Docstoc

Carson Terminal Expansion

Document Sample
Carson Terminal Expansion Powered By Docstoc
					  Carson Terminal
       Expansion
              REVISED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
   State Clearinghouse No. 2003061130




                                    Prepared for
                                  City of Carson
                          701 East Carson Street
                        Carson, California 90749




                                      Prepared by
                                   EIP Associates
              12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
                    Los Angeles, California 90025
Contents




                       NOVEMBER 23, 2004




1‐2        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                          CON TEN TS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1-2
    1.1 Project Overview and Environmental Setting.......................................1-2
    1.2 Purpose of this EIR ................................................................................1-2
    1.3 Scope of the EIR.....................................................................................1-2
    1.4 The EIR Process .....................................................................................1-2
    1.5 EIR Adequacy.........................................................................................1-2
    1.6 Intended Use of the EIR ........................................................................1-2
    1.7 Document Organization ........................................................................1-2
    1.8 Summary of Impacts..............................................................................1-2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................2-2
    2.1 Project Location .................................................................................... 2-2
    2.2 Environmental Setting.......................................................................... 2-2
        2.2.1   Existing Operations ................................................................. 2-2
        2.2.2 Soil and Groundwater Contamination.................................... 2-2
    2.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................. 2-2
    2.4 Project Characteristics .......................................................................... 2-2
        2.4.1   Construction Phasing .............................................................. 2-2
        2.4.2 Construction Equipment and Staging .................................... 2-2
    2.5 Related Development Addressed In Cumulative Impact Analysis...... 2-2
        2.5.1   City of Carson .......................................................................... 2-2
        2.5.2 Projects At Petroleum Facilities.............................................. 2-2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................3-2
    Introduction to the Analysis ........................................................................... 3-2
          Existing Conditions............................................................................... 3-2
          Thresholds of Significance.................................................................... 3-2
          Regulatory Framework ......................................................................... 3-2
          Impacts . ............................................................................................. 3-2
          Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................. 3-2
          Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................................ 3-2
    3.1   Aesthetics ............................................................................................3.1-2
          3.1.1   Existing Conditions ...............................................................3.1-2
          3.1.2   Regulatory Framework..........................................................3.1-2
          3.1.3   Thresholds of Significance ....................................................3.1-2
          3.1.4   Impacts ..................................................................................3.1-2
          3.1.5   Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................3.1-2
          3.1.6   Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts .........................3.1-2



 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                              iii
Contents


      3.2   Air Quality .......................................................................................... 3.2-2
            3.2.1     Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.2-2
            3.2.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.2-2
            3.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation............................................ 3.2-2
            3.2.4 Impacts.................................................................................. 3.2-2
            3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................. 3.2-2
            3.2.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.2-2
      3.3   Biological Resources .......................................................................... 3.3-2
            3.3.1     Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.3-2
            3.3.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.3-2
            3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.3-2
            3.3.4 Project Impacts ..................................................................... 3.3-2
            3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................. 3.3-2
            3.3.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.3-2
      3.4   Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 3.4-2
            3.4.1     Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.4-2
            3.4.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.4-2
            3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.4-2
            3.4.4 Project Impacts ..................................................................... 3.4-2
            3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................. 3.4-2
            3.4.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.4-2
      3.5   Geology and Soils ............................................................................... 3.5-2
            3.5.1     Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.5-2
            3.5.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.5-2
            3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.5-2
            3.5.4 Impacts.................................................................................. 3.5-2
            3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................. 3.5-2
            3.5.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.5-2
      3.6   Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................... 3.6-2
            3.6.1     Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.6-2
            3.6.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.6-2
            3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.6-2
            3.6.4 Impacts.................................................................................. 3.6-2
            3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................. 3.6-2
            3.6.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.6-2
      3.7   Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................ 3.7-2
            3.7.1     Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.7-2
            3.7.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.7-2
            3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.7-2
            3.7.4 Impacts.................................................................................. 3.7-2
            3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................. 3.7-2
            3.7.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.7-2
      3.8   Noise ...................................................................................................3.8-2

iv                                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                     Contents


           3.8.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.8-2
           3.8.2 Regulatory Context............................................................... 3.8-2
           3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.8-2
           3.8.4 Impacts ................................................................................. 3.8-2
           3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.8-2
           3.8.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.8-2
      3.9 Public Services and Utilities .............................................................. 3.9-2
           3.9.1  Existing Conditions .............................................................. 3.9-2
           3.9.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................... 3.9-2
           3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................... 3.9-2
           3.9.4 Impacts ................................................................................. 3.9-2
           3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. 3.9-2
           3.9.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ........................ 3.9-2
      3.10 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................. 3.10-2
           3.10.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................ 3.10-2
           3.10.2 Regulatory Framework....................................................... 3.10-2
           3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................. 3.10-2
           3.10.4 Impacts ............................................................................... 3.10-2
           3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................... 3.10-2
           3.10.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ...................... 3.10-2
4.0 ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................4-2
    4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 4-2
    4.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................. 4-2
    4.3 Alternatives Screening Process ............................................................ 4-2
        4.3.1   Alternate Site ........................................................................... 4-2
        4.3.2 Partial Fill of Old Dominguez Channel Remnant................... 4-2
        4.3.3 Reduced Project....................................................................... 4-2
        4.3.4 Delayed Construction .............................................................. 4-2
    4.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project.................................................... 4-2
        4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative ...................................... 4-2
        4.4.2 Alternative 2: Alternative Site Configuration......................... 4-2
    4.5 Comparison of impacts of the alternatives .......................................... 4-2
    4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative................................................. 4-2
5.0 CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS .....................................................5-2
    5.1 Growth Inducing Effects....................................................................... 5-2
    5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes................................. 5-2
    5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................. 5-2




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                              v
Contents


6.0 PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED.................................6-2
7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................. 7-2
    7.1 Written Sources..................................................................................... 7-2
    7.2 Personal Communication ..................................................................... 7-2
    7.3 Internet Sources .................................................................................... 7-2


APPENDICES
   Appendix A             Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
   Appendix B             Air Quality Technical Report
   Appendix C             Health Risk Assessment
   Appendix D             Biological Resources Technical Report
   Appendix E             Cultural Resources Technical Report
   Appendix F             Geology Technical Report
   Appendix G             Hazards Technical Report
   Appendix H             Hydrology Study
   Appendix I             Noise Technical Report
   Appendix J             Traffic Impact Analysis
   Appendix K             Responses to Comments Received After the Close of the
                           November 2003 DEIR Comment Period


FIGURES
   Figure 2-1              Regional Location ................................................................... 2-2
   Figure 2-2              Aerial Photograph of Project and Project Site ....................... 2-2
   Figure 2-3              Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners Western Service
                           Region ..................................................................................... 2-2
      Figure 2-4           Proposed Site Plan.................................................................. 2-2
      Figure 2-5a          Typical Single-Column Tank Design...................................... 2-2
      Figure 2-5b          Typical Primary Seal Installation Detail................................ 2-2
      Figure 2-5c          Typical Secondary Seal Installation Detail ............................ 2-2
      Figure 3.1-1         Key to View Locations ......................................................... 3.1-2
      Figure 3.1-2a        Site Views 1 and 2 ................................................................ 3.1-2
      Figure 3.1-2b        Site Views 3 and 4................................................................ 3.1-2
      Figure 3.1-2c        Site Views 5 and 6................................................................ 3.1-2
      Figure 3.1-2d        Site View 7............................................................................ 3.1-2
      Figure 3.1-2e        Site Views 8 and 9................................................................ 3.1-2
      Figure 3.2-1         Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4 ............................................ 3.2-2
      Figure 3.5-1         Regional Geology ................................................................. 3.5-2
      Figure 3.7-1         Surface Development Plan .................................................. 3.7-2
      Figure 3.8-1         Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations .......................3.8-2
      Figure 3.8-2         Long-Term Ambient Noise Measurement ..........................3.8-2
      Figure 3.10-1        Project Study Area ............................................................. 3.10-2


vi                                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                    Contents


    Figure 3.10-2   Existing Roadway and Intersection Geometry................. 3.10-2
    Figure 3.10-3   Average Daily Traffic Volumes.......................................... 3.10-2
    Figure 3.10-4   Project Trip Distribution................................................... 3.10-2
    Figure 3.10-5   Site Preparation Trip Distribution.................................... 3.10-2
    Figure 3.10-6   Tank Construction Trip Distribution................................ 3.10-2
    Figure 3.10-7   Near-Term Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes.................. 3.10-2


TABLES
   Table 1-1        Summary Impact Table...........................................................1-2
   Table 2-1        Summary of Existing Terminal Tank Storage ....................... 2-2
   Table 2-2        Summary of Project and Site Characteristics ........................ 2-2
   Table 2-3        Typical Construction Equipment Requirements................... 2-2
   Table 2-2        List of Related Development Projects.................................... 2-2
   Table 3.2-1      Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project
                    Vicinity................................................................................. 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-2a    Maximum Daily Unmitigated Fugitive Dust and
                    Construction Equipment Exhaust PM10 Emissions—
                    Month 3................................................................................ 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-2b    Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Equipment
                    Exhaust CO, VOC, NOx, and SOx Emissions—Month 4 ..... 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-3     Operational Emissions from Storage Tanks....................... 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-4     Total TAC Emissions of the Proposed Project.................... 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-5     Summary of Estimated Health Risk and Hazards for
                    Off-Site Receptors ............................................................... 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-6a    Maximum Daily Mitigated Fugitive Dust and
                    Construction Equipment Exhaust PM10 Emissions—
                    Mitigation Scenario #1, Month 3 ........................................ 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-6b    Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Equipment
                    Exhaust CO, VOC, NOx, and SOx Emissions—
                    Mitigation Scenario #1, Month 4 ........................................ 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-7a    Maximum Daily Mitigated Fugitive Dust and
                    Construction Equipment Exhaust PM10 Emissions—
                    Mitigation Scenario #2, Month 3........................................ 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-7b    Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Equipment
                    Exhaust CO, VOC, NOx, and SOx Emissions—
                    Mitigation Scenario #2, Month 4........................................ 3.2-2
    Table 3.2-8     Comparison of Construction Emissions Before and
                    After Mitigation ................................................................... 3.2-2
    Table 3.4-1     Tanks Proposed for Demolition .......................................... 3.4-2
    Table 3.7-2     Surface Development .......................................................... 3.7-2
    Table 3.8-1     Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment ........ 3.8-2
    Table 3.8-2     On-Site Sound Level Measurement Summary ................... 3.8-2



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                           vii
Contents


        Table 3.8-3     Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
                        Environments ......................................................................3.8-2
        Table 3.8-4     Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities for
                        Industrial Projects ...............................................................3.8-2
        Table 3.9-1     Fire Services Locations and Equipment/Personnel ........... 3.9-2
        Table 3.9-2     Response Units Closest to the Project Site ......................... 3.9-2
        Table 3.9-3     CWS Current and Projected Water Supply......................... 3.9-2
        Table 3.10-1    Hourly Capacity by Roadway Type ................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-2    Level of Service Descriptions ............................................ 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-3    Level of Service Criteria for Stop-Controlled
                        Unsignalized Intersections................................................ 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-4    Roadway Segment Level of Service Results Existing
                        Conditions.......................................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-5    Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results
                        Existing Conditions ........................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-6    Roadway Segment Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base Conditions ................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-7    Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base Conditions ................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-8    Roadway Segment Level of Service Results Near-Term
                        Cumulative Base with Depression Fill/Site Preparation
                        Conditions.......................................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-9    Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base with Depression Fill/Site
                        Preparation Conditions ..................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-10   Roadway Segment Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base with Tank Construction
                        Conditions.......................................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-11   Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base with Tank Construction
                        Conditions.......................................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-12   Roadway Segment Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base with Combined Tank
                        Construction and Depression Fill/Site Preparation
                        Conditions.......................................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-13   Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—Near-
                        Term Cumulative Base with Combined Tank
                        Construction and Depression Fill/Site Preparation
                        Conditions.......................................................................... 3.10-2
        Table 3.10-14   Incremental Increase in Post-Construction Project
                        Operations Driveway Traffic ............................................. 3.10-2
        Table 4-1       Comparison of Alternatives.................................................... 4-2



viii                                   Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                  1.0          INTRODUCTION

1.1       PROJECT OVERVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL
          SETTING
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that has been prepared
to analyze and disclose the potential environmental effects associated with the
construction of a total of eighteen new 80,000-barrel product storage tanks and
one new 30,000-barrel transmix storage tank with related piping, pumps, and
control systems (“proposed project”) on the southwestern portion of the existing
Carson Terminal facility, which is located in the City of Carson, California. The
proposed project would increase the petroleum storage capacity of the facility by
up to 25 percent over a three-to-ten year period, depending on the market demand
for petroleum product storage. The facility is operated by Kinder Morgan Tank
Storage Terminals LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
(KMEP). For a detailed description of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 2.0
(Project Description) of this document.

The proposed project is located entirely within the City of Carson, which
encompasses 19.24 square miles of land area. The City of Carson is located in
southern Los Angeles County, approximately thirteen miles south of downtown
Los Angeles and six miles north of the Port of Los Angeles at San Pedro. The City
of Los Angeles bounds Carson on the northwest, south, and southeast. The Cities
of Compton and Long Beach lie adjacent to Carson on the north and east,
respectively. Unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County lie adjacent to the
northeastern and western boundaries of Carson. The City is accessible from the
north/south Harbor Freeway (State Highway 110), the north/south Long Beach
Freeway (State Highway 710), and the northwest/southeast San Diego Freeway
(Interstate 405).

The proposed project site is located in the southeastern area of the City of Carson,
approximately 1.25 miles west of the 710 Freeway and 1.35 miles south of the 405
Freeway. Specifically, the project site is located on the southwestern portion of the
Carson Terminal property, adjacent to the southeast intersection of Alameda


 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              1‐1
1.0 Introduction


Street and Sepulveda Boulevard. The site lies within an industrialized area
bounded by existing refineries and petroleum storage tanks on the north and east,
and Alameda Street on the west. Refer to Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) for
project location figures.

1.2       PURPOSE OF THIS EIR
The proposed project requires a modification of an existing Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), which requires a discretionary approval by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carson. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of
the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with
Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an
informational document that:
       …will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the
       significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to
       minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the
       project.

The EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR, pursuant to Section 15161 of the
CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project.
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines:
       …this type of EIR should focus on the changes in the environment that
       would result from the development project. This type of EIR should focus
       primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the
       development project.

In addition, an EIR also identifies possible ways to minimize significant impacts
(referred to as mitigation) and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the project. The
public agency with the authority to approve or deny the project—in this case, the
City of Carson—will consider the information in the EIR, along with other
information, before making a decision on the project. The findings and
conclusions of the EIR regarding environmental impacts do not control the
agency's discretion to approve, deny, or modify the project, but instead are
presented as information intended to aid in the decision-making process.

This report is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of
Carson decision-makers. The process will culminate with Planning Commission



1‐2                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                 1.0 Introduction


hearings, and possibly the City Council on appeal, to consider certification of a
Final EIR (FEIR) and a decision on whether or not to approve the proposed
project. The EIR will also be used by other agencies that must issue discretionary
permits for the proposed project as described in Section 1.6.

1.3       SCOPE OF THE EIR
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1, the purpose of this
EIR is to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from the
construction and operation of the proposed project, propose mitigation measures
to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts, and identify and evaluate
alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant effects of the project. The
EIR process provides an opportunity for the public to review and comment upon
the potential environmental effects and further informs the public of the
environmental analysis. The City must respond to significant environmental issues
identified during the public review process.

The City determined that an EIR should be prepared to analyze the potential
impacts associated with approval and implementation of the proposed project. On
June 25, 2003, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to local and
regional responsible agencies and other interested parties. A copy of the NOP, and
the responses received during the 30-day public review period, are included in
Appendix A of the November 2003 Draft EIR (DEIR) document.

Comments received during the NOP scoping period have been considered in the
preparation of this EIR. Based on the comments received, this EIR evaluates the
following environmental issues:
      Aesthetics
      Air Quality
      Biological Resources
      Cultural Resources
      Geology and Soils
      Hazards and Hazardous Materials
      Hydrology and Water Quality
      Noise

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             1‐3
1.0 Introduction


       Public Services
       Transportation/Traffic

These environmental issues are addressed in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR.

1.4        THE EIR PROCESS
This EIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) of 1970
(California Public Resources Code [“PRC”] §21000 et seq.); California CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq., as amended
through January 1, 2003); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for
implementation of CEQA as adopted by the City of Carson. As the Lead Agency for
this project, the City of Carson will take primary responsibility for conducting the
environmental review and approving or denying the project.

As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City
prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine whether any aspect of the project,
either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the
environment and, if so, to narrow the focus (or scope) of the environmental
analysis. For this project, the IS indicated that the EIR should focus on the
environmental issues listed above in Section 1.3.

After completion of the IS, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the
California Office of Planning and Research as an indication that an EIR would be
prepared. In turn, the IS/NOP was distributed to involved public agencies and
interested parties for a 30-day public review period, which began on June 25,
2003, and ended on July 25, 2003. The purpose of the public review period was to
solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be
included in the EIR. The City received nine comment letters on the IS/NOP, which
are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

During preparation of the EIR, agencies, organizations, and persons who the City
believed might have an interest in this project were specifically contacted.
Information, data, and observations from these contacts are included in the EIR.
Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review


1‐4                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                1.0 Introduction


period of the IS/NOP had opportunities to comment during the public review
period for the EIR, as well as at subsequent hearings on the project.

The DEIR was circulated for review and comment by the public and other
interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day review period which
was from November 10, 2003, to December 26, 2003.

On February 24, 2004, the City of Carson Planning Commission certified a Final
EIR and approved Conditional Use Permit 02-11-529. On March 8, 2004, an
appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed with the Carson City Council
and the matter was scheduled for a public hearing on May 4, 2004. After close of
the public comment period on the DEIR and prior to the City Council appeal
hearing, written comment letters were received from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), the National Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) in conjunction with other environmental organizations, and from other
agencies and individuals. On the date of the appeal hearing, the Applicant
requested that the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission
for additional environmental analysis and the matter was so referred.

Based on concerns expressed by the community and to address changes in the
proposed project that were made subsequent to the preparation of the DEIR, a
decision was made to revise the DEIR and recirculate the revised document for
public review and comment. The revised EIR will be referred to as the Revised
DEIR.

This Revised DEIR contains revisions to certain chapters of the DEIR prepared in
November 2003 (hereafter the November 2003 DEIR). As described in Chapter
2.0, the Applicant has redesigned the project to reduce air quality impacts that
were identified in the November 2003 DEIR. Therefore, the revised project
description primarily affects the air quality impact assessment (Chapter 3.2).
However, the revised project description also reflects minor changes in the site
plan tank layout and provides a more detailed construction phasing and
equipment requirement description. Consequently, all issue areas were reviewed
in the context of the revised project description. With the exception of the
construction-related air quality assessment, no new impacts were identified as a


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           1‐5
1.0 Introduction


result of the revised project. Thus, the previous assessment is considered adequate
to address the potential impacts of the revised project on the remaining issue areas
because the potential impacts of the revised project are either unchanged or
reduced from the earlier project description.

Two additional areas of the assessment were analyzed to ensure no new impacts
due to the changes made to the project. The baseline assumptions, assessment
methods and conclusions of the hazards and hazardous materials assessment
(Chapter 3.6) and the traffic and transportation impact assessment (Chapter 3.10)
were reviewed due to the new tank design, the slight changes to the site plan, and
changes to the construction plan. However, the conclusions of these chapters of
the November 2003 DEIR remain unchanged because no new impacts were
identified. The review of these issue areas is documented in two Technical
Memoranda. The Technical Memoranda are provided in Appendix G for the
hazards assessment and Appendix J for the traffic assessment.

The remaining issue areas (i.e., aesthetics, biological and cultural resources,
geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and utilities)
are not expected to change as a result of the project revisions. These impact
analyses and supporting technical reports are maintained as is from the original
EIR.

The Revised DEIR air quality assessment incorporates relevant portions of the
FEIR that was published in February 2004. The revised assessment also
incorporates responses to comments that were not addressed in the FEIR because
they were received after the close of the public comment period. These comment
letters and responses are included in Appendix K of this EIR.

This Revised DEIR is being circulated for review and comment by the public and
other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day review period.
During the review period, which will be from November 23, 2004, to January 7,
2005, copies of the Revised DEIR will be available for review at the City of Carson
Planning Division.




1‐6                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                1.0 Introduction


The documents referenced in this report will also be available for review during
normal business hours at the City of Carson City Hall:

     Planning Division
     701 East Carson Street
     Carson, CA 90745

Written comments on the Revised DEIR should be addressed to

     John Signo
     Associate Planner
     City of Carson Planning Division
     701 East Carson Street
     Carson, CA 90745

After the close of the written public comment period, responses to written and
recorded oral comments on the environmental effects of the project will be
prepared and published. A Revised FEIR (comprised of this Revised DEIR,
comments on the Revised DEIR, and written responses to those comments) and
the Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes the process to ensure
implementation of mitigation measures, will then be considered by the City in a
public meeting.

The City will review and consider the Revised FEIR prior to any decision to
approve, revise, or reject the proposed project. Approval of the proposed project
will be accompanied by written adoption of findings of fact and a statement of
overriding considerations for each significant unavoidable environmental effect
identified in the Revised FEIR. In addition, the City must also consider a
Mitigation Monitoring Program, which will describe the process to ensure
implementation of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the
approved project to reduce or avoid significant impacts on the environment. This
monitoring or reporting program would ensure CEQA compliance during specific
project implementation.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           1‐7
1.0 Introduction


1.5       EIR ADEQUACY
The level of detail contained throughout this Revised EIR is consistent with the
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15151) and recent court decisions, which provide the
standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state that:
       An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
       decision-makers with information, which enables them to make a decision,
       which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An
       evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be
       exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
       what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an
       EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
       disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection,
       but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

1.6       INTENDED USE OF THE EIR
This Revised DEIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant
environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the
proposed project, and also addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures
or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. This
document is intended to serve as an informational document, as discussed above.
Additionally, this Revised DEIR will provide the primary source of environmental
information for the lead agency to consider when exercising any permitting
authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this project.

As previously mentioned, this Revised DEIR is intended to provide decision-
makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider
the environmental consequences of the proposed action. This Revised DEIR
identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as
ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels,
whether through the imposition of mitigation measures or through the
implementation of specific alternatives to the project. In a practical sense, EIRs
function as a technique for fact-finding, allowing an applicant, concerned citizens,
and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline
conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure.




1‐8                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                  1.0 Introduction


To gain the most value from this report, certain key points recommended in the
CEQA Guidelines should be kept in mind:
      This report should be used as a tool to give the reader an overview of the
      possible ramifications of the proposed project. It is designed to be an “early
      warning system” with regard to potential environmental impacts and
      subsequent effects on the local community’s environmental resources.
      A specific environmental impact is not necessarily irreversible or permanent.
      Most impacts, particularly in urban, more developed areas, can be wholly or
      partially mitigated by incorporating changes recommended in this report
      during the design and construction phases of project development.
      This report, while a summary of facts, reflects the professional judgment of
      the author. Therefore, the reader will have to individually weigh the facts
      that it reports.

The City of Carson is the lead agency for the proposed project. This EIR will also
be used by the SCAQMD for its permitting process. Permits and approvals
required for this project include:
      Modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit and Building Permits
      from the City of Carson
      Permits to Construct from the SCAQMD

Other existing plans and permits for the Terminal will be updated as appropriate
as the project is constructed.

1.7       DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This Revised DEIR has been organized for easy use and reference. This Revised
DEIR includes all sections of the November 2003 DEIR, including those sections
that have been revised and those sections that are unchanged from the November
2003 DEIR. Due to the size of the Revised DEIR, it has been bound as two
volumes: Volume I (the Revised Draft EIR) and Volume II (Appendices to the
Revised Draft EIR). To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a
brief summary of the contents of each volume of the Revised DEIR is provided
below. The following chapters are contained within Volume I of the Revised DEIR:
      Chapter 1.0—Introduction. This chapter describes the purpose of the EIR, a
      summary of the environmental and public review process, availability of the


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              1‐9
1.0 Introduction


        EIR, and a brief outline of this document’s organization. This chapter is
        revised from the November 2003 DEIR and includes a summary of revisions
        made to the November 2003 DEIR.
        Chapter 2.0—Project Description. This chapter provides a detailed
        description of the proposed project, including location, background
        information, major objectives, and technical characteristics. In addition, a
        discussion of cumulative projects is also provided, including a list of projects
        that were identified as relevant to the cumulative analysis. This section is
        revised from the November 2003 DEIR.
        Chapter 3.0—Environmental Analysis. This chapter describes and evaluates
        the environmental issue areas, including the existing environmental setting
        and background, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental
        impacts, mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm,
        and a residual impact statement as to the effectiveness of mitigation
        measures. The introductory paragraph at the beginning of each section
        provides an overview of the scope of the impact analysis, including the
        identification of which issues were determined to be less than significant in
        the IS prepared for the proposed project. The air quality assessment
        (Chapter 3.2) has been revised to reflect the updated project description.
        Other issue area assessments are unchanged from the November 2003
        DEIR.
        Chapter 4.0—Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This chapter provides
        description and analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that
        could reduce or avoid potentially significant affects. A comparison of the
        impacts of the alternatives and the identification of the environmentally
        superior alternative is also discussed in this section. This section is
        unchanged from the November 2003 DEIR.
        Chapter 5.0—Other CEQA Considerations. Provides analysis, as required by
        CEQA, regarding impacts that would result from the proposed project,
        including growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, significant
        irreversible changes to the environment, and significant and unavoidable
        adverse impacts. This section is unchanged from the November 2003 DEIR.
        Chapter 6.0—List of EIR Preparers. This chapter identifies the individuals
        responsible for the preparation of this EIR. This section is unchanged from
        the November 2003 DEIR.
        Chapter 7.0—References. This chapter identifies all references used and
        cited in the preparation of this report.




1‐10                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                1.0 Introduction


Volume II contains the appendices to the Revised Draft EIR. The Initial
Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters are provided in Appendix A.
Technical reports in support of the impact assessments in Chapter 3 are provided
in appendices B through J. These appendices are unchanged from the November
2003 DEIR with the following exceptions:
      Appendix B, Air Quality Technical Report, is revised
      Appendix C, Health Risk Assessment, is revised
      Appendix G, Hazards Technical Report, is unchanged but a technical
      memorandum is included that provides an analysis of the revised project’s
      risk of upset conditions in comparison to the analysis performed for the
      November 2003 DEIR
      Appendix J, Traffic Impact Analysis, is unchanged but a technical
      memorandum is included that provides an analysis of the revised project’s
      traffic impacts in comparison to the analysis performed for the November
      2003 DEIR
      Appendix K provides comment letters received after the close of the public
      comment period for the November 2003 DEIR and responses to those
      comments. After the close of the public comment period, a Revised Final EIR
      will be prepared that includes written and oral public comments and
      responses to comments. At that time, the Project EIR will be comprised of
      the following public documents:
        › November 2003 DEIR
        › February 2004 FEIR
        › Revised DEIR dated October, 2004, inclusive of comment letters
           received after the close of the public comment period for the November
           2003 DEIR and responses to those comments
        › Revised Final EIR (date to be determined)

1.8       SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Table 1-1, below, summarizes potentially significant impacts that would result
from implementation of the proposed project.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          1‐11
1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1        Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                             Mitigation Measure                                  Residual Impact
                                                              Aesthetics
 Impact AES-1:          The        MM AES-1 Provide landscaping along the KMEP property perimeter. Less than significant
  proposed project would           Landscaping could include but would not be limited to areas adjacent to
  not substantially degrade        Alameda Street along the Alameda Street property line, as well as the
  the existing visual              property boundary on Sepulveda Boulevard. (Recommended)
  character of the project
  site or its surroundings.
                                                              Air Quality
 Impact AQ-1:                      MM AQ-1          The project shall implement the following measures to Significant after
        Demolition, site           reduce potentially significant direct and cumulative emissions during mitigation
  preparation, and                 construction to the extent that these measures are both feasible and
  construction activities          effective:
  may generate significant            Use of emulsified fuel (emulsification of diesel and water) in heavy
  emissions of nitrogen               construction vehicles if available from the selected contractor at
  dioxide (NOx) and                   reasonable market prices and if the on-site vehicle can perform as
  particulate matter (PM10)           required. Emulsified fuel is accompanied with a reduction in power that
  on a daily basis.                   may impact whether all types of on-site equipment can use this fuel;
                                      Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) or Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD) in heavy
                                      construction vehicles where emulsified fuel cannot be used, if available
                                      from the selected contractor at reasonable market prices;
                                      Use ethanol- or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and pile drivers
                                      instead of diesel-powered equipment to the extent available and at
                                      competitive prices. Propane- or butane-powered on-site mobile
                                      equipment shall be used instead of gasoline-powered equipment to the
                                      extent available and found to be feasible;
                                      Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper
                                      tune as per manufacturers’ specifications and per SCAQMD rules;
                                      Install equipment emission controls such as particulate traps and
                                      oxidation catalysts on onsite earthmoving equipment, if feasible. Based
                                      on current designs, this technology has not been shown to be effective
                                      when used with other control technologies, such as emulsified diesel fuel.
                                      In addition, this technology has not been shown to be effective on certain
                                      types of off-road vehicles, such as track vehicles. If this technology is not
                                      feasible with emulsified diesel fuel, then the available technologies that
                                      show effective reduction in emissions will be used;

1‐12                                                                      Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                    1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1          Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                                Mitigation Measure                                  Residual Impact
                                    Request the use by contractors of compressed or liquefied natural gas
                                    (CNG or LNG)-powered trucks and CNG or propane-powered
                                    construction equipment, to the extent available for short-term
                                    construction projects;
                                    Use the lowest VOC paint that meets performance specifications and use
                                    rollers rather than sprayers to apply paint to tanks to the degree that this
                                    results in reduced emissions over sprayers, as dependent upon coating
                                    thickness; and
                                    Reduce the current 15-year project cycle down to no more than 10 years
                                    from the date of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit in order to
                                    reduce community impact.
                                  MM AQ-2          The project shall minimize PM10 emissions during
                                  construction by implementing all feasible measures specified by
                                  SCAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The
                                  project shall further minimize PM10 emissions and implement a traffic
                                  control plan with the following provisions:
                                    Require the configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic
                                    interference;
                                    Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction
                                    activities to maintain traffic flow;
                                    Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial
                                    system to off-peak hours, to the extent feasible;
                                    Consolidate truck deliveries when possible;
                                    Provide a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between truck traffic and
                                    sensitive receptors;
                                    Re-route truck traffic by restricting truck traffic on routes to minimize
                                    impacts to sensitive receptors;
                                    Enforce truck parking restrictions;
                                    Restrict truck idling to no more than ten consecutive minutes; and
                                    Pave on-site construction roads.
Impact AQ-2:                      MM AQ-3        The following measures shall be implemented to further Less than significant
       Operation of the           reduce emissions associated with existing and future terminal
 proposed project would           operations:
 not significantly increase         All new tanks shall use a single-column tank design and shall be
 the amount of air                  connected to a vapor capture system during refilling operations;

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                  1‐13
1.0 Introduction

                                            Table 1-1          Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                                Mitigation Measure                                 Residual Impact
  pollutant emissions                All new pumps shall use double mechanical seals;
  generated by the facility          Drain-dry operations shall not exceed the existing facility permit which
  on a daily basis.                  limits the facility to no more than two simultaneous drain-dry operations;
                                     ERCs shall be obtained to fully offset the remaining net emissions
                                     associated with the new tank operations;
                                     KMEP shall remove three pre-project tanks from service and demolish
                                     the tanks no later than July 1, 2006. A fourth pre-project tank shall be
                                     removed from service and demolished no later than July 1, 2008. KMEP
                                     shall not use the emissions reductions associated with removal of these
                                     tanks from service to offset emissions increases associated with the
                                     project pursuant to SCAQMD permitting rules and shall not file
                                     applications with the SCAQMD for ERCs for these tanks;
                                     KMEP shall add domes to the existing external floating roof tanks that
                                     would not otherwise be removed as a part of the project at a faster pace
                                     than required by SCAQMD Rule 1178. This rule requires that the several
                                     existing tanks at the facility have domes installed on them to reduce
                                     fugitive emissions no later than January 1, 2008;
                                     KMEP shall develop and implement a program to expedite corrective
                                     actions (such as replacement or maintenance) on valves and fittings that
                                     have been shown through monitoring to have a potential for leakage.
                                     Corrective actions shall use the best available control technology for the
                                     type of component identified. This program shall remain in effect for at
                                     least one year after completion of project construction; and
                                     KMEP shall develop and implement a plan to use alternative-fueled
                                     vehicles and equipment upon replacement at the terminal to reduce diesel
                                     emissions, if such vehicles or equipment are found to be available and
                                     would not exceed 125% of the cost of regular diesel fuel. If alternative
                                     fuels are not available or would exceed 125% of the cost of regular diesel
                                     fuel, then upon replacement, KMEP shall install diesel particulate traps or
                                     oxidation catalysts, or use hybrid technologies, to achieve the greatest
                                     emissions reductions possible upon replacement.
 Impact AQ-3:                      None required. Proposed project design would not result in significant Less than significant
        Implementation of          exposure to toxic air contaminants and, therefore, no further mitigation
  the proposed project may         is required.
  expose sensitive receptors
  to toxic air contaminants.

1‐14                                                                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                 1.0 Introduction

                                          Table 1-1        Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                             Mitigation Measure                                  Residual Impact
Impact AQ-4:                      None required                                                           Less than significant
        Implementation of
 the proposed project
 would not generate
 significant objectionable
 odors.
Impact AQ-5:                      MM AQ-1          The project shall implement the following measures to Significant after
       Short-term                 reduce potentially significant direct and cumulative emissions during mitigation
 construction impacts of          construction to the extent that these measures are both feasible and
 the proposed project, in         effective:
 conjunction with other              Use of emulsified fuel (emulsification of diesel and water) in heavy
 projects in the region,             construction vehicles if available from the selected contractor at
 could cumulatively                  reasonable market prices and if the on-site vehicle can perform as
 exacerbate existing air             required. Emulsified fuel is accompanied with a reduction in power that
 quality or delay the                may impact whether all types of on-site equipment can use this fuel;
 attainment of air quality           Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) or Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD) in heavy
 goals as proposed in the            construction vehicles where emulsified fuel cannot be used, if available
 AQMP during peak                    from the selected contractor at reasonable market prices;
 construction activities.            Use ethanol- or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and pile drivers
                                     instead of diesel-powered equipment to the extent available and at
                                     competitive prices. Propane- or butane-powered on-site mobile
                                     equipment shall be used instead of gasoline-powered equipment to the
                                     extent available and found to be feasible;
                                     Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper
                                     tune as per manufacturers’ specifications and per SCAQMD rules;
                                     Install equipment emission controls such as particulate traps and
                                     oxidation catalysts on onsite earthmoving equipment, if feasible. Based
                                     on current designs, this technology has not been shown to be effective
                                     when used with other control technologies, such as emulsified diesel fuel.
                                     In addition, this technology has not been shown to be effective on certain
                                     types of off-road vehicles, such as track vehicles. If this technology is not
                                     feasible with emulsified diesel fuel, then the available technologies that
                                     show effective reduction in emissions will be used;
                                     Request the use by contractors of compressed or liquefied natural gas
                                     (CNG or LNG)-powered trucks and CNG or propane-powered
                                     construction equipment, to the extent available for short-term

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                               1‐15
1.0 Introduction

                                            Table 1-1          Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                                Mitigation Measure                                       Residual Impact
                                     construction projects;
                                     Use the lowest VOC paint that meets performance specifications and use
                                     rollers rather than sprayers to apply paint to tanks to the degree that this
                                     results in reduced emissions over sprayers, as dependent upon coating
                                     thickness
                                   MM AQ-2          The project shall minimize PM10 emissions during
                                   construction by implementing all feasible measures specified by
                                   SCAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The
                                   project shall further minimize PM10 emissions and implement a traffic
                                   control plan with the following provisions:
                                     Require the configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic
                                     interference;
                                     Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction
                                     activities to maintain traffic flow;
                                     Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial
                                     system to off-peak hours, to the extent feasible;
                                     Consolidate truck deliveries when possible;
                                     Provide a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between truck traffic and
                                     sensitive receptors;
                                     Re-route truck traffic by restricting truck traffic on routes to minimize
                                     impacts to sensitive receptors;
                                     Enforce truck parking restrictions;
                                     Restrict truck idling to no more than ten consecutive minutes;
                                     Pave on-site construction roads.
 Impact AQ-6:                      None required.                                                                   Less than significant
        Operation of the
  proposed project, in
  conjunction with other
  projects in the region, will
  not cumulatively
  exacerbate existing air
  quality or delay the
  attainment of air quality
  goals as proposed in the
  AQMP.

1‐16                                                                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                      1.0 Introduction

                                          Table 1-1      Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                           Mitigation Measure         Residual Impact
                                                      Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1:                     None required                                 Less than significant
       Proposed project
 implementation would not
 result in impacts on
 sensitive plant species.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                     1‐17
1.0 Introduction

                                             Table 1-1           Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                                  Mitigation Measure                                    Residual Impact
 Impact BIO-2:                     MM BIO-1 Demolition and site clearing or other initial soil Less than significant
        Proposed project           disturbance activities shall be scheduled, as feasible, outside the active
  implementation could             bird breeding season, March 1 (February 1 for raptors) to August 31.
  result in impacts on             MM BIO-2 If new demolition or construction (ground disturbance) is
  sensitive wildlife species.      to occur during the bird breeding season, then preconstruction surveys
                                   for nesting birds shall be conducted prior to the start of new
                                   construction activity. Surveys will be conducted within 48 hours of the
                                   start of work and will include the project area and adjacent areas within
                                   300 feet for protected native birds and 500 feet for raptors. Only after a
                                   qualified biologist has determined the absence of nesting birds shall new
                                   demolition or construction begin.
                                   MM BIO-3 If new demolition or construction within 100 feet of
                                   potential nesting areas cannot be scheduled outside of the nesting
                                   season, then as directed by a qualified biologist, nesting deterrents shall
                                   be implemented beginning by January 15 and maintained through July
                                   15, or as determined necessary by a qualified biologist. Deterrents may
                                   include
                                      Placing thick plastic sheeting (e.g., Visqueen) over soil substrate that may
                                      be used by ground nesting birds, such as Killdeer
                                      Walking the work area on a daily basis (as a means of human
                                      disturbance) to minimize the chance for nests to be established within the
                                      planned work limits by presenting an ongoing disturbance presence. A
                                      qualified biologist shall be consulted to deter nest establishment and
                                      verify that eggs are not present.
                                      Placing reflective ribbon, random noise blasters (i.e. air-horn, audio
                                      tape), perch blocks (i.e. nest covers, tarps, rail spikes, fencing) on the site
                                      to prevent birds from locating nests or roosts in planned construction
                                      areas
                                   MM BIO-4 No new demolition, new construction activity, or other
                                   new soil disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of an active nest (within
                                   500 feet for raptors) of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
                                   without approval from CDFG and USFWS. As appropriate, an Incidental
                                   Take for an active, protected bird nest may be requested from the
                                   California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                   Service. Work may be initiated once the nest is inactive (failed or
                                   fledged) as determined by a qualified biologist, or if a nest-removal
                                   permit is granted by the resource agency.
1‐18                                                                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                        1.0 Introduction

                                            Table 1-1           Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                                  Mitigation Measure                                    Residual Impact
Impact BIO-3:                     MM BIO-1 Demolition and site clearing or other initial soil Less than significant
       Proposed project           disturbance activities shall be scheduled, as feasible, outside the active
 implementation could             bird breeding season, March 1 (February 1 for raptors) to August 31.
 result in impacts on             MM BIO-2 If new demolition or construction (ground disturbance) is
 migratory birds and              to occur during the bird breeding season, then preconstruction surveys
 raptors.                         for nesting birds shall be conducted prior to the start of new
                                  construction activity. Surveys will be conducted within 48 hours of the
                                  start of work and will include the project area and adjacent areas within
                                  300 feet for protected native birds and 500 feet for raptors. Only after a
                                  qualified biologist has determined the absence of nesting birds shall new
                                  demolition or construction begin.
                                  MM BIO-3 If new demolition or construction within 100 feet of
                                  potential nesting areas cannot be scheduled outside of the nesting
                                  season, then as directed by a qualified biologist, nesting deterrents shall
                                  be implemented beginning by January 15 and maintained through July
                                  15, or as determined necessary by a qualified biologist. Deterrents may
                                  include
                                     Placing thick plastic sheeting (e.g., Visqueen) over soil substrate that may
                                     be used by ground nesting birds, such as Killdeer
                                     Walking the work area on a daily basis (as a means of human
                                     disturbance) to minimize the chance for nests to be established within the
                                     planned work limits by presenting an ongoing disturbance presence. A
                                     qualified biologist shall be consulted to deter nest establishment and
                                     verify that eggs are not present.
                                     Placing reflective ribbon, random noise blasters (i.e. air-horn, audio
                                     tape), perch blocks (i.e. nest covers, tarps, rail spikes, fencing) on the site
                                     to prevent birds from locating nests or roosts in planned construction
                                     areas
                                  MM BIO-4 No new demolition, new construction activity, or other
                                  new soil disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of an active nest (within
                                  500 feet for raptors) of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
                                  without approval from CDFG and USFWS. As appropriate, an Incidental
                                  Take for an active, protected bird nest may be requested from the
                                  California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                  Service. Work may be initiated once the nest is inactive (failed or
                                  fledged) as determined by a qualified biologist, or if a nest-removal
                                  permit is granted by the resource agency.
Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                      1‐19
1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1   Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                       Mitigation Measure                             Residual Impact
 Impact BIO-4:                     None required                                                 Less than significant
        Proposed project
  implementation would not
  result in impacts on
  riparian habitats or
  federally protected
  wetlands.




1‐20                                                                Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                        1.0 Introduction

                                            Table 1-1           Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                                  Mitigation Measure                                    Residual Impact
Impact BIO-5:                     MM BIO-1 Demolition and site clearing or other initial soil Less than significant
        Construction              disturbance activities shall be scheduled, as feasible, outside the active
 activities at the project        bird breeding season, March 1 (February 1 for raptors) to August 31.
 site could disturb wildlife      MM BIO-2 If new demolition or construction (ground disturbance) is
 in the project site vicinity.    to occur during the bird breeding season, then preconstruction surveys
                                  for nesting birds shall be conducted prior to the start of new
                                  construction activity. Surveys will be conducted within 48 hours of the
                                  start of work and will include the project area and adjacent areas within
                                  300 feet for protected native birds and 500 feet for raptors. Only after a
                                  qualified biologist has determined the absence of nesting birds shall new
                                  demolition or construction begin.
                                  MM BIO-3 If new demolition or construction within 100 feet of
                                  potential nesting areas cannot be scheduled outside of the nesting
                                  season, then as directed by a qualified biologist, nesting deterrents shall
                                  be implemented beginning by January 15 and maintained through July
                                  15, or as determined necessary by a qualified biologist. Deterrents may
                                  include
                                     Placing thick plastic sheeting (e.g., Visqueen) over soil substrate that may
                                     be used by ground nesting birds, such as Killdeer
                                     Walking the work area on a daily basis (as a means of human
                                     disturbance) to minimize the chance for nests to be established within the
                                     planned work limits by presenting an ongoing disturbance presence. A
                                     qualified biologist shall be consulted to deter nest establishment and
                                     verify that eggs are not present.
                                     Placing reflective ribbon, random noise blasters (i.e. air-horn, audio
                                     tape), perch blocks (i.e. nest covers, tarps, rail spikes, fencing) on the site
                                     to prevent birds from locating nests or roosts in planned construction
                                     areas
                                  MM BIO-4 No new demolition, new construction activity, or other
                                  new soil disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of an active nest (within
                                  500 feet for raptors) of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
                                  without approval from CDFG and USFWS. As appropriate, an Incidental
                                  Take for an active, protected bird nest may be requested from the
                                  California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                  Service. Work may be initiated once the nest is inactive (failed or
                                  fledged) as determined by a qualified biologist, or if a nest-removal
                                  permit is granted by the resource agency.
Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                      1‐21
1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1       Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                            Mitigation Measure                               Residual Impact
                                                        Cultural Resources
 Impact CR-1:                      None required                                                        No impact
        Implementation of
  the proposed project
  would not result in the
  demolition or material
  alteration of a historic
  structure.
 Impact CR-2:                      MM CR-3        In the event that previously unknown archaeological Less than significant
         Earth-disturbing          remains are uncovered during construction, land alteration work in the
  activities associated with       general vicinity of the find shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist
  implementation of the            shall be consulted. Prompt evaluations would then be made regarding
  proposed project could           the finds and an appropriate course of action would be implemented. If
  potentially disturb or           prehistoric archaeological deposits are discovered, local Native
  damage unknown                   American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making
  archaeological resources.        cultural resources management decisions. All such procedures shall
                                   comply with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, Public Resources Code
                                   5097.98, and Health and Safety Code 7050.5. (Recommended)




1‐22                                                                     Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                 1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                               Mitigation Measure                                Residual Impact
                                                          Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1:          New        MM GEO-1 The development shall comply with all recommendations Less than significant
 development would                contained in the 2003 site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (URS
 expose structures to both        Group, Inc., 2003), or any subsequent changes thereto, prepared for the
 localized and regional           project in compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology.
 seismic hazards including        These recommendations include structural design measures to address
 strong groundshaking,            seismic safety, settlement, and other site-specific conditions.
 liquefaction, or landslides      MM GEO-2 The project sponsor shall retain a geotechnical engineer
 in the event of an               who shall serve as a geotechnical monitor throughout the construction
 earthquake.                      phase of the project so that if conditions are encountered during
                                  construction that differ from those described in the Geotechnical
                                  Investigation (URS Group, Inc., 2003), recommendations in the report
                                  may be modified as appropriate by the geotechnical engineer.
                                  MM GEO-3 If, during construction, conditions are encountered that
                                  differ substantially from those described in the Geotechnical
                                  Investigation (URS Group, Inc., 2003), all construction activities shall be
                                  suspended until a geotechnical engineer has performed adequate
                                  investigations of the conditions and has provided additional
                                  recommendations as appropriate.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                               1‐23
1.0 Introduction

                                            Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                               Mitigation Measure                                Residual Impact
 Impact GEO-2:                     MM GEO-1 The development shall comply with all recommendations Less than significant
        Development would          contained in the 2003 site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (URS
  be exposed to geotechnical       Group, Inc., 2003), or any subsequent changes thereto, prepared for the
  constraints, including           project in compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology.
  subsidence and                   These recommendations include structural design measures to address
  differential settlement.         seismic safety, settlement, and other site-specific conditions.
                                   MM GEO-2 The project sponsor shall retain a geotechnical engineer
                                   who shall serve as a geotechnical monitor throughout the construction
                                   phase of the project so that if conditions are encountered during
                                   construction that differ from those described in the Geotechnical
                                   Investigation (URS Group, Inc., 2003), recommendations in the report
                                   may be modified as appropriate by the geotechnical engineer.
                                   MM GEO-3 If, during construction, conditions are encountered that
                                   differ substantially from those described in the Geotechnical
                                   Investigation (URS Group, Inc., 2003), all construction activities shall be
                                   suspended until a geotechnical engineer has performed adequate
                                   investigations of the conditions and has provided additional
                                   recommendations as appropriate.
                                                Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Impact HAZ-1:                     MM HAZ-1 Prior to new construction, the development site shall be Less than Significant
         Implementation of         thoroughly assessed for the possible presence of contaminated materials.
  the proposed project             The level of inquiry shall be commensurate with the current and former
  would not create a               activities of a particular site. Where site contamination is identified, an
  significant hazard to the        appropriate remediation strategy should be implemented prior to project
  public or the environment        approval. The remediation activities shall be performed by qualified and
  through the routine              licensed professionals in the particular problem identified and all work
  transport, use, or disposal      shall be performed under the supervision of the appropriate regulatory
  of hazardous materials.          oversight program.
                                   MM HAZ-2 A lead-based paint survey would be conducted to
                                   document worker exposure levels per Cal-OSHA Construction Safety
                                   Orders, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1.
                                   MM HAZ-3 All construction personnel shall be required to follow the
                                   Carson Terminal facility’s Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and use
                                   appropriate equipment where necessary.

1‐24                                                                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                              1.0 Introduction

                                          Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                              Mitigation Measure                              Residual Impact
                                  MM HAZ-4 A contingency plan shall be in place prior to construction
                                  activities, subject to City approval, to handle impacted soil or other
                                  hazardous materials encountered during construction. In the event
                                  obvious or suspected contamination or other features or materials that
                                  could present a threat to human health or the environment are
                                  discovered during grading or excavation of the site, work shall cease
                                  immediately. The plan shall (1) identify the contaminants of concern and
                                  the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the
                                  environment during construction and post-development and (2)
                                  describe measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from
                                  exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range
                                  of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during
                                  construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development
                                  maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof.
                                  Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies
                                  shall be notified (e.g., Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Los
                                  Angeles County Department of Public Works Environmental Programs
                                  Division, and the DTSC). A site health and safety plan that meets OSHA
                                  requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencing work
                                  in any contaminated areas. The applicant, through its contractor, shall
                                  ensure proper implementation of the health and safety plan.
                                  MM HAZ-5 The applicant shall modify its existing response plans and
                                  training, operating, and reporting requirements under 49 CFR 195 to
                                  address the proposed addition of chemical components to the site
                                  inventory. The project plans, response and training plans, and reports
                                  shall be subject to review and approval by all applicable agencies.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                            1‐25
1.0 Introduction

                                            Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                               Mitigation Measure                                      Residual Impact
 Impact HAZ-2:                     Refer to MM HYD-1 and HYD-2, above.                                            Less than significant
         Implementation of
  the proposed project
  would not create a
  significant hazard to the
  public or the environment
  through reasonably
  foreseeable upset and
  accident conditions
  involving the release of
  hazardous materials into
  the environment.
 Impact HAZ-3:                     MM HAZ-6 Prior to approval of the project, alternative emergency Less than significant
        Construction of the        response plans must be developed for use during construction. To
  proposed project would           ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction
  not impair                       projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures, the
  implementation of or             applicant shall consult with the City and LACFD to disclose temporary
  physically interfere with        lane or roadway closures and alternative travel routes. These plans
  an adopted emergency             should be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Safety Department
  plan or emergency                and the LACFD.
  evacuation plan.                 MM HAZ-7 A construction management plan, including identification
                                   of staging and parking areas, shall be developed and approved by the
                                   City prior to issuance of grading permits. To the extent feasible, the
                                   Applicant shall maintain at least one unobstructed lane in both
                                   directions on project-adjacent roadways. At any time only a single lane is
                                   available, the Applicant shall provide a temporary traffic signal, signal
                                   carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow
                                   travel in both directions. If construction activities require the complete
                                   closure of a roadway segment, the Applicant shall provide appropriate
                                   signage indicating alternative routes.




1‐26                                                                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                  1.0 Introduction

                                          Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                              Mitigation Measure                                  Residual Impact
Impact HAZ-4:           The       None required                                                             Less than significant
 project site is not included
 on a list of hazardous
 waste and substance sites
 compiled pursuant to
 Government Code Section
 65962.5 and, as a result,
 would not create a
 significant hazard to the
 public or the
 environment.
                                                  Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1:                     MM HYD-1 The applicant shall comply with applicable water quality Less than significant
        Construction              regulations that include but are not limited to the following:
 activities associated with       a. Develop and implement a water quality control plan that meets
 the proposed project could          NPDES Phase I standards as defined under the County permit that
 result in the production of         governs construction runoff.
 runoff containing
 contaminants that would          b. Comply with Best Management Practices for stormwater
 potentially affect water            management to minimize runoff containing water quality
 quality.                            contaminants.
                                  c. File a Notice of Intent to obtain a construction permit from the
                                     California Regional Water Quality Board.
                                  d. Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) to
                                     address the prevention of both point and nonpoint pollution sources.
                                     The SWPPP shall include structural facilities, ongoing maintenance,
                                     and monitoring provisions to verify compliance with the Plan and
                                     permit process.
                                  MM HYD-2 The design of the proposed project shall comply with the
                                  applicable provisions of the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
                                  (SUSMP) and shall include structural or other measures to collect and
                                  treat the first ¾ inch of stormwater runoff from the site, and control
                                  peak flow discharge. The final drainage plan for the proposed project
                                  shall be subject to review and approval by the County of Los Angeles.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                 1‐27
1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                              Mitigation Measure                                  Residual Impact
 Impact HYD-2:                     MM HYD-1 The applicant shall comply with applicable water quality Less than significant
        Operation of the           regulations that include but are not limited to the following:
  proposed project could           a. Develop and implement a water quality control plan that meets
  result in the production of         NPDES Phase I standards as defined under the County permit that
  runoff containing                   governs construction runoff.
  contaminants that would
  potentially affect water         b. Comply with Best Management Practices for stormwater
  quality.                            management to minimize runoff containing water quality
                                      contaminants.
                                   c. File a Notice of Intent to obtain a construction permit from the
                                      California Regional Water Quality Board.
                                   d. Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) to
                                      address the prevention of both point and nonpoint pollution sources.
                                      The SWPPP shall include structural facilities, ongoing maintenance,
                                      and monitoring provisions to verify compliance with the Plan and
                                      permit process.
                                   MM HYD-2 The design of the proposed project shall comply with the
                                   applicable provisions of the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
                                   (SUSMP) and shall include structural or other measures to collect and
                                   treat the first ¾ inch of stormwater runoff from the site, and control
                                   peak flow discharge. The final drainage plan for the proposed project
                                   shall be subject to review and approval by the County of Los Angeles.
 Impact HYD-3:                     None required                                                             Less than significant
        Development within
  the proposed project site
  would modify drainage
  patterns and runoff.




1‐28                                                                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                    1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1         Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                               Mitigation Measure                                   Residual Impact
                                                                 Noise
Impact NOI-1:                     MM NOI-1 The applicant shall implement noise control practices to Less than significant
        Construction              minimize noise generation during project construction. Measures shall
 activities could exceed          include but would not be limited to
 federal and State noise            The construction contractor shall comply with all federal and local
 level standards for                regulations on truck and construction equipment noise. The contractor
 construction personnel at          shall ensure the use of functioning exhaust mufflers and engine silencers
 the proposed project site.         on all engine-driven equipment, and avoid unnecessary equipment idling
                                    for long periods.
                                    The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms and
                                    bells, will be for safety warning purposes only
                                    The construction contractor should implement a noise awareness
                                    program for construction workers
                                    Areas above 85 dBA sound pressure level shall be posted as potential
                                    noise hazard areas and the wearing of hearing protection shall be
                                    required
                                    The on-site construction supervisor should have the responsibility and
                                    authority to receive and resolve noise complaints from workers and
                                    members of the public
Impact NOI-2:                     None required                                                               Less than Significant
        Construction
 activities would not
 exceed federal and State
 noise level standards at
 off-site locations.
Impact NOI-3:                     None Required                                                              Less than Significant
       Project operation
 would not exceed federal
 and State noise level
 standards at off-site
 locations.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                   1‐29
1.0 Introduction

                                           Table 1-1   Summary Impact Table
  Potentially Significant Impact                        Mitigation Measure                             Residual Impact
                                                       Public Services
 Impact PS-1:                      None required                                                  Less than Significant
        Implementation of
  the proposed project
  would not require
  additional emergency
  service personnel or
  equipment to maintain an
  acceptable level of service
  to the project site.
 Impact PS-2:          The         None required                                                  Less than Significant
  proposed project would
  not interfere with
  emergency response or
  evacuation plans or result
  in inadequate emergency
  access.
 Impact PS-3:            The       None required                                                  Less than Significant
  proposed project would
  not result in a significant
  increase in water demand
  and would not require
  construction of new water
  facilities beyond those
  already planned.
 Impact PS-4:                      None required                                                  Less than Significant
        Construction of the
  proposed project would
  generate solid waste and
  could contribute to
  anticipated regional
  landfill capacity shortfalls.




1‐30                                                                 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                1.0 Introduction

                                          Table 1-1        Summary Impact Table
 Potentially Significant Impact                             Mitigation Measure                                 Residual Impact
                                                Transportation and Circulation
Impact TR-1:          The         None required. No significantly impacted area intersections or roadway Less than Significant
 proposed project would           segments were identified during project construction and, therefore, no
 not significantly impact         further mitigations are required. However, in accordance with the City of
 study area intersections or      Carson requirements a traffic control plan will be prepared.
 roadway segments during
 project construction.
Impact TR-2 The                   None required. No significantly impact area intersections or roadway
 proposed project would           segments were identified during project operations and, therefore, no
 not significantly impact         further mitigations are required.
 study area intersections or
 roadway segments during
 project operations.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                              1‐31
         2.0          P R OJECT DESCRIPT ION
This section describes the location and existing characteristics of the project site
and surrounding area, the objectives for the proposed project, the characteristics
of the proposed project, and discretionary approvals required for implementation
of the proposed project.

The proposed project involves the completion of a phased expansion program by
the Applicant, Kinder Morgan Tank Storage Terminals LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP, the Applicant), to increase the storage
capacity of their Carson Terminal, a bulk liquid storage facility located at the
southeast corner of Alameda Street and Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of Carson
(Figure 2-1). New tanks and supporting piping, pumps, and ancillary equipment
would be installed at the Carson Terminal to meet the current demand for product
storage and add capacity for future growth. The Applicant proposes 19 new storage
tanks, which would increase storage capacity of the Carson Terminal by up to 25
percent over an estimated ten-year period, depending on the market demand for
petroleum product storage. All new equipment would require permits from the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and would be equipped
with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) as determined by the SCAQMD at
the time the permits are issued. The project includes the demolition of four
existing storage tanks to make room for the new tanks.

The City of Carson is the lead agency for the proposed project. This EIR will also
be used by the SCAQMD for its permitting process. Permits and approvals
required for this project include:
     Conditional Use Permit and Building Permits from the City of Carson
     Air Permits from the SCAQMD

Other existing plans and permits for the Terminal will be updated as appropriate
as the project is constructed.




 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             2‐1
2.0 Project Description


2.1        PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located entirely within the City of Carson. The City of
Carson encompasses about 19 square miles and is located in southern Los Angeles
County, approximately 13 miles south of downtown Los Angeles and six miles
north of the Port of Los Angeles at San Pedro. The City of Los Angeles bounds
Carson on the northwest, south, and southeast. The cities of Compton and Long
Beach lie adjacent to Carson on the northeast and east, respectively.
Unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County lie adjacent to the northern,
southwestern, and eastern boundaries of Carson. Figure 2-1 shows the regional
location of the City.

The San Diego (I-405), Long Beach (I-710), and Harbor (I-110) Freeways provide
regional access to the City of Carson. The Harbor Freeway is approximately 3 miles
west of the project site, the Long Beach Freeway is approximately 1½ miles east of
the project site, and the San Diego Freeway is approximately 1¼ miles north of the
project site. Key roadways serving the project site include Alameda Street, which
bounds the project site on the west, and Sepulveda Boulevard, which bounds the
project site on the north.

2.2        ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Carson Terminal property encompasses approximately 99 acres, and lies at
the southeast corner of Alameda Street and Sepulveda Boulevard. Under the City
of Carson Zoning Code and General Plan, the entire property is zoned MH
(Manufacturing, Heavy) and designated for heavy industrial land use. The
property is currently surrounded by similar heavy industrial facilities (refineries
and other storage and distribution facilities), including:
       North: Air Products and BP Carson Terminal (former ARCO Terminal)
       Northwest: BP Carson Refinery (former ARCO Refinery)
       West: Conoco-Phillips Los Angeles Refinery (former Unocal and Shell
       Refineries)
       South: Shell Los Angeles Refinery (former Equilon and Texaco Refineries)
       Southwest: The future BNSF Intermodal Facility



2‐2                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                        2.0 Project Description


     East: Shell Los Angeles Refinery, the Dominguez Channel, and Port of Los
     Angeles (POLA) Intermodal Container Transfer Facility

The Dominguez Channel, portions of which are concrete-lined and others that are
soft-bottomed with riprap-stabilized banks, is located within 1,000 feet of the
eastern property line.

Also, as shown in Figure 2-2 (Aerial Photograph), the project site includes a
remnant of the Old Dominguez Channel. This drainage channel runs through the
southwest portion of the property, including the proposed project site. It is
vegetated with annual, nonnative, ruderal plant species, and it accumulates some
surface water after rain events.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          2‐3
2.0 Project Description


                     Figure 2-1       Regional Location
(no change from original EIR)

Placeholder (B&W, 8.5x11)




2‐4                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            2.0 Project Description



The drainage channel is under a Cleanup and Abatement Order from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to address soil and groundwater
contamination. The status of activities related to the Cleanup and Abatement
Order is further described in Section 2.2.1 (Existing Operations). The project
would require filling of the depression, as discussed further in Section 2.4.1. If the
project does not go forward, the RWQCB would nevertheless require some
remedial action, including capping, to address existing soil contamination.

The project site is 27.5 acres located in the southwest section of the Carson
Terminal. The project site is shown in the aerial photo in Figure 2-2 and includes
three 80,000-barrel tanks and one 178,000-barrel tank, along with associated
infrastructure, as well as undeveloped area in the southwestern portion of the site.
Of the three 80,000-barrel tanks, one tank is used to store premium gasoline, one
tank is used to store crude oil, and one tank is currently out of service. The
178,000-barrel tank is also out of service. Existing pipes, piping manifolds, power
poles, transformers, and fire monitors are located along the western boundary line
of the project site, adjacent to Alameda Street. A masonry wall and a fence run
along the property line and separate the project site from Alameda Street.

2.2.1     Existing Operations
The Carson Terminal is a liquid bulk storage terminal used for the storage of crude
oil and refined petroleum products. Currently, the terminal contains 56 above-
ground storage tanks with a combined nominal storage capacity of 4,262,906
barrels. Table 2-1 summarizes the existing terminal storage tanks. All existing
tanks are permitted by the SCAQMD and operate in compliance with permit
conditions and rules of the air district. The Carson Terminal has applied for a Title
V operating permit and a draft Title V permit was issued in July 2004.

The Terminal main entrance is located on Sepulveda Boulevard. Existing pipes,
piping manifolds, power poles, transformers, and fire monitors are located along
the western boundary line of the project site adjacent to Alameda Street. A
masonry wall and a fence run along the property line and separate the project site
from Alameda Street.



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                               2‐5
2.0 Project Description


The tanks are connected by a piping system that allows product to move about the
facility, and shipping pumps connect the facility to the intrastate and interstate
pipeline system. A map of KMEP’s Pacific Region facilities, which comprise a
significant part of the interstate and intrastate pipeline system, is provided in
Figure 2-3.

       Figure 2-2 Aerial Photograph of Project and Project Site
B&W 11x17

Placeholder p. 1




2‐6                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       2.0 Project Description



Placeholder for Fig 2-2 page 2 (11x17)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                        2‐7
2.0 Project Description


   Figure 2-3 Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners Western Service
                                Region
B&W 11x17

Placeholder p. 1




2‐8                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       2.0 Project Description



Placeholder for Fig 2-3 page 1 (11x17)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                        2‐9
2.0 Project Description



A network of existing pipelines is used for the movement of products between local
refineries and the Carson Terminal and from the Carson Terminal to KMEP’s
Watson Pump Station for distribution throughout the southwestern United States.
Product is moved within the facility by a series of existing pumps and ancillary
equipment that is already permitted by the SCAQMD.

An existing tank vapor recovery system consists of a series of blowers, a vapor
holder, and two thermal oxidizers. The vapor recovery systems are used to capture
and destroy hydrocarbon emissions generated during loading rack operations and
tank drain-dry operations in accordance with the rules and regulations established
by the SCAQMD. The existing vapor recovery systems are permitted by the
SCAQMD. The Permit to Operate the vapor recovery system allows a maximum of
two tanks to be simultaneously degassed or filled after a drain-dry operation at any
moment in time. The new tanks will continue to operate under the same
guidelines.


             Table 2-1             Summary of Existing Terminal Tank
                                               Storage
                                 Tank Type                                     Number of Tanks
        Cone Roof Tanks                                                                  12a
        Internal Floating Roof Tanks                                                      31
        External Floating Roof Tanks                                                      8b
        Spherical Tanks                                                                    2
        Aluminum Dome Tanks                                                                3
        Total Number of Tanks                                                            56
        Tank Capacity (barrels)                                                  4,262,906
        a. Includes 2 tanks scheduled for removal as a separate project, and 1 tank scheduled for removal
           as a part of the proposed project.
        b. Includes 3 tanks planned for demolition as a part of the proposed project.
        Source: Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners 2004



The existing tanks were constructed between 1920 and 1994. As shown in Table
2-1, existing tank storage in the terminal includes eight external floating roof tanks
and 31 fixed roof tanks with internal floating roofs. The remaining tanks include 12
cone-roof tanks, two spherical tanks, and three aluminum dome tanks (including
one tank that is being domed in 2004). One of the existing cone roof tanks and


2‐10                                     Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                              2.0 Project Description


three of the external floating roof tanks would be removed in the project area to
make room for some of the proposed new tanks. Two of the existing cone roof tans
are scheduled for demolition outside the project area as a part of an unrelated
project.

All tanks are permitted by the SCAQMD and are operated in compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 463—Organic Liquid Storage. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 1178—
Further Reductions of VOC Emissions from Storage Tanks at Petroleum
Facilities—requires additional reductions from terminal facilities with emissions
over 20 tons per year. Three existing tanks have been retrofitted with domes in
compliance with the Rule 1178 program. The remaining, non-domed tanks that
will not otherwise be removed as a part of this project are scheduled to be
retrofitted with domes by June 2006

The Carson Terminal also contains a SCAQMD-permitted truck loading rack with
ten truck loading lanes. Emissions from the loading rack are captured and
controlled by either of two thermal oxidation (incineration) systems that are
certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have an emission limit of
0.08 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons of organic liquid loaded, and are operated
in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 462. The loading rack currently handles about
225 trucks per day, which equates to an average of about 1.9 million gallons per
day. The rack is permitted to handle up to 14 million gallons per day when the
primary incinerator is in use and up to 4.8 million gallons per day with the backup
incinerator in operation.

The existing terminal is constructed and operated in compliance with the U.S.
EPA-enforced Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations
contained in Title 40, Section 112 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 112).
These regulations require that storage facilities provide adequate spill containment
in the event of a spill incident, and that adequate controls are in place to prevent
spills and to respond to spills that occur. In addition, the facility is included in the
Applicant’s Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP). The ICP provides a structured
organization of qualified and trained personnel and a set of policies and
procedures for use in emergency response situations throughout KMEP’s Pacific
Operations. The ICP complies with State and Federal regulations pertaining to

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                2‐11
2.0 Project Description


spill prevention and response, including rules specified by U.S. DOT, U.S. EPA,
and California Department of Fish and Game/Office of Oil Spill Prevention and
Response. These existing plans and programs would be updated as the project is
constructed, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. As these new plans
and programs are updated, they would incorporate all current requirements
related to emergency planning, site security, and emergency response.

2.2.2     Soil and Groundwater Contamination
Environmental Assessment of the Carson Terminal began in 1985. In 1990, the
RWQCB issued Clean up and Abatement Order (CAO) No. 90-152, which required
investigation of the soil and groundwater and implementation of remediation
measures. The site has been extensively studied and soil and ground water
contamination have been found based on historical operations. Contaminants
include volatile organics such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene
(BTEX), and oxygenates such as MTBE. The Carson Terminal was purchased from
GATX by KMEP in 2001. KMEP has assumed the responsibility for the
remediation of the contaminated soil and ground water. There are currently 69
monitoring and recovery wells at the site including eight new monitoring wells that
were installed in January 2004. Total depths of monitoring wells at the site range
from 22 feet to 84 feet below ground surface. The ongoing remediation program
includes operation and maintenance of the light non-aqueous phase liquid
(LNAPL) recovery system, monitoring well gauging, groundwater sampling and
analysis, and data evaluation and reporting.

Several of the new tanks will be located in the drainage channel that is a remnant
of the Old Dominguez Channel, which runs through the southwest portion of the
property. The channel is contaminated with hydrocarbons from historical
operations and, among other things, the CAO issued by the RWQCB has directed
KMEP to remediate the site after investigating relevant technologies and
developing appropriate engineering solutions for prevention of future
contamination.

In addition to the Cleanup and Abatement Order, a Report of Waste Discharge was
submitted to the RWQCB in 1994, proposing to close the drainage channel in


2‐12                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                          2.0 Project Description


accordance with the requirements of the Surface Impoundment Closure
Requirements of the California Code of Regulations. Accordingly, the RWQCB
issued Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 94-111, which outlined
that the drainage channel closure could be achieved with the removal of semi-solid
tars or liquid asphalt material identified to a maximum depth of 10 feet below the
bottom elevation. Solidified, weathered tars, and asphalt material could remain in
the depression area, under the WDR.

In 2003, KMEP requested approval to place a low permeability cover over the
depression area base and backfill the area. The RWQCB by letter dated January 8,
2004 requested additional site assessment and information concerning the
remediation project. In February 2004, KMEP submitted a work plan responding
to the RWQCB’s request for additional information. This remediation is required
independent of any Project approval. Several tanks will be constructed on this fill
area once remediation is completed and the area is filled with clean soil.

2.3       PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has indicated in its 2003 Commission
Report on “Feasibility of a Strategic Fuel Reserve in California” that demand for
gasoline and blending components is expected to increase from 150 to 300
thousand barrels per day by 2010 in California. Additional storage tank capacity of
between 0.5 and 1 million barrels per year would need to be constructed to keep up
with the forecasted demand. New storage tanks with sufficient capacity need to be
constructed to provide product inventory to keep up with forecasted market
demand. The shortage of storage will become more serious unless additional
projects are undertaken and completed within the next couple of years. The
expansion of storage tank capacities and associated infrastructure would increase
the ability to move supplies of gasoline and other petroleum products needed to
meet the growth in demand in Southern California, Nevada, and Arizona.

The Applicant, KMEP, proposes to increase the storage capacity of their Carson
Terminal to meet the current demand for product storage and add capacity for
future growth. The overall goal of the proposed project is to allow KMEP to
complete a phased expansion program such that their storage capacity could be


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            2‐13
2.0 Project Description


increased by up to 25 percent over an estimated ten-year period to alleviate
pressure on storage tank capacity demands. Specific project objectives include:
        Maximize use of the existing terminal site for petroleum product storage
        tank capacity
        Based upon market demand, construct and install new product and storage
        tanks and supporting piping, pumps, and control systems
        Provide partial relief for the increase in demand for petroleum storage
        capacity anticipated to occur by 2010
        Facilitate the movement of gasoline and other petroleum products to end
        users by increasing storage capacity at an optimal location already connected
        to existing pipeline system.
        Avoid the need to construct new pipelines by constructing new storage near
        existing pipelines. Shipment of product by existing pipelines at the Carson
        Terminal maximizes the use of the safest possible petroleum transportation
        method and avoids the need to construct new pipelines. Use of the existing
        pipeline system also reduces reliance on trucking of petroleum products,
        thus reducing potential safety and environmental issues associated with
        trucking
        Construct tanks with 80,000-barrel storage capacity, which is the optimal
        storage capacity for the planned terminal operations
        Construct a transmix tank with 30,000-barrel storage capacity

2.4         PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Over the next ten years the proposed project would increase the storage capacity of
the Carson Terminal by up to 25 percent, depending on market demand for
petroleum product storage. This would be accomplished by constructing a total of
eighteen new 80,000-barrel product tanks and one new 30,000-barrel transmix
storage tank, as well as the installation of related piping and pumps. Figure 2-4
shows the preliminary site plan for the proposed project. The proposed project
components are summarized in Table 2-2. The project requires that three 80,000
barrel tanks and one 178,000 barrel tank be removed from the project site.


        Table 2-2      Summary of Project and Site Characteristics
        Component                               Site Characteristics a
 Address               2000 East Sepulveda Boulevard, Carson, California 90810-1995



2‐14                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                    2.0 Project Description


Applicant                    Kinder Morgan Tank Storage Terminals LLC
Site Area                    Approximately 27.5 acres
Existing Land Use            Old Dominguez Channel and four storage tanks
Zoning Designation           MH (Manufacturing, Heavy)
General Plan
                             Heavy Industrial
Designation
                             18 new 80,000-barrel product storage and one new 30,000 transmix
Proposed Land Use
                             storage tank with related piping, pumps, and control systems
Storage Tank Height          50 feet
Storage Tank
                             115 feet (80,000-barrel tanks), 70 feet (30,000-barrel tank)
Diameter
Proposed Parking
                             None
Spaces
                             Vehicular—Sepulveda Boulevard (with emergency access from Alameda
Project Access
                             Street)
a. Numerical data in this table represents approximate values, due to the preliminary status of the site plan.
Sources: Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners 2003; City of Carson 2003



The proposed tanks and piping system are designed for multiple products storage.
The 80,000-barrel tanks would be used to store refined petroleum products such
as regular unleaded gasoline, premium unleaded gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel,
alkylates, reformates, and blend stocks. The 30,000-barrel transmix tank would be
used to store small volumes of product that are commingled within the pipeline
system during product transfers. The 80,000-barrel tanks would be 50 feet high
with a diameter of 115 feet. The 30,000-barrel tank would be 50 feet high with a
diameter of 70 feet. Tanks and associated piping and access would be spaced to
meet code requirements. Tanks would generally be spaced approximately 40 feet
apart. Depending on the final detailed design, minor adjustments may be made to
the tank dimensions and tank spacing.

New tanks would be connected to the existing gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel lines. A
new shipping and receiving manifold with pumps and interconnecting piping
would be installed on the southern portion of the project site to integrate the new
tanks with the facility. The manifold would be designed to have a 15,000-barrel
per hour throughput capacity with the potential to be upgraded to a maximum
20,000-barrel-per-hour throughput capacity. This compares to the existing
manifold and piping system, which has a 10,000-barrel-per-hour throughput


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                              2‐15
2.0 Project Description


capacity. Products from the tanks would normally be transferred to KMEP’s
Watson Station through the existing 16-inch pipeline using the existing and new
shipping pumps. Products would also be distributed to local refiners through the
existing distribution system.

Proposed tanks would not be directly connected to the existing truck loading rack.
The existing truck loading rack would continue operations within the existing
permitted limits of up to 14 million gallons per day when the primary incinerator is
in use and up to 4.8 million gallons per day during backup incinerator operation.
No physical or operational modifications are proposed to the truck loading facility.

The tanks would be designed with the following features:
        Foundations would consist of an 80 mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
        synthetic liner under a grooved concrete pad designed to detect potential
        leakage
        Internal tank bottoms and up to 3 feet of the internal shell surface would be
        epoxy coated to prevent corrosion on the inside of the tank
        All valves and piping (wherever feasible) would be aboveground or exposed
        to facilitate visual inspection and monitoring
        Installation of standpipes and concrete vaults to provide visual inspection to
        detect leaks
        Tanks and associated underground piping would have cathodic protection
        Underground pipe would also have protective coating and a cathodic
        protection system
        Tanks would be designed to meet all South Coast Air Quality Management
        District (SCAQMD) requirements
        Level gauges and redundant high level alarms would be integrated with the
        existing Carson Terminal tank monitoring system
        Expansion of existing fire protection systems
        Dike walls with fire access roads around the tank areas




2‐16                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       2.0 Project Description


                     Figure 2-4 Proposed Site Plan
B&W 11x17

Placeholder p. 1




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                       2‐17
2.0 Project Description



Placeholder for Fig 2-4 page 1 (11x17)




2‐18                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            2.0 Project Description


     The new tanks would be constructed with Best Available Control Technology
     (BACT), as determined by the SCAQMD and would satisfy all requirements
     of the SCAQMD’s New Source Review (NSR) (i.e., Regulation XIII). Pursuant
     to the NSR requirements, each piece of permitted equipment will be required
     to install BACT. BACT is defined as “the most stringent emission limitation
     or control technique which:
     (1)   has been achieved in practice for such category or class of source; or
     (2)   is contained in any state implementation plan (SIP) approved by the
           United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for such
           category or class of source; or
     (3)   is any other emission limitation or control technique, found by the
           SCAQMD to be technologically feasible for such class or category of
           sources or for a specific source. Rule 1302 (h).

The proposed above ground storage tanks would control emissions with the use of
internal floating roofs and in accordance with the current requirements of BACT.
Internal floating roofs control emissions by resting (floating) directly on the stored
petroleum product, minimizing the area of the interface between the product and
the air within the tanks. This design prevents vapors from being formed along the
liquid surface and minimizes emissions from the tank.

To further reduce emissions, the internal floating roofs are equipped with primary
and secondary seals (see Figure 2-5). The seals prevent emissions escaping around
the floating roof into the area between the floating roof and the fixed roof from
venting to the atmosphere. The primary seal is a metallic band (called a shoe)
attached to the floating roof. The shoe slides in contact with the tank shell as the
level of product in the tank rises and falls during filling and emptying operations.
The shoes are supported and held against the tank shell by a mechanical device
and are joined together to form a ring. A coated fabric prevents the vapors in the
space between the shoe and the floating roof from escaping to the atmosphere. The
secondary seal is mounted above the primary mechanical seal. Secondary seals
further reduce vapor losses from the gaps between the metallic shoe and tank
shell.

The fixed roof of an enclosed tank is generally supported by a number of columns
that extend through the floating roof and can create gaps through which vapors


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                 2‐19
2.0 Project Description


can escape. The Applicant has proposed a design for the new tanks that would
minimize and control the potential for leakage around support columns. The
original design that was discussed in the September 2003 DEIR called for 7 to 8
support columns in each tank. Subsequent to the preparation of the September
2003 DEIR, the Applicant elected to redesign the tanks with a single column
penetration through the center of the internal floating roof rather than multiple
column penetrations. The single column design reduces emissions because it
minimizes the number of penetrations through the internal floating roof.

Certain equipment necessary to the operation of a storage tank would penetrate
the internal floating roof. For the proposed project, vaporless sleeves would be
installed to prevent vapors from escaping around all such equipment. The single
column penetration would be sealed with a vaporless nitrile vinyl sleeve to
minimize emissions. A diagram of a typical single-column tank design is provided
in Figure 2-5a. Details of typical primary and secondary seals are provided in
Figures 2-5b through 2-5d.

To protect the roof and to allow for inspections of the tank bottom, floating roofs
are designed to rest on legs when they approach the bottom of the tank. When a
tank is resting on its legs, the contact with the product is lost and vapor formation
occurs. The internal floating roofs would be equipped with fixed short leg sleeves
(located an average of 18 inches above the tank floor), which would be screwed,
capped and taped during normal operations to prevent emissions. Short leg sleeves
would be used for draining the tanks and for all operations except during tank
inspections, when longer legs would be required to allow for sufficient work space
below the floating roof. Short legs reduce the amount of vapor generated when the
roof is resting on its legs.

The tanks would be designed to “drain dry.” A drain-dry operation is sometimes
necessary to avoid mixing different commodities when changing the product in the
tank from one commodity to another. Tanks without drain-dry features are
typically cleaned to remove remaining product whenever it is necessary to change
the product stored in the tank. With drain-dry tanks, the tanks can be completely
drained, thus reducing the need to clean the tank before a new product is
introduced. Drain-dry tanks reduce emissions because the number of times the

2‐20                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                          2.0 Project Description


tank must be cleaned for product changes is reduced (but not eliminated), and
cleaning generates air emissions as the tank is emptied and rests on its legs.
Cleaning also results in the removal of tank residue that may need to be handled,
transported, and recycled or disposed as a hazardous waste.

Emissions from drain-dry cycles are minimized by the existing permitted vapor
recovery system. During a drain-dry operation, the internal floating roof rests on
its low legs to minimize the volume of vapor space. Vapors are not released as the
tank is drained. When the tank is refilled, the new product (liquid) displaces the
vapors below the roof and, left uncontrolled, vapors can be displaced to the
atmosphere. To prevent this, vapors that are created in the space below the
floating roof are extracted through a blower and incinerated in one of two
SCAQMD-permitted air pollution control systems. The project presented in the
November 2003 Draft EIR proposed installation of an additional thermal oxidizer
system and anticipated an increase in emissions of NOX (oxides of nitrogen).
Subsequent to the preparation of the November 2003 Draft EIR, the Applicant
elected to modify its operating procedure and operate the tanks within the
permitted level of the existing thermal oxidizers.

In addition, each tank interior is required by regulation to be degassed and
physically inspected at least once every ten years. This operation would generally
follow the same procedure as a typical drain-dry operation with tank cleaning,
consistent with SCAQMD regulations; however, emissions from such operations
are normally controlled by a third party contractor that is required to have all
applicable SCAQMD permits.

Fire lanes are proposed around the new tanks. Along the western property line of
the project site, the fire lane would be located between the new storage tanks and
the existing piping infrastructure. The tanks would be surrounded by 5-foot-high
berms that are designed to contain the volume of the largest tank within the
containment area, plus an allowance for a large precipitation event, as required by
federal SPCC regulations. Individual tanks will be surrounded by 18-inch high
intermediate berms within the larger containment areas (see Figure 2-3). Minor
adjustments to the berm height and berm configuration may be made depending
of the final engineering design.

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            2‐21
2.0 Project Description


No new employees are anticipated to be necessary at the Carson Terminal in order
to accommodate operation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section Error!
Reference source not found., up to 80 construction workers would be
employed on site during peak construction activities, thus providing employment
opportunities for local and regional workers.

2.4.1    Construction Phasing
Construction and installation of the new tanks would occur as storage and
distribution commitments are contracted over a period that is not anticipated to
exceed ten years. Since the November 2003 Draft EIR, preliminary project phasing
has been determined, as follows. KMEP would initially construct four tanks in the
northeast portion of the site. This project phase (Phase 1) would require an
estimated 10 to 12 months to construct. Prior to completing construction on these
four tanks, KMEP would begin construction of a second group of 6 to 8 tanks in
the southern portion of the site. This project phase (Phase 2) would require an
estimated 12 to 14 months to construct.




2‐22                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       2.0 Project Description


           Figure 2-5a Typical Single-Column Tank Design
Placeholder (8 ½ x 11 B&W)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                       2‐23
2.0 Project Description


        Figure 2-5b Typical Primary Seal Installation Detail
Placeholder (11x17 B&W)




2‐24                      Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       2.0 Project Description



Placeholder Fig 2-5b p. 2 (11x17 B&W)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                       2‐25
2.0 Project Description


        Figure 2-5c Typical Secondary Seal Installation Detail
Placeholder (11x17 B&W)




2‐26                      Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       2.0 Project Description



Placeholder Fig 2-5c p. 2 (11x17 B&W)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                       2‐27
2.0 Project Description



Concurrent with tank construction activities for Phase 1 tanks, the onsite
depression area (a remnant of the Old Dominguez Channel) will be cleared of
debris, backfilled, and compacted to the design grade and elevation. A portion of
the soil required to fill the depression area will be taken from cut areas of the
project site. The remainder of the fill requirement will be imported from a nearby
offsite soil stockpile. Soil compaction will be monitored in the depression area
until the soil conditions are suitable for construction.

Preparation of the depression area for tank construction (during Phase 2) would
require an estimated 12–20 months. Construction of the remaining tanks (Phase
3) would begin once the depression area soil is adequately compacted and
consolidated, subject to contractual commitments. Phase 3 tank construction
would require an estimated 12–14 months of construction activity.

The project requires that three 80,000 barrel tanks and one 178,000 barrel tank
be removed from the project site prior to construction. In addition, grading,
excavation, and hauling of excavated materials at the project site would be
required prior to the construction of each storage tank. Once a tank site is cleared
and graded, a typical tank sequence would involve construction of below-ground
foundations, aboveground tanks and piping, and start-up. The tanks within each
construction phase would be constructed in parallel.

2.4.2     Construction Equipment and Staging
The construction workforce and equipment requirements would vary during the
total construction period, depending on the number of tanks being installed and
the specific activity or activities underway at a given time. An estimated maximum
of 80 construction workers would be onsite at any one time. Typical construction
activities would occur from Monday to Saturday, from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, in
accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The project would generally be
constructed during daylight hours. However, minor construction may be
occasionally required after daylight hours. Low-level lighting directed away from
the public would be used as necessary.




2‐28                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                        2.0 Project Description


Equipment staging would occur in designated sites within the terminal. An off-site
and off-street worker parking area would be designated in the immediate vicinity
of the terminal, and workers would be shuttled a short distance to the work site.

Typical construction equipment requirements include heavy earthmoving vehicles
(excavators, dozers, graders, compactors), cranes, concrete trucks, heavy hauling
trucks, smaller utility vehicles, and worker vehicles. Construction equipment
requirements are summarized in Table 2-3.


     Table 2-3          Typical Construction Equipment Requirements
                                             Typical Onsite Usage         Number of Equipment Pieces
          Equipment
                                                                                   Onsite a
Compactor                                Soil import and grading                     1-2
Earthmover/ Bulldozer                          Earthmoving                           1-2
Excavator                                      Earthmoving                           1-2
Backhoe                                        Earthmoving                           1-2
Scraper                                        Earthmoving                           1-2
                                       Aboveground tank and pipe
Crane                                                                                1-3
                                             construction
Concrete truck                         Foundations and civil work                     1
Gravel truck                                       Import                             1
Water truck                             All construction activities                  1-2
On-site pickup truck                    All construction activities                  2-3


Portable rig welders                         Pipe construction                        6



Trucks transporting material        Soil and debris removal, and soil     50-100 typical, up to 200
to and from Site                                 import                     during peak activity

Worker vehicles                         All construction activities      20-80
a. Not all pieces will be onsite each day.
Source: Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners 2004




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                            2‐29
2.0 Project Description


2.5         RELATED DEVELOPMENT ADDRESSED IN
            CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Cumulative impacts are the anticipated impacts of the proposed project in
combination with the impacts of reasonably foreseeable growth. As stated in CEQA
Guidelines §15130(b)(1), reasonably foreseeable growth may be based on either of
the following, or a combination thereof:
        A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or
        cumulative impacts
        A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related
        planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions

For the purposes of this EIR, the potential cumulative effects of the proposed
project are based upon a list of probable future projects identified in the City’s
2003 Development Status Report [Is there a more recent report?] and other
projects at petroleum facilities located in the general area of the proposed Project.
Projects that have already been constructed are considered part of the Project
baseline.

As shown in section 3.2, the operational impacts of the proposed project would not
have a significant impact on air quality, but the air quality impacts during
construction would be significant for NOx and PM10. This is the only
environmental impact of the proposed project that has been found to be
significant. Since operation of the proposed project will not result in a localized
impact due to the increase in VOC emissions or toxic air contaminants, as shown
by the Health Risk Assessment, and will result in a decrease in emissions
regionally due to the purchase of Emission Reduction Credits that more than offset
the increased emissions from the new tanks, cumulative operational emissions will
not be analyzed. Cumulative construction-related impacts will be discussed since
construction impacts have been found to be significant under worst-case
conditions. Projects with cumulative construction impacts were assumed to
include projects where construction would occur in the same timeframe as the
KMEP Project, and the projects are located in the Carson area and/or within a
one-mile radius of the Carson Terminal.



2‐30                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                2.0 Project Description


The list of related projects in the City’s 2003 Development Status Report that are
within the vicinity of the proposed project is provided in Table 2-2.


           Table 2-2        List of Related Development Projects
Number      Project Name          Address                       Type of Project
   1     Chemoil            2365 Sepulveda       Proposed construction of new oil tanks to
         Terminals          Boulevard            the north of the project site. This project
         Corporation                             proposes the construction of new tankage
                                                 comprising of five 50,000-gallon tanks and
                                                 two 20,000-gallon tanks.
   2     Sepulveda          Sepulveda Blvd       Widen Sepulveda Blvd with additional
         Boulevard          from Alameda         lanes for traffic.
         Widening           Street to the east
                            City limits
   3     Carson Depot       Southeast corner     256,000 square feet (sf) of commercial
         Center             of Sepulveda         development, plus gas station. Commercial
                            Boulevard and        uses include 132,000 sf home depot,
                            Main Street          57,500 sf Albertson’s, and 24,000 sf
                                                 Staples. Construction completed.
   4     Arbors at Avalon   Avalon Boulevard     Private, gated community with homes
                            between 228th and    ranging from approximately 1,364 to 1,828
                            231st Streets        sf. Construction is complete.
   5     2 Prairie Inc      22310-22314          8 detached condominiums. Construction
                            Figueroa Street      near completion.
   6     Mosaic Walk        22518-22606          45 detached condominiums with a
                            Figueroa Street      clubhouse/meeting room and recreation
                                                 area. Under construction.
   7     Carson Senior      22125 Main Street    Conversion of former Ha' Penny Inn motel
         Village                                 to provide 64 unit residential hotel for
                                                 seniors. Construction is complete.
   8     Superior Nissan    1463-1505 E. 223rd   Temporary facilities provided to allow new
                            Street               dealership to begin operations. Existing
                                                 building to be demolished. Application for
                                                 larger building approved. Building permit
                                                 pending. Construction is complete.
   9     Chevron/Jack in    22222 S.             Del Taco complete. Chevron and Jack In
         the Box/Del Taco   Wilmington           the Box building under construction.
                            Avenue
  10     CVS Pharmacy       23826-23828          New 12,000 sf pharmacy building.
                            Main Street          Construction complete.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                     2‐31
2.0 Project Description



           Table 2-2          List of Related Development Projects
 Number      Project Name           Address                         Type of Project
   11     Carson Town         SE Corner of          13,085 sf of retail and restaurant uses is
          Center              Torrance              complete. Proposed tenants include
                              Boulevard and         Starbuck's and Wells Fargo Bank.
                              Figueroa Street       Industrial business park to be developed
                                                    on remaining vacant property. The 56-acre
                                                    comprises a 384,922 sf light industrial
                                                    park with eleven buildings with shared
                                                    driveways and parking areas. The
                                                    southeast quadrant has been built and
                                                    comprises two light industrial buildings
                                                    totaling 334,274 sf. The northeast
                                                    quadrant will comprise the development of
                                                    a 170,243 sf, light industrial building.
   12     Diana’s             300 E. Sepulveda      Remodel and expansion of existing
          Restaurant          Street                restaurant. Construction is complete.
   13     Honda               1463 E. 223rd         Application approved to develop a Honda
                              Street                automotive dealership. Construction is
                                                    complete.
   14     Goldilocks Bakery   21822 Main Street     Application approved to substantially
                                                    remodel existing building and redesign
                                                    parking and landscaping. New bakery
                                                    approved; construction pending.
   15     Javad Ahmadinia     16630 S. Main         Development of a 20,034 sf warehouse on
          Mohammad            Street                a 0.92-acre parcel. Construction is
                                                    complete.
   16     Johnston-           18421 Main Street     Development of a 53,500 sf industrial
          Alexander &                               building on a 2.46-acre site in
          Associates                                Redevelopment Project Area 1. Currently
                                                    in plan check.
   17     Child               22036-22108           Development of a child care facility. An
          Development         Avalon Boulevard      existing home will be converted to office
          Center                                    and accessory space. Classrooms will be
                                                    constructed to serve up to 120 children.
                                                    Application pending.
   18     Dominguez           South of Victoria     4.7 million sf of office, technology, light
          Technology Center   St, west of           industrial,   and     commercial      uses.
                              Wilmington Ave,       Construction is ongoing.
                              north of University
                              Drive, and east of
                              CSU Dominguez
                              Hills




2‐32                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                   2.0 Project Description



             Table 2-2         List of Related Development Projects
Number        Project Name           Address                       Type of Project
   19      Samoan Christian    1243–1249 E.         Application pending for proposed church
           Congregational      Carson Street        and community hall.
           Church of South
           Los Angeles
   20      Wendy’s             23750 South Main     Fast food franchise under construction.
           Restaurant          Street
   20      British Petroleum   South of 223rd       Application submitted for a 122,000-
           Office Project      Street and west of   square-foot building, 2,000-square-foot
                               Johns Manville       coffee shop, and 1,500-square-foot credit
                               Street, 1½ miles     union on a 15-acre site.
                               north of Carson
                               Terminal
   21      Off Dock USA        22700 South          Application submitted for a container
           Container           Alameda Street,      storage facility on a 13.5-acre site.
           Terminal Project    3/4 mile north of
                               Carson Terminal



2.5.1       City of Carson
Of the projects listed above, the following are discussed in more detail.

Other Development Projects
The City of Carson has many other on-going development projects, all within 1½
to 4 miles north of the Carson Terminal. The following are examples of the larger
construction projects (City of Carson, 2004) that could potentially contribute to
cumulative air quality impacts.
        At the auto-row located on 223rd Street, several auto dealers, including
        Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, are constructing new car dealership facilities.
        This project is located about 1½ miles from the Carson Terminal and
        construction impacts are/are not expected to impact the same areas.
        At the corner of Figueroa and Torrance Boulevard, Carson Town Center, a 56
        acre retail, restaurant, and industrial use project is under. This project is
        located about 4 miles from the Carson Terminal and construction impacts
        are/are not expected to impact the same areas.
        Dominguez Technology Center located east of Cal State Dominguez Hills,
        covers 288 acres and is in its final phase of development with fifteen


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                           2‐33
2.0 Project Description


        buildings in various stages of construction. This project is located about 4½
        miles from the Carson Terminal and construction impacts are not expected
        to impact the same areas.

The projects currently being developed in the City of Carson are located a
sufficient distance from the Carson Terminal (over 1 mile and/or not anticipated to
use the same freeway access points), so that no cumulative impacts are
anticipated.

In addition to the projects in the City of Carson as listed above, a number of
projects at other petroleum related facilities have been proposed for development
in the general area of the Project. The discussion below lists projects that are
reasonably expected to proceed in the foreseeable future, i.e. project information
has been submitted to a public agency.

2.5.2       Projects At Petroleum Facilities
In the past several years, a number of refineries have had development projects
involving the construction of new equipment or the modification of existing
equipment and operations to be able to produce reformulated fuels. Most recently,
reformulated fuel projects were undertaken by the six refineries in the South Coast
Air Basin to supply reformulated gasoline as required by Executive Order D-5-99
and the resulting California Air Resources Board Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3
(“CARB Phase 3”) requirements. The CARB Phase 3 requirements prohibit the use
of MTBE, while establishing more stringent standards for sulfur and benzene
content in gasoline. However, since the refineries were required to produce
gasoline in compliance with CARB Phase 3 requirements as of December 31, 2003,
construction of these projects is essentially complete and most have been
operational for over a year. Therefore, environmental impacts associated with
these projects are considered as part of the existing environmental setting. Also,
the Paramount Refinery has a project to produce CARB Phase 3 gasoline, but the
refinery is located at sufficient distance from the Carson Terminal that no
cumulative impacts associated with construction would be expected.

The following proposed projects at local refineries or petroleum facilities are still
in the development phase and are expected to proceed.


2‐34                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                             2.0 Project Description


Chemoil Terminals Corporation
The Chemoil Terminals Corporation is located at 2365 E. Sepulveda, Carson, and
is to the north of the Carson Terminal. The Chemoil facility is an organic liquid
storage facility and is approximately 15 acres in size. It has been in operation at its
current location since 1969. Chemoil has proposed to expand the existing terminal
by the addition of five 50,000 barrel tanks and two 20,000 barrel tanks for the
storage of organic liquids such as ethanol, crude oil, gasoline, naptha, cycle oils,
marine and non-marine diesel oils, and residual fuel oils. The City of Carson is the
lead agency for the proposed project and preliminary scoping documents have
been prepared.

The new proposed tanks and related equipment will be constructed with Best
Available Control Technology and offsets will be required to mitigate operational
emissions. With regard to air quality impacts during construction, neither a
construction schedule nor emissions estimates are available. However, it is
expected that construction of the project will result in NOx emissions from trucks
and heavy equipment used for grading, site preparation and construction of the
new tanks and equipment. It is also expected that these activities will result in
emissions of dust and diesel exhaust particulate.

The Carson Terminal project is projected to be constructed during a period of up
to 10 years, and construction of the Chemoil project, if approved, is likely occur
within this time frame. The Chemoil project will be located within one mile of the
Carson Terminal. Because of the location of the terminal in relation to the Carson
Terminal, this project will be included in the cumulative impacts analysis.

ConocoPhillips Refinery
The ConocoPhillips Refinery (formerly Tosco and Unocal) consists of facilities at
two locations (Wilmington and Carson). The Carson facility is located to the west
of the Project and the Wilmington facility is located to the southwest. Because of
the location of the refinery adjacent to the Project location, this project will be
included in the cumulative analysis.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                               2‐35
2.0 Project Description


ConocoPhillips currently has proposed a project involving modification of a boiler
used to supply steam to refinery process units at its Carson facility. ConocoPhillips
is proposing to install an SCR Unit on the boiler to reduce emissions of NOx.
Additional NOx emission reductions are necessary to comply with ConocoPhillips’
SCAQMD Rule 2009.1 Compliance Plan and to meet NOx RECLAIM allocation
levels. SCR Units are considered to be best available retrofit control technology
(BARCT) for the control of NOx from existing combustion sources. NOx emissions
are controlled by injecting aqueous ammonia into the exhaust gas stream
upstream of a catalyst. Aqueous ammonia will be supplied from a local vendor in
the Los Angeles area and delivered to the Carson Plant for storage and use.

The project is projected to result in a reduction in NOx emissions of about 181
lbs/day from the subject boiler. A maximum of one additional truck trip per day
will be required to transport the aqueous ammonia to the site. Since the project
will reduce emissions, no significant impacts on air quality are projected from
operation of the modified boiler. Construction emissions were evaluated and found
to be less than the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds so that no significant impacts on air
quality are expected during the construction phase.

The ConocoPhillips project was found not to have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. However,
an action has been filed challenging the decision to prepare a Negative
Declaration. Construction of the ConocoPhillips project has not been stayed
pending resolution of the lawsuit. Construction is underway and is expected to be
completed by June 2006.

Wilmington Refinery
The Ultramar Inc.—Valero Wilmington Refinery (“Wilmington Refinery”) has
proposed an Alkylation Improvement Project. The proposed project will occur at
the Wilmington Refinery, which is located at 2402 East Anaheim Street, in the
Wilmington district of the City of Los Angeles. The property line of the Wilmington
Refinery is located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the Proposed Project
property line and the area where the Alkylation unit is located approximately
another 2000 feet from the property line for a total distance of approximately 1.5


2‐36                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                           2.0 Project Description


miles. Due to the location of this project it will/will not be considered in the
cumulative impacts analysis. Note: If this project is considered in the analysis, we
will have cumulatively significant construction emissions for CO and VOC as well
as NOx and PM10, which are significant for the proposed project.

On February 12, 2003, the Wilmington Refinery and the SCAQMD entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requiring the termination of the
transport, storage and use of concentrated hydrofluoric acid at the Wilmington
Refinery. The refinery agreed to adopt a modified alkylation process that
eliminates the use of concentrated HF catalyst substituting it with the proprietary
Reduced Volatility Alkylation Process (ReVAP). ReVAP incorporates a suppressant
in the HF that reduces volatility in the event of an accidental release with a
concurrent reduction in safety risks (i.e., distance that the HF could travel and
number of persons exposed) in the surrounding area. Incorporation of ReVAP
requires substantial improvements to the Alkylation Unit and related units and
systems of the Refinery. There will be a net increase of 21 trucks per year
associated with the transport of modified HF.

The MOU establishes a target of December 31, 2005 for commencing operation of
the modified Alkylation Unit. Construction of the Alkylation Improvement project
is expected to begin in the third quarter of 2004 and be completed by fourth
quarter 2005. Construction of the Alkylation Improvement Project is expected to
employ a maximum of about 350 workers during the construction phase and about
727 workers during the Refinery turnaround (about September 2005) when the
modified equipment is tied into and incorporated into the Refinery operation.

The permanent work force at the Wilmington Refinery is not expected to increase
as a result of this project and operation-related traffic is expected to be minimal.
An estimated 4,700 additional truck trips per year, or an average of 16 truck trips
per day, is expected in connection with operation of the proposed project.

This project is located more than a mile from the proposed project. In addition, the
majority of the construction is expected to be completed before construction
commences on the proposed project. Accordingly, this project will not be
considered in the cumulative impacts analysis.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             2‐37
    3.0         ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
This section provides an overview of the analysis that is provided in Chapter 3.0.
As described in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction), although all issue areas were reviewed
in the context of a revised project description, with the exception of the
construction-related air quality assessment, no new impacts were identified as a
result of the revised project. Thus, the previous assessment is considered adequate
to address the potential impacts of the revised project on the remaining issue areas
because the potential impacts of the revised project are either unchanged or
reduced from the earlier project description.

Two additional areas of the assessment were analyzed to ensure no new impacts
due to the changes made to the project. The baseline assumptions, assessment
methods and conclusions of the hazards and hazardous materials assessment
(Chapter 3.6) and the traffic and transportation impact assessment (Chapter 3.10)
were reviewed due to the new tank design, the slight changes to the site plan, and
changes to the construction plan.

The remaining issue areas (i.e., aesthetics, biological and cultural resources,
geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and utilities)
are not expected to change as a result of the project revisions. These impact
analyses and supporting technical reports are maintained “as-is” from the original
EIR, though text changes documented in the 2004 Final EIR have been forwarded
to the relevant sections.

Existing Conditions
This subsection describes existing conditions that may be subject to change as a
result of implementation of the proposed project. This subsection provides the
context for assessing potential environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the proposed project.




 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Thresholds of Significance
Before potential impacts are evaluated for significance, the threshold that will
serve as the basis for judging impact significance is presented. Thresholds of
Significance used for the evaluation of impacts include those thresholds presented
in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Carson relies on these
thresholds as those that are appropriate for evaluating the significance of impacts
in the city.

Regulatory Framework
The primary regulations governing development of the proposed project is the City
of Carson General Plan. A General Plan Update is currently in progress. In
addition to the General Plan, there are regional and statewide regulations that
govern development activities in order to ensure protection of resources, public
and private property, and the local population. Examples of these regulations
include the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”), Uniform Building Code,
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit system,
among others. Area growth and housing allocations are coordinated by regulatory
agencies. Regulations that are relevant to particular resources are discussed in the
relevant resource sections in Chapter 3.0. This section is omitted where no
relevant regulations beyond the General Plan exist.

Impacts      .
The project impacts discussion describes potential consequences to each resource
that would result from project implementation. The applicant proposes to expand
an existing petroleum storage and distribution facility, as described in detail in
Chapter 2.0. Environmental impacts could potentially occur from this action.

Cumulative Impacts
This discussion describes potential impacts from the proposed project in
combination with related development within and adjacent to the city. Section
2.10 defines related development. This development includes General Plan



3‐2                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.0 Environmental Analysis


buildout in combination with near-term development in the city and major
projects in adjacent jurisdictions.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
If the impacts are considered potentially significant, mitigation measures are
proposed to reduce or avoid these impacts. This section also describes the level of
significance of impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures.
Impacts are defined as either significant but mitigable or significant and
unavoidable. Significant but mitigable impacts are those impacts that could be
reduced to a level of less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation
measures. Significant and unavoidable impacts are those impacts that would
remain significant either due to the unavailability of feasible mitigation measures
to reduce impacts or inability for mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less
than significant.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3‐3
                                                                      3.1 Aesthetics



3.1       AESTHETICS
This section describes the visual setting of the Carson Terminal and evaluates the
potential for changes in visual character of the site and surrounding area due to
development under the proposed project. The Initial Study prepared for the
project, which is included as Appendix A to this EIR, determined that the proposed
project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, as no focal or
panoramic views exist with respect to the site. The Initial Study also concluded
that no scenic resources exist on the project site that would be affected by the
project, and, finally, that the project would not result in a substantial increase in
light or glare, as the site and surrounding area are heavily developed with
industrial uses, and no sensitive uses (such as residential) would be affected by any
potential increase in light levels on the project site. Data used to prepare this
section was taken from various sources, including site visits, previous
environmental and planning documentation prepared for the City, and other
campus data sources. Full bibliographic entries for all reference material are
provided in Chapter 7.0 (References) of this EIR.

The City received no comment letters related to potential aesthetic impacts in
response to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation circulated for the project.

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not alter the visual characteristics of
the project, as project-related changes still involve the placement of tanks in the
southwestern portion of the Carson Terminal. Consequently, no additional
analysis beyond that provided in the 2003 DEIR (provided below) is required.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.1‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.1.1     Existing Conditions

Project Vicinity
The project site is located in an urbanized, industrially developed area.
Surrounding land uses consist of refineries and of shipping, storage, and container
facilities. Consequently, visual elements generally include tanks, containers,
asphalt lots, piping and other infrastructure, and associated structures and
machinery.




3.1‐2                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                        3.1 Aesthetics


                   Figure 3.1-1 Key to View Locations




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR              3.1‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


                  Figure 3.1-2a      Site Views 1 and 2




3.1‐4                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                    3.1 Aesthetics



The use immediately south of the Carson Terminal and adjacent to the project site
is an Equilon Refinery, and the primary visual components of the facility are tanks
similar to those on the Carson Terminal, but colored black, as shown in Figure 3.1-
2a (Site Views 1 and 2); vantage points from which the photographs were taken are
shown in Figure 3.1-1 (Key to View Locations). West of the Alameda corridor,
along Sepulveda Boulevard, are several light industrial and commercial structures.
These structures are generally finished concrete and glass. However, most are
obscured by the large scale of the structures associated with industrial uses
immediately west of Alameda Street. They are not directly visible from the project
site.

The Project Site
Public views of the Carson Terminal property exist from Sepulveda Boulevard and
Alameda Street. Site uses between Sepulveda Boulevard and the tanks include,
from east to west, retention basins, truck loading racks, storage areas, piping
manifolds, parking, offices, and smaller tanks. From Sepulveda Boulevard, views
include project fencing, sporadic landscaping, the intervening uses described
above, and the upper portions of the main storage tanks, the closest of which are
located over 500 feet from the roadway frontage. These views are shown in Figure
3.1-2b (Site Views 3 and 4). The property fence along Sepulveda Boulevard is
chain-link, with wood slats in portions of the fence. Some landscaping—mostly
solitary palm trees, with some shrubs and canopy trees—lies along the frontage
and, with the wooden slats in the fence, obscures views of the property from the
Sepulveda Boulevard frontage. The settlement ponds are partially visible from the
Sepulveda Boulevard frontage as earthen berms, with some associated, small-scale
machinery. The truck loading rack is structure in which petroleum products
(generally automotive fuel) are pumped into tanker trucks for roadway transport
and delivery to relatively local clients. The structure resembles an automotive
gasoline station, although slightly increased in scale and with overhead, rather
than underground, piping. West of the loading rack is a parking area, which is
partially shielded by trees, as well as the slatted fence, followed by the main
entrance to the property, which is flanked by an office/administration building
and more parking, which are also slightly obscured by shrubs and trees. No other


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.1‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


trees are present on the property, either in the tank area or in any area in which
pipes run. The office building is a one-story, finished concrete and glass structure
that is functional in nature, with no particular architectural embellishment.




3.1‐6                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.1 Aesthetics


                    Figure 3.1-2b      Site Views 3 and 4




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                  3.1‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis



Extending west from the administration building are other, one-story storage and
maintenance buildings, with additional parking areas around these buildings.
Smaller tanks are also visible beyond and between these structures, and on the
westernmost portion of the Sepulveda Boulevard frontage, an open materials
storage area and some of the main storage tanks are visible in the distance.

The existing, primary storage tanks range from 50 to 60 feet in height and from
115 to 150 feet in diameter, and substantial portions of these tanks are visible from
Sepulveda Boulevard, above the intervening structures. Tanks are white in color
and contain no exterior features other than an access ladder on the side of each
tank. As shown in Figure 2-2 (Aerial Photograph—Project and Project Site), the
project site is located in the south and southwestern portion of the property;
consequently, topography and the intervening uses (including the main storage
tanks) block views from Sepulveda to any portion of the project site.

From Alameda Street, views of Carson Terminal include storage areas, offices,
fencing, piping and pumping machinery, and smaller storage tanks at about the
northern fourth of the frontage, and pumping machinery and the primary storage
tanks on the southern three quarters of the frontage. The nearest tanks to Alameda
Street are located about 35 to 40 feet from the roadway. An earth-toned, textured
cinderblock wall, about 3 feet in height, topped by a 4-foot, slatted, chain-link
fence, lines the Alameda street frontage. The wall was installed in July 2001 as
part of a beautification project for the site and to serve as an additional
containment device for site runoff. At the time the wall was installed, this action
was identified as ministerially exempt by the City. The wall obscures views of on-
site uses, particularly ground-level features, from the Alameda Street frontage. As
shown in Figure 3.1-2c (Site Views 5 and 6), some views are available of the
storage and maintenance uses and smaller tanks at the northern and northwestern
portion of the property. The wall is within the setback area required by the Carson
Municipal Code (Section 9146.24), and numerous buried transmission lines lie in
the 10 or more feet behind the wall. These include lines owned by Kinder-Morgan
Energy Partners (KMEP), in addition to utilities and other petroleum distribution
facilities. The precise alignment of each of these lines is not known. The setback
space inside (and in some cases over) these alignments are currently maintained


3.1‐8                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.1 Aesthetics


as fire access lanes, to satisfy County requirements. However, the wall screens this
infrastructure immediately behind it, and most public views of the site from
Alameda Street are dominated by the main storage tanks and their containment
berms, as shown in Figure 3.1-2d (Site View 7).




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.1‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis




                  Figure 3.1-2c      Site Views 5 and 6




3.1‐10                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.1 Aesthetics


                        Figure 3.1-2d Site View 7




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR            3.1‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


                  Figure 3.1-2e      Site Views 8 and 9




3.1‐12                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                       3.1 Aesthetics



The grade on which the tanks and berms lie is higher than the roadway, rendering
these slightly more visible from this portion of the site and obscuring views
through the site.

As also shown in Views 1, 6, and 7, much of the specific areas on which the project
would be built are visible as gaps in the existing tanks. As described in Chapter 2.0
(Project Description), the project site also includes the remnant of the Old
Dominguez Channel, as shown in Figure 3.1-2e (Site Views 8 and 9). However,
with the exception of mature trees flanking the entrance to the property on
Sepulveda Boulevard, no vegetation present on the site provides any substantial
aesthetic value: the former slough contains remnant plants, but these are not of
substantial density and are not visible from off site. Additionally, the channel is
only visible from the interior of the property, and does not appear in public views.
Further, the channel does not define the visual character of the site; rather, the
predominantly industrial nature of the site—particularly the storage tanks—and
surrounding area defines the character of the site.

3.1.2     Regulatory Framework

Federal and State
No federal or State regulations pertain to aesthetic resources on the project site.

Local
The Carson Municipal Code (CMC) includes requirements for lot setbacks and
landscaping along a street. These requirements are summarized below, with the
relevant CMC Sections cited:
     A side yard of at least 10 feet in width where the side of a lot abuts a street
     (Section 9146.24)
     Every part of a required yard or open space shall be open an unobstructed
     from finished grade to the sky, with a number of exceptions, including
     landscaping, but not including fences on industrially zoned properties
     (Section 9146.29)
     Side yards adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be landscaped (Section
     9162.52.C)


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.1‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.1.3     Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if it
would
      Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
      its surroundings

3.1.4     Impacts
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not substantially degrade
              the existing visual character of the project site or its
              surroundings.

The proposed tanks would be located within the southwestern portion of Carson
Terminal and would be visible from Alameda Street. However, the proposed tanks
would be constructed among and near existing tanks of similar or greater size and
would be consistent and compatible with the industrial nature and visual
characteristics of surrounding land uses: the proposed tanks would be about 115
feet in diameter, 54 feet tall, and white in color, consistent with existing tanks.
Further, the majority of the new tanks would be constructed on pads that are 8 to
9 feet below the existing grade of the surrounding tanks and would be set back at
least 40 feet from the Alameda Street right-of-way. Additional, visible
infrastructure includes a piping manifold, which would be constructed adjacent to
the tanks, would be substantially shorter in height and of substantially lighter
massing than the tanks, and would be set back about 160 feet from the Alameda
Street right-of-way. Consequently, although the proposed development would be
visible from Alameda Street, this development would be consistent with existing
development on the project site and the adjacent property and would not represent
a degradation of the existing visual character of the site or surrounding area.

However, the proposed project may not be consistent with code requirements
pertaining to visual enhancements along Alameda Street, including setbacks and
landscaping: as described above in Section 3.1.2 (Regulatory Framework), the
CMC includes provisions for side yard widths, open space in side yards, and
landscaping adjacent to public rights-of-way (including Alameda Street). The
existing conditions with respect to the perimeter wall on the Alameda Street


3.1‐14                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.1 Aesthetics


frontage of the property, as described above, in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions)
result in noncompliance with these provisions of the CMC, as after
implementation of the proposed project, this conditions would remain. However,
the project, as proposed, would not alter the existing conditions: the project would
result in demolition of existing tanks and construction of new tanks and a piping
manifold on the site, and would not modify or relocate the perimeter wall or the
existing piping along the Alameda Street frontage, and would not realign the
existing fire access lane along Alameda Street. Consequently, with respect to the
lack of landscaping and the presence of the existing wall, the project would not
result in a significant impact with respect to compliance with the CMC, but rather,
would continue an existing effect. This impact would, therefore, remain less than
significant.

3.1.5     Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development throughout the area and from reasonably foreseeable
development projects would increase the developed character of the City, although
it is nearly fully built out at present. Individual development projects would be
regulated through conformance to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. These
planning processes would also identify projects that would require site plan and
design review in order to ensure that projects would not degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the area.

3.1.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
The following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce less-than-
significant impacts on aesthetics:

     MM AES-1 Provide landscaping along the KMEP property perimeter.
              Landscaping could include but would not be limited to areas
              adjacent to Alameda Street along the Alameda Street property
              line, as well as the property boundary on Sepulveda Boulevard.

If landscaping were planted along Alameda Street, this landscaping would
ultimately need to exceed the height of the wall in order to serve as a visual
amenity, and would likely require canopy trees. According to KMEP, however, the

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.1‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


facility does not include canopy trees or dense vegetation inside the property for a
number of reasons. The primary reason for this is that the root systems of trees
and some landscaping can, as they grow, compromise the integrity of the existing
petroleum and utilities pipes located inside the wall and beneath the fire access
lane. KMEP has experienced this issue with other facilities it operates. Where root
intrusion occurs, the integrity of the pipeline can be compromised, which could
result in a spill. Secondarily, for security reasons, large and or dense vegetation
can provide screening cover for potential intruders onto the facility, and petroleum
storage facilities are an identified target of attack. Third, the California Fire Code
contains express prohibitions with respect to weeds and other combustible
material for a distance of at least 15 feet from the storage tanks (CFC Section
7902.3.7). Fourth, landscaping may interfere with existing buried infrastructure.
As discussed in the existing setting, due to the age of some of the existing
infrastructure, KMEP is not aware of the full extent of the infrastructure;
consequently, selective planting in areas that show no surface evidence of piping
could result in ground disturbance where pipelines exist. Relocation of the existing
piping would be infeasible, due to prohibitive expense and the potential
ownership, by third parties, of petroleum product transmission and utility lines.
Further, as described above, KMEP is not aware of the full extent of the underlying
piping and other infrastructure. For all of these reasons, landscape planting along
Alameda Street would not be feasible. Although this proposed measure is not
feasible for implementation along Alameda Street, this impact will, nonetheless,
remain less than significant.




3.1‐16                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                    3.2 Air Quality



3.2       AIR QUALITY
This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality resulting from
construction and operation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for
the proposed project to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation, to result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment, to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, or to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people. This section is based primarily upon the Air Quality Evaluation (ENVIRON
2004) and the Human Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the Proposed Kinder
Morgan Terminal Expansion (ENVIRON 2004) which are included as Appendices
B1 and B2, respectively, to this EIR.

During the EIR process, questions were raised about the air quality analysis in two
comment letters that were received after the comment period was closed. One
letter was from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and
the other letter was from three environmental groups. The key air quality issues
raised in these letters are addressed in this section. The letters are reprinted and
are also responded to in detail in Appendix K of this document.

The air quality impact assessment reflects changes in the project design as
described in Chapter 2.0. The project design changes that are relevant to this air
quality assessment include the following:
      Single column tank design instead of multiple column tank design
      No change in the existing terminal restrictions on tank draining operations
      or tank truck activities
      Removal of four pre-project tanks
      Reassessment of the construction schedule and emissions

3.2.1Existing Conditions
The proposed project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), so
named because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding
mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the basin below. The Basin


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The air quality within the Basin is primarily
influenced by a wide range of emissions sources, including heavy vehicular traffic
and various kinds of industry. Meteorology also plays a large role in determining
the air quality within the Basin.

Air pollutant emissions within the Basin are generated by stationary and mobile
sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point
sources and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are
usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples of point sources are
boilers and combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat.
Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples
of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting
operations, lawn mowers, and consumer products, such as barbeque lighter fluid
and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, which are
primarily tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road
or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways.
Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled
construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air
pollutant emissions within the Basin.

Both the federal and State governments have established concentration-based
ambient air quality standards for various pollutants, referred to as “criteria
pollutants,” in order to protect public health. The national and State standards
have been set at levels that would generally protect human health and welfare and
protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a margin of
safety. Applicable standards for the criteria air pollutants are identified later in
this EIR section. The SCAQMD is responsible for bringing the Basin into
conformity with the national and State standards.

The criteria pollutants for which federal and State standards have been
promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in
the Basin are ozone, carbon monoxide, fine suspended particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are not



3.2‐2                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                      3.2 Air Quality


criteria air pollutants, are of concern in the Basin. Each of these pollutants is
briefly described below.
     Ozone (O3) is a gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
     and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both byproducts of internal combustion engine
     exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight.
     Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when
     direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable
     to the formation of this pollutant.
     Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the
     incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the
     highest on winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based
     inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly
     from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at
     slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. Congested
     transportation corridors and intersections can result in elevated CO
     concentrations.
     Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) consists of extremely small, suspended
     particles or droplets 10 microns or smaller in diameter. Some sources of
     PM10, like pollen and windstorms, occur naturally. However, in populated
     areas, most PM10 is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products,
     abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities.
     Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters
     the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of incomplete combustion of
     high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring
     at chemical plants and refineries. When sulfur dioxide oxidizes in the
     atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Together, these pollutants are referred
     to as sulfur oxides (SOx).
     Lead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as a component of particulate matter.
     The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne lead in
     the Basin. The use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on-road
     motor vehicles so the majority of such combustion emissions are associated
     with off-road vehicles such as race cars. Other sources of lead include the



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                               3.2‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


         manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition,
         and secondary lead smelters.
         Toxic Air Contaminants refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can be
         hazardous to human health, even in small quantities. TACs can cause short-
         term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse health
         effects.

Existing Regional Air Quality
The entire Basin is designated as a federal-level non-attainment area for ozone
(extreme), CO, and PM10. The Basin is in compliance with federal sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and lead standards, but ambient carbon monoxide, ozone, and
PM10 particulate levels may reach twice the standards. In an effort to monitor the
various concentrations of air pollutants throughout the Basin, the SCAQMD has
divided the region into 27 source receptor areas (SRAs) in which 31 monitoring
stations operate. The proposed project site is located within SRA 4, which covers
the coastal area of southern Los Angeles County. Figure 3.2-1 shows the location of
the City of Carson within SRA 4. Ambient air pollutant concentrations within SRA
4 are monitored in Long Beach and the SCAQMD considers the ambient air
pollutant concentrations measured at this location to be representative of the
entire SRA. Table 3.2-1 identifies the federal and State air quality standards for
relevant              air            pollutants             along              with




3.2‐4                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                             3.2 Air Quality




              Figure 3.2-1 Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4


            This figure is unchanged from the November 2003 DEIR




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                    3.2‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis



     Table 3.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project
                                 Vicinity
                                              Air Quality                 Year
                 Pollutant
                                               Standards         2001     2002        2003
                             SRA 4 – South Coastal Los Angeles County
 Ozone
 Maximum 1-hour concentration                               0.09 ppm    0.08 ppm     0.0.10
                                                                                      ppm
 Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour         >0.12           0         0           0
 standard                                        ppm
 Number of days exceeding State 1-hour          >0.09            0         0            1
 standard                                        ppm
 Maximum 8-hour concentration                                0.07 ppm   0.06 ppm    0.07 ppm
 Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour        >0.08            0         0           0
 standard                                        ppm
 Sulfur Dioxide
 Maximum 24-hour concentration                                 0.009     0.008       0.008
                                                                ppm       ppm         ppm
 Number of days exceeding federal 24-hour        >0.14           0         0           0
 standard                                        ppm
 Number of days exceeding State 24-hour         >0.04            0         0           0
 standard                                        ppm
 Nitrogen Dioxide
 Maximum 1-hour concentration                               0.122 ppm   0.130 ppm   0.135 ppm
 Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour           —             —         —           —
 standarda
 Number of days exceeding State 1-hour          >0.25            0         0           0
 standard                                       ppm
 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
 Maximum 8-hour concentration                                4.74 ppm   4.56 ppm    4.66 ppm
 Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour      ≥9.5 ppm           0         0           0
 standard
 Number of days exceeding State 8-hour        >9.0 ppm           0         0           0
 standard
 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
 Maximum 24-hour concentration                               91 µg/m3   74 µg/m3    63 µg/m3
 Number of days exceeding federal                >150            0         0           0
 standard                                       µg/m3
 Number of days exceeding State standard         >50             10        5           4
                                                µg/m3



3.2‐6                               Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                3.2 Air Quality


     Table 3.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality in the Project
                                 Vicinity
                                                       Air Quality                        Year
                     Pollutant
                                                       Standards          2001            2002            2003
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration                                             72.9            62.7           115.2
                                                                         µg/m3           µg/m3           µg/m3
Number of days exceeding federal                          >65               1               0               3
standard                                                 µg/m3
ppm = Parts by volume per million of air; µg/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter of air; a no federal standards set for
  the appropriate averaging time; b no state standards set for the appropriate averaging time
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2004. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-
        bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start



the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured within SRA 4
during the period of 2001 to 2003. In general, the air quality is better in the
coastal areas of the SCAQMD, such as SRA 4, than in other areas further inland.
The federal ozone standards, which are exceeded throughout the Basin, were not
exceeded in the project area between 2001 and 2003 and the State ozone standard
was exceeded on only one day during those three years. There were no
exceedances of the federal or State standards for NOx or CO, or the federal PM10
standard during this period. The State PM10 standard was exceeded between four
and ten days per year during this period.

3.2.2        Regulatory Framework
Air quality within the Basin is addressed through the efforts of various federal,
State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well
as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning,
policy-making, education, and a variety of other programs. The agencies
responsible for improving the air quality within the Basin are discussed below.

United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for
setting and enforcing the federal ambient air quality standards for atmospheric
pollutants. The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive
authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                             3.2‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


locomotives. The USEPA also has jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state
waters (outer continental shelf) and establishes various emissions standards for
vehicles sold in states other than California.

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with
non-attainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must
integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify
specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance
standards and market-based programs.

California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California
Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and
administration of both State and federal air pollution control programs within
California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets State ambient air quality
standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures,
and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards
for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray,
aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial
equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a regional
planning agency that serves Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SCAG serves as a forum for regional issues
relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the
environment.

Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for
developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect
air quality. SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides
growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality-related land use
and transportation control strategies by the SCAQMD. The RCPG provides a

3.2‐8                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


framework for the decision-making of local governments, assisting them in
meeting federal and State mandates for growth management, mobility, and
environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals
through the year 2015 and beyond. Policies within the RCPG include consideration
of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of
government.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the regional agency principally responsible for comprehensive air
pollution control in the Basin. To that end, the SCAQMD works directly with
SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates
actively with State and federal government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules
and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources,
runs educational programs, and also has enforcement authority to ensure
compliance by permitted sources through levying fines, when necessary.

The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area
and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by
preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of
these was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003 and
has been submitted to CARB and USEPA for approval. This AQMP, referred to as
the 2003 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high pollutant
levels in the Basin, to meet federal and State air quality standards, and to minimize
the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. It
identifies the control measures that will be implemented to reduce major sources
of pollutants. These planning efforts have substantially decreased the population’s
exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, despite substantial population growth
within the Basin. As discussed on pages 2-7 through 2-17 of the 2003 AQMP, levels
of ambient pollutants monitored throughout the Basin have decreased
substantially since 1980.

To ensure consistency in environmental review of proposed projects, the SCAQMD
has adopted a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (CEQA Handbook, April 1993) to


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.2‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


guide air quality evaluations in the District for CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook provides standard methods for evaluating and analyzing air
quality impacts for proposed projects and standard thresholds of significance for
assessing the significance of projects. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
is offered as potential guidance for lead agencies. Local land use agencies can
choose whether to follow the recommendations in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. Proper use of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook ensures
thorough, complete, and consistent air quality review.

The SCAQMD is also responsible for granting or denying applications for air
permits from applicants who wish to construct sources of pollution that fall under
the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.

SCAQMD has detailed and comprehensive requirements that must be fulfilled
before a permit is granted. For example, the SCAQMD requires that sources that
emit air contaminants have the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) applied.
BACT is the most stringent pollution control technology available for a source
anywhere in the nation and requires that the cleanest technology be used in a new
project regardless of cost. SCAQMD has a BACT handbook that specifies BACT for
most sources, including petroleum storage tanks. When newer, cleaner technology
is available, the BACT handbook is updated to require this technology.

City of Carson
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Carson (the City), have the authority and
responsibility to reduce air pollution through police power and decision-making
authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of
air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA
requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality
impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant
air quality impacts by placing conditions on discretionary permits, and monitors
and enforces implementation of mitigation measures. The City uses the
significance thresholds and methodologies set forth in the SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook.



3.2‐10                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


3.2.3     Project Impacts and Mitigation

Standards of Significance
According to the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, 14CCR Section 15000-15387) Appendix G, a
project may have a significant air quality impact if it would:
     Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
     projected air quality violation;
     Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
     Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; or
     Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
     for which the project region is non-attainment of an applicable federal or
     state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
     quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

As the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in
the Basin, the SCAQMD recommends that projects should be evaluated in terms of
quantitative air pollution control thresholds established by the SCAQMD and
published in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These thresholds were
developed by the SCAQMD to provide quantifiable levels to which project
emissions can be compared. The thresholds of significance recommended by the
SCAQMD apply to the net increase in emissions that are generated by a project
above those that exist for the project site under baseline conditions. They do not
apply to the total emissions that would be generated by an expanded facility (i.e.,
existing plus proposed emissions). The City utilizes the SCAQMD’s significance
thresholds that are in effect at the time that development is proposed in order to
assess the significance of quantifiable impacts. The significance thresholds that are
currently recommended by the SCAQMD are summarized below.

Construction Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with construction-related
emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be
considered significant:


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


      550 pounds per day of CO
      75 pounds per day of VOC
      100 pounds per day of NOx
      150 pounds per day of SOx
      150 pounds per day of PM10

The City has identified these SCAQMD significance thresholds as appropriate for
the determination of the significance of construction impacts.

Operational Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD currently recommends that projects with operational emissions that
exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant.
These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they do not apply
to cumulative development.
     550 pounds per day of CO
     55 pounds per day of VOC
     55 pounds per day of NOx
     150 pounds per day of SOx
     150 pounds per day of PM10

The City has identified these SCAQMD significance thresholds as appropriate for
the determination of the significance of operational impacts. The SCAQMD has
advised the City that due to the regional nature of ozone formation, the purchase
of VOC Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) can be used to reduce VOC emissions
to a level of insignificance.

The SCAQMD also recommends that projects that could emit carcinogenic or toxic
air contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one
million be considered significant for sources using BACT for Toxics (T-BACT).
Acute and chronic non-cancer health effects associated with toxic air contaminants
that have a hazard quotient of greater than 1.0 would also be considered
significant. These thresholds apply to individual development projects only; they
do not apply to cumulative development.



3.2‐12                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                    3.2 Air Quality


In order to assess cumulative impacts, the SCAQMD recommends that projects be
evaluated to determine whether they would be consistent with AQMP performance
standards and emission reduction targets.

3.2.4     Impacts
Impact AQ-1      Demolition, site preparation, and construction
                 activities may generate significant emissions of
                 nitrogen dioxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) on
                 a daily basis.

As described in Section 2.0 and detailed in the Air Quality Evaluation (Appendix
B1), tank construction will occur in three phases over a period that is not
anticipated to exceed ten years, but could be as short as three years, depending on
market demand for petroleum product storage. These tank construction phases
include: installation of four new 80,000-barrel tanks in the northeast portion of
the development site (Phase 1 tank construction); construction of six to eight tanks
in the southern portion of the development area (Phase 2 tank construction);
filling in of the onsite depression which would require site clearing, backfilling,
compaction, and grading of this area (Phase 2 fill operations); and construction of
the remaining proposed tanks in the depression area after this area is graded and
compacted (Phase 3 tank construction). Construction activities within each phase
will vary, and the phases could potentially overlap depending on market demand.
The 30,000-barrel Transmix tank could be constructed during any of the phases.
Not including the Transmix tank, 18 total tanks will be constructed over the entire
construction period.

Each tank construction phase consists of a grading and clearing stage (which
would intensively involve earth moving equipment) and a tank fabrication and
assembly stage. The grading and clearing stage in each phase generates more
emissions than the fabrication and assembly stage, as the grading stage uses more
off-road heavy equipment than does the fabrication and assembly stage, and there
is more potential for fugitive dust to be released from the grading activities.
Phase 1 tank construction, Phase 2 tank construction, and Phase 2 filling of the
depression area may occur contemporaneously, however, the grading stage of
Phase 2 tank construction will not begin until the grading stage of Phase 1 tank


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.2‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


construction is complete. Phase 3 tank construction can begin after filling and
compaction of the depression area (part of Phase 2) is largely complete. In
addition, there is a site limitation (based on traffic movement) on the number of
off-site construction trucks of 200 roundtrips per day. The actual number of truck
trips is likely to be much lower due to traffic movement constraints. However, for
the purpose of the air quality analysis, 200 round trips have been assumed.

During construction, three basic types of activities would be expected to occur and
generate emissions: demolition of existing structures and clearing of the
demolition site; site preparation, excavation, backfilling, compaction, and grading
to accommodate the new storage tanks; and construction of the proposed storage
tanks and associated infrastructure. Once construction of a tank is completed, the
tank would be tested and readied for use.

Tank demolition, site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction
vehicles, equipment used to haul materials to and from the site, and motor
vehicles used to transport the construction crew to and from the site all produce
emissions during construction. The use of construction equipment on-site would
result in localized tailpipe exhaust and fugitive dust emissions.

If tank degassing is required prior to demolition of the four pre-project storage
tanks to be removed, it will be performed in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1149
requirements. After completion of the degassing and cleaning, a marine chemist
will test the air quality of each tank to ensure that it is gas, lead, and benzene free.
No significant emissions would, therefore, occur from the tank interiors when the
tanks are demolished.

Exhaust and fugitive emissions from construction activities on-site would vary
daily as construction activity levels change. To provide a conservative estimate of
emissions during a single construction day for comparison to the SCAQMD daily
construction significance thresholds, it was assumed that construction would
occur under an accelerated schedule. Under this worst-case scenario, activities
within Phase 1 tank construction, Phase 2 filling of the depression area, and
Phase 2 tank construction could occur simultaneously on a single day. As noted
above, the grading activity of Phase 2 tank construction will not begin until after


3.2‐14                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


the grading phase of Phase 1 is complete. Therefore, the assumed activities on the
construction day that has the potential for highest daily emissions are the
combination of the fabrication and assembly stage of Phase 1 tank construction,
the grading operations during Phase 2 tank construction, and the depression area
filling activities that are part of Phase 2. Under this accelerated construction
scenario, unmitigated daily construction emissions of NOx and PM10 could exceed
the SCAQMD daily construction significance thresholds during the worst-case
month. Thus, the unmitigated NOx and PM10 emissions from construction
activities could cause a significant short-term impact to local air quality. Based on
the accelerated construction schedule, the daily NOx construction significance
threshold may be exceeded during an estimated nine consecutive months of the
first year of construction and during an estimated ten additional months
intermittently over the remainder of the construction effort. The daily PM10
construction significance threshold may be exceeded during an estimated three
consecutive months of the first year of construction. As noted above, while
analyzing this worst-case scenario, it was assumed that the total heavy-duty haul
trucks arriving at and leaving the site cannot exceed 200 round trips per day.
Although it is possible that this maximum daily scenario may occur, it is not likely.
Even if it does occur, it can only occur during a one-year period where Phase 1 tank
construction, Phase 2 filling of the depression area, and Phase 2 tank construction
overlap. This analysis presents the worst-case construction day at the site. The
actual emissions are likely to be much lower on most, if not all, days. The analysis
of each construction phase and a detailed discussion of the emissions that result
from each construction phase are contained in the Air Quality Evaluation in
Appendix B1.

There are two sources of PM10 from construction: fugitive dust from earth moving
activities and travel over roadways (both paved and unpaved) and tailpipe exhaust
from the operating equipment. These sources of PM10 were combined for all
scenarios to determine the scenario that results in the highest daily emissions. The
scenario with the highest daily emissions was compared to the SCAQMD daily
construction significance threshold for PM10 to determine whether the proposed
project could have a significant impact on air quality for PM10.



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Similarly, the emissions for the construction scenario with the highest exhaust
emissions of the other pollutants were compared to the SCAQMD daily
construction significance thresholds for CO, VOC, SOx, and NOx to evaluate for
potential pollution impacts for these pollutants. Table 3.2-2a and Table 3.2-2b list
unmitigated fugitive dust emission and construction equipment exhausts from the
scenario with the highest daily construction emissions levels.

The analysis of dust emissions takes into consideration that the proposed project
will comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) by
implementing measures such as the following on an as needed basis,1 which would
reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent compared to uncontrolled dust
generation activities, depending on the source of the dust generation:
       Water trucks will be used throughout the day during site grading and
       excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by
       operations.
       Areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated will be
       wet down throughout the day.
       All unpaved surfaces or staging areas will be watered three times daily or
       chemical soil stabilizers will be applied.
       Exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) will be enclosed, covered, watered
       twice daily, or approved soil binders will be applied according to
       manufacturer’s specifications.
       Construction disturbance area will be kept as small as possible.
       All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials will be covered or
       have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site.
       Wheel washers will be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads
       onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the
       site each trip.
       Streets adjacent to the project site will be swept at the end of they day if
       visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads.
       Street sweepers that meet requirements of Rule 1186 will be used.
       Wind barriers will be installed along the perimeter of the site.



1These measures are only needed during dry weather conditions. Watering is not required during rain
events and when the soil is moist.


3.2‐16                                Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


As shown, construction related daily emissions during the assumed worst-case day
would not exceed SCAQMD construction significance thresholds for CO, VOC, and
SOx, but could exceed SCAQMD construction significance thresholds for NOx and
PM10. The estimated worst-case day could have unmitigated NOx emissions of
476.9 pounds per day (lb/day) which would occur in Month 4 of the accelerated
construction schedule. These emissions exceed the SCAQMD construction
significance threshold of 100 lb/day for NOx. NOx emissions will be significantly
lower during most days of construction. Excluding those months during which the
unmitigated daily NOx construction emissions exceed the SCAQMD construction
significance threshold, the average daily unmitigated NOx construction emissions
are estimated to be 39.4 lb/day.

The estimated worst-case day would have unmitigated emissions of 273.1 lb/day of
PM10 which would occur in Month 3 of the accelerated construction schedule.
These emissions exceed the SCAQMD construction significance threshold of 150
lb/day for PM10. PM10 emissions will be significantly lower during most days of
construction. Excluding those months during which the unmitigated daily PM10
construction emissions exceed the SCAQMD construction significance threshold,
the average daily unmitigated PM10 construction emissions are estimated to be
29.8 lb/day. Over the life of the project, there will be periods with no construction
activities at all.

Therefore, as discussed above and as shown in Table 3.2-2a and Table 3.2-2b, the
unmitigated construction emissions during the estimated worst-case day of
construction activity could exceed the SCAQMD daily construction thresholds for
NOx and PM10; therefore, the proposed project could have a significant short-
term impact on local air quality due to temporary construction activity.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐17
3.0 Environmental Analysis




                        Table 3.2-2a                Maximum Daily Unmitigated Fugitive Dust and Construction Equipment Exhaust PM10 Emissions—Month 3
                                                                      Paramete                          Parameter                            Parameter                     Parameter                                                              PM10 Emissions       Note
                              Source                                     r1              Units              2                 Units              3             Units           4              Units             PM10 Emission Factor                (lbs/day)           s
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.5E-
 Compactor                                                                  175    hp                          0.59     load factor                    10   hrs/day                   2   units/day                   lbs/hp-hr                                5.12     a,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                               03
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.5E-
 Earthmover/Bulldozer                                                       175    hp                          0.59     load factor                    10   hrs/day                   2   units/day                   lbs/hp-hr                                5.12     a,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                               03
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.4E-
 Excavator                                                                   75    hp                          0.57     load factor                    10   hrs/day                   1   unit/day                    lbs/hp-hr                                1.03     a,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                               03
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.8E-
 Backhoe                                                                    175    hp                          0.55     load factor                    10   hrs/day                   2   units/day                   lbs/hp-hr                                5.41     a,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                               03
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.0E-
 Scraper                                                                    275    hp                          0.72     load factor                    10   hrs/day                   2   units/day                   lbs/hp-hr                                7.83     a,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                               03
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1.4E-
 Crane                                                                      450    hp                          0.43     load factor                    10   hrs/day                   1   unit/day                    lbs/hp-hr                                2.75     a,b
                                                                                                                                                                                                                03
                                                                                   miles/round-                                                                                                             8.3E-
 Concrete truck                                                              10                                    1    round-trip/hr                   8   hrs/day                                                   lbs/mile                                0.07       c
                                                                                   trip                                                                                                                        04
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1.0E-
 Water truck                                                                 20    miles/day                       3    trucks/day                                                                                    lbs/mile                            6.1E-03        c
                                                                                                                                                                                                                04
                                                                                                                                                                                                            9.0E-
 On-site pickup truck                                                        10    miles/day                       7    trucks/day                                                                                    lbs/mile                            6.3E-03        c
                                                                                                                                                                                                               05
 Earth moving                                                                10    hrs/day                         2    earthmovers                                                                          0.46     lbs/hr                                  9.20       d
 Trucks transporting material to and from site (1 mile                             mile/round-                          round-                                                                              7.0E-
                                                                               1                                  50                                                                                                  lbs/mile                                0.04       e
 round-trip)                                                                       trip                                 trips/day                                                                              04
 Trucks transporting material to and from site (2 miles                            miles/round-                         round-                                                                              7.0E-
                                                                               2                                100                                                                                                   lbs/mile                                 0.14      e
 round-trip)                                                                       trip                                 trips/day                                                                              04
 Trucks transporting material to and from site (15                                 miles/round-                         round-                                                                              7.0E-
                                                                              15                                  50                                                                                                  lbs/mile                                0.53       e
 miles round-trip)                                                                 trip                                 trips/day                                                                              04
 On-site fugitive road dust (unpaved)                                      200     trucks/day                                                                                                                0.96     lbs/truck                             192.04       f
                                                                                                                                                                                                             9.1E-    lbs/ton material
 Material dumping                                                          200     trucks/day                     16    yd3/truck                     1.5   tons/ yd3                                                                                        43.56       g
                                                                                                                                                                                                                03    dumped
                                                                                                                                                                                                            7.9E-
 Workers' vehicles                                                           45    miles/day                     80     employees                                                                                     lbs/mile                                0.28       h
                                                                                                                                                                                                               05
                                                         TOTAL                                                                                                                                                                                             273.13
 a   Construction equipment engine sizes were assumed based on typical units used for this type of project; assumptions were verified as appropriate by the contractor, SPEC Services. Emission factors were taken to be the California/Federal standards for engines with no
     limitations placed on equipment model year.
 b   Load factors for construction equipment are from "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California's Emissions Inventory for Off-Road Large Compression-Ignited Engines (>25HP) Using New Off-road Emissions Model". CARB Mailout #99-32.
     http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailout.
 c   Emission factors for trucks were derived from EMFAC2002 2005 Burden Inventory Los Angeles County (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/outputs/2002apr/CA2005_Los_AngelesSC.csv). Concrete trucks and gravel trucks were assumed to be
     heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks. Water trucks were assumed to be average light-heavy-duty trucks and on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be average light-duty trucks.
 d   SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 11-4 (average control for grading PM10 emissions with watering at least twice daily).
 e   Emission factors for haul trucks are from EMFAC2002 for Los Angeles County using heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks for model years 1990 through 2004.
 f   Fugitive dust emission factor for haul truck travel on on-site unpaved roads based on AP-42, Section 13.2.2. Includes 85 percent control efficiency for watering roads three times per day based on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 11-4.
 g   SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 (truck dumping).
 h   Emission factors for workers' vehicles are from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroadEF03_25.xls (EMFAC2002 Burden Inventory).

3.2‐18                                                                                                                                                                                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.2 Air Quality


Source: ENVIRON 2004




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR             3.2‐19
3.0 Environmental Analysis




3.2‐20                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3.2 Air Quality




                        Table 3.2-2b               Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Equipment Exhaust CO, VOC, NOx, and SOx Emissions—Month 4
                                                                                                                                               CO                 VOC                   NOx                      SOx                   Emissions (lbs/day)
                                                                                                                                      Emissi                Emissi                Emissi                Emissi
                        Paramet                         Paramet                       Paramet                Paramete                   on                    on                    on                    on                                                          Not
       Source             er 1           Units            er 2           Units          er 3        Units       r4          Units     Factor        Units   Factor   Units        Factor   Units        Factor         Units    CO       VOC      NOx        SOx      es
                                                                                                   hrs/d                  units/d      1.3E- lbs/hp-         3.2E- lbs/hp-                  lbs/hp-      4.7E- lbs/hp-                   10.0    100.0
Compactor                     175 hp                        0.59 load factor                 10                       3                                                             0.03                                       39.55                         1.46      a,b
                                                                                                   ay                     ay              02 hr                 03 hr                       hr              04 hr                         0        2
Earthmover/Bull                                                                                    hrs/d                  units/d      1.3E- lbs/hp-         3.2E- lbs/hp-                  lbs/hp-      4.7E- lbs/hp-                   13.3    133.3
                              175 hp                        0.59 load factor                 10                       4                                                             0.03                                       52.74                         1.94      a,b
dozer                                                                                              ay                     ay              02 hr                 03 hr                       hr              04 hr                         3        6
                                                                                                   hrs/d                  unit/da      9.3E- lbs/hp-         3.0E- lbs/hp-                  lbs/hp-      4.9E- lbs/hp-
Excavator                      75 hp                        0.57 load factor                 10                       1                                                             0.02                                       3.99      1.28     9.79       0.21      a,b
                                                                                                   ay                     y               03 hr                 03 hr                       hr              04 hr
                                                                                                   hrs/d                  units/d      1.1E- lbs/hp-         2.7E- lbs/hp-                  lbs/hp-      4.1E- lbs/hp-                   16.0    175.2
Scraper                      275 hp                         0.72 load factor                 10                       3                                                             0.03                                       67.54                         2.44      a,b
                                                                                                   ay                     ay              02 hr                 03 hr                       hr              04 hr                         0        3
                                                                                                   hrs/d                  unit/da      7.5E- lbs/hp-         2.2E- lbs/hp-                  lbs/hp-      4.1E- lbs/hp-
Crane                        450 hp                         0.43 load factor                 10                       1                                                             0.02                                       14.51     4.23    37.04       0.79      a,b
                                                                                                   ay                     y               03 hr                 03 hr                       hr              04 hr
                                    miles/round-                    round-trip/                    hrs/d                               6.9E- lbs/mil         1.7E- lbs/mil                  lbs/mil      4.1E- lbs/mil
Concrete truck                 10                               1                              8                                                                                    0.04                                       0.55      0.14     3.23       0.03       c
                                    trip                            hr                             ay                                     03 e                  03 e                        e               04 e
                                    miles/round-                    round-                         hrs/d                               6.9E- lbs/mil         1.7E- lbs/mil                  lbs/mil      4.1E- lbs/mil
Gravel truck                   10                               1                              8                                                                                    0.04                                       0.55      0.14     3.23       0.03       c
                                    trip                            trip/hr                        ay                                     03 e                  03 e                        e               04 e
                                                                                                                                                lbs/mil      1.6E- lbs/mil         7.3E- lbs/mil         3.8E- lbs/mil                                       2.3E-
Water truck                   20 miles/day                      3 trucks/day                                                            0.02                                                                                   1.06      0.10    0.44                  c
                                                                                                                                                e               03 e                  03 e                  05 e                                              03
On-site pickup                                                                                                                                  lbs/mil      1.2E- lbs/mil         2.0E- lbs/mil          1.1E- lbs/mil                                      6.5E-
                               10 miles/day                     6 trucks/day                                                            0.02                                                                                   1.22      0.07     0.12                 c
truck                                                                                                                                           e               03 e                  03 e                   05 e                                             04
Trucks
transporting
                                    miles/round-                    round-trips/                                                       5.4E- lbs/mil         1.3E- lbs/mil                  lbs/mil      4.1E- lbs/mil
material to and                 2                            100                                                                                                                    0.04                                       1.07      0.25     7.98       0.08      d
                                    trip                            day                                                                   03 e                  03 e                        e               04 e
from site (2 miles
round-trip)
                                                                                                                                                lbs/mil      1.8E- lbs/mil         1.8E- lbs/mil         1.0E- lbs/mil
Workers' vehicles              45 miles/day                   80 employees                                                              0.02                                                                                   59.61     6.38    6.48        0.04      e
                                                                                                                                                e               03 e                  03 e                  05 e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               242.      51.9    476.
           TOTAL                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             7.02
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                39        2       94
a Construction equipment engine sizes were assumed based on typical units used for this type of project; assumptions were verified as appropriate by the contractor, SPEC Services. Emission factors were taken to be the California/Federal standards for engines with no
  limitations placed on equipment model year.
b Load factors for construction equipment are from "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California's Emissions Inventory for Off-Road Large Compression-Ignited Engines (>25HP) Using New Off-road Emissions Model". CARB Mailout #99-32.
  http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailout.
c Emission factors for trucks were derived from EMFAC2002 2005 Burden Inventory Los Angeles County (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/outputs/2002apr/CA2005_Los_AngelesSC.csv). Concrete trucks and gravel trucks were assumed to be heavy-
  heavy-duty diesel trucks. Water trucks were assumed to be average light-heavy-duty trucks and on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be average light-duty trucks.
d Emission factors for haul trucks are from EMFAC2002 for Los Angeles County using heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks for model years 1990 through 2004.
e Emission factors for workers' vehicles are from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroadEF03_25.xls (EMFAC2002 Burden Inventory).
Source: ENVIRON 2004




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                                                                                                                                                 3.2‐21
3.0 Environmental Analysis




3.2‐22                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality



Impact AQ-2       Operation of the proposed project would not
                  significantly increase the amount of air pollutant
                  emissions generated by the facility on a daily basis.

Expansion of the existing facility will increase the number of storage tanks and
ancillary equipment used on site. Pollutants emitted from the normal operation of
storage tanks include VOCs and related TACs (TACs are discussed below under
Impact AQ-3). VOC emissions from fuel storage tanks result from tank breathing
and working losses. VOC emissions also result from fugitive emissions from valves,
flanges, and pumps. Breathing losses occur during standing storage, while working
losses occur during withdrawal and filling of the tank. Breathing losses are a result
of evaporative losses through rim seals, deck fittings, and/or deck seams due to
diurnal temperature fluctuation.

Construction of the proposed project will require the demolition of four pre-
project storage tanks. The removal of these pre-project tanks would result in a
reduction of VOCs from normal operation of the removed tanks.

The daily emissions associated with the proposed expanded facility uses have been
calculated to determine the net increase in daily emissions associated with the
proposed project. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3.2-3.
The project has been redesigned since the publication of the November 2003 Draft
EIR and February 2004 Final EIR, and VOC and TAC emissions have been
reduced by over 80 percent compared to the earlier design and analysis. These
emissions reductions have been effected primarily through the use of new
technology to further reduce emissions from the tanks and through operational
restrictions that will reduce the drain-dry activities from what was specified in the
project design described in the November 2003 Draft EIR. This reduction in
emissions is fully described in the Air Quality Evaluation in Appendix B1.

The new storage tanks will be subject to the SCAQMD’s Regulation XIII (New
Source Review). Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1303 (Requirements), BACT will be
required for each storage tank. BACT for internal floating roof storage tanks will
require the installation of Category A tank seals and compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 463 (Organic Liquid Storage). BACT is the most effective control technology


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐23
3.0 Environmental Analysis


that exists for a particular type of source, regardless of cost. The proposed project
will also be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1173, which requires the control of emissions
from components at petroleum facilities. This rule requires quarterly testing to
ensure that components associated with the petroleum storage tanks are in good
repair. The proposed project will also be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1178, which
requires the further reduction of VOC emissions from storage tanks at petroleum
facilities.


          Table 3.2-3 Operational Emissions from Storage Tanks
                                                                   ROC       CO        PM10      SOX       NOX
                                                                (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Operation of storage tanks                                         141.9      —         —         —         —
Pumps, valves and flanges                                          42.3       —         —         —         —
ERCs used as offsets 2                                             -221       0         0         0         0
Further emission reductions from removal of old
tanks - operational emissions3                                     -51.0
Further emission reductions from removal of old
tanks - fugitive emissions from components4                         -8.9
Net increase/decrease                                              -96.7         0           0     0      0
SCAQMD daily thresholds (lbs/day)                                   55          550         150   150     55
Exceeds SCAQMD daily thresholds?                                    No          No          No    No      No
AQMD requires purchase of offsets at a ratio of 1.2 to 1.0: (141.9 X 1.2)+(42.3 x 1.2) = 221.
Source: ENVIRON 2004



The calculated emissions are the maximum potential daily emissions, not the
expected daily emissions. The maximum daily emissions are based on the
maximum tank throughput rate and the most volatile product (RVP 13 gasoline)
that may be stored in the new tanks. These assumptions are consistent with
assumptions used in the permit application submitted to the SCAQMD. Under
actual operations, the tanks will be used to store a variety of products that could
have lower volatility than RVP 13 gasoline, and, therefore, generate fewer
emissions than a tank that stores RVP 13 gasoline.

Table 3.2-3 also includes the amount of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) that
KMEP must purchase at a ratio of 1.2-to-1.0 to offset the increase in VOC
emissions resulting from the operation of the new storage tanks. ERCs are
“banked” emissions from sources that either voluntarily reduce their emissions, or
stop operating. In these cases, the reduced emissions can be turned into ERCs and


3.2‐24                                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


bought by other sources to comply with regulatory requirements. In accordance
with the rules and regulations of the USEPA and the SCAQMD, ERCs are true
emissions reductions. ERCs can only be created when the emissions reductions are
real, able to be quantified, and in excess of emissions reductions required by the
air quality regulations.

As noted earlier, the SCAQMD has advised the City that due to the regional nature
of ozone formation, the purchase of VOC ERCs can be used to reduce VOC
emissions to a level of insignificance when analyzing the project for significance in
accordance with the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. VOCs do not have
localized impact thresholds; they are a precursor to ozone formation on a regional
level. For this reason, SCAQMD Regulation XIII does not require that ERCs be
located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Nonetheless, ERCs have been
obtained by KMEP from two nearby locations as follows:
     552 Pier T Avenue, Long Beach, located approximately 3.5 miles south of the
     project site
     9112 Graham Avenue, Los Angeles, located approximately 8.5 miles north of
     the project site

Based on this analysis, the redesigned project would result in air quality impacts
that are considered less than significant because the net emissions increase would
not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric or risk-based significance thresholds. In fact,
emissions would be substantially less than under existing conditions. These
thresholds have been developed by the SCAQMD for projects within the Basin and
have been adopted by the City of Carson as the appropriate significance thresholds
for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

Where VOCs are also TACs, TACs are analyzed separately to evaluate the risk to
human health. This is discussed under Impact AQ-3 below. As shown, the net
increase in daily operational emissions associated with the expanded facility would
not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds. Therefore, this operational
air quality impact would be less than significant.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐25
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Impact AQ-3      Implementation of the proposed project may expose
                 sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

Some of the VOC that would be released from the operations of the storage tanks
are also toxic air contaminants (TACs). TAC emissions from fuel storage tanks
occur from fugitive emissions that result from both the tank’s breathing and
working losses. TAC emissions also result from fugitive emissions from the
associated piping components, which include valves, flanges, and pumps.
Breathing losses occur during standing storage, while working losses occur during
liquid withdrawal and tank refilling. Breathing losses are a result of evaporative
losses through rim seals, deck fittings, and/or deck seams.

TAC emissions may have an impact on local air quality and have the potential to
pose a health hazard to individuals living or working nearby the proposed project
area. For purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that project TAC emissions
would be the result of the increases of breathing and working losses from the
proposed 19 new storage tanks and the fugitive emissions from the new pumps,
valves and flanges. In addition, the pre-project TAC emissions that would be
eliminated from the removal of the four pre-project tanks and ancillary equipment
are considered a reduction in TAC emissions. The TACs that could be emitted from
the tanks and associated components were identified by reviewing material safety
data sheets (MSDSs) for products that would be stored in these tanks. In addition,
in SCAQMD’s air permit application process for this project, SCAQMD
recommended that additional TACs that it believes may be emitted from the
operation also be evaluated. Although there is no indication that such species will
be emitted from operations at the facility, they were added to the evaluation to be
consistent with the air permit application. The chemicals evaluated were benzene,
ethylbenzene, n-hexane, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), naphthalene, toluene,
total xylenes, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen sulfide, cresol, 1,3 butadiene, and
phenol. In order to provide a health-protective evaluation, the emission rates of
these chemicals were estimated at the maximum potential concentrations for any
liquid to be stored in the tank. The actual average concentrations of these
constituents in the product stored in the tanks are likely to be much lower. As a
result, the actual emissions of these chemicals from the operating site will be much



3.2‐26                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                   3.2 Air Quality


lower. The maximum emissions estimates of these chemicals are summarized in
Table 3.2-4.


         Table 3.2-4 Total TAC Emissions of the Proposed Project
                                                                            Net Emission Ratea
                   Pollutant                               (lbs per day)                         (tons per year)
VOCs                                                          124.3                                  22.68
Benzene                                                        3.48                                  0.63
Butadiene-1,3                                                  0.14                                  0.026
Cresol                                                       0.0016                                 0.0003
Ethylbenzene                                                   0.13                                  0.022
Hydrogen Fluoride                                              1.24                                  0.23
Hydrogen Sulfide                                               1.24                                  0.23
MTBE                                                          13.82                                  2.52
Naphthalene                                                  0.0018                                0.00032
n-Hexane                                                       5.13                                  0.94
Phenol                                                       0.0018                                0.00033
Toluene                                                        1.82                                  0.33
Xylenes                                                        0.51                                  0.093
aEmissions from 19 new IFR storage tanks less the emissions from the four pre-project storage tanks to be demolished.
Source: ENVIRON 2004



An HRA was performed to evaluate the potential health risks from project TAC
emissions to the closest offsite workers and residents as well as to staff and
students at a nearby school campus. An HRA is a regulatory evaluation of the
maximum potential risks to public health that may result as due to an action. In
the evaluation, two exposure scenarios were evaluated: (1) exposure under typical
(average) exposure conditions; and (2) exposure under a maximum (worst-case)
exposure scenario. For both exposure scenarios, conservative fate and transport
computer models were used to predict potential TAC concentrations that may
result from tank and component fugitive TAC emissions. The modeling parameters
and assumptions used in the assessment were health-protective to ensure that
potential risks would not be underestimated.

The computer model was programmed to predict exposures concentrations of each
TAC at each of the locations identified as having the closest residential,
occupational, and school receptors. These included the nearest locations of off-site

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                3.2‐27
3.0 Environmental Analysis


workers, residential areas in any direction, the nearest school property, and the
facility boundary.

The modeling results provided the maximum one-hour and the annual average
concentrations for each TAC at the selected off-site receptor locations. The
estimated exposure point concentrations were combined with toxicological
information for the chemicals of concern to estimate the potential incremental
cancer risks and noncancer acute and chronic health hazards associated with
chemical emissions from the project at selected locations. The potential risks for
each TAC were added together to determine the total risk for the proposed project.

Results of the risk assessment indicate that if the chemicals listed in Table 3.2-4
were emitted at the listed upper-bound rates, then the highest incremental cancer
risk for the off-site receptor calculated at the highest exposure level of 70 years of
continuous exposure for a single individual would be less than 10 in a million.
Risks for actual emissions and actual exposures would be substantially lower.

Similarly, the risks at the school, assuming that students and teachers are exposed
at the school property continuously for 70 years are also less than 10 in a million.
This exposure for students and teachers is clearly higher than the actual exposure
levels and results in a greater estimated risk. The risks for workers exposed
continuously at the boundary of the property during working hours for 40 years
are also less than 10 in a million. Incremental cancer risks estimated for potential
off-site receptors are summarized in Table 3.2-5. The estimated incremental
cancer risk is less than the 10 in one million thresholds of significance
recommended by the SCAQMD. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.


 Table 3.2-5 Summary of Estimated Health Risk and Hazards for
                            Off-Site Receptors
                                               Estimated       Estimated Total    Estimated Total
     Exposure Scenario and Receptor       Incremental Cancer   Chronic Hazard      Acute Hazard
                                             Risk (unitless)   Index (unitless)   Index (unitless)
 Off-Site Adult Resident
 70 Year High-End Exposure Scenario           1.80E-06             0.003                NA
 70 Year Average Exposure Scenario            1.23E-06



3.2‐28                                Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                        3.2 Air Quality




 Table 3.2-5 Summary of Estimated Health Risk and Hazards for
                            Off-Site Receptors
                                                     Estimated       Estimated Total     Estimated Total
     Exposure Scenario and Receptor             Incremental Cancer   Chronic Hazard       Acute Hazard
                                                   Risk (unitless)   Index (unitless)    Index (unitless)
 30 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                  7.71E-07
 30 Year Average Exposure Scenario                   5.26E-07
 9 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                   2.31E-07
 9 Year Average Exposure Scenario                    1.58E-07
Off-Site Child Resident
 9 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                   3.42E-07
                                                                         0.003                 NA
 9 Year Average Exposure Scenario                    2.65E-07
Off-Site Worker
Maximum Off-Site Worker                              4.73E-06             0.05                 NA
Off-site Adult School        Receptorsa
 70 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                  1.51E-06
 70 Year Average Exposure Scenario                   1.03E-06
 30 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                  6.48E-07
                                                                         0.003                 NA
 30 Year Average Exposure Scenario                   4.43E-07
 9 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                   1.95E-07
 9 Year Average Exposure Scenario                    1.33E-07
Off-Site Child School        Receptorsa
 9 Year High-End Exposure Scenario                   2.88E-07
                                                                         0.003                 NA
 9 Year Average Exposure Scenario                    2.23E-07
Boundary Receptor                                                                              0.8
NA Not applicable.
a Conservatively assumes residential receptor at school location.
Source: ENVIRON 2004



As shown in Table 3.2-5, the results of the noncancer acute and chronic non-
cancer health effects assessment indicate that all hazard quotients would be far
less than 1.0. Acute and/or chronic hazard quotient values of less than one indicate
that noncancer effects from exposure to project emissions are insignificant.
Therefore, this impact would also be less than significant.

In accordance with SCAQMD regulations, the fugitive TAC emissions from the
project will be controlled by T-BACT, which is the best control technology
available, regardless of cost. Although the project’s air quality impacts from


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                  3.2‐29
3.0 Environmental Analysis


emissions of TACs are less than significant, the project proponent has agreed to
the following measure to further reduce toxic emissions associated with existing
and future Carson Terminal operations:
      Within six months of receipt of all permits and commencement of
      construction, KMEP will evaluate its existing leak detection and control
      systems to identify any measures that could further reduce the possibility of
      leaks to soil or groundwater from existing tanks. If feasible additional
      prevention and control measures are identified, KMEP will implement those
      feasible measures within 24 months of receipt of all permits and
      commencement of construction.

Impact AQ-4       Implementation of the proposed project would not
                  generate significant objectionable odors.

Airborne odors would be generated during the construction phases of development
and after the project is completed and operational. Airborne odors would be
generated during the site preparation phases by heavy-duty diesel vehicles
operating on the project site. During the building construction phases, odors
would result from the application of architectural coatings such as paints and
varnishes, and the paving of asphalt parking surfaces would generate odors.

When completed and operational, odors would primarily be generated by daily
operational activities such as the transportation and storage of petroleum products
on site. Due to the highly industrialized characteristics of the project site and its
surroundings, and the fact that the nearest sensitive receptors are the residential
units located more than 3,500 feet from the project site, objectionable odors are
not expected to occur and impacts from such odors would be considered less
than significant.

3.2.5     Cumulative Impacts
The City of Carson has adopted the SCAQMD’s methodology for assessing
cumulative air quality impacts. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
identifies possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use
projects. These methods differ from the methodology used in other cumulative
impact analyses in which all foreseeable future development within a given service
boundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The

3.2‐30                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


SCAQMD has not identified thresholds to which the total emissions of all
cumulative development can be compared. Instead, the SCAQMD’s methods are
based on performance standards (for example Rule 403 Fugitive Dust) and
emission reduction targets necessary to attain the federal and state air quality
standards as predicted in the AQMP.

Impact AQ-5       Short-term construction impacts of the proposed
                  project, in conjunction with other projects in the
                  region, could cumulatively exacerbate existing air
                  quality or delay the attainment of air quality goals as
                  proposed in the AQMP during peak construction
                  activities.

Currently, the Basin is in non-attainment for ozone, CO, and PM10. Depending on
construction schedules and actual implementation of other projects in the area,
construction of the proposed project could result in a short-term significant impact
on air quality. The following two projects were evaluated for cumulative
significance based on consultation with the City of Carson regarding pending
applications for new projects in the Carson Terminal vicinity:
     BP Office Project, located south of 223rd Street and west of Johns Manville
     Street in Carson, a 15-acre site located 1½ miles north of Carson Terminal
     Off Dock USA Container Terminal Project, located at 22700 South Alameda
     Street in Carson, a 13.5-acre site located 3/4 mile north of Carson Terminal

The proposed Carson Terminal Expansion project could result in significant
construction emissions for NOx for up to eight months for the first year of
construction, and one month during the second year of construction. The
emissions drop substantially below the NOx threshold of significance for the
balance of the construction period. The proposed Carson Terminal Expansion
project is significant for PM10 for up to two months during the first year of
construction, and is not near the significance threshold during the balance of the
construction period.

The two projects listed above will have some amount of grading, demolition, and
truck trips associated with their construction. Those activities may occur during
the same time frame as the proposed Carson Terminal Expansion project.
However, at the time of this analysis, there was insufficient project information for


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐31
3.0 Environmental Analysis


the projects listed above to perform a quantitative analysis of potential cumulative
air quality impacts. Also, at the time of this analysis, there was no information
concerning the mitigation measures that will be employed by the projects listed
above. These projects will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 and
possibly other mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions. However,
even with mitigation, these two projects will likely contribute additional NOx and
PM10 to the region. When those projects' construction emissions are analyzed
individually, they may or may not exceed the SCAQMD's numerical significance
thresholds.

Because the proposed Carson Terminal Expansion project would result in an
individually significant impact for construction air quality impacts (i.e.,
construction emissions are expected to exceed the numerical threshold for
construction, which is a regional impact), the proposed Carson Terminal
Expansion project would also be cumulatively significant when these two projects
are assessed in conjunction with the proposed Carson Terminal Expansion project.
Although the additional impact from the two additional projects listed above can
not be assessed at this time due to lack of data, any cumulative air quality impacts
will likely be minimal due to the short duration of the impacts.

Implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) in compliance
with SCAQMD rules during site grading activities would greatly reduce fugitive
dust emissions and NOX emissions. However, even with these measures in place,
implementation of the proposed project could temporarily exacerbate existing air
quality or delay the attainment of air quality goals as proposed in the AQMP and
could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to similar short-term
impacts in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts
related to project construction would be significant.

Impact AQ-6      Operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with
                 other projects in the region, will not cumulatively
                 exacerbate existing air quality or delay the attainment
                 of air quality goals as proposed in the AQMP.

Only VOC emissions are generated from operation of this project. As discussed
above, the applicant would be required to provide VOC ERCs to offset any increase


3.2‐32                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.2 Air Quality


in VOC emissions generated from the operation of the proposed project. As
discussed in Section 3.2.4 (Impact AQ-2), ERCs are an effective means of reducing
emissions because they represent real, quantifiable emissions reductions in the air
basin in which the project is located. Therefore, upon supplying the required
amount of ERCs, the operation of the proposed project will have a negative net
increase in VOC emissions. Hence, the implementation of the proposed project
will not exacerbate existing air quality or delay the attainment of air quality goals
as proposed in the AQMP and cumulative air quality impacts related to project
operations would be less than significant.

3.2.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
The redesigned project would result in air quality impacts that are considered less
than significant for operations because the net emissions would not exceed the
significance thresholds that have been developed by the SCAQMD and adopted by
the City as the appropriate significance thresholds for projects within the City’s
jurisdiction. However, the project could have temporary significant impacts as a
result of the construction of the project. Therefore, all feasible mitigation is
required under CEQA to reduce construction related impacts. The following
measures are included in this Revised EIR as required mitigations.

     MM AQ-1      The project shall implement the following measures to reduce
                  potentially significant direct and cumulative emissions during
                  construction to the extent that these measures are both feasible
                  and effective:
                  ■   Use of emulsified fuel (emulsification of diesel and water) in
                      heavy construction vehicles if available from the selected
                      contractor at reasonable market prices and if the on-site
                      vehicle can perform as required. Emulsified fuel is
                      accompanied with a reduction in power that may impact
                      whether all types of on-site equipment can use this fuel.
                  ■   Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) or Low Sulfur Diesel
                      (LSD) in heavy construction vehicles where emulsified fuel
                      cannot be used, if available from the selected contractor at
                      reasonable market prices.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.2‐33
3.0 Environmental Analysis


                ■   Use ethanol- or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and
                    pile drivers instead of diesel-powered equipment to the
                    extent available and at competitive prices. Propane- or
                    butane-powered on-site mobile equipment shall be used
                    instead of gasoline-powered equipment to the extent
                    available and found to be feasible.
                ■   Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition
                    and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications and
                    per SCAQMD rules.
                ■   Install equipment emission controls such as particulate
                    traps and oxidation catalysts on onsite earthmoving
                    equipment, if feasible. Based on current designs, this
                    technology has not been shown to be effective when used
                    with other control technologies, such as emulsified diesel
                    fuel. In addition, this technology has not been shown to be
                    effective on certain types of off-road vehicles, such as track
                    vehicles. If this technology is not feasible with emulsified
                    diesel fuel, then the available technologies that show
                    effective reduction in emissions will be used.
                ■   Request the use by contractors of compressed or liquefied
                    natural gas (CNG or LNG)-powered trucks and CNG or
                    propane-powered construction equipment, to the extent
                    available for short-term construction projects.
                ■   Use the lowest VOC paint that meets performance
                    specifications and use rollers rather than sprayers to apply
                    paint to tanks to the degree that this results in reduced
                    emissions over sprayers, as dependent upon coating
                    thickness.

      MM AQ-2   The project shall minimize PM10 emissions during construction
                by implementing all feasible measures specified by SCAQMD’s
                Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The project
                shall further minimize PM10 emissions and implement a traffic
                control plan with the following provisions:
                ■   Require the configuration of construction parking to
                    minimize traffic interference.



3.2‐34                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                    3.2 Air Quality


                      ■   Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of
                          construction activities to maintain traffic flow.
                      ■   Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on
                          the arterial system to off-peak hours, to the extent feasible.
                      ■   Consolidate truck deliveries when possible.
                      ■   Provide a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between
                          truck traffic and sensitive receptors.
                      ■   Re-route truck traffic by restricting truck traffic on routes to
                          minimize impacts to sensitive receptors.
                      ■   Enforce truck parking restrictions.
                      ■   Restrict truck idling to no more than ten consecutive
                          minutes.
                      ■   Pave on-site construction roads.

The maximum daily mitigated fugitive dust and construction equipment exhaust
emissions are shown in Table 3.2-6a and Table 3.2-6b (Mitigation scenario #1) and
Table 3.2-7a and Table 3.2-7b (Mitigation scenario #2). Mitigation scenario #1 is
the use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for on-site construction equipment, haul
trucks, and water trucks, and paving and cleaning on-site construction roads.
Mitigation scenario #2 is the same as Mitigation scenario #1 except that on-site
construction equipment will be equipped with NOx catalytic systems in lieu of the
use of emulsified diesel/water fuel in these pieces of equipment.2




2 Based on current design information, these systems may not be effective when used in conjunction with

other control measures, such as emulsified fuel. The use of a NOx catalytic system and emulsified
(diesel/water) fuel may result in competing reduction measures and may impede each other’s performance.
The designer of one catalytic system, Cleaire, does not recommend using catalytic systems on off-road
engines with emulsified fuel.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                             3.2‐35
3.0 Environmental Analysis




3.2‐36                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                                                                                          3.2 Air Quality




    Table 3.2-6a             Maximum Daily Mitigated Fugitive Dust and Construction Equipment Exhaust PM10 Emissions—Mitigation Scenario #1, Month 3
                                                                                                                                                                                     PM10 Emissions
                    Source                      Parameter 1        Units      Parameter 2        Units    Parameter 3   Units     Parameter 4    Units       PM10 Emission Factor      (lbs/day)      Notes
Compactor                                               175 hp                       0.59 load factor              10 hrs/day               2 units/day   1.1E-03 lbs/hp-hr              1.57         b,c,d
Earthmover/Bulldozer                                    175 hp                       0.59 load factor              10 hrs/day               2 units/day   1.1E-03 lbs/hp-hr              1.57         b,c,d
                                                                                                                                                           2.0E-
Excavator                                                75 hp                       0.57 load factor              10 hrs/day               1 unit/day           lbs/hp-hr               0.63         b,c,d
                                                                                                                                                              03
Backhoe                                                 175 hp                       0.55 load factor              10 hrs/day               2 units/day   1.1E-03 lbs/hp-hr              1.54         b,c,d
                                                                                                                                                           3.3E-
Scraper                                                275 hp                        0.72 load factor              10 hrs/day               2 units/day          lbs/hp-hr               0.93         b,c,d
                                                                                                                                                              04
                                                                                                                                                           3.5E-
Crane                                                  450 hp                        0.43 load factor              10 hrs/day               1 unit/day           lbs/hp-hr               0.49         b,c,d
                                                                                                                                                              04
                                                              miles/round-                                                                                 8.3E-
Concrete truck                                           10                             1 round-trip/hr             8 hrs/day                                    lbs/mile                0.07           e
                                                              trip                                                                                            04
                                                                                                                                                           1.0E-
Water truck                                             20 miles/day                    3 trucks/day                                                             lbs/mile              2.5E-03         e,f
                                                                                                                                                              04
                                                                                                                                                           9.0E-
On-site pickup truck                                     10 miles/day                   7 trucks/day                                                             lbs/mile              6.3E-03          e
                                                                                                                                                              05
Earth moving                                             10 hrs/day                     2 earthmovers                                                       0.46 lbs/hr                   9.2          g
Trucks transporting material to and from site                                               round-                                                         7.0E-
                                                          1 mile/round-trip           50                                                                         lbs/mile              1.5E-02         f,h
(1 mile round-trip)                                                                         trips/day                                                         04
Trucks transporting material to and from site                 miles/round-                  round-                                                         7.0E-
                                                          2                          100                                                                         lbs/mile                0.06          f,h
(2 miles round-trip)                                          trip                          trips/day                                                         04
Trucks transporting material to and from site                 miles/round-                  round-                                                         7.0E-
                                                         15                           50                                                                         lbs/mile                0.22          f,h
(15 miles round-trip)                                         trip                          trips/day                                                         04
On-site fugitive road dust (paved)                     200 trucks/day                                                                                       0.77 lbs/truck              153.92          i
                                                                                                                                                            9.1E- lbs/ton material
Material dumping                                       200 trucks/day                  16 yd3/truck               1.5 tons/ yd3                                                          43.56          j
                                                                                                                                                               03 dumped
                                                                                                                                                           7.9E-
Workers' vehicles                                       45 miles/day                  80 employees                                                               lbs/mile                0.28          k
                                                                                                                                                              05
                                     TOTAL                                                                                                                                              214.05




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                                                                                   3.2‐37
3.0 Environmental Analysis


 a Mitigation measures include use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for on-site construction equipment, haul trucks, and water trucks, only using on-site construction equipment that is model year 2001 or later, and paving and cleaning on-site construction roads.
 b Construction equipment engine sizes were assumed based on typical units used for this type of project; assumptions were verified as appropriate by the contractor, SPEC Services. Emission factors were taken to be the California/Federal standards for engines that are
     model year 2001 or later.
 c Load factors for construction equipment are from "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California's Emissions Inventory for Off-Road Large Compression-Ignited Engines (>25HP) Using New Off-road Emissions Model". CARB Mailout #99-32.
     http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailout.
 d Includes reductions PM10 emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for off-road engines (28% PM10 reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft Technical
     Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
 e Emission factors for trucks were derived from EMFAC2002 2005 Burden Inventory Los Angeles County (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/outputs/2002apr/CA2005_Los_AngelesSC.csv). Concrete trucks and gravel trucks were assumed to be heavy-
     heavy-duty diesel trucks. Water trucks were assumed to be average light-heavy-duty trucks and on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be average light-duty trucks.
 f Includes reductions in PM10 emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for on-road engines (58% PM10 reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft Technical
     Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
 g SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 11-4 (average control for grading PM10 emissions with watering at least twice daily).
 h Emission factors for haul trucks are from EMFAC2002 for Los Angeles County using heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks for model years 1990 through 2004.
 i Fugitive dust emission factor for haul truck travel on on-site paved roads based on AP-42, Section 13.2.1. Silt loading factor used in calculation of emission factor is for construction sites with road cleaning from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9-C-1.
 j SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 (truck dumping).
 k Emission factors for workers' vehicles are from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroadEF03_25.xls (EMFAC2002 Burden Inventory).
 Source: ENVIRON 2004




3.2‐38                                                                                                                                                                                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.2 Air Quality




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR             3.2‐39
3.0 Environmental Analysis




    Table 3.2-6b               Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Equipment Exhaust CO, VOC, NOx, and SOx Emissions—Mitigation Scenario #1, Month 4
                                                                                                                                                 CO                     VOC                   NOx                    SOx                   Emissions (lbs/day)
                                                                                                                                        Emissi                 Emissi                Emissi                 Emissi
                         Paramet                         Paramete                      Paramete               Paramete                    on                     on                    on                     on                                                        Not
        Source             er 1            Units            r2            Units           r3         Units       r4          Units      Factor        Units    Factor      Units     Factor         Units   Factor         Units     CO       VOC      NOx       SOx    es
                                                                                                    hrs/d                   units/d      1.3E- lbs/hp-          3.2E- lbs/hp-                   lbs/hp-      4.7E- lbs/hp-                    10.0    100.0
Compactor                      175 hp                         0.59 load factor                10                       3                                                               0.03                                        39.55                         1.46   a,b
                                                                                                    ay                      ay              02 hr                  03 hr                        hr              04 hr                          0        2
Earthmover/Bull                                                                                     hrs/d                   units/d      1.3E- lbs/hp-          3.2E- lbs/hp-                   lbs/hp-      4.7E- lbs/hp-                    13.3    133.3
                               175 hp                         0.59 load factor                10                       4                                                               0.03                                        52.74                         1.94   a,b
dozer                                                                                               ay                      ay              02 hr                  03 hr                        hr              04 hr                          3        6
                                                                                                    hrs/d                   unit/da      9.3E- lbs/hp-         3.0E- lbs/hp-                    lbs/hp-      4.9E- lbs/hp-
Excavator                       75 hp                         0.57 load factor                10                        1                                                              0.02                                        3.99       1.28     9.79      0.21   a,b
                                                                                                    ay                      y               03 hr                 03 hr                         hr              04 hr
                                                                                                    hrs/d                   units/d       1.1E- lbs/hp-         2.7E- lbs/hp-                   lbs/hp-      4.1E- lbs/hp-                    16.0    175.2      2.4
Scraper                        275 hp                         0.72 load factor                10                       3                                                               0.03                                        67.54                                a,b
                                                                                                    ay                      ay               02 hr                 03 hr                        hr              04 hr                          0        3         4
                                                                                                    hrs/d                   unit/da      7.5E- lbs/hp-          2.2E- lbs/hp-                   lbs/hp-      4.1E- lbs/hp-                                       0.7
Crane                         450 hp                          0.43 load factor                10                        1                                                              0.02                                        14.51      4.23    37.04             a,b
                                                                                                    ay                      y               03 hr                  03 hr                        hr              04 hr                                             9
                                      miles/round-                    round-trip                    hrs/d                                6.9E- lbs/mil          1.7E- lbs/mil                   lbs/mil      4.1E- lbs/mil                                       0.0
Concrete truck                  10                                1                             8                                                                                      0.04                                        0.55       0.14     3.23              c
                                      trip                            /hr                           ay                                      03 e                   03 e                         e               04 e                                              3
                                      miles/round-                    round-                        hrs/d                                6.9E- lbs/mil          1.7E- lbs/mil                   lbs/mil      4.1E- lbs/mil                                       0.0
Gravel truck                    10                                1                             8                                                                                      0.04                                        0.55       0.14     3.23              c
                                      trip                            trip/hr                       ay                                      03 e                   03 e                         e               04 e                                              3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2.3
                                                                                                                                                  lbs/mil       1.6E- lbs/mil         7.3E- lbs/mil          3.8E- lbs/mil
Water truck                     20 miles/day                      3 trucks/day                                                            0.02                                                                                      1.06      0.10    0.44       E-      c
                                                                                                                                                  e                03 e                  03 e                   05 e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 03
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 6.5
On-site pickup                                                                                                                                    lbs/mil       1.2E- lbs/mil         2.0E- lbs/mil           1.1E- lbs/mil
                                10 miles/day                      6 trucks/day                                                            0.02                                                                                      1.22      0.07     0.12      E-      c
truck                                                                                                                                             e                03 e                  03 e                    05 e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 04
Trucks
transporting
                                      miles/round-                    round-                                                             5.4E- lbs/mil          1.3E- lbs/mil                   lbs/mil      4.1E- lbs/mil                                       0.0
material to and                   2                            100                                                                                                                     0.04                                         1.07      0.25     7.98              d
                                      trip                            trips/day                                                             03 e                   03 e                         e               04 e                                              8
from site (2 miles
round-trip)
                                                                                                                                                  lbs/mil       1.8E- lbs/mil         1.8E- lbs/mil          1.0E- lbs/mil                                       0.0
Workers' vehicles               45 miles/day                    80 employees                                                              0.02                                                                                     59.61      6.38    6.48               e
                                                                                                                                                  e                03 e                  03 e                   05 e                                              4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   242.       51.9    476.       7.0
            TOTAL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    39         2       94         2
a   Mitigation measures include use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for on-site construction equipment, haul trucks, and water trucks, only using on-site construction equipment that is model year 2001 or later, and paving and cleaning on-site construction roads.
b   Construction equipment engine sizes were assumed based on typical units used for this type of project; assumptions were verified as appropriate by the contractor, SPEC Services. Emission factors were taken to be the California/Federal standards for engines that are
    model year 2001 or later.
c   Load factors for construction equipment are from "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California's Emissions Inventory for Off-Road Large Compression-Ignited Engines (>25HP) Using New Off-road Emissions Model". CARB Mailout #99-32.
    http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailout.
d   Includes reductions in NOx emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for off-road engines (21% NOx reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft Technical
    Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
e   Emission factors for trucks were derived from EMFAC2002 2005 Burden Inventory Los Angeles County (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/outputs/2002apr/CA2005_Los_AngelesSC.csv). Concrete trucks and gravel trucks were assumed to be heavy-
    heavy-duty diesel trucks. Water trucks were assumed to be average light-heavy-duty trucks and on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be average light-duty trucks.
f   Includes reductions in NOx emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for on-road engines (14% NOx reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft Technical
    Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
g   Emission factors for haul trucks are from EMFAC2002 for Los Angeles County using heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks for model years 1990 through 2004.
h   Emission factors for workers' vehicles are from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroadEF03_25.xls (EMFAC2002 Burden Inventory).


3.2‐40                                                                                                                                                                                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.2 Air Quality


Source: ENVIRON 2004




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR             3.2‐41
3.0 Environmental Analysis




3.2‐42                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                                                                                                        3.2 Air Quality




    Table 3.2-7a             Maximum Daily Mitigated Fugitive Dust and Construction Equipment Exhaust PM10 Emissions—Mitigation Scenario #2, Month 3
                                                                                                                                                                                   PM10 Emissions
                    Source                   Parameter 1       Units       Parameter 2        Units    Parameter 3     Units    Parameter 4    Units       PM10 Emission Factor      (lbs/day)      Notes
Compactor                                            175 hp                       0.59 load factor              10 hrs/day                2 units/day   1.1E-03 lbs/hp-hr                    0.22   b,c,d
Earthmover/Bulldozer                                 175 hp                       0.59 load factor              10 hrs/day                2 units/day   1.1E-03 lbs/hp-hr                    0.22   b,c,d
                                                      75 hp                       0.57 load factor              10 hrs/day                1 unit/day     2.0E- lbs/hp-hr                     0.09   b,c,d
Excavator
                                                                                                                                                            03
Backhoe                                              175 hp                       0.55 load factor              10 hrs/day                2 units/day   1.1E-03 lbs/hp-hr                    0.21   b,c,d
                                                    275 hp                        0.72 load factor              10 hrs/day                2 units/day    3.3E- lbs/hp-hr                     0.13   b,c,d
Scraper
                                                                                                                                                            04
                                                    450 hp                        0.43 load factor              10 hrs/day                1 unit/day     3.5E- lbs/hp-hr                     0.07   b,c,d
Crane
                                                                                                                                                            04
                                                      10 miles/round-                1 round-trip/hr             8 hrs/day                               8.3E- lbs/mile                      0.07     e
Concrete truck
                                                         trip                                                                                               04
                                                     20 miles/day                    3 trucks/day                                                        1.0E- lbs/mile                  2.5E-03     e,f
Water truck
                                                                                                                                                            04
                                                      10 miles/day                   7 trucks/day                                                        9.0E- lbs/mile                  6.3E-03      e
On-site pickup truck
                                                                                                                                                            05
Earth moving                                          10 hrs/day                     2 earthmovers                                                        0.46 lbs/hr                        9.20    g
Trucks transporting material to and from               1 mile/round-trip           50 round-                                                             7.0E- lbs/mile                   1.5E-02    f,h
site (1 mile round-trip)                                                              trips/day                                                             04
Trucks transporting material to and from               2 miles/round-             100 round-                                                             7.0E- lbs/mile                      0.06    f,h
site (2 miles round-trip)                                trip                         trips/day                                                             04
Trucks transporting material to and from              15 miles/round-              50 round-                                                             7.0E- lbs/mile                      0.22    f,h
site (15 miles round-trip)                               trip                         trips/day                                                             04
On-site fugitive road dust (paved)                  200 trucks/day                                                                                        0.77 lbs/truck                   153.92     i
                                                    200 trucks/day                  16   yd3/truck             1.5   tons/yd3                             9.1E- lbs/ton material            43.56     j
Material dumping
                                                                                                                                                             03 dumped
                                                      45 miles/day                 80 employees                                                          7.9E- lbs/mile                      0.28    k
Workers' vehicles
                                                                                                                                                            05
                                     TOTAL                                                                                                                                               208.26




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                                                                                                                 3.2‐43
3.0 Environmental Analysis


 a Mitigation measures include use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for on-site construction equipment, haul trucks, and water trucks, only using on-site construction equipment that is model year 2001 or later, and paving and cleaning on-site construction roads.
 b Construction equipment engine sizes were assumed based on typical units used for this type of project; assumptions were verified as appropriate by the contractor, SPEC Services. Emission factors were taken to be the California/Federal standards for engines that are
   model year 2001 or later.
 c Load factors for construction equipment are from "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California's Emissions Inventory for Off-Road Large Compression-Ignited Engines (>25HP) Using New Off-road Emissions Model". CARB Mailout #99-32.
   http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailout.
 d Includes reductions PM10 emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for off-road engines (28% PM10 reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft Technical
   Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
 e Emission factors for trucks were derived from EMFAC2002 2005 Burden Inventory Los Angeles County (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/outputs/2002apr/CA2005_Los_AngelesSC.csv). Concrete trucks and gravel trucks were assumed to be
   heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks. Water trucks were assumed to be average light-heavy-duty trucks and on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be average light-duty trucks.
 f Includes reductions in PM10 emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for on-road engines (58% PM10 reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft
   Technical Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
 g SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 11-4 (average control for grading PM10 emissions with watering at least twice daily).
 h Emission factors for haul trucks are from EMFAC2002 for Los Angeles County using heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks for model years 1990 through 2004.
 i Fugitive dust emission factor for haul truck travel on on-site paved roads based on AP-42, Section 13.2.1. Silt loading factor used in calculation of emission factor is for construction sites with road cleaning from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9-C-1.
 j SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-9 (truck dumping).
 k Emission factors for workers' vehicles are from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroadEF03_25.xls (EMFAC2002 Burden Inventory).
 Source: ENVIRON 2004




3.2‐44                                                                                                                                                                                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.2 Air Quality




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR             3.2‐45
3.0 Environmental Analysis




    Table 3.2-7b              Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Equipment Exhaust CO, VOC, NOx, and SOx Emissions—Mitigation Scenario #2, Month 4
                                                                                                                                                  CO                    VOC                    NOx                    SOx                  Emissions (lbs/day)
                                                                                                                                         Emissi                Emissi                 Emissi                 Emissi
                         Paramete                        Paramete                      Paramete                Paramete                    on                    on                     on                     on                             VO                      Not
        Source              r1             Units            r2            Units           r3         Units        r4          Units      Factor        Units   Factor      Units      Factor         Units   Factor         Units    CO        C    NOx      SOx      es
                               175 hp                         0.59 load factor                 10 hrs/d                 3 units/d         6.5E- lbs/hp-        1.7E-0 lbs/hp-         1.7E-0 lbs/hp-          4.7E- lbs/hp-         20.1      5.4   38.7    1.46      b,c,
Compactor
                                                                                                  ay                      ay                 03 hr                  3 hr                   2 hr                  04 hr               7         1     9                 d
Earthmover/Bulld               175 hp                         0.59 load factor                 10 hrs/d                 4 units/d         6.5E- lbs/hp-          1.7E- lbs/hp-          1.7E- lbs/hp-         4.7E- lbs/hp-         26.9      7.2   51.7    1.94      b,c,
ozer                                                                                              ay                      ay                 03 hr                  03 hr                  02 hr                 04 hr               0         2     1                 d
                                75 hp                          0.57 load factor                10 hrs/d                 1 unit/da        8.6E- lbs/hp-          2.6E- lbs/hp-          2.1E- lbs/hp-          4.9E- lbs/hp-         3.69      1.1   6.70    0.21      b,c,
Excavator
                                                                                                  ay                      y                 03 hr                  03 hr                  02 hr                  04 hr                         3                       d
                               275 hp                         0.72 load factor                 10 hrs/d                 3 units/d         2.2E- lbs/hp-          6.1E- lbs/hp-         1.2E- lbs/hp-          4.1E- lbs/hp-         13.0      3.6   51.7    2.44      b,c,
Scraper
                                                                                                  ay                      ay                 03 hr                  04 hr                 02 hr                  04 hr               8         0     1                 d
                              450 hp                          0.43 load factor                 10 hrs/d                 1 unit/da         2.3E- lbs/hp-         6.7E- lbs/hp-          1.2E- lbs/hp-          4.1E- lbs/hp-         4.38      1.3   17.2    0.79      b,c,
Crane
                                                                                                  ay                      y                  03 hr                 04 hr                  02 hr                  04 hr                         0     0                 d
                                10 miles/round-                    1 round-                     8 hrs/d                                  6.9E- lbs/mil           1.7E- lbs/mil          0.04 lbs/mil          4.1E- lbs/mil         0.55      0.1   3.23    0.03       e
Concrete truck
                                   trip                              trip/hr                      ay                                        03 e                    03 e                     e                   04 e                          4
                                10 miles/round-                    1 round-trip                 8 hrs/d                                  6.9E- lbs/mil           1.7E- lbs/mil          0.04 lbs/mil          4.1E- lbs/mil         0.55      0.1   3.23    0.03       e
Gravel truck
                                   trip                              /hr                          ay                                        03 e                    03 e                     e                   04 e                          4
                                20 miles/day                      3 trucks/day                                                             0.02 lbs/mil          1.6E- lbs/mil         7.3E- lbs/mil          3.8E- lbs/mil         1.06      0.1   0.38    2.3E-      e,f
Water truck
                                                                                                                                                e                   03 e                  03 e                   05 e                          0             03
On-site pickup                  10 miles/day                      6 trucks/day                                                             0.02 lbs/mil          1.2E- lbs/mil         2.0E- lbs/mil           1.1E- lbs/mil        1.22     0.0    0.12    6.5E-      e
truck                                                                                                                                           e                   03 e                  03 e                    05 e                        7              04
Trucks                           2 miles/round-                100 round-                                                                 5.4E- lbs/mil          1.3E- lbs/mil         4.0E- lbs/mil          4.1E- lbs/mil         1.07     0.2    6.86    0.08       f,g
transporting                       trip                            trips/day                                                                 03 e                   03 e                  02 e                   04 e                         5
material to and
from site (2 miles
round-trip)
                                45 miles/day                    80 employees                                                               0.02 lbs/mil          1.8E- lbs/mil         1.8E- lbs/mil          1.0E- lbs/mil         59.6      6.3   6.48    0.04       h
Workers' vehicles
                                                                                                                                                e                   03 e                  03 e                   05 e                1         8
            TOTAL
a Mitigation measures include use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for haul trucks and water trucks, equipping on-site construction equipment with NOx catalytic systems, only using on-site construction equipment that is model year 2001 or newer, and paving and
  cleaning on-site construction roads.
b Construction equipment engine sizes were assumed based on typical units used for this type of project; assumptions were verified as appropriate by the contractor, SPEC Services. Emission factors were taken to be the California/Federal standards for engines that are
  model year 2001 or later.
c Load factors for construction equipment are from "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of California's Emissions Inventory for Off-Road Large Compression-Ignited Engines (>25HP) Using New Off-road Emissions Model". CARB Mailout #99-32.
  http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailout.
d Includes reductions in NOx emissions based on the use of NOx catalytic systems for off-road engines (25% NOx reduction). References: Lindhjem, Christian, et al. 2004. "Emission Control Technologies and Programs for Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Fleets in North
  America". Submitted for publication to AWMA. Paper No. 371; ENVIRONMENT CANADA. 2001. City of Houston Diesel Field Demonstration Project. ERMD Report #01-36.
e Emission factors for trucks were derived from EMFAC2002 2005 Burden Inventory Los Angeles County (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/downloads/outputs/2002apr/CA2005_Los_AngelesSC.csv). Concrete trucks and gravel trucks were assumed to be heavy-
  heavy-duty diesel trucks. Water trucks were assumed to be average light-heavy-duty trucks and on-site pickup trucks were assumed to be average light-duty trucks.
f Includes reductions in NOx emissions based on the use of emulsified fuel for on-road engines (14% NOx reduction). Reference: USEPA. 2002. "Impacts of Lubrizol's PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines". Draft Technical
  Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
g Emission factors for haul trucks are from EMFAC2002 for Los Angeles County using heavy-heavy-duty diesel trucks for model years 1990 through 2004.
h Emission factors for workers' vehicles are from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroadEF03_25.xls (EMFAC2002 Burden Inventory).
Source: ENVIRON 2004



3.2‐46                                                                                                                                                                                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.2 Air Quality




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR             3.2‐47
3.0 Environmental Analysis



A comparison of construction emissions before and after implementation of the
above mitigations is provided in Table 3.2-8. After implementation of the above
mitigation measures, construction air quality impacts for NOx and PM10 could
remain significant on the assumed worst-case day of construction activity. While
the peak construction day may still exceed the SCAQMD construction significance
thresholds for NOx and PM10, the overall project emissions would be greatly
reduced and would remain under the threshold for most, if not all, days of
construction. Refer to the Air Quality Evaluation provided in Appendix B1 for
additional information on the peak construction emissions and emission control
measure assumptions.


     Table 3.2-8 Comparison of Construction Emissions Before and
                                 After Mitigation
                                                          Maximum Daily Emissions (lb/day)
              Scenario
                                             CO            VOC          NOx           SOx                PM10
 Unmitigated Scenario                      242.4            51.9           476.9           7.0          273.1
 Mitigation Scenario #1a                   132.3            25.7           195.3           7.0          214.1
 Mitigation Scenario #2b                   132.3            25.7           186.4           7.0          208.3
 a Mitigation measures include use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for on-site construction equipment, haul trucks,
   and water trucks, only using on-site construction equipment that is model year 2001 or newer, and paving and
   cleaning on-site construction roads.
 b Mitigation measures include use of emulsified diesel/water fuel for haul trucks and water trucks, equipping on-
   site construction equipment with NOx catalytic systems, only using on-site construction equipment that is model
   year 2001 or newer, and paving and cleaning on-site construction roads.
 Source: ENVIRON 2004



In addition to the above-required mitigation, the following measures are included
in this Revised EIR to further reduce the potential impacts of project operations
during the life of the project.

       MM AQ-3           The following measures shall be implemented to further reduce
                         emissions associated with existing and future terminal
                         operations:
                         ■   All new tanks shall use a single-column tank design and
                             shall be connected to a vapor capture system during
                             refilling operations;
                         ■   All new pumps shall use double mechanical seals;


3.2‐48                                    Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                      3.2 Air Quality


                  ■   Drain-dry operations shall not exceed the existing facility
                      permit which limits the facility to no more than two
                      simultaneous drain-dry operations;
                  ■   ERCs shall be obtained to fully offset the remaining net
                      emissions associated with the new tank operations;
                  ■   KMEP shall remove three pre-project tanks from service
                      and demolish the tanks no later than July 1, 2006. A fourth
                      pre-project tank shall be removed from service and
                      demolished no later than July 1, 2008. KMEP shall not use
                      the emissions reductions associated with removal of these
                      tanks from service to offset emissions increases associated
                      with the project pursuant to SCAQMD permitting rules and
                      shall not file applications with the SCAQMD for ERCs for
                      these tanks;
                  ■   KMEP shall add domes to the existing external floating roof
                      tanks that would not otherwise be removed as a part of the
                      project at a faster pace than required by SCAQMD Rule
                      1178. This rule requires that the several existing tanks at the
                      facility have domes installed on them to reduce fugitive
                      emissions no later than January 1, 2008;
                  ■   KMEP shall develop and implement a program to expedite
                      corrective actions (such as replacement or maintenance) on
                      valves and fittings that have been shown through
                      monitoring to have a potential for leakage. Corrective
                      actions shall use the best available control technology for
                      the type of component identified. This program shall remain
                      in effect for at least one year after completion of project
                      construction; and
                  ■   KMEP shall develop and implement a plan to use
                      alternative-fueled vehicles and equipment upon replacement
                      at the terminal to reduce diesel emissions, if such vehicles or
                      equipment are found to be available and would not exceed
                      125% of the cost of regular diesel fuel. If alternative fuels are
                      not available or would exceed 125% of the cost of regular
                      diesel fuel, then upon replacement, KMEP shall install diesel
                      particulate traps or oxidation catalysts, or use hybrid
                      technologies, to achieve the greatest emissions reductions
                      possible upon replacement.

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.2‐49
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Mitigations MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2 would reduce potential construction-related
air quality emissions impacts. However the residual impact of Impacts AQ-1
(short-term construction air quality impacts) and AQ-5 (short-term cumulative
construction air quality impacts) could remain at significant levels during periods
in which the SCAQMD construction significance thresholds may be exceeded.

No significant air quality impacts related to operations were identified.
Implementation of Mitigation MM AQ 3 would provide further assurance that
operations-related air quality impacts identified in Impact AQ-2 and Impact AQ-3
would be less than significant throughout the life of the project.

Community Benefit Programs Associated with the
Project
In August 2004, KMEP entered into a Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA) with
several community organizations in order to provide benefits to the local
community that lives near the facility. The GNA provides for several community
benefit programs that were developed by KMEP in collaboration with the
Wilmington Coalition for a Safe Environment, Coalition for a Better Environment,
Natural Resources Defense Council, and Coalition for Clean Air (Environmental
Groups). The benefit programs primarily target air quality and public health
concerns in the project area and in the surrounding community. Specific
community benefit programs include:
    a.  A  contribution  of  $50,000  to  the  Asthma  and  Allergy  Foundation  of  America  to  provide  for  the 
        Breathmobile asthma van to visit public schools in the Carson/Wilmington area. 

    b.  A  contribution  of  $100,000  to  the  City  of  Carson  for  the  purchase  of  CNG  or  alternative  powered 
        vehicles to replace select, older and high priority public service vehicles, at the City’s discretion 

    c.  A contribution of $280,000 to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to purchase two (2) 
        new  CNG‐powered  school  buses  to  be  used  to  the  maximum  extent  possible  to  serve  schools  in 
        Carson and Wilmington. The GNA requires that Environmental Groups shall work with LAUSD to 
        achieve the appropriate deployment of buses within the Carson and Wilmington communities and 
        to ensure that LAUSD permanently destroys two diesel buses in its fleet once the new buses begin 
        service. 

    d.  KMEP  has  agreed  to  a  Project  Labor  Agreement  (PLA)  with  two  unions,  the  Building  Trades 
        Council and the Pipetrades. As part of the PLA, there will be a special emphasis on attempting to 
        hire workers from the nearby community, including Carson and Wilmington. 



3.2‐50                                     Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                3.2 Air Quality


    e.  KMEP  has  agreed  to  provide  $50,000  as  an  allocation  to  the  City  of  Carson  Job  Clearinghouse  to 
        fund  the  City’s  job  training  programs  and  to  enable  City  funding  to  be  re‐allocated  to  other 
        community projects. 

    f.  KMEP  has  agreed  to  provide  $50,000  to  the  Harbor  Occupational  Center  to  fund  its  job  training 
        within the local community, including job opportunities in the greater City of Carson area. 

These benefit programs are above and beyond the required and recommended
mitigations in this Draft EIR. While the potential air quality benefits of these
programs are not quantified in this Draft EIR, these programs will provide direct
long-term benefits to air quality and public health by reducing diesel particulates
and other pollutants in locations where exposure to pollutants is often most
deleterious to public health (e.g., on school buses and in elderly care and other
public service vehicles).




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                           3.2‐51
                                                          3.3 Biological Resources



3.3       BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on biological
resources, including sensitive plants, animals, and habitats, resulting from
implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified
the potential for project impacts associated with the effect on candidate, sensitive,
or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities;
and federally protected wetlands. Issues scoped out in the Initial Study include
effects on the movement of fish or wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridors;
conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; and
conflicts with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation
plans. The Initial Study concluded that these issues are not significant because
there are no known wildlife migration corridors or known unique, rare, or
endangered species inhabiting the project site, and the project site is not located
within a known habitat conservation planning area. In addition, the proposed
project would not conflict with locally adopted conservation plans and policies.

Data used to prepare this section were taken from the Biological Resources Report
prepared for the project site (Appendix C), which involved information from a
biological survey of the project site, and taxonomic information of plant and
animal species and habitats that are considered sensitive according to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Native Plant Society (CNPS),
and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the regional area
encompassing the project site.

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not alter the impacts of the project on
biological resources, as the RWQCB would still require the placement of a low-
permeability layer in the Old Dominguez Channel remnant as part of a cleanup
and abatement program. Project-related changes would still involve the placement


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.3‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


of tanks in the southwestern portion of the Carson Terminal, in the area currently
traversed by the Old Dominguez Channel remnant. Consequently, no additional
analysis beyond that provided in the 2003 DEIR (provided below) is required.

3.3.1     Existing Conditions
The approximately 100-acre Carson Terminal property is primarily occupied by
petroleum storage tanks and includes 62 aboveground storage tanks ranging in
size from 285 to 178,000 barrels with a total shell capacity of 4,696,094 barrels.
The site also includes a main office building, warehouse and utility buildings, a
truck loading rack, rail loading rack, and railroad spur along the north end of the
property. Located along the northeast corner of the property are two square-
shaped stormwater retention and containment ponds. On the southwest corner of
the project site is an approximately 5-acre earthen depression that was formerly
part of the Old Dominguez Channel. Through channeling efforts, the Dominguez
Channel is now located within 1,000 feet of the eastern property line of the project
site. The 5-acre earthen depression on the project site is no longer hydrologically
connected to any drainages and is currently intermittently vegetated with mostly
annual nonnative ruderal plants. Any water collected within this depression as a
result of accumulated stormwater runoff is regularly pumped to the stormwater
settlement ponds, as capacity is available. Any remaining water is then depleted by
percolation and evaporation. The Carson Terminal facility is currently under
regulation of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for remediation
of groundwater. With the exception of the 5-acre depressed area, the storage tanks
and other structures that occupy the project site are situated on nonvegetated
disturbed ground.

A biological assessment was conducted on January 6, 2003 to document any
observed biological resources or those that have the potential to occur on the
project site. Because of historic observations in nearby areas, the project site was
specifically assessed for existence of habitat conditions for the federally
endangered Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus [PPM]).
The survey also incorporated specific, focused consideration for other regionally
sensitive species, such as California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), coastal



3.3‐2                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                           3.3 Biological Resources


California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and several plant
species.

Methodology
Prior to surveying the project site, a query was performed on the Rare Find 2002
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to locate records of plant and
animal species and habitats that are considered sensitive according to the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Native Plant Society (CNPS),
and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the Long Beach, Los
Alamitos, and Torrance, California, U.S.G.S. 7.5’ Minute Quadrangles. These
quadrangles were selected in the query because they included the regional area
encompassing and surrounding the project site. Sensitive plant and animal species
identified in these quadrangles would be representative of sensitive species that
may potentially occur at the project site. The species list generated from the query
is provided in Appendix D of the Biological Resources Report, available for review
at the City.

A biological reconnaissance survey of the project site was conducted by a biologist
on foot, which identified and recorded all plants and animals that were observed
on the property. Animals were identified using scat (fecal pellets), tracks, burrows,
vocalizations, or direct observation with binoculars. The flora and fauna of
observed species on the project site are described below.

Assessment of PPM habitat was based on a variety of characteristics, such as plant
community type, evidence of rodent activity (i.e., burrows and gopher mounds),
and physical characteristics, such as soil type and texture. No other federal or state
protected animals other than the PPM were considered for focused surveys
because of the absence of native habitat or the lack of historical species
distribution records from within 10 miles of the site. A habitat evaluation for the
listed fairy shrimp species occurring in southern California was also conducted for
the project site because a recent project within the City of Carson, located over five
miles northwest of the project site, had identified fairy shrimp (Order Anostraca)
as occurring within a previously disturbed area.



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.3‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Although the survey was conducted in January, which is outside of the blooming
season (spring to early summer) for the sensitive plant species identified from the
CNDDB query, information regarding potential sensitive plant species can be
inferred from the habitat conditions available at the project site. Consequently,
this assessment was not a focused “rare plant survey” but, instead, was based on
habitat conditions on the site. Areas of the property were inspected and
subsequently categorized for their likelihoods to support sensitive species.
Vegetation onsite was identified to species, based on physical characteristics and
location.

Definition of Sensitive Resources
Sensitive plants and animals are those identified as rare or endangered, or that are
depleted or declining, as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the California Native Plant
Society (CNPS). The CNPS is a resource conservation organization that has
developed an inventory of California’s special status plant species (CNPS 2001).
This inventory is the summary of information on the distribution, rarity, and
endangerment of California’s vascular plants. In general, the principal reason an
individual taxon (i.e., species, subspecies, or variety) is given recognition by
federal, State, and local government conservation programs as being “endangered”
or “sensitive” is based on the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its
population size, geographic range, and/or distribution resulting, in most cases,
from habitat loss.

Because the project site is generally covered with petroleum storage tanks, paved
roads, pipelines, rail tracks, and other various structures, the property lacks the
appropriate habitat to support the species recorded in the CNDDB by USFWS,
CDFG, and CNPS for the project vicinity. A sensitive species matrix addressing the
likelihood of sensitive plant and animal species occurring on and within 10 miles
of the project site is provided in Appendix C of the Biological Resources Report.




3.3‐4                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.3 Biological Resources


Biological Resources
Vegetative Communities
The project site supports two urban vegetative communities – Developed and
Disturbed. Developed areas have been cleared and support little to no native
vegetation because of the presence of buildings, structures, landscaping, and
roads. Due to the frequent disturbance of soil in these areas, only ruderal or
ornamental plant species are present, and only an occasional weed is present.
Disturbed habitats are lands on which the native vegetation has been altered by
agriculture, construction, or other land clearing activities. Such habitat found
within the project site includes dirt roads, land between storage tanks and other
structures, and the 5-acre earthen depression located on the southwest corner of
the property. The disturbed areas are dominated by ruderal, nonnative annual
plant species, such as Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), horseweed (Conyza
canadensis.), mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis),
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and castor bean (Ricinus communis),
among others. Nonnative grasses, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red
broom (Bromus medritensis ssp. rubens), and wild oat (Avena barbata), were also
observed.

The sensitive plant species reported from the CNDDB query for the proposed
project’s regional area includes Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
australis), Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris), California orcutt grass (Orcuttia
californica), Parish’s brittlescale (Atriplex parishii), South coast saltscale (Atriplix
pacifica), salt marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus),
prostrate navarretia (Navarritia prostrata), Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta
lyonii), and coast wooly head (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata). According to
the on-site biological reconnaissance survey, none of these sensitive plant species
was observed on or adjacent to the project site.

Inspection and mapping of the entire project site documented a lack of necessary
physical conditions, such as presence of alkaline clay soils, vernal pools, saline
grasslands, coastal marsh, or coastal sand dunes, to support sensitive plant
species. Because the project site was developed prior to the Clean Water Act and



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                3.3‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


because any features associated with the former Dominguez Channel route have
been historically disconnected, the feature is no longer part of the Jurisdictional
Waters of the U.S. and, therefore, is not regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE). Based on available jurisdictional delineation maps, the project
site is not within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. In
addition, the depressed area is treated as a detention basin, and is not regulated by
the California Department of Fish and Game through Code 1600, Stream, Lakes,
and Rivers Alteration Agreements. Thus, the project site is not considered to be a
riparian habitat or federally protected wetland.

The on-site depression is under a Cleanup and Abatement Order from the
RWQCB. The RWQCB is requiring a low permeability layer to be placed in the
bottom of the slough to cap contaminants. The project would result in fill of the
slough. However, if the project did not go forward, the RWQCB would require
filling of the slough in order to cap contaminants in place and ensure that the
public is not exposed to these soils.

Wildlife
The wildlife species observed on the project site are typical of urban habitats.
Some bird species observed include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), killdeer
(Charadriusc vociferus), common raven (Corvus corax), and house sparrow
(Passer domesticus). Other wildlife observed on-site included a red fox (Vulpes
vulpes) and Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis).

In addition, despite the absence of trees within the project site, raptors have also
been observed perching on the on-site aboveground storage tanks and foraging
over the subject property. Raptor species detected include red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The bare ground between
the tank structures and the area associated with the 5-acre depression are utilized
by raptors for foraging, primarily on rodents and other birds. In addition, the
storage tanks and other on-site structures may serve as nesting sites for raptors
and other birds. The 5-acre depressed area and other unpaved areas within the
project site could support nests of ground-dwelling avian species.




3.3‐6                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                             3.3 Biological Resources


Sensitive animal species reported as currently or historically occurring in the
project vicinity (within 10 miles) include Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus
longimembris pacificus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), Coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), great blue heron (Ardea
herodias) and Western yellowed-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis). Although the PPM in particular has been reported within the general
vicinity of the project site, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for this
animal species. The PPM is endemic to areas with fine-grain, sandy substrates in
the immediate vicinity of the Pacific Ocean in southwestern California. The PPM
inhabits, or was known to inhabit, coastal strand, coastal dunes, river alluvium,
and coastal sage scrub growing on marine terraces (Federal Register 1994). As
such, the project site, which consists of medium dense to dense sands and silty
sands along with a lack of any native vegetation, lacks the essential biological and
physical conditions necessary to support the PPM. Similarly, human disturbances
related to dredging and development projects have drastically reduced suitable
breeding grounds for the California least tern, and many remaining tern
populations now nest on mudflats away from the ocean and on man-made landfills
instead. Although the project site does not support a known California least tern
nesting area, records indicate that some individuals have nested close to the
facility. Because this species is known to nest in less than natural locations (e.g.,
disturbed sites, open bare ground, and roofs) and because the subject property is
located in relatively close proximity to known nesting sites, there is the potential
for individual California least terns, as well as other migratory birds, to nest within
the project area. According to the on-site biological reconnaissance survey
conducted for the proposed project, there are currently no sensitive wildlife
species that have been observed on or adjacent to the project site.

The onsite habitat evaluation conducted at the project site also determined that
the 5-acre depression located in the southwest corner of the project site is not
likely to support any listed fairy shrimps that occur in southern California. The
evaluation specifically addressed the habitat suitability for the two listed fairy
shrimp species known to occur in the coastal areas of Southern California: the
Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) and the San Diego fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta sandiegonensis). The conclusion that these species are absent from


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                 3.3‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


the project site is supported by the observation that the base elevation of the 5-acre
depressed area is approximately 2 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Because no
documented occurrences of the Riverside fairy shrimp occur at elevations less than
60 feet above MSL and no documented occurrences of the San Diego fairy shrimp
occur at elevations less than 40 feet above MSL, it is unlikely that the site
originally supported these species. Additionally, the low elevation of the
depression implies that the project site is likely to have been alkaline or brackish
before it was isolated from other wetlands over time. This is an important
consideration because the Riverside fairy shrimp cannot tolerate water with more
than 800–1,000 parts per million of alkalinity for more than 24 hours (Eriksen
and Belk 1999). The San Diego fairy shrimp is even less tolerant of elevated
alkalinity (Eriksen and Belk 1999).

The depression onsite also contains soft, lacustrine sediment deposits with a sand
texture. These coarse-textured sediments are not typical of pools that support the
Riverside fairy shrimp or the San Diego fairy shrimp. Both of these listed species
occupy small to large pools on coastal terraces with well-developed claypans or
iron and silica cemented hardpans. Soils associated with these sites are generally
fine-textured (Eriksen and Belk 1999).

Furthermore, the depressed area was historically connected to the nearby
Dominguez Channel. However, it is currently no longer connected hydrologically
to any drainages. Stormwater runoff that collects within this depression is
regularly pumped to the storm water retention basins, with all remaining water
depleted by percolation and evaporation. The water that accumulates at the project
site is also currently being regulated for potential petroleum contaminates.
Because fairy shrimps occupy vernal pools as their habitat, the manipulation of the
hydrology at the project site would be detrimental to the persistence of these
species because it would affect the duration of ponding and water chemistry
characteristics necessary for fairy shrimp survival and reproduction. Therefore, it
is determined that the 5-acre depression is not likely to support any of the listed
fairy shrimps that occur in southern California.




3.3‐8                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                  3.3 Biological Resources


3.3.2     Regulatory Framework
Numerous regulations protecting biological resources are in place at the federal,
State, regional, and local levels. Federal and State laws and regulations, in
particular, govern the protection of rare and endangered species and habitats.
However, because no designated rare or endangered species are known or
expected to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, only those
regulations that apply to development anticipated under the proposed project are
presented below.

Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended in 1972,
federal law prohibits the taking of migratory birds or their nests or eggs (16 U.S.C.
Section 703), except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. The statute
states:
        Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided
        in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any
        manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or
        kill...any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird...included in
        the terms of the [Migratory Bird] conventions...

In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey
(e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in
the amendment:
     Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles)
     Cathartidae (New World vultures)
     Falconidae (falcons and caracaras)
     Pandionidae (ospreys)
     Strigidae (typical owls)
     Tytonidae (barn owls)

The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protect all species and
subspecies of the families listed above.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                        3.3‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


State
Unlawful Take or Destruction of Nests or Eggs
Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code of California specifically protects birds
of prey. The Code states:
          It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders
          Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy
          the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code
          or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code of California duplicates the federal
protection of migratory birds. The Code states:
          It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated
          in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird
          except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the
          Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.
California Environmental Quality Act—Treatment of Listed
Plant and Animal Species
The Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act
protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rare in
the case of the State list). However, Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines
independently defines “endangered” species of plants or animals as those whose
survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and “rare” species
as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their
environment worsens.

3.3.3       Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if it
would:
      Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
      modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
      status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
      California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
      Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
      natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and



3.3‐10                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                          3.3 Biological Resources


     regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
     and Wildlife Service
     Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
     by Section 404 of he Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
     vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
     interruption, or other means.

3.3.4     Project Impacts
Both direct and indirect impacts on biological resources have been evaluated.
Direct impacts are those that involve the initial loss of habitats due to grading and
construction. Indirect impacts are those that would be related to disturbance from
construction activities (e.g., noise, dust) and use of the proposed project.

Direct Impacts
Impact BIO-1 Proposed project implementation would not result in
             impacts on sensitive plant species.

As discussed above in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions), the sensitive plant
species reported from the CNDDB query for the proposed project’s regional area
includes the Southern tarplant, Brand’s phacelia, California orcutt grass, Parish’s
brittlescale, South coast saltscale, salt marsh bird’s beak, prostrate navarretia,
Lyon’s pentachaeta, and Coast wooly heads. As such, these sensitive plant species
have a limited potential to occur on the project site. However, the biological
reconnaissance survey conducted at the project site did not identify the presence of
any of these plant species on or adjacent to the project site. Although the survey
was conducted in January, which is outside of the general blooming season (spring
to early summer) for these sensitive plant species, information regarding these
sensitive species could be derived from the existing habitat conditions at the
project site. Thus, the biological assessment was not a focused “rare plant survey”
but, instead, was based on habitat conditions on the project site. After the entire
property was inspected and mapped for its likelihood to support sensitive plant
species, it was determined that the project site conditions were not to be suitable
for the sensitive species identified from the CNDDB query. Most of the sensitive
plant species reported as occurring in the vicinity have not been observed in the



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.3‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


area for decades, and none is likely to occur on or adjacent to the project site due
to the lack of necessary physical conditions, such as presence of alkaline clay soils,
vernal pools, saline grasslands, coastal marsh, or coastal sand dunes. Therefore,
because the soils on the facility are either developed or heavily disturbed, the
likelihood of sensitive plant species becoming established within the project site is
very low. Accordingly, construction and operational activities on the project site
would not remove any existing sensitive plant species. Impacts would be less
than significant.

Impact BIO-2 Proposed project implementation                     could    result in
             impacts on sensitive wildlife species.

As discussed above in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions), the sensitive animal
species reported from the CNDDB query for the proposed project’s regional area
includes the Pacific pocket mouse, California least tern, coastal California
gnatcatcher, great blue heron, and Western yellowed-billed cuckoo. However,
although these sensitive wildlife species have a limited potential to occur on the
project site, the biological reconnaissance survey conducted for the proposed
project did not observe any sensitive wildlife species on or adjacent to the project
site. Because the project site is an industrial facility that is nearly completely
developed, heavily disturbed, and does not support or provide significant water
sources, the likelihood of sensitive animals nesting, foraging, or defending
territory on the site is low.

The 5-acre depression located on the southwest corner of the project site is habitat
for urban-adapted species (e.g., lizards, frogs, pocket gophers) and is used as
foraging habitat for raptors and other birds. However, the area is not used as
habitat for sensitive species and the proposed project development in this area
would not eliminate habitat for sensitive wildlife species. In addition, as discussed
in the existing conditions, if the project did not go forward, the RWQCB would
require filling of the slough in order to cap contaminants in place and ensure that
the public is not exposed to these soils.

Although the Biological Resources Report for the proposed project indicated that
the project site lacks the essential biological and physical conditions necessary to



3.3‐12                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.3 Biological Resources


support the PPM, and thus would not affect any viable PPM habitat, records
indicate that some California Least Terns have nested close to the facility. Because
this species is known to nest in less than natural locations (e.g., disturbed sites,
open bare ground, and roofs) and because the subject property is located in
relatively close proximity to known nesting sites, there is the potential for
individual California Least Terns, as well as other migratory birds, to nest within
the project area. Therefore, impacts to these migratory birds would be
potentially significant.

The presence of fairy shrimp (Order Anostraca) has been documented in a
previously disturbed area associated with a recent project located over five miles
northwest of the project site in the City of Carson. Due to the presence of this
species within the general vicinity of the proposed project, a fairy shrimp habitat
evaluation was conducted for the project site. The evaluation indicated that the
project site, particularly the 5-acre depression located on the southwest corner of
the property, would not likely support any of the listed fairy shrimps that occur in
southern California because of the current characteristics and conditions of the
project site. The project site is nearly completely developed with storage tanks,
pipelines, and other structures (with disturbed bare ground between these
structures). Additionally, the 5-acre depression on the project site is currently
vegetated with annual, nonnative ruderal plant species and only accumulates
surface water occasionally after rain events. As such, construction and operation
activities on the project site would not affect viable habitats for this animal species,
and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-3 Proposed project implementation could                         result in
             impacts on migratory birds and raptors.

The project site is currently graded and does not support native habitat for any
State or federal protected wildlife species. Despite the absence of trees within the
project site, however, native raptors and other bird species may nest onsite in the
open space or on existing structures (tanks, pipelines, and buildings). Open areas
such as the 5-acre depression located at the southwest corner of the project site are
used for foraging by raptors and other birds. Proposed development would result
in storage tanks, paving, and associated equipment being developed in the areas


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.3‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


onsite currently used for foraging. However, as discussed in the existing
conditions, if the project did not go forward, the RWQCB would require filling of
the slough in order to cap contaminants in place and ensure that the public is not
exposed to these soils. As proposed, the project would result in the loss of potential
foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors, which are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. In addition, active nests may also be abandoned
or lost due to excessive noise levels and dust particles in the air resulting from
demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project.
Therefore, these impacts would be potentially significant.

Impact BIO-4 Proposed project implementation would not result in
             impacts on riparian habitats or federally protected
             wetlands.

As discussed in Section 3.4.1 (Existing Conditions), the project site is not
considered to be a riparian habitat or federally protected wetland due to the
termination of the physical connection between the project site’s 5-acre depression
and the Dominguez Channel. The depression, which is currently treated as a
detention basin, is no longer part of the Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., and is
therefore not regulated by the ACOE nor is it subject to regulations by the
California Department of Fish and Game. Additionally, the project site is not
within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. With the absence of
any aquatic features associated with the former alluvial channel on the project site,
a lack of necessary physical conditions exists to support any sensitive plant species
onsite. Thus, the proposed addition of new petroleum storage tanks, paving, and
associated equipment resulting from implementation of the proposed project
would no affect any riparian habitats or federally protected wetlands. Therefore,
no impact to riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands would result from
project implementation.




3.3‐14                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.3 Biological Resources


Indirect Impacts
Impact BIO-5 Construction activities at the project site could disturb
             wildlife in the project site vicinity.

Noise levels at the proposed project site would incrementally increase over present
levels during construction activities. Currently, the project site is surrounded by
developed land uses typical of an industrial environment, and wildlife species in
the vicinity of the proposed project site are considered to be tolerant of these uses.
However, although the proposed project development would not affect native
habitat that may support State or federal protected species, the increase in noise
and dust from the proposed project-related demolition and construction activities
may indirectly disturb, or result in the failure of, migratory bird nests adjacent to
the project site. Despite being only a temporary nuisance, the disturbance
resulting from construction activities at the project site would prove harmful if it
occurred during the active bird breeding and nesting season. Therefore, this
impact would be potentially significant.

3.3.5     Cumulative Impacts
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in
conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the proposed project in
the City of Carson. No sensitive plant or wildlife species were observed on or
adjacent to the project site. If any of these sensitive species are found to be present
on the proposed project site, then measures would be developed in consultation
with the appropriate resource agencies. Implementation of the mitigation
measures identified for the proposed project would ensure protection of nesting
birds from disturbance during demolition and construction activities on the
project site. Other cumulative projects potentially affecting biological resources
would undergo CEQA documentation that would address site-specific impacts.

Although the project site does not provide important natural habitat or wildlife
corridors for sensitive plant or wildlife species, the proposed project development
occurring on the 5-acre depressed area would result in a loss of foraging habitat for
urban-adapted species and raptors in the City. Because the entire City is primarily
built out, with approximately 10 percent of its land area left to develop, very few


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.3‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


existing areas are available to serve as foraging habitat for wildlife. Future
development would serve to exacerbate this condition by further reducing these
available foraging areas. As such, development from the proposed project and
other related projects would contribute to a cumulative local loss of foraging
habitat for urban-adapted species and raptors in the City. On a regional
perspective, the loss of 5 acres of foraging habitat for urban-adapted species and
raptors would not be substantial because these species can relocate to other
surrounding areas outside of the City. However, on a local perspective, a
cumulative loss would occur because no other parcel within the fully urbanized
City can be acquired to replace the lost habitat. Development associated with the
proposed project and other related projects in the City would result in a
cumulative local loss of foraging habitat for urban-adapted species and raptors
that cannot be replaced. As no feasible mitigation is available to mitigate this local
impact, cumulative impacts would be significant. However, these significant
cumulative effects would also occur without the proposed project. As previously
discussed, the RWQCB is requiring a low permeability layer to be placed in the
bottom of the slough to cap contaminants. If the project did not go forward, the
RWQCB would require filling of the slough in order to cap contaminants in place
and ensure that the public is not exposed to these soils.

3.3.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
The following mitigation measures would be required to address project impacts.
As previously identified, even if the project did not proceed, the slough would be
filled under the Cleanup and Abatement Order issued for the project site.

      MM BIO-1 Demolition and site clearing or other initial soil disturbance
               activities shall be scheduled, as feasible, outside the active bird
               breeding season, March 1 (February 1 for raptors) to August
               31.

      MM BIO-2 If new demolition or construction (ground disturbance) is to
               occur during the bird breeding season, then preconstruction
               surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted prior to the start of
               new construction activity. Surveys will be conducted within 48


3.3‐16                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                          3.3 Biological Resources


                  hours of the start of work and will include the project area and
                  adjacent areas within 300 feet for protected native birds and
                  500 feet for raptors. Only after a qualified biologist has
                  determined the absence of nesting birds shall new demolition
                  or construction begin.

     MM BIO-3 If new demolition or construction within 100 feet of potential
              nesting areas cannot be scheduled outside of the nesting
              season, then as directed by a qualified biologist, nesting
              deterrents shall be implemented beginning by January 15 and
              maintained through July 15, or as determined necessary by a
              qualified biologist. Deterrents may include
                  ■   Placing thick plastic sheeting (e.g., Visqueen) over soil
                      substrate that may be used by ground nesting birds, such as
                      Killdeer
                  ■   Walking the work area on a daily basis (as a means of
                      human disturbance) to minimize the chance for nests to be
                      established within the planned work limits by presenting an
                      ongoing disturbance presence. A qualified biologist shall be
                      consulted to deter nest establishment and verify that eggs
                      are not present.
                  ■   Placing reflective ribbon, random noise blasters (i.e. air-
                      horn, audio tape), perch blocks (i.e. nest covers, tarps, rail
                      spikes, fencing) on the site to prevent birds from locating
                      nests or roosts in planned construction areas

     MM BIO-4 No new demolition, new construction activity, or other new soil
              disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of an active nest (within
              500 feet for raptors) of birds protected by the Migratory Bird
              Treaty Act without approval from CDFG and USFWS. As
              appropriate, an Incidental Take for an active, protected bird
              nest may be requested from the California Department of Fish
              and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Work may be
              initiated once the nest is inactive (failed or fledged) as




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.3‐17
3.0 Environmental Analysis


                  determined by a qualified biologist, or if a nest-removal permit
                  is granted by the resource agency.

MM BIO-1 would require demolition and construction activities associated with
the proposed project to occur, as feasible, outside the active bird breeding season.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure protection of migratory
birds and raptors, located both on- and off-site, from disturbances. However, if
disturbances at the project site could not be avoided during the active bird
breeding season, MM BIO-2 would require preconstruction surveys to be
conducted for nesting birds in the project area and adjacent areas prior to the start
of new construction activity. In addition MM BIO-3 would require nesting
deterrents to be implemented prior to and during the active bird breeding season if
new demolition or construction would occur within 100 feet of potential nesting
areas. MM BIO-4 would ensure protection to active nests of birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including the California Least Tern. Therefore,
implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 would reduce impacts
associated with Impact BIO-2, Impact BIO-3, and Impact BIO-5 to a less-than-
significant level.




3.3‐18                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.4 Cultural Resources



3.4       CULTURAL RESOURCES
The term “cultural resources” refers to both prehistoric and historic archaeological
sites, objects, or structures, as well as historic buildings, structures, or objects.
Cultural resources also include unique ethnic cultural values or religious or sacred
sites. This section identifies the existing cultural resources on or near the Carson
Terminal, and identifies potential impacts that may result from the proposed
project. Finally, this section includes mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate
significant impacts, if any. Primary sources of information used in this section
include the Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Carson Terminal Upgrade
Project, Los Angeles County, California (WSA 2003), and the Carson Merged and
Amended Project Final EIR (City of Carson 1995). Chapter 7 (References) includes
complete references for all sources used in the preparation of this section.

No letters received in response to the Notice of Preparation for the project
included comments regarding cultural resources.

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not alter the characteristics of the
project with respect to excavation and fill, as project-related changes still involve
the placement of tanks in the southwestern portion of the Carson Terminal and
would still require demolition of older tanks and filling the Old Dominguez
Channel remnant on the project site. Consequently, no additional analysis is
required beyond that provided in the 2003 DEIR (provided below), as revised by
the text changes previously discussed in the 2004 FEIR.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.4‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.4.1       Existing Conditions

Regional History
Native Americans from the Suangna Tribe (or Tongva) established villages in the
project area 6,000 years before the arrival of Euroamericans (City of Carson
2003). Known to the Spanish as Gabrielino Indians (named after the Mission San
Gabriel), they gathered shellfish, hunted wild game, and made a flour-like meal
out of acorns from the oak trees that grew in the area. The Suangna lived
peacefully, traded with their neighbors, and made tools, weapons, and grinding
implements from stone and other natural materials. A Suangna Indian Village site,
once part of a large village complex occupying the inner harbor area, is located on
a 100-acre field in present-day Carson north of Sepulveda Boulevard and west of
Wilmington Avenue surrounded by the Watson Industrial Center (site no. CA-
LAN-013: City of Carson 2002). For over 60 years, middens in this field have
yielded large quantities of Indian artifacts including axes, pestles, stone vessels,
shells, and beads. Burials containing crystals and bone whistles and indications of
cremations were discovered near Wilmington Avenue. Although the site
apparently dates to pre-contact times, historical data on the village is contained in
the San Gabriel birth records and the records of Rancho San Pedro (Dominguez),
describing the approximate location of the site (City of Carson 2002). By the end
of the nineteenth century the village was no longer inhabited.

Spanish contact with the Gabrieliño people is known to have occurred as early as
1542 when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo first explored the region. At first feared, the
Spanish were received with hospitality when they returned in 1602 under
Sebastian Vizcaíno. In 1769, the Spanish began to dispatch land expeditions to
locate suitable mission sites within Gabrieliño territory. By 1771, two missions (San
Fernando and San Gabriel) had been built in the Gabrieliño area and the
conversion of Gabrieliños into the mission system began. European diseases, for
which the native inhabitants had no immunity, begin decimating entire villages.
No missions were built within the immediate project vicinity. By 1785, despite
frequent protests and revolts against the missions, the majority of Gabrieliños had
become a peasant class laboring for the missions or the landed gentry (Bean and
Smith 1978:541). In the early to mid 1800s, most of the Gabrieliños had been

3.4‐2                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.4 Cultural Resources


missionized, fled to other parts of California or were dead from European diseases,
in particular, smallpox (Bean and Smith 1978:541).

After secularization of the Spanish Missions in 1833, mission lands were divided
and granted as ranchos to prominent individuals. Long Beach and much of the
surrounding area was once a part of the huge (28,000 acre) Rancho Los Alamitos.
Originally purchased by Abel Stearns in 1842, the land was used for cattle grazing
until the drought of 1863 1864, in which cattle died by the thousands. Foreclosing
on the Stearn mortgage, the rancho was next owned by the Reese family who sold
to the Bixby's in 1878. The Los Alamitos ranch house, although extensively altered,
still stands at 6400 Bixby Hill Road, five and one half miles east of downtown
Long Beach (WSA 2003).

The post-Hispanic history of Carson and the surrounding is closely linked to the
natural setting. Primary themes in the area's development include sheep and cattle
ranching, agriculture, and oil drilling. In the Long Beach area, the original
environment was greatly altered by human activities. Early settlers utilized the
Long Beach Plain for successive enterprises beginning with cattle ranching, sheep
ranching and then the cultivation of barley and wheat. Following these endeavors
the land was subdivided into smaller farms and building lots, which were the early
stages of the City of Long Beach (WSA 2003).

Interest in obtaining petroleum fuels locally in California began when the Civil
War curtailed the supply of kerosene from the East. The first drilled oil well was
established on the Mattole River in northern California in 1865, followed by wells
in Ojai and Newhall. Problems with drilling and refining techniques caused the oil
boom of California to temporarily come to a halt by 1867. By the mid 1880s
advances in technology had solved most of the refining and drilling problems and
California's production rate increased dramatically. New uses for petroleum
products coupled with new oil fields located in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin
Valley propelled California into the lead position for oil production by 1903. By the
mid 1900s, the oil fields in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley and Los
Angeles County were most notable. The fields in the Long Beach area, including
the important Signal Hill field, were instrumental in establishing California as the
nation's leader in oil production (WSA 2003).

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.4‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Site History
The Carson Terminal, which was originally constructed in the 1920s, is over 45
years in age and must, therefore, be considered for historic significance under
CEQA. The Carson Terminal has been used as a tank farm for over 70 years. The
majority of the tanks were first constructed between 1922 and 1924. A second set
of tanks, ranging in size from 2,000 to 5,000 barrels, was constructed in 1932 and
1933. In the late 1950s, three small tanks (less than 600 barrels) were constructed
along with modifications to seven 80,000-barrel tanks. In the early 1980s, six
150,000-barrel tanks were built.

The facility was originally owned by the Flying A. Oil Company, which later
became Associated Oil Company. In 1940, Associated Oil Company merged with
Tidewater Oil Company, a totally owned subsidiary of Getty Oil. In 1966, the
facility was sold to Phillips Oil Company, which operated it until 1976, when GATX
acquired it. A refinery was located on the property between 1936 and 1957–58 in
the area that was previously occupied by the GATX offices. KMEP purchased the
terminal from the GATX Terminals Corporation in March 2001 (Personal
communication with Kimberly Adkins-Greene, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners).

Historical Resources
Definitions of Historical Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act established the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) to recognize resources associated with the country’s
history and heritage. Structures and features must usually be at least fifty years old
to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances.
Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 36, Part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 63), are significance in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that
  (A)  Are  associated  with  events  that  have  made  a  significant  contribution  to  the  broad  patterns  of  our 
       history 

  (B)  Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 


3.4‐4                                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                    3.4 Cultural Resources


  (C)  Embody  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  a  type,  period,  or  method  of  construction;  represent  the 
       work  of  a  master;  possess  high  artistic  values,  represent  a  significant  and  distinguishable  entity 
       whose components may lack individual distinction 

  (D)  Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 

Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological (historic and prehistoric) and
paleontological resources.

Section 5024.1(a) of the Public Resources Code (PRC) established the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) to identify resources deemed worthy of
preservation on a State level. The CRHR was modeled closely after the NRHP, and
the significance criteria established in Section 5024.1(c) of the PRC are nearly
identical to those of the NRHP, but focus upon resources of statewide, rather than
national, significance. However, the CRHR includes resources listed—or
determined eligible for listing—on the NRHP.

In addition to the presence of a resources on—or satisfaction of the historical
significance criteria employed for—the NRHP or CRHR, a resource shall also be
presumed historically significant if it is listed on a local register of historical
resources, as required under Section 15064.5(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Also,
under Section 15064.5(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the fact that a resource is not
listed on or determined eligible for any register of historical resources does not
preclude consideration of a resource as historically significant.

Potential Historic Resources on the Project Site
WSA staff archaeologist David Jung, B.A., conducted a pedestrian survey of the
project area on January 31, 2003. Mr. Jung evaluated the area for the presence of
prehistoric or historic site indicators. The objective of the cultural resources survey
and assessment of the proposed Carson Terminal Upgrade Project was to locate,
record, and evaluate the significance of all cultural resources within and abutting
the Carson Terminal.

The four tanks that will be removed as part of the proposed project, as well as the
Carson Terminal site, have been recorded on State of California Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523 (see Appendix C to the technical report).



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                            3.4‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Table 3.4-1 illustrates the dimensions, capacity, and current status of each of the
four tanks that will be replaced as a result of the proposed project.


                    Table 3.4-1 Tanks Proposed for Demolition
         Tank No.        Date Built         Dimensions        Capacity (Barrels)    Status
     178018                1924           175' 9" x 41' 6"       170,353           Empty
         80019             1923            117' 2" 41' 10"        70,796            Crude
         80020             1927           117' 2" x 41' 10"        72,247          Gasoline
         80021             1923           117' 2" x 41' 10"        72,178          Gasoline
 Source: WSA 2003: 10



Although associated with a broad pattern of California history reflecting
industrialization, the tankage and associated piping, pumps, and ancillary
equipment at the existing Carson Terminal in the City of Carson does not appear to
meet the significance criteria under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This
particular property, while representative of the early oil industry in southern
California, is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to California’s history and cultural heritage; it is not associated with the lives of
important persons in our past; it does not embody distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, style, region, method of construction, nor does it represent the work
of an important individual; nor is it likely to yield information important in
prehistory or history. The four tanks to be replaced at the Carson Terminal (Tanks
178018, 80019, 80020, and 80021) are therefore not considered “historically
significant” because they do not appear to meet the criteria for eligibility to the
CRHR.

Archaeological Resources
The records check completed for this EIR indicated that no prehistoric cultural
resources are known to exist within the project site. However, one prehistoric site
(site 19-002788) is located approximately ¼-mile southeast of the project area.
Recorded in 1999 by Applied Earthworks, it is described as “skeletal material
uncovered during backhoe trenching on Texaco property January 30, 1996.”
Associated burial artifacts included ten Olivela biplicata “cup” shell beads
(Applied Earthworks 1999). The site is situated along a stretch of the watercourse


3.4‐6                                 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.4 Cultural Resources


remnant that travels north through the Carson terminal project area. The exact
location of these sites is confidential in order to protect the resource: location
maps of the sites are available from the SCCIC to qualified researchers only.

As described above, an archaeologist conducted a pedestrian survey of the project
area on January 31, 2003 to evaluate the area for the presence of prehistoric or
historic archaeological site indicators. The objective of the cultural resources
survey and assessment of the proposed Carson Terminal Upgrade Project was to
locate, record, and evaluate the significance of all cultural resources within and
abutting the Carson Terminal. Ground visibility was poor due to asphalt and gravel
ground cover surrounding the tanks. A small portion of a former natural creek
channel or depression exists within the southwestern portion of the terminal,
although it has been partially filled with dirt. All visible surface, gopher borrows,
and other exposed soil was examined for the presence of historic or prehistoric site
indicators, such as charcoal, volcanic glass or flint flakes, grinding bowls, shell
fragments, bone, pockets of dark, friable soils (for prehistoric sites); or glass,
metal, ceramics, brick, wood and similar debris (for historic sites). No prehistoric
cultural resources were observed within the project area during the survey.

3.4.2       Regulatory Framework

Federal Regulations
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official federal list of
historic resources that have architectural, historic, or cultural significance at the
national, state, or local level. The National Park Service, an agency of the
Department of the Interior, administers the Register. Listing of a property on the
NRHP does not prohibit demolition or alteration of that property, but does denote
that the property is a resource worthy of recognition and protection. Structures 50
years old or older may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP if other criteria apply.
As noted above, no properties on the NRHP are located in the project area.

State Regulations
The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) is the official state list of
historic resources that have architectural, historic, or cultural significance at the


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.4‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


state level. The State Office of Historic Preservation administers and maintains the
CRHR and includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for, the
NRHP and California Register Landmarks. The CRHR can also include properties
designated under local ordinances or identified through local historic resource
surveys. As noted above, no properties on the CRHR are located in the project
area.

Local Regulations
Carson has no historic preservation ordinances. However, the Historic
Preservation Element of the City of Carson General Plan includes a number of
policies and objectives that encourage public/private approaches to historic
preservation, public acquisition of historic sites where appropriate, identification
of all structures and natural phenomena of historic importance in Carson, and
collaboration with CSU Dominguez Hills on issues and methods of historic
building preservation. The General Plan is currently in the process of being
updated.

3.4.3           Thresholds of Significance
Would the project
         Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
         as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines
         Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
         resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines
         Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
         cemeteries

3.4.4           Project Impacts
Impact CR-1          Implementation of the proposed project would not
                     result in the demolition or material alteration of a
                     historic structure.

As described in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) and above under “Historical
Resources,” the proposed project would demolish four petroleum product storage
tanks on the project site. Although, as shown in Table 3.4-1, these tanks range in
age from seventy-seven to eighty years old, they fail to meet the criteria for

3.4‐8                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                             3.4 Cultural Resources


eligibility for listing on the CRHR or NRHP, whether by virtue of their method or
time of construction or by their historic association with significant people or
events in local, state, or national history. They are not, therefore, considered to be
historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Because these tanks are not
considered historical resources, their demolition would result in no impact to
historical resources.

Impact CR-2       Earth-disturbing      activities  associated   with
                  implementation of the proposed project could
                  potentially disturb or damage unknown archaeological
                  resources.

As described above, no archaeological sites are known to exist on Carson Terminal.
Although recorded sites exist in the area, and the likelihood exists of previously
unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project,
the majority of activity associated with site preparation for the project would be
fill, rather than excavation. Further, excavation activities for the project would be
limited to grading existing tank foundation pads, which are developed areas and
were formed with fill, and some excavation for piping and the proposed piping
manifold, which would occur in an area that has been subject to extensive
disturbance for the initial placement of piping and associated infrastructure.
Consequently, damage or destruction of archaeological resources, including
human burials, as a result of the project is considered unlikely, and this impact
would be less than significant.

3.4.5        Cumulative Impacts

Historical Resources
The proposed project, as described in Impact CR-1, would have no impact on
historic resources and would not, therefore, contribute to any cumulative impact
with respect to historical resources.

Archaeological Resources
Cumulative development in the City could damage or destroy archaeological
resources, including human burials, as result of ground-disturbing activities.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.4‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Because such resources are limited and constantly diminishing, this would be
considered a significant cumulative impact. Due to the number of recorded
archaeological sites in the area, there is a relatively high probability of the presence
of previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources in undisturbed
areas in the vicinity of the project site. However, as described above in Impact CR-
2, the proposed project is unlikely to damage or destroy archaeological resources.
The contribution of the project to the cumulative impact on archaeological
resources would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Further, MM CR-1
would further reduce this less-than-significant impact by ensuring the appropriate
treatment of archaeological materials in the unlikely event that they are
encountered. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project would be less than
significant.

3.4.6        Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Although impacts to archaeological resources are considered less-than-significant,
as discussed in Impact CR-2, implementation of the following mitigation measure
would further reduce this less-than-significant impact.

      MM CR-1      In the event that previously unknown archaeological remains
                   are uncovered during construction, land alteration work in the
                   general vicinity of the find shall be halted and a qualified
                   archaeologist shall be consulted. Prompt evaluations would
                   then be made regarding the finds and an appropriate course of
                   action would be implemented. If prehistoric archaeological
                   deposits are discovered, local Native American organizations
                   shall be consulted and involved in making cultural resources
                   management decisions. All such procedures shall comply with
                   CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, Public Resources Code 5097.98,
                   and Health and Safety Code 7050.5.

Implementation of MM CR-1 would further reduce the less-than-significant impact
associated with Impact CR-2 by ensuring the adequate evaluation and treatment of
archaeological resources in the unlikely event that they are uncovered during site
preparation activities.


3.4‐10                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                             3.5 Geology and Soils



3.5       GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section discusses geologic characteristics of the proposed Project Area and
identifies seismic hazards and site constraints and their location so they may be
taken into account in project development. The Initial Study identified the
potential for the project site to expos structures to risks from seismic effects and
geologically unstable soils. The Initial Study also identified less than significant
impacts from soil erosion due to conformance with standard erosion control
measures, and expansive soils due to the use of fill materials in construction that
would underlie the site. No use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal
systems is proposed. Therefore, project impacts related to erosion, expansive soils,
and use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems are not analyzed in
this section. A Geotechnical Investigation—Phase I report (provided as Appendix
F) was prepared for the project in February 2003 by URS Corporation. This
section is based on the information provided in this report.

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not alter the characteristics of the
project with respect to geological and seismic conditions on the project site, as
project-related changes still involve the placement of tanks in the southwestern
portion of the Carson Terminal and placement of fill in the Old Dominguez
Channel remnant on the project site. Consequently, no additional analysis beyond
that provided in the 2003 DEIR (provided below) is required.

3.5.1     Existing Conditions

Regional Geologic Characteristics
Carson Terminal is located within the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges Province is
characterized by a series of generally northwest-trending mountain ranges and

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.5‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


intervening valleys. A broad sediment-filled trough generally referred to as the Los
Angeles Basin characterizes the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges
Province.

The area lies within the western portion of the Los Angeles basin. This area is
underlain by over 1,100 feet of sediments, which have been deposited within this
down-warped basin since Pliocene time. Within this portion of the basin, deposits
of Quaternary and upper Pleistocene age overlie marine sediments deposited in a
shallow sea that covered this portion of southern California during Pliocene and
early Pleistocene time. The area was subsequently infilled with alluvial material
originating from the surrounding mountain ranges.

The hills bordering this area of the Los Angeles Basin are characterized by a
complex sequence of Cretaceous to Pleistocene age marine and nonmarine
sedimentary rocks. Localized igneous intrusive rocks attest to the complex geologic
history of the area. Erosion of the Santa Monica Mountains, Palos Verdes Hills,
and Puente Hills located north, west, and east of the site, respectively, is the source
for the broad alluvial deposits covering much of this portion of the Los Angeles
Basin. A Regional Geology Map is shown in Figure 3.5-1.

Site Geologic Characteristics
Carson Terminal is underlain by a thin blanket of artificial fill overlying
Quaternary to upper Pleistocene-aged alluvium. These deposits overlie Pliocene-
aged marine sands, silts, and clays of the Pico Formation deposited in a shallow
sea (DWR, 1961). Pleistocene age and younger deposits are representative of
alluvial outwash associated with transport and deposition of the ancestral Los
Angeles River, as well as smaller tributaries such as the Dominguez Channel,
which drains the Rosecrans Hills, located north of the site.

The project site, as seen on the 1899 and 1902 USGS topographic maps (Downey
Quadrangle), was an area surrounded (along the northern and southwestern sides)
by a series of connected, fresh-water lakes or ponds and open or submerged
marshes, collectively comprising the Watson Lakes. Also present was a narrow
creek (Compton Creek) and its tributaries which meandered through the easterly


3.5‐2                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                              3.5 Geology and Soils


portion of the site from the northerly Dominguez Hills and discharged into San
Pedro Bay. Today, the existing slough on the site is a visible remnant of these
previous features, which contain soft, lacustrine deposits. Soils outside the slough
consist primarily of medium dense to dense sands and silty sands.

When the Carson Terminal facility was initially developed, site preparation within
and around most of the pre-existing slough areas included filling to raise the grade
to the desired elevations (currently between +20 to +34 feet above mean sea level
[MSL]).     Evidence     that    some     of   the    soft     soils    were     left




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.5‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis




                    Figure 3.5-1 Regional Geology




3.5‐4                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.5 Geology and Soils



in place below the existing fill was observed in some previous borings and cone
penetration tests (CPTs) conducted within the Carson Terminal facility (URS
2003).

Tectonically, the site is situated between the Newport-Inglewood Fault and the
Palos Verdes Fault Zone. Both are northwest trending zones of strike-slip/oblique,
which is typical for this region of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The
Cherry Hill segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault is located 2.5 miles (4
kilometers) to the northeast. A small, northwest trending unnamed fault is also
located 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) to the northeast. Recent seismicity near the site
includes the 1933 magnitude 6.3 (Mw) Long Beach earthquake, which occurred 16
miles (27 kilometers) southwest of the site on the Newport-Inglewood Fault.
During this event, extensive liquefaction and lateral spreading occurred
throughout Long Beach in areas underlain by loose, unconsolidated, granular
sediment (Barrows 1974). Another nearby seismic event is the 1987 magnitude 5.9
(Mw) Whittier Narrows earthquake. The epicenter of this earthquake was
approximately 22 miles (35 kilometers) northeast of the site.

Based on exploratory borings in the Geotechnical Investigation, a thin blanket of
artificial fill consisting predominately of sands and silty sands is present at the
surface. The fill soils are immediately underlain by alluvial soils comprising
predominately of clays and silty clays (in slough areas) and sands and silty sands
below and around the slough deposits to the maximum depth explored (55 feet).

Carson Terminal is located immediately northeast the active Wilmington Oil Field.

On-Site Developed Areas
Eight of the new tanks are proposed within existing developed areas at the site
(TK-100, TK-101, TK-102, TK-103, TK-104, TK-114, TK-117, and TK-118). The
developed areas are typically at an elevation of about +25 feet to +30 feet MSL.
The existing developed areas are generally underlain by a 30- to 40-foot-thick
layer of medium dense to dense silty sands and sands with occasional interbedded
layers of silt and clay. Borings conducted for the Geotechnical Investigation




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.5‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


encountered groundwater within the existing developed areas at depths of 40 to
48 feet below existing grade.

Slough Area
Six of the new tanks would be constructed within the footprint of the Old
Dominguez Channel at the southwest portion of the project site. The slough
generally covers an area of approximately 5 acres. The longest side of the slough is
oriented in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction and is approximately 800 feet
in length. The width varies from about 300 to 400 feet. The sides are naturally
sloped at about 1 (horizontal): 1 (vertical) with some slightly steeper portions. The
elevation of the bottom varies from about +2 to +5 feet MSL.

The channel surface consists of an approximately 5-foot-thick crust of loose silty
sand of recent origin. A portion of the bottom contains artificial fill (from
previously raising the pre-existing channel areas to desired elevations) that has
accumulated over a period of time. Some of the fill may exist a few feet below the
surface as a result of being covered with soil washed down from the adjacent
slopes during periods of rain. Immediately underlying the upper crust is a 5- to 25-
foot-thick layer of soft, recent alluvium comprising compressible clay and silt. This
compressible layer is thickest along the mid-portion and generally thins out along
the edges of the slough. Underlying the compressible deposits are medium dense
sands and silty sands. These sands generally grade denser with depth to about 50
feet below existing site grade. Groundwater within the slough area was
encountered in soil borings at depths of about 20 to 30 feet below ground.

3.5.2     Regulatory Framework

Uniform Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through
the California Building Code (“CBC”). The CBC is based on the Uniform Building
Code (“UBC”), which has been modified for California conditions, and is generally
adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification
based on local conditions.




3.5‐6                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                            3.5 Geology and Soils


The UBC defines different regions of the United States and ranks them according
to their seismic hazard potential. There are four types of these regions, including
Seismic Zones 1 through 4, with Zone 1 having the least seismic potential and Zone
4 having the highest seismic potential. Carson Terminal is located in Seismic Zone
4; accordingly, the project would be required to comply with all design standards
applicable to Seismic Zone 4.

Chapter 23 of the CBC contains requirements specific to seismic safety. Chapter 29
of the CBC regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. Chapter 33 of
the CBC contains specific requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation,
and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with
excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 70 of the
CBC regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. The City
has adopted these sections of the CBC, with amendments to Chapters 23, 29, and
33 to include additional restrictions to ensure structural stability.

3.5.3     Thresholds of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would
     Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
     including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
       › Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
          Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
          Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
          fault
       › Strong seismic groundshaking
       › Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
       › Landslides
     Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
     unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site
     landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.5‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.5.4     Impacts
Impact GEO-1 New development would expose structures to both
             localized and regional seismic hazards including strong
             groundshaking, liquefaction, or landslides in the event
             of an earthquake.

The proposed project site, like most sites in southern California, is most
susceptible to ground shaking generated during earthquakes on nearby faults. The
intensity of ground shaking, or strong ground motion, is highly dependent upon on
the distance between the fault and the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and
the underlying soil conditions. According to Hart (1997), the site is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No other faults have been
mapped through the site or vicinity. Therefore, primary ground rupture is not
expected to be a concern. However, earthquakes occurring on faults closest to the
site may generate large ground shaking at the site.

According to the recent Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones prepared by the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), the on-site
slough is located within a liquefaction hazard zone (CDMG, 1999). Liquefaction
hazards are usually manifested in the form of buoyancy forces during liquefaction,
increase in lateral earth pressures due to liquefaction, horizontal and vertical
movements resulting from lateral spreading, and post-earthquake settlement of
the liquefied materials. The granular nature of the existing soils and the presence
of shallow groundwater could cause the subsurface soils to liquefy during an
earthquake. A site-specific liquefaction hazard analysis was performed in
accordance with “Seed and De Alba, 1986, Use of In-situ Testing in Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE Special Publication No.6.” Results of the site-specific
liquefaction analyses identified some of the saturated granular soils between about
40 and 50 feet below the final ground surface (corresponding to –20 to –30 feet
MSL) to be susceptible to liquefaction-induced settlement under a design
earthquake (10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years), potentially resulting
in about 4 to 6 inches of settlement. However, considering that approximately
about 40 feet of nonliquefiable soils are above the liquefiable soil layer, the effects
of this settlement at the final ground level would be negligible.



3.5‐8                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                              3.5 Geology and Soils


According to CDMG, the site is not located with in a landslide hazard zone. Filling
of the slough would result in a leveling of the project site. Therefore, the project
would not be susceptible to a significant potential for landsliding.

Due to project location within a seismically active area, exposure of structures to
hazards from seismic events would be potentially significant.

Impact GEO-2 Development would be exposed to geotechnical
             constraints, including subsidence and differential
             settlement.

As described above, Carson Terminal is located immediately northeast the active
Wilmington Oil Field. Subsidence beneath the proposed site due to adjacent oil or
groundwater withdrawal is unlikely to occur due to the depth that such activities
occur at and due to current oil extraction practices that limit subsidence by
injecting water in place of extracted oil.

Within the slough area, soft or low-density soils may be susceptible to settlement if
exposed to heavy loads. Differential soil settlement occurs when soils of different
densities and strengths abut each other and seismic shaking causes one type of soil
to settle more than the other. When unaccounted for in design, such settlement
can result in damage to structures, pavements, and subsurface utilities. The soil
conditions within the slough are considerably different than the surrounding soils.
Soft, low density clayey organic soils in the slough may behave differently than the
relatively more dense granular soils surrounding the slough.

The proposed backfill of the 5-acre slough is expected to raise the existing ground
surface from an elevation of about +5 feet MSL to a finished grade elevation of
about +25 feet MSL. However, this activity is expected to result in significant long-
term consolidation settlement of underlying compressible materials due to the fill
load. Based on the settlement analyses conducted during the Geotechnical
Investigation, estimated total settlements induced by completely filling the slough
to an elevation of about +25 feet MSL would be on the order of 30 inches. The
settlement could take about 8 years to complete. In addition, further long-term
settlements would occur upon application of the loading due to the new tanks. An
additional 12 inches of settlement is expected to occur due to future tank loading.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.5‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


This settlement could result in damage to proposed tanks and piping. Impacts
associated with exposure of development to differential settlement would be
potentially significant.

3.5.5     Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development throughout the City would result in exposure of persons
and property to risks associated with seismic hazards and geotechnical constraints.
These impacts would be site-specific and risks would not be compounded by
cumulative development. Compliance with mitigation measures identified below
would reduce effects of potential seismic impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Cumulative impacts from seismic hazards would be less than significant.

Cumulative development could also result in increased erosion during
construction. Increased erosion could cumulatively increase sedimentation in
drainages. Because the project involves ground disturbance of a one-acre area, it is
subject to the conditions of the General Construction Activity National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB; see Section 3.7 [Hydrology] for more information). The
NPDES permit requires identification of erosion prevention Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the proposed project. Implementation of BMPs as required
by the RWQCB would ensure that project contribution to these cumulative
erosional impacts would be less than significant.

3.5.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
The following mitigation measure would be required to address impacts from
seismic safety and soil stability:

      MM GEO-1 The development shall comply with all recommendations
               contained in the 2003 site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
               (URS Group, Inc., 2003), or any subsequent changes thereto,
               prepared for the project in compliance with California Division
               of Mines and Geology. These recommendations include
               structural design measures to address seismic safety,
               settlement, and other site-specific conditions. The geotechnical

3.5‐10                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                         3.5 Geology and Soils


                  investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the Los
                  Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land
                  Development Division prior to obtaining a building permit.

Soil and groundwater conditions were observed and interpreted at the boring and
CPT locations only during the 2003 Geotechnical Investigation—Phase I. The
obtained information has been used as the basis of the recommendations provided
in the 2003 report. However, conditions may vary between the exploration
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that differs from
those described in the 2003 report, recommendations therein may need to be
modified. Consequently, the following measures would also be required:

     MM GEO-2 The project sponsor shall retain a geotechnical engineer who
              shall serve as a geotechnical monitor throughout the
              construction phase of the project so that if conditions are
              encountered during construction that differ from those
              described in the Geotechnical Investigation (URS Group, Inc.,
              2003), recommendations in the report may be modified as
              appropriate by the geotechnical engineer.

     MM GEO-3 If, during construction, conditions are encountered that differ
              substantially from those described in the Geotechnical
              Investigation (URS Group, Inc., 2003), all construction
              activities shall be suspended until a geotechnical engineer has
              performed adequate investigations of the conditions and has
              provided additional recommendations as appropriate.

Implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-3 would reduce geologic impacts
to the maximum extent feasible. Recommended soil improvement techniques,
tank design features, and monitoring procedures to avoid settlement impacts are
provided in the 2003 Geotechnical Investigation for the project.
Recommendations also apply to design and construction of tanks to withstand
groundshaking and include design review and review of construction techniques
by the geotechnical engineer. Compliance with recommendations would reduce



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                      3.5‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


risk of impacts related to seismic hazards and settlement constraints to a less-
than-significant level.




3.5‐12                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials



3.6       HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section focuses on the hazards associated with historic and potential use,
storage, or manufacturing of hazardous materials on the proposed project site.

This section also describes the potential adverse impacts on human health and the
environment due to exposure to hazardous materials that could be encountered as
a result of implementation of the proposed project. Hazardous materials include,
but are not necessarily limited to, inorganic and organic chemicals, chemical
reagents and reaction products, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, radioisotopes,
fuels, oils, paints, cleansers, pesticides, and biohazardous substances that are used
in activities such as building and grounds maintenance and vehicle maintenance.
Hazardous materials use generates hazardous by-products that must eventually be
handled and disposed of as hazardous wastes.

Potential effects include those associated with contaminated sites and the potential
exposure to hazardous materials used, stored, transported, or disposed of during
construction activities (such as exposure to lead as a result of existing tank
demolition) or project operation. Potential water quality effects from construction-
related surface water runoff that could contain hazardous materials and/or from
groundwater dewatering during construction or operation are discussed in Section
3.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality). Impacts related to toxic air contaminants that
could be emitted during project construction or operation are discussed in Section
3.2 (Air Quality).

The Initial Study concluded that no impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed project would occur with respect to safety hazards associated with any
public use airport. The project site is not located within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport and has not been included in an airport land use plan.
The Initial Study also concluded that because the project site is not located
adjacent to wildlands, no risks associated with wildland fires would affect, or be
affected by, the proposed project. No schools are located within one-quarter mile
of the project site, and the Initial study determined there would be no impact from
hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste as a



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.6‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


result of the proposed project. Therefore, no further analysis of these issues is
provided in this EIR.

Data used to prepare this section were taken from various sources, including the
State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Carson
Development Project – Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset Study prepared for
the proposed project by URS June 2, 2003.

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
URS prepared an addendum to the 2003 Risk of Upset Study to determine
whether the changes in the project description altered the conclusions of the
original analysis. This addendum is included with the original Risk of Upset Study
in Appendix G to this EIR. The addendum determined that the changes in the
project do not alter the conclusions of the original study; however, this section has
been revised to provide further detail regarding the potential effects of the project,
particularly the worst-case hazards scenario.

3.6.1     Existing Conditions

Definitions
The State of California defines a hazardous material as a substance that is toxic,
ignitable or flammable, or reactive and/or corrosive. An extremely hazardous
material is defined as a substance that shows high acute or chronic toxicity,
carcinogenicity, bio-accumulative properties, persistence in the environment, or is
water reactive (California Code of Regulations, Title 22). Hazardous materials are
any substances or combination of substances that, because of quantity,
concentration, or characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an
increase in death or serious injury, or pose substantial hazards to humans and/or
the environment.




3.6‐2                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                          3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


A “hazardous waste,” for the purpose of this analysis, is any hazardous material
that is abandoned, discarded, or recycled, as defined by Section 25124 of the
California Health and Safety Code. Hazardous wastes occasionally may be
generated by actions that change the composition of previously nonhazardous
materials.

Project Site Characteristics
The Carson Terminal property encompasses approximately 98.7 acres at the
southeast corner of Alameda Street and Sepulveda Boulevard. The area proposed
for additional tanks currently includes three 80,000-barrel tanks and one
178,000-barrel tank. Of the three 80,000-barrel tanks, one tank is used to store
premium oil, another tank stores crude oil, and one remaining tank has been
decommissioned. The 178,000-barrel tank has also been decommissioned.
Existing pipes, piping manifolds, power poles, transformers, and fire monitors are
located along the western boundary line of the project site adjacent to Alameda
Street. A wall and fence are located along the property line that separates the
project site from Alameda Street. Running across the project site northwest to
southeast is a 5-acre earthen depression that is a remnant of the Old Dominguez
Channel.

Existing Safety Programs
All businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials
are required by both the Federal and State governments to submit a business plan
to their local administering agency. The quantities for acutely hazardous materials
vary according to the substance. In the City of Carson, the administering agency is
the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). Every handler within the City
is required to submit a business plan and an inventory of hazardous substances
and acutely hazardous materials to the Fire Department on an annual basis. In
addition, if the hazardous materials inventory of a business should change, a
revised business plan must be submitted. Businesses that have submitted a
business plan are also subject to annual inspections conducted by inspectors from
the Los Angeles County Fire Department, with follow-up inspections as needed.



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.6‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


The Hazardous Materials Business Plan includes a hazardous materials inventory
that provides information on the types of chemicals used on the property, their
location, quantity, physical state, hazardous classification, and method of storage.
Specifically, chemicals that are present at the Carson Terminal facility throughout
the year include the following:
         Unleaded gasoline
         Diesel fuel
         Alkylate
         Naphtha
         MTBE
         Transmix
         Distillate
         Slops
         2-Ethyl Hexyl Nitrate
         Gas oil
         Additive (OGA477PL)
         HITEC
         Jet fuel
         Crude oil
         Bleach solution
         Sodium hydroxide
         Propane
         Methane
         Styrene

All of these chemicals at the facility are in liquid form and, with the exception of
sodium hydroxide, are stored in aboveground tanks. Sodium hydroxide is stored in
either plastic or nonmetallic drums at the facility. The plan indicates that fire
would be the major hazard associated with the materials stored at the Carson
Terminal. In an effort to lessen the harm or the damage to person(s), property, or
the environment at the facility, each storage tank is surrounded by a dike to
prevent the spread of potential spills, while spill containment equipment is made
available in emergency response centers located at the facility. The KMEP Health
and Safety Plan is also currently in place at the facility to protect personnel from


3.6‐4                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


being exposed to existing or potential contamination during construction
activities.

Consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 25504 (c) and
Title 19, Section 2732, safety and prevention training is provided to all employees
at the facility who may potentially encounter possible fire situations. Additionally,
the Consolidated Contingency Plan identifies an emergency response and
evacuation plan along with emergency procedures for employees to follow in the
event of an accidental release of hazardous materials. During an emergency, the
immediate response by employees would be to call 911 and then proceed with
Standard Emergency Procedures for the facility. Upon notification of a fire at the
facility, the Operations Manager, with the aid of the Emergency Control Group,
would immediately establish a command post and develop the strategy and tactics
to be used in the emergency. The manager would initiate the emergency
procedures by securing all product lines and tanks in the area of the fire, while the
Maintenance Superintendent would initiate proper electrical emergency
procedures. The fire-fighting activities would be coordinated by the Fire
Department, and all safety-related activities would be coordinated by a Safety
Director. The Terminal Engineer would also be present at the command post to
provide additional assistance, if necessary, at the facility.

Historical Tank Failure/Accident Data
In 1989, the American Petroleum Institute (API) conducted a survey of
aboveground storage tanks in the United States. The study divided tanks into four
categories based on use: marketing, refining, transportation, and production. The
tanks proposed under the project would be used for transportation, and the survey
included 1,107 facilities of 38 companies in the transportation sector. For these
facilities, the study summarized the capacity, age, construction type, and products
carried.

According to the survey, an estimated 8,107 storage tanks, with a total capacity of
over 490 million barrels, were used for transporting petroleum or petroleum
products in the U.S. 1989. Of the 8.107 tanks, about 20 percent were used for
gasoline storage and about 20 percent were used for storage of distillates, which


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.6‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


include jet fuel, kerosene, fuel oil, diesel, and other similar intermediate products.
Because the survey was conducted in 1989, accurate estimates of tanks in use in
the 1970s and early 1980s could not be made; consequently, only accident records
from 1985–2004 were analyzed, and the survey assumed that the number of tanks
remained the same during this period.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) accident
database, a total of 456 accidents occurred from 1985–2002 involving interstate
hazardous liquid storage tanks. Of these accidents, 109 (24%) were associated with
gasoline storage tanks. However, because most storage tanks for similar products
have similar structures and properties, all data for such tanks were combined to
estimate the failure rate (456 accidents in 17 years in 8,107 tanks), which was
calculated at 0.0033 per tank, per year during that time period. However, from
2002–2004, the failure rate decreased, yielding a new average failure rate of
0.00317.

The majority of these failures involved storage tanks built before 1970: more
recently built tanks used higher technology, were subject to more stringent
regulatory requirements, and would be expected to have lower failure rates as a
result.

Accident/Upset Scenarios and Effects
Failure of a tank while in use could result in a spill and, less commonly, a fire or
explosion. The study examined the U.S. DOT database, as well as two known
incidents not recorded in the database, for a range of upset scenarios associated
with tank failure, including:
         Fire spreading outside the facility
         Explosion
         An accident involving one or more fatalities
         An accident involving one or more injuries

Generally, the project stored in the tank at the time of a failure plays a major role
in the consequences of the failure: gasoline, for example, spreads more rapidly and
ignites more easily than jet fuel. According to the U.S. DOT database for 1985–


3.6‐6                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


2004, the recorded tank failures were associated with 38 fires and 11 explosions.
Only one of the explosions involved gasoline as a storage product.

All incidents recorded in the database for 1995–2004 collectively resulted in 17
injuries and three fatalities. Four injuries were associated with fires involving
gasoline storage tanks, and no fatalities resulted from incidents involving gasoline
storage facilities.

Refinery Incidents Nearby
Some of the nearby petrochemical facilities have had an explosion, fire, or a major
equipment breakdown in the past several years. The consequences of such
incidents were reviewed to determine what effect—if any—these recent off-site
incidents had on the project site.

It is important to note, however, that these facilities are refineries, rather than
storage facilities. Refinery operations, when compared to those of storage tank
farms, are much more complex and dynamic because of the various production
operations occurring on site. “Tank farm” operations like the proposed project are
limited to bulk storage and transport of petroleum product. As the incident reports
described below indicate, the fires/explosions at the refineries were attributed to
technical processing areas and no incidents were found of fires/explosions
resulting from petroleum storage tanks.

Information was available from the Information Management Division of the LA
County Fire Department and the Arson Investigation Section of the LA City Fire
Department. These agencies maintain a list of all known incidents and are a
reliable source of information. A summary of findings is presented below.
     Conoco Phillips Refinery—1520 E. Sepulveda Boulevard, City of Carson.
     The LA County Fire Department Information Management Division reported
     that they had five incident files related to fires/explosions for this site. Data
     from the period spanning 2000-2004 includes:
       › Two incidents were caused by acts of nature that resulted in an outside
          explosion/fire. The area or origin was from a transformer/switch gear.
       › Three incidents resulted in a fire/explosion due to a failure of equipment
          or a heat source. A technical processing area radiated/conducted heat
          from operating equipment, which resulted in a fire.

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.6‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


         There was no evidence of damage to the Carson Terminal or damage to any
         off-site facilities from any of these incidents.
         BP/ARCO Refinery—1801 E. Sepulveda Boulevard, City of Carson. The LA
         County Fire Department Information Management Division reported that
         they had four incident files related to fires/explosions for the site. Data from
         the period spanning 2000-2004 includes the following:
           › Two incidents were caused by acts of nature resulting in a fire/explosion.
              The area or origin was from a transformer/switch gear.
           › Two incidents resulted in a fire/explosion due to a failure of equipment
              or a heat source. A technical processing area radiated/conducted heat
              from operating equipment, which resulted in a fire.
         There was no evidence of damage to the Carson Terminal or any damage to
         off-site facilities from any of these incidents.
         Shell Refinery—2101 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Wilmington. The LA
         City Fire Department Arson Investigation Section reported that they had no
         incidents on file related to fires/explosions for this facility.

The information presented above indicates that fires occurred either due to outside
force damage or from technical processing areas. No incidents of fires/explosions
have occurred from petroleum storage tanks.

It should also be noted that all of the incidents at the off-site facilities were
contained on-site, and thus had no impact on the Kinder Morgan Carson Terminal
or any other off-site areas. Based on recent historical incidents reviewed and
distances of these facilities and other nearby facilities from the project site, an
adverse consequence at one of these facilities is not expected to impact the project
site.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials
Vehicular Transportation
Vehicles carrying hazardous material cargo for the Carson Terminal facility
regularly use the City’s nearby freeways and arterial streets, such as the Alameda
Corridor, as transportation routes. The Harbor Freeway (I-110) borders the
western edge of the City, the San Diego Freeway (I-405) bisects the City, the Long
Beach Freeway (I-710) runs from north to south touching the eastern perimeter of


3.6‐8                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


the City, and the Redondo Beach/Artesia Freeway (SR-91) runs east to west across
the northern portion of the City. Aside from these freeways, hazardous materials
could also be transported to and from the facility via numerous rail lines traversing
the eastern portion of the City. The LACFD responds to all hazardous materials
incidents within the City, including those along the railways. The California
Highway Patrol is in charge of abating spills that occur on the freeway, with the
local police and fire departments and Caltrans responsible for additional
enforcement and routing assistance.

Pipelines
The existing pipeline system—which is illustrated schematically in Figure 2-3
(Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners Western Service Region)—is designed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with numerous design safety and reliability
standards and various regulations, including very specific regulations
administered by the U.S. DOT Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and the California
State Fire Marshall’s Office of Pipeline Safety, which acts as the agent for the U.S.
DOT. Pipeline pressure is monitored and controlled continuously according to
these Operating Conditions and Safety Measures. These conditions and measure
are, in turn, determined by the designed Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) for
the pipeline, which is specified and regulated by U.S. DOT. These controls are the
primary means of achieving safe operations throughout the system.

3.6.2     Regulatory Framework
Incidents of environmental contamination and human injury or death associated
with hazardous materials have created a public awareness of the potential for
adverse effects from careless handling and/or use of these substances.
Consequently, a number of federal, State, and local laws have been enacted to
regulate the management of hazardous materials and wastes. Implementation of
these laws and the management of hazardous materials are regulated
independently of the CEQA process at federal, State, and local levels through
programs administered by various agencies. The key laws and regulations that are
relevant to the proposed project are briefly described in this section.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.6‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Overview of Hazardous Materials Management Laws
and Regulations
Primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management
include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor (federal
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Major laws
and issue areas include: Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)—
hazardous waste management; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act
(HSWA)—hazardous waste management; Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)—cleanup of contamination;
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)—cleanup of
contamination; Atomic Energy Act—radioactive materials; and Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know (SARA Title III)—business inventories
and emergency response planning.

Specific requirements for implementation of these statutes are codified in Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Additional regulations that apply to
workplace safety and transportation of hazardous materials are contained in CFR
Titles 29 and 49, respectively.

Hazardous materials management laws in California pertaining to the proposed
project include: Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL)—hazardous waste
management; Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act—discharges to
water and public notification; Hazardous Substances Account Act—cleanup of
contamination; and Hazardous Material Management Act (HMMA)—“Business
Plan” reporting.

The HMMA requires that any business that handles hazardous materials greater
than specified threshold quantities (500 pounds of a solid material, 55 gallons of a
liquid, or 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas stored at any one point in time) must
prepare a Business Plan. Business plans contain a description of the physical and
chemical properties of the substance for each hazardous and extremely hazardous
material that is handled, and the symptoms that result from contact with the
substance. The plan includes a site map that shows where each hazardous material


3.6‐10                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


is stored and handled and where emergency response equipment is located, and
outlines evacuation plans and procedures. The Los Angeles County Fire Health
Hazardous Materials Services Division is responsible for administering the State’s
Hazardous Materials Management Act, acting as the Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA), and thus reviews and approves any required Hazardous Materials
Management Plan and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement for the City. If
stored quantities would exceed threshold amounts, the Hazardous Material
Service Division would require and review a Business Plan for the proposed
project. The LACFD maintains a database that lists the business plans submitted
by businesses in the City, including the Carson Terminal facility, allowing for quick
and accurate evaluation of each situation for appropriate response.

Specific requirements for implementation are codified primarily in Title 26 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health
and Safety Code. Additional regulations that apply to workplace safety are
contained in CCR Title 8. Primary State agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous
materials management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Other State agencies
involved in hazardous materials management are the Department of Industrial
Relations (State OSHA implementation), State Office of Emergency Services
(OES), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Air Resources Board
(ARB), Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Integrated Waste
Management Board (IWMB).

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has the primary
enforcement authority for RCRA within California and for the State HWCL. The
local enforcement of these two laws is generally provided by county governments
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DTSC.

Pipeline Design and Operation
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 195 (Transportation of
Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) contains regulations authorized by the Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 for the design, construction, testing, operation,
and maintenance of pipelines. These regulations include design and operational


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.6‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


provisions to prevent and, where necessary, address potential effects resulting
from internal or external corrosion, third party damage, seismic hazards, human
operating error, design flaws, equipment malfunctions, fires, maintenance, and
weld failures.

Pipeline facilities fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. DOT, which delegates
regulatory and enforcement authority of interstate and intrastate pipelines in
California to the Office of the State Fire Marshall.

Water Quality Protection from Hazardous Substances
In California, comprehensive regulation of surface water and groundwater quality
is provided through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains regulatory authority for
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, CWA and State Drinking Water Act and Toxics
Enforcement (SDWA). Nine subsidiary Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCB) carry out enforcement of these laws. Water quality effects and control
measures related to leaking underground fuel storage tanks is under the
jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Protective Services Division Leaking
Underground Fuel Tank Program. The proposed project must comply with Order
No. 96-054, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit CAS614001
issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

In addition to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SDWA (more
commonly known as Proposition 65), implemented by the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA): (1) prohibits discharges of
chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or to exhibit
reproductive toxicity to any source of drinking water; (2) requires that anyone
exposed to such chemicals be warned first; and (3) requires that designated
employees report any illegal discharge or threatened illegal discharge of hazardous
waste.

Hazardous Materials Incident Response
The increasing volume and variety of hazardous materials that are generated,
stored, or transported within the City of Carson is a problem of great concern to

3.6‐12                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                            3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


public officials and the community. The City of Carson recognizes that hazardous
materials associated with industrial activities are essential to the economy of the
City and surrounding communities. It also recognizes that the presence of such
material within City boundaries poses unique dangers to the health and welfare of
the citizens of Carson. The City of Carson and assisting agencies have developed a
comprehensive Hazardous Material Response Plan in order to most efficiently
manage a hazardous materials emergency and to minimize its effects.

The LACFD is responsible for responding to hazardous material release incidents
in Carson. The LACFD is not a part of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), but is a
member of a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), which conducts
inspections of businesses, manages and reviews various hazardous waste permits
for business plans, and oversees cleanups. First response to all hazardous
materials incidents within the City is conducted by the LACFD. If they require
assistance, a hazardous materials response unit is dispatched to the site. There are
six primary fire stations that provide fire and emergency medical service to the
City of Carson, four of which are located within the corporate boundaries. In
addition to the six fire stations, there is a Fire Prevention Office located at Carson
City Hall. Due to its proximity to the project site, Fire Station No. 127, located at
2049 East 223rd Street, is the closest engine company and would likely provide
first-response service to the project site. In Carson, all businesses that store
acutely hazardous substances, including the Carson Terminal facility, are located
within 1.5 miles of a Los Angeles County Fire Station. Average response time for a
hazardous materials release in the City is the same as for a fire; approximately five
minutes. In order to reduce risk associated with earthquakes, recommendations
for hazardous materials storage include the following:
     Enforcement of the most recent Uniform Building Code regarding seismic
     design provisions for commercial development and critical facilities; facilities
     that store hazardous materials should be designed to withstand strong
     ground motion with only limited structural damage
     Enforcement of current regulations, including those in the Uniform Fire
     Code, regarding the storage of hazardous materials, with an emphasis on
     secondary containment systems, segregation of reactive chemicals and
     monitoring systems, and immobilization of all unanchored hazardous
     materials containers


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.6‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


      Encourage storage of the minimum amount of hazardous materials
      necessary for day-to-day operation, especially of those materials that can
      produce toxic gaseous clouds
      Encourage the use of less-hazardous or nonhazardous substances whenever
      possible

Los Angeles Basin Call Wheel
In addition to the LACFD, a “Call Wheel” has been prepared for pipeline leak
notification to petroleum companies within the Los Angeles Basin. The purpose of
the “Call Wheel” is for leak information notification to companies on the Call
Wheel and response information on who claimed the leak.

Reporting Releases to Environmental Agencies
Certain releases of hazardous substances must be reported to federal, State, and
local environmental agencies, depending on the quantity and the type of substance
released. At any time during construction or occupancy, the project developer and
contractors are responsible for knowledge of and carrying out their release
reporting responsibilities. The DTSC, OES, RWQCB, or appropriate local agencies
must be notified in accordance with timelines set forth in implementing
regulations.

Regulatory Process for Determining Need for
Remediation
The current regulatory view of site redevelopment where chemical constituents are
present in the soil or groundwater is that decisions regarding cleanup and future
site use should be based on actual and reasonably projected risks presented by
individual sites. This site-specific, risk-based decision-making process is often
referred to as “Risk-Based Corrective Action,” or RBCA. The RBCA approach is
marked by a focus on planned land uses, a recognition that all sites do not present
the same risk, the understanding that the actual risks posed by a site are a function
of the populations that could be present and the activities they could be engaged
in, and an acknowledgment that many risks can be reduced and/or eliminated
through the implementation of risk management measures. Other approaches that


3.6‐14                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


might attempt to manage site environmental conditions through measures such as
removal of large amounts of soil or groundwater or the construction of subsurface
barriers would be impractical to implement, could cause substantial disturbance to
the local community during their installation or operation, and may not be cost-
effective. Additionally, implementation of such measures could increase the risk to
human health and the environment during construction by creating new or
additional exposure pathways that would not otherwise exist if such measures
were not implemented.

The risk estimates that are identified through the RBCA process take into
consideration such factors as the concentration and further migration of
contaminants, potential hazards to site workers and nearby populations, and
potential exposures to the public, based on future land use. Depending on the
types of chemicals present and potential pathways through which individuals
might be exposed to the chemicals, contaminants in soil or groundwater can often
be left in place or cleaned up to a degree that does not pose a threat to human
health or the environment.

Many risks identified through the RBCA process can be safely managed through
the implementation of risk management plans. These plans describe how risks to
the public and environment can be reduced to levels that do not exceed adopted
regulatory criteria. In addition, they describe mechanisms to ensure successful
implementation, enforcement, and monitoring necessary to continuously manage
these risks. Title 49, Part 195 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 195)
prescribes safety standards and reporting requirements for pipeline facilities used
in the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide, including the project
site. These regulations prescribe minimum design requirements for new pipeline
systems and related facilities constructed with steel pipe and for relocating,
replacing, or otherwise changing existing systems constructed with steel pipe,
maintenance, safety-related conditions and reporting, and accident reporting
conditions. These regulations also specify training and qualifications for personnel
regarding operations, maintenance, and emergency response.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.6‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


In the event remediation is necessary, cleanup would be subject to applicable
regulations and standards adopted by the DTSC, RWQCB, Cal/OSHA, County
APCD, and LACFD Hazardous Materials Division.

Workplace Safety
In the workplace (e.g., the proposed commercial, industrial, institutional uses
within the project area), Cal/OSHA regulations (Title 8 of the CCR) concerning the
use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, availability
of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency
action and fire prevention plan preparation must be implemented. Cal/OSHA
enforces the hazard communication program regulations, which include
provisions for identifying and labeling hazardous materials, describing the hazards
of chemicals, and documenting employee-training programs.

City of Carson General Plan
The City of Carson General Plan is currently being updated. Therefore, it is not
feasible to provide an analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with
General Plan policies that pertain to the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials.

3.6.3     Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2003
CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on
hazards and hazardous materials if it would result in any of the following:
      Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
      routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
      Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
      reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
      hazardous materials into the environment
      Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
      compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, create a
      significant hazard to the public or the environment




3.6‐16                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                            3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


     Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
     response plan or emergency evacuation plan

3.6.4     Impacts
Impact HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not
             create a significant hazard to the public or the
             environment through the routine transport, use, or
             disposal of hazardous materials.

The proposed project would involve the storage of petroleum and petroleum
products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, gasoline blending components,
crude oils, naphthas, and heavy gas oils. Many of these products are classified as
combustible or flammable materials by U.S. DOT and are therefore considered
hazardous materials for the purpose of transportation. As such, the major
transportation corridors that may potentially be used to transport hazardous
material cargo for the Carson Terminal facility, including the Harbor, San Diego,
and Artesia Freeways and arterial streets, are a potential source of accidental
releases or environmental incidents. However, the transportation of hazardous
substances in the City would be required to adhere to the regulations of the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which is enforced by both the
department and the California Highway Patrol. Specifically, as discussed in
Section 3.6.1 (Existing Conditions), the LACFD would be responsible for
responding to all hazardous materials incidents within the City, while the
California Highway Patrol would be in charge of abating spills that occur on the
freeways. Additional enforcement and routing assistance is also provided by the
local police and fire departments and Caltrans.

Construction activities would involve excavation and disturbance of surface soils
during site preparation, demolition of four existing tanks, grading, piping
installation, tank pad construction, tank construction, and paving. The EPA
specifically classifies the residual remaining in a container (i.e., storage tank) that
has held hazardous materials or substances as hazardous waste. Therefore, the
residual waste or “tank bottoms” resulting from the demolition of tanks would be
classified as hazardous waste. Lead paint may also be encountered in the tank
demolition process. A lead-based paint survey would be conducted to document


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.6‐17
3.0 Environmental Analysis


worker exposure levels per Cal-OSHA Construction Safety Orders, California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1. State-certified contractors, who are
required to comply with applicable health and safety and hazardous materials
regulations, must perform inspection, testing, and abatement of lead-containing
materials. Compliance with existing federal and State regulations, as described
above, would reduce any potential impacts associated with exposure of workers
and the environment to lead-based paint.

The tank bottoms, container, and associated equipment would be contained and
disposed of pursuant to local, State, and federal regulations. However, accidental
release of residual product, if any, from these storage tanks could have the
potential of impacting the soil or contaminating surface waters or groundwater
aquifers.

The majority of the new tanks would be installed at an existing 25-foot depression
located on the southwest section of the property. Based on a history of operations,
soils at portions of the Carson Terminal facility, including the project site, may
potentially be impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons. In addition, equipment
used during the demolition and construction phase may be contaminated from the
residual petroleum products residing in the soils, storage tanks, or associated
equipment. Construction personnel working in the potentially contaminated area
that would require grading and importation of fill could be exposed to
contaminated soils. Under EPA guidelines, such equipment would be treated as
hazardous, and appropriate measures would be taken either for proper equipment
disposal or for decontamination. During construction activities, any contaminated
soils or other hazardous materials encountered would be segregated, analyzed, and
transported using a licensed transporter to a local treatment facility such as ART
in Lynwood, or TPS in Adelanto, California. An invoice identifying all the potential
hazardous materials being transported from the project site would also be
required. Lead paint would be disposed of in accordance with local, State, and
federal rules and regulations.

If required during construction activities, dewatering could result in the
withdrawal of contaminated groundwater. If the groundwater contains
contaminants above regulatory levels, the water could present a hazard to people

3.6‐18                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                          3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


or the environment unless properly managed. However, best management
practices would be implemented during construction dewatering to avoid exposure
of construction workers to potentially contaminated groundwater, such as
groundwater testing, containment of contaminated groundwater in storage tanks
for subsequent treatment and/or disposal, and/or the provision of release
response information. In addition, subject to Section 13263 of the California Water
Code, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issues Waste Discharge
Requirements to control discharges (including groundwater) to land or water, and
the risk of exposure to construction workers would be less than significant.

However, the potential exists for other substances that were not previously
identified to be present at the project site and could be encountered during
grading or excavation. Although the City has no knowledge of any known or
suspected contamination at the site, the potential to encounter such substances or
conditions remains. As such, development of the proposed project could result in
the exposure of construction workers or the public to such substances, and this
impact would be potentially significant.

MM HAZ-1 provides that the site be assessed for the possible presence of
contaminated materials and appropriate remediation measures to be taken if
required. MM HAZ-2 requires a lead-based paint survey, and MM HAZ-3 provides
that all construction personnel would be required to follow the Carson Terminal
facility’s Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and use appropriate equipment where
necessary. MM HAZ-4 provides for that a contingency plan would be in place prior
to construction activities to handle impacted soil encountered during construction.
The measure would also require the suspension of construction activities when
previously unknown contamination is encountered and the implementation of an
appropriate health and safety plan. Furthermore, MM HAZ-5 requires that KMEP
update its existing response plans and training, operating, and reporting
requirements under 49 CFR 195 to address the proposed chemical constituents
and also requires the project design to comply with the applicable provisions of 49
CFR 195. In addition, upon identification of the contamination, a remediation plan
must be implemented at the site.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          3.6‐19
3.0 Environmental Analysis


In summary, while the proposed project would result in the installation of
additional tanks on site to store petroleum products, compliance with procedures
and safety standards related to the use, disposal, and transport of hazardous
materials and wastes mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and
regulations would ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous
materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant.
Implementation of MM HAZ–1 through MM HAZ-5 would further ensure that this
impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Impact HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not
             create a significant hazard to the public or the
             environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
             accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
             materials into the environment.

A letter was received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicating
that the project site is subject to an abatement order for groundwater pollution.
This water quality issue is addressed in Section 3.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality).

Pipelines
No new offsite pipelines are proposed, and the existing pipeline system is
designed, operated, and maintained in accordance with numerous design safety
and reliability standards and various regulations, including regulations
administered by the U.S. DOT Office of Pipeline Safety and the California State
Fire Marshall’s Office of Pipeline Safety, as described above in Section 3.6.1
(Existing Conditions) and Section 3.6.2 (Regulatory Framework).

The Operating Conditions and Safety Measures associated with the pipelines are
not related to volume: although the volumes are expected to increase, no
proportional increase in risk would occur because risk is related to potential for
third-party hits and the integrity of the system as it is affected by design MOP
(which is specified and regulated by U.S. DOT), the effectiveness of cathodic
protection, and other safety factors related to design, and all new pipelines will
include the same safety features as are present onsite today. Consequently, an
increase in storage capacity would not affect these factors. Further, although use of
the lines would increase, operating conditions would remain the same. Pipeline


3.6‐20                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                           3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


pressure is monitored and controlled continuously and these controls are the
primary means of maintaining safe continuous operations.

Additionally, the proposed pipeline interconnections located within Carson
Terminal were considered when analyzing the project risks, and the analysis
identified potential upset scenarios and then modeled the scenarios that
represented the potential worst-case incidents. The worst-case scenarios were
identified as vapor explosions and pool fires involving a relatively large volume of
product, such as a tank failure, compared to smaller incidents, such as a pipe
rupture, that involve smaller amounts of product. The worst-case scenarios were,
therefore, considered in the analysis and quantified below.

Tanks
Consequences and Consequence Modeling
Because the proposed tanks are to be used for the storage of refined petroleum
products, spills or accidental release of petroleum products have the potential to
occur during project operation. These liquids and their associated vapors are
flammable in nature, and there an inherent risk exists for a fire or explosion in the
event of an upset condition. For the new configuration of the site, a risk evaluation
was performed by URS in June 2003 and an addendum was prepared by URS in
November 2004 (see Appendix G) to determine the possible conditions under
which an upset could occur and lead to a release of chemicals in the environment.
The risk evaluation considered release scenarios that could cause an impact to the
surrounding area, population, sensitive receptors, and the environment.

The risk analysis detailed factors that could cause an upset condition, including
high pressure or temperature conditions, pipeline corrosion, external conditions,
human error, and abnormal operation and maintenance. As described above in
Section 3.6.1 (Existing Conditions), records show that the majority of documented
storage tank accidents and failures involved storage tanks built before 1970; with
the technological advancements of recent years and more stringent safety
measures, modern storage tanks are expected to have a lower failure rate than
those installed 40 or 50 years ago. A storage tank failure could result in loss of
product containment, causing a spill and—rarely—a fire or explosion. Specific risks


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.6‐21
3.0 Environmental Analysis


include vapor cloud explosions (which are rare events), pool fires, and boiling
liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE). However, BLEVE events only occur in
pressurized vessels: because the proposed tanks would be at atmospheric pressure,
a BLEVE would not occur.

Vapor cloud explosions would result in blast impacts, which are described in terms
of overpressure. The significance criterion selected by the EPA is an overpressure
of 1.0 pounds per square inch (PSI), which may cause partial demolition of houses,
as well as shattering glass windows.

Fires result in the radiation of heat, the exposure to which is measured in kilowatts
per square meter (Kw/m2). Environmental Protection Agency guidance selected a
significance level of 5 kw/m2. An exposure to that level of heat for 40 seconds can
cause second-degree burns in humans, and this heat dosage was used to determine
the endpoint for fuel fires.

Using vapor cloud explosions and fires as worst-case release scenarios, two
scenarios were constructed to consider potential off-site impacts of upset
conditions:
      Scenario 1—The contents of a new gasoline tank (80,000 bbl) at the project
      site spill into a 6-foot-high dike capable of containing the tank capacity plus
      ten percent. The released gasoline then forms a vapor cloud and 10% of the
      flammable vapor ignites in the explosion.
      Scenario 2— The contents of a new gasoline tank (80,000 bbl) at the
      project site spill into a 6-foot-high dike capable of containing the tank
      capacity plus ten percent. The liquid then ignites. The initial tank failure is
      assumed to be an external event, such as an earthquake or equipment
      degradation.

Based on these two scenarios, consequence modeling, based on EPA Risk
Management Plan (RMP) guidance, was performed to determine the area of
impact arising from one of the catastrophic events described above. The modeling
was conservative and used gasoline because of gasoline’s commonality, volatility,
and flammability. The distance of the endpoint of the potential significant blast
effects of a vapor cloud explosion is 2.3 miles from the site of an incident. For a



3.6‐22                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                            3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


pool fire significant radiant heat effects could occur up to 0.5 miles from the site of
an incident.

Probability
The U.S. DOT accident database reviewed indicated that the upper-bound (i.e.,
most conservative) projected failure rate for a storage tank due to a fire is 1,210
years. The upper-bound projected failure rate for a storage tank due to an
explosion is 5,130 years. The probability of both scenarios is thus extremely
remote, and the potential for vapor cloud explosion is four times less likely than
that of a pool fire, which is in itself a very rare occurrence.

Comparing the results for the two different scenarios indicates that the impact
area for a vapor cloud explosion is larger than that of a pool fire. As noted above,
based on case history obtained from the U.S. DOT accident database, the
probability of occurrence of a vapor cloud explosion from storage tanks is
extremely low and is presented for planning purposes only, as recommended in
the EPA RMP guidelines.

Considering all factors, the hazard study concluded that the explosion scenario has
an extremely low probability of occurring and that a worst-case scenario involving
total tank inventory is highly improbable, as total tank inventory is rarely involved.
The model assumptions are thus extremely conservative and are presented for
planning purposes only, as is the intent of EPA’s RMP model guidelines.

Based on historical data obtained from the U.S. DOT’s accident database, covering
a period 1985 to 2004, the average tank failure rate is 0.00317 per year. The
analysis further concluded that the probability of explosions or pool fires occurring
is considered to be extremely rare and rates a 1 on the Frequency Index (Table 3.1-
1 of Appendix G). The frequency and consequence index, when combined, rate a 3
on the global risk matrix (Table 3.1-4 of Appendix G), which is considered a low-
risk category and an acceptable risk.

The proposed tanks would be interconnected to facilitate intra-tank transfers. New
manifolds with pumps and interconnecting piping would be installed to integrate
the new tanks with the existing facility. In order to reduce the risk of upset


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.6‐23
3.0 Environmental Analysis


condition, appropriate safety features have been incorporated into the tank design,
consistent with 49 CFR 195 and other regulations, including
      Level gauges and high-level alarms integrated with the existing terminal tank
      monitoring system
      Motor-operated valves on the inlet/outlet pipe to each tank
      High-level alarm to trigger facility operators to initiate corrective actions,
      resulting in a shutdown of the pumping system and isolation of the tank
      Leak-detection devices on the bottom of the tanks
      Cathodic protection to prevent deterioration of the tanks through corrosion
      Tank vapor seals that meet all South Coast Air Quality Management District
      requirements
      A vapor recovery system designed to collect tank vapors in low tank level
      situations

The tanks would be designed with a fire protection system and a leak detection
system. Intermediate dikes would be constructed around the tanks to provide an
additional level of safety from potential leaks and spills. These intermediate dikes
would be used for containment of minor spills, leaks, and overflow that may
originate from an individual tank. A containment dike would be constructed
around a cluster of tanks. The dike walls would include access roads around the
tanks. These containment areas would hold 100 percent of the contents of the
largest tank, plus an allowance for precipitation (usually defined around a 25-year,
24-hour rain event). The allowance for precipitation is generally acceptable at 10
percent of the volume of the largest tank.

Therefore, as the risk of accidental leaks, spills, fire, or explosion has been
assessed as low, and with implementation of the above safety measures integrated
into tank design, the impacts of the proposed project from risk of upset would be
less than significant, and no further mitigation is required.

Impact HAZ-3 Construction of the proposed project would not impair
             implementation of or physically interfere with an
             adopted emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The ability of emergency vehicles to efficiently respond to calls is important in
terms of widespread hazardous materials in the area, and, therefore, necessary


3.6‐24                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                            3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


response. According to the City’s 1996 SEMS Multi-Hazard Functional Plan,
arterial streets identified as evacuation routes within the City that are also adjacent
to Carson Terminal include Lomita Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Alameda
Boulevard. As such, construction of the proposed project may impair
implementation of the City’s emergency evacuation plan. Staging of construction
equipment and queuing of construction vehicles, while short-term, would
potentially result in obstructions to these adjacent arterial routes. In addition, the
installation of piping, pumps, and control systems on the project site may involve
the staging of construction on portions of Alameda Boulevard. Thus, impacts to
short-term obstruction of emergency routes would be potentially significant.
Ongoing coordination between the LACFD and the Applicant as required by
MM HAZ-6 and MM HAZ-7 would ensure that roadway or travel lane closures
would be coordinated with emergency response personnel so that construction of
the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with, emergency response and evacuation efforts. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.

Impact HAZ-4 The project site is not included on a list of hazardous
             waste and substance sites compiled pursuant to
             Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
             would not create a significant hazard to the public or
             the environment.

Specialized lists and databases identify locations of known hazardous materials
sites based upon a review of federal, State, and County hazardous waste lists and
databases pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. These lists and
databases include, but are not limited to, the Department of Toxic Substances
Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act database, and the California Hazardous Material
Incident Report System. These lists contain the location of known hazardous
materials sites containing asbestos waste, underground storage tanks,
photoprocessing chemicals, PCBs, unspecified solvent and organic mixture wastes,
unspecified aqueous solution, metal sludge, other hazardous materials monitored
by statute or regulation, known releases of hazardous substances, and locations
where radioactive or other hazardous materials are stored or used.



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.6‐25
3.0 Environmental Analysis


The project site does not appear on the DTSC list of hazardous waste and
substances sites (Cortese list), DTSC’s index of enforcement cases, or the list of
sites subject to cleanup or included in the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse
Program (CalSites), indicating compliance of the facility with applicable
regulations. All non-UST hazardous waste storage locations are managed in
accordance with all applicable federal and State laws, such as RCRA and the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law.

There are no known underground storage tanks (USTs) on the site. If any USTs are
discovered on site, their removal or maintenance would conform to applicable
federal, State, and local regulations. If future UST-related cleanup were
determined to be necessary, all work would be performed in accordance with the
guidelines of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board Underground Storage
Tank Program.

The project site is listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s SLIC
(Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup) database. This issue is addressed in
Section 3.7 (Hydrology and Water Quality). The project site is not listed as an EPA
Superfund (CERCLA) site.

With conformance with all applicable policies and regulations, this impact would
be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

3.6.5     Cumulative Impacts
It is anticipated that future growth in the greater Los Angeles area will result in an
incremental increase in the amount of hazardous materials used, treated,
transported, and disposed of Countywide. Although each development site has
potentially unique hazardous materials considerations, it is expected that future
growth will generally comply with the range of federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations applicable to hazardous materials, and will be subject to existing
and future programs of enforcement by the appropriate regulatory agencies. For
these reasons, cumulative impacts resulting from the use, transport, and disposal
of hazardous materials, or risk of upset from a release of hazardous materials,
would be less than significant.


3.6‐26                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                            3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


As discussed above in the impact discussion, the proposed project would not result
in significant public hazards as a result of hazardous materials use, transport, or
disposal, or as a result of accidental release of hazardous materials. The Carson
Terminal facility would continue to comply with all applicable laws and regulations
concerning the use, storage, transportation, and/or exposure of hazardous
materials, to reduce potential impacts. Consequently, the contribution of the
proposed project to cumulative impacts is also less than significant.

Cumulative effects of hazardous waste disposal (and the geographical area of
impact) vary based upon the type of waste in question. Nonradioactive hazardous
waste materials are disposed into readily available local permitted hazardous
waste facilities. Disposal facilities accepting nonradioactive hazardous waste are
not currently in short supply, and are not anticipated to be in short supply in the
future. The contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts associated
with the use, storage, transportation, and/or exposure of nonradioactive
hazardous materials would be less than significant.

It is possible that a number of the related projects and other future development in
the City of Carson and County of Los Angeles will involve significant renovation
demolition activity, which could subject construction workers to health or safety
risks through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers
potentially affected would vary from project to project. It is anticipated that future
development projects will adhere to the applicable federal, State, and local
requirements that regulate worker safety and exposure. As a result, cumulative
impacts would be less than significant. As the Carson Terminal facility will
continue to adhere to these applicable regulations, the proposed project’s
contribution to cumulative impacts associated with potential exposure of
construction workers to hazardous materials would be less than significant.

It is further possible that a number of the related projects and other future
development in the City of Carson and County of Los Angeles (see Chapter 2.0,
Project Description) could expose residents and construction workers to
contaminated soil or groundwater. It is anticipated that future development
projects will adhere to the applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations
that govern underground storage tanks and pesticide use, as well as requirements

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.6‐27
3.0 Environmental Analysis


applicable to disposal and cleanup of contaminants. As a result, cumulative
impacts would be less than significant. In the event that soil or groundwater
contamination is discovered on the project site, the Applicant would adhere to all
applicable rules and regulations regarding remediation and disposal of
contaminated soil or groundwater. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution
to cumulative impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soil or
groundwater would be less than significant.

Future development in the City of Carson and County of Los Angeles, including the
related projects, may be located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However,
it is anticipated that future development will comply with applicable laws and
regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes, and that risks associated with
identified hazardous materials sites would be eliminated or reduced through
proper handling, disposal practices, and/or clean-up procedures. In many cases,
development applications for projects affected by hazardous materials on
identified sites would be denied by the City of Carson if adequate cleanup or
treatment is not feasible. Accordingly, cumulative impacts on the public or
environment associated with development on or near hazardous materials sites
would be less than significant. There are no contaminated soil or groundwater
sites listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 on the project site. No
known underground storage tanks (USTs) exist on site. All non-UST hazardous
waste storage locations are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and
State laws, such as RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. As a
result, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with
development on or near hazardous material sites would be less than
significant.

Finally, construction and operation associated with the related projects and other
future development could result in activities that could interfere with adopted
emergency response or evacuation plans, primarily by temporary construction
barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access. It is
anticipated that future development projects will undergo CEQA review of
potential impacts on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, and will be


3.6‐28                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                          3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


required to implement measures necessary to mitigate potential impacts. As a
result, cumulative impacts relating to inference with adopted emergency response
or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Construction and operation
activities under the proposed project with respect to emergency response or
evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions
that could impede emergency access are mitigated by MM HAZ-5 and MM HAZ-6.
Ongoing coordination between the Applicant, the City, and the LACFD ensures
that roadway or travel lane closures will be coordinated with emergency response
personnel to ensure that the project would not impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, emergency response and evacuation efforts. As a result,
the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with
inference with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less
than significant.

3.6.6    Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
The following mitigation measures would be required to ensure that impacts from
Hazards and Hazardous Materials would be less than significant.

     MM HAZ-1 Prior to new construction, the development site shall be
              thoroughly assessed for the possible presence of contaminated
              materials. The level of inquiry shall be commensurate with the
              current and former activities of a particular site. Where site
              contamination is identified, an appropriate remediation
              strategy should be implemented prior to project approval. The
              remediation activities shall be performed by qualified and
              licensed professionals in the particular problem identified and
              all work shall be performed under the supervision of the
              appropriate regulatory oversight program.

     MM HAZ-2 A lead-based paint survey would be conducted to document
              worker exposure levels per Cal-OSHA Construction Safety
              Orders, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                         3.6‐29
3.0 Environmental Analysis


      MM HAZ-3 All construction personnel shall be required to follow the
               Carson Terminal facility’s Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and
               use appropriate equipment where necessary.

      MM HAZ-4 A contingency plan shall be in place prior to construction
               activities, subject to City approval, to handle impacted soil or
               other hazardous materials encountered during construction. In
               the event obvious or suspected contamination or other features
               or materials that could present a threat to human health or the
               environment are discovered during grading or excavation of
               the site, work shall cease immediately. The plan shall (1)
               identify the contaminants of concern and the potential risk
               each contaminant would pose to human health and the
               environment during construction and post-development and
               (2) describe measures to be taken to protect workers and the
               public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures
               could include a range of options, including, but not limited to,
               physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-
               term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access
               limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the
               nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be
               notified (e.g., Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Los
               Angeles County Department of Public Works Environmental
               Programs Division, and the DTSC). A site health and safety
               plan that meets OSHA requirements shall be prepared and in
               place prior to commencing work in any contaminated areas.
               The applicant, through its contractor, shall ensure proper
               implementation of the health and safety plan.

      MM HAZ-5 The applicant shall modify its existing response plans and
               training, operating, and reporting requirements under 49 CFR
               195 to address the proposed addition of chemical components
               to the site inventory. The project plans, response and training




3.6‐30                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                          3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


                  plans, and reports shall be subject to review and approval by
                  all applicable agencies.

     MM HAZ-6 Prior to approval of the project, alternative emergency
              response plans must be developed for use during construction.
              To ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when
              construction projects would result in temporary lane or
              roadway closures, the applicant shall consult with the City and
              LACFD to disclose temporary lane or roadway closures and
              alternative travel routes. These plans should be reviewed and
              approved by the City’s Public Safety Department and the
              LACFD.

     MM HAZ-7 A construction management plan, including identification of
              staging and parking areas, shall be developed and approved by
              the City prior to issuance of grading permits. To the extent
              feasible, the Applicant shall maintain at least one unobstructed
              lane in both directions on project-adjacent roadways. At any
              time only a single lane is available, the Applicant shall provide
              a temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or
              other appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both
              directions. If construction activities require the complete
              closure of a roadway segment, the Applicant shall provide
              appropriate signage indicating alternative routes.

Risks associated with hazardous materials are inherent in areas with heavy
industrial activities. Implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-7 would
ensure that risks associated with development at the project site would be less
than significant.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                        3.6‐31
                                                 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality



3.7       HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This EIR section evaluates and describes the potential impacts on ground and
surface water resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for project impacts
associated with the potential violation of water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, as well as alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area that may resulting in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site.
Issues scoped out in the Initial Study include the depletion of groundwater supply
or interference with groundwater recharge, the creation of additional sources of
polluted runoff, placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area,
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. The Initial Study concluded that the potential impact related
to groundwater supply or recharge is not significant because the amount of
impervious soil resulting from the proposed project is not of sufficient magnitude
as to affect groundwater recharge volumes. In terms of additional polluted runoff
generated by the proposed project, all rainwater runoff from the project site would
be retained and treated in accordance with the existing NPDES permit and Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works and Los Angeles Sanitation District’s
regulations, including compliance with the requirements of the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Program (SUSMP). In addition, the project site is not
located within a 100-year flood zone as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazards
Boundary, Flood Rate Insurance Map, or other flood hazard delineation map, and
is not located in the vicinity of a levee or dam. Furthermore, the project site is not
located in an area prone to natural phenomena such as seiche, tsunami, or
mudflows. As such, this section discusses potential impacts to ground and surface
water quality, and changes to drainage patterns resulting from implementation of
the proposed project.

Data used to prepare this section were taken from hydrology calculations prepared
for the project site (Appendix H), the Existing Conditions Report for the City of
Carson General Plan Update, observations made during a visit of the project site,
and consultation with City staff and the applicant.



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.7‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not significantly alter the hydrological
characteristics of the project, as project-related changes still involve the
conversion of a portion of the project site to impermeable surfaces and routing of
runoff to existing settlement basins on the Carson Terminal property.
Consequently, no additional analysis is required beyond that provided in the 2003
DEIR (provided below), as revised by the text changes previously discussed in the
2004 FEIR.

3.7.1     Existing Conditions

Surface Water
Drainage
Drainage on the Carson Terminal property is directed from a series of dikes and
roadways to separation ponds on the northeastern corner of the project site. The
capacity of the ponds is 1.5 million gallons (4.6 acre-feet). The dikes that surround
the existing tanks on the property are provided primarily for spill containment
purposes, but also provide primary retention of storm flows. Storm flows for the
southern portion of the site are also captured and retained in the Old Dominguez
Channel remnant. A pumping system connects the dikes and the channel remnant
to the settlement ponds; however, the default position of the pumps is “off,” to
both allow collection and inspection of surface runoff and as a precaution against
transporting pollutants during a normal rainfall event and in the event of an
accidental release of petroleum products. During a storm event, surface flows are
not pumped from the dikes until retained the water has been inspected and
sufficient capacity exists in the main settlement ponds to accommodate these
flows. The water is first routed to the Pond No. 1, where it is skimmed before
flowing into Pond No. 2. Flows are released, after a 22-hour detention period, into
the Dominguez Channel via connections to the City storm drainage system. In


3.7‐2                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                               3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


addition, City drainage facilities that drain to the Dominguez Channel are also
located on Alameda Street, which borders the project site on the west, and on the
segment of Sepulveda Boulevard immediately west of Alameda Street. The ponds
are not generally used to capacity: although, on three occasions in the last six
years, the project site property has discharged the ponds in approximately 24
hours, daily discharge levels are typically low and range from 0 to 983,000 gallons
per day. The current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for the project site limit discharge rates to 2.5 million gallons per day
(mgd; LARWQCB 2003). Table 3.7-2, shows the pre- and post-project surface
development and runoff conditions of the project site. These calculations are based
upon development assumptions shown in Figure 3.7-1 (Surface Development
Plan). For a ten-year, 24-hour design storm, pre-project runoff has been calculated
at 44 cubic feet per second (cfs), yielding 11.9 acre-feet of water.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.7‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


               Figure 3.7-1 Surface Development Plan




3.7‐4                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                               3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


Fig p.2 (11x17)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                      3.7‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis



                           Table 3.7-2 Surface Development
             Description              HEC -1 Land Use   Pre-Project Acreage   Post-Project Acreage
 Existing Tanks                        Impermeable             3.1                    2.0
 New Tanks                             Impermeable             0.0                    4.4
 Equipment Pads                        Impermeable             0.0                    0.3
 Existing Roads                     Semi-Impermeable           0.9                    0.7
 New Roads                          Semi-Impermeable           0.0                    2.6
 Permeable Area (Original)              Permeable              17.0                   9.5
 Permeable Area (runoff to
                                        Permeable              6.5                    0.0
 slough)
 Project Area (filled and graded)       Permeable              0.0                    8.0
          Total Impacted Areas                                21.0                   27.5
 Source: Humphrey 2003, Table 1


Surface Water Quality
Stormwater pollutants include a wide array of environmental, chemical, and
biological compounds from both point and nonpoint sources. In the urban
environment, stormwater characteristics can differ depending on site conditions
(e.g., land use, imperviousness, pollution prevention), rain events (duration or
intensity), soil type and particle size, multiple chemical conditions, the amount of
vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. The EPA estimates that short-term
runoff from construction sites, without adequate erosion and runoff control
measures, can contribute more sediment to receiving waters than that deposited
by natural processes over a period of several decades.

Stormwater quality in the City of Carson is typical of most urban areas, in that it
includes a variety of common contaminants. These pollutants consist primarily of
suspended sediments, fertilizers and pesticides, animal waste, and contaminants
that are commonly associated with automobiles (e.g., petroleum compounds such
as oil, grease, and hydrocarbons). In addition, urban stormwater often contains
high levels of soluble and particulate heavy metals generated from traffic,
industrial facilities, and, occasionally, residential sources. These metals are
frequently found in concentrations that are harmful to aquatic life and other biota
dependent on aquatic life as a food source. Two of the most common metals found



3.7‐6                               Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


both in the water column and sediments are zinc and copper. Zinc tends to exhibit
toxicity effects in the fresh water environment; copper, in the marine environment.

The project site receives, stores, and ships petroleum and petroleum products, and
runoff from the site may contain petroleum compounds, heavy metals, and other
industrial wastes. Examples of industrial waste generated at the project site may
include processed water and waste stemming from certain cleaning activities.
Under Order No. 00-087 adopted by the LARWQCB on June 29, 2000, which
serves as a NPDES permit for the City, the Carson Terminal facility was
determined to have exceeded the effluent limitations for pH, turbidity, copper, and
zinc, the latter two, as described above, are classified as toxic metals. These
violations are a result of new and more stringent effluent limitations set by the
LARWQCB in Order No. 00-087: the previous Order (Order No. 94-062) for the
City did not have limits for pH and turbidity, and less stringent effluent limitations
for copper and zinc. The new effluent limits would protect the beneficial uses of
receiving waters. Consequently, the project site is currently under a Time Schedule
Order (TSO) issued by the LARWQCB to meet, by 2008, the discharge limitations
for copper and zinc contained in Order No. 00-087. A time frame for the facility to
achieve compliance with the pH and turbidity limits was not necessary because the
LARWQCB determined that the pH and turbidity violations would be controlled
using best conventional pollutant technology and/or best management practices at
the facility.

Groundwater
Groundwater Resources
Two groundwater basins underlie the City of Carson: the Central Basin and the
West Coast Basin. As shown in Figure 3.5-1 (Regional Geology), the Newport-
Inglewood Fault runs through the north-central portion of the City, trending
southeast. The fault acts as a barrier between the basins, and according to maps
from the LARWQCB (2003), the project site appears to overlie the Central Water
Basin. As described in the geotechnical report prepared for the project (URS 2003,
p. 13), borings conducted during soil testing encountered groundwater at depths of




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.7‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


40 to 48 feet below the existing grade of the majority of the site, and at depths of
20 to 30 feet below the bottom the Old Dominguez Channel.

As described in Section 3.9 (Public Services and Utilities), California Water Service
Company (CWS) derives about twenty percent of its supply from groundwater
resources. Los Angeles County studies have indicated that ninety percent of the
rain and runoff in the County either percolates naturally into the ground or is
captured in the flood control reservoirs for later release to recharge groundwater
basins (DWC 1996). However, most of the replenishment of the usable
groundwater aquifers is accomplished artificially via spreading grounds in the
Whittier Narrows area and the seawater barrier injection wells. Very little comes
from local rainfall (CWSC 2001).

Groundwater Quality
The State Water Quality Act established Regional Water Quality Control Boards to
regulate water quality in regional units defined by major watersheds. The City of
Carson is within the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(LARWQCB), or Region 4.

The general quality of groundwater within Region 4 has degraded substantially
from background levels. In areas with industrial or commercial activities, such as
the City of Carson, aboveground and underground storage tanks contain
hazardous substances, and leaks and other discharges can seep into and pollute
groundwater: the quality of groundwater in parts of the upper aquifers of both
basins is degraded by both organic and inorganic pollutants from a variety of
sources, such as leaking tanks, leaking sewer lines, and illegal discharges. Leakage
primarily includes gasoline, diesel fuel, and waste oil. The groundwater beneath
the project site is known to be contaminated as a result of the various conditions
listed above, and the site is currently under a cleanup and abatement and clean-up
order from the RWQCB: remediation is currently in progress for the entire site,
including the Channel remnant. An additional remedial measure prior to
construction includes the placement of a 1- to 2-foot low-permeability layer and fill
across the bottom of the entire Channel remnant prior to implementation of the
proposed project (Adkins-Greene, personal communication, 2003). This soil cover



3.7‐8                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                               3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


will further reduce the potential for percolation of soil contaminants in the
Channel remnant into the underlying groundwater.

3.7.2     Regulatory Framework

Federal and State
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and its 1986 amendments are
intended to ensure the quality of water supplies. The federal government through
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the quality and safety of
drinking water in the United States. In California, comprehensive regulation of
surface water and groundwater quality is provided through the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act. The SWRCB maintains regulatory authority for Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Act, CWA and State Drinking Water Act and Toxics
Enforcement (SDWA). Nine subsidiary regional boards enforce these laws. Present
and future development on the project site will be required to comply with Order
No. 00-087, NPDES Permit CA0056863 issued by the LARWQCB.

The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards currently administer the
NPDES permit regulations. Due to recent legislation, the scope of NPDES
regulations has been greatly expanded to include stormwater runoff. Stormwater
discharges consist primarily of nonpoint source surface runoff from streets, lawns,
parks, and upland undeveloped areas. The constituents of concern and significance
to downstream water quality in these discharges are those resulting from motor
vehicle operation, oil and grease residues, leaf fall, application of chemical and
organic fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, careless material storage and
handling, poor property maintenance, animal droppings, and pavement
disintegration. These typically include coliform bacteria, total suspended solids
(TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
organic carbon (TOC), and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).

NPDES Permits
The NPDES permit system was established in the CWA to regulate both point
source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or
pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.7‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, each
NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of
pollutants contained in the discharge. For nonpoint source discharges, the NPDES
program establishes a comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage
urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the environment to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). The NPDES program consists of (1) characterizing
receiving water quality, (2) identifying harmful constituents, (3) targeting
potential sources of pollutants, and (4) implementing a Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Program.

The reduction of pollutants in urban stormwater discharge to the MEP through the
use of structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) is one of
the primary objectives of the water quality regulations. BMPs typically used to
manage runoff water quality include controlling roadway and parking lot
contaminants by installing oil and grease separators at storm drain inlets, cleaning
parking lots on a regular basis, incorporating peak-flow reduction and infiltration
features (such as grass swales, infiltration trenches, and grass filter strips) into
landscaping, and implementing educational programs.

NPDES Phase I (General Construction Activity
Stormwater Permit)
Phase I of the NPDES Program addresses stormwater runoff from (1) “medium”
and “large” municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), generally serving
populations of 100,000 or greater; (2) construction activities disturbing 5 acres of
land or greater; and (3) ten categories of industrial activities. With respect to the
disturbance of five acres of land or greater from construction activities, the
SWRCB issued one statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit
(on August 20, 1992) to apply to all construction activities. Landowners are
responsible for obtaining and complying with the permit, but may delegate specific
duties to developers and contractors by mutual consent. For construction
activities, the permit requires landowners or their designated agent to
      Eliminate or reduce nonstormwater discharges to stormwater systems and
      other waters of the United States
      Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

3.7‐10                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                               3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


     Perform inspections of stormwater control structures and pollution
     prevention measures

Each of these components would apply to the proposed project. A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance with an NPDES Phase
I Permit describes the project site, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water
quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local
plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and
maintenance responsibilities, and nonstormwater management controls.
Dischargers are also required to inspect construction sites before and after storms
to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identify and
implement controls where necessary. Additionally, according to the TSO issued by
the LARWQCB, KMEP must submit annual progress reports, as well as any
necessary information updates on an as-needed basis.

Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
In 1987, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean
Water Act [CWA]) was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States from stormwater is effectively prohibited, unless the
discharge is in compliance with a NPDES Permit. The 1987 amendments to the
CWA added Section 402(p) which established a framework for regulating
municipal, industrial and construction stormwater discharges under the NPDES
program. In California, these permits are issued through the SWRCB and the nine
Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

On December 13, 2001, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(LARWQCB) adopted Order No. 01-182. This Order is the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (NPDES No. CAS004001) for
municipal stormwater and urban runoff discharges within the County of Los
Angeles. One specific requirement of the Development Planning Program is the
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This manual serves as a
guideline for compliance with this SUSMP. The SUSMP outlines the necessary
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that must be incorporated into design plans
for:


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          3.7‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


      Development and/or redevelopment of acre or more of impervious surface in
      industrial/commercial sites
      Redevelopment projects in subject categories that meet redevelopment
      thresholds
      Location within or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an
      environmentally sensitive area if the discharge is likely to impact a sensitive
      biological species or habitat and the development creates 2500 square feet or
      more of impervious surface.

Improper maintenance is one of the most common reasons why water quality
controls will not function as designed or which may cause the system to fail
entirely. It is important to consider who will be responsible for maintenance of a
permanent BMP, and what equipment is required to perform the maintenance
properly. As part of project review, if a project applicant has included or is
required to include, Structural or Treatment Control BMPs in project plans, the
applicant (KMEP) must provide verification of maintenance provisions through
such means as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to legal agreements,
covenants, CEQA mitigation requirements and/or Conditional Use Permits.

For all properties, the verification will include the developer’s signed statement, as
part of the project application, accepting responsibility for all structural and
treatment control BMP maintenance until the time the property is transferred and,
where applicable, a signed agreement from the public entity assuming
responsibility for Structural or Treatment Control BMP maintenance.

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 112 (Oil Pollution
Prevention) sets forth requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. The goal of this rule is to prevent oil discharges
from reaching navigable water of the United States through proactive measures.
The SPCC rule establishes prevention requirements that must be implemented in
order to ensure water quality protection. The applicant would is required to
maintain an SPCC Plan and would be required to modify and implement its SPCC
Plan to include the proposed project, subject to review and approval by the County
of Los Angeles.


3.7‐12                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


3.7.3     Thresholds of Significance
Project impacts on the hydrology and water quality of the proposed project site
would be considered significant if any or all of the following conditions occur:
     Violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement, or
     otherwise substantially degrade water quality
     Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site such that it would
     result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation of the on or off site
     areas, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that
     it would result in on or off-site flooding

3.7.4     Impacts

Potentially Significant
Impact HYD-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed
             project could result in the production of runoff
             containing contaminants that would potentially affect
             water quality.

Implementation of the proposed project may ultimately result in the construction
of 18 new 80,000-barrel product storage tanks and one new 30,000-barrel
transmix storage tank, along with related piping, pumps, and control systems.
Implementation would occur incrementally over an estimated fifteen-year period,
depending on market demand for petroleum product storage. Prior to the
installation of these new tanks, three existing 80,000-barrel tanks and one
178,000-barrel tank that are currently located on the project site would need to be
demolished. As such, the removal of existing structural development and the
construction of new structures and piping would require trenching, excavation,
grading, filling, and soil-compaction. These activities could expose soil to
increased rates of erosion during project construction periods or redirect localized
surface and produce new runoff collection areas, which could affect stormwater
quality. Typical construction contaminants that could occur in the runoff from the
project site may include oil, grease, fuels, and solvents. Through storm water
runoff, these contaminants could ultimately be transported into the Dominguez
Channel and potentially into the groundwater aquifer. Thus, although earth-
disturbing activities associated with construction on the project site would be


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.7‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


temporary, soil erosion at the project site could result in degradation of both
surface water and groundwater quality.

However, construction activities on the project site would be subject to State and
local regulations: as described above, because the project site is greater than five
acres in size, construction activities for the proposed project would be subject to
the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by
the SWRCB. Under this permit, applicants are required to prepare, retain, and
implement a SWPPP. This plan must describe the site, the facility, erosion and
sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal,
implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment
and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and nonstormwater
management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is
also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and
to identify and implement controls where necessary. Additionally, the permit
would require the employment of BMPs to ensure that eroded materials that could
be discharged into the City’s drainage system would not significantly affect water
quality. BMPs would consist of any structure, activity, prohibition, practice,
procedure, program, or other measure designed to prevent or reduce the discharge
of pollutants directly or indirectly into the City’s drainage system.

Aside from the State regulations, Chapter 8 (Storm Water and Urban Runoff
Pollution Control) of the City of Carson Municipal Code further ensures that
dischargers associated with construction activities are in compliance with their
regulating storm water permits, as may be issued by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Regional
Board. Specifically, dischargers may be required to provide proof of compliance
with any such permit to the satisfaction of the City Manager or designated
representative prior to the issuance of any grading, building or occupancy permits,
or any other type of permit or license issued by the City. As such, compliance with
the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and Chapter 8 of the City
Municipal Code would minimize effects on water quality resulting from
construction activities on the project site. This impact would be less than
significant.


3.7‐14                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                  3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


Impact HYD-2 Operation of the proposed project could result in the
             production of runoff containing contaminants that
             would potentially affect water quality.

As discussed in Section 3.8.1 (Existing Conditions), Carson Terminal, which
includes the project site, is currently in violation of the effluent limitations
established by the NPDES permit (Order No. 00-087) of the LARWQCB for pH,
turbidity, copper, and zinc. As described above and in Chapter 2 (Project
Description), the proposed project includes the expansion of the exiting petroleum
storage and distribution facility. The operation of these new structures and the
increase in impermeable surface area on the project site would increase
stormwater runoff and, if not properly regulated, would further increase the pH,
turbidity, zinc, and copper levels in discharges from the project site.

However, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with
the provisions of the Los Angeles County Municipal NPDES Permit, in which the
City is a co-permittee along with all other cities in the Los Angeles County. All
permittees under this permit must implement or require the implementation of
the most effective combination of BMPs for storm water/urban runoff pollution
control. In addition, the permittees would be given adequate legal authority to
control pollutants, including potential contribution, in discharges of storm water
runoff associated with industrial activities (including construction activities) to its
municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (MS4) and control the quality of
storm water runoff from industrial sites (including construction sites).
Furthermore, the proposed project must also be consistent with Chapter 8 (Storm
Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control) of the City Municipal Code. This
ordinance requires that all properties implement good housekeeping
requirements, including the implementation of BMPs in areas exposed to storm
water for the removal and lawful disposal of all fuels, chemicals, fuel and chemical
wastes, and/or other materials that have potential adverse impacts on water
quality.

Additionally, KMEP submitted a Storm Water Assessment and Feasibility Study
Work Plan (Work Plan) to the LARWQCB on February 5, 2003, indicating the
actions to be taken by the facility to prevent future violations of the effluent


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.7‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


limitations. The Work Plan also specified a schedule to implement the actions to
achieve full compliance with the effluent limitations. A TSO is currently in effect
for the project site to achieve full compliance with the revised effluent limitations
for copper and zinc by 2008. This would provide the required time for the facility
to investigate and implement any required upgrades to bring the Carson Terminal
facility into compliance with the final effluent limitations contained in NPDES
Order No. 00-087 for copper and zinc. No interim limits have been set for pH and
turbidity because these pollutants could be controlled at the facility using best
conventional pollutant technology and/or best management practices. Because
compliance with existing regulations and requirements would ensure that surface
water quality would not be substantially degraded, impacts associated with surface
water quality would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-3 Development within the proposed project site would
             modify drainage patterns and runoff.

As the proposed project would result in the removal of three existing storage tanks
and the construction and installation of a total of 19 new storage tanks along with
related piping, pumps, and control systems, the local drainage on site would be
modified because the amount of ground coverage by structures would increase.
This, in turn, would result in an increase of surface runoff from the project site
that is discharged into the drainage system. While the current retention capability
of the project site is adequate for existing stormwater flows, increased runoff may
exceed the capacity of the two ponds. However, runoff would be collected in dikes
constructed for the new tanks, and would also be routed along the road proposed
at the south end of the property. From there, the runoff would be inspected and
then pumped to the existing settlement ponds on the northeastern corner of the
property and, after the 22-hour settlement period, would be discharged via the
existing infrastructure into the Dominguez Channel. The proposed project would
result in an increase in impermeable and semi-permeable area of 3.6 acres and 2.5
acres, respectively, which would increase surface runoff by 6 cfs and 1.8 acre-feet,
to 50 peak cfs and 13.7 acre-feet. However, the proposed project would provide
retention capacity in the form of additional containment dikes for the new tanks,
which would be adequate for the additional surface water flows anticipated under
the proposed project.

3.7‐16                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality


The 1987 Master Plan of Drainage plans for increased runoff due to additional
development within the City. The Plan includes drainage improvements that are
necessary to accommodate increased runoff associated with full buildout of the
area. As described above in the existing conditions, the discharge permits for the
project site are currently 2.5 mgd and would not increases as a result of the
proposed project. Because no increase in permitted discharge volume would occur
and the proposed project would be required to comply with the existing permit, no
net increase in the maximum volume of surface water discharge would occur as a
result of the proposed project. The proposed project would provide adequate on-
site retention capacity for anticipated increases in surface water flows, and no
increase would occur in the maximum discharge quantity to the City storm
drainage system. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant
impact with regard to stormwater volume or the redirection of stormwater flows.

3.7.5     Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development within the City would generate similar water quality and
drainage impacts as those of the proposed project. Each of these related projects
would be subject to the federal, State, and local regulations governing these types
of impacts. Specifically, all construction activities that involve grading or
excavation of sites larger than one acre are required to obtain NPDES permits.
These permits require the implementation of BMPs to minimize water quality
impacts associated with construction. In addition, all projects within the City must
be developed in accordance with Chapter 8 (Storm Water and Urban Runoff
Pollution Control) of the City Municipal Code. Implementation of BMPs in areas
exposed to storm water for the removal and lawful disposal of all fuels, chemicals,
fuel and chemical wastes, and/or other materials that have potential adverse
impacts on water quality would occur under this ordinance. This would reduce
water quality impacts associated with operational activities. As most of the City is
urbanized, additional development is not anticipated to substantially increase
impervious surfaces and runoff. However, due to widespread potential additional
development, changes to drainage patterns could occur that would cumulatively
affect the storm drainage system. However, the Master Plan of Drainage would
address these citywide drainage issues. Further, since project implementation


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.7‐17
3.0 Environmental Analysis


would not adversely affect water quality or contribute stormwater runoff that
would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems, the proposed
project would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

3.7.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Project design and existing regulations and requirements would ensure that
impacts are less than significant. In order to ensure compliance with existing
regulations, the following mitigation measures are required.

      MM HYD-1 The applicant shall comply with applicable water quality
               regulations that include but are not limited to the following:
                 a. Develop and implement a water quality control plan that
                    meets NPDES Phase I standards as defined under the
                    County permit that governs construction runoff.
                 b. Comply with Best Management Practices for stormwater
                    management to minimize runoff containing water quality
                    contaminants.
                 c. File a Notice of Intent to obtain a construction permit from
                    the California Regional Water Quality Board.
                 d. Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”)
                    to address the prevention of both point and nonpoint
                    pollution sources. The SWPPP shall include structural
                    facilities, ongoing maintenance, and monitoring provisions
                    to verify compliance with the Plan and permit process.

      MM HYD-2 The design of the proposed project shall comply with the
               applicable provisions of the Standard Urban Stormwater
               Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and shall include structural or other
               measures to collect and treat the first ¾ inch of stormwater
               runoff from the site, and control peak flow discharge. The final
               drainage plan for the proposed project shall be subject to
               review and approval by the County of Los Angeles.

Residual impacts associated with Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 would be less
than significant with implementation of MM HYD-1 and HYD-2.



3.7‐18                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                               3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                      3.7‐19
                                                                           3.8 Noise



3.8       NOISE
This section evaluates the potential noise impacts resulting from implementation
of the proposed project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for
exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of established standards, generation
of permanent increases in ambient noise levels, and generation of substantial
temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. These issues are the focus
of this section. The Initial Study scoped out exposure of persons to groundborne
vibration because of the limited potential for these effects to occur and noise from
aircraft uses because the project is not within an airport land use plan on in the
vicinity of a private airstrip. This section is based largely on the Carson
Development Project—Noise Analysis Report prepared by URS Corporation
(provided as Appendix H).

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not significantly alter the noise
generation associated with the project, as project-related changes still involve the
same construction activities as the previous project description, and would
construct the same number of tanks and associated infrastructure in the
southwestern portion of the Carson Terminal, which is adjacent to a major
roadway (Alameda Street), located in an industrial zone, and is not proximate to
noise-sensitive uses. Consequently, no additional analysis beyond that provided in
the 2003 DEIR (provided below) is required.

3.8.1     Existing Conditions

Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency
(pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (“dB”).
The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.8‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to
the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally
sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent
rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted
decibel scale (“dBA”) provides this compensation by discriminating against
frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise
environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of
many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this
background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from
an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for
example, traffic on a major highway. Table 3.8-1 lists noise levels for common
events in the environment.

Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of
community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time,
these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon
the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the
noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
         Leq, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content
         of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and
         that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to
         the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale
         does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the
         night.
         L50, the (measurable) statistical sound level quantity (in dBA) is used to
         represent the average sound level. L50 is the level that is exceeded 50 percent
         of the time during a given interval. It follows that Lx is the sound level
         exceeded x percent of the time during a given interval.
         CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with
         a 10 dBA “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00
         A.M., and an additional 5 dBA penalty during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00
         P.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime. The
         logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would
         result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.


3.8‐2                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                           3.8 Noise


 Table 3.8-1 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment
                                               A-Weighted Sound Level
         Noise Source (Distance)                                            Subjective Impression
                                                       (dBA)
Civil Defense Siren (100’)                               130                  Pain Threshold
Jet Takeoff (200’)                                        120
Rock Music Concert (50’)                                  110
Pile Driver (50’)                                        100                     Very Loud
Ambulance Siren (100’)                                    90
Pneumatic Drill (50’)                                     80
Freeway (100’)                                            70                 Moderately Loud
Vacuum Cleaner (10’)                                      60
Light Traffic (100’)                                      50
Large Transformer (200’)                                  40                       Quiet
Soft Whisper (5’)                                       0–30                Threshold of Hearing
Source: Arnold Peterson and Ervin Gross, 1963; Ogden Environmental, 1992.



Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well
represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period.
Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below
45 dBA, moderate in the 45–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Noise levels
greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of
low daytime levels are isolated natural settings that can provide noise levels as low
as 20 dBA, and quiet suburban residential streets that can provide noise levels
around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of
moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial
areas (typically 55–60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People
may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels
associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60–
75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA). Generally, a difference of
3 dBA over 24 hours is a barely perceptible increase to most people. A 5 dBA
increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a
doubling of loudness.

Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor
increases. Other factors such as the weather and reflecting or shielding also help
intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                 3.8‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the
noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA. Noise from stationary or point sources is
reduced by about 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be
reduced by intervening structures—generally, a single row of buildings between
the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a
solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older
homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-
interior noise levels of about 20 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior
reduction of newer homes is generally 30 dBA or more.

Existing Noise Levels
In an effort to evaluate existing sound levels and assess any potential project noise
impacts on the surrounding community, a sound level survey was conducted
during January 22 and 23, 2003. Sound level measurements were conducted at
the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the south and east of the project site as
shown in Figure 3.8-1. Measurements were also conducted of noise sources at the
existing Carson terminal that would be equivalent to equipment noise from
components of the proposed expansion.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are located to the south and to the east of the
project site. These receptors include park and residential areas, and noise is
generally between 60 and 65 dBA in these areas. The noise-sensitive receptors do
not have a clear line-of-sight to the facility. One attended short-term (less than 1-
hour duration) ambient noise measurement was conducted in Hudson Park
adjacent to the garden plots, 200 feet east of Terminal Island Freeway in the City
of Long Beach. The short-term sound level measurement was conducted from
2:00 to 2:30 P.M. and was measured as 64 dBA Leq, 62 dBA L50. The dominant
noise source was heavy truck traffic on Terminal Island Freeway. Other noise
sources included birds, distant children playing and a helicopter. Noise from the
existing Carson Terminal was not audible at this site.

One unattended long-term sound monitor measured noise levels continuously, in
30-minute intervals, during a 25-hour period from January 22 to January 23,
2003. The monitoring location was designated Long-Term 1 (LT-1) and was



3.8‐4                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                          3.8 Noise


located on the tree in the front yard of the residence at 1626 Sandison Street,
southwesterly of the project site. Figure 3.8-2 shows the measured noise levels at
LT-1 for each 30-minute interval. The measured CNEL at LT-1 was 63 dBA. Traffic
noise and light industrial activities were observed to dominate the existing daytime
ambient noise environment at this location. There are also active train operations
between the residential area and the project site. Observation was also made of the
daytime ambient noise environment at the noise-sensitive receptors easterly of the
project site. Noise from the existing Carson Terminal was not audible at this site.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.8‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


         Figure 3.8-1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations




3.8‐6                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                       3.8 Noise


Fig p.2 (11x17)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR        3.8‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


         Figure 3.8-2   Long-Term Ambient Noise Measurement




3.8‐8                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                                  3.8 Noise



Sound levels resulting from specific uses on the KMEP property were measured to
identify specific noises associated with existing operations. Table 3.8-2 identifies
these noise levels that were measured at six existing operational pumps and an
incinerator. The reference measurement distances were predominately at 25 or 50
feet. The pumps were the jet fuel pump (near tank 80023), the 2 gasoline pumps
near tank 80019, the pump by tank 80021, the Watson pumps, the diesel transfer
pump adjacent to the existing manifold, and pump P-503 at the existing manifold.
An additional measurement was also conducted of the overall noise environment
in the vicinity of the project site that included distant noise from two of the three
sets of pumps.


      Table 3.8-2 On-Site Sound Level Measurement Summary
                                                                                      Average      Average
                    Noise Source                        Distance from Source (feet)   Leq (dBA)    L50 (dBA)
Pump P-503 at the Manifold 10,000                               10 (east)                81           81
                                                                25 (west)                73           73
                                                               25 (north)                71           71
Jet fuel pump near Tank 80023                                       25                   78           78
                                                                    50                   72           72
Two gasoline pumps near Tank 80019                                 50                    72           71
Diesel transfer pump near Existing Manifold                     25 (east)                77           77
                                                               25 (north)                74           74
Watson Pumps                                                    25 north)                78           78
                                                               48 (north)                72           72
                                                          15 (west of westerly
                                                                                         81           81
                                                                pump)
Pump by Tank 80021                                                  25                   65           65
                                                         360 feet from jet fuel
Distant Pumps, truck traffic on Alameda
                                                         pump, 450 feet from            60           60
Avenue, Fuel running through pipe
                                                           gasoline pumps
Source: URS Corporation, Carson Development Project—Noise Analysis Report, 2003




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                    3.8‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.8.2     Regulatory Context

Federal
There are a number of laws and guidelines at the Federal level that direct the
consideration of a broad range of noise issues. Most of these are not related to the
development and operation of the proposed project. The one law that is applicable
to the people working at the site during construction and operation of the project
is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Occupational Noise
Exposure, Hearing Conservation Amendment (FR 48 (46), 9738--9785 (1983)).

State
The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (Cal OSHA) (8 CCR, General Industrial Safety Orders, Article 105,
Control of Noise Exposure, §5095, et seq.) to protect worker safety, requires
implementation of engineering controls to reduce equipment noise emission
where workers may be exposed to sound pressure levels of 90 dBA or greater from
equipment noise. Where engineering and/or administrative controls are not
feasible or practicable the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is required.
Areas where a sound pressure level of 85 dBA is typically exceeded will be
identified and signs will be posted indicating the potential noise hazard and
requiring the use of hearing protection. A range of PPE for hearing protection shall
be provided and worn.

Local
City of Carson General Plan—Noise Element
The California Government Code requires that a noise element be included in the
general plan of each county and city in the state. The Noise Element of the City of
Carson General Plan is a comprehensive program for including noise control in
the planning process. It is a tool that City planners use to achieve and maintain
compatible land uses with environmental noise levels.

The City is currently preparing an update its Noise Element, which it expects to
adopt by the end of 2003. In 1995, the City adopted the Noise Control Ordinance


3.8‐10                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                       3.8 Noise


of the County of Los Angeles, as amended, as the City’s Noise Control Ordinance.
The Noise Element update will be consistent with the Noise Control Ordinance.
The standards in the Noise Element update are identified in Table 3.8-3.

City of Carson Municipal Code—Noise Control Ordinance
In 1995, except where amended in Chapter 5 (Noise Control Ordinance) of the City
of Carson Municipal Code, the City has adopted the Los Angeles County Noise
Control Ordinance, Chapter 12.08. The maximum allowable 30-minute exterior
noise level for industrial land use receptors is 70 dBA L50. The maximum allowable
30-minute exterior noise levels for residential land use receptors are 50 dBA L50
during the daytime and 45 dBA L50 during the nighttime. The L50 limit is increased
by 5 dBA for the L25, by 10 dBA for the L8.3, by 15 dBA for the L1.7 and by 20 dBA
for the Lmax. The limits would be increased to match the ambient sound level (in
terms of L50, L25, L8.3, L1.7 or Lmax) if the ambient sound level is above the limit
corresponding to that descriptor.


      Table 3.8-3 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
                               Environments
                                                      Community Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL (dB)
                                                     Normall
                                                        y    Condition    Normally        Clearly
                                                     Accepta    ally      Unaccepta      Unaccept
                 Land Use Category                     ble   Acceptable       ble          able
 Residential—Low Density                             50–60      60–65        65–75       75–85
 Residential—Multiple-Family                         50–60      60–65        65–75       75–85
 Transient Lodging—Motel, Hotels                     50–65      65–70        70–80       80–85
 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
                                                     50–60      60–65        65–80       80–85
  Homes
 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters             NA       50–65         NA         65–85
 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports               NA       50–70         NA         70–85
 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks                     50–70        NA         70–75       75–85
 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
                                                     50–70        NA         70–80       80–85
  Cemeteries
 Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and           50–
                                                                67.5–75      75–85        NA
  Professional                                        67.5
 Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture   50–70      70–75        75–85        NA




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                        3.8‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


 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.
 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.
    Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will
    normally suffice.
 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.
 Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
 NA: Not applicable.
 Source: City of Carson General Plan Noise Element, Table N-2, Carson 2003



There are no noise level limits for construction activities if the receiving land use is
industrial. Maximum construction noise levels for long-term construction at
single-family residential receiving properties are limited to 65 dBA from 07:00 to
08:00 daily except Sundays and legal holidays and 55 dBA at all other times.

3.8.3        Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines suggests that a project may result in
significant noise effects if it would do any of the following:
       Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
       the project vicinity above levels without the project
       Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established
       in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
       agencies
       Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
       project vicinity above levels existing without the project

However, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not define “substantial” in
quantitative terms. Therefore, the following thresholds of significance were
developed for this analysis based on community responses to noise and on the
regulatory framework discussed previously in this section. Noise impacts are
considered significant if one or more of the following conditions would result from
implementation of the proposed project:
       Temporarily increase daytime noise levels at sensitive uses by 10 dBA or
       more during construction
       Expose new on-site uses to noise levels that exceed the City of Carson
       General Plan Noise Element “normally acceptable” noise standards


3.8‐12                                   Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                      3.8 Noise


     Cause an increase of 3 dBA or more at existing sensitive uses along the
     roadway segments within the study area; this 3 dBA increase would
     represent a perceptible increase in noise levels

3.8.4     Impacts
Impact NOI-1 Construction activities could exceed federal and State
             noise level standards for construction personnel at the
             proposed project site.

Based upon the construction noise data, noise levels on the construction site could
exceed federal OSHA and Cal OSHA regulations for worker noise exposure. In
order to assess the potential noise effects from construction, this noise analysis
uses data from an extensive field study of various types of construction projects
including industrial projects (U.S. EPA, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971).
Average noise levels associated with various construction phases where all
pertinent equipment is present and operating, at a reference distance of 50 feet,
are shown in Table 3.8-4. Because of vehicle technology improvements and stricter
noise regulations since the field study was published, this analysis will use the
average noise levels shown this table for the loudest construction phase. Due to the
size of the construction site, construction workers would be located 50 feet and
closer to the project site. Noise levels would be 78 dBA or more.


                  Table 3.8-4 Typical Noise Levels from
                              Construction Activities for
                                 Industrial Projects
                                        Average Sound Level at       Standard
               Construction Activity      50 feet (dBA Leq) 1      Deviation (dB)
             Ground Clearing                      84                     6
             Excavation                           89                     7
             Foundations                          78                     3
             Erection                             85                     7
             Finishing                            89                     6
             1. Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating
             Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman (Prepared under contract for the U.S.
                     Environmental Protection Agency), Noise from Construction
                     Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home
                     Appliances, December 31, 1971




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                      3.8‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Compliance with Cal/OSHA regulations will ensure that construction personnel
are adequately protected from potential noise hazards. The noise exposure level to
protect hearing of workers is regulated at 90 dBA Time-Weighted Average (TWA)
over an 8-hour work shift. Areas above 85 dBA sound pressure level will be posted
as high noise level areas and hearing protection will be provided and required to
be worn. The project owners will implement or require implementation of a
hearing conservation program for applicable employees as outlined in Cal/OSHA
regulations.

Impact NOI-2 Construction activities would not exceed federal and
             State noise level standards at off-site locations.

As discussed above, the overall average noise level generated on a construction site
could be 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet for the loudest construction phase.
Although not anticipated, pile driving, if necessary, would generate noise that is
unique in terms of noise level, audibility characteristics, and time pattern. Other
construction activities would generate noise that would be markedly less than pile
driving. The higher levels of pile driver noise (maximum levels of approximately
105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet) consist of very-short-duration impact sounds (a
“bang” or “clang” noise) concentrated during a ten- to thirty- minute period while
an individual pile is being driven. These impact sounds attenuate with distance in
the same manner as regular construction noise such that the maximum levels
would be 99 dBA at 100 feet, 93 dBA at 200 feet, 87 dBA at 400 feet, etc. At the
nearest noise-sensitive receptor the noise level would be 37 dBA (assuming
attenuation due to distance and 10 dBA shielding for intervening structures).
Therefore, even if conventional impact pile driving were utilized for this project, it
would not be audible at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. The magnitude of
construction noise emission varies over time because construction activity is
intermittent and power demands on construction equipment (and the resulting
noise output) are cyclical.

Accounting for attenuation of sound by distance (6 dBA per doubling of distance),
excess attenuation due to air absorption (1 dBA per 1,000 feet) and existing
shielding from buildings (10 dBA), the construction noise level would be reduced
to 39 dBA at the nearest residence (3,500 feet. Therefore, construction noise


3.8‐14                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                         3.8 Noise


would not be audible at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors and therefore, would
result in a less-than-significant impact.

Impact NOI-3 Project operation would not exceed federal and State
             noise level standards at off-site locations.

Off-Site Operational Noise. Noise source measurements for existing
equipment operations were used to estimate the far field noise levels from the
proposed expansion project at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors and to asses
any potential affects. Proposed pumps are expected to be similar to existing pumps
at the Carson Terminal. The expansion also proposes the addition of a manifold
with a designation of 20,000 barrels per hour, which would be equivalent or
quieter than the existing manifold (the number of designations does not
correspond to the size of the equipment).

All the land uses surrounding the project site are industrial. The City of Carson
exterior noise level standard for industrial receptors is 70 dBA L50. The proposed
expansion is located in the southwestern corner of the Carson Terminal. The
southern property line of the Carson Terminal is the northern property line of the
adjacent industrial land use. Therefore the noise level limit at the southern
property line is 70 dBA L50.

The nearest point of the proposed manifold would be located 130 feet from this
property line. Operational sound level measurements of the existing manifold
pump P-503 were, worst case, 73 dBA at 25 feet. The manifold is only operational
intermittently and is dependent on fuel shipments. Therefore, the predicted sound
level of the proposed manifold at the property line would be 59 dBA L50 and would
comply with the industrial land use exterior noise level standard.

For the noise-sensitive receptors located beyond the property line of the proposed
project, it was assumed that there would be four new pumps servicing the new
tanks and the proposed manifold at 67 dBA L50 at 50 feet. Because the nearest
noise-sensitive receptor is 3,500 feet from the project site, all the noise sources
were added together as a point source. Assuming all pumps and the proposed
manifold are operating simultaneously, the resultant noise level would be 78 dBA
L50 at 50 feet. Propagation losses affecting the sound level due to distance (6 dBA


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          3.8‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


per doubling of distance) and air absorption (1 dBA per 1,000 feet) were
conservatively considered and a nominal 10 dBA was estimated for shielding
between source and receiver. The resultant prediction of the noise level of the
proposed project at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor is 28 dBA L50. Therefore,
the predicted operational noise from the future expansion of the Carson Terminal
would not be audible at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors because the existing
ambient noise levels at the receptors are greater then 10 dBA above the predicted
operational noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not be audible at any
noise-sensitive locations. Operation of the proposed expansion to the Carson
Terminal is expected to comply with federal OSHA and Cal OSHA standards, and
would result in a less-than-significant noise impact.

Operational Traffic. For the purpose of EIR analysis, a 25-percent increase in
total truck traffic at the facility was assumed. The truck routes from the facility
would be north on Alameda Street (50 percent), west on Sepulveda Boulevard (25
percent), and east on Sepulveda Boulevard (25 percent). A 25 percent increase in
project traffic would result in a 1 dBA increase in average sound level. Areas within
the Carson Terminal site boundary will predominantly be used as staging areas
and contractor parking. There is an optional offsite contractor parking area north
of Sepulveda Boulevard, adjacent to the Carson Terminal. As mentioned earlier, an
increase of 3 dBA would result in an audible increase in ambient noise levels.
Thus, traffic increases from the proposed project, at 1 dBA, would not be audible.
In addition, due to the high proportion and volume of heavy truck traffic on
Alameda Street and Sepulveda Boulevard and the optional parking area being
located within an industrial land use, with no nearby noise-sensitive receptors, the
additional project traffic and parking would not perceptibly change the existing
noise environment. Therefore, the predicted increase in project truck traffic would
result in a less-than-significant impact.

3.8.5     Cumulative Impacts
Potential cumulative impacts of traffic noise due to other projects in the area were
reviewed. The two projects assessed for cumulative noise impact were the Pacific
Coast Highway (PCH) Grade Separation and the Sepulveda Boulevard Widening. A
third project, located at 2365 Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of Carson, proposes

3.8‐16                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                           3.8 Noise


to construct new tankage consisting of five 50,000-gallon tanks and two 20,000-
gallon tanks but the project schedule and traffic data were not available at the time
of writing. The details of the three projects identified are discussed in the Carson
Development Project Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Report (URS 2003).

During construction for the PCH Grade Separation, the detour plan would create
increases in traffic along Sepulveda Boulevard and Alameda Street in the vicinity
of the KMEP Carson Terminal from May 2003 to spring 2004. This would not
create a cumulative noise impact because the PCH Grade Separation would be
completed and operational prior to the start of the construction activities for the
Carson Development Project.

The Sepulveda Boulevard Widening is from east of Alameda Street to the easterly
city limits of Carson. This project would not increase traffic volumes but would
add additional travel lanes. Because sound levels increase at a rate of 3 dBA with
each doubling of sound energy, traffic volumes would have to double for the sound
level to increase by 3 dBA, which is just perceptible to humans in the outdoor
environment. Even if the construction periods for the Sepulveda Boulevard
Widening and KMEP Carson Development project overlap, it is not anticipated
that the construction traffic from these projects would double the existing traffic
volumes on these streets. Also, the percent of heavy trucks on these roads would
not change significantly due to the existing high proportion of heavy truck traffic.
Therefore, any increase in noise level due to construction traffic would be
temporary and below the threshold of audibility. Thus, the Sepulveda Boulevard
Widening would not create a cumulative noise impact on any haul route.

3.8.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be
required. Although there are no significant impacts to noise-sensitive receptors,
implementation of the following standard noise control practices prior to project
construction, as necessary for each project component is recommended.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.8‐17
3.0 Environmental Analysis


      MM NOI-1 The applicant shall implement noise control practices to
               minimize noise generation during project construction.
               Measures shall include but would not be limited to
                ■   The construction contractor shall comply with all federal
                    and local regulations on truck and construction equipment
                    noise. The contractor shall ensure the use of functioning
                    exhaust mufflers and engine silencers on all engine-driven
                    equipment, and avoid unnecessary equipment idling for
                    long periods.
                ■   The use of noise-producing signals, including horns,
                    whistles, alarms and bells, will be for safety warning
                    purposes only
                ■   The construction contractor should implement a noise
                    awareness program for construction workers
                ■   Areas above 85 dBA sound pressure level shall be posted as
                    potential noise hazard areas and the wearing of hearing
                    protection shall be required
                ■   The on-site construction supervisor should have the
                    responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise
                    complaints from workers and members of the public

Implementation of MM NOI-1 would further reduce less-than-significant
construction noise impacts.




3.8‐18                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                   3.9 Public Services and Utilities



3.9       PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
This EIR section provides a discussion of the existing public services and utilities
available to the project and analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on those
public services and utilities resulting from implementation of the proposed
project. The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts
associated with fire protection. In addition, the Initial Study identified the
potential for impacts associated with water supply as less than significant;
however, this section will address the project's ability to maintain sufficient water
supplies serving the proposed project from existing resources. Issues scoped out in
the in the Initial Study include police protection, schools, parks, wastewater, storm
drains, electricity, and natural gas, because the proposed project does not involve
the development of any habitable structures or uses that result in additional
demand for such public services and utilities. Data used to prepare this section
were obtained from service providers regarding available service levels and current
or anticipated constraints.

A comment letter from the County of Los Angeles was received in response to the
Initial Study. The letter requested an evaluation of the potential effects of the
project related to solid waste generation.

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
However, the changes in the project would not alter the visual characteristics of
the project, as project-related changes still involve the placement of tanks in the
southwestern portion of the Carson Terminal. Consequently, no additional
analysis is required beyond that provided in the 2003 DEIR (provided below), as
revised by text changes in the 2004 FEIR and in Appendix K (responses to Letter
C) to this Revised Draft EIR.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.9‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.9.1     Existing Conditions

Fire Protection
Fire protection services in the City of Carson are provided by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. As indicated in Table 3.9-1, six primary fire stations
provide both fire and emergency medical service to the City of Carson, with four of
the stations located within Carson City boundaries. In addition to the six fire
stations, there is a Fire Prevention Office located at Carson City Hall. Fire Station
No. 127, located at 2049 East 223rd Street, located 2 miles from the Carson
Terminal, is the jurisdictional engine company for, and provides first-response
service to, the project site. Table 3.9-2 shows the response units closest to the
project site, as well as the distances, approximate response times, and daily
staffing levels of each of the units. As shown in this table, six response units are
located within ten minutes of the project site.


                 Table 3.9-1 Fire Services Locations and
                                Equipment/Personnel
                  Location                Equipment              Personnel *
         Fire Stations
         Fire Station 10               Engine Company    3 Captains
         (Battalion Headquarters)             10         3 Engineers
         1860 E. Del Amo                Foam Unit 10     3 Foam Engineers
         Boulevard                      Reserve Foam     6 Fire Fighters
         Carson                              501
                                        Reserve Foam
                                             510
         Fire Station 36               Engine Company    6 Captains
         127 W. 223rd Street                 36          6 Engineers
         Carson                        Engine Company    3 Fire Fighters
                                             236         9 Paramedics
                                       Paramedic Squad
                                             36
                                        Reserve Squad
                                             536
         Fire Station 95               Engine Company    3 Captains
         127 Redondo Beach                    95         3 Engineers
         Boulevard                                       6 Fire Fighters
         Gardena




3.9‐2                               Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     3.9 Public Services and Utilities



                      Table 3.9-1 Fire Services Locations and
                                     Equipment/Personnel
                       Location                        Equipment                 Personnel *
           Fire Station 105                    Engine Company         6 Haz Mat Captains
           18915 South Santa Fe                      105              3 Engineers
           Avenue                               Haz Mat Squad         18 Haz Mat Fire Fighters
           Compton                                   105
                                                 Deluge 105
                                               Reserve BC 5105
           Fire Station 116                    Engine Company         6 Captains
           755 E. Victoria Street                     116             6 Engineers
           Carson                               Truck Company         6 Fire Fighters
                                                      116             9 Paramedics
                                               Paramedic Squad
                                                      116
           Fire Station 127                    Engine Company         3 Captains
           2049 E. 223rd Street                      127              6 Engineers
           Carson                              Truck Company          9 Fire Fighters
                                                     127
                                                   Utility 7
           Fire Prevention Office
           Area 1 Office                                              1 Captain
           Carson City Hall                                           5 Inspectors/Engineers
           701 East Carson Street,                        —
           Room B-24
           Carson
           * Approximately one third of the personnel number shown in this table is on duty at any
              time. Please refer to Table 3.9-2 for daily staffing levels of the closest response units.
           Source: County of Los Angeles Fire Department




          Table 3.9-2 Response Units Closest to the Project Site
          Equipment                    Distance (Miles)            Time (Minutes)              Personnel on Duty
      Light Force 127    *                    2.2                        5.2                           6
     Engines 36 & 236                         3.9                        9.4                          8
          Squad 36                            3.9                        9.4                          2
 Engine 10 & Foam Unit 10                     4.0                        9.7                           5
         Engine 105                           4.1                        10.0                         4
   Hazardous Materials
                                              4.1                        10.0                          5
       Squad 105
* An engine and a ladder truck responding as a unit.
Source: County of Los Angeles Fire Department




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                          3.9‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Fire department staffing of the six County Fire Department stations serving the
City of Carson results in approximately one third of County fire service personnel
serving the City of Carson (i.e., 43 of the 153) always being on duty. Each of the
primary stations has established an expanded response matrix for its individual
jurisdiction, which increases the resources available to help a fire station respond
to an emergency. These include additional engine companies, truck companies,
paramedic units, and hospitals. As 911 emergency calls are processed, a computer
dispatching system selects from this matrix to provide the closest available unit
that can meet the emergency need. The closest available County Fire Department
units are dispatched as needed to an incident anywhere in the department
territory, irrespective of City boundaries. Thus, the dispatch zone, the area in
which all fire stations are in the same response time order, does not necessarily
coincide with the station jurisdiction. A response time of about five minutes from
the closest fire station is the nationally accepted service standard for urban areas
such as the City of Carson, including the project site. The Los Angeles County Fire
Department operates under the 1999 Uniform Fire Code.

Water Supply
The California Water Service Company (CWS) is a public utility supplying water
service to 435,000 customers through 25 operating districts located throughout
the State of California. The Dominguez district of CWS serves 32,800 regulated
customers within Carson and portions of Compton, Harbor City, Long Beach, Los
Angeles, and Torrance. CWS, formerly known as Dominguez Water Corporation,
provides water service to the majority of the City of Carson, including the Carson
Terminal.

CWS’s water supply has two principal sources: local groundwater and purchased
imported water. Imported water is purchased from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) through a member agency, the West Basin
Municipal Water District (WBMWD). CWS has eight direct MWD service
connections and one indirect MWD service connection. CWS also participates in
the MWD-sponsored “In-Lieu” Water Programs, whereby water suppliers
purchase imported water from MWD at a reduced rate instead of pumping
groundwater. The nonpumped groundwater then stays in the basins for use in the

3.9‐4                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                 3.9 Public Services and Utilities


future when imported water may not be as plentiful. Table 3.9-3 shows the amount
of purchased water, recycled water, and ground water supply for 1995 through
2000 as well as the amount of water supply projected for 2005 through 2020. The
company treats all of its water supply to meet drinking water standards, regardless
of source or destination.

The total number of CWS customers is projected to grow approximately 6.2
percent from 1995 to 2015. Water demand is expected to increase until
approximately the year 2000, but no significant additional increases in water
demand are anticipated thereafter. Future shifts in water demand most likely
would result from either the expansion/downsizing of major industrial customers,
new industrial customer growth, and the introduction of recycled water. To meet
water demands for the next decade, the company will rely on a mix of ground,
imported, desalinated, and recycled water sources. CWS water projections indicate
that, under normal precipitation conditions, it will have sufficient water supplies
to meet annual customer water demand through 2015. This is based on the
continuation of conservation programs, on desalinated and recycled water
becoming available, and on planned efforts to emphasize groundwater supplies
and to reduce reliance on imported water sources.


         Table 3.9-3 CWS Current and Projected Water Supply
            Source                  1995         2000         2005         2010         2015         2020
Purchased Water (Acre-
                                   25,784       21,454
 Feet)                                                       19,278       19,900      20,540        21,218
 % of Total
Recycled Water (Acre-
                                      0
 Feet)                                          3,170        4,670        4,753        4,820        4,906
 % of Total
Ground Water (Acre-Feet)           10,713
                                                14,756       12,145       12,145       12,145       12,145
 % of Total
Total Supply (Acre-
                                 36,497        39,380       36,093       36,798       37,505       38,269
 Feet)
Source: California Water Services Company-Dominguez District Water Supply and Demand Analysis and Projections
        Projected Annual Supply by Source (Acre-Feet)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                    3.9‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Solid Waste
Waste Management provides residential, commercial, and industrial waste
collection service for the City of Carson. Waste Management annually collects
approximately 34,000 tons from residential customers; 40,750 tons from
commercial customers; and 26,600 tons from industrial customers. The disposal
service uses traditional methods of solid waste collection using standard trash
trucks and crews. The service also includes the pickup of sorted recyclable
materials, which are taken directly to a company that separates and sells them.

The solid waste collected by Waste Management is taken to the company’s transfer
station at 321 W. Francisco Street in Carson, where it is sorted. The 10-acre facility
has a permitted capacity of 5,300 tons per day. After the materials are sorted,
including special wastes such as tires, green waste, steel, and wood that are sent to
special facilities for disposal or recycling, the remaining waste materials are loaded
onto trailers and taken to Puente Hills Landfill.

This landfill is currently operating under a conditional use permit administered by
the County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning, which expires in
November 2003. The landfill accepts up to 12,000 tons per day, and is to 72,000
tons per week, based on a 6-day week. The maximum allowable daily tonnage is
13,200 tons. The site accepts waste from 6:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. However, when the daily tonnage limit is reached, the site closes earlier.
In recent years the site has closed as early as 1:00 P.M.

In 1996, the California Integrated Waste Management Board approved a waste
diversion plan for the City of Carson. The plan outlines source reduction, recycling,
and reuse programs that will enable residents to divert more than 50 percent of
their solid waste from landfills by the year 2000. The California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Sher) mandates that the statewide waste stream
diversion rate must be at least 50 percent by the year 2000. The City of Carson
currently maintains a waste diversion rate of 72 percent (Cagaanan 2003).




3.9‐6                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                   3.9 Public Services and Utilities


3.9.2     Regulatory Framework

Fire Protection
Federal
There are no federal fire protection regulations applicable to the proposed project.

State
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California
Health and Safety Code, which include regulations concerning building standards
(as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification
systems, fire protection devices.

Uniform Fire Code
The Uniform Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and
maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the code
include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire
alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and
use, provisions intended to protect and assist first responders, industrial
processes, and other fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and
premises.

Water Supply
Federal and State
There are no federal, State, or local water supply regulations applicable to the
proposed project.

Solid Waste
Federal
There are no federal solid waste regulations applicable to the proposed project.

State
At the State level, the management of solid waste is governed by regulations
established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB),


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             3.9‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


which delegates local permitting, enforcement, and inspection responsibilities to
Local Enforcement Agencies. In 1997, some of the regulations adopted by the State
Water Quality Control Board pertaining to landfills (Title 23, Chapter 15) were
incorporated with CIWMB regulations (Title 14) to form Title 27 of the California
Code of Regulations.

AB 939-California Integrated Waste Management Act
In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act
of 1989 (AB 939), which established an integrated waste management hierarchy
that consists of the following in order of importance: source reduction, recycling,
composting, and land disposal of solid waste. The law also required that each
county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Act further
required each city to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element by July 1,
1991. Each source reduction element includes a plan for achieving a solid waste
goal of 25 percent by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Senate
Bill (SB) 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion
requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes include
a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to
clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste
on and after January 1, 2000.

3.9.3        Thresholds of Significance
In general, project impacts upon public services would be considered significant if
project-induced population growth or concentration of population exceeded the
capacity of existing or planned infrastructure or public service facilities. Significant
impacts would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following
impacts.

Fire
         Require additional emergency response personnel and/or equipment to
         maintain acceptable levels of service, or if project-related development
         results in increased response times of service providers to a degree that
         would adversely impact public health and safety
         Interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans


3.9‐8                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                   3.9 Public Services and Utilities


Water Supply
     Cause the substantial and adverse depletion of existing services of domestic
     water
     Cause construction of new water facilities beyond those already planned

Solid Waste
     Construction- or operational-related solid waste exceeds available capacities
     of landfills servicing the project area on a long-term basis

3.9.4     Impacts

Fire Protection
Impact PS-1       Implementation of the proposed project would not
                  require additional emergency service personnel or
                  equipment to maintain an acceptable level of service to
                  the project site.

The proposed project development in the southern section of the City would result
in the construction of 18 new 80,000-barrel product tanks and one new 30,000-
barrel transmix storage tank, as well as the installation of related piping, pumps,
and control systems. This development would not lead to a significant increased
demand for local fire protection services. Currently, no standard criteria exist for
evaluating acceptable service levels aside from maintaining a response times to a
project site within the nationally accepted service standard of about five-minutes
for urban areas. Fire Station No. 127, the jurisdictional engine company for the
proposed project site, contains Light Force 127, which has an acceptable response
time average at 5.2 minutes. County of Los Angeles Fire Department has indicated
that its staffing levels in the City of Carson are acceptable if not above average for
the area. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department has also stated that because
the proposed project would not result in any new habitable above-ground
structures or the addition of employees, a less-than-significant impact on
service levels would be anticipated.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                              3.9‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Impact PS-2      The proposed project would not interfere with
                 emergency response or evacuation plans or result in
                 inadequate emergency access.

According to the Los Angeles County Fire Department, plans to expand the Carson
Terminal without developing better access to this southwest portion of the 98.7-
acre property would decrease the ability of the fire department to maintain
adequate response time, due possible inadequate access. However, as described in
Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), the proposed project would maintain existing
fire lanes and provide new fire lanes for access to the new product storage tanks.
As shown in Figure 2-2 (Aerial Photograph—Project and Project Site), the project
would continue existing fire lanes that run along the western property line of the
project site (adjacent to Alameda Street) to the southern boundary of the property,
as well as well as an existing, parallel access lane that eventually curves to run
along the edge of the Old Dominguez Channel remnant. These access lanes would
be about 30 feet wide, and wider than the required 28 feet for a structure of three
stories or more. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with
all applicable provisions of the City Municipal Code and Uniform Fire Code, as
well as project-specific requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
Project plans would also be subject to the project plan review and approval process
of the City, which would ensure adequate implementation of these requirements.
Consequently, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant
impact with to emergency response and access to and within the project site.

Water Supply
Impact PS-3      The proposed project would not result in a significant
                 increase in water demand and would not require
                 construction of new water facilities beyond those
                 already planned.

Shifts in water demand among CWS customers would result primarily from the
proposed project new industrial customer growth and the introduction of recycled
water. CWS water projections indicate that, under normal precipitation
conditions, it will have sufficient water supplies to meet annual customer water
demand through 2015. This was based upon the continuation of conservation
programs, on desalinated and recycled water becoming available, and on planned

3.9‐10                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.9 Public Services and Utilities


efforts to emphasize groundwater supplies and to reduce reliance on imported
water sources. The proposed project would result in new petroleum-product
storage tanks. Day-to-day operation of these tanks would not result in water
consumption. Water could be used for ancillary maintenance activities, such as
cleaning tank exteriors. Future projections identify that adequate supply for the
minor water demands from the proposed project would be available. Therefore,
impacts to water supply would be less than significant.

Solid Waste
Impact PS-4      Construction of the proposed project would generate
                 solid waste and could contribute to anticipated regional
                 landfill capacity shortfalls.

New development would increase the generation of solid waste and recyclable
materials. Solid waste would be generated by construction of 18 new 80,000-
barrel product tanks and one new 30,000-barrel transmix storage tank, as well as
the installation of related piping, pumps, and control systems and demolition of
three 80,000-barrel tanks and one 178,000-barrel tank. The project includes
petroleum product storage uses only, and proposes no habitable structures or
staffing increases. While the project would store hazardous materials, it would not
result in the generation of hazardous materials waste. Consequently, no
appreciable project-related increase in operational solid waste generation would
be anticipated.

Waste Management anticipates the ability to accommodate increased solid waste
generation, but additional solid waste generation would increase the rate at which
landfills reach their permitted capacity. Nonetheless, solid waste generated by
construction and demolition activities associated with implementation of the
proposed project represents a nominal fraction of the regional solid waste
generation of 72,000 tons per week at the Puente Hills Landfill. In addition,
construction would occur over a fifteen-year period, with no more than four tanks
constructed in a single year, and materials generated during tank demolition and
construction would be primarily recyclable, including metals from the demolished
tanks, and various other parts such as plugs, valves, and pipes that would be taken
to one of Kinder Morgan’s TSDS sites. Concrete from the tank foundations would

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          3.9‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


also be recycled. In addition, contaminated soils and other materials at the
demolished tank sites would be excavated, removed, and transferred to a TPS
remediation site, if necessary. Because solid waste generated by the proposed
project would be limited to minor, nonrecyclable construction waste, and
construction of no more than a small number of tanks per year would occur, the
quantity of construction-related solid waste generated by the proposed project
would not be significant, and impacts to regional landfills would be less than
significant.

3.9.5     Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development would result in an increase in the City population,
resulting in additional demands to public services and utilities. Ongoing
consultation with the fire department to identify facility and staffing needs in the
City would ensure that cumulative impacts would be addressed as appropriate.
Cumulative impacts on fire protection would be less than significant.
Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on fire protection services. The
cumulative impact of the project would, therefore, be considered less than
significant.

Additional development in the City could result in demand on water supply that
could cause depletion of existing services of domestic water or the construction of
new water facilities beyond those already planned. However, shifts in water
demand among Dominguez Water customers would result primarily from the
proposed plan expansion of light industrial customers, the downsizing of heavy
industrial customers, new industrial customer growth, and the introduction of
recycled water throughout the City. Dominguez water projections indicate that,
under normal precipitation conditions, it will have sufficient water supplies to
meet annual customer water demand through 2015. This future projection should
allow adequate supply for demand with implementation of additional development
within the City, including the proposed project, as discussed in Impact PS-3.
Cumulative impacts on water supply would be less than significant, and the
proposed project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable



3.9‐12                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                  3.9 Public Services and Utilities


contribution to a cumulative impact on water supply. This impact would be less
than significant.

New development throughout the City would increase the generation of solid
waste and recyclable materials. Additional generation of solid waste resulting from
continued development would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues.
Although implementation of source reduction measures that would be
implemented on a project-specific basis would address these issues in part, the
cumulative effect of regional development on the limited capacity at the Puente
Hills landfill would be significant. However, as described above in Impact PS-4,
operation of the proposed project would not result in an appreciable increase in
solid waste generation. Also, construction and demolition activities associated with
implementation of the project would generate solid waste, the majority of this
waste would be recycled and reused by the project applicant and would not enter
the regional solid waste stream. Consequently, the contribution of the proposed
project to regional landfill capacity impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable and would be less than significant.

3.9.6     Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
All impacts to public services would be less than significant. No mitigation would
be required.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.9‐13
                                                  3.10 Transportation and Traffic



3.10      TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This EIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on traffic conditions
resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The Initial Study
(Appendix A) identified the potential for project impacts associated with a
substantial increase in traffic, the exceedance of an established level of service
standard, and inadequate emergency access. Issues scoped out in the Initial Study
include effects on air traffic patterns; increased hazards resulting from a design
feature or incompatible uses; inadequate parking capacity; and conflicts with
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The
Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not have direct access to
or use of any air transportation facilities, and thus would not affect air traffic
patterns. In addition, since the proposed project only involves the intensification
of an existing use at the Carson Terminal facility, it would not introduce any
hazards resulting from design features, introduce any incompatible land uses, or
conflict with known adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
Furthermore, adequate parking for construction workers would be provided within
a construction staging area on the project site and no additional off-site parking
would be required for the proposed project. As such, no impacts associated with
parking would occur. The impacts associated with the potential for inadequate
emergency access at the project site is analyzed in Section 3.9 (Public Services) of
this EIR.

Data used to prepare this section were taken from the Traffic Impact Analysis
prepared for the project site by URS Corporation (September 8, 2003).

In response to comments received on the Draft EIR for the project, which was
circulated from November 5, 2003 to December 20, 2003, the Applicant revised
the project description, specifically the design and spacing of the proposed tanks
on the project site, as well as construction phasing—the revised project is
discussed in Chapter 1.0 (Introduction) and Chapter 2.0 (Project Description).
URS prepared two addenda to the 2003 Traffic Impact Analysis to determine
whether the changes in the project description altered the conclusions of the
original analysis. This addendum is included with the original Traffic Impact


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                           3.10‐1
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Analysis in Appendix J to this EIR. The addenda determined that the changes in
the project do not alter the conclusions of the original study; however, this section
has been revised to provide additional detail regarding cumulative effects of
construction activities associated with the project.

3.10.1 Existing Conditions
Carson Terminal is located on the southeast quadrant of Sepulveda Boulevard and
Alameda Street within the City of Carson. The project study area is depicted in
Figure 3.10-1 (Project Study Area). The site is generally bounded by Sepulveda
Boulevard to the north, Pacific Coast Highway to the south, the Dominguez
Channel to the east, and Alameda Street to the west.

Existing Circulation System
Several regionally and locally significant roadways traverse the study area. Each of
the key roadways, as well as associated study intersections within the study area is
discussed below.

North/South Facilities
Wilmington Avenue—Wilmington Avenue is classified as a Major Highway in
the City of Carson General Plan. This facility is currently a four-lane roadway from
Lomita Boulevard to University Drive and a six-lane roadway between University
Drive and Victoria Street. Wilmington Avenue provides alternate north-south
access to the west of the project site.

Alameda Street—Alameda Street is classified as a Major Highway in the Carson
General Plan. Within the study area, this facility is currently a six-lane roadway
from between Sepulveda Boulevard and the Interstate 405 (I-405) Freeway.

I-710 Freeway—Interstate 710 (I-710) is a six-lane freeway to the east of the
project site and provides major north-south regional access to the Ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles.




3.10‐2                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


East/West Facilities
223rd Street—223rd Street is classified as a Major Highway in the City of Carson
General Plan. It is a four-lane roadway and provides alternate east-west access to
the north of the project site. From 223rd Street, freeway access is provided to the
eastbound I-405 Freeway from off and on ramps located to the east of Alameda
Street.

Sepulveda Boulevard—Sepulveda Boulevard is classified as a Major Highway
in the City of Carson General Plan. It is a four-lane roadway and provides direct
east-west access to the project site.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          3.10‐3
3.0 Environmental Analysis


                 Figure 3.10-1       Project Study Area




3.10‐4                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                  3.10 Transportation and Traffic



I-405 Freeway—I-405 is an eight-lane main line plus one High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lane freeway, which provides an important linkage between Los
Angeles County to the north and Orange County to the south. Within the study
area it runs east west and provides freeway ramp access to the north of the project
site at Wilmington Avenue and Alameda Street.

Study Intersections
Ten key study area intersections have been identified for analysis:
     Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard
     Alameda Street / I-405 NB Ramps
     Alameda Street / Wardlow Road (Connector)
     Alameda Street / Sepulveda Boulevard (Connector)
     Project Driveway / Sepulveda Boulevard
     I-405 SB Ramps / Wardlow Road
     Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street
     Easy Avenue / Willow Street
     I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street
     I-710 NB Ramps / Willow Street

The existing roadway and intersection geometrics are shown in Figure 3.10-2
(Existing Roadway and Intersection Geometry).

Existing Roadway and Intersection Volumes
Figure 3.10-3 (Average Daily Traffic Volumes) shows existing Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) volumes for study area roadway segments and A.M./P.M. peak hour traffic
volumes for the key study area intersections. Roadway segment and study area
intersection counts were conducted in January 2003. The counts are provided in
Appendix A of the traffic report.

Analysis Methodology
The traffic analyses prepared for the traffic study were performed in accordance
with City of Carson requirements, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) project review process, and the Los Angeles County Congestion


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                          3.10‐5
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Management Program (CMP) requirements. Detailed information on roadway
segment and as intersection analysis methodologies, standards, and thresholds are
discussed in the following sections.




3.10‐6                        Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


   Figure 3.10-2 Existing Roadway and Intersection Geometry




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                       3.10‐7
3.0 Environmental Analysis


           Figure 3.10-3 Average Daily Traffic Volumes




3.10‐8                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                   3.10 Transportation and Traffic


Roadway Segment Level of Service Standards and
Thresholds
Roadway segment Level of Service (LOS) standards and thresholds provide the
basis for analysis of arterial roadway segment performance. The analysis of
roadway segment LOS is based on the functional classification of the roadway, the
maximum capacity, roadway geometrics, and existing or forecast ADT volumes.
The City of Carson roadway capacity standards were based on the Los Angeles
County CMP and modified for special conditions in Carson. The capacities shown
in Table 3.10-1 reflect the maximum numbers of vehicles per hour that can be
reasonably carried on the roadway under prevailing traffic conditions.


               Table 3.10-1 Hourly Capacity by Roadway Type
                        Facility Type                     Hourly Capacity (vehicles/lane/hour)
         Two way major arterial                                            750
         Two way secondary arterial                                       600
         Collector and local streets                                       450
         Source: City of Carson Circulation Element, October 2002; URS Corporation May 2003



Table 3.10-2 presents the range of Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratios and
corresponding LOS standards utilized to analyze arterial roadways. For planning
purposes, the threshold LOS goal for roadway segments is LOS “D” for the City of
Carson. The LOS “D” threshold is consistent with the City of Carson Circulation
Element Update and the Los Angeles County CMP.


                 Table 3.10-2             Level of Service Descriptions
  Level of                                                                                    Range of V/C
  Service                               Description of Operation                                Ratios
             Describes primarily free-flow conditions at average travel speeds.
     A       Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the                  0.00–0.60
             traffic stream. Delays at intersection are minimal.
             Represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel
     B       speed. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is slightly                 0.61–0.70
             restricted and delays are not bothersome.
             Represents stable operations, however, ability to change lanes and
     C       maneuver may be more restricted than LOS B and longer queues                     0.71–0.80
             are experienced at intersections
    D        Congestion occurs and a small change in volumes increases delays                 0.81–0.90


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                  3.10‐9
3.0 Environmental Analysis


              substantially.
              Severe congestion occurs with extensive delays and low travel
     E                                                                                        0.91–1.00
              speeds occur.
              Characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds and intersection
     F                                                                                         > 1.00
              congestion occur with high delays and traffic queuing.
 Source: City of Carson Circulation Element, October 2002; URS Corporation May 2003


Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Standards and
Thresholds
This section presents the methodologies used to perform peak hour intersection
capacity analysis, including both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Signalized Intersection Analysis
The analysis of signalized intersections utilized the analysis procedure as outlined
in the Los Angeles County CMP. This procedure is known as Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology and defines LOS in terms of Volume-to-Capacity
(V/C) ratio. This technique uses 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) as the
maximum saturation volume of an intersection. The LOS criteria used for this
technique was described above in Table 3.10-2. The computerized analysis of
intersection operations was performed utilizing Traffix 7.5 R1 traffic analysis
software (Dowling Associates, 2000).

Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
Unsignalized intersections, including two-way and all-way stop-controlled
intersections, were analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Section
10) unsignalized intersection analysis methodology. The Traffix 7.5 R1 software
supports this methodology and was utilized to produce LOS results. The LOS for a
two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection is determined by the computed or
measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Table 3.10-3
summarizes the Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections.


              Table 3.10-3              Level of Service Criteria for Stop-
                                          Controlled Unsignalized
                                                 Intersections
                    Average Control Delay (sec/veh)                  Level of Service (LOS)
                                  <10                                          A


3.10‐10                                  Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                             3.10 Transportation and Traffic


                          >10 and <15                                       B
                          >15 and <25                                       C
                          >25 and <35                                       D
                          >35 and <50                                       E
                              >50                                           F
           Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209



The City of Carson considers LOS D or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours
to be the maximum acceptable intersection LOS. This is consistent with the
approach outlined in the Los Angeles County CMP.

Existing Level of Service Analysis
LOS analyses under existing conditions were conducted using the methodologies
described above. The resultant roadway segment and intersection LOS results are
discussed below.

Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 3.10-4 displays the LOS analysis results for key study area roadway
segments under existing conditions.


     Table 3.10-4           Roadway Segment Level of Service Results
                                    Existing Conditions
                                                             A.M.                                 P.M.
                                                             Peak                                 Peak
                                    A.M. Peak   A.M. Peak    Hour         P.M. Peak   P.M. Peak   Hour
 Roadway         Segment             Hour [1]   Hour V/C     LOS           Hour [1]   Hour V/C    LOS
Sepulve
da         Wilmington Avenue                    0.33/0.5                              0.66/0.
                                    495/747                   A/A         991/985                  B/B
Bouleva    and Alameda Street                      0                                    66
rd
Sepulve
da         Alameda Street and                   0.63/0.6                  1133/141    0.76/0.9
                                    945/893                   B/A                                  C/E
Bouleva    Santa Fe Avenue                         0                         9            5
rd
           Wardlow Road and
Alameda                             521/105     0.23/0.4                              0.62/0.4
           Sepulveda                                          A/A     1389/982                     B/A
Street                                 6           7                                     0
           Boulevard




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                               3.10‐11
3.0 Environmental Analysis


             Sepulveda
 Alameda     Boulevard and                         0.23/0.3                          0.48/0.
                                       525/789                A/A     1074/897                   A/A
 Street      Pacific Coast                            5                                40
             Highway
 Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
 [1] Direction peak hour volumes EB/WB, NB/SB
 Source: Southland Car Counters; URS Corporation, May 2003



As shown in Table 3.10-4, all of the study roadway segments are currently
operating at acceptable LOS D or better under existing conditions with the
exception of the segment of Sepulveda Boulevard between Alameda Street and
Santa Fe Avenue, which currently operates at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour.

Intersection Analysis
Table 3.10-5 displays intersection LOS and average vehicle delay results for the key
study area intersections under existing conditions. All intersections are signalized
unless otherwise noted. LOS calculation worksheets for existing conditions are
provided in Appendix B of the traffic report.

As shown in Table 3.10-5, all but five of the study area intersections are currently
operating at acceptable LOS D or better under existing conditions. The following
five intersections are currently operating at unacceptable LOS E or F:
       Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard (P.M. Peak Hour)
       Alameda Street / Wardlow Road Connector (P.M. Peak Hour)
       Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street (A.M., P.M. Peak Hours)
       Easy Avenue / Willow Street (A.M., P.M. Peak Hours)
       I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street (Unsignalized) (A.M., P.M. Peak Hours)


           Table 3.10-5          Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
                                     Results Existing Conditions
                                                              A.M. Peak Hour   P.M. Peak Hour
                            Intersection                      LOS       V/C    LOS      V/C
       1. Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard              D      0.866      E      0.928
       2. Alameda Street / I-405 NB Ramps                      C      0.748      D      0.806
       3. Alameda Street / Wardlow Road (Connector)            A      0.569      F       1.124
       4. Alameda Street / Sepulveda Boulevard
        (Connector)                                            B      0.610      B      0.659



3.10‐12                                Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                    3.10 Transportation and Traffic


      5. Project Driveway / Sepulveda Boulevard                       A       0.564        C       0.717
      6. I-405 SB Ramps / Wardlow Road                                A       0.594        A       0.545
      7. Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street                              F       1.015        F       1.004
      8. Easy Avenue / Willow Street                                  F       1.082        F       1.094
      9. I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street
       (Unsignalized)*                                                F         **         F         **
      10. I-710 NB Ramps / Willow Street
       (Unsignalized)*                                                D         33         D         30
      Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
      * For stop-controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst delay (in seconds) experienced by any
          of the approaches.
      ** Delay conditions exceeding 60 seconds.
      Source: URS Corporation, May 2003



3.10.2 Regulatory Framework
The City of Carson General Plan is currently being updated. Therefore, it is not
feasible to provide an analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with
General Plan policies that pertain to the City’s traffic and circulation system.

3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance
Based on the City of Carson criteria, the proposed project would have a significant
effect on the environment if it would do any of the following:
     Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
     traffic load and capacity of the street system (e.g., for an intersection that is
     already at LOS E or F, the addition of project traffic causes an incremental
     increase of 0.02 or greater in the V/C ratio)
     Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
     established by the County congestion management agency for designated
     roads or highways (e.g., the addition of project traffic results in a LOS
     dropping from LOS D or better to LOS E or F)




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                        3.10‐13
3.0 Environmental Analysis


3.10.4 Impacts

Future No Project Conditions
This section provides an analysis of near term traffic conditions without the
proposed project. Near-term traffic conditions will act as a “base” against which
conditions with the project will be measured.

Cumulative Project Traffic
Description of Cumulative Roadway Projects
There are four cumulative roadway projects identified for inclusion in the traffic
analysis. Typically, these cumulative projects are included in the “base” condition
to provide an accurate background for comparing traffic impacts associated with
the project. The cumulative projects are described below:
   1. 2365 Sepulveda Boulevard—Special Permit 1-68 Modification No 2. This
      project proposes for the construction of new oil tanks to the north of the
      project site. This project proposes the construction of new tankage
      comprising of five 50,000-gallon tanks and two 20,000-gallon tanks.
  2. Sepulveda Boulevard Widening—This project calls for the widening of
     the narrow segment of Sepulveda Boulevard from east of Alameda Street to
     the east the City limits. This project will not generate new added trips but
     would add additional travel lanes on both eastbound and westbound
     Sepulveda Boulevard.
  3. BP Office Relocation—This site is located approximately 1.25 miles north
     of the Carson Terminal on the south side of 223rd Street, just west of Johns
     Manville Street. Proposed uses on the 15-acre site include a 122,500 square
     foot office building, a 2,000 square foot coffee shop, and a 1,500 square foot
     credit union. The site is presently used for container parking, auto parking,
     and vehicle storage.
  4. Off Dock USA Container Terminal—The proposed container terminal
     will be located on a 13.5 acre site located at 22700 S. Alameda Street in
     Carson, approximately 3/4 mile north of the Carson Terminal. Site
     improvements will include fencing and small structures near the gates. The
     site interior will be partially paved, and the remainder would consist of
     crushed aggregate surfacing.



3.10‐14                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                   3.10 Transportation and Traffic


The construction of the PCH Grade Separation would create increases in
cumulative project added trips within the study area especially along Sepulveda
Boulevard and Alameda Street. It must be noted however that the Pacific Coast
Highway Bridge would be completed and operational prior to the start of the
construction activities for the Kinder Morgan Project; therefore local traffic is
restored to existing levels. Based on the description of the above projects, it can be
concluded that cumulative, project-related added trips are negligible for that
project.

Near Term Cumulative Base Traffic Conditions
The near term base roadway network was assumed to be identical to the existing
roadway network and incorporates applicable improvements associated with the
planned widening of Sepulveda Boulevard described above. Temporary mitigation
measures associated with the PCH Grade Separation project were not included in
the analysis.

Near term cumulative base LOS analyses were conducted using the methodologies
described above. In consultation with City of Carson Traffic Engineer, it was
concluded that the near term cumulative base conditions would be largely identical
with Existing conditions. Roadway segment and intersection LOS results for the
near term cumulative base conditions are discussed below.

Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 3.10-6 displays the LOS analysis results for key study area roadway
segments under near term cumulative base conditions.

As shown in Table 3.10-6, similar to existing conditions, all of the study roadway
segments are projected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under near term
cumulative base conditions, with the exception of the P.M. peak hour westbound
Sepulveda Boulevard directional traffic between Alameda Street and Santa Fe
Avenue.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                            3.10‐15
3.0 Environmental Analysis


     Table 3.10-6             Roadway Segment Level of Service Results—
                              Near-Term Cumulative Base Conditions
                                                                 A.M.                              P.M.
                                                                 Peak                              Peak
                                       A.M. Peak    A.M. Peak    Hour     P.M. Peak   P.M. Peak    Hour
                    Segment             Hour [1]    Hour V/C     LOS       Hour [1]   Hour V/C     LOS
 Sepulve
 da          Wilmington Avenue                      0.33/0.5                          0.66/0.
                                       495/747                    A/A     991/985                  B/B
 Bouleva     and Alameda Street                        0                                66
 rd
 Sepulve
 da          Alameda Street and                     0.63/0.6              1136/142    0.76/0.9
                                       948/895                    B/A                              C/E
 Bouleva     Santa Fe Avenue                           0                      1           5
 rd
             Wardlow Road and
 Alameda                               548/108      0.24/0.4                          0.63/0.4
             Sepulveda                                            A/A    1410/926                  B/A
 Street                                   1            8                                  1
             Boulevard
             Sepulveda
 Alameda     Boulevard and                          0.24/0.3              1093/92     0.49/0.
                                       550/811                    A/A                              A /A
 Street      Pacific Coast                             6                     8           41
             Highway
 Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
 [1]—Direction peak hour volumes EB / WB, NB / SB
 Source: URS Corporation, 2004


Intersection Analysis
Table 3.10-7 displays intersection LOS and average vehicle delay results under
near term cumulative base conditions. All intersections were assumed to be
signalized unless otherwise noted. LOS calculation worksheets for the near term
cumulative base conditions are provided in Appendix B of the traffic report.


 Table 3.10-7             Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—
                             Near-Term Cumulative Base Conditions
                                                                 A.M. Peak Hour       P.M. Peak Hour
                       Intersection                             LOS         V/C       LOS        V/C
 1. Wilmington Avenue / E. Sepulveda Boulevard                  D         0.870        E          0.929
 2. Alameda Street / I-405 NB Ramps                              C        0.785        D          0.836
 3. Alameda Street / Wardlow Road (Connector)                    B        0.649        F          1.189
 4. Alameda Street / Sepulveda Boulevard
                                                                 B        0.616        B          0.666
  (Connector)
 5. Project Driveway / Sepulveda Boulevard                       A        0.565        C          0.717
 6. I-405 SB Ramps / Wardlow Road                                A        0.598        A          0.557


3.10‐16                                 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


7. Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street                              F           1.016          F        1.005
8. Easy Avenue / Willow Street                                  F          1.083           F         1.095
9. I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street (Unsignalized)*               F            **            F          **
10. I-710 NB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                                D         33.000          D         29.500
 (Unsignalized)*
Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
* For stop-controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst delay (in seconds) experienced by any of the
    approaches.
** Delay conditions exceeding 60 seconds.
Source: URS Corporation, 2004

As shown in Table 3.10-7, all but five of the study area intersections are projected
to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under near term cumulative base
conditions. The following five intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable
LOS E or F:
      Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard (P.M. Peak Hour)
      Alameda Street / Wardlow Road Connector (P.M. Peak Hour)
      Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)
      Easy Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)
      I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street (Unsignalized: A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)

Impact TR-1           The proposed project would not significantly impact
                      study area intersections or roadway segments during
                      project construction.

Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and
Assignment
Project Trip Generation
The following three conditions were analyzed to determine the most conservative
assumption that would represent the maximum trip generation conditions that
could occur at the project site.
      Depression Fill/Site Preparation (Long-Term Schedule)
      Depression Fill/Site Preparation (Shortened Schedule)
      Tank Construction




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                  3.10‐17
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Depression Fill/Site Preparation
This schedule assumes that the depressed area will be filled in one operation and a
27-foot fill will be placed on half of the area to facilitate the settling process. The
following assumptions were used in the estimation of truck haul traffic:
      Truck Capacity              10 cubic yards
      Loading/unloading frequency 20 trucks per hour
      Operating hours             10 hour per day on a 6-day workweek
      Truck Trips/Week            1,200 Truck Trips

Based on the above assumptions and fill calculations, the filling of the depressed
area will generate a large volume of truck traffic; however, the hauling operations
are spread over time. Also, This assumption provides a very conservative estimate
of the number of trucks that could be reasonably accommodated within the project
site: the actual peak truck hauling operation is likely to be considerably less than
this number due to site constraints and construction timing. Furthermore, the
impacts to roadway segments and intersections resulting from this hauling activity
is reduced from the earlier project description because the majority of the fill
material is highly likely to be available from an existing soil stockpile located in the
immediate vicinity of the project site, and would thus avoid use of highway ramps
and most project area intersections during soil hauling operations. Assuming a
three passenger car equivalent per truck equates to 60 inbound car trips and 60
outbound car trips during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.

Tank Construction
The tank construction trip generation estimates were based on the manpower
utilization for a typical 6 tank construction schedule with construction workforce
peaking at month 6 with 80 workers on-site. The typical worker will be commuting
using light duty vehicles and cars; therefore passenger car equivalent adjustment
applied to heavier truck traffic is not needed. For analysis purposes, trip
generation assumptions include 80 inbound car trips during the A.M. peak hour
and 80 outbound car trips during the P.M. peak hour.




3.10‐18                         Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


Worst-Case Conditions Analysis
The compressed depression fill/site preparation condition provides the worst-case
conditions and was analyzed for near-term construction traffic impacts and is
referred to as Site Preparation in the remainder of this Chapter for ease of
reference. The tank construction condition is based on the assumption that all
project construction trips would arrive within the A.M. peak hour and leave within
the P.M. peak hour. These, therefore, represent the worst possible case conditions
that could occur during the project tank construction period.

Project Trip Distribution
Project trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway network based upon the
most logical construction worker origin-destination trip patterns. Figure 3.10-4
(Project Trip Distribution) displays the assumed trip distribution pattern for the
project.

Project Trip Assignment
Based upon the project site location in relation to the surrounding roadway
system, daily and peak hour trips generated by project construction related traffic
were assigned to the adjacent roadway network, as displayed in Figure 3.10-5 (Site
Preparation Trip Distribution) for the Site Preparation condition and Figure 3.10-
6 (Tank Construction Trip Distribution) for the Tank Construction condition.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                         3.10‐19
3.0 Environmental Analysis


              Figure 3.10-4 Project Trip Distribution




3.10‐20                      Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


          Figure 3.10-5 Site Preparation Trip Distribution




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                      3.10‐21
3.0 Environmental Analysis


           Figure 3.10-6 Tank Construction Trip Distribution




3.10‐22                      Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                  3.10 Transportation and Traffic



    Near Term Cumulative Base with Site Preparation
    Conditions
    This condition includes near term cumulative base traffic volumes with the
    addition of weekday project construction traffic associated with filling the
    depressed area at the project site. Daily roadway and peak hour intersection
    volumes for this condition are displayed in Figure 3.10-7 (Near-Term Cumulative
    Base Traffic Volumes).

    Roadway Segment Analysis
    Table 3.10-8 displays the LOS analysis results for key roadway segments under
    near term cumulative base with Site Preparation conditions.


 Table 3.10-8           Roadway Segment Level of Service Results Near-Term
                       Cumulative Base with Depression Fill/Site Preparation
                                           Conditions
                                  A.M.       A.M.      A.M.                          P.M.      P.M
                                  Peak       Peak      Peak               P.M.       Peak      Peak     V/C
                                  Hour       Hour      Hour     V/C       Peak       Hour      Hour   Increas
Roadway          Segment           [1]       V/C       LOS    Increase   Hour [1]    V/C       LOS       e
            Wilmington
Sepulveda                        500/75     0.33/0.5          0.00/0.0              0.66/0.6          0.00/0.
            Avenue and                                 A/A               996/990               B/B
Boulevard                          2           0                 0                     6                00
            Alameda Street
Sepulveda   Alameda Street and   957/90     0.64/0.6          0.01/0.0   1145/143   0.76/0.9          0.00/0.
                                                       B/B                                     C/E
Boulevard   Santa Fe Avenue        4           0                 0           4          5               00
            Wardlow Road and
Alameda                          594/112    0.26/0.5          0.02/0.0              0.65/0.4          0.02/0.
            Sepulveda                                  A/A               1456/972              B/A
Street                              7          0                 2                     3                07
            Boulevard
            Sepulveda
Alameda                                     0.24/0.3          0.00/0.0   1093/92    0.49/0.4          0.00/0.
            Boulevard and        550/811               A/A                                     A/A
Street                                         6                 0          8           1               00
            Pacific Coast Hwy.
Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
[1]—Direction peak hour volumes EB / WB, NB / SB
Source: URS Corporation, 2004



    As shown in Table 3.10-8, similar to near-term cumulative base conditions (refer
    to Table 3.10-6), all the study area roadway segments would continue to operate at
    acceptable LOS D or better during this phase of construction, with the exception of
    the P.M. peak hour westbound Sepulveda Boulevard directional traffic between
    Alameda Street and Santa Fe Avenue. The addition of project construction traffic
    during this phase of construction would not cause the P.M. peak hour westbound

    Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                           3.10‐23
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Sepulveda Boulevard directional traffic between Alameda Street and Santa Fe
Avenue V/C ratio to increase by 0.02 or more. Therefore, the impact on the study
area roadway segments from the addition of project site preparation traffic would
be less than significant.




3.10‐24                       Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


   Figure 3.10-7      Near-Term Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                      3.10‐25
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Intersection Analysis
Table 3.10-9 displays intersection LOS and average vehicle delay results under
near term cumulative base with Depression Fill/Site Preparation conditions. All
intersections were assumed to be signalized unless otherwise noted.


           Table 3.10-9 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
                       Results—Near-Term Cumulative Base with
                      Depression Fill/Site Preparation Conditions
                  Intersection                        A.M. Peak Hour                 P.M. Peak Hour
                                                                    V/C                            V/C
                                                  LOS    V/C      Increase       LOS    V/C      Increase
 1. Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard        D      0.872       0.002       E      0.931       0.002
 2. Alameda Street / I-405 NB Ramps                C      0.785       0.000       D      0.837        0.001
 3. Alameda Street / Wardlow Road
                                                   B      0.654       0.005       F       1.189      0.000
   (Connector)
 4. Alameda Street / Sepulveda Boulevard
                                                   B       0.671      0.055       C      0.710       0.044
   (Connector)
 5. Project Driveway / Sepulveda Boulevard         B      0.602       0.037       C       0.751      0.033
 6. I-405 SB Ramps / Wardlow Road                  B      0.601       0.003       A      0.559       0.002
 7. Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street                F       1.019      0.003       F      1.008       0.003
 8. Easy Avenue / Willow Street                    F      1.086       0.003       F      1.098       0.003
 9. I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                   F        **         N/A        F        **         N/A
   (Unsignalized)*
 10. I-710 NB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                   D      33.300      0.300       D      29.800      0.300
   (Unsignalized)*
 Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
 * For stop-controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst delay (in seconds) experienced by any of the
     approaches.
 ** Delay conditions exceeding 60 seconds.
 Source: URS Corporation, 2004



As shown in Table 3.10-9, the following intersections would operate at
unacceptable LOS E or F under near term cumulative base with Site Preparation
conditions:
       Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard (P.M. Peak Hour)
       Alameda Street / Wardlow Road Connector (P.M. Peak Hour)
       Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)
       Easy Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)
       I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street (Unsignalized) (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)



3.10‐26                                  Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                               3.10 Transportation and Traffic


As shown in Table 3.10-7, the five intersections in Table 3.10-9 that would operate
at unacceptable levels (LOS E or F) during this phase of construction are projected
to operate under similar unacceptable levels under near term cumulative base
conditions. Also, the addition of project construction traffic during this phase of
construction would not cause the V/C ratio to increase by 0.02 or more. Therefore,
the impact on the study area intersections from the addition of project site
preparation traffic would be less than significant.

Near-Term Cumulative base with Tank Construction
Conditions
This condition includes near term cumulative base traffic volumes with the
addition of weekday project construction traffic associated with the proposed tank
construction at the project site. Daily roadway and peak hour intersection volumes
for this condition are displayed in Table 3.10-10 and Table 3.10-11, respectively.

Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 3.10-10 displays the LOS analysis results for key roadway segments under
near term cumulative base with Tank Construction conditions.


 Table 3.10-10 Roadway Segment Level of Service Results—Near-
               Term Cumulative Base with Tank Construction
                               Conditions
                                      A.M.               A.M.                                       P.M.
                           A.M.       Peak               Peak                                       Peak
Roadwa                     Peak       Hour      V/C      Hour    P.M. Peak P.M. Peak  V/C           Hour
   y         Segment      Hour [1]    V/C     Increase   LOS      Hour [1] Hour V/C Increase        LOS
Sepulved
         Wilmington
a                                    0.34/0.5 0.01/0.0                                 0.00/0.0
         Avenue and       515/747                        A/A     991/1005 0.66/0.67                 B/B
Boulevar                                0        0                                         1
         Alameda Street
d
Sepulved
         Alameda Street
a                                    0.63/0.6 0.00/0.0                                 0.02/0.0
         and Santa Fe     948/931                        B/B     1172/1421 0.78/0.95                C/E
Boulevar                                2        2                                        0
         Avenue
d
        Wardlow Road
Alameda                   548/110 0.24/0.4 0.00/0.0                                    0.01/0.0
        and Sepulveda                                    A/A     1434/926 0.64/0.41                 B/A
Street                       5       9         1                                          0
        Boulevard
        Sepulveda
Alameda Boulevard and                0.24/0.3 0.00/0.0                                 0.00/0.0
                          550/811                        A/A     1093/928 0.49/0.41                 A /A
Street  Pacific Coast                   6        0                                        0
        Highway



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                               3.10‐27
3.0 Environmental Analysis


Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
[1]—Direction peak hour volumes EB / WB, NB / SB
Source: URS Corporation, 2004



As shown in Table 3.10-10, similar to near term cumulative base conditions (see
Table 3.10-6), all the study area roadway segments would continue to operate at
acceptable LOS D or better during this phase of construction, with the exception of
the P.M. peak hour westbound Sepulveda Boulevard directional traffic between
Alameda Street and Santa Fe Avenue. The addition of construction traffic under
Tank Construction conditions would not cause the V/C ratio at this roadway
segment to increase by 0.02 or more. Therefore, the impact on the study area
roadway segments from the addition of project tank construction traffic would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Intersection Analysis
Table 3.10-11 displays intersection LOS and average vehicle delay results under
near term cumulative base with Tank Construction conditions. All intersections
were assumed to be signalized unless otherwise noted.


 Table 3.10-11 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—
             Near-Term Cumulative Base with Tank Construction
                               Conditions
                                                       A.M. Peak Hour             P.M. Peak Hour
                                                                     V/C                        V/C
                  Intersection                     LOS    V/C      Increase   LOS    V/C      Increase
 1. Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard         D     0.877     0.007      E     0.929     0.000
 2. Alameda Street / I-405 NB Ramps                 C     0.785     0.000      D     0.839     0.003
 3. Alameda Street / Wardlow Road
                                                    B     0.663     0.014      F     1.189     0.000
   (Connector)
 4. Alameda Street / Sepulveda Boulevard
                                                    B     0.635     0.019      B     0.674     0.008
   (Connector)
 5. Project Driveway / Sepulveda Boulevard          A     0.573     0.008      C     0.746     0.028
 6. I-405 SB Ramps / Wardlow Road                   B     0.609      0.011     A     0.557     0.000
 7. Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street                 F     1.028     0.012      F     1.018     0.013
 8. Easy Avenue / Willow Street                     F     1.095     0.012      F     1.107     0.012
 9. I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                    F       **        **       F       **        **
   (Unsignalized)*
 10. I-710 NB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                    D     33.000    0.000      D    30.700     1.200
   (Unsignalized)*




3.10‐28                                 Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
* For stop-controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst delay (in seconds) experienced by any of the
    approaches.
** Delay conditions exceeding 60 seconds.
Source: URS Corporation, 2004



As shown in Table 3.10-11, the following intersections would operate at
unacceptable LOS E or F under near term cumulative base with Project conditions:
      Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard (P.M. Peak Hour)
      Alameda Street / Wardlow Road Connector (P.M. Peak Hour)
      Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour)
      Easy Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)
      I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street (Unsignalized) (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)

When compared with Table 3.10-7, the five intersections in Table 3.10-11 that
would operate at unacceptable levels (LOS E or F) during this phase of
construction are projected to operate under similar unacceptable levels under near
term cumulative base conditions. Also, the addition of project construction traffic
during this phase of construction would not cause the V/C ratio to increase by 0.02
or more at these five intersections. Therefore, the addition of project construction
traffic would result in a less-than-significant impact to study area
intersections.

Near-Term Cumulative Base with Combined Tank
Construction and Depression Fill/Site Preparation
Conditions
The updated air quality impact analysis and project description assume a
compressed construction schedule in which the peak tank construction activities
would occur at the same time as the peak depression area soil hauling and fill
activities. Under this compressed schedule scenario, the peak traffic for both
activities would occur on the same day. Thus, during a peak construction day, the
site could require up to 20 truck trips per hour for soil import operations (60
inbound and 60 outbound passenger car equivalent [PCE] trips [one truck equal to
three passenger cars]), as well as tank construction worker vehicles, which would




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                  3.10‐29
3.0 Environmental Analysis


arrive and leave from the site from the adjacent designated parking area in two
shifts during the peak construction period.

Roadway Segment Analysis
Table 3.10-12 displays the LOS analysis results for key roadway segments under
near term cumulative base with Tank Construction conditions.


 Table 3.10-12 Roadway Segment Level of Service Results—Near-
                 Term Cumulative Base with Combined Tank
              Construction and Depression Fill/Site Preparation
                                Conditions
                                         A.M.                 A.M.                                    P.M.
                              A.M.       Peak                 Peak                                    Peak
Roadwa                        Peak       Hour        V/C      Hour   P.M. Peak P.M. Peak  V/C         Hour
   y          Segment        Hour [1]    V/C       Increase   LOS     Hour [1] Hour V/C Increase      LOS
Sepulved
         Wilmington
a                                       0.33/0.5 0.00/0.0                                  0.00/0.0
         Avenue and          500/752                          A/A    996/990   0.66/0.66              B/B
Boulevar                                   0        0                                         0
         Alameda Street
d
Sepulved
         Alameda Street
a                                       0.64/0.6 0.01/0.0                                  0.00/0.0
         and Santa Fe        957/904                          B/A    1145/1434 0.76/0.95              C/E
Boulevar                                   0        0                                         0
         Avenue
d
        Wardlow Road
Alameda                      594/112 0.26/0.5 0.02/0.0                                     0.02/0.0
        and Sepulveda                                         A/A    1456/972 0.65/0.43               B/A
Street                          7       0        2                                            2
        Boulevard
        Sepulveda
Alameda Boulevard and                   0.24/0.3 0.00/0.0                                  0.00/0.0
                             550/811                          A/A    1093/928 0.49/0.41               A /A
Street  Pacific Coast                      6        0                                         0
        Highway
Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
[1]—Direction peak hour volumes EB / WB, NB / SB
Source: URS Corporation, 2004



As shown in Table 3.10-12, similar to near term cumulative base conditions (see
Table 3.10-6), all the study area roadway segments would continue to operate at
acceptable LOS D or better during this phase of construction, with the exception of
the P.M. peak hour westbound Sepulveda Boulevard directional traffic between
Alameda Street and Santa Fe Avenue. The addition of construction traffic under
Tank Construction conditions would not cause the V/C ratio at this roadway
segment to increase by 0.02 or more. Therefore, the impact on the study area
roadway segments from the addition of project tank construction traffic combined


3.10‐30                                  Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                  3.10 Transportation and Traffic


with project depression fill/site preparation traffic would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.

Intersection Analysis
Table 3.10-13 displays intersection LOS and average vehicle delay results under
near term cumulative base with Tank Construction conditions. All intersections
were assumed to be signalized unless otherwise noted.


 Table 3.10-13 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results—
              Near-Term Cumulative Base with Combined Tank
              Construction and Depression Fill/Site Preparation
                                Conditions
                                                    A.M. Peak Hour                  P.M. Peak Hour
                                                                  V/C                             V/C
                Intersection                    LOS    V/C      Increase        LOS    V/C      Increase
1. Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard        D      0.872       0.002       E       0.931       0.002
2. Alameda Street / I-405 NB Ramps                C      0.785       0.000       D       0.837       0.001
3. Alameda Street / Wardlow Road
                                                  B      0.654       0.005       F       1.189       0.000
  (Connector)
4. Alameda Street / Sepulveda Boulevard
                                                  B       0.671       0.055      C       0.710       0.044
  (Connector)
5. Project Driveway / Sepulveda Boulevard         B      0.602        0.037      C       0.751       0.033
6. I-405 SB Ramps / Wardlow Road                  B       0.601      0.003       A       0.559       0.002
7. Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street                F       1.019      0.003       F       1.008       0.003
8. Easy Avenue / Willow Street                    F       1.086      0.003       F       1.098       0.003
9. I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                  F        **          **        F         **          **
  (Unsignalized)*
10. I-710 NB Ramps / Willow Street
                                                  D      33.300      0.300       D      29.800       0.300
  (Unsignalized)*
Bold letter indicates unacceptable LOS E of F.
* For stop-controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst delay (in seconds) experienced by any of the
    approaches.
** Delay conditions exceeding 60 seconds.
Source: URS Corporation, 2004



As shown in Table 3.10-13, the following intersections would operate at
unacceptable LOS E or F under near term cumulative base with Project conditions:
      Wilmington Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard (P.M. Peak Hour)
      Alameda Street / Wardlow Road Connector (P.M. Peak Hour)
      Santa Fe Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour)



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                  3.10‐31
3.0 Environmental Analysis


      Easy Avenue / Willow Street (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)
      I-710 SB Ramps / Willow Street (Unsignalized) (A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours)

When compared with Table 3.10-7, the five intersections in Table 3.10-13 that
would operate at unacceptable levels (LOS E or F) during this phase of
construction are projected to operate under similar unacceptable levels under near
term cumulative base conditions. Also, the addition of project construction traffic
during this phase of construction would not cause the V/C ratio to increase by 0.02
or more at these five intersections. Therefore, the addition of project construction
traffic would result in a less-than-significant impact to study area
intersections.

Impact TR-2             The proposed project would not significantly impact
                        study area intersections or roadway segments during
                        project operations.

There are no anticipated increases in workforce beyond the current 55 employees
on-site. Therefore, the future post construction project employee operations will
essentially have the same number of employee trips. However, an incremental
increase in nonemployee trips is anticipated due to the increased storage capacity
at the project site. For analysis purposes, the A.M. and P.M. peak hour driveway
counts were scaled up 25 percent to simulate future operations traffic. The
resulting project driveway traffic projections are shown below in Table 3.10-14.


                  Table 3.10-14 Incremental Increase in Post-
                              Construction Project Operations
                                     Driveway Traffic
                                Existing Driveway           Post Construction
                                      Counts1               Driveway Counts2    Incremental Increase
                              Inbound Outbound            Inbound Outbound      Inbound    Outboun
                                                                                               d
           A.M. Peak             31           33            40         41          9          8
           Hour
           P.M. Peak             17           25            22         32          5          7
           Hour
           1. Southland Car Counters
           2. Assumed 25 percent increase in operations
           Source: URS Corporation, May 2003




3.10‐32                                   Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                 3.10 Transportation and Traffic


As shown in Table 3.10-14, the anticipated increase in project operations traffic
based on the driveway count projections is minimal and would not present a
significant increase in traffic to the surrounding roadway system. As such, this
condition was not analyzed further. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant.

3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts
As previously discussed, the potential impacts caused by project implementation
were compared to the near term cumulative base traffic conditions. As such, the
project-specific impacts as analyzed above also serves as the cumulative
conditions, and the impacts are identical.

3.10.6 Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
As no significant impacts associated with traffic conditions would result from
implementation of the proposed project, no mitigation measures would be
necessary. All impacts would remain less than significant.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                       3.10‐33
                  4.0         ALTERNATIVES

4.1       INTRODUCTION
An EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines must describe
and comparatively evaluate a range of alternatives to the proposed project (see
§15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines). The lead agency is given substantial latitude in
determining the “reasonable” range of alternatives under the general guidance that
alternatives must be “feasible” and “shall be selected and described in a manner to
foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.” The
analysis of the environmental effects of the alternatives is intended to be less
detailed than the analysis of the proposed project and to be primarily comparative.
Two alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in this EIR: (1) No Project
and (2) Alternative Site Configuration.

4.2       PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As required under CEQA, the alternatives to the project should feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. The Kinder Morgan Tank Storage Terminals LLC
plans to increase the storage capacity of their Carson Terminal to meet future
market demands for petroleum product storage. As such, the overall goal of the
proposed project is to increase the Carson Terminal facility’s petroleum storage
capacity by up to 25 percent over an estimated ten-year period. Specific project
objectives are to
      Maximize use of the site for petroleum product storage tank capacity
      Based upon market demand, construct and install new product and storage
      tanks and supporting piping, pumps, and control systems
      Provide partial relief for the increase in demand for petroleum storage
      capacity anticipated to occur by 2010
      Facilitate the future movement of gasoline and other petroleum products to
      California
      Construct tanks with 80,000-barrel storage capacity
      Construct a transmix tank with 30,000-barrel storage capacity


Carson Terminal Expansion EIR                                                   4‐1
4.0 Alternatives


4.3       ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS
This section describes the methodology used to develop, screen, and select
potential alternatives. Analysis of every possible alternative or option or
combination of options would overburden the EIR with an unnecessary amount of
detail that would be redundant and complex, and would fail to provide meaningful
information for the Agency to consider in its review of the project. To develop the
alternatives that are analyzed herein, a list of potential alternatives was prepared,
in response to significant impacts identified in Chapter 3.0 (Environmental
Analysis). Each potential alternative was evaluated, to determine whether it would
(1) feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, (2) have the potential
to avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and (3)
likely be considered feasible.

4.3.1     Alternate Site
An alternative site to the proposed project was considered. The project applicant,
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, owns the Watson Terminal, located
approximately 3.7 miles north of the project site. While the Watson Terminal is
owned by the applicant and used in general for petroleum product storage, the
nature of the business at the Watson terminal differs from that at the Carson
Terminal. The Carson facility is designed to provide flexibility in meeting demands
of a variety of vendors. Product stored at Carson may be at temporary capacity to
aid refinery turnarounds, used for blending stocks, or imported to meet growing
demand. The stored product may reside for days, weeks, or months. Infrastructure
at the Carson Terminal includes transmission lines in and out of the site in
addition to the truck rack that allows for loading of product directly onto trucks. In
comparison, the Watson facility is far smaller than the Carson facility. As such, it
has room to build a maximum of three additional tanks. Product is stored over a
period of hours at this facility, rather than the longer durations that could occur at
the Carson Terminal. This difference in the duration of product storage limits the
types of vendors that could use the site and does not allow the project to meet the
projected demands of many vendors in the area. In addition, there is limited
infrastructure at the Watson Terminal, which further limits the types of vendors



4‐2                             Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                    4.0 Alternatives


that could use the facility. The Watson Terminal is also located closer to residential
and commercial receptors, which are located approximately 0.10 miles to the
northeast, and would increase these sensitive receptors’ exposure to air emissions
and risk of upset from operations at the facility. Therefore, the alternative site
would not meet project objectives and would have the potential to increase
impacts.

4.3.2     Partial Fill of Old Dominguez Channel Remnant
An alternative that would result in partial fill of the channel was also considered.
Because the channel provides some foraging habitat, this alternative would be
aimed at preserving some of this foraging habitat. A reduction in the fill of the
channel would limit the number of storage tanks by as many as half of those
proposed. This would not allow project objectives to be met with respect to
maximizing petroleum storage capacity at existing facilities. In addition, the
RWQCB has required remediation activities for the channel remnant. If the project
did not proceed, the RWQCB would require that the channel be capped due to
existing contamination. Thus, the loss of foraging habitat would occur even
without project implementation.

4.3.3     Reduced Project
An alternative that would result in development of the proposed project at a
reduced scale was also considered. Under this alternative, fewer storage tanks
were proposed for development. This would have the potential to further reduce
air emissions and health risks at the site, although these impacts could be reduced
to less than significant levels by the mitigation measures proposed for the project.
A reduced project at the project site would not meet the projects basic objectives,
as the primary objective of the proposed project is to provide additional petroleum
storage capacity to meet future market demands. In order to provide partial relief
for the anticipated increase in petroleum storage demands in 2010, where the
imports of gasoline and blending components are expected to double, and
facilitate the future movement of gasoline and other petroleum products to
California, the construction of additional storage tanks at the project site must be
built to maximum capacity. As any development less than what was proposed


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                4‐3
4.0 Alternatives


would not meet the primary objective for the proposed project, the Reduced
Project Alternative would not be considered feasible.

4.3.4     Delayed Construction
An alternative that would result in extending the construction of the proposed
project over a longer period of time was also evaluated as a potential means of
avoiding significant air quality impacts associated with project construction.

The peak daily construction emissions are a function of the estimated activities
and types of equipment onsite during the peak day of each month of each
construction phase. The construction activity/equipment inventory for each month
of each phase of construction is provided in the project Air Quality Evaluation,
Appendix A, Table A-5 (refer to Appendix B of the Revised Draft EIR). The
monthly emissions associated with each month of each phase of construction are
shown in Tables A-6 through A-8 of the Air Quality Evaluation.

Certain activities generate more emissions than others. In particular, earthmoving
activities that involve compactors, bulldozers, excavators, backhoes and scrapers
generally result in the highest peak daily emissions. For example, as shown in
Table A-7, even after mitigation the peak daily activity in Month 3 of Phase 1 tank
construction would generate an estimated 95.6 lb./day NOx, which is just below
the 100 lb./day threshold. Month 2 of the Phase 2 depression fill operations results
in 100.17 lb./day NOx, which is slightly over the threshold. Other activities such as
truck movements do not contribute significantly to NOx emissions but do
contribute PM10 emissions as high as 106 lb./day during peak earthmoving
operations, as shown in Table A-7.

Aboveground construction activities generally involve fewer pieces of heavy
equipment, but still result in daily emissions as high as 50-60 lb./day NOx. The
use of heavy earthmoving equipment is generally concentrated in the first several
months of tank construction, but also occurs at the end of the tank construction
phase during final grading and road work. This project is somewhat unique
because the filling and compacting of the depression area requires 8 consecutive




4‐4                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                    4.0 Alternatives


months of earthwork activity, followed by 6-12 months of passive soil compaction,
and then additional earthwork before tanks can be constructed in this area.

The peak daily project construction emissions were estimated by overlaying these
month-to-month emissions estimate on the project schedule. The project schedule
assumes that operations within each phase occur in consecutive months without
significant gaps in activity, in order to avoid unnecessary mobilizations. The
schedule assumes a maximum use of onsite truck movements and other logistics in
order to expedite construction to meet market demand. The base project schedule
also assumes that Phase 2 tanks would be constructed in parallel with Phase 1
tanks. Phase 3 tanks were assumed to be constructed only after completion of the
depression area fill and compaction period, an estimated 15-21 month process.
Thus, the based schedule has significant overlap of the construction phases and is
designed to expedite at least the first two phases of tank construction.

For this alternative scenario, the schedule and associated monthly emissions
estimates were reviewed to determine the overall project timeline that could result
if the construction activities were phased to avoid exceeding the peak daily NOx
and PM10 emissions thresholds. In general, this can be achieved by severely
limiting the overlap between project phases, and by reducing the number of
equipment pieces used during earthmoving activities within each construction
phase (e.g., by allowing no more than one compactor or bulldozer onsite at any one
time). Several variations on the base schedule are possible; however, a likely result
of this scenario would be to delay the start of the depression area fill activities to
coincide with completion of the first four tanks, and delay start of the Phase 2
tanks until after completion of the depression area fill and passive compaction
period.

In this potential alternative scenario, the start of the Phase 2 tank construction
could be delayed by 20 months or more beyond the time that is planned in the
base schedule. The remaining Phase 3 tanks could be delayed by at least 10 months
since these tanks were already assumed to be dependent on completion of the
depression fill and compaction areas. These delays could become even longer if the
use of heavy equipment is reduced to prolong the individual earthmoving
activities.

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                4‐5
4.0 Alternatives


It may be possible to reduce the delays in the Phase 2 tanks; however, this would
require further delay of the depression area fill and compaction activities and
consequently a much longer delay in completion of the Phase 3 tanks. In either
case, there would be no delay in completion of the first 4 tanks in Phase 1, but
there would be significant delays in completion of the remaining 14 tanks in
Phases 2 and 3.

In summary, the construction emissions timeline is most sensitive to earthmoving
activities and less sensitive to truck movements and other above-ground
construction/fabrication activities. The schedule for the first four tanks would not
be impacted because these activities in and of themselves would not exceed the
thresholds. However, to stay under the thresholds, the tank construction for most
of the remaining 14 tanks and the transmix tank could be delayed by as much as
two or more years beyond the proposed schedule that is used as the basis for the
impact assessment.

For CEQA planning purposes, the air quality analysis uses a very conservative set
of assumptions to determine worst-case emissions impacts. The final construction
plans could indicate that the potential delays under this alternative are greater
than or less than predicted under this alternative scenario. Based on the data
available at this time, it is reasonable to expect that this alternative would delay
the project well beyond the base construction schedule.

This alternative would have the potential to reduce the temporary peak daily air
emissions during this segment of the construction plan (several months during the
first year of construction) to less than significant levels. A delayed project
construction schedule would not eliminate construction emissions, but would
extend the temporary emissions associated with the overall construction program
over a period of two to three years.

A fundamental project objective is to provide new product storage tanks to
respond to market demands for both greater storage capacity and greater
flexibility in the types of product that are moved to the market. Current market
conditions require the construction of significant new tankage in order to meet the
region’s growing demand for refined petroleum products, as documented in


4‐6                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                            4.0 Alternatives


various studies, including the 2003 California Energy Commission report
“Feasibility of a Strategic Fuel Reserve in California.” The schedule proposed in the
project description is based on need to fill customer requests for new storage
tanks. The Delayed Construction Alternative could result in a two or more year
delay in providing the necessary new tankage and because it does not respond to
current market demand, is not considered to be economically feasible.

4.4       ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Alternatives to the project that could potentially meet most of the project
objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project are analyzed in this EIR as part of the environmental review of the project.
The analysis of each alternative provides a comparison of the potential impacts of
the alternative in relation to the project. The following alternatives are evaluated in
this EIR:
      No Project
      Alternative Site Configuration

Alternative 1 addresses what would occur if no project were adopted. Alternative 2
address adoption of the proposed project with a different site configuration than
the proposed project. Section 4.3 discussed the process used to select the
alternatives.

4.4.1     Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
This section was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126. More
specifically, the following excerpt from the CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(E) served as
the framework for development of the No Project Alternative:
        ...The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow
        decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project
        with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project
        alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the
        proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant; unless it is
        identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish
        that baseline...When the project is the revision of an existing land use or
        regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will
        be the continuation of the plan, policy or operation into the future...Thus,
        the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                       4‐7
4.0 Alternatives


       compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan...After
       defining the no project alternative...the lead agency should proceed to
       analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would
       reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were
       not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
       infrastructure and community services.

Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be developed.
The existing petroleum storage activities at the Carson Terminal facility would
continue to operate and the facility would be served by the current storage tank
capacities. No alterations to the project site with respect to demolition of existing
tanks and construction and operation of new tanks would occur under this
alternative. Of the three existing 80,000-barrel tanks at the project site, one would
continue to store premium oil, another tank would continue to store crude oil, and
one remaining tank would remain decommissioned. The existing 178,000-barrel
tank would also stay decommissioned. The existing pipes, piping manifolds, power
poles, transformers, and fire monitors located along the western boundary line of
the project site adjacent to Alameda Street would remain unaltered. Activities
would occur on-site in associated with the RWQCB cleanup and abatement order.
Because the slough is contaminated, the RWQCB is requiring a low permeability
layer to be placed in the bottom of the slough to cap contaminants. Under this
alternative, the RWQCB would require filling of the slough in order to cap
contaminants in place and ensure that the public is not exposed to these soils.

None of the impacts of the proposed project would result under this alternative,
with the exception of biological resources. Under this alternative, future
operational characteristics at the facility would generally be the same as existing
conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each
environmental topic in Chapter 3.0 (Environmental Analysis). However, the
channel remnant would be capped and filled with at least 2 feet of fill. As such,
environmental effects to biological resources with respect to loss of foraging
habitat would result, similar to the proposed project. In addition, runoff water may
change direction and flow rate, although much less so than the proposed project.
None of the other project impacts described in Chapter 3.0 would directly result
from the selection of this alternative. Existing petroleum storage operations would
continue. Impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources,


4‐8                              Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     4.0 Alternatives


geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, and
traffic would be avoided. No significant and adverse environmental impacts
directly or cumulatively associated with the proposed project would occur.

Relationship to Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not address KMEP’s
objectives associated with the proposed project. Specifically, the KMEP’s objective
of providing increased petroleum storage at the Carson Terminal facility by up to
25 percent over a fifteen-year period to meet future market demands would not be
met. Under the No Project Alternative, no new storage tanks or associated piping
would be constructed to increase the storage capacity at the facility. Although the
current storage capacity at the facility is adequate, the facility would not be able to
meet the projected increases in demand for petroleum storage in the future. As
such, implementation of this alternative would not meet the established objectives
of the proposed project.

4.4.2     Alternative 2: Alternative Site Configuration
Under this Alternative, the proposed layout of the new storage tanks at the project
site would be modified, so that one less tank would be constructed and three
100,000-barrel tanks would be constructed to substitute for three 80,000-barrel
tanks proposed under the proposed project. As such, there would be a total of 18
tanks, one of which would be a transmix storage tank, at the project site instead of
a total of 19 tanks under this alternative. This alternative configuration for the
placement of new storage tanks at the project site would provide the same storage
capacity as the proposed project, but would result in slightly reduced air emissions
due to one less storage tank at the site.

Aesthetics
This alternative would result in a total of 18 new storage tanks instead of the 19
proposed under the proposed project. Short-term visual impacts associated with
construction impacts would be similar to the proposed project since demolition of
the four existing storage tanks, filling of the channel remnant, and construction of
the new storage tanks would still occur. Also similar to the proposed project, this

Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                4‐9
4.0 Alternatives


alternative would only represent an intensification of an existing use within the
boundaries of the Carson Terminal facility. As such, any long-term visual impacts
would be similar to the proposed project. The new storage tanks would still be
constructed on the project site along with new piping, pumps, and control systems.
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Air Quality
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in fewer
impacts to air quality, as one less tank would be constructed on the project site.
Implementation of the Alternative Configuration would still require demolition of
the four existing storage tanks and filling of the slough on the project site. The
duration of the construction period would be slightly shortened, as one less tank
would be built. However, daily construction emissions would be similar to the
proposed project. As one less storage tank would be constructed under this
alternative, the amount of air pollutant emissions generated from operation of the
Carson Terminal facility would be slightly less than the proposed project, and
would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, operation of this
alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with
objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants. Also similar to the proposed
project, conditions under this alternative would also be consistent with the Air
Quality Management Plan.

Biological Resources
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts on biological resources. As no sensitive plant species are likely to occur on
or adjacent to the project site due to the lack of necessary physical conditions,
construction and operational activities on the project site would not remove any
existing sensitive plant species. This impact would be similar to the proposed
project and would be less than significant. Since the developmental footprint at the
project site under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, the
impact on migratory birds and disturbances of wildlife during project construction
would also be similar. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures for
the proposed project would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.


4‐10                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                     4.0 Alternatives


Additionally, the project site is not considered to be a riparian habitat or federally
protected wetland, and thus development under this alternative would not result
in impacts on these resources.

Cultural Resources
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts to cultural resources as the proposed project. Demolition of the four
existing storage tanks and filling of the slough on the project site would still occur.
As none of the existing storage tanks at the project site meet the criteria for
eligibility for listing on the CRHR or NRHP, they are not considered to be
historical resources. Thus, the demolition of these tanks would not result in any
impacts to historical resources. As the developmental footprint under this
alternative is similar to the proposed project, the possibility exists for previously
unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources to be encountered during
ground-disturbing construction efforts. Therefore, similar to the proposed project,
impacts to potentially unknown archaeological resources at the project site would
be potentially significant. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Geology and Soils
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts to geology and soils. Although one fewer tank would be built, the capacity
of three tanks would be increased as opposed to the proposed project to provide
the same overall storage capacity at the facility. As such, the developmental
footprint at the project site would remain the same. The effects from seismic
activity and unstable soils would be similar to the proposed project, as the storage
tanks constructed under this alternative would remain exposed to these risks.
Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would
ensure that tanks are constructed in a manner that minimizes risks to the extent
feasible. Impacts would be similar as the proposed project, and would be mitigable
to less than significant.




Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                               4‐11
4.0 Alternatives


Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed project.
Implementation of this alternative could expose people to hazardous substances
that may be present in soil or groundwater, and demolition activities could expose
workers and the environment to hazardous materials and/or lead based paint and
residues. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, along with
incorporation of mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project,
would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of this
alternative could create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, which would be similar to the proposed project
because the overall storage capacity for petroleum products would still be the same
at the facility. Implementation of this alternative could interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, identical to the proposed
project. However, this impact would be less than significant upon implementation
of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts to hydrology and water quality. Similar to the proposed project,
demolition and construction activities under this alternative would result in a
contribution of contaminants to runoff. Since the developmental footprint under
this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, water quality impacts
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level upon implementation of various
federal, State, and local regulations. Impacts associated with the operational
activities under the Alternative Site Configuration would also be similar to the
proposed project, since the overall petroleum storage capacity provided by the new
tanks proposed under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.
Thus, the same amount of contaminants is anticipated to be carried away from the
site by runoff. Furthermore, since the developmental footprint under this
alternative would be similar to the proposed project, the impacts associated with
the modification of drainage patterns and runoff would also be similar in
magnitude as the proposed project.

4‐12                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                   4.0 Alternatives


Noise
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar but
slightly less noise impacts as the proposed project. Since demolition of the existing
storage tanks and filling of the 5-acre earthen depression on the project site would
be required, construction noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Implementation of this alternative would result in only one less storage tank at the
project site, such that operational noise impacts due to mechanical equipment
would be similar but slightly less than the proposed project. Impacts would remain
less than significant.

Public Services
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts to public services. Although one less storage tank would be constructed
under this alternative, three 100,000-barrel tanks would be constructed to
substitute for three 80,000-barrel tanks proposed under the proposed project. As
such, the overall amount of storage capacity at the project site would be the same,
and the developmental footprint at the project site would also be similar. As such,
impacts related to access for the fire department and solid waste generation would
also be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Transportation
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration would result in similar
impacts to transportation. Since one fewer tank would be built, the duration of
construction activities would be shorter, although daily construction effects would
be the same. Since there are no anticipated changes in the facility’s workforce
under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, traffic impacts
associated with operation of the facility would also be identical. These impacts
would be less than significant.

Relationship to Project Objectives
Implementation of the Alternative Site Configuration Alternative would result in
the development of one less tank at the project site while increasing the storage


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             4‐13
4.0 Alternatives


capacity of three other tanks such that the overall petroleum storage capacity at
the project site would be the same as the proposed project. Under this alternative,
a total of 18 tanks would be constructed along with related piping, pumps, and
control systems. As the overall storage capacity would be the same as the proposed
project, the project objective of increasing the petroleum storage capacity of the
Carson Terminal facility would be met. In addition, the development of one less
tank on the project site would result in slightly reduced air emissions. As such,
implementation of this alternative would be able to provide an increase in storage
capacity that would maximize the future community market demands while also
decreasing the risk of exposing sensitive receptors to air emissions.

4.5       COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF THE
          ALTERNATIVES
A comparison of the proposed project with the alternatives analyzed in this section
provides the basis for determination of the environmentally superior alternative.
Project impacts of each of the alternatives are compared to the proposed project in
Table 4-1. Impacts to a particular resource that would be greater than the
proposed project are indicated with a plus (+) sign, and impacts to a particular
resource that would be less than the proposed project are indicated with a minus
(–) sign. Impacts to resources that would be roughly equivalent to the proposed
project are indicated with an equals (=) sign in the table below.




4‐14                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                                       4.0 Alternatives



                   Table 4-1           Comparison of Alternatives
                                                                             Alternative 2:
                                                                            Alternative Site
                                                  Alternative 1: No         Configuration
                        Resource                 Project Alternative          Alternative
          Aesthetics                                      –                        =
          Air Quality                                     –                        –
          Biological Resources                            =                        =
          Cultural Resources                              –                        =
          Geology and Soils                               –                        =
          Hazards and Hazardous
                                                          –                        =
           Materials
          Hydrology/Water Quality                         –                        =
          Noise                                           –                        –
          Public Services and Utilities                   –                        =
          Traffic and Traffic                             –                        =
          + Alternative would result in more impacts than the proposed project
          – Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project
          = Impacts from the alternative would be comparable to the proposed project




4.6       ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR
          ALTERNATIVE
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from
among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the
no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative from among the other alternatives.

The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
project on the basis of the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental
impacts. However, CEQA Guidelines requires this EIR to identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. The
Alternative Site Configuration does not meet the project objectives to the same
degree as the proposed project. This alternative would only marginally reduce
impacts from the amount of air emissions and generation of noise from the project



Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                                4‐15
4.0 Alternatives


site, impacts that were not significant after mitigation in any case. Therefore, the
proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative.




4‐16                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
      5.0        CEQA-REQUIRED SECTIONS

5.1       GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS
Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the ways in
which the proposed project could induce economic, population, or housing growth,
either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. Growth-inducing
impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster or
encourage population and/or economic growth. Inducements to growth include
the generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the
service sector of the economy. A project could also induce growth by lowering or
removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity that attracts new
population or economic activity. The proposed project could result in growth-
inducing impacts through the creation of short-term employment opportunities to
draw newcomers to the region.

The growth-inducing potential of a project would generally be considered to have a
significant growth-inducing impact if the project either induced growth or created
the capacity to accommodate growth above and beyond the levels permitted by
public planning policies or recommended by independent growth projections.
However, a project’s growth-inducing potential does not automatically result in
growth, whether it is a portion of projected growth or actually exceeds projected
levels of growth. Growth at the local level is fundamentally controlled by the land
use policies of local municipalities or counties, which are determined by the local
politics in each jurisdiction.

Development of the proposed project would generate some short-term,
construction related employment opportunities. Because the storage capacity of
the Carson Terminal facility is expected to increase by up to 25 percent over an
estimated ten-year period, the construction activities at the project site would
occur periodically in phases, depending on the market demand for petroleum
product storage. As described in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), a limited labor
force would be required, with a maximum of 80 construction employees. Given the
supply of construction workers in the local work force, it is likely that these


Carson Terminal Expansion EIR                                                   5‐1
5.0 CEQA-Required Sections


workers would come from within the Los Angeles County area. Therefore, given
the availability of local workers and the relatively short-term nature of
construction employment for each construction phase, the proposed project would
not be considered growth inducing from a short-term employment perspective.

The proposed project consists of the construction of a total of 18 new 80,000-
barrel product storage tanks and one new 30,000 transmix storage tank with
related piping, pumps, and control systems to increase the storage capacity of the
Carson Terminal facility up to 25 percent over an estimated ten-year period.
Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners anticipates no long-term direct employment
opportunities would result from the operation of the new storage tanks at the
Carson Terminal facility.

Because the proposed project would only involve the intensification of existing
uses at the Carson Terminal facility, project implementation would not directly
generate population or result in any type of housing on the project site. As such,
the proposed project would not be considered growth-inducing from a population
generation and housing perspective. In addition, the proposed project would only
serve to increase the petroleum storage capacity at the Carson Terminal facility,
development of the proposed project would not remove an obstacle to population
growth. The development of new storage tanks at the Carson Terminal facility
would not extend beyond the existing boundaries of the facility. As such, the
project will not foster new growth beyond the site limits and will not exceed the
capacities of existing and proposed infrastructure and governmental services.

Further, as described in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description), the proposed project is
intended to meet existing demand for petroleum storage: the CEC concluded, in its
2003 Commission Report on “Feasibility of a Strategic Fuel Reserve in California,”
that demand for gasoline and blending components is expected to increase from
150 to 300 thousand barrels per day by 2010 in California. Additional storage tank
capacity of between 0.5 and 1 million barrels per year would need to be
constructed to keep up with the forecasted demand. New storage tanks with
sufficient capacity need to be constructed to provide product inventory to keep up
with forecasted market demand. The shortage of storage will become more serious
unless additional projects are undertaken and completed within the next couple of

5‐2                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                         5.0 CEQA-Required Sections


years. The expansion of storage tank capacities and associated infrastructure
would increase the ability to move supplies of gasoline and other petroleum
products needed to meet the growth in demand in Southern California, Nevada,
and Arizona. The Applicant, KMEP, proposes to increase the storage capacity of
their Carson Terminal to meet the current demand for product storage and add
capacity for future demand. The project would, therefore, accommodate existing
and projected demand, rather than induce growth.

No additional growth-inducing impacts have been identified for the proposed
project. The proposed project would not result in population growth, new housing,
stimulus to the economy, or extend services to a previously undeveloped area.
Therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth inducing.

5.2       SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
          ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant
irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in a proposed action
should it be implemented. An excerpt from the 1998 CEQA Proposed Amendments
to the CEQA Guidelines states that:
       Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of
       the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources
       makes removal or nonuse there after unlikely. Primary impacts, and
       particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which
       provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future
       generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from
       environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable
       commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current
       consumption is justified. [Section 15126.3(c)]

The construction and implementation of the proposed project would entail the
commitment of energy, human resources, and building materials. This
commitment of energy, personnel, and building materials would be commensurate
with that of other projects of similar magnitude, and none of these commodities
are in short supply.

Ongoing maintenance of the project site would entail a long-term commitment of
energy resources in the form of natural gas, electricity, and water resources. Long-


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                                 5‐3
5.0 CEQA-Required Sections


term impacts would also result from an increase in associated air pollutant and
noise emissions. This commitment of energy resources would be a long-term
obligation because, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its
original condition once it has been developed. In summary, implementation of the
proposed project would involve the following irreversible environmental changes
to existing natural resources:
       Commitment of energy resources and building materials as a result of the
       operation and maintenance of the proposed development
       Significant short-term decrease in ambient air quality during the
       construction period
       Less-than-significant decrease in ambient air quality over the long term

5.3        UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any
significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, even
with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. As described in Section
3.2 (Air Quality), construction activities associated with the proposed project
would result in a significant, unavoidable adverse impact to air quality.




5‐4                            Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
     6.0            PREPARERS AND PERSONS
                       C O N SU L T E D

                         Name                               Issue Area/Role
                         LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF CARSON
    Sheri Repp                                    Community Planning Manager
    John Signo                                    Associate Planner
      PROJECT APPLICANT: KINDER-MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS
    Kimberly Adkins-Greene                        Manager, Project Permitting
    Eduardo E. Ferrer, P.E.                       Manager, Pacific Engineering
    Kathryn L. Pratt                              Project Environmental Planner
    Timothy Murphy                                Project Environmental Planner
                       ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL REPORTS
                                                  Revised Health Risk Assessment,
    Environ, Inc.
                                                  Air Quality
    URS Corporation                               Transportation
                    EIR CONSULTANT: EIP ASSOCIATES TEAM
    Marianne Tanzer                               Project Director
    Neill Brower                                  Project Manager
    Kelsey Bennett, Terrance Wong, Alison Rondone Section Authors
    Michael Brown                                 Air Quality/Noise
    Matthew Jones                                 Air Quality
    John Humphrey                                 Hydrology Calculations
    Joel Miller                                   Document Production Coordinator
    James Songco                                  Graphics/Cover Design
    Enviro-Tox Services, Inc.                     Health Risk Assessment
    Meyer, Mohaddes Associates                    Transportation




Carson Terminal Expansion EIR                                                       6‐1
                    7.0          REFERENCES

7.1      WRITTEN SOURCES
California Energy Commission. 2003. Feasibility of a Strategic Fuel Reserve in
    California, July.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region 4. 2003.
    Response to Comments and Subsequent Revisions to the Tentative Time
    Schedule Order (TSO) for Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal, LLC – Carson
    Terminal, 2000 E. Sepulveda Blvd., Carson, California (NPDES No.
    CA0056863, CI 5244), 12 June.

———. 2003. Time Schedule Order (TSO) for Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal,
  LLC—Carson Terminal, 2000 E. Sepulveda Blvd., Carson, California (NPDES
  No. CA0056863, CI 5244), 4 April.

———. 2003 Time Schedule Order (TSO) for Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal,
  LLC—Carson Terminal, 2000 E. Sepulveda Blvd., Carson, California (NPDES
  No. CA0056863, CI 5244), 8 May.

Carson, City of. 1992. Conditional Use Permit 195-80, 24 June.

———. 1997. Article IX (Planning and Zoning), Chapter 1 (Zoning), Carson Zoning
  Ordinance (No. 77-413), adopted October 1997, reprinted April.

———. 2002. Final Environmental Impact               Report   for   the   Proposed
  Redevelopment Project Area No. 4, July.

———. 2000. General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report, prepared by
  Rincon Consultants, Inc., April.

———. 2002. Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Contingency Plan for the
  Kinder Morgan Tank Storage Terminal Carson Project, December.

Chadwick, Donald R. 2003. Letter from Habitat Conservation Supervisor,
   Department of Fish and Game, San Diego, 21 July.

Dickerson, Dennis A. 2003. Letter from Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
   Control Board, Executive Officer, 5 June.

Dominguez Water Corporation, 1995/96. 1996. Urban Water Management Plan,
  December.



Carson Terminal Expansion EIR                                                 7‐1
7.0 References


ENVIRON International Corporation. 2004a. Air Quality Evaluation for the
  Proposed Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, L.L.C. Carson Terminal
  Expansion Project, 21 October.

———. 2004b. Air Quality Evaluation for the Proposed Kinder Morgan Liquid
  Terminals, L.L.C. Carson Terminal Expansion Project Addendum,
  12 November.

———. 2004c. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Kinder
  Morgan Terminal Expansion, Carson, California, 9 September.

———. 2004d. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Kinder
  Morgan Terminal Expansion, Carson, California Addendum, 17 November.

Enviro-Tox Services, Inc. 2003. Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
   Kinder Morgan Terminal Expansion Carson, California, 3 November.

Federal Highway Administration (FHA). N.d. Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD-
   77-108).

Humphrey, John H. 2003. Stormwater Runoff Study for Carson Terminal
  Project, 12 August.

Hung, David. 2003. Letter from California Regional Water Quality Control Board
  Chief, Industrial Permitting Unit, 8 May.

Leininger, David. 2003. Letter from County of Los Angeles Fire Department Chief,
   Forestry Division Prevention Bureau, 18 July.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1992. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
   Appendix 9, September.

Tamble, Terry. 2003. Letter from California Water Service Company District
   Manager, Rancho Dominguez District, 1 August.

URS Corporation. 2003. Carson Development Project—Air Quality Analysis
  Report, 4 June.

———. 2003. Carson Development Project—Biological Resources Report, 2 June.

———. 2003. Carson Development Project—Hazardous Materials and Risk of
  Upset Study, 2 June.

———. 2003. Carson Development Project—Noise Analysis Report, 5 September.

———. 2003. Carson Development Project—Traffic Impact Analysis, 5 September.


7‐2                          Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
                                                                 7.0 References


———. 2003. Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, EIR Technical Study
  Proposed Carson Terminal Expansion, Carson, California, 20 May.

———. 2004a. Addendum to the Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset Study.

———. 2004b. Updated Traffic Study for the Kinder Morgan Carson Terminal
  Expansion Project Revised EIR, 16 November.

William Self Associates, Inc. (WSA). 2003. Cultural Resources Assessment Report
   Carson Terminal Upgrade Project Los Angeles County, California, March.

7.2      PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Adkins, Kimberly. 2003. Manager of Project Permitting for Kinder Morgan Energy
   Partners, 11 September.

Cagaanan, Joyce. 2003. Waste Management Specialist for City of Carson, 20
   October.

Field, Karrie. 2003. Project Manager for Compliance, Environmental Health &
    Safety Division, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,30 April.

Tamble, Terry. 2003. District Manager for California Water Service Company, 31
   July.

Greenhouse. 2003. Inspector for County of Los Angeles Fire Department, 9 July.

7.3      INTERNET SOURCES
California Department of Finance, Demographic Information                     Unit.
    http://www.dof.ca.gov/ HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-5text2.htm.

California     Department         of        Toxic      Substances       Control.
    http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/index.html

———. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm

Carson, City of. 2001. Carson website homepage, http://www.ci.carson.ca.us.

———. City Departments, Economic Development Redevelopment Division. 2001.
  http://carson.csudh.edu/CityDepartments/EconDev/rdmis.html.

———. Our City’s Native American Past. On City of Carson webpage:
  http://ci.carson.ca.us/ extra/NativeAmericanPast.htm. Accessed August 18,
  2003.


Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR                             7‐3
7.0 References


———. Our City’s Spanish Rancho Heritage. On City of Carson webpage:
  http://ci.carson.ca.us/extra/SpanishRanchoHeritage.htm. Accessed August
  18, 2003.

———. December 2001. Planning Department, Development Status Report.
  http://ci.carson.ca.us/CityDepartments/DevServ/dev_stat-rep.htm 1/10/02.

Southern California Association of Governments. http://scag.ca.gov.

United States Bureau of the Census. http://www.census.gov.




7‐4                           Carson Terminal Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR 
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A  INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF
    PREPARATION AND COMMENT LETTERS
APPENDIX B   AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX C   HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
             TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX E     CULTURAL RESOURCES
             TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX F   GEOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX G   HAZARDS TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX H   HYDROLOGY STUDY
APPENDIX I   NOISE TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX J   TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX K RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
               RECEIVED
        AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE
   NOVEMBER 2003 DEIR COMMENT PERIOD

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:8/30/2011
language:English
pages:357