APPENDIX A. Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment

Transcription

1 APPENDIX A Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment

2

3 AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT and HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT for the MARINE, ECOSYSTEM SENSING, OBSERVATION AND MODELING (MESOM) LABORATORY PROJECT La Jolla, California Prepared for: University of California, San Diego Physical Planning 9500 Gilman Drive Pepper Canyon Hall, Suite 464 La Jolla, California Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California DECEMBER 2010 Updated February 2011

4 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. SUMMARY... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose Project Location Project Description EXISTING CONDITIONS Climate and Topography Air Pollution Climatology Air Quality Characteristics POLLUTANTS AND EFFECTS REGULATORY SETTING Federal State Local LOCAL AIR QUALITY SDAB Attainment Designation Air Quality Monitoring Data THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPACTS Construction Impacts Operational Impacts Toxic Air Contaminants Odors CUMULATIVE IMPACTS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Regulatory Setting GHG Emissions and CEQA SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES...59 i December 2010

6 APPENDICES Page No. A B C URBEMIS 2007 Version Modeling and Estimated Emissions SCREEN3 Output File and Emergency Generator Emission Calculations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations LIST OF FIGURES 1 Regional Location Map Site Vicinity Map Project Site Site Plan...11 LIST OF TABLES 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards SDAB Attainment Classification Ambient Air Quality Data (ppm unless otherwise indicated) SDAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (pounds per day) Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions (pounds/day) Summary of Average DPM Concentrations Summary of Maximum Modeled Cancer Risks Summary of Maximum Chronic Hazard Indices Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons/year)...55 ii December 2010

7 SUMMARY The proposed project would consist of an approximately 40,000-gross-square-foot (gsf) research facility located on a 1.2-acre site within the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) portion of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus. The facility would consist of approximately 10,000 gsf of laboratory space and 30,000 gsf of office, conference, and support space. The proposed Marine, Ecosystem Sensing, Observation, and Modeling (MESOM) laboratory is envisioned as a facility that would develop a unique way to foster collaborations for marine ecosystem forecasting. The program would vertically integrate in one building the development of new physical, biological, and chemical sensors, and would enable invaluable exchange among collaborators who would otherwise be located in multiple buildings on the SIO campus. UCSD will attempt to achieve a Platinum certification for this project, which would result in the first Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Environmental Design-certified laboratory on the SIO campus. Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. The analysis concludes that daily operational emissions would not exceed the thresholds for criteria pollutants, and as a result operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality. Operations of the project would produce emissions associated with area sources such as energy use and landscaping. Additional emissions would be associated with laboratory functions at the MESOM facility, as well as intermittent use of an emergency generator. The proposed project would consolidate existing programs and faculty/staff into a new space; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in faculty/staff and there would be no increase in vehicular traffic. The analysis concludes that daily operational emissions would not exceed the thresholds for criteria pollutants, and as a result operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality. Emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) would result from operation of the on-site emergency generator. The maximum anticipated cancer risk associated with the project is 0.6 in one million at the private residence and 0.1 in one million at the Coast Apartments, based on a 70-year lifetime exposure. The assessment also finds that the chronic hazard indices for noncancer health impacts are well below 1.0 at both sensitive receptors. As such, the exposure of project-related TAC emission impacts to sensitive receptors during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. iii December 2010

8 The project s potential effect on global climate change was evaluated, and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) were estimated based on natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, electrical generation, and water supply. The project is estimated to result in GHG emissions of approximately 449 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (CO 2 E/yr), corresponding to an 18% reduction from business as usual. As a result, the proposed project is not likely to result in a conflict with state plans to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). Cumulative global climate change impacts would not be significant because campus-wide development and existing building implement UCSD s sustainability policies and comply with the campus Climate Action Plan, which is designed to meet the goals of AB 32. The project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on climate change. iv December 2010

9 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to estimate and evaluate the potential air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Marine Ecosystem Sensing, Observation, and Modeling (MESOM) Laboratory Project (proposed project). Impacts are evaluated for their significance based on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District s (SDAPCD s) environmental thresholds of significance. In addition, the report analyzes the health risks associated with operation of an on-site emergency generator. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects are analyzed at the nearest sensitive receptors and are evaluated based on thresholds adopted by the SDAPCD. Lastly, the report includes an analysis of project-related greenhouse gas emissions. 1.2 Project Location The proposed project would be located on an approximately 1.2-acre parcel within the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) portion of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus. The project site is bound to the north and west by Biological Grade (a private street), to the south by Isaacs Hall, and to the east by La Jolla Shores Drive (Figures 1 3). The project site currently supports UCSD parking lots P012 and P013. P013 is the northeastern parking lot and is located approximately 13 feet above the elevation of P012, the southwestern parking lot. Elevation on the project site ranges from 180 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 220 feet AMSL. 1.3 Project Description Project Background The proposed MESOM laboratory is envisioned as a facility that would develop a unique way to foster collaborations for marine ecosystem forecasting. The program would vertically integrate in one building the development of new physical, biological, and chemical sensors, and would enable invaluable exchange among collaborators who would otherwise be located in multiple buildings on the SIO campus. Project Objectives The following objectives have been identified for the proposed MESOM laboratory: Create a facility that supports research on marine ecosystems, modeling, and environmental studies, while providing opportunities for multidisciplinary research and supporting both formal and informal interactions between disciplinary groups; 1 December 2010

10 Create a facility that maximizes sustainable strategies to achieve energy efficiency, protect and restore sensitive site conditions, and preserve natural resources; Create a facility that is integrated into the existing slope of the site and utilizes building and massing materials that are consistent with the existing design vocabulary of the SIO campus; Develop a project that is consistent with the educational and planning goals adopted by UCSD and contained in the 2004 LRDP; and Improve public views to the coastline and ocean by selective vegetation removal and management along La Jolla Shores Drive in the vicinity of the UCSD SIO campus. These objectives are consistent with the objectives of the 2004 LRDP, as described in Section III of the Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project. Project Characteristics Sustainability Goals for Project Design The project would implement the systemwide University of California (UC) Policy on Sustainable Practices. The policy establishes numerous guidelines for future projects at UC campuses, including the goal for new building projects, other than acute-care facilities, to outperform the required provisions of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) energy-efficiency standards by at least 20% and strive for 30%. In addition, the policy requires new construction projects to achieve a minimum standard equivalent to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design New Construction (LEED-NC) Silver certification. LEED is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of highperformance green buildings. The program promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. UCSD has set a standard of LEED Silver equivalent for all future building projects on campus. UCSD will attempt to achieve a Platinum certification for this project, which would result in the first LEED-certified laboratory on the SIO campus. 2 December 2010

11 Orange County 79 Riverside County Camp Pendleton Fallbrook Oceanside 78 Vista San Marcos 15 Escondido Valley Center Carlsbad Encinitas Rancho Santa Fe Poway 67 Ramona Del Mar 56 Project Site 805 Mira Mesa La Jolla 52 Santee El Cajon Alpine La Mesa Z:\Projects\j613901\MAPDOC\MAPS\UCSD MESOM\IS-MND Figs\IS-MND_Fig01_Regional.mxd Miles San Diego SOURCE: SANGIS, 2008 Coronado Imperial Beach 5 94 National City 805 Tijuana Lemon Grove Chula Vista Otay Mesa MESOM Laboratory Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment 94 USA Mexico FIGURE 1 Regional Location Map

12 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 December 2010

13 Camp us Housi ng Phase I Nor th MONU MEN T x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Bri dge Bri dge Bri dge BR IDGE X X DN UP DN X X X X X X X X DN. X X X X X X X X X X X X X 295 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SAN DIEGO FWY GENESEE AV WEST CAMPUS N TORREY PINES RD LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR DR L SHORES A Project Site FIGURE 2 Site Vicinity Map JOLL A SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY ,800 Feet SOURCE: UCSD Physical Planning 08/2009 MESOM Laboratory Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment EAST CAMPUS Z:\Projects\j613901\MAPDOC\MAPS\UCSD MESOM\AQ Figs\AQ_Fig02_SiteVicinityMap.mxd

14 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 December 2010

15 Existing NOAA/SWFSC l G r a d e Proposed NOAA/SWFSC B i o l o g i c a P013 P012 Isaacs Hall P014 Keck Center Z:\Projects\j613901\MAPDOC\MAPS\UCSD MESOM\AQ Figs\AQ_Fig03_ProjectSite.mxd Feet Hydraulics Building SOURCE: Aerial: DigitalGlobe 2008; Project Site: UCSD Physical Planning 08/2009 La Jolla Shores Dr Nierenberg Hall MESOM Laboratory Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment Project Site FIGURE 3 Project Site

16 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 December 2010

17 Sustainable features that have been incorporated into the project design include low-water use landscaping and sustainable plant materials; reduction of potable water use; integrated daylighting; energy efficiency of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and use of natural ventilation through operable windows and limiting air conditioning to laboratories. Additional strategies to be developed include hardscape materials that reduce the heat island effect and stormwater runoff; reduction of solar heat gain with appropriate shading for glazing; acoustical and energy performance; maximum recycling of construction waste; use of lowimpact materials; and long-term sustainable maintenance and operations procedures. Building Program The proposed project would consist of an approximately 40,000-gross-square-foot (gsf) research facility located on a 1.2-acre site (Figure 4). The facility would consist of approximately 10,000 gsf of laboratory space and 30,000 gsf of office, conference, and support space. Approximately 60 to 64 employees would staff the MESOM laboratory. These employees are currently housed within various buildings at SIO; therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in an increase in employees on the SIO campus. In order to improve public visual access to the coastline and ocean, additional elements are incorporated into the proposed project at various locations at SIO. The additional elements consist of selective vegetation removal and management in areas identified that currently interfere with views to the coast and ocean. Those areas would be maintained to maximize coastal views over the long term. The proposed project construction would involve the removal of approximately 4,200 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 355 c.y. of fill; approximately 3,845 c.y. of material would be exported off site and disposed of in an approved location. The maximum cut on site would be 12 feet, and the maximum fill on site would be 3 feet. The finished floor elevation for the proposed structure would be approximately feet AMSL. After grading, drainage would continue to flow southwesterly, consistent with the existing drainage patterns on site. The construction phase is estimated to begin in July 2011 and would take approximately 20 months to complete. UCSD would construct the off-site utility connections during the same period. It is anticipated that the MESOM laboratory would become fully operational in spring December 2010

18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10 December 2010

19 NOAA SWFSC Building (under construction) Biological Grade La Jolla Shores Drive Proposed MESOM Building Existing Isaacs Hall SOURCE: WRT 2010 MESOM Laboratory Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment FIGURE 4 Site Plan Z:\Projects\j613901\MAPDOC\MAPS\UCSD MESOM\AQ Figs

20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12 December 2010

21 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Climate and Topography The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average temperature ranges (in F) from the mid 40s to the high 90s. Most of the region s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately 10%) precipitation during the summer. The average seasonal precipitation along the coast is approximately 10 inches; the amount increases with elevation as moist air is lifted over the mountains. The topography in the San Diego region varies greatly, from beaches on the west to mountains and desert on the east; along with local meteorology, it influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the basin. The mountains to the east prohibit dispersal of pollutants in that direction and help trap them in inversion layers. The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and influences the direction of prevailing winds (westerly to northwesterly). Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night. 2.2 Air Pollution Climatology The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB or Basin) and is subject to the SDAPCD guidelines and regulations. The SDAB is one of fifteen air basins that geographically divide the State of California. The SDAB is currently classified as a federal nonattainment area for ozone and a state nonattainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM 10 ), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ), and ozone (O 3 ). The SDAB lies in the southwest corner of California and comprises the entire San Diego region, covering 4,260 square miles, and is an area of high air pollution potential. The Basin experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The Basin experiences frequent temperature inversions. Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer months as descending air associated with the Pacific High Pressure cell meets cool marine air. The boundary between the two layers of air creates a temperature inversion that traps pollutants. The other type of inversion, a radiation inversion, develops on winter nights when air 13 December 2010

22 near the ground cools by heat radiation and air aloft remains warm. The shallow inversion layer formed between these two air masses also can trap pollutants. As the pollutants become more concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions occur that produce ozone, commonly known as smog. Light and daytime winds, predominately from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving air pollutants inland, toward the mountains. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) emissions. CO concentrations are generally higher in the morning and late evening. In the morning, CO levels are relatively high due to cold temperatures and the large number of motor vehicles traveling. High CO levels during the late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area. Since CO is produced almost entirely from automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the Basin are associated with heavy traffic. Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) levels are also generally higher during fall and winter days. Under certain conditions, atmospheric oscillation results in the offshore transport of air from the Los Angeles region to San Diego County. This often produces high O 3 concentrations, as measured at air pollutant monitoring stations within the County. The transport of air pollutants from Los Angeles to San Diego has also occurred within the stable layer of the elevated subsidence inversion, where high levels of O 3 are transported. 2.3 Air Quality Characteristics Air quality varies as a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems arise when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health impacts upon those persons termed sensitive receptors are the most serious hazards of existing air quality conditions in the area. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution, as identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), include children, the elderly, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Existing sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site consist of single family and multifamily residences located to the northeast and east of the project site, respectively. 14 December 2010

23 3.0 POLLUTANTS AND EFFECTS Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include: O 3, NO 2, CO, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size (PM 10 ), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM 2.5 ), and lead (Pb). These pollutants are discussed below. 1 In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. Ozone. O 3 is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases (ROGs), and NO x react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O 3 is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of VOC and NO x, the components of O 3, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O 3 formation and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O 3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Nitrogen Dioxide. Most NO 2, like O 3, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO 2 are collectively referred to as NO x and are major contributors to O 3 formation. High concentrations of NO 2 can cause breathing difficulties and result in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere with reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO 2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis and some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppm). Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, 1 The following descriptions of health effects for each of the criteria air pollutants associated with project construction and operations are based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Six Common Air Pollutants (EPA 2010a) and the CARB Glossary of Air Pollutant Terms (CARB 2010a) published information. 15 December 2010

24 industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as the project location, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions; primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Sulfur Dioxide. SO 2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. Main sources of SO 2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO 2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO 2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO 2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels. SO 2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO 2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM 2.5 and PM 10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair. PM 2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM 2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SO x ), NO x, and VOC. Inhalable particulate matter, or PM 10, is about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM 10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM 2.5 and PM 10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM 2.5 and PM 10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances, such as Pb, sulfates, and nitrates, can cause lung damage 16 December 2010

25 directly or be absorbed into the blood stream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM 10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM 2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline, the manufacturing of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, and ammunition and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emission sources of greater concern. Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are lowlevel lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Toxic Air Contaminants. A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic noncancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ system and may be experienced either on short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC. Cancer risk is defined as the increase in lifetime probability (chance) of an individual s developing cancer due to exposure to a carcinogenic compound, typically expressed as the increased chance in one million. The cancer risk from inhalation of a TAC is estimated by calculating the inhalation dose (in milligrams/kilogram body weight per day) based on a ground-level concentration (in micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m 3 ]), breathing rate, and exposure period, and multiplying the dose by the inhalation cancer potency factor (in [milligrams/kilogram body weight per day] -1 ). Cancer risks are estimated based on a lifetime (70 years) of continuous exposure. 17 December 2010

26 Cancer risks are typically calculated for all carcinogenic TACs and summed to calculate the overall increase in cancer risk to an individual. The calculation procedure assumes that cancer risk is proportional to concentrations at any level of exposure, and that risks are additive. This is generally considered a conservative assumption at low doses and is consistent with the current California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) regulatory approach. Noncancer health risk of an inhaled TAC is measured by the hazard quotient, which is the ratio of the ground-level concentration of a TAC (in μg/m 3 ) divided by the reference exposure level (REL, also in μg/m 3 ). The inhalation REL is the ground-level concentration at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The REL is typically based on health effects to a particular target organ system, such as the respiratory system, liver, or central nervous system. Hazard quotients are then summed for each target organ system to obtain a hazard index. 18 December 2010

27 4.0 REGULATORY SETTING 4.1 Federal The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including the setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, approval of state attainment plans, motor vehicle emission standards, stationary source emission standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric O 3 protection, and enforcement provisions. NAAQS are established for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act, which are O 3, CO, NO 2, SO 2, PM 10, PM 2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The NAAQS (other than for O 3, PM 10, PM 2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. NAAQS for O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5 are based on statistical calculations over 1- to 3-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The CAA requires the EPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames. Toxic Air Contaminants Air toxics have been regulated at the federal level since the passing of the 1977 CAA. Following the passage of this law, regulations for seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) were promulgated as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) over a 13-year period. The federal CAA Amendments of 1990 revamped the NESHAP program to offer a technologybased approach for reducing the emissions of a greater number of toxic air compounds. Under the CAA Amendments, 189 substances were identified as HAPs and slated for regulation. The program requires certain facilities to control air toxic emissions by the installation of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). 4.2 State The federal Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to the CARB, with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts (AQMDs) and air pollution control districts (APCDs) at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency 19 December 2010

28 (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products. CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are more restrictive than the NAAQS, consistent with the Clean Air Act, which requires state regulations to be at least as restrictive as the federal requirements. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standards before a basin can attain the standard. The CAAQS for O 3, CO, SO 2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5 and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Average Time California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Concentration 3 Primary 3,4 Secondary 3,5 O3 CO NO2 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 g/m 3 ) Same as Primary 8 hour ppm (137 g/m 3 ) ppm (147 g/m 3 ) Standard 8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m 3 ) 35 ppm (40 mg/m 3 ) None Annual Arithmetic Mean ppm (57 g/m 3 ) ppm (100 g/m 3 ) Same as Primary 1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 g/m 3 ) Standard 24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 g/m 3 ) 0.14 ppm (365 g/m 3 ) SO2 6 PM10 PM2.5 3 hours 0.5 ppm (1300 g/m 3 ) 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 g/m 3 ) ppm (196 g/m 3 ) 24 hours 50 g/m g/m 3 Same as Primary Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 g/m 3 Standard 24 hours No Separate State Standard 35 g/m 3 Same as Primary Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 g/m g/m 3 Standard Lead 7 30-day Average 1.5 g/m 3 Calendar Quarter 1.5 g/m 3 Rolling 3-Month 8 Average 0.15 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard ppm= parts per million by volume g/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter mg/m 3 = milligrams per cubic meter 1 California standards for O3, CO, sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 20 December 2010

29 Table 1 (Continued) 2 National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m 3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25 C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 5 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 6 On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of ppm, effective August 23, CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 8 National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, SOURCE: CARB 2010b Toxic Air Contaminants California s air toxics control program began in 1983 with the passage of the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 1807, better known as the Tanner Bill. The Tanner Bill established a regulatory process for the scientific and public review of individual toxic compounds. When a compound becomes listed as a TAC under the Tanner process, the CARB normally establishes minimum statewide emission control measures to be adopted by AQMDs and APCDs. By 1992, 18 of the 189 federal HAPs had been listed by the CARB as state TACs. In April 1993, the CARB added 171 substances to the state program to make the state TAC list equivalent to the federal HAP list. The second major component of California s air toxics program, supplementing the Tanner process, was provided by the passage of AB 2588, the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of AB 2588 currently regulates over 600 compounds, including all of the Tanner-designated TACs. Additionally, Proposition 65 was passed by California voters in 1986, which required that a list of carcinogenic and reproductive toxicants found in the environment be compiled, the discharge of these toxicants into drinking water be prohibited, and warnings of public exposure by air, land, or water be posted if a potential public health risk is posed. The emission of any of these substances by a facility would require a public warning unless health risks could be demonstrated to be less than significant. For carcinogens, Proposition 65 defines the no significant risk level as the level of exposure that would result in an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in one million over a 70-year lifetime or 1/1000 of the No Observable Effect Level for reproductive toxicants. 21 December 2010

30 4.3 Local While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local AQMDs and APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The project is located within the SDAB and is subject to SDAPCD guidelines and regulations. In San Diego County, ozone and particulate matter are the pollutants of main concern, since exceedances of state ambient air quality standards for those pollutants are experienced here in most years. For this reason the SDAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for the state PM 10, PM 2.5, and ozone standards. The SDAB is also a federal ozone nonattainment area and a carbon monoxide maintenance area. Toxic Air Contaminants In compliance with federal law, SDAPCD Regulation XI implements federal NESHAPS. SDAPCD s permitting program also includes a Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT) review under Regulation XII, Rule 1200 (Toxic Air Contaminants New Source Review). Rule 1200 contains an air toxics screening requirement for all proposed new or modified emission sources. A health risk assessment is required if the SDAPCD concludes that projected emissions from a proposed new or modified sources could result in a potential public health risk. For carcinogens, the SDAPCD uses a 70-year cancer risk level of 1 in one million for an emissions unit that does not use T-BACT and 10 in one million for an emissions unit equipped with T-BACT. For noncarcinogens, public health risk is assessed by the hazard index for both long-term (chronic) and short-term (acute) exposures. Hazard index values less than 1.0 indicate an acceptable noncancer health risk. 22 December 2010

31 5.0 LOCAL AIR QUALITY 5.1 SDAB Attainment Designation An area is designated in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. These standards are set by the EPA or CARB for the maximum level of a given air pollutant which can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in this air quality assessment include O 3, NO 2, CO, SO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Although there are no ambient standards for VOCs or NO x, they are important as precursors to O 3. The SDAB is designated as a former Subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS for O 3 pending redesignation by EPA. The SDAB was designated in attainment for all other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS with the exception of PM 10, which was determined to be unclassifiable. The SDAB is currently designated nonattainment for O 3, both 1-hour and 8-hour, and particulate matter, PM 10 and PM 2.5 under the CAAQS. It is designated attainment for CO, NO 2, SO 2, lead, and sulfates. Table 2 summarizes San Diego County s federal and state attainment designations for each of the criteria pollutants. Table 2 SDAB Attainment Classification Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (1 hour) Attainment* Nonattainment Ozone (8 hour) Nonattainment (Subpart I) Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment (Maintenance Area) Attainment PM10 Unclassifiable** Nonattainment PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (no federal standard) Unclassified Visibility (no federal standard) Unclassified * The federal 1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans. ** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable. SOURCE: SDAPCD December 2010

32 5.2 Air Quality Monitoring Data The SDAPCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County, which measure ambient concentrations of the pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The SDAPCD monitors air quality conditions at ten locations throughout the Basin. Because of its coastal location similar to the project site, the Del Mar monitoring station ozone levels are considered most representative of the site. Also, because of its proximity to the site and location in an area that is less congested than downtown San Diego, the Overland Avenue monitoring station concentrations for all other pollutants, except SO 2, are considered most representative of the project site. The downtown San Diego monitoring stations are the nearest location to the project site where CO and SO 2 concentrations are monitored. Ambient concentrations of pollutants from 2006 through 2008 are presented in Table 3. The state 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded in 2006, 2007, and 2008, as were the state annual and 24-hour PM 10 standards. Air quality within the project region is in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for NO 2, CO, and SO 2. Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Data (ppm unless otherwise indicated) Pollutant O3 PM10 PM2.5 NO2 CO SO2 Averaging Time Most Stringent Ambient Air Quality Standard 8 hour hour Annual 23.6 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 20 μg/m 3 24 hour 65.0 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 50 μg/m 3 Annual* 10.4 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 12 μg/m 3 24 hour 30.6 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 35 μg/m 3 Annual hour hour hour* Annual hour * Data were taken from EPA AirData (2010b) NOTE: San Diego Monitoring Station located at 1110 Beardsley Street, San Diego, California SOURCE: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics (2010c) Monitoring Station Del Mar Overland Avenue Overland Avenue Overland Avenue San Diego San Diego 24 December 2010

33 6.0 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The State of California has developed guidelines to address the significance of air quality impacts based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which provides guidance that a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would: 1. Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O 3 precursors); 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Criteria Pollutants As part of its air quality permitting process, the SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 requiring the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments (AQIA) for permitted sources. The SDAPCD sets forth quantitative emission significance thresholds below which a project would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. Project-related air quality impacts estimated in this environmental analysis would be considered significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds presented in Table 4, SDAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, are exceeded. For CEQA purposes, these screening criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that a project s total emissions would not result in a significant impact to air quality. 25 December 2010

34 Table 4 SDAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction Emissions Total Emissions (Pounds per Day) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 250 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 250 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 137* Operational Emissions Pollutant Total Emissions Pounds per Hour Pounds per Day Pounds per Year Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Lead and Lead Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 137* 13.7 SOURCE: SDAPCD 1999, Rule 1501, 20.2(d)(2); County of San Diego 2007 * VOC threshold based on the significance thresholds recommended by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the North Central Coast Air Basin, which has similar federal and state attainment status as the SDAB. The thresholds listed in Table 4 represent screening-level thresholds that can be used to evaluate whether project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality. Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. In the event that emissions exceed these thresholds, modeling would be required to demonstrate that the project s total air quality impacts result in ground-level concentrations that are below the CAAQS and NAAQS, including appropriate background levels. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 4, the project could have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants and thus could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality. SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) prohibits emission of any material which causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person. A project that proposes a use that would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off-site receptors. 26 December 2010

35 Toxic Air Contaminants The SDAPCD indicates that the health impacts of a project would be less than significant if they would not exceed the health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the SDAPCD Board (SDAPCD 2006). For carcinogens, the SDAPCD uses a 70-year cancer risk level of 10 in one million as the AB 2588 public notification level as specified in Rule 1210 (Toxic Air Contaminant Public Health Risks Public Notification and Risk Reduction). For noncarcinogens, public health risk is assessed by the hazard index for both long-term (chronic) and short-term (acute) exposures. Hazard index values less than 1.0 indicate an acceptable noncancer health risk. The SDAPCD uses a hazard index threshold of 1.0 as the AB 2588 public notification level for noncancer impacts of TACs. 27 December 2010

36 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 28 December 2010

37 7.0 IMPACTS The significance criteria described in Section 6.0 were used to evaluate impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. 7.1 Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. Fugitive dust emissions would primarily result from grading and site preparation activities. NO x and CO emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of architectural coatings (e.g., paints) would release VOCs. Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of emission factors from the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model (Rimpo and Associates 2007). For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that the proposed project would commence in July 2011 and would last approximately 20 months. Construction phases and associated durations would include the following subphases: mass site grading (2 months), fine site grading (1 month), building construction (12 months), architectural coatings application (2 months), and paving (3 months). Project completion is anticipated in the spring of For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month), during project construction. Additional details of the construction schedule are included in Appendix A. The equipment mix anticipated for construction activity was based on typical construction practices, and is included in Appendix A. The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the active sites would be watered at least three times daily, resulting in an approximately 61% reduction of particulate matter. Table 5, Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions, shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with the construction phase of the proposed project. 29 December 2010

38 Table 5 Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Emissions Pollutant Threshold Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 Version See Appendix A for complete results. As shown, daily construction emissions would not exceed the thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5. As such, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. 7.2 Operational Impacts Operations of the project would produce VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5 emissions associated with area sources such as energy use and landscaping. Additional emissions would be associated with laboratory functions at the MESOM facility, as well as intermittent use of an emergency generator for maintenance and testing. The proposed project would consolidate existing programs and faculty/staff into a new space; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in faculty/staff and there would be no increase in vehicular traffic. As a result, operational emissions from vehicular sources were not included in this analysis. The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to estimate emissions from the project area sources, which include natural gas appliances, gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings for building maintenance. The present estimation of proposed operational emissions is based upon typical university facility uses, and the analysis is considered a reliable estimate of the project s likely emissions. Emissions associated with area sources were estimated based on the building square footage. A 20% reduction in natural gas usage was assumed to account for energy efficiency measures 20% above those required by California Code of Regulations, Title 24. Laboratory operations are not anticipated to result in significant emissions of criteria pollutants. Furthermore, SDAPCD Rule 11 (Exemptions from Rule 10 Permit Requirements) exempts from permitting certain laboratory operations, including research and development, because these are not generally substantial sources of air pollutants. Therefore, the emissions associated with laboratory operations are not quantified. Emissions resulting from operation of the emergency generator were quantified based on operating assumptions made in the LRDP (for more information refer to Section 7.3 and Appendix B). 30 December 2010

39 Table 6, Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions, presents the maximum daily emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project, including intermittent use of the emergency generator. Table 6 Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Area Source Emissions Generator Emissions * Proposed Project Emissions Pollutant Threshold Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No * PM2.5 emissions assumed to be 95% of PM10 emissions. SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 Version See Appendix A for complete results. As shown, daily operational emissions would not exceed the thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5. As such, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. 7.3 Toxic Air Contaminants Construction Impacts Project construction would result in emissions of diesel particulate from heavy construction equipment and trucks accessing the site. Diesel particulate is characterized as a TAC by the State of California. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has identified carcinogenic and chronic noncarcinogenic effects from long-term exposure, but has not identified health effects due to short-term exposure to diesel exhaust. Due to the temporary nature of project construction, and because the project would not generate substantial diesel emissions from construction equipment or trucks, the project would not result in a significant health risk. Operational Impacts Operation of the proposed project would result in emissions of toxic air contaminants from boilers, laboratory operations, and a 125-kilowatt (kw) diesel emergency generator. The 2004 LRDP addressed impacts associated with emissions of TACs from boilers, laboratory operations, and emergency generators in the Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for the LRDP s Environmental Impact Report (UCSD 2003). The LRDP HRA found that small boilers 31 December 2010

40 were not a substantial contributor to health impacts, and therefore their emissions were not analyzed. An analysis of laboratory and emergency generator emissions is included below. Laboratory Emissions The proposed project would support laboratory research on marine ecosystems, modeling, and environmental studies, and would therefore require the regular use and storage of chemicals and hazardous materials on site. These hazardous materials (and associated quantities stored at any one time) are expected to include the following: formalin (4 gallons), ethyl alcohol (4 gallons), acetone (12 gallons), methanol (12 gallons), acetonitrile (4 gallons), chloroform (4 gallons), hydrochloric acid (10 liters), sulfuric acid (10 liters), epoxy resins (16 quarts), roomtemperature-vulcanizing silicone (4 liters), paint thinner (8 quarts), and urethane resins (16 quarts). These chemical quantities are considered standard for laboratory operations. The majority of the chemicals anticipated to be utilized at the MESOM facility were addressed in the LRDP HRA, which concluded that no significant risk would result from exposure to laboratory chemicals. Chemicals that were not addressed in the LRDP HRA would be used in small amounts in laboratory operations and would not be expected to be released in large quantities, nor would they be anticipated to pose a substantial health risk to sensitive receptors. Therefore, health risks associated with laboratory operations would be within the campus-wide risks considered in the LRDP HRA and would therefore, as concluded in the LRDP EIR, not result in a significant impact on air quality. Emergency Generator The proposed project would utilize a 125-kW (182 horsepower) diesel generator set. In order to estimate the ambient concentrations of diesel particulate matter (DPM) resulting from operation of the emergency generator at the nearest sensitive receptors, a dispersion modeling analysis was performed using the Lakes Environmental SCREEN-View air quality dispersion model, Version (Lakes Environmental 2009), which uses the U.S. EPA s SCREEN3 model. As indicated in the LRDP HRA, future diesel engines were assumed to be fired 26 hours per year (0.5 hour per week) (UCSD 2003). Based on the current CARB emission standard for new offroad engines, an emission rate of 0.15 gram per brake-horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) was conservatively assumed. Utilizing these assumptions, an emission rate of gram per second (g/s) was calculated. Based on both the manufacturer s specifications (Caterpillar 2007) and assumptions made in the LRDP HRA (UCSD 2003), SCREEN3 was run using the following stack parameters: 32 December 2010

41 Exhaust flow rate: 1049 actual cubic feet per minute (manufacturer s specification) Exhaust temperature: 819ºF (manufacturer s specification) Stack height: 7 feet (assumed per LRDP HRA) Stack diameter: 4 inches (assumed per LRDP HRA) Emission Rate: grams per second (calculated based on current CARB emission standard for new engines) Receptors were placed at the nearest off-campus residential receptor (private residence, located at 9048 La Jolla Shores Lane, just north of the existing Southwest Fisheries Science Center) and the nearest on-campus residential receptor (Coast Apartments, located at 9310 Discovery Way, off of La Jolla Shores Drive). The private residence is located approximately 500 feet (152 meters) northeast of the project site at an elevation of 245 feet (74 meters) AMSL, while the Coast Apartments are located approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters) east of the project site at an elevation of 372 feet (113 meters) AMSL. The generator site would be located at an elevation of feet (57 meters) AMSL. The results of the SCREEN3 modeling are provided in Appendix B. 24-hour concentrations were converted to 1-hour concentrations by dividing by 0.25 (for VALLEY model calculations) or 0.4 (for simple terrain model calculations). Per EPA guidance (EPA 1992), the 1-hour concentrations were then multiplied by 0.1 to simulate the annual averages. 24-hour and annual averages are shown below in Table 7, Summary of Average DPM Concentrations. Table 7 Summary of Average DPM Concentrations Receptor DPM 24-hr Concentration g/m 3 DPM Annual Concentration g/m 3 Private residence Coast Apartments NOTE: Values are expressed in scientific notation (X.X 10 -X ) (e.g., is ). SOURCE: SCREEN3 Model results. See Appendix B for complete results. The cancer risk calculations were performed by multiplying the predicted annual DPM concentrations from SCREEN3 by the appropriate risk values. The exposure and risk equations that are used to calculate the cancer risk at residential receptors are taken from the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) manual for health risk assessments prepared under the Air Toxics Hot Spots program (OEHHA 2003). 33 December 2010

42 The potential exposure pathway for DPM includes inhalation only. To be conservative (i.e., health protective), the cancer risk calculations for all exposures assume that a receptor is exposed continuously for 70 years. Cancer risks were evaluated using the inhalation Cancer Potency Factors published by the OEHHA and CARB (CARB 2010d). The Cancer Potency Factor for DPM is 1.1 per milligram per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-day). The potential exposure through other pathways (e.g., ingestion) requires substance and site-specific data, and the specific parameters for diesel exhaust are not known for these pathways. The Cancer Potency Factor also assumes that a person is exposed continuously for 70 years. This approach is intended to result in conservative (i.e., health protective) estimates of health impacts and is used for the receptors previously identified. The following equations were used to calculate the cancer risk due to inhalation using the modeled DPM concentrations: Risk = Inhalation potency factor * Dose Inhalation (1) where: Inhalation potency factor = 1.1 (mg/kg-day) -1 for DPM, and: Dose Inhalation = C air *DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6 / AT (2) where: C air = concentration of DPM in microgram per cubic meter ( g/m 3 ) DBR = breathing rate in liter per kilogram of body weight per day A = inhalation absorption factor (1 for DPM) EF = exposure frequency in days per year ED = exposure duration in years AT = averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in days (25,550 days for 70 years) In accordance with CARB policy (CARB 2003) and the SDAPCD Guidelines (SDAPCD 2006), the breathing rate equal to the 80th percentile, or 302 liters per kilogram of body weight per day, was used for the cancer risk calculations. In order to directly calculate risk from the modeled concentrations, a multiplying factor was derived based on the information discussed above. This multiplying factor, when multiplied by the concentration that the dispersion model calculates, results in a risk in one million at a particular receptor. The multiplying factor was calculated as follows: 34 December 2010

43 Multiplying factor = CPF*(DBR*A*EF*ED*10-6 /AT)*10 6 = 1.1 (mg/kg-day) -1 * (302 L/kg body weight day * 1 * 350 day/yr *70 yr *10-6 / 25,550 days) *10 6 = ( g/m 3 ) -1. Table 8, Summary of Maximum Modeled Cancer Risks, shows the maximum modeled annual DPM concentrations for each sensitive receptor and the associated cancer risk. The cancer risks at both sensitive receptors are less than the SDAPCD significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer impacts. Table 8 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cancer Risks Receptor DPM Annual Concentration g/m 3 Cancer Risk Private residence in one million Coast Apartments in one million NOTE: Values are expressed in scientific notation (X.X 10 -X ) (e.g., is ). In addition to the potential cancer risk, DPM has chronic (i.e., long-term) noncarcinogenic health impacts. The chronic hazard indices were evaluated using the OEHHA/CARB inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (REL) (CARB 2010d). The REL is the concentration (inhalation) or daily dosage (noninhalation) at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The chronic noncarcinogenic inhalation hazard indices for the proposed project were calculated by dividing the modeled annual average concentrations of DPM by its Reference Exposure Level (REL), which is 5 micrograms per cubic meter. Table 9, Summary of Maximum Chronic Hazard Indices, shows the maximum modeled annual DPM concentrations for each sensitive receptor and the maximum chronic hazard indices. The chronic hazard indices at these receptors are less than the SDAPCD significance threshold of 1.0 for noncarcinogenic health impacts. Table 9 Summary of Maximum Chronic Hazard Indices Receptor DPM Concentration g/m 3 Chronic Hazard Index Private residence Coast Apartments NOTE: Values are expressed in scientific notation (X.X 10 -X ) (e.g., is ). 35 December 2010

44 In summary, the maximum anticipated cancer risk associated with the project is 0.6 in one million at the private residence and 0.1 in one million at the Coast Apartments, based on a 70- year lifetime exposure. The assessment also finds that the chronic hazard indices for noncancer health impacts are well below 1.0 at both receptors. As such, the exposure of project-related TAC emission impacts to sensitive receptors during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. 7.4 Odors Odors would be generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment. Such odors are temporary and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impact associated with odors during construction would be considered less than significant. Land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project entails the operation of a research laboratory and would not result in the creation of a land use that is commonly associated with odors. Therefore, project operations would result in a less-than-significant odor impact. 36 December 2010

45 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the San Diego Air Basin is listed as nonattainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The San Diego Air Basin has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O 3, and a state nonattainment area for O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Since few sources emit O 3 directly, and O 3 is caused by complex chemical reactions, control of O 3 is accomplished by the control of emissions of NO x and VOCs. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the air basin. Thus this regional impact is a cumulative impact, and projects would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Consequently, if a project s emissions do not exceed identified significance thresholds, its emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact (SMAQMD 2009, BAAQMD 2010). Construction Emissions Since the 2004 LRDP was approved, UCSD determined that the amount of construction projected on campus in the near-term is more than was assumed in the peak construction scenario outlined in the 2004 LRDP EIR. As a result, technical analyses presented in the East Campus Bed Tower EIR (UCSD 2010) serve as an update to the cumulative construction emissions analysis presented in the 2004 LRDP EIR. These analyses were conducted to address changed conditions that have resulted since the 2004 LRDP EIR was certified in September Section of the ECBT EIR includes a worst case construction emissions scenario in order to evaluate cumulative air quality impacts. Cumulative emissions of ozone precursors, PM 10 and PM 2.5 resulting from LRDP implementation exceeded significance thresholds, contributing to particulate matter and ozone in the air basin, and therefore were found to be temporary cumulative and significant impacts. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project, however, would be well below the stated significance levels for all constituents. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts identified in the updated campus air quality construction analysis. Operational Emissions Emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would be generated by area sources, such as energy use and landscaping. Because the proposed project would consolidate existing 37 December 2010

46 programs and faculty/staff into a new space; it would not result in an increase in faculty/staff and there would be no increase in vehicular traffic. As discussed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, the emissions of all criteria pollutants would be well below the significance levels during project operation and, therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with nonattainment pollutants in the San Diego air basin. Additionally, the UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR as updated by the ECBT EIR identified measures that have been incorporated into the project design to further reduce less than significant cumulative construction and operational impacts to air quality (see Section of the ECBT EIR mitigation measures Air-CA, Air-CB, and Air-CC). These measures require that any new development on the UCSD campus include language in all construction contracts to limit/reduce particulate matter emissions during construction operations, including language that requires medium and large-sized construction fleets to comply with the requirements of the California Air Resources Board proposed regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles (Section 2449, Title 13, Article 4.8, California Code of Regulations, as modified). In addition, the University implements a variety of measures to reduce PM emissions from vehicle trips, such as expansion of pedestrian- and transit-enhancing infrastructure, bicycle facilities on campus, alternative-fuel vehicles, on-site housing and retail services, as well as green building design. 38 December 2010

47 9.0 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation or wind, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). 9.1 The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called GHGs. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process as follows: Short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this longwave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This trapping of the long-wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), O 3, and water vapor (H 2 O). Some greenhouse gases, such as CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO 2 and CH 4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH 4 results mostly from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO 2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), which are associated with certain industrial products and processes (CalEPA 2006). The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the earth s temperature. Without it, the temperature of the Earth would be about 0 F ( 18 C) instead of its present 57 F (14 C). Global climate change concerns are focused on whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect (NCDC 2009). The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume or mass of its emissions and the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP). The GWP varies between GHGs; for example, the GWP of methane is 21, and the GWP of nitrous oxide is 310. Total GHG emissions are expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO 2. Thus, GHG gas emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 E). According to CARB, some of the potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high O 3 days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CARB 2006). Several recent studies have attempted to explore the possible negative consequences that climate change, left unchecked, could have in 39 December 2010

48 California. These reports acknowledge that climate scientists understanding of the complex global climate system, and the interplay of the various internal and external factors that affect climate change, remains too limited to yield scientifically valid conclusions on such a localized scale. Substantial work has been done at the international and national level to evaluate climatic impacts, but far less information is available on regional and local impacts. The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in average global tropospheric temperature of 0.2 C per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming would occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems and to California would include, but would not be limited to: The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures (IPCC 2007) Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (IPCC 2007) Changes in weather that includes, widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007) Decline of Sierra snowpack, which accounts for approximately half of the surface water storage in California, by 70% to as much as 90% over the next 100 years (CalEPA 2006) Increase in the number of days conducive to O 3 formation by 25% to 85% (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high O 3 areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century (CalEPA 2006) High potential for erosion of California s coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level (CalEPA 2006). 9.2 Regulatory Setting International Activities Kyoto Protocol. The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was signed on March 21, The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate 40 December 2010

49 GHG emissions. The original Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December 1997 and came into force on February 16, As of October 2010, 192 countries and the European Economic Community (EEC) have ratified the agreement (UNFCCC 2009). The goal of the protocol is to achieve overall emissions reduction targets for six GHGs by the period 2008 to Federal Activities Massachusetts vs. EPA. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that EPA has the statutory authority under Section 202 of the CAA to regulate GHGs from new motor vehicles because GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. 2 The court did not hold that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Supreme Court directed the Administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the CAA. On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed a final rule with two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA: The Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding. The Administrator further found the combined emissions of GHGs CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding. These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as air pollutants under the CAA. Energy Independence and Security Act. On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of Among other key measures, the Act would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions: 2 Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007). 41 December 2010

50 1. Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by Model Year 2020, directs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks 3. Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances. EPA and NHTSA Joint Final Rule for Vehicle Standards. On April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for light-duty vehicles model years 2012 through The joint rule is intended to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPA 2010c). This final rule follows the EPA and Department of Transportation s (DOT) joint proposal on September 15, 2009, and is the result of the President Obama s May 2009 announcement of a national program to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy (EPA 2010d). This final rule became effective on July 6, 2010 (EPA and NHTSA 2010). The EPA GHG standards require new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO 2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO 2 level all through fuel economy improvements. The CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks will be phased in between 2012 and 2016, with the final standards equivalent to 37.8 mpg for passenger cars and 28.8 mpg for light trucks, resulting in an estimated combined average of 34.1 mpg. Together, these standards will cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. The rules will simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy security, increase fuel savings, and provide clarity and predictability for manufacturers (EPA 2010c). 42 December 2010

51 State of California AB In a response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California s CO 2 emissions, AB 1493 (Pavley) was enacted on July 22, AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set the GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September When fully phased in, the near-term ( ) standards will result in a reduction of about 22% in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term ( ) standards will result in a reduction of about 30%. In December 2004, these regulations were challenged in federal court by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which claimed that the law regulated vehicle fuel economy, a duty assigned to the federal government. Upon the U.S. Supreme Court s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District dismissed the case by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in December However, before these regulations may go into effect, the EPA must grant California a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act, which ordinarily preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emission standards. On December 19, 2007, Stephen Johnson, the EPA Administrator, denied the waiver citing the need for a national approach to reducing GHG emissions, the lack of a need to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and the benefits to be achieved through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Johnson 2007). The California Attorney General subsequently filed suit in January 2008 to overturn the administrator s decision. The Obama Administration reevaluated the waiver, and the waiver was granted by Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, on June 30, Senate Bill Approved by Governor Davis in September 2002, Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078, Sher) established the Renewal Portfolio Standard program, which requires an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (see SB 107 and Executive Orders S and S ) Executive Order S In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California s GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by The Secretary of CalEPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Representatives from several state agencies comprise the Climate Action Team. The Climate Action Team is responsible for implementing global 43 December 2010

52 warming emissions reduction programs. The Climate Action Team fulfilled its report requirements through the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature (CAT 2006). A second draft biennial report was released in April The 2009 Draft Climate Action Team Report expands on the policy oriented in the 2006 assessment. The 2009 report provides new information and scientific findings regarding the development of new climate and sea-level projections using new information and tools that have recently become available and evaluates climate change within the context of broader soil changes, such as land use changes and demographics. The 2009 report also identifies the need for additional research in several different aspects that affect climate change in order to support effective climate change strategies. The aspects of climate change that were discussed that need future research include vehicle and fuel technologies, land use and smart growth, electricity and natural gas, energy efficiency, renewable energy and reduced carbon energy sources, low GHG technologies for other sectors, carbon sequestration, terrestrial sequestration, geologic sequestration, economic impacts and considerations, social science, and environmental justice. SB 107. Approved by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 26, 2006, SB 107 (Simitian) requires investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric, to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by Previously, state law required that this target be achieved by 2017 (see SB 1078). AB 32. In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32 (Nuñez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, The GHG emissions limit is equivalent to the 1990 levels, which are to be achieved by CARB was been assigned to carry out and develop the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the goals of AB 32. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations requiring the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. This program will be used to monitor and enforce compliance with the established standards. CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 allows CARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted. The first action under AB 32 resulted in the adoption of a report listing early action GHG emission reduction measures on June 21, The early actions include three specific GHG control rules. On October 25, 2007, CARB approved an additional six early action GHG 44 December 2010

53 reduction measures under AB 32. The original three adopted early action regulations meeting the narrow legal definition of discrete early action GHG reduction measures consist of: 1. A low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the carbon intensity of California fuels 2. Reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance to restrict the sale of do-it-yourself automotive refrigerants 3. Increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state-of-the-art methane capture technologies. The additional six early action regulations, which were also considered discrete early action GHG reduction measures, consist of: 1. Reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and trailers through retrofit technology 2. Reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification 3. Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry 4. Reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust removal products) 5. Require that all tune-up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire inflation as part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency 6. Restriction on the use of sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) from non-electricity sectors if viable alternatives are available. As required under AB 32, on December 6, 2007, CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for The 2020 emissions limit was set at 427 MMT CO 2 E. In addition to the 1990 emissions inventory, CARB also adopted regulations requiring mandatory reporting of GHGs for large facilities that account for 94% of GHG emissions from industrial and commercial stationary sources in California. About 800 separate sources that fall under the new reporting rules and include electricity generating facilities, electricity retail providers and power marketers, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, cement plants, cogeneration facilities, and other industrial sources that emit carbon dioxide in excess of specified thresholds. On December 11, 2008, CARB approved the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California s GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific 45 December 2010

54 reductions, integrates all CARB and Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of a cap-and-trade program. Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations will occur over the next 2 years, becoming effective by January 1, The key elements of the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) include: Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33% Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California s GHG emissions Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California s long term commitment to AB 32 implementation. SB In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1368, which requires the CEC to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emissions performance standards for the longterm procurement of electricity by local publicly owned utilities. These standards must be consistent with the standards adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This effort will help to protect energy customers from financial risks associated with investments in carbon-intensive generation by allowing new capital investments in power plants whose GHG emissions are as low or lower than new combined-cycle natural gas plants, by requiring imported electricity to meet GHG performance standards in California and requiring that the standards be developed and adopted in a public process. Executive Order S Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for GHG emissions measured in CO 2 -equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the LCFS is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by The carbon intensity measures the 46 December 2010

55 amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. CARB adopted the implementing regulation in April The regulation is expected to increase the production of biofuels, including those from alternative sources such as algae, wood, and agricultural waste. In addition, the LCFS would drive the availability of plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuelcell power motor vehicles. The LCFS is anticipated to replace 20% of the fuel used in motor vehicles with alternative fuels by SB 97. In August 2007, the legislature enacted SB 97 (Dutton), which directs the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. OPR is to develop proposed guidelines by July 1, 2009, and the Natural Resources Agency is directed to adopt guidelines by January 1, On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. This bill also protects projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, or the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006 from claims of inadequate analysis of GHG as a legitimate cause of action. This latter provision will be repealed on January 1, On June 19, 2008, OPR issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents (OPR 2008). The advisory indicated that a project s GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Natural Resources Agency its proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines relating to greenhouse gas emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting the proposed amendments, starting the public comment period. The Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments on December 30, 2009, and transmitted them to the Office of Administrative Law on December 31, On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative law completed its review and filed the amendments with the secretary of state. The amendments became effective on March 18, The amended guidelines establish several new CEQA requirements concerning the analysis of GHGs, including the following: 47 December 2010

56 Requiring a lead agency to make a good faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project (Section 15064(a)) Providing a lead agency with the discretion to determine whether to use quantitative or qualitative analysis or performance standards to determine the significance of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a particular project (Section (a)) Requiring a lead agency to consider the following factors when assessing the significant impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. (Section (b)) Allowing lead agencies to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features or off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required (Section (c)). The amended guidelines also establish two new guidance questions regarding GHG emissions in the Environmental Checklist set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emission threshold, and instead allow a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. 3 The Natural Resources Agency also acknowledges that a lead agency 3 The CEQA Guidelines do not establish thresholds of significance for other potential environmental impacts, and SB 97 did not authorize the development of a statement threshold as part of this CEQA Guidelines update. Rather, the proposed amendments recognize a lead agency s existing authority to develop, adopt and apply their own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts (California Natural Resources Agency 2009, p. 84). 48 December 2010

57 may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project s GHG emissions. 2 SB 375. In August 2008, the legislature passed and on September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 375 (Steinberg), which addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation section through regional transportation and sustainability plans. By September 30, 2010, CARB will assign regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and The targets are required to consider the emission reductions associated with vehicle emission standards (see SB 1493), the composition of fuels (see Executive Order S- 1-07), and other CARB-approved measures to reduce GHG emissions. Regional metropolitan planning organizations will be responsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy within the Regional Transportation Plan. The goal of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to establish a development plan for the region, which, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If a Sustainable Communities Strategy is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, a metropolitan planning organization must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. SB 375 provides incentives for streamlining CEQA requirements by substantially reducing the requirements for transit priority projects, as specified in SB 375, and eliminating the analysis of the impacts of certain residential projects on global warming and the growth-inducing impacts of those projects when the projects are consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy. Executive Order S Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S on November 14, The Executive Order is intended to hasten California s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea level rise. It directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. It directs the Resource Agency, in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, CEC, California s coastal management agencies, and the Ocean Protection Council to request the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, The Ocean Protection Council, California Department of Water Resources, and CEC, in cooperation with other state agencies are required to conduct a public workshop to gather information relevant to the Sea Level Rise Assessment Report. The Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency was ordered to assess the vulnerability of the state s transportation systems to sea level rise within 90 2 A project s compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 or other laws and policies is not irrelevant. Section (b)(3) would allow a lead agency to consider compliance with requirements and regulations in the determination of significance of a project s greenhouse gas emissions (California Natural Resources Agency 2009, p. 100). 49 December 2010

58 days of the order. The Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency are required to provide land use planning guidance related to sea level rise and other climate change impacts. The order also requires the other state agencies to develop adaptation strategies by June 9, 2009, to respond to the impacts of global climate change that are predicted to occur over the next 50 to 100 years. Executive Order S On November 17, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S This Executive Order focuses on the contribution of renewable energy sources to meet the electrical needs of California while reducing the GHG emissions from the electrical sector. The governor s order requires that all retail suppliers of electricity in California serve 33% of their load with renewable energy by Furthermore, the order directs state agencies to take appropriate actions to facilitate reaching this target. The Resources Agency, through collaboration with the CEC and Department of Fish and Game, is directed to lead this effort. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the CEC and Department of Fish and Game creating the Renewable Energy Action Team, these agencies will create a one-stop process for permitting renewable energy power plants. Executive Order S On September 15, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S This Executive Order directed CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with the goal of Executive Order S by July 31, CARB is further directed to work with the CPUC and CEC to ensure that the regulation builds upon the Renewable Portfolio Standard program and is applicable to investor-owned utilities, publicly-owned utilities, direct access providers, and community choice providers. Under this order, CARB is to give the highest priority to those renewable resources that provide the greatest environmental benefits with the least environmental costs and impacts on public health and that can be developed most quickly in support of reliable, efficient, cost-effective electricity system operations. 9.3 GHG Emissions and CEQA GHG emissions contributing to global climate change have only recently been addressed in CEQA documents, such that CEQA and case law do not provide much guidance relative to their assessment. CEQA does, however, provide guidance regarding topics such as climate change in Guidelines Section 15144, Forecasting. Section notes that preparation of an environmental impact analysis document necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While forecasting the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can. 50 December 2010

59 Guidelines for the Determination of Significance The State of California has developed guidelines to address the significance of climate change impacts based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides guidance that a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Neither the State of California nor the SDAPCD has adopted emission-based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. OPR s Technical Advisory titled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review states that public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact (OPR 2008, p. 4). Furthermore, the advisory document indicates in the third bullet item on page 6 that in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a significant impact, individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice. UCSD has set forth sustainability goals to meet the requirements of AB 32. To achieve the University s climate change goals, UCSD implements greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies through the following campus programs: i. Alternative Fuel Use UCSD currently uses 20% biodiesel for fleet vehicles that operate on diesel fuel and is testing a pilot to increase this to 100% biodiesel. The campus is also planning implementation of a Hydrogen Fueling and Compressed Natural Gas Facility to accommodate alternative-fuel vehicles such as electric cars and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles. UCSD is also planning implementation of a Methane Fuel Cell at the East Campus Utility Plant. ii. Cogeneration Plant In 2001, UCSD installed a 26-MW dual turbine cogeneration plant, which resulted in avoidance of 18,472 metric tons of CO 2 equivalent emissions as measured in 2005, with a cumulative avoidance of over 60,000 metric tons of CO 2 since December 2010

60 iii. iv. Energy Efficient Projects UCSD installed a 12.8-kW photovoltaic array on Powell Structures Lab and plans to expand this technology in eight new locations across campus in , providing an additional 1200 KW of photovoltaic power capacity. UCSD has also implemented lighting and air conditioning energy efficiency projects. Green Building Programs The UC Policy on Sustainable Practices requires UCSD to incorporate the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability in all capital projects, renovation projects, operations and maintenance within budgetary constraints and programmatic requirements, including designing new buildings to outperform the required provisions of the California Building Standard Code (Title 24) energy-efficiency standards by at least 20% and constructing new buildings to a minimum standard equivalent to a LEED 2.1 Certified rating. Recent UCSD projects have successfully met this goal. v. Sustainable Landscaping UCSD s Neighborhood Planning studies promote the use of sustainable landscaping under the Landscaping and Site Design Guidelines. UCSD uses native and drought tolerant landscaping on campus to reduce landscaping maintenance operational emissions. vi. vii. Transportation System Management (TSM) Program UCSD s TSM program provides a comprehensive system of alternative transportation modes, free shuttles, incentives, and parking and transportation policy to reduce single vehicle occupant use and reduce miles traveled. Waste Prevention and Recycling Program Currently, over 25% of UCSD s solid waste is diverted and sent to recyclers. Hazardous wastes are collected and processed for on-site and off-site treatment to reduce hazards. Applicable chemical wastes are placed into UCSD s ChemCycle chemical recycling program. It should be noted that in evaluating impacts, direct impacts associated with emissions from a single project on global climate cannot be evaluated. Given the potential impacts on global climate are global in nature, potential impacts would be cumulative rather than direct. The proposed project has therefore been evaluated relative to its potential for cumulative impacts upon global climate in this analysis. Construction Emissions GHG emissions would be associated with the construction phase of the proposed project through use of construction equipment and vehicle trips. Emissions of CO 2 were estimated for each year of construction using the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model. The 52 December 2010

61 model results were adjusted to estimate CH 4 and N 2 O emissions in addition to CO 2. The CO 2 emissions from off-road equipment and vehicles and delivery trucks, which are assumed by URBEMIS 2007 to be diesel fueled, were adjusted by a factor derived from the relative CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O for diesel fuel as reported in the California Climate Action Registry s (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009) for transportation fuels and the global warming potential for each GHG. The CO 2 emissions associated with construction worker trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO 2 represents 95% of the CO 2 E emissions associated with passenger vehicles (EPA 2005). The results were then converted from annual tons per year to metric tons per year. Table 10, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions, shows the estimated annual GHG construction emissions associated with the proposed project. Operational Emissions Table 10 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) Construction Year CO2E Emissions SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 Version See Appendix C for complete results. The following sections discuss the calculations of GHG emissions resulting from the primary sources of GHGs associated with the operation of the proposed project. These primary sources are natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, electrical generation, and water supply. As mentioned earlier, the proposed project would consolidate existing programs and faculty/staff into a new space; therefore, it would not result in an increase in faculty/staff and there would be no increase in vehicular traffic. As a result, GHG emissions from motor vehicles were not analyzed. Additionally, the project design includes features such as lowwater use landscaping and sustainable plant materials; reduction of potable water use; integrated daylighting; energy efficiency of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and use of natural ventilation through operable windows and limiting air conditioning to laboratories. These features would decrease consumption of water and electricity associated with the proposed project over existing conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the existing condition is considered to be business as usual; that is, the conditions that would apply in the absence of emission-reduction measures, including the operational efficiencies associated with the proposed project. 53 December 2010

62 Emissions from Natural Gas Combustion and Landscape Maintenance Annual CO 2 emissions from natural gas combustion for space and water heating, gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment, and natural gas appliances were estimated using URBEMIS A 20% reduction was assumed to account for energy efficiency measures beyond those required by California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The CO 2 emissions from natural gas combustion were adjusted by a factor derived from the relative CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O for natural gas as reported in the CCAR's General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009) for stationary combustion fuels and their global warming potentials. The estimated GHG emissions from natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance are shown in Table 11, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions. Additional detail regarding these calculations can be found in Appendix C. Emissions from Electrical Generation Annual business as usual electricity use was based upon the anticipated energy use at UCSD s Health Sciences Biomedical Research Facility 2 (HSBRF2), which is a similar, but larger, facility to the proposed project. On average, it was assumed that the HSBRF2 would use 408,043 kilowatt-hours per month (kwh/month) of electricity (UCSD 2009). Because the HSBRF2 is a 148,400 square-foot facility, this rate was normalized and applied to the 40,000 square-foot proposed project. Energy efficiency measures incorporated into the project design would reduce business as usual electricity use by approximately 20% (Yadao 2010). The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels typically results in emissions of CO 2 and to a smaller extent CH 4 and N 2 O. Annual electricity emissions were estimated using the reported CO 2 emissions per kilowatt-hour for San Diego Gas & Electric, which would provide electricity for the project. The contributions of CH 4 and N 2 O for powerplants in California were obtained from the CCAR's General Reporting Protocol, which were adjusted for their global warming potentials. The estimated GHG emissions from electrical generation for both the business as usual scenario and the proposed project scenario are shown in Table 11. Additional detail regarding these calculations can be found in Appendix C. Emissions from Water Supply Water supplied to the proposed project requires the use of electricity. Accordingly, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in GHG emissions through use of electricity. The GHG emissions associated with water supply were based on the estimated water usage by the HSBRF2. Again, the usage rate was normalized based on building size to account for the proposed project s square footage. Additionally, water reduction measures incorporated into the project design would reduce business as usual water use by approximately 54 December 2010

63 20% (Yadao 2010). The estimated GHG emissions from water supply for both the business as usual scenario and the proposed project scenario are shown in Table 11. Additional detail regarding these calculations can be found in Appendix C. Table 11 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) Source CO2E Emissions CO2E Emissions Business As Usual Percent Reduction Motor Vehicles Area Sources Electrical Generation Water Supply Total Refer to Appendix C for complete results. Summary of Operational GHG Emissions Emission reduction strategies implemented at UCSD through continuation of existing campus programs that reduce GHG emissions, and compliance with the UC Policy of Sustainable Practices, including consistency with the California Climate Action Team strategies including qualifying for a LEED certification of Silver or better, would substantially lessen the project s energy and water usage and its cumulative contribution to the global climate change, would support the university-wide and campus GHG emission reduction goals, and would not be expected to hinder or delay the campus ability to meet state and UC climate change goals. As indicated in Table 11, the project is estimated to result in annual GHG emissions of approximately 449 metric tons CO 2 E, corresponding to an 18% reduction from business as usual. As a result, the proposed project is not likely to result in a conflict with state plans to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions pursuant to AB 32. Cumulative global climate change impacts would not be significant because campus-wide development and existing building implement UCSD s sustainability policies and comply with the campus Climate Action Plan, which is designed to meet the goals of AB December 2010

64 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 56 December 2010

65 10.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The air quality impact analysis evaluated the potential for adverse impacts to the ambient air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. Operations of the project would produce VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions associated with area sources such as energy use and landscaping. Additional emissions would be associated with laboratory functions at the MESOM facility, as well as intermittent use of an emergency generator. The proposed project would consolidate existing programs and faculty/staff into a new space; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in faculty/staff and there would be no increase in vehicular traffic. As a result, operational emissions from vehicular sources were not included in this analysis. The analysis concludes that the daily construction and operational emissions would not exceed the thresholds for criteria pollutants. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. Emissions of TACs would result from operation of the on-site emergency generator. The maximum anticipated cancer risk associated with the project is 0.6 in one million at the closest private residence and 0.1 in one million at the Coast Apartments, based on a 70-year lifetime exposure. The assessment also finds that the chronic hazard indices for noncancer health impacts are well below 1.0 at both sensitive receptors. As such, the exposure of project-related TAC emission impacts to sensitive receptors during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. The project s potential effect on global climate change was evaluated, and emissions of GHGs were estimated based on natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, electrical generation, and water supply. The project is estimated to result in GHG emissions of approximately 449 metric tons CO 2 E, corresponding to an 18% reduction from business as usual. As a result, the proposed project is not likely to result in a conflict with state plans to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions pursuant to AB 32. Cumulative global climate change impacts would not be significant because campus-wide development and existing building implement UCSD s sustainability policies and comply with the campus Climate Action Plan, which is designed to meet the goals of AB 32. The project would therefore have a less than significant impact on climate change. 57 December 2010

66 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 58 December 2010

67 11.0 REFERENCES BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) CEQA Guidelines. Part I: Thresholds of Significance and Project Screening. June. California Natural Resources Agency Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. December Accessed at: CARB (California Air Resources Board) Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation-Based Residential Cancer Risk. October. CARB Public Workshop to Discuss Establishing the 1990 Emissions Level and the California 2020 Limit and Developing Regulations to Require Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sacramento, California. December 1, CARB Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. October. CARB. 2010a. Glossary of Air Pollutant Terms. Accessed at: CARB. 2010b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed at: CARB. 2010c. Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed at: CARB. 2010d. Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. Accessed at: CAT (California Climate Action Team) Final 2006 Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, California. April 3. Caterpillar Diesel Generator Set Spec Sheet. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency) Final 2006 Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, California. April December 2010

68 CCAR (California Climate Action Registry) General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 3.1. January. GRP_V3_April2008_FINAL.pdf EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised (EPA-454/R ). October. EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F ). EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA. 2010a. Six Common Air Pollutants. Last updated May Accessed at: EPA. 2010b. AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data. Last updated October Accessed at: EPA. 2010c. EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks. Regulatory Announcement. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA-420-F April. Accessed at: EPA. 2010d. Final Rulemaking: Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Regulations and Standards Vehicles and Engines. Accessed at: EPA and NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. EPA HQ OAR NHTSA Accessed at: IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf Johnson, S Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from Stephen L. Johnson. December December 2010

69 Lakes Environmental Screen View Software (Version 3.0.0). NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions. Asheville, N.C. Accessed at: OEHHA (California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August. OPR (California Governor s Office of Planning and Research) Technical Advisory CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Rimpo and Associates URBEMIS 2007, Version San Diego, City of Significance Determination Thresholds. January. Accessed October 14, 2009 via: San Diego, County of Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements Air Quality. March Accessed via: SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District) Regulation XV: Federal Conformity. Adopted March 7, EPA Approval Effective June 22, Accessed via: SDAPCD Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Health Risk Assessments. June. SDAPCD Fact Sheet: Attainment Status. July. Accessed via: SMAQMD (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District) CEQA Guide. Chapter 8, Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. UCSD (University of California, San Diego) Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment for the University of California San Diego 2004 Long Range Development Plan. Prepared by URS Corporation. November. UCSD Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Volumes I through III. 61 December 2010

70 UCSD Air Quality Evaluation for the Health Sciences Biomedical Research Facility 2. April 30. UCSD East Campus Bed Tower Project Final Tiered Environmental Impact Report. SCH# June. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Status of Ratification. Accessed at: Yadao, Teng communication between Teng Yadao (IBE Consulting Engineers) and Brian Grover (Dudek). November December 2010

71 APPENDIX A URBEMIS 2007 Version Modeling and Estimated Emissions

72

73 Page: 1 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\UCSD MESOM Laboratory.urb924 Project Name: UCSD MESOM Laboratory Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES CO TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction 0.00

74 Page: 2 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total. Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated CO2

75 Page: 3 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM Mass Grading 07/01/ /31/ Mass Grading Dust 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel 7.74 Mass Grading Worker Trips 2.25 Fine Grading 09/01/ /30/ Fine Grading Dust 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 1.12 Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips 2.10 Building Worker Trips Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips 6.30 Building Worker Trips Coating 10/01/ /31/ Architectural Coating 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.51

76 Page: 4 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM Asphalt 01/01/ /28/ Paving Off-Gas 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel 0.27 Paving Worker Trips 3.85 Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 9/1/2011-9/30/ Fine Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.84 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.46 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 7/1/2011-8/31/ Mass Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.84 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.46 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day

77 Page: 5 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 1/1/2013-2/28/ Paving Acres to be Paved: 0.46 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 10/1/2011-9/30/ Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 10/1/ /31/ Architectural Coatings Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated CO2

78 Page: 6 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM Mass Grading 07/01/ /31/ Mass Grading Dust 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel 7.74 Mass Grading Worker Trips 2.25 Fine Grading 09/01/ /30/ Fine Grading Dust 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 1.12 Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips 2.10 Building Worker Trips Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips 6.30 Building Worker Trips Coating 10/01/ /31/ Architectural Coating 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.51

79 Page: 7 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM Asphalt 01/01/ /28/ Paving Off-Gas 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel 0.27 Paving Worker Trips 3.85 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 9/1/2011-9/30/ Fine Site Grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 7/1/2011-8/31/ Mass Site Grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61%

80 Page: 8 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source CO2 Natural Gas Hearth Landscape 0.25 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated Source CO2 Natural Gas Hearth Landscape 0.25 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected Mitigation Description Percent Reduction Commercial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title Area Source Changes to Defaults

81 Page: 9 2/23/2011 4:59:31 PM

82 Page: 1 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\UCSD MESOM Laboratory.urb924 Project Name: UCSD MESOM Laboratory Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

83 Page: 2 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) PM TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total. Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

84 Page: 3 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 7/1/2011-8/31/2011 Active Days: 44 Mass Grading 07/01/ /31/ Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 9/1/2011-9/30/2011 Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 09/01/ /30/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 10/3/ /30/2011 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

85 Page: 4 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM Time Slice 1/2/2012-9/28/2012 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 10/1/ /31/2012 Active Days: Coating 10/01/ /31/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2013-2/28/2013 Active Days: Asphalt 01/01/ /28/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 9/1/2011-9/30/ Fine Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.84 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.46 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day

86 Page: 5 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 7/1/2011-8/31/ Mass Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.84 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.46 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 1/1/2013-2/28/ Paving Acres to be Paved: 0.46 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 10/1/2011-9/30/ Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day

87 Page: 6 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM Phase: Architectural Coating 10/1/ /31/ Architectural Coatings Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 7/1/2011-8/31/2011 Active Days: 44 Mass Grading 07/01/ /31/ Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 9/1/2011-9/30/2011 Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 09/01/ /30/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

88 Page: 7 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM Time Slice 10/3/ /30/2011 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 1/2/2012-9/28/2012 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 10/1/ /31/2012 Active Days: Coating 10/01/ /31/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2013-2/28/2013 Active Days: Asphalt 01/01/ /28/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 9/1/2011-9/30/ Fine Site Grading

89 Page: 8 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 7/1/2011-8/31/ Mass Site Grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas Hearth Landscape Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.23 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)

90 Page: 9 2/23/2011 4:58:57 PM Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas Hearth Landscape Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.23 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected Mitigation Description Percent Reduction Commercial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title Area Source Changes to Defaults

91 Page: 1 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\UCSD MESOM Laboratory.urb924 Project Name: UCSD MESOM Laboratory Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

92 Page: 2 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 2011 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) PM TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN NaN NaN SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total. Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

93 Page: 3 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 7/1/2011-8/31/2011 Active Days: 44 Mass Grading 07/01/ /31/ Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 9/1/2011-9/30/2011 Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 09/01/ /30/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 10/3/ /30/2011 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

94 Page: 4 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM Time Slice 1/2/2012-9/28/2012 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 10/1/ /31/2012 Active Days: Coating 10/01/ /31/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2013-2/28/2013 Active Days: Asphalt 01/01/ /28/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 9/1/2011-9/30/ Fine Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.84 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.46 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day

95 Page: 5 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 7/1/2011-8/31/ Mass Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 1.84 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.46 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 1/1/2013-2/28/ Paving Acres to be Paved: 0.46 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 10/1/2011-9/30/ Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day

96 Page: 6 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM Phase: Architectural Coating 10/1/ /31/ Architectural Coatings Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 7/1/2011-8/31/2011 Active Days: 44 Mass Grading 07/01/ /31/ Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 9/1/2011-9/30/2011 Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 09/01/ /30/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

97 Page: 7 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM Time Slice 10/3/ /30/2011 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 1/2/2012-9/28/2012 Active Days: Building 10/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 10/1/ /31/2012 Active Days: Coating 10/01/ /31/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Time Slice 1/1/2013-2/28/2013 Active Days: Asphalt 01/01/ /28/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 9/1/2011-9/30/ Fine Site Grading

98 Page: 8 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 7/1/2011-8/31/ Mass Site Grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas Hearth Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.23 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)

99 Page: 9 2/23/2011 4:58:32 PM Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas Hearth Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products Architectural Coatings 0.23 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected Mitigation Description Percent Reduction Commercial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title Area Source Changes to Defaults

100

101 APPENDIX B SCREEN3 Output File and Emergency Generator Emission Calculations

102

103 DIESEL GENERATOR SET STANDBY PRIME 60 Hz kw kw Model Standby Prime kw (kva) kw (kva) D (156.3) 114 (142.5) D (187.5) 135 (168.8) Tier 3 EPA Approved, Emissions Certified Picture shown may not reflect actual package FEATURES GENERATOR SET Complete system designed and built at ISO 9001 certified facilities Factory tested to design specifications at full load conditions ENGINE Governor, electronic Electrical system, 12 VDC Cartridge type filters Battery rack and cables Coolant and lube drains piped to edge of base GENERATOR Insulation system, class H Drip proof generator air intake (NEMA 2, IP23) Electrical design in accordance with BS5000 Part 99, EN , IEC , NEMA MG-1.33 CONTROL SYSTEM EMCP 3.1 digital control panel Vibration isolated NEMA 1 enclosure with lockable hinged door DC and AC wiring harnesses MOUNTING ARRANGEMENT Heavy-duty fabricated steel base with lifting points Anti-vibration pads to ensure vibration isolation Complete OSHA guarding Stub-up pipe ready for connection to silencer pipework Flexible fuel lines to base with NPT connections COOLING SYSTEM Radiator and cooling fan complete with protective guards Standard ambient temperatures up to 50 C (122 F) CIRCUIT BREAKER UL/CSA listed 3-pole with solid neutral NEMA 1 steel enclosure, vibration isolated Electrical stub-up area directly below circuit breaker AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE REGULATOR Voltage within ± 0.5% 3-phase at steady state from no load to full load Provides fast recovery from transient load changes EQUIPMENT FINISH All electroplated hardware Anticorrosive paint protection High gloss polyurethane paint for durability and scuff resistance QUALITY STANDARDS BS4999, BS5000, BS5514, EN , IEC60034, NEMA MG-1.33, NFPA 110 (with optional equipment) DOCUMENTATION Operation and maintenance manuals provided Wiring diagrams included WARRANTY All equipment carries full manufacturer s warranty. LEHE