SU0004149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

it The operation of mobile and stationary equipment would require the use of hazardous ` substances (i.e. solvents, lubricants, and petroleum-based fuels). The proposed production of asphaltic concrete is not considered a hazardous substance under California's air toxics I� hot spots regulation (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 1991). This proposed aggregate and asphalt concrete processing plants would be located on 11 I� acres near the northern-most portion of the project site. No known sensitive receptors are known to exist within the immediate vicinity of the proposed processing plants. Based on conversations with the SJVUAPCD, operation of the proposed processing plants is not anticipated to result in significant levels of toxic contaminants (Gormley, 1997). This would be considered a less-than-significant adverse impact of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Alternative 4: No Protect ,r . This alternative would not result in hazardous pollutant emissions. No new construction 4 or operational emissions would be generated. Therefore, no significant adverse impact related to hazardous air pollutants would result from this alternative. � II No mitigation is required. .� Impact 4.5-5 t Cumulative Effects on Attainment of State and Federal Standards !e ' San Joaquin County and the entire San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is considered a nonattainment area for both state and federal PM,a and ozone standards. To the extent that the project would increase production of aggregate products within San Joaquin County, existing sources of these PM,, and ozone precursors (ROG and NO,) would be increased, adding to the emissions burden with the SJVUAPCD. Also, a number of cumulative developments and operations are assumed to be reasonably foreseeable that would cumulatively increase regional emissions. For evaluation purposes, it has been �F assumed that, for non-attainment pollutants, any cumulative increase in emissions would li be considered a significant adverse impact. i All Quarry..Excavation Alternatives (1. 2, and ) j` Projected emissions of PM,, and ozone precursors would remain essentially the same for Alternatives 1 2 and 3. Equipment tYpes, operational rates, and vehicle trip lengths would be similar for all three of these alternatives. PM,, and ozone precursor emissions would increase substantially due to increases in the r amount of raw material excavated, processed, and transported from the area, as well as the need to transport, store and redistribute overburden as part of the reclamation process. i! When considered with the emissions of area projects, cumulative emissions would be expected to delay by a small amount the eventual attainment of the state and federal PM,, and ozone attainment standards. This would be considered a significant adverse impact to cumulative air quality within the SJVAB of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Draft'Environmental Impact Report 4-81 ER-96-3 i