Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-19 PC AGENDAAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 October 19, 2010 7:00 P.M. Kent Allen, Chairman Shawn Darcy, Vice Chairman Sam Perrotti Ron Pizer Peter Hoffman Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in The City Hall Council Chambers THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City’s website. Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day. Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible. If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible. 1 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Oral / Written Communications Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I Consent Calendar 4. Approval of the September 21, 2010 action minutes 5. Resolution(s) for consideration a) Resolution P.C. 10-15 approving Variances to allow a two-story building containing a two-car garage and a 351 square-foot storage room in the same location as a recently demolished single-story garage, with a 2.5 foot side yard, 0-foot rear yard, and parking stall length of 18-feet, parking setback of 13-feet and no guest space, in the R-1 zone at 1940 Bayview Drive. THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY. THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Section II Public Hearing(s) 6. CUP 10-9 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 439 Pier Avenue (Buona Vita Restaurant). Staff Recommended Action: To deny subject Conditional Use Permit amendment or alternatively, direct staff to return with a resolution for approval. 7. TEXT 10-6 -- Text Amendment to allow microbreweries in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone and any related amendments for consistency and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration on M-1 parcels generally located within an area bounded by South Park, Loma Drive, 8th Street and the Greenbelt (accessed by 6th Street, Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive) and the lot occupied by the City parking lot/Hermosa Self Storage at 552 11th Place (continued from the September 21, 2010 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution recommending a Text Amendment to allow microbreweries in the M-1 zone subject to a conditional use permit and adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration. 2 8. TEXT 10-7 -- Options for regulating live entertainment and entertainment promoters with an Entertainment Permit. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to return with a resolution from the following options: 1) Recommend an amendment to the Municipal Code adding an entertainment permit process administered by the City Council/City Manager applicable to new businesses and existing business that desire to add or modify live entertainment; or 2) Recommend that the existing Conditional Use Permit process be retained in lieu of entertainment permits. Section III 9. Staff Items a. Determining maximum occupant load - Relationship to review of Conditional Use Permit applications. b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. c. Community Development Department activity reports of August, 2010. 10. Commissioner Items a. Discussion of options for improving the annual conditional use permit review for on- sale alcoholic beverage establishments. 11. Adjournment 3 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2010, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Allen. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer and Chairman Allen Absent: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson Senior Planner Pamela Townsend Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman Assistant Planner Eva Choi 3. Oral / Written Communication - Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Approval of the August 17, 2010 action minutes. ACTION: To approve the above minutes as presented. Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion carried, noting the abstention of Chairman Allen. 5. Resolution(s) for approval ACTION: No resolution for approval. Section II PUBLIC HEARING(S) 6. VAR 10-1 -- Variance to allow a two-story building containing a two-car garage and a 351 square-foot storage room in the same location as a recently demolished single- story garage (accessed from Monterey Boulevard), with a 0 foot rear yard rather than the required 5 feet, 2.5 foot side yard rather than the required 5 feet, parking setback of Planning Commission Action Minutes September 21, 2010 1 13 feet rather than the required 17 feet, parking stall length of 18 feet rather than the required 20 feet, and no guest parking, in the R-1 zone, at 1940 Bayview Drive (continued from the August 17, 2010 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. ACTION: To direct staff to return with a resolution approving subject Variance and require recorded covenant restricting use of second floor storage area above detached garage. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Comms. Perrotti, Pizer, Chmn. Allen NOES: Comms. Darcy, Hoffman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 7. CUP 10-8 -- Conditional Use Permit to construct a 640 square foot dwelling unit, restricted to occupants age 60 and over, accessory to a new single family residence on property zoned R-1 at 565 21st Street. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit. ACTION: To continue to the October 19, 2010 meeting for the City Attorney to do further research on this matter. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Comms. Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Chmn.Allen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN RECUSED HIMSELF FROM ITEM NO. 8 AND LEFT THE DAIS AS HE LIVES LESS THAN ONE BLOCK FROM THE M-1 ZONE. 8. TEXT 10-6 -- Text amendment to allow microbreweries in M-1 zone and any related amendments for consistency and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration. Staff Recommended Action: To hold a public hearing and continue the text amendment to allow microbreweries in the M-1 zone subject to a conditional use permit to October 19, 2010. ACTION: To continue to the October 19, 2010 meeting when public review period for Negative Declaration is over; staff to address how many breweries exist in the City, benefits to the City, and any size threshold, and to expand public notices to include 500’ radius from M-1 zone. Planning Commission Action Minutes September 21, 2010 2 MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Comms. Darcy, Perrotti, Pizer, Chmn. Allen NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Hoffman ABSTAIN: None 9. GP 05-5 -- Land use and zoning options to plan for affordable and/or multi-family housing to meet State mandated fair share housing targets in connection with update of General Plan Housing Element. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend to the City Council land use and zoning programs that should be incorporated into the draft Housing Element for re-submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. ACTION: To recommend to the City Council to adopt Option 1A allowing housing in C-3, SPA-7 and SPA-8 zones by right, subject to Precise Development Plan; a commercial component is not required but 100% affordability is required. Subject Option 1A is to be incorporated into the draft housing element for re-submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Comms. Darcy, Perrotti, Chmn. Allen NOES: Comms. Hoffman, Pizer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Section III 10. Staff Items a. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. b. Community Development Department activity reports of July, 2010. 11. Commissioner Items a. Status report - Discussion of options for improving the annual conditional use permit review for on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments. ACTION: Commissioner Hoffman and Chairman Allen will present report at the October 19, 2010 meeting. 12. Adjournment The meeting was formally adjourned at 8:28 P.M. Planning Commission Action Minutes September 21, 2010 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 21, 2010. ______________________________ ____________________________ Kent Allen, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary ______________________ Date Planning Commission Action Minutes September 21, 2010 4 attorneys fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Section 5. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: Perrotti, Pizer, Chmn. Allen NOES: Hoffman, Darcy ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 10-15 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of September 21, 2010 and memorialized on October 19, 2010. ______________________________ _______________________________ Kent Allen, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary October 19, 2010_______________ Date Var1940 Bayview 5 Attachment 4: Zoning Map 439 Pier Avenue 16 Text amendment – Microbreweries- October 7, 2010 Address: Valley Drive and 7th Street Address: Valley Drive and 6th Street 11 Address: Valley Drive- South Park Address: 6th Street and Loma Drive Address: 8th Street and Cypress Ave Address: 8th Street and Cypress Ave 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MICROBREWERIES IN M-1 ZONE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: The following mitigations are implemented through the conditional use permit and facility permitting processes: 1. Obtain all required permits. 2. Provide a waste minimization and recycling plan for solid and organic by-products 3. Full containment and timely disposal of organic by-products. 4. Sanitary sewer connection adequate for the use. 5. Demonstrate design and management to reduce organic load in wastewater. 6. Water conserving processes to reduce wastewater discharge. 7. Demonstrate water-efficient equipment and operations, including consistent with the city’s water conservation ordinance in Chapter 8.56, and use of recirculating, recycling and recovery systems. 8. All facilities and operations to be located and conducted within fully enclosed buildings, or roofed areas fully shielded from the elements 9. Heat recovery system to collect and condense brewing vapors. 10. Dust control systems to reduce dust generated by raw materials and operational procedures. 11. Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of materials, wastes, water, energy, and transportation (see Section VII Greenhouse gases) 12. Energy efficient equipment and operations 13. Conformance with standards for handling, using and storing hazardous materials systems and materials. 14. Comply with OSHA standards and material data safety sheets. 15. Measures for handling pressurized gas tanks and other fixtures. 16. Permitting requirements for installation of refrigeration systems. 17. Involve HVAC professionals in design and maintenance of the site and systems. 18. Comply with Good Housekeeping Provisions of Chapter 8.44 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and any other applicable provisions; 19. Limit hours of operation consistent with the noise ordinance. 20. Evaluate each operation to determine whether noise attenuation measures should be required. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Project Title: Text amendment to Zoning Code allow microbreweries in M-1 zone. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Contact Person & Phone No.: Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner 310 318-0242 Project Location/Address: Various; Valley Drive - Cypress Avenue/4th – 5th Streets; 1st - 5th Streets/east of Ardmore Ave. Nearest Cross Street: Valley Drive - Cypress Avenue/4th – 5th Streets; 1st - 5th Streets/east of Ardmore Ave. APN: N/A Project Sponsor’s Name & Address: City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 General Plan Designation: Industrial, Medium Density Residential Zoning: Light-Manufacturing- M-1 zone Overlay Zone/Special District: None Project Description and Requested Action: The project is a text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow microbreweries producing less than 15,000 barrels per year in the Light-Manufacturing (M-1) zone subject to a conditional use permit. Existing Conditions of the Project Site: There are about 30 addresses (44 Assessor’s parcels1) zoned M- 1, in 22 ownerships. These parcels range in size from about 2,200 to 36,000 sq. ft. The largest ownership is about 1.06 acres. These parcels are developed with light industrial uses. The Hermosa Beach Public Works Maintenance Yard is also zoned M-1. M-1 parcels east of the Greenbelt are developed with an auto paint shop and residential uses; however, CUPs for microbrewery on M-1 parcels east of the Greenbelt would not be granted due to the General Plan inconsistency. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surrounding) Parcels west of the Greenbelt are bounded by R-2 and R-3 zoning and South Park, parcels east of the Greenbelt are abutted by R-1 and R-2 zoning. These areas are built out with residential units of various types. The City Maintenance Yard on 6th Street is also zoned M-1, and bounded by R-3 and the Civic Center complex. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. Individual microbreweries must obtain Health Dept. and Alcoholic Beverage Control permits. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a ‘Potentially Significant Impact’ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Land Use / Planning Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population / Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology /Soils Recreation 1 Assessor’s parcel numbers are not necessarily separate legal parcels. City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 318-0242 10 11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Responses: a-c: The subject M-1 zoned parcels are developed with commercial/light industrial uses and buildings, and surrounded primarily by single and multi-family residential buildings, public buildings, the Greenbelt and South Park. The sites and surrounding areas lack scenic designations and do not exhibit scenic resources. The project is a text amendment to allow microbreweries in the M-1 zone; such facilities may be located within existing buildings or if new buildings are developed they must comply with all codes. Building height in the M-1 zone is 35 feet with a maximum of two stories; compared with maximum height of 30 feet in R-2 and R-3 sites. Side and rear setbacks adjacent to residential uses are 8 feet and landscaped with an additional 2 feet for the second story when directly abutting residential zones. Operations would be conducted indoors, with allowance for incidental outdoor activities regulated by the conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed amendment will not affect building height, site design, or aesthetics, compared with any other use in the M-1 zone. No significant impacts are identified. d: Microbreweries are indoor uses and do not inherently create light or glare. Any exterior building lighting will be subject to city codes. No significant impacts are identified. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FOREST RESOURCES: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land of TPZ lands? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Responses: M-1 zones sites are located within an urbanized cit y lacking agricultural or forest lands. None of these factors apply. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Responses: a-c: The Los Angeles Basin is nonattainment for ozone, and other criteria pollutants. Odor and dust are the most significant air emissions from breweries. These issues are addressed below. Traffic is anticipated to be minimal as addressed under Section XVI Traffic. d, e: The text amendment would allow microbreweries within M-1 zones, which are located adjacent to residential and some city facilities (South Park, Greenbelt). Odor and dust are the most significant air emissions from breweries. The wort boiling process is the main source of odor emissions from a brewery. Closed systems can be installed utilizing condensers that capture, condense and return steam from the brew kettle to the system; air conditioning vent filters can also be used to reduce odors from venting to the outdoors. Organic by-products (grains, hops, yeast) from the fermentation process may be contained and transported offsite for soil amendment or livestock feed. Waste beer from cleaning the equipment may be discharged to the public sanitary sewer system or captured for recycling. A well-managed operation should produce minimal odors and small breweries (typically brewpubs) have been demonstrated to operate within urban areas without disturbance to sensitive uses. Dust emissions are generated by the use and storage of grains, sugar, etc. Cyclones and bag filters can be used to collect and recover dust generated from unloading of raw materials. Mitigation Measure(s): . Mitigation reduces all impacts to insignificant Individual microbrewery proposals should demonstrate: 1. Recovery system to collect and condense brewing vapors. 2. Full containment and timely disposal of organic by-products. 3. Sanitary sewer facilities adequate for the use. 4. Water conserving processes to reduce wastewater discharge. 5. Systems to reduce dust generated by raw materials. 6. Obtain all required permits. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 13 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Responses: The text amendment would allow microbreweries within M-1 zones, which comprise developed parcels within and surrounded by developed parcels. No biological resources have been identified within or near M-1 zoned property. No impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Responses: The text amendment would allow microbreweries within M-1 zones which comprise developed parcels within and surrounded by single and multi-family development and city facilities including South Park, the Greenbelt, and Civic Center complex. No historic resources, archaeological or cultural resources have been identified within or adjacent M-1 sites. No impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Responses: The text amendment would allow microbreweries within M-1 zones which comprise developed parcels with urban services and access. Future microbreweries would be located within existing buildings or would redevelop facilities, consisting of maximum two story industrial warehouse type buildings in compliance with building codes. The conditions cited loss of topsoil, expansive soils, geologically unstable, Alquist-Priolo zone, unavailability of sewers) are inapplicable. aiii: Sandy soils are conducive to earthquake shaking and liquefaction. Future construction is subject to current building codes which mitigate these effects. All manufacturing equipment within existing or new construction would be installed and secured as required by fire codes and the manufacturer. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS --Would the project: 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? 15 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Responses: The Climate Conservancy2 prepared a report assessing greenhouse gases emitted across the full life cycle of production of ‘Fat Tire® Amber Ale’ beer by New Belgium Brewing Company as a case study.3 The study is used as a guide. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis encompassed acquisition and transport of raw materials, brewing operations, business travel and employee commuting, transport and storage during distribution and retail, use and disposal of waste. The carbon footprint of a 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale (which already incorporated carbon reducing measures) during its life cycle, was 3,188.8 grams of CO2 equivalents (g CO2e). The findings are summarized below. Upstream (acquisition of raw materials and any pre-processing of those materials prior to their delivery to manufacturer): 1531.3 g CO2e, 48.0% of total emissions (note: not every sub-component is shown below). Packaging and nonconsumable materials: 853.3 g CO2e (glass 690 g CO2e, paper & cardboard g CO2e) Consumable materials (malt, hops, water, carbon dioxide for carbonation): 678.0 g CO2e Beer Manufacturer Direct Operations: Emissions from New Belgium Brewing Company’s own operations and the disposal of waste accounted for 173.0 g CO2e, or 5.4% of total emissions (or 423 g CO2e if nonrenewable energy were used) Brewing operations: 123.0 g CO2e (electricity and natural gas: 123.0 g CO2e, or 373.8 g CO2e if nonrenewable energy was used4) Manufacturing waste disposal: 4.2 g CO2e (landfilling: 3.7 g CO2e) Corporate behavior: 45.7 g CO2e (fleet and employee commutes: 30 g CO2e) Distribution: 276.2 g CO2e Down-stream (distribution, retail, storage and disposal of waste): 1,484.6 g CO2e, or 46.6% of emissions. Transportation during retail distribution: 267.8 g CO2e (fuel: 26.4 g CO2e) Storage during distribution: 8.2 g CO2e Retail and home storage: 1158.5 g CO2e Waste disposal (end of life disposal of packaging by consumer): 50.3 g CO2e Summary: Beer manufacturing and wholesale distribution operations only (15,000 barrels beer per year): = 349 tons CO2e per year for (assumes use of nonrenewable energy, energy and water efficient operations and equipment, and optimal recycling). Units: 1 Gram = 0.002 Pounds 1BBL = 31 US Gallons (13.76 cases of beer x four 6-packs per case = 55.04 6-packs) 6 x 12 oz per bottle – 6 pack = 72 oz; 1 gal = 128 oz =1.78 6-packs 1.78 6-packs/gal x 31 gal/barrel = 55.06 6-packs per barrel 55.06 6-packs/barrel x 15,000 barrels = 825,900 6-packs 825,900 6-packs x 423 g CO2e per 6-pack x .002 lbs/gram x 2000 lbs/ton = 349 tons CO2e Life cycle emissions (15,000 barrels per year): = 2,633.7 tons C02e per year 6 x 12 oz per bottle – 6 pack = 72 oz; 1 gal = 128 oz =1.78 6-packs 1.78 6-packs/gal x 31 gal/barrel = 55.06 6-packs per barrel 55.06 6-packs/barrel x 15,000 barrels = 825,900 6-packs 825,900 6-packs x 3,188.9 g CO2e per 6-pack x .002 lbs/gram x 2000 lbs/ton = 2,633.7 tons CO2e As comparison, a 2-person household in Hermosa Beach may generate about 7 - 13 tons of CO2e per year (inputs to EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator). Recognizing that CO2 generation may vary widely, direct beer manufacturing and wholesale distribution operations of a microbrewery may generate an annual CO2e similar to 26 – 50 small households. While not significant, greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and so measures should be incorporated into the CUP to reduce emissions. 2 California nonprofit corporation founded by concerned members of academic and business communities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by informing consumers of the relative climate impacts of products and services that they purchase on a daily basis. 3 The Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale, The Climate Conservancy, 2008. 4 In the Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale case study, renewable energy was used in the brewing operation (manufacturing) with 0g CO2e was assigned. In contrast, use of nonrenewable electricity would have generated 250.8 g CO2 per 6-pack. 16 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Mitigation factors: The specific characteristics of each operation will vary. The report indicates the business of creating any beer is linked inextricably to GHG emissions and many of these emissions are today unavoidable or not under the control of the manufacturer. In the case of microbreweries in the M-1 zone, the focus is on the beer manufacturer direct operations. Only 5.4% of emissions were attributed to the manufacturing process in the Fat Tire® Amber Ale’ study. The case study indicates steps taken by New Belgium Brewing Company to increase operation efficiency and use renewable energy have successfully reduced the carbon footprint of its products relative to the average in the brewing industry. Waste minimization and recycling has reduced greenhouse gases associated with packaging from raw materials, production and shipping (raw material sacks, pallets, cardboard, paper, shrink-warp, bottles); organic by-products (grains, hops, yeast); and office supplies. Spent barley malt and hops by-products can be recycled for local gardening or feed, yeast from fermentation and waste beer from cleaning the beer tanks can be combined in a holding tank for soil amendment. Mitigation Measure(s): Require a greenhouse gas minimization plan demonstrating measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of materials, wastes, water, energy, and transportation. energy efficient equipment and operations use of renewable energy water conservation measures waste minimization and recycling use of clean fuel and low emission fleet purchasing supplies with high post consumer content VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 17 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Responses: a - b: Impacts relating to hazardous materials and conditions associated with breweries generally include exposure to chemicals related to cleaning, disinfection and maintenance of manufacturing processes; carbon dioxide production during fermentation and maturation processes; and carbon dioxide and / or nitrogen stored and used in many brewery processes. Pressurized gases such as CO2 and nitrogen, refrigerants and compressed air present hazards. Uncontrolled release of carbon dioxide or inadequate ventilation and exposure to other chemicals can harm human health. Organic dust from raw materials could present air quality and explosion risk. Other physical hazards relate to fall hazards, use of machines and tools, handling of glass bottles, and collisions with internal transport equipment, such as forklift trucks. c – f: The Public Work Maintenance yard is located within ¼ mile of Valley School; however, it is unlikely that this site will be used for a microbrewery. Conformance with mitigation measures would reduce impacts to insignificant. Otherwise, these factors do not apply to parcels in the M-1 zone. Mitigation Measure(s): The following will reduce impacts to insignificant: Require a risk assessment and reduction plan, addressing: Dust control systems and operational procedures. Conformance with standards for handling, using and storing hazardous materials systems and materials. OSHA standards and material data safety sheets. Measures for handling pressurized gas tanks and other fixtures. Permitting requirements for installation of refrigeration systems. Involve HVAC professionals in design and maintenanc e of the site and systems. Other issues specific to the particular operation. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? 18 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Responses: a, f: Microbreweries use substantial volumes of water for processing, cleaning and potentially cooling. An efficient brewery uses 4-7 liters (approx. 4- 8 quarts) of water to produce one liter of beer. Water is also used for heating and cooling, cleaning vessels, production machinery and process areas, and sanitation. Manufacturing 15,000 barrels of beer could therefore utilize 2 – 4 million gallons water per year or more, the equivalent of 40-80 2-person households (using about 75 gal/day per person or 50,000 gallons/year per household in direct water use). Assuming that 70% is discharged as wastewater, 1.4- 2.8 million gallons wastewater per year could be expected to the public sewer system (6027 gal/day - equivalent to a large hot tub). This water is high in organics and biological oxygen demand (BOD) and targeted management techniques should be used to reduce this constituent. Mitigation reduces impacts to insignificant. 4 -8 gal water to produce one gal of beer x 31 gal/barrel x 15,000 barrels = 1.9 – 3.7 million gal water (plus other water uses) e: Uses in the M-1 zone are required to be conducted primarily within a building located on the premises, with outdoor storage substantially screened from public visibility, public streets, parks or other public places and property. It is anticipated that microbreweries would be operated within enclosed buildings. However, trash and recycling facilities, loading and storage could be located outside a fully enclosed building with the potential to generate contaminated runoff. Mitigation reduces impacts to insignificant. b-d: Microbreweries will obtain water from the public water system and will discharge to the public sewer system. Parcels in the M-1 zone are currently developed, and topography is limited. Any potential future redevelopment of various sites will be developed in accordance with building codes. g-j: Parcels in the M-1 zone are not located within an floodplain area, or are subject to tsunami or sim ilar forces. Mitigation Measure(s): Require water efficiency and wastewater disposal plans: 1. Demonstrate water-efficient equipment and operations, including consistent with the city’s water conservation ordinance in Chapter 8.56, and use of recirculating, recycling and recovery systems. 2. All facilities and operations to be located and conducted within fully enclosed buildings, or roofed areas fully shielded from the elements. 3. Comply with Good Housekeeping Provisions of Chapter 8.44 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and any other applicable provisions. 4. Demonstrate design and management to reduce water use and organic load in wastewater. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 19 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Responses: b: General Plan and Zoning Consistency: M-1 zoned land west of the Greenbelt are classified Industrial in the General Plan; those to the east are classified Medium Density Residential and should be zoned R-2 consistent with the General Plan.5 The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Industrial category, which includes a manufacturing and similar uses, such as electronic assembly, bakeries, bottling, garment manufacturing, laboratories, machine shops, oil production, plastic fabrication, carpentry, rubber fabrication, sheet metal shops. Many of these uses are allowed by right and have greater potential impacts than a microbrewery. Zoning consistency: The amendment is also consistent with the intent of the M-1 zone in H.B.M.C. Section 17.28.010 because it is an industrial use compatible with other uses in the M-1 zone and impacts to surrounding residential area can be mitigated as described in the Negative Declaration. A. Provide appropriately located areas consistent with the General Plan for a range of light manufacturing and warehousing and distribution uses and certain appropriate service commercial uses. Not applicable because this applies to zoning map changes. B. Strengthen the city’s economic base and employment base, but also protect existing small businesses that serve and employ city residents. The text amendment will broaden the types of manufacturing uses that can be sited in the M-1 zone. Microbreweries are themselves unique, small businesses and will not affect other small businesses. C. Create and maintain suitable environments for various types of manufacturing and compatible uses, and protect them from the adverse effects of inharmonious uses. Microbreweries are a food manufacturing/processing use with relatively low impacts that can be mitigated. Properly designed, permitted and operated microbreweries are not anticipated to be incompatible with other light industrial uses. The CUP process also allows compatibility to be considered on a case by case basis. D. Minimize the impact of development in the M-1 zone on adjacent residential districts. Most M-1 parcels abut R-2 and R-3 zoning. Most impacts associated with microbreweries are internally focused with limited impacts on the surrounding area. The manufacturing process can be designed to reduce odors and controls on hours and parking/loading reduce vehicle related issues. The CUP process allows compatibility to be evaluated and impacts mitigated on a case by case basis. E. Ensure that the appearance and effects of manufacturing and commercial buildings in the M-1 zone are harmonious with the character of the area which they are located. Most parcels are currently developed. The decision to redevelop, remodel or utilize an existing building will rest with future applicants. Compatibility will be evaluated via the CUP process. F. Ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. Microbreweries including manufacturing and wholesaling are not labor intensive, but material delivery and product shipping and waste removal will increase traffic. The parking standard for industrial uses is one space per vehicle plus one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area; warehousing can be parked at one space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet with progressive increases as floor area increases (H.B.M.C Section 17.44.030). Adequacy of parking and loading facilities will be evaluated via the CUP process. a, c. The proposed use will not divide any community, or conflict with any land use plan or other requirement. There are no habitat plans in the city. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. 5 General Plan Land Use Element, 1994, Existing Inconsistencies, Implementation Measure 1.1 (Areas 10 and 11) 20 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: 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? Responses: Microbreweries are not dependent on use of minerals. No mineral resources are identified within the city. Mitigation: None required. XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: 6 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Responses: a-d: Brewery workers may be exposed to noise from transport of materials and finished products, and from process and utility machinery. Noise from operations conducted in the early morning or later evening could disturb nearby neighbors. It is expected that operations would be conducted during normal business hours, however controls can be placed on the conditional use permit to reduce any impacts to insignificant. e, f: These factors do not apply to M-1 zones. Mitigation Measure(s): 1. Limit hours of operation consistent with the noise ordinance. 2. Evaluate each operation to determine whether noise attenuation measures should be required. 2. Workers to follow OSHA requirements. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: 21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Responses: Microbreweries will be limited to manufacturing and wholesale distribution generally employing small numbers of employees, and not generate new housing needs. The M-1 zone is located within developed areas with available services and infrastructure. No impacts are identified. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or ph ysically 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Responses: The operation of microbreweries will not cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Fire risk is detailed under Section VIII. Hazards And Hazardous Materials and mitigation reduces impacts to insignificant. Police protection im pacts should be insignificant because the proposed use does not allow retail sales of any kind and the use is located within an industrial area. Mitigation Measure(s): Fire: See mitigation under Section VIII. Hazards And Hazardous Materials. XV. RECREATION -- Would the project: 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? Responses: The proposed use will not affect recreational opportunities or facilities. No impacts are identified. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: 22 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulating system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Responses: M-1 zoned sites are located within an urban area accessed by collector and residential streets. The proposed use will involve delivery of raw materials and shipping of finished product, employee trips, and trips for disposal of waste products. Manufacturing and wholesale uses such as beer brewing are not labor or vehicle trip intensive, but the specifies will vary depending on the size of each operation and its management. It is anticipated that supply and shipping will be conducted by the standard delivery services or trucks owned by the microbrewery. Routes can be restricted to avoid passing through residential areas (i.e., Valley and 6th Street and Cypress Street). (CUPs for microbrewery on M-1 parcels east of the Greenbelt would not be granted due to the General Plan inconsistency.) Traffic can be fully addressed by the CUP. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 23 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Responses: a-b, d-e: The facilities will utilize public water and sewer systems. Water supplies and wastewater disposal are addressed under Section IX Hydrology and Water Quality. Mitigation below reduce impacts to insignificant. f, g: Solid waste is addresses under Sections III. Air Quality and XII Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Mitigation below reduce impacts to insignificant. Mitigation Measure(s): Individual microbrewery proposals should demonstrate water and wastewater conservation and waste minimization and recycling: 1. Full containment and timely disposal of organic by-products. 2. Sanitary sewer connection adequate for the use. 3. Demonstrate design and management to reduce organic load in wastewater. 4. Water conserving processes to reduce wastewater discharge. 5. Demonstrate water-efficient equipment and operations, including consistent with the city’s water conservation ordinance in Chapter 8.56, and use of recirculating, recycling and recovery systems. 6. Provide a waste minimization and recycling plan for solid and organic by-products. 7. Obtain all required permits. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – 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, 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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 24 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Responses/Mitigation Measures: a: M-1 zones are located within developed urban areas with urban services. Therefore biological resources are not affected. b: The number and scale of each microbrewery that might locate within the M-1 zone is unknown. The impacts of each individual project are largely internal or related to services rather than impacting the surrounding areas. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce each impact to insignificant and can be applied through the conditional use permit process. While it is anticipated that the number and microbreweries will be low due to size of parcels and parking requirements, and type of industry, the CUP process provides an opportunity to ensure that impacts of each facility individually ad cumulatively are fully mitigated and compatible with the city and neighborhood. c: Risk to workers at the facility, and risk of fire to surrounding area can be mitigated through permitting, maintenance and compliance with safety procedures. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES: None. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: The following mitigations are implemented through the conditional use permit and facility permitting processes: 1. Obtain all required permits. 2. Provide a waste minimization and recycling plan for solid and organic by-products 3. Full containment and timely disposal of organic by-products. 4. Sanitary sewer connection adequate for the use. 5. Demonstrate design and management to reduce organic load in wastewater. 6. Water conserving processes to reduce wastewater discharge. 7. Demonstrate water-efficient equipment and operations, including consistent with the city’s water conservation ordinance in Chapter 8.56, and use of recirculating, recycling and recovery systems. 8. All facilities and operations to be located and conducted within fully enclosed buildings, or roofed areas fully shielded from the elements 9. Heat recovery system to collect and condense brewing vapors. 10. Dust control systems to reduce dust generated b y raw materials and operational procedures. 11. Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of materials, wastes, water, energy, and transportation (see Section VII Greenhouse gases) 12. Energy efficient equipment and operations 13. Conformance with standards for handling, using and storing hazardous materials systems and materials. 14. Comply with OSHA standards and material data safety sheets. 15. Measures for handling pressurized gas tanks and other fixtures. 16. Permitting requirements for installation of refrigeration systems. 17. Involve HVAC professionals in design and maintenance of the site and systems. 18. Comply with Good Housekeeping Provisions of Chapter 8.44 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and any other applicable provisions; 19. Limit hours of operation consistent with the noise ordinance. 20. Evaluate each operation to determine whether noise attenuation measures should be required. Sources: “Becoming A Zero Emissions Brewery”, Molly Farrell Tucker, BioCycle, February 2007, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 29. http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001252.html Retrieved September 6, 2010 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Land Use Element. “Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Breweries,” International Finance Corporation/World Bank Group. http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/gui_EHSGuidelines2007_Breweries/$FILE/Final+- +Breweries.pdf Retrieved September 4, 2010 25 “Pollution Prevention Solutions for Small Manufacturers: A Microbrewery Case Study”, Donna M. DiGangi, Masters Thesis, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, July 18, 2005. http://ceenve3.civeng.calpoly.edu/nelson/THESES/Donna%20DiGangi%20Thesis%202005.pdf, Retrieved September 4, 2010 “The Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale”, The Climate Conservancy, 2008 http://www.newbelgium.com/files/shared/the-carbon-footprint-of-fat-tire-amber-ale-2008-public-dist-rfs_0.pdf Retrieved September 4, 2010 26 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 1 WORLD BANK GROUP Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Breweries Introduction The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry- specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP)1. When one or more members of the World Bank Group are involved in a project, these EHS Guidelines are applied as required by their respective policies and standards. These industry sector EHS guidelines are designed to be used together with the General EHS Guidelines document, which provides guidance to users on common EHS issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. For complex projects, use of multiple industry -sector guidelines may be necessary. A complete list of industry-sector guidelines can be found at: www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines The EHS Guidelines contain the performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities by existing technology at reasonable costs. Application of the EHS Guidelines to existing facilities may involve the establishment of site-specific targets, with an appropriate timetable for achieving them. The applicability of the EHS Guidelines should be tailored to the hazards and risks established for each project on the basis of the results of an environmental asses sment in which site- specific variables, such as host country context, assimilative 1 Defined as the exercise of professional skill, diligence, prudence and foresight that would be reasonably expected from skilled and experienced professionals engaged in the same type of undertaking under the same or similar circumstances globally. The circumstances that skilled and experienced professionals may find when evaluating the range of pollution prevention and control techniques available to a project may include, but are not limited to, varying lev els of environmental degradation and environmental assimilative capacity as well as varying levels of financial and technical feasibility. capacity of the environment, and other project factors, are taken into account. The applicability of specific technical recommendations should be based on the professional opinion of qualified and exper ienced persons. When host country regulations differ from the levels and measures presented in the EHS Guidelines, projects are expected to achieve whichever is more stringent. If less stringent levels or measures than those provided in these EHS Guidelines are appropriate, in view of specific project circumstances, a full and detailed justification for any proposed alternatives is needed as part of the site -specific environmental assessment. This justification should demonstrate that the choice for any alternate performance levels is protective of human health and the environment. . Applicability The EHS Guidelines for Breweries cover the production of beer, from raw material storage to dispatch of the filled bottles, cans, kegs or barrels. Annex A contains a description of industry sector activities. This Guideline does not cov er malt production nor the production of non-alcoholic beverages and soft drinks. This document is o rganized accord ing to the following sections: Section 1.0 — Industry-Specific Impacts and Management Section 2.0 — Performance Indicators and Monitoring Se ction 3.0 — References Annex A — General Description of Industry Activities Attachment 4 27 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 2 WORLD BANK GROUP 1.0 Industry-Specific Impacts and Management This section provides a summary of EHS issues associated with breweries that occur during the operations phase, along with recommendations for their management. Recommendations for the management of EHS issues common to most large industrial facilities during the construction and decommissioning phases are provided in the General EHS Guidelines. 1.1 Environment Environmental issues associated with the operation phase of breweries primarily include the following: · Energy consumption · Water consumption · Wastewater · Solid waste and by-products · Emissions to air Energy Consumption Brewery processes are relatively intensive users of both electrical and thermal energy. Thermal energy is used to raise steam in boilers, which is used largely for wort boiling and water heating in the brewhouse, and in the bottling hall. The process refrigeration system is typically the largest single consumer of electrical energy, but the brewhouse, bottling hall, and waste water treatment plant can account for substantial electricity demand. The specific energy consumption of a brewery is heavily influence d by utility system and process design ; however, site-specific variations can arise from differences in product recipe and packaging type , the incoming temperature to the brewery of the brewing water and climatic variations. Specific energy consumption in a brewery can vary from 100– 200 megajoules per hectoliter (MJ/hl ), depending on size, sophistication, and the factors listed above.2 Substantial energy savings in many breweries can be achieved by adopting general guidance for energy management suggested in the General EHS Guidelines, in addition to the following techniques which have particular relevance to breweries: · Install energy and water meters to measure and control consumption throughout the facility; · Develop a hot water balance for the entire brewery to examine possibilities for heat recovery from produ ction processes or utility systems to process or boil feed water ; · Recover heat from wort cooling to preheat water for mashing the next batch. In wort cooling, it is important to limit cooling water flow to approximately 1.1 times wort flow using refrigera tion to supplement cooling if necessary. Wort coolers should have close approach temperatures (3-5 K) between leaving wort and incoming chilling water temperature s; · Use a heat recovery system to condense vapors from the wort vessel . Recovered energy may be used as hot water in a variety of applications, for example, in the bottling hall as boiler feed water, or to preheat process water; · Use high-gravity brewing, where beer is produced at greater than sales strength and diluted to the finished product alcohol content before packaging; · Control and optimize evaporation in wort boiling, where 6 to 10 percent of the w ort is deliberately boiled off.3 Variations from recipe requirements may result in excessive energy use and variable product quality. Energy consumption in wort boiling can be reduced by: o Controlling the inlet gravity to maintain as small a difference as possible between the gravity from the lautering and the final specific wort gravity; 2 The Brewers of Europe (2002). 3 Ibid. Attachment 4 28 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 3 WORLD BANK GROUP o Controlling the gravity throughout boiling, in particular avoi ding overboiling, for example by controlling batch size and the mass of steam used to heat the batch; o Increasing evaporation efficiency for the unwanted flavor components by increasing the surface contact between the heater and wort. · Ensure effective insulation of steam, hot water and refrigerant pipes, vessels, valves and flanges, brew kettles or parts of brew kettles, tunnel pasteurizers and bottle washers; · Specify high regeneration ratios (>93 %) in flash pasteurizers, for example those used in packagin g and in the production of deaerated water; this also reduces refrigeration requirements; · Limit use, and particularly overflow , of hot water (see the section on water consumption below ); · Optimize heating of tunnel pasteurizers and consider pasteurization unit control; · Use cogeneration/combined heat and power (CHP)–based utility systems ; · Optimize refrigeration system operations by: o Using “high temp erature” precooling of warm (approx. >20° Celsius (C)) water used as brewing and deaerated water o Elevating the evaporating temperature of the refrigeration system to the maximum extent possible. An evaporating temperature of -6ºC to -8ºC is sufficient, but often the refrigeration system is designed for a much lower evaporating temperature. Increasing the evaporating temperature by 1K will increase compressor cooling capacity and reduce the electricity consumption of the refrigeration system by 3–4 percent o Designing and operating the condensing side of the refrigeration system for the lowest possible condensing temperature. A decrease of 1K in condensing temperature will reduce the electricity consumption of the refrigeration system by 2 percent · Ensure that the pressure in the compressed air system is as low as possible. If the pressure is reduced from 8 bar to 7 bar, electricity consumption should drop by approximately 7 percent ; · Optimize the operation of large electric motors by: o Examining opportunities to install variable speed drives, particularly for secondary refrigerant and water pumps o Adopting thermosyphon circulation of wort through the wort kettle heater, reducing the need for pumped circulation Water Consumption High consumption of good-quality water is characteristic of beer brewing. More than 90 percent of beer is water and an efficient brewery will use between 4 –7 liters (l) of water to produce 1l of beer.4 In addition to water for the product, breweries use water for heating and cooling, cleaning packaging vessels, production machinery and process areas, cleaning vehicles, and sanitary water. Water i s also lost through wort boiling and with spent grains. Large quantities of good-quality water are needed for beer brewing. More than 90 percent of beer is water and an efficient brewery will use between 4–7 liters (l) of water to produce one liter of beer .5 In addition to water for the product, breweries use water for heating and cooling, cleaning packaging vessels, production machinery and process areas, cleaning vehicles, and sanitation. Also water is lost through wort boiling and with spent grains. Recommendations to reduce water consumption, especially where it may be a limited natural resource, are provided in the 4 EC (2006) 5 EC (2006) Attachment 4 29 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 4 WORLD BANK GROUP General EHS Guidelines. Specific water consumption recommendations for brewery operations include the following: · Limit water used in wort cooling to the volume needed for mashing, typically around 1.1 times the wort volume; · Allow the storage level of recovered water tanks to fluctuate, thereby using storage capacity. Maintaining full tanks may lead to overflow and waste; · Implement water cons ervation measures in the bottle- washers by: o Replacing older bottle washers with new energy and water-efficient bottle washers. New machines use much less water (e.g. 0.5 hectoliters(hl)/hl bottle volume compared with 3 –4 hl/hl bottle volume)6; o Installing automatic valve(s) to interrupt the water supply when there is a line stop; o Promptly replacing worn and oversized rinsing nozzles, as indicated by water monitoring programs, and using effective low-water use rinsing nozzles; o Controlling the rinsing water flow, which is often higher than specified or may vary due to pressure fluctuations in the water supply system; o Using fresh water for the last two rinsing nozzles only. Earlier rinsing nozzles should re -use rinse water in a countercurrent rinsing manner; o Us ing recovered water from the bottle washers in the crate washer. · Optimize cleaning-in-place (CIP) plants and procedures to avoid unnecessary losses of water and cleaning chemicals (e.g. by saving water from the last rinse for use as the first rinsing water in the next CIP cycle); · Evaluate the feasibility of a closed-loop system for water used in the pasteurization process, where water is recirculated via a cooling tower and returned to the tunnel pasteurizer. This reduces consumption of fresh water for 6 The Brewers of Europe (2002) the tunnel pasteurizer and makes up for water lost due to evaporation and potential bleed-off. Treatment of recirculating water is required to prevent growth of algae and microorganisms, and the risk of product contamination from recycled water must be carefully managed. Recycling systems can reduce the water consumption for the tunnel pasteurizers by 80 percent; · Install a recirculation tank in connection with the vacuum pumps used in the packaging processes, which are continuously supplied with water to replace water discharged with air. A recirculation tank may result in water savings of 50 percent in the operation of the vacuum pump;7 · Recover water from process stages and reuse where possible, for example, in cooling and rinsing activities. Wastewater In dustrial Process Wastewater – Load Reduction Techniques The pollutant load of brewery effluent is primarily composed of organic material from process activities. Brewery processes also generate liquids such as the weak wort and residual beer which the brewery should reuse rather than allowing to enter the effluent stream. The main sources of residual beer include process tanks, diatomaceous earth filters, pipes, beer rejected in the packaging ar ea, returned beer, and broken bottles in the packaging area.8 The following preventive management measures can be taken to reduce the organic load of brewery effluent: · Collect weak wort in a tank equipped with heating jackets and a slow speed agitator for use in the next brew. This reduces the organic load in the wastewater, saving raw 7 Ibid. 8 Total beer loss typically ranges between 1 to 5 percent of overall production. Brewers of Europe (2002) Attachment 4 30 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 5 WORLD BANK GROUP materials and conserving water. Weak wort collection is particularly important for high -gravity brewing;9 · Undertake procedural improvements to reduce the amount of residual beer, such as the emptying of tanks, good housekeeping, and efficient monitoring systems;10 · Avoid overfilling of fermenting vessels which causes loss of partially-fermented wort and yeast; · Ensure sedimentation of caustics from the bottle washer; · Collect and reuse of rinsing water from the last cleaning in the firs t cleaning -in -place (CIP) cycle. Process Wastewater Treatment Techniques for treating industrial process wastewater in this sector include flow and load equalization, pH correction ; sedimentation for suspended solids reduction using clarifiers; and biological treatment . Biological nutrient removal for reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus and disinfection by chlorination are sometimes required. Dewatering and disposal of residuals; in some instances composting or land application of wastewater treatment residuals of acceptable quality may be possible. Additional engineering controls may be required to contain and neutralize nuisance odors. Adoption of anaerobic biological treatment, followed by aeration is increasingly adopted by breweries worldwide. Th is technique has the benefits of much reduced footprint , substantial electricity savings and generation of biogas which can be used in boilers or for power generation. Further guidance on management of industrial wastewater and examples of treatment approa ches are discussed in the 9 The COD value of weak wort is around 10,000 mg/kg. The weak wort volume is 2–6 percent of the wort volume and 1–1.5 percent of the weak wort is extract. Collection of the weak wort will therefore reduce the wastewater load by 20–60 g COD/hl wort produced (The Brewers of Europe 2002). 10 The COD value of beer is around 120,000 mg/kg depending on its strength and alcohol content. The total amount of residual beer will be in the area 1 –5 percent of the total production, sometimes higher. A reduction of 1 percent in the loss of residual beer to the sewer system will reduce the wastewater load by 120 g COD/hl beer (The Brewers of Europe 2002). General EHS Guidelines. Through use of these technologies and good practice techniques for wastewater management, facilities should meet the Guideline Values for wastewater discharge as indicated in the relevant table of Section 2 of this industry sector document. Other Wastewater Streams Guidance on the management of non -contaminated wastewater from utility operations, non-contaminated stormwater, and sanitary sewage is provided in the General EHS Guidelines. Contaminated st reams should be routed to the treatment system for industrial process wastewater. Solid Waste s and By-products Beer production results in a variety of residues, such as spent grains, which ha ve a commercial value and can be sold as by- products to the agricultural sector. Recommended management measures to reduce solid waste production and increase by- product sales include: · Optimal use of raw materials to increase yield and reduce generation of solid an d liquid waste, including: o Avoidance of poor quality raw materials o Optimizing milling of the grist o Optimizing lautering, including sufficient sparging of the spent grains, to gain as much extract as possible o Collection and use of weak wort for mashing in the next brew o Optimizing clarification through use of a whirlpool as poor clarificati on results in a high trub11 volume o Recovery of the wort from the hot trub o Recovery of beer from surplus yeast o Collection and reuse of residual beer. Pre -run and after -run beer is of high quality, and may be dosed directly into the beer flow in the filter line. Other 11 A precipitate consisting mainly of proteins (The Brewers of Europe, 2002). Attachment 4 31 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 6 WORLD BANK GROUP residual beer from the packaging area should be returned to the whirlpool · Where feasible, the commercial value of the waste streams should be exploited by : o Collecting spent brewers grains from mashing for sale as animal feed by-product o Avoiding discharge of hot trub into the sewer system. The hot trub should be returned to the mash kettle or lauter tun and mash filter. The trub then forms part of the brewers grains and can in this way be utilized as animal feed12 o Collecting and re using yeast from the fermentation process as a by-product . Yeast can be collected from fermentation and storage tanks, the yeast storage plant, and the filter line. Only part of the yeast can be reused in the next batch . As much surplus yeast as possible should be collected to avoid high chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the wastewater stream and resold for commerc ial use. Traditionally, s urplus yeast has been sold as feed to pig livestock facilities. Other uses include yeast extract, yeast pills, cos metics, and use by the pharmaceutical industry13 o Recycling broken glass from returned bottles to produce new glass o Dispos ing of label pulp generated from washing of returned bottles. Where feasible, label pulp should be recycled or composted. Label pulp should be disposed of at a landfill facility if it contains high levels of caustic 12 The COD value of trub is around 150,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) wet trub. The amount of trub from a well-functioning whirlpool is 1 to 3 percent of the wort volume (in the case of insufficient whirlpool function even higher) with dry matter content between 15 and 20 percent. The reduction in wastewater load by returning the trub is therefore 150–450 grams (g) COD/hl wort (The Brewers of Europe 2002). 13 The amount of this surplus and spent yeast slurry is 2–4 kg (10–15 percent dry matter content) per hl produced beer. The yeast suspension contains yeast and beer and has a high COD value (180,000–220,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l)). Very often the yeast or part of it is sent to the wastewater. The total COD load for the brewery will therefore be reduced by approximately 360–880 g COD/hl beer, if all yeast is collected instead of being led to the sewer system (Ibid.). liquid from the washing process or heavy metals from label ink o Utilization of sludge from the brewery wastewater treatment plant through its application as an agricultural fertilizer, or disposal in an appropriate landfill facility Emissions to Air of Odor and Dust Odor and dust are the most significant air emissions from breweries. Emissions from combustion sources for energy production and boiler houses are covered in the General EHS Guidelines. Odor The wort boiling process is the main source of odor emissions from a brewery. To reduce odor emissions from wort boiling, a heat recovery system should be used to collect and condense the vapors and the recovered energy used in process or utility systems. Dust The main sources of dust emissions are the use and storage of grains, sugar, and kieselguhr . Cyclones and bag filters should be used to collect and recover dust in the following manner: · Dust generated from the unloading of raw materials and transport of malt and adjuncts should be conveyed to the mash or adjunct kettle and the extract recovered; · Dust arising from malt and adjuncts may be used as animal feed. 1.2 Occupational Health and Safety Occupational health and safety issues during the construction and decommissioning of breweries are common to those of other industrial facilities and their prevention and control are Attachment 4 32 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 7 WORLD BANK GROUP discussed in the General EHS Guidelines. Occupational health and safety hazards associated with brewery operations include: · Explosion risk · Exposure to chemical hazards · Physical hazards · Exposure to noise and vibrations Explosion Risk Organic dust arising from grain storage, milling , and transport operations presents a n explosion risk in the areas of the brewery where these operations occur. In addition to the guidance in the General EHS Guidelines, the following management measures should be taken to reduce dust explosion hazards: · Frequent sweepi ng to control dust accumulation, and use of dust extraction and recycling systems to remove dust from work areas; · Provision of electrical grounding, spark detection and prevention, and, if necessary, quenching systems ; · Use of explosion proof electrical motors, lights, switches, and connections in high risk areas ; · Integration of explosion relief vents in facility de sign and construction; · Elimination of external ignition sources; · Implementation of hot-work permits; · Control of all smoking materials; · Prohibition of cell phone use. Exposure to Chemicals Refrigerant Leakage Breweries often have large refrigeration systems, typically using ammonia refrigerant which is toxic and can form explosive mixtures in air. Safety and other guidance offered by professional refrigeration institutions14 should be adopted in refrigeration system siting, design, maintenance, and operation. Asphyxiation Carbon dioxide is produced during fermentation and maturation processes, carbon dioxide can be recovered, and carbon dioxide and / or nitrogen are stored and used in many brewery processes where inert atmospheres are required. Uncontrolled release of these gases or inadequate ventilation, particularly in confined or enclosed spaces such as fermentation and maturation rooms can result in accumulation of sufficient concentration to present asphyxi ation risk. Appropriate safety measures should be developed based on a risk assessment, and may include enhanced ventilation, guidance on safe working in confined spaces contained within the General EHS Guidelines, and the use of personal gas detectors in high risk areas. Exposure to other chemicals typically involves chemical- handling activities related to cleaning, disinfection and maintenance of process areas, pipe work and vessels. Recommendations for the management of exposure to chemicals are presented in the General EHS Guidelines. Physical Hazards Physical hazards include exposure to same-level fall hazards due to slippery conditions, the use of machines and tools, the handling of glass bottles, and collisions with internal transport equipment, such as forklift trucks. Mills, mixers, grinders, augers and conveyors are potential hazards and may catch fingers, hair, and clothing. Eye injuries are a particular risk prevalent in bottling operations. The General EHS Guidelines provides guidance on general workplace conditions, including design and maintenance of working and walking surfaces to prevent slips 14 For example the British Institute of Refrigeration (www.ior.org.uk) publishes guidelines on the safe design of ammonia (and other) refrigeration systems, safe handling of refrigerants etc. Refrigeration advice can also be obtained from ASHRAE (www.ahsrae.com ) or the International Institute of Refrigeration (www.iifiir.org). Attachment 4 33 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 8 WORLD BANK GROUP and falls, in addition to machine safety and guards, and the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Lifting, Carrying, Repetitive Wor k & Postures Injuries Brewery activities that may expose workers to risk of injury typically arise from heavy manual lifting and carrying (for example, crates of bottles); repetitive work including packing and cleaning, and poor work postures caused by inadequate workstati on and process activity design. Recommended management approaches to reduce these injuries are presented in the General EHS Guidelines. Dust Dust inhalation is an occupational health and safety risk, particularly in areas where dry grains, yeast, and kieselguhr are handled. Risk mitigation guidance described the General EHS Guidelines should be followed. Pressurized Gas Systems Brewery process activities involve the use of pressurized gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen, refri gerants and compressed air. All these gases present hazards arising from over pressurization and tank ruptures, frostbite from CO2, nitrogen or refrigerants, and physical injury due to mishandled or damaged cylinders and pipelines. Recommended measures for handling pressurized gas tanks and other fixtures are addressed in the General EHS Guidelines. Exposure to Noise and Vibrations Brewery workers may be exposed to noise arising from transport of raw materials and finished products, and from process and utility machinery. Recommendations for managing exposure to noise and vibration, including use of appropriate PPE, are presented in the General EHS Guidelines. 1.3 Community Health and Safety Community health and safety issues for breweries are common to th ose of other industrial facilities and are discussed in the General EHS Guideline s. Product Safety Impacts and Management Brewery operations should follow internationally-recognized food safety standards consistent with the principles and practice of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)15 and Codex Alimentarius.16 15 ISO (2005). 16 FAO and WHO (1962 –2005). Attachment 4 34 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 9 WORLD BANK GROUP 2.0 Performance Indicators and Monitoring 2.1 Environment Emissions and Effluent Guidelines Table 1 presents effluent guidelines for the breweries sector. Guideline values for process emissions and effluents in this sector are indicative of good international industry practice as reflected in relevant standards of countries with recognized regulatory frame works . Guideline values for process emissions and effluents in this sector are indicative of good international industry practice as reflected in relevant standards of countries with recognized regulatory frameworks. These guidelines are achievable under normal operating conditions in appropriately designed and operated facilities through the application of pollution prevention and control techniques, as discussed in preceding sectio ns of this document. These levels should be achieved, without dilution, at least 95 percent of the time that the plant or unit is operating , to be calculated as a proportion of annual operating hours. Deviation from these leve ls in consideration of specific local project conditions should be justified in the environmental assessment. Effluent guidelines are applicable for direct discharges of treated effluents to surface waters for general use. Site-specific discharge levels may be established based on the availability and conditions in use of publicly operated sewage collection and treatment systems. If discharged directly to surface waters, discharge levels should be based on the receiving water use classification, as described in the General EHS Guidelines. Combustion source emissions guidelines associated with steam- and power-generation activities from sources with a heat input capacity equal to or lower than 50 megawatts (MW) are addressed in the General EHS Guidelines. Larger power source emissions are addressed in the EHS Guidelines for Thermal Power. Guidance on ambient considerations based on the total load of emissions is provided in the General EHS Guidelines. Table 1. Effluent levels for breweries Pollutants Units Guideline Value pH pH 6 – 9 BOD5 mg/l 25 COD mg/l 125 Total nitrogen mg/l 10 Total phosphorus mg/l 2 Oil and grease mg/l 10 Total suspended solids mg/l 50 Temperature in crease °C <3b Total coliform bacteria MPNa / 100 ml 400 Active Ingredients / Antibiotics To be determined on a case specific basis Notes: a MPN = Most Probable Number b At the edge of a scientifically established mixing zone which takes into account ambient water quality, receiving water use, potential receptors and assimilative capacity Table 2. By-products and Waste Generation Outputs per Unit of Product Unit Benchmark By -products a Spent Grains 16-19 Yeast & Lees 1.7 - 2.9 Kieselguhr kg/hl beer 0.4 – 0.7 Liquid Wastes Liquid Effluents hl/hl beer 3 – 6 Beer Loss % 1 - 5 Notes: a Input and Output Figures for Large German Breweries (capacity over 1 million hl beer) EC (2006 Attachment 4 35 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 10 WORLD BANK GROUP Resource Use Tables 2 and 3 provide examples of waste and by-product production and energy and water consumption indicators for efficient breweries. Industry benchmark values are provided for comparative purposes only and individual projects should target continual improvement in these areas. Table 3. Energy and Water Consumption Outputs per Unit of Product Unit Benchmark Energy a Heat MJ/hl 85–120 Electricity kWh/hl 7.5–11.5 Total Energy MJ/hl 100-160 Water a Water consumption hl/hl beer 4 - 7 Notes: a Input and Output Figures for Large German Breweries (capacity over 1 million hl beer) EC (2006) Environmental Monitoring Monitoring programs for this sector should be implemented to address all activities that have been identified to have potentially significant environmental impacts during normal operations and upset conditions. Environmental monitoring activities should be based on direct or indirect indicators of emissions, effluents, and resource use applicable to the particular project. Monitoring frequency should be sufficient to provide representative data for the parameter being monitored. Monitoring should be conducted by trained individuals following monitoring and record-keeping procedures , and using properly calibrated and maintained equipment. Monitoring data should be analyzed and reviewed at regular intervals and compared with the operating standards so that any necessary corrective actions can be taken. Additional guidance on applicable sampling and analytical methods for emissions and effluents is provided in the General EHS Guidelines . 2.2 Occupational Health and Safety Occupational Health and Safety Guidelines Occupational health and safety performance should be evaluated against internationally published exposure guidelines, of which examples include the Threshold Limit Value (TLV®) occupational exposure guidelines and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs®) published by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH),17 the Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards published by the United States National Institute for Occupational Health an d Safety (NIOSH),18 Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States (OSHA),19 Indicative Occupational Exposure Limit Values published by European Union member states,20 or other similar sources. Accident and Fatality Rates Projects should try to reduce the number of accidents among project workers (whether directly employed or subcontracted) to a rate of zero, especially accidents that could result in lost work time, different levels of disability, or even fatalities. Facility rates may be benchmarked against the performance of facilities in this sector in developed countries through consultation with published sources (e.g. US Bureau of Labor Statistics and UK Health and Safety Executive)21. Occupational Health and Safety Monitoring The working environment should be monitored for occupational hazards relevant to the specific project. Monitoring should be 17 Available at: http://www.acgih.org/TLV/ and http://www.acgih.org/store/ 18 Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/ 19 Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDAR DS&p_id=9992 20 Available at: http://europe.osha.eu.int/good_practice/risks/ds/oel/ 21 Available at: http://www.bls.gov/iif/ and http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/index.htm Attachment 4 36 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 11 WORLD BANK GROUP designed and implemented by accredited professionals,22 as part of an occupational health and safety monitoring program. Facilities should also maintain a record of occupational accidents, diseases, and dangerous occurrences and accidents. Additional guidance on occupational health and safety monitoring programs is provided in the General EHS Guidelines. 22 Accredited professionals may include certified industrial hygienists, registered occupational hygienists, or certified safety professionals or their equivalent. Attachment 4 37 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 12 WORLD BANK GROUP 3.0 References and Additional Sources Curtin University of Technology, Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production (CECP). 2002. Swan Brewery: Water and Energy Efficiency. Western Australia Case Studies. Perth : CECP. Available at http://cleaner production.curtin.edu.au/cecp/cecpcasestudyhome.htm Dansk Standard. 2004. DS/OHSAS 18001:2004. Occupational health and safety management systems – Specification. 1 udgave. 2004 –11 -08. Copenhagen: Dansk Standard. European Commission. 2006. European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques (BAT) in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries. Seville: EIPPCB. Available at http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FActivities.htm Health and Safety Commission (HSC). 2005a. Food Manufacture – Beer, Spirit and Soft Drink Manufacture. Injury Rate Comparison. London: National Statistics. Available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/food/drink.htm HSC. 2005b. Health and Safety Statistics 2004/05. London: National Statistics. Available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh0405.pdf HSC. 2005c. Rates of reported fatal injury to workers, non fatal injuries to employees and LFS rates of reportable injury to workers in manufacturing. London: National Statistics. Available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/manufacturing-ld1.htm#notes HSC. 2005d. Statistics of fatal injuries 2004/05. Fatal injuries to workers in manufacturing. London: National Statistics. Available at www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/fatl0405.pdf Indian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Notification May 5, 1992. 27.0 Fermentation Industry: Wastewater Discharge Standards (Distilleries, Maltries & Breweries). Delhi: Indian EPA. Available at http://www.cpcb.nic.in/standard27.htm Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs (BATNEEC) Guidance Note for Malting, Brewing & Distilling. Co. Wexford: Irish EPA. Available at http://www.epa.ie/TechnicalGuidanceandAdvice/GuidanceDocuments/ International Organization fo r Standardization (ISO). 2005. ISO 22000: 2005: Food Safety Management Systems - Requirements for any organization in the food chain. Geneva: ISO. Available at http://www.iso.org ISO. 2004a. ISO 14001: 2004: Environmental Management Systems - Requirements with guidance for use. Geneva: ISO. Available at http://www.iso.org ISO. 2004b. ISO 9001: 2000: Quality Management System. Geneva: ISO. Available at http://www.iso.org Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources, Science and Environment. Pollution Control Department (PCD). 1996. Water Quality Standards: Industrial Effluent Standard s. Bangkok: PCD. Available at http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_std_water04.html#s1 The Brewers of Europe. 2002. Guidance Note for Establishing BAT in the Brewing Industry. October 2002. Brussels: Brewers of Europe. Available at http://www.brewersofeurope.org/asp/publications/publications.asp United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1996. Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE). Cleaner Production in Breweries: A Workbook for Trainers. First Edition. Paris: UNEP. Available at http://www.uneptie.org/pc/cp/library/catalogue/cp_training.htm United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2004a. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Charts, 1992–2004. Number and rate of fatal occupational injuries by private industry sector, 2004. (Table page 10). Washington DC: BLS. Available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0003.pdf US BLS. 2004b. Industry Injury and Illness Data – 2004. Supplemental News Release Tables. Table SNR05: Incident rate and number of nonfatal occupational injuries by industry, 2004. Washington D.C.: BLS. Available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1479.pdf. Attachment 4 38 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 13 WORLD BANK GROUP Annex A : General Description of Industry Activities Beer is a low alcohol content beverage produced by fermenting sugars extracted from various types of cereals. A large number of different beer types exist that vary in the use of raw material, and the strength, taste profile, and packing of the final product. Each brewery generally has its own specific product and container mix. Production methods differ by brewery, as well as according to beer types, equipment, and national legislation. Historically beer was produced from malted barley. However, there is a trend toward a more diverse group of cereals , with modern large breweries increasingly using maize and rice. The sugar is extracted from the cereal into the water , h ops are added, and the mixture boiled. After cooling, the mix is fermented with yeast to produce alcohol. This raw beer is then matured and packed. Some beers are filtered and pasteurized. Raw Material Handling and Storage The raw materials for beer production generally include cereal (barley malt , rice or maize), hops, water, and yeast. The malting process converts the starch in the cereal into fermentable sugar which is extracted from the malt during mashing. Extracts from the hop are used as a preservative and to add bitterness to the sugar soluti on. Yeast converts the sugars into alcohol during fermentation. Brewery operations require heating and cooling, cleaning agents, and packaging materials. Wort Production The delivered cereal is weighed, conveyed, cleaned, and stored in silos until it is made available for wort production. Cleaning and grinding / milling activities are used to prepare the cereal for mashing. Mashing, lautering and wort boiling together are the brewing stages of the beer -making process. Milling The cereal is milled to produce a mixture of flour and husks known as grist. The fineness to which the malt is milled is a balance between best extract yield, the chosen technology, and ability to filter the wort. The cereal handling areas should be designed to control excessive dust production and minimize sources of ignition including sparks to prevent explosions. Mashing After milling, the grist is mixed with hot water, to form a “mash” and left to stand in a process known as mashing. The purpose of mashing is to obtain a high yield of fermentable extract from the malt grist and adjuncts by extraction into the brewing water. This extract is “wort.” Only a minor part of the extract is obtained by being dissolved, while the remainder is extracted by means of the enzymatic breakdown of complex insoluble substances to simple water-soluble substances. Physical parameters such as temperature, pH, and the length of mashing time should be carefully controlled to obtain optimum extraction. Mash Filtration Wort is separated from the solid portion of the mash, known as “brewers grains” by filtration. This process is called lautering and takes place in a lauter tun or in a mash filter at a temperature of about 75ºC to 78ºC.23 After lautering, the spent brewers grains are discharged to silos and traditionally sold to farmers for use as cattle feed. Brewers grains from lauter tuns have a dry matter content of 19–22 percent and from mash filters a dry matter content of 35–40 percent. The remaining wort in the lauter tun will have a low content of extract and is called weak “wort”. 23 The Brewers of Europe (2002). Attachment 4 39 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 14 WORLD BANK GROUP Wort Boiling Following removal of the spent brewers grains, the wort is transferred to the wort kettle. The wort is heated to boiling in the wort kettle and hops are added. and the wort is boiled for 1 to 1.5 hours with a boiling intensity of 5–8 percent evaporation of casting volume24 per hour. Total evaporation is generally 6–10 percent. Heating and boiling of wort are highly energy intensive. Wort Clarification and Cooling Following boiling, the wort is cleaned, typically by passing it through a “whirlpool” which separates clean wort from residual solids known as trub. After clarification, the wort is cooled to the “pitching temperature” (the temperature at which the cooled wort enters the fermentation vessel) in a heat exchanger (the “wort cooler”) which is cooled by chilled water. Wort cooling can be achieved with a volume of cooling water around 1.1 times the wort volume. Hot water (75ºC to 85ºC) arising from the wort cooler is collected and used as brewing water for the next batch. Discharge of organic matter (trub) can occur through the clarification process. High Gravity Brewing High gravity brewing is often used to prod uce wort that contains sufficient concentration of extract that complete fermentation will result in a beer with a higher alcohol content than that of as-sold beer. Sales strength is achieved by dilution with de-aerated brewing quality water. This technique results in energy savings because dilution water is not heated in the mashing and wort boiling processes. It also enables brewhouse and fermenting vessels to produce a higher quantity of sales strength beer than would otherwise result. 24 Ibid. Fermentation and Maturation After the wort has been cooled to the pitching temperature, oxygen is added. The wort is then pumped to the fermentation vessels (FVs) where yeast is added and fermentation starts. During fermentation, yeast converts sugar in wort to alcohol and carbon dioxide. The fermentation process is exothermic, and temperatures are carefully controlled according to process needs which often vary according to the nature of the product and region of production. The duration of the fermentation is determin ed by the product recipe. Carbon dioxide produced during fermentation may be collected for use in various brewery processes. Fermentation is stopped through rapid cooling of the FV, at which time the yeast is harvested and pumped to the storage tank. Fermentation produces more yeast than is typically required for the next batch. Therefore, part of the harvested yeast is disp osed of, often being used as animal feed. After fermen tation, the beer is pumped into tanks for maturatio n under controlled temperature conditions for several weeks. Beer Processing Filtration Following maturation, most beer is filtered to remove remaining yeast to obtain “bright beer” which has the specified level of clarity and prolonged shelf life. The filtration takes place in a kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) filter using frame, candle, or mesh filters. Spent kieselguhr can be used in farming, reprocessed, or as building material. Following filtration beer is stored in “bright beer tanks” and is ready for packaging in the bottling hall. Attachment 4 40 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 15 WORLD BANK GROUP Carbonation The beer may be carbonated before being sent to the bright beer tanks. Nitrogen gas may also be used in small quantities to enhance foam performance. Dilution High alcohol content beer resulting from high -gravity brewing is diluted to final product strength with de-aerated brewing-quality water before packaging. Cleaning-in-Place (CIP) It is important that all process equipment and pipes are kept clean and disinfected. Cleaning is carried out by means of CIP systems, where cleaning agents are circulated through the equipment or sprinkled over the surface of the tanks. Caustic soda or acid are often used as cleaning agents. The cleaning and disinfection of the brewery equipment may use a substantial amount of energy, water, cleaning agents, and disinfectants. The design of CIP systems can vary greatly, ranging from simple systems in which a batch of cleaning solutions is prepared and pumped through the system and drained, to fully automatic systems consisting of tanks for water and cleanin g solutions that make it possible to reuse some water and cleaning solutions. Packaging Operations Beer is pumped from the bright beer tanks and after dilution to sales strength is bottled, canned, or kegged in the packaging area . During the se operation s, it is important that the beer is protected from oxygen contact and carbon ation loss . Packaging lines may have different packaging materials and level s of automation, and typically produce high noise levels. Bottle Washing and Control Returned bottles are sorted electronically. Foreign bottles are returned to their respective manufacturers or crushed and sent to recycling. After sorting , bottles are sent to a bottle washer where all internal and external impurities are removed. Bottle washer operations typically include soaking and washing, high – temperature sterilization, and rinsing. The bottle washer consumes large quantities of energy, water, and caustic soda. Substantial quantities of wastewater are discharged and the effluent may have a high organic load . When a bottle has been cleaned, it is inspected for damage and residual dirt. Bottle Filling The bottles are transported by conveyor belts from the bottle washer to the filling machine. They are filled under pressure according to the quantity of dissolved carbon dioxide in the beer. An important function of the filling machine is to prevent oxygen from coming into contact with the beer. The bottles are sealed immediately after filling (usually with crown corks) and the filling volume is checked. The sealed bottles are then conveyed to the tunnel pasteurizer. Can Filling Can filling is based on the same principles as bottle filling. Because of their low weight, it is necessary to convey the cans gently to ensure constant spacing. Furthermore, special attention should be paid to the thin wall thickness and resulting low stability of the cans. Filling lines consume large quantities of electricity. Beer loss can occur on the filling line, contributing to the organic load of the effluent. Pasteurization Beer is usually pasteurized to kill any remaining live yeasts or other microorganisms and so prolong the shelf life. Two alternative methods are used for pasteurization: Attachment 4 41 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 16 WORLD BANK GROUP · Tunnel pasteurization, during which the beer is pasteurized in bottles or cans (i.e. the beer and container are pasteurized as a closed, assembled unit); · Flash pasteurization, which employs a heat exchanger in which the beer is pasteurized before it is filled into kegs. Labeling Following tunnel pasteurization, the bottles are conveyed to the labeler. Starch- or protein-based glues are used as adhesives to ensure labels come off easily when the returnable bottles are cleaned. Labeling lines consume large quantities of electricity. High noise levels can arise from the labeling line. Packing Bottles and cans are packed in crates, cartons, or other forms of transport packaging and palletized. Kegs are transported on pallets. Utilities Brewery processes have a high energy demand for heating and cooling purposes , in addition to high water consumption. Utility installations are therefore a key factor in th is sector. Brewery processes are typically supplied with heat from a steam boiler plant. Process cooling is usually provided by central ammonia - based refrigeration systems, which circulate ammonia or a secondary fluid (e.g. chilled water, brines or glycols) to the points where cooling is required. Compressed air is mainly used for instruments, actuators, pressurizing of tanks, and sometimes the transport of spent brewers grain. Water Treatment Plant Breweries typically draw water from wells or from surface intake at a lake or river, and use several different qualities of water, for example, brewing quality water for mashing, deaerated brewing water for dilution, softened water for utility systems and tunnel past eurizers, washdown water etc. For this reason, breweries often have several sophisticated water treatment facilities. CO2 Recovery Plant The CO2 generated during the fermentation process can be collected , cleaned and stored before being used in the process. CO2 is necessary for carbonation and to provide inert atmospheres as required by the process. Nitrogen Generation Breweries may use nitrogen instead of CO2 to provide inert atmospheres. Nitrogen can be generated on site from atmospheric a ir through a thermal or membrane separation technique or can be supplied in bulk from external sources. Electricity Supply Most breweries purchase electricity from the national grid, although some use cogeneration/combined heat and power (CHP) plants that produce both electricity and heat/steam. Attachment 4 42 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines BREWERIES APRIL 30, 2007 17 WORLD BANK GROUP Figure A.1: Supply Chain Process for Beer Production Raw material handling and stores Wort production Fermentation and maturation Beer processing Packaging Raw / ancillary materials Warehouse dispatch Distribution Process Attachment 4 43 CLIMATENSERVANCYCO THE 2 The Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale Some proprietary content (i.e. trade secrets) has been withheld from this version. 44 Contents Executive Summary 01 Definition of Terms 02 Introduction 04 The Climate Conservancy 04 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 04 Background of Beer LCA 04 Upstream 05 Packaging & Non-consumable Materials 05 Consumable Materials 09 Entity 20 Brewing Operations 20 Manufacturing Waste Disposal 22 Corporate Behavior 24 Downstream 26 Distribution 26 Retail 27 Use 28 Disposal 29 Conclusions 31 References 32 45 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 01 Executive Summary System boundaries of the assessed life cycle encompass acquisition and transport of raw materials, brewing opera- tions, business travel, employee communting, transport and storage during distribution and retail, use and disposal of waste. The carbon footprint of a 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale (FT), or the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during its life cycle, is 3,188.8 grams of CO2 equivalents (g CO2e). Of this total, emissions from New Belgium Brewing Company’s own operations and the disposal of waste produced therefrom account for only 173.0 g CO2e, or 5.4%. Upstream emissions during production and trans- portation of packaging materials and beer ingredients add up to 1,531.3 g CO2e, or 48.0% of total emissions. Down- stream emissions from distribution, retail, storage and disposal of waste account for the remaining 1,484.6 g CO2e, or 46.6% of the total. The largest line item in the tally of GHG emissions is electricity used for refrigeration at retail: 829.8 g CO2e. The next largest sources are production and transportation of glass and malt (including barley): 690.0 and 593.1 g CO2e, respectively. These three sources alone account for 68.4% of all emissions embodied in a 6-pack of FT. The bulk of remaining emissions are accounted for by produc- tion and transportation of paper and CO2 for carbonation, refrigeration in consumer’s homes, distribution transport, and natural gas consumed during brewing operations. These six sources account for another 25.1% of total emissions per 6-pack of FT. This report contains the results of work performed by The Climate Conservancy in cooperation with New Belgium Brewing Company to assess greenhouse gases emitted across the full life cycle of Fat Tire® Amber Ale. 3,188.8 g CO2e Retail Barley Use Distribution Glass Malt Brewing Operations All Other Sources CO2 Paper Figure 1. Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale showing major sources of GHG emissions by percentage of total emissions. 28.1% 21.6% 12.6% 6.0% 8.2% 8.4% 6.6% 3.9%2.3% 2.3% 46 Definition of Terms 6-pack Six glass bottles of 12 fluid ounce capacity each, packaged together in a paperboard carrier. Carbon Credits See “Offsets” Carbon Footprint The carbon footprint, or embodied carbon, of a product or service is the total amount of GHGs emitted across the life cycle of a product. Though there are non-CO2 GHGs that are included in the carbon footprint, the term arises from the most significant GHG: CO2 (carbon dioxide). Carbon Emission Factor see “Emission Coefficient” CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent. A unit of GHG emis- sions including non-CO2 gases that have been converted to an equivalent mass of CO2 according to their global warming potentials (see GWP below). Direct/Indirect These terms are used to refer to green- house gas emissions that are immediately related to an operation or process, such as by combustion of fuel or leakage of refrigerant hydrofluorocarbon (direct), or released during the prior production of material or genera- tion of electricity (indirect). In the context of the GHG Protocol of the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD), these terms are interchangeable with “Scope 1” “Scope 2/3” emissions, respectively. Emission Coefficient Fossil sources of energy entail GHG emissions. The mass of GHGs emitted during combustion of fuel or consumption of electricity that is derived from combustion of fossil fuels elsewhere can be calculated using an Emission Coefficient or “carbon emission factor.” The US Energy Information Administra- tion (EIA), the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affaris (DEFRA), and the World Resources Institute (WRI), all provide databases of Emission Coefficients. But note that the Emission Coefficients provided by these sources relate only to GHGs produced during combustion of fuel or consumption of electricity, and NOT the GHGs emitted during the production and delivery of that fuel or electricity. The Climate Conservancy02 Entity The business operation responsible for manufac- ture of the product being assessed FT Fat Tire® Amber Ale, a product and registered trademark of New Belgium Brewing Company g or gram 0.035 ounces or 0.0022 pounds GHGs Greenhouse Gases. TCC’s assessment tracks the six “Kyoto” gases regarded as most significant in terms of their climate impact: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluoro- carbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GWP Global Warming Potential. A number that is a nondimensional measure of the warming caused by non-CO2 greenhouse gases relative to an equivalent mass of CO2, defined over a specific period of time. For instance, methane has a 100-year global warming poten- tial of 25, meaning that over 100 years, a given mass of methane has the equivalent warming effect of 25 times as much CO2. Herein, we apply the 100-year global warming potentials prescribed in the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Programme on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2002. Hectare 2.47 acres Kg or kilogram 1,000 grams or 2.2 pounds LCA Life Cycle Assessment. An academic field concerned with the accounting of material and energy flows involved in the life cycle of a product or service, and the assessment of associated environmental impacts. TCC’s Climate Conscious Assessment is an LCA of GHGs. Mt or Metric Ton 1,000 kilograms or 2,204.6 pounds NBB New Belgium Brewing Company of Fort Collins, Colorado While we have tried to keep this report as free of jargon as possible, following are some abbreviations, terms and units that may not be familiar to all readers. 47 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 03 Offsets GHGs removed from the atmosphere (e.g. by growing trees) or prevented from escaping to the atmo- sphere (e.g. by capturing exhaust from power plants or gases released from landfills) have been commoditized by companies and organizations which market them as a means of “offsetting” comparable masses of greenhouse gases emitted elsewhere. Purchasers of offsets often seek to obtain amounts sufficient to compensate for all their direct emissions, thus making their product/service/activity “carbon neutral.” TCC’s assess- ment does not consider offsets, since we are seeking to quantify the GHGs emissions immediately related to the production system. RECs Renewable Energy Credits/Certificates. Electricity generated from renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar, geothermal) and fed into one of the national power grids is assumed to reduce demand for electricity generated from fossil fuels (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil) on a 1:1 basis. As such, there is a market for certificates representing electricity generated from renewable resources that effectively allows renewable sourcing of electricity at any location. TCC The Climate Conservancy, a non-profit located in Palo Alto, California Ton Where not specified Metric Ton or abbreviated Mt, “ton” refers to a short ton of 2,000 lbs. 48 Introduction The Climate Conservancy (TCC) is a California nonprofit corporation founded by concerned members of elite academic and business communities. Our mission is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by informing consumers of the relative climate impacts of products and services that they purchase on a daily basis. We achieve this by working in partnership with members of private industry to quantify the GHGs emitted during the life cycle of their companys’ product(s) using our Climate ConsciousTM assessment methodology and by offering assessed companies the licensed use of our Climate ConsciousTM label in connection with their product, provided certain criteria are met. Our objective in coupling life cycle assessments with an associated labeling program is to create a consumer driven and market-based mechanism that promotes the consumption of products with low GHG intensity and that provides companies with the ability to further differentiate their products in the market. Moreover, as GHG emissions become increasingly commoditized and regulated, our Climate ConsciousTM assessment tool will provide increas- ing value to companies that wish to better manage their GHG assets and liabilities. In concert, we believe our services to industry will play a significant role in, and provide an efficient means for the inevitable transition to a low carbon economy. The Climate Conservancy The Climate ConsciousTM Assessment is a product-level GHG inventory based on the principles of process life cycle assessment (LCA). TCC works with the companies whose products we assess to tally the GHGs emitted during the complete life cycle of their product. The life cycle of a product, as defined by the system boundaries of our LCA methodology, include the production of all raw and manufactured materials, conversion of those materials into finished products and co-products, processing of waste, product packaging, storage and transportation of products during distribution and retail, in-use emissions, disposal or recycling of the product, as well as immediate offset projects and any other innovative solutions of the company whose products are under assessment. Life Cycle Assessment This report was prepared for New Belgium Brewing Company to help the company manage greenhouse gas emissions throughout the supply chain of Fat Tire® Amber Ale. The Climate Conservancy04 Figure 2. Life cycle of a 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale Raw Material Acquisition Beer Manufacture Distribution and Retail Use (Consumption) Waste Disposal To our knowledge, there have been only a few attempts at performing an LCA of beer. Those that we were able to find are largely academic in nature and none attempted to quantify the GHG emissions associated with a particular brand of beer (Talve, 2001; Narayanaswamy et al., 2004; Garnett, 2007). Previous efforts have generally used either a more consequential approach in quantifying the GHG emissions associated with decisions made in the brewing process or have focused on the overall contribu- tion of the GHG emissions from the beer industry to the total emissions of all industries. Though the LCA method- ologies and system boundaries of previous assessments are quite similar to those defined and used by TCC, the influence of qualitative data and/or the incompleteness of certain other data make it difficult to compare previous results to the results of this assessment. Background of Beer LCA 49 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 05 Upstream Production of packaging materials using virgin inputs results in GHG emissions due to the extraction and transportation of raw materials, as well as the manufacture of the packaging material. Emissions from both the transportation of virgin inputs as well as the manufacturing process are included as part of the production of packag- ing materials. Production of packaging materials using recycled inputs generally requires less energy and is therefore preferable to the use of virgin materials. Though the transportation of material recovered for recycling also results in GHG emissions, these emissions are accounted for in the disposal phase (page 30). In this section, we consider GHGs emitted during the manufacture of packaging materials from recycled inputs based on analyses of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2006).1 Packaging & Non-consumable Materials Glass Emissions assessed in this section are those associated with the acquisition of raw materials and any pre-processing of those materials prior to their delivery to NBB. 1,531.3 g CO2e 853.3 g CO2e 1 Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks 2006 (available online at http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html) 2 This figure includes a scrap rate of 5%. NBB data, “6 Pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (Tranche 2) 3 Information throughout this section regarding mix of inputs used by NBB was provided by NBB during a telephone conversation with Jenn Orgolini on March 11, 2008 Virgin Inputs The raw materials used in glass production are: wet sand, soda, Chempure sand, limestone, dolomite, Calumite brand slag, nephylene syenite, feldspar, sodium sulphate, iron chromite and water. They are typically melted at 1400oC to form glass (Edwards and Schelling, 1999). GHG emissions result from quarrying raw materials, transportation, and fuel consumption in the production process. The combined process and transportation emissions resulting from glass manufacturing from 100% virgin inputs is 0.66 Mt CO2e per ton of glass produced (1 metric ton = 1,000 kilograms). The mass of glass in a 6-pack of FT is 1,210 g (2.67 lbs),2 hence the GHG emission is 724.5 g of CO2e. Distribution and Retail Production 688.2 g CO2e Recycled Inputs Glass produced using recycled inputs permits substan- tial energy savings because recycled glass cullet requires a lower melting temperature (1250oC) in the manufacturing process (Edwards and Schelling, 1999). Emissions resulting from producing glass using 100% recycled cullet is 0.33 Mt CO2e per ton, yielding 362.2 g of CO2e for the glass contained per 6-pack. Mix of inputs Products can be manufactured using a mix of virgin and recycled inputs. Although the national average percentage of recycled input in the production of glass is 23%, the mix of inputs used by Owens-Illinois, Inc. to manufacture bottles for NBB is 10% recycled.3 Using this figure for the mix of inputs, the weighted average GHG emission is then 688.2 g of CO2e for the produc- tion of glass contained in one 6-pack of FT. 690.0 g CO2e Barley Malt Paper All Other Sources Figure 3. Major sources of upstream GHG emissions by percentage of total upstream emissions. Glass CO2 Cardboard 50 The Climate Conservancy06 Paper Virgin Inputs Beer bottle labels and 6-pack carriers are composed of paper and paperboard, respectively. When 100% virgin inputs are used for the production of paper, GHG emissions during transportation and manufacture are 1.69 Mt CO2e per ton.5 Paperboard production is responsible for 1.17 Mt CO2e per ton.6 The weight of 6 labels is approximately 5.7 g (<0.01 lb) and the weight of one 6-pack carrier is approximately 95.3 g (0.21 lb).7 Production of these quantities using virgin inputs results in emissions of 8.7 g of CO2e for label paper and 101.4 g of CO2e per 6-pack carrier. Recycled Inputs Manufacture of packaging from recycled inputs gener- ate GHG emissions estimated to be 1.65 Mt CO2e per ton for paper production and 0.62 Mt CO2e per ton for paperboard. Material for one 6-pack thus represents 8.5 g of CO2e (paper) in addition to 53.9 g of CO2e (paperboard). Production 62.5 g CO2e 74.0 g CO2e Paper bottle labels are shipped 946 miles from LaCrosse, Wisconsin to NBB. Although the labels are shipped less than truck load (LTL) it is assumed that the majority of the travel distances are similar to that of the glass bottle shipment and the same assumptions apply. The entire trip consumes 150.16 gallons of diesel fuel that represents a total CO2 output of 1,771.67 kg. Allocating for the mass of the labels per 6-pack results in a total amount of 0.5 g of CO2. 6-pack carriers are shipped from the Sierra Pacific Packaging (SPP) plant in Oroville, California at a distance of 1,112 miles after being transported from Altivity Packaging in Santa Clara, California, a distance of 183 miles. Although SPP provided detailed informa- tion concerning their operations and shipping, we were not able to ascertain specific information concerning shipping (make, model, year and fuel economy). Using our standard shipping assumptions, the trips require 205.56 gallons of diesel fuel and correspond to a total of 2,425.27 kg of CO2 per trip. Each 6-pack carrier contributes 11.0 g of CO2 to that total. Transportation 11.5 g CO2 4 This figure is an average from McCallen 2006 (5.2 mpg), Huai et al. 2005 (6.6 mpg), Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies and Heavy Vehicle Industry Partners, DOE 1998 (7.0 mpg) 5 Using EPA’s estimate for magazine-style paper to allocate emissions to beer labels 6 Using EPA’s “broad paper definition” to estimate emissions resulting from 6-pack carrier production 7 Scrap rate equals 1% in the case of label paper and 5% for paperboard. NBB data, “6 Pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (Tranche 2) 8 Scrap rate equals 5%. NBB data, “6 Pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (Tranche 2) Twelve ounce brown glass bottles are delivered to NBB from Windsor, Colorado, a distance of 16 miles. These bottles are shipped by OTR (over the road) truck. Because specific information was not available , it is assumed in the calculations that the truck type is a Class 8 tractor-trailer with an average fuel efficiency of 6.3 mpg (miles per gallon),4 a maximum cargo weight of 20,000 kg and using standard diesel fuel. For a truck to be defined as a Class 8 truck, the minimum gross vehicle weight must be 15,000 kg. However, for profitability and in light of recent higher fuel costs, it is assumed herein that shippers are shipping at the maximum federal weight limit of 36,363 kg. The sixteen-mile trip requires 2.54 gallons of diesel fuel. The production and transportation of a gallon diesel fuel contributes 11.8 kg of CO2 to the environ- ment (West and Marland, 2002). The entire trip then emits 29.96 kg of CO2. Allocating this CO2 per 6-pack results in a total amount for the transportation of bottles of 1.8 g of CO2. Transportation 1.8 g CO2 Mix of inputs The national average percentage of recycled input in the production of paper is 4% and that of paperboard is 23%. However, inputs to FT are 0% and 100%, respectively, so that the weighted average GHG emissions for the paper and paperboard content of one 6-pack are 8.7 g of CO2e (paper) and 53.9 g of CO2e (paperboard). Cardboard Virgin Inputs The carton box that holds 4 6-packs is composed of corrugated cardboard. Its production from 100% virgin inputs results in a net GHG emission of 0.84 Mt of CO2e per ton of cardboard. The mass of corrugated cardboard allocated to one 6-pack is 60.1 g (0.13 lb, or ¼ of the total mass of a single carton box),8 which represents emission of 46.0 g of CO2e. Production 47.4 g CO2e 47.7 g CO2e 51 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 07 Steel 9 We assume crowns are made entirely of steel 10 Scrap rate equals 1%. NBB data, “6 Pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (Tranche 2) 11 Using the EPA’s estimates for steel cans 12 Trucks and Air Emissions Final Report September 2001 EPS 2/TS/14 Environmental Protection Service, Canada 13 Volvo Trucks and the Environment RSP20100070003 14 A Panamax ship has an average DWT of 65,000 tons and is this largest ship that can navigate the Panama Canal 15 www.searates.com Virgin Inputs Steel is used in beer bottle crowns.9 Six of these crowns weigh approximately 5.7 g (<0.01 lb).10 Manu- facturing steel products11 from 100% virgin inputs results in GHG emissions of 3.70 metric tones CO2e per ton. Transport and manufacture of the mass of steel associated with one 6-pack of FT thus represents 19.1 g of CO2e. Recycled Inputs Recycling of steel entails significantly less GHG emissions than manufacture from virgin inputs: 1.58 Mt of CO2e per ton. Producing 5.7 g of steel from recycled material results in 8.1 g of CO2e emissions. Production 16.0 g CO2e 17.4 g CO2e Recycled Inputs Process emissions during the manufacturing of card- board from 100% recycled inputs correspond to 0.92 Mt CO2e per ton. In this case, production of 0.13 lb of corrugated cardboard therefore results in 50.0 g of CO2e. Mix of inputs NBB inputs match the national average percentage of recycled input for the production of corrugated card- board is 35%. The weighted average GHG emission for the production of cardboard from this mix of inputs is 47.4 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. The corrugated cardboard coming from Temple Inland travels 65 milles from Wheat Ridge, Colorado to NBB, a journey that consumes 10.32 gallons of diesel fuel per truckload. A full truckload contributes 121.73 kg of CO2 and allocating this mass over the mass of the cardboard used in the production per 6-pack of FT creates 0.4 g of CO2. Transportation 0.4 g CO2e Mix of inputs Specific data regarding the mix of inputs used by the Pelliconi Group was not available. In the US, the average percentage of recycled input in steel products is 28%. Assuming a mix of virgin and recycled inputs is used, the weighted average of GHG emissions from the manufacturing of 6 steel crowns is 16.0 g of CO2e. Beer bottle crowns are manufactured in Atessa, Italy. Because only limited information regarding the shipping of crowns was provided by the Pelliconi Group, it has been assumed that the crowns are shipped by truck from Atessa to the port in Napoli, a distance of 111 miles via Class 8 truck (or named EU equivalent). Truck fleets in the EU have higher fuel efficiency than those in the United States, with a 2002 average of 7.1 mpg traveling at 63 miles per hour and 8.4 mpg traveling at 54 mph.12 Another source rates the 2002 Volvo truck within the EU at 7.8 mpg.13 Travel speeds in Italy are restricted to 61 mph, with trucks and buses restricted to even slower speeds, thus increasing the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. However, it is assumed that congestion will decrease the effective fuel efficiency of an EU fleet truck. The number assumed here is 1 mpg higher than the fuel efficiency of the US (6.3 mpg) or 7.3 mpg. With these figures, the diesel use from Atessa to Napoli is 15.21 gallons, a volume of fuel that generates 178.97 kg of CO2 (assuming that emission standards are equivalent for the US and the EU). Allocating the mass of the crowns used in a 6-pack results in 0.1 g of CO2. Once the crowns arrive in Napoli (or similar Italian port), they are transported by container ship to Newark, New Jersey over a distance of 4,157 nautical miles.14 Our calculations assume that the ship is a Panamax15 class, though if it were on a Post-Panamax class (larger) ship, emissions might be slightly less. Assum- ing that CO2 emissions are 12.57 kg of CO2 per gallon at a speed of 23 knots per hour and 70.86 gallons of bunker fuel per mile, the entire trip generates 4,000,618.03 kg of CO2. Allocating by weight of cargo, the transport of 5.6 g of crowns result in 0.4 g of CO2 emissions. Transportation 1.4 g CO2 52 The Climate Conservancy08 Wood Virgin Inputs Dimensional lumber is used in the production of wood pallets for easier packing and transportation of goods. Its production using virgin wood results in GHG emis- sions of 0.18 Mt CO2e per ton of wood. One 6-pack occupies a fraction of a pallet equal to 0.28%. The mass of lumber allocated to one 6-pack of FT is approximately 96.4 g (0.21 lb),16 which represents 16.0 g of CO2e from wood production. Recycled Inputs There is no reduction of GHG emissions due to recy- cling of lumber; emissions during recycling of lumber products are also 0.18 Mt CO2e per ton of wood. Production of 96.4 g of dimensional lumber from recycled material therefore results in the same 16.0 g of CO2e. Mix of inputs Dimensional lumber is not manufactured using a mix of recycled and virgin inputs. Production 16.0 g CO2e 16.0 g CO2e 16 Scrap rate equals 0.5%. NBB data, “6 Pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (Tranche 2) 17 Telephone conversation with Pacific Adhesives on February 28, 2008 Adhesive The adhesive used by NBB to apply paper labels to glass beer bottles is a combination of natural starch and synthetic resins.17 The adhesive is manufactured in batches in Sacramento, California. The most energy-intensive steps during manufacture are heating and steaming of the adhesive mixture. Reliable sources on the energy requirements of glue manufac- ture were not available. Emissions during its manufac- ture are instead estimated using the known carbon emissions factor for the production of resin-based LDPE (2.35 Mt CO2e per ton of LDPE), which we believe to be a liberal estimate in this case. Based on this assumption, GHG emissions resulting from produc- tion of label adhesive used per 6-pack are 7.5 g CO2e. Note that many manufacturers use casein-based glues to apply paper labels to glass bottles (Ciullo, 1996; Fairley, 2005). Casein is a protein obtained from bovine milk, and is generally imported to the US from eastern Europe or New Zealand (Richert, 1974; Kelly, 1986; Southward, 2008). As a product of the dairy industry (which is a large source of CH4 emissions) that is shipped from overseas, casein glues are likely to entail greater CO2e emissions that the glue used by NBB. Production 7.5 g CO2e 7.6 g CO2e From Newark, the crowns are transported via Class 8 truck to NBB over a distance of 1,767 miles. This trip will consume 280.48 gallons of diesel fuel and emit 3,309.24 kg of CO2. The 5.6 g of crowns will account for 0.9 g of CO2. Wooden pallets from Rocky Mountain Battery and Recycling travel only one mile to NBB that consumes 0.16 gallons in a Class 8 truck. The trip thus consti- tutes an emission of 1.87 kg of CO2. Allocating the 96.4 lb of pallet associated with one 6-pack of beer is 0.01 g of CO2. Contributions of less than 0.01 g CO2 are counted as effectively nothing throughout this report. Transportation 0 g CO2 Label glue and hot melt glue used for cases come from Sacramento, California and Eden Prarie, Minnesota, respectively. Assuming that the density of label glue is near 1 g per mL, the 0.95 mL of glue for each 6-pack would weigh 0.95 g. Over the 1,101 miles from Sacra- mento, California to NBB, the transportation of the glue would emit 0.07 g of CO2. The amount of hot melt glue used to secure cases was not provided to TCC. However, by assuming that the density and mass of the glue used is similar to that of the label glue, we have assumed that the transporta- tion of this glue would emit 0.07 g of CO2, for an adhesive total of 0.1 g of CO2 per 6-pack. Transportation 0.1 g CO2e 53 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 09 Plastic 18 Scrap rate equals 1%. NBB data, “6 Pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (Tranche 2) 19 Per crop reports of the US Department of Agriculture: www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdgetreport.aspx?hidReportRetrievalName=BVS&hidReportRetrievalID=885&hidReportRetrievalTemplateID=1 20 See note of Jackson, G., soil scientist at the University of Montana’s Western Triangle Ag. Research Center, Conrad, MT: http://landresources.montana.edu/FertilizerFacts/24_Nitrogen_Fertiliztion_of_Dryland_malt_Barley.htm 21 www.ag.ndsu.edu/ibms/newsletters/IBMS%20Newsletter%20Dec%2006.pdf Virgin Inputs The basic ingredients in all plastics are resins derived from petroleum oil or natural gas. Other chemical additives are mixed with the melted resin to form the final plastic product. Production of low-density polyeth- ylene (LDPE), 230 mg (0.23 g or 0.002 lb) of which is used as stretch-wrap per 6-pack of FT,18 from 100% virgin materials (including manufacture and transporta- tion) causes emission of 2.35 Mt CO2e per ton of LDPE produced. GHG emissions allocated to one 6-pack are then 0.5 g of CO2e. Recycled Inputs Different types of plastic resins have different molecular structure and yield various finished products. The different molecular structures cause plastics not to mix when melted, so that they need to be separated from each other prior to recycling in order for the recycled resin to be of high quality. In the case of LDPE, processing of recycled material results in emission of 0.15 Mt CO2e per ton of plastic produced. Thus, the manufacture of stretch-wrap material associated with one 6-pack results in 10 mg (0.001 g) of CO2e emis- sions. Mix of inputs The national average percentage of recycled input in the production of LDPE is 4%. Using this mix of inputs, we estimate 0.2 g of CO2e emissions per 6-pack of FT. Production 0.5 g CO2e 0.5 g CO2e Shrink wrap supplied by Katzke in Denver, Colorado is transported 65 miles to NBB, a trip that consumes 10.32 gallons of diesel fuel. This amount of diesel emits a total of 121.73 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and allocated to an individual 6-pack amounts to 0.01 g of CO2. Transportation 0 g CO2 Consumable Materials 678.0 g CO2e Malt 593.9 g CO2e Barley Agriculture 394.1 g CO2e Cultivation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) results in GHGs emitted during production of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and soil amendments, operation of farm equipment (including irrigation) and emissions from the soil (Lal, 2004a). While storage of organic carbon (C) in the soil may theoretically offset emissions, the required management practices are not widely used (West and Marland, 2002; Lal, 2004b; Mosier et al., 2005). Nationwide, yield per cultivated hectare of barley in 2006 was 3.28 Mt (3,281.85 kg).19 In the calculations below, we use this figure to allocate emissions during agriculture to a given mass of barley. It should be noted that malt barley yields are typically less than feed barley, where more nitrogenous fertilizer may be applied without concern for protein content and kernel plumpness.20 However, because roughly two-thirds of the US barley grown in 2006 was malt barley,21 we believe the national yield statistics are representative. There is a potential for agricultural lands to reduce carbon emissions and even sequester atmospheric carbon as organic carbon in the soil by adopting no-till techniques, integrating fertilizer and pest control practices, and increasing the efficiency of irrigation systems (West and Marland, 2002; Lal, 2004b). However, conventional farming practices are carbon intensive and also quite disruptive to soil carbon reservoirs used (West and Marland, 2002; Lal, 2004b; Mosier et al., 2005). Though we have quantified GHGs emitted throughout agricultural production, we do not assess soil carbon storage owing to the high degree of variability associated with exchanges of soil carbon (depending heavily on such details as soil type, the time-distribution of irrigation water, and the speed of plowing). 54 The Climate Conservancy10 22 Recommended seed application supplied by North Dakota Barley Council for malt spring barley: http://www.ndbarley.net/malt_barley.html and North Dakota State University Agriculture Communction: http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsrelease/2001/031501/06seedin.htm 23 See http://www.prairiemaltltd.com/maltingprocess.html for discussion of the ratio of barley to malt 24 See, www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/NDbarley.html, www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/entupdates/ICG_08/02_BarleyInsects08.pdf, and www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/pests/pp622/pp622.pdf 25 See the publication of the American Malting Barley Association describing harvesting methods to prevent damage to kernels of malting barley: www.ambainc.org/pub/Production/Harvesting.pdf 26 See, e.g., the article by Jackson, G. (infra note 20) 27 Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 28 See, http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/irr1245 29 USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture (infra note 27) In the US, North Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Minnesota produce the bulk of malt barley, and barley is generally planted in spring as soon as a seedbed can be prepared. Emissions during produc- tion of barley seed have been previously estimated at 1.47 kg CO2e per kg seed (West and Marland, 2002). Recommended seed application is between 72.85 and 145.72 kg per hectare (1 hectare = 2.47 acres).22 Thus, seed for a single hectare relate to emissions of between 106.85 and 213.72 kg CO2e. Using the upper estimate of CO2e emissions and the average yield in 2006, 65.1 g of CO2e emissions from seed production were embodied in each kilogram of barley crop. Assuming a ratio of barley:malt of 4:3, the 618 g of barley used to brew a 6-pack of FT account for 40.3 g of CO2e emissions.23 Seed Production 40.3 g CO2e Tillage, planting, spreading, spraying and harvesting typically entail agricultural machinery which require energy (Lal, 2004a). Sowing, Spreading, Spraying, Harvesting Other farm operations that require fuel are planting, spreading of fertilizer, spraying of fertilizers and pesti- cides, and harvesting. CO2e emissions per hectare for different operations are shown in Table 1. Because statistical data of farm practices of US barley growers was not available, we assume: (1) planting was on a conventionally tilled (CT) seedbed, (2) fertilizers were broadcast in granular form on all of the barley crop in separate applications, (3) pesticides were sprayed in the same proportion as for barley grown in North Dakota,24 and (4) harvesting was 50% straight combin- ing and 50% combined after windrowing.25 Using these assumptions, CO2e emissions from farm opera- tions per 6-pack of FT total 23.9 g. Agricultural Machinery Production 48.3 g CO2e While barley may be grown in dryland environments without irrigation,26 data from the USDA’s 2002 Census of Agriculture indicates that 77% of barley cultivated in the US is from irrigated farms.27 Protein content requirements of grain intended for malting may mean the percentage of irrigated malt barley is even higher.28 Typical supplemental irrigation of 25 to 50 cm (Franzluebbers and Francis, 1995) relates to CO2e emissions of between 26.4 to 3,117.4 kg per hectare, depending on the source of energy and specific factors of the irrigation system (Dvoskin et al., 1976; Schlesinger, 1999; Follet, 2001; West and Marland, 2002). Besides application of water, the installation of different irrigation systems may demand energy annually. In 2003, 71% of irrigated barley received water from pressure distribution systems, most often from “center pivot and linear move” sprinkle systems (43% of total irrigated crops), and 29% were watered from gravity-fed systems.29 Irrigation 61.6 g CO2e Tillage Mechanical preparation of the seedbed requires fuel for operating farm equipment. Fuel use depends upon depth of tillering, soil density, tractor speed, the type of tilling equipment used, and the size the tractor used (Collins et al., 1976; Collins et al., 1980; Lal, 2004a). Lal (2004a) compiled and published average CO2e emissions from multiple studies, breaking out emis- sions by equipment type. Statistical data of tillage practices of US barley growers was not available. Instead, Table 2 shows average emissions related to conventional tillage (moldboard plow), reduced tillage (chisel plow or disking) and no-till (drill only), allocated to a 6-pack of FT based on 2006 barley yield. For the final calculations, we have assumed conventional tillage was practiced, emitting 24.4 g of CO2e. 55 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 11 Table 1. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from miscellaneous farm operations during cultivation of malt barley (total reflect assump- tions noted in text) kg CO2e per hectareaOperation g CO2e per 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale Planting Plant/Sow/Drill No-Till Planting Total a Lal (2004a) b Because K fertilizer is not frequently applied, only two applications are included c Average of “Corn and Soybean Combines” reported by Lal (2004) and the “Harvest Combine” reported by West and Marland (2002) Fertilizer Spreading Combined Application Separate Applications (x2)b Total Harvesting Harvesting Windrower Total Pesticide Spraying (Total) Grand Total 11.7 13.9 2.2 2.2 2.6 29.0c 17.6 7.8 9.5 3.3 27.9 55.7 5.3 10.5 10.5 5.1 1.8 23.9 Table 2. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from different tillage practices in the cultivation of malt barley kg CO2e per hectareaTillage g CO2e per 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale Conventional Till Moldboard Plowing Disking (x2) Total aLal (2004a) Reduced Till Total No Till Chisel Plow Total (avg) 21.3 29.0 4.0 4.7 5.5 Field Cultivation Rotary Hoeing 55.7 51.7 10.5 24.4 9.7 14.7 2.8 7.3 1.4 129.4 Disking (x2) Field Cultivation Rotary Hoeing 51.7 9.7 13.9 14.7 2.8 7.3 1.4 73.7 Disking (x1) OR 25.1 56 The Climate Conservancy12 30 The emissions factor for water application represents an average of data from all of the cited studies 31 An example of how growers determine appropriate N fertilizer requirements of barley is described by a study from the University of Idaho and Washington State University: http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/pdf/CIS/CIS0920.pdf 32 This assumption is premised on the guidance of the University of Idaho/Washington State University study (infra, note 5) and the University of Minnesota extension service: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC3773.html 33 Recommended ratio of fertilizer N to yield of dryland (2-row) malting barley supplied by Grant Jackson, soil scientist at the University of Montana’s Western Triangle Ag. Research Center, Conrad, MT: http://landresources.montana.edu/FertilizerFacts/24_Nitrogen_Fertiliztion_of_Dryland_malt_Barley.htm 34 This assumption is premised on the guidance of the University of Idaho/Washington State University study (infra, note 5) and the University of Minnesota extension service: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC3773.html 35 Ibid. Nitrogen Commonly, contracts for malt barley specify a minimum of 75% kernel plumpness. Because plumpness is related to fertilization and yield, spring barley intended for malting demands somewhat less nitrogen (N) than feed barley. Application rate of N fertilizer is generally determined with regard to soil test results and the preceding crop.31 For purposes of this assessment we assume urea-N fertilizer is applied in moderation to achieve average yield, at a rate of 95.0 kg per hectare (85 lbs per acre).32 This is consistent with a ratio of N to barley of ~2.9 to 100.33 Production of nitrogenous fertilizer is energy intensive, as fixation of atmospheric N2 means breaking a strong triple bond at the molecular level. Previous studies of N fertilizer estimate 4.8 ± 1.1 kg of CO2e emissions per kg of fertilizer produced, transported, stored and transfer to location of use (Lal, 2004a; Samarawick- rema and Belcher, 2005). Based on 2006 barley yield, this amounts to 138 g of CO2e per kilogram of barley, or 85.3 g per 6-pack of FT. Phosphorus Barley has a relatively low demand for phosphorus (P), and where soil analysis shows very high residual phosphate, application of P fertilizer may not be required.34 In most cases, however, P fertilizer is applied. The recommended application rate depends on soil testing, but for purposes of this assessment we assume P fertilizer is applied in moderation to achieve average yield, at a rate of 44.8 kg P2O5 per hectare (40 lbs per acre).35 Fertilizer and Soil Amendments 123.2 g CO2e Weighting the proportion of dryland crops and irrigation methods used in the US, the average of CO2e emis- sions associated with barley irrigation over a 6 month growing season is 23.7 kg per hectare for irrigation system installation (Batty and Keller, 1980; Lal, 2004a), and 303.4 kg per hectare for water application (Dvoskin et al., 1976; ITRC, 1994; Follet, 2001; West and Marland, 2002).30 Using 2006 barley yield statistics described above, we find 61.6 g of CO2e from barley irrigation are embodied in a 6-pack of FT. Production, transport, storage and transfer of phos- phatic fertilizer has been determined to cause 0.73 ± 0.22 kg of CO2e per kg of fertilizer (Lal, 2004a). This represents 10.0 g of CO2e per kilogram of barley, or 6.2 g per 6-pack of FT. Potassium Barley also has a low demand for potassium (K), and application of K fertilizer is often not required.36 How- ever, for purposes of this assessment we assume K fertilizer is applied in moderation to achieve average yield, at a rate of 67.25 kg K2O per hectare (60 lbs per acre).37 Production, transport, storage and transfer of potassic fertilizer has been determined to cause 0.55 ± 0.22 kg of CO2e per kg of fertilizer (Lal, 2004a). This repre- sents 11.3 g of CO2e per kilogram of barley, or 7.0 g per 6-pack of FT. Micronutrients and Lime Very rarely, barley requires addition of sulfur or copper fertilizer. For purposes of this assessment, we have assumed none. Soil pH less than 5.3 can significantly diminish barley yields. Amendment of soil with agricultural lime (CaCO3) at the rate of 2.2 to 4.5 Mt per hectare (1 to 2 short tons per acre)38 may improve yields on acidic soils (Tang and Rengel, 2001). The benefits of such liming persist for at least 15 years (Tang and Rengel, 2001). Production, transport, storage and transfer of lime has been determined to cause 0.59 ± 0.40 kg of CO2e per kg of lime (Lal, 2004a). Assuming an average applica- tion of 3.4 Mt per hectare and 2006 yields over a 15 year period, this amounts to 40.1 g of CO2e per kg of barley, or 24.8 g per 6-pack of FT. 57 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 13 36-38 Ibid. 39 See, e.g., www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/NDbarley.html, www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/entupdates/ICG_08/02_BarleyInsects08.pdf, and www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/pests/pp622/pp622.pdf 40 Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) 41 Vertical Coordination In The Malting Barley Industry: A ‘Silver Bullet’ For Coors? Michael Boland, Gary Brester, and Wendy Umberger Prepared for the 2004 AAEA Graduate Student Case Study Competition Denver, Colorado August 1-2, 2004 42 Personal communication with Thomas Richardson, Coors Brewing Company with February 14, 2008 43 This distance represents an average of the distances between Coors and grain elevators in Burley, Huntley, Worland and Monte Vista. A host of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides are routinely used on barley seed and growing barley. We examined the carbon intensity of such treatment in detail based on reported emissions for production and transport of these chemicals (Lal, 2004a), the percent- age of barley treated, and prescribed application rates.39 In the end, the GHGs associated with these chemicals are vanishingly small when allocated to a single 6-pack of FT (~0.01 g). Pesticides 0 g CO2e Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted directly from cultivated soils depending on the amount and type of N fertilizer applied, the type and yield of crop, and the methods of tillage and managing of crop residues (Samarawickrema and Belcher, 2005; IPCC, 2006). IPCC guidelines suggest that ~1% of N added in synthetic and organic fertilizers is volatilized as N2O. N2O is a powerful GHG, with a global warming potential 298 times that of CO2.40 As such, N2O soil emissions related to the application of N fertilizer at the rate determined above and the incorporation of N in crop residues correspond to 112.4 g of CO2e emissions per 6-pack of FT. In addition, some soil nitrogen is volatilized as NH3 or NOx, which, when later deposited onto other soils or surface waters. This atmospherically deposited N becomes part of the system again, and a proportion of it becomes N2O (IPCC, 2006). Based on IPCC estimates of the percentage of fertilizer N that follows this indirect pathway to N2O, an additional 8.4 g of CO2e emissions per 6-pack of FT originate from soil N (IPCC, 2006). Soil Emissions 120.8 g CO2 Barley Transport 8.0 g CO2e Barley is purchased either as a commodity on the open market or from previously approved growers, as in the case of malt purchased by Coors Brewing Company (Coors). One of Coors’ trademarks is that of a com- pletely integrated regional brewer who sources all of its malting barley needs directly from producers through the use of production contracts.41 However, in times of drought or poor general barley quality, malting opera- tions must look farther from Colorado into Canada for barley. Because of the commoditized nature of barley and the potential of varying supply and quality from approved growers, the GHG emitted during its transpor- tation can only be estimated very roughly. Because 2006 was a drought year in Colorado, Coors received shipments of barley by rail from grain elevators in Burley, Idaho; Huntley, Montana; Worland, Wyoming and Monte Vista, Colorado and by truck from the grain elevator in Longmont, Colorado.42 Barley transported by train travels a distance of 490 miles,43 while grain transported by truck is transported only 45 miles. Assuming each grain elevator contributed an equal share of barley to NBB, and taking the fuel economy of freight trains as 423 MPG per short ton (AAR, 2008; cf. Börjesson, 1996), the 618 g of barley necessary to produce the 463.5 g of malt used per 6-pack of FT contributes 8.0 g of CO2 emissions. Malt Production 166.8 g CO2e Malt manufacturers steep, germinate, and dry barley in order to produce malt. These steps require energy in the form of electricity and natural gas to warm the water used for steeping, to control the air temperature for germination, and to dry, cure, and roast the malt (Briggs, 1998). Data gathered from both primary and secondary sources yielded remarkably consistent estimates of GHG emissions (mean 120.19 g CO2, 1σ = 7.49). Because primary data from all malt suppliers was not available, we elected to use primary data where applicable to a specific malt type and take an average of both primary and secondary findings for those malt types where no primary information was available. 58 The Climate Conservancy14 44 NBB data, “BOM for life cycle study.xls” (Tranche 1) 45 Version 2.1 (2006) of the Energy Information Administration’s eGRID database indicates that 1,986 lbs of CO2 are emitted per MWh of electricity generated in the state of Colorado. Average GHGs emitted in the life cycle of fuels prior to their combustion to generate electricity have also been included (Table 2 of West and Marland, 2002). 46 http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/partners/pdfs/esa-025-1.pdf 47 http://www.rahr.com/index.geni?mode=content&id=177 48 Version 2.1 (2006) of the Energy Information Administration’s eGRID database indicates that 1,588 lbs of CO2 are emitted per MWh of electricity generated in the state of Minnesota. Average GHGs emitted in the life cycle of fuels prior to their combustion to generate electricity have also been included (Table 2 of West and Marland, 2002). 49 Version 2.1 (2006) of the Energy Information Administration’s eGRID database indicates that 1,814 lbs of CO2 are emitted per MWh of electricity generated in the MRO West subregion (which includes most of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa). In addition, we have included average GHGs Coors Brewing Company In 2006, NBB obtained 60% of the Two Row malt used in FT produced from Coors.44 In turn, Two Row malt made up 67.9%, or 314.9 g, of the malt contained in each 6-pack of FT. According to a TCC survey com- pleted by Coors, production of 100 pounds of Two Row malt required 6.79 kWh of electricity and 0.165 mmBTUs (1.65 therms) of natural gas. Assuming this energy intensity applied to the production of all 314.9 g of Two Row malt in a 6-pack of FT, 44.4 g of CO2e relate to electricity consumed45 and 69.5 g correspond to natural gas used, for a total of 113.8 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. TCC was not able to obtain comparable information from Briess Malt and Ingredients Company, which company supplies the remaining 32.1%, or 148.6 g, of malt per 6-pack of FT. However, if the energy intensity of Coors’ process is assumed for all 463.5 g of malt per 6-pack of FT, 20.9 and 32.8 g of CO2e result from electricity and natural gas use, respectively, totaling 167.6 g CO2e for all the malt in a 6-pack of FT. Rahr Malting Company Though NBB did not purchase malt from Rahr Malting Company (Rahr) in the year 2006, TCC was able to obtain information about actual energy requirements of Rahr’s malting process for comparison with secondary source data. According to a report by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division of the US Department of Energy, the Rahr malthouse located in Shakopee, Minnesota consumed 1,100 million cubic feet of natural gas (approximately 11,000,000 therms) and 66,000,000 kWh of electricity in 2005.46 The same Rahr malthouse annually produces 370,000 Mt of malt.47 This translates into 29.7 therms of natural gas and 178.4 kWhs of electricity per metric ton of malt produced, or 146.5 g of CO2 to produce the 463.5 g of malt in a 6-pack of FT.48 Primary Source Data Owing to a lack of primary source data for all the malts types contained in FT, TCC conducted further research of the energy requirements of the malting process in order to understand whether different types of malt might entail greater or less GHG emissions. Following are estimates derived from this research, the sum of which is remarkably similar the total emissions estimated from the primary source data described above. Steeping Steeping requires roughly 1 therm of natural gas per metric ton of malt produced (Briggs, 1998). Based on life cycle emissions of 6.06 kg CO2e per therm of natural gas (see Table 3, page 22), steeping 463.5 g of malt in a 6-pack of FT results in 2.8 g of CO2e emis- sions. Germination After steeping, the barley must germinate, requiring energy to maintain the proper temperature of the grain and ventilate the germination units. Heating the germination units requires less than 1 therm of natural gas per metric ton of malt produced, or less than 2.8 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. In some cases, germination units are refrigerated, requiring as much as 60 kWh of electricity per metric ton of malt produced (Briggs, 1998). Assuming this electricity is generated in the region where the bulk of US malt barley is grown, as much as 24.0 g of CO2 emissions result from refrigera- tion of 463.5 g of malt.49 Fans in the germination units also require between 25 and 40 kWh per metric ton of malt produced (Briggs, 1998). This translates to between 10.0 and 16.0 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. Assuming the likelihood of heating and refrigeration during germination are equal and an average of 32.5 kWh of electricity is consumed by ventilation systems, 26.4 g of CO2e are emitted to germinate the malt in a 6-pack of FT. Secondary Source Data 59 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 15 50 Per crop reports of the US Department of Agriculture: www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Hops/hops06.pdf 51 Calculated using figures from Table 1 of West and Marland (2002) and assuming the energy content of diesel #2 and gasoline to be 0.03868 and 0.03466 GJ per liter, respectively Using similar calculations to those detailed in the packaging section with the same emission coefficients and shipping methods (Class 8 truck), the malt received from Coors, Prairie Malt, Ltd. (Prairie), Inter- national Malting Company (IMC) and Briess Malt and Ingredients Co. (Briess) constitute 1.3 g, 9.0 g, 8.4 g and 15.0 g of CO2 respectively. Of the entire amount of malt used in the production of FT, 40.5% is Coors Two Row, 27.0% Prairie or IMC (a 50% likelihood of either was used in the calculations) and 32.4% Briess Munich, Caramel, Carapils and Victory malts. The weighted average of transportation emissions for malt transportation for a 6-pack of FT is 25.0 g CO2. Fuel Use Drying and Roasting After germination, the green malt is first dried and then roasted in a kiln, which is the most energy-intensive processes in malting. Drying requires approximately 4 therms of natural gas per metric ton of malt, or 11.2 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. Depending on the efficiency of the kiln and the amount of roasting required, between 30 and 60 therms of natural gas are required to roast a metric ton of malt. This amounts to between 84.3 and 168.6 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. Some kilns incorporate fans which consume up to 75 kWh per metric ton of malt produced (Briggs, 1998). GHG emissions associated with this electricity amount to as much as 30.0 g of CO2e to produce the amount of malt in a 6-pack of FT. Assuming half of malting kilns use fans, the drying and roasting of malt for a 6-pack of FT result in an average 182.0 g of CO2e emissions. Malt Transport 25.0 g CO2e Hop Agriculture 5.4 g CO2e As with barley, the cultivation of hops (Humulus lupulus) results in GHGs emitted during production of fertilizers, pesticides and soil amendments, operation and installa- tion of farm equipment (including irrigation) and emis- sions from the soil (Lal, 2004a). The bulk of hops grown in the US are from the Yakima and Willamette Valleys of Washington and Oregon, respectively. This is the case for nearly all the hop varieties in FT, with the exception of Target hops, which are grown in a similar climate in the UK. In the US, yield per cultivated hectare of hops in 2006 was 2.20 Mt (2,201.4 kg).50 In the calculations below, we use this Hops 5.7 g CO2e Hop farms (“yards”) operate machinery for planting, spraying, pruning and harvesting, and maintain drip irrigation systems, all of which demand energy (Lal, 2004a). A study compiled in 1999 lists equipment and fuel used on a representative hop farm in the Yakima Valley of Washington (Hinman, 1999). Equipment used in a representative hop yard included loaders, cutters, trucks, and tractorized equipment for spraying, spread- ing and pruning. Fuel consumption by this equipment amounted to 56.1 and 31.8 gallons per cultivated hectare (22.7 and 14.4 gallons per acre) of diesel #2 and gasoline, respectively. Emissions factors for diesel #2 and gasoline (including extraction, refining and transport) are 11.78 and 10.23 kg CO2 per gallon, respectively.51 Based on the average yield of hops in 2006, operation of farm equipment therefore resulted in 470 g of CO2 emis- sions per kilogram of hops. The 2.3 g of hops used in the production of FT thus embody 1.1 g of CO2. Agricultural Machinery Nitrogen The application rate of N fertilizer to aroma hop bines averages 140 kg per hectare (125 lbs per acre).53 As noted previously, the production of nitrogenous fertilizer is quite energy intensive, with an estimated 4.8 ± 1.1 kg of CO2e emissions per kg of N fertilizer produced, transported, stored and transfer to location of use (Lal, 2004a). Based on 2006 hops yield, this amounts to 303 g of CO2e per kilogram of hops, or 0.7 g per 6-pack of FT. Fertilizer and Soil Amendments 1.4 g CO2e Irrigation Most hop yards in the US are irrigated by drip (or trickle) systems.52 Annual GHG emissions associated with the installation of such systems is estimated to be 311.3 kg CO2e per hectare per year (Lal, 2004a). Application of water by this method is quite efficient relative to sprinkle systems; CO2e emissions per irrigated hectare per year are estimated to be 792 kg (ITRC, 1994). Assuming all hops in FT were irrigated in this manner, and again using 2006 yield data, the 2.3 g of hops used in producing a 6-pack of FT relate to a total of 1.2 g CO2e from irrigation of hop bines. figure to allocate emissions during agriculture to a given mass of hops. 1.2 g CO2e 1.1 g CO2e 60 The Climate Conservancy16 52 See, eg., http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/wahops.html 53 This represents an average based on the fertilizer recommendations at: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/hop.html and http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/fg/fg79-e.pdf 54 See, e.g., http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/fg/fg79-e.pdf 55-59 Ibid. 60 Application rates are described in http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/orhops.html Phosphorus Hops in the Pacific Northwest generally do not require significant phosphorus (P) inputs; only where soil analysis shows <30 ppm is application of P fertilizer recommended.54 In this case, the recommended applica- tion rate of P fertilizer is between 67 and 112 kg P2O5 per hectare (60 to 100 lbs per acre).55 Production, transport, storage and transfer of phosphatic fertilizer has been determined to cause 0.73 ± 0.22 kg of CO2e per kg of fertilizer (Lal, 2004a). Assuming that P fertilizer is necessary only 50% of the time at an average rate of 89.7 kg per hectare, 29.9 g of CO2e are emitted per kilogram of harvested hops, or 0.1 g per 6-pack of FT. Potassium Soils in the Pacific Northwest frequently contain ample potassium (K) for hops cultivation.56 However, fertilization is sometimes required, and here we assume K fertilizer is applied at the moderate rate of 134. 5 kg K2O per hectare (120 lbs per acre).57 Production, transport, storage and transfer of potassic fertilizer is estimated to result in 0.55 ± 0.22 kg of CO2e emissions per kg of fertilizer (Lal, 2004a). This represents 33.6 g of CO2e per kilogram of harvested hops, or 0.1 g per 6-pack of FT. Micronutrients and Lime In some circumstances, hop yards require addition of sulfur, boron, or zinc fertilizer. However, for purposes of this assessment, we have assumed none. Soil pH less than 5.7 can prevent absorption of manga- nese (Mn) by growing hop bines, thereby diminishing yield.58 Amendment of soil with agricultural lime (CaCO3) at the rate of 2.24 to 6.73 Mt per hectare (1 to 3 short tons per acre) is recommended where soil pH is less than 5.7.59 The benefits of such liming persist for at least several years. Production, transport, storage and transfer of lime has been determined to cause 0.59 ± 0.40 kg of CO2e per kg of lime (Lal, 2004a). Assuming an average application of 4.48 Mt per hectare and 2006 yields over a 5 year period, this amounts to 239 g of CO2e per kilogram of barley, or 0.6 g per 6-pack of FT. Hop growers use a variety of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides to deter aphids, works, caterpillars, beetles, weevils, mites, weeds and molds. The carbon intensity of such treatments was assessed in detail based on reported emissions for production and transport of these chemicals (Lal, 2004a), the percent- age of the hops crop treated, and prescribed applica- tion rates.60 As with barley, the GHGs associated with these chemicals are vanishingly small when allocated to a single 6-pack of FT: <0.001 g CO2e per 6-pack of FT. Soil Emissions Again applying IPCC guidelines to calculate N2O soil emissions related to the application of N fertilizer at the average rate of 140.1 kg per hectare in addition to N from incorporated crop residues, we estimate 0.8 g of CO2e emissions per 6-pack of FT. Soil nitrogen volatilized as NH3 or NOx and subse- quently re-deposited and denitrified to N2O result in an additional 0.1 g of CO2e emissions per 6-pack of FT (IPCC, 2006). 0.9 g CO2e Drying and Packing After harvest, hop bines are transported from the yard to a “hop house,” or barn, where the cones are dried, cooled, and packaged. Drying takes place in a box kiln wherein hot air (~145 ºF) is passed through the hop cones for approximately 8 hours until their moisture content of the hops has been reduced from 65-80% to 8-10%. The drying of harvested hops is the most energy intensive process in the production of hops. The cooling process does not require significant energy as the hop cones are removed to a separate room and cooled for 12-24 hours. Increasingly, hops are com- pressed and palletized after cooling, which processing requires more energy but which may reduce transpor- tation costs during distribution. Hop cones, such as those used by NBB, are typically baled with the help of a hydraulic press. Suppliers of hops to NBB were not responsive to our requests for data, and secondary data regarding the specific energy requirements of drying were scarce. 0.9 g CO2e Pesticides 0 g CO2e 61 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 17 61 A Panamax ship has an average DWT of 65,000 tons and is this largest ship that can navigate the Panama Canal 62 Personal communication with the distributor for Hops From England, Crosby and Baker LTD Hop Transport 0.3 g CO2e The hops used to produce FT (Goldings, Target and Willamette) are supplied by S.S. Steiner, John I. Haas (distributed by HopUnion USA) and Hops From England. The 0.2 g of CO2 emitted from the transportation of Willamette and Goldings hops from S.S. Stenier by semi-truck from a distance of 1,107 miles is equal to that of the 0.2 g of CO2 emissions from HopUnion USA at 1,109 miles. Determining the transportation emissions of the Target hops acquired from Hops From England presents a greater challenge. These hops are grown at ‘The Farm’ Bosbury, Ledbury, Herefordshire, UK and shipped to a port in the UK, then by sea to Washington state and then to NBB. It is assumed that semi-truck shipping from ‘The Farm” Bosbury, Ledbury, Hereford- shire UK to Bristol, UK, Panamax container ship61 transport from Bristol, UK to Seattle, Washington and truck transport to NBB.62 While the exact port of call in the UK is not known, the trucking within the UK will contribute roughly 0.02 g CO2, sea-borne shipping 0.4 g CO2 and US trucking 0.3 g CO2 for a total of 0.7 g CO2. Though the exact route is not known, the emissions do not change significantly when alternative ports in Liver- pool, London and Tacoma are considered. Weighting the transportation emissions according to the variety and mass of hops used in FT, the total 2.3 g of hops accounts for 0.3 g CO2. Thus, we calculated GHG emissions during the drying and packing process based on the estimated cost of these activities on a Yakima Valley hop farm and assuming this cost was fully attributable to purchased natural gas (Hinman, 2004). Based on these assump- tions, the drying and packing of hops resulted in 0.9 g of CO2 per 6-pack of FT. 62 The Climate Conservancy18 65 Energy use and volume of water produced were obtained by communication with a financial analyst at Fort Collins Utilitiesn January 7, 2008 66 2006 Triple Bottom Line Report of Xcel Energy, http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_38873_39323-19025-5_406_651-0,00.html 67 EPA eGRID (2006), reporting 2004 data, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html 68 NBB data, “NBB Follow Up Questions_10.doc” (Tranche 2) 69 Industrial Gas Handbook: Gas Separation and Purification, Frank Kerry, CRC Press 70 From pamplet, “All About Carbon Dioxide: Properties, Applications, Sources and Plants” Totomont Process Systems, A Division of Toromont Industries, Inc. Water 3.2 g CO2e Production and Transport 3.2 g CO2e Energy Intensity Water provided to NBB by the city of Fort Collins is treated by a series of conventional techniques: coagu- lation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination. According to the city of Fort Collins, average annual energy consumption at their water treatment facility over the past 9 years was 4,026,793 kWh. During the same period, the average amount of water produced per year was 9,346 million gallons per year.65 Thus, the average energy intensity of the treated water provided to NBB is 431 kWh per million gallons of water. Carbon Intensity According to the city of Fort Collins all energy needs for the water treatment facility are provided by Xcel Energy, which has reported carbon intensity of deliv- ered electricity in 2006 of 1.478 lbs CO2 per kWh.66 However, this is lower than the figure listed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) for the Rocky Mountain subregion, which is 2.036 lbs CO2 per kWh (or 0.93 kg CO2 per kWh), and which we believe is more accurate given its regional character.67 Allocation The water to beer ratio of NBB’s production process is 3.9 to 1.68 Based on this ratio, the 72 fluid ounces of beer in a 6-pack (2.13 liters) require 280.8 fluid ounces (8.307 liters) of water to produce. Applying the energy and carbon intensities above, we calculate 3.2 g of CO2 are embodied in the water used per 6-pack of beer. Carbon Dioxide 72.5 g CO2e Production 72.3 g CO2e Energy Intensity The carbon dioxide used to carbonate FT is a byprod- uct of either oil well drilling, petroleum refining or production of hydrogen in a Hydrogen Production Unit. Before shipment to NBB, the gas must be purified, tested and liquefied, each step requiring energy. Energy intensity information for carbon dioxide was not readily available for our calculation, so the energy intensity to liquefy nitrogen (N2) was used as a proxy. The minimum power necessary (in a theoretical Carnot cycle) to liquefy N2 is 80 kWh per tonne.69 However, the actual power requirements are around 400 kWh per tonne for liquefication alone. The number does not take into account the initial cooling, oxidation, aftercool- ing, adsorption, drying, condensing and distillation that may be required for purification depending on the source gas.70 Carbon Intensity Given that the CO2 is purified and liquefied in Chey- enne by DynoNobel, the mean carbon intensity of electricity produced in Wyoming was used: 0.8175 kg of CO2 per kWh. On a per 6-pack basis, the production of 54.5 g of CO2 used to carbonate FT emits 17.8 g of CO2. Although the molecular mas and thermodynam- ics of N2 mean more energy is required to compress it than CO2, because many of the steps (and energy) needed to purify and test CO2 are not included here, the carbon intensity will not be less than the 17.8 g of CO2. The 54.5 g of CO2 used to carbonate te beer is also included, as this gas is derived from fossil carbon. 63 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 19 71 http://www.dynonobel.com/ 72 See Table 1 in West and Marland, 2002 The CO2 used by NBB to carbonate FT is produced at the Dyno Nobel ammonia plant in Cheyenne, Wyoming. From there, it is shipped to 1918 Heath Parkway, Fort Collins, Colorado and in 2006 was distributed to NBB by General Air. Because of the short distance of distribu- tion, it is here assumed that food-grade, liquefied CO2 is shipped directly from Dyno Nobel to NBB on eighteen wheeled tanker trucks.71 These trucks typically have a capacity of 26,000 liters or 29,780 kg of liquefied CO2. Assuming 6.3 mpg of diesel #2 fuel and an emission factor of 11.78 kg CO2 for the production and point of consumption of a gallon of diesel fuel,72 the transporta- tion of a full load of CO2 on this route results in 81.88 kilograms of CO2 emissions. NBB uses 54.5 g of carbon dioxide to carbonate a 6 pack of FT, the transport of which corresponds to 0.2 gram of CO2 emitted per 6-pack. Transportation 0.2 g CO2e 64 Entity Brewing Operations Electricity Emissions assessed in this section are those directly associated with the manufacture and marketing of Fat Tire® Amber Ale by New Belgium Brewing Company. 173.0 g CO2e 123.0 g CO2e 80 NBB data, communication with Jenn Orgolini on March 11, 2008 and FCU 2006 Attestation.doc” (Tranche 2) 81 Purchase Agreement dated July 27, 2007 between NBB and Community Energy, Inc. (“community energy wind purchase.pdf” in Tranche 2). 82 NBB data, thirteen separate invoices were provided in data tranche 1 83 NBB data, ten separate invoices were provided in data tranche 1 84 NBB data, nine separate invoices were provided in data tranche 1 85 Calculations were also informed by the EIA (2004) Annual Energy Review 2002, EIA (2004) Emissions of GHGs in the US 2003, a presentation by Margaret Mann of NREL entitled “A comparison of the environmental consequences of power from biomass, coal and natural gas,” and a GHG inventory performed by Climate Mitigation Services for the city of Aspen, Colorado in 2004 (http://www.aspenglobalwarming.com) 5,772,920 kWh of electricity consumed by NBB at its Fort Collins brewery is generated from renewable resources by virtue of its participation in the City of Fort Collins Green Energy Program.80 While there are certainly GHGs emitted during the manufacture of renewable energy generation equipment, we have assumed the mass of CO2e emissions allocated to a single 6-pack of FT is inconsequential. Similarly, certified renewable energy credits (RECs) were purchased by NBB to cover 512,800 kWh of electricity used at its offsite warehouse (Poudre Valley).81 If the electricity used had been non-renewable, emissions calculated from the eGRID emissions factor for Colorado and allocated per 6-pack are 250.8 g CO2. Production of Gas 0 g CO2e Brewing Operations Corporate Behavior Figure 4. Distribution of entity-level GHG emissions by percentage of total entity emissions. Waste Disposal Natural Gas In 2006, NBB purchased 478,595 therms (50,491.77 GJ) of natural gas from two utilities for use at three locations: A total of 449,720 therms (47,445.46 GJ) were purchased from Seminole Energy Services between January and December of 2006 for use at the Linden Street brewery in Fort Collins.82 A total of 21,080 therms (2,223.94 GJ) were purchased from Xcel Energy between March and December of 2006 for use in water treatment at the Buckingham Street facility in Fort Collins.83 A total of 7,790 therms (821.85 GJ) were purchased from Xcel Energy between April and December of 2006 for use at its offsite warehouse (Weicker Drive) in Fort Collins.84 Raw natural gas contains methane (CH4) and other hydrocarbons, water, nitrogen (N2), CO2 and some sulfur compounds such as H2S. The Gulf Coast states (mainly Texas and Louisiana) produce most of the natural gas used in the US, and the raw gas occurs onshore and offshore, sometimes alone and sometimes along with liquid petroleum (DeLuchi, 1993). The extraction, refining and transmission of gas require energy and result in emissions of both CO2 and CH4 during combustion and as fugitive (leaked) and vented (intentionally released) gas. 123.0 g CO2e An estimated 4.3 g of CH4 is emitted during raw gas production for every kilogram of the gas that is ultimately delivered (Barns and Edmunds, 1990; Kirchgessner et al., 2000).85 This translates to roughly 9.0 g of CH4 for every therm (0.1055 GJ) of delivered gas. Taking account of methane’s GWP of 23, each therm of gas produced causes 207.2 g of CO2e emis- sions. The natural gas purchased by NBB therefore relates to the emission of 99,165.36 kg of CO2e. The Climate Conservancy20 65 Gas Processing An estimated 1.6 g of CH4 is emitted during processing of raw natural gas for every kilogram of delivered gas (Kirchgessner et al., 2000).86 Thus, approximately 3.3 g of CH4,or 76.6 g of CO2e, is released during processing for every therm (0.1055 GJ) of delivered gas. The natural gas purchased by NBB in 2006 therefore relates to the emission of 36,648.07 kg of CO2e. Transmission and Storage An estimated 5.6 g of CH4 is emitted during transmis- sion and storage of natural gas from refineries to distribution facilities for every kilogram of delivered gas (Kirchgessner et al., 2000).87 Thus, approximately 11.8 g of CH4,or 271.4 g of CO2e, is released during trans- mission and storage for every therm (0.1055 GJ) of delivered gas. The natural gas purchased by NBB therefore relates to the emission of 129,885.10 kg of CO2e. Distribution An estimated 4.1 g of CH4 is emitted during distribution of natural gas in pipelines for every kilogram of deliv- ered gas (Kirchgessner et al., 2000).88 Thus, approxi- mately 8.6 g of CH4,or 198.2 g of CO2e, is released during distribution of each therm (0.1055 GJ) of deliv- ered gas. The natural gas purchased by NBB therefore relates to the emission of 94,853.83 kg of CO2e. Combustion In the US, an average of 5.31 kg CO2 is emitted for each therm of pipeline natural gas combusted.89 Thus, the natural gas purchased and burned by NBB in 2006 relates to the emission of 2,541,339.45 kg of CO2e. Allocation Because the bulk of natural gas is used in processes immediately related to beer production (e.g. boiling of wort), the related CO2e emissions are allocated on the basis of the volume of beer produced. In 2006, the total volume of beer produced comprised 23,587,872 6-pack equivalents.90 Dividing the total emissions by this volume, we find that each 6-pack embodies 123.0 g of CO2 from purchased natural gas as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale resulting from natural gas used by NBB in 2006. Stage of Natural Gas Life Cycle g CO2e per 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale Production Total 4.20 3.4% 1.55 123.02 100% Percentage 1.3%Processing Transmission/Storage 5.51 4.5% Distribution 3.3%4.02 Combustion (Use)107.74 87.6% 86-88 Ibid. 89 Data in "lbs CO2 / 1,000 cubic feet" units from US EIA. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Emission Coefficients, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/factors.html 90 NBB data, “total sales 2006.xls” (Tranche 2) The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 21 66 Fugitive Refrigerants 91 NBB data, email from Jenn Orgolini to Steve Davis with the subject “Refrigerant Quantity for 2006” on January 14, 2008 92 NBB data, “2006 Total sales.shipping distances.per state sales.xls” (tranche 2) 93 NBB data, “Follow Up Questions_10.doc” (tranche 2) 94 The total mass of waste included in this analysis corresponds to the numbers from Gallegos and Waste-not directly allocated to landfills according 99 Typical numbers for tons of recycled products made per ton of recovered material are: 90% for newspaper, 88% for glass, 78% for plastics, and 93% for corrugated cardboard, for example 100 NBB data, “Landfill.Diversion.2007.xls” 101 This estimate is based on yard trimmings (EPA, 2006) 102 Personal communication from Brandon Weaver to Nathan Rothe Recycling A large portion of the waste generated at NBB during beer production is recycled. Most materials are analyzed based on EPA’s assessment of waste management (EPA, 2006). Battery recycling emissions are taken from a Swedish study (Rydh and Karlstrom, 2002) of nickel-cadmium batteries. We have made the following assumptions regarding NBB’s waste allocation for the purpose of estimating GHG emissions of recycling: kegs were treated as metals, light bulbs were treated as 50% metals and 50% glass, commingle and compactor were treated as 1/3 paper, 1/3 paperboard and 1/3 newspaper, universal waste was assumed to be composed of 50% batteries and 50% light bulbs, metals were assumed to include 50% aluminum and 50% steel, and furniture was treated as wood. Based on these assumptions, the amount of waste recycled and the net emissions per 6-pack is listed in Table 5. We use national average recycling rejection rates to allocate a portion of the recyclable waste to landfill activities.99 As a result, one 6-pack of FT results in 0.6 g of CO2e due to the disposal of NBB’s own waste in 2006. 0.6 g CO2e Composting In 2006, 710 lbs of compost materials were disposed of by Waste-Not.100 Based on EPA estimates, one ton of compost101 results in -0.05 Mt of CO2e due to storage of carbon in the soil. This figure is net national average emissions during transportation. Allocated to a single 6-pack, NBB’s composting activities therefore correspond to a tiny drawdown of atmospheric CO2e (-0.003 g). 0 g CO2e The remaining effluent waste stream has greatly reduced concentrations of carbon, nitrogen, phos- phorus and pathogenic bacteria which can be considered environmental hazards. The two sources of GHG emissions at the wastewa- ter treatment plant include the anaerobic digester and activated sludge basin. Anaerobic Digester The anaerobic digester produces roughly 15,111 m3 of biogas annually, of which, approximately 85% is CH4 (methane) by volume.102 Biogas from the anaerobic digester is either used as fuel in an on-site generator or else flared. Both scenarios will result in the methane being oxidized to carbon dioxide. As a result, 55,800 lbs of carbon dioxide per year are emitted from the anaerobic digester. Activated Sludge Basin GHG emissions from the activated sludge basin are more difficult to calculate because the gasses are not collected or quantified, but the aerobic condi- tions present in the basin ensure that emitted carbon is oxidized to CO2, and not CH4. Allocation The original source of CO2 emitted during treatment of wastewater is not fossil fuels but the atmosphere. The organic material in growing barley and hops is atmospheric CO2 that has been fixed into carbohy- drates (e.g. C6H12O6). The metabolism of this organic material, whether by yeast during fermenta- tion, by microbes in the anaerobic digester, or by people drinking beer, is not a net addition of CO2e insofar as it returns to the atmosphere as CO2 gas. As such, none of the CO2 emitted during combustion of biogas or from the activated sludge basin is allocated to FT. On-site Treatment 0 g CO2e NBB treats wastewater by an on-site conventional wastewater treatment plant. The treatment consists of an anaerobic digester, activated sludge basin, clarifier basin, and a belt filter press. The system uses a microbial population to convert soluble carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the influent wastestream into insoluble cell mass that can be separated through physical means (composted sludge). The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 23 68 103 The total mass of waste included in this analysis corresponds to the numbers from Gallegos and Waste-not directly allocated to recycling (NBB data, “Landfill.Diversion.2007.xls”). As such, the figures take into account the national recycling rejection rates (EPA, 2006) 104 Following the analysis done in section 4.b, recycling emissions allocated to waste management have their source in transportation and energy Employee Commuting For a full “cradle-to-grave” assessment, TCC has included the GHGs emitted through the production and transportation of the fuel used to bring NBB employees to and from the brewery as well as the emissions created by burning the fuel itself. The survey that NBB gave to its employees was a great start, but there were some problems that might be addressed in the future. There were some cars with no make, year, model listed which made determin- ing the mileage impossible. Additionally, because no engine and transmission types were listed, average fuel efficiency across all variants had to be averaged. Some respondents had two cars listed, but did not specify how many days a week they were driven. Others who responded positively to the carpool question listed driving/car pool days that summed to more than 5 days and there was no way to ascertain how many people were inside the carpool car and which other NBB drivers (if any) were taken off the road. Due to those issues and because the response rate for carpools was so low, we did not consider an effect of carpools in our calculations. Lastly, some respondents noted seasonal differences that were not taken into account in the calculations. We were able to use 115 total responses. The average fuel use was determined and applied to the 200 employees at the brewery. The resulting average was allocated per 6-pack based on total beer production in 2006: 12.7 g of CO2 per 6-pack. 12.7 g CO2e The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 25 70 Downstream Distribution Transportation Emissions assessed in this section are those associated with the distribution, use (i.e. consumption) and final disposal of Fat Tire® Amber Ale. 1,484.6 g CO2e 276.2 g CO2e 108 NBB data, “2006 Total sales.shipping distances.per state sales.xls” (tranche 2) 109 Personal communication with Marlon Lucas, Vice-President/Manager of United States Cold Storage, Inc., a representative facility. 110 This figure is weighted according to the percentage of FT sold in each of the 16 states, and includes emissions during production and transport of fuel to power generation facilities (See Table 2 of West and Marland, 2002) Retail transportation is performed by trucking brokers contracted by New Belgium and it is assumed that FT is brought to market via Class 8 heavy truck. The average 6-pack travels a distance of 793 miles to either a distribution or retail center (See Table 7). Because primary data concerning the actual path of distribution was not available at time of publication, it has been assumed that the 793 miles is from NBB to the retail center. An average trip of 793 miles consti- tutes a CO2 emission of 266.4 grams. Distribution and Retail 267.8 g CO2e Retail Use (Consumption) Figure 5. Major sources of downstream GHG emissions by percentage of total downstream emissions. Distribution Fuel 266.4 g CO2e Waste Disposal The majority of road transport refrigeration units consist of trucks with compressors driven either by stand-alone diesel motors or by the truck’s main diesel engine. The average refrigerant charge is 4.9 kg and the main refrigerant used for medium temperature applications is R-134a. The annual leakage rate is estimated to be 20-25% (IPCC, 2005). One truck load consists of 5,040 6-packs.108 Taking the GWP of R-134a to be 1300, and assuming that the product stays in a truck for an average of 2 days, the emissions allocated to one 6-pack correspond to 1.6 g of CO2e. Fugitive Refrigerants 1.6 g CO2e Storage During Distribution Most cold storage facilities in the U.S. operate at a wide range of temperatures, with an average facility temperature of -3°C.109 A representative facility whose manager TCC interviewed reported 7,069,000 kWh used in the course of a year to refrigerate 6,000,000 cubic feet of space. Taking the volume of a 6-pack of FT to be 0.6 cubic feet (16,990 cubic centimeters), emissions per 6-pack during storage in such a facility amount to 8.2 g CO2e.110 8.2 g CO2e Electricity 8.2 g CO2e R-717 (Ammonia/NH3) is the most common refriger- ant used in industrial refrigeration throughout the US, including cold storage rooms (UNEP, 2006). While R-717 is toxic and flammable, providing strong reasons for reducing refrigerant leakage rates, it is not a GHG and will not contribute to the GHG emis- sions in this assessment. Fugitive Refrigerants 0 g CO2e The Climate Conservancy26 71 Retail Electricity and Natural Gas 896.6 g CO2e GHG emissions result from energy consumed by in-store refrigeration systems. See page 29 for details of the commercial refrigeration analysis and allocation of fugitive emissions per 6-pack. A 12 ft long Hussmann112 open front display unit common in large supermarkets requires approximately 5.3 kW of power (cf., Evans et al., 2007). We assume a turnover time of 1 week for each 6-pack of FT.113 A total 0.9 MWh of electricity are consumed by the open refrigeration unit over 1 week. The average emission factor of the states to which NBB distributes FT is 0.605 kg CO2 per kWh of electricity.114 879.8 g CO2e In-Store Refrigeration 829.8 g CO2e One refrigerator unit can hold 372 6-packs, and 30% of the FT produced is distributed to large supermarkets,115 hence emissions resulting from electricity consumed by refrigeration in large super- markets amount to a very substantial 434.5 g of CO2e per 6-pack. Stand-alone refrigerators generally found in smaller markets and convenience stores hold about 72 6-packs and require approximately 0.4 kW of power, equivalent to 67 kWh of electricity in 1 week. Assum- ing 70% of FT produced is distributed to small market or convenience stores with this type of refrigeration system, GHG emissions allocated to one 6-pack are 395.3 g CO2e. 111 Distances are to the geographical center of each state 112 TCC observed FT in several supermarkets in the San Francisco Bay Area (including Safeway, Whole Foods, and smaller chains), and the Impact Excel D5X-E deli case model was most common: http://www.hussmann.com/supermkt/supermkt.htm 113 NBB data, email from Jenn Orgolini to Steve Davis dated January 8, 2008 with the subject “LCA status update” 114 This figure is weighted according to the percentage of FT sold in each of the 16 states, and includes emissions during production and transport of fuel to power generation facilities (See Table 2 of West and Marland, 2002) 115 NBB data, email from Jenn Orgolini to Steve Davis dated January 8, 2008 with the subject “LCA status update” 116 EPA Supermarket Energy Use Profile based on Energy Information Administration 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, available online at: http://epa.gov/cleanrgy/documents/sector-meeting/4biii_supermarket.pdf 117 Note that our calculations weight state emission factors for electricity according to the percentage of total FT delivered to each state, and also Because the per 6-pack figures above are pro-rated based on the percentage of FT distributed to the different store types, total GHGs emitted as a result of electricity consumption by retail refrigeration is the sum of emissions from large commercial and stand- alone refrigerators: 829.8 g CO2e. In-Store Lighting and Climate Control 50.0 g CO2e A published EPA profile of supermarket energy use shows demand for 51.3 kWh of electricity and 0.38 therms of natural gas per square foot of floor space.116 The same publication assumed the average area of supermarkets to be 45,000 square feet. Refrigeration was responsible for 60% of storewide electricity consumption. Lighting and HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) together make up 33% of electricity and 56% of natural gas consumed. We calculated the CO2e emissions related to this energy consumed in the states where NBB distributes FT and allocated based on the area of stocked floor space occupied by a single 6-pack for 1 weeks to be 44.5 and 5.5 g of CO2e per 6-pack from electricity and natural gas, respectively.117 We were not able to find a comparable secondary resource regarding energy consumed in lighting and climate control of smaller market/convenience stores. We assume these emissions are likely to be similar, and so do not differentiate emissions from lighting and climate control by the type of store to which the FT is delivered. The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 27 72 118 Centralized systems consist of a central unit housing compressors and condensers that distribute refrigerants to cold storage or display units across the building. Large leakage rates result from long piping and large number of joints. 119 http://www.hussmann.com/supermkt/supermkt.htm 120 100 year GWP was taken to be the average of all four commonly used refrigerants for this application (R-22, R-410a, R-404a and R-507): 2847 121 http://www.hussmann.com/cstore/c_medtemp.htm#ReachIns_anchor 122 http://www.clasponline.org/programinfo.php?no=412 Fugitive Refrigerants Fugitive emissions from commercial refrigeration represent 40% of the total annual refrigerant emis- sions on a global scale (IPCC, 2005). Large super- market refrigeration systems commonly used in the US show annual emission rates ranging from 3 to 22%, the average being 18% of refrigerant charge for centralized systems.118 Large Supermarket Systems 16.8 g CO2e 14.4 g CO2e These systems use R-22, R-410a, R-404a and R-507 refrigerants for medium temperature (1 – 14oC) cooling (Little, 1999). Beer and other refrigerated drinks are generally kept in open display units and we base our analysis on 12 ft long Hussmann refrigerators.119 Each unit can house approximately 372 6-packs and is charged with 4 lb of refrigerant. Per week each unit is responsible for directly emitting 6.3 g of refrigerant, which corresponds to 17.8 kg CO2e.120 Small stores typically employ stand-alone, hermetically-sealed refrigeration units with small refrigerant charges (1 kg) and low leakage rates (~1%). The most common refrigerant in this case is R-134a (GWP = 1300). Single column reach-in units121 can contain approximately 72 6-packs and emit a total of 0.2 g of refrigerant per week (250 g of CO2e). Convenience Store Systems 2.4 g CO2e Assuming that produced beer is distributed 30% to large supermarkets and 70% to small/convenience stores, the allocation of emissions to a 6-pack of FT kept cold for 1 week is 14.4 g of CO2e from the supermarket and 2.4 g of CO2e from smaller stores. Total fugitive refrigerant emissions during the retail stage therefore represent 16.8 g of CO2e. Allocation Use Electricity 261.5 g CO2e Domestic refrigerators have become more energy efficient over the years due to the establishment of national efficiency standards and the voluntary Energy Star program of the US EPA. As of 2001, new home refrigerators were required to consume less than 410 kWh per year, ratcheting down of a 1993 limit of 490 kWh per year.122 Assuming a lifetime of approximately 20 years, we use the average of those two values (450 kWh per year) to obtain the electricity consumed by the average domestic refrigerator over a period of one week: 8.6 kWh. Since one 6-pack of FT occupies approximately 1/40 of the typical refrigerator’s volume, the emissions associated with a 6-pack of FT refrigerated for 2 weeks are 260.9 g of CO2. 260.9 g CO2e Refrigeration Here we assess GHGs emitted during the use phase of FT, including electricity consumed during refrigeration as well as fugitive refrigerant emissions. We do not consider other energy requirements of a consumer’s household (e.g. light and heat), as we assume emissions associated with those requirements are not directly related to the use of FT. Fugitive Refrigerants Leakage rates for domestic refrigerators are generally very low (0.3%) (IPCC, 2005) and so are refrigerant charges (~1/3 lb of R-134a). Allocating CO2e to a 6-pack based on the volume of an average refrigera- tor (with a capacity of 40 6-packs), we calculate 0.6 g emitted during refrigeration of a 6-pack for 2 weeks. 0.6 g CO2e Refrigeration The Climate Conservancy28 73 Waste Disposal (End of Life) Landfilling 50.3 g CO2e When organic material is landfilled, anaerobic decom- position results mainly in the release of CH4 and CO2. CO2 is not counted as anthropogenic GHG because it would be produced through natural decomposition. Because natural degradation occurs in the presence of oxygen, CH4 would not normally be produced and is therefore counted as anthropogenic GHG. Materi- als that do not contain carbon (e.g. metals or glass) or that are not biodegradable in anaerobic conditions (e.g. plastics or concrete) do not generate CH4. Their contribution to global warming comes from transporta- tion to landfills through the combustion of fossil fuels. Carbon-rich materials that do not fully decompose anaerobically have some of their carbon content stored in landfills, resulting in carbon sinks. However, carbon of fossil origin (such as in plastics) is not credited as an anthropogenic sink. Carbon credit can also result from landfill gas (LFG) recovery for energy production. All of the processes mentioned above are accounted for and averaged over landfills across the US by the EPA (EPA, 2006). Recovery of landfill gas (LFG) and carbon storage significantly lower the net GHG emissions of carbon- rich materials. Our estimates are based on EPA’s analysis of landfills with and without LFG recovery, and include transportation emissions, all averaged at a national level (EPA, 2006). 31.9 g CO2e At the point of use, packaging materials become waste. Here we consider the fate of the different packaging materials in each 6-pack and estimate the GHGs emitted during transport, processing, and decomposition of the waste. contributing to direct CH4 emissions are corrugated cardboard, paperboard, paper and lumber. These same materials result in carbon storage when land- filled. The highest emission levels come from landfills without LFG recovery, followed by landfills that flare a part of their methane generation. Significant reduc- tions in the emission levels can be obtained when LFG is recovered for energy generation. The net GHG emissions per 6-pack is shown below for different types of landfills and include direct CH4 emission, carbon storage, and transportation. Landfills without LFG recovery: 210.1 g of CO2e Landfills with LFG recovery/flaring: -66.1 g of CO2e Landfills with LFG recovery/electric generation: -106.7 g of CO2e Year 2003 national average: 31.9 g of CO2e Recycling There are multiple benefits to the recycling of waste material. It saves landfill space and associated cost and environmental burdens. Savings in the produc- tion stage are even more prominent, as it is generally more energy efficient to manufacture products using recycled inputs instead of raw materials. Following EPA’s analysis (EPA, 2006), we separate the GHG impact of recycling into two parts: the recycling process emissions are allocated to the manufacturing stage of each product or material, whereas emissions resulting from transportation and energy use to process recycled inputs at a materials recovery facility are counted here as part of waste disposal. A fraction of the material recovered is lost in the recycling process and we assume it is ultimately sent to a landfill. The percentage of material recycled in one 6-pack is estimated based on recycling rates reported by the EPA (See Table 6). Accounting only for emissions during transportation and processing of recovered materials, we estimate 18.4 g of CO2e per 6-pack of FT. 18.4 g CO2e Waste materials per 6-pack is shown in Table 6.123 The national average GHG emission from landfill transportation is 0.01 Mt of CO2e per ton of waste for all materials listed above. The GHG emission contri- bution from landfilled glass, glue and LDPE comes entirely from transportation. The only materials Disposal of 6-pack Material 123 NBB data, “6 pack BOM 082907 (with scrap loss rates).xls” (tranche 2) The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 29 74 124 Taken from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/06data.pdf 125 We use the “broad definition of mixed paper” according to EPA’s analysis EPA, 2006, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks: Environmental Protection Agency 126 Labels and organic-based adhesives of the type used by NBB are not separated from the bottles and are ultimately treated as waste in landfills or consumed Conservation and Recycling, v. 46, no. 2, p. 168-181 127 For the purposes of identifying GHG emissions from landfilled glue, we treat it as plastic since glue composition is almost entirely of synthetic polymers 128 Density of typical label glues is slightly less than that of water. See Table 2 in Luukko, P., Nystrom, M., and Rainio, J., 2004, Comparison of different foaming agents in making plywood glue: Journal of Applied Polymer Science, v. 93, no. 3, p. 1060-1064. Table 6. Waste materials disposed per 6-pack Fat Tire® Amber Ale Packaging Material Carton Box 1/4 Corrugated Cardboard 1 Quantity Paperboard1256-pack Carrier 12 oz. Bottle 6 Glass Label Magazine-style Paper6 Stretch Wrap 0.00005 LDPE Glue 0.95 mL Polymers 127 Pallet 0.004 pallets Lumber Scrap Rate 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% Weight (lbs)Recycling Rate124 0.13 0.21 2.76 0.01 0.0003 0.001 0.14 72% 16% 31% 0%126 8% 0% 9% The Climate Conservancy30 75 Acknowledgments Conclusions It is apparent that New Belgium Brewing Company has taken steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and the efforts to do so transfer to the Fat Tire® Amber Ale assessed here. By using this assessment to look outside of the entity, still more reductions may be possible. The Climate Conservancy would like to thank Jenn Orgolini, Nic Theisen, Katie Wallace and the other managers and employees at NBB who helped collect data for this assessment, as well as the respondents in our supplier, distribution and NBB employee surveys. It has been a privilege to work with a company that is as forward-thinking as NBB and we appreciate the help and guidance given to us throughout the process. We hope that the information provided herein will help NBB to manage its GHG emissions in the future. The steps taken by New Belgium Brewing Company to increase the efficiency of operations and source renew- able energy have successfully reduced the carbon footprint of its products relative to the average in the brewing industry. The business of creating any beer is linked inextricably to GHG emissions and many of these emissions are today unavoidable. Additionally, many emissions from the agricultural and packaging subsystems are located far upstream from the entity, making it difficult for NBB to directly manage them. Though no one subsystem in the production of FT is an obvious choice for GHG reduction, there are several areas where improvement seems possible. One such area in the raw material acquisition phase relates to malt, for instance. The production of synthetic fertilizers and related emissions from the soil are a substantial part of the GHGs allocated from malted barley (see pages 15 and 16) and could be reduced by switching to organic barley (or barley fertilized from organic sources). There may be another opportunity in the most significant contribution to overall GHG emissions, the downstream refrigeration of FT during retail. Nearly one kilogram of GHGs of the roughly three kilograms embodied by FT are emitted during the retail phase of the beer. NBB has little influence over the design of the refrigerators employed by retail centers. However, efforts to minimize stock turnover time at retail, or the removal of some portion of product from refrigerated section altogether, might be ways NBB could drastically reduce the carbon footprint of FT in the future. The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 31 76 The Climate Conservancy 32 References Barns, D. W., and Edmunds, J. A., 1990, An evaluation of the relationship between the production and use of energy and atmospheric methane emissions, Carbon Dioxide Reseach Program Report: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy. Batty, J. C., and Keller, J., 1980, Energy requirements for irrigation, in Pimental, D., ed., Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture: Florida, CRC, p. 35-44. Börjesson, P. I. I., 1996, Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation: Biomass and Bioenergy, v. 11, no. 4, p. 305-318. Briggs, D. E., 1998, Malts and Malting, Springer, 475 p. Ciullo, P. A., 1996, Industrial Minerals and Their Uses: A Hand- book and Formulary, William Andrew Inc. Collins, N. E., Kimble, L. J., and Williams, T. H., 1976, Energy requirements for tillage on coastal plains soils, in Lockeretz, W., ed., Agriculture and energy: New York, Academic Press, p. 233-244. Collins, N. E., Williams, T. H., and Kemble, L. J., 1980, Measured machine energy requirements for grain production systems: Agriculture Energy, v. 2, p. 407-416. DeLuchi, M. A., 1993, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity, Volume 2: Appen- dixes A-S: Argonne, IL, Argonne National Laboratory. Dvoskin, D., Nicol, K., and Heady, E. O., 1976, Irrigation energy requirements in the 17 western states, in Lockeretz, W., ed., Agriculture and energy: New York, Academic Press, p. 103-112. Edwards, D. W., and Schelling, J., 1999, Municipal Waste Life Cycle Assessment - Part 2: Transport Analysis and Glass Case Study: Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, v. 77, p. 259. EPA, 2006, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks: Environmental Protection Agency. Esslinger, H. M., and Narziss, L., 2005, Beer: Weinheim, Wiley-VCH Verlag, 44 p. Evans, J. A., Scarcelli, S., and Swain, M. V. L., 2007, Tempera- ture and energy performance of refrigerated retail display and commercial catering cabinets under test conditions: International Journal of Refrigeration, v. 30, no. 3, p. 398-408. Fairley, M., 2005, Paper labels, in Kirwan, M. J., ed., Paper and Paperboard Packaging Technology: Oxford, Blackwell Publish- ing. Follet, R. F., 2001, Soil management concepts and carbon sequestration in cropland soils: Soil Tillage Research, v. 61, p. 77-92. Franzluebbers, A. J., and Francis, C. A., 1995, Energy output:input ratio of maize and sorghum management systems in eastern nebraska: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 53, p. 271-278. Garnett, T., 2007, The alcohol we drink and its conribution to the UK's greenhouse gas emissions: A discussion paper: Food Climate Research Network. Hinman, H. R., 1999, 1999 Estimated Cost of Producing Hops Under Drip Irrigation in the Yakima Valley Washington State: Cooperative Extension Washington State University. -, 2004, 2004 Estimated Cost of Producing Hops under Drip Irrigation in the Yakima Valley, Washington State: Washington State University Extension. Huai, T., Shah, S. D., Miller, J. W., Younglove, T., Chernich, D. J., and Ayala, A., 2006, Analysis of heavy-duty diesel truck activity and emissions data: Atmospheric Environment, v. 40, p. 2333- 2344. IPCC, 2005, Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. -, 2006, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. ITRC, 1994, Munger-Poonian Farms Report: Irrigation Training and Research Center. Report R96-003 (http://www.ITRC.org). Kelly, P. M., 1986, Dried milk protein products: International Journal of Dairy Technology, v. 39, no. 3, p. 81-85. Keukleire, D. D., 2000, Fundamentals of beer and hop chemistry: Divulgacao, v. 23, no. 1, p. 108-112. Kirchgessner, D. A., Lott, R. A., Cowgill, R. M., Harrison, M. R., and Shires, T. M., 2000, Estimate of methane emissions from the U.S. natural gas industry, AP 42, 5th ed., chap. 14, U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency. Lal, R., 2004a, Carbon emission from farm operations: Environ- ment International, v. 30, p. 981-990. -, 2004b, Carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: Geoderma, v. 123, p. 1-22. Little, A. D., 1999, Global Comparative Analysis of HFC and Alternative Technologies for refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol Propellant, and Fire Protection Applica tions, Final Report to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. Luukko, P., Nystrom, M., and Rainio, J., 2004, Comparison of different foaming agents in making plywood glue: Journal of Applied Polymer Science, v. 93, no. 3, p. 1060-1064. 77 The carbon footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale 33 McCallen, R., 2006, DOE's effort to reduce truck aerodynamic drag through joint experiments and computation: U.S. Depart- ment of Energy. Mosier, A. R., Halvorson, A. D., Peterson, G. A., Robertson, G. P., and Sherrod, L., 2005, Measurement of net global warming potential in three agroecosystems: Nutrient Cycling in Agroeco- systmes, v. 72, p. 67-76. Narayanaswamy, V., Berkel, R. V., Altham, J., and MacGregor, M., 2004, Application of life cycle assessment to enhance eco-efficiency of grains supply chains, in 4th ALCAS Conference, Sydney, Austrailia. Onusselt, H., 2006, The influence of adhesives on recycling: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 46, no. 2, p. 168-181. Richert, S. H., 1974, Current milk protein manufacturing processes: Journal of Dairy Science, v. 58, no. 7, p. 985-993. Rydh, C. J., and Karlstrom, M., 2002, Life-cycle inventory of recycling portable nickel-cadmium batteries: Resources, conser- vation and recycling, v. 34, p. 289-309. Samarawickrema, A. K., and Belcher, K. W., 2005, Net green- house gas emissions and the economics of annual crop manage- ment systems: Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, v. 53, p. 385-401. Schlesinger, W. H., 1999, Carbon sequestration in soil: Science, v. 284, p. 2095. Southward, C. R., 2008, Casein products: New Zealand Dairy Research Institute. Talve, S., 2001, Life cycle assessment of a basic lager beer: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, v. 6, no. 5, p. 293-298. Tang, C., and Rengel, Z., 2001, Liming and reliming enhance barley yield on acidic soil: Western Australia Soil Acidity Research and Development Update. UNEP, 2006, 2006 Report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee – 2006 Assess- ment: UNEP Ozone Secretariat. West, T. O., and Marland, G., 2002, A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions and net carbon flux in agricul- ture: comparing tillage practices in the United States: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 91, p. 217-232. Zekovic, Z., Pfaf-Sovljanski, I., and Grujic, O., 2007, Supercritical fluid extraction of hops: Journal of Serbian Chemical Society, v. 72, no. 1, p. 81-97. 78 79 www.climateconservancy.org CLIMATENSERVANCYCO THE 2 The Climate Conservancy is a non-profit organization founded to mitigate human greenhouse gas emissions by harnessing the market potential of Climate ConsciousTM products and services. Although reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information in this report is correct, the authors, The Climate Conservancy, and its agents do not warrant or make representation as to its accuracy and accept no liability for any errors or omissions. Much of the information contained herein is confidential to either New Belgium Brewing Company or The Climate Conservancy. As such, this report should not be reproduced or distributed to any person outside of those corporations without the prior written permission of both New Belgium Brewing Company and The Climate Conservancy. Nothing in this publication shall be construed as granting any license or right to use or reproduce any of the trademarks, service marks, logos, copyright or any proprietary information in any way without prior written permission of The Climate Conservancy. © The Climate Conservancy 2008. All rights reserved. 80 BECOMING A ZERO EMISSIONS BREWERY BioCycle February 2007, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 29 Diverting 600 tons annually from landfills turn hops, grains, pallets, cardboard, glass, office paper and shrink wrap into major savings — and great beer! Molly Farrell Tucker ALMOST AS FAMOUS for reducing its waste as for making great beer, Mad River Brewing Company of Blue Lake, California is renowned for its Steelhead and Jamaica ales as well as its ten Waste Reduction Awareness Program (WRAP) awards from the state’s Integrated Waste Management Board. The microbrewery currently recycles or reuses 98 percent of its residuals with a goal of generating zero waste. Bob Smith — Mad River’s founder, brew master and general manager — started the brewery in 1989 after ten years of planning. Smith grew up in the San Francisco Bay area, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in botany at Humboldt State University in Arcata. Two years later, he came back to Blue Lake, a small town near Arcata (pop. 1,300), located a few miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and 235 miles north of Sacramento. It took more than a year to build the brewery and begin operations. Much of the original plumbing, electrical and sheet metal were recycled materials collected during the long lead up to construction. “I worked for 15 years as an electrical contractor and was close friends with a plumbing contractor so I had many opportunities to collect salvage or surplus materials,” Smith says. Mad River Brewing is a closely-held corporation with 35 shareholders, with Smith holding about ten percent of the stock. WASTE REDUCTION The brewery estimates that it diverts 600 tons of materials from landfills annually including hops and grain, pallets, cardboard, glass, office paper, bags and shrink wrap and saves $44,000 in the process. The cost of diverting these materials is approximately $10,000 annually. Humboldt County’s landfill is closed, and the brewery’s solid waste is hauled to either Anderson, California or to Central Point, Oregon. “The major cost involved with this disposal is the transport,” says Smith. “Fees at the dump sites are about $19 per yard but the local waste companies charge about $90 per ton for waste disposal because of the transfer and hauling expense.” The brewery generates less than one cubic yard of trash per week. Smith explains: “We now have a two-yard dumpster which we usually fill about halfway. The most significant portion of the brewery’s waste are organics. Part of why I chose this business is because we’re able to divert a tremendous amount of waste and have by-products that others can use, including spent barley malt, yeast, and spent hops.” The company gives away many of its brewing by-products to farmers, gardeners, and homeowners. Over ten tons per week of spent barley malt, hops, and yeast are fed to local livestock, used as a soil amendment, or composted. For the past five years, an organics hauler and cattle rancher, Keith Winiger, has been collecting an average of 20,000 pounds a week (one million pounds a year) of the brewery’s spent barley malt in a 10-yard dump truck. The spent barley malt is a wet but solid material with the fibrous consistency of oatmeal mixed with sawdust. Winiger delivers most of it to dairy farmers as much as 20 miles away. “A significant portion of the spent barley malt is fed to dairy and or beef 81 cattle,” notes Smith. Winiger composts the remainder at his cattle ranch near Fortuna, California. Local gardeners also come to the brewery to get smaller quantities of the spent grain to use as a soil and compost supplement for their gardens, and farmers with chickens, pigs and geese collect the spent grain for feed. The brewery also finds uses for the 10,000 pounds of spent hops produced each year through the brewing process. The hops are either hauled by Winiger to his ranch and composted or fed to cattle, or used by local growers to mulch their blueberry and raspberry patches. “The hops provide natural acidification for the soil, keep weeds down and deter pests,” explains Smith. “The high nitrogen content from barley protein adhering to the spent hops also helps with soil nutrition as it breaks down.” About 50,000 gallons a year of yeast and waste beer are used by a local rancher as a soil amendment which also adds supplemental moisture during the summer. “The pasture gets 40 inches of rain a year but virtually all of it falls between October and March,” notes Smith. Yeast is collected from the fermentation process and waste beer from cleaning the beer tanks and kegs; they are combined in a holding tank. The mixture is pumped into 200-gallon plastic totes that are in a metal framework. The totes are transported by brewery employees to a nearby pasture and applied as a soil amendment. RECYCLING THE REMAINDER Most of the brewery’s metal waste goes to a scrap yard for reuse, including damaged stainless steel beer kegs, broken aluminum ladders, aluminum cans collected from the company’s break room, old motors, and gear boxes. The metal is separated by type, such as stainless steel, aluminum, regular steel, copper or brass. “One man who works with a group of inner city teenagers in Oakland, California collects metal so the teenagers can manufacture belt buckles and pocket knives to sell, to fund the operation of a youth shelter,” says Smith. All of the brewery’s paper, glass, wood, and most of its plastics are reused or recycled. Mad River Brewing generates a significant amount of cardboard through the case boxes and shipping boxes that materials and supplies are shipped in. Large sheets of corrugated and noncorrugated cardboard from shipping boxes and craft paper are given to landscapers for use as organic weed barriers. “The cardboard is placed on the ground as a barrier with a limited life span and can be covered with organic mulch material, such as ground bark, to control weeds and erosion,” says Smith. The brewery also provides landscapers with the burlap and woven poly hop sack material that the 200 pound hop bales come wrapped in. Approximately 1,200 of the corrugated cardboard case boxes that Mad River ships its bottled beer in are reused each year by Resale Lumber Company in Arcata. On site, the brewery collects used six pack carriers from consumers for reuse. Any remaining cardboard, chipboard, and kraft paper is deposited into a two-cubic-yard dumpster located right in front of the brewery. All office paper goes into a separate container. A recycling service that works with the Arcata Community Recycling Center collects the cardboard and paper weekly. Brewery employees stuff the used stretch wrap into “minibulk shipper bags”. These heavy, woven plastic bags are used to ship 1,600 to 2,000 pound quantities of organic malt to the brewery. The bags measure four feet by four feet by five feet tall and weigh about 300 pounds when full. The filled bags are then taken to the Arcata recycling center where the stretch wrap is compressed into large bales (800 to 1,000 pounds each) for shipping. The empty “minibulk” bags are then used by the recycling center to store aluminum cans and plastic containers. The recycling center also uses the “minibulk” bags to ship recyclable materials to reprocessors. 82 “We help the Arcata Community Recycling Center by knowing what types of containers and items are used in their operations and direct those things to the center,” says Smith. “I go down and talk to people at the recycling center and try to understand what their operation entails and what they can use from the brewery.” The brewery collects bubble wrap from a local outdoor store and reuses it for packaging material. “We use it to pack glassware for shipping in our mail order department and when shipping beer samples to distributors, retail account prospects, beer tastings and contests,” says Smith. “We have never bought shipping peanuts or any other packing, and have only packed with reused stuff.” Recycled, ground-up concrete has been used at the brewery for grading and construction fill. A local heavy construction company, Kernen Construction, has a materials yard one mile from the brewery where it receives recyclable paving, roofing and fill materials, including concrete, for reprocessing and sale. Local companies are reusing many of the wooden pallets that are used to ship materials to the brewery. “We need really good, solid pallets to ship out our beer,” Smith explains. “We can’t use the pallets that come in with the cardboard and kegs because they aren’t sturdy enough.” The pallets were being sent to a local cogenerating plant to be burned as fuel to generate electricity and hot water. Now, two local seafood processing plants collect the pallets from Mad River Brewing each December, repair them and use them to ship out crab products. “The seafood plants come with trucks and clean us out every year,” notes Smith. “They come at the end of December because the crab season starts in January.” Pallets that are too damaged to be repaired and reused are brought to a tub grinding site, where they are ground up into mulch. The brewery periodically tracks the number of gallons of water required to produce one gallon of beer. It has reduced the amount of water from 14 gallons to an average of 7.9 gallons. The reductions were achieved through a brewery-wide audit of water usage, reconfiguring standard water use routines, equipment changes, and adjusting equipment for lowest usage. “Some of the water now gets used up to three times due to recovery efforts,” notes Smith. Brewery employees are responsible for making sure that materials are reused and recycled whenever possible. Most employees have custodial and maintenance duties and are regularly updated on company waste management practices through the use of chalkboards, staff meetings and memos. “We try to make it clear to our employees and the public that social and environmental responsibility is something we prioritize,” says Smith. For years, Mad River has provided free guidance and information to help other businesses and breweries in Blue Lake, Arcata, and Eureka and elsewhere start their own waste reduction, recycling and reuse programs. IN-HOUSE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM A wastewater treatment plant was built at the brewery to process 5,000 gallons of wastewater per day from the beer manufacturing operation. The treatment system, part of which is housed in a greenhouse, was constructed to minimize the impact on Blue Lake’s municipal wastewater treatment plant, the Blue Lake Sewer Plant. Mad River Brewing’s treatment system removes up to 95 percent of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) in the brewery’s wastewater. The BOD of the brewery’s untreated wastewater is currently about 7,000. “Blue Lake has a population of about 1,300 and the wastewater treatment plant is sized for a population of 2,000 residents,” says Smith. “The brewery has the potential of generating 50 percent of the loading that goes into that plant. Our untreated wastewater would overload their system.” 83 The need for an on-site wastewater treatment plant became critical in 1996. “We grew here through the early 1990s and our production volume was in excess of what it is now, with no complaints from the City,” says Smith. In 1996, the state of California forced the Blue Lake wastewater treatment plant to shut down its intake head works and an Imhoff reactor treatment unit because of odor complaints from neighbors. Shutting down the Imhoff reactor, a two story septic tank, reduced the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity by 30 percent, says Smith. “The plant immediately had to start requiring industrial wastewater producers to pretreat their discharge. They told us in 1996 that we had six months to reduce our BOD count from 10,000 to 300. We were able to buy time, mostly by keeping communication open and being appropriately conciliatory.” The brewery started searching for a solution and researched several technologies. “There were a number of treatment strategies we could have used, but we stressed that it had to be low-energy and an appropriate technology,” he adds. A group of postgraduate engineering students at Smith’s alma mater, Humboldt State University, came up with the original design as a class project. Smith worked with a draftsman to increase the capacity of the original design. Construction of the wastewater treatment system began in 1997 and the system began full operation in 1999. The treatment plant was constructed using mostly off-the-shelf components such as plastic pipe, filter housings, valves, and sis standard residential septic tanks. The septic tanks were installed in the ground, just deep enough to be covered with dirt, as the primary treatment phase for effluent from washing and brewing. The effluent is delivered to the underground tanks through drains located throughout the brewing and packaging areas of the brewery. “The floors in those areas slope to drains that connect to a drain piping system that collects only brewing wastewater,” explains Smith. (Bathroom waste exits the facility through a separate discharge point.) The effluent is blended and goes through the underground tank system. Solids are separated out and then broken down through thermophilic anaerobic digestion. The wastewater leaves the underground tanks and the pH is adjusted and micronutrients are added. The resulting effluent is then run through a subsurface wetland consisting of two concrete basins, each 72 feet long, 10 feet wide and three feet deep. The basins are contained in a greenhouse that is 72 feet long and 22 feet wide. The greenhouse is covered with a recyclable, UV-resistant polyethylene film. Each of the concrete basins is filled with 50 yards of gravel and planted with plants that can survive in the wastewater. Choosing the right plants has been trial and error. “We’ve planted papyrus, several species of bulrush, yellow flag iris, and calla lilies that are surviving, and at least a dozen other plants that couldn’t handle it,” notes Smith. “It’s a very difficult environment for plants so we haven’t been able to grow commercially beneficial plants or organic vegetables.” The wastewater treatment system requires only 1.25 horsepower of electrical energy to operate. The brewery’s treated wastewater passes through a discharge meter, and then into the Blue Lake city sewer system. Smith says the brewery’s current BOD discharge level is 760. “The City government would like it to be at 300.” The brewery’s treatment system requires constant monitoring and periodic maintenance. “The bacteria that metabolizes nutrients in the wastewater generates biomass that builds up a sludge material,” explains Smith. “This plugs up the porosity of the gravel beds and makes the treatment cells ineffective over time.” The gravel is removed from the basins every other year and replaced 84 with new gravel. The used gravel is hauled to the materials yard of Kernen Construction. It is washed, graded and reused for paving projects and incorporated into concrete mixes. The plants are removed from the basins when the gravel is replaced, and are replanted in the fresh gravel. Every two years, a septic tank service removes the buildup of solids from the underground anaerobic digester. The solids are composted by the septic service and sold as a bulk soil amendment for various agricultural and landscaping uses. The brewery controls the amount of effluent that flows into the concrete basins, to ensure that the wastewater flows below the surface of the gravel and also covers the plants roots. “This is done so there is no odor or surface flow of effluent that could result in the growth of insects and pests,” explains Smith. “When you stand in the greenhouse, even though you have waste water flowing below you, the gravel you see is perfectly dry.” Molly Farrell Tucker is a contributing editor to BioCycle. 85 North School Valley View School Hermosa View School Community Center ClarkStadium CivicCenter South Park ValleyPark BeachBeach2 0 02 0 2 3 0 5 5 332 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 2 0 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 2 2 5 0 0 3 0 5 5 5 5 3 50 5 5 2 2 2 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 1 0 5 5 2 3 2 3 5 3 5 5 5 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 00 2 1 0 5 5 2 5 0 3 1 0 1 0 310 522 233 556 222 0310 1 0 1 010 2 2 15 3 1 0 4 5 5 5 0 3 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 1 6 1 9 9 1 5 2 1 1 0 1 7 7 412 2 2 1 3 3 2 0 8 1 4 5 1 8 1 1 1 1 6 Unclass Unclass SPA-8 SPA-8 SPA-8 SPA-7 SPA-7 SPA-7 SPA-8 SPA-6 SPA-7 SPA-8 SPA-6 SPA-8 SPA-8SPA-8 SPA-8 SPA-3SPA-3SPA-3SPA-3 SPA-7 SPA-4SPA-4 SPA-4 SPA-4 SPA-7 SPA-7SPA-11SPA-8 SPA-8 SPA-7 SPA-8 SPA-11SPA-7 SPA-7 SPA-7 SPA-7 SPA-7SPA-8SPA-8 SPA-7SPA-7SPA-7SPA-7SPA-8 SPA-7 SPA-7 SPA-7SPA-8SPA-7SPA-8SPA-7SPA-11SPA-7SPA-11SPA-11S P A -7 S P A -8 S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -7SPA-8SPA-5SPA-5SPA-5SPA-8S P A -2SPA-11S P A -7SPA-11S P A -7 S P A -7 S P A -7 SPA-11 S P A -7 S P A -7 S P A -2S P A -2SPA-10S P A -8 SPA-10SPA-7SP A -7SPA- 7 S PA- 7 S P A -8 S P A -8 S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -2SPA-7S P A -2SPA-7S P A -2SPA-7S P A -7SPA-11SPA-7S P A -7SPA-11S P A -7SPA-11S P A -7 S P A -7 S P A -7 SPA-7S P A -7 S P A -7SPA-7 S P A -7 S P A -7 S P A -7SPA-11S P A -7 S P A -7SPA-7S P A -7 S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -8 S P A -8 S P A-9 S PA- 7 S P A-9 S P A -7SPA-11S P A -7 SPA - 7SP A- 7SPA- 7 S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -2S P A -7 S P A -8 SPA -9SP A-9S P A -7 S P A -2SPA-9S P A-9 S P A-9 SPA-11SPA-7S P A -2 S P A -7 S PA-9SPA-7SPA-7SPA-7SPA-7SPA-7SPA-7S P A -8 SPA-11SPA-8SPA-8S P A -8 SPA-11S P A -8 SPA-11SPA-11SPA-11SPA-11SPA-11SPA-8S P A -7 ® Zoning Map City of Hermosa Beach Last updated June 12, 2009 ZONING DESIGNATIONS R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1A LIMITED ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2B LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2B/OS-O LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY OPEN SPACE OVERLAY R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-3/OS-O MULTIPLE FAMILY OPEN SPACE OVERLAY R-P RESIDENTIAL-PROFESSIONAL RPD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT R-3PD MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M-1 LIGHT MANUFACTURING OS OPEN SPACE OS-1 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE OS-2 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE MHP MOBILE HOME PARK SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (RESIDENTIAL USES) SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (COMMERCIAL USES) OTHER DESIGNATIONS COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY COASTAL ZONE APPEALABLE AREA (WEST OF LINE) DOWNTOWN DISTRICT WALK STREETS Unclass UNCLASSIFIED (SCHOOL DISTRICT) #FRONT YARD SETBACKS 1 VALLEY PARK 2 CLARK STADIUM 3 COMMUNITY/CIVIC CENTER 4 EDITH RODAWAY FRIENDSHIP PARK 5 SEA VIEW PARK 6 FORT LOTS-OF-FUN/PROSPECT SCHOOL 7 MOONDUST PARK 8 GREENWOOD PARK 9 BI-CENTENNIAL PARK KAY-ETOW PARK10 SHAFFER PARK11 4TH & PROSPECT PARK12 8TH & VALLEY PARK13 SCOUT PARK14 ARDMORE PARK15 GREENBELT16 BEACH/STRAND/BIKE PATH17 NOBLE PARK18 SOUTH PARK19 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK20 CITY YARD21 Attachment 5 86 MICROBREWERIES NUMBER OF U.S. BREWERIES (July 31, 2010) Brewpubs 994 Microbreweries 534 http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/business-tools/craft-brewing-statistics/number-of-breweries Microbrewery photos Angel City Brewery Michael Filling Crown Hopper Brew House Bottling Line Cylindroconical Fermenters Bottling line Filling Station No Photo http://www.angelcitybrewing.com/brewery.html Angle City Brewing - Microbrewery Supplemental Information 8 1 Engine Brite Tanks Assembly line Packaging http://www.bdbrewing.com/Gallery/tabid/64/path/Brew%20Tour/currentstrip/1/Default.aspx Black Diamond Microbrewery 2 Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Project Title Staff Public Notice Meeting Date Date Rec’d Remarks ⇒ 1429 Hermosa Avenue — Precise Development Plan and Sign Variance for privately operated surface parking lot. 11/4 11/16 9/9 ⇒ 422 Pier Avenue—Conditional Use Permit Amendment 11/4 11/16 9/22 ⇒ 4th Qtr GPA (Notification) 11/16 f:b95\cd\wpc - future agenda 10/14/10 9b 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION AUGUST, 2010 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT NUMBER OF PERMITS TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE BUILDING 50 30 85 68 PLUMBING/MECHANICAL 17 20 33 47 ELECTRIC 18 24 26 42 PLAN CHECK 18 8 27 31 SEWER USE 0 0 0 0 RES. BLDG. REPORTS 13 18 37 34 PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 0 0 IN LIEU PARKS & REC 0 0 0 0 BOARD OF APPEALS 1 0 1 0 SIGN REVIEW 2 3 4 6 FIRE FLOW FEES 1 2 3 4 LEGAL DETERMINATION 0 0 0 0 ZONING APPEALS 0 0 0 0 TEMPORARY SIGN 2 1 2 8 GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) 1 3 3 3 TOTALS 123 109 221 243 FEES COLLECTED TYPE OF FEE CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE BUILDING $18,402.41 $11,934.71 $35,036.31 $26,091.89 PLUMBING/MECHANICAL $2,386.10 $3,336.00 $5,150.10 $8,206.29 ELECTRIC $1,992.50 $7,523.00 $3,486.50 $10,550.00 PLAN CHECK $17,205.92 $9,935.32 $23,952.67 $24,367.74 SEWER USE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RES. BLDG. REPORTS $3,207.60 $4,374.00 $9,088.20 $8,262.00 PARKS & RECREATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IN LIEU PARKS & REC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BOARD OF APPEALS $514.00 $0.00 $514.00 $0.00 SIGN REVIEW $492.00 $738.00 $984.00 $1,476.00 FIRE FLOW FEES $358.50 $762.50 $1,366.00 $867.50 LEGAL DETERMINATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ZONING APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TEMPORARY SIGN $510.00 $255.00 $510.00 $2,040.00 GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) $600.00 $2,787.00 $2,160.00 $2,787.00 TOTALS $45,669.03 $41,645.53 $82,247.78 $84,648.42 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF AUGUST, 2010 TYPE OF STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING UNITS VALUATION 1 101 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DETACHED 2 102 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ATTACHED 3 103 NEW TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS 4 104 NEW 3 OR 4 FAMILY BUILDINGS 5 105 NEW 5 OR MORE FAMILY BUILDINGS 6 213 NEW HOTELS/MOTELS 7 214 NEW OTHER NON HOUSEKEEPING 8 318 NEW AMUSEMENT & RECREATION 9 319 NEW CHURCHS/OTHER 10 320 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 11 321 NEW PARKING GARAGES. 12 322 NEW SERVICE STATIONS/REPAIR GARAGES 13 323 NEW HOSPITALS/OTHER INSTITUTIONAL 14 324 NEW OFFICES/BANKS 15 325 NEW PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY BUILDINGS 16 326 NEW SCHOOLS/OTHER EDUCATIONAL 17 327 NEW STORES/OTHER MERCH BLDGS. 18 328 NEW OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 19 329 NEW STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDING 3 $53,160 20 434 ADD/ALTER DWELLING/POOLS 38 $577,665 21 437 ADD/ALTER NON RESIDENTIAL 10 $160,830 22 438 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES/CARPORTS 23 645 DEMOLITION-SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 24 646 DEMO 2-FAMILY BUILDINGS 25 647 DEMO 3-4 FAMILY BUILDINGS 26 648 DEMO 5+ FAMILY BUILDINGS 27 649 DEMO ALL OTHER BUILDINGS 28 SOLAR SYSTEM 51 $791,655 TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2010-11 TO DATE: 0 TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 1 (See Attached List) TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: -1 FY 2009-10 Total New Dwelling Units: 9 Total Demolished Units: 7 FY 2008-09 Total New Dwelling Units: 20 Total Demolished Units: 19 Net Units: 1 Net Units: 2 3 Dwelling Units Demolished/Lost as of August, 2010 ADDRESS TYPE PERMIT DATE PERMIT NO. NO. OF UNIT 1309 Loma Drive Single Family House 7/21/10 B10-290 1 Total Units Demolished 1 4 September 13, 2010 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL September 28, 2010 ACTIVITY REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AUGUST, 2010 STAFF REPORT PREPARED SUBJECT THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE APPEAL / RECONSIDERATION 0 0 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - CONDOMINIUMS 0 0 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - COMMERCIAL 1 0 2 0 C.U.P./PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION/REVOCATION 0 0 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MAP EXTENSION 1 0 3 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 0 0 0 FINAL MAP 0 0 0 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 0 1 HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION 0 0 0 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 0 0 0 NONCONFORMING REMODEL 0 0 0 0 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 1 0 4 PARKING PLAN 0 2 0 4 SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 0 0 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 0 0 0 0 TEXT AMENDMENT 1 0 2 1 TRANSIT 0 0 1 1 VARIANCE 1 0 1 0 ZONE CHANGE 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS 3 3 13 8 TOTAL REPORTS PREPARED 7 6 22 20 NOTE: A staff report may be written for one or more of the items listed above, but it will be listed and counted only once. REVISED (ON 10-4-10) Easy Reader Run Date: October 7, 2010 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, to consider the following: 1. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 439 Pier Avenue (Buona Vita Restaurant). 2. Text Amendment to allow microbreweries in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone and any related amendments for consistency and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration on M-1 parcels generally located within an area bounded by South Park, Loma Drive, 8th Street and the Greenbelt (accessed by 6th Street, Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive) and the lot occupied by the City parking lot/Hermosa Self Storage at 552 11th Place (continued from the September 21, 2010 meeting). 3. Options for regulating live entertainment and entertainment promoters with an Entertainment Permit. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, October 14, 2010, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda. A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, October 14, 2010, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and, on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the web site. Ken Robertson, Director Community Development Department f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2010\planning\pc10-19-10