CEQA Initial Study Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project City of Richmond Richmond, CA January 2015
www.erm.com
City of Richmond
CEQA Initial Study Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project 1306 Canal Boulevard Richmond, California 94804
January 2015 Prepared by: ERM-West, Inc. 1277 Treat Boulevard, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94597
T: (925) 946-0455 F: (925) 946-9968 and
City of Richmond, California 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4
2.1
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
4
2.2
PROJECT LOCATION
4
2.3
EXISTING SITE OPERATIONS 2.3.1 General Facility Operations 2.3.2 Rail Car Off-loading 2.3.3 Marine Vessel Off-loading 2.3.4 Truck Loading 2.3.5 Other Operations and Support Services
8 8 11 11 11 11
2.4
PROPOSED PROJECT 2.4.1 Modifications at the Terminal
12 13
2.5
COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED OPERATION
16
2.6
PROJECT APPROVALS
17
3.0
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION
18
3.1
18
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
20
4.1
AESTHETICS
21
4.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
24
4.3
AIR QUALITY
27
4.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
59
4.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES
68
i
5.0
4.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
70
4.7
GREENHOUSE GAS
74
4.8
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
78
4.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
85
4.10
LAND USE AND PLANNING
91
4.11
MINERAL RESOURCES
94
4.12
NOISE
95
4.13
POPULATION AND HOUSING
101
4.14
PUBLIC SERVICES
103
4.15
RECREATION
105
4.16
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
106
4.17
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
111
4.18
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
116
REFERENCES
118
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Criteria Pollutant Emissions Methodology and Estimation Appendix B - HRA Methodology and TAC Emissions Appendix C – Biological Information Appendix D – Noise Calculations
ii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1
Regional Location of the BP Richmond Terminal .......................................... 6
Figure 2-2
Project Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses ........................................ 7
Figure 2-3
Aerial View of Project Site ............................................................................... 10
Figure 2–4
Injection Skid Installation ................................................................................ 14
Figure 4-1
Modeled Vessel and Truck Sources................................................................ 51
Figure 4-2
Modeled Facility Sources ................................................................................. 52
Figure 4-3
Modeled Receptor Grid.................................................................................... 53
Figure 4-4
Health Risk Assessment Modeling Results for Construction ..................... 54
Figure 4-5
Health Risk Assessment Modeling Results for Operations ........................ 55
Figure 4-6
TAC Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Terminal ........................................... 56
Figure 4-7
TAC Sources within 1,000 Feet of Washington Elementary School .......... 57
LIST OF TABLES Table 1–1
Facility Information ............................................................................................ 1
Table 2–1
Proposed Terminal Modifications .................................................................. 13
Table 2–2
Terminal Summary of Operational Changes ............................................... 16
Table 4-1
Annual Operational Emissions Increase Summary for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project ........................................................................ 32
Table 4-2
Daily Construction and Operational Emissions Increase Summary for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project .............................................. 33
Table 4-3
Incremental Vessel Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project................................................................................................... 38
iii
Table 4-4
Tanker Truck Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project................................................................................................... 40
Table 4-5
Ethanol Loading Rack Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project................................................................................................... 40
Table 4-6
Fugitive Component Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project................................................................................................... 42
Table 4-7
Summary of Potential Health Risk from Construction Emissions............. 46
Table 4-8
Summary of Potential Health Risk from the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Emissions ................................................................................ 47
Table 4-9
Sources of TACs within 1,000 Feet of the Richmond Terminal and Associated Cumulative Health Risks ............................................................. 49
Table 4-10
Sources of TACs within 1,000 Feet of Washington Elementary School and Associated Cumulative Health Risks ............................................................ 50
Table 4-11
Incremental Operational Related GHG Emissions of Proposed Project ... 77
Table 4–12
2011 Vessel Count, Richmond Harbor ........................................................... 80
Table 4–13
2011 Receipts Vessel Count by Bay Location ................................................ 81
Table 4–14
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments (CNEL dBA) ................................................................................................... 97
Table 4–15
Portable Construction Equipment Noise Thresholds (dBA) ...................... 97
Table 4-16
Existing Roadway Operations...................................................................... 107
Table 4–17
Summary of Current Waste Disposal Activities (2010-2013)................... 112
iv
ACRONYMS µg/m3
Micrograms per cubic meter of air
AADT
Annual Average Daily Traffic
AB 32
Assembly Bill 32
AC
Alameda and Contra Costa Transit Authority
ASF
Age Sensitivity Factor
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT
Best available control technology
BAE
Baseline Actual Emissions
Basin Plan
RWQCB San Francisco Region Basin Plan (RWQCB 2011)
Bay Plan
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) (BCDC 2008)
BCDC
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BP
BP West Coast Products, LLC
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBC
California Building Code
CCCGP
Contra Costa County General Plan
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CCTA
Contra Costa Transit Authority
CDFW
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CH4
Methane
City
City of Richmond
CMP
Congestion Management Program
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
v
CNDDB
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
CO2e
Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
COES
California Office of Emergency Services
County
Contra Costa County
CRAF
Cancer risk adjustment factor
CSLC
California State Lands Commission
dBA
A-weighted decibel
DFG
Department of Fish and Game
DOT
Department of Transportation
DPM
Diesel Particulate Matter
DPS
Distinct Population Segments
DWT
Dead Weight Tonnage
EBMUD
East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EMT-D
Emergency Medical Technician - Defibrillation
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ERM-West, Inc. Environmental Resources Management ESU
Evolutionary Significant Units
FID
Federal Identification Number
FMMP
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GDF
Gasoline dispensing facility
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
gpm
gallons per minute
gpy
gallons per year
GWP
Global Warming Potential
HARP
Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program
vi
HFC
Hydrofluorocarbon
HI
Hazard Index
HRA
Health Risk Assessment
IS
Initial Study
lb
pound
LCFS
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn
Day-night average sound level
Leq dBA
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level
LLC
Limited Liability Company
LOS
Level of service
m
meter
MEIR
Maximum exposed individual residential
MEIW
Maximum Exposed Individual Worker
MMC
Marine Mammal Center
MMT
Million Metric Tons
mpg
Miles per gallon
MT
Metric Ton
MT/yr
metric tons per year
N2O
Nitrous Oxide
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
nm
Nautical Mile
NMOC
Nonmethane organic compounds
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWI
National Wetland Inventory
OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OWS
Oil Water Separator
PFC
Perfluorocarbon
vii
PG&E
Pacific Gas and Electric
PM
Particulate Matter
PM10
Particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5
Particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less
Project
Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project
PTE
Potential to Emit
PTO
Permit To Operate
RCRIS
Resources Conservation and Recovery Information System
ROG
Reactive Organic Gases
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SF6
Sulfur Hexafluoride
SFBAAB
San Francisco Bay Area Basin
SFBWW
San Francisco Bay Whale Watching
SO2
Sulfur Dioxide
SPCC
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
TAC
Toxic Air Contaminant
TBT
Tributyltin
Terminal
BP Richmond Terminal, when used as a stand-alone term
UBC
Uniform Building Code
ULR
Unleaded Regular Gasoline
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Vdb
Vibration decibels
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
VRU
Vapor Recovery Unit
VTS
Vessel Traffic Service
WCCCTA
West Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
yr
year
viii
1.
Project Title: Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project
2.
Lead Agency Contact: City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804
3.
Project Contact: Michael Peterson (510) 231-4706
4.
Project Location: 1306 Canal Boulevard, Richmond, CA 94804
5.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: BP West Coast Products, LLC 4519 Grandview Road, Blaine, WA 98230
6.
General Plan Designation: Port - Heavy Industrial
7.
Zoning: M-4 (Marine Industrial)
8.
Summary of Project: Consistent with BP West Coast Products, LLC’s (BP) plans to upgrade the ethanol distribution system at the BP Terminal in Richmond to accommodate ethanol with reduced carbon content, BP plans to import neat ethanol via vessel. Currently, ethanol is transported to the BP Terminal via trucks and rail cars. The neat ethanol would be denatured as it is offloaded from the vessels to the existing BP Terminal tankage. Existing dock, piping and infrastructure would be utilized to enable the transfer and the storage of the neat ethanol. A new gasoline injection skid would be installed on an existing concrete pad to meter the denaturant into the neat ethanol as it is offloaded from the vessels. In addition, one new loading station would be added to the BP Terminal’s existing truck rack to load ethanol and recover vapors.
9.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is situated on the southeastern tip (Point Potrero) of the Richmond Peninsula, at the north end of the San Francisco Bay. The project site is located about 8.7 miles northwest of the Golden Gate entrance to the
ERM
i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
San Francisco Bay and about 5.5 miles west of the East Bay Hills, in southwestern Contra Costa County (County). Surrounding land uses are mostly industrial and commercial including petroleum storage tank facilities, distribution terminals, automotive terminals and rail yards. 10.
ERM
Other public agencies whose approval is required: •
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) - Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate
•
City of Richmond – Design Review Permit
ii
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.0
INTRODUCTION
BP West Coast Products, LLC (BP) owns and operates a Class I organic loading liquid marine terminal located at 1306 Canal Boulevard in Richmond, California. This facility is a transfer facility for liquid fuel products, which arrive by vessel, rail, truck, and pipeline and are stored, transferred and delivered by truck and pipeline to BP service stations and other third-party transfer facilities. The BP Facility’s information is summarized in Table 1-1 below. Table 1–1
Facility Information Plant ID
13637
Business Name of the Owner
BP West Coast Products LLC
Address
1306 Canal Boulevard, Richmond, CA 94804
County
Contra Costa
Air District
Bay Area
Contact Person
Michael Peterson
Title
Terminal Manager
Contact Phone Number
(510) 231-4706
As part of compliance with California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, BP is seeking a Design Review Permit for receiving lower carbon “neat” ethanol at its terminal in Richmond, California. BP is proposing the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol 1 project (project) to receive and distribute lower carbon ethanol for blending with fuels. In addition, BP is seeking an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the Bay Area Ai-r Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Richmond (City) is the CEQA Lead Agency for the project and has prepared this Initial Study (IS) to evaluate potential impacts and identify required mitigation to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts. The document is organized as follows:
1
“Neat” ethanol refers to anhydrous or pure alcohol; the Neat ethanol included in the project would be an alternative fuel, or “biofuel.”
ERM
1
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
•
Section 1.0 (Introduction) includes a brief overview of the project; an overview of the environmental review process; and the scope, content and organization of the IS;
•
Section 2.0 (Project Description) includes a comprehensive description of the project’s objectives, location, existing conditions, and a description of the Applicant’s project;
•
Section 3.0 (Environmental Impact Determination) summarizes environmental factors potentially affected by the lead agency’s determination regarding the significance of impacts associated with the proposed project; and
•
Section 4.0 (Environmental Checklist) addresses each of the environmental issue areas as identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each resource-specific section discusses the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures, as applicable.
The CEQA guidelines set forth the following three methods that may be used to incorporate data from other sources into an IS: •
Incorporation by reference (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15150);
•
Use of an appendix (14 CCR §15148); and
•
Citation to technical information (14 CCR § 15148).
This IS has drawn on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Honda Port of Entry at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal Project (SCH #2008022063) (City of Richmond 2008) and hereby incorporates this EIR by reference. This certified EIR included extensive baseline studies of environmental conditions at and near the Port of Richmond’s Point Potrero Marine Terminal, and descriptions of its facilities and operations. As is allowed under CEQA, this document incorporates by reference many of the baseline descriptions of the existing environment and the Point Potrero Marine Terminal facilities and operations from this previous EIR. In addition, this IS has obtained baseline traffic conditions information from the Draft Bottoms Property Residential Project EIR (SCH #2013102024), released March 27, 2014 (City of Richmond 2014a). The Bottoms Property Residential Project EIR is also incorporated by reference.
ERM
2
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
The Honda Port of Entry Project EIR and Bottoms Property Residential Project EIR are available for public review between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at: The City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804
ERM
3
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
Project Objective BP is proposing the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol 2 Project to receive and distribute ethanol for blending with fuels with the objective of complying with the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).The LCFS is a part of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act and sets a goal of a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel by 2020. The purpose of the project is to accommodate ethanol sources (i.e. sugar cane ethanol) with reduced carbon intensity in an effort to reduce the carbon footprint of California motorists, and to upgrade and streamline the existing ethanol distribution system to allow more efficient ethanol throughput at the BP Terminal. Ethanol is currently transported to the Terminal by truck and rail. BP plans to import neat ethanol via vessel. The project would increase the volume of ethanol delivered, stored and blended at the BP Terminal to supply local markets using existing and modified infrastructure, but would not otherwise change or expand current Terminal operations.
2.2
Project Location The project is located at the BP Terminal in the Port of Richmond at 1306 Canal Boulevard, on the south side of the City of Richmond, in Contra Costa County, as shown in Figure 2-1. The BP Terminal abuts the Santa Fe Channel, which is the primary water access to the Port of Richmond. The Port of Richmond comprises five City-owned terminals and nine privately owned terminals in addition to the BP Terminal. The BP Terminal (hereinafter “Terminal”) is located in an industrial zone and surrounded by industrial properties, as shown in Figure 2-2. The Terminal is located on two parcels of land that are separated by property operated by the neighboring automobile warehousing facility. The lower Terminal parcel has a tanker dock, railcar receiving/offloading area, truck loading area, tank farm, office buildings, warehouse, maintenance garage, and other facilities. The project activities are restricted to the lower Terminal parcel (project site). The upper Terminal parcel, which is not a part of this project, contains a tank farm (upper
2
“Neat” ethanol refers to anhydrous or pure alcohol; the Neat ethanol included in the project would be an alternative or “biofuel.”
ERM
4
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
tank farm). The project site is bordered by Canal Boulevard on the west and the Santa Fe Channel of the Richmond Harbor within the San Francisco Bay on the east. On the north and south, the project site is bordered by an auto warehousing company and other oil terminals. The project site is relatively flat and has an elevation of approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. Groundwater is relatively shallow at the project site; during the most recent available groundwater monitoring event at the site, the depth to the shallowest water bearing zone ranged from approximately 3.5 to 8 feet below ground surface (Stantec 2014). The nearest residence is approximately 1/3 mile west of the project site, on the western side of the hill on which BP’s upper tank farm is located.
ERM
5
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Figure 2-1
Regional Location of the BP Richmond Terminal
Figure 2-1
ERM
6
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Figure 2-2
ERM
Project Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses
7
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
2.3
Existing Site Operations This section provides a general description of the existing Terminal operations, followed by details on the site features in the project site that would be affected by the project. Figure 2-3 shows the main features at the project site.
2.3.1
General Facility Operations The existing Terminal is a petroleum storage and handling facility. The bulk liquids currently handled at the facility are: •
Gasoline
•
Diesel Fuel
•
Transmix (transportation mixture, which is produced when refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel mix together during pipeline transportation)
•
Additives
•
Ethanol
These bulk liquids are received via pipeline, railcar, truck, or vessel and distributed to the Terminal’s bulk storage tanks. The bulk liquids are then transferred from tank storage for delivery to BP service stations and other thirdparty transfer facilities by either tanker trucks through the Terminal’s truck loading rack or outbound pipeline. The Terminal has a Department of Transportation (DOT) regulated pipeline segment within its fence line. Kinder Morgan owns and operates the pipeline that transfers product to and from the Terminal. Ethanol and gasoline additives are received via rail car or tanker truck and are inspected at the receiving area. The transfer and storage equipment at the project site as shown in Figure 2-3 include:
ERM
•
Aboveground petroleum storage tanks (17,000 to 2.1 million gallon capacity);
•
One (1) 500-gallon underground storage tank for storage of vapor condensate;
•
Product truck loading rack with four (4) lanes;
•
North Dock (inactive);
8
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
•
South Dock (currently used for offloading petroleum products from vessels);
•
Railcar receiving/offloading area;
•
Transmix product loading arm and pumpback offloading area for transfer to storage tanks; and
•
Truck rack vapor recovery unit (VRU).
The lower tank farm houses 33 aboveground tanks for storage of gasoline, diesel, ethanol, additives, and transmix products. The lower tank farm also contains areas used for equipment staging and a VRU. There are also a number of tanks removed from service. Other features within the project site include an oil water separator (OWS) system, a terminal operations building, a warehouse, a quality assurance laboratory, and a truck maintenance garage. The Terminal office is normally fully staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. A terminal operator is on duty 24-hours a day, 7 days a week.
ERM
9
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Figure 2-3
Aerial View of Project Site
Figure 2-3
ERM
10
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
2.3.2
Rail Car Off-loading Rail car off-loading operations are carried out at the rail spur between the lower tank farm and the warehouse. The area around the offloading station is paved and curbed, and is capable of containing spills of up to 30,000 gallons, which is equal to the size of the single largest compartment of a rail car staged in the offloading area. Drip pans and a quick drain system to the oily water system provide additional containment for most probable discharges. To prevent spills, derailers are set on the tracks during all off-loading operations. Currently 500 to 550 railcars per year offload ethanol at the project site.
2.3.3
Marine Vessel Off-loading The marine transfer facility, located at the lower Terminal parcel, has two (2) docks: the Tanker Dock (South Dock or wharf) and the Barge Dock (North Dock). Both docks are located on the Santa Fe Channel within the Richmond Harbor of the San Francisco Bay. Vessels are offloaded at the Tanker Dock. The Barge Dock has been out of service for several years. A range of 32 to 40 vessels per year delivered product to the Terminal over the period from 2009 to 2013.
2.3.4
Truck Loading The truck loading rack has four loading lanes for filling tanker trucks. The loading rack is supplied with gasoline, diesel, gasoline additive, and ethanol from the main storage tanks via above- and below-ground piping. Bulk loading from the storage tanks is completed entirely within the loading lane area. Bulk ethanol loading currently takes place at and is limited to Lane 4 of the loading racks. From there, the tanker trucks distribute the fuel to other third party distributors. A truck refueling area, pumpback system, and transmix loading arm are located just west of the ethanol offloading area. Current truck loading and offloading operations for all products are approximately 500 inbound, and 15,695 outbound per year.
2.3.5
Other Operations and Support Services The Terminal does not provide fuel or provisions to vessels while they are docked at the facility, nor does it accept any wastewater from vessels docked at the Terminal. Because the vessels are loaded with oil products when they transit to and dock at the Terminal, there is generally no need for the use of ballast water
ERM
11
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
during that period. Furthermore, oil transport to the Terminal does not involve the release of ballast water into the San Francisco Bay. Similarly, the Terminal does not accept solid waste from vessels docked at the Terminal. An existing security force is permanently stationed at the Terminal 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The City of Richmond Police Department is the responding agency for law enforcement needs in the vicinity of the Terminal. Because police units are in the field, response times currently vary depending on the location of the nearest unit. The Terminal is served by its own emergency response team along with the local fire department and other emergency services. Fire response for the project site would be provided by the Richmond Fire Department. BP has over 80 on-site fire hydrants. The locations of the existing fire hydrants have been approved by the Richmond Fire Department. In addition, fire monitors and fire hydrants are located onshore at both the tanker dock and the barge dock. In 2012, a project was completed to install an emergency firewater pump into a pump house located on the barge dock (north dock), which provides a fire-water flow of about 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The Terminal receives its potable water from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and natural gas and electricity are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2.4
Proposed Project The project would increase the volume of ethanol delivered, stored and blended at the Terminal by up to 50,056,000 gallons per year (gpy). The following physical and operational changes are required to implement the project: •
Mechanical modifications or upgrades at the wharf (south dock), lower tank farm, and truck loading rack;
•
Receipt of up to 16 deliveries of ethanol from vessels per year;
•
Storage and mixing of additional ethanol; and
•
Increased truck deliveries of ethanol to the local market by up to 8,794 trucks per year (24 trucks per day).
These project features are shown in Figure 2-3 and discussed in more detail below. A comparison of current and proposed operations, including volumes of product stored, is presented in Section 2.5.
ERM
12
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
2.4.1
Modifications at the Terminal The additional ethanol shipments to and from the Terminal and storage of fuels in the tank farm would be accommodated within the existing facility infrastructure with some modifications to hoses, piping, and other existing mechanical/electrical equipment. The existing wharf can accommodate the expected vessel type(s) and total annual vessel calls envisioned under the project, and would require no modification. The facility has existing tank capacity to store the increased ethanol volumes. The proposed modifications to the facility are described in Table 2-1.
Table 2–1
Proposed Terminal Modifications
Terminal Location
Modification/Upgrade
Wharf (South Dock)
One new hose installed for offloading ethanol from vessels, replacing the existing hose currently used for Jet A fuel.
Lower Tank Farm
Modify existing Jet A fuel pump from jet fuel service to ethanol service for ethanol tank recirculation and as a transfer pump between the ethanol tanks. The rebuilt pump would be equipped with a new, mechanical seal design. Post-weld heat treat existing pipeline (presently out of service) and bring back in service) dedicated to ethanol transmission to the tank farm area. Install thermal relief valves on the existing piping systems, per engineering and process hazard analysis. Refurbish Tank 56 for ethanol service, which includes performing an API-653 inspection of Tank 56 (an inspection and general repairs process that ensures safe storage and handling of product to protect employees, the public, and the environment), making any necessary repairs, installing a new mechanical shoe primary seal, and installing a rim mounted secondary seal on the internal floating roof. Modifications would be made to the existing Terminal tank farm piping to manifold and bring Tank 56 into ethanol service. New emergency shutdown valve, ethanol off-loading control valve and other instrumentation necessary to safely control and measure the process system parameters would be installed. Expand existing concrete slab (14’ x 19’) within the tank farm area with a curbed (for containment) addition of approximately 9’ x11’and a 1’ strip along the length of the original slab (Figure 2-4). The completed slab would be 6” thick with an 8” curb around the perimeter for containment. Install a pre-fabricated injection skid (approximately 19’ long by 5’ wide and 6’ tall – Figure 2-3) on the concrete pad for injection of unleaded regular gasoline (ULR) into ethanol for denaturing.
Truck Loading Rack
Add new loading arm to Lane 4, similar to the existing loading arm for ethanol. Re-certify VRU after the loading arm is installed.
ERM
13
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Figure 2–4
Injection Skid Installation
Figure 2-4
ERM
14
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Construction and installation of these modifications are estimated to be completed within approximately three to four months (not including off-site shop fabrication time). There would be no soil disturbance or excavation associated with the construction. None of the modifications require new construction, and most of the equipment would be fabricated or assembled off site. Welding on site would be minimal. One lift would be used to install the new unleaded regular gasoline (ULR) injection skid. Lifting the skid into place within the tank farm is estimated to take less than 2 hours. These activities would be limited to daytime hours, not occurring between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am. The construction equipment and personnel needed for this phase of the proposed project would represent a temporary increase of less than 30 round trips per day. 2.4.1.1 Ethanol Deliveries by Vessel Under the project, up to 16 vessel calls for ethanol unloading would occur each year at the Terminal wharf, in addition to the 41 vessel calls per year that currently occur for offloading other petroleum products. From the South Dock, the ethanol would be transferred into Tanks 56, 57, and 58 via pipeline. To prepare for ethanol storage, Tank 56 would be brought into service after inspection and general repairs, which would involve replacement of the floating roof seals; repairs to tank appurtenances, platforms, and stairs; installation of new roof handrails; refurbishment and testing of tank instrumentation (levels and alarms), repainting of tank repairs, and internal coating for ethanol service. 2.4.1.2 Ethanol Storage and Mixing In the tank area, an injection skid would be used to mix gasoline and ethanol. Gasoline would be pumped from Tank 55 using the injection skid to denature the ethanol in Tanks 56, 57, and 58. The blending takes place in the line (piping) to the tanks. This denaturing process prepares the ethanol for transport. Once the fuel is denatured, it would be transferred to the loading rack where it would be loaded into trucks. 2.4.1.3 Ethanol Delivery Currently at the loading rack, the ethanol is either blended into gasoline destined for BP service stations, or the ethanol is loaded bulk and delivered to other thirdparty transfer facilities. The project would only increase the volume of denatured ethanol being transported to third-party transfer facilities; operations would not change. At the loading rack, a new arm would be added to Lane 4 for ethanol. After the loading arm is installed, the VRU would be re-certified. This would involve an analysis to demonstrate that the system: 1) can continuously operate
ERM
15
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
safely when receiving vapors over the full range of transfer rates; 2) is provided with the proper alarms and automatic control systems to prevent unsafe operation; 3) is equipped with sufficient automatic or passive devices to minimize damage to personnel, property, and the environment if an accident were to occur; and 4) can attain a level of safety at least on order of magnitude greater than that calculated for operating without a vapor control system. The project would add up to 8,794 truck trips per year, or 24 truck trips per day, from the Terminal. The destinations of the ethanol trucks include Chico, Sacramento, Stockton, Brisbane, and San Jose. The trucks would leave the Terminal, travel north on Canal Boulevard, and get on I-580. 2.5
Comparison of Current and Proposed Operation Table 2-2 presents a comparison of existing conditions, as represented by the year 2012-2013 with the proposed BP Terminal operations. As shown in the table, the project would increase vessel shipments by up to 16 per year, and truck trips by up to 8,794 per year. All other operations would remain unchanged.
Table 2–2
Terminal Summary of Operational Changes1 Existing Operations
Proposed Operations
0
Up to 16
35
No change
550
No change
500
No change
1,346
10,140
14,860
No Change
Diesel/Jet A (gallons/year)
90,000,000
No change
Gasoline (gallons/year)
247,000,000
No change
Ethanol (gallons/year)
34,944,000
85,000,000
Transmix (gallons/year)
624,000
No change
Number of Employees
10
No change
Annual Operating Hours
8,760
No change
Parameter Inbound Movements (Trips) Vessels -- Ethanol (per year) Vessels -- Other Petroleum Products
3
Railcars – Ethanol (per year Trucks – Ethanol (per year) Outbound Movements (Trips)
2
Trucks – Ethanol (per year) 3
Trucks – Other Petroleum Products (per year) Loading Rack Annual Throughput
Other Operational Characteristics
1
Does not include the volume of products moved by pipeline 2 Average value, based on the period 2011 – 2013, except for vessel calls, which is the average for the period 2009 - 2013 3 Other Petroleum Products represent Diesel, Jet A, Gasoline, and Transmix
ERM
16
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
2.6
Project Approvals The project would require the following permits and approvals:
ERM
•
A Design Review Permit from the City of Richmond; and
•
An Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD.
17
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION
3.1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The following environmental impact areas have been assessed to determine their potential to be affected by the project. Any checked items represent areas that may be adversely affected by the project. An explanation relative to the determination of impacts can be found following the checklist for each area.
ERM
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
18
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact report (EIR) is not required, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is sufficient to comply with CEQA. I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find the project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, but at least one "potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that, although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures from the EIR that are imposed upon the project.
____________________________________________________ name title
Date
Reviewed by:
____________________________________________________ name title
Date
Reviewed by:
____________________________________________________ name title
ERM
Date
19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section contains an IS Checklist summarizing the analysis of potential environmental impacts due to the project. The checklist is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15000-15387). The proposed ethanol unloading, storage and loading activities involve the same activities that are currently being conducted and the same types of equipment currently being used at the Terminal. The only proposed changes are: •
An increase in vessel traffic compared to recent vessel calls, and the addition of neat ethanol transferred over the wharf (petroleum products that are currently offloaded at the marine terminal would be unchanged);
•
An increase in the amount of ethanol stored on site; and
•
An increase in truck traffic associated with transportation of ethanol to BP service stations and other third-party transfer stations.
Environmental impacts that may result from the project would be associated with: 1) construction and equipment installation activities; and 2) the incremental increase in vessel and truck traffic. As summarized below for each topic area, construction and installation activities are limited in scope and duration, and environmental impacts associated with those activities are less than significant. In the discussions that follow, impacts are classified according to one of the following four categories: Potentially Significant Impact
An impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation has been identified.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
An impact that could be significant, but which can be reduced to a less than significant level with application of identified mitigation. Impacts in this category are otherwise considered potentially significant impacts, but for which mitigation measures have been designed and would be enforced in order to reduce the impacts to below applicable significance thresholds.
Less than Significant Impact
An impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA.
No Impact
The Project would not result in an impact to the resource area considered.
ERM
20
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.1
AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Aesthetics Setting: The project site is located within the existing BP Terminal in Richmond, in an industrial zone, and is surrounded by industrial properties, as discussed in Section 2.2. The site is bordered by Canal Boulevard on the west and the Santa Fe Channel of the Richmond Harbor within the San Francisco Bay on the east. Industrial properties are located east of the project site, across the Santa Fe Channel. On the north and south, the project site is bordered by an auto warehousing company and other oil terminals. The project site currently contains numerous operations-related equipment and structures. The nearest residence is approximately 1/3 mile west of the project site. A higher-elevation ridge containing the upper tank farm (not associated with project activities) physically separates and obstructs views of the project site from these residential properties. The hills surrounding the City and the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays are prominent scenic areas in the project vicinity (City of Richmond 2012). There are no designated scenic routes or highways in the immediate project vicinity. The nearest scenic highway is Interstate 580, which is located east of the industrial facilities across the Santa Fe Channel from the Terminal; however the segment of Interstate 580 near the project site is not designated as scenic and is not considered eligible for scenic highway designation (Caltrans 2014).
ERM
21
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Existing sources of light and glare on the project site include photo-cell activated lights on the facility perimeter, parking areas, truck loading rack, tank farm, and marine dock, for operations and security purposes, as well as headlights and taillights associated with nighttime vehicle traffic. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is in an industrial area and is not readily visible from nearby residences. Construction activities would cause temporary visual impacts at the project site, however, physical changes to the project site during construction and installation of new equipment would be confined to the Terminal property and would not be visible to the general public. The resulting changes to the project site would be similar in appearance to existing conditions on the project site, and would not be visually apparent from outside the Terminal. The project would not block views of the San Francisco Bay or hillsides, which are considered scenic areas. Once completed, the number of vessels and trucks unloading to and/or transporting liquids from the Terminal would increase under the project, but would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, as described below: •
The incremental increase in vessel traffic to and from the Terminal (up to 16 vessels per year, 1 to 2 per month on average) would not obstruct views vistas of the San Francisco Bay or hillsides, and would be consistent with existing elements of the viewshed.
•
Similarly, truck traffic is a part of daily functions at the Terminal and adjacent industrial facilities. The additional trucks traveling to and from the project site during and after construction would not obscure views of scenic areas, nor would they change the character of views from scenic vistas; they would follow the same route to I-580 as the existing truck traffic.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Interstate 580 near the project site is not designated as scenic and is not considered eligible for scenic highway designation (Caltrans 2014). Therefore, the project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, during construction or after construction activities are completed.
ERM
22
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and immediate vicinity contain industrial facilities. The project would involve minor physical changes that would not substantially change the appearance of the project site (See response to item a). In addition, the new vessel and truck traffic would be consistent with the existing visual character of the project area. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related modifications would not include the addition of substantial sources of light and glare. Construction activities and equipment installation would all occur within the BP Terminal property, primarily during daytime hours, and are not expected to require additional lighting. Lighting used for Terminal operations following implementation of the project, if any, would not be distinguishable from existing lighting used at the Terminal. The project would therefore not introduce a new source of substantial light and glare. The new vessels that would use the wharf, like those currently calling at the Terminal, require lighting for navigation and safety. However, the additional lighting from the new vessels would be consistent with current light sources at the Terminal and vessels currently using the Santa Fe Channel and the San Francisco Bay. Project-related truck traffic occurring during low-light conditions requires the use of headlights and would be a source of lighting, as it is currently for operations at the BP Terminal and other industrial facilities in the area. Because the truck types and hours during which they travel to and from the project site would be comparable to those associated with current operations, the new vehicle traffic would not introduce a significant new light source. The increase in truck traffic associated with the project would also result in an increased number of headlights traveling along the truck routes. However, because these truck routes already support vehicles using headlights during lowlight conditions, the increase in traffic along these routes would not introduce a significant new light source. Therefore, lighting and glare impacts from the new vessel and vehicle traffic would be considered less than significant.
ERM
23
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Setting: The California Department of Conservation administers the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), California’s statewide agricultural land inventory. Four classifications of farmland, including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance, are considered valuable and any conversion of land within these categories is typically considered an adverse impact. Other categories of land that are not protected by the Department of Conservation include Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land, and Other Land. The project site is in an area that is zoned industrial, currently has industrial uses, and is surrounded by industrial properties. Truck transit associated with Terminal operations occurs on developed roads. The project site is comprised of
ERM
24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
developed land, and is designated as Urban and Built-up Land by the FMMP (Department of Conservation 2014). a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No conversion of farmland would occur as the project site is not classified as farmland and there are no agricultural uses on the project site. The project would therefore have no impact to agricultural lands. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is currently developed and is zoned Marine Industrial (M-4). According to the Department of Conservation, there are no Williamson Act contracts on or near the project site (Department of Conservation 2013). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Marine Industrial (M-4) zoning designation of the project site does not allow for forest land or timberland related uses. No forest land or timberlands are present on the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is an industrial developed parcel. There is no forest land or timberland on the project site. The project would therefore not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
ERM
25
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is located in an industrial area of the City and is currently developed. Modifications to the project site as part of the project would not change the industrial character of the area. No farming operations or forest lands exist on or near the project site. The project would not result in the loss of farmland or conversion of forest land.
ERM
26
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.3
AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Air Quality Setting: The project site is located in Contra Costa County, which is a part of San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is one of the nine counties in the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control for the San Francisco Bay and its surrounding areas in the Basin, and is therefore the air regulatory agency for the project. Air quality in the project area can be described by whether or not the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (state standards) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (national standards) are attained, as shown by monitored concentrations of regulated pollutants. This is known as the attainment status, which is described below. In general, the state standards are more stringent than the national standards. The project area attains the state and national standards for carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The project area does not attain the state or national standards for ozone, and also does not attain the state or national standards fine particulate matter (PM2.5). For inhalable particulate matter (PM), the area does not attain the state standard, but is unclassified for the national standard (i.e., insufficient data to make a determination). In May 2012, the BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. This guidance document presents emission levels for projects that would be
ERM
27
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
considered significant if the project emissions exceed those levels. These emission threshold levels for NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG), and PM are summarized below: •
Construction-related exhaust emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 greater than 82 pounds per day; or
•
Operational-related emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day (or 10 tons per year) or PM10 greater than 82 pounds per day (or 15 tons per year).
It should be noted that on March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012). The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. In May of 2012, the BAAQMD filed an appeal of the court’s decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, recently reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending as of January 2015. Some lead agencies continue to use the proposed emissions thresholds as significance criteria in CEQA documents. Recently, the City as lead agency used these thresholds in the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project (City of Richmond 2014b). Thus, project criteria pollutant emissions could be considered significant if these thresholds are exceeded. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are those pollutants that are toxic to humans and for which there is no level of concentration that is considered safe. These compounds are evaluated on the basis of probability of risk from exposure, based on the concentration of the pollutant and the duration of exposure. For purposes of determining significance, the significance thresholds for residential health risk from TACs, also found in the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012), are as follows:
ERM
•
Incremental cancer risk that equals or exceeds 10 in a million;
•
Exposure to non–carcinogenic substances with a Hazard Index (HI) that exceeds 1.0;
•
PM2.5 emissions that would exceed 0.3 µg/m3 annual concentration;
28
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
•
Cumulative cancer risk from all sources within 1,000 foot radius of the project that equals or exceeds 100 in a million for the Maximally Exposed Individual;
•
Exposure to non–carcinogenic substances from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the project that exceeds a Hazard Index (HI) of 1.0 for the Maximally Exposed Individual; and
•
PM2.5 emissions that would exceed 0.8 µg/m3 annual concentration from all sources within 1,000 foot radius of the project for the Maximally Exposed Individual.
Emissions Methodology and Summary The following sections briefly describe the methodology used for estimating emissions from the proposed project. Detailed methodology is provided in Appendix A. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 provide a summary of estimated annual and daily increase in emissions from all the sources affected by the project. The increase in emissions shown in Table 4-1 and 4-2 was estimated as the difference between the post-project emissions and the average annual emissions during the baseline period from 2011 through 2013, the last year for which data were available. Under CEQA, the project baseline is defined as the physical conditions of the environment as it exists at the time the environmental analysis is commenced. However, the operations of a product terminal fluctuate with market demand, and the annual average based on three previous years of operation is more representative of a terminal’s baseline operation than a single point in time. The three-year baseline period is also consistent with the baseline period required to estimate the increase in emissions pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2-2. Therefore, a three-year period from 2011 through 2013 was used as the baseline period to evaluate the impacts from the project. Operational emissions from the project would be generated by the following sources:
ERM
•
Vessel operation;
•
Tanker truck operation;
•
Loading-rack operation;
•
Storage tanks operation; and
•
Fugitive emissions from piping connection points.
29
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Refer to impact discussion (b) and (c) for a more detailed discussion regarding the emissions generated by each source. Emissions from construction and operation of the project were calculated by Environmental Resources Management (ERM-West, Inc.), and are included in Appendix A. Vessel Operations Emissions from vessels and the tugboats that assist these vessels while they are transiting near the port were estimated by using the methodology and data provided by the following references: emissions inventory studies for Port of Richmond (Coalition 2010), Port of Oakland (Port of Oakland 2013) and Port of Los Angeles (Starcrest 2013); CARB’s ocean-going vessels (CARB 2011) and commercial harborcraft (CARB 2007) emissions estimation guidelines; Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) marine vessels studies (EPA 2009); and site-specific data. Emissions from vessels and tugboats were estimated as a product of the marine engine emission factors, the time that the engines are operated, and the power ratings and the load factors of the engines. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A and the estimated emissions are provided in Attachment 2 of Appendix A. Truck Emissions Exhaust emissions from trucks used for ethanol transportation were estimated as a product of truck emission factors, round-trip distance between the project site and the trucks’ destination, and the annual number of trucks required to transport ethanol. Emission factors for heavy duty diesel trucks were obtained from the CARB’s EMFAC2011 model (CARB 2013). The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A and the estimated emissions are provided in Attachment 2 of Appendix A. Loading Rack Emissions ROG emissions from ethanol loading at the loading rack were estimated by using the methodology recommended by the BAAQMD. Baseline emissions were determined using the site-specific source test results and the ethanol throughput during the baseline period. Post-project emissions were determined by using the proposed denatured ethanol throughput of 87,200,000 gpy (includes 85,000,000 gpy of neat ethanol and 2.5 percent by volume gasoline), along with
ERM
30
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
the proposed best available control technology (BACT) limit of 0.02 pounds organic per 1,000 gallons loaded at the loading rack. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A and the estimated emissions are provided in Attachment 2 of Appendix A. Storage Tanks Emissions ROG emissions from storage tanks were estimated by using the EPA’s TANKS 4.09d modeling software. TANKS 4.09d output report that also describes the model inputs is provided in Attachment 3 of Appendix A. Fugitive Component Emissions Fugitive ROG emissions from the additional pipeline components were estimated by using the pegged leaker approach recommended by the BAAQMD. The methodology uses the correlation equations and pegged leaker emission factors provided in the California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions from Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities (CAPCOA/CARB 1999), with the BAAQMD Rule 8-18 component emission definitions as the screening values and percent of component count as non-repairable equipment for count of pegged leakers. Construction Emissions for Equipment Installation Construction emissions were estimated by using the BAAQMD approved CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2. Model output report that also lists the inputs is provided in Attachment 1 of Appendix A.
ERM
31
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Table 4-1
Annual Operational Emissions Increase Summary for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Annual Emissions Increase (Tons/year)
Source
CO
NOx
SO2
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
1.39
12.18
1.11
0.68
0.42
0.41
1.67
7.96
0.02
0.35
0.09
0.08
---
---
---
0.83
---
---
Tank 56
---
---
---
0.07
---
---
Tank 57
---
---
---
0.01
---
---
---
---
---
0.16
---
---
---
---
---
0.78
---
---
Total Unmitigated Emissions
3.05
20.14
1.13
2.88
0.51
0.49
Offsets (Mitigation)
0.0
-14.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Mitigated Emissions
3.05
6.13
1.13
2.88
0.51
0.49
Significance Threshold
---
10
---
10
15
10
Significant Impact (with Mitigation)
NA
No
NA
No
No
No
Vessels
1
Ethanol Tanker Trucks
2
3
Loading Rack (Ethanol Loading) 4
4
Tank 58
Fugitive Pipeline Components
ERM
5
1.
Emissions increase for vessels is based on up to 16 additional ship calls per year
2.
Emissions increase for tanker trucks was estimated only for the additional trucks carrying ethanol.
3.
Emissions increase from loading rack was estimated for change in ethanol throughput only.
4.
Tanks 56 and 58 were not in service during the baseline period. Therefore, emissions increase = post project PTE.
5.
Emissions increase for fugitive components is for additional components required from implementation of the project.
32
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Table 4-2
Daily Construction and Operational Emissions Increase Summary for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Basis
Average Daily Emissions Increase (lb/day)
Source
CO
NOx
SO2
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
10.40
14.06
0.02
1.63
0.72
0.70
7.59
66.72
6.06
3.75
2.31
2.25
9.14
43.63
0.11
1.94
0.48
0.45
---
---
---
---
---
Tank 56
---
---
---
0.40
---
---
Tank 57
---
---
---
0.04
---
---
Tank 58
---
---
---
0.87
---
---
Fugitive Pipeline 6 Components
---
---
---
---
---
Total Operational Emissions Increase
16.73
110.35
6.17
15.79
2.80
2.70
Offsets (Mitigation)
0.0
-76.77
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Mitigated Operational Emissions
16.73
33.58
6.17
15.79
2.80
2.70
Significance Threshold
---
54
---
54
82
54
Significant Impact (with Mitigation)
No
No
NA
No
No
No
Total Construction Emissions Vessels
1
2
Ethanol Tanker 3 Trucks Loading Rack (Ethanol Loading) 5
Net Change in Operational Emissions
ERM
5
4
4.55
4.25
1.
Construction Emissions for the project were estimated by using CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Model input and output are provided in Attachment 1 of Appendix A.
2.
Emissions increase for vessels is based on up to 16 additional ship calls per year.
3.
Emissions increase for tanker trucks was estimated only for additional trucks carrying ethanol.
4.
Emissions increase from loading rack were estimated for change in ethanol throughput only.
5.
Tanks 56 and 58 were not in service during the baseline period. Therefore, emissions increase = post project PTE.
6.
Emissions increase for fugitive components is for additional components required due to the project.
33
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance, or attainment of, state and national standards. Such plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county or region. The most recent BAAQMD plan for attaining state standards, the 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010), was adopted on September 15, 2010. The 2010 Clean Air Plan demonstrates how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the state 1-hour standard for ozone. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to: 1. Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy was developed in order to bring the region into compliance with State and federal air quality standards and was adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors in January 2006; 2. Consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; 3. Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and 4. Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2009 to 2012 timeframe. The 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Section 9.1, state that if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project may be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP (BAAQMD 2012). Sections b) and c) below demonstrate that construction and operation of the project (with mitigation) would not exceed any emissions thresholds and would not result in a significant impact; therefore implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans set forth by BAAQMD or the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Further, BP would be required to comply with all BAAQMD rules and regulations through its Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
ERM
34
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
b) and c) Would the Project b) violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? or c) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As shown in Table 4-2, construction-related emissions increases are less than the significance thresholds. Further, BP would implement all the basic mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD in its CEQA Guidelines during the project construction. Therefore, the project construction would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation. As shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, post-project operational emissions increases above the 2011 through 2013 baseline period are less than the significance thresholds for all pollutants except NOx, which is an ozone precursor. As noted above, BP would mitigate this impact to less than significant level by providing offsets for the amount of NOx emissions from the vessels. For the vessels, NOx offsets would be provided in accordance to the BAAQMD New Source Review Rule 2-2, because the vessels are subject to this rule. Rule 2-2 requires ozone precursor emissions (NOx and ROG) to be offset completely to zero such that there is no increase of these emissions from projects. Offsetting the vessel NOx emissions would bring total project NOx emissions down to a level below the significance threshold. Under Rule 2-2, NOx offsets may be provided from sources within the air basin. In addition, under Rule 2-2, ROG offsets are acceptable for NOx emissions, since ROG and NOx are ozone precursors and fewer ROG emissions lead to less ozone formation. Ozone formation is of regional concern, and is not a health issue that can be localized to the immediate vicinity of the facility or merely the City of Richmond. In fact, the SFBAAB attains the state and federal NO2 standards. Rather, the photochemical reaction of NOx and ROG form ozone (commonly referred to as “smog”) at some distance downwind of the source of emissions. Thus NOx and ROG are both considered regional pollutants and continue to be regulated in the SFBAAB to maintain the ozone standard and control emissions that may be responsible for ozone impacts downwind of the air basin. With mitigation, the project would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air
ERM
35
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
quality violation. Based on BAAQMD guidance, if a project would result in an increase in ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 of more than its respective average daily mass significance thresholds, then it would also be considered to contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project would exceed the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, and if a project would not exceed the significance thresholds, its emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 4-1, post-project operational emissions increases for all pollutants except NOx are less than their respective significance thresholds. However, BP will provide offsets to mitigate the NOx impacts, such that the mitigated emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. Vessel Operations As discussed in the Project Description, the Terminal would require 16 vessel trips per year (or an average of 1.33 trips per month) to transport 85,000,000 gpy of neat ethanol. Currently, the terminal does not receive ethanol by vessels. Therefore, the 16 ethanol-laden vessel trips per year represent the potential, postproject scenario. There are no baseline emissions from ethanol-laden vessels. The methodology used to estimate incremental emissions from additional vessel trips is summarized below and described in detail in Appendix A. Vessels are assisted by tugboats while they are transiting near the port. Emissions from vessels and tugboats were estimated by using the methodology and data provided by the following sources: emissions inventory studies for Port of Richmond (Coalition 2010), Port of Oakland (Port of Oakland 2013) and Port of Los Angeles (Starcrest 2013); CARB’s ocean-going vessels (CARB 2011) and commercial harborcraft (CARB 2007) emissions estimation guidelines; EPA’s marine vessels studies (EPA 2009); and site-specific data. Emissions from vessels were estimated for the vessel operation from the offshore BAAQMD boundary, which is 11 nautical miles (nm) west of the Golden Gate Bridge, to the Terminal, near the Port of Richmond. Emissions from vessels were estimated as a product of the marine engine emission factors, the time that the engines are operated, and the power ratings and the load factors of the engines. At any given time the facility can store a maximum of 5,250,000 gallons of ethanol. Therefore a minimum of 16 vessel calls per year would be required to transport 85,000,000 gallons of ethanol per year. BP has no operational control over the size of vessels that call on to its wharf. Larger ships (in terms of dead
ERM
36
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
weight tonnage [DWT]) have higher cargo capacity than smaller vessels. As such, the larger vessels would be partially loaded with BP’s cargo whereas, the smaller vessels could be fully loaded up to its capacity with BP’s cargo. Engine power rating also decreases as the vessel size reduces. Therefore, incremental vessel emissions were estimated for the following two scenarios: 1. Sixteen calls per year of minimum size ship (in terms of DWT) and corresponding engine power rating required to transport 85,000,000 gallons of neat ethanol. This scenario assumes that the smallest vessel would be fully loaded with only this terminal’s cargo and the entire emissions from this vessel’s call would be attributed to the terminal. 2. Sixteen calls per year of maximum size vessel (45,500 DWT) that the dock can receive and corresponding engine power rating. This scenario assumes that the largest ship would be fully loaded with cargo; however, only a portion of the cargo would belong to this terminal. Therefore, the emissions from this ship’s call would be apportioned by the ratio of ethanol offloaded at the terminal to the cargo capacity of the ship. Scenario 1 resulted in higher emissions; therefore, Scenario 1 is presented in this IS. Table 4-3 summarizes the estimated incremental emissions from Scenario 1. Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.
ERM
37
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Table 4-3
Incremental Vessel Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project
Source
Incremental Annual Emissions (Tons/year) CO
NOx
SO2
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
Ships
0.93
10.64
1.11
0.56
0.34
0.33
Tugboats
0.46
1.54
0.00
0.12
0.08
0.08
Total
1.39
12.18
1.11
0.68
0.42
0.41
Source
Incremental Average Daily Emissions (lb/day) CO
NOx
SO2
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
Ships
5.09
58.31
6.06
3.07
1.87
1.81
Tugboats
2.51
8.41
0.01
0.68
0.44
0.44
Total
7.59
66.72
6.06
3.75
2.31
2.25
Truck Emissions As a result of the project, a portion of the additional ethanol brought in through vessels would be transported to other third-party transfer facilities via trucks. As such, the project would cause an increase in truck traffic and associated emissions at the Terminal. Over the year 2011 to year 2013 period, an average of 1,346 trucks per year transported ethanol from the Terminal. The increase in ethanol transport truck trips due to the project is the difference between these trips and the number of trips required to transport 87,200,000 gallons of denatured ethanol. This would be 10,140 trips of trucks with a capacity of 8,600 gallons each. Thus the incremental increase in project-related truck trips would be 8,794. Ethanol would be transported by trucks from the Richmond Terminal to transfer facilities located in Chico, Sacramento, Stockton, Brisbane, and San Jose. The longest trip length within the SFBAAB to these destinations was used for estimating criteria pollutants emissions from trucks. Estimated round-trip truck emissions are summarized in Table 4-4. All calculations and methodologies for estimating truck emissions are presented in Appendix A.
ERM
38
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Loading Rack Emissions Because the total ethanol throughput at the loading rack would increase as a result of the project, ROG emissions are expected to increase from the loading rack and the associated VRU. Estimated loading rack emissions are summarized in Table 4-5. Calculations and methodology for estimating loading rack emissions are presented in Appendix A.
ERM
39
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Table 4-4
Tanker Truck Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Annual Emissions
Average Baseline (2011-2013)
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) CO
NOx
SO2
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
1,346
0.47
2.04
0.00
0.11
0.06
0.06
10,140
2.14
10.00
0.02
0.46
0.15
0.14
1.67
7.96
0.02
0.35
0.09
0.08
1
Post Project Emissions Increase Daily Emissions Average Baseline (2011-2013)
Average Daily Emissions (lb/day) CO
NOx
SO2
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
4
2.56
11.18
0.02
0.58
0.35
0.32
28
11.70
54.80
0.12
2.51
0.83
0.77
9.14
43.63
0.11
1.94
0.48
0.45
1
Emissions Increase
Table 4-5
2
Average Daily Number of Trucks
Post Project
1. 2.
2
Average Annual Number of Trucks
Based on average over three year baseline period of 2011-2013. Emissions are based on round-trip distance between Richmond Terminal and SFBAAB boundary for the annual and daily number of trucks shown.
Ethanol Loading Rack Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Total NMOC Emission Factor (lb/1000 gal)
Annual Throughput * (gal/yr)
Average Daily Emissions (lb/day)
Annual Emissions (tpy)
Baseline Year 2011
0.007
14,024,491
0.28
0.05
Baseline Year 2012
0.007
11,186,367
0.22
0.04
Baseline Year 2013
0.007
9,503,635
0.19
0.03
0.23
0.04
4.78
0.87
4.55
0.83
Basis Baseline Actual Emissions (BAE)
Average Annual Baseline Emissions Post-Project Potential To Emit (PTE)
0.02
87,200,000*
Emissions Increase (PTE-BAE)
* 2011 through 2013 Annual Throughput represents the actual throughput of denatured ethanol loaded at the loading rack. Post-project denatured ethanol loading rate = 87,200,000 gal per year (= 85,000,000 gal. per year /[1-2.5% by volume Gasoline]).
ERM
40
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Storage Tanks Emissions BP proposes to import approximately 85,000,000 gallons of neat ethanol per year at the Terminal. Neat ethanol unloaded from the vessels at the South Dock would be denatured by blending it in the piping with gasoline. Denatured ethanol contains approximately 2.5 percent gasoline by volume. The denatured ethanol would then be transferred into Tanks 56, 57, and 58 via the same piping. The maximum denatured ethanol throughput is assumed to be split equally between Tanks 56, 57, and 58 (i.e., 29,059,829 gallons of denatured ethanol each or 28,333,333 gallons of neat ethanol each). Tank 56 is currently permitted under a BAAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) to store a combined throughput of 158,760,000 gallons of diesel, Jet A, and/or gasoline per year. As such, BP is requesting that BAAQMD update the PTO conditions to allow Tank 56 to store ethanol as part of the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project permit application. Tank 56 has been out of service since 2009; therefore, there are no baseline emissions from Tank 56. Tank 57 is currently permitted to store 69,888,000 gpy of ethanol, and Tank 58 is currently permitted to store 34,944,000 gpy of ethanol and 34,944,000 gpy of Jet A. If the project is implemented, these tanks would continue to store the same materials at or below the permitted throughput. However, there could be a change in throughput compared to baseline levels for CEQA purposes. During the baseline period (2011-2013) Tank 57 had an average denatured ethanol throughput of 23,296,070 gpy, resulting in 129 pounds/year of ROG emissions from denatured ethanol storage. Tank 58 has been out of service since 2010 but would be brought back online to potentially store some of the additional ethanol. Therefore, there are no baseline emissions from Tank 58. Baseline and post-project emissions from Tanks 56, 57, and 58 were estimated using the EPA’s TANKS 4.09d software (Tables 4-1 and 4-2). Post-project potential emissions for each tank were estimated for a throughput of 29,066,667 gpy of denatured ethanol. Fugitive Component Emissions Incremental fugitive ROG emissions from the project are based on the total count of new/additional piping components, including those on the new injection skid and truck rack loading arm. Fugitive ROG emissions from the additional pipeline components were estimated by using the pegged leaker approach recommended by the BAAQMD and described above. Estimated incremental emissions from additional fugitive components are summarized in Table 4-6 and detailed calculations are presented in Appendix A.
ERM
41
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Table 4-6
Fugitive Component Emissions for the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project
Count
Component Type
Total Incremental Average Daily ROG Emission
Total Incremental Annual ROG Emissions
Gasoline Service
Ethanol Service
lb/day
ton/yr
Valves
13
60
1.014
0.185
Pressure Relief Valves
1
3
0.272
0.050
Flanges
26
64
1.656
0.302
Connectors
13
169
0.784
0.143
Pumps
2
1
0.522
0.095
Total
55
297
4.248
0.775
Construction Emissions for Equipment Installation Project construction activities would include “mechanical modification” activities such as installation of pre-fabricated blending skid on an existing concrete pad, piping, ducting, storage tank conditioning, and welding. No soil disturbance or excavation would be involved. The overall construction would take approximately three months, including construction planning and mobilization. However, construction activities that would generate emissions are expected to be of shorter duration (approximately 20 days). Construction emissions were conservatively estimated using the BAAQMD-approved CalEEMod 2013.2.2 emissions model. Daily emissions from project construction are summarized in Table 4-2. As shown in Table 4-2, construction emissions for the project would not exceed the construction significance thresholds; therefore, the impacts from the construction phase would be less than significant. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (e.g., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Sensitive receptors correspond to land uses that include residences, schools, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and
ERM
42
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors to the Terminal include residences on Seacliff Place, located approximately 1,600 feet (1/3 mile) southwest of the project site. The closest residence to Canal Boulevard, which is the truck route to I-580, is 350 feet to the west. The closest school is Washington Elementary School, located just over one mile northwest of the project site and 750 feet west of Canal Boulevard. The project would result in an increase in emissions and concentrations of TACs and PM2.5, which are defined as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. The significance of TACs and PM2.5 from the project is dependent on exposure to substantial concentrations of those pollutants that could lead to an increased chance of cancer or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs and PM2.5, as determined by the significance thresholds stated above. The analysis of whether the TACs and PM2.5 impacts are considered significant is further discussed below. The increase in ethanol itself would not increase TAC emissions and concentrations, because ethanol is not a TAC. However, the project would increase vessel and trucking activity at the BP Terminal. ARB has declared that Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) from diesel engine exhaust is a TAC. There would also be a slight increase in TACs in piping connection points from the gasoline used to denature the additional ethanol as the denatured ethanol is transmitted from the tank to the loading rack. Further, the trucks loading the additional ethanol would contain vapors from the products they previously held and, and these vapors would be displaced as the trucks load ethanol. During the loading, these vapors are routed to the vapor recovery unit abatement device. Health Risk Assessment Construction Sources Health risks from construction would occur from DPM emissions from dieselpowered, off-road equipment and trucks. It was conservatively assumed that construction activities would take place over approximately 20 days. Construction emissions were modeled as three elevated area sources centered around the location of construction activities: between the dock and tank farm, around the injection skid, and at the loading rack, lane 4. Detailed source parameters are provided in Appendix B.
ERM
43
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Operational Sources The health risk assessment modeled DPM emissions from diesel-powered engines on vessels, tugboats, and trucks, speciated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and PM10 TAC emissions from diesel-powered auxiliary boilers on vessels, and speciated VOC TAC emissions from Tanks 56, 57, and 58, additional piping component leaks, and the vapor recovery unit. The potential increase in health risk from TACs, including DPM (which is predominantly PM2.5) was modeled using the EPA ISCST3 dispersion model and the ARB Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP). Specific modeling parameters are presented in Appendix B. DPM emissions from diesel-powered main and auxiliary engines from 16 ship trips per year were modeled as a line of separated volume sources coming into the Santa Fe Channel and docking. Similarly, DPM emissions from dieselpowered main and auxiliary engines from 16 trips per year of tugboats assisting the ships were modeled as a line of separated volume sources coming into the Santa Fe Channel and docking. Vessels hoteling at the dock would run on auxiliary power from the on-board boilers and engines. TAC emissions from hoteling were modeled as point sources. PM10 emissions from auxiliary engines were modeled as DPM. VOC and PM10 emissions from auxiliary boilers were speciated into TACs using the TAC speciation profile for boilers obtained from CARB Speciate database. DPM emissions from ethanol trucks traveling on Canal Boulevard to and from I-580 were modeled as a line of separated volume sources in ISCST3. A total of 17,588 truck trips were modeled on Canal Boulevard to represent the inbound and outbound 8,794 project ethanol trucks. DPM emissions from trucks idling at the facility were modeled as point source. TAC emissions from the fugitive VOC leaks at connection points in the additional piping were modeled as an area source, and the vapor recovery unit TAC emissions were modeled as a point source. The vapor recovery unit vents horizontally but was modeled as both a vertical exhaust point source and horizontal exhaust point source, and the worst-case result from each of these modeling scenarios is presented. TAC emissions from Tanks 56, 57, and 58 were modeled as circular area sources. Figure 4-1 shows the modeled vessel and truck sources, and Figure 4-2 shows the modeled facility sources.
ERM
44
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Risk Assessment Methodology For construction impacts, exhaust PM10 (DPM) and total PM2.5 concentrations were obtained by dispersion modeling using ISCST3 model and 5 years of meteorological data obtained from BAAQMD website. Cancer risk and chronic hazard index from DPM were estimated using the equations provided in BAAQMD’s 2012 modeling guidelines. The residential cancer risk from construction activities were estimated for a child-resident using 9 years exposure period, a daily breathing rate of 581 liters/kg body weight-day and a cancer risk adjustment factor (CRAF) for 9-year exposure of 4.8. Exposure values for student receptor were used to estimate cancer risk at Washington Elementary School: 9 years, 180 days/year, and 10 hrs/day. A daily breathing rate of 581 liters/kg body weight-day and an Age Sensitivity Factor (ASF) of 3 were used for receptors at the school. The worker cancer risk from construction activities were estimated for 9 years exposure period, a daily breathing rate of 149 liters/kg body weight-day and an ASF of 1.0. The risk assessment for operational impacts accounted for a 70-year lifetime exposure to TACs concentrations for residential receptors. The risk assessment incorporated a 1.7 CRAF. It is believed that the age weighting factors, which apply to infants, children, and adolescents, account for increased sensitivities to carcinogens. A CRAF of 1.7 is recommended for a total lifetime exposure (OEHHA 2009). For receptors at Washington elementary school, the 70-year, HARP-estimated residential cancer risk was adjusted for student exposure, which is 9 years, 180 days/year, and 10 hrs/day, daily breathing rate of 581 liters/kg body weight-day and multiplied by ASF of 3. For PM2.5 concentrations, the maximum annual average concentration is reported. The Industrial Source Complex-3 model (Version 02035) was used for the modeling analysis, with the following inputs: •
A Cartesian grid receptor network with a total of 8,533 receptors, with the following resolution (Figure 4-3): o 10 meter (m) resolution/spacing out to 100 m from the fence line; o 25 m resolution from 100 m to 500 m from the fence line; o 100 m resolution from 500 m to 1,500 m from the fence line; o 300 m resolution from 1,500 m to 3,000 m from the fence line;
ERM
45
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
•
Surface meteorological data and upper air meteorological data from University of California Berkeley Richmond Field Station; and
•
Both rural and urban dispersion conditions and the worst-case results reported for the modeling.
Risk Assessment Results – Construction The results of the risk assessment for construction emissions are summarized in Table 4-7 below. The modeled cancer and chronic health risk and annual PM2.5 concentration at the maximum exposed individual residential (MEIR) receptor are all well below the significance thresholds. The MEIR is located to the west of the Terminal, on Seacliff Place. Results of the risk assessment are shown graphically in Figure 4-4. As shown in these results, the construction emissions would not have a significant impact on sensitive receptors. Table 4-7
Summary of Potential Health Risk from Construction Emissions Cancer Risk
Chronic
PM2.5 Concentration
(per million) (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
Hazard Index (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
μg/m (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
0.29
0.0002
0.001
(555165E, 4196112N)
(555165E, 4196112N)
(555165E, 4196102N)
0.01
0.0000
0.0002
(554400E, 4197550N)
(554400E, 4197550N)
(554400E, 4197550N)
1
Type of Estimated Health Impact
Maximum Exposed Individual Residential (MEIR)
Washington Elementary School
3
1. MEIR cancer risk includes CRAF of 4.8 and exposure duration of 9 years. For the maximum sensitive receptor which is an elementary school, exposure values for student were used, which are 9 years, 180 days/year, and 10 hrs/day, and multiplied, by an ASF of 3. A daily breathing rate of 581 L-kg BW.day was used for receptors at both residence and school. The maximum impacts were modeled with rural dispersion conditions.
Risk Assessment Results – Operations The results of the risk assessment are summarized in Table 4-8 below. The modeled risk at the MEIR receptor is 2.41 in one million, which is below the significance threshold of 10 in one million. The MEIR is located to the west of the Terminal, on Seacliff Place. Results of the risk assessment are shown graphically in Figure 4-5. As shown in these results, emissions from operations would result in a less than significant impact.
ERM
46
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Table 4-8
Summary of Potential Health Risk from the Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Emissions Cancer Risk
Chronic
Acute
(per million) (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
Hazard Index (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
Hazard Index (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
PM2.5 Concentration 3 μg/m (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
2.41
0.10
0.37
0.00681
(555075E, 4196122N)
(554850E, 4196325N)
(555105E, 4196122N)
(555075E, 4196122N)
Terrain - rural; Exit - vertical
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural; Exit - vertical
0.51
0.12
0.14
0.013
(556125E, 4196850N)
(556150E, 4196700N)
(555735E, 4196002N)
(556125E, 4196875N)
Terrain - rural; Exit - vertical
Terrain - urban Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - urban Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - vertical
0.05
0.0142
0.064
0.00146
(554400E, 4197600N)
(554400E, 4197600N)
(554300E, 4197600N)
(554400E, 4197550N)
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - urban Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
1
Type of Estimated Health Impact
Maximum Exposed Individual Residential (MEIR)
Maximum Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW)
Washington Elementary School
1. MEIR cancer risk includes CRAF of 1.7. For the maximum sensitive receptor which is an elementary school, the HARP 70-year cancer risk was adjusted for student exposure, which is 9 years, 180 days/year, and 10 hrs/day, daily breathing rate of 581 L-kg BW.day and multiplied by ASF of 3.
ERM
47
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Health risks from the project and nearby sources of TACs within the community were evaluated at the MEIR and Washington Elementary School. The cumulative health risk assessment included existing health risks from the Richmond Terminal and health risks modeled above for the proposed project. Risks from nearby community sources within 1,000 feet of the Richmond Terminal and within 1,000 feet of Washington Elementary School were obtained from the Google Earth *.kml files, for stationary permitted sources and roadways, provided by the BAAQMD on its website (http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions /Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx). In addition, risk values for the Terminal’s existing operations were obtained from this .kml file. Table 4-9 below lists the sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the Richmond Terminal and Table 4-10 lists the sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of Washington Elementary School, and the risk values associated with these sources. Note that the health risk values provided by the BAAQMD *.kml files include the age sensitivity factors. The cumulative risks near the MEIR and Washington Elementary School are below the significance thresholds of 100 in a million for cancer risk, below a hazard index of 10 for chronic risk, and below 0.8 µg/m3 for annual PM2.5 concentration. Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show the 1,000-foot radii around the Richmond Terminal and Washington Elementary School, respectively, and the existing stationary sources of TACs within each radius. The cumulative effects on sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
ERM
48
BP RICHMOND/0231330 – JANUARY 2015
Table 4-9
Sources of TACs within 1,000 Feet of the Richmond Terminal and Associated Cumulative Health Risks Impacts from Sources within 1,000 feet of BP Richmond Terminal Property Boundary
Adjusted Impacts
Distance from MEIR
Cancer
Hazard
PM2.5
Type
1300 CANAL BOULEVARD
2,000 ft
27.95
0.014
0.41
NA
City of Richmond (Port Sta)
CANAL BOULEVARD
>2,000 ft
10.94
0.004
0.003
Generator
13637
BP West Coast Products, LLC
1306 CANAL STREET
1,600 ft
56.97
0.027
0.042
NA
13002
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC
1140 CANAL BOULEVARD
2,400 ft
0.02
0
0.06
NA
FID
Plant No
Name
Address
359
15693
ConocoPhillips
316
17304
152
731
CANCER
CHRONIC HAZARD
ANNUAL PM2.5
27.95
0.014
0.410
0.44
0.004
0.0001
56.97
0.027
0.042
0.02
0
0.060
0
0.002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Incremental health impacts from the Neat Ethanol Project
2.41
0.099
0.007
Cumulative health impacts
87.79
0.146
0.519
100
10
0.8
92
15691
Auto Warehousing
1301 CANAL BOULEVARD
1,500 ft
0
0.002
0
NA
93
G11287
Auto Warehousing Co
1311 Canal Boulevard
2,000 ft
NA
NA
NA
GDF
Approx. 20 ft from school property boundary
20 ft
NA
NA
3
Canal Blvd
Not Included in analysis because Annual Average Daily Traffic 75
--
Land Use Category
Notes: 1. Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. 2. Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 3. Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 4. Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. Source: CCCGP 2005, Noise Element – Figure 11-6.
The City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance contains Noise Standards (Section 15.04.840.020) and the Community Noise Ordinance Exterior Noise Limits (Section 9.52.100 and 9.52.110) establish the following noise thresholds: •
No uses or activities are to exceed 60 dBA at the property line of a single family or 65 dBA at the property line of a multifamily residential property for more than 30 minutes in any hour (L50).
•
At night (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.) the noise levels from heavy and marine industrial districts are not to exceed 50 dBA for more than 5 minutes in any hour at the boundary of a Residential Zone.
The ordinance also specifies decibel levels under which short term construction activities should stay where technically and economically feasible. Those maximum sound levels during construction are summarized in Table 4-15 for portable equipment. Table 4–15 Portable Construction Equipment Noise Thresholds (dBA) Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial/Industrial
Weekdays (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
75
80
85
Weekends (9 a.m. to 8 p.m.)
60
65
70
ERM
97
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed project site modifications (equipment, extension of the concrete pad) are located entirely within the existing boundaries of the BP Terminal, a highly industrialized area, with no noise-sensitive receptors immediately adjoining the project site. The nearest residential community is a residential neighborhood along Seacliff Drive located approximately 1,600 feet (1/3 mile) west of the Terminal. All construction would occur east of Canal Boulevard, and would predominantly occur during daytime hours (between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.). The existing noise level near the residential community is about 60 dBA CNEL. Based on the expected level of construction activity, the noise levels are predicted to increase by about 1 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential community. Generally, an increase of less than 3 dBA at any particular time is not perceptible, Therefore, the proposed construction activity would not generate substantial noise levels at the nearby residences. During the operations phase of the project, daily truck trips would increase by 17 and vessel calls would increase by 16 (1-2 per month). The increase in noise levels is a function of both the existing (background) noise levels and the increase in noise from the additional sources. The 2008 Honda Port of Entry Project EIR measured existing noise levels of 57 to 60 dBA CNEL near the residents located 1/3 mile west. Noise levels at about 50 feet from Canal Blvd was estimated to be no more than 72 dBA. The closest receptor along the Canal Blvd route is about 350 feet away. Assuming a background noise level of 60 dBA CNEL, the estimated increase in noise from project truck traffic would be well below 1 dBA at the receptor near Canal Blvd.( This is based on a daily average of standard noise levels for trucks 4 and the measured background levels cited in the 2008 Honda Port of Entry Project EIR. This estimate does not take into account topography or manmade structures that would attenuate or dampen noise. The noise impact is expected to be even less at the residences located 1/3 mile west. Again, generally, an increase of less than 3 dBA at any particular time is not perceptible. See Appendix D for more details on the above noise estimates.
4
Using standard noise estimates for heavy-duty trucks, and a daily average of 17 trucks spread
throughout the day, the noise level at 360 feet from the source would be approximately 45 dBA, excluding background noise. Taking into account a background noise level of 60 dBA, the incremental noise would be well below 1 dBA. Because noise measurements are logarithmic, the total noise level is not simply the numerical summation of the existing noise level and the noise level generated by the additional 17 trucks.
ERM
98
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
The BP Terminal can only accommodate one vessel at a time, and so the additional 1 to 2 vessel calls per month would result in the same noise level as vessels currently calling at the BP Terminal. The additional truck and vessel traffic, therefore, are not expected to significantly contribute to an exceedance of the CCCGP and City ordinance and would not have a significant noise impact. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would increase the number of vessels and trucks traveling to and from the BP Terminal, which is in an industrial setting. In addition, an injection skid pump would be installed. The vessels and pumps are generally not significant sources of ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Heavy duty trucks, such as the 17 additional trucks per day, can contribute to ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise, but proposed truck traffic would occur within established highways and roadways suitable for truck traffic, and would be consistent with the current level of ground-borne vibration or noise levels as existing conditions. In addition, the most stringent vibration significance criteria recommended (United States Federal Transit Administration 2006) during operations is 65 vibration decibels (VdB). Loaded trucks at a distance of 350 feet will generate vibration levels less than 53 VdB. Therefore, the proposed activity would not have a significant increase in ground-borne vibration or noise levels. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item a) above, the project would not increase noise levels significantly at the residences located 1,600 feet (1/3 mile) west of the project site. Site workers will continue to wear appropriate hearing protection to reduce noise levels. With appropriate hearing protection, noise exposure to employees would continue to be below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration level of 90 dBA (8-hour time weighted average). d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item a) above, construction would not cause a substantial increase in noise. The proposed increase in truck
ERM
99
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
and vessel traffic would not generate substantial noise levels at residences located 1/3 mile west. During construction, site workers will continue to wear appropriate hearing protection to reduce noise levels. Construction workers operating construction equipment would also wear appropriate hearing protection while working on and around heavy equipment. If necessary, engineering controls could be implemented, including replacing defective equipment parts, tightening loose or vibrating equipment parts, and placing “noisy” equipment away from the work area. With appropriate hearing protection, noise exposure to workers would be below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration level of 90 dBA (8-hour time weighted average). Therefore the project’s impact on ambient noise levels would be less than significant. e) and f) For a project e) located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? or f) within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it within 2 miles of a public or private airport. No impact would occur.
ERM
100
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.13
POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Population and Housing Setting: The City of Richmond General Plan includes a growth capacity for the development of up to 22,448 new jobs and up to 15,548 new dwelling units through 2030. With its current development and this amount of growth capacity, the City could grow to 61,220 jobs and 46,460 dwelling units in total, supporting a residential population of approximately 128,000 people (City of Richmond 2011). Between 2010 and 2010, the average annual population growth rate in the City was 0.4 percent (City of Richmond 2012). The rate of growth is expected to increase over the next two decades, and the population is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent, reaching a total population of 132,600 by the year 2030 (City of Richmond 2012). Between 2010 and 2030, an estimated 23,460 new jobs are anticipated to be added in the City (City of Richmond 2012). During this same period (2010 to 2030), an additional 10,380 households (approximately 519 per year) are projected to be added in the City (City of Richmond 2012). a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly, (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project involves modifications of existing equipment and operations at an existing industrial facility, and does not include the construction of residential units. Construction activities would generate limited short-term jobs; no new permanent jobs would be created to accommodate the operational changes at the BP Terminal (Table 2-2). The increased truck and vessel trips that would occur with the project would be accommodated by existing work forces. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate population growth in the City.
ERM
101
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
b) and c) Would the project b) displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? or c) displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There is no housing on the project site; therefore, the project would not displace individuals or residents, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
ERM
102
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.14
PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: •
Fire protection?
•
Police protection?
•
Schools?
•
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Public Services Setting: The BP Terminal has developed an emergency response plan in coordination with the Richmond Fire Department. The project site is served by the BP emergency response team along with the Richmond Fire Department and other emergency services. The BP Terminal has over 80 on-site fire hydrants. The locations of the existing fire hydrants have been approved by the City of Richmond Fire Department. In addition, fire monitors and fire hydrants are located onshore at both the tanker dock and the barge dock. In 2012, a project was completed to install an emergency firewater pump into a pump house located on the Wharf (South Dock). Fire response for the BP Terminal is provided by the Richmond Fire Department. Richmond Fire Department personnel are assigned to seven stations throughout the city. All personnel are trained to the level of Emergency Medical Technician – Defibrillation (EMT–D). The Operations Division is divided into three platoons that staff the eight companies (seven engine companies and one truck company). There are also two adaptive response trucks which are located at Stations 68 and 71. Special resources include a full Hazardous Materials Response Team, two Rescue Units and an Air Unit. The first response station to the Terminal is Station No. 67, located at 1131 Cutting Boulevard, approximately 3 miles northeast of the Terminal.
ERM
103
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
The Richmond Police Department is the responding agency for law enforcement needs in the Terminal vicinity. Because police units are in the field, response times currently vary depending on the location of the nearest unit. The nearest Police Department facility is the main headquarters at 1701 Regatta Boulevard located approximately 3 miles from the project site. Activities within the confines of the Terminal are monitored by an existing security force permanently stationed at the Terminal 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Terminal is fenced, and entry and exit of site workers is monitored. Other local public facilities include Washington Elementary School at 565 Wine Street and the adjacent Washington Park, approximately 1 mile northwest of the project site and Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline, which extends from Point Richmond to Canal Boulevard, across from the project site. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: • Fire protection? • Police protection? • Schools? • Parks? • Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not change the Terminal’s current uses of public services, including emergency services. The project would increase the number of inbound and outbound ethanol trips associated with the project site. Up to 16 additional vessels per year would dock at the Wharf, and truck trips delivering ethanol to offsite locations would increase by approximately 17 per day. The BP Terminal emergency response plan would be modified and communicated with the Richmond Fire Department, but would not require additional services or result in the need for new construction of government facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios. No increased demand on local schools or recreational facilities would result from implementation of the project. Therefore, potential impacts on government facilities are less than significant.
ERM
104
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.15
RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Recreation Setting: The Terminal is in an industrial area, and is not generally used for recreational purposes. The San Francisco Bay is commonly used for water-based recreational activities such as kayaking, sailing, sail/kite boarding, swimming, and fishing. a) and b) Would the project a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? or b) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project site is located on industrial land and would continue to be used for industrial purposes. As stated in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the project would not increase population within the City. The project would not increase the use or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Vessel operations would use established vessel corridors and would not impede local water-based recreation.
ERM
105
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.16
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Traffic/Transportation Setting: Land-Based Setting The most recent available traffic analysis in the project site vicinity was conducted for the 2014 Draft Bottoms Property Residential Project EIR. This EIR analyzed the potential traffic impacts that could result from the construction and operation of 60 units of market‐rate condominiums (City of Richmond 2014a). The Bottoms Property Residential Project is located west of the BP Richmond Terminal and is useful in assessing the recent and projected traffic conditions.
ERM
106
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Interstate 580 (I-580) provides regional access to the project site. I-580 is an east – west roadway with three travel lanes in each direction. The annual daily traffic volume along I-580 is 90,000 vehicles (City of Richmond 2014a). The project site connects to I-580 through Canal Boulevard. Canal Boulevard is a north-south roadway with two lanes in each direction south of Cutting Boulevard and three lanes in each direction north of Cutting Boulevard. Between the project site and I-580, Canal Boulevard crosses Seacliff Drive, West Cutting Boulevard, and I-580 west-bound ramps. The speed limit for Canal Boulevard is 40 miles per hour. A number of roadways in the area are designated truck routes including Canal Boulevard (south of Garrard Boulevard) and Cutting Boulevard (west of Harbour Way South). These regional roadways are designed to handle large trucks like those that are used for delivering ethanol from the BP Richmond Terminal to the market. The operations of roadway segments and intersections are described with the term “level of service.” Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative assessment of the motorists’ and passengers’ perceptions of traffic conditions. Six service levels are defined by the Transportation Research Board, designated by letters ranging from “A” for most favorable “free flow” conditions to “F” for least favorable. An LOS of “E” corresponds to conditions nearing “at–capacity” operations. Table 4-16
Existing Roadway Operations
Intersection
AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LOS (AM, PM)
Seacliff Dr. and Canal Blvd
33
123
A, B
Canal Blvd and W Cutting Blvd
154
269
C, C
Canal Blvd and I-580 W Bound Ramps
395
552
C, C
Source: City of Richmond 2014a
All of the roadway intersections in the vicinity of the project site are operating at LOS C or better. With the build-out of the Bottoms Property Residential Project, the traffic study predicted that intersections would continue operating at LOS C or better (City of Richmond 2014a). The closest Alameda and Contra Costa Transit Authority (AC) bus stop to the site is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the project site on Garrard Boulevard at Cutting Boulevard. No other public transportation serves the project site.
ERM
107
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
In addition, there are local bikeways on Canal Boulevard and West Cutting Boulevard. The bikeway along Canal Boulevard is a Class 1 facility south of Seacliff Drive; it is physically separated from the roadway. The bikeway along Canal Boulevard is a Class 2 facility north of Seacliff Drive; the bikeway in that area is parallel to the roadway. Finally, there is infrastructure for pedestrians along Canal Boulevard. Water-Based Setting As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, more than 6,000 vessels called at Richmond Harbor in 2011, which was the last full year for which records are available (USACE 2014a). The volume of ship traffic in the broader San Francisco Bay is considerably greater. Excluding San Francisco Harbor, nearly 35,000 vessels called at terminals in the Bay Area in 2011, based on reported receipts for Redwood City Harbor, Oakland Harbor, Richmond Harbor, San Pablo Bay/Mare Island Strait, and the Carquinez Strait. As also discussed in Section 4.8, vessel traffic in the San Francisco Bay is highly regulated, with established transit lanes and speed limits, which reduces the potential for collisions or impediments to transit patterns of other seafaring vessels. Water-based traffic hazards are discussed in Section 4.8; the evaluation in this section pertains to land-based traffic/transportation impacts. a) and b) Would the project a) conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? or b) conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. The BP Terminal is located in Contra Costa County within the jurisdiction of the City and the Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) and their Congestion Management Program (CMP) (CCTA 2013). The 2013 CMP outlines requirements regarding level of service on the county's roadways. For new projects generating over 100 peak hour vehicle trips, the 2013 CMP requires further analysis of expected impacts. Since the BP Terminal is well below the threshold, generating no more than 17 new trucks per day, no further analysis was necessary for the CMP.
ERM
108
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
In addition, the West Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (WCCCTA) defines routes of “Regional Significance” which connect two or more regions in the county. From a regional perspective, Cutting Boulevard is designated as a route of Regional Significance. This means that the intersections of the roadway must always maintain a LOS of D or better. Though the project would increase traffic at the intersection of Canal and West Cutting Boulevards, the intersection is currently at an LOS of C and that would not change with the project’s additional traffic, as described below. Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicular traffic during the initial construction phase. The initial construction phase includes installation of mechanical modifications at the project site. As noted in Section 2.4.1, the construction equipment and personnel needed for this phase of the proposed project would represent a temporary increase of less than 30 round trips per day. When the site transitions to normal operations, there would be up to an additional 17 trips per day of trucks delivering ethanol, which averages to one or two trucks per hour. These vehicles would take product from the BP Terminal along Canal Boulevard to I-580. There are three intersections along the route, of which two are signalized and one is not. Therefore, during the morning and afternoon peak hour there would be at most an increase of two trucks per hour. These slight increases are not sufficient to change the projected LOS along the roadway. The additional ethanol shipments arriving by ship would not appreciably affect the number of employees or trigger a significant increase in vehicle traffic from employees. The area roadways are an LOS C or better, and the project’s construction and operational traffic generation would not be anticipated to change or worsen existing LOS. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed the acceptable traffic LOS or to create congestion of the nearby streets, highways, or intersections, and would therefore have less-than-significant traffic impacts. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project would not affect air traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it within 2 miles of a public or private airport. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would not result in an airport safety hazard that could affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, the project would not result in any foreseeable change to air traffic patterns.
ERM
109
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
d) and e) Would the project d) substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? or e) result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project does not involve the construction or modification to any roadways. The roadways in the vicinity of the project site are already designed for product distribution trucks, and project-related traffic would remain in the industrial zone or along expressways connected with the regional roadway network. There would be a project-related increase in traffic associated with trucks transporting ethanol from the project site and a short term period during which construction workers would travel to and from the project site. This increase in traffic would not adversely affect vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the project site or in nearby roadways. Accordingly, there would be no increase in roadway hazards or impact on emergency access to and from the project site. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Canal Boulevard and regional roadways are designed to handle large trucks, like those that are used for delivering ethanol from the BP Terminal to the market. Because there are no proposed changes to roadways in the vicinity of the project site, there would be no direct impacts to the roadways. By extension, there are no impacts to bicycle facilities, bus turnouts, or other means of facilitating alternative transportation. The project would have no impact on adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
ERM
110
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.17
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Would the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?
Utilities/Service Systems Setting: As part of current operations, the BP Terminal produces limited wastes associated with maintenance and repair activities that can involve storage tanks, pipelines (above and underground), roadways and clean up. The volume of waste generated varies depending upon scheduled work (API inspections, projects and preventative maintenance) and unscheduled work (equipment breakdown). Various treatment, storage and disposal facilities are used by BP to address Terminal wastes.
Between 2010 and 2013, the majority of the Terminal wastes (approximately 7.7 million lbs, average of approximately 1.9 million lbs per year) were transported to landfill facilities as summarized in Table 4-17.
ERM
111
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Table 4–17
Summary of Current Waste Disposal Activities (2010-2013) Types of Wastes Disposed of by BP
Facility Information
Approximate Volume
•
Contaminated sandblast materials
48,820 lbs.
Heritage Environmental Services facility in Coolidge, Arizona (EPA ID AZD081705402)
•
Asphalt, soil and petroleumcontaminated debris
257,324 lbs.
The facility comprises approximately 80 acres and contains no onsite land disposal units; the facility accepts containerized wastes including liquids, solids, and sludges. The permitted capacity of the landfill is 63,701 gallons of containerized waste and 100 cubic yards of hazardous wastes with no free liquids (ADEQ 2013).
•
Lead-contaminated paint chips and debris
•
Contaminated sandblast materials
•
Spent carbon
•
Tank bottom sludge and scale
•
Drilling muds and liquids
•
Coolant/oil filters
•
Electronic scrap
•
Ethanol sludge
•
Fire foam
•
Fluorescent bulbs and aerosol cans
•
Used antifreeze, glycol, waste oil
U.S. Ecology Inc. facility in Beatty, Nevada (EPA ID NVT330010000) This 80-acre facility includes two hazardous waste landfill units, seven container management units, and twelve tank management units (U.S. Ecology 2014). The permitted capacity of the active landfill cell is approximately 1.66 million cubic yards. Approximately 25 acres are currently active for hazardous waste operations, and the available capacity is approximately 638,858 cubic yards (Hogaboam 2014). The State of Nevada has submitted an application to the BLM for the release of the 400-acre buffer zone to allow for the expansion of the facility. Without this expansion, the landfill has approximately 4 more years of disposal life, assuming the current rate of disposal. (Nevada EP 2011)
ERM
112
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Types of Wastes Disposed of by BP
Facility Information Forward, Inc. landfill in Manteca, California (EPA ID CAL000190080)
Approximate Volume
•
Asphalt
•
Non-hazardous soil
•
Tank wash water
223,770 lbs.
•
Ethanol tank washout water
564,575 lbs.
•
Oily water
•
Drilling muds and liquids
•
Non-hazardous water
•
Waste oil
6.5 million lbs.
This facility is a privately-owned 751-acre Class II waste disposal and transfer station/materials recovery facility. The permitted capacity of the landfill is approximately 51 million cubic yards, and the available capacity is approximately 23.7 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2014a) Chemical Waste Management facility in Kettleman City, CA (EPA ID CAT000646117) This facility is a privately-owned 1,600-acre commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility. The permitted capacity of the landfill is approximately 18.4 million cubic yards, and the available capacity is approximately 17.4 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2014b) Demenno/Kerdoon recycling facility in Compton, California (EPA ID CAT080013352).
Safety-Kleen recycling facility (formerly operated by Evergreen Oil Inc.) in Newark, California (EPA ID CAD 980887418)
103,742 tons
Waste Volumes Source: BP 2014.
The BP Terminal does not accept any wastewater from vessels docked at the Terminal. Because the vessels are loaded when they transit to and dock at the BP Terminal, there is no need for the use of ballast water during that period. Vessels calling at the BP Terminal do not release ballast water into the San Francisco Bay. Similarly, the BP Terminal does not accept solid waste from vessels docked at the terminal or from trucks. The Terminal receives its potable water from EBMUD. The Terminal occasionally provides water to vessels docked at the wharf, but this is not a routine occurrence. BP Terminal operations include the use of water for support of office and personnel operations, and for fire water. Wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from the Terminal to the Santa Fe Channel are regulated by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB General Permit for Industrial Facilities and the City wastewater discharge permit for the Terminal. Natural gas and electricity are provided by PG&E.
ERM
113
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
a) and d) Would the project a) exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? or d) have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact. BP Terminal operations would not change, except for the increase in ethanol transportation and storage. No new processes with new waste streams would be introduced. Therefore, changes under the project could be accommodated by the existing water and wastewater services, with no need to expand or build new facilities. b) and e) Would the project b) require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? or e) result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. The project would not increase or change wastewater generated at the project site. Therefore, the construction of new or expanded treatment facilities would not be needed. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The minor amount of increased paved surface that would be added under the project (approximately 113 square feet beneath the injection skid within a bermed tank farm) would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff at the project site. Because the project would not change on-site drainage patterns or generate any new sources of water runoff on site, there would be no impacts to stormwater drainage and no need to expand existing facilities. f) and g) Would the project f) be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? and g) comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities (equipment modifications and extension of a concrete pad) would entail minor modifications to the existing equipment, and are not expected to generate any solid waste.
ERM
114
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Activities following implementation of the project would be the same as those currently conducted at the BP Terminal. Currently, trucks and vessels do not normally generate any solid waste that is received by the Terminal. On occasion, there is solid waste received, but the amount is negligible relative to the amount generated by other terminal activities, such as those listed in the Setting discussion above. Additional solid waste that would be generated as a result of the project would be negligible relative to the standard operational waste volumes listed above. Therefore, the project would be served by a facility with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal and water recycling needs. Impacts would be less than significant. The BP Terminal is currently complying with federal, state, and county requirements related to the management of solid waste. The project would not affect BP’s ability to maintain compliance with these requirements.
ERM
115
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
4.18
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Does the project:
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for the project to adversely affect the quality of the environment, reduce or eliminate any plant or animal species, or destroy prehistoric records is less than significant. The project site is part of an existing industrial facility, and does not contain habitat for sensitive biological resources, however, it is close to the San Francisco Bay and the project could result in impacts to fish and wildlife species residing there. Based on the nature of the project, such impacts were found to be less than significant. The project site has been previously disturbed, graded, and developed, and the project would not disturb soils or extend into environmentally sensitive areas, but would remain within the confines of an existing, operating terminal. For additional information, see Section 4.4, Biological Resources and Section 4.5, Cultural Resources.
ERM
116
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed physical changes (during construction) would be negligible and would occur within the existing Terminal property. Incremental increases in vessel and truck traffic would not be cumulatively considerable in the industrial project setting or within the surface circulation corridors that would be used by project trucks and vessels. The project’s impacts would therefore not be cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. As presented in the individual resource sections throughout this Initial Study, impacts from the project’s environmental effects on humans would be less than significant. Therefore, there is no substantial potential for adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
ERM
117
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
5.0
REFERENCES Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2013. Arizona Hazardous Waste Management Act Permit - Heritage Environmental Services LLC (Heritage), Hazardous Waste Storage Facility. December. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/hazwaste/hes.html . Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Richmond/San Pablo. 1996. Accessed June 28, 2014 at http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl BAAQMD 2010. 2010 Clean Air Plan. September. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-andResearch/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx BAAQMD 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/ Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelin es_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en Bay Planning Coalition (Coalition). 2010. SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory. Prepared by: Moffat & Nichol and Environ. June. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research /Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions %20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx Bishop, Charles C., R.D. Knox, R.H. Chapman, D.A. Rodgers, and G.B. Chase. 1973. Geological and Geophysical Investigations for Tri-Cities Seismic Safety and Environmental Resources Study. California Division of Mines and Geology Preliminary Report 19. Accessed 12 March 2014 at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/pr/PR_19/PR_19_Text.pdf BP. 2014. Personal Communication. 23 September 2014. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1999. California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions from Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities. February. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/fugitive/fugitive.htm
ERM
118
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/chc-appendix-bemission-estimates-ver02-27-2012.pdf CARB. 2011. Appendix D, Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels. May. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/ogv11/ogv11appd.pdf CARB. 2013. Mobile Source Emission Inventory – EMFAC2011 model revised January 2013. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/ modeling.htm California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014a. Biogeographic Data Branch search for habitat connectivity and critical habitats. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ CDFW. 2014b. California Natural Diversity Database Search San Quentin and Richmond quadrangles. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/ California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (Geology). 1982. Richmond Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series, Special Studies Zones. January. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/RICHMOND/maps /RICHMOND.PDF California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2014. List of Eligible and Officially Designated Scenic Highways in Contra Costa County. Accessed 20 August 2014 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch /scenic_highways/ California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning – State of California – County of Contra Costa, Richmond Quadrangle, San Quentin Quadrangle. July Accessed 14 August 2014 at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation _Maps/ContraCosta/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_RichmondSanQu entin_Quads_ContraCosta.pdf California Office of Emergency Services (COES). 2014. Website providing online oil spill records. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.calema.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/HistoricalHazMat-Spill-Notifications.aspx
ERM
119
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
California State Land Commission (CSLC). 1995. Final Environmental Impact Report for Consideration of a New Lease for the Operation of a Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Marine Terminal on State Tide and Submerged Lands at Unocal’s San Francisco Refinery – Oleum, Contra Costa County, prepared for the CSLC. February. Additional information provided in Draft EIR dated March 1994. CalRecycle, 2014a. Solid Waste Information System Database. Accessed 1 October 2014 at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/39-AA0015/Detail/ CalRecycle, 2014b. Solid Waste Information System Database. Accessed 1 October 2014 at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/16-AA0027/Detail/ Caltrans. 2014. Caltrans California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Accessed 7 April 2014 at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm City of Richmond. 2008. Honda Port of Entry at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2008022063. July. Accessed 11 March 2014 at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/documentcenter /view/3513 City of Richmond. 2011. Richmond General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 208022018. February. Accessed 21 August 2014 at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/29113 City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Adopted April 25, 2012. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ index.aspx?nid=2608 City of Richmond. 2014a. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bottoms Property Residential Project City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, State Clearinghouse No. 2013102024. March. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/28668 City of Richmond. 2014b. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, State Clearinghouse No. 2011062042. March. Accessed 9 October 2014 at http://chevronmodernization.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/03/Volume-1_DEIR.pdf
ERM
120
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 (CCCGP). January. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.firedepartment.org/about/SAM/references/Core%20Distri ct%20Documents/Contra%20Costa%20County%20General%20Plan%2020 05-2020.pdf Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). 2013. Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. December 18. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.ccta.net/about/download/534d9ab25bb5a.pdf Department of Conservation. California Geologic Survey. 2003. Seismic Hazards Zone Report for the Richmond 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/RICHMOND/ reports/rich_eval.pdf Department of Conservation. Division of Land Resource Protection. 2013. Contra Costa Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. Accessed 13 August 2014 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/contra_costa_12_13_WA.pdf Department of Conservation. Division of Land Resource Protection. 2014. Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2012. April. Accessed 13 August 2014 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/con12.pdf Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Accessed 13 August 2014 at https://www.dfg.ca.gov/ biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp Emlen, J.T. 1974. As cited in DFG 1988. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, Final Report, prepared by ICF International. April. Accessed 12 March 2014 at: http://epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/ports-emission-inv-april09.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas. Map No.06013C0240F. June. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=11765748&IFIT=1 Graymer, R.W., Jones, D.L., and Brabb, E.E. 1994. Preliminary geologic map emphasizing bedrock formations in Contra Costa County, California: A digital database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-622. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-622/ccmap.pdf
ERM
121
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Hogaboam, Rebecca, Environmental Compliance Manager, USEcology Nevada. 2014. Personal Communication. 19 September 2014. Marine Mammal Center (MMC). 2014. Whale information. Accessed August 13 2014 at http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/education/marinemammal-information/cetaceans/gray-whale.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. Whale information. Accessed August 13 2014 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species/mammals/cetaceans/bluewhale.htm Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Management (Nevada EP). 2011. Hazardous Waste Management RCRA Permit NEVHW0025. Accessed 14 August 2014 at http://www.american ecology.com/downloads/beatty_forms/rcra_permit.pdf Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors. May. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2009/TSDCancerPotency.pdf Port of Oakland. 2013. Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory. November. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.portofoakland.com/ pdf/environment/maqip_emissions_inventory.pdf San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 2008. San Francisco Bay Plan. January. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.bcdc.ca. gov/laws_plans/plans/sfbay_plan.shtml San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2011. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). December. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov /sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.shtml San Francisco Bay Whale Watching (SFBWW). 2014. Whale location information. Accessed August 2014 at https://www.sfbaywhalewatching.com/ Secor. 2007. Letter to Lindsay Whalin of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, subject: Summary of Fuel Releases, BP Terminal No. 16T. September 17. Accessed 10 March 2014 at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ esi/uploads/geo_report/3558367669/T0601300023.PDF Secor. 2011. Additional Product Sheen Assessment and Interim Remedial Action Status Report. February 1. Accessed 10 March 2014 at http://geotracker.water boards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/4399106621/T0601300023.PDF
ERM
122
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Stantec. 2014. Fourth Quarter 2013 Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation Status Report. January 23. Accessed 11 March 2014 at http://geotracker.water boards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/6229145109/T0601300023.PDF Starcrest. 2013. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions 2012. July. Accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.portoflosangeles.org/pdf/ 2012_Air_Emissions_Inventory.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014a. Navigation Data Center. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/ webpub11/Part4_Ports_Tripsbydraft_CY2011.HTM USACE. 2014b. Navigation Data Center. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.nav igationdatacenter.us/wcsc/webpub11/Part4_WWYs_Tripsbydraft_CY2011 .HTM U.S. Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, September. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/C A013/0/contracosta.pdf United States Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Accessed 7 March 2014 at http://www.fta. dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, California. Xviii + 605pp. Accessed 14 March 2014 at http://www.fws.gov/ sacramento/es/Recovery-Planning/Tidal-Marsh/es_recovery_tidalmarsh-recovery.htm USFWS. 2014. National Wetlands Inventory map query. Accessed 14 March 2014 at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html U.S. Ecology. 2014. Nevada. Customer Audit Handbook. July. Accessed 14 August 2014 at http://www.americanecology.com/downloads/ beatty_forms/USEN%20Audit%20Package%202013.pdf
ERM
123
BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY 2015
Appendix A Emissions Estimation Methodologies for Comparison with CEQA Thresholds Attachment A-1 – Cal EEMod Inputs and Outputs for Construction Emissions Attachment A-2 – Estimated Emissions for Comparison with CEQA Thresholds Attachment A-3 – TANKS 4.09d Reports for Tanks 56, 57, and 58
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction emissions were estimated by using the BAAQMD approved CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2, see Attachment A-1 of this Appendix. The CalEEMod model uses information about the acreage and land use of a facility to estimate project-related emissions. The land use was characterized as “general light industry”. The construction inputs are in the form of a timeline, showing the duration of each phase of construction. The project construction will primarily involve installation of equipment and some concrete work. Therefore, only the “building construction” phase was selected in CalEEMod. The construction duration is approximately three month, including planning and mobilization. The actual emissions-generating construction activities would occur over a period of approximately 20 days. The construction is expected to begin in the third quarter of 2015. Project-specific equipment type, number of pieces, and usage were input in place of the model defaults. The number of worker-vehicle trips was estimated using CalEEMod methodology (1.25 worker trips per piece of equipment). The number of vendor-vehicle trips was assumed to be 4 one-way trips per day (2 vendor trucks per day). CalEEMod defaults were used for vehicle trip-length, vehicle speed, and other parameters required to estimate fugitive road dust emission factors. CalEEMod default was used for percentage of trip length on paved roads. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Marine Vessels Emissions from vessels and the tugboats that assist these vessels while they are transiting near the port were estimated by using the methodology and data provided in emissions inventory studies for Port of Richmond (Coalition 2010), Port of Oakland (Port of Oakland 2013), and Port of Los Angeles (Starcrest 2013); CARB’s ocean-going vessels (CARB 2011) and commercial harborcraft (CARB 2007) emissions estimation guidelines; EPA’s marine vessels studies (EPA 2009); and site-specific data. Emissions from vessels were estimated for the vessel operation from the offshore BAAQMD boundary, which is 11 nautical miles (nm) west of Golden Gate Bridge, to the Terminal, near the Port of Richmond.
ERM
1
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Emissions from vessels were estimated as a product of the marine engine emission factors, the time that the engines are operated, and the power ratings and the load factors of the engines. The following sections describe these factors used to estimate vessel emissions. Vessel Routes Considered for Emissions In order to estimate the vessel’s transit time, the vessel routes from the BAAQMD boundary to the BP Richmond Terminal were considered. These routes are same as the routes from the BAAQMD boundary to the Port of Richmond, published in the Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory (Coalition 2010). Figure A-1 summarizes the routes to and from the Terminal taken by vessels. As described below, the following four legs of the route were considered:
ERM
The first leg considered is the slow cruise leg. This leg, between the BAAQMD boundary at the Sea buoy and the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) line, which is approximately 2.2 nm west of Golden Gate Bridge, is approximately 8.8 nm long. The speed of the vessel in this leg is 12 knots.
The second leg of the route is also a slow cruise leg. The vessel speed in this leg is 10 knots. This leg spans from the COLREGS line to East of Angel Island. The distance of 8.1 nm for this leg was calculated by taking the average of the North and South routes between the Golden Gate Bridge and East of Angel Island, shown in Figure A-1, and adding the distance of 2.2 nm between the Golden Gate Bridge and the COLREGS line.
The third leg of the route, a slow cruise leg at a speed of 8 knots, was considered to be 2.8 nm based on the Figure A-1.
The fourth leg of the route, a slow cruise leg at a further reduced speed of 5 knots, was considered to be 4.3 nm based on the Figure A-1. The fourth leg is the last slow cruise leg of the vessel route.
The fifth and the last leg is the maneuvering leg, during which the vessel docks to the berth. The vessel’s speed gradually reduces from 5 knots to zero knots. The time for maneuvering leg was assumed based on an average 15 minute maneuvering time discussed in the Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory (Coalition 2010).
2
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
The outbound route and trip length was assumed to be same as inbound route and trip length. However, the speed was assumed to be 12 knots, because the empty/unloaded vessels are allowed to travel at higher speed.
The total hoteling time, when the vessel is docked at the Terminal, was estimated as the ratio of the anticipated cargo load per vessel call and the pump discharge rate, plus three hours each prior to and after the cargo unloading. This sitespecific information was obtained from BP personnel. Engine load factors were estimated by using the EPA’s Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (EPA 2009) or obtained from the Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory (Coalition 2010). Table A-1 below summarizes the vessel route calculations described above. Table A-1
Vessel Route and Engine Parameters Vessel Route
Leg 1 = Slow Cruising Leg 2 = Slow Cruising Leg 3 = Slow Cruising Leg 4 = Slow Cruising Maneuvering OGV Hotelling Outbound route same as inbound 1
Distance (nm)
Speed (knots)
Time (hrs)
Main Engine Load %
8.8 8.1 2.8 4.3 ---
12.0 10 8 5 ---
0.73 0.81 0.35 0.86 0.25 30
51 30 15 4 2 0
Auxiliary Engine Load % 24 24 24 24 33 26
24.0
12.0
2.0
51
24
1
Empty vessels are allowed to travel at 12 knots for the entire outbound route.
ERM
3
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Figure A-1 Vessel Routes to Richmond
Source: Coalition 2010.
ERM
4
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Tugboat Route Considered for Emissions Based on conversations with the tugboat companies operating in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory (Coalition 2010), one tugboat is needed to assist both inbound and outbound vessels. The tugboats escort the vessels between the COLREGS line and the dock at the Terminal. The time required for the tug to transit from its home dock (base) to the COLREGS line (vessel meeting point) was calculated using the distance between its base and the COLREGS line and an average transit speed of 10 knots. Similarly, the time required for the tug to transit from the Terminal to its base was calculated using the distance between the Terminal and its base and an average transit speed of 10 knots. The time required by the tugboat to escort the vessel is equal to the vessel’s operating time between the COLREGS line and the dock at Terminal. All engine load factor information for tugboats was obtained from the 2005 Port of Richmond Emissions Inventory (Coalition 2010). Table A-2 summarizes all tugboat route information. Table A-2
Tugboat Route and Engine Parameters Tugboat Route
Time For Each Tug (hrs)
Main Engine Load %
Auxiliary Engine Load %
Cruising – from home base to meet vessel
0.7
50
43
Slow cruise - escort inbound vessel
2.02
31
43
Maneuvering - maneuver vessel to berth
0.25
31
43
Maneuvering - maneuver vessel out from berth
0.25
31
43
Slow cruise - escort outbound vessel
2.02
31
43
Cruising - tug return to home base
0.8
50
43
Vessel Engines and Boiler Power Ratings At any given time the facility can receive a maximum of 5,250,000 gallons of ethanol. Therefore a minimum of 16 ship calls per year would be required to transport 85,000,000 gallons of ethanol per year. Currently, the terminal does not receive ethanol by vessels. Therefore, the 16 ethanol-laden vessel trips per year represent the potential, post-project scenario. As a result, there are no baseline emissions from ethanol-laden vessels and the emissions increase from the increased vessel activity also represent the post-project potential to emit.
ERM
5
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
BP has little operational control over the size of ships that call on to its wharf 1. Larger ships (in terms of dead weight tonnage [DWT]) have higher cargo capacity than smaller ships. As such, the larger ships would be partially loaded with BP’s cargo whereas, the smaller ships could be fully loaded up to its capacity with BP’s cargo. Engine power rating also decreases as the ship size reduces. Therefore, incremental vessel emissions were estimated for the following two scenarios: 1. 16 calls per year of smallest ship (in terms of DWT) and corresponding engine power rating required to transport 85,000,000 gallons of neat ethanol - As shown in Attachment A-2, tanker ships typically have a specific cargo capacity of 302 gallons per DWT. Therefore, to transport 85,000,000 gallons of neat ethanol over 16 ship calls per year (or approximately 5,312,500 gallons over one call), a fully-loaded ship of approximately 18,000 DWT minimum size would be required for each call. This scenario assumes that the 18,000 DWT ship would be fully loaded with only this terminal’s cargo and the entire emissions from this ship’s call would be attributed to the terminal. 2. 16 calls per year of the largest ship (45,500 DWT) that the dock can receive and corresponding engine power rating. Using the specific cargo capacity of 302 gallons per DWT, a ship of this size can carry approximately 13,744,800 gallons of cargo. The ships are typically operated fully loaded; therefore, this scenario assumes that the largest ship would be fully loaded with cargo. However, since the facility can store only 5,250,000 gallons of ethanol at any given time; only a portion of the total cargo loaded on the ship would belong to this terminal. Therefore, the emissions from this ship’s call were apportioned by the ratio of ethanol offloaded at the terminal to the cargo capacity of the ship. The main engine power ratings were estimated using the power rating and DWT correlation equation provided in Table 4-5 of EPA document - Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data (EPA420-R-00-002, February 2000). The auxiliary engine and auxiliary boiler power ratings were obtained from Tables 2-4 and 2-17 of EPA document - Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (EPA 2009).
The largest ship that can be moored at the wharf is limited to 45,500 deadweight tons, based on the wharf design. 1
ERM
6
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Tugboat Engine Power Ratings The Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory (Port of Oakland 2013) provides a list of tugboats currently operated in the San Francisco Bay. The list includes the power ratings of each tugboat’s main and auxiliary engines and tugboat’s model year. Average power rating and model year were calculated from the data in this list and used to estimate emissions for the project. Fuel Sulfur Content Considered for Emissions The emissions estimates for vessels consider a mandatory reduction in fuel sulfur content that is required per CARB’s ocean-going vessel clean fuel regulations, which require the use of low sulfur (0.1% S) marine distillate fuels in diesel engines and boilers on oil tankers effective January 1, 2014. Similarly, emission estimates for tugboats are based on the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) which has a sulfur content of 0.0015% or less. Emission Factors The emission factors used for estimating emissions from ocean-going vessels engines and boilers are the marine distillate oil (MDO) emission factors for 0.1% sulfur content. International Maritime Organization (IMO) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI standards regulate the emissions of NOx from vessel engines. MARPOL Annex VI NOx standards are tiered standards – the first tier became effective in 2000 and applied to vessels built in 2000 and later years. The second tier became effective in 2011 applied to vessels built in 2011 and later years. The vessel fleet operating around the world consists of a mix of uncontrolled engines (vessels built prior to 2000), tier 1, and tier 2 engines. BP has no control over the model year of vessels that will call on the Terminal. Therefore, a composite NOx emission factor was derived and used for estimating emissions from the additional vessel activity due to the project. The composite NOx emission factor is the weighted average of the NOx standards by the percentage of vessel calls by model year provided in the Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory (Port of Oakland 2013). Emission factors for tugboats are for ULSD with 0.0015% sulfur content. The zero-hour emission factors, fuel correction factors, and deterioration factors were obtained from Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California (CARB 2007) and Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions 2012 (Starcrest 2013).
ERM
7
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
TANKER TRUCK EMISSIONS Truck emissions were calculated using CARB’s EMFAC2011 web database (CARB 2011b) as discussed below. Table A-3 summarizes EMFAC2011 inputs for pre-project and post-project scenarios. Emissions for the pre-project scenario were modeled for calendar years 2011 through 2013, which constitute the baseline period for this project. Calendar year 2015 was selected for post-project scenario. All trucks carrying ethanol weigh approximately 80,000 pounds and are considered T7 Single class vehicles. The truck model years used in these EMFAC runs comprise the aggregate within the air basin for the analysis year, based on EMFAC defaults. The emissions rate module of the EMFAC2011 model provides the emissions in terms of tons per day and the total distance travelled in terms of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per day. The emission factor in terms of pounds of pollutant per VMT was estimated by dividing the respective model output emissions by the corresponding model output VMT. Emissions for the project were estimated as the product of the annual truck trips and the round-trip length. Ethanol would be transported by trucks from the Richmond Terminal to various terminals located within San Francisco Bay Area and outside of San Francisco Bay Area such as in Sacramento and Stockton. Distances (or trip length) along the typical truck routes between the BP Richmond Terminal and various terminals were measured using Google Earth, and the round-trip length of the portion of the longest trip with the within the San Francisco Area Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) was used for estimating emissions from trucks. The truck trips for the pre-project scenario were calculated as the ratio of the actual quantity of ethanol loaded into the trucks at the truck loading rack during the three-year baseline period (2011-2013) to the nominal capacity of a truck (8,600 gallons per truck). Emissions over the three-year baseline period were averaged to estimate annual pre-project emissions. The truck trips for the post-project scenario were calculated by dividing the maximum or the post-project ethanol throughput of the truck loading rack by the nominal capacity of a truck (8,600 gallons per truck).
ERM
8
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table A-3
EMFAC2011 Input Parameters
Fuel
Speed (miles/hr)
Basis
Region
PreProject Baseline
BAAQMD
2011
Annual
T7
DSL
Aggregated
Aggregated
BAAQMD
2012
Annual
T7
DSL
Aggregated
Aggregated
BAAQMD
2013
Annual
T7
DSL
Aggregated
Aggregated
BAAQMD
2015
Annual
T7
DSL
Aggregated
Aggregated
PostProject
Season
Vehicle Class
Truck Model Year
Calendar Year
LOADING RACK EMISSIONS Baseline emissions rates from ethanol loading were determined by using the throughput for ethanol loaded at the rack in the three-year baseline period (20112013) along with BAAQMD–approved, site-specific source test results. Post-project ethanol loading emissions were determined by using the proposed denatured ethanol throughput of 87,200,000 gpy (includes 85,000,000 gpy of neat ethanol and 2.5 percent by volume gasoline), along with the proposed best available control technology (BACT) limit of 0.02 pounds organic per 1,000 gallons loaded. The baseline annual emission rate, averaged over the three-year baseline period, was subtracted from the proposed post-project potential emission rate to determine the volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission increase for ethanol. STORAGE TANKS EMISSIONS ROG emissions from ethanol storage Tanks 56, 57, and 58 were estimated by using the EPA’s TANKS 4.09d modeling software. TANKS 4.09d output report that also describes the model inputs is provided in Attachment A-3. Tanks 56 and 58 were not in service during the baseline period. Therefore, there are no baseline actual emissions from these tanks. FUGITIVE COMPONENT EMISSIONS Fugitive ROG emissions from the additional pipeline components were estimated by using the pegged leaker approach recommended by the BAAQMD. The methodology uses the correlation equations and pegged leaker emission factors provided in the California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions from Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities
ERM
9
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
(CAPCOA/CARB 1999), with the BAAQMD Rule 8-18 component emission definitions as the screening values and percent of component count as nonrepairable equipment for count of pegged leakers.
ERM
10
APPENDIX A - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Attachment A-1 – CalEEMod Inputs and Outputs for Construction Emissions
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 1 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
BP Richmond Terminal Neat Ethanol Project Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Light Industry
4.00
1000sqft
0.09
4,000.00
0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization
Urban
Wind Speed (m/s)
Climate Zone
5
Utility Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
641.35
CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
2.2
0.029
Precipitation Freq (Days)
64
Operational Year
2015
N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)
0.006
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics Land Use - Actual property size is more than 10 acres. But the Project will disturb less than 10 acres. Construction Phase - The Project involves installation of pre-fabricated blending skid on existing concrete pad and welding. Some concrete pouring to extend the pad may be involved. The project does not include earthwork. Off-road Equipment - A crane may be used for less than 2 hours to lift and place the injection skid in the tank farm. Similarly if cement mortar mixers are required they will operate for only 4 hours over 2 days. Therefore, crane and cement mixer usage is an overestimation. Trips and VMT - The model defaults to 1 worker trip/day and 0 vendor trips/day becasue of the low Construction area. Applicant assumes 10 worker trips per day based on 1.25 workers per equipment and 4 vendor trips per day (2 trucks per day). Grading - The project does not involve any earthwork, only mechanical installation Area Coating - No interiors to be coated Water And Wastewater Solid Waste -
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 2 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblAreaCoating
Area_Nonresidential_Interior
3600
0
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays
100.00
20.00
tblOffRoadEquipment
OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount
0.00
3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment
OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount
0.00
1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment
OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount
0.00
1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment
OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount
0.00
1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment
OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount
0.00
1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
Equipment Installation
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
Equipment Installation
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
Equipment Installation
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
Equipment Installation
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
Equipment Installation
tblOffRoadEquipment
UsageHours
4.00
0.20
tblProjectCharacteristics
OperationalYear
2014
2015
tblTripsAndVMT
VendorTripNumber
0.00
4.00
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber
1.00
10.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 3 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Year
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
2015
0.0163
0.1406
0.1040
1.9000e004
1.1600e003
7.2400e003
8.4000e003
3.2000e004
6.9500e003
7.2700e003
0.0000
16.8765
16.8765
3.7200e003
0.0000
16.9546
Total
0.0163
0.1406
0.1040
1.9000e004
1.1600e003
7.2400e003
8.4000e003
3.2000e004
6.9500e003
7.2700e003
0.0000
16.8765
16.8765
3.7200e003
0.0000
16.9546
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
2015
0.0163
0.1406
0.1040
1.9000e004
1.1600e003
7.2400e003
8.4000e003
3.2000e004
6.9500e003
7.2700e003
0.0000
16.8765
16.8765
3.7200e003
0.0000
16.9546
Total
0.0163
0.1406
0.1040
1.9000e004
1.1600e003
7.2400e003
8.4000e003
3.2000e004
6.9500e003
7.2700e003
0.0000
16.8765
16.8765
3.7200e003
0.0000
16.9546
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Percent Reduction
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
0.00
0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 4 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Area
0.0160
0.0000
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
Energy
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
15.1049
15.1049
5.4000e004
1.9000e004
15.1753
Mobile
0.0163
0.0434
0.1812
3.2000e004
5.9000e004
0.0235
5.4000e004
6.6800e003
0.0000
26.5210
26.5210
1.2200e003
0.0000
26.5465
Waste
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6049
0.0000
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1761
0.8736
1.0497
0.0181
4.4000e004
1.5652
9.7000e004
0.0238
9.2000e004
7.0600e003
0.7810
42.4996
43.2805
0.0556
6.3000e004
44.6428
Total
0.0329
0.0484
0.1855
3.5000e004
0.0229
0.0229
6.1400e003
6.1400e003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 5 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Category
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Area
0.0160
0.0000
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
Energy
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
15.1049
15.1049
5.4000e004
1.9000e004
15.1753
Mobile
0.0163
0.0434
0.1812
3.2000e004
5.9000e004
0.0235
5.4000e004
6.6800e003
0.0000
26.5210
26.5210
1.2200e003
0.0000
26.5465
Waste
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6049
0.0000
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1761
0.8736
1.0497
0.0181
4.3000e004
1.5650
9.7000e004
0.0238
9.2000e004
7.0600e003
0.7810
42.4996
43.2805
0.0556
6.2000e004
44.6425
Total
0.0329
Percent Reduction
0.0484
0.1855
3.5000e004
0.0229
0.0229
6.1400e003
6.1400e003
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
0.00
0.00
CH4
N20
CO2e
0.00
1.59
0.00
3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number 1
Phase Name
Equipment Installation
Phase Type
Building Construction
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Start Date
4/1/2015
End Date
4/28/2015
Num Days Week 5
Num Days
20
Phase Description
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 6 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Equipment Installation
Aerial Lifts
3
6.00
62
0.31
Equipment Installation
Cement and Mortar Mixers
1
0.40
9
0.56
Equipment Installation
Cranes
1
0.20
226
0.29
Equipment Installation
Generator Sets
1
6.00
84
0.74
Equipment Installation
Off-Highway Trucks
1
4.00
400
0.38
Equipment Installation
Welders
1
4.00
46
0.45
Worker Vehicle Class
Vendor Hauling Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Trips and VMT Phase Name
Equipment Installation
Offroad Equipment Count 8
Worker Trip Number 10.00
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Vendor Trip Number 4.00
Hauling Trip Number 0.00
Worker Trip Length 12.40
Vendor Trip Length 7.30
Hauling Trip Length
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 7 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
3.2 Equipment Installation - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0153
0.1354
0.0917
1.7000e004
7.1600e003
7.1600e003
6.8800e003
6.8800e003
0.0000
15.1489
15.1489
3.6600e003
0.0000
15.2258
Total
0.0153
0.1354
0.0917
1.7000e004
7.1600e003
7.1600e003
6.8800e003
6.8800e003
0.0000
15.1489
15.1489
3.6600e003
0.0000
15.2258
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive PM10
Fugitive PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
5.7000e004
4.6100e003
6.3400e003
1.0000e005
2.6000e004
7.0000e005
3.3000e004
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
1.4000e004
0.0000
0.8752
0.8752
1.0000e005
0.0000
0.8754
Worker
4.2000e004
6.1000e004
5.9600e003
1.0000e005
9.1000e004
1.0000e005
9.2000e004
2.4000e004
1.0000e005
2.5000e004
0.0000
0.8524
0.8524
5.0000e005
0.0000
0.8534
Total
9.9000e004
5.2200e003
0.0123
2.0000e005
1.1700e003
8.0000e005
1.2500e003
3.1000e004
8.0000e005
3.9000e004
0.0000
1.7276
1.7276
6.0000e005
0.0000
1.7288
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 8 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
3.2 Equipment Installation - 2015 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0153
0.1354
0.0917
1.7000e004
7.1600e003
7.1600e003
6.8800e003
6.8800e003
0.0000
15.1489
15.1489
3.6600e003
0.0000
15.2258
Total
0.0153
0.1354
0.0917
1.7000e004
7.1600e003
7.1600e003
6.8800e003
6.8800e003
0.0000
15.1489
15.1489
3.6600e003
0.0000
15.2258
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive PM10
Fugitive PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
5.7000e004
4.6100e003
6.3400e003
1.0000e005
2.6000e004
7.0000e005
3.3000e004
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
1.4000e004
0.0000
0.8752
0.8752
1.0000e005
0.0000
0.8754
Worker
4.2000e004
6.1000e004
5.9600e003
1.0000e005
9.1000e004
1.0000e005
9.2000e004
2.4000e004
1.0000e005
2.5000e004
0.0000
0.8524
0.8524
5.0000e005
0.0000
0.8534
Total
9.9000e004
5.2200e003
0.0123
2.0000e005
1.1700e003
8.0000e005
1.2500e003
3.1000e004
8.0000e005
3.9000e004
0.0000
1.7276
1.7276
6.0000e005
0.0000
1.7288
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 9 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Category
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.0163
0.0434
0.1812
3.2000e004
0.0229
5.9000e004
0.0235
6.1400e003
5.4000e004
6.6800e003
0.0000
26.5210
26.5210
1.2200e003
0.0000
26.5465
Unmitigated
0.0163
0.0434
0.1812
3.2000e004
0.0229
5.9000e004
0.0235
6.1400e003
5.4000e004
6.6800e003
0.0000
26.5210
26.5210
1.2200e003
0.0000
26.5465
4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Sunday
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
General Light Industry
27.88
5.28
2.72
61,477
61,477
Total
27.88
5.28
2.72
61,477
61,477
4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
General Light Industry
9.50
7.30
LDA 0.546619
Trip % H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C 7.30
59.00
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
0.062800
0.174631
0.124220
0.034286
0.004915
0.015254
5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N
28.00
HHD 0.022958
Trip Purpose % H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
13.00
92
5
3
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
0.002060
0.003298
0.006596
0.000695
MH 0.001668
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 10 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive PM10
Category
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Electricity Mitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
9.6234
9.6234
4.4000e004
9.0000e005
9.6604
Electricity Unmitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
9.6234
9.6234
4.4000e004
9.0000e005
9.6604
NaturalGas Mitigated
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
5.4815
5.4815
1.1000e004
1.0000e004
5.5149
NaturalGas Unmitigated
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
5.4815
5.4815
1.1000e004
1.0000e004
5.5149
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
CH4
N2O
CO2e
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated
NaturalGa s Use Land Use
kBTU/yr
General Light Industry
102720
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
5.4815
5.4815
1.1000e004
1.0000e004
5.5149
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
5.4815
5.4815
1.1000e004
1.0000e004
5.5149
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 11 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated
NaturalGa s Use Land Use
kBTU/yr
General Light Industry
102720
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
kWh/yr
General Light Industry
33080
Total
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
5.4815
5.4815
1.1000e004
1.0000e004
5.5149
5.5000e004
5.0400e003
4.2300e003
3.0000e005
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
3.8000e004
0.0000
5.4815
5.4815
1.1000e004
1.0000e004
5.5149
Unmitigated
Land Use
Exhaust PM10
tons/yr
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity Use
Fugitive PM10
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
9.6234
4.4000e004
9.0000e005
9.6604
9.6234
4.4000e004
9.0000e005
9.6604
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 12 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated
Electricity Use Land Use
kWh/yr
General Light Industry
33080
Total
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
9.6234
4.4000e004
9.0000e005
9.6604
9.6234
4.4000e004
9.0000e005
9.6604
6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.0160
0.0000
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
Unmitigated
0.0160
0.0000
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 13 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
SubCategory
Fugitive PM10
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive PM2.5
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Architectural Coating
4.2000e004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer Products
0.0156
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
0.0000
0.0000
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
Total
0.0160
0.0000
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust PM10
PM10 Total
Exhaust PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated
SubCategory
Fugitive PM10
Fugitive PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
Consumer Products
0.0156
Landscaping
0.0000
Architectural Coating
4.2000e004
Total
0.0160
7.0 Water Detail
0.0000
0.0000
4.0000e005
4.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
MT/yr
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.0000e005
7.0000e005
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000e005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 14 of 17
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2
CH4
Category
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
1.0497
0.0181
4.3000e004
1.5650
Unmitigated
1.0497
0.0181
4.4000e004
1.5652
CH4
N2O
CO2e
7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated
Indoor/Out door Use Land Use
Mgal
General Light Industry
0.555 / 0
Total
Total CO2
MT/yr
1.0497
0.0181
4.4000e004
1.5652
1.0497
0.0181
4.4000e004
1.5652
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 15 of 17
7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated
Indoor/Out door Use Land Use
Mgal
General Light Industry
0.555 / 0
Total
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
1.0497
0.0181
4.3000e004
1.5650
1.0497
0.0181
4.3000e004
1.5650
8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
Unmitigated
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 16 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated
Waste Disposed Land Use
tons
General Light Industry
2.98
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total
Mitigated
Waste Disposed Land Use
tons
General Light Industry
2.98
Total
MT/yr
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
0.6049
0.0358
0.0000
1.3557
9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
10.0 Vegetation
Page 17 of 17
Date: 12/10/2014 5:40 PM
Attachment A-2 – Estimated Emissions for Comparison with CEQA Thresholds
OGV and Tugboat Specifications - Scenario 1: Ship Size Based on Maximum 16 calls per year to Transport 85 MMGal Ethanol OGV Route Leg 1 = Slow Cruising Leg 2 = Slow Cruising Leg 3 = Slow Cruising Leg 4 = Slow Cruising Maneuvering4 OGV Hotelling 5 Outbound route same as inbound Tugboat Route (to meet ship) = cruising (escort ship inbound) = Slow cruise (maneuver ship to berth) = maneuvering (maneuver ship out from berth) = maneuvering (escort ship outbound) = slow cruise (tug return to base) = Cruising OGV and Tugboat Activity6,8 Segment Pilot Boarding (Sea Buoy) - COLREGS Line COLREGS Line - GG Bridge GG Bridge - East of Angel Island East of Angel Island - Top of Southampton Shoal Channel Top of Southampton Shoal Channel - Berth Outbound - Berth to Sea Buoy Total
3
Distance (nm)1
Speed (knots)1
Time (hrs)
Main Engine Load %2
Auxiliary Engine Load %
8.8 8.1 2.8 4.3 ---
12.0 10 8 5 ---
24.0
12.0
0.73 0.81 0.35 0.86 0.25 30 2.0
51 30 15 4 2 0 51
24 24 24 24 33 26 24
Time(hrs) for each tug6 0.7 2.02 0.25 0.25 2.02 0.8
Main Engine Load %7 50 31 31 31 31 50
Auxiliary Engine Load %7 43 43 43 43 43 43
Distance nm 8.8 2.2 5.85 2.8 4.3 24.0 48
Vessel Speed knots 12 10 10 8 5 12
Time hrs 0.73 0.22 0.59 0.35 0.86 2.00 4.74
Tug Escort Zone No escort Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2 Zone 2
Assumptions: Daily Maximum emissions is from one OGV trip (this will vary; a trip may be longer than 24 hours) Hydrocarbon emissions from fuel combustion are equivalent to Precursor Organic Compound (POC) emissions Average Specific Cargo Capacity of Tankers (gal of cargo/DWT) = 302 Quantity of cargo to be transported (gal/yr) = 85,000,000 Total ship calls per year = 16 Quantity of cargo to be transported per call = 5,312,500 OGV Size (DWT) - Smallest, fully loaded ship for transport 85 17,586 MMgal over 16 calls Cargo capacity of each ship (gal/ship) = 5,312,500 Number of OGV Main engines = 1 2.7 Number of OGV Auxiliary engines9 = 8,091 OGV Main engine power per engine (kW)10 = 632 OGV Auxiliary engine power per engine (kW)9 = 3,000 OGV Auxiliary boiler power per engine (kW)9 = 1 Number of Tugs assisting OGV Inbound11 = 1 Number of Tugs assisting OGV Outbound11 = Number of Main engines on a Tug = 2 Number of Auxiliary engines on a Tug = 2 2,397 Tug Main Engine power per engine (hp)12 = 140 Tug Auxiliary Engine power per engine (hp)12 = 2,000 Average Model Year for Tug Main Engines12 2,000 Average Model Year for Tug Auxiliary Engines12 21 Useful Life of Tug Main Engine13 = 23 Useful Life of Tug Auxiliary Engine13 =
ERM
Page 1 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Reference: 1. Figure 2-4 and Table 2-6, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx 2. Main engine load factors for slow cruise mode = (Actual vessel speed/Maximum vessel speed)3 from - Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, US EPA, April 2009 For maneuvering mode load factors obtained from Page 2-15 and Maximum vessel assumed to be 15 knots - from Table 2-2 of SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx 3. Table 2-8, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 4. Maneuvering time obtained from Page 2-8, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 5. OGV Hotelling time based on conversation b/w Michael Peterson, BP and Snigdha Mehta, ERM on 3/21/2014. Each ship call will unload 125,000 bbls of EtOH at a discharge rate of 5,300 bbls/hr. Additional 3 hours each were assumed for time spent at the dock prior to and after discharging EtOH 6. Per email from dispatch, Bay Delta Maritime to Snigdha Mehta, ERM on 3/17/2014. Distance b/w BP Richmond Terminal and tug home base at Pier 17 San Francisco corrected from 11 nm to 8 nm after telephone conversation with Capt. Shawn Bennett, Bay Delta Maritime on 3/17/2014. Average tugboat cruise speed is 10 knots 7. Assumption - Class A tug, data obtained from Table 2, Appendix A: Harbor Craft Emissions by BAAQMD, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx 8. Table 2-6, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 9. Tables 2-4 and 2-17, Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, US EPA, April 2009 10. MCR estimated using the regression analysis equation provided in EPA "Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data" (EPA420-R-00-002, February 2000), Table 4-5 - MCR (kW) = 0.746*(9070 + 0.101 * DWT) 11. Per email from dispatch, Bay Delta Maritime to Snigdha Mehta, ERM on 3/17/2014. 12. Estimated average power and model year using the data for tugs typically operated in Bay Area from Table 3-7, Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory, Nov 5, 2013 13. Table II-2, CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/chc-appendix-b-emission-estimates-ver02-27-2012.pdf
Low Load Adjustment Multipliers for Main Engines on OGVs (Used when Main Engine Load factor < 20%) Load Factor (%) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Ref: POLA Inventory of Air Emissions 2012, July 2013, Table 3.9
CO 9.7 6.49 4.86 3.9 3.26 2.8 2.45 2.18 1.97 1.79 1.64 1.52 1.41 1.32 1.24 1.17 1.11 1.05 1
NOx 4.63 2.92 2.21 1.83 1.6 1.45 1.35 1.27 1.22 1.17 1.14 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.01 1
SO2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ROG 21.18 11.68 7.71 5.61 4.35 3.52 2.95 2.52 2.18 1.96 1.76 1.6 1.47 1.36 1.26 1.18 1.11 1.05 1
PM10 7.29 4.33 3.09 2.44 2.04 1.79 1.61 1.48 1.38 1.3 1.24 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1
PM2.5 7.29 4.33 3.09 2.44 2.04 1.79 1.61 1.48 1.38 1.3 1.24 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1
CO2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CH4 21.18 11.68 7.71 5.61 4.35 3.52 2.95 2.52 2.18 1.96 1.76 1.6 1.47 1.36 1.26 1.18 1.11 1.05 1
N2O 4.63 2.92 2.21 1.83 1.6 1.45 1.35 1.27 1.22 1.17 1.14 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.01 1
NOx
SO2
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ROG 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
PM10
0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.852
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.852
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948
ROG 0.51 0.28 0.44
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
0.31 0.44 0.67
0.31 0.44 0.67
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Tugboat Factors Fuel Correction factor for ULSD Engine Power (HP) MY CO 0 24 0 1994 1 25 50 0 1998 1 51 100 0 1997 1 101 175 0 1996 1 176 5000 0 1995 1 0 24 1995 2010 1 25 50 1999 2010 1 51 100 1998 2010 1 101 175 1997 2010 1 176 5000 1996 2010 1 1 0 5000 2011 9999 Ref - Table II-4, CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California;
Table 4.5, POLA Inventory of Air Emissions 2012, July 2013 Deterioration Factor HP Range
CO 25 50 0.41 51 250 0.16 251 5000 0.25 Ref - Table II-5 CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California
ERM
NOx
SO2
0.06 0.14 0.21
0 0 0
Page 2 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Incremental Marine Vessels Emissions - Scenario 1: Ship Size Based on Maximum 16 calls per year to Transport 85 MMGal Ethanol Ocean-Going Vessel (OGV) Trips per year Operating Year Ocean-Going Vessel Operations Main Engine Transit Leg 1 (in and out) Main Engine Transit Leg 2 Main Engine Transit Leg 3 Main Engine Transit Leg 4 Main Engine Maneuvering (in and out) Auxiliary Engine Transit Auxiliary Engine RSZ Auxiliary Engine Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine Hoteling at berth Auxiliary Boiler Manuevering Auxiliary Boiler Hoteling Tugboat Operations3 Main Engine Cruising (to meet ship) Main Engine Running Light (escort ship inbound) Main Engine (maneuver ship to berth) Main Engine (maneuver ship out from berth) Main Engine Assist Pushing Full (escort ship outbound) Main Engine Cruising (tug return to base) Auxiliary Engine TOTAL EMISSIONS (OGVs and Tugs)
16 2015 Engine Power Load kW % 8091 51.0 8091 30.0 8091 15.0 8091 4.0 8091 2.0 1707 24.0 1707 24.0 1707 33.0 1707 26.0 3000 12.4 3000 100.0 Power
Load
hp 4794 4794 4794 4794 4794 4794 280
% 50 31 31 31 31 50 43
Maximum Hrs per Trip Year 2.73 44 0.81 13 0.35 6 0.86 14 0.50 8 2.73 44 2.02 32 0.50 8 30.0 480 0.50 8.0 30.0 480.0
CO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.20 0.20
Hrs per OGV 0.70 2.02 0.25 0.25 2.02 0.80 6.03
Year 11 32 4 4 32 13 96
1
NOx 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 2.00 2.00
SO2 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.57 0.57
Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) ROG PM10 PM2.52 CO2 0.78 0.25 0.23 588 0.78 0.25 0.23 588 0.78 0.25 0.23 588 0.78 0.25 0.23 588 0.78 0.25 0.23 588 0.52 0.25 0.23 690 0.52 0.25 0.23 690 0.52 0.25 0.23 690 0.52 0.25 0.23 690 0.11 0.13 0.13 970 0.11 0.13 0.13 970
CH4 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.03
3
N2 O 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08
CO 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.32
NOx 3.25 0.56 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.23 0.17 0.06 2.77 0.01 3.17
SO2 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.90
Annual (tons) PM2.5 ROG PM10 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.21
Adjusted Emission Factors (g/hp-hr) CO 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 3.07
NOx 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.56
SO2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
ROG 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.69
PM10 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.33
PM2.5 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.33
CO2 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
Emissions CO2 116.79 20.26 4.41 2.89 0.84 13.61 10.05 3.43 162.05 3.17 1540
CH4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05
N2 O 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.12
CO 1.20 0.21 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.03 1.42 0.00 1.74
NOx 17.82 3.09 0.71 0.97 0.59 1.27 0.94 0.32 15.16 0.04 17.40
Annual (tons) CH4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
N2 O 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
CO 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.04 1.39
NOx 0.24 0.42 0.05 0.05 0.42 0.27 0.10 12.2
SO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11
ROG 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.69
PM10 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.42
PM2.5 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.41
Average Daily (lb) SO2 ROG PM10 0.39 0.85 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.67 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.96 0.96 1.13
PM2.5 0.25 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.00 1.13
Average Daily (lb) CO2 14.39 25.69 3.19 3.19 25.69 16.45 6.23 1972
CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
N2 O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
CO 0.38 0.67 0.08 0.08 0.67 0.43 0.22 7.62
NOx 1.29 2.31 0.29 0.29 2.31 1.48 0.53 66.8
SO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06
ROG 0.10 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.12 0.05 3.76
PM10 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.02 2.32
Hourly (lb) PM10 ROG 7.10 2.27 4.17 1.34 2.84 0.74 4.29 0.55 5.89 0.65 0.47 0.23 0.47 0.23 0.65 0.31 0.51 0.24 0.09 0.11 0.73 0.86 Hourly (lb)
PM2.5 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.02 2.26
ROG 3.40 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 3.40 0.18
PM10 2.25 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2.25 0.09
1. Composite fleet average emission factor for main and auxiliary engines 2. PM2.5 Emission Factors for OGV obtained from Table II-6, II-7, and II-8, CARB, Appendix D, Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels, May 2011, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/ogv11/ogv11appd.pdf 3. N2O emission factors obtained from Tables 3.6, 3.11, and 3.15, POLA Inventory of Air Emissions 2012, July 2013. 4. Tug boat emission factors estimated using the methodology described in CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California
ERM
Page 3 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
OGV and Tugboat Specifications - Scenario 2: Based on Ratio of Quantity Transported to Capacity of Largest Ship at the Wharf over 16 Calls per year OGV Route Leg 1 = Slow Cruising Leg 2 = Slow Cruising Leg 3 = Slow Cruising Leg 4 = Slow Cruising Maneuvering4 OGV Hotelling 5 Outbound route same as inbound Tugboat Route (to meet ship) = cruising (escort ship inbound) = Slow cruise (maneuver ship to berth) = maneuvering (maneuver ship out from berth) = maneuvering (escort ship outbound) = slow cruise (tug return to base) = Cruising OGV and Tugboat Activity6,8
Segment
Pilot Boarding (Sea Buoy) - COLREGS Line COLREGS Line - GG Bridge GG Bridge - East of Angel Island East of Angel Island - Top of Southampton Shoal Channel Top of Southampton Shoal Channel - Berth Outbound - Berth to Sea Buoy Total
Distance (nm)1
Speed (knots)1
Time(hrs)
Main Engine Load %
2
Auxiliary Engine Load %3
8.8 8.1 2.8 4.3 ----24.0
12.0 10 8 5 ----12.0
0.73 0.81 0.35 0.86 0.25 30 2.0
51 30 15 4 2 0 51
24 24 24 24 33 26 24
Time(hrs) for each tug6 0.7 2.02 0.25 0.25 2.02 0.8
Main Engine Load %7 50 31 31 31 31 50
Auxiliary Engine Load %7 43 43 43 43 43 43
Distance nm 8.8 2.2 5.85 2.8 4.3 24.0 48
Vessel Speed knots 12 10 10 8 5 12
Time hrs 0.73 0.22 0.59 0.35 0.86 2.00 4.74
Tug Escort Zone No escort Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 2 Zone 2
Assumptions: Daily Maximum emissions is from one OGV trip (this will vary; a trip may be longer than 24 hours) Hydrocarbon emissions from fuel combustion are equivalent to Precursor Organic Compound (POC) emissions Average Specific Cargo Capacity of Tankers (gal of cargo/DWT) = 302 Quantity of cargo to be transported (gal/yr) = 85,000,000 Total ship calls per year = 16 Quantity of cargo to be transported per call = 5,312,500 OGV Size (DWT) - Largest ship expected to call in at the terminal = Cargo capacity of each ship (gal/ship) = Number of OGV Main engines = Number of OGV Auxiliary engines9 = OGV Main engine power per engine (kW)10 = OGV Auxiliary engine power per engine (kW)9 = OGV Auxiliary boiler power per engine (kW)9 = Number of Tugs assisting OGV Inbound11 = Number of Tugs assisting OGV Outbound11 = Number of Main engines on a Tug = Number of Auxiliary engines on a Tug = Tug Main Engine power per engine (hp)12 = Tug Auxiliary Engine power per engine (hp)12 = Average Model Year for Tug Main Engines12 Average Model Year for Tug Auxiliary Engines12 Useful Life of Tug Main Engine13 = Useful Life of Tug Auxiliary Engine13 =
ERM
45,500 13,744,827 1 2.7 10,194 797 3,000 1 1 2 2 2,397 140 2,000 2,000 21 23
Page 4 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Reference: 1. Figure 2-4 and Table 2-6, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx 2. Main engine load factors for slow cruise mode = (Actual vessel speed/Maximum vessel speed)3 from - Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, US EPA, April 2009 For maneuvering mode load factors obtained from Page 2-15 and Maximum vessel assumed to be 15 knots - from Table 2-2 of SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx 3. Table 2-8, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 4. Maneuvering time obtained from Page 2-8, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 5. OGV Hotelling time based on conversation b/w Michael Peterson, BP and Snigdha Mehta, ERM on 3/21/2014. Each ship call will unload 125,000 bbls of EtOH at a discharge rate of 5,300 bbls/hr. Additional 3 hours each were assumed for time spent at the dock prior to and after discharging EtOH 6. Per email from dispatch, Bay Delta Maritime to Snigdha Mehta, ERM on 3/17/2014. Distance b/w BP Richmond Terminal and tug home base at Pier 17 San Francisco corrected from 11 nm to 8 nm after telephone conversation with Capt. Shawn Bennett, Bay Delta Maritime on 3/17/2014. Average tugboat cruise speed is 10 knots 7. Assumption - Class A tug, data obtained from Table 2, Appendix A: Harbor Craft Emissions by BAAQMD, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%20Inventory%20June%202010.ashx 8. Table 2-6, SF Bay Area Seaports Air Emissions Inventory, Port of Richmond 2005 Emissions Inventory, June 2010 9. Tables 2-4 and 2-17, Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, US EPA, April 2009 10. MCR estimated using the regression analysis equation provided in EPA "Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data" (EPA420-R-00-002, February 2000), Table 4-5 - MCR (kW) = 0.746*(9070 + 0.101 * DWT) 11. Per email from dispatch, Bay Delta Maritime to Snigdha Mehta, ERM on 3/17/2014. 12. Estimated average power and model year using the data for tugs typically operated in Bay Area from Table 3-7, Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory, Nov 5, 2013 13. Table II-2, CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/chc-appendix-b-emission-estimates-ver02-27-2012.pdf
Low Load Adjustment Multipliers for Main Engines on OGVs (Used when Main Engine Load factor < 20%) Load Factor (%) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Ref: POLA Inventory of Air Emissions 2012, July 2013, Table 3.9
CO 9.7 6.49 4.86 3.9 3.26 2.8 2.45 2.18 1.97 1.79 1.64 1.52 1.41 1.32 1.24 1.17 1.11 1.05 1
NOx 4.63 2.92 2.21 1.83 1.6 1.45 1.35 1.27 1.22 1.17 1.14 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.01 1
SO2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ROG 21.18 11.68 7.71 5.61 4.35 3.52 2.95 2.52 2.18 1.96 1.76 1.6 1.47 1.36 1.26 1.18 1.11 1.05 1
PM10 7.29 4.33 3.09 2.44 2.04 1.79 1.61 1.48 1.38 1.3 1.24 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1
PM2.5 7.29 4.33 3.09 2.44 2.04 1.79 1.61 1.48 1.38 1.3 1.24 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1
CO2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CH4 21.18 11.68 7.71 5.61 4.35 3.52 2.95 2.52 2.18 1.96 1.76 1.6 1.47 1.36 1.26 1.18 1.11 1.05 1
N2O 4.63 2.92 2.21 1.83 1.6 1.45 1.35 1.27 1.22 1.17 1.14 1.11 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.01 1
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ROG 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.852
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.852
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948
ROG 0.51 0.28 0.44
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
0.31 0.44 0.67
0.31 0.44 0.67
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Tugboat Factors Fuel Correction factor for ULSD Engine Power (HP)
MY
CO 0 24 0 1994 1 25 50 0 1998 1 51 100 0 1997 1 101 175 0 1996 1 176 5000 0 1995 1 0 24 1995 2010 1 25 50 1999 2010 1 51 100 1998 2010 1 101 175 1997 2010 1 176 5000 1996 2010 1 1 0 5000 2011 9999 Ref - Table II-4, CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California;
Table 4.5, POLA Inventory of Air Emissions 2012, July 2013 Deterioration Factor HP Range
CO 25 50 0.41 51 250 0.16 251 5000 0.25 Ref - Table II-5 CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California
ERM
NOx
SO2
0.06 0.14 0.21
0 0 0
Page 5 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Incremental Marine Vessels Emissions - Scenario 2: Based on Ratio of Quantity Transported to Capacity of Largest Ship at the Wharf over 16 Calls per year Ocean-Going Vessel (OGV) Trips per year Operating Year Ocean-Going Vessel Operations Main Engine Transit Leg 1 (in and out) Main Engine Transit Leg 2 Main Engine Transit Leg 3 Main Engine Transit Leg 4 Main Engine Maneuvering (in and out) Auxiliary Engine Transit Auxiliary Engine RSZ Auxiliary Engine Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine Hoteling at berth Auxiliary Boiler Manuevering Auxiliary Boiler Hoteling Tugboat Operations3 Main Engine Cruising (to meet ship) Main Engine Running Light (escort ship inbound) Main Engine (maneuver ship to berth) Main Engine (maneuver ship out from berth) Main Engine Assist Pushing Full (escort ship outbound) Main Engine Cruising (tug return to base) Auxiliary Engine TOTAL EMISSIONS (OGVs and Tugs)
16 2015 Engine Power kW 10194 10194 10194 10194 10194 2151 2151 2151 2151 3000 3000
Load % 51.0 30.0 15.0 4.0 2.0 24.0 24.0 33.0 26.0 12.4 100.0
Maximum Hrs per Trip Year 2.73 44 0.81 13 0.35 6 0.86 14 0.50 8 2.73 44 2.02 32 0.50 8 30.0 480 0.50 8.0 30.0 480.0
Power
Load
Hrs per
hp 4794 4794 4794 4794 4794 4794 280
% 50 31 31 31 31 50 43
OGV 0.70 2.02 0.25 0.25 2.02 0.80 6.03
Year 11 32 4 4 32 13 96
CO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.20 0.20
1
NOx 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 2.00 2.00
SO2 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.57 0.57
Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) 2 ROG PM10 PM2.5 0.78 0.25 0.23 0.78 0.25 0.23 0.78 0.25 0.23 0.78 0.25 0.23 0.78 0.25 0.23 0.52 0.25 0.23 0.52 0.25 0.23 0.52 0.25 0.23 0.52 0.25 0.23 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.13
CO2 588 588 588 588 588 690 690 690 690 970 970
CH4 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.03
N2 O3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08
CO 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.32
NOx 1.58 0.27 0.06 0.22 0.14 0.11 0.22 0.07 3.49 0.01 3.17
SO2 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.90
NOx 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.97 7.56
SO2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
ROG 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.69
PM10 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.33
PM2.5 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.33
CO2 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
CO2 56.87 9.87 2.15 3.64 1.06 6.63 12.66 4.32 204.18 3.17 1540
CH4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05
N2 O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.12
CO 0.58 0.10 0.03 0.18 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.04 1.78 0.00 1.74
NOx 8.68 1.51 0.35 1.23 0.75 0.62 1.18 0.40 19.10 0.04 17.40
Annual (tons)
Adjusted Emission Factors (g/hp-hr) CO 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 3.07
Annual (tons) PM2.5 PM10 ROG 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.21
Emissions
CH4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
N2 O 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
CO 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.04 1.33
NOx 0.24 0.42 0.05 0.05 0.42 0.27 0.10 10.9
SO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08
ROG 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.63
PM10 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.41
PM2.5 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.40
Average Daily (lb) SO2 ROG PM10 0.19 0.41 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.65 0.84 0.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.96 0.96 1.13
PM2.5 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.00 1.13
Average Daily (lb) CO2 14.39 25.69 3.19 3.19 25.69 16.45 6.23 1939
CH4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09
N2 O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
CO 0.38 0.67 0.08 0.08 0.67 0.43 0.22 7.27
NOx 1.29 2.31 0.29 0.29 2.31 1.48 0.53 59.7
SO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.94
ROG 0.10 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.12 0.05 3.46
PM10 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.02 2.24
Hourly (lb) PM10 ROG 3.46 1.11 2.03 0.65 1.38 0.36 5.41 0.69 7.43 0.82 0.23 0.11 0.59 0.28 0.81 0.39 0.64 0.31 0.09 0.11 0.73 0.86 Hourly (lb)
PM2.5 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.02 2.19
ROG 3.40 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 3.40 0.18
PM10 2.25 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 2.25 0.09
1. Composite fleet average emission factor for main and auxiliary engines 2. PM2.5 Emission Factors for OGV obtained from Table II-6, II-7, and II-8, CARB, Appendix D, Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels, May 2011, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/ogv11/ogv11appd.pdf 3. N2O emission factors obtained from Tables 3.6, 3.11, and 3.15, POLA Inventory of Air Emissions 2012, July 2013. 4. Tug boat emission factors estimated using the methodology described in CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California
ERM
Page 6 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Composite OGV Fleet NOx Emission Factors Main Engine NOx Emissions Factors Proportion in 2015 Fleet
Model Year
Tier
0 0 1999 28% I 2000 2010 71% II 2011 2015 1% III 2016 9999 0% Per CARB, MDO NOx Emission Factors = 0.95 (FCF) x MARPOL Annex VI NOx Standards FCF = Fuel Correction Factor
NOx EF for HFO (g/kWhr)
NOx EF for MDO (g/kWhr)
2015 Fleet NOx MDO Emission Factor (g/kW-hr)
18.1 17.0 14.4 3.4
17.0 16.2 13.7 3.2
16.37
(MARPOL Annex VI Standard)
NOx EF for HFO (g/kWhr)
Auxiliary Engine NOx Emissions Factors Proportion in 2015 Fleet Tier
Model Year
0 I
0 2000
1999 2010
28% 71%
45 · n
14.7 11.54
13.9 11.0
II
2011
2015
1%
44 · n-0.23
9.20
8.7
III
2016
9999
0%
2.31
2.2
rpm (n) Per CARB, MDO NOx Emission Factors = 0.95 (FCF) x MARPOL Annex VI NOx Standards
Model Year Count of Calls Individual % of Calls 2012 0 0.00% 2011 13 0.70% 2010 103 5.70% 2009 89 4.90% 2008 71 3.90% 2007 115 6.30% 2006 206 11.40% 2005 157 8.70% 2004 135 7.50% 2003 102 5.60% 2002 107 5.90% 2001 126 7.00% 2000 77 4.20% 1999 13 0.70% 1998 13 0.70% 1997 77 4.20% 1996 52 2.90% 1995 71 3.90% 1994 47 2.60% 1993 26 1.40% 1992 16 0.90% 1991 8 0.40% 1990 14 0.80% 1989 1 0.10% 1988 11 0.60% 1987 0 0.00% 1986 0 0.00% 1985 0 0.00% 1984 0 0.00% 1983 3 0.20% 1982 0 0.00% 1981 43 2.40% 1980 46 2.50% 1979 0 0.00% 1978 1 0.10% 1977 46 2.50% 1976 0 0.00% 1975 0 0.00% 1974 0 0.00% 1973 22 1.20% 1972 0 0.00% 1971 1 0.10% Ref: Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory
ERM
2015 Fleet NOx MDO Emission NOx EF for MDO Factor (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr)
-0.2
-0.2
9·n
11.78
900
Cumulative Calls 0 13 116 205 276 391 597 754 889 991 1,098 1,224 1,301 1,314 1,327 1,404 1,456 1,527 1,574 1,600 1,616 1,624 1,638 1,639 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,653 1,653 1,696 1,742 1,742 1,743 1,789 1,789 1,789 1,789 1,811 1,811 1,812
Page 7 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tugboat Zero Hour Emissions Factors Engine Type
Year
Engine Power (HP)
Zero Hour Emission Factor (g/HP-hr)
SO2 at 15 HC ppm Main 0 1997 25 50 3.65 8.14 0.006 1.84 Main 1998 1999 25 50 3.65 8.14 0.006 1.8 Main 2000 2004 25 50 3.65 7.31 0.006 1.8 Main 2005 2008 25 50 3.73 5.32 0.006 1.8 Main 2009 2020 25 50 3.73 5.32 0.006 1.8 Main 0 1996 51 120 3.5 15.34 0.006 1.44 Main 1997 1999 51 120 2.55 10.33 0.006 0.99 Main 2000 2004 51 120 2.55 7.31 0.006 0.99 Main 2005 2008 51 120 3.73 5.32 0.006 0.99 Main 2009 2020 51 120 3.73 5.32 0.006 0.99 Main 0 1970 121 175 3.21 16.52 0.006 1.32 Main 1971 1978 121 175 3.21 15.34 0.006 1.1 Main 1979 1983 121 175 3.21 14.16 0.006 1 Main 1984 1986 121 175 3.14 12.98 0.006 0.94 Main 1987 1995 121 175 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.88 Main 1996 1999 121 175 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2003 121 175 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2004 2012 121 175 3.73 5.1 0.006 0.68 Main 2013 2020 121 175 3.73 3.8 0.006 0.68 Main 0 1970 176 250 3.21 16.52 0.006 1.32 Main 1971 1978 176 250 3.21 15.34 0.006 1.1 Main 1979 1983 176 250 3.21 14.16 0.006 1 Main 1984 1986 176 250 3.14 12.98 0.006 0.94 1987 1994 176 250 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.88 Main Main 1995 1999 176 250 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2003 176 250 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2004 2013 176 250 3.73 5.1 0.006 0.68 Main 2014 2020 176 250 3.73 3.99 0.006 0.68 Main 0 1970 251 500 3.07 16.52 0.006 1.26 Main 1971 1978 251 500 3.07 15.34 0.006 1.05 Main 1979 1983 251 500 3.07 14.16 0.006 0.95 Main 1984 1986 251 500 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.9 Main 1987 1994 251 500 2.99 12.98 0.006 0.84 Main 1995 1999 251 500 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2003 251 500 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2004 2013 251 500 3.73 5.1 0.006 0.68 Main 2014 2020 251 500 3.73 3.99 0.006 0.68 Main 0 1970 501 750 3.07 16.52 0.006 1.26 Main 1971 1978 501 750 3.07 15.34 0.006 1.05 Main 1979 1983 501 750 3.07 14.16 0.006 0.95 Main 1984 1986 501 750 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.9 Main 1987 1994 501 750 2.99 12.98 0.006 0.84 Main 1995 1999 501 750 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2006 501 750 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2007 2012 501 750 3.73 5.1 0.006 0.68 Main 2013 2020 501 750 3.73 3.99 0.006 0.68 Main 0 1970 751 1900 3.07 16.52 0.006 1.26 Main 1971 1978 751 1900 3.07 15.34 0.006 1.05 Main 1979 1983 751 1900 3.07 14.16 0.006 0.95 Main 1984 1986 751 1900 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.9 Main 1987 1998 751 1900 2.99 12.98 0.006 0.84 Main 1999 1999 751 1900 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2006 751 1900 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2007 2011 751 1900 3.73 5.53 0.006 0.68 Main 2012 2016 751 1900 3.73 4.09 0.006 0.68 Main 2017 2020 751 1900 3.73 1.3 0.006 0.18 Main 0 1970 1901 3300 3.07 16.52 0.006 1.26 Main 1971 1978 1901 3300 3.07 15.34 0.006 1.05 Main 1979 1983 1901 3300 3.07 14.16 0.006 0.95 Main 1984 1986 1901 3300 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.9 Main 1987 1998 1901 3300 2.99 12.98 0.006 0.84 Main 1999 1999 1901 3300 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2006 1901 3300 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2007 2012 1901 3300 3.73 5.53 0.006 0.68 Main 2013 2015 1901 3300 3.73 4.37 0.006 0.68 Main 2016 2020 1901 3300 3.73 1.3 0.006 0.18 Main 0 1970 3301 5000 3.07 16.52 0.006 1.26 Main 1971 1978 3301 5000 3.07 15.34 0.006 1.05 Main 1979 1983 3301 5000 3.07 14.16 0.006 0.95 Main 1984 1986 3301 5000 3.07 12.98 0.006 0.9 Main 1987 1998 3301 5000 2.99 12.98 0.006 0.84 Main 1999 1999 3301 5000 1.97 9.64 0.006 0.68 Main 2000 2006 3301 5000 1.97 7.31 0.006 0.68 Main 2007 2013 3301 5000 3.73 5.53 0.006 0.68 Main 2014 2015 3301 5000 3.73 4.94 0.006 0.68 2016 2020 3301 5000 3.73 1.3 0.006 0.18 Main Ref - CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California
ERM
Min
Max
Min
Max
CO
NOx
Page 8 of 19
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.3 0.22 0.8 0.66 0.66 0.3 0.22 0.73 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.09 0.73 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.2 0.08 0.03 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.2 0.25 0.03
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.3 0.22 0.8 0.66 0.66 0.3 0.22 0.73 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.09 0.73 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.2 0.08 0.03 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.2 0.25 0.03
486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
0.0368 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.0288 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0264 0.022 0.02 0.0188 0.0176 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0264 0.022 0.02 0.0188 0.0176 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0252 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.0168 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0252 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.0168 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0252 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.0168 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0036 0.0252 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.0168 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0036 0.0252 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.0168 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0036
0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tugboat Zero Hour Emissions Factors Engine Type Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary Auxiliary
Year
Engine Power (HP)
Zero Hour Emission Factor (g/HP-hr)
Min
Max
Min
Max
CO
NOx
0 1998 2000 2005 2009 0 1997 2000 2005 2009 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1996 2000 2004 2013 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1995 2000 2004 2014 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1995 2000 2004 2014 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1995 2000 2007 2013 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1999 2000 2007 2012 2017 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1999 2000 2007 2013 2016 0 1971 1979 1984 1987 1999 2000 2007 2014 2016
1997 1999 2004 2008 2020 1996 1999 2004 2008 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1995 1999 2003 2012 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1994 1999 2003 2013 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1994 1999 2003 2013 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1994 1999 2006 2012 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1998 1999 2006 2011 2016 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1998 1999 2006 2012 2015 2020 1970 1978 1983 1986 1998 1999 2006 2013 2015 2020
25 25 25 25 25 51 51 51 51 51 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 751 751 751 751 751 751 751 751 751 751 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 3301 3301 3301 3301 3301 3301 3301 3301 3301 3301
50 50 50 50 50 120 120 120 120 120 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
5.15 5.15 5.15 3.73 3.73 4.94 3.59 3.59 3.73 3.73 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.43 4.33 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.73 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.43 4.33 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.73 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.22 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.73 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.22 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.73 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.22 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.73 3.73 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.22 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.73 3.73 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.33 4.22 2.78 2.78 3.73 3.75 3.75
6.9 6.9 6.9 5.32 5.32 13 8.75 7.31 5.32 5.32 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.1 3.8 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.1 3.99 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.1 3.99 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.1 3.99 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.53 4.09 1.3 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.53 4.37 1.3 14 13 12 11 11 8.17 7.31 5.53 4.94 1.3
SO2 at 15 ppm 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
HC
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
2.19 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 1.71 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.57 1.31 1.19 1.12 1.05 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.57 1.31 1.19 1.12 1.05 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.5 1.25 1.13 1.07 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.5 1.25 1.13 1.07 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.5 1.25 1.13 1.07 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.18 1.5 1.25 1.13 1.07 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.18 1.5 1.25 1.13 1.07 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.18
0.64 0.64 0.64 0.3 0.22 0.71 0.58 0.58 0.3 0.22 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.09 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.2 0.08 0.03 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.2 0.25 0.03
0.64 0.64 0.64 0.3 0.22 0.71 0.58 0.58 0.3 0.22 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.09 0.65 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.2 0.08 0.03 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.62 0.53 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.2 0.25 0.03
486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
0.0438 0.0428 0.0428 0.0428 0.0428 0.0342 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0314 0.0262 0.0238 0.0224 0.021 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0314 0.0262 0.0238 0.0224 0.021 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.03 0.025 0.0226 0.0214 0.02 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.03 0.025 0.0226 0.0214 0.02 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.03 0.025 0.0226 0.0214 0.02 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0036 0.03 0.025 0.0226 0.0214 0.02 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0036 0.03 0.025 0.0226 0.0214 0.02 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0036
0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
Ref - CARB 2007, Appendix B Emissions Estimation Methodology for Commercial Harbor Craft Operating in California
ERM
Page 9 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Ref http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%2 0Inventory%20June%202010.ashx
Ref http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%2 0Inventory%20June%202010.ashx
ERM
Page 10 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Ref http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/Port%20of%20Richmond%202005%20Emissions%2 0Inventory%20June%202010.ashx
Port of Oakland 2012 Seaport Air Emissions Inventory, Nov 5, 2013 Average Model Year Average Main Engine Power Average Auxiliary Engine Power per Engine
2000 4794 140
Crude Tanker Specific Cargo Capacity Estimate
Description
DWT
1
65,200 Oil Product Tanker Oil Tanker 52,600 Oil Product/Chemical tanker 45,000 Handysize Oil Product Tanker 45,000 Oil Tanker 45,999 Chemicals and Oil Products Tanker 46,764 Oil and Chemical Tanker 47,400 Tanker for Chemicals, Oil and Oil Products 47,300 Tanker for Chemicals and Oil Products 46,941 Tanker for Chemicals and Oil Products 46,190 Oil and Chemical Tanker 40,700 Tanker for Chemicals and Oil Products 35,000 Tanker for Chemicals and Oil Products 37,300 Tanker for Chemicals and Oil Products 23,998 Oil Chemical Tanker Asphalt carrier 9,200 PC-1 Product/Chemical Tanker 48,400 Average http://www.hb.hr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RetQFnntemc%3D&tabid=74
conversion factor: conversion factor:
ERM
Cargo tank capacity (m3)1 70,255 58,691 55,423 53,000 53,100 52,969 53,100 53,030 53,970 53,485 51,316 43,200 43,259 30,113 7,749 53,500
Cargo capacity per DWT (m3/DWT)
Main Engine MCR (kW)
1.0775 1.1158 1.2316 1.1778 1.1544 1.1327 1.1203 1.1211 1.1497 1.1579 1.2608 1.2343 1.1598 1.2548 0.8423 1.1054 1.1435
7,860 9,650 9,180 7,720 9,480 7,680 8,310 8,310 9,480 8,200 8,310 9,000 7,900 7,850 4,000 11,640 8,411
knots 15 15 16 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 15 15 15 15 14 15 15
264.172 gal/m3 42 gal/bbl
Page 11 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tanker Truck Emissions
EMFAC2011 Emissions Inventory Region Type: Air District Region: Bay Area AQMD Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Region Bay Area AQMD Bay Area AQMD Bay Area AQMD Bay Area AQMD
CalYr
Season
Veh_Class
Fuel
MdlYr
2011 2012 2013 2015
Annual Annual Annual Annual
T7 T7 T7 T7
DSL DSL DSL DSL
Aggregated Aggregated Aggregated Aggregated
Speed (miles/hr) Aggregated Aggregated Aggregated Aggregated
Population (vehicles) 24623.69744 25967.59639 27294.04523 29516.22556
VMT (miles/day) 3405035.669 3578820.838 3755166.568 4113913.261
Trips (trips/day) 0 0 0 0
PM2.5 8.88E-04 7.62E-04 5.94E-04 2.43E-04
CO2 3.99E+00 4.00E+00 4.01E+00 4.03E+00
CH4 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05 1.12E-05
N2O 1.06E-05 1.06E-05 1.06E-05 1.06E-05
Tanker Truck Emission Factors Emission Factors (lb/VMT)
CalYr
CO 6.72E-03 6.03E-03 5.22E-03 3.69E-03
2011 2012 2013 2015
NOx 2.87E-02 2.63E-02 2.38E-02 1.73E-02
SO2 3.80E-05 3.81E-05 3.83E-05 3.84E-05
Total Distance (miles)
Distance within SFBAAB (miles)
74
57
74
40
25
25
150
40
51
51
Tanker Truck Baseline and Post Project Emissions Baseline Period Material Throughput Baseline Year 2011 2012 2013
Ethanol (gal/year) 14,024,491 11,186,367 9,503,635
Destination of Trucks and Distance from the Facility
Terminal Name
Buckeye Partners, L.P. Terminals Buckeye Partners, L.P. Terminals Kinder Morgan Terminals Kinder Morgan Terminals Kinder Morgan Terminals
Terminal Location 2700 W Washington St, Stockton, CA 95203 1601 S River Rd, West Sacremento, CA 95691 950 Tunnel Ave, Brisbane, CA 94005 2570 Hegan Ln, Chico, CA 95928 2150 Kruse Dr, San Jose, CA 95131
ROG 1.52E-03 1.36E-03 1.16E-03 7.94E-04
PM10 9.65E-04 8.29E-04 6.45E-04 2.64E-04
ROG_RUNEX (tons/day) 2.329301104 2.161658936 1.905120827 1.318258377
ROG_TOTAL (tons/day) 2.595136123 2.429738026 2.17002364 1.632873675
CO_TOTEX (tons/day) 11.44839641 10.79472779 9.806009535 7.598393948
NOx_TOTEX (tons/day) 48.89267087 47.02800093 44.73714333 35.59540208
CO2_TOTEX (tons/day) 6788.520367 7154.8037 7532.832064 8282.617875
PM10_TOTEX (tons/day) 1.643284997 1.482650121 1.21179141 0.542214237
PM2_5_TOTEX (tons/day) 1.511822197 1.364038111 1.114848097 0.498837098
SOx_TOTEX (tons/day) 0.064765658 0.068260172 0.071866739 0.079020047
Operation Year
Annual Number of Truck Trips
Round Trip Length
Annual VMT
miles/ round-trip
VMT/year
2011 1,631 114 185,934 2012 1,301 114 148,314 2013 1,105 114 125,970 2015 10,140 114 1,155,960 Annual truck trips are based on the throughput of material loaded at loading rack S-1 and a nominal truck capacity of 8,600 gallons
Annual Emissions Operation Year 2011 2012 2013 2015
Emissions (Tons/year) CO 0.6251 0.4474 0.3290 2.1351
NOx 2.6698 1.9489 1.5007 10.0019
SO2 0.0035 0.0028 0.0024 0.0222
Average Daily Emissions CO 3.43 2.45 1.80 11.70
Annual Emissions
Average Annual Number of Trucks
Daily Emissions Average Daily Baseline Actual Post Project PTE Emissions Increase
PM10 0.0897 0.0614 0.0407 0.1524
PM2.5 0.0826 0.0565 0.0374 0.1402
CO2 370.6912 296.5104 252.6947 2327.3157
CH4 0.0010 0.0008 0.0007 0.0065
N2O 0.0010 0.0008 0.0007 0.0061
PM10 0.49 0.34 0.22 0.83
PM2.5 0.45 0.31 0.20 0.77
CO2 2031.18 1624.71 1384.63 12752.41
CH4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04
N2O 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
Emissions (lb/day)
Operation Year 2011 2012 2013 2015
Average Annual Baseline Actual Post Project PTE Emissions Increase
ROG 0.1417 0.1007 0.0728 0.4588
1346 10140 Average Daily Number of Trucks 4 28
NOx 14.63 10.68 8.22 54.80
SO2 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.12
ROG 0.78 0.55 0.40 2.51
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) CO
NOx
0.47 2.14 1.67
2.04 0.00 0.11 10.00 0.02 0.46 7.96 0.02 0.35 Average Daily Emissions (lb/day)
0.06 0.15 0.09
0.06 0.14 0.08
306.63 2327.32 2020.68
0.00 0.01 0.01
0.00 0.01 0.01
CO 2.56 11.70 9.14
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
CH4
N2O
11.18 54.80 43.63
0.02 0.12 0.11
0.35 0.83 0.48
0.32 0.77 0.45
1680.18 12752.41 11072.24
0.00 0.04 0.03
0.00 0.03 0.03
SO2
ROG
ROG 0.58 2.51 1.94
Incremental Fugitive Equipment Component Emissions Additional Fugitive Equipment Component Emissions Reg 8-18-306 Non-repairable Equipment Requirement
Total Count
Component Type
Count for Pegged Leakers (Non-repairable Components)
Gasoline Service Ethanol Service % of Total Components Gasoline Service Ethanol Service Valves 0.3% 0.039 0.18 13 60 Pressure Relief Valves 1% 0.01 0.03 1 3 Flanges* 0.3% 0.039 0.18 26 64 Connectors* 0.3% 0.039 0.18 13 169 Pumps 1% 0.02 0.01 2 1 Total 55 297 0.147 0.58 * Flanges are defined as connection under Reg 8-18-204. Per Reg 8-18-306.2 Table, non-repairable connections are 0.30% of total number of valves
Incremental Annual ROG Emissions
Screening Value (SV)
Correlation Equation
max ppm
kg/hr/comp
lb/day/component
lb/day/component
Gasoline Service
Ethanol Service
Gasoline Service
Ethanol Service
lb/day
ton/yr
Valves
100
2.27E-06(SV)^0.747
3.75E-03
3.38630
0.181
0.834
0.033
0.152
1.014
0.185
PRVs/Other
500
8.69E-06(SV)^0.642
2.48E-02
4.33869
0.068
0.204
0.012
0.037
0.272
0.050
Flanges
100
4.53E-06(SV)^0.706
6.19E-03
5.02653
0.357
1.300
0.065
0.237
1.656
0.302
Connectors
100
1.53E-06(SV)^0.736
2.40E-03
1.58733
0.093
0.691
0.017
0.126
0.784
0.143
Pumps
500
5.07E-05(SV)^0.622
1.28E-01
4.70907
0.348
0.174
0.063
0.032
0.522
0.095
1.046
3.202
0.191
0.584
4.248
0.775
Component Type
Daily Pegged Factor for 10,000 ppmv
Incremental Average Daily ROG Emission
Daily Emission Factor based on Screening Value
Total
Incremental Average Daily ROG Emission (lb/day)
Incremental Annual ROG Emissions (tons/yr)
Correlation Equations and pegged factors for 10,000 ppmv from Table IV-3a (CAPCOA-Revised 1995 EPA Correlation Equations and Factors for Refineries and Marketing Terminals), California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions from Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities, February 1999. Screening Value (SV) from BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18 component emission limits
ERM
Page 14 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tank - 56 Emissions Tank - 56 has been out of service since 2009. Therefore baseline ROG emissions = 0 Tank - 56 Properties Type Materials Stored Diameter (ft) Volume (gal) Permitted Throughput (gal/yr) Den EtOH Throughput (gal/yr) ROG Emissions - Only Denatured EtOH Storage (lb/yr)
ERM
Baseline Actual Internal Floating Roof Diesel/Jet-A/Gasoline 85 2,259,000 158,760,000 0 0
Post-Project Internal Floating Roof Diesel/Jet-A/Gasoline/ Den. EtOH 85 2,259,000 158,760,000 29,066,667 147.17
Page 15 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tank - 57 Emissions Tank - 57 Properties Type Materials Stored Diameter (ft) Volume (gal) Permitted Throughput (gal/yr) Den EtOH Throughput (gal/yr) ROG Emissions - Only Denatured EtOH Storage (lb/yr)
Baseline Actual Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,394,000 69,888,000 23,296,070 129
Post-Project Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,394,000 69,888,000 29,066,667 144
Tank - 58 Emissions Tank - 58 has been out of service since 2010. Therefore baseline ROG emissions = 0 Tank - 58 Properties Type Materials Stored Diameter (ft) Volume (gal) Permitted Throughput (gal/yr) Den EtOH Throughput (gal/yr) ROG Emissions - Only Denatured EtOH Storage (lb/yr)
Baseline Actual Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,268,000 34,944,000 0 0
Post-Project Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,268,000 34,944,000 29,066,667 316
Truck Loading Rack (S-1) Controlled by Vapor Recovery System (A-1) - Emission Calculations Source Test Results Year
Total Emission Factors 3
lb/10 gal 10/12/2010 0.004 3/29/2012 0.008 1/23/2013 0.006 Average 0.007 Only the source tests performed by the District were considered
Destruction Efficiency % 99.3%
Agency
BP BAAQMD BAAQMD
99.3%
Product
Total NMOC Emission 1,2 Factor (lb/1000 gal)
2011
Ethanol
0.007
14,024,491
0.28
0.05
2012
Ethanol
0.007
11,186,367
0.22
0.04
0.007
9,503,635
0.020
87,200,000
0.19 0.23 4.78 4.55
0.03 0.04 0.87 0.83
Basis
Annual Throughput (gal/yr)3
Average Daily Emissions (lb/day)4
Annual Emissions (tpy)4
Baseline Actual Emissions
2013 Ethanol Average Annual Baseline Emissions (Ethanol Only for CEQA) Ethanol Post-Project PTE CEQA Emissions Increase (PTE-BAE)
1. The baseline period emission factor for ethanol is based on the average of emission factor from all source tests performed by the BAAQMD between 2011 and 2013. 2. Permit to Operate (Plant # 13637) Condition 19942.15 stipulates that organic emissions from S-1 and A-1 shall not exceed 0.02 pounds per 1,000 gallon of gasoline loaded. It is assumed that this emission limit applies to ethanol loaded out at S-1 as well. Post-Project PTE are calculated using these emission factors. 3. 2011 through 2013 Annual Throughput represents the actual throughput of ethanol loaded at the loading rack. loading rack to 87,200,000 gallons per year (= 85,000,000/97.5%) gallons per year.
BP requests BAAQMD to increase the permitted throughput for denatured ethanol at the
4. Annual NMOC emissions (tpy) = Throughput (gallons/year) / 2,000 * Emission Factor (lb/1,000 gallon]). Average Daily NMOC emissions (lb/day) = Annual NMOC emissions (tpy) / 365 (days/year) * 2,000 (lbs/ton)
ERM
Page 18 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Annual Emissions Basis
Baseline or Pre-Project Emissions
Post-Project PTE
Net Change in Emissions
Significance Threshold
Source Marine Vessels Tanker Trucks Loading Rack Tank - 56 Tank - 57 Tank - 58 Fugitive Pipeline Components Total Marine Vessels Tanker Trucks Loading Rack Tank - 56 Tank - 57 Tank - 58 Fugitive Pipeline Components Total Marine Vessels Tanker Trucks Loading Rack Tank - 56 Tank - 57 Tank - 58 Fugitive Pipeline Components Total
Emissions (Tons/year) SO2 ROG ----0.003 0.105 --0.042
CO --0.467 ---
NOx --2.040 ---
---
---
---
--0.467 --2.135 ----------2.135 1.39 1.67 ----------3.06 ---
--2.040 --10.002 ----------10.002 12.19 7.96 ----------20.15 10
--0.003 --0.022 ----------0.022 1.11 0.02 ----------1.13 ---
PM2.5 CO2 PM10 ------0.064 0.059 278.172 ------Tank -56 has been out of service since 2009 0.064 ------Tank -58 has been out of service since 2010 --------0.211 0.064 0.059 278 --------0.459 0.152 0.140 2111 0.872 ------0.074 ------0.072 ------0.1580474 --------------1.634 0.152 0.140 2111 0.69 0.42 0.41 1789 0.35 0.09 0.08 1833 0.83 ------0.07 ------0.01 ------0.16 ------0.78 ------2.88 0.51 0.49 3622 10 15 10 ---
Emissions (Metric Tons/year) CH4 N2O ----0.001 0.001 -----
CO2e --278 ---
---
---
---
--0.001 --0.006 ----------0.006 0.09 0.01 ----------0.09 ---
--0.001 --0.006 ----------0.006 0.13 0.00 ----------0.13 ---
--278 --2113 ----------2113 1830 1835 ----------3665 10000
Average Daily Emissions Basis Baseline or Pre-Project Emissions
Post-Project Emissions
Net Change in Emissions
Average Daily Construction Emissions Significance Threshold
ERM
Source Marine Vessels Tanker Trucks Loading Rack Tank - 56 Tank - 57 Tank - 58 Fugitive Pipeline Components Total Marine Vessels Tanker Trucks Loading Rack Tank - 56 Tank - 57 Tank - 58 Fugitive Pipeline Components Total Marine Vessels Tanker Trucks Loading Rack Tank - 56 Tank - 57 Tank - 58 Fugitive Pipeline Components Total
CO --2.560 ------2.560 --11.699 ----------11.699 7.62 9.14 ----------16.76 10.40 ---
Emissions (lb/day) NOx SO2 PM10 ROG --------11.177 0.016 0.576 0.350 ----0.230 --Tank -56 has been out of service since 2009 ----0.352 --Tank -58 has been out of service since 2010 --------11.177 0.016 1.158 0.350 --------54.805 0.122 2.514 0.835 ----4.778 ------0.403 ------0.3935355 ------0.8660133 ----------54.80 0.122 8.955 0.835 66.80 6.06 3.76 2.32 43.63 0.11 1.94 0.48 ----4.55 ------0.40 --0.04 ------0.87 ----------4.25 --110.42 6.17 15.81 2.81 14.06 0.02 1.63 0.72 54 --54 82
PM2.5 --0.322 ------0.322 --0.768 ----------0.768 2.26 0.45 ----------2.71 0.70 54
Page 19 of 19
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Attachment A-3 – TANKS 4.09d Reports for Tanks 56, 57, and 58
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 1 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics Identification User Identification: City: State: Company: Type of Tank: Description: Tank Dimensions Diameter (ft): Volume (gallons): Turnovers: Self Supp. Roof? (y/n): No. of Columns: Eff. Col. Diam. (ft):
TK-56 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project Richmond California BP Terminal Internal Floating Roof Tank Tank 56 tp=158.76 mmgal/yr Den. EtOH = 87,200,000/3 = 29,066,667 New Mech shoe seal with secondary.
85.00 2,259,000.00 12.87 Y 0.00 0.00
Paint Characteristics Internal Shell Condition: Shell Color/Shade: Shell Condition Roof Color/Shade: Roof Condition:
Light Rust White/White Good White/White Good
Rim-Seal System Primary Seal: Secondary Seal
Mechanical Shoe Rim-mounted
Deck Characteristics Deck Fitting Category: Deck Type:
Detail Welded
Deck Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Gasketed Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float, Wiper Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity 2 9 14 1 2 2 2
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: San Francisco AP, California (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.75 psia)
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 2 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Liquid Contents of Storage Tank TK-56 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Mixture/Component Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Benzene Cyclohexane Ethylbenzene Hexane (-n) Isooctane Naphthalene Toluene Unidentified Components Xylene (-m)
Month
All
Daily Liquid Surf. Temperature (deg F) Avg. Min. Max.
59.20
54.43
63.97
Liquid Bulk Temp (deg F)
57.12
Vapor Pressure (psia) Avg. Min. Max.
Vapor Mol. Weight.
0.6821
N/A
N/A
51.8300
0.0198 1.1421 1.1853 0.1055 1.8738 0.5645 0.0020 0.3220 0.6823 0.0879
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
120.1900 78.1100 84.1600 106.1700 86.1700 114.2200 129.1900 92.1300 51.7689 106.1700
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Liquid Mass Fract.
Vapor Mass Fract.
Mol. Weight
0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0012 0.0000 0.0007 0.9961 0.0010
0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0007 0.0009 0.0000 0.0003 0.9974 0.0001
120.19 78.11 84.16 106.17 86.17 114.22 129.19 92.13 46.46 106.17
46.56
Basis for Vapor Pressure Calculations
Option 1: VP50 = .4745 VP60 = .7002 Option 2: A=7.04383, B=1573.267, C=208.56 Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79 Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65 Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21 Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41 Option 1: VP50 = .387 VP60 = .58 Option 2: A=7.0106, B=1733.71, C=201.849 Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48 Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 3 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Detail Calculations (AP-42) TK-56 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Annual Emission Calcaulations Rim Seal Losses (lb): Seal Factor A (lb-mole/ft-yr): Seal Factor B (lb-mole/ft-yr (mph)^n): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor:
31.2935 0.6000 0.4000 0.0118
Withdrawal Losses (lb): Number of Columns: Effective Column Diameter (ft): Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.): Shell Clingage Factor (bbl/1000 sqft): Average Organic Liquid Density (lb/gal): Tank Diameter (ft):
75.8378 0.0000 0.0000 29,066,667.0000 0.0015 6.5850 85.0000
Deck Fitting Losses (lb): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Tot. Roof Fitting Loss Fact.(lb-mole/yr): Deck Seam Losses (lb): Deck Seam Length (ft): Deck Seam Loss per Unit Length Factor (lb-mole/ft-yr): Deck Seam Length Factor(ft/sqft): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Total Losses (lb):
0.6821 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000
40.0435 0.0118 51.8300 1.0000 65.2600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000 147.1748
Roof Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Gasketed Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float, Wiper Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity
KFa(lb-mole/yr)
Roof Fitting Loss Factors KFb(lb-mole/(yr mph^n))
m
Losses(lb)
2 9 14 1 2 2 2
1.60 1.30 0.53 21.00 6.20 4.30 0.47
0.00 0.08 0.11 7.90 1.20 17.00 0.02
0.00 0.65 0.13 1.80 0.94 0.38 0.97
1.9635 7.1791 4.5529 12.8856 7.6086 5.2769 0.5768
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 4 of 5
Individual Tank Emission Totals Emissions Report for: Annual TK-56 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California Losses(lbs) Components
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
Cyclohexane
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.04
Naphthalene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.21
75.54
39.94
0.00
146.69
31.29
75.84
40.04
0.00
147.17
Hexane (-n)
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.07
Benzene
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
Isooctane
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.16
Toluene
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.07
Ethylbenzene
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
Xylene (-m)
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.08
Unidentified Components Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15)
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 5 of 5
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 1 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics Identification User Identification: City: State: Company: Type of Tank: Description: Tank Dimensions Diameter (ft): Volume (gallons): Turnovers: Self Supp. Roof? (y/n): No. of Columns: Eff. Col. Diam. (ft):
Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Avg Baseline 2011-2013 Richmond California BP Terminal Internal Floating Roof Tank Tank 57 tp=69.888 mmgal/yr Den. EtOH = 19,063,255 gal/yr; 25,136,160 gal/yr; 25,688,796 gal/yr
85.00 2,394,000.00 9.73 Y 0.00 0.00
Paint Characteristics Internal Shell Condition: Shell Color/Shade: Shell Condition Roof Color/Shade: Roof Condition:
Light Rust White/White Good White/White Good
Rim-Seal System Primary Seal: Secondary Seal
Mechanical Shoe Rim-mounted
Deck Characteristics Deck Fitting Category: Deck Type:
Detail Welded
Deck Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Roof Drain (3-in. Diameter)/90% Closed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Gasketed Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float, Wiper Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Rim Vent (6-in. Diameter)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity 1 1 2 1 9 14 1 1 1
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: San Francisco AP, California (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.75 psia)
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/11/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 2 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Liquid Contents of Storage Tank Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Avg Baseline 2011-2013 - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Mixture/Component Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Benzene Cyclohexane Ethylbenzene Hexane (-n) Isooctane Naphthalene Toluene Unidentified Components Xylene (-m)
Month
All
Daily Liquid Surf. Temperature (deg F) Avg. Min. Max.
59.20
54.43
63.97
Liquid Bulk Temp (deg F)
57.12
Vapor Pressure (psia) Avg. Min. Max.
Vapor Mol. Weight.
0.6821
N/A
N/A
51.8300
0.0198 1.1421 1.1853 0.1055 1.8738 0.5645 0.0020 0.3220 0.6823 0.0879
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
120.1900 78.1100 84.1600 106.1700 86.1700 114.2200 129.1900 92.1300 51.7689 106.1700
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Liquid Mass Fract.
Vapor Mass Fract.
Mol. Weight
0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0012 0.0000 0.0007 0.9961 0.0010
0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0007 0.0009 0.0000 0.0003 0.9974 0.0001
120.19 78.11 84.16 106.17 86.17 114.22 129.19 92.13 46.46 106.17
46.56
Basis for Vapor Pressure Calculations
Option 1: VP50 = .4745 VP60 = .7002 Option 2: A=7.04383, B=1573.267, C=208.56 Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79 Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65 Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21 Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41 Option 1: VP50 = .387 VP60 = .58 Option 2: A=7.0106, B=1733.71, C=201.849 Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48 Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
12/11/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 3 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Detail Calculations (AP-42) Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Avg Baseline 2011-2013 - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Annual Emission Calcaulations Rim Seal Losses (lb): Seal Factor A (lb-mole/ft-yr): Seal Factor B (lb-mole/ft-yr (mph)^n): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor:
31.2935 0.6000 0.4000 0.0118
Withdrawal Losses (lb): Number of Columns: Effective Column Diameter (ft): Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.): Shell Clingage Factor (bbl/1000 sqft): Average Organic Liquid Density (lb/gal): Tank Diameter (ft):
60.7817 0.0000 0.0000 23,296,070.0000 0.0015 6.5850 85.0000
Deck Fitting Losses (lb): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Tot. Roof Fitting Loss Fact.(lb-mole/yr): Deck Seam Losses (lb): Deck Seam Length (ft): Deck Seam Loss per Unit Length Factor (lb-mole/ft-yr): Deck Seam Length Factor(ft/sqft): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Total Losses (lb):
0.6821 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000
36.5091 0.0118 51.8300 1.0000 59.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000 128.5844
Roof Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Roof Drain (3-in. Diameter)/90% Closed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Gasketed Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float, Wiper Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Rim Vent (6-in. Diameter)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity
KFa(lb-mole/yr)
Roof Fitting Loss Factors KFb(lb-mole/(yr mph^n))
m
Losses(lb)
1 1 2 1 9 14 1 1 1
1.60 0.47 4.30 1.80 1.30 0.53 21.00 6.20 0.71
0.00 0.02 17.00 0.14 0.08 0.11 7.90 1.20 0.10
0.00 0.97 0.38 1.10 0.65 0.13 1.80 0.94 1.00
0.9818 0.2884 5.2769 1.1045 7.1791 4.5529 12.8856 3.8043 0.4357
TANKS 4.0.9d
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/11/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 4 of 5
Emissions Report - Detail Format Individual Tank Emission Totals Emissions Report for: Annual Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Avg Baseline 2011-2013 - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California Losses(lbs) Components
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
Isooctane
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.14
Toluene
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.06
Ethylbenzene
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
Xylene (-m)
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.07
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
Cyclohexane
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
Naphthalene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.21
60.54
36.41
0.00
128.17
31.29
60.78
36.51
0.00
128.58
Hexane (-n)
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.06
Benzene
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
Unidentified Components Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15)
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/11/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 5 of 5
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/11/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 1 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics Identification User Identification: City: State: Company: Type of Tank: Description: Tank Dimensions Diameter (ft): Volume (gallons): Turnovers: Self Supp. Roof? (y/n): No. of Columns: Eff. Col. Diam. (ft):
Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project Richmond California BP Terminal Internal Floating Roof Tank Tank 57 tp=69.888 mmgal/yr Den. EtOH = 87,200,000/3 = 29,066,667
85.00 2,394,000.00 12.14 Y 0.00 0.00
Paint Characteristics Internal Shell Condition: Shell Color/Shade: Shell Condition Roof Color/Shade: Roof Condition:
Light Rust White/White Good White/White Good
Rim-Seal System Primary Seal: Secondary Seal
Mechanical Shoe Rim-mounted
Deck Characteristics Deck Fitting Category: Deck Type:
Detail Welded
Deck Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Roof Drain (3-in. Diameter)/90% Closed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Gasketed Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float, Wiper Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Rim Vent (6-in. Diameter)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity 1 1 2 1 9 14 1 1 1
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: San Francisco AP, California (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.75 psia)
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 2 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Liquid Contents of Storage Tank Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Mixture/Component Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Benzene Cyclohexane Ethylbenzene Hexane (-n) Isooctane Naphthalene Toluene Unidentified Components Xylene (-m)
Month
All
Daily Liquid Surf. Temperature (deg F) Avg. Min. Max.
59.20
54.43
63.97
Liquid Bulk Temp (deg F)
57.12
Vapor Pressure (psia) Avg. Min. Max.
Vapor Mol. Weight.
0.6821
N/A
N/A
51.8300
0.0198 1.1421 1.1853 0.1055 1.8738 0.5645 0.0020 0.3220 0.6823 0.0879
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
120.1900 78.1100 84.1600 106.1700 86.1700 114.2200 129.1900 92.1300 51.7689 106.1700
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Liquid Mass Fract.
Vapor Mass Fract.
Mol. Weight
0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0012 0.0000 0.0007 0.9961 0.0010
0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0007 0.0009 0.0000 0.0003 0.9974 0.0001
120.19 78.11 84.16 106.17 86.17 114.22 129.19 92.13 46.46 106.17
46.56
Basis for Vapor Pressure Calculations
Option 1: VP50 = .4745 VP60 = .7002 Option 2: A=7.04383, B=1573.267, C=208.56 Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79 Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65 Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21 Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41 Option 1: VP50 = .387 VP60 = .58 Option 2: A=7.0106, B=1733.71, C=201.849 Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48 Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 3 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Detail Calculations (AP-42) Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Annual Emission Calcaulations Rim Seal Losses (lb): Seal Factor A (lb-mole/ft-yr): Seal Factor B (lb-mole/ft-yr (mph)^n): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor:
31.2935 0.6000 0.4000 0.0118
Withdrawal Losses (lb): Number of Columns: Effective Column Diameter (ft): Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.): Shell Clingage Factor (bbl/1000 sqft): Average Organic Liquid Density (lb/gal): Tank Diameter (ft):
75.8378 0.0000 0.0000 29,066,667.0000 0.0015 6.5850 85.0000
Deck Fitting Losses (lb): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Tot. Roof Fitting Loss Fact.(lb-mole/yr): Deck Seam Losses (lb): Deck Seam Length (ft): Deck Seam Loss per Unit Length Factor (lb-mole/ft-yr): Deck Seam Length Factor(ft/sqft): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Total Losses (lb):
0.6821 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000
36.5091 0.0118 51.8300 1.0000 59.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000 143.6405
Roof Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Roof Drain (3-in. Diameter)/90% Closed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Gasketed Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Gasketed Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float, Wiper Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask. Rim Vent (6-in. Diameter)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity
KFa(lb-mole/yr)
Roof Fitting Loss Factors KFb(lb-mole/(yr mph^n))
m
Losses(lb)
1 1 2 1 9 14 1 1 1
1.60 0.47 4.30 1.80 1.30 0.53 21.00 6.20 0.71
0.00 0.02 17.00 0.14 0.08 0.11 7.90 1.20 0.10
0.00 0.97 0.38 1.10 0.65 0.13 1.80 0.94 1.00
0.9818 0.2884 5.2769 1.1045 7.1791 4.5529 12.8856 3.8043 0.4357
TANKS 4.0.9d
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 4 of 5
Emissions Report - Detail Format Individual Tank Emission Totals Emissions Report for: Annual Tank 57 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California Losses(lbs) Components
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
31.29
75.84
36.51
0.00
143.64
Hexane (-n)
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.07
Toluene
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.07
Ethylbenzene
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
Xylene (-m)
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.08
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
Cyclohexane
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.04
Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15)
Naphthalene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.21
75.54
36.41
0.00
143.16
Benzene
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
Isooctane
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.15
Unidentified Components
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 5 of 5
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 1 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics Identification User Identification: City: State: Company: Type of Tank: Description: Tank Dimensions Diameter (ft): Volume (gallons): Turnovers: Self Supp. Roof? (y/n): No. of Columns: Eff. Col. Diam. (ft):
BP Tank 58 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project Richmond California BP Terminal Internal Floating Roof Tank Tank 58 Den. EtOH tp=34.944 mmgal/yr Den. EtOH = 87,200,000/3 = 29,066,667
85.00 2,268,000.00 12.82 N 1.00 1.00
Paint Characteristics Internal Shell Condition: Shell Color/Shade: Shell Condition Roof Color/Shade: Roof Condition:
Light Rust White/White Good White/White Good
Rim-Seal System Primary Seal: Secondary Seal
Mechanical Shoe Rim-mounted
Deck Characteristics Deck Fitting Category: Deck Type:
Detail Welded
Deck Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Column Well (24-in. Diam.)/Built-Up Col.-Sliding Cover, Gask. Ladder Well (36-in. Diam.)/Sliding Cover, Gasketed Roof Leg or Hanger Well/Adjustable Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity 2 1 1 1 26 1 1
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: San Francisco AP, California (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.75 psia)
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 2 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Liquid Contents of Storage Tank BP Tank 58 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Mixture/Component Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Benzene Cyclohexane Ethylbenzene Hexane (-n) Isooctane Naphthalene Toluene Unidentified Components Xylene (-m)
Month
All
Daily Liquid Surf. Temperature (deg F) Avg. Min. Max.
59.20
54.43
63.97
Liquid Bulk Temp (deg F)
57.12
Vapor Pressure (psia) Avg. Min. Max.
Vapor Mol. Weight.
0.6821
N/A
N/A
51.8300
0.0198 1.1421 1.1853 0.1055 1.8738 0.5645 0.0020 0.3220 0.6823 0.0879
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
120.1900 78.1100 84.1600 106.1700 86.1700 114.2200 129.1900 92.1300 51.7689 106.1700
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
Liquid Mass Fract.
Vapor Mass Fract.
Mol. Weight
0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0012 0.0000 0.0007 0.9961 0.0010
0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0007 0.0009 0.0000 0.0003 0.9974 0.0001
120.19 78.11 84.16 106.17 86.17 114.22 129.19 92.13 46.46 106.17
46.56
Basis for Vapor Pressure Calculations
Option 1: VP50 = .4745 VP60 = .7002 Option 2: A=7.04383, B=1573.267, C=208.56 Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79 Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65 Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21 Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41 Option 1: VP50 = .387 VP60 = .58 Option 2: A=7.0106, B=1733.71, C=201.849 Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48 Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 3 of 5
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format Detail Calculations (AP-42) BP Tank 58 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California
Annual Emission Calcaulations Rim Seal Losses (lb): Seal Factor A (lb-mole/ft-yr): Seal Factor B (lb-mole/ft-yr (mph)^n): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Pressure at Daily Average Liquid Surface Temperature (psia): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor:
31.2935 0.6000 0.4000 0.0118
Withdrawal Losses (lb): Number of Columns: Effective Column Diameter (ft): Annual Net Throughput (gal/yr.): Shell Clingage Factor (bbl/1000 sqft): Average Organic Liquid Density (lb/gal): Tank Diameter (ft):
76.7300 1.0000 1.0000 29,066,667.0000 0.0015 6.5850 85.0000
Deck Fitting Losses (lb): Value of Vapor Pressure Function: Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Tot. Roof Fitting Loss Fact.(lb-mole/yr):
0.6821 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000
208.0713 0.0118 51.8300 1.0000 339.1000
Deck Seam Losses (lb): Deck Seam Length (ft): Deck Seam Loss per Unit Length Factor (lb-mole/ft-yr): Deck Seam Length Factor(ft/sqft): Tank Diameter (ft): Vapor Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole): Product Factor: Total Losses (lb):
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 85.0000 51.8300 1.0000 316.0949
Roof Fitting/Status Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Gasketed Column Well (24-in. Diam.)/Built-Up Col.-Sliding Cover, Gask. Ladder Well (36-in. Diam.)/Sliding Cover, Gasketed Roof Leg or Hanger Well/Adjustable Slotted Guide-Pole/Sample Well/Gask. Sliding Cover, w. Float Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity
KFa(lb-mole/yr)
Roof Fitting Loss Factors KFb(lb-mole/(yr mph^n))
m
Losses(lb)
2 1 1 1 26 1 1
1.60 4.30 33.00 56.00 7.90 31.00 6.20
0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 1.20
0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.94
1.9635 2.6385 20.2488 34.3615 126.0332 19.0216 3.8043
TANKS 4.0.9d Emissions Report - Detail Format
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 4 of 5
Individual Tank Emission Totals Emissions Report for: Annual BP Tank 58 NEP Only Den EtOH Post Project - Internal Floating Roof Tank Richmond, California Losses(lbs) Components
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
31.29
76.73
208.07
0.00
316.09
Hexane (-n)
0.02
0.02
0.14
0.00
0.19
Toluene
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.12
Ethylbenzene
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
Xylene (-m)
0.00
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.10
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
Cyclohexane
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.00
0.09
Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15)
Naphthalene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.21
76.43
207.53
0.00
315.17
Benzene
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.07
Isooctane
0.03
0.09
0.19
0.00
0.31
Unidentified Components
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
TANKS 4.0 Report
Page 5 of 5
file:///C:/Program%20Files/Tanks409d/summarydisplay.htm
12/10/2014
Appendix B Health Risk Assessment Methodologies and Emissions Estimation Attachment B-1 – Modeled Emissions and Modeling Parameters
The Table B-1 summarizes the various pollutants modeled from project sources. Table B-1
Emissions Sources Modeled and Corresponding TACs
Source
Operation Mode
Criteria Pollutant
TACs Species of Criteria Pollutant
PM2.5
Vessel Main and Auxiliary Engines
Slow cruise
PM10 Exhaust
DPM
PM2.5 Exhaust
Vessel Auxiliary Engines
Hotelling
PM10 Exhaust
DPM
PM2.5 Exhaust
Vessel Auxiliary Boilers
Hotelling
PM10 Exhaust, VOC
Various, Using CARB speciation profile for PM10 and VOC
PM2.5 Exhaust
Tugboat engines
Cruising and assisting
PM10 Exhaust
DPM
PM2.5 Exhaust
Truck Engines
Travelling and idling
PM10 Exhaust
DPM
PM2.5 Exhaust, tire and brake wear
Loading Rack VRU
Ethanol loading into trucks
VOC
Various, TAC speciation in denatured ethanol
Not Applicable
Tank 56
Ethanol Storage
VOC
Various, TAC speciation in denatured ethanol
Not Applicable
Tank 57
Ethanol Storage
VOC
Various, TAC speciation in denatured ethanol
Not Applicable
Tank 58
Ethanol Storage
VOC
Various, TAC speciation in denatured ethanol
Not Applicable
Pipeline Components
Material transfer
VOC
Various, TAC speciation in denatured ethanol
Not Applicable
Construction Equipment
Construction
PM10 Exhaust
DPM
PM2.5 Exhaust, tire and brake wear, fugitive dust
1
Empty vessels are allowed to travel at 12 knots for the entire outbound route.
ERM
1
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AND HRA METHODOLOGY Construction emissions were estimated by using the BAAQMD approved CalEEMod model, version 2013.2.2, see Attachment A-1 of Appendix A. All PM10 emissions from diesel-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) exhaust are characterized as DPM, which is considered a TAC. Therefore, DPM emissions from ICE are equal to exhaust PM10 emissions. During construction, most of the toxic emissions are generated by diesel-powered ICEs in offroad equipment and onroad trucks. Therefore, all exhaust PM10 emissions were assumed to be DPM. Because 99 percent of the total construction exhaust PM10 emissions and 95 percent of the total construction PM2.5 emissions would be generated on the site from diesel-powered off-road equipment usage, all construction emissions shown in Attachment A-1 of Appendix A were modeled as onsite sources. Construction emissions were modeled as three area sources centered around the location of construction activities: between the dock and tank farm, around the injection skid, and at the loading rack, lane 4. Total construction emissions were apportioned by the ratio of area of the source to the total construction area and assigned to each of the three area sources. Modeled emissions are provided in Table B-2. Construction emissions were modeled as elevated area sources to represent the release height from the equipment exhaust stacks. Exhaust PM10 (DPM) and total PM2.5 concentrations (Cair) from construction emissions were obtained from dispersion modeling using The Industrial Source Complex-3 model (Version 02035), 5 years of meteorological data obtained from BAAQMD website and the following inputs:
A Cartesian grid receptor network with a total of 33,239 receptors, with the following resolution: o 10 meter (m) resolution out to 120 m from the fence line o 25 m resolution from 120 m to 1,000 m from the fence line o 50 m resolution from 1,000 m to 2,500 m from the fence line o 100 m resolution from 2,500 m to 5,000 m from the fence line;
ERM
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system (NAD83) was used to identify source and receptor locations. Elevations for all sources and receptors were obtained from National Elevation Data (NED).
2
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Surface meteorological data and upper air meteorological data from University of California Berkeley Richmond Field Station; and
Both rural and urban dispersion conditions were modeled and the worstcase concentration was used in the HRA.
Modeled source parameters are summarized in Table B-2. Table B-2
Construction Emissions and Source Parameters Modeled
CalEEMod Estimated Exhaust PM10 (DPM) Emissions
0.00724
tons/year
CalEEMod Estimated Total PM2.5 Emissions
0.00727
tons/year
Source Name
Skid
Rack
Pipe
Length of the Side, East (m)
25
30.0
15
Length of the Side, North (m)
10
35.0
150
Source Area (sq. m)
250
1,050
2,250
Total Area (sq. m)
3,550
DPM Emissions Modeled (g/s)
1.47E-05
6.16E-05
1.32E-04
PM2.5 Emissions Modeled (g/s)
1.47E-05
6.19E-05
1.33E-04
Release Height (m)
2.5
2.5
2.5
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Vertical dimension/4.3 (m)
1.16
1.16
1.16
Cancer risk and chronic hazard index (CHI) from DPM were estimated using the equations provided in BAAQMD’s 2012 modeling guidelines1 and shown below: Dose = (Cair * DBR * EF * ED * CF) / AT Cancer Risk = (Dose * CRAF * Cancer Potency Factor) CHI = Ci/RELi
1
BAAQMD, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2012.
ERM
3
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
where: Dose = dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day) Cair = air concentration (μg/m3) from air dispersion model DBR = daily breathing rate (L\kg body weight-day) EF = exposure frequency (days/year) ED = exposure duration (years) CF = conversion factor (10-6 ([mg/μg] * [m3/L]) AT = averaging time (25,550 days or 70 years) Cancer Risk = risk (potential chances per million) CRAF = Cancer risk adjustment factor Cancer Potency Factor = toxicity factor (mg/kg-day-1) Ci = Concentration in the air of substance i (annual average concentration in μg/m3) RELi = Chronic noncancer Reference Exposure Level for substance i (μg/m3)
ERM
4
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-3 summarizes the factors used to estimate cancer risk and CHI from construction DPM emissions. Table B-3
Cancer Risk and CHI Parameters for Construction Impacts
Impact Parameters
Child Resident
Student
Worker
Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg BW.day)
581
581
149
Exposure Frequency (days/year)
350
180
245
9
9
9
25550
25550
25550
4.8
3
1
24/24
10/24
8/24
1.1
1.1
1.1
5
5
5
Exposure Duration (years) Averaging Time (days) CRAF Exposure Hours Ratio (Exposure Time/24) DPM Cancer Potency Factor DPM Chronic REL
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS AND HRA METHODOLOGY MARINE VESSELS DPM emissions from marine vessels ICE were assumed to be equal to exhaust PM10 emissions. DPM emissions from diesel-powered main and auxiliary ICE from 16 ship trips per year were modeled as a line of separated volume sources coming into the Santa Fe Channel and docking. Each ship visiting the terminal would be assisted by one tugboat. Therefore, DPM emissions from dieselpowered main and auxiliary ICE from 16 trips per year of tugboats were also modeled as a line of separated volume sources coming into the Santa Fe Channel and docking. Ships have different release parameters than tugboats; therefore, the two sources were modeled separately. The total trip length from the sea buoy (pilot boarding station) to the terminal dock is approximately 24 nautical miles (nm). Round-trip criteria pollutant and GHG emissions for comparison with mass-based CEQA thresholds were estimated for the entire 24 nm trip length and are provided in Appendix A. Round-trip exhaust PM10 emissions for the purposes of this HRA were estimated and modeled, as DPM, over a trip length of approximately 2.4 nm. This is also the approximate length of the line of volume sources. Round-trip PM10 emissions from ships for the modeled trip length of 2.4 nm were estimated by pro-rating the total, round-trip PM10 emissions from ships for the entire trip length (24 nm) by the ratio of modeled trip length (2.4 nm) to entire trip length (24 nm). Similarly, round-trip PM10 emissions from tugboats for the modeled trip length
ERM
5
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
(2.4 nm) were estimated by pro-rating the total, round-trip PM10 emissions from tugboats for the entire trip length (including travel to and from home base) by the ratio of round-trip time required to travel modeled trip length to total, roundtrip time required to travel entire trip length (including travel to and from home base). PM2.5 emissions were estimated and modeled using the same methodology. Detailed emission calculations are provided in Attachment B-1. Vessels hoteling at the dock would run on auxiliary power from the on-board boilers and engines. TAC emissions from hoteling were modeled as point sources. All emissions occurring during the entire hotelling duration were included in this analysis. PM10 emissions from auxiliary ICE were modeled as DPM. Unlike PM10 emissions from diesel-powered ICE, which are all considered to be DPM, PM10 emissions from diesel-powered boilers are speciated into various TACs. VOC and PM10 emissions from diesel-powered auxiliary boilers were speciated into TACs using the TAC speciation profile for boilers obtained from CARB speciation database. Annual PM2.5 emissions were also modeled using the same methodology. Detailed emission calculations are provided in Attachment B-1. Modeled emissions are provided in Table B-4.
ERM
6
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-4
Modeled Ship and Tugboat Emissions Tug Main and Auxiliary ICE
Ship Auxiliary Boiler
Sources
Ship ICE
Ship ICE
Ship Auxiliary Boiler
Mode of Operation
Transit + Maneuvering
Hotelling
Hotelling
Cruise + Assist
Hotelling
# of Sources
88
1
1
89
1
Pollutant Name
Incremental Round-Trip Annual Emissions (lb/year-source) (PM2.5 – g/s-source)
Incremental Hourly Emissions (lb/hr-source)
PM2.5 (g/s)
2.28E-06
1.55E-03
5.95E-03
2.23E-06
NA – Only Annual Average Considered
DPM
1.73E-01
1.17E+02
NA
1.55E-01
NA – No Acute Impacts from DPM
Arsenic
NA
NA
2.23E+00
NA
4.64E-03
Cadmium
NA
NA
2.07E-01
NA
4.30E-04
Copper
NA
NA
2.07E-01
NA
4.30E-04
Lead
NA
NA
2.27E+00
NA
4.73E-03
Manganese
NA
NA
2.07E-01
NA
4.30E-04
Nickel
NA
NA
2.07E-01
NA
4.30E-04
Selenium
NA
NA
2.07E-01
NA
4.30E-04
Benzene
NA
NA
7.56E+00
NA
1.57E-02
Chlorobenzene
NA
NA
1.75E-01
NA
3.64E-04
Ethylbenzene
NA
NA
2.45E-01
NA
5.09E-04
Formaldehyde
NA
NA
3.50E-01
NA
7.28E-04
N-hexane
NA
NA
5.56E+00
NA
1.16E-02
Naphthalene
NA
NA
2.45E-01
NA
5.09E-04
Propylene
NA
NA
1.60E+01
NA
3.32E-02
Toluene
NA
NA
7.52E+00
NA
1.56E-02
Isomers of xylene
NA
NA
1.19E+00
NA
2.47E-03
Transit and maneuvering emissions for ships, cruise and assist emissions for tugboats represent round-trip emissions over 2.4nm trip length.
ERM
7
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
TANKER TRUCK EMISSIONS Round-trip criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from ethanol trucks were estimated between the terminal and the farthest boundary of San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) for comparison with mass-based CEQA significance thresholds. These emissions are provided in Appendix A. For the purposes of this HRA, exhaust PM10 emissions from truck ICEs were modeled, as DPM, for ethanol trucks traveling on Canal Boulevard between the terminal and I-580 ( a distance of approximately 1.32 miles). The travelling trucks were modeled as a line of separated volume sources in ISCST3. A total of 17,588 truck trips were modeled on Canal Boulevard to represent the inbound and outbound 8,794 project ethanol trucks. For PM2.5 modeling, PM2.5 emissions from tire and brake wear were considered in addition to exhaust PM2.5 emissions from moving trucks. Exhaust PM2.5 and exhaust PM10 (as DPM) emissions from idling trucks were modeled as point source for both horizontal and vertical release. Idling emissions were estimated for 5 minutes of idling time per truck and 8,794 of additional trucks per year. The 5 minutes of idling time assumed for estimating idling emissions is based on the CARB ATCM requirement (§ 2485). According to the facility operator, the trucks do not idle for more than 5 minutes and the truck drivers turn off the engines if there is a queue at the loading rack. Furthermore, it does not take more than 5 minutes to load/unload a truck. Detailed emission calculations are provided in Attachment B-1. Modeled emissions are provided in Table B-5.
ERM
8
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-5
Modeled Tanker Truck Emissions Ethanol Trucks Transit
CY-2015 PM10 Emission Factor
2.64E-04
lb/VMT
CY-2015 PM2.5 Exhaust Emission Factor
2.43E-04
lb/VMT
CY-2015 PM2.5 Brake and Tire Wear Emission Factor
7.64E-05
lb/VMT
Increase in Number of Trucks due to the Project
8794
trucks/year
Road Length Considered for Modeling
1.32
miles/one-way trip
Number of Volume Sources for Modeled Road Length
53
volume sources/line
PM10 (DPM) Emission Rate Per Volume Source
0.11523
lb/year/volume source
Exhaust PM 2.5 Emission Rate Per Volume Source
0.10601
lb/year/volume source
Brake and Tire PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Volume Source
0.03340
lb/year/volume source
Ethanol Trucks Idling CY-2015 Idling PM10 Emission Factor Modeled
6.72E-04
lb/hr-vehicle
CY-2015 Idling PM2.5 Emission Factor Modeled
6.19E-04
lb/hr-vehicle
Total Idling PM10 (DPM) Emissions Modeled
0.4928
lb/year
Total Idling PM2.5 Emissions Modeled
0.4533
lb/year
LOADING RACK EMISSIONS VOC emissions from loading rack VRU were speciated using the speciation profile of denatured ethanol. The speciation profile of denatured ethanol was developed using the speciation profile of gasoline and the weight fraction of gasoline in denatured ethanol. The speciation profile and speciated emissions are provided in Attachment B-1. Incremental annual emissions due to the project over the baseline emissions were modeled for cancer risk and chronic hazard index (CHI). Maximum hourly, post-project, potential emissions were modeled for acute hazard. The VRU vents horizontally but was modeled as both a vertical exhaust point source and horizontal exhaust point source. Modeled emissions are provided in Table B-6. Because all emissions are generated onsite, the modeled emissions are equal to those provided in Appendix A.
ERM
9
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-6
Loading Rack TACs Modeled VOC Emissions
Baseline VOC Emissions (tpy)
Post-Project PTE VOC (tpy)
VOC Emissions Increase (tpy)
Denatured Ethanol
0.042
0.872
0.83
TAC Emissions
Wt % in Denatured 1 Ethanol Vapors
Annual Emissions Increase (lb/yr)
Maximum Hourly 2 PTE (lb/hr)
n-Hexane
0.07
1.15E+00
9.95E-04
Benzene
0.03
4.24E-01
3.68E-04
Isooctane
0.09
1.51E+00
1.31E-03
Toluene
0.03
4.72E-01
4.09E-04
Ethylbenzene
0.00
2.54E-02
2.20E-05
Xylene
0.01
1.90E-01
1.65E-04
1,2,4 -Trimethylbenzene
0.00
1.12E-02
9.76E-06
Cyclohexane
0.03
5.44E-01
4.72E-04
Naphthalene
0.00
1.77E-04
1.53E-07
1. Vapor weight % modeled by using the liquid wt % in TANKS 4.09d program. 2. Maximum hourly emissions were estimated using the post project potential annual emissions and the annual truck loading time, which is based on a loading rate of 1,200 gpm and the denatured ethanol throughput of 87,200,000 gal/year.
STORAGE TANKS EMISSIONS Incremental VOC emissions from storage tanks 56, 57, 58 were speciated using the speciation profile of denatured ethanol. The speciation profile and speciated emissions are provided in Attachment B-1. Storage tanks were modeled as circular area sources. Modeled emissions are provided in Table B-7. Because all emissions are generated onsite, the modeled emissions are equal to those provided in Appendix A.
ERM
10
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-7
Storage Tanks TACs Modeled Annual Emissions (lb/year)
Denatured EtOH VOC Emissions
147.17
15.056
316.095
Components
Tank 56
Tank 57
Tank 58
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
2.02E-02
3.91E-03
2.16E-02
Benzene
3.11E-02
2.56E-03
7.43E-02
Cyclohexane
3.93E-02
3.16E-03
9.46E-02
Ethylbenzene
9.43E-03
1.66E-03
1.21E-02
Hexane (-n)
7.05E-02
4.22E-03
1.87E-01
Isooctane
1.57E-01
1.84E-02
3.11E-01
Naphthalene
3.04E-03
6.02E-04
3.09E-03
Toluene
7.11E-02
1.01E-02
1.19E-01
Xylene (-m)
8.33E-02
1.49E-02
1.03E-01
Hourly emissions for acute hazard index were estimated by dividing the annual emissions by 8760 hours/year.
FUGITIVE COMPONENT EMISSIONS Incremental VOC emissions from additional fugitive pipeline components were speciated using the speciation profile of denatured ethanol. The speciation profile and speciated emissions are provided in Attachment B-1. Fugitive components were modeled as area sources. Modeled emissions are provided in Table B-8. Because all emissions are generated onsite, the modeled emissions are equal to those provided in Appendix A.
ERM
11
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-8
Fugitive Components TACs Modeled From Gasoline Service VOC Emissions
From Denatured Ethanol Service
Incremental Annual (tpy)
Incremental Hourly (lb/hr)
Incremental Annual (tpy)
Incremental Hourly (lb/hr)
0.191
0.044
0.584
0.133
Wt % in Gasoline 1 Liquid
Wt % in Denatured EtOH 2 Liquid
Incremental Annual (lb/yr)
Incremental Hourly (lb/hr)
n-Hexane
1.329
0.028
5.40
6.17E-04
Benzene
0.812
0.017
3.30
3.77E-04
Isooctane
5.743
0.122
23.35
2.67E-03
Toluene
3.137
0.067
12.76
1.46E-03
Ethylbenzene
0.531
0.011
2.16
2.46E-04
Xylene
4.657
0.099
18.94
2.16E-03
1,2,4 -Trimethylbenzene
1.203
0.026
4.89
5.58E-04
Cyclohexane
0.999
0.021
4.06
4.64E-04
Naphthalene
0.174
0.004
0.71
8.08E-05
TAC Emissions
For annual average PM2.5 concentration, respective PM2.5 emissions from each operational source were modeled using the ISCST3 model, 5 years of meteorological data obtained from BAAQMD website and the following inputs:
A Cartesian grid receptor network with a total of 33,239 receptors, with the following resolution: o 10 meter (m) resolution out to 120 m from the fence line o 25 m resolution from 120 m to 1,000 m from the fence line o 50 m resolution from 1,000 m to 2,500 m from the fence line
ERM
12
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
o 100 m resolution from 2,500 m to 5,000 m from the fence line;
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system (NAD83) was used to identify source and receptor locations. Elevations for all sources and receptors were obtained from National Elevation Data (NED).
Surface meteorological data and upper air meteorological data from University of California Berkeley Richmond Field Station; and
Both rural and urban dispersion conditions were considered.
Truck idling and loading rack VRU point sources were modeled for both horizontal and vertical release.
For cancer, chronic and acute health impacts, each operational source was modeled for unit emissions rate (1 g/s) using the ISCST3 model, 5 years of meteorological data obtained from BAAQMD website and the following inputs:
A Cartesian grid receptor network with a total of 8,533 receptors, with the following resolution (Figure 7): o 10 meter (m) resolution/spacing out to 100 m from the fence line; o 25 m resolution from 100 m to 500 m from the fence line; o 100 m resolution from 500 m to 1,500 m from the fence line; o 300 m resolution from 1,500 m to 3,000 m from the fence line; The receptor grid was made sparse because of the limitation on the number of sources and receptors in HARP.
ERM
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system (NAD83) was used to identify source and receptor locations. Elevations for all sources and receptors were obtained from National Elevation Data (NED).
Surface meteorological data and upper air meteorological data from University of California Berkeley Richmond Field Station; and
Both rural and urban dispersion conditions were considered.
Truck idling and loading rack VRU point sources were modeled for both horizontal and vertical release.
13
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-9 summarizes the dispersion modeling parameters used for various operational sources. Risk assessment was performed in HARP by importing the ISCST3-modeled concentrations for unit emission rates and the emissions shown in Tables B-4 through B-8 via HARP OnRamp. The risk assessment for operational impacts accounted for a 70-year lifetime exposure to TACs concentrations for residential receptors. The risk assessment incorporated a 1.7 CRAF for residential receptors. It is believed that the age weighting factors, which apply to infants, children, and adolescents, account for increased sensitivities to carcinogens. A CRAF of 1.7 is recommended for a total lifetime exposure (OEHHA 2009). For receptors at Washington elementary school, the 70-year, HARP-estimated residential cancer risk was adjusted for student exposure, which is 9 years, 180 days/year, and 10 hrs/day, daily breathing rate of 581 liters/kg body weight-day and multiplied by ASF of 3.
ERM
14
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Table B-9
Operational HRA Source Parameters
Exhaust Emissions from Ethanol Trucks in Transit on Canal Boulevard - Line Source (As Separated Volume Source) Road Length Considered for Modeling = Length of the Line Source Width of the Line Source, W*
2,120 20.0
m/trip m
Elevated source not on or adjacent to a building
Source Type Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W
20
m
Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c)
40
m
Starting Location
Offset Half Volume Width
Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15
18.60
m
Release Height**
4.572
m
1.0633
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Release Height/4.3 Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model
53
volume sources/line
* Width of the line source = 4 travel lanes * width of each travel lane (3.5 m each) + 2 shoulders * width of each shoulder (3 m each) Pages 71 and 78 of 93, BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2012 ** Pages 53 and 54 of 76, Health Risk Assessments and Land Use, BAAQMD, May 3, 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA%20HRA%20 Guidelines%20-%20Statewide%20Workshops%204-28-10.ashx?la=en
ERM
15
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Brake and Tire Wear Emissions from Ethanol Trucks in Transit on Canal Boulevard - Line Source (As Separated Volume Source) Road Length Considered for Modeling = Length of the Line Source Width of the Line Source, W*
2,120 20.0
m/trip m
Elevated source not on or adjacent to a building
Source Type Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W
20
m
Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c)
40
m
Offset Half Volume Width
Starting Location Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15
18.60
m
Release Height (Assumed equal to that for passenger cars exhaust)**
0.457
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Release Height/4.3
0.106
m
Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model
53
volume sources/line
* Width of the line source = 4 travel lanes * width of each travel lane (3.5 m each) + 2 shoulders * width of each shoulder (3 m each) Pages 71 and 78 of 93, BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2012 ** Turbulence from moving vehicles will result in some initial vertical dispersion of brake and tire wear emissions. Therefore a release height of 1.5 ft (close to the ground) was assumed.
Ethanol Trucks Idling - Point Source Exhaust Type
Vertical Exit (Horizontal Exit)
Stack Tip Downwash
On (Off)
Release Height* Release/Exhaust Temperature* Exit Velocity*
3.84 (3.84)
m
366 (366)
K
51.71 (0.001)
Exhaust Diameter*
0.10 (0.10)
m/s m
*Page 56 of 76, Health Risk Assessments and Land Use, BAAQMD, May 3, 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA%20HRA%2 0Guidelines%20-%20Statewide%20Workshops%204-28-10.ashx?la=en
ERM
16
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Loading Rack VRU - Point Source Exhaust Type
Vertical Exit (Rain Capped/Horizontal Exit)
Stack Tip Downwash
On (Off)
Release Height* Release/Exhaust Temperature
6.3 (5.69)
m
283.71 (283.71)
K
Exhaust Flow Rate
3
0.165 (0.165)
m /s
Exit Velocity*
5.09 (0.001)
m/s
Exhaust Diameter*
0.203 (14.5)
m
*Release height, exit velocity and diameter for rain capped/horizontal exit adjusted according to modeling guidance provided by Jane Lundquist at BAAQMD - Modeling Guidance for Addressing Hot Stack Plumes that are Interrupted by a Rain Cap or which are Released Horizontally
Tank 56 - Circular Area Source Exhaust Type
Circular Area Source
Release Height
17.07
m
Tank Diameter
25.91
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
Blank
m
* SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assuems 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Tank 57 - Circular Area Source Exhaust Type
Circular Area Source
Release Height
17.07
m
Tank Diameter
25.91
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
Blank
m
* SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assuems 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Tank 58 - Circular Area Source Exhaust Type
Circular Area Source
Release Height
17.07
m
Tank Diameter
25.91
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
Blank
m
* SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assuems 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
ERM
17
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Fugitive Piping Components - Area Source Exhaust Type
Rectangular Area Source
Release Height
0.0
m
East - Dimension
3.66
m
North - Dimension
2.44
m
Blank
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
* SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assuems 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Ships Transit and Maneuvering - Line Source (As Separated Volume Source) Length Considered for Modeling = Length of the Line Source
4,400
m/trip
Elevated source on or adjacent to a building
Source Type Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c) = 2W Starting Location
25.0
m
50
m
Offset Half Volume Width
Release Height
30.48
m
Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15
23.26
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Building Height/2.15
2.33
m
Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model
88
ERM
18
volume sources/line
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Tugs Assisting and Cruising - Line Source (As Separated Volume Source) Length Considered for Modeling = Length of the Line Source, LRS
4,450
m/trip
Line source represented by separated volume sources, Elevated source on or adjacent to a building
Source Type
Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W
25.0
m
50
m
Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c) Starting Location
Offset Half Volume Width
Release Height
12.192
m
23.26
m
Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Building Height/2.15
2.33
m
Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model
89
Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15
volume sources/line
Ship Auxiliary Engine Hoteling - Point Source Exhaust Type
Vertical Exit
Stack Tip Downwash
On
Release Height Release/Exhaust Temperature
37.19
m
573.15
K
Exit Velocity
3.99
m/s
Exhaust Diameter
0.39
m
Ship Auxiliary Boiler Hoteling - Point Source Exhaust Type
Vertical Exit
Stack Tip Downwash
On
Release Height Release/Exhaust Temperature
39.93
m
559.26
K
Exit Velocity
5.06
m/s
Exhaust Diameter
0.49
m
ERM
19
APPENDIX B - BP RICHMOND/0231330 –JANUARY - 2015
Attachment B-1 – Modeled Emissions and Modeling Parameters
Incremental Marine Vessels TAC Emissions For HRA - Scenario 1: Ship Size Based on Maximum 16 calls per year to Transport 85 MMGal Ethanol
Source Parameters - Volume Sources
Ship Engines
Tug Main and Auxiliary Engine
Transit + Maneuvering
Cruise + Assist
Units
Line source represented Line source represented by by separated volume separated volume sources, sources, Elevated source Elevated source on or adjacent on or adjacent to a to a building building
Source Type
Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c)
m m
Starting Location Release Height** Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15 Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Building Height/2.15 Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model
m m m
Source Parameters - Point Sources
Units
25.0 50.0 Offset Half Volume Width 30.48 23.26 2.33 88
Release Height Release/Exhaust Temperature Exit Velocity Exhaust Diameter
m K m/s m
Ship Engine Hotelling 37.19 573.15 3.99 0.390
Total Distance Travelled for Entire Trip Total Time Travelled for Entire trip Average Vessel Speed Distance Modeled Distance Modeled Time Modeled For Ship
48 5.24 9 14436 2.4 0.52
nm/round trip hr/round trip knots feet nm hrs/round trip
ERM
25.0 50.0 Offset Half Volume Width 12.192 23.26 2.33 89
Ship Auxiliary Boiler Hotelling 39.93 559.26 5.06 0.490
(See Attachment A-2) (See Attachment A-2) # of vol. sources x c/c distance each source
Page 1 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Time per Trip Ocean-Going Vessel Operations Main Engine Transit Leg 1 (in and out) Main Engine Transit Leg 2 Main Engine Transit Leg 3 Main Engine Transit Leg 4 Main Engine Maneuvering (in and out) Auxiliary Engine Transit Auxiliary Engine RSZ Auxiliary Engine Maneuvering Auxiliary Engine Hoteling at berth Auxiliary Boiler Manuevering Auxiliary Boiler Hoteling
Hrs per Trip 2.73 0.81 0.35 0.86 0.50 2.73 2.02 0.50 30.00 0.50 30.00
ROG 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.17
Main Engine Cruising (to meet ship) Main Engine Running Light (escort ship inbound) Main Engine (maneuver ship to berth) Main Engine (maneuver ship out from berth) Main Engine Assist Pushing Full (escort ship outbound) Main Engine Cruising (tug return to base) Auxiliary Engine TOTAL EMISSIONS (OGVs and Tugs)
OGV 0.70 2.02 0.25 0.25 2.02 0.80 6.03
Hourly (lb)
ROG 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.68
PM10 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.42
PM10 2.27 1.34 0.74 0.55 0.65 0.23 0.23 0.31 0.24 0.11 0.86
ROG 7.10 4.17 2.84 4.29 5.89 0.47 0.47 0.65 0.51 0.09 0.73
Annual (tons)
Hrs per
Tugboat Operations
Emissions from Entire Trip (See Attachment A-2) Annual (tons) PM10 PM2.5 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21
Hourly (lb) PM2.5 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.41
ROG 3.35 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 3.35 0.18
PM10 2.20 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 2.20 0.09
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions - Scenario 1 TAC Emissions from Auxiliary Boilers TAC 2
Arsenic Cadmium 3
Copper Lead
CAS No. 7440-38-2 7440-43-9 7440-50-8 7439-92-1 7439-96-5 7440-02-0 7782-49-2 00071-43-2 108-90-7 00100-41-4 50-00-0 00110-54-3 90-20-3 115-07-1 00108-88-3 01330-20-7
1
Weight Fraction of Pollutant PM10 ROG 5E-03 5E-04 5E-04 6E-03 5E-04 5E-04 5E-04 ----------
------2E-02 5E-04 7E-04 1E-03 2E-02 7E-04 5E-02 2E-02 3E-03
Incremental TAC Emissions lb/year
lb/hr
2.23E+00 2.07E-01 2.07E-01 2.27E+00 2.07E-01 2.07E-01 2.07E-01 7.56E+00 1.75E-01 2.45E-01 3.50E-01 5.56E+00 2.45E-01 1.60E+01 7.52E+00 1.19E+00
4.64E-03 4.30E-04 4.30E-04 4.73E-03 4.30E-04 4.30E-04 4.30E-04 1.57E-02 3.64E-04 5.09E-04 7.28E-04 1.16E-02 5.09E-04 3.32E-02 1.56E-02 2.47E-03
Manganese3 Nickel Selenium Benzene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde N-hexane Naphthalene Propylene Toluene Isomers of xylene Notes: 1. TAC speciation profile for boilers obtained from CARB Speciation database using the following search options - Industrial boilers and distillate fuel oil No. 2 Ref - http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/interoptvv10001.php 2. Weight fraction of arsenic in No. 2 fuel oil is assumed to be equal to the weight fraction in No. 6 fuel oil. 3. Copper and manganese are not in the CARB speciation profile for low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil. Copper and manganese weight fractions for low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil were estimated assuming the same weight fraction as in the CARB speciation profile for No. 6 fuel oil.
ERM
Page 2 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Average Annual Emissions Per Source (lb/year) for Modeled Part of the Trip Sources
Pollutant Name PM2.5 (g/s) DPM Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Manganese Nickel Selenium Benzene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde N-hexane Naphthalene Propylene Toluene Isomers of xylene
# of Sources CAS ---9901 7440382 7440439 7440508 7439921 7439965 7440020 7782492 71432 108907 100414 50000 110543 90203 115071 108883 1330207
Ship Engines
Ship Engine
Ship Auxiliary Boiler
Tug Main and Auxiliary Engine
Transit + Maneuvering
Hotelling
Hotelling
Cruise + Assist
88
1
1
89
2.28E-06 1.73E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
1.55E-03 1.17E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
5.95E-03 0.00E+00 2.23E+00 2.07E-01 2.07E-01 2.27E+00 2.07E-01 2.07E-01 2.07E-01 7.56E+00 1.75E-01 2.45E-01 3.50E-01 5.56E+00 2.45E-01 1.60E+01 7.52E+00 1.19E+00
2.23E-06 1.55E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Ship Engines
Ship Engine
Ship Auxiliary Boiler
Tug Main and Auxiliary Engine
Transit + Maneuvering
Hotelling
Hotelling
Cruise + Assist
88
1
1
89
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 4.64E-03 4.30E-04 4.30E-04 4.73E-03 4.30E-04 4.30E-04 4.30E-04 1.57E-02 3.64E-04 5.09E-04 7.28E-04 1.16E-02 5.09E-04 3.32E-02 1.56E-02 2.47E-03
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Maximum Hourly Emissions Per Source (lb/hr) for Modeled Part of the Trip Sources
Pollutant Name DPM Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Manganese Nickel Selenium Benzene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde N-hexane Naphthalene Propylene Toluene Isomers of xylene
ERM
# of Sources CAS 9901 7440382 7440439 7440508 7439921 7439965 7440020 7782492 71432 108907 100414 50000 110543 90203 115071 108883 1330207
Page 3 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tanker Truck Emissions
EMFAC2011 Emissions Inventory Region Type: Air District Region: Bay Area AQMD Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Region Bay Area AQMD
CalYr
Season
Veh_Class
Fuel
MdlYr
2015
Annual
T7
DSL
Aggregated
Tanker Truck Emission Factors CalYr 2015
Emission Factors (lb/VMT) PM10 Exhaust 2.64E-04
PM2.5 Exhaust 2.43E-04
PM2.5 Brake and Tire Wear 7.64E-05
Speed (miles/hr) Aggregated
Population (vehicles) 29516.22556
VMT Trips (miles/day) (trips/day) 4113913.261 0
PM10_TOTEX (tons/day) 0.542214237
PM2_5_TOTEX (tons/day) 0.498837098
PM2_5_PMTW (tons/day) 0.039891353
PM2_5_PMBW (tons/day) 0.117280579
EMFAC2011 HDV Idling Emission Factors
CY 2015
ERM
EMFAC2007 Vehicle Category Fuel_Type HHDT
D
air_basin
season
PM10 (g/hr-veh)
SF
a
0.305008776
Page 5 of 24
PM2.5 (g/hr-veh) 0.280608074
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
A
B
C
D
E
F
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
THIS SHEET MAINLY DOES THE GASOLINE CALCULATIONS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INPUT ON YOUR PART. BUT IF YOUR BLEND OF GASOLINE DOES NOT SHOW UP ON THE THE DROP DOWN LISTS IN THE OTHER SHEETS, YOU CAN CAN ENTER YOUR SPECIFIC INFORMATION INTO THE TABLE,
1
THAT STARTS IN CELL z6.
2
West Coast Version includes 2,2,4 Trimethypentane for reporting to APCDs - DO NOT Report for TRI
3
GASOLINE VAPOR PROFILE
4
TRI CHEMICALS
ARCO Gasoline (2012)
5
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
E. BENZENE
ANTOINE'S A
6.905
6.954
6.975
7.009
6.876
7.04383
6.841
7.146
6.8525
6.81
ANTOINE'S B
1211.033
1344.8
1424.255
1426.266
1171.17
1573.267
1201.53
1831.6
1103.737
1257.84
ANTOINE'S C
220.79
219.48
213.21
215.11
224.41
208.564
222.65
211.82
222.72
220.57
1.2345
0.3513
0.1164
0.1386
2.0157
0.0221
1.2789
0.0026
3.3753
0.6230
5.9222
78.1
92.13
106.17
106.17
86.17
120.19
84.16
128.17
88.15
114.22
74.1857
1
2
1
3
78.1 0.812
92.13 3.137
106.17 0.531
106.17 4.657
86.17 1.329
120.19 1.203
84.16 0.999
128.17 0.174
88.15 0
5.743
114.22
64.7521 81.589
100.174
1
4
0.00812
0.03137
0.00531
0.04657
0.01329
0.01203
0.00999
0.00174
0
0.05743
0.81589
1.00174
1
5
MOLES IN LIQUID
0.1040
0.3405
0.0500
0.4386
0.1542
0.1001
0.1187
0.0136
0.0000
0.5028
11.7721
13.59459817
1
6
LIQUID MOL FRACTION (Xi)
0.0079
0.0260
0.0038
0.0335
0.0118
0.0077
0.0091
0.0010
0.0000
0.0384
0.9001
1.03948376
1
7
PARTIAL PRESSURE (Pi)
0.0098
0.0091
0.0004
0.0046
0.0238
0.0002
0.0116
0.0000
0.0000
0.0239
5.3308
5.414337933
1
8
VAPOR MOL FRACTION (Yi)
0.0018
0.0017
0.0001
0.0009
0.0044
0.0000
0.0022
0.0000
0.0000
0.0044
0.9889
1.004443588
1
9
VAPOR WT FRACTION
0.0022
0.0024
0.0001
0.0014
0.0058
0.0001
0.0028
0.0000
0.0000
0.0078
0.9852
1.007808518
2
0
0.21876
0.24053
0.01348
0.14090
0.58461
0.00581
0.27882
0.00010
0.00000
0.78075
98.51709
100.7808518
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
LIQUID MW VAPOR MW LIQUID WT %
1
LIQUID WT FRACTION
VAPOR WT %
1,2,4- TMB CYCLOHEXANE NAPHTHALENE
TOTALS
TOLUENE
TVP (Pi sat)
XYLENES n-HEXANE
224 MTBE trimethylp GASOLINE-OTHER
BENZENE
6
ERM
G
Note: Raoult's Law: Yi * P = Xi * Pi sat
GASOLINE PROPERTIES FOR ARCO Gasoline (2012)
RVP= AVG. TEMPERATURE = TVP (P) = LIQUID MW = VAPOR MW = LIQUID WT = LIQUID MOLES =
10 psi 62 5.390385279 76.463 65 1000
deg F = psia lb/lb-mole lb/lb-mole lb
16.67
deg C
13.07822084 moles
Page 6 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
TANKS 4.09d Output for Vapor Weight Fraction Only Gasoline RVP 15 ID MIX ID PRIMARY NAME 257 1 TRUE Gasoline (RVP 15) 257 1 FALSE Hexane (-n) 257 1 FALSE Benzene 257 1 FALSE Isooctane 257 1 FALSE Toluene 257 1 FALSE Ethylbenzene 257 1 FALSE Xylene (-m) 257 1 FALSE 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 257 1 FALSE Cyclohexane 257 1 FALSE Naphthalene 257 1 FALSE Unidentified Components
MOLES 0 0.015423001 0.010395596 0.050280161 0.034049712 0.005001413 0.043863615 0.010009152 0.011870247 0.001346853 0.009047168
L_WT_FRACT 0 0.01329 0.00812 0.05743 0.03137 0.00531 0.04657 0.01203 0.00999 0.00174 0.81415
V_WT_FRACT 0 0.00474297 0.001766297 0.006174603 0.001923698 0.000106731 0.000779253 4.53307E-05 0.002255294 6.70442E-07 0.982205152
L_MO_FRACT 0 0.014189161 0.009563948 0.046257748 0.031325735 0.0046013 0.040354526 0.00920842 0.010920627 0.001239105 0.832339429
V_MO_FRACT 0 0.003302521 0.001356777 0.003243532 0.001252815 6.03173E-05 0.00044038 2.26295E-05 0.001607862 3.11375E-07 0.988712855
MOLWT 92 86.17 78.11 114.22 92.13 106.17 106.17 120.19 84.16 129.19 89.98948913
VP_MOLWT 60 86.17 78.11 114.22 92.13 106.17 106.17 120.19 84.16 129.19 59.60508029
A_VP 8.050603239 1.87377422 1.142088078 0.564497605 0.321969063 0.10553328 0.087854465 0.019784187 1.185303607 0.002023036 9.563087651
Only Denatured Ethanol Emissions ID MIX ID PRIMARY NAME 258 1 TRUE EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasol 258 1 FALSE Hexane (-n) 258 1 FALSE Benzene 258 1 FALSE Isooctane 258 1 FALSE Toluene 258 1 FALSE Ethylbenzene 258 1 FALSE Xylene (-m) 258 1 FALSE 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 258 1 FALSE Cyclohexane 258 1 FALSE Naphthalene 258 1 FALSE Unidentified Components
MOLES 0 0.000324939 0.000217642 0.001068114 0.000727233 0.000103607 0.000932467 0.000216324 0.000249525 3.09621E-05 0.021438955
L_WT_FRACT 0 0.00028 0.00017 0.00122 0.00067 0.00011 0.00099 0.00026 0.00021 0.00004 0.99605
V_WT_FRACT 0 0.000690999 0.000255712 0.000907035 0.000284113 1.52892E-05 0.000114552 6.77476E-06 0.000327832 1.06578E-07 0.997397587
L_MO_FRACT 0 0.000151292 0.000101334 0.000497314 0.0003386 4.82396E-05 0.000434157 0.000100721 0.000116179 1.4416E-05 0.998197749
V_MO_FRACT 0 0.000415626 0.000169678 0.000411588 0.000159835 7.46386E-06 5.59217E-05 2.9215E-06 0.000201895 4.27581E-08 0.998575028
MOLWT 46.56 86.17 78.11 114.22 92.13 106.17 106.17 120.19 84.16 129.19 46.45982025
VP_MOLWT 51.83 86.17 78.11 114.22 92.13 106.17 106.17 120.19 84.16 129.19 51.76888617
A_VP 0.682071033 1.87377422 1.142088078 0.564497605 0.321969063 0.10553328 0.087854465 0.019784187 1.185303607 0.002023036 0.682328828
ERM
Page 7 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Denatured Ethanol Properties
% Gasoline by Volume in Denatured Ethanol % Neat Ethanol by Volume in Denatured Ethanol
2.5% 97.5%
Density of Gasoline @ 60 °F Density of Pure Ethanol @ 60 °F
5.6 lb/gal 6.61 lb/gal
Weight of Gasoline in 1 gal Denatured Ethanol Weight of Pure Ethanol in 1 gal Denatured Ethanol Density of Denatured Ethanol
0.14 lb gasoline/gal Den. EtOH 6.44475 lb EtOH/gal Den. EtOH 6.58475 lb/gal
% Gasoline by Weight in Denatured Ethanol % Pure Ethanol by Weight in Denatured Ethanol
CAS #
AP-42, Chapter 7.1
2.1% lb Gasoline/lb Den. EtOH 97.9% lb EtOH/lb Den. EtOH
Wt % in Denatured EtOH Liquid
Wt % in Gasoline Vapor
Wt % 1.329 0.812 5.743 3.137 0.531 4.657 1.203 0.999 0.174
Wt % 0.028 0.017 0.122 0.067 0.011 0.099 0.026 0.021 0.004
Wt % 0.474 0.177 0.617 0.192 0.011 0.078 0.005 0.226 6.70E-05
Wt % 0.069 0.026 0.091 0.028 0.002 0.011 0.001 0.033 1.07E-05
Wt %
MW
Liquid Moles
Liquid Mole Fraction
TVP @ 60 °F
2.1%
92.00
97.9% 100.0% 46.56 51.83 6.585
46.07
0.00023 0.02124 0.0215
0.01076 0.98924 1.0000
8.16210 0.61900
2
00110-54-3 n-Hexane 00071-43-2 Benzene 26635-64-3 Isooctane 00108-88-3 Toluene 00100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 01330-20-7 Xylene 95-63-6 1,2,4 -Trimethylbenzene 00110-82-7 Cyclohexane 90-20-3 Naphthalene 1. Speciation of 2012 ARCO Gasoline provided in 2012 TRI Report 2. Wt% of TAC in denatured ethanol estimated as product of Wt% of TAC in gasoline and % gasoline by weight in denatured ethanol 3. Vapor weight % modeled by using the liquid wt % in TANKS 4.09d program
Gasoline Ethanol Total Liquid Molecular weight Vapor Molecular weight @ 60 °F Density @ 60 °F
ERM
Page 8 of 24
3
Wt % in Denatured EtOH Vapor3
Wt % in Gasoline Liquid1
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Partial Vapor Pressure (mm Hg)
Vapor Mole Fraction
0.0878 0.6123 0.7002
0.125444338 0.874555662 1.0000
Liquid Density @ 60 °F (lb/gal) 5.60 6.61
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Antoine's Coefficient Calculation Temperature (°F) 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Gasoline TVP (psi) 5.5802 6.7740 8.1621 9.7656 11.6067 13.7085 16.0948
Ethanol (TVP, psi) 0.1930 0.4060 0.6190 0.8700 1.2180 1.6820 2.3200
Vapor Pressure of Mixture (psi) 0.2510 0.4745 0.7002 0.9657 1.3298 1.8114 2.4682
Temperature (°C) 4.4 10.0 15.6 21.1 26.7 32.2 37.8
SS
MS
F
Mixture Pressure (P, mm Hg) 13.0 24.5 36.2 49.9 68.8 93.7 127.6
Log P 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1
1/T 0.23 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
Log P/T 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations
0.982237371 0.964790252 0.947185379 0.079093915 7
ANOVA df Regression Residual Total
Intercept 1/T log(P)/T A C B
ERM
2 4 6
0.685671559 0.02502339 0.710694949
Coefficients 3.088583007 27.1453475 -32.24565879
Standard Error 0.263644762 7.555724215 7.707922562
0.342835779 0.006255847
t Stat 11.71494167 3.592686382 -4.183443533
54.80245199
Significance F 0.001239726
P-value 0.000303657 0.022906893 0.013879689
Lower 95% 2.356587799 6.167293984 -53.64628266
Upper 95% 3.820578216 48.12340101 -10.84503492
Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% 2.356587799 3.820578216 6.167293984 48.12340101 -53.64628266 -10.84503492
3.089 32.246 72.448
Page 9 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Incremental Fugitive Equipment Component Emissions Additional Fugitive Equipment Component Emissions Reg 8-18-306 Non-repairable Equipment Requirement
Total Count
Component Type
Count for Pegged Leakers (Non-repairable Components)
Gasoline Service Ethanol Service % of Total Components Gasoline Service Ethanol Service Valves 0.3% 0.039 0.18 13 60 Pressure Relief Valves 1% 0.01 0.03 1 3 Flanges* 0.3% 0.039 0.18 26 64 Connectors* 0.3% 0.039 0.18 13 169 Pumps 1% 0.02 0.01 2 1 Total 55 297 0.147 0.58 * Flanges are defined as connection under Reg 8-18-204. Per Reg 8-18-306.2 Table, non-repairable connections are 0.30% of total number of valves
Incremental Annual ROG Emissions
Screening Value (SV)
Correlation Equation
max ppm
kg/hr/comp
lb/day/component
lb/day/component
Gasoline Service
Ethanol Service
Gasoline Service
Ethanol Service
lb/day
ton/yr
Valves
100
2.27E-06(SV)^0.747
3.75E-03
3.38630
0.181
0.834
0.033
0.152
1.014
0.185
PRVs/Other
500
8.69E-06(SV)^0.642
2.48E-02
4.33869
0.068
0.204
0.012
0.037
0.272
0.050
Flanges
100
4.53E-06(SV)^0.706
6.19E-03
5.02653
0.357
1.300
0.065
0.237
1.656
0.302
Connectors
100
1.53E-06(SV)^0.736
2.40E-03
1.58733
0.093
0.691
0.017
0.126
0.784
0.143
Pumps
500
5.07E-05(SV)^0.622
1.28E-01
4.70907
0.348
0.174
0.063
0.032
0.522
0.095
1.046
3.202
0.191
0.584
4.248
0.775
Component Type
Daily Pegged Factor for 10,000 ppmv
Incremental Average Daily ROG Emission
Daily Emission Factor based on Screening Value
Total
Incremental Average Daily ROG Emission (lb/day)
Incremental Annual ROG Emissions (tons/yr)
Correlation Equations and pegged factors for 10,000 ppmv from Table IV-3a (CAPCOA-Revised 1995 EPA Correlation Equations and Factors for Refineries and Marketing Terminals), California Implementation Guidelines for Estimating Mass Emissions from Fugitive Hydrocarbon Leaks at Petroleum Facilities, February 1999. Screening Value (SV) from BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18 component emission limits
TAC Emissions CAS #
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Wt % in Gasoline Liquid1
Wt % in Denatured EtOH Liquid2
Incremental Annual Emissions
Wt % Wt % lb/year 00110-54-3 n-Hexane 1.329 0.028 5.40 00071-43-2 Benzene 0.812 0.017 3.30 26635-64-3 Isooctane 5.743 0.122 23.35 00108-88-3 Toluene 3.137 0.067 12.76 00100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.531 0.011 2.16 01330-20-7 Xylene 4.657 0.099 18.94 95-63-6 1,2,4 -Trimethylbenzene 1.203 0.026 4.89 00110-82-7 Cyclohexane 0.999 0.021 4.06 90-20-3 Naphthalene 0.174 0.004 0.71 1. Speciation of 2012 ARCO Gasoline provided in 2012 TRI Report 2. Wt% of TAC in denatured ethanol estimated as product of Wt% of TAC in gasoline and % gasoline by weight in denatured ethanol
ERM
Page 10 of 24
Incremental Hourly Emissions lb/hr 6.17E-04 3.77E-04 2.67E-03 1.46E-03 2.46E-04 2.16E-03 5.58E-04 4.64E-04 8.08E-05
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tank - 56 Emissions Tank - 56 has been out of service since 2009. Therefore baseline ROG emissions = 0 Tank - 56 Properties Type Materials Stored Diameter (ft) Volume (gal) Permitted Throughput (gal/yr) Den EtOH Throughput (gal/yr) ROG Emissions - Only Denatured EtOH Storage (lb/yr)
Components Total Annual Emissions (lb/year)
Baseline Actual Internal Floating Roof Diesel/Jet-A/Gasoline 85 2,259,000 158,760,000 0 0
Post-Project Internal Floating Roof Diesel/Jet-A/Gasoline/ Den. EtOH 85 2,259,000 158,760,000 29,066,667 147.17
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
lb/yr
Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 31.293533 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.000212 Benzene 0.008002 Cyclohexane 0.010259 Ethylbenzene 0.000478 Hexane (-n) 0.021624 Isooctane 0.028384 Naphthalene 0.000003 Toluene 0.008891 Xylene (-m) 0.003585 Unidentified Components 31.212094 * Detailed TANKS 4.09d Model output is provided in Attachment 3 to Appendix A
ERM
Page 11 of 24
Deck Fitting Loss Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
75.837804 0.019718 0.012892 0.015926 0.008342 0.021235 0.092522 0.003034 0.050811 0.075079 75.538245
40.043450 0.000271 0.010240 0.013128 0.000612 0.027670 0.036321 0.000004 0.011377 0.004587 39.939241
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
147.17 2.02E-02 3.11E-02 3.93E-02 9.43E-03 7.05E-02 1.57E-01 3.04E-03 7.11E-02 8.33E-02 146.69
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Tank - 57 Emissions Tank - 57 Properties Type Materials Stored Diameter (ft) Volume (gal) Permitted Throughput (gal/yr) Den EtOH Throughput (gal/yr) ROG Emissions - Only Denatured EtOH Storage (lb/yr)
Baseline Actual Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,394,000 69,888,000 23,296,070 129
Post-Project Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,394,000 69,888,000 29,066,667 144
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
Baseline Actual Emissions Components Total Annual Emissions (lb/year)
lb/yr
Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 31.294 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.000 Benzene 0.008 Cyclohexane 0.010 Ethylbenzene 0.000 Hexane (-n) 0.022 Isooctane 0.028 Naphthalene 0.000 Toluene 0.009 Xylene (-m) 0.004 Unidentified Components 31.212 * Detailed TANKS 4.09d Model output is provided in Attachment 3 to Appendix A
Deck Fitting Loss Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
60.782 0.016 0.010 0.013 0.007 0.017 0.074 0.002 0.041 0.060 60.542
36.509 0.000 0.009 0.012 0.001 0.025 0.033 0.000 0.010 0.004 36.414
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
128.584402 0.016263 0.028 0.034992 0.007723 0.063870 0.136 0.002438 0.059987 0.067941 128.167863
Post - Project Annual Emissions Components Total Annual Emissions (lb/year)
Rim Seal Loss lb/yr
Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 31.293533 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.000212 Benzene 0.008002 Cyclohexane 0.010259 Ethylbenzene 0.000478 Hexane (-n) 0.021624 Isooctane 0.028384 Naphthalene 0.000003 Toluene 0.008891 Xylene (-m) 0.003585 Unidentified Components 31.212094 * Detailed TANKS 4.09d Model output is provided in Attachment 3 to Appendix A
Withdrawl Loss
Deck Fitting Loss Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
75.837804 0.019718 0.012892 0.015926 0.008342 0.021235 0.092522 0.003034 0.050811 0.075079 75.538245
36.509122 0.000247 0.009336 0.011969 0.000558 0.025228 0.033115 0.000004 0.010373 0.004182 36.414110
0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
143.640 0.020177 0.030230 0.038154 0.009379 0.068086 0.154 0.003041 0.070075 0.082846 143.164449
Tank - 58 Emissions Tank - 58 has been out of service since 2010. Therefore baseline ROG emissions = 0 Tank - 58 Properties Type Materials Stored Diameter (ft) Volume (gal) Permitted Throughput (gal/yr) Den EtOH Throughput (gal/yr) ROG Emissions - Only Denatured EtOH Storage (lb/yr)
Components Total Annual Emissions (lb/year)
Baseline Actual Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,268,000 34,944,000 0 0
Post-Project Internal Floating Roof Jet-A/EtOH 85 2,268,000 34,944,000 29,066,667 316
Rim Seal Loss
Withdrawl Loss
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
lb/yr
76.7300 0.0199 0.0130 0.0161 0.0084 0.0215 0.0936 0.0031 0.0514 0.0760 76.4269
208.0713 0.0014 0.0532 0.0682 0.0032 0.1438 0.1887 0.0000 0.0591 0.0238 207.5298
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
316.095 0.021571 0.074253 0.094585 0.012100 0.186885 0.310723 0.003095 0.119416 0.103382 315.169
Denatured EtOH with 2.5% vol. Gasoline (RVP 15) 31.2935 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0002 Benzene 0.0080 Cyclohexane 0.0103 Ethylbenzene 0.0005 Hexane (-n) 0.0216 Isooctane 0.0284 Naphthalene 0.0000 Toluene 0.0089 Xylene (-m) 0.0036 Unidentified Components 31.2121 * Detailed TANKS 4.09d Model output is provided in Attachment 3 to Appendix A
Deck Fitting Loss Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
Truck Loading Rack (S-1) Controlled by Vapor Recovery System (A-1) - Emission Calculations Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Product
Baseline VOC Emissions (tpy)
Post-Project PTE VOC (tpy)
VOC Emissions Increase (tpy)
Ethanol
0.042
0.872
0.83
CAS #
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Wt % in Denatured EtOH Vapor1
Annual Emissions Increase
Maximum Hourly PTE
Wt %
lb/yr
lb/hr
1.15E+00 4.24E-01 1.51E+00 4.72E-01 2.54E-02 1.90E-01 1.12E-02 5.44E-01 1.77E-04
9.95E-04 3.68E-04 1.31E-03 4.09E-04 2.20E-05 1.65E-04 9.76E-06 4.72E-04 1.53E-07
00110-54-3 n-Hexane 0.07 00071-43-2 Benzene 0.03 26635-64-3 Isooctane 0.09 00108-88-3 Toluene 0.03 00100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.00 01330-20-7 Xylene 0.01 95-63-6 1,2,4 -Trimethylbenzene 0.00 00110-82-7 Cyclohexane 0.03 90-20-3 Naphthalene 0.00 1. Vapor weight % modeled by using the liquid wt % in TANKS 4.09d program
Truck loading rate = Annual post-project truck loading time Ethanol
ERM
1200 gpm 1,211 hr/year
Page 14 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
AERMOD/HARP Model Inputs for Incremental Impacts Due to the Project - Option 1
Ethanol Trucks Transit - Line Source (As Separatd Volume Source) CY-2015 DPM Emission Factor 2.64E-04 lb/VMT CY-2015 PM2.5 Exhaust Emission Factor 2.43E-04 lb/VMT CY-2015 PM2.5 Brake and Tire Wear Emission Factor 7.64E-05 lb/VMT Increase in Number of Trucks due to the Project 8794 trucks/year Total DPM Emission Rate Per Mile Modeled 4.64 lb/year/mile Total Exhaust PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Mile Modeled 4.27 lb/year/mile Total Brake and Tire Wear PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Mile Modeled 1.34 lb/year/mile Road Length Considered for Modeling 1.32 miles/trip Length of the Line Source, LRS 6955 ft Width of the Line Source, W* Total DPM Emission Rate for Line Source Total Exhaust PM2.5 Emission Rate for Line Source Total Brake and Tire Wear PM2.5 Emission Rate for Line Source
7.43E-05 6.84E-05 2.15E-05 8794 4.14E-08 3.81E-08 1.20E-08 2,120 2,120
g/vehicle-m g/vehicle-m g/vehicle-m trucks/year g/s/m g/s/m g/s/m m/trip m
65.62 ft 20.0 m 6.11 lb/year 8.78E-05 g/s 5.62 lb/year 8.08E-05 g/s 1.77 lb/year 2.55E-05 g/s Line source represented by separated volume sources, Elevated source not on or adjacent to a building 65.62 ft 20.0 m 131.23 ft 40.0 m Offset Half Volume Width 15.0 ft 4.572 m 61.04 ft 18.60 m 3.49 ft 1.0633 m 1.50 ft 0.457 m 0.35 ft 0.106 m 53 volume sources/line 53 volume sources/line 0.11523 lb/year/volume source 1.6575E-06 g/s/volume source 0.10601 lb/year/volume source 1.52E-06 g/s/volume source 0.03340 lb/year/volume source 4.80E-07 g/s/volume source
Source Type Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c) Starting Location Release Height for Exhaust** Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15 Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Release Height/4.3 [ For exhaust] Release Height for Brake and Tire Wear (Assumed equal to that for passenger cars exhaust)*** Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Release Height/4.3 [ For brake and tire wear] Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model Total DPM Emission Rate Per Volume Source Total Exhaust PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Volume Source Total Brake and Tire PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Volume Source * Width of the line source = 4 travel lanes * width of each travel lane (3.5 m each) + 2 shoulders * width of each shoulder (3 m each) Pages 71 and 78 of 93, BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2012
** Pages 53 and 54 of 76, Health Risk Assessments and Land Use, BAAQMD, May 3, 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA%20HRA%20Guidelines%20%20Statewide%20Workshops%204-28-10.ashx?la=en *** Turbulence from moving vehicles will result in some initial vertical dispersion of brake and tire wear emissions. Therefore a release height of 1.5 ft (close to the ground) was assumed.
Idling DPM Emission Factor Modeled Idling PM2.5 Emission Factor Modeled Idling Time (Max ATCM idling requirement of 5 min) Increase in Number of Trucks due to the Project Total Idling DPM Emissions Total Idling PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height* Release/Exhaust Temperature* Exit Velocity* Exhaust Diameter*
Ethanol Trucks Idling - Point Source - Option 1 6.72E-04 lb/hr-vehicle 6.19E-04 lb/hr-vehicle 0.08333 hr/truck 8794 trucks/year 0.4928 lb/year 0.4533 lb/year
3.05E-01 2.81E-01 0.08333 8794 7.088E-06 6.521E-06
g/hr-vehicle g/hr-vehicle hr/truck trucks/year g/s g/s
Vertical Exit 13 366 169.65224 0.328
ft K ft/s ft
3.84 366 51.710 0.10
m K m/s m
*Page 56 of 76, Health Risk Assessments and Land Use, BAAQMD, May 3, 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA%20HRA%20Guidelines%20-%20Statewide%20Workshops%204-2810.ashx?la=en
ERM
Page 15 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Loading Rack VRU - Point Source - Option 1 Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Release/Exhaust Temperature Exhaust Flow Rate Exhaust Diameter*
0.0000 lb/year 20.67 51 350 0.667
ft F cfm ft
See Loading Rack Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Vertical Exit, Actual Release Parameters 6.30 m 283.706 K 0.165 m3/s 0.203 m 5.093594797 m/s
Tank 56 - Circular Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Tank Diameter Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000 lb/year 56.00 ft 85.000 ft Blank ft
See Tank 56 TAC Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Circular Area Source 17.07 m 25.91 m Blank m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assuems 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
12.954 Fugitives - Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Location Release Height East - Dimension North - Dimension Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000
0.00 12.000 8.000 0
See Fugitive Components Emissions Table lb/year 0.000E+00 g/s Rectangle Area Source Between Tanks 55 and 56 ft 0.00 m ft 3.66 m ft 2.44 m ft 0m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Tank 57 - Circular Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Tank Diameter Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000 lb/year 56.00 ft 85.000 ft Blank ft
See Tank 57 TAC Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Circular Area Source 17.07 m 25.91 m Blank m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assumes 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Tank 58 - Circular Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Tank Diameter Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000 lb/year 56.00 ft 85.000 ft Blank ft
See Tank 58 TAC Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Circular Area Source 17.07 m 25.91 m Blank m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assumes 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
ERM
Page 16 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
AERMOD/HARP Model Inputs for Incremental Impacts Due to the Project - Option 2
Ethanol Trucks Transit - Line Source (As Separatd Volume Source) CY-2015 DPM Emission Factor 2.64E-04 lb/VMT CY-2015 PM2.5 Exhaust Emission Factor 2.43E-04 lb/VMT CY-2015 PM2.5 Brake and Tire Wear Emission Factor 7.64E-05 lb/VMT Increase in Number of Trucks due to the Project 8794 trucks/year Total DPM Emission Rate Per Mile Modeled 4.64 lb/year/mile Total Exhaust PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Mile Modeled 4.27 lb/year/mile Total Brake and Tire Wear PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Mile Modeled 1.34 lb/year/mile Road Length Considered for Modeling 1.32 miles/trip Length of the Line Source, LRS 6955 ft Width of the Line Source, W* Total DPM Emission Rate for Line Source Total Exhaust PM2.5 Emission Rate for Line Source Total Brake and Tire Wear PM2.5 Emission Rate for Line Source
7.43E-05 6.84E-05 2.15E-05 8794 4.14E-08 3.81E-08 1.20E-08 2,120 2,120
g/vehicle-m g/vehicle-m g/vehicle-m trucks/year g/s/m g/s/m g/s/m m/trip m
65.62 ft 20.0 m 6.11 lb/year 8.78E-05 g/s 5.62 lb/year 8.08E-05 g/s 1.77 lb/year 2.55E-05 g/s Line source represented by separated volume sources, Elevated source not on or adjacent to a building 65.62 ft 20.0 m 131.23 ft 40.0 m Offset Half Volume Width 15.0 ft 4.572 m 61.04 ft 18.60 m 3.49 ft 1.0633 m 1.50 ft 0.457 m 0.35 ft 0.106 m 53 volume sources/line 53 volume sources/line 0.11523 lb/year/volume source 1.6575E-06 g/s/volume source 0.10601 lb/year/volume source 1.52E-06 g/s/volume source 0.03340 lb/year/volume source 4.80E-07 g/s/volume source
Source Type Length of the Side of the Line/Volume Source = W Spacing of Separated Volume Source Along Line (c/c) Starting Location Release Height for Exhaust** Initial Lateral Dimension (SYINIT) = 2W/2.15 Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Release Height/4.3 [ For exhaust] Release Height for Brake and Tire Wear (Assumed equal to that for passenger cars exhaust)*** Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Release Height/4.3 [ For brake and tire wear] Number of Volume Sources Generated by BEEST Model Total DPM Emission Rate Per Volume Source Total Exhaust PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Volume Source Total Brake and Tire PM2.5 Emission Rate Per Volume Source * Width of the line source = 4 travel lanes * width of each travel lane (3.5 m each) + 2 shoulders * width of each shoulder (3 m each) Pages 71 and 78 of 93, BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2012
** Pages 53 and 54 of 76, Health Risk Assessments and Land Use, BAAQMD, May 3, 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA%20HRA%20Guidelines%20%20Statewide%20Workshops%204-28-10.ashx?la=en *** Turbulence from moving vehicles will result in some initial vertical dispersion of brake and tire wear emissions. Therefore a release height of 1.5 ft (close to the ground) was assumed.
Ethanol Trucks Idling - Point Source - Option 2 Idling DPM Emission Factor Modeled 6.72E-04 Idling PM2.5 Emission Factor Modeled 6.19E-04 Idling Time (Max ATCM idling requirement of 5 min per 13 CCR § 2485) 0.08333 Increase in Number of Trucks due to the Project 8794 Total Idling DPM Emissions 0.4928 Total Idling PM2.5 Emissions 0.4533 Exhaust Type Release Height* 13 Release/Exhaust Temperature* 366 Exit Velocity* 0.00328 Exhaust Diameter* 0.328
lb/hr-vehicle lb/hr-vehicle hr/truck trucks/year lb/year lb/year ft K ft/s ft
3.05E-01 2.81E-01 0.08333 8794 7.088E-06 6.521E-06 High Horizontal Stack 3.84 366 0.001 0.10
g/hr-vehicle g/hr-vehicle hr/truck trucks/year g/s g/s m K m/s m
*Page 57 of 76, Health Risk Assessments and Land Use, BAAQMD, May 3, 2010, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/CEQA%20HRA%20Guidelines%20-%20Statewide%20Workshops%204-2810.ashx?la=en
ERM
Page 17 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Loading Rack VRU - Point Source - Option 2 Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Adjusted Release Height (Actual Release Ht - 3 * Actual Stack Dia) Release/Exhaust Temperature Exhaust Flow Rate Exit Velocity
0.0000 lb/year 18.67 51 350 0.00328
Adjusted Exhaust Diameter (From Area based on actual flow rate and 0.001 m/s exit velocity)
ft F cfm ft/s
47.580 ft
See Loading Rack Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Horizontal Exit 5.69 m 283.706 K 0.165 m3/s 0.001 m/s 14.50 m
Tank 56 - Circular Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Tank Diameter Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000 lb/year 56.00 ft 85.000 ft Blank ft
See Tank 56 TAC Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Circular Area Source 17.07 m 25.91 m Blank m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assuems 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Fugitives - Area Source See Fugitive Components Emissions Table 0.0000 lb/year 0.000E+00 g/s Rectangle Area Source Between Tanks 55 and 56 0.00 ft 0.00 m 12.000 ft 3.66 m 8.000 ft 2.44 m 0 ft 0m
Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Location Release Height East - Dimension North - Dimension Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)* *SZINIT assumed to be 0 as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Tank 57 - Circular Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Tank Diameter Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000 lb/year 56.00 ft 85.000 ft Blank ft
See Tank 57 TAC Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Circular Area Source 17.07 m 25.91 m Blank m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assumes 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
Tank 58 - Circular Area Source Total TAC Emissions Total PM2.5 Emissions Exhaust Type Release Height Tank Diameter Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT)*
0.0000 lb/year 56.00 ft 85.000 ft Blank ft
See Tank 58 TAC Emissions Table 0.000E+00 g/s Circular Area Source 17.07 m 25.91 m Blank m
*SZINIT assumed to be 0 (model assumes 0 for blank) as the source does not cause mechanical mixing due to turbulence
ERM
Page 18 of 24
BP RICHMOND/0231330 - 12/29/2014
Modeled PM2.5 Concentration from Operational Emissions At PMI/Worker PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3) Only DPM Concentration (μg/m3)
Exit
X - East
Y - North
Comment
Option 1 - Vertical Exit
556125
4196875
0.01271
0.00372
across the water NE
Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
555925 556125 555925
4196482 4196875 4196482
0.03262 0.01248 0.03199
0.00859 0.0053 0.00841
on the water across the water NE on the water
Exit
X - East
Y - North
Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
555075 555085 555075 555085
4196122 4196122 4196122 4196122
Exit
X - East
Y - North
Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
554400 554400 554400 554400
4197550 4197550 4197550 4197550
Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
At Residence Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3) Only DPM Concentration (μg/m3) 0.00681 0.00422 0.0068 0.00422
Comment
0.00258 0.00117 0.00257 0.00117
At School Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3) Only DPM Concentration (μg/m3) 0.00146 0.00114 0.00146 0.00113
0.00082 0.00042 0.00082 0.00042
Comment
HRA Results - Unadjusted Impacts at Maximum Receptors for Operational Emissions at MEIR Cancer Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 555075 555095 555075 555095
Y - North 4196122 4196122 4196122 4196122
Risk 1.42E-06 8.03E-07 1.41E-06 8.03E-07
Chronic Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 554850 555095 554850 555095
Y - North 4196325 4196122 4196325 4196122
HI 9.92E-02 6.73E-02 9.92E-02 6.73E-02
Acute Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 555105 555105 555105 555105
Y - North 4196122 4196122 4196122 4196122
HI 3.70E-01 1.71E-01 3.70E-01 1.71E-01
at MEIW Cancer Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 556125 556125 556125 556125
Y - North 4196850 4196700 4196850 4196700
Risk 5.10E-07 4.68E-07 5.01E-07 4.66E-07
Chronic Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 556150 556125 556150 556125
Y - North 4196900 4196725 4196900 4196700
HI 0.113 0.118 0.111 0.118
Acute Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 555455 555735 555455 555735
Y - North 4196532 4196002 4196532 4196002
HI 1.16E-01 1.39E-01 1.17E-01 1.39E-01
at Elementary School Cancer Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 554400 554400 554400 554400
Y - North 4197600 4197600 4197600 4197600
Risk 3.42E-07 2.24E-07 3.42E-07 2.23E-07
Chronic Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 554400 554400 554400 554400
Y - North 4197700 4197600 4197700 4197600
HI 1.14E-02 1.42E-02 1.14E-02 1.42E-02
Acute Terrain Rural Urban Rural Urban
Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 1 - Vertical Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit Option 2 - Horizontal Exit
X - East 554300 554400 554300 554400
Y - North 4197600 4197600 4197600 4197600
HI 6.36E-02 3.78E-02 6.36E-02 3.78E-02
HRA Results - Adjusted Impacts at Maximum Receptors for Operational Emissions
Type of Estimated Health Impact
Maximum Exposed Individual Residential (MEIR)
Maximum Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW)
Washington Elementary School
Cancer Risk1
Chronic
Acute
PM 2.5 Concentration
(per million) (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
Hazard Index (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
Hazard Index (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
μg/m3 (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
2.41
0.10
0.37
0.00681
(555075E, 4196122N)
(554850E, 4196325N)
(555105E, 4196122N)
(555075E, 4196122N)
Terrain - rural; Exit - vertical
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural; Exit - vertical
0.51
0.12
0.14
0.013
(556125E, 4196850N)
(556150E, 4196700N)
(555735E, 4196002N)
(556125E, 4196875N)
Terrain - rural; Exit - vertical
Terrain - urban Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - urban Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - vertical
0.05
0.0142
0.064
0.00146
(554400E, 4197600N)
(554400E, 4197600N)
(554300E, 4197600N)
(554400E, 4197550N)
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - urban Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
Terrain - rural Exit - both vertical and capped/horizontal give same result at this receptor location
1. MEIR cancer risk includes CRAF of 1.7. For maximum sensitive receptor which is an elementary school, the HARP 70-year cancer risk was adjusted for school exposure, which is 9 years, 180 days/year, and 10 hrs/day, daily breathing rate of 581 L-kg BW.day and multiplied by ASF of 3.
Emissions and Modeling Parameters for Construction HRA CalEEMod Estimated Exhaust PM10 Emissions CalEEMod Estimated Total PM2.5 Emissions Assumed Average DPM Emissions = PM10 Exhaust Total PM2.5 Emissions Modeled
Length of the Side, East (m) Length of the Side, North (m) Source Area (sq. m) Total Area (sq. m) DPM Emissions Modeled PM2.5 Emissions Modeled Release Height (m) Initial Vertical Dimension (SZINIT) = Vertical dimension/4.3 (m)
Receptor
0.00724 0.00727 0.000208 0.000209 Source -1 Skid 25 10 250 3550 1.47E-05 1.47E-05 2.5 1.16
Age Bins
tons/year tons/year g/s g/s Source -2 Rack 30.0 35.0 1050
Source -3 Pipe 15 150 2250
6.16E-05 6.19E-05 2.5 1.16
1.32E-04 1.33E-04 2.5 1.16
Age-Specific Factor
Duration/ for Default Exposure Period (Duration/ for 9-year Exposure Period) (years)
Resident
Third trimester to age 2
10
Age 2 to 16
3
Age 16 to 70
1
2.25/70 (2.25/9) 14/70 (7/9) 54/70 (0/9)
Total Lifetime Student
Age 2 to 16
3
Worker
Age 16 to 70
1
9-Sep (9/9) 40/40 (9/9)
Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor Adjustment Factor for for Default 9-year Exposure Exposure 0.32
2.5
0.6
2.3
0.77
0
1.7
4.8
3
3
1
1
Concentration (μg/m3)
Rural
Urban
Concentration (μg/m3)
X - East
Y - North
0.0324 0.03263
555822.3 555822.3
4196387.00 4196387.00
Concentration (μg/m3) 0.02365 0.02377
Residence DPM PM2.5
0.00075 0.00075
555165 555165
4196112.00 4196102.00
School DPM PM2.5
0.00015 0.00015
554400 554400
Worker DPM PM2.5
0.0029 0.00292
PMI DPM PM2.5
Impact Parameters Daily Breathing Rate (l/kg BW.day) Exposure Frequency (days/year) Exposure Duration (years) Averaging Time (days) CRAF Exposure Hours Ratio DPM Cancer Potency Factor DPM Chronic REL
Type of Estimated Health Impact
Maximum Exposed Individual Residential (MEIR)
Washington Elementary School
Maximum Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW)
X - East
Y - North
555642 555642
4196228 4196228
0.00023 0.00023
555165 555165
4196102 4196102
4197550.00 4197550.00
0.00005 0.00005
554400 554400
4197600 4197600
555455 555455
4196372.00 4196372.00
0.00108 0.00108
555455 555455
4196372 4196372
Child Resident
Student
Worker
581 350 9 25550 4.8 1 1.1 5
581 180 9 25550 3 0.42 1.1 5
149 245 9 25550 1 0.33 1.1 5
Cancer Risk
Chronic
PM 2.5 Concentration
(per million) (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
Hazard Index (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
μg/m3 (Receptor Location) Worst Case Scenario
0.29
0.0002
0.001
(555165E, 4196112N)
(555165E, 4196112N)
(555165E, 4196102N)
Terrain - rural
Terrain - rural
Terrain - rural
0.01 (554400E, 4197550N) Terrain - rural; 0.01 (555455E, 4196372N) Terrain - rural
0.0000 (554400E, 4197550N) Terrain - rural; 0.0006 (555455E, 4196372N)
0.0002 (554400E, 4197550N) Terrain - rural; 0.003 (555455E, 4196372N) Terrain - rural
Terrain - rural
Cumulative Impact Analysis Adjusted Impacts1
Impacts from Sources within 1,000 feet of BP Richmond Terminal Property Boundary
FID 359 316 152
Plant No 15693 17304 13637
Name ConocoPhillips City of Richmond (Port Sta) BP West Coast Products, LLC
Address 1300 CANAL BOULEVARD CANAL BOULEVARD 1306 CANAL STREET
Distance from MEIR 2,000 ft >2,000 ft 1,600 ft
CANCER
CHRONIC HAZARD
ANNUAL PM2.5
27.95 0.44 56.97
0.014 0.004 0.027
0.410 0.0001 0.042
731
13002
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC
1140 CANAL BOULEVARD
2,400 ft
92 93
15691 G11287
Auto Warehousing Auto Warehousing Co
1301 CANAL BOULEVARD 1311 Canal Boulevard
1,500 ft 2,000 ft
0.02 0 0
0 0.002 0
0.060 0 0
NA
NA
Canal Blvd3
Approx. 20 ft from school property boundary
20 ft
0
0
0
Incremental health impacts from the Neat Ehanol Project
2.41
0.099
0.007
Cumulative health impacts
87.79
0.146
0.519
100
10
0.8
Cancer 27.95 10.94 56.97
Hazard 0.014 0.004 0.027
PM2.5 0.41 0.003 0.042
Type NA Generator NA
0.02
0
0.06
NA
0 0.002 0 NA NA NA Not Included in analysis because AADT 20 yr
Recent
