edward c. little water recycling facility phase v expansion

Comments

Transcription

edward c. little water recycling facility phase v expansion
EDWARD C. LITTLE
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
PHASE V EXPANSION
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for
West Basin MWD
March 2011
EDWARD C. LITTLE
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
PHASE V EXPANSION
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for
West Basin MWD
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com
Oakland
Olympia
Palm Springs
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
209201
March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility
Phase V Expansion Project Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page
1.0
Project Background ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description...............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................................6
1.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................7
1.4 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required ...........................................7
2.0
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................8
3.0
Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................9
3.1 Environmental Checklist Questions and Responses ...........................................9
Aesthetics ............................................................................................................9
Agricultural and Forest Resources.....................................................................10
Air Quality ..........................................................................................................12
Biological Resources .........................................................................................15
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................16
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ..........................................................................18
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..............................................................................20
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................23
Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................26
Land Use and Land Use Planning .....................................................................28
Mineral Resources .............................................................................................29
Noise .................................................................................................................29
Population and Housing .....................................................................................31
Public Services ..................................................................................................32
Recreation .........................................................................................................33
Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................33
Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................35
Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................37
References ................................................................................................................39
4.0
Appendix A-Air Quality Calculations
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Proposed Project Location ...................................................................................2
Figure 2: Proposed Project Facilities ..................................................................................3
Table 1:
Existing Capacity of the Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility ......................4
Table 2:
Emissions from Project Construction .................................................................13
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
i
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
ii
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Initial Study
1.0 Project Background
Project Title:
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility
Phase V Expansion
Lead Agency Name and Address:
West Basin Municipal Water District
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Uzi Daniel
Project Location:
1935 S. Hughes Way, El Segundo, CA 90245
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
West Basin Municipal Water District
General Plan Designation(s):
Public Facilities
Zoning Designation(s):
Public Facilities (P-F)
1.1 Project Description
West Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin) is proposing the Phase V Expansion of the
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility (ECLWRF) located in the City of El Segundo
(Figure 1). The proposed project would include the modification of various existing facilities and
the construction of new treatment and support systems to meet the planned Phase V capacity
expansion. The proposed project would increase treatment capacity from the existing 46.8 million
gallons per day (mgd) to 72.2 mgd and would include expanding the Title 22 (pretreatment and
filtration processes) recycled water system, the microfiltration (MF) treatment system, the reverse
osmosis (RO) treatment system and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection treatment systems to meet the
proposed increase in capacity, installation of ozone pretreatment process for the MF treatment
system, and the upgrade to the support facilities that manage the waste-handling processes and
various ancillary process capacities. The proposed project components would be constructed
entirely within the existing footprint of the ECLWRF property (Figure 2).
Currently, the ECLWRF receives secondary effluent from the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion
Wastewater Treatment Plant (HWWTP) conveyed through West Basin’s Secondary Effluent
Pump Station (SEPS). The secondary effluent is treated to produce four qualities of recycled
water for municipal, commercial and industrial applications for users throughout southwest Los
Angeles County. The ECLWRF’s current capacity to produce recycled water is listed in Table 1
below. The Title 22 product water from ECLWRF is supplied to three satellite treatment facilities
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
1
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
E El Segundo Blvd
S Sepulveda Blvd
1
El Segundo
Golf Course
Project
Site
Project Site
S Hu
ghes
Way
S Allied Way
0
1000
Rosecrans Ave
Feet
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2010.
West Basin MWD Phase V Expansion Project . 209201
Figure 1
Project Location Map
0
120
Sulfuric Acid Storage
and Feed System
Proposed Project
Components
Feet
RO Train
10 and 11
New MF
System
UV Train
No.4
Dewatered
Solids Handling
New
Conditioning
Tanks
1
S Sepulveda Blvd
RO CIP
Improvements
New Chlorine
Contact Basins
Solids
Thickening
Building
Title 22
Pump Station
Electrical
Building
Spill Containment
Detention Tanks
New Title 22
High Rate
Clarifier
New Title 22
Filters
h es
Way
ay
ied W
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; HDR, 2010.
g
S Hu
S A ll
Spill Containment
Detention Tanks
West Basin MWD Phase V Expansion Project . 209201
Figure 2
Site Plan
TABLE 1
EXISTING CAPACITY OF THE EDWARD C. LITTLE WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
Recycled Water Type
Capacity
Title 22 Water
38.0 mgd
Barrier Feed Water (softened Reverse Osmosis water)
12.5 mgd
Chevron Boiler Feed Water
5.0 mgd
for further treatment to produce customized recycled water for specific user. These satellite
treatment facilities include: Chevron Nitrification Facility (CNF), ExxonMobil Water Recycling
Facility (EMWRF), and Carson Regional Water Recycling Facility (CRWRF).
The proposed Phase V Expansion project would include the upgrade and construction of the
following systems:
1. Construction of the ozone pretreatment system to treat the existing and proposed new MF
capacities. The proposed ozone pretreatment system would include liquid oxygen storage
and feeding facility, ozone generators, ozone injection system, ozone degas/defoam
basin, and ozone destruct system.
2. Expansion of the West Coast Barrier system to supply additional 5.0 mgd of Barrier
product water to prevent seawater intrusion. The West Coast Barrier system expansion
includes MF, RO, UV & Advance Oxidation Process, and Barrier Pump Station
upgrades.
3. Expansion of the Chevron’s Low Pressure Boiler Feedwater (Single-Pass RO) treatment
system, along with intermediate and product pumping system to supply 0.47 mgd of
Single-Pass RO product water to NRG’s El Segundo Power Plant.
4. Expansion of the Title 22 system with installation of 20.0 mgd high rate clarifier to
increase the pretreatment capacity, along with upgrading existing pump station with
installation of Variable Frequency Driver (VFD) to accommodate additional Title 22
product water supply.
5. Expansion of the solid handling system with installation of additional solid conditioning
tanks, gravity belt thickeners, thickened sludge holding tank, and backwash water pump
station upgrade to accommodate additional waste streams.
Title 22 Treatment Recycled Water System
The existing flocculation basins would be demolished and one 20.0 mgd high rate clarifier would
be constructed to expand pretreatment capacity to 46.0 mgd (average) and 52.0 mgd (peak). The
Title 22 treatment train No. 1 conventional gravity filter gallery would be extended by four
conventional gravity filters to provide an additional 10.0 mgd of filter capacity for a total of 50.0
mgd filter capacity. Finally, two medium voltage variable frequency drives (VFD) would be
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
4
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
constructed on the Title 22 product water pumps to accommodate the upgrades to the Title 22
treatment system.
Microfiltration Treatment System
To upgrade the existing MF treatment system, an additional 1.15 mgd of MF would be added. An
additional 6.4 mgd of MF would be required to increase barrier feed water production by 5.0 mgd
and produce an extra 0.47 mgd of Single Pass RO permeate for NRG’s El Segundo Power Plant.
The total recommended MF capacity for the Phase V expansion is 7.55 mgd. The proposed MF
capacity expansion would be connected to the chlorine contact basins for the purpose of
providing alternate Title 22 product water supply.
Reverse Osmosis Treatment Process
The RO treatment process would include the installation of two new RO trains (10 and 11), each
producing 2.5 mgd of RO permeate for the barrier feed water (total of 5.0 mgd), as well as,
upgrading the existing RO trains 4 and 5 to produce an additional 0.47 mgd of Single-Pass RO
permeate for NRG’s El Segundo Power Plant. The upgrading of the existing RO trains 4 and 5
would involve either installing additional 400 square-foot (sq-ft) pressure vessels or replacing the
existing 400 sq-ft RO membranes with a new 440 sq-ft element with additional pressure vessels.
In addition, the product water pump station for the Single-Pass RO system would require
upgrades to accommodate the additional 0.47 mgd of permeate water supply.
Ozone Pretreatment System
The Ozone system would be constructed to provide pretreatment of existing and proposed new
MF influent water supply in total product capacity of 30 mgd. The Ozone pretreatment system
would consists of two 11,000 gallon storage tanks for liquid oxygen (LOX), Ozone generator,
Ozone dagas/defoam basin, and Ozone destruct system. The Ozone system utilizes LOX and
electricity to generate gaseous oxygen (GOX) to treat the organic matter in the secondary
effluent. It is anticipated that approximately 4,200 gallons of LOX would be consumed per day,
which would require multiple truck transportation of LOX per week. A small percentage of
nitrogen would be applied to optimize Ozone generation.
Ultraviolet Disinfection Treatment System
The UV disinfection treatment process would be expanded to include an additional UV train to
provide a total of 17.5 mgd of disinfection and advanced oxidation process treatment capacity for
the barrier feed water.
Solids Handling
The components required to expand the solids handling capacity would include two mechanical
thickening units, which would be constructed within a new building and two new 24,000 gallon
condition tanks. The mechanical thickening units would operate 24 hours per day.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
5
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Site Upgrades and Modifications
Other site improvements and proposed new facilities include:

Modify the RO clean-in-place (CIP) equipment

Install an RO waste stream metering vault

Enhance the equalization basin with backwash pumps and mixing system.

Relocate the sulfuric acid distribution system on site

Provide bulk caustic storage

Modify the Saturator blowdown sump

Include provisions for on-site chemical spill containment, including two detention tanks
and localize spill containment, including brims and a detention tank for the solids
handling process

Provide a building for equipment and chemical storage

Replace RO 1 & 2 feedwater pipeline

Ozone pre-treatment unit

Build Spill Retention System in on site drainage
Project Construction
Design-Build Schedule
 Complete Design for Construction:
10/2011

Complete RO Train 1 & 2 Feed Pipeline Replacement:
8/2011

Complete Solid Handling System Installation:
4/2012

Complete Barrier Water Treatment System Expansion:
9/2012

Complete Project:
4/2013
Construction Details
Standard public water treatment system facility upgrades would be occurring during the Phase V
expansion including demolition of some small concrete structures, site grading, excavation, and
building construction. All construction would take place on existing site footprint.
1.2 Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are;

To provide and design a sustainable water recycling treatment system to accommodate
future capacity expansion;

To integrate advanced technology to prevent spills and control odors at the ECLWRF;

To design the proposed new facilities in a way that will meet expansion and improve
system reliability and redundancy of treatment and production of recycled water
resources; and,

To improve the Water Quality and Reliability delivered to the population served.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
6
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
1.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is zoned as Public Facilities (P-F), with a land use designation of Public
Facilities. The proposed construction and upgrades to facilities at the ECLWRF would be
consistent with this zoning and land use designation. Land uses surrounding the project area
include Open Space (parks/open space) to the north; Industrial (light and heavy) to the west, east
and south; and Commercial (neighborhood-commercial) to the south. Zoning designations
surrounding the project area include Open Space (O-S) to the north; Industrial - Light
Manufacturing (M-1) and Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) to the west, east and south; and
Commercial – Downtown Commercial (C-RS) to the south.
Noticeable surrounding facilities include the El Segundo Golf Course that is adjacent to the
ECLWRF property on the north and the Chevron Oil Refinery, which is located east of South
Sepulveda Boulevard, across the street of the project property.
The City of El Segundo is bordered by the City of Los Angeles to the north, the City of
Hawthorne to the east, and the City of Manhattan Beach to the south.
1.4 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
1. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB):

Construction storm water permits including developing a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and maintaining Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Brine Permit
2. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD):

Permit to construct and operate.

Separate permits for any air pollutant generating equipment
3. California Department of Public Health (CDPH):

Engineering Report.

Expert Panel Recommendations.

Approval of UV System Expansion
4. City of El Segundo:

Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Permits, etc.

Utility modifications with Southern California Edison (SCE)
5. City of El Segundo Fire Marshall:

Fire Marshall Requirements for chemical and LOX storage.

Hazardous Materials Business Plan Updates.

Review of Ozone Generation System
6. L.A. County Sanitation District

Sewer permits as needed.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
7
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
2.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The
following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor.
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial study:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, no further environmental documentation is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
For
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
8
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
3.0 Environmental Checklist
3.1 Environmental Checklist Questions and Responses
Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
1.
AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion
a)
The proposed project would be within the existing ECLWRF property. The expansion of
the Title 22 water recycling facilities as well as expansion of existing treatment systems
would be constructed within the existing property boundaries surrounded by similar
industrial facilities and land uses. The City of El Segundo General Plan (1992) does not
identify scenic vistas or viewpoints within the city boundaries or within the proposed
project vicinity. The proposed project is not located within or along a scenic vista.
Further, the proposed project would not introduce a new contrasting feature that could
affect a scenic vista. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is
warranted.
b)
There are no official state scenic highways in the project area, as designated by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under the California Scenic Highway
Program (Caltrans, 2007). Accordingly, there are no associated state scenic corridors in
the vicinity of the proposed project, which are defined as the land generally adjacent to
and visible by motorists from a scenic highway. The nearest eligible state scenic highway
is approximately 6.7 miles north of the project property and would not be impacted. No
scenic resources, such as rock outcroppings, trees, or historic buildings, would be
affected by the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
c)
Construction of the proposed project would require the use of heavy equipment and
storage of materials at the ECLWRF property. During construction, excavated areas,
stockpiled soils, and other materials within the project site would temporarily alter the
view of the treatment plant. However, after completion, the new facilities would operate
within the existing footprint of the ECLWRF property and would be aesthetically similar
to the existing visual character. Therefore, effects on the visual character of the site
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
9
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
would be temporary and would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the project
site. Impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would include permanent aboveground facilities. These facilities
would be within the existing ECLWRF property footprint and would not affect the
character of the site for persons utilizing the adjacent land uses. The potential impacts of
aboveground project components on the visual character of the site would be minimal as
the new facilities would aesthetically similar in bulk and size as structures currently on
site. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
d)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of new
structures that would have the potential to increase sources of light and glare. The
proposed project would take place in a developed area. Potential new sources of light
would include exterior building illumination and security lighting. New sources of glare
could result from the sun reflecting off of the new building surfaces. Sensitive views of
the night sky could be impacted from implementation of new buildings that have the
potential to contribute new light and glare. However, the proposed project would not
include any continues panes of glass or any other reflective material. Furthermore, the
security lights would be shielded and directed downward so that light does not cause
glare or light pollution to the surrounding uses. Therefore, the project would not
significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
2.
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES —
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the
state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
10
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d)
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e)
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion
a)
None of the proposed facilities would be located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of
Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The
proposed upgrades and modifications to existing facilities and proposed construction of
new facilities would be located within the existing property of the ECLWRF. No
important farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the proposed
project. No further analysis is warranted.
b)
According to the City of El Segundo General Plan (1992), no sites zoned for agricultural
use and no existing Williamson Act Contract lands would be affected by the project. The
project site is zoned as Public Facilities (P-F), with a land use designation of Public
Facilities. The proposed construction and upgrades to facilities at the plant would be
consistent with this zoning and land use designation. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
c)
The project site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. The
proposed project would be constructed within the existing ECLWRF site, which is zoned
as Public Facilities (P-F). Therefore, there would be no conflicts with existing zoning. No
impacts would occur, and no further analysis is required.
d-e)
The project site is located within the boundaries of the existing ECLWRF site. The
project site is characterized by light industrial uses. The project site does not contain
forest land, timberland, or farmland. Therefore, no forest land, timberland, or farmland
would be lost or converted to non-forest or non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
11
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
3.
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
AIR QUALITY —
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Discussion
a)
The proposed project would be located entirely within the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in the South Coast Air Basin. The
SCAQMD is designated nonattainment for both the state and federal ozone standards and
the state particulate matter (PM10) standard. A project conflicts with or obstructs
implementation of the applicable air quality plan if the project is incompatible with
SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality
policies. A project would conflict with SCAQMD and SCAG policies if it:

causes an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations;

causes or contributes to new air quality violations;

delays timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions
specified in the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or

Exceeds the assumptions utilized in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies for reducing emissions and complying with
applicable standards, specifically the recently updated 2007 AQMP. The 2007 AQMP
describes southern California’s comprehensive strategy to clean the air we breathe as
expeditiously as possible. The 2007 AQMP is designed to meet both state and federal
Clean Air Act (CAA) planning requirements for all areas under SCAQMD jurisdiction,
focusing on reduction strategies for ozone and particulate matter.
The proposed project is consistent with the current land use (Public Facilities) and zoning
(P-F) designations. The proposed project would not require a General Plan amendment
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
12
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
related to land use, and as such, would be consistent with applicable land use planning
documents. This project would not directly result in population growth (e.g. housing
development) and the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAG
growth forecasts. Air emissions from treatment facilities would be subject to SCAQMD
permits ensuring consistency with the AQMP. Consequently, implementation of the
proposed project would be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts. Therefore,
impacts to air quality plans would be less than significant.
b)
The project would result in additional air emissions in the region associated with
construction activities and operation of the project. Construction of the project has the
potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction
equipment and through vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and
from the project site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from
grading/excavation activities and hauling. Mobile source emissions, primarily nitrogen
oxides (NOx), would result from the use of construction equipment. Construction
emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the
specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Regional air
pollutant emissions associated with proposed project operations would be generated
primarily by the operation of on-road vehicles (mobile sources).
Construction
Construction emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 9.2.4 model.
Maximum daily construction-related regional emissions for the proposed project are
presented in Table 2. As shown, maximum regional emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for reactive organic compounds (ROC), NOx,
carbon monoxide (CO), PM2.5 and PM10. Since construction emissions would not exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds, the regional construction impact would be less than significant.
TABLE 2
EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
Phase
10
2.5
CO2a
ROG
NOX
CO
PM
PM
2010
5
42
27
13
4
4,750
2011
5
39
25
13
4
4,750
2013
5
36
24
12
4
4,750
SCAQMD Thresholds
75
100
550
150
55
NA
Significant Impact (Yes or No)
No
No
No
No
No
NA
a CO is discussed further in Section G.
2
NOTE: Project operation emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2.4. See AQ
appendix.
SOURCE: ESA, 2010
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
13
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule
403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the proposed project would
reduce regional PM2.5 and PM10emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403
control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient
quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to
uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel
washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before
vehicles exit the proposed project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed
areas. Site watering and application of soil binders would reduce the particulate matter
from becoming airborne, while washing of transport vehicle tires and undercarriages
would reduce re-entrainment of construction dust onto the local roadway network.
Operational Emissions
Mobile emissions for operation of the proposed project would be generated primarily
from vehicular traffic. An increase of less than 10 trips per day would be generated by the
project. This number is minimal and would not result with significant emissions.
New energy use would increase by approximately 1,229,320 kWh a year. Air emissions
produced with this increase in energy use would be generated off site and subject to
emissions permits for those facilities. As a result, impacts to air quality would be less
than significant.
c)
As described above, the construction and operational impacts of the proposed project
would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and therefore are not expected to be
cumulatively considerable. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(4), development of
the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant, and would be less than significant.
d)
Sensitive receptors are considered highly sensitive to air pollution and include children,
the elderly, acutely and chronically ill persons, residential development, hospitals, and
schools. Two schools are located in the vicinity of the project site. El Segundo Middle
School, located at 332 Center Street in El Segundo, is approximately 0.9 miles northwest
of the ECLWRF property. R.H. Dana Middle School is located at 5504 West 135th Street
in Hawthorne, approximately 0.7 miles east of the project site. The project would not
increase air pollution at these locations significantly. Impacts to sensitive receptors would
be less than significant.
e)
In addition to odors that are associated with vehicle exhaust and fueling, the processing
of biosolids that are extracted from the recycled water may have the potential to cause
objectionable odors in the vicinity of the project site. Objectionable odors can be a
nuisance and generate citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.
The proposed project includes an odor control system of carbon filters and fans that
would reduce potential for the plant to emit objectionable odors during treatment
processes. Therefore, project impacts associated with odors would be less than
significant.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
14
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
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?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion
a)
The proposed project would be constructed within the existing ECLWRF site. The
project would be located in an industrial area where no candidate, sensitive, or special
status biological species or resources are known to exist. There are no biological
resources located on-site. Only a limited number of introduced plant species associated
with the landscaping and typical of an urban environment can be found on site, none of
which are considered rare or endangered. Furthermore, there is no suitable habitat for
sensitive animal species or riparian habitat adjacent to the project site or within the
immediate area. Although the Pacific Ocean is located approximately two miles west of
the site, there are no existing waterways connecting the ocean to the project site. Due to
the industrial nature of the project site and surrounding areas, implementation of the
project would not result in adverse impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species or
their habitats. No mitigation is required.
b)
The proposed project is located in an industrial area where no riparian or other sensitive
habitat areas are known to exist. There is no existing wetland habitat, including marsh,
riparian, or vernal pool habitat, within or adjacent to the project sites. Implementation of
the proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts to wetland habitats, as no
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
15
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
movement of fish or wildlife species or migration corridors would occur. Therefore, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c)
The project does not involve development in a federally protected wetland habitat,
including marsh, riparian, or vernal pool habitat, within or adjacent to the project site and
does not involve improvements that would impair or interrupt hydrological flow into such
a wetland. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any adverse
impacts to wetland habitats. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d)
The proposed project would be located within the existing ECLWRF site. No wildlife
corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist on the project sites. The proposed project
would not interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species since the ECLWRF site is surrounded by security fencing and no waterways exist
on-site. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required.
e,f)
The project site is located in an industrial area and does not contain any trees or
vegetation that are considered sensitive or protected. The proposed project site is not
subject to any habitat conservation plan or natural conservation community plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No
impact is anticipated.
Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion
a)
There are no buildings located on the proposed site that are currently listed in the
National Register of Historic Places (NHRP), or California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). No impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
16
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
b,c)
The project site is located in an industrial area and has been subject to extensive
disruption over the years due to previous development of the ECLWRF; thus, any
surficial archaeological resources that might have existed in the past were likely
disturbed. No resources are known to exist on the project site. However, since the project
requires excavation activities, it is possible that the project would unearth unknown
resources during construction. The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL 1 which
would halt work if any cultural resource were unearthed until a qualified archeologist can
determine the significance would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The project site has been altered from its natural conditions by the construction of the
existing ECLWRF. However, the excavation activity of the project components has the
potential of unearthing paleontological resources that are buried. As a result, the project
has the potential to have a significant impact to paleontological resources. However, with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL 2 which would halt work if any
paleontological resource were unearthed until a qualified paleontologist can determine
the significance would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. As a result,
the proposed project would have a less than a significant impact on paleontological
resources with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 During the excavation or grading operation if cultural resources are identified,
work shall be halted or redirected until a qualified archeologist can evaluate the
significance of the discovery. If the project archaeologist determines that the discovery
represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigation may be
required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation.
CUL 2 During the excavation or grading operation if paleontological resources are
identified, work shall be halted or redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate
the significance of the discovery. If the project paleontologist determines that the
discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional
investigation may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation.
d)
Construction of the proposed project will require ground disturbing activities, including
excavation that could result in the unlikely event that of unearthing human remains .
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 will reduce impacts to human remains to
a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
CUL-3: If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, the project
proponent shall immediately halt work, contact the Los Angeles County coroner to
evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are
Native American, the project proponent shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
17
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) for the remains Per Public
Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity,
according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where
the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further
development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this
section (PRC 5097.98), with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable,
taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
6.
GEOLOGY,
SOILS,
Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i)
AND
SEISMICITY
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
—
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? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)
Seismic-related
liquefaction?
iv)
Landslides?
ground
failure,
including
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c)
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?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
a.i)
The proposed project site is located within the seismically active Southern California
region. Active faults known to exist in the vicinity of the City of El Segundo include the
Newport-Inglewood, Cucamonga, Whittier-Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults.
The Newport-Inglewood Fault is located approximately four miles west of the project
site. No Alquist-Priolo zones are located within the City of El Segundo. The California
Geological Survey Special Publication 42 does not designate this site as a potential for
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
18
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
fault rupture. The potential for surface rupture at the project site is considered low.
Furthermore, adherence to standard engineering and construction practices and
conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) would reduce potential impacts
from groundshaking to a less than significant level. Therefore, the potential to expose
people to impacts from fault rupture resulting from seismic activity is considered less
than significant.
a.ii)
The proposed project will be designed in compliance with the construction standards of
the El Segundo Municipal Code and the CBC, which contains the most updated and
restrictive building codes for seismic safety. The design and construction of the buildings
will be engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at this
site. As a result, adherence to standard engineering and construction practices and
compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce the potential to expose people to
impacts from fault rupture resulting from seismic activity during the design life of the
buildings. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact and no
mitigation is required.
a.iii)
Liquefaction is a condition where the soil undergoes continued deformation due to the
buildup of high water pressures during ground shaking. The possibility of liquefaction
occurring at a given site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant earthquake in
the vicinity, sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures, and on soil type. The
State Seismic Hazard Maps (Venice Quadrangle, March 1999) for the City of El Segundo
show that the project area is not considered to be an area of high risk for liquefaction.
Conformance with standard engineering and construction practices and with the CBC the
proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects
involving seismic ground-related failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, the project
would have less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.
a.iv)
The project site and the surrounding areas are predominantly flat, with no large hills or
slopes. No landslides exist on the project site or in the project vicinity. No impact is
anticipated and no mitigation is required.
b)
Construction of the proposed project has the potential to cause the disruption and
displacement of onsite soils. However, the topography of the site is generally flat which
would preclude the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Nevertheless, construction
activities could potentially result in increased erosion and offsite sedimentation.
Implementation of standard City-required erosion control techniques and construction
Best Management Practices would be incorporated into the project, such as the use of silt
fencing, detention ponds and plastic covering of exposed sediment, which would ensure
that erosion-related impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, project impacts
related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil are less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
c)
The proposed project is not located on a geologic unit or soils that would preclude
development due to risks associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
19
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
collapse. Therefore, the potential for impacts relating to soil instability is considered low.
The proposed project is on a site developed with buildings and paved parking areas.
Compliance with appropriate recommended construction techniques and with all
applicable City building and safety guidelines, restrictions, and permit regulations would
ensure that no significant impacts related to unstable soil or geologic conditions occur.
Since the impacts are less than significant no mitigation is required.
d)
Expansive soils possess a shrink-swell characteristic that can result in structural damage
over a long period of time. Expansive soils are largely comprised of silicate clays, which
expand in volume when water is absorbed and shrink when dried. The proposed facilities
would comply with the CBC and current standards for the use or avoidance of expansive
soil materials. As a result, all project facilities would be designed and constructed in
compliance with the CBC (CCR Title 24) to minimize impacts due to expansive soils.
Impacts would be less than significant.
e)
The proposed project is located in a developed area and would be connected to the City’s
existing sewer infrastructure. Since the project would not involve the use of septic
systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems, no impact is anticipated. No
mitigation is required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
7.
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a,b)
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs)
because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere,
much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving
force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across
regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the
changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and anthropogenic
activities, which alter the composition of the global atmosphere.
GHGs include all of the following naturally-occurring and anthropogenic (man-made)
gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride,
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
20
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) (California Health
and Safety Code §38505(g). Carbon dioxide is the “reference gas” for climate change,
meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent”
(CO2e) measures. There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in
GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is uncertainty
concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Potential global warming impacts in
California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more
extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more
drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include global rise in sea level, impacts to
agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change,
Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series
of target dates by which statewide emission of GHG would be progressively reduced, as
follows:
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
 By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
 By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500,
et seq., or AB 32), which requires CARB to design and implement emission limits,
regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG
emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
On March 18, 2010, OPR’s submitted amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for
GHG emissions, as required by Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (Senate Bill 97)
became effective. These CEQA Guideline amendments provide guidance to public
agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in draft
CEQA documents. The amendments are relatively modest changes to various portions of
the existing CEQA Guidelines. Modifications address those issues where analysis of
GHG emissions may differ in some respects from more traditional CEQA analysis.
The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions
of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by project construction and operations. GHG impacts
are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts (CAPCOA, 2008); there are no noncumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. Thus, the
proposed project analysis of GHG emissions is to determine whether the proposed project
impact is cumulatively considerable.
Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be cumulatively
considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing GHG emissions.
The analyses are as follows:
A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in
California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
21
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
B. The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the
size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric
tons/year of CO2e) to the state. The project size will also be compared to the
estimated GHG emissions for the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million
metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals the CARB will
focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions. The projects GHG emissions will
also be compared to the SCAQMD thresholds.
C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is
inherently energy efficient.
D. Any potential conflicts with applicable policies, or regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
With regard to Item A, the project does not pose any apparent conflict with the CARB
recommended actions, the project would fall under recommended action W-2, water
recycling (see Table G-1 in the AQ Appendix).
With regard to Item B, project GHG emissions during construction would be
approximately 562 metric tons of CO2e/year. Project operational emissions from vehicles
would be approximately 48 metric tons of CO2e/year. Indirect operational emissions from
electricity usage, account for approximately 363 metric tons of CO2e/year. Total direct
and indirect operational GHGs would be 411 metric tons of CO2e/year. The project
would not be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (operational
emissions of 411 metric tons/year CO2e would be about 1.6 percent of the lower
reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e). The proposed project’s annual
contribution during operation would be approximately 0.0001 percent of California’s 427
million metric tons of CO2e/year emissions limit for the year 2020, and therefore the
project would not generate sufficient emissions of GHGs to contribute considerably to the
cumulative effects of GHG emissions such that it would impair the state's ability to
implement AB 32.
The SCAQMD adopted an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the
SCAQMD is the lead agency. The industrial screening level of 10,000 metric tons/year
CO2e was used as the quantitative threshold for the proposed project GHG emissions. For
the proposed project, the worst-case annual emissions associated with construction
(approximately 19 metric tons per year CO2e after amortization over 30 years per
SCAQMD methodology) and operations including vehicle and indirect emissions, (411
metric tons per year CO2e) would be approximately 411 metric tons CO2e per year for the
proposed project. The proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD draft screening
threshold for industrial sources (10,000 metric tons/year CO2e) and would be less than
significant without mitigation.
With regard to Item C, the question of energy efficiency, the project is a recycled water
project therefore the project is inherently energy efficient. With the use of recycled water,
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
22
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
less water would have to be imported or created using less efficient manners such as
desalination. Furthermore, solar power is currently being utilized at the project site.
Finally, with regard to Item D, the City of El Segundo does not currently have a Climate
Action Plan or similar Plan implemented for the reduction of GHG emissions.
In summary, the review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would not
generate substantial GHGs such that it would conflict with the State goals in AB 32, nor
would the project conflict with an applicable GHG reduction plan, policy or regulation.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the cumulative GHG
environment.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
8.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
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?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
23
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Discussion
a, b)
Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the transport of
materials generally regarded as hazardous materials that are used during construction
activities. It is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances,
such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, paint, and other similarly related materials
would be brought onto the proposed project site, used, stored and disposed during the
construction period Hazardous materials handling would be subject to the state and
federal regulations. Disposal of all hazardous materials would be in compliance with
federal and state requirements and regulations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of the facility would require frequent delivery of chemicals. A copy of the
Hazardous Material Business Plan listing all chemicals is attached in the appendix.
Additionally, liquid oxygen would be added to the site as a part of Phase V project for the
production of Ozone. The transport of hazardous materials is regulated by Caltrans and
EPA. The proposed project would conform to the hazardous materials transportation and
handling regulations. All chemicals required by the proposed project would be stored in
aboveground tanks with secondary containment areas to confine accidental spills and
prevent exposure to the environment. The proposed project would include onsite
chemical containment facilities. In the event of a spill, the chemical would be diverted by
gravity into an underground detention tank and then pumped to a truck for disposal.
The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program
(CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4) requires facilities that store hazardous materials to
prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and an Emergency Response Plan
(ERP). Compliance with hazardous materials reporting and handling regulations would
minimize risk of injury to the public or environment due to hazard material transport or
use. The impacts would be less than significant.
c)
Construction of new facilities would require the use of fuels, oils, and lubricants that can
be hazardous to the environment. In addition, the operation of the proposed facility would
involve on site chemical use and storage. Two schools are located in the vicinity of the
project site. El Segundo Middle School, located at 332 Center Street in El Segundo, is
approximately 0.9 miles northwest of the ECLWRF property. R.H. Dana Middle School
is located at 5504 West 135th Street in Hawthorne, approximately 0.7 miles east of the
project site. Neither of these schools are located within one-quarter mile of the plant.
Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations would ensure that the potential
risk would be less than significant.
d)
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal EPA) to develop and annually update the Hazardous Waste and Substances
Sites (Cortese) List. The Cortese List compiles information about the location of
hazardous materials release sites. The information contained in the Cortese List is
provided by Cal EPA’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and other state
and local government agencies.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
24
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
The proposed project is not located on a known hazardous materials site indentified in the
LUST, Cortese, or EnviroStor database. There are three known open cases identified in
the database search for LUST cleanup sites within 0.5 miles of the project property. The
proposed project would not create, or augment significant hazards from these known
cleanup sites, to the public or the environment. Impacts are considered less than
significant.
e)
The proposed project would upgrade and construct facilities within the existing
ECLWRF property. The project site is within two miles of Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX); however, it is not within the LAX Airport Influence Area and would not
be subject to noise impacts and safety hazard conditions established by the Los Angeles
Airport Land Use Commission (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, 2004). The
proposed project would not conflict with height restriction areas or interfere with surface
and runway approach and protection zones. The project is consistent with land use
designations and zoning in the vicinity of the LAX airport and would be consistent with
the current activities on the ECLWRF property. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f)
The proposed project is not located within or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
g)
The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction
equipment, construction materials, and hazardous materials and waste would be delivered
to or from the proposed project site via the designated truck routes as identified in the
General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed project would not interfere with
emergency access or evacuation routes within the City.
The ECLWRF has an ERP on file with the Los Angeles City Fire Department as part of
its required HMBP. In accordance with the California Hazardous Materials Release
Response Plans and Inventory Program (CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4), West
Basin would be required to update its ERP and HBMP for the plant to include the new
proposed facilities and any additional worker safety measures. This would ensure the
proposed project would not interfere with emergency access or evacuation at the plant or
surrounding facilities. There would be no impact.
h)
The project would not include flammable structures such as residences that could be
threatened from wildfires nor would the project generate a large number of people that
could be threatened by a wildfire. The proposed project would be constructed within the
City El Segundo within the existing ECLWRF. As a result, the project would not pose a
risk to wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
25
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
9.
HYDROLOGY
AND
Would the project:
WATER
QUALITY
a)
Violate any water quality
discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a
site or area through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site
or area through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or by other means, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
that would impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
standards
or
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
—
waste
Discussion
a)
The proposed project would require earthwork activities such as site preparation, grading,
stockpiling of soils and excavation. These construction activities would disturb surface
soils that are currently covered by asphalt/concrete or vegetation. Once disturbed, the
soils could be exposed to the effects of wind and water erosion causing sedimentation in
stormwater runoff.
Project construction would encompass an area greater than an acre; therefore project
construction would be subject to a General Construction Permit under the National
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
26
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program of the federal Clean
Water Act. In order to conform to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General
Permit, a SWPPP would be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction
pollutants, including eroded soils, from causing a violation of any water quality
standards. The objectives of a SWPPP is to identify pollutant sources (such as sediment)
that may affect the quality of stormwater discharge and to implement best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants in stormwater. As a result, compliance with the
NPDES permit would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
b)
The proposed project would upgrade and construct new water recycling facilities that
would assist in meeting current and future recycled water demands of West Basin’s
municipal, commercial and industrial clients. The proposed project does not involve the
extraction of local groundwater supplies. The ECLWRF currently and will continue to
distribute recycled water for groundwater injection. West Basin has partnered with the
Water Replenishment District of Southern California to provide water for barrier
injection to protect the groundwater wells from seawater intrusion. As a result, the
proposed project would not interfere with existing or planned recharge programs with any
pre-existing nearby wells in the area. There would be no impact.
c,d)
Expansion of the ECLWRF would primarily occur on portions of the property which are
currently developed with existing recycled water facilities or in areas where previous
facilities were removed. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces at the plant site. However, the project would not change the course of drainage
patterns on the site and would therefore not result in substantial erosion or surface runoff.
All surface runoff would be collected on site and conveyed to the plant’s existing
stormwater drainage system. The proposed project would not require the expansion of the
existing stormwater drainage system. Impacts would be less than significant.
e)
The proposed project would construct new water recycling support facilities as well as
modifications to existing systems at the ECLWRF site. The additional runoff as a result
of the proposed project would be collected and conveyed to the existing plant’s
stormwater drainage system. The project would include upgrades to the system to capture
any small releases or spills before they enter any waterways. Furthermore, the City has a
catch basin adjacent to the plant which can capture and divert any spills to the sewer or
temporarily store for pumping and disposal. The proposed project would not require
improvements to the existing system. Therefore, impacts to stormwater drainage system
capacity would be less than significant.
f)
The new mechanical equipment would be housed within structures which will prevent
any oils or other solvents required for maintenance to be exposed during rain events. As a
result, the project would not degrade water quality; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
g–i)
The proposed project does not include any components that would require the
construction of housing. There would be no impact related to the placement of new
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
27
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
housing within flood hazard areas. The project would construct new water recycling
support facilities located within the existing ECLWRF property. The ECLWRF is not
located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated flood
hazard area and is outside of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) maps
100-year flood area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, according to the City of El Segundo General Plan, the proposed project
would not be located in an area that would be subject to inundation due to dam failure.
Impacts would be less than significant.
j)
The proposed project is located approximately 2 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The
project site does not contain any enclosed bodies of water and is not located near any
other large bodies of water. The City’s General Plan notes that there is potential for
tsunami damage to the power plant, and Chevron facilities located along the coast, west
of the proposed project. However, according to the California Emergency Management
Agency Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning the proposed project is not
located within an inundation area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use and Land Use Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
10. LAND USE AND
Would the project:
LAND
USE
PLANNING
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
—
a)
Physically divide an established community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
a)
Construction of proposed facilities and upgrades to existing structures would not require
pipelines or structures to be installed outside of the ECLWRF property boundary that
would divide an established community or create a physical barrier for a community.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would be entirely within the existing
plant’s property. There would be no impact.
b)
The proposed project would occur entirely within the ECLWRF property boundary. The
project site is zoned as Public Facilities (P-F), with a land use designation of Public
Facilities, according to the City of El Segundo General Plan. The proposed construction
and upgrades to the existing facilities would be consistent with current zoning and land
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
28
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
use designations and would not require an update to the General Plan. Therefore, no
impacts would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
c)
Refer to Section Biological Resources, Question (f).
Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion
a,b)
As described in the City’s General Plan, the El Segundo Oil Field underlies the majority
of the City of El Segundo. There are no documented oil or gas wells within the proposed
site. The El Segundo General Plan and zoning do not identify the project sites as a
potential location for future mineral resource recovery. The proposed project has not been
historically used for mineral resource recovery. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in the loss of known economic mineral resources beneath the site, since any oil
and gas resources could be extracted from off-site wells by slant drilling or other
techniques. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
12. NOISE — Would the project:
a)
Result in Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b)
Result in Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c)
Result in A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
29
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d)
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan
area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in
an area within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the area to excessive noise levels?
f)
For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion
a)
The City of El Segundo Municipal Code establishes noise standards for the project area
stating that noise levels shall not exceed 5 dBA above the ambient noise level for
residential properties, and shall not exceed 8 dBA above the ambient noise level for
Commercial and Industrial Properties (Title 7, Chapter 2, Section 4, Noise Standards).
Construction noise levels are exempt from noise standards if construction does not take
place between the hours of 6:00 pm and 7:00 am Monday through Saturday, or at any
time on Sunday or a federal Holiday, and provided that the noise level created by such
activities does not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA plus the limits above as measured
on the receptor property line.
Construction
The proposed project site is located at the corner of S. Sepulveda Blvd and S. Hughes
Way in El Segundo. The surrounding land uses are industrial and commercial, with the
El Segundo Golf Course to the north. The nearest residence is located over 2,000 feet
from the project site. Construction activities would create a temporary increase in
ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity. The demolition and construction of the
proposed project would generate noise due to the machinery that is needed which is
powered by diesel engines. Construction is short term impact and is temporary in nature.
The construction activities are anticipated to last for approximately 750 days. As a result,
the demolition, grading and construction activity of the proposed facilities would have
the potential for a short term noise impact to the surrounding land uses. However,
according to the City of El Segundo’s Municipal Code for noise standards, under Section
10 Exemptions, construction noise is exempt from these ordinances given that it occurs
only during the allowed hours. Construction is anticipated to occur only during daytime
hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. As a result, the proposed project
would comply with the City of El Segundo’s construction noise exemption; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project includes construction of site upgrades and facility expansions onsite
within the existing plant footprint. Because the plant is currently in use, the proposed
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
30
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
changes to the project site would result in noise levels that would be indistinguishable
from current levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, operation of the project would be
less than significant without mitigation.
The increase in operational traffic generated by project operation would be minimal.
Therefore, noise from the additional project-related traffic would be less than significant
impact without mitigation.
b)
Site preparation and construction may result in groundborne vibration associated with earth
movement and similar activities. Although these temporary activities may cause perceptible
ground borne vibration, such impacts are anticipated to be minimal and limited to the project
site. Vibration and ground-borne noise issues tend to occur when physically forceful
or ground-penetrating equipment is utilized, such as pile drivers or where blasting is
necessary. No such equipment or activities are required during construction or
operations of the proposed project. Operation of the project would not involve any
activity that would produce any substantial groundborne noise or vibration. . Thus, the
proposed project would not generate significant groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise impacts and would be considered less than significant.
c)
See the discussion regarding operation related noise for issue “a” above. This would be a
less than significant impact without mitigation.
d)
See the discussion regarding operation related noise for issue “a” above. This would be a
less than significant impact without mitigation.
e,f)
The proposed project is within two miles of the LAX airport but is not within the LAX
Airport Influence Area and would not be subject to noise impacts and safety hazard
conditions established by the Los Angeles Airport Land Use Commission (Los Angeles
County Airport Land Use Plan, 2004). There would be no impact and no further analysis
is required.
Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing
units, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
31
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c)
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a)
The proposed project would not build new homes or businesses and would not have a
direct impact on population growth in the project area. The proposed project would
expand the ECLWRF to accommodate the recycled water demands of West Basin’s
existing municipal, commercial and industrial users. The project allows less imported
potable water to be transported across the state saving resources, sensitive habitats and
energy. No impact would occur.
b)
The proposed project would not displace any housing units, necessitating the construction
of additional housing elsewhere. There would be no impact on existing housing;
therefore, no additional analysis is required.
c)
The project would not displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the
construction of housing elsewhere. No impacts to the current housing situation would
result from the proposed project; as such, the PEIR will not include a discussion of this
issue.
Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
a)
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of, or the need for, new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the following public
services:
i)
Fire protection?
ii)
Police protection?
iii)
Schools?
iv)
Parks?
v)
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a.i–v) The proposed project is not a population generating land use; rather the ECLWRF
expansion will serve the existing demand for recycled water from municipal, commercial
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
32
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
and industrial users. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a long-term
increase for police, fire, or other emergency services nor would the projects result in
substantial adverse impacts to local schools, parks, hospitals, or other public facilities.
There would be no impact.
Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
15. RECREATION — Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would
occur or be accelerated?
b)
Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a,b)
The project is not expected to have a direct or indirect effect on population growth and
would not affect the use of neighborhood or regional parks or require construction or
expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is directly adjacent to recreational
land use (El Segundo Golf Course). The construction and operation of the project is not
expected to affect access to or use of this recreational facility. There would be no impact.
Transportation and Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
16. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
AND
TRAFFIC
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
—
a)
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b)
Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to, level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
33
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location, which results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion
a,b)
The proposed project would not introduce any new facilities to the project area that
would generate long-term changes in traffic. All of the new facilities would be
constructed within the existing ECLWRF property. However, implementation of the
proposed project would generate a short-term increase in traffic on regional and local
roadways due to construction worker vehicle trips and truck trips for material hauling.
The site would be accessed from the main entrance off of Hughes Way. Constructiongenerated traffic would be temporary and therefore would not result in any long-term
degradation in operating conditions or conflict with any applicable plans, ordinances, or
policies, including the City of El Segundo General Plan alternative transportation-related
goals and policies pertaining to long-term land use and transportation planning. As a
result, impacts would be less than significant.
c)
The LAX airport is approximately within two miles north of the project site. Construction
and operation of the project would not change air patterns, interfere with aviation, create
a hazard flight, or impinge upon any flight protection area of protected air space. The
project area is not within the LAX Airport Influence Area and would not be subject to
noise impacts and safety hazard conditions established by the Los Angeles Airport Land
Use Commission (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, 2004). Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
d)
As discussed above, the proposed project would only affect flow of traffic during the
construction period, specifically along Sepulveda Boulevard and South Hughes Way, for
hauling of construction equipment. Proposed construction would not introduce any
hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses. No impact would occur.
e)
Construction and operation associated with the implementation of the proposed project
would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans in the local area, since
no street closures are proposed. Construction activities and staging areas would be
confined to the ECLWRF property and would not impair access to the project site.
Emergency evacuation plans and procedures would be incorporated into the project site
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
34
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
and building design plans and emergency access and circulation will be subject to review
and approval by the El Segundo Fire Department. As such, no impacts associated with
inadequate emergency access would occur and no mitigation measures would be
required.
f)
The proposed project would have no long-term impact on demand for alternative
transportation or on alternative transportation facilities (i.e., for transit and bicyclists).
The construction of the project would not impact on-street curb parking. All construction
workers would park within the plant. Trucks used for the construction of the project are
required by the El Segundo General Plan Circulation Element to use designated truck
routes when travelling within the City. As a result, the proposed project would not
conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
17. UTILITIES
AND
Would the project:
SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
—
a)
Conflict with wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that would serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a)
These projects will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board. All water would be recycled in the treatment
stream. Improvements associated with the proposed project would comply with all
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
35
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. No significant impact is anticipated from the proposed project and further analysis
is not warranted. No mitigation is required.
b)
The proposed project would result in the expansion and upgrade of an existing recycled
water treatment plant. The implementation of the proposed project would not require the
construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or any additional expansion
to an existing facility. The potential impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the proposed improvements would be less than significant.
c)
The proposed project would not require a new or expansion of the storm water system,
however a preventative spill capture system will be installed on site. All run off from the
new facilities would be captured within the existing plants storm water system or the
City’s adjacent retention basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
d)
Water needs of the project during construction would be relatively minor and temporary.
Existing water resources would be sufficient to meet those needs. Following construction,
the proposed project would require no external water supply; rather, the proposed project
would upgrade and construct improved facilities to better accommodate the planned
capacity expansion of the existing water recycling facility. Impacts to existing water
supplies or entitlements are considered less than significant.
e)
The proposed project would upgrade facilities and systems of the ECLWRF to
accommodate the increase demand for recycled water. It is not anticipated that the project
would increase the production of wastewater required to be discharge to the sewer
beyond what is currently accepted under the permit with the Los Angles Sanitation
District (Sanitation District). However, if the operational conditions change within the
plant and the amount of wastewater increases above the permitted conditions, then West
Basin would be required to prepare a sewer area study and comply with the permitting
process with the Sanitation District. Therefore, compliance with the Sanitation District’s
permit process would reduce the potential impacts to the wastewater treatment provider
to below a level of significance. Impacts would be less than significant.
f)
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in solid
waste generated at the plant. Construction of the proposed project would generate
construction debris, and to the extent possible, this debris would be recycled or reused
on-site rather than disposed of at a landfill. In the event that construction debris would be
disposed of at regional landfills, inert waste, including asphalt, could be accepted at one
of four following unclassified landfills within the Los Angeles County: Azusa Land
Reclamation located in Azusa; Nu-Way Live Oak located in Irwindale; Peck Road Gravel
Pit located in Monrovia; and Reliance Pit #2 located in Irwindale. Since unclassified
landfills in the County do not generally have capacity issues, inert landfills serving the
site would have sufficient capacity to accommodate project construction solid waste
disposal needs and no impact would occur. Therefore, based on the above, impacts to
solid waste disposal would be less than significant and the project would comply with
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
36
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no
mitigation measures would be required.
g)
The proposed project would be subject to waste disposal mandates set forth in the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC, Division 30). Construction
of the proposed project would generate solid waste, including excavated soil and
vegetation. However, the proposed project would comply with the California Integrated
Waste Management Act and would ensure that all construction debris be hauled away to
the local landfill serving the project area. As a result, the construction and operation of
the proposed project would adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
Would the project:
a)
Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b)
Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c)
Have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a)
The proposed project would construct new water recycling facilities and upgrade existing
support systems at the ECLWRF property to meet increased treatment capacity. Project
components, which include upgrades and new facilities to expand the Title 22 (tertiary)
treatment system, solids handling capacity system, chemical facilities, microfiltration
treatment system, ozone pretreatment, reverse osmosis process and ultraviolet
disinfection treatment systems, would be constructed and operated within the ECLWRF
footprint. The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment or
substantially affect populations or communities of fish or wildlife or their habitat. The
proposed project would not reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals. The proposed expansion of facilities would not have a direct impact on
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
37
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
biological resources as the site is already disturbed and would not encourage nesting or
roosting of special-status species within the property.
The project would involve earth moving and excavation activities which could potential
unearth prehistoric archaeological resources. Such actions could unearth, expose, or
disturb subsurface paleontological, archaeological, historical, or Native American
resources that were not observable on the surface. However, with the incorporation of
Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, potential impacts to paleontological or
cultural resources that represent major periods of California history or prehistory would
be reduced to less than significant levels.
b)
There would be no significant cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Individual
project impacts identified in this Initial Study are primarily associated with project
construction and are mitigated to less-than-significant levels with implementation of
mitigation measures described herein. Greenhouse gas impacts associated with the
proposed project, which are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts, would not
be significant or cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project
would build sustainable infrastructure and provide long-term benefits for West Basin
service area. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce growth and
thus would not result in cumulative impacts associated with growth. The proposed
improvements would not increase the treatment or flow capacity of ECLWRF beyond
what has already been approved in previous CEQA documentation. Impacts are therefore
considered less than significant.
c)
Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate noise and produce air
emissions. Air emissions associated with project construction and operation would not be
significant and would not adversely affect human beings. Long-term operational noise
would be similar to current site conditions. Temporary daytime construction noise would
be less than significant and would not adversely affect human sensitive receptors.
Construction and operation of the proposed project requires the use and handling of
hazardous materials. As described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section,
compliance with regulations pertaining to use and handling of hazardous materials would
ensure that substantial adverse effects to human beings do not occur due to accidental
upset of materials.
Odor control and ventilation will be designed for the dewatering building to eliminate
hydrogen sulfide at low points. The proposed construction of solids handling facilities
includes an odor control system that would reduce potential for the plant to emit
objectionable odors during treatment processes. Therefore, project impacts associated
with odors would be less than significant.
As a result, the proposed project would not cause substantial direct or indirect adverse
effects on human beings.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
38
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
4.0 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Evaluating and Addressing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act, January 2008.
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2008, available online at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/los08.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2010.
California Department of Conservation California Emergency Management Agency Tsunami
Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, 2009. Available online
at:http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAngeles/
Pages/LosAngeles.aspx. Accessed October 18, 2010
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Information for Solid
Waste Facilities, available online at:
www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx, accessed September 27, 2010.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Cortese List, available online at:
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed September 23, 2010.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Envirostor – Hazardous Waste and
Substance Site List, available online at:
www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?basic=True. Accessed September 23, 2010.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007. California State Scenic Highway
Mapping System. Los Angeles County, available online at:
City of El Segundo, General Plan, Circulation Element, adopted 1992. Available online at:
www.elsegundo.org/depts/planningsafety/planning/general_plan/default.asp. Accessed
September 21, 2010
City of El Segundo, General Plan Land Use Element, Land Use Map, last revised February 2010,
available online at: www.elsegundo.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7550.
Accessed September 21, 2010.
City of El Segundo, Zoning Map, last revised March 2010, available online at:
www.elsegundo.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7551. Accessed September 21,
2010.
City of El Segundo, Municipal Code, Title 7, Chapter 2, Section 4 Noise Standards, last updated
December 2009. Available online at:
www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=587, accessed September 24,
2010.
City of El Segundo, Municipal Code, Title 7, Chapter 2, Section 8 Specific Prohibitions, last
updated December 2009. Available online at:
www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=587, accessed September 24,
2010.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
39
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
City of El Segundo, Municipal Code, Title 7, Chapter 2, Section 10 Exemptions, last updated
December 2009. Available online at:
www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=587, accessed September 24,
2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program, Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County, Map Item ID 06037C1770F, 2008. Available
online at: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MapSearchResult?storeId=10001
&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&userType=G&panelIDs=06037C1770F&
Type=pbp&nonprinted=&unmapped=. Accessed September 30, 2010.
HDR and SPI, Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility (ECLWRF) Draft Phase V Expansion
Feasibility Study, June 2010.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Los Angeles County Land Use Plan,
adopted December 19, 1991, revised December 1, 2004.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, last revised
March 2009, available online at: www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed
September 28, 2010.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Final 2007 Air Quality Management
Plan, adopted June 1, 2007. Available online at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/97aqmp/index.html. Accessed September 21, 2010.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology, June 2003, revised July 2008. Available online at:
www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/Method_final.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2010.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), South Coast Air Basin Map, 1999,
available online at: www.aqmd.gov/map/MapAQMD1.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2010.
State Water Resources Control Board, 2010. GeoTracker Database, Database search for Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites within 0.5 mile radius of 1935 S.
Hughes Way, El Segundo, CA 90245. Available online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed September 23, 2010.
West Basin Phase V Project
IS/MND
40
Preliminary  Subject to Revision
ESA / 209201
March 2011
APPENDIX A
Air Quality Calculations

Similar documents