CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Total Terminals International (TTI), operator at the Pier T container terminal on Terminal Island in the Port of Long Beach (Port or POLB), proposes to install a 17.6-acre grain transloading facility, where the main facility would be located on a vacant 11.6-acre parcel on Pier T, located west of the Department of Defense (DOD) fuel depot (acreage includes a portion of Nimitz Way west of the fuel depot). The rail yard would be located on a vacant 6-acre parcel east of the DOD fuel depot (proposed Project). In total, the Project site is 17.6 acres in size. The proposed Project would be located on the Navy Mole, a two-mile-long, 500-footwide, human-made peninsula that wraps around the West Basin of Long Beach Harbor, adjacent to TTI s existing terminal. Figure shows the proposed Project site (including the western and eastern sites) and surrounding area. While the main facility included under the proposed Project would occur on the 11.6-acre vacant parcel, container stalls (ground striping) and access improvements (yellow dashed striping, removal of electrical gear, new pavement, new crossing panel) would also occur in the area to the west of the 11.6-acre vacant parcel (details of the proposed Project are further described below). The proposed Project would not change existing facilities. The proposed Project would enable the transfer of grain and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), a high quality feed for cattle (no human consumption), utilizing existing rail and shipping infrastructure. Shipping vessels currently transport empty containers from Pier T. Under the proposed Project the same frequency of shipping vessels would occur, but the containers would instead transport grain and DDGS from the Midwest to China, improving the balance of exports through this terminal. The City of Long Beach acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (BHC) has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to identify, evaluate and recommend mitigation measures for the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed TTI Grain Export Terminal Installation Project. The BHC has authority over the City s Harbor District, commonly known as the POLB. For the environmental review process, the POLB is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This EIR fulfills the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section et seq.), and POLB Procedures for Implementation of the CEQA (Resolution No. HD-1973). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that: will inform public agency decisionmakers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This EIR evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. It will be used to address potentially significant environmental issues, and to recommend adequate and feasible mitigation measures that, where possible, could reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. Other State and local agencies that have jurisdiction or regulatory responsibility over components of the Project will also rely on this EIR for CEQA compliance as part of their decision-making processes. This chapter discusses the project background (Section 1.2), location (Section 1.3), objectives (Section 1.4), project characteristics (Section 1.5), alternatives (Section 1.6), public involvement TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-1 APRIL 2013

2 and changes from the previous Draft EIR (Section 1.7), and intended uses of the EIR (Section 1.8). 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The proposed Project site is on the Navy Mole, a portion of the former Long Beach Naval Complex (LBNC). The western portion of the site, where the main grain transloading facility would be located, is on Installation Restoration (IR) Site 4 (Mole Extension Operations) and the eastern portion of the site, where the rail yard would be located, is on IR Site 3 (Industrial Waste Disposal Pits). IR Site 4 comprises the western and southwestern portions of the former Navy Mole and covers an area of approximately 70 acres. The proposed Project site covers approximately 11.6 acres of IR Site 4. IR Site 3 extends east from the DOD fuel depot for approximately 650 feet covering an area of approximately 10 acres. The proposed Project site covers approximately 6 acres of IR Site 3. In total, the Project would encompass approximately 17.6 acres. The LBNC was originally made up of two entities, the former Naval Station Long Beach and the former Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which operated from the 1940s through the mid-1990s, at which time the property was closed. After closure, most of LBNC was acquired by the POLB for redevelopment as a marine cargo shipping terminal. IR Sites 3 and 4 were conveyed to the POLB by the Department of the Navy (Navy) in 2001 in the form of a lease (Navy, 2009). The Navy cannot transfer the sites until remediation is complete. As described below, remediation is ongoing at IR Sites 3 and 4. Historic uses of IR Site 3 included disposal of industrial wastes and trash from the 1940s to the early 1970s into waste disposal pits. Historic uses of IR Site 4 include hauling and dumping waste material (e.g., sandblast grit and construction debris) into the ocean to extend the mole, storage and transfer of diesel and motor fuels, storage of miscellaneous equipment and materials, and long-term storage of deployed personal vehicles. Due to these historic uses, these sites were determined to be potentially contaminated and remedies were selected to address the presence of contamination (Navy, 2009). Contaminants found in the soil and in the groundwater at the site are discussed in detail in Section 3.3 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), as well as the institutional controls (ICs) detailed in the Covenant to Restrict Use of Property and Environmental Restriction for Installation Restoration Sites 3, 4, and 6A at Long Beach Naval Complex (herein referred to as Covenant ) to prevent human exposure to soil and groundwater contaminants. 1.3 LOCATION The proposed Project would be located on the Navy Mole, a 2-mile long, 500-foot wide, human-made peninsula that wraps around the West Basin of Long Beach Harbor. The proposed Project would utilize two parcels on the Navy Mole as shown on the site plan (Figure 1.1-1), including an 11.6-acre parcel situated between TTI s existing container yard to the west and the DOD fuel depot to the east (includes a portion of Nimitz Way west of the fuel depot within the project limits) and a 6-acre parcel located to the east of the fuel depot. The Project site, which is zoned Port Industrial (IP), is currently vacant, unpaved land, where the 11.6-acre parcel has been used as a laydown area for past dredging operations. Existing Class 1 rail lines follow the southern edge of the site, and connect to other Class 1 rail lines including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway and the Union Pacific (UP) Railway networks. The site is serviced by existing utility lines, including electric, gas, water, and sewer. An 18-inch, underground Navy fuel line traverses the northern portion of the 11.6-acre parcel. There are also existing fire hydrants at the Project site and along Nimitz Way. The site is accessed via Reeves Avenue, south on Navy Mole Road to Nimitz Way, which is the same route currently utilized by employees at the existing TTI container terminal to access privately owned vehicle (POV) parking. TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-2 APRIL 2013

3

4 1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Objectives of the proposed Project include the following: Enable TTI to export at least 750,000 tons of grain and DDGS per year; Ensure that operational emissions from the grain and DDGS transloading and export are below South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds; Design the facility to utilize existing rail and container yard facilities; and Utilize empty containers being returned to China to transport grain and DDGS, thereby eliminating the need for new vessel trips. 1.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Project would involve the construction of a grain transloading facility, which would be served by existing rail infrastructure on the south side of the site. The grain transloading facility would operate as an integral element of the existing TTI container terminal, and would be comprised of an automated facility that includes a hydraulic rail indexing system, automated conveyor systems, and automated shuttle conveyors to fill empty containers. The facility would also include a 1,800-square-foot single-story office building. The major components of the proposed facility, as shown in Figures and 1.5-2, are described in more detail below and include the following: Rail Unloading and Product Receiving Building; Covered Storage Facilities; Covered Container Loading Facilities; Covered Grain Conveyance Systems; Rail Unloading Operations; Container Loading Operations; Container Handling Operations; and Rail Storage Yard for Empty Grain Hopper Cars. Grading and Site Preparation As part of construction, the entire 17.6-acre Project site (including the western parcel [Parcel 1, IR Site 4] and eastern parcel [Parcel 2, IR Site 3]) would be graded. The existing grade at the Project site, which ranges between approximately 13 and 17 feet MLLW, would be altered to allow for placement of proposed Project components, but would continue to range between 13 and 18 feet MLLW following the completion of construction. Because there would be no change in elevation at the site, primary grading efforts would be focused on the foundations to be located on Parcel 1 (IR Site 4). Grading would be conducted for concrete foundations, rail, and sub-grade compaction for the placement of new pavement subbase and asphalt paving. Re-grading of the site would also allow for joining existing adjacent boundary conditions including rail, roadways, and the adjacent TTI terminal, and to allow for adequate site drainage. Building foundations would be concrete and the remainder of the western parcel (Parcel 1, IR Site 4) would be paved with asphalt concrete (11.6 acres total). Based upon the preliminary geotechnical report, ground improvement to minimize liquefaction would include Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM). The CDSM would be conducted within the footprint of the foundations for the buildings and silos. Concrete mat foundations would then be used to support the structures on site. The container loading building would include piles to support the columns. CDSM mixes the soil in-place with cement slurry injected through hollow stem augers. Typically, specialized equipment that will install multiple overlapping augered columns with one pass is used. The augering is repeated to create a grid pattern of treated underground panels of cemented soil. The treated soils have the geotechnical characteristics of weak sandstone and the grid pattern contains the untreated soil to reduce shear strain and pore pressure to significantly reduce liquefaction during an earthquake. Consequently, large deformation or lateral flow of soils contained by CDSM panels is prevented during a seismic event. Construction and quality control procedures will be addressed within the CDSM TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-5 APRIL 2013

5 specifications. Excess cement slurry spoils will be generated as a result of CDSM and would be contained on site and tested for contaminants to either allow for re-use as pavement sub-grade if clean or disposed of off-site in accordance with regulatory requirements. Rail Unloading and Product Receiving Building The proposed Project would include a rail unloading and product receiving building, which would have a floor space of approximately 36 feet by 146 feet (5,356 square feet) and a height of 23 feet. This building would include a receiving control room that would provide for receiving and distribution equipment, process control systems, railcar indexer and car scales process control, video monitoring of railcar scales and receiving pits, and the grain sampler s receiving cabinet and analyzing equipment. The rail unloading facilities also include two receiving pits, a full basement, and equipment conveying systems to transport product to the storage facilities (see description below). The conveyance systems (electric) would be enclosed from the unloading pits, through the conveyance systems, silos, and surge bins, to the loading of containers. There would be a closed-loop dust collection system in the conveyance system to the container doors. The Receiving Dust Control System (System #1) includes all receiving, transfer, and distribution conveyors and bucket elevator equipment from the railcar unloading pits to the silos (approximately 17,450 actual cubic feet per minute [acfm]). The Transfer Dust Control System (System #2) includes all silo reclaim and surge bin distribution conveyors and bucket elevators from the silos to the surge bins and air for gain grading equipment (approximately 6,700 acfm). Dust collection systems would be designed to comply with both the SCAQMD and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) requirements. The receiving basement excavation would be approximately 13 feet deep from the proposed surface grade of 18 feet MLLW; therefore, the bottom of the excavation would be at five feet MLLW. Since groundwater in the area is expected to be between four and six feet MLLW (depending on tidal variations and capillary rise), there is potential for groundwater to be encountered during excavations. If necessary, a slurry seal would be placed at the bottom of the foundation excavations during low tides. This would be done in combination with side slurry wall, to preclude groundwater from infiltrating the excavations. If groundwater were encountered, it would be pumped out, contained in a water tank(s), and tested for contamination to determine appropriate disposal method(s). If the groundwater is determined to be clean, it would be used on site for dust suppression; otherwise, it would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regional, State, and federal regulatory requirements. Groundwater would not be discharged to open waters. During operations the receiving basement and the silo reclaim tunnel (see below) can be sealed with a slurry seal and slurry wall seal, and designed to resist groundwater uplift forces through methods such as: connecting CDSM columns with slab foundations through steel members, inserting steel elements (e.g., deformed steel bars or I-beams) in freshly mixed CDSM columns, or drilling within the CDSM column in which the steel bar is placed and grouting with high strength grout (Fugro, 2012; Fugro, 2013). Storage Facilities Three concrete storage silos would be constructed, each sized with an inside diameter of 63 feet and an overall height of 96 feet from average site grade to the top of silo roof (floor area of 9,437 square feet total). Each silo would have an elevated bottom floor approximately 2.5 feet above finished site grade to accommodate the silos reclaim tunnel and equipment. Beneath each elevated floor would be a continuous open concrete tunnel to house the reclaim transfer drag conveyor. Each tunnel would have an approximate width of 12 feet and height of 8.5 feet above the silo foundation. The silo TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-6 APRIL 2013

6

7

8 foundations would be excavated to a depth of approximately 11 feet below existing site grade. The proposed surface grade where excavation for the silos would occur is expected to be approximately 16 feet MLLW; therefore, excavation would occur above the known depth to groundwater. However, if groundwater is encountered during excavation, it would be pumped out, contained in water tank(s), and tested for contamination to determine appropriate disposal methods. If the groundwater is determined to be clean, it would be used on site for dust suppression; otherwise, it would be disposed in accordance with applicable regional, state and federal regulatory requirements. Each silo would have a storage capacity of approximately 167,858 bushels of grain. The combined storage capacity of the three silos for grain would be approximately 503,574 bushels. The storage of grains within an enclosed area such as the silos included in the proposed Project introduces a potential for dust explosion. This phenomenon is characterized by the rapid combustion of dust particles suspended in the air in an enclosed location (OSHA, 2011). Elements needed for combustion to occur include the following: combustible dust (fuel), ignition source (heat), and oxygen in air (oxidizer) (OSHA, 2011). Suspended dusts increase the surface area of a grain mass, allowing the material to burn faster. In addition, the extremely small mass of each dust particle allows it to catch on fire with much less energy than underlying bulk material, as there is no heat loss to conduction within the material. When this mixture of fuel (grain dust) and air is ignited in a confined space, such as the silos to be construction under the proposed Project, a substantial increase in pressure is created which may be sufficient to demolish the structure. In order to address potential hazards associated with dust explosion, the silos would be designed in accordance with Long Beach Fire Department requirements. This would include isolation equipment from the bucket elevators and dust collectors through the use of suppression systems. The City of Long Beach Fire Department would approve isolation and suppression methods, and all explosion suppression required by the City would be incorporated into the design as part of final engineering. Container Loading Facilities The proposed Project would include a 4-lane covered container loading building, which would have a footprint of 85.5 feet by 145 feet (12,398 square feet), with a height of 40 feet. The sidewall height of the building would be approximately 38 feet. The building would include a loadout control room that provides for reclaim and loadout equipment process control systems, traffic control systems, and video monitoring of each container loading station. The loading process would also include surge bins (576 square feet), which provide for more time-efficient loading, and do not require all reclaim equipment to be started under load thus reducing maintenance outages. In addition, there would be a closed-loop dust collection system utilized in the loading buildings. The Loadout Dust Control System (System #3) would include four independent dust control systems, one for each loading lane (approximately 4,500 acfm each or 18,000 acfm total). Figure provides a diagram of the container loading process. Rail Unloading Operations The proposed grain transloading facility would be designed to serve approximately four trains per week, traveling to and from the site on the BNSF railway line. Recently the BNSF introduced new grain cars that are shorter, but have approximately the same capacity as the current cars in operation. As such, the BNSF would now utilize two types of grain hopper cars to deliver the grain to the site. The specifications for a single commodity grain train are as follows: Newer version 55-8 hopper cars (new) Maximum of 116 cars per unit train; 6,608- foot unit train (with two locomotives within the rail yard) Older version hopper cars 110 cars per unit train; 7,062-foot unit train (with two locomotives within the rail yard) TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-9 APRIL 2013

9

10 Note that the rail hopper cars previously analyzed in the Draft EIR (December 2011), are longer (62-10 ), but carry the same volume per car. The new hopper cars are shorter (55-8 ), which allows for a unit train to be comprised of additional cars and still stay within the rail length and load limits. Utilizing the new shorter hopper cars, trains could have a maximum of 116 car units if transporting a single grain commodity. If transporting DDGS, trains would have only 100 car units. The reason for this difference in the number of car units is that grain is denser (56 pounds/bushel) than DDGS and therefore has more mass. As a result, the grain must be split between a greater number of railcars. DDGS is less dense (42 pounds/bushel), which allows more volume to be placed in each railcar. Each railcar would have a capacity of 4,000 bushels of grain or 4,800 bushels of DDGS. Therefore, each unit train would accommodate approximately 464,000 bushels or 12,992 tons based on 116 railcars of grain, or 480,000 bushels or 10,000 tons based on 100 railcars of DDGS. Utilizing the older, longer hopper cars (62-10 ), trains would have a maximum of 110 car units if transporting a single grain commodity. If transporting DDGS trains would have 100 car units. Each railcar would have a capacity of 3,600 bushels of grain or 4,800 bushels of DDGS. Therefore, each unit train would accommodate approximately 400,000 bushels or 11,200 tons based on 110 railcars of grain, or 480,000 bushels or 10,000 tons based on 100 railcars of DDGS. For each unit train, it is assumed that four locomotives would be utilized for line haul, with up to two locomotives being used for internal placement of the train in the rail storage yard. Each unit train would be placed on a single storage track at the Pier T rail yard. A yard engine would position the train onto the automatic rail indexer which then moves the cars through the receiving building (see description above). The unit train would unload continuously (bottom dump). Each of the two-railcar unloading pits would have a capacity of approximately 40,000 bushels per hour (BPH) (whether grain or DDGS), for a combined railcar unloading rate of 80,000 BPH (maximum). Unloading operations for each unit train are estimated to take approximately 6.4 hours, excluding switching time of approximately five hours per unit train, for a total of 11.4 hours. The unloading operations can be done in less than eight hours (excluding the rail arrival and departure switching times). It is preferred that this would be completed during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift. However, rail unloading could also be done during the 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. shift, depending upon train arrival schedules and capacity in the existing intermodal storage yard. The rail unloading operations are constrained by the rate of container loading operations as described under Container Loading Operations, below. To maintain acceptable levels of service for the existing operating intermodal rail yard, the goal of the proposed Project is to accommodate a 110- or 116-unit grain train utilizing a single storage track for inbound/outbound staging and the use of the new storage yard to accommodate a full unit train of empty cars (see Figure 1.5-2). This would require 11 tracks for storage of a full unit train in the storage yard and an additional track for 8 bad order cars (i.e., rail cars that have mechanical defects) to be stored. A faster turnaround of the grain trains of 15 hours or less provided by the additional silo, storage tracks, and faster unloading, would help to minimize the effect on the current intermodal operations of the TTI container yard. As noted above, a single storage track would be used to receive a loaded unit train. Once the train arrives it would be connected to the indexer on the west side of the receiving building and staged for unloading. A switch engine would be positioned at the north/west end of the train during the unloading operations. The indexer automatically moves the cars through the receiving building until the first storage track at the new rail storage yard on Parcel 2 (IR Site 3) is fully occupied. To allow for the next group of empty cars to be placed on the second storage track, the switch engine would pull the remaining loaded cars north/west to clear the switch in TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-11 APRIL 2013

11 the storage yard. Once the switch is cleared, the indexer is re-engaged and indexes the next set of cars through the receiving building and onto the next storage track. This process is repeated until all the cars are placed in the storage yard. The cars remain in the storage yard until they are assembled for departure. Note that in the original Draft EIR the rail unloading operation was designed to unload a full unit train in 36 hours operating at rate of 20,000 BPH. This required less silo capacity because the railcars were in part serving as storage buffer over the 36-hour unloading operation. The rail unloading and container loading rates were both 20,000 BPH. This only required one silo as a buffer between these two simultaneous operations. With the need to turn around a train in 15 hours or less to avoid rail demurrage fees, it became necessary to increase the rail unloading rate and silo capacity. The rail unloading and container loading are the primary operations driving the design and throughput of the facility. Based upon the conditions noted above, the maximum throughput of the facility is expected to be approximately 2.8 million tons per year or approximately four trains per week. This does not account for any train delays, ordering main line locomotives, or other unscheduled downtime. It is difficult to determine when the terminal will be operating at capacity due to the changing global grain markets and to forecast when the peak volumes may occur over the life of the facility. It is highly probable that it would not necessarily increase at a constant rate over time, but rather vary between years. Based upon statistics published by the United States Agriculture Department (USDA) over the past ten years, the market has varied from a low of 30 million tons in 2011/2012 to a high of 60 million tons in 2008/2009 and 40 million tons in 1991/1992. Container Loading Operations Empty containers on chassis previously unloaded at the TTI Intermodal Yard from the domestic back hall would be picked up at the TTI intermodal or container yard and prestaged at the grain facility at the container stalls prior to loading operations commencing. A California Agriculture Inspector would inspect the containers in advance of the loading operations and clear them for use. The containers would be swept out, if necessary, to remove any trash and debris and material would be disposed of in dumpsters. It is estimated that approximately six dumpster loads per year would be generated. It is not necessary to wash out the containers between loads. Container loading would occur within the fourlane container loading building, designed to provide for seamless loading in a single direction traffic flow pattern. The 40-foot-long empty containers on chassis would be transported via existing hostlers (yard tractors) to the loading building where they would be positioned on scales directly in front of the loading equipment. Each container would be opened and a piece of cardboard called a bulkhead would be placed at the end of the container to contain the grain or DDGS. The bulkhead would not be removed after the container is filled. Once the loading sequence is initialized, an automatic conveyance system (electric) would be lowered into each container and fill the container to a predetermined level based on a targeted loaded weight of 26 metric tons (see Figure 1.5-3). Upon completion, the container would be automatically weighed, closed, and sealed. Fumigation of grain would not be required. Each container would hold approximately 1,030 bushel of grain or 1,433 bushel of DDGS, equivalent to 26 metric tons. Loaded containers on chassis would be transported to the existing Pier T container yard to be later retrieved and transported to one of the Pier T berths for loading onto vessels for export (no external truck traffic would be required). The container loading operation is confined to four loading lanes with an average loading rate of 20,600 BPH for all four lanes. The loading process operates on approximately five-minute cycles, five times per hour. The container loading operation is expected to occur at a rate of half that of the rail unloading. Due to the slower container loading rate, silo capacity is required to provide a buffer between the rail unloading and container loading operations. TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-12 APRIL 2013

12 The container loading operations govern the ultimate capacity of the facility. The preferred scenario for loading of containers includes two shifts operating Monday through Friday. The first shift would operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (approximately seven hours excluding breaks and shift changes), and the second shift would operate from 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. (approximately seven hours excluding breaks and shift changes. To reach the facilities maximum throughput of 2.8 million tons per year, operations would need to occur seven days per week, 50 weeks per year (assumes nine days per year for maintenance purposes), utilizing only the first two shifts (14 hours/day x 7 days/week x 50 weeks/year x 20,600 BPH x 56 pounds/bushel 2,000 pounds/ton = 2.8 million tons per year). This scenario formulates the basis of the EIR analysis. Due to the cost differential for the third shift of dock labor (hoot shift), and because the maximum throughput is reached with only the two shifts, it is expected that container loading would only occur during the first and second shifts, at most. Container Handling Operations The grain facility is intended to operate as an integral element of the TTI container terminal. The security perimeter of the TTI terminal would be expanded to incorporate the grain facility operations such that traffic departing from and arriving to the existing TTI container stacking/parking area would not leave the terminal or transit on publicly accessible streets. A route for the hostlers (yard tractors) and other container handling equipment to transit between the existing TTI terminal area and the grain operations is shown on Figure Parking for existing hostlers, pick-up trucks, POV parking, and top handler parking, as well as new empty container parking areas, would be integrated onto the proposed site (192 empty container stalls and 149 POV parking spaces). The proposed facility would not increase the existing capacity of the rail, container, or vessel operations. Other Improvements Implementation of the proposed Project would include additional improvements to the proposed site, as described below. Yard Lighting. Low-energy, glare-reducing light fixtures would be utilized for site lighting. Utilities. The proposed Project would utilize existing gas, electric, telephone, sewer, and water lines that are located at the TTI Terminal rail yard west of the site for the office trailer and the loading and unloading conveying systems (electric). Fire water lines and hydrants, potable water lines, and sewer lines would be installed, as necessary. Existing communications and electrical vaults would be relocated, as well as other miscellaneous utilities, as required. For example, an existing electrical line, gas line, and pump station would require relocation to avoid conflicts with the proposed improvements. Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide for new service and a transformer for the site s electrical power. An existing gas line would also be relocated. Excavation/Grading. To accommodate the new rail storage yard, site paving and grading, and building facility foundations, there would be approximately 33,950 cubic yards of cut and 19,550 cubic yards of fill material. As previously indicated, all excavated materials would be stockpiled and tested prior to disposal at an approved facility. Site grading and excavation is estimated to result in 14,400 cubic yards of export. Site Drainage. Several catch basins and a storm drain line would be added to the site. Fencing, Striping and Signage. The security perimeter of the TTI terminal would be expanded to incorporate the proposed grain facility. Striping would be added to denote new container stalls and parking spaces. Signs would be provided, as appropriate. Asphalt Pavement. The entire site (other than building foundations and the empty rail storage yard) would be paved. Rail Tracks. Rail tracks to the rail loading building and the empty car storage yard would be installed. TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-13 APRIL 2013

13 Fire Water Lines. These would be installed for fire protection purposes and would include hydrants and building fire protection. Potable Water. Potable water and sewer would be provided for the office trailer, as well as at the unloading and loading facilities. Rail Crossing Protection. Protection for the new rail crossing inside the terminal would be provided. Communications/Electrical. Existing communications and electrical vaults would be relocated, as well as other miscellaneous utilities, as required. Construction Schedule Final engineering for the proposed Project is expected to be completed within the first quarter of The construction would be phased as follows: Phase 1 Utility Relocations, POV Parking Lot, Trailer Office and Rail Storage and Rail Turnouts. Construction is expected to occur over an approximately eight-month period (approximately September 2, 2013 to May 9, 2014). Phase 2 All other work. Construction is expected to occur over an approximately 18-month period (approximately September 2, 2013 to February 19, 2015). Construction would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, but may also occur on Saturdays, as needed (see Table for the applicant s estimated construction schedule, including utility relocations). Water trucks may operate on Saturdays and/or Sundays if required for dust control. Overall, construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 is expected to last approximately 18 months (approximately September 2, 2013 to February 19, 2015), depending on depending upon completion of all necessary approvals and permits. The proposed construction schedule and construction equipment are described in Table Operational Characteristics Thirty-three (33) personnel would be required to operate the grain transloading facility, with two operational shifts (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.). Rail unloading operations would require five staff and loading operations would require 28 staff, which includes 22 staff for container loading, two office workers, two staff for operating the storage facilities (silos), and two agricultural inspectors. Container loading operations would occur throughout both shifts; however, rail unloading would only occur during one shift (second shift), such that the staff would decrease from 33 to 28 during the second shift. Based on the maximum operating scenario for container loading, which includes two shifts (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. 7 operating hours per shift) totaling 14 hours per day, seven days per week, for 50 weeks per year (14 hours/day x 7 days/week x 50 weeks/year x 20,600 BPH x 56 pounds/ bushel 2,000 pounds/ton), the maximum theoretical throughput of the facility would be 2.8 million tons per year. Rail unloading operations would be limited by container loading operations and limited to approximately four trains per week. This formulates the basis of the EIR analysis. The maximum practical throughput, however, depends on market conditions, operational costs, number of shifts (single, double, triple shifts per day), number of silos, rail demurrage costs, etc.; therefore, the maximum practical throughput capacity could vary between 750,000 and 2.8 million tons of material per year. The discussion below describes throughput for the existing condition (2011), interim years (2015 and 2020), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) horizon year (2035). The most recent SCAG RTP ( ) identifies a transportation vision and long-range management plan for the sixcounty region encompassing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, addressing all modes of potential transportation (SCAG, 2012). As relevant to this proposed Project, vessel, rail, and vehicular activities are discussed below. Existing Transportation Operations And Anticipated Changes Upon Project Completion. Currently, there is no throughput of grain or DDGS associated with the proposed Project site. The throughput of the adjacent existing TTI container terminal would TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-14 APRIL 2013

14 TABLE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND EQUIPMENT Phase 1A Utility Relocations 1B Removals/ Site Grading 1C Storm Drain, Electrical/ Sewer 1D Rail Road Improvements 1E Paving & Miscellaneous Site Improvements 2A Cement Deep Soil Improvement 2B Foundations and Silo 2C Utility Relocation, Storm Drain, Electrical / Sewer / Water 2D Removals/ Site Grading Small Dozer Small Loader Truck Crane Equipment Vibratory Roller Excavator Small Backhoe Large Skid Steer Loader Road Grader Asphalt Paver Road Grader Vibratory Roller Excavator with bucket Front End Wheel Loader Small Loader Cement Deep Soil Mixing Rig Small Loader Crane for Pile Driving Pile Driver Truck Crane Concrete Pump Vibratory Roller Large Skid-Steer Loader Front End Wheel Loader Excavator Small Loader Rough Terrain Crane Road Grader Month Year (approximate) TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-15 APRIL 2013

15 TABLE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND EQUIPMENT 2E Buildings Phase 2F Conveyance / Mechanical Installations; Railroad Receiving, Surge & Loadout 2G Conveyance/ Mechanical Installations Rail Receiving, Surge & Loadout 2H Rail Road Improvements 2I Paving & Miscellaneous Site Improvements All Phases Notes: 1 - Deliveries of Material. Equipment Rough Terrain Crane Welder Asphalt Paver Asphalt Dump Trucks Road Grader Vibratory Roller Small Loader Excavator with Bucket Rough Terrain Cranes Water Truck Semi with Flatbed Trailer 1 Transit Mix Concrete Truck 1 Generators Water Pumps Forklift Telehandler Month Year (approximate) TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-16 APRIL 2013

16 not change as a result of grain export under the proposed Project. The proposed facility would not increase the existing capacity of shipping vessel operations. The Project involves no improvements that would facilitate an increase in ship calls. Instead, the Project proposes to utilize shipping vessels departing from TTI s container terminal that would otherwise transport empty containers from Pier T. Under the proposed Project, these same vessels would transport containers loaded with grain and DDGS rather than transport empty containers. Thus, the only ships that would transport the grain and DDGS from the proposed facility are ships that were already calling at TTI s container terminal and would otherwise be loaded with empty containers. Operation of the proposed Project would result in increased rail activity associated with the transport of grain and DDGS to the site from the Midwest. Vehicular trips would be slightly increased due to the transport of between 28 and 33 operational staff per shift to and from the Project site. Transportation Operations and Anticipated Changes in Interim Years. In the years 2015 and 2020, vessel calls at TTI s terminal are not expected to increase due to the export activities of the proposed facility, because the operation would continue to utilize the vessels that will be departing from TTI s container terminal. Utilizing those vessels eliminates the need for new vessel trips to transport the grain and DDGS. As described above, rail and vehicular trips would increase during operation of the proposed Project, compared to existing conditions. Transportation Operations and Anticipated Changes in the RTP Horizon Year (2035). In the year 2035, vessel calls at TTI s terminal are not expected to increase due to the export activities of the proposed facility, since the operation would continue to utilize the vessels that will be departing from TTI s container terminal. Utilizing those vessels eliminates the need for new vessel trips to transport the grain and DDGS. As described above, rail and vehicular trips would increase during operation of the proposed Project. 1.6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Background to the Alternatives CEQA Guidelines ( ) require that an EIR examine alternatives to a project in order to explore a reasonable range of alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives, while reducing the severity of potentially significant environmental impacts. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Alternatives usually take the form of reduced project size, different project design and/or operations, suitable alternative project sites, or no project. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason that requires the identification of only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice between the alternatives and the proposed project. The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section (f)(1)) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. In order to comply with CEQA s requirements, each alternative that has been suggested or developed for this Project has been evaluated in the three following ways: Does the alternative accomplish all or most of the basic project objectives? Is the alternative potentially feasible (from economic, environmental, legal, social, technological standpoints)? Does the alternative avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed Project (including consideration of whether TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-17 APRIL 2013

17 the alternative itself could create significant effects greater than those of the proposed Project)? Six preliminary alternatives were considered during preparation of this EIR, including alternative site configurations and alternate rail operations. No alternative site locations were considered, as no proper rail infrastructure exists at any other west coast port. Only three alternatives meet most of the Project s objectives, are potentially feasible, and would reduce potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project. Therefore, only these three alternatives have been carried forward for analysis (see Section 1.6.3). Alternatives considered, but not carried forward, are addressed in Section 1.6.2, below Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis This section discusses the four alternatives considered, but eliminated from further discussion, including the rationale for decisions to eliminate alternatives from detailed analysis. These alternatives are: Construct a grain/ddgs transloading facility that utilizes shorter trains with fewer locomotives to transport grain and/or DDGS; Construct a grain/ddgs transloading facility that utilizes shared trains for transport of grain and/or DDGS; and Construct a grain/ddgs transloading facility with four silos instead of two silos. Construct a grain/ddgs transloading facility at an alternate location. As mentioned, in order to comply with CEQA s requirements, each alternative must accomplish all or most of the basic project objectives discussed in Section 1.4. Transloading Facility That Uses Shorter Trains This alternative would use shorter trains and fewer railcars to transport grain and/or DDGS, which would therefore carry less, weigh less, and require fewer locomotives. With fewer locomotives in use, less air quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions would be generated per train. However, use of shorter trains would require more frequent rail operations such as train splitting at the Watson Yard. This could reduce throughput at the proposed transloading facility, due to increased rail operational time requirements. As such, this alternative would generally meet the Project objectives discussed in Section 1.4, with the exception of the proposed throughput. As mentioned in Section 1.4, part of the Project objectives is to maintain a capacity of 750,000 tons of material per year. This alternative would slightly reduce significant air quality and GHG emissions. The feasibility of this alternative, however, was considered questionable, as the POLB has no authority to dictate the number of railcars per train. Since the POLB cannot reasonably control the rail component of this alternative, it was considered legally infeasible. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Transloading Facility that Shares Use of Trains This alternative would transport grain and/or DDGS by rail, which is the same as the proposed Project; however, the number of rail cars per train associated with the Project would be reduced, such that only a portion of a train would be utilized by the Project. Air quality and GHG emissions associated with rail activity, which represent the largest component of the operational emissions for the Project, would be reduced based on the percentage of railcars with grain and/or DDGS attributed to the Project. In order for operational emissions to fall below SCAQMD significance thresholds, the number of railcars per train that would be associated with the Project would be limited to a maximum of 40 percent of one unit train trip, as opposed to the full unit train assumed for the proposed Project. This would result in a substantial operational constraint making this alternative infeasible. Furthermore, the POLB has no authority to dictate the percentage of rail cars per train that would carry grain and/or DDGS. Since the POLB cannot reasonably control the rail component of this alternative and because of the significant operational constraint associated with rail operations, this alternative was considered legally infeasible. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-18 APRIL 2013

18 Transloading Facility Constructed with Four Silos When TTI originally submitted its Application for Harbor Development Permit or California Environmental Quality Act Determination to the POLB in September 2010 for the Project, the grain transloading facility was designed with four silos. The four-silo configuration would provide for additional flexibility in practical throughput, but it would not increase the annual theoretical throughput of the facility. As described in Section 1.5, the maximum practical throughput depends on market conditions, operational costs, number of shifts, number of silos, rail demurrage costs, etc. As such, the objectives of the Project are not necessarily better met by the four-silo configuration. Furthermore, construction of the four-silo configuration would result in greater construction air quality and GHG emissions, further exacerbating already significant construction air quality emissions impacts and adding to the GHG emissions. This alternative would also result in potentially greater impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, as a greater amount of excavation at the Project site would be required, thereby increasing the potential for exposing workers to existing contaminated soils and groundwater. While this alternative would meet all the objectives of the Project, as listed in Section 1.4, it would not reduce any of the significant impacts of the Project and would result in greater impacts to air quality, GHG, and hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Transloading Facility at Alternate Location Under this alternative the Project would be constructed at an alternate location (unidentified) at the POLB or another west coast port. While the applicant, TTI, has other facilities, none of these facilities provide the proper rail infrastructure to handle grain import/export operations. Building an identical facility at an alternate location would not avoid any of the significant impacts of the proposed Project. Furthermore, locating the Project outside of the POLB would not improve the balance of trade within the POLB, as the existing container terminal at Pier T would continue to export empty containers. As such, this alternative would not meet several of the Project objectives and was therefore eliminated from further consideration Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR In addition to Alternative 1, the Proposed Project, other alternatives, which are analyzed in this EIR, are summarized below, and include: Alternative 2 Reduced Project Alternative; Alternative 3 Trucking Alternative; and Alternative 4 No Project Alternative Alternative 2 Reduced Project Alternative The Reduced Project Alternative (2-silo design) was previously analyzed as the proposed Project (Alternative 1) in the original Draft EIR released in December It has been retained as an alternative to the revised proposed Project (3-silo design). The intent of the Reduced Project Alternative is to reduce the overall area of impact of the Project, as well as reduce construction emissions for the grain transloading facility, which under the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the grain transloading facility would be reduced from three silos to two silos. Not only would there be fewer silos, but the size of the silos would be smaller (inside diameter of 61 feet; height of 64 feet from average site grade to the top of silo roof center), thereby reducing the overall storage silo capacity from 503,574 bushels to 234,716 bushels. In addition, the rail unloading facilities would consist of two railcar unloading conveyors pits each with a capacity of approximately 20,000 BPH (whether grain or DDGS), for a combined railcar unloading rate of 40,000 BHP. Note that this is a change from the design evaluated in the original Draft EIR, which consisted of three pits with a combined unloading rate of 60,000 BHP. This also results in a longer rail unloading time of hours as opposed to the original 36 hours. TTI GRAIN EXPORT TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROJECT 1-19 APRIL 2013