925 Harbor Plaza Long Beach, California 90802

Transcription

1 I N I T I A L S T U D Y N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N/ A P P L I C A T I O N S U M M A R Y R E P O R T NRG Long Beach Generating Station Emergency Repowering Project Property Located at: 2665 West Seaside Boulevard Long Beach, California 925 Harbor Plaza Long Beach, California February 2007

2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared in Accordance With The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 As Amended And APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT Prepared In Accordance With The Certified Port Master Plan and California Coastal Act of 1976 For NRG Emergency Repowering Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration This narrative and attached documents, including the Project description, site visit, staff analysis, and, where appropriate, mitigation measures to be implemented, constitutes a Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and an Application Summary Report with staff recommendations prepared in accordance with the certified Port Master Plan and the California Coastal Act. Based upon the data contained herein, the proposed Project has been determined not to have significant adverse environmental impacts and conforms to the stated policies of the Port Master Plan. This document was circulated for public review, and becomes effective upon adoption by the Long Beach Harbor Commission. ISSUED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW: 2007 BY: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY REPORT ADOPTED ON: 2007 BY: CITY OF LONG BEACH BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS Application No i February 2007

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction Background Project Objective And Need Project Location Regional Local Project Description Combustion Turbine Overhaul Emission Control Upgrade Construction Operation California Environmental Quality Act (Ceqa) Baseline Proposed Environmental Controls San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (Caap) California Global Warming Solutions Act Of Anticipated Permits And Approvals Evaluation Of Proposed Project...14 I. Aesthetics II. Agricultural Resources...17 III. Air Quality IV. Biological Resources V. Cultural Resources VI. Geology And Soils VII. Hazards And Hazardous Materials VIII. Hydrology And Water Quality I. Land Use And Planning Mineral Resources...44 I. Noise...45 II. Population And Housing III. Public Services IV. Recreation ii February 2007

4 V. Transportation/Traffic...53 VI. Utilities And Service Systems VII. Mandatory Findings Of Significance : Application Summary Report Port Master Plan And Coastal Act Issues Port Master Plan Issues California Coastal Act Issues Proposed Staff Recommendations Findings And Declaration Approval With Conditions References...62 List of Figures 1-1 Regional Location Site Layout Proposed Project Layout Plan Cross Section of Proposed Project...6 List of Tables 1-1 Project Summary Table Combustion Turbine Operating Hours Anticipated Permits and Approvals Construction - Local Significance Determination Operation - Local Significance Determination Project Emissions and SCAQMD Mass Daily Significance Thresholds Predicted Property Line Sound Levels Predicted Sound Levels at Sensitive Receptors...48 Appendices Appendix A... Air Quality Study Appendix B... Aqueous Ammonia Transportation Risk Study... for the Long Beach Reconstruction Project Appendix C... SCAQMD Permit Application iii February 2007

5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Long Beach Generation LLC (LBG) has submitted an application for a Harbor Development Permit (HDP) to the Port of Long Beach (Port) for the emergency repowering of Units 1 through 4 (Project) at the existing (LBGS) on Terminal Island at 2665 West Seaside Boulevard, Long Beach, California (Figure 1-1). Southern California Edison (SCE) engaged in the generation and distribution of power at the LBGS from 1910 to SCE then sold the LBGS to LBG, which retired the existing LBGS facility on January 1, At that time, the LBGS consisted of seven combustion turbine generators (CTGs) and two steam turbine generators that had a total power generating capacity of 577 megawatts (MWs). 1.2 Project Objective and Need California s electric power generation capacity is sometimes insufficient to meet demand. The most critical supply versus demand imbalance occurs in the Southern California region, and the SCE territory is the most severely affected. The objective of the proposed Project is to repower the formerly retired LBGS in order to help SCE meet regional electricity demand during peak power use events. On July 20, 2006, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), as part of its Long- Term Procurement Proceeding (LTPP), issued a final decision that specifically ordered SCE to procure 1,500 MWs of new power generating resources for online dates as early as possible, with an emphasis on projects that could deliver new power by August On August 15, 2006, an Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR) was issued from the CPUC ordering SCE to procure or build 250 MWs of new peaking power supply by August The LTPP and ACR actions illustrate the substantial need to expand power generating resources in Southern California. The repowering of LBGS provides a viable way to bring critical energy production capacity to the region quickly. On January 25, 2007, the CPUC approved a long-term power purchase contract between LBG and SCE for this Project. The decision was based on the need for new power generation capacity in the region and was endorsed and supported by the California Independent System Operator, which is the state agency responsible for the operation and reliability of the state s electrical transmission system. 1.3 Project Location Regional The LBGS site is located in the Long Beach Harbor District, California (Figure 1-1). Regional access to the site is provided by the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). West Seaside Boulevard provides local access to the site from I-710. The Project site is shown on Figure 1-2, Site Layout. 1 February 2007

6 Site Location Source: Google Earth Figure 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION LONG BEACH GENERATING STATION 2 February 2007

7 Pacific Terminal Tank Farm Source: Google Earth SITE SCE 66 kv Switch Yard SCE 230 kv Switch yard Transformers Existing Generating Station Figure 1-2 SITE LAYOUT LONG BEACH GENERATING STATION 3 February 2007

8 1.3.2 Local The City of Long Beach, acting by and through the Board of Harbor Commissioners, administers the Harbor District, including the Port, which consists of 28 miles of waterfront and 3,200 acres of land, 10 piers, and 80 berths. The Harbor District includes diverse land uses, including cargo terminals; commercial fishing facilities; light manufacturing and industry; recreational destinations; and commercial operations such as sport fishing concessions, marinas, two hotels, retail shops, and a public boat launch. The proposed Project (Figures 1-2, 1-3, and Figure 1-4) is located within the Terminal Island Planning District (District 4), which is zoned for port industrial land uses. The specific footprint of the Project is inside the Plant No. 2 building in the center of the property currently owned by LBG. The Project site is bordered on the north by the SCE 66 kilovolt (kv) Switch Yard and the 230 kv Switch Yard to the northwest, on the east by undeveloped land, further east by the East Basin Back Channel, on the south by Ocean Boulevard and container yard facilities on Pier T, and on the west by the Pacific Terminal tank farm. The nearest residents are live-aboards at a marina in the Cerritos Channel, approximately 0.9 mile to the west-northwest of the Project site, and the nearest residential area is a mobile home park approximately 1.2 miles to the east of the Project site. 1.4 Project Description The proposed Project consists of the repowering of existing CTG Units 1 through 4 to create a nominal 65 MWs of new power generating capacity from each unit for a combined total of 260 MWs from the entire facility. CTG Units 5, 6, 7, and steam turbine generator Units 8 and 9 would not be repowered as part of this Project; however, they would remain and be used as spare parts. CTG Units 1 through 4 would continue to be exclusively natural gas-fired and would be fitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to meet the existing air emission control requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Units 1 through 4 would be converted from their former combined cycle configuration into a simple-cycle operating configuration. Simple-cycle mode means the turbines are operated alone, without the benefit of recovering any of the energy in the hot exhaust gases. Simple cycle combustion turbines are typically used for reserve or peaking power capacity, and are generally operated for a limited number of hours per year. The quick starting nature of simple cycle combustion turbines makes them well suited for peak demand power generation situations, whereas combined-cycle turbines require long start-ups, and are, therefore, not suitable for rapid-demand peaking situations. The former combined-cycle equipment, including seven heat recovery steam generators (one for each gas turbine), two steam turbine generators (Units 8 and 9), and a oncethrough cooling system for condensing steam back to water, would not be utilized as part of this Project, but would remain in place. The Project, however, would continue to use the existing utility interconnections at the site, including water, sewer, natural gas, and electrical interconnections. 4 February 2007

9 SCE kv SWITCHYARD NOT TO SCALE Source: Shaw Environmental, Inc. 66 kv SWITCHYARD Figure 1-3 PROPOSED PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN LONG BEACH GENERATING STATION 5 February 2007

10 NOT TO SCALE Source: Shaw Environmental, Inc. Figure 1-4 CROSS SECTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT LONG BEACH GENERATING STATION 6 February 2007

11 1.4.1 Combustion Turbine Overhaul To the extent possible, the four units that would be returned to service (Units 1 through 4) would be rebuilt using parts from the existing seven combustion turbines. Accordingly, all seven turbines would be inspected, and parts removed as necessary to maximize the use of existing parts. Any new parts needed would be ordered and placed into the combustion turbines either onsite or offsite. For purposes of evaluating the potential for impacts from this Project, it is assumed that the combustion turbine maintenance would occur onsite. Some minor components would be replaced to allow the units to use water injection for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission control instead of steam, which was the previous emissions control method. Water supply for this process would come from the existing water supply connection to the City of Long Beach and would not exceed historic water usage at LBGS. One horsepower (hp) electric-powered water injection pump would be added to each unit. A trailer-mounted water treatment system would be utilized to treat the water prior to injection into the combustion turbines. The control system for the repowered units would be upgraded to use a programmable logic controller or digital control system. This system would also control the new emission control equipment discussed below in Table Emission Control Upgrade The Project would require a Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate from the SCAQMD. The reconstructed units would meet all applicable requirements of the SCAQMD. Each combustion turbine would undergo a minor modification to utilize water injection to control the emissions of NOx (as described above). In order to comply with SCAQMD emission control regulations, a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit and an oxidation catalyst would be installed (Figures 1-3 and 1-4) inside the building where the former heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) were located. The SCR unit includes an ammonia injection grid, which is a system of pipes in the exhaust stream that inject vaporized aqueous ammonia into the unit. The aqueous ammonia to be used in this Project would be a mixture of 19 percent ammonia and 81 percent water. The ammonia mixes with the exhaust gas and reacts with NOx as it passes through a honeycomb catalyst, reducing NOx by approximately 90 percent. The oxidation catalyst is another honeycomb structure that reduces carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by approximately 90 percent as the exhaust gases pass through. 7 February 2007

12 Table 1-1 Project Summary Table Component Description Location Terminal Island, Port of Long Beach Project Acreage (includes all acres LBG property) Plant Output 65 MW nominal rating for each combustion turbine generator (four units) 260 MW nominal total facility rating Combustion Turbines Four (4) Alstom 11D5 Industrial Gas Turbines 871 Million British Thermal Units per Hour (MMBtu/hr) Higher Heating Value (HHV) Heat Input Each Auxiliary Equipment Starting system Water injection system to reduce NOx to 25 Parts Per Million Volumetric Dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent O 2 Inlet air system with filtration Lubricating and hydraulic oil system Lube oil coolers Turbine and generator controls Compressor water wash system Two existing stacks (each stack shared by two turbines) Natural gas compression system New Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Generator Air cooled generator Selective Catalytic Reduction High temperature catalyst System (SCR) Ammonia vaporization skid Aqueous ammonia injection grid Approximately 90 percent NO x Reduction Capability (from 25 ppmvd to 3.5 ppmvd at 15 percent O 2 ) Oxidation Catalyst (CO High temperature catalyst Catalyst) 90 percent Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reduction Capability (reduced less than 6.0 ppmvd at 15 percent O 2 ) Aqueous Ammonia 8,000 Gallon Aqueous Ammonia Aboveground Storage Tank Storage/Handling Secondary containment systems for aboveground storage tank and truck offloading area Ammonia safety and release prevention devices Ammonia forwarding pumps Closed Loop Cooling Module Air to Water Fin/Fan Heat Exchanger Cooling Media Forwarding Pumps Raw water Storage and Interconnection to existing water supply meters Treatment System Portable demineralization water treatment trailers Refurbishment and use of existing water storage tanks Buildings The Project would utilize existing buildings Fire Fighting System Refurbish and inspect existing system Lighting Indoor auxiliary lighting may be needed during construction. No new exterior lighting is anticipated to be needed. Storm Water System The existing storm water collection system would continue to be used to accumulate and discharge storm water. Parking Sufficient parking. No new parking needed. Site Security Security system and staffing, and procedures and policies are already in place for the existing facility. 8 February 2007

13 A small aqueous ammonia forwarding skid outside the SCR unit would house a small pump (<50 hp) for supplying the ammonia to the ammonia injection grid (AIG), which is a grid of pipes in the exhaust stream that injects vaporized aqueous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia has been historically used at LBGS for other purposes. An ammonia storage tank of approximately 8,000 gallons would be installed as part of the Project with all required safety and spill prevention devices and measures. This storage quantity would exceed the applicability thresholds for the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program and would require a Risk Management Plan (RMP) be submitted to the City of Long Beach Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). With approval of the City of Long Beach Fire Department, LBG would update the existing Business Plan and Emergency Response Plan to incorporate CalARP RMP procedures. Preliminary worst case release modeling indicates that even under extreme weather conditions and a maximum release situation, the toxic endpoint for an ammonia release would not go beyond the property boundary Construction Equipment required for each day s construction activities would be staged at the facility during the 3-month construction period. Construction is estimated to start in May 2007 and to conclude in July 2007, but those dates are subject to change based on receipt of final construction permits. The following is a month-by-month estimate of construction activities at the site, as necessary, to repower the existing combustion turbines and install the new emission control equipment (including SCR unit and oxidation catalyst). April/May 2007 Gas Turbine Inspection, Disassembly, Reassembly, and Testing Air Quality Control Equipment Delivery and Installation Continuous Emission Monitoring (CEM) System and Distributed Control and Information System (DCS) Installation Refurbishment of service and raw water tanks May/June 2007 Air Quality Control Equipment Installation (Includes aqueous ammonia tank) June/July 2007 Commissioning and Testing Operation The Project would be operated as a fast-starting, simple-cycle peak demand power generation facility, which means the facility would typically be on standby awaiting orders from SCE or the California Independent System Operator for dispatch during peak electrical demand periods. Peak electrical demand situations can occur during any part of the year depending on a large number of factors, including the ambient meteorology, the status of local and regional distribution and transmission systems, and the status of other local and/or regional power generating resources. However, peak electrical demand periods typically 9 February 2007

14 occur during summer, which is expected to be the period of time during which this Project would typically operate. Maximum operating hours for this Project are described in Table 1-2. These are the maximum operating hour assumptions being used to obtain a Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate for the Project from the SCAQMD and for evaluating the potential for impacts to the environment and community. Table 1-2 Combustion Turbine Operating Hours Daily Monthly Annual Start/Stop Cycles Total Operating Hours Start/Stop Cycles Total Operating Hours Start/Stop Cycles Total Operating Hours Notes: Operating hours would not be expressly limited by the SCAQMD Permit to Operate; rather operation would be limited by monthly and annual emission and/or fuel consumption limitations. Start/stop cycles are approximately 30 minutes in length each. The monthly total operating hours to be permitted with the SCAQMD are expected to be 150, but the higher 430 hours/month are used as a conservative assumption for evaluation of potential impacts. Equipment operation would be controlled by a combination of human operator and automated distributed control systems. Operators and maintenance personnel would be responsible for carrying out routine inspections and maintenance, and for responding to possible system upsets and emergencies California Environmental Quality Act Baseline The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Baseline normally represents the physical conditions at the site and vicinity prior to the initiation of a proposed Project; the lead agency then determines whether an impact is significant by comparing the difference between the proposed Project and the CEQA Baseline. However, for the purposes of this Project, the baseline period for determining the significance of potential impacts is the period from October 26, 2002, through October 25, This determination is based on the SCAQMD s definition of baseline emissions as the average emissions during the two most recent years of operation. In cases where the two most recent years are not representative of normal operations, the SCAQMD allows for the use of an alternative baseline period. In this case, the period from October 26, 2002, to October 25, 2004, best represents normal LBGS facility operations and was used to establish the CEQA Baseline Proposed Environmental Controls Emission Reduction Technology The following measures would be used to minimize impacts to air quality during Project construction: 10 February 2007

15 Construction equipment would use emulsified diesel fuel, diesel oxidation catalysts, or meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 3 specifications. Heavy-duty construction truck operators would work with local regulatory agencies to implement the use of low-sulfur fuel, diesel particulate filters, and diesel oxidation catalysts within the Harbor District in accordance with USEPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements. Vehicles would not be allowed to idle unnecessarily. Large equipment deliveries would be scheduled at the same time to minimize the need for cranes on site. The following measures would be used to minimize impacts to air quality during Project operation: Installation of a high temperature SCR with approximately 90 percent NOx reduction capability (BACT). Installation of an oxidation catalyst with approximately 90 percent CO reduction capability (BACT). Installation of a new continuous emission monitoring system (BACT). Installation of a water injection system to control NOx. Water Resources Protection Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Storm water pollution prevention during construction would be ensured via conformance with the requirements of the General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities and through preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of site inspections, employee training, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as erosion control, inlet protection, waste and material management, and equipment management and fueling management. These provisions would be made a condition of the Port s Harbor Development Permit to LBG. Operational Storm Water Pollution Prevention Storm water pollution prevention during operation would be ensured through conformance with the requirements of the Port s SWPPP. In addition, the facility s existing SWPPP and Storm Water Monitoring Plan (SWMP) would be modified to reflect new operations and would include required elements of site inspections, employee training, and BMPs such as berms around process equipment and storage facilities, erosion control, spill prevention, and waste collection practices. 11 February 2007

16 Chemical Storage and Waste Handling Recyclable wastes generated during construction would be hauled to local recycling centers. Trash containers would be provided for daily refuse from construction workers. Other nonrecyclable construction wastes would be hauled to a sanitary landfill. Chemical and waste storage and handling practices would be conducted in accordance with existing facility procedures and in accordance with City of Long Beach/Signal Hill CUPA hazardous materials/waste handling and storage requirements. Sustainable Development Sustainable development goals, such as the salvaging, reuse, and recycling of materials like asphalt, concrete, steel, copper, and other materials, will be implemented into the construction phase of the project where feasible and practical San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan The San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) has been developed jointly by the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, in cooperation with the USEPA), CARB and the SCAQMD, to define implementation strategies to meet shared air quality improvement goals. The plan includes measures for achieving emission reductions from various port operations over the next 5 years. The CAAP includes strategies to reduce emissions from trucks, locomotives, harbor craft, and cargo handling equipment through modernizing the fleets, retrofitting with exhaust after treatment controls, and using cleaner fuels. Although the CAAP will incorporate CEQA mitigation as an implementation mechanism for attaining the proposed standards, the CAAP is not applicable to the proposed project. The CAAP is primarily focused on reducing emissions from mobile sources and the proposed project is a stationary source of air emissions. The AQMD will be issuing a Permit to Construct and Operate under their New Stationary Source Program California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 California recently passed AB32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of Among other requirements, AB32 mandates that the ARB adopt rules and regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit by the year 2020 that is equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in At the time of this project effort, the ARB had not yet created policies requiring the reporting and verification of GHG emissions, nor established threshold values for GHG. Consequently, this document does not analyze the potential impacts of GHG. 1.5 Anticipated Permits and Approvals Table 1-3 lists the permits and approvals that the Project proponent is expected to need in order to construct and operate the proposed Project. This environmental document would be used by the Port in considering applications for Harbor Development Permits, and by the SCAQMD in considering applications for Permits to Construct and Permits to Operate. 12 February 2007

17 Table 1-3 Anticipated Permits and Approvals Permit Harbor Development Permit Grading Plan and Site Utilities, Building Review, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Compliance with California Fire Code General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit CAS Permit to Construct and Operate Agency City of Long Beach acting by and through the Board of Harbor Commissioners. City of Long Beach Planning and Building Department (LBPBD) Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Additionally, the USEPA Final Conformity Rule requires all federal agencies to ensure that any federal action in nonattainment or maintenance areas conforms to an approved or promulgated state or federal implementation plan. The analysis demonstrating the proposed Project s conformance with the SCAQMD s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is included in Appendix A. 13 February 2007

18 2.0 Evaluation of Proposed Project The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this Project (i.e., the Project would involve at least one impact that is a Potentially ), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/ Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 14 February 2007

19 I find that the proposed Project MAY have an impact on the environment that is potentially significant or potentially significant unless mitigated but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Project, nothing further is required. Signature Rick Cameron Manager of Environmental Planning Date Port of Long Beach 15 February 2007

20 I. AESTHETICS. Would the Project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? AESTHETICS (AE) Would the Project: (a-d) (a)have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? No. The Port Master Plan defines the most sensitive views into the Port as: Predominant structures visible to the east from downtown Long Beach and along the ocean bluffs. Ground-level views along the boundary of Queensway Bay, and Ground-level views along Harbor Scenic Drive from southbound lanes south of Anaheim Street. The proposed Project would be developed within an existing industrial facility, the LBGS, which is itself surrounded by port-industrial land uses; there are no scenic resources visible from viewing points in the vicinity of the proposed Project that would be affected by the presence of the Project. 16 February 2007

21 The proposed Project site is not located in the vicinity of an eligible or designated state scenic highway. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is the segment of State Route (SR) 91 east of SR 55 in the City of Anaheim, approximately 23 miles northeast of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources within a scenic highway. The proposed Project site is located within the existing LBGS industrial facility, which is surrounded by port-industrial land uses in a highly industrialized area within the Port; therefore, it would not alter the existing industrial visual character of the LBGS or surrounding land uses. Finally, the proposed Project would be developed within an existing facility with ample safety lighting, and would not require the addition of an appreciable light source. Therefore, no new sources of light or glare associated with this Project are anticipated to result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None Required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation. Would the Project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use? 17 February 2007

22 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (AR) Would the Project: (a-c) (a)convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to nonagricultural use? No. The proposed Project site is located in an area zoned IP (Port-Related Industrial) predominantly developed with maritime industry and oil production-related facilities. No permitted agricultural land uses are contained within the IP zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no affect on farmland or agricultural uses of any kind. Mitigation Measures: None Required. III. AIR QUALITY. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations Would the Project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is a non-attainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 18 February 2007

23 III. AIR QUALITY. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? AIR QUALITY (AQ) Would the Project: (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans? No. The proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Under the California Clean Air Act (CAA), SCAQMD is required to develop an AQMP for nonattainment criteria pollutants within the air district. SCAQMD has established an AQMP that proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). SCAQMD Board of Directors adopted its latest AQMP in August Project construction activities would comply with attainment strategies identified in the AQMP, such as mobile source control measures and clean fuel programs. These types of measures are enforced at the state and federal levels on engine manufacturers and fuel producers. Earth-moving activities are not anticipated as part of this Project. SCAQMD s Rule 403 addresses AQMP s fugitive dust control strategies. Since Project construction would take place within existing structures, there would be no operations or sources onsite to which Rule 403 would apply. The Project s compliance with attainment strategies identified in the AQMP would ensure that the Project s construction activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Project operation activities would comply with attainment strategies identified in the AQMP and applicable state and federal requirements. The refurbished CTG units, SCR, catalytic oxidizer, and ammonia storage tank would require SCAQMD permits, installation of BACT on the permitted equipment, and would comply with applicable rules and regulations of the SCAQMD. The proposed Project would not affect implementation of the control measures listed in the current AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP. Mitigation Measures: None required. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 19 February 2007

24 Less than. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and attainment status for each pollutant are presented in the Air Quality Study (Appendix A, Table 2-1). A region that has demonstrated that ambient concentrations are consistently below the air quality standard for a given pollutant is designated as in attainment for that pollutant. If the region is not meeting the air quality standard, then it is designated as non-attainment for that pollutant. The SCAB is currently in extreme severe nonattainment for ozone (O 3 ) and is in nonattainment for PM 10 (airborne particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter) and PM 2.5 (airborne particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter). The SCAB is also in federal non-attainment for CO. However, the SCAB has recently been reclassified by CARB as state attainment for CO and is currently petitioning the USEPA for reclassification as federal CO attainment region. The SCAB is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and lead (Pb) (SCAQMD, 2004). Air emissions from the Project would result from construction and operational activities. Air dispersion modeling was performed to evaluate impacts due to criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational activities. Pollutant emissions and air dispersion modeling methodology and calculations are presented in the Air Quality Section (Appendix A, Sections 5 and 7). Dispersion modeling was performed for NO 2, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 using the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST3), Version air dispersion model. SCAQMD has established threshold quantities for sulfates and annual PM, but does not currently require modeling of these pollutants. Air dispersion modeling results were combined with background ambient air pollutant concentrations from AQMD s North Long Beach, AQMD s East Pacific Coast Highway, Port s Wilmington Community, and ARB s Wilmington monitoring stations and compared to significance thresholds in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for construction and operational activities, respectively. Table 2-1 Construction - Local Significance Determination POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION COMBINED CONCENTRATION SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THREHSOLD (1) Significance Determination CO: 1-hour average 249 μg/m ppm (6,900 μg/m 3 ) (2) 7,149 μg/m 3 20 ppm (23,000 μg/m 3 ) state (3) Not 8-hour average 207 μg/m ppm (5,380 μg/m 3 ) (2) 5,587 μg/m 3 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m 3 ) state/federal (3) Not NO 2: 1-hour average 203 μg/m ppm (263 μg/m 3 ) (4) 466 μg/m ppm state (470 μg/m 3 ) Not Annual 2.2 μg/m ppm (54.7 μg/m 3 ) (4) 56.9 μg/m ppm (100 μg/m 3 ) federal Not PM 10 : 24-hour average 3.0 μg/m μg/m 3(4) Not applicable for 10.4 μg/m 3 (incremental for Not 20 February 2007

25 POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION COMBINED CONCENTRATION PM 10 SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THREHSOLD (1) construction) (5) Significance Determination Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.12 μg/m μg/m 3(4) 43.6 μg/m 3 20 μg/m 3(7) Background exceeds AAQS (6) PM 2.5 : 24-hour average 2.95 μg/m 3 Not available for N. Long Beach station Not applicable for PM μg/m 3 (incremental for construction) (5) Not Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.09 μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 12 μg/m 3 (8) 1. Source: SCAQMD SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds link (as of October 2006). 2. AQMD, 2003 Air Quality, 3. The NO 2 and CO thresholds are absolute thresholds; maximum predicted impact is added to the background concentration. 4. AQMD Air Quality, and AQMD 2005 Air Quality, Converted from ppm to ug/m The PM 10 threshold is an incremental threshold. 6. AAQS - Ambient air quality standard. 7. The SCAQMD has established a threshold for sulfates and for annual PM 10, but is currently not requiring a quantitative comparison to these thresholds (SCAQMD 2005). 8. PM 2.5 annual arithmetic mean is based on California AAQS. AQMD is not requiring a quantitative comparison of these thresholds. μg/m 3 - micrograms per cubic meter ppm parts per million Table 2-2 Operation - Local Significance Determination Background exceeds AAQS (6) POLLUTANT OPERATION GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION (1) COMBINED CONCENTRATION SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THREHSOLD (1) Significance Determination CO (5) : 1-hour average 52 μg/m ppm (6,900 μg/m 3 ) 6,952 μg/m 3 20 ppm (23,000 μg/m 3 ) (3) state Not 8-hour average 24 μg/m ppm (5,380 μg/m 3 ) 5,404 μg/m 3 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m 3 ) (3) state/federal Not NO 2: 1-hour average μg/m ppm (263 μg/m 3 ) 396 μg/m ppm state (470 μg/m 3 ) (3) Not Annual μg/m ppm (54.7 μg/m 3 ) 54.7 μg/m ppm (100 μg/m 3 ) (3) federal Not PM 10 : 24-hour average 0.44 μg/m μg/m 3 Not applicable for 2.5 μg/m 3 Not 21 February 2007

26 POLLUTANT Annual Geometric Average OPERATION GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION (1) μg/m μg/m 3 COMBINED CONCENTRATION PM μg/m 3 SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THREHSOLD (1) (incremental for operation) (5) Significance Determination 1 μg/m 3 Background exceeds AAQS (6) PM 2.5 : 24-hour average 0.44 μg/m 3 Not available for N. Long Beach station Not applicable for PM μg/m 3 (incremental for operation) (5) Not Annual Arithmetic Mean μg/m μg/m μg/m 3 12 μg/m 3 (7) Background exceeds AAQS (6) 1. Source: SCAQMD SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds link (as of October 2006). 2. AQMD Air Quality, 3. The NO 2 and CO thresholds are absolute thresholds; maximum predicted impact is added to the background concentration. 4. AQMD Air Quality, and AQMD 2005 Air Quality, Converted from ppm to ug/m The PM 10 threshold is an incremental threshold. 6. AAQS - Ambient Air Quality Standard. 7. PM 2.5 annual arithmetic mean is based on California AAQS. μg/m 3 - micrograms per cubic meter ppm parts per million Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show that criteria pollutant emissions from proposed Project construction and Project operational activities would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and, therefore, would not result in significant impacts. (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than. The SCAQMD has established mass daily significance thresholds for determining whether emissions of criteria pollutants and their precursors are significant for CEQA purposes (SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook). The thresholds are set forth in Table 2-3 for construction and operational emissions, respectively. These significance thresholds were used to determine the significance of emissions associated with Project construction and operation activities. 22 February 2007

27 Table 2-3 Project Emissions and SCAQMD Mass Daily Significance Thresholds EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY [LB/DAY]) CO NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 VOC SO x CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ACTIVITIES Worst-Case Project Construction Emissions Mass Daily Threshold (1) Increase? NO NO NO NO NO NO OPERATIONAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES Maximum Daily CTG Emissions 1,001 1, (lb/day) (2) Maximum Daily Commissioning Emissions (lb/day) 1,020 2, CEQA Baseline (3) Emissions (lb/day) 477 4, CEQA Increment during Operation (lb/day) CEQA Increment during Commissioning (lb/day) 524-2, , Mass Daily Threshold (lb/day) (1) Increase? NO NO NO NO NO NO 1. The SCAQMD has also established a threshold for lead. However, emissions of lead from this Project would result in negligible lead emissions because diesel combustion during construction would emit only pounds per 1,000 gallons of fuel (per AB2588 Hot Spots Program) 2. Combines maximum daily emissions for four CTGs during base load and startup/shutdown. 3. The CEQA Baseline represents the physical conditions at the facility prior to initiation of the proposed Project. The CEQA lead agency determines whether an impact is significant by comparing the difference between the proposed Project and the CEQA Baseline. This difference between the proposed Project and the CEQA Baseline is termed the CEQA Increment. For the purposes of this Project, the CEQA Baseline for determining significance of potential impacts under CEQA is the period from October 26, 2002 through October 25, Air emissions from Project construction and operational activities would not exceed SCAQMD s significance thresholds. Therefore, Project emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors (emission increases that exceed SCAQMD emission significance thresholds). Mitigation Measures: None required. (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than. Sensitive receptors include the elderly, children, and the ill populations. These populations are generally located in residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds/parks, hospitals, and convalescent homes. 23 February 2007

28 Closest sensitive receptors may not necessarily represent the maximum impacted receptors. The determination of a maximum impacted receptor is based on dispersion modeling, whereas closest receptor determination is based only on the distance of the receptor from the proposed Project. In the case of this Project, health impacts at the maximum impacted receptor were identified and determined to be below CEQA significance of 10 in a million for carcinogenic compounds and below 1.0 for chronic noncarcinogenic and acute health effects. By definition, health impacts at all other receptors would be less than impacts at the maximum impacted receptor. The determination both of the maximum impacted sensitive receptor and the maximum impacted offsite worker receptor was based on air dispersion modeling presented in the Air Quality Study (Appendix A, Section 7.3). Construction Activities Air dispersion modeling was conducted to assess localized impact to ambient air from criteria pollutants due to construction activities. Criteria pollutant concentrations were determined to be below CEQA significance thresholds (Appendix A, Section 7.2.5). Exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants associated with construction emissions was also determined to be below significance thresholds. Since the only emissions of toxic air contaminants are associated with exhaust emissions from diesel equipment and vehicles, which are expected to occur for only a short period of time at any location, the expected health risks over a 70-year period are expected to be well below 10 in a million, and, therefore, would not expose the public to a significant risk. Although no significant impacts were found, the Port will require the following BMP measures to be applied during construction activities: Minimizing onsite construction personnel Advanced diesel emission controls No unnecessary idling of vehicles Scheduling large equipment deliveries at the same time to minimize onsite need for cranes Fugitive dust emissions are not expected during construction activities because construction would take place inside existing buildings, no excavation activities are planned, and onsite roads are paved. Operational Activities Pollutant emissions due to proposed operational activities were estimated based on information provided by equipment manufacturers, air permit application (Appendix C), and appropriate emission factors. Air dispersion modeling was conducted to assess localized impact to ambient air from criteria pollutants due to operational activities. Table 2-2 shows that the localized impacts from criteria pollutants from operational activities would below the CEQA significance thresholds. Toxic emissions were estimated based on equipment manufacturer information and emission factors. The ISCST3 air dispersion model was used in conjunction with the 24 February 2007

29 CARB s Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model to determine cancer risk, non-carcinogenic chronic impacts and acute impacts. Health impacts to sensitive receptors and to offsite worker receptors from criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants associated with operational emissions were determined to be below CEQA significance thresholds and are presented in the attached Air Quality Study (Appendix A, Section 7.2, Table 7-7). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors or offsite worker receptors in regard to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations either during construction or operation. Mitigation Measures: None required. (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than. Short-term objectionable odors could potentially occur during Project construction with the use of diesel-powered heavy equipment. However, the Project site is located in an industrial area, removed from the public. In addition, any odors would be short-term in duration. Consequently, this impact is considered less than significant. Odors are not expected to occur during Project operations. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS? 25 February 2007