HomeMy WebLinkAbout02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
5.2 - Air Quality
5.2.1 - Introduction
This section describes the setting and potential air quality impacts of the proposed project.
Specifically, it focuses on the relationship between topography and climate, discusses federal and
state ambient air quality standards and existing air quality conditions in the project area, describes the
overall regulatory framework for air quality management in California and the region, and identifies
sensitive receptors in the project area. This section then identifies the potential air quality impacts of
the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less-than-
significant levels. This analysis is based on the following: Air Quality Assessment, WZI Inc., July
2006. The complete report is contained in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
5.2.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Climate and Meteorology
The proposed project site is located in Kern County, and lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
(SJVAB). The SJVAB includes a portion of Kern County and all of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced,
Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues throughout the 8-county San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. It administers air quality regulations developed at the federal, state, and local
levels. Federal, state, and local air quality regulations applicable to the proposed project are
described below.
The SJVAB, which is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide, is the second largest
air basin in the state. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east (8,000-
14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the
Tehachapi Mountains in the south (6,000-8,000 feet in elevation). The topography of the air basin
includes foothills and mountain ranges to the east, west and south, and a relatively flat valley floor
with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. The topography of the project site is relatively flat
and the elevation change across the site is approximately 10 to 15 feet with a slight downhill slope to
the southwest. The valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-
Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The San Joaquin Valley (SJV), thus, could be
considered a “bowl” open only to the north.
The SJVAB has an “inland Mediterranean” climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The
valley floor experiences warm, dry summers and cool, wet, winters. Summer high temperatures often
exceed 100°F, averaging in the low 90s in the northern valley and high 90s in the south. In the entire
SJV, high daily temperature readings in summer average 95°F. Over the last 30 years, the SJV
averaged 106 days a year at 90°F or hotter, and 40 days a year at 100°F or hotter. The daily summer
temperature variation can be as high as 30°F.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
In winter, as the cyclonic storm track moves southward, the storm systems moving in from the Pacific
Ocean bring a maritime influence to the SJV. The high mountains to the east prevent the cold,
continental air masses of the interior from influencing the valley. Winters are mild and humid.
Temperatures below freezing are unusual. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but
highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily
low temperature is 45°F.
Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, the region’s
topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. The Coastal Range hinders
wind access into the SJV from the west, the Tehachapis prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the
high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east. These topographic features result in
weak airflow, which becomes blocked vertically by high barometric pressure over the SJV. As a
result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding
mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500-3,000 feet).
Air Pollutants
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria
pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon dioxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and lead. Ozone and PM10 are
generally considered to be “regional” pollutants, as these pollutants or their precursors affect air
quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are considered to be “local”
pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM10 is considered to be a localized pollutant as
well as a regional pollutant. In the area where the proposed project is located, PM10 and ozone are of
particular concern. The following is a summary of the characteristics of the primary and secondary
criteria pollutants, as well as other air pollutants, and the physical and health effects associated with
the pollutants.
Ozone (O3)
Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the
troposphere, where ground level or “bad” ozone is an air pollutant that damages human health,
vegetation, and many common materials. It is the key ingredient of urban smog. The troposphere
extends to a level about 10 miles up, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The
stratosphere or “good” ozone layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on
earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).
“Bad” ozone is what is known as a photochemical air pollutant and makes up 90 percent of the group
of pollutants known as photochemical oxidants. It is generated over a large area and is transported
and spread by wind. Ozone, the primary constitute of smog, is the most complex, difficult to control,
and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the
air by specific sources, but is formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone is
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
created by sunlight acting on other air pollutants, called precursors, specifically oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).
Sources of precursor gases to the photochemical reaction that form ozone number in the thousands.
The ozone precursors, ROG and NOx, are emitted by mobile sources and by stationary combustion
equipment. Common sources include consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and
combustion products of various fuels. Originating from gas stations, large industrial facilities, and
small businesses such as bakeries and dry cleaners, the ozone-forming chemical reactions often take
place in another location, catalyzed by sunlight and heat. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, it
is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors. Because photochemical reaction rates
depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air
pollution problem.
Health Effects
Ground level ozone is a pungent, colorless toxic gas. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant
that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation
and other materials. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by
exposure to high ozone levels. Specifically, ozone is a severe eye, nose, and throat irritant. Ozone
causes extensive damage to ecosystems, forests and plants by leaf discoloration and cell damage.
Ozone also damages agricultural crops and some man-made materials, such as synthetic rubber,
textiles, plants, plastics (Kern County, 2004) and other materials. Societal costs from ozone damage
include increased medical costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of
industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete
combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is a byproduct of motor vehicle
exhaust, which contributes more than two-thirds of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities,
automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95% of all CO emissions. These emissions can result in
high concentrations of CO, particularly in local areas with heavy traffic congestion. High CO levels
develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground
level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions
result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission
rates at low air temperatures. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes and fuel
combustion in sources such as boilers and incinerators. Despite an overall downward trend in
concentrations and emissions of CO, some metropolitan areas still experience high levels of CO. CO
is essentially inert to plants and materials but can have significant effects on human health.
Health Effects
CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive. CO enters the bloodstream and
binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood, thus
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-4 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those
who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected, but only at higher
levels of exposure. Carbon monoxide binds strongly to hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in
blood, and thus reduces the blood’s capacity for carrying oxygen to the heart, brain, and other parts of
the body. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, and
can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment,
reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing
complex tasks, and death.
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air. Some
particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small they can be
detected only with an electron microscope. Particulate matter is a mixture of materials that can
include smoke, soot, dust, salt, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when gases emitted
from motor vehicles and industrial sources undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM10
refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter. PM2.5 refers to particles
less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter and are a subset, or portion of PM10.
In the Western United States, there are sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas. PM10 and PM2.5
are emitted from stationary and mobile sources, including diesel trucks and other motor vehicles,
power plants, industrial processing, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, wildfires, dust from roads,
construction, landfills, and agriculture activities, fugitive windblown dust, and secondary aerosols
formed by combustion reactions in the atmosphere and photochemical actions of pollutants in the
atmosphere. Because particles originate from a variety of sources, their chemical and physical
compositions vary widely.
Health Effects
PM10 and PM2.5 particles are small enough - about 1/7th the thickness of a human hair - to be inhaled
into, and lodge in, the deepest parts of the lung, evading the respiratory system’s natural defenses.
Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects
associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart
and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality
studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily
concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Non health-related effects include reduced visibility
and soiling of buildings. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or
aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. PM10
and PM2.5 can aggravate respiratory disease, and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.
Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone, certain people are especially
vulnerable to adverse health effects of PM10. These “sensitive populations” include children, the
elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Of greatest concern are recent studies that link PM10 exposure to the premature death of people who
already have heart and lung disease, especially the elderly. Acidic PM10 can also damage manmade
materials and is a major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the U.S.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are formed from nitrogen and oxygen at high combustion temperatures and
further react to form other oxides of nitrogen such as nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide reacts with
ultraviolet light to initiate reactions producing photochemical smog, and it reacts in air to form nitrate
particulates. Nitrogen oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the
formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from
the use of solvents and combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally
from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A
brownish gas, nitrogen dioxide is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric
acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates. Nitrogen dioxide significantly affects visibility.
Health Effects
NOx can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza. The effects of short-term exposure are still unclear, but continued or frequent exposure to
concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may cause
increased incidence of acute respiratory illness in children. Health effects associated with NOx are an
increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation.
Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary
dysfunction. NOx can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon,
and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOx can also impair
visibility. NOx is a major component of acid deposition in California. NOx may affect both terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. NOx in the air is a potentially significant contributor to a number of
environmental effects such as acid rain and eutrophication in coastal waters. Eutrophication occurs
when a body of water suffers an increase in nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water,
producing an environment that is destructive to fish and other animal life.
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOx), formed
primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (mainly coal and oil), and during metal
smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates which significantly
reduce visibility.
Health Effects
The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOx include effects on
breathing, respiratory illness, alterations in pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing
cardiovascular disease. High sulfur dioxide concentrations irritate the upper respiratory tract, while
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-6 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
low concentrations of sulfur dioxide injure lung tissues. Major subgroups of the population that are
most sensitive to SOx include individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as
bronchitis or emphysema) as well as children and the elderly. Emissions of SOx also can damage the
foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOx and NOx are the major precursors to acid rain,
which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and accelerated corrosion of buildings
and monuments. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which significantly reduce visibility.
SOx is a precursor to particulate matter formation, which is non-attainment in the project area.
Lead
Lead is a metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created
nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used until recently to
increase the octane rating in auto fuel. Since gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major
source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels and the use of leaded fuel has been mostly
phased out, the ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically.
Health Effects
Short-term exposure to high levels of lead can cause vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, coma or even
death. However, even small amounts of lead can be harmful, especially to infants, young children
and pregnant women. Symptoms of long-term exposure to lower lead levels may be less noticeable
but are still serious. Anemia is common and damage to the nervous system may cause impaired
mental function. Other symptoms are appetite loss, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue,
sleeplessness, irritability and headache. Continued excessive exposure, as in an industrial setting, can
affect the kidneys.
Lead exposure is most serious for young children because they absorb lead more easily than adults
and are more susceptible to its harmful effects. Even low-level exposure may harm the intellectual
development, behavior, size and hearing of infants. During pregnancy, especially in the last trimester,
lead can cross the placenta and affect the fetus. Female workers exposed to high levels of lead have
more miscarriages and stillbirths.
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several
subsets of organic gases including Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs). ROGs include all hydrocarbons except those exempted by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB). Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations.
VOCs are similar to ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal
law. The list of compounds exempt from the definition of VOC is included by the District and is
presented in District Rule 1102. VOCs are therefore a set of organic gases based on federal rules and
regulations. Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or
other carbon-based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation from petroleum
fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. Hydrocarbon reacts in the atmosphere to form
photochemical smog. Hydrocarbon levels can affect plant growth. Both ROG and VOC terminology
will be used in this analysis.
Health Effects
The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health
effects. High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing
the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons are
considered Toxic Air Contaminants, or air toxics. There are no health standards for ROG separately.
In addition, some compounds that make up ROG are also toxic. An example is benzene, which is a
carcinogen.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air contaminant is “an
air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” In addition, 189
substances that have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412
of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under the state’s air toxics program pursuant to
Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code. The Toxic Air Contaminants which may
be emitted by the proposed facility are discussed under Impact 5.2-4 - Project Specific Public
Health/Hazards Impacts (Sensitive Receptors).
Health Effects
The TACS can cause various cancers depending on the particular chemicals, type and duration of
exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause short-term and/or long-term health effects.
The ten TACs posing the greatest health risk in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride,
perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter. A description of these pollutants, their sources and
health effects are contained in “ARB Almanac, Chapter 5: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions, Air
Quality and Health Risk” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR. Health risk
guidelines are developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association for the list of
chemicals regulated as toxic.
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl chloride monomer is a sweet smelling, colorless gas at ambient temperature. Landfills,
publicly owned treatment works and PVC production are the major identified sources of vinyl
chloride emissions in California. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can be fabricated into several products
such as PVC pipes, pipefittings, and plastics.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-8 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Health Effects
In humans, epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl chloride
exposure to development of a rare cancer, liver angiosarcoma, and have suggested a relationship
between exposure and lung and brain cancers.
Regulatory Setting
Regulatory oversight for air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is depicted in
“Monitoring Stations Locations” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR,
rests at the regional level with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(District), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region IX office at the federal level.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the federal level is the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in
particular the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing these
standards. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered
the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, over a given averaging
period with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. Averaging periods
vary by pollutant and range from 1-hour standards to annual standards. Units of measure for the
standards are in parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3), and
micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3). The criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2 is a form of NOx), sulfur oxides (SO2 is a form of SOx), particulate
matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively) and lead. The U.S.
EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters
(outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government,
such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking.
Based on monitoring data recorded throughout the country, the U.S. EPA identifies airsheds that are
achieving the NAAQS and designates them as being in attainment. Other regions may also be
designated as non-attainment or unclassified based on available data and because they have levels
above the NAAQS. Areas designated non-attainment are further defined by classifications ranging
from sub-marginal to extreme. The year in which the attainment is reached determines the non-
attainment classification (i.e., serious, severe, and extreme). Each specific classification has defined
time periods for reaching attainment and various sanctions for failure to make progress. The San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated by the U.S. EPA as serious non-attainment for the 8-hour
standard, and as a serious non-attainment area for PM10. Attainment defines the status of a given air
shed with regard to NAAQS requirements. Airsheds not meeting these standards are classified as
“non-attainment”.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board, (CARB), a department of the California Environmental
Protection Agency, oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. It is primarily
responsible for ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA), responding to the Federal CAA requirements, and for regulating emissions from motor
vehicles sold in California and for various types of equipment available commercially. It also sets
fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
The amendments to the CCAA establish ambient air quality standards for the state, California
Ambient Air Quality Standards, (CAAQS), and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the
earliest practicable date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the Federal CAA,
and also include sulfate, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. They are also more stringent
than the Federal standards and, in the case of PM10, far more stringent.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for the state standards for
ozone and PM10. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state standards.
CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The Air
Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987
as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. The Act,
as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of
certain substances their facilities routinely release into the air basin. The goal of the act is to collect
emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, to ascertain health risks, to notify nearby
residents of significant risks, and to reduce the potential health risk to below a level of significance.
Owners of facilities found to pose significant risks by an air district must prepare and implement risk
reduction audit plans within 6 months of the determination. Each air pollution control district ranks
the data for purposes of risk assessment into high, intermediate, and low priority categories. When
considering the ranking, the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released
from the facility, and the proximity of the facility to receptors, are given consideration by an air
district.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Air districts have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than
emissions directly from motor vehicles, which are the responsibility of the CARB and the U. S. EPA.
Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality
standards and enforce applicable state and federal law.
State law recognized that air pollution does not respect political boundaries and therefore required
CARB to divide the state into separate air basins that each have similar geographical and
meteorological conditions [California Health and Safety Code section 39606 (a)]. Originally, air
pollution was regulated separately by county Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). Although this
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-10 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
is still the practice in most counties in California, many county agencies began to realize that air
quality problems are best managed on a regional basis and began to combine their regulatory agencies
into regional agencies. This was the case for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, where until 1991
each county operated a local APCD, at that time the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District, (currently named San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District), was formed.
“Monitoring Station Locations” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR
delineates the legal boundaries of the district. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
has jurisdiction in eight counties located in the San Joaquin Valley, including the Bakersfield area.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Environmental Review Guidelines state that CEQA
applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
In August of 1998, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, (“the District”) prepared its
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). GAMAQI is an advisory
document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance
and uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. Local jurisdictions
are not required to utilize the methodology outlined therein. This document describes the criteria that
the District uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It
recommends thresholds for use in determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse
environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and
identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. An update of the
GAMAQI was approved on January 10, 2002 and was used as a guidance document for the Air
Quality Assessment prepared for the West Ming Specific Plan project.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations contain several rules
which may apply to the proposed project. The following is a summary of such Rules and Regulations
(see Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR for more detailed descriptions).
Regulation II (Permits) - Regulation II (Rules 2010-2550) is a series of rules
covering permitting requirements within the air basin. SJVAPCD regulations require
any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which
emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to construct or a
Permit to Operate. Most new stationary sources, if they emit over 2 pounds of
pollutants per day, will be subject to Best Available Control Technology in
accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR) Rule and to the New
Source Review Rule.
Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) - Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081)
is a series of rules designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt)
generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track
out, etc.
Rule 3135 (Dust Control Plan Fee) requires the applicant to submit a fee in addition
to a Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover the District’s cost for
reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections.
Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) In the event
that any portion of an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or
removed, the project will be subject to District Rule 4002. Prior to any demolition
activity, an asbestos survey of existing structures on the project site may be required
to identify the presence of any asbestos containing building material (ACBM). Any
identified ACBM having the potential for disturbance must be removed by a certified
asbestos contractor in accordance with CAL-OSHA requirements.
Rule 4102 (Nuisance) applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air
contaminants or other materials. In the event that the project or construction of the
project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to District
enforcement action.
Rule 4103 (Open Burning) regulates the use of open burning and specifies the types
of materials that may be open burned.
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) limits volatile organic compounds from
architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, clean up and
labeling requirements.
Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance
Operations) if asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of this project will
be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback
asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance
operations.
Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) limits PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions from residential development. Construction plans for residential
developments may be affected by section 5.3 of this rule.
Rule 4902 (Residential Water Heaters) limits emissions of NOx from residential
developments.
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) requires the applicants of certain development
projects to submit an application to the District when applying for the development’s
last discretionary approval. The ISR rule becomes effective March 1, 2006. Projects
that have not received a final discretionary approval by March 1, 2006 must submit
an ISR application by March 31, 2006. With the adoption of District Rule 9510
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
(Indirect Source Review) on December 15, 2005, the District will be requiring
projects subject to the rule to quantify indirect, area source, and construction exhaust
emissions and to mitigate a portion of these emissions.
In the context of toxic air contaminants, to meet the requirements of Federal and State law, the
District has created an Integrated Air Toxic Program. This program serves as a tool for
implementation of the requirements outlined in Title III of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments. The goals of District risk management efforts are to: 1) minimize increases in toxic
emissions associated with new and modified sources of air pollution; and 2) ensure that new and
modified sources of air pollution do not pose unacceptable health risks at nearby residences and
businesses. In order to achieve these goals, the District reviews the risk associated with each
permitting action where there is an increase in emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants. Under the
District’s risk management policy, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) must be applied to all
units that, based on their potential emissions may pose greater than de minimum risks. Facilities that
pose health risks above District action levels are required to submit plans to reduce their risk. Action
levels for risk were established in the District’s Board-Approved Risk Reduction policy.
The District has an extensive stationary source permitting program that includes New Source Review
Rules, which are in the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules require offsets of
emissions of ozone and particulates precursors at a ratio of greater than one to one, when ten tons and
fifteen tons are exceeded. The rules also require that each new stationary source, which exceeds two
pounds per day of pollutants, shall install Best Available Control Technology.
Regional Ambient Air Quality
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ambient air quality standards are regulatory levels of ambient pollutant concentrations which, when
exceeded, may adversely impact the health and welfare of the public. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) were established as a result of the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act
(CAA) of 1970. The national standards are divided into primary standards, designed to protect public
health, and secondary standards intended to protect the public from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant. The national standards may be equaled continuously and exceeded once per
year. National standards have been established for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter less than 10 microns, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, sulfur dioxide, and
lead.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 as a result of the
Mulford-Carrell Act. In addition to the national standards, California also established standards for
visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. California standards for
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic
diameter, and sulfur dioxide are not to be exceeded. The pollutants and their corresponding national
and state ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 5.2-1 below.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards¹
Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards
Ozone (O3) 1 Hour
8 Hour
0.09 ppm
0.070 ppm*
0.12 ppm
0.08 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour
8 Hour
220 ppm
9.0 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
1 Hour
Mean
0.25 ppm
-
-
0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1 Hour
3 hour
24 Hour
Mean
0.25 ppm
-
0.04 ppm
-
-
0.5 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.030 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour
Mean
50 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour
Mean
-
12 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 -
Lead 30-day
Quarter
1.5 µg/m3
-
-
1.5 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm -
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm -
Visibility Reducing
Particles
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 kilometer - visibility of
ten miles or more due to particles when relative
humidity is less than 70%
-
¹ California Air Resources Board.
* Approved by CARB on 4/28/05, will become effective in early 2006.
Abbreviations: ppm = parts per million (concentration); µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter;
Mean = Annual Arithmetic Mean; 30-day = 30-day average; Quarter = Calendar quarter
Source: WZI, Inc., June, 2006.
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments made in 1977 require each state to identify
geographic areas in compliance with the national standards as well as those areas that are not in
compliance. Areas meeting the national standards are referred to as “attainment” status and are
subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and NSR regulations. Areas not in
compliance with the national standards are termed “non-attainment” and are subject to New Source
Review (NSR) regulations. Areas with insufficient data to make a determination are “unclassified”
but are treated as “attainment” areas until proven otherwise. The designation of an area is made on a
pollutant-specific basis. Therefore, it is possible to be located in an area designated non-attainment
for one pollutant, but attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. See Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR for more detailed descriptions of National and State Designation
Classifications.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-14 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Pursuant to the Federal CAA, States may develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to explain how
they will achieve the CAA standards within the state. If the SIP is deemed acceptable, the U.S. EPA
will delegate responsibility for implementation pursuant to the SIP. Accordingly, California has an
approved SIP. These implementation plans are updated and revised periodically based on changes in
conditions, and revision in standards.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) coordinates and oversees state air quality management
districts and air pollution control districts. The CAAQS are limits set by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) that cannot be equaled or exceeded as previously stated. An air pollution control
district must prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) if the standards are not met. CARB has
retained authority over mobile sources but has delegated much of the control of stationary sources to
local agencies. They, much like the federal program, designate areas as “attainment”, “non-
attainment”, or “unclassified” based on ambient air data that has been collected in the applicable area.
Table 5.2-2 below is a listing of the State and Federal attainment status for the Kern County portion
of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.
The California CAA requires that Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) be implemented for
controlling stationary and mobile source emissions in moderate non-attainment areas to help achieve
a mandated, 5-percent per year reduction in ozone precursors, and to reduce population exposures.
Table 5.2-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin - District Portion Attainment Status
Designation/Classification
Pollutant
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone - 1 hour¹ No Federal Standard Non-attainment/Severe
Ozone - 8 hour Non-attainment/ Serious No State Standard
PM10 Non-attainment/Serious Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment No State Standard
Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Particulates No Designation Attainment
Other Pollutants (H2S, SO4, visibility) No Federal Standards Attainment or Unclassified
¹ The federal Ozone - 1 hour standard has been replaced by the federal Ozone - 8 hour standard.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
Existing Air Quality
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) operated four meteorological and air quality monitoring
stations near the West Ming Specific Plan project between the years 2003 and 2005. These stations
are located in Bakersfield, California. As previously stated, “Monitoring Stations Locations” of the
Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, shows the locations of the various local air
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
monitoring stations in the area surrounding the project. The closest air monitoring station to the
project site is the Bakersfield station on Golden State Highway. The station monitors particulates,
ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, total hydrocarbons, and methane. There are
also Bakersfield air monitoring stations located at 5558 California Avenue and 410 East Planz Road.
In addition, there is an air monitoring station located in Oildale.
For the purposes of background data and air quality assessment, this analysis will rely on data
collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are closest in proximity to the
proposed facility. Table 5.2-3 through Table 5.2-9 depict the background concentrations for the
following pollutants: aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in
aerodynamic diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead
(Pb) as of May 2006. No data is available for Hydrogen Sulfide or Vinyl Chloride in Kern County or
other toxics air contaminants (TAC).
Table 5.2-3: Background Ambient Air Quality for Ozone
Number of Days
Exceeding 1-Hour
NAAQS (0.12 ppm)
Number of Days
Exceeding 1-Hour
CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Maximum 1-Hour
Concentration (ppm) CARB Air
Monitoring
Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 0 0 44 10 28 0.120 0.110 0.117
Bakersfield -
Golden St. Hwy. 0 0 0 35 6 7 0.120 0.104 0.110
Oildale 0 0 0 39 20 21 0.119 0.107 0.109
Source: WZI, Inc. (June, 2006).
Table 5.2-4: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for PM10
Days Exceeding
NAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean NAAQS
(µg/m3)
Days Exceeding
CAAQS (>50 µg/m3)
Maximum
Concentration
(µg/m3)
CARB Air
Monitoring
Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield
- California
Ave.
0 0 0 23.8 19.1 19.8 30 22 14 116 93 108
Bakersfield
- Golden St.
Hwy.
0 0 0 52.4 42.8 43.2 26 19 20 134 84 109
Oildale 0 0 0 42.8 42.0 41.1 21 17 14 106 82 107
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-5: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for PM2.5
Days Exceeding
NAAQS (65.5 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean NAAQS
(15 µg/m3)
Days Exceeding
CAAQS (>12 µg/m3)
Maximum 24-Hour
Concentration
(State) (µg/m3)
CARB Air
Monitoring
Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield
- Golden
State Hwy
1 1 4 19.7 18.2 19.1 - - - 67.8 66.6 83.6
Bakersfield
- 5558
California
0 3 5 17.2 18.9 18.0 - - - 84.5 72.8 102.1
Bakersfield
- 410 E.
Planz Road
0 0 3 17.9 17.5 19.9 - - - 51.9 59.5 77.5
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-6: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for CO
Days Exceeding NAAQS
(>9.0 ppm)
Days Exceeding
CAAQS (>9.0 ppm)
Maximum 8-Hour
Concentration NAAQS
(9.0 ppm) CAAQS
(9.0 ppm)
CARB Air
Monitoring Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.29 1.83 2.20
Bakersfield - Golden
St. Hwy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.06 2.60 2.10
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-7: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for NOx
Annual Average (ppm) Days Exceeding
CAAQS (0.25 ppm)
Maximum 24-Hour
Concentration CAAQS
(0.25 ppm) CARB Air
Monitoring Station
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0.020 0.019 0.018 0 0 0 0.085 0.083 0.074
Bakersfield - Golden
St. Hwy. 0.023 - .021 0 0 0 0.083 0.080 0.078
Oildale 0.013 0.010 0.011 0 0 0 0.085 0.046 0.063
- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-8: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for SOx
Days Exceeding
CAAQS 24-hour
Standard (>0.04 ppm)
Annual Average
NAAQS (0.030 ppm)
Maximum 24-Hour
Concentration NAAQS
(0.14 ppm) CAAQS
(0.04 ppm)
CARB Air
Monitoring Station
2000 2001* 2002 2000 2001* 2002 2000 2001* 2002
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 0 - 0.003 0.002 - 0.003 0.005 -
* = Most recent data available, no data available for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-9: Background Ambient Air Quality Data for Lead
Days Exceeding
CAAQS 30-Day
Standard (>1.5 µg/m3)
Calendar Quarter
NAAQS (1.5 µg/m3)
Maximum 30-Day
Concentration NAAQS
(1.5 µg/m3) CAAQS
(1.5 µg/m3)
CARB
Air
Monitoring
Station
2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004
Bakersfield -
California Ave. 0 - - 0 - - 0.017 - -
No data available for 2005
- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc. (June, 2006).
The plots of the various pollutants verses time are included in the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR. The trends were analyzed utilizing a least squares fit technique.
Based on these plots, it is clearly demonstrated that the air quality in the area surrounding the
proposed project site has improved during the time period for which data has been collected. The
least squares fit analysis indicates that the 1 hour - Ozone has decreased 21.8%, 8 hour - Ozone has
decreased 10.4%, and PM10 has decreased 30.4%. CO, NOx, and SOx have decreased to the point
where they are in attainment consistently, and PM2.5, which has only been monitored recently, has
decreased 44.3% in 5 years. The Federal Clean Air Act also requires that emission inventories be
complied and reported through a Conformity Analysis with the State Implementation Plan.
Existing Conditions at Project Site
The project site is located in and adjacent to Bakersfield. No onsite data exists for criteria pollutants
or toxics. However, using the highest background concentration from the surrounding monitors over
the last three years will conservatively represent the background concentrations at the site.
Existing Agricultural Source Emissions
The proposed project is located on land that is currently being used for agriculture. With the
implementation of the proposed land uses, the agricultural uses within the project area will cease, thus
eliminating the emissions from those sources. The project site has been and is under cultivation with
carrots, garlic, potatoes, and corn silage. Construction of the proposed development will ultimately
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
remove approximately 1,925 acres of agricultural lands from cultivation. Existing sources of air
pollutant emissions include agricultural equipment, land preparation, fugitive wind-blown dust, crop
harvesting, unpaved farm roads, and work areas.
PM10 emissions from fugitive dust are released into the atmosphere during land preparation prior to
planting and after harvesting activities. Agricultural activities at the site are estimated to generate
approximately 39.42 tons per year of ROG emissions, 28.22 tons per year of NOx emissions, and
43.28 tons per year of PM10 emissions as shown below in Table 5.2-10.
Table 5.2-10: Emissions from Existing Project Site Agricultural Operations
Activity ROG
(ton/yr)
NOx
(ton/yr)
CO
(ton/yr)
SOx
(ton/yr)
PM10
(ton/yr)
PM2.5
(1)
(ton/yr)
Agricultural Equipment Exhaust
-Water wells(2)
-Tractors
6.04 0.44 24.58
3.64
34.24
2.98 0.85 0.05 1.69 0.17 1.69 0.17
Fugitive Dust(3) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Land Preparation(4a)
Wind-blown Dust(4b) 15.82
Harvesting(4c) 16.67 6.33 6.67
Unpaved Roads(4d) 0.51 8.42 0.16 1.26
Volatile Pesticide Emissions 32.94 -- -- -- -- --
Total 39.42 28.22 37.22 0.90 43.28 16.28
ROG = Reactive organic gases
PM10, 2.5 = Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 or 2.5 microns in diameter, respectively
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
SOx = Sulfur oxides
(1) PM2.5 fractions as percentage of PM10 from AP-42 as follows: 100% for combustion sources (Section 3.3, Table 3.3-
1, EPA, October, 1996); 40% for miscellaneous sources (Section 13.2.5, EPA, January, 1995); 15% for unpaved
roads (Section 13.2.2, Table 13.2.2-2, EPA, September, 1998).
(2) Emissions from agricultural non-road diesel equipment were calculated using Tier 1-2-3 Emission Standards from
EPA, Department of Air and Radiation, “Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission Components”, May 2003,
EPA420-P-03-002.
(3) Fugitive dust emissions were calculated for the existing 1,925-acre project site based on emission factors and
methodologies in the Emission Inventory Procedure Manual, Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions (CARB,
1997), as follows:
(4)(a) Land preparation emission factor developed from emissions data for Kern County and crop-specific data presented
in Table 1 of Section 7.4 (Agricultural Land Preparation), 2003.
(b) Wind-blown dust emission factor is for non-pasture agricultural lands in Kern County, from Section 7.12 (Wind-
Blown Dust - Agricultural Lands), Attachment A, July, 1999.
(c) Harvesting emission factor is for cotton harvesting in California, from Section 7.5 (Agricultural Harvest Operations),
August, 1997.
(d) CARB default values used per Section 7.11 (Unpaved Road Dust, Farm Roads), August, 1997.
Source: WZI, Inc, June 2006.
The emissions from the existing agricultural operations will be subtracted from the proposed project
emissions since they will be phased out as the project is developed.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Sensitive Receptors
The District identifies a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children,
senior citizens, and sick persons, are present, and where there is a reasonable expectation of
continuous human exposure to pollutants, according to the averaging period for ambient air quality
standards, such as 24-hour, 8-hour or 1-hour. Examples of sensitive receptors include residences,
hospitals, and schools. Industrial and commercial uses are not considered sensitive receptors.
The proposed Specific Plan includes zoning that is expected to result in the construction of sensitive
receptors (schools) on the site. The current sensitive receptors that are nearest to the project site
include the following:
• Stockdale High School - located immediately to the northwest adjacent to the project boundary.
• Warren Junior High School - located approximately 0.6 mile to the east of the project
boundary.
• Other possible sensitive receptors that are nearest to the project site include the following:
• Mercy Southwest Hospital - located approximately 1.75 miles to the northeast of the project
boundary.
• Residences - located immediately to the east adjacent to the project boundary as well as 0.5
mile to the north of the project boundary.
A visual observation of the oil production operations within the project boundaries was made on
March 5, 2005 and March 22, 2006, which disclosed five oil production tank settings. Three of these
facilities are active oil treatment facilities. One is an active wastewater facility and one is an idle
wastewater facility. The facility near the southwest corner of Section 13 (Township 30 South, Range
26 East, MDB&M) services oil, water, and gas production from the oil wells within Section 13, and is
also the largest facility within the project boundary.
This facility contained the following equipment:
• 1 crude oil tank with an approximate capacity of 3,000 barrels;
• 3 crude oil tanks with an approximate capacity of 2,000 barrels each; and
• 1 crude oil tank with an approximate capacity of 1,500 barrels each.
Toxic emissions were conservatively estimated by WZI based on typical oilfield operations and
emission estimating techniques developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(“the District”). The total amount of estimated toxic emissions was entered into a spreadsheet
developed by the District to calculate a priority score used to evaluate facilities subject to California’s
Toxic Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987. The District requires facilities with a
priority score greater than 10.0 to prepare heath risk assessments. The resulting priority score for this
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
facility was between 1.0 and 10.0. A score between 1.0 and 10.0 is considered a medium priority and
is not considered a significant source of toxic emissions.
The visual observation of the oil production operations within a one-mile radius of the project
boundaries was made on March 5, 2005 and March 22, 2006 also disclosed five additional oil
production tank settings. Toxic emissions were estimated for the five other production facilities. The
total amount of calculated toxic emissions for each facility was entered into a spreadsheet developed
by the District to calculate a priority score. The resulting cumulative priority score for these facilities
was between 1.0 and 10.0 (medium priority).
5.2.3 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)(This evaluation is provided in Section 6);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The significant criteria listed below contain emission thresholds that are applicable to and included in
the CEQA Guidelines as described above. These additional thresholds are listed in this section for the
purpose of further establishing a threshold criteria to which impacts can be fully analyzed. These
noteworthy thresholds are contained in the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
(GAMAQI) produced by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
in 2002. According to the District, impacts would be significant if the project would:
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
• Produce greater than 10 tons/year ROG;
• Produce greater than 10 tons/year NOx;
• Produce greater than 15 tons/year PM10 (according to Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C
of this Draft EIR);
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
• Exceed National or California Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO (9 ppm 8-hr average; 20
ppm 1-hr average); or
• Not comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control’s Regulation VIII regarding
particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Compliance with District Regulation
VIII and local zoning code, and implementation of all other control measures (BACMs)
indicated in GAMAQI, will reduce particulate emission impacts to levels that are considered
less-than-significant by the SJVUAPCD.
5.2.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides
mitigation measures where appropriate.
Models Used in Analysis
Table 5.2-11 below shows which models are used in the General Operational Thresholds, the
pollutants to which they apply and the standards to which the model results will be compared for
significance determination. These models were selected in conformance with U. S. EPA and District
guidelines. The same thresholds are utilized for construction and operational emissions or
combinations thereof.
Table 5.2-11: Standards Utilized for General Thresholds of Significance
Threshold of Significance Pollutant(s) Standards Modeling Technique
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
U.S. EPA’s Prevention of
Significance - Significant
Impact Levels (PSD SIL’s) for
onsite sources, GAMAQI for
indirect sources
CO NAAQS, CAAQA
U.S. EPA’s Industrial
Source Complex Short
Term Version 3
(ISCST 3)/AERMOD,
Caline 4, URBEMIS
Ozone and
ROG
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite, GAMAQI for
indirect
URBEMIS
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable
air quality plan
Visibility Air Quality Related Values
(AQRV’s)
U.S. EPA
VISCREEN
ISCST 3/AERMOD
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-11 (Cont.): Standards Utilized for General Thresholds of Significance
Threshold of Significance Pollutant(s) Standards Modeling Technique
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
CO
PSD SIL’s
NAAQS, CAAQS for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
U.S. EPA’s
ISCST 3/AERMOD
Caline
URBEMIS
Ozone and
ROG
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect,
Kern
URBEMIS
Violate any ambient air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation
Visibility AQRV’s
U.S. EPA
VISCREEN,
ISCST
3/AERMOD
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
CO
PSD SIL’s
NAAQS, CAAQS for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
U.S. EPA’s
ISCST 3/AERMOD
Caline 4
URBEMIS
Ozone and
ROG
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
URBEMIS
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
threshold for ozone
precursors) Visibility AQRV’s U.S. EPA VISCREEN,
ISCST 3/AERMOD
PM10, PM2.5
NOx
SOx
CO
PSD SIL’s
NAAQS, CAAQS for onsite,
GAMAQI for indirect
U.S. EPA’s ISCST 3
Caline 4
URBEMIS
Ozone
New Source Review Rule of
District for onsite,
GAMAQI
URBEMIS
Air Toxics 10 x 10-6 excess cancer risk
1.0 non cancer health risk HARP
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations
Visibility AQRV’s
U.S. EPA
VISCREEN,
ISCST 3
Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number
of people
SOx, H2S
PSD SL’s, NAAQS, CAAQS,
odor thresholds, GAMAQI
(odor complaints)
U.S. EPA’s
ISCST
3/ERMOD
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
Table 5.2-12 below indicates the various models used in the impact analysis and their respective units
of measure. The following models and guidelines listed in Table 5.2-12 were used as tools to create
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
the analytical basis for the impact analysis. Each model is used specifically to analyze either: 1)
project specific impacts, 2) modeled cumulative impacts, or 3) regional impacts. Some results are
reported in concentration by species; some provide data in mass per unit time; some provide
probability of occurrences per million persons and some provide data in the form of household or
employment over specified periods of time. For a detailed description of each air model utilized for
the project, see Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Table 5.2-12: Models used in Impact Analysis
Model Project Specific Public
Health/Hazards Cumulative Area of Model
Impact
ISCST3 (µg/m3) Criteria
Pollutants
see ACE2588,
Odor Surrogate,
Visibility Impacts
(µg/m3) Criteria
Pollutants
Six mile radius
model limitation,
Impacts are
assessed at
maximum point of
impact
VISCREEN Index of
Perceptibility Any Class I within
100 km
HARP Lbs/hr, lbs/yr
Cancer
risk/million,
Hazards Index
Maximum point of
impact is assumed
to be the location
of Sensitive
Receptor
CALINE 4 (µg/m3) CO (µg/m3) CO (µg/m3) CO Areas adjacent to
roadways
URBEMIS 2002
Version 8.7
Construction
tons/year Onsite
Construction
URBEMIS 2002
Version 8.7
Operational
tons/year tons/year
Unitized Airshed
for identified
projects
Kern COG
Conformity
Analysis
Households/period
Employment/period Households/period
Employment/period
Regional/Basin
Wide for all
projects in SIP
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan
Impact 5.2.A: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Management Plan.
The California Clean Air Act requires non-attainment districts with severe air quality problems to
provide for a 5 percent reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The District regulates air
quality in the Bakersfield area and is responsible for overseeing efforts to improve air quality within
the San Joaquin Valley. The District prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin in compliance with the requirements of the Act. The Plan requires best available
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-24 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
retrofit technology on specific types of stationary sources to reduce emissions. The California Clean
Air Act and the Air Quality Attainment Plan also identify transportation control measures as methods
of reducing emissions from mobile sources. The California Clean Air Act defines transportation
control measures as “any strategy to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, and
vehicle idling or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions.” The Air
Quality Attainment Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin identifies the provisions to
accommodate the use of bicycles, public transportation, and traffic flow improvements as
transportation control measures.
The Air Quality Attainment Plan recognized growth of the population and economy within the air
basin. The Plan predicted the workforce in Kern County to increase along with a 2.2 percent
population increase annually from 2002 to 2030 (i.e., 62% total increase uncompounded for 28
years).
According to Air Quality Assessment, the future growth of the population and economy associated
with the proposed West Ming Specific Plan and the cumulative projects within the area were included
and are in conformance with the regional growth projections (through the year 2030) that were used
in preparing the Air Quality Attainment Plan. The Air Quality Assessment determined that the
population and employment estimates associated with the existing dwelling units along with the
proposed project and other cumulative projects are less than the Kern COG projected population and
employment estimates through the year 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. Refer to the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR for a more
detailed discussion of these projections corresponding to regional households (population) and
regional jobs (economy).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Air Quality Standards
Impact 5.2.B: The construction of the project may potentially violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Construction Emissions Quantification
During the period of construction activity, onsite stationary sources, heavy-duty construction
vehicles, construction worker vehicles, energy use and asphalt paving would generate emissions. In
addition, fugitive dust would be generated by grading and construction activities. Other aspects of the
individual building projects could include architectural coatings applied to the proposed land uses as
well as mobile emissions from workers arriving and leaving the construction site.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Short-term impacts from the project will primarily result in fugitive particulate matter emissions
during construction. Grading, excavation, trenching, filling, and other construction activities result in
increased dust emissions. Regulation VIII of the District specifies control measures for specified
outdoor sources of fugitive particulate matter emissions. Rule 8011 contains administrative
requirements, Rule 8021 applies to construction activities, and Rule 8071 applies to vehicle and
equipment parking, fueling, and service areas. The District does not require a permit for these
activities, but does impose measures to control fugitive dust, such as the application of water or a
chemical dust suppressant.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality
Impacts (GAMAQI), does not necessarily require a quantification of construction emissions for all
projects. Quantification is generally only required at the request of the Lead Agency. In general, the
District assumes that implementation of these measures will bring the construction impacts to a level
considered less than significant. However, for this project, the construction emissions were
quantified.
The proposed project would develop over time as individual uses are constructed on parcels within
the Specific Plan. Initially, rough grading would be conducted to establish the portion of fixed
roadways and install the minimum infrastructure necessary to support each use constructed in the
buildout of the Specific Plan. Subsequently, fine grading would occur on individual development
parcels to allow construction of a proposed use. This process will be repeated as new areas are
developed. Although there is no definitive phasing plan for the project area, buildout of the proposed
uses is estimated, based on market and demographic factors for the year 2027. Based on this
scenario, construction activities would continuously occur during the buildout period. During
construction, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker
vehicles, energy use and asphalt paving would generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would
be generated by grading and construction activities. Other aspects of the individual building projects
could include architectural coatings applied to the proposed land uses as well as mobile emissions
from workers arriving and leaving the construction site.
Onsite grading and construction activities are assumed to utilize diesel construction equipment.
Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on U.S. EPA AP-42
emissions factors and were obtained from the URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 program defaults.
Exhaust emissions will vary substantially from day to day. Numerous variables factored into
estimating total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period,
number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of
construction personnel, and amounts of materials to be transported onsite or offsite. For example,
assuming 10 dozers operate six hours per day, 250 days per year, construction equipment exhaust
would generate approximately 1.43 tons of ROG, 31.3 tons of NOx, 1.3 tons of PM10, and 2.6 tons of
SOx per year. Additional exhaust emissions would be associated with the transport of workers and
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
materials. The proposed project is a Specific Plan and the specific mix of construction equipment
needed for future development is not presently known.
Using the emissions rates from URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 and the construction timetables and
equipment lists provided in “URBEMIS 2002 Construction Emissions Quantification and
Construction Schedule” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, the
construction emissions for the total project were quantified. The buildout of the residential projects
are expected to be relatively uniform over the twenty-year buildout period. The buildout of the
commercial and industrial project phases are expected to occur during the earlier years of the buildout
period, and the school projects are expected to take place over approximately the first ten years of the
buildout period. These assumptions for commercial, industrial, and school uses on the site would
represent a worst-case development scenario. This approach provides for higher operational
emissions impact for mitigation purposes and allows some flexibility during actual construction. Per
standard changes issued by the SJVAPCD, the architectural coating emission factors were changed
for compliance with District factors. Table 5.4-1 in the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this
Draft EIR shows the mitigated construction emissions for each year during the construction period.
The maximum ROG emissions are estimated at 15.75 tons per year and the maximum NOx emissions
are estimated at 34.67 tons per year. These emissions are projected to occur in the first construction
year of 2007; furthermore, these emissions are temporary in nature and will cease once the project has
been built out.
The Bakersfield area and the San Joaquin Valley are designated non-attainment for particulates for
both state and federal standards. Although the proposed land uses are not considered a potential
source for significant particulate emissions, fugitive particulate emissions will occur during
construction. Construction activity has the potential to generate 10 pounds of PM10 per acre per day
of activity. The proposed project covers approximately 2,181 acres. Fugitive construction emissions
have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality. The application of water, or other dust
suppressant, could significantly reduce emissions. Doubling the moisture content could reduce
emissions on unpaved roads by 75 percent and use of a chemical dust suppressant on storage piles
could reduce emissions by approximately 90 percent. Assuming that the application of water controls
emissions by 50 percent, fugitive PM10 emissions, during construction, may be reduced to 5 pounds
per acre per day of activity. Actual emissions will depend on the level of activity and the type of
control being used. Control measures are required and enforced by the District under Regulation
VIII. As stated in GAMAQI, the District guidance document, implementation of these control
measures will result in short-term emissions that are considered less than significant for particulate
matter. The following three rules related to fugitive dust control apply to this project, amongst others
(i.e., Rules 8011-8081):
Rule 8011 - Fugitive dust administrative requirements for control of fine particulate
matter.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Rule 8021 - Fugitive dust requirements for control of fine particulate matter from
construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and earthmoving activities.
Rule 8071 - Fugitive dust requirements for control of fine particulate matter from
vehicle and/or equipment parking, shipping, receiving, transfer, fueling and service
areas one acre or larger.
In addition, the ceasing of farming operations will result in a net decrease of PM10 emissions of
approximately 43.28 tons of per year.
Mitigation Measures
5.2.B.1 Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City
of Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District that all
construction activities and operations will comply with local zoning codes, and
District Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081) and implementation of all other control
measures (BACMs) as stated in GAMAQI.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than Significant.
Impact 5.2.C: The operation of the project may potentially violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The proposed project will have several operational sources of emissions and impacts. The impacts
from each phase are discussed in detail below.
Operational Emissions Quantification
The proposed project operational emissions would be generated by area sources, stationary sources,
and mobile sources as a result of normal day-to-day activities on the project site after occupation.
These emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heaters,
heavy-duty diesel truck idling onsite, and gas stations. Emissions would also be generated during the
operation of landscape maintenance equipment, emergency generation and from consumer products.
Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site,
including heavy-duty diesel trucks.
Area Source Emissions
Emissions resulting from project operation were estimated using a variety of sources including the
URBEMIS model along with generally accepted emission factors for certain stationary sources. The
area source emissions have been quantified utilizing the URBEMIS Version 8.7 computer model.
This model is a land use and transportation based computer model designed to estimate regional air
emissions from new development projects. While previous versions were only designed to estimate
emissions from motor vehicle trips, URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 can estimate emissions from such
sources as gas heaters, furnaces or blowers, and landscape maintenance equipment. The model
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
accounts for specific meteorological conditions and topography that characterize each specific air
basin in California.
Input into the model was obtained from traffic data provided by the project traffic engineer and
assumptions on the nature of land uses constructed within the Specific Plan. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that the Specific Plan built out to its maximum potential, including the
following land uses (or area sources): Residential, Light Industrial, General Commercial, and Public
Services (Schools).
Electricity and natural gas are utilized by almost every commercial and residential development. No
wood stove or fireplace emissions were considered. URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 default inputs were
used to generate the emissions for the area sources. The URBEMIS 2002 inputs and outputs are
provided in “Project Specific URBEMIS 2002 Inputs and Outputs” of the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Predicted project-related area source emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and SOx attributable to this
project in 2027 are summarized below:
• ROG: 72.59 tons/year
• NOx: 11.72 tons/year
• CO: 19.18 tons/year
• PM10: 0.06 tons/year
• SOx: 0.09 tons/year
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit ozone precursor air pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) in
excess of the threshold levels (i.e., 10 tons/year) will be considered to have a significant air quality
impact. As shown above, the ROG emissions are estimated at 72.59 tons per year and the NOx
emissions are estimated at 11.72 tons per year, each predicted to exceed the 10 tons/year threshold.
Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
Indirect Source Emissions (Vehicular Emissions)
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan will result in increased vehicle trips in the San Joaquin Valley.
The vehicles associated with these trips will emit criteria pollutants including NOx and ROG, which
are considered ozone precursors. The Bakersfield area is a non-attainment area for federal air quality
standards for ozone and particulates. Nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases are regulated as
ozone precursors. A precursor is defined by the District as “a directly emitted air contaminant that,
when released into the atmosphere forms or causes to be formed or contributes to the formation of a
secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard has been adopted…”
The District regulates air quality in the Bakersfield area. The predicted emissions associated with
vehicular traffic (mobile sources) are not subject to the District’s permit requirements. However, the
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
District is responsible for overseeing efforts to improve air quality within the San Joaquin Valley.
The District has prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into
compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
The District reviews land use changes to evaluate the potential impact on air quality. The District has
established a significance level for ROG and NOx of 10 tons per year each.
Vehicle emissions have been estimated for the year 2027, the projected completion date, using the
URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7 computer model. URBEMIS 2002 predicts carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, nitrogen oxides, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter emissions from motor vehicle
traffic associated with new or modified land uses. Trip generation rates were obtained from the
traffic study provided by McIntosh & Associates. The URBEMIS 2002 modeling results for the year
2027 are provided in “Project Specific URBEMIS 2002 Inputs and Outputs” of the Air Quality
Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Project-related mobile source emissions for ROG, N, NOx Ox, CO, PM10 and SOx attributable to this
project in 2027 are summarized below:
• ROG: 38.88 tons/year
• NOx: 39.70 tons/year
• CO: 406.47 tons/year
• PM10: 81.40 tons/year
• SOx: 1.03 tons/year
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit ozone precursor air pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) in
excess of the threshold levels (i.e., 10 tons per year) will be considered to have a significant air
quality impact. As shown above, the ROG emissions are estimated at 38.88 tons per year and the
NOx emissions are estimated at 39.70 tons per year, each predicted to exceed the 10 tons/year
threshold. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
In addition, according to Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, projects that
consist of indirect (mobile) sources that emit particulate matter (PM10) in excess of the threshold
levels (i.e., 15 tons per year) will be considered to have a significant air quality impact. As shown
above, the PM10 emissions are estimated at 81.40 tons per year and predicted to exceed the 15 tons
per year threshold. Therefore, this is considered a significant impact.
Project Stationary Source Emissions
Although the actual stationary sources for the project are unknown, the Air Quality Assessment has
provided a representative list of land uses types for analysis of project stationary source emissions.
These representative land uses within the proposed Specific Plan include: two fuel dispensing
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-30 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
stations, a dry cleaner, a sit-down restaurant and two fast food restaurants. Predicted emissions are
provided below:
• Dry Cleaners: 4.84 tons/year of ROG
• Gas Station: 3.63 tons/year of ROG
• Restaurant: 0.45 tons/year of ROG and 0.61 tons/year of PM10
• Light Industrial: 10.00 tons/year of ROG
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit ozone precursor air pollutants (i.e., ROG) in excess of the
threshold levels (i.e., 10 tons per year) will be considered to have a significant air quality impact. As
shown above, the total ROG emissions are estimated at 18.92 tons per year and are predicted to
exceed the 10 tons/year threshold. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
Over a million square feet of Light Industrial uses is also planned within the project boundaries. Area
source and indirect source emissions associated with Light Industrial uses have been calculated for
the project’s operational phase. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the Light
Industrial land use designation supports “unobtrusive industrial activities that can locate in close
proximity to residential and commercial uses with a minimum of environmental conflicts.”
URBEMIS identifies such activities as print plants, material testing labs, and assemblers of data
processing equipment, which employ fewer than 500 persons and tend to be free standing. Some of
these uses generate little if any criteria pollutant emissions above area and indirect source emissions.
However, uses associated with an industrial zoning would be subject to the District permitting process
if they emitted air pollutants. SJVAPCD Regulation II (Rules 2010-2550) require any person
constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may
reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate. Most new stationary
sources, if they emit over 2 pounds of pollutants per day, will be subject to Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR) Rule.
Therefore, for conservative reasons estimates of potential emissions from the proposed industrial
zoning have been made. As a part of the District permitting process, any emissions exceeding the
District’s offsetting thresholds would have to be offset back to the thresholds on a stationary source
by stationary source basis. Therefore, the maximum ozone precursor emissions that would not be
offset would be 10 tons per year of ROG and NOx per stationary source. This value is therefore
utilized for the unidentified industrial sources. Any amount over the ten tons would need to be offset
at a ratio of greater than one to one.
Accordingly, in context of District Regulation II, new stationary sources that emit over 2 pounds of
pollutants per day (or 0.365 tons per year) will be subject to BACT in accordance with the District’s
New Source Review (NSR) Rule. Therefore, given that the total PM10 emissions are estimated at
0.61 tons per year and predicted to exceed the threshold of 0.365 tons per year, new stationary
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-31
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
sources associated with the project will be subject to BACT in accordance with the District’s NSR
Rule.
The Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan states: “the use of offsets, as provided in Rule
2201, will ensure that permitted increases in major source emissions will not interfere with progress
towards attainment of federal 1 hour ozone standards or the achievement of the 3 percent per year
reduction in ozone precursor emissions...without taking credit for the ERCs (emission reduction
credits) required of and provided by new and modified stationary sources.” Additionally, the Plan
states that for the calendar years 2000-2003 the average offset ratio for all permitted actions was
slightly higher than 1.4 to 1 (or 1.4-1).
Total Project Emissions
The total emissions from the proposed project described in terms of operational emissions (area
source, indirect/mobile source emissions, and stationary source emissions) were summed from project
commencement to buildout to determine the year of maximum project emissions for the purpose of
mitigation. Notably, the existing agricultural emissions were deducted. Year 2027 (buildout)
represents the year in which maximum project-related emissions occur. The total project emissions
are shown below in Table 5.2-13. The intermediate years’ (2007-2026) operations emissions are
contained within the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Table 5.2-13: Total Project Emissions
Project ROG
(ton/yr) NOx (ton/yr) CO (ton/yr) PM¹10 (ton/yr) SOx (ton/yr)
Area Source
Emissions 72.59 11.72 19.18 0.06 0.09
Stationary
Source
Emissions²
18.92 10.00 -- 0.61 --
Indirect
(Mobile) Source
Emissions
38.88 39.70 406.47 81.40 1.03
Existing
Agricultural
Emissions³
-39.42 -28.22 -37.22 -43.28 -0.90
Total Project
Emissions 90.97 33.20 388.43 38.79 0.22
District
Significance
Threshold
(GAMAQI)
10 10 N/A 15 N/A
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-32 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-13 (Cont.): Total Project Emissions
Project ROG
(ton/yr) NOx (ton/yr) CO (ton/yr) PM¹10 (ton/yr) SOx (ton/yr)
Significant
Impact? Yes Yes No Yes No
¹ Includes PM 2.5 and sulfate fractions.
² Stationary source emissions for Criteria Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) are subject to New Source
Review (NSR).
³ Existing agricultural emissions are to be subtracted from the proposed project emissions since they will phased-out as
the project is developed.
-- = no reported data
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
According to GAMAQI, projects that emit air pollutants in excess of the threshold levels will be
considered to have a significant air quality impact. As shown in Table 5.2-13 above, the total ROG
and NOx emissions are each estimated to exceed the 10 tons per year threshold and the total PM10
emissions are estimated to exceed the 15 tons per year threshold. Therefore, these are considered
potentially significant impacts.
Stationary Source Impacts - Operational Phase
The West Ming Specific Plan project contains both stationary and mobile sources. This section
analyzes the localized (six-mile radius) criteria pollutant impacts of the stationary sources and five
tractor-trailers idling onsite.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been designated a non-attainment area for the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 and ozone. A quantitative modeling analysis was conducted
to address potential criteria pollutant impacts from the proposed project. The modeling approach
employed is consistent with Federal, State and District guidance for considering the impacts from
industrial facilities. Environmental transport of the project’s emissions was modeled using the
U.S.EPA Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) atmospheric dispersion model.
The ISCST3 model is appropriate for modeling the potential impacts of area sources in simple (i.e.,
flat) and complex (i.e., hilly) terrain. Regulatory default model control parameters were utilized for
this assessment.
The ISCST3 model was run using meteorological data obtained from Bakersfield, CA.
Criteria Pollutants
There are several potential sources of criteria pollutant emissions from the uses potentially allowed in
the Specific Plan. These stationary sources were used along with five (5) diesel trucks to allow a
conservative estimate of criteria pollutant emissions. The five (5) trucks were modeled as idling on
the proposed commercial and industrial sites for 8-hours per day.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
The model included emissions from the area sources. The emissions used in the modeling analysis
represent the worst-case potential emissions as a result of the project. The results of the modeling
analysis are presented below in Table 5.2-14.
In addition, the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts also requires an analysis of
one intermediate year if the project has over a five-year build-out. It is assumed that in 2015, the
project site has most of the commercial and industrial sources built out. Therefore, a portion of the
stationary sources were included in the model. These sources included a gas station and a light
industry source. In addition, the construction equipment required to build the various uses onsite
were included in the model. The construction equipment included: 2 rough terrain forklifts, 2 skid
steer loaders, 2 rubber tired loaders, a water trucks, a grader, a dump truck, a paver, one piece of
paving equipment, and a roller. In addition, a 20-acre area source was modeled to represent fugitive
dust emissions from grading activities that could be occurring. The construction equipment was
placed around the project site based on the land uses throughout the site.
Table 5.2-14: Project Criteria Pollutant Impact Model Results for Intermediate Construction
Year and Buildout Year
Pollutant Averaging
Period
2015 Project
Impact
(µg/m3)
2027 Project
Impact
(µg/m3)
PSD SIL
(µg/m3)
NAAQS
(µg/m3)
CAAQS
(µg/m3)
1 - hour 85.50* 15.64 -- -- 470 NOx
Annual 1.38* 0.20 1 100 --
1-hour 23.52 23.52 -- -- 655
3-hour 12.73 13.86 25 1,300 --
24-hour 2.60 3.03 5 -- 105
SOx
Annual 0.20 0.29 1 80 --
1-hour 161.21 45.20 2,000 40,000 23,000 CO
8-hour 37.68 14.93 500 10,000 10,000
24-hour 24.94 3.78 5 150 50 PM10
Annual 2.37 1.25 1 50 20
24-hour 12.78 3.04 -- 65 -- PM2.5
Annual 0.95 0.74 -- 15 12
30-day 0.00051 0.00041 -- -- 1.5
Lead Calendar
Quarter 0.00051** 0.00041** -- 1.5 --
The NOx value has the national average ARM value of 0.75 applied.
** The Calendar Quarter Value will be less than the monthly value. However, in order to be conservative, the monthly
value was used to represent the Calendar Quarter maximum emissions.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-34 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
The maximum predicted impacts were compared to the applicable California and National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS). The impacts are below the applicable standards and
therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
Visibility Impacts
An analysis was conducted of the potential project-related impacts to visibility; including Class I
areas located within 100 kilometers of the project site (see “Site Location 100 km Radius” within the
Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR). One military site located within
approximately 100 kilometers of the project site was also analyzed to determine potential project-
related impacts to visibility. The following section describes the analysis, methodology, and results.
Models and Modeling Techniques
The U.S.EPA model VISCREEN was used with default screening values to estimate impacts to
visibility at the Class I area nearest to the project site. There are two Class I areas located within an
approximate 100-kilometers boundary that are administrated by the U.S. Department of Interior,
National Park Service (NPS), Domeland Wilderness Area and San Rafael Wilderness Area. In
addition, there is a military site; however, it is not considered a Class I area. Visibility impacts were
still considered.
Historically, a representative of NPS, as well as meteorologists at the military site, were contacted for
guidance regarding the Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) of the Class I areas. Additionally, two
guidance documents, Guidelines for Evaluating Pollution Impacts on Class I Wilderness Areas in
California, and Assessment of Air Quality and Air Pollutant Impacts in Class I National Parks of
California, were used in the analysis.
VISCREEN uses two scattering angles to calculate potential plume visual impacts for cases where the
plume is likely to be the brightest (i.e. 10 degree azimuth for the forward scatter case) and the darkest
(i.e. 140 degree for the backward scatter case). The forward scatter case produces a very bright
plume when the sun is placed directly in front of the observer, while the backward scatter case
produces a dark plume when the sun is directly behind the observer. For viewing backgrounds, the
terrain is assumed to be black and located as close to the observer and the plume as possible. This
assumption yields the darkest possible background against which plumes are the most likely to be
visible. However, actual viewing backgrounds would be much lighter and located much further from
the observer.
Distances from each site to the closest and most distant borders, as well as the standard visual range
of each Class I area evaluated are presented below:
• Domeland Wilderness: 97 km (closest distance to border) and 129 km (most distant to border),
with a standard visual range of 340 km;
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
• San Rafael Wilderness: 66 km (closest distance to border) and 98 km (most distant to border),
with a standard visual range of 290 km;
• Edwards Air Force Base: 71 km (closest distance to border) and 129 km (most distant to
border), with a standard visual range of 145 km.
Level 1 Screening Analysis Results
The Level 1 visibility screening analysis was conducted using worst-case facility pollutant emissions
presented below:
• Particulate Matter: 0.67 tons/year
• NOx (as NO2): 21.72 tons/year
• Primary NO2: 0 tons/year
• Soot: 0 tons/year
• Primary SO4: 0 tons/year
In accordance with U.S.EPA VISCREEN guidance, primary NO2 was assumed to be zero, while
PM10 emissions from diesel combustion sources were assumed to be particulate. The VISCREEN
results are presented in “Project Specific U.S.EPA VISCREEN Model Results” of the Air Quality
Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
The emission rates used in the VISCREEN model are based on the total emissions from the project.
These include the area source emissions. The indirect source operational emissions will not occur
onsite and therefore cannot contribute to a visible plume originating from the site. Project-related
PM10 area source emissions are less than zero (see Table 5.2-13), and cannot be modeled as such.
Zero tons per year were input into the model. Since the sources onsite will be spread out and will not
contribute to a single plume, like the one being considered in the model, the analysis is conservative.
The results are contained in the “Level 1 Screening Analysis Results: of the Air Quality Assessment
in Appendix C of this Draft EIR and show that the proposed project will not exceed the standards for
visibility at sensitive receptors within 100 km.
Visibility was evaluated in proximity to the project in accordance with the California visibility
standard. The maximum modeled PM10 project impact is shown above in Table 5.2-14. This impact
is less than the 90 µg/m3 limit and therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
Summary of Operational Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant area sourse emissions, mobile
source emissions and stationary source emissions. The project will also result in less than significant
impacts related to criteria pollutants and visibility impacts.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Mitigation Measures
The proposed project will have air pollutant emissions associated with the construction, operation and
occupied use of the project site. The following mitigation measures include the District’s New
Source Review Rule and an Air Quality Mitigation Agreement. As shown on Table 5.2-13, the
project will result in 90.97 tons of ROG per year. Compliance with the District’s New Source
Review Rule would reduce the project’s ROG emissions from 90.97 tons per year to 68.05 tons per
year. Implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement would further reduce the project’s
ROG emissions from 68.05 tons per year to 0 tons per year. Also shown on Table 5.2-13, the project
will result in 33.20 tons of NOx per year. Compliance with the District’s New Source Review Rule
would reduce the project’s NOx emissions from 33.20 tons per year to 19.20 tons per year.
Implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement would further reduce the project’s NOx
emissions from 19.20 tons per year to 0 tons per year. Table 5.2-13 also shows that the proposed
project will result in 38.79 tons of PM10 per year. The District’s New Source Review Rule would not
reduce the project’s PM10 emissions; however, the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement would reduce
the project’s PM10 emissions from 38.79 tons per year to 0 tons per year.
5.2.C.1 Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall comply with District
Regulation II, specifically, the project will be subject to Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) in accordance with the District’s New Source Review (NSR)
Rule. As a part of the District permitting process, any emissions exceeding the
District’s offsetting thresholds would have to be offset back to the thresholds on a
stationary source by stationary source basis. Accordingly, these NSR Offsets will
reduce ROG net emissions by 22.92 tons per year (from 90.97 tons per year to 68.05
tons per year) and reduce NOx net emissions by 14.00 tons per year (from 33.20 tons
per year to 19.20 tons per year).
In addition to adherence to SJVAPCD rules and regulations, the following mitigation measure has
been designed to reduce emissions:
5.2.C.2 Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall comply in all respects
with developer’s obligations under that certain Air Quality Mitigation Agreement
approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and entered into
by and between the District and developer, a copy of which is contained within the
appendices of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Developer’s compliance with the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will result in a
reduction of ROG, NOx, and PM10 net emissions to zero or in quantities sufficient to
fully mitigate the project’s air quality impacts to the extent that the development of
the project will result in no net increase in criteria pollutant emissions over the
criteria pollutant emissions which would otherwise exist without the development of
the project, all as verified by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Accordingly, the Air Quality Mitigation Agreement will further reduce ROG net
emissions by 68.05 tons per year (from 68.05 tons per year to 0 tons per year), will
further reduce NOx net emissions by 19.20 tons per year (from 19.20 tons per year to
0 tons per year), and will reduce PM10 net emissions by 38.79 tons per year (from
38.79 tons per year to 0 tons per year). It should be restated that approximately 39.42
tons per year of ROG, 28.22 tons per year of NOx, and 43.28 tons per year of PM10
from onsite agricultural emissions will be subtracted from the proposed project
emissions since they will phased out as the project is developed.
The Air Quality Mitigation Agreement approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District, and entered into by and between the District and developer is a voluntary emission reduction
program in line with Air District goals, and similar in nature to other agreements entered into by the
Air District.
The program provides for the following:
1. Air District review and approval of the air quality assessment protocol
2. Air District review and approval of the air quality assessment
3. Air District receipt of the monies required to provide full mitigation of the development’s
emission impact and implementation of the emission reduction projects
4. Castle & Cooke reimbursement of the Air District for the services
5. Castle & Cooke assistance in locating the emission reduction projects
6. Castle & Cooke implementation of all feasible air mitigation measures through “smart
growth” design of the development
7. Emission reductions
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than Significant.
Project Specific Public Health/Hazards Impacts (Sensitive Receptors)
Impact 5.2.D: The project may potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Toxic Air Contaminants
There are several potential sources of toxic emissions from the uses allowed in the Specific Plan,
including gasoline-dispensing facilities. These sources were used along with diesel trucks allow a
conservative estimate of toxic emissions. The uses included the two (2) gas stations, and 5 trucks,
which were assumed to be idling on the site for 8-hours/per day.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
The first potential source of emissions is the gas stations. The gas stations will generate TAC
emissions as a result of the normal fueling process. The organic emissions were presented above in
the Stationary Source Emission section. These TAC emissions were then broken into components
using CARB’s speciation profile for gasoline. The speciation provides the weight fractions of each
component in gasoline. The results of the speciation are shown below in Table 5.2-15.
Table 5.2-15: Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline
Chemical Name Weight Percentage of
TOC (%)
Hourly Emission
Rate (lb/hr)
Early Emission
Rate (tons/yr)
Isopentane 34.88 2.89E-01 1.27E+00
Methyl T-Butyl Ether (Mtbe) 16.83 1.39E-01 6.10E-01
N-Pentane 7.28 6.03E-02 2.64E-01
N-Butane 6.29 5.21E-02 2.28E-01
2-Methylpentane 5.57 4.61E-02 2.02E-01
3-Methylpentane 3.06 2.53E-02 1.11E-01
Methylcyclopentane 2.64 2.19E-02 9.58E-02
2,3-Dimethylbutane 1.95 2.89E-01 1.27E+00
Toluene 1.59 1.39E-01 6.10E-01
2,2-Dimethylbutane 1.55 6.03E-02 2.64E-01
N-Hexane 1.44 5.21E-02 2.28E-01
Isobutane 1.3 4.61E-02 2.02E-01
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 1.21 2.53E-02 1.11E-01
Unidentified 1.16 2.19E-02 9.58E-02
2-Methyl-2-Butene 1.02 1.61E-02 7.07E-02
Cyclopentane 0.98 1.32E-02 5.77E-02
Cyclohexane 0.96 1.28E-02 5.62E-02
3-Methylhexane 0.74 1.19E-02 5.22E-02
Trans-2-Pentene 0.73 1.08E-02 4.72E-02
2-Methylhexane 0.67 1.00E-02 4.39E-02
2,3-Dimethylpentane 0.65 9.61E-03 4.21E-02
Trans-2-Butene 0.59 8.45E-03 3.70E-02
2,4-Dimethylpentane 0.51 8.12E-03 3.55E-02
2-Methyl-1-Butene 0.41 7.95E-03 3.48E-02
N-Heptane 0.39 6.13E-03 2.68E-02
Methylcyclohexane 0.38 6.05E-03 2.65E-02
Benzene 0.36 5.55E-03 2.43E-02
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-15 (Cont.): Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline
Chemical Name Weight Percentage of
TOC (%)
Hourly Emission
Rate (lb/hr)
Early Emission
Rate (tons/yr)
Cis-2-Butene 0.34 5.38E-03 2.36E-02
M-Xylene 0.32 4.89E-03 2.14E-02
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 0.31 4.22E-03 1.85E-02
2,3,3-Trimethylpentane 0.31 3.40E-03 1.49E-02
Cis-2-Pentene 0.3 3.23E-03 1.41E-02
Propane 0.28 3.15E-03 1.38E-02
1-Pentene 0.22 2.98E-03 1.31E-02
2-Methyl-2-Pentene 0.18 2.82E-03 1.23E-02
Isobutylene 0.16 2.65E-03 1.16E-02
2,2,5-Trimethylhexane 0.14 2.57E-03 1.12E-02
2,4-Dimethylhexane 0.13 2.57E-03 1.12E-02
1-Butene 0.12 2.48E-03 1.09E-02
2-Methylheptane 0.12 2.32E-03 1.02E-02
O-Xylene 0.12 1.82E-03 7.98E-03
3-Methylheptane 0.12 1.49E-03 6.53E-03
2,5-Dimethylhexane 0.12 1.32E-03 5.80E-03
Ethylbenzene 0.11 1.16E-03 5.08E-03
4-Methyl-Trans-2-Pentene 0.1 1.08E-03 4.72E-03
P-Xylene 0.1 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
Cyclopentene 0.09 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
2-Methyl-3-Ethylpentane 0.09 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
Trans-2-Hexene 0.09 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
3-Methyl-1-Butene 0.08 9.94E-04 4.35E-03
Ethylcyclohexane 0.07 9.11E-04 3.99E-03
3-Methyl-Trans-2-Pentene 0.06 8.28E-04 3.63E-03
2-Methyl-1-Pentene 0.06 8.28E-04 3.63E-03
2,2-Dimethylpentane 0.06 7.45E-04 3.26E-03
4-Methylheptane 0.06 7.45E-04 3.26E-03
N-Octane 0.05 7.45E-04 3.26E-03
Cis-3-Hexene 0.05 6.62E-04 2.90E-03
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane 0.04 5.80E-04 2.54E-03
3-Ethylpentane 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-15 (Cont.): Toxic Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities - Gasoline
Chemical Name Weight Percentage of
TOC (%)
Hourly Emission
Rate (lb/hr)
Early Emission
Rate (tons/yr)
Cis-2-Hexene 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
1-Methyl-3-Ethylbenzene 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
3-Methyl-Cis-2-Pentene 0.04 4.97E-04 2.18E-03
1,2,4-Triethylbenzene 0.04 4.14E-04 1.81E-03
1-Hexene 0.03 4.14E-04 1.81E-03
4-Methyl-1-Pentene 0.03 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
2-Hexenes 0.03 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
1,3,5-Triethylbenzene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
4-Methyl-Cis-2-Pentene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
2-Ethyl-1-Butene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
1-Methyl-4-Ethylbenzene 0.02 3.31E-04 1.45E-03
N-Nonane 0.01 2.48E-04 1.09E-03
3,3-Dimethylhexane 0.01 2.48E-04 1.09E-03
2,3-Dimethylhexane 0.01 2.48E-04 1.09E-03
2,2-Dimethylhexane 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
Cis-1,2-Dimethylcyclohexane 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
T-Amylmethylether (Tame) 0.01 1.66E-04 7.25E-04
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 0.01 8.28E-05 3.63E-04
1-Methyl-2-Ethylbenzene 0.01 8.28E-05 3.63E-04
Total 100 0.828 3.63
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006
In order to take the health effects of diesel particulate emissions into account, the emissions from
idling trucks were calculated and included in the health risk assessment model. In order to be
conservative, it was assumed that up to 5 trucks could be idling onsite at any given time, 8 hours per
day. The emission rate for diesel particulate matter was taken from EMFAC. EMFAC allows for the
idling emission rate to be determined for heavy-heavy duty trucks. EMFAC reports the idling
emission rate as 0.05 grams per minute. This converts to 0.007 pounds per hour for each truck. The
total assumed diesel particulate matter being emitted onsite at any one time is therefore assumed to be
0.035 pound per hour. Additionally, the NOx emissions from these trucks were based on EMFAC
emission rates and totals 0.626 pounds per hour for all 5 trucks. For the health risk assessment
model, these emissions were modeled as individual trucks idling at each building. It should be noted
that these emissions are taken into account in the operational source emission totals.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to estimate the extent of public exposure to each substance
for which cancer risk will be quantified or non-cancer effects evaluated. This involves emission
quantification, modeling of environmental transport, evaluation of environmental fate, identification
of exposure routes, identification of exposed populations, and estimating short-term and long-term
exposure levels.
Emissions Quantification
For this risk assessment, air toxics emissions from the project were quantified based on the design
specifications described above, and analytical sample analyses. Emission estimates were based on
hourly and annual emission calculations.
Peak hourly emissions are in units of grams per second (g/s).
Annual emissions (g/s) = (Peak Hourly - g/s) x Operating Schedule (hr/day) x days per year (day/yr) /
(8,760 hr/yr)
This results in an annualized emission rate of the pollutant expressed on a short-term basis.
Modeling of Environmental Transport
The Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model was utilized for the air toxics exposure
assessment. Meteorological data, emission sources and model control parameters were identical to
those utilized for the criteria pollutant impact analysis described above.
Identification of Exposure Routes
The exposure analysis included the four pathways recommended by the OEHHA (i.e., inhalation,
dermal exposure, soil ingestion, and mother’s milk).
Identification of Exposed Populations
For this assessment, a computer-generated Cartesian grid of model receptors was constructed. The
receptor grid does not represent actual persons, but rather, was utilized to construct impact isopleths
and determine the locality of the maximum predicted impacts. From these isopleths, potential
impacts to neighboring receptors were obtained.
Estimated Short- and Long-Term Exposure Levels
The HARP model was used to estimate the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic (acute and chronic)
health risk impacts. HARP is a multi-source, multi-pollutant, multi-pathway risk assessment model.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the process of evaluating the risks due to facility emissions. As explained
above, the HARP model calculates the estimated cancer and non-cancer health risk based on the
predicted short-term and long-term exposure levels for each air toxic at each model receptor. This
section presents the total predicted individual cancer risk for residential and working populations,
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-42 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
presents the total population excess cancer burden, and evaluates the predicted non-cancer health
hazards from the proposed project.
CARB generally considers a potential cancer risk of ten in a million (i.e., 10 x 10-6) as significant.
For acute or chronic non-cancer health impacts, the AB2588 significance threshold is 1.0. For this
health risk assessment, the AB2588 significance thresholds were used:
Excess Cancer Risk: 10.0 x 10-6
Non-Cancer Health Hazard Indices: 1.0
Direct Toxic Impacts
Cancer Impacts
The total individual excess cancer risk is defined as the cancer risk of a hypothetical individual that is
exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular facility continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, for a 70 year lifetime. This risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the
background cancer risk to the population. The maximum impact is located on the lower portion of
the northwestern fence line of the property.
Since the modeled risk is lower than the 10E-06 threshold, it is considered less than significant. The
model results are contained in “Modeling Results: Project Specific and Cumulative” of the Air
Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Scientists at OEHHA have established No Adverse Effect Level (NAEL) concentrations for non-
carcinogenic chemicals. In determining these thresholds, OEHHA has assumed continuous exposure,
24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with a 70-year exposure. According to OEHHA, exposure to non-
carcinogens at or below the chronic NAEL will not result in adverse chronic non-cancer health effects
to the public.
Since the modeled risk is lower than 1, it is considered less than significant. The model results are
contained in “Modeling Results: Project Specific and Cumulative” of the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Acute Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Scientists at OEHHA believe that one-hour average exposures at or below the acute NAEL will not
result in acute adverse health effects to the public. OEHHA only considers the inhalation exposure
pathway for acute health effects.
Since the modeled risk is lower than 1, it is considered less than significant. The model results are
contained in “Modeling Results: Project Specific and Cumulative” of the Air Quality Assessment in
Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-43
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Uncertainty in Impact Assessment
Predictions of future health risks include substantial uncertainties. There are model and data
uncertainties with respect to the assumed emissions, dispersion modeling and toxicological factors,
and uncertainties with respect to the characteristics of the potentially exposed population. For
example, possible exposure scenarios can be based on the assumption that a person resides in the
same location for the average period in U.S. residency (approximately 9 years), or for the 90th
percentile of residency (approximately 30 years), or for an entire lifetime (approximately 70 years).
Further, that exposure may be assumed at the highest modeled concentration, or some average, or a
modestly high concentration representative of the exposed population.
Because risk assessments are often performed to limit impacts to public health, the assumptions used
in assessments are typically conservative in nature. The risk assessment methodology described
above followed the CAPCOA and OEHHA guidelines, which are specified by regulators with a
conservative bias. The following discussion provides qualitative assessments of the uncertainty
associated with four major areas of the health risk assessment.
Air Dispersion Modeling
In general, U.S.EPA-approved dispersion models such as ISCST3 tend to over-predict concentrations
rather than under-predict. For example, the model algorithms assume chemical emissions are not
transformed in the atmosphere into other chemical compounds. For certain pollutants, conversion
may occur quickly enough to reduce concentrations from the conservative model predictions.
Exposure Assessment
The most important uncertainties related to exposure include the definitions of exposed populations
and their exposure characteristics. The choice of a “residential” maximally exposed individual is very
conservative in the sense that no real person is likely to spend 24 hours a day, 365 days a year over a
70-year period at exactly the point of highest toxicity-weighted annual average air concentration. The
greatest true exposure is likely to be at least 10 times lower than that calculated for the MEI.
Toxicity Assessment
The use of toxicity data in risk estimation is also uncertain. Estimates of toxicity for this risk
assessment were obtained from the CAPCOA AB2588 Guidelines (CAPCOA, 1993), which is among
the most conservative compilations of toxicity information. Toxicity estimates are derived either
from observations in humans or from projections derived from experiments with laboratory animals.
Human data are obviously more relevant for health risk assessments, but are often uncertain because
of: 1) difficulty of estimating exposures associated with the health effect of interest; 2) insufficient
study populations; 3) relatively high occupational exposures (the source of human data) that are
extrapolated and applied to low environmental exposures; or 4) variations in the susceptibility of
different populations when compared to the population as a whole. Cancer risk coefficients from
human data are typically considered proportional to pollutant concentration at any level of exposure
(i.e., a linear, no-threshold model), which is conservative at low environmental doses. For non-cancer
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-44 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
effects, the lowest exposure known to cause effects in humans is usually divided by uncertainty or
safety factors to account for variations in receptor susceptibility and other factors. When toxicity
estimates are derived from animal data, they usually involve extra safety factors to account for the
possibility of greater sensitivity in humans, and the less-than-human-lifetime observations in animals.
Overall, the toxicity assumptions and criteria used in the proposed project’s risk assessment are
biased toward over-estimating risk. The amount of the bias is unknown, but could be substantial.
Modeling was performed for all Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) estimated to be emitted from the
proposed project with HARP. This modeling, as shown on Tables 5.3-2 through 5.3-4 contained in
the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR demonstrated that at the maximum point
of impact at the nearest fence line, and at the proposed location of the schools that the health based
standards were not exceeded. Therefore, health risk impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
Mobile Source - Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Impacts
Carbon monoxide emissions are a function of vehicle idling time and, thus, under normal
meteorological conditions, depend on traffic flow conditions. Carbon monoxide transport is
extremely limited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme
meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway or intersection
may reach unhealthful levels, affecting sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospital
patients, the elderly, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or
intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS). CO “Hot Spot” modeling is
required if a traffic study reveals that the project will reduce the LOS on one or more streets to E or F;
or, if the project will worsen an existing LOS F.
A traffic study was prepared for the project by McIntosh & Associates. The traffic study states that
with the full build out of the project along with future roadway and intersection improvements, there
may be several intersections that could fall below a level of service D. Most of these intersections are
minimally impacted by the proposed project and will be below a level of service D even if the project
is not built. There are four intersections that will have a level of service “E” or “F” designation.
These intersections were analyzed for potential CO hotspots.
The impact of the proposed project on local carbon monoxide levels was assessed at these
intersections with the Caltrans CALINE-4 Air Quality Model, which allows micro scale CO
concentrations to be estimated along each roadway corridor or near intersections. This model is
designed to identify localized concentrations of carbon monoxide, often termed “hot spots”. Year
2030 traffic as predicted by the traffic study was used in the CALINE-4 model.
The modeling analysis was performed for worst-case wind angle and windspeed. The assumptions
are described below:
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Due to lack of specific receptor locations for CO hot spot analysis, locations near the most impacted
intersections were used for this analysis. Selected modeling locations represent the intersections that
would potentially experience LOS E or worse in year 2030 with mitigation if it is required. Receptor
locations with the possibility of extended outdoor exposure were located on sidewalks near the
intersections. A receptor height of 1.8 meters was used in accordance with EPA recommendations.
The proposed intersection mitigation measures were considered in the analysis of these intersections.
Sixteen receptor locations at each intersection, under worst-case wind angle condition, were modeled
to determine carbon monoxide dispersion concentrations. CO concentrations were modeled at these
locations to assess the maximum potential CO exposure that would occur in year 2030.
The calculations assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (0.5 m/s), a flat topological
condition between the source and the receptor, and a mixing height of 1,000 meters. A sigma theta of
5 degrees was used for the wind deviation.
The suburban land classification was used for the aerodynamic roughness coefficient. This follows
the CALINE-4 user’s manual definition of suburban as, “regular coverage with large obstacles, open
spaces roughly equal to obstacle heights, villages and mature forests.” The definition of urban states,
“the centers of large towns or cities,” and would not be appropriate for the relatively open landscape
in the project area, even once all of the intended land uses are completed.
CO concentrations are calculated for the one-hour averaging period, and then compared to the state
one-hour CO standard. CO eight-hour averages are extrapolated using techniques outlined by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and compared to the CO eight-hour standards.
Emission factors for year 2020 were used in the model and were predicted by EMFAC. The 2020
emission factors were used in order to be conservative and consistent with the 2025 model run in
URBEMIS 2002. EMFAC is an emission factor program created by CalTrans to estimate mobile
source emission factors. Caltrans has indicated in its Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol (Caltrans, revised 1997) that the “intersection” option of CALINE-4 should not be used
because it calculates model emissions based on an algorithm developed for an outdated vehicle fleet.
The “at-grade” option has been used in this analysis. Emission factors for approach and departure
links were based on approach and departure average speeds as a function of traffic volume, average
cruise speed, and percentage of red time. Emission factors were based on the Caltrans recommended
vehicle fleet mix. A temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit was used to determine the emission
factors. This represents the lowest January average minimum temperature over the last three years
(35.7 degrees Fahrenheit) plus a five-degree correction for the AM and PM traffic conditions.
Concentrations are given in parts per million (ppm) at each of the receptor locations.
Ambient CO concentrations were estimated by adding the second highest measured value from the
Bakersfield monitoring stations during the last two years to the modeled impact in accordance with
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
U.S. EPA guidelines. The 8-hour value obtained in this manner was 2.20 ppm (Bakersfield,
California Avenue monitoring station, 2005), which is equivalent to a 1-hour value of 4.2 ppm using
the Caltrans recommended persistence factor of 0.6 for suburban classification. Actual future
ambient CO levels may be lower due to emissions control strategies that will be implemented
between now and year 2030.
The results of the model are shown below in Table 5.2-16; the input and output data is contained in
“CALINE-4 CO Hotspots” of the Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
Table 5.2-16: CALINE-4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations
Maximum Modeled Impact
Year 2030 w/Project Intersection
1 Hr (ppm) 8 Hr (ppm)
Rosedale Hwy. at Coffee Rd. 5.9 3.5
Truxtun Ave. at Coffee Rd. 6.3 3.8
Stockdale Hwy. at New Stine Rd / California Ave 5.8 3.5
1 hour concentrations include ambient CO of 4.2 ppm (Second highest 2 year Impact, 8-hour average corrected upwards
for 1-hour averaging period).
8 hour concentrations were obtained by multiplying the 1-hour concentration by a factor of 0.6, as referenced in
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, CalTrans, December 1997. Predicted concentrations modeled
using “worst case” option.
Source: WZI, Inc. June 2006.
The modeling results are compared to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon
monoxide of 9 ppm on an 8-hour average and 20 ppm on a 1-hour average. Neither the 1-hour
average nor the 8-hour average would be equaled or exceeded at any of the intersections studied.
An intermediate year was also modeled for CO impact. The intermediate year results of the model
are shown below in Table 5.2-17.
Table 5.2-17: CALINE-4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum Modeled Impact
Year 2015 w/Project Intersection
1 Hr (ppm) 8 Hr (ppm)
Rosedale Hwy. at Coffee Rd. 5.7 3.4
Truxtun Ave. at Coffee Rd. 6.4 3.8
Stockdale Hwy. at New Stine Rd / California Ave 5.8 3.5
1 hour concentrations include ambient CO of 4.2 ppm (Second highest 2 year Impact, 8-hour average corrected upwards
for 1-hour averaging period).
8 hour concentrations were obtained by multiplying the 1-hour concentration by a factor of 0.6, as
referenced in Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, CalTrans, December 1997.
Predicted concentrations modeled using “worst case” option.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Neither the 1-hour average nor the 8-hour average would be equaled or exceeded at any of the
intersections studied.
Modeling was conducted to determine the impact of the mobile sources in accordance with the CO
“Hot Spots” model, CALINE 4. The results are shown in Table 5.3-17 above and do not equal or
exceed the standards. Therefore, CO impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Valley Fever Exposure
Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation
of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United
States. The fungus is very prevalent in the soils of California’s San Joaquin Valley, particularly in
Kern County. The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the
spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline, sandy soils.
Based on skin test surveys, the incidence of Valley Fever is between 25,000 and 100,000 new
infections per year, with 70 deaths annually in the United States. It is difficult to determine the exact
number of primary pulmonary and disseminated (cases in which the spores spread throughout the
body) cases contracted annually, since diagnosis and reporting of cases is very incomplete. In Kern
County, data from laboratory test reports indicate the occurrence of about 270 symptomatic infections
per year, including 12 disseminated cases with an average of 5 deaths annually.
At least 60 percent of primary coccidioidomycosis is acquired symptomatically, with a positive result
on a skin test being the only manifestation of infection. Forty percent of the infections become
symptomatic with a disease spectrum ranging from mild influenza-like illness to a fulminating
dissemination resulting in death. Primary coccidioidomycosis is limited to the initial lesions in the
lungs where symptoms typically include fever, which may be 99 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit, chills,
profuse sweating at night, and chest pain, which may worsen to include coughing, loss of appetite,
headache, generalized muscle and joint aches, and slight swelling and redness of the joints. The
prognosis of primary coccidioidomycosis is usually reliable and symptoms generally clear within two
or three weeks. Patients whose symptoms persist after 6 to 8 weeks may be considered to have
persistent pulmonary coccidioidomycosis.
Dissemination of coccidioidomycosis to sites in the body other than the lungs usually occurs within
the first or second month and can cause a variety of symptoms. Dissemination may involve any
organ of the body, except those in the gastrointestinal tract. The skin, bones, joints, meninges, and
genitourinary system are most commonly involved. Involvement of a vital organ may result in death.
Meningitis occurs in one-third to one-half of all patients with disseminated disease. Untreated
coccidioidal meningitis is usually fatal within less than two years.
The five major factors that have an effect on the susceptibility to coccidioidal dissemination are race,
sex, pregnancy, age and immunosuppression. In a retrospective study of the Kern County Health
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-48 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Department records, 64 deaths were recorded for the period 1901 to 1936, when the County had a
population of 82,570. According to this data, Mexicans were 3.4 times more likely than whites to
develop coccidioidal dissemination; blacks were 13.7 times more likely; and Filipinos were 175.5
times more likely. Death due to the disease was five times greater for Mexicans, 23.3 times greater
for blacks, and 191.4 times greater for Filipinos than for white patients. Adult white females are
ordinarily quite resistant to dissemination of the disease, but if they acquire the infection during the
last half of pregnancy, there is a risk that it will spread beyond the lungs. Children under five and
older individuals, perhaps those above fifty, also appear to be more likely to undergo dissemination of
the infection.
The highest incidence rates within Kern County have occurred in the areas of Northeast Bakersfield,
Lamont-Arvin, Taft, and Edwards Air Force Base. New residents to the San Joaquin Valley have
usually never been exposed to “Valley Fever,” and as a result are particularly susceptible to the
infection. Many longtime residents of the area have at some time been exposed to the fungus,
become infected, and have recovered, and are thus immune.
The soils in the areas of Arvin and Lamont are derived from decomposing Quaternary alluvial fan
deposits. These, however, are sourced from Mesozoic Sierran granitic rocks having a different
mineralogical and consequent chemical content than the soil in the area of the project site. The soils
in the area of Edwards Air Force Base are composed of decomposed, reworked non-marine alluvium,
evaporite playa, sand, and terrace deposits. These have been derived from various Mesozoic granitic
rocks. The increased aridity and prevalence of evaporates would alter the chemical composition, as
compared to the soil in the area of the project site, which forms in a wetter environment. The soils in
the Taft area are mainly sourced from the nearby outcropping marine Miocene Monterey Formation
consisting mainly of sands, silts and diatomites. These again should form a somewhat dissimilar
mineralogical and consequent chemical content than the soil in the area of the project site. The soils
in the area of Sharks Tooth Hill in Northeast Bakersfield which is endemic for San Joaquin Valley
Fever, Coccidioidomycosi, is composed of the decomposed marine Round Mountain Silt Member of
the Miocene Temblor Formation. The soil in the area of the project site is derived from decomposing
Quaternary alluvial fan deposits as sourced from the Tehachapi Mountain foothills, composed of
reworked marine Miocene deposits. These various rock types would lead to differing soils based
upon the variation in mineralogical and consequent chemical content. Therefore, as indicated by the
dissimilarity between the historic sites of Valley Fever and the West Ming project area, and
considering the District Regulation VIII dust control measures, the risk of contacting Valley Fever in
connection with the project is considered to be unlikely.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Project Impacts
West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR Air Quality
Michael Brandman Associates 5.2-49
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Objectionable Odors
Impact 5.2.E: The project may potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Odor is strongest at its source and dissipates with increasing distance. The offensiveness and degree
of odor is ultimately dependent on the sensitivity of the receptors exposed to the odor. According to
the District’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), facilities located
one mile or less from a sensitive receptor may create a significant odor impact to the sensitive
receptor that may possibly be significant, and require a detailed analysis to assess impact significance.
The detailed analysis includes evaluation of local meteorological conditions at the project site. The
District’s guidance indicates that a detailed analysis would include evaluating whether complaints
have been filed with the District for similar existing operations. The following analysis of potential
odor impacts was conducted in accordance with the District’s GAMAQI.
According to the District, there were no odor complaints received within the last 2 years for sources
in the general project area, which represents a 1-mile radius around the West Ming Specific Plan.
This is indicated by odor complaint reports received from the District (see “Odor Complaint Reports”
in Air Quality Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR).
Temperature, wind, dust conditions, topography, and the presence of physical obstructions affect the
degree of odor impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The maximum summer temperature in the
southern San Joaquin Valley is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (90ºF). Odor compounds travel further
in warm climates than in relatively cooler climates. During windy conditions, odor compounds are
diluted with fresh air and, consequently, disperse more quickly and are less noticeable at a distance.
However, wind direction also defines the direction of travel for odors. Physical obstructions, such as
windbreaks, cause more rapid dilution of odorous compounds and also capture odor-containing
fugitive dust.
Historical wind data from the nearby National Weather Service (NWS) station at the
Bakersfield/Kern County - Meadows Field Airport was examined to determine wind patterns in the
project area. A wind rose diagram is included as “Wind Rose Diagram” in the Air Quality
Assessment in Appendix C of this Draft EIR. In the project area, winds generally blow from the
northwest or southeast, depending on the time of day and season.
Odorous compounds listed below in Table 5.2-18 may be emitted from the proposed project in the
final construction year approaching the operation at full buildout. The concentrations were modeled
using ISCST3 and models as previously discussed. The concentrations at the maximum point of
impact were compared with the odor thresholds delineated by Nagata. The results along with the
threshold values are shown in Table 5.2-18.
Project Impacts
Air Quality West Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
5.2-50 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Sec05-02 Air Quality.doc
Table 5.2-18: Operational Year Odor Impacts
Chemical Name Symbol Threshol
d (ppm) MW Threshold
(µg/m3)
Highest 1-
Hr Impact
(µg/m3)
Odor
Threshold
Exceeded
?
Acetaldehyde ACETA 0.0015 44.05 2.8 1.04 No
Acrolein ACROL 0.0036 56.06 8.5 0.04 No
Benzene BENZE 2.7 78.11 8,904.1 0.25 No
Butadiene-1,3 BUTAD 0.23 54.09 525.2 0.03 No
Chloroform CHCl3 3.8 119.38 19,152.8 0.00 No
Formaldehyde HCHO 0.5 30.03 633.9 2.27 No
Hydrochloric acid HCl 0.049 36.46 75.4 0.25 No
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.12 46.00 233.1 31.0 No
Propylene PROPL 13 42.08 23,096.0 0.62 No
Sulfur dioxide SO2 0.87 64.00 2,350.8 10.9 No
Toluene TOL 0.33 92.13 1,283.6 0.14 No
Xylene XYLEN 0.041 106.00 183.5 0.06 No
Ethylbenzene EthBe 0.17 106.17 762.0 0.04 No
Hexane C6H12 1.5 84.00 5,319.7 0.52 No
Odor thresholds were converted from ppm to g/m3 using the equation ( g/m3) = (ppm) * MW * 42.22, where MW is
the molecular weight of the specific compound. This is based on standard conditions of 25oC and 14.7 psi.
Source: WZI, Inc., June 2006.
As shown above in Table 5.2-18, none of the impacts exceed the odor thresholds. The odor impacts
are therefore considered less than significant.
Odor assessments in accordance with GAMAQI were conducted and no odor complaints were found.
Modeling was conducted through ISCST3 for individual odor producing chemicals that may be
emitted from the proposed project. The results are contained in Table 5.3-18 above. The odor
thresholds are not met or exceeded for the operational phase. Therefore, odor impacts are considered
to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.