Full memo on composting

July 12, 2009

To: Fellow Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force Members

From: Bob Wenzlau

Subject: Recommended 2012 Plan for Composting Operations within Palo Alto

This memo is offered for consideration during our July 15, 2009 determination of the fate of composting beginning 2012, and our requested recommendation of where the operation and what the operation would be. This 2012 plan is necessitated by timing constrained by the 2012 closure of the landfill and compost operation unless a citywide vote prior to 2012 authorizes composting on dedicated parkland.

I have found our current choices — a local parkland choice or a regional choice — not adequate to the mission of our task force. As such, I recommend the following for adoption by the Task Force for the 2012 plan:

“Within 30 days of approval by City Council, the city staff should begin development of a new aerated static pile composting facility by developing a 5.5 acre site through the relocating Embarcadero Road northward onto now vacant airport land. Permitting, engineering and construction should be scheduled to allow a new operation to commence near 2012. To accommodate any delays (upward of a year) that might occur in permitting or construction, the City should arrange to extend composting operations at a remote facility like Z-Best Composting in Gilroy. Within the next ten years, the site can be further developed toward an integrated organic conversion facility for the city’s yard, food and bio-solids for the generation alternate fuels, and consequential greenhouse gas minimization.”

To facilitate your consideration of this alternative several exhibits are prepared. Figure 1 represents a 30,000 TPY aerated static compost facility (yard waste only) on a rendering of a shifted Embarcadero Road. Figure 2 represent a 60,000 TPY dry anaerobic composting facility able to accommodate yard, food and biosolids.

The vacant land shown in both figures would be for storage of received and processed organics. Figure 3 represents a Gantt schedule toward 2012 showing city approval activities, other permitting activities, site development and external events that dictate the schedule. Figure 4 represents existing land use.

While the balance of this memo develops rationale for the “where”, “what” and “when” of this alternative, several attributes of the proposal deserve immediate highlighting:

■ The site does not use parkland.

■ The site is local thereby minimizing transportation derived greenhouse gas generation.

■ The proposal is a plan that anticipates unpredictability of permitting and construction by allowing the contingent short-term use of a regional facility like Z-Best Composting until the new site is prepared.

■ The site is adjacent to the water pollution control plant allowing long•term integrated waste and wastewater derived organics waste management.

■ The site is adequately sized, and could further draw upon about one•half acre of space within the water pollution control plant to arrive at a 6-acre facility for accomplishing most organic waste management.

■ As a plan that derives from the council’s immediate attention and city staff’s action, there is greater assurance that the program of the Task Force will be pursued rather than forgotten if its direction were merely strategic toward 2020.

Where: There are no existing locations for a local municipal-scale composting in Palo Alto unless a new site is developed. Any existing vacant land has multiple competing interests for its use, and is not a short-term practical choice. The Task Force also found that any facility in Palo Alto would optimally be located near the existing water pollution control plant given the benefit of its staff and physical infrastructure as well as its generation of wastewater-derived organics.

Fortunately, the City’s anticipated take-over of the Palo Alto Airport by 2012 creates a timely window within which a new site can be developed concurrent with the time when a new site is needed. This allows the city to control the use and development of the land as long as it does not interfere with airport operations.

The targeted existing vacant land does not have any anticipated use, and similarly vacant land between Embarcadero and the water pollution control plant similarly has no use other than an existing in-situ sand filter for odor control.

There is one sanitary sewer from East Palo Alto that may need to be re-routed given construction plans.

While the site is city-owned, it is not been dedicated as parkland. There are expectations for screening that would need to be maintained or developed as part of this plan. There are also transportation impacts that are similar to existing transportation, but none-the-less are an impact (as) the site would interfere with access to the parkland. However, given the subtle change in Embarcadero’s routing little change might be noticed by Palo Altans.

It should be noted that Figure 1 and 2 do not adequately develop the screening between the site and the roadway. Nor does the rendering show where access would occur. As background, another site option considered by the Task Force was to be located immediately south of the water pollution control plant is not worthy of the Task Group’s endorsement. The site would be on parkland. The site’s southern extent would have been constrained by the edge of the landfill’s lift. The site would have interfered with anticipated screening between the Byxbee Hills Park and the water pollution control plant, and also have been too narrow and small to accommodate a practical operation. Its access would have also conflicted with the park.

The question could also be asked if Embarcadero Road should not move, and a facility were to be placed solely on the vacant lot by the airport. This has inherent disadvantages caused by the need to landscape screen the facilities, and that limited storage of pre- and post-processed organics. Also it forces a need to transport biosolids across Embaracadero.

What: By 2012, an aerated static pile approach has been selected by the Task Force as practical. A static pile approach uses blowers instead of a scarab windrow turner, and uses covers to control aeration. This approach is offered by several vendors and offers advantages of compactness, dust and odor control.

Figure 1 shows an aerated static pile compost by Gore that is representative of the technology. The existing windrow approach now applied appears to require more space, and entails greater heavy equipment usage during the compost process. The static pile could permit the beginning of food waste composting from Palo Alto residences — a collection not anticipated by the city now.

There are numerous long-term conversion technologies. While conversion technologies offer significant advantages in greenhouse gas reduction and organic waste capacity, they are a capital project that could not feasibly be accomplished within the 2012 window. For that reason, they are not pursued for implementation by 2012.

Still, the site is large enough to accommodate conversion technologies, and even offers the promise of transitioning from an aerated static pile compost system toward a conversion approach. Ultimately, the Task Force looks forward to a local conversion program.

When: Accomplishing this project requires approvals by Palo Alto commissions, state regulatory agencies, an environmental impact report, and the design and construction of the project — all this within 26 months. Fortunately, the proposal may benefit from alignment of constituencies previously at conflict over the fate of local composting and parkland. The proposal maintains local composting without the use of parkland, and not interfering with other anticipated public projects.

The schedule anticipates three broad scheduling elements: Palo Alto city governance, agency approvals, and project design and construction, all schedule elements constrained by key events. The key events that bracket the schedule include the end of composting at the current Byxbee Park (landfill site) and the availability of the airport property through it transfer back to the City of Palo Alto.

As a practical approach, the schedule anticipates the use of a regional compost facility if the local compost operation cannot be readied by the time current compost operations must cease. City staff should maintain the ability to utilize the regional facility, but understand that the will of Palo Alto is for a local composting operation constructed as soon as possible. Therefore, a Z-Best regional option might be necessary for as much as 12 months.

The following are additional schedule considerations:

■ City of Palo Alto Approvals: Staff has indicated an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be necessary for this project, a process that could take 18 months. While not a prerequisite for all development activities, it is on the critical path for the project. The EIR will be considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council. Preceding the EIR, the city would need to procure planning and design contractors to develop the basis of a project and EIR.

■ State Permits: The Task Force visited with representatives of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). We found that the state seemed very accommodating to develop permitting approaches to facilitate composting operation. This is evident that composting is a waste alternative supported by the state instead of landfilling. The 2012 accommodation could include the ability to extend the boundaries of the disposal site to include new facilities. The permitting constraints of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District were not explored, but broadly the emissions and dust should decrease through this project.

■ Project Construction: The duration of the design and construction of the aerated static pile system has been derived from two representative vendors. The design and construction for shifting Embarcadero, and any necessary rerouting of the sanitary sewer from East Palo Alto would need to be developed, but within the broad constraints of the schedule do not seem critical.

The schedule for this project will need to be vetted further. The ability to access airport land is critical to the success of the project, and the interest and approach to win use of this land should be pursued by staff. However the availability and general timing of this land is anticipated by this alternative. The Task Force should consider developing more details prior to completion of their study.

One area of evaluation this memo is silent on is the economics of the project. A new operation separate from the existing landfill operation will permit revised operation approaches and transparency not seen in the existing operation. That the aerated static composting approach is but an interim technology toward a longer-term conversion technology gives some reprieve toward detailed economics.

The short-term effort would create a site, establish new operational protocols, and gain permitting. These sites, protocols and permits would be an asset to the longer-term operations. The task force has found very favorable economics in a local conversion approach given the energy revenues produced, various government green-energy investment credits, and the savings in energy from current bio-solids incineration. A local solution is less vulnerable to oil-price increases expressed as supply is further constrained.

By

By

By