PM10 Emission factor 0.710 lbs/VMT For above weight truck 2a Correction for Natural Precipitation3
E(ext)=E[(365-P)/365]
Where: Unit Source
60 days AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2, Figure 13.2.2-1
Corrected EF PM10 0.593 lbs/VMT
3 Travel on Paved Roads
E(lbs/VMT)=(k)(sL)^.91 (W)^1.02
Where: PM10 Unit Source
k= Particle Size Multiplier: 0.0022 lb/VMT AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-1, PM10 emissions sL= road surface silt loading 0.06 g/m^2 AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-2 Baseline with ADT category 5,000-10,000

7.4 g/m^2 AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Table 13.2.1-3, Municipal solid waste landfill W= average weight of the vehicles traveling the road 2.4 tons Statewide average vehicle weight in CA PM10 Emission factor 0.00041 lbs/VMT Public roads

0.03337 lbs/VMT Industrial roads
Correction for Natural Precipitation5
3a E(ext)=E[(1-P/4N)]
Where: Unit Source
Eext = annual or other long-term average emission factor dimensionless 60 days AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, Figure 13.2.1-2
N=# days in averaging period 365 days
Corrected EF PM10 0.00040 lbs/VMT Public roads

0.03200 lbs/VMT Industrial roads
Emissions result from several distinct processes within the stockpiling cycle: 1. loading of materials through batch or drop operations, 2. equipment P=#days/yr with >=0.01 inch precipitation during
P=#days/yr with >=0.01 inch precipitation during
A-38

4 Bulldozing6
Equation is applied to graders and dozers to estimate fugitive dust from grading activity Emissions factors for P10 from bulldozing are scaled from those of PM15 E(lbs/hr)=1.0*s^1.5/M^1.4 AP-42 Table 11.9-1, PM15,overburden Where
E(PM10)=E(PM15)*F
PM15
Where: Unit Source
M= material moisture content 7.9 % AP-42 Table 11.9-3,Overburden s= material silt content 6.9 % AP-42 Table 11.9-3,Overburden F= scaling factor 0.75 constant AP-42 Table 11.9-1, PM10 PM15 0.63 lbs/hr
PM10 0.47 lbs/hr
Sources
1 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles, Eqn. 1 2 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads, Eqn. 1 3 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads, Eqn. 2 4 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.1 Paved Road, Eqn. 1 5 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, 13.2.1 Paved Road, Eqn. 2 6 EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry, 11.9 Mineral Products Industry, Table 11.9-1 Bulldozing A-39

AD and BDPS Facilities Emission Calculations
Data and Parameters
HHV Biogas (Btu/scf) 607
HHV Natural Gas (Btu/scf) 1,020
HHV CO2 (Btu/scf) 0
Molar Volume Digester gas (scf/lb-mo 386
Molar Volume Natural Gas(scf/lb-mol) 379
Molar Volume CO2 (scf/lb-mol) 385
Molar Volume Air (scf/lb-mol) 380
MW NOx (lb/lb-mol) 46
MW CO (lb/lb-mol) 28
MW VOC (lb/lb-mol) 16.04
MW SO2 (lb/lb-mol) 64
MW NH3 (lb/lb-mol) 17
MW H2S (lb/lb-mol) 32.02
MW CO2 (lb/lb-mol) 44.01
MW CH4 (lb/lb-mol) 16.04
Fd Biogas (dcuft/MMBTU) 9174.07 (see Fd Factor Calculation Spreadsheet) Fd Natural Gas (dcuft/MMBTU) 8710
Average Brake-Specific Fuel Consumptio 0.007
Parameter Value Pollutant Reference Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Compound
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmsc
f)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Flow Rate of Digestate (scfm) 550 NOx Vendor Data Sheet 0.024 14.57 0.5 0.48 11.54 0.42 Acetone 7.00E-04 2.31E-05 2.31E-05 5.54E-04 2.02E-05 Heat (mmBtu/hr) 20 CO Vendor Data Sheet 0.0100 6.07 0.20 0.20 4.81 0.18 Benzene 2.77E-02 9.14E-04 9.14E-04 2.19E-02 8.01E-04 Flow Rate of fuel burned (mmscf/hr) 0.033 VOC Vendor Data Sheet 0.00004 2.35E-02 7.77E-04 7.77E-04 1.86E-02 6.80E-04 Chlorobenzene 2.00E-04 6.60E-06 6.60E-06 1.58E-04 5.78E-06 Maximum operations (hr/day) 24 PM10 SDAPCD FLARES, DIGESTER 12.00 0.40 0.40 9.50 0.35 Ethylbenzene 1.00E-03 3.30E-05 3.30E-05 7.92E-04 2.89E-05 Maximum operations (hr/month) 720 SOx SDAPCD FLARES, DIGESTER 2.00 0.07 0.07 1.58 0.06 Ethly Dichloride 1.40E-03 4.62E-05 4.62E-05 1.11E-03 4.05E-05 Maximum operations (hr/yr) 8760 VOC Emission Factor Calculation Formaldehyde 1.35E-01 4.46E-03 4.46E-03 1.07E-01 3.90E-03 Average operations (hr/day) 24 Hexane 1.01E-02 3.33E-04 3.33E-04 8.00E-03 2.92E-04 Average operations (% of max) 20% Hydrogen Chloride 6.46E-01 2.13E-02 2.13E-02 5.11E-01 1.87E-02 Average operations (hr/yr) 8760 0.1 0.00004 Methylene Chloride 1.00E-04 3.30E-06 3.30E-06 7.92E-05 2.89E-06 Assumed CH4 content in Digester Gas 60% Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1.00E-04 3.30E-06 3.30E-06 7.92E-05 2.89E-06 Perchloroethlylene 5.00E-04 1.65E-05 1.65E-05 3.96E-04 1.45E-05 Toluene 1.01E-02 3.33E-04 3.33E-04 8.00E-03 2.92E-04
Pollutant Reference
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr) Trichloroethane 1.00E-04 3.30E-06 3.30E-06 7.92E-05 2.89E-06 CO2 AP-42: TABLE 1.4-2. EMISSIO 3886 3886 93266 3404 Trichloroethylene 3.00E-04 9.90E-06 9.90E-06 2.38E-04 8.67E-06 CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Xylene 6.67E-02 2.20E-03 2.20E-03 5.28E-02 1.93E-03 N2O AP-42: TABLE 1.4-2. EMISSIO 0.00063 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.01 Reference:

H2S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NH3 0.0048 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2e Total 3886 3886 93266 3404
CO2 Emission Factor Calculation
(lb/mmscf) = (MW lb/lbmol) / (scf/lb-mol)x 10^6 scf/mmscf Emission Factor (lb/mmscf) Flow (scfm)
120000 330
114400 220
Parameter Value Pollutant Reference Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Compound CAS
Emission
Factor
(lb/MMBTU)
Emission Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Average Heat Demand (MMBTU/h) 6.000 NOx BAAQMD Rule 9-7 0.02 16.15 0.13 0.11 2.75 0.37 Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 4.22E-06 4.30E-03 3.56E-05 3.05E-05 0.00 0.00 Max Heat Demand (MMBTU/h) 7.000 CO BAAQMD Rule 9-7 0.26 262.20 2.17 1.86 44.60 6.02 Acrolein 107-02-8 2.65E-06 2.70E-03 2.23E-05 1.92E-05 0.00 0.00 Boiler Sizing heat transfer (%) 0.830 VOC SDAPCD Boiler-Natural- 5.50 0.05 0.04 0.94 0.13 Arsenic 7440-38-2 1.96E-07 2.00E-04 1.65E-06 1.42E-06 0.00 0.00 Average Flow Rate (scfm) 118 PM10 SDAPCD Boiler-Natural- 7.60 0.06 0.05 1.29 0.17 Benzene 71-43-2 7.84E-06 8.00E-03 6.61E-05 5.67E-05 0.00 0.00 Average Flow Rate (mmscf/hr) 0.0071 SOx SDAPCD Boiler-Natural- 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.01 Berylium 7440-41-7 5.88E-09 6.00E-06 4.96E-08 4.25E-08 0.00 0.00 Max Flow Rate (scfm) 138 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.08E-06 1.10E-03 9.11E-06 7.81E-06 0.00 0.00 Max Flow Rate (mmscf/hr) 0.008 NOx Emission Factor Calculation Copper 7440-50-8 8.33E-07 8.50E-04 7.03E-06 6.02E-06 0.00 0.00 Max Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6 (lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 9.31E-06 9.50E-03 7.85E-05 6.73E-05 0.00 0.00 Maximum operations (hr/day) 24 Nox Limit Formaldehyde 50-00-0 2.14E-04 2.18E-01 1.80E-03 1.55E-03 0.04 0.01 Maximum operations (hr/month) 720 15 Hexane 110-54-3 6.18E-06 6.30E-03 5.21E-05 4.47E-05 0.00 0.00 Maximum operations (hr/yr) 2160 CO Emission Factor Calculation Lead 7439-92-1 4.90E-07 5.00E-04 4.13E-06 3.54E-06 0.00 0.00 Average operations (hr/day) 24 (lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf Manganese 7439-96-5 3.73E-07 3.80E-04 3.15E-06 2.70E-06 0.00 0.00 Average operations (hr/month) 720 CO Limit Mercury 7439-97-6 2.55E-07 2.60E-04 2.15E-06 1.84E-06 0.00 0.00 Average operations (hr/yr) 6480 400 Naphthalene 91-20-3 5.98E-07 6.10E-04 5.04E-06 4.32E-06 0.00 0.00 Nickel 7440-02-0 2.06E-06 2.10E-03 1.74E-05 1.49E-05 0.00 0.00 PAH (excl. naphthalene) 1150/1151 6.60E-09 6.73E-06 5.57E-08 4.77E-08 0.00 0.00 CO2 From Combustion
CO2 in Digester Gas
Source

0.02 Emission Factor (lb/MMBTU)

0.26 GHG Emission Calculations
GHG Emission Calculations
Natural gas pilot ignition system can be continuous or
intermittent. Emissions are negligible
SDAPCD-Flare-Digester-Gas-Fired-Enclosed-F02-template-post-revision2 Boiler
Operation: Maximum conditions are for colder months, Average condition assumes average temperature for Brentwood, CA.

Flowrate Criteria Emission Calculations TAC Emission Calculations Emission Factor (lb/MMBTU)
VOC (ppmv)
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBTU)
Flare
Operation: Average operation is either all the time when Biogas Upgrading is down or 80% when Biogas Upgrading is operating. Assumption is flare active 20% of time, BUG 80% of time.

Flowrate Criteria Emission Calculations TAC Emission Calculations

A-40

Pollutant Reference
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr) Propylene 115-07-1 7.17E-04 7.31E-01 6.05E-03 5.18E-03 0.12 0.02 CO2 Based on AP-42 (table 1.4-2) 114.750 117045 968 830 19908 2688 Selenium 7782-49-2 1.18E-08 1.20E-05 9.95E-08 8.53E-08 0.00 0.00 CH4 Mandatory Reporting Rule, 40 C 0.0005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Toluene 108-88-3 3.59E-05 3.66E-02 3.03E-04 2.60E-04 0.01 0.00 N2O andatory Reporting Rule, 40 0.00005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vanadium 7440-62-2 2.25E-06 2.30E-03 1.90E-05 1.63E-05 0.00 0.00 H2S 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Xylene 1330-20-7 2.67E-05 2.72E-02 2.25E-04 1.93E-04 0.00 0.00 NH3 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reference:

CO2e Total 968 830 19908 2688
Criteria Emission Calculations
Parameter Value Pollutant Reference Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Flow Rate (scfm) 199.2 NOx Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow Rate (mmscf/hr) 0.011952 CO Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum operations (hr/day) 24 VOC Vendor 0.0003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum operations (hr/month) 720 PM10 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum operations (hr/yr) 8760 SOx Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average operations (hr/day) 24 VOC Emission Factor Calculation Average operations (hr/month) 720 (lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf Average operations (hr/yr) 8760 VOC (ppm)
Average operations (% of max) 80% 0.006
Tail Gas Composition (vol% CO2) 99%
Tail Gas Composition (vol% CH4) <1% GHG Emission Calculations Tail Gas Composition (vol% H2S)

0.0011% Pollutant Reference
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Tail Gas Composition (vol% VOC) 0.0003% CO2 Vendor 112844 1078.97 1078.97 25895.30 3780.71 Activated Carbon removal (% H2S) 98% CH4 Vendor 417 3.99 3.99 95.68 13.97 Activated Carbon removal (% VOC) 98% N2O Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H2S Vendor 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NH3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2e Total 1179 1179 28287 4130
CO2 Emission Factor Calculation
(lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf Co2 (ppm)
986400
H2S Emission Factor Calculation
(lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf H2S (ppm)

0.22 CH4 Emission Factor Calculation
(lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf CH4 (ppm)
10000
Tail Gas
Operation: In use when flare is not in use. Assumes flare active 20% of the time and BUG active 80% of time.

Flowrate
Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)

0.02 Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)
417
Emission factors from BAAQMD TAC Emission Factor Guidelines – Appendix A Default TAC Emission Factors for Specific Source Categories, TABLE A-1.1 BOILERS - NATURAL GAS FUEL, NO ADD-ON EMISSION CONTROL 112844
Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)

0.0003
Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)

A-41

Parameter Value Pollutant Reference Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Flow Rate (scfm) 3000 NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Flow Rate (mmscf/hr) 0.18 CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum operations (hr/day) 24 VOC Vendor 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 Maximum operations (hr/month) 720 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum operations (hr/yr) 8760 SOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average operations (hr/day) 24 VOC Emission Factor Calculation Average operations (hr/month) 720 (lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf Average operations (hr/yr) 8760 VOC (ppmv)
Acid Scrubber Removal (% Ammonia) 99.5% 0.2
Activated Carbon removal (% H2S) 98%
Activated Carbon removal (% VOC)
98% Pollutant Reference
Emission Factor
(lb/MMBtu)
Emission
Factor
(lb/mmscf)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Stripped gas Ammonia Conc. (lb/h) 44 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N2O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
H2S Vendor 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01
NH3 Vendor 1.23 0.22 0.22 5.34 0.97
CO2e Total 0 0 0 0
H2S Emission Factor Calculation
(lb/mmscf) = (ppm / 10^6) x (MW lb/lbmol) x 10^6 scf/mmscf H2S (ppm)

0.2 NH3 Emission Factor Calculation
Parameter Value Pollutant Reference Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Emission
Factor
(g/h)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Compound CAS TOG g/hp-hr CARB fraction of
TOG
Emission
Factor
(lb/hp-hr)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr)
Generator Power Output (kW) 2000 NOx EPA Tier 4 3.500 7000 15.43 0.00 15.43 1.16 Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 0.0735 2.27E-05 6.08E-02 0.00E+00 6.08E-02 4.56E-03 Generator Power Output (hp) 2682 CO EPA Tier 4 3.50000 7000 15.43 0.00 15.43 1.16 Acrolein 107-02-8 0.012 3.70E-06 9.93E-03 0.00E+00 9.93E-03 7.45E-04 Average operations (hr/day) 1 VOC EPA Tier 4 0.19000 380 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.06 Benzene 71-43-2 0.0705 2.18E-05 5.84E-02 0.00E+00 5.84E-02 4.38E-03 Average operations (hr/yr) 150 PM10 EPA Tier 4 0.04000 80 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.013 1,3-Butadiene 0.02 6.17E-06 1.66E-02 0.00E+00 1.66E-02 1.24E-03 SOx 0.000 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Formaldehyde 50-00-0 0.1471 4.54E-05 1.22E-01 0.00E+00 1.22E-01 9.13E-03 PAH 1150/1151 0.0064 1.98E-06 5.30E-03 0.00E+00 5.30E-03 3.97E-04 Propylene 115-07-1 0.026 8.02E-06 2.15E-02 0.00E+00 2.15E-02 1.61E-03 Pollutant Reference
Emission Factor
(lb/hp-hr)
Emission
Factor
(lb/hr)
Maximum
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lb/hr)
Average
Daily
(lb/d)
Average
Annual
(ton/yr) Toluene 108-88-3 0.0147 4.54E-06 1.22E-02 0.00E+00 1.22E-02 9.13E-04 CO2 Based on AP-42 (table 3.3-1) 1.160 3111 3111 0 3111 233 Xylene 1330-20-7 0.0018 5.56E-07 1.49E-03 0.00E+00 1.49E-03 1.12E-04 CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
N2O 0.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
H2S 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Acetaldehyde 818 Farm equipment - diesel - light & heavy - (ems=actual weight) NH3 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Acrolein 1403 INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - AVERAGE (EPA 9003) Benzene 1403 INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - AVERAGE (EPA 9003)
1,3-Butadiene 586 Composite jet exhaust JP-5 (EPA 1097-1099) Formaldehyde 818 Farm equipment - diesel - light & heavy - (ems=actual weight) PAH (surrog. Nap 586 Composite jet exhaust JP-5 (EPA 1097-1099) Propylene 818 Farm equipment - diesel - light & heavy - (ems=actual weight) Toluene 818 Farm equipment - diesel - light & heavy - (ems=actual weight) Xylene 1403 INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - AVERAGE (EPA 9003)

0.14 Notes: Emission factors are adjusted for Tier 4 Diesel Engine Generator using CARB fraction of TOG, based on the following OG sources speciation.

When no exact match was found, the highest weight fractions from similar processes were selected.

GHG Emission Calculations
TAC Emission Calculations
AMR Removal (Future)
Emergency Generator
Operation: Continuous operation 24/7. Exhaust gas is out of Activated Carbon Vessel.

Flowrate Criteria Emission Calculations
Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)

0.01 Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)

0.02 Emission Factor (lb/mmscf)

1.23 Operation: Assumes testing occurs 50 hr/yr.

Flowrate Criteria Emission Calculations
GHG Emission Calculations

A-42

Fd Calculation
Variable Unit Value
K Btu/MMBtu 1,000,000
Khd (scf/lb)% 3.64
H % 10.2%
Kc (scf/lb)% 1.53
C % 46.7%
Ks (scf/lb)% 0.57 1- K = Conversion factor, 10−5(kJ/J)/(%) [106 Btu/million Btu]. Consider using highlighted.

S % 0.0%
2- Khd = (22.7 scm/kg)/% [(3.64 scf/lb)/%].

Kn (scf/lb)% 0.14 %H = Concentration of hydrogen from an ultimate analysis of fuel, weight percent.

N % 0.0% For now, this can be considered negligible. However, when we have biogas, then we need to determine % using fuel sample grab analysis for ultimate compliance purposes.

Ko (scf/lb)% 0.46 3- Kc = (9.57 scm/kg)/% [(1.53 scf/lb)/%].

O % 43.2% %C = Concentration of carbon from an ultimate analysis of fuel, weight percent.

We can consider the % of CO2 as per the gas analyzer reading.

Density
Gas Composition GCV %/Mass lb/scf lb/scf BTU/cf 4- Ks = (3.54 scm/kg)/% [(0.57 scf/lb)/%].

CH4 % 65.0% 23811 40.54% 0.0415 0.03 1010.00 %S = Sulfur content of as-fired fuel lot, dry basis, weight percent.

CO2 % 34.5% 0 58.95% 0.1137 0.04 0.00 This can be determined by the percentage measured and recorded by the analyzer for the H2S. the % of H2S can be taken form the equation as per Neil’s email below.

H2S % 0.0% 7479 0.00% 0.0888 0.00 672.00
O2 % 0.1% 0 0.11% 0.0827 0.00 0.00 5- Kn = (0.86 scm/kg)/% [(0.14 scf/lb)/%].

N2% 0.4% 0 0.39% 0.0724 0.00 0.00 %N = Concentration of nitrogen from an ultimate analysis of fuel, weight percent. 100.0% 9653.4 density of biogas 0.067 656.500 For now, this can be considered negligible. However, when we have biogas, then we need to determine % using fuel sample grab analysis for ultimate compliance purposes.

BTU/Lb density of air 0.075
s.g. 0.888 6- Ko = (2.85 scm/kg)/% [(0.46 scf/lb)/%].
%O = Concentration of oxygen from an ultimate analysis of fuel, weight percent.

This can be determined by the percentage measured and recorded by the gas analyzer.

Fd dcuft/MMBtu 9,174.07 7- GCV = Gross calorific value of the fuel consistent with the ultimate analysis, kJ/kg (Btu/lb).

This can be computed using the sum of standard Gross Heating values (BTU/LB) for all constituents. Mainly, CH4 (23,811 BTU/LB), CO2 (0 BTU/LB) & H2S (7479 BTU/LB) multiplied by the % of each of those gases.

For example, (60% CH4 X 23,811 + 39.9% CO2 X 0 + 0.1% H2s X 7,479) = xxxxxxxxx A-43

GHG OFFSET CALCULATIONS
GHG Offset
WARM Inputs
WARM Model
A-44

GHG Offset Calculations
Material
GHG Emissions per Ton of
Material Produced (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of
Material Source Reduced
(MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of
Material Recycled (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of
Material Landfilled (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of
Material Combusted
(MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions per Ton of
Material Composted
(MTCO2E)
GHG Emission per Ton of
Material Anaerobically
Digested (MTCO2E)
Food Waste 3.66 -3.66 NA 0.34 -0.08 -0.12 0.00
Yard Trimmings NA NA NA -0.28 -0.10 -0.05 -0.08
Branches NA NA NA -0.73 -0.10 -0.05 -0.20
Mixed Plastics 1.94 -1.94 -0.93 0.02 1.61 NA NA
Mixed Metals 6.22 -6.22 -4.39 0.02 -1.03 NA NA
Mixed Organics NA NA NA 0.05 -0.09 -0.09 -0.03
Material
Baseline Generation of
Material (Tons) Baseline Management (Ton) Baseline GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) Alternative Management
(Ton)
Alternative GHG Emissions
(MTCO2E) GHG Offset (MTCO2E)
Food Waste 26520.00 Landfilled 8886.77 Anaerobically Digested 113.38 -8773.40 Yard Trimmings 3276.00 Landfilled -929.79 Composting -175.46 754.33 Branches 1508.00 Landfilled -1096.93 Composting -80.77 1016.16 Mixed Plastics 6474.00 Landfilled 131.13 Recycling -5991.84 -6122.97 Mixed Metals 962.00 Landfilled 19.48 Recycling -4224.30 -4243.78 Mixed Organics 6916.00 Landfilled 374.50 Anaerobically Digested -229.72 -604.21 Total 45656 7,385 -10,589 -17,974
A-45

WARM Inputs
Inbound TPY
MSW 35100
HSW 53040
WAS 279225 Total 367365
Outbound TPY
Metals 962
Mixed Plastics 6474
Organics (no dilution) 6916
Wood (Compostable) 1508
Green Waste to Compost 3276
HSW (organics) 26520
HSW non-organics 26520
WAS 279225
Large items 2600
Trash 13364 Total 367365
Total Check 0

WARM TPY
Food Waste 26520
Yard Trimmings 3276
Branches 1508
Mixed Plastics 6474
Mixed Metals 962
Mixed Organics 6916
A-46

WARM User’s Guide User inputs
Calculated or locked cells
NA Data cannot be entered
WHAT IS THE WASTE REDUCTION MODEL? User inputs
GHG and Energy Impacts
Economic Impacts
WHO SHOULD USE WARM?
USING THE EXCEL© VERSION OF WARM
Instructions:

ASSISTANCE
If you need additional assistance with using WARM, please email [email protected].

The Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to help solid waste planners and organizations estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and economic impacts from several different waste management practices.

WARM calculates GHG emissions, energy, and economic impacts for baseline and alternative waste management practices, including source reduction, recycling, combustion, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), energy in millions of BTUs (MMBTU), wage impacts, tax impacts, and labor hours supported across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste (MSW).

The user can construct various scenarios by simply entering data on the amount of waste handled by material type and by management practice. WARM then automatically applies material-specific emission and economic factors for each management practice to calculate the GHG emissions, energy savings, and economic impacts of each scenario. Several key inputs, such as landfill gas recovery practices and transportation distances to MSW facilities, can be modified by the user.

The GHG emission factors used in WARM are based on a life cycle perspective. The model documentation describes this methodology in detail.

WARM was developed for solid waste managers (from state and local governments and other organizations) who want to calculate the GHG emissions and economic impacts associated with different waste management options. Emissions and economic estimates provided by WARM are intended to support voluntary GHG measurement and reporting initiatives and broader solid waste planning. These initiatives include waste management components of state and local climate change action plans, and other waste management projects for which an understanding of GHG emissions and economic impacts is desired.

Before using WARM, you first need to gather data on your baseline waste management practices and an alternative scenario. In order to effectively use the tool, users should know how many tons of waste you manage (or would manage) for a given time period under each scenario by material type and by management practice. The model allows you to customize your results based on project-specific landfill gas recovery practices, anaerobic digestion practices, and transportation distances. Note that you may use default values if you are unsure of landfill gas recovery practices, anaerobic digestion practices and/or transportation distances.
-- Click on the “Analysis Inputs” tab at the bottom center of the screen to open the input sheet. Follow the instructions for Steps 1 and 2. This involves filling in the tables describing your baseline and proposed alternative waste management scenarios. Please enter data in short tons (1 short ton = 2,000 lbs.). The "mixed" material types are defined as the following:

Mixed Metals: Aluminum Cans 35%, Steel Cans 65%
Mixed Plastics: HDPE 40%, PET 60%
Mixed Electronics: Desktop CPUs 11%, Portable Electronic Devices 5%, Flat-Panel Displays 23%, CRT Displays 44%, Electronic Peripherals 2%, HardCopy Devices 15% Mixed Paper (general): Corrugated Containers 48%, Magazines/Third-class Mail 8%, Newspaper 24%, Office Paper 20% Mixed Paper (primarily residential): Corrugated Containers 53%, Magazines/Third-class Mail 10%, Newspaper 23%, Office Paper 14% Mixed Paper (primarily from offices): Corrugated Containers 5%, Magazines/Third-class Mail 36%, Newspaper 21%, Office Paper 38% Mixed Recyclables: Aluminum Cans 1.3%, Steel Cans 2.4%, Glass 6.0%, HDPE 1.2%, PET 1.8%, Corrugated Containers 56.8%, Magazines/Third-class Mail 7.3%, Newspaper 9.6%, Office Paper 7.8%, Phonebooks 0.1%, Textbooks 0.6%, Dimensional Lumber 5.2% Food Waste: Beef 9%, Poultry 11%, Grains 13%, Fruits and Vegetables 49%, Dairy Products 18% Food Waste (meat only): Beef 46%, Poultry 54%
Food Waste (non-meat): Grains 16%, Fruits and Vegetables 61%, Dairy Products 22% Mixed Organics: Food Waste 53%, Yard Trimmings 47%
Mixed MSW: Grass 5.2%, Leaves 6.8%, Branches 5.0%, Wood 5.1%, Food Waste 18.1%, Pastic 10.1%, Metal 2.3%, Glass 4.4%, Magazines/Third-class mail 2.7%, Newsprint 4.5%, Corrugated Cardboard 14.2%, Office Paper 2.4%, Other Paper 10.0%, Other (e.g., Textiles, Rubber/Leather) 8.8% For more information on these mixed material weightings, please reference the model documentation chapters specific to each material type. -- Fill in the data requested in Steps 3–9. WARM will use the answers to these questions to customize GHG estimates to reflect your waste management situation and location. For example, you are asked for data on transportation distances and on your landfill gas recovery systems, if applicable. If the requested data are not available, WARM will use the national average defaults. -- Step 10 allows you to customize your report, with your name, organization, and project period. -- Once you have completed Steps 1–9 on the “Analysis Inputs” sheet, WARM will calculate the GHG emissions, energy, and economic impacts attributable to the baseline and alternative waste management scenarios you have specified. Emissions, energy, and economic impact calculations are presented on separate output sheets, as described below. From the “Analysis Inputs” sheet, click on a tab at the bottom of the screen for the results sheet you want to view first.
-- The “Summary Report” sheet provides a concise report of GHG emissions, energy, or economic results from the baseline and alternative waste management scenarios, as well as an estimate of net emissions, energy, wages, taxes, or labor hours. -- The “Analysis Results” sheet shows GHG emissions, energy, or economic results for each scenario in the units selected. You can compare the total impact of the baseline and alternative scenarios, or, if you want more detail, you can scroll down to view GHG emissions, energy, or economic results by material type and management practice. The bottom table shows the relative emissions, energy, wages, taxes, or labor hours difference between the alternative and baseline scenarios for each material type and management pathway.

Color Legend for Cells
Color Legend For Tabs
Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Impacts, and Economic Impacts with the Excel© Version of the Waste Reduction Model
A-47

Analysis Inputs
Version 15

1. Describe the baseline generation and management for the waste materials listed below. 2. Describe the alternative management scenario for the waste materials generated in the baseline.

If the material is not generated in your community or you do not want to analyze it, leave Any decrease in generation should be entered in the Source Reduction column. it blank or enter 0. Make sure that the total quantity generated equals the total quantity managed. Any increase in generation should be entered in the Source Reduction column as a negative value.

Make sure that the total quantity generated equals the total quantity managed.

Material Type Material
Tons
Recycled
Tons
Landfilled
Tons
Combusted
Tons
Composted
Tons
Anaerobically
Digested
Tons
Generated
Tons Source
Reduced
Tons
Recycled
Tons
Landfilled
Tons
Combusted
Tons
Composted
Tons
Anaerobically
Digested
Corrugated Containers NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Magazines/Third-class Mail NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Newspaper NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Office Paper NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Phonebooks NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Textbooks NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Mixed Paper (general) NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Mixed Paper (primarily residential) NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Mixed Paper (primarily from offices) NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Food Waste NA 26,520.00 26,520.00 NA 26,520.00
Food Waste (non-meat) NA 0.00 NA
Food Waste (meat only) NA 0.00 NA
Beef NA 0.00 NA
Poultry NA 0.00 NA
Grains NA 0.00 NA
Bread NA 0.00 NA
Fruits and Vegetables NA 0.00 NA
Dairy Products NA 0.00 NA
Yard Trimmings NA 3,276.00 3,276.00 NA NA 3,276.00
Grass NA 0.00 NA NA
Leaves NA 0.00 NA NA
Branches NA 1,508.00 1,508.00 NA NA 1,508.00
HDPE NA NA 0.00 NA NA
LDPE NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
PET NA NA 0.00 NA NA
LLDPE NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
PP NA NA 0.00 NA NA
PS NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
PVC NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Mixed Plastics 6,474.00 NA NA 6,474.00 6,474.00 NA NA
Bioplastics PLA NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Desktop CPUs NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Portable Electronic Devices NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Flat-Panel Displays NA NA 0.00 NA NA
CRT Displays NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Electronic Peripherals NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Hard-Copy Devices NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Mixed Electronics NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Aluminum Cans NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Aluminum Ingot NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Steel Cans NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Copper Wire NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Mixed Metals 962.00 NA NA 962.00 962.00 NA NA
Glass Glass NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Asphalt Concrete NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Asphalt Shingles NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Carpet NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Clay Bricks NA NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Concrete NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Dimensional Lumber NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Drywall NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Fiberglass Insulation NA NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Fly Ash NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Medium-density Fiberboard NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Structural Steel NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Vinyl Flooring NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Wood Flooring NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Tires Tires NA NA 0.00 NA NA
Mixed Recyclables NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA
Mixed Organics NA 6,916.00 6,916.00 NA NA 6,916.00
Mixed MSW NA NA NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Please refer to the User's Guide if you need assistance completing this table.

Waste Reduction Model (WARM) -- Inputs
Use this worksheet to describe the baseline and alternative waste management scenarios that you want to compare. The blue shaded areas indicate where you need to enter information.

Please enter data in short tons (1 short ton = 2,000 lbs.) Paper
Food Waste
Yard Trimmings
Mixed Plastics
Electronics
Metals
Mixed Materials
Construction
Materials

A-48

Analysis Inputs

3. In order to account for the avoided electricity-related emissions in the landfilling and combustion pathways, EPA assigns the appropriate regional "marginal" electricity grid mix emission factor based on your location.

Select state for which you are conducting this analysis.

Please select state or select national average:

Region Location: Pacific

4. To estimate the benefits from source reduction, EPA usually assumes that the material that is source reduced would have been manufactured from the current mix of virgin and recycled inputs.

However, you may choose to estimate the emission reductions from source reduction under the assumption that the material would have been manufactured from 100% virgin inputs in order to obtain an upper bound estimate of the benefits from source reduction. Select which assumption you want to use in the analysis. Note that for materials for which information on the share of recycled inputs used in production is unavailable or is not a common practice; EPA assumes that the current mix is comprised of 100% virgin inputs. Consequently, the source reduction benefits of both the “Current mix” and “100% virgin” inputs are the same.

5. The emissions from landfilling depends on whether the landfill where your waste is disposed has a landfill gas (LFG) control system. If you do not know whether your landfill has LFG control, select "National Average" to calculate emissions based on the estimated proportions of landfills with LFG control in 2012 and proceed to question 7. If your landfill does not have a LFG system, select “No LFG Recovery” and proceed to question 8. If a LFG system is in place at your landfill, select “LFG Recovery” and click one of the options in 6a to indicate whether LFG is recovered for energy or flared. 6a. If your landfill has gas recovery, does it recover the methane for energy or flare it? 6b. For landfills that recover gas, the landfill gas collection efficiency will vary throughout the life of the landfill. Based on a literature review of field measurements and expert discussion, a range of collection efficiencies was estimated for a series of different landfill scenarios. The "typical" landfill is judged to represent the average U.S. landfill, although it must be recognized that every landfill is unique and a typical landfill is an approximation of reality. The worst-case collection scenario represents a landfill that is in compliance with EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The aggressive gas collection scenario includes landfills where the operator is aggressive in gas collection relative to a typical landfill. Bioreactor landfills, which are operated to accelerate decomposition, are assumed to collect gas aggressively. The California regulatory collection scenario allows users to estimate and view landfill management results based on California regulatory requirements.

Landfill gas collection efficiency (%) assumptions
Typical Years 0-1: 0%; Years 2-4: 50%; Years 5-14: 75%; Years 15 to 1 year before final cover: 82.5%; Final cover: 90% Worst-case Years 0-4: 0%; Years 5-9: 50%; Years 10-14: 75%; Years 15 to 1 year before final cover: 82.5%; Final cover: 90% Aggressive Year 0: 0%; Years 0.5-2: 50%; Years 3-14: 75%; Years 15 to 1 year before final cover: 82.5%; Final cover: 90% California Year 0: 0%; Year 1: 50%; Years 2-7: 80%; Years 8 to 1 year before final cover: 85%; Final cover: 90%

7. Which of the following moisture conditions and associated bulk MSW decay rate (k) most accurately describes the average conditions at the landfill? The decay rates, also referred to as k values, describe the rate of change per year (yr-1) for the decomposition of organic waste in landfills. A higher average decay rate means that waste decomposes faster in the landfill.

Moisture condition assumptions
Dry (k=0.02) Less than 20 inches of precipitation per year Moderate (k=0.04) Between 20 and 40 inches of precipitation per year Wet (k=0.06) Greater than 40 inches of precipitation per year Bioreactor (k=0.12) Water is added until the moisture content reaches 40 percent moisture on a wet weight basis National average Weighted average based on the share of waste received at each landfill type 8a. For anaerobic digestion of food waste materials (including beef, poultry, grains, bread, fruits and vegetables, and dairy products), please choose the appropriate type of anaerobic digestion process used.

Note that for grass, leaves, branches, yard trimmings and mixed organics, wet digestion is not applicable based on current technology and practices in the United States. Therefore, dry digestion is the only digestion type modeled in WARM for these materials.

Only one type of digestion process (wet or dry) can be modeled at a time in WARM. 8b. WARM assumes that digestate resulting from anaerobic digestion processes will be applied to land. In many cases, the digestate is cured before land application.

When digestate is cured, the digestate is dewatered and any liquids are recovered and returned to the reactor (when using a wet digester). Next, the digestate is aerobically cured in turned windrows, then screened and applied to agricultural fields.

Select whether the digestate resulting from your anaerobic digester is cured before land application. 9a. Emissions that occur during transport of materials to the management facility are included in this model. You may use default transport distances, indicated in the table below, or provide information on the transport distances for the various MSW management options. 9b. If you have chosen to provide information, please fill in the table below. Distances should be from the curb to the landfill, combustor, or material recovery facility (MRF). *Please note that if you chose to provide information, you must provide distances for both the baseline and the alternative scenarios.

Management Option
Default
Distance
(Miles)
Distance
(Miles)
Landfill 20
Combustion 20
Recycling 20
Composting 20
Anaerobic Digestion 20

10. If you wish to personalize your results report, input your name & organization, and also specify the project period corresponding to the data you entered above.

Name Brentwood Solids Waste Organics Diversion
Organization City of Brentwood
Project Period From to
Congratulations! You have finished all the inputs.

A summary of your results awaits you on the sheet(s) titled "Summary Report." For more detailed analyses of results, see the sheet(s) titled "Analysis Results." California
100% Virgin
Current Mix
LFG Recovery
No LFG Recovery
National Average
Recover for energy
Flare
Use Default Distances
Provide Information
Typical operation - DEFAULT
Worst-case collection
Aggressive gas collection
Dry (k=0.02)
Moderate (k = 0.04)
Wet (k = 0.06)
Bioreactor (k = 0.12)
National average - DEFAULT
California regulatory collection
Wet Digestion
Cured - DEFAULT
Dry Digestion
Not cured