Resource Report No. 9. Air and Noise Quality. Jordan Cove Energy Project

Transcription

1 Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P. Resource Report No. 9 Air and Noise Quality Jordan Cove Energy Project June 2017

2 JCEP LNG TERMINAL PROJECT Resource Report 9 Air and Noise Quality Minimum FERC Filing Requirement: 1. Describe the existing air quality, including background levels of nitrogen dioxide and other criteria pollutants that may be emitted above EPA-identified significance levels. ( (k)(1)). 2. Quantitatively describe existing noise levels at noise-sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, or residences and include any areas covered by relevant state or local noise ordinances: Report existing noise levels as the Leq (day), Leq (night), and Ldn and include the basis for the data or estimates. For existing compressor stations, include the results of a sound level survey at the site property line and nearby noise-sensitive areas while the compressors are operated at full load. For proposed new compressor station sites, measure or estimate the existing ambient sound environment based on current land uses and activities. Include a plot plan that identifies the locations and duration of noise measurements, the time of day, weather conditions, wind speed and direction, engine load, and other noise sources present during each measurement. ( (k)(2)). 3. Estimate the impact of the project on air quality, including how existing regulatory standards would be met. Provide the emission rate of nitrogen oxides from existing and proposed facilities, expressed in pounds per hour and tons per year for maximum operating conditions, include supporting calculations, emission factors, fuel consumption rates, and annual hours of operation. For major sources of air emissions (as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency), provide copies of applications for permits to construct (and operate, if applicable) or for applicability determinations under regulations for the prevention of significant air quality deterioration and subsequent determinations. ( (k)(3)). 4. Provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of the project on noise levels at noise-sensitive areas, such as schools, hospitals, or residences. Include step-by-step supporting calculations or identify the computer program used to model the noise levels, the input and raw output data and all assumptions made when running the model, far-field sound level data for maximum facility operation, and the source of the data. Include sound pressure levels for unmuffled engine inlets and exhausts, engine casings, and cooling equipment; dynamic insertion loss for all mufflers; sound transmission loss for all compressor building components, including walls, roof, doors, windows and ventilation openings; sound attenuation from the station to nearby noise-sensitive areas; the manufacturer's name, the model number, the performance rating; and a description of each noise source and noise control component to be employed at the proposed compressor station. For proposed compressors the initial filing must include at least the proposed horsepower, type of compression, and energy source for the compressor. Far-field sound level data measured from similar units in service elsewhere, when available, may be substituted for manufacturer's far-field sound level data. If specific noise control equipment has not been chosen, include a schedule for submitting the data prior to certification. The estimate must demonstrate that the project will comply with applicable noise regulations. ( (k)(4)). 5. Describe measures and manufacturer s specifications for equipment proposed to mitigate impact to air and noise quality, including emission control systems, installation of filters, mufflers, or insulation of piping and buildings, and orientation of equipment away from noisesensitive areas. ( (k)(5)). Resource Report Section: Section 9.1 Section 9.3 Figure Tables 9.3-1, 9.3-2, and Section 9.2 Tables 9.2-1, 9.2-2, 9.2-3, 9.2-4, 9.2-5, 9.2-6, 9.2-7, and Section 9.4 Section 9.2 Section 9.4

3 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF INFORMATION RECOMMENDED OR OFTEN MISSING See the Following Resource Report Section: 1. Include climate information as part of the air quality information provided for the project area. Section Identify potentially applicable federal and state air quality regulations. 3. Provide construction emissions (criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, greenhouse gases) for proposed pipelines and aboveground facilities. 4. Provide copies of state and federal applications for air permits. 5. Provide operation and fugitive emissions (criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, greenhouse gases) for pipelines and aboveground facilities. 6. Identify temporary and permanent emissions sources that may have cumulative air quality effects in addition to those resulting from the project. 7. Describe the existing noise environment and ambient noise surveys for compressor stations, liquefied natural gas facilities, meter and regulation facilities, and drilling locations. 8. Identify any state or local noise regulations applicable to construction and operation of the project. 9. Indicate whether construction activities would occur over 24-hour periods. 10. Discuss construction noise impacts and quantify construction noise impacts from drilling, pile driving, dredging, etc. 11. Quantify operation noise from aboveground facilities, including blowdowns. 12. Describe the potential for the operation of the proposed facilities to result in an increase in perceptible vibration and how this would be prevented. 13. Identify temporary and permanent noise sources that may have cumulative noise effects in addition to those resulting from the project. Section 9.1 Section 9.2 Tables 9.2-1, 9.2-2, 9.2-3, 9.2-4, 9.2-5, and Appendix A.9 Section 9.2 Table and Section 9.2 Section 9.3 Section 9.3 Section 9.4 Section 9.4 Section 9.4 Section 9.4 Section 9.4 June 2017 Page i

4 RESOURCE REPORT 9 AIR AND NOISE QUALITY RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF INTRODUCTION AIR QUALITY Regional Climatology Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality National Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status New Source Review ( NSR )/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits ( PSD ) New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS ) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPs )/Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT ) Title V Operating Permit Chemical Accident Prevention Mandatory Greenhouse Gas ( GHG ) Reporting Applicable State Regulations Ambient Air Quality Ambient Area Air Quality Analysis Model Selection and Methodology Class I Areas Source Parameters and Emissions Along the Waterway ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AIR QUALITY Construction Related Emissions Operational Emissions PSD Class II Impacts PSD Class I Impacts Secondary Formation Along the Waterway Mitigation NOISE QUALITY Ambient Noise Levels Applicable Standards and Ordinances Federal Guidelines State Guidelines Local Guidelines ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - NOISE Facility Construction and Mitigation Facility Operation Noise and Mitigation Flaring Along the Waterway REFERENCES June 2017 Page ii

5 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF RESOURCE REPORT 9 AIR AND NOISE QUALITY TABLES Table Primary National and Oregon Ambient Air Quality Standards Table National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards Table NSPS Affected Sources Table Potential HAP Emissions Operations Table Existing Ambient Air Quality Data Table Existing Ambient Air Quality Data Comparison Table LNG Terminal Emission Rates and Stack Parameters Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 1 Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 2 Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 3 Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 4 Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 5 Table Total Construction Emissions by Year Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Operations Table Fugitive Emissions Table LNG Terminal Maximum Modeled Impacts Preliminary Results Table Cumulative Modeled Impacts Preliminary Results Table Worst Case Potential Emissions Summary Marine Vessels Table NSAs Distances and Directions from the LNG Terminal Equipment Table Summary of Existing Noise Levels at NSAs Table Baseline Sound Level Measurement Results at NSAs Table Predicted Construction Noise Levels at NSAs Table Predicted Pile Driving Noise Levels at NSAs Table Predicted Dredging Noise Levels at NSAs Table Predicted Operational Noise Levels at NSAs FIGURES Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Noise Survey Monitoring Locations Typical Construction L dn Noise Level Contours (dba) (to be provided in subsequent submission) Predicted Noise Levels from Vibratory Hammer Installation of Sheet Piles and Excavation and Dredging of the Slip (to be provided in subsequent submission) Predicted Operational L dn Noise Level Contours (dba) (to be provided in subsequent submission) Facility Operation Noise and Mitigation (to be provided in subsequent submission) APPENDICES Appendix A.9 Appendix B.9 ACDP Technical Modification Application (to be provided in subsequent submission) Stationary Source Emission Unit Inventory and Emission Calculations June 2017 Page iii

6 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Appendix C.9 Appendix D.9 Appendix E.9 Appendix F.9 Appendix G.9 RESOURCE REPORT 9 AIR AND NOISE QUALITY Ambient Air Quality Analysis (to be provided in subsequent submission) Baseline Ambient Sound Level Survey Report (to be provided in subsequent submission) Construction Emission Inventory and Emission Calculations Marine Vessel Inventory and Emission Calculations Computer Noise Modeling and Mitigation Report (to be provided in subsequent submission) June 2017 Page iv

7 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF RESOURCE REPORT 9 AIR AND NOISE QUALITY ACRONYMS AQRV Air Quality Related Values ACDP Air Contaminant Discharge Permit ASL Above Sea Level BOG Boil Off Gas Bscf/d Billion Standard Cubic Feet Per Day CaDOT California Department of Transportation CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH 4 Methane CO Carbon Monoxide CO 2 Carbon Dioxide CO 2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent db Decibels dba Decibels of the A-weight Scale DFDE Dual-Fuel Diesel Electric DOT U.S. Department of Transportation Dth/d Dekatherms Per Day F Degrees Fahrenheit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FLAG Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Work Group FLM Federal Land Managers GHG Greenhouse Gases HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling HP Horsepower JCEP Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. km Kilometers KW Kilowatt L dn Average Day/Night Noise Level L eq A-Weighted Equivalent Continuous Noise Level LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LNG Terminal LNG Export Facility m 3 Cubic Meter m 3 /hr Cubic Meter Per Hour MERP Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors MTPA Million Tonnes per Annum MW Megawatt NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NANSR Non-Attainment New Source Review NCDC National Climatic Data Center NCEI National Centers for Environmental Information NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants June 2017 Page v

8 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF RESOURCE REPORT 9 AIR AND NOISE QUALITY ACRONYMS (Continued) NGA NMFS NOAA NO x NO 2 N 2O NSA NSPS NSR O 3 OAR ODEQ Pb PCGP PM PM 2.5 PM 10 ppb ppm PSD PSEL RMP SER SIL SIP SO 2 Title V tpy µg/m 3 U.S. USC VOC Natural Gas Act National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Nitrogen Oxides Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Noise Sensitive Area New Source Performance Standards New Source Review Ozone Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Lead Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP Particulate Matter Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns Parts Per Billion Parts Per Million Prevention of Significant Deterioration Plant Site Emission Limit Risk Management Plan Significant Emission Rate Significant Impact Level State Implementation Plan Sulfur Dioxide Title V of the Clean Air Act Tons Per Year Micrograms per cubic meter United States U.S. Code Volatile Organic Compound June 2017 Page vi

9 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF RESOURCE REPORT 9 AIR AND NOISE QUALITY 9. INTRODUCTION Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. ( JCEP ) is seeking authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC or Commission ) under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act ( NGA ) to site, construct, and operate a natural gas liquefaction and liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) export facility ( LNG Terminal ), located on the bay side of the North Spit of Coos Bay, Oregon. JCEP will design the LNG Terminal to receive a maximum of 1,200,000 dekatherms per day ( Dth/d ) of natural gas and produce a maximum of 7.8 million tons per annum ( mtpa ) of LNG for export. The LNG terminal will turn natural gas into its liquid form via cooling to about -260 o Fahrenheit ( o F ), and in doing so it will reduce in volume to approximately 1/600th of its original volume, making it easier and more efficient to transport. In order to supply the LNG Terminal with natural gas, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP ( PCGP ) is proposing to contemporaneously construct and operate a new, approximately 235- mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline from interconnections with the existing Ruby Pipeline LLC and Gas Transmission Northwest LLC systems near Malin, Oregon, to the LNG Terminal ( Pipeline, and collectively with the LNG Terminal, the Project ). PCGP will submit a contemporaneous application to FERC that will include its own set of resource reports with references to certain materials in the LNG Terminal resource reports. This Resource Report 9 contains a discussion of, and an evaluation of, the potential impacts to air and noise within the JCEP Project Area. 9.1 AIR QUALITY Regional Climatology The State of Oregon is divided into nine (9) climate zones as established by the National Centers for Environmental Information ( NCEI ). The JCEP Project Area lies in the southern part of Zone 1 The Oregon Coast. The coastal zone is characterized by wet winters, relatively dry summers, and mild temperatures year round. Terrain features include the coastal plain, which extends from less than a mile to a few tens of miles in width, numerous coastal valleys, and the Coast Range, whose peaks range from 2,000 to 5,500 feet above sea level ( ASL ). The Zone s heaviest precipitation occurs mainly during the winter months when moist air masses move off the Pacific Ocean onto land. Normal annual precipitation at the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, formerly the North Bend Municipal Airport, which is located just across Coos Bay from the JCEP Project Area, is approximately 65 inches. Normal annual snowfall is approximately one inch. The highest monthly precipitation values occur during the months of November, December, and January. The mean maximum temperature is approximately 60 o F, the mean minimum temperature is approximately 46 F, and the mean temperature is approximately 53 F. Temperatures of 90 F or higher occur less than once per year, on average, and freezing temperatures are infrequent, with killing frosts being even less frequent. There is a 60% chance of the frost free period extending to 251 days. June 2017 Page 9-1

10 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Strong winds occur occasionally, usually in advance of winter storms, and can exceed hurricane force. Strong winds have been known to cause significant damage to structures and vegetation. Such events, however, are typically short-lived, and last less than one day. Partly cloudy skies are prevalent during the summer. Winter skies are typically cloudy. As a result of the persistent cloudiness, total solar radiation is lower in Zone 1 than it is in any other climatic zones of Oregon Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, 42 United States Code ( USC ) 7401 et seq., amended in 1977 and 1990, is the basic federal statute governing air quality. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially relevant to construction and operational emission sources include the following: National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ); New Source Review ( NSR ); New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS ); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP ); CAA Title V Operating Permits; Chemical Accident Prevention; Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; and General Conformity National Ambient Air Quality Standards The CAA defines National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) for six criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants include nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), ozone (O 3), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS were developed to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare (secondary standards). Oregon has adopted the NAAQS. The NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants are provided in Table and Table June 2017 Page 9-2

11 Table National and Oregon Ambient Air Quality Standards RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Pollutant Value Description of Standard PM μg/m 3 24-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years) PM μg/m 3 24-hour concentration (98 th percentile averaged over 3 years) 12 μg/m 3 Annual mean concentration (averaged over 3 years) 75 ppb 1-hour concentration (99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years) SO2 500 ppb 3-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year) 100 ppb 24-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year) (1) 20 ppb Annual concentration (1) CO 35 ppm 1-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year) 9 ppm 8-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year) O ppm 8-hour concentration (annual fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged over 3 years) 1-hour concentration (98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 100 ppb NO2 concentrations, averaged over 3 years) 53 ppb Annual mean concentration Pb 0.15 μg/m 3 Rolling 3 month average (not to be exceeded) Key: µg/m 3 = Micrograms per cubic meter. PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter. PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers aerodynamic diameter. (1) EPA revoked 24-hour and annual SO2 standards in 2010, however Oregon regulations include the 24- hour and annual SO2 standards. Table National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Value Description of Standard PM μg/m 3 24-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years) PM μg/m 3 24-hour concentration (98 th percentile averaged over 3 years) 15 μg/m 3 Annual mean concentration (averaged over 3 years) SO2 0.5 ppm 3-hour concentration (not to be exceeded more than once per year) O ppm 8-hour concentration (annual fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged over 3 years) NO2 53 ppb Annual mean concentration Pb 0.15 μg/m 3 Rolling 3 month average (not to be exceeded) Attainment Status Areas in which the NAAQS are violated are designated as non-attainment areas for the relevant air pollutants. Areas that are in compliance with the NAAQS are designated as attainment areas for the relevant air pollutants. Areas with insufficient data available are designated as attainment/unclassified areas. The air quality in the JCEP Project Area does not violate any NAAQS and is, therefore, designated as an attainment/unclassified area. June 2017 Page 9-3

12 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF New Source Review ( NSR )/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits ( PSD ) The EPA has established separate air quality programs for pre-construction review of certain large projects. Federal pre-construction review for affected sources located in non-attainment areas is commonly referred to as Non-Attainment New Source Review ( NANSR ). Federal preconstruction review for affected sources located in attainment/unclassifiable areas is known as Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The pre-construction review process is intended to prevent a new source from causing existing air quality to deteriorate below acceptable levels. Because the proposed JCEP Project Area location is currently designated as attainment/unclassifiable for each NAAQS, the determination must be made if the LNG Terminal is a PSD major source and is thus applicable to the PSD pre-construction review program. ODEQ s NSR program was approved by the EPA in the early 1980 s. The program regulates construction and modification of larger or major sources in Oregon. The program is a unique State Implementation Plan ( SIP )-approved program that utilizes Plant Site Emission Limits ( PSEL ) and Baseline Emission Rates for regulating source emissions, as well as determining when new and modified sources are subject to New Source Review ( NSR ). The Oregon Administrative Rules ( OAR ) (OAR ) define a federal major source as any source with a potential to emit listed pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tons per year ( tpy ) or 100 tpy for 28 specific source categories identified in OAR (66)(c). Sources which do not meet the definition of federal major source but which have emissions greater than significant emission rates ( SER ) must meet State NSR requirements. The PSD and State NSR requirements are contained in OAR Chapter 340, Division 224. JCEP submitted an air quality permit application to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ( ODEQ ) on March 29, The air quality permit application demonstrated that the LNG Terminal would be in compliance with all applicable air quality regulations and ambient air quality standards. As such, ODEQ issued Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) ST-01 to the JCEP Project Area on June 16, ACDP ST-01 covers the LNG Terminal and the previously proposed South Dune Power Plant facility. Because the South Dune Power Plant facility is no longer included as an element of the LNG Terminal, ODEQ and JCEP are currently discussing the air quality permitting requirements for the LNG Terminal. An ACDP Technical Modification Application will be submitted to ODEQ and will be provided with the subsequent revision of this resource report as Appendix A New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS ) The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS ), found in 40 CFR 60, establish requirements for new, modified, or reconstructed emission units in specific source categories. The LNG Terminal includes certain emission units, storage tanks, and process equipment that would be applicable to specific NSPS as summarized in Table June 2017 Page 9-4

13 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Source Type Number of Sources Table NSPS Affected Sources Rated Capacity Fuel Type Annual Hours Of Operation Applicable NSPS Combustion Turbines MMBtu/hr Natural Gas 8,760 Subpart KKKK Thermal Oxidizer MMBtu/hr Natural Gas 8,760 N/A Auxiliary Boiler MMBtu/hr Natural Gas 876 Subpart Db Diesel Generator Engines 2 4,376 hp Diesel 200 Subpart IIII Diesel Backup Engines kw Diesel 200 Subpart IIII Enclosed Marine Flare MMBtu/hr Natural Gas N/A N/A Multipoint Ground Flare MMBtu/hr Natural Gas N/A N/A Firewater Pump Engines hp Diesel 200 Subpart IIII Pneumatic Controllers and Compressors Multiple N/A N/A N/A N/A Subpart OOOOa 40 CFR 60 Subpart Db The Standards of Performance for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Steam Generating Units apply to the Auxiliary Boiler. The requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart Db include emission limits, performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII The Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines constructed after July 15, 2005, apply to the diesel-fired generator engines, back up engines, and firewater pump engines. The requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII include emission standards, fuel sulfur content, monitoring, and recordkeeping. 40 CFR 60 Subpart KKKK The Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines constructed after February 18, 2005 apply to the combustion turbines. The requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart KKKK include emission limits, performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOa The Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after September 18, 2015, would apply to certain process equipment. The requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOa do not apply to the LNG storage tanks, because the LNG storage tanks would not have the potential to emit six tpy of Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC ) emissions. The pneumatic controllers and compressors in VOC and wet gas service would be subject to Subpart OOOOa. June 2017 Page 9-5

14 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPs )/Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT ) NESHAPs, codified in 40 CFR Part 61 and Part 63, regulate the emission of hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs ) from existing and new sources. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments and regulates only eight types of hazardous substances, which include: asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride. The LNG Terminal would not operate any processes that are regulated by Part 61. As a result, the requirements of Part 61 are not applicable. The 1990 CAA Amendments established a list of 189 additional HAPs, which necessitated the need for issuing standards under Part 63. Known as the MACT standards, Part 63 regulates HAP emissions from major sources of HAPs and specific source categories that emit HAPs, as well as certain minor or area sources of HAPs. Part 63 defines a stationary source with the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP and/or 25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate as a major source of HAPs. Potential HAP emissions from operations are included in the potential to emit analysis. Based on potential HAP emissions, the LNG Terminal will be a HAPs area source. HAP emissions are provided in Table Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix B.9 Stationary Source Emission Unit Inventory and Emission Calculations. Table Potential HAP Emissions Operations Air Pollutant Potential Emissions Total HAPs 8.1 tons/year Single Highest HAP (formaldehyde) 1.5 tons/year 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines applies to the diesel-fired generator engines, back-up engines, and firewater pump engines. According to Subpart ZZZZ, new stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines located at a HAPs area source must meet the requirements of Subpart ZZZZ by meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII. No further requirements apply for such engines under Subpart ZZZZ. The diesel-fired generator engines, back-up engines, and firewater pump engines would meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII and thus meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ Title V Operating Permit Title V of the CAA requires sources that have the potential to emit more than 100 tpy of any criteria pollutant, are a major source of HAPs, or are subject to certain NSPS or NESHAP subparts to obtain a Title V Operating Permit. The authority to issue Title V Operating Permits has been delegated to ODEQ by the EPA. June 2017 Page 9-6

15 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Chemical Accident Prevention Section 112r of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires the EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities for substances with the greatest risk of harm from accidental release. The chemical accident prevention provisions, referred to as the Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule are codified in 40 CFR Part 68. A RMP must be prepared if a facility stores a regulated substance in a quantity greater than certain thresholds. The RMP regulated flammable substances list includes methane, ethane, ethylene, propane and pentane, each with a threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds. The LNG Terminal will process and/or store these substances in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds each. Applicability would be determined based on the final facility design. Flammable substances used as fuel or held for sale as fuel at a retail facility are not covered under the Risk Management Program. It is likely an RMP will be required for the flammable substances used as refrigerants because all natural gas handled at the facility will be combusted on site as fuel or sold for export. If an RMP is required, JCEP will prepare and submit an RMP plan to the EPA prior to introduction of hydrocarbons Mandatory Greenhouse Gas ( GHG ) Reporting The EPA established mandatory GHG reporting under 40 CFR 98. These regulations prescribe the sources for which GHG emissions must be reported and the manner in which GHG emissions are to be monitored, calculated, and quality assured for different source categories. Facilities with GHG emissions above the reporting threshold of 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) per calendar year are required to report GHG emissions under 40 CFR 98. Additionally, a GHG Monitoring Plan which includes data collection requirements, GHG calculation methodology, and data quality assurance procedures would be required. Jordan Cove will have GHG emissions in excess of the reporting threshold for the mandatory GHG reporting rule Applicable State Regulations The following ODEQ regulations (OAR) were evaluated for applicability: Division 11 Rules of General Applicability and Organization; Division 12 Enforcement Procedure and Civil Penalties; Division 200 General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions; Division 210 Stationary Source Notification Requirements; Division 212 Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring; Division 214 Stationary Source Reporting Requirements; Division 216 Air Contaminant Discharge Permits; Division 218 Oregon Title V Operating Permits; Division 220 Oregon Title V Operating Permit Fees; Division 222 Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits; Division 224 Major New Source Review; Division 225 Air Quality Analysis Requirements; Division 226 General Emission Standards; Division 228 Requirements For Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content; and Division 246 Oregon State Air Toxics Program. June 2017 Page 9-7

16 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Ambient Air Quality The existing ambient air quality must be characterized to understand the potential impact of the LNG Terminal. The only monitors for CO, NO 2, and SO 2 in the state are in Portland, which is approximately 260 kilometers (km) northeast of the LNG Terminal site. The monitor selected for PM-10 is outside of Eugene in Lane County, which is approximately 120 km northeast of the LNG Terminal site. The monitor selected for PM-2.5 and ozone is located in Cottage Grove in Lane County, which is 110 km northeast of the LNG Terminal site. All monitoring sites show compliance with the ambient air quality standards as shown in Table Pollutant SO2 Averaging Period Table Existing Ambient Air Quality Data Ambient Air Quality National Ambient Air Standard State Ambient Air Standard Monitoring Period 1-hour 4 ppb 75 ppb 75 ppb hour 8 ppb 500 ppb 500 ppb hour (1) 2 ppb N/A 100 ppb 2015 Site Annual (1) 0 ppb N/A 20 ppb 2015 NO2 1-hour 29 ppb 100 ppb 100 ppb Annual 9 ppb 53 ppb 53 ppb CO 1-hour 2.4 ppm 9 ppm 9 ppm hour 1.9 ppm 35 ppm 35 ppm PM hour 53 µg/m µg/m µg/m PM hour 22 µg/m 3 35 µg/m 3 35 µg/m PM-2.5 Annual µg/m 3 12 µg/m Ozone 8-hour ppm ppm (1) EPA revoked 24-hour and annual SO2 standards in 2010, however Oregon regulations include the 24- hour and annual SO2 standards. The above monitors are located within or nearby the two largest cities in Oregon (i.e., Portland and Eugene). These areas have a substantially larger population than the Coos Bay area and therefore have a significantly higher density of industrial facilities and mobile source air emissions compared to the LNG Terminal. Thus, these monitors would be considered to conservatively represent the ambient air quality within the LNG Terminal. This is confirmed when the monitored data are compared to the NW AIRQUEST model output for the LNG Terminal location as provided in Table The NW AIRQUEST modeling is the result of regional photochemical grid modeling combined with observational air quality data for the period of The result is a hybrid dataset that allows for an estimate of air quality anywhere within the modeled domain, including Coos Bay (i.e., data extracted for , ). Table Existing Ambient Air Quality Data Comparison June 2017 Page 9-8

17 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Pollutant SO2 NO2 CO Averaging Period Monitored Ambient Air Quality NW AIRQUEST Database National Ambient Air Standard State Ambient Air Standard 1-hour 4 ppb 1.2 ppb 75 ppb 75 ppb 3-hour 8 ppb 1.1 ppb 500 ppb 500 ppb 24-hour (1) 2 ppb 1.1 ppb N/A 100 ppb Annual (1) 0 ppb 0.4 ppb N/A 20 ppb 1-hour 29 ppb 8.4 ppb 100 ppb 100 ppb Annual 9 ppb 1.0 ppb 53 ppb 53 ppb 1-hour 2.4 ppm ppm 9 ppm 9 ppm 8-hour 1.9 ppm ppm 35 ppm 35 ppm PM hour 53 µg/m 3 33 µg/m µg/m µg/m 3 PM hour 22 µg/m µg/m 3 35 µg/m 3 35 µg/m 3 PM-2.5 Annual µg/m 3 12 µg/m 3 12 µg/m 3 Ozone 8-hour ppm ppm (1) EPA revoked 24-hour and annual SO2 standards in 2010, however Oregon regulations include the 24- hour and annual SO2 standards. A formal request to waive pre-construction ambient air quality monitoring will be included as part of the required air quality permit modification application to ODEQ, if the LNG Terminal is subject to PSD requirements. Pre-construction monitoring is not required for Type B State NSR projects Ambient Area Air Quality Analysis An ACDP modification application for the LNG Terminal will require a demonstration that compliance is achieved with all applicable air quality standards. An ambient air quality impact analysis (dispersion modeling) will be performed consistent with the requirements and procedures described in the Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA, 2017), Oregon Administrative Rules, and the Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values work group ( FLAG ) (NPS, 2010). Other guidance will be used, as appropriate, such as the Guidance on the Development of Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors ( MERPs ) (EPA, 2016), the New Source Review Workshop Manual (EPA, 1990) and Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources (EPA, 1992). An Air Quality Modeling Protocol will be submitted to ODEQ for approval in May 2017 and will be based on a modeling discussion held with ODEQ on March 13, A preliminary ambient air quality impact analysis was conducted to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS, based on the proposed Air Quality Modeling Protocol. The ambient air quality analysis will be finalized once the Air Quality Modeling Protocol is reviewed and approved by ODEQ. The ACDP modification application will contain the final ambient air quality analysis and provided in Appendix C.9 Ambient Air Quality Analysis. The results from the preliminary ambient air quality analysis are compared to the Class II modeling significant impact levels ( SILs ) on a pollutant and averaging period basis. If the LNG Terminal s impacts are less than the SILs and there is sufficient headroom between the June 2017 Page 9-9

18 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF existing background air quality levels and the ambient air quality standard, then the NAAQS are considered to be protected. If the LNG Terminal s impacts are greater than the SILs, then the LNG Terminal s emission rates must be further analyzed to demonstrate compliance with all applicable PSD increments and NAAQS. Compliance with the applicable PSD increments will be demonstrated as part of the ACDP permit modification application Model Selection and Methodology The most recent version of the AERMOD modeling system (version 16216r) available was used to generate impacts for the preliminary ambient air quality impact analysis. AERMOD is the EPA preferred model for near-field (i.e., <50 km) analyses. The inputs and methodology used for the preliminary ambient air quality analysis are based on standard modeling practice and applicable guidance, which are summarized herein: The surface data used in the analysis is the five most-recent complete years of data collected at the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport (call sign KOTH), located at N, W, which is approximately 2 km southeast of the LNG Terminal site. Upper air data from McNary Field in Salem, OR (44.92 N, W) will also be used, which is approximately 197 km northeast of the LNG Terminal site. The period of meteorological data to be used is January 1, 2012 to December 31, Ground-level concentrations will be calculated within a nested, Cartesian receptor grid. The nested grids will cover an area extending up to 30 km from the proposed facility, but truncated over the Pacific Ocean. The proposed grids will be defined as follows: o receptors spaced every 25 m along the facility fence line; o receptors spaced every 25 m that extend 100 m from the facility fence line; o receptors spaced every 100 m that extend from 100 m to 3 km; o receptors spaced every 250 m that extend from 3 km to 5 km; o receptors spaced every 500 m that extend from 5 km to 20 km; and o receptors spaced every 1,000 m that extend from 20 km to 30 km. Treatment of downwash with BPIPPRM (version 04274). Evaluation of LNG Terminal operations for both normal operation and startup and shutdown (SU/SD). Evaluation of offsite stationary and mobile source emissions (i.e., other permitted sources, LNG carriers, and support vessels) during carrier transiting, hotelling and loading combined. Assessment of LNG Terminal impacts compared to the applicable PSD SILs and, if above, compared to the applicable NAAQS Class I Areas There are five federal PSD Class I areas located within 200 km of the LNG Terminal site. The closest Class I area is the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, which is located approximately 110 km south of the LNG Terminal site. The FLAG guidance for air quality related values ( AQRV ) analyses recommends the use of the Q/D screening approach to determine if a more-refined AQRV analysis is required. This screening analysis is based on the distance from the source to the Class I area and the annualized daily emissions of AQRV-impacting pollutants. If the Q/D analysis results are less than or equal to the screening factor of 10, then FLM agencies do not June 2017 Page 9-10

19 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF require any further Class I AQRV impact analyses. Using the emissions summarized in Table for the visibility-impairing pollutants of NOx, SO 2, PM, and H 2SO 4 the calculated Q value is Using the shortest distance of 110 km, the Q/D value is calculated to be 2.98, which is below the threshold value of 10. This Q/D calculation will be provided to the applicable FLMs for their approval Source Parameters and Emissions The main criteria air pollutant emission sources from the LNG Terminal would consist of five compressor-direct drive combustion turbines, a thermal oxidizer for the gas conditioning system, an auxiliary boiler, two diesel black-start generator engines, two diesel back-up engines, three firewater pump engines, one marine flare, and a combined (warm and cold) multipoint ground flare. The modeled emission rates and stack parameters are presented in Table Table LNG Terminal Emission Rates and Stack Parameters Emission Units Combustion Turbine with Duct Firing Temperature Stack Parameters Velocity Stack Diameter Potential Emission Rates Per Unit Stack Height NOX PM10/PM2.5 SO2 CO ( F) (ft./sec) (ft.) (ft.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) Auxiliary Boiler Thermal Oxidizer 1, Marine Flare Ambient Negligible Ground Flare (warm and cold) Ambient Negligible 259 x Fire Water Pump Backup Generator Black Start Generator The LNG Terminal will also have associated marine vessels (i.e., LNG carriers and tugboats) that will be moored at the berth during loading of the LNG from the LNG storage tanks. Emissions and exhaust parameters from the LNG carriers are included in the cumulative modeling analysis starting from the process of transit, berthing, to hotelling and LNG loading and finally to connecting the towlines and de-berthing Along the Waterway Approximately 110 to 120 LNG carriers per year would transit to the LNG Terminal. Tugs would be provided by JCEP to be used in the transit and berthing (and de-berthing) of the LNG carriers. The tugs would be berthed adjacent to the LNG ship berth to be ready when called upon. Emissions and exhaust parameters from the LNG carriers are included in the preliminary ambient air quality analysis as an emission source for cumulative impact demonstration June 2017 Page 9-11

20 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF modeling starting from the transit to the process of berthing, to hoteling and LNG loading and finally to connecting the towlines and de-berthing. 9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AIR QUALITY Construction Related Emissions Air quality impacts associated with the construction of the LNG Terminal can be classified as impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions (PM emissions suspended in air) during site preparation and impacts associated with operating fossil fuel burning equipment. The construction of the LNG terminal would result in a temporary increase in emissions. Emissions of criteria pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NO X), CO, PM, VOCs, and SO 2, along with GHGs (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), and nitrous oxide (N 2O)) would result from the combustion of fossil fuels. These emissions would be released in the exhaust of the equipment used in land clearing/grading equipment, cranes, bulldozers, and various types of trucks and cars. Other construction-related emissions include compactors, pavers, welding, brazing, soldering, solvent cleaning, grinding, cutting, etc. Fugitive dust emissions would result from construction activities such as land clearing, grading, excavation, and concrete placement, along with vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads. The magnitude of fugitive dust emissions would primarily be a function of the area of construction, silt and moisture contents of the soil, wind speed, frequency of precipitation, amount of vehicle traffic, vehicle types, and paved roadway characteristics. Fugitive dust emissions would be produced during all phases of construction. Emissions would be greater during the drier summer months and in areas of fine-textured soils. During these periods, dust suppression techniques, such as watering, would be used in these areas to minimize the impacts of fugitive dust on sensitive areas. The potential emissions from construction are provided in Table 9.2-1, Table 9.2-2, Table 9.2-3, Table 9.2-4, and Table Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix E.9 Construction Emission Inventory and Emission Calculations. June 2017 Page 9-12

21 Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 1 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Construction Activity Source Year 1 - Emissions (tons/year) NOX SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC GHG HAPS On-road Construction Equipment Non-road Construction Equipment Boats/Tugs Stationary Emission Units Fugitive Sources Material Delivery and Worker Commuting Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 2 Construction Activity Source Year 2 - Emissions (tons/year) NOX SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC GHG HAPS On-road Construction Equipment Non-road Construction Equipment Boats/Tugs Stationary Emission Units Fugitive Sources Material Delivery and Worker Commuting Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 3 Construction Activity Source Year 3 - Emissions (tons/year) NOX SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC GHG HAPS On-road Construction Equipment Non-road Construction Equipment Boats/Tugs Stationary Emission Units Fugitive Sources Material Delivery and Worker Commuting Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 4 Construction Activity Source Year 4 - Emissions (tons/year) NOX SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC GHG HAPS On-road Construction Equipment Non-road Construction Equipment Boats/Tugs Stationary Emission Units Fugitive Sources Material Delivery and Worker Commuting June 2017 Page 9-13

22 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Construction Year 5 Construction Activity Source Year 5 - Emissions (tons/year) NOX SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC GHG HAPS On-road Construction Equipment Non-road Construction Equipment Boats/Tugs Stationary Emission Units Fugitive Sources Material Delivery and Worker Commuting Construction activities would take place over multiple years. Table provides a summary of the total emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs for construction by year. The construction emission totals during year five include includes operation of certain LNG Terminal equipment. Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix E.9 Construction Emission Inventory and Emission Calculations. Table Total Construction Emissions by Year Construction Year Emissions (tons/year) NOX SO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 VOC GHG HAPS Year , Year , Year , Year , Year , Operational Emissions The operation of the LNG Terminal would include operating the compressor-direct drive combustion turbines, a thermal oxidizer for the gas conditioning system, an auxiliary boiler, diesel generator engines, diesel backup engines, flares, and firewater pump engines. The LNG Terminal equipment would combust fossil fuels and would release combustion emissions that include NO X, CO, PM, VOCs, SO 2, and GHGs. Enclosed ground flares would be used to burn gas released from the process during emergencies or while purging equipment in preparation for maintenance, and LNG tanker conditioning activities. Fugitive VOC and GHG emissions, emissions that could not reasonably pass through an exhaust stack, would also result from evaporative losses from valves, connectors, open ended lines, pressure relief valves, and storage vessels. The potential annual emissions from operations are provided in Table and fugitive emissions are provided in Table Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix B.9 Stationary Source Emission Unit Inventory and Emission Calculations. June 2017 Page 9-14

23 Table Pollutant Emissions Summary Operations RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Source Emissions (tons/year) NOX CO PM2.5 PM10 VOC SO2 HAP GHG (as CO2e) Combustion Turbines ,292,706 Combustion Turbines Startup/Shutdown E E Thermal Oxidizer ,730 Auxiliary Boiler ,193 Firewater Pump 4.5E E E-02 Engines E E Backup Generator Engines E E Black Start Generator Engines E E-02 1,002 Flares E E-02 2,077 Gas-Up E-02 4,351 Pollutants PSD Class II Impacts Table Fugitive Emissions Annual Emissions (tons/year) LNG Tanks Equipment Leaks Total VOC CO CH N-Hexane The results from the preliminary ambient air quality analysis are compared to the Class II modeling significant impact levels (SILs) on a pollutant and averaging period basis in Table For those pollutants and averaging periods with impacts greater than the SILs, additional modeling was conducted that included an offsite stationary and mobile source emission inventory (i.e., other permitted sources, LNG carriers, and support vessels during carrier transiting, hoteling and loading). The results of this cumulative ambient air quality analysis are added to representative background values and compared to the NAAQS in Table The results of the preliminary air quality modeling indicate that all CO and 3-hr, 24-hr, and annual SO 2 impacts are less than the Class II SILs and, therefore, no further modeling is required. The remaining pollutants and averaging times were further modeled with the abovementioned offsite stationary and mobile source inventory. The results of the cumulative modeling analysis indicate compliance with all NAAQS. A demonstration of compliance with the NAAQS and PSD Increments is required for the ACDP modification. Once DEQ approves the modeling protocol, final modeling will be conducted for inclusion in the ACDP modification application. As part of the protocol approval process, DEQ will provide an updated offsite stationary source inventory for use in the cumulative source modeling analysis. June 2017 Page 9-15

24 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Table LNG Terminal Maximum Modeled Impacts Preliminary Results Pollutant Averaging Period Modeled Concentration (1) (µg/m 3 ) Class II SIL (µg/m 3 ) Pollutant CO 1-hour hour NO2 (2) 1-hour Annual PM10 24-hour Annual PM2.5 (3) 24-hour Annual SO2 1-hour hour hour Annual (1) Modeled concentrations are the overall maximum values. Modeled concentrations shown in bold type exceed the Class II SILs and additional analysis of impacts is required. See Table for these pollutants. (2) The reported NO 2 modeled concentration assumes 100% conversion of NOx to NO 2. (3) Direct PM 2.5 only. Table Cumulative Modeled Impacts Preliminary Results Averaging Period Modeled Concentration (1) (µg/m 3 ) Background (µg/m 3 ) Total Impact (µg/m 3 ) NAAQS (µg/m 3 ) NO2 (2) 1-hour Annual PM10 (3) 24-hour Annual n/a n/a n/a n/a PM2.5 (4) 24-hour Annual SO2 1-hour (1) Modeled concentrations are in the form of the NAAQS. (2) The reported NO 2 modeled concentration assumes 100% conversion of NOx to NO 2. (3) PM 10 has a Class II SIL defined in OAR 340, but no associated NAAQS. (4) Direct PM 2.5 only PSD Class I Impacts The air quality related values (AQRVs) that are applicable at PSD Class I areas, such as regional haze and acid deposition, will be screened using the FLAG 2010 Q/D approach. Q/D is the sum of certain pollutant emissions (tpy) divided by distance (km) from the Class I area. A Q/D 10 indicates no further analysis of AQRVs is required. June 2017 Page 9-16

25 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Section provides the preliminary Q/D calculation, which results in a value well under the threshold value of 10. This approach and calculation will be confirmed with the appropriate FLMs. Compliance with the Class I PSD increments will be demonstrated as part of the ACDP permit modification application Secondary Formation Ozone is formed through a series of complex reactions between precursor pollutants (e.g., NOx and VOC) that take place in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Generally, ozone is considered a regional pollutant due to substantial international and regional transport of both ozone and precursor emissions. Secondary formation from NOx and SO 2 to particulate PM 2.5 is also formed through complex reactions in the atmosphere that depend on factors such as temperature, humidity, ammonia, etc. The LNG Terminal area is in attainment of the EPA standards for ozone and PM 2.5. The final ambient air quality impact analysis will include an evaluation of potential secondary formation for ozone and PM 2.5 from the LNG Terminal emissions using the EPA document Guidance on the Development of Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) (EPA, 2016). The modeling protocol, to be reviewed and approved by ODEQ, contains a discussion of the proposed approach. Based on this proposed approach and the LNG Terminal emissions, it is expected that the LNG Terminal will have secondary formation of ozone and PM 2.5 that is considered insignificant Along the Waterway Different types of LNG carriers would transit to the LNG Terminal site; steam turbine vessels firing fuel oil, steam turbine vessels firing natural gas, dual-fuel diesel electric ( DFDE ) vessels, totally approximately 110 to 120 LNG carriers per year. The worst case potential emissions, assuming 120 calls per year for each type of LNG carrier, were calculated and are provided in Table Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix F.9 Marine Vessel Emission Inventory and Emission Calculations. Table Worst Case Potential Emissions Summary Marine Vessels Source Emissions (tons/year) NOX CO PM2.5 PM10 VOC SO2 GHG (as CO2e) Steam Turbine Vessels Fuel Oil , Steam Turbine Vessels Natural Gas , DFDE Vessels , Tugboats In the unlikely event of an LNG spill on the ground or another warm surface, the LNG would boil quickly and vaporize. The vapor would be primarily methane, which is not a criteria pollutant. Without an ignition source and specific flammability limit conditions, the methane would disperse in the air, which in turn would cause a temporary degradation of ambient air quality. Natural gas burns with a visible flame and has narrow flammability limits, combusting only in air-to-fuel proportions of 5-15%. Below 5% the mix is too lean to burn and above 15% the mix is too rich to burn. Pools of liquefied natural gas do not ignite as readily as pools of gasoline or diesel fuel. June 2017 Page 9-17

26 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF The auto-ignition temperature of methane is 1004 F, significantly higher than gasoline (495 F) or diesel (600 F). So while open flames and sparks can ignite natural gas, many hot surfaces such as a car muffler will not. Methane vapors in open air exhibit a very slow flame speed of about 4 mph. Methane is also considered a greenhouse gas and the release of an amount of methane may contribute to global warming. Methane vapor release effects would likely be confined to along the LNG ship transit route and would not affect any sensitive receptors outside of that zone. Consequently, an LNG spill without ignition of the vapor is not anticipated to have a long-term adverse effect on air quality. If the vapor from an LNG spill were to come in contact with an ignition source and meet the specific flammability limit conditions, it is likely that products of combustion would degrade the local air quality particularly downwind of the LNG spill. The incomplete products of the combustion of methane include criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and carbon particulates. While the types and amounts of air contaminants from burning vapor due to an LNG spill would depend on a number of factors, the emissions would be limited to a localized area and would be temporary, and would not result in significant effects on air quality Mitigation The LNG Terminal would include items to minimize the air quality impacts during construction and operation of the LNG Terminal. During construction of the LNG Terminal these items would include: Dust suppression techniques, such as watering, which would reduce fugitive PM emissions from construction activities such as land clearing, grading, excavation, and concrete placement, along with vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads; Performing regular maintenance of the emission units, which maintains efficient combustion. Efficient combustion would reduce the fuel required to operate the emission units and thus reduce the amount of combustion emissions emitted; and Following an idling policy, such as not allowing construction vehicles and equipment to idle for more than a set amount of time if the vehicle or equipment is not in motion, reduces fuel consumption, which reduces NO X, CO, PM, VOCs, SO 2, and GHGs emissions. During operations of the LNG Terminal these items would include: The combustion turbines would be equipped with post-combustion emission controls (catalytic oxidizers and selective catalytic reduction), which reduces NO X, CO, and VOC emissions; The auxiliary boiler would be equipped with low NO X burners, which reduces NO X emissions; The combustion turbines would fire natural gas for facility startup and boil-off gas during normal operations, which reduces the consumption of diesel fuel; The HRSG steam would be used to drive a steam generator, providing ancillary power to the facility which reduces the need for additional power to be produced or purchased for the LNG Terminal; Tier 3 and Tier 4 stationary engines, which are equipped with NO X and PM emission controls and would reduce NO X and PM emissions; June 2017 Page 9-18

27 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Performing regular maintenance of the emission units, which maintains efficient combustion. Efficient combustion would reduce the fuel required to operate the emission units and thus reduce the amount of combustion emissions emitted; and A halon-free, fire-suppression system. This system would remove the possibility of a release of ozone-depleting substances. 9.3 NOISE QUALITY At any location, both the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and throughout the week. This variation is caused in part by changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative cover, in addition to human activities. There are two measures used by Federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise. The A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (L eq) for 24 hours (L eq(24)) is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the timevarying sound of interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The day/night average noise level (L dn) is the L eq(24) with 10 dba added to the nighttime sound levels between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for people s greater sensitivity to sound during nighttime hours. Another way of judging potential noise impact is the amount of increase over existing levels of noise at receptors around the site. In general, an increase of 3 decibels (db) is barely detectable by the human ear and an increase of 5 db is considered slightly significant. Increases of greater than 10 db are generally considered significant, being perceived as an apparent doubling of loudness Ambient Noise Levels The LNG Terminal is located in an area along the northern shore of Coos Bay, approximately one mile north of the Cities of North Bend and Coos Bay. The surrounding area consists of sand dunes interspersed with lower flat marsh areas, water bodies, and grassy fields. The sand dunes are covered with dense stands of vegetation, except where it has been affected by human activities. There are no NSAs within one mile of the LNG Terminal site. This is a significant buffer that should significantly reduce the potential for any noise impacts. Two noise surveys previously have been conducted in the area, one in 2005, the other in 2013, both of which identified two NSAs. A new sound level survey was performed in May There are a few campgrounds within 1.3 miles of the LNG Terminal site, which were also considered as part of the noise survey. The previously identified NSAs will be retained. The noise survey results are summarized below. NSA 1 consists of single-family residences in a subdivision about 1.3 miles south of the LNG Terminal in the City of North Bend along the south side of the bay adjacent to the airport. The subdivision is bordered on the north by Colorado Avenue and on the west by Arthur Street. The nearest NSA to the east (NSA 2) is also a group of single-family residences, located approximately 2.2 miles east on Russell Point. Table shows the NSAs, directions to the NSA, and approximate distance from the center of the liquefaction area. All NSAs and distances to the LNG Terminal will be shown on Figure June 2017 Page 9-19

28 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Ambient underwater noise levels range from about 74 db to 100 db re 1µPa in the open ocean with no ship traffic nearby, to about 115 db to 135 db re 1µPa in large marine inlets with some recreational boat traffic (CaDOT, 2009). Existing shipping traffic in the Coos Bay area means that ambient underwater noise levels are expected to be correspond to this latter range in the presence of shipping, but may be lower at times corresponding to reduced boat traffic activity. Table NSAs Distances and Directions from the LNG Terminal Equipment Receptor Description Direction to NSA Distance, miles NSA 1 Residential South 1.3 NSA 2 Residential East 2.2 NSA 3 Campground Northeast 1.2 Summary of Previous Noise Surveys The sound level measurement locations near the two previously identified NSAs were as follows: NSA 1: at the corner of Colorado Avenue and Arthur Street adjacent to a subdivision on the south side of the bay; and NSA 2: off East Bay Street about 90 feet east of US 101. The two previous noise surveys were conducted: Between 1700 hours on August 31, 2005, and 1700 hours on September 1, 2005; and Between 1000 hours on April 11, 2013, and 0900 hours on April 18, Table summarizes the previously-measured results and shows the results of the 2017 sound level survey, which included NSA 3. The data are fairly consistent among the surveys. Table Summary of Existing Noise Levels at NSAs Receptor L eq(1-hr) L dn L eq(1-hr) L dn L eq(1-hr) L dn NSA NSA NSA The previously-identified primary sources of man-made noise in the area included vehicle traffic on the Trans-Pacific Parkway and US Highway 101, recreational vehicle use in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, and boat traffic in Coos Bay. Natural sounds included birds, insects and wind. Occasional aircraft could be heard at the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport just across the bay from the site. A generator was operating at the wastewater treatment plant near NSA 1 during the first day of the 2017 monitoring. Noise levels at existing NSAs nearest the LNG Terminal site are controlled primarily by vehicular traffic. Noise levels experienced at June 2017 Page 9-20

29 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF the NSAs are similar in level to those in suburban areas where traffic is the primary source of noise Noise Survey The results of the updated noise survey are shown in Table Appendix G.9 provides the details of the baseline ambient noise survey. NSA Table Baseline Sound Level Measurement Results at NSAs Distance to NSA, miles Direction Duration HH:MM Daytime (1) Leq, dba Nighttime (1) Leq, dba Ambient L dn, dba South 71: East 72: Northeast 71: Applicable Standards and Ordinances Federal Guidelines The only federal noise guidelines applicable to the LNG Terminal are those of the FERC. FERC guidelines (18 CFR ) limit generated sound to an L dn level no greater than 55 dba at the nearest NSA, such as a residence, school, campground, or hospital during facility operations. FERC typically requires that the sound attributable to construction operations (such as horizontal directional drilling ( HDD ) should not exceed 55 dba (Ldn) at the NSAs or be 10 dba over the background (ambient) noise level if the ambient levels are above 55 dba (Ldn). If it is projected that the sound criteria/guidelines could be exceeded at any nearby NSA, it will be necessary to describe noise mitigation measures which would be implemented during construction and drilling activities to reduce the noise impacts of the operations and achieve the sound criteria/guidelines. Due to the +10 dba nighttime penalty added prior to the calculation of the L dn, the actual constant noise level required to produce an L dn of 55 dba is approximately 48 dba. Therefore, compliance with the FERC guideline of an L dn of 55 dba at the nearest pre-existing NSA requires that the LNG facility be designed such that the actual continuous operational noise levels do not exceed approximately 48 dba at any pre-existing NSA. The National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) provides interim guidance on underwater noise thresholds for behavioral disturbance for marine mammals (NMFS, 2012), and guidance on thresholds for the onset of permanent threshold shift (PTS), which represents non-recoverable hearing damage (NMFS, 2016). For the LNG Terminal, the proposed in-water activities are not considered to present any realistic potential for PTS to marine mammals. Recommended sound exposure guidelines for fish and sea turtles are provided in Popper, et al. (2014). The NMFS interim underwater thresholds for marine mammal behavioral effects are 160 db (rms) referenced to 1 micro Pascal (re 1µPa), for impulsive noise sources such as impact pile driving. For continuous in-water noise sources such as the noise from vibratory pile driving or dredging, the interim threshold for behavioral effects is 120 db (rms) re 1µPa. June 2017 Page 9-21

30 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF State Guidelines The ODEQ noise standards are contained in OAR, Chapter 340, Division 35 Noise Control Regulations. The OAR noise regulations are not directly applicable to the operational noise from the LNG Terminal site Local Guidelines The City of North Bend has a noise ordinance that prohibits the making of unnecessary noise but the ordinance has no specific numerical limits (North Bend City Code, Section ). Daytime construction noise between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. is exempt. Coos County does not have a noise ordinance. The project is located in Coos County. 9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - NOISE Facility Construction and Mitigation Noise could affect the local environment during construction and operation of the LNG Terminal. Noise associated with construction activities will be intermittent, as equipment is operated on an as-needed basis and mostly during daylight hours. During the site grading and filling operations, the equipment may be operated on a schedule of two 10-hour shifts, six days per week, with the potential to go to a 24/7 schedule, if required. Construction will not result in generation of or exposure of persons to excessive noise or vibration levels. Site investigations and soil characterization has not identified the need for blasting as the entire the LNG Terminal area is predominantly sand. The most prevalent sound source during construction is anticipated to be the internal combustion engines used to provide mobility and operating power to construction equipment. Pile driving and dredging is discussed below. The sound level impacts at NSAs from construction operations will depend on the type of equipment used, the mode of operation of the equipment, the length of time the equipment is in use, the amount of equipment used simultaneously, and the distance between the sound source and sensitive site. Construction noise levels are being evaluated and will be updated in the revised RR9. Expected noise levels at NSAs will be calculated and included as Table and Figure Appendix G.9 will provide details of the noise modeling methodology, inputs, and results. Receptor Table Predicted Construction Noise Levels at NSAs Predicted Sound Level (dba L eq) Predicted Sound Level (dba L dn) Existing Ambient dba L dn (1) Future Combined L dn Level Increase Over Existing Ambient NSA 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 3 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD (1) To Be Determined (TBD). June 2017 Page 9-22

31 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF The noise impacts due to general construction equipment will be temporary. General construction equipment noise impacts will be mitigated as necessary through one or more of the following: Maintaining equipment in accordance with good operating practices for noise control; Selecting low-noise alternatives when possible (e.g., electric versus diesel engines); Restricting the time of day or season of the year for construction; Installing temporary noise barriers or constructing berms; Enclosing equipment; and Preparing site-specific noise management plans, including a communication mechanism for residents and businesses to report noise-related issues. Pile Installation and Dredging in the Dredge Pocket Pile driving noise levels are being evaluated and will be updated in the revised RR9. Expected noise levels at NSAs will be calculated and included as Table and Figure Appendix G.9 will provide details of the noise modeling methodology, inputs, and results. Receptor Table Predicted Pile Driving Noise Levels at NSAs Predicted Sound Level (dba L eq) Predicted Sound Level (dba L dn) Existing Ambient dba L dn (1) Future Combined L dn Level Increase Over Existing Ambient NSA 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 3 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD (1) TBD. JASCO Applied Sciences was engaged to identify the potential extents of underwater noise above the marine mammal interim behavioral disturbance thresholds during vibratory piling (Deveau, et al., 2017). Sheet piles are expected to be installed in the dry, behind a soil berm to be installed between the water and the sheet pile location. JASCO s modeling indicates that the highest underwater noise levels from sheet piling would be found where the sound is able to propagate away from the source in deeper water for the furthest distance, before being attenuated by bottom loss in shallower water. The maximum modeled distance to the 120 db re 1µPa interim marine mammal behavioral disturbance threshold is less than 2 km from the noise source. On the basis of the noise levels predicted by JASCO (Deveau, et al., 2017), and with reference to Popper, et al. (2014), there is a high likelihood of behavioral responses for fish in the vicinity of vibratory piling. More severe impacts (mortality or injury) to fish due to underwater noise from vibratory piling behind the soil berm are not expected. Open Water Dredging Operations Dredging noise levels are being evaluated and will be updated in the revised RR9. Expected noise levels at NSAs will be calculated and included as Table and Figure Appendix G.9 will provide details of the noise modeling methodology, inputs, and results. June 2017 Page 9-23

32 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Receptor Table Predicted Dredging Noise Levels at NSAs Predicted Sound Level (dba L eq) Predicted Sound Level (dba L dn) Existing Ambient dba L dn (1) Future Combined L dn Level Increase Over Existing Ambient NSA 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 3 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD (1) TBD. Most of the dredging will be conducted in isolation from Coos Bay. Only the dredging of the access channel and the berm (which isolates the slip construction area from Coos Bay) will be dredged with a connection to Coos Bay. The noise associated with dredging is largely related to ship traffic. It is not anticipated that dredging noise would have any potential to cause more severe effects to marine mammals or fish than behavioral disturbance. Major dredging operations can generate underwater sound levels of up to 185 db re 1μPa at one meter (CEDA, 2011) if using a large trailing suction hopper dredger to excavate rock. For the LNG Terminal, the material to be removed is expected to be soil or relatively soft sediment. Two different and relatively small scale dredge types are anticipated to be utilized. Initial dredging would be undertaken using a clamshell dredge operating on a 24-hour basis over approximately 40 weeks. Subsequent dredging would require a hydraulic dredge for approximately 3 weeks. Underwater noise emissions are expected to be greater from the hydraulic dredge than from the clamshell dredge, since this type of equipment adds sounds generated by the rotating cutterhead, slurry intake, suction pumps and sediment moving through pipes to the ship and machinery sounds generated by of a clamshell dredge. Reine and Dickerson (2014) measured noise from a hydraulic dredge during maintenance dredging in a deepwater shipping channel in California. They identified rms source noise levels of up to 157 db re 1µPa at one meter from the source for a dredge with overall length approximately 100 ft., a total power of 1000 hp operating the main pumps, and with dredged material moving through a 16-in. pipeline. Use of a similar dredge is anticipated for JCEP dredging. Underwater noise levels attenuate with distance. The NMFS (2012) suggests that underwater noise transmission loss with distance can be estimated using a practical spreading loss model. The algorithm utilized is provided below: R1 = 10 (TL/15) *R2 Where: R1 = distance (meters) to the required sound level; R2 = reference distance (meters) from the source of the sound; and TL = required reduction in sound level (db). The NMFS interim underwater threshold for marine mammal behavioral effects for continuous noise sources such as dredging is 120 db (rms) re 1µPa. Utilizing the above algorithm, June 2017 Page 9-24

33 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF hydraulic dredging noise would be reduced to below the 120 db marine mammal behavioral disturbance threshold level at a distance of approximately 300 meters or 1,000 feet from the dredging. Similarly for fish, behavioral reactions such as avoidance behavior are possible but there is a low probability of more severe effects due to underwater dredging noise (Popper, et al., 2014) Facility Operation Noise and Mitigation Operation The following major noise-producing equipment will normally be in operation at the LNG Terminal: Five refrigerant compressors / turbine drivers / piping; Five refrigerant compressor interstage coolers; Five refrigerant condensers; Three steam turbine generators; Three air-cooled condensers on steam turbine exhaust; Two BOG compressors / motors / piping; and Various other smaller condensers, coolers, pumps and valves. The above equipment packages will be specified to meet sound level requirements appropriate to support an overall far-field sound level that does not exceed the applicable FERC regulatory limits. Facility operational noise levels are being evaluated and will be updated in the revised RR9. Expected noise levels at NSAs will be calculated and included. The environmental noise emissions associated with the LNG Terminal will be modeled using noise prediction software (Cadna/A version 2017) in accordance with ISO The model will calculate the outdoor propagation of sound from each noise source and account for sound wave divergence, atmospheric and ground absorption, sound directivity, and shielding due to interceding barriers and terrain. The A-weighted sound pressure levels from the LNG Terminal site will be calculated at the NSA locations based on normal operation, which excludes intermittent activities such as start-up, shut down, and any other abnormal or upset operating conditions. The results of the analysis will be presented in Table and Figure Table will also show the calculated LNG Terminal L dn levels, the existing ambient L dn levels, and the projected increases in future noise at each NSA. Appendix G.9 will provide details of the noise modeling methodology, inputs, and results, including the octave band sound power levels of noise sources and the data sources. Appendix G.9 will also include step-by-step sound level propagation calculations (model inputs, attenuation values, and sound level contribution per noise source). June 2017 Page 9-25

34 Receptor Table Predicted Operational Noise Levels at NSAs Predicted Sound Level (dba L eq) Predicted Sound Level (dba L dn) Existing Ambient dba L dn (1) RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Future Combined L dn Level Increase Over Existing Ambient NSA 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NSA 3 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD (1) TBD. Mitigation Noise mitigation is being evaluated and will be addressed in the revised RR9. Appendix G.9 will provide details of the noise mitigation assumed in the computer noise model, including octave band insertion loss or transmission loss values. General noise mitigation measures include the following: Combustion air inlet and exhaust silencers; Acoustical pipe insulation or lagging; Equipment enclosures or buildings; Noise barriers; and Specification of low-noise equipment. Vibration Ground borne vibrations are typically not significant outside of the facility boundary. Facility equipment is designed and balanced in order to minimize extraneous vibration as a means to preserve and extend the service life of the equipment. Ground borne vibration resulting from the LNG Terminal equipment is not expected at the NSAs. Low frequency airborne sound has the potential to induce rattling of residential building structures. ANSI S publishes criteria for sound pressure levels that should not be exceeded in order to avoid moderately perceptible vibration and rattle inside a room. These criteria are 65 db and 70 db in the 31.5 Hz and 63 Hz octave bands, respectively. The predicted LNG Terminal (only) sound levels in the 31.5 and 63 Hz bands at the NSA receptors are being evaluated. At this time, they are expected to all be below 65 db, thus satisfying these criteria. The LNG Terminal site is not expected to cause a perceptible increase in vibration at any noise-sensitive area Flaring Process flaring is not expected to occur as part of normal operations. Flaring noise levels are being evaluated and will be updated in the revised RR9. A description of expected noise levels at NSAs will be calculated and included. This will include expected sound levels at NSAs due to maintenance and emergency flaring activities. The marine flare would be used as needed as part of normal LNG carrier conditioning activities and could last approximately 16 hours, per event. June 2017 Page 9-26

35 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF Along the Waterway Underwater noise levels from large commercial ships are fairly consistent, ranging from about 177 db to 188 db re 1µPa at one meter (McKenna, 2011). The Coos Bay area has therefore historically, and currently, experienced elevated underwater noise levels due to shipping. LNG carriers travelling at half speed generate underwater noise levels of about 175 db re 1µPa at one meter. Considering both peak noise levels and cumulative sound exposure, vessel noise is not expected to exceed the NMFS guideline thresholds for the onset of PTS for cetaceans and pinnipeds. Marine animals in close proximity to the transiting carriers would be exposed to elevated noise levels for approximately 20 to 25 minutes (LGL, 2005). Marine life in the bay has historically, and currently, experienced similar sound level from transiting commercials ships. The addition of approximately additional LNG carriers on an annual basis will add some noise to the existing environment specifically within the 0.3 mile zone. The addition of approximately LNG carriers to the existing average traffic of 50 ships per year will increase the average ambient in-water sound level. An estimate of the increase is derived based on the assumption that noise levels from all large ships that traverse the waterway generate essentially the same underwater sound levels, which is supported by research conducted by McKenna (2011). The increase in the average annual noise level due to shipping is subsequently based on the increase in ship traffic. A doubling of ship traffic would result in a 3 db increase in noise. The increase in average sound levels is based on the following formula: Increase db = 10*log 10(total ship traffic/existing ship traffic) Accordingly then, the projected addition of up to 120 LNG carriers annually to the existing volume of 50 ships results in a 5.3 db increase in the annual average underwater noise level due to shipping. Since the additional LNG carrier traffic, when combined with the existing ship traffic, will still be less than the number of ships that once called on the Port, the effect of the slight increase in noise is predicted to be insignificant. June 2017 Page 9-27

36 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF REFERENCES California Department of Transportation Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Central Dredging Association, Underwater Sound in Relation to Dredging. CEDA Position Paper 7, November Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 61. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 63. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories. Datakustik, CadnaA Version 3.5 Computer Aided Noise Abatement. Datakustik GmbH, Munich, Germany. Deveau, Terry J. and Alex MacGillvray, Jordan Cove Vibratory Pile Driving Underwater Noise Modeling: Technical Memorandum. Document 01324, Version 2.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for AECOM Environment. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Products: Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation, ISO 9613 Part 2, General Method of Calculation, ISO International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland Beuth Verlag, Berlin. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates Assessment of the Effects of Underwater Noise from the Proposed Neptune LNG Project. Prepared for Ecology and Environment, Inc., 8 August McKenna, Megan F., Underwater Radiated Noise from Modern Commercial Ships. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31 January National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Storm events data. Available: Updated: June 30, National Park Service, Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values (FLAG) Phase 1 Report Revised (2010), October NMFS (2012). Guidance Document: Sound propagation modeling to characterize pile driving sounds relevant to marine mammals. U.S. Dept. of Commer, NOAA, NMFS Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center Memorandum. June 2017 Page 9-28

37 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF NMFS (2016) Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55, 178 p. Popper, A.N. et al., (2014) ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles, SpringerBriefs in Oceanography, DOI / , Acoustical Society of America. Reine, K. J., and C. Dickerson (2014). Characterization of underwater sound produced by a hydraulic cutterhead dredge during navigation dredging in the Stockton Deep-Water Channel, California. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-E38. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Teachout, E Evaluating and Minimizing the Effects of Impact Pile Driving on the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus Marmoratus) A Threatened Seabird, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter. Federal Register Volume 82, No. 10, January 17, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum: Guidance on the Development of Modeled Emission Rates for Precursors (MERPs) as a Tier 1 Demonstration Tool for Ozone and PM 2.5 Under the PSD Permitting Program, December 2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Volume 1 (Stationary Point and Area Sources), Section 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion, Table (Emission Factors for Speciated Organic Compounds from Natural Gas Combustion), July U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New Source Review Workshop Manual. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. June 2017 Page 9-29

38 RESOURCE REPORT 9 JCEP LNG Terminal Docket No. PF FIGURES June 2017

39 Id Lat Long NSA NSA NSA ³ 0 1 in = 0.7 miles Miles JCEP Project Area Mitigation Site NSA Measurement Location City Limits Major Road Jordan Cove Energy Project Figure Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs)